# Jeremy Corbyn's time is up



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2016)

I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

Oh fuck off


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 24, 2016)

I second Pickman's


----------



## brogdale (Jun 24, 2016)

lol


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 24, 2016)

Mandelson currently sticking the knife in on the BBC.


----------



## inva (Jun 24, 2016)

there's going to be some great articles in the guardian to come isn't there


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?


Without doubt.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

Corbyn is a principled man with some good ideas. But he doesn't have the skills to lead Labour.

He's not an effective Opposition leader and I think Labour are unelectable with him in charge


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?



Apparently he's facing a call to resign. Because this is such a perfect time to do this guys, I mean the Tories are on the ropes, the UK is a quagmire of unemployed austerity struck anti-immigration voters.

LETS HAVE ANOTHER 12 MONTH LEADERSHIP STRUGGLE!!

EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn to face Shadow Cabinet calls to quit


----------



## red & green (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?




Chuka -


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2016)

red & green said:


> Chuka -



Yep, an articulate urban chap like him is bound to hoover up all the votes in depressed northern heartlands that are leaning UKIP.

Blairites are that stupid, aren't they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

red & green said:


> Chuka -


yeh i'm feeling a bit queasy this morning too


----------



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2016)

I liked corbyn, hated Blair but rubbershoes has a point. 
With Tories in turmoil, labour should be going for the jugular, but can they, will they?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I liked corbyn, hated Blair but rubbershoes has a point.
> With Tories in turmoil, labour should be going for the jugular, but can they, will they?



Labour is fucked.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 24, 2016)

Corbyn has kept himself at arms length to much of the tory driven pantomime and not got involved in too much hyperbole. Was this part of a long to exploit a result either way ?  I have heard this from a couple of labourites today, suggesting he is clever strategic man.

Not convinced myself


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 24, 2016)

If Labour cannot gain any advantage out of this & quickly with or without Corbyn in charge then they are certainly fucked.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?



Already hapening, but they are fucked and lined up with the Tories and other establishment types. All depends what the Group around Watson decide to do.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 24, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Corbyn has kept himself at arms length to much of the tory driven pantomime and not got involved in too much hyperbole. Was this part of a long to exploit a result either way ?  I have heard this from a couple of labourites today, suggesting he is clever strategic man.
> 
> Not convinced myself



I think he just likes to keep himself at arms length full stop.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?


They'd have to find a safe seat for DM first.

Maybe the Blairites will blot their copybook so badly they'll hand JC a handy stick to beat them with?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 24, 2016)

Never let a good crisis go to waste


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


Hi Peter, how's the peerage?


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

I love how Labour areas voting in ways that are in line with Corbyn's long held beliefs are evidence how out of touch he is.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> If Labour cannot gain any advantage out of this & quickly with or without Corbyn in charge then they are certainly fucked.


How can they gain advantage with a working class clearly at odds with them over the biggest issue in decades?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Mandelson currently sticking the knife in on the BBC.


He can't help himself, it's some kind of an allergic reaction to BBC microphones


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



I think that if you believe that, you're so politically-naive that you aren't old enough to vote. That, or you're just plain stupid.

You "don't think" this, and you believe he's "possibly cost" that. So what? Nail those accusations down with some facts, rather than with your opinions.

If you'd thought before posting, you'd have asked some more logical questions, such as:

Who could replace Corbyn, who'd have such broad-based appeal as Corbyn does?
How easily could a new leadership election be gerrymandered by the right of the party?
Who would benefit from a leadership election?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Should have just openly came out for leave. Would have been basis for The Great Reconciliation. Politically/electorally at least.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

I actually thought Corbyn's position on this was the only sensible position a remain supporting politician could take. Would him wholeheartedly lying like the rest of them shifted any votes? Unlikely. Or, in the other direction at least.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2016)

Corbyn probably doesn't want to pick up this mess, it'd be toxic once the P45s are flying out.  Let the tories deal with the consequences of their stupidity.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Should have just openly came out for leave. Would have been basis for The Great Reconciliation. Politically/electorally at least.



Quite.

Perhaps now is Dennis Skinner's moment?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Should have just openly came out for leave. Would have been basis for The Great Reconciliation. Politically/electorally at least.



Indeed.  His two worst moments as leader have come as the result of the PLP doing what it wanted.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 24, 2016)

Labour are politically fucked and unelectable Corbyn or no Corbyn. 

I think he's well placed to cash in on this tho and won't be going anywhere


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

red & green said:


> Chuka -



Currently, the skeletons in his closet probably rule him out - the same skeletons that saw him withdrawing from the leadership election last year.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

He's trying to make the most of it by demanding immediate activation of article 50 and tying that immediacy to the reasons trad labour voters opted for leave. That's sensible politics.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

If all these anti-corbyn labour MPs had spent less time sharpening knives and more time doing some actual work Labour might be in a better position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They'd have to find a safe seat for DM first.
> 
> Maybe the Blairites will blot their copybook so badly they'll hand JC a handy stick to beat them with?



What, like Batley & Spen, perhaps? That's if they don't fall back on the old device of some back-bencher quitting to make room for the horrible little shit.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Jun 24, 2016)

If Corbyn falls left could do worse than put up Clive Lewis against whatever Blairite corporate shill the establishment push forward.  Lewis seems the sort of combative sort they need in these difficult times?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

Did Labour actually spell out what reforms they would make if we were to remain in the EU?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

It won't be a Blairite - they are a bust flush. Even they see that. Any challenge will come from Watson and the TU/soft left grouping.

Butchers is spot on by the way, if Corbyn had led the out campaign some form of fence building may have been possible. Some of us did say this at the time but as usual in their rush to put themselves in the opposite camp to the working class nobody was listening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> If Corbyn falls left could do worse than put up Clive Lewis against whatever Blairite corporate shill the establishment push forward.  Lewis seems the sort of combative sort they need in these difficult times?



Lewis pushes all the buttons, but he's a noob. The PLP - a body full of grafting non-entities and self-promoting narcissists - are about as likely to vote for him, as they are for McDonnell.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Did Labour actually spell out what reforms they would make if we were to remain in the EU?



They spelt out what they wanted to keep/go further on. I think last night was the end for Labour in lots of places. Or maybe it's more accurate to say it's now or never for them in working class areas that voted out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Did Labour actually spell out what reforms they would make if we were to remain in the EU?


The only one I saw Watson promising a future labour govt would work too end the freedom of movement. The thing that many on the liberal left of the remain side that he supported put forward as a key thing to defend.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The only one I saw Watson promising a future labour govt would work too end the freedom of movement. The thing that many on the liberal left of the remain side that he supported put forward as a key thing to defend.



Corbyn immediately came out against that mind.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Should have just openly came out for leave. Would have been basis for The Great Reconciliation. Politically/electorally at least.


I agree. I was gutted when he came out for remain.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Corbyn immediately came out against that mind.


Andy Burnham was back at it first thing this morning...


----------



## TopCat (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> How can they gain advantage with a working class clearly at odds with them over the biggest issue in decades?


All the polls showed Labour voters were overwhelmingly for exit. Did Labour represent them? No. Instead as you say they shared platforms with Torys and jointly lectured us. This was Corbyns test and he failed. I resigned my membership as a result. Not that I was an entirely commuted member mind.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I actually thought Corbyn's position on this was the only sensible position a remain supporting politician could take. .




I have no idea what his position on it was.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Blairites make an attempt to oust Corbyn with a potential GE in mind. David Milliband ?



No, that "strong leader" ex-Army type from Barnsley that Blairites were cooing over last year. Can't mind his name.

Miliband is not in parliament and has form as a ditherer and shitebag. Not what Labour needs. Mind you, I suspect the thing Labour needs most after last night is a defilibrator and some jump leads.


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Corbyn immediately came out against that mind.



That call from Watson - which was nonsense, as there is no way the EU would have agreed to it - was one of the topics discussed at one of the last Labour Remain events.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 24, 2016)

TopCat said:


> All the polls showed Labour voters were overwhelmingly for exit. Did Labour represent them? No. Instead as you say they shared platforms with Torys and jointly lectured us. This was Corbyns test and he failed. I resigned my membership as a result. Not that I was an entirely commuted member mind.



I don't think the polls showed that Labour voters were 'overwhelmingly' for exit, although I suspect that your statement is true in regard to w/c Labour voters.


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Mind you, I suspect the thing Labour needs most after last night is a defilibrator and some jump leads.



The PLP does need to be shocked back into reality.  This is what, the fourth or fifth electoral humiliation they have suffered?  At what point do they recognize that this is about them?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> No, that "strong leader" ex-Army type from Barnsley that Blairites were cooing over last year. Can't mind his name.
> 
> Miliband is not in parliament and has form as a ditherer and shitebag. Not what Labour needs. Mind you, I suspect the thing Labour needs most after last night is a defilibrator and some jump leads.


Either my watch has stopped or there is no pulse


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, like Batley & Spen, perhaps? That's if they don't fall back on the old device of some back-bencher quitting to make room for the horrible little shit.



This may not be the time to bring it up but is there _really _a place called Spen? I know Yorkshire's depressing and all but that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Andy Burnham was back at it first thing this morning...



He was. Perhaps it was a really clever ploy to face both ways at once that just looked fucking stupid?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> No, that "strong leader" ex-Army type from Barnsley that Blairites were cooing over last year. Can't mind his name.



Dan Jarvis.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 24, 2016)

Thanks, that's him


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> The PLP does need to be shocked back into reality.



If by that you mean strung up by their thumbs with their feet dangling in a swimming pool as toasters are tossed in, then I suspect you might have hit upon that magic moment of consensus that could reunite the nation once more!


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Andy Burnham was back at it first thing this morning...


Be interesting to see if he rethinks his candiru re for Manchester mayor, far from a shoe in from what I hear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

TopCat said:


> All the polls showed Labour voters were overwhelmingly for exit. Did Labour represent them? No. Instead as you say they shared platforms with Torys and jointly lectured us. This was Corbyns test and he failed. I resigned my membership as a result. Not that I was an entirely *commuted* member mind.



So, just a "fellow-traveller", really?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> No, that "strong leader" ex-Army type from Barnsley that Blairites were cooing over last year. Can't mind his name.
> 
> Miliband is not in parliament and has form as a ditherer and shitebag. Not what Labour needs. Mind you, I suspect the thing Labour needs most after last night is a defilibrator and some jump leads.


Barry Mainwairing


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Be interesting to see if he rethinks his candiru re for Manchester mayor, far from a shoe in from what I hear.


Just had the same thought after i posted that. I think he jumped far too early.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> No, that "strong leader" ex-Army type from Barnsley that Blairites were cooing over last year. Can't mind his name.
> 
> Miliband is not in parliament and has form as a ditherer and shitebag. Not what Labour needs. Mind you, I suspect the thing Labour needs most after last night is a defilibrator and some jump leads.



Dan Jarvis - the former Para officer (and therefore shitcunt, as being an officer *OR* a Para is bad enough, being both is just plain despicable) who the right wing of the PLP love. Blair would have nocturnal emissions if Jarvis was leader. He knows that Jarvis's default setting on foreign policy will probably be "Hulk smash!".


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 24, 2016)

Burnham's Manchester challenge was failing badly before all this blew up.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> I have no idea what his position on it was.


why not?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> How can they gain advantage with a working class clearly at odds with them over the biggest issue in decades?


They need to change to reflect the views of those who should be voting for them.


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

Rumours on twitter of a motion of no confidence in Corbyn?

edit:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> Rumours on twitter of a motion of no confidence in Corbyn?
> 
> edit:



The Labour party shooting self in foot when continuity and lw politics needed


----------



## Sue (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> Rumours on twitter of a motion of no confidence in Corbyn?
> 
> edit:



Yep, on the telly just now.


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The Labour party shooting self in foot when continuity and lw politics needed



They have released a statement blaming the foot for "the longest suicide note in history", apparently.


----------



## Sue (Jun 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The Labour party shooting self in foot when continuity and lw politics needed


Such utter fuckwits.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2016)

Cameron will resign because he was for remain and the vote went against him. Corbyn supposedly should resign because he wasn't for remaining strongly enough and should be replaced by someone who strongly favours remaining. Makes perfect nonsense.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 24, 2016)

Hodge and Coffey the two signing it


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Hodge the millionaire child abuse covering up one. Cryer should just chuck it out - not accept it. They would.

Coffey actively involved in 'uncovering' paedo rings - now teaming up with someone implicated in one.


----------



## Sue (Jun 24, 2016)

Chris Leslie backstabbing on the BBC just now. These people.


----------



## chilango (Jun 24, 2016)

Wow.

Looks like Labour will be out of the game. UKIP are gonna do an SNP on them in England if they're not careful.


----------



## belboid (Jun 24, 2016)

Angela Shit Smith has called for him to go, a letter with 55 names on circulating supposedly


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Chris Leslie backstabbing on the BBC just now. These people.



That was scandalous.  Corbyn to blame because he didn't lie to the core Labour vote about immigration, so we should get rid of him.


----------



## Sue (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> That was scandalous.  Corbyn to blame because he didn't lie to the core Labour vote about immigration, so we should get rid of him.


They are so fucked and they seem to have absolutely no idea why. This (as in the whole shebang -- Corbyn, Cameron, Scotland, NI) is all about to get really messy/interesting.


----------



## belboid (Jun 24, 2016)

TopCat said:


> All the polls showed Labour voters were overwhelmingly for exit. Did Labour represent them? No. Instead as you say they shared platforms with Torys and jointly lectured us. This was Corbyns test and he failed. I resigned my membership as a result. Not that I was an entirely commuted member mind.


Mm, the polls showed labour voters were remain by about 2-1


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> They have released a statement blaming the foot for "the longest suicide note in history", apparently.



Very good


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> They are so fucked and they seem to have absolutely no idea why. This (as in the whole shebang -- Corbyn, Cameron, Scotland, NI) is all about to get really messy/interesting.



So, this is what it feels like when the politcal class are utterly disorientated and turn in on themselves.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

So now Labour will get a new leader, probably one out of those two that neither the party faithful nor the general public showed any interest in a year ago, and return to an utterly discredited blairite program. I'm sure that will help make them relevant again 

But then I shouldn't speak too soon. It could be Jarvis or Umunna.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 24, 2016)

MPs submit Corbyn no confidence motion - BBC News


> Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey confirmed the move in a letter to the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
> 
> The motion has no formal constitutional force but calls for a discussion at their next PLP meeting on Monday.
> 
> It will be up to the PLP chairman to decide whether it is debated. If accepted it would be followed by a secret ballot of Labour MPs on Tuesday.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Chris Leslie backstabbing on the BBC just now. These people.



He's my MP. I fucking hate him. An excuse for an excuse for a man.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Margaret Hodge and...



Hang on - isn't she MP for Barking & Dagenham which, err, voted ‘Leave’?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

Come on Corbyn, start to LEAD! Kick these wankers out otherwise forget it!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Come on Corbyn, start to LEAD! Kick these wankers out otherwise forget it!



He doesn't want to play the game of thrones, he wants to get on with actual stuff.

So he's been doomed since day one really.


----------



## Supine (Jun 24, 2016)

The quicker Corbyn leaves the better. Totally failed to lead imho.


----------



## Sue (Jun 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> The quicker Corbyn leaves the better. Totally failed to lead imho.


And who should replace him?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 24, 2016)

Amazing 12 months ago he was going to save us all, now he needs to go.


----------



## Supine (Jun 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> And who should replace him?



That octopus that failed to predict the result would be an improvement


----------



## Santino (Jun 24, 2016)

Remember all those elections he lost?


----------



## Supine (Jun 24, 2016)

Santino said:


> Remember all those elections he lost?



Cameron just lost a whole feckin country


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> And who should replace him?




And there you hit on the root of the problem.


I mean I liked Corbyn, I hoped he'd do well and his performance has been fairly good, not the best and he has sadly so far not managed to reign in the shits in the party or get the air time needed to make a difference in making sure Labour is more visible.

He's also not managed to make enough hay out of this argy-bargy in the Tory party which is somewhat distressing.

I can see him needing to go, but sadly theres just empty fucking suits who'd have been even worse.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jun 24, 2016)

Fucking stupid wankers if this happens now.  I'm not a Corbyn fan, definately not Labour, but wtf do they want to lose the benefit of continuity and go back to the Blair/Brown politics which was the source of at least some of the Leave vote (ie using free movement of labour to increase benefits conditionality (telling us taht British unemployed workers were apparently lazy or uneducated compared to Polish migrant workers and not put any measures in to stop the undermining of pay and condition).  They need to pull together, analyse where they've gone wrong now and in the past, start listening to working class people, and then try to be a strong voice on the issues that are being negotiated in the exit process, and try to win elections.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> So now Labour will get a new leader, probably one out of those two that neither the party faithful nor the general public showed any interest in a year ago, and return to an utterly discredited blairite program. I'm sure that will help make them relevant again
> 
> But then I shouldn't speak too soon. It could be Jarvis or Umunna.


Why is it a forgeone conclusion that corbyn will not win again if it comes to a vote? It's not even a foregone conclusion that it will come to a vote.


----------



## Santino (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why is it a forgeone conclusion that corbyn will not win again if it comes to a vote? It's not even a foregone conclusion that it will come to a vote.


The right of the party would probably try to insist that Corbyn needs to be nominated by MPs again. I don't think that issue was ever resolved.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why is it a forgeone conclusion that corbyn will not win again if it comes to a vote? It's not even a foregone conclusion that it will come to a vote.



I'm just playing out the hypothetical scenario of the no confidence vote working and the backstabbers getting their way. I honestly have no idea what will happen, or if Corbyn would even stand for re-election. He mostly looks like a man eternally appalled everything and everyone around him tbh, maybe he'd relish the chance to retire.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Santino said:


> The right of the party would probably try to insist that Corbyn needs to be nominated by MPs again. I don't think that issue was ever resolved.


He'd need 35 MPs again. I think there's easily enough that number now reliant on him for position.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> why not?



He's not a good communicator.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 24, 2016)

I'm a bit confused why anyone would think he needs to go? that would be that last thing on my mind!


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> He's not a good communicator.



That is an absurd criticism in this context, though.  Corbyn is being blamed because he had a position that was honest and truthful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm a bit confused why anyone would think he needs to go? that would be that last thing on my mind!


Because there is a group of people with a very different agenda than you - and they have placed more importance on it than on the health of the labour party (and by extension the people it claims to be working to represent and further the interests of). This is what's commonly called sectarianism in politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> That is an absurd criticism in this context, though.  Corbyn is being blamed because he had a position that was honest and truthful.


and rightly so. where would we be if our politicians were honest and truthful?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> The quicker Corbyn leaves the better. Totally failed to lead imho.



He wasn't even given the chance. His treacherous party and the lickspittle centerist media screwed any chance he had.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Should have just openly came out for leave. Would have been basis for The Great Reconciliation. Politically/electorally at least.



Would he have survived to this point if he'd tried that. He'd likely have faced a larger no confidence motion from the PLP and wouldn't have had the support of a most of the wider party. Neat as that now seems, I'm fairly sure he considered it, and I'm not convinced it was ever a viable option.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 24, 2016)

He is happy about Exit, so you never know, he might be able to lead from the front a bit more now.
Having said that his interview this morning wasn't exactly barnstorming.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Would he have survived to this point if he'd tried that. He'd likely have faced a larger no confidence motion from the PLP and wouldn't have had the support of a most of the wider party. Neat as that now seems, I'm fairly sure he considered it, and I'm not convinced it was ever a viable option.


When would they have enacted the non-confidence motion? Before the referendum? It's up to John Cryer to accept motions of no-confidence and there would be clear grounds for not accepting one at such a crucial time.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> When would they have enacted the non-confidence motion? Before the referendum? It's up to John Cryer to accept motions of no-confidence and there would be clear grounds for not accepting one at such a crucial time.



As soon as he'd declared for out, months ago, not right before the vote. When has it being a crucial time stopped anti Corbyn Labour MPs? They'd have framed it as a necessary intervention over such an important issue.


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2016)

Labour need to calm down  Tories can't call an election without the support of snp PLUS 50 LABOUR MPS


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> As soon as he'd declared for out, months ago, not right before the vote. When has it being a crucial time stopped anti Corbyn Labour MPs? They'd have framed it as a necessary intervention over such an important issue.


They certainly could - and cryer could still have turned it down on the basis that they were free to make their interventions on such an important issue by all means up to but not including a no-confidence vote _at this time_. Which is actually what happened to those labour leavers - freedom to argue as they liked on such a crucial issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Labour need to calm down  Tories can't call an election without the support of snp PLUS 50 LABOUR MPS


It's nothing to do with elections but assumed ownership of the labour party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> He's not a good communicator.



So what?


----------



## cantsin (Jun 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



div


----------



## cantsin (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Corbyn is a principled man with some good ideas. But he doesn't have the skills to lead Labour.
> 
> He's not an effective Opposition leader and I think Labour are unelectable with him in charge



as shown in the two UK by elections so far


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They certainly could - and cryer could still have turned it down on the basis that they were free to make their interventions on such an important issue by all means up to but not including a no-confidence vote _at this time_. Which is actually what happened to those labour leavers - freedom to argue as they liked on such a crucial issue.



So do you think the 63% of the Labour base that went Remain were 'soft' Remain voters that Corbyn could have won to Leave then? Wouldn't we be here discussing how Corbyn had lost London, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff etc. and could now never win a GE if he'd gone Leave?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


The idea that corbyn could win round 3-4% of leave voters to remain is a nonsense. Those that might listen would be those that the labour party have lost since 2001.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

cantsin said:


> as shown in the two UK by elections so far




I'm guessing  you know what I meant


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> So do you think the 63% of the Labour base that went Remain were 'soft' Remain voters that Corbyn could have won to Leave then? Wouldn't we be here discussing how Corbyn had lost London, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff etc. and could now never win a GE if he'd gone Leave?


Would we - are we discussing him losing all trad labour areas that went leave? And i think we need constituency results for those larger cities you mention above - that's what counts, not what the total across these cities were. There are plenty of non-labour mps in these places.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> I'm guessing  you know what I meant



I literally don't


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hodge the millionaire child abuse covering up one. Cryer should just chuck it out - not accept it. They would.
> 
> Coffey actively involved in 'uncovering' paedo rings - now teaming up with someone implicated in one.


Coffey is an active Blairite


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

cantsin said:


> I literally don't




Oh well


----------



## cantsin (Jun 24, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Corbyn has kept himself at arms length to much of the tory driven pantomime and not got involved in too much hyperbole. Was this part of a long to exploit a result either way ?  I have heard this from a couple of labourites today, suggesting he is clever strategic man.
> 
> Not convinced myself



'7.5 / 10 ' ??  Point blank refusal to share a platform with Tories ? WTF do you think he was doing ?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> He's not a good communicator.


Perhaps we need a return to the hard hitting firebrand conviction and eloquence of Ed Milliband


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm a bit confused why anyone would think he needs to go? that would be that last thing on my mind!



More a case of those who have wanted him gone since day one smell blood. Would Labour do better if Corbyn was replaced with another Blairite? No, but that blairite and their chums will be happy and that's all that matters.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 24, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Perhaps we need a return to the hard hitting firebrand conviction and eloquence of Ed Milliband



He did the business in Donny last night. 31% for remain.

#manofthenorthernpeople


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Would we - are we discussing him losing all trad labour areas that went leave? And i think we need constituency results for those larger cities you mention above - that's what counts, not what the total across these cities were. There are plenty of non-labour mps in these places.



You'd talked about Corbyn could have led a reconciliation between voters in places like Blaenau Gwent and the party by standing for out. Here in Wales the conversation is very much about those traditional Labour places going leave. I just think he might have factored in losing the support of Labour voters in some of the major cities had he done so. After all, the places that most came out for Remain are also Labour strongholds.


----------



## Duncan2 (Jun 24, 2016)

These condescending twats Ben Bradshaw Jeremy is a nice man but....how the fuck this result reflects badly on Corbyn I cannot understand.As others have said he just told it like it is refused to say he appreciated the EU 110 per cent as twat Bradshaw just suggested he should have done.Am hoping the wider membership will keep Corbyn in place.He saw this coming his MPs, bleating now, did not.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> He's not a good communicator.


I don't agree. I think his position - while nuanced - was very well articulated. It was very poorly reported though. Is he responsible for that?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Amazing 12 months ago he was going to save us all, now he needs to go.









Typical - stabbed in the back by opportunistic Blairites Hawkmen, _again_


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't agree. I think his position - while nuanced - was very well articulated. It was very poorly reported though. Is he responsible for that?


Yep, he was the only public person who persuaded me to vote remain. Most of the rest of the campaign had exactly the opposite effect tbh. Of course I forgot to vote in the end anyway.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> He doesn't want to play the game of thrones, he wants to get on with actual stuff.
> 
> So he's been doomed since day one really.


Maybe, maybe not, but as long as the Lannisters remain in his party he will be cut and bled.

Also what I hear about Momentum is that they have become increasingly insular and are dwindling somewhat as a result, from the initial Corbyn buzz.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Typical - stabbed in the back by opportunistic Blairites Hawkmen, _again_


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 24, 2016)

If I was Corbyn I might think about telling the PLP that


Duncan2 said:


> These condescending twats Ben Bradshaw Jeremy is a nice man but....how the fuck this result reflects badly on Corbyn I cannot understand.As others have said he just told it like it is refused to say he appreciated the EU 110 per cent as twat Bradshaw just suggested he should have done.Am hoping the wider membership will keep Corbyn in place.He saw this coming his MPs, bleating now, did not.



Bradshaw was actually worse than that. He pretended that Corbyn had said the referendum only warranted a 7 out of 10, not the EU; the interviewer didn't pick him up on this misrepresentation.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't agree. I think his position - while nuanced - was very well articulated. It was very poorly reported though. Is he responsible for that?



You're right that the media have never given him the time  of day. We agree on something  

But he just doesn't come across as either a leader or charismatic.  In modern politics I think you need to be. m It's a shame that the  quiet man with good ideas doesn't get the chance to put their view across.  Christ. That sounds as if I'm speaking up for Iain Duncan Smith.  I'm going to kill myself now


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2016)

Charisma doesn't count for shit if no-one can see or hear you. 

In his way Corbyn is charismatic anyway. His leadership campaign last summer was a lesson in charisma, as much as anything else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> You'd talked about Corbyn could have led a reconciliation between voters in places like Blaenau Gwent and the party by standing for out. Here in Wales the conversation is very much about those traditional Labour places going leave. I just think he might have factored in losing the support of Labour voters in some of the major cities had he done so. After all, the places that most came out for Remain are also Labour strongholds.


Again, we need constituency results to be able to say that so firmly.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> You're right that the media have never given him the time  of day. We agree on something
> 
> But he just doesn't come across as either a leader or charismatic.  In modern politics I think you need to be. m It's a shame that the  quiet man with good ideas doesn't get the chance to put their view across.  Christ. That sounds as if I'm speaking up for Iain Duncan Smith.  I'm going to kill myself now




IDS wasn't quiet enough and has never had a good idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> IDS wasn't quiet enough and has never had a good idea.


yeh well if he does away with himself you'll have to amend that post


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh well if he does away with himself you'll have to amend that post




Nah, it means he's deprived us of the chance to string him up or descend into a pissing dribble wreck of a human being as age breaks him down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Nah, it means he's deprived us of the chance to string him up or descend into a pissing dribble wreck of a human being as age breaks him down.


it'd still be the best idea he'd ever had


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 24, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He did the business in Donny last night. 31% for remain.
> 
> #manofthenorthernpeople


Those pig headed selfish old fashioned uneducated racist little englanders don't deserve to be represented by someone like him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He did the business in Donny last night. 31% for remain.
> 
> #manofthenorthernpeople


yeh down from 40% the night before.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> You're right that the media have never given him the time  of day. We agree on something
> 
> But he just doesn't come across as either a leader or charismatic.  In modern politics I think you need to be. m It's a shame that the  quiet man with good ideas doesn't get the chance to put their view across.  Christ. That sounds as if I'm speaking up for Iain Duncan Smith.  I'm going to kill myself now



Did you see that question and answer session he did with the public on sky news? I thought he came off pretty well. Calm, confident and less annoying than other politicians. I'm not entirely convinced by Corbyn myself, but charisma doesn't win you elections in this country anyway. Is (was) Piggie Fiddler charismatic?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 24, 2016)

Thinking about it, the most charismatic thing old Camo ever did was stick his winky in swine meat.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> More a case of those who have wanted him gone since day one smell blood. Would Labour do better if Corbyn was replaced with another Blairite? No, but that blairite and their chums will be happy and that's all that matters.



Maybe clearing the boards for the setting up of a "safe" second eleven as the tories collapse in recrimination?


----------



## camouflage (Jun 24, 2016)

Personally, I think we need Corbyn in place now more than ever.


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 24, 2016)

Tories split, some defect to Ukip, cut Tory majority, 500,000 more on the dole, Brexiters panic, early election, Jeremy sweeps to power, marries Queen, becomes ruler and overlord...

Sorry got carried away at the end there.


----------



## hipipol (Jun 24, 2016)

The Tories are going to spend the next few months at each others throats while selecting one of the assorted hatemongers who were at the forefront of the Leave campaign to be their new frontgit
I really hope Corbyn lays about them with a fierceness he has not displayed as yet
Labour should not be fucking about getting rid of him when this is exactly the time to be attacking the Tories


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> I love how Labour areas voting in ways that are in line with Corbyn's long held beliefs are evidence how out of touch he is.



Were those voters supposed to be impressed by him ineffectually campaigning for the opposite viewpoint?


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 24, 2016)

hipipol said:


> The Tories are going to spend the next few months at each others throats while selecting one of the assorted hatemongers who were at the forefront of the Leave campaign to be their new frontgit
> I really hope Corbyn lays about them with a fierceness he has not displayed as yet
> Labour should not be fucking about getting rid of him when this is exactly the time to be attacking the Tories


He's about as fierce as the toy sheep I'm currently rubbing on my cock. The fucking plum.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> IDS wasn't quiet enough and has never had a good idea.


And now, under PM Boris, _he might fucking return!_


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

hipipol said:


> The Tories are going to spend the next few months at each others throats while selecting one of the assorted hatemongers who were at the forefront of the Leave campaign to be their new frontgit
> I really hope Corbyn lays about them with a fierceness he has not displayed as yet
> Labour should not be fucking about getting rid of him when this is exactly the time to be attacking the Tories


They've already selected; we know it will be Boris ffs. Who else; Gove? Fuck me which one of these shit disturbers is worse?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2016)

Margaret Hodge's name is dirt to me. Does anybody remember this?


----------



## Combustible (Jun 24, 2016)

Remain didn't even do that badly among 2015 Labour voters, in fact almost equally well as SNP voters. But the facts don't really matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Margaret Hodge's name is dirt to me. Does anybody remember this?


Not sure that trumps her time as the paedos friend when she was at islington Margaret Hodge attempts to talk her way out of Islington paedophile scandal


----------



## tim (Jun 24, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> And now, under PM Boris, _he might fucking return!_



Boris is cold, vile and ruthless.Do you really think he'd give a job to fuckwit like Dunking-Smith out off feelings of loyalty?


----------



## hipipol (Jun 24, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> They've already selected; we know it will be Boris ffs. Who else; Gove? Fuck me which one of these shit disturbers is worse?


It will be fucking disaster whichever of the shits gets the job...........the nightmare continues.....


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

tim said:


> Boris is cold, vile and ruthless.Do you really think he'd give a job to fuckwit like Dunking-Smith out off feelings of loyalty?


I've no idea what he'd do. But if he thought IDs was the man for the job, to return to the DWP, i wouldn't be at all surprised.

I want neither of them anywhere near power. How the fuck Boris has positioned himself to be the pm in waiting i do not know.


----------



## hipipol (Jun 24, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> I've no idea what he'd do. But if he thought IDs was the man for the job, to return to the DWP, i wouldn't be at all surprised.
> 
> I want neither of them anywhere near power. How the fuck Boris has positioned himself to be the pm in waiting i do not know.


Spot on
I think he owes his current Crown, as opposed to Clown, Prince because the completion is even worse than him


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

This from a mason piece linked to by bishie elsewhere sounds sensible:

2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should: [more at link i don't agree with - but this point, yes]


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This from a mason piece linked to by bishie elsewhere sounds sensible:
> 
> 2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should: [more at link i don't agree with - but this point, yes]


No thank you I'd rather not see Labour replaced with a load of kippers, collective responsibility of Parliament good enough.  Or are we to sit the country down explain ALL the nuisances of administrative affairs before they vote


Hard Road for seats tories don't give a toss about (though I like Scotland attached)  John Mann to square the circle at a later date.	We have little sleep,  a glittery world and at least years.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> No thank you I'd rather not see Labour replaced with a load of kippers, collective responsibility of Parliament good enough.  Or are we to sit the country down explain ALL the nuisances of administrative affairs before they vote
> 
> 
> Hard Road for seats tories don't give a toss about (though I like Scotland attached)  John Mann to square the circle at a later date.	We have little sleep,  a glittery world and at least years.


What?


----------



## agricola (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This from a mason piece linked to by bishie elsewhere sounds sensible:
> 
> 2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should: [more at link i don't agree with - but this point, yes]



If that is what happens Corbyn needs to have and win a leadership election as soon as possible, because there is no other way of preventing the PLP from getting "_let us back in, please_" into the manifesto and thereby losing yet another election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> If that is what happens Corbyn needs to have and win a leadership election as soon as possible, because there is no other way of preventing the PLP from getting "_let us back in, please_" into the manifesto and thereby losing yet another election.


Shorten it to 2-4 months then.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 24, 2016)

hipipol said:


> Spot on
> I think he owes his current Crown, as opposed to Clown, Prince because the completion is even worse than him


I cannot conceive of how Boris could be PM. It's like an escher drawing running a kindergarten.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

Or now.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> If that is what happens Corbyn needs to have and win a leadership election as soon as possible, because there is no other way of preventing the PLP from getting "_let us back in, please_" into the manifesto and thereby losing yet another election.


Either that or it's Plan B, and TBH being able to persuade enough of the shadow cabinet to get into a Chinook to fly through a fog bank to a team-building away day in the Scottish Highlands seems unlikely.


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What?


Majority will be prefer what is possible with current parliamentary make up and your election just kills labour outside london


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Majority will be prefer what is possible with current parliamentary make up and your election just kills labour outside london


What do you mean what is  possible with current parliamentary make up ?

Didn't you hear, large swathes of remain supporters in the important cities are behind corbyn.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 24, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> He's about as fierce as the toy sheep I'm currently rubbing on my cock. The fucking plum.


I read that as tory sheep!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 25, 2016)

Toynbee putting in the boot:
Dismal, lifeless, spineless – Jeremy Corbyn let us down again | Polly Toynbee


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 25, 2016)

Nauseating.


----------



## gosub (Jun 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean what is  possible with current parliamentary make up ?
> 
> Didn't you hear, large swathes of remain supporters in the important cities are behind corbyn.



I am thinking of the remainers. They will only pass the EEA membership (which is cool, it fits well with one of the  major strands of Leave (the other is frankly on another planet).  But eventually efforts are going to made to show that Labour is listening to the areas it has left behind - not going "how can we make you understand" in as slow and patronising language - that way UKIP grows.

In an ideal world, yes we'd have people deciding which exit plan they want their elected representatives to advocate, but that means expecting the populus to have got its head round documents like this (and thats the abridged down from 700 page version) and thats just one exit plan.  But the reality is I don't think the hubub over one bollocks sentence written on the side of a bus is faux.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 25, 2016)

Some of the deprived area's of the country were receiving lots of support from the EU and Labour should have been out there shouting from the roof tops that you will loose this if we leave with no guarantee of it being replaced and as far as I can tell they hardly said a word and if they did, they did not make themselves heard. THe remain campaign from Labour was totally ineffective. Some of those places have voted out and consequently shot themselves in the foot; EU Referendum: Cornwall plea to replace EU millions - BBC News


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 25, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Some of the deprived area's of the country were receiving lots of support from the EU and Labour should have been out there shouting from the roof tops that you will loose this if we leave with no guarantee of it being replaced and as far as I can tell they hardly said a word and if they did, they did not make themselves heard.



What? Firstly EU grants/supports ultimately come from member states, it's not some magic pot that the EU has of its own that it gives out because its 'kind'. Deprived areas of the country are like that because not only the Tories but also Labour's shift to neoliberalism and abandonment of those communities (and their industries) made this happen. Labour have fuck all to shout about.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2016)

can anyone distil the process / rules involved in the LP leadership challenge , as it now is, ie : how many no confidence backers needed for a vote, how many (PLP only ? ) votes needed to depose the leader, and at what point the membership gets to vote ( if at all ) ?

(thanks in advance)


----------



## hash tag (Jun 25, 2016)

Regardless of cause, which is a seperate issue, at least EU grants helped those area's. Those grants will now be lost and there is certainly no guarantee that those areas will get any further support, especially under the current regime. The Tory's ceratinly don't and won't care.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Regardless of cause, which is a seperate issue, at least EU grants helped those area's. Those grants will now be lost and there is certainly no guarantee that those areas will get any further support, especially under the current regime. The Tory's ceratinly don't and won't care.


Tell me who they helped in those areas and why the working class there remained the most deprived in the country, in Europe almost. Tell me who benefited exactly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

cantsin said:


> can anyone distil the process / rules involved in the LP leadership challenge , as it now is, ie : how many no confidence backers needed for a vote, how many (PLP only ? ) votes needed to depose the leader, and at what point the membership gets to vote ( if at all ) ?


It doesn't go to a vote unless Jon cyrer decides that it should. Then it's simple majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

Cryer should, of course, turn down the no confidence motion on grounds of its frivolous and vexatious nature.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't go to a vote unless Jon cyrer decides that it should. Then it's simple majority.



ta, and PLP only vote if it does ?


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2016)

People reposting that Cornwall Council story just don't fucking get it: Cornwall council is not the electorate of Cornwall. Cornwall council didn't vote 'out' in the referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

cantsin said:


> ta, and PLP only vote if it does ?


On the no confidence motion. Not on the next leader. The game begins again then.


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2016)

Even if it's allowed the no confidence motion doesn't actually mean anything. There would be no _necessity_ for Corbyn to stand down, although he would look pretty daft not doing.


----------



## Sue (Jun 25, 2016)

If it does go to a leadership election, do they still need 35 MPs to nominate those standing? If so, would Corbyn manage that?

That they're even thinking about going through all this again shows the utter contempt these MPs have for their membership. (Guess that's nothing new but you'd think that given the massive kicking they've just had this would be the last thing they'd be thinking of. Still, career and Blairite nonsense trumps the party/membership every time I guess.)


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2016)

That's the big debate, or one of them, even the MP's dont seem to be sure. tbh, even if he does need 35, he should get them, the likes of Burnham who is clever enough to know this wont do anyone any favours.  Although, of course, if it was the will of the members, Andy would also be prepared to take up the mantle...

There is some danger to Corbyn, I've spoken with various people who voted for him but are pissed off with the way he led during the campaign. They could be talked around, but it is quite possible that that is simply because they'd had enough of discussing depressing politics by then and just wanted to drink.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 25, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


Like the Lexit argument, Corbyn's case was drowned out by the sound of Tories and Kippers screaming at each other. The media focussed almost exclusively on that and little else.

But who do you propose should be party leader? Chucky? Reeves? The Major? Stephen Doughty?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Like the Lexit argument, Corbyn's case was drowned out by the sound of Tories and Kippers screaming at each other. The media focussed almost exclusively on that and little else.
> 
> But who do you propose should be party leader? Chucky? Reeves? The Major? Stephen Doughty?


Gisela Gschaider Stuart?


----------



## Libertad (Jun 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> I've spoken with various people who voted for him but are pissed off with the way he led during the campaign.



He didn't lead during the campaign, that was Alan Johnson's job.


----------



## Sue (Jun 25, 2016)

Libertad said:


> He didn't lead during the campaign, that was Alan Johnson's job.


Can't recall seeing/hearing a great deal of Alan Johnson during the campaign...


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 25, 2016)

Libertad said:


> He didn't lead during the campaign, that was Alan Johnson's job.



He led Labour during the campaign, as opposed to leading Labour's campaign.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Like the Lexit argument, Corbyn's case was drowned out by the sound of Tories and Kippers screaming at each other. The media focussed almost exclusively on that and little else.



Corbyn's case was quite blatantly "meh". He should either have not taken a position, or been more strongly for in or out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Corbyn's case was quite blatantly "meh". He should either have not taken a position, or been more strongly for in or out.


Maybe should have said this is a vote on which wing of the tory party you wish to lead us up to the next general election, nasty and dim or nastier and dimmer


----------



## Libertad (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> He led Labour during the campaign, as opposed to leading Labour's campaign.



Quite.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 25, 2016)

I wonder if 'Mad Frankie' Field will run on a 'can't believe I'm not UKIP' platform?

Assuming the PLP scrag Corbyn and force a leadership contest.


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2016)

The shits are gathering - EXCLUSIVE Labour frontbenchers in resignation threat in Jeremy Corbyn coup


----------



## Sue (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Corbyn's case was quite blatantly "meh". He should either have not taken a position, or been more strongly for in or out.



TBF,  it wouldn't have mattered what position Corbyn had taken or the level of enthusiasm shown, the Blairite lot would've still had it in for him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Gisela Gschaider Stuart?


Gott, hilfe mich!


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 25, 2016)

Mildly entertaining, the Graun's making a big deal about a "heckler" shouting at Corbyn today.

Jeremy Corbyn tells Pride heckler 'I did all I could' to campaign against Brexit

That would be Labour right activist and Kendall-supporter Tom Mauchline, who wrote this hilarious analysis of why she'd lost back in August. What is it with Blairites shouting at people these days?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Corbyn's case was quite blatantly "meh". He should either have not taken a position, or been more strongly for in or out.


Nonetheless, he was still drowned out by screaming right-wing prima donnas. Furthermore, the media were already gearing up for the inevitable 'blame Corbyn' line during the campaign. These cunts move in slow motion and they telegraph their every move.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 25, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Mildly entertaining, the Graun's making a big deal about a "heckler" shouting at Corbyn today.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn tells Pride heckler 'I did all I could' to campaign against Brexit
> 
> That would be Labour right activist and Kendall-supporter Tom Mauchline, who wrote this hilarious analysis of why she'd lost back in August. What is it with Blairites shouting at people these days?



A Kendall supporter is he? Haha that's fucking priceless! Yeah because that's what people want in the Labour party.  These pricks need to realise they've had their time. If he gets ousted by them then surely the Labour party are about as useful as the lib dems.


----------



## gosub (Jun 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> The shits are gathering - EXCLUSIVE Labour frontbenchers in resignation threat in Jeremy Corbyn coup



again the snap election worry.   Who are the 50 Labour MPs that would want a snap election?


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2016)

gosub said:


> again the snap election worry.   Who are the 50 Labour MPs that would want a snap election?


they'd be happy if it helped get rid of Corbyn. Another election imminently will be necessary, they could even come back with the good old 'this is more important than party politics' nonsense


----------



## gosub (Jun 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> they'd be happy if it helped get rid of Corbyn. Another election imminently will be necessary, they could even come back with the good old 'this is more important than party politics' nonsense



I meant General Election.  Needs 100 opposition MPs on board to call I think 50 SNP MP's would say bring it on.


It is more important than party politics which is why I'd be weary of turkeys voting for Xmas so they can be replaced by potentially out of their depth UKIPers


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2016)

I was talking about a general election


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 25, 2016)

Hilary Benn seeks shadow cabinet backing to oust Corbyn


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Corbyn has to go. Labour are unelectable with him at the helm. I don't doubt his principles, but his leadership is weak and crumbling. Rapidly losing support and confidence of his MPs. Slow off the mark for remain, he could barely hide his real opinion for wanting to be out of the EU. Lost many voters to ukip and brexit in recent times in traditional labour heartlands. Time's up, jezza. No idea who an ideal replacement could be, but as mentioned earlier , if labour can't capitalise from an increasingly fractured Tory , then they're fucked for a long while.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Corbyn has to go. Labour are unelectable with him at the helm. I don't doubt his principles, but his leadership is weak and crumbling. Rapidly losing support and confidence of his MPs. Slow off the mark for remain, he could barely hide his real opinion for wanting to be out of the EU. Lost many voters to ukip and brexit in recent times in traditional labour heartlands. Time's up, jezza. No idea who an ideal replacement could be, but as mentioned earlier , if labour can't capitalise from an increasingly fractured Tory , then they're fucked for a long while.



How do you think ex-Labour voters and Leave supporters will be persuaded to vote Labour again? Who can offer this platform?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 26, 2016)

He's too nice.  They need someone with a thirst for blood at this time.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How do you think ex-Labour voters and Leave supporters will be persuaded to vote Labour again? Who can offer this platform?



There will soon be the obvious example of all the Brexit promises being ignored.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How do you think ex-Labour voters and Leave supporters will be persuaded to vote Labour again? Who can offer this platform?


The opportunity was missed when they failed to tackle northern heartlands concerns over immigration and downward pressure of jobs and wages. Ukip hoovered that up. There will be an illusion amongst some of those voters that brexit has magically helped to sort these issues , which it obviously hasn't or will.
Contenders, I don't know, there are no obvious choices .. Burnham (is he still around?), Chukka, e Milliband, benn?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Contenders, I don't know, there are no obvious choices .. *Burnham (is he still around?), Chukka, e Milliband, benn*?



Seriously? Contenders to regain lost working  class support...are you sure?

Cheers - Louis MacNiece


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

Yes I can really see Umunna, a major Remain backer, winning over Leave voters.

There's been so many loons coming out of the woodwork in the last two days it's hard to tell who's real and who's on a wind up


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

I think Burnham is an important player in this. The Hillsborough inquiry got him some decent press and I'd say his credit is higher now than when he ran back in 2015. If he were to back Corbyn that would strengthen Corbyn's hand appreciably IMO. Of course he may use that credit to mount another go at the leadership.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Seriously? Contenders to regain lost working  class support...are you sure?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNiece


Which shows how fucked labour are, especially as they're obvious front runners, either way.

So apart from Burnham, who else would you say?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes I can really see Umunna, a major Remain backer, winning over Leave voters.
> 
> There's been so many loons coming out of the woodwork in the last two days it's hard to tell who's real and who's on a wind up


The aforementioned are all remain backers whether big or small in the campaign, you loon. 

Who would you suggest to front a seriously fucked up labour movement?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Given that jezza didn't connect with the labour core and ran a half hearted campaign to remain, and has lost many votes to ukip and confidence of his party, when's the right time he fucks off? Now, for damage limitation to labour, or some later stage?


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 26, 2016)

I would agree that Corbyn's campaigning on Brexit was lukewarm.

Perhaps he wasn't so passionate about it as for other causes?

Tony Benn would be very pleased indeed with the Brexit vote and I don't see why Corbyn should be so upset about it either.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

Hang on there's not even been a leadership election called yet, the no confidence motion hasn't even been accepted let alone voted on. 

Then there's the fact that Corbyn could easily run again. Alternatively if he doesn't fancy it McDonnell or someone else could run as a 'momentum' candidate. 

And neither Miliband nor Umunna are front runners, Miliband is not going to be returned as leader 12 months after he stood down even if he ran and Umunna chickened out previously and is from the faction that 4.5% of the vote.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Given that jezza didn't connect with the labour core and ran a half hearted campaign to remain, and has lost many votes to ukip and confidence of his party, when's the right time he fucks off? Now, for damage limitation to labour, or some later stage?



It wasn't Corbyn that lost votes to UKIP, it was the New Labour project. The election of Corbyn as leader was a reaction to those losses. I fail to see how a return to a Blairite platform would fix anything.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It wasn't Corbyn that lost votes to UKIP, it was the New Labour project. The election of Corbyn as leader was a reaction to those losses. I fail to see how a return to a Blairite platform would fix anything.


I agree , and corbyn has done well to increase young membership of the party, but he has, as I see it, failed to get those failed new labour votes back , and this result is a symptom of that failure .


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> The aforementioned are all remain backers whether big or small in the campaign, you loon.


All Labour MPs bar 12 (or whatever) supported Remain, that's not the point. The point is that not all campaigned as he did. There is no possible way that Umunna a privately educated, privileged, right wing neo-liberal Blairite professional politician wanker is going to appeal to the potential Labour vote amongst that who voted Leave


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Given that jezza didn't connect with the labour core and ran a half hearted campaign to remain, and has lost many votes to ukip and confidence of his party, when's the right time he fucks off? Now, for damage limitation to labour, or some later stage?



What votes has he lost to UKIP you bullshitting twat.

Lost the confidence of his party  the right-wing of the PLP were sticking the knife in him before day 1 of the fucking job. The people who voted for him have still got plenty of time for him.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> I agree , and corbyn has done well to increase young membership of the party, but he has, as I see it, failed to get those failed new labour votes back , and this result is a symptom of that failure .


These people never _were_ New Labour voters. The New Labour vote was a Remain vote.


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 26, 2016)

Corbyn is a fucking div, come on, time to give it up. 

Fucking halfwit. All due respect.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> Corbyn is a fucking div, come on, time to give it up.
> 
> Fucking halfwit. All due respect.



Well I'm convinced.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on there's not even been a leadership election called yet, the no confidence motion hasn't even been accepted let alone voted on.
> 
> Then there's the fact that Corbyn could easily run again. Alternatively if he doesn't fancy it McDonnell or someone else could run as a 'momentum' candidate.
> 
> And neither Miliband nor Umunna are front runners, Miliband is not going to be returned as leader 12 months after he stood down even if he ran and Umunna chickened out previously and is from the faction that 4.5% of the vote.


It's a matter of time when it is accepted and voted on, I think. No doubt corbyn would run again and win with there being no natural successor. 

If he stays on and can't win a GE given the mess Tory's are in, then I don't see hope.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> All Labour MPs bar 12 (or whatever) supported Remain, that's not the point. The point is that not all campaigned as he did. There is no possible way that Umunna a privately educated, privileged, right wing neo-liberal Blairite professional politician wanker is going to appeal to the potential Labour vote amongst that who voted Leave


Really ? You don't say . He wasn't my choice , but I was asked for possible contenders , so named the more obvious choices which labour may support , rightly or wrongly , especially given his previous leadership ambitions.

I'm not say who was supposed to be appeal to the ex labour voters, but who may put themselves in the ring.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 26, 2016)

Hilary Benn sacked!


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 26, 2016)

68pc of labour voters voted remain didnt they? yougov.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Ole said:


> What votes has he lost to UKIP you bullshitting twat.
> 
> Lost the confidence of his party  the right-wing of the PLP were sticking the knife in him before day 1 of the fucking job. The people who voted for him have still got plenty of time for him.


Plenty of people have switched allegiances to ukip from labour and the Tory's.

You love jezza, we get it 

He's on borrowed Time, I'm sorry to tell you.

Labour should now regroup around a plausible future leader who can capitalise on a fractured Tory party, if they can't now , it will be another long wait.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

eatmorecheese said:


> Hilary Benn sacked!


You got a link?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Question is: will jezza resign respectfully , or will there be a coup ? It will be painful to see him dragged away kicking and screaming.

When will it happen? Days, weeks, months ?

Who is the next leader? Burnham would get my vote from those names, who could re-engage with ex labour voters.


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2016)

eatmorecheese said:


> Hilary Benn sacked!


Shame defenestration wasn't available.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

Hilary Benn sacked from shadow cabinet - BBC News


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You got a link?


Hilary Benn sacked from shadow cabinet - BBC News


----------



## oryx (Jun 26, 2016)

Hilary Benn sacked from shadow cabinet - BBC News


----------



## Beermoth (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You got a link?



Reported on Sky News. It's ON.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

"quit or I'll resign"
"you're fired!"


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2016)

Several of us have a link, in fact!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

JimW said:


> Hilary Benn sacked from shadow cabinet - BBC News


Ta, I was looking for it but nothing was appearing on their 'Live' page.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Plenty of people have switched allegiances to ukip from labour and the Tory's.
> 
> You love jezza, we get it
> 
> ...



No indications yet as to what will happen to UKIPs support. The party has lost it's defining purpose, those former Labour voters are, now, going to find themselves attached to a party which is just a poor mans Tories. Same for their Conservatives for that matter. Plenty may go back to their original lines and Corbyn could do well with that. Better than a rehashed Blairite would at least.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

eatmorecheese said:


> Hilary Benn sacked!


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2016)

Hilary-ous


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> No indications yet as to what will happen to UKIPs support. The party has lost it's defining purpose, those former Labour voters are, now, going to find themselves attached to a party which is just a poor mans Tories. Same for their Conservatives for that matter. Plenty may go back to their original lines and Corbyn could do well with that. Better than a rehashed Blairite would at least.



BNP could make a comeback.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 26, 2016)

It's all going down. This is like tag team wrestling.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

Later loser. Maybe he can make a speech about how him getting sacked is just like the International Brigades and some Tories can clap him


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Sacked? I'll bet Hilary's tensing up.

> coat.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

Kind of looking forward to Corbyn going Full Considine


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Later loser. Maybe he can make a speech about how him getting sacked is just like the International Brigades and some Tories can clap him


"My father wasn't disloyal to generations of Labour leaders so I would be forced to toe the line to ..."


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Looking forward on a sacking of his shadow cabinet , a full sacking meltdown


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

Suddenly the Chinook idea doesn't sound so off-the-wall


----------



## oryx (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Looking forward on a sacking of his shadow cabinet , a full sacking meltdown



He's hardly going to sack people like McDonnelll though, is he?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> No indications yet as to what will happen to UKIPs support. The party has lost it's defining purpose, those former Labour voters are, now, going to find themselves attached to a party which is just a poor mans Tories. Same for their Conservatives for that matter. Plenty may go back to their original lines and Corbyn could do well with that. Better than a rehashed Blairite would at least.



The defining purpose that attracted ex tories from the shires.  Nothing to stop dis affected northern and welsh voters finding a new home and giving it purpose rather than go back to a Labour party that didn't listen to them and looks to be sacking a leader for only being 7/10 in favor of treating them with contempt.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

oryx said:


> He's hardly going to sack people like McDonnelll though, is he?


That's true, one of the few shields and confidant he has left


----------



## xenon (Jun 26, 2016)

At last, some teeth.


----------



## oryx (Jun 26, 2016)

Who for new shadow foreign sec then?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

xenon said:


> At last, some teeth.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Later loser. Maybe he can make a speech about how him getting sacked is just like the International Brigades and some Tories can clap him


Hahaha


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Jezza doing such a great job 

'Leaked internal Labour party polling of people who voted for Labour in 2015 reveals that nearly a third (29%) would support a different party if a general election was held today.' (guardian)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Jezza doing such a great job
> 
> 'Leaked internal Labour party polling of people who voted for Labour in 2015 reveals that nearly a third (29%) would support a different party if a general election was held today.' (guardian)



Why trust polls when you have actual election results?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

This thread's title can be read two ways


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why trust polls when you have actual election results?
> 
> 
> View attachment 88865


That was then, this is now. A proportion would not vote labour if there was GE now.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> That was then, this is now. A proportion would not vote labour if there was GE now.



That was last month.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

This is like a Brass Eye headline

Labour MUST kill vampire Jezza: If MPs don't vote for 'Jexit' now their party is doomed, says DAN HODGES


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> This is like a Brass Eye headline
> 
> Labour MUST kill vampire Jezza: If MPs don't vote for 'Jexit' now their party is doomed, says DAN HODGES



DAN HODGES, you say? Oh my, now that is A SURPRISE


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 26, 2016)

Seems a bit odd to do it at 1am in the morning? What happened?


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2016)

Gotta come out fighting now or it's over really. Well done on getting rid of the prick Benn, need to fuck off at least 5 more now.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why trust polls when you have actual election results?
> 
> 
> View attachment 88865



Looks like UKIP and the Lib Dems had a better night? I suppose -18 council seats is a sign of something or other though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2016)

muscovyduck said:


> Seems a bit odd to do it at 1am in the morning? What happened?


long knives traditionally weilded at night obvs


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> long knives traditionally weilded at night obvs


PD drone strike more like


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

maomao said:


> Gotta come out fighting now or it's over really. Well done on getting rid of the prick Benn, need to fuck off at least 5 more now.



He's got to do something. At the moment he's doing fuck all and there's a massive power vacuum with basically no PM, chancellor or leader of the opposition doing anything other than hiding from the media.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 26, 2016)

Torys are not without their problems at the moment to say the least and you cant say we did not expect them, regardless of the result. So when is the time to hit them and hit them hard? So what hapens to Labour Brexit: 'Half' of Labour top team set to resign - BBC News


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

Yesterday could have been the most important day of his leadership, and all he did was mosey along to Pride and get heckled.


----------



## kavenism (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


>




Good stuff. He's got all of today then to sack them.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 26, 2016)

Heidi Alexander has walked out.


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Yesterday could have been the most important day of his leadership, and all he did was mosey along to Pride and get heckled.


He needs to do something very soon but it didn't have to be yesterday. There's no point in him making a big speech. It would only ever appear in edited and unflattering form anyway. He needs to sack the disloyal members of the party and if necessary get himself re-elected on his vision of Brexit.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

Andy Burnham's concern the other week about labour being all about Hampstead and not Hull was reflected in the way former labour supporters view labour.
All labour have done since the nineteen eighties is appear, rightly or wrongly, to suck up to the middle class, business and the media barons.
I cannot recall seeing either Winterton or Flint doing anything local for the Remain campaign, only Ed put himself around the borough and standing up for what he wanted.
Labour has relied far too much on voter loyalty and UKIP exploited the void left by gravy train riding professional politicians.
Corbyn should have been more forceful, but all the leavers I work with all said that they believe that Corbyn wanted Leave to win anyway.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

As much as I dislike most of his detractors in the party, Corbyn does seem to have a bit of a problem with letting them dictate the discourse and events.

Even with the dismissing of Benn, the BBC are reporting it through a quote from Benn, not Corbyn. And now half his SC resigning, rather than him telling them to piss off.

Of course they're idiots for wasting time on this rather than presenting a united front against the Tory shambles, but I feel like Corbyn could be playing it far better too. Then again, my experience of politically from watching lots of West Wing and Thick of It, not 20+ years as an MP...


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

It's the revenge of the _quiet bat people_


----------



## mauvais (Jun 26, 2016)

Christ. Can't currently imagine he survives, but then how long do we have to endure Labour navel gazing after that? Burn the whole thing down and try again.

Although great comedy possibility: resigns, runs again, wins again.


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2016)

Would be nice if it's all part of the plan. Benn is like Rickon Stark. Now he's down the rest have to rush into the fray and he has a plan to destroy them all. More likely there is no fucking plan though.  4 years from now Prime Minister Benn leads us into a proper shit sandwich of a deal with the EU.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 26, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> As much as I dislike most of his detractors in the party, Corbyn does seem to have a bit of a problem with letting them dictate the discourse and events.
> 
> Even with the dismissing of Benn, the BBC are reporting it through a quote from Benn, not Corbyn. And now half his SC resigning, rather than him telling them to piss off.
> 
> Of course they're idiots for wasting time on this rather than presenting a united front against the Tory shambles, but I feel like Corbyn could be playing it far better too. Then again, my experience of politically from watching lots of West Wing and Thick of It, not 20+ years as an MP...



Problem he's got is that nuLabour are tight with the media to a far greater extent, so it always frames everything in their favour.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

UK politics has gone batshit


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Problem he's got is that nuLabour are tight with the media to a far greater extent, so it always frames everything in their favour.


Aye, hard to argue with that. as I say though, he could still do things himself, get I their first rather than have to react to their actions.

Just how disastrous would it be just to sack it in and say "right*, you have the carcass of the Labour party, we're going to form a new, actually left wing party"? Would they become a fringe nuisance like Galloway and Respect, or do they have enough support and recognition from the £3ers et al to do something. I suppose therewere only thousands, not millions of them, so probably the former. Oh, well... 





*pun not intended but fuck it, let's leave it in


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Yesterday could have been the most important day of his leadership, and all he did was mosey along to Pride and get heckled.


Corbyn heckler exposed as Blairite PR consultant
Craig Murray - Vauntie Cybernat, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

maomao said:


> Would be nice if it's all part of the plan. Benn is like Rickon Stark. Now he's down the rest have to rush into the fray and he has a plan to destroy them all. More likely there is no fucking plan though.  4 years from now Prime Minister Benn leads us into a proper shit sandwich of a deal with the EU.


Yes, there is no plan


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 26, 2016)

Tankus said:


> UK politics has gone batshit


Batshitter.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Unconfirmed, but Chuka may have gone too. This could turn out to be a very good day


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> Corbyn heckler exposed as Blairite PR consultant
> Craig Murray - Vauntie Cybernat, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist



It's more the fact he put himself in a position where being heckled by a one guy could become the only thing he did of note that day.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 26, 2016)

The party certainly needs to unite behind the leader which should be done by concensus, respect, guidence - good leadership generally. Sacking Benn is not the way to guide the party and keep control. There is something wrong when it comes down to this.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

Lol


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Lol




Well that's why we are seeing this, isn't it? The job of the right of Labour is currently to destroy Labour's electoral prospects at any cost, the closer a Corbyn led Labour is to power the greater the urgency of the wrecking project.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's more the fact he put himself in a position where being heckled by a one guy could become the only thing he did of note that day.



So a politician who won his leadership election at least in part on the basis of being a different sort of politician, one who listened to the public, should have hidden himself away for fear of a Blairite stunt; how would that be spun? 

Corbyn to afraid to show his face. 

Corbyn turns his back on Pride. 

Homophobe Corbyn.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Unconfirmed, but Chuka may have gone too. This could turn out to be a very good day


He isn't in the  cabinet.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So a politician who won his leadership election at least in part on the basis of being a different sort of politician, one who listened to the public, should have hidden himself away for fear of a Blairite stunt; how would that be spun?
> 
> Corbyn to afraid to show his face.
> 
> ...



I didn't say he should hide away - quite the opposite. 

Sure he could have gone to Pride - but perhaps there is something else going on that he should have got involved in?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> He isn't in the  cabinet.



But he should be and so he has symbolically resigned in solidarity with his anti-Corbyn colleagues...not as a further move in his alleged 'second coming' (copyright Guardian Weekend).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. just so as we're clear I do know he hasn't actually resigned...not being in the shadow cabinet and all.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

_Cunxit_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Cunxit_


Not quimmy


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Sure he could have gone to Pride - but perhaps there is something else going on that he should have got involved in?



THE CHINOOK! SHOULD'VE GONE WITH THE CHINOOK IDEA!


----------



## mauvais (Jun 26, 2016)

Has Chuka's mystery closet of skeletons been dealt with yet?


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

McDonnel has momentum through the rear door ......?

Christ ...rather stick with Corbyn


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Has Chuka's mystery closet of skeletons been dealt with yet?


Tbh it's more of a cellar floor of skeletons


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> He isn't in the  cabinet.


Should never miss an opportunity to tell him to piss off though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

The only Scottish Labour MP. The _only one_. Is resigning as Shadow Scottish Secretary. This means that as well as being 3rd place at Holyrood, they'll be forced to use either a peer or an MP for an English constituency as Shadow Scot Sec just at the moment the party in Scotland looks like it's split over independence (several big names making favourable noises or at least acknowledging that a lot of theLabour  No vote has fled to Yes over the EU result).


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Jezza doing such a great job
> 
> 'Leaked internal Labour party polling of people who voted for Labour in 2015 reveals that nearly a third (29%) would support a different party if a general election was held today.' (guardian)



Are you aware that swathes of voting intention polls come out every month? Labour aren't doing too bad in them - better than they actually did in the actual 2015 general election. If it is a fact that 29% of Labour voters have jumped ship then evidently they've already been replaced by non-Labour voters who would now vote Labour if a general election was held tomorrow. That's literally what the voting intention polls are telling us.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Not sure how true this is, but;

"David Milliband to be given Jo Cox's vacant seat so he can stand against Corbyn... how low will the Blaireites stoop?"


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The only Scottish Labour MP. The _only one_. Is resigning as Shadow Scottish Secretary. This means that as well as being 3rd place at Holyrood, they'll be forced to use either a peer or an MP for an English constituency as Shadow Scot Sec just at the moment the party in Scotland looks like it's split over independence (several big names making favourable noises or at least acknowledging that a lot of theLabour  No vote has fled to Yes over the EU result).



Well it's not like there is anything Labour can really do to strengthen support in Scotland at this point. It's just gone, regardless of what does or doesn't happen within Labour


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Not sure how true this is, but;
> 
> "David Milliband to be given Jo Cox's vacant seat so he can stand against Corbyn... how low will the Blaireites stoop?"



Who are you quoting


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

On the Guardian front page. "Hilary Benn sacked and others resign".

Other*s*? Post truth eh?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well it's not like there is anything Labour can really do to strengthen support in Scotland at this point. It's just gone, regardless of what does or doesn't happen within Labour


It couldn't come at a worse time for Labour Unionism: if the indyref2 No campaign is by default a Tory affair, then Yes is in a far stronger position: a Tory /non-Tory polarisation of the Indy question is exactly what Yes needs.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> On the Guardian front page. "Hilary Benn sacked and others resign".
> 
> Other*s*? Post truth eh?


Maybe they could rally round an elder statesman of the moral calibre and punching power of, I don't know... Jack Straw?

Battle to stop Jack Straw facing Libya rendition charges


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>



They could call it.....er....New something?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Not sure how true this is, but;
> 
> "David Milliband to be given Jo Cox's vacant seat so he can stand against Corbyn... how low will the Blaireites stoop?"



Surely only if the locals select him as a candidate, but TBH I would not be shocked by such serpentile behaviour these days.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

Left overs


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who are you quoting



A tweet. Nothing elsewhere to authenticate this thou


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I didn't say he should hide away - quite the opposite.
> 
> Sure he could have gone to Pride - but perhaps there is something else going on that he should have got involved in?



So he should have gone to Pride, where the set up was planned to take place. That being the case the press, sympathetic as they are to Corbyn, would have reported it. Meanwhile his speech on the need to protect workers rights,  oppose the threatened continuation of austerity and expose the dangerous lies of the rexiteers goes unreported. Do you think that might have happened?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So he should have gone to Pride, where the set up was planned to take place. That being the case the press, sympathetic as they are to Corbyn, would have reported it. Meanwhile his speech on the need to protect workers rights,  oppose the threatened continuation of austerity and expose the dangerous lies of the rexiteers goes unreported. Do you think that might have happened?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Not sure Pride was the best use of his time yesterday tbh - and don't bother claiming he would have been labelled a homophobe for articulating Labour's vision of a Brexit and urging a general election instead.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Not sure Pride was the best use of his time yesterday tbh - a*nd don't bother claiming he would have been labelled a homophobe for articulating Labour's vision of a Brexit and urging a general election instead*.



What are you on about? Really this makes no sense.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## realitybites (Jun 26, 2016)

Ole said:


> Are you aware that swathes of voting intention polls come out every month? Labour aren't doing too bad in them - better than they actually did in the actual 2015 general election. If it is a fact that 29% of Labour voters have jumped ship then evidently they've already been replaced by non-Labour voters who would now vote Labour if a general election was held tomorrow. That's literally what the voting intention polls are telling us.



Does anybody really listen to what the polls have to say these days ? Is there ever a time when they actually got something right?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 26, 2016)

This is the Labour right enacting their plan in a panic. Reminds me of the outbreak of world war one with the generals enacting their plans. If the plan says half the shadow cabinet are to resign then half the shadow cabinet resign, if the plan says invade Belgium, then we invade Belgium. They have no extra leverage on Corbyn after the referendum, less if anything. How are they going to lead the opposition while the government negotiates the British exit from the EU? Oppose the government and the will of the people all the way? Possibility of a snap election has forced their hand.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

So, so far we have

Hilary Benn - Shadow Foreign Secretary (nominated Burnham in 2015)
Heidi Alexander - Shadow Health Secretary (nominated Burnham in 2015)
Gloria De Piero - Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Registration (nominated Kendell in 2015)

Possibles
Lillian Greenwood - Shadow Transport Secretary (nominated Burnham in 2015)


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Not sure how true this is, but;
> 
> "David Milliband to be given Jo Cox's vacant seat so he can stand against Corbyn... how low will the Blaireites stoop?"





Sprocket. said:


> Surely only if the locals select him as a candidate, but TBH I would not be shocked by such serpentile behaviour these days.



But interestingly Mrs Sprocket just pointed out that Davey boy would also be viewed as having an excellent work history with a certain Mrs Clinton!


----------



## Libertad (Jun 26, 2016)

Interesting times.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



Mason has always appeared a bit biased


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Gloria De Piero resigns.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Mason has always appeared a bit biased



Christ


----------



## NoXion (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Mason has always appeared a bit biased



Everyone is biased.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Corbyn has to go. Labour are unelectable with him at the helm. I don't doubt his principles, but his leadership is weak and crumbling. Rapidly losing support and confidence of his MPs. Slow off the mark for remain, he could barely hide his real opinion for wanting to be out of the EU. Lost many voters to ukip and brexit in recent times in traditional labour heartlands. Time's up, jezza. No idea who an ideal replacement could be, but as mentioned earlier , if labour can't capitalise from an increasingly fractured Tory , then they're fucked for a long while.


You don't have a single original thought in your head.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Jezza, principled man with convictions, living in a bygone socialist era and with little leadership skills or control or confidence of his cabinet as they are pushed or jumped.

What should he do? Do you think he can assemble a SC and win a GE with a clear majority?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Plenty of people have switched allegiances to ukip from labour and the Tory's.
> 
> You love jezza, we get it
> 
> ...


You might as well say _what Hodgson needs to do now is to get england to win all their remaining games in the euros._ It's content free.


----------



## flypanam (Jun 26, 2016)

Tom Watson speeding back to London after a night a Glastonbury. Is this the blairtes Sealed train/Lenin moment?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

It's always difficult when many here support corbyn and in some fantastical world believe he is a strong leader that can you unite his party and bring back ex voters. Because what is happening here and in the referendum is not the case. He did ok in the recent elections, and that allowed him to survive a little longer.
A new leader is needed to prevent damage limitation.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Jezza, principled man with convictions, living in a bygone socialist era and with little leadership skills or control or confidence of his cabinet as they are pushed or jumped.
> 
> What should he do? Do you think he can assemble a SC and win a GE with a clear majority?


Tripe and tropes.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> It's always difficult when many here support corbyn and in some fantastical world believe he is a strong leader that can you unite his party and bring back ex voters. Because what is happening here and in the referendum is not the case. He did ok in the recent elections, and that allowed him to survive a little longer.
> A new leader is needed to prevent damage limitation.



Like who? Lemme guess, some Blairite twunt?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Like who? Lemme guess, some Blairite twunt?


No I'm not a blairite. Corbyn would have done well in the past industrial era, and I support his strong convictions and ideology , but that alone cannot win elections, that alone cannot bring back ex voters .
I don't have a solution, but the party need to regroup as time is now to capitalise on a fractured Tory party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> It's always difficult when many here support corbyn and in some fantastical world believe he is a strong leader that can you unite his party and bring back ex voters. Because what is happening here and in the referendum is not the case. He did ok in the recent elections, and that allowed him to survive a little longer.
> A new leader is needed to prevent damage limitation.


Well say who, say why they are credible as  leader, why they would do better than corbyn (where, why and how again please) and the method by which they become leader. Please say something substantive.

If you have no answer to these questions you're not actually saying anything at all.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Well say who, say why they are credible as  leader, why they do better than corbyn and the method by which they become leader. Please say something substantive.


Read my posts then. I named several possibilities who I believe to be front runners, and I would support Burnham to be the ideal candidate to bring back ex voters , which is the key.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> No I'm not a blairite. Corbyn would have done well in the past industrial era, and I support his strong convictions and ideology , but that alone cannot win elections, that alone cannot bring back ex voters .
> I don't have a solution, but the party need to regroup as time is now to capitalise on a fractured Tory party.



Having yet another leadership contest doesn't strike me as a good way to capitalise on Tory infighting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Read my posts then. I named several possibilities who I believe to be front runners, and I would support Burnham to be the ideal candidate to bring back ex voters , which is the key.


No, you named people who might decide to be candidates - nothing else. Nothing to answer a single one of the questions i just put to you.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Having yet another leadership contest doesn't strike me as a good way to capitalise on Tory infighting.


Well it's not something we can choose. There's likely to be a vote of no confidence , I expect more resignation, and corbyn to leave at some point honourably rather than face a leadership contest.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Well it's not something we can choose. There's likely to be a vote of no confidence , I expect more resignation, and corbyn to leave at some point honourably rather than face a leadership contest.



So a vote of no confidence just happens as one of those "laws of nature" things? It has nothing to do with the machinations of the Labour right and the near-constant monstering of Corbyn by a pliant media?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 26, 2016)

this political class really are a bunch of self serving cunts arent they


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 26, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> this political class really are a bunch of self serving cunts arent they



Utterly _filthy_ behaviour.

ETA - yet kazza still thinks Corbyn should leave as an 'honourable' act - fuck me, the hypocrisy


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Well it's not something we can choose. There's likely to be a vote of no confidence , I expect more resignation, and corbyn to leave at some point honourably rather than face a leadership contest.



The "membership" want him to stay. He's not going anywhere soon. I'd like to think that these resignations are the start to ridding the party of Blairism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Read my posts then. I named several possibilities who I believe to be front runners, and *I would support Burnham to be the ideal candidate to bring back ex voters , which is the key.*



Why do you believe Burnham to be so well placed?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2016)

ole Bright Eyes did really well last time he stood for leader eh.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Read my posts then. I named several possibilities who I believe to be front runners, and I would support Burnham to be the ideal candidate to bring back ex voters , which is the key.


Burnham was a weak candidate when he stood last, he stands for nothing, a Burnham leadership would guarantee a tory win in 2020.


----------



## roryer (Jun 26, 2016)

Corbyn is the solution, it was the New Labour project that scored a massive fail on Thursday, not Corbyn. It was the wet career New Labour politicians that campaigned hardest, working for their corporate masters, while the true core of Labour the former working class who feel abandoned by New Labour, voted to Leave. Hillary Benn good riddance. His Dad was true quality. 

_"In practice, Britain will be governed by a European coalition government that we cannot change, dedicated to a capitalist or market economy theology. This policy is to be sold to us by projecting an unjustified optimism about the Community, and an unjustified pessimism about the United Kingdom, designed to frighten us in. Jim quoted Benjamin Franklin, so let me do the same: "He who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither safety nor liberty." _Tony Benn speaking in 1975

Of course the mainstream newspapers hate Corbyn, even the BBC don't like him as he doesn't represent the media classes. I agree with Tony Benn, the European Union was promoting Capitalist Market Economy theology, we are better off out. Where is our Podemos? Isn't Corbyn and his Labour closest to what the Left has to a chance of victory?


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Well say who, say why they are credible as  leader, why they would do better than corbyn (where, why and how again please) and the method by which they become leader. Please say something substantive.
> 
> If you have no answer to these questions you're not actually saying anything at all.



Just to re affirm this, cos you tend to know, but we sure that Corbyn needs PLP backers, as incumbent, to get on the ticket if ( when ) there's a leadership challenge ?


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 26, 2016)

I like to think he's letting people resign rather than having already sacked everyone because he's spending the time elsewhere on something that matters more but maybe that's me being a bit too naive


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Burnham's northern roots will go some way to reconnect with old labour heartlands I think, his work with Hillsborough helped, he has multi department experience , strong ties to the unions and a progressive socialist, I think he would be an ideal opposition candidate at this time.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

It is -do you think Jeremy can find 46 MP's who would support his re-election candidacy? - if yes, the volatility on tomorrows stock market will be down to the Blairite headless chicken-ism.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Just to re affirm this, cos you tend to know, but we sure that Corbyn needs PLP backers, as incumbent, to get on the ticket if ( when ) there's a leadership challenge ?


AFAIK, Corbyn's name is automatically included on the ballot. No nominations required.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 26, 2016)

Gloria De Piero now also resigned from shadow cabinet.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Burnham's northern roots will go some way to reconnect with old labour heartlands I think, his work with Hillsborough helped, he has multi department experience , strong ties to the unions and a progressive socialist, I think he would be an ideal opposition candidate at this time.


You'd rather have a manikin with a red rosette as leader.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Just to re affirm this, cos you tend to know, but we sure that Corbyn needs PLP backers, as incumbent, to get on the ticket if ( when ) there's a leadership challenge ?


Yes he still needs the same 35 - 15% of the PLP. Same rules as last election. It may even be one less now depending on how being 1 down with Jo Cox's death effects the figures. It's 34.8. So it might mean 34.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You'd rather have a manikin with a red rosette as leader.


Who would you put forward when corbyn is outed or resigns?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> AFAIK, Corbyn's name is automatically included on the ballot. No nominations required.



They were working on amending the procedure to that, not sure it is in place.  If not, he needs 46 MPs


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> They were working on amending the procedure to that, not sure it is in place.  If not, he needs 46 MPs


Anyone know for sure?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

Burnham is probably a nice enough person, but he isn't an inspirational leader.
In fact he is neither inspirational nor a leader.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he still needs the same 35 - 15% of the PLP. Same rules as last election. It may even be one less now depending on how being 1 down with Jo Cox's death effects the figures. It's 34.8. So it might mean 34.



Sunday Politics had the number as 46


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> It is -do you think Jeremy can find 46 MP's who would support his re-election candidacy? - if yes, the volatility on tomorrows stock market will be down to the Blairite headless chicken-ism.


He doesn't need 46. He didn't need 46 last time. He needed 35.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Who would you put forward when corbyn is outed or resigns?


You're a clueless fuckwit.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> I would support Burnham to be the ideal candidate to bring back ex voters



Burnham can't even pack out Rochdale Labour Club while campaigning to be mayor of Manchester.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't need 46. He didn't need 46 last time. He needed 35.



I think the higher number stems from coup rather than coranation


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Sunday Politics had the number as 46


It was 35 last time. Since then Corbyn's allies have tried to reduce the nominations required to 5% - so i'd be very surprised if it had, in fact actually risen to the 20%+ required to make it 46.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're a clueless fuckwit.


Impressive retort. Corbyn is history, sorry to break it to you.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Burnham can't even pack out Rochdale Labour Club while campaigning to be mayor of Manchester.
> 
> View attachment 88876


Who is your front runner from the current line up?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It was 35 last time. Since then Corbyn's allies have tried to reduce the nominations required to 5% - so i'd be very surprised if it had, in fact actually risen to the 20%+ required to make it 46.


11.10 on the Sunday Politics


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> I think the higher number stems from coup rather than coranation


What does this mean? Corbyn wasn't crowned - he was elected. If they run a leadership election it will have the same rules as last time.


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Well it's not something we can choose. There's likely to be a vote of no confidence , I expect more resignation, and corbyn to leave at some point honourably rather than face a leadership contest.


You don't actually want a left wing party. Fuck off and vote lib dem or something.


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Ian Murray (Shadow Scottish Secretary) resigns.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does this mean? Corbyn wasn't crowned - he was elected. If they run a leadership election it will have the same rules as last time.


11.10 on the Sunday Politics.

Milliband had stepped down before the last leadership, Corbyn isn't


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> 11.10 on the Sunday Politics


I'm not doubting that they said it, i'm suggesting it's wrong.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Who is your front runner from the current line up?



I expected Corbyn to be gone before now having entirely underestimated how cack-handed the remnants of the Blair project are. They don't have a plausible replacement, Dan Jarvis was probably as good as they got in the selection they were Graun-testing over the last six months and he's pants.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> 11.10 on the Sunday Politics.
> 
> Milliband had stepped down before the last leadership, Corbyn isn't


So a leadership challenge requires a higher number? Ok, with you now. I'll have to check this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Impressive retort. Corbyn is history, sorry to break it to you.


And so are you


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

maomao said:


> You don't actually want a left wing party. Fuck off and vote lib dem or something.


You've made an assumption , one that is wrong , and resorted to getting all sweay over the net? Really?

I've made my view clear on corbyn. I agree with his principles and ideology and is a man of convictions, but he has no leadership skills, bumbling along at interviews and pmq, haemorrhaging support to ukip and his referendum 'campaigning' were abysmal and he knocked that final nail in all by himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> Ian Murray (Shadow Scottish Secretary) resigns.


Nonentity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> You've made an assumption , one that is wrong , and resorted to getting all sweay over the net? Really?
> 
> I've made my view clear on corbyn. I agree with his principles and ideology and is a man of convictions, but he has no leadership skills, bumbling along at interviews and pmq, haemorrhaging support to ukip and his referendum 'campaigning' were abysmal and he knocked that final nail in all by himself.


Pisspoor


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And so are you


Classic playground talk. Did I just read 'AND SO ARE YOU'?


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Pisspoor


You're getting worse. Must be the corbyn-effect. Delusional.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> Ian Murray (Shadow Scottish Secretary) resigns.


Leaving literally no MP that can replace him. Unless they want to try putting an MP for an English constituency in the post. Which would be an interesting move at this time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Classic playground talk. Did I just read 'AND SO ARE YOU'?


No, so are we all history. Of what do you believe history consists if not the lives of men and women?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> You're getting worse. Must be the corbyn-effect. Delusional.


Massive support for ukip? Don't talk such bollocks. Where is Nigel farage in the house of Commons? How many councillors do they have?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Nonentity


Only Scots Labour MP


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 26, 2016)

I was surprised not to see Corbyn on the Andrew Marr show or Sunday politics today. I was looking forward to getting his explanations on what's going on. Nicola Sturgeon has been a brilliant leader since the vote. Would love to see similar from Corbyn.


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought be potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”. Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> I was surprised not to see Corbyn on the Andrew Marr show or Sunday politics today. I was looking forward to getting his explanations on what's going on. Nicola Sturgeon has been a brilliant leader since the vote. Would love to see similar from Corbyn.



Sturgeon went too strong too early.   Am v. interested in what EUrope tells her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought be potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”. Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii


As the incumbent surely jc not in fact 'a challenger'


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

'_The party has to re-connect with its voter base_' say these neolib, remainarian resigners.


----------



## JimW (Jun 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought be potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”. Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii


Just Googled and came up with this saying the same - doesn't that imply Corbyn's automatically on the ballot as incumbent and it's the challengers need the nominations?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

If the nomination threshold is no 20% rather than 15% due to it being a leadership challenge then surely Corbyn's name must automatically be on the ballot. 

Yes, it's only challengers who need nominations according to the rulebook.

Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers
each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any
nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Only Scots Labour MP


Nonentity nonetheless


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

If there's a leadership challenge, he's on the ballot automatically. If he resigns, then he needs 34/35 to nominate him to be back in the running.

He won't resign, so he's on the ballot.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Leaving literally no MP that can replace him. Unless they want to try putting an MP for an English constituency in the post. Which would be an interesting move at this time.


Merge role with Europe minister?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If the nomination threshold is no 20% rather than 15% due to it being a leadership challenge then surely Corbyn's name must automatically be on the ballot.
> 
> Yes, it's only challengers who need nominations according to the rulebook.
> 
> ...



Without the line about automatic inclusion, could be read as needing renomination (I know they wanted the line changed) potential chaos ahead


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> If there's a leadership challenge, he's on the ballot automatically. If he resigns, then he needs 34/35 to nominate him to be back in the running.
> 
> He won't resign, so he's on the ballot.


No.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Without the line about automatic inclusion, could be read as needing renomination (I know they wanted the line changed) potential chaos ahead


The singular specification of _challengers as _requiring  nominations makes it crystal clear - there can be no doubt.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> AFAIK, Corbyn's name is automatically included on the ballot. No nominations required.



that's what i 'd started to assume, as no mention of problems re : him getting the backing - am hoping Butchers wrong on this one


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

Essentially, the rules are clear as mud. Doesn't even mention going to an OMOV ballot. Complete fucking mess


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Merge role with Europe minister?


*post forwarded to j.corbyn@parliament.gov.uk


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The singular specification of _challengers as _requiring  nominations makes it crystal clear - there can be no doubt.


oh, there will be plenty of doubt.  Who gets to vote?  If the vote is held at conference it's delegates


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The singular specification of _challengers as _requiring  nominations makes it crystal clear - there can be no doubt.



I can see doubt, but I'd hope they take in the spirit you (and I would),  but this is New Labour's last throw of the dice....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> Essentially, the rules are clear as mud. Doesn't even mention going to an OMOV ballot. Complete fucking mess


Strange how unions and the lp have such murky and equivocal rules and regs. The nus ones always a fucking nightmare


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> I can see doubt, but I'd hope they take in the spirit you (and I would),  but this is New Labour's last throw of the dice....


Oh they'll be after a last last roll of the dice after this


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> oh, there will be plenty of doubt.  Who gets to vote?  If the vote is held at conference it's delegates


Sure over everything they can possibly get away with, but surely on on the question of the leader not requiring nominations?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh they'll be after a last last roll of the dice after this



The line will be in the constitution by then, last potential chance for MP's to freeze out a leader


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> The line will be in the constitution by then, last potential chance for MP's to freeze out a leader


Nulab like a zombie refusing to lie down and just fucking die


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Sure over everything they can possibly get away with, but surely on on the question of the leader not requiring nominations?


If it isn't explicitly stated, there will be questions


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

i really can't work out wtf the blairites want.  is the vision a party and leader that's so tory-lite that it gets the daily mail seal of approval? 

hasn't labour lost the last two general elections trying to be that?

isn't it the blairites that are the sort of 'guardian reading metropolitan elite' / sneering at 'white van man' that large chunks of the electorate say has lost touch?

wouldn't it be easier if the blairites fuck off and merge with the tory remain contingent?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Nulab like a zombie refusing to lie down and just fucking die



I think the problem might be in the communication of the message.   FUCK OFF AND DIE doesn't seem to worked.


----------



## roryer (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Burnham's northern roots will go some way to reconnect with old labour heartlands I think, his work with Hillsborough helped, he has multi department experience , strong ties to the unions and a progressive socialist, I think he would be an ideal opposition candidate at this time.



Burnham would make a good Tory MP. When health Secretary he promised to scrap parking fees at NHS sites. This is opposed to any sustainable transport principles, opposed by local authorities, NHS Trusts and the Transport Planning profession, but he went ahead and made the pledge. Parking fees are used to put in bicycle infrastructure, and promote public transport access, they help promote physical health, raise about £110m a year and effectively manage parking, meaning equitable allocation which is made available free for those who actually need it.

Burnham displayed here that he was nothing but a populist politician looking for cheap votes through misinformation in a similar mold to UKIP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> I think the problem might be in the communication of the message.   FUCK OFF AND DIE doesn't seem to worked.


Time for plan b: icepick time


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Sturgeon went too strong too early.   Am v. interested in what EUrope tells her.


Yep, she sounds good, strong and organised (and she is), but she did overplay her hand on Friday.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Unconfirmed, but Chuka may have gone too. This could turn out to be a very good day





brogdale said:


> _Cunxit_





Pickman's model said:


> Not quimmy



Well, I did email chuka yesterday suggesting he either  back his elected leader or fuck off to the tories so it might be cunxit.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Time for plan b: icepick time



If Jeremy only sticks it 7/10s of the way in - would that be seen as commitment issues?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

Where are the Corbyn allies backing him? All keeping schtum so their position is not under threat?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Sturgeon went too strong too early.   Am v. interested in what EUrope tells her.


Then you're misreading her, like all of the media and Andy Burnham (is pretending to have done). What do you think she said?  Because it wasn't "we're going for indyref2".

It was actually "we're going to try to stay in the EU if at all possible. We have several parallel possible scenarios already in play".


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Where are the Corbyn allies backing him? All keeping schtum to their position is not under threat?


 
John McDonnell was on the telly earlier - mostly saying "Jeremy isn't going anywhere"

By the time I'd got a cup of tea they had Blair on so I turned the damn thing off


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

It's always best to keep a class politics perspective and not get too drawn into thinking this Westminster dance is where its at. Same time, it is fascinating what's happened in the last 3 days.  Out of the EU, genuine economic fears, PM resigning, Labour in meltdown, Scotland 2nd ref.  Seen just as a series of dramatic events its probably as spectacular as anything since the 30s, maybe the formation of the McDonald's national government in 31 (not, obviously that I'm suggesting there'll be the same outcome here).


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Massive support for ukip? Don't talk such bollocks. Where is Nigel farage in the house of Commons? How many councillors do they have?


Well they have had MEPs. So ... actually less power now?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> Well they have had MEPs. So ... actually less power now?


Hard to know where they'll be able to steal money from now that source has dried up.  Maybe move on to nicking charity boxes.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Then you're misreading her, like all of the media and Andy Burnham (is pretending to have done). What do you think she said?  Because it wasn't "we're going for indyref2".
> 
> It was actually "we're going to try to stay in the EU if at all possible. We have several parallel possible scenarios already in play".



And potentially widen fractal divisions within other member states....  Too hard, too soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> Well they have had MEPs. So ... actually less power now?


Yeh but no one knows what MEPs do other than shovel their snouts in the trough and trouser large sums of money for fuck all


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Where are the Corbyn allies backing him? All keeping schtum so their position is not under threat?



McDonnell, Abbot, Burgon, Stevens, Flynn, Lavery, Hussein and Trickett have publicly done so from what I've bothered to check, though mostly by Tweet. I did enjoy Burgon's response:

 

Which tbh you could probably replicate across most of the country.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> And potentially widen fractal divisions within other member states....  Too hard, too soon.


Pretty patterns tho


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Hard to know where they'll be able to steal money from now that source has dried up.  Maybe move on to nicking charity boxes.


Hopefully they'll just fuck off and die.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So, so far we have
> 
> Hilary Benn - Shadow Foreign Secretary (nominated Burnham in 2015)
> Heidi Alexander - Shadow Health Secretary (nominated Burnham in 2015)
> ...



Have you ever seen such a gaggle of non-entities?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>



I was going to say, pompously, that he's right but there's no point saying it - it's some kind of Greek Tragedy which will carry on till its bitter conclusion. Trouble is, its nothing so grand.  Its more like a bunch of pissheads throwing ineffectual punches at each other in a pub car park, as the last bus home sails by un-noticed.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

Paul Mason is trying to appeal to the wrong people: the blairites will not be reasoned with. The membership need to bring them in line, if that's possible.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 26, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> isn't it the blairites that are the sort of 'guardian reading metropolitan elite' / sneering at 'white van man' that large chunks of the electorate say has lost touch?



Yep.  _The Guardian_'s mask has truly slipped over the last couple of days.   In their rage, they have been forgetting to hide the real contempt they feel for the proles of the provinces.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> Paul Mason is trying to appeal to the wrong people: the blairites will not be reasoned with. The membership need to bring them in line, if that's possible.


Yep. But therein lies the problem, both the new expanded membership and the Corbyn leadership have let these arseholes do what they want for the last 6 months.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Does anybody really listen to what the polls have to say these days ? Is there ever a time when they actually got something right?


Hilary Benn and the Blairites are using the one poll to suggest that Corbyn is untenable as leader. The hacks who are putting mics in their faces are conveniently not presenting the polling evidence that directly contradicts this. 

If polls matter then they all matter.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  _The Guardian_'s mask has truly slipped over the last couple of days.   In their rage, they have been forgetting to hide the real contempt they feel for the proles of the provinces.



Learned their lesson about leaving the comments section open though.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> Paul Mason is trying to appeal to the wrong people: the blairites will not be reasoned with. The membership need to bring them in line, if that's possible.


What's the process for deselecting an MP? I read an article from back in April talking about the upcoming coup attempt. So far, it's been on the money, predicting they will aim to oust him by/in July. One of the major threats the plotters faced if they tried was said to be deselection. 



> But despite all the talk about rules, privately the plotters believe that even if Mr Corbyn were required to seek nominations from fellow MPs to re-stand, due to a mixture of patronage and the fear of being deselected by new left-wing party members, it's perfectly possible that 35 MPs would support him this time in any case.



How does it work?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yep. But therein lies the problem, both the new expanded membership and the Corbyn leadership have let these arseholes do what they want for the last 6 months.



They had no reasonable way of getting rid, though now the right's gone for broke with a coup attempt they'll have less of a moral shield against reselection mutterings.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Then you're misreading her, like all of the media and Andy Burnham (is pretending to have done). What do you think she said?  Because it wasn't "we're going for indyref2".
> 
> It was actually "we're going to try to stay in the EU if at all possible. We have several parallel possible scenarios already in play".


Here's her statement in full.

"As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against our will."

Key words: "taken out" - ie "we're still in".

"I regard that as democratically unacceptable"

Ie - "we're using the large majority within the area of a devolved polity as our justification to stay".

"Starting this afternoon Ministers will be engaged in discussions with key stakeholders - particularly the business community"

Ie "This is aimed at you: pay attention. We're keen to retain access to the single market for you. Interested?"

"emphasise that as of now we are still firmly in the EU. Trade and business should continue as normal and we are determined that Scotland will continue now and in the future to be an attractive and a stable place to do business."

Ie - "Stable place. Still in EU. Do you read, business community?"

"Secondly, I want to make it absolutely clear that I intend to take all possible steps and explore all options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words, to secure our continuing place in the EU and in the single market in particular."

Ie "for the slow to latch on." And "all options. So not just Indy, do you follow me?"

"I will also be communicating over this weekend with each EU member state to make clear that Scotland has voted to stay in the EU - and that I intend to discuss all options for doing so."

Ie - "all options. Not just Indy".

"I should say that I have also spoken this morning with Mayor Sadiq Khan and he is clear that he shares this objective for London - so there is clear common cause between us."

Ie - "just in case you still don't get this, I'm addressing these hints to the UK-wide business community, not just Scottish business. I'm saying 'how about if Scotland tries to stay in the UK and in the EU? You'd still have access to the single market.'".

On indyref 2:

"It would not be right to rush to judgment ahead of discussions on how Scotland’s result will be responded to by the EU."

Ie - "I've got this card but I'm not playing it yet, and maybe I don't need to".

"And we said clearly that we do not want to leave the European Union.

I am determined that we will do what it takes to make sure that these aspirations are realised."

Ie "My priority here is to stay in the EU, not independence".

So she's said lots of times. "All options", indyref2 "on the table" (along with other options), and that it may be "highly likely", but if we move quickly enough it's not inevitable.

She's planning an EU member region of the U.K.  That's her first preference. If it has to be a stop gap, fair enough, but it doesn't have to be.  That's her message, and she's sending it to UK business and European leaders, not the press.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> She's planning an EU member region of the U.K.




Is there a precedent for such an arrangement?  Would it be legal?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> And potentially widen fractal divisions within other member states....  Too hard, too soon.


No, potentially keep UK business in the EU and avoid the breakup of a neighbouring state. Because that's the alternative.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Is there a precedent for such an arrangement?  Would it be legal?


Yes. Denmark has two home nations outside of the EU - the Faroe Islands and Greenland.  Is this slightly different? Of course. But we're not in a hypothetical situation, this is real. What do you say guys? That's her message.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

I know this should be in the dedicated thread, but it came up. And it's part of the picture.

Scotland and the EU: what next?


----------



## Supine (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Then you're misreading her, like all of the media and Andy Burnham (is pretending to have done). What do you think she said?  Because it wasn't "we're going for indyref2".
> 
> It was actually "we're going to try to stay in the EU if at all possible. We have several parallel possible scenarios already in play".



Last night I was watching a Euro MEP (no idea who) saying that the UK would be leaving the EU - and then he corrected himself to say at least England will be leaving. It sounded like Scotland is getting EU support to remain.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes. Denmark has two home nations outside of the EU - the Faroe Islands and Greenland.  Is this slightly different? Of course. But we're not in a hypothetical situation, this is real. What do you say guys? That's her message.



I think you're right.  It would be a genius move on her part.  But could she sell her party/voters on such a plan?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's her statement in full.
> 
> "As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against our will."
> 
> ...


Yep and the Council will probably tell her to fuck off the Commission, not so much.  And we haven't even seen what the Governments idea of Leave is yet.  I heard and digested her statement yesterday thank you very much.

This is a whole series of threads in itself, and very little to do with inner Labour turmoil


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

Supine said:


> Last night I was watching a Euro MEP (no idea who) saying that the UK would be leaving the EU - and then he corrected himself to say at least England will be leaving. It sounded like Scotland is getting EU support to remain.


Of course. This isn't "what ifs" prior to the indyref 1. This is "how could we keep UK business interests in the single market now that shit is real".


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> I think you're right.  It would be a genius move on her part.  But could she sell her party/voters on such a plan?


That's her biggest issue.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Yep and the Council will probably tell her to fuck off the Commission, not so much.  And we haven't even seen what the Governments idea of Leave is yet.  I heard and digested her statement yesterday thank you very much.
> 
> This is a whole series of threads in itself, and very little to do with inner Labour turmoil


We'll see.


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


>




so when's he announcing he'll stand as a candidate?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


>



Corbyn should call Burnham's bluff, promote him and replace the resigned front benchers, then come down on them for "calling the party into disrepute".  Does he have the balls?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


>




Surprisingly smart, for Burnham. Places him as the post-coup peacemaker. Jarvis still schtum, so I'm guessing he'll be the right's man with Burnham doing the rounds looking all mournful and saying "I didn't support for the coup, but now we've had one Jarvis is best placed for reconcilliation"?



> so when's he announcing he'll stand as a candidate?



He won't if he has any sense. He's long-since fluffed his chances.


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Dan Jarvis? Really? FFS. I suppose he could literally kill Boris with his bare hands, so that's something.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> Dan Jarvis? Really? FFS. I suppose he could literally kill Boris with his bare hands, so that's something.



Third in the internal polls after Burnham and Corbyn, unsullied by accusations of disloyalty, seems the obvious choice for them.


----------



## Chz (Jun 26, 2016)

Ole said:


> Have you ever seen such a gaggle of non-entities?


To be fair, that describes the entire shadow cabinet. Labour is fucked because they have no-one who can lead, no matter what the colour of their stripes are. Corbyn was their best option because at least it stopped them haemorrhaging members.


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Third in the internal polls after Burnham and Corbyn, unsullied by accusations of disloyalty, seems the obvious choice for them.


Yep, the third choice candidate of party members. That'll inspire everyone.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Burnham looks like he is in trouble with his bid for labour candidacy for mayor of Manchester . All three Salford CLPs are now backing Lloyd ,I think he'll come off the ballot paper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> All Labour MPs bar 12 (or whatever) supported Remain, that's not the point. The point is that not all campaigned as he did. There is no possible way that Umunna a privately educated, privileged, right wing neo-liberal Blairite professional politician wanker is going to appeal to the potential Labour vote amongst that who voted Leave



Chuckles doesn't appeal to me, and he's my MP!

I've said it before, but - despite Chuka's claims otherwise - the ethnically-diverse electorate of Streatham are conflicted about him, and worried about the extent to which he relies on the local Evangelical/Pentecostal churches for his majority. he also made himself unpopular with a wide variety of Lambethites when he represented himself as speaking for all Brixtonians when condemning the "Thatcher's Dead" party.

He also needs to sort out the skeletons in his closet, before seeking the leadership, and he hasn't done so yet.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

There has been recent speculation from the media, (so pinch of salt time)
That Corbyn was lining up a shadow cabinet position for Ed.
Have any urbs seen anything else on this story?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

eatmorecheese said:


> Hilary Benn sacked!



Nah, that's rubbish. The man has no sack.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, that's rubbish. The man has no sack.



He is sackless!


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 26, 2016)

A state of sacklessness


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

There is no way that this coup can win within the current framework for internal elections, even if you wrongly believed that a Blairite leader would be flying high in the polls they aren't going to get one. This is just sabotage of Labour's electoral prospects.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Lol




It's not hard to get good polling numbers when the other party has no leader.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Not sure how true this is, but;
> 
> "David Milliband to be given Jo Cox's vacant seat so he can stand against Corbyn... how low will the Blaireites stoop?"



I predicted this last week, sadly.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

One can only describe this as being akin to watching the Light Brigade gathering in order to make its fateful charge, except withe even less of idea of what they were actually doing, any leadership, or indeed horses.  The massed batteries of reality will blow them to atoms - if not the Labour leadership campaign that will follow, then the fact that the country has even more contempt for them and their way of thinking than the Labour Party does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Surely only if the locals select him as a candidate, but TBH I would not be shocked by such serpentile behaviour these days.



Theoretically and constitutionally, Cox can only be replaced by another woman, but I suspect that Labour Central Office have a couple of briefs formulating opinions that get round that issue, as we speak.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> It's always difficult when many here support corbyn and in some fantastical world believe he is a strong leader that can you unite his party and bring back ex voters. Because what is happening here and in the referendum is not the case. He did ok in the recent elections, and that allowed him to survive a little longer.
> A new leader is needed to prevent damage limitation.



I'm not a Corbyn supporter, and I haven't been a Labour Party member for 22 years, but I do keep in touch with local party politics, and Corbyn is seen - rightly or wrongly - as a decent and trustworthy leader by many of the "tribal" Labour voters in my constituency, and in my local CLP.

You appear to consistently prefer to listen to the arguments of the party hierarchy and the media. I prefer to listen to people.


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Theoretically and constitutionally, Cox can only be replaced by another woman,


eh? Not so


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

What about Ed Balls? High profile , good debater and would prob getGordon  Browns backing? Could appeal to Labour Party members who know Corbyn won't win an election and isn't a Blarite candidate .
Obviously needs to get a seat first .


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> What about Ed Balls? High profile , good debater and would prob getGordon  Browns backing? Could appeal to Labour Party members who know Corbyn won't win an election and isn't a Blarite candidate .
> Obviously needs to get a seat first .



If he leads a general election campaign it will be all about spending too much before the financial crisis again


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> What's the process for deselecting an MP? I read an article from back in April talking about the upcoming coup attempt. So far, it's been on the money, predicting they will aim to oust him by/in July. One of the major threats the plotters faced if they tried was said to be deselection.


My dad was involved in an unsuccessful attempt at deselection of our local MP last time round, so I have  a vague idea how it should work. 

First, there's no vote of no confidence or similar that can be brought forward at any point - the only opportunity is in the run up to a general election. At that point, the CLP has to decide whether there should be a selection process, or the sitting MP should automatically be on the ballot. 

Each ward in the CLP has a ballot, and I believe the unions also have some sway although I'm not certain how much - either way, if there's enough support for it, there's a selection process, during which those members wanting rid of the sitting MP put up and organise for a challenger. 

So while there's a number of obstacles, it's totally possible with enough members behind it. At this point, I suppose the members need to show their number is enough for the sitting MP to be worried about the process being triggered next election...


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 26, 2016)

1 sacked, seven resigned.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to consistently prefer to listen to the arguments of the party hierarchy and the media. I prefer to listen to people.


And that's why youll never get anywhere in politics


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If he leads a general election campaign it will be all about spending too much before the financial crisis again


Not sure that argument is as key as it once was tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Burnham's northern roots will go some way to reconnect with old labour heartlands I think, his work with Hillsborough helped, he has multi department experience , strong ties to the unions and a progressive socialist, I think he would be an ideal opposition candidate at this time.



Let me get this right: You think that the fact of his place of birth will make enough of a difference in the heartlands to erase the fact of his Blairite bullshit over the years? "Vote for our Andy! He's got proper Northern grit, even if he is a southerner-loving Westminster knobshine!".


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Ponyutd said:


> 1 sacked, seven resigned.



Interesting to stack them up using the Labour Loyalty doc that got leaked a while back


Hilary Benn: Core Group negative
Gloria Piero: Core Group negative
Ian Murray: Core Group negative
Lucy Powell: Core Group negative
Kerry McCarthy: Core Group negative

Heidi Alexander: Neutral
Seema Malhotra: Neutral

Lilian Greenwood: Core Group Plus
From this it looks like the only major loss is Greenwood, while most of the the rest have been among his most trenchant critics throughout. Also less than ten will be a disappointment for them, that's what the Graun was trailing earlier.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Let me get this right: You think that the fact of his place of birth will make enough of a difference in the heartlands to erase the fact of his Blairite bullshit over the years? "Vote for our Andy! He's got proper Northern grit, even if he is a southerner-loving Westminster knobshine!".



To be fair, Burnham is at least likely to admit he was wrong in the past - or rather would be a lot more likely to admit he was wrong than any of the others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You'd rather have a manikin with a red rosette as leader.



*
5!

4!

3!

2!

1!

Thunderburnhams are GO!!!!*


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Let me get this right: You think that the fact of his place of birth will make enough of a difference in the heartlands to erase the fact of his Blairite bullshit over the years? "Vote for our Andy! He's got proper Northern grit, even if he is a southerner-loving Westminster knobshine!".



Burnham isn't seen as a Blairite around the North West and from what I can remember he recieved a lot of support up here in the leadership campaign . He is struggling in the mayoral nominations because a) he is seen as a scouser b)he was against the Manchester Heath plan whereby GM have the health budget c) opportunism  in trying to take on what is still a well organised local party machine.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

Can people please stop talking about Burnham, Labour would be unelectable with Burnham at the helm.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Can people please stop talking about Burnham, Labour would be unelectable with Burnham at the helm.


Unelectable now tbh


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

This is the remaining shadow cabinet that haven't declared (or I haven't seen it) at 2.46pm, as on the loyalty list. If they're holding true to the "10 to go" they leaked to the Graun, I guess expect all hostile and core negative to resign up til about 6pm, when the papers start getting put to bed? If there's no more losses today they've underperformed.
*
Core plus*
Tom Watson MP - though worth noting he very publicly alibied himself. If he didn't know this was coming I'd be surprised.
Owen Smith MP
Lisa Nandy MP
Vernon Coaker MP

*Neutral*
Angela Eagle MP
Chris Bryant MP
Nia Griffith MP
Kate Green MP
John Healey MP

*Hostile*
Rosie Winterton MP
Luciana Berger MP

*Core negative*
Maria Eagle MP
Jonathan Ashworth MP

*Unlisted*
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Unelectable now tbh



Well if this is true then internal sabotage is no small factor in this equation. Corbyn has been attacked from day one by the PLP, who are totally at odds with the leadership and membership, and they have done so in concert with a media which has unsuccessfully attempted to terrorise the Labour membership into moving away from Corbyn. Perhaps an aborted coup attempt and some subsequent purging is just what is needed.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

The confrontation needed to happen, but without the membership swinging in behind him he's nowhere. Any news on what the CLPs in Leeds Central, Ashfield, Edinburgh South plan to do? If the members in Stoke on Trent Central are going to bring their MP to heel?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


>



Oh that'll put the cat among the pigeons


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well if this is true then internal sabotage is no small factor in this equation. Corbyn has been attacked from day one by the PLP, who are totally at odds with the leadership and membership, and they have done so in concert with a media which has unsuccessfully attempted to terrorise the Labour membership into moving away from Corbyn. Perhaps an aborted coup attempt and some subsequent purging is just what is needed.



Their problem simply is that they cannot square the circle with the middle class and working classes. Especially over the EU and immigration.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 26, 2016)

I suspect that the Hillsborough stuff means that Burnham has had some recent contact with real people.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> This is the remaining shadow cabinet that haven't declared (or I haven't seen it) at 2.46pm, as on the loyalty list. If they're holding true to the "10 to go" they leaked to the Graun, I guess expect all hostile and core negative to resign up til about 6pm, when the papers start getting put to bed? If there's no more losses today they've underperformed.
> *
> Core plus*
> Tom Watson MP
> ...


Watson is still at Glastonbury isn't he or as one wag pointed out he'll be the first person to leave Glastonbury to go and wade into a bigger field of shit.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Watson is still at Glastonbury isn't he or as one wag pointed out he'll be the first person to leave Glastonbury to go and wade into a bigger field of shit.



Yeah he was taking pics and such throughout. Back in London now though, just in time to be totally beyond reproach.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Their problem simply is that they cannot square the circle with the middle class and working classes. Especially over the EU and immigration.


Seems to me the greater problem for the lp remains 'the political class' of upper middle class private educated oxbridge graduates who have never done a day's work in their lives and treat the w/c as ballot fodder. Without any genuine connection with or understanding of the pressures facing many many working class - and indeed many middle class - families events inside the wm bubble will continue to assume a higher priority for them than the lives of their constituents


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Perhaps now is the time to bring those mugs out again ?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> They had no reasonable way of getting rid, though now the right's gone for broke with a coup attempt they'll have less of a moral shield against reselection mutterings.


It would have been better if  Corbyn and the new party members had done something active to start engaging with pissed off working class voters, some of whom have voted ukip and many more who voted out on Thursday.  He might be up against some of the least principled and slippery politicians of the last 50 years, but he and his fans haven't built anything as a counterweight.  That's the trouble, this will all play out as an internal party game, one which he will probably win though the party will be evermore fucked as a result.  If corbynism was worth doing it needed to take the party out beyond Westminster.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah he was taking pics and such throughout. Back in London now though, just in time to be totally beyond reproach.



Funny that ....he was on holiday  taking pics ( I've got an alibi ,guv ,look , theres me in me shorts in lanzaroti ) when Dugher was fired by Corbyn for plotting back in Jan...

Got a bit of form hasn't he


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It would have been better if  Corbyn and the new party members had done something active to start engaging with pissed off working class voters, some of whom have voted ukip and many more who voted out on Thursday.  He might be up against some of the least principled and slippery politicians of the last 50 years, but he and his fans haven't built anything as a counterweight.  That's the trouble, this will all play out as an internal party game, one which he will probably win though the party will be evermore fucked as a result.  If corbynism was worth doing it needed to take the party out beyond Westminster.


And arguably beyond Islington too


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Perhaps now is the time to bring those mugs out again ?


They're all coming out they said


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If corbynism was worth doing



It wasn't, imv - warmed up Keynesianism is as much of a busted flush as Blairism in terms of dealing with working class concerns. But the whole thing makes for entertaining political drama on a Sunday afternoon.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Apparently the Mail on Sunday have tipped Jeremy Hunt as next tory leader.


A bit of light relief.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It would have been better if Corbyn and the new party members had done something active to start engaging with pissed off working class voters


 
Corbyn has been out and about a fair bit in the lead up to the referendum (albeit largely ignored by the media) but yes, there is a need to engage more (and i don't think the party as a whole knows how the heck to do this - other perhaps than anti-immigration mugs)

Corbyn has done more to talk to union members - than previous leaders have, but there's a heck of a lot of the working class that have fallen out of the labour movement as well as the Labour movement.

casualisation and fragmentation of workplaces is a big element in this - some unions have dealt with this better than others.  some have pretty much gone along with the bosses' divide and rule allowing permanent workers to resent casual / agency workers for undercutting their pay and conditions, and casual / agency workers to resent permanent workers for having better conditions.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Their problem simply is that they cannot square the circle with the middle class and working classes. Especially over the EU and immigration.



I think that is true for some; though they could always fall back on George Orwell's advice to go with the working class as they'd have nothing to lose but the aitches. For others (e.g. the true Blairites) it is the impossible task of squaring capital with labour; not helped by their fundamental preference for capital.

There was an interesting bit at the end of the lunchtime radio news, where a commentator was offering the opinion that there could be a massive restructuring of party politics with what he described as left Tories and social democrats coming together and the emergence of a socialist euro-skeptic Labour party. I think he has the labels wrong - the Labour MPs able to get into bed with the Tories would not be social democrats in any meaningful sense, indeed the emergent euro-skeptic Labour party would probably be more accurate described as social democratic - but we could see something very big going in terms of big party politics. Interestingly/amusingly he made no mention of the Liberals...but then again why would he?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Apparently the Mail on Sunday have tipped Jeremy Hunt as next tory leader.
> 
> A bit of light relief.



When was the last time someone went from health to PM? Going through the list it looks like Chamberlain, unless I missed someone.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It would have been better if  Corbyn and the new party members had done something active to start engaging with pissed off working class voters, some of whom have voted ukip and many more who voted out on Thursday.  He might be up against some of the least principled and slippery politicians of the last 50 years, but he and his fans haven't built anything as a counterweight.  That's the trouble, this will all play out as an internal party game, one which he will probably win though the party will be evermore fucked as a result.  If corbynism was worth doing it needed to take the party out beyond Westminster.


He and they are up against not just contemporary adversaries but what, 20-40 years of accumulated narrative debt in terms of failing to engage the necessary quarters of the public. You can argue that their direction of travel is still neutral or negative but it's a bit steep to pin the entire thing on them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> When was the last time someone went from health to PM? Going through the list it looks like Chamberlain, unless I missed someone.


Yeh and they saw the error of their ways after that


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There was an interesting bit at the end of the lunchtime radio news, where a commentator was offering the opinion that there could be a massive restructuring of party politics with what he described as left Tories and social democrats coming together and the emergence of a socialist euro-skeptic Labour party. I think he has the labels wrong - the Labour MPs able to get into bed with the Tories would not be social democrats in any meaningful sense, indeed the emergent euro-skeptic Labour party would probably be more accurate described as social democratic - but we could see something very big going in terms of big party politics. Interestingly/amusingly he made no mention of the Liberals...but then again why would he?


I think this would suit the MPs just fine, but how would it work outside Westminster? I don't think anything more than the tiniest number of Labour or Tory members would be prepared to enter into a party with the people they've been fighting politically all their lives.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think that is true for some; though they could always fall back on George Orwell's advice to go with the working class as they'd have nothing to lose but the aitches. For others (e.g. the true Blairites) it is the impossible task of squaring capital with labour; not helped by their fundamental preference for capital.
> 
> There was an interesting bit at the end of the lunchtime radio news, where a commentator was offering the opinion that there could be a massive restructuring of party politics with what he described as left Tories and social democrats coming together and the emergence of a socialist euro-skeptic Labour party. I think he has the labels wrong - the Labour MPs able to get into bed with the Tories would not be social democrats in any meaningful sense, indeed the emergent euro-skeptic Labour party would probably be more accurate described as social democratic - but we could see something very big going in terms of big party politics. Interestingly/amusingly he made no mention of the Liberals...but then again why would he?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Peter Oborne has been suggesting this new grouping of "progressives" for some time, admittedly though he thought Cameron would lead it after winning the referendum.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think this would suit the MPs just fine, but how would it work outside Westminster? I don't think anything more than the tiniest number of Labour or Tory members would be prepared to enter into a party with the people they've been fighting politically all their lives.



The appeal would be to the 'sensible centre ground' to come together for the good of the nation to protect it (cue reference to the NHS and entrepreneurship) from the excesses of both left and right. I'm sure there are Labour party members outside of Westminster who this would appeal to, especially if the alternative placed an emphasis on democratic participation (or even control?); after all they've just seen what that delivers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The appeal would be to the 'sensible centre ground' to come together for the good of the nation to protect it (cue reference to the NHS and entrepreneurship) from the excesses of both left and right. I'm sure there are Labour party members outside of Westminster who this would appeal to, especially if the alternative placed an emphasis on democratic participation (or even control?); after all they've just seen what that delivers.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



We've seen how well that works in Italy.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It wasn't, imv - warmed up Keynesianism is as much of a busted flush as Blairism in terms of dealing with working class concerns. But the whole thing makes for entertaining political drama on a Sunday afternoon.


I agree. My partner is a 3 quidder and I went to one of the corbyn mass meetings with her.  All very amiable and a nice contrast to austerity, but it was like watching a 1960s political tribute act. I'm amazed how little else there is in corbynism, no obvious ideas.  Again, just trying to judge it within the logic of parliamentary politics, it's so unimaginative and has no clear strategy for gaining power.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

BBC's been handed a bunch of emails suggesting the "Corbyn camp" may have been sabotaging the Labour Remain campaign. That might be pretty damaging if true, though the only actual pullout thus far (ie. the most interesting bit) seems to be on the weak side, mostly implicating Seamus Milne.



> A series of messages dating back to December seen by the BBC shows correspondence between the party leader's office, the Labour Remain campaign and Labour HQ, discussing the European campaign. It shows how a sentence talking about immigration was removed on one occasion and how Mr Milne refused to sign off a letter signed by 200 MPs after it had already been approved.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Someone's just told me that Rick Astley is number one in the album charts . What a week!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Someone's just told me that Rick Astley is number one in the album charts . What a week!


In the album charts? Has the world gone mad?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

mauvais said:


> He and they are up against not just contemporary adversaries but what, 20-40 years of accumulated narrative debt in terms of failing to engage the necessary quarters of the public. You can argue that their direction of travel is still neutral or negative but it's a bit steep to pin the entire thing on them.


Well, I'm not pinning the Hilary benn thing on them, just being in a poor position to respond to it. the bigger picture though is that its been obvious the Labour Party and most of our institutions abandoned whole swathes of the working class over the last 20-30 years, but decisively so in the Blair era.  What is Labour's answer to that, what is Corbyn's answer?  Is Corbynisn in any sense a strategy to re-engage?  Not that I can see.

In one sense its unfair to blame corbyn for not having an answer to that long term decline, to labour only speaking to the middle classes, Labour abandoning the poor.  But in one sense it isn't - even if he is an accidental leader he's been seeking to push a left agenda in the party for decades, but isn't actually making it into an active strategy.  Its a left Labourism in an era of low union membership and social democracy in an era of rampant globalisation.


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> BBC's been handed a bunch of emails suggesting the "Corbyn camp" may have been sabotaging the Labour Remain campaign. That might be pretty damaging if true, though the only actual pullout thus far (ie. the most interesting bit) seems to be on the weak side, mostly implicating Seamus Milne.



Appointing Milne was a disaster, and made me think twice about Corbyns judgement.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> In the album charts? Has the world gone mad?


Who is Tom Odell ?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> BBC's been handed a bunch of emails suggesting the "Corbyn camp" may have been sabotaging the Labour Remain campaign. That might be pretty damaging if true, though the only actual pullout thus far (ie. the most interesting bit) seems to be on the weak side, mostly implicating Seamus Milne.



There is no actual content in that article beyond 'sources say they [the emails] show the leader's office was reluctant to give full support to the EU campaign and how difficult it was to get Mr Corbyn to take a prominent role'. Well I'm sure such sources wouldn't be difficult to find. I suspect that if Corbyn had toured the country constantly in a luminous Remain blimp, continuously showering the populace with increasingly dire warnings about the consequences of voting leave, 'sources' would have blamed him for alienating traditional supporters. There are 'sources' that want him out and aren't fussed about how it is done.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> BBC's been handed a bunch of emails suggesting the "Corbyn camp" may have been sabotaging the Labour Remain campaign. That might be pretty damaging if true, though the only actual pullout thus far (ie. the most interesting bit) seems to be on the weak side, mostly implicating Seamus Milne.



It is a bit sad that pointing out reform of EU immigration is (was) impossible counts as "sabotaging the Labour Remain campaign".


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Do the blairites seriously think that JC appearing alongside ham-face campaigning for business as usual would seriously have re-connected the party with the voters who have gone for 'leave'?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Do the blairites seriously think that JC appearing alongside ham-face campaigning for business as usual would seriously have re-connected the party with the voters who have gone for 'leave'?


I think it's pretty clear they have absolutely no fucking clue what would reconnect with the voters.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Do the blairites seriously think that JC appearing alongside ham-face campaigning for business as usual would seriously have re-connected the party with the voters who have gone for 'leave'?



No but Jeremy's 'I like free movement, don't blame the migrants' line probably went down like a house on fire. 

It's of little comfort to either the voters he didn't reach or the supporters who didn't get the result that he may only have said the former in half-hearted support of the EU.

He lacked the skills to address people's concerns and say how they could be sorted within the free movement he professed to like. He did not 'lead'. An opportunity missed.

You don't have to be blairite to see he fundamentally lacks the political skills to figure this puzzle out. He is an irritable charisma free zone.

Socialism and progressive thinking is so unpopular with the people it needs to help that he needs to be able to create bridges and inspire.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> No but Jeremy's 'I like free movement, don't blame the migrants' line probably went down like a house on fire.
> 
> It's of little comfort to either the voters he didn't reach or the supporters who didn't get the result that he may only have said the former in half-hearted support of the EU.
> 
> ...


I had not previously noticed quite what a right wing shit you are.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 26, 2016)

The whole country's been rickrolled


The39thStep said:


> Someone's just told me that Rick Astley is number one in the album charts . What a week!



Someone ,somewhere is laughing like a drain


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> No but Jeremy's 'I like free movement, don't blame the migrants' line probably went down like a house on fire.


 
The line I remember hearing JC say was along the lines that pressure on schools / NHS / services is due to tory cuts not immigrants

Although I suspect most of the media didn't report this



Mr Moose said:


> He did not 'lead'.


 
dunno really.

i'm not trying to argue that JC is perfect, and I'm not privy to his thought process.  But I get the idea he sees himself more as a convenor of representatives than 'the boss', which is what people have been seem to have been led to expect from a party leader / potential PM.



Mr Moose said:


> Socialism and progressive thinking is so unpopular with the people it needs to help that he needs to be able to create bridges and inspire.


 
i'm not sure i know the answer to this one either.

or where the left in general or the labour party in particular is going to find someone to do this.

the blairites seem to want to do it by abandoning socialism and progressive thinking...


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> No but Jeremy's 'I like free movement, don't blame the migrants' line probably went down like a house on fire.
> 
> It's of little comfort to either the voters he didn't reach or the supporters who didn't get the result that he may only have said the former in half-hearted support of the EU.



The problem is though that substantive reform of EU migration is not possible whilst we are in the EU - free movement of labour is the right it (the EU) would defend more than anything else.  To even go down the line of "we will reform it" is doomed - in the long term because it is impossible, and in the short term because if you make that an issue then Leave inevitably had a far better, far more truthful and most importantly blatantly obvious argument that Leave is the way to do it.  The only way to defend it (free movement) is to point to the advantages it brings and to point out that the negatives ascribed to it are in fact down to the Government's own decisions - scrapping the Impact Fund, not funding services properly, (edit) promoting agency / casual labour etc etc.  That is what Corbyn did.



Mr Moose said:


> He lacked the skills to address people's concerns and say how they could be sorted within the free movement he professed to like. He did not 'lead'. An opportunity missed.
> 
> You don't have to be blairite to see he fundamentally lacks the political skills to figure this puzzle out. He is an irritable charisma free zone.
> 
> Socialism and progressive thinking is so unpopular with the people it needs to help that he needs to be able to create bridges and inspire.



TBH it is a bit troubling to see how many people demand to be led.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I had not previously noticed quite what a right wing shit you are.



Whilst it's all too evident what a dickhead you are.

Are we going to re-run this 'can't get rid of Ed, it's just a Blairite plot, we will win' stuff we had before the election? 

Corbyn's capabilities are not one and the same with the politics of the matter. No return to new labour, but no endless losing either please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Whilst it's all too evident what a dickhead you are.
> 
> Are we going to re-run this 'can't get rid of Ed, it's just a Blairite plot, we will win' stuff we had before the election?
> 
> Corbyn's capabilities are not one and the same with the politics of the matter. No return to new labour, but no endless losing either please.


You dish it out but you don't like taking it.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> In the album charts? Has the world gone mad?


I got rick-rolled at a wedding the other week - during the ceremony.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Whilst it's all too evident what a dickhead you are.
> 
> Are we going to re-run this 'can't get rid of Ed, it's just a Blairite plot, we will win' stuff we had before the election?
> 
> Corbyn's capabilities are not one and the same with the politics of the matter. No return to new labour, but no endless losing either please.


What's the alternative to Corbyn if it isn't the bleating Blairite scum you affect to oppose but act like such a useful idiot for.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## miktheword (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


>





he didn't need a well placed source, he needed a tv.
That there was conflicting legal advice was made on Sunday Politics / Marr show this morning after Neil said he thought Corbyn was automatically on.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Coaker's gone, he was supposedly a Core plus, though had fallen out with Corbyn over Trident. Still four "hostiles" undeclared so at this rate it could be 13+ to go (out of 30).

*Hostile*
Rosie Winterton MP
Luciana Berger MP

*Core negative*
Maria Eagle MP
Jonathan Ashworth MP

Edit: And New Statesman is "expecting" Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant and Lord Falconer to go, which would be an outright majority.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 26, 2016)

Agree with this from McCluskey...
Labour mutineers are betraying our national interest | Len McCluskey



			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> Surely Labour’s priorities are first of all to ensure that Brexit is not at the expense of working people, that employment rights are secured and jobs protected. We need to fight might and main against those Conservatives who see Brexit as a mandate to introduce a free-market utopia at the expense of working people.
> 
> We also have a responsibility to speak out against racism and offer reassurance and support to people of all races and nations living in Britain today.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2016)

enemy no1 is on his back with balls exposed. Do you

a)get hoofing

b) Punch yourself in the face


answers ona postcard


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

> In fact, Corbyn was honest and straightforward about a complex question.


 
that's not always a good move in politics...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 26, 2016)

At 2:20 there's a suit who is the spit of H. Benn:


----------



## Sifta (Jun 26, 2016)

"Unite has hitherto opposed any plans to change the party rules governing mandatory re-selection of Labour MPs."
McCluskey knows how to wield a bludgeon


----------



## yield (Jun 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> enemy no1 is on his back with balls exposed. Do you
> 
> a)get hoofing
> 
> ...


Jeremy Corbyn went for Invoke Article 50 now. Europhiles are pissed off.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> What's the alternative to Corbyn if it isn't the bleating Blairite scum you affect to oppose but act like such a useful idiot for.



I don't know. I'm not their mates. 

Corbyn had a nice little sinecure. Constituency work, maybe a demo or a speech in the evening that kind of thing. A careerist. He didn't even leave the party when it invaded Iraq. 

Well now he has the top job and he better win or get a Mourinho in.

If he truly believed in Remain he should have had Labour in the Tories faces from the off with an alternate campaign. He should have passionately, angrily argued against the equivalence of the left with casual snobbery in doing so policing those casual snobs within the party. And he should have gone into full battle against the idea, cemented now, that immigration causes precarity.

The last one is hard, but the word on his lips should have been 'immigration' night and day breaking the assumption that the left won't speak of it. People would respect a fucking good row about it.

If he couldn't do it then let someone else and campaign for Brexit against neo-liberalism.

But don't lose, because losing means blairites or poss two parties.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

yield said:


> Jeremy Corbyn went for Invoke Article 50 now. Europhiles are pissed off.


Or..._Jeremy Corbyn went for something just short of full-blown neoliberalism. 'Left' capitalists are pissed off._


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 26, 2016)

It is amazing though that the biggest Tory total fuck up in years has and is being put onto Labour and what do they do, splinter and blame Corbyn and anyone else, when their real fear is they may not get re-elected.
Self centred bastards, why do they only ever think of themselves.
You would think I'd know by now after over forty years of witnessing their carry on.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

yield said:


> Jeremy Corbyn went for Invoke Article 50 now. Europhiles are pissed off.



As a stance to take it is better than either "ignore it and hope it goes away" or "this is too hard, I quit but only after I have my summer off".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I had not previously noticed quite what a right wing shit you are.



You hadn't?

None so blind, and all that...


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

I thought the interesting bit of the summer was going to be Chilcott.

A lot of headless chickens trying to decapitate things at the mo.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Who is Tom Odell ?



posh singer songwriter - avoid at all costs


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

Sifta said:


> "Unite has hitherto opposed any plans to change the party rules governing mandatory re-selection of Labour MPs."
> McCluskey knows how to wield a bludgeon


. 
Unless Corbyn gets behind deselection, the whole thing's a waste of time, the grass roots membership will never get to see the party reshaped in any kind of representative form, and the incessant attacks from Progress / Blairites will never end


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 26, 2016)

Apparently Falconer has resigned now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

And Watson superficially loyal while also throwing his hat in as the potential strong hand at the tiller?



> It's very clear to me that we are heading for an early general election and the Labour Party must be ready to form a government. There's much work to do. I will be meeting Jeremy Corbyn tomorrow morning to discuss the way forward.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 26, 2016)

So, do we think that Emily Thornberry is staying because she's loyal to Corbyn because she believes in him, or because she knows he's the only Labour leader who will giver her a job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

kebabking said:


> So, do we think that Emily Thornberry is staying because she's loyal to Corbyn because she believes in him, or because she knows he's the only Labour leader who will giver her a job?


Yes


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

Momentum have called a demo outside Parliament / PLP meeting tmmrw , 6pm . Good to see them trying to mobilise / get on to the streets.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Momentum have called a demo outside Parliament / PLP meeting tmmrw , 6pm . Good to see them trying to mobilise / get on to the streets.



Let's see what they've got


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> And Watson superficially loyal while also throwing his hat in as the potential strong hand at the tiller?


Guardian saying Watson 'declines to back' Corbyn.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> And Watson superficially loyal while also throwing his hat in as the potential strong hand at the tiller?


Nothing loyal about him. Corbyn should say "I'll see you in my office on Monday morning".


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> Guardian saying Watson 'declines to back' Corbyn.



Superficially because he's not resigned, but the Graun's not wrong, it's as close to slagging him as Watson can get without actively waving the hatchet around.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Superficially because he's not resigned


Corbyn should rectify that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Momentum have called a demo outside Parliament / PLP meeting tmmrw , 6pm . Good to see them trying to mobilise / get on to the streets.


Why not in the palace of Westminster outside the meeting?


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Corbyn should rectify that.


He can't. Watson's elected.


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Corbyn should rectify that.


He can't tho, any more than he could sack Khan as mayor


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You hadn't?
> 
> None so blind, and all that...



Why don't you drearily and prosaically tell me what I should think and you can gain some likes from your internet pals?


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

chilango said:


> Let's see what they've got



hope it's not too many James Schneider lookey likeys in blazers, as he was on Andrew Neil today...just don't get why they keep putting him up as media spokesman, wrong vibe imo.


----------



## joevsimp (Jun 26, 2016)

and he has the perfect alibi having been at Glasto all weekend


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Why don't you drearily and prosaically tell me what I should think and you can gain some likes from your internet pals?



I leave dreary and prosaic windbaggery to you, Norbert.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Momentum have called a demo outside Parliament / PLP meeting tmmrw , 6pm . Good to see them trying to mobilise / get on to the streets.



Attendance will depend on whether the spag bol is ready or not. "Oi Rufus, can you nip out to get some more spag, yeah?"


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> He can't. Watson's elected.


Fair point. But he's bringing the party into disrepute. Get him suspended. Or whatever is open to him. 

Where's Corbyn's balls?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Someone's just told me that Rick Astley is number one in the album charts . What a week!


_Never gonna give EU up..._


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

God knows I'm not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn but what a load of absolute shits. Self-serving, disloyal, fucking useless.

Tbh though, he shouldn't have tried to be so inclusive by having half of them in the shadow cabinet in the first place.

Eta Though of course then he would've been 'evil divisive Corbyn' I guess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> _Never gonna give EU up..._


...never gonna run around and desert EU...


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

I guess they're not worried about being late for watching the England game?


----------



## yield (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Fair point. But he's bringing the party into disrepute. Get him suspended. Or whatever is open to him.
> 
> Where's Corbyn's balls?


Corbyn is trapped. Liberal metropolitan PLP hate him. Liberal metropolitan membership love him.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> God knows I'm not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn but what a load of absolute shits. Self-serving, disloyal, fucking useless.



He's losing the ones who agreed to be in his Shadow Cabinet. If he's losing, say, Kerry McCarthy, what does that tell you about his leadership?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

yield said:


> Corbyn is trapped. Liberal metropolitan PLP hate him. Liberal metropolitan membership love him.



Sorry it's Rick Astley night not Colonel Abrams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> _Never gonna give EU up..._


Not to mention Kylie and 'can't get EU out of my head'


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Apparently Falconer has resigned now.



Top many resigning , I want him to a sack a few for total brain meltdown self destruct mode.


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> He's losing the ones who agreed to be in his Shadow Cabinet. If he's losing, say, Kerry McCarthy, what does that tell you about his leadership?


What does it tell you about those in his shadow cabinet, that they're prepared to undermine their leader who was elected with a massive mandate by their party?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> What does it tell you about those in his shadow cabinet, that they're prepared to undermine their leader who was elected with a massive mandate by their party?



It's really not working? The Labour membership, much as I love them, don't have any real contact with the guy. How long would you work for a shit boss?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's really not working? The Labour membership, much as I love them, don't have any real contact with the guy. How long would you work for a shit boss?



Are you talking about Corbyn or the membership or both?


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's really not working? The Labour membership, much as I love them, don't have any real contact with the guy. How long would you work for a shit boss?



And these MPs have how much contact with their membership? And how much respect for them? Not much I reckon.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Are you talking about Corbyn or the membership or both?



Is there any ambiguity in my post?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Is there any ambiguity in my post?



Probably none that was intended, but it could do with a bit.


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> How long would you work for a shit boss?



Until the mortgage is paid off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's really not working? The Labour membership, much as I love them, don't have any real contact with the guy. How long would you work for a shit boss?


Maybe it's not working because so few of the shadow cabinet aren't right wing shits.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> And these MPs have how much contact with their membership? And how much respect for them? Not much I reckon.



Eh? People who have shadow cabinet posts are leaving in droves*. These aren't all Blairite poseurs - these are the people who wanted to get on board with Corbyn. What do you think that means?

* how many is a drove? I suspect there aren't enough shadow cab members to constitute one, but hey


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Eh? People who have shadow cabinet posts are leaving in droves. These aren't all Blairite poseurs - these are the people who wanted to get on board with Corbyn. What do you think that means?


They're opportunistic wankers.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Eh? People who have shadow cabinet posts are leaving in droves. These aren't all Blairite poseurs - these are the people who wanted to get on board with Corbyn. What do you think that means?



Just because you aren't a literal Blairite doesn't mean you don't have disgusting politics. How many of those resigning today voted against the government's welfare bill last year?


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Eh? People who have shadow cabinet posts are leaving in droves. These aren't all Blairite poseurs - these are the people who wanted to get on board with Corbyn. What do you think that means?


As I said above that they're self-serving, disloyal shits who're undermining the leader elected with a massive mandate by their party. Not sure which bit here is so difficult to understand?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> They're opportunistic wankers.



Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Eh? People who have shadow cabinet posts are leaving in droves*. These aren't all Blairite poseurs - these are the people who wanted to get on board with Corbyn. What do you think that means?



Actually almost all of them are. A couple were nominally pro-Corbyn to start with but most have been routinely hostile and took Shadow Cabinet posts primarily to provide a better platform from which to heckle. What do you think today has been about? You think this is a co-incidence? They planned it fool.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> As I said above that they're self-serving, disloyal shits who're undermining the leader elected with a massive mandate by their party. Not sure which bit here is so difficult to understand?



People, even shadow cabinet members, get to have opinions you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.


I see you've no evidence to support your assertion. So it's no surprise you come out with a sexual ad hominem which as so often says more about you than I. I didn't know about F5's refreshing powers btw.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> People, even shadow cabinet members, get to have opinions you know.



Well, they can take their opinions & fuck off then, can't they!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I see you've no evidence to support your assertion. So it's no surprise you come out with a sexual ad hominem which as so often says more about you than I. I didn't know about F5's refreshing powers btw.



It'll save you a few milliseconds while you await treelovers next post. Glad I could help.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Well, they can take their opinions & fuck off then, can't they!



Which is exactly what they have just done.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Which is exactly what they have just done.



Good. Hopefully more will follow, a proper Blairite purge.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Karl Turner (Shadow Attorney General) has gone, wasn't official Shadow Cabinet but sat in.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 26, 2016)

To be fair, I'm sure many of the resigners and sackees are honestly convinced that Corbyn is bad for the party and the country. However that is on the basis of their shit politics.


----------



## 03gills (Jun 26, 2016)

I fucking swear, if he goes because of this the Labour Party can kiss my membership goodbye.

Fucking pricks, the lot of them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> _Never gonna give EU up..._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It'll save you a few milliseconds while you await treelovers next post. Glad I could help.


You haven't


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Good. Hopefully more will follow, a proper Blairite purge.


A stalinist purge might prove more satisfying tho


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.



Way too many of them *are* self-serving, opportunistic pricks. Many of them have shown that they give more fucks about their own positioning and posturing than about their constituents. The majority of the resigners haven't resigned because of a lack of faith or trust in Corbyn, regardless of what they claim -  look to their actions, not their words - but because they're positioning themselves in order to promote their own careers. To me, that makes *them* "self-satisfied pricks", no-one else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> People, even shadow cabinet members, get to have opinions you know.



I always thought that they didn't. That their over-riding job was to represent the expressed interests of their constituents, not their own interests or those of factions within their party.

Still, maybe I believe the above because I'm daft enough to believe in democracy, and accountability.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

What's the tally to now , 10?


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.



Hah!


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's really not working? The Labour membership, much as I love them, don't have any real contact with the guy. How long would you work for a shit boss?



I guess my attitude to my 'boss' in the LP would depend a fair bit on whether I was a Progress supporting shitstain who's sole long term objective was to carry on the Blairite dream of PFIs/academies/de unionisation/light touch City  regulation and disastrous wars, if and when they come up.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe they aren't? Not everybody is, not that you would know you self-satisfied prick, sitting atop your pile of lonely jizz, frantically pressing F5 on the new posts page.



hark at the big man here, impressive.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

Corbyn shouldn't be letting these people resign; he should be in there first. This is just making him look even more weak in the eyes of the electorate IMO.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> What's the tally to now , 10?



10/30 Shadow Cabinet members, plus 1/3 of the people who sit in but aren't formal Shadow Cabinet.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Corbyn shouldn't be letting these people resign; he should be in there first. This is just making him look even more weak in the eyes of the electorate IMO.



Nah. He can't just throw darts at the Blairites. Sacking Benn for plotting was one thing, & it sent a clear message I think. If the rest of the spineless cunts want to walk out, let them.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Corbyn shouldn't be letting these people resign; he should be in there first. This is just making him look even more weak in the eyes of the electorate IMO.



On what grounds? If he started kicking people out who hadn't resigned or been caught doing something dodgy it'd just look bonkers.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Corbyn shouldn't be letting these people resign; he should be in there first. This is just making him look even more weak in the eyes of the electorate IMO.



Thats all very well if MPs were queuing up to fill the rolls


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nah. He can't just throw darts at the Blarites. Sacking Benn for plotting was one thing, & it sent a clear message I think. If the rest of the spineless cunts want to walk out, let them.


But that's not how it will be seen, and that's Corbyn's biggest problem.

I hope he can survive this, even though I don't care for Labour. If we must have a PM, or even another election, i'd rather him than Boris or any of the chinless wankers.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> On what grounds? If he started kicking people out who hadn't resigned or been caught doing something dodgy it'd just look bonkers.


He must know who's against him. These people have hardly been subtle these past few months.


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> People, even shadow cabinet members, get to have opinions you know.



Which they express in shadow cabinet and not outside.

Of course if they were resigning on a point of principle, things would be different. But they're blatantly not (shown by these coordinated resignations and no mention or suggestion of any principles at all).


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2016)

I suspect the putsch was always on for after the referendum.  That we have had the result we have had, the other party in dissary, on top of the nation with a bad case of the bends as it decompresses from a binary choice - seems like folly.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> He must know who's against him. These people have hardly been subtle these past few months.



Sackings with no other excuse than "I think you've been too narky with me recently" would look just as bad as resignations, probably worse - his enemies could add "paranoid and arbitrary" to the list of criticisms.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> But that's not how it will be seen, and that's Corbyn's biggest problem.



Seen by whom?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Thats all very well if MPs were queuing up to fill the rolls


Once that's done they can go for a reconciliation picnic tho


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Seen by whom?


the general public


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> Which they express in shadow cabinet and not outside.
> 
> Of course if they were resigning on a point of principle, things would be different. But they're blatantly not (shown by these coordinated resignations and no mention or suggestion of any principles at all).


Not even artistic differences


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

03gills said:


> I fucking swear, if he goes because of this the Labour Party can kiss my membership goodbye.
> 
> Fucking pricks, the lot of them.


What have you done as a member to support him?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Impressive retort. Corbyn is history, sorry to break it to you.


And you're about to become history as far as these boards are concerned.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)




----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Nearly 4 million Labour voters disappeared over the course of 13 years. That's quite an achievement.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> But that's not how it will be seen, and that's Corbyn's biggest problem.


By whom? You seem to forget that this whole 'Get Corbyn out' thing is media-driven. Interestingly, those like the fuckwit that started this thread, can only repeat the narratives they've heard or read in the media.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 26, 2016)

Whatever anyone thinks of Corbyn, blaming him for a generations neglect of labour heartlands and expecting them to ignore the world they now live in and suddenly vote the way he half heartedly wants within a year or so of being in the job is pretty daft. 

What's worse is many of the people I see on social media blaming him for it were the same people calling everyone who voted leave racist, bigots or thick (sometimes all three) 

Join the dots ffs.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Nearly 4 million Labour voters disappeared over the course of 13 years. That's quite an achievement.



Innit! Nearly 4 million (including me) who would rather vote for a dog turd than Blair.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Dan U said:


> Whatever anyone thinks of Corbyn, blaming him for a generations neglect of labour heartlands and expecting them to ignore the world they now live in and suddenly vote the way he half heartedly wants within a year or so of being in the job is pretty daft.


The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they won the last two general elections.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they won the last two general elections


 
i'm not sure it's quite that simple.

for the blairites, winning an election justifies their being right-wing.  losing an election means they aren't being right-wing enough.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they won the last two general elections.


In a sense, they did.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> By whom? You seem to forget that this whole 'Get Corbyn out' thing is media-driven. Interestingly, those like the fuckwit that started this thread, can only repeat the narratives they've heard or read in the media.


As I say, by the general public. I agree that this is media driven, but right or wrong that media seems to be influencing people.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

I'll rephrase that.

The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they have a winning formula after suffering two general election defeats and losing 4m Labour voters.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> As I say, by the general public. I agree that this is media driven, but right or wrong that media seems to be influencing people.


So this general public, any idea where they get their ideas from? After all, discourse or narratives aren't produced in a vacuum.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I'll rephrase that.
> 
> The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they have a winning formula after suffering two general election defeats and losing 4m Labour voters.


Their psychosis appears to manifest as a belief that they have any place in a soi-disant socialist party.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> So this general public, any idea where they get their ideas from? After all, discourse (or narratives) aren't produced in a vacuum.


I'm saying that they, broadly, are influenced by the media. Not everyone of course. Some people like him, some people support and listen to him. Others don't for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> I'm saying that they, broadly, are influenced by the media. Not everyone of course. Some people like him, some people support and listen to him. Others don't for all sorts of reasons.


Many people don't like the Tories or the Lib Dems. I'm not sure I understand your argument. The general public isn't a monolith.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's her statement in full...



Are you trying to bring evidence to an opinion fight?


----------



## Sifta (Jun 26, 2016)

It's Still the Iraq War, Stupid. - Craig Murray


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I'll rephrase that.
> 
> The Labour right is suffering from a form of mass psychosis that leads them to believe that they have a winning formula after suffering two general election defeats and losing 4m Labour voters.



Lets not forget the great victory of theirs in the leadership election either, when Mandelson claimed Corbyn failed to get a mandate.


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn has made his point. Now it’s time for Labour to move on | Zoe Williams


Oh Noes, Zoe has come out against JC


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

I think it'll be difficult for him to come out of this in charge tbh. Can only hope the membership take their revenge.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Sifta said:


> It's Still the Iraq War, Stupid. - Craig Murray





> Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country.
> 
> Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.”
> 
> Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”



What a cunt.

The dots are well & truly fuckin' joined!


----------



## hash tag (Jun 26, 2016)

I can't catch up with this. I've just got home and find that half the shadow cabinet have walked out and nichola sturgon will save us


----------



## Smangus (Jun 26, 2016)

God this country is falling apart , it couldn't even have the decency to wait until Monday until it started. The only people smiling now are UKIP and the far right ffs. Someone better step up to the plate Corbyn or whoever but just fucking do it.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2016)

Sifta said:


> It's Still the Iraq War, Stupid. - Craig Murray



If Bercow has any sense of humour at all, he should let Corbyn open the Labour response and have Benn speak last.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

Tweet from Paul Flynn.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

Is Labour in Englandandwales facing the same fate as in Scotland?

If they get this wrong, which seems inevitable, I think it's a real danger.


----------



## yield (Jun 26, 2016)

Enough. No more. Labour is dead to me.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is Labour in Englandandwales facing the same fate as in Scotland?
> 
> If they get this wrong, which seems inevitable, I think it's a real danger.


By, local & other elections and polling suggest otherwise?


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> By, local & other elections and polling suggest otherwise?



Aye. But if they dump Corbyn and lurch Blairwards?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

chilango said:


> Aye. But if they dump Corbyn and lurch Blairwards?


Oh yeah.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 26, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is Labour in Englandandwales facing the same fate as in Scotland?
> 
> If they get this wrong, which seems inevitable, I think it's a real danger.


With UKIP as the SNP equivalent?


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> With UKIP as the SNP equivalent?



P'raps.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

chilango said:


> Aye. But if they dump Corbyn and lurch Blairwards?


Yep, it's over if they do that.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 26, 2016)

Chris Bryant has resigned.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

Hearing all these names of resignees is a bit like catching the celebrity news just before the start of a film on the telly, where they're telling you about the day's zany antics of a bunch of contestants on some reality show you don't watch


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Chris Bryant has resigned.



11 now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What a cunt.
> 
> The dots are well & truly fuckin' joined!


I didn't realise what a shameful lickspittle worm Hilary Benn is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hearing all these names of resignees is a bit like catching the celebrity news just before the start of a film on the telly, where they're telling you about the day's zany antics of a bunch of contestants on some reality show you don't watch




I'm glad I'm not the only one who's never heard of nearly all of these fuckers.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hearing all these names of resignees is a bit like catching the celebrity news just before the start of a film on the telly, where they're telling you about the day's zany antics of a bunch of contestants on some reality show you don't watch


Or ideally an old disaster film where they put the credits up front, and you know they're too low rent to make it through.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I didn't realise what a shameful lickspittle worm Hilary Benn is.



Tone will be turning in his grave. Coldplay closing Glastonbury, Bowie turns in his urn.


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2016)

Smangus said:


> God this country is falling apart , it couldn't even have the decency to wait until Monday until it started. The only people smiling now are UKIP and the far right ffs. Someone better step up to the plate Corbyn or whoever but just fucking do it.



UKIP's one MP, Douglas Carswell, spends most of his time telling everyone how vile Farage is. So not even they are really in a position to reap much benefit.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Chris Bryant has resigned.



That letter in full


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Chris Bryant has resigned.


edit: it was posted above.

Is he going to be able to fill all these positions?.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

Good cop bad cop. Fucking snakes.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is he going to be able to fill all these positions?.



Plenty of fresh blood willing to step in.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

No, they've gone on strike. He'll go tomorrow.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Just because you aren't a literal Blairite doesn't mean you don't have disgusting politics. How many of those resigning today voted against the government's welfare bill last year?


Got to run and catch the bus now but someone should cross-ref that


killer b said:


> I think it'll be difficult for him to come out of this in charge tbh. Can only hope the membership take their revenge.


Yeah the best thing to come out of this would be for a civil war between the membership and PLP, with the former basically junking Labour in once and for all.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> No, they've gone on strike. He'll go tomorrow.



I'll bet a tenner to the server fund with you that JC is still leader come 5pm tomorra?

killer b


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> With UKIP as the SNP equivalent?



Hardly, UKIP has no real structure.


----------



## chilango (Jun 26, 2016)

tim said:


> Hardly, UKIP has no real structure.



Doesn't matter. They just have to take enough votes to cost Labour seats.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Got to run and catch the bus now but someone should cross-ref that



Of the resignations so far, of those who were eligible  to vote on the welfare bill.

Chris Bryant abstained
Karl Turner abstained
Hillary Benn abstained
Heidi Alexander abstained
Gloria de Piero abstained
Lucy Powell abstained
Lilian Greenwood abstained
Ian Murray abstained
Kerry McCarthy abstained
Seema Malhotra abstained
Vernon Coaker abstained

Lord Falconer obviously was not eligible to vote, so that's 11/11

source: These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn’t vote against the Tories' welfare bill


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Edit: Cross-posted with J Ed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> *Tory Welfare Cut Bill 2015 votes
> 
> For*
> Hilary Benn
> ...


Oh. J Ed says they abstained, what's your source of reference?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh. J Ed says they abstained, what's your source of reference?



It was abstain, I miswrote (in my mind they were doing little more than saying "yeah fine I guess").


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 26, 2016)

Are there enough supporters in the PLP for the party to function?

I think it's a terrible mistake, I think it'll mark a death knell but it feels like unstoppable at this point. By the time the CLPs can act will it be too late. I think they're willing to destroy the party to do this.


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there enough supporters in the PLP for the party to function?
> 
> I think it's a terrible mistake, I think it'll mark a death knell but it feels like unstoppable at this point. By the time the CLPs can act will it be too late.* I think they're willing to destroy the party to do this.*



I'm absolutely positive they're willing to do that.


----------



## Sue (Jun 26, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there enough supporters in the PLP for the party to function?
> 
> I think it's a terrible mistake, I think it'll mark a death knell but it feels like unstoppable at this point. By the time the CLPs can act will it be too late. I think they're willing to destroy the party to do this.


Talk about snatching annihilation from the jaws of defeat...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Sue said:


> Talk about snatching annihilation from the jaws of defeat...


Or indeed the possibility of ge victory against a divided tory party


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there enough supporters in the PLP for the party to function?



Well there's 33 posts to fill total, which is more than the number of MPs who were prepared to wholeheartedly back him during the election - not taking into account that some of those aren't suitable for Cabinet posts (too old, too wet behind the ears, too timid, too nuts etc). So unless they can pull some vaguely capable "moderates" they may struggle.

Having said so, this is the Blairites' Big Push, if Corbyn and co _can _get enough to keep going it'll most likely be people who actually are going to be vaguely constructive, as they'll have burned their bridges with Benn's Boys & Girls.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'll bet a tenner to the server fund with you that JC is still leader come 5pm tomorra?
> 
> killer b


That's the normal thing to do when you get a challenge from stalking horses or cabinet colleagues (or, in this case, cunts). You resign and stand again, pretty much like John Major did.  Trouble is, it could only end in the same outcome - depending on whether Corbyn actually gets on the ballot paper (I read on here that that's not 100% clear). Corby would win the vote, but still end up with an overwhelmingly hostile PLP.  Truly astonishing state of affairs just at the moment the tories are at their weakest and we leave the EU.  Labour are utterly fucked, regardless of whether there's an election this year or in 2020.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 26, 2016)

Statement from Corbyn, culled from Guardian live feed:



> Our country faces a huge challenge following Thursday’s vote to leave the European Union. And the British people have a right to know how their elected leaders are going to respond.
> 
> We need to come together to heal the divisions exposed by the vote. We have to respect the decision that has been made, hold the government to democratic account over its response, and ensure that working people don’t pay the price of exit.
> 
> ...



I quite like it.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Statement from Corbyn, culled from Guardian live feed:
> 
> I quite like it.



I feel like it could have been a bit more Star Wars...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

BBC R4 is saying there will be many more resignations on Monday.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> BBC R4 is saying there will be many more resignations on Monday.



There aren't that many more left to resign


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's the normal thing to do when you get a challenge from stalking horses or cabinet colleagues (or, in this case, cunts). You resign and stand again, pretty much like John Major did.  Trouble is, it could only end in the same outcome - depending on whether Corbyn actually gets on the ballot paper (I read on here that that's not 100% clear). Corby would win the vote, but still end up with an overwhelmingly hostile PLP.  Truly astonishing state of affairs just at the moment the tories are at their weakest and we leave the EU.  Labour are utterly fucked, regardless of whether there's an election this year or in 2020.



A great opportunity for Class War to step in & fill a void!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'll bet a tenner to the server fund with you that JC is still leader come 5pm tomorra?
> 
> killer b



I'll lob a pony on to that.

nu-labour people really are dicks, shy-Tories really. Anyone seen Flint? Wish she'd fuck herself up along with other arseholes.


----------



## redcogs (Jun 26, 2016)

The intensity of feelings i have towards these resignees would probably allow the state to permanently section me.  i'm not even a Labour member, so how must the ordinary rank and file socialist feel?

The Blairites really are unutterable in their reactionary vileness.

Stick in their Jezz, there are millions out there who will rally.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there enough supporters in the PLP for the party to function?
> 
> I think it's a terrible mistake, I think it'll mark a death knell but it feels like unstoppable at this point. By the time the CLPs can act will it be too late. I think they're willing to destroy the party to do this.


Yep, I think its unstoppable now.  Let's not forget of course that Corbyn himself was just about the least loyal MP in recent Labour history, though if he took a ministerial job I suspect he would have accepted that meant not shitting on the leader at the first opportunity.  The Blairites must be fucking nuts in their hubris.  They clearly and genuinely think Corbyn can't win (I happen to agree with them) but are now doing the very thing that ensures the _party_ won't win at any point in the next few years.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Chris Bryant has resigned.


He's a Henry Jackson Society lackey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> A great opportunity for Class War to step in a fill a void!


Cometh the hour cometh the woman, step forward Jane Nicholl


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> There aren't that many more left to resign


It's all gone a bit Jonestown


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> BBC R4 is saying there will be many more resignations on Monday.


Apparently 20 minor names are lined up to resign over the course of the day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's all gone a bit Jonestown


Sadly the jug of kool-aid has not yet been sipped.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 26, 2016)

Apols - already posted


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

What was that political quote about colleagues and enemies ... something like and these on my benches are my enemies ... anyone recall it ?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> BBC R4 is saying there will be many more resignations on Monday.



There's at least four likely lads and lasses named in one or another list at Shadow Cabinet level, Jon Ashworth, Angela & Maria Eagle, and Luciana Berger.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'll bet a tenner to the server fund with you that JC is still leader come 5pm tomorra?
> 
> killer b


Mate, if I put money on every definitive political statement I made, I'd be even closer to being a pauper than I am already...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> Mate, if I put money on every definitive political statement I made, I'd be even closer to being a pauper than I am already...


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 26, 2016)

not a bad statement that


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Here comes the Shadow Cabinet!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Apparently 20 minor names are lined up to resign over the course of the day.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Apparently 20 minor names are lined up to resign over the course of the day.



There are 20 names more minor than some of today's? Some of them must be the admin staff, surely?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Apparently 20 minor names are lined up to resign over the course of the day.



Is it just me, but maybe this is exactly what JC wants to build a true Socialist Labour Party, free from the Blairite shackles? Of course this could go tits up on a massive scale & the LP is finished for the forseeable, but is there hope?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2016)

Everywhere there are schisms and poison. Would be looking to escape at work but it's all kicking off to fuck there as well. I'm knackered and it's not Monday morning yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> There are 20 names more minor than some of today's? Some of them must be the admin staff, surely?


They've been rounded up solely for the purpose of resigning


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> And you're about to become history as far as these boards are concerned.


Eek! For disagreeing with you? Such an activist, you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Is it just me, but maybe this is exactly what JC wants to build a true Socialist Labour Party, free from the Blairite shackles? Of course this could go tits up on a massive scale & the LP is finished for the forseeable, but is there hope?


No


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

S☼I said:


> Everywhere there are schisms and poison. Would be looking to escape at work but it's all kicking off to fuck there as well. I'm knackered and it's not Monday morning yet


Do what I said
And go to bed


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

Is he reduced to filling places with the three-quidders yet?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No



No to the former or that latter? You tease!


----------



## realitybites (Jun 26, 2016)

Can someone  help clarify what happens when an MP resigns? I am under the impression that 'resigning' like an MP means backing out of the door sheepishly on full pay, back to the boroughs for a Victoria sponge cake with the local constituents, with lithle threat of being called upon to ever do anything particularly challenging?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> No to the former or that latter? You tease!


Both


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Is he reduced to filling places with the three-quidders yet?



I'm up for it! Gotta be better than the fuckin shit i'm in atm


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Both



ffs


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Apparently 20 minor names are lined up to resign over the course of the day.


If jezzer's struggling to fill his shadow cabinet with loyalists and be a bit more combative he should bring back a few names from the past. John Prescott to punch the voters, Eric Joyce to punch Tories and maybe Jaqui Smith's husband to spank the monkey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Can someone  help clarify what happens when an MP resigns? I am under the impression that 'resigning' like an MP means backing out of the door sheepishly on full pay, back to the boroughs for a Victoria sponge cake with the local constituents, with lithle threat of being called upon to ever do anything particularly challenging?


Who told you MPs resign?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2016)

So, no tory leader, embattled corbyn, I wonder if this situation will be resolved in a week, a month or a half year. Someone has to trigger article 50 and oversee withdrawl negotiations!


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Is he reduced to filling places with the three-quidders yet?


"Dear Jeremy you might remember I liked one of your posts on facebook. Can I be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?"


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> What was that political quote about colleagues and enemies ... something like and these on my benches are my enemies ... anyone recall it ?




churchill IIRC. someone said this to me yesterday oddly enough


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Do what I said
> And go to bed


Only just sat down with me tea 
Nah, the kicking off at work is something else, involving all the reps


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Eek! For disagreeing with you? Such an activist, you


No, because you're a troll (and most likely a multiple log-in returner). You must have a real self-confidence problem if you believe I said what I did to you because you _"disagreed"_ with me.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn instructs the Shadow Cabinet


----------



## 03gills (Jun 26, 2016)

He issued a statement. Long & short is, won't be going anywhere, put up or shut up. 

Fuck It, I'm out of a job tomorrow, I'll be in his cabinet if these shit cunts won't.


----------



## Lorca (Jun 26, 2016)

well, if it is true that the Bliarites want Corbyn out in order to manage the possible fall out from the upcoming publication of the Chilcott report, I hope he can at least hang on 'till then.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

They may well be opportunistic wankers, but he is still doing a poor job.

The people the party should be helping have in great numbers chosen nationalism as an answer. They are further away than ever from thinking go further left is the way. This, given the ensuing wave of racism, is a fucking tragedy.

Corbyn had the opportunity to address the voters immigration concerns directly and failed to. He let down the 7 in 10 Labour supporters who voted in.

This coup should fail and the blairites be scattered and then he should get his P45.


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> There aren't that many more left to resign



Junior levels.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 26, 2016)

Corbyn has made the no confidence vote about the British exit from the European Union. The plotters are totally stuffed because that was their excuse for launching the coup and they can't deflect from it. What can they possibly say? From a labour/remain point of view Corbyn is best placed to carry out a damage limitation exercise and pressure the Tories to preserve workers rights as part of the leaving process. The Labour right have burnt their bridges with any exiting process at all. Note that their complaint is that Corbyn is not offering leadership. This is code for he's failing to alienate voters that labour needs to win over from UKIP. The opposite of their usual complaint. The plotters are showing remarkable discipline. However Burnham who roughly represents the center of the party has poured cold water on the idea of a coup. No matter how well this coup is executed it, it is fundamentally poorly timed and they can't articulate a political opposition.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 26, 2016)

Take my love, take my land,
You can't take the mandate from me...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Can someone  help clarify what happens when an MP resigns? I am under the impression that 'resigning' like an MP means backing out of the door sheepishly on full pay, back to the boroughs for a Victoria sponge cake with the local constituents, with lithle threat of being called upon to ever do anything particularly challenging?


 
I don't think anyone has resigned as an MP today.

They have resigned from the shadow cabinet (I'm not sure if shadow cabinet get higher pay - I'm pretty sure cabinet minsters do) but continue as 'back bench' MPs.

It is possible in practice to resign* as an MP - Sadiq Khan did so after becoming London Mayor, hence the recent by-election in Tooting.

* - due to some historical bollocks, you can't actually resign in so many words from being an MP - you apply to be Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, and taking that office disqualifies you from being an MP.  More here if you can be bothered.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

03gills said:


> He issued a statement. Long & short is, won't be going anywhere, put up or shut up.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

Anarchist hinterland threatens to throw in the towel:


> @paulmasonnews: A crowd of 1,000 at Glastonbury today. Mood was - if Corbyn dethroned, that's the end of their engagement with official politics.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 26, 2016)

I suspect the PLP wanted him to resign because they know they can't beat him in a leadership contest. The resignations were meant to put so much pressure on him that he'd have to go, because that's what would happen if any of them were leader and their shadow cabinet resigned en masse.

The problem is, they're thinking what they'd do if they were Corbyn, and Corbyn is not having a fucking bar of it.



It's hilarious really. They hate him because he doesn't do the things they do, and seem utterly confounded when the established tactics don't work because HE DOESN"T DO THE THINGS THEY DO.

Twats


----------



## magneze (Jun 26, 2016)

I hope you're right.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Take my love, take my land,
> You can't take the mandate from me...



Even if I've lost the PLP...


----------



## cantsin (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Anarchist hinterland threatens to throw in the towel:



sounds more like they'd be ready to take up the (un"offical") towel ?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Take my love, take my land,
> You can't take the mandate from me...
> 
> 
> View attachment 88900


Got to admit, I didn't expect Firefly/Serentiy references in this discussion


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Got to admit, I didn't expect Firefly/Serentiy references in this discussion



I've just got to download some episodes now


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Is Britain now officially the silliest country in the world?


----------



## Smangus (Jun 26, 2016)

tim said:


> UKIP's one MP, Douglas Carswell, spends most of his time telling everyone how vile Farage is. So not even they are really in a position to reap much benefit.



This is exactly the sort of complacency that got us here in the first place. UKIP went after the disaffected tory vote and got it, now it's stated aim is to get into the council estates and go after the disaffected labour vote which has just registered it's largest protest since I don't know when. They are likely to succeed as well, thanks to Labour's continual fuck up in not realising that the disaffected are not listening to them. Farage is not UKIP, there is now a party machine which is intent in making the most of this vote and will likely capitalise on it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Is Britain now officially the silliest country in the world?



America will never lose that title, cmon


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> So, no tory leader, embattled corbyn, I wonder if this situation will be resolved in a week, a month or a half year. Someone has to trigger article 50 and oversee withdrawl negotiations!


I think they have got to agree first about what they want to negotiate on


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Anarchist hinterland threatens to throw in the towel:



And yet many of them probably missed voting to get their tents up early.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 26, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Got to admit, I didn't expect Firefly/Serentiy references in this discussion



If I could have found a decent Wash n Dino pic I'd have done the old headswap, but lazy


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Is Britain now officially the silliest country in the world?



No but it has been revealed to have the most clownish ruling class in the world. It's becoming like monty python but horrible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> No but it has been revealed to have the most clownish ruling class in the world. It's becoming like monty python but horrible.


Upper class bully of the year contest


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> So, no tory leader, embattled corbyn, I wonder if this situation will be resolved in a week, a month or a half year. Someone has to trigger article 50 and oversee withdrawl negotiations!



Nobody need do any such thing. Triggering (Such an awful metaphor, how can one trigger a chapter) is the  power the the UK government has over the exit process. Nobody can force them to leave the EU, I assume that whoever's in power will hang on till they've sorted out the best deal they can get.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> America will never lose that title, cmon


Apparently Raheem Sterling is back in against Iceland so, to be honest, I'm not sure.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Apparently Raheem Sterling is back in against Iceland so, to be honest, I'm not sure.



All over then!


----------



## coley (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's the normal thing to do when you get a challenge from stalking horses or cabinet colleagues (or, in this case, cunts). You resign and stand again, pretty much like John Major did.  Trouble is, it could only end in the same outcome - depending on whether Corbyn actually gets on the ballot paper (I read on here that that's not 100% clear). Corby would win the vote, but still end up with an overwhelmingly hostile PLP.  Truly astonishing state of affairs just at the moment the tories are at their weakest and we leave the EU.  Labour are utterly fucked, regardless of whether there's an election this year or in 2020.



Don't know why these bastards just don't cross the floor and have done with it, Corby has a lot of faults but he's the the nearest to a socialist leader the LP has had in donkeys.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 26, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Apparently Raheem Sterling is back in against Iceland so, to be honest, I'm not sure.


Fuck off!

Ok, screw all this other bollocks, this just got serious! _This_ needs protesting!


----------



## Ole (Jun 26, 2016)

So, this claimed figure from 'leaked internal polling' that 29% of 2015 Labour GE voters would not back Labour in a GE tomorrow, which is being used by the Labour right-wing and the BBC to suggest Corbyn's position is untenable.

The latest Survation poll indeed has it at 26% of Labour voters who say they wouldn't back Labour if there were a GE tomorrow.

It turns out that 30% of Conservative voters say the same about the Tory Party. 26% of UKIP voters the same about UKIP, and *40% *of Lib Dem voters the same about the Lib Dems.

The venality of these Blairite reptiles and their cheerleaders in the establishment is mind-blowing and never-ending.


----------



## gosub (Jun 27, 2016)

How may MP's do the Unions that went Leave sponsor in Parliament?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

Labour rebels plan a ‘Party within a Party'

How would it work? 

The vehicle for the move would be the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), which is made up only of Labour MPs – the vast majority of whom did not vote for Mr Corbyn as leader. 

The idea is for the PLP to elect a new leader, create its own shadow cabinet and effectively begin operating as a distinct Labour Party totally separate from Mr Corbyn. 

Crucially, Labour rebels believe they would have control of “short money”, the public funding given to political parties for staffing and organisation.

It would create technical difficulties within Parliament, such as who leads Prime Minister’s Questions. Some experts have suggested John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, would decide who the official Opposition leader is in such circumstances.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Labour rebels plan a ‘Party within a Party'



I dimly recall a bunch of Trots getting expelled for that.  Let's hope the same happens to this lot.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 27, 2016)

If there's a leadership campaign would there be three quidders again, or just current members?  That opens up the possibility of an anti JC recruitment drive, no, and I wonder if they'd be able to motivate enough people or would they be 'ineffective'?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> If there's a leadership campaign would there be three quidders again, or just current members?  That opens up the possibility of an anti JC recruitment drive, no, and I wonder if they'd be able to motivate enough people or would they be 'ineffective'?


Liz Kendall's Little Monsters?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Liz Kendall's Little Monsters?



Project Sneer


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

Woke up feeling angry today. Hilary fucking Benn! Right at the moment when both Leave and Remain Tories are in chaos, when a power vacuum is emerging and being filled by nasty bigots and racists - right at _that_ moment, the self-serving little shit decides to mount a coup.

Labour's vote held up in the locals last month; the polls prior to thursday for general election voting intention had Labour and Tory neck and neck; everyone knows that it is governments that lose elections no oppositions that win them. Then why the fuck can't we just have a united Labiur Party demand a gen election? We might have actually had that progressive exit rather than a shit one led by clowns and xenophobes.

Grrrr!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2016)

Because their just not interested - would rather play power games right now than work on the best ways to exploit the situation for those supposedly they represent.

It hasn't helped to change my view that I finally came to a while ago - fuck Labour. And bar an incredible miracle shifting the party substantially to the left, never again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Woke up feeling angry today. Hilary fucking Benn! Right at the moment when both Leave and Remain Tories are in chaos, when a power vacuum is emerging and being filled by nasty bigots and racists - right at _that_ moment, the self-serving little shit decides to mount a coup.
> 
> Labour's vote held up in the locals last month; the polls prior to thursday for general election voting intention had Labour and Tory neck and neck; everyone knows that it is governments that lose elections no oppositions that win them. Then why the fuck can't we just have a united Labiur Party demand a gen election? We might have actually had that progressive exit rather than a shit one led by clowns and xenophobes.
> 
> Grrrr!


Perhaps you should read a history of the Labour party


----------



## pocketscience (Jun 27, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Fuck off!
> 
> Ok, screw all this other bollocks, this just got serious! _This_ needs protesting!


Hodgxit, now!


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 27, 2016)

Are Benn and the rest acting on a whim or have they the backing of their constituent labour members?
Their behaviour is what to expect from spoilt school children.
It is obvious that Benn didn't get a few backhanders across his face from his dad for being a spoilt, self promoting, smug get.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 27, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Woke up feeling angry today. Hilary fucking Benn! Right at the moment when both Leave and Remain Tories are in chaos, when a power vacuum is emerging and being filled by nasty bigots and racists - right at _that_ moment, the self-serving little shit decides to mount a coup.
> 
> Labour's vote held up in the locals last month; the polls prior to thursday for general election voting intention had Labour and Tory neck and neck; everyone knows that it is governments that lose elections no oppositions that win them. Then why the fuck can't we just have a united Labiur Party demand a gen election? We might have actually had that progressive exit rather than a shit one led by clowns and xenophobes.
> 
> Grrrr!



You wanted leave and slagged off anyone who said nay and now the genie is out of the bottle. 

A win for the right = xenophobes and racists. Who'd have thunk it? Now you can only hope it all goes to shit enough for people to suddenly vote left. Priceless.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't know why these bastards just don't cross the floor and have done with it, Corby has a lot of faults but he's the the nearest to a socialist leader the LP has had in donkeys.



'These bastards' don't see any ideological need to cross the floor. In fact, they seem to truly believe the Labour party is _theirs_, and to be authentically outraged at what they see as a hijacking of it by the ordinary membership, whom they haven't really had to bother their well-covered arses with for a couple of decades.

Ironically that's another similarity with the party of the right - the born-to-rule sense among the higher-ups that they are there by right and that the rest of us should simply be grateful that they've deigned to preside over us.

I mean, even if we suppose Hillary Benn to be not just a scheming self-interested cunt and to actually hold a reasonably consistent set of political beliefs (whether we agree with them or not) and to be mainly concerned with trying to ensure that the Labour party has the ability to implement those beliefs - even then, what the fuck has he, a minor inconsequential part of several increasingly disliked governments, ever done to earn this sense of entitlement, this air that obviously all he has to do is step forward and beat his chest a bit and everyone will recover from this collective Jeremy delusion?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You wanted leave and slagged off anyone who said nay and now the genie is out of the bottle.
> 
> A win for the right = xenophobes and racists. Who'd have thunk it? Now you can only hope it all goes to shit enough for people to suddenly vote left. Priceless.



The genie was already out of the bottle, with EU neoliberalism (and what effects that has) being part of the fuelling of the far-right and then populist right. And why we've seen once strong Labour heartlands of working class people, screwed over by our own politics and economics but also the EU. The disgraceful use of xenophobia in the referendum has bought that to the fore here too, but remain or leave, this stuff was already there and there has been cracks and divides forming over many years. You liberals still don't get it, do you.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> 'These bastards' don't see any ideological need to cross the floor. In fact, they seem to truly believe the Labour party is _theirs_, and to be authentically outraged at what they see as a hijacking of it by the ordinary membership, whom they haven't really had to bother their well-covered arses with for a couple of decades.
> 
> Ironically that's another similarity with the party of the right - the born-to-rule sense among the higher-ups that they are there by right and that the rest of us should simply be grateful that they've deigned to preside over us.
> 
> I mean, even if we suppose Hillary Benn to be not just a scheming self-interested cunt and to actually hold a reasonably consistent set of political beliefs (whether we agree with them or not) and to be mainly concerned with trying to ensure that the Labour party has the ability to implement those beliefs - even then, what the fuck has he, a minor inconsequential part of several increasingly disliked governments, ever done to earn this sense of entitlement, this air that obviously all he has to do is step forward and beat his chest a bit and everyone will recover from this collective Jeremy delusion?


Dont you know who my dad is?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> The genie was already out of the bottle, with EU neoliberalism (and what effects that has) being part of the fuelling of the far-right and then populist right.
> And why we've seen once strong Labour heartlands of working class people, screwed over by our own politics and economics but also the EU. The disgraceful use of xenophobia in the referendum has bought that to the fore here too, but remain or leave, this stuff was already there and there has been cracks and divides forming over many years. You liberals still don't get it, do you.


And they'll shortly be in power in government and are getting more bold on the street, the genie is out of the bottle now alright, and has been given legitimacy by the leave vote.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You wanted leave and slagged off anyone who said nay and now the genie is out of the bottle.
> 
> A win for the right = xenophobes and racists. Who'd have thunk it? Now you can only hope it all goes to shit enough for people to suddenly vote left. Priceless.



Its the New Labour philosophy and the continued destruction of the trade unions that has led us here. Free movement wouldn't be a problem if migrant workers had equal rights and all workplaces were properly represented by organisd Labour. 

The EU is the institutionalization of that philosophy, and that the rise of UKIP is precisely because of it. The EU had to go because it offers no protection against attacks on us from the the right. Quite the opposite, it fosters those forces and when it feels it is powerful enough relative to some opposing force it crushes them.

This is out chance. I apologize not one jot for voting Leave. We will win despite the blairites.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 27, 2016)

Corbyn took 11 days to appoint a Shadow Cabinet which included conciliatory MPs who hated his guts. He got sledged hard out for being chaotic and disorganised.

It took him less than 24 hours to appoint 10 replacements for the ones who resigned yesterday. The problem wasn't Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn unveils new top team after resignations - BBC News


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> The genie was already out of the bottle, with EU neoliberalism (and what effects that has) being part of the fuelling of the far-right and then populist right. And why we've seen once strong Labour heartlands of working class people, screwed over by our own politics and economics but also the EU. The disgraceful use of xenophobia in the referendum has bought that to the fore here too, but remain or leave, this stuff was already there and there has been cracks and divides forming over many years. You liberals still don't get it, do you.


What people "Dont get" is how giving support and empowerment to a vote that was based on xenophobia and racism helps any, to an exit that the Tories are best positioned to sculpt in their form will help any, to an exit that has the potential to further empoverish the poor and deepen neoliberalism will help any. I totally understand why people dont get that.

Personally I can see the subtleties of the lexit argument and the need to kick the beehive in the hope it splits into something better, but dont be surprised that people dont think thats a wise idea. Especially people already getting stung by the consequences.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> And they'll shortly be in power in government and are getting more bold on the street, the genie is out of the bottle now alright, and has been given legitimacy by the leave vote.



Boldness means fuck all because the far right are still outnumbered. 17 million voted leave; most have said immigration was not their main concern; only 3.8 million voted UKIP; half of them just did it as protest and could be brought back into the Labour fold. So there are maybe 14-15 million non-racist Leave voters out thers. And we're still being ignored. The fight will go on though.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Dont you know who my dad is?



If it wasn't for the likeness it would be literally unbelievable.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> ... a vote that was based on xenophobia and racism



The _campaign_ was based on xenophobia and racism but the vote itself wasn't.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Corbyn took 11 days to appoint a Shadow Cabinet which included conciliatory MPs who hated his guts. He got sledged hard out for being chaotic and disorganised.
> 
> It took him less than 24 hours to appoint 10 replacements for the ones who resigned yesterday. The problem wasn't Corbyn.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn unveils new top team after resignations - BBC News



I hope the speed of this is a sign of a new decisiveness. He's tried the 'big tent' approach and it failed. Maybe he had to start off that way or the old guard would have caused even more chaos than they have from within. But at this stage Corbyn has to accept that the only option is to have them outside pissing in, and invest in a waterproof groundsheet and some strong disinfectant.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> What people "Dont get" is how giving support and empowerment to a vote that was based on xenophobia and racism helps any, to an exit that the Tories are best positioned to sculpt in their form will help any, to an exit that has the potential to further empoverish the poor and deepen neoliberalism will help any. I totally understand why people dont get that.
> 
> Personally I can see the subtleties of the lexit argument and the need to kick the beehive in the hope it splits into something better, but dont be surprised that people dont think thats a wise idea. Especially people already getting stung by the consequences.


I can see the theoretical strategic merits of lexit, but the inescapable reality of the campaign/vote is that large sections of the class have been persuaded that their immiserisation derives from the super-state & all its works, and not neoliberalism itself. Further, they have been persuaded that the solution to these ills is rejection of the super-state and immigration.
The old Kent Miners banner said "_Organise, agitate & educate"; _the right have done a good job of the first two, and the latter has been ignored or, worse still, set back decades.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I hope the speed of this is a sign of a new decisiveness. He's tried the 'big tent' approach and it failed. Maybe he had to start off that way or the old guard would have caused even more chaos than they have from within. But at this stage Corbyn has to accept that the only option is to have them outside pissing in, and invest in a waterproof groundsheet and some strong disinfectant.



Reckon the Junior and Secretarial jobs will be a pain in the arse to fill though.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

P





billy_bob said:


> If it wasn't for the likeness it would be literally unbelievable.


Particularly a dagger in tony bs dead body considering the opportunity for a left labour exit. A lesson to people who choose to have children in the hope that they'll carry on your work and legacy


----------



## Libertad (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Personally I can see the subtleties of the lexit argument and the need to kick the beehive in the hope it splits into something better, but dont be surprised that people dont think thats a wise idea. Especially people already getting stung by it.



Good analogy well articulated.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 27, 2016)

So, the unelected Lords are boycotting Corbyn, the Labour leader exercising his mandate. That'll definitely make the membership more amenable.

The dizzy twats


----------



## existentialist (Jun 27, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Christ. Can't currently imagine he survives, but then how long do we have to endure Labour navel gazing after that? Burn the whole thing down and try again.
> 
> Although great comedy possibility: resigns, runs again, wins again.


All he has to do is to position himself ever-so-slightly as "not establishment" (something which comes naturally to JC), and he'd be a shoe-in again. The trouble is that I'm beginning to wonder if he's got anything going for him, politically, other than "not establishment". We need a maverick, but one with some kind of set of principles, and the guts to get out there and lay them out.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The _campaign_ was based on xenophobia and racism but the vote itself wasn't.



I have a lot of respect for the principled left-wing 'leave' perspective, but I think it's futile to deny that a large part of it _was_. 

It's no good just saying 'x percent said immigration wasn't their main concern' - of course many people are telling the truth when they say that, but equally clearly a lot aren't. In the polling station where I was working last Thursday a constant stream of people made it unwelcomely clear that that was exactly what their main concern was. Self-reported data on views on immigration and 'race' these days is highly unreliable. We can't know what proportion of that x percent were 'I'm not a racist but...' leave voters, but I think it would be naive to imagine it wasn't a significant number.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Good analogy well articulated.


Cheers libertad.... And btw I hope there are no recriminations  amongst friends and people with same political goals... Events will move fast and its going to be a massive task to try and have any positive influence on that.

At the moment there is a chasm opened up between people who voted one way or other and that does need closing up asap ... Sneering at one another really doesn't help.

 Though it is very entertaining to see that split play out amongst the political parties.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 27, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Cheers libertad.... And btw I hope there are no recriminations  amongst friends and people with same political goals... Events will move fast and its going to be a massive task to try and have any positive influence on that.
> 
> At the moment there is a chasm opened up between people who voted one way or other and that does need closing up asap ... Sneering at one another really doesn't help.
> 
> Though it is very entertaining to see that split play out amongst the political parties.



Indeed, we live in interesting times.


----------



## inva (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I have a lot of respect for the principled left-wing 'leave' perspective, but I think it's futile to deny that a large part of it _was_.
> 
> It's no good just saying 'x percent said immigration wasn't their main concern' - of course many people are telling the truth when they say that, but equally clearly a lot aren't. In the polling station where I was working last Thursday a constant stream of people made it unwelcomely clear that that was exactly what their main concern was. Self-reported data on views on immigration and 'race' these days is highly unreliable. We can't know what proportion of that x percent were 'I'm not a racist but...' leave voters, but I think it would be naive to imagine it wasn't a significant number.


does being concerned by immigration make you a racist/xenophobic?
there seems to be an unhelpful conflation of those positions.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 27, 2016)

First aims should be to renationalise the railways and energy companies. See if that stirs things up. That would get a few back on side.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

op





Sprocket. said:


> First aims should be to renationalise the railways and energy companies. See if that stirs things up. That would get a few back on side.


It's an open door to a good communicator who can inspire...


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> What's the process for deselecting an MP? I read an article from back in April talking about the upcoming coup attempt. So far, it's been on the money, predicting they will aim to oust him by/in July. One of the major threats the plotters faced if they tried was said to be deselection.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it work?


I've got a copy of the rulebook, and the relevant section is this:
Clause IV.
Selection of Westminster
parliamentary candidates
1. The NEC shall issue procedural rules and guidelines
and the timetable for the selection of candidates for
Westminster Parliament elections. CLPs shall be
responsible for implementing these guidelines in line
with the rules detailed in Clause I.1 above and
following. CLPs must agree their procedures and
timetable with the appropriate RD(GS) or other
designated officer approved by the NEC.
2. All nominees must fulfil the criteria to stand as a
parliamentary candidate detailed in Clause I.1.B
above. In addition, no person who has been
disqualified as a local government candidate under
the rules of the Party or by the decision of Party
conference shall be eligible for nomination or
selection as a parliamentary candidate. Members of
the European Parliament, Members of the Scottish
parliament and Members of the National Assembly
for Wales may seek nomination as Labour candidates
for the Westminster Parliament but only with the
express permission of the NEC whose decision shall
be final.
3. All nominees shall undertake, if elected, to accept
and comply with the standing orders of the PLP.
4. The NEC may establish a national parliamentary
panel of candidates in the selection procedure
appended to these rules. Nominees do not have to
be members of any national parliamentary panel to
seek selection. Where a national panel is established
by the NEC then candidates recommended by
nationally affiliated organisations through their own
procedures shall automatically be included on the
national panel subject to agreement between the
NEC and the affiliate that their procedures set
similar criteria for accreditation.
5. If a CLP is represented in Parliament by a member of
the PLP:
A. If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election,
a trigger ballot will be carried out through Party
units and affiliates according to NEC guidelines.
If the MP wins the trigger ballot he/ she will,
subject to NEC endorsement, be selected as the
CLP’s prospective parliamentary candidate.
B. If the MP fails to win the trigger ballot, he/ she
shall be eligible for nomination for selection as
the prospective parliamentary candidate, and
s/he shall be included in the shortlist of
candidates from whom the selection shall be
made.
C. If the said MP is not selected as the prospective
parliamentary candidate s/he shall have the right
of appeal to the NEC. The appeal can only be
made on the grounds that the procedures laid
down in the rules and the general provisions of
the constitution, rules and standing orders have
not been properly carried out. The appeal must
be received by the NEC by the date on which
they consider endorsement of the parliamentary
candidate for the constituency.
D. When there is a formal announcement of a royal
proclamation to dissolve Parliament before the
trigger ballot or the constituency selection
meeting(s) have been held, the provisions of this
clause (other than this paragraph) shall be
suspended and the said MP shall be reselected
as the prospective parliamentary candidate,
subject to NEC endorsement.
E. If the MP has intimated her or his intention to
retire, the provisions of this clause shall not
apply.
6. In all circumstances (i.e. where there is no MP, where
the MP has announced s/he is retiring or where the
MP is putting themselves forward for re-selection
but has failed to win the trigger ballot) the CLP
Shortlisting Committee shall draw up a shortlist of
interested candidates to present to all members of
the CLP who are eligible to vote in accordance with
Clause I.1.A above.
7. The selection of candidates shall consist of a vote,
by eliminating ballot, of all eligible individual
members of the constituency on the basis of one
member one vote.
8. NEC Endorsement
A. The selection of a parliamentary candidate shall
not be regarded as completed until the name of
the member selected has been placed before a
meeting of the NEC and her or his selection has
been endorsed. Until such endorsement has been
received the member shall not be introduced to
the public as a prospective candidate. Where
successful candidates are not members of the
national recommended panel or if in the case of a
sitting MP a referral from the Whips office is
received, there should, however, be an
endorsement interview in each case before a
recommendation is made to the NEC.
B. If the NEC is satisfied that there is prima facie
evidence of a breach of rules by an individual,
the NEC shall have the right after such
investigations and interviews with the individual
as the NEC shall consider reasonably practicable
and appropriate to decline to endorse or, where
already endorsed, rescind endorsement of such
individual as a prospective parliamentary
candidate.
9. A CLP, having completed the selection of its
prospective parliamentary candidate according to
these rules, shall accept responsibility for the
election expenses of the candidate so selected.
Acceptance of such financial responsibility shall
become binding on the CLP concerned upon NEC
endorsement of the candidature.
10. The normal procedure may be dispensed with by the
NEC where no valid nominations are received, or
when an emergency arises, or when the NEC are of
the opinion that the interests of the Party would be
best served by the suspension of the procedures
issued by the NEC.
11.Disputes arising out of the selection procedure shall
be considered by an officer appointed by the NEC
who shall report to them. The NEC’s decision on that
report shall be final and binding on all parties for all
purposes.
12. Any exceptions to rules 1-11 above can only be
made with the approval of the NEC or an officer
exercising the powers given to them by the NEC.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

inva said:


> does being concerned by immigration make you a racist/xenophobic?



I can't see why else anyone would oppose immigration.  There's no economic rationale for such opposition.  It can only be xenophobia, conscious or otherwise.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

inva said:


> does being concerned by immigration make you a racist/xenophobic?
> there seems to be an unhelpful conflation of those positions.



No, it doesn't per se*, and I didn't mean to suggest it did.

The category 'is concerned about immigration' self-evidently contains both racist and non-racist concern. Yes, to insist that it's all racist would be condescending and simplistic - so yes, certainly unhelpful. But it would be naive or disingenous to deny that a lot of it is. And my point was that, even beyond that who-knows-what-percentage there is a certain amount of anti-EU sentiment that is anti-immigration in a xenophobic way even if it explicitly claims that that isn't it's main concern, because of the pervasive feeling people have, for a variety of reasons, that 'you can't say that'.

I'm not attempting to slur anyone here - just going on extensive experience of having dealt (professionally) with racism and racist views and the way they are manifested in political positions on other issues, including immigration.

*to add in light of phildwyer's post: I think it's about motivations - economic concerns, job and housing insecurities etc. are all real things and can motivate people to believe that immigration is a concern. Even where it can be proved that immigration hasn't negatively affected those things for them - i.e. where their motivation has no basis in fact - it doesn't automatically follow that those people are simply being racist. There's an argument for saying that unless there was some inherent/dormant distrust of the Other there they couldn't be motivated to believe that immigration was the cause of their problems when it isn't - but then you could also argue that that distrust is inherent in all of society, not just these theoretical invididuals...


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Britain needs immigration.  Immigrants will generally be of working age, and they will create the wealth that will pay for the pensions and health-care of an aging population.  So there will be immigration.  The question is: from where?

I suspect that many people supported Brexit because they'd rather see immigrants come from former British colonies than from mainland Europe.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 27, 2016)

Just hearing Tom Watson's sticking the boot in now. Seriously fuck Labour, if they turf him out then they're finished. Who is there who isn't a blairite to replace him?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

Balbi said:


> View attachment 88906
> 
> So, the unelected Lords are boycotting Corbyn, the Labour leader exercising his mandate. That'll definitely make the membership more amenable.
> 
> The dizzy twats



Absoslutely nobody in Labour has twigged that Corbyn is there because the public wants a left-wing labour party have they? The way they're all queueing up to sabotage his leadership just proves that they have no interest in democracy, only in furthering their own project to do...nothing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just hearing Tom Watson's sticking the boot in now. Seriously fuck Labour, if they turf him out then they're finished. Who is there who isn't a blairite to replace him?



McDonnell. I bet he'd not be shy about kicking the traitors out.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

There isn't a chance of a left-winger getting on the ballot if Corbyn is ousted though is there? Not after last time...


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> D. When there is a formal announcement of a royal
> proclamation to dissolve Parliament before the
> trigger ballot or the constituency selection
> meeting(s) have been held, the provisions of this
> ...



Incidentally, I think one of the reasons for the timing is this: If there's a snap election in the next 6 months, there won't be an opportunity for revenge deselections.


----------



## inva (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> No, it doesn't per se*, and I didn't mean to suggest it did.
> 
> The category 'is concerned about immigration' self-evidently contains both racist and non-racist concern. Yes, to insist that it's all racist would be condescending and simplistic - so yes, certainly unhelpful. But it would be naive and disingenous to deny that a lot of it is. And my point was that, even beyond that who-knows-what-percentage there is a certain amount of anti-EU sentiment that is anti-immigration in a xenophobic way even if it explicitly claims that that isn't it's main concern, because of the pervasive feeling people have, for a variety of reasons, that 'you can't say that'.
> 
> ...


thanks for your reply. I realise this isn't the thread for this topic really so I hope you won't mind if I try to keep this fairly brief and maybe if we continue it could be on that thread about immigration started recently?

I think we're mostly on the same page, but when you say it would be naive to deny that 'a lot' of it is, the question is - how much is that? Most? When ItWillNeverWork said that the campaign was based on racism but the vote wasn't I think that is a fair characterisation on the whole. That is not to minimise in any way that there's a lot of people out there who are frightened, under attack and feeling suddenly more unwelcome, nor that racists feel they have been given 'license' by the result. I don't have any doubt that anti-immigration feeling was a key part of the leave result, every leave voter I've spoken to in person named it as an important reason for their vote.

I'd add though that it's reasonable to be concerned about immigration when your living standards are being driven down, there's a feeling of intensified competition for housing and services and so on. Of course immigrants themselves should not be blamed for that - clearly immigration policy is for the benefit of capital rather than either immigrants or the wider working class (not to mention the other reasons for those problems), but the 'concern' itself is understandable in my view and for millions of those leave voters there's something there we (that is, people of pro-working class politics) surely can work with.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 27, 2016)

So the public just kick them all in the bollocks for being self serving, out of touch pricks and what do Labour do? React by being self serving, out of touch pricks. Bra-fucking-vo


----------



## tommers (Jun 27, 2016)

"Well, we've clearly lost touch with the public and we are going to learn from our mistakes and re-engage with those communities"

"It doesn't matter what the members think, we know best"


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

inva said:


> I'd add though that it's reasonable to be concerned about immigration when your living standards are being driven down, there's a feeling of intensified competition for housing and services and so on.



Understandable, but not necessarily reasonable. Of course, when you're angry/scared you're more suggestible, and there are plenty in politics and the media for whom it's very helpful to have immigration blamed for these things. Whether that's because they're racist themselves or because they benefit from the economic status quo and aren't personally affected by the racist side-effects doesn't make much difference in practice, really. We could optimistically hope that the referendum fallout leads to more people realising either that (i) 'sovereignty' doesn't help us 'control' immigration or (ii) it does, but reducing immigration still doesn't make their lives any better, and therefore opening up the possibility of a more progressive, less insular consensus in future. Not holding my breath.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

inva said:


> I'd add though that it's reasonable to be concerned about immigration when your living standards are being driven down, there's a feeling of intensified competition for housing and services and so on.



It might be understandable, but it's not reasonable.  Immigration always benefits the host society.

But even if it didn't: (a) the idea of a government being able to control the travels of an individual is inherently repugnant.  And (b) there's no  reason to advocate benefits for British workers at the expense of foreign workers, other than xenophobia.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 27, 2016)

> Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has told Jeremy Corbyn he has "no authority" among Labour MPs and warned him he faces a leadership challenge.


Just the members and trade unions, then.

(You assume, would be interesting to see what the members do currently think...)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 27, 2016)

Look Labour, look at the Tories. This is what you should be trying to top.

You fucks. Corbyn may not be the best leader and have his major faults but the country is staring at the biggest fuck up and shake up in decades and your busy backstabbing each other. Get a grip.



> *David Cameron* is currently holding a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street. Work and Pensions Secretary *Stephen Crabb*, an outside bet to replace the PM in Number 10, spoke to reporters before the meeting.
> 
> We need stability, we need direction and what I want to see over the next few days is a candidate emerge who understands the enormity of the situation that we’re in and who has got a clear plan, a clear plan to deliver on the expectations of the 17 million people who voted for Britain to come out of Europe last week, who’s got a clear plan for putting together a team who can lead a tough negotiation in Brussels, but who’s also got a plan for holding this United Kingdom together. That means yes, going and working with Nicola Sturgeon and holding onto the union. This isn’t just about party unity now, it’s about national unity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

Rumours that Lisa Nandy is planned to contest the leadership.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Rumours that Lisa Nandy is planned to contest the leadership.


Who she?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Rumours that Lisa Nandy is planned to contest the leadership.


I know she's not the real candidate, but these people talk about re-connecting with the labour heartlands and put forward the daughter of a westminister and oxbridge lord as the way to do this.


----------



## inva (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Understandable, but not necessarily reasonable. Of course, when you're angry/scared you're more suggestible, and there are plenty in politics and the media for whom it's very helpful to have immigration blamed for these things. Whether that's because they're racist themselves or because they benefit from the economic status quo and aren't personally affected by the racist side-effects doesn't make much difference in practice, really. We could optimistically hope that the referendum fallout leads to more people realising either that (i) 'sovereignty' doesn't help us 'control' immigration or (ii) it does, but reducing immigration still doesn't make their lives any better, and therefore opening up the possibility of a more progressive, less insular consensus in future. Not holding my breath.


a couple of points on that:
clearly politicians/the media etc have good reason to want to target immigrants and see them blamed but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything else going on beneath that - that there isn't a reasoned concern about it among people (I think on another thread butchersapron posted something suggesting a negative impact of immigration on wages at the low end of the scale - apologies in advance if I've misrepresented or misrememberd that). The left's inability to effectively respond to the whole subject has ensured that it is the right that gets to do the framing of it, but even so I think there's other things involved.

also, just generally, this has been coming for a long time and a remain vote would not have kept a lid on it. there's a real danger of pushing more people towards the far right, towards racist explanations - it had to be confronted before the vote to leave and it has to be confronted now.


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You wanted leave and slagged off anyone who said nay and now the genie is out of the bottle.
> 
> A win for the right = xenophobes and racists. Who'd have thunk it? Now you can only hope it all goes to shit enough for people to suddenly vote left. Priceless.


This coup was brewing before Corbyn even took his position as leader, and it's with 100% certainty they would've made their move had we remained or left. It's understandably galling to some people that they're doing it to inflict maximum damage on the Labour Party at such a crucial time for our future, but no-one else is responsible but the conspirators.

I have no regrets for voting leave and persuading others to do the same. You can only ignore people's suffering for so long before it punches you in the stomach.



phildwyer said:


> I can't see why else anyone would oppose immigration.  There's no economic rationale for such opposition.  It can only be xenophobia, conscious or otherwise.


 
That's because you're a fucking idiot phil. That's because you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> That's because you're a fucking idiot phil. That's because you're a fucking idiot.



On the contrary: it is you who are the idiot.  And a racist idiot to boot.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I know she's not the real candidate, but these people talk about re-connecting with the labour heartlands and put forward the daughter of a westminister and oxbridge lord as the way to do this.


Any thoughts on who the real candidate will be? The Blairites must know that anyone openly connected with the plotting this weekend won't be in with a chance - Burnham again?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Any thoughts on who the real candidate will be? The Blairites must know that anyone openly connected with the plotting this weekend won't be in with a chance - Burnham again?


I can't see anyone else other than the 2nd and 3rd candidates last time. There is no one else with any sort of national profile who isn't hated by broad sections of the party. A damning situation in itself.


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Any thoughts on who the real candidate will be? The Blairites must know that anyone openly connected with the plotting this weekend won't be in with a chance - Burnham again?


Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.

If there's a way they can get David Miliband in they will.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup



Twat.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.



I don't think it works like that. It's probably a smarter move than some others are making - certainly than the nobodies who think resigning from jobs most people never knew they had will somehow secure their futures. He can be magnanimous and regretful about the coup, then reluctantly agree to seek to replace Corbyn as the candidate who just wants to recapture party unity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.
> 
> If there's a way they can get David Miliband in they will.


You can support someone at a particular point then, when they're gone/in trouble, attempt take on their support and say you want to bring them and the opposition together on a new footing. Burnham may have learnt the lesson about the membership from the last leadership election that the opposition seem to be ignoring.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

However much this all exposes the Blairites as unprincipled, treacherous and lacking in any kind of nous about the situation UK politics is currently in, it leaves Corbyn and Labour utterly fucked. He might well - would - win a leadership election if he can get on the ballot, but that's become irrelevant. The Parliamentary party is ungovernable and Labour are now just about ticking every conceivable box of 'things you don't do to win an election'. An election that may well be in the next 12 months. I've banged on before about things Project Corbyn should have been doing about engaging with working class communities, thinking about things beyond Westminster, but even that's no longer an option.  Everybody in the Labour Party is now going to be focused on a bald men and combs internal election.  If you want to do electoral politics, this is not how you do it.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.


not at all - quite the opposite. He's showing his loyalty to the membership - anyone openly plotting against Corbyn has no chance. 


> If there's a way they can get David Miliband in they will.


there isn't.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I don't think it works like that. It's probably a smarter move than some others are making - certainly than the nobodies who think resigning from jobs most people never knew they had will somehow secure their futures. He can be magnanimous and regretful about the coup, then reluctantly agree to seek to replace Corbyn as the candidate who just wants to recapture party unity.


I wonder if this is actually 'the plan' - and he's in on the plot?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> However much this all exposes the Blairites as unprincipled, treacherous and lacking in any kind of nous about the situation UK politics is currently in, it leaves Corbyn and Labour utterly fucked. He might well - would - win a leadership election if he can get on the ballot, but that's become irrelevant. The Parliamentary party is ungovernable and Labour are now just about ticking every conceivable box of 'things you don't do to win an election'. An election that may well be in the next 12 months. I've banged on before about things Project Corbyn should have been doing about engaging with working class communities, thinking about things beyond Westminster, but even that's no longer an option.  Everybody in the Labour Party is now going to be focused on a bald men and combs internal election.  If you want to do electoral politics, this is not how you do it.



A split in the Labor Party would be very interesting right about now though.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


>


Bless. Keep trying though. I like pictures .
Has corbyn fucked off yet?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jun 27, 2016)

Stella Creasy perhaps? 

I'm no fan of Labour but this whole farce is depressing as fuck.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.
> 
> If there's a way they can get David Miliband in they will.


Or, conceivably, positioned himself to benefit from it (if Corbyn ultimately throws in the towel, which is I think a distinct possibility)?  Genuinely hard to predict how this will play out.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 27, 2016)

The government is paralysed, the governing party divided, the currency and stock market collapsing - but the main news story on the BBC is Tom Watson telling Corbyn he has no authority.

ETA: Did I forget to mention that what may have been the most important political decision for a generation was made at the end of last week, and nobody  has the foggiest clue how it will play out.


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

I can see where you're all coming from, but I don't think he would've worded it like this if he planned to actually stand against him.



> I have never taken part in a coup against any Leader of the Labour Party and I am not going to start now. 2/3
> 
> It is for our members to decide who leads our Party & 10 months ago they gave Jeremy Corbyn a resounding mandate. I respect that & them. 3/3


 
Or maybe I'm not cynical enough. We'll see shortly.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> A split in the Labor Party would be very interesting right about now though.


Yes, you'd have both sides of the split saying they want to 'reconnect' with 'ordinary people'/'Labour heartlands' - in very different ways.


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Or, conceivably, positioned himself to benefit from it (*if Corbyn ultimately throws in the towel, which is I think a distinct possibility*)?  Genuinely hard to predict how this will play out.


I think that's vanishingly unlikely.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wonder if this is actually 'the plan' - and he's in on the plot?



My cynical reaction when he saw the tweet. Though it also doesn't take a Machiavelli to see what is happening and make your own moves to take advantage.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wonder if this is actually 'the plan' - and he's in on the plot?



That's certainly what I was insinuating


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, you'd have both sides of the split saying they want to 'reconnect' with 'ordinary people'/'Labour heartlands' - in very different ways.



Which side would come out on top?

I can't see that the Blairites have any appeal other than representing the Labor Party.  If they leave or are expelled, who'd vote for them then?  Maybe this is the perfect opportunity to ditch the buggers once and for all.  Let them suffer the fate of the SDP.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> I think that's vanishingly unlikely.



That's because you're a twat though.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

One thing's for sure...I bet Corbyn feels a bit of a chump for calling the damned referendum in the first place.


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's because you're a twat though.


You're proper fucking shit at this winding people up thing phil.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> ...Or maybe I'm not cynical enough. We'll see shortly.



i would assume that Burnhams hope is that the opaque rules are used ensure Corbyn can't stand, and that he can _reluctantly_ stand as both the 'respector of the membership' and 'not Jeremy Corbyn' candidate.

i don't think any of them actually fancy standing against Corbyn in a contest where the membership decide, the idea is to ensure that the contest is held in a way that means he's not on the ballot paper - which, to be strictly fair, certainly would fall within _one_ of the available interpretations of the rules - you don't get 35 MP's nominating you, you don't go on the ballot paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

I bet watson thinks he's going to be the pinochet here - promoted by Corbyn/Allende - murders him and takes over. We warned you all about him years ago (not people here really, just people generally who bought his shit  around the time of the first paedo scandals).


----------



## The Boy (Jun 27, 2016)

Nandy and Smith statement:

We believe tom Watson should take over as caretaker


----------



## mauvais (Jun 27, 2016)

Have we had that Bryant is suggesting Corbyn personally voted Leave yet?

Brexit live: George Osborne tries to calm markets as Labour coup continues



> *Chris Bryant*, who resigned yesterday as shadow leader of the Commons, has told the BBC that he thinks Jeremy Corbyn may have voted to leave the EU. Corbyn refused to tell him how he voted, he said.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

The Boy said:


> Nandy and Smith statement:
> 
> We believe tom Watson should take over as caretaker


Truly delusional. When Nandy rocked up on my doorstep in 2005 as my local Labour PPC, I told her straight that I was a socialist and she wasn't getting my vote. She left rather sharpish.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Have we had that Bryant is suggesting Corbyn personally voted Leave yet?
> 
> Brexit live: George Osborne tries to calm markets as Labour coup continues



I think that this is the most obvious lie of the whole thing, I don't think that this conversation ever happened.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

With Owen and Lisa going(gutted) I really think Corbyn may now be on his way out, they are not Blairites, especially Owen who has attacked welfare cuts robusttly, etc.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> With Owen and Lisa going(gutted) I really think Corbyn may now be on his way out, they are not Blairites, especially Owen who has attacked welfare cuts robusttly, etc.



I think it's as simple as this. If Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, if he isn't on the ballot then it will be the end of the Labour Party.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

> BBC deputy political editor John Pienaar says there's "absolutely no indication" that Jeremy Corbyn will stand down as Labour leader, in light of the mass walkouts from his top team.
> 
> He says the signs he's picking up from the leader's associates is that they are "digging in for a brutal war".
> 
> "But they will fight that battle to the death, they believe... they can win and that the ultimate price is going to paid not by them but by their colleagues who have risen against them in this mass insurrection."


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Have we had that Bryant is suggesting Corbyn personally voted Leave yet?



Saying 'I don't want to talk to that little creep' isn't the same as refusing to tell you how he voted, Chris.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think it's as simple as this. If Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, if he isn't on the ballot then it will be the end of the Labour Party.



It may be the end of the Labour Party either way, but given that the Labour Party is pointless unless the pre-Corbyn faction, whatever they want to call themselves, fuck off out of it, there's really nothing to be lost now by Corbyn and his remaining allies standing firm and inviting them to bring it on.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 27, 2016)

Seeing as retro is the new contemporary, how long until someone in the LP has the idea of a new improved party. ..How long until a newly refurbished  SDP pops up ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Seeing as retro is the new contemporary, how long until someone in the LP has the idea of a new improved party. ..How long until a newly refurbished  SDP pops up ?


Or a 'new party'


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

Wouldn't want to be Corbyn's postie...must have put his back out by now?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Seeing as retro is the new contemporary, how long until someone in the LP has the idea of a new improved party. ..How long until a newly refurbished  SDP pops up ?


There's far-fetched talk of some kind of 'party within a party' that I saw yesterday, but I can't see an actual split happening.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

Well the ball is firmly in the members court, effectively it's lock-out by the PLP, do enough members have the anger, determination to take them on. My guess is that most will end up backing some supposed Corbyn-lite alternative put up by the soft left (if not Burnham then someone like him)


----------



## two sheds (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think it's as simple as this. If Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, if he isn't on the ballot then it will be the end of the Labour Party.



I hope you're right on the first, certainly true for me and I'd imagine many others on the second.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 27, 2016)

The Boy said:


> Nandy and Smith statement:
> 
> We believe tom Watson should take over as caretaker


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Balbi said:


> View attachment 88906
> 
> So, the unelected Lords are boycotting Corbyn, the Labour leader exercising his mandate. That'll definitely make the membership more amenable.
> 
> The dizzy twats



Bassam, the former squatter.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Look Labour, look at the Tories. This is what you should be trying to top.
> 
> You fucks. Corbyn may not be the best leader and have his major faults but the country is staring at the biggest fuck up and shake up in decades and your busy backstabbing each other. Get a grip.



I can smell a national govt developing, when Corbyn goes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

we talked a bit, pre corbyn of the fate of PASOK and how the Labour party might go the same way. Well, perhaps that fate was merely delayed by corbyn, the last gasp of the labour left as it were.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Or, conceivably, positioned himself to benefit from it (if Corbyn ultimately throws in the towel, which is I think a distinct possibility)?  Genuinely hard to predict how this will play out.



He's not going to throw in the towel. He should though. Had he a shred of self knowledge he would have grasped that he is not the messiah. 

His job was to find the person with the skills and values to take the project of putting a socialist heart back into a practical Labour Party. 

Instead, for his vanity, he lost an important referendum most Labour members and supporters wanted to win with an alienated w class voting w nationalists. Tragic.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 27, 2016)

The value of the pound has fallen to a 31 year low and still the BBC leads on 'Reaction to Corbyn Crisis... and Brexit'.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 27, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The value of the pound has fallen to a 31 year low and still the BBC leads on 'Reaction to Corbyn Crisis... and Brexit'.



I'm watching the news now and Corbyn was the third item after the fall of the pound, markets in general and Brexit.

Edit: Fair cop that exact headline is on the website.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Had he a shred of self knowledge he would have grasped that he is not the messiah.



Indeed, thank goodness there's sensible people like you around who can look at the situation without hyperbole eh?



> His job was to find the person with the skills and values to take the project of putting a socialist heart back into a practical Labour Party.



Was it? Can you point to the memo where this was spelled out? Did you think there was an actual messiah MP waiting in the wings for their moment? Who do you think this legendary figure is that Corbyn has cruelly left to rot?



> Instead, for his vanity, he lost an important referendum most Labour members and supporters wanted to win with an alienated w class voting w nationalists. Tragic.



What, on his own? 63% of Labour supporters voted Remain, 75% in his own constituency - do you think he was supposed to be reaching out to Tories?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 27, 2016)

Ole said:


> Burnham has surely ruled himself out with his statement of support for Corbyn and condemnation of the coup.
> 
> If there's a way they can get David Miliband in they will.


I dunno, that Burnham thing could be a good bit of manoeuvring. If there is a recognition in the LP that Corbyn is still a very popular choice, then offering an alternative that was Corbynesque without actually _being_ Corbyn could be an astute move. Particularly if hints were dropped that Corbyn would have a significant role in such a front bench.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

I doubt there'll be space for Corbyn on any post Corbyn front bench. McDonnell perhaps.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The value of the pound has fallen to a 31 year low and still the BBC leads on 'Reaction to Corbyn Crisis... and Brexit'.


Peter Hitchens wrote a fairly decent article about this yesterday. I won't link to it, but he says:

"Similarly, after the greatest political convulsion of my adult life, the people in the media who decide what is important about politics have once again returned to the subject which has, I do not understate, obsessed them: the battle between Jeremy Corbyn and the Shadow Cabinet. Dreary steeples indeed.

When I was invited on to the BBC TV news channel on Friday afternoon, it quickly became clear that this, the Corbyn matter, was what they really wanted to talk about. I boggled. Here we were, facing a huge constitutional, diplomatic and political crisis. The markets, though not in the free-fall alleged by the panic-mongers of the Bad Losers Alliance (see above), were certainly pretty volatile.

The Prime Minister had resigned that morning. His Party was exposed as utterly divided, cloven from the nave to the chaps by discord. It was and is seriously proposing to leave the country to drift till October before picking a new leader ( see below for an analysis of why this is so disgraceful) .

A majority of the electorate, in a high turnout had specifically endorse a policy rejected and indeed sneered at for decades by both major political parties, plus the BBC and most of the media, the civil service and the whole establishment. They had done so after a fair fight, in which the other side had flung millions of pounds and a great deal of frightening propaganda at them.

And in the midst of all this the BBC wanted to talk about Jeremy Corbyn, and the presenter was clearly perturbed and discombobulated when I sought to talk about the future of the country instead. She was also puzzled. Surely Mr Corbyn was the main topic? Not for me."


----------



## existentialist (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> It may be the end of the Labour Party either way, but given that the Labour Party is pointless unless the pre-Corbyn faction, whatever they want to call themselves, fuck off out of it, there's really nothing to be lost now by Corbyn and his remaining allies standing firm and inviting them to bring it on.


I like the mental image that conjures up.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

I thought better of Jess Phillips I must say.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Well the ball is firmly in the members court, effectively it's lock-out by the PLP, do enough members have the anger, determination to take them on. My guess is that most will end up backing some supposed Corbyn-lite alternative put up by the soft left (if not Burnham then someone like him)



It was always wishfull thinking that the current PLP could be dragged leftwards. If people want a left party they need to elect left MPs.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 27, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm watching the news now and Corbyn was the third item after the fall of the pound, markets in general and Brexit.



I should have clarrfied: my post was based on the website.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

Meanwhile, as we all drown under these column inches on Labour's problems, we've heard nothing from our serving prime minister since Friday morning's statement ("well, I'm off out, chaps - sorry about the mess over there, hope your domestic doesn't mind a bit putting a bit of welly into it!!") and he and the rest of the government seem content to leave us in a virtual vacuum for several days as to how one of the most momentous political decisions in living memory is actually going to play out; Boris and other senior figures are basically sitting outside No. 10 sharpening knives and playing Van Halen really loud; and what does the media have to say about it?

Well, apparently a celebrity chef is a bit peeved.

So, nothing to see there then


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> I thought better of Jess Phillips I must say.


why?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Meanwhile, as we all drown under these column inches on Labour's problems, we've heard nothing from our serving prime minister since Friday morning's statement ("well, I'm off out, chaps - sorry about the mess over there, hope your domestic doesn't mind a bit putting a bit of welly into it!!") and he and the rest of the government seem content to leave us in a virtual vacuum for several days as to how one of the most momentous political decisions in living memory is actually going to play out; Boris and other senior figures are basically sitting outside No. 10 sharpening knives and playing Van Halen really loud; and what does the media have to say about it?
> 
> Well, apparently a celebrity chef is a bit peeved.
> 
> So, nothing to see there then


Was just talking about this in the office. It really is quite remarkable that they've seemingly all gone into hiding and have no aspirations to showing some actual leadership. And, of course, rather than being out there shouting "where are the Tories?? Where have our leaders gone?" Labour is busy committing self-mutilation.

Slow. Hand. Clap.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

FWIW a friend has resigned from the Shadow Cabinet. Whatever you think of their actions that person is not a Blairite or a careerist.

That person had genuine doubts about JC’s abilities as a leader. That person has worked with him at close quarters and is probably in a better position than most to make that judgement.

You can be a fundamentally good and principled person and have a strong mandate from the membership (as is the case with JC) but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

Name them, so we can see their record. Did they rebel against the whip for the Welfare Reform Bill?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> You can be a fundamentally good and principled person and have a strong mandate from the membership (as is the case with JC) but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader.


Many, such as Wilf, have said similar, but is now _really _the time for this? As I just said, it seems this time would be better spent demonstrating the complete lack of leadership the entire Tory party is displaying in this time of massive upheaval for the country.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> I really think Corbyn may now be on his way out,


No. He's digging in. Not only that, thousands of people have just joined the party to defend him.

Wishful thinking on your part - again.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

People on social media are saying they have had more BBC App alerts for the Corbyn crisis than for anything else at all, mmm


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No. He's digging in. Not only that, thousands of people have just joined the party to defend him.
> 
> Wishful thinking on your part - again.



Oh please, I supported Team Corbyn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Oh please, I supported Team Corbyn.


Really? Your words on this forum appear to contradict that. Oh please, indeed.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> That person has worked with him at close quarters and is probably in a better position than most to make that judgement.



I fundamentally disagree with this - it's entirely dismissive of the membership who elected him and it's absolutely _not_ for your friend to judge.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> FWIW a friend has resigned from the Shadow Cabinet. Whatever you think of their actions that person is not a Blairite or a careerist.
> 
> That person had genuine doubts about JC’s abilities as a leader. That person has worked with him at close quarters and is probably in a better position than most to make that judgement.
> 
> You can be a fundamentally good and principled person and have a strong mandate from the membership (as is the case with JC) but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader.



If they aren't on this list they're vermin.

Diane Abbott
Debbie Abrahams
David Anderson
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ann Clwyd
Jeremy Corbyn
Geraint Davies
Peter Dowd
Paul Flynn
Mary Glindon
Roger Godsiff
Helen Goodman
Margaret Greenwood
Louise Haigh
Carolyn Harris
Sue Hayman
Imran Hussain
Gerald Jones
Helen Jones
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Sadiq Khan
David Lammy
Ian Lavery
Clive Lewis
Rebecca Long Bailey
Andy McDonald
John McDonnell
Liz McInnes
Rob Marris
Rachael Maskell
Michael Meacher
Ian Mearns
Madeleine Moon
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Teresa Pearce
Marie Rimmer
Paula Sherriff
Tulip Siddiq
Dennis Skinner
Cat Smith
Jo Stevens
Graham Stringer
David Winnick
Iain Wright
Daniel Zeichner
Kelvin Hopkins (Teller)


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Many, such as Wilf, have said similar, but is now _really _the time for this? As I just said, it seems this time would be better spent demonstrating the complete lack of leadership the entire Tory party is displaying in this time of massive upheaval for the country.



As it happens I think the timing is beyond awful and the Party should be chucking the kitchen sink and any other household implements to hand at the Tories.

But these are the most extraordinary and frightening times I have experienced in my lifetime and I'm not exactly a spring chicken.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> People on social media are saying they have had more BBC App alerts for the Corbyn crisis than for anything else at all, mmm



This is likely a reaction to heavy interest, they tend to magnify whatever's looking big on the stats board to try and hoover up more percentage. Thing is it's big news for political wonks (who will obsessively watch anything to do with it), this thread alone is second only behind the referendum thread itself - and it's a much more dramatic story in terms of things actually happening.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Really? Your words on this forum appear to contradict that. Oh please, indeed.



because I don't support open borders, what a crazy world you live in


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I fundamentally disagree with this - it's entirely dismissive of the membership who elected him and it's absolutely _not_ for your friend to judge.


this is it. The PLP has decided it owns the party, always did think that. The tail wagging the dog effect in full swing. And to do this now when you have a great opportunity to stab the true enemy frenziedly while he is down while shouting 'sic semper tyrannis!' ? they don't deserve ayones vote


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> If they aren't on this list they're vermin.
> 
> Diane Abbott
> Debbie Abrahams
> ...





Surprised Louise Haigh isn't now on the SC.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> because I don't support open borders, what a crazy world you live in



iirc you hopped from Greens to Labour after Corbyn started looking like a shoe-in, so it'd be more to do with that, I'd imagine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Eek! For disagreeing with you? Such an activist, you



No, for discrediting yourself with some truly parlous political analysis.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Seymour's blog for Verso is pretty good. 

They Want Their Party Back


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> iirc you hopped from Greens to Labour after Corbyn started looking like a shoe-in, so it'd be more to do with that, I'd imagine.



I don't have an ideological position, I work with who helps the poorest, etc.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Of the resignations so far, of those who were eligible  to vote on the welfare bill.
> 
> Chris Bryant abstained
> Karl Turner abstained
> ...


Updating the list with minors/PPSs

Roberta Blackman-Woods abstained
Luciana Berger abstained
Neil Coyle abstained
Alex Cunningham abstained
Wayne David abstained
Angela Eagle abstained
Maria Eagle abstained
Yvonne Fovargue abstained
Kate Green abstained
Nia Griffiths abstained
John Healy abstained
Diana Johnson abstained
Lisa Nandy abstained
Toby Perkins abstained
Jess Philips abstained
Steve Reed abstained
Ruth Smeeth abstained
Owen Smith abstained
Karen Smyth abstained
Nick Thomas-Symonds abstained

Unless I've made a mistake somewhere all those who have resigned abstained on the welfare bill. So happie chappie how does your mate justify standing aside and helping the Tories attack the most vulnerable in our society?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> I don't have an ideological position, I work with who helps the poorest, etc.



Yeah except when the going gets tough you immediately leap for the easiest-looking alternative. Greens to Corbyn, Corbyn to, well, fuck knows but you definitely don't want to be attached to an apparent loser, right? I mean fuck I've been clear throughout I didn't think he was going to win against the PLP in the long run and I'm being more fair on the old boy's position and prospects than you are right now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)

Corbyn is too far to the left and as the remain campaign shown, not strong enough to win a GE. He needs to go.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn is too far to the left and as the remain campaign shown, not strong enough to win a GE. He needs to go.


Get bent.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2016)

Too far to the left for who?  The people who joined Labour purely because someone was finally offering something left wing enough?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn is too far to the left and as the remain campaign shown, not strong enough to win a GE. He needs to go.



I do not back Corbyn 100%, he could be so much better but he's all they've got. 

For those of the Labour party claiming he did nothing, what did they do? How did their areas vote? I'm tired of this Corbyn did nothing shit. From what I saw he went out, he campaigned, he did the right thing in not appearing with Cameron. The media spent the entire fucking campaign putting Blue and Purple on the front pages, Corbyn may treat the papers and news with contempt but they have done so as well from the get go, he'd have got no warm welcome from the newspapers, no calm headlines from the commentators.

Corbyn acted like an adult throughout the campaign.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn is too far to the left and as the remain campaign shown, not strong enough to win a GE. He needs to go.



He's just about democratic socialist.

Fucking hell


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> He's just about democratic socialist.
> 
> Fucking hell


This is unmasking a lot of people isn't it


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2016)

A work colleague today said to me 'well, I'd rather have a right-wing Labour than the Tories'.

Why? They both fuck us over. They both have the net result of allowing austerity and cuts to be passed through parliament.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> because I don't support open borders, what a crazy world you live in


You're obsessed with "open borders". Have you ever left the place you were born in? I doubt it. And you have the cheek to say to me "what a crazy world you live in"? Get a fucking grip.

One more thing: I'm not an 'open borders' type since the phrase itself suggests the existence of borders in the first place. I'm more of a _no borders _kinda guy.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

People on social media are claiming Jo Cox would have been appalled by the coup, wan't she someone who had said JC had to shape up or ship out?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Michael Meacher


Is dead. RIP.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah except when the going gets tough you immediately leap for the easiest-looking alternative. Greens to Corbyn, Corbyn to, well, fuck knows but you definitely don't want to be attached to an apparent loser, right? I mean fuck I've been clear throughout I didn't think he was going to win against the PLP in the long run and I'm being more fair on the old boy's position and prospects than you are right now.



FWIW, i'm not in any party, not even momentum, not that it matters.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> You can be a fundamentally good and principled person and have a strong mandate from the membership (as is the case with JC) but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader.



Your "friend" should resign from the party, not just the shadow cabinet.  If they are truly not a careerist, they won't mind running as an independent.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn is too far to the left and as the remain campaign shown, not strong enough to win a GE. He needs to go.


Hilarious. But thanks for sharing those internalised [media] narratives with us.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> A work colleague today said to me 'well, I'd rather have a right-wing Labour than the Tories'.
> 
> Why? They both fuck us over. They both have the net result of allowing austerity and cuts to be passed through parliament.


what gets me about that is the austerity becoming the new normal. For some of us. This was supposed to be tighten yer belts for a few years, we knew that was a lie, but it was always implied that this was a response to temporary crises. 'Keep the screws on for a few generations and the next lot of workers won't remember a time before the screws'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> FWIW, i'm not in any party, not even momentum, not that it matters.


Didn't you once repeat the media's claim that Momentum were crawling with horrible Trots? I think you did.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)

For the record, I would vote for corbyn, just commentating on his ability to win a GE.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

Yet, your 'assessment' doesn't differ one iota from that of the BBC, Sky or any of the other broadcast news outlets


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious. But thanks for sharing those internalised [media] narratives with us.


Fucking hell.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> For the record, I would vote for corbyn, just commentating on his ability to win a GE.



Times reckons he would, at this stage, but hey let's not let the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of a collapsing Labour vote get in the way of a good yarn.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> FWIW a friend has resigned from the Shadow Cabinet. Whatever you think of their actions that person is not a Blairite or a careerist.
> 
> That person had genuine doubts about JC’s abilities as a leader. That person has worked with him at close quarters and is probably in a better position than most to make that judgement.
> 
> You can be a fundamentally good and principled person and have a strong mandate from the membership (as is the case with JC) but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good leader.



Solely viewed as a leader, I don't think Corbyn has ticked that many boxes - he has been far too tolerant of what is portrayed to be "dissent" but which was obviously aimed at getting rid of him.  If he wasn't going to act tougher earlier to deal with those responsible, then he should at least have tried to get deselection in as a stick with which to beat them with.  This plot is genuine evidence of his failure to deal with what was an obvious and growing problem.   I also think there are ways in which policy should have been argued far better than it has been (Trident especially), and he really needs to engage the Tories in a far more angry fashion than he has been up until this point - kinder, gentler politics only works if the other side are of the same ilk as you. 

That said, the PLP are living in a fantasy world if they think there is anyone else that has a better chance of winning the next General Election - given the mood of the country, where they want to pick up votes, and what is (and looks like will be) happening economically.  You also have to congratulate them for organizing this revolt, over a period of what was probably ten months, and not working out what they would do if he refused to quit (edit), or with a replacement worked out - the already high bar of their incompetence raises itself even higher.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is it. The PLP has decided it owns the party, always did think that. The tail wagging the dog effect in full swing. And to do this now when you have a great opportunity to stab the true enemy frenziedly while he is down while shouting 'sic semper tyrannis!' ? they don't deserve ayones vote



This is the fundamental issue.

Corbyn has been clear he wants to introduce more and more democracy from the ground up into the workings of the party, into policy forming, and that of course will trickle down (or up) to MP selection and re/de-selection in time as well.

They're terrified of that. They're a crop of middle managers who dress like middle managers and talk like middle managers and who expect everyone to fall in line behind them as middle managers.

You only have to look at Trissy's comments to Oxford or wherever it was, that the 1% need to start taking back control of the Labour Party. 

Blair's (and Thatcher's, I suppose) project is complete. The current MPs (a lot of them, anyway) think their position in the PLP puts them above the rest of the membership. They want the membership to be there to deliver leaflets and knock on doors and stuff envelopes and make up the numbers at official events. They don't want engagement from them. They don't want them to be involved in shaping the party. They want them to sit there and silently take orders like the good little drones they should be. 

Corbyn threatens to upset that cushy little applecart good and proper. It's not necessarily that they disagree with all of his politics, but they're scared for their lives (where lives = careers) now he looks to be wanting to reshape the Party so that the membership actually matter.

If they cared even one little bit about what they claim to care about, they'd realise that if you want to get swathes of old Labour voters re-engaged, you have to give them a reason to engage, and giving them a stake in the party does that. Sitting on your benches hectoring at them doesn't.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Your "friend" should resign from the party, not just the shadow cabinet.  If they are truly not a careerist, they won't mind running as an independent.



You may want to consider the definition of a careerist:

"a person whose main concern is for professional advancement, especially one willing to achieve this by any means"

My friend will not be standing in the leadership election so not much chance of career advancement.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Corbyn has been clear he wants to introduce more and more democracy from the ground up into the workings of the party, into policy forming, and that of course will trickle down (or up) to MP selection and re/de-selection in time as well.



I agree with this - but we are ten months in though, all of that should really have been brought in by now - it isn't as if they have had anything better to do.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 27, 2016)

Secret ballot tonight, show trial tomorrow.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

And on the subject of Tristram, he did the sum total of nearly fuck all to campaign for remain around here. But that's Corbyn's fault, is it?

You've got a system with a leader and then a bunch of MPs. The leader represents the party as a whole, and the MPs each filter off and represent the party in individual areas. Each MP is, following their logic, absolutely responsible for the remain/leave vote in their area. If they had good relationships with their constituents prior to the ref, and if they campaigned hard and thoughtfully and talked to the people who live there, they might have seen some difference. But it seems very few of them did. Certainly, the ones causing the stink are more interested in London and barely spend any time in their constituency (Tristram who?). They care about the big picture but aren't prepared to get in the trenches and do the hard work of dealing with the people they represent.

I hope this mandatory reselection idea comes to pass.

There's a theory that if JC is re-elected (which he will be, unless something truly amazing happens), some of the plotters will break away, maybe seek to form a new party in alliance with the Lib-Dems or similar. If that's their plan, and it could be because they're clearly wagering one hell of a lot on this coup attempt, what do they think will happen? Most of them don't have a deep and long relationship with their constituents. They won't show them any personal loyalty. They'll vote for whoever the new Labour candidate is. Labour might lose one or two seats to it if it's an MP who has been around for years and the constituents love, but they don't tend to be the ones doing all these shenanigans.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

57 defeated Labour candidates from the 2015 election have written a letter saying that they can't win in a general election if JC is leader.  

Is this peak irony?


----------



## Ole (Jun 27, 2016)

Not sure if posted yet. From 14 days ago.

Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24-hour blitz after EU referendum


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They want the membership to be there to deliver leaflets and knock on doors and stuff envelopes and make up the numbers at official events.


if corbyn goes under the bus, how many will stay loyal to that? they've always had strong local presences. 'But the tories' has stopped working I think.


agricola said:


> I agree with this - but we are ten months in though, all of that should really have been brought in by now - it isn't as if they have had anything better to do.


these things are decided at conference no? I am no expert on the inner workings of the LP. But iirc he wasn't elected leader within a time frame that allowed him to table stuff for the last one. I may be misremembering. belboid think it was summat you mentioned wrt conference procedure


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> You may want to consider the definition of a careerist:
> 
> "a person whose main concern is for professional advancement, especially one willing to achieve this by any means"
> 
> My friend will not be standing in the leadership election so not much chance of career advancement.


Why did they help the Tories attack the most vulnerable in our society?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> You also have to congratulate them for organizing this revolt, over a period of what was probably ten months, and not working out what they would do if he refused to quit (edit), or with a replacement worked out - the already high bar of their incompetence raises itself even higher.


They have a replacement worked out. They can't reveal who it is though - anyone openly connected to the coup will lose, badly, when it goes to the members.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> I agree with this - but we are ten months in though, all of that should really have been brought in by now - it isn't as if they have had anything better to do.



How though? Lots of these rules have to be passed at conference. He can't just snap his fingers and have it all transformed overnight. It was always going to be a struggle. Trying to change the whole of Labour Party policy while juggling competing forces that are trying to undermine him every time he takes a shit means things are going to take a while. He has to be given the time to change the Party. Blair had a decade - it didn't evolve into what it is today on May 3rd 1997.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

I almost wish I were a member so that I could leave & cancel my DD.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> 57 defeated Labour candidates from the 2015 election have written a letter saying that they can't win in a general election if JC is leader.
> 
> Is this peak irony?


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> How though? Lots of these rules have to be passed at conference. He can't just snap his fingers and have it all transformed overnight. It was always going to be a struggle. Trying to change the whole of Labour Party policy while juggling competing forces that are trying to undermine him every time he takes a shit means things are going to take a while. He has to be given the time to change the Party. Blair had a decade - it didn't evolve into what it is today on May 3rd 1997.



The problem is though that this crisis is one that is not going to give him that time.  He could have called for a special conference to bring about these changes, he could have stated out what his expectations will be with regards to the PLP and what means he will seek to bring about to ensure they represent their constituents honestly, or he could have just made an example of those who criticized him - take Danzcuk for example; how is it he hasn't been kicked out yet?


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Why did they help the Tories attack the most vulnerable in our society?



There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.

It’s gone beyond that.

My friend joined the Shadow Cabinet in a genuine attempt to make JC’s leadership work but has come to reluctant conclusion that it just isn’t working.

No more, no less.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

Someone said somewhere *bad brain* that lots more new members are currently being drawn in on the back of this - I can't find anything about this - anyone have a link?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

I can imagine their reluctant face right now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if corbyn goes under the bus, how many will stay loyal to that? they've always had strong local presences. 'But the tories' has stopped working I think.



I don't know. That's one of the biggest problems they face. Membership will crumple if Corbyn goes (I could see it staying if McDonnell were to replace him, but I don't think there are too many others who would have the principles many of the new membership want). 

Obviously, the best thing the membership/Momentum could do in the eventuality Corbyn leaves is stay and stick at it. Being front and centre in selection campaigns will end up being the only real way they can have an impact. If JC goes, you can bet the PLP will try to change the leadership election rules again so the membership are hobbled and it's harder for someone to get on the ballot. If that happens, there's a real chance they'll piss off far too many people and the entire party will crumble into even more irrelevance than it has already.

Personally, and I'm sure I'm very naive about a lot of things, I reckon if you have any kind of left-wing stake in the Party as it stands, you have to back Corbyn to the hilt over this, because too much is at stake.


----------



## 03gills (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.
> 
> It’s gone beyond that.
> 
> ...



And waiting till now was the best time to pull this shit? Give me a fucking break.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

03gills said:


> And waiting till now was the best time to pull this shit? Give me a fucking break.


to paraphrase sansa 'Either you knew and you are my enemy or you were used and are an idiot'


----------



## The Boy (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Someone said somewhere *bad brain* that lots more new members are currently being drawn in on the back of this - I can't find anything about this - anyone have a link?



From Twitter there appears to be an influx of middle-class remainers joining up.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.
> 
> It’s gone beyond that.
> 
> ...



I don't give much of a fuck if they are or they aren't, it's still absolutely _inexcusable_ - and snakey to boot - and even more so when this should be the time that all eyes are on the fucking _Tories_ tearing themselves apart.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

03gills said:


> And waiting till now was the best time to pull this shit? Give me a fucking break.



If you refer back to my previous post you will see that I think the timing is awful, to say the least.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.



Yes, I'm certainly unwilling to accept that.

Seems to me that this is the time for all socialists in the LP to pull together and support their leader, since the Tories will be in disarray for the foreseeable future, and therefore this is a unique and unrepeatable opportunity for Labor to press home an advantage.

Perhaps like so many in today's LP, your "friend" has little desire to see a genuinely radical socialist party in power?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Being front and centre in selection campaigns will end up being the only real way they can have an impact.


When are these selection campaigns going to happen? If there's an early election, there won't be a chance for another 5 years. It'll be difficult to persuade people to hold on that long IMO


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.
> 
> It’s gone beyond that.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but assuming your friend is on the level (which seems unlikely given that they seem to have decided this at _exactly _the time when everyone else involved in plotting a coup did) what is their alternative plan? Do they have a Great Left Hope in mind to replace him, or are they leaving that decision to Benn and co? As we have recently discovered from the Leave campaign, it's not good quitting if all you have is "I don't like the current setup."


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, I'm certainly unwilling to accept that.
> 
> Seems to me that this is the time for all socialists in the LP to pull together and support their leader, since the Tories will be in disarray for the foreseeable future, and therefore this is a unique and unrepeatable opportunity for Labor to press home an advantage.
> 
> Perhaps like so many in today's LP, your "friend" has little desire to see a genuinely radical socialist party in power?



Then we agree.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> The problem is though that this crisis is one that is not going to give him that time.  He could have called for a special conference to bring about these changes, he could have stated out what his expectations will be with regards to the PLP and what means he will seek to bring about to ensure they represent their constituents honestly, or he could have just made an example of those who criticized him - take Danzcuk for example; how is it he hasn't been kicked out yet?



If he'd have called for a special conference they would have framed it as him trying to be the little dictator, changing the rules as soon as he was in so that he could assure himself security and leadership for the foreseeable. 

Even though he doesn't want to play their nasty politics games, he still exists in the arena where those games are being played, and he has had to step carefully.

I don't think he's gone about things the right way all the time. I think he should have engaged with the press more, even though he doesn't like them. (And even though I recognise that when he does engage with them they only show what suits them and create the narrative that he never speaks to them at all.) I'm on the fence about whether he should have been more aggressive in following his plans to reshape the party. Part of me wants him to have said, "fuck you, fuck your moaning, this is what we're doing, don't like it fuck off" but I also know that in the midst of the climate around him that they conspired with the media to create, his wings were clipped a little bit as he tried to at least keep the worst of the shitstorms slightly less stormy.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Fair enough, but assuming your friend is on the level (which seems unlikely given that they seem to have decided this at _exactly _the time when everyone else involved in plotting a coup did) what is their alternative plan? Do they have a Great Left Hope in mind to replace him, or are they leaving that decision to Benn and co? As we have recently discovered from the Leave campaign, it's not good quitting if all you have is "I don't like the current setup."


They have someone ready to go. Why does anyone think they'd have all their cards out by this point?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Someone said somewhere *bad brain* that lots more new members are currently being drawn in on the back of this - I can't find anything about this - anyone have a link?



I've seen a lot of people joining Momentum over the last couple of days, and yes, I think there has been an uptick in Labour membership, that I think has been decently substantial. Not all are joining to show support for JC, although many are. Some are joining in the hopes they can have a vote for whoever is on the ballot opposite him.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.
> 
> It’s gone beyond that.
> 
> ...



Why didn't they vote against the Tory welfare bill then?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> They have someone ready to go. Why does anyone think they'd have all their cards out by this point?



Who? If its Burnham I swear to god I'll do time.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Then we agree.



Good!

Btw, this is a "er... doctor... it's actually about my _friend_" thing innit?  G'wan, you can tell us...


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> If he'd have called for a special conference they would have framed it as him trying to be the little dictator, changing the rules as soon as he was in so that he could assure himself security and leadership for the foreseeable.
> 
> Even though he doesn't want to play their nasty politics games, he still exists in the arena where those games are being played, and he has had to step carefully.
> 
> I don't think he's gone about things the right way all the time. I think he should have engaged with the press more, even though he doesn't like them. (And even though I recognise that when he does engage with them they only show what suits them and create the narrative that he never speaks to them at all.) I'm on the fence about whether he should have been more aggressive in following his plans to reshape the party. Part of me wants him to have said, "fuck you, fuck your moaning, this is what we're doing, don't like it fuck off" but I also know that in the midst of the climate around him that they conspired with the media to create, his wings were clipped a little bit as he tried to at least keep the worst of the shitstorms slightly less stormy.



I agree, its just that for him to do that suggests he thought they could be talked around or even just expected to behave decently.  They couldn't, and there really isn't any evidence to suggest that they could ever have been.  he should have just opened up on them once he got that mandate.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> to paraphrase sansa 'Either you knew and you are my enemy or you were used and are an idiot'



Bingo.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> They have someone ready to go. Why does anyone think they'd have all their cards out by this point?



Oh I know _they_ do, hence "leave it to Benn and co," I'm asking whether this Independent Friend of happie chappie does.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Good!
> 
> Btw, this is a "er... doctor... it's actually about my _friend_" thing innit?  G'wan, you can tell us...



If you think I'm talking about myself then absolutely not. I resigned from the Party in protest at the Iraq war and it didn't have a vote in the leadership election as my union isn't affiliated.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> They have someone ready to go. Why does anyone think they'd have all their cards out by this point?



Look at their recent record.  They lost a leadership election in the manner that they did.  They took on their own leader on an issue to bomb IS a little bit (and as the latest Eye points out, only when the media impact is required), and which they had absolutely no control over.  They have launched this the day after a referendum in which their leader's beliefs did better than theirs did.  Where is the evidence that they know what they are doing?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Who? If its Burnham I swear to god I'll do time.


I dunno. I think it's probably Burnham, but I've bad form for reading these things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

The one person who _should_ resign is Tom Watson.  If he can't support Corbyn he should go.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> When are these selection campaigns going to happen? If there's an early election, there won't be a chance for another 5 years. It'll be difficult to persuade people to hold on that long IMO



There's still the question of the Tories redrawing the boundaries. Work has already been done to decide what constituencies are going and which are staying. Obviously the Tories being in total disarray might push that project back, but I can't imagine it won't still go ahead. If it does, then I fully expect my Stoke Central constituency to go and be absorbed by either Stoke North or Stoke South. That will have to mean a by-election, even if the North/South MP plans to continue on and Trissy doesn't plan on standing, because those in Central didn't vote for them.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I dunno. I think it's probably Burnham, but I've bad form for reading these things.


Wot, Andy "N-n-n-n-nineteen %" Burnham?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> They have someone ready to go. Why does anyone think they'd have all their cards out by this point?



Absolutely. 

And you can bet your arse that Tom Watson is standing quietly in the sidelines waiting for either JC or whoever replaces him to lose the GE so he can step up and provide a third way - untarnished from the infighting from before.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 27, 2016)

...


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> There's still the question of the Tories redrawing the boundaries. Work has already been done to decide what constituencies are going and which are staying. Obviously the Tories being in total disarray might push that project back, but I can't imagine it won't still go ahead. If it does, then I fully expect my Stoke Central constituency to go and be absorbed by either Stoke North or Stoke South. That will have to mean a by-election, even if the North/South MP plans to continue on and Trissy doesn't plan on standing, because those in Central didn't vote for them.


I think they're working on the premise of a snap election in May (this is why they've gone now instead of waiting). They won't have the boundaries redrawn by then, and as the CLPs haven't gone through the reselection procedure, sitting MPs will be automatically reselected. Revenge will have to wait 5 years, in which time they're banking on most of the people who're set on revenge to leave the party in disgust...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

military action man dan or bright eyes. Surely Burnham looks weak for having lost badly last time. Not liz kendall badly but still nothing to crow about


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I dunno. I think it's probably Burnham, but I've bad form for reading these things.



I thought it was too. His statement yesterday made me definitely think it was. However, he's got his eye firmly on being mayor of Manchester and wants to step back, so that's at odds with a really messy and acrimonious leadership contest.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Wot, Andy "N-n-n-n-nineteen %" Burnham?


He's definitely maneuvering. Possibly independently, but hard to say atm.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

Hope the quisling former Shad Camers are enjoying the vermin laughing at Corbyn...at this time.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think they're working on the premise of a snap election in May (this is why they've gone now instead of waiting). They won't have the boundaries redrawn by then, and as the CLPs haven't gone through the reselection procedure, sitting MPs will be automatically reselected. Revenge will have to wait 5 years, in which time they're banking on most of the people who're set on revenge to leave the party in disgust...



Unless this mandatory annual reselection thing that's being floated today actually comes to pass. Which, frankly, would be very good.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 27, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Who? If its Burnham I swear to god I'll do time.



I admire your resolve but he is not worth it.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

Corbyn taking them on from the front bench.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Unless this mandatory annual reselection thing that's being floated today actually comes to pass. Which, frankly, would be very good.


how would annual reselection work? If there's an election next May, whoever wins those seats are in for 5 years regardless.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> military action man dan or bright eyes. Surely Burnham looks weak for having lost badly last time. Not liz kendall badly but still nothing to crow about



I can see Dan Jarvis stepping up. For some inexplicable reason there are loads of people who bleat on about 'Dan will save us', completely ignoring the fact that he isn't a socialist and he's a fucking militarist.

I see a lot about Kier Starmer too.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't know. That's one of the biggest problems they face. Membership will crumple if Corbyn goes (I could see it staying if McDonnell were to replace him, but I don't think there are too many others who would have the principles many of the new membership want).




Alternatively there are 200k labour members who joined because of Corbyn.  Maybe they'd be happy to take their £3 and give it to the Corbynista party should Labour be irrevocably split.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is it. The PLP has decided it owns the party, always did think that. The tail wagging the dog effect in full swing. And to do this now when you have a great opportunity to stab the true enemy frenziedly while he is down while shouting 'sic semper tyrannis!' ? they don't deserve ayones vote


Absolutely, agree 100%  Trouble is, it's done now.  The blairites are going for it and can't/won't stop.  The processes, time and effort involved in beating them, which will certainly include deselection (if there's even time) mean the party's fucked.  Labour isn't even in the lead in the polls (polls, lol) _now_.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> how would annual reselection work? If there's an election next May, whoever wins those seats are in for 5 years regardless.



Presumably it'd mean by-elections every year. By-elections can be called whenever they need to be called, and aren't tied to a GE.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I thought it was too. His statement yesterday made me definitely think it was. However, he's got his eye firmly on being mayor of Manchester and wants to step back, so that's at odds with a really messy and acrimonious leadership contest.



It'll most likely be Jarvis or Watson. Burnham's barely top ten on the betting lists, and with good reason, he's a perennial loser who's already bolloxed a "coronation" leadership election.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Presumably it'd mean by-elections every year. By-elections can be called whenever they need to be called, and aren't tied to a GE.



It doesn't as a deselected MP could sit as an independent.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Presumably it'd mean by-elections every year. By-elections can be called whenever they need to be called, and aren't tied to a GE.


Not going to happen.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Alternatively there are 200k labour members who joined because of Corbyn.  Maybe they'd be happy to take their £3 and give it to the Corbynista party should Labour be irrevocably split.



If Corbyn goes, he'll go back to the backbenches. I don't think his support is strong enough within the PLP for anyone to break away, and I don't think Corbyn would encourage it. He's stuck with Labour for the past 33 years, after all. If there's going to be a breaking up of the party, it'll be if Corbyn is re-elected, and it'll be Blairite/Brownite/"moderates" who go. 

If Corbyn loses, particularly to someone who isn't vaguely left-ish or left-ish-sounding, I reckon we'll see a couple of Unions disaffiliating again.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 27, 2016)

For however many years the Westminster politicians have kept wringing their hands over voter apathy, saying what is wrong with the voters? when they all, particularly Labour should have been asking what is wrong with us?
Well they got their answer last Thursday and now it is everyone else's fault, especially Corbyn's in their blinded view. Are there no mirrors in Westminster?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Also, that's not how it works. The MP is elected, not the party. The party can't force a by-election.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I can see Dan Jarvis stepping up. For some inexplicable reason there are loads of people who bleat on about 'Dan will save us', completely ignoring the fact that he isn't a socialist and he's a fucking militarist.
> 
> I see a lot about Kier Starmer too.



They have boosted Jarvis before, it went away when everyone heard him speak.   Starmer perhaps, but he isn't really someone who is going to heal the divide or even someone who the electorate are going to jump for.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It'll most likely be Jarvis or Watson. Burnham's barely top ten on the betting lists, and with good reason, he's a perennial loser who's already bolloxed a "coronation" leadership election.



I'm reasonably certain Watson is going to bide his time. He's a very, very clever man. I can't stand him.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Seriously, if they stand Margaret Hodge, what the actual fuck are they thinking?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

If they could get Ruth Davidson to switch sides and come south of the border they'd sweep the deck. Everyone loves Ruth. She's the not-batty-Boris of Scottish politics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Presumably it'd mean by-elections every year.


a chartist demand that never got through


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Seriously, if they stand Margaret Hodge, what the actual fuck are they thinking?


That can't happen, surely? She should be be in fucking jail. Mind you, so should Blair.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Also, that's not how it works. The MP is elected, not the party. The party can't force a by-election.



Doubtless it's one reason why they launched now - they've been bricking it about activists forcing deselections and adding to Corbyn's leftie fan base in the PLP, a snap general election is one of the only opportunities for that to happen.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That can't happen, surely? She should be be in fucking jail. Mind you, so should Blair.



I'm pretty sure when everyone was talking about another would-be coup (there have been so many) a while back Hodge's name came up as someone who would be the stooge to stand, and that she'd be willing to sacrifice herself for the greater good or something. So she's been in the frame for a while. Not because they want her to run, but because they just want Corbyn out and she'd be some kind of bridge... idk. I really don't think they use their thinking brains for all of this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2016)

Is a Labour split really that unlikely?  Corbyn seems to be despised by a lot of Labour folk.  An acquaintance of mine worked for Labour until the general election and has held a massive grudge against Corbyn since he was elected.  He worked for him for six months and thinks he's a clown. He's a bit of a Red Tory though and thinks socialism is an anachronism within the Labour Party.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Fuck knows mate. It's all up in the air atm.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

Just read on the grauniad site that corcbyn will be addressing supporters outside parliament tonight (not a bad move) - and will be flanked with 'up to 20 remaining loyal MPs'. We few, we happy few...


----------



## hash tag (Jun 27, 2016)

He can still find 20 loyal MP's?
I see the majority of the shadow cabinet have now walked.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

There's 230 MPs not 100 or something ffs.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

The Boy said:


> From Twitter there appears to be an influx of middle-class remainers joining up.





Vintage Paw said:


> I've seen a lot of people joining Momentum over the last couple of days, and yes, I think there has been an uptick in Labour membership, that I think has been decently substantial. Not all are joining to show support for JC, although many are. Some are joining in the hopes they can have a vote for whoever is on the ballot opposite him.



Cheers, both.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> My friend joined the Shadow Cabinet in a genuine attempt to make JC’s leadership work but has come to reluctant conclusion that it just isn’t working.



But the only way we'll know that is after a general election. That's why people are angry - he's not been given a chance to put an alternative to the electorate.


----------



## Johnny. (Jun 27, 2016)

He is too weak to lead so someone new must take over. Having said that the party has ignored their core voters for so long that it is now pretty much impossible for them to win a raffle let alone win an election.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Johnny. said:


> He is too weak to lead so someone new must take over. Having said that the party has ignored their core voters for so long that it is now pretty much impossible for them to win a raffle let alone win an election.



One message, dancing Farage gif... oh yes I have great faith in this chap. Definitely not a sock puppet.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 27, 2016)

Two options:

1. Corbyn won't bend and sees off the coup thanks to the support of the membership; Labour splits in two with a new Blairite party formed, possibly in a formal merger with the cheap _Thunderbirds_ puppet Tim Farron;

2. Corbyn just can't take anymore, folds, and gives way to a "commonsense" neoliberal like Dan Jarvis.

First option is looking likelier just now. All these nonentities have walked to no effect. Corbyn is still there.


----------



## redcogs (Jun 27, 2016)

The arrogance of the Blairite scumbags is breathtaking, and they actually do believe that the  Labour Party is their property, that they own it, and that it's future is their concern, and theirs alone.

In fact they are a bunch of cringing spineless celebrity cretins in suits, who get paid far too much money for doing far too little, and nothing of any value.

Corby and the broader membership are well rid of them, every last one.

Needed next? -  a rolling program of de-selections to finally expunge them all, just as a good stiff dose of radiotherapy might put paid to a cancer on an otherwise healthy body.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Two options:
> 
> 1. Corbyn won't bend and sees off the coup thanks to the support of the membership; Labour splits in two with a new Blairite party formed, possibly in a formal merger with the cheap _Thunderbirds_ puppet Tim Farron;
> 
> ...


Hope he keeps his nerve.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 27, 2016)

From Staines' blog:



> According to Corbynista Labour sources, Tom Watson is the coup leader and the plan is currently that there will be a vote of no confidence and then Lisa Nandy will eventually take over. She is said to have Watson’s backing. Labour whip Conor McGinn, who is close to Watson and hates Corbyn, is choreographing resignations. Labour MPs are calling colleagues canvassing support for Nandy. _That is the plan from one faction of the plotters: for Nandy to ultimately take over from Corbyn… _
> 
> _UPDATE:_ Sam Coates from the _Times_ reckons there are three separate coup groups, all fighting among themselves as to who takes over.
> 
> _UPDATE II:_ Lisa Nandy has now resigned and said Watson should take over as caretaker leader.



just seen the footage of loud calls to resign during Corbyn's speech and open derision from many sides of the house, including Cameron who even manages to laugh at his opposite number in the middle of his own disastrous position.

Not something that can easily be "toughed out".


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 27, 2016)

This has been reported by 'Dennis Skinner is a Legend' On Facebook:



> Gutted the Cameras stuck with the tory who was speaking, BUT as Jeremy Corbyn entered the House of Commons, Dennis got up from his seat, walked over to Jeremy, shook his hand, and gave the ex labour Shadow Cabinet a lovely gesture with his fingers!!!... The footage just shows Dennis walking away from Jeremy!!. grrrrrr can not believe it didnt show him!! so i have nothing to upload for you!. BUT IT DID HAPPEN!



Has also been confirmed by Stewart McDonald MP.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Is a Labour split really that unlikely?  Corbyn seems to be despised by a lot of Labour folk.  An acquaintance of mine worked for Labour until the general election and has held a massive grudge against Corbyn since he was elected.  He worked for him for six months and thinks he's a clown. He's a bit of a Red Tory though and thinks socialism is an anachronism within the Labour Party.



Not sure that someone who can keep their head like he has could be called a clown. That must take a very strong sense of integrity.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This has been reported by 'Dennis Skinner is a Legend' On Facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> Has also been confirmed by Stewart McDonald MP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I hope the speed of this is a sign of a new decisiveness. He's tried the 'big tent' approach and it failed. Maybe he had to start off that way or the old guard would have caused even more chaos than they have from within. But at this stage Corbyn has to accept that the only option is to have them outside pissing in, and invest in a waterproof groundsheet and some strong disinfectant.



He's done a decent re-shuffle from a "socialist Labour" POV, putting Lewis and Osamor in positions of responsibility, and spreading the "big jobs" to followers in their actual competencies, now he's not aiming to please the so-called "moderates".


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> From Staines' blog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Disgraceful bunch of cunts, the lot of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Reckon the Junior and Secretarial jobs will be a pain in the arse to fill though.



TBF, in opposition they're mostly sinecures where the place-holders *might* learn something if their boss feels like sharing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Hope he keeps his nerve.


hopefully the wilderness years of nu lab will have given him the spine to cling on out of sheer bloody mindedness.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> From Staines' blog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fuck Guido Fawkes and the fascist horse he rode in on.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's done a decent re-shuffle from a "socialist Labour" POV, putting Lewis and Osamor in positions of responsibilities, and spreading the "big jobs" to followers in their actual competencies, now he's not aiming to please the so-called "moderates".



I am _so_ hoping we have the last laugh in all of this.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 27, 2016)

Whatever the question ..

Whatever the question ..

Burham is not the answer!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>





steeplejack said:


> First option is looking likelier just now. .




I actually salivated reading this.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I am _so_ hoping we have the last laugh in all of this.



as long JC gets on the ballot ( which seems to be likely,legally, asfaik?) , then we won't necc get the last laugh, but a fecking decent size interim one as we enjoy him sweeping that ( hopefully with an increased % ) , and wait for Chilcot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> I thought better of Jess Phillips I must say.



Why? She's consistently been a posturing gobshite on the subject of Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It was always wishfull thinking that the current PLP could be dragged leftwards. If people want a left party they need to elect left MPs.



Which is kind of difficult when central office has over-ridden constituency selection powers for the last 20 years, and parachuted in bunches of Oxbridge shitwads.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> He's just about democratic socialist.
> 
> Fucking hell



Ridiculous, isn't it? JC is all about Parliamentarism and democratic socialism. If anyone thinks he's "too far left", they have little or no idea of what leftism is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> A work colleague today said to me 'well, I'd rather have a right-wing Labour than the Tories'.
> 
> Why? They both fuck us over. They both have the net result of allowing austerity and cuts to be passed through parliament.



The choice between having to eat a straight shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with a minty garnish.

Personally, I prefer not having to eat a shit sandwich.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>




It'd be nice if that were the case, if only for the shits it would put up so many Blairites who got their seats through being imposed on CLP selection committees.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

Again updated the list of resigners with their position on the welfare vote

Chris Bryant abstained
Karl Turner abstained
Hillary Benn abstained
Heidi Alexander abstained
Gloria de Piero abstained
Lucy Powell abstained
Lilian Greenwood abstained
Ian Murray abstained
Kerry McCarthy abstained
Seema Malhotra abstained
Vernon Coaker abstained

Roberta Blackman-Woods abstained
Luciana Berger abstained
Neil Coyle abstained
Alex Cunningham abstained
Wayne David abstained
Angela Eagle abstained
Maria Eagle abstained
Yvonne Fovargue abstained
Kate Green abstained
Nia Griffiths abstained
John Healy abstained
Diana Johnson abstained
Lisa Nandy abstained
Toby Perkins abstained
Jess Philips abstained
Steve Reed abstained
Ruth Smeeth abstained
Owen Smith abstained
Karen Smyth abstained
Nick Thomas-Symonds abstained

Kier Stamer abstained
Jack Dromey abstained
Stephen Kinnick abstained


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

Johnny. said:


> He is too weak to lead so someone new must take over. Having said that the party has ignored their core voters for so long that it is now pretty much impossible for them to win a raffle let alone win an election.



Go fuck a dog, Faragist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I am _so_ hoping we have the last laugh in all of this.



Me too. If we have to have Parliamentarism as our "mode of governance", I'd far rather that someone like Corbyn was leading the left, than the red Tory scum that riddle the Parliamentary Labour Party like intestinal worms.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There seems to be an unwillingness to accept that not everyone in the Shadow Cabinet that has resigned is a Blairite and/or a careerist.
> 
> It’s gone beyond that.
> 
> ...


That doesn't answer my question, why did they abstain on the welfare vote? No one who abstained on that vote can claim to be anything other than a neo-liberal scumbag, it was a clear litmus test for anyone who has even mild social democratic tendencies, your friend failed it.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Again updated the list of resigners with their position on the welfare vote
> 
> Chris Bryant abstained
> Karl Turner abstained
> ...



Big fucking surprise, they're all cunts.


----------



## hermitical (Jun 27, 2016)

If there is another leadership contest will registered supporters still be able to vote?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Big fucking surprise, they're all cunts.



Aaaaaaand... Good Riddance! 

Corbyn/McDonnell must obviously have had a clue this was coming...could it be that they've put just as much thought into how to play it, if not more, and with just as much time to prepare as anyone else? That this might just be a positive outcome that they were embracing, rather than a negative one they are simply reacting to? 
(I have no clue beyond watching it unfold, tbf  )


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

> A spokesman for Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has dismissed speculation on social media that she is going to be given a job in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

hermitical said:


> If there is another leadership contest will registered supporters still be able to vote?


As I understand it the rules remain the same


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> A spokesman for Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has dismissed speculation on social media that she is going to be given a job in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet.



Labour would presumably love to coopt someone of her perceived integrity but it'd be political suicide for her to entertain it. Especially if the main 'left-wing' party may be about to collapse in a heap of rubble.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Labour would presumably love to coopt someone of her perceived integrity but it'd be political suicide for her to entertain it. Especially if the main 'left-wing' party may be about to collapse in a heap of rubble.



There's mutterings of an electoral pact too.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

hermitical said:


> If there is another leadership contest will registered supporters still be able to vote?



This indicates that they would...

Can Jeremy Corbyn survive the Labour leadership crisis? - The i newspaper online iNews

Seems to be ongoing arguments about whether he'd automatically be on the ballot or not, though.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Meanwhile, as we all drown under these column inches on Labour's problems, we've heard nothing from our serving prime minister since Friday morning's statement ("well, I'm off out, chaps - sorry about the mess over there, hope your domestic doesn't mind a bit putting a bit of welly into it!!") and he and the rest of the government seem content to leave us in a virtual vacuum for several days as to how one of the most momentous political decisions in living memory is actually going to play out; Boris and other senior figures are basically sitting outside No. 10 sharpening knives and playing Van Halen really loud; and what does the media have to say about it?
> 
> Well, apparently a celebrity chef is a bit peeved.
> 
> So, nothing to see there then



At least Cameron's actually had something to say on the subject now so the coverage is marginally more fairly spread.  Although you'd have thought 'PM says nothing for three days' would have been fairly interesting in itself.

I'm ashamed to admit I thought the pig-fucker's comment to the newest Labour MP was quite funny (he said he hoped she had her mobile on her in case she got offered a shadow cabinet post before the end of the day).


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

This is interesting too, and trails the idea of McDonnell staying on as shadow chancellor if Corbyn is ousted - something that occurred to me as a possible way that might be seized on to bridge the gap between 'centrists' and the left - I understand McDonnell has proved unexpectedly popular...

Labour After the Earthquake


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> There's mutterings of an electoral pact too.



A shame they didn't go for that before the last GE really - none of the current crap would be happening. Just a whole different load of crap


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> This is interesting too, and trails the idea of McDonnell staying on as shadow chancellor if Corbyn is ousted - something that occurred to me as a possible way that might be seized on to bridge the gap between 'centrists' and the left - I understand McDonnell has proved unexpectedly popular...
> 
> Labour After the Earthquake



I understood the opposite - that people generally didn't warm to McDonnell nearly as much as to Corbyn. I have to say that surprises me though - I think he has considerably more presence without losing the substance entirely.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

There's still plenty of fantasy notions about a rainbow alliance kicking around. I guess a Corbyn led rump post Blairite split inside or outside the Labour Party would be ripe pickings for that.

It's a fantasy though.

I still don't see a Labour split happening.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I understood the opposite - that people generally didn't warm to McDonnell nearly as much as to Corbyn.


In parliament?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> There's still plenty of fantasy notions about a rainbow alliance kicking around. I guess a Corbyn led rump post Blairite split inside or outside the Labour Party would be ripe pickings for that.
> 
> It's a fantasy though.
> 
> I still don't see a Labour split happening.



I can't if Corbyn looses, but if he took part in leadership contest and won then god knows what happens!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

So, nobody will vote for it, but looks like a break away Scottish Labour might be on the cards now:


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

All those people have quit? Fuck me! There's going to be nothing left! I thought at least one of the Eagles was on his side. 

Thick as thieves


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> So, nobody will vote for it, but looks like a break away Scottish Labour might be on the cards now:




What would their stance on independence be?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> What would their stance on independence be?


irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> What would their stance on independence be?


If it gets them votes...


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

chilango said:


> What would their stance on independence be?


Fuck knows. The Scot Labs are now punting a federal UK as a way to keep Scotland in the EU. They converted to this policy this afternoon.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.


Get that rape apologist cult the fuck out of there. Weird, creepy, sex abusers.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> In parliament?



Sorry - misread you. I meant in the wider world.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

I don't get it. Surely they should realise waving SWP banners about just harms his position?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Fuck knows. The Scot Labs are now punting a federal UK as a way to keep Scotland in the EU. They converted to this policy this afternoon.


I see they have thought this one through, just like when they got Jim Murphy in to lead a charge. Jim '9 years in student politics' Murphy. Touching base. Shambles all round


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.



I'm sure there was a time when you only had to _think _something even _slightly _left-wing and within seconds there'd be someone standing in front of you trying to sell copies of the Socialist Worker. I've seen them getting backers on far more bizarre bicycles than a Corbyn rally.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> This is interesting too, and trails the idea of McDonnell staying on as shadow chancellor if Corbyn is ousted - something that occurred to me as a possible way that might be seized on to bridge the gap between 'centrists' and the left - I understand McDonnell has proved unexpectedly popular...
> 
> Labour After the Earthquake



That is interesting!
Although it makes me feel stupidly sad, too - they're like bff's! 



killer b said:


> In parliament?



There was something I read earlier coming vaguely from one of the resigners (can't remember who  ) which claimed, with some *outrage* indicated, that a far more frothing McDonnell spoke over/for Corbyn during their own meeting with him. Doesn't mean much, I know!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Fuck knows. The Scot Labs are now punting a federal UK as a way to keep Scotland in the EU. They converted to this policy this afternoon.


A Caledonian Eire Nua


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't get it. Surely they should realise waving SWP banners about just harms his position?



Name something it benefits.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't get it. Surely they should realise waving SWP banners about just harms his position?



They don't care.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Name something it benefits.


The Socialist Workers Party I suppose, but you'd hope they'd be prepared to drop their usual self promotion in this case. Bellends.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> The Socialist Workers Party I suppose



It's not brought them noticeable success so far...


----------



## kebabking (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I understood the opposite - that people generally didn't warm to McDonnell nearly as much as to Corbyn. I have to say that surprises me though - I think he has considerably more presence without losing the substance entirely.



if i understand it correctly, within the PLP, and prior to the leadership which Corbyn won, McDonnell was actively disliked on a personal level for being quite an abrasive character, but respected for his wits. Corbyn otoh was regarded as amiable, polite, personally pleasant but not someone you'd put in charge of a bag of cold chips.

since the election, McDonnells' star has definately risen (and not just within the party, or even just sections of it - not only is he obviously bright with interesting ideas, he has grasped that being Shadow Chancellor means looking like, and sounding like, and acting like, your 1950's Bank Manager. it also appears he has a sense of humour. Corbyn however has come across as being thin skinned, humourless, hypocritical and hasn't grasped that looking like a PM in waiting is part of the job - he still looks/acts/sounds like a student union president, and moreover a weak one, because he gets McDonnell to argue his case for him, and won't interact with people who disagree with him.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> It's not brought them noticeable success so far...


Up until a couple of years ago they were by some distance the biggest hard left group in the country. It works, after a fashion.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> if i understand it correctly, within the PLP, and prior to the leadership which Corbyn won, McDonnell was actively disliked on a personal level for being quite an abrasive character, but respected for his wits. Corbyn otoh was regarded as amiable, polite, personally pleasant but not someone you'd put in charge of a bag of cold chips.
> 
> since the election, McDonnells' star has definately risen (and not just within the party, or even just sections of it - not only is he obviously bright with interesting ideas, he has grasped that being Shadow Chancellor means looking like, and sounding like, and acting like, your 1950's Bank Manager. it also appears he has a sense of humour. Corbyn however has come across as being thin skinned, humourless, hypocritical and hasn't grasped that looking like a PM in waiting is part of the job - he still looks/acts/sounds like a student union president, and moreover a weak one, because he gets McDonnell to argue his case for him, and won't interact with people who disagree with him.


that's my understanding too.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> if i understand it correctly, within the PLP, and prior to the leadership which Corbyn won, McDonnell was actively disliked on a personal level for being quite an abrasive character, but respected for his wits. Corbyn otoh was regarded as amiable, polite, personally pleasant but not someone you'd put in charge of a bag of cold chips.
> 
> since the election, McDonnells' star has definately risen (and not just within the party, or even just sections of it - not only is he obviously bright with interesting ideas, he has grasped that being Shadow Chancellor means looking like, and sounding like, and acting like, your 1950's Bank Manager. it also appears he has a sense of humour. Corbyn however has come across as being thin skinned, humourless, hypocritical and hasn't grasped that looking like a PM in waiting is part of the job - he still looks/acts/sounds like a student union president, and moreover a weak one, because he gets McDonnell to argue his case for him, and won't interact with people who disagree with him.



Yes, all of this. McDonnell has put some work into getting connected with alternative economists, the likes of Piketty, Wilkinson and Pickett, etc. and gives the impression of being ready to put forward maybe not radical but certainly quantitatively different economic policies to what we're used to seeing from both sides.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't get it. Surely they should realise waving SWP banners about just harms his position?



Maybe I've been around a bit longer than you (I am an old bastard) but you should know the SWP have NEVER been interested in anyone's position other than their own. All publicity is good publicity? SWP's version is "all publicity is OUR publicity".

Any bandwagon will do. Riding in or out of town.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Yes, all of this. McDonnell has put some work into getting connected with alternative economists, the likes of _Piketty, Wilkinson and Pickett_, etc. and gives the impression of being ready to put forward maybe not radical but certainly quantitatively different economic policies to what we're used to seeing from both sides.



All the motown greats.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

I can imagine a Burnham / McDonnell or Eagle / McDonnell double header - they need to offer the membership something, and if McDonnell is impressing already I wouldn't be surprised if that was it.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Up until a couple of years ago they were by some distance the biggest hard left group in the country. It works, after a fashion.



"...and the winner of Tallest Dwarf 2008 is..."

Just dicking about now. I suppose it does work after a fashion - just not sure what it _achieves_. I don't disagree with them about _everything _- it's more that I can't get past the leaden, dogmatic tactics and the personal experience that they're not generally very good at talking to anyone who doesn't already think exactly like them.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> All the motown greats.



I know. 'The Spirit Level' even sounds like a fairly plausible name for their chart-topping duet.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2016)

Brand exposure is all it is. Product placement.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> From Staines' blog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can see most of them learnt their 'craft' in NUS, NOLS


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This has been reported by 'Dennis Skinner is a Legend' On Facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> Has also been confirmed by Stewart McDonald MP.




I saw it, maybe RT.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> This is interesting too, and trails the idea of McDonnell staying on as shadow chancellor if Corbyn is ousted - something that occurred to me as a possible way that might be seized on to bridge the gap between 'centrists' and the left - I understand McDonnell has proved unexpectedly popular...
> 
> Labour After the Earthquake



I'm not surprised, he is the only MP who consistently challenged the welfare reforms, is very personable, very clever and sharp, media friendly as well.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.




Join the club!


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> So, nobody will vote for it, but looks like a break away Scottish Labour might be on the cards now:




That'd be genuinely hilarious to watch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.


They are there to make contacts with angry dissafected naive corbyn supporters who may leave the party and want an outlet for their later anger. That's why a whole bunch of the old left have been hanging around the school gates. They need to latch onto every single thing like this right now as their usual late year student drives don't seem to be producing very much. They're not there like on the olde days to project and image that these protests are organised by and about them - a show of their strength.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 27, 2016)

Strikes me that the resigners are convinced either that JC can't/won't automatically be in the new ballot or that he won't be re-elected by the people who elected him less than 12 months ago.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Good turn out, and yes, too many sect banners.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I know. 'The Spirit Level' even sounds like a fairly plausible name for their chart-topping duet.


It was actually the putative title for Yurts 28th album 'Economy of Sound'


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't want to come over all treelover, but wtf are all those Socialist Worker banners doing at the Corbyn support rally? Fucking bizarre.


That doesn't look good, at all. Mass resignations, then he goes and speaks to a crowd waving Trot banners. It's not exactly going to endear him to former Labour voters who voted to leave on Thursday.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

They should have someone standing next to the SWP banner-hander-outers handing out their own strips of sticky white paper to stick over the SWP logo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> That doesn't look good, at all. Mass resignations, then he goes and speaks to a crowd waving Trot banners. It's not exactly going to endear him to former Labour voters who voted to leave on Thursday.


They, for now, are irrelevant. (The swp were leave btw)


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

You know who I mean.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They should have someone standing next to the SWP banner-hander-outers handing out their own strips of sticky white paper to stick over the SWP logo.



I think that would be a very good idea, I think it has been tried before.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> You know who I mean.


I don't though. I agree in a wider election being seen next to these people is bad - in this battle, though, one that's a) PLP and b)membership (if they have nay plans or bottle at all) it just doesn't matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think that would be a very good idea, I think it has been tried before.


They were more commonly just ripped off the top.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

Sigh!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think that would be a very good idea, I think it has been tried before.


Traditionally you just rip the 'swp' bit off


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't get it. Surely they should realise waving SWP banners about just harms his position?



Classic SWP strategy.

1. Wave banners
2. ????????
3. Profit


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


>



Video unavailable


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> It was actually the putative title for Yurts 28th album 'Economy of Sound'



Emphatically not a chart-topper, iirc. Mongolian throat singing and 28-minute bongo solos make for strange bedfellows.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Something gone wrong, its the Huffington Post video of the rally, Mason Shelly, etc,


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I can imagine a Burnham / McDonnell or Eagle / McDonnell double header - they need to offer the membership something, and if McDonnell is impressing already I wouldn't be surprised if that was it.



I'm sorry, but in what universe do you (assuming your purpose is not Blairite sabotage) get rid of Jezza for lack of leadership and charisma and promote Angela Eagle?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Traditionally you just rip the 'swp' bit off



I think my point was that the majority of people at these rallies have no idea who the SWP are, and won't think to rip it off or cover it up unless someone tells them. We're living through an age where the politicisation of the 80s and even the 90s ebbed away, and people coming to these rallies are 'fresh' if you like. I mean, there have always been people like that at rallies, but I'd expect there are more now because of the way it's all played out the past couple of decades. 

So you have people standing around saying "cover that up" or "rip that off" or you hope people somehow find out who they are on their own.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Classic SWP strategy.
> 
> 1. Wave banners
> 2. ????????
> 3. Profit



Like the SP.

1. Sell papers
2. ????????
3. Profit


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm sorry, but in what universe do you (assuming your purpose is not Blairite sabotage) get rid of Jezza for lack of leadership and charisma and promote Angela Eagle?


they aren't getting rid of Corbyn for lack of leadership & charisma.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

People are still talking about David Miliband as the king over the water ffs, if you want to talk about charisma vacuums


----------



## Sirena (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Good turn out, and yes, too many sect banners.



I've just come back from there. Yes. a huge crowd.

I can't think of another party leader in recent years who could have generated a similar personal demonstration of support.

I looked for a pro-Tom Watson rally but I couldn't find any...


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Across social media Progress types are highlighting the SWP placards, bit of a disaster

Tosh McDonald is a bit loud.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Across social media Progress types are highlighting the SWP placards, bit of a disaster
> 
> Tosh McDonald is a bit loud.



Highlighting to what end and to who? Do you think this effects the plp in the slightest?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think my point was that the majority of people at these rallies have no idea who the SWP are, and won't think to rip it off or cover it up unless someone tells them. We're living through an age where the politicisation of the 80s and even the 90s ebbed away, and people coming to these rallies are 'fresh' if you like. I mean, there have always been people like that at rallies, but I'd expect there are more now because of the way it's all played out the past couple of decades.
> 
> So you have people standing around saying "cover that up" or "rip that off" or you hope people somehow find out who they are on their own.


If you don't know who an organisation are you shouldn't wave one of their placards anyway


----------



## Smangus (Jun 27, 2016)

Seems like the PLP is refusing to work int he shadow cabinet and has gone on strike. Ironic as its the only one they've supported in the last 30 years, cunts.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

PLP no confidence vote's going ahead, seems likely there'll be a landslide for him to go - guess it's all down to how bloody-minded Corbyn can be (and in fairness, this is a man who's stuck with Labour for 30 years without changing his mind very much, so y'know, pretty bloody minded).


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Across social media Progress types are highlighting the SWP placards, bit of a disaster
> 
> Tosh McDonald is a bit loud.



Yep. Apparently the president of the NUS addressed the rally, starting with 'I'm not actually a member of the Labour Party...'


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If you don't know who an organisation are you shouldn't wave one of their placards anyway



I think you're preaching to the converted here!

ETA - Not that it's not worth repeating, mind.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

"Debbie Abrahams - shadow work and pension secretary"

Anyone know anything about her, apart from wikipedia


----------



## mauvais (Jun 27, 2016)

Probably the most important political question of the era, so no apologies for interrupting: what's with the Twitter (((brackets)))? Is Dan Hodges contagious? Something about anti-semitism? I feel like I should be relegated to Usenet although knowing my luck that's probably cool again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> "Debbie Abrahams - shadow work and pension secretary"
> 
> Anyone know anything about her, apart from wikipedia


Have you tried her constituency page?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> they aren't getting rid of Corbyn for lack of leadership & charisma.



_part_ of the reason they are getting rid is a lack of leadership & charisma. if Labour was consistantly running at 43% in the polls, with Corbyns approval ratings even higher, do you think this would be happening?

its absolutely true that the majority of the PLP can't stand his politics, and they don't like his plans for the party, but don't pretend that if they thought he was cruising to a 70 seat majority in 2020 (or next April...) the numbers who've resigned and refused to serve in his shadow cabinet would be anything like what they are.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> _part_ of the reason they are getting rid is a lack of leadership & charisma. if Labour was consistantly running at 43% in the polls, with Corbyns approval ratings even higher, do you think this would be happening?



Sure, but that wasn't going to happen to _any _Labour party leader. That's the reality they all continually dance around, they have no alternatives that would do better. There's no-one the public gets on with more from the party left, and the party right's obliviousness to the way it hollowed out its own membership and alienated its working class voter base is total. They're killing off a caretaker to install a clown.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> _part_ of the reason they are getting rid is a lack of leadership & charisma. if Labour was consistantly running at 43% in the polls, with Corbyns approval ratings even higher, do you think this would be happening?
> 
> its absolutely true that the majority of the PLP can't stand his politics, and they don't like his plans for the party, but don't pretend that if they thought he was cruising to a 70 seat majority in 2020 (or next April...) the numbers who've resigned and refused to serve in his shadow cabinet would be anything like what they are.


It's been suggested it's to do with chilcot but tbh I do think they would be doing this no matter how jc was doing because many if not most of them think it's their party and not his


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> _part_ of the reason they are getting rid is a lack of leadership & charisma. if Labour was consistantly running at 43% in the polls, with Corbyns approval ratings even higher, do you think this would be happening?]


Leadership and charisma are much easier to project when you don't have your own side kicking your feet out from under you at every opportunity.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Yep. Apparently the president of the NUS addressed the rally, starting with 'I'm not actually a member of the Labour Party...'


I'm not a member of the Labour Party either and I turned up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> they aren't getting rid of Corbyn for lack of leadership & charisma.



They should do.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If you don't know who an organisation are you shouldn't wave one of their placards anyway



Yeah, but people do.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> "Debbie Abrahams - shadow work and pension secretary"
> 
> Anyone know anything about her, apart from wikipedia



she voted against the 2015 welfare bill so that's a good start.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> They should do.



Again, in favour of which MP? Still no answers on this from anyone calling for the man's resignation beyond a selection of mannikins with the collective "leadership and charisma" of a vomit-filled paper bag.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yeah, but people do.


Yes, I know.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 27, 2016)

Bit of live stream here.



There are, apparently 10,000 people when they expected 3,000.  And on a night when England is playing some football game.....


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Bit of live stream here.
> 
> 
> 
> There are, apparently 10,000 people when they expected 3,000.  And on a night when England is playing some football game.....



They probably think supporting England is racist anyway.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 27, 2016)

Sirena said:


> There are, apparently 10,000 people when they expected 3,000.  And on a night when England is playing some football game.....


That's the reason there are so many. It would only have only have been the 3,000 if England weren't playing. Looks like those people have made a good decision so far.


----------



## Alan G (Jun 27, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Probably the most important political question of the era, so no apologies for interrupting: what's with the Twitter (((brackets)))? Is Dan Hodges contagious? Something about anti-semitism? I feel like I should be relegated to Usenet although knowing my luck that's probably cool again.



A bunch of knuckle draggers were using an add-in which highlighted names which looked Jewish with (((Goldberg))) and the like. A bunch of people started editing their names to have 3 braces around them in solidarity and to troll.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Graun's now lost all sense of perspective I see, they picked up on and retweeted this - it links to a troll account of course.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 27, 2016)

Just left, turnout surprised me, for once I took the police estimate seriously too. Some good speakers, including one fella who had some fire and brimstone about him. Missed the name though.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Tosh McDonald, Aslef, bit old school


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Graun's now lost all sense of perspective I see, they picked up on and retweeted this - it links to a troll account of course.
> 
> View attachment 88926




Down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Good turn out, and yes, too many sect banners.



And, much more significantly, many  T.U. banners


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2016)

Saw Corbyn's speech on the TV. He didn't say much about Brexit, did he?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Saw Corbyn's speech on the TV. He didn't say much about Brexit, did he?



In or out, his goal surely remains the same.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Graun's now lost all sense of perspective I see, they picked up on and retweeted this - it links to a troll account of course.
> 
> View attachment 88926


I saw that, how the fuck would it even work. I mean I suppose it's possible that officially the leader of the Labour Party could be a Peer rather than a MP. But that's never going to happen and even if this is some weird stalking horse candidate why the fuck would you ever run Lord Mandelson. I mean I hope is some bizarre way it's true, Corbyn will fucking annihilate him but it just seems loon city central, didn't the Guardian think a sanity check might be a good idea.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> The Socialist Workers Party I suppose, but you'd hope they'd be prepared to drop their usual self promotion in this case. Bellends.



Apparently not.  There were shed loads of them flogging their paper outside the station. 

I don't think there was 10k but fuck knows. They finished at 8 instead of 8.30 because of the football apparently. 

FTR I found mcdonnells speech shorter and snappier than corbyns. 

Lots of young people there. 

Paul mason has a nice looking dog.  

/astute political commentary]


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

Vincent McAviney, an itv journalist apparently, has tweeted to say that Corbyn's staff did not attend any remain meetings.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Paul mason has a nice looking dog.
> 
> /astute political commentary]


More of these type of insights! 

Actually that makes me want to forgive him his tenuous grasp of Marx's Capital. So there's something to be learned there.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Vincent McAviney, an itv journalist apparently, has tweeted to say that Corbyn's staff did not attend any remain meetings.


He was also seen putting a cat in a wheelie bin.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Apparently he put a tenner on Iceland to win tonight too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Apparently he put a tenner on Iceland to win tonight too.


I literally only just worked out what this meant when I looked at New Posts after reading this. I didn't know whether it was a supermarket reference or what.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> He was also seen putting a cat in a wheelie bin.


Just to confirm, I received no cats from Corbyn or anyone else. There are two on the shed roof outside though and I expect a fight.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## Wookey (Jun 27, 2016)

Apologies if this has been posted, it's the latest (absolutely inspired) I See You...

I See You

*I see you, David Miliband.*

I see your likeable face and your easy smile, all professionalism and dignified charm. I see the hurt in your eyes back in 2010, when your brother turned on you and cast you down. That worked out well for him, didn’t it? He managed to convince the Labour Party to throw out the banana and keep the skin and now everything’s gone to shit. Of course, you had your own adventures to head off to, didn’t you David Miliband? Alistair Campbell nicknamed you ‘Brains' and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy when you buggered off and joined International Rescue. You boarded the ship and sailed off in to the mist, never looking back over your shoulder. Without a throne your homeland held nothing for you.

But the wheel kept turning in your absence, David Miliband, and the Game of Thrones rolls on.

It’s been a bit of a clusterfuck, hasn’t it? Let’s be honest, I’m not sure anyone expected it to actually happen. Westeros has voted to cut its ties with the Iron Bank and get behind the inbred blonde one, mostly because we all wanted to tell the Lannisters to shove their offshore gold up their collective arses - even though the inbred blonde one is secretly more of a Lannister than anyone else. It’s been one of the most disastrously ill-managed political shitfests of all time, turning us against each other, playing on our fears and widening the rifts between us. We’ve been lied to from every angle, fed nonsense figures and snarled at with the threat of doom and destruction. Johnson and Gove let Farage rove around the countryside with the Bellends Without Banners, letting him stoop to dog-whistle racism, blaming immigrants for the massive shortfalls in public infrastructure that years of austerity cuts have caused. He claims that Brexit won ‘without a single shot being fired’ despite the fact we all know that to be untrue. We’re waking up to a new reality where the people admiring us for our gumption are the far right across Essos. We’ve emboldened the snarling skinheads and I fucking hate Thenns.

It’s too easy to point fingers and attribute blame for all this. I was guilty of it too - anger at an older generation that seemed to have voted selfishly, fearful that we’d chosen bigotry over inclusion. It’s not that simple and it’s too reductive to claim it is. 52% of the country aren’t racists but we have to accept accountability for the fact that such fearful campaigning has now convinced the few thugs among us that half the country agrees with them. We have to come together to shut that down regardless of which way we voted. We have to accept that even though nearly half of us wanted to stay, there’s no denying that the Iron Bank is kind of a dick and plenty of every generation were tired of it trying to extend its reach. The few voices that pointed out the benefits of the union, the few that campaigned positively, were too meek and reluctant to reach across party lines. Any hope of a consistent and clear message was more mangled than this torturous Game of Thrones metaphor I’m stubbornly clinging to. Thenns don’t even come from Essos - I’m as confused as anyone.

‘We want our country back’ was a clearer message than anything the Left managed, even when its connotations were hijacked by fascists. '£350 million a week for the NHS' was the kind of staggering number that made it stark and obvious just how much money we thought we were wasting, even when it turned out to be an outright lie. 'We’ll have control of our own laws and our own democracy' seemed like a simple conclusion, even if it meant handing that democracy over to the heartless bastards we trust so little that we take our own fucking pens to the polling stations. 'We’ve had enough of unelected bureaucrats,' so it’s time for the Conservative leader to resign so we can replace him with an unelected bureaucrat who pledges allegiance to a fucking Queen. ‘We can control our own borders,’ even though no government has ever succeeded in controlling immigration from outside the EU and it looks like we’ll still have to sign up to free movement from within it to continue accessing the single market. ‘Time will tell and eventually we’ll be alright.’ Bloody hell, I hope that’s true. Who knows, it might even turn out to be. The irony, of course, is that we just might have delivered the kick up the arse the EU needs to sort out its many issues and by then it’ll be too late for us to benefit from any of the reforms.

It doesn’t fill me with confidence that when it comes to the Brexit politicians it doesn’t even feel like a victory. Farage flapped his impossibly unhinged gob and partied for a bit but now he’s been locked out in the cold. Cameron took his ball and went home, refusing to trigger Article 50 and instead handing that poisoned chalice over to Johnson and Gove. He was like the dad telling his kids to stop kicking the ball over in to the neighbour’s garden. Now there’s been a massive crash and the greenhouse is fucked and Johnson’s looking around sheepishly, expecting someone else to go next door and negotiate just how we clean up the mess because he always expected to become Head Boy and he doesn’t want to jeopardise that by getting in trouble. Meanwhile, two doors down Nicola Sturgeon pops her head over the wall and thinks about putting a fence up because she doesn’t want to let that boisterous little shit anywhere near her greenhouse either, and across the street Gerry Adams just wants an excuse to knock that wall through into the terrace next door and this seems like a good opportunity to apply for planning permission again.

The Tories have never been such a catastrophic mess, so now would really be an opportune time for some consistent opposition. Well good fucking luck with that. Corbyn managed to get more Labour voters to opt for Remain than even the SNP did, but his lead - regardless of how well intended - has felt ineffectual and weak and too muddled by his own opposition to some of the EU’s excesses. Regardless of that, he could’ve single-handedly knocked on every door in the country and convinced them to vote Remain and it still wouldn’t have been enough for a media that just don’t like him and a party whose own MPs seek to hamstring him at every turn. The Labour party has become a snake eating its own arse at a time when there’s a whole fucking buffet left unattended. Half the shadow cabinet have gone in the vain hope of a prodigal son returning to save the fucking day, and what are the chances of that?

I see you, David Miliband.

I see you at the helm of the great warship, its prow cutting through the surf in the night, the ropes creaking in the still air. I see the ropes thrown down into the dock, the men dismounting, scurrying like ants to secure the ship. I see you grin, David Miliband. You’ve returned, having sailed the world and left Westeros to its own devices. You walked the ruins of the Doom of Blairlyria (fucking hell, this really is tenuous now) and saw how the hubris of kings can lead to ruin. Not this time, David Miliband. This time you’ve returned, Miliband Crows-Eye, and the Socialistone Chair will be yours.

I see the wind whipping around the twin towers of the castle, the waves crashing against the rocks. I see the rope bridge swinging in the gale, the old man crossing the boards, his feet less steady than they once seemed. I see you, David Miliband, half-hidden in the gloom of the torchlight, stepping forward to confront him. True, he’s been a principled king. And true, TTIP sounds like a right fucking mess and he’s quite right to oppose it. But this is the Game of Thrones and you win or you die.

I see Corbyn Greyjoy plunge howling into the night, his body dashed to pieces on the rocks below.

I see you laugh, Miliband Crows-Eye, for you know what’s next. Next you hold the Kingsmoot, and your brother, Ed Damplips, will crown you ruler of the Labour Party, blubbering his apologies for his arrogance. The kingdom may be smaller than the one you were first promised. But you have a plan. You’ll sail to Scotland and tell Nicola Sturgeon to build you a thousand ships.

I see you, David Miliband. I fucking see you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

Have we had this yet? It's been quite a fast moving thread do I've missed a lot.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Also, George Eaton claims to be 'almost certain' Corbyn voted out, with more promised in the papers tomorrow.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Have we had this yet? It's been quite a fast moving thread do I've missed a lot.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

Crikey. They've all gone mad.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Graun's now lost all sense of perspective I see, they picked up on and retweeted this - it links to a troll account of course.
> 
> View attachment 88926



Oh if only it were true.


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Have we had this yet? It's been quite a fast moving thread do I've missed a lot.




Toadesia?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

YouSir said:


>



Do you wanna lose a snowflake?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> Toadesia?



Bet you that call it 'Progress'.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Have we had this yet? It's been quite a fast moving thread do I've missed a lot.




I can just imagine the "shell-shock," they must have been sure he'd be gone by now and yet no...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I can just imagine the "shell-shock," they must have been sure he'd be gone by now and yet no...


And each day the chilcot report is nearer


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I can just imagine the "shell-shock," they must have been sure he'd be gone by now and yet no...


It's pretty funny. They all thought they were irreplaceable. Until they were replaced.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> It's pretty funny. They all thought they were irreplaceable. Until they were replaced.



Yep! 

'Doh!  '


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 27, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Have we had this yet? It's been quite a fast moving thread do I've missed a lot.




Also...



> *Margaret Hodge, Barking & Dagenham*
> 
> “At this moment of grave danger, we simply cannot allow the party to flounder, become utterly irrelevant to the political debate and disintegrate into a second-rate pressure group. Make no mistake — unless we listen to our voters, our party faces political oblivion.”


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 27, 2016)

Apologies if I've missed this earlier in the thread, it's doing the rounds that the plot was planned, and reported in the telegraph two weeks ago - more here


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Apologies if I've missed this earlier in the thread, it's doing the rounds that the plot was planned, and reported in the telegraph two weeks ago - more here



Yeah it was up earlier, Tom Watson tipped as leading it on the quiet - there's no doubt at all it was planned, you don't get 20 people resigning in a co-ordinated hour on hour list a day before a PLP meeting, Suspect No 1. being conveniently out of the city and internal Remain campaign correspondence leaked all on the same day without an element of organisation.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

Has anyone seen screenshots of some of these resignation letters? Some of them are impressively fast typists if it wasn't coordinated in advance. Perhaps they can type up an exit plan too, that'd be nice.

Example:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Also...


Hodge the paedos' friend I see


----------



## Sirena (Jun 27, 2016)

I think this is interesting.  If the PLP goes to replace Corbyn, they would be disastrously distancing themselves from their membership.  

Who knows what sort of reaction that might provoke..

Jeremy Corbyn Would Win An Even Bigger Landslide Among Labour Members, New Poll Finds; But Hilary Benn Or Dan Jarvis Could Win If Leader Quits


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

That's from February.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

I've looked through that stuff from 4 months ago and can't find if jarvis and benn were unprompted. I know the answer though.


----------



## gosub (Jun 27, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Has anyone seen screenshots of some of these resignation letters? Some of them are impressively fast typists if it wasn't coordinated in advance. Perhaps they can type up an exit plan too, that'd be nice.
> 
> Example:



I suspect this 2as planned since Xmas,  5he referendum result has added spice.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 27, 2016)

Doubtful, as it'd probably put them to sleep faster than Stanley Edwards' knockout spray, but has anyone compiled a retrospective of how much pro-Remain coverage these resigning folk actually got for themselves during the campaign? I can't find shit, although it's got a bit messier now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

gosub said:


> I suspect this 2as planned since Xmas,  5he referendum result has added spice.



										 "


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And each day the chilcot report is nearer



It's a myth, it's not going to appear. Like half life 3


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> It's a myth, it's not going to appear. Like half life 3


Or the second series of filthy rich and catflap

Or aristotle's second book of poetics


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I think this is interesting.  If the PLP goes to replace Corbyn, they would be disastrously distancing themselves from their membership.
> 
> Who knows what sort of reaction that might provoke..
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn Would Win An Even Bigger Landslide Among Labour Members, New Poll Finds; But Hilary Benn Or Dan Jarvis Could Win If Leader Quits


Self-harming Pasokification


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


>


Et tu mirror


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


>


tbf, this is all very well organised, innit?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

Meanwhile in Lambeth, moves are afoot to deselect Kate Hoey for supporting Brexit: Chuka Umunna questions Corbyn leadership as moves are made to de-select Kate Hoey.

To be fair, she shouldn't have got in a boat with Farage if she didn't plan on pushing him in. On the other hand she's always been an excellent MP and she is supporting Corbyn right now. Her future will depend on when the election is held, she might win as an independent on her own merits once everybody calms down.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


>



Christ; call me naive but there seemed to be so much renewed hope and trust in Labour when the members overwhelmingly voted him in. Poor sod was marked from the start.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> tbf, this is all very well organised, innit?


They have put in an admirable level of effort, we really do need to find out who their lead planner is and pop them into the EU negotiation process.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

What's the background of the leading mirror types?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

Pretty shabby. Entirely predictable. He's fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

No he ain't. And what do you mean by predictable? That he could have planned against this? This specific piece in the paper or the wider project?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2016)

Stella Creasy has been pretty quiet throughout all of this, hasn't she?

Dusting off the old nomination form?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


>



Anyone else think this is just flat out lies?

Next up, Corbyn was seen clubbing cute baby seals?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No he ain't. And what do you mean by predictable? That he could have planned against this? This specific piece in the paper or the wider project?


Predictable that he would be bullied out. They've been after him since day one. 

It doesn't help that he's actually shit at putting across any message and offering decent policies either.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Meanwhile in Lambeth, moves are afoot to deselect Kate Hoey for supporting Brexit: Chuka Umunna questions Corbyn leadership as moves are made to de-select Kate Hoey.
> 
> To be fair, she shouldn't have got in a boat with Farage if she didn't plan on pushing him in. On the other hand she's always been an excellent MP and she is supporting Corbyn right now. Her future will depend on when the election is held, she might win as an independent on her own merits once everybody calms down.


There's no deselection moves in there - there's a change.org petition asking her to resign. Which will be about as useful as all the other change.org petitions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Predictable that he would be bullied out. They've been after him since day one.
> 
> It doesn't help that he's actually shit at putting across any message and offering decent policies either.


The attack was predictable - the lack of organised defence by the 100s of thousands of enthused new members not so. Or maybe so.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 27, 2016)

Just seen his speech. I actually admire the man now.  Still standing firm in the face of the entire establishment cunting him off for 9 months and now he's entire shadow cabinet have stabbed him in the back.  He's got a new one now and his days of compromising with these cunts seems to be over.  I think if a new leadership challenge is mounted he'll walk it.  I don't even give a fuck if the party splits because judging by that rally and the show of support and petitions and the like he's got some sort of movement behind him.  Seroiously, who the fuck in this country's gonna listen to pricks like Benn now?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

He needs to be out there calling for a general election and putting forward a plan to defeat austerity: stop persecuting the sick, the unemployed, axe the bedroom tax, reverse the cuts, etc. He's done none of this as far as I can see. Meanwhile Momentum seems to be growing increasingly insular and his position becoming untenable. If there is a leadership challenge and he wins, the blairites won't give up. The party will have to split and he willgo down as the leader that split he party (which may or may not be a bad thing).


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 27, 2016)

Ha just saw the mirror headline. Fuck me what a bunch of cunts eh? Uneblievable, I don't really recall a level of cuntitude quite like this.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

However much he loathes the plotters, corbyn will have to resign within the next 72 hours.  Hard to tell if the bunch of shites are really going to install a plp leader or even think about a new party, but they are way ahead of him ion playing the game.  His problem is, in his chosen politics - parliamentary politics - his isn't even in the game.  If he carries on and goes all the way to a membership vote, the whole thing is fucked - the idea of being able to fight an election in 6 months... When he won the leadership he clearly needed to act - if nothing else he needed to change the party structures to bypass the MPs, but also to start developing a combative politics that looked outside of and built alliances outside Westminster. He's done neither, partly because he was assailed by the media and his perfidious shadow cabinet.  Maybe it was never do-able, but here we are.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The attack was predictable - the lack of organised defence by the 100s of thousands of enthused new members not so. Or maybe so.


indeed.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> There's no deselection moves in there - there's a change.org petition asking her to resign. Which will be about as useful as all the other change.org petitions.


I hope you're right, but when they get overexcited by the rebellion against Corbyn and want their own scalp, it's hard to tell.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

There's no mechanism to deselect at this point in a parliament.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 27, 2016)

It's all a fucking sordid mess. If he holds on he might win a leadership election. I hope he does, tbh. But i think there's no surviving this. The PLP have fucking done for their party for all time.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Wilf said:


> if nothing else he needed to change the party structures to bypass the MPs, but also to start developing a combative politics that looked outside of and built alliances outside Westminster. He's done neither, partly because he was assailed by the media and his perfidious shadow cabinet.  Maybe it was never do-able, but here we are.



He's not a dictator, he can't just clap his hands and change party structures. Nor could he "build politics outside Westminster" on his own in nine months. That bit was down to the likes of Momentum, and it's a project that'd take years at least to overturn the ingrained alienation and cynicism of communities New Labour treated like scum for decades, if it's possible at all. 

Seriously I wonder at the political nous of people who seem to have thought putting "the right guy" in charge would change everything lickety split. This isn't magic ffs it's politics, if you want to build a sustainable mass movement it's the same neverending slog as in any other form of organising. *There are no shortcuts*.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2016)

Owen Jones has basically come out against Corbyn My thoughts on the plight of Labour


----------



## magneze (Jun 27, 2016)

Watson, Eagle & Jarvis now named on Newsnight. Good luck with that.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2016)

magneze said:


> Watson, Eagle & Jarvis now named on Newsnight. Good luck with that.



Wow, they must really think they can't have him on the ballot.


----------



## JimW (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Wow, they must really think they can't have him on the ballot.


Can only be that or they're more deluded than I imagined


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

magneze said:


> Watson, Eagle & Jarvis now named on Newsnight. Good luck with that.


Ha, is that it? Watson tries it? Remember what happened to that chukka bloke?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones has basically come out against Corbyn My thoughts on the plight of Labour


Christ, it's like he c&pd the latest episode of 'I see you'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones has basically come out against Corbyn My thoughts on the plight of Labour


Didn't he write a book about how the elite rule? This is how they manage the political side of it owen. Playing your role. This time, for free.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

Well done on 8 whole months of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

You must leave the eu/oh no don't leave the eu -  You must elect corbyn/oh no you've elected corbyn/ get rid of corbyn.

On all these things -  *listen to me.*


----------



## YouSir (Jun 27, 2016)

Got people in my family who left Labour years back but who are 'natural' Labour supporters. Saying they'll rejoin to keep Corbyn, sickened by media, man of principle etc.

Purely anecdotal but for all the 'realistic' cynicism people can still see him for what he is. Do think he needs to let the attack dogs go though, already has to a degree. He can be the statesman, they can maul some fuckers.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Again, in favour of which MP? Still no answers on this from anyone calling for the man's resignation beyond a selection of mannikins with the collective "leadership and charisma" of a vomit-filled paper bag.



I don't know, but I imagine there could be some sort of contest.

Does no one think that the left side might be a lot stronger with a decent leader?

What on earth does he even believe in? How would he relate to the armed forces, or business, or potential voters who don't share his views.

Careerist maverick.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't know, but I imagine there could be some sort of contest.
> 
> Does no one think that the left side might be a lot stronger with a decent leader?
> 
> ...



WHO? Don't just throw fucking insults around, they're utterly meaningless if you have no alternative. Put your candidate up. If you can't, then what are you good for? What point is there in ousting a fucking donkey if all you have to replace it is fresh air? Or worse, fresh Blair?

Have the courage of your convictions, if you have opinion enough to want the man out then you can damn well have one what should happen next, otherwise all you're doing is letting Hilary Benn lead you around by the nose and calling it a bespoke "leftie" position.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> There's no mechanism to deselect at this point in a parliament.


 
what would the mechanism be if a general election was called in a bit of a hurry?  or is it somehow too late now if there is a snap election?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> what would the mechanism be if a general election was called in a bit of a hurry?  or is it somehow too late now if there is a snap election?


If an election is called early the sitting mp is automatically selected. I posted the relevant section of the party rules upthread somewhere, have a search. I'm fairly sure jumping now is partly precipitated by the opportunity a snap election affords them to avoid revenge deselections..


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2016)

It has to be total war now doesn't it? Or give up the 110 years history and tradition of the party.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 27, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Ha just saw the mirror headline. Fuck me what a bunch of cunts eh? Uneblievable, I don't really recall a level of cuntitude quite like this.


Havent seen the headline yet but The Mirror are as bad as The Sun and the rest - utter utter cunts the lot of them. Dont want to go into details but they did a smear on a friend of mine recently that was as gutter journalism as its possible to be, totally uncalled for and heartbereaking for my friend and his family. Run by Labour PLP press corp - dont get on the wrong side of them. Scum all the way down


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> He's not a dictator, he can't just clap his hands and change party structures. Nor could he "build politics outside Westminster" on his own in nine months. That bit was down to the likes of Momentum, and it's a project that'd take years at least to overturn the ingrained alienation and cynicism of communities New Labour treated like scum for decades, if it's possible at all.
> 
> Seriously I wonder at the political nous of people who seem to have thought putting "the right guy" in charge would change everything lickety split. This isn't magic ffs it's politics, if you want to build a sustainable mass movement it's the same neverending slog as in any other form of organising. *There are no shortcuts*.


Okay, that was lazy saying 'he' should have done those things, slackness because today has been about him and what he will do to respond. I've posted several times on here about the whole project, him, his leading acolytes and, most of all, the 'left' in the constituencies (whether they be old or new joiners).  Also, for clarification, I'm not someone who thought putting 'the right guy' in was the answer - I'm not even involved in parliamentary politics. For me its just a case of wondering what these people thought their project was: was it just warmed up social democratic sick or was it something more creative (the former, emphatically) - and how did they think it was to be consolidated in the party - never mind whether they had an active strategy for reviving working class politics (or even just winning elections).


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It has to be total war now doesn't it? Or give up the 110 years history and tradition of the party.



Has to be a split I reckon. Sooner the better. Chance to reclaim something won't come again and the sides will never be as clear or as certain.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Has to be a split I reckon. Sooner the better. Chance to reclaim something won't come again and the sides will never be as clear or as certain.


Doesn't have to be a split - depends how the other lot react to a corbyn counter-attack and consequent defeat. Might be a split, should be a purge. Should have done it early 2016.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Has to be a split I reckon. Sooner the better. Chance to reclaim something won't come again and the sides will never be as clear or as certain.


The thing about a split is the side that doesnt win the Labour franchise has a massive disadvantage.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The thing about a split is the side that doesnt win the Labour franchise has a massive disadvantage.


You don't need a labour franchise, you jut do it - the other lot would be doing there best to get away from that.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't have to be a split - depends how the other lot react to a corbyn counter-attack and consequent defeat. Might be a split, should be a purge. Should have done it early 2016.



Purge would be better but given the organization I reckon they've got a fallback plan to create a Progress party or something. Mind you, might be giving them too much credit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Purge would be better but given the organization I reckon they've got a fallback plan to create a Progress party or something. Mind you, might be giving them too much credit.


They've been really incompetent and reliant on media management thus far.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

It's the last roll of the dice for the Labour left: they'll never get another run at it. I don't think the labour right really understood this, and thought he'd step down given enough pressure - but he won't and now what?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The thing about a split is the side that doesnt win the Labour franchise has a massive disadvantage.



Corbyn's already won it if he holds firm, I think. Would take some real dodgy shit to get rid of him against the members, which isn't beyond them but they're not exactly geniuses.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They've been really incompetent and reliant on media management thus far.



We shall see. Tbh honest I'm stuck between their obvious stupidity and not believing anyone would be that inept.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> WHO? Don't just throw fucking insults around, they're utterly meaningless if you have no alternative. Put your candidate up. If you can't, then what are you good for? What point is there in ousting a fucking donkey if all you have to replace it is fresh air? Or worse, fresh Blair?
> 
> Have the courage of your convictions, if you have opinion enough to want the man out then you can damn well have one what should happen next, otherwise all you're doing is letting Hilary Benn lead you around by the nose and calling it a bespoke "leftie" position.



My position of not knowing who has that rare combination that can lead both the Party and outside of it makes a lot more sense than you backing someone who plainly can't just because you feel it may be a bit of a blow. He's a loser, can't even look like a winner when the Tories are in trouble. Worse still he is vain.

I don't support Hilary and I don't support Corbyn now. He wasn't loyal in the referendum. He doesn't get mine. He's got no game.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You don't need a labour franchise, you jut do it - the other lot would be doing there best to get away from that.


Labour is a name, a history and a financial structure and means... its that much harder starting from scratch. Though not impossible of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's the last roll of the dice for the Labour left: they'll never get another run at it. I don't think the labour right really understood this, and thought he'd step down given enough pressure - but he won't and now what?


They don't get that corbyn gets this - they think he's just a new media thing to be taken down. I really despise corbyn, he's the sort of left i hate but i hope he takes them to the cleaners or takes the ship down fighting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Labour is a name, a history and a financial structure and means... its that much harder starting from scratch. Though not impossible of course.


That's not what franchise means in political talk.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

On a side note I wish the SWP would stop it with their placard shit, doubt they had a dozen people there tonight but their name was all over. Proper red flags are far better.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They don't get that corbyn gets this - they think he's just a new media thing to be taken down. I really despise corbyn, he's the sort of left i hate but i hope he takes them to the cleaners or takes the ship down fighting.


I'm struggling to see what his options are now tbh. How can he take them to the cleaners?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's the last roll of the dice for the Labour left: they'll never get another run at it. I don't think the labour right really understood this, and thought he'd step down given enough pressure - but he won't and now what?


Whats so frustrating is that Corbyn, as an old school Labour anti-EU stalwart, is probably the single best person in the labour party to deal with this Brexit situation. The stars aligned to put him in this position, the polls were going increasingly in his favour, the tories are in somewhat of a mess (not messy enough though) - the fact the blairites stepped in like this at this moment couldnt be more wrong footed. Yeah, its the last chance saloon. If Iceland can do it so can Corbyn !!!


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm struggling to see what his options are now tbh. How can he take them to the cleaners?



Surviving. All the blatant traitors will be spent efforts waiting for marginalization, defection, expulsion or deselection once he wards off the challenge. Certainly can't circle back for another try, not under their own names at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm struggling to see what his options are now tbh. How can he take them to the cleaners?


Win the coming leadership election. Take away every single privilege that being a labour MP takes. Extraordinary conference immediately  to enact measures to expel them from the party. Or at least let this be known and then see what who chooses what sides in private. If they want to go independent let them. See what happens. As you said, last throw of the dice.


----------



## Duncan2 (Jun 28, 2016)

God the Tories will be loving this.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Win the coming leadership election. Take away every single privilege that being a labour MP takes. Extraordinary conference immediately  to enact measures to expel them from the party. Or at least let this be known and then see what who chooses what sides in private. If they want to go independent let them. See what happens. As you said, last throw of the dice.


Yeah very much this. I really want him to show some teeth now and nail these pricks to the wall. He should've done it sooner. Can't help thinking McDonnell would've done it straight away and he probably would've enjoyed it too.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> God the Tories will be loving this.



Would be better off sharpening their own knives. Media may not care as much but there'll be plenty of savagery there.


----------



## Duncan2 (Jun 28, 2016)

Good.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> My position of not knowing who has that rare combination that can lead both the Party and outside of it makes a lot more sense than you backing someone who plainly can't just because you feel it may be a bit of a blow. He's a loser, can't even look like a winner when the Tories are in trouble. Worse still he is vain.
> 
> I don't support Hilary and I don't support Corbyn now. He wasn't loyal in the referendum. He doesn't get mine. He's got no game.



I'm not backing him though, In fact I've said on regular occasions I thought the PLP would wipe him out before now, that his politics are just warmed-up Keynesianism etc. I'm mostly in this for the entertainment value.

The difference here is I can see a car-crash when it's on its way, in which a PLP full of arrogant political wonks take down their most popular member in favour of exactly the sort of liberal Westminster bean everyone hates. And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions, the remainder of the active membership and quite probably the next two to three elections, while also essentially killing off the last remnants of left influence (because let's be clear about this, if they win now, a left-wing candidate will never happen again).

You on the other hand have nothing other than laughable characterisations of someone you've clearly never met, designed to make you feel better about backing an anti-democratic coup against the only left-winger you'll ever see in charge of Labour. You have no plan, no alternative, you've not bothered to analyse the consequences, all you have are boring, contentless appraisals of his motivations and capabilities. And that I find irritating. Why get worked up about Jeremy failing the left if all you want is for the Labour right to sort everything out for you while you merrily avoid having any original thoughts of your own or involving yourself in any concrete way? What's the point?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not backing him though, In fact I've said on regular occasions I thought the PLP would wipe him out before now, that his politics are just warmed-up Keynesianism etc. I'm mostly in this for the entertainment value.
> 
> The difference here is I can see a car-crash when it's on its way, in which a PLP full of arrogant political wonks take down their most popular member in favour of exactly the sort of liberal Westminster bean everyone hates. And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions, the remainder of the active membership and quite probably the next two to three elections, while also essentially killing off the last remnants of left influence (because let's be clear about this, if they win now, a left-wing candidate will never happen again).
> 
> You on the other hand have nothing other than laughable characterisations of someone you've clearly never met, designed to make you feel better about backing an anti-democratic coup against the only left-winger you'll ever see in charge of Labour. You have no plan, no alternative, you've not bothered to analyse the consequences, all you have are boring, contentless appraisals of his motivations and capabilities. And that I find irritating. Why get worked up about Jeremy failing the left if all you want is for the Labour right to sort everything out for you while you merrily avoid having any original thoughts of your own or involving yourself in any concrete way? What's the point?



Are you a member?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Don't say Jeremy.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Are you a member?



Nope, I don't even vote. As I say, I'm in it for the entertainment value.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Don't say Jeremy.



'Jezz we can'

We need some better chants.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Nope, I don't even vote. As I say, I'm in it for the entertainment value.



Fair enough.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 28, 2016)

How stupid are working class northerners too not do what Urban 75 and Lord Jeremy the Wise told them? As I have been repeatedly told they are just racist simpletons.

Working class clods need to be told what to read and think by their betters, like by those intellectual titans on here. 


All hail Jeremy.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> How stupid are working class northerners too not do what Urban 75 and Lord Jeremy the Wise told them? As I have been repeatedly told they are just racist simpletons.
> 
> Working class clods need to be told what to read and think by their betters, like by those intellectual titans on here.
> 
> ...



Eh?


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Got people in my family who left Labour years back but who are 'natural' Labour supporters. Saying they'll rejoin to keep Corbyn, sickened by media, man of principle etc.
> 
> Purely anecdotal but for all the 'realistic' cynicism people can still see him for what he is. Do think he needs to let the attack dogs go though, already has to a degree. He can be the statesman, they can maul some fuckers.



Milne is a liability, he should let him go.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Eh?


It's ok. He's a scientist.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Next Prime Minister Betting Odds | British Politics | Oddschecker

Corbyn trouser press at 40/1
Brunham at 100/1 is quite a good bet


----------



## Tankus (Jun 28, 2016)

Last bunch of losers you would want negotiating you corner against a bunch of self interested  eurosuits.. when we finally exit...so ineffective.. and bad at political strategy ... 
government in waiting.?.......fuck me is it ...!

Hope someone remembers to turn off the lights


----------



## oryx (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Next Prime Minister Betting Odds | British Politics | Oddschecker
> 
> Corbyn trouser press at 40/1
> Brunham at 100/1 is quite a good bet



Some of those are hilarious.

Might as well have added Roy Hodgson to the list!


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

What's particularly lovely about that sign is that it works for the whole damn lot of them in that building.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> 'Jezz we can'
> 
> We need some better chants.



Definitely.  No one could really bring themselves to chant Jez we can.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> 'Jezz we can'
> 
> We need some better chants.


A PAINFUL DEATH TO EVERY LAST LILY-LIVERED BLAIRITE QUISLING!

That sort of thing, you mean?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

SOCIALISME OU BLAIRIE


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Definitely.  No one could really bring themselves to chant Jez we can.


You just know someone will start saying jizz before long. Corbyn is much safer.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

BETTER
*ONE THOUSAND
INEXPERIENCED YOUNG IDEALISTS*
THAN
*TWO DOZEN
TREACHEROUS OLD DOGS*​


----------



## poului (Jun 28, 2016)

A quote off my Facebook wall from an avid supporter of the #SavingLabour campaign. They clearly still think their vision of Labour is what the people really want.

Personal favourite cringeworthy phrase is "non-ideological progressives".



> Corbyn obviously has to go. But the leadership of the Labour Party will only respond to what it feels is the authentic will of the membership. So all moderates and non-ideological progressives who believe in Labour and who want to end this wellmeaning but incompetent disaster from continuing should join or rejoin the party and make their voice heard and not be drowned out by people with no interest the party being an effective opposition.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

I may not be up on my lingo, but what the fuck are "non-ideological progressives"? It sounds like the request is "if you can't think, won't think and have no morals nor hope then join us"?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

So who are your labour voters and which sorts of labour voters would switch to voting for another party, ie which voters would Corbyn lose, if there was an election tomorrow? Who, if anyone, would he win votes from?

old school trade unionists? the 200k who joined to vote for him?  people who call themselves left wing because they vote for a labour party that has become more and more right wing?  people who swing from labour to tory, people who only vote labour to stop the tories winning that seat?  brexit voters? scottish labour voters?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I may not be up on my lingo, but what the fuck are "non-ideological progressives"? It sounds like the request is "if you can't think, won't think and have no morals nor hope then join us"?



JOOOOOOIN UUUUS!


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

poului said:


> A quote off my Facebook wall from an avid supporter of the #SavingLabour campaign. They clearly still think their vision of Labour is what the people really want.
> 
> Personal favourite cringeworthy phrase is "non-ideological progressives".



laugh, cry, facepalm, I'm undecided.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Quimcunx - How about "everyone who thinks the MPs have collectively behaved appallingly following this referendum result?"


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I may not be up on my lingo, but what the fuck are "non-ideological progressives"? ...


People like us, not like _them_


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## Balbi (Jun 28, 2016)

As an overseas observer, there's a certain satisfaction watching the rebellious Labour lot becoming increasingly desperate and furious, tears and all, at Corbyn's unwillingness to be a good sport, play the game and resign like they would have if this many people had resigned. 

Bryant saying he expected Corbyn voted Leave, and the subsequent gleeful attempts to reveal if that's true - even with Corbyn stating he voted remain, is a real low blow and one that won't go un-noticed.

The PLP can't make Corbyn resign and get him out of the way so they can make a sensible choice about the next leader by promoting whatever vacuous ratfuck they find who's willing to be like all the other leaders since Blair that they've undermined just enough to maintain their career prospects. 

Their utter befuddlement as his refusal to resign is glorious, as they realise they can't force him out - except by triggering a leadership election, which Corbyn will likely win. Or triggering a leadership election, that he is excluded from, and then facing the wroth of their membership.

If he's going to go, and I hope he doesn't, I hope he tears down the whole fucking lot with him.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

What's that from? butchersapron


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Balbi said:


> If he's going to go, and I hope he doesn't, I hope he tears down the whole fucking lot with him.



Corbyn and Abbott greet Hodge, Watson, Private Pike and all into the Opposition Leader's office:


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> What's that from? butchersapron


The pretend pro-democracy demo (actually pro-lib-dem) in the week before they announced the tory-lib-dem-coalition in 2010.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

Cheers.  Nice shade of purple.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Balbi said:


> As an overseas observer, there's a certain satisfaction watching the rebellious Labour lot becoming increasingly desperate and furious, tears and all, at Corbyn's unwillingness to be a good sport, play the game and resign like they would have if this many people had resigned.
> 
> Bryant saying he expected Corbyn voted Leave, and the subsequent gleeful attempts to reveal if that's true - even with Corbyn stating he voted remain, is a real low blow and one that won't go un-noticed.
> 
> ...


Thing is, if he was playing it like them they wouldn't be here to to do this.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 28, 2016)

Yeah, he fell into the trap of the 'big tent' politician, despite it undermining his predecessor. Too nice for his own good? Or just unexpectedly having to form a cabinet with what he had.

If he'd gone full bore from the leadership election and left the backbenchers out, they'd still be playing merry hell back there - after all, they've got a decade or more's contacts with the right people in the media, know how to get stories out and had no intention at all of even considering giving him a fair go.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The pretend pro-democracy demo (actually pro-lib-dem) in the week before they announced the tory-lib-dem-coalition in 2010.



Is that bloke at the front taking the piss? He looks familiar.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 28, 2016)

So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do. 

You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

How long before they wheel out an ex-PM/leader a la Kinnck Snr or Brown to call for him to go?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 28, 2016)

I'm coming around to the idea that most dangerous at where we are now is the rise of racism, xenophobia & the far right if the country is allowed to turn in on itself. I'm a great fan of Jeremy's left wing ideals but this country needs an electable Labour government in waiting soonest because it needs a Labour government even if it is Nu Labour. I think the only direction a Tory government will take is to the right.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

Have you not been paying attention?

One of the reasons were in this mess is the retreat of Labour to middle England abandoning w/c concerns in the process.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.


I think there's just been a range of opinions hasn't there? I missed the shouting down and the denouncing, when did that happen?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.



Lib Dem voters then?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> Have you not been paying attention?
> 
> One of the reasons were in this mess is the retreat of Labour to middle England abandoning w/c concerns in the process.


Yes agreed & in normal times I would be fully behind Jeremy & I was until about now but would you not agree that it is important that there is some sort electable Labour government in waiting in place? Another Tory government & the only direction is right. At least if a Labour government is elected then then forces can work from within to direct it left.


----------



## Sue (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes agreed & in normal times I would be fully behind Jeremy & I was until about now but would you not agree that it is important that there is some sort electable Labour government in waiting in place? Another Tory government & the only direction is right. At least if a Labour government is elected then then forces can work from within to direct it left.


Who as leader do you think would make Labour more electable?


----------



## heinous seamus (Jun 28, 2016)

I'm surprised that gobshite Blair hasn't piped up yet. The cunt.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 28, 2016)

Sue said:


> Who as leader do you think would make Labour more electable?


I agree that is a problem but it needs addressing very quickly which is what I am pointing out. What you have now in the party is stalemate. It would be good if Corbyn could rally support behind him. If he achieves that then all good but however this is done there needs to be a united group of all Labour MPs ready for the next general Election that could well be before the end of the year. A party in conflict is not electable. This is about the art of the possible.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.



But this just isn't true! This thread is remarkable, I think, for its openess, its don't knowness, and there's range of views about Corbyn. Mine, for example, is very much influenced by an interest in group dynamics; I'm really impressed by his ability to think under that kind of personal and political attack. I don't suppose this is in the forefront of most people's thinking on this thread. 

For the same reason, I'm really interested in this idea of a leader as a kind of magical solution.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

heinous seamus said:


> I'm surprised that gobshite Blair hasn't piped up yet. The cunt.


He did on Friday didn't he?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> At least if a Labour government is elected then then forces can work from within to direct it left.



It can't now. Even supporting Corbyn's democratic socialism is now seen predominately as making someone 'hard left'. If ordinary members who came to/back to the party because of Corbyn trying to move it leftwards aren't able to do so, the PLP certainly won't.


----------



## Sue (Jun 28, 2016)

Mat Wrack on R4 just now pointing out that Margaret Hodge couldn't deliver a remain vote in her own backyard.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Sue said:


> Mat Wrack on R4 just now pointing out that Margaret Hodge couldn't deliver a remain vote in her own backyard.


Tell him he's forty pages late


----------



## co-op (Jun 28, 2016)

Sue said:


> Who as leader do you think would make Labour more electable?



This is it really. Even if you buy the mainstream narrative that this is all about needing a charismatic leader, the Blairites just don't have one. 

They have the opposite, all their top people are either blatant dummies like Benn, rampaging egoists like Kendall or blander than bland - eg Cooper. None of them looks remotely like a Second Coming of St Tony.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 28, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> It can't now. Even supporting Corbyn's democratic socialism is now seen predominately as making someone 'hard left'. If ordinary members who came to/back to the party because of Corbyn wanting to move it leftwards aren't able to do so, the PLP certainly won't.


Well ok. So the only alternative is a Tory government? Before last GE those on here who suggested vote Labour as least worst option were shouted down but as it turns out that would have been least worst option because if we had ended up with a coalition there would have been no EU referendum.

However I would say that as things have turned out there is an opportunity for the left but that cannot happen unless some sort of Labour government can be elected. Thats all I have ever said really. Has anybody got any better idea of how to get a socialist government established eventually? Any next Tory government will only go to the right.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

They must surely realise there's no interest in the party for a full blooded blairite: some sort of soft left unity candidate will be what they're going for. Although again, I can't see anyone standing out from the pack.

I read yesterday there's three separate plots going on (presumably with three possible leaders - that's going to work isn't it?)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I read yesterday there's three separate plots going on (presumably with three possible leaders - that's going to work isn't it?)



They could call it... the Cunta?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.


I talked to a few labour members/voters yesterday, most of whom don't describe to full-on corbyn-mania, some of whom are very critical of him, but they were all furious about this.  Its the contempt they are showing their members and voters and the rest of the country - the feeling is that this is the worst time this could have happened, that the plotters haven't even resigned all together - but are trying to cause maximum uncertainty and disruption and keep this dominating the news, and that the plotters haven't presented a clear programme (ie they aren't doing much to get Labour members on their side).

I don't think this has been a bad discussion on here, especially after the first page or two.  Someone got a bit of stick because they're mates with a minister who resigned, because their voting record on welfare does not make them the decent person that it was claimed.  I think there have been a range of views about Corbyn on here.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> "Debbie Abrahams - shadow work and pension secretary"
> 
> Anyone know anything about her, apart from wikipedia


Got the time to look at her voting record - good on benefits



> *How Debbie Abrahams voted on Welfare and Benefits #*
> 
> Almost always voted against reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")Show votes
> Consistently voted for raising welfare benefits at least in line with pricesShow votes
> ...




A quick look at the detail says when she didn't vote against reductions she was absent from the vote.
She did vote to replace trident though.

TheyWorkForYou


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I read yesterday there's three separate plots going on (presumably with three possible leaders - that's going to work isn't it?)


Cool, like Cerberus, if Cerberus had no heads, three arses and let people pass freely into and out of Hell because it was preoccupied trying to bite itself. With its arses.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> At least if a Labour government is elected then then forces can work from within to direct it left.



Didn't work too well with Blair did it?

Give me open and declared Tories rather than disguised Tories, any day.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 28, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Didn't work too well with Blair did it?
> 
> Give me open and declared Tories rather than disguised Tories, any day.


Yes but that still gives us worse government. I'm sure few on here would prefer a Tory government if they cannot get the Labour government they want? Although I recall in the 70s some anarchists wanted a right wing government elected because they believed political chaos could breed revolution. That's you, isn't it?


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes agreed & in normal times I would be fully behind Jeremy & I was until about now but would you not agree that it is important that there is some sort electable Labour government in waiting in place? Another Tory government & the only direction is right. At least if a Labour government is elected then then forces can work from within to direct it left.



as Sunshine Anderson put, "heard it all before".... too,too many times.There's always a good reason people shld just put up with slightly less shite than Tory Nu labs ( ""New Realists" as they once were ), and all it leads to , ever , is more of the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes but that still gives us worse government. I'm sure few on here would prefer a Tory government if they cannot get the Labour government they want? Although I recall in the 70s some anarchists wanted a right wing government elected because they believed political chaos could breed revolution. That's you, isn't it?


Doesn't matter too much what he wants, he hasn't lived here for years and shows no inclination of returning


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes but that still gives us worse government. I'm sure few on here would prefer a Tory government if they cannot get the Labour government they want? Although I recall in the 70s some anarchists wanted a right wing government elected because they believed political chaos could breed revolution. That's you, isn't it?



No it isn't. 

But I would prefer a Tory government to a NuLabor government, because I think NuLabor would do worse things than  the Tories.  It wasn't the Tories who invaded Iraq.

In the USA it's called "Nixon-to-China Syndrome."  The idea being that only a politician who is labeled as "right-wing" could get away with doing something so apparently "left-wing" as opening relations with Red China.  And vice versa, obviously--Bill Clinton's abolition of welfare and promotion of mass incarceration being a good example.  The Republicans would never have got away with that, but Clinton did because dafties thought he was a "liberal."


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Doesn't matter too much what he wants, he hasn't lived here for years and shows no inclination of returning



Not that it matters, but I spend more time in the UK than in any other country.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

BTW - George Eaton's evidence that Corbyn voted out appears to be some bloke who saw him in a restaurant last week claiming he asked him which way he was going to vote, and Corbyn told him 'leave'. That's it. 

The attempt to pin the loss of the referendum on Corbyn against all the evidence is purely an attempt to turn his young liberal supporters away from him, nothing more. All the while telling the people they 'failed to reach out to' that they're idiot racists. Great tactic.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not backing him though, In fact I've said on regular occasions I thought the PLP would wipe him out before now, that his politics are just warmed-up Keynesianism etc. I'm mostly in this for the entertainment value.
> 
> The difference here is I can see a car-crash when it's on its way, in which a PLP full of arrogant political wonks take down their most popular member in favour of exactly the sort of liberal Westminster bean everyone hates. And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions, the remainder of the active membership and quite probably the next two to three elections, while also essentially killing off the last remnants of left influence (because let's be clear about this, if they win now, a left-wing candidate will never happen again).
> 
> You on the other hand have nothing other than laughable characterisations of someone you've clearly never met, designed to make you feel better about backing an anti-democratic coup against the only left-winger you'll ever see in charge of Labour. You have no plan, no alternative, you've not bothered to analyse the consequences, all you have are boring, contentless appraisals of his motivations and capabilities. And that I find irritating. Why get worked up about Jeremy failing the left if all you want is for the Labour right to sort everything out for you while you merrily avoid having any original thoughts of your own or involving yourself in any concrete way? What's the point?



I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?

But it's also a silly position to think that absolutely everyone who disagrees with Corbyn is evil. 30 people who thought they could work with him can't. All he has left in Parliament is his dismal friendship group.

Corbyn's referendum showing indicated he was either lying or crap. Neither is tenable. We had this with Ed last time, can't oust him it's just the Blairites

At the end of the day it's a role, a job. If the membership hold the cards what is needed is a strong performer.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions,


 You reckon so, I think they piss and moan a bit and then stump up the usual cash.



wheelie_bin said:


> I may not be up on my lingo, but what the fuck are "non-ideological progressives"? It sounds like the request is "if you can't think, won't think and have no morals nor hope then join us"?


Greens, people like free spirit, Mr Moose, krtek a houby


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 28, 2016)

FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.


Built for headlines so it is

*SORE LIKE AN EAGLE*
_Angry Angela preys on vulnerable Jezza_


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Built for headlines so it is
> 
> *SORE LIKE AN EAGLE*
> _Angry Angela preys on vulnerable Jezza_



Life in the fast lane - you know you're gonna lose your mind.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

tbf, she does win (hands down) in the contest to see who has a name more closely resembling, scanning and 'rhyming' with a successful, extant national leader.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?
> 
> But it's also a silly position to think that absolutely everyone who disagrees with Corbyn is evil. 30 people who thought they could work with him can't. All he has left in Parliament is his dismal friendship group.
> 
> ...



It's not about some sort of 'lack of charisma' or 'not being able to work with him' or 'him not being strong leadership material', it's about the battle at the core of the Labour party over its ideology and positioning. And, it won't go leftwards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.


You're simply replacing the rest of the country with people you know here. You're a quite well off bod in a non labour area. It's probably not key that labour appeals to you andyour mates as its core. Cobyn has passed every test with that required core though. Don't substitute yourself and your mates for that core.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm sorry, but in what universe do you (assuming your purpose is not Blairite sabotage) get rid of Jezza for lack of leadership and charisma and promote Angela Eagle?





Lurdan said:


> FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.



Well well.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?



They already did, and will again if he's on the ballot. A top-level coup to get rid of the serving leader eight months into the biggest personal grassroots mandate ever handed to a Labour chief, that's what you're advocating for. Don't hide behind waffle.



Mr Moose said:


> At the end of the day it's a role, a job. If the membership hold the cards what is needed is a strong performer.



But you don't have a strong performer. You've made it blindingly obvious you don't have a strong performer, because I've asked you for a name several times and you've refused to offer one.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2016)

Sue said:


> Mat Wrack on R4 just now pointing out that Margaret Hodge couldn't deliver a remain vote in her own backyard.



thought he was really good, straight fwd, common sense .


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Well well.



Angela Eagle. Fuck me why not just abandon Westminster and hand the keys to Boris.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.


That's got to be a windup.

She has the presence of a tree stump.

Cometh the hour, loseth the plot


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Angela Eagle. Fuck me why not just abandon Westminster and hand the keys to Boris.


I think he already has a set; what do you think an eton education is for?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> But you don't have a strong performer. You've made it blindingly obvious you don't have a strong performer, because I've asked you for a name several times and you've refused to offer one.


Exactly.  Who is this strong performer who is challenging Corbyn?  Such a strong and confident performer that s/he has yet to show their hand.  S/he seems a bit of a coward.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> BTW - George Eaton's evidence that Corbyn voted out appears to be some bloke who saw him in a restaurant last week claiming he asked him which way he was going to vote, and Corbyn told him 'leave'. That's it.
> 
> The attempt to pin the loss of the referendum on Corbyn against all the evidence is purely an attempt to turn his young liberal supporters away from him, nothing more. All the while telling the people they 'failed to reach out to' that they're idiot racists. Great tactic.



George Eaton last night : pushing this ludicrous non story as if he was Carl fecking Bernstein in the making - embarassing, patrician plonker of the first order, with a nasty little agenda to  boot, of course.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> But I would prefer a Tory government to a NuLabor government, because I think NuLabor would do worse things than  the Tories.  It wasn't the Tories who invaded Iraq.
> 
> In the USA it's called "Nixon-to-China Syndrome."  The idea being that only a politician who is labeled as "right-wing" could get away with doing something so apparently "left-wing" as opening relations with Red China.  And vice versa, obviously--Bill Clinton's abolition of welfare and promotion of mass incarceration being a good example.  The Republicans would never have got away with that, but Clinton did because dafties thought he was a "liberal."


Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion. 

As shit as either choice is, surely it is demonstrably worse to vote Tory! :O

Look at what they've done!


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion.
> 
> As shit as either choice is, surely it is demonstrably worse to vote Tory! :O
> 
> Look at what they've done!



For the most part all they've done is intensify Blairism for a post-2008 era. The same elements of the Labour party now in open revolt either actively voted with them, or refused to get in the way. How short people's memories are about the way in which successive elections have been characterised as "you can't fit a fag paper between them."


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 28, 2016)

Eagle's name put forward in a piece he gave to camera.

Obviously we shall see soon enough if the notion of a unity anti-Corby candidate has any basis in reality, however if it is being discussed and briefed to the BBC it might suggest a recognition that they face two separate problems : first dumping Corbyn, second dealing with the subsequent internal shitstorm a 'successful' challenger would face. In one scenario Eagle or whoever would be the sacrificial goat and, if successful in defeating Corbyn, act as a lightning rod for anger before a subsequent contest elected the 'real' cunt.

Might also be that some 'contenders' would prefer to remain in opposition while the process of defining what the fuck 'leave' the EU means is being laid on the rest of us.


----------



## andysays (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> Obviously we shall see soon enough if the notion of a unity anti-Corby candidate has any basis in reality, however if it is being discussed and briefed to the BBC it might suggest a recognition that they face two separate problems : first dumping Corbyn, second dealing with the subsequent internal shitstorm a 'successful' challenger would face. *In one scenario Eagle or whoever would be the sacrificial goat* and, if successful in defeating Corbyn, act as a lightning rod for anger before a subsequent contest elected the 'real' cunt...



Or the stalking eagle...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

*THE EAGLE HAS MANDIED





*


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 28, 2016)

But some are created more eagle than others.


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> *THE EAGLE HAS MANDIED
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This whole exercise only makes sense as a gift for your puns


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.


I heard it was Nandy Pandy.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion.



That's not the point.  The point is that the Tories couldn't have swung public opinion behind the invasion.  Everyone would have said: "typical imperialist Tories at it again, bugger off."  But because it was Blair, still supposed to be a liberal at that point, everyone thought: "hmmm... well if even this Left-wing person thinks it's a good idea, there must be something to it."

That scenario has been repeated numerous times over the last ten years or so.  So yes, I very much would prefer the Tories to NuLabor.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's not the point.  The point is that the Tories couldn't have swung public opinion behind the invasion.  Everyone would have said: "typical imperialist Tories at it again, bugger off."  But because it was Blair, still supposed to be a liberal at that point, everyone thought: "hmmm... well if even this Left-wing person thinks it's a good idea, there must be something to it."
> 
> That scenario has been repeated numerous times over the last ten years or so.  So yes, I very much would prefer the Tories to NuLabor.


THat's not much of a reason. Blair is not in power now, Corbyn is, for now at least, in charge. I don't see the current Labour party getting away with things like the Bedroom Tax, for example. Sure they tightened the thumbscrews on the poor, but nothing in thirteen years like what this lot has done in 6. 

I think that difference in degree, if you're offering a choice that's either Tory or Labour, is important.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

JimW said:


> This whole exercise only makes sense as a gift for your puns


Britain's last great export sector


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> THat's not much of a reason. Blair is not in power now, Corbyn is, for now at least, in charge. I don't see the current Labour party getting away with things like the Bedroom Tax, for example. Sure they tightened the thumbscrews on the poor, but nothing in thirteen years like what this lot has done in 6.



The invasion of Iraq was a crime that puts everything the Tories have done in the shade.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Okay having watched this I'm sold. My God the charisma, the pizzazz, the obvious leadership contender *swoons*. Angela is worth disregarding an overwhelming membership vote for, I'm certain her habit of blinking manically whenever she's under pressure won't be a "presentation issue".


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

What were the turnouts like in Newcastle and Manchester last night? Turnout for last leadership vote was 422k. Petition of support currently at 216k, 10k out in London, however many in other cities. Obviously a lot of crossover and none of it amounts to anything solid. Still, can't understand how they think Angela Eagle could win. You van scare some people, some are naturally anti-Corbyn, some will swing away from him - but I've seen nothing to show the kind of shift they're betting on.

Getting harder to believe they have a master plan tbh.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 28, 2016)

Birkenhead - Frank Field

 Leave – 21,787 (51.7%)
 Remain – 20,348 (48.3%)

Wallasey - Anna Eagle

 Leave – 23,377 (49.9%)
 Remain – 23,449 (50.1%)

Field: "This result is the first clear revolt against globalisation and its undermining of working-class living standards."
Eagle: "Corbyn must go"

Field might get to keep his seat.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Getting harder to believe they have a master plan tbh.



There's master plans, and then there's master plans.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## kazza007 (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.


Spot on. Usual delusional in their little clique.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> But this just isn't true! This thread is remarkable, I think, for its openess, its don't knowness, and there's range of views about Corbyn. Mine, for example, is very much influenced by an interest in group dynamics; I'm really impressed by his ability to think under that kind of personal and political attack. I don't suppose this is in the forefront of most people's thinking on this thread.
> 
> For the same reason, I'm really interested in this idea of a leader as a kind of magical solution.


Yes, the thread is (reasonably) open and polite.  I've been essentially arguing an illogical line about corbyn - I'm an anarchist who is thinking about what is happening within Labour entirely within the narrow logic of parliamentary politics (essentially, that corbyn and his followers are not playing the game well - either the internal party battle or the struggle to create a voting block that might win an election).  I've not been shouted down... yet.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Spot on. Usual delusional in their little clique.



Hundreds of thousands declare their support, thousands out on the streets, TU backing. But you're right, really it's just half a dozen Urbanites with lots of costume changes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, the thread is (reasonably) open and polite.  I've been essentially arguing an illogical line about corbyn - I'm an ist who is thinking about what is happening within Labour entirely within the narrow logic of parliamentary politics (essentially, that corbyn and his followers are not playing the game well - either the internal party battle or the struggle to create a voting block that might win an election).  I've not been shouted down... yet.


Shut up twat. I think to try and approach the issue from that angle is to accept totally the grounds of the blairites etc when the whole point of the corbyn election was to open up the territory outside of parliament and the electoral process. I don't think the new members and the corbynites have actually followed through on their promises at all (thereby possibly  falsifying my suggestion that this has given the labour party illusory left-legs for another 20 years) and have ended up simply being a support for parliamentary politics of a leadership type - but whilst the opp is there to think outside of that circus i think you have to. Esp as an ist.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

kazza007 said:


> Spot on. Usual delusional in their little clique.



Really? Because I've not seen anyone present Corbyn as the perfect option here, or argue he's particularly effective, either at what the Blairites want (ie. winning an election that they themselves couldn't win in a month of Sundays) or what the party left wants (a change in direction). The words "traitor" and "lickspittle" haven't been uttered. In fact I'm not seeing a single accurate statement in rubbershoes' post. 

As for "utterly delusional" I'm still yet to see any one of the people calling on Corbyn to resign put forward a strong argument that goes beyond "Corbyn's shit and should leave." Alright he's shit. So what happens next?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.


Guardian were reporting that she was visibly upset at the plp meeting following her earlier resigning performance in the telly interview.  She's emerging as the 'regretful traitor'.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

What's an Ist?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Guardian were reporting that she was visibly upset at the plp meeting following her earlier resigning performance in the telly interview.  She's emerging as the 'regretful traitor'.


Marc Antony:

_Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears
Brutus says he is now regretting the work of his knife
Sorry about that_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> What's an Ist?


It's like on ology, but less sciencey


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> What's an Ist?


I think he meant to type anarchist.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> What's an Ist?


What happens when you try and do the @ ist shorthand on a board that uses the @ thing to tag members.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

you should consider stopping using such a silly shorthand altogether, tbf


----------



## Sifta (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Marc Antony:
> 
> _Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears
> Brutus says he is now regretting the work of his knife
> Sorry about that_



Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.--Hell is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?--Yet who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> you should consider stopping using such a silly shorthand altogether, tbf


((((ists)))))


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2016)

there's another thread for this I know, but, jack monroe's  incessant, freeform fruitbat twitter assault on Corbyn has gone of on some fair old tangents / today tnight 

 ....(((jack monroe))) (@MxJackMonroe) on Twitter 

"How many lining up to smear me have not taken a day off in about 4 years because your heart breaks for injustice and you just have to help? "

"Who among my haters has sent countless 'weekly shops' to absolute strangers on the breadline as a result of benefit cuts and sanctions? " 

etc etc , forever


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

cantsin said:


> "How many lining up to smear me have not taken a day off in about 4 years because your heart breaks for injustice and you just have to help? "
> 
> "Who among my haters has sent countless 'weekly shops' to absolute strangers on the breadline as a result of benefit cuts and sanctions? "
> 
> etc etc , forever


----------



## mk12 (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?



The membership did decide. Less than a year ago.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up twat. I think to try and approach the issue from that angle is to accept totally the grounds of the blairites etc when the whole point of the corbyn election was to open up the territory outside of parliament and the electoral process. I don't think the new members and the corbynites have actually followed through on their promises at all (thereby possibly  falsifying my suggestion that this has given the labour party illusory left-legs for another 20 years) and have ended up simply being a support for parliamentary politics of a leadership type - but whilst the opp is there to think outside of that circus i think you have to. Esp as an ist.


Well, I agree with all of that, that's the criticism I've been marking of the corbyn thing for a while.  I've seen good comrades, even a few, ahem, ists seduced by the whole thing. I never went anywhere near that far but did think there was a slight opportunity to build something else, to think beyond the Westminster dance. That would have required a new mind set, a new way of thinking, just to get to the point where local branches and clps worked with other groups and opened themselves up to the community. It might not have worked and would have been sabotaged by the blairites all the way.  But it doesn't matter, they haven't done it and here we are. To be honest, I'm not sure corbyn himself ever planned to do anything of the sort. 

However when I'm arguing labour is fucked, pretty much along the lines that a run of the mill tv commentator would argue, that's not just the logic of blairism.  It's the rules of the game that corbyn himself chose long ago.  he's a parliamentary social democrat even if he hasn't got quite the cretinism of tony benn.  If he and his followers aren't going to play a new game they will end up losing the conventional one.  A massive blood letting of the blairites at this stage might secure the party but it pushes the notion of a general election victory even further away.  He's lost.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well, I agree with all of that, that's the criticism I've been marking of the corbyn thing for a while.  I've seen good comrades, even a few, ahem, ists seduced by the whole thing. I never went anywhere near that far but did think there was a slight opportunity to build something else, to think beyond the Westminster dance. That would have required a new mind set, a new way of thinking, just to get to the point where local branches and clps worked with other groups and opened themselves up to the community. It might not have worked and would have been sabotaged by the blairites all the way.  But it doesn't matter, they haven't done it and here we are. To be honest, I'm not sure corbyn himself ever planned to do anything of the sort.
> 
> However when I'm arguing labour is fucked, pretty much along the lines that a run of the mill tv commentator would argue, that's not just the logic of blairism.  It's the rules of the game that corbyn himself chose long ago.  he's a parliamentary social democrat even if he hasn't got quite the cretinism of tony benn.  If he and his followers aren't going to play a new game they will end up losing the conventional one.  A massive blood letting of the blairites at this stage might secure the party but it pushes the notion of a general election victory even further away.  He's lost.



I don't agree that the potential for an election victory is lost, but that's by the by really. Winning a fight for the party now wins potential, either under Corbyn or someone else the party will be pried open and forced to accept something closer to its founding purpose. It'll never be something that appeals to your politics, but it'll certainly be better for them if there's a mainstream left voice, even a parliamentary, social democratic one.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> However when I'm arguing labour is fucked, pretty much along the lines that a run of the mill tv commentator would argue, that's not just the logic of blairism.  It's the rules of the game that corbyn himself chose long ago.  he's a parliamentary social democrat even if he hasn't got quite the cretinism of tony benn.  If he and his followers aren't going to play a new game they will end up losing the conventional one.  A massive blood letting of the blairites at this stage might secure the party but it pushes the notion of a general election victory even further away.  He's lost.



I don't think Corbyn's playing the electoral game right now.

He's got a win scenario here, just not an electoral one (if we're honest there isn't an electoral one for Labour, the coup attempt has made damn sure of that with or without Corbyn at the helm). If he holds out to the next election, two things happen. One, MPs become eligible for deselection, and if there's enough solidly pro-Corbyn CLPs at that point, some of the party right will go. Two, it gives his allies more time to sink hooks into the internal machinery. If he gets both those, even after he loses the election there's a good chance enough left MPs will have been selected and installed that the magic 34 is available for the next left candidate and crucially, the Blairites won't be in a position to change the election rules to wipe out the one-member-one-vote +£3ers system. At that point, Corbyn's won.

It also opens the space and time for the things you're talking about, which are going to take far more time and effort than mere words about "opening up to the community." Seriously it's difficult to overstate the scale of that job, even for Labour. The left generally has been dead in the water nationwide for decades, you can't just snap fingers and expect a couple of old MPs plus a bundle of enthusiastic newbies to turn it around on a dime. There's entire CLPs which need repopulating, whole towns where young adults have no connection even to trade unions, let alone to a party that's never been anything other than utterly irrelevant. It's not an easy job even when you're not under near-constant attack from your own side.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

Some polling that says 25% of the people who voted Labour at the last GE wouldn't again if Corbyn was the leader. That's obviuosly not encouraging in terms of GE victory, but it's far from the whole picture. How many Miliband-Labour voters were disgruntled former Lib Dem voters who might have drifted back that way anyway as memories of the Coalition faded? How many possible Labour voters stayed away last time either because they were unconvinced by Miliband personally, or because the party's apologetic half-way house of Tory-lite policies did nothing for anyone? How many of them might return under Corbyn? How many of that 25% would in fact grit their teeth in the end and vote for a Labour Party that wasn't exactly the Labour Party they wanted - as many millions have done since 1997?

On the other hand the 'blairites' are surely finished, and really have no grasp of just how much they're despised by many and seen as a complete irrelevance by many others.

So I'm not entirely convinced that the bloodletting/sticking with Corbyn makes GE victory any more unlikely than it already was.

I say this not as a particular Corbyn fan. I've never fallen for the 'he will save us' nonsense, and his presence so far has been more principled than that of some past leaders, perhaps, but pretty lacklustre. I think the Labour Party's probably doomed, and we can look forward to at least two more full terms of Tories (probably more if a GE is imminent) before anything even remotely useful is created in its place.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

I regard the Labour Party as (part of) the "enemy" and historically have had little time for Corbyn, as butchersapron has already pointed out, he represents the sort of left that was so damaging during the 80s. 

However,  a victory for Corbyn here opens up more possibilities than a defeat would do.


----------



## inva (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> I regard the Labour Party as (part of) the "enemy" and historically have had little time for Corbyn, as butchersapron has already pointed out, he represents the sort of left that was so damaging during the 80s.
> 
> However,  a victory for Corbyn here opens up more possibilities than a defeat would do.


do you mean a ge victory or him staying as leader?


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> However,  a victory for Corbyn here opens up more possibilities than a defeat would do.



Yeah, I think that sums it up fairly well. He's not the solution - of course he's not. But he's a more interesting and at least potentially productive direction for things to go in than a ditching of the 'experiment' and a move back towards the heart of neo-liberal consensus rather than its fringes.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I don't agree that the potential for an election victory is lost, but that's by the by really. Winning a fight for the party now wins potential, either under Corbyn or someone else the party will be pried open and forced to accept something closer to its founding purpose. It'll never be something that appeals to your politics, but it'll certainly be better for them if there's a mainstream left voice, even a parliamentary, social democratic one.


.
No, it wouldn't appeal to my politics, but I'm trying to think about it in terms of its own logic.  And in that sense how it plays out is important. Labour couldn't win a snap election as they were a week ago and certainly can't now.  How it plays out is important in the rules of the game.  If the party ends up with someone like Burnham they could just hold together as an uneasy coalition, something like the fudge of the miliband years, but in a more depressing climate.  If the blairites are eventually crushed you end up with a more coherent party, but labour either splits or a significant splinter go into talks with the libdems (or some variation on any of these).  None of that adds up to winning in 2016 or 2020.  That's entirely banal, conventional parliamentary logic, but that's the terrain corbyn has refused to budge from.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

inva said:


> do you mean a ge victory or him staying as leader?



Both. But he has to stay as leader first.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Some polling that says 25% of the people who voted Labour at the last GE wouldn't again if Corbyn was the leader.



Doesn't the same polling say a similar % of the people who voted tory at the last GE wouldn't do again too?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Some polling that says 25% of the people who voted Labour at the last GE wouldn't again if Corbyn was the leader.



How many of the other parties' voters said they'd stick with their choices?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Doesn't the same polling say a similar % of the people who voted tory at the last GE wouldn't do again too?



I think a significantly larger percentage of Tory voters said so...although I can't find a link at the minute.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Doesn't the same polling say a similar % of the people who voted tory at the last GE wouldn't do again too?



Yep, someone on here found the numbers. Every party was down by a chunk, Labour least of all I think.


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

Yes, I found it in a Survation poll.

30% of Tory voters, 40% of Lib Dem voters and 26% of UKIP voters all say they wouldn't vote for them in a GE held tomorrow. Labour were also 26%.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Independent yesterday had a piece on a poll that found a certin% of leavers regretted their vote. They then shouted *a million people* based on whatever % it was and used that as the headline. At the end - i think a few lines - they said the poll found the same for remain voters who regretted their vote.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Doesn't the same polling say a similar % of the people who voted tory at the last GE wouldn't do again too?





Louis MacNeice said:


> How many of the other parties' voters said they'd stick with their choices?





Louis MacNeice said:


> I think a significantly larger percentage of Tory voters said so...although I can't find a link at the minute.



Sorry, can't find the link either, but yes, that's another huge variable muddying the picture. I'm not suggesting I think Corbyn's the best man for the job, let alone that he's likely to get it, so much as that in the current situation all sorts of unlikely things suddenly seem harder to rule out...


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

This Guardian article quotes the internal LP polling I was thinking of - the percentage is even greater than that from the Survation poll quoted above. Look how the Guardian spin it though:




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Leaked internal Labour party polling suggested that Labour would attract nearly 3 million fewer votes than it did in the 2015 general election if one were called today.
> 
> It shows that just 71% of those who voted for Ed Miliband’s Labour party in May last year say they would vote Labour now...



Quite clearly the conclusion in the first sentence (3 million fewer votes) does not follow from the second unless you ignore all the other variables.


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

Just had another look, there's a new poll from ICM.

Their numbers are:

30% Tory voters wouldn't vote Conservative
30% UKIP voters wouldn't vote UKIP
24% Labour voters wouldn't vote Labour
53% Lib Dem voters wouldn't vote LD


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

Thank god for the Lib Dems, eh? Still providing a bit of comic relief amidst all this shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

53% Lib Dem voters wouldn't vote LD

And the other one was having 2nd thoughts.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Lib Dems - the white dogshit of British parliamentary politics


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

30% UKIP voters wouldn't vote UKIP

Be interested to know where this vote would go, not vot again, etc?

btw, reckon my MP Paul Blomfield is to vote no confidence, he is being very cagey.


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

To clarify.

Breakdown of those floating voters:

Tory voters would vote:

3% Labour
2% Lib Dem
5% UKIP
1% Green
17% Don't Know

Labour voters would vote:

3% Tory
2% Lib Dem
5% UKIP
1% Plaid Cymru
2% Green
1% Wouldn't Vote
11% Don't Know

UKIP voters would vote:

9% Tory
3% Labour
1% Lib Dem
2% Wouldn't vote
16% Don't Know

Lib Dem voters would vote:

8% Tory
12% Labour
1% UKIP
3% SNP
3% Green
26% Don't Know


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Looks like the time is right once again for a party called "don't know".


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> To clarify.
> 
> Breakdown of those floating voters:
> 
> ...



Here we are mocking the Lib Dems when as many as 5% of voters are thinking about switching to them. So really they'll only lose 48%.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Looks like the time is right once again for a party called "don't know".


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Looks like the time is right once again for a party called "don't know".


Would certainly be the most honest party.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

On the plus side, the Wouldn't Vote vote is right down on the basis of that poll.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Given the total of the LibDem vote last time, picking up 5% from everyone else gives them a massive increase, even if they lost half the votes they had before.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Given the total of the LibDem vote last time, picking up 5% from everyone else gives them a massive increase, even if they lost half the votes they had before.



I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Lib Dems benefit fairly substantially from the sort of dingus who, when confronted with a demasked Tory party and a Labour Party at war with itself, decides "well I need to vote for someone, why not that bunch, I haven't heard much from them so I'm sure they've learned from the last time they betrayed everything they nominally stood for."


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Lib Dems benefit fairly substantially from the sort of dingus who, when confronted with a demasked Tory party and a Labour Party at war with itself, decides "well I need to vote for someone, why not that bunch, I haven't heard much from them so I'm sure they've learned from the last time they betrayed everything they nominally stood for."


Some journey for them types: labour-->gulf war->lib-dems-->greens-->labour--lib-dems


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Given the total of the LibDem vote last time, picking up 5% from everyone else gives them a massive increase, even if they lost half the votes they had before.



They got 2,415,862 votes. If 53% did abandon them, that would leave them 1,135,455 votes.

If they then got 2% each of the 2015 Tory and Labour votes and 1% of the UKIP votes as suggested above, that would be back up to 2,868,311. I guess they'd be glad to take what they can get, but it only takes them from 5.2% of the registered electorate to 6.2%. Hardly massive.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Angela Eagle said to be considering challenge for Labour leadership


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Angela Eagle said to be considering challenge for Labour leadership


_He didn't text me back. I'm going to stab him in the back for that. I think communication is very important in the modern world._


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 28, 2016)

note how its always 'I think' with these people. How about what your membership thinks and what the constituents think? Wastes.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2016)

Petition for vote of confidence in Corbyn reached over 200,000. 

A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN JEREMY CORBYN AFTER BREXIT | Campaigns by You


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> note how its always 'I think' with these people. How about what your membership thinks and what the constituents think? Wastes.



They've really got to go.  Let them form SDPB and see where that gets them.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Alastair Cambell is threatening to go!


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Angela Eagle said to be considering challenge for Labour leadership


I liekd " “Angela is widely regarded as the candidate who can unite the Labour Party and heal recent divisions."


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I liekd " “Angela is widely regarded as the candidate who can unite the Labour Party and heal recent divisions."


That's certainly how my neighbours speak of her.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Alastair Cambell is threatening to go!


Break out the bubbly.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Alastair Cambell is threatening to go!



I think he's got more brains and nous than most of the rest of the blairites and co. put together. But clearly he's evil, so no bad thing.


----------



## Cid (Jun 28, 2016)

Let's hope they all fuck off and start a new SDP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

They did - they just took a shortcut in 1994.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Angela Eagle said to be considering challenge for Labour leadership


The tears of ambition.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The tears of ambition.


the painful burden of leadership


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The tears of ambition.


or salty liberal remainer tears


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

The unbearable shiteness of being new labour.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

I Can't Believe It's Not Bitter


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2016)

My reaction to Alistair Campbell threatening to go was "what's a tory doing threatening to go because of Corbyn? ... ah"


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Alastair Cambell is threatening to go!


Go from where or what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 28, 2016)

c-byn and the art of bicycle maintenance


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Go from where or what?


Square go with all comers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Go from where or what?


hopefully, to fuck


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Work in a shop and had a fair few people today catching a bit of news on the radio and saying they support Corbyn. Not members, just disgusted by what's going on.

No one, as of yet, has told me about the unifying powers of Angela Eagle.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _He didn't text me back. I'm going to stab him in the back for that. I think communication is very important in the modern world._


 

texting is a cowards way of approaching a serious issue - its the equivalent of sending a letter registered post but not wanting a reply - an arse covering exercise


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 28, 2016)

I've been teaching all morning - can anyone do me a short up date of where we are since this morning please?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 28, 2016)

Sure this has bene posted here before but fuck it anyway

They Want Their Party Back

"Wrecking mission"


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Pretty quiet tbh, Angela Eagle has been mooted as the great white hope, that's about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 28, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I've been teaching all morning - can anyone do me a short up date of where we are since this morning please?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 28, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I've been teaching all morning - can anyone do me a short up date of where we are since this morning please?


Labour MPs are voting in a secret vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
The result will be in sometime after 4pm.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 28, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 88980


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 28, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Labour MPs are voting in a secret vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
> The result will be in sometime after 4pm.


But this vote has no actual constitutional standing, is that correct?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But this vote has no actual constitutional standing, is that correct?


It doesn't mean anything and can be ignored. According to the paper last friday. Like the referendum though, it's going to be politically binding. ignoring it will have a cost.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

And once they vote No Confindence will the vote go to all party members again over Corbyn v Eagle?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

It doesn't seem particularly secret, as secret votes go. But then, this lot seem to have been using a lot of words in bizarre ways of late.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't mean anything and can be ignored. According to the paper last friday. Like the referendum though, it's going to be politically binding. ignoring it will have a cost.


But will it be as politically binding as the referendum? And who will bear the cost, in the end?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But will it be as politically binding as the referendum? And who will bear the cost, in the end?


Them's the questions idris.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

The other thing that happened is last night Angela Eagle broke down on TV at having to 'deselect' corbyn - but shes cheered up today and put herself forward to stand against him


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I've been teaching all morning - can anyone do me a short up date of where we are since this morning please?


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

Once the vote of no confidence passes with likely a clear majority, Corbyn will call another leadership election, and win. They'll have thrown the kitchen sink at him and he'll be still standing. A split is looking rather likely I think.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> A split is looking rather likely I think.



If they don't fancy the expense of dining à la carte, they can always chow down on the set menu


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> So as usual on the Urban politics  board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.



Whether he's an ineffective idealist or not is irrelevant to the current situation. What *is* relevant, is whether Corbyn is a *better proposition as Labour leader than any of the Labour right _soi-disant_ "moderates" who fancy their chances.
None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.

**By which I mean "a better proposition for the people of Britain under Parliamentary Democracy", not "a better proposition for about 100 knobshines in the PLP".



> You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or  lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.



I think you're naive, with your claims about "they are the people". "The people" in this case covers a fairly broad swathe of the electorate, and if your friends are the kind of people who can be won over by Progress soft-soap, then they aren't representative of that "fairly broad swathe of the electorate" I mentioned.

I'm not a Corbynista, but outwith an entirely-new political system, he's probably the best hope for those members of the British electorate who want to put some kind of brake on the effects of capitalism.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

I think Corbyn would do okay in a GE campaign with his own -manifesto -  I think hed get right in the swing of it and would get some okay coverage


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

heinous seamus said:


> I'm surprised that gobshite Blair hasn't piped up yet. The cunt.



I suspect that even the Progress dumbfucks in the PLP have cottoned on to the fact that if Blair favours them, the public won't.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect that even the Progress dumbfucks in the PLP have cottoned on to the fact that if Blair favours them, the public won't.


That wont stop him speaking


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> That wont stop him speaking


In his Sunday Brillo interview he made extravagant and exaggerated play of how could not possibly taken any view on the matter of leadership of the LP, and nor would it be right.....blah


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

co-op said:


> This is it really. Even if you buy the mainstream narrative that this is all about needing a charismatic leader, the Blairites just don't have one.
> 
> They have the opposite, all their top people are either blatant dummies like Benn, rampaging egoists like Kendall or blander than bland - eg Cooper. None of them looks remotely like a Second Coming of St Tony.



Which is why so many of the mug cunts are touting Jarvis as some kind of nu-Tony - because while he's become part of the machine, he's not *from* the machine, so his neoliberalism-favouring Blairite bollocks can be presented as freshly-minted political insight from a pragmatic "military hero", not as a re-tread of tired "third way" wank.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> That wont stop him speaking



It'll stop *them* asking him to speak for them, though. Gotta hurt a bit, not being able to seek endorsement from your deity.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

S





YouSir said:


> Work in a shop and had a fair few people today catching a bit of news on the radio and saying they support Corbyn. Not members, just disgusted by what's going on.
> 
> No one, as of yet, has told me about the unifying powers of Angela Eagle.


She weeps to conquer.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't mean anything and can be ignored. According to the paper last friday. Like the referendum though, it's going to be politically binding. ignoring it will have a cost.


Aye, but psychologically he draws his legitimacy from the LP membership rather than the PLP members. He isn't really in much of a different place politically than he has been in since his election to leadership- the only change is that the coup has now started instead of being in the future. The mass rally of normals/LP members supporting him outside parliament (a fairly incredible thing to happen really) will have just bolstered his sense of legitimacy in the face of the Progress plotters.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

kropotkin said:


> Aye, but psychologically he draws his legitimacy from the LP membership rather than the PLP members. He isn't really in much of a different place politically than he has been in since his election to leadership- the only change is that the coup has now started instead of being in the future. The mass rally of normals/LP members supporting him outside parliament (a fairly incredible thing to happen really) will have just bolstered his sense of legitimacy in the face of the Progress plotters.


That's what i meant really. That an elite level restricted discussion and outcome doesn't reflect or bind what the membership/electorate have to accept as legitimate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> It's not about some sort of 'lack of charisma' or 'not being able to work with him' or 'him not being strong leadership material', it's about the battle at the core of the Labour party over its ideology and positioning. And, it won't go leftwards.



For the Progressites, it's also about the brand, and the money that comes with the brand.

The venal, dog-fucking shitcunts.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> A split is looking rather likely I think.



Yes but that's because you're a twat.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 28, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Whether he's an ineffective idealist or not is irrelevant to the current situation. What *is* relevant, is whether Corbyn is a *better proposition as Labour leader than any of the Labour right _soi-disant_ "moderates" who fancy their chances.
> None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.
> 
> **By which I mean "a better proposition for the people of Britain under Parliamentary Democracy", not "a better proposition for about 100 knobshines in the PLP".
> ...



I have no idea what progress is and I doubt that any off the people I've been speaking to do either.   We hate the Tories but can't muster any emthusiasm for Corbyn.  

Maybe that makes me naive. So be it


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


>




Is the full series online anywhere?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But will it be as politically binding as the referendum?



The referendum isn't legally binding at all, only morally so.  This will be neither.



Idris2002 said:


> And who will bear the cost, in the end?



The knaves and fools who have organized the ballot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 28, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The venal, dog-fucking shitcunts.



Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> I have no idea what progress is and I doubt that any off the people I've been speaking to do either.   We hate the Tories but can't muster any emthusiasm for Corbyn.
> 
> Maybe that makes me naive. So be it


Progress is the blairite grouping within the labour party


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is the full series online anywhere?


On YouTube but you'll need to mask your country if you're in the UK with something like TunnelBear to access it


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> I have no idea what progress is and I doubt that any off the people I've been speaking to do either.   We hate the Tories but *can't muster any emthusiasm for Corbyn.  *
> 
> Maybe that makes me naive. So be it


The man? The 'personality', image? His ideology or proposed policy positions?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> I have no idea what progress is and I doubt that any off the people I've been speaking to do either.   We hate the Tories but can't muster any emthusiasm for Corbyn.
> 
> Maybe that makes me naive. So be it


You ain't exactly been busy supporting previous leaders have you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> On YouTube but you'll need to mask your country if you're in the UK with something like TunnelBear to access it


Also All4


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I think Corbyn ...  would get some okay coverage


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Also All4



Just found Eps 1 and 3 there...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

It's rubbish. Better off watching Bill Brand.



top right for next.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

So he has lost the vote of confidence , watch the Labour Party lose many members if he is indeed ousted


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

The rats. Not good rats either.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



That's quite a coup


----------



## tim (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



Shit!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

Bye labour for the first time in such a long time you had a worthy opposition to the tories

Fuckem let them go down the drain


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> That's quite a coup


bang on 75% of the PLP


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

The LP is finished. Done.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's rubbish. Better off watching Bill Brand.
> 
> 
> 
> top right for next.






> ...A former Liberal Studies lecturer at a local Technical college...



The only other place I've ever heard that is in Posy Simmonds' stuff


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

This is a fucking trainwreck. How can Angela Eagle possibly believe she's worth listening to?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The LP is finished. Done.


Is it the PLP or the membership that' finished though?


----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 28, 2016)

Labour snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Twats.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The rats. Not good rats either.


Indeed.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The LP is finished. Done.


Good , fuck the blairites


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

If he's got 40 votes then he has enough support - probably - to get on the ballot paper that goes to the membership.

He needs 35.

Assuming he actually stands, he'll probably win it and this whole circus will continue indefinitely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> The only other place I've ever heard that is in Posy Simmonds' stuff


I have never heard of her. Is she one of _ours_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> If he's got 40 votes then he has enough support - probably - to get on the ballot paper that goes to the membership.
> 
> He needs 35.
> 
> Assuming he actually stands, he'll probably win it and this whole circus will continue indefinitely.


He doesn't need any mate - auto on.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Assuming he actually stands, he'll probably win it and this whole circus will continue indefinitely.


Hopefully until the snap GE when deselection comes firmly onto the agenda in the run up.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is it the PLP or the membership that' finished though?



If Corbyn's outed, both I'd wager?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

Yeah I'd say the same the members surged when he got in , now watch them go


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> If Corbyn's outed, both I'd wager?


As a body contesting and winning elections - nah, it'll always exist. As a thing worth bothering with - died years ago.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

PANIC NOT!

*Yvette Cooper says she won’t rule out standing for Labour leader*


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I have never heard of her. Is she one of _ours_?


She's a liberal cartoonist!

Posy Simmonds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

Gobshites.

No reason to hand them his head on a plate, though.  If there is a chance to vote for him I'll still vote for him.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Yeah I'd say the same the members surged when he got in , now watch them go


Well, they'd be mad to go now...assuming JC has the fight left. The election will be a battle for the party...if he wins again, then the fuckers would have to start fucking off.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't need any mate - auto on.



Are you sure?

I've definitely read in the last few days that whoever it was in the party that had to interpret the rules had decided that anyone wanting to go on the ballot paper had to get the 35 nominations...

That's not to say the report was correct, or that I hadn't dreamt it all up in my sleep-deprived state...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 28, 2016)

So, Corbyn possibly stands again now for leader against whatever useless alternatives also put up, wins the members vote, Labour goes through a major split in two?

RIP anyways.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 28, 2016)

did they close the three quidder loophole? I'll never vote labour but I might 3 quid it just to spite these wankers for spitting in the faces of their members. Then after he gets back in, renounce all the works of satan.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> PANIC NOT!
> 
> *Yvette Cooper says she won’t rule out standing for Labour leader*


PSML. How many votes did she get last time? Fuck the fuck off, you fucking robot.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Well, they'd be mad to go now...assuming JC has the fight left. The election will be a battle for the party...if he wins again, then the fuckers would have to start fucking off.


Yeah tbh I meant if he gets ousted , soz for confusion


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> So, Corbyn possibly stands again now for leader against whatever useless alternatives also put up, wins the members vote, Labour goes through a major split in two?
> 
> RIP anyways.



Here's hoping...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I've definitely read in the last few days that whoever it was in the party that had to interpret the rules had decided that anyone wanting to go on the ballot paper had to get the 35 nominations...
> 
> That's not to say the report was correct, or that I hadn't dreamt it all up in my sleep-deprived state...


Yep. It's open to legal challenge now but i can't see them winning as the part of the rule book specifies that only challengers need nominations.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> If he's got 40 votes then he has enough support - probably - to get on the ballot paper that goes to the membership.
> 
> He needs 35.
> 
> Assuming he actually stands, he'll probably win it and this whole circus will continue indefinitely.


I'm sorely tempted to rejoin the Labour Party just for the entertainment value of voting him back in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> She's a liberal cartoonist!
> 
> Posy Simmonds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Eugh.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Indeed.



SIR Eric Pickles? How the fuck did that happen?

I had heard that, as the incumbent leader, he automatically stands in a leadership election


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorely tempted to rejoin the Labour Party just for the entertainment value of voting him back in.


Would the TopCat Commando be willing to have a second crack?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

Just emailed 'team labour' and told them to grow up and sort their lives out but slightly more eloquently


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorely tempted to rejoin the Labour Party just for the entertainment value of voting him back in.



And so, I would imagine, is the entire membership of the conservative party...

It's an easy way to guarantee endless splits/chaos - new leader still on honeymoon period, snap election, with Labour in utter disarray.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Just emailed 'team labour' and told them to grow up and sort their lives out but slightly more eloquently


"There's multiple egos in 'team'".


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Just emailed 'team labour' and told them to grow up and sort their lives out *but slightly more eloquently*



_Fuck off you cunts_?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorely tempted to rejoin the Labour Party just for the entertainment value of voting him back in.


same. Spite, the best reason to engage with capitalist politics 

except the 're-join' part. You lived in a time before Blair though so I assume there were people talking a good Labour talk in yer membership days. All I've ever known is the robots from wherever the fuck they get these twonks


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> And so, I would imagine, is the entire membership of the conservative party...
> 
> It's an easy way to guarantee endless splits/chaos - new leader still on honeymoon period, snap election, with Labour in utter disarray.



That's inevitable whatever happens now, isn't it?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorely tempted to rejoin the Labour Party just for the entertainment value of voting him back in.



I have been thinking the same....these are strange times indeed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> And so, I would imagine, is the entire membership of the conservative party...
> 
> It's an easy way to guarantee endless splits/chaos - new leader still on honeymoon period, snap election, with Labour in utter disarray.


Oh, the Tories have disarray aplenty right around the corner.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Did someone say 15%? So he's won a place for members voting then?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That's inevitable whatever happens now, isn't it?



I think you're unlikely to lose money on that supposition...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

Imagine a party with Danny, Dot and Louis; what couldn't we achieve?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I've definitely read in the last few days that whoever it was in the party that had to interpret the rules had decided that anyone wanting to go on the ballot paper had to get the 35 nominations...
> 
> That's not to say the report was correct, or that I hadn't dreamt it all up in my sleep-deprived state...



There seems to be lots of 'seeking legal advice' stuff around...and while you'd think they'd want to at least be _seen_ to be being fair *cough* I really wouldn't be at all surprised if they just continued with the whole deceitful charade - they obviously don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks  and I can't see that there's any depths they wouldn't sink to to try and oust him whichever way they can now...so the 40 'confidence' vote is a _little_ bit reassuring


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> did they close the three quidder loophole? I'll never vote labour but I might 3 quid it just to spite these wankers for spitting in the faces of their members. Then after he gets back in, renounce all the works of satan.


No, the £3 supporter status still exists and will do so through the upcoming leadership election.

And butchersapron is right, Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot as incumbent leader.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> did they close the three quidder loophole? I'll never vote labour but I might 3 quid it just to spite these wankers for spitting in the faces of their members. Then after he gets back in, renounce all the works of satan.



I _think_ that bit was fairly safe...


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The LP is finished. Done.



No it's not, it's just resting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

corbyn said:
			
		

> We are a democratic party, with a clear constitution. Our people need Labour party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite behind my leadership at a critical time for our country.



I askd on the other thread - how were members helping to do this, helping to build walls because of what was coming. Not a single member responded. There are loads of members on here who joined to support corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

He's right to reject the legitimacy of the vote given his wider party electoral mandate. That PLP dominance  should have been attacked straightaway though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> No, the £3 supporter status still exists and will do so through the upcoming leadership election.
> 
> And butchersapron is right, Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot as incumbent leader.


I'm a member of an affiliated TU, but I think I opted out of the political fund. I'm going to have to check.

Lol. Turnaround. I left the party 30 odd years ago!


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Looks like a bigger purge than I expected.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I askd on the other thread - how were members helping to do this, helping to build walls because of what was coming. Not a single member responded. There are loads of members on here who joined to support corbyn.


This is true you did and when I replied back ask asking people to pm me as I'm not in England to see if we can do something I got no replies , which is a great shame , unless everyone thinks I'm a cunt


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

It's true, they're just like us!
4 obviously scrawled "*cunts*" on their ballots!


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm a member of an affiliated TU, but I think I opted out of the political fund. I'm going to have to check.
> 
> Lol. Turnaround. I left the party 30 odd years ago!


If it's anything like last time, your union will offer to let you opt-in and then give you a vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Looks like a bigger purge than I expected.


Yeh but on the yagoda scale it only merits a 1


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2016)

I've never been in Labour so I don't know if I'm missing something regarding the internal dynamics, but does the soft left, e.g. Eagle, not realise that they are just been used as catspaws by the Progress wing, or is it just a case that they are willing to go along with it because when it comes down to it they would rather see liberals in charge than the social democratic wing.

I mean even if they put her up and she wins, the right wing will planning to replace her from the start.



butchersapron said:


> It's rubbish. Better off watching Bill Brand.
> 
> 
> 
> top right for next.


Always liked Jack Shepard as an actor, have to check that out.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm a member of an affiliated TU, but I think I opted out of the political fund. I'm going to have to check.
> 
> Lol. Turnaround. I left the party 30 odd years ago!


As of...I honestly think I'd be prepared to shell out the £3 for the giggles...but do you have to furnish loads of personal details?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Looks like a bigger purge than I expected.



Going to need a bigger boat.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As of...I honestly think I'd be prepared to shell out the £3 for the giggles...but do you have to furnish loads of personal details?


Like what? 

I'm not a member of any other party. I've never said anything against the Labour Party on Facebook (I'm not on Facebook). They can search all they like for me on Twitter. 

The only thing that might trip me up is whether I opted out of my union's political fund. Because I'm not paying for full party membership.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> PANIC NOT!
> 
> *Yvette Cooper says she won’t rule out standing for Labour leader*



Well, technically, I've never explicitly ruled out letting the dog lick me knackers and putting a video of it on youtube. Doesn't mean any other cunt wants to see it happen.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As of...I honestly think I'd be prepared to shell out the £3 for the giggles...but do you have to furnish loads of personal details?


I didn't end up shelling out 3 quid last time but there's no way I'm not doing it this time this is gonna be hysterical


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As of...I honestly think I'd be prepared to shell out the £3 for the giggles...but do you have to furnish loads of personal details?



Not lots, but you will get a lot of email as a result.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Like what?
> 
> I'm not a member of any other party. I've never said anything against the Labour Party on Facebook (I'm not on Facebook). They can search all they like for me on Twitter.
> 
> The only thing that might trip me up is whether I opted out of my union's political fund. Because I'm not paying for full party membership.


Dunno really, I suppose one of the previous 3 quidders might be able to say how much personal info you have to divulge.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not lots, but you will get a lot of email as a result.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Cheers.
That's fine, I could use a 'sock' address.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

Can't help you. I do know a 3 quider but she's left for the day.  I became an affiliate member by accident.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 28, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not lots, but you will get a lot of email as a result.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I get a fucking load of LP emails currently, and I've never joined, taken part in leader elections or even voted for the buggers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cheers.
> That's fine, I could use a 'sock' address.


2nd drawer
Chest of drawers
Bedroom
Brogdale's house
Real Ale Street
Little pissing on the wold


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Well, technically, I've never explicitly ruled out letting the dog lick me knackers and putting a video of it on youtube. Doesn't mean any other cunt wants to see it happen.


So, vis-a-vis the whole canine testicular tongue massage - that's not a definite no, then..?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I get a fucking load of LP emails currently, and I've never joined, taken part in leader elections or even voted for the buggers



You're just very lucky then.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I get a fucking load of LP emails currently, and I've never joined, taken part in leader elections or even voted for the buggers


Where I used to work, in local government, we got lots of masonic spam which began before I started there. This was especially strange as all my colleagues were women and therefore not eligible to join.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

To be honest, if there's going to be a purge after this, it will only happen if the corbynites can do it on facebook. Anything else seems beyond them.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> 2nd drawer
> Chest of drawers
> Bedroom
> Brogdale's house
> ...


----------



## binka (Jun 28, 2016)

BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

If the election hasn't been called yet, I'm also presuming that they actually can be deselected. The Independent seems to be hinting that: Majority of new Labour members support deselecting MPs who undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Now that really could bring about change.

I might sign up too if somebody can point to a useful set that can be elected instead. The question in my mind is where the labour members are going to rustle up an extra 172 candidates from in a hurry.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party


And that, children, is what we call irony.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party


The ironing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party


Yeh. Pity jc leads the Labour party. Perhaps blunkett et al should piss off and form a 'new party'


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> So, vis-a-vis the whole canine testicular tongue massage - that's not a definite no, then..?



What I've said is, look, you know, we need to do what's right in the circumstances of the time, but I can say clearly that under present conditions I can see no eventuality in which it would be advantageous for such things to be prioritised.

I think I've made my position perfectly clear.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party


Great stuff. I hate you, I cheated - oh, can I keep the house and the car?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 28, 2016)

What could this New Labour party be called?


----------



## binka (Jun 28, 2016)

Blunkett: "fringe element captured the party last year" "we need to appeal to good, honest, decent people"


----------



## emanymton (Jun 28, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Imagine a party with Danny, Dot and Louis; what couldn't we achieve?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


A coherent political perspective?


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Dunno really, I suppose one of the previous 3 quidders might be able to say how much personal info you have to divulge.


I'm a three quider 
I think name address email etc 
I get a lot of emails from the local party


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 28, 2016)

I suppose the MPs dividing the party by calling for  "strong opposition" are the ones who abstained on the welfare bill.

Aka cunts.

They could be challenging racism, working out how to protect jobs but nah...westminster politiking matters more, letting the tories off the hook and confirming suspicions of those who see the political class as aloof. Which is to say that those same MPs moaning about corbyn not doing enough for remain are a factor in people voting leave themselves.

Still, 80k plus expenses per year, they dont need to give 2 fucks what the proles think.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The only thing that might trip me up is whether I opted out of my union's political fund. Because I'm not paying for full party membership.



I opted out years ago, does that mean I can't become a 3 quidder?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I'm a three quider
> I think name address email etc
> I get a lot of emails from the local party


Thanks.
Nothing too intrusive that a decent anonymised account wouldn't handle, then?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I opted out years ago, does that mean I can't become a 3 quidder?




My workmate opted out of the political fund then became a 3 quidder.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I opted out years ago, does that mean I can't become a 3 quidder?


Doubt it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> If the election hasn't been called yet, I'm also presuming that they actually can be deselected. The Independent seems to be hinting that: Majority of new Labour members support deselecting MPs who undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Now that really could bring about change.
> 
> I might sign up too if somebody can point to a useful set that can be elected instead. The question in my mind is where the labour members are going to rustle up an extra 172 candidates from in a hurry.


Oh god, I'm not standing for parliament. 

(I stood for local elections a couple of times. Unsuccessfully, thankfully. Not an experience I want to repeat now).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I opted out years ago, does that mean I can't become a 3 quidder?


I'm going to check my union's website to see if I can opt back in easily.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

emanymton said:


> A coherent political perspective?



Bollocks! We fall at the first hurdle...well I'm off home for my tea.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

Post-brexit inflationary pressure means they'll 3.03 quidders this time.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm going to check my union's website to see if I can opt back in easily.



I'll check mine.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> Blunkett: "fringe element captured the party last year" "we need to appeal to good, honest, decent people"



He was so angry I thought his head might explode


----------



## binka (Jun 28, 2016)

So the line is that although Corbyn has the support of the membership he doesn't appeal to the electorate. Heard that off half a dozen Labour people this afternoon. How many elections has he won and lost since he became leader?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

emanymton said:


> A coherent political perspective?


Oi.

_I'd_ be in charge of political perspective. Obviously.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> If the election hasn't been called yet, I'm also presuming that they actually can be deselected. The Independent seems to be hinting that: Majority of new Labour members support deselecting MPs who undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Now that really could bring about change.
> 
> I might sign up too if somebody can point to a useful set that can be elected instead. *The question in my mind is where the labour members are going to rustle up an extra 172 candidates from in a hurry*.



Given the caliber of many of the current crop, I wouldn't worry too much that improvements could be found.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Oi.
> 
> _I'd_ be in charge of political perspective. Obviously.


If we pay 3p can we choose who's leader?


----------



## emanymton (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. It's open to legal challenge now but i can't see them winning as the part of the rule book specifies that only challengers need nominations.


Wound  even this shower be dim enough to try and keep him of a new ballet? Even they must release the consequences of that. The goal here is to force him to resign not to actually beat him in a new contest I'd have thought.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If we pay 3p can we choose who's leader?


Maybe we should crowdfund a new leader?  Here's £4.50, I want my name tattooed on the new bod's left instep.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Wound  even this shower be dim enough to try and keep him of a new ballet? Even they must release the consequences of that. The goal here is to force him to resign not to actually beat him in a new contest I'd have thought.


Rambert?


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

Sarah Champion gone, bit of a shame.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

> *1 in 4 Labour voters less likely to vote Labour after EU referendum, internal survey shows*
> Rajeev Syal
> 
> One in four Labour voters are less likely to vote for the party following the referendum campaign, a leaked internal survey shows.
> ...




Disgusting how the Guardian now utilises stats to fit its own agenda, this rejection applies to all parties, 52% for the lib dems.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2016)

Corbyn has said that he's going nowhere.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2016)

Better to lose with a right-winger than win with a Social Democrat, or even worse... win with a Social Democrat.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'll check mine.


Looks easy:

12 Any member may withdraw his/her notice of exemption on notifying his/her desire to that effect to the General Secretary at National Office or the Secretary of his/her Region who shall thereupon send such member an acknowledgement of receipt of the notification and inform the General Secretary of the name and address of the member so withdrawing.

So, email the Gen Secy and await reply.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn has said that he's going nowhere.


Except the ballot papers for the election that he'll win.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Looks easy:
> 
> 12 Any member may withdraw his/her notice of exemption on notifying his/her desire to that effect to the General Secretary at National Office or the Secretary of his/her Region who shall thereupon send such member an acknowledgement of receipt of the notification and inform the General Secretary of the name and address of the member so withdrawing.
> 
> So, email the Gen Secy and await reply.


Then fill this in:

Supporters | The Labour Party


----------



## 8den (Jun 28, 2016)

172 to 40. If this was Ancient Rome MPs would struggle to find a place on his back to jam their knives in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

8den said:


> 172 to 40. If this was Ancient Rome MPs would struggle to find a place on his back to jam their knives in.


It would have been carved up weeks ago


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Hopefully we'll see some CLPs moving motions of no confidence in their MPs in the next few days. Has anyone identified the 40 yet?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn has said that he's going nowhere.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Sarah Champion gone, bit of a shame.


She says she's still there for victims of abuse. WHAT ABOUT THIS ABUSE OF JEREMY AND THE MANDATE HE HAS FROM THE MEMBERS? Fuck's sake.

Does anyone know how this deselection of MPs works in practice, someone nominates at their local constituency and everyone votes or what?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Hopefully we'll see some CLPs moving motions of no confidence in their MPs in the next few days. Has anyone identified the 40 yet?


Or tonight - EX ClP meetings. Or did nothing happen to get into the jobs post election?


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Or tonight - EX ClP meetings. Or did nothing happen to get into the jobs post election?


There was an attempted coup here a few weeks ago, but I believe it was foiled by timeservers. I'd imagine there's a mixed picture elsewhere, but there'll be some.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> If the election hasn't been called yet, I'm also presuming that they actually can be deselected. The Independent seems to be hinting that: Majority of new Labour members support deselecting MPs who undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Now that really could bring about change.


When was this study commissioned, by whom, who was asked, and when did it get published? sounds very suspect to me....


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

No idea, your guess is as good as mine. Possibly better.

Looks like this has more detail: Jezza's Bezzas: Labour's New Members

_With the help of YouGov and as part of an ESRC-funded project on UK party membership in the twenty-first century, we (Professor Tim Bale and Dr Monica Poletti (Queen Mary University of London) and Professor Paul Webb (University of Sussex)) have conducted a new survey of Labour’s new members, fielded just after the May 2016 local, devolved and mayoral elections.

We have surveyed 2,026 members and registered supporters of the Labour Party who joined it after the May 2015 general election.

_


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2016)

can someone explain something to me re deselction - these 100+ MP's were voted for by wider public, not just Corbyn backers.

If they get deselected does there need to be a byelection? If so, what are the chances of returning a Labour MP in terms of peoples majorities and if not a byelection, will wider public just think what the fuck and demand one?

eta - or have i fundamentally misunderstood - they would be deselected ahead of a snap election and replaced with new prospective candidates?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> She says she's still there for victims of abuse. WHAT ABOUT THIS ABUSE OF JEREMY AND THE MANDATE HE HAS FROM THE MEMBERS? Fuck's sake.



The sexual abuse of children is such a good analogy for parliamentary party politics.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 28, 2016)

Corbyn should appoint this recently unemployed aide to help him bounce back.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 28, 2016)

I know nobody trusts polls anymore, but here goes:

As Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn should... 
Resign: 49% 
Not resign: 30% 
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jun)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Lord Foulkes says something interesting:

"Labour's Lord Foulkes has told BBC Scotland no Scottish politicians will fill the shadow Scottish secretary position while Jeremy Corbyn is leader."

And then something about the character of the PLP:  "Mr Corbyn would struggle to find "decent people" to fill shadow cabinet posts".  

Indeed.  An unnervingly frank self-appraisal. 

Jeremy Corbyn warned over shadow Scottish secretary post - BBC News


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

I think action needs to taken on certain protests about this 'branding'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Dan U said:


> can someone explain something to me re deselction - these 100+ MP's were voted for by wider public, not just Corbyn backers.
> 
> If they get deselected does there need to be a byelection? If so, what are the chances of returning a Labour MP in terms of peoples majorities and if not a byelection, will wider public just think what the fuck and demand one?
> 
> eta - or have i fundamentally misunderstood - they would be deselected ahead of a snap election and replaced with new prospective candidates?


 Deselection means not being selected as  a labour candidate next time. And it's the labour name that wins seats.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Dan U said:


> can someone explain something to me re deselction - these 100+ MP's were voted for by wider public, not just Corbyn backers.
> 
> If they get deselected does there need to be a byelection? If so, what are the chances of returning a Labour MP in terms of peoples majorities and if not a byelection, will wider public just think what the fuck and demand one?
> 
> eta - or have i fundamentally misunderstood - they would be deselected ahead of a snap election and replaced with new prospective candidates?


There isn't any formal mechanism to deselect them until the run up to the next expected general election (ie in about 3 years) - if there's a snap election then in theory they should be automatically reselected. I think explusion from the party or them leaving would be the most obvious other way to go against this, and I guess an MP would struggle to stand with legitimacy if there was a no confidence motion from their CLP in the meantime.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think action needs to taken on certain protest about this 'branding'


Oh just fuck off.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Deselection means not being selected as  a labour candidate next time. And it's the labour name that wins seats.



ok cheers, that clears my confusion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think action needs to taken on certain protest about this 'branding'


No surprise you object to the word 'socialist'


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The sexual abuse of children is such a good analogy for parliamentary party politics.


Ah come on, you know what I meant. There's a lot going on.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I know nobody trusts polls anymore, but here goes:
> 
> As Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn should...
> Resign: 49%
> ...


i reckon thats becasue most people will think - fuck, if 80% of workmates told me to resign id resign - how on earth can he carry on?... rather than necessarily thinking he should resign over his qualities


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I guess an MP would struggle to stand with legitimacy if there was a no confidence motion from their CLP in the meantime.



it would be impossible you would think


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh just fuck off.




No, you do one, I have seen comments similar to mine from you and others, Progress are making hay with it, and lots of people are asking why is it allowed?, this isn't your board by the way, sorry to sully it with less celebral postings than yours.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Dan U said:


> it would be impossible you would think


yep. politically, if not legally.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's rubbish. Better off watching Bill Brand.
> 
> 
> 
> top right for next.




I have that on DVD. It's really good.

er.... now it's back to your normal programming.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

It doesn't matter what polls say. It's like having a poll on a strike. Nice if you win, of no practical import.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, you do one, I have seen comments similar to mine from you and others, Progress are making hay with it, and lots of people are asking why is it allowed?, this isn't your board by the way, sorry to sully it with less cerebal postings than yours.


Yes how dare they turn up to public demonstrations


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

I wonder if Corbyn actually needs the brand name and the infrastructure. The Labour party is tarnished, Momentum could work for the election, it sounds fresh and hopeful at a time when people are crying out for change. The issue in the meantime is that he loses the opposition bench, but frankly he'll lose it on numbers if the blairites set up their own party anyway.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

Dan U said:


> can someone explain something to me re deselction - these 100+ MP's were voted for by wider public, not just Corbyn backers.
> 
> If they get deselected does there need to be a byelection? If so, what are the chances of returning a Labour MP in terms of peoples majorities and if not a byelection, will wider public just think what the fuck and demand one?
> 
> eta - or have i fundamentally misunderstood - they would be deselected ahead of a snap election and replaced with new prospective candidates?



Deselection has no impact on the MP, the MP is elected for the whole parliament - in effect, the relationship between the MP and whatever political party they chose to affiliate with is purely a private matter.

Having a party affiliation helps because it makes operating the constituency office easier, as well as running for relection, but if an MP has a decent following in the constituency then it doesn't make much difference.

Going for the nuclear option would carry the danger of there being 320 Tory MP's, 60 SNP MP's, 8 libdems, 172 independents, and 40 Labour - Corbyn could talk about the party all he liked, but it would look ridiculous, and the electorate wouldn't be impressed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think action needs to taken on certain protests about this 'branding'


Really on all protests.

If you don't want to be taken for a member of a creepy rape apologist cult: don't take the placard or rip off the branding.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I wonder if Corbyn actually needs the brand name and the infrastructure. The Labour party is tarnished, Momentum could work for the election, it sounds fresh and hopeful at a time when people are crying out for change. The issue in the meantime is that he loses the opposition bench, but frankly he'll lose it on numbers if the blairites set up their own party anyway.


Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 28, 2016)

Favelado said:


> What could this New Labour party be called?



"New Labour+"

No, how about "New Labour Double Plus"?


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, you do one, I have seen comments similar to mine from you and others, Progress are making hay with it, and lots of people are asking why is it allowed?, this isn't your board by the way, sorry to sully it with less celebral postings than yours.


can we talk about what's happening today instead of what happened yesterday? I know the SWP aren't involved today so it's probably not very interesting to you, but y'know.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Really on all protests.
> 
> If you don't want to be taken for a member of a creepy rape apologist cult: don't take the placard or rip off the branding.


I see the SWP had placards at the anti-Brexit protests the other day despite supporting Brexit.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Really on all protests.
> 
> If you don't want to be taken for a member of a creepy rape apologist cult: don't take the placard or rip off the branding.



Most people won't know anything about Comrade Delta, etc.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> can we talk about what's happening today instead of what happened yesterday? I know the SWP aren't involved today so it's probably not very interesting to you, but y'know.




They will do the same in Leeds tonight, I posted one image, thats all, but will leave it there.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Most people won't know anything about Comrade Delta, etc.


Sadly true.


----------



## andysays (Jun 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> note how its always 'I think' with these people. How about what your membership thinks and what the constituents think? Wastes.



Angela Eagle faces backlash from grassroots Labour and ECHO readers


> Potential Labour leader hopeful and Wallasey MP Angela Eagle is coming under fire from her own constituency party – and ECHO readers. The Mersey MP is one of those being tipped to take on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is facing a vote of no confidence from his own MPs this afternoon.But Ms Eagle, who was tearful yesterday as she explained why she had joined the majority of her shadow cabinet colleagues in quitting the Labour front bench, is coming under pressure from Labour members in her own constituency.





> A letter from the secretary and chair of the Wallasey Constituency Labour Party (CLP) says delegates want the MP to “reject the motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn”.They wrote that a meeting of the CLP was “overwhelmingly behind Jeremy continuing as Labour leader” in the email sent at 11.36pm on Sunday, June 26, after the first day of shadow cabinet resignations.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Then fill this in:
> 
> Supporters | The Labour Party



If you're not a member of an affiliated group it says there are no contests at the moment for people to register to vote in. It offers the alternative of joining the Labour party at £2 or £4 a month. 

Tempted if that gives me a vote on for example candidate selection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Most people won't know anything about Comrade Delta, etc.


And that is no doubt why you object to the socialist party  you always have to have a pop at the left.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I wonder if Corbyn actually needs the brand name and the infrastructure. The Labour party is tarnished, Momentum could work for the election, it sounds fresh and hopeful at a time when people are crying out for change. The issue in the meantime is that he loses the opposition bench, but frankly he'll lose it on numbers if the blairites set up their own party anyway.



I cringe at the word 'brand' but certainly he needs the infrastructure, the bods who deliver leaflets and the cash to make PP broadcasts.

Without these you are just a loon on Hyde Pk Corner.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If you're not a member of an affiliated group it says there are no contests at the moment for people to register to vote in. It offers the alternative of joining the Labour party at £2 or £4 a month.
> 
> Tempted if that gives me a vote on for example candidate selection.


Are you not a member of an affiliated union?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2016)

No


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, you do one, I have seen comments similar to mine from you and others, Progress are making hay with it, and lots of people are asking why is it allowed?, this isn't your board by the way, sorry to sully it with less celebral postings than yours.



Done and dusted yesterday (and _beyond_). We all get it, it's irritating at best, but not the most pressing issue atm, even in terms of whatever shit Progress happen to be slinging right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Really on all protests.
> 
> If you don't want to be taken for a member of a creepy rape apologist cult: don't take the placard or rip off the branding.


Yes that's what I thought till I saw one of the circled placards was sp and then it became clear to what treelover was objecting.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes that's what I thought till I saw one of the circled placards was sp and then it became clear to what treelover was objecting.


Eagle-eyed observation.  I'd only noticed SWP.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

andysays said:


> Angela Eagle faces backlash from grassroots Labour and ECHO readers



Ace 
They should've texted, tbf


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Eagle-eyed observation.  I'd only noticed SWP.


Yeh, placard to right of 'no' placard is sp


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

Fuck me one or two SP,  you are so anal!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Not sure if this has been posted, but if you're a member or £3-er you might want to sign: This is a time for Labour to be united


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Fuck me one or two SP,  you are so anal!


Yeh people who're caught out always try to make out the person whose caught them out is a cunt or anal or whatnot so your guilty outburst comes as no surprise


----------



## Sifta (Jun 28, 2016)

Seen this yet?

Another Media Setup? - Craig Murray

Anna Phillips is, apparently, the secretary of London Young Labour


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

Favelado said:


> What could this New Labour party be called?



Why not put it to the country in a referendum?

They'd only end up calling it Cunty McCuntface anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Why not put it to the country in a referendum?
> 
> They'd only end up calling it Cunty McCuntface anyway.


Farty McParty


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Disgusting how the Guardian now utilises stats to fit its own agenda, this rejection applies to all parties, 52% for the lib dems.



And (see earlier today on this thread) compared to stats the Graun itself was quoting on Sunday it's actually a 2% _decrease _in the proportion of 2015 Labour voters saying they wouldn't vote Labour now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

If they don't come up anything tonight they are really stuck. Did they not run that through  their meter? They try to use all options but don't have one for when none of them works,


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Quick everyone, sign a petition!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Quick everyone, sign a petition!


...and get the BBC/etc mates i went to uni with to report it AS COLD HARD NEWS


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2016)

Presumably they are working on the legal case for leaving him off the ballot?  Is it still 35 or is it 50 MPs now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Presumably they are working on the legal case for leaving him off the ballot?  Is it still 35 or is it 50 MPs now?


If they win - which they will not, i don't think they'd even try = 46


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

They have to force him to resign and not stand, it's the only way they can win.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Quick everyone, sign a petition!


already signed 2 plus reposted a link in facebook. I had to do something


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

There should be a list of how each MP voted by now, does anybody have a link please?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

Got the 40 - These MPs voted Confidence in Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

The dorty forty


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

I'm thinking burnham isn't part of anything now. To not join now, might be as i outlined before - last big non joiner. Maybe i'm being soft on him because of Hillsborough.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

I thought it was secret ballot, why would Ashworth support corbyn?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Got the 40 - These MPs voted Confidence in Jeremy Corbyn



two names stuck out - Rosie Winterton, the Chief Whip who hates his guts, and Andy Burnham - if push goes to shove with an actual leadership election they probably won't nominate him, and i don't know if he can nominate himself. _if_ they do manage to enforce the 35 nominations rule, does that mean he might not actually get the 35..?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

He  need to get growling (Burnham) if he's kosher then.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

I want to know who the 4 who voted spunking cock are.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm thinking burnham isn't part of anything now. To not join now, might be as i outlined before - last big non joiner. Maybe i'm being soft on him because of Hillsborough.


What about Burnham and Hillsborough?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> What about Burnham and Hillsborough?


?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> What about Burnham and Hillsborough?


Have you tried Google?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you tried Google?


No.


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

His time's up but he's still pedalling that pedalo to the far shores of Full Communism as the doubters fall overboard around him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> No.


Let me google that for you


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> What about Burnham and Hillsborough?


Andy burnham was key to the independent panel that was allowed to look at most of the documents regarding Hillsborough.  This led to the new inquests that reported back this year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> What about Burnham and Hillsborough?


Tbh it's been mentioned here more than once


----------



## Favelado (Jun 28, 2016)

Sometimes people prefer an answer from a poster on Urban. They know Google exists and opted not to use it. So just let them do it.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh it's been mentioned here more than once


I didnt follow the threads on Hillsborough.
Just watching this Andy Burnham lambasts South Yorkshire police over Hillsborough failings – video
Great showing...earnest passion.......calling for Orgreave inquiry too ... i dont know anything about Burnham really, but he seems alright as a person. In the leadership election he seemed the best of the not Corbyn candidates... Is he really a blairite?


Favelado said:


> Sometimes people prefer an answer from a poster on Urban. They know Google exists and opted not to use it. So just let them do it.


yeah Pickmans  its true!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I didnt follow the threads on Hillsborough.
> Just watching this Andy Burnham lambasts South Yorkshire police over Hillsborough failings – video
> Great showing...earnest passion.......calling for Orgreave inquiry too ... i dont know anything about Burnham really, but he seems alright as a person. In the leadership election he seemed the best of the not Corbyn candidates... Is he really a blairite?
> 
> yeah Pickmans  its true!


No, he's not a blairite. Not now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I didnt follow the threads on Hillsborough.
> Just watching this Andy Burnham lambasts South Yorkshire police over Hillsborough failings – video
> Great showing...earnest passion.......calling for Orgreave inquiry too ... i dont know anything about Burnham really, but he seems alright as a person. In the leadership election he seemed the best of the not Corbyn candidates... Is he really a blairite?
> 
> yeah Pickmans  its true!


Hillsborough Independent Panel findings and release of documents. and subsequent posts


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I didnt follow the threads on Hillsborough.
> Just watching this Andy Burnham lambasts South Yorkshire police over Hillsborough failings – video
> Great showing...earnest passion.......calling for Orgreave inquiry too ... i dont know anything about Burnham really, but he seems alright as a person. In the leadership election he seemed the best of the not Corbyn candidates... Is he really a blairite?
> 
> yeah Pickmans  its true!


Not having a pop, but why weren't you following the Hillsborough threads?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 28, 2016)

binka said:


> BBC News had Alastair Campbell and now David Blunkett on. Blunkett saying Momentum should go off and form their own party



Yep, split the party into ever less effective protest groups and see Labour's share of the vote dip even further!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No, he's not a blairite. Not now.



He was the only one of the dreary four who seemed to learn anything during the leadership campaign.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not having a pop, but why weren't you following the Hillsborough threads?


Ive had a crazy year - i havent been following much on urban the last 9 months or so tbh...just little dips in and out.... things have finally settled in the last few weeks. Havent posted as much as this weekend in ages.

As to Burnham, hes a great speaker, based on that clip. Seems to have some leadership qualities!


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

Sat with a bunch of soft Tory voters (probably LibDem in 2010) all busy pontificating about how Labour "need" to get rid of Corbyn.

So, yeah, Corbyn must stsy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Ive had a crazy year - i havent been following much on urban the last 9 months or so tbh...just little dips in and out.... things have finally settled in the last few weeks. Havent posted as much as this weekend in ages.
> 
> As to Burnham, hes a great speaker, based on that clip. Seems to have some leadership qualities!


Ta for answering -  didn't mean to be on your back, but thought that would be right in you arc.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I want to know who the 4 who voted spunking cock are.


Normally I'd say Dennis Skinner. Maybe Frank Field? Hates Corbyn but not a fan of daft games in general.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Livpl labour people saying he's about to leave as well. Lots of them saying it.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Who's about to leave? Field?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Burnham. Sorry.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Livpl labour people saying he's about to leave as well. Lots of them saying it.



Him and a chunk of the new shadow cabinet members apparently.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2016)

So much for standing by JC then as he was saying only yesterday!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So much for standing by JC then as he was saying only yesterday!


He voted for him today - give him a chance.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> Sat with a bunch of soft Tory voters (probably LibDem in 2010) all busy pontificating about how Labour "need" to get rid of Corbyn.
> 
> So, yeah, Corbyn must stsy.


Yep, and it's significant that Johnson's 'dowry' to the broarder parliamentary party includes a promise not to expose them to the risk of an early GE. In part, JC should take that as a compliment.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So much for standing by JC then as he was saying only yesterday!



All just talking to each other, don't think they're aware of opinions outside of that so easy enough to gossip themselves into breaking.

On a side note, Hodges said yesterdays rally was just a load of Swappies, which'll be a shock to the remaining fifty of them.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, you do one, I have seen comments similar to mine from you and others, Progress are making hay with it, and lots of people are asking why is it allowed?, this isn't your board by the way, sorry to sully it with less celebral postings than yours.


TBF, he has a point: the whole point of having threads on a forum like this is so that specific discussions can be had on specific topics. I draw your attention to the topic of this thread which, I imagine, even you would struggle to associate, however tangentially, with the way in which the SWP monopolise the branding at protests and gatherings like the one you posted a photo of.

Otherwise, there's a risk that you might find yourself being identified as a bit of a hobbyhorse merchant who doesn't care much about any discussion beyond its ability to provide you with an entry point for your own agenda, and I am sure that is not how you want to see yourself being viewed.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

My MP seems to have gone into purdah.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Him and a chunk of the new shadow cabinet members apparently.


I don't trust crick as far as i could type his name tbh


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

That was hours ago existentialist, why bother stirring now?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

existentialist said:


> TBF, he has a point: the whole point of having threads on a forum like this is so that specific discussions can be had on specific topics. I draw your attention to the topic of this thread which, I imagine, even you would struggle to associate, however tangentially, with the way in which the SWP monopolise the branding at protests and gatherings like the one you posted a photo of.
> 
> Otherwise, there's a risk that you might find yourself being identified as a bit of a hobbyhorse merchant who doesn't care much about any discussion beyond its ability to provide you with an entry point for your own agenda, and I am sure that is not how you want to see yourself being viewed.



You're a bit late to the party yourself.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

80% of Labour mp's don't back him, according to the Guardian.

The party must surely split, how can this continue?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I don't trust crick as far as i could type his name tbh



Good call, Burnham just flat out denied it. Crick said 'tell me if you change your mind', gobshite.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Good call, Burnham just flat out denied it. Crick said 'tell me if you change your mind', gobshite.


yep


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

Too slow.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Too slow.


Are you still on metric time up there in Euroland?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Good call, Burnham just flat out denied it. Crick said 'tell me if you change your mind', gobshite.



WTF? Outrageous.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 28, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> You're a bit late to the party yourself.


I'll take that as my cue to find a more friendly party, then


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> WTF? Outrageous.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I'll take that as my cue to find a more friendly party, then



Okay *shrug*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

I've openly lied. 
Sorry.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


>




What a cunt.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I've openly lied.
> Sorry.



No retraction on his main Twitter either. Good for a few likes eh?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

_Drooling_ sarcasm.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I've openly lied.
> Sorry.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to insinuate it's only a matter of time.


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

I have no principles and can't imagine anyone else might even have qualms.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

I really hate GlenGrenwald. He did a great piece here:



> But a major factor is that many people recognize that establishment journalists are an integral part of the very institutions and corrupted elite circles that are authors of their plight. Rather than mediating or informing these political conflicts, journalists are agents of the forces that are oppressing people. And when journalists react to their anger and suffering by telling them that it’s invalid and merely the byproduct of their stupidity and primitive resentments, that only reinforces the perception that journalists are their enemy, thus rendering journalistic opinion increasingly irrelevant.



What's Crick doing here?


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What's Crick doing here?


Being briefed and floating it to get a reaction ? 'Lied' ? Where on earth does 'truth' come into any of this ?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

TBF in these kind of fast moving situations there are all kinds of rumours going around - could well have been the sources fault


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> TBF in these kind of fast moving situations there are all kinds of rumours going around - could well have been the sources fault



Probably better to assume the worst with these snakes.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> TBF in these kind of fast moving situations there are all kinds of rumours going around - could well have been the sources fault



In which case a straightforward apology would have done?!
'Let me know if you change your mind' - yuck.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Probably better to assume the worst with these snakes.


His reputation is shot if he keeps getting things wrong. I doubt hed get this wrong on purpose. Just makes him look out of the loop.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> Being briefed and floating it to get a reaction ? 'Lied' ? Where on earth does 'truth' come into any of this ?


If nothing's real where do you manage to get your it's all not real position from?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> His reputation is shot if he keeps getting things wrong. I doubt hed get this wrong on purpose. Just makes him look out of the loop.


He's been getting things wrong since his expose of the militant  in the 80s. Reputation?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> In which case a straightforward apology would have done?!
> 'Let me know if you change your mind' - yuck.


Has been watching too much John Wayne films...."never apologise, its a sign of weakness"


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Got the 40 - These MPs voted Confidence in Jeremy Corbyn


 
another article on that site - Hanging from Traitors’ Gate – Progress: Labour’s right wing Militant



> Progress is more open about its income than it used to be. Its website advises that in 2014 it relied on money and support from Bellenden Public Affairs, a lobbying firm that represents privatisers like Serco and NHS outsourcer Care UK.
> 
> Progress also took money from Lexington, another lobbying firm whose clients include Interserve, another major privatiser, and the “Giant Vampire Squid” of banking, Goldman Sachs.


 


I'm fully aware 'progress' are a bunch of quasi-tory twunts, but didn't think it was to this extent...

is there a : purge with an iron broom: smiley out there?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> another article on that site - Hanging from Traitors’ Gate – Progress: Labour’s right wing Militant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What do you mean? They are merely the sensible, moderate electable people. I am sure that none of this money influences them at all.

I mean, I'm joking, but most of them are probably so far gone that they'd stump for Goldman Sachs for free.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What do you mean? They are merely the sensible, moderate electable people. I am sure that none of this money influences them at all.
> 
> I mean, I'm joking, but most of them are probably so far gone that they'd stump for Goldman Sachs for free.


Check who were the official funders of the remain campaign,


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

Bellenden Public Affairs. ffs.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2016)

I do like a conspiracy 
@Rachael_Swindon: BIG EXCLUSIVE: The truth behind the Labour coup, when it really began & WHO manufactured it The truth behind the Labour coup, when it really began and who manufactured it (EXCLUSIVE) | The Canary Rachael on Twitter


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 28, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Seen this yet?
> 
> Another Media Setup? - Craig Murray
> 
> Anna Phillips is, apparently, the secretary of London Young Labour



And a member of progress ...

... While the bloke is some sort of new media PR wizard according to Murray. 

Does smell a bit funny.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 28, 2016)

The tories will have a new leader in 8 weeks.
How long will it take labour, even if only to reinstate Corbyn?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Livpl labour people saying he's about to leave as well. Lots of them saying it.


The dilemma of which pie to put his finger in. Heartbreaking.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> Bellenden Public Affairs. ffs.


They could just remove the "en", save lots of money printing.


----------



## chilango (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> Sat with a bunch of soft Tory voters (probably LibDem in 2010) all busy pontificating about how Labour "need" to get rid of Corbyn.
> 
> So, yeah, Corbyn must stsy.



A couple of Labour people arrived later and tore them a new one about Labour's polling under Corbyn  leaving the soft Tories spluttering banalities about "world statesmen".

My Green Party councillor was sat outside in the beer garden in the rain.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

chilango said:


> My Green Party councillor was sat outside in the beer garden in the rain.


I know rain makes grass grow faster, but it's really desperate times for the Greens if that's their post Brexit instruction.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2016)

Going by scrutiny of social media, JC has lost some early adopters but gained new supporters largely because of his conduct and honesty

Though i think Milne has been manipulating him recently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Though i think Milne has been manipulating him recently.


Because...?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 28, 2016)

Ole said:


> Bellenden Public Affairs. ffs.



bellenden road in peckham originally


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Because...?


Milne looks a bit evil, defo the manipulating type.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 28, 2016)

Going off social media, I am surprised by how many people I know who I would never have imagined would join labour, have announced they've become members this evening


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Going off social media, I am surprised by how many people I know who I would never have imagined would join labour, have announced they've become members this evening



Why? To defend Corbyn?


----------



## tim (Jun 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Milne looks a bit evil, defo the manipulating type.



That's what working for the Guardian does to you.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Going off social media, I am surprised by how many people I know who I would never have imagined would join labour, have announced they've become members this evening


In the last few days, the incompetence and self interest of our MPs has shown up even more than it normally does. Corbyn comes across as honourable, people like that.

He said he was 7.5/10 in favour of the EU, the country needs a middle ground leader. Trying to think countrywide here; he likes the bits most people like (investment, jobs, worker protection, environment) and doesn't like the bits most people don't (democratic deficit, economic integration, not going far enough on workers rights). The only challenge area cross-party for him might be defence and immigration, but maybe we all want to focus on ourselves for a bit and there's a compromise position that works (increasing workers rights may reduce immigration to an extent on its own). So all in all I think he's genuinely more in tune with a broader cross-section of people's opinions at a time when they've all just been thinking it through.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2016)

I've summoned up the courage to have a look at progress website

their funding page (here) is interesting

BVCA is the British Venture Capital Association - lobby group for private equity investors 

(Morning Star did pick up on this a year ago - article here)


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why? To defend Corbyn?



yeh, seems to be - 6 this evening alone - 4 politicos (2 of which I'd never have imagined join any party) and 2 fairly non-political types


----------



## Sirena (Jun 28, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> yeh, seems to be - 6 this evening alone - 4 politicos (2 of which I'd never have imagined join any party) and 2 fairly non-political types


I know 4 in my circle of friends.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Going by scrutiny of social media, JC has lost some early adopters but gained new supporters largely because of his conduct and honesty
> 
> Though i think Milne has been manipulating him recently.



How on earth does he gain from conduct and honesty after his piss poor referendum showing? 

All we have is a desire to continue the project. The man himself is a liability.


----------



## realitybites (Jun 28, 2016)

Shitty times like these you really would want to turn to your elders and peers for reassurance, I'm wondering who are JCs peers? Is there any senior out there who shares his principles that could offer support, or is he really  in a one man canoe..


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 28, 2016)

Alex Salmond was openly supportive.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 28, 2016)

Bellenden?

permission to snigger!


----------



## agricola (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> How on earth does he gain from conduct and honesty after his piss poor referendum showing?
> 
> All we have is a desire to continue the project. The man himself is a liability.



Simply opposing that shower is enough.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Shitty times like these you really would want to turn to your elders and peers for reassurance, I'm wondering who are JCs peers? Is there any senior out there who shares his principles that could offer support, or is he really  in a one man canoe..



He has lost the chance of accepting advice now he is the messiah and everyone else a plotter.


----------



## JimW (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> How on earth does he gain from conduct and honesty after his piss poor referendum showing?
> 
> All we have is a desire to continue the project. The man himself is a liability.


Piss-poor? According to your narrative he backed the winning side


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 28, 2016)

Blunkett's just fucking enraged me speaking on the news just now. Calls Corbyn a fringe element and that he should give up the leadership with good grace so one of our people can get in. The arrogance is just breath taking, truly breath taking.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> He has lost the chance of accepting advice now he is the messiah and everyone else a plotter.


You saying it's not a plot? You do realise those 172 MPs all formed the 184 that failed to vote against the 2nd reading of the vermin's Welfare Reform & Work bill?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

JimW said:


> Piss-poor? According to your narrative he backed the winning side



But not for 7 out of 10 so he can expect declining loyalty.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Blunkett's just fucking enraged me speaking on the news just now. Calls Corbyn a fringe element and that he should give up the leadership with good grace so one of our people can get in. The arrogance is just breath taking, truly breath taking.


There'll be much more of this.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Ah, moose is back. How's this coming along?


Mr Moose said:


> I'm sorry, but in what universe do you (assuming your purpose is not Blairite sabotage) get rid of Jezza for lack of leadership and charisma and promote Angela Eagle?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> He has lost the chance of accepting advice now he is the messiah and everyone else a plotter.



Don't you ever get tired of just gobbing off aimlessly? Thus far the only thing you've said that has any actual evidence for it is that Corbyn's unpopular with the PLP and is unlikely to become more so. Where has he shown evidence he thinks he's "the messiah" beyond not stepping down when his opponents tell him to, for very obvious reasons that people have repeatedly outlined for you? What evidence is there of declining grassroots support? What evidence is there that he failed to deliver votes compared to anyone else in Westminster? Fucksake.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 28, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Is there any senior out there who shares his principles that could offer support, or is he really  in a one man canoe..



For what it's worth, Dennis Skinner shook his hand ostentatiously in the commons yesterday, and appeared to flick a V at some others on his own benches.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why? To defend Corbyn?


three or four on mine.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

a few on mine too. Again, some surprises.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You saying it's not a plot? You do realise those 172 MPs all formed the 184 that failed to vote against the 2nd reading of the vermin's Welfare Reform & Work bill?



A clusterfuck for sure but when that many are opposed it ceases to be a plot and just becomes what is, PLP v Corbyn. There are better ways for the membership to win than to lose all MPs and keep Corbyn. Get a real leader and on due course move aside the ones who cannot be redeemed. 

If you want the Big Bang a purely left party then Corbyn is merely a means to that end. Laudable as that may be it won't win an election imp. Some compromise is required inevitably.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

You don't get it do you? They're done with compromise.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> There'll be much more of this.



I was thinking surely they'd be smart enough to keep up the "we like him but it's for the good of the party" schtick, surely they wouldn't be so utterly dense as to overtly patronise their own voters _again_. Apparently not.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2016)

Also, Corbyn isn't being offered a compromise. He's being offered oblivion.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> A clusterfuck for sure but when that many are opposed it ceases to be a plot and just becomes what is, PLP v Corbyn.


no, plp versus membership and electorate.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Some compromise is required inevitably.


The compromise was for the MPs to sit tight and let him have his shot at the job. Now there is no room for compromise - only for the destruction of the party. That is the only outcome left.


----------



## Ole (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> A clusterfuck for sure but when that many are opposed it ceases to be a plot and just becomes what is, PLP v Corbyn. There are better ways for the membership to win than to lose all MPs and keep Corbyn. *Get a real leader* and on due course move aside the ones who cannot be redeemed.
> 
> If you want the Big Bang a purely left party then Corbyn is merely a means to that end. Laudable as that may be it won't win an election imp. Some compromise is required inevitably.



You think the PLP will happily work with a really strong, effective left-wing leader? Whoever you think that is.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> A clusterfuck for sure but when that many are opposed it ceases to be a plot and just becomes what is, PLP v Corbyn. There are better ways for the membership to win than to lose all MPs and keep Corbyn. Get a real leader and on due course move aside the ones who cannot be redeemed.
> 
> If you want the Big Bang a purely left party then Corbyn is merely a means to that end. Laudable as that may be it won't win an election imp. Some compromise is required inevitably.



Christ there really is no room for compromise anymore.  Corbyn did that at the start, that's why he had the cabinet he did but now they've stabbed him in the back and look how quick he filled his new cabinet. Took 13 days for the first one, the post back stabbing one took 24 hours, if that because that's who he wanted in the first place.  This is a war for who controls the party now and I don't think it's going to hold together. Cunts like Blunkett telling them to go and form their own party do you think him and his supporters are gonna go 'yes ok we'll do that?' Fuck that, why would he when he has the support of the members and trade unions?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

A couple of things i have mentioned before

1) The political class these days are a truly awful bunch of self interest driven carnivorous cunts- seemingly populated by people who have had brief , if any, exposure to any kind of real world work ( not channeling falanage there you dig..)

2) I can see a new reincarnation of the SDP thang coming up here


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I was thinking surely they'd be smart enough to keep up the "we like him but it's for the good of the party" schtick, surely they wouldn't be so utterly dense as to overtly patronise their own voters _again_. Apparently not.



It's etxtraordinary isn't it? Why they think the general public are going to warm to them when they've just been told to fuck off is utterly beyond me.  It's either willfull ignorance, they've completely run out of ideas and only know how to be a neo liberal dullard in a suit or it's both.  Either way their days are over.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Ole said:


> You think the PLP will happily work with a really strong, effective left-wing leader? Whoever you think that is.



Hillary Benn, Angela Eagle and Dan Jarvis cellotaped together - a true unity candidate.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Christ there really is no room for compromise anymore.  Corbyn did that at the start, that's why he had the cabinet he did but now they've stabbed him in the back and look how quick he filled his new cabinet. Took 13 days for the first one, the post back stabbing one took 24 hours, if that because that's who he wanted in the first place.  This is a war for who controls the party now and I don't think it's going to hold together. Cunts like Blunkett telling them to go and form their own party do you think him and his supporters are gonna go 'yes ok we'll do that?' Fuck that, why would he when he has the support of the members and trade unions?



wreckers. punishable by execution in the old days


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2016)

Are you a member of the Labour Party?


----------



## oryx (Jun 29, 2016)

Thought this, found via another forum, was interesting (I've never heard of the author btw):
It's Still the Iraq War, Stupid. - Craig Murray


----------



## JimW (Jun 29, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Hillary Benn, Angela Eagle and Dan Jarvis cellotaped together - a true unity candidate.


Worth a try, then maybe shove them in a box room and forget about it.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Presumably they are working on the legal case for leaving him off the ballot?  Is it still 35 or is it 50 MPs now?


Legal opinion is he is automatically on the betting  slip unless he actually resigns, which I now hope he doesn't,


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 29, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Are you a member of the Labour Party?



Who cares?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> It's etxtraordinary isn't it? Why they think the general public are going to warm to them when they've just been told to fuck off is utterly beyond me.  It's either willfull ignorance, they've completely run out of ideas and only know how to be a neo liberal dullard in a suit or it's both.  Either way their days are over.



The most astonishing thing is in all of this is that while trying their level best to persuade the public he's an unelectable charisma vacuum with not enough stomach for the job, they've instead somehow turned Jeremy Corbyn into an indomitable People's Warrior against the Westminster cuntocracy. They've fashioned their own anti-Establishment nemesis out of one of the most beige men in the entire Commons. 

No wonder the poor bloke looks tired, he's gone from allotment-scratcher to cipher for the collective wound-up hatred of every snubbed leftie in Britain and it's entirely down to the people who were supposed to have him beat from the outset.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

oryx said:


> Thought this, found via another forum, was interesting (I've never heard of the author btw):
> It's Still the Iraq War, Stupid. - Craig Murray




.


----------



## oryx (Jun 29, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> smart bloke but has form some would say



Like I say never heard of him - what's his form?


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Yep, split the party into ever less effective protest groups and see Labour's share of the vote dip even further!



Great news, hope they do it, will fuck the Tory vote,big time blood red, deep red and pinkish, take your pick, 
At least it will get rid of the labour movement of its  Blairite  proto Tories.


----------



## JimW (Jun 29, 2016)

Just read something suggesting three quidders from last time only paid for the right to that vote and would have to do it again for this one. Anyone know if that's true?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

I'd have thought so.


----------



## JimW (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'd have thought so.


Yeah, in retrospect otherwise it's just membership on the cheap.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

oryx said:


> Like I say never heard of him - what's his form?



ex diplomat- left under a cloud- I think there is a hint of disinformation spread about his time from his bosses.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and it's significant that Johnson's 'dowry' to the broarder parliamentary party includes a promise not to expose them to the risk of an early GE. In part, JC should take that as a compliment.



The bastards should certainly be exposed to an early GE, they are clearly putting their own personal ideologies  and self interests before their constituents wishes, they aren't concerned about their electorate, they clearly want a leader that can protect their cushy jobs.


----------



## oryx (Jun 29, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> ex diplomat- left under a cloud- I think there is a hint of disinformation spread about his time from his bosses.


Thanks.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I was thinking surely they'd be smart enough to keep up the "we like him but it's for the good of the party" schtick, surely they wouldn't be so utterly dense as to overtly patronise their own voters _again_. Apparently not.


Why not, they've  been doing it for years,they may be in for a sickening though.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> The bastards should certainly be exposed to an early GE, they are clearly putting their own personal ideologies  and self interests before their constituents wishes, they aren't concerned about their electorate, they clearly want a leader that can protect their cushy jobs.


The major problem is finding people quickly to put up as opposition, in particular to counteract the risk of the UKIP vote. A large number of people just voted to leave the EU and are looking around wondering when somebody plans to do something to affirm confidence in the UK by planning our future. They need somebody they can vote for.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The most astonishing thing is in all of this is that while trying their level best to persuade the public he's an unelectable charisma vacuum with not enough stomach for the job, they've instead somehow turned Jeremy Corbyn into an indomitable People's Warrior against the Westminster cuntocracy. They've fashioned their own anti-Establishment nemesis out of one of the most beige men in the entire Commons.
> 
> No wonder the poor bloke looks tired, he's gone from allotment-scratcher to cipher for the collective wound-up hatred of every snubbed leftie in Britain and it's entirely down to the people who were supposed to have him beat from the outset.



Absolutely spot on, but unfortunately your again spot on in

"They've fashioned their own anti-Establishment nemesis out of one of the most beige men in the entire Commons"
What he needs to do, is hand the baton on to someone who will continue his policies but who can unify the party.
And at some time in the future, crucify Hilary Benn and his pinko proto Tories.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 29, 2016)

JimW said:


> Just read something suggesting three quidders from last time only paid for the right to that vote and would have to do it again for this one. Anyone know if that's true?


Fucking hell, don't raise the idea that you have to pay to vote! A Johnson government could easily go with that.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Absolutely spot on, but unfortunately your again spot on in
> 
> "They've fashioned their own anti-Establishment nemesis out of one of the most beige men in the entire Commons"
> What he needs to do, is hand the baton on to someone who will continue his policies but who can unify the party.
> And at some time in the future, crucify Hilary Benn and his pinko proto Tories.



Of course he does, medium term (though "unify the party" is tremendously optimistic at this point). But there is quite clearly no-one in the current Labour Party capable of doing that right now. The mere fact that Angela Eagle has been mentioned and it wasn't a joke should be enough evidence that what you'd be replacing beige with right now is dogshit.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Of course he does, medium term. But there is quite clearly no-one in the current Labour Party capable of doing that. The mere fact that Angela Eagle has been mentioned and it wasn't a joke should be clear enough evidence that what you'd be replacing beige with right now is dogshit.


TBH, over the last few years I've given up on politics,( like most)  the referendum and Corby's election have sort of reinvigorated my interest, but I'm not up to date with who's saying what, just if they are associated with blairism they should have the honesty to walk across the floor, or resign.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> TBH, over the last few years I've given up on politics,( like most)  the referendum and Corby's election have sort of reinvigorated my interest, but I'm not up to date with who's saying what, just if they are associated with blairism they should have the honesty to walk across the floor, or resign.



Well with Eagle, she's being touted as the "unity" candidate because she initially backed Corbyn before stabbing him in the back on Monday night. She cried a bit during the TV interview in which she explained why she'd done it, then put herself up to replace him about 12 hours later.

This is her in full, scintillating action.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The compromise was for the MPs to sit tight and let him have his shot at the job. Now there is no room for compromise - only for the destruction of the party. That is the only outcome left.



But he is obviously going to take it to the wire, which will probably cost him his position but will hopefully take down ( and expose) a lot of proto Tory members of the PLP.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Hillary Benn, Angela Eagle and Dan Jarvis cellotaped together - a true unity candidate.



The Human Centipede.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> If you want the Big Bang a purely left party



Yes please.



Mr Moose said:


> it won't win an election imp.



Yes it will.  People are clamoring for it.  _Literally _clamoring for it.  If not now, when?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> In the last few days, the incompetence and self interest of our MPs has shown up even more than it normally does. Corbyn comes across as honourable, people like that.



You're right, but observe how easy it is to slip into the language and thought-processes of political PR.

Corbyn doesn't "come across" as honorable, he _is _honorable.  The world is not made up of spin, image and "perception," much as the media would like it to be so.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 29, 2016)

Never


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Well with Eagle, she's being touted as the "unity" candidate because she initially backed Corbyn before stabbing him in the back on Monday night. She cried a bit during the TV interview in which she explained why she'd done it, then put herself up to replace him about 12 hours later.
> 
> This is her in full, scintillating action.




Will watch it the morn, wor lass is asleep and unexpected sound effects at this time of night can result in physical assaults


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The compromise was for the MPs to sit tight and let him have his shot at the job. Now there is no room for compromise - only for the destruction of the party. That is the only outcome left.



And that's the best outcome.  It's about time the LP split decisively.  Let all the capitalists bugger off to SDPB (aka the Dustbin of History) and let the rest get on with doing something useful.


----------



## coley (Jun 29, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> You're right, but observe how easy it is to slip into the language and thought-processes of political PR.
> 
> Corbyn doesn't "come across" as honorable, he _is _honorable.  The world is not made up of spin, image and "perception," much as the media would like it to be so.



Jeez,could this be the one occasion when most on here agree with the 'dreaded Dwyer' 
I for one do


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> You're right, but observe how easy it is to slip into the language and thought-processes of political PR.
> 
> Corbyn doesn't "come across" as honorable, he _is _honorable.  The world is not made up of spin, image and "perception," much as the media would like it to be so.


That's fair. I've never met him and only really heard about him this past year. So giving full unqualified support is hard and that was as far as I could go. Politicians don't have a good track record of being worthy of trust. It's nice to have hope that one could be worthy.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Will watch it the morn, wor lass is asleep and unexpected sound effects at this time of night can result in physical assaults



It's probably not worth watching tbh, just imagine a droning nasal tone with slightly itchy silences where she's written "pause for dramatic impact" on her notes.


----------



## Supine (Jun 29, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Yes please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it will.  People are clamoring for it.  _Literally _clamoring for it.  If not now, when?



Maybe in your little social bubble.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

https://www.savinglabour.com/


> *Thousands of people have joined our #SavingLabour campaign, asking their MPs to express no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. 81% of MPs who voted agreed with us, but he is yet to step down.*
> 
> *If you agree it is time for Jeremy Corbyn to resign for the good of our country, add your name here to email your MP.*
> 
> ...



The Maquis is Online


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> ia David Jessep
> "It now emerges that Hilary Benn and Angela Eagle have been secretly briefing against Jeremy Corbyn for the last 9 months. They have constantly fed information to Laura Kuenssberg and the Murdoch press corps about pending coups and dissatisfaction in the Parliamentary Party.They were planning to move against him on several occasions and 'chickened out'. The debate on the RAF bombing intervention on Syria on the 2.12.15 was to be the preliminary opportunity for Benn to strike by speaking out against the Labour line ( which he did to much Tory applause).
> 
> 
> ...



Going round social media, could be nonsense(though pretty detailed nonsense)


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> Maybe in your little social bubble.



I've *always* found British popular opinion to be far to the "Left" of the British media, especially on economic matters.

In my experience, it is those who believe the working-class to be reactionary who have swallowed a myth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> My Green Party councillor was sat outside in the beer garden in the rain.


poetry


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

Sat outside in the beer garden in the rain
I voted remain
For wind turbines of retro-future stylings
For Ikea furniture and sustainable logs
While in the snug the soft tories splutter
Fronted out by Corbynistas


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

I also don't get this weird tory-lite thing about 'Labour needs someone electable'. What is this, queensbury rules? Surely you want the opp to have someone shit at the helm in order to fucking crush the enemy. Why is the team opposite giving advice unasked


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Going round social media, could be nonsense(though pretty detailed nonsense)


I can't sleep, so I'm trying to figure out how these plots work. It really is a little like counting sheep when there are 172 to choose from.

This latest release of information suggests that Benn and Eagle are the instigators, "implying" to the audience that Benn just went his conscience and is thus fit for future cabinet roles, while Eagle going out reluctantly last makes her visible heir elect.

Now, we briefly heard about 3 candidates before including Jarvis, so this release means it's Dan Jarvis behind the whole plot? Or this is his own special follow-up plot?

Oh, no wait, misdirection, who still has clean hands, Burnham? Helpfully highlighted as loyal from the tweets.

I'm going to have to stop thinking about this without my tinfoil hat.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Fucking hell, don't raise the idea that you have to pay to vote! A Johnson government could easily go with that.


More likely they'd just sell advertising space in the polling booth, or run it like mobile games. Pay 3 quid to vote or have to watch a shit badly put together advert for 30 seconds.


----------



## Ole (Jun 29, 2016)

Great comment on one of Momentum's event invites, on the failures of Corbyn's team to get the word out.



> Unfortunately I won't be able to make this but please could someone on my behalf make the point that Corbyn and his communications team have been absolutely dismal at harnessing the power of the internet and social media to get his policy and ideological ideas across to the general public.
> 
> We have always known significant sections of the Labour Party and the mainstream media would be very hostile towards him and so it's also been glaringly obvious since he became leader that he and his team (and Momentum) would need to become very savvy and put a lot of their time and resources into putting together a communications strategy that circumvented the mainstream media and got directly to the general public.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Jeez,could this be the one occasion when most on here agree with the 'dreaded Dwyer'
> I for one do


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> I've *always* found British popular opinion to be far to the "Left" of the British media, especially on economic matters.
> 
> In my experience, it is those who believe the working-class to be reactionary who have swallowed a myth.



I agree with this, if cautiously. There's polling (again, haven't kept a link but you can probably google up something) that shows widespread support for policies that Corbyn either already has or could be expected to support and that are broadly 'left wing', like nationalising utilities and railways, even among people who may currently think he's 'not for them'.

But the same is true to some extent of the likes of UKIP, as it was of the BNP a few years ago - surveys show far more of the British public agree with some of their ideas when presented with them without the 'taint' of being explicitly labelled UKIP-etc. policies. So Corbyn's Labour does have an image problem in the 'wider world'. Created for them to a great extent by the mainstream media and their detractors of course, but they still need to do something about it.

It's not about putting style over substance, just about being able to present a clear, convincing narrative. It's frustrating how easy it's been for people to make the decent-but-useless label stick, and how unconcerned he seems to be about it. I've said it before here: I think what did for Miliband more than anything to do with the substance of him or his campaign was Labour's failure to control its own narrative following 2010 and the way that allowed the Tories and their stooges to write it for them - 'the mess the last lot created' etc.

I think now the substance _is_ more convincing, certainly more clearly differentiated from the Tories' substance, and if they can take control of the story that's told about it I don't think it would be half as difficult as many people seem to think it would for them to attract a broader swathe of the electorate. I don't know whether the thinking is that they should keep their powder dry for a general election or what it is, but if I was them I'd have fully worked up this 'alternative to austerity' business and be banging on about it every time I spoke, regardless of what question Laura Kuennswhatsit had actually asked me.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?

Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.

Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Well with Eagle, she's being touted as the "unity" candidate because she initially backed Corbyn before stabbing him in the back on Monday night. She cried a bit during the TV interview in which she explained why she'd done it, then put herself up to replace him about 12 hours later.
> 
> This is her in full, scintillating action.




Her partner's a Trot. The Daily Mail will love that if and when she becomes Labour leader.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> 
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?


 Aaron Bastani says he will, he seems a credible pundit. I follow his novaro media on YouTube. they have some decent content, even though I think politically he's a bit wishy washy


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> 
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?


all the polling suggests he'll walk it.


----------



## andysays (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> *
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.*
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?



She clearly has an agenda, so I wouldn't expect her to do anything else (see treelover's post 1763 for example...)


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

The Labour right's problem is that they made voting in their leadership election about as easy as signing a change.org petition (this also, IMO, goes some way to explaining why most of those who voted Corbyn in haven't done much since - they essentially got their man into the top job with a few clicks of a mouse - _clicktivism works! No need for those old-style politics anymore..._).

While there's been some noble efforts to get people opposed to Corbyn signed up, their platform simply isn't one that has the same kind of wide appeal that Corbyn's did (and will do) with the kind of people who would actually bother. So they're doomed to failure, IMO.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> 
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?



Any overly confident predictions seem a bit rash in the current state of flux, but the based on the small-to-medium sample of members I know, I think yes. I certainly wouldn't set too much store by what she says.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 29, 2016)

You can blame the lazy clicktivists if you like, and they are a plague, but what did you expect them to do given a party whose top layer couldn't really be bothered to get on board with their decision, never mind engage them?

If you have a load of passive supporters, then you can blame them for being passive or you can blame yourself for failing to extract any action from them.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

Has anything been asked of the supporters specifically?
I would've expected that come the GE they WOULD have been activated and motivated


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

Seamus MIlne has been shit....hasnt even managed to keep the Guardian on side


----------



## Ole (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> 
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?



It's bollocks, he'll easily win again and yes the £3ers will be willing and able to turn out again.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

This is fucking embarrassing, it really is.

I came close to joining back when Jez was originally on the ballot, glad I didn't. Would have been a waste of that £3 the entire party is just shit at this point and refuses to become less shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> This is fucking embarrassing, it really is.
> 
> I came close to joining back when Jez was originally on the ballot, glad I didn't. Would have been a waste of that £3 the entire party is just shit at this point and refuses to become less shit.


Parties always best on stairs or in kitchen and lp has neither so what did you expect?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> You can blame the lazy clicktivists if you like, and they are a plague, but what did you expect them to do given a party whose top layer couldn't really be bothered to get on board with their decision, never mind engage them?
> 
> If you have a load of passive supporters, then you can blame them for being passive or you can blame yourself for failing to extract any action from them.


I didn't mean to blame them - it's a complex picture and I agree a lack of direction is part of it. I think blaming people for not following through after last year's election is about as pointless (and wrongheaded) as blaming low turnouts and lack of political engagement on voter apathy.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Parties always best on stairs or in kitchen and lp has neither so what did you expect?



That's discrimination that is, I'm sure you could have an awesome party on a disabled ramp or in a lift.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Seamus MIlne has been shit....hasnt even managed to *keep* the Guardian on side



When was the Guardian on side?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> That's discrimination that is, I'm sure you could have an awesome party on a disabled ramp or in a lift.


kitchens ime always accessible and you've clearly not heard of chairlifts


----------



## mauvais (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> I didn't mean to blame them - it's a complex picture and I agree a lack of direction is part of it. I think blaming people for not following through after last year's election is about as pointless (and wrongheaded) as blaming low turnouts and lack of political engagement on voter apathy.


Fair play. I can't think of a way the Labour Party has tried to engage me, apart from more clicktivism itself and asking for money for supposedly engaging other people, whoever they are. I even tried to approach the CLP and that was a failure in itself. Now I live in a different seat, a Labour one, and there doesn't seem to even be a CLP. Omnishambles.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> This is fucking embarrassing, it really is.
> 
> I came close to joining back when Jez was originally on the ballot, glad I didn't. Would have been a waste of that £3 the entire party is just shit at this point and refuses to become less shit.


It is, but it's a bit depressing as well frankly. 

I'm not surprised at their self interest, but the depth of feeling in the PLP caught me off guard. I guess they don't think they can win a contest against him, but that they just want to make his position untenable.

Shame they couldn't focus the same attention, as an opposition party, toward the Tories.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

Lesson Ive learned this week is the limit on democracy, in action. 

Exit? It's not going to happen... Not really. All the checks and balances are kicking in and 2nd referendum looks inevitable to me. We're only six days in on that so still a lot of work to undo the vote, but I reckon they'll get there.

Massive majority for corbyn? Syntax error. Computer says no. 

Surprised, no, but it's quite amazing to see it happening.

On one level it's all over, but there is a price, and that's that all those whose majority vote will have been overridden will be angry, and that anger has to go somewhere. Not necessarily anywhere good but somewhere.

 w





eoin_k said:


> When was the Guardian on side?


Exactly! Crap appointment. (I know what you meant )


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Jeez,could this be the one occasion when most on here agree with the 'dreaded Dwyer'
> I for one do


It does none of us any favours not to admit when we sometimes agree with those with whom we often don't.

Too many double negatives? - I agree with Dwyer on this occasion.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 29, 2016)

We are learning to love the things that we hate!
With apologies to NMA.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Lesson Ive learned this week is the limit on democracy, in action.
> 
> Exit? It's not going to happen... Not really. All the checks and balances are kicking in and 2nd referendum looks inevitable to me. We're only six days in on that so still a lot of work to undo the vote, but I reckon they'll get there.
> 
> ...


I can't like this. I'm just saying I agree.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I also don't get this weird tory-lite thing about 'Labour needs someone electable'. What is this, queensbury rules? Surely you want the opp to have someone shit at the helm in order to fucking crush the enemy. Why is the team opposite giving advice unasked



My guess would be that it is a mix of total arrogance and concern trolling. It reminds me a bit of a Tory voter I used to work with who took great interest in the 2015 Labour leadership election, he genuinely seemed aggrieved that Labour picked Corbyn even though he would obviously never vote Labour and wanted the party to fail.

I don't really understand the mentality, I would love it if the Tories had a leadership candidate I considered unelectable. I certainly can't imagine in what world I would be upset by that.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> You can blame the lazy clicktivists if you like, and they are a plague, but what did you expect them to do given a party whose top layer couldn't really be bothered to get on board with their decision, never mind engage them?
> 
> If you have a load of passive supporters, then you can blame them for being passive or you can blame yourself for failing to extract any action from them.



It's also worth saying that the nature of almost any membership organisation is that only the minority of members actually _do _anything much beyond paying their annual subs. Perhaps clicktivism has made it easier for the non-active majority to _feel like_ they're doing something, rather than reducing the propensity of the more involved minority to stay involved, in which case the question is whether they'd have done something else if the online options weren't open to them. 120k people choosing to stay at home signing online petitions rather than knock on doors, attend meetings and policy discussions, etc. would not be great. 120k people doing something rather than fuck all is a slightly different story.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b Possibly in one of the many emails received and swiped away without being read.

I'll admit to being lazy. This applies to all areas of my life. As said before i joined accidentally. Surely though as with all things a minority get more deeply involved while most flag wave on the sidelines making up the numbers.

I don't know that I would be different if online stuff wasn't an option. By and large I think people who get more involved do so because they enjoy it.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> My guess would be that it is a mix of total arrogance and concern trolling. It reminds me a bit of a Tory voter I used to work with who took great interest in the 2015 Labour leadership election, he genuinely seemed aggrieved that Labour picked Corbyn even though he would obviously never vote Labour and wanted the party to fail.
> 
> I don't really understand the mentality, I would love it if the Tories had a leadership candidate I considered unelectable. I certainly can't imagine in what world I would be upset by that.



I know a fair few people like this.

Thing is they don't see themselves as Tories (Hey, they voted LibDem once so they can't be, right?, right????) and genuinely believe that they're making an informed, objective choice from all the options. Which of course they are, it's just that that their (percieved in some cases) material interests are almost always going to be best served by voting Tory.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Fair play. I can't think of a way the Labour Party has tried to engage me, apart from more clicktivism itself and asking for money for supposedly engaging other people, whoever they are. I even tried to approach the CLP and that was a failure in itself. Now I live in a different seat, a Labour one, and there doesn't seem to even be a CLP. Omnishambles.


The party has been hollowed out over the last couple of decades to the point where they don't have the feet on the ground to even mount effective campaigns anymore. Coupled with the fact that those remaining active tend to be on the right of the party who have comfortable positions which would be threatened by a new influx of radicals, it's not surprising there's little enthusiasm or ability on the part of many within the CLPs to engage the new members.

The new members need to force their way in if they want to do anything really. Which puts the ball back in their court - but as we've discussed, as a body of people there's clearly some obstacles to this happening...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do people think Corbyn will still win the members' votes?
> 
> Laura whatserface is heavily pushing the idea that he might not anymore in her BBC pieces.
> 
> Will the £3ers turn out again? Will they be able?



Kuenssberg is known to have it for Corbyn, more than the rest of the BBC even.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Seamus MIlne has been shit....hasnt even managed to keep the Guardian on side



when were Graun ever 'on side' re: Corbyn ? It's been a relentless assault on JC + Co from the off, fuck all SM or anyone else could do about that .


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Lesson Ive learned this week is the limit on democracy, in action.
> 
> Exit? It's not going to happen... Not really. All the checks and balances are kicking in and 2nd referendum looks inevitable to me. We're only six days in on that so still a lot of work to undo the vote, but I reckon they'll get there.
> 
> ...


Boris has said he won't call a GE - assuing he gets in and isn't lying. I think he's the most likely candidate and I don't believe there will be a GE.

I also doubt veery much there will be a second referendum. Organising that would take a long time so even if there were, it won't happen anytime soon.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Increasingly I get the impression that the anti-Corbyn position(s) is to get rid of Corbyn then run as a party that will pull out of Brexit. This would be absolutely insane electorally, would destroy the LP for generations..


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 29, 2016)

Do you think so? I think they plan to get rid of Corbyn, get some sort of EU fudge going (rather than on outright rejection of Leave), probably with some rather nasty anti-immigrant policies (after all we know that will appeal to all those Leave voters), and then the fight between the soft-left and the right will resume.


----------



## Cid (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Has anything been asked of the supporters specifically?
> I would've expected that come the GE they WOULD have been activated and motivated



Invitations to attend Corbyn speeches initially. Recently mostly requests to help in remain campaigning. Other than that a fair bit of CLP stuff - requests to attend meetings, help out leafleting in the locals, general campaigning for CLP etc. Didn't do any of it (was doing law degree alongside full time work), may take a gander if Corbyn gets the membership vote. I suppose what puts me off is the kind of people who get involved with CLP politics.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Increasingly I get the impression that the anti-Corbyn position(s) is to get rid of Corbyn then run as a party that will pull out of Brexit. This would be absolutely insane electorally, would destroy the LP for generations..


Maybe the plan is for the 'soft' left do the dirty work, run against Corbyn and beat him by reeling in a load of three quidders with promises of no Brexit or second referendums. Said 'soft left' leader would then get utterly destroyed leaving the hard Blairites/Progress types to say that this middle ground doesn't work and only they can win elections.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 29, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> Her partner's a Trot. The Daily Mail will love that if and when she becomes Labour leader.



And here I am thinking that only Falconer could have any influence on
A Eagle.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> My guess would be that it is a mix of total arrogance and concern trolling. It reminds me a bit of a Tory voter I used to work with who took great interest in the 2015 Labour leadership election, he genuinely seemed aggrieved that Labour picked Corbyn even though he would obviously never vote Labour and wanted the party to fail.
> 
> I don't really understand the mentality, I would love it if the Tories had a leadership candidate I considered unelectable. I certainly can't imagine in what world I would be upset by that.



Written about the PLP but applies generally to conservatives

_Their motivation is *not *their professed concern that Corbyn could not win a general election, but their fear that he very well might. Under conditions of the gravest crisis for Britain’s ruling elite since the Second World War, the bourgeoisie will not tolerate a potential prime minister professing an anti-austerity, anti-militarist agenda. They want to ensure that Labour—the main political obstacle to socialism in Britain for more than a century—is completely reliable in carrying through the onslaught against the working class now being prepared.
_
I think Corbyn's anti-austerity politics are essentially fraudulent, but there is some concern that even his mild proposals might win in 2020 (unlike 2015 electoral maths). Essentially Conservatives with a figure from the right like Gove could flatline at ~35%. Some liberal Tory types switch to Labour. C1s C2s happy with the low post-EU immigration reality switch to Labour because of a continuing recession and absence of promised economic boom of EU withdrawal.


----------



## Ole (Jun 29, 2016)

It's not even fear that he might *win*, just terrible fear of his ideas gaining any popularity. This Tory cunthead in the Telegraph put it very honestly back during the leadership election.

“Corbyn would still have six questions at PMQs. His frontbench would still have a representative on Question Time and Newsnight. His party’s policy announcements and press releases would get just as much news coverage as a credible opposition.

“In short, Labour being Labour, they’ll still have the same platform … The only difference is Corbyn’s views will be more left-wing, so will shift the entire political debate to the left. Long-term, so long as Labour and the Conservatives remain the two major parties in the UK, the only way to make progress is to persuade Labour to accept our position. Our ideas don’t win just when our party does, but when the other party advocates our ideas, too.

“Instead, a Corbyn victory would lend credibility to the far-left … giving a megaphone to their [politics]. Inevitably, this would skew the discourse, letting Corbyn’s ideas become the default alternative to the Conservatives. Corbyn’s brand of socialism would poison the groundwater of British politics for a generation: influencing people, particularly young people, across the political spectrum.​


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Increasingly I get the impression that the anti-Corbyn position(s) is to get rid of Corbyn then run as a party that will pull out of Brexit. This would be absolutely insane electorally, would destroy the LP for generations..


Also never underestimate the potential for New Labour to follow in the wake of the Tories and their agenda


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 29, 2016)

One of his New Cabinet has resigned already Pat Glass gone.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Keep hearing Alan Johnson's name cropping up as a temp _take the sting out of it_ leader. Given he was supposed to be leading the labour remain campaign any of these anti-corbyn people getting behind him will be pretty transparent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Ponyutd said:


> One of his New Cabinet has resigned already Pat Glass gone.


She's standing down as an MP at the next election, so not sure this is entirely part of the coup plans.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 29, 2016)

Quite right. Read the bbc breaking news, then read her twitter page.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> She's standing down as an MP at the next election, so not sure this is entirely part of the coup plans.



Aye, she said politics was too divisive. Can't blame them wanting out really.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

Pat Glass now resigned, she was one of the new ones appointed 2 days ago - surely it's up now, that's one that agreed to serve after the rebels left!

BBC -
Labour MP Stephen Kinnock on the resignation of Pat Glass.

"Pat was appointed two days ago. That may be a record."

Pearoast - ha


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Pat Glass now resigned, she was one of the new ones appointed 2 days ago - surely it's up now, that's one that agreed to serve after the rebels left!
> 
> BBC -
> Labour MP Stephen Kinnock on the resignation of Pat Glass.
> ...


What pressure was brought to bear?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Someone said something on an email list i'm on that i found very perceptive - the coup leaders and participants, due to their own lack of any principles beyond immediate self-interest, have not grasped that Corbyn is acting out of genuine political/democratic principle in not budging, in refusing to fold. And, in that refusal or inability to get what's happening and why, they have fatally overplayed their hand. Expecting someone to act as they would has doomed them.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> What pressure was brought to bear?



Dunno just reading the BBC Breaking page. That's all that's available so far.

Just added - 

Shadow education secretary Pat Glass - who was appointed to the post only this week - has announced she has quit "with a heavy heart", tweeting: "My dream job but the situation is untenable."


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

It appears a Party split is a distinct possibility. What happens next?

For arguments sake the 172 MPs, plus x% of party members form one faction and Corbyn plus 40 MPs plus y% members form another. Some unions support the MPs, other go with Corbyn.

Perhaps much will depend on seemingly minor issues such as who actually has the legal entitlement to call themselves “The Labour Party”.

Say the 172 group, for want of a better term are legally entitled to call themselves the Labour Party, and have control of the party machinery, then Corbyn’s group, let’s call them Momentum for ease, may have a tougher time.

Would Momentum be able to develop into an effective electoral force or become over time an irrelevance much has Respect has and the Socialist Party before them?

As other people have pointed out, in the digital age having a mass membership party doesn’t necessarily guarantee electoral success. The Tories have a membership of circa 130,000 but have a Parliamentary majority.

I happen to think those comparing the 172 with the SDP are wrong. There were only 4 defectors, there was no credible attempt to depose the leader and they were forced to merge with the Liberal Party due to a lack of real electoral success. In short they did not “break the mould” of British electoral politics as they claimed they would.

The current situation in the Labour Party, combined with the effects of the Tory’s leadership contest and Brexit, is far more likely to actually do so.

Just thinking aloud so no abuse please.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 29, 2016)

Looking forward to PMQ. Though Corbyn is as likely to ignore what's going on and ask the Cameron about Anne from Solihull's water bill


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

If there is a split who gets to be called The Labour Party? the PLP rebels with their constituency mandates or the Corbynites with his memebership mandate? Can the PLP just appoint someone and put a jumper on the front bench and tell Jezza he doesn't sit there anymore?


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> If there is a split who gets to be called The Labour Party? the PLP rebels with their constituency mandates or the Corbynites with his memebership mandate? Can the PLP just appoint someone and put a jumper on the front bench and tell Jezza he doesn't sit there anymore?



The Labour Party (Progress)

The Labour Party (Momentum)

Old school brackets.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> The Labour Party (Progress)
> 
> The Labour Party (Momentum)
> 
> Old school brackets.



So who sits on the front bench?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> It appears a Party split is a distinct possibility. What happens next?
> 
> For arguments sake the 172 MPs, plus x% of party members form one faction and Corbyn plus 40 MPs plus y% members form another. Some unions support the MPs, other go with Corbyn.
> 
> ...



If members re-elect Corbyn, which it looks like they will, it's hard to see how the MPs could 'take' the party name. They'd still be rebelling against both leader and members, whatever support they have none of it is from the bulk of the Labor structure.

Anyway, a few will defect, some may try for a new party. Willing to bet a lot of the less vocal ones, like my own MP, will just shut up for a while though. Maybe even get on with doing their jobs, though I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Retro said:


> Looking forward to PMQ. Though Corbyn is as likely to ignore what's going on and ask the Cameron about Anne from Solihull's water bill



Well that is a matter I'm interested to hear about, it's only ever gone up....poor Anne.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> So who sits on the front bench?



SNP  (see other thread!)


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> SNP  (see other thread!)



Ha - yeah - Nicola! Come on Down! Then she'll get independence though and it's an empty bench again.

I'm detecting a new meme with a picture of an empty parliamentary opposition bench.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 29, 2016)

YouSir said:


> If members re-elect Corbyn, which it looks like they will, it's hard to see how the MPs could 'take' the party name. They'd still be rebelling against both leader and members, whatever support they have none of it is from the bulk of the Labor structure.


Whether or not they would get it, I think they'd feel entitled to it. Rightly or wrongly they think they are Labour, as demonstrated by this whole sorry escapade. "The members are wrong, we are right*"




*inadvertent double meaning, but I'll take it.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Whether or not they would get it, I think they'd feel entitled to it. Rightly or wrongly they think they are Labour, as demonstrated by this whole sorry escapade. "The members are wrong, we are right*"
> 
> *inadvertent double meaning, but I'll take it.



They can feel as entitled as they like, without the subs, mailing lists or members it'll just be them sitting in a corner saying 'we did win'. Best they could do, I think, would be to launch a legal battle which even if they win they lose.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2016)

Would a split in the party be a bad thing?


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Someone said something on an email list i'm on that i found very perceptive - the coup leaders and participants, due to their own lack of any principles beyond immediate self-interest, have not grasped that Corbyn is acting out of genuine political/democratic principle in not budging, in refusing to fold. And, in that refusal or inability to get what's happening and why, they have fatally overplayed their hand. Expecting someone to act as they would has doomed them.


Someone said pretty much that further back in this thread.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2016)

Cameron to Corbyn at PMQs...


> "I would say, for heaven’s sake man, go."



Very revealing.
That really should inspire people 'on the left' of the party to support his position.


----------



## JimW (Jun 29, 2016)

Surely the unions would have.a big say in who gets to be called official Labour and they've backed Corbyn


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> SNP  (see other thread!)


Stay tuned:


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> If there is a split who gets to be called The Labour Party? the PLP rebels with their constituency mandates or the Corbynites with his memebership mandate? Can the PLP just appoint someone and put a jumper on the front bench and tell Jezza he doesn't sit there anymore?



two different issues, in Parliament its up to the Speaker - his view will be if 172 MP's say they are the Labour Party, and 40 MP's say they are the Labour Party, then he'll decide that 172 beats 40.

outside parliament the answer is probably the other way around - Corbyn has control of the party machinery, the money, the branches, the membership etc.. so he gets to keep the Labour name and trademakes. that won't stop the 40 MP 'Real Labour' group sitting at the far end at the back with the cobwebs...


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

JimW said:


> Surely the unions would have.a big say in who gets to be called official Labour and they've backed Corbyn



I think it would come done to who is* legally* entitled to claim the name, not the unions. In fact I'd be very surprised if lawyers aren't considering this very question as we speak.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

For the record I don't think the Labour Party will split, nor will it disappear as some seem to be suggesting. I don't think either side will give up the fight for the party. And while the fight will do massive damage, it will persevere simply because there is no where else for most of the voters or members to go.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

emanymton said:


> For the record I don't think the Labour Party will split, nor will it disappear as some seem to be suggesting. I don't think either side will give up the fight for the party. And while the fight will do massive damage, it will persevere simply because there is no where else for most of the voters or members to go.



So what do you think will happen if there's no split and no backing down? That's unresolved, which can't continue. Either Jezza goes and the PLP continue, or Jezza stays and wins a leadership campaign and the PLP grump off to the back benches, or Jezza wins and the PLP splits.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

There is no basis for negotiation here now. No space. It's all or nothing.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> So what do you think will happen if there's no split and no backing down? That's unresolved, which can't continue. Either Jezza goes and the PLP continue, or Jezza stays and wins a leadership campaign and the PLP grump off to the back benches, or Jezza wins and the PLP splits.


I think he'll stand down eventually, and some form of middle ground, party unity candidate will be elected leader. My money was on Burnham as I think he has been positioning for this since the last leadership election. But the whole mayor if Manchester thing makes me doubt it will be him. 

I've just noticed something and am now  slightly disappointed that we will never get 'Burn ham' as the leader of the opposition facing off against Cameron.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

I found this interesting: 



> Sources close to Watson – who as Corbyn’s deputy, would become caretaker leader if he chose to resign – said: “Everyone needs to calm down and try and prevent a civil war in the Labour party. We should not rush into a leadership contest that would be irreversible.”



To me that sounds very much like:

Watson, whose careful planning hasn't prevented strong suspicions about his direct role in the coup, said: "So having started this civil war in the Parliamentary Party, I thought Corbyn would fall on his sword. Now we're looking at a leadership contest that my side would lose and I'm bricking it."


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> There is no basis for negotiation here now. No space. It's all or nothing.


You think there will be a split then? They're not going to dissolve into nothing that's for sure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

remember tom watsons speech accepting the deputy position? god he banged on for fucking ages. At least Khans speech had a little cheekiness about it, faux though it was. Watson just droned on at full bore for what seemed like hours. If god really hates me, and its so rainy I think she might, watson will become leader of the labour party

altho st Jez of Corb looks to be hanging on so maybe she likes me better than I thought


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

emanymton said:


> You think there will be a split then? They're not going to dissolve into nothing that's for sure.



If they split most of them will disappear - they're reliant on loyal Labour brand voters. They're between a rock and a hard place right now. Mind you so's Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

emanymton said:


> You think there will be a split then? They're not going to dissolve into nothing that's for sure.


No, i think one side will win -  there can't be a middle ground outcome. Now, that may well lead to a split (onbly if corbyn wins though), but i suspect the PLP backers are going to discover just how shallow their standing is very soon and will bottle it. They are only where they are due to the labour party imprimatur. The same lack of principles beyond immediate self-interest i mentioned above sort of requires that.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> If they split most of them will disappear - they're reliant on loyal Labour brand voters. They're between a rock and a hard place right now. Mind you so's Corbyn.


Which is why I doubt there will be a split. Both sides know that however 'loses' the split is not going to get very far.


----------



## andysays (Jun 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cameron to Corbyn at PMQs...
> 
> Very revealing.
> That really should inspire people 'on the left' of the party to support his position.





> Prime Minister David Cameron has told Jeremy Corbyn to resign as Labour leader, claiming it is *not in the national interest* for him to continue. During Prime Minister's Questions, the PM criticised Mr Corbyn's efforts during the EU referendum, telling him: "For heaven's sake man, go."



Whereas Cameron, who actually called, then lost, then refused to take responsibility for seeing through the result of the fucking referendum, now plans to stick around as a dead-duck PM for the next few months, ensuring that nothing substantive can happen, which clearly *is* in the national interest...


----------



## Supine (Jun 29, 2016)

I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.

Whichever side wins it needs to be done quickly - Labour couldn't ruffle Camerons feathers at PMQ today and that needs to change.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 29, 2016)

I think Cameron's calling for Corbyn to go is in one part classic deflection stuff to divert attention from the vermin's own woes, also a signal to the disaffected Labour Mp's that they have the vermin's tacit support and frankly just to stir more shit.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.


Labour campaigned for Remain, didn't they? Plus, they're in opposition...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Watson, whose careful planning hasn't prevented strong suspicions about his direct role in the coup, said: "So having started this civil war in the Parliamentary Party, I thought Corbyn would fall on his sword. Now we're looking at a leadership contest that my side would lose and I'm bricking it."


Yeah, some rowing back there. I also wonder how much unity there actual is in the 172, the Progress filth seem to be letting the soft left do most of the running at the moment (probably because even they aren't deluded enough to think that they've got anything but a tiny amount of support in the party at large) but how united are the two sections? 



Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.


1) There are a number of Remain backers running for the Tory leadership (including the joint favourite), (2) Which of the 12 or so Labour MPs that backed Leave do you think should replace Corbyn?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> SIR Eric Pickles? How the fuck did that happen?
> 
> I had heard that, as the incumbent leader, he automatically stands in a leadership election



Jabba's knighthood was, some cynics have contended, the pay-off for moving aside at DCLG to let someone more "thrusting" (for which read "young, and not a professional Yorkshireman") into his ministerial slot.


----------



## Supine (Jun 29, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Labour campaigned for Remain, didn't they?



If he was really an exiter then he should have lead the party in that direction. The landscape would certainly be different if he had.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I think Cameron's calling for Corbyn to go is in one part classic deflection stuff to divert attention from the vermin's own woes, also a signal to the disaffected Labour Mp's that they have the vermin's tacit support and frankly just to stir more shit.



It's all part of the Great Game to his type, they hanker for worthy opponents who can play to the rules, on their level. 

A family member of mine used to follow the hunt before they got too old, and told me about a time when they found themselves sat opposite some titled type in the pub afterwards. They were moaning because the sabs hadn't been been up to snuff recently, made the sport less fun.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

i don't think there are any Labour Brexiters that 75% of the PLP or membership would serve, so its a moot point aas far as i'm concerned...


----------



## Supine (Jun 29, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> (2) Which of the 12 or so Labour MPs that backed Leave do you think should replace Corbyn?



No idea - the whole thing is a clusterfuck mixed with an omnishambles


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> If he was really an exiter then he should have lead the party in that direction. The landscape would certainly be different if he had.


Either way, which Brexiter should now lead the Labour party?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> The whole thing is a clusterfuck mixed with an omnishambles



I think it's fuckin great, long overdue.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Just emailed 'team labour' and told them to grow up and sort their lives out but slightly more eloquently



"Hi, arse-boils!
What an immature bunch of pig-fucking, red Tory shitcunts you are. Why don't the lot of you wait until your balls drop, before engaging in politics, you star-bellied sneeches?".


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.
> 
> Whichever side wins it needs to be done quickly - Labour couldn't ruffle Camerons feathers at PMQ today and that needs to change.


So one lot want him out for campaigning for stay and the other lot want him out for not campaigning to stay.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.
> 
> Whichever side wins it needs to be done quickly - Labour couldn't ruffle Camerons feathers at PMQ today and that needs to change.


Which of these gets your support then?

1. Dennis Skinner

2. Frank Field

3. Gisela Stuart

4. Graham Stringer

5. John Cryer

6. Kate Hoey

7. Kelvin Hopkins

8. Roger Godsiff

9. Ronnie Campbell

10. John Mann


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Either way, which Brexiter should now lead the Labour party?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Which of these gets your support then?
> 
> 1. Dennis Skinner
> 
> ...



Harvest organs from the 172 to reinvigorate Skinner and then go with him.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.



Sorry, but that would be a stupid reason to resign. For all Corbyn's apparently lukewarm enthusiasm for it, Labour campaigned for Remain.

And they're the opposition party. There are self-evidently a lot of people in the country at the moment feeling that they aren't represented by the result of the referendum. A credible opposition party may need to accept the result and the (slim) majority behind it, but also should keep the pressure on whichever rabid loon takes over from Cameroon starts to implement this divorce to take some account of the concerns of the (only just) minority. How's that going to happen if the leader of the labour party was pro-Leave?

e2a: I agree that Corbyn's lack of enthusiasm re Remain was unhelpful. If he really was more to the Leave end of the spectrum, he should have either said so, or done a better job of disguising it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Blunkett: "fringe element captured the party last year" "we need to appeal to good, honest, decent people"



Always a good belly laugh when Blunkett bangs on about honesty and decency, the dishonest cunt.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 29, 2016)

Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I think it's fuckin great, long overdue.



Yes. About time this boil was lanced. Either the Labour right will retain the party, in which case it can safely be written off as the Lib Dems have. Or it won't, and at least we'll get to see whether a slightly different vision of what the party should be would work or not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign


cheek of the cunt, with his divorce beard and record of timidity and failure


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Always a good belly laugh when Blunkett bangs on about honesty and decency, the dishonest cunt.



He went from 'respecting the will of the ordinary members' to pretty much calling for them to be gulag-ed in about 90 seconds on BBC News last night.

One of the nastiest pieces of work in any of the governments of the 2000s, in my view.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign



Yep - Miliband is now on the radio saying that Corbyn should leave and explicitly stating that he shouldn't stand for re-election as the opinion of the MPs opposing him is more important than that of the party membership.

Of course it is dressed up in the rhetoric of it's for the good of the country, whilst trying to smear Corbyn and leavers by association with the taint of racism.

It is all or nothing now for the Labour Party; either it is the MPs' plaything or it has the chance to become a membership lead organization. If it goes down the MPs' plaything route then the vacuum in British political life becomes bigger and more forcefully expressed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign



Barrel being scraped then. Blair next and they can call it a day.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

If you were an alien from outerspace watching the news you would think that it was Corbyn rather than Cameron who had called the EU referendum in the first place.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 29, 2016)

my facebook timeline is showing a few joining the labour party to support corbyn, and my dad even said he thought he should last night. Will this coup against this unelectable leader result in another spike in membership to support him?


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> cheek of the cunt, with his divorce beard and record of timidity and failure



Anyone notice his body language on QT the other week? Very interesting - no more of the diffident awkwardness. He was all leaning back, arm across the back of the chair. He clearly thinks he's done enough to be regarded as some kind of oracle/elder statesman.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 29, 2016)

Cameron now asking JC to resign because a strong opposition is needed. I speculate that this is because centrist Cameron is worried about the right taking control of the Tory party, yes?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign



So cruel. Obviously Corbyn was never going to live up to the high watermark set by Miliband's leadership, and it's unfair to even expect him to.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Cameron now asking JC to resign because a strong opposition is needed. I speculate that this is because centrist Cameron is worried about the right taking control of the Tory party, yes?



It's just more choreographed media spectacle, I think that all of this stuff has to be understood within that context before you consider the individual motivations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Anyone notice his body language on QT the other week? Very interesting - no more of the diffident awkwardness. He was all leaning back, arm across the back of the chair. He clearly thinks he's done enough to be regarded as some kind of oracle/elder statesman.


a seasoned veteran of the game. 'I too was once a twonk but I rose, and I fell. It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all'


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Barrel being scraped then. Blair next and they can call it a day.


Unless they can legally exclude Corbyn from the leadership ballot, this incessant pressure is all they've got. They know full well when they press the 'nuclear button' of a contest including Corbyn they're finished.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 29, 2016)

Interestingly if those calling for Corbyn to go thought they would win a new leadership election then they would go for it; after all it would answer any questions of legitimacy being put to them. But they won't because they can't and that tells you all you need to know about their opinion of the membership (not to be trusted) and of their own democratic processes (not really needed).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ed Millipede now asking JC to resign



It's like Tim Henman commentating Andy Murray's tennis matches. 

"What he should do is..."
"Er, thanks... you couldn't run along and get me a banana and a cold drink, could you, seeing as you're hanging around anyway?"


----------



## BandWagon (Jun 29, 2016)

Just a thought, has there been any mention of David Milliband coming back?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 29, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> SIR Eric Pickles? How the fuck did that happen?



I know, nearly as shocking as Dame Rosie Winterton!


----------



## brogdale (Jun 29, 2016)

BandWagon said:


> Just a thought, has there been any mention of David Milliband coming back?


Batley & Spen?


----------



## Red O (Jun 29, 2016)

The economists Corbyn recruited are now deserting:  Blanchflower, Piketty, Murphy (Piketty was apparently going anyway but still says he is 'concerned with the Brexit vote, and with the weak campaign of Labour'). Wren-Lewis, Mazzucato et al have said they are 'unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid' Leave. Do these people mean anything to the membership?


----------



## BandWagon (Jun 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Batley & Spen?


I dunno, just a thought.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Is there anyone who actually likes David Miliband? I've heard 'Labour picked the wrong brother' quite a few times but never from anyone who would actually vote Labour. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't think there can be more than a handful.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Red O said:


> The economists Corbyn recruited are now deserting:  Blanchflower, Piketty, Murphy (Piketty was apparently going anyway but still says he is 'concerned with the Brexit vote, and with the weak campaign of Labour'. Wren-Lewis, Mazzucato et al have said they are 'unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid' Leave. Do these people mean anything to the membership?



Just voices to add to the chorus.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there anyone who actually likes David Miliband? I've heard 'Labour picked the wrong brother' quite a few times but never from anyone who would actually vote Labour. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't think there can be more than a handful.



I know one person who liked him. Only because they thought he'd win though, never explained why mind.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there anyone who actually likes David Miliband? I've heard 'Labour picked the wrong brother' quite a few times but never from anyone who would actually vote Labour. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't think there can be more than a handful.


I remember at the time, when it was "brother vs brother in the grudge match of the century", it was argued that wee Ed had a fan base in the party that DM did not.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

This.. sounds like what should have been happening from the start.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2016)

Seen on facebook; advice to someone about to join the Labour party - I'm sure most here would agree with the sentiment:


> By all means get stuck in ******, but Corbyn's argued vehemently all his political life against the EU and devolution of power to the UK regions (he's a believer in centralised state capitalism - have a look at his CV). Shouldn't you be joining the Lib-Dems, who've always opposed big business and supported proportional representation and devolution at home, plus close cooperation with Europe?


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

free spirit said:


> my facebook timeline is showing a few joining the labour party to support corbyn, and my dad even said he thought he should last night. Will this coup against this unelectable leader result in another spike in membership to support him?





Louis MacNeice said:


> Interestingly if those calling for Corbyn to go thought they would win a new leadership election then they would go for it; after all it would answer any questions of legitimacy being put to them. But they won't because they can't and that tells you all you need to know about their opinion of the membership (not to be trusted) and of their own democratic processes (not really needed).



It's interesting, isn't it? I think in the first few days of this I can see how the sheer chaos of it would put some ordinary folk off Corbyn - looks like he's running a fairly leaky ship. But possibly the more it goes on and the more establishment figures pile on to join the ruck, the more people will start to consider what their agenda is and their sympathies are going to shift.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Unless they can legally exclude Corbyn from the leadership ballot, this incessant pressure is all they've got. They know full well when they press the 'nuclear button' of a contest including Corbyn they're finished.



Law of diminishing returns though. Can't still be doing this in a months time, no one will care. So they need a vote, that they'll lose. Rock and a hard place. Here's hoping they get crushed.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there anyone who actually likes David Miliband? I've heard 'Labour picked the wrong brother' quite a few times but never from anyone who would actually vote Labour. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't think there can be more than a handful.



It's predicated entirely on the fact that he looks slightly less like a dork than Ed. Slightly. This is the kind of embarassment of riches we have to choose from in the PLP.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

Fuck it, if we end up losing Corbyn, then let's have Dennis Skinner.

(I know, he's 84 now and should be able to just chill out, but clearly the younger ones aren't going to work.)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 29, 2016)

Really interesting now are the Tory voices calling for Corbyn to go. Why shouldn't they want  the Labour Party to tear itself apart and die - which is what the anti-Corbyn forces are claiming? One of them just said out loud that they need a 'reasonable' opposition; this isn't code, this is straight forwardly saying what they believe; you can have any alternative you want so long as it remains within the bounds we set out...i.e. that it is effective no opposition at all just another variant that can be called on as and when electorally needed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

Cross-posted from Graunibollocks, but still, fried gold:

If you value the Guardian's coverage of Brexit, please help to fund it | Katharine Viner


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really interesting now are the Tory voices calling for Corbyn to go. Why shouldn't they want  the Labour Party to tear itself apart and die - which is what the anti-Corbyn forces are claiming? One of them just said out loud that they need a 'reasonable' opposition; this isn't code, this is straight forwardly saying what they believe; you can have any alternative you want so long as it remains within the bounds we set out...i.e. that it is effective no opposition at all just another variant that can be called on as and when electorally needed.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Someone posted an extract from a Tory written article earlier saying just that. Real opposition is terrifying.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

Corbyn has the Force* on his side.







(* I think McGregor played somebody in a Star Wars film, though I haven't seen it).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really interesting now are the Tory voices calling for Corbyn to go. Why shouldn't they want  the Labour Party to tear itself apart and die - which is what the anti-Corbyn forces are claiming? One of them just said out loud that they need a 'reasonable' opposition; this isn't code, this is straight forwardly saying what they believe; you can have any alternative you want so long as it remains within the bounds we set out...i.e. that it is effective no opposition at all just another variant that can be called on as and when electorally needed.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yes, the 2nd 11 has to exist to take over when injuries etc effect the first 11 (that's how i read someone put it earlier) or there'll be no game at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Corbyn has the Force* on his side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet you're the only scottish fellow not to have seen trainspotting too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I bet you're the only scottish fellow not to have seen trainspotting too.


No, I've seen Trainspotting.  I didn't want to bring up the toilet scene, though, as I'm hoping Corbyn's leadership won't need the analogy.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> (* I think McGregor played somebody in a Star Wars film, though I haven't seen it).


Given his background he must have played Scotty, the Chief Engineer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

Santino said:


> Given his background he must have played Scotty, the Chief Engineer.


You're not going to annoy me today.  I won't rise to it.

Live long and prosper.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Corbyn has the Force* on his side.




Totally wasted opportunity to resurrect the line "Never let your friends tie you to a railway track"


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there anyone who actually likes David Miliband? I've heard 'Labour picked the wrong brother' quite a few times but never from anyone who would actually vote Labour. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't think there can be more than a handful.


I think he's very popular with hindsight-addled Red Torys


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Cross-posted from Graunibollocks, but still, fried gold:
> 
> If you value the Guardian's coverage of Brexit, please help to fund it | Katharine Viner



Contemptible. Having just read this ill-informed, poorly argued clickbait, I'll happily pay into any fund that would promise to get them to shut the fuck up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 29, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Totally wasted opportunity to resurrect the line "Never let your friends tie you to a railway track"


Choose life, choose the top job, choose deselecting the backstabbing turncoats.  

Ran out of steam.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

BandWagon said:


> Just a thought, has there been any mention of David Milliband coming back?


On the hour, every hour for about 6 years now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Contemptible. Having just read this ill-informed, poorly argued clickbait, I'll happily pay into any fund that would promise to get them to shut the fuck up.



Hah, imagine the money that could be raised by a reverse GoFundMe, "We will donate ££££££ if the Guardian stops paying the likes of Polly Toynbee to write utter fucking drivel." Their new publishing model could be the equivalent of Coffin Henry.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Cross-posted from Graunibollocks, but still, fried gold:
> 
> If you value the Guardian's coverage of Brexit, please help to fund it | Katharine Viner



Jesus, talk about nerve.  She should be paying us to read her.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

TUC's not responding to requests for comment atm, possibly suggests a lack of policy clarity in the upper echelons. If they lose their nerve that might actually be it, though the idea they'd voluntarily lie down for the slaughter seems pointless to me. They've nothing to lose and everything to gain from backing him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

he played ben kenobi and was the least shit thing about the prequels. Note that least shit doesn't mean not shit. Like a bum note drowned out by a philharmonic of shit sounds. 
danny la rouge


----------



## Wilf (Jun 29, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Which is why I doubt there will be a split. Both sides know that however 'loses' the split is not going to get very far.


I agree, they are pretty much trapped in the logic of the first past the post system.  But then there might be a fragment splitting off in some fairly organised way. really hard to tell how it will play out.  Some kind of unity candidate/leadership would have to do an amazing job to keep it together. But then where would the splitters go?  Simply joining the libs can't be an option - just too fucking embarrassing. But if they were planning a new party, I'm sure we'd have heard solid rumours by now.  Probably several months of getting shitter and shitter is the likely outcome. No obvious scenario to see how either a viable social democratic party or blairite version could really establish itself.  The Corbyn lot - after another leadership win would probably keep the money and the name (and of course the members). But they'd only have 40+ MPs. Could be more, several of the ones who voted against him yesterday might ultimately stay, but nothing like a viable parliamentary block.

All of the above adds up to a pile of 'we'll have to see', but there's nothing obviously good in this for centre left.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

The way that Corbyn has faced down this snakes so far has been impressive, I wasn't sure he had it in him.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

They'll keep piling the pressure on 'till either he slips up and lets them in, or his health goes. Whichever is the sooner.

Of course if "the unions" come out against him, he's done.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> TUC's not responding to requests for comment atm, possibly suggests a lack of policy clarity in the upper echelons. If they lose their nerve that might actually be it, though the idea they'd voluntarily lie down for the slaughter seems pointless to me. They've nothing to lose and everything to gain from backing him.


Wouldn't surprise me if Unite change horses tbh


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

Red O said:


> The economists Corbyn recruited are now deserting:  Blanchflower, Piketty, Murphy (Piketty was apparently going anyway but still says he is 'concerned with the Brexit vote, and with the weak campaign of Labour'). Wren-Lewis, Mazzucato et al have said they are 'unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid' Leave. Do these people mean anything to the membership?


I thought Richard Murphy was one of the good guys. I guess not.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

Ole said:


> Great comment on one of Momentum's event invites, on the failures of Corbyn's team to get the word out.




Not sure that is true of email, been bombarded by them, but the FB page is largely propaganda and covers middle class concerns.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> They'll keep piling the pressure on 'till either he slips up and lets them in, or his health goes. Whichever is the sooner.
> 
> Of course if "the unions" come out against him, he's done.



Yes, I mentioned that ages back. Can you imagine the toll of all of this on a person's mental and/or physical health? I'm sure it is even worse than we can imagine as well when you take into account the way that these snakes are no doubt treating him in private.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Seen on facebook; advice to someone about to join the Labour party - I'm sure most here would agree with the sentiment:


The Libdems are so against big business they tripled tuition fees to make it impossible for you to get a job in one.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 29, 2016)

Supine said:


> I like Corbyn but for me there is one fundamental reason why he needs to go. He campaigned for remain and was on the losing side. As per Cameron resigning so that a Brexiter can lead JC needs to do the same.
> 
> Whichever side wins it needs to be done quickly - Labour couldn't ruffle Camerons feathers at PMQ today and that needs to change.


I don't think that's quite fair, as a majority of Labour voters voted for remain.

Suppose the Green party leader is against nuclear power, and so are her members. If there was a referendum on whether we should have nuclear power, and people overall voted for nuclear power, should she be replaced?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> I thought Richard Murphy was one of the good guys. I guess not.


Murphy has - openly and publicly - said many times that he is not a socialist and considers socialism daft. But such is the lack of people doing the sort of work he has been doing has elevated him a bit higher than he deserves in peoples political imagination.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

John Bercow has just said in Parliament that he is respecting Corbyn's position as leader of the opposition having carefully considered it and consulted legal peeps.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> The Labour right's problem is that they made voting in their leadership election about as easy as signing a change.org petition (this also, IMO, goes some way to explaining why most of those who voted Corbyn in haven't done much since - they essentially got their man into the top job with a few clicks of a mouse - _clicktivism works! No need for those old-style politics anymore..._).
> 
> While there's been some noble efforts to get people opposed to Corbyn signed up, their platform simply isn't one that has the same kind of wide appeal that Corbyn's did (and will do) with the kind of people who would actually bother. So they're doomed to failure, IMO.



They have a site now, savinglabour, I think they will get more people now,


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

Also... Gordon Brown has said Corbyn must go.  Gordon fucking Brown.  LOL


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, I mentioned that ages back. Can you imagine the toll of all of this on a person's mental and/or physical health? I'm sure it is even worse than we can imagine as well when you take into account the way that these snakes are no doubt treating him in private.


He's spent all nulab years on the despised, old and boring labour left. Must have a rhino hide, I'd have chucked in the towel long ago and done a shit in the HoC canteen.

Recalling now the phrase Kendall used that makes her so deserving of the derisory 4.5%
'we don't want labour to be seen like that moany old bloke at the pub'


WHAT DO YOU THINK MADE HIM MOANY LIZ? HAVE A FUCKING STAB AT IT NOW. IN YOUR OWN TIME

at least yvette displayed the competence to run a school as th xo and Burnham can sell austin allegros to anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, I mentioned that ages back. Can you imagine the toll of all of this on a person's mental and/or physical health? I'm sure it is even worse than we can imagine as well when you take into account the way that these snakes are no doubt treating him in private.


Some people do thrive on that stuff though. I think he may be one of them judging by his unpanicked reactions (maybe too unpanicked?) so far. You can't have spent 50 years on the wing of the labour party thinking that developed most clearly out of the responses of the chilean state/capital to allende and so was based on the need for a parliamentary/extra-parliamentary coalition _beyond the fragments _not to have expected some form of counter-attack.

edit: what a horrible mangled sentence. Oh well. You get the gist of it i hope.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> They have a site now, savinglabour, I think they will get more people now,


a hashtag! that's what they needed.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> a hashtag! that's what they needed.



Hey fellow kids, want some of this Third Way stuff?


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

emanymton said:


> For the record I don't think the Labour Party will split, nor will it disappear as some seem to be suggesting. I don't think either side will give up the fight for the party. And while the fight will do massive damage, it will persevere simply because there is no where else for most of the voters or members to go.



lots of the new members will go to the Greens or just give up.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

Angela Eagle's local Labour party backs Corbyn...awkward!


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

Red O said:


> The economists Corbyn recruited are now deserting:  Blanchflower, Piketty, Murphy (Piketty was apparently going anyway but still says he is 'concerned with the Brexit vote, and with the weak campaign of Labour'). Wren-Lewis, Mazzucato et al have said they are 'unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid' Leave. Do these people mean anything to the membership?



They mean a lot to John McDonnell who has been hard at work creating a new alternative economic policy.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> John Bercow has just said in Parliament that he is respecting Corbyn's position as leader of the opposition having carefully considered it and consulted legal peeps.



So that means increasing panic for the PLP for the next seven days, then the doom comes upon them?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 29, 2016)

Who's this john bercow? can they get him in the shadow cabinet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Who's this john bercow? can they get him in the shadow cabinet?


He's the bloke who ran the "hang mandela" campaign.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Who's this john bercow? can they get him in the shadow cabinet?




Former tory mp now speaker of Commons, unsavoury right wing past


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He's the bloke who ran the "hang mandela" campaign.


Still, we're all young once, and Corbyn needs an education spokesman...


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Still, we're all young once, and Corbyn needs an education spokesman...



And I imagine he'd be pretty much entirely immune to liberals throwing tantrums at him, so that's a plus.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Former tory mp now speaker of Commons, unsavoury right wing past



Plenty of left wingers started on the far right, Rickie Tomlinson, NF, according to his own words on CH4 last night during the Shrewsbury 4 episode.,


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> Corbyn can’t hang on. But young people need a new leftwing candidate | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett



Voice of youth W/C Rhiannon now abandons JC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Plenty of left wingers started on the far right, Rickie Tomlinson, NF, according to his own words on CH4 last night during the Shrewsbury 4 episode.,


You think John bercow is left wing


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Voice of youth W/C Rhiannon now abandons JC.



Not really, more like she's seeing the resignation wave and calls to quit and deciding that's curtains. Quite a lot of people are doing that while not feeling it's right. Most of the article is her bashing the Labour right for not understanding the need for a left leader.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

BandWagon said:


> Just a thought, has there been any mention of David Milliband coming back?


I noticed him at the same odds for next PM as Corbyn on oddschecker (both at 40/1) 

Next Prime Minister Betting Odds | British Politics | Oddschecker


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I noticed him at the same odds for next PM as Corbyn on oddschecker (both at 40/1)
> 
> Next Prime Minister Betting Odds | British Politics | Oddschecker



Well the bookies did a great job with the referendum didn't they


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Not really, more like she's seeing the resignation wave and calls to quit and deciding that's curtains. Quite a lot of people are doing that while not feeling it's right. Most of the article is her bashing the Labour right for not understanding the need for a left leader.



I've re-read it and it sounds very similar to the arguments many on the soft left are making.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Voice of youth W/C


according to who? I just asked some young working class people and they'd never heard of her.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> *Think about that before you cut up your membership card, or decide to vote Lib Dem (tempting with their new manifesto promise, I’ll admit, and not a course of action I am entirely ruling out myself), *or give up altogether.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> I've re-read it and it sounds very similar to the arguments many on the soft left are making.



Well yeah she's soft left, so it would. But she's not gone as far as to say he _can't_ lead, as in hasn't the ability, just that the right won't let him.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> according to who? I just asked some young working class people and they'd never heard of her.




That is her USP for her type of journalism, of course I didn't mean literally,

I think you knew that.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

No, I genuinely didn't. That's why I asked.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

Ok


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You think John bercow is left wing



he is certainly for the redistribution of wealth, in the traditional manner


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

Looks like Unions  GMB and UNITE back Corbs and have told the PLP lots to sort their fucking lives out


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Looks like Unions  GMB and UNITE back Corbs and have told the PLP lots to sort their fucking lives out



Only rumour so far, right? Saw the Person tweet.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 29, 2016)

yesh


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Only rumour so far, right? Saw the Person tweet.



I know a UNITE spokeswoman turned up on Monday, did GMB as well?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> I know a UNITE spokeswoman turned up on Monday, did GMB as well?



Could have, can't remember all the speakers but definitely a clutch of Union ones. Not seen any lists since either.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Looks like Unions  GMB and UNITE back Corbs and have told the PLP lots to sort their fucking lives out



GMB's a minor coup, rumour was they were wobbling earlier.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Looks like Unions  GMB and UNITE back Corbs and have told the PLP lots to sort their fucking lives out



If this is true it'll be a disaster for the PLP.  No membership and No funding, Chilcot in 7 days.

DISASTER.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

Lets vote Leave they said, it'll fuck the Right right up they said, we'll have a few drinks, a few laughs, its gonna be sweet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Lets vote Leave they said, it'll fuck the Right right up they said, we'll have a few drinks, a few laughs, its gonna be sweet.


Who said that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Lets vote Leave they said, it'll fuck the Right right up they said, we'll have a few drinks, a few laughs, its gonna be sweet.


Yeh but you didn't think it would all happen in six days, surely?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who said that?



It was given as a reason to vote Leave in some of the Lexit threads. Vote leave and watch capitalism come crashing down


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> It was given as a reason to vote Leave in some of the Lexit threads. Vote leave and watch capitalism come crashing down


No it wasn't.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.



If Corbyn goes his remaining PLP backers will be submerged in concrete on the M25.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.


And the backstabbers will be amenable to demands like that, will they?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.



It's becoming increasingly likely that old Corbo isn't going anywhere for quite some time.  Unless he becomes another David Kelly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.


Who would you suggest makes this demand even before challenger noms close?


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If this is true it'll be a disaster for the PLP.  No membership and No funding, Chilcot in 7 days.
> 
> DISASTER.



A citizen's committee should be formed to guard the bridges leading to South London, to prevent them coming over here to scrounge food and supplies.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If Corbyn goes, I really hope John Mc stays as S/Chancellor, in fact it should be a demand if he falls.



relatively unlikely - at this stage some deal looks implausible, its proper win all or lose all time - McDonnell might have impressed with his grip of the job, but he's still loathed on a personal level. there would simply be no point the PLP keeping him on, he's never going to accept a PLP victory over Corbyn and everyone knows it, he'd spend the whole time pissing in the tent and whatever advantage is gained by keeping this reasonably well respected S/Chancellor on is dwarfed by the nightmare of endless re-runs of the bitterness so far.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Unless he becomes another David Kelly.



Harsh


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

Unions backing Corbyn now official

Unions Back Labour Election, Support Corbyn


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs investigate party name ownership



> Labour rebels keen to oust Jeremy Corbyn are investigating whether they would have a legal case for using the party’s name if they formed a breakaway group in parliament, and have set up a website to try to gain support of “moderate” members.



So they want to split and keep the name. The arrogance!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Unions backing Corbyn now official
> 
> Unions Back Labour Election, Support Corbyn


That's it. Game over. Ball is not in your court, you are off the fucking court. Get out the park too.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs investigate party name ownership
> 
> 
> 
> So they want to split and keep the name. The arrogance!



With the funding and the Membership backing Corbo?  Good luck with that.  Amazing Hubris.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but you didn't think it would all happen in six days, surely?


That's what the Egyptian army said


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> That's what the Egyptian army said




Very good


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't.



I really can't be arsed trawling through 3-4 months of "will you wont" you threads but there was a definite strand of "this will be good for Labour and the Left and mess with capitalism and open up opportunities for us" so vote Leave.

We're only on day 6 and so far Labour is actually on fucking fire and the Tories are quietly Getting On With Business.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> I really can't be arsed trawling through 3-4 months of "will you wont" you threads but there was a definite strand of "this will be good for Labour and the Left and mess with capitalism and open up opportunities for us" so vote Leave.
> 
> We're only on day 6 and so far Labour is actually on fucking fire and the Tories are quietly Getting On With Business.


I note a certain difference between this claim and the previous posts.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs investigate party name ownership
> 
> 
> 
> So they want to split and keep the name. The arrogance!



So like Rangers then, but even worse.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I note a certain difference between this claim and the previous posts.




Good for you mate, good for you.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Labour is actually on fucking fire


I agree now!! they're killing it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's it. Game over. Ball is not in your court, you are off the fucking court. Get out the park too.


pick up your fag buts on the way out, you anti social cunts


----------



## Ole (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If this is true it'll be a disaster for the PLP.  No membership and No funding, Chilcot in 7 days.
> 
> DISASTER.


 
Absolutely mouth-watering.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>




This bloke keeps breathlessly reporting obvious lies. I wouldn't be amazed if there was a small bit of truth in this, who wouldn't want out at some point during this onslaught? I'm sure this bloke is just repeating whatever the latest Blairite has told him though.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

So who's in the Labour NEC? - it seems that's where the final say lies:

From the Guardian:

Corbyn’s team are also readying themselves for a battle to ensure the leader’s name is automatically included on the ballot paper in any race, given that he would be unlikely to be able to muster the names of 50 MPs and MEPs necessary to secure a nomination.

They insist their legal advice suggests he would have to be on the list; but the final decision would be made by the party’s national executive committee.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Just needs the man not to bottle it now. The opp are desperate trying to suggest that he wants to give up but is being held up by milne (who i hate more than corbyn as it goes - a real pro-assad pice of shit) - that's the last throw they will have i think. (Absolute shit ITV journalism on this btw almost as bad as the guardian)

edit: j mentioned this above already


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> So who's in the Labour NEC? - it seems that's where the final say lies:
> 
> From the Guardian:
> 
> ...


Final say is the courts. NEC is intermediate. Rules immediate. Anti-corbyn lose on each one.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Remember how two days about George Eaton was reporting DEFINITIVE PROOF that Corbyn voted leave and it never materialised?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 29, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> So who's in the Labour NEC? - it seems that's where the final say lies:
> 
> From the Guardian:
> 
> ...


If they took him off the ballot that would be the same as saying the members votes count for nothing at all.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> It was given as a reason to vote Leave in some of the Lexit threads. Vote leave and watch capitalism come crashing down



Do you not think what we're seeing happening in the Labour Party is part of the collapse?


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If this is true it'll be a disaster for the PLP.  No membership and No funding, Chilcot in 7 days.



OMG - the Chilcot report, what fucking timing, no wonder they delayed, that is going to get buried under all the Brexit news.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Remember how two days about George Eaton was reporting DEFINITIVE PROOF that Corbyn voted leave and it never materialised?


*ANOTHER FINE
EATON MESS*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> *ANOTHER FINE
> EATON MESS*


Eton. Eton mess. Eaton is a) a square near Victoria ; b) a shopping centre in toronto


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do you not think what we're seeing happening in the Labour Party is part of the collapse?



Thats great, but the Labour party are currently our best hope of making a difference. The longer they piss about and collapse the quicker the Tories get shit together and the longer they are likely to stay in charge. 

The only good side of this is that quite a few shits will migrate from UKIP to Tory, so in maybe 10 years we might just manage a Left government, if we're lucky.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

Ha, they've totally fucked this haven't they?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Eton. Eton mess.


I can see you are a passionate protester against homophonia


----------



## 1%er (Jun 29, 2016)

I just heard Alex Salmond say on the radio that he had a conversation with Dennis Skinner who told him the challenge to Corbyn is because Corbyn said that he would support the prosecution of Blair if the Chilcot report is a bad as it is being claimed.

Is that what it is all about?


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ha, they've totally fucked this haven't they?



I am just waiting for them to all walk out of the Commons when he walks in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

1%er said:


> I just heard Alex Salmond say on the radio that he had a conversation with Dennis Skinner who told him the challenge to Corbyn is because Corbyn said that he would support the prosecution of Blair if the Chilcot report is a bad as it is being claimed.
> 
> Is that what it is all about?


Prosecution by who?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ha, they've totally fucked this haven't they?



It's like Brexit 2.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Prosecution by who?


He didn't say (I'd assume the courts)


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

He's just gone 'whatevs, talk to the hand', and it looks like that's all he had to do. Incredible.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs investigate party name ownership
> 
> 
> 
> So they want to split and keep the name. The arrogance!



MK Labour ?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> MK Labour ?



New New Labour


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> I am just waiting for them to all walk out of the Commons when he walks in.


*LOCK ALL THE DOORS! BEGIN PUMPING IN THE LAUGHING GAS!*

_Corbyn rips off his latex full facial mask to reveal..._
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*THE JOKER!!!*


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> The Lib Dems say more than 10,000 people have joined the party since the Brexit vote last week. The Lib Dems are the only main party committed to going into the next election calling for Britain to stay in the EU. The Lib Dem leader, *Tim Farron*, said:



Look who also seems to be benefiting from the chaos, short memories!


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

1%er said:


> I just heard Alex Salmond say on the radio that he had a conversation with Dennis Skinner who told him the challenge to Corbyn is because Corbyn said that he would support the prosecution of Blair if the Chilcot report is a bad as it is being claimed.
> 
> Is that what it is all about?



no, only a tiny number of the 172 give a shit about Blair, and if anyone thinks even they would throw themselves under a bus for a PM who left office nearly a decade ago they need to give themselves a bit of a shake.

Chilcot will be a bit embarrassing for some Labour MP's (Hilary Benn was at DFID in 2003), but none of them were in senior positions or got to make big decisions about whether Iraq happened or not - the 'its Chilcot, stupid' stuff is just conspiraloon rubbish pulled out of someones arse to divert attention from the fact that Corbyn is, in fact, crap at his job and that this is as much a reason there are 172 no confidence votes as the fact that they hate his politics. noting, of course, that _some_ of the 172 don't hate his politics, they quite like them - they just think he's crap at his job.

Corbyn - or Watson, or Cooper, or Eagle - could call for the prosecution of Blair for War Crimes, but its not their call, and if Chilcot doesn't find evidence of things that Blair etc.. can actually be prosecuted for (and lying isn't a crime...) then they're just going to look silly.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Look who also seems to be benefiting frrm the chaos, short memories!



If it means more Steve Bell drawing Tim Farron, I am all for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> If it means more Steve Bell drawing Tim Barron, I am all for it.


Farron. Tim Farron.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 29, 2016)

I don't know if this has been posted but the Daily Mirror is running a 'Should Jeremy go?' poll.

The DM, as you will remember, ran a huge banner headline yesterday or the day before, something to the effect 'Jeremy Corbyn You Must Go.'

Despite that, the poll is currently running 77% in favour of Jezza staying.

Here is the link, in case you feel like clicking

Watch Labour MPs yell 'RESIGN!' at Jeremy Corbyn as PM mocks him in Parliament


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

_Corbyn the union puppet. The strings must be cut._


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's just gone 'whatevs, talk to the hand', and it looks like that's all he had to do. Incredible.


they really have fucked the dog and pissed on thier chips. If he does walk, and the stubborn old goat looks like he isn't but if he did, its still irreperable damage for the right faction of labour. Totaly lost it. Must have been watching game of thrones rather than politicking


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I don't know if this has been posted but the Daily Mirror is running a 'Should Jeremy go?' poll.
> 
> The DM, as you will remember, ran a huge banner headline yesterday or the day before, something to the effect 'Jeremy Corbyn You Must Go.'
> 
> ...




Online polls aren't worth the paper they are printed on.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> no, only a tiny number of the 172 give a shit about Blair, and if anyone thinks even they would throw themselves under a bus for a PM who left office nearly a decade ago they need to give themselves a bit of a shake.
> 
> Chilcot will be a bit embarrassing for some Labour MP's (Hilary Benn was at DFID in 2003), but none of them were in senior positions or got to make big decisions about whether Iraq happened or not - the 'its Chilcot, stupid' stuff is just conspiraloon rubbish pulled out of someones arse to divert attention from the fact that Corbyn is, in fact, crap at his job and that this is as much a reason there are 172 no confidence votes as the fact that they hate his politics. noting, of course, that _some_ of the 172 don't hate his politics, they quite like them - they just think he's crap at his job.
> 
> Corbyn - or Watson, or Cooper, or Eagle - could call for the prosecution of Blair for War Crimes, but its not their call, and if Chilcot doesn't find evidence of things that Blair etc.. can actually be prosecuted for (and lying isn't a crime...) then they're just going to look silly.


Thanks for that. There has been almost nothing in the news here about Chilcot and I hadn't link the two things until Salmond mentioned it.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Chilcot will be a bit embarrassing for some Labour MP's (Hilary Benn was at DFID in 2003), but none of them were in senior positions ... the 'its Chilcot, stupid' stuff is just conspiraloon rubbish



Sort of agree in places, but Iraq _was_ the Blairite legacy. Labour's right wing is inextricably bound up in its steaming entrails. If Chilcot comes close to describing Blair as a war criminal it'll hammer them as well.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> I am just waiting for them to all walk out of the Commons when he walks in.



It's testament to their private school bully temperaments that they think shit like this might play well with the public.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

When can we expect to see the first plotters deselected?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> It's testament to their private school bully temperaments that they think shit like this might play well with the public.


They don't care about the public, they are utterly disconnected from the public


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> New New Labour


How about Not Labour?


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Farron. Tim Farron.



I only wish I could have remained in that state of not knowing what his name was.


----------



## maomao (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> We're only on day 6 and so far Labour is actually on fucking fire and the Tories are quietly Getting On With Business.



The (very) optimistic reading of the current situation would be that the Labour right are destroying themselves while the Tories quietly discuss how exactly they're going to serve a shit sandwich to the British people that will see them never elected again.


----------



## lefteri (Jun 29, 2016)

new labour can't possibly field a candidate that voted for the iraq invasion with chilcot about to hit the headlines, surely that's why corbyn's hanging in there


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> How about Not Labour?



Something more apprentice like

Invictus?

Or

Labour (Progress) 
Labour (Goldman Sachs)


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 29, 2016)

Jon Craig of Sky tweets: 
"Some Labour MPs believe Corbyn clinging on to respond to Chilcot next week, apologise on behalf of Lab & call for Blair war crimes trial".


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

They've made sure deselection - mandatory or CLP mandated a reality. Genius types.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

maomao said:


> The (very) optimistic reading of the current situation would be that the Labour right are destroying themselves while the Tories quietly discuss how exactly they're going to serve a shit sandwich to the British people that will see them never elected again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Chilcot is so irrelevant. I just don't get it. It's going to be bad for the PLP, but the idea that they're banding together (people who were never a member never mind an MP in 2001) is crazy.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Chilcot is so irrelevant. I just don't get it.



Not to the "Westminster Bubble", it isn't! Which is the crowd these clowns are playing to.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm _still_ seeing stuff like this...



> Supporters of Mr Corbyn say if he is challenged he will simply stand again and expect to win. However, there are different opinions on whether Mr Corbyn would have the automatic right to do this
> 
> Pro-Corbyn factions within the parliamentary Labour Party say as leader he will automatically be on the ballot paper, but others dispute this.
> 
> ...



Given that they really don't give a fuck what the members think - and that they're now _desperate_ - is there any reason to think that they'll give up on pursuing this as far as they can (knowing that he'd be very lucky to get 50 noms)? 
Or is it just bollocks?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

lefteri said:


> new labour can't possibly field a candidate that voted for the iraq invasion with chilcot about to hit the headlines, surely that's why corbyn's hanging in there



it may well be, but there are huge swathes if the PLP who weren't MP's in 2003 - theres plenty of candidates to choose from who are unsullied if Chilcot spreads the blame far and wide - if he's hanging on just to deny the job to someone who did vote for Iraq, then you'd have to ask if that was principled, or just a little exercise in settling old scores...

if he goes and is replaced by someone acceptable to the PLP, but that someone wasn't involved in Iraq, will the damage done to the party by carrying on longer than he would have done if Chilcot wasn't on the cards be worth that score?


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> *Educate, agitate, organise!*
> Guest Post, June 28th 2016, 6:48 pm
> 
> *This is a guest post by Graham Taylor, former Chair and Election Agent Tower Hamlets Labour Party*
> ...



The Maquis are mobilising, this was on Harrys Place.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

> *What do we do now?*
> 
> If even just every fully paid up member that voted against Corbyn last year signed up one anti-Corbyn £3er, we’d slaughter him. All of us who believe last week was a tragedy and want to see a better future need to sign up as many people as possible. What’s amazed me in the last week is just how many of my friends who usually have very little interest in what I do politically have been telling me that ‘You need to get rid of him’; friends, family even my next door neighbour in the pub watching the match [anyone that knows me will know what an unlikely scenario this is]. And my response to each of them has been – you need to sign up, and you need to get everyone that you know to sign up.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> it may well be, but there are huge swathes if the PLP who weren't MP's in 2003 - theres plenty of candidates to choose from who are unsullied if Chilcot spreads the blame far and wide - if he's hanging on just to deny the job to someone who did vote for Iraq, then you'd have to ask if that was principled, or just a little exercise in settling old scores...


Why? He's being subjected to a coup that is very very clearly against the wishes of the majority of members. That majority voted for him in part at least because he was not part of, and was indeed opposed to, the old new labour who among other things invaded Iraq. If he can at least ensure not going back to those fuckers, he's achieved something perhaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm _still_ seeing stuff like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They will follow it as far as money allows. It's all or nothing.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Maquis are mobilising, this was on Harrys Place.



Thought it was us who were the entryists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Maquis are mobilising, this was on Harrys Place.


What, exactly, are they mobilising?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Something more apprentice like
> 
> Invictus?
> 
> ...


No, they'll follow sir oswald mosley and form the new party


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Could this thread be placed into Uk P&P please, not referendum forum.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They will follow it as far as money allows. It's all or nothing.



Thought as much - pretty much their last hope now, eh.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm a bit late to the party today, sorry. I can't believe Cameron said what he did in the commons today, it was just so wrong. Am also surprised jc has not yet stood down. This seems to be dominating the news more than Brexit.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What, exactly, are they mobilising?



_three quid dog-on-a-rope rent-a-Trots_, it seems


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 29, 2016)

Of the anti Corbyn people on my FB feed I can think of one who might possibly sign up to vote. The others are largely apolitical chattering classes types. Every Labour member has come out pro Corbyn and three or four people have talked about signing up to vote for him. Anecdotally I don't think there's enough non members who care enough to join up to vote against him. We shall see.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Thought as much - pretty much their last hope now, eh.


One of them might still tag Corbyn, holler 'BUNDLE!!!', and then the rest all pile on


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> It was given as a reason to vote Leave in some of the Lexit threads. Vote leave and watch capitalism come crashing down


It mostly wasn't quite put like that. What I was reading anyway. It was mainly hand-wavy posts using terms like "disruption to capital" and "opening up cracks in the neoliberal consensus". But there never seemed any solid explanation of what that actually meant. Any outline of a feasible process that would give me confidence that it would have a chance of being more likely than all the potential negative outcomes.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What, exactly, are they mobilising?



3 quiders, don't they count?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> 3 quiders, don't they count?


Where? This army that failed to appear last time. Where are they hiding?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

Robert Harris is onboard. Surely Corbyn must crumble?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> One of them might still tag Corbyn, holler 'BUNDLE!!!', and then the rest all pile on



Well, yeah  - there's always that, too.


----------



## Oldboy (Jun 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> and three or four people have talked about signing up to vote for him.



I did just that yesterday.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Robert Harris is onboard. Surely Corbyn must crumble?


Fuck.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Of the anti Corbyn people on my FB feed I can think of one who might possibly sign up to vote. The others are largely apolitical chattering classes types. Every Labour member has come out pro Corbyn and three or four people have talked about signing up to vote for him. Anecdotally I don't think there's enough non members who care enough to join up to vote against him. We shall see.



Aye, a lot of the noise I've seen has come from people who won't join and who, I suspect, wouldn't/haven't voted Labour anyway. Just a talking point for 'sensible' discussion.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

And Nick Cohen! it's a new grassroots movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

It's really happening!!!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, they'll follow sir oswald mosley and form the new party


National Labour? Progressive Labour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> National Labour? Progressive Labour?


Provisional labour


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Reg


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> National Labour? Progressive Labour?


Blairites of destiny


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> MK Labour ?


Labour Dons is quite catchy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> National Labour? Progressive Labour?


Architects of the Blairite resurrection


----------



## 1%er (Jun 29, 2016)

Tony Benn’s take on the Labour Party. The party, philosophised Benn, is like a bird, dependent on both its two wings to fly. The similarities don’t stop there. Both tend to migrate to second homes in sunnier climes over summer, living in comfortable nests far above the general population. And of course both have a tendency to crap on the British public from a great height.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

Are we at an impasse? A staring match to see who blinks first?  How long can they go without calling a ballot?  I suppose indefinitely. I presume they are still trying to get legal opinion to agree that he needs nominations. How can that battle be won?  Through the courts? They know they lose if they call a ballot with his name on it.  So what, just continue to harangue him in the commons, send him to Coventry, keep  publicly and privately calling on him to resign? Pin their hopes on #savelabour? Keep up media pressure, picking off his few supporters one by one? Hope he collapses of nervous exhaustion?	

Will Corbyn sit and wait, how long for?  He can't possibly continue sitting it out indefinitely with such pressure.  No one could.  So if they don't make a move does he start the deselection process?  When?  Tomorrow?  Next week? 




sheothebudworths said:


> I'm _still_ seeing stuff like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't see they have many other options. They'll have to pursue it as far as they can. They can't win a ballot with his name on it. Unless they think #savelabour will come to the rescue if they just give it a few days (the mirror poll was 84% the other day so has swung a little in their favour, if that counts...)   One fb friend has shared it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

Someone was asking (I think it was on this thread) how many had joined Labour since all of this started. According to Momentum, 13,000 have joined this week. And 60% of those explicitly stated they joined to support JC. (That doesn't mean the other 40% don't support him, just that they didn't explicitly state that's why they were joining.)


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? He's being subjected to a coup that is very very clearly against the wishes of the majority of members. That majority voted for him in part at least because he was not part of, and was indeed opposed to, the old new labour who among other things invaded Iraq. If he can at least ensure not going back to those fuckers, he's achieved something perhaps.



and if that comes at the price of the next Tory leader calling a snap election and increasing their majority while the LP engages in its destructive, 1980's style navel gazing, will that 'victory' be a price worth paying?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Well, yeah  - there's always that, too.


...It's at this point that it is revealed that Subcomandante Milne has been holding Corbyn hostage all along, having had unscrupulous guerilla-doctors stitch C4 into El Beardo's stomach as a means of controlling him through the threat of remote detonation.

As Islington's finest is drowned under the first dozen Blairite bodies swallow diving on top of him in blind pursuit of capital's glory, we hear a plaintive cry: "No! No, Seamus! No!!!" Then as a sweaty-faced Tom Watson slowly clambers over the B12-deficient torso of Kerry McCarthy, the air fizzes, tongues tasting an electronic tang, then nothing, then... A dull thud, an energy burst reverberates round the room, pressure waves turn stomachs inside out, and in seconds the Parliamentary Labour Party turns charnel and empty.


----------



## maomao (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and if that comes at the price of the next Tory leader calling a snap election and increasing their majority while the LP engages in its destructive, 1980's style navel gazing, will that 'victory' be a price worth paying?


The alternative being backing Angela Eagle and soaring to victory???


----------



## gosub (Jun 29, 2016)

7 days til Chilcot.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

maomao said:


> The alternative being backing Angela Eagle and soaring to victory???



she has the public impact of white dogshit. 

she is not, however, the only Labour MP who isn't Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 29, 2016)

maomao said:


> The alternative being backing Angela Eagle and soaring to victory???



History will judge Corbyn harshly for denying Britain the chance to hear another tearful resignation speech from her.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

HOW MANY DAYS UNTIL CHILCOT?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

I've just read that some person or another (it's all fucking "one source said" and "a source told me" - take it with a fistful of salt) has said they're finding it very difficult to find a single candidate to stand against him who didn't vote for the Iraq war, and that is something they want to do considering Chilcot.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What, exactly, are they mobilising?


A kiddies tricycle with a squeaky wheel.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> HOW MANY DAYS UNTIL CHILCOT?



35 dog days?


----------



## maomao (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> she is not, however, the only Labour MP who isn't Jeremy Corbyn.



So which of the geniuses from the 2010 and 2015 campaigns will be leading them to victory in this snap election? Their best chance, especially because of the referendum result, was uniting behind Corbyn. If there is a snap election (which there won't be) they're fucked anyway.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

If the party splits, it'll be interesting to see who goes. There are the central plotters in all of this, and then there are a heck of a lot more who weren't a part of any pre-existing plot and who ended up resigning because of a domino effect really (supporting their colleagues; feeling stressed and getting swept up by the frustration, etc). It seems it is true that they aren't sophisticated enough to coordinate a coup of this size, nor do they have the broad support that it might seem, and not everyone was contacted in order to resign. Some just did it for various reasons once the ball got rolling. I don't think the plotters expected this many to resign, and must have been very happy when it all kicked off. But what they didn't expect was JC to dig his heels in and refuse to go anywhere.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

Spoke to Electoral Commission. I’m still a bit unsure as to who “owns” the Labour Party name (confusion on my part, not the Electoral Commission's).

In terms of candidates, if I've understood it correctly, anyone who wants to stand as a Labour Party candidate has to be approved by the Party Treasurer, the Nominating Officer (or someone he/she delegates the task to) and, perhaps crucially, the leader.

This means that, in extremis, the 172 may not necessarily need to be formally deselected by their CLP as the leader has a direct say as to whether they can stand as a Labour Party candidate.

However, I’m a bit unclear if all 3 Party functionaries have to agree to put forward a particular candidate, whether a 2-1 majority is OK or if any one of the three has a veto.

All this means that it may difficult to parachute David Miliband into Batley & Spen without Corbyn’s consent (and he’s unlikely to give it).

It also prevents local CLPs deselecting sitting MPs as an act of revenge (and putting forward their own pro-Corbyn candidates) if he is deposed. Sitting MPs could simply be imposed, just as the party machinery has done in the past.

Still a bit confused and not sure what the full implications of this are.


----------



## gosub (Jun 29, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> If the party splits, it'll be interesting to see who goes. There are the central plotters in all of this, and then there are a heck of a lot more who weren't a part of any pre-existing plot and who ended up resigning because of a domino effect really (supporting their colleagues; feeling stressed and getting swept up by the frustration, etc). It seems it is true that they aren't sophisticated enough to coordinate a coup of this size, nor do they have the broad support that it might seem, and not everyone was contacted in order to resign. Some just did it for various reasons once the ball got rolling. I don't think the plotters expected this many to resign, and must have been very happy when it all kicked off. But what they didn't expect was JC to dig his heels in and refuse to go anywhere.


Well it can't possibly be Tom Watson because he was at Glastonbury


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

Various rumours and potential bullshit I have heard today:

1) the central plotters were Angela Eagle and Tom Watson, who are now fighting amongst themselves for who should stand
2) they can't decide who to stand because everyone supported the Iraq War and that would be a bad thing with Chilcot coming up
3) someone is pushing for JC to stand down on the proviso McDonnell is automatically on the ballot


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

BBC reporting Tom Watson will not stand it what he says is now an inevitable leadership contest.


----------



## rhod (Jun 29, 2016)

Whoever Labour put up, the media won't anoint that person for victory unless they're safely in New Labour territory.


----------



## Chrispeptide (Jun 29, 2016)

Apparently the rumours doing the rounds at the moment are that  David Miliband is going to stand! He is going to be parachuted in to Joe Cox's safe seat, as none of the other parties are going to contest it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Chrispeptide said:


> Apparently the rumours doing the rounds at the moment are that  David Miliband is going to stand! He is going to be parachuted in to Joe Cox's safe seat, as none of the other parties are going to contest it.


By who? The NEC?


----------



## Sirena (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Online polls aren't worth the paper they are printed on.


I know but they are indicative that even the DM is out of touch with its readership.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 29, 2016)

So 3 quidders are definitely eligible to vote?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's like Brexit 2.


Worst WWE storyline in a generation


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Could this thread be placed into Uk P&P please, not referendum forum.


think youd need to tag editor for that to happen


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

gosub said:


> Well it can't possibly be Tom Watson because he was at Glastonbury



Reasonably certain that at least one faction within the plotters was Chuka, Tristram, and Stella. I don't think they necessarily pushed the button and orchestrated the resignations, but they'll have their own faction within all of this. As backbenchers now, they can do a lot away from the limelight.

The whip dude has been said to be central to the resignations. I suspect he may have been working with Watson. Watson is a very, very dark horse. He never plays his hand, he always keeps quiet about what he actually thinks. He's a duplicitous bastard, and would probably be even worse for the party than the neo-Blairites, because at least you can tell what they stand for. 

I didn't think he'd go for the leadership right now though. I thought he'd want someone else to do it, so he could sweep in unsullied by it all at a later date. Maybe I was wrong though.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> ...It's at this point that it is revealed that Subcomandante Milne has been holding Corbyn hostage all along, having had unscrupulous guerilla-doctors stitch C4 into El Beardo's stomach as a means of controlling him through the threat of remote detonation.
> 
> As Islington's finest is drowned under the first dozen Blairite bodies swallow diving on top of him in blind pursuit of capital's glory, we hear a plaintive cry: "No! No, Seamus! No!!!" Then as a sweaty-faced Tom Watson slowly clambers over the B12-deficient torso of Kerry McCarthy, the air fizzes, tongues tasting an electronic tang, then nothing, then... A dull thud, an energy burst reverberates round the room, pressure waves turn stomachs inside out, and in seconds the Parliamentary Labour Party turns charnel and empty.


i cried. that's beautiful.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> BBC reporting Tom Watson will not stand it what he says is now an inevitable leadership contest.



Aha, seems I was right then.

He's biding his time.

He's very clever.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and if that comes at the price of the next Tory leader calling a snap election and increasing their majority while the LP engages in its destructive, 1980's style navel gazing, will that 'victory' be a price worth paying?


What do you think will happen if this coup is successful?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 29, 2016)

This has been engineered - Hillary Benn manipulated his sacking to get Jeremy Corbyn out & I think most of the party membership can see this & if it goes to an election Corbyn will get another mandate, not as high as the last time but a majority nevertheless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Aha, seems I was right then.
> 
> He's biding his time.
> 
> He's very clever.


He's done now as well.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 29, 2016)

It's an attempted coup & it won't succeed, if it goes to a vote he won't get the landslide he did but he'll still get the backing of the party membership


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i cried. that's beautiful.


You think that's beautiful, just wait till you yourself can finger-paint with the red-flecked grey bits from inside Tristram Hunt.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

I can't imagine for a second how they think standing David Miliband would in any way be a Good Thing.

Are they really that utterly oblivious to their membership and the unions? Not only is he a hark back to the good old Blairite days of yore, which frankly should be disavowed and disowned once and for all, but parachuting someone in for the leadership race would surely turn even Corbyn's haters against them. The membership do not like parachutes. 

I just can't see how they'd work that one out in their head as in any way a good idea.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

KeeperofDragons said:


> This has been engineered - Hillary Benn manipulated his sacking to get Jeremy Corbyn out & I think most of the party membership can see this & if it goes to an election Corbyn will get another mandate, not as high as the last time but a majority nevertheless.



He apparently called him to tell him he was going to publicly attack him. So he manipulated Corbyn into having to fire him. Why phone him at 1am to tell him that otherwise?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

Miliband isn't ever coming back, it's just something idiots who think they have some kind of deep political insight like to moot at times like this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I can't imagine for a second how they think standing David Miliband would in any way be a Good Thing.
> 
> Are they really that utterly oblivious to their membership and the unions? Not only is he a hark back to the good old Blairite days of yore, which frankly should be disavowed and disowned once and for all, but parachuting someone in for the leadership race would surely turn even Corbyn's haters against them. The membership do not like parachutes.
> 
> I just can't see how they'd work that one out in their head as in any way a good idea.


Yeh but you don't have the mind of a Blairite politician


----------



## discokermit (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Miliband isn't ever coming back, it's just something idiots who think they have some kind of deep political insight like to moot at times like this.


although "idiots who think they have some kind of deep political insight" does sound like a lot of the plp, to be honest.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

TBH if I was Miliband with my nice job in New York saving the world, I'd look over here and be all like _you guys carry on without me_ anyway.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Imagine if after all this they can't find anyone to stand against Corbyn


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Imagine if after all this they can't find anyone to stand against Corbyn


Put up chuka


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

Labour Leadership Election 2016

Corbyn - 100%


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

(Thanks to whatever mod moved thread - ta)


----------



## discokermit (Jun 29, 2016)

nicola murray?


----------



## discokermit (Jun 29, 2016)

spinners and losers. the thick of it should lend this title to the plotters.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 29, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I know but they are indicative that even the DM is out of touch with its readership.



Quite frankly Corbyn should have demanded a leadership election before the confidence vote.

I like him, I like his polices, he's a bit crap at actually leading. But there's one important factor in why he should stay:

None of the rest of these arseholes can either. As this coup shows.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

discokermit said:


> nicola murray?


Get bent


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Miliband isn't ever coming back



It's like he's the equivalent of their pet rabbit who "went to go live on a farm"


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

I’m not sure there is now a coherent strategy among the 172. They assumed Corbyn would resign and then there would be a leadership election with several candidates.

Now there is likely can only be one challenger to avoid splitting the anti Corbyn vote - and who in their right mind would want to be that person as it appears they would be beaten out of sight, fuck any leadership prospects they may otherwise have had, and expose them to the hatred of the majority of the labour movement.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I’m not sure there is now a coherent strategy among the 172. They assumed Corbyn would resign and then there would be a leadership election with several candidates.
> 
> Now there is likely can only be one challenger to avoid splitting the anti Corbyn vote - and who in their right mind would want to be that person as it appears they would be beaten out of sight, fuck any leadership prospects they may otherwise have had, and expose them to the hatred of the majority of the labour movement.



Not only that, but even if they somehow won whoever takes over will be utterly humiliated by the Tories. They'll be left with a rump of careerist wonks and a decimated activist base, they may well be financially punished by the unions, old Labour voters will abandon them and the total mess will put off wobbly "middle grounders." Whichever fool picks up the poison chalice will be remembered forever as the face of catastrophic political disaster.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I’m not sure there is now a coherent strategy among the 172. They assumed Corbyn would resign and then there would be a leadership election with several candidates.
> 
> Now there is likely can only be one challenger to avoid splitting the anti Corbyn vote - and who in their right mind would want to be that person as it appears they would be beaten out of sight, fuck any leadership prospects they may otherwise have had, and expose them to the hatred of the majority of the labour movement.



Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> according to who? I just asked some young working class people and they'd never heard of her.



You hanging round the bus station again?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I’m not sure there is now a coherent strategy among the 172. They assumed Corbyn would resign and then there would be a leadership election with several candidates.
> 
> Now there is likely can only be one challenger to avoid splitting the anti Corbyn vote - and who in their right mind would want to be that person as it appears they would be beaten out of sight, fuck any leadership prospects they may otherwise have had, and expose them to the hatred of the majority of the labour movement.


I think the now now  bit in your opening line is too generous.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

How come the PLP didn't foresee any of this? Most people commenting on here did and none of us (I assume) are professional politicians. It's not game over yet but it looks good for Corbyn so far.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Imagine if after all this they can't find anyone to stand against Corbyn


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs investigate party name ownership
> 
> 
> 
> So they want to split and keep the name. The arrogance!



No, they want to split, and keep the Short money - the state funding to the party - which means they have to *be* "The Labour Party".
If they lose the Short money, they'd have to get Sainsbury to cough up, and that'd point up to potential voters that the Labour right are even bigger neoliberal stooges than they thought.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

1%er said:


> I just heard Alex Salmond say on the radio that he had a conversation with Dennis Skinner who told him the challenge to Corbyn is because Corbyn said that he would support the prosecution of Blair if the Chilcot report is a bad as it is being claimed.
> 
> Is that what it is all about?



Not the stupidest conspiracy theory I've heard this week. The speed and ferocity with which the party has turned on Corbyn certainly suggests that the EU vote isn't the only thing the PLP is concerned about.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Farron. Tim Farron.



But it's pronounced, 'Who Cares'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

LOL.  You can't pay for this kind of entertainment.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Miliband isn't ever coming back, it's just something idiots who think they have some kind of deep political insight like to moot at times like this.


Ha Ha,  I'm guilty in the past but who knows ? it looks increasingly unlikely I agree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's it. Game over. Ball is not in your court, you are off the fucking court. Get out the park too.



Out of the park, and into the fucking sea!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> LOL.  You can't pat for this kind of entertainment.



 Can't even retreat in good order - will turn on self.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>




That's hilarious!


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm _still_ seeing stuff like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I asked pretty much the same question about fifty pages ago Sheo...

The plotters must be convinced Corbyn can't automatically be on the ballot paper, but no-one seems to know.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

No one could even stand before an election anyway. This is getting very odd._ I refuse to cross the barriers of time._


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 29, 2016)

Apparently even David Cameron thinks he should resign! 

Oh and some pasty faced goon called Ed


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

a_chap said:


> I asked pretty much the same question about fifty pages ago Sheo...
> 
> The plotters must be convinced Corbyn can't automatically be on the ballot paper, but no-one seems to know.


I do, they do. We do.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

a_chap said:


> I asked pretty much the same question about fifty pages ago Sheo...
> 
> The plotters must be convinced Corbyn can't automatically be on the ballot paper, but no-one seems to know.



I doubt they're convinced but it's still worth them plugging away at it as the only possible way out now - and as quimcunx says, just having more _time_ passing is potentially also a huge benefit to them (or at least less of a benefit to Corbyn).
Would be interested in hearing someone answer her questions re deselection and time scales for that - whether he has that option at any point he chooses, should they attempt to try and drag it out for too long?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No one could even stand before an election anyway. This is getting very odd._ I refuse to cross the barriers of time._



Isn't it really her just hissing over her shoulder that she doesn't want to do it _on her own_ '  '


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

deselection will have to pass at conference, so ages. Unless a extraordinary conf is called now and passes  rule to make it happen this week.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Isn't it really her just hissing over her shoulder that she doesn't want to do it _on her own_ '  '


_Charge, oh where they all gone? Shit._


----------



## binka (Jun 29, 2016)

So if Corbyn sees off the immediate threat of a new leadership election what is his next move?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

Worst. Coup. Ever.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

chilango said:


> When can we expect to see the first plotters deselected?



If Corbyn wins this, then he does so with an implicit mandate for structural change that he didn't have last time around. As I've said since the leadership contest, it'd take time - lots of levels of party bureaucracy to navigate through and perhaps erase - but could show results at constituency level (that is, constitutional changes that could be acted on - within 6 months. Maybe less, if Conference's format is revised back to "talking shop" rather than "media grandstanding opportunity".


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

I have a copy of the labour party rulebook here - I posted the relevant section upthread: as far as I can tell, there's no formal way of forcing deselections at this point, and maybe not at all in the event of an early election. I'm of the view that CLPs moving votes of no confidence in their MP would make it politically very difficult for them to stand with any legitimacy though, and there may be other routes available to the leadership - a Stalinist purge for example.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> deselection will have to pass at conference, so ages. Unless a extraordinary conf is called now and passes  rule to make it happen this week.





killer b said:


> I have a copy of the labour party rulebook here - I posted the relevant section upthread: as far as I can tell, there's no formal way of forcing deselections at this point, and maybe not at all in the event of an early election. I'm of the view that CLPs moving votes of no confidence in their MP would make it politically very difficult for them to stand with any legitimacy though, and there may be other routes available to the leadership - a Stalinist purge for example.



Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> I only wish I could have remained in that state of not knowing what his name was.



I have hypnotised myself to replace his surname in my consciousness with "nice-but-dim".


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> LOL.  You can't pay for this kind of entertainment.



Bah! I can't see it on Tapatalk


----------



## gosub (Jun 29, 2016)

a_chap said:


> I asked pretty much the same question about fifty pages ago Sheo...
> 
> The plotters must be convinced Corbyn can't automatically be on the ballot paper, but no-one seems to know.



I remember there was talk of clarifying the line, which was part of the motivation for acting when they did (on long term grumbling point of view not referendum) but the line as is, is a lawyers classic- open to interpretation.-the party probably would never survive that sort of chaotic feud.

As is, neither Watson nor Eagle is rushing to stand, and unless there is someone desperate to be Cunty MacCuntface, Jeremy should limp to what must have been his dream next Wednesday -official opposition response to Chilcot.  The vultures, would do well to perch for a bit.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> deselection will have to pass at conference, so ages. Unless a extraordinary conf is called now and passes  rule to make it happen this week.



Ah. So it's fair to say that it really is their best/only bet to delay for as long as possible via the legal investigation blah blah and just try to wear him down in the meantime? There's nothing he can do to force their hand now except to wait it out?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

McDonnell's enjoying himself now:



> We call ourselves comrades in the Labour party.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 29, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Bah! I can't see it on Tapatalk




Kevin Schofield 

✔@PolhomeEditor


Angela Eagle will NOT challenge Jeremy Corbyn. She will only stand when/if there is a contest. "It's a Mexican stand-off", says senior MP.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

if anyone else wants a dig through, the rules are here btw

Rule Book 2016.pdf


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

Surely Eagle's just saying she'll throw her hat in the ring once/if someone else has triggered a contest? Wasn't Margaret Hodge supposed to be cracking on with that?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Apparently even David Cameron thinks he should resign!
> 
> Oh and some pasty faced goon called Ed



That Pasty faced goon Ed you were all backing 18 months ago in the face of treachery?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Ah. So it's fair to say that it really is their best/only bet to delay for as long as possible via the legal investigation blah blah and just try to wear him down in the meantime? There's nothing he can do to force their hand now except to wait it out?


Yep.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 29, 2016)

If they do parachute the other Milliband into Jo Cox's constituency, how do you think that'd go down with the membership I wonder? 

Feels like pretty poor taste under the circumstances.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2016)

It's just not going to happen, so it's not really worth thinking about.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Ah. So it's fair to say that it really is their best/only bet to delay for as long as possible via the legal investigation blah blah and just try to wear him down in the meantime? There's nothing he can do to force their hand now except to wait it out?


Let's face it, Watson's need for pies is going to let him down in any stand-off


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 29, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If they do parachute the other Milliband into Jo Cox's constituency...



That's all a bit_ Attack Of The Clone_s


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Let's face it, Watson's need for pies is going to let him down in any stand-off



Nothing wrong with liking pies.

BTW, am I right in saying that if there is a leadership election there won't also be  deputy leadership election? Would a victorious Corbyn be stuck with Watson still?


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If they do parachute the other Milliband into Jo Cox's constituency, how do you think that'd go down with the membership I wonder?
> 
> Feels like pretty poor taste under the circumstances.



It's unclear whether the Party's constitution will allow Milliband to be parachuted without the leader's consent.

In any case, he would lose the leadership election by a country mile so why would he bother?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> It's unclear whether the Party's constitution will allow Milliband can be parachuted without the leader's consent. In any case, he would lose the leadership election so why would he bother?


The NEC can bung anyone they want in anywhere. Clear for years.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.



Pisser. Tbf, he's doing quite well at *waiting it out*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Pisser. Tbf, he's doing quite well at *waiting it out*


Hang on, it's a good thing - are we talking about the same thing?  I may have misread what you asked.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The NEC can bung anyone they want in anywhere. Clear for years.



They can't - it has to be signed off by the Party Treasurer/Nominations Officer/Leader


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Surely Eagle's just saying she'll throw her hat in the ring once/if someone else has triggered a contest? Wasn't Margaret Hodge supposed to be cracking on with that?



She doesn't seem to be doing much more atm than bawling on the telly and begging him to turn it in, lol.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

From the graunid



> One went down with some dignity. The other just went down.
> 
> Not even the 40 members of the parliamentary Labour party who apparently do still have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn could be bothered to raise a cheer when he stood at the dispatch box for prime minister’s questions.
> 
> He rose in almost total silence, his face twisted in anger: the dividing line between stubborn ambition and personal principle has become increasingly opaque.



Sounds almost like a screed from Der Sturmer


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> They can't - it has to be signed off by the Party Treasurer/Nominations Officer/Leader


Any of these? All of these? In effect the NIEC decided on all previous parachutisations.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Any of these? All of these? In effect the NIEC decided on all previous parachutisations.



Refer to my post #2085 upthread when I spoke to the Electoral Commission. The view that the NEC has the final say on candidate selection is a misconception. It has to be signed off.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, it's a good thing - are we talking about the same thing?  I may have misread what you asked.



Prob not - I mean, I can see how fucked that makes them, obv - was just having a brief moment of disappointment that they still have that one, pathetic shot to play, really. 
It doesn't look to me like Corbyn will do anything but firmly keep at it - but I was just keeping in mind what for eg J Ed and Vintage Paw said about the impact it must naturally be having on him, to some degree at least. That time IS still a weapon in their arsenal in that respect, even if it's the only one they've got left.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

Sorry pressed wrong button!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Refer to my post #2085 upthread when I spoke to the Electoral Commission. The view that the NEC has the final say on candidate selection is a misconception. It has to be signed off.


How does that challenge what i posted?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Prob not - I mean, I can see how fucked that makes them, obv - was just having a brief moment of disappointment that they still have that one, pathetic shot to play, really.
> It doesn't look to me like Corbyn will do anything but firmly keep at it - but I was just keeping in mind what for eg J Ed and Vintage Paw said about the impact it must naturally be having on him, to some degree at least. That time IS still a weapon in their arsenal in that respect, even if it's the only one they've got left.


Ok. I meant the opposite, time is killing them.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How does that challenge what i posted?



You said the NEC can bung anyone in they want. I was pointing out they can't.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> From the graunid
> 
> Sounds almost like a screed from Der Sturmer



Bizarre how they've latched on to this idea about Corbyn staying stemming from personal ambition after months of them questioning whether he even wanted the job. All has to be phrased in terms careerists can understand.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Ok. I meant the opposite, time is killing them.



Oh! Good news all round then!


----------



## Sirena (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, they want to split, and keep the Short money - the state funding to the party - which means they have to *be* "The Labour Party".
> If they lose the Short money, they'd have to get Sainsbury to cough up, and that'd point up to potential voters that the Labour right are even bigger neoliberal stooges than they thought.


They could call themselves the TB Dons.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> You said the NEC can bung anyone in they want. I was pointing out they can't.


They  have, because the signing off has trad been a formality following  a leader decision.  The NEC - if minded could put in someone - then invite leadership opposition. Then it's back to the courts.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They  have, because the signing off has trad been a formality following  a leader decision.  The NEC - if minded could put in someone - then invite leadership opposition. Then it's back to the courts.



What has traditionally happened is irrelevant. The position is clear - the NEC does not have the ultimate power to decide who a labour candidate is. If you don't think this is the case then take it up with Electoral Commission.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 29, 2016)

For what it's worth, this is an email to a mate from his MP Clive Efford.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> What has traditionally happened is irrelevant. The position is clear - the NEC does not have the ultimate power to decide who a labour candidate is. If you don't think this is the case then take it up with Electoral Commission.


What has traditionally happened is very important and would play a key part in any legal judgement.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What has traditionally happened is very important and would play a key part in any legal judgement.



There isn't a legal case because the position is clear. It's what the Electoral Commission say. Feel free to ring them tomorrow and tell them they're wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> There isn't a legal case because the position is clear. It's what the Electoral Commission say. Feel free to ring them tomorrow and tell them they're wrong.




OK


----------



## binka (Jun 29, 2016)

Eagle is back on!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Eagle is back on!


It refuses the  example of the crow.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Eagle is back on!



Is there no limit to the number of deluded people in the Labour Party who believe they can lead it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> 3 quiders, don't they count?



As what? One-off leadership election voters,sure.

As Labour stalwarts and socialists, though? That's something that current experience is only mildly reflecting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Is there no limit to the number of deluded people in the Labour Party who believe they can lead it?


You wanted this didn't you? This is your mess. Who did you have lined up? Or, did you have no say whatsoever, even in this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> Robert Harris is onboard. Surely Corbyn must crumble?



Didn't Harris have a role as one of Blair's cock-socks?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

killer b said:


> And Nick Cohen! it's a new grassroots movement.



The Euston Dipsomaniac himself!!! With allies like this, a Progress victory is assured!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Reg



More likely Sebastian.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and if that comes at the price of the next Tory leader calling a snap election and increasing their majority while the LP engages in its destructive, 1980's style navel gazing, will that 'victory' be a price worth paying?



Is accepting a no-different-from-the-Tories Labour Party as the political force to offset the Tories not equally as destructive over the longer term?
Do you think that poor people generally,and disabled people in particular, could take another 4-5 years of neoliberal anti-welfare policies? You need to remember who first started dropping cluster-bombs on the poor - it wasn't the Tories, it was "new" Labour. People with the same ideology as the Progress piss-takers whose attempted coup you appear to not be very concerned about.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Euston Dipsomaniac himself!!! With allies like this, a Progress victory is assured!


"“We’ve got the numbers, we’ve got the big hitters" supposedly said Angela Eagles mate!


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Unions backing Corbyn now official
> 
> Unions Back Labour Election, Support Corbyn


""It is believed that his political adviser, Guardian journalist Seumas Milne, is telling him to "tough it out".""

Fair play to Seumas on that score.
I thought he was his media adviser, not political adviser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> "“We’ve got the numbers, we’ve got the big hitters" supposedly said Angela Eagles mate!
> 
> ""It is believed that his political adviser, Guardian journalist Seumas Milne, is telling him to "tough it out".""
> 
> ...


"screw your courage to the sticking place"


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2016)

Seamus Milne has been called a Stalinist by Blairite acquaintances!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You wanted this didn't you? This is your mess. Who did you have lined up? Or, did you have no say whatsoever, even in this?



It's not my mess in the slightest. Blame Jeremy and those around him who failed to plan a succession. 

He's a dead man walking and when this is done, win or lose, his 'friends' will push his head down the bog.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> It's not my mess in the slightest. Blame Jeremy and those around him who failed to plan a succession


You what


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> It's not my mess in the slightest. Blame Jeremy and those around him who failed to plan a succession.
> 
> He's a dead man walking and when this is done, win or lose, his 'friends' will push his head down the bog.


_He who wills the end wills the means._

You'r trying to walk away going not me guv'


----------



## free spirit (Jun 29, 2016)

my reading of the rules is that sitting MPs can be deselected as long as the trigger ballot is completed before parliament is dissolved. So if they were to set up a timetable that ended up with trigger ballots happening in anticipation of an early election before parliament was dissolved then they could be deselected.

The NEC would need to agree the timetable for this deselection / selection process to take place though.

And if there wasn't an early election then there'd be a fuckload of sitting MPs left for the next 4 years having already been deselected.

Messy situation all round really, a proper stand off between the leadership + membership vs the majority of the CLP, with no obvious way out of it that keeps the party together.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> It's not my mess in the slightest. Blame Jeremy and those around him who failed to plan a succession.



You really posted this,


----------



## kebabking (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is accepting a no-different-from-the-Tories Labour Party as the political force to offset the Tories not equally as destructive over the longer term?
> Do you think that poor people generally,and disabled people in particular, could take another 4-5 years of neoliberal anti-welfare policies?



Depends if you believe that the only possible choices for the Labour party are Corbyn and some Blairite looking to recreate 2006.

I don't, and don't think Corbyn can deliver an election victory - or even a coalition - in 2020 or whenever the next election falls because of his personality/persona as well as his policy platform. I also don't believe that it is necessary for his social/economic policies - which I broadly like - to be mated to his defence/foreign/security policies, which to no one's surprise whatsoever, I consider so foolish, so harmful, that I couldn't consider voting Labour under his leadership despite his domestic/economic policies being something I've waited my whole adult life for.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You really posted this,



I'm just chatting. I disagree with you. An amazing project, the grass roots revitalisation of the Labour Party. It could be nailing the Tories right now, but has a leader who is too dense to see his way round the PLP. Too inept to convince on the referendum.

I would prefer the Labour Party evolves not splinters. Not sexy I know.


----------



## inva (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm just chatting. I disagree with you. An amazing project, the grass roots revitalisation of the Labour Party. It could be nailing the Tories right now, but has a leader who is too dense to see his way round the PLP. Too inept to convince on the referendum.
> 
> I would prefer the Labour Party evolves not splinters. Not sexy I know.


the rest of the plp which seems atm to have been outmanoeuvred by him is not dense?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

inva said:


> the rest of the plp which seems atm to have been outmanoeuvred by him is not dense?



A few of them do seem quite dense tbf.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

Live coverage of Corbyn speaking on the steps at SOAS on BBC News.  Well done, PLP!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

agricola said:


> Live coverage of Corbyn speaking on the steps at SOAS on BBC News.



Tough choice where to go on the stump. Shall I go to Rotherham, Spalding, Halesowen? Er no I'll go to SOAS.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Tough choice where to go on the stump. Shall I go to Rotherham, Spalding, Halesowen? Er no I'll go to SOAS.


If he dribbled porridge down his front you'd knock him for it not being scott's.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 29, 2016)

Caroline Lucas has suggested a cooperation agreement or coalition of some sort should JC remain as leader.


----------



## chilango (Jun 29, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Caroline Lucas has suggested a cooperation agreement or coalition of some sort should JC remain as leader.



Ridiculous at this point.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Tough choice where to go on the stump. Shall I go to Rotherham, Spalding, Halesowen? Er no I'll go to SOAS.



He has been in London all day, I don't think he would have been able to get to those places in time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Tough choice where to go on the stump. Shall I go to Rotherham, Spalding, Halesowen? Er no I'll go to SOAS.




Wednesdays are a big day in parliament or haven't you noticed?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

Re: Brexit.  Labour supporters voted leave/remain in the same %s as SNP.  No one is saying Nicola Sturgeon failed them.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

So what would be most likely/best/most entertaining way to break the stalemate?

Blackadder style one of the traitors ascends from the trenches to certain doom?
Corbyn cannae take any more.  Nervous exhaustion takes over and he resigns?
Newsnight contacted 50 CLPs and 45  still back Corbyn.  The CLPs conduct votes of no confidence against their traitor MPs. They finally feel shame? 
A Corbyn supporter launches a leadership bid.  No traitors put themselves up and the supporter pulls out on the morning of the election in favour of Corbyn? *nomination issues with this* 
A Corbyn supporter launches a leadership bid and the traitors put up their own candidate thinking the left vote will be split and they will win. *and this*
Dragons?
Wildfire?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Wednesdays are a big day in parliament or haven't you noticed?



Not making a literal point tho. Half tongue in cheek and half that is a problem though. 

We know he can make a wholesome speech to the young. I don't disagree with any of what he is saying. It's not enough though, this greatest hits set.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Tough choice where to go on the stump. Shall I go to Rotherham, Spalding, Halesowen? Er no I'll go to SOAS.



When I was a student Soas bar was a good place to score, and after the week he's had I wouldn't blame him...


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm just chatting. I disagree with you. An amazing project, the grass roots revitalisation of the Labour Party. It could be nailing the Tories right now, but has a leader who is too dense to see his way round the PLP. Too inept to convince on the referendum.
> 
> I would prefer the Labour Party evolves not splinters. Not sexy I know.



I don't get this. They can't get on with nailing the Tories because the PLP started this clusterfuck.  They were too dense to see their way round JC to nail the Tories when it is the Tories who should be very publicly on the ropes.


----------



## magneze (Jun 29, 2016)

The Eagle has taken off again! mañana allegedly for the leadership bid


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> When I was a student Soas bar was a good place to score, and after the week he's had I wouldn't blame him...



Only if he can get through that door the beardy guy was having so much trouble with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So what would be most likely/best/most entertaining way to break the stalemate?
> 
> Blackadder style one of the traitors ascends from the trenches to certain doom?
> Corbyn cannae take any more.  Nervous exhaustion takes over and he resigns?
> ...


All the anti-corbs think they're general hogmanay melchett


----------



## dendrite (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Not making a literal point tho. Half tongue in cheek and half that is a problem though.
> 
> We know he can make a wholesome speech to the young. I don't disagree with any of what he is saying. It's not enough though, this greatest hits set.



Yes, and he's coming accross tetchily and exhausted...but jesus christ, it's a miracle he's functioning at this level after the general bile, mass defections of people he presumably at least attempted to trust, and, as Abbot describes... 





> But the climax of all this was Monday’s parliamentary Labour party (PLP) meeting. MP after MP got up to attack Jeremy Corbyn in the most contemptuous terms possible, pausing only to text their abuse to journalists waiting outside. A non-Corbynista MP told me afterwards that he had never seen anything so horrible and he had felt himself reduced to tears. Nobody talked about Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. There was only one intention: to break him as a man.



Isn't it enough for today that he was the one who drew a crowd instead of simpering at journalists like Watson, or trying to grab power by hiding from media attention like Eagle, that he was the only one talking politics, and entirely lucidly.


----------



## gosub (Jun 29, 2016)

Pi Media | UCL @pi_media

Periscope of the Corbyn rally


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

Angela Eagle...   voted for Iraq war and against the Chilcot inquiry. 



... 

Finished before she started.


----------



## maomao (Jun 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> When I was a student Soas bar was a good place to score, and after the week he's had I wouldn't blame him...


They shut that shit down about 14 years ago due to everyone going there to score. And all the weed smoke coming upstairs and getting the receptionists high.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 29, 2016)

I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

binka said:


> So if Corbyn sees off the immediate threat of a new leadership election what is his next move?



Revising his christmas card list?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?



It's probably never come up before.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Re: Brexit.  Labour supporters voted leave/remain in the same %s as SNP.  No one is saying Nicola Sturgeon failed them.



None of these Labour MPs think Corbyn has failed them. Most of them worked under Ed Miliband, so they know what failure looks like.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 29, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?


By standing down probably. Prob not what you meant though. 
I know it was a different party but didn't Major call a leadership election in which he stood and won?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 29, 2016)

Oh... She also voted for Tuition fees and abstained on the welfare bill. And for Syria. Is this the best Labour can do.  Double Lol. 

They are finished


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Oh... She also voted for Tuition fees and abstained on the welfare bill. And for Syria. Is this the best Labour can do.  Double Lol.
> 
> They are finished


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 29, 2016)

Powerbase is your friend. Know your enemy.
Portland PR - Powerbase


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 29, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Quite frankly Corbyn should have demanded a leadership election before the confidence vote.


He did, he's said from the start that if they want to remove him as leader then they should out up a challenger


gawkrodger said:


> I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?


He could resign and then stand for re-election I suppose.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2016)

Nobody told me there'd be days like these.



Strange days indeed.

Most peculiar Momma


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Nobody told me there'd be days like these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2016)

you can prove anything with songs


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2016)

Oh yeah?

Prove it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 29, 2016)

Nuff said


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 29, 2016)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> You think that's beautiful, just wait till you yourself can finger-paint with the red-flecked grey bits from inside Tristram Hunt.



That's given me the horn.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?



Others would know better but wouldn't that mean that he would be less likely to be on the ballot?  I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is only when there is a vacancy that all the candidates need to get a certain number of MPs, if he resigned and created one that might apply to him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Oh yeah?
> 
> Prove it.


The UK sings Nirvana's I Hate Myself And I Wanna Die


----------



## free spirit (Jun 29, 2016)

This is turning into a battle of mainstream media vs social media. 

Corbyn's team are hammering facebook and claiming a page reach of 5 million last week for the Jeremy Corbyn for PM page, with 480,000 interactions with posts in the week.

Fuck knows how they're doing it, making 90 posts in a week on a semi official campaigning platform is an incredible rate of posting.

And they've been at it pretty solidly all the way through from his election campaign onwards.

This is a huge part of how they've managed to keep building the membership and support base despite the media and PLP attacks.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 29, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Oh... She also voted for Tuition fees and abstained on the welfare bill. And for Syria. Is this the best Labour can do.  Double Lol.
> 
> They are finished


She's not the real candidate. She's just the trigger for the challenge.


agricola said:


> Others would know better but wouldn't that mean that he would be less likely to be on the ballot?  I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is only when there is a vacancy that all the candidates need to get a certain number of MPs, if he resigned and created one that might apply to him.


Yep, if he resigns he needs nominating to be on the ballot.


----------



## magneze (Jun 29, 2016)

Interesting Tom Watson quote. 



> "They are a team and they have decided they are going to tough it out. It looks like the Labour Party is heading for some form of contested election... I think that is where it is heading."



Is the word 'contested' significant?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

Sirena said:


> They could call themselves the TB Dons.



They can call themselves what they like. All they'll ever be is snivelling shits.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 29, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I assume there's no way Corbyn can trigger a leadership election himself?


 


weltweit said:


> I know it was a different party but didn't Major call a leadership election in which he stood and won?


 


redsquirrel said:


> He could resign and then stand for re-election I suppose.


 
Yes - that's what John Major did.

The risk for JC would be that if he did resign and stand for re-election, he would definitely need to get nominations from X number of current MPs even to get on the ballot. 

Depending on who you listen to, as incumbent leader he would not need this and would be automatically on the ballot unless he told them to stuff it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Depends if you believe that the only possible choices for the Labour party are Corbyn and some Blairite looking to recreate 2006.



What other choices are there? By choices, I mean credible ones with a political hinterland, not political class scum like Hunt or Umunna.



> I don't, and don't think Corbyn can deliver an election victory - or even a coalition - in 2020 or whenever the next election falls because of his personality/persona as well as his policy platform. I also don't believe that it is necessary for his social/economic policies - which I broadly like - to be mated to his defence/foreign/security policies, which to no one's surprise whatsoever, I consider so foolish, so harmful, that I couldn't consider voting Labour under his leadership despite his domestic/economic policies being something I've waited my whole adult life for.



Here's the thing, you're cutting off your nose to spite your undoubtedly wrinkly face.
It's not - necessarily - an issue of whether Corbyn can win an election, it's whether he can set the Labour Party back on a footing that makes the concerns of members and the masses the centrepiece of its policy-making, rather than the desires of corporations. If Corbyn can do that, then I suspect that he'd stand down before the 2020 election.

So many people bang on about Corbyn, but very few have read through his political record - as opposed to the headlines - and fewer still have grasped the essential truth that while he's interested in power, he's interested in it only from the perspective of "the people" holding and exercising it through properly-democratic mechanisms. If more people had studied his record, they wouldn't drone out a load of wank about his leadership or lack of it, and they wouldn't keep either under-estimating or misreading him.


----------



## Cid (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> As what? One-off leadership election voters,sure.
> 
> As Labour stalwarts and socialists, though? That's something that current experience is only mildly reflecting.



A friend of mine keeps posting petitions, his rationale: 'enough petitions and they'll have to listen'. Thing is he's a sound enough guy and will get out on a protest given half a chance. Just a bit naive (by my standards, so by urban's still in nappies)... I suspect a lot of the clicktivists, given a bit of a kick and some direction, could be roped into more direct action. Just about getting the right people to communicate that, organise events etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm just chatting. I disagree with you. An amazing project, the grass roots revitalisation of the Labour Party. It could be nailing the Tories right now, but has a leader who is too dense to see his way round the PLP. Too inept to convince on the referendum.
> 
> I would prefer the Labour Party evolves not splinters. Not sexy I know.



Or conversely, the Labour Party has a leader who knows that what is key is consolidating that grassroots revitalisation through re-empowering the wider membership, rather than flattering the egos of the membership of the PLP.


----------



## 19force8 (Jun 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or conversely, the Labour Party has a leader who knows that what is key is consolidating that grassroots revitalisation through re-empowering the wider membership, rather than flattering the egos of the membership of the PLP.



Also, some of those egos would defy flattery.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 29, 2016)

For anyone who thinks it is still worth trying but is thinking about walking away from the party, either in terms of leaving the party or giving up on being actively involved, it's worth bearing mind that the blairites would be more than happy for anyone who is working class and / or has any shred of left wing principles to bugger off...


----------



## 19force8 (Jun 29, 2016)

I've no plans to walk away, but I must admit that if m'learned friends get called in to settle the rules for leadership elections is correct I might get so angry my brain would explode.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2016)

This is not Labour MPs vs Corbyn. They’re at war with party members | Diane Abbott



> All this was necessary because some Labour MPs expressly did not want any time to consult with ordinary party members. On the contrary they were terrified that their members might actually find out how they voted. Hence the haste and the secrecy. But the climax of all this was Monday’s parliamentary Labour party (PLP) meeting. MP after MP got up to attack Jeremy Corbyn in the most contemptuous terms possible, pausing only to text their abuse to journalists waiting outside. A non-Corbynista MP told me afterwards that he had never seen anything so horrible and he had felt himself reduced to tears. Nobody talked about Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. There was only one intention: to break him as a man.



Fuck these people.


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 29, 2016)

I did email him the equivalent of a PM of support earlier this week


----------



## Ole (Jun 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is not Labour MPs vs Corbyn. They’re at war with party members | Diane Abbott
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck these people.



The headline is exactly right. At first glance it is certainly extremely ugly bullying, but look past that, and it is democracy they are holding in such utter contempt. Their sense of entitlement is absolutely breathtaking.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 29, 2016)

I feel so sorry for JC. He’s been shat upon from a great height. I’m not sure how he’s managed to keep going under this pressure. I think he’ll crack and step down for the good of his health. No job is worth putting that at risk.

I’m not sure McDonnell and Milne are doing him any favours by pushing him to carry on.

I was put forward to be promoted at work which would have meant that I would have taken a leadership role. I declined for a number of reason, not least that I honestly felt I didn’t have the required management skills. Not everyone is cut out for it. No shame in admitting it.

I think Corbyn was the right man but probably in the wrong job. Possibly a better Deputy (don’t ask me who a deputy to) freeing him to work with the grassroots of the party, which he obviously relishes, building and revitalising the organisation but out of the intense spotlight.

I’ve said on a previous thread some time ago that I thought he’d end up regretting taking the job on as he wasn’t prepared for the intense scrutiny and pressure he would come under. While I expected him to come in for a rough ride I never expected it to be anywhere as bad as this.

He was naive thinking he could introduce a new kind of gentler politics. It’s a brutal trade and always will be.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2016)

Like every single resignation letter I've seen the above is empty liberal waffle, marked by the complete absence of any direct mention of politics. Of course that doesn't mean that it is empty of policy, that very absence of the explicit mention of politics speaks volumes.

It's an argument for the pro-austerity, neo-liberalism, 'we're nasty but slightly less nasty than the Tories'  Labour party of the last 30 years.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2016)

And yet he's still there. He might want a gentler politics but he's pretty fucking tough to have stood his ground the past few days and months.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 30, 2016)

Fair play to JC, that's pretty hardcore what he's had to take, he's like Batfink with his wings of steel, respect.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> And yet he's still there. He might want a gentler politics but he's pretty fucking tough to have stood his ground the past few days and months.



He works in a building that has John Woodcock in it and a fast-flowing and deep river outside.  He must have the patience of a saint.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 30, 2016)

Not sure on the original source, but this is from left unity wigan and rings fairly true.



> "OH ! WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE".
> 
> It now emerges that Hilary Benn and Angela Eagle have been secretly briefing against Jeremy Corbyn for the last 9 months. They have constantly fed information to Laura Kuenssberg and the Murdoch press about pending coups and dissatisfaction in the Parliamentary Party. Apparently, they were planning to move against him on several occasions and 'chickened out'.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

She was with Corbyn when they visited my work last month (? all fades together) to launch their conversation on modern workplaces. They seemed like bezzers!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

muscovyduck said:


> Seems a bit odd to do it at 1am in the morning? What happened?





free spirit said:


> Not sure on the original source, but this is from left unity wigan and rings fairly true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There y'go


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 30, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I feel so sorry for JC. He’s been shat upon from a great height. I’m not sure how he’s managed to keep going under this pressure. I think he’ll crack and step down for the good of his health. No job is worth putting that at risk.
> 
> I’m not sure McDonnell and Milne are doing him any favours by pushing him to carry on.
> 
> ...



Have you asked for any personal development or coaching to improve your management skills? It would be a mistake to think that it all just comes naturally or that people are naturally born with leadership.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I feel so sorry for JC. He’s been shat upon from a great height. I’m not sure how he’s managed to keep going under this pressure. I think he’ll crack and step down for the good of his health. No job is worth putting that at risk.



Corbyn's job is.  He's not just doing it for himself.  On him depends the welfare of millions of human beings.  He knew that when he took the job, and so it's his responsibility to see it out, no matter what the cost to him personally.

But anyway, I wouldn't worry about him too much.  You don't go through the last 40 years as a Socialist Public Figure without developing a pretty thick skin.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm sure most of you are well aware of the media's role in all this but it's useful, I think, to read it all laid out in one summary piece provided by MediaLens:

Media Lens - Killing Corbyn


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> It would be a mistake to think that it all just comes naturally or that people are naturally born with leadership.


 
and let's face it, a heck of a lot of managers clearly bloody weren't


----------



## Ole (Jun 30, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I’m not sure McDonnell and Milne are doing him any favours by pushing him to carry on.



I don't believe for a second they're doing that. That's what the traitors want you to think, so that you lose your confidence, by believing that he's lost his own confidence. McDonnell is his closest friend and I believe, had his own health worries only a few years ago. He'll be encouraging him, not coercing him. He's been biting back at the Blairites this whole time which is obviously why they all hate him so much.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> I have a copy of the labour party rulebook here - I posted the relevant section upthread: as far as I can tell, there's no formal way of forcing deselections at this point, and maybe not at all in the event of an early election. I'm of the view that CLPs moving votes of no confidence in their MP would make it politically very difficult for them to stand with any legitimacy though, and there may be other routes available to the leadership - a Stalinist purge for example.


Existing MPs losing their seats to the Tories is a kind of deselection.


----------



## Sue (Jun 30, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Corbyn has the Force* on his side.
> 
> 
> Just catching up on all this now but (privately-educated) McrGregor has just gone up massively in my opinion.
> ...


----------



## Ground Elder (Jun 30, 2016)

Game over


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm sure most of you are well aware of the media's role in all this but it's useful, I think, to read it all laid out in one summary piece provided by MediaLens:
> 
> Media Lens - Killing Corbyn



That's an excellent piece.

The one factor it omits to discuss is the forthcoming Chilcott report on the Iraq war.  I wonder how many of the traitors expect to be personally implicated, and are afraid of prosecution if Corbyn is still in charge when it's published.  Even if they're not afraid for themselves, they must surely be afraid for Blair, who seems quite likely to see the inside of a prison cell unless something drastic is done.  That would really screw up his acolytes' place in history, by revealing that they had given their allegiance to a war criminal.


----------



## Sue (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Not really, more like she's seeing the resignation wave and calls to quit and deciding that's curtains. Quite a lot of people are doing that while not feeling it's right. Most of the article is her bashing the Labour right for not understanding the need for a left leader.


I wouldn't want to sound completely ancient and retro but have the youth of today completely lost the concept of backbone?

(TBF maybe not just the youth of today.)


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2016)

Ground Elder said:


> View attachment 89040 Game over



You really couldn't make it up.  Desperation.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

Ground Elder said:


> View attachment 89040 Game over


I googled that to check if it wasn't a joke and it seems like Titchmarsh actually likes his garden, but not his politics (surprise)





> I think it’s wonderful – he looks a bit overgrown himself, it rather matches his beard,” said Mr Titchmarsh.
> 
> “I think it’s rather lovely that he letting it overflow with greenery.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's an excellent piece.
> 
> The one factor it omits to discuss is the forthcoming Chilcott report on the Iraq war.  I wonder how many of the traitors expect to be personally implicated, and are afraid of prosecution if Corbyn is still in charge when it's published.  Even if they're not afraid for themselves, they must surely be afraid for Blair, who seems quite likely to see the inside of a prison cell unless something drastic is done.  That would really screw up his acolytes' place in history, by revealing that they had given their allegiance to a war criminal.



To be fair to it the article's job is purely to discuss the media's role in this and not the possible reasons for the coup as you're discussing.  However, it is interesting to think of the breadth Chilcott will cover.  Will the media's conduct in whipping up support for the war be condemned in it? If so then there's a mutual benefit to both Blairites and the media, particulaly the BBC, to get Corbyn out before Chilcott is published.  Add to that the fact the BBC news is edited by a former Murdoch hack (as mentioned in the MediaLens piece) that relationship becomes more beneficial because both the BBC and Murdoch press were overall pro war.  

This is speculation of course but not beyond the realms of possibility. Either way it really highlights the manner in which the powerful not only use the media to manipulate events but actively stacks it with its own people to do its bidding.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Ground Elder said:


> View attachment 89040 Game over



I like Alan, is he sticking the boot in?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> To be fair to it the article's job is purely to discuss the media's role in this and not the possible reasons for the coup as you're discussing.  However, it is interesting to think of the breadth Chilcott will cover.  Will the media's conduct in whipping up support for the war be condemned in it? If so then there's a mutual benefit to both Blairites and the media, particulaly the BBC, to get Corbyn out before Chilcott is published.  Add to that the fact the BBC news is edited by a former Murdoch hack (as mentioned in the MediaLens piece) that relationship becomes more beneficial because both the BBC and Murdoch press were overall pro war.



The media's propagandizing for the war was certainly despicable, but not actually criminal.  The report might condemn them, but they won't care about that, they're some distance beyond shame.  They'll just blame the politicians for lying to them.  The politicians, however, have the very real prospect of prosecution to fear.

Having said that, they're all in it together finally.  Most of the leading politicians and media commentators have known each other since public school.  It is indeed pleasant to think that the report may condemn the entire corrupt crony cabal culture that they represent.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2016)

Ground Elder said:


> View attachment 89040 Game over


The state of Corbyn's garden is a scandal.

"Garden Gate"


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's an excellent piece.
> 
> The one factor it omits to discuss is the forthcoming Chilcott report on the Iraq war.  I wonder how many of the traitors expect to be personally implicated, and are afraid of prosecution if Corbyn is still in charge when it's published.  Even if they're not afraid for themselves, they must surely be afraid for Blair, who seems quite likely to see the inside of a prison cell unless something drastic is done.  That would really screw up his acolytes' place in history, by revealing that they had given their allegiance to a war criminal.


 lol


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Pi Media | UCL @pi_media

Interesting to see that the SOAS rally is organised by all female team, including the young asian girl who i think was on those who marched with JC on his victory walk to parliament


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> I like Alan, is he sticking the boot in?


Not really.

I guess the Telegraph decided they were going to run a piece on Corbyn's garden, so they call up Titchmarsh who says nothing unreasonable (he suggests he cuts the roses back), and they spin it into an crazy headline. I'd be pretty unhappy if I was Titchmarsh.


----------



## Ole (Jun 30, 2016)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Pi Media | UCL @pi_media
> 
> Interesting to see that the SOAS rally is organised by all female team, including the young asian girl who i think was on those who marched with JC on his victory walk to parliament


Why is that an issue?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's an excellent piece.
> 
> The one factor it omits to discuss is the forthcoming Chilcott report on the Iraq war.  I wonder how many of the traitors expect to be personally implicated, and are afraid of prosecution if Corbyn is still in charge when it's published.  Even if they're not afraid for themselves, they must surely be afraid for Blair, who seems quite likely to see the inside of a prison cell unless something drastic is done.  That would really screw up his acolytes' place in history, by revealing that they had given their allegiance to a war criminal.


Yes the Chilcott report is the story behing this Blairite campaign. There is just two weeks to go before it is revealed. If Corbyn is still in place he can apologise on behalf of the Labour Party. That would shoot Blair down in flames.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes the Chilcott report is the story behing this Blairite campaign. There is just two weeks to go before it is revealed. If Corbyn is still in place he can apologise on behalf of the Labour Party. That would shoot Blair down in flames.



I think Corbyn might very well call for Blair to be impeached, and quite possibly his major lieutenants as well.  And I'm sure that's what many of the Blairites fear.  The mad desperation of their anti-Corbyn campaign suggests they're fighting for their lives, not just their careers.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> I think Corbyn might very well call for Blair to be impeached, and quite possibly his major lieutenants as well.  And I'm sure that's what many of the Blairites fear.  The mad desperation of their anti-Corbyn campaign suggests they're fighting for their lives, not just their careers.


Yep you could be right. Alathough I am not sure that we still have the death penalty in this country - yet.


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Jun 30, 2016)

This is a really good thread.

It does seem that the only viable option left to the PLP now is - unbelievably - to just keep piling on the pressure & hope the stress ruins his health. That's it. That's their only 'win' now.

I can't remember anything like it in terms of viciousness. It's schoolyard bullying heaped upon workplace bullying - from the PLP, the trad right media, the BBC, the Guardian - but the attritional & concerted nature of it means that at least it's properly visible at last. I genuinely have no idea how he's still standing.

Fuck, I didn't even particularly like Corbyn. But by Christ I'll be dancing in the streets when Benn, Eagle, Watson & co. go down in flames.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> I think Corbyn might very well call for Blair to be impeached, and quite possibly his major lieutenants as well.  And I'm sure that's what many of the Blairites fear.  The mad desperation of their anti-Corbyn campaign suggests they're fighting for their lives, not just their careers.


I would damn well hope so.

A friend of mine volunteered a theory as to this being stymied. It is simply this - if the war was indeed illegal, then the Head of State is a war criminal. And the one at the top of the legal tree was not Blair, but The Queen. Can anyone in HM Government take a course of action which might incriminate the entity they have all sweared to serve?

I hope he's wrong.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 30, 2016)

Orangesanlemons said:


> This is a really good thread.
> 
> It does seem that the only viable option left to the PLP now is - unbelievably - to just keep piling on the pressure & hope the stress ruins his health. That's it. That's their only 'win' now.
> 
> ...



I've heard variations on that last line from a few people in the last couple of days.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Pi Media | UCL @pi_media
> 
> Interesting to see that the SOAS rally is organised by all female team, including the young asian girl who i think was on those who marched with JC on his victory walk to parliament



What does this mean?

By young Asian girl, do you mean a 10 year old?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Pi Media | UCL @pi_media
> 
> Interesting to see that the SOAS rally is organised by all female team, including the young asian girl who i think was on those who marched with JC on his victory walk to parliament



What do you mean by young?
What does the fact she is Asian have to do with anything?
Why is it interesting this was organised by an all female team?

Why are you shocked that JC supporters still support JC?


----------



## mk12 (Jun 30, 2016)

Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 30, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.



These people are fucking idiots. What do they think they're going to achieve? 

Plus,  wasn't the Corbyn lobby hounded for saying that Labour weren't gonna win back the Tory vote 6 months ago? Really short memories.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

This Twitter account is gold. For the confused, they're not referring to the famed Spanish and French maquis who fought a guerrilla war against fascism, but to the Star Trek DS9 knockoff.

Labour Maquis (@LabourMaquis) on Twitter


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 30, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.


Where's this from?

Because it's factually incorrect: the Labour Party is not "in the process of choosing a new leader". That doesn't describe what's happening at all.  

The majority of the PLP is in the process of trying to depose the leader that the Labour Party chose. And the PLP is doing a pretty incompetent job of it.  

_Those_ are the facts.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> lol



I know. I'm going to go waaaay out on a limb here and bet that Chilcott will _not _accuse Blair of war crimes.


----------



## andysays (Jun 30, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Where's this from?
> 
> Because it's factually incorrect: the Labour Party is not "in the process of choosing a new leader". That doesn't describe what's happening at all.
> 
> ...



When I first read it, I wondered if something dramatic had happened overnight, like Corbyn actually resigning, but no, it's just a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Going by the typeface etc, I'd say it was from the Guardian.


> Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.



No kidding...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> When I first read it, I wondered if something dramatic had happened overnight, like Corbyn actually resigning, but no, it's just a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> Going by the typeface etc, I'd say it was from the Guardian.
> 
> ...


I'll try to find it and tell them they need to issue a correction.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 30, 2016)

You know what, fuck the PLP, Corbyn may not be the best leader but these guys can't organise a fucking thing and both sides are harming each other.

Corbyn at this point should stand down and go Indepedent, its honestly the only way the Labour party gets saved. Whatever happens though its fucking done. Its a shadow of its former self. If they can't sort it out what prospect do they have on running a country? 

We're in for some dark years


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Corbyn at this point should stand down and go Indepedent, its honestly the only way the Labour party gets saved



And "saved" for you means...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 30, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Corbyn at this point should stand down and go Indepedent


I don't think so.  He's the mainstream of the party, not the PLP.  He's the "moderate", not this neolib fringe.  He's the democrat, not these bullying putchistas.

The way you respond to bullies is not to give them what they want.  If you have your mates at your back, you stand your ground.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> And "saved" for you means...



Continuing as a functioning institution. You can't deselect 140 MP's and they can't remove him, its a fucking shambles.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Continuing as a functioning institution. You can't deselect 140 MP's and they can't remove him, its a fucking shambles.



It won't continue as a functioning institution if he quits. One of two things will happen. Either Corbyn's support base stays, in which case the promised Night of the Deselections looms regardless, or this whole charade pisses people off enough that they abandon ship in droves, leaving the PLP with Conservative levels of door-knocking ability and no money, followed shortly thereafter by total electoral wipeout. This isn't some minor skirmish, it's full-on civil war, winner-takes-all.


----------



## chilango (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm not interested in saving the Labour Party . However, if it transforms then it may be of interest...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 30, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> You know what, fuck the PLP, Corbyn may not be the best leader but these guys can't organise a fucking thing and both sides are harming each other.



In all the bedwetting about poor Jeremy this point has been overlooked. His opponents are piss poor. They've bascially managed to time some resignations to dominate a new cycle for a day. That is the entire extent of their masteplan. I thought Labourism was meant to be brutal machine politics? Meh.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 30, 2016)

John Harris tweeted it to show how deluded some blairites are. I assume it's from the Guardian.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> This Twitter account is gold. For the confused, they're not referring to the famed Spanish and French maquis who fought a guerrilla war against fascism, but to the Star Trek DS9 knockoff.
> 
> Labour Maquis (@LabourMaquis) on Twitter




Intersectionality with Tories as an oppressed group


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.



"Making progress in Scotland"? 

Labour are detested in Scotland and their gearbox has been whiningly jammed in reverse for nearly a decade. Corbyn blatantly doesn't understand what has happened in Scotland, let alone has a plan to fix it.

Note to Jonathan Powell; this has _fuck all_ to do with Scottish Labour's stance on Europe. A general election in the autumn may well see Labour toppled altogether in Scotland, due to Murray's antics this week, and assuming the SNP find someone presentable as a candidate, who hasn't been involved in historic twitter abuse as the last one was. That credibility problem was pretty much the only reason Murray held that seat.

Beyond deluded.

On a separate note, the chair of Wallasey CLP- Andrea Eagle's local party- was on the _World Tonight_ on Radio 4 last night, and he seemed far from happy that the local MP was maneovering herself into a challenging position v. the leadership. I'd suggest Eagle has less than no chance against Corbyn, outside the narrow ranks of the PLP.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Continuing as a functioning institution. You can't deselect 140 MP's and they can't remove him, its a fucking shambles.



Who cares about the LP as a functioning institution for the sake of it? Who and what is it functioning for, should be the question.

If there's any case for Corbyn going independent (which he won't - but maybe someone else might and the same faction that currently supports Corbyn might go with that someone) it should be predicated on whether that would produce better prospects in the long run of having a functioning mainstream left wing party rather than a weak centrist photocopy of the tories, not on what's best for the Labour Party.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> "Making progress in Scotland"?
> 
> Labour are detested in Scotland and their gearbox has been whiningly jammed in reverse for nearly a decade. Corbyn blatantly doesn't understand what has happened in Scotland, let alone has a plan to fix it.



Being slightly less loathed would represent progress. Not really worth crowing about though.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 30, 2016)

Looking forward to hearing Angela Eagle's campaign launch today.

In the meantime I've got drying paint that needs watching


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

Hm, the trouble is even that narrow ambition- "being slightly less loathed" - is likely to be attained with a snap general election in the autumn.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Where's this from?



Here you go:

It’s not too late to negotiate a way out of this disaster. But it’ll take courage | Jonathan Powell

You can even comment on it


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 30, 2016)

Can Corbbyn really survive this? Sure he'll win a leadership contest, but if all the PLP decide not to work with him isn't this just death by a thousand cuts?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 30, 2016)

Times has a front page story (based on "senior party sources" of course) that Corbyn actually wants to quit but is being "blocked by hard-left allies trying to keep control of Labour".



Takeaway points: poor old Jeremy is tired and weak, Seumas and McDonnell are evil manipulators of poor old Jeremy. Might indicate a broadening of focus from the huge flood of very personal attacks on Corbyn now that they appear not to have done him in.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Here you go:
> 
> It’s not too late to negotiate a way out of this disaster. But it’ll take courage | Jonathan Powell
> 
> You can even comment on it



Following yesterday's shameless request for funding to continue their referendum coverage/Corbyn gloating, I think the Guardian's changed their famous maxim to 'Comment is free... but bullshit is reassuringly expensive'.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Times has a front page story (based on "senior party sources" of course) that Corbyn actually wants to quit but is being "blocked by hard-left allies trying to keep control of Labour".
> 
> Takeaway points: poor old Jeremy is tired and weak, Seumas and McDonnell are evil manipulators of poor old Jeremy. Might indicate a broadening of focus from the huge flood of very personal attacks on Corbyn now that they appear not to have done him in.



"Senior party sources" competing with each other to prove their right-wing credentials to the owner of the Times, that is.

Corbyn may look like a pleasant old chap in a rumpled suit, and he hasn't been nearly as forceful in his role as I'd like, but on the other hand he doesn't strike me as easily manipulated or pushed around. He's been resolutely unwilling to toe the party line on all sorts of things for years, for starters.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Looking forward to hearing Angela Eagle's campaign launch today.
> 
> In the meantime I've got drying paint that needs watching


May never happen.
The eagle that failed to fly....

They already briefed they would launch yesterday afternoon.... Wobble wobble


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 30, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm not interested in saving the Labour Party . However, if it transforms then it may be of interest...


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

ska invita said:


> May never happen.
> The eagle that failed to fly....
> 
> They already briefed they would launch yesterday afternoon.... Wobble wobble


I think she's going for it. I've Labour friends in her constituency who've suddenly started updating fb with stuff from the labour moderate playbook - Corbyn weak, Eagle a safe pair of hands, how outrageous it is that people cunt her off on social media expecially since Jo Cox, etc etc. The campaign is up and running.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> "Senior party sources" competing with each other to prove their right-wing credentials to the owner of the Times, that is.
> 
> Corbyn may look like a pleasant old chap in a rumpled suit, *and he hasn't been nearly as forceful in his role as I'd like*, but on the other hand he doesn't strike me as easily manipulated or pushed around. He's been resolutely unwilling to toe the party line on all sorts of things for years, for starters.



The external stuff with the media isn't really in his gift though is it? However, he has shown a huge amount of resilience and determination with respect to the increasingly desperate attacks on him and in all this has not seemed to comprise the way he conducts himself e.g. he has quite deliberately not returned fire with the name calling. I can't think of another party leader who'd have shown that combination of tenacity, good grace and principle....it may not be the dawn of a socialist utopia, but it is refreshingly humane.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> And "saved" for you means...





> It became necessary to destroy the Labour party in order to save it...


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The external stuff with the media isn't really in his gift though is it? However, he has shown a huge amount of resilience and determination with respect to the increasingly desperate attacks on him and in all this has not seemed to comprise the way he conducts himself e.g. he has quite deliberately not returned fire with the name calling. I can't think of another party leader who'd have shown that combination of tenacity, good grace and principle....it may not be the dawn of a socialist utopia, but it is refreshingly humane.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I know what you mean, but sometimes there's a fine line between 'appearing above it all' and 'appearing passive when attacked'. Clearly there's a swathe of the media that is delighting in reporting anything to do with him as negatively as possible, but maybe an occasional few more fiery speeches would attract at least some more constructive coverage.

I'm not suggesting silver-tongued slick presentation - no-one wants that except people who still long for the days of Tony Blair - but I do think his sometimes muted and faltering style don't do justice to his principles and humanity.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Times has a front page story (based on "senior party sources" of course) that Corbyn actually wants to quit but is being "blocked by hard-left allies trying to keep control of Labour".
> 
> 
> 
> Takeaway points: poor old Jeremy is tired and weak, Seumas and McDonnell are evil manipulators of poor old Jeremy. Might indicate a broadening of focus from the huge flood of very personal attacks on Corbyn now that they appear not to have done him in.



Outside all the idiocy there no doubt is in that article, I imagine there's truth in it. He never imagined he'd get the job and must see he's barely had any impact as leader (that he didn't do as bad as expected in the local elections is about the best that can be said for his period in office). On one side he must realise the situation is utterly fucked and whatever version of Labour he ends up leading will be weakened even further in the next election. He will also be knackered and depressed, well I certainly would. On the other, quite reasonably he must loath the scum who have done this - essentially, the whole PLP now - and will be desperate to stop them.  There will be pressure from McDonnell, party members, 3 quidders etc.  If and when he starts to see his support crumble amongst the membership he'll give it up at that point.  The press are trying to push that line, I doubt that it's happening yet but it might well (we just don't know).  Like a lot of people on here I'd like to see him destroy them and some kind of coherent social democratic, anti-austerity party emerge - even if parliamentary politics isn't my gig.  Trouble is, what will be required to get to that point is pretty much a scorched earth policy.  In one sense though, labour is fucked as a either Corbynite or Blairite party, so there's nothing to lose.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The external stuff with the media isn't really in his gift though is it? However, he has shown a huge amount of resilience and determination with respect to the increasingly desperate attacks on him and in all this has not seemed to comprise the way he conducts himself e.g. he has quite deliberately not returned fire with the name calling. I can't think of another party leader who'd have shown that combination of tenacity, good grace and principle....it may not be the dawn of a socialist utopia, but it is refreshingly humane.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


... and despite what I've just said, I agree with that 100%  I think his politics reflect all the failures of the 80s Labour left, particularly the viewthat engagement with the working class is about engagement with activists, but he has been exactly that, resilient and humane.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)




----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> View attachment 89046



Can you animate that and have JC doing his bit in the voice of Don Logan from _Sexy Beast_?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2016)

Won't someone think of the poor Labour MPs



> MPs are the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution. Bypassing them completely has led us to Brexit and the current Labour leadership mess


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Won't someone think of the poor Labour MPs


Surprising to find an independent school then oxbridge type arguing for less democracy and more rule from on high.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2016)

The latest from Angela Eagles launch campaign


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The latest from Angela Eagles launch campaign



Part 2 involves a car tyre.


----------



## oneflewover (Jun 30, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> That's an excellent piece.
> 
> The one factor it omits to discuss is the forthcoming Chilcott report on the Iraq war.  I wonder how many of the traitors expect to be personally implicated, and are afraid of prosecution if Corbyn is still in charge when it's published.  Even if they're not afraid for themselves, they must surely be afraid for Blair, who seems quite likely to see the inside of a prison cell unless something drastic is done.  That would really screw up his acolytes' place in history, by revealing that they had given their allegiance to a war criminal.



Dennis Skinner supporting Corbyn and blaming the PLP civil war on the Chilcott report


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Part 2 involves a car tyre.



Driven by her own CLP, on current evidence.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 30, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes the Chilcott report is the story behing this Blairite campaign. There is just two weeks to go before it is revealed. If Corbyn is still in place he can apologise on behalf of the Labour Party. That would shoot Blair down in flames.


Only 6 days to go in fact.


----------



## oneflewover (Jun 30, 2016)

Jeremy calling for War Criminals to go to court


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2016)

Hahahaha oh god, the old adage about bullies being cowards is holding up well here


----------



## 19force8 (Jun 30, 2016)

No no no Angela, this is how you do it:



> "I respect and admire all the candidates running for the leadership. In particular, I wanted to help build a team behind Boris Johnson so that a politician who argued for leaving the European Union could lead us to a better future.
> 
> "But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead."


Quick and virtually painless. E2a This is what makes our ruling class the envy of the world.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 30, 2016)

Dan Hodges trying to create a twitter storm about how Corbyn compared Israel to Isis at the anti-semitism enquiry.

Desperate stuff.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

19force8 said:


> No no no Angela, this is how you do it:
> 
> 
> Quick and virtually painless.


Yes, if gove can spare a few hours he should run a master class on How to Kill Your Rivals, for the Labour rebels. Maybe the grauniad could run it, it would cater to essentially the same audience
Guardian Masterclasses | The Guardian


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

'Those who aren't hanging are hanging someone else'.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you mean by young?
> What does the fact she is Asian have to do with anything?
> Why is it interesting this was organised by an all female team?
> 
> Why are you shocked that JC supporters still support JC?




So many demands, so little time, 


(1)She was young
(2) I remembered her from the very determined JC march to parliament as leader.
(3) pretty impressive
(4) some are leaving

Wind your neck in and stop looking for inferences that are simply not there.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Wind your neck in and stop looking for inferences that are simply not there.


You're confusing inferences with implications.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It won't continue as a functioning institution if he quits. One of two things will happen. Either Corbyn's support base stays, in which case the promised Night of the Deselections looms regardless, or this whole charade pisses people off enough that they abandon ship in droves, leaving the PLP with Conservative levels of door-knocking ability and no money, followed shortly thereafter by total electoral wipeout. This isn't some minor skirmish, it's full-on civil war, winner-takes-all.



The meeting last night sent out a press release(after some robust debate) that called for mandatory re-selection.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

which meeting?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> The meeting last night sent out a press release(after some robust debate) that called for mandatory re-selection.


This is playing out the labour battles of the 1980s, twice as farce and all that.  Well, fine, bring it on, crush the fuckers. But it won't be a quick kill, a protracted series of legal challenges and all that.  But again, whilst it might be necessary to have this internal battle, the real issue is the failure of Labour, old, new or corbynite, to engage with the working class.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> So many demands, so little time,
> 
> 
> (1)She was young
> ...



1. You describe what is clearly a young woman, as a girl.
2. You just happened to remember and think it relevant that she is Asian.
3. You are 'pretty impressed' that a group of young women can organise a small rally on the steps of SOAS.


The inferences are there and blindingly obvious for anyone who isn't a condescending twit.

So, wind your own neck in and NEVER, EVER, tell me what to do again. I am not the type of 'girl' that will do what she's told by the likes of you.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

The Eagle is stranded (again), she's "pausing" her candidacy. What a wimp.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> So many demands, so little time,
> 
> 
> (1)She was young
> ...


Would you at least admit that your post expressing delight about young/Asian/women leading a campaign was at least patronising?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The Eagle is stranded (again), she's "pausing" her candidacy. What a wimp.


Nonsense.

_Mighty eagle! thou that soarest
O'er the misty mountain forest,
And amid the light of morning
Like a cloud of glory hiest,
And when night descends defiest
The embattled tempests’ warning!_


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The Eagle is stranded (again), she's "pausing" her candidacy. What a wimp.


Is that confirmed, or just the peston tweet from earlier?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The Eagle is stranded (again), she's "pausing" her candidacy. What a wimp.


She must have briefly met Boris Johnson in the holding area, before he finally fell through the rubbish chute.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Gove, Gove burning bright in the forests of the shite.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 30, 2016)

so what happens if noone challenges?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Gove, Gove burning bright in the forests of the shite.


Excellent


----------



## Libertad (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'Those who aren't hanging are hanging someone else'.



They'll hang you for incontinence and fiddling your tax.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

Not directly relevant, but i found this interesting - when/why/how did labour lose/fail to produce any politicians of similar stature? Esp considering their long 1997 onwards period in power:



> It is a far cry from the 1976 contest, when 6 giants sought the leadership. Michael Foot, Anthony Crosland, Tony Benn, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins and James Callaghan.




And underneath:

Angela Eagle: “Political elite need to lay off Jeremy Corbyn”



> Writing to members, Eagle said, “I would happily serve under anyone the members choose to be our leader. Why? Because I respect the wisdom of our members, supporters and affiliates and our Party’s process of electing a new leadership team. Every candidate has the right to be heard and put forward a vision for Labour’s future and, whether you agree with Jeremy Corbyn or not, he is in the race and is entitled to participate. So the talk of coups, remarks about not serving in Shadow Cabinets and former Prime Minister’s telling people to get ‘heart transplants’ need to stop now.”


http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/07/angela-eagle-political-elite-need-to-lay-off-jeremy-corbyn/


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is that confirmed, or just the peston tweet from earlier?



Passed on in the office, so could be Peston, though who can tell that this point? She's changing her mind hourly atm. She was back to pleading with Jeremy to step down an hour ago. This is all going to go down _so_ well with voters if she actually summons the courage to do it.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

I wonder if Angela's pause has _anything_ _at all_ to do with the near 7,000 strong petition from her Wallasey constituents denouncing her imminent candidature.*

If it was a serious bid she would have had much more single mindedness about it. Let's see if anyone else emerges from the flaming wreckage of this cack-handed put-up job.

*EDIT: update; 8,330 people now calling for her to go.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not directly relevant, but i found this interesting - when/why/how did labour lose/fail to produce any politicians of similar stature? Esp considering their long 1997 onwards period in power:
> http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/07/angela-eagle-political-elite-need-to-lay-off-jeremy-corbyn/



And in the tory party, to some extent.  Thatcher's leadership election in 1975 had several grandees in the contest, even if they weren't as personally impressive as the labour lot you mention.  It's a bit of a stretch, but she was almost the Stephen Crabb of that election.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> I wonder if Angela's pause has anything _at all_ to do with the near 7,000 strong petition from her Wallasey constituents denouncing her imminent candidature.
> 
> If it was a serious bid she would have had much more single mindedness about it. Let's see if anyone else emerges from the flaming wreckage of this cack-handed put-up job.


The last few hours have seen labour and tory hopefuls playing out their angst and self interest in real time on social media to the point where they twitter themselves out of a challenge.  Good, fuck every last one of them.  I think though, there's a serious point in there somewhere and it overlaps with Butcher's point above about the lack of substance in some of these characters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

Still plenty of old old evil on the tory benches but the one thing that I remember from the feel of the blair years was the fussy, middle management feel.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> So many demands, so little time,
> 
> 
> (1)She was young
> ...



Oh, so your point wasn't 'Look at these young girls being manipulated by old men, just like in the SWP' then?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2016)

From graunid



> I’m hearing strong rumours that some of the “core loyal” Corbyn supporters are planning to tell him that they think it’s time to go.



Is this really what passes for journalism now?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2016)

I just heard that a really strong rumour that everyone at the guardian drinks the water out of bird baths.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So, wind your own neck in and NEVER, EVER, tell me what to do again. I am not the type of 'girl' that will do what she's told by the likes of you.


Are you feeling better Rutita1?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

From some fucking guardian page or other:



> Labour MP Ruth Smeeth has urged Jeremy Corbyn to resign immediately, accusing him of a “catastrophic failure of leadership”, after he failed to defend her when she was abused at the launch of a report into antisemitism in the party. In a statement she said:
> 
> I was verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional antisemitic slurs to attack me for being part of a ‘media conspiracy’. It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on antisemitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms [Shami] Chakrabarti’s report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing.
> 
> ...



I remember some story that when they ran out of bombs, world war 2 (?) planes used to drop random scrap metal over enemy territory. We seem to have reached that stage in the Labour Party.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Are you feeling better Rutita1?



 Don't push your luck!


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

Back on the anti-semitism bandwagon with a vengeance, MPs briefing left and right atm about Corbyn basically being an anti-semite because he didn't give some shouty prick who had a go at Ruth Smeeth the old one-two.


----------



## Ole (Jun 30, 2016)

> Michael Foot, Anthony Crosland, Tony Benn, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins and James Callaghan.



Quite a roster. It's jarring when you compare the solid right-wing of Labour in that period to what is literally described as "centre-left" of Labour today, remarkable how much the terms of conversation in Labour are now set entirely by business.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Back on the anti-semitism bandwagon with a vengeance, MPs briefing left and right atm about Corbyn basically being an anti-semite because he didn't give some shouty prick who had a go at Ruth Smeeth the old one-two.



Some quietly spoken prick, more like.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

North Korea must be looking on in amazement.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 30, 2016)

Labour plotters HQ this morning:

"Hey guys...  We've fucked it... What else is there?"

"What's worked best so far?"

"Antisemitism?"

"ANTISEMITISM!!!“


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Labour plotters HQ this morning:
> 
> "Hey guys...  We've fucked it... What else is there?"
> 
> ...


It really is this -  this is exactly it.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> which meeting?




300 plus Momentum meeting in Sheff.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> North Korea must be looking on in amazement.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Back on the anti-semitism bandwagon with a vengeance, MPs briefing left and right atm about Corbyn basically being an anti-semite because he didn't give some shouty prick who had a go at Ruth Smeeth the old one-two.



Here's another take on what happened: Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Ah - Marc Wadsworth, he who twatted Ken Livingstone many moons ago


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


>



 Why is that video 29 seconds long?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ah - Marc Wadsworth, he who twatted Ken Livingstone many moons ago


Things don't seem to go too well for former mayors of London.  Khan had better watch his step - and poor old Dick Whittington is _entirely_ fucked.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 30, 2016)

That's more like it Jez, now you need to tell people leave was the right decision.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

Santino said:


> Why is that video 29 seconds long?



I wondered the same thing but then I decided to commit 29 seconds of my life to watching it and finding out


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I wondered the same thing but then I decided to commit 29 seconds of my life to watching it and finding out


I watched it and I still don't know.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

Santino said:


> I watched it and I still don't know.



Oh. 
((((Santino))))


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 30, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Jonathan Powell, former aide to Tony Blair.


That's the Scottish and English working class support gone then leaving them to the SNP and UKIP.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2016)

Follow this link: Black Labour members back Jeremy Corbyn's leadership | The Latest - Citizen Journalism for All
It shows who Marc Wadsworth is and reports usefully on this story. Note also the words "fleet street concocted firestorm"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Santino said:


> Why is that video 29 seconds long?


BROKEN BRITAIN


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> BROKEN BRITAIN


Which, as it turns out, was Johnson's campaign strategy.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Gove, Gove burning bright in the forests of the shite.



What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful leadership try


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful leadership try


The Mayor stood on the burning deck, the flames he couldn't swat 'em,
A gove shot up his trouser leg and burned him on the bottom.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

Rough winds do tout the early odds for May
But that bummer's lease has all too short a date.


----------



## happie chappie (Jun 30, 2016)

FWIW here’s my take on things. The 172 (for want of a better phrase) were banking on Corbyn standing down. Then there would then be a leadership election with several candidates.

Once he refused to budge there was something of a panic. Rather than the 172 deciding who should go forward as the best person to beat him it rapidly became who would be prepared to commit political suicide to take him on.

As possibly one of the main plotters the charisma-free zone that is Eagle probably had to do it to save face on the basis that “you helped us get in this mess” even though she knows the challenge is doomed.

Perhaps the only hope they have is that Corbyn is barred from contesting the election as of right. If he is then all the other potential candidates will declare.

I suspect both parties are busily consulting lawyers on the constitutional position. Perhaps Eagle is delaying her announcement pending legal advice.

I think that even if Corbyn is barred (and I think that would likely be open to legal challenge) Eagle still won’t win the leadership.

Her main pitch will be “it’s about time the Party had a woman leader” but it won’t be enough. The members and the unions will see to that.

I also think this will be the end of her career as an MP and she won’t stand again. Just a hunch.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

We really do need to start the quest to fix an official alt meaning for the word 'gove'.

I still can't hear the name 'Rick Santorum' without thinking 'anal froth' (although the funny thing is, that was the case even before his surname was redefined thus).


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

I wandered, lonely as a Fox,
That floats on lies despite my fails and polls.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

We were promised her leadership guff at 3pm. Where is it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Here's the bit about Wadsworth from Livingstone's autobiog:

 

Here's Duwayne Brooks mentioning similar:


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> We were promised her leadership guff at 3pm. Where is it?


Other than choker Eagle's cancelled announcement?


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

She's 'paused' her challenge as it's the tories news day today or something .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> Which, as it turns out, was Johnson's campaign strategy.


When we heard him mumbling “CRUMBS!” we just thought he was being a delightful throwback to the days of Billy Bunter and Enid Blyton and lashings of ginger beer; turns out that was his genuine objective for the country


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Do not gove gently into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of... nope, can't think of a rhyme.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> Other than choker Eagle's cancelled announcement?


Missed it had been cancelled. Did they/she formally say this? I saw the people saying it was likely earlier but nothing proper.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> She's 'paused' her challenge as it's the tories news day today or something .


Terrible when the film gets stuck on pause, even if we do know how it ends.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> I wandered, lonely as a Fox,
> That floats on lies despite my fails and polls.


In Xanadu did Kubla gove a stately twitterdome decree


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Missed it had been cancelled. Did they/she formally say this? I saw the people saying it was likely earlier but nothing proper.


BBC has some story that she's delayed to give Corbyn time to resign 

ETA Eagle may delay leader bid 'to give Corbyn time to quit' - BBC News though I see that's "may"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

THE EAGLE HAS GROUNDED

Worst Michael Caine sequel ever


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

Note the names:



> Asked if she was launching a leadership bid as she left home earlier, Ms Eagle said: "I will be saying something later today."
> But a source close to her has told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg: "Jeremy Corbyn still has time to do the right thing."



Got 8 hours to say something. I reckon that you better.

edit: also, worst threat ever.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

The BBC have this headline...



> *Eagle may delay leader bid 'to give Corbyn time to quit'*



LOL


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Missed it had been cancelled. Did they/she formally say this? I saw the people saying it was likely earlier but nothing proper.



So has it been confirmed that the announcement to confirm that she would be pausing the confirmation of her leadership challenge has been paused?

Sir Humphrey territory...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

This is funny as fucking fuck.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

the eagle cannot hear the eagler
the moderates cannot hold
mere social democracy is loosed
and eveywhere the ceremony
of democracy is drowned.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm delaying my shot at the IBF title to give Joshua time to quit.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck.



Had an email from Labour, signed off by Corbyn. Basic gist is be united and I'm not going anywhere, so fuck 'em.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> I'm delaying my shot at the IBF title to give Joshua time to quit.


The Darling Buds of May Not.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 30, 2016)

.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Note the names:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just hope the likes of Milne realise that they will never get a better chance to get his points across in the media - every speech, press conference etc is going to be fully attended and covered live.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Karl Marx! Was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Note the names:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suspect Laura Kuenssberg is going to regret having giving Angela her mobile number:
"it's me again, I might be standing after I've had me tea"
- oh, err, right, erm, thanks for the 'scoop'.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> .



Oy! Now my Karl Marx witticism looks like a random announcement of my right-wingness


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 30, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Had an email from Labour, signed off by Corbyn. Basic gist is be united and I'm not going anywhere, so fuck 'em.



A southerner bleating on about Man Utd. Is there no depths for this man?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Karl Marx! Was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me


farage is a prophet you shouldn't listen to
what ya gonna do

etc


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Oy! Now my Karl Marx witticism looks like a random announcement of my right-wingness


 

I employed the newly patented Gove "line them up, then pull the rug from under them" tactic


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "it's me again, I might be resigning after I've had me tea"





I think I would pledge undying loyalty to any politician who uttered this phrase.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Ted Striker said:


> A southerner bleating on about Man Utd. Is there no depths for this man?


Ibrahimovic breaches the new border controls claiming he has skills vital to the economy United push for top 4.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

This whole business, on both sides, really has jumped the shark. I started out somewhat concerned about the social and political ramifications of it all. At this point it's just, crack open the beer and dry-roasted and settle down to enjoy.

With the euros over for England it's nice to have some other utterly pointless contests to focus on.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Fucking hell, I just haven't got a serious post in me.  Brass Eye takes over public life. Astonishing.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

Corbyn should now counter attack with "I'm seriously considering jacking it in - give me a few quiet days to think about it", have a nice weekend, then come back next week with "No, think I'll stay after all"


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> This whole business, on both sides, really has jumped the shark. I started out somewhat concerned about the social and political ramifications of it all. At this point it's just, crack open the beer and dry-roasted and settle down to enjoy.
> 
> With the euros over for England it's nice to have some other utterly pointless contests to focus on.


Beaten to it and you said it better.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2016)

It's had it all.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Corbyn should now counter attack with "I'm seriously considering jacking it in - give me a few quiet days to think about it", have a nice weekend, then come back next week with "No, think I'll stay after all"


British public life played out as pretending to shake hands and then going to blow a raspberry.  This is where we are at.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> It's had it all.



Amazingly they seem to be in exactly the right order too.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Corbyn should now counter attack with "I'm seriously considering jacking it in - give me a few quiet days to think about it", have a nice weekend, then come back next week with "No, think I'll stay after all"


"And I'm not, REPEAT NOT, tidying my front garden".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> British public life played out as pretending to shake hands and then going to blow a raspberry.  This is where we are at.


or making a quick move with the right hand that might be a punch but turns into yuou slicking your hair down and laughing at the other mans flinch. Like in Grease.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "And I'm not, REPEAT NOT, tidying my front garden".



Or maybe spend the weekend doing just that, calmly blanking the four hundred journalists just over the fence.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

"Michael Gove's spokesman announced that their main priority would be to put a drawing pin on Theresa May's chair. After that there were options to do the setting fire to a bag of dogshit thing on her doorstep, but that it was important to listen to all voices in the debate"


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Or maybe spend the weekend doing just that, calmly blanking the four hundred journalists just over the fence.


* flicks hosepipe at watching cameraman *


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

By the by, has there been a single solitary defection of a Labour member to the libdems in all this?

No? So, *officially*, the libdems are *still* the worst political party on god's green earth.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> By the by, has there been a single solitary defection of a Labour member to the libdems in all this?
> 
> No? So, *officially*, the libdems are still the worst political party on god's green earth.


WHO?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> By the by, has there been a single solitary defection of a Labour member to the libdems in all this?
> 
> No? So, *officially*, the libdems are still the worst political party on god's green earth.


I was just thinking along similar lines: what this really needs to take it up to the next level is some floor crossing, but given the circuses of the two main parties it's unlikely there's going to be any swapping sides there. So maybe some will jump ship to the fringes? UKIP must be looking positively calm and level to some Tories...


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 30, 2016)

The *cardinal sin* - he's got to go now surely. Twitter will never forgive him.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 30, 2016)

Although, they're probably all hanging around on the off-chance they end up as leader as either of the two parties, by virtue of stumbling into the wrong office at the wrong time.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I was just thinking along similar lines: what this really needs to take it up to the next level is some floor crossing, but given the circuses of the two main parties it's unlikely there's going to be any swapping sides there. So maybe some will jump ship to the fringes? UKIP must be looking positively calm and level to some Tories...


"Nigel Farage welcomes refugees from the Conservative Party... oh, hang on"


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 30, 2016)

If May wins then no GE until 2020 she says. So Jez has plenty of time to sort this shit out.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

Someone said he wants to go but won't because of some hard liner behind him, then I receive this. Good on him sticking to his guns and principals.

United we stand, divided we fall is one of the oldest and truest slogans of the Labour movement.

After last week's referendum, our country faces major challenges. Risks to the economy and living standards are growing. The public is split.

The Government is in disarray. Ministers have made it clear they have no exit plan, but are determined to make working people pay with a new round of cuts and tax rises.

Labour has the responsibility to give a lead where the Government will not. We need to bring people together, hold the Government to account, oppose austerity and set out a path to exit that will protect jobs and incomes.

To do that we need to stand together. Since I was elected leader of our party nine months ago, we have repeatedly defeated the Government over its attacks on living standards. Last month, Labour become the largest party in the local elections. In Thursday's referendum, a narrow majority voted to leave, but two thirds of Labour supporters backed our call for a Remain vote.

I was elected leader of our party, for a new kind of politics, by 60% of Labour members and supporters. The need for that different approach now is greater than ever.

Our people need Labour Party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite. As leader it is my continued commitment to dedicate our party's activity to that goal.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The *cardinal sin* - he's got to go now surely. Twitter will never forgive him.



curious. I have the same statement, but with his name spelt correctly.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Angela Eagle launces official campaign song:


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

Sorry, see thats already been posted on twitter stuff. The above was in my in box!


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

So, here's the latest one. It appears he is getting out there; so pleased

A quarter of a million of us voted for Jeremy Corbyn and his ideas just nine months ago, giving him the largest mandate of any party leader in Britain ever. Since then we have worked hard, winning for Labour, and taking a new kind of politics out into our communities.

So it’s been shocking to see that effort squandered by some MPs unable to accept Labour's decision, launching a determined and deeply undemocratic attempt to topple the leadership, in the middle of a national crisis.

Jeremy has made it clear that he’s standing firm. Now is the time for us to come together in support of Jeremy and his opposition to austerity and war with rallies and events in our local areas.

*Thursday 30 June* 
BRISTOL emergency meeting, 6pm, Tony Benn House, Queen St BS1 6AY 
STEVENAGE meeting, 8pm, Coach and Horses, Old Town, SG1. 

*Friday 1 July* 
MANCHESTER rally, 6pm, in Piccadilly Gardens 

*Saturday 2 July*
LIVERPOOL rally, 12pm, at BBC Radio Merseyside, Hanover St. 
EXETER rally, 10am, at Bedford Square, EX4. 
PLYMOUTH rally, 2pm, at The Sundial, PL1. 
PENZANCE rally, 12pm, Lloyds building TR18. 
NORWICH rally, 10.30am, at Haymarket, NR2.
LEICESTER meeting, 10.30am, Secular Hall LE1 1WB.

*Sunday 3rd July* 
BIRMINGHAM meeting, 5pm, Highbury pub, Dads Lane, B13 8PQ. 

*Monday 4th July* 
TEESSIDE meeting, 7pm, St Mary’s Centre, 82-90 Corporation Road, TS1 2RW.


----------



## Lurdan (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Angela Eagle launces official campaign song:



Bit unfair associating this abysmal piece of shit with Black Lace.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> curious. I have the same statement, but with his name spelt correctly.


_Well. _Welll, well.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

hash tag said:


> So, here's the latest one. It appears he is getting out there; so pleased



Why are you pleased?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

I would go to that bristol one tonight but am shut down due to armed siege. Really.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

Corbyn should go on holiday to Rhyl or Clacton for a couple of days and turn off all devices /banish all advisers.

then return next week as though nothing has happened.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> curious. I have the same statement, but with his name spelt correctly.



you on twitter? although I suppose they could have interrupted an email send out part way through and corrected it.



butchersapron said:


> I would go to that bristol one tonight but am shut down due to armed siege. Really.



You could try selling that excuse to the defectors next week. They'll have run out of their own by then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> you on twitter? although I suppose they could have interrupted an email send out part way through and corrected it.
> 
> 
> 
> You could try selling that excuse to the defectors next week. They'll have run out of their own by then.


I think their juice, it runneth out already.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> you on twitter? although I suppose they could have interrupted an email send out part way through and corrected it.


There's plenty off people moaning about it being photoshopped or something there already.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I would go to that bristol one tonight but am shut down due to armed siege. Really.



Angela Eagle tracked you down then?


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Why are you pleased?



Hopefully, he is getting out there making himself more visible and vocal, BUT, I suspect it is too little too late unfortunately.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Angela Eagle tracked you down then?


I was imagining Laura Kuenssberg in combat fatigues myself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Angela Eagle tracked you down then?


I'd respect her/them more if they were up for that.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I would go to that bristol one tonight but am shut down due to armed siege. Really.


Fuck me Butchers, you weren't supposed to move in until the rest of the People's Militia had deployed. You'll have to hold the coppers off yourself for now.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Hopefully, he is getting out there making himself more visible and vocal, BUT, I suspect it is too little too late unfortunately.



But you wanted him gone!


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

I don't think Corbyn's going to be at those meetings, hash tag. He's off to Rhyl for the weekend.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

I like Corbyn. I like his principles, his moral's his politics Etc. Sadly, I think he is lacking when it comes to leading a political party and leading a team. I did join up specifically to vote for him I hasten to add. He should be at the meetings, it's a chance for him to get out there with a message, with a statement etc.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think Corbyn's going to be at those meetings, hash tag. He's off to Rhyl for the weekend.



Nice little jaunt on the Ffestiniog railway will sort him out for the week ahead.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 30, 2016)

I hear New Brighton's nice at this time of year.

He can combine his holiday with a speech to the local CLP starting a de-selection process for the shitebag local MP.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2016)

He could be Danger Man and visit Portmeirion while down there


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The *cardinal sin* - he's got to go now surely. Twitter will never forgive him.



Grauniad mocks Corbyn for typo


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2016)

'I didn't call for Corbyn to go' says Birmingham councillor named on Labour website


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> I was imagining Laura Kuenssberg in combat fatigues myself.



Will this do instead?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Grauniad mocks Corbyn for typo


TBF Burgess works for the _Times_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Will this do instead?
> 
> View attachment 89067


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Will this do instead?
> 
> View attachment 89067



There is literally nothing that that will do instead of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I like Corbyn. I like his principles, his moral's his politics Etc. Sadly, I think he is lacking when it comes to leading a political party and leading a team. I did join up specifically to vote for him I hasten to add. He should be at the meetings, it's a chance for him to get out there with a message, with a statement etc.


Your problem is that you're too used to seeing stuffed shirts who spout endless platitudes and slogans, and who devise policy through focus groups. That's not a leader; that's a manipulator of emotions and a manager of expectations.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> Fuck me Butchers, you weren't supposed to move in until the rest of the People's Militia had deployed. You'll have to hold the coppers off yourself for now.


Shit writes itself dude


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 30, 2016)

Logging onto FB just, four friends, who I have never, as far as I can recollect, posted anything political, have all posted pro-Corbyn stuff


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.



the registrant

J B McCrea Ltd


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> the registrant
> 
> J B McCrea Ltd


That site is almost too good to be true, it's like Helen Hatley got a job at _Sugarape_


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2016)

7 o'clock news on r4 had no mention of the latest antisemitism nonsense - has it had much traction beyond the live blogs/ twitter dicks sphere?


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> 7 o'clock news on r4 had no mention of the latest antisemitism nonsense - has it had much traction beyond the live blogs/ twitter dicks sphere?


BBC have the Chief Rabbi objecting: Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News On the front page just


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> 7 o'clock news on r4 had no mention of the latest antisemitism nonsense - has it had much traction beyond the live blogs/ twitter dicks sphere?


I just saw the woman walking out of Corbyn's speech on 4 news.  They're  beyond desperate now.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2016)

I do hope for all her protesting she actually wasn't working hand-in-hand with the Telegraph. 

Claiming antisemitism for that accusation is fucking low.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

JK Rowling is doing her bit for the Portland-Nu Labour-Blairite-Brownite-cunts smear campaign.


With all this muck-spreading, she could easily pick up some summer work on a farm or summat.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 30, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



I've heard disturbing things about him wanting to stop but Milne and McDonald won't let him. And much much more about how useless the leadership were when it came to actually supporting the campaigning on the ground...


.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've heard disturbing things about him wanting to stop but Milne and McDonald won't let him. And much much more about how useless the leadership were when it came to actually supporting the campaigning on the ground...
> 
> 
> .


During this bitter faction fight you have heard negative rumours about one of the parties?!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've heard disturbing things about him wanting to stop but Milne and McDonald won't let him. And much much more about how useless the leadership were when it came to actually supporting the campaigning on the ground...
> 
> 
> .


What have you heard. Say it here and now. Or basically you're just using the ITV tweets to give an aura of informed insider. Fuck off. esp with the 'disturbing'.

You can't even get the names right you iphone twat.


----------



## inva (Jun 30, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've heard disturbing things about him wanting to stop but Milne and McDonald won't let him. And much much more about how useless the leadership were when it came to actually supporting the campaigning on the ground...
> 
> 
> .


they're keeping him as leader against his will!?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've heard disturbing things about him wanting to stop but Milne and McDonald won't let him. And much much more about how useless the leadership were when it came to actually supporting the campaigning on the ground...
> 
> 
> .


This smells like a 'message' from Portland Communications.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

he wants to fall on his sword but Mcdonnel has nicked his sword and put it on a high shelf


----------



## Ole (Jun 30, 2016)

After the event, she released a statement saying his failure to intervene showed a "catastrophic failure of leadership", and added her voice to the chorus of Labour MPs calling for their leader to resign.

"It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti's report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing," she said.​Pulling that card from the bottom of the deck.

You're an absolute disgrace Ruth.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

What was the reason Smeeth walked out? What was the antisemitic attack that keeps getting referred to?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

Ole said:


> After the event, she released a statement saying his failure to intervene showed a "catastrophic failure of leadership", and added her voice to the chorus of Labour MPs calling for their leader to resign.
> 
> "It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti's report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing," she said.​Pulling that card from the bottom of the deck.
> 
> You're an absolute disgrace Ruth.


It has all the hallmarks of a Portland smear job.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What was the reason Smeeth walked out? What was the antisemitic attack that keeps getting referred to?


From LBC. What anti-semitism?


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> From LBC. What anti-semitism?


Though her specific claim is Marc Wadsworth's apparent accusation that she's in cahoots with the Daily Telegraph, which Corbyn should condemn she thinks. Thin stuff.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> From LBC. What anti-semitism?


I know that bit's not antisemitic but she's claiming a Corbyn supporter made an antisemitic attack on her and he failed to intervene. I wanna know what attack she's referring to. 

I know it's 99% certain to be nothing even approaching antisemitism but just so I can get even more of a laugh at how pathetic and desperate these pricks have got I'd like to know what the appatent attack was.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

One good thing is rising stars who are very left wing like W/C Rebecca Long Bailey(Shadow Treasury) are getting their chance


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I know that bit's not antisemitic but she's claiming a Corbyn supporter made an antisemitic attack on her and he failed to intervene. I wanna know what attack she's referring to.
> 
> I know it's 99% certain to be nothing even approaching antisemitism but just so I can get even more of a laugh at how pathetic and desperate these pricks have got I'd like to know what the appatent attack was.


There's vids of the Marc Wadsworth bit on this thread Corbyn compares Israel to Isis... but I can't make much out from the ones I've watched


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

dp.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

inva said:


> they're keeping him as leader against his will!?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> Though her specific claim is Marc Wadsworth's apparent accusation that she's in cahoots with the Daily Telegraph, which Corbyn should condemn she thinks. Thin stuff.



The Rabbi however has taken direct issue with Corbyn's own words there!

Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> The Rabbi however has taken direct issue with Corbyn's own words there!


Ah right, must confess i saw the headline and didn't bother.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> Though her specific claim is Marc Wadsworth's apparent accusation that she's in cahoots with the Daily Telegraph, which Corbyn should condemn she thinks. Thin stuff.


Incredible. It seems to me that Portland has specifically selected women who can cry on cue to add emotional gravitas to the 'drama' they've created. Why don't these cunts work in the film industry instead of trying to push the public's emotional buttons for political gain?

It's also interesting how the charge is always 'antisemitism' rather than any other form of racism, anti-ziganism, for example.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> One good thing is rising stars who are very left wing like W/C Rebecca Long Bailey(Shadow Treasury) are getting their chance


Wing commander? Didn't know any raf officers were also labour MPs.  surprised she doesn't have defence.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I know that bit's not antisemitic but she's claiming a Corbyn supporter made an antisemitic attack on her and he failed to intervene. I wanna know what attack she's referring to.
> 
> I know it's 99% certain to be nothing even approaching antisemitism but just so I can get even more of a laugh at how pathetic and desperate these pricks have got I'd like to know what the appatent attack was.


See post #2495


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I know that bit's not antisemitic but she's claiming a Corbyn supporter made an antisemitic attack on her and he failed to intervene. I wanna know what attack she's referring to.
> 
> I know it's 99% certain to be nothing even approaching antisemitism but just so I can get even more of a laugh at how pathetic and desperate these pricks have got I'd like to know what the appatent attack was.



www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html%3famp#

Nothing born from nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> The Rabbi however has taken direct issue with Corbyn's own words there!
> 
> Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News


The chief rabbi is a gobshite


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The chief rabbi is a gobshite



Clearly! 

_*DUR*_ just about covers it, ffs.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

YouSir said:


> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html%3famp#
> 
> Nothing born from nothing.




Why did John Pienar walk out?

I noticed the Sun senior journo calling out anti-semitism to the colleauge next to him.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> There's vids of the Marc Wadsworth bit on this thread Corbyn compares Israel to Isis... but I can't make much out from the ones I've watched


So all you get is 'working hand in hand' from the video and the camera just happens to be on her when she goes all drama and says 'he's talking about me.' This is just pathetic, unbelievably pathetic in fact pathetic is too inadequate a word. These people want to run the country? It's like EastEnders on a Tuesday night.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

Seems to be tying up with the wider Israel is Judaism thing, all criticism is antisemitism. Had a Facebook ad the other day telling me how to avoid boycotts and protests against Israel too, privately funded but not sure who by.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Why did John Pienar walk out?



No idea.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Sun Journo says something like, "anti-semitism at an anti-semitism report launch"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Why did John Pienar walk out?
> 
> I noticed the Sun senior journo calling out anti-semitism to the colleauge next to him.


"walk out? Do you mean someone who may be JP (i'm not sure at all) - a political journo - followed his story? Rather than leaving because of the disgusting racism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Sun Journo says something like, "anti-semitism at an anti-semitism report launch"


Why on earth have you posted this?


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2016)

Because I want to, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be posted on a free and open political site.

I posted it because I suspect this is what he will report in The Scum tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

You suspect a sun journo will write something in the sun. Does JP write for the sun?


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So all you get is 'working hand in hand' from the video and the camera just happens to be on her when she goes all drama and says 'he's talking about me.' This is just pathetic, unbelievably pathetic in fact pathetic is too inadequate a word. These people want to run the country? It's like EastEnders on a Tuesday night.



The Mail have the full video.  Basically Wadsworth asked a pseudo-question alleging that Smeeth was working hand-in-hand with the Telegraph, shock and horror ensued and the bloke selling onions outside made a quick 50p.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 30, 2016)

The clowns responsible for calling for his resignation and the attendant ongoing character assassination are completely clueless. They seem to have thankfully completely underestimated the power of social media (as has been mentioned upthread), particularly FB in spreading information and generally networking people. This sort of thing is outside the traditional avenues used to control the narrative. Long may it continue.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

agricola said:


> The Mail have the full video.  Basically Wadsworth asked a pseudo-question alleging that Smeeth was working hand-in-hand with the Telegraph, shock and horror ensued and the bloke selling onions outside made a quick 50p.


I just read your post and then read the first couple of sentences of Smeeth's statement...

This is real life, right? I'm just aghast at how fucking stupid these people are and, in turn, how stupid they think the general public are. I feel more repulsed than ever at these people. It's truly incredible to think they are actually convinced this is a good strategy to follow and is going to win them votes.


----------



## rhod (Jun 30, 2016)

Anti-Telegraphic rather than anti-Semitic, then.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.


Maybe it was a _really, really_ expensive domain - that's why she was crying?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 30, 2016)

could the guy in the video have a case for libel?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> could the guy in the video have a case for libel?


Slander.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

editor - please bring Jazzz back, just for one day.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Slander.


she published the accusation didnt she?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> editor - please bring Jazzz back, just for one day.


we could be bonkers, just for one day[/bowie]


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.


Wha!!! Bahahaha, this is just aaahahahaha it's not even amateur, to call it school level is insulting to school children.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> she published the accusation didnt she?


I thought you were referring with that was said. It's been a long day in the saddle.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I thought you were referring with that was said. It's been a long day in the saddle.


we're all tired


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I just read your post and then read the first couple of sentences of Smeeth's statement...
> 
> This is real life, right? I'm just aghast at how fucking stupid these people are and, in turn, how stupid they think the general public are. I feel more repulsed than ever at these people. It's truly incredible to think they are actually convinced this is a good strategy to follow and is going to win them votes.


The term 'Westminster bubble' doesn't get anywhere near covering this.  They are all pulling the same levers they always use in terms of media contacts, spin and bullshit, but unaware they are completely at sea - _the only levers they_ have given there's no way they can actually communicate with ordinary people.  Viciousness and hyperactivity 10/10; Strategy and Common Sense 0/10.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> we could be bonkers, just for one day[/bowie]


I'd love to hear Jazzz's take on all this:

'There's been a co-ordinated attempt to bring down a democratically elected leader in which a neo-liberal elite work with the press and co-ordinate their own actions.  It involves staged resignations over several days, including one shadow cabinet member who only lasted in the job 2 days.  Oh, and there's been pretend anti-Semitism and criticism of Corbyn's gardening skills'

- 'Nah, too far fetched'


----------



## a_chap (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.



-puzzled-

Why would she want Merkel's old web site?


----------



## emanymton (Jun 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This smells like a 'message' from Portland Communications.


More like poundland.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

a_chap said:


> -puzzled-
> 
> Why would she want Merkel's old web site?



Drafting in Merkel as a unity candidate.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.





> The site angela4leader.org has been disabled. Please contact support.


Unfortunately support is currently unavailable


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

steeplejack said:


> Eagle took "Angela4Leader" website URL _two days_ before resigning over the sacking of Hilary Benn.


This is actually a 2016 version of the time Portillo nearly stood against John Major: "Are you standing against John Major Mr Portillo?"   "No"   "So why have you installed several new telephone lines in your office?".


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2016)

emanymton said:


> More like poundland.



I think Partridge Communications would be more fitting tbh


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> This is actually a 2016 version of the time Portillo nearly stood against John Major: "Are you standing against John Major Mr Portillo?"   "No"   "So why have you installed several new telephone lines in your office?".


 Edit: From a grauniad piece on portillo:



> *To rebel or not to rebel* John Major's 1995 'put up or shut up' challenge to his critics causes Portillo a quandary. He chooses to support the Prime Minister, leaving John Redwood to carry the banner for the right instead. Portillo declares his support for Major. But he is caught out as 'friends' are discovered installing telephone lines for a possible challenge in a second round that never materialises.


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> They are all pulling the same levers they always use in terms of media contacts, spin and bullshit, but unaware they are completely at sea - _the only levers they_ have given there's no way they can actually communicate with ordinary people


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 30, 2016)

I noticed a couple of days ago that the savinglabour.com domain (anti-Corbyn site, promoted by Alastair Campbell) was registered late on the 25th as well, as well some other ones like savinglabour.org which you'd think would redirect there but apparently they don't know wtf they are doing.

Whois savinglabour.com

I didn't mention it as I thought it was just so incredibly obvious it was all preplanned anyway.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 30, 2016)

60,000 people, which is almost as many as the entire membership of the Liberal Democrats, have joined the Labour Party in the last 7 days. (Paul Waugh, HuffPo).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think Partridge Communications would be more fitting tbh


This production has certainly gone Peartree-shaped


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Unfortunately support is currently unavailable


I just looked and it has indeed been disabled. Hehehe this is comedy gold! There's no way I'm not chucking 3 quid in now it's an absolute bargain price for the level of entertainment I'll get in return


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I just looked and it has indeed been disabled. Hehehe this is comedy gold! There's no way I'm not chucking 3 quid in now it's an absolute bargain price for the level of entertainment I'll get in return


Fully immersive ironic artisan 2.0 retro politics


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I just looked and it has indeed been disabled. Hehehe this is comedy gold! There's no way I'm not chucking 3 quid in now it's an absolute bargain price for the level of entertainment I'll get in return


Last time, Labour's registration bods had a good go at stopping anybody who might have been left wing from joining/3 quidding ("Are you now or have you ever been an opponent of capitalism").  Who controls the process this time?  Doubt it will make any difference, if Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, but it does again raise the issue of whether the Corbynites have done anything to take control of the party machinery.


----------



## rhod (Jun 30, 2016)

"Night, night, children..."


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Last time, Labour's registration bods had a good go at stopping anybody who might have been left wing from joining/3 quidding ("Are you now or have you ever been an opponent of capitalism").  Who controls the process this time?  Doubt it will make any difference, if Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, but it does again raise the issue of whether the Corbynites have done anything to take control of the party machinery.



Yeah I do wonder whether the 3 quid option will be available again, it certainly isn't at the moment.  They can't be that good at checking though as I seem to remember Mark Thomas saying he managed to register last time.


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Last time, Labour's registration bods had a good go at stopping anybody who might have been left wing from joining/3 quidding ("Are you now or have you ever been an opponent of capitalism").  Who controls the process this time?  Doubt it will make any difference, if Corbyn is on the ballot he will win, but it does again raise the issue of whether the Corbynites have done anything to take control of the party machinery.


he'd have to be on the ballot with this rate of sign-ups, they surely couldn't front that out.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah I do wonder whether the 3 quid option will be available again, it certainly isn't at the moment.  They can't be that good at checking though as I seem to remember Mark Thomas saying he managed to register last time.


Wasn't it supposedly a response to the 'union dominated election of the wild eyed left winger Ed Miliband' - it was adopted as official procedure rather than a one off?  If so it should be available again.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wasn't it supposedly a response to the 'union dominated election of the wild eyed left winger Ed Miliband' - it was adopted as official procedure rather than a one off?  If so it should be available again.



Yeah it was but things are so weird at the moment it's hard to tell!


----------



## Ole (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wasn't it supposedly a response to the 'union dominated election of the wild eyed left winger Ed Miliband' - it was adopted as official procedure rather than a one off?  If so it should be available again.



That is correct. It is part of the leadership election process itself now.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

Ole said:


> That is correct. It is part of the leadership election process itself now.


"The far left waits, with a fist full of coins".


----------



## Sifta (Jun 30, 2016)

They spent 10 months arguing amongst themselves over who was worse, Brown or Blair, and instead of reaching the conclusion that both were cunts, decided to kick the cat


----------



## mauvais (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "The far left waits, with a fist full of coins".


Fistful of dollars probably a wiser investment choice at this point. Less effective as a projectile though. Maybe the BluRay collectors' edition would do a bit of damage.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Fistful of dollars probably a wiser investment choice at this point. Less effective as a projectile though. Maybe the BluRay collectors' edition would do a bit of damage.


"The entryism of the spare change jar".


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 30, 2016)

wow - they have really fucked this up haven't they? Eagle has surely got to stand now - and will be humiliated in the process. What the fuck did they think was going to happen?
And to do this now - when the tory government is in utter disarray and proving itself to be incompetent country wreckers of the first order, when any opposition with the barerest level of coherence could wipe the floor with them - they choose this time to sink their own ship - what cunts, what a betrayal of the people they supposedly represent. 
First they believed that Corbyn couldn't win and had to be replaced - now with the tories imploding they seem to be even more worried that Corbyn could actually end up as prime minister.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 30, 2016)

John Mcdonnell's posted that Labour have added 60,000 new members this week, mostly joining to support Corbyn.

That's more than the membership of the lib dems or greens in total added in a week, the unpopular bastard.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2016)

unelectable obvs


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2016)

*tongue bitten*


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> John Mcdonnell's posted that Labour have added 60,000 new members this week, mostly joining to support Corbyn.
> 
> That's more than the membership of the lib dems or greens in total added in a week, the unpopular bastard.


If that figure's correct, it's also a fuckload of money for the party. Unless of course there's 20,000 Queen Victorias and 30,000 J Chilcotts.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> *tongue bitten*


The decisions you make now will shape the next 4 pages of this thread.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If that figure's correct, it's also a fuckload of money for the party. Unless of course there's 20,000 Queen Victorias and 30,000 J Chilcotts.


yep. And if they keep Corbyn as leader then they should get to keep receiving that extra money every year. And if they can mobilise them into leafletting, door knocking etc then that's a lot of new potential activists too.

Best bit about all of this is remembering that the blairites did this to themselves by forcing the rules to be rewritten to stop the Unions from picking another ed milliband over the heads of the members / PLP.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Best bit about all of this is remembering that the blairites did this to themselves by forcing the rules to be rewritten to stop the Unions from picking another ed milliband over the heads of the members / PLP.



This is DEFINITELY my favourite part of this. They made it happen, under the arrogant Toryish born-to-rule assumption that once they'd made sure Ed Miliband couldn't win and was gone, that the membership would return to the arrangement of Labour-in-Government, the patrician PLP knows best attitude.

That the membership looked at the three 'sensible' candidates in Kendall, Cooper and Burnham and told them to get fucked is one of the more delightful events in recent politics, because the PLP did not see it coming in any way. The fucking bastards


----------



## Balbi (Jun 30, 2016)

In fact, even writing that made me laugh. The stupid, stupid, arrogant fucking twats


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2016)

This has pleased me no end.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 30, 2016)

Too much celebrating, still waiting on that leadership challenge and the death blow.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Too much celebrating, still waiting on that leadership challenge and the death blow.


I'm looking forward to Angela Eagle's early morning announcement;

'Erm, has he gone yet?'
'No. Are you standing?'
'Erm, err, well, in the interests of the Labour Party - sob - erm, can I get back to you on that?'


----------



## discokermit (Jun 30, 2016)

i joined. kinda ugh but kinda fuckit.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 30, 2016)

how badly would Angela Eagle get beaten in a leadership election?


----------



## Balbi (Jun 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> how badly would Angela Eagle get beaten in a leadership election?



Even if she got ALL the votes that Corbyn's opponents did in 2015, she'd be 80,000-ish votes short of his total from then.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> how badly would Angela Eagle get beaten in a leadership election?



By 2 under par.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> how badly would Angela Eagle get beaten in a leadership election?


Think the English cricket team's last ashes tour in Australia and you'd just about begin approaching the severity of the beating that she'll receive.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2016)

Still not sure how we get out of this impasse.  They obviously know they can't win a ballot. They've obviously been told there is no way to keep him off the ballot.  They can only be hoping he can't cope any more and resigns. They just put their hands up in the air and suggest getting round the table to negotiate who gets the Labour brand?  Not them. Deselection is a process - Corbyn can't just sign 'Jeremy's Deselection List' on Monday and it be done.   So he'd have to suffer their bullying for a long time before that happened, maybe too long. He's only human.

Did I ask before about if CLPs could arrange for votes of no confidence in their MPs?  I presume this would mean as little constitutionally as the vote earlier this week but it might get the message through to them.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 30, 2016)

purge!


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> now with the tories imploding they seem to be even more worried that Corbyn could actually end up as prime minister.


I dont see them imploding at all, I see them focusing in on the job ahead in that ruthless way that the tory party does.
Getting BJ out of the way was done so deftly it hasnt even been reported properly.



discokermit said:


> i joined. kinda ugh but kinda fuckit.





discokermit said:


> purge!


I think you're going to enjoy your time in the Labour Party


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 30, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> By 2 under par.



This joke deserves more likes, dammit!


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This joke deserves more likes, dammit!


DId you laugh?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> DId you laugh?



No.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> DId you laugh?


How can anyone laugh when Angela Eagle lies abed, wrestling with her conscience?   She fights for _all_ our futures.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 1, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This joke deserves more likes, dammit!



Only Tories understand golf


----------



## Duncan2 (Jul 1, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> No.


Perhaps the wrong thread but was impressed with the way Thornberry batted for Jezza just now on QT.Until Dimbleby cut her off anyway.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 1, 2016)

Was always going to come to a head at some point, just surprised at the shitness of the majority of the PLP and how they went about it. There is nothing they can do as far I can see. In fact he is in a good position despite the careerist drone/establishment press attempts. Hope he uses it as a platform to make the 3 quidders etc. the real force in the party. The likes of Eagle have never stood up for anything.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> How can anyone laugh when Angela Eagle lies abed, wrestling with her conscience?   She fights for _all_ our futures.


Her tears are our tears


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

discokermit said:


> purge!


The Red Wedding.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 1, 2016)

free spirit said:


> John Mcdonnell's posted that Labour have added 60,000 new members this week, mostly joining to support Corbyn.
> 
> That's more than the membership of the lib dems or greens in total added in a week, the unpopular bastard.



How many for the "right" reasons ?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> Perhaps the wrong thread but was impressed with the way Thornberry batted for Jezza just now on QT.Until Dimbleby cut her off anyway.


I saw her on Daily Politics this week and she did a good job on there too., They are old mates, fellow Islington MPs IIRC (Corbyn Islington North, Thornberry Islington South?). She still seems a bit of a snob to me, but hey.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Her tears are our tears


Her tears are sacred, they cure scrofula.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Only Tories understand golf



Yoiks! Time to dash, old boy. I've been kippered.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

Expect the plp/Eagleists/traitors will be quoting this yougov tomorrow, which shows Corbyn's approval rating falling amongst Labour members:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf

Most of the fieldwork looks to have been done in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it probably reflects remain voting Labour members who are pissed off and noticed Corbo wasn't exactly full throttle for the cause.  Not easy to guess what his figures will be in a few days when Labour members start to react to all the shenanigans - probably better for him.  At one level it's all tosh looking at such figures, but it will be significant if Corbyn's enemies are able to tell a story about him losing the support of members.  If they can get to that point he probably _is_ fucked.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

Does anyone know if Angela Eagle loses her seat on the NEC because she isn't now on the front bench?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

agricola said:


> Does anyone know if Angela Eagle loses her seat on the NEC because she isn't now on the front bench?


Still listed as a member.

Labour's National Executive Committee

She would have been elected or nominated from the full shadow cabinet I presume. Not sure if they treat this as a 'casual vacancy' and replace her or whether they just do the process once a year. The other 2 are still in the shadow cabinet afaik


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2016)

Councillor endorsers

The 450 Cllr's who endorse JC


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Expect the plp/Eagleists/traitors will be quoting this yougov tomorrow, which shows Corbyn's approval rating falling amongst Labour members:
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf
> 
> Most of the fieldwork looks to have been done in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it probably reflects remain voting Labour members who are pissed off and noticed Corbo wasn't exactly full throttle for the cause.  Not easy to guess what his figures will be in a few days when Labour members start to react to all the shenanigans - probably better for him.  At one level it's all tosh looking at such figures, but it will be significant if Corbyn's enemies are able to tell a story about him losing the support of members.  If they can get to that point he probably _is_ fucked.


For those who only glance at headlines, or maybe worse still read the pieces (hah) this looks terrible for corbyn... It must do damage.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> For those who only glance at headlines, or maybe worse still read the pieces (hah) this looks terrible for corbyn... It must do damage.


Mirror are running this as the top story on their site, along with recycling the anti-Semitism nonsense.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Expect the plp/Eagleists/traitors will be quoting this yougov tomorrow, which shows Corbyn's approval rating falling amongst Labour members:
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf
> 
> Most of the fieldwork looks to have been done in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it probably reflects remain voting Labour members who are pissed off and noticed Corbo wasn't exactly full throttle for the cause.  Not easy to guess what his figures will be in a few days when Labour members start to react to all the shenanigans - probably better for him.  At one level it's all tosh looking at such figures, but it will be significant if Corbyn's enemies are able to tell a story about him losing the support of members.  If they can get to that point he probably _is_ fucked.


a significant drop in the percentage that think they're likely to win the next election under corbyn, but only 3% more think they'd be likely to win the next election under anyone else.

51% in favour of him continuing as leader, but 10% of those only want him to continue temporarily.

Looks like Corbyn needs as much additional support from new members and supporters as he can get.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 1, 2016)

Funniest sectarian gossip I've heard in a long time: Angela Eagle's wife is allegedly a long time supporter of the Alliance for Workers Liberty.


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> For those who only glance at headlines, or maybe worse still read the pieces (hah) this looks terrible for corbyn... It must do damage.




60,000 new people have apparently joined this week, maj apparently citing they are joining for Corbyn vote.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

Such voting numbers are short term and he can bounce back from them. But with every single paper against him can he ever stand a chance


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2016)

Fuck electability. We just need the stubborn git to cling on for two things - Chilcott and democratic reform of the Labour party. That's all his job is now.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Such voting numbers are short term and he can bounce back from them. But with every single paper against him can he ever stand a chance



Shit rags. Emergency bog roll


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> For those who only glance at headlines, or maybe worse still read the pieces (hah) this looks terrible for corbyn... It must do damage.



This is why things need to move fast, the drip feeding of negative news will have an effect as time passes. Makes the triumphalism worrying.

That said the party is picking up a lot of Corbyn supporting new members - a lot of whom don't trust a thing that's said against him at the moment. 

Supply and excitement can't last forever though and nor can Eagle's cowardice. Someone has to crack and make a move.

Also the matter of what happens of we do lose, it'd be a desolate landscape with the sort of disillusionment that'll do huge damage to British politics. Which may not be a terrible thing if an alternative outlet somehow appears, hard to see though.

That said, still optimistic. Never seen so many people so involved and so disgusted.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> 60,000 new people have apparently joined this week, maj apparently citing they are joining for Corbyn vote.


Yeah, buy they would've voted for him anyway....corbyn will be haemorrhaging votes left right and centre from those not committed to him.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Yeah, buy they would've voted for him anyway....corbyn will be haemorrhaging votes left right and centre from those not committed to him.



fretting?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Yeah, buy they would've voted for him anyway....corbyn will be haemorrhaging votes left right and centre from those not committed to him.



They wouldn't have voted for him as leader because they weren't in the party. 60k is a hell of a bump given the turnout last time was 420k and a lot of his support from last time is still there and still loyal. Members wise, unless the traitors can drag this out for months, he's still strong.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

Humberto said:


> fretting?


are you asking me if i am fretting about corbyns voting figures?
im not invested humberto, im just commenting on what i see. 


YouSir said:


> They wouldn't have voted for him as leader because they weren't in the party. 60k is a hell of a bump given the turnout last time was 420k and a lot of his support from last time is still there and still loyal. Members wise, unless the traitors can drag this out for months, he's still strong.


im talking about votes in a general election...sorry if we are talking at cross purposes...my mistake if so


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Funniest sectarian gossip I've heard in a long time: Angela Eagle's wife is allegedly a long time supporter of the Alliance for Workers Liberty.


Explicitly banned from becoming a 3 quidder and voting for her.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> are you asking me if i am fretting about corbyns voting figures?
> im not invested humberto, im just commenting on what i see.
> 
> im talking about votes in a general election...sorry if we are talking at cross purposes...my mistake if so



No knowing what a general election will look like. Especially now Johnson's been fucked off. On that front it's all to play for, as long as leadership is resolved soon.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> are you asking me if i am fretting about corbyns voting figures?
> im not invested humberto, im just commenting on what i see.



Nobody is but we are heading for 100 pages. There is potentially quite a lot to play for.


----------



## Ole (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Expect the plp/Eagleists/traitors will be quoting this yougov tomorrow, which shows Corbyn's approval rating falling amongst Labour members:
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf
> 
> Most of the fieldwork looks to have been done in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it probably reflects remain voting Labour members who are pissed off and noticed Corbo wasn't exactly full throttle for the cause.  Not easy to guess what his figures will be in a few days when Labour members start to react to all the shenanigans - probably better for him.  At one level it's all tosh looking at such figures, but it will be significant if Corbyn's enemies are able to tell a story about him losing the support of members.  If they can get to that point he probably _is_ fucked.



Those are only official Labour Party members polled, not affiliated members and not registered supporters. Those figures are remarkably strong. I think he is going to pulverise the opposition in any leadership election much worse than last time round.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

Ole said:


> Those are only official Labour Party members polled, not affiliated members and not registered supporters. Those figures are remarkably strong. I think he is going to pulverise the opposition in any leadership election much worse than last time round.



Just wish they'd hurry up and give us one.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2016)

I do think Corbyn will have been damaged by this in the eyes of a number of swing voters and others away from his core supporters. But time might heal that. and yeah, it looks really likely he's untouchable in a leadership election.

It does need sorting out asap though...but I fear the PLP in its inability to win by the rulebook (i.e. fielding a candidate who isnt going to get humiliated in a competition) will be reduced to a longer plan of continued discrediting and mudthrowing in the hope that something finally sticks. It might well drag on and on this


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

Ole said:


> Those are only official Labour Party members polled, not affiliated members and not registered supporters. Those figures are remarkably strong. I think he is going to pulverise the opposition in any leadership election much worse than last time round.


Well, I agree, though I'd probably go with _'fairly strong'_ - the polling was done at a bad time, with the euro result which very few of those members would have vote for - and I do think sympathy for him will increase amongst the members after the shite of the last few days. There will though be a political battle over the result of this and other polls that are no doubt being maliciously planned over the next few days to maximise pressure on him.


----------



## Ole (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well, I agree, though I'd probably go with _'fairly strong'_ - *the polling was done at a bad time, with the euro result which very few of those members would have vote for* - and I do think sympathy for him will increase amongst the members after the shite of the last few days. There will though be a political battle over the result of this and other polls that are no doubt being maliciously planned over the next few days to maximise pressure on him.



Bolded: My point exactly, and when it comes down to it, he's still getting at least 50% of the official Labour Party membership vote against any and all comers. That's slightly more than he got last time - in these dire circumstances. With affiliated union and socialist members and £3-ers on top of that it won't even be a contest. It's remarkably strong.


----------



## Ole (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 1, 2016)

lol, just like George Eaton earlier, who was saying Cat Smith and Clive Lewis were trying to see him to resign but Diane Abbot was blocking the door and stopping them. To which Abbot tweeted a picture of her very much not being anywhere near Corbyn's door, saying it was a load of old bollocks, and presumably Smith and/or Lewis also got in touch because good old George ended up saying "Sources say Cat Smith and Clive Lewis are not intending to resign."

The wanker doesn't even seem embarrassed by the amount of shit he's come out with the past few days. He's tweeted more hearsay in the past 3 days than Urban argues about in a year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> lol, just like George Eaton earlier, who was saying Cat Smith and Clive Lewis were trying to see him to resign but Diane Abbot was blocking the door and stopping them. To which Abbot tweeted a picture of her very much not being anywhere near Corbyn's door, saying it was a load of old bollocks, and presumably Smith and/or Lewis also got in touch because good old George ended up saying "Sources say Cat Smith and Clive Lewis are not intending to resign."
> 
> The wanker doesn't even seem embarrassed by the amount of shit he's come out with the past few days. He's tweeted more hearsay in the past 3 days than Urban argues about in a year.


at this point his detractors are going for noise to drown signal. Its been happening for a while, and the snowy chinned saviour of all that is good in the world including flasks of tea has wante SFA to do with the circus (not that one).

todays attempts to make him a jew-hater again have been particularly shrill. I swear if they force the issue and he is on the ballot, three quid. I might not hold the org_ in itself _in much regard and view electoral politics with a juandiced eye but three quid is three quid, not a bank breaker. Worth it to see off the labour right. You'll never catch me voting for the cunts mind. I just want this shit to end.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2016)

Ole said:


>


He's been remarkably silent in all this. What's his game do ya reckon?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> at this point his detractors are going for noise to drown signal. Its been happening for a while, and the snowy chinned saviour of all that is good in the world including flasks of tea has wante SFA to do with the circus (not that one).
> 
> todays attempts to make him a jew-hater again have been particularly shrill. I swear if they force the issue and he is on the ballot, three quid. I might not hold the org_ in itself _in much regard and view electoral politics with a juandiced eye but three quid is three quid, not a bank breaker. Worth it to see off the labour right. You'll never catch me voting for the cunts mind. I just want this shit to end.



G'wan, do it, think of how miserable it'll make all those MPs.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 1, 2016)

Things to do late at night - watch the wrestling and write pish.



> Politics isn't the realm of the people. Never has been.
> 
> Put three people in a room and give them even the vaguest sniff of power and within seconds they'll have completely forgotten why the have it, who gave it to them and what it's for. They'll start to find ways to protect it, to wield it to further itself, to put bars on the windows and locks on the doors so no one can sneak in while they aren't looking and have that power away from them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Gove, Gove burning bright in the forests of the shite.



I must Gove down to the sea again,
The lonely sea and sky.
I drowned a pob faced twat there,
I wonder if he's dry?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 1, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> He's been remarkably silent in all this. What's his game do ya reckon?


I'm inclined to take him at his word.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> lol, just like George Eaton earlier, who was saying Cat Smith and Clive Lewis were trying to see him to resign but Diane Abbot was blocking the door and stopping them. To which Abbot tweeted a picture of her very much not being anywhere near Corbyn's door, saying it was a load of old bollocks, and presumably Smith and/or Lewis also got in touch because good old George ended up saying "Sources say Cat Smith and Clive Lewis are not intending to resign."
> 
> The wanker doesn't even seem embarrassed by the amount of shit he's come out with the past few days. He's tweeted more hearsay in the past 3 days
> than Urban argues about in a year.



What's to be embarrassed about? This isn't journalism, it's a siege, at this point everyone is aware of that.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 1, 2016)

Ole said:


>



It's actually pretty funny looking at Burnham's timeline on Twitter seeing him deny a whole string of these stories.


----------



## Supine (Jul 1, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> He's been remarkably silent in all this. What's his game do ya reckon?



Saving himself for the Game of thrones season finale


----------



## magneze (Jul 1, 2016)

He's still there and no challengers. I wonder how long before some MPs start moving back to support him or at least neutral.


----------



## andysays (Jul 1, 2016)

It isn't directly relevant to this thread, perhaps, but this still seems like the place to mention it

Labour's John McDonnell to give response to Brexit vote

Will be interesting to hear what he has to say, not just about Brexit, but also about the leadership challenge stuff. 

It may be that he and Corbyn have come up with a response to the vote which can actually help re-build their support, not within the PLP or the media obviously, but with those they seek to represent.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 1, 2016)

According to twitter (so fuck knows if it's true - hopefully it is) Tristam Hunt's CLP passed unanimous motions last night

1) in support of Corbyn
2) of no confidence in Hunt.

The acronym LOL has never been more apt


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 1, 2016)

magneze said:


> He's still there and no challengers. I wonder how long before some MPs start moving back to support him or at least neutral.


If he's so beatable in elections, you've got to wonder why the plotters aren't standing against him in an election. It really is a chicken coup.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> According to twitter (so fuck knows if it's true - hopefully it is) Tristam Hunt's CLP passed unanimous motions last night
> 
> 1) in support of Corbyn
> 2) of no confidence in Hunt.
> ...


Expect to see a lot of this kind of thing over the next few days, loads of CLPs are having emergency meetings this weekend.

Chakrabarti has apparently said Corbyn is being deliberately misrepresented on R4 this morning too, anyone hear it?


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes I heard that. What was funny at the end of the interview, as she was saying what a kind and decent person Corbyn was, who was doing his best to improve the level of political debate and to try to see the better side even of opponents, Justin Webb was virtually  bundling her out of the door in case she ruined the latest attempt to rubbish him.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 1, 2016)

If Tristam Hunt says Corbyn should resign because the PLP do not support him,  by his own standards should Hunt not be resigning too?


A resignorama


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I do think Corbyn will have been damaged by this in the eyes of a number of swing voters and others away from his core supporters.



Really, though? I'm not a swing voter, but nor am I a core supporter of Corbyn. I did pay the £3 and, for the first time, vote in an internal Labour party ballot, but more because I was interested to see what would happen next. From the start, I've been sceptical about his ability to change things for a whole variety of reasons, and never more so than in light of his insipid 'Remain, I suppose' campaigning.

But although my first thought when the attacks resumed over the weekend might have been that he probably couldn't lead convincingly under such conditions, the way he's held his ground is quite heartening - it suggests decisive resolve on his part. On the other hand, the more hysterical the campaign against him becomes, the more it seems to convey a sense that he does pose a threat.

I'm not saying either of those things are necessarily true - I guess we'll find out how decisive and resolute he is if he stays, and whether he proves to be a threat, over the next few months - but it certainly seems like an impression other people besides me might have.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 1, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ... Tristam Hunt ... by his own standards ...



Cannot compute.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2016)

I am genuinely appalled:

Dare I suggest that there may be a class element to this? Corbyn is showing no such grace and elegance. And when Gordon Brown had to quit Downing St after losing the elections, he took his own sweet time about packing... I suspect being bullied and tortured at public school during your childhood makes you better at biting unpleasant bullets and gives you an appreciation of the importance of putting on a good show for the public at a time of crisis...

Ha, did not think of that!

Normally what happens is you get bullied and tortured as a new boy and then, 5 years later when you're a senior you do the same thing to others. So it's probably not that so much as the vestigial Victorianism in public school culture: being a bad loser invites universal contempt

And quite right too.​
(from Shitebook, if you were wondering - and this is why I really don't like when people insinuate that I went to a private fee-paying school).


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2016)

I really, really didn't go to a school like that.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm inclined to take him at his word.



I can't read twitter posts on Tapatalk! I dunno why it's not possible to, unless I'm missing something.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Really, though? I'm not a swing voter, but nor am I a core supporter of Corbyn. I did pay the £3 and, for the first time, vote in an internal Labour party ballot, but more because I was interested to see what would happen next. From the start, I've been sceptical about his ability to change things for a whole variety of reasons, and never more so than in light of his insipid 'Remain, I suppose' campaigning.
> 
> But although my first thought when the attacks resumed over the weekend might have been that he probably couldn't lead convincingly under such conditions, the way he's held his ground is quite heartening - it suggests decisive resolve on his part. On the other hand, the more hysterical the campaign against him becomes, the more it seems to convey a sense that he does pose a threat.
> 
> I'm not saying either of those things are necessarily true - I guess we'll find out how decisive and resolute he is if he stays, and whether he proves to be a threat, over the next few months - but it certainly seems like an impression other people besides me might have.



agreed,  any doubts about Corbyns + Mcdonnells strength + resilience have been wiped out by the last week - it's draining just watching / empathising with the shitstorm they've endured from all quarters, many of them close, can only imagine what it's like to be on the receiving end . impressed.

Having said that, if they survive, win the leadership election, and then don't make a serious attempt at introing mandatory reselection of some sort, then I'm done with it all... it would be just this , forever : pointless, endless internicine war...not worth the effort , when there's so little to actually be gained in concrete terms .


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> Chakrabarti has apparently said Corbyn is being deliberately misrepresented on R4 this morning too, anyone hear it?


Yeah that interview was amazing, Webb doing everything he can to undermine Chakrabarti's relation of events in an attempt to blame Corbyn for something.


----------



## chilango (Jul 1, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I do think Corbyn will have been damaged by this in the eyes of a number of swing voters and others away from his core supporters.



I don't know about that.

The only people I've heard criticizing Corbyn for his stance here have been people who never would've voted Labour anyway (except maybe, just maybe, peak Blair in a minority of instances).

Every potential Labour voter (and every Labour member/supporter) who has expressed an opinion on this to me have expressed at least sympathy,and more often support,for Corbyn.

I don't live in a traditional Labour heartland, but in a Labour controlled borough that is a target seat they need to win from the Tories according to conventional BBC election night logic.

Edited to add: And most of these people would never normally discuss the Labour Party leadership at all.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> Chakrabarti has apparently said Corbyn is being deliberately misrepresented on R4 this morning too, anyone hear it?


It was a beautiful display of how to stay on message in the face of irrational provocation. Worth catching on the i-player.

And this after the news bulletin which reported the Israeli ambassador saying he didn't think JC was comparing Israel to ISIS.

E2a PS It would almost be worth a visit to Harry's Place to see how they cope with that one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 1, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I can't read twitter posts on Tapatalk! I dunno why it's not possible to, unless I'm missing something.


Sorry. I gave up on tapatalk recently (when it logged me on under an old username I abandoned years before the advent of smartphones!), and forget others are still struggling on with it. Apologies.

It doesn't display tweets: you have to click "web view". But the précis is that Burnham says he thinks it's not on to have a coup, especially at this time, he never took part in coups and isn't going to start now, and Corbyn was democratically elected by the members of the party, he respects the democratic process and the party members.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2016)

It seems to have calmed down for the moment.Hopefully more CLPs will be taking advantage of this pause to follow the lead of Hunt's and Eagle's and telling their MPs to wind their fucking necks in or fuck off.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

The hunt no confidence motion is from an individual ward rather than a full clp I believe (unanimous did sound unbelievable on reflection...)


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> The hunt no confidence motion is from an individual ward rather than a full clp I believe (unanimous did sound unbelievable on reflection...)


With misreporting like that you'll get as bad a name as the Grauniad.

Oh just a moment, you made a correction - how unprofessional.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Jul 1, 2016)

Whatever happened to the Angela Eagle leadership launch? | LabourList


----------



## inva (Jul 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> Whatever happened to the Angela Eagle leadership launch? | LabourList


lost in time, like tears in rain


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2016)

inva said:


> lost in time, like tears in rain



Like steam off piss!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 1, 2016)

The PLP really have just fucking kicked themselves in the balls haven't they?  Not one of them had the guts to step up to the plate and say "this isn't working, I challenge you Jez"

Proof what a bunch of vapid shits they are and the longer it goes on the worse it gets for them in terms of actually beating the guy.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> Expect to see a lot of this kind of thing over the next few days, loads of CLPs are having emergency meetings this weekend.
> 
> Chakrabarti has apparently said Corbyn is being deliberately misrepresented on R4 this morning too, anyone hear it?



It's here from 2.33.45 to 2.40.06

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> Whatever happened to the Angela Eagle leadership launch? | LabourList





inva said:


> lost in time, like tears in rain



As far back as she can remember, she always wanted to be a bottler


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> Councillor endorsers
> 
> The 450 Cllr's who endorse JC


One of my two labour councilors on there. Oddly enough, the one who isn't is the better one for helping out on local stuff i've been involved in. Never even seen the other one.


----------



## tommers (Jul 1, 2016)

Nobody from Lambeth.   Too busy shutting down libraries.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> Councillor endorsers
> 
> The 450 Cllr's who endorse JC



When was that?  Now or from the previous leadership election?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes, last time.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 1, 2016)

thanks.


----------



## binka (Jul 1, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> According to twitter (so fuck knows if it's true - hopefully it is) Tristam Hunt's CLP passed unanimous motions last night
> 
> 1) in support of Corbyn
> 2) of no confidence in Hunt.
> ...


My dad is in a CLP not a million miles from there. Stoke Central CLP have hated Hunt from day one - thete was an awful lot of anger at having him forced on them. The day after Corbyn was elected the first thing my dad said was 'now we can get rid of Hunt'. I'm sure Hunt isn't the only one who should start updating their cv...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> One of my two labour councilors on there. Oddly enough, the one who isn't is the better one for helping out on local stuff i've been involved in. Never even seen the other one.


There's three Bristol councillors on that list, one didn't stand this year though?

ETA:



butchersapron said:


> Yes, last time.



Ah, that makes more sense then


----------



## andysays (Jul 1, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> There's three Bristol councillors on that list, one didn't stand this year though?



treelover's post was a little misleading. Rather than endorse (present tense) it should have said *endorsed* (past tense)


> Over 450 Labour councillors have declared their public support for Jeremy Corbyn’s bid to be leader of the Labour Party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> There's three Bristol councillors on that list, one didn't stand this year though?


As quimcunx noted, that's actually from the leadership campaign. So yes, local elections since will have changed things. Threlfall (my councillor on that list) is still a councillor. Don't know about the other signers though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

andysays said:


> treelover's post was a little misleading



_Shocked_, I was! _Shocked _and _troubled_, I say!


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 1, 2016)

This is interesting - big swing to Labour (largely it seems from UKIP + BNP). Clearly the unelectable Corbyn

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="de" dir="ltr">St Michael&#39;s (Bexley) result:<br>CON: 37.4% (+2.7)<br>LAB: 33.5% (+11.5)<br>UKIP: 18.2% (-14.7)<br>LDEM: 4.7% (+4.7)<br>BNP: 4.2% (-6.3)<br>GRN: 2.2% (+2.2)</p>&mdash; Britain Elects (@britainelects) <a href="">June 30, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

It isn't that interesting tbf. I saw a similar post showing a 'big swing' to lib-dems in another seat, as if it heralded their rebirth. Big swings in council elections could be a hundred voters...


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't that interesting tbf. I saw a similar post showing a 'big swing' to lib-dems in another seat, as if it heralded their rebirth. Big swings in council elections could be a hundred voters...



Yes, a bingo night or parents' evening could be responsible.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 1, 2016)

This their latest tweet showing WM intentions.

""


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's here from 2.33.45 to 2.40.06
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


That's pretty bad.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 1, 2016)

Have I woken up and it's Tuesday again? 



> Jeremy Corbyn is likely to face a leadership challenge in "the next few days" his ally John McDonnell has said.
> 
> The shadow chancellor said Mr Corbyn was "staying as leader", despite dozens of frontbenchers resigning.
> 
> ...



Corbyn to face challenge 'in days', says John McDonnell - BBC News


1 hour ago

From the sectionUK Politics


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 1, 2016)

If there is a leadership challenge, would a new Tory PM call a GE thinking they can capitalise on the collapsing opposition?


----------



## Sirena (Jul 1, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> If there is a leadership challenge, would a new Tory PM call a GE thinking they can capitalise on the collapsing opposition?


With a bit of luck, yes....

Then, they might be surprised by the outcome.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 1, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> If there is a leadership challenge, would a new Tory PM call a GE thinking they can capitalise on the collapsing opposition?


can they actually do that?

I thought the new election law for 5 year terms prevented this from happening outside of a vote of no confidence in the government.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes, i wanted to bring this up earlier but couldn't face the ensuing debate.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

the terms are: 

If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
I guess they can just push another act through that changes it though, if they can't get the two thirds.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

tommers said:


> Nobody from Lambeth.   Too busy shutting down libraries.



They all put their names to the other letter, the one calling on him to quit.  I suppose being criticized like that by the people responsible for Cressingham Gardens (and the rest) is the best endorsement Corbyn could get.

(edited to correct link)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Have I woken up and it's Tuesday again?



Seumas had to drive the Corbynator home last night after the Bearded One polished off that half bottle of Black Rat lurking at the back of his shelf in the commissars' refectory by way of a celebration after Boris went yo-yo yesterday; and somehow - downhill with the wind behind him or something - the Austin Maxi ended up nudging 88mph, and before you know it, here we are three days ago


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2016)

Well? Have you? I demand to know


----------



## andysays (Jul 1, 2016)

andysays said:


> ...It may be that he and Corbyn have come up with a response to the vote which can actually help re-build their support, not within the PLP or the media obviously, but with those they seek to represent.



Corbyn to face challenge 'in days', says John McDonnell


> The shadow chancellor outlined five guidelines which he said should be followed in the UK's exit negotiations with the EU. These were: freedom of trade for UK businesses with the EU and for EU businesses with the UK, protection of residency rights for EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in Europe, existing protections at work, the UK's role in the European Investment Bank and the rights of UK financial services to win business across the EU to be maintained.



Going on what he's said there, I'm not sure he/they are any closer to rebuilding support among potential Labour voters who voted to leave the EU


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

andysays said:


> Going on what he's said there, I'm not sure he/they are any closer to rebuilding support among potential Labour voters who voted to leave the EU



Really?  Which one of those do you think potential Labour voters who voted leave would object to?  In fact, what do you think anyone sensible would object to from that?


----------



## andysays (Jul 1, 2016)

agricola said:


> Really?  Which one of those do you think potential Labour voters who voted leave would object to?  In fact, what do you think anyone sensible would object to from that?



It's not just about what he has said, it's more about what he hasn't said - there seems to be little or no recognition that there is a significant number of people, many of them that he and his party need to win back, for whom maintaining all that stuff we get by being in the EU isn't rated that highly.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Have I woken up and it's Tuesday again?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 I like it. Build the pressure on them for a change. Put up a leadership challenge. Go on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> I like it. Build the pressure on them for a change. Put up a leadership challenge. Go on.


mcdonnel doing the political equivalent of holding his arms wide in the 'come at bro' stance?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 1, 2016)

tommers said:


> Nobody from Lambeth.   Too busy shutting down libraries.


To be fair, the Lambeth councillors are currently busy suspending fellow councillors...for disloyalty to the Lambeth leader. Fancy that!


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 1, 2016)

I'm disappointed McDonnell talked about "existing protections at work" rather than improving protections at work.



Brixton Hatter said:


> To be fair, the Lambeth councillors are currently busy suspending fellow councillors...for disloyalty to the Lambeth leader. Fancy that!


Not just that, they accused her of "failing to persuade people" regarding their policies. How she's supposed to do that when they're not in people's interests and not what they want is unclear.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

Heeeeeeere's Polly!
A Labour challenger needs a rhino hide – luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened | Polly Toynbee


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Heeeeeeere's Polly!



You got a BIG surprise coming to you!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

I usually try not to stray below the line on guardian pieces, but ...



> *"luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened"*
> 
> Wasn't Angela Eagle crying on the news the other day?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

Doesn't mention a single battle eagle has been in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2016)

Isn't it odd that to find toynbee bigging up her no prayer breakfast  mate for at least 10 years now. I think she's put her fellow oxbridge mate forward for every singe labour job going at one point or another.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

She made a real impact on Blair


> in 2002, Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the government by mistake — and without informing her.


Angela Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Heeeeeeere's Polly!
> A Labour challenger needs a rhino hide – luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened | Polly Toynbee


Pollee, please.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 1, 2016)

Novelist , edgy young grimester / "roadsman" ( as, I believe, the saying goes)  - along with Stormzy, trying to remember the last time working class London youth were coming out in support of a socialist politician, and joining the Labour Party etc ....am struggling - suspect it says more about the future than Tooting / Camden liberals no confidencing....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 1, 2016)

This tickled me


----------



## emanymton (Jul 1, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Novelist , edgy young grimester - trying to remember the last time working class London youth were coming out in support of a socialist politician, and joining the Labour Party etc ....am struggling - suspect it says more about the future than Tooting / Camden liberals no confidencing....



I wounder what the membership pack consists off? I'm tempted to join just to find out.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 1, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I wounder what the membership pack consists off? I'm tempted to join just to find out.



ill tell you in about 5-7 days


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 1, 2016)

Seriously? Battle Eagle Angela?


----------



## Ole (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Heeeeeeere's Polly!
> A Labour challenger needs a rhino hide – luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened | Polly Toynbee



Hahahahahaha


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

cantsin said:


> ill tell you in about 5-7 days


1 - Where's my stuff?
2 - Track your package?
3 - How do I send this shit back?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Seriously? Battle Eagle Angela?


It's like the Somme, only its not in France and there's no battle - but the trenches _are_ filled with shit(s)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Seriously? Battle Eagle Angela?


the film of alita is in the works. I dunno how to feel about this. Its a good anime but it might go a bit dollhouse


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 1, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Novelist , edgy young grimester / "roadsman" ( as, I believe, the saying goes)  - along with Stormzy, trying to remember the last time working class London youth were coming out in support of a socialist politician, and joining the Labour Party etc ....am struggling - suspect it says more about the future than Tooting / Camden liberals no confidencing....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 1, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


>



finally -  a credible challenger.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

I rather see her as the next DC Comics film franchise:

*"Eagle Woman, she may strike at any time, after giving you due warning and then giving you a bit more time".*


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> This tickled me


Great that she got that last "it's not immigration, it's austerity" point in.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

*"Eagle Woman and Scooter Man: tough on Corbyn, tough on the causes of Corbyn"*


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

DC's 'Legends of Tommorow' has a great iteration of Hawkgirl. Kendra. Every time I see her on screen I immejutly have to... but not just that, she carries it off so well as the reluctant warrior.

unlike angela eagle who seems to have realised she's been punted forward for a stalking horse to made into glue come the resounding re-win of st jezza


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the film of alita is in the works. I dunno how to feel about this. Its a good anime but it might go a bit dollhouse


I think Polly Toynbee as narrator is definitely a poor choice tbh.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Heeeeeeere's Polly!
> A Labour challenger needs a rhino hide – luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened | Polly Toynbee



Nice to see a whiff of racism there:



> These could be the end days of Labour. Expect a challenge to Corbyn shortly, but there are wrangles as to who should do it: splitting the anti-Corbyn vote would be suicidal. Eagle has most support – soft-left, close to the unions, level headed, an experienced safe pair of hands. Owen Smith takes a slightly further left stance, *but some say it can’t be someone Welsh*, and he’s unknown. Watson is the key player, a wise bargainer and as deputy leader the one with a direct mandate elected by the party membership: he still hopes that Corbyn can be talked down off his miserable throne of thorns before Monday.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2016)

A sportsman's bet for anyone interested: After several more days of this, battle eagle Angela will pull a Boris and bottle it.

Have I any takers?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2016)

The Graun isn't even trying any more. I read the same story yesterday in another source. 


> Watson is seeking to organise a meeting with Corbyn’s closest advisers to try to agree a negotiated settlement that would see the Labour leader step down voluntarily, thus avoiding an acrimonious and drawn-out battle.
> Tom Watson calls on Labour MPs to prevent leadership contest



"Negotiated settlement". FFS.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 1, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


>




Thats Monday right? Ho boy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thats Monday right? Ho boy.


weds


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

I'm off to watch the wales game, but if there's a mighty screeching in the background I'll know the Mighty Eagle hath swooped. Don't say she didn't warn him. And then again. Or perhaps tomorrow.  Anyway, he'll know not to mess with the indecisive.


----------



## inva (Jul 1, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> A sportsman's bet for anyone interested: After several more days of this, battle eagle Angela will pull a Boris and bottle it.
> 
> Have I any takers?


don't really think it counts to bet on something after it's happened


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Heeeeeeere's Polly!
> A Labour challenger needs a rhino hide – luckily Angela Eagle is battle hardened | Polly Toynbee


I think this comment really illustrates her hypocrisy


> If Corbyn hadn’t so forcefully emphasised his belief in free movement on the eve of the poll, he might not have lost the 27% of core working class Labour voters who now say they won’t be voting Labour again. It’s that cataclysm facing Labour, in what might be an imminent election, that precipitated the great rebellion against their leader.


Simultaneously making Remain the non-racist option while either wanting freedom of movement for EU nations to be stopped or for Corbyn etc to lie about it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2016)

inva said:


> don't really think it counts to bet on something after it's happened



So that's where my business plan went wrong!

I'm still hoping for a live on TV meltdown, "I'm sorry Mr. Corbyn" etc


----------



## Sirena (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> weds


So Corbyn has a nice weekend, then two days' wait, then...


----------



## Sirena (Jul 1, 2016)

Corbyn rally tonight in Manchester..


----------



## NoXion (Jul 1, 2016)

Beautiful red flags!


----------



## Sirena (Jul 1, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Beautiful red flags!


The demographic is interesting.  Mixed, mostly youngish, very ordinary-looking sort of people.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Beautiful red flags!


That's the spring lot, Das Uberdog s crew. They do some good stuff in Manchester.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 1, 2016)

sounds like the list of labour  councillors who (allegedly) want JC to quit is a bit dodgy


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Corbyn rally tonight in Manchester..



Pretty Impressive, out of college time as well.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

Mrs b's housemate, who's politics veer between totally apolitical  to mildly reactionary said she was going, seemed really up for it. I was astonished.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> Mrs b's housemate, who's politics veer between totally apolitical  to mildly reactionary said she was going, seemed really up for it. I was astonished.



Any idea what in particular might have gotten them so enthused?


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

She just said 'we can't let them get away with it! They're all bastards!'

Apparently a few days ago she was saying Corbyn should go too. I think people's opinions are very volatile atm...


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 1, 2016)

I think people's natural sense of fair play is being impacted when they see each new (and progressively ridiculous) tale in the media along the lines of "he kills puppies, kittens AND fairies".

I went with shitty brown for the Progress colour because they can't keep the red.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jul 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> This tickled me



Love Barbara Ntumy
President of London Met student union


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I think people's natural sense of fair play is being impacted when they see each new (and progressively ridiculous) tale in the media along the lines of "he kills puppies, kittens AND fairies".
> 
> I went with shitty brown for the Progress colour because they can't keep the red.



They should knock that "unelectable" argument on the head as well - Leicester have won the league, Wales are in the semis of the Euros; anything is possible if you work together.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I think this comment really illustrates her hypocrisy
> 
> Simultaneously making Remain the non-racist option while either wanting freedom of movement for EU nations to be stopped or for Corbyn etc to lie about it.



she's off the scale...just hoping that this is the last stand of all that lot at the Graun, with a demographic , Vice shaped bomb ticking away under them, and them just endlessly repeating themselves, to ever lesser effect .


----------



## brogdale (Jul 1, 2016)

What's all this bollux on the BBC about the right now asking JC to announce his retirement if they promise to keep being a bit lefty when he's gone.
FFS


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

They've spent the last week exposing themselves as the worst kind of treacherous scum, and now they think a promise to play nice once he's out of the way has any kind of weight at all?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 1, 2016)

Why would people vote for public school millionaire 'austerity for the poor' wankers, or those tainted by Blair's crimes instead over someone who seems to genuinely be 'no bullshit' as far as public persona goes? Its been said but I reckon they would rather be in opposition than under a Corbyn leadership in govt. So, is the party fucked? Its interesting viewing anyway.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> What's all this bollux on the BBC about the right know asking JC to announce his retirement if they promise to keep being a bit lefty when he's gone.
> FFS


Didn't see it, but presumably this is the same thing:

Tom Watson calls on Labour MPs to prevent leadership contest


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2016)

Corbyn has balls of steel. This could be the beginning of a new hard man image.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 1, 2016)

I think this is my favourite line from today...



> MPs on all sides of the party were heeding Watson’s call for calm over the weekend as they consider how best to launch a challenge.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

maomao said:


> Corbyn has balls of steel. This could be the beginning of a new hard man image.


Iron Corbz lol. Couldn't get c-byn to stick, maybe that one will


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

Josef Corbyn


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Iron Corbz lol. Couldn't get c-byn to stick, maybe that one will


I actually typed 'c-byn' first but then edited. I liked c-byn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think this is my favourite line from today...


'we've thown everything we have and the bastard won't go' is what I'm taking from that.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Iron Corbz lol. Couldn't get c-byn to stick, maybe that one will


_big Corbhunas_ ?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Didn't see it, but presumably this is the same thing:
> 
> Tom Watson calls on Labour MPs to prevent leadership contest



That is priceless.

_One Labour MP said there was still hope that Corbyn would go voluntarily, but others were less patient. Another said he was not optimistic about Watson’s chances: “I don’t think Jeremy will go voluntarily. He has stubbornness in his DNA. And he could end up destroying the Labour party.”_ The democratically elected leader of just a few months ago could destroy the party with the awful thing he is doing just now.

_Allies of Eagle expect her to trigger a contest *as early *as Monday if Watson is unable to persuade Corbyn to quit._

As early as Monday.  That soon.  Only 5 days after she said she would.  If she does.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Allies of Eagle expect her to trigger a contest *as early *as Monday if Watson is unable to persuade Corbyn to quit.
> 
> As early as Monday.  That soon.  Only 5 days after she said she would.  If she does.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

so they are actually now just reduced to begging him to fuck off? And he's like 'no'  to think we live in such days as to see this fucking chaos everywhere.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2016)

I think the thread title really needs editing editor


----------



## JimW (Jul 1, 2016)

"Jeremy Corbyn's dander is up"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> That is priceless.
> 
> One Labour MP said there was still hope that Corbyn would go voluntarily, but others were less patient. Another said he was not optimistic about Watson’s chances: “I don’t think Jeremy will go voluntarily. He has stubbornness in his DNA. And he could end up destroying the Labour party.” The democratically elected leader of just a few months ago could destroy the party with the awful thing he is doing just now.
> 
> ...



"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing"


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'we've thown everything we have and the bastard won't go' is what I'm taking from that.



I know what it's _supposed_ to mean.
It's the _open_ acknowledgment that they don't view Corbyn (_or_ the 40) on that scale, _at all_...that they're claiming the right of the _entire_ PLP now, to continue waging their war (after a ceasefire for tea etc).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2016)

Corbyn still standing tall. How long before the likes of Owen Jones come crawling bad to do a u-turn after their u-turn on Iron Corbyn?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 1, 2016)

Are any individual MPs likely to get a swift deselection over this? That could upgrade the fight.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

No, there isn't any way of deselecting until closer to the election.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> No, there isn't any way of deselecting until closer to the election.


 
Maybe...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

agricola said:


> "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing"


the spice must flow


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so they are actually now just reduced to begging him to fuck off? And he's like 'no'  to think we live in such days as to see this fucking chaos everywhere.



They're not begging him, they're giving him _more time_ to think!


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2016)

Expect a bloody conference this year tho.

Either way, deselecting at this point in the parliament just leaves an independent on the benches until there's another election.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 1, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> They're not begging him, they're giving him _more time_ to think!



He'd better be making proper use of that time


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 1, 2016)

Thanks. This seems to agree with you, they need to be sentenced to 12 months in jail to enable deselection. So, what can they be jailed for?
What is deselection - and how could Labour supporters oust an MP


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the spice must flow


"Hilary Benn, you will live out your days in a pain amplifier"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "Hilary Benn, you will live out your days in a pain amplifier"


thats not in the book btw. The threat to the padishah emperor. In the book yuehs wife was put in a pain amplifier and shown to him to break his suk medics conditioning. And even then he had his vengeance. The spacing guild aren't heavily involved a the start with the book. The Bene Gesserit take center stage

/book wanker


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> They're not begging him, they're giving him _more time_ to think!


He must have time to think about whats he's done. And then say 'no' again


----------



## J Ed (Jul 2, 2016)

He who controls the membership controls the universe!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats not in the book btw. The threat to the padishah emperor. In the book yuehs wife was put in a pain amplifier and shown to him to break his suk medics conditioning. And even then he had his vengeance. The spacing guild aren't heavily involved a the start with the book. The Bene Gesserit take center stage
> 
> /book wanker


Aye, I've read the book, but can't remember the revenge. I thought the poisoned tooth thing failed?  Anyway, "Watson, a thousand deaths are too good for him".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Aye, I've read the book, but can't remember the revenge. I thought the poisoned tooth thing failed?  Anyway, "Watson, a thousand deaths are too good for him".


who left just enough desrt survival equipment for Jessica and Paul when they were being flown on a desert death flight in a harkonnen  ornithopter? Proper three quidded them imperial bastards there. And the dukes sig ring in the packs. When paul first uses Voice


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the spice must flow



and how can this be?  because he has the three-quids members back


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 2, 2016)

Soooo...what's the story with the MP's where their CLP's have objected to their no confidence votes?
Taking on board what killer b said re Tristam Hunt and that being one ward...(is there/might there be a *list*?  )


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 2, 2016)

Chukka goes off on one.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Soooo...what's the story with the MP's where their CLP's have objected to their no confidence votes?
> Taking on board what killer b said re Tristam Hunt and that being one ward...(is there/might there be a *list*?  )


List? What list?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 2, 2016)

SHUSH, YOU!


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Soooo...what's the story with the MP's where their CLP's have objected to their no confidence votes?
> Taking on board what killer b said re Tristam Hunt and that being one ward...(is there/might there be a *list*?  )


There was a meeting at my local CLP tonight, where (I was surprised to be told) the MP told them he thought the coup was a disgrace and he hadn't voted. So nothing from Preston along those lines.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> who left just enough desrt survival equipment for Jessica and Paul when they were being flown on a desert death flight in a harkonnen  ornithopter? Proper three quidded them imperial bastards there. And the dukes sig ring in the packs. When paul first uses Voice


Well done, 'young human'.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> What's all this bollux on the BBC about the right now asking JC to announce his retirement if they promise to keep being a bit lefty when he's gone.
> FFS


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well done, 'young human'.


angela eagle is no gaius helen mohiam eh?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 2, 2016)

In fact the who Blairite coup is basically this bit.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> There was a meeting at my local CLP tonight, where (I was surprised to be told) the MP told them he thought the coup was a disgrace and he hadn't voted. So nothing from Preston along those lines.



Funnily enough I thought of you after scouring THOSE lists yesterday (although I'm confused now as to whether those were all from last Sep!) looking for stuff from here (Brighton) and saw lots of Preston councillors on the support list.
What's with them not voting? Just not wanting to take part at all - objecting to the whole process? Or not wanting to nail their colours to the mast (which seems a bit lame when he IS an MP  )?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 2, 2016)

Well the MPs who voted no confidence seem to think the honourable thing for JC to have done is step down so if CLPs chose to conduct a vote of no confidence and it carries, then presumably they would heed that even though it was meaningless constitutionally, as theirs was.   So they could step down altogether to spend more time with their children, triggering a by-election, and the CLP would choose a new candidate?  They could remain an MP but cross the floor or be independent?  They could ignore?  So 172 by-elections coming up this year? 

Or there is a negotiation to split the party? 

Or we just continue for the next few years of them trying to bully him into leaving. 

Someone I know who was booked to go speak at a couple of CLP events has been cancelled.  I guess they have more important things to address those days.


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

If they leave the party or are deselected or whatever, they remain an MP until the next election (unless they resign as an MP, but that's not going to happen). No by-elections sorry.


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Funnily enough I thought of you after scouring THOSE lists yesterday (although I'm confused now as to whether those were all from last Sep!) looking for stuff from here (Brighton) and saw lots of Preston councillors on the support list.
> What's with them not voting? Just not wanting to take part at all - objecting to the whole process? Or not wanting to nail their colours to the mast (which seems a bit lame when he IS an MP  )?



Apologies, the list was from the leadership bid, but it seems to still be on the Momentum site as current.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

agricola said:


> and how can this be?  because he has the three-quids members back


jesus I just realised this is a tortured kwisatz haderach pun. Well done all.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> If they leave the party or are deselected or whatever, they remain an MP until the next election (unless they resign as an MP, but that's not going to happen). No by-elections sorry.


From By-elections



> The law also allows a seat to be declared vacant because of a Member's bankruptcy, mental illness or conviction for a serious criminal offence.



Definitely plenty of scope on the first and last there with some of these chumps


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> If they leave the party or are deselected or whatever, they remain an MP until the next election (unless they resign as an MP, but that's not going to happen). No by-elections sorry.



Well, no.  I expect not standing down in the face of a no confidence vote will be the honourable thing to do when it's them.


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

'I was elected by the constituents of Stoke on trent, not the Stoke on trent clp - and my constituents need me fighting for them in Westminster' will be the line.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Apologies, the list was from the leadership bid, but it seems to still be on the Momentum site as current.



No worries - wasn't down to you! I'd looked them up on my own after seeing it published in the press.
I'm no clearer now - wondering whether _all of that_ was a rehash of the reactions of councillors last year, framed as numbers taken in the last few days (but it's bollocks either way, with some councillors coming forwards to say they've not signed it even if it IS current and relevant)?!


----------



## Humberto (Jul 2, 2016)

What referendum next? No house of Lords, end the monarchy?


----------



## Supine (Jul 2, 2016)

Humberto said:


> What referendum next? No house of Lords, end the monarchy?



Death penalty


----------



## Humberto (Jul 2, 2016)

Supine said:


> Death penalty





What have I started?


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

Hung parliament, then we get no Lords and the death penalty!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

death to the landsraad!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2016)

Corbyn needs to come out of his front door in the morning with a statement. All the paps and Sky news etc will be there, live streaming and stuff. He's dressed in some scruffy old jeans, and a t-shirt with some blim-burn holes in:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we're living in unprecedented political times. 

I've come in for a lot of criticism over the past few days.

So today I'd like to tell what I'm going to do about it - and resolve this unacceptable situation. 

Today I would like to announce to the nation....

...that I will be trimming the bush in my front garden."


----------



## fuck seals (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> three quidded


. 

What does this mean? ... keep seeing it - or similar - on this thread.  Thanks


----------



## lefteri (Jul 2, 2016)

fuck seals said:


> .
> 
> What does this mean? ... keep seeing it - or similar - on this thread.  Thanks



you can join the labour party as a supporter for 3 quid and that gets you a vote


----------



## fuck seals (Jul 2, 2016)

lefteri said:


> you can join the labour party as a supporter for 3 quid and that gets you a vote


Ta


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2016)

The idea that Corbyn will step down if Labour MPs sign a piece of paper saying they will abide by some of his policies (this is being reported on the BBC news) is risible; why should anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn, trust those MPs who have schemed, plotted, dissembled, lied and continually ignored the expressed wishes of the membership? 

That this ludicrous suggestion is being touted just shows the weakness of the PLP members opposed to the current leadership.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 2, 2016)

It's shameful and disgraceful.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 2, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It's shameful and disgraceful.



It's also being spun as a chance for him to 'retire'; presumably this is to retire from parliamentary politics altogether. They're a class act those MPs...and never forget it's all for the good of the country...no self interest at all, oh no.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Idaho (Jul 2, 2016)

They know they can't beat him in  leadership election,  so are forced to try and persuade/cagole/plead with him to resign.


----------



## chilango (Jul 2, 2016)

If his health keeps holding up I hope he's got a very trustworthy mechanic. 

His camp really need to build something rooted with crowds they can draw.


----------



## Wilhelmina.Trav (Jul 2, 2016)

I admire Corbyn for sticking in there. Sod the Blairites!

Evey


----------



## Ole (Jul 2, 2016)

I suspect it may end up being Hilary Benn v Jeremy Corbyn. Don't know why..


----------



## free spirit (Jul 2, 2016)

Ole said:


> I suspect it may end up being Hilary Benn v Jeremy Corbyn. Don't know why..


me too, but he'll want someone else in first as the 'stalking horse' candidate to take the flak for starting the contest, he can then steam in as the unity candidate to save the party from destruction.... that'll be the storyline he'll give anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

How does it work then for labour?
Say Eagle challenges Corbyn in the PLP and wins, does that trigger a wider leadership election of the members in which others can also stand?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 2, 2016)

Labour leadership: Shadow cabinet bid to ease Corbyn out - BBC News 

'Shadow Cabinet Bid to Ease Corbyn Out' apparently. Now I'm assuming the shadow cabinet here are definitely in any way not that bunch who quit last week. Because that would be shockingly poor reporting.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> How does it work then for labour?
> Say Eagle challenges Corbyn in the PLP and wins, does that trigger a wider leadership election of the members in which others can also stand?


No, the PLP doesn't have a separate leader.  The only official challenge to make is for the job of party leader. She or whoever need 15% of the PLP to nominate her to trigger an election. Opinions vary as to whether Corbyn also needs nominating as sitting leader (probably not). After that it's one member one vote - but that actually means all individual members, members of affiliated unions and those paying £3 to register as supporters.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Labour leadership: Shadow cabinet bid to ease Corbyn out - BBC News
> 
> 'Shadow Cabinet Bid to Ease Corbyn Out' apparently. Now I'm assuming the shadow cabinet here are definitely in any way not that bunch who quit last week. Because that would be shockingly poor reporting.


Yes, it must be these people, the traitorous bastards.  Let's get some demos going outside their houses! 

The Labour Party


----------



## free spirit (Jul 2, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Labour leadership: Shadow cabinet bid to ease Corbyn out - BBC News
> 
> 'Shadow Cabinet Bid to Ease Corbyn Out' apparently. Now I'm assuming the shadow cabinet here are definitely in any way not that bunch who quit last week. Because that would be shockingly poor reporting.


I've put in a complaint about that, asking them to change it to refer to former shadow cabinet members unless they have evidence that it really is current shadow cabinet members doing this.

Online output - Style, accuracy or grammar error  - BBC News


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

Wilf said:


> No, the PLP doesn't have a separate leader.  The only official challenge to make is for the job of party leader. She or whoever need 15% of the PLP to nominate her to trigger an election. Opinions vary as to whether Corbyn also needs nominating as sitting leader (probably not). After that it's one member one vote - but that actually means all individual members, members of affiliated unions and those paying £3 to register as supporters.


So, does anyone, who wants to stand against Corbyn in the membership vote, have to throw their hat into the ring now .. ? Or can they somehow do it later on?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 2, 2016)

What's the story with this one, then?

Jeremy Corbyn rapped over 'disrespectful' behaviour during Thiepval commemoration - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

C-Byn rocks up to a Somme commemoration, and then leaves before the end, and is photographed using his phone during the event. Given the sewage and bilge that has been spewed about I'm inclined to take this one with a pinch of salt, but as it appears in the Belfast Telegraph, which is located outside the Westminster bubble. . .


----------



## free spirit (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> So, does anyone, who wants to stand against Corbyn in the membership vote, have to throw their hat into the ring now .. ? Or can they somehow do it later on?


I think that once one MP gets over 50 nominations then an election process is started, at which point there's a further call for nominations prior to the campaign proper starting and then the vote.

It seems that they all know that whoever stands first will take the most flak for dragging the party into this leadership contest, so none of them want to make the first move.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 2, 2016)

The political cosplayers of Labour Party in NI have come out for the C-man.

Labour Party’s Northern Ireland branch backs Corbyn - Belfast Newsletter

Interestingly, the Newsletter - which if you don't know is the Protestant and Unionist daily paper in Norn - notes his attendance at this ceremony, but doesn't have the stuff alleged in the Tele.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> So, does anyone, who wants to stand against Corbyn in the membership vote, have to throw their hat into the ring now .. ? Or can they somehow do it later on?


This is how it ran last time

Timetable announced for Labour Leader and Deputy Leader elections


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 2, 2016)

Sounds like one of those non stories that could be spun either way. 

Despite being under attack from disloyal MPs Corbyn was detemined to pay his respects even though his time is not his own this week.  He slipped in without fanfare or fuss as is his habit, remembering, unlike others, that those who gave up their lives are who matter today not jockeying for position in the front pews. As soon as he left the memorial his phone was ringing with news of the latest  betrayal from his own traitorous plp. 

Etc etc


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 2, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the story with this one, then?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn rapped over 'disrespectful' behaviour during Thiepval commemoration - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
> 
> C-Byn rocks up to a Somme commemoration, and then leaves before the end, and is photographed using his phone during the event. Given the sewage and bilge that has been spewed about I'm inclined to take this one with a pinch of salt, but as it appears in the Belfast Telegraph, which is located outside the Westminster bubble. . .


Commemoration services are open for public attendance surely, what is this "being invited" business to do with anything if Corbyn only went to the public area? 

Both photos with him on the phone have people in the background clearly chatting with each other, so they don't seem to be during the event. Trying to spin the story because he turned up to support the event and looked smart. 

Project Exaggerate and Lie continues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2016)

JimW said:


> Hung parliament, then we get no Lords and the death penalty!


No, that's the wrong way round: then we get the death penalty and no lords


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 2, 2016)

Follow up question;
- If he was slipping in late and uninvited, how did he get a badge saying "delegation"?


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 2, 2016)

lefteri said:


> you can join the labour party as a supporter for 3 quid and that gets you a vote



You can buy the whole fucking thing for 3 quid at the moment. In fact you could probably get Labour for 3 quid and get the Tories for free.

Wifey suffered bleed on the brain day before referendum and been in Southampton General since. On the mend now, but we've missed all the political fun and games.


----------



## newbie (Jul 2, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> You can buy the whole fucking thing for 3 quid at the moment. In fact you could probably get Labour for 3 quid and get the Tories for free.
> 
> Wifey suffered bleed on the brain day before referendum and been in Southampton General since. On the mend now, but we've missed all the political fun and games.


poor lass, a stranger on the internet wishes her and you all the best.

but you didn't miss anything, apart from some football nothing much has happened


----------



## Riklet (Jul 2, 2016)

I joined labour on a cheapo option just to stick it to the surplus cunts. And mentioned JC as one of my reasons ofc.

Jezza is better than most. And honestly i dont really care ahout the labour party but supporting him and a more progressive political direction seems like a good plan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2016)

agricola said:


> They all put their names to the other letter, the one calling on him to quit.  I suppose being criticized like that by the people responsible for Cressingham Gardens (and the rest) is the best endorsement Corbyn could get.
> 
> (edited to correct link)



I found it ever-so-slightly interesting that not only are all but one of Lambeth's *declared* Progress councillors on the list, but a majority of the Fabians too.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 2, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I am genuinely appalled:
> 
> Dare I suggest that there may be a class element to this? Corbyn is showing no such grace and elegance. And when Gordon Brown had to quit Downing St after losing the elections, he took his own sweet time about packing... I suspect being bullied and tortured at public school during your childhood makes you better at biting unpleasant bullets and gives you an appreciation of the importance of putting on a good show for the public at a time of crisis...
> 
> ...


And she's defriended me. Best all round.


----------



## Sue (Jul 2, 2016)

Neil Kinnock weighing in now. This 'Corbyn must go to save the party from destruction' nonsense is really doing my head in.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jul 2, 2016)

I don't follow mainstream press, is the law of diminishing returns having an effect yet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

Sue said:


> Neil Kinnock weighing in now. This 'Corbyn must go to save the party from destruction' nonsense is really doing my head in.


may he fall endlessly into the sea. Guts the labour left, fails to win a GE. The twat


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

Norton Folgate said:


> I think poor Jeremy's number was up as soon as this appeared in the quality press:  Local Elections: ‘Corbyn is Competent’ Shock


You seem to be spamming links to the same site, one I presume you are associated with. Poor form.


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2016)

Liverpool


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

Corbyn this weekend:


----------



## maomao (Jul 2, 2016)

Sue said:


> Neil Kinnock weighing in now. This 'Corbyn must go to save the party from destruction' nonsense is really doing my head in.


Another fucking expert in electability. Daft cunt.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 2, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Corbyn this weekend:
> View attachment 89129





Corbyn's final moments if it comes to the worst.


----------



## Wilhelmina.Trav (Jul 2, 2016)

free spirit said:


> me too, but he'll want someone else in first as the 'stalking horse' candidate to take the flak for starting the contest, he can then steam in as the unity candidate to save the party from destruction.... that'll be the storyline he'll give anyway.



Probably what will happen. Typical backstabbing behaviour 

Evey


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Corbyn's final moments if it comes to the worst.



That's what I was thinking


----------



## YouSir (Jul 2, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's what I was thinking



My version had video though... so... yeah.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

Mind you, he's already been stabbed 172 times, so maybe he's more like Rasputin than Tony Montana


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>




It wasn't a meeting of the CLP. It was a meeting of the West branch. There are 3 branches in Stoke Central CLP who meet separately, and then there are main CLP meetings which bring together everyone. 

So, minor point perhaps, but it's best not to be too hasty in saying the CLP as a whole has voted, because they haven't. (There was no CLP meeting that night.)


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 2, 2016)

Is it just me, or does it look like more people are marching for Corbyn than are marching for the EU?


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Is it just me, or does it look like more people are marching for Corbyn than are marching for the EU?


treelover's pic is of a pro-Corbyn rally I think


----------



## realitybites (Jul 2, 2016)

So what's the game? Why do Jeremy's aides not let him have his say? He's been keeping quiet throughout the referendum the coup.. Part of the silent majority? Has it been decided that Somehow, not even entering into the arguments that shouldn't even be taking place, his profile gets stronger? 
Knowing how he usually confronts misdoings, this must be really infuriating for him.. 
Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

It is all very well Corbyn hanging tough and not resigning, but if it comes to a leadership election in which he stands and wins, he will still have to be able to cobble together a shadow cabinet from the existing PLP which is still likely to be a mess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

they're saying he 'lunged' at a reporter:
Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis


----------



## inva (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> It is all very well Corbyn hanging tough and not resigning, but if it comes to a leadership election in which he stands and wins, he will still have to be able to cobble together a shadow cabinet from the existing PLP which is still likely to be a mess.


I thought he'd already got another shadow cabinet?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 2, 2016)

inva said:


> I thought he'd already got another shadow cabinet?


He has, but as far as I can tell they are all less than the first choices.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'I was elected by the constituents of Stoke on trent, not the Stoke on trent clp - and my constituents need me fighting for them in Westminster' will be the line.



Which might sound good but isn't factually correct. The membership give them their mandate, not the wider electorate.

Getting the shites to recognise that is another matter.


----------



## inva (Jul 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> He has, but as far as I can tell they are all less than the first choices.


given how few of the parliamentary lot support him they might be the only choices...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 2, 2016)

Oh for pitys sake, he turned to confront him, stepped towards him...no more.

They'll end up poisoning him or something won't they? They have almost tried everything else.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> they're saying he 'lunged' at a reporter:
> Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis



lol he didn't lunge. He turned around to reply. Fucking shameful desperation.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2016)

Well, my membership card should have arrived in time for Stoke Central's next CLP meeting. It's not for another couple of weeks though, and with our rapidly changing (read: chaotic as fuck oh my god what the fuck is happening) political landscape who knows whether there will even need to be a vote of no confidence in Trissy. 

Either way, I'm sure the evening will be entertaining.


----------



## inva (Jul 2, 2016)

hard left thug corbyn assaults reporter


----------



## YouSir (Jul 2, 2016)

To spin off a Trump quote, Corbyn could shoot a reporter in the middle of the street and people would still back him.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 2, 2016)

This thread's title was just asking for trouble.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 2, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This thread's title was just asking for trouble.



It's lucky, can't change it now or he'll have a heart attack.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 2, 2016)

YouSir said:


> It's lucky, can't change it now or he'll have a heart attack.



Isn't he a vegetarian teetotaller? Therefore a heart attack seems highly unlikely!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

maomao said:


> Another fucking expert in electability. Daft cunt.


i've listened that supposedly amazing speech he gave when kicking militant out and it was poor. Full of passion but passion is no substitute for quality. Except when I say it is. Its essentially one of the most self righteous chest beating rants you'll ever hear. It's not even good on rehtorical grounds


----------



## YouSir (Jul 2, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Isn't he a vegetarian teetotaller? Therefore a heart attack seems highly unlikely!



A 'heart attack', said with a wink and a nod as Tom Watson hauls a rolled up carpet into the canal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

YouSir said:


> A 'heart attack', said with a wink and a nod as Tom Watson hauls a rolled up carpet into the canal.


he'd have an embolism himself doing that, mans three weights of me. Possibly four.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he'd have an embolism himself doing that, mans three weights of me. Possibly four.



On account of his massive balls?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> i've listened that supposedly amazing speech he gave when kicking militant out and it was poor. Full of passion but passion is no substitute for quality. Except when I say it is. Its essentially one of the most self righteous chest beating rants you'll ever hear. It's not even good on rehtorical grounds


He was certainly passionate the night before the '92 election.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 2, 2016)

Have we had this yet?


----------



## hash tag (Jul 2, 2016)

Jezzer shows some passion at last, but loosing your cool at a female journo, hmmm Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis


----------



## newbie (Jul 2, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Which might sound good but isn't factually correct. The membership give them their mandate, not the wider electorate.
> 
> Getting the shites to recognise that is another matter.


er, you sure?  Surely their mandate comes from the manifesto they put to the public?  My understanding since the days of the Militant is that Labour MPs are not beholden to their CLPs. That's why there is no reselection option.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 2, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Jezzer shows some passion at last, but loosing your cool at a female journo, hmmm Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis




The person he turned to answer/confront was a man who accused him of running away from the media. Try as you might, all you are managing to do is show what a absolute twit you are.

Corbyn the misogynist now is it?


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

it's like the last two pages haven't happened.


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

Here he is about to judo throw a pensioner who had the temerity to mention Angela Eagle in a positive light


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

And here he is menacing a reporter with a marrow, for asking him why he hasn't named his cat:


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

And look who he's give the communities brief to in his rump shadow cabinet


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2016)

next up: Iron Corbz tombstones a kid, thusly showing that he is a savage brute and a relic for using such an old school move


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

Here he is nutting a woman in the face. The bastard!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 2, 2016)

Look at her terrified expression


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> lol he didn't lunge. He turned around to reply. Fucking shameful desperation.


Worst lunge in lunge history.


----------



## realitybites (Jul 2, 2016)

hash tag said:


>



Being held back. Or someone grabbing his arm to get him to go? That's the problem with media these days, a snapshot of a moment, ineffective at telling an honest story. Couple that with some dickish journo title and hey presto.. Corbs the villian


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Here he is nutting a woman in the face. The bastard!


Hello is that Samaritan's ring back?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 2, 2016)

Of course, it's still his fault for ever being in a position that could possibly be exploited by somebody lying about it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

Joins hooligan firm.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

I've never seen Theresa May lunge at anyone. Just saying.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

Setting up a paedo ring on tinterwebs.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Of course, it's still his fault for ever being in a position that could possibly be exploited by somebody lying about it.


Indeed. In fact Angela Eagle knew how this would turn out, she's just been trying to save him from his (thuggish) self.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

ISIS finger!






HITLER!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've never seen Theresa May lunge at anyone. Just saying.


she doesn't need to. she's a giant:


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

To be honest, the day you Trotskite scum 3 quidders turned Liz Kendall down, this day was inevitable.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2016)

Corbyn has given a car aerial a dirty look. He Must Go.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> she doesn't need to. she's a giant:


That's _substance_.


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Corbyn has given a car aerial a dirty look. He Must Go.


Security footage that helped stop his TWOCing spree last May


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

Was alive in the 70s. And we all know what that means.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2016)

I've heard Jeremy Corbyn acid tabs are circulating around south London. We Must Stop This Drug Menace. Think Of The Children. Corbyn Must Go.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I've heard Jeremy Corbyn acid tabs are circulating around south London. We Must Stop This Drug Menace. Think Of The Children. Corbyn Must Go.



I fully expect this story to appear in the Guardian within a couple of hours, and on the BBC main news tonight.


----------



## tommers (Jul 2, 2016)

What are they all so scared of?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 2, 2016)

Referring to a large breasted party researcher. The foul pervert must be deposed.


----------



## maomao (Jul 2, 2016)

So the Blairite scum have realised how ridiculous they look and have handed over to their friends in the media for a good old-fashioned hounding. Don't think I could deal with that. Good luck Iron balls.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 2, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Jezzer shows some passion at last, but loosing your cool at a female journo, hmmm Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis


The Torygraph? Hey, thanks for that.


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

maomao said:


> So the Blairite scum have realised how ridiculous they look and have handed over to their friends in the media for a good old-fashioned hounding. Don't think I could deal with that. Good luck Iron balls.


they've been hand in glove throughout, as the chap in the antisemitism report press conference so helpfully pointed out.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 2, 2016)

Don't think this has been posted yet

The political elite need to lay off Jeremy Corbyn | LabourList



			
				Angela Eagle said:
			
		

> Over thirty-five years in the Labour Party, including my time as Chair of the National Executive Committee and National Policy Forum,  has taught me that the collective wisdom of our members and grassroots should never be dismissed. All views should be respected whatever end of the political spectrum they are.
> The Labour Party is a broad church and all of our constituency activists and trade unionists, Councillors, members and registered supporters have a legitimate place in deciding our new Leadership team under our rules.  Attacking those for supporting a particular candidate is a dangerous game and not in the spirt this election should be conducted.
> The talk of coups,  remarks about not serving in Shadow Cabinets and former Prime Minister’s telling people to get ‘heart transplants’ have no place here.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 2, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Jezzer shows some passion at last, but loosing your cool at a female journo, hmmm Jeremy Corbyn held back by aides after furious confrontation with reporter who asked if he was 'running away' from Labour crisis


"leave it darren, 'e ain't werf it!"


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2016)

Here he is threatening a builder with the gulag for having a non-standard safety helmet:


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 2, 2016)

From The Dictator Spectator. Apologies if it's already been posted. The last paragraph is a belter.
Why Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right not to resign as Labour leader | Coffee House


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2016)




----------



## Cakes (Jul 2, 2016)

JimW said:


> Here he is about to judo throw a pensioner who had the temerity to mention Angela Eagle in a positive light


Please can we have a thread just of these?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 2, 2016)

tommers said:


> What are they all so scared of?


Mild socialism.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2016)

Cakes said:


> Please can we have a thread just of these?



Thread started.


----------



## Sue (Jul 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Was alive in the 70s. And we all know what that means.


And with Cate Blanchet (sp?) too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 2, 2016)




----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 2, 2016)

potential dodgyness from my MP

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Utterly incredible from Rob Marris <a href="Rob Marris MP (@WSW_Labour) on Twitter">@WSW_Labour</a> / seemingly deleted files of huge importance to sabotage leadership &gt; <a href="Aaron Bastani on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/WNFWW4IYru</a></p>&mdash; Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) <a href="">July 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What have you heard. Say it here and now. Or basically you're just using the ITV tweets to give an aura of informed insider. Fuck off. esp with the 'disturbing'.
> 
> You can't even get the names right you iphone twat.



Lol here's the pathetic old politico who still hasn't got a clue! Good to see you're still limping on through life waste man.[emoji12]


.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 2, 2016)

Latest moves seem to be a face saving exercise to pull all sides back from the brink...


.


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> potential dodgyness from my MP



Crazy if true, especially as it will be very easy to prove.


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

'Wasteman'?


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2016)

I think this shows the Liverpool one was actually Massive!


Oh, and look at all those seasoned hard left activists/ entryists/ saboteurs, etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 2, 2016)

agricola said:


> Crazy if true, especially as it will be very easy to prove.



It says from his office....they would be able to tell which log on it was done from though surely?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'Wasteman'?



Worthless/waste of space. Yoot speak.


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> potential dodgyness from my MP
> 
> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Utterly incredible from Rob Marris <a href="Rob Marris MP (@WSW_Labour) on Twitter">@WSW_Labour</a> / seemingly deleted files of huge importance to sabotage leadership &gt; <a href="Aaron Bastani on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/WNFWW4IYru</a></p>&mdash; Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) <a href="">July 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>




Looks appalling.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 2, 2016)

this is the article Bastani's screenshot is from

Jeremy Corbyn aides refuse Tom Watson one-on-one meeting


----------



## Sue (Jul 2, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> this is the article Bastani's screenshot is from
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn aides refuse Tom Watson one-on-one meeting



Good. Fuck him

On an slightly related note. Was meeting a friend earlier, got there a bit early, all the people next to me had been on a march in central London. All the talk was about Corbyn and the fuckers in the PLP.

Friend arrived. I've known her for twenty years and she's not really into politics.  Within five minutes she was going on about the fuckers in the PLP.

A common theme seems to be emerging...


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Worthless/waste of space. Yoot speak.


Yeah, I know. I was wondering why the fuck Kid_Eternity was posting it tbh. From his iPhone.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> From The Dictator Spectator. Apologies if it's already been posted. The last paragraph is a belter.
> Why Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right not to resign as Labour leader | Coffee House



Worth quoting as it goes:


> Jeremy Corbyn was, under this system, elected Leader of the Labour Party by almost 60 per cent of the party membership. Yesterday the general secretaries of ten of the country’s largest trade unions pledged their continued confidence in Corbyn as Leader. If Labour MPs find this state of affairs uncomfortable, it is always open to them to resign their parliamentary seats and fight by-elections on this issue. That would be an honourable way out. If they recoil from this prospect, a period of silence on their parts would be very welcome.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2016)

newbie said:


> er, you sure?  Surely their mandate comes from the manifesto they put to the public?  My understanding since the days of the Militant is that Labour MPs are not beholden to their CLPs. That's why there is no reselection option.



They answer to their CLP members. Those are the people who select them, and are responsible for their reselection. The wider electorate are, more or less, electing "the Labour candidate," and the membership decide who that candidate should be. Labour represent the electorate, and the MP is answerable to the membership. Of course, how things work in the minds of voters, and probably how it should be more generally speaking, is that the MP answers to them. But technically that's not the case.

Edit:

Someone else puts it better than me:



> It's that hoary old chestnut again: "Labour MPs have a greater mandate than Corbyn." They don't. Likewise Tory MPs don't have a greater mandate than Dave or whoever their new leader is going to be. In our delightful electoral system, each individual constituency elects a member to represent them in Parliament. On paper, the electorate are sovereign. But substantively, they're not: parties are. As has been the case ever since political parties emerged, the majority of members returned are successful candidates of a particular party. If a seat happens to be 'safe', which just so happens to comprise the majority of seats at Westminster, then the only way of removing an incumbent MP against their will is not by standing a candidate in election but removing them _through an internal selection process_. The majority of MPs might pretend they represent the constituency, but it's the organisation in that patch which is really sovereign, and this can be confirmed in two simple ways. First, how many MPs now sitting in the Commons would be there were it not for the party label. All of them? Half? A handful? And that applies pretty much across political divides. Second, if the party isn't really sovereign then why the abject horror whenever mandatory selection becomes a topic of debate? Yes, it might be a recipe for chaos and internal warfare as incumbents and challengers constantly scrap it out for the Westminster spoils, but that itself underlines the real repository of power in our electoral system. Woe betide any MP who really believes the waffle about personal mandates and so on.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 3, 2016)

Loving this one:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2016)

ello mocha, nice to see you back. Worlds gone mad.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2016)

RICKROLLED well go away again


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ello mocha, nice to see you back.



I'm never too far. It's just that sometimes words seem to leave me so I sit at the table in silence as others say a lot that I'd like to say or open my eyes and ears to that which I didn't think to think. 



DotCommunist said:


> Worlds gone mad.



We've been due the nadir of the Roman Empire for a while now. I say: Let the herd revolt and get that over and done with. 




DotCommunist said:


> RICKROLLED well go away again



If you gotta be rickrolled this is not a bad way for it to happen. But hey, at least you got the joke. It was a job explaining all facets of it to my mum. I'm filled with a renewed appreciation for being (and feeling) heard. 

Anyhoo! I suppose I found the video a lighthearted way of saying I don't think JC's time is up. He's fought perceived lost causes all of his life. It will take a lot more than 172 vultures to fell him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 3, 2016)

Another Gilligoon smear job. 


> However, like many on the hard Left, he had a highly privileged upbringing, attending the Dragon School, Oxford, one of the top prep schools in England, then Winchester College, also the alma mater of Seumas Milne – Mr Corbyn’s press spokesman,
> James Schneider: face of Momentum activists - with education and childhood home 'paid for by fraud'


----------



## cantsin (Jul 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Another Gilligoon smear job.



Said it before, but just not sure Schneiders the right person to have upfront for Momentum - would much prefer to have Mat Wrack (FBU) as the media spokesman, really impressed with him in the last week or so .


----------



## newbie (Jul 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They answer to their CLP members. Those are the people who select them, and are responsible for their reselection. The wider electorate are, more or less, electing "the Labour candidate," and the membership decide who that candidate should be. Labour represent the electorate, and the MP is answerable to the membership. Of course, how things work in the minds of voters, and probably how it should be more generally speaking, is that the MP answers to them. But technically that's not the case.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Someone else puts it better than me:


what you say may have some practical relevance but is not the 'technical' position.  While the CLP does select candidates and nod through the 'trigger' reselection process, the labour party does not 'represent the electorate' and an MP is not 'answerable to the membership'.  That would be a delegate not a representative.



The Politics Today Companion To the British Constitution

as for your quote, this bit is nonsense: "_the only way of removing an incumbent MP against their will is not by standing a candidate in election but removing them through an internal selection process._"  (ignoring bankruptcy and crime and so on) an incumbent MP can only be removed by the electorate during an election.  A CLP that deselects risks losing the election to the former MP running as an independent.

Whatever the practical politics need to keep the relationship between MP and CLP cosy, in the event of a dispute the CLP cannot force the MP to be answerable, therefor they're not. That's pretty much the fundament of representative democracy.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 3, 2016)

Shirley Williams has just said that Corbyn is in hock to the SWP! If she believes that she is a fool. If she doesn't then she's a liar. Her comments were echoed by Edwina Curry. Perhaps this is the latest anti-Corbyn tactic that will be employed?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 3, 2016)

Kinnock Snr on The Marr Show says those who voted for Corbyn have to ask if they want to see their principles enacted through democratic power, implication being Corbyn can't achieve that.

Of course, completely missing the point that neither can any of the other likely candidates, as regardless of their abaility to win any GE they won't have anything approaching the principles Corbyn's supporters are looking for.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 3, 2016)

On that narrow point Corbyn can enact my principles even if he doesn't win an election by holding the tories to account and providing an opposition to them that the 172 can't or won't provide.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 3, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Kinnock Snr on The Marr Show says those who voted for Corbyn have to ask if they want to see their principles enacted through democratic power, implication being Corbyn can't achieve that.
> 
> Of course, *completely missing the point that neither can any of the other likely candidates*, as regardless of their abaility to win any GE they won't have anything approaching the principles Corbyn's supporters are looking for.



This factor hasn't been paid any attention in the media. Are any other leadership candidates electoral gold? Of course not.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 3, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> On that narrow point Corbyn can enact my principles even if he doesn't win an election by holding the tories to account and providing an opposition to them that the 172 can't or won't provide.


Well, quite. Sadly the majority of Labour MPs think being an effective opposition means simply sitting in different seats to the Government.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 3, 2016)

dunno if mentioned ...but down in OZ 



> Labour sources suggested that there was no way Corbyn, a veteran peace campaigner, would be prepared to stand down before Wednesday and pass up the opportunity to denounce Blair from the dispatch box and TV studios.
> The Labour leader will go to Downing Street to read the 2.6m-word Chilcot report on Tuesday in advance of its release and will lead the party’s response. He has suggested in the past that Blair should be in the dock and aides say he is prepared to repeat that claim.
> “He won’t resign until after he gets to crucify Blair over Chilcot,” one Labour source said.
> “He’s going to say that Blair’s a full-on war criminal. He’s very interested by this Salmond idea that you get 12 people calling for him to be extradited to the Hague. He thinks that will fire up Momentum.”
> ...


Blairites left their attack to late to protect their man
Corbyn gets his moment of glory at the head of a demo ...which he will have "owned"

Nocookies


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2016)

The 172 back stabbers have been dis-inivited from the Durham Miners Gala - and watson is being replaced as speaker by Dennis Skinner.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 3, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn’s peace deal is a political masterstroke

*The Labour Party is big – very nearly the biggest socialist party in Europe – but not as big as its leader, it seems.*

After a week of backstabbing, psychological warfare, calumny and threats, Jeremy Corbyn has offered rebel Labour MPs a chance to come back into the fold and help forge a new relationship with the European Union after the vote for Brexit on June 23.

It is a huge, symbolic gesture – an offer of amnesty for all, despite the bitterness of the past seven days. Anyone capable of that deserves huge respect, even from those who don’t agree.

Mr Corbyn said the party must work with respect for the British people’s democratic decision – and added that MPs must also respect the democratic decision of the Labour membership to make him the party’s leader.

I am ready to reach out to Labour MPs who didn’t accept my election and oppose my leadership – and work with the whole party to provide the alternative the country needs.

But they also need to respect the democracy of our party and the views of Labour’s membership, which has increased by more than 60,000 in the past week alone.

Our priority must be to mobilise this incredible force to oppose the Tories, and ensure people in Britain have a real political alternative.

Those who want to challenge my leadership are free to do so in a democratic contest, in which I will be a candidate.

But the responsibility of our whole party is to stand up in united opposition to the Tory Government – and in support of decent jobs and pay, affordable housing, rights at work and an economy that works for all.

The whole country needs Labour to heal the divisions of the referendum campaign and offer a winning alternative to the Tories at the next election – whenever it comes.

It is a masterstroke – forcing the rebel MPs to face the fact that they are threatening democracy on two levels and offering them a chance to reconsider, before it is too late.

It is also an ultimatum: Co-operate or challenge.

In the background, the ever-growing ranks of the Labour membership are watching.

*And they won’t be as magnanimous as Mr Corbyn if the backstabbers don’t back down.*


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 3, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> this is the article Bastani's screenshot is from
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn aides refuse Tom Watson one-on-one meeting



So Rob Marris has now stated he did delete documents as claimed, but that they were 'his'

a) not quite sure how that works
b) irrelevant of who the information 'belongs' to, if he deleted information which was to be used in the fight against the TU bill he's a cunt


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> this is the article Bastani's screenshot is from
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn aides refuse Tom Watson one-on-one meeting



If true, it's hard to deny that bits of that are very damaging to Corbyn:



> Jeremy Corbyn’s aides are refusing to let Labour deputy leader Tom Watson hold a one-to-one meeting with him, claiming that Watson will try to “bully” the leader into resigning.
> 
> A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care”. “They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said.
> 
> “We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”



However, I guess the trick is in the wording - "a senior source, close to the leader".  Vague enough to actually be an opponent recycling and plumping up a rumour to portray Corbyn as weak.  The use of 'close to' and 'we' later on in the quote, by all normal uses of English and reporting conventions, imply it really is someone in the Corbyn camp who has said all this. So, it's either a case of the guardian being massively dishonest (  ), or some corbyn courtier being utterly naive.


----------



## killer b (Jul 3, 2016)

The latest narrative that they're pushing hard is Corbyn as a weak, tired old man who's had enough, held captive at the top of the party by his Stalinist circle. It's all nonsense.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> The latest narrative that they're pushing hard is Corbyn as a weak, tired old man who's had enough, held captive at the top of the party by his Stalinist circle. It's all nonsense.



Not even well executed. One day he's an extremist destroying the party, next he's antisemitic and now he's a broken old man. As with a leadership candidate they're incapable of sticking with a coherent line.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The 172 back stabbers have been dis-inivited from the Durham Miners Gala - and watson is being replaced as speaker by Dennis Skinner.



Ah, 'disinvited.' Are we against no platforming these days or for it.


----------



## Cid (Jul 3, 2016)

newbie said:


> what you say may have some practical relevance but is not the 'technical' position.  While the CLP does select candidates and nod through the 'trigger' reselection process, the labour party does not 'represent the electorate' and an MP is not 'answerable to the membership'.  That would be a delegate not a representative.
> 
> 
> View attachment 89153
> ...



Context.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> So Rob Marris has now stated he did delete documents as claimed, but that they were 'his'
> 
> a) not quite sure how that works
> b) irrelevant of who the information 'belongs' to, if he deleted information which was to be used in the fight against the TU bill he's a cunt


Yes, he should be suspended by the party.  Almost certainly won't happen, but he's fucking scum when you consider the real material interests involved here - which he is choosing to see as just another bit in the anti-corbyn game.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 3, 2016)

The 'Quality Journalism' banner at the top of the Graun site rings hollower with each passing moment.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Not even well executed. One day he's an extremist destroying the party, next he's antisemitic and now he's a broken old man. As with a leadership candidate they're incapable of sticking with a coherent line.


It's like one of those diets where you have red days and green days (though, they of course have neither).


----------



## realitybites (Jul 3, 2016)

Dandred said:


> Jeremy Corbyn’s peace deal is a political masterstroke



Bets are on then. Who do you think will be the first MPs to come crawling back?


----------



## newbie (Jul 3, 2016)

Cid said:


> Context.


in a period when the country is split down the middle on a massively important issue I think who decides how MPs should vote is very pertinent.  As is often the case, our discussions here on Urban will later be mirrored in the mainstream.


----------



## inva (Jul 3, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Not even well executed. One day he's an extremist destroying the party, next he's antisemitic and now he's a broken old man. As with a leadership candidate they're incapable of sticking with a coherent line.


i don't know that it's necessarily meant to be coherent. I think they're just trying to throw anything and everything at him to maintain a constant pressure that will prevent him from effectively doing whatever it is he does as party leader and eventually force him out.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 3, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Bets are on then. Who do you think will be the first MPs to come crawling back?



Probably nonentities like my own MP. Ones who weren't going to get anything out of the coup and just chose the wrong side. Staying with the losing side just means she'll get stick from the CLP and probably no support from her coup buddies.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 3, 2016)

inva said:


> i don't know that it's necessarily meant to be coherent. I think they're just trying to throw anything and everything at him to maintain a constant pressure that will prevent him from effectively doing whatever it is he does as party leader and eventually force him out.



Just undermines them though, one lie can stick, a thousand of them just looks desperate. Especially with no moves on a leadership bid.


----------



## inva (Jul 3, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Just undermines them though, one lie can stick, a thousand of them just looks desperate. Especially with no moves on a leadership bid.


I think it is the effect on Corbyn himself that they're banking on, or at least that's the only way I can see that it works.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 3, 2016)

The backstabber line now seems to be to hunt around for polls that suggest Corbyn's support is flagging among the membership and then spin them for all their worth. Obvious problems in that they aren't taking into account 3 quidders and affiliates. Even worse Corbyn has proven that he is rather good at winning leadership elections. He's kind of good at rallying support and he's way ahead of any potential opposition as he's already in campaigning mode. Polls are just snap shots after all. And this leadership election is going to be on the back of the Chilcot Enquiry and all the recriminations from that. The alternative of keeping him off the ballot unless he has 20% support from MPs/MEPs will cause such ructions it will leave any leadership victory hollow with many members likely not even recognising it. I can't fault the rebels for their well executed coup attempt but the timing is insane, Corbyn hasn't done anything to alienate his support among the membership except for the most bitter remain supports. He needs to be doing much worse if they are to succeed and Tory infighting and Chilcott are going to steal the rebel's thunder.

But the interesting thing is that the rebels or at least their backers seem to be believing their own obviously spun rhetoric. It's a good case study in mass delusion. How the hell did they manage to rally 172 MP's to their cause? Not just anti-Corbyn cause but the "a coup is a good idea" cause.

I wonder if McCluskey and the union leaderships will be able to negotiate between this Mexican stand-off. If they can't the Labour Party is in serious trouble.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 3, 2016)

McCluskey: Jeremy Corbyn 'is a man of steel', 03/07/2016, The Andrew Marr Show - BBC One


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, he should be suspended by the party.  Almost certainly won't happen, but he's fucking scum when you consider the real material interests involved here - which he is choosing to see as just another bit in the anti-corbyn game.



He's now released a statement

My Treasury Notes


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 3, 2016)

inva said:


> I think it is the effect on Corbyn himself that they're banking on, or at least that's the only way I can see that it works.



I've had a mini-version of this thrown at me before, but scattergun attacks are often less worrying because they're so obviously bogus. You just end up shrugging your shoulders "oh another one?" If well picked it's the same lie hammered over and over that gets under the skin.


----------



## Cakes (Jul 3, 2016)

realitybites said:


> Bets are on then. Who do you think will be the first MPs to come crawling back?


I'd be pleased for this. Would rather my MP crawled back than tries to front it out after the Eagle has landed. Was fucking furious when she resigned but it didn't feel constructive to join the calls for her deselection and votes of no confidence.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> The latest narrative that they're pushing hard is Corbyn as a weak, tired old man who's had enough, held captive at the top of the party by his Stalinist circle. It's all nonsense.


There's a Dr Who episode, where he gets rid of the PM by spreading a rumour that 'she looks tired'.  Dr Who... Malcolm Tucker... New Labour... art imitating a real shite.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> There's a Dr Who episode, where he gets rid of the PM by spreading a rumour that 'she looks tired'.  Dr Who... Malcolm Tucker... New Labour... art imitating a real shite.



It was Tennant, wasn't it? She died during his tenure. Her final episode.

Minor point, I know


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've never seen Theresa May lunge at anyone. Just saying.



Being a Tory, she has people to do her lunging for her.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If true, it's hard to deny that bits of that are very damaging to Corbyn:



Dunno about Watson but (unless I'm recalling it wrong), Burnham had tweeted 'not true, Dan' to the journo in response to the bit of that story involving him.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 3, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> He's now released a statement
> 
> My Treasury Notes



Not all than thinly veiled dig at Corbyn and his remaining shadow cabinet. Plus the stuff about not being asked for the info... Why not just offer it? If it was useful research then how was it anything but malice to just delete it? Hinting at corruption too, which a: seems desperate and b: would presumably have happened while he was there and silent about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was Tennant, wasn't it? She died during his tenure. Her final episode.
> 
> Minor point, I know


yes. He just leans in and quitely says to one person 'doesn't she look tired' and what with him being a godlike genius and all it works.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Knotted said:


> The backstabber line now seems to be to hunt around for polls that suggest Corbyn's support is flagging among the membership and then spin them for all their worth. Obvious problems in that they aren't taking into account 3 quidders and affiliates. Even worse Corbyn has proven that he is rather good at winning leadership elections. He's kind of good at rallying support and he's way ahead of any potential opposition as he's already in campaigning mode. Polls are just snap shots after all. And this leadership election is going to be on the back of the Chilcot Enquiry and all the recriminations from that. The alternative of keeping him off the ballot unless he has 20% support from MPs/MEPs will cause such ructions it will leave any leadership victory hollow with many members likely not even recognising it. I can't fault the rebels for their well executed coup attempt but the timing is insane, Corbyn hasn't done anything to alienate his support among the membership except for the most bitter remain supports. He needs to be doing much worse if they are to succeed and Tory infighting and Chilcott are going to steal the rebel's thunder.
> 
> But the interesting thing is that the rebels or at least their backers seem to be believing their own obviously spun rhetoric. It's a good case study in mass delusion. How the hell did they manage to rally 172 MP's to their cause? Not just anti-Corbyn cause but the "a coup is a good idea" cause.
> 
> I wonder if McCluskey and the union leaderships will be able to negotiate between this Mexican stand-off. If they can't the Labour Party is in serious trouble.


I suppose they rallied the 172 - their strongest card in the struggle so far - purely on the basis that it was a secret ballot.  But yes, I think I think your analysis of the balance of forces and how it might play out right through to another leadership vote is correct. Trouble is, what emerges at the end of all this, even if its a crisis entirely manufactured by the blairites.  Not likely a Labour Party that's in better shape to win a first past the post general election. If he presses on and wins another leadership vote, the Blairites are not likely to go off quietly and play with their money.  We may well be past the point where a 'unity candidate' could hold the thing together, and in some ways that might be the worst outcome anyway (the sniping and briefing would just carry on, along with a few revenge deselections).


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was Tennant, wasn't it? She died during his tenure. Her final episode.
> 
> Minor point, I know


I know, but just didn't want facts to get in the way of my torturous analogy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2016)

David Tennant is deffo the unity candidate we need at these troubled times


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Dunno about Watson but (unless I'm recalling it wrong), Burnham had tweeted 'not true, Dan' to the journo in response to the bit of that story involving him.


I think there are two meetings that corbyn is reported to have rejected - the one with Watson that his aides are supposed to be 'protecting' him from and another one with "a delegation of shadow cabinet ministers, led by shadow home secretary Andy Burnham."  I'm not even clear if the 'shadow cabinet ministers' they mention are current or previous.  Whole thing is astonishing, headless chickens.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> David Tennant is deffo the unity candidate we need at these troubled times


William Hartnell and Michael Foot - never seen in the same Tardis together.   I'm beginning to see the whole history of the Labour Party in a new light.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2016)

paul mgann is the kinnock


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Somebody on here was saying the plotters must wake up and decide on a desperate theme for the day, it really is looking like that. 'We've fired the anti-Semitism torpedoes, it's hardly dented the hull plating Sir'.   'Right, load up the ageism canon!'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2016)

Slightly odd claim in the opening offering of LRB's round up of reactions. Eton/oxbridge educated _expert _(and next in line for the families viscountcy) David Runciman suggests that if Corbyn hadn't won the labour leadership election in sept 2015 then Cameron - in may 2013 -  wouldn't have decided to hold the referendum.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 3, 2016)

The anti-Corbyn coup is the Westminster bubble vs the ordinary men and women of Labour

OVER the last week, Labour MPs should have been to trying to concentrate on bringing the country together in a time of great peril after the Brexit vote and making sure the entire parliamentary party was focused on holding the Tories to account.

Colleagues could have been providing leadership against the resurgent racism that so many of their constituents are terrified by.

Instead, Labour MPs have spent time in huddles with their fellow inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — lobby correspondents.

These journalists, supposed political experts, did not see the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon coming last summer and have never supported him.

Accordingly they are now using their columns to tell him to walk away.

Colleagues have contrived a “vote of no confidence” that has absolutely no basis in the Labour rule book. There was no notice. It was tabled on Monday and the vote held the following day. No institution would run an important ballot in this way. And it was a secret ballot.

If MPs didn’t like Corbyn then they always had the option of a leadership challenge under the rule book.

It could have been conducted in an orderly, perhaps low-key fashion, at least until Parliament went into recess in just three weeks’ time.

All this was necessary because some Labour MPs expressly did not want any time to consult with ordinary party members. On the contrary, they were terrified that their members might actually find out how they voted. Hence the haste and the secrecy.

This attempt to hound Corbyn out of the leadership has been planned for months and was entirely outside the rules.

Blaming him for the Brexit vote was just a pretext. The truth is that Corbyn travelled thousands of miles mobilising Labour voters. 

Nearly two-thirds of Labour voted to remain. If David Cameron had been able to persuade a similar proportion of his Tories to vote for Remain, we would still be in the EU.

During the referendum, Jeremy’s position of remain and reform, the only honest one of the campaigns, was ignored wholesale by a media more interested in the drama of Tory splits.

Jeremy argued that the answer to the inadequacies of the EU was not to storm out, but to work productively with other European progressive parties to push for a more accountable and democratic Europe that prioritises jobs, sustainable growth and workers’ rights. This was more in tune with public opinion than the position of any other main party leader.

One academic study during the campaign found that the mainstream media had included a Labour spokesperson in just 4 per cent of TV coverage as a whole.

Now, those who claim that a massive onslaught of more austerity will make this situation more stable couldn’t be more wrong.

Now is the time to break with the failed approach that the Tories have taken which has already left this economy more exposed to shocks elsewhere in the world.

With George Osborne saying we need yet more cuts and tax rises, Jeremy and shadow chancellor John McDonnell have been trying to outline a way to protect the people of Britain’s living standards, jobs and public services based on a credible economic strategy that puts investment at its core.

This is exactly what is needed when government policies that have promoted the financialisation of our economies and public services, thereby valuing profit over people, have alienated so many people.

These policies come from a Tory government slashing public services and widening inequality under the dubious banner of austerity — but many MPs have chosen to attack Jeremy rather than expose the Tories’ failures and unite to fight their attacks on the communities we represent.

Jeremy is the clear choice of our members and affiliates, and has made steps forward for our party in the nine months he has been leader, despite facing continuous media hostility.

This is not the PLP versus Jeremy Corbyn — this is the PLP versus the membership. It is the inhabitants of the Westminster bubble versus the ordinary men and women who make up the party in the country.

Jeremy is a leader for Labour who can address the concerns of those angry at a government that continually misleads the public and have felt no benefit from the “economic recovery.”

It is Jeremy’s message of investing in our future that can provide people with hope and deliver better living standards — this is even more important now. Please give him your support and get involved.


Diane Abbott is shadow health secretary and MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I think there are two meetings that corbyn is reported to have rejected - the one with Watson that his aides are supposed to be 'protecting' him from and another one with "a delegation of shadow cabinet ministers, led by shadow home secretary Andy Burnham."  I'm not even clear if the 'shadow cabinet ministers' they mention are current or previous.  Whole thing is astonishing, headless chickens.



Sorry - yes, I got that - but I suppose there's not much more reason to believe the first when the second is demonstrably untrue (despite still being repeated as truth anyway).


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Sorry - yes, I got that - but I suppose there's not much more reason to believe the first when the second is demonstrably untrue (despite still being repeated as truth anyway).


Yes, they'll just keep pumping the stuff out anyway. Today it's 'tired', but tomorrow they'll have 'beleaguered' as the Word of the Day/


----------



## maomao (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, they'll just keep pumping the stuff out anyway. Today it's 'tired', but tomorrow they'll have 'beleaguered' as the Word of the Day/


'Aides draw the wagons around beleagured Corbyn' is already the Guardian headline on the subject.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

maomao said:


> 'Aides draw the wagons around beleagured Corbyn' is already the Guardian headline on the subject.


We definitely need a bingo card.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 3, 2016)

Saw Chris Bryant on the Sunday Politics and it seems the tactic is now definitely to cast Corbyn as the victim of those around him. Apparently Corbyn is not standing down because of the 'vanity' of his inner circle. So never attack Corbyn directly as that obviously doesn't work. He's a frail old man being duped and taken advantage of. In a sense, the PLP are like social workers intervening to protect him.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

I can't be arsed reading this, particularly as its Andrew Rawnsley, but I suspect the headline is spot on:
The Tory party has probably now passed peak chaos. Not so Labour | Andrew Rawnsley


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2016)

100 pages in and he's still with us.
I'm so glad the OP was so wrong.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Saw Chris Bryant on the Sunday Politics and it seems the tactic is now definitely to cast Corbyn as the victim of those around him. Apparently Corbyn is not standing down because of the 'vanity' of his inner circle. So never attack Corbyn directly as that obviously doesn't work. He's a frail old man being duped and taken advantage of. In a sense, the PLP are like social workers intervening to protect him.


Even the winner of the _Brass Necked Cunt of the Year_ competition would look on these twats as unprincipled.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 3, 2016)

any one actually see that ..?...it ended with Brillio saying "bless you " and Bryants "may your god go with you "  and without doubt one of the most creepy soulless stare of death reanimated (just)from Bryant  .... just ..EVER
I heard the door slam in  the room next to mine ...but no one was there 
WTF was that all about ?..or did I imagine it >


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2016)

It was the oddest fucking ending to an interview ever.


----------



## magneze (Jul 3, 2016)

Tankus said:


> any one actually see that ..?...it ended with Brillio saying "bless you " and Bryants "may your god go with you "  and without doubt one of the most creepy soulless stare of death reanimated (just)from Bryant  .... just ..EVER
> I heard the door slam in  the room next to mine ...but no one was there
> WTF was that all about ?..or did I imagine it >


Yeah it was weird.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Tankus said:


> any one actually see that ..?...it ended with Brillio saying "bless you " and Bryants "may your god go with you "  and without doubt one of the most creepy soulless stare of death reanimated (just)from Bryant  .... just ..EVER
> I heard the door slam in  the room next to mine ...but no one was there
> WTF was that all about ?..or did I imagine it >


Wasn't Bryant the one who was spreading the rumour that corbyn voted leave?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 3, 2016)

I've just been tidying up my office and came across a Pamphlet containing essays by Brian Abel-Smith, Richard Titmus, Peter Townsend (the Sociology Prof) and Richard Crossman.
Just flicking through and I came across two quotes from Townsend which very Labour MP claiming to stand as a social democrat, claiming to stand in the historic mainstream of the party, and claiming that Corbyn is standing alone in some sort of alien hard left desert, should read and consider:

It will be one of the supreme paradoxes of history if social inequalities become wider instead of narrower and poverty more widespread during the term in office of the present Labour Government. Yet the likelihood of this happening is far from remote. Here is a political movement whose egalitarian ideals were nurtured by the degradations which millions of men, women and children endured...much tht is important and indeed noble in the search for a humane social order, unselfishness, partnership, solidarity, fair shares, common responsibility and above all the elimination of poverty is crystallised in the concept.
Townsend P. 1967 p. 39

Partly our problem is one with which it is irresponsible to pretend that Government Ministers must wrestle alone. Tawney reminded us, "Nothing could be more remote from Socialist ideals than the competitive scramble of a society which pays lip service to equality, but too often means by it merely equal opportunities of becoming unequal." He warned against 2 the corrupting influence of a false standard of values, which perverts, not only in education, but wide tracts of thought and life. It is this demon - the idolatry of money and success - with, not in one sphere alone but in all, including our hearts and minds, Socialists have to grapple".
Townsend P. 1967 p68-69​These aren't words from the loony left, or from the manifesto of some communist grouplet; they are the words of then Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex, and much more importantly the one time chair of the Fabian Society.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I've just been tidying up my office and came across a Pamphlet containing essays by Brian Abel-Smith, Richard Titmus, Peter Townsend (the Sociology Prof) and Richard Crossman.
> Just flicking through and I came across two quotes from Townsend which very Labour MP claiming to stand as a social democrat, claiming to stand in the historic mainstream of the party, and claiming that Corbyn is standing alone in some sort of alien hard left desert, should read and consider:
> 
> It will be one of the supreme paradoxes of history if social inequalities become wider instead of narrower and poverty more widespread during the term in office of the present Labour Government. Yet the likelihood of this happening is far from remote. Here is a political movement whose egalitarian ideals were nurtured by the degradations which millions of men, women and children endured...much tht is important and indeed noble in the search for a humane social order, unselfishness, partnership, solidarity, fair shares, common responsibility and above all the elimination of poverty is crystallised in the concept.
> ...


That's a timely reminder that there are several suits of clothes - gradualist, Fabian, social democrat - that the right of the Labour Party have no right to wear.  It's sometimes all too easy to  dismiss them simply as 'neo-liberals', there are plenty of nuances in there, but most of all they have no sense that the game is transforming society. In reality, Corbyn himself is more the heir to that LSE tradition of social policy, if not quite as paternalistic.  However I'd be critical of him for repeating some of the problems of that tradition, essentially the belief that redistributive taxes + the welfare state + nationalisation *actually amounts to* a socialist transformation.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's a timely reminder that there are several suits of clothes - gradualist, Fabian, social democrat - that the right of the Labour Party have no right to wear.  It's sometimes all too easy to  dismiss them simply as 'neo-liberals', there are plenty of nuances in there, but most of all they have no sense that the game is transforming society. In reality, Corbyn himself is more the heir to that LSE tradition of social policy, if not quite as paternalistic.  *However I'd be critical of him for repeating some of the problems of that tradition, essentially the belief that redistributive taxes + the welfare state + nationalisation actually amounts to a socialist transformation.*



I'd agree with you there. As I'm sure you appreciated, my point isn't to big up Townsend or the Fabian tradition, but rather to point out what is either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of those trying to claim a tradition which isn't theirs and demonise an individual and an outlook.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 3, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Said it before, but just not sure Schneiders the right person to have upfront for Momentum - would much prefer to have Mat Wrack (FBU) as the media spokesman, really impressed with him in the last week or so .


I don't think it matters who's the 'face' of Momentum tbh, because as far as the Labour Right and hacks like Gilligan are concerned, Momentum is a [insert leftist groupuscule name] entryist group/cult/'party-within-a-party' that wants to take us back to the 1970s (sic). Therefore the spokesperson is, by default, the 'enemy' because of his/her association with the 'dangerous left-wing organisation'. But then, you also need to ask the question "who would be acceptable in the eyes of the media and the plotters"? No one. 

Meanwhile, the Tories want to take us back to the 19th century or earlier.

It was pointed out to me earlier that the Gilligoon article was published 6 months ago. Yesterday's news is somehow today's news.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 3, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'd agree with you there. As I'm sure you appreciated, my point isn't to big up Townsend or the Fabian tradition, but rather to point what is either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of those trying to claim a tradition which isn't theirs and demonise an individual and an outlook.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yes, badly written on my part, looked like I was suggesting you were rosy spectacled about Fabianism... I wasn't... we agree.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2016)

Corbyn support messages written on Cornwall's beaches - BBC News

Look who it is!!!!


----------



## Tankus (Jul 3, 2016)

I went back on I player to have a look at that Bryant interview again ....his death stare and Brillos... _Bless you ..._have been edited	...

_Images lost in time  ...like.............._


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2016)

Tankus said:


> I went back on I player to have a look at that Bryant interview again ....his stare and Brillos... _Bless you ..._have been edited	...
> 
> _Images lost in time  ...like.............._



Brillo is no fan of Bryant's, I understand. I expect the feeling is mutual.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Shirley Williams has just said that Corbyn is in hock to the SWP! If she believes that she is a fool. If she doesn't then she's a liar. Her comments were echoed by Edwina Curry. Perhaps this is the latest anti-Corbyn tactic that will be employed?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




many are basing it on the Parliametary Rally, where SWP placards were in abundance, i was shouted down on here for noting this would be used against JC, etc, i wasn't talking about the SWP's influence, etc(they have none)


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The 172 back stabbers have been dis-inivited from the Durham Miners Gala - and watson is being replaced as speaker by Dennis Skinner.




Most of them don't go, but its symbolic.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I suppose they rallied the 172 - their strongest card in the struggle so far - purely on the basis that it was a secret ballot.  But yes, I think I think your analysis of the balance of forces and how it might play out right through to another leadership vote is correct. Trouble is, what emerges at the end of all this, even if its a crisis entirely manufactured by the blairites.  Not likely a Labour Party that's in better shape to win a first past the post general election. If he presses on and wins another leadership vote, the Blairites are not likely to go off quietly and play with their money.  We may well be past the point where a 'unity candidate' could hold the thing together, and in some ways that might be the worst outcome anyway (the sniping and briefing would just carry on, along with a few revenge deselections).




Can we have some hope?


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I've just been tidying up my office and came across a Pamphlet containing essays by Brian Abel-Smith, Richard Titmus, Peter Townsend (the Sociology Prof) and Richard Crossman.
> Just flicking through and I came across two quotes from Townsend which very Labour MP claiming to stand as a social democrat, claiming to stand in the historic mainstream of the party, and claiming that Corbyn is standing alone in some sort of alien hard left desert, should read and consider:
> 
> It will be one of the supreme paradoxes of history if social inequalities become wider instead of narrower and poverty more widespread during the term in office of the present Labour Government. Yet the likelihood of this happening is far from remote. Here is a political movement whose egalitarian ideals were nurtured by the degradations which millions of men, women and children endured...much tht is important and indeed noble in the search for a humane social order, unselfishness, partnership, solidarity, fair shares, common responsibility and above all the elimination of poverty is crystallised in the concept.
> ...




Can I post that elsewhere?, its excellent.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's a timely reminder that there are several suits of clothes - gradualist, Fabian, social democrat - that the right of the Labour Party have no right to wear.  It's sometimes all too easy to  dismiss them simply as 'neo-liberals', there are plenty of nuances in there, but most of all they have no sense that the game is transforming society. In reality, Corbyn himself is more the heir to that LSE tradition of social policy, if not quite as paternalistic.  However I'd be critical of him for repeating some of the problems of that tradition, essentially the belief that redistributive taxes + the welfare state + nationalisation *actually amounts to* a socialist transformation.



It helps though, especially if you are at the bottom, i could live with it, if it came back.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> It helps though, especially if you are at the bottom, i could live with it, if it came back.


Well, I'm not some kind of purist, anarcho or of any other kind. I'd rather Labour won the last election and I'd rather have a corbynised version of Labour than any other that we've seen for a few decades.  I'm also not an absolutist about what can be achieved within particular 'periods'. WE live in an era of neoliberalism, but it doesn't map onto particular countries in ways that rule out all possibilities.

Having said that, Labourism and social democracy were of a particular time.  They had a job to do as part of the post-war settlement, they were the centre left's version of that settlement.  They made gains in those circumstances, but didn't survive the 70s.  Nothing like the whole package is going to return.  In fact if the whole corbyn project is going to move on from being a nostalgic tribute act, it needs to think what a modernised social democracy might look like.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Well, give some outlines, basic income?


----------



## newbie (Jul 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> But then, you also need to ask the question "who would be acceptable in the eyes of the media and the plotters"? No one.


Alan Johnson?


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 4, 2016)

i agree that he's made up


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 4, 2016)

newbie said:


> Alan Johnson?



Ah, the "I'm working class, so I'm only a right wing cunt because I know what real life's like" candidate.


----------



## newbie (Jul 4, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Ah, the "I'm working class, so I'm only a right wing cunt because I know what real life's like" candidate.


that's him.  Media friendly, experienced, backstabber.  Won't satisfy the Momentum/Corbynists of course... oops, as you were, I now realise I misread the question nino_savatte asked


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> many are basing it on the Parliametary Rally, where SWP placards were in abundance, i was shouted down on here for noting this would be used against JC, etc, i wasn't talking about the SWP's influence, etc(they have none)


No you weren't.  You were 'shouted down' for still wanking on about it days after it had happened in the middle of a discussion about something else.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2016)

The SWP "smear" is irrelevant. Nobody IRL gives a fuck. Most people haven't heard of them or at least haven't seen anything of them in a decade or two. The days of having copies of the paper thrust into yer face on the high street aren't even memories anymore.  As a smear it has zero traction.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 4, 2016)

Tankus said:


> I went back on I player to have a look at that Bryant interview again ....his death stare and Brillos... _Bless you ..._have been edited	...
> 
> _Images lost in time  ...like.............._



Last ten seconds.

They need to deselect that fucker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> Last ten seconds.
> 
> They need to deselect that fucker.


If by deselect you mean terminate with extreme prejudice, then I agree with you


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 4, 2016)

Chris Bryant (aka 'The Vicar') is on the political council of the Henry Jackson Society, along with fellow headbangers Gisela Stuart and Ben 'BBC' Bradshaw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> many are basing it on the Parliametary Rally, where SWP placards were in abundance, i was shouted down on here for noting this would be used against JC, etc, i wasn't talking about the SWP's influence, etc(they have none)


We all know you hate socialists, that was clear from the picture you posted highlighting placards from the socialist party and SWP


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> many are basing it on the Parliametary Rally, where SWP placards were in abundance, i was shouted down on here for noting this would be used against JC, etc, i wasn't talking about the SWP's influence, etc(they have none)


Writing the socialist party out of history now like some discount store stalin


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If by deselect you mean terminate with extreme prejudice, then I agree with you



After having a quick gander at his wiki page, I think extreme prejudice is the correct way to go.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 4, 2016)

Eagle "I'll run soon if Corbyn doesn't step down"



> Angela Eagle says she has support to "resolve this impasse" over the Labour Party leadership "if Jeremy doesn't take action soon".
> 
> The former shadow business secretary gave her strongest indication yet that a leadership challenge is imminent, telling Sky News: "I have the support to run and resolve this impasse and I will do so if Jeremy doesn't take action soon."





"I'll do it"
-go on then

"I'll really REALLY do it"
- go on then

"I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY going to do it!"
- Go on then

"I'm OFFICIALLY REAAAAAALY GOING TO DO IT VERY SOON!"
- Go On THEN!

Christ almighty.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

But it's her _strongest indication yet_, until lunchtime at least.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 4, 2016)

I am being really thick and missing some tactical play here? 

How is the publication of the report (that you voted against) into an incredibly unpopular war that you supported going to help your cause? Surely Chilcot is going to boost Corbyn and Momentum if anything. The only thing I can think is that they are hoping that after Chilcot Corbyn will be willing to resign.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2016)

I suspect Chilcot is going to change nothing. It's a red herring.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 4, 2016)

More from: I See You Stories


[/snip]

.....But you got caught up in it regardless, Angela Eagle, and you've prematurely thrown your hat into the ring.

I see you, Angela Eagle, looking up at the moon and dreaming of new horizons. I see the throng behind you, pushing you towards the great scaffolding, Hilary Benn whispering in your ear that there's a whole new world out there to conquer. I see the crowd of 172 behind you, chanting your name in a low whisper, supportive but hardly vocal. I see them carry you on their shoulders, hosting you into the cockpit, strapping you in. You're in a rocket the PLP built for you out of the debris of New Labour, and your fuel is the quiet groundswell of rebellion.

I hear the engines roaring, Angela Eagle, and I see you pushed back into your seat by the rising G-force. I see the tears streaming from your ecstatic eyes as you're elevated from your position, blasting into the stratosphere, the PLP fading beneath you just as quickly as they first raised you up. I see you firing past the clouds, the great cheer of apparent victory bursting from your throat as you pierce the heavens.

I see the engines gutter and flicker out, Angela Eagle, silent in the void of space. I see the bright and glorious moon, a new political landscape just out of reach. You're out of gas, Angela Eagle, pushed up in to the stillness of oblivion and away from the cacophony below.

I see you drifting, Angela Eagle, the support below you now a thousand miles away. I see you frown. This isn't quite the glorious new dawn you were expecting, is it? It's like coming fourth all over again. Oh well. At least from this weird abyssal limbo you can look down and watch it go to shit all over again when the Chilcot Report comes out.

The Eagle hasn't quite landed, has it?

I see you, Angela Eagle. I fucking see you.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> I suspect Chilcot is going to change nothing. It's a red herring.



Chilwhatnow?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 4, 2016)

On the front page of the Metro it says that the coup is over.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> On the front page of the Metro it says that the coup is over.


No, no, how can it be! Today is the...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Chilwhatnow?


His stand up needs a bit of work


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> On the front page of the Metro it says that the coup is over.


If true, a feint by the putschists? Call if off now, and they might live to coup another day - carry on and the risk Jeremy breaking out the banhammer?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

The hashtag Chicken Coup annoys me. It should be Pigeon Coup if it's to make any sense.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The hashtag Chicken Coup annoys me. It should be Pigeon Coup if it's to make any sense.


Eh? Reasonable play on a phonetic reading of coup. Get with the kidz, man.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Eh? Reasonable play on a phonetic reading of coup. Get with the kidz, man.


Coop does not rhyme with coup


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Coop does not rhyme with coup


We know that, but it looks close enough. You're being left behind by the tide of history here.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

In this freewheeling story, things are moving _*fast*_. This morning she said that if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't resign she 'WILL stand against him'. Hear the emphasis there, she WILL stand against him - it was thunderous. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

The die is cast, worlds collide, brother is set against brother - but no timetable yet.


Labour coup: Angela Eagle goes public with threat to run against Jeremy Corbyn unless he resigns


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> We know that, but it looks close enough. You're being left behind by the tide of history here.


No one says there's been a bloodless coop.
It's coo.
So it doesn't make sense to write chicken coup. Chickens don't coo. Pigeons do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No one says there's been a bloodless coop.
> It's coo.
> So it doesn't make sense to write chicken coup. Chickens don't coo. Pigeons do.


Are pigeons known for displays of great aggression followed by cowardly withdrawal though?


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No one says there's been a bloodless coop.
> It's coo.
> So it doesn't make sense to write chicken coup. Chickens don't coo. Pigeons do.


But pigeons aren't famously pusillanimous. It is a visual half-pun for a visual medium, the written word.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> But pigeons aren't famously pusillanimous. It is a visual half-pun for a visual medium, the written word.


I'm seeing her challenge as a faltering avian move towards that cold chip on the pavement.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> But pigeons aren't famously pusillanimous. It is a visual half-pun for a visual medium, the written word.


Hmm, I hear it in my head when I read it and it gives me a headache as it's just wrong


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Hmm, I hear it in my head when I read it and it gives me a headache as it's just wrong


No, we will bang on about this until you accept the error of your ways, like the PLP to Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

want to stand in front of Eagle tapping my watch now.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> want to stand in front of Eagle tapping my watch now.



Tell her its her own time she's wasting...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> want to stand in front of Eagle tapping my watch now.


'I'm going to batter you at home time'
- Right, see you at the tennis courts
'Actually, could we do it after tea? Or maybe at the weekend?'


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Not seen an eagle so thoroughly lost since the Teutoberg Forest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Not seen an eagle so thoroughly lost since the Teutoberg Forest.


talavera.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Not seen an eagle so thoroughly lost since the Teutoberg Forest.


This time we know where the legions are though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

when they do the film, sean bean should play corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2016)

Owen Jones suggesting the two sides should split and then form an electoral coalition. I see why he never actually entered formal politics now.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Lol I could really see that working.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when they do the film, sean bean should play corbyn


I was thinking Bradley Walsh with a beard.  A really bad edition of The Chase. Angela Eagle, the Light Destroyer.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Lol I could really see that working.


That's the really unfortunate thing about twitter. Instead of having a think about things and realising they are a really bad idea, you just blurt things straight out of your arse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

thats the great thing about twitter. You get peoples three am brainfarts and then they have to be In The Public Eye next day to be pointed and laughed at.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when they do the film, sean bean should play corbyn



People can kill Sean Bean. Corbyn at this point appears to be the Terminator, he's just walking around quietly ignoring the PLP


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> People can kill Sean Bean. Corbyn at this point appears to be the Terminator, he's just walking around quietly ignoring the PLP


Shurely, you mean a frightened, frail old man, held hostage by his carers and hard left minders?


----------



## Sifta (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Shurely, you mean a frightened, frail old man, held hostage by his carers and hard left minders?



Schroedinger's Corbyn


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Schroedinger's Corbyn


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Brutus - 'oh fuck, was the Ides yesterday?  Oh well, maybe _next_ Ides then'.
Lee Harvey Oswald - 'I couldn't get the window open'.
Mary Lincoln - 'yes, we enjoyed the play very much'.

#shitassassins


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Brutus - 'oh fuck, was the Ides yesterday?  Oh well, maybe _next_ Ides then'.
> Lee Harvey Oswald - 'I couldn't get the window open'.
> Mary Lincoln - 'yes, we enjoyed the play very much'.
> 
> #shitassassins


the shop had run out of icepicks


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Alexander Litvinenko - 'nah, I think I'll have coffee'.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> talavera.


Carrhae too if I'd thought about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Not seen an eagle so thoroughly lost since the Teutoberg Forest.


a pedant writes: the romans recovered two of the three eagles lost to arminius


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Carrhae too if I'd thought about it.


the legionary standards lost at carrhae were also recovered in 20bc


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the legionary standards lost at carrhae were also recovered in 20bc


But one in Germany remained lost, so I claim the moral victory.


----------



## Santino (Jul 4, 2016)

Was the Ninth Legion's Eagle ever recovered from darkest Britannia?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

melted down for torcs


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when they do the film, sean bean should play corbyn


A LOVELY BIRRA RASPBERRY JAM BACK THERE


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Santino said:


> Was the Ninth Legion's Eagle ever recovered from darkest Britannia?


We'll have to return it as soon as article 50 is invoked.  Lord Elgin's lost his marbles.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Santino said:


> Was the Ninth Legion's Eagle ever recovered from darkest Britannia?


Seem to remember the historicity of that is a bit shakier, ie might have just gone off the muster roll rather than being annihilated. Pickman's will know, the bastard.


----------



## Santino (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> Seem to remember the historicity of that is a bit shakier, ie might have just gone off the muster roll rather than being annihilated. Pickman's will know, the bastard.


I see you are unaware of this recent documentary on the subject: The Eagle (2011) - IMDb


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 4, 2016)

This report is really important for a number of reasons, note especially how little coverage women got.

Re: Corbyn: He got an awful lot of flack about being at fault for losing the Remain vote from Labour politicians. However despite personally receiving just _6.1% of all media coverage_ on the EU Referendum and Labour's remain coverage accounting for just _15% of all media reports_, 63% of Labour voters still voted REMAIN. Note: Tory Remain politicians had 41% of all media coverage but only 42% of Tory's voted Remain.






Also note.



When she resigned she then said:



When people say "he's ineffective" it's perhaps amazing Labour are having any effect at all given he's getting next to no coverage.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

_'The Eagle has Landed'_
- no, I'm not quite ready yet
'It's one small step for ...'
- hang on, I haven't got me helmet on'
'Oh, fuck this, let's go with Buzz Aldrin'


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Owen Jones suggesting the two sides should split and then form an electoral coalition. I see why he never actually entered formal politics now.



Can't we all just get along?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> _'The Eagle has Landed'_
> - no, I'm not quite ready yet
> 'It's one small step for ...'
> - hang on, I haven't got me helmet on'
> 'Oh, fuck this, let's go with Buzz Aldrin'


no one ever remembers the sequel 'the eagle has flown' where stiener comes back to life.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> no one ever remembers the sequel 'the eagle has flown' where stiener comes back to life.



Its best not to, its a bit shit.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


>


----------



## emanymton (Jul 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's the really unfortunate thing about twitter. Instead of having a think about things and realising they are a really bad idea, you just blurt things straight out of your arse.


I'm not in twitter but still have the same problem.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No one says there's been a bloodless coop.
> It's coo.
> So it doesn't make sense to write chicken coup. Chickens don't coo. Pigeons do.


I applaud this.


butchersapron said:


> Are pigeons known for displays of great aggression followed by cowardly withdrawal though?


Well yeah, pretty much that's what they do every day. That's when they aren't shitting on their own feet, which rots their feet, which may make it an even more apt analogy.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I applaud this.
> 
> Well yeah, pretty much that's what they do every day. That's when they aren't shitting on their own feet, which rots their feet, which may make it an even more apt analogy.


Another cloth-eared wrong'un for the list


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 4, 2016)

I have yet to see an MP with the tenacity and spirit of the noble city pigeon, oppressed on all sides and yet thriving.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have yet to see an MP with the tenacity and spirit of the noble city pigeon, oppressed on all sides and yet thriving.


Yeh but like pigeons they don't mind who they shit on


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 4, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have yet to see an MP with the tenacity and spirit of the noble city pigeon, oppressed on all sides and yet thriving.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 4, 2016)

JC's PR campaign steps forward...


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 4, 2016)

Looking pretty spry for a bullied old man on his last legs.

I tried counting his blinks to see if he was calling for help in morse code but all I got was 76 IIB, so unless he's making some sort of sly reference to the International Investment Bank he's probably not under duress.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 4, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Looking pretty spry for a bullied old man on his last legs.
> 
> I tried counting his blinks to see if he was calling for help in morse code but all I got was 76 IIB, so unless he's making some sort of sly reference to the International Investment Bank he's probably not under duress.


Definitely a man who is only drinking from freshly opened bottles of water though


----------



## agricola (Jul 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> JC's PR campaign steps forward...




I am a bit worried at what appears to be buttons arranged to form a target on his chest, though.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 4, 2016)

"Oh go-on Jeremy, gives us the precious"
_~ Angela Smeagol_


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Well, _that's_ disturbing.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 4, 2016)

He's at the select committee live now: Parliamentlive.tv


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> But pigeons aren't famously pusillanimous. It is a visual half-pun for a visual medium, the written word.



I've been through this with him already. He's a stubborn bugger. Good job he's charismatic and sexy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 4, 2016)

> By signing up you can help choose a leader who recognises that the Labour Party was founded to be a Party of Government and implement policies *to improve the lives of working people*. *A party of protest doesn’t help a single person.*



_Yeah so fuck you everyone who doesn't have a job.  ...and by hell don't protest anythng, put up and shut up._

If you think the country need new leadership, I am begging you to join our Party and give Labour the champion they need


----------



## tommers (Jul 4, 2016)

And she chose the fucking Sun to do that in?

Jesus christ.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

tommers said:


> And she chose the fucking Sun to do that in?
> 
> Jesus christ.



She got one hell of a lot of stick about it online yesterday. What a clueless twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2016)

I'm not cliking on that, I presume it's an attempt to reverse-membership-engineer corbyn's election?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 4, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> He's at the select committee live now: Parliamentlive.tv



Quite the lynch mob, repeating the "you compared Israel to Isis" line.


----------



## tommers (Jul 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not cliking on that, I presume it's an attempt to reverse-membership-engineer corbyn's election?



Exactly what it is.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Quite the lynch mob, repeating the "you compared Israel to Isis" line.


Apparently it's not even true that he made the comparison is it (at least not in the way they wish to portray it)?.. I think I read it on here at some point. Who's asking that question anyway? I am on a mobile connection so don't want to click on the link.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 4, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Quite the lynch mob, repeating the "you compared Israel to Isis" line.



Victoria Atkins trying to be patronising. Not heard her speak before.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Apparently it's not even true that he made the comparison is it (at least not in the way they wish to portray it)?.. I think I read it on here at some point. Who's asking that question anyway? I am on a mobile connection so don't want to click on the link.



He didn't make the comparison and the person who authored the report, who called the press conference and chaired it, said so in unequivocal terms on the BBC...which makes you wonder why the MPs are choosing to repeat it...or maybe not.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Apparently it's not even true that he made the comparison is it (at least not in the way they wish to portray it)?..



His point was that muslims shouldn't have to be asked to disassociate themselves from acts carried out by "self-styled Islamic states and organisations" (note the plural) and Jews shouldn't have to do so with Israel (mentioned because it was y'know, specifically investigating anti-semitism). Which is basically what Chakrabati said, and is in no way controversial.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 4, 2016)

Thread title needs changing: change 'up' to 'now'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Apparently it's not even true that he made the comparison is it (at least not in the way they wish to portray it)?.. I think I read it on here at some point. Who's asking that question anyway? I am on a mobile connection so don't want to click on the link.



It isn't true.

He said it's no more accurate to assume all Jewish people represent the actions of the Israeli state or Netanyahu than it is to assume all Muslims represent the actions of self-styled Islamic states and organisations. 

I watched his speech live, and in no way did it come across as him saying "that there Israel is just like that there ISIS."

In fact, I thought at the time (before this all blew up into the big old hoo-ha it is now) that it was very wise to say what he did. (More fool me.) The people who level accusations of anti-semitism at Labour and lefty activists often conflate it with their support of Palestine, and you'll often get suggestions that "you're a Muslim apologist." The two subjects are linked in the minds of pretty much everyone, so it'd be quite insincere and dishonest to deny that link, and his speech made it clear that there's no point on either side of the debate in defending one group of people if you're going to use the tactics you hate to smear the other. 

But of course, that's too nuanced and sensible for literally every single person who hates Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2016)

Corbyn compares Israel to Isis...


----------



## Combustible (Jul 4, 2016)

'Angela Eagle is now claiming that she could launch a Labour leadership bid "within 45 minutes" ' (Stolen from facebook)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2016)

Combustible said:


> 'Angela Eagle is now claiming that she could launch a Labour leadership bid "within 45 minutes" ' (Stolen from facebook)


Perfect linkage.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 4, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Quite the lynch mob, repeating the "you compared Israel to Isis" line.


Indeed it is a lynch mob. The timing of this meeting is rather interesting, coming as it does a couple of days before the release of the Chilcot Report.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 4, 2016)

Ummana calling for Momentum to be wound up


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 4, 2016)

Ooh Keith Vaz rules him out of order


----------



## tommers (Jul 4, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Ummana calling for Momentum to be wound up


Once again demonstrating how to engage with people who feel ignored by politicians.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Ummana calling for Momentum to be wound up



I forward another proposal: best nip Progress in the bud now before it gets out of hand.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Indeed it is a lynch mob. The timing of this meeting is rather interesting, coming as it does a couple of days before the release of the Chilcot Report.


Did they mention Corbyn's appearances on press.tv? Out of all the shite that's been thrown at him, this is one thing that could genuinely hurt him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 4, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Did they mention Corbyn's appearances on press.tv? Out of all the shite that's been thrown at him, this is one thing that could genuinely hurt him.


I've stopped watching now, but I suspect they're saving that one.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 4, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Did they mention Corbyn's appearances on press.tv? Out of all the shite that's been thrown at him, this is one thing that could genuinely hurt him.


Given how little he was reported at all he can quite happily chuck that shit in the direction of the press and broadcasters.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Given how little he was reported at all he can quite happily chuck that shit in the direction of the press and broadcasters.


Not sure what you mean there.

E2A: you mean, he can argue that exclusion from the airwaves was the reason why he appeared on press.tv.

Anyway, Gulf Arabs don't like him:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...5/10/04/Jeremy-Corbyn-s-anti-Arab-agenda.html


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

Haven't scrolled back through 100 odd pages so apologies if it's already been posted . These Blairites are apparently very shit at this coup business .

The ineptitude of the failed Corbyn coup


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> He's at the select committee live now: Parliamentlive.tv


I just watched most of this. Chuka Umunna nakedly trying to turn the discussion of anti-semitism into an attack on Corbyn/momentum. Pretty distasteful.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Thanks people. Somebody ought to start a hashtag on Twitter including the word 'shill' somewhere in relation to these attacks. I'm really fucking tired of it, fuck knows what Corbyn must feel like.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

Knotted said:


> I  can't fault the rebels for their well executed coup attempt



I know the media furore/ encouragement that went with it could easily give that impression. But it's actually looking more like a catalogue of blunders from ( leaked ) inception to failed execution . It's like Brutus and the Senators sneaking up on Caesar, knocking over a load of pots and pans, stabbing him and finding out he knew all along they were coming. He put a big load of pots and pans there for them to trip over . And switched their daggers when they were sleeping with those silly springy ones you can buy in a joke shop . And Caesars just looking at them..and saying.." Lads..cop the fuck on " . But they still keep desperately trying to stab him with their non lethal joke knives .


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Ummana calling for Momentum to be wound up



Does he say what right he thnks he's got to make such a demand? Odious little prick


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Does he say what right he thnks he's got to make such a demand? Odious little prick



He's setting the ball rolling. Firmly plant in the minds of the media (and from there, the people who consume that media) that Momentum is a hotbed of antisemetic villainy that exists to demonise and pressure 'right thinking people'. Pun intended.

Then just wait for the media to push that narrative, so we get calls more widely to shut it down. 

He's just showing himself up for what he is. He's terrified of the grassroots. He's terrified of party democracy. He's terrified of the membership being anything other than leaflet-deliverers and door-knockers. He's terrified his game is up.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

I bought my son _the T-shirt_...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

Has 45 minutes passed yet, btw?  

(I love that _today's_ reason was that she was only just now MAKING IT PUBLIC '  '  )


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Has 45 minutes passed yet, btw?
> 
> (I love that _today's_ reason was that she was only just now MAKING IT PUBLIC '  '  )



It's ridiculous, isn't it?

They're just hoping that they can push enough shit about Corbs into the news and create just that little bit more controversy around him that today, definitely today, will be the day that he stands down. 

"I'll stand, but let's just see if he stands down first. No? Okay, well I'll definitely stand, but did I ever tell you about the time Jeremy stole my sandwiches out of the Shadow Cabinet fridge? He must stand down! Oh, he didn't. I'll definitely stand. But wait, there's more. Remember that time he glowered at the press outside his house? MONSTER! He must resign. Oh, okay. Well, I'll definitely stand, but let me tell you about when..."


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

It's totally fucking EMBARRASSING 
Fucking hell, I'd just stay in bed and punch myself in the face for a month if I was Angela.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2016)

that 45 minute thing was a joke - it's playing on the 45 minute threat of WMD from iraq, re Chilcot on Weds...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Embarrassing is not the word I would choose, contempt however rolls quite nicely of the tongue.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 4, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> It's totally fucking EMBARRASSING


That's exactly the word I was just using to describe it. However you feel about either side of the argument, the 'challengers' are just really embarrassing themselves.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> that 45 minute thing was a joke - it's playing on the 45 minute threat of WMD from iraq, re Chilcot on Weds...



Every single person has made it clear they are aware of that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

I think with our high flying Eagle she's managed enough nous to realise 'oh shit I've been put up to fail'. Used, happily used but underestimated Iron Corbz support levels in the wider party. That 60k before you touch the expense account. Don't want that gone. Rubber daggers.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

Momentum have doubled their membership this week.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Writing the socialist party out of history now like some discount store stalin[/QUOTE
> 
> We can never write the socialist party out of history, they'll have had several meetings about such shenanigans!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Momentum have doubled their membership this week.


look in the mirror and say 'unelectable' three times then blair will appear and kill you. With a sharpened hook like in Candyman. And its shit sequels


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 4, 2016)

What are you lot watching?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 4, 2016)

A song for Angela


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> that 45 minute thing was a joke - it's playing on the 45 minute threat of WMD from iraq, re Chilcot on Weds...



Ah!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Ah!



Well I assumed everyone understood.

lol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What are you lot watching?


Preacher. Its really good. But has nothing to do with this discussion except that Corbz of Iron could really do with having the Voice of God right now.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well I assumed everyone understood.
> 
> lol.



I'm getting into bed with Angela RIGHT NOW


----------



## 74drew (Jul 4, 2016)

has this bin done yet?


----------



## binka (Jul 4, 2016)

Michael Crick on c4 news - Watson spoke at a PLP meeting this afternoon and said he'd had his 1 on 1 meeting with Corbyn this morning. Watson told him it's not enough to have the support of the membership he needs the PLP too. Corbyn told him to do one. Watson then said he has a meeting with some unions in the morning and he described it as 'the last throw of the dice'. 

This is Michael Crick though so going on form some/most/all of that may have been entirely fictional.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 4, 2016)

EMOTIONAL 



"meetings"


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

Anyone been discussing Uganda yet?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2016)

Funny how much crying the PLP are doing since they are basically using the tactics of school bullies.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 4, 2016)

Jesus that's dire. Imagine being either so paranoid or so politically backward as to actually say that out loud. "Marxist-Leninist" for goodness' sake, how does someone whose actual job is politics have that little sense?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Crick himself is dire for repeating it, if indeed he didn't spin it out of something else in the first place.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

They want 'their' party back? Some might argue the people with Corbyn's politics want 'their' Labour back.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

> Tom Watson has met the two potential challengers to Corbyn - Angela Eagle and Owen Smith - *and they understand the situation, we're told*



Oh, _good_.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Oh, _good_.


Yeah the subtext for that feels like it should be:

"You must do your duty even though we are likely to throw you under a bus as soon as it becomes expedient'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

If anyone was still under the impression Watson wasn't at the heart of this...


----------



## andysays (Jul 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Funny how much crying the PLP are doing since they are basically using the tactics of school bullies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Jesus that's dire. Imagine being either so paranoid or so politically backward as to actually say that out loud. "Marxist-Leninist" for goodness' sake, how does someone whose actual job is politics have that little sense?



its pretty desperate. And no, they didn't miss the nuance when they did a PPE. Just flinging shit like enraged chimpanzees now


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Anyone been discussing Uganda yet?


with themselves in a locked HoC toilet


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Funny how much crying the PLP are doing since they are basically using the tactics of school bullies.


corbyn is a racist for not accepting a chinese burn


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


>



always worth a re-post


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 4, 2016)

Have to say the rebellion has to go down in history as the worst ever. Eagle can't seriously expect anyone to take her seriously as leader if she can't make a simple decision like standing!


.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Have to say the rebellion has to go down in history as the worst ever. Eagle can't seriously expect anyone to take her seriously as leader if she can't make a simple decision like standing!
> 
> 
> .


you and your iphone


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

is he still a frail old stalinist anti-semite today? Or s there new news? Maybe he killed a dog through negligence. has to be something else. Dare them to try the peed one again


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Kid_Eternity Helpful(ish) tip of the day: You can get get rid of that irritating signature thingy by trawling through Tapatalk's preferences. Can't remember where it is though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Kid_Eternity Helpful(ish) tip of the day: You can get get rid of that irritating signature thingy by trawling through Tapatalk's preferences. Can't remember where it is though.


I think he adds it by hand


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> is he still a frail old stalinist anti-semite today? Or s there new news? Maybe he killed a dog through negligence. has to be something else. Dare them to try the peed one again


Kinnock?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> is he still a frail old stalinist anti-semite today? Or s there new news? Maybe he killed a dog through negligence. has to be something else. Dare them to try the peed one again



They _understand the situation_. DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I think he adds it by hand


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I think he adds it by hand


from an Etchasketch


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2016)

Well it's not looking good for getting rid of Corbyn before Chilcott. I'd be hiring a food taster at this point if I was him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well it's not looking good for getting rid of Corbyn before Chilcott. I'd be hiring a food taster at this point if I was him.


Then they'd have a pop at him for putting a worker in harm's way


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> They _understand the situation_.


played some cards early then realised 'oh fuck this one isn't going to work'. Well that might be a bad situation in a game of Uno but far worse when you just rubber daggered a colleague


----------



## Johnny. (Jul 4, 2016)

Labour are now less popular than the lib dems.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well it's not looking good for getting rid of Corbyn before Chilcott. I'd be hiring a food taster at this point if I was him.


luckily he exists soley on a diet of vile quinoa and textured soya meat so no one wants to get close enough to cantarella the meal


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2016)

Johnny. said:


> Labour are now less popular than the lib dems.


Really? Do link to the poll


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They want 'their' party back? Some might argue the people with Corbyn's politics want 'their' Labour back.



The hilarious irony of it is that Corbyn's supposedly under attack for failing to turn the tide of 'we want our country back' rhetoric.

It all puts one in mind of a grown adult, bollock naked and sitting in a bucket of rancid pig slurry, snivelling and wailing about how beastly it is that nobody will let them sit naked in a bucket of rancid pig slurry.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Then they'd have a pop at him for putting a worker in harm's way



Well it's 'them' doing the poisoning so there's not a lot of moral high ground for them there.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> _Yeah so fuck you everyone who doesn't have a job.  ...and by hell don't protest anythng, put up and shut up._
> 
> If you think the country need new leadership, I am begging you to join our Party and give Labour the champion they need




Fucking hell, seen everything now, they have no shame.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> played some cards early then realised 'oh fuck this one isn't going to work'. Well that might be a bad situation in a game of Uno but far worse when you just rubber daggered a colleague



It's time to roll out the VAGUE, UNSPECIFIED THREATS (again)!


----------



## Sifta (Jul 4, 2016)

A bit OT, but watching Blair Rich Project, I was unaware of quite how much of a cunts cunt John McTernan  is


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2016)

how??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's setting the ball rolling. Firmly plant in the minds of the media (and from there, the people who consume that media) that Momentum is a hotbed of antisemetic villainy that exists to demonise and pressure 'right thinking people'. Pun intended.
> 
> Then just wait for the media to push that narrative, so we get calls more widely to shut it down.
> 
> He's just showing himself up for what he is. He's terrified of the grassroots. He's terrified of party democracy. He's terrified of the membership being anything other than leaflet-deliverers and door-knockers. He's terrified his game is up.



Absolutely. He's been terrified ever since he backed out of the leadership contest. He knows his political philosophy, such as it is, is bankrupt. Rather than being honest to himself and others though, he'll keep on lying to himself and others that his is the only game in town.

Which is an awful shame for the majority of his constituents.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> how??


I'd assumed he was standard issue, but he takes it to a new level,


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2016)

Sifta said:


> A bit OT, but watching Blair Rich Project, I was unaware of quite how much of a cunts cunt John McTernan  is



Isn't he the one who put up a load of photos of Manchester United players on a wall in an office and then put Tony Blair's face over all their heads?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

Eddie the Eagle often  appeared clueless, a laughing stock, Ill prepared and generally way out of his depth . But at least he had the balls to jump .


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 4, 2016)

"Angela Eagle will launch leadership bid if Corbyn does not act soon". 
Fucking lame. She's painted herself into corner - she told the media that she's going to fight him, he says "bring it on" so she backs down but keeps issuing threats - thus making herself look ridiculous whilst strengthening Corbyn's position in the process. Slow hand clap. Well done. 
And this is their champion who's going to bring convincing leadership to the party?


----------



## inva (Jul 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> she told the media that she's going to fight him, he says "bring it on" so she backs down but keeps issuing threats


'hold me back'


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2016)

I'll fucking do it! I swear I'll do time if you don't resign! Don't try and hold me back Hilary, I'm going to do it I will have him it's going to happen I'm on the verge of it... I will fucking do it. Right now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

Nah, she's a fall guy. Whoever stands is the person who agrees to fall on their sword so that they can get rid of Corbyn in the short term. Then they call for another leadership race a little while later, where the 'real' contenders can stand not sullied by any of this unpleasantness.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2016)

Yup pretty much.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Nah, she's a fall guy. Whoever stands is the person who agrees to fall on their sword so that they can get rid of Corbyn in the short term. Then they call for another leadership race a little while later, where the 'real' contenders can stand not sullied by any of this unpleasantness.



And it starts all over again - "You're sullied Hilary - it can't be you"  "It can't be me, I'm sullied"  "Am I sullied? Could it be me?" etc.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I'll fucking do it! I swear I'll do time if you don't resign! Don't try and hold me back Hilary, I'm going to do it I will have him it's going to happen I'm on the verge of it... I will fucking do it. Right now.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 4, 2016)

Even Sun readers who don't like him are laughing at the coup



			
				Comment on that Sun article said:
			
		

> 172 MPs voted against Corbyn and yet not a single one of them cares so much about the party they are prepared to put their comfy little lives up for grabs by resigning and calling a by election,.
> 
> NOT A SINGLE ONE
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Nah, she's a fall guy. Whoever stands is the person who agrees to fall on their sword so that they can get rid of Corbyn in the short term. Then they call for another leadership race a little while later, where the 'real' contenders can stand not sullied by any of this unpleasantness.




Does that include The King Over The Water, or is his time over?


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> Does that include The King Over The Water, or is his time over?


By all accounts he's well set in America and wouldn't want to come back anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I'll fucking do it! I swear I'll do time if you don't resign! Don't try and hold me back Hilary, I'm going to do it I will have him it's going to happen I'm on the verge of it... I will fucking do it. Right now.


I'm this close *small finger gesture about a centimeter of space between finger and thumb*

one more word out of you lad, one more word and then I'll deffo chuck my political career down the drain. You wait till after school


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> _Yeah so fuck you everyone who doesn't have a job.  ...and by hell don't protest anythng, put up and shut up._
> 
> If you think the country need new leadership, I am begging you to join our Party and give Labour the champion they need


Jesus, what a dick. (I preferred Del Piero's earlier work for Juventus.)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

You'd have to be an idiot to want to come back to it once you've made your escape (re: bananaman)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You'd have to be an idiot to want to come back to it once you've made your escape (re: bananaman)


like when you make a big scene leaving but then remember you've forgotten your phone


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2016)

'if there wasn't women present I'd bloody your nose'


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

Alec Salmond putting his oar in. Mightn't be too far off the mark. Or even spot on it .

Corbyn coup designed to stop him 'calling for Blair's head' after Chilcot


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> By all accounts he's well set in America and wouldn't want to come back anyway.



He could be hiding out there for a while in kissingers spare room if this coup fails .


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Alec Salmond putting his oar in. Mightn't be too far off the mark. Or even spot on it .
> 
> Corbyn coup designed to stop him 'calling for Blair's head' after Chilcot


I don't think either he nor they are that vain or singleminded. Sure it's a factor, but not that big.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 4, 2016)

JimW said:


> By all accounts he's well set in America and wouldn't want to come back anyway.



bezzie mates with Hilary Clinton apparently.


----------



## JimW (Jul 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> bezzie mates with Hilary Clinton apparently.


Hard to imagine either of them having any human feelings but I'll take your word


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Funny how much crying the PLP are doing since they are basically using the tactics of school bullies.


It's gaslighting.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's gaslighting.



I wish someone would give the fuckers something to really cry about. When Corbyn wins they can keep crying, it won't do any good


----------



## free spirit (Jul 4, 2016)

Was it the Yougov poll released on Friday that stopped Eagle from kick starting the leadership contest properly?

According to that poll Corbyn would beat any other candidate by at least 10%.

Whoever's pulling the strings on this in the PLP obviously decided that another few days of attacks was needed to soften up corbyn's support / attempt to force him to resign was needed before any contest started after seeing that polling data.

The polling data also shows up how much of a split there is between the new membership from the Corbyn inspired post election surge vs the pre-election membership, with only 36% of the pre-election members saying they'd vote for Corbyn vs any of Jarvis, Watson, Eagle vs 67-69% of the post election membership saying they'd vote for Corbyn.

There's a new party within the labour party and it's bigger than the rump of the new labour version of the party, and growing faster every time they attack Corbyn. No wonder they're so desperate to force him to resign, it's pretty much their last roll of the dice.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2016)

I've been getting militantly anti-Corbyn sponsored posts on my facebook feed from Progress funded front groups, one was from a group claiming (and uncritically described as such by the Guardian) to be an anti-Semitism lobby group and the other from Luke Akehurst's McCarthyite wank project Labour First.


----------



## Sue (Jul 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'if there wasn't women present I'd bloody your nose'


'Ladies', surely?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Was it the Yougov poll released on Friday that stopped Eagle from kick starting the leadership contest properly?
> 
> According to that poll Corbyn would beat any other candidate by at least 10%.
> 
> ...



That's why they want to get rid of Momentum. It's driving a fair bit of the support into the party. Not all of it, but enough that it probably matters.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've been through this with him already. He's a stubborn bugger. Good job he's charismatic and sexy.


wait a minute, when i read that, i thought you were talking about Corbyn, but you weren't were you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## squirrelp (Jul 4, 2016)

ah... too slow


----------



## free spirit (Jul 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's why they want to get rid of Momentum. It's driving a fair bit of the support into the party. Not all of it, but enough that it probably matters.


Hopefully that will be much harder to do when they're now representing the majority view of the party membership than it was with Militant.

And with the power of social media now they're able to completely bypass the mainstream media to reach huge numbers of like minded people. I saw Momentum claiming 11 million post reach this week.

But even those who're not on social media at all who support corbyn are being driven to joining up to vote for him and defend him from this coup by the PLP - if my dad's anything to go by, who doesn't have a facebook or twitter account.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2016)

The thing is, the genie is out of the bottle now.

Even if Corbyn goes, and even if a fair few people leave Labour as a result, there are a lot of people for whom this has been a call to arms, even a political awakening, really.

I saw some research from America, that found that 70% of millennials are more supportive of socialism and wealth redistribution than they are of capitalism. That's not going away, no matter how many Hillarys are elected. Sure, some will drift back centre-wards, some will run out of steam without the excitement and motivation of a current fight (in the US's case Bernie running for the nom), but there's a distinct change in overall outlook, even if it's not as revolutionary as some would like. It's not just the idealism of the young that every generation sees -- it's a definite shift. Socialism (of a sort, maybe in name only) is back on the table, in the US and over here, for the first time in who knows when. It looks different to how it did 40 years ago, because our material and social circumstances are different, of course. But there it is. There's a feeling that if it's not harnessed right now this moment while the opportunity is there (with Corbyn or with Bernie) that it'll be lost, but that sea change in attitudes will remain. 

They will do everything in their power to squash it.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 4, 2016)

free spirit said:


> And with the power of social media now they're able to completely bypass the mainstream media to reach huge numbers of like minded people. I saw Momentum claiming 11 million post reach this week.



To be fair, those stats can be misleading. Was that unique impressions or just total impressions? Is it across multiple platforms or just one? On top of which, just because a post loaded on a page creating an impression, it doesn't mean the content was read, or even agreed with. Social media is important, but its power is generally massively overstated.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 5, 2016)

Well, looks like she finally did it...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 5, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Was it the Yougov poll released on Friday that stopped Eagle from kick starting the leadership contest properly?
> 
> According to that poll Corbyn would beat any other candidate by at least 10%.
> 
> ...


She was meant to launch last wednesday afternoon. at some point on that wednesday it became clear to them she would lose and the launch was aborted -  i think not least because immediately there was outraged reaction from party members, in liverpool and around the country. Her voting record is abysmal and that went around on social media too. I genuinely dont think they considered that in the run up.

But yeah, agree, they only have one other way to play it and thats keep the jabs going and hope it loses Corbyn points and then stand someone at that point.

As to the size of the party, they will also need new MPs to stand and win seats at some point, once this lot are either binned, walk or reconvert.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2016)

Gerry1time said:


> To be fair, those stats can be misleading. Was that unique impressions or just total impressions? Is it across multiple platforms or just one? On top of which, just because a post loaded on a page creating an impression, it doesn't mean the content was read, or even agreed with. Social media is important, but its power is generally massively overstated.


oh I know that, but it's still a fuckload of impressions, and it works on facebook because it reaches those who're already sympathetic to the message and reinforces existing support.

The JC4PM page has had 570k post interactions this week on 88 posts, Jeremy Corbyn's official page 451k interactions on 13 posts, momentum 116k interactions on 65 posts. That's a huge level of interaction and will generate a huge level of post views, the 11 million page views claimed is credible based on those figures, and will probably translate into well over a million unique users averaging around 10 impressions in the week, though many will be seeing a lot more.

As a comparison, the official labour party page had 8.5k, tories had 17.9k and UKIP had 73k, Lib dems 32k, Greens 36k interactions.

Essentially Corbyn's 2 main pages are getting around 10 x as many interactions between them as the official party pages of all the significant English parties combined. They're also getting around 100 x the interactions that the main Labour contenders are getting.

This social media strategy is largely responsible for the extra 60k members joining in the week, and for showing up his existing support in the face of this weeks PLP and media onslaught IMO, and it's almost all being done on organic hits rather than paid adverts.

This is also a key part of the reason that Corbyn is far better placed to win the next election especially an early election than any of the other contenders are, he has this huge social media presence up and running to turn to mobilising the supporters to get out on the streets and getting out the vote directly and indirectly. The Tories reckon they won the last election largely based on their facebook adverts, Corbyns social media presence gives Labour an incredible base from which to counter that strategy next time around.

eta figures from facebook's insights function for page adminstrators - it lets me see those stats for other pages.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 5, 2016)

Our ward meeting this evening backed Corbyn, but it was close. We wouldn't have sent a message of confidence without people switching from Green, new people and people who rejoined (I'm one of the latter).

There are still a lot of party aparachnics talking unity while meaning nothing of the sort. I'm sure they all love Malala though..


----------



## Balbi (Jul 5, 2016)

I'm trying to work out how Eagle, who has all the presence and charisma of an eagle that's been hit by a truck, will be better for Labour.

Or how they're going to try and reclaim the north by talking 'sensibly' about immigration to the working classes, while simultaneously hanging onto their metropolitan centres.

Not to mention they're either going to have to purge the membership or face their wrath, and their membership pre-Corbyn was already crap enough that their election efforts were hopeless.

Basically, everything's going to burn


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2016)

Did they really think that someone who's spent 30 years refusing to do the bidding of the party whip when they demanded it is suddenly going to bend over an quit just because the majority of the PLP tells him that he must?

It seems they really are that fucking stupid.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 5, 2016)

Now we have "Corbyn is paranoid". This article from The [distorted] Mirror is straight out of the "Let's undermine Harold Wilson" playbook.
Labour staffers blow the lid on life inside Jeremy Corbyn's 'paranoid' HQ


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Was it the Yougov poll released on Friday that stopped Eagle from kick starting the leadership contest properly?
> 
> According to that poll Corbyn would beat any other candidate by at least 10%.
> 
> ...



They may well have believed that the coup itself would be sufficient to oust him. That hed merely pack his bags and skulk off humiliated and chastened  within a few days. And nobody would have to stand against him . While the labour membership would simply be stuck with them and have to put up with it . To me it looks like they badly miscalculated before they even began . Nobody wants to stand against him ..he obliterated them .
I don't think the yougov poll had anything to do with it .  and I'm convinced Tony Blair has everything to do with it . Because if corbyn ends up pm he and the SNP ..and even some Tories may well be trying to stick his ass in the Hague . The blairites are loyal to Blair , simple as . And Blair remains the main figure.....by miles...who stands to gain from labour imploding when the Tories are sitting there rudderless and ripe  for the almightiest of pluckings .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Now we have "Corbyn is paranoid". This article from The [distorted] Mirror is straight out of the "Let's undermine Harold Wilson" playbook.
> Labour staffers blow the lid on life inside Jeremy Corbyn's 'paranoid' HQ



Thing is they are all out to get him


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Thing is they are all out to get him


But it won't be him who'll be got, with a bit of luck.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2016)

coincidence with the Somme centenary - Eagle is the poor patsy that is being bullied by the NCO'S to get up that fucking ladder and be the first one to run across no man's land and sort out them irksome corbyns

Don't worry. We have been softening the decimated corbyn forces up with press releases for days.it will be a doddle.  You don't even need a weapon. Just get over the top and you will be a hero. Go on . We are right behind you. Up you go. Don't worry about the  rats. Over the top for you anna. Chop chop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

another day another round of bollocks and bullshit. Paranoia is when people aren't plotting against you. Where as these lot are, they've not even hidden it. Whetted thier knives in fucking public. For months now. Since before he even got the crown.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> coincidence with the Somme centenary - Eagle is the poor patsy that is being bullied by the NCO'S to get up that fucking ladder and be the first one to run across no man's land and sort out them irksome corbyns
> 
> Don't worry. We have been softening the decimated corbyn forces up with press releases for days.it will be a doddle.  You don't even need a weapon. Just get over the top and you will be a hero. Go on . We are right behind you. Up you go. Don't worry about the  rats. Over the top for you anna. Chop chop.


mandleson with a webley 'get over or I'll shoot you myself coward!'


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But it won't be him who'll be got, with a bit of luck.



Sooner he figures out a way to get these degenerate wretches deselected / expelled from the party the better . Cut out one massive festering tumour .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2016)

Balbi said:


> I'm trying to work out how Eagle, who has all the presence and charisma of an eagle that's been hit by a truck, will be better for Labour.
> 
> Or how they're going to try and reclaim the north by talking 'sensibly' about immigration to the working classes, while simultaneously hanging onto their metropolitan centres.
> 
> ...



Damn straight!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> mandleson with a webley 'get over or I'll shoot you myself coward!'



Mandelson would have someone else do the revolver-brandishing for him. He's that much of a coward.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> another day another round of bollocks and bullshit. Paranoia is when people aren't plotting against you. Where as these lot are, they've not even hidden it. Whetted thier knives in fucking public. For months now. Since before he even got the crown.


It's _what Jo would have wanted_, isn't it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


>



Wouldn't be surprised if they had done it to themselves to claim that they were being victimised by left-wingers. No doubt we will be hearing in the graunid v soon about how this heralds a dangerous new future in British politics


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if they had done it to themselves to claim that they were being victimised by left-wingers. No doubt we will be hearing in the graunid v soon about how this heralds a dangerous new future in British politics


They've already claimed death threats.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 5, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Thing is they are all out to get him


Paranoia would suggest the absence of a plot. This is the same sort of shite they hurled at Harold Wilson, who wasn't all that left-wing tbh. He was also the victim of a right-wing plot to topple him. Cecil King? Gen. Walter Walker?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2016)

Latest tactic seems to be talking up the idea of a split, press swallowing it uncritically of course.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 5, 2016)

If this was an Alan Bleasdale drama it would turn out that at least half of the anti-Corbyn forces in the PLP were actually on his side all along. The counterproductive ineptitude of their campaign so far seems to bear this out.

Are these people really the guardians of the tradition that got Tony fucking Blair re-elected twice even after the Iraq war? I expect them all to be terrible human beings, but not to display this level of basic incompetence at political machinations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> If this was an Alan Bleasdale drama it would turn out that at least half of the anti-Corbyn forces in the PLP were actually on his side all along. The counterproductive ineptitude of their campaign so far seems to bear this out.
> 
> Are these people really the guardians of the tradition that got Tony fucking Blair re-elected twice even after the Iraq war? I expect them all to be terrible human beings, but not to display this level of basic incompetence at political machinations.


whither now cambell? whither now mandelson? only lesser men remain, weep, weep for the dying of the blairite project


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 5, 2016)

Guarian Liveblog said:
			
		

> *Tom Watson*, Labour’s deputy leader, is talking to Labour’s main union backers today to try to find a solution to the Jeremy Corbyn crisis but he is not chairing a single meeting. He is due to meet Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, along with John Cryer, chair of the parliamentary Labour party, this morning. Later in the day he is expected to talk separately to Dave Prentis, the Unison general secretary, Tom Roache, the GMB general secretary, and Dave Ward, the CWU general secretary. Coordinating their diaries has apparently been a bit of a problem.



Yeah I don't think it's about diaries guys. Call me a cynic, but it _might_ be about talking to union leaders individually to try and sound out who are the weakest links/break unanimity.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 5, 2016)

You know how it is. You wait months for a newspaper article urging the Labour Party to split and then along come two at once.

*Labour breakaway could be in national interest* - Financial Times (Paywalled)
Janan Ganesh


Spoiler: Text of article



Voters who want to remain in EU have no party of stature to get behind

Limehouse: so much to answer for. When sensible people in Britain’s Labour party wonder what to do about Jeremy Corbyn, their fantastically unelectable leader, the idea of formal separation makes them shiver with memories of riverside east London. There, 35 years ago, a political quartet including Roy Jenkins, a liberal home secretary of the 1960s, left an increasingly strident Labour to form the Social Democratic party.

In the folklore of the left, this project was an act of desertion that fragmented the anti-Thatcher vote. Today, even MPs of a Jenkins-ite bent curse the infidelity and any prospect of a repetition.

Do not tell them that the bend in the Thames at Limehouse was for centuries called Cuckold’s Point. Their absolute commitment to togetherness would make sense if they had an internal solution to the Corbyn problem. They need to remove him, install someone much better and purge the zealots who have changed the texture of Labour’s grass roots for the worse over the past year. The first of these goals is do-able; the second is not because the third is so hard.

No confidence

Eighty per cent of his MPs expressed no confidence in Corbyn last week but, with an eye on those loyal activists, he is toughing it out. If MPs depose him, he or his treasury spokesman, John McDonnell, may be able to stand again and win. That could be enough to finish the party.

Even if the pair are locked out, the new leader will have to be a difference-splitter who squares the parliamentary party with the bolshie members and the conflicted trade unions. And so we are asked to summon enthusiasm for Angela Eagle, a smart and conscientious MP, but one whose 24 years in parliament may have been spent in cryogenic suspension for all the impact she has had on national consciousness. She would offer voters the kind of soft-left politics that earned Labour a beating 14 months ago.

The plot against Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed.

It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind. By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows.

The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.

From its parliamentary base the new party would try to recruit members. Since the referendum, the most dispossessed voters have been the 16 million who wanted continuity. If the party persuaded one in 100 of them to pay a nominal subscription, it would outnumber the Tories. Moderate Labour activists and staff would defect. Business donors, if not unions, would have an incentive to sustain the project in its precarious infancy.
Credible policies
The Liberal Democrats would be invited to merge or associate. With only eight MPs, they would be myopic churls to refuse. The hard left would keep the Labour name and infrastructure, but these earthly things matter less than credible policies and people. The new party would have those. Instead of 200 simultaneous byelections, it would stand at the next general election and ask the new prime minister, who will be chosen by just 150,000 Tories in the coming weeks, to hold it as soon as possible. The trauma of the Limehouse Declaration – under which Jenkins and his colleagues David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers signalled their intention to leave the party – has paralysed Labour moderates. But if they are going to be cowed by history, they should get that history right. In the end, the SDP won, and won big.

The past four prime ministers – John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron – have tried to blend a free economy, a substantial state, cultural looseness and EU membership. Jenkins sensed where the country was going, just too early. Last month’s eruption has broken his consensus but it still commands half of Britons. A new party must speak for them.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 5, 2016)

*As Labour splits, a new party is emerging* - Times (Paywalled)
Rachel Sylvester


Spoiler: Text of article



Three months ago the idea of a fresh political grouping was seen as mad. Now the tectonic plates are beginning to move

Like the Fisher King in T S Eliot’s poem The Waste Land, Jeremy Corbyn presides over the Labour Party, impotent and unable to perform his task, while behind him his kingdom turns into an “arid plain”. “I was neither living nor dead, and I knew nothing,” says another voice in the poem. This Labour ordeal cannot — and will not — go on.

Yesterday, the leader posted a video message for members urging the party to “come together now”, but the mood of the moderates is hardening. The Unite union leader Len McCluskey may describe Mr Corbyn as a “man of steel” but he is up against MPs who are fighting for their political survival.

Once 172 MPs have declared no confidence in their leader it is hard to see how a deal can be struck.

This is not just about an individual, it’s a fundamental disagreement about the balance between ideological purity and pursuit of power. If Mr Corbyn somehow stays, or is replaced by another hard-left candidate, MPs are in no doubt about what will happen — as several told me: “The party will split.”

Already the possibilities are being explored. One option is for the rebels to make a “unilateral declaration of independence” in the House of Commons, setting up a separate grouping with their own leader.

As they would have more MPs, they could argue that they, and not Mr Corbyn’s rump, should be the official opposition. There would also be a legal fight for the Labour name, with the larger chunk of MPs pushing to retain the brand, funding and infrastructure. A former shadow cabinet minister describes this as a “Clause One rather than a Clause Four moment” because the first line of the party’s constitution defines its purpose as “to organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party”.

What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.

Privately many senior figures — not just so-called Blairites, but also former Brownites and people who subscribe to the “Blue Labour” approach — are coming around to the idea of breaking away.

One MP says it’s a question of supply and demand: “There is clearly a market for a new party of the centre left because there are so many people who feel they have no one to vote for. Labour is veering to the left and the Tories to the right so that leaves a gap.”

A former Downing Street adviser argues that it will be impossible for moderates to win back control of the Labour Party because the membership is likely to remain dominated by leftwingers. The trade unions, which were once a force for moderation, have become part of the problem, encouraging the drift to the left. In his view: “Nobody wants a new party for the sake of it but it’s starting to look inevitable.”

Already, potential donors who could support such a venture are being discussed. “Money would not be a problem. You would need £8 million and you could raise that in a week,” says one of those involved behind the scenes. “If Corbyn stays then we have another organisation that isn’t called the Labour Party. That gets exciting because it doesn’t have all the baggage, the links to the unions; you could create a new constitution and policy programme. There’s a massive opportunity for a pro-business, socially liberal party in favour of the EU.”

It would also have a “pragmatic” approach to immigration and crime, in an attempt to win over some white working-class voters in Labour’s industrial heartlands.

As one strategist says: “What the referendum showed is that the Labour core vote is not a core vote. You have to reinvent the electoral coalition.”

  Money would not be a problem. You would need £8 million and you could raise that in a week

Links forged across party divides in the Remain campaign have been maintained and are forming the basis of new alliances. Pro-European MPs from all parties have already met in the House of Commons to discuss co-operation as Brexit legislation goes through parliament. Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, the former Liberal Democrats leader, has also been talking to Labour and Tory grandees about creating a cross-party movement for people with “modern progressive views”.

He argues that the two main parties are no longer capable of holding together the divergent views within them. “In the present crisis in which everything is incredibly fluid the old structures of politics seem to be breaking down.”

Those yearning for a new party have always been haunted by the failure of the SDP in the 1980s but the situation now is completely different. An overwhelming majority of MPs oppose Labour’s current direction of travel. More importantly, the country has changed socially, culturally and politically. The old tribal allegiances have gone: in the EU referendum, vast numbers of Labour voters in the northern industrial heartlands defied their party’s line to vote for Brexit.

The old saying that “a monkey with a red rosette could win” in safe Labour seats proved to be spectacularly out of date in Scotland. Politics is more fluid than ever. In 1966, only 13 per cent of voters changed their minds about who to support from the previous election. Last year, according to the British Election Study, 38 per cent of people switched parties between 2010 and 2015.

All over Europe new parties are using social media to capitalise on an insurgent mood. Last month the Five Star Movement, which has positioned itself as being beyond the ideological divisions of left and right, won a landslide victory against the prime minister Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party in Rome. Podemos has shaken up Spanish politics. In Denmark, The Alternative, which broke away from the Social Liberal Party in 2013, has won seats by crowd-sourcing policies through “political laboratories”.

Although it is harder for new parties to flourish under the British first past the post voting system than with proportional representation, MPs believe that Labour is becoming so marginalised that it would be possible for a more sensible, modern, centre-left alternative to usurp it as the main opposition to the Conservatives.

With every threat comes an opportunity. Antonio Gramsci talked of the morbid symptoms that appear during a crisis when “the old is dying and the new cannot be born”. That is exactly what Labour is suffering now.

It is time for the new to emerge from the wasteland of the old.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 5, 2016)

Cheers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2016)

Ta for those Lurdan

Utter rubbish of course I particularly like the comparison of the 5 star movement with a bunch of professional politician wankers


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

It's so weird how the narrative is that this whole debate is about pragmatic social democrats vs a Tito like Stalinist/Anarcho-Syndicalist/Posadist figure rather than a pragmatic social democrat vs ideological neoliberal fanatics


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's so weird how the narrative is that this whole debate is about pragmatic Social Democrats vs a Tito like Stalinist/Anarcho-Syndicalist/Posadist figure rather than a pragmatic social democrat vs ideological neoliberal fanatics


determined to make it a shit re run of the 80's, because thats what they grew up on


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> determined to make it a shit re run of the 80's, because thats what they grew up on



decent music mind, the 80s


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Ta for those Lurdan
> 
> Utter rubbish of course I particularly like the comparison of the 5 star movement with a bunch of professional politician wankers


They are amateur politician wankers of course.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2016)

Angela Eagle puts Labour leadership on temporary hold for last-ditch unions move



> Merseyside MP Angela Eagle has agreed to put a temporary hold on her bid for Labourleadership while the party’s deputy Tom Watson holds emergency talks with trade union leaders.
> 
> Mr Watson is attempting to end the impasse over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership in what he described as a “last throw of the dice.”
> 
> ...



Breathe everyone... Angela is letting Tom handle it, for now.


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2016)

Yeah... but he ate a granola bar.  In a meeting.  

Why don't you get how important that is?


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2016)

And noodles.


Once.

Imagine him slurping up those noodles and looking at you over the top of his glasses while you're trying to persuade him to support taking another £30 a week off disabled people.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Angela Eagle puts Labour leadership on temporary hold for last-ditch unions move


It's like one of those "Closing Down Sales" that goes on for years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

Tom Watsons acceptance speech was the most bombastic and humblebraggy at the same time speech I think I've ever seen. Even Sadiq managed to not look like a massive cunt with his. Watsons went on for hours. Empires rose and fell. Now he is clearly trying to be saviour of the party. If you can break the union menz tom, you fucking pinkerton, then the party is yours!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 5, 2016)

Some analysis of NEC nominations, which I'd guess is spun from Progress pov.



> The geography of this is interesting.
> 
> London 28 Moderate majority, 20 Left majority, 8 Split (17 did not nominate).
> 
> ...



Luke Akehurst: NEC analysis shows Momentum thriving in unwinnable seats | LabourList


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whither now cambell? whither now mandelson? only lesser men remain, weep, weep for the dying of the blairite project




It's like when Pixies released Trompe le Monde.

Except I always rather liked Trompe le Monde, even if most people think it's a poor shadow of their former glory.

It's like if Pixies had released Trompe le Monde, and it was actually Toploader's second album note for note.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 5, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Angela Eagle puts Labour leadership on temporary hold for last-ditch unions move
> 
> 
> 
> Breathe everyone... Angela is letting Tom handle it, for now.



Again? She puts more things on hold than Virgin customer services.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 5, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> It's like if Pixies had released Trompe le Monde, and it was actually Toploader's second album note for note.


Yeah, it's fair to say Magic Hotel didn't capture the same, well, magic as Onka's Big Mocha.

But let's not judge them too harshly for that, it's basically like trying to follow up the Pet Sounds of the 90s.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 5, 2016)

I can't remember who I voted for deputy in the labour leadership thing... it definitely wasn't tom watson as someone on here said not to, I've got the feeling it was angela eagle.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 5, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> One MP says it’s a question of supply and demand: “There is clearly a market for a new party of the centre left because there are so many people who feel they have no one to vote for. Labour is veering to the left and the Tories to the right so that leaves a gap.”
> 
> A former Downing Street adviser argues that it will be impossible for moderates to win back control of the Labour Party because the membership is likely to remain dominated by leftwingers. The trade unions, which were once a force for moderation, have become part of the problem, encouraging the drift to the left. In his view: “Nobody wants a new party for the sake of it but it’s starting to look inevitable.”
> 
> Already, potential donors who could support such a venture are being discussed. “Money would not be a problem. You would need £8 million and you could raise that in a week,” says one of those involved behind the scenes. “If Corbyn stays then we have another organisation that isn’t called the Labour Party. That gets exciting because it doesn’t have all the baggage, the links to the unions; you could create a new constitution and policy programme. There’s a massive opportunity for a pro-business, socially liberal party in favour of the EU.”



Fucking hell they really haven't a clue have they? Projected vote share for their new party: 2%, if they're lucky and turn-out is low.
And who the fuck have they been talking to to think there's a market for a new "centrist" party? I haven't heard anyone ever say they wish there was some party occupying the middle ground between Tories and Labour and Lib Dems to vote for, ever, because that would be an incredibly dense thing to say. Absolutely incredible insight into their weird world.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2016)

ah, now that's something I'd been wondering about on the timing. They wanted to get this done before the NEC swung towards Corbyn.

BBC just put it currently at 16 NEC members as Corbyn supporters and 17 against, so if that were to swap around then presumably there is then potential for the NEC to start to act against those who're briefing against Corbyn.

I'm assuming that briefing against the party leader and the party itself is in some way in breach of party rules.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2016)

It used to be compulsory.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 5, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, it's fair to say Magic Hotel didn't capture the same, well, magic as Onka's Big Mocha.
> 
> But let's not judge them too harshly for that, it's basically like trying to follow up the Pet Sounds of the 90s.



Tenner says you had to google both of them.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 5, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Tenner says you had to google both of them.


Had to check Magic Hotel, Onka's Big Mocha is seared onto my heart


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Now we have "Corbyn is paranoid". This article from The [distorted] Mirror is straight out of the "Let's undermine Harold Wilson" playbook.
> Labour staffers blow the lid on life inside Jeremy Corbyn's 'paranoid' HQ



Sadly, we are seeing(after a wonderful but brief hiatus) the return of Maxwell era Daily Mirror.

btw, did anyone go to the 'Meet The Mirror' tours in the 80's, i met and talked to Paul Foot on one, he seemed pretty sound.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 5, 2016)

Tessa Jowell on Daily Politics:

"Angela Eagle faced homophobic abuse at her recent constituency meeting."

Really?

Then:

"It is the purpose of Jeremy Corbyn's life mission to denounce Tony Blair as a war criminal tomorrow."

So there it is.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 5, 2016)

19force8 said:


> "It is the purpose of Jeremy Corbyn's life mission to denounce Tony Blair as a war criminal tomorrow."



He was well ahead of the game on that one when he got elected in the early 80s wasn't he. Man with prescience like that should be Prime Minister or something.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

Alleging homophobia is a first in this whole ordeal isn't it?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 5, 2016)

Apologies if this has been posted.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 5, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Angela Eagle puts Labour leadership on temporary hold for last-ditch unions move
> 
> 
> 
> Breathe everyone... Angela is letting Tom handle it, for now.


Eagle's become something of a running joke. The trouble is, she lacks to the self-awareness to realise it.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:
			
		

> Alleging homophobia is a first in this whole ordeal isn't it?



Her leadership ambitions don't bother me. As long as she keeps them behind closed doors and doesn't shove them in our faces.


----------



## binka (Jul 5, 2016)

Watson was meeting with the Union Barons this morning, guessing since there's been no news/leak to the contrary that they are supporting Brother Jeremy?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 5, 2016)

Not convinced this meeting actually took place


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 5, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Apologies if this has been posted.


It has, but it's a fast moving thread.

The trouble with these quotes is all it does is tell us what we already know: politicians will say whatever's expedient at the time. I suppose it helps to actually present them with hard evidence that they're contradicting themselves into knots, but then they'll just twist further to squirm out of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

binka said:


> Watson was meeting with the Union Barons this morning, guessing since there's been no news/leak to the contrary that they are supporting Brother Jeremy?


he's giving len mcklusky a wedgie as we speak


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 5, 2016)

Apparently Angela and Owen are fighting it out over who is going to take Corbyn on...or not as the case maybe.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Apparently AngelI  and Owen are fighting it out over who is going to take Corbyn on...or not as the case maybe.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I insist that you go first, no you... you are a great leader, oh but i am nothing compared to you etc


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> Sadly, we are seeing(after a wonderful but brief hiatus) the return of Maxwell era Daily Mirror.


I'd say it's more Cecil King tbh.
Every Day is Like Sunday


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

MEANWHILE, AT PROGRESS H.Q...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I insist that you go first, no you... you are a great leader, oh but i am nothing compared to you etc



Sounds about right. Of course all the while publically claiming that the other one is stopping them getting on with the difficult job that needs doing for the good of the country.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

Tessa Jowell was on D/P ranting on about Militant and now Momentum as being wreckers, etc, then Rhea Wolfson cam on to defend JC, etc, she is as far from being a militant as you can get, its ridiculous, Jowell says she is not leaving, i have some time for Nandy, etc, but Blairites like her should leave the stage,


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

> What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
> 
> from the Times article.



Very Revealing, finally a complete abandonment of the poorest areas, the left behind, etc.

just observed Sylvester is married to Patrick Wintour.


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> Fucking hell they really haven't a clue have they? Projected vote share for their new party: 2%, if they're lucky and turn-out is low.
> And who the fuck have they been talking to to think there's a market for a new "centrist" party? I haven't heard anyone ever say they wish there was some party occupying the middle ground between Tories and Labour and Lib Dems to vote for, ever, because that would be an incredibly dense thing to say. Absolutely incredible insight into their weird world.




Yes, if anything divisions are hardening.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Apparently Angela and Owen are fighting it out over who is going to take Corbyn on...or not as the case maybe.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


While watson ineptly waterboards the union barons. What a fine mess it is


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

> Labour staffers blow the lid on life inside Jeremy Corbyn's 'paranoid' HQ



I can belive some of this if Milne is involved.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Angela Eagle puts Labour leadership on temporary hold for last-ditch unions move





> On Monday, Ms Eagle told the media: “It’s a week since Jeremy lost that vote of no confidence and there are many other people up and down the country wanting him to consider his position.”
> 
> She claimed Mr Corbyn was “not properly engaged”, even with deputy leader Tom Watson, saying: “There are many people, MPs, party members up and down the country asking me to resolve this impasse and I will if something isn’t done soon.”
> 
> She added: *“I have the support to run and resolve this impasse and I will do so if Jeremy doesn’t take action soon.”*


*
*
Bare-faced lie of the week there in bold.

Astonishing how almost the entire PLP is able to deny the obvious fact that the party membership still supports Corbyn and that everyone can see them for the anti-democratic, backstabbing shits they are.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2016)

Sneaky! 



> Last week, party officials said at least 60,000 people had joined the Labour party in the previous week – the fastest membership rise of any British political party in history. Momentum, the grassroots leftwing movement that supports Corbyn, says it has doubled its membership to 12,000.
> 
> *However, Corbyn backers who signed up in droves as £3 registered supporters to vote at Labour’s last leadership election will not be able to automatically vote for him again, several Labour sources have confirmed.
> 
> ...



Tom Watson to meet unions to discuss Jeremy Corbyn leadership standoff


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2016)

It isn't sneaky is it? How else could it have worked?


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bare-faced lie of the week there in bold.
> 
> Astonishing how almost the entire PLP is able to deny the obvious fact that the party membership still supports Corbyn and that everyone can see them for the anti-democratic, backstabbing shits they are.




The party isn't a monolith, there will be members who hate his guts, others indifferent, they just aren't in the majority.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 5, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> *As Labour splits, a new party is emerging* - Times (Paywalled)
> Rachel Sylvester
> 
> 
> ...




Describing the relationship between politicians & voters as 'supply & demand' appeared in an Economic Intelligence Unit briefing last year - I'd never thought of that way, never seen it represented so cynically before (& posted it here, I think).

Corbyn illustrates that the UK's party system is broken


----------



## cantsin (Jul 5, 2016)

David Graeber pro Corbo / nistas piece in todays Graun :The elites hate Momentum and the Corbynites - and I’ll tell you why | David Graeber 

after Rachels Shabis yestarday, an another one I forget over the w/e - slight change of tack over there as #ChickenCoup flounders ? 

A Labour coup would be disastrous for the party | Rachel Shabi


----------



## Cid (Jul 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> The party isn't a monolith, there will be members who hate his guts, others indifferent, they just aren't in the majority.



It's a monolith with a crack about a 1/6th of the way in and a big wedge potentially poised above it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

cantsin said:


> David Graeber pro Corbo / nistas piece in todays Graun :The elites hate Momentum and the Corbynites - and I’ll tell you why | David Graeber
> 
> after Rachels Shabis yestarday, an another one I forget over the w/e - slight change of tack over there as #ChickenCoup flounders ?
> 
> A Labour coup would be disastrous for the party | Rachel Shabi


Ah, the Clown Prince of cultural anthropology.


----------



## JimW (Jul 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah, the Clown Prince of cultural anthropology.


Sort of like world's tallest dwarf?


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2016)

you can sign up as a proper member for £4 a month, or £2 if you're part time, not working etc.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah, the Clown Prince of cultural anthropology.



speaking as a Graeber agnostic, can we have a quick summation of his (no doubt legion) shortcomings ?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

JimW said:


> Sort of like world's tallest dwarf?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

cantsin said:


> speaking as a Graeber agnostic, can we have a quick summation of his (no doubt legion) shortcomings ?


I can't really share the gossip, but I find that he is a sort of breathless enthusiast whose work looks persuasive at first glance, to the point where you read his book and think "this explains everything", but then you pass that point and you think "hang on a minute".


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 5, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> MEANWHILE, AT PROGRESS H.Q...
> 
> View attachment 89224



That's how they see themselves. The reality's more like...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> That's how they see themselves. The reality's more like...



Though to be fair neither lot were particularly good at actually assassinating their target.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 5, 2016)

free spirit said:


> ...fantastically interesting stuff...



Ah, then maybe it is having some impact then. I'm generally of the view that organic reach in and of itself is either pretty scattergun and ineffective, or is just preaching to the choir. Paid spend can be far more effective, but if they're achieving the same results as paid spend with organic reach then that's pretty special. Would love to see if it actually translates to offline activity too. I know Labour were using NationBuilder at one point as well, so if that's intermixed with this then I'm not surprised Corbyn's got a strong position amongst the membership. Shame they can't use that data as well for winnning non-party elections.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I can't really share the gossip, but I find that he is a sort of breathless enthusiast whose work looks persuasive at first glance, to the point where you read his book and think "this explains everything", but then you pass that point and you think "hang on a minute".



Got any specific examples of what you mean? I've half read Debt and like you say it comes across as persuasive.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 5, 2016)

Gerry1time said:


> Ah, then maybe it is having some impact then. I'm generally of the view that organic reach in and of itself is either pretty scattergun and ineffective, or is just preaching to the choir. Paid spend can be far more effective, but if they're achieving the same results as paid spend with organic reach then that's pretty special. Would love to see if it actually translates to offline activity too. I know Labour were using NationBuilder at one point as well, so if that's intermixed with this then I'm not surprised Corbyn's got a strong position amongst the membership. Shame they can't use that data as well for winnning non-party elections.



What's NationBuilder?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What's NationBuilder?



website recruitment software


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 5, 2016)

With scarily useful tools in the backend. You can basically track individual's social media activity, link it all up and micro target people to a fine grained level. It even integrates with offline through things like producing walk lists with maps for door knocking and all sorts. I last had a proper play with it a few years ago, and it was hugely impressive then. Can only think it's even better now.

My introduction to it was clicking like on one post someone posted via the system. Within an hour they'd tracked me down via my other profiles, identified me as a potential lead and emailed me via my personal email address.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2016)

Gerry1time said:


> With scarily useful tools in the backend. You can basically track individual's social media activity, link it all up and micro target people to a fine grained level. It even integrates with offline through things like producing walk lists with maps for door knocking and all sorts. I last had a proper play with it a few years ago, and it was hugely impressive then. Can only think it's even better now.
> 
> My introduction to it was clicking like on one post someone posted via the system. Within an hour they'd tracked me down via my other profiles, identified me as a potential lead and emailed me via my personal email address.


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that for now the JC pages are completely separate from the Labour party pages that are linked into Nation Builder.

They were the same pages used in his leadership campaign and I'm fairly sure they're still controlled by the same people outside of the main party machinery.

Because they're building up their support and visibility organically there's not too much need for something like nationbuilder, though maybe they're using them to control and cross post from multiple accounts I get the impression that each account is run by different people / team, but regularly share posts between them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Got any specific examples of what you mean? I've half read Debt and like you say it comes across as persuasive.


The thing is, he focusses on debt and the circulation of things within circuits of debtors and creditors - but he doesn't really talk about how or why things are produced and entered into those circuits (though I have to admit it's a while since I read _Debt_).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The thing is, he focusses on debt and the circulation of things within circuits of debtors and creditors - but he doesn't really talk about how or why things are produced and entered into those circuits (though I have to admit it's a while since I read _Debt_).



Got any follow up reading you can recommend me?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> That's how they see themselves. The reality's more like...


sadly the reality's more like


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

Louise Haigh who is MP for Sheffield Heeley turning on Corbyn is a real disappointment, her CLP seem furious with it as well.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 5, 2016)

When's the membership vote?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Got any follow up reading you can recommend me?


Will PM you.


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

Gerry1time said:


> With scarily useful tools in the backend. You can basically track individual's social media activity, link it all up and micro target people to a fine grained level. It even integrates with offline through things like producing walk lists with maps for door knocking and all sorts. I last had a proper play with it a few years ago, and it was hugely impressive then. Can only think it's even better now.
> 
> My introduction to it was clicking like on one post someone posted via the system. Within an hour they'd tracked me down via my other profiles, identified me as a potential lead and emailed me via my personal email address.




How did they get your email?


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Louise Haigh who is MP for Sheffield Heeley turning on Corbyn is a real disappointment, her CLP seem furious with it as well.



She attended the Another Europe is Possible bash as well, with Owen, Clive Lewis, etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> How did they get your email?


it's probably part of his social media profiles either on facebook or a linked account.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> She attended the Another Europe is Possible bash as well, with Owen, Clive Lewis, etc.



Yeah. Turncoat.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2016)

Who let Spellar out?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 5, 2016)

Still no news of supposed meeting of Watson with union leaders. Did it actually take place??


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Who let Spellar out?



Good rant by the bloke doing the video.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Good rant by the bloke doing the video.


nice earnest young man


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> How did they get your email?



They got enough points of reference from the social media data NationBuilder pulled in that they managed to track me down. It's not hard to track people down once you get a few points of reference on them. Didn't mind it, it was actually quite an effective sales pitch on their part.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Who let Spellar out?



Probation officer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Probation officer?


The turnkey more likely


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

Tony Blair savages Jeremy Corbyn, branding his Labour leadership a "tragedy"



Tony Blair questions whether Jeremy Corbyn can win an election


Tony Blair: Corbyn government would be a dangerous experiment

Tony Blair accuses Jeremy Corbyn of standing by as Syria is bombed


And...a radical rethink in the parties direction...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...r/news/76511/tony-blair-hits-out-over-jeremy-


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 5, 2016)

Blair needs kneecapping. Sort it out CR!

That Syria link - wtf?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Blair needs kneecapping. Sort it out CR!
> 
> That Syria link - wtf?



Well yeah...the middle east peace envoy  is positioning himself for a Clinton presidency . That will most certainly mean a determined attempt by Killary to bomb Syria..while simultaneously attempting to face down Russia and Iran . His job is to get Britain " onside " as much as possible. Corbyn..as well as Brexit..are massive obstacles in the road To making Britain an essential partner...leading European support etc . And he's doing his best to put a spike in both . it's a real nightmare for him. Because if he can't play that role he's absolutely fucking useless to his elitist mates . Yesterday's news . Which is why he's never out of the fucking news these days making these interventions .

Interesting to note he makes a number of comparisons between Corbyn and his support with Trump. Equates them as " 2 heads of the same coin " . Yeah...obstacles as regards what him and Killary have planned . This is Blair behind this . But it's not merely about Iraq . It's about a hell of a lot more . Important interests that he represents . And it strikes me the Blairites apparent desperation has got a lot to do with his . 

Starting a new party FFS ....millionaire donors..

I believe if you analyse what Blairs saying in these interviews there's a cat frantically struggling to get out of a bag . When one looks at it from the standpoint of Blair consciously deciding to play an active and interventionist role in British politics ever since Corbyn took over . Interests are at stake .


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 5, 2016)

Looks like Watson didn't actually meet with "union leaders" but solely with Len McCluskey. Seeing as how there is no feedback, shouldn't think the results of that were positive for Watson.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 5, 2016)

Just needs someone to throw that bagged cat into a river then. But who.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 5, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just needs someone to throw that bagged cat into a river then. But who.



Corbyn . He needs to focus on obliterating this gangster . He's the head of the snake as regards his current difficulties . He's led this charge...from behind .


----------



## Beermoth (Jul 5, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet agrees to Labour peace talks


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 5, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet agrees to Labour peace talks


Having read that article in the Guardian I can find no solid information. It mostly is a re-iteration of things that had already happened or been said in the last two days. In other words "nothing to see here".


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2016)

Gerry1time said:


> With scarily useful tools in the backend. You can basically track individual's social media activity, link it all up and micro target people to a fine grained level. It even integrates with offline through things like producing walk lists with maps for door knocking and all sorts. I last had a proper play with it a few years ago, and it was hugely impressive then. Can only think it's even better now.
> 
> My introduction to it was clicking like on one post someone posted via the system. Within an hour they'd tracked me down via my other profiles, identified me as a potential lead and emailed me via my personal email address.


We had a local election recently and were visited about 8 times by Labour and Green volunteers to ask us to vote during the day. 

I put a sarcy comment about it on twitter (which doesn't use my real name) and when I woke up the next morning it had been liked by one of the people who had knocked on my door. 

Freaked me out a bit.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 5, 2016)

Could possibly have been a NationBuilder thing then, if they were running their D's and P's knocking up operation using it. Basically knocking on the doors of people definite or probable to vote for you repeatedly during the day, until you go and vote and unwittingly show your poll card to one of the people from the parties standing outside the polling station, when they take down your name / reg number, run it back to their 'control room' and tick you off the list of people who have already voted.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 5, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet agrees to Labour peace talks



Watson out to save own skin shocker


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 5, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet agrees to Labour peace talks



How gracious of them!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 5, 2016)

> The TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, or her predecessor, Brendan Barber, are seen as potential chairs for the negotiations, which are aimed at averting an immediate challenge to Corbyn’s leadership and “cooling the temperature”. _*The role is likened by some senior party figures to that of General John de Chastelain, who oversaw the disarmament process in Northern Ireland*_



I reckon some senior party figures deserve a swift, brutal kick to the bollocks for even daring to make that comparison 

Which side are the PLP, the IRA or the Unionists?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

THIS IS DEFINITELY THE MOST HYPERBOLIC THING FROM AN ANTI-CORBYNITE YET


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> THIS IS DEFINITELY THE MOST HYPERBOLIC THING FROM AN ANTI-CORBYNITE YET




'Prepare to be coxed' is definitely something that someone would write in anger and not at all the sort of thing dreamed up by someone thinking 'wow what would really make them lot look bad?'


----------



## JimW (Jul 5, 2016)

I thought Corbyn's years in Legacy of Hate showed off his hard metal drumming to its finest effect.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

BTW I see that we are re-entering a period in which 'moderates' seek out or invent the most extreme and unpleasant examples of behaviour from real or alleged supporters of Corbyn in order to attack Corbyn by proxy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> 'Prepare to be coxed' is definitely something that someone would write in anger and not at all the sort of thing dreamed up by someone thinking 'wow what would really make them lot look bad?'


Well, it seems to be something actually sent to someone else, in a context which does not in any way point conclusively to being pro-Corbyn in the first place


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, it seems to be something actually sent to someone else, in a context which does not in any way point conclusively to being pro-Corbyn in the first place




Knowingly taking comments made by the far-right and attributing them to left-wingers has become a staple of centrist politics lately.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> THIS IS DEFINITELY THE MOST HYPERBOLIC THING FROM AN ANTI-CORBYNITE YET




Eugh, it doesn't even scan ffs


----------



## Dan U (Jul 5, 2016)

That bloke works for Portland. 

Part of me thinks he dreamt it up but equally people are fucking weird and do shit like that.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2016)

On the one hand, he's an awful human being and probably made it up.

On the other, The Canary could get a load of shit over it for fingering him in that appalling googled 'investigation' they did, which can only be a bonus. 

Not sure how I feel about it tbh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Who let Spellar out?




Christ he actually manages to make Hitchens look like the voice of reason


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2016)

Shared by someone on my facebook feed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Knowingly taking comments made by the far-right and attributing them to left-wingers has become a staple of centrist politics lately.


Any examples?


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

That Portland stuff is mad. Conspiracy theory. I haven't seen any real sources for it, it's constructed entirely from google - there's probably a story in there about the size of the pool these vermin swim in and their networks of support, but the definitive PORTLAND ARE BEHIND ALL THIS line that people are pushing is conjecture. Fucksake.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> That Portland stuff is mad. Conspiracy theory. I haven't seen any real sources for it, it's constructed entirely from google - there's probably a story in there about the size of the pool these vermin swim in and their networks of support, but the definitive PORTLAND ARE BEHIND ALL THIS line that people are pushing is conjecture. Fucksake.



It's so unhelpful that you have to wonder if some PR agency came up with the whole conspiracy theory, fed it to the people at the Canary and made up some death threats to go with it to discredit and smear the 'corbynistas'


----------



## Sifta (Jul 6, 2016)

All we know for sure is that Tom Mauchline, who did the well-publicized heckle at Pride works for Portland. Off his own bat or part of a plan? We may never know


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Any examples?



Pretty standard tactic of Hillary Clinton boosters during the Democratic Primaries was to retweet people with names like KillTheJews1488 as 'evidence' of harassment from Bernie Sanders supporters.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Clive Lewis being talked up as a unity leader. That would be a meteoric rise...


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Note Lewis has the necessary military connections to make him appeal to the great unwashed.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> That Portland stuff is mad. Conspiracy theory. I haven't seen any real sources for it, it's constructed entirely from google - there's probably a story in there about the size of the pool these vermin swim in and their networks of support, but the definitive PORTLAND ARE BEHIND ALL THIS line that people are pushing is conjecture. Fucksake.


it seems fairly likely that there is organisation going on behind the scenes for this that's not just the individual MPs involved doing it.

Keeping the media drip fed with stories for months then co-ordinating the mass resignations, organising web domains in advance etc.

OK so it's being done a bit sloppily, but I don't see all of this just happening without some level of organisation behind it, some significant people with clout telling them 'if you do this there'll be support, you'll not be left swinging in the wind'.

Portland do seem to fit the bill, but they'll only be the intermediary.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm not really interested in discussing conspiracy theories cooked up by the fucking Canary thanks.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> That Portland stuff is mad. Conspiracy theory.


Why is it a conspiracy theory? Do you know how PR campaigns work?



killer b said:


> PORTLAND ARE BEHIND ALL THIS line that people are pushing is conjecture. Fucksake.


Again, why? The Blair government made much use of PR and so has the current government.

I don't think it's conjecture at all. The coup plotters need PR to communicate their 'messages' and convince the public to reject Corbyn. That's how these things work.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

You know what conjecture is, right?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm not really interested in discussing conspiracy theories cooked up by the fucking Canary thanks.



Len McCluskey mentioned the involvement of Portland communications in an interview i posted upthread, so it's not just down to the Canary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Note Lewis has the necessary military connections to make him appeal to the great unwashed.



As does Desperate Dan Jarvis, although he rather shot himself in the foot (typical fucking Para!) by falling in with the plotters.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Clive Lewis being talked up as a unity leader. That would be a meteoric rise...



Owen Jones hinted that a younger leader (I suspected Lewis or Haigh) or some similar scenario was the plan all along in his piece where he stabbed Corbyn in the back.

My thoughts on the plight of Labour



> A confession. There was a plan that, along with others, I subscribed to. The general election was scheduled to take place in 2020; two years or so before, a younger left-wing member of the new intake would take Jeremy Corbyn’s place. They could learn from the inevitable mistakes of the Labour leadership, and present a fresh message that could resonate with a wider section of the country. A genuine alternative to the status quo can be married to competence, a clear vision, message discipline and optimism. But you cannot dictate terms to history. We have run out of road. A general election is now inevitable, whether it be later in the year or the spring of next year.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Clive Lewis being talked up as a unity leader. That would be a meteoric rise...



Saw Clive at the AEIP event, sadly at this he came across a bit student union leader, didn't talk much about left behind britain, strangely Louise Haigh(disowned Corbyn) did


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones hinted that a younger leader (I suspected Lewis or Haigh) or some similar scenario was the plan all along in his piece where he stabbed Corbyn in the back.



Once upon a time I had some respect for Jones, but this "plan" is just self aggrandizing fantasy. On top of that there's such a staggering volume of idiocy in the piece it would take far too long to deal with. So I'll just drop this quote:



> My fear is this, and this is what has left me with little sleep for the past few days. What happens if I keep all these fears to myself.



If only.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

Corbyn fatally undermined by the Chilcot Report...now is the time for one last push and he's gone.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 6, 2016)

we shall see..


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> You know what conjecture is, right?


Well, duh. Of course I know what it is. I'd still like to know why you think it's conjecture. What's your point?

Have you seen this or do you think it's more conspiraloonery?
Portland PR - Powerbase

You obviously don't like The Canary and that's your bag, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Portland hasn't been involved in black propaganda campaign against Corbyn or Momentum. I know a PR campaign when I see one. How about you?


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, duh. Of course I know what it is. I'd still like to know why you think it's conjecture.


because it's an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information??


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones hinted that a younger leader (I suspected Lewis or Haigh) or some similar scenario was the plan all along in his piece where he stabbed Corbyn in the back.
> 
> My thoughts on the plight of Labour



Christ, that quote from Jones.  Who was this special "younger left-wing member of the new intake" going to be? Richard Burgon? If this doesn't tarnish Jones's rep what the fuck will? I never used to mind Jones but what a pompous arsehole.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, duh. Of course I know what it is. I'd still like to know why you think it's conjecture. What's your point?





belboid said:


> because it's an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information??


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 6, 2016)

> I know a PR campaign when I see one. How about you?


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

and Tony Blair knew what the right thing to do was. 

At least I don't think it will take seven years to show why you are wrong


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Well, on the strength of this apparent campaign, I don't think I'd employ their services.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Launched on a false pretext, incompetently planned for and carried out, with numerous false stories planted in the media and resulting in an utter disaster.  The coup plotters didn't fall far from the tree, did they?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 6, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You obviously don't like The Canary and that's your bag, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Portland hasn't been involved in black propaganda campaign against Corbyn or Momentum. I know a PR campaign when I see one. How about you?



Well yeah there's definitely been a PR campaign, but possibly the most blindingly obvious rule of any modern-day conspiracy is "don't publicly list your leading members as directors of the company you're using to run the conspiracy, whose names and backgrounds can be found by any idiot with internet access and the ability to use Google."

Incompetent though many of these people clearly are, there's limits.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

I don't think there is a conspiracy here, some people employed by Portland have definitely participated in and instigated at least two events which were then reported on as happening organically as relatively minor events in the news cycle followed only by political obsessives who have made their mind up about Corbyn anyway. It's not exactly lizards pulling the strings in the background, is it?


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

I suspect they were acting in a voluntary capacity. If not, Eagle should ask for her money back.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 6, 2016)

So in response to Tessa Jowells accusations of homophobic abuse against Eagle at her constituency meeting, turns out she wasn't even there...


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 6, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> Christ, that quote from Jones.  Who was this special "younger left-wing member of the new intake" going to be? Richard Burgon? If this doesn't tarnish Jones's rep what the fuck will? I never used to mind Jones but what a pompous arsehole.



It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?



He isn't the first person I've heard say that this is _the plan_, a Labour left person told me the same sort of thing basically word for word several months ago.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 6, 2016)

It sounds sensible enough to me. He'd be mad to give in to any compromise that would placate that bunch of cunts now though - make them climb all the way down first.


----------



## Sirena (Jul 6, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?


On the contrary, I think Corbyn would win an election.  

I have no time for 'younger' leaders, since they all seem to want to prove themselves, often at the expense of the country they are supposed to serve.  A lot of practical sense comes with age.....


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

Just heard Corbyn's official apology.  Deeply sincere and unarguable, it will no doubt drive the PLP mad.

edit:  here it is - 



> So I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003.
> 
> That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> Christ, that quote from Jones.  Who was this special "younger left-wing member of the new intake" going to be? Richard Burgon? If this doesn't tarnish Jones's rep what the fuck will? I never used to mind Jones but what a pompous arsehole.




Owen is a decent guy,. but like a rock star there are signs he is beginning to believe in his own propaganda.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Just heard Corbyn's official apology.  Deeply sincere and unarguable, it will no doubt drive the PLP mad.
> 
> edit:  here it is -




Any other politician would have mentioned the families first, that will be picked up by the right wing press.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2016)

Jones. He isn't your mate.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Any other politician would have mentioned the families first, that will be picked up by the right wing press.



Perhaps - though one would think that even they would note the absurdity of that, when many more people (including women and by all accounts many kids) were murdered in one attack this weekend than we lost in seven years of war. 

My only problem with his apology is that he didn't take the opportunity to apologise himself, pointing out that he and many Labour MPs fought against it but that he wasn't able to stop it happening.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 6, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?



How's the plan going? Who is this younger member they are pinning their hopes on? Until they get the Blairites and Brownites deselected, they're still there in droves in the H of C staring daggers at Corbyn's back.

I dislike Jones's behind the scenes, for-those-in-the-know aspect of it. I'm not a big fan of political leaders but it was Corbyn who delivered this victory for the left of the Labour Party. No one else from that wing would have got a sniff of winning the leadership. But now it turns out that the so called new politics boils down to Owen and his political mates coming up with this plan that they just happen to now drop on Corbyn supporters after the fact. Very hackish, in my opinion. And also pretty crap.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

'They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years.'

anyone got a worse one? I hear suez was a bit of a shitter but thats much longer ago


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Owen is a decent guy,. but like a rock star there are signs he is beginning to believe in his own propaganda.



I think he's a coward personally, I'm sure he would be nice enough to have a pint and a chat with but then again that's undoubtedly the case for loads of people with politics that I do not agree with. If we believe what he tells us then he has spent most of his adult and formative years waiting for someone like Corbyn, it's even intergenerational since his dad and mum were both in Militant, but he has chosen to put his own career aspirations and the views of his peers in the media bubble ahead of his stated lifelong beliefs. He is a fraud.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?


I want to see Corbyn as prime minister, with a cabinet full of the younger generation of left wingers to gain the experience needed to take over when Corbyn decides it's time to go.

None of them stand much of a chance of winning an election right now themselves, but are vital parts of Corbyn's support team and will gain the necessary experience to take over if they help Corbyn to win it.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think there is a conspiracy here, some people employed by Portland have definitely participated in and instigated at least two events which were then reported on as happening organically as relatively minor events in the news cycle followed only by political obsessives who have made their mind up about Corbyn anyway. It's not exactly lizards pulling the strings in the background, is it?


so, is it your conjecture that everything happened exactly as the plotters have said it happened? 

Hillary Benn just happened to ring Corbyn to back him into a corner and force him to sack him 2 days after someone had registered the angelaforleader website, which was then followed by Angela resigning because of Corbyn sacking Hillary Benn, followed by a steady trickle of resignations throughout the day, all prompted by Corbyn's sacking of Hillary Benn..... but er the website was registered prior to that all happening.

The entire thing has obviously been planned in advance, at least some of them have lied about their motivations for resigning, others have either lied or been duped.

I can't see that there's any way this wasn't a conspiracy, the only question is about exactly who was in on the conspiracy, who planned and initiated it, and who's been duped into going along with it / just jumped on the bandwagon.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Any other politician would have mentioned the families first, that will be picked up by the right wing press.



He did mention the families first the tens of thousands of Iraqi families. And he was right to do so. They are the people who bore and continue to bear the brunt of the disastrous policy.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 6, 2016)

Over 100K new members to Labour since the start of the coup.

I'm seeing a report that it's actually closer to 200K, and that yesterday saw an enormous influx of applications.

Labour membership to hit 600,000


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

if my facebook feed is anything to go on, in the last few days there's been a mass defection of the Green surge to the Corbyn defence surge (plus obviously a lot of other people as well).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 6, 2016)

I wonder if in part that's why Lucas has suggested a cross-party cooperation alliance thingy? To stem to flow back from them to Labour? "Don't go back to them, we can work together, stay with me."


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 6, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I wonder if in part that's why Lucas has suggested a cross-party cooperation alliance thingy? To stem to flow back from them to Labour? "Don't go back to them, we can work together, stay with me."



Hence her running for Green leader again.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Any other politician would have mentioned the families first, that will be picked up by the right wing press.


He's got it in the right order - and putting it in that order does nothing to diminish the suffering of the British soldiers families.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I wonder if in part that's why Lucas has suggested a cross-party cooperation alliance thingy? To stem to flow back from them to Labour? "Don't go back to them, we can work together, stay with me."


I think she's deeply frustrated with the lack of progress at the last election following the Green surge, and that also translates into the frustration of those who were part of the surge in finding a party that was ill prepared to mobilise such a huge growth in membership and didn't adapt to it and largely stuck with a target to win strategy that was based on targeting council wards rather than constituencies despite the surge being motivated by national issues. No surprise that loads are jumping ship, as that remains the strategy.

In terms of the alliance, the only way I can see that working is in an informal way for GP to leave the left wing labour seats and targets alone, and target the seats of the neoliberal new labour MPs / and tories instead. ie it'd be more of a pact with momentum than with the entire Labour Party.

I don't really see it working though tbh.


----------



## Sirena (Jul 6, 2016)

free spirit said:


> if my facebook feed is anything to go on, in the last few days there's been a mass defection of the Green surge to the Corbyn defence surge (plus obviously a lot of other people as well).


I believe that.  I'm a member of the Green Party (ecological reasons) and the Labour Party (support Corbyn) and I do work for both.

The Green Party is closer, in spirit, to Corbyn than to any other type of politics. Everyone in the Green Party would instinctively be on Corbyn's side in a flash.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2016)

how'd you manage to sneak in to labour while still being a member of the greens?

I got binned from the £3 quid supporter thing due to my Green party work, but probably because I'd signed the nomination papers for our candidate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

free spirit said:


> how'd you manage to sneak in to labour while still being a member of the greens?
> 
> I got binned from the £3 quid supporter thing due to my Green party work, but probably because I'd signed the nomination papers for our candidate.



I presume by not telling them as you couldn't be a member of both under LP rules (and probably under GP rules as well).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 6, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I believe that.  I'm a member of the Green Party (ecological reasons) and the Labour Party (support Corbyn) and I do work for both.
> 
> The Green Party is closer, in spirit, to Corbyn than to any other type of politics. Everyone in the Green Party would instinctively be on Corbyn's side in a flash.



Not sure the Deputy Leader and the likes of Rupert Read and Jenny Jones would agree with you. Not right, not left, but green, remember. I have a huge amount of time for Caroline Lucas but there's a lot of long timers in the party who really aren't remotely left wing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> He's got it in the right order - and putting it in that order does nothing to diminish the suffering of the British soldiers families.



Yep Wilf I think he made a very deliberate choice and got it spot on.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

Rimbaud said:


> It's a perfectly reasonable plan I think. Corbyn isn't the man to lead Labour to a general election, and probably doesn't want to, but he is the best man to revitalise the party and get rid of the Blairites, which thus far he has done pretty well. Getting a younger leader in after the reform of the party is complete seems the best strategy available to me. Or is it just Jones blabbing about it for no apparent reason what you object to, rather than the plan itself?



I've been saying the above since Corbyn won the leadership. It's also made fairly obvious by Corbyn's re-democratisation strategy, and his entire tactical approach to dealing with - or rather not doing deals with - the PLP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

treelover said:


> Owen is a decent guy,. but like a rock star there are signs he is beginning to believe in his own propaganda.



He's a journalistic demagogue. He's always believed his own propaganda. It's part of his "brand", and it's why the soft bugger keeps tripping over his own tongue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> My only problem with his apology is that he didn't take the opportunity to apologise himself, pointing out that he and many Labour MPs fought against it but that he wasn't able to stop it happening.



I agree, but would contend that his apology was more statesmanlike as-is, on the basis that it didn't contain anything that could be even mildly construed as "point-scoring".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think he's a coward personally, I'm sure he would be nice enough to have a pint and a chat with...



Or a bit of a gobshite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Hence her running for Green leader again.



Joint leadership ticket with Jonathan Bartley, I believe. Bartley's a good man. He and our local Green party have put quite a bit of sweat into our local regeneration issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Not sure the Deputy Leader and the likes of Rupert Read and Jenny Jones would agree with you. Not right, not left, but green, remember. I have a huge amount of time for Caroline Lucas but there's a lot of long timers in the party who really aren't remotely left wing.



I was explaining to our sole Lambeth Green councillor a couple of months ago why a lot of w/c people of my age locally don't see the Greens as a natural vehicle for their political needs. "We remember some of the people you had as spokespersons in the 70s and 80s, my friend!". I then had to explain that his party had more than its fair share of right-libertarian eco-loons back then.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 6, 2016)

Very revealing...


> One senior MP told The Telegraph: "It's finished. He will win easily in a second contest if he is on the ballot, it's everything we wanted to avoid."
> 
> They added: "*He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them*. He is Teflon in that sense."


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2016)

Was just about to post that myself.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 6, 2016)

Bullcrap Corbyn is losing support!

But good if the coup plotters realise their sneaky game is over.

Perhaps this is the absolutely the best thing that could have happened. No longer does Corbyn have to appease the corrupted of his party by appointing them. No longer can Corbyn be accused of being a 'weak' leader. And Labour party membership is higher than Blair ever managed, and that's in opposition.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2016)

> "_He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them_."



I reckon there's quite a lot of doubt about that tbh.

The fact these people are _upset_ about thousands joining their party tells you all you need to know about them.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Very revealing...
> ​


Insane!



> [A Labour MP anonymously briefing the Telegraph] said: "Jeremy and his team don't care about the public, they don't care about opposing this Government. Angela is the best hope now and people are prepared for that fight."



Whether or not this MP thinks Corbyn is going about things the right way, whether or not they agree with his politics, do they honestly believe he doesn't “care about the public” or “opposing the government”?


----------



## belboid (Jul 6, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> I reckon there's quite a lot of doubt about that tbh.
> 
> The fact these people are _upset_ about thousands joining their party tells you all you need to know about them.


But they're all _trots. 
_
200,000 trots, who knew?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 6, 2016)

> [A Labour MP anonymously briefing the Telegraph] said: "Jeremy and his team don't care about the public, they don't care about opposing this Government


 
wonder if s/he's one of the shits who abstained on the welfare bill?


----------



## Favelado (Jul 6, 2016)

Trotsky if you think that you've heard this one before.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2016)

trotky. trotsky I was only joking when I said, get mercador to do in your head

*Jonny marr awesome guitar bit*


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2016)

belboid said:


> But they're all _trots.
> _
> 200,000 trots, who knew?


Possibly the world's most ambitious, long term sleeper operation ever


----------



## Tankus (Jul 6, 2016)

maybe its a virus ......like Cyrus


----------



## discokermit (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> But they're all _trots.
> _
> 200,000 trots, who knew?


mind you, if you work out the turnover of the swp......


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 7, 2016)

So are the blairites going to leave and form their own party?


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

Looks like he wasn't just hanging on for chilcot then eh?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

Tankus said:


> maybe its a virus ......like Cyrus


Fully anticipate discovering that Omagh was in some way inspired by _Ghost Rider_


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> Looks like he wasn't just hanging on for chilcot then eh?



Were you expecting him to stand down by midnight or something?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2016)

Hmmm ... well .... Im thinking that the cack handed coup has actually made corbyn stronger. The PLP have ended up making themselves look ridiculous - inept, cowardlly and - fatally - like _losers. _ And their antics have inspired tens of thousands of people to join the labour party to defend corbyn. Chilcot also helps corbyns reputation as a man of principle who stood against the political establishment and was proved to be absolutely right. 
How long will it take for the increasingly anti-blairite membership to make its presence felt in selection (and deselection) of mps?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> How long will it take for the increasingly anti-blairite membership to make its presence felt in selection (and deselection) of mps?


3 years.

What they can do now is to influence the make up of the NEC, which could then start disciplining MPs who deliberately undermined the party and party leadership.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 7, 2016)

6 momentum candidates are standing for NEC. Ballot papers should be arriving soon.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Were you expecting him to stand down by midnight or something?


I would have expected something more dramatic than a measured statement to parliament and an apology, if a response to chilcot as party leader was all he was holding out for. But it wasn't, so that's what we got.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hmmm ... well .... Im thinking that the cack handed coup has actually made corbyn stronger. The PLP have ended up making themselves look ridiculous - inept, cowardlly and - fatally - like _losers. _ And their antics have inspired tens of thousands of people to join the labour party to defend corbyn. Chilcot also helps corbyns reputation as a man of principle who stood against the political establishment and was proved to be absolutely right.
> How long will it take for the increasingly anti-blairite membership to make its presence felt in selection (and deselection) of mps?


yep.

Hard for them to maintain the narrative that Corbyn is a 'weak' leader when he is still standing now and they are all resigned (literally)


----------



## Raheem (Jul 7, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Trotsky if you think that you've heard this one before.



Chekespeare's Sister
How Soon Is Mao?


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> So are the blairites going to leave and form their own party?


No, but hopefully they will join the lib dems!


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

red devil said:


> No, but hopefully they will join the lib dems!


FIrst case of rats jumping from a sinking ship to a sunken one!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I would have expected something more dramatic than a measured statement to parliament and an apology, if a response to chilcot as party leader was all he was holding out for. But it wasn't, so that's what we got.


even now, he's a labour man through and through. You've got to work with these people at some point. Which is why I don't vote labour


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2016)

No other Labour leader would have made that apology in those terms, so good on Corbyn I say. I think to hope for more is a bit unrealistic. I'm fine with it.


----------



## red devil (Jul 7, 2016)

y


DotCommunist said:


> even now, he's a labour man through and through. You've got to work with these people at some point. Which is why I don't vote labour


ou should join thee half killion people in labour
in ordet to oppose capital
ultra leftism leads nowhere
dont let the blairite s um win


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2016)

George Eaton discerns where the Maquis will strike next:



> Yet afterwards, Corbyn’s opponents are hopeful that they can prevail. They speak of harnessing the energy of “the 48 per cent” who voted for the UK to remain in the EU and have been politicised by defeat. An unpublished poll by GQR found that 10 per cent of the public would pay £3 to participate in a leadership election. A plurality of this group oppose Corbyn and consist of three segments: liberal cosmopolitans, “old right” Labour and “pure democrats” who want “a strong opposition”. Rather than being disheartened by polls showing Corbyn ahead, the rebels were cheered that opinion seemed to be shifting even before a contest has begun. They will seek to overcome activists’ traditional loyalty to the leader by counterposing loyalty to the party. The contest will be framed as a referendum on Labour’s very survival.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hmmm ... well .... Im thinking that the cack handed coup has actually made corbyn stronger. The PLP have ended up making themselves look ridiculous - inept, cowardlly and - fatally - like _losers. _ And their antics have inspired tens of thousands of people to join the labour party to defend corbyn. Chilcot also helps corbyns reputation as a man of principle who stood against the political establishment and was proved to be absolutely right.
> How long will it take for the increasingly anti-blairite membership to make its presence felt in selection (and deselection) of mps?


Why have so many of the MPs they have hitherto selected been Blairite? 

Is it always because the hierarchy gives the CLPs no choice? Or are they just indiscriminate in their choice?

172 MPs specifically voted no confidence in Corbyn, but all together 194 refused to back Corbyn. That's the number who voted against him, abstained, or didn't turn up to vote.

If the Labour Party membership is anti Blairite, how does this happen?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 7, 2016)

If this is true (more sauce!) then it's about bloody time. 

Are journos seriously going to disparage him for not appointing loyalists after the loonary of the last week?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> But they're all _trots.
> _
> 200,000 trots, who knew?


how?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> how?


They have marks on their skin that are painless when pricked.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I would have expected something more dramatic than a measured statement to parliament and an apology, if a response to chilcot as party leader was all he was holding out for. But it wasn't, so that's what we got.



What didn't you like about this: full text of Corbyn's parliamentary response?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

You misunderstand me: I thought Corbyn's response to Chilcot was pretty much perfectly pitched. It just contradicts all the people who've been breathlessly proclaiming it's all about Chilcot for the last few weeks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> You misunderstand me: I thought Corbyn's response to Chilcot was pretty much perfectly pitched. It just contradicts all the people who've been breathlessly proclaiming it's all about Chilcot for the last few weeks.



Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> You misunderstand me: I thought Corbyn's response to Chilcot was pretty much perfectly pitched. It just contradicts all the people who've been breathlessly proclaiming it's all about Chilcot for the last few weeks.


Whilst I agree that "it's _all_ about Chilcot" was a misreading of the motivations for the coup...it must be said that the long-planned attempt must have regarded the EU ref result (leave) and the publication of Chilcot as the 'bookends' for their time period of attack.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm sure it was part of their decision to move when they did, but a relatively minor one. I think the opportunities presented by the referendum result and the then-impending snap election (which would both immunise the mutineers from deselection and be an electoral test they would prefer the left not to have the opportunity to face) were much bigger factors.


----------



## Cid (Jul 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Why have so many of the MPs they have hitherto selected been Blairite?
> 
> Is it always because the hierarchy gives the CLPs no choice? Or are they just indiscriminate in their choice?
> 
> ...



Pdf on party membership (e2a: not sure link works, search 'file Downloads SN05125'). Sharp decline after '78, low through the '80s, minor spike for Blair's success sinking over 1997-2008 (then remaining steady around 200,000). That's not a lot of people spread over 650 constituencies/45.6m potential voters. Weak CLPs whose active members stuck it out over the Blair years... It's not going to make for very inspiring choices. Anyway Tim did say increasingly anti-Blairite - clearly anyone who stuck it out/was inspired to join under Milliband (a shocking 30-40,000 by the looks of it) is going to pretty pro-Blairite.

n.b the slow piss streak downward trickle of lib dem membership on the graph is amusing.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

Owen jones is a cosmopolitan guardianista fop . Fuck him. I used to find him reasonably agreeable in small doses but he's weak as water when it comes to hunkering down in the trenches . Imagine he'd been at Chavez or Allendes side when the coups went down . He'd have been for handing both of them over to the generals  and waffling about common sense positions ..all the way to the football stadium. Prick .

Knows what side his bread is buttered . But possibly not what way the wind is blowing .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

agricola said:


> Perhaps - though one would think that even they would note the absurdity of that, when many more people (including women and by all accounts many kids) were murdered in one attack this weekend than we lost in seven years of war.
> 
> My only problem with his apology is that he didn't take the opportunity to apologise himself, pointing out that he and many Labour MPs fought against it but that he wasn't able to stop it happening.



Imagine Hitlers successor issuing an apology faware illegal war of aggression and then apologising first and foremost to the Wehrmacht . Glad Corbyn never took that route .


----------



## camouflage (Jul 7, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Imagine Hitlers successor issuing an apology faware illegal war of aggression and then apologising first and foremost to the Wehrmacht . Glad Corbyn never took that route .



I really appreciate that Corbyn apologised to the Iraqi people first and foremost, it makes me sick the way the establishment media (BBC, C4 etc) focus mainly on the portraits of soldiers and their grieving families. I find it indecent actually. Nobody joins the army to shoulder-surf the decisions of the Generals or the Commander in Cheif, soldiers follow orders, they kill and die as ordered, the rights and wrongs of it are not their concern- that's what being a soldier is, no point whining about it after the fact as if you thought that as a soldier you'd only fight battles you agree with and see the point of. Here's a clue, in the next life consider _not _joining an army. Died during the course of a stupid and dishonest illegal war launched by a couple of deluded morally bankrupt bum-buddies? "Suck it up", as the US Marine Corps sez.

The Iraqi civilians didn't "sign up" for this shit, and even today they don't get to go about what jobs they do have safe in the knowledge that the wife and kids are safely back home not being bombed or beheaded. Many many civilian women and children have died as a result of that grinning psycopath and his fuckwit friend with their "clever plans".

Soldiers are soldiers, that's what they chose to do... I don't hold them responsible for the Iraq war as they were doing what soldiers do- following their orders. At the same time I find it gross that the media in the UK seems to want to make those that died the main victims of that war. Perhaps they should have watched more Vietnam movies or whatever but they made their choice and those that died did so "doing what they loved", it's not all cool outfits, rugged group photos and big guns is it. But it's worse than even that, in half the reports I wound myself up watching last night, they didn't even mention the over two hundred thousand mostly civilians that died because of Tony and Georges sordid adventure, and continue to die. You'd think that those people _un-exist_, that they are _outside of history_, they are _un-people (_to paraphrase Orwell)_. _200,000 people and counting, fire and blood- men, women, children; bombed, blasted, shot, tortured, poisoned... why don't we ever see their portraits spread across screens and newspapers? Oh yeah, two hundred thousand is a lot to fit I suppose... fuck it, play em down. British military lives are more important anyway.

According to the establishment media all that really matters is the 179 Brits in uniform, they're the real victims here. No doubt  next time we should make sure to conduct our invasions and occupations better (perhaps use a lot more drones next time) so  that their lives would not have been lost in vain. Disgusting poppy-cult bollocks if you ask me.

/rant.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 7, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Owen jones is a cosmopolitan guardianista fop . Fuck him. I used to find him reasonably agreeable in small doses but he's weak as water when it comes to hunkering down in the trenches . Imagine he'd been at Chavez or Allendes side when the coups went down . He'd have been for handing both of them over to the generals  and waffling about common sense positions ..all the way to the football stadium. Prick .
> 
> Knows what side his bread is buttered . But possibly not what way the wind is blowing .



His heart's in the right place, I think, and he often diagnoses a problem well enough, but you're right that his 'solutions' are generally piss-poor. I thought that about his last book too - stated the case fairly clearly (although it was all pretty self-evident to anyone who's well-informed politically already) but had no decent answers or ways forward.

He's too concerned with maintaining the broadest possible consensus. That's all well and good where there *is* substantial common ground, but in this case, Corbyn tried the 'keep them on-side' approach and they've used the continued platform that afforded them to poison and undermine him at every turn. It should be obvious to anyone, never mind a 'political commentator', that there'll have to be winners and losers.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 7, 2016)

camouflage said:


> /rant.



It's an entirely understandable rant and I partly agree, as I did when Bill Hicks did the 'for the war but against the troops' parody during the first Gulf war. Clearly it was an opportunity for some people to play out fantasy violence against people they'd been indoctrinated to see as inferior.

But it's worth adding that for some classes (and because of the way that works, some ethnic groups) in the US, joining the army is one of very few routes to a remotely reasonable level of education and pay. I'd like to think it's one I wouldn't take, no matter how dire my current circumstances were, but it's easy to say that.

I'm not arguing that means we should respect them no matter what, or put their 'sacrifice'/'suffering' etc. before that of their victims outside 'the West'. Just think the emphasis should be more on how convenient it is for the military-industrial complex to have this poppy-cult bollocks enforced because it masks their treatment of their own drones as expendable useful idiots, and a bit less on the folly of people who become the drones as one of a limited range of fairly shitty life choices.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 7, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I really appreciate that Corbyn apologised to the Iraqi people first and foremost, it makes me sick the way the establishment media (BBC, C4 etc) focus mainly on the portraits of soldiers and their grieving families. I find it indecent actually. Nobody joins the army to shoulder-surf the decisions of the Generals or the Commander in Cheif, soldiers follow orders, they kill and die as ordered, the rights and wrongs of it are not their concern- that's what being a soldier is, no point whining about it after the fact as if you thought that as a soldier you'd only fight battles you agree with and see the point of. Here's a clue, in the next life consider _not _joining an army. Died during the course of a stupid and dishonest illegal war launched by a couple of deluded morally bankrupt bum-buddies? "Suck it up", as the US Marine Corps sez.
> 
> The Iraqi civilians didn't "sign up" for this shit, and even today they don't get to go about what jobs they do have safe in the knowledge that the wife and kids are safely back home not being bombed or beheaded. Many many civilian women and children have died as a result of that grinning psycopath and his fuckwit friend with their "clever plans".
> 
> ...



Absolutely bang on!  And more Iraqis died in that suicide bombing over the weekend (250), (13 years after the war started!) than UK troops who signed up voluntarily (179).


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

Let's all do the deselection shuffle:


----------



## Sifta (Jul 7, 2016)

Operation "Reverse Lemming" may be on:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Owen Smith says he&#39;s ready to serve Labour, says Corbyn has an &quot;open mind&quot;, hopeful talks go &quot;towards a resolution&quot;. <a href="Jim Waterson on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/Nq9J8MfAiP</a></p>&mdash; Jim Waterson (@jimwaterson) <a href="">7 July 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

lol

Angela Eagle’s constituency branch backs Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

Smith tells the excited masses about his productive talks


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 7, 2016)

That eagle's  clp supports Corbyn is old news.  

I am interested in what all the other CLPs  think. We've not heard much,  which surprises me as I would have thought there would be a lot of CLP meetings recently. I'm not sure what to make of it either.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

Ah right sorry.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 7, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> That eagle's  clp supports Corbyn is old news.
> 
> I am interested in what all the other CLPs  think. We've not heard much,  which surprises me as I would have thought there would be a lot of CLP meetings recently. I'm not sure what to make of it either.



Heading to mine tonight. Know there's motion of support for Corbyn up.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 7, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> That eagle's  clp supports Corbyn is old news.
> 
> I am interested in what all the other CLPs  think. We've not heard much,  which surprises me as I would have thought there would be a lot of CLP meetings recently. I'm not sure what to make of it either.



A friend helps with Kingston and Surbiton, although they overwhelmingly voted against Corbyn, they decided to take a stance of neutrality for the good of the party.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 7, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Ah right sorry.



Sorry not trying to have a go. Maybe it's only just being reported in MSP. That says a mtg on Tuesday but we've been getting reports since last week.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 7, 2016)

Tony_LeaS said:


> A friend helps with Kingston and Surbiton, although they overwhelmingly voted against Corbyn, they decided to take a stance of neutrality for the good of the party.




Interesting, thanks. It seems like what happens  in CLPS now  should be important in this story. I'm hoping for support for Corbyn but also just interested from the pov of gauging support for him outside my bubble.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

I think there's been confusion as there's two levels of local party being reported on - there was a ward meeting within Eagle's constituency reported on last week (much smaller, so less representative). This is a meeting of the entire CLP, so is more significant.


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Were you expecting him to stand down by midnight or something?



I thought they were nuts for trying to organise a coup that close to publication. And that they eventually grasped that, so would be back to civil war today


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 7, 2016)

Is the civil war over or about to move into the next phase?

ETA: will retry for missing link shortly, sorry for any inconvenience at this busy time.
Your views are important to us. 

Labour rebel concedes ‘it’s finished’ as Jeremy Corbyn stands firm


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2016)

link no work


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> link no work


link do work


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 7, 2016)

dont work for me either.  Links to your J drive


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 7, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> dont work for me either.  Links to your J drive



Ah!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Ah!


Labour rebel concedes ‘it’s finished’ as Jeremy Corbyn stands firm

e2a how's that FabricLiveBaby!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 7, 2016)

Not that link!  Cid 's PDF


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> link no work





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Not that link!  Cid 's PDF


confusion can be avoided in future if, when referring to a post 20 or more posts upthread, you quote the post to which you allude.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2016)

Rachael Reeves' CLP voted 2/3 in favour of Corbyn last night.


----------



## Cid (Jul 7, 2016)

I've fixed the link on mine now. There's also this paper which it cites for social composition of membership.


----------



## Cid (Jul 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Labour rebel concedes ‘it’s finished’ as Jeremy Corbyn stands firm
> 
> e2a how's that FabricLiveBaby!





> "He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them. He is Teflon in that sense."



Their logic is superb.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Cid said:


> Their logic is superb.


they're not in opposition they're in denial


----------



## treelover (Jul 7, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I really appreciate that Corbyn apologised to the Iraqi people first and foremost, it makes me sick the way the establishment media (BBC, C4 etc) focus mainly on the portraits of soldiers and their grieving families. I find it indecent actually. Nobody joins the army to shoulder-surf the decisions of the Generals or the Commander in Cheif, soldiers follow orders, they kill and die as ordered, the rights and wrongs of it are not their concern- that's what being a soldier is, no point whining about it after the fact as if you thought that as a soldier you'd only fight battles you agree with and see the point of. Here's a clue, in the next life consider _not _joining an army. Died during the course of a stupid and dishonest illegal war launched by a couple of deluded morally bankrupt bum-buddies? "Suck it up", as the US Marine Corps sez.
> 
> The Iraqi civilians didn't "sign up" for this shit, and even today they don't get to go about what jobs they do have safe in the knowledge that the wife and kids are safely back home not being bombed or beheaded. Many many civilian women and children have died as a result of that grinning psycopath and his fuckwit friend with their "clever plans".
> 
> ...



Not discounting civilian lives in any way, but many of them were killed during the intercine warfare, Sunni Vs Shia, hundred a day were being found murdered at its height.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 7, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not discounting civilian lives in any way, but many of them were killed during the interecine warfare, Sunni Vs Shia, hundred a day were being found murdered at its hight.





> "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 7, 2016)

Not everyone thinks it's over, Angela Eagle just declared she might stand. At some point. If all else fails. Again.

June 27: "Senior MPs say Angela Eagle may stand"
July 7: "Sources close to Angela Eagle says she'll stand when the time is right"

11 days she's been at this, presumably the time is better now that Chilcot's smashed up her moral authority with a big hammer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> joining the army is one of very few routes to a remotely reasonable level of education and pay.


don't forget social respect. Not joe nobody, joe war hero


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Not everyone thinks it's over, Angela Eagle just declared she might stand. At some point. If all else fails. Again.
> 
> June 27: "Senior MPs say Angela Eagle may stand"
> July 7: "Sources close to Angela Eagle says she'll stand when the time is right"
> ...


she's being held back by her m8s, if they weren't there by god corbyn would get a drubbing


----------



## Cid (Jul 7, 2016)

Some terrible jokes:

What's the difference between Angela Eagle and a stagnant pool of water? the water's definitely standing.

I tried to offer Angela Eagle my seat on the tube the other day... She couldn't decide whether to stand or not. 

Why did the highwayman shoot Angela Eagle? He got bored of waiting for her to stand and deliver.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Angela's first day at work:

'Angela, could you go for a long stand?'

- I might stand, but it depends on the outcome of various meetings between Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson

'Jeez, it was just a joke. Anyway, can you pick up a glass hammer and a bucket of steam?'


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 7, 2016)

The Eagle has Standed!

What you think of that one then eh? See what I did there? Standed... huhuhuh.


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The Eagle has Standed!
> 
> What you think of that one then eh? See what I did there? Standed... huhuhuh.



More perched


----------



## Wilf (Jul 7, 2016)

Don't various undesirables wait in the Chestnut Tree at the end of 1984, not knowing when the blow will fall? Must be like this for Corbyn at the moment.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 7, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Why have so many of the MPs they have hitherto selected been Blairite?
> 
> Is it always because the hierarchy gives the CLPs no choice? Or are they just indiscriminate in their choice?
> 
> ...



In my seat, when Hunt was parachuted in, the others on the ballot were a shower of shit. This may or may not have been by design.


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> In my seat, when Hunt was parachuted in, the others on the ballot were a shower of shit. This may or may not have been by design.


the locally supported bloke was kept of the final ballot, iirr.  Or do I?


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

Hunt wrote a biography of Engels, so might have fooled people into thinking he was a firebrand socialist at the hustings...


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> the locally supported bloke was kept of the final ballot, iirr.  Or do I?



Indeed:

Elections 2010: Veteran quits party over candidate row
Labour activist to stand as independent against Tristram Hunt in Stoke


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 7, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Not everyone thinks it's over, Angela Eagle just declared she might stand. At some point. If all else fails. Again.
> 
> June 27: "Senior MPs say Angela Eagle may stand"
> July 7: "Sources close to Angela Eagle says she'll stand when the time is right"
> ...


I guess this is the strong leadership she's showing, you know, the kind which Corbyn lacks apparently.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 7, 2016)

There was a bit of a split in the local party at the time. A bunch of old timers had either left or been politely told to leave because of shenanigans, and frankly the whole thing was a shambles.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 7, 2016)

Incidentally, Elsby is a massive fucking wanker. Don't assume he's great just because he didn't like Trissy.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 7, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I really appreciate that Corbyn apologised to the Iraqi people first and foremost, it makes me sick the way the establishment media (BBC, C4 etc) focus mainly on the portraits of soldiers and their grieving families. I find it indecent actually. Nobody joins the army to shoulder-surf the decisions of the Generals or the Commander in Cheif, soldiers follow orders, they kill and die as ordered, the rights and wrongs of it are not their concern- that's what being a soldier is, no point whining about it after the fact as if you thought that as a soldier you'd only fight battles you agree with and see the point of. Here's a clue, in the next life consider _not _joining an army. Died during the course of a stupid and dishonest illegal war launched by a couple of deluded morally bankrupt bum-buddies? "Suck it up", as the US Marine Corps sez.
> 
> The Iraqi civilians didn't "sign up" for this shit, and even today they don't get to go about what jobs they do have safe in the knowledge that the wife and kids are safely back home not being bombed or beheaded. Many many civilian women and children have died as a result of that grinning psycopath and his fuckwit friend with their "clever plans".
> 
> ...


I agree with you that it's right to apologise to the Iraqis first for the actions of our government; not just lives but physical and mental health impacts. However soldiers risk their lives in wars, if you accept that it isn't their fault where they're sent then you should also accept that they and their families deserve an equal apology for the government putting those lives at risk when it wasn't necessary. Soldiers frequently get involved in protecting civilians, just because they follow orders does not make their life, physical health and mental health worth any less and we should not downgrade that apology because they signed up. One life is never more than another.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 7, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I agree with you that it's right to apologise to the Iraqis first for the actions of our government; not just lives but physical and mental health impacts. However soldiers risk their lives in wars, if you accept that it isn't their fault where they're sent then you should also accept that they and their families deserve an equal apology for the government putting those lives at risk when it wasn't necessary. Soldiers frequently get involved in protecting civilians, just because they follow orders does not make their life, physical health and mental health worth any less and we should not downgrade that apology because they signed up. One life is never more than another.



Then by shear volume alone... the point stands. By the way I wondered if anyone else out there uses the term "Poppy Cult", and found this The Old Lie and the Cult of Remembrance

Anyway I'll leave it there, don't want to divert this thread.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 7, 2016)

Yes, by volume it's the correct order.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 7, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not discounting civilian lives in any way, but many of them were killed during the intercine warfare, Sunni Vs Shia, hundred a day were being found murdered at its height.


All of which Blair was warned about and for which Blair and Bush are responsible.

Tony Blair Bears 'Total Responsibility' For Isis, Says Academic Who Advised Him On Iraq

E2a It's strange how they can count the number of civilians murdered in internecine conflict, but don't keep any stats about the numbers "killed" by our boys.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

I hope this it true. What a guy.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I hope this it true. What a guy.




He is the (edit, sorry) Drake of our times - though admittedly if the PLP had been in charge of the Armada it would probably have consisted of two pedalos, each towing one of them floating banana things.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I hope this it true. What a guy.




Sheesh. But GW Bush finishes reading a lovely book about goats or something to a bunch of kiddies when the Twin Towers are falling, and he's some kind of villain.

Lefty hypocrite.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2016)

More lolz

Blow for Hull MP Alan Johnson as local party back Jeremy Corbyn



> Labour supporters in Alan Johnson's Hull West and Hessle constituency have given their backing to Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> Members who attended a meeting of the constituency party last night voted 48-7 in favour of a motion supporting the embattled Labour leader....


----------



## Mation (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I hope this it true. What a guy.



Chapter 14 of Sun Tzu's Art of War is all about breaking your enemy through weaponised gardening.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I hope this it true. What a guy.




Green fingered man of steel


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Green fingered man of steel


he's got hoes in different area codes


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2016)

Grass roots innit


----------



## Lorca (Jul 7, 2016)

must've been where the plant was


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Grass roots innit


his opponents will only rake up the past


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I really appreciate that Corbyn apologised to the Iraqi people first and foremost, it makes me sick the way the establishment media (BBC, C4 etc) focus mainly on the portraits of soldiers and their grieving families. I find it indecent actually. Nobody joins the army to shoulder-surf the decisions of the Generals or the Commander in Cheif, soldiers follow orders, they kill and die as ordered, the rights and wrongs of it are not their concern- that's what being a soldier is, no point whining about it after the fact as if you thought that as a soldier you'd only fight battles you agree with and see the point of. Here's a clue, in the next life consider _not _joining an army. Died during the course of a stupid and dishonest illegal war launched by a couple of deluded morally bankrupt bum-buddies? "Suck it up", as the US Marine Corps sez.
> 
> The Iraqi civilians didn't "sign up" for this shit, and even today they don't get to go about what jobs they do have safe in the knowledge that the wife and kids are safely back home not being bombed or beheaded. Many many civilian women and children have died as a result of that grinning psycopath and his fuckwit friend with their "clever plans".
> 
> ...



Only following orders isn't a valid excuse either..not since Nuremberg . And this was a clear cut crime of aggression . One that could easily have been repeated all over again in Syria . 

Another thing he gets a total skate on is the sanctions regime he presided over alongside the Clintons killed upwards of a million Iraqis ...most of them the most vulnerable..before he decided to invade . That screams for an apology . 2 senior UN officials overseeing the food programme resigned in disgust explicitly calling it genocidal . 

He and his entire outfit are fucking monsters and the media is little better .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> Hunt wrote a biography of Engels, so might have fooled people into thinking he was a firebrand socialist at the hustings...



Did it have the title " Engels was a commie bastard" ?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

He may well come out of this coup thing even stronger in many ways .

For the first time this week, Jeremy Corbyn looked like a Prime Minister

There's that old saying " what doesn't kill you makes you stronger " . Think it's quite fitting . I also get a very strong sense of " cometh the hour, cometh the man " as regards the entire chain of events around Chilcot .

Those who tried to oust him very much look like a crowd of treacherous, out of touch , self interested  idiots . that's got to sink in eventually .


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 7, 2016)

It looks like the tide's finally turning.

Jeremy Corbyn is the only MP I've ever listened to and thought "He's telling the truth".

I really do hope this is the start of something new.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 7, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Yes, by volume it's the correct order.



Not only that but morally . This massive crime was committed first and foremost against the Iraqi people  They had no choices at all in this .  they will also probably never know peace and security ever again in our lifetime . Their entire country has been destroyed .  Theyre the primary victims every way you look at it . Not just numerically but morally, legally, socially, environmentally, economically . 
Troops families may well have suffered personal loss but these people lost everything . Death squads, fanatics and massive carnage are their daily routines now .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2016)

George Eaton has just cum in his pants


----------



## Dandred (Jul 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> his opponents will only rake up the past


hoe hoe hoe


----------



## Humberto (Jul 7, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Not only that but morally . This massive crime was committed first and foremost against the Iraqi people  They had no choices at all in this .  they will also probably never know peace and security ever again in our lifetime . Their entire country has been destroyed .  Theyre the primary victims every way you look at it . Not just numerically but morally, legally, socially, environmentally, economically .
> Troops families may well have suffered personal loss but these people lost everything . Death squads, fanatics and massive carnage are their daily routines now .



I think there is a large element of racism to it if I'm honest. i.e.the lack of acknowledgement in govt/media of what you say.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

128,000 new members since last week apparently. The main effect of the Blairites trying to reclaim their party is to create the largest left (ish) wing political party in Europe. Good work.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> 128,000 new members since last week apparently. The main effect of the Blairites trying to reclaim their party is to create the largest left (ish) wing political party in Europe. Good work.


I joined last week. I'm prepared to pay out money I can't afford to pay out, if it helps, even in the slightest.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2016)

Joining isn't enough by itself tbf. Have you been in touch with your local party yet? The new left wing members need to get stuck in, help with campaigns, get involved with local community organisations, vote in meetings, send delegates to conference, stand for office, etc for it to mean anything. That hasn't happened so much in the last 9 months - reckon that's got to change if you think the Labour Party can be a vehicle for anything but bitter disappointment.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> Joining isn't enough by itself tbf. Have you been in touch with your local party yet? The new left wing members need to get stuck in, help with campaigns, get involved with local community organisations, vote in meetings, send delegates to conference, stand for office, etc for it to mean anything. That hasn't happened so much in the last 9 months - reckon that's got to change if you think the Labour Party can be a vehicle for anything but bitter disappointment.


I'd love to do more but I'm now living in Ireland, so the best I can do is give moral and (little) financial support.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> the Labour Party can be a vehicle for anything but bitter disappointment.


a cunning mask it has never worn before heh


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> his opponents will only rake up the past


 
oh fork off...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2016)

Shed I get involved?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> oh fork off...


Trying to lead me up the garden path no doubt


----------



## Cid (Jul 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> Joining isn't enough by itself tbf. Have you been in touch with your local party yet? The new left wing members need to get stuck in, help with campaigns, get involved with local community organisations, vote in meetings, send delegates to conference, stand for office, etc for it to mean anything. That hasn't happened so much in the last 9 months - reckon that's got to change if you think the Labour Party can be a vehicle for anything but bitter disappointment.



I think there's a lot more potential for that than there was pre-brexit... I suppose it's purely anecdotal but my (hypocritical) cries to stop signing fucking petitions and get involved are meeting with much more interest than they did. It will take people who have been active to some extent giving mates a kick up the arse though. And a lot of them are of a breturn bent - though that too is being picked away at.  At the very least I think, on a personal level, it's a decent chance of getting some of my friends more politically engaged and on a wider level a possibility of moving the prevailing narrative a bit left. Not much to lose by giving it a go.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 7, 2016)

Just back from my local meeting. All a bit standoffish. Corbyn discussion was left til last, with lots of regimented time-wasting before hand and very rigid guidelines which other new members seemed pissed at. Motion of support passed though, more or less 2 to 1 - or rather motion supporting the Trade Unions statement of support. And lots of talk afterwards between people, stuff about Momentum, ways to negate the structures and stop time wasting/wrecking motions etc. Good turn out too, by all accounts. Think some of the old timers were a little irate at new people coming in and spoiling their fairly right party but others were happy to see it and more than happy to say Socialism out loud.

Brexit was covered too, which was less good. I was probably the only Leave voter there and there was all sorts of talk about 1930s Germany and the inevitable rise of Nazism in Europe, albeit from very small minorities. Absolutely no notion of why people had voted leave though for the most part, just suggestions of ways to force a rejection of the referendum and ignore the 52%, although I reckon people would be open to thinking about that. Very stuck in a bubble though. Anyway, that's by the by.

Overall strong Corbyn support, lots of enthusiasm, some irritation and a good turnout, for those looking for a slice of local life.

e2a: There were also anti-Corbyn types wheeled out who apparently are never seen otherwise, so if you've signed up it's worth going to your local stuff to make the numbers. They certainly are.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 8, 2016)

Corbyn writing in the Granuaid today

Jeremy Corbyn: We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd love to do more but I'm now living in Ireland, so the best I can do is give moral and (little) financial support.


Headline: "Revealed: Corbyn's Overseas Wealthy Backers".


----------



## red devil (Jul 8, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd love to do more but I'm now living in Ireland, so the best I can do is give moral and (little) financial support.


i wiish i was  lj ing in ireland because the grass is always greener on the other side!  livingg


----------



## red devil (Jul 8, 2016)

red devil said:


> i wiish i was  lj ing in ireland because the grass is always greener on the other side!  livingg


with dual nationality the 26 countied qnd 27 remaining EU countries will be my plaything


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Corbyn writing in the Granuaid today
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn: We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories



That's actually a really good, engaging piece.


----------



## red devil (Jul 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That's actually a really good, engaging piece.


yes but can you trust the man?!!!?!!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 8, 2016)

I trust him more than the rest of them


----------



## red devil (Jul 8, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> I trust him more than the rest of them


but how do we know this is not a jedi mindtrickk to subdue true oppozition?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 8, 2016)

because I'm not a weak minded fool, and I'm certainly not part of your 'we'


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Trying to lead me up the garden path no doubt


going out on a limb here, but it will be those seeking a xylem solution that will prove to be a hot potato


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 8, 2016)

There are no motions tabled for either support of Corbyn or no confidence in Hunt for the next CLP meeting here. In part, it's because the last meeting was reportedly ridiculously jam packed with business, and lots of it has been moved over to this month's (and indeed, the August curry in lieu of a meeting has been put off because there will still be business to conclude next month too). I hear a lot of the regular left-wingers are handily on holiday atm, so any motion of no confidence would want them around to shore up support. The no confidence at the branch meeting last week I suppose is a shot across the bow. It's entirely possible an emergency motion will be brought during the meeting, in support of Corbyn at least. What is on the table is a motion to support adding a line to the rule book requiring an incumbent leader who is challenged be on the ballot automatically, since the rule book is ambiguous atm.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2016)

I am stunned by the rise in membership sign ups...i dont look on social media often, was there a campaign on there to get people to sign up or were people doing it off their own backs?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2016)

Secret recording of Kinnock's anti-Corbyn speech to MPs – in full


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Secret recording of Kinnock's anti-Corbyn speech to MPs – in full



Don't support Corbyn because he's weird...is that it?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Secret recording of Kinnock's anti-Corbyn speech to MPs – in full





> Dammit this is our party



thats about sums up te position of the plp


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2016)

the start of the speech that can't be heard is kinnock hailing to satan and promising never to renounce his works.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the start of the speech that can't be heard is kinnock hailing to satan and promising never to renounce his works.


Hail Satan - we're alright! By the power of Baal - we're alright! Praise Beezelbub - we're alright!


----------



## YouSir (Jul 8, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't support Corbyn because he's weird...is that it?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Says Neil Kinnock.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't support Corbyn because he's weird...is that it?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yes, yes it is.







Interestingly enough, a google image search for 'weird tony blair' also brings up this guy:



Spoiler


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2016)

There is also a great bit where Kinnock claims a greater democratic mandate than Corbyn under a system where MP's votes counted for 1/3 of all the votes cast. No wonder there were tears at that meeting; the nostalgia for the good old days must have been overwhelming.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2016)

kinnocks working himself up to a samson-like one last show of strength here expells momentum lol. The prat. They never change


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 8, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I am stunned by the rise in membership sign ups...i dont look on social media often, was there a campaign on there to get people to sign up or were people doing it off their own backs?



No campaign that I'm aware of. There was a snowball effect on social media, I think, as people saw others were joining they decided to themselves, but I'm hearing of plenty of people who don't even know what social media is who are joining as well, off the back of being really ticked off with all this recent bullshit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 8, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> No campaign that I'm aware of. There was a snowball effect on social media, I think, as people saw others were joining they decided to themselves, but I'm hearing of plenty of people who don't even know what social media is who are joining as well, off the back of being really ticked off with all this recent bullshit.


I know of 6 people who joined and don't use social media. They all joined for the same reason, to support Corbyn after 'Attack of the Blairites'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 8, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge within 72 hours. 

Eagle's still squaking.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2016)




----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge within 72 hours.
> 
> Eagle's still squaking.



The only challenge Corbyn has in 72 hours will be his Sudoku puzzle in the way home tonight.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge within 72 hours.
> 
> Eagle's still squaking.


72 hours? Right that's it, the countdown has started. Can't be stopped now, there's no off switch, the die is cast. Just like Article 50. Oh, hang on...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2016)

Sources close to Watsons office are saying the impact of an imminent launch by Angela Eagle would reach military bases in Cyprus

(i know we've already done this, but if she keeps doing it what else is there to do?)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

So, essentially, she said she'd stand, then she slept on it, then she waited a bit, then she waited a bit more for Tom Watson to have a go, then she waited for some other meetings, then she said she'd stand in 72 hours.  THE COBRA!


----------



## Sifta (Jul 8, 2016)

She'll ultimately unmask herself as Corbyn's double agent amongst the plotters, feeding back info. to Momentum centre and secretly undermining the coup. Then get a job in the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Cid (Jul 8, 2016)

Oh for the skills of a political cartoonist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2016)

Cid said:


> Oh for the skills of a political cartoonist.


Where are the modern gillrays?


----------



## bendeus (Jul 8, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't support Corbyn because I met a bloke who thinks he's weird...



FTFY


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't support Corbyn because he's weird...is that it?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Weren't members of the PLP and other 'moderates' praising this speech as amazing and stuff? These people are a mixture of genuine idiots and people who think that they are geniuses but everyone else is stupid and will believe whatever shit they pump out.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 8, 2016)

Ready The Eagle!







*Can with photoshop skills do the obvious please?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Weren't members of the PLP and other 'moderates' praising this speech as amazing and stuff? These people are a mixture of genuine idiots and people who think that they are geniuses but everyone else is stupid and will believe whatever shit they pump out.


"spread it far and wide"

lol


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Wonder if challenging the labour leader is like logging on to stuff where you get timed out if you don't touch a key for 30 minutes?

"Right, that's! You're really going to get it now Corbyn.... Oh, SHIIIIT!   Okay, where's my fucking password again..."


----------



## tony.c (Jul 8, 2016)

I went to CLP special meeting last night. First CLP meeting since I've been to since I rejoined, and biggest for a long time apparently. Some procedural manoeuvring at start which prevented GMC delegates from voting on an official CLP motion, from Executive Committee members, to express support for Corbyn, as it has not been submitted from ward or affiliated TU branches.
After discussion an indicative motion of support for Corbyn was passed by members present. 50 For, 16 Against, 1 Abstention.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 8, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Ready The Eagle!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know about the obvious but I'll do this for now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the start of the speech that can't be heard is kinnock hailing to satan and promising never to renounce his works.



Tonguing the arse of the Goat of Mendes.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 8, 2016)

Sifta said:


> She'll ultimately unmask herself as Corbyn's double agent amongst the plotters, feeding back info. to Momentum centre and secretly undermining the coup. Then get a job in the shadow cabinet.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 8, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't know about the obvious but I'll do this for now


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> So, essentially, she said she'd stand, then she slept on it, then she waited a bit, then she waited a bit more for Tom Watson to have a go, then she waited for some other meetings, then she said she'd stand in 72 hours.  THE COBRA!




Hold up, hold up! 
I know we're all_ terrified_ of the day the Eagle finally rises - that we're counting down those 72 hours, one second at a time, positively _trembling_ at the thought... OMFG  but CALM YOUR NERVES the article actually says _*PROBABLY*_ within 72 hours - *stops timer* (again) :-|


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I went to CLP special meeting last night. First CLP meeting since I've been to since I rejoined, and biggest for a long time apparently. Some procedural manoeuvring at start which prevented GMC delegates from voting on an official CLP motion, from Executive Committee members, to express support for Corbyn, as it has not been submitted from ward or affiliated TU branches.
> After discussion an indicative motion of support for Corbyn was passed by members present. 50 For, 16 Against, 1 Abstention.



I think many people who were not getting stuck in are now doing so, going to CLPs, preparing motions, etc, going by Momentum/JC4PM FB sites, not sure if it is ex 3 quiders though.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2016)

> Twenty-nine Lambeth ‘Labour’ Cllr’s have signed an online petition calling on Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn to resign. The campaign against party unity was put in place by Cllr Ed Davie, the Lambeth Progress Cllr for Thornton ward.
> 
> Lambeth Labour Cllr Ed Davie mobilises Cllr coup against Corbyn as police are called to Streatham CLP meeting



Lambeth seems an appallling council.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Lambeth seems an appallling council.



Lambeth Labour's councillors are mostly an unedifying bunch of characters. We've got the new councillor who only got elected because the constituency party carpet-bombed the ward with canvassers for two weeks and engaged in some very dirty tricks (like begging people who refused to vote Labour anymore to vote Tory instead - anything but Green); the Progress board member who recently got elected as a member of the GLA, but won't give up her cabinet position or councillorship; the Blairite who tweeted a decision to demolish an estate before letting the residents know; the two cowards who swore to go into bat for short-life tenants in their constituency, then dropped those tenants like hot shit the moment it looked politically disadvantageous for them; the idiot who started a petition against Jeremy Corbyn standing in the leadership competition; the patronising halfwit who punted the idea of turning some of the borough's few remaining libraries into "healthy living centres"; the vast swathe of pondlife who aren't seen in their wards unless there's a photo-op.

Seriously, appalling is too kind a description for this collection of self-promoting smegma stains.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2016)

Birmingham Corbyn Rally, lots of young people.

Well branded by the SWP, not so helpful to Momentums cause


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> but CALM YOUR NERVES the article actually says _*PROBABLY*_ within 72 hours


_Thank The Lord_! On the strength of that thin hope I may get a few minutes fitful sleep tonight!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Birmingham Corbyn Rally, lots of young people.
> 
> Well branded by the SWP, not so helpful to Momentums cause


Personally, I prefer the hand made 'FUCK OFF BLAIRITES!' sign'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Lambeth seems an appallling council.


I used to work for the cunts and yes, they're fucking appalling.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Well branded by the SWP, not so helpful to Momentums cause


As far as the media and the Blairites are concerned, nothing is "helpful to Momentum's cause". *shrugs*


----------



## YouSir (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Birmingham Corbyn Rally, lots of young people.
> 
> Well branded by the SWP, not so helpful to Momentums cause



Momentum have their own placards now, made in part to fuck off the SWP opportunists. Keep an eye out for them.


----------



## Cid (Jul 8, 2016)

treelover said:


> Birmingham Corbyn Rally, lots of young people.
> 
> Well branded by the SWP, not so helpful to Momentums cause



Yes, I mean the SWP handing out placards at every protest for the last er <many> years has done wonders for their membership.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 8, 2016)

Went to my CLP meeting which passed a motion in support. A fair few anti Corbyn voices which could be summarised as "I agree with his politics but working class people don't like him, he's not a leader, the referendum was his fault, let's have a centre left woman, let's support our MPs, where were you the last time leaflets needed doing". Of which the last is the only reasonable argument to me. 

Big meeting took up primary school hall, local party has had 200 new members since referendum, lots of impassioned speeches pro Corbyn including from councillors - there was an attempt to have the motion withdrawn but in the end it passed quite comfortably. 

It definitely strengthened my resolve to get more involved in a branch level. Corbyn supporters need to be seen to be willing to do the legwork of a party too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2016)

I heard there was a march in Westminster the other day without a single swapping placard treelover


----------



## Knotted (Jul 8, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Corbyn writing in the Granuaid today
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn: We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories



The amazing thing about Corbyn (for me at least) is that he talks about exactly the things he should be talking about. Particularly agency working and its relation to immigrant labour. And in his victory speech when elected leader he talked about social cleansing. The one thing he mentioned. In some ways he gets things exactly right. But at precisely the same time his neo-Keynsian policy solutions don't seem to connect at all with these working class issues that he talks about. It is still about preventing the Tories doing more damage which is the same message as the Blairites. He manages to talk about very important things and at the same time remain an irrelevance.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I heard there was a march in Westminster the other day without a single swapping placard treelover


The Leadsomite Committee for a Wankers International?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 8, 2016)

Our local CLP has had 60 new members over this past week or so. Not as great as some places, but considering this isn't a hotbed of political engagement, it's not bad.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2016)

Unanimous vote of support in hemsworth clp, about 60-8 in Brightside (where the brand new mp voted for the no confidence motion)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2016)

Oh dear  Bed time.



> *Jenny Lancaster*
> 1 hr · City of Salford
> BREAKING: Angela Eagle announces she will launch her bid for Labour leadership when the DFS Sale ends.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 8, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lambeth Labour's councillors are mostly an unedifying bunch of characters. We've got the new councillor who only got elected because the constituency party carpet-bombed the ward with canvassers for two weeks and engaged in some very dirty tricks (like begging people who refused to vote Labour anymore to vote Tory instead - anything but Green); the Progress board member who recently got elected as a member of the GLA, but won't give up her cabinet position or councillorship; the Blairite who tweeted a decision to demolish an estate before letting the residents know; the two cowards who swore to go into bat for short-life tenants in their constituency, then dropped those tenants like hot shit the moment it looked politically disadvantageous for them; the idiot who started a petition against Jeremy Corbyn standing in the leadership competition; the patronising halfwit who punted the idea of turning some of the borough's few remaining libraries into "healthy living centres"; the vast swathe of pondlife who aren't seen in their wards unless there's a photo-op.
> 
> Seriously, appalling is too kind a description for this collection of self-promoting smegma stains.


Is that the Carnegie Library? If so, what's happening with it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Is that the Carnegie Library? If so, what's happening with it?



The desecration is still afoot, as of last week. As far as I'm aware, the many proposals made by other parties to counter the GLL "bookish gym" (trademark: editor) idea have all been rebuffed.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

Unions have told Tom 'I wish I was Holmes' Watson to fuck off apparently.

Watson sees 'no compromise' over Corbyn - BBC News


----------



## Balbi (Jul 9, 2016)

So Angela Eagle will DEFINITELY think about a challenge now then. Perhaps.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

Balbi said:


> So Angela Eagle will DEFINITELY think about a challenge now then. Perhaps.


just you wait till yor father gets home!
*father gets home*

'bray them ye drunk bastard!'

'I'm taking my belt off right now!'

*falls over drunk and is mocked by children*


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 9, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Unions have told Tom 'I wish I was Holmes' Watson to fuck off apparently.
> 
> Watson sees 'no compromise' over Corbyn - BBC News



As if it was ever going to be any different.  Cos unions are *never* and have *never* been stubborn negotiators. They're known for capitulating to outside powers, am I right?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> They're known for capitulating to outside powers, am I right?



In fairness that does sound like the Usdaw MO.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

They really are sound like utter chumps....


> In a statement released on Saturday morning, Watson said that with “regret and profound sadness” *he had concluded that there was “little to be achieved” in continuing discussions between the unions, who are largely backing Corbyn,* and key members of the parliamentary party, including chief whip Rosie Winterton and parliamentary party chair John Cryer.


They didn't know?


----------



## binka (Jul 9, 2016)

I'm sure an honourable man like Watson will now do the right thing and resign as deputy leader due to his utter failure in the role


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> They really are sound like utter chumps....
> ​They didn't know?



The right of the party up until about now has had this fantasy that all of the trade union leaders secretly hate Corbyn and have been just waiting for an excuse to knife him. Much like their bizarre fantasies about McDonnell doing the same it has no real basis in fact, it's ironic that they like to portray Corbyn and those close to him as being in a 'bunker' because the Labour right are the ones who seem to be in a bunker of their own.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Unions have told Tom 'I wish I was Holmes' Watson to fuck off apparently.
> 
> Watson sees 'no compromise' over Corbyn - BBC News



They've also told the coup plotters to fuck off from the Durham Miners Gala, rescinded their invitations . Persona non grata while Corbyns the keynote speaker . Local labour mp a tad miffed .

Labour 'traitors' barred from Durham Miners' Gala for Corbyn no confidence vote


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> They really are sound like utter chumps....
> ​They didn't know?



If I thought they were smarter I'd think they were building up to a split by even trying - showing they'll do their best to deal with unions but unions are terrible evil bastards. So forward Progress! Unlikely though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 9, 2016)

I'm loving every second of this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 9, 2016)

So, amazingly - Corbyn - who has the full support of the membership and the unions and will easily win any leadership election - refused to back down from his position of unassailable strength.  



If Eagle, Owen of AN Other decide not to further humiliate themselves in a point and laugh leadership contest - What's the next tactic for the bold plotters of PLP?


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 9, 2016)

Thats gonna be a great next weekend PMQs when we see a fully dejected Mr Watson look like he's listening to Damien Rice's 9 Crimes after his first break up.

A picture I cant wait to see.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 9, 2016)

Is it too much to hope for that this is the beginning of the end for the Neoliberal/Blairite wing of the party?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

And their minions have had their security access to the House of Commons withdrawn as well 

Jeremy Corbyn's staff accused of being 'petty' as rebel MPs' aides are locked out

Rubbing it in . Well done .


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 9, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And their minions have had their security access to the House of Commons withdrawn as well
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's staff accused of being 'petty' as rebel MPs' aides are locked out
> 
> Rubbing it in . Well done .



Guardian non-story of the year award. 

"Former staff of the resignee's have lost their commons perks cos they don't work their anymore."

Wow - they're like the tolpuddle martyrs aren't they? Maybe progress should erect a statue in their honour in the house of commons gym.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> They really are sound like utter chumps....
> ​They didn't know?


the glory of it is, the pledge of free squids was what was supposed to dilute the union power. That went well. Now Watsons reduced to begging the unions to stop backing corbyn and nearly the entire plp are trying to work out how to get rid of him. Stubborn old goat might sound a bit ageist but Corbyn does look a bit like a goat and is properly stubborn.

But let not the Great Leader rest on his organically sourced laurels! There waits ahead an Eagle. Going in for that dive anytime soon. Wait for it...waaaait...no its not happened again


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Guardian non-story of the year award.
> 
> "Former staff of the resignee's have lost their commons perks cos they don't work their anymore."
> 
> Wow - they're like the tolpuddle martyrs aren't they? Maybe progress should erect a statue in their honour in the house of commons gym.



All power to the scabby spads


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

That Guardian article is almost as bad as when a handful of Blairites said that Corbyn sacking Hilary Benn meant that Corbyn didn't care about workers' rights.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 9, 2016)

Coming soon to a radion near you Episode 1, The Corbyn Story - BBC Radio 4


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> All power to the scabby spads


Spads of scabs, tbf.


----------



## Sue (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Spads of scabs, tbf.



New collective term -- a scab of spads? 

(I'm sure they're not all despicable or deserving of the 'scab' thing but I have the impression many are.)


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 9, 2016)

From LBCs Twitter account: Angela Eagle to announce her leadership challenge Monday morning.

Gotta give her credit, she wants to watch Wimbledon and the Euros finals before making her mind up


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

Tony_LeaS said:


> From LBCs Twitter account: Angela Eagle to announce her leadership challenge Monday morning.
> 
> Gotta give her credit, she wants to watch Wimbledon and the Euros finals before making her mind up



Heard the same about last Monday.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 9, 2016)

[obligatory won't somebody think of the ... meme]

(((Spads))) 

[/obligatory won't somebody think of the ... meme]


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 9, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And their minions have had their security access to the House of Commons withdrawn as well
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's staff accused of being 'petty' as rebel MPs' aides are locked out
> 
> Rubbing it in . Well done .


A SPAD is automatically redundant when their minister leaves, it's up to the new minister if they want these people or not. Which does raise an interesting question of who is paying them what salary right now, given that they're working in opposition to Labour.


----------



## gosub (Jul 9, 2016)

Angela Eagle to announce Labour leadership bid on Monday

Monday(ish)


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 9, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Heard the same about last Monday.



She will eventually challenge, and get -4 votes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

internships blates. Expenses only.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

Tony_LeaS said:


> From LBCs Twitter account: Angela Eagle to announce her leadership challenge Monday morning.
> 
> Gotta give her credit, she wants to watch Wimbledon and the Euros finals before making her mind up


Shame she hadn't got her act together earlier in the week, then she'd have been able to announce that she'd be making an announcement about her announcement to stand against Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> Angela Eagle to announce Labour leadership bid on Monday
> 
> Monday(ish)


'I'm taking my belt off right now!'


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Shame she hadn't got her act together earlier in the week, then she'd have been able to announce that she'd be making an announcement about her announcement to stand against Corbyn.


Ten thousand years we slumbered. . . _now we risssseeee._


----------



## Sue (Jul 9, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> A SPAD is automatically redundant when their minister leaves, it's up to the new minister if they want these people or not. Which does raise an interesting question of who is paying them what salary right now, given that they're working in opposition to Labour.



According to that shoddy Guardian article (which one, I know):

'It is understood the staff members affected were advisers who lost their roles when their bosses resigned from the front bench. They were paid by the Labour party but many are staying on to work for their old bosses who are now backbench MPs.'

So presumably they'll now be paid by the MPs out of their staff allowances though presumably they already *have* staff..? 

Jeremy Corbyn's staff accused of being 'petty' as rebel MPs' aides are locked out


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Ten thousand years we slumbered. . . _now we risssseeee._


Today's chance to post...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 9, 2016)

So it turns out going into negotiations with no leverage and demanding the other party does exactly what you want isn't very effective? Shocking.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So it turns out going into negotiations with no leverage and demanding the other party does exactly what you want isn't very effective? Shocking.



Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Shame she hadn't got her act together earlier in the week, then she'd have been able to announce that she'd be making an announcement about her announcement to stand against Corbyn.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 9, 2016)

She didn't say which Monday.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> She didn't say which Monday.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Stubborn old goat might sound a bit ageist but Corbyn does look a bit like a goat and is properly stubborn.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 9, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So it turns out going into negotiations with no leverage and demanding the other party does exactly what you want isn't very effective? Shocking.



I reckon their thinking must be that more MPs will join the split if they go through the motions of trying everything else first.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 9, 2016)

Sue said:


> According to that shoddy Guardian article (which one, I know):
> 
> 'It is understood the staff members affected were advisers who lost their roles when their bosses resigned from the front bench. They were paid by the Labour party but many are staying on to work for their old bosses who are now backbench MPs.'
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's the thing isn't it, they already have staff. I found this in an old article from 2012: "The annual staffing expenditure limit of £115,000 will rise to £137,200 for non-London MPs and £144,000 for those representing constituencies in the capital."

So, there is a limit. I'm not sure why these SPADs thought they could do no work for the actual shadow minister and get paid anyway, but there you go.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Who'd have thunk it?



It's the Mrs Doyle approach isn't it:


'Will you be after resigning there Father Jeremy'

'Ah no I don't think so Mrs Watson'

'Ah go on...'


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

Hat-tip to Idris, obv.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

That Durham thing is going to work very much in Corbyns favour . Very hard to paint him as embattled and isolated when over 100,000 people are applauding him . Frankly it'd take a very brave or stupid Blairite back stabber to show their scabby face there . Opprobrium aplenty .

Can these fucking idiots not sense what's in the wind ? With Brexit ? With those people signing up to labour in their thousands despite the party apparently imploding at parliamentary level ? Even the rise of trump ? People everywhere are fucking sick to their back teeth of their entire agenda . They want real change . It's one of those moments. The Blairites are the ones swimming against the tide now.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Guardian non-story of the year award.
> 
> "Former staff of the resignee's have lost their commons perks cos they don't work their anymore."
> 
> Wow - they're like the tolpuddle martyrs aren't they? Maybe progress should erect a statue in their honour in the house of commons gym.



I think it's a good article in the sense that it does it's best to try and whip up sympathy for a bunch of unsympathetic fuckwits but just fails miserably . Most people reading that would just laugh instead.  They end up looking ridiculous as opposed to sympathetic . And Corbyns crew end up looking as powerful and assertive as opposed to weak and impotent in the face of a coup .
The fact the coups backers actually think a bunch of spads would actually be seen as martyrs is a bit funny too. Nobody even likes these sort of people.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That Durham thing is going to work very much in Corbyns favour . Very hard to paint him as embattled and isolated when over 100,000 people are applauding him . Frankly it'd take a very brave or stupid Blairite back stabber to show their scabby face there . Opprobrium aplenty .
> 
> Can these fucking idiots not sense what's in the wind ? With Brexit ? With those people signing up to labour in their thousands despite the party apparently imploding at parliamentary level ? Even the rise of trump ? People everywhere are fucking sick to their back teeth of their entire agenda . They want real change . It's one of those moments. The Blairites are the ones swimming against the tide now.


Of course they can sense it...they're just ideologically incapable of responding.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

Can I be the first to announce that tomorrow I'll be announcing my forthcoming announcement that Eagle will lose...handsomely.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 9, 2016)

im really looking forward to the blairites membership drive. Making "failure to reach out to the wider public" their key criticism of Corbyn and then him massively outperforming them in the recruitment stakes will just compound their humiliation. 

And what are they going to do when eagle gets flattened in the leadership election?


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Coming soon to a radion near you Episode 1, The Corbyn Story - BBC Radio 4




presented by Steve Richards who called sick and disabled claimants, 'feckless'


----------



## teqniq (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Can I be the first to announce that tomorrow I'll be announcing my forthcoming announcement that Eagle will lose...handsomely.


Yeah that's OK. I couldn't make make my mind up whether to announce anything or not.


----------



## gosub (Jul 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> im really looking forward to the blairites membership drive. Making "failure to reach out to the wider public" their key criticism of Corbyn and then him massively outperforming them in the recruitment stakes will just compound their humiliation.
> 
> And what are they going to do when eagle gets flattened in the leadership election?


call a vote of no confidence in the membership. Obviously


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> ANNOUNCE a vote of no confidence in the membership. Obviously




Ftfy


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Of course they can sense it...they're just ideologically incapable of responding.



Nothing worse than a bunch of opportunists who can't even sniff an opportunity .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Of course they can sense it...they're just ideologically incapable of responding.


bang on. There's no response they are capable of that won't cost them dear with the progress wing. Kinnock put it plain 'its our party dammit'

yeah well cry if you want to. Or get in the fucking sea, you've proven more adept at that than winning a general election


----------



## two sheds (Jul 9, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Unions have told Tom 'I wish I was Holmes' Watson to fuck off apparently.
> 
> Watson sees 'no compromise' over Corbyn - BBC News



"Resign" 
"No"
"Won't you compromise and resign?"


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

Durham Gala Corbyn speech now live on TV news, its barnstorming, major attack on austerity, inequality, brutal welfare system(his words), etc.

Strangely the cameras didn't show the crowd.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The right of the party up until about now has had this fantasy that all of the trade union leaders secretly hate Corbyn and have been just waiting for an excuse to knife him. Much like their bizarre fantasies about McDonnell doing the same it has no real basis in fact, it's ironic that they like to portray Corbyn and those close to him as being in a 'bunker' because the Labour right are the ones who seem to be in a bunker of their own.


Kinnock delivers a pep talk to the brave young pups of the PLP on the eve of their final push to victory


----------



## 8den (Jul 9, 2016)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/angela-eagle-who-is-the-woman-taking-on-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu …


Yes thats the Guardian calling benefits "handouts", Unbelievable. (well not exactly).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

8den said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/angela-eagle-who-is-the-woman-taking-on-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu …
> 
> 
> Yes thats the Guardian calling benefits "handouts", Unbelievable. (well not exactly).



At some point that has been edited to:



> She is also seen as more pro-business than many on the left and was one of the 184 Labour MPs who did not vote against the second reading of the Conservatives’ welfare reform and work bill in July 2015.



Article author: Chris Johnston (@cajuk) on Twitter


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 9, 2016)

8den said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/angela-eagle-who-is-the-woman-taking-on-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu …
> 
> 
> Yes thats the Guardian calling benefits "handouts", Unbelievable. (well not exactly).



 When I look at it it says



> Popular among grassroots Labour members, some on the left criticise her for being pro-Trident and having voted in favour of both the Iraq war and airstrikes in Syria.
> 
> She is also seen as more pro-business than many on the left and was one of the 184 Labour MPs who did not vote against the second reading of the Conservatives’ welfare reform and work bill in July 2015.
> 
> However, analysis of her voting record by theyworkforyou.com shows her having voted against the bedroom tax and consistently voting against reducing spending on benefits.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2016)

8den said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/angela-eagle-who-is-the-woman-taking-on-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu …
> 
> 
> Yes thats the Guardian calling benefits "handouts", Unbelievable. (well not exactly).


Those last four words now cut from that paragraph


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2016)

8den said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/angela-eagle-who-is-the-woman-taking-on-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu …
> 
> 
> Yes thats the Guardian calling benefits "handouts", Unbelievable. (well not exactly).


How do you make those buzzfeed things? There's an opportunity there "11 times the Guardian were right wing shills"


----------



## 8den (Jul 9, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> When I look at it it says



Literally did a double take when I checked the article just now, however Glen Greenwald tweeted the original quote so I take it as trustworthy that it originally appeared as "handouts"

Ministry of Love clearly working on a weekend at the Gruandian.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 9, 2016)

It's not welfare, it's not benefits, it certainly not handouts. 

It is social security. 

That's what it is there for; to protect society by protecting the people in it and enabling their participation in that society.

It only becomes welfare, benefits and handouts when you get rid of society...or when you want to.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> How do you make those buzzfeed things? There's an opportunity there "11 times the Guardian were right wing shills"



"Angela Eagle said she was going to stand for Labour. You won't believe what happened next..."


----------



## 8den (Jul 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> "Angela Eagle said she was going to stand for Labour. You won't believe what happened next..."



The top 9,768 times New Labour betrayed it's working class roots.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2016)

"Blairites hate him! Discover his one weird trick"


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2016)

"The incredible leadership loophole that Labour doesn't want you to know about..."


----------



## ska invita (Jul 9, 2016)

I was going to say, On What Day do you reckon Angela will play the faux-feminist card of Im a Woman and Jeremy Corbyn is a Man card? Answer: Monday! But it turns out the Guardian got in early and are a step ahead and have played it today  Labour: a party meant to help women but run by men | Deborah Orr
Coincidence for the timing of this? No chance.... They had it all written up and ready to go...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 9, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

Fear not, the soothsayer is back examining the entrails!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I was going to say, On What Day do you reckon Angela will play the faux-feminist card of Im a Woman and Jeremy Corbyn is a Man card? Answer: Monday! But it turns out the Guardian got in early and are a step ahead and have played it today  Labour: a party meant to help women but run by men | Deborah Orr
> Coincidence for the timing of this? No chance.... They had it all written up and ready to go...


That does say that Eagle is rubbish and her being a woman is not a good enough reason to vote for her though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

Tony_LeaS said:


> From LBCs Twitter account: Angela Eagle to announce her leadership challenge Monday morning.



No, wait, Sunday! This Sunday! Definitely, honestly, really going to be Sunday! PROMISE.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

chilango said:


> "Angela Eagle said she was going to stand for Labour. You won't believe what happened next..."



Part of buzzfeed's business model now is doing sophistry for establishment politicians so that article would probably just be full of gifs of Taylor Swift and Beyonce representing Angela Eagle denouncing Corbyn or whatever


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> No, wait, Sunday! This Sunday! Definitely, honestly, really going to be Sunday! PROMISE.




RIP Angela Eagle's career


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 9, 2016)

Interesting article and comments from Bristol CLP, sounds like it was somewhat fraught: No longer welcome in my own home.


----------



## Ole (Jul 9, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Interesting article and comments from Bristol CLP, sounds like it was somewhat fraught: No longer welcome in my own home.



Pathetic childish whining. Ohh no someone disagreed with my opinion that we need austerity and endless war and I cried.

Just another example of the standard 'Cybernat, Corbynista, Berniebro' crap


----------



## ska invita (Jul 9, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That does say that Eagle is rubbish and her being a woman is not a good enough reason to vote for her though.


ah fair play i didnt read it


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pathetic childish whining. Ohh no someone disagreed with my opinion that we need austerity and endless war and I cried.
> 
> Just another example of the standard 'Cybernat, Corbynista, Berniebro' crap


Yeah, I just found the comments interesting as well. Refusing a vote of confidence in Corbyn as a reason for the shouting.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


>



hopefully this bit of pressure on him will get him making more impassioned speeches like that one - overdue - he has been a bit flat in the past i think - a little bit of barnstorming could go a long way


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pathetic childish whining. Ohh no someone disagreed with my opinion that we need austerity and endless war and I cried.
> 
> Just another example of the standard 'Cybernat, Corbynista, Berniebro' crap



Translation: If only everyone was nice and cosy I could be Fierce in peace. But it's like an internal civil war's going on or something idunno, why can't we have an existential crisis without people being shouty. Politics is mean


----------



## Ole (Jul 9, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Interesting article and comments from Bristol CLP, sounds like it was somewhat fraught: No longer welcome in my own home.



Cry-arse bollocks. 'My own home' - what an entitled whinger.

Comment:

Katie Langan
yesterday

sorry, i call bullcrap. ive seen 10+ posts about this meeting this morning and every one was opposite to yours. every one said that the corbyn leaning side (NOT aggressive momentum supporters) were pushed out, marginalised and not listened to by their MP who has taken their own, personal stance.

wah wah, i dont like where democracy is taking MY party, i want MY movement back. I thought it wasn’t about individuals? democracy has once again pulled our movement forward in its direction, to line up with what the majority of members want, if you dont like that then you’re in the wrong party because you clearly don’t fill the democratic box, and dont understand the socialist element.
If you want a new leader, ask your oh so brave MP to stand and challenge him as the party rules lay out. No? well stop spitting your dummy out.​Another: 

I believe I was standing near you at this meeting and heard you say that the lousest people are the ones heard. Unfortunately for those who have quiet voices that is true. I think the meeting was lively and enthusiastic. Given that these meetings usually consist of 3 rows of people it probably was a surprise to you to find the hall full to the rafters of hundreds of members who wanted to hear Thangham speak to defend her resignation and support of the recent attempted coup against Jeremy Corbyn. The room was massively in support of Corbyn (around 90% judging by the informal show of hands at the beginning of the Q and A session). This is indeed probably a different picture to the quiet haven you were hoping for. You should not be upset by this I feel, but celebrate the enormous surge in support for the Labour Party which Jeremy Corbyn is inspiring. I did not in any way find the meeting aggressive or uncontrolled and find your discription incorrect.​


----------



## Sue (Jul 9, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Interesting article and comments from Bristol CLP, sounds like it was somewhat fraught: No longer welcome in my own home.


So politics aside (and presumably hers are shit) Thangam Debbonaire is a truly excellent name.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


>




This is a great speech. He honestly is getting better and better at this with each day, like I said upthread he's obvioiusly some sort of vampire that feeds on Blairite hatred.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pathetic childish whining. Ohh no someone disagreed with my opinion that we need austerity and endless war and I cried.
> 
> Just another example of the standard 'Cybernat, Corbynista, Berniebro' crap


She's my MP. I read that article in a Bristol rag and all I could think was 'boo hoo, go and join the lib dems'


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


>




Maybe they've started feeding him a can of K before he speaks? Good stuff either way.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 9, 2016)

Just heard Michael Gates (Ilford) bigging up Eagle, got too giddy for me.
But one of the examples he used as to how fabulous she is, was how she stood up to and caused civil servants to back down, obviously sticking up for the workers then. 

ETA: BBC R4 about 17:20


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 9, 2016)




----------



## The Pale King (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


>




Terriffic. This is the best I have seen him, more of this could go a long way. I have only seen this short clip, if anyone has a link to a full recording please share it.


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is a great speech. He honestly is getting better and better at this with each day, like I said upthread he's obvioiusly some sort of vampire that feeds on Blairite hatred.



I've found a lot of his delivery a bit stilted in the past, like someone forgetting their lines... This is a big improvement, though he still seems to require a fairly vast set of notes. Hope he continues in this vein.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is a great speech. He honestly is getting better and better at this with each day, like I said upthread he's obvioiusly some sort of vampire that feeds on Blairite hatred.



Tom Watson's blood next. Get fucking rid.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2016)

McCluskey attacks Watson for being disingenuous. 


> But in a sign of the deepening divisions between factions in the Labour party, McCluskey described Watson’s announcement as a “deeply disingenuous manoeuvre”.
> 
> “I am dismayed at the statement issued by Tom Watson announcing his withdrawal from talks aimed at resolving the crisis in the Labour party,” he said.
> 
> ...



I always knew Watson was a wrong 'un.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 9, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Terriffic. This is the best I have seen him, more of this could go a long way. I have only seen this short clip, if anyone has a link to a full recording please share it.





Cid said:


> I've found a lot of his delivery a bit stilted in the past, like someone forgetting their lines... This is a big improvement, though he still seems to require a fairly vast set of notes. Hope he continues in this vein.



Fuck yes! I guess him not having(or feeling he has to) lie about the EU may have taken a load off too- his craic  went downhill then he was at odds with himself I think. This is like the stuff I saw of him pre leader days on YouTube etc. I didn't know much about him prior to then, and whilst I'll never vote labour I've become a reluctant fan, gutted he never led pro leave though.


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

At least they're burning all their bridges in these attacks... Basically the only way for them to survive now is having a ballot without his name on it and that isn't exactly going to be consequence free.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


> Cry-arse bollocks. 'My own home' - what an entitled whinger.
> 
> Comment:
> 
> ...




In the comments, someone says there were nearly 1000 there, at a CLP meeting, is this correct?


----------



## Dandred (Jul 9, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Terriffic. This is the best I have seen him, more of this could go a long way. I have only seen this short clip, if anyone has a link to a full recording please share it.



I think the Guardian have a longer version on their site, with more pictures of the huge crowds.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

Damn, I thought it was going to bucket down , so didn't go!


----------



## mauvais (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


>


It's probably just me but I think he's started to turn into Kenneth Branagh's Wallander. If the PLP plays its cards right they might find he disappears off to solve Scandinavian murders anyway.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

> There were problems. The venue was too small and unbearably hot, the organisers were frantic and completely overwhelmed by the numbers that had turned up and — understandably given the events of the past couple of weeks in the Labour Party — tempers were short.



Same here last week, they need to hire big fans for these mass meetings


----------



## Raheem (Jul 9, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Terriffic. This is the best I have seen him, more of this could go a long way. I have only seen this short clip, if anyone has a link to a full recording please share it.



Maybe the coup shenanigans are actually a cunning ploy to put a spring in his step and make him up his game so Labour can waltz back into government. Would make more sense than the reality.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

> All of this aside, I left feeling energised by the evening. I’m ready to throw myself into the largest socialist party in Europe to rebuild a strong labour movement. Those who see people like me as Corbyn ‘cultists’ due to our insistence on defending the man would do well to read David Graeber’s





> recent article in The Guardian. It is not who Corbyn is, but what he represents; far from being a fan club — as one long-standing member patronised — Corbyn and the attendent surge in membership represents a changing understanding of what power means and who should wield it.
> 
> So I went to a CLP meeting



Superb reply to Ruth here.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

Having said that I recall going to a founding national meeting of the Socialist Alliance and being astonished how the older members(all men) were so rude, fractious, and unwelcoming to new activists, etc, came as a bit of a shock.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2016)

Corbyn mania


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn mania



Laying on those healing hands.


----------



## bendeus (Jul 9, 2016)

He's actually reaching down to relieve them of their wallets. Is there no low, etc.......


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 9, 2016)

I honestly do not know what they are thinking.

I mean, look at Angela Eagle's facebook page. Comments from Corbyn supporters are massively outnumbering her own. She can't have a prayer if Corbyn is on the ballot.

Corbyn not being on the ballot would be a total farce


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Having said that I recall going to a founding national meeting of the Socialist Alliance and being astonished how the older members(all men) were so rude, fractious, and unwelcoming to new activists, etc, came as a bit of a shock.


You didn't think they'd be nicer than you? Anyway what were you doing at a socialist meeting when your hatred of socialists is legendary?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn mania


Is no one concerned that someone in the crowd seems to be trying to harpoon him?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 9, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I honestly do not know what they are thinking.
> 
> I mean, look at Angela Eagle's facebook page. Comments from Corbyn supporters are massively outnumbering her own. She can't have a prayer if Corbyn is on the ballot.
> 
> Corbyn not being on the ballot would be a total farce



Problem is they've made such a big fuss about mounting a challenge to Corbyn that they can't back down now without looking incredibly silly. Unfortunately for them they are about to prolong the embarrassment by going ahead with this leadership contest that they know they can't win. It's a truly wonderful thing to behold.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Problem is they've made such a big fuss about mounting a challenge to Corbyn that they can't back down now without looking incredibly silly. Unfortunately for them they are about to prolong the embarrassment by going ahead with this leadership contest that they know they can't win. It's a truly wonderful thing to behold.


But, but...they're trying to get rid because he can't win elections...remember?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 9, 2016)

_"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."_
Nicholas Klein


----------



## Libertad (Jul 9, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> _"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."_
> Nicholas Klein



And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 9, 2016)

Well I joined the Labour Party.... May god have mercy on my sole.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

Fedayn said:


> May god have mercy on my sole.


Well, when the chips are down


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 9, 2016)

They have to be banking on him not being on the ballot. It's the only possible reason I can see for any of them mounting a challenge now.

Both sides, regardless of whether he's on the ballot or not, will mount a court case against it. It's going to be an absolute disaster. 

Keeping him off the ballot is a sure fire way to ensure the party splits for good. 

At the end of it all, Labour is nothing without the unions, and they won't be very happy with Corbyn being kept off. Not one bit.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> *They have to be banking on him not being on the ballot*. It's the only possible reason I can see for any of them mounting a challenge now.
> 
> Both sides, regardless of whether he's on the ballot or not, will mount a court case against it. It's going to be an absolute disaster.
> 
> ...



Doesnt make sense otherwise, does it? No one would willingly enter a contest they know they'll lose. Have they some sort of legal trump card they'll reveal with a flourish? Does the leader stand down to enable a contest, creating a 'no leader' period that they intend to extend with expensive & time consuming legalities? They can't beat him, but they can unseat him?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 9, 2016)

I thought that keeping corbyn off the ballot was already a no go?
Or is it not legally done and dusted yet?


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 9, 2016)

Perhaps they think they have a surprise candidate up their sleeve who will unite the membership and MPs.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 9, 2016)

If they don't let Corbyn on the ballot then Dennis Skinner should run just for a laugh.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Perhaps they think they have a surprise candidate up their sleeve who will unite the membership and MPs.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2016)

Assuming Eagle does declare on Monday and the PLP has an election which Corbyn will lose, then there is a wider leadership election among the membership, presumably with Corbyn still on the ticket, assume that anyhow, just how long is this whole process, or series of processes, likely to take?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 9, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If they don't let Corbyn on the ballot then Dennis Skinner should run just for a laugh.


I get the joke but of course you know that Dennis will never stand for office as a matter of principle.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 9, 2016)

There's no PLP election in Labour, it's simply a ballot of the members. There's no way Corbyn will lose unless they engineer him off the ballot. If they tried that what we've seen so far would be the initial skirmishes of a fuck off civil war.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 9, 2016)

Fedayn said:


> Well I joined the Labour Party.... May god have mercy on my sole.



Many moons ago I came on these boards as a supporter of the IWCA. All these years later I have rejoined the Labour Party; it feels like there is a need to grab an opportunity for democratising the party (hopefully as a part of some broader political renewal in the wake of the brexit vote). I think I'm aware of most of the contradictions and limitations of my membership. And it does feel very weird.

Attended the AGM in Brighton today. Around 1000 people turned up to a room that could hold a little over 300. So the agenda was stripped down to the election of officers and the meeting was run three times in a row.

All the executive officer positions were won by pro-Corbyn candidates. Queuing up to get in some of the old guard were complaining that it was 'just like Militant', but there were no papers being sold or leaflets being pushed.

Now I need to find out if and when the ward party meets. I will try to keep Urban up to speed with my currently confusing experiences.

Cheers - Louis (class traitor) MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn mania


Amidst the veneration of St Corbo of Islington portrayed here, you can also see one of Urban's finest more interested in his chips (in front of the Ice Cream van).


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 9, 2016)

Nice one Louis. You ain't a class traitor. You're "stealing it back" (Contradictons of big govt vs working-class aside - original labour movement was outside of govt after all)


----------



## Knotted (Jul 9, 2016)

Oh fuck I'm being tempted to join the Labour Party. Somebody please talk me out of it.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 9, 2016)

The Green Party didn't have a leader until a few years ago, maybe they will try that. They could rotate through the shadow cabinet at PMQs and Corbyn could be shadow something or other.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 9, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Oh fuck I'm being tempted to join the Labour Party. Somebody please talk me out of it.


Same, strange times!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 9, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no PLP election in Labour, it's simply a ballot of the members. There's no way Corbyn will lose unless they engineer him off the ballot. If they tried that what we've seen so far would be the initial skirmishes of a fuck off civil war.


 
that.

if i remember right (from a year or so back) a candidate needs nomination by X percent of current MP / MEPs before they can get on to the ballot paper though - JC nearly didn't get enough nominations last year.

it seems unclear whether a challenged sitting leader has to have nominations or not - and this is what both sides say they have legal advice to support their position on.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 9, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> that.
> 
> if i remember right (from a year or so back) a candidate needs nomination by X percent of current MP / MEPs before they can get on to the ballot paper though - JC nearly didn't get enough nominations last year.
> 
> it seems unclear whether a challenged sitting leader has to have nominations or not - and this is what both sides say they have legal advice to support their position on.



I think if they tried to keep him off the ballot, the CLPs would explode. If they think the meetings are big now...


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 9, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Many moons ago I came on these boards as a supporter of the IWCA. All these years later I have rejoined the Labour Party; it feels like there is a need to grab an opportunity for democratising the party (hopefully as a part of some broader political renewal in the wake of the brexit vote). I think I'm aware of most of the contradictions and limitations of my membership. And it does feel very weird.
> 
> Attended the AGM in Brighton today. Around 1000 people turned up to a room that could hold a little over 300. So the agenda was stripped down to the election of officers and the meeting was run three times in a row.
> 
> ...



Likely like yiu I still like a lot of whst the IWCA say but it seems to me idiotic to sit on the sidelines whilst a small battle is taking place that I could join. Yes it is a confusing experience but politics is all sharp turns sudden changes.... As they say...


----------



## Ole (Jul 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They have to be banking on him not being on the ballot. It's the only possible reason I can see for any of them mounting a challenge now.
> 
> Both sides, regardless of whether he's on the ballot or not, will mount a court case against it. It's going to be an absolute disaster.
> 
> ...



No, he will definitely be on the ballot.

They're just believing their own hype, that they can actually win. 

New Statesman: 

Yet afterwards, Corbyn’s opponents are hopeful that they can prevail. They speak of harnessing the energy of “the 48 per cent” who voted for the UK to remain in the EU and have been politicised by defeat. An unpublished poll by GQR found that 10 per cent of the public would pay £3 to participate in a leadership election. A plurality of this group oppose Corbyn and consist of three segments: liberal cosmopolitans, “old right” Labour and “pure democrats” who want “a strong opposition”. Rather than being disheartened by polls showing Corbyn ahead, the rebels were cheered that opinion seemed to be shifting even before a contest has begun. They will seek to overcome activists’ traditional loyalty to the leader by counterposing loyalty to the party. The contest will be framed as a referendum on Labour’s very survival.​There was also a suggestion by a Labour Party bod in the Guardian that Corbyn's vast 'registered supporters' could be effectively marginalised out of a leadership election by drastically increasing the fee for registering as a supporter. It's in the rules that these registered supporters must be allowed to vote, but there is no rule that the fee must be £3.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 9, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> I think if they tried to keep him off the ballot, the CLPs would explode. If they think the meetings are big now...


 
I can see it ending up in court either way.

Which I suppose could delay the whole thing until after NEC elections and party conference (presume rule changes about deslections / leadership ballot rules have to go to party conference) which may not help the blairites


----------



## Raheem (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


> There was also a suggestion by a Labour Party bod in the Guardian that Corbyn's vast 'registered supporters' could be effectively marginalised out of a leadership election by drastically increasing the fee for registering as a supporter. It's in the rules that these registered supporters must be allowed to vote, but there is no rule that the fee must be £3.



I think the £3 is one-off fee, though. Once you're in, you're in. So you can make it more costly (assuming you have the power), but that wouldn't marginalise existing three-quidders.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 9, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I think the £3 is one-off fee, though. Once you're in, you're in. So you can make it more costly (assuming you have the power), but that wouldn't marginalise existing three-quidders.



The £3 was a one off fee to take part in that election. A new election will need a new fee...which may be £3...or could be something else.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I think the £3 is one-off fee, though. Once you're in, you're in. So you can make it more costly (assuming you have the power), but that wouldn't marginalise existing three-quidders.


I believe the £3 _was_ a one off.  But the 3 quidders don't retain the right to vote in the coming leadership election, they'd have to pay again.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Corbyn not being on the ballot would be a total farce


They know it's their best chance, they'll certainly argue that at the NEC that he should  have to get the nominations, they question are they willing to go to the courts to argue it if they NEC comes down in Corbyn's favour.



Plumdaff said:


> I think if they tried to keep him off the ballot, the CLPs would explode. If they think the meetings are big now...


Sure but to what end? As Killer b has pointed out there's no real way to deselect MPs before a scheduled GE. Do these new members really have the bottle to actively mount a civil war in the party and keep it bubbling for four years because that's what it will take. And how far will Corbyn, McDonnell, then unions etc go?


----------



## Ole (Jul 9, 2016)

If they really think they can win by recruiting "liberal cosmopolitans", the "old-right" and "pure democrats", they'll probably leave it at £3 - assuming they have the power at all. 

They really do make me laugh.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 9, 2016)

If you are going to play this game you might as well sign up; no point in keeping Corbyn if you don't help deselect your MP when the time comes.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 9, 2016)

I'm struggling to see how the scabs can style this as a _challenge_ to JC if he's not even in the contest.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm struggling to see how the scabs can style this as a _challenge_ to JC if he's not even in the contest.


As Watson and Kinnock have done, the Labour party is in the business of _parliamentary politics_ so it's essential that the leader have the backing of the PLP. Of course it won't work with much of the membership but they don't care. The tactic is clearly to remove the head and hope the body withers.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2016)

Priti Patel, in Sunday's Guardian, says that if the Conservative membership elect Leadsom, (which seems possible), the tories will have the same situation as Labour, namely a leader elected by their membership who is not supported by more than a minority of their MPs.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2016)

Wonderful and what do you think?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> They know it's their best chance, they'll certainly argue that at the NEC that he should  have to get the nominations, they question are they willing to go to the courts to argue it if they NEC comes down in Corbyn's favour.



Voting in NEC election starts Monday, there's a Momentum backed, pro-Corbyn slate listed. Don't know about the timescale regarding the leadership vote but adds a new dimension.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm struggling to see how the scabs can style this as a _challenge_ to JC if he's not even in the contest.



Why would they bother? If they're rid of him then all is well, they can throw Watson on the ballot too and tell themselves how nice and democratic they are.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 9, 2016)

Ole said:


> No, he will definitely be on the ballot.
> 
> They're just believing their own hype, that they can actually win.
> 
> ...



The rule book is ambiguous about whether an incumbent leader, when faced with a leadership challenge, should automatically be on the ballot or not. Both sides have made bluster about it, both have apparently consulted legal opinion, both sides have received opinion in their favour. Ergo, it's all to play for and will end in a court challenge from one side or the other depending on what eventually happens.

There have been plans for some time to add in a very explicit line about the incumbent when challenged being automatically on the ballot, but it has not been implemented or voted through yet. My CLP, for instance, has a motion to vote in favour of it next week.

This isn't me arguing about whether he _should_ be allowed on the ballot or not. I'm simply commenting on where it is legally and according to the rule book at the moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is a great speech. He honestly is getting better and better at this with each day, like I said upthread he's obvioiusly some sort of vampire that feeds on Blairite hatred.


yeah he's getting there. Angrier


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Oh fuck I'm being tempted to join the Labour Party. Somebody please talk me out of it.



What have you got to lose? It's a decent chance to shift the political window leftward.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 9, 2016)

Cid said:


> What have you got to lose?


£3


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> £3



Membership is more to be fair.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

Cid said:


> What have you got to lose? It's a decent chance to shift the political window leftward.



Well, technically what's to lose is the following:

1. Corbyn gets in, fails to make an electoral impact, and the whole thing starts up again a couple or a few years from now. Possibly he might be saved again but it'll be increasingly unlikely. Blairites get back in and use the whole episode as an example of the left's inability to win ad nauseam.
2. Corbyn gets in and wins the next general election. He then runs up against exactly the same mechanisms which have stymied Parliamentary leftism across Europe and elsewhere for most of the last 40 years, ie. a united ruling elite pushing one way, a defeated working class not pushing in the other. His party is either forced into an unpleasant "compromise" where it does little but tinker around the edges while neoliberalism remains fundamentally unchallenged, or it goes down swinging and Britain's economy experiences a violent capital exodus. Either way, it looks like the failure of leftism, buoying the right and far-right which then go on to win big electorally while the left parliamentary project collapses.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Interesting article and comments from Bristol CLP, sounds like it was somewhat fraught: No longer welcome in my own home.



She seems to have forgotten it was Jeremy Corbyn , who while addressing the Chilcott report was angrily told to " shut up and sit down " by those labour MPs who share her " concerns " about him .

Also seems like a plea for safe spaces and jazz hands. Somebody disagreed with her and she almost  cried. fuck me . And the Jo Cox picture.. suggesting these horrible people might be deranged murderer types . Fuck off .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> a united ruling elite pushing one way,


always been the case. Wilson plot. The very formation of a party to represent labour was virulently resisted by vested interests. Thus it ever was. Thats why we need to hang them all, or ut them to work in the condiment mines


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2016)

The NEC agrees the timetable for the election but, presumably, in the absence of changes or challenges would be expected to go with the existing procedure i.e. needing 35 MP nominations.  This was the timetable last time.
Timetable announced for Labour Leader and Deputy Leader elections
I'm not sure of the balance of the NEC, presume it's reasonably  right wing still? Interestingly, Angela Eagle is still down as a member by virtue of her shadow cabinet position (elected onto the NEC for a year, even if no longer in shadow cab?). Also, Livingstone won't attending as still suspended.

Labour's National Executive Committee

My pure guess is that corbo will end up on the ballot however it's not a given.  There will be legal and political battles, but the default position is that you simply need 35, full stop. It would appear particularly cuntish to stop him getting on the ballot, but I can't see that stopping them.

Edit, just seen YouSir  's post:


> Voting in NEC election starts Monday, there's a Momentum backed, pro-Corbyn slate listed. Don't know about the timescale regarding the leadership vote but adds a new dimension.


  Yes, adds a new dimension though, without checking, I would guess they take up their posts in September. The old Nec will kick off the leadership election (the running of which, including of adjudications as to which new voters are allowed a vote, passes to some other body afaik).


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Well, technically what's to lose is the following:
> 
> 1. Corbyn gets in, fails to make an electoral impact, and the whole thing starts up again a couple or a few years from now. Possibly he might be saved again but it'll be increasingly unlikely. Blairites get back in and use the whole episode as an example of the left's inability to win ad nauseam.
> 2. Corbyn gets in and wins. He then runs up against exactly the same mechanisms which have stymied Parliamentary leftism across Europe and elsewhere for most of the last 40 years, ie. a united ruling elite pushing one way, a defeated working class not pushing in the other. His party is either forced into an unpleasant "compromise" where it does little but tinker around the edges while neoliberalism remains fundamentally unchallenged, or it goes down swinging and Britain's economy experiences a violent capital exodus. Either way, it looks like the failure of leftism, buoying the right and far-right which then go on to win big electorally while the left parliamentary project collapses.



I don't think either of those are losses so much as business as usual.


----------



## Cid (Jul 9, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The NEC agrees the timetable for the election but, presumably, in the absence of changes or challenges would be expected to go with the existing procedure i.e. needing 35 MP nominations.  This was the timetable last time.
> Timetable announced for Labour Leader and Deputy Leader elections
> I'm not sure of the balance of the NEC, presume it's reasonably  right wing still? Interestingly, Angela Eagle is still down as a member by virtue of her shadow cabinet position (elected onto the NEC for a year, even if no longer in shadow cab?). Also, Livingstone won't attending as still suspended.
> 
> ...



I think the argument is that he needs 50... 20% of the party as opposed to the 15% in a normal election. It's a crap argument imo; clearly a leadership challenger should have a higher barrier to entry but why should the leader have to match that? Still, that seems to be the case the webels are arguing.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 9, 2016)

Cid said:


> I don't think either of those are losses so much as business as usual.



Depends on your perspective. The former would be a loss for Labour's left as it would gift Blairites another couple of decades of rhetorical dominance. The latter would be a loss for social democratic ambitions generally, as it'd be a very clear showing of how little firepower their economic strategy actually has. And of course that could easily reverberate more deeply as well, persuading people that not only is neo-Keynesian dogma a busted flush, but _all_ left thinking, further cementing the "common sense" aspect of the existing order and making extra-Parliamentary organising that little bit harder.

This is a pessimistic perspective of course. I hope it'd be wrong. But the question _was _asked.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

I think it's become abundantly clear that  Corbyn can't achieve anything unless he sets about immediately deselecting every last one of these treacherous vermin . He can't possibly win an election when his sitting MPs are telling the world Corbyn is a disaster they can't support . And even if he did by some miracle, they'll seek to undermine him at every turn . To spike every piece of progressive legislation he attempts .  They have to go . Time for a night of the long knives as soon as he sees off Betty the Eagle .


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> What have you got to lose?


The same with all parliamentary political involvement, that you spend so much time on the means that you lose sight of the fundamental objective and the means becomes the end.

I'm not going to have a go at people for joining up but what I would say is that the fight isn't, or at least shouldn't be, getting Corbyn re-elected, it's not even to make the Labour party a more democratic organisation with a social democratic (or even socialist) position, it's to empower labour (not Labour).

Now if people believe they can do that through joining the Labour Party I'm not going to rant at them (though I would point out articul8 must be happy ATM) but I would point out that at some point their opponents aren't just going to be the Progress crew, the Blue Labour mob and the so-called soft-left group, if you are serious about this route then sooner or later your opponents may be the unions, perhaps even Corbyn and McDonnell.

For example the unions seem to be backing Corbyn at the moment but how far will they go? If he doesn't get put on the ballot by the NEC and attempts a legal challenge will they back that? If he is removed as leader will they continue to attack Labour MPs, or will they run up the white flag in the name of unity? Personally I suspect the latter.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They have to be banking on him not being on the ballot. It's the only possible reason I can see for any of them mounting a challenge now.
> 
> Both sides, regardless of whether he's on the ballot or not, will mount a court case against it. It's going to be an absolute disaster.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The same with all parliamentary political involvement, that you spend so much time on the means that you lose sight of the fundamental objective and the means becomes the end.
> 
> I'm not going to have a go at people for joining up but what I would say is that the fight isn't, or at least shouldn't be, getting Corbyn re-elected, it's not even to make the Labour party a more democratic organisation with a social democratic (or even socialist) position, it's to empower labour (not Labour).
> 
> ...



I can't honestly find fault with any of that. But, at the end of the day, what you're pointing out is that the thing is losable. What isn't?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Terriffic. This is the best I have seen him, more of this could go a long way. I have only seen this short clip, if anyone has a link to a full recording please share it.



Here's the full address . From an ordinary punters camera in the crowd but you can hear it all.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The same with all parliamentary political involvement, that you spend so much time on the means that you lose sight of the fundamental objective and the means becomes the end.
> 
> I'm not going to have a go at people for joining up but what I would say is that the fight isn't, or at least shouldn't be, getting Corbyn re-elected, it's not even to make the Labour party a more democratic organisation with a social democratic (or even socialist) position, it's to empower labour (not Labour).
> 
> ...


If Corbn and his supporters had, essentially, started to make the Party a different kind of political force, I could at some point just about see myself working alongside them. By that I mean moving out into community organising, towards active working class struggle, creating a genuine relationship between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary - and most of all breaking the party structure open so that it could work with communities and other forces.  It was a big ask and not easily done, very different to the Labour mindset - even the left labour mindset.  Also, obviously they've had their energies drained by all the Blairites scum.  But as that shift hasn't happened, the underlined bit is very important.  I'm also not going to criticise people for joining or 3 quidding, but as Labour hasn't really shifted what kind of force it is, there's always the danger that joining to defend Corbyn becomes just another dance within the realm and mindset of Westminster politics.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If Corbn and his supporters had, essentially, started to make the Party a different kind of political force, I could at some point just about see myself working alongside them. By that I mean moving out into community organising, towards active working class struggle, creating a genuine relationship between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary - and most of all breaking the party structure open so that it could work with communities and other forces.  It was a big ask and not easily done, very different to the Labour mindset - even the left labour mindset.  Also, obviously they've had their energies drained by all the Blairites scum.  But as that shift hasn't happened, the underlined bit is very important.  I'm also not going to criticise people for joining or 3 quidding, but as Labour hasn't really shifted what kind of force it is, there's always the danger that joining to defend Corbyn becomes just another dance within the realm and mindset of Westminster politics.



Why don't you join up to try and make those changes in the LP? I mean they've only been there less than a year and they were as surprised to get into leadership as anyone. It's only natural they didn't have any ready-made plans to re-democratise the party, but I imagine those conversations will be happening now.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If Corbn and his supporters had, essentially, started to make the Party a different kind of political force, I could at some point just about see myself working alongside them. By that I mean moving out into community organising, towards active working class struggle, creating a genuine relationship between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary - and most of all breaking the party structure open so that it could work with communities and other forces.  It was a big ask and not easily done, very different to the Labour mindset - even the left labour mindset.  Also, obviously they've had their energies drained by all the Blairites scum.  But as that shift hasn't happened, the underlined bit is very important.  I'm also not going to criticise people for joining or 3 quidding, but as Labour hasn't really shifted what kind of force it is, there's always the danger that joining to defend Corbyn becomes just another dance within the realm and mindset of Westminster politics.


Have you not noticed, Corbyn has relentlessly stuck to the message "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity" and it has already forced Conservative u-turns, resignations, and is now even echoed by Andrea Leadsom?

There would have been no chance of the same from a Blairite leader of the opposition. Nowhere near.

Corbyn has also proved a huge obstacle when it comes to dropping bombs on olive-skinned people.

His influence has been, if not seismic, highly significant already.

No wonder there is apoplexy and the establishment throwing all into getting rid of him. This is why I have joined the Labour party for the first time in my life. If they want to get rid of him so badly, when he has done absolutely nothing wrong, then the reason for it must be a sinister one and he must be protected.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why don't you join up to try and make those changes in the LP? I mean they've only been there less than a year and they were as surprised to get into leadership as anyone. It's only natural they didn't have any ready-made plans to re-democratise the party, but I imagine those conversations will be happening now.


Well, for me personally there's 2 levels to it. In terms of my politics as a position or theory, I left the Labour Party around 1989 and over the next 10 years meandered towards an explicitly anarchist position.  I've been involved in anarchist stuff on and off since then, some of it directly against new labour, but always with the standard anarcho objections to parliamentary/hierarchical politics.  Just too much of a leap to ever get involved in electoral politics.

The other bit of my politics is involvement in local anti-austerity stuff, along with bits and pieces on sanctions and running a clothing bank.  If Labour was to change and become the kind of organisation actually opposed austerity - instead of actually carrying it out at the council level - I could see myself working alongside Labourites or even actual Labour initiatives.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Have you not noticed, Corbyn has relentlessly stuck to the message "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity" and it has already forced Conservative u-turns, resignations, and is now even echoed by Andrea Leadsom?
> 
> There would have been no chance of the same from a Blairite leader of the opposition. Nowhere near.
> 
> ...



Well, yes, certainly, it's good to hear a labour politician saying those things (genuinely) - I'd rather Labour won the election and I'd prefer corbyn as leader rather than any of his likely challengers.  However I do think you overestimate the impact he's had.  The polls, as we know are not very reliable, but do seem to have underestimated Conservative support - and even with that Corbyn/Labour is still behind.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Here's the full address . From an ordinary punters camera in the crowd but you can hear it all.



Is it really bad to be distracted by the comb-back dude in front of the camera?

I was with some friends tonight, mixed crowd that turned out to be all pro Corbyn, weird given the massive mix of voter types, largely not party political but I'd think of some as even quite right wing. They're all thinking of joining labour because Corbyn is the one politician they feel able to believe in (one has already joined). Perhaps it's a sign of just how far right the mainstream politics have swung that everybody normal finds themselves on the left. I hadn't paid enough attention to the £3 or other options for membership, but I did say everyone had to turn up at their local meetings to make a real difference.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Is it really bad to be distracted by the comb-back dude in front of the camera?
> 
> I was with some friends tonight, mixed crowd that turned out to be all pro Corbyn, weird given the massive mix of voter types, largely not party political but I'd think of some as even quite right wing. They're all thinking of joining labour because Corbyn is the one politician they feel able to believe in (one has already joined). Perhaps it's a sign of just how far right the mainstream politics have swung that everybody normal finds themselves on the left. I hadn't paid enough attention to the £3 or other options for membership, but I did say everyone had to turn up at their local meetings to make a real difference.



Whatever his faults may be, Corbyn is an inherently decent , honest and humane individual . Who genuinely cares about people. People can see that . Anyone who voted for the Iraq war doesn't. They're either cruelly indifferent sociopaths or cruelly vicious psychopaths . Or moral cowards with no convictions . So implementing austerity and neo liberalism is second nature to them . Austerity is an insane, anti people policy . Supported by insane, anti people politicians . And some cowards with no convictions .
Corbyn represents the opposite of all that and people can see that regardless of their respective backgrounds .
He's not the messiah...he's not even a very naughty boy...but his inner qualities of decency aren't remotely faked, arent staged . It's totally genuine and that's what connects him with people . He represents a hope that things can genuinely change . Whether he can be an agent of real change within that system is another thing entirely, but he offers a real hope they can .
Those standing in his way represent nothing more than one form or another of " business as usual " . And that's what people from a wide range of backgrounds are very much opposed to .
His ability to unite such different personalities and outlooks in common cause against insanity and barbarism means he can potentially win an election . It's his internal opponents who are the major liability, not him .


----------



## Nylock (Jul 10, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> ...Jeremy Corbyn is the only MP I've ever listened to and thought "He's telling the truth"...


I heard the same thing from a conservative voting neighbour of mine the other day... He was talking to me about watching the programme where corbyn gave the EU a '7/10' rating and how the papers spun the story the following day. How corbyn came over as one of the few reasonable voices during the EU debate and how he was trashed by the press.



Casually Red said:


> I think it's become abundantly clear that  Corbyn can't achieve anything unless he sets about immediately deselecting every last one of these treacherous vermin . He can't possibly win an election when his sitting MPs are telling the world Corbyn is a disaster they can't support . And even if he did by some miracle, they'll seek to undermine him at every turn . To spike every piece of progressive legislation he attempts .  They have to go . Time for a night of the long knives as soon as he sees off Betty the Eagle .


He then went on to pretty much say this (in fact I remember the word 'purge' being used more than once). A conservative voter, mind  If corbyn stays as leader and carries on the way he is I reckon my neighbour will probably be voting labour in 2020....


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

I agree, I think if the Labour party could have the deadwood PLP cleared before the next election, there's every chance of a major win. The vast majority of people only want a fair and humane society, Corbyn is the best chance of that right now.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

It'll need to  be a night of the long knives like no other..an absolute bloodbath. He needs to be absolutely fucking ruthless, single minded and merciless . Pick off the big elephants first and leave the cowards sitting quaking . Terrified .starting off by rescinding Blairs labour membership . Mandelsons too . Gut the party from top to bottom. Identify war support and neo liberalism as a cancer and purge purge purge purge .
Some of those who voted against him will be cowards with no convictions as opposed to active conspirators. That herd can definitely be separated. He can wait till later to settle those scores. But the dyed in the wool reactionaries need to be cut out once and for all like the gangrenous filth they are .
Black pyjamas time. Into the fields with them .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Nylock said:


> I heard the same thing from a conservative voting neighbour of mine the other day... He was talking to me about watching the programme where corbyn gave the EU a '7/10' rating and how the papers spun the story the following day. How corbyn came over as one of the few reasonable voices during the EU debate and how he was trashed by the press.
> 
> 
> He then went on to pretty much say this (in fact I remember the word 'purge' being used more than once). A conservative voter, mind  If corbyn stays as leader and carries on the way he is I reckon my neighbour will probably be voting labour in 2020....



If the choice is between a proper tory and a faux tory with a red rosette people might as well vote for the genuine article . People simply don't like being bullshitted to . And it works the other way round .


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

Deselections are sufficient. Saves all that pesky digging anyway.


----------



## Lorca (Jul 10, 2016)

casually beria! 
(but hopefully, there's plenty of decent people to replace the 175 with.)


----------



## Ole (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> It'll need to  be a night of the long knives like no other..an absolute bloodbath. He needs to be absolutely fucking ruthless, single minded and merciless . Pick off the big elephants first and leave the cowards sitting quaking . Terrified .starting off by rescinding Blairs labour membership . Mandelsons too . Gut the party from top to bottom. Identify war support and neo liberalism as a cancer and purge purge purge purge .
> Some of those who voted against him will be cowards with no convictions as opposed to active conspirators. That herd can definitely be separated. He can wait till later to settle those scores. But the dyed in the wool reactionaries need to be cut out once and for all like the gangrenous filth they are .
> Black pyjamas time. Into the fields with them .



Hard to know where you really stand on this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 10, 2016)

what is the process for de-selection? Are the MPs selected by their CLP everytime an election comes around? Is there a way for CLPs to boot out MPs at other times?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

Apparently...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

Corbyn on Marr at the moment. 

Marr pushing that he won't be on the Ballot. Probably been "briefed".


----------



## inva (Jul 10, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Apparently...



surely what he means is she'll be launching her bid to announce that she's considering announcing that she will launch her bid to oust Corbyn. or something.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2016)

> Corbyn: "Rules of Party indicate that I should be on the ballot paper ..not been shown any legal advice that says differently"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2016)

A tweet from BBC's Norman Smith;

"Am told Corbyn has been shown Labour legal advice saying he will need nominations  to be on ballot paper"


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)




----------



## planetgeli (Jul 10, 2016)

So...they originally wanted him on the ballot he won as a 'show of democracy' and now the democracy has proven too democratic...they don't?

Yes Minister.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

I take it this is why Tom Watson pulled out of Union talks.


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The same with all parliamentary political involvement, that you spend so much time on the means that you lose sight of the fundamental objective and the means becomes the end.
> 
> I'm not going to have a go at people for joining up but what I would say is that the fight isn't, or at least shouldn't be, getting Corbyn re-elected, it's not even to make the Labour party a more democratic organisation with a social democratic (or even socialist) position, it's to empower labour (not Labour).



Fine, and if you've found an effective way of fighting that fight outside parliamentary politics then clearly you should continue to do so. Although I'd also argue that joining the labour party simply with the aim of participating in NEC elections/CLP votes isn't much of a time commitment. 



> Now if people believe they can do that through joining the Labour Party I'm not going to rant at them (though I would point out articul8 must be happy ATM) but I would point out that at some point their opponents aren't just going to be the Progress crew, the Blue Labour mob and the so-called soft-left group, if you are serious about this route then sooner or later your opponents may be the unions, perhaps even Corbyn and McDonnell.
> 
> For example the unions seem to be backing Corbyn at the moment but how far will they go? If he doesn't get put on the ballot by the NEC and attempts a legal challenge will they back that? If he is removed as leader will they continue to attack Labour MPs, or will they run up the white flag in the name of unity? Personally I suspect the latter.



I'm still an anarchist, I have very little faith in the Westminster system being able to deliver any kind of democratic change... For me this is primarily about visibility. I think the last few years have been something of a nadir for the left - lack of interest, written off as an irrelevancy even by those whose interests are aligned with it. Certainly seemed like being in an echo chamber. A very small echo chamber. 



Rob Ray said:


> Depends on your perspective. The former would be a loss for Labour's left as it would gift Blairites another couple of decades of rhetorical dominance. The latter would be a loss for social democratic ambitions generally, as it'd be a very clear showing of how little firepower their economic strategy actually has. And of course that could easily reverberate more deeply as well, persuading people that not only is neo-Keynesian dogma a busted flush, but _all_ left thinking, further cementing the "common sense" aspect of the existing order and making extra-Parliamentary organising that little bit harder.
> 
> This is a pessimistic perspective of course. I hope it'd be wrong. But the question _was _asked.



Isn't that the case anyway though? Failure of Corbyn might act as a kind of refresher I suppose but it can hardly get worse. I mean Miliband was being written off as left last year. _Miliband_. I don't see capital as failing at the moment... balance of power is shifting a bit, but what other prospect do the next 20 years offer? Tory exit, more austerity, nice conditions offered to the banks. A slow, extended recession and eventual recovery - business as usual. Not much different under a Blairite return/EEA arrangement. Neo-lib politics seems to have been particularly effective in silencing the left.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

inva said:


> surely what he means is she'll be launching her bid to announce that she's considering announcing that she will launch her bid to oust Corbyn. or something.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 10, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>




Can motions be put in clps of the nature of nominate or imminent deselection as a tactic happen if that legal advice holds?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2016)

Fuck me, I've never watched this before, it's fucking painful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> Fine, and if you've found an effective way of fighting that fight outside parliamentary politics then clearly you should continue to do so. Although I'd also argue that joining the labour party simply with the aim of participating in NEC elections/CLP votes isn't much of a time commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fuck me the _anarchists for labour_ ball rolling again. Complete with the 'what are you doing that's so great' sneers. Pathetic. Maybe some of you lot will bother to actually do something within labour this time around eh? Not holding out any great hope for that though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Apparently...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And there, in eight words, Pesto Viola illustrates the disconnect between the PLPnuts and ordinary people


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

xslavearcx said:


> Can motions be put in clps of the nature of nominate or imminent deselection as a tactic happen if that legal advice holds?



No idea. I'm not on Labour.  Perhaps someone else will know?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Andrew 'super-injunction/true journalist' Marr just accused Corbyn of 'personalising' the differences he has with the PLP. After reading out a load of unaccountable tweets and saying the Momentum site has a pic of him on it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

She's just said the challenge will be launched on Monday.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2016)

Did Eagle just refer to the government's "huge anti-austerity policies"...?

Ha, and apparently Corbyn doesn't connect with the Labour voters! Um...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> What have you got to lose? It's a decent chance to shift the political window leftward.


It's a tiny chance to shift the media's political focus leftward - and i mean leftward, as in looking at 'turmoil' not as in having the positions corbyn starts from being their start points or being taken as  serious substantive positions that are part of some spurious national public debate'.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 10, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> A tweet from BBC's Norman Smith;
> 
> "Am told Corbyn has been shown Labour legal advice saying he will need nominations  to be on ballot paper"



Eagle's been waiting for this legal advice before declaring her intention to stand.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Well, technically what's to lose is the following:
> 
> 1. Corbyn gets in, fails to make an electoral impact, and the whole thing starts up again a couple or a few years from now. Possibly he might be saved again but it'll be increasingly unlikely. Blairites get back in and use the whole episode as an example of the left's inability to win ad nauseam.
> 2. Corbyn gets in and wins the next general election. He then runs up against exactly the same mechanisms which have stymied Parliamentary leftism across Europe and elsewhere for most of the last 40 years, ie. a united ruling elite pushing one way, a defeated working class not pushing in the other. His party is either forced into an unpleasant "compromise" where it does little but tinker around the edges while neoliberalism remains fundamentally unchallenged, or it goes down swinging and Britain's economy experiences a violent capital exodus. Either way, it looks like the failure of leftism, buoying the right and far-right which then go on to win big electorally while the left parliamentary project collapses.



My worry isn't so much that a Corbyn led Labour Party will fail - if anything that's a reason to join, help prevent failure or at least help mitigate failure. My worry is that I just don't have faith in parliamentary politics as means to achieve substantial change or to substantially strengthen the voice and power of the working class especially the bulk of whom are not organised. The whole Labour vehicle is dedicated to piecemeal change through representatives. I don't particularly want to become a tool for various Labour coucillors, MPs and MEPs (my MP is pretty good - a very rare example of a concientious leftwinger (in Labour terms), but that's not point). The question I have is whether the party can be transformed into a force which mobilises people locally and responds to their needs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why don't you join up to try and make those changes in the LP? I mean they've only been there less than a year and they were as surprised to get into leadership as anyone. It's only natural they didn't have any ready-made plans to re-democratise the party, but I imagine those conversations will be happening now.


Beyond the fragments was published in 1979. Since then there was a long running challenge to the labour status quo along the lines recommended. Corbyn is doing that but lite and with more transitory members. The plan has been in place for near 40 years. The inaction over the last 6 months, the battles they neglected to fight, the slow pace of anything - all down to them. The oposition they would face if they did anything - all known about since the start.

Even you're going near the 'standing on the sidelines' stuff. This is not good.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

Ole said:


>



fucking hell. political speeches are cringey and theatrical.


----------



## Ole (Jul 10, 2016)

Eagle on Peston just now unequivocally saying Corbyn will need nominations to get on the ballot.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2016)

Who makes up the NEC?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 10, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No idea. I'm not on Labour.  Perhaps someone else will know?


Here's hoping !!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

It's going to court no matter what the NEC say.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Who makes up the NEC?


Labour's National Executive Committee


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Andrew 'super-injunction/true journalist' Marr just accused Corbyn of 'personalising' the differences he has with the PLP. After reading out a load of unaccountable tweets and saying the Momentum site has a pic of him on it.


Better still, on Peston, was Balls' accusation that Corbyn can't connect with the electorate and would fail to win an election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Ole said:


> Eagle on Peston just now unequivocally saying Corbyn will need nominations to get on the ballot.


What else would she say? Regardless of the situation.


----------



## binka (Jul 10, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Who makes up the NEC?


Not sure but Eagle did confirm she was no longer on it following her resignation from the Shadow Cabinet


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 10, 2016)

Ole said:


> Eagle on Peston just now unequivocally saying Corbyn will need nominations to get on the ballot.



if this really is the case, watch the party tear apart


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Better still, on Peston, was Balls' accusation that Corbyn can't connect with the electorate and would fail to win an election.


Ed Balls?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Better still, on Peston, was Balls' accusation that Corbyn can't connect with the electorate and would fail to win an election.


Marv - thank you Balls. With your vast experience of...oh


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

Eagle on Peston came across as very nervous, calculating  and quite shifty, evasive


DaveCinzano said:


> Ed Balls?


Ed Balls.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Eagle on Peston came across as very nervous, calculating  and quite shifty, evasive
> 
> Ed Balls.


She has the guilty eyes of a failed collaborator. _Popular with the membership_ though!.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What else would she say? Regardless of the situation.


Peston asked her what legitimacy she would have if victorious on Corbynless ballot. No answer was forthcoming.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> She has the guilty eyes of a failed collaborator. _Popular with the membership_ though!.


Apart from a _small, but noisy, group of troublesome, newly joined members_ that are making it appear as though her constituency are agin her.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> She has the guilty eyes of a failed collaborator. _Popular with the membership_ though!.


Eager to get the back-story in, though. Mind you she got herself through university...long before fees were introduced by....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

The burn being remarkably quiet.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The burn being remarkably quiet.


'Manc Burn'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Eager to get the back-story in, though. Mind you she got herself through university...long before fees were introduced by....


If the daughter of a member of the labour aristocracy can get to Oxford and lead the Fabian society there with the aid of it being effectively free anyone can.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 'Manc Burn'?


I think that one may have well have been turned down. Bigger fish to catch this season.


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck me the _anarchists for labour_ ball rolling again. Complete with the 'what are you doing that's so great' sneers. Pathetic. Maybe some of you lot will bother to actually do something within labour this time around eh? Not holding out any great hope for that though.



Fair enough on the anarchists for labour thing, I'm not sneering at anyone though. I think the left have been near invisible in the UK as politics are presented... I don't think that's the fault of people who are active in it, nor do I think their work is worthless. I've done fuck all over the last 5/6 years (been working and studying) so am in no position to throw stones.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 10, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn may challenge Labour's executive over leadership ballot


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> Fair enough on the anarchists for labour thing, I'm not sneering at anyone though. I think the left have been near invisible in the UK as politics are presented... I don't think that's the fault of people who are active in it, nor do I think their work is worthless. I've done fuck all over the last 5/6 years (been working and studying) so am in no position to throw stones.


The tone of your reply's opening line



> Fine, and if you've found an effective way of fighting that fight outside parliamentary politics then clearly you should continue to do so.



seemed pretty, oh well done, you carry on with your oh so useful and effective work to me. 

as for the left and visibility - don't look for the left. Look for what w/c people are doing for and by themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Jeremy Corbyn may challenge Labour's executive over leadership ballot


That framing is to make it look like the default correct position is that he is not on the ballot. That's not true and should be on the guardian pan thread. As pretty much all their reporting of this should be.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

There's definitely going to be a legal battle IMO.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That framing is to make it look like the default correct position is that he is not on the ballot. That's not true and should be on the guardian pan thread. As pretty much all their reporting of this should be.


True


----------



## andysays (Jul 10, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Eagle's been waiting for this legal advice before declaring her intention to stand.



And whoever's given it will henceforth be known as Eagle's legal eagles


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

Interesting that they are doing this just before the NEC are to have votes in where they are likely to make some very Pro Corbyn gains.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 10, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Labour's National Executive Committee



Fucking hell, Paddy Lillis is still chair.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 10, 2016)

If Corbyn's name isn't on the ballot I imagine there would be some kind of mass write-in campaign, not sure how they'd spin having more spoiled ballots than votes for the winning (allowable) candidate. It's going to descend into farce however it goes from here. Clueless fucks.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Ed Balls.



You win this round of Corbyns Cards Against Humanity.

At this rate we wont have a clear leadership election for the sinking ship that is the Labour Party for a good year, meaning more tensions and splits. As much as the Tories could be afraid that new leader may mean losses, they must be enjoying every second of this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> If Corbyn's name isn't on the ballot I imagine there would be some kind of mass write-in campaign, not sure how they'd spin having more spoiled ballots than votes for the winning (allowable) candidate. It's going to descend into farce however it goes from here. Clueless fucks.


He is going to be on it. Putting it about that he might not be is part of the plan to make that understanding common/general sense. This is tactics. Each unchallenged repetition is part of the plan.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Interesting that they are doing this just before the NEC are to have votes in where they are likely to make some very Pro Corbyn gains.



I wonder if this is true. I suspect that the atomised nature of Corbyn's support makes it hard to communicate exactly which candidates are supporters of Corbyn and which aren't, whereas the anti-Corbyn forces in the party are better organised and more likely to know who is who even though they are now a minority.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Better still, on Peston, was Balls' accusation that Corbyn can't connect with the electorate and would fail to win an election.



Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through sheer self regarding arrogance.


----------



## red & green (Jul 10, 2016)

No one is going to vote for Eagle - those 172 should just leave and join he Tories


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 10, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through sheer self regarding arrogance.


we shall see..


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through sheer self regarding arrogance.



By not resigning?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through *sheer self regarding arrogance*.



Really? Is that how you see Corbyn; the much maligned, quietly spoken, geography teacher stylee, decades long back bench 'champion of lost causes'...it's not exactly the stuff of arrogance and self regard. Unless of course you think he's been planning for just this moment all these years; even then that would show a level of forethought and commitment which might be admirable.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sue (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really? Is that how you see Corbyn; the much maligned, quietly spoken, geography teacher, decades long back bench 'champion of lost causes'...it's not exactly the stuff of arrogance and self regard. Unless of course you think he's been planning for just this moment all these years; even then that would show a level of forethought and commitment which might be admirable.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



These accusations of arrogance and vanity seem to be being used as shorthand for 'won't back down/stand down'. 

Whatever else one may say about the man, he seems far from arrogant or vain. And I'd have thought that standing by his principles in the face of hostility/bullying would be seen as a good/admirable position. But what do I know.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Beyond the fragments was published in 1979. Since then there was a long running challenge to the labour status quo along the lines recommended. Corbyn is doing that but lite and with more transitory members. The plan has been in place for near 40 years. The inaction over the last 6 months, the battles they neglected to fight, the slow pace of anything - all down to them. The oposition they would face if they did anything - all known about since the start.
> 
> Even you're going near the 'standing on the sidelines' stuff. This is not good.


There's definitely a sense of once as tragedy, twice as farce about this. The labour left I was part of in the 80s was wrong at a number of levels and itself had too much of an internal party focus (if not quite as much as now).  It did actually do a bit of graft and had a sense of what had to be done to wield power in the party.  The media portrayed it as the obsessive layer of activists, attending meeting after meeting.  Today's lot probably do the same number of meetings but don't seem to have a strategic sense of what needs to be done. Neither is there a clear sense of policy or sense of what their reanimated social democracy might look like.

Part of it is simply circumstances. The 80s left came out of battles in the party and also broader shifts in the left.  It was also driven by established groupings and union activism within the party.  Only reason I'd cut them some slack is the unexpected nature of Corbyn's victory and the growth in membership.  It's been a reformation of the left in the party where they seem to have landed there and are just looking at each other.  Trouble is, so far, they've neither carried the fight within the party or taken it outside.  There's only so far you can go with wearing Corbyn T-shirts.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I wonder if this is true. I suspect that the atomised nature of Corbyn's support makes it hard to communicate exactly which candidates are supporters of Corbyn and which aren't, whereas the anti-Corbyn forces in the party are better organised and more likely to know who is who even though they are now a minority.



At least Momentum have said who they are backing for the NEC


----------



## inva (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> There's definitely a sense of once as tragedy, twice as farce about this. The labour left I was part of in the 80s was wrong at a number of levels and itself had too much of an internal party focus (if not quite as much as now).  It did actually do a bit of graft and had a sense of what had to be done to wield power in the party.  The media portrayed it as the obsessive layer of activists, attending meeting after meeting.  Today's lot probably do the same number of meetings but don't seem to have a strategic sense of what needs to be done. Neither is there a clear sense of policy or sense of what their reanimated social democracy might look like.
> 
> Part of it is simply circumstances. The 80s left came out of battles in the party and also broader shifts in the left.  It was also driven by established groupings and union activism within the party.  Only reason I'd cut them some slack is the unexpected nature of Corbyn's victory and the growth in membership.  It's been a reformation of the left in the party where they seem to have landed there and are just looking at each other.  Trouble is, so far, they've neither carried the fight within the party or taken it outside.  There's only so far you can go with wearing Corbyn T-shirts.


and a Corbyn-led labour party that wins a general election and tries a reheated social democracy will be an obstacle to pro working class politics. it would be operating in a context where it has far less to offer us than the old social democracy and will be compelled to take more away. what will labour party members do when it is a labour government we are fighting, as has been the case with every labour government in my lifetime and probably in all its history?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2016)

I've seen some pretty shitty comments on the Guardian, but this one is straight out of the PR playbook.


> Surely this is a straight-forward position for Corbyn and his supporters.
> 
> The PLP have simply voted to take strike action, against intolerable working conditions imposed by Corbyn.
> 
> ...


Labour in turmoil as Eagle announces leadership bid

The PLP are "on strike". Yes of course they are, dear. Have you taken your meds?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I wonder if this is true. I suspect that the atomised nature of Corbyn's support makes it hard to communicate exactly which candidates are supporters of Corbyn and which aren't, whereas the anti-Corbyn forces in the party are better organised and more likely to know who is who even though they are now a minority.



There's a leaflet with I think five Corbyn supporters standing for NEC, their names are on the web somewhere too. You can't vote unless you were a member before 24th June I think it is, which is before I joined.

Eta: the list that Combustible linked to - actually six rather than five.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I've seen some pretty shitty comments on the Guardian, but this one is straight out of the PR playbook.
> 
> Labour in turmoil as Eagle announces leadership bid
> 
> The PLP are "on strike". Yes of course they are, dear. Have you taken your meds?


I imagine they haven't had their pay docked.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

really good look for a party to have to go to the court over its leadership election. I mean, seriously, its a shit look. Its a hot summer already and this shit is making me itch more and more


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> really good look for a party to have to go to the court over its leadership election. I mean, seriously, its a shit look. Its a hot summer already and this shit is making me itch more and more


"Right, you fucking rotter Corbyn, we're going vote you out"
- Okay, let's do that
"Oh, erm, _*you*_ can't stand"

When Liverpool won the Champions League, but didn't qualify the next year, didn't UEFA come up with a way of allowing them in? Fucking hell, when you are operating at a sub-UEFA level, that _really_ isn't a good look.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think that one may have well have been turned down. Bigger fish to catch this season.



(Evening News reporting local difficulties for Burnham on that front as Greater Manchester council leaders back Lloyd - Tony Lloyd has five council chiefs backing him for Greater Manchester Mayor)


----------



## YouSir (Jul 10, 2016)

Was out before work doing street corner hustling for Corbyn today. M/C and fairly 'New Labour' area but more mixed than you'd think on the man himself. Lots of young support and not usually political types inclining towards him.

On a side note, strange to be flying a banner that's not my own, get the feeling that 'purge them all' may not have gone down as a diplomatic comment though. Feel a bit dirty.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 10, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "Right, you fucking rotter Corbyn, we're going vote you out"
> - Okay, let's do that
> "Oh, erm, _*you*_ can't stand"
> 
> When Liverpool won the Champions League, but didn't qualify the next year, didn't UEFA come up with a way of allowing them in? Fucking hell, when you are operating at a sub-UEFA level, that _really_ isn't a good look.


I don't follow the football, only its scandals and even then...but I get the analogy well enough.

A party here in open warfare with its membership and a so called social democratic party seriously going for the nuclear option and getting the wigs involved. If that happens and old c-byn loses nobody's singing the red flag for a fucking long time. They will hemorrhage members


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

weltweit said:


>



Why?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> A party here in open warfare with its membership and a so called social democratic party seriously going for the nuclear option and getting the wigs involved.



What a choice - wigs or whigs


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

Who knows all the NEC members to take a guess at support? Clearly Jeremy has himself and Dennis Skinner, plus presumably most if not all the trade union vote (they won't want to piss everybody off by not allowing them a vote). Is Angela Eagle allowed to still use the slot intended for Shadow Cabinet members?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 10, 2016)

weltweit said:


>




Fucking hell every time she's on telly I wonder how on Earth the PLP fucked up so badly to get to this point where they're relying on her to offer a better electoral leadership than Corbyn. She's not even a better general election candidate than Edstone Miliband. No presence, no charisma, no apparent sense of conviction, thin reedy voice, constantly looks like she's about to burst into tears. A blinky, hunched, characterless mannikin drawn straight from stock, refusing to have an individual opinion even when she's *taking a stand*.

Four years of May's ranting while Eagle hangs bonelessly off the opposition dispatch box mumbling vague PLP groupthink platitudes about making institutional class warfare sound a bit less triumphalist. They think that'll sell?

Edit: Having had that rant, this is all assuming Corbyn gets on the ballot, which they seem to be betting heavily against. _If_ he's pushed out no doubt whoever's being kept/staying in the wings as the better option will step forward.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

'what I have said' makes my skin crawl coming from these cunts. Look, what I have said.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 10, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Who knows all the NEC members to take a guess at support? Clearly Jeremy has himself and Dennis Skinner, plus presumably most if not all the trade union vote (they won't want to piss everybody off by not allowing them a vote). Is Angela Eagle allowed to still use the slot intended for Shadow Cabinet members?



She resigned her seat on the NEC when she resigned from the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Who knows all the NEC members to take a guess at support? Clearly Jeremy has himself and Dennis Skinner, plus presumably most if not all the trade union vote (they won't want to piss everybody off by not allowing them a vote). Is Angela Eagle allowed to still use the slot intended for Shadow Cabinet members?


She's still down as a member of the NEC on their website, though I'd imagine even she would have to declare an interest in such a vote (I'm probably naïve though).  Somebody said the NEC elections are just starting up now, so that means it was a 'pre-corbyn' era NEC from this time last year, although perhaps the elected bits of it were being elected around the same time he was.  I've no idea of the balance on the NEC - something I would have had the fine detail of in the 80s  - but Livingstone is still suspended afaik.  Perfect scenario for a full on legalistic battle.  Who knows where it will end, but it's looking more and more winner takes all, followed by the parliamentary party declaring independence, followed by a night of the long knives.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> She's still down as a member of the NEC on their website, though I'd imagine even she would have to declare an interest in such a vote (I'm probably naïve though).  Somebody said the NEC elections are just starting up now, so that means it was a 'pre-corbyn' era NEC from this time last year, although perhaps the elected bits of it were being elected around the same time he was.  I've no idea of the balance on the NEC - something I would have had the fine detail of in the 80s  - but Livingstone is still suspended afaik.  Perfect scenario for a full on legalistic battle.  Who knows where it will end, but it's looking more and more winner takes all, followed by the parliamentary party declaring independence, followed by a knight of the long knives.



A long walk off a high cliff. If they take the legal route to lock him out there will be a husk of a party left by the end. Sure, a smart Tory would hold an election in the middle of drawn out wranglings. Not that they seem to care about that, victory at any cost, even defeat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> knight of the long knives


hopefully a lance with which to puncture the boil that is the plp. Arise Ser McDonnel of the Back Benches. It is your hour and the bugle calls


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'what I have said' makes my skin crawl coming from these cunts. Look, what I have said.



At least it's accurate with Eagle. She seems to have said the same thing a remarkable number of times in the last two weeks.


----------



## Sue (Jul 10, 2016)

According to R4, Margaret Hodge is now also accusing him of being 'devious'. The absolute  brassneck of the woman.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 10, 2016)

Sue said:


> According to R4, Margaret Hodge is now also accusing him of being 'devious'. The absolute  brassneck of the woman.



She shouldn't be surprised, last week he was a SWP sleeper agent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through sheer self regarding arrogance.



This is Ed Balls, who failed to connect with the electorate so badly that he lost the seat he'd held for 3 terms, commenting in someone else's failure to connect. Of course he's fucking wrong!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I wonder if this is true. I suspect that the atomised nature of Corbyn's support makes it hard to communicate exactly which candidates are supporters of Corbyn and which aren't, whereas the anti-Corbyn forces in the party are better organised and more likely to know who is who even though they are now a minority.



Him indoors says the NEC has a majority of people who would be sympathetic to Corbyn, even if not out-and-out Corbyn supporters. No idea how true that is, but he takes an interest in party shenanigans so if any lay person is going to know I guess he's got as good a chance as anyone.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 10, 2016)

red & green said:


> No one is going to vote for Eagle - those 172 should just leave and join he Tories



Make no mistake about the tactics involved here. If Corbyn is kept off the ballot, expect a raft of other candidates to suddenly stand. Eagle is doing what Hodge was initially meant to do. She's falling on her sword to open up a challenge and sweep Corbyn out of the way in the first instance. Whether Eagle fully accepts her role in this or actually has aspirations of leadership is another matter. But I very much doubt anyone intends for her to be leader.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Make no mistake about the tactics involved here. If Corbyn is kept off the ballot, expect a raft of other candidates to suddenly stand. Eagle is doing what Hodge was initially meant to do. She's falling on her sword to open up a challenge and sweep Corbyn out of the way in the first instance. Whether Eagle fully accepts her role in this or actually has aspirations of leadership is another matter. But I very much doubt anyone intends for her to be leader.



Tom Watson instead? Potential leader of a Labour Party a couple off hundred thousand members down, no Union backing, MPs who'd turn on him too... Any victory their plans lead to seem like failure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2016)

weltweit said:


>




OK, so the reason Corbyn has to go is that there are loads of MPs trying to force him out. Bit of a circular argument that.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

...





Rob Ray said:


> Fucking hell every time she's on telly I wonder how on Earth the PLP fucked up so badly to get to this point where they're relying on her to offer a better electoral leadership than Corbyn. She's not even a better general election candidate than Edstone Miliband. No presence, no charisma, no apparent sense of conviction, thin reedy voice, constantly looks like she's about to burst into tears. A blinky, hunched, characterless mannikin drawn straight from stock, refusing to have an individual opinion even when she's *taking a stand*.
> 
> Four years of May's ranting while Eagle hangs bonelessly off the opposition dispatch box mumbling vague PLP groupthink platitudes about making institutional class warfare sound a bit less triumphalist. They think that'll sell?
> 
> Edit: Having had that rant, this is all assuming Corbyn gets on the ballot, which they seem to be betting heavily against. _If_ he's pushed out no doubt whoever's being kept/staying in the wings as the better option will step forward.



Asked what different policies shed persue than corbyn " I'm a gay woman from the north...with strong roots " .

Complains about a campaign of " revenge " against Tony Blair . Iraq war wasn't illegal . " regrets " her vote for war..oh aye  . Talks about learning lessons and making sure it doesn't happen again . Despite voting to attack Syria as well just last year .

A fucking menace and a liar . With the blood of millions on her hands . Who'd do it again in a heartbeat .


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 10, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Tom Watson instead? Potential leader of a Labour Party a couple off hundred thousand members down, no Union backing, MPs who'd turn on him too... Any victory their plans lead to seem like failure.



I don't think he'll stand this time around. I've always thought he's going to wait for next time, when all this unseemly business is long forgotten (or so he hopes). He's a very cunning man.

Chuka will stand. We might see the fabled Dan Jarvis ("a man who looks better on paper the more you see him in reality") stand, as the Burnham alternative. Burnham won't stand. I don't think any of the previous lot will (Chuka aside). Owen Smith, of course. Perhaps someone from the old guard?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Make no mistake about the tactics involved here. If Corbyn is kept off the ballot, expect a raft of other candidates to suddenly stand. Eagle is doing what Hodge was initially meant to do. She's falling on her sword to open up a challenge and sweep Corbyn out of the way in the first instance. Whether Eagle fully accepts her role in this or actually has aspirations of leadership is another matter. But I very much doubt anyone intends for her to be leader.



She's not even remotely leadership material . You couldn't like her if you reared her . Bloody awful person who stands for nothing .


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 10, 2016)

Well, we all know you wouldn't like her even if she had Corbyn's politics, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Libertad (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Him indoors says the NEC has a majority of people who would be sympathetic to Corbyn, even if not out-and-out Corbyn supporters. No idea how true that is, but he takes an interest in party shenanigans so if any lay person is going to know I guess he's got as good a chance as anyone.



If you have a mind to, ask him what he thinks of Paddy Lillis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't think he'll stand this time around. I've always thought he's going to wait for next time, when all this unseemly business is long forgotten (or so he hopes). He's a very cunning man.
> 
> Chuka will stand. We might see the fabled Dan Jarvis ("a man who looks better on paper the more you see him in reality") stand, as the Burnham alternative. Burnham won't stand. I don't think any of the previous lot will (Chuka aside). Owen Smith, of course. Perhaps someone from the old guard?



Watson sees himself as a strategist - as some kind of _eminence gris_ in a Mandelsonian mould, so while he might stand if the anti-Corbyn position looks strong, he'll let someone else drink from the Vessel with the Pestle if it looks weak. As I've said of Jarvis before, to be an officer means to be a wanker. To be a Para officer is too much wanker for most mortals.

Chuka, he won't go unless he can be sure his skeletons won't tumble out of the closet. The same reasons that made him brick it last time round, still apply.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 10, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I've seen some pretty shitty comments on the Guardian, but this one is straight out of the PR playbook.
> 
> Labour in turmoil as Eagle announces leadership bid
> 
> The PLP are "on strike". Yes of course they are, dear. Have you taken your meds?



"Who is John Galt?" - kind of a strike ...


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 10, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Tom Watson instead? Potential leader of a Labour Party a couple off hundred thousand members down, no Union backing, MPs who'd turn on him too... Any victory their plans lead to seem like failure.



It's got to be someone with clean hands, and that ain't Watson. Labour folks I know tend to peg him as a classic power-behind-the-throne sort of guy in any case.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

Did Owen Jones ever compete in the Boat Race when he was at Oxford? Because he certainly seems to have some mad skillz in the rowing back department


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

in pilgrims progress there is a charachter who accompanies Christian at the start of his journey. Bunyions called him 'Pliable'. I vote we go full stalin and edit the original copy to say 'Owen Jones'.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 10, 2016)

weltweit said:


>




The stress is starting to make her look like Mark E. Smith.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Has the unincorporated Labour Party paid off its debts now? The plan was to be clear by some point this year. If not, those debts are going to be the responsibility of whatever leadership comes out of this aren't they?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 10, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Did Owen Jones ever compete in the Boat Race when he was at Oxford? Because he certainly seems to have some mad skillz in the rowing back department



he's just stating the obvious tho isnt he? not really rowing back.

I would bet umm 100£ that corbyn will be on the ballot. a bookie probably wouldn't even take the bet.


edit: unless he dies or decides not to stand for some reason


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 10, 2016)

Perfect tweet


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Her " electability " saw her come fourth out of 5 candidates for the deputy leader job .

Despite being an mp for a quarter century she's got less than 14,000 Facebook followers, compared to corbyns 600,000.

Talks about learning lessons from Chilcot. Despite not just voting for the war but also repeatedly voting against any inquiries into it. A disaster of such epic proportions but she didn't think even an inquiry was necessary . And then trying to do it again in Syria just recently .


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 10, 2016)

If Corbyn is on the ballot, and I don't see how he can be kept off it, either morally or legally, then Eagle is flying into not so much an election defeat as a massacre. She will be lucky to poll 25%


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Eagle is flying into not so much an election defeat as a massacre



Bird strike


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Bird Law.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> If Corbyn is on the ballot, and I don't see how he can be kept off it, either morally or legally, then Eagle is flying into not so much an election defeat as a massacre. She will be lucky to poll 25%


what they call 'kendalisation' these days.


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> No presence, no charisma, no apparent sense of conviction, thin reedy voice, constantly looks like she's about to burst into tears.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 10, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Is he wrong? My dog is more credible and electable than Corbyn. He's once again gifting an open goal to the Tories through sheer self regarding arrogance.


Well, there's about 9 months worth of electoral evidence to go by, now; what do you make of it?
BTW, the humour here was the fact that it was Ed Balls (_Ed Balls) _who said those words...that's _the_ Ed Balls (_Ed Balls) _who failed to retain his seat in May under a right/centrist leader.


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

She's looking weak on Sunday politics with Andrew Neil ffs... Not exactly the most challenging of environments. 

Also 'we need a strengthened labour party and an opposition that can unite so we can heal the country'... Seems an odd way of going about that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

if you say unelectable three times in a mirror madleson appears and stabs you


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2016)

re Corbyn not on the ballot and a legal challenge, how much impact will the clear threat from McKluskey have, is it enough to keep the lawyers in their kennels?


> “Should there have to be a leadership election, I must warn that any attempts to keep Jeremy Corbyn, elected just 10 months ago with an enormous mandate, off the ballot paper by legal means risks a lasting division in the party,”




Len McCluskey attacks Tom Watson for pulling out of Labour talks


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Him indoors says the NEC has a majority of people who would be sympathetic to Corbyn, even if not out-and-out Corbyn supporters. No idea how true that is, but he takes an interest in party shenanigans so if any lay person is going to know I guess he's got as good a chance as anyone.


I suspect that's right. The corbyn effect won't be making outright converts out of right wingers, but will push a few of them towards at least supporting a decent process.  If there was such a thing as a labour party neutral in all this, the cuntery of the staged resignations process will have turned a few of them off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

is there even a post corbyn plan? 'what do I do now dad?'


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

newbie said:


> re Corbyn not on the ballot and a legal challenge, how much impact will the clear threat from McKluskey have, is it enough to keep the lawyers in their kennels?
> 
> 
> 
> Len McCluskey attacks Tom Watson for pulling out of Labour talks



The only thing that returns lawyers to their kennels is a bounced cheque.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> hopefully a lance with which to puncture the boil that is the plp. Arise Ser McDonnel of the Back Benches. It is your hour and the bugle calls


Chancellor McDonnell always pays his debts


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> The only thing that returns lawyers to their kennels is a bounced cheque.


perhaps, but they don't come out in the first place if no-one is offering a cheque.  McK seems to be trying to ensure that the NEC or whoever stay out of court.  I'll be surprised if they ignore him.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 10, 2016)

Is the thread title going to get a 'not' in it any time soon?

If the man gives a few more speeches like this he will become a legend that neither party can stop:



Pressure? Me? Relaxed as fuck. Bring it on.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 10, 2016)

newbie said:


> McK seems to be trying to ensure that the NEC or whoever stay out of court.



McC, technically.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Chancellor McDonnell always pays his debts


I'm ok with that if he's being Tyrion, less so if it's one of the other Lannisters, tempting though the thought might be to blow them all up in their temple.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Is the thread title going to get a 'not' in it any time soon?
> 
> If the man gives a few more speeches like this he will become a legend that neither party can stop:
> 
> ...



that's just a repeat of his Durham speech. Pretty cliched stuff. Made me cringe.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that's just a repeat of his Durham speech. Pretty cliched stuff. Made me cringe.



I think it is his Durham speech.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that's just a repeat of his Durham speech. Pretty cliched stuff. Made me cringe.


Ah, didn't see the previous speech. I don't know about cliche - I think trying to take the attention off himself will be admired by a lot of people.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I think it is his Durham speech.


ah, he does it in a tv interview on sky as well


----------



## Cakes (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> ...
> 
> Asked what different policies shed persue than corbyn " I'm a gay woman from the north...with strong roots " .
> 
> ...


Saw this on Facebook re her "strong roots"
How Angela Eagle got to be MP for Wallasey


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Ah, didn't see the previous speech. I don't know about cliche - I think trying to take the attention off himself will be admired by a lot of people.


it's pretty dishonest though


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> McC, technically.


oops, I spelt his name wrong further up as well.  McCluskey with C it is.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's pretty dishonest though


But also the first time Jeremy Corbyn has made me laugh. It's dishonest in a way that you can't possibly be taken in by the dishonesty. Pressure? Where?


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that's just a repeat of his Durham speech. Pretty cliched stuff. Made me cringe.



It is his Durham speech, just filmed from a different angle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I'm ok with that if he's being Tyrion, less so if it's one of the other Lannisters, tempting though the thought might be to blow them all up in their temple.


he's jon snow. They knifed him and he came back. Who does that then cast in the role of Red Priest, skinner or mcdonnel?


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> ah, he does it in a tv interview on sky as well



Link?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> But also the first time Jeremy Corbyn has made me laugh. It's dishonest in a way that you can't possibly be taken in by the dishonesty. Pressure? Where?


I dunno, i just find all political speeches hard to listen to cos they are so brazenly manipulative.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> Link?


it's on here somehere i think


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's jon snow. They knifed him and he came back. Who does that then cast in the role of Red Priest, skinner or mcdonnel?


We were talking about McDonnell. Corbs could be Jon Snow perhaps, but they haven't killed him yet. I was casting him more as Daenerys Targaryen, coming to reclaim her rightful throne by amassing armies on the way, so McDonnell is Tyrion. Skinner is one of her other advisors. The unions can be the dragons.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

OMG that makes Makes Momentum the Dothraki


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I dunno, i just find all political speeches hard to listen to cos they are so brazenly manipulative.


there is a solid difference between pathos and manipulation.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> OMG that makes Makes Momentum the Dothraki


They will ride and fight it's true. Not sure how happy they'll all be to be compared to the rape horde, but hey, they're powerful.

Who will bring the ships though, there's the question.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's jon snow. They knifed him and he came back.


 Spolier alert, I was waiting for the next book!  Actually, I guessed where things might be going.


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2016)

Yeah. I just can't join the Labour Party no matter how much I hope Corbyn wins this battle. I've spent the last 25 years arguing that the Labour Party is part of the enemy and despite this brief game of football outside the trenches no doubt I'll have to the same over the next 25 years.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that's just a repeat of his Durham speech. Pretty cliched stuff. Made me cringe.


TBF this is a point you have repeated practically verbatim from elsewhere


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> TBF this is a point you have repeated practically verbatim from elsewhere


yes, on this thread. it has irked me


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yeah. I just can't join the Labour Party no matter how much I hope Corbyn wins this battle. I've spent the last 25 years arguing that the Labour Party is part of the enemy and despite this brief game of football outside the trenches no doubt I'll have to the same over the next 25 years.


even at its best, and I never lived to see those years, its still just a negotiator. The only way I'll part with three quid is if it looks to keep some blairite tears flowing. Never vote for them, not even sure I can be arsed with the three quid. Thats not because I'me tight by nature but just on principle


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

I am tight by nature though


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I am tight by nature though


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's jon snow. They knifed him and he came back. Who does that then cast in the role of Red Priest, skinner or mcdonnel?



Len. He probably doesn't believe any more but he resurrected Corbyn by muttering the magic words "party funding, party funding."


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yeah. I just can't join the Labour Party no matter how much I hope Corbyn wins this battle. I've spent the last 25 years arguing that the Labour Party is part of the enemy and despite this brief game of football outside the trenches no doubt I'll have to the same over the next 25 years.



It doesn't seem impossible that the Blairite (for want of a better term) faction will get its way, eventually.

The interesting question is what then happens to all those hopeful and optimistic people who joined to support Corybn and now believe that faction has utterly betrayed them?


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> even at its best, and I never lived to see those years, its still just a negotiator. The only way I'll part with three quid is if it looks to keep some blairite tears flowing. Never vote for them, not even sure I can be arsed with the three quid. Thats not because I'me tight by nature but just on principle



Yeah. Whilst "I wouldn't join the Labour Party as a matter of principle"...it isn't just that.

As Butchers notes above somewhere it's only worth doing if you're then going to put the effort into following the project through. Which I wouldn't, couldn't.

How could I square all those years arguing against Labour with suddenly piling in and arguing within the party for party stuff knowing that imminently I'm gonna have to turn around and try and organise against my new found comrades?

I just couldn't with any honesty or integrity or credibilility. 

I'd lose credibility quicker than I did on here after predicting a 60%+ Remain vote (or when I insisted that Galloway had no chance in Bradford West or that Labour couldn't lose the 2012 election )...er....so actually with fuck all credibility left to lose maybe the Labour left suits me perfectly


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's pretty dishonest though



Don't see how it is. He's got the vast majority of the membership and unions behind him. So he's not under pressure. Plus his point is totally valid. Compared to the experience of poverty it's not pressure at all . 
Repeating it doesn't make it any less valid. It's a good point. And one that needs made .
Actual dishonesty involves taking bribes and telling lies . This merely runs the risk of being a cliche . And less than spontaneous. Doesn't equate to dishonesty. Not if it's actually true.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

He's under a lot of pressure. Of course he is.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2016)

Not in comparison with the people he describes in the speech.  And tbh I reckon he's probably quite enjoying himself at this point.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 10, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Not in comparison with the people he describes in the speech.  And tbh I reckon he's probably quite enjoying himself at this point.


well i don't like it  he could have said, 'of course i'm feeling the pressure, but not as much as....'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> He's under a lot of pressure. Of course he is.


Pressure doesn't mean pressure when he's asked about it. It means why are you a crumbling defeated fool. To reply in anything but the same polemical tone would be political stupidity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

I actually thought that was  a bit of crap bit they cut out and used myself. Heard it a million times from a million labour types. C&P.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> He's under a lot of pressure. Of course he is.



Is he, though?  If anything he is probably under a lot less pressure now than he has been at any other stage of his leadership - he doesn't have to try to manage Benn, Eagle and the rest, and the past two weeks have demonstrated to him, the party and the nation the quality of politician that exists at the top of the PLP.   They are openly talking about either fixing the ballot or flouncing off to spend time with Tory centrists, after all.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> He's under a lot of pressure. Of course he is.



I honestly don't think he is . He's been up against these types most of his political life and will have anticipated this coup . Maybe not the exact magnitude , but definitely a major push against him . He's already utterly trounced them once from a much weaker position . And he has very strong backing now. Even more than before. Union leaders onside .

He's faced them down admirably and forced them into a corner . They thought he'd have skulked off but he stayed un fazed . 
He will most likely win handsomely against Eagle and the best they can do is connive to keep him off the ballot. Which is pure desperation.

It's the Blairites who are under pressure. Their coup failed, they're reduced to seeking to abolish democracy in a last ditch attempt to get rid of him. And dreading standing against him in a contest that hell annihilate them in. At the same time they're often being crucified in their own constituencies, being made persona non grata at public events  and the unions are talking about withdrawing support.  That's being under political pressure . Corbyns facing none of that . Instead hes getting surges of support from all over . Tens of thousands of people are rallying to his side. If he was some careerist being turned on by his own ..a Blairite being cannibalised by blairites..then there'd be real pressure . But this is different . He knows he can beat them .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'd lose credibility quicker than I did on here after predicting a 60%+ Remain vote (or when I insisted that Galloway had no chance in Bradford West or that Labour couldn't lose the 2012 election


tbf, everyone except rutabowa has called things wrong in this strange hinterland we find ourselves in


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'd lose credibility quicker than I did on here after predicting a 60%+ Remain vote (or when I insisted that Galloway had no chance in Bradford West or that Labour couldn't lose the 2012 election )...er....so actually with fuck all credibility left to lose maybe the Labour left suits me perfectly



There wasn't even an election in 2012


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> There wasn't even an election in 2012



Y'see?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

agricola said:


> Is he, though?  If anything he is probably under a lot less pressure now than he has been at any other stage of his leadership - he doesn't have to try to manage Benn, Eagle and the rest, and the past two weeks have demonstrated to him, the party and the nation the quality of politician that exists at the top of the PLP.   They are openly talking about either fixing the ballot or flouncing off to spend time with Tory centrists, after all.



They've made things easier for him some ways. He's gone out of his way to preserve unity by keeping them in the tent . He was repaid with utter treachery . Treachery he most likely anticipated . Now he can seek to get rid of them by just pointing to their actions . He has to get shot of them now. If it was what he wanted from the beginning they just handed the excuse to him on a plate. He can legitimately weed the Blairites out due to their own treachery as opposed to ideological shortcomings . After having been seen doing all he could to accommodate them . 
A d there'll be no sympathy for them. They look ugly as hell after this .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> Y'see?


Has DotCommunist been mentoring you?


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> They've made things easier for him some ways. He's gone out of his way to preserve unity by keeping them in the tent . He was repaid with utter treachery . Treachery he most likely anticipated . Now he can seek to get rid of them by just pointing to their actions . He has to get shot of them now. If it was what he wanted from the beginning they just handed the excuse to him on a plate. He can legitimately weed the Blairites out due to their own treachery as opposed to ideological shortcomings . After having been seen doing all he could to accommodate them .
> A d there'll be no sympathy for them. They look ugly as hell after this .



Perhaps, though I think its almost inconceivable that most of them would stay in the party if Corbyn gets on the ballot and wins.


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Has DotCommunist been mentoring you?



Is that some young people's euphemism that I've not heard of?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though I think its almost inconceivable that most of them would stay in the party if Corbyn gets on the ballot and wins.



They're shameless. The only thing that'll make them leave is a real prospect of mass deselection . Jumping before they're pushed . If Corbyn gets on that ballot they're fucked .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> They're shameless. The only thing that'll make them leave is a real prospect of mass deselection . Jumping before they're pushed . If Corbyn gets on that ballot they're fucked .


It's if Corbyn is taken off the ballot - not put on it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2016)

BA if they don't get him off the ballot, then surely he wins again. Why didn't those wanting rid of him go for the war of attrition strategy and just starve him out; working on the presumption that those backing him wouldn't have the stomach or nous for a long drawn out affair?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 10, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is that some young people's euphemism that I've not heard of?



I think you need to stop occupying yourself with thoughts about young peoples' 'euphemisms'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> BA if they don't get him off the ballot, then surely he wins again. Why didn't those wanting rid of him go for the war of attrition strategy and just starve him out; working on the presumption that those backing him wouldn't have the stomach or nous for a long drawn out affair?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


May have wires crossed here. I was referring to the media-compliance model that says he has to be put on it  - via legal challenge, and therefore a bad cove for doing so  - rather than the oppo having to actually force him off it. Of course, that's their last hope.

On the wider starve out strategy - 174 people besieging a well stocked castle with 500 000 people ready to come out if that 174 get the drawbridge open.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> BA if they don't get him off the ballot, then surely he wins again. Why didn't those wanting rid of him go for the war of attrition strategy and just starve him out; working on the presumption that those backing him wouldn't have the stomach or nous for a long drawn out affair?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I know I'm not BA but my five eggs is that in part their hand was forced by the upcoming publication of the Chilcot report. It won't have been the _only_ reason, not perhaps even the most important but I think the Blairites would much rather have one of their own in charge when the report was released to avoid anything derrogatory being said about Blair by the leader of the party as has happened. They must have found this collectively humiliating, casting a shadow on the Blair legacy and to be avoided, if possible.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> BA if they don't get him off the ballot, then surely he wins again. Why didn't those wanting rid of him go for the war of attrition strategy and just starve him out; working on the presumption that those backing him wouldn't have the stomach or nous for a long drawn out affair?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I think that's what they had been doing by constantly briefing against him from day one
But that didnt work . But it seems like they gambled everything on him stepping down in face of the coup . And lost .

These people backed the Iraq war..and Libya...and want to do the same in Syria. All disasters . Strategic planning may not exactly be their forte .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I know I'm not BA but my five eggs is that in part their hand was forced by the upcoming publication of the Chilcot report. It won't have been the _only_ reason, not perhaps even the most important but I think the Blairites would much rather have one of their own in charge when the report was released to avoid anything derrogatory being said about Blair by the leader of the party as has happened. They must have found this collectively humiliating, casting a shadow on the Blair legacy and to be avoided, if possible.


I think the chilcot report was utterly irrelevant, The cast of people who have participated in the coup extends far beyond actual blairites and at least 50% were not even in parliament. It's a bit like calling the 89 revolutions motivated by anti-brezhnev sentiment.

_It's our party, we're not in total control now - how what and who can we use to re-assert our total control?_


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think the chilcot report was utterly irrelevant,



I know this. I, on the other hand feel that it may have figured in their calculations even if only in a small way.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

I was randomly trying to find when the next NEC meeting takes place (haven't, but they appear to be every month), came across this:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/07/...tion-immediately-on-joining-labour-executive/
turns out Livingstone resigned and was replaced by the first runner up, who the right are instantly trying to exclude.  I've never taken the slightest interest in Labour NEC shenanigans for a couple of decades, bald neo-liberals and combs, but this kind of shabby positioning will no doubt ramp up as the NEC moves towards setting the leadership election in motion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I know this. I, on the other hand feel that it may have figured in their calculations even if only in a small way.


Why? None of them owe place or position to blair today - in fact, he threatens their positions.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

This is them briefing the telegraph way back in mid June about exactly what they were planning to do

Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24-hour blitz after EU referendum

Safe to say it was long planned even at that stage


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Is the referendum actually legally binding?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why? None of them owe place or position to blair today - in fact, he threatens their positions.


I've outlined some of the reasons why I think this above, now they may well be wrong it is after all only speculation on my part. It just feels to me that they were running to a deadline of some sort when perhaps a better strategy would have been to have a war of attrition. The coup attempt as amply demonstrated by posters on here has been a spectacular botched car crash; one explanation could be complete ineptitude on the plotter's part, another that they've underestimated the man himself and a third that they had some sort of tight timetable that they wished to stick to if possible.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2016)

I can see why you'd want Corbyn out of the way before Chilcot in the sense that it strengthens his hand. I wouldn't have thought it was a concern worth betting the farm on...or even one of the cows.

It's probably his opponents sustained and continuing ineptitude and their similarly enduring lack of any insight or interest into a world outside their particular hamster wheel, that I just can't fathom.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I've outlined some of the reasons why I think this above, now they may well be wrong it is after all only speculation on my part. It just feels to me that they were running to a deadline of some sort when perhaps a better strategy would have been to have a war of attrition. The coup attempt as amply demonstrated by posters on here has been a spectacular botched car crash; one explanation could be complete ineptitude on the plotter's part, another that they've underestimated the man himself and a third that they had some sort of tight timetable that they wished to stick to if possible.


The whole of the last two weeks-  from the 3pm on friday for def thing - suggests that there was no timetable whatsoever - at least not one tied to chilcot. I mean, what's happened since then - has the pace changed or has the inept dithering carried on in pretty much the same vein as when they were supposed to be on a very tight schedule?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

Hahaha no I suppose not, inept fools it is then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I can see why you'd want Corbyn out of the way before Chilcot in the sense that it strengthens his hand. I wouldn't have thought it was a concern that worth betting the farm on...or even one of the cows.
> 
> It's probably his opponents sustained and continuing ineptitude and their similarly enduring lack of any insight or interest into a world outside their particular hamster wheel, that I just can't fathom.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


In fact, there was no way of getting rid of him before the report given the timetable for new leadership election even if he resigned on day#1 of the PLP revolt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 10, 2016)

--- BREAKING NEWS----

Latest legal advice leaked:

"It is my opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, Jeremy Corbyn is illegal" - C. Booth QC (that'll be £10,000 please)


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I've outlined some of the reasons why I think this above, now they may well be wrong it is after all only speculation on my part. It just feels to me that they were running to a deadline of some sort when perhaps a better strategy would have been to have a war of attrition. The coup attempt as amply demonstrated by posters on here has been a spectacular botched car crash; one explanation could be complete ineptitude on the plotter's part, another that they've underestimated the man himself and a third that they had some sort of tight timetable that they wished to stick to if possible.



According to that telegraph article they were looking at a number of issues arising during the summer , not least of which was internal party reform . I believe there may have been changes coming up that would see MPs made more accountable to local party structures .
Corbyns own background in the early 80s with Target 82 revealed him to be pretty ruthless in targeting right wing labour councillors for deselection . That partly led to the SDP defections . it's possible many of them feared a similar fate ..or being politically shackled...if they didn't get rid of him quickly .

Other issues like trident and pro Zionist laws are mentioned but I suspect it was internal reform that weighed most heavy on their minds . Stopping him from commenting on chilcott would be an obvious bonus too. Cherry on the cake .

But as regards a ticking clock internal reform may well have been key .


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

This will stir the pot
Tony Blair could face contempt of parliament motion over Iraq war


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was randomly trying to find when the next NEC meeting takes place (haven't, but they appear to be every month), came across this:
> Leftwinger threatened with disciplinary action immediately on joining Labour NEC
> turns out Livingstone resigned and was replaced by the first runner up, who the right are instantly trying to exclude.  I've never taken the slightest interest in Labour NEC shenanigans for a couple of decades, bald neo-liberals and combs, but this kind of shabby positioning will no doubt ramp up as the NEC moves towards setting the leadership election in motion.


I saw this too and did a google search on Darren Williams and couldn't find anything other than the Morning Star piece. Maybe the apparatchiks backed off, though he's not on the list of NEC members.

E2a - I think the meeting is due this Tuesday. Hence the urgency of getting Eagle's challenge in tomorrow?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

Think the timing was mainly down to the expectation that Cameron would resign after the referendum (in order to go out on a high) and they would be facing a spring general election. The unexpected referendum result is, I reckon, partly what led to the coup turning into such a mess, because a view was taken that they needed to strike before Corbyn had a chance to exploit the Tories' disarray and consolidate his position, and they didn't have their ducks in row. Plus the fact they were rumbled before D-day. I also don't think the torrent of resignations was part of the original plan. It has ruled out a plan B of having a couple of sacrificial lambs go to the backbenches and then regrouping.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Think the timing was mainly down to the expectation that Cameron would resign after the referendum (in order to go out on a high) and they would be facing a spring general election. The unexpected referendum result is, I reckon, partly what led to the coup turning into such a mess, because a view was taken that they needed to strike before Corbyn had a chance to exploit the Tories' disarray and consolidate his position, and they didn't have their ducks in row. Plus the fact they were rumbled before D-day. I also don't think the torrent of resignations was part of the original plan. It has ruled out a plan B of having a couple of sacrificial lambs go to the backbenches and then regrouping.


Do you really think that they accurately planned on Cameron going out this year 'on a high'? That's madness.

edit: in fact, the second part of your post seems to say that the thing they had planned for (if not in the conditions they expected) threw them into confusion and dissaray.

Either they were planning for a post-cameron coup or not.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Think the timing was mainly down to the expectation that Cameron would resign after the referendum (in order to go out on a high) and they would be facing a spring general election. The unexpected referendum result is, I reckon, partly what led to the coup turning into such a mess, because a view was taken that they needed to strike before Corbyn had a chance to exploit the Tories' disarray and consolidate his position, and they didn't have their ducks in row. Plus the fact they were rumbled before D-day. I also don't think the torrent of resignations was part of the original plan. It has ruled out a plan B of having a couple of sacrificial lambs go to the backbenches and then regrouping.



Yes, this is also my take.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2016)

Not on the Cameron bit, but I do think that the PLP want to desperately ensure that the Corbyn project fails and that prospect looked more distant following Brexit which meant that I think there was an impetus to do _something_, to take advantage of the crisis. Of course, with enough resignations and media saturation they expected the coup to win out like it did against Blair in 2006. Now that that has failed they don't seem to have any more ideas.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, this is also my take.


How? They expected and planned for moves after a cameron resignation but were thrown into turmoil by him resigning?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 10, 2016)

They've been about to launch a challenge for months, but perhaps seeing Brexit succeed with no plan gave them more inspiration.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 10, 2016)

So – thinking ahead for a moment . . .

Even if he is on the ballot and Corbyn wins he still has a major headache. Whatever the outcome of the challenge his problem remains the fact that he only has the support of 40 or so MPs. Winning the leadership election doesn’t alter that.

The key issue is, if he does win, what will the Rebels do?

IMHO if they decide to split off much may depend on who has legitimate claims to call itself the Labour Party which is a legal entity and owns the party’s buildings, controls its bank accounts, is legally entitled to use the term “The Labour Party candidate” on ballot papers and so on. This is where I suspect there is the potential for a major legal battle.

If the 172 are entitled to call themselves the Labour Party they would be HM official opposition, with all that entails, and the Corbynites may have to leave to form a new party in which case they would be _de facto_ expelled.

If this was the case would the unions still want to financially back a party with only 40 MPs? When push comes to shove I’m not sure they would.

In any case unions are (theoretically at least) democratic organisations and it’s not simply up to the General Secretary to decide which party, if any, a union backs.

If the 172 stay the in Party they can spend the next few years to 2020 continually causing problems for Corbyn - refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, harassing him from the back benches and so on. It becomes a war of attrition. They would just wear him down.

There is always the threat of deselection but by then most would have burnt their bridges anyway and made plans to form another party, possibly with disaffected Tories. Lib Dems and so on.

The joker in the pack is what happens re candidate selections etc if May/Leadsom calls a snap General Election.

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the number of Party members for several reasons, not least because Corbyn doesn’t “own” the members - the Party does although I would be very surprised if membership lists aren't frantically being copied by both sides as we speak.

Even if all the new members resigned the Party would be only be back to where it was in numerical terms a year or so ago.

In any case there doesn’t seem to be a firm causal relationship between the number of members a party has and electoral success. The Tories have only circa 150,000 but managed to get an overall majority.

So speculating I think Corbyn is fucked, if not in the short term then in the long-term, as is the Labour Party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

Cid said:


> The only thing that returns lawyers to their kennels is a bounced cheque.



Not true.

Live rounds work well too.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 10, 2016)

Consider this for an explanation of the "rebel's" miscalculation:

Confirmation Bias

Many [4] of the reports I heard from Momentum sources before the last couple of weeks spoke of eager new LP members turning up to ward and CLP meetings only to find they're blocked from raising the issues that concern them by agendas full of tedious minutiae, unsympathetic chairs and procedural fuckwittery. Mostly the work of entrenched Blairites locally.

If you're an MP and you're hearing from your trusted local lieutenants that they've got the CLP under control and there's no real threat from Corbynistas, plus most, if not all, of your fellow MPs are getting the same message, and the entire mass media has been screaming "Corbyn's unelectable" and "Momentum = Militant II" non-stop for six months.

Why wouldn't you be utterly certain this was the moment to reclaim the party for the one true faith?

So you co-ordinate the unprecedented resignation of the majority of the shadow cabinet, you pass a motion of no confidence and wait for the abject surrender of the isolated usurper.

Only said usurper has been getting a different message and realises that his support is growing and that AGMs are the one chance they'll get to take charge...


Okay, the last paragraph is pure fantasy, but the rest?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Do you really think that they accurately planned on Cameron going out this year 'on a high'? That's madness.
> 
> edit: in fact, the second part of your post seems to say that the thing they had planned for (if not in the conditions they expected) threw them into confusion and dissaray.
> 
> Either they were planning for a post-cameron coup or not.



Cameron resigning is the thing that didn't change. But they were expecting the Tories to be in a position of strength, to be able to get back to business, with an orderly transition followed by an early GE. A good climate in which to pile pressure on Corbyn and force him to resign. After the result, the Tories were in a mess and the narrative that Labour were doomed with Corbyn so they had no choice was a lot less swallowable that it would have been. In fact, I reckon they were probably afraid of the prospect of Labour starting to look like it might win. This made them rush, so they didn't prepare the ground with the planned media assault.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Cameron resigning is the thing that didn't change. But they were expecting the Tories to be in a position of strength, to be able to get back to business, with an orderly transition followed by an early GE. A good climate in which to pile pressure on Corbyn and force him to resign. After the result, the Tories were in a mess and the narrative that Labour were doomed with Corbyn so they had no choice was a lot less swallowable that it would have been. In fact, I reckon they were probably afraid of the prospect of Labour starting to look like it might win. This made them rush, so they didn't prepare the ground with the planned media assault.


Why did they rush in this scenario? Because they had to?  Ok, assume it's the truth. Why though? It's the same argument that Labour are doomed under Corbyn, we own the labour party and so should act - that would apply whenever. I'm not against your general thrust that they were given the hurry up by events  - i think it came from the awareness that only a general condition of party political turmoil might cover up what they were doing.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 10, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> IMHO if they decide to split off much may depend on who has legitimate claims to call itself the Labour Party which is a legal entity and owns the party’s buildings, controls its bank accounts, is legally entitled to use the term “The Labour Party candidate” on ballot papers and so on. This is where I suspect there is the potential for a major legal battle.
> 
> If the 172 are entitled to call themselves the Labour Party they would be HM official opposition, with all that entails, and the Corbynites may have to leave to form a new party in which case they would be _de facto_ expelled.


I think it's a little more complicated than who has the most MPs. Remember when GG and the SWP slugged it out over who had the rights to the RESPECT brand? It came down to who was the nominating officer for the party [Wikipedia]. I'd bet that's something firmly in the grasp of the NEC and not the PLP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> They're shameless. The only thing that'll make them leave is a real prospect of mass deselection . Jumping before they're pushed . If Corbyn gets on that ballot they're fucked .



In which case their treachery has actually made a rod for their own backs, as CLPs are going to be much more sanguine about backing changes to selection/de-selection rules after MPs have visibly played them for mug cunts than they would otherwise have been.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

19force8 said:


> I think it's a little more complicated than who has the most MPs. Remember when GG and the SWP slugged it out over who had the rights to the RESPECT brand? It came down to who was the nominating officer for the party [Wikipedia]. I'd bet that's something firmly in the grasp of the NEC and not the PLP.


The courts - not the NEC.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> So – thinking ahead for a moment . . .
> 
> Even if he is on the ballot and Corbyn wins he still has a major headache. Whatever the outcome of the challenge his problem remains the fact that he only has the support of 40 or so MPs. Winning the leadership election doesn’t alter that.
> 
> ...



I think the problem here is that you treat the 172 as a monolithic bloc; if anything its probably 50-60 of those who consider themselves the top (and who have largely kept control of the machinery of the PLP) with the rest thinking that "the top" are more likely to win than Corbyn is, and going along with them in the dual hope of a quiet life and not being purged after the defeat.  If Corbyn stays on the ballot and wins I'd expect most of the latter group to quietly come back into the fold, because at the end of the day if they want to continue to be MPs then that is the only way its going to happen.  

The defeated elite would probably split off (lets face it their egos will not permit them to remain), depending on who wins the Tory election they might even establish a new centrist party (which may or may not end up bigger than what remains of Labour) or if May wins and proclaims some form of "national Government to deal with Brexit negotiations" then there are probably quite a few of that lot who would gamely offer themselves.  

As for the future of the Party, in the short term it probably is difficult to see them winning a general election - though stranger things have happened - but if Corbyn's reforms work in widening and deepening the membership, and that results in a higher standard of MP in the PLP, it will make them more likely to win later and to govern well afterwards.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The courts - not the NEC.


No, the Electoral Commission. 

What I was trying to say was it's not a question of which faction has most MPs, but electoral law. And after Macdonald the unions will have made pretty damned certain their party can't be nicked by maverick MPs.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2016)

The General Secretary is the legal representative of The Party. Currently Iain McNicol, GMB bod, not Corbynite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

19force8 said:


> No, the Electoral Commission.
> 
> What I was trying to say was it's not a question of which faction has most MPs, but electoral law. And after Macdonald the unions will have made pretty damned certain their party can't be nicked by maverick MPs.


Whatever the EC decide  - if you're correct that it goes to them, given that this is nothing to do with electoral law - then it's open to legal challenge. This is where it is ending up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> So – thinking ahead for a moment . . .
> 
> Even if he is on the ballot and Corbyn wins he still has a major headache. Whatever the outcome of the challenge his problem remains the fact that he only has the support of 40 or so MPs. Winning the leadership election doesn’t alter that.
> 
> ...



I think that your theorising attributes far too much honour and honesty to the 172. When Corbyn wins any challenge, a goodly number of the treacherous shitbags will bow their heads to him "for reasons of party unity" - i.e. Corbynism will have been shown to be the route to power, so that's what they'll follow - while the main losers, the ones most likely to split, will be the "faces" of the _Maquis_. Benn, Umunna _et al_.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Whatever the EC decide  - if you're correct that it goes to them, given that this is nothing to do with electoral law - then it's open to legal challenge. This is where it is ending up.


Okay, not a lawyer so I don't really know of which I speak. I was just responding to the question of who would get the right to call themselves "the Labour Party candidate." Probably not going to be an issue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How? They expected and planned for moves after a cameron resignation but were thrown into turmoil by him resigning?



The fiasco is entirely of their own making. These idiots believe they're master-strategists because they've studied the Machiavellianism-lite of the likes of Mandelson and Watson. Not much use when the discourse is in the process of being upended by a public resurgence of soft-left sentiment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Consider this for an explanation of the "rebel's" miscalculation:
> 
> Confirmation Bias
> 
> ...



One of the many reasons I won't rejoin the Labour Party, is that my CLP is choc-a-bloc with rancid Blairite fuckpigs who are all about slavishly supporting our MP, and our Progress-ite local councillors.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The fiasco is entirely of their own making. These idiots believe they're master-strategists because they've studied the Machiavellianism-lite of the likes of Mandelson and Watson. Not much use when the discourse is in the process of being upended by a public resurgence of soft-left sentiment.


Weird isn't it as well that the claimed masterstrokes of mandelson etc were done whilst kicking at  an open door or/and in power. I'm not sure they stand up to scrutiny beyond powerful people talking to powerful people.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of the many reasons I won't rejoin the Labour Party, is that my CLP is choc-a-bloc with rancid Blairite fuckpigs who are all about slavishly supporting our MP, and our Progress-ite local councillors.



Even with the new members?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that your theorising attributes far too much honour and honesty to the 172. When Corbyn wins any challenge, a goodly number of the treacherous shitbags will bow their heads to him "for reasons of party unity" - i.e. Corbynism will have been shown to be the route to power, so that's what they'll follow - while the main losers, the ones most likely to split, will be the "faces" of the _Maquis_. Benn, Umunna _et al_.


Yeah i really think there's a case to be had as I've seen being suggested somewhere else on the net that MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms. Soon put a stop to the careerists hopefully.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why did they rush in this scenario? Because they had to?  Ok, assume it's the truth. Why though? It's the same argument that Labour are doomed under Corbyn, we own the labour party and so should act - that would apply whenever. I'm not against your general thrust that they were given the hurry up by events  - i think it came from the awareness that only a general condition of party political turmoil might cover up what they were doing.



That's not an unreasonable alternative, and it may also be that the whole thing was just not well-coordinated.

But, if we imagine where we are now but without the coup, the economy is looking grim, the public think the Tories are a bunch of liars and cowards and people are in a place where they will be pretty receptive to a new political narrative. Labour moving to a sustained poll lead over the summer would not have been at all unlikely. And it could have become predictable quite quickly. Once that happens, all prospect of a coup is dead, even if the poll lead doesn't last forever, and it's then a question of either living with Corbyn or entering a risky and demoralising process of planning to sabotage the election.

So, that's why I think they rushed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Yeah i really think there's a case to be had as I've seen being suggested somewhere else on the net that MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms. Soon put a stop to the careerists hopefully.


That's a political response to a problem that isn't political.  Do you think they couldn't line up their mates to do one term after another? Of course they would. But it's not politicians and their individual views that have us here is it?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Yeah i really think there's a case to be had as I've seen being suggested somewhere else on the net that MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms. Soon put a stop to the careerists hopefully.


Would that not just lead to a lot of constituency swapping, big names being parachuted into safe seats like they already are.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's a political response to a problem that isn't political.  Do you think they couldn't line up their mates to do one term after another? Of course they would. But it's not politicians and their individual views that have us here is it?


Would you have a suggestion for an alternative?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Even with the new members?



The new members are being blocked from any positions, and rules are being bent to stretch out annual elections to CLP positions as long as possible. If you've any experience of the LP in the '90s, you'll know all about meetings called at the last possible minute, stitch-ups by current officers and - not unusually - the complicity of regional officers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Would you have a suggestion for an alternative?


What, like an all encompassing plan? Don't be that poster ffs. No, i think recognising that there is no way out via better politicians is a good start point though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Yeah i really think there's a case to be had as I've seen being suggested somewhere else on the net that MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms. Soon put a stop to the careerists hopefully.



It's not necessary. All you need do to ensure that careerism and the like are curable diseases, is to allow the full constituency membership a vote on selection/de-selection, and enact a power of recall so that MPs who fail to represent the interests of their constituents - as opposed to their personal or party interests - can be made to face a run-off election for the position.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 10, 2016)

the nominating officer is Margaret Lynch (Electoral Commission website - here)

Seems to be a paid employee, and presumably not the same Margaret Lynch who defected from Labour to SNP



teqniq said:


> Yeah i really think there's a case to be had as I've seen being suggested somewhere else on the net that MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms. Soon put a stop to the careerists hopefully.


 
Surely if that happened, the careerists who don't really give a flying whatnot about their constituency would just do a merry-go-round of seats every time and get parachuted in somewhere else. 

The people this would put a stop to are the long term solid local MPs - Dennis Skinner has held his seat since 1970, for example...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What, like an all encompassing plan? Don't be that poster ffs. No, i think recognising that there is no way out via better politicians is a good start point though.


I'm not being 'that poster' whatever that is, I'm just asking genuine questions. The latter part of your reply is interesting though.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not necessary. All you need do to ensure that careerism and the like are curable diseases, is to allow the full constituency membership a vote on selection/de-selection, and enact a power of recall so that MPs who fail to represent the interests of their constituents - as opposed to their personal or party interests - can be made to face a run-off election for the position.


ah yes the power of recal that MP's voted down recently. i wonder why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I'm not being 'that poster' whatever that is, I'm just asking genuine questions. The latter part of your reply is interesting though.


_That poster _is someone who shakes off criticisms of individual aspects by demanding a whole program from the people/group criticising their thing. Lot of it about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the nominating officer is Margaret Lynch (Electoral Commission website - here)
> 
> Seems to be a paid employee, and presumably not the same Margaret Lynch who defected from Labour to SNP
> 
> ...


Who would then surely then be elected each year if doing well. How would it threaten people like him?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the nominating officer is Margaret Lynch (Electoral Commission website - here)
> 
> Seems to be a paid employee, and presumably not the same Margaret Lynch who defected from Labour to SNP
> 
> ...



Yeah that's been suggested above


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _That poster _is someone who shakes off criticisms of individual aspects by demanding a whole program from the people/group criticising their thing. Lot of it about.


Not me guv, honest. I'm just punting ideas around that I've seen elsewhere to see what people here think. Not much it seems lol.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who would then surely then be elected each year if doing well. How would it threaten people like him?


 
if "MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms" which the post i responded to said, then it would.

being subject to re-selection is a different thing, and yes, a decent local MP would probably get re-selected each time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> if "MP's should only be able to represent their constituency for a limited number of terms" which the post i responded to said, then it would.
> 
> being subject to re-selection is a different thing, and yes, a decent local MP would probably get re-selected each time.


Sorry, right. Yes, there would be trains of lined up people. Wouldn't change anything.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 10, 2016)

one of us is misunderstanding something.

i've no objection to the idea of sitting MPs being subject to re-selection by their party on a fairly regular basis.  (I'm a bit fuzzy on how it works now, to be honest)

what I am not comfortable with is the idea of a limit being imposed on how many terms an MP could serve in their constituency, even if their local party (and of course the local electorate) want them to.  which is what teqniq's post seemed to be saying.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> If the 172 stay the in Party they can spend the next few years to 2020 continually causing problems for Corbyn - refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, harassing him from the back benches and so on. It becomes a war of attrition. They would just wear him down.


 Is that what your welfare attacking mate is planning to do? Lovely respect for democracy there, but why should that trouble you I'm sure the PLP know best.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 10, 2016)

Not all 172 will want to split. The coup was initially driven by a far smaller number. In fact, not all of those who resigned were contacted in any way to be encouraged to do so. As the ball got rolling, they got swept up in it. That's not to excuse them, but to try to understand. It's not helpful to describe all 172 as plotters and splitters, because that's not the case. Presumably some hate Milne, some like Corbyn's politics but don't like the way his office is run, some felt a kind of peer pressure when all around them were resigning and felt they had to plant their flag in one camp or the other. It's not a cohesive attack against him, but rather a couple of different 'factions' who've wanted him gone for a while, one or more of which led the coup, and then a bunch of random MPs with various affiliations or no real concrete affiliations at all who coalesced behind it but pretty half-heartedly for the most part. 

Anyway, 172 wouldn't want to up and leave and form a new party. I doubt all 172 want to see Corbyn gone from the benches altogether either. Most simply just a) don't like the way he and his office have been operating this past 9 months, and b) got swept up in it like was bound to happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> one of us is misunderstanding something.
> 
> i've no objection to the idea of sitting MPs being subject to re-selection by their party on a fairly regular basis.  (I'm a bit fuzzy on how it works now, to be honest)
> 
> what I am not comfortable with is the idea of a limit being imposed on how many terms an MP could serve in their constituency, even if their local party (and of course the local electorate) want them to.  which is what teqniq's post seemed to be saying.


No. Forced debarment - at least on year terms -  is a daft idea. That's what i meant by them having mates lined up. They run the party, they run the next candidate. It' all irrelevant anyway as it would be Parliament changing not the lablur party rules.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Not all 172 will want to split. The coup was initially driven by a far smaller number. In fact, not all of those who resigned were contacted in any way to be encouraged to do so. As the ball got rolling, they got swept up in it. That's not to excuse them, but to try to understand. It's not helpful to describe all 172 as plotters and splitters, because that's not the case. Presumably some hate Milne, some like Corbyn's politics but don't like the way his office is run, some felt a kind of peer pressure when all around them were resigning and felt they had to plant their flag in one camp or the other. It's not a cohesive attack against him, but rather a couple of different 'factions' who've wanted him gone for a while, one or more of which led the coup, and then a bunch of random MPs with various affiliations or no real concrete affiliations at all who coalesced behind it but pretty half-heartedly for the most part.
> 
> Anyway, 172 wouldn't want to up and leave and form a new party. I doubt all 172 want to see Corbyn gone from the benches altogether either. Most simply just a) don't like the way he and his office have been operating this past 9 months, and b) got swept up in it like was bound to happen.


Yet, the result of this aggregation  of ethical concern is...this.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Anyway, 172 wouldn't want to up and leave and form a new party. I doubt all 172 want to see Corbyn gone from the benches altogether either. Most simply just a) don't like the way he and his office have been operating this past 9 months, and b) got swept up in it like was bound to happen.



c) knew JC couldn't win the vote and felt that a bigger majority against him would at least stand a chance of being decisive, whereas a mere defeat might have meant months of continued agony;
d) knew that JC intended to step down before 2020, perhaps in favour of Owen Smith, and didn't see any value in fighting the idea of that being brought forward.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 10, 2016)

The blairites have been waiting for their moment to make their move - and they were determined to get him out before the next election. After the surprise of Brexit the prospect of snap general election suddenly loomed large and their hand was forced - also its been suggested that the next conference could see big changes to the rules giving the membership a much bigger stake - and that was the last thing they wanted. 
I was wandering though - outside of the solid corbyn supporters in the membership - how do the rest of the (non-blairite) rank and file feel about the whole shambles? Has the botched reblellion turned then more against the PLP or Corbyn? From where i am sitting Corbyn looks stronger and sounds more confident whilst the insurgents look like incompetent traitors - but is this the wider view? 
And what about the rest of the population? Has this changed their opinion of Corbyn?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2016)

Right, I've been watching the football, has Angela 'The Eagle' Eagle done anything to firm up her possible, maybe hint that she will definitely stand?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Right, I've been watching the football, has Angela 'The Eagle' Eagle done anything to firm up her possible, maybe hint that she will definitely stand?



Portugal win without Renaldo. What is the message for Labour?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Portugal win without Renaldo. What is the message for Labour?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I dont know, but I think a diplomatic row is going to kick off when France realise Corbyn is to blame for their defeat.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> The blairites have been waiting for their moment to make their move - and they were determined to get him out before the next election. After the surprise of Brexit the prospect of snap general election suddenly loomed large and their hand was forced - also its been suggested that the next conference could see big changes to the rules giving the membership a much bigger stake - and that was the last thing they wanted.
> I was wandering though - outside of the solid corbyn supporters in the membership - how do the rest of the (non-blairite) rank and file feel about the whole shambles? Has the botched reblellion turned then more against the PLP or Corbyn? From where i am sitting Corbyn looks stronger and sounds more confident whilst the insurgents look like incompetent traitors - but is this the wider view?
> And what about the rest of the population? Has this changed their opinion of Corbyn?




This is something I'm also interested in and haven't got any feel for at all.  A mixture, I suppose.  It's hard to know when we are probably all in our own bubbles to some degree.   Some people on here are 'old labour' who have rejoined, they probably aren't the only ones.   A couple of reports on here from a CLP meeting and Durham miners* seems to suggest that he is playing well to some of the people labour has lost in recent years, but what the split is who knows.  People (metropolitan elites?  ) who consider themselves fabulously left wing because they've voted Labour rather than Tory for the last 15 years, are possibly not so keen. Someone I know who is a #savelabour person says that the non-metropolitan elites across the country of her acquaintance are not keen on him.   I had a brief convo with a family member (who went to uni with Watson as it goes) who considers the new labour members as entryists. We didn't get into it too much. I was there to bond with my family during a difficult time for us, not get into political arguments!  

I thought perhaps the CLPs actions would be indicative but that depends on how much new members have actually got involved in the last 9 months and whether the people involved before then were reluctantly indulging the blairite era or blairites.

*As with many things I'm not familiar with the Durham Miners gala.  Does the fact Watson was uninvited and Corbyn invited indicate approval in traditional labour heartlands?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Portugal win without Renaldo. What is the message for Labour?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



That it is still possible to be dominant in Europe, even with the odds against you, but first you have to dispose of Wales.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That it is still possible to be dominant in Europe, even with the odds against you, but first you have to dispose of Wales.


Oh please don't give the PLP more ideas, they still haven't figured out what to do with the first one they had!


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 11, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> *As with many things I'm not familiar with the Durham Miners gala.  Does the fact Watson was uninvited and Corbyn invited indicate approval in traditional labour heartlands?


There's lots of union involvement with the gala and it's very old labour/socialist. They seem to be backing Corbyn, it was only MPs that support him who were invited to share the stage (Dennis Skinner and Richard Burgon were the other MP speakers), those who voted against him were all uninvited.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 11, 2016)

The last big purge wouldn't have worked without the Tanks. They are gone or are cheering JC and his new influx of enthusiasm now.

BTW, hasn't the Independant's coverage been better than the shit the Guardian has been peddling? Maybe they can recover as a real paper.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> The last big purge wouldn't have worked without the Tanks. They are gone or are cheering JC and his new influx of enthusiasm now.
> 
> BTW, hasn't the Independant's coverage been better than the shit the Guardian has been peddling? Maybe they can recover as a real paper.


Do you mean Tankies?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2016)

As regards the NEC ballot thing. Watsons mate Jon Ashworth ...shadow minister without portfolio...didn't resign . That means he keeps his seat on the NEC and has a vote on whether Corbyns on the ballot.

Watson was obviously stringing the unions along the entire time and simply posing as someone trying to keep things together . Manoeuvring . Smoke and mirrors .
To me Watsons abrupt ending of the talks on disingenuous grounds without even informing the unions ,  indicates they'd simply served their real purpose . His purpose. And he may be confident the fix is in and Corbyn won't be on the ballot .
Whether his calculations are correct or nots another thing . Either way the only way they can defeat corbyn is to ensure he's not on the ballot . Otherwise it ends not just in tears but ridicule .

I've read elsewhere the NEC are sure to back him. And even that a few of the traitors would nominate corbyn to ensure a democratic contest . So who knows ?

Suspect Watson thinks he knows though .


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 11, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Do you mean Tankies?



Not in my circle in Manchester


----------



## Raheem (Jul 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I've read elsewhere the NEC are sure to back him. And even that a few of the traitors would nominate corbyn to ensure a democratic contest .



Suspect that more than a few of them have told their constituency parties that they voted against the no confidence motion. Fear of deselection may be a backstop.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 11, 2016)

If Corbyn is taken off the ballot,  I think we will see coups like this frequently. Finding 50 odd people out of 300 to back someone with a precedent that the leader is off ballot is a disaster waiting to happen.

MPs are notoriously factional anyway. Can you imagine? Leadership elections by way of coups every 3 years. I hope the NEC are considering that very real possibility.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Watson was obviously stringing the unions along the entire time



I think it's a mistake to cast Watson as some sort of all-seeing spinner of schemes, if he'd been planning that well his name would never have been linked to all this in the first place - he made strenuous efforts early on to avoid that happening (slightly _too _strenuous tbh, vids at Glasto looked suspicious in and of themselves). Going to the unions was more a result of the initial coup failing than anything else and the way he tried to play McCluskey was clumsy. 

There clearly was a Plan A, but that broke down and atm they're betting heavily on Plan B, Corbyn not being on the ballot.Beyond that they appear to be winging it, hence missteps like Eagle's flapping which was totally unnecessary and only makes her a less likely winner in the event she _does_ have to face off with Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

What's the point in passing legislation ruling out snap elections if people keep going on about holding snap elections?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 11, 2016)

Surely the 'traitors' intended to enact their plan on the back of poor local election results, but bottled it when the results weren't shit enough, and had been waiting around for the next opportunity, which the referendum result appeared to present?  Only the criticism of Corbyn's role in the ref still doesn't really wash with anyone who paid attention to his actions (his 7/10 comment seemed honest to most people and an avoidance of going into salesman mode which turns people off - those who campaigned strongly with lies don't seem to have fared very well).


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What's the point in passing legislation ruling out snap elections if people keep going on about holding snap elections?



What was the point of it in the first place? Genuine question, for anyone.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 11, 2016)

To stop the lib dems voting down the coalition Government. Short-term strategy.


----------



## newbie (Jul 11, 2016)

Jon-of-arc said:


> What was the point of it in the first place? Genuine question, for anyone.


stop Cameron dumping Clegg 10 minutes into the coalition.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf, everyone except rutabowa has called things wrong in this strange hinterland we find ourselves in


I'm sorry to disappoint you but I called the referendum as 60% remain ha. I seem to have lost touch with the people's will.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

From the Express



> Ms Shabi asked: "I am wondering why this time round… given the sort of political record you have got, supporting the Iraq War, opposing the inquiry into the Iraq War, supporting university tuition fees, abstaining from the welfare bill…"
> 
> Ms Eagle then cut Ms Shabi off and snapped: "You sound like you are reading one of the rather nasty little memes going round on Twitter."



If the best she can in the face of criticisms of her voting record is, 'other people have also commented accurately about the way I have voted and I don't like that they are doing that' then uhh this might be even worse for her than I thought


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

Fucking Omni fucking shambles.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 11, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Fucking Omni fucking shambles.



Would you have it any other way?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 11, 2016)

I never tire of this


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> From the Express
> 
> 
> 
> If the best she can in the face of criticisms of her voting record is, 'other people have also commented accurately about the way I have voted and I don't like that they are doing that' then uhh this might be even worse for her than I thought


It sounds like we've been remiss in collecting memes about her from Twitter and sharing them for the group. Given that she's studying them carefully, I wonder if she's seen the fabulous one of her on a car roof that was created here.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> It sounds like we've been remiss in collecting memes about her from Twitter and sharing them for the group. Given that she's studying them carefully, I wonder if she's seen the fabulous one of her on a car roof that was created here.



Ah yes, I recall that particular dastardly Momentum meme plot. IIRC it was the product of usurper Corbyn's own hand.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2016)




----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Would you have it any other way?



Not at all, best spectator sport since the term liberal democracy emerged.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 11, 2016)

Eagle is facing a possible no confidence vote from her CLP.
Angela Eagle facing 'no confidence' vote from her own constituency for taking on Corbyn


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really? Is that how you see Corbyn; the much maligned, quietly spoken, geography teacher stylee, decades long back bench 'champion of lost causes'...it's not exactly the stuff of arrogance and self regard. Unless of course you think he's been planning for just this moment all these years; even then that would show a level of forethought and commitment which might be admirable.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



He's destroyed the Labour Party and seems to have no intention of stopping. His 'mandate' which he keeps banging on about is partially made up of three quid members encouraged by certain newspapers to join the party and vote for him to keep labour in opposition. Guess what? These 60,000 new members have been encouraged to do the same in recent weeks.

It's a fucking disaster and this arrogant fuckwit is personally responsible for it. I don't want 20 more years of the Tories but if corbyn won't accept he's completely and utterly unelectable then that's what we'll have. Do you want that? Do you want Teresa May and George Osborne running the show for the foreseeable future? For the sake of the ego of an idiot with no discernible policies, no supporters in his own parliamenary party and who can't even come up with his own questions to the cunt opposite him at PMQs?

It's your country. I'm a graphic designer. I design. If I didn't I'd be sacked. How the fuck is someone with no policies a politician who apparently can't be sacked for er, having no policies.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's destroyed the Labour Party and seems to have no intention of stopping.



Given his recent form I don't think Byn Laden will even resign after Tezza has thrashed him in a GE. 

Permanent Conservative government will be good for the personal finances of the predominantly middle class Momentumites so I guess everyone wins.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's destroyed the Labour Party and seems to have no intention of stopping. His 'mandate' which he keeps banging on about is partially made up of three quid members encouraged by certain newspapers to join the party and vote for him to keep labour in opposition. Guess what? These 60,000 new members have been encouraged to do the same in recent weeks.
> 
> It's a fucking disaster and this arrogant fuckwit is personally responsible for it. I don't want 20 more years of the Tories but if corbyn won't accept he's completely and utterly unelectable then that's what we'll have. Do you want that? Do you want Teresa May and George Osborne running the show for the foreseeable future? For the sake of the ego of an idiot with no discernible policies, no supporters in his own parliamenary party and who can't even come up with his own questions to the cunt opposite him at PMQs?
> 
> It's your country. I'm a graphic designer. I design. If I didn't I'd be sacked. How the fuck is someone with no policies a politician who apparently can't be sacked for er, having no policies.


what the fuck are you on about? this is just rubbish, from top to bottom.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 11, 2016)

It makes you wonder how all these young, middle-class, Momentumites have managed to gain control of trades councils, which have been passing resolutions supporting Corbyn, in Northern industrial towns that voted to leave the EU.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's destroyed the Labour Party and seems to have no intention of stopping. His 'mandate' which he keeps banging on about is partially made up of three quid members encouraged by certain newspapers to join the party and vote for him to keep labour in opposition. Guess what? These 60,000 new members have been encouraged to do the same in recent weeks.
> 
> It's a fucking disaster and this arrogant fuckwit is personally responsible for it. I don't want 20 more years of the Tories but if corbyn won't accept he's completely and utterly unelectable then that's what we'll have. Do you want that? Do you want Teresa May and George Osborne running the show for the foreseeable future? For the sake of the ego of an idiot with no discernible policies, no supporters in his own parliamenary party and who can't even come up with his own questions to the cunt opposite him at PMQs?
> 
> It's your country. I'm a graphic designer. I design. If I didn't I'd be sacked. How the fuck is someone with no policies a politician who apparently can't be sacked for er, having no policies.



1. His mandate was in every part of the Labour Party apart from the PLP, which contains a tiny tiny fraction of the voting membership.

2. If you think that closet Tories signed up to get Corbyn elected, then where is your evidence?

3. Just repeating that Corbyn is unelectable doesn't make it so. His actual record in elections, suggests you are some way wide of the mark.

4. Similarly repeating that Corbyn guarantees 20 more years of Tory government doesn't make it so; it also shows a staggering lack of historical perspective.

4. The accusation that he has no policies is a straight forward lie; a lie that half a minute on google will expose.

So perhaps instead stamping your feet and doing some shouty swearing on the internet, your time would be better spent doing a bit of investigation, reading and thinking.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Given his recent form I don't think *Byn Laden* will even resign after Tezza has thrashed him in a GE.
> 
> Permanent Conservative government will be good for the personal finances of the predominantly middle class Momentumites so I guess everyone wins.


 fuck off with that stuff.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> His 'mandate' which he keeps banging on about is partially made up of three quid members encouraged by certain newspapers to join the party and vote for him to keep labour in opposition.


Which newspapers?


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 11, 2016)

Having to remind people that Corbyn had a majority amongst members as well as three quiders gets pretty tiring.  

It's like when they start complaining about Swopper entryists, what 300,000 of them?  Where've they been hiding?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's destroyed the Labour Party and seems to have no intention of stopping. His 'mandate' which he keeps banging on about is partially made up of three quid members encouraged by certain newspapers to join the party and vote for him to keep labour in opposition. Guess what? These 60,000 new members have been encouraged to do the same in recent weeks.
> 
> It's a fucking disaster and this arrogant fuckwit is personally responsible for it. I don't want 20 more years of the Tories but if corbyn won't accept he's completely and utterly unelectable then that's what we'll have. Do you want that? Do you want Teresa May and George Osborne running the show for the foreseeable future? For the sake of the ego of an idiot with no discernible policies, no supporters in his own parliamenary party and who can't even come up with his own questions to the cunt opposite him at PMQs?
> 
> It's your country. I'm a graphic designer. I design. If I didn't I'd be sacked. How the fuck is someone with no policies a politician who apparently can't be sacked for er, having no policies.



Talk of arrogance and then dismiss the enthusiasm and honest support of hundreds of thousands of people as some media construct. Including those inside and outside of the party. You should be on the Marquis press team, the disdain fits their m.o. And what newspapers are these then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Which newspapers?


red tops. You know, the ones thick proles read. No one ever has an independant thought unless he's earning more thn 20k PA


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> red tops. You know, the ones thick proles read. No one ever has an independant thought unless he's earning more thn 20k PA


Which ones are/were pro-Corbyn?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 11, 2016)

none of them lol


----------



## Raheem (Jul 11, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> It's your country. I'm a graphic designer. I design. If I didn't I'd be sacked. How the fuck is someone with no policies a politician who apparently can't be sacked for er, having no policies.



Taking Smith, Blair and Milliband as models, it would seem like the job of a Labour opposition leader is to have no policies, at least for the first couple of years. Maybe Kinnock was different, but that's before my time.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Which ones are/were pro-Corbyn?



The Morning Star, a hitherto unrecognized tool for mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people. Was a shock them I'm sure.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 11, 2016)

Wilf said:


> fuck off with that stuff.



You're right, they aren't really comparable. One is an old bearded loony clinging to outdated ideologies being beset with enemies on all sides while the other organised 911.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> You're right, they aren't really comparable. One is an old bearded loony clinging to outdated ideologies being beset with enemies on all sides while the other organised 911.



Laugh a minute aren't you.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> You're right, they aren't really comparable. One is an old bearded loony clinging to outdated ideologies being beset with enemies on all sides while the other organised 911.


Classy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 11, 2016)

_Speaking as a graphic designer_


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2016)

Should the title be changed to 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is now' yet?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Should the title be changed to 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is now' yet?



As I said before, can't change title or his beard will fall off and the Tower of London will collapse. Lucky charm.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> _Speaking as a graphic designer_



Drawing on his experience no doubt!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 11, 2016)

Just here to canvas opinion


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

Art for art's sake.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

A depressed pencil, no point.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 11, 2016)

Perhaps consider making the switch to conceptual performance art?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 11, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Drawing on his experience no doubt!



It's certainly helped him come up with fantastical fictions, drawn with a broad brush.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 11, 2016)

fractionMan said:


> Perhaps consider making the switch to conceptual performance art?


Andrea Leadsom's already cornered the market there


----------



## brogdale (Jul 11, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Drawing on his experience no doubt!


I thought the point was that graphic designers don't have to speak?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 11, 2016)

I have always been reliably informed by the generation above me that the Labour Party was finished the day it proposed introducing prescription charges in 1951. Several front bench ministers resigned then, including Nye Bevan and Harold Wilson. Bet that was Corbyn's fault as well!


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Len McClusky just on BBC, wow he's angry with the PLP, it was really nice to see. Said they will not ever be forgiven, wouldn't be drawn on deselections in future apart from saying that his union was discussing the topic later this week.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> _Speaking as a graphic designer_



Fair enough. I bet Corbyn's never even used Photoshop: he's not fit to govern.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 11, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Len McClusky just on BBC, wow he's angry with the PLP, it was really nice to see. Said they will not ever be forgiven, wouldn't be drawn on deselections in future apart from saying that his union was discussing the topic later this week.



It's quite interesting. McClusky does well when he has something to rail against, and a Labour Party leader who is slightly at odds with what his members want means he can be the hero. So it's good to see him backing Corbyn so vociferously, because it could easily have not happened this way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's quite interesting. McClusky does well when he has something to rail against, and a Labour Party leader who is slightly at odds with what his members want means he can be the hero. So it's good to see him backing Corbyn so vociferously, because it could easily have not happened this way.


its Unison who I don't trust to hold the line. Not cos of members and reps, cos I've seen them cave before. We all have

e2a, wrong union, changed


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 11, 2016)

I reckon McClusky coming out so strongly will help other unions keep their nerve. Hope so, anyway.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 11, 2016)

This really is the festering stinking corpse of the right's last roll of the dice. 

They know they're doomed with talk of deselections out in the upper echelons of Unions and CLPs. 

Like literally their only hope of not burying themselves is somehow keeping old Corbo off the ballot. 

And if they do that the Labour Party is fucked. 

They are so utterly incompetent they've killed themselves. They coulda just u-turned. I bet JC would have forgiven them too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This really is the festering stinking corpse of the right's last roll of the dice.
> 
> They know they're doomed with talk of deselections out in the upper echelons of Unions and CLPs.
> 
> ...


nailed on certainty, he's a party man. Forgiven but not forgotten.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> . I bet JC would have forgiven them too.





> And the Corbyn turned and looked at Angela. And Angela remembered the saying of the Corbyn, how he had said to her “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And she went out and wept bitterly


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you but I called the referendum as 60% remain ha. I seem to have lost touch with the people's will.


your powers are weak old man


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2016)

I feel sort of sorry for Angela. She has had her moment of glory ruined by political machinations at the other end of the political spectrum and the press rushed off leaving her gasping for air. Oh alright not that sorry.


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Should the title be changed to 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is now' yet?


Jeremy Corbyn - Now More Than Ever


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I feel sort of sorry for Angela. She has had her moment of glory ruined by political machinations at the other end of the political spectrum and the press rushed off leaving her gasping for air. Oh alright not that sorry.


She was and is at that end and is clearly a key player in the machinations. Don't let the haircut fool you. I did that with Jack Monroe.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

The title should change when he's PM. We'll call it "Jeremy Corbyn's Journey to Number 10" and give it to a politics student in need of research links for their dissertation.

In the spirit of calling him JC, will it all be over after 40 days and 40 nights? What date is that now, 5th August or 6th August?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> The title should change when he's PM. We'll call it "Jeremy Corbyn's Journey to Number 10" and give it to a politics student in need of research links for their dissertation.
> 
> In the spirit of calling him JC, will it all be over after 40 days and 40 nights? What date is that now, 5th August or 6th August?


No wilderness for Corbyn, he is always in public and with his people. That Biblical character only needed 12 in his cabinet, so much easier to manage.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No wilderness for Corbyn, he is always in public and with his people. That Biblical character only needed 12 in his cabinet, so much easier to manage.





> My name is Blairite , for we are not very many (but a plurality of the PLP).” And Angela begged him earnestly not to send them out of the party. Now a great herd of Libdems was feeding there on the hillside, and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the Libdems; let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the Libdems; and the herd, numbering about 172, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> She was and is at that end and is clearly a key player in the machinations. Don't let the haircut fool you. I did that with Jack Monroe.


Look in their armpits!


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

I've no chance of finding the previous posts about it, but the quisling SPADs have apparently been confirmed by their MPs and given back their House of Commons passes. No idea who's paying them.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2016)

Just posting up something re the NEC (from the end of the Indie article nino_savatte linked to a couple of pages back)...



> Christine Shawcroft, who sits on Labour's ruling NEC, said the section of party rules calling for nominations to be backed by MPs and MEPs refers to challengers, rather than the sitting leader.
> 
> She told Today: "It's quite clear to me from the rules that the section 'any nomination' refers to potential challengers."
> 
> ...



...which sounds pretty positive.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

It does sound positive. I'm trying not to be too hopeful though because I really don't know enough about the morals of most NEC members.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2016)

Yes, me too.
Christine Shawcroft is actually one of the six representatives Momentum are asking people to nominate, so that's a fairly obvious pov coming from her - but I do recall reading something on here waaaaaaaay back where someone/some link indicated that as a whole they were likely to favour him being on the ballot, despite the pro-Corbyn members being in a minority (although not a tiny one, iirc) - just in the sense that they take the job very seriously in terms of sticking to the written word, instead of manipulating it.
Fingers crossed that that's right.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 11, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> the morals of most NEC members.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Yes, me too.
> ...[the NEC] take the job very seriously in terms of sticking to the written word, instead of manipulating it.


Actually I was hoping that someone with a greater knowledge of Labour Party rules could answer a question I have on that point.

Are the NEC supposed to make their decisions on the basis of what is written (i.e. treating the rules as a legal contract) or are they free to attempt to try and determine the intention behind the rules?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

Apparently nobody who joined Labour after June 24th will be allowed to vote in the NEC elections.

Supposedly this is because of time contraints on printing of ballot papers. So the cutoff point being the date of the referendum result is pure coincidence I'm sure.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2016)

Labour's National Executive Committee

ETA - Sorry DaveCinzano already did this yesterday


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Actually I was hoping that someone with a greater knowledge of Labour Party rules could answer a question I have on that point.
> 
> Are the NEC supposed to make their decisions on the basis of what is written (i.e. treating the rules as a legal contract) or are they free to attempt to try and determine the intention behind the rules?



They've always gone down the contractual route, as far back as I can recall. That makes sense, though. Membership - whether of a CLP or the PLP - is a contract.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ah yes, I recall that particular dastardly Momentum meme plot. IIRC it was the product of usurper Corbyn's own hand.





billy_bob said:


> Fair enough. I bet Corbyn's never even used Photoshop: he's not fit to govern.



Urban's inconsistency: Corbyn's fault.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2016)

Apparently Smith is running now.

EXCLUSIVE Owen Smith to run for Labour leadership


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Apparently Smith is running now.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE Owen Smith to run for Labour leadership


Who?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 11, 2016)

they really are fucking deluded


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2016)

At least the leadership challenge will be mostly done outside of the mainstream media's glare, for a few weeks anyway.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who?



Used to work for Pfeizer, apparently, so free drugs for all.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

Can anyone here honestly say that they know what Owen Smith looks like without googling it?


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2016)

I thought he was Clive lewis until about 3 days ago.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2016)

He was doing good work as shadow works and pensions


----------



## binka (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can anyone here honestly say that they know what Owen Smith looks like without googling it?


He's got one of those names you think you recognise but on further investigation you realise it must have been a different Owen Smith


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can anyone here honestly say that they know what Owen Smith looks like without googling it?


I did google it, had a look, and still couldn't tell you.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I did google it, had a look, and still couldn't tell you.



He does have one of those faces that is strangely familiar but at the same time also instantly forgettable.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Apparently Smith is running now.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE Owen Smith to run for Labour leadership


In a sense he's not so much standing as leader, more agreeing to pay halves on a high court injunction.  Parliamentary socialism, lol.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 11, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Used to work for Pfeizer, apparently, so free drugs for all.



Stiff competition, then.


----------



## andysays (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Apparently Smith is running now.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE Owen Smith to run for Labour leadership



According to Kuenssberg @ BBC


> Owen smith will make final decision on whether to run as Labour leader after NEC tmrw


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2016)

Might need some jump leads though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can anyone here honestly say that they know what Owen Smith looks like without googling it?


He's that young looking bloke in the shirts isn't he? Either that or the one who did "Grandad".


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> According to Kuenssberg @ BBC
> 
> 
> 
> > Owen smith will make final decision on whether to run as Labour leader after NEC tmrw


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2016)

Yeah, that makes more sense.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

That's a "I'll stand but only if Corbyn doesn't" thing, isn't it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I did google it, had a look, and still couldn't tell you.



I thought this was a joke, then I googled him myself and saw a man whose face I couldn't even remember while looking at it. Like those Silence lads from Doctor Who.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 11, 2016)

treelover said:


> At least the leadership challenge will be mostly done outside of the mainstream media's glare, for a few weeks anyway.


Eh?

Did you miss the Leadsom withdrawal?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> I thought this was a joke, then I googled him myself and saw a man whose face I couldn't even remember while looking at it. Like those Silence lads from Doctor Who.


I've had to edit more than one post today where I've called him Owen Jones.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

Is Hilary 'say International Brigades [pause for Tory applause]' Benn really Eagle's campaign manager?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've had to edit more than one post today where I've called him Owen Jones.


I thought briefly that it WAS Owen Jones. That young chatterbox standing would be too weird even for these interesting times.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2016)

Oh, yeah, and when do they go and stay at the Judges houses?


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Apparently Smith is running now.





> from the end of that piece:
> 
> One insider told PoliticsHome: "It's interesting that the old right of the party, who are close to (deputy leader) Tom Watson, are holding back on supporting Eagle or Smith. People like Michael Dugher, Gloria De Piero, John Spellar and Conor McGinn are playing a straight bat.
> 
> "That can only mean they think Corbyn will be on the ballot and expect Tom will need to broker a unity candidate."


Still with the delusions about Watson's credibility as a mediator.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 11, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Still with the delusions about Watson's credibility as a mediator.



Surely it's more about having to have some sort of answer when a journalist asks "And what if Corbyn is on the ballot?" than about them seriously believing that isn't the end of the road.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

I notice that a lot of the turncoats like Owen Jones and Richard Murphy are either keeping very quiet or are whining about how bad Angela Eagle is. They seem to be quickly starting to learn that Corbyn isn't the cause of every problem faced by the Labour Party. Only the hard right are properly backing her, bigging her up.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 11, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Used to work for Pfeizer, apparently, so free drugs for all.



Still does (for all practical purposes) and wants to privatise the NHS, so probably not ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I notice that a lot of the turncoats like Owen Jones and Richard Murphy are either keeping very quiet or are whining about how bad Angela Eagle is. They seem to be quickly starting to learn that Corbyn isn't the cause of every problem faced by the Labour Party. Only the hard right are properly backing her, bigging her up.


Murphy is to the right of the lib-dems. He's not a turncoat - at least not politically.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 11, 2016)

"Corbyn is a phenomenon"

Jeremy Corbyn victory a phenomenon, says Owen Smith - BBC News

"I have no idea who's going to come forward"

Owen Smith on Jeremy Corbyn: 'It breaks my heart' - BBC News


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 11, 2016)

Just been watching _Reilly - Ace of Spies_ on Youtube:



Ah, that Felix Dzerzhinsky knew how to deal with conspirators.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 11, 2016)

The Newstatesman seems more than a little confused:

*Owen Smith denies Labour leadership bid*
The former shadow secretary of state for work and pensions will join the Labour leadership contest. 

Sources close to Owen Smith have denied reports at _PoliticsHome _that he will launch a bid for the party leadership.​It must be catching.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

*OWEN SMITH'S MUM: "OWEN WHO?"*


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

This, incidentally, would appear to be the relevant section of the Labour rule book:

Clause II, 2(b)ii
Where there is no vacancy, nominations
may be sought by potential challengers
each year prior to the annual session of
party conference. In this case any
nomination must be supported by 20 per
cent of the Commons members of the PLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold
shall be null and void.

It seems fairly clear what the intention is (that there's a higher bar for a challenger) but it's a bit poorly worded (in a legal sense).


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 11, 2016)

There is no vacancy and he is not a challenger.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> This, incidentally, would appear to be the relevant section of the Labour rule book:
> 
> Clause II, 2(b)ii
> Where there is no vacancy, nominations
> ...


It's rock solid (in a legal sense) and, not being funny but...plenty conversation already.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> There is no vacancy and he is not a challenger.



Yes, but if the journalists who pass their time complaining about 'post-truth' voters repeat this 'post-truthful' statement enough times then perhaps it will become reality.


----------



## maomao (Jul 11, 2016)

How many nominations would he get anyway? If it was forced and he was a couple short surely he'd just have to resign and he'd only need the fifteen percent?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

maomao said:


> How many nominations would he get anyway? If it was forced and he was a couple short surely he'd just have to resign and he'd only need the fifteen percent?


20%/ 51


----------



## maomao (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> 20%/ 51


So if he managed to get 40 (the current shadow cabinet? I'm not sure of numbers) he'd be short of the 20% but then if he resigned there would be a vacancy and he could run again with only 15% (38/39?)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

maomao said:


> So if he managed to get 40 (the current shadow cabinet? I'm not sure of numbers) he'd be short of the 20% but then if he resigned there would be a vacancy and he could run again with only 15% (38/39?)


Don't see why not. Be daft though.


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's rock solid (in a legal sense) and, not being funny but...plenty conversation already.



If that were legislation it would be picked over all the way to the Supreme Court. But it's not so I imagine any tribunal would interpret it in the spirit of how it was intended.

But apologies for resurrecting that one, should have searched the thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> If that were legislation it would be picked over all the way to the Supreme Court. But it's not so I imagine any tribunal would interpret it in the spirit of how it was intended.
> 
> But apologies for resurrecting that one, should have searched the thread.


It's more to the fore now so no reason not to have brought it up. In fact, needed bringing up.


----------



## maomao (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Don't see why not. Be daft though.


If he could be sure of the nominations it would be the strongest move to make. 'Bring it on motherfuckers'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

maomao said:


> If he could be sure of the nominations it would be the strongest move to make. 'Bring it on motherfuckers'.


He's not. If he were maybe, but that's what he's doing now behind a half million peopled castle. Which makes a fuck you point in itself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

if it turns out that he does need to get noms to be on the ballot, then its not likely or is it? he was the token donkey jacket to start with. No one expected a win so emphatic.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if it turns out that he does need to get noms to be on the ballot, then its not likely or is it? he was the token donkey jacket to start with. No one expected a win so emphatic.



What _are _they going to do? Let him on, and he'll win. Leave him off, and the party's even more fucked than right now.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Stupid question perhaps, but do any of the MEPs support him, or could spoiled ballot paper people support him?
Also, when do the MEPs lose their vote, is it when article 50 is triggered or only at final exit?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> What _are _they going to do? Let him on, and he'll win. Leave him off, and the party's even more fucked than right now.


Maybe plan F for fuckwits now suggests leaving him off so that he and the members are the ones forced to split off to form a new party?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 11, 2016)

A Nicola Murray moment ...surely.....but can she walk backwards.  ?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> What _are _they going to do? Let him on, and he'll win. Leave him off, and the party's even more fucked than right now.



Yes, even if he doesn't get on, MPs who wouldn't have imagined nominating him a week ago are going to be feeling pressure from their constituencies and will be aware that the consequences of not letting him stand are worse than the consequences of letting him stand. I think the NEC will get this too and will not see a point to keeping him off the ballot in the first place.


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if it turns out that he does need to get noms to be on the ballot, then its not likely or is it? he was the token donkey jacket to start with. No one expected a win so emphatic.



CLPs exerting pressure on MPs to give him their nomination maybe? Although obviously now the CLPs are dominated by the communist agitators they have a duty to ignore them.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2016)

owen smith.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> What _are _they going to do? Let him on, and he'll win. Leave him off, and the party's even more fucked than right now.


It's not their choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> owen smith.


Someone else remembers. Thank You


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 11, 2016)

Tankus said:


> A Nicola Murray moment ...surely.....but can she walk backwards.  ?



Did she mention silent bat people at any point?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 11, 2016)

(((Siadwell)))


----------



## newharper (Jul 11, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Stupid question perhaps, but do any of the MEPs support him, or could spoiled ballot paper people support him?
> Also, when do the MEPs lose their vote, is it when article 50 is triggered or only at final exit?



MEP's are there until final exit, I think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> What _are _they going to do? Let him on, and he'll win. Leave him off, and the party's even more fucked than right now.


sane people would shake hands, sit down and hammer out some ways to work together for the good of the electorate, strategies to capitalise on tory dissaray. This lot would rather just tank the party. They must know its suicide to do this sort of shit they just saw an object lesson in the destruction of the lib dems. The only reason for such wilful self destruction can come from not having far to fall. Power or no power, still got me double garage and the cars to go in it. Bunch of cunts gaming a system that affects us all


----------



## Cakes (Jul 11, 2016)

Tankus said:


> A Nicola Murray moment ...surely.....but can she walk backwards.  ?



 cringe! She's got to be hating this. Can't see her having the nerve to see it through.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 11, 2016)

Red Labour are calling shenanigans 



Wonder what they heard.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> sane people would shake hands, sit down and hammer out some ways to work together for the good of the electorate, strategies to capitalise on tory dissaray. This lot would rather just tank the party. They must know its suicide to do this sort of shit they just saw an object lesson in the destruction of the lib dems. The only reason for such wilful self destructian can come from not having far to fall. Power or no power, still got me double garage and the cars to go in it. Bunch of cunts gaming a system that affects us all


Would they? Does the record show this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Red Labour are calling shenanigans
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder what they heard.



Is any of this true? It's a load of nonsense isn't it?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 11, 2016)

There are noises.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Someone else remembers. Thank You



Siadwel still going by the way, two series on BBC Radio Wales in recent years. Neither of which I noticed in time to actually get to listen to them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Would they? Does the record show this?


which bit? the sanity part or the party tanking bit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

elbows said:


> Siadwel still going by the way, two series on BBC Radio Wales in recent years. Neither of which I noticed in time to actually get to listen to them.


Excellent - ta for info


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> which bit? the sanity part or the party tanking bit?


Any of the things that you suggest happened in the good old labour days.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

It doesn't matter how Corbyn is kept off the ballot, if it actually works then Labour end up with a leader with zero credibility, no union support and ordinary members fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. If there's a leadership election with Corbyn on the ballot, he wins by miles and his challengers are silenced and humiliated. I don't see how anyone thinks there's a good endgame for them in this, anyone except Theresa May anyway. I'm sure she's enjoying the thought of a few years' worth of PMQs where all she ever has to say is, whatever mate you couldn't even get elected by your own party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> It doesn't matter how Corbyn is kept off the ballot, if it actually works then Labour end up with a leader with zero credibility, no union support and ordinary members fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. If there's a leadership election with Corbyn on the ballot, he wins by miles and his challengers are silenced and humiliated. I don't see how anyone thinks there's a good endgame for them in this, anyone except Theresa May anyway. I'm sure she's enjoying the thought of a few years' worth of PMQs where all she ever has to say is, whatever mate you couldn't even get elected by your own party.


er...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> er...



Insightful as always.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Any of the things that you suggest happened in the good old labour days.


oh I see. Suggested nothing of the sort. Just what should happen, by honest attempts at governance. But no vote from me. Because that isn't what the party was or is. But I can't stand to see a stitch up even if its a good one. I say that having gloated at Bojo the clown wearing the thousand yard stare the other day


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> It doesn't matter how Corbyn is kept off the ballot, if it actually works then Labour end up with a leader with zero credibility, no union support and ordinary members fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. If there's a leadership election with Corbyn on the ballot, he wins by miles and his challengers are silenced and humiliated. I don't see how anyone thinks there's a good endgame for them in this, anyone except Theresa May anyway. I'm sure she's enjoying the thought of a few years' worth of PMQs where all she ever has to say is, whatever mate you couldn't even get elected by your own party.


surely the potentially good thing to come from this would be Corbyn being reelected and being able to point at that as a reason to demand a general election. He would have been elected by his party, unlike May.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> surely the potentially good thing to come from this would be Corbyn being reelected and being able to point at that as a reason to demand a general election. He would have been elected by his party, unlike May.



I meant that the anti-corbyn faction have no possibility of this ending well for them. 

Corbyn's played a blinder IMO, he's just sat there giving them all as much rope as they want to hang themselves with.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> surely the potentially good thing to come from this would be Corbyn being reelected and being able to point at that as a reason to demand a general election. He would have been elected by his party, unlike May.


Why would an internal election rcquire or support a GE?

Wt effin eff is going on with people right now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> surely the potentially good thing to come from this would be Corbyn being reelected and being able to point at that as a reason to demand a general election. He would have been elected by his party, unlike May.



May could easily remind viewers of a certain G. Brown who also ascended to the iron throne without any troublesome elections.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> May could easily remind viewers of a certain G. Brown who also ascended to the iron throne without any troublesome elections.


Not that easily. She called for a ge when Brown took over.

She is in a much stronger position to resist than a brexit pm like Leadsom would have been in, though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Wt effin eff is going on with people right now.



They have their own ideas about things?

It's frightful I know but if we were all as wise as you, who would you have to feel superior to eh?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> May could easily remind viewers of a certain G. Brown who also ascended to the iron throne without any troublesome elections.


She's missed the boat on that.

Why Theresa May should call an immediate general election


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not that easily. She called for a ge when Brown took over.



Ha, well spotted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ha, well spotted.


here's an apposite quote. A petition for a general election, anyone? Normally I think such things are a waste of time, but this is what she said about Brown:



> Yesterday in Prime Minister's questions his excuse for not calling an election was that only 26 people had signed a Downing street petition calling for one. I checked the website this morning and there are now 4,408 signatures and rising. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to give us an update on the petition every week in Prime Minister's questions?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 11, 2016)

Cakes said:


> cringe! She's got to be hating this. Can't see her having the nerve to see it through.


Its great fun though...i kind of wish it would never end

talking of which:


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2016)

In professional wrestling, there is a tradition of making the good guys look strong by having them defeat no-name wrestlers, "jobbers", and 'bad' wrestlers or "heels".

Now, Labour obviously can't guarantee Corbyn victories against Tories, the only people they can control are their own MPs. Could it be...? Is Corbyn being handed victories against jobbers such as Eagle and heels such as Benn to make him look strong? Are they creating their own icon?

Or have I just been watching too much pro-wrestling lately?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Election in November, or in May 2017 a referendum with core negotiation options, or she'll go the distance. Hard to tell really at this stage, things are changing every week.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> In professional wrestling, there is a tradition of making the good guys look strong by having them defeat no-name wrestlers, "jobbers", and 'bad' wrestlers or "heels".
> 
> Now, Labour obviously can't guarantee Corbyn victories against Tories, the only people they can control are their own MPs. Could it be...? Is Corbyn being handed victories against jobbers such as Eagle and heels such as Benn to make him look strong? Are they creating their own icon?
> 
> Or have I just been watching too much pro-wrestling lately?


No way, they'd have had about 60 rebels in that case.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2016)

Tankus said:


> A Nicola Murray moment ...surely.....but can she walk backwards.  ?




That's hilarious


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

General elections require either of:

- Motion of no confidence in the government, simple majority.
- Motion for a general election, 75% majority.

Everyone should know this by now, neither seems very likely.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> General elections require either of:
> 
> - Motion of no confidence in the government, simple majority.
> - Motion for a general election, 75% majority.
> ...


Not 75%, two thirds.


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Not 75%, two thirds. I think this applies to both, having read the law, but I'm not certain.



Sorry, yeah - brain fart. But no-confidence is definitely simple.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2016)

Yeah, misread the clauses.

Basically if the government sought to affirm its legitimacy, it could call a GE and noone would disagree. It would have to be confident of winning, but we all know how that ends up.


----------



## newbie (Jul 11, 2016)

I can't see anything in the FTPA that prevents it being repealed by a simple majority, just like any other legislation.


----------



## Cid (Jul 11, 2016)

newbie said:


> I can't see anything in the FTPA that prevents it being repealed by a simple majority, just like any other legislation.



Time. It's basically the same process for introducing new legislation (because you introduce repealing legislation).


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> In professional wrestling, there is a tradition of making the good guys look strong by having them defeat no-name wrestlers, "jobbers", and 'bad' wrestlers or "heels".
> 
> Now, Labour obviously can't guarantee Corbyn victories against Tories, the only people they can control are their own MPs. Could it be...? Is Corbyn being handed victories against jobbers such as Eagle and heels such as Benn to make him look strong? Are they creating their own icon?
> 
> Or have I just been watching too much pro-wrestling lately?



As with wrestling, so with politics - you're giving them too much credit. Angela Eagle is the Roman Reigns to Corbyn's Daniel Bryan. YES!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Its great fun though...i kind of wish it would never end
> 
> talking of which:


Maybe shes just the stooge to try and get jez off the ballot, as soon as that happens (if it does) other s will leap in. . . And they will all seem better than her.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 11, 2016)

Which makes Tom Watson a really shit Brock Lesnar, or maybe Great Khali... I too have been watching too much wrestling...


----------



## newbie (Jul 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Time. It's basically the same process for introducing new legislation (because you introduce repealing legislation).


It's going to go sometime, it may as well be now.  Cameron was always its prisoner, courtesy of Clegg, May doesn't need to be.  Reinstating the original versions of the _Succession to the Crown Act 1707_ and so on can't be that hard, if the political will is there they could do away with it relatively painlessly.


----------



## Cakes (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Its great fun though...i kind of wish it would never end
> 
> talking of which:


It's the dying of the light in her watery little eyes that gets me.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Red Labour are calling shenanigans
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder what they heard.



Can any union reps who can't attend give a proxy vote to Len McCluskey?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Sorry, yeah - brain fart. But no-confidence is definitely simple.


That would be a rather strange way of arranging an election. A Prime Minister whipping MPs to vote for no confidence in the Prime Minister... I can't see it happening.


----------



## Draygo (Jul 12, 2016)

Pissy awful stuff all this. For someone who realises the Labour Party is the _only_ way to get positive change in the country. For the PLP to pull this stunt now is a disgrace - and has directly led to Theresa May being installed as unelected PM of this country while no-one is there to object.

Corbyn is in the right on this and I pick his side in this fight. I just wish I could pick it with more enthusiasm. I agree with 84% of what he says, he *shits all over* his PLP opponents in terms of positive, progressive domestic policies. But he really isn't the leadership type, whether that's judged by internal party organisation, or reaching out to the wider public. I really wish he was, but he isn't. Give me someone with his policies, with added charisma, decisiveness,  judgement on how to appeal to the public, organisation skills and gusto... and with an added willingness to more unambiguously  disavow associations (however indirect etc.) with weird anti-semites in the past, and by god I'd be shouting in the streets with the rest of them. As it is....

So here I am on this, and I suspect a lot of others. If it's a fight between the left and the right in the party we don't need to ask which side we're on. The other side, politically, intellectually, morally, have _nothing_. 

 But it would be handy if we had a more effective leader.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Just seen this on the grauniad site - ' May has ruled out the possibility of an early general election, arguing that she was part of the Conservatives’ leading team that won a mandate last year'.  Not sure if that adds up to no election till 2020 or if it means no election till she has brexit departure terms in say 2017/18 - sounds like the former. Not sure which is worse for labour.  Election in the next few months allows them to be portrayed as (and actually be) a joke party.  Election in 2020 probably has Corbyn or approved leftish successor in charge of a more united party, but four years of disaster stories around deselctions and legal battles, right through to the chance of a split (of some sorts).  I hope Corbyn drives the cunts into the sea, but labour is fucked.

Maybe a split takes the party to a point where the left majority starts actively thinking about becoming some kind of broader force, but first past the post leaves them with no obvious way to get a majority government.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe a split takes the party to a point where the left majority starts actively thinking about becoming some kind of broader force, but first past the post leaves them with no obvious way to get a majority government.



It could be that the next few years will see a real push towards electoral reform. If Labour do split then obviously the smaller parties created would want to go for PR as an aim. So you'd have UKIP, SNP, Momentum, Progress, Lidems etc. all arguing for a more proportional system. Added to that, the very fact that Brexit can be painted as a 'new beginning' means that it just kind of makes sense to have reform once the exit has been completed.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It could be that the next few years will see a real push towards electoral reform. If Labour do split then obviously the smaller parties created would want to go for PR as an aim. So you'd have UKIP, SNP, Momentum, Progress, Lidems etc. all arguing for a more proportional system. Added to that, the very fact that Brexit can be painted as a 'new beginning' means that it just kind of makes sense to have reform once the exit has been completed.


There's a logic to all that, every bit, but who will deliver it?  Not the Tories if they win a majority in 2020.  And any broader campaign for PR comes up against the inevitable counter argument that it was rejected in 2011.  AV wasn't PR of course - another fuck up by the Libdems - but it was decisively rejected.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 12, 2016)

Draygo said:


> <snip> .
> 
> But it would be handy if we had a more effective leader.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 12, 2016)

Draygo said:


> But it would be handy if we had a more effective leader.


I like how Corbyn isn't an 'effective leader'... those leader types are a fucking menace. Hopefully Corbyn represents a move away from politics as it is done at the moment where 'leadership' is so lauded - 'leadership' so often turns out to be psychopathy.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Brother McCluskey on Radio 4 Today programme at 08:20.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Brother McCluskey on Radio 4 Today programme at 08:20.



Fuck me I hate Nick Robinson with a passion.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

And Nick Robinson tried but was unsuccessful at tripping McCluskey up.
The horrible sack of shit that Robinson is.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


>


Thanks for posting this photo of my father-in-law in his younger days, his hair is grey and thinning these days but still as militant as he ever was.
Only yesterday he told me he was willing to knock the teeth out, one at a time of every labour MP who is rebelling against Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Fuck me I hate Nick Robinson with a passion.


he's proper scum that one. Remember him trying to stitch up the lyndsey oil refinery workers on a strike by sly editing?
I thought he'd stopped doing politics for the beeb anyway. That cunt doesn't even get to mine salt. One way trip to the vets


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's proper scum that one. Remember him trying to stitch up the lyndsey oil refinery workers on a strike by sly editing?
> I thought he'd stopped doing politics for the beeb anyway. That cunt doesn't even get to mine salt. One way trip to the vets



He actually mentioned before how bad anti-Corbyn bias was at the BBC

Nick Robinson tackles anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC | Coffee House



> Over the weekend the BBC’s former political editor confessed — in an interview in the _Sunday Times_ — that he had written to several BBC colleagues over concerns that the corporation’s political coverage is biased against Jeremy Corbyn. When asked by Lynn Barber whether he was ‘shocked’ by the way the BBC ‘rubbish Jeremy Corbyn’, Robinson replied ‘yes’:



Hasn't stopped him from throwing himself into the overall push though


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Does anyone know the time of the NEC meeting or even if it will go ahead?
According to this story there may be attempts to stop it from being held due to some trade unions making a legal intervention by raising an injunction.

Jeremy Corbyn's supporters protest over Labour NEC meeting


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Does anyone know the time of the NEC meeting or even if it will go ahead?
> According to this story there may be attempts to stop it from being held due to some trade unions making a legal intervention by raising an injunction.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's supporters protest over Labour NEC meeting



2pm


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Libertad said:


> 2pm



Thanks.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> I like how Corbyn isn't an 'effective leader'...



Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM. His current leadership style is never going to win over the numbers of voters he's going to need. While you may not like the cult of leadership the harsh reality is that whoever is elected is going to have to engage with the world who absolutely do. You can hope for a new politics here but it will still need to engage with the cult of leadership worldwide.

If you want his views in power you're going to need a leader. At best his defiance is doing a service to the voice of the left and maybe helping to embed it further into a future PLP, but it would be all about whoever takes over afterwards and how much of his views they take forward to be electable.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

Draygo said:


> Pissy awful stuff all this. For someone who realises the Labour Party is the _only_ way to get positive change in the country. For the PLP to pull this stunt now is a disgrace - and has directly led to Theresa May being installed as unelected PM of this country while no-one is there to object.
> 
> Corbyn is in the right on this and I pick his side in this fight. I just wish I could pick it with more enthusiasm. I agree with 84% of what he says, he *shits all over* his PLP opponents in terms of positive, progressive domestic policies. But he really isn't the leadership type, whether that's judged by internal party organisation, or reaching out to the wider public. I really wish he was, but he isn't. Give me someone with his policies, with added charisma, decisiveness,  judgement on how to appeal to the public, organisation skills and gusto... and with an added willingness to more unambiguously  disavow associations (however indirect etc.) with weird anti-semites in the past, and by god I'd be shouting in the streets with the rest of them. As it is....
> 
> ...



Totally agree - right policies, wrong guy.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM. His current leadership style is never going to win over the numbers of voters he's going to need. While you may not like the cult of leadership the harsh reality is that whoever is elected is going to have to engage with the world who absolutely do. You can hope for a new politics here but it will still need to engage with the cult of leadership worldwide.
> 
> If you want his views in power you're going to need a leader. At best his defiance is doing a service to the voice of the left and maybe helping to embed it further into a future PLP, but it would be all about whoever takes over afterwards and how much of his views they take forward to be electable.



Polls aren't worth much I know but there was polling recently of TU membership - which represents more than Labour devotees - and he had a solid base supporting him in a GE. Especially given that, in some cases, about 40% of those asked are self confessed Tory voters.

I think his capacity to engage is underestimated, especially by those fully sold on the 'presentation' side of things. People aren't that easily led.

Either way, as you say, if you want a new, genuinely Left leader this is where the fight for one starts.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM. His current leadership style is never going to win over the numbers of voters he's going to need. While you may not like the cult of leadership the harsh reality is that whoever is elected is going to have to engage with the world who absolutely do. You can hope for a new politics here but it will still need to engage with the cult of leadership worldwide.
> 
> If you want his views in power you're going to need a leader. At best his defiance is doing a service to the voice of the left and maybe helping to embed it further into a future PLP, but it would be all about whoever takes over afterwards and how much of his views they take forward to be electable.


Is this just a gut feeling or do you have much evidence to back the view? When you look at some of the unprepossessing winners in the past I suspect if the time has come for an alternative to austerity he's as likely to get elected as the next one and may even carry a few extra votes because of.his style (not that I have any evidence either).


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

Calling Corbyn unelectable while fighting to keep him off a ballot is nonsensical



> This afternoon, the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) will meet. It is meeting with about 24 hours’ notice. After several days of refusing to communicate with Jeremy Corbyn, senior party officials cancelled a meeting of a subcommittee which would have set a date for the next NEC – likely next Tuesday – and unilaterally sent out notice of this afternoon’s proceedings. The first that the many on the left of the party knew of the arrangements for the meeting was when MPs and journalists tweeted them.  Meanwhile, the same officials are attempting to prevent Jeremy Corbyn himself from voting at, or even attending, the meeting.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

JimW said:


> Is this just a gut feeling or do you have much evidence to back the view? When you look at some of the unprepossessing winners in the past I suspect if the time has come for an alternative to austerity he's as likely to get elected as the next one and may even carry a few extra votes because of.his style (not that I have any evidence either).



In listening to reports from the current PLP carefully (on various TV interviews and radio) the issue for them (it seems) is down to style not actually the policies. Eagle on Sunday on the politics show was asked now she's contenting what the different policies she would put forward are, and she basically couldn't put any thing different forward. She tried to talk about how Corbyn isn't 'managing', staying behind closed doors, not engaging with MPs etc. He might very well be fully engaged with the grassroots and that's admirable, compared to many others, but to actually run an effective opposition you need an effective PLP, a team. Currently he can't produce one. Under Corbyn Labour is looking like a very strong pressure group that gets a lot of air-time. That needs to be translated into power at Westminster. In fairness the wins in by-elections and mayoral elections are positive, but Labour can't be run from the grassroots in Westminster.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

George Eaton has said that Corbyn is to be given automatic slot on ballot. As a result I think we have to accept that it is now over for Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> In listening to reports from the current PLP carefully (on various TV interviews and radio) the issue for them (it seems) is down to style not actually the policies. Eagle on Sunday on the politics show was asked now she's contenting what the different policies she would put forward are, and she basically couldn't put any thing different forward. She tried to talk about how Corbyn isn't 'managing', staying behind closed doors, not engaging with MPs etc. He might very well be fully engaged with the grassroots and that's admirable, compared to many others, but to actually run an effective opposition you need an effective PLP, a team. Currently he can't produce one. Under Corbyn Labour is looking like a very strong pressure group that gets a lot of air-time. That needs to be translated into power at Westminster. In fairness the wins in by-elections and mayoral elections are positive, but Labour can't be run from the grassroots in Westminster.



The objections are over policy but the PLP know they can't win on that basis so they are attempting (very, very badly) to shift the fight to more (but not very) favourable ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> In listening to reports from the current PLP carefully (on various TV interviews and radio) the issue for them (it seems) is down to style not actually the policies. Eagle on Sunday on the politics show was asked now she's contenting what the different policies she would put forward are, and she basically couldn't put any thing different forward. She tried to talk about how Corbyn isn't 'managing', staying behind closed doors, not engaging with MPs etc. He might very well be fully engaged with the grassroots and that's admirable, compared to many others, but to actually run an effective opposition you need an effective PLP, a team. Currently he can't produce one. Under Corbyn Labour is looking like a very strong pressure group that gets a lot of air-time. That needs to be translated into power at Westminster. In fairness the wins in by-elections and mayoral elections are positive, but Labour can't be run from the grassroots in Westminster.


This what the bosses say when they do a lock out isn't it?  
_
You can't live without us. 
Let's test that shall we?_


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> In listening to reports from the current PLP carefully (on various TV interviews and radio) the issue for them (it seems) is down to style not actually the policies. Eagle on Sunday on the politics show was asked now she's contenting what the different policies she would put forward are, and she basically couldn't put any thing different forward. She tried to talk about how Corbyn isn't 'managing', staying behind closed doors, not engaging with MPs etc. He might very well be fully engaged with the grassroots and that's admirable, compared to many others, but to actually run an effective opposition you need an effective PLP, a team. Currently he can't produce one. Under Corbyn Labour is looking like a very strong pressure group that gets a lot of air-time. That needs to be translated into power at Westminster. In fairness the wins in by-elections and mayoral elections are positive, but Labour can't be run from the grassroots in Westminster.



All this behind closed doors stuffs seems to refer solely to the recent coup. He stopped listening to them demanding he resign when it became clear they were wreckers. That's an ideological clash, not a failure to 'lead'. As far as those MPs loyal to him goes he seems to be doing a fine job. And as the membership backed his beliefs, not those of the coup, I'd say that they're better off leaving than he is. Plenty of people willing to do their jobs properly out there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Top of the list of constitutional changes at the extraordinary emergency AGM is removing the requirement for leader to be a PLP member and nominated solely by PLP members. (I'm not sure that last bit is the situation or not, i would expect there to be a min number of CLP nominations required as well as PLP members).


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

BLAIRITE HISTORY 

2003: Saddam is weak but also a threat, we must eliminate him 

2016: Corbyn is weak but also a threat, we must eliminate him


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 12, 2016)

Angela Eagle's press conference yesterday (first 30 seconds)



she was absolutely dreadful on radio 4 this morning. She may well win a PLP ballot, but beyond that, will be absolutely demolished in a membership vote. Moreover, it seems that her own CLP are about to pass a moyion of no confidence in her for standing.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This what the bosses say when they do a lock out isn't it?
> _
> You can't live without us.
> Let's test that shall we?_



Well ultimately he's going to have to form a shadow govt. So he does need a PLP he is properly the leader of. The fact so many of the PLP are openly against his style and say they'd never get elected as a govt. with him in place means they'd lose all cred in any future election battle. Therefore they will have to split if he wins a leadership battle - but then he STILL needs to form a shadow govt. Choosing ever junior MPs won't look good or be effective.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

Clean sweep though. Nobody associated with Blair etc.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well ultimately he's going to have to form a shadow govt. So he does need a PLP he is properly the leader of. The fact so many of the PLP are openly against his style and say they'd never get elected as a govt. with him in place means they'd lose all cred in any future election battle. Therefore they will have to split if he wins a leadership battle - but then he STILL needs to form a shadow govt. Choosing ever junior MPs won't look good or be effective.



NEC elections and conference coming up, there's no knowing yet how that will play out. Regardless of that though you can guarantee that after/if he wins a leadership vote coup supporters will pour back in. Most haven't been overly vocal in their attacks, just opportunists following the imagined tide. They may still need to go in due course but they'll do what they're told until then. The hardcore may defect or split, but that's a far smaller number and, tbh, they won't be missed. Especially when they start to lose their seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well ultimately he's going to have to form a shadow govt. So he does need a PLP he is properly the leader of. The fact so many of the PLP are openly against his style and say they'd never get elected as a govt. with him in place means they'd lose all cred in any future election battle. Therefore they will have to split if he wins a leadership battle - but then he STILL needs to form a shadow govt. Choosing ever junior MPs won't look good or be effective.


I think the draw of_ democracy has spoken gissa job _will beat any urge to put themselves out of work via a split.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well ultimately he's going to have to form a shadow govt. So he does need a PLP he is properly the leader of. The fact so many of the PLP are openly against his style and say they'd never get elected as a govt. with him in place means they'd lose all cred in any future election battle. Therefore they will have to split if he wins a leadership battle - but then he STILL needs to form a shadow govt. Choosing ever junior MPs won't look good or be effective.


Really does make you think it's time for a new PLP rather than a leader tho if all they have is these failed Blairite mantras from twenty years back.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

JimW said:


> Really does make you think it's time for a new PLP rather than a leader tho if all they have is these failed Blairite mantras from twenty years back.



It's worse than that, a lot of them seem genuinely convinced that they are still fighting the Bennites, as if the terms 'soft left' and 'hard left' aren't totally irrelevant now.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

I wonder if it was by the same people who (didn't) subject her to homophobic abuse...


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Anyone know/want to speculate what Owen Smith is up to? He was to meet with Corbyn yesterday - presumably to offer some kind of deal.

Any news of what was offered by either side (if anything) and what the outcome was?

What could he offer? Be the leftish unity candidate if Corbyn agrees to stand down?

Can’t see the point of him standing if Corbyn is on the ballot paper - would only split the non-Corbyn vote and he won't win in any case.

Been relatively impressed by Smith as a performer, certainly compared to Eagle.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Anyone know/want to speculate what Owen Smith is up to? He was to meet with Corbyn yesterday - presumably to offer some kind of deal.
> 
> Any news of what was offered by either side (if anything) and what the outcome was?
> 
> ...



Waiting for Eagle to cancel her bid and hand it over? Poorly planned opportunism? Don't see what he could have to offer Corbyn.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Anyone know/want to speculate what Owen Smith is up to? He was to meet with Corbyn yesterday - presumably to offer some kind of deal.
> 
> Any news of what was offered by either side (if anything) and what the outcome was?
> 
> ...


well yeah, i guess everyone is waiting to see if he'll be on the ballot or not


----------



## inva (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Been relatively impressed by Smith as a performer, certainly compared to Eagle.


I suppose having made no impression whatsoever is better than being an utter disaster


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Is it time to start predicting who will be the first ones to walk back their opposition to Corbyn yet?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is it time to start predicting who will be the first ones to walk back their opposition to Corbyn yet?



No names, like my MP. First big one will be Tom Watson I reckon, unless he decides to stand now. Hope he doesn't get given anything approaching power though.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> In listening to reports from the current PLP carefully (on various TV interviews and radio) the issue for them (it seems) is down to style not actually the policies. Eagle on Sunday on the politics show was asked now she's contenting what the different policies she would put forward are, and she basically couldn't put any thing different forward. She tried to talk about how Corbyn isn't 'managing', staying behind closed doors, not engaging with MPs etc. He might very well be fully engaged with the grassroots and that's admirable, compared to many others, but to actually run an effective opposition you need an effective PLP, a team. Currently he can't produce one. Under Corbyn Labour is looking like a very strong pressure group that gets a lot of air-time. That needs to be translated into power at Westminster. In fairness the wins in by-elections and mayoral elections are positive, but Labour can't be run from the grassroots in Westminster.


I don't know how much I believe about this. I have four main points:

1) Most senior and competent people don't need to see their boss more than twice a week to get on with the job. At the time when the EU referendum results were just in, multiple others had resigned and he had other appointments on the go she complained he hadn't responded to a text sent earlier that day. Sorry, but WTF? Instant availability is for infants.

2) Of course he isn't spending time with them right now, they just walked out of Shadow Cabinet and started threatening his job. He's busy helping others to do the jobs they left behind and all they want to do is shout at him to resign, that's not a productive use of his time.

3) PLP have made up plenty of stories before, who can believe them in this self-interest now?

4) The issue is style. Blairites love that Blair/Cameron style. Yes, he puts off some of their voters. He also attracts a number of people who aren't traditional die-hard Labour supporters BECAUSE of his style. Many people are sick of politicians who are self-interested, lie and spin; they want somebody trustworthy to get on with the job. Anybody can say anti austerity, the issue is who can you believe. Nobody is sure if that style is electable, it bores journalists for sure, but it really would be nice to have and it IS worth the effort.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I don't know how much I believe about this. I have four main points:
> 
> 1) Most senior and competent people don't need to see their boss more than twice a week to get on with the job. At the time when the EU referendum results were just in, multiple others had resigned and he had other appointments on the go she complained he hadn't responded to a text sent earlier that day. Sorry, but WTF? Instant availability is for infants.
> 
> ...



1. Is contestable, who knows how often, and which members felt they weren't getting enough engagement.

2. The views mentioned by Eagle I heard weren't just recent it seemed. They were mentioned in relation to the length of his leadership to date so not just about the current breakdown.

3. For sure.

4. Enough to win an election? That's going to need to win over existing Tory voters and a sizeable swing in Scotland, against a very happy Scottish electorate with their current leadership. You can have the policies but you need to get the message out with a vision that an electorate can believe in and trust you to implement, with a certain statesman-like quality that will hold its own on the foreign stage (which is largely globalist in agenda). That's difficult.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> 1. Is contestable, who knows how often, and which members felt they weren't getting enough engagement.
> 
> 2. The views mentioned by Eagle I heard weren't just recent it seemed. They were mentioned in relation to the length of his leadership to date so not just about the current breakdown.
> 
> ...



What's a 'statesman-like quality' look like then? Cameron? Blair? John Major? Thatcher? Pitt the Younger? Serious question, what image do you think is necessary for a PM? And why? And should it be? And why are people, in your view, so easily led by aesthetics?


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What's a 'statesman-like quality' look like then? Cameron? Blair? John Major? Thatcher? Pitt the Younger? Serious question, what image do you think is necessary for a PM? And why? And should it be? And why are people, in your view, so easily led by aesthetics?



That's the conundrum, it's not something you can pull out of a hat and put on. I think it comes with a person's personality. Something you either have or you don't. Other words that describe it, gravitas, will-power, immediate respect of peers, etc, etc. Being able to see the bigger picture, get people to believe in you, a calm command of events and situations.

Why is this necessary? Because as I mentioned any PM isn't just running the country they have to engage with other world leaders and represent a nation in the face of adversities and competition.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What's a 'statesman-like quality' look like then? Cameron? Blair? John Major? Thatcher? Pitt the Younger? Serious question, what image do you think is necessary for a PM? And why? And should it be? And why are people, in your view, so easily led by aesthetics?



Some rich cunt that knows how to wear a suit,   went to oxbridge,  and got A*'s in the debating society. 

If that's the kind of shit Labour are after no wonder they're doomed.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> That's the conundrum, it's not something you can pull out of a hat and put on. I think it comes with a person's personality. Something you either have or you don't.



Sounds meaningless. This is politics, not Hollywood, media managers aside most people aren't looking for the George Clooney factor, they're looking for a decent standard of living and a stable life.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

I'd rather have a kind and honest person than a spin-loving "statesman" every day of the week. At least then you know what they will do, as well as knowing they won't actively TRY to screw over the electorate.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> That's the conundrum, it's not something you can pull out of a hat and put on. I think it comes with a person's personality. Something you either have or you don't. Other words that describe it, gravitas, will-power, immediate respect of peers, etc, etc. Being able to see the bigger picture, get people to believe in you, a calm command of events and situations.


I think that is a myth that has been sold by powerful people/institutions who have a vested interest in ensuring that only a very narrow demographic is ever allowed to have any significant political power.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I'd rather have a kind and honest person than a spin-loving "statesman" every day of the week. At least then you know what they will do, as well as knowing they won't actively TRY to screw over the electorate.


 
Don't mix spin-loving with statesman. That's not what I meant.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Anyone know/want to speculate what Owen Smith is up to? He was to meet with Corbyn yesterday - presumably to offer some kind of deal.
> 
> Any news of what was offered by either side (if anything) and what the outcome was?
> 
> ...



Sponsorship from Pfizer?


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 12, 2016)

Clement Atlee was known to be very underwhelming, nicknamed Quiet Clem and roundly mocked by Churchill as "A modest man with much to be modest about."

He'd be fucked if we applied modern metrics to one of our greatest Prime Ministers...


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Don't mix spin-loving with statesman. That's not what I meant.



You haven't said what you meant though.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> 1. Is contestable, who knows how often, and which members felt they weren't getting enough engagement.
> 
> 2. The views mentioned by Eagle I heard weren't just recent it seemed. They were mentioned in relation to the length of his leadership to date so not just about the current breakdown.
> 
> ...


On point 4 - I've lost count of the number of people who say they like Corbyn from all types (except some working in finance, but fuck 'em). The sniping about showmanship is really all that seems to worry people on his electability. Your comments here read as though you think people should elect style over substance because other people are expected to like style over substance. You're basically declaring that the country is stupid and fucked. I just don't believe that; I think various MPs are, but not the citizens as a whole.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I think that is a myth that has been sold by powerful people/institutions who have a vested interest in ensuring that only a very narrow demographic is ever allowed to have any significant political power.



Well look at history, what worked? Force of personality is a truth we see in everyday life. In the office, on the factory-floor, in sports etc. We evolved as a tribal animal and tribes need leadership, it's only natural there are people who command respect and gain power. That doesn't mean they all work for good, of course not, but it's a natural order that built civilizations.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> On point 4 - I've lost count of the number of people who say they like Corbyn from all types (except some working in finance, but fuck 'em). The sniping about showmanship is really all that seems to worry people on his electability. Your comments here read as though you think people should elect style over substance because other people are expected to like style over substance. You're basically declaring that the country is stupid and fucked. I just don't believe that; I think various MPs are, but not the citizens as a whole.



No - we need both style and substance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well look at history, what worked? Force of personality is a truth we see in everyday life. In the office, on the factory-floor, in sports etc. We evolved as a tribal animal and tribes need leadership, it's only natural there are people who command respect and gain power. That doesn't mean they all work for good, of course not, but it's a natural order that built civilizations.


i think you'll find many people built civilizations, the people who developed agriculture, the people who developed writing, the people who developed religion... it's not as though one strong man developed any of these.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well look at history, what worked? Force of personality is a truth we see in everyday life. In the office, on the factory-floor, in sports etc. We evolved as a tribal animal and tribes need leadership, it's only natural there are people who command respect and gain power. That doesn't mean they all work for good, of course not, but it's a natural order that built civilizations.



What do you think leadership is? And why do you think some vague notion of historical precedent is worth mentioning? Is it because you want them to don't armour and fight it out?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

Eagle's constituency gets a brick through the window overnight - media and twitterati already blaming it on Corbyn


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> You haven't said what you meant though.



Like I said a statesman-like quality is something that is difficult to define but take a look at my reply to 'nutabowa' above where I think such qualities are inherent in certain individuals due to our tribal ancestry. If you really want to get that philosophical about it, but I don't really want to go too far down that line of discussion as it's derailing the thread.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find many people built civilizations, the people who developed agriculture, the people who developed writing, the people who developed religion... it's not as though one strong man developed any of these.



Whoever it was you can bet they had a degree in PPE though...


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Like I said a statesman-like quality is something that is difficult to define but take a look at my reply to 'nutabowa' above where I think such qualities are inherent in certain individuals due to our tribal ancestry. If you really want to get that philosophical about it, but I don't really want to go too far down that line of discussion as it's derailing the thread.



I'm sure you don't, because it's historically selective (at best) nonsense.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find many people built civilizations, the people who developed agriculture, the people who developed writing, the people who developed religion... it's not as though one strong man developed any of these.



True, but there would have been organisation to fulfil those and that would have needed leadership. For me this where you get the introduction of religious belief as that provided a lot of the glue for early civilizations, (but that's way off-thread).


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM. His current leadership style is never going to win over the numbers of voters he's going to need. While you may not like the cult of leadership the harsh reality is that whoever is elected is going to have to engage with the world who absolutely do. You can hope for a new politics here but it will still need to engage with the cult of leadership worldwide.
> 
> If you want his views in power you're going to need a leader. At best his defiance is doing a service to the voice of the left and maybe helping to embed it further into a future PLP, but it would be all about whoever takes over afterwards and how much of his views they take forward to be electable.



Former teacher wins Abergavenny Town Council's Priory ward for Labour

Friday, 8 July 2016

"FORMER teacher Tudor Thomas has won the Priory ward for Labour in a two horse race town council by-election gaining a 12 per cent majority over Tory candidate Roger Fury."

"His victory marks the first time Labour have won the seat."


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

NoBystander said:


> Former teacher wins Abergavenny Town Council's Priory ward for Labour
> 
> Friday, 8 July 2016
> 
> ...



I did say above that by-election wins and mayoral wins were good.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!

Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector. But you make your bed, you sleep in it. You fucking idiots. Look at Jeremy Hunt's smug face on the news right now. Who's responsible, Jeremy fucking Corbyn. Go, you cunt.

Face the facts. You do have to be 'effective' in order to be a leader. It's not a joke and doesn't deserve a  We are all going to suffer from this man's sheer arrogance and refusal to leave.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I'm sure you don't, because it's historically selective (at best) nonsense.



Would you deny there are natural born leaders? Of course not. That's all I'm referring to, it's difficult to quantify but you must have met them in life, I certainly have. Not saying that's all you need and without it a majority voice can be enough, but it certainly helps, and on a world stage it's what you're going to come up against.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> True, but there would have been organisation to fulfil those and that would have needed leadership. For me this where you get the introduction of religious belief as that provided a lot of the glue for early civilizations, (but that's way off-thread).


leadership is not a prerequisite for organisation


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!
> 
> Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector. But you make your bed, you sleep in it. You fucking idiots. Look at Jeremy Hunt's smug face on the news right now. Who's responsible, Jeremy fucking Corbyn. Go, you cunt.
> 
> Face the facts. You do have to be 'effective' in order to be a leader. It's not a joke and doesn't deserve a  We are all going to suffer from this man's sheer arrogance and refusal to leave.



lol m8


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

Looking at other historical requirements for leadership I doubt Corbyn could beat Burnham in single combat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Clement Atlee was known to be very underwhelming, nicknamed Quiet Clem and roundly mocked by Churchill as "A modest man with much to be modest about."
> 
> He'd be fucked if we applied modern metrics to one of our greatest Prime Ministers...


now known as clem the gem. Vindicated by history


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!
> 
> Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector. But you make your bed, you sleep in it. You fucking idiots. Look at Jeremy Hunt's smug face on the news right now. Who's responsible, Jeremy fucking Corbyn. Go, you cunt.
> 
> Face the facts. You do have to be 'effective' in order to be a leader. It's not a joke and doesn't deserve a  We are all going to suffer from this man's sheer arrogance and refusal to leave.



Oh fuck off you tedious arrogant cunt. You've nothing to contribute beyond your own tiresome love of your own words.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> leadership is not a prerequisite for organisation



But it's going to help though, a lot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2016)

JimW said:


> Looking at other historical requirements for leadership I doubt Corbyn could beat Burnham in single combat.


never underestimate skinny angry people. Burnhams a big man but he's out of shape


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> never underestimate skinny angry people. Burnhams a big man but he's out of shape


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Would you deny there are natural born leaders? Of course not. That's all I'm referring to, it's difficult to quantify but you must have met them in life, I certainly have. Not saying that's all you need and without it a majority voice can be enough, but it certainly helps, and on a world stage it's what you're going to come up against.



Democracy, even our muted version of it, doesn't function through vague notions of strongmen though. Was Cameron a statesman? How about Obama? The former's out of a job, the latter spent most of his time being cornered and neutered by his opposition. We're not on the field of combat anymore, looking the part matters less than having the acumen and belief to act.


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I did say above that by-election wins and mayoral wins were good.



You also said "Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM."

Choose one.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Would you deny there are natural born leaders? Of course not. That's all I'm referring to, it's difficult to quantify but you must have met them in life, I certainly have. Not saying that's all you need and without it a majority voice can be enough, but it certainly helps, and on a world stage it's what you're going to come up against.


Sorry but you are still talking just about showmanship without sufficient regard for ethics. Calm, honest people can and do lead people perfectly well all the time, I could cite you plenty of examples from normal life. Some people are attracted by jokes and looks, others by substance; delivery, integrity and intent. You say you want both. You can't have that right now, Dennis Skinner is too old for the job (and always preferred the rebel role anyway). Spin and showmanship have had more than enough chances recently, time for substance to take a shot.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Go, you cunt.


Could easily be applied to _you_. On your bike.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

NoBystander said:


> You also said "Therefore you will have to be happy with him not being elected as PM."
> 
> Choose one.



I don't see a viable one right now.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Oh fuck off you tedious arrogant cunt. You've nothing to contribute beyond your own tiresome love of your own words.



So you're mindlessly supporting a completely unelectable dickhead who doesn't seem to give a shit that the Tories will keep getting elected while he's at the helm? And I use that term loosely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> So you're mindlessly supporting a completely unelectable dickhead who doesn't seem to give a shit that the Tories will keep getting elected while he's at the helm? And I use that term loosely.


Did you ever buy that house?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Could easily be applied to _you_. On your bike.



Easy question. If there *was* a general election, do you think Corbyn would win?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Like I said a statesman-like quality is something that is difficult to define but take a look at my reply to 'nutabowa' above where I think such qualities are inherent in certain individuals due to our tribal ancestry. If you really want to get that philosophical about it, but I don't really want to go too far down that line of discussion as it's derailing the thread.


Is this your idea of a statesman?






Let's have a caudillo running the country!

"Tribal ancestry"... ffs.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

The plotters are the professional politicians, not ideological ones, fundamentally concerned about electability so forever moving towards _the middle ground_ rather than trying to shift the narrative leftwards. Corbyn et al have consistently opposed them and since he was elected have concentrated on doing just that.  Successfully I think- May would have made a very different speech yesterday if Kendall was leader of the opposition.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Easy question. If there *was* a general election, do you think Corbyn would win?


Predictable reply. Why is "was" in quotation marks?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> So you're mindlessly supporting a completely unelectable dickhead who doesn't seem to give a shit that the Tories will keep getting elected while he's at the helm? And I use that term loosely.



So that's you attempting to contribute is it? Why bother.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> So that's you attempting to contribute is it? Why bother.



Good point, well made. 

You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Predictable reply. Why is "was" in quotation marks?



So, simple question and you can't even answer it?

Those weren't quotation marks btw, for the pedant in me.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Sorry but you are still talking just about showmanship without sufficient regard for ethics. Calm, honest people can and do lead people perfectly well all the time, I could cite you plenty of examples from normal life. Some people are attracted by jokes and looks, others by substance; delivery, integrity and intent. You say you want both. You can't have that right now, Dennis Skinner is too old for the job (and always preferred the rebel role anyway). Spin and showmanship have had more than enough chances recently, time for substance to take a shot.



Well, exactly, we can't have both right now, hence the mess we are in otherwise that person would shine out like a beacon. So yes we have to get on with best we can and as mentioned Corbyn's voice is good at embedding a left view back into the Labour mainstream but that's all. For now though that might be ok compared to damaging splits etc.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Good point, well made.
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.



All you've done is insult people, what response do you expect?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I don't see a viable one right now.


Perhaps this caudillo is more to your tastes?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> So, simple question and you can't even answer it?
> 
> Those weren't quotation marks btw, for the pedant in me.


Is that the best you can do? "I demand you answer my question or I'll stamp my feet". Well, go on, stamp your lickle feet.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Is this your idea of a statesman?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that's a dictator. That's very different. That's an asshole.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> All you've done is insult people, what response do you expect?



You're presumably avoiding my question as to whether Corbyn would win a GE?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> No, that's a dictator. That's very different. That's an asshole.


Some would call him a statesman. He possessed all the leadership qualities you apparently seek.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're presumably avoiding my question as to whether Corbyn would win a GE?


You're a tedious wee shite, aren't you?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well, exactly, we can't have both right now, hence the mess we are in otherwise *that person would shine out like a beacon.* So yes we have to get on with best we can and as mentioned Corbyn's voice is good at embedding a left view back into the Labour mainstream but that's all. For now though that might be ok compared to damaging splits etc.



How many 100ks have joined the labour party since JC got on the ballot last year?  Seems like a pretty shiny beacon to me.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're presumably avoiding my question as to whether Corbyn would win a GE?



You seriously expect real responses when you insult everyone? Especially to questions where the answer is so blindingly obvious?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.

Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.


Yes


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.


 Yes, this is going to happen. I have extremely strong prior form for predicting these things correctly too in case you weren't aware.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.



Do you think either Angela Eagle or Owen Smith are?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this, but the timing of it seems very fishy - my mrs is a member in Manchester, and her CLP has just been suspended - she had an email this morning, the relevant lines are below: 

_Over recent weeks, a number of complaints have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Labour Party about Manchester Gorton Constituency Labour Party.

For that reason, the chair of the Disputes Panel of the NEC has decided that Manchester Gorton CLP is to be suspended pending a full investigation. I have been appointed by the General Secretary to conduct the investigation. For the duration of the suspension, no meetings of the CLP or any of its branches will be taking place.
_
It seems very odd this happening today, of all days - coincidence or something more dubious?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

Anyway, cant be arsed. Have one of these  and enjoy the next ten years of Theresa May and Osborne. Gonna be a blast.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.



That's me done with you. Think about how you act, see if you can figure out why.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Anyway, cant be arsed. Have one of these  and enjoy the next ten years of Theresa May and Osborne. Gonna be a blast.



I just don't think the people will stomach Tories in power that much longer. They've been ruling this country since 1979, more or less. Something's got to give.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread to post this, but the timing of it seems very fishy - my mrs is a member in Manchester, and her CLP has just been suspended - she had an email this morning, the relevant lines are below:
> 
> _Over recent weeks, a number of complaints have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Labour Party about Manchester Gorton Constituency Labour Party.
> 
> ...


there are no coincidences at the moment just politics in its purest form.

Is this all over the twitter machine, have any other CLPs been suspended?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread to post this, but the timing of it seems very fishy - my mrs is a member in Manchester, and her CLP has just been suspended - she had an email this morning, the relevant lines are below:
> 
> _Over recent weeks, a number of complaints have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Labour Party about Manchester Gorton Constituency Labour Party.
> 
> ...



Christalmighty.  Does your missus have any idea what the suspension is about? 


In other news.  Iain McNicol (gen.secreaty of CLP) has been sent a scary legal letter by Corbo or his mates. 

Letter in the link

Legal letter to NEC chief over Labour leadership rules


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Oddly enough, the labour people i have seen on twitter have suggested it's the oppositions behaviour that had led to the suspension.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Do you think either Angela Eagle or Owen Smith are?


Hahahahahahaha


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.


Hello MarkyMark


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> So, simple question and you can't even answer it?
> 
> Those weren't quotation marks btw, for the pedant in me.


The correct grammar would actually have been *were to be*.

Posted only to amuse the pedant in me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Hello MarkyMark


He's a graphic designer this time. Last time it was HR/personnel.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Well it appears to be what Blair wants:

Tony Blair says he wouldn’t want a left-wing Labour party to win an


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Burnham is panicking. 



More plotting. This time from our glorious leaders.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Burnham is panicking.
> 
> 
> 
> More plotting. This time from our glorious leaders.




How many times and ways are they going to shift the goalposts?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> How many times and ways are they going to shift the goalposts?


As many times as they think they can get away with it. They have no shame and it's all so utterly transparent.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

The whole party's fucked now. If I was May, I'd call a General Election ASAP - sweep up a bigger majority, let the Lib Dems recover and fuck Labour permanently.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> The whole party's fucked now. If I was May, I'd call a General Election ASAP - sweep up a bigger majority, let the Lib Dems recover and fuck Labour permanently.



She'd need the support of 2/3rds of the HoC though. The labour webels might like it as a way of shifting Corbyn, but they're also vulnerable to deselection at the moment.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Yeah but then again, no.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> She'd need the support of 2/3rds of the HoC though. The labour webels might like it as a way of shifting Corbyn, but they're also vulnerable to deselection at the moment.



Snap election means no re-selection meeting, incumbents stand - like Corbyn for the leadership 

They might do it, just to ensure Corbyn loses the election and then has to go.


----------



## extra dry (Jul 12, 2016)

Markymark has been promoted by the powers t' be


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> The labour webels might like it as a way of shifting Corbyn



Do you think anything as minor as a General Election loss would shift him?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Do you think anything as minor as a General Election loss would shift him?



Funny how people who wouldn't vote Labour in the first place have such strong opinions about the necessity of the electability of the leader of Labour.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

If I were a Tory and I genuinely thought the things that Tories say they think about Corbyn then I would either keep my mouth shut or be absolutely thrilled. None of the 'this is dangerous for democracy' crap. Truth is of course that they know there is every chance that the Corbyn project might not fail.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is it time to start predicting who will be the first ones to walk back their opposition to Corbyn yet?


"Erm, hi Jeremy, look I know some things were said, but I'm really struggling with the kids school fees now I've gone back to the back benches.  If there's anything, I'll take anything really.  Water Carrier Without Portfolio would be just fine?"


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Eagle's constituency gets a brick through the window overnight - media and twitterati already blaming it on Corbyn


It's the brick of historical inevitability.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



see also: Don Logan


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> The whole party's fucked now. If I was May, I'd call a General Election ASAP - sweep up a bigger majority, let the Lib Dems recover and fuck Labour permanently.



That's not going to happen. As it stands she's got until 2020, a GE win now only buys her another year and that's not worth the risk of losing her majority.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

I reckon her majority would increase running up against the current lot.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!
> 
> Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector. But you make your bed, you sleep in it. You fucking idiots. Look at Jeremy Hunt's smug face on the news right now. Who's responsible, Jeremy fucking Corbyn. Go, you cunt.
> 
> Face the facts. You do have to be 'effective' in order to be a leader. It's not a joke and doesn't deserve a  We are all going to suffer from this man's sheer arrogance and refusal to leave.



So you decided not to respond to any of my points preferring to carry on stamping your foot and doing the shouty swearing thing. Good for you.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> I reckon her majority would increase running up against the current lot.



But would you bet your shiny new job as prime minister on it?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> But would you bet your shiny new job as prime minister on it?



I would if Labour are in a position that's even weaker than they were last May


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively *members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories*. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Not content with your previous 'he's got no policies' lie, you now come up with this rubbish. Do you follow the 'big lie' approach to telling porkies?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> I reckon her majority would increase running up against the current lot.



She might as well do the boundary changes first as it will make Labour's hole about 20 seats deeper.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Balbi said:


> The whole party's fucked now. If I was May, I'd call a General Election ASAP - sweep up a bigger majority, let the Lib Dems recover and fuck Labour permanently.


That's probably true, though she appears to have ruled out doing it (a snippet I posted up yesterday from the grauniad).  As a steady the ship PM she will probably run through to 2020 or just might put the results of the EU departure deal to a general election before then (very much looks like 2020 though).  That gives Labour some time to sort their shit out, but may well just lead to 4 years of writs and splits.  I'm not joining up with the trolls on this thread with their 'labour are fucked' line, but to be honest that is the logic of what's happening to the party. It's the logic of how you play the game of conventional party politics. Labour/Corbyn's problem is that they don't seem to be able to play a different game (in part, because of the shitstorm stirred up by the Blairites).


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Easy question. If there *was* a general election, do you think Corbyn would win?


Yes.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 12, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Yes.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> She might as well do the boundary changes first as it will make Labour's hole about 20 seats deeper.


That, plus it almost guarantees extra UKIP seats because of the referendum impact and "backsliding" fears, nobody wants that.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

> Brick thrown through window of MP’s office following launch of campaign to unseat Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> The police are here. They’re going to look at our security measures because I think we need to have increased security measures,” she told the Liverpool Echo.
> “I think that all of this violence needs to stop. We can’t live in a society that’s divided by hatred like this,” she said. “I’m calling for people to stop this violence and the bad behaviour and let’s just get behind whatever leader you choose.”
> ...



Who on earth is doing this?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Who on earth is doing this?



Why do you think it is useful to speculate about that?


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

Its bloody awful thats why.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Who on earth is doing this?



Someone who has misread deselection for defenestration perhaps?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?


You can always tell when someone has lost an argument when they resort to "when people do one thing they are actually doing the opposite".

When people vote for Corbyn maybe they want him to win. Did you ever consider that?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Its bloody awful thats why.



I can't see anything good coming out of it at this juncture, no. But I doubt that anyone on here would know the perpetrators.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Who on earth is doing this?


Andy Burnham, aided and abetted by Peter Mandelson + Blair?

Oh wait, you meant the brick.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I can't see anything good coming out of it at this juncture, no. But I doubt that anyone on here would know the perpetrators.



I can easily believe that it might be pro-Corbyn people, I can also easily believe it's anti-Corbyn people. Honestly though it's just a window, isn't it? If we weigh up the total damage inflicted by legislation supported by Angela Eagle a broken window seems a lot less significant.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

There's violent dicks on all sides, and tempers are running high atm. It's hardly surprising - this was in the morning star this morning... http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d9b4-Labour-right-thugs-threaten-own-side#.V4TvhXRwbqD


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

(Posters may spot a familiar face in the story too)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> (Posters may spot a familiar face in the story too)


Is it Steelgate?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> (Posters may spot a familiar face in the story too)


Note his insistence that his job and importance is noted.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

If this is true then Old Corbo may have it in the bag.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

I am reminded also of his threat to _escalate matters_ and_ punch goth scrotes._


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

Given that it was reported that two of them were on holiday and one was ill, that means at least one of them raced back from holiday plus an ill person turned out or both returned from holiday. Well done whoever they are, that's exceptional commitment.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> There's violent dicks on all sides, and tempers are running high atm. It's hardly surprising - this was in the morning star this morning... Labour right thugs threaten own side


On the bright side, it sounds like the Brighton CLP is now for Corbyn!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> On the bright side, it sounds like the Brighton CLP is now for Corbyn!



The yogurt weaving Cllrs certainly ain't !


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Angela fucking Eagle....hahahahahaha 

#blokeshaircutandafacelikeaslappedarse#cringe#argh


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The yogurt weaving Cllrs certainly ain't !



There were some glum faces at the AGM(s)...but a lot more happy ones...and overall a lot more good humour than I expected.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> #blokeshaircutandafacelikeaslappedarse#cringe#argh



 hashtags with personal insults , really ?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

#yeahreally


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Angela fucking Eagle....hahahahahaha
> 
> #blokeshaircutandafacelikeaslappedarse#cringe#argh


jesus.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're presumably avoiding my question as to whether Corbyn would win a GE?


You do remember pre corbyn labour were unelectable dont you. why do you think a swing back to that is the way forward. feel free to actually answer a question for a change. go on, try it, you might surprise yourself.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Angela fucking Eagle....hahahahahaha
> 
> #*blokeshaircutandafacelikeaslappedarse*#cringe#argh



Is that it? It was piss poor when Red Devil did and it hasn't got any better.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can easily believe that it might be pro-Corbyn people, I can also easily believe it's anti-Corbyn people. Honestly though it's just a window, isn't it? If we weigh up the total damage inflicted by legislation supported by Angela Eagle a broken window seems a lot less significant.



It's a dick with a brick . Could be anyone for any reason .


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> #yeahreally



It makes you look a twat.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Good of cr to remind us he's a weird homophobe.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Is that it? It was piss poor when Red Devil did and it hasn't got any better.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



It's from directly off her Facebook page. It's what the general public are saying about her " credibility " and  " electability " .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

#crymeafuckingriver


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

There's plenty to insult the Eagle on regarding her actions, voting record, strategic ignorance, stupidity, corbyn betrayal, naivety, self-aggrandizement, poor sense of timing, incomprehensible choices in branding, lack of understanding of the public mood, inability to listen etc etc etc. Getting through that lot properly, it should take decades before we need to plunge the depths where her looks are the best point of criticism. She has potentially a matter of hours left in the running and months in her job, might as well stick to the basics.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!
> 
> Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector.



Like what happened under the Blairites, you fucking tool?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Prove that is actually happening on a significant level.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> There's plenty to insult the Eagle on regarding her actions, voting record, strategic ignorance, stupidity, corbyn betrayal, naivety, self-aggrandizement, poor sense of timing, incomprehensible choices in branding, lack of understanding of the public mood, inability to listen etc etc etc. Getting through that lot properly, it should take decades before we need to plunge the depths where her looks are the best point of criticism. She has potentially a matter of hours left in the running and months in her job, might as well stick to the basics.



That is a fair point and well put


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> It's from directly off her Facebook page. It's what the general public are saying about her " credibility " and  " electability " .



There's all sorts on her facebook page. You chose that. I'm glad that from your reply to WB, that you seem to have though better of it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Prove that is actually happening on a significant level.



Prove Eagle..a woman whos lost a vote of confidence by her own CLP ....currently struggling ...failing...to whip up interest in a gig that's now been demoted to a public library..stands a cats chance of winning in a GE. Representing a political brand..extremely badly...that hasn't won an election since the Spice Girls were fashionable.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There's all sorts on her facebook page. You chose that. I'm glad that from your reply to WB, that you seem to have though better of it.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I'm glad your glad

And I hope your little tag line affectations very glad too


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Given that it was reported that two of them were on holiday and one was ill, that means at least one of them raced back from holiday plus an ill person turned out or both returned from holiday. Well done whoever they are, that's exceptional commitment.



Apparently it's the GMBrep not there as admitted to hospital yesterday.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Apparently it's the GMBrep not there as admitted to hospital yesterday.


Wishing them a speedy recovery then. How vile of Watson and co to use hospitalisation as an "aha, we can just about swing the numbers" event.
Now I'm worried they did something to the GMB rep.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Wishing them a speedy recovery then. How vile of Watson and co to use hospitalisation as an "aha, we can just about swing the numbers" event.
> Now I'm worried they did something to the GMB rep.



As with a lot of things like this, it's not like you can say 'this is the worst thing they have done'


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

I've put this elsewhere. Unconfirmed but:


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I've put this elsewhere. Unconfirmed but:


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Given that it was reported that two of them were on holiday and one was ill, that means at least one of them raced back from holiday plus an ill person turned out or both returned from holiday. Well done whoever they are, that's exceptional commitment.


When Labour had no majority in the 70s I remember tales of MPs being brought to vote on stretchers. Glad to see the Party is recovering its sense of drama.   In the Blair years the dilemma would have been when the Price Waterhouse AGM fell on the same day as the Shadow Cabinet meetings.

Edit: slightly bad taste, I hadn't seen that whoever it was had been hospitalised when I posted. Hope they are ok.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 12, 2016)

Hmmm, Crick said 2mins ago that the meeting could go on till 6pm...

Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) on Twitter


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> well yeah, i guess everyone is waiting to see if he'll be on the ballot or not



If Corbyn's on the ballot paper Smith possibly running for deputy as a way of getting rid of Watson in return for a promise from Corbyn for something in the future?

If Corbyn isn't on the ballot paper then run for leader to block Eagle - again with Corbyn's support*?

* Must declare an interest - have dog in the race as backed Smith @ 60/1 to be leader when all this kicked off.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> If Corbyn's on the ballot paper possibly challenge for deputy as a way of getting rid of Watson in return for a promise from Corbyn for something in the future?


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Sorry - DP


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


>


Although also this:


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Hmmm, Crick said 2mins ago that the meeting could go on till 6pm...
> 
> Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) on Twitter


Indeed. I'm  seeing others say that too.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 12, 2016)

Angela Eagle says that Corbyn needs to take control of his supporters to stop bullying.
I put it to her that she should take control of Tessa Jowell to stop the invention of homophobic abuse and subsequent slurring of her (Eagle's) CLP.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Given that it was reported that two of them were on holiday and one was ill, that means at least one of them raced back from holiday plus an ill person turned out or both returned from holiday. Well done whoever they are, that's exceptional commitment.



The one not attending is the GMB rep who is seriously ill in hospital. Sterling job from the other two,  rushing back from hols abroad.


----------



## hipipol (Jul 12, 2016)

This is merely a mini Brexit vote
"We don't like Corbyn"...

Then again, what they don't say but must surely realise, we don't really have anyone or any new ideas to replace him with - sorry angela, don't see the skillz in you either


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Which, i would think, means a load of procedural last chance  desperate bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

hipipol said:


> This is merely a mini Brexit vote
> "We don't like Corbyn"...
> 
> Then again, what they don't say but must surely realise, we don't really have anyone or any new ideas to replace him with - sorry angela, don't see the skillz in you either


Oh god, not you.


----------



## hipipol (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, not you.


Sadly yes
I have been trying to stay away, but I missed your loving comments so much.,.........


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Angela Eagle says that Corbyn needs to take control of his supporters to stop bullying.
> I put it to her that she should take control of Tessa Jowell to stop the invention of homophobic abuse and subsequent slurring of her (Eagle's) CLP.



and indeed the not insignificant unreported on by still existing bullying from the right of the party


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Angela fucking Eagle....hahahahahaha
> 
> #blokeshaircutandafacelikeaslappedarse#cringe#argh


1972 called again and asked for its lame sexist insults back.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Seen some decent (read: Corbyn backing) MPs on Twitter preemptively telling people not to quit if it's a screwjob. Hedging their bets more than inside knowledge I think. What they expect to recover if this goes wrong I'm not sure.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The one not attending is the GMB rep who is seriously ill in hospital. Sterling job from the other two,  rushing back from hols abroad.


Does the NEC refund their travel expenses? If not, does anyone know how we can arrange contributions to ensure they aren't left out of pocket?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Seen some decent (read: Corbyn backing) MPs on Twitter preemptively telling people not to quit if it's a screwjob. Hedging their bets more than inside knowledge I think. What they expect to recover if this goes wrong I'm not sure.



Owen Jones said exactly the same thing which is a bit fucking rich considering he already knifed Corbyn


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Don't quit the Labour Party just to spite me! It's exactly what I want!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

So, did we unravel whether this was a scheduled NEC meeting or one triggered by Eagle's nomination papers.  I'm assuming the latter, given the machinations over the amount of notice.... and if so, is this down to NcNicol? 

p.s. guardian now saying it will be a secret ballot in the NEC as to whether corbyn gets on the leadership ballot.  Less good for him.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Seen some decent (read: Corbyn backing) MPs on Twitter preemptively telling people not to quit if it's a screwjob. Hedging their bets more than inside knowledge I think. What they expect to recover if this goes wrong I'm not sure.


I'd guess that:
1) They have no intention of serving a traitor anyway, and more importantly
2) The legal challenge is not considered to be an idle threat but has been agreed by (some of?) Shadow Cabinet.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

Times journo saying it'll be a secret ballot.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> (Posters may spot a familiar face in the story too)





danny la rouge said:


> Is it Steelgate?


Harsh


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

... and, presumably, both sides off to see their QC tomorrow morning.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Times journo saying it'll be a secret ballot.



yep on - Guardian also:

*NEC to hold secret ballot on Corbyn's inclusion in leadership contest*
The NEC is holding a secret ballot on whether Jeremy Corbyn gets included in the ballot, *George Eaton *reports.

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton)July 12, 2016
Secret ballot at NEC meeting. This has long given Corbyn's opponents hope.

This increases the chance of the NEC voting against Corbyn automatically being excluded on the ballot.

(He would still be able to be a candidate if he could get the 51 nominations from MPs or MEPs, but it thought that he would find this impossible.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

How fucking greasy is it that a secret ballot changes things?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Maybe they are scared of getting bricks through their windows


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Maybe they are scared of getting bricks through their windows


Cuboid expressions of proletarian rage, if you will


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

It's a ballot about a ballot


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Can we crowdfund a brick?  Be like one of the charity drives.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Maybe they are scared of getting bricks through their windows



Bulk orders for bricks going into B&Q?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

From the LP web pages: 'The NEC is structured so as to *represent* all key stakeholders in the party.'

As representatives they have to be accountable for their decisions, and to be accountable, those they're accountable to have to know what those decisions are. It's why we can see MPs' voting records.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Can we crowdfund a brick?  Be like one of the charity drives.



Aim higher, let's get a pallet of them and drop it down from a great height.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Much to the annoyance of the media I suppose. Less stories.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> yep on - Guardian also:
> 
> *NEC to hold secret ballot on Corbyn's inclusion in leadership contest*
> The NEC is holding a secret ballot on whether Jeremy Corbyn gets included in the ballot, *George Eaton *reports.
> ...


I'm unclear why this should make a difference. Who is it who's expected to switch sides because the ballot is secret?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I'm unclear why this should make a difference. Who is it who's expected to switch sides because the ballot is secret?


Cowards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cowards.


Liars


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I'm unclear why this should make a difference. Who is it who's expected to switch sides because the ballot is secret?



May not be about switching sides but more about those voting to keep JC off the ballot paper fearing retribution.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cowards.



Was just going to post exactly this!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

This fucking twat 

First against the wall. Him, Dan Hodges and McTernan. 

I need a Needle.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Much to the annoyance of the media I suppose. Less stories.




When faced with wreckers, unelectable leaders, entrysists, infiltrators and double agents they'll at least be able to tell their kids they took part in a secret ballot at a rigged meeting after all else failed. Will be a badge of honour as high as fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Hope someone's stitching together a banner in their honour.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cowards.


That's a secret. (touches nose)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I'm unclear why this should make a difference. Who is it who's expected to switch sides because the ballot is secret?



Anybody who is able to be got at with either promises or threats, and can then deny responsibility...'I voted in the best interests of the Party  as I have always done and as I will always do'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


>




Should offer to leave if they all come to the carpark with him, would be a fairer process.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Secret ballots were introduced to stop strike action carried through a 'show of hands'
A oft used tool in the bosses toolkit.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

The vote will now be presumably 17-15 against corbyn.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> So, did we unravel whether this was a scheduled NEC meeting or one triggered by Eagle's nomination papers.  I'm assuming the latter, given the machinations over the amount of notice.... and if so, is this down to NcNicol?
> 
> p.s. guardian now saying it will be a secret ballot in the NEC as to whether corbyn gets on the leadership ballot.  Less good for him.



This was not a scheduled meeting. Apparently some NEC members first heard about it via twitter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> When faced with wreckers, unelectable leaders, entrysists, infiltrators and double agents they'll at least be able to tell their kids they took part in a secret ballot at a rigged meeting after all else failed. Will be a badge of honour as high as fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Hope someone's stitching together a banner in their honour.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Much to the annoyance of the media I suppose. Less stories.





So 17-15 to keep him off the ballot?




brogdale said:


>




doesn't he get a vote?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Can we crowdfund a brick?  Be like one of the charity drives.


_Mobfunding_ has a nice ring to it. Or _KickWanker._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>



tbh if he's on the nec then surely he should be in the room and if he's not on the nec they should have a dam' good reason why he isn't


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

Now it's getting interesting:

According to Channel 4 News’ *Michael Crick*, Jeremy Corbyn is now refusing to leave the room. As Labour leader Corbyn has a seat on the NEC, but some members think he should have to recuse himself when his situation is being discussed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Courts. Only ever going to be.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Anybody who is able to be got at with either promises or threats, and can then deny responsibility...'I voted in the best interests of the Party  as I have always done and as I will always do'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I think if NEC members were asked how they voted those supporting JC would be happy to give a straight answer.

You could draw your own conclusions about those who refuse to answer the question by saying, for example "it's a secret ballot" or some similar bollocks.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So 17-15 to keep him off the ballot?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Secret vote. I can only guess he won't leave the room because he doesn't believe what will go on behind closed doors will be honest.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh if he's on the nec then surely he should be in the room and if he's not on the nec they should have a dam' good reason why he isn't



'We don't want him here' - a reason that's carried them this far.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I can only guess he won't leave the room because he doesn't believe what will go on behind closed doors will be honest.



Now why would he have any cause to think that?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Anybody who is able to be got at with either promises or threats, and can then deny responsibility...'I voted in the best interests of the Party  as I have always done and as I will always do'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Who can tell how they voted if it's threats though? Secret and all...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Now it's getting interesting:
> 
> According to Channel 4 News’ *Michael Crick*, Jeremy Corbyn is now refusing to leave the room. As Labour leader Corbyn has a seat on the NEC, but some members think he should have to recuse himself when his situation is being discussed.


That's all MPs gone then. Having an interest in the result ffs.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now why would he have any cause to think that?



Fuck knows. Maybe God's giving him instructions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

I kinda wish I'd joined the labour party last week so I could cut up my membership card and send it back to them this week.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Fucking repellent process.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

I can't believe that Corbyn is refusing to leave. He really is tenacious, none of these cowards would ever have the nerve to stand their ground like this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

empty fucking room


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Courts. Only ever going to be.



Bad news for everyone then.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh if he's on the nec then surely he should be in the room and if he's not on the nec they should have a dam' good reason why he isn't


I hope he has a bodyguard with him.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> So, did we unravel whether this was a scheduled NEC meeting or one triggered by Eagle's nomination papers.  I'm assuming the latter, given the machinations over the amount of notice.... and if so, is this down to NcNicol?
> 
> p.s. guardian now saying it will be a secret ballot in the NEC as to whether corbyn gets on the leadership ballot.  Less good for him.



The scheduled meeting was in a weeks time . It's looking more and more like its a fix. Media knew the date days before meeting was even called. Secret ballot stinks of skulduggery . McNichol certainly behind it . Rumours were even floated Corbyn himself mightn't be eligible to attend . Indicating that was considered .


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Now it's getting interesting:
> 
> According to Channel 4 News’ *Michael Crick*, Jeremy Corbyn is now refusing to leave the room. As Labour leader Corbyn has a seat on the NEC, but some members think he should have to recuse himself when his situation is being discussed.


He's Leader until he is actually replaced, this is ridiculous.

Primary school bullies behave with more dignity.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Who can tell how they voted if it's threats though? Secret and all...


The Red Tory quisling fucks will be the ones wearing the Mark of Cain on their weasel faces.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

How long will the legal fight take?


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Bad news for everyone then.



Not for m'learned friends although I guess someone will be happy to represent JC on a _pro bono_ basis.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> How long will the legal fight take?


19 years. And 2 weeks.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Not for m'learned friends although I guess someone will be willing to represent JC on a _pro bono_ basis.



I am sure Unite and the other unions will be arranging for those barristers at Thompsons to represent.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Is this gonna drag on all Summer without a result?


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I am sure Unite and the other unions will be arranging for those barristers at Thompsons to represent.



Yes - hadn't thought of that! But may be ultra vires issues?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is this gonna drag on all Summer without a result?


Yup.  If it's one thing we know about Corbyn he has a *very* fucking good instinct for legalities.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 12, 2016)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGH.

Why can't they just fuck off to the Lib Dems already? 

Sorry. Feeling frustrated.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> _Mobfunding_ has a nice ring to it. Or _KickWanker._


Wiseguys for Corbo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wiseguys for Corbo.


corleones for corbyn


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Let's say the NEC vote to keep JC off the ballot paper. What happens next - does the leadership election proceed? Does JC seek an injunction to stop it going ahead pending a full hearing?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

They are scum . Utter scum. Known this for decades but their capacity for scumminess remains no less staggering .


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGH.
> 
> Why can't they just fuck off to the Lib Dems already?
> 
> Sorry. Feeling frustrated.



Whole thing is genuinely sickening, isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Let's say the NEC vote to keep JC off the ballot paper. What happens next - does the leadership election proceed? Does JC seek an injunction to stop it going ahead pending a full hearing?


we take a trip to aldwych


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

I wonder if Blair or his alter ego Mandelson are lurking nearby sniggering to themselves.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGH.
> 
> Why can't they just fuck off to the Lib Dems already?
> 
> Sorry. Feeling frustrated.



Look on the bright side, however this plays out more than one of these people will end up out of a job. Just a shame it might be due to the death of the party.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

*The Culprit Revealed!*


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Let's say the NEC vote to keep JC off the ballot paper. What happens next - does the leadership election proceed? Does JC seek an injunction to stop it going ahead pending a full hearing?



I'd imagine so . Can't see him and his supporters just shrugging their shoulders and accepting a blatant gerrymander any more than they accepted the coup .


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Let's say the NEC vote to keep JC off the ballot paper. What happens next - does the leadership election proceed? Does JC seek an injunction to stop it going ahead pending a full hearing?



BBC Live feed is showing detail of a letter drawn up by lawyers fighting any result that keeps Corbyn off the ballot.

Here, but lengthy if you scroll to 16:06 David Cameron's last full day as PM and Labour leadership - BBC News

a very short summary - Any attempt to keep Jeremy Corbyn’s name off the ballot for leader, whilst he remains leader, in light of the current challenge by Angela Eagle (or any other challenger) will be met with legal action for breach of contract, specifically for breach of the 2016 Rule Book Chapter 4 Rule 2Bii. We put you on the clearest notice that we will be instructed to apply to the High Court for immediate injunctive relief should Jeremy Corbyn’s name not go forward automatically to the ballot."


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Whole thing is genuinely sickening, isn't it?



Hopefully it'll be more instructive than sickeningx


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Hopefully it'll be more instructive than sickeningx


yeh the swp can no longer insist people vote labour


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Corbyn leaves the room and then across the bottom of the page appears:

"Breaking News - Bernie Sanders endorses hilary clinton: 'she must become our next president'"

And later today the gates of hell are set to open and all the foul legions of Beelzebub shall vent forth upon the earth.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

If Corbyn is off the ballot paper watch how quickly the big snakes crawl out from under their rocks to bask in their shit stained victory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Hopefully it'll be more instructive than sickeningx


More people joined than left.

That should  be instructive to outside the party types like us.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> BBC Live feed is showing detail of a letter drawn up by lawyers fighting any result that keeps Corbyn off the ballot.
> 
> Here, but lengthy if you scroll to 16:06 David Cameron's last full day as PM and Labour leadership - BBC News
> 
> a very short summary - Any attempt to keep Jeremy Corbyn’s name off the ballot for leader, whilst he remains leader, in light of the current challenge by Angela Eagle (or any other challenger) will be met with legal action for breach of contract, specifically for breach of the 2016 Rule Book Chapter 4 Rule 2Bii. We put you on the clearest notice that we will be instructed to apply to the High Court for immediate injunctive relief should Jeremy Corbyn’s name not go forward automatically to the ballot."



Thank you. Then we have to assume that it will be Howe & Co who will be representing JC. Would be interesting to know who instructed them.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

Document speculating on who on the NEC would vote which way and why
Labour NEC breakdown
gives corbyn a narrow win
not sure the providence of this (other than the internet )


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Thank you. Then we have to assume that it will be Howe & Co who will be representing JC. Would be interesting to know who instructed them.


A union. The thing is quite clear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Thank you. Then we have to assume that it will be Howe & Co who will be representing JC. Would be interesting to know who instructed them.


perhaps if you read the site you might have learned that 





> The BBC has seen a copy of a letter sent by a firm of lawyers on behalf of Jim Kennedy and other trade union members who sit on Labour's ruling National Executive Committee.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Document speculating on who on the NEC would vote which way and why
> Labour NEC breakdown
> gives corbyn a narrow win
> not sure the providence of this (other than the internet )


Provenance.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps if you read the site you might have learned that



Thank you - I only had a skim read.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps if you read the site you might have learned that


It's here:

Legal letter to NEC chief over Labour leadership rules


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's here:
> 
> Legal letter to NEC chief over Labour leadership rules


as i said


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Apparently Corbyn has now left the room. Some journalists already calling it game over .


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Provenance.


 
yeah its a new word for me - first time ive used it in public


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Document speculating on who on the NEC would vote which way and why
> Labour NEC breakdown
> gives corbyn a narrow win
> not sure the providence of this (other than the internet )



If they've voted by a slim majority to have a secret ballot it can safely be concluded the same slim majority intend shafting him . And by forcing him to leave the room that would indicate he mightn't be able to vote for himself either . The reasons for one or 2 not jumping ship during the coup seem pretty clear now . Held onto their NEC votes .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> yeah its a new word for me - first time ive used it in public


yeh bet you've used it before whispering sweet nothings to a lover


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's here:
> 
> Legal letter to NEC chief over Labour leadership rules


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 12, 2016)

So, can anyone suggest why any NEC members who intended to vote for Corbyn would have voted for the secret ballot?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> yeah its a new word for me - first time ive used it in public


Like _civil_?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 12, 2016)

Or is it a foregone conclusion that they are going to try to sack him?


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is this gonna drag on all Summer without a result?



Yes...........................but which summer is anyones guess.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> So, can anyone suggest why any NEC members who intended to vote for Corbyn would have voted for the secret ballot?


Shelters the party from more of an embarrassing episode than it in itself creates? Weak, I know.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> yeah its a new word for me - first time ive used it in public


That is probably why you used the wrong word in its place. I am amazed I had always envisioned you being a dealer in old paintings and antiques where the word provenance was used constantly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> So, can anyone suggest why any NEC members who intended to vote for Corbyn would have voted for the secret ballot?


Normal human reasons you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That is probably why you used the wrong word in its place. I am amazed I had always envisioned you being a dealer in old paintings and antiques where the word provenance was used constantly.


and homage


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

I'm vainly hoping that it's that there's a level of cowardice on both sides now.
It's outrageous, whatever. 

Blimey, I am _actually_ biting my nails


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Normal human reasons you mean?



No, nefarious politico reasons would do. I can't see the logic of voting for a private ballot unless you want to be able to stab Corbyn in the back, apart from mauvais 's admittedly weak suggestion.


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> never underestimate skinny angry people. Burnhams a big man but he's out of shape





At the latest meeting of the PLP, Corbyn explains to Tom Watson that, no, he won't be giving up the leadership anytime soon...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm vainly hoping that it's that there's a level of cowardice on both sides now.
> It's outrageous, whatever.
> 
> Blimey, I am _actually_ biting my nails


finger or toe?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Ooh  - forgot about the toes!


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Or is it a foregone conclusion that they are going to try to sack him?



That would seem to be it. It would appear to be game over. This side of a legal case at least . The secret ballot is solely about covering their own backs from their respective members and supporters from carrying out a disgusting Gerrymander some won't want to be seen doing or having to explain . Every vote for a secret ballot is a sure fire anti Corbin vote .


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 12, 2016)

On the spreadsheet ska invita linked to, I like how the 'Why'* column for Dennis Skinner simply begins 'Dennis Skinner.'

* i.e why does whoever produced the document expect them to vote one way or the other.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

How many times is the BBC going to show that clip of Eagle wittering on about the new, friendly politics that ended when Corbyn sent the brick layers around to her office ffs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm vainly hoping that it's that there's a level of cowardice on both sides now.
> It's outrageous, whatever.
> 
> Blimey, I am _actually_ biting my nails


Careful, you can get through a lot of nail between now and 6:0 clock tonight.


----------



## stupid kid (Jul 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> How many times is the BBC going to show that clip of Eagle wittering on about the new, friendly politics that ended when Corbyn sent the brick layers around to her office ffs.


The "new politics", iirc that was Clegg's phrase of choice.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That would seem to be it. It would appear to be game over. This side of a legal case at least . The secret ballot is solely about covering their own backs from their respective members and supporters from carrying out a disgusting Gerrymander some won't want to be seen doing or having to explain . Every vote for a secret ballot is a sure fire anti Corbin vote .



So was the vote for a secret ballot by secret ballot, or do we get a list of names?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

Got to go I'm off to find more bricks.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> So was the vote for a secret ballot by secret ballot, or do we get a list of names?


Now you are being silly.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Got to go I'm off to find more bricks.


Looking for a palletable compromise I see


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

This is a good day for drinking


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

If they actually go ahead with this exercise in undemocracy...does anyone know if the LP would be under any compunction to reveal the number of 'spoilt' papers?
I'm pretty sure they'd win.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

So, potential legal battle aside, of this is as screwy as it looks and Corbyn is off the ballot then... Unions disaffiliate, membership plummets - what happens? Isn't the party already in debt? Private contributors take up the slack?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That is probably why you used the wrong word in its place. I am amazed I had always envisioned you being a dealer in old paintings and antiques where the word provenance was used constantly.


Funnily enough it was because i bought a weird bootleg record and the guy in the record shop said "provenance best not asked"


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You're a fucking idiot who can't even answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me ask you again. Do you think Corbyn is capable of winning a general election and getting the Tories out of power.


I say 'yes' and what is your reply likely to be? Hmmm? 

Is your last sentence a statement or a question?

Fuckwit.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> So, potential legal battle aside, of this is as screwy as it looks and Corbyn is off the ballot then... Unions disaffiliate, membership plummets - what happens? Isn't the party already in debt? Private contributors take IP the slack?


ILP II?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Anyway, cant be arsed. Have one of these  and enjoy the next ten years of Theresa May and Osborne. Gonna be a blast.


How many log-ins do you have? It's a simple question.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If they actually go ahead with this exercise in undemocracy...does anyone know if the LP would be under any compunction to reveal the number of 'spoilt' papers?
> I'm pretty sure they'd win.


oh aye, there'll be a write in campaign. And huge public meetings around the country with the phantom candidate while the others barely fill the kids section of local libraries.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Unions disaffiliate, membership plummets - what happens? Isn't the party already in debt? Private contributors take IP the slack?



Some, yes, no because recent income cleared most of it, probably.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

_We're not going to allow the people to speak, the bastards._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> oh aye, there'll be a write in campaign. And huge public meetings around the country with the phantom candidate while the others barely fill the kids section of local libraries.


yeh cos the most of the local libraries will have closed


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

Well this has really plumbed the depths of distasteful farce now imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Well this has really plumbed the depths of distasteful farce now imo.


farce is never distasteful. this is tragedy.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

Yeah fair point


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Well this has really plumbed the depths of distasteful farce now imo.



It's fucking _filthy_.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

stupid kid said:


> The "new politics", iirc that was Clegg's phrase of choice.



Sorry I misquoted the backstabber, she said 'gentler type of politics', I think it's on a seven minute loop.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> oh aye, there'll be a write in campaign. And huge public meetings around the country with the phantom candidate while the others barely fill the kids section of local libraries.


What does write in candidate mean in this country?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> oh aye, there'll be a write in campaign. And huge public meetings around the country with the phantom candidate while the others barely fill the kids section of local libraries.





butchersapron said:


> What does write in candidate mean in this country?


campaign. not candidate.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does write in candidate mean in this country?


 
Cock + balls?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> campaign. not candidate.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> So, can anyone suggest why any NEC members who intended to vote for Corbyn would have voted for the secret ballot?


There could be members who don't want the PLP to know how they've voted in case corbyn loses and the PLP win in the power struggle.

Given the legal advice that's been received I can easily see that even members who oppose Corbyn may well see that their legal obligation is to vote to allow him to stand as the rules clearly state should happen. Any other decision is only going to result in a legal challenge that will do further damage to the party and could even see them being liable personally for costs as they'd be going against the party's own legal advice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does write in candidate mean in this country?


newbie could you say what you mean?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 12, 2016)

The Tories do this knifing in the back thing a lot better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> There could be members who don't want the PLP to know how they've voted in case corbyn loses and the PLP win in the power struggle.


so you believe corbyn wins if he loses. unless you're honestly saying you don't believe he's part of the parliamentary labour party.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does write in candidate mean in this country?


nothing.  or whatever it can turn into politically


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Tories do this knifing in the back thing a lot better.


yeh, classier and that, none of this sordid publick stitch-up


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Tories do this knifing in the back thing a lot better.



They learn it at their nannies knee.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> nothing.  or whatever it can turn into politically


so nothing. or everything.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> So, potential legal battle aside, of this is as screwy as it looks and Corbyn is off the ballot then... Unions disaffiliate, membership plummets - what happens? Isn't the party already in debt? Private contributors take up the slack?


lord sainsbury would probably be waiting in the wings to fund new labour mark 2


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

> A spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn has said that reports that he had refused to leave the NEC meeting when asked (see 4.34pm) were “a total fabrication” and that he left straight away.



Quelle sur fucking prise


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, classier and that, none of this sordid publick stitch-up


They do have the advantage that all of their factions freely admit to supporting (neoliberal) capital.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> lord sainsbury would probably be waiting in the wings to fund new labour mark 2



You can't immediately create a social base with money


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> More people joined than left.
> 
> That should  be instructive to outside the party types like us.



What do you mean?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so you believe corbyn wins if he loses. unless you're honestly saying you don't believe he's part of the parliamentary labour party.


I was using shorthand for the vast majority of the PLP who voted no confidence in him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> What do you mean?


the sea is out there


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> nothing.  or whatever it can turn into politically


Is there a tradition of this stuff in this country? Write in candidates?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You can't immediately create a social base with money


true, but they didn't seem too arsed about that during the blair years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I was using shorthand for the vast majority of the PLP who voted no confidence in him.


yeh yeh


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> true, but they didn't seem too arsed about that during the blair years.


were you just wittering like this throughout the blair years?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> What do you mean?


That soppy liberal leftists were always there.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You can't immediately create a social base with money



Think it's been established that they don't care. Media is their tool, Tory levels of membership are fine otherwise.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> true, but they didn't seem too arsed about that during the blair years.



Blair was able to trade on the brand name, machinery, structures and tradition of the Labour Party. The Lord Sainsburys or The Democrats or whatever couldn't do that, they'd be more lost at sea than the Lib Dems. No one really votes Labour because they like Tristram Hunt, they vote Labour in spite of him.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That soppy liberal leftists were always there.



You mean people who joined?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Think it's been established that they don't care. Media is their tool, Tory levels of membership are fine otherwise.



Not even really talking about members, they don't want members that much is obvious but they would need voters.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That soppy liberal leftists were always there.



Ah ok.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Tories do this knifing in the back thing a lot better.



This is more like attempting to draw a knife but instead pulling out a spoon, dropping it, bending over to pick it up, having your trousers fall to your ankles, tripping forward and accidentally headbutting your opponents knee and so knocking yourself out before falling face down into a nearby cow pat.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Blair was able to trade on the brand name, machinery, structures and tradition of the Labour Party. The Lord Sainsburys or The Democrats or whatever couldn't do that, they'd be more lost at sea than the Lib Dems. No one really votes Labour because they like Tristram Hunt, they vote Labour in spite of him.


we seem to be talking at cross purposes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Blair was able to trade on the brand name, machinery, structures and tradition of the Labour Party. The Lord Sainsburys or The Democrats or whatever couldn't do that, they'd be more lost at sea than the Lib Dems. No one really votes Labour because they like Tristram Hunt, they vote Labour in spite of him.


not to mention that there was investment in public services, lots and lots of jobs. there were repeated claims that the labour party was trying to establish a client base in the public sector.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Not even really talking about members, they don't want members that much is obvious but they would need voters.



Of which there's an endless pool amongst wavering Tories, think that's the logic anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> we seem to be talking at cross purposes.


that's because J Ed's making sense.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is there a tradiyion of this stuff in this country? Write in candidates?


not on any significant scale, that I know of.  nor is there tradition for a lot else that's going on. There's a first time for everything. There were 48,000 #keepcorbyn comments in 24 hours on the ange4lab facebook page last I looked.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Looking forward to La Eagle's comments after this meeting...
_"Rejoice! We've kept the unelectable leader off the ballot so we can defeat him."_​


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> not on any significant scale, that I know of.  nor is there tradition for a lot else that's going on. There's a first time for everything. There were 48,000 #keepcorbyn comments in 24 hours on the ange4lab facebook page last I looked.


Yeah, what else is original about this?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because J Ed's making sense.


@ Pickman's model I'm really not in the fucking mood for your crap, so you can go on ignore for a bit.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Looking forward to La Eagle's comments after this meeting...
> _"Rejoice! We've kept the unelectable leader off the ballot so we can defeat him."_​



A hollow victory achieved by shallow people.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> @ Pickman's model I'm really not in the fucking mood for your crap, so you can go on ignore for a bit.


You show him...don't allow him on the ballot thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> @ Pickman's model I'm really not in the fucking mood for your crap, so you can go on ignore for a bit.


Another loser I see


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

I hate the Guardian so much


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, what else is original about this?


this period?  the level of engagement and the ways that's expressing itself.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> So was the vote for a secret ballot by secret ballot, or do we get a list of names?



I'd say a few will definitely be outed in that regard. But if his names off the ballot I'm certain there'll be an immediate legal injunction to prevent a rigged election from going ahead . It'll immediately go to the courts. Not that those bewigged shits are likely to do him any favours .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> this period?  the level of engagement and the ways that's expressing itself.


Go on...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I hate the Guardian so much


Why, what has it done or said now?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> There could be members who don't want the PLP to know how they've voted in case corbyn loses and the PLP win in the power struggle.



Despite Pickman's taking issue with this, it's clear what you meant (and was what I was mumbling about earlier).
Another weak and shitty thing to hope for, tbf.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I hate the Guardian so much


Oh yeah.
Making clear that Corbz just was not there in Liscard to stop that _momentum thug _from throwing the brick. Bastard.


> 5m ago17:32
> 
> *Ben Bradshaw,* the Labour MP and former culture secretary, told BBC News earlier that Jeremy Corbyn should do more to stop MPs being intimidated by his supporters. Echoing what Angela Eagle said (see 3.28pm), Bradshaw told the BBC:
> 
> I’m afraid that these ritual condemnations from Jeremy Corbyn are just not enough. We need action. He always condemns, he always says it shouldn’t happen, he never actually does anything. He could call off these Momentum thugs now. The people around him control them. He should call them off, take them off now and expel these people if they’re members of the party.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Why, what has it done or said now?



Honestly nothing in particular right now, I just looked at their livefeed and remembered my long simmering disgust at the role the Guardian plays in society.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is more like attempting to draw a knife but instead pulling out a spoon, dropping it, bending over to pick it up, having your trousers fall to your ankles, tripping forward and accidentally headbutting your opponents knee and so knocking yourself out before falling face down into a nearby cow pat.



And saying " argh "


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I'd say a few will definitely be outed in that regard. But if his names off the ballot I'm certain there'll be an immediate legal injunction to prevent a rigged election from going ahead . It'll immediately go to the courts. Not that those bewigged shits are likely to do him any favours .



No, but at the point it does at least it becomes clear to all the people who reposed hope in Corbyn and Momentum that the Labour party is fundamentally unable to represent them poltically.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah.
> Making clear that Corbz just was not there in Liscard to stop that _momentum thug _from throwing the brick. Bastard.
> ​



I bet it was Benny that did it


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah.
> Making clear that Corbz just was not there in Liscard to stop that _momentum thug _from throwing the brick. Bastard.
> ​



  do you think they have read and believed the Corbyn the Barbarian thread?


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

blood pressure through the roof sweary shouty mania


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah.
> Making clear that Corbz just was not there in Liscard to stop that _momentum thug _from throwing the brick. Bastard.
> ​



What a cunt. Corbyn should sue tbh - the idea that he has direct control over people bricking windows seems like a clear libel and there's no way he has anything to back it up.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Go on...


why?  

I don't think this scale of public participation in politics has been seen since before the internet and mobile technology. That's not controversial is it?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> do you think they have read and believed the Corbyn the Barbarian thread?


I suspect they read a very narrow range of sources, tbh.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

I'm actually surprisingly upset by all this.  Not surprised but surprisingly upset. Hope is a horrible thing to have. So is a sense of fairness.

Life must be so fucking easy for these PLP NEC uber cunts.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah.
> Making clear that Corbz just was not there in Liscard to stop that _momentum thug _from throwing the brick. Bastard.
> ​



And the same hypocritical bastards will deny in the next breath this has anything remotely to do with them .

Jeremy Corbyn targeted with death threats as Labour factional infighting boils over


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> why?
> 
> I don't think this scale of public participation in politics has been seen since before the internet and mobile technology. That's not controversial is it?


The poll tax did. But that cuts off all things.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is more like attempting to draw a knife but instead pulling out a spoon, dropping it, bending over to pick it up, having your trousers fall to your ankles, tripping forward and accidentally headbutting your opponents knee and so knocking yourself out before falling face down into a nearby cow pat.


Protip: if you fall through a closed window during this episode then you may still actually be in with a chance.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn targeted with death threats as Labour factional infighting boils over

Corbyn doesn't weaponise the death threats he receives or claim that his opponents are responsible for them because he is you know not awful


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather)July 12, 2016

Am told the NEC's decision to hold secret ballot was swung by two female members particularly distressed about threat of intimidation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Despite Pickman's taking issue with this, it's clear what you meant (and was what I was mumbling about earlier).
> Another weak and shitty thing to hope for, tbf.


The PLP includes 50+ MPs who either voted for Corbyn, abstained or spoilt their papers in the no confidence vote. Saying as free spirit did all the PLP are anti-corbyn is both a lie and tbh an insult to many onside MPs. Why not call them what they are rather than say all the Labour MPs are at odds with the wider membership?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What a cunt. Corbyn should sue tbh - the idea that he has direct control over people bricking windows seems like a clear libel and there's no way he has anything to back it up.


It'll all end in court


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather)July 12, 2016
> 
> Am told the NEC's decision to hold secret ballot was swung by two female members particularly distressed about threat of intimidation.


(wo)men in grey suits


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How many log-ins do you have? It's a simple question.



One. You fucking idiot.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The PLP includes 50+ MPs who either voted for Corbyn, abstained or spoilt their papers in the no confidence vote. Saying as free spirit did all the PLP are anti-corbyn is both a lie and tbh an insult to many onside MPs. Why not call them what they are rather than say all the Labour MPs are at odds with the wider membership?



Come off it  - all the way through the thread there's been constant reference to 'the PLP' as being a clearly anti-Corbyn *body*.


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> One. You fucking idiot.


Stop these death threats to Corbyn, you beast.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Come off it  - all the way through the thread there's been constant reference to 'the PLP' as being a _clearly_ anti-Corbyn *body*.


Yes, you're right that I and others should have opposed this equation at an earlier stage, for which omission I apologise profusely


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2016)

I'd be surprised if a court overturned NEC decision either way, too much like interferring in a club, which isnt their general vibe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How many log-ins do you have? It's a simple question.


One more than one he should anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I'd be surprised if a court overturned NEC decision either way, too much like interferring in a club, which isnt their general vibe.


Based on...?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Based on...?


He read it on twitter.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2016)

The habits and attitudes of judge types.only an opinion though. We'll see.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

I am still amazed that anyone can look at the rule book and claim that Corbyn shouldn't be on automatically. I bet the people who do also shake their head in disgust at what they call 'post-truth voters'.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

R4 6pm news actually opened with "_extra-ordinary scenes at..."
_


----------



## Chrispeptide (Jul 12, 2016)

All the journos are saying he's going to have to be nominated!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The habits and attitudes of judge types.only an opinion though. We'll see.


Yeh. Based on extensive legal observation, I'm sure.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> No, but at the point it does at least it becomes clear to all the people who reposed hope in Corbyn and Momentum that the Labour party is fundamentally unable to represent them poltically.



Absolutely . The entire fucking thing is institutionally rigged . It was an accident of history that momentarily let the drawbridge down and saw Corbyn elected to the open  horror of the entire party edifice . Who first scoffed at the notion after patronisingly letting him on the ballot for a bit of light relief and the appearance of " internal debate " . Margaret Hodge is openly in tears that she even nominated him. Openly admitting he wasn't supposed to win .

Then they tried to rig the game again and had a coup. That didn't work . Then they tried to keep him off the ballot..but realised they couldn't openly rig it that way. So they've rigged it again to do it in secret. After rigging it even more by calling a surprise meeting . 
The only real hope that can lie in Corbyn is that he can somehow manage to purge that party of its entire upper echelons, and a fair bit of the middle. Which is a tall order to put it mildly .


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, you're right that I and others should have opposed this equation at an earlier stage, for which omission I apologise profusely



You can keep your apology  - I'm not arsed and I doubt anyone else is either.
Beyond the fact that it's obvious, it's also been a consistently relevant point to keep making - that the _majority of_ (_fuck_ typing that every time   ) the PLP are not representing the membership.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The poll tax did. But that cuts off all things.


high levels of participation, sure and so did the Iraq invasion. In the latter, but not the former, the internet was an important factor in peoples expression. This time mobile technology is important.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> You can keep your apology  - I'm not arsed and I doubt anyone else is either.
> Beyond the fact that it's obvious, it's also been a consistently relevant point to keep making - that the _majority of_ (_fuck_ typing that every time   ) the PLP are not representing the membership.


 the majority of the PLP have never represented the membership


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Isn't it supposed to be over by now?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Nevermind


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Yep.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the majority of the PLP have never represented the membership



I'm not going to get tangled up with this Pickman's. The point was clear.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 12, 2016)

It wasn't an" accident of history " that let the " draw bridge down" and  Corbyn into the  keep........ed milliband deliberately smashed the windlass.....then legged it to Ibiza...aided and abetted by a bunch of useful idiot's ......


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Nevermind




Is that potentially a better sign than it all being wrapped up?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'm not going to get tangled up with this Pickman's. The point was clear.


I don't know why you jumped in on it in the first place tbh.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Is that potentially a better sign than it all being wrapped up?


I don't think it means anything other than crick wanting to keep the twitter machine fed.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Nevermind




If Michael Crick's sources are saying that, I assume it's over already.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Chrispeptide said:


> All the journos are saying he's going to have to be nominated!




Not so sure. Saw one tweet attributed to a senior party member " Watsons stitched it up " . This Machiavellian procedural bullshit has his grubby prints all over it . He's been at it for years internally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Not so sure. Saw one tweet attributed to a senior party member " Watsons stitched it up " . This Machiavellian procedural bullshit has his grubby prints all over it . He's been at it for years internally.


Yeh I reckon it was stitched up last week


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know why you jumped in on it in the first place tbh.



It reflected my own (hopeful/hopeless) thoughts, like I said.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think it means anything other than crick wanting to keep the twitter machine fed.



Ah


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



I hope so, Bradshaw's comments were totally unacceptable


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh I reckon it was stitched up last week



Perhaps explaining the delay in Eagle standing.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh I reckon it was stitched up last week



It would seem that way. His back and forth to the unions was just a smokescreen . He was using them as a prop to hide behind . And dropped them the instant he no longer needed to carry on with the ruse , without even telling them . McCluskey had to hear about it on the news . 

They should openly repudiate him and vow never again to deal with him over his bad faith .


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

Yep - legends in their own minds - probably got Eye of the Tiger running through their heads as they bravely and nobly fight the good fight against uppity proles, low information irrelevancies and those infuriatingly wrong-headed failures (members and voters) who are unable to recognise the glorious abilities of Tom, Angela and Andy et al.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> At least nine more years of the Tories. Big ups everybody!
> 
> Honestly can't believe the support here for someone who has destroyed any credible opposition to the cunts systematically dismantling the public sector. But you make your bed, you sleep in it. You fucking idiots. Look at Jeremy Hunt's smug face on the news right now. Who's responsible, Jeremy fucking Corbyn. Go, you cunt.
> 
> Face the facts. You do have to be 'effective' in order to be a leader. It's not a joke and doesn't deserve a  We are all going to suffer from this man's sheer arrogance and refusal to leave.



Shit prognosticator prognosticates shittily.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> Yep - legends in their own minds - probably got Eye of the Tiger running through their heads as they bravely and nobly fight the good fight against uppity proles, low information irrelevancies and those infuriatingly wrong-headed failures (members and voters) who are unable to recognise the glorious abilities of Tom, Angela and Andy et al.



Yet if those fucking shitgobblers get their way and some Blairite charisma vacuum becomes the new party leader, are they ever going to wonder if there are reasons why nobody votes for them apart from "we weren't aping the Tories well enough"?

I just cannot fucking despise those cunts enough!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Yet if those fucking shitgobblers get their way and some Blairite charisma vacuum becomes the new party leader, are they ever going to wonder if there are reasons why nobody votes for them apart from "we weren't aping the Tories well enough"?
> 
> I just cannot fucking despise those cunts enough!



I fully trust in the ability of a majority of the PLP to hold steadfast ideologically until they reach Liberal Democrat irrelevance


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Perhaps explaining the delay in Eagle standing.



I think they thought there'd be an actual Tory leadership contest , they didn't anticipate the scale and speed of the chaos there . Nobody could . They'd tried to co ordinate their own plans around the pr backdrop of that . Hence why it got so messy for them . That and the fact Corbyn didn't yield .


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I hope so, Bradshaw's comments were totally unacceptable



What was said?


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Yet if those fucking shitgobblers get their way and some Blairite charisma vacuum becomes the new party leader, are they ever going to wonder if there are reasons why nobody votes for them apart from "we weren't aping the Tories well enough"?
> 
> I just cannot fucking despise those cunts enough!



'It was because of the backlash against the labour party caused by Corbyn'

He will probably leave a 'toxic legacy' and other such things.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What was said?



From the Exeter Express and Echo:

"The people around him control them." Bradshaw said, "Hopefully we're in the process of clearing up the mess, but look, let's be clear, that attack on Angela Eagle's office overnight and the forced cancellation of her event today because of a threat to the owner of the premises is totally unacceptable and shocking. And I'm afraid these ritual condemnations from Jeremy Corbyn are just not enough.


"We need action. He always condemns, he always says it shouldn't happen, he never actually does anything. He could call off these Momentum thugs now. The people around him control them. He should take them off now and expel them if they're members of the party.

In the interview Bradshaw added : "it's not just this attack. Labour MPs are being subjected to daily death threats, rape threats, people demonstrating outside their offices, being encouraged to, by Momentum, by people around Jeremy Corbyn, this is totally unacceptable."

Interview here.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What was said?





> His ritual condemnation is not enough, Jeremy must ACT against such violence now





> expel any Labour member who threatens, intimidates or uses violence & call the Momentum thugs off.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

If it all goes against Corbyn, can the NEC wait another couple of weeks, when Corbyn supporting candidates might get elected to it, and then hold another vote to allow Corbyn to challenge the winning candidate? Or does it need the PLP to have a no confidence vote first?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> From the Exeter Express and Echo:
> 
> "The people around him control them." Bradshaw said, "Hopefully we're in the process of clearing up the mess, but look, let's be clear, that attack on Angela Eagle's office overnight and the forced cancellation of her event today because of a threat to the owner of the premises is totally unacceptable and shocking. And I'm afraid these ritual condemnations from Jeremy Corbyn are just not enough.
> 
> ...



Frankly Corbyn needs to STOP apologising for things that aren't his fault.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> From the Exeter Express and Echo:
> 
> "The people around him control them." Bradshaw said, "Hopefully we're in the process of clearing up the mess, but look, let's be clear, that attack on Angela Eagle's office overnight and the forced cancellation of her event today because of a threat to the owner of the premises is totally unacceptable and shocking. And I'm afraid these ritual condemnations from Jeremy Corbyn are just not enough.
> 
> ...



" This is what happens when you have the politics of protest: it causes division, incitement, violence and intimidation. We’..."


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

It is pretty libellous.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> From the Exeter Express and Echo:
> 
> "The people around him control them." Bradshaw said, "Hopefully we're in the process of clearing up the mess, but look, let's be clear, that attack on Angela Eagle's office overnight and the forced cancellation of her event today because of a threat to the owner of the premises is totally unacceptable and shocking. And I'm afraid these ritual condemnations from Jeremy Corbyn are just not enough.
> 
> ...



Jesus. The real thugs are those who buy into Bradshaw's bullshit.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Jesus. The real thugs are those who buy into Bradshaw's bullshit.



I wish that half of what he said was true.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

Innit!! Thanks for posting - out of the U.K arm with dodgy phone connection.

U75 first for news


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> We are now in a position where effectively members of the Labour party who vote for Corbyn are voting for the Tories. What the actual fuck. Is that what you want?



Your "effectively" is partisan bullshit almost identical to the bollocks available for view on progress-online.

Here's the thing: It's manipulative,value-laden, fact-free bollocks that is beloved of whiners, bed-wetters and political journalists. Into the sea with it.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 12, 2016)

Eagle could still bow out, giving broken windows and fear of intimidation as a reason for withdrawing - saving face and showing Corbyn to be the rotter they so clearly think he is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He's a graphic designer this time. Last time it was HR/personnel.



He was? Last time I thought he was "whiny piss-drinking rich kid"!


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2016)

I was hoping that I'd have heard Corbyn was on the ballot so my life could have returned to normal by now :-(


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

The Indy still has

Jeremy Corbyn 'refuses to leave' NEC meeting after being told to go

Accident or design?


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

I am so fucking enraged I have just bunged Momentum a tenner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

I suppose I'll have to join the Labour party then


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Is there any more about the reason given for the secret ballot, being down to a couple of women on the committee fearing intimidation?
I think it was butchersapron who posted the tweet?
I was wondering where they might feel that intimidation coming from?


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

OMG Eagle feels 'bullied'. This is a woman who can callously vote for children to be immolated by bombs and yet a brick through a window constitutes 'bullying'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What was said?


Does it matter?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I suppose I'll have to join the Labour party then



Now I am really worried!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> OMG Eagle feels 'bullied'. This is a woman who can callously vote for children to be immolated by bombs and yet a brick through a window constitutes 'bullying'.


Pity it wasn't a hellfire missile


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

The total destruction of Tom Watson should become the defining political battle of the next generation of the left.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> OMG Eagle feels 'bullied'. This is a woman who can callously vote for children to be immolated by bombs and yet a brick through a window constitutes 'bullying'.



Sometimes it feels like life after primary school doesn't change very much for some people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> The total destruction of Tom Watson should become the defining political battle of the next generation of the left.


You think it will take that long?


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> OMG Eagle feels 'bullied'. This is a woman who can callously vote for children to be immolated by bombs and yet a brick through a window constitutes 'bullying'.



I just can't believe that a brick through the window of an empty premises in Liverpool constitutes national news.  Imagine the furore if someone had her car away!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Does it matter?



Don't you start on me young man! 

Just managed to see Dennis on C4 news - fuckin priceless


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> #crymeafuckingriver



#idratherpushyouintoone


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

The challenge for the Corbyn faction will be to stop enough joiners from cancelling their DDs, in order to hang around long enough to contribute to Watson's undoing.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

agricola said:


> I just can't believe that a brick through the window of an empty premises in Liverpool constitutes national news.  Imagine the furore if someone had her car away!



Earlier when I went to the shops someone had sprayed #loser on someone's car hopefully they were a Labour MP altho I doubt it the car would have been nicer


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> There's plenty to insult the Eagle on regarding her actions, voting record, strategic ignorance, stupidity, corbyn betrayal, naivety, self-aggrandizement, poor sense of timing, incomprehensible choices in branding, lack of understanding of the public mood, inability to listen etc etc etc. Getting through that lot properly, it should take decades before we need to plunge the depths where her looks are the best point of criticism. She has potentially a matter of hours left in the running and months in her job, might as well stick to the basics.



You forgot what's either her utter lack of tactical nous, or her blind willingness to sacrifice herself for Blairism. Both options are unedifying.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

agricola said:


> I just can't believe that a brick through the window of an empty premises in Liverpool constitutes national news.  Imagine the furore if someone had her car away!



I'm guessing its pink-rendering it not worth stealing


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

No fix...   no no no


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Earlier when I went to the shops someone had sprayed #loser on someone's car hopefully they were a Labour MP altho I doubt it the car would have been nicer


They no longer drive nice cars on a day to day basis


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No fix...   no no no




Fuck me they really have no shame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No fix...   no no no



Tbh you don't need an llb to know the difference between 'candidates need' and 'challengers need'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The challenge for the Corbyn faction will be to stop enough joiners from cancelling their DDs, in order to hang around long enough to contribute to Watson's undoing.




Interesting - suggests that any decision can be overturned when new members are voted onto NEC.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

Morning Star's Conrad Landin seems to have correctly called it as a tie atm, says it's union ppl peeling away once the vote went secret.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

I'd like to think the reason the meeting is going on so long is that someone is going through the looong list of destruction it would do to keep him off the ballot.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Interesting - suggests that any decision can be overturned when new members are voted onto NEC.


I don't think it does, it's just someone on twitter mouthing off.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think it does, it's just someone on twitter mouthing off.



ah ta


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Angela fucking Eagles response to Len McCluskeys description of rigging the ballot as a squalid coup ...." Lens  attended too many am dram performances "

Len McCluskey: I won't accept ‘sordid fix’ to keep Corbyn off ballot

Not just breath takingly arrogant , cynical, self serving and woefully out of touch with not just people but any sense of justice , democracy and propriety...but absolutely fucking rich coming from someone who burst into tears on cue for the cameras like a swooning Victorian heroine to show how much SHE CARES , and how badly JC distressed her into launching a coup  . And then tells the world there's howling mobs of evil corbynites looking to stone her to death. Because she's a WOMAN .

Fucks sake . 

There's so much wrongness going on here at one time there's powers in the universe being disturbed . Disturbance in the force . This will attract a big fucking asteroid or something . Or a death star . Make it stop .


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

I fucking love Dennis Skinner. Pulls it out the bag. There aren't many good ones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Angela fucking Eagles response to Len McCluskeys description of rigging the ballot as a squalid coup ...." Lens  attended too many am dram performances "
> 
> Len McCluskey: I won't accept ‘sordid fix’ to keep Corbyn off ballot
> 
> ...


Should la eagle get elected I wonder what her relationship with the unions would be like


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Should la eagle get elected I wonder what her relationship with the unions would be like



Hopefully non-existent.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Should la eagle get elected I wonder what her relationship with the unions would be like



In a word..." Argh "


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

GMB (top bods) would like to like her, but probably won't dare say so publicly.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

kinnock on channel 4 now, can fuck right off, what a cunt


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> May not be about switching sides but more about those voting to keep JC off the ballot paper fearing retribution.


So you think it's fine that people shouldn't be held to be accountable for they way they vote? Why am I not surprised.


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

can't he - managed to get 'militant tendency' in his oily insincerity - the prick


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

Am noting that these roving journos have been utterly unable to find anyone who is happy to endorse Eagle. Vox Pop indeed.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Should la eagle get elected I wonder what her relationship with the unions would be like



A bit like this? 

 

Can somone superimpose her "Argh" signature over it?


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> A bit like this?
> 
> View attachment 89523
> 
> Can somone superimpose her "Argh" signature over it?





Hopefully thisll do for now


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Should la eagle get elected I wonder what her relationship with the unions would be like


Don't know about relationships with the wider labour movement...I'm still struggling to imagine her declaring a victory by defeating no-one. Delusional does not do this justice.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2016)

Guardian suggesting the NEC vote is due shortly.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Don't know about relationships with the wider labour movement...I'm still struggling to imagine her declaring a victory by defeating no-one. Delusional does not do this justice.


If Corbyn is out, there'll be another two or three step forward.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Guardian suggesting the _correct, sensible, reasonable and entirely justified _NEC vote is due shortly.


FTFY


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

I woukld like to hear the word' Deselection' brought up repeatedly. It has long appeared as though many of these politicos are simply reprising debating soc. with pay and perks and actually don't really have any fucks at all to give regarding actual policies, ideologies, constituents (and representation in any form) - a cushy berth with generous benefits for very little work. Only a threat to their own bloated egos and self-interest can have any effect on the shameless liggers.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Twitter is really funny. 

Probably true and all..


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

Corbyn being allowed to vote, according to Crick


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

[QUOTE="Mr.Bishie, post: 14602417, member: 13
Just managed to see Dennis on C4 news - fuckin priceless [/QUOTE]

Innit - barely managed to not call them (PLP) scabs.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Corbyn being allowed to vote, according to Crick


We'll that's fucking big of them.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather)July 12, 2016
> 
> Am told the NEC's decision to hold secret ballot was swung by two female members particularly distressed about threat of intimidation.



For a second I was slightly cheered that it might be this reason but then I realised they probably saw it as the perfect excuse handed to them by the brick incident and how scared they are of Corbyn the Barbarian's mob.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> [QUOTE="Mr.Bishie, post: 14602417, member: 13
> Just managed to see Dennis on C4 news - fuckin priceless





> Innit - barely managed to not call them (PLP) scabs.


He did though really, didn't he?


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

is there a mob outside this meeting?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

I suppose we're going to find out what the right mean by *unelectable.*


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Corbyn being allowed to vote, according to Crick


Wonder which way he'll go?


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

If Corbyn isn't on the ballot and fails to overturn it. What then?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> is there a mob outside this meeting?



Not that I know of.  It's a reference to Corbyn The Barbarian: Documenting the Brutality of a Monster.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

HÓ SHIT!


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

Who is Lucy Fisher?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

He's on the ballot, so says a bloke on the Momentum Facebook page.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> If Corbyn isn't on the ballot and fails to overturn it. What then?


We set fire to things.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Corbyn being allowed to vote, according to Crick



What's your source for that? Nothing on the graun live feed


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 12, 2016)

Marvellous


----------



## JimW (Jul 12, 2016)

Smashed it. See ya Angela.


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

Everything crossed that this evening we get to see a few faces like Tristram Hunt's at the moment Corbyn's victory was announced.

ETA YESSSS!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

This is just not Angela Eagle's week. And it's only tuesday, so much more can still go wrong


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 12, 2016)

my phone is erupting with twitter notifications saying he is on the ballot by a vote of 18-14


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2016)

Now up on the BBC and Guardian feeds too.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2016)

Fly Eagle, fly!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Eagle falls.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

*Mops up piss and goes upstairs to change trousers*


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

That was unexpected.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 12, 2016)

10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 12, 2016)

Eagle quits in 5...4...3...2...


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Can we still fuck up tom Watson?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

How many hours till Angela Warhawk pulls her campaign?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone


Oh fuck off


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone


No, Corbyn will be on the ballot.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Yay! Go Team Socialism!  Right?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

All Eagle needs to do is step down for full Bingo.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Great news


----------



## inva (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone


I don't think many NEC members post here


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

So who else on the ballot do we think?


----------



## maomao (Jul 12, 2016)

They surely won't bother with the election now will they???


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> So who else on the ballot do we think?



maybe no one


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Can we still fuck up tom Watson?



Can Corbyn sack his deputy leader? Presumably he'll quit but if he clings on like the bad smell he is...


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Cricks called corbyn winning the ballot...18 to 14


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> They surely won't bother with the election now will they???





Who knows? They'be fucked up every move so far.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> They surely won't bother with the election now will they???


I hope they do. 60% he got last time didn't he?

Reckon 80% this time?


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Eagle quits in 5...4...3...2...


days or weeks?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> They surely won't bother with the election now will they???



Who knows. Maybe they will continue with the ruse of having one while they work out plan H.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

For what Crick's word is worth


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So you think it's fine that people shouldn't be held to be accountable for they way they vote? Why am I not surprised.



You seem to either not understand or wilfully misrepresent what I've said in my posts on this thread.

Where have I said it's fine for a secret ballot? Where?

I was responding to a question as to why the NEC would try and have a secret ballot.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone



It does not get any truer with the repetition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> days or weeks?


I was thinking minutes


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

> *Argh*


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

this has cheered me right up  , bye angela fly


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

maomao said:


> They surely won't bother with the election now will they???


is there a parallel deputy leadership election?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can Corbyn sack his deputy leader? Presumably he'll quit but if he clings on like the bad smell he is...


No, he's elected.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 12, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I was thinking minutes



Nah, she'll have to announce that she's thinking of quitting the leadership race unless Corbyn does at least half a dozen times before she actually does it.


----------



## campanula (Jul 12, 2016)

14-18 well well well!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> You seem to either not understand or wilfully misrepresent what I've said in my posts on this thread.


No, I know exactly what you mean by your pathetic dribblings


----------



## Sifta (Jul 12, 2016)

They've been led up the garden path, again


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone



yeah - because a blairite labour party with no membership would sweep to power and not  hemorrhage votes to the greens, the nats, UKIP and whatever left wing alternative came out of the wreckage at all. Oh no. Delusional.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick's reported it too 18-14.

e2a: Doh, thread too fast.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> No, I know exactly what you mean by your pathetic dribblings



Show me where I've said it was fine to have a secret ballot.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Losing control of the NEC should be a catalyst for some of the PLP scabs scuttling off now.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

Surely Corbyn must go now.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

I reckon it was the free sandwiches which swung it


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn wins vote on Labour leadership rules - BBC News


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> is there a parallel deputy leadership election?



As killer b says it's a separate election.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Everything crossed that this evening we get to see a few faces like Tristram Hunt's at the moment Corbyn's victory was announced.
> 
> ETA YESSSS!


DOnt usually watch the news but i will tonight, purely for the tears


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I reckon it was the free sandwiches which swung it



Communist sandwiches!


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Surely Corbyn must go now.


Yes  

He's unelectable*.

*Even if he wins votes rigged against him, and everything else he's ever stood for


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> Show me where I've said it was fine to have a secret ballot.


Oh you haven't actually said it just like you haven't said anything, just all the insinuations, like your lovely welfare attacking mate who tried to work with Corbyn but had no option but to leave the shadow cabinet, cry me a fucking river.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Surely Corbyn must go now.



With the NEC so divided it would be the decent thing to do.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Communist sandwiches!


free sandwiches, a little bit communism


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> As killer b says it's a separate election.


What are the rules for challenging the deputy leader?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

I expect Guardian will have it as _*The day democracy died at the hands of the thugs*_


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I expect Guardian will have it as _*The day democracy died at the hands of the thugs*_



Already had someone hint that the secret ballot was really driven by Corbyn wanting to intimidate people.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> What are the rules for challenging the deputy leader?



Are you asking that rhetorically? Because I'm getting confused on who knows what and how much each things has been discussed and who's taking the piss out of who for what they don't know. And just got deja vu. Time for a drink.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 12, 2016)

They did everything they could to stitch him up and they fucked it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Blairites paid some hench to have Eagle's window put in so as to ramp up the "clear and present danger" factor.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh you haven't actually said it just like you haven't said anything, just all the insinuations, like your lovely welfare attacking mate who tried to work with Corbyn but had no option but to leave the shadow cabinet, cry me a fucking river.



Aaah - so you can't. Perhaps you may want to read my post #4410 which may give you a clue as to what I think about a secret ballot rather than (incorrectly) assuming what I think about it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

I think that 18 have just saved the labour party.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

How long before Eagle steps down for Owen to be on the list? 

Corbyn really is a bad ass isn't he?

There is literally nothing he can't win  Lucky sod.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Already had someone hint that the secret ballot was really driven by Corbyn wanting to intimidate people.


The monster.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

can he sort his front garden out now?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The monster.



Only left that meeting so he could go and kneecap someone's kids, so I hear.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 12, 2016)

NEC elections this week too?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2016)

Awaits Ben Bradshaw demanding UJC apologises for forcing the NEC to convene when he knew DAMN well it wasn't an election the PLP could rig.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Fucking AAAAAACE!!!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

Yes I heard it from Crick's own mouth as conveyed by Channel 4 News. As a bye note see that they had Laurie Penny in studio along with Matthew Parris the previous Tory MP who has become a broadcaster. LP was there to judge from the question Jon Snow asked her, as a representative of all  young people in the country. She didn't make a real contribution though. Nor did MP really.

So Corbyn lives!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How long before Eagle steps down for Owen to be on the list?
> 
> Corbyn really is a bad ass isn't he?
> 
> There is literally nothing he can't win  Lucky sod.



He's off buying lottery tickets as we speak!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 89527 NEC elections this week too?



Yeah, he'll do well.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Libertad said:


> They did everything they could to stitch him up and they fucked it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Blairites paid some hench to have Eagle's window put in so as to ramp up the "clear and present danger" factor.



Hilary Benn probably did it in disgust at her fucking up the launch and making them all look EXTREMELY stupid. Probably tied a note to it and all.

" Angela..you have failed us all . We do not tolerate failure . Have this "


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes I heard it from Crick's own mouth as conveyed by Channel 4 News. As a bye note see that they had Laurie Penny in studio along with Matthew Parris the previous Tory MP who has become a broadcaster. LP was there to judge from the question Jon Snow asked her, as a representative of all  young people in the country. She didn't make a real contribution though. Nor did MP really.


Apart from Parris' eulogy for the Labour Party.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Yeah, he'll do well.



You reckon there's no need to clear space in his diary for all those meetings then?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Are you asking that rhetorically? Because I'm getting confused on who knows what and how much each things has been discussed and who's taking the piss out of who for what they don't know. And just got deja vu. Time for a drink.


Was semi-joking, but happy to know if it's possible. Would be fucking great to see the tables turned and that odious cunt kicked out using his own tactics.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 12, 2016)

Soon to be announced:  the impending announcement of a statement expressing intent to prepare a press release about Eagle challenging the decision to deny her an unopposed election.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Was semi-joking, but happy to know if it's possible. Would be fucking great to see the tables turned and that odious cunt kicked out using his own tactics.



Same procedure as leader I think.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

We're certain Watson is behind all this are we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Corbyn being allowed to vote, according to Crick


How generous they are


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2016)

Well said, JC!


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Good words from Corbyn as he comes out.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think that 18 have just saved the labour party.


and the 48,000 I mentioned had no part?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2016)

Did someone just shout "wanker" at him?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> and the 48,000 I mentioned had no part?


I'd have to check.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

...though the BBC are starting to push the "can the election really be free and democratic with all this intimidation?" line. No doubt they'll ramp that up in the coming days.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

*


brogdale said:


> Apart from Parris' eulogy for the Labour Party.


A eulogy is more something given after a death. It was a close run thing but I think the Labour Party still lives.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Interesting that the split was identical to the split on the deleted tweet Danny posted earlier.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Is it just me or are the Independent front page headlines starting to get more balanced when talking about Corbyn?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> ...though the BBC are starting to push the "can the election really be free and democratic with all this intimidation?" line. No doubt they'll ramp that up in the coming days.



Corbyn's been round my house three times already today threatening to break my kneecaps with a cricket bat if I don't vote for him.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> ...though the BBC are starting to push the "can the election really be free and democratic with all this intimidation?" line. No doubt they'll ramp that up in the coming days.



...and again. Two mentions in a few minutes.

Drip drip drip.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

There's some level of implicit acceptance from Eagle I think;

"I'm glad Labour's NEC has come to a decision. I welcome the contest ahead. And I am determined to win it http://angela4labourleader.org/im_in/ "

(Twitter)

Whether that continues or her cabal see an advantage in an extended legal challenge remains to be seen.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2016)

The BBC sounded more elated at that rail disaster in Italy than they do reporting on this.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Corbyn's been my house three times already today threatening to break my kneecaps with a cricket bat if I don't vote for him.



I had a brick through my window in '98.

Now that's advance planning from the cunning bastard.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

Corbyn is mr fucking iron balls. Against my better judgement -  Im actually quite excited about what might happen now - hes fucked the blairites. 
What are they doing to do? Try to get loads of £3 quiders in to vote for Argh? Or keep the exisiting rules? Either way hes going to he could end up with an even bigger mandate than last time. And surely they will then have to shut up or fuck off.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

Christ - they keep banging on about Eagles office window being bricked. Blatant.


----------



## Sue (Jul 12, 2016)

agricola said:


> I just can't believe that a brick through the window of an empty premises in Liverpool constitutes national news.  Imagine the furore if someone had her car away!


I take your Angela Eagle brick shenanigans and raise you Jim Murphy and the egg during Indyref.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Is it just me or are the Independent front page headlines starting to get more balanced when talking about Corbyn?



Tend not to bother with newspapers but most of the (vaguely) decent articles I've seen about him have been in the Independent. The cynic in me thinks they're playing for those Guardian readers who're jumping ship. Heard one guy the other day have the revelation that 'the Guardian isn't the Left wing newspaper I always thought'.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

BBC saying (unnamed) MP saying that if corbyn wins then they'd return to the same situation in the PLP with the majority of the PLP refusing to co-operate with his leadership.

If they refuse to follow the whip of the party leadership entirely after he receives a second mandate from the party members shouldn't they either resign or be stripped of the party whip?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> *
> 
> A eulogy is more something given after a death. It was a close run thing but I think the Labour Party still lives.


I know what it is, and that was Parris' immediate 'analysis' on hearing the outcome of the NEC vote. He is a tory.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ - they keep banging on about Eagles office window being bricked. Blatant.



Someone - and I'm looking for volunteers - should go and kick Corbyn in the balls to see if it creates some balance. Wouldn't bother him as they're made of iron anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ - they keep banging on about Eagles office window being bricked. Blatant.



The brick is unavailable for comment, but it's fair to say it was definitely thrown by a man who has been in London all day surrounded by press.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Someone - and I'm looking for volunteers - should go and kick Corbyn in the balls to see if it creates some balance. Wouldn't bother him as they're made of iron anyway.



 gonner borrow that one for the old facebook.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> We're certain Watson is behind all this are we?



He's probably wiping his fingerprints off the ice pick as we speak


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

Anyone got any idea as to whether there will be a legal challenge from the anti Corbynites?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

The size of the majority suggests to me that the NEC members who requested a secret ballot did so not because they were concerned with bullying and intimidation from the Corbyn faction, but with bullying and intimidation from the other side.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Anyone got any idea as to whether there will be a legal challenge from the anti Corbynites?



I hope they plan to pay for it out of their own pockets if there is.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> BBC saying (unnamed) MP saying that if corbyn wins then they'd return to the same situation in the PLP with the majority of the PLP refusing to co-operate with his leadership.
> 
> If they refuse the whip of the party leadership after he receives a second mandate from the party members shouldn't they either resign or be stripped of the party whip?


They _should _fuck off out of the party they despise.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

If enough Blairites break away Corbyn wouldn't be Leader of the Opposition any more, would need over 110 or so to go? You'd imagine not as many as that would leave and likely kiss goodbye to their political careers after next election.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Anyone got any idea as to whether there will be a legal challenge from the anti Corbynites?



Apparently, certainly. Let's hope the High Court burns to the ground on that day.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Anyone got any idea as to whether there will be a legal challenge from the anti Corbynites?


They've just spent the last week briefing about how awful and undemocratic it would be if Corbyn challenged it legally, were the boot on the other foot.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

Angela's Response


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2016)

free spirit said:


> If they refuse the whip of the party leadership after he receives a second mandate from the party members shouldn't they either resign or be stripped of the party whip?



Stripped and whipped? Corbyn's depravity knows no depths.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

So plans H, I, J and K for team Red Tory?

Go to court?
Try to get more supporters in the NEC? 
Try to get CLPs of loyal Corbyn MPs to give votes of no confidence?
Try to find a candidate who can win against him?
Try to recruit  a few 100k more members to vote for them in a ballot?
Try to change some rules so Corbyn needs one squillion votes for each one of theirs?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If enough Blairites break away Corbyn wouldn't be Leader of the Opposition any more, would need over 110 or so to go? You'd imagine not as many as that would leave and likely kiss goodbye to their political careers after next election.



Aye, hard to imagine that many following the deposed officers over the top. As long as he wins though there's the brilliant possibility of watching the hardcore march off into obscurity though - will take the week off to revel in it.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Anyone got any idea as to whether there will be a legal challenge from the anti Corbynites?


Would be such a good look; _we want to overturn the democratic will of the governing body of the party in order to stop the democratically elected leader from defending our challenge._
Yeah, go with that!


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

"Today is the day the Labour Party was stabbed in the heart and killed"



"The unions have destroyed the Labour Party"


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Corbyn's a genius if he pulls off this masterplan - get all the Blairites to purge themselves from the party.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> They _should _fuck off out of the party they despise.


I agree, just pointing out that if they went through with the statement about continuing to oppose corbyn after he won a second election then they'd be giving him the means to easily remove them without having to wait for deselection in 2-3 years time.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So plans H, I, J and K for team Red Tory?
> 
> Go to court?
> Try to get more supporters in the NEC?
> ...



None of the above but I suspect there might be a considerable realignment of British politics in the coming weeks and months. In fact I think the result makes a split more likely.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So plans H, I, J and K for team Red Tory?
> 
> Go to court?
> Try to get more supporters in the NEC?
> ...



It's not looking very hopeful is it? 
Weep?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Corbyn's a genius if he pulls off this masterplan - get all the Blairites to purge themselves from the party.


La Flint is already there mentally...





> 17m ago20:14
> 
> Caroline Flint, an MP and one of Jeremy Corbyn’s most outspoken critics inside the Labour party, has been speaking to Sky News in the wake of the NEC vote. Asked if theLabour party was likely to split in future, she replied: “We’ll have to cross that bridge if we come to it.”
> 
> She insisted though that she did not want the party to split.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So plans H, I, J and K for team Red Tory?
> 
> Go to court?
> Try to get more supporters in the NEC?
> ...



- Wouldn't surprise me.
- Vote's been taken, NEC elections soon, hard to imagine too many being willing to shift. Hopefully.
- Too many Corbyn supporters around, would have to be very organised to even attempt getting the numbers locally.
- Tom Watson, his moment has come. Not that I think he could win, but they might. Or Hillary Benn.
- Run an ad in The Times? Like when posh people used to run the buses during strikes?
- Why not? Worth a punt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> La Flint is already there mentally...



Flint has form for this, having quit Brown's government as part of a failed mini-coup.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.



McTerrnsn sounds fucking batshit though.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.



If there is a split it's high end journalism like that that's going to drive their new party. Wonder if they'll even pretend to have a platform of their own, or just carry on trying to beast Corbyn?


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> "Today is the day the Labour Party was stabbed in the heart and killed"
> 
> 
> 
> "The unions have destroyed the Labour Party"




You could make sauvignon blanc with those sour grapes!!!

Haven't seen any good defeat faces yet though.

Oh, and latest from McTernan: Corbyn is anti-western!


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

Zapp Brannigan said:


>



love the guy at 9 seconds who gives it the U-S-A, to which the eagle decides its had enough of life


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Corbyn's a genius if he pulls off this masterplan - get all the Blairites to purge themselves from the party.



I was saying something similar earlier. They're doing his job for him in many ways .


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Would be such a good look; _we want to overturn the democratic will of the governing body of the party in order to stop the democratically elected leader from defending our challenge._
> Yeah, go with that!



I think they've already fucked the pooch as far as PR is concerned. Might as well not bother clinging on to those last shreds of dignity and decorum.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> The size of the majority suggests to me that the NEC members who requested a secret ballot did so not because they were concerned with bullying and intimidation from the Corbyn faction, but with bullying and intimidation from the other side.



I think that 1) this is almost certainly right 2) it's basically impossible for your average British politics journo to get their head around it


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> - Wouldn't surprise me.
> - Vote's been taken, NEC elections soon, hard to imagine too many being willing to shift. Hopefully.
> - Too many Corbyn supporters around, would have to be very organised to even attempt getting the numbers locally.
> - Tom Watson, his moment has come. Not that I think he could win, but they might. Or Hillary Benn.
> ...



Well quite. 

So enough about them.  What next for the Corbynistas?   

I'm still hoping for many CLPs of the turncoats to conduct votes of no confidence in their MPs. Let them feel a bit of the pressure they've put on Corbyn.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.


Stuff like that should secure more popular support for Corbz in the 'labour heartlands'.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Would be such a good look; _we want to overturn the democratic will of the governing body of the party in order to stop the democratically elected leader from defending our challenge._
> Yeah, go with that!


Any legal challenge would surely be about how the rule has been interpreted by the NEC


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> - Wouldn't surprise me.
> - Vote's been taken, NEC elections soon, hard to imagine too many being willing to shift. Hopefully.
> - Too many Corbyn supporters around, would have to be very organised to even attempt getting the numbers locally.
> - Tom Watson, his moment has come. Not that I think he could win, but they might. Or Hillary Benn.
> ...



Benn's always seemed the obvious right contender to me... Has that statesmanlike quality that nuffsaid craves so deeply.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> You could make sauvignon blanc with those sour grapes!!!
> 
> Haven't seen any good defeat faces yet though.
> 
> Oh, and latest from McTernan: Corbyn is anti-western!



McTernan was very good value


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

oryx said:


> Haven't seen any good defeat faces yet though.


im expecting some forced smiles "looking forward to the campaign" from those who dare go in front of a camera tonight - will be just as funny


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

1%er said:


> Any legal challenge would surely be about how the rule has been interpreted by the NEC


No matter; it's still them saying we don't want this unelectable candidate, that we can't beat, on the ballot.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.



Should have said " so he won a referendum...while not even trying to "


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Stuff like that should secure more popular support for Corbz in the 'labour heartlands'.



Cos Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that if they had a leader like Burnham or Yvetter cooper sharing a platform with cameron and arguing for remain the people of places like sunderland and Sheffield would have flocked to the EU camp.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 12, 2016)

May have been said already, but reported on Tweeter by TSSA that Unite's Martin Mayer flew back to UK from holiday, and TSSA's Andi Fox postponed holiday to attend NEC


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Court is all they have left.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> So plans H, I, J and K for team Red Tory?
> 
> Go to court?
> Try to get more supporters in the NEC?
> ...


vote of no confidence in NEC?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> May have been said already, but reported on Tweeter by TSSA that Unite's Martin Mayer flew back to UK from holiday, and TSSA's Andi Fox postponed holiday to attend NEC



Assuming they did right they're welcome to have a long weekend on my settee as compensation if they want.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Benn's always seemed the obvious right contender to me... Has that statesmanlike quality that nuffsaid craves so deeply.



I can't see anyone this side of sanity wanting to stand. Really would be a suicide mission. I think there are 2 more likely outcomes:

1] Eagle goes through with it, gets trounced and decamps to another (new?) party or

2] She withdraws from the race altogether and retires from politics.

Either way her Labour Party career is well and truly fucked.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Court is all they have left.



Do you think they'll do it? I'd say they'd have to know how damaging it would be to them but they don't seem to give a fuck.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

I cant see her going through with it - though she may blame it on intimidation


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> vote of no confidence in NEC?



Followed by a vote of no confidence in the members?


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> I can't see anyone this side of sanity wanting to stand. Really would be a suicide mission. I think there are 2 more likely outcomes:
> 
> 1] Eagle goes through with it, gets trounced and decamps to another (new?) party or
> 
> ...



I agree - waiting game for other candidates now.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"




What does this mean?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"



can someone expand what that means - its too shortened for twitter for me to understand


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> No matter; it's still them saying we don't want this unelectable candidate, that we can't beat, on the ballot.


Well you could say that, I couldn't possibly comment 

I've heard lawyers on the radio for much of the day giving different legal views and the NEC had different legal views, so off to the courts it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Do you think they'll do it? I'd say they'd have to know how damaging it would be to them but they don't seem to give a fuck.


They have to. 

Any move is now a victory.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"




And then they can claim that they had 300k supporters who wanted to join but couldn't.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

Once the dust settles I wouldn't be surprised if Watson is challenged for Deputy.

If there's going to be a purge it will start with the most senior rebels and work down the list from there.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> May have been said already, but reported on Tweeter by TSSA that Unite's Martin Mayer flew back to UK from holiday, and TSSA's Andi Fox postponed holiday to attend NEC



It has been - and fair play but also too fucking right. If there was ever a holiday to cut short, sorta thing.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2016)

Its  "a hollow victory for corbyn" apparently. Dont know what it was for the blairites then.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 12, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Assuming they did right they're welcome to have a long weekend on my settee as compensation if they want.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> What does this mean?


That the oppo has less corbyn voters through but have agreed some more.

Game over.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

The legal challenge aspect is interesting (er... for certain values of interesting). The letter from Howe's was framed in terms of breach of contract; I suspect therefore that the NEC isn't a public body for the purposes of judicial review and it's decisions can only be challenged on contractual grounds. It would be hard to challenge a decision of the NEC unless the basis for that decision fundamentally violated the procedure set out in its constitution. Know very little about that area of law though.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> And then they can claim that they had 300k supporters who wanted to join but couldn't.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"




LOL I assume this #SavingLabour farce wasn' going so well then


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

So folks who've actually joined in the last 6 months can't vote...unless they leave, register as a supporter and cough up £25?


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2016)

What a fucking mess, the PM by her own account doesn't have a mandate and the leader of the opposition could be decided by the courts


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> What does this mean?





ska invita said:


> can someone expand what that means - its too shortened for twitter for me to understand



It means that you can only vote if you've been a member or affiliated voter (was 3-quidder) of 6 months or longer, and a3-quidder is now a £25 quidder.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So folks who've actually joined in the last 6 months can't vote...unless the leave, register as a supporter and cough up £25?



Looks like it, anti-Corbyn MPs have been begging people to sign up for the past week as well..


----------



## Combustible (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Cos Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that if they had a leader like Burnham or Yvetter cooper sharing a platform with cameron and arguing for remain the people of places like sunderland and Sheffield would have flocked to the EU camp.


Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows that those sorts will only be told what to do by an exsoldier.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So folks who've actually joined in the last 6 months can't vote...unless the leave, register as a supporter and cough up £25?



No.  Both new members and supporters are barred.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

It seems weird that an NEC that voted to allow Corbyn to stay on would approve of these rule changes though.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It means that you can only vote if you've been a member or affiliated voter (was 3-quidder) of 6 months or longer, and a3-quidder is now a £25 quidder.



So basically they've decided they were getting too popular? Will piss off some new members I know.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It means that you can only vote if you've been a member or affiliated voter (was 3-quidder) of 6 months or longer, and a3-quidder is now a £25 quidder.



Yeah. Just explained on the news.

I guess new wannabe Corbynistas can still join and concentrate on deselections in the meantime?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It seems weird that an NEC that voted to allow Corbyn to stay on would approve of these rule changes though.



Dodgy dealings?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"




What does it mean though? There seems to be considerable confusion.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No.  Both new members and supporters are barred.


I see.


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So folks who've actually joined in the last 6 months can't vote...unless the leave, register as a supporter and cough up £25?


Possibly leavers re-registering as supporters would be picked up and barred...or would they? Only ever voted via my TU so no experience of applying for the £3 thing.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think this is fair.  Should quash claims of "entryism" and "Student voters"






brogdale said:


>






quimcunx said:


> Followed by a vote of no confidence in the members?


Close enough.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It means that you can only vote if you've been a member or affiliated voter (was 3-quidder) of 6 months or longer, and a3-quidder is now a £25 quidder.



 

Results breakdown from last time for anyone interested.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.





chilango said:


> McTernan sounds fucking batshit though.



Of all the ultra-Blairites around, I'm pushed to think of many as ultra-extreme as him.

And yes, so ranty in that interview he sounded completely off his trolley.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

d'oh


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 12, 2016)

I saw McTernan convince my very right wing, not at all "Labour" follower in to joining about 3 months ago.

I wonder if he's narked about it?

LOL


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So folks who've actually joined in the last 6 months can't vote...unless they leave, register as a supporter and cough up £25?


That was the price of them two votes i think.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Court is all they have left.



That would at least have the benefit of being hilarious.  Who was paying for it would probably be quite educational as well.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> May have been said already, but reported on Tweeter by TSSA that Unite's Martin Mayer flew back to UK from holiday, and TSSA's Andi Fox postponed holiday to attend NEC




Good guy Martin.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That was the price of them two votes i think.


Seemingly.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Good words from Corbyn as he comes out.



Short of him going "Do we have anyone from the BBC? No? What about Peston, where's Peston? No, oh, MIchael Crick..." it couldn't have been better


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> d'oh



Massively true


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> The legal challenge aspect is interesting (er... for certain values of interesting). The letter from Howe's was framed in terms of breach of contract; I suspect therefore that the NEC isn't a public body for the purposes of judicial review and it's decisions can only be challenged on contractual grounds. It would be hard to challenge a decision of the NEC unless the basis for that decision fundamentally violated the procedure set out in its constitution. Know very little about that area of law though.



And who'd even bring it ? The NEC against themselves and their own decision  ? A trade union ? Eagle ? 

 The decision doesn't exclude anyone from the race , doesn't impinge even remotely on anyone's right to run for leadership . Places no hurdles in front of anyone . Who's going to waste a fortune on what'll most likely be a failure ? And on something that could drag on and on and during all that time will still leave Corbyn as the incumbent . Can't see it myself.

Think a split could be much more likely .


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

I'm hoping loads of people will stand against Corbyn you'd hope for a  result along the lines of

Eagle 2,000 
Watson 2,500 
Benn 3,000 
Cooper 4,000
Corbyn 485,000


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Mc Ternan has just said that "Jeremy Corbyn is the main reason the UK voted for brexit" . Just .... wow. And the interviewer didn't challenge him on it either.




The man marked by success, 

not!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'm hoping loads of people will stand against Corbyn you'd hope for a  result along the lines of
> 
> Eagle 2,000
> Watson 2,500
> ...



I don't think anyone else is going to stand now.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> One. You fucking idiot.


Oooo, get you!


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

So can anyone speculate on what this late rule change on the vote might do the outcome of a competition if it there is one?
Lots? Something? LIttle? Nothing?


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

Given the popularity of anti-austerity parties in some other countries (Greece and Scotland come to mind) surely the right of the party would be mad to want to split.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Is that open to legal challenge, changing the rules after members have joined expecting to be able to vote? You'd anyway hope a new NEC would rescind it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Hope this is true.

Jeremy Corbyn Plans 'Mandatory Reselection Of MPs' If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Is that open to legal challenge, changing the rules after members have joined expecting to be able to vote? You'd anyway hope a new NEC would rescind it.


Everything is.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hope this is true.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn Plans 'Mandatory Reselection Of MPs' If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate



I want to believe...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hope this is true.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn Plans 'Mandatory Reselection Of MPs' If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate


 


the soggy liberal

i'm sure that the salt mines have already been suggested for the blairites...


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> So can anyone speculate on what this late rule change on the vote might do the outcome of a competition if it there is one?
> Lots? Something? LIttle? Nothing?



Not sure.  From Don’t despair: Eight things you can do to help Jeremy

If anyone joined around this time last year, then make sure that you didn’t just pay for one year.  

4. If you are not a Labour Party member then please join. If you were a £3 supporter, then please upgrade to full membership. If you have been unsure and are biding your time about joining the party, then please join now. 

Not sure how this and the NEC vote affects these numbers:


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

What happens to all the £3ers of last time? Was it a one-off ticket or does it carry over?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What happens to all the £3ers of last time? Was it a one-off ticket or does it carry over?


Yeah, you're entitled forever. Twat.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Is that open to legal challenge, changing the rules after members have joined expecting to be able to vote? You'd anyway hope a new NEC would rescind it.



Voting for the new NEC ends on the 5th of August, not sure how the leadership timetable will work out - not something to rely on either way.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, you're entitled forever. Twat.


As I've told you before, I wasn't one of them, you colossal dickhead


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> So can anyone speculate on what this late rule change on the vote might do the outcome of a competition if it there is one?
> Lots? Something? LIttle? Nothing?



After the disastrous Eagle rimmel range launch / flop I'd say very little. She's a laughing stock . And the entire manner of the coup won't have endeared any of them to anyone . Sounds like bolting the stable door. A concession that might have been traded for something .


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think anyone else is going to stand now.



They can't afford for anyone else to stand now, can they? They've minimised the number of eligible voters as far as they can and the only chance now is to only run one other candidate?
Angela?  Or will they sack her off and shunt someone else up instead? How soon is a leadership election likely to happen (sure Sep has been mentioned here)?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What happens to all the £3ers of last time? Was it a one-off ticket or does it carry over?



£25 re-registration fee, I think, not certain though.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

When was the last time? It was more than six months ago wasnt it? Im not good with time scales


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> When was the last time? It was more than six months ago wasnt it? Im not good with time scales


September 2015.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> When was the last time? It was more than six months ago wasnt it? Im not good with time scales



September last year, not guaranteeing anything about that re-registration thing though. Think the whole deal is intentionally oblique.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> They can't afford for anyone else to stand now, can they? They've minimised the number of eligible voters as far as they can and the only chance now is to only run one other candidate?
> Angela?  Or will they sack her off and shunt someone else up instead? How soon is a leadership election likely to happen (sure Sep has been mentioned here)?


Doesn't effect corbyn. His vote is still there. It's game over.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 12, 2016)

I think there'll be what will colloquially become known as a "Leadsom Withdrawal" whereby Eagle appears on the steps of somewhere or other*, possibly flanked by small group of supporters, and reads a humiliating letter.

*Given the brick episode unlikely to be outside her constituency office.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

And the press will have left to go to the toilet


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> *Given the brick episode unlikely to be her constituency office.


or maybe beside the broken window so she can play the intimidation card


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

Are you ready for a lol?



Spoiler: ...


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't effect corbyn. His vote is still there. It's game over.



Not if Jeremy forgets to file his nomination papers on time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Pre-September stories about corbyn membership now please


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> Not if Jeremy forgets to file his nomination papers on time.


What?


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What?


thinking of his tax return


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> thinking of his tax return


Go for it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Best description I've read of this coup so far has been " a hoofwanking bungle fest " 

The most scientific description we are likely to get .


----------



## binka (Jul 12, 2016)

So if they can manufacture a leadership crisis every 12 months and get hundreds of thousands of people to spend £25 a time to keep voting Corbyn it sounds like they're onto a right good little earner here


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Pre-September stories about corbyn membership now please



Lots and lots and lots and lots of stalling - _very_ last minute confirmations - no response to chase ups etc.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

binka said:


> So if they can manufacture a leadership crisis every 12 months and get hundreds of thousands of people to spend £25 a time to keep voting Corbyn it sounds like they're onto a right good little earner here


While it lasts - surely the PPI refunds of the future.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

People beginning to crowd source so genuine late to the Party can vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> People beginning to crowd source so genuine late to the Party can vote.


I wish i ssais THQFST


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I wish i ssais THQFST


Nurse, he's out of bed again!


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

This tickled me: "I think Angela Eagle should now go to Peter Mandelson at his Palace and tender her resignation immediately"


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Oh to be a fly on the wall in Dan Hodges house


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Santino said:


> Nurse, he's out of bed again!


Jealous. I thought you had them points in the bag?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Does the rule change apply to affiliated members? If you're a member of a trade union and have been for 6+ months you are still eligible I assume?


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

Labour Party elections and Unite Community members

Doesn't look like Unite Community members can vote unless they are already affiliated.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Pre-September stories about corbyn membership now please



Membership at 'August 2015'; 270k (direct link to PDF, may not work - www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf), around 325,000 at 13 Sept but with 15,000 signing up in the 'last 24 hours'. So maybe in the region of 300,000. It was around 190k for Miliband's period as leader (also in PDF).


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 12, 2016)

There was a surge after he got voted in too. I was one of those rejoiners.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

JC will have lost some support of that number.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Jealous. I thought you had them points in the bag?


I've asked the MCC to declare Trescothick's runs null and void.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Membership at 'August 2015'; 270k (direct link to PDF, may not work - www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf), around 325,000 at 13 Sept but with 15,000 signing up in the 'last 24 hours'. So maybe in the region of 300,000. It was around 190k for Miliband's period as leader (also in PDF).


Ta


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't effect corbyn. His vote is still there. It's game over.



If they're trying to put the original 3 quidders off shelling out another £25 (and fuck sake, the _members_ will have paid out £24 over the last six months - and is that why they chose £2_5_  - without the obvious tactic of dismissing the votes of anyone who can't fucking afford the new, made up supporters fee now  ) and where there's been *some* talk of polls showing a number of his original membership voters being _horrified_ by Corbyn splitting the party etc - although I'd imagine there'd be a swing back the other way, too? Errrm - question was  - what was the actual % membership vote for him the first time around? And the supporters?
And are the union affiliated voters unaffected?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> JC will have lost some support of that number.


They'll come around I think.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> This tickled me: "I think Angela Eagle should now go to Peter Mandelson at his Palace and tender her resignation immediately"



He'd press a button on the floor and shed be in a tank of piranhas in no time. 
Which would be ironic after what she's put Corbyn through .


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Telegraph is on this...


----------



## oryx (Jul 12, 2016)

Looking even worse for Angela now...

Eagle tries to carry off Australian boy - BBC News


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Santino said:


> I've asked the MCC to declare Trescothick's runs null and void.


I shall be down there tmw. Wankers phrase...but anyone's game.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph is on this...


I think Corbyn is more than capable of handling Watson.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Labour Party elections and Unite Community members
> 
> Doesn't look like Unite Community members can vote unless they are already affiliated.


That's from a year ago and doesn't tell you anything about now, does it? It's also only about unwaged members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> If they're trying to put the original 3 quidders off shelling out another £25 (and fuck sake, the _members_ will have paid out £24 over the last six months - and is that why they chose £2_5_  - without the obvious tactic of dismissing the votes of anyone who can't fucking afford the new, made up supporters fee now  ) and where there's been *some* talk of polls showing a number of his original membership voters being _horrified_ by Corbyn splitting the party etc - although I'd imagine there'd be a swing back the other way, too? Errrm - question was  - what was the actual % membership vote for him the first time around? And the supporters?
> And are the union affiliated voters unaffected?


This is the last battleground. Losing this one was fatal. Maybe.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

Until I read it today on here, I wasn't aware of the story in Private Eye of how Angela Eagle was parachuted into her constituency in the first place. I think we should be told. That wasn't democratic. How many others of the Blairite Tendency were foisted on their electorate by the party?


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph is on this...


And the Guardian's


> In a crunch meeting at Labour’s Westminster headquarters that began at 2pm on Tuesday and continued into the evening, NEC members, including Corbyn himself, *voted 18-14 in a secret ballot that he could bypass the rule* that forces candidates to show they have the backing of 20% of the party’s MPs and MEPs.


*shaking head smiley*


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Are there any other political parties who have wanted to dissuade new members from joining so much ? 

I dunno maybe they should only give prospective members full status if they pass an exam or something...


----------



## rubbershoes (Jul 12, 2016)

Corbyn's got this sewn up now. 

So we'll have the Tories in power till 2025 at least


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I shall be down there tmw. Wankers phrase...but anyone's game.


First session is crucial...


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> That's from a year ago and doesn't tell you anything about now, does it? It's also only about unwaged members.



All Unite Community are technically unwaged otherwise they would be in Unite.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 12, 2016)

This is great news.

Anyway, must dash. A mysterious stranger wearing a false beard over his beard came round this morning and gave me a bundle of notes to hold 17 dogs and a child hostage until tomorrow. The co-op's about to close and I'm nearly out of Winalot.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And who'd even bring it ? The NEC against themselves and their own decision  ? A trade union ? Eagle ?
> 
> The decision doesn't exclude anyone from the race , doesn't impinge even remotely on anyone's right to run for leadership . Places no hurdles in front of anyone . Who's going to waste a fortune on what'll most likely be a failure ? And on something that could drag on and on and during all that time will still leave Corbyn as the incumbent . Can't see it myself.
> 
> Think a split could be much more likely .


I'd guess any legal challenge would be about the "interpretation of the rules", according the radio news the NEC had legal opinions that Corbyn would need 20% of the PLP to nominate him, Corbyn had legal opinions saying he didn't. So there is a dispute

As to who could bring a case, that would be anyone who believes they have been affected by or disagrees with the interpretation of the decision, but a court could rule them out.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 12, 2016)

I assume there'll be a legal challenge re: the changes to new members/voting


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> I assume there'll be a legal challenge re: the changes to new members/voting


Momentum have (apparently) already said as much...just 30 mins after saying that the decision of the NEC should be respected by all!


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Mirror says members can be registered supporters.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Until I read it today on here, I wasn't aware of the story in Private Eye of how Angela Eagle was parachuted into her constituency in the first place. I think we should be told. That wasn't democratic. How many others of the Blairite Tendency were foisted on their electorate by the party?



In particular by Tom fucking Watson


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> All Unite Community are technically unwaged otherwise they would be in Unite.


Yeah I know.

The Unite vote will be fun. An indication of their 2015 numbers here: Unite sign up over 50,000 members to vote in Labour leadership contest | LabourList

FWIW, over 220k bothered to vote for the Unite leader (although they won't all be politically affiliated) which if translated well would have been enough to elect Corbyn on their own.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

some detail from Peston

_Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.

Because at the end of the meeting, after a couple of pro-Corbyn members had left, and Corbyn himself had gone, a vote was taken on a motion not on the agenda, to exclude from the leadership vote anyone who joined the party in the past six months - including the 130,000 who signed up since Brexit.

Now whatever you think of Corbyn, this looks and smells like gerrymandering by his opponents.

The new members will definitely be revolting._


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> some detail from Peston
> 
> _Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> 
> ...





> _a vote was taken on a motion *not on the agenda*_


Now that does sound rather open to challenge.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I think Corbyn is more than capable of handling Watson.



He may have just been handled .

" I tried to fix this and I couldn't " . Never a truer word etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2016)

Raheem said:


> This is great news.
> 
> Anyway, must dash. A mysterious stranger wearing a false beard over his beard came round this morning and gave me a bundle of notes to hold 17 dogs and a child hostage until tomorrow. The co-op's about to close and I'm nearly out of Winalot.


I don't get it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> JC will have lost some support of that number.


You're always knocking aren't you


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> some detail from Peston
> 
> _Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> 
> ...



It's like they just can't help themselves . That'll be overturned for sure .


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> some detail from Peston
> 
> _Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> 
> ...


Underhand as that is, why the fuck would you not stay until the end of the meeting knowing what underhand shits you're up against??


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Mirror says members can be registered supporters.



Is that if they pay an extra £25 on top of membership?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Underhand as that is, why the fuck would you not stay until the end of the meeting knowing what underhand shits you're up against??


Cos they'd read the agenda for the meeting?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> some detail from Peston
> 
> _Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> 
> ...



This makes more sense now if the OTHER people who supported Corbyn in the previous decision left as well. What snakes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> That's from a year ago and doesn't tell you anything about now, does it? It's also only about unwaged members.


The truth doesn't matter to treelover


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> And the Guardian's
> 
> *shaking head smiley*



That's atrocious. Imagine getting up every morning knowing you're going to spend your day churning out shit like that.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> That's atrocious. Imagine getting up every morning knowing you're going to spend your day churning out shit like that.


It's a mission for these people.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> That's atrocious. Imagine getting up every morning knowing you're going to spend your day churning out shit like that.



Worse. Imagine getting up looking forward to it.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 12, 2016)

> "Labour party members who have been in the party for less than six months will be barred from taking part in the forthcoming leadership election unless they pay £25.
> 
> A crunch meeting of the party's ruling body in London tonight decided leader Jeremy Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot for the contest.
> 
> ...



Not sure if that's been shared already but there y'go.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You're always knocking aren't you



its a statement of fact, I read the comments on social media, etc, just bugger off.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Is that if they pay an extra £25 on top of membership?



Yes.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

considering people were told explicitly


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cos they'd read the agenda for the meeting?


AOB is AOB


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Yes.



Wow


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Now that does sound rather open to challenge.


Particularly as they've been advertising the opposite for new members


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> its a statement of fact, I read the comments on social media, etc, just bugger off.


Don't talk such farting piffle - read it on social media so it must be true - bugger yourself with a fish fork


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

They've proper pissed off all the people who joined to vote Corbyn out too (all three of them) - Robert Harris is spitting feathers.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> some detail from Peston
> 
> _Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> 
> ...



Part of me thinks this might be a blessing in disguise, and one of their biggest mistakes. Theres every chance he'll still walk it, and they won't have left themselves the 'ultra left entryists' excuse.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

I don't think it'll stand tbh.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 12, 2016)

There's that too of course. Wont look great to lose that challenge either.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cos they'd read the agenda for the meeting?


Maybe couldve been brought up in AOB (any other business)


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 12, 2016)

Oh it's just a pisstake - I'm pretty much expecting Corbyn to crack on with calmly dismantling this latest piece of 'policy' tomorrow, once he's had a nice cup of tea and a bit of a sit down.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


How has that worked out for you ?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cos they'd read the agenda for the meeting?


Either the meeting was over or it wasn't. Even if you're not dealing with underhand shitbags trying to stab you in the back at every turn, anyone who's been to any kind of meeting knows there's always chatter and AOB.

Wait until the chair calls an end to the meeting, everyone is out of the room, the lights are off and the door is locked.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Bit cheeky considering people were told explicitly



That's pretty clear cut breach of contract from were I'm sitting. They've taken peoples money and all of a sudden the very thing they were advertising has been withdrawn. No sign of any small print to the contrary .


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That's pretty clear cut breach of contract from were I'm sitting. They've taken peoples money and all of a sudden the very thing they were advertising has been withdrawn. No sign of any small print to the contrary .


They can wriggle out on the specifics, or in this case the lack thereof, can't they? It doesn't say immediately, it doesn't say every leadership election.

"You'll be eligible to vote in (some) leadership elections (once you have been a member for 6 months)." No-one will take it seriously, but I don't know if they're in to much actual trouble from that route.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

then again, this is apparently in the rules, so perhaps it was last summer that was the exception?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> then again, this is apparently in the rules, so perhaps it was last summer that was the exception?



Isn't that in regard of the selection of candidates rather than the election of officers (including the party leader)?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> considering people were told explicitly



Ta for that, have taken a screenshot and if NEC doesn't overturn the decision I shall explore it with the local CLP


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Hmmm:

Section 2 shall consist of a vote of all
eligible individual members of the party
on the basis of one member one vote.
This ballot shall take place on a national
basis and shall be counted and recorded
as an aggregate vote broken down by
CLP. *Eligible members shall be those
currently on the national membership
list who are endorsed and have not
lapsed from membership*.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

If the rebels were right in the first place when moaning about there being an "exodus" of "centrists" from the party going on in the initial months after Corbyn took over while lots of pro-Corbyn types joined then regardless of the new members being excluded they'll be shit out of luck with the vote.

Edit: Poor old Robert Webb, he's now left tacitly defending dictatorship since he quit the party in the aftermath of Corbyn's original victory


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Anyone got a PDF for the 2016 rule book? Only have 2013.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

yes, just a minute


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hope this is true.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn Plans 'Mandatory Reselection Of MPs' If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate


Purge 'em laddie! Purge 'em alllll!

Good news to come home to, after a night drinking in dusseldorf's smallest bar.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

2015 rules: 

Edit: christ, it's alive! Didn't mean to inflict that on anyone, soz


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2016)

Rule Book 2016.pdf


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> If the rebels were right in the first place when moaning about there being an "exodus" of "centrists" from the party going on in the initial months after Corbyn took over while lots of pro-Corbyn types joined then regardless of the new members being excluded they'll be shit out of luck with the vote.
> 
> Edit: Poor old Robert Webb, he's now left tacitly defending dictatorship since he quit the party in the aftermath of Corbyn's original victory



the shit one from peep show


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> then again, this is apparently in the rules, so perhaps it was last summer that was the exception?



Same as 2013 anyway... This is for elections to public office. Not quite sure what that means (see below), but is a separate section from election of national officers... Public officials:

*Chapter 5
Selections, rights and
responsibilities of
candidates for elected
public office*
To be read in conjunction with selection procedures set
out in the appendices to these rules.
A right of Labour Party membership includes the
opportunity to select candidates for public office in an
area where the NEC determines that a CLP shall be
established, at every level – local, regional, national and
European. Core principles shall apply to these selections
that will enable members to select Labour Party
candidates representative of our society who can
uphold the highest standards of probity and integrity in
public life.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Underhand as that is, why the fuck would you not stay until the end of the meeting knowing what underhand shits you're up against??


Maybe they were trying to peg it before the room money collection?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

Page 14 of my one says eligibility criteria is up to the NEC. Some ambiguous words about how they need to go about it.


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe they were trying to peg it before the room money collection?



Get to the bar before the rush.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe they were trying to peg it before the room money collection?



Sandwiches had run out


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

chilango said:


> Are there any other political parties who have wanted to dissuade new members from joining so much ?
> 
> I dunno maybe they should only give prospective members full status if they pass an exam or something...


There used to be a poster on this site who was a member of the SPGP. He/she disappeared years ago.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 12, 2016)

You think this is workable?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

It also says, correct me if I'm wrong, that the election can _only_ happen at the conference (in the autumn) unless the leader becomes "permanently unavailable". Didn't know that from all the media guff.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There used to be a poster on this site who was a member of the SPGP. He/she disappeared years ago.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

Can sign up as registered supporter till July 20th then


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


>


Yes that might be what happened. They didn't even have Photoshop in those days.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

What's Unite like compared to say NUJ? I was thinking I ought to join a union.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Page 14 of my one says eligibility criteria is up to the NEC. Some ambiguous words about how they need to go about it.



I think it would be haggling over the details of contract law. The prominence of the notice that you can 'vote in membership elections' vs the unlikelihood of reading the entire rulebook would be likely to swing it I think. Though again it's law and there are so many specialisms and exceptions that a general knowledge of the law of contract is basically worthless.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What's Unite like compared to say NUJ? I was thinking I ought to join a union.


It would be rather unusual to have a job for which either union would be appropriate


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

They have a "*Graphical, Paper, Media & Information Technology *" section which i'd just about fit under (i'd probably only really just fit in NUJ but we'll let that pass).


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> I think it would be haggling over the details of contract law. The prominence of the notice that you can 'vote in membership elections' vs the unlikelihood of reading the entire rulebook would be likely to swing it I think. Though again it's law and there are so many specialisms and exceptions that a general knowledge of the law of contract is basically worthless.


I agree, although not the point I was making, which was that the rulebook says the NEC need to set out the eligibility criteria in "procedural guidelines and in each annual report to conference". Pretty weak stuff, not clear if today's decision breaches any obligation there.

Anyway I've had more than enough rulebook for one lifetime.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 12, 2016)

Eagle on Newsnight just encouraged anti-Corbynists to pay the £25 to vote and save the Labour Party and save democracy. She described this as a jolly good investment.
FFS


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I agree, although not the point I was making, which was that the rulebook says the NEC need to set out the eligibility criteria in "procedural guidelines and in each annual report to conference". Pretty weak stuff, not clear if today's decision breaches any obligation there.
> 
> Anyway I've had more than enough rulebook for one lifetime.



Same, leave it to them to sort out.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Eagle on Newsnight just encouraged anti-Corbynists to pay the £25 to vote and save the Labour Party and save democracy. She described this as a jolly good investment.
> FFS



Ooo do they pay us interest?


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Eagle on Newsnight just encouraged anti-Corbynists to pay the £25 to vote and save the Labour Party and save democracy. She described this as a jolly good investment.
> FFS



Sounds like Corbyn will have to take his door to door work away from normal people and back to his own constituency.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> They have a "*Graphical, Paper, Media & Information Technology *" section which i'd just about fit under (i'd probably only really just fit in NUJ but we'll let that pass).



If you're doing online work then the NUJ has a New Media section which might be applicable. Without knowing what your work entails though it's difficult to judge.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What's Unite like compared to say NUJ? I was thinking I ought to join a union.


Sends you lots of political spam, plus regularly tries to sell you home insurance. Not otherwise that visible unless you have workplace recognition. But still seems vaguely benevolent and makes the right noises in the mainstream media every so often, and cheaper than the alternatives like CWU, so I don't complain.


----------



## Sweet FA (Jul 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Eagle on Newsnight just encouraged anti-Corbynists to pay the £25 to vote and save the Labour Party and save democracy. She described this as a jolly good investment.
> FFS


That was great work; Corbyn is anti-democracy so _everyone _(not just Labour supporters but _everyone) _should pay £25 to save democracy.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

I wonder, was the list of who voted for that £20 rise also veiled under a blanket of secrecy? Or will it be coming out in the NEC minutes...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> If you're doing online work then the NUJ has a New Media section which might be applicable. Without knowing what your work entails though it's difficult to judge.



Freelance technical editing/writing - mainly online. 

What's the NUJ like? I quite like the sound of Unite but there was a small leftish wing union I looked at a while ago that looked promising but I forgot the name and now can't find the link


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Freelance technical editing/writing - mainly online.
> 
> What's the NUJ like? I quite like the sound of Unite but there was a small leftish wing union I looked at a while ago that looked promising but I forgot the name and now can't find the link


BECTU??


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

My partner was a 3 quidder and assumed you had to register again to get a vote this time (is that the case?).  Went to the site and found it still says £3, but the button doesn't work. Some fucker's phoned IT after the NEC meeting and got it turned off.  fucking farce.
Labour Party Supporters


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My partner was a 3 quidder and assumed you had to register again to get a vote this time (is that the case?).  Went to the site and found it still says £3, but the button doesn't work. Some fucker's phoned IT after the NEC meeting and got it turned off.  fucking farce.
> Labour Party Supporters



Yes, there is a window of 2 days and she'd have to pay £25.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2016)

Wow the Newsnight coverage of Labour is disgusting. Repetition of so many things that have been proven false, including the alleged homophobic abuse.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 12, 2016)

Well, hopefully the coffers of Unite Community will benefit from this!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

yep, but did we really expect anything else? J Ed


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Freelance technical editing/writing - mainly online.
> 
> What's the NUJ like? I quite like the sound of Unite but there was a small leftish wing union I looked at a while ago that looked promising but I forgot the name and now can't find the link



Good for individual support (legal/technical, helping with freelance issues is something they've got a lot of experience on), fairly active with teaching options for members, but not great on supporting collective disputes or particularly leftie in and of itself (a lot of the membership would like it to be a professional association rather than a union, journos often being pretentious like that). It's just come out of a financial crisis brought on by the crash in print jobs so is a bit shorter on resources than it used to be.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 12, 2016)

How so?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

The '£25 ambush' after Corbo and his mates went for last orders really hasn't been thought through. 'Person x joined 6 months ago, attended meetings, went canvassing. Person Y just bungs in £25 to vote'.  What the fuck about people who can't afford £25.  What a set of incompetent, inconsistent, stupid cunts.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> BECTU??



Nope but that looks good too  

Unite has a lot of industrial sectors which I've written on which might be interesting. Not that I'm expecting it to be any real use to my freelancing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What's Unite like compared to say NUJ? I was thinking I ought to join a union.



Totally different unions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> It would be rather unusual to have a job for which either union would be appropriate



Wut?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Wut?



The "Graphical, Paper, Media & Information Technology " section of Unite is apparently new so that would be the main overlap I presume.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> 10 more years of the Tories, at least, excellent work everyone



Go fuck an exhaust pipe.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Still there 



> Sign up as a Member or Supporter to help choose the new Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party!
> Want to have your say in who Labour's next leader is?
> Register as a supporter for as little as £3.
> Labour Party Supporters


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

deleted for being cunty


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 12, 2016)

I liked it the first way


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

deleted


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> fify



I don't like encouraging someone who's obviously unstable -judging by the tenor of their wanky posts - to kill themselves. It's bad form, doncherknow?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

ah shit , sorry I retract it, indeed bad form


----------



## Sue (Jul 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Interesting that the split was identical to the split on the deleted tweet Danny posted earlier.


Hmn, always knew that danny la rouge was right dodgy...


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 12, 2016)

Ian Collins on LBC is twisting himself up


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2016)

Sue said:


> Hmn, always knew that danny la rouge was right dodgy...


A tweet I quoted earlier knew you were going to say that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2016)

Fuck it, joined. 

Of course they might bar me for nominating an anti-Labour candidate, although as she has been a party member for at least three years, it'd be a bit cheeky.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Meant to post this in here (as opposed to less active thread), from her fb. I know, means nothing really - but amusingish.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2016)

so is this going to become a Labour party board, with endless discussion of procedural motions?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

did you add that to the agenda?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

newbie said:


> so is this going to become a Labour party board, with endless discussion of procedural motions?



Is what going to become that? Threads about the Labour Party? ...I expect so.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> did you add that to the agenda?



I'm happy for it to be heard under AOB.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

One of my posts has disappeared...spooky.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> Meant to post this in here (as opposed to less active thread), from her fb. I know, means nothing really - but amusingish.




The Friend of Freedom...long awaited sequel to Children of the Corn.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The Friend of Freedom...long awaited sequel to Children of the Corn.



Apparently the FOF is a long dead welsh businessman/politico/philanthropist. Fuck knows what the cheque is for.

e2a: the cheque contains an additional 'the'. Maybe this is significant?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> The Friend of Freedom...long awaited sequel to Children of the Corn.



Strange - yes I saw you'd posted that before (I'm hoping that's the one you posted before).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Strange - yes I saw you'd posted that before (I'm hoping that's the one you posted before).



I did on another thread, which I thought was this one but it isn't. BLAME Cid


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I did on another thread, which I thought was this one but it isn't. BLAME Cid



No, I just saw that it's on another thread


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> No, I just saw that it's on another thread



Yeah but it's Cid 's fault!


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

I'm sorry, I should have just stuck with the other one.


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

I've been drinking, I'm not fully responsible.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

treelover said:


>


I fancy being a scientist!

'You, a fucking scientist?'
- yeah, look, I've got a membership card!
'Bollocks to that, right let's see. If it takes 2 men two minutes to fill a bath...'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> I'm sorry, I should have just stuck with the other one.



Then it *would* have disappeared that would have been spooky.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

On a Hyding to nothing:

Eyes down, apocalypse bingo players: Labour’s Jedi council has spoken | Marina Hyde


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> One of my posts has disappeared...spooky.


It wasn't seconded.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It wasn't seconded.



I don't need the PLP support, I am the boss of my posts!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> On a Hyding to nothing:
> 
> Eyes down, apocalypse bingo players: Labour’s Jedi council has spoken | Marina Hyde



First paragraph that says nothing but just trying to be funny, not a promising start.


----------



## Sue (Jul 12, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> A tweet I quoted earlier knew you were going to say that.


Even more ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2016)

in terms of


DaveCinzano said:


> On a Hyding to nothing:
> 
> Eyes down, apocalypse bingo players: Labour’s Jedi council has spoken | Marina Hyde



She is sinking, is Marina.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> First paragraph that says nothing but just trying to be funny, not a promising start.


A lot of trying to shoehorn in pop culture SF mentions, bit like a poorly conceived DotCommunist post


----------



## Cid (Jul 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It wasn't seconded.



It was, but I gerrymandered it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't need the PLP support, I am the boss of my posts!


I think you'll find a no confidence motion waiting for you next time you attend.


----------



## coley (Jul 12, 2016)

So what happens if Corbyn, despite the rule changes the NEC have brought in, wins?
And thon Eagle! Can anyone be more misappropriately named? Mair like a wet spuggy, though most spuggys ((wet or otherwise) have more charm, intelligence and charisma. Boring, embarrassing and backstabbing, and that seems to be her good points.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 13, 2016)

Huh... I've just joined any way... don't care if I can vote in the leadership too much - he'll walk it - I'm looking forward to deselecting my mp (ben bradshaw).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I think you'll find a no confidence motion waiting for you next time you attend.



Who fucking cares?  Never bothered me before ...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


>


Sorry, new applications are currently disabled. Please contact site administrator.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2016)

Hahahaha - my ultra New Labour ex-colleague is moaning on Facebook that she let her membership lapse between May and June and now has to pay 25 quid to vote for Anyone But Corbyn. She's well pissed off.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 13, 2016)

£25 to vote; the Labour Party social cleansing 'democracy'.
'kinnel.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 13, 2016)

its backfiring already lol


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 13, 2016)

I chuckled

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">John McDonnell: &quot;As plotters they were fucking useless..&quot; <a href="Ben Quinn on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/Kq2yY3qULY</a></p>&mdash; Ben Quinn (@BenQuinn75) <a href="">July 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## Sue (Jul 13, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Good for individual support (legal/technical, helping with freelance issues is something they've got a lot of experience on), fairly active with teaching options for members, but not great on supporting collective disputes or particularly leftie in and of itself (a lot of the membership would like it to be a professional association rather than a union, journos often being pretentious like that). It's just come out of a financial crisis brought on by the crash in print jobs so is a bit shorter on resources than it used to be.


Hmm, used to be in/a rep for the GPMU doing similar type of stuff. (Now part of Unite which I'm not sure is a good move.) Had some colleagues in the NUJ which was at that point v expensive subs-wise and a bit rubbish unless you were in a big place/recognised. (We were unrecognised and fought hard over years and became one of the first places to be recognised under the new legislation. Notorious anti-union corporation which made it all the sweeter. )


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> £25 to vote; the Labour Party social cleansing 'democracy'.
> 'kinnel.


The best democracy that money can buy... but not if you bought it since January... though my manager has permitted me to offer a special deal, but only if you sign up over the next 48 hours.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> £25 to vote; the Labour Party social cleansing 'democracy'.
> 'kinnel.


Bringing back the property qualification, just one of our progressive policies for a fairer Britain.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 13, 2016)

Listening to the PLP, Ben Bradshaw, John McTernan etc today... its like some aliens in a sci-fi movie where they masquerade in reasonable human form but once the game is up they start sprouting three heads and vomiting green acid


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

Maybe there is a way to crowdfund to pay for others' memberships. Although I doubt it's necessary.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

JimW said:


> Bringing back the property qualification, just one of our progressive policies for a fairer Britain.


The NEC meeting ran over a bit tonight. It finished in 18:32


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The '£25 ambush' after Corbo and his mates went for last orders really hasn't been thought through. 'Person x joined 6 months ago, attended meetings, went canvassing. Person Y just bungs in £25 to vote'.  What the fuck about people who can't afford £25.  What a set of incompetent, inconsistent, stupid cunts.


also, it clearly states on the join section of the website that being able to vote for the leader is one of the benefits of joining the party.



> Where could my membership take me?
> 
> As a member, you’ll be a key part of the team. You’ll be eligible to vote in leadership elections, you can help shape party policy, you can attend local meetings and you can even stand as a candidate.
> 
> So whether you want to chip in to help us reach our goals because you share our values, or because you have ambitions to serve your community and country, the only place to start is through joining the Labour Party as a member.



So that'd be false advertising / taking money under false pretenses. Something along those lines.

eta oh I see that's been covered already.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jul 13, 2016)

Everyone being encouraged to join unions to get a chance to vote. This is massively backfiring


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> also, it clearly states on the join section of the website that being able to vote for the leader is one of the benefits of joining the party.
> 
> 
> 
> So that'd be false advertising / taking money under false pretenses. Something along those lines.


On the face of it yes, though upthread somebody mentioned there always was a qualification period and that was only changed in 2015.  But yes, absolutely, people have joined thinking they could vote.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

'Can you PLEASE stop joining our party!'


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

Anyone know what Jon Cruddas is up to in regards all this? What side of the fence...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 13, 2016)

So I can't vote in the leadership election if I join the party now, but I will be able to if I join a union. Is that right?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 13, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Huh... I've just joined any way... don't care if I can vote in the leadership too much - he'll walk it - I'm looking forward to deselecting my mp (ben bradshaw).


I'm not in favour of people joining up but for a chance to give that cunt a kick in the balls it would almost be worth it. Good luck.


----------



## coley (Jul 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ooo do they pay us interest?



Like the people the Labour Party are supposed to protect will have a spare £25 sitting there!
More an appeal to the neo Tories who comprise most of the support for the PLP to dig into their pockets to stop Corbyn.
I'm beginning to hate thon woman more than I ever hated Osbourne.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Maybe there is a way to crowdfund to pay for others' memberships. Although I doubt it's necessary.


Great idea... Pressing timeframe though.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Anyone know what Jon Cruddas is up to in regards all this? What side of the fence...


Before Corbyn was elected he had concerns but was sympathetic:


> The author of Labour’s 2015 general election manifesto, Jon Cruddas, has said a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party would risk turning into an early 80s, Trotskyist tribute act.





> He argued that the success of Corbyn’s campaign had been symptomatic of deeper problems in the Labour movement. “Here’s the thing with Jeremy Corbyn, he’s not causing the crisis for the Labour party,” Cruddas said. “His campaign is symptomatic of the nature of the crisis. He is inhabiting that crisis and diagnosing it and I think that needs to be welcomed.”


Corbyn-led Labour might turn into 1980s Trotskyist tribute act, says Cruddas


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

Unions would be the best bet to get reach quickly but it looks like they have a different workaround ie joining them.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So I can't vote in the leadership election if I join the party now, but I will be able to if I join a union. Is that right?



Yes, it seems so.

And if those unions can be canny and try to harness those new members after the fact as well... I mean, it's hard to see how this isn't a plus really.

I'm going to join Unite Community. You have to also ensure you jump through the extra hoop of signing up to support as a Labour affiliate (which I believe technically means saying you want your subs to go towards the Labour Party affiliation). So it's not enough just to join the union.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So I can't vote in the leadership election if I join the party now, but I will be able to if I join a union. Is that right?


Yes. 

As a matter of interest, I just looked on the Labour Animal Welfare Society website.  Nothing seems to have been posted there since the Leadership election last year. I wonder how active some of the other affiliated societies are? Bit of a joke if you can vote having joined something LAWS in the next 48 hours when you can't vote if you've been a paying member for 6 months.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 13, 2016)

Huffington Post quick off the mark

How Jeremy Corbyn Triumphed At Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Hahahaha - my ultra New Labour ex-colleague is moaning on Facebook that she let her membership lapse between May and June and now has to pay 25 quid to vote for Anyone But Corbyn. She's well pissed off.


Wouldn't it be cheaper to match pairs of pro and anti corbo voters, to pledge they won't vote at all?

I came up with that to prove how good a Labour Scientist I now am.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to match pairs of pro and anti corbo voters, to pledge they won't vote at all?
> 
> I came up with that to prove how good a scientist I now am.


You trying to keep pro-Corbyn voters off the ballot?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> You trying to keep pro-Corbyn voters off the ballot?


No, no, no, the very thought of it! We scientists call it a state of _equilibrium_.


----------



## pesh (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Listening to the PLP, Ben Bradshaw, John McTernan etc today... its like some aliens in a sci-fi movie where they masquerade in reasonable human form but once the game is up they start sprouting three heads and vomiting green acid


Paramedics apparently had to try and revive Bradshaw after news of Corbyn's NEC vote win gave him a funny turn


----------



## Pugnax (Jul 13, 2016)

I joined a while back (but since January) as a full member to support Corbyn and don't have a spare £25 to what, quit and rejoin? Fuck them.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 13, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Before Corbyn was elected he had concerns but was sympathetic:
> 
> 
> Corbyn-led Labour might turn into 1980s Trotskyist tribute act, says Cruddas


That is a quote from back in early September.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That is a quote from back in early September.


I know. Read my post


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Pugnax said:


> I joined a while back (but since January) as a full member to support Corbyn and don't have a spare £25 to what, quit and rejoin? Fuck them.


fair chance it will get revoked. 

I doubt it's constitutional to take such an important decision at an NEC meeting without it being on the agenda, and after several members have left the room thinking that all the business they were concerned about had been completed.

It also looks like they've applied the wrong bit of the rule book.

I'd expect there'll be a solicitors letter landing tomorrow to point this out and threaten a judicial review if it's not revoked.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> fair chance it will get revoked.
> 
> I doubt it's constitutional to take such an important decision at an NEC meeting without it being on the agenda, and after several members have left the room thinking that all the business they were concerned about had been completed.
> 
> ...


If the line of events was as reported, it's not just anti-procedural, it's outright childish. 

Would an Angela Eagle led party try and sneak something through the UN Security Council when the Russians and Chinese nipped outside for a smoke?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If the line of events was as reported, it's not just anti-procedural, it's outright childish.
> 
> Would an Angela Eagle led party try and sneak something through the UN Security Council when the Russians and Chinese nipped outside for a smoke?


Tom Watson probably would.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If the line of events was as reported, it's not just anti-procedural, it's outright childish.
> 
> Would an Angela Eagle led party try and sneak something through the UN Security Council when the Russians and Chinese nipped outside for a smoke?



Yeah . Especially if it was about bombing some brown people for their own good .


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 13, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Huh... I've just joined any way... don't care if I can vote in the leadership too much - he'll walk it - I'm looking forward to deselecting my mp (ben bradshaw).


If Tristram Hunt or Chuka Umuna were my MPs and I had the chance to deselect then this would be my message to a labour party membership canvasser:


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

This is a great article about an interview with John McTernan just before Corbyn was elected leader. He goes so far off the rails about the prospect of Corbyn being leader he actually says something needs to be " done " about him, as he's a threat to NATO .

John McTernan: if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, he should be deposed immediately | Coffee House

But nonetheless it underlines how this coup was an absolute certainty from the minute Corbyn was elected. And it's a Blairite one regardless of who stabbed Blair in the back.

And " who cares about the grassroots ? " 

You do now you rancid cunt .


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes, it seems so.
> 
> And if those unions can be canny and try to harness those new members after the fact as well... I mean, it's hard to see how this isn't a plus really.
> 
> I'm going to join Unite Community. You have to also ensure you jump through the extra hoop of signing up to support as a Labour affiliate (which I believe technically means saying you want your subs to go towards the Labour Party affiliation). So it's not enough just to join the union.


Just been looking at the site. So I can join for 50p a week, say I wanna be affiliated to labour and I can vote in the leadership contest?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> If Tristram Hunt or Chuka Umuna were my MPs and I had the chance to deselect then this would be my message to a labour party membership canvasser:



I would be lying if I said this wasn't at least a small part of why I have joined.

Not just for the gratification of seeing Hunt go, but because idk, all this carping on twitter and so on, about how the LP shafts its left-wing members and so on - well I kinda figure you can't expect the party to magically become left-wing and represent your interests unless people make it left-wing and represent your interests... you can't expect the party to be made up of left-wing MPs unless people select left-wing MPs... you can't expect the regional and national party admin to support a left-wing platform unless you elect left-wing people to the regional and national party admin... 

I've seen a lot of "what's the point? These MPs hate left-wing people" but there's only one solution to that if you want to see a left-wing Labour Party (and I accept that many people don't, nor care). If what's important to you is there being left-wing MPs in the Labour Party, then ditching your membership, or refusing to become a member, because there are currently not many left-wing MPs in the Labour Party seems a bit... _nonstrategic_.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just been looking at the site. So I can join for 50p a week, say I wanna be affiliated to labour and I can vote in the leadership contest?



It appears so, yes. The Unite spokesperson on the NEC has been touting this method all evening on twitter.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Well, these last couple of weeks have been one hell of a crash course for a lot of people in the dirty, dirty game of parliamentary and party politics. Which in many ways I think is a good thing. All these new members won't have a rosy view of party membership meaning a bit of canvassing or whatever, but will have learned a bunch of crap about rules and selections and elections and deals and factions and how absolutely fucking cut-throat it is.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It appears so, yes. The Unite spokesperson on the NEC has been touting this method all evening on twitter.


Will have a proper look tomorrow. Do I have to sign up separately to be affiliated to labour? You mentioned something about it in your post but not sure if that's a separate thing or just a box I tick on the unite community sign up form.

I agree a lot with your previous post about labour in general. I don't think representative democracy is the way to get things done, ultimately anyway but the left is fucking shit in this country and has been ever since I've been conscious. This is the best shape I've seen it in my life time so it's worth getting involved, a lot of people seem to to take that view too but, like you, I accept many won't give a shit and i don't blame them. My MP is a Corbyn plotter and it seems deselcting her is worthwhile as I don't think she even has any politics, let alone any that chimes with me but I'm not quite sure what the constituency position is on her.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

^ That's the NEC person. She's pro-Corbyn.

I think the biggest hurdle to the new members who want to get involved and try to influence things for the better will be dealing with the at times mind-numbingly boring and at times soul-crushingly inane CLP meetings. Particularly when coupled with business-as-usual CLP leadership.

It's going to be a long slog.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Your Party Your Voice

This is where you sign up as an affiliate supporter. You join the union, and then you sign up here (because of rule changes that require people to 'opt in' to supporting Labour party affiliation).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Okay, when you join Unite, after you've logged in using your membership number, in the members area you click on preferences and choose "Political Fund contributions to be used for Labour Party affiliation" - then you can use that form above to register as an affiliated supporter.

I guess after you've filled out that form, you can tick the "Signed-up Labour Party affiliated supporter" box in preferences too. It's all a bit opaque. Anyway, that's what I've just done.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 13, 2016)

I can't join through my union -- PCS is unaffiliated ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> *fair chance it will get revoked.
> 
> I doubt it's constitutional to take such an important decision at an NEC meeting without it being on the agenda, and after several members have left the room thinking that all the business they were concerned about had been completed.*
> It also looks like they've applied the wrong bit of the rule book.
> I'd expect there'll be a solicitors letter landing tomorrow to point this out and threaten a judicial review if it's not revoked.



I was wondering that when I first read about it ....

The report on ITN doesn't pull too many punches (surprisingly) :




			
				ITN said:
			
		

> Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.
> Because at the end of the meeting, after a couple of pro-Corbyn members had left, and Corbyn himself had gone, a vote was taken on a motion not on the agenda, to exclude from the leadership vote anyone who joined the party in the past six months. So the 130,000 who signed up since Brexit, most of whom are thought to be Corbyn supporters, will be unable to vote.
> Now whatever you think of Corbyn, this looks and smells like gerrymandering by his opponents.
> Corbyn will definitely attempt to get the vote over-turned.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 13, 2016)

Owen Smith To Fight For Labour Leadership

Owen Smith throwing his hat in? Not clear if this is definite.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2016)

It was reported on BBC this morning that they have also suspended all CLP meetings until after the election, due to concerns about the level of abuse and Intimidation.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2016)

Peston was quickly pulled back into line. The only theme for the next few months: frightening levels of bullying and intimidation.

What really happened at the NEC


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 13, 2016)

They really are trying every trick in the book , disgraceful


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2016)

Fucking hell.



So, bottle up CLP's and branches until September 24th and hope it all blows over.

Um. Fuck


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

Ha. Remain in your homes and do not discuss the events!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2016)

PLP: He won't step down and let us be in charge and there's NO OPPOSITION
Corbyn: I'm elected by the members
NEC: Fuck all of you, onto the naughty step


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I would bet umm 100£ that corbyn will be on the ballot. a bookie probably wouldn't even take the bet.
> 
> 
> edit: unless he dies or decides not to stand for some reason


DotCommunist I'M BACK ON FORM.

right going for the big one now: labour to win next general election with a Momentum/Corbyn-affiliated leader.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

This lying about intimidation is straight out of the US 'berniebro' narrative.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 13, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Underhand as that is, why the fuck would you not stay until the end of the meeting knowing what underhand shits you're up against??



Darren Williams (NEC CLP) said on FB that it had been a seven hour meeting and some people needed to get specific trains.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 13, 2016)

Owen (_I'll split the anti-Corbyn vote_) Smith was on R4 'Today' confirming his candidature and denying he was a splitter.
lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Darren Williams (NEC CLP) said on FB that it had been a seven hour meeting and some people needed to get specific trains.


So why not simply hold over any further items to the next meeting?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Owen (_I'll split the anti-Corbyn vote_) Smith was on R4 'Today' confirming his candidature and denying he was a splitter.
> lol



no honour amongst scabs


----------



## irf520 (Jul 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> First paragraph that says nothing but just trying to be funny, not a promising start.



"Against this malarial backdrop, then, the NEC meeting felt like an anachronism of political apparatus, a throwback to an era when facts beat truthiness..."

I must be missing something. Facts mattering is an anachronism, apparently. I suppose if your name's Blair you might think that.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So why not simply hold over any further items to the next meeting?


Meetings are banned now...until the party chooses a leader...whoever she is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Meetings are banned now...until the party chooses a leader...whoever she is.


isn't democracy wonderful


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Listening to the PLP, Ben Bradshaw, John McTernan etc today... its like some aliens in a sci-fi movie where they masquerade in reasonable human form but once the game is up they start sprouting three heads and vomiting green acid


You mean this?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

You have to feel a bit sorry for them. It's kind of like a modern day cargo cult.

Guys, if we bring back 42 day detention and house arrest...

A bog roll Belmarsh being put together as we speak.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Meetings are banned now...until the party chooses a leader...whoever she is.



Seems like a good way to get more people to Momentum meetings


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Your Party Your Voice
> 
> This is where you sign up as an affiliate supporter. You join the union, and then you sign up here (because of rule changes that require people to 'opt in' to supporting Labour party affiliation).



The Join page looks down at the moment.  but


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Peston was quickly pulled back into line. The only theme for the next few months: frightening levels of bullying and intimidation.
> 
> What really happened at the NEC



Jesus that is rabid.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Seems like a good way to get more people to Momentum meetings



 haven't joined Momentum yet


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2016)

Seems to me this last vote of the NEC to limit voting to those who joined more than 6 months ago could be quite crucial. The £3.00ers may be excluded leaving just full members of more than 6 months standing, I wonder how many of them are Corbyn supporters?


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Listening to the PLP, Ben Bradshaw, John McTernan etc today... its like some aliens in a sci-fi movie where they masquerade in reasonable human form but once the game is up they start sprouting three heads and vomiting green acid



McTiernan was glorious - utterly insane. I'd have been happy if the newsreader had let him rant and dribble on for an hour or two. With every minute that passed you could hear Corbyn votes racking up like the cash at the end of It's A Wonderful Life.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

Please understand this is not a criticism in anyway of anyone on the boards. But I am surprised by the number of posters on here who are not members of a trade union.
I know that there is a significant cost and also the reputation of unions for being more interested in selling insurance etc can put people off. As well as the crippling laws that prevent former union effectiveness.
This brings my other off topic point that the Labour Party, though eager to grasp the support of trade unions as never as much lifted one finger to repeal the draconian anti-union laws.
No offence intended as I said above, just an observation.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Seems to me this last vote of the NEC to limit voting to those who joined more than 6 months ago could be quite crucial. The £3.00ers may be excluded leaving just full members of more than 6 months standing, I wonder how many of them are Corbyn supporters?


The first corbyn election was more than 6 months ago so should be ok on that score.

The thing is even if Corbyn wins this won't be over... Sounds like another vote of no confidence, no one taking posts etc. The corbyn camp needs to come up with a strategy for what next and make sure it works.

The election buys time and also gives opportunity to rally the troops and generally win back possible labour voters. 

Would like to think that now he's woken up a bit that could be a really effective tour of the uk.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

Is it actually true that all CLP have been suspended, and not just a misreporting of the Gorton news, where their CLP _was _suspended because there was so much jostling for power due to the MP standing down?

Gorton Labour party suspended and police called in following claims of bullying and intimidation


----------



## rhod (Jul 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You mean this?



There's quite a funny new US TV comedy called "Braindead" which plays on this riff. Aliens are basically taking over politicians, which explains their irrational collective behaviour. I think it's been cancelled as it's a bit too close to the truth (!)


----------



## rhod (Jul 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Would like to think that now he's woken up a bit that could be a really effective tour of the uk.



As much as he has disdain for most journalists (and who can blame him?) I think he really needs to get in their faces, too, with more TV and radio interviews.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Jesus that is rabid.



Here's an account with slightly less hysterical 'Corbynite Thuggery' spin-du-jour ...

How Jeremy Corbyn Triumphed At Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Is it actually true that all CLP have been suspended, and not just a misreporting of the Gorton news, where their CLP _was _suspended because there was so much jostling for power due to the MP standing down?
> 
> Gorton Labour party suspended and police called in following claims of bullying and intimidation



My understanding (based on local news) is that things have been getting silly there for a while, nothing to do with Corbyn though. Just local faction fights over the succession in a safeish seat.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

rhod said:


> As much as he has disdain for most journalists (and who can blame him?) I think he really needs to get in their faces, too, with more TV and radio interviews.


Yeah its been too grassroots, needs more mass media...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Your Party Your Voice
> 
> This is where you sign up as an affiliate supporter. You join the union, and then you sign up here (because of rule changes that require people to 'opt in' to supporting Labour party affiliation).





Vintage Paw said:


> Okay, when you join Unite, after you've logged in using your membership number, in the members area you click on preferences and choose "Political Fund contributions to be used for Labour Party affiliation" - then you can use that form above to register as an affiliated supporter.
> 
> I guess after you've filled out that form, you can tick the "Signed-up Labour Party affiliated supporter" box in preferences too. It's all a bit opaque. Anyway, that's what I've just done.



This is important! I don't think Formbie has been explicit enough on her tweets. I hope UNITE'S website is now more enlightening on that score than it was last year. Until people receive an e-mail from the party confirming it and informing them that they'll check their membership with UNITE no can do.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The first corbyn election was more than 6 months ago so should be ok on that score.
> 
> The thing is even if Corbyn wins this won't be over... Sounds like another vote of no confidence, no one taking posts etc. The corbyn camp needs to come up with a strategy for what next and make sure it works.
> 
> ...


If/when he wins, most of them will come crawling back. It's a minority of wreckers, the rest just joined in because they thought they could see which way things were going and wanted it over quickly, I think. Fucked right up there.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> My understanding (based on local news) is that things have been getting silly there for a while, nothing to do with Corbyn though. Just local faction fights over the succession in a safeish seat.


That's right, nothing to do with Corbyn and they have previous. 

So is this the situation then? Are there any reputable sources saying all CLP have been suspended or is it just more bullshit?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 13, 2016)

I did see a tweet last night that the Exeter CLP had been suspended. Can't confirm that thou


----------



## hash tag (Jul 13, 2016)

marty21 said:


> How has that worked out for you ?



I sit with despair and am not sure really. The party have not covered themselves in glory, what with all the fighting
back stabbing Etc. I really wish that all had not happened. The should be as strong as they have ever been right not,
ready to hit the tories hard and win the next election. Right now this is not very likly. However, I have a possibly misguided
admiration for Corbyn, the way he has taken it on the chin as opposed to rolling over and quitting. So fair play to him on that one. BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.
Mixed blessings.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Yeah its been too grassroots, needs more mass media...



I know the media go after the bombastic and during the ref campaign it was the conservatives who gave the show but I wouldn't be surprised if a few red tories hadn't called in a favour or two from a few journous to keep Corbyn relatively invisible.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.


Why?

Would the Labour Party have become a competent, benevolent, externally interested entity under someone else?


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 13, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I did see a tweet last night that the Exeter CLP had been suspended. Can't confirm that thou


Hmm, just found this from an NEC member


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

I suspect that making it about the man is a bit of a distraction. The issue is with the policies and they'd go after anyone with those policies. The whole 'can't be PM because he's not a public school ex-PR guy or lobbyist' thing is secondary to that.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Why?
> 
> Would the Labour Party have become a competent, benevolent, externally interested entity under someone else?


I think this would not have happened with a good leader, because a good leader would have kept the party together for a whole number of reasons. Over the past day or two, there has been talk of a breakaway party. I have no idea how true this is, but it's bad enough just to have people considering it.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> That's right, nothing to do with Corbyn and they have previous.
> 
> So is this the situation then? Are there any reputable sources saying all CLP have been suspended or is it just more bullshit?



Confirmed by some at my local CLP, for what it's worth.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I sit with despair and am not sure really. The party have not covered themselves in glory, what with all the fighting
> back stabbing Etc. I really wish that all had not happened. The should be as strong as they have ever been right not,
> ready to hit the tories hard and win the next election. Right now this is not very likly. However, I have a possibly misguided
> admiration for Corbyn, the way he has taken it on the chin as opposed to rolling over and quitting. So fair play to him on that one. *BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened*.
> Mixed blessings.



Depends what the job is surely? Part of the PLP seem to see their job being to accommodate the Labour Party to the demands of the current economic orthodoxy. Many many Labour Party members, supporters and voters see the job of the Labour being to challenge that self same orthodoxy. 

Obviously the two jobs are fundamentally incompatible. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.



It depends on what job you think it's more important. If returning a voice to the membership is a task important enough then he is absolutely the right man for it.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I think this would not have happened with a good leader, because a good leader would have kept the party together for a whole number of reasons. Over the past day or two, there has been talk of a breakaway party. I have no idea how true this is, but it's bad enough just to have people considering it.



No leader could have taken the Labour Party noticeably to the Left without the right - who value cooperation and agreement with Tories - kicking up a fuss. To put the ideological dishonesty of a minority down to bad leadership is to let them off the hook for basically being bastards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> To put the ideological dishonesty of a minority down to bad leadership is to let them off the hook for basically being bastards.


not sure the magenta scum have ever had a good leader


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I think this would not have happened with a good leader, because a good leader would have kept the party together for a whole number of reasons. Over the past day or two, there has been talk of a breakaway party. I have no idea how true this is, but it's bad enough just to have people considering it.


What this episode should demonstrate is the gulf between membership opinion - general public opinion is yet to be fairly tested - and the upper party. That's the source of this division, not Corbyn the man or his policies (note the total lack of discourse around policy) or failed attempts at unity. So the only way it wouldn't have happened is to have a leader that represents the upper party's views and not the membership. That's not something to aspire to, is it?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I sit with despair and am not sure really. The party have not covered themselves in glory, what with all the fighting
> back stabbing Etc. I really wish that all had not happened. The should be as strong as they have ever been right not,
> ready to hit the tories hard and win the next election. Right now this is not very likly. However, I have a possibly misguided
> admiration for Corbyn, the way he has taken it on the chin as opposed to rolling over and quitting. So fair play to him on that one. BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.
> Mixed blessings.


You think the only reason this is happening is because he's not the 'right man for the job'? Do me a favour. Have you not been paying attention? Have a look at the two most recent Peston articles and compare them for the most recent example of a media rabidly on the attack. They have good reason to because someone like him with his policies is a threat to the owners of that media, and they're not the only ones. The amazing thing is he's not even particularly radical and look at the reaction. The problem for them isn't Corbyn it's his policies. If he was so utterly useless and pointless why has there been this level of backstabbing and attack? I've never seen such a united front against a political figure. That alone should make you sit up and take note.


----------



## andysays (Jul 13, 2016)

Not sure if this has been posted yet but
Labour leadership: Owen Smith to enter contest
contains the following


> Mr Smith will need the support of 51 MPs or MEPs to be eligible to stand in the contest.


which suggests to me he still hasn't formally submitted his nomination


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

I just hope that both sides are willing go all in and fight this out to the death ASAP, so we can crack on without being distracted by a "battle for the Labour Party" for too long.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Has there been further evidence of the 'suspending all branch/clp meetings till September' thing quoted above? A quick google didn't yield anything.  If it does happen it will be widely ignored, which in turn will presumably lead to the NEC trying to call any decisions made in those meeting null and void.  The Party's at the point of complete breakdown, but that would push it over the edge.  That the right might be trying it shows they've just the plot or are simply working on the assumption the party will split anyway after September.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> I just hope that both sides are willing go all in and fight this out to the death ASAP, so we can crack on without being distracted by a "battle for the Labour Party" for too long.


To be met with but I can do this and...


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.


the fighting is happening precisely because he is the right person for the job.

The job being to overturn 40 years of neoliberal doctrine at the top of both Labour and Conservative parties, and more recently pro-austerity doctrine that the Labour Party had signed up to under Milliband / Balls.

Those who've been installed at the top of the tree in the labour party by 'Progress' were never going to roll over and give up the party willinging, but give it up they must if this failed doctrine is to be successfully challenged and consigned to history (unless they have a complete conversion).

IMO if corbyn wins again with a big mandate, then any PLP members who continue to oppose him in parliament will be handing Corbyn the means to have them disciplined and remove the labour whip from them. I hope he now realises that they're not going to play nice, so he has to use all the tools at the disposal of the party leader to enforce party discipline and remove those who refuse to accept the will of the membership.

If he does this, then and only then will we potentially get some real opposition to the tories, and give the membership and supporters something to really fight for at the next election. Non-entities like Angela Eagle with austerity light policies have no chance of mobilising the support needed to beat the tories.

Someone who're caused the Labour membership to soar to the highest level for decades, and more than triple the pre-election levels really can't be seen as being the automatic election loser that the plotters and the media lackies are making out. Apart from anything else that should be something like £12 million a year extra going into the Labour budgets, plus enough members to mount full campaigns in constituencies where this hasn't been possible since the loss of membership after the Iraq war.

I strongly suspect that this membership level could well double again by the next election if corbyn remains and he's able to bring the PLP to heel and really take the fight to the tories and come up with the radical non-austerity / neoliberal based set of policies for the next manifesto that a huge proportion of the country is desperate to see.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Has there been further evidence of the 'suspending all branch/clp meetings till September' thing quoted above? A quick google didn't yield anything.  If it does happen it will be widely ignored, which in turn will presumably lead to the NEC trying to call any decisions made in those meeting null and void.  The Party's at the point of complete breakdown, but that would push it over the edge.  That the right might be trying it shows they've just the plot or are simply working on the assumption the party will split anyway after September.









From the huffington post article


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Has there been further evidence of the 'suspending all branch/clp meetings till September' thing quoted above? A quick google didn't yield anything.  If it does happen it will be widely ignored, which in turn will presumably lead to the NEC trying to call any decisions made in those meeting null and void.  The Party's at the point of complete breakdown, but that would push it over the edge.  That the right might be trying it shows they've just the plot or are simply working on the assumption the party will split anyway after September.


... though it's also just a sign of madness, where you just do the next most desperate thing, blinkered nonsense with no idea of consequences for the body you are fighting to control. It's getting the look of Peter Griffin fighting that chicken.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> From the huffington post article


Cheers.  Quite, quite astonishing.


----------



## inva (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> I just hope that both sides are willing go all in and fight this out to the death ASAP, so we can crack on without being distracted by a "battle for the Labour Party" for too long.


most people aren't really interested as far as I can tell, so I suppose they'll be cracking on regardless.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Seen the leadership vote timetable, voting on the NEC comes first so possibility of blocks on voting being rescinded. Although guessing new members won't be allowed to vote on NEC either.


----------



## kavenism (Jul 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> It was reported on BBC this morning that they have also suspended all CLP meetings until after the election, due to concerns about the level of abuse and Intimidation.



Hope not as I was going to my first in Brentford and Isleworth tonight. I got the invite, nothing through on the email about it being cancelled though.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

kavenism said:


> Hope not as I was going to my first in Brentford and Isleworth tonight. I got the invite, nothing through on the email about it being cancelled though.



If it's cancelled and the venue closed put a brick through a window.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Cheers.  Quite, quite astonishing.


it is isn't it.

I'd be really surprised if the NEC actually had the power to suspect CLP meetings collectively in this way outside of situations where there were clear disciplinary issues or other reasons to suspect each specific CLP from meeting.

I suspect that any CLP could invoke rules to call an EGM of the membership to discuss this suspension and the NEC would be powerless to stop that.

TBH I suspect they did both that and the measure about 6 month membership requirements to vote in the underhand way that they did in full knowledge that they would be rescinded on appeal / if subject to legal challenge, but they wanted to get a few weeks breathing space and take the wind out of the massive recruitment drive that's been going on (which is a fucking odd way of running a party, most parties use leadership elections specifically to recruit new members).


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> That's right, nothing to do with Corbyn and they have previous.
> 
> So is this the situation then? Are there any reputable sources saying all CLP have been suspended or is it just more bullshit?


Huff post review of the meeting (posted upthread) also mentions it


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'd have to check.


while doing so consider that in less than 24 hours of the NEC there's a union recruitment drive going on.  An initiative like that during the Poll Tax rebellion would have slowly circulated via pamphlets, weekly and monthly papers and flyposters.  Or, for for the majority who didn't see any of that, by word of mouth so what you knew depended on who you knew and what they happened to say.  I'm not pretending mobile technology changes the rules of the game but it's currently tipping people into participation and helping erode the power of the professionals.  Right now I see that as being core not froth, you?

Longterm, who knows? It may prove to be froth, but I draw some hope from the role of the fax machine in samizdat circulation.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

newbie said:


> while doing so consider that in less than 24 hours of the NEC there's a union recruitment drive going on.  An initiative like that during the Poll Tax rebellion would have slowly circulated via pamphlets, weekly and monthly papers and flyposters.  Or, for for the majority who didn't see any of that, by word of mouth so what you knew depended on who you knew and what they happened to say.  I'm not pretending mobile technology changes the rules of the game but it's currently tipping people into participation and helping erode the power of the professionals.  Right now I see that as being core not froth, you?
> 
> Longterm, who knows? It may prove to be froth, but I draw some hope from the role of the fax machine in samizdat circulation.



During the 2015 leadership election the Unite phone canvassing for Corbyn was really solid, we'll see a repeat of that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 13, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Please understand this is not a criticism in anyway of anyone on the boards. But I am surprised by the number of posters on here who are not members of a trade union.
> I know that there is a significant cost and also the reputation of unions for being more interested in selling insurance etc can put people off. As well as the crippling laws that prevent former union effectiveness.
> This brings my other off topic point that the Labour Party, though eager to grasp the support of trade unions as never as much lifted one finger to repeal the draconian anti-union laws.
> No offence intended as I said above, just an observation.


Some of us are union members but our unions are not affiliated to Labour


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Some of us are union members but our unions are not affiliated to Labour



Yep. Thankfully.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

I can't believe they are trying to stitch it up with a price hike.

they really have pissed their chips.


----------



## andysays (Jul 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> it is isn't it.
> 
> I'd be really surprised...
> 
> ...


----------



## inva (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't believe they are trying to stitch it up with a price hike.
> 
> they really have pissed their chips.


if as some of the labour right claim the pro Corbyn lot are all middle class they'll be able to afford £25 easily - didn't think that through I fear


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't believe they are trying to stitch it up with a price hike.
> 
> they really have pissed their chips.


I can't really complain about the price hike for one-off voters; that was always on the cards

I don't see how it is lawful to stop everyone who has joined since January 12 from voting tho. that can't stand can it?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Some of us are union members but our unions are not affiliated to Labour



Hopefully this latest episode of Labour, the vanishing season, will spur more unions on to re-assess their belief in Labour being the vehicle to carry the cause of working people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I can't really complain about the price hike for one-off voters; that was always on the cards
> 
> *I don't see how it is lawful to stop everyone who has joined since January 12 from voting* tho. that can't stand can it?


josef stalin approves tho


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't believe they are trying to stitch it up with a price hike.
> 
> they really have pissed their chips.



Not only that but some right-wing Labour MPs are claiming that it was Corbyn wot done it to keep the sudden flood of anti-Corbyn members (lol) from ousting him.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

Well, if thousands of new members are barred from voting or have to stump up an extra £25, will they be pissed off enough to "get their money's worth" by getting stuck into other changing the Labour party type activities?

...or is "voting for Corbyn" pretty much it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I can't really complain about the price hike for one-off voters; that was always on the cards
> 
> I don't see how it is lawful to stop everyone who has joined since January 12 from voting tho. that can't stand can it?


Tell it to the courts.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

Message to disabled people regarding Owen Smith MPs Leadership bid



> Message to disabled people regarding Owen Smith MPs Leadership bid
> 
> Liza Van Zyl, a disability rights activist has made this statement:
> 
> ...


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> During the 2015 leadership election the Unite phone canvassing for Corbyn was really solid, we'll see a repeat of that.


This time they'll take the opportunity to actively recruit, I suspect


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Not only that but some right-wing Labour MPs are claiming that it was Corbyn wot done it to keep the sudden flood of anti-Corbyn members (lol) from ousting him.


heh, the desperation now is turning vicious. He just won't give us our party back 

Arise Sir Owen. Interesting to read comments on his planet sized ego. Him and she who soars must be those sort of people who are so arrogant they actually deny reality and listen instead to anything that endorses them. Whats the word. Narcissism


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

I'll just pop this in here for anyone who hasn't already seen it.

Anarchist Momentum


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

There's a sort of logic to limiting the registered supporters sign up period, given the shambles there was last time with regard to the verification process.  But 2 days is a pisstake.  They knew they couldn't get rid  of the whole category so did everything they could to 'vandalise' the process. Making it dearer to have a single vote than to be a reduced member is outrageous. And they wouldn't even be embarrassed that they've excluded most people on benefits.

But if anything the January deadline for members to vote is the bigger pisstake.  Apart from the fact it's a retrospective action - those people would have signed up having written promises they could vote in subsequent elections - the January date is dishonest. It goes back a previous set of regulations that are no longer in place. The only reasonable date to put in would have been the date Eagle put in her papers to trigger the process.  Sorry, obvious points, I just find it astonishing.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Well, if thousands of new members are barred from voting or have to stump up an extra £25, will they be pissed off enough to "get their money's worth" by getting stuck into other changing the Labour party type activities?


Yeah ok.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Yeah ok.



I don't know. I'm asking.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'll just pop this in here for anyone who hasn't already seen it.
> 
> Anarchist Momentum


They're...they're serious, aren't they??!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'll just pop this in here for anyone who hasn't already seen it.
> 
> Anarchist Momentum


At an anti-racist thing during the corbyn leadership campaign i was taking the piss calling it an anarchists for the labour party meeting...today...no ones laughing...


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

New members can vote on NEC election, so vote in Corbyn supporting candidates and there's time yet to revert back to proper voting rules.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> At a anti-racist thing during the corbyn leadership campaign i was taking the piss calling it an anarchists for the labour party meeting...today...no ones laughing...



That's not fair.

I'm laughing.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just been looking at the site. So I can join for 50p a week, say I wanna be affiliated to labour and I can vote in the leadership contest?



I'm sure that Unite Community is just for unwaged.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> New members can vote on NEC election, so vote in Corbyn supporting candidates and there's time yet to revert back to proper voting rules.


I'm not sure, but I suspect the new NEC only comes in at the Conference in September.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> New members can vote on NEC election, so vote in Corbyn supporting candidates and there's time yet to revert back to proper voting rules.


have to have joined by....June 14th, i think


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> I'm sure that Unite Community is just for unwaged.


Bit broader than that. Unwaged, pensioners etc. Also, I know people who are working, in other unions and have still signed up to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> I'm sure that Unite Community is just for unwaged.


Forward planning by _the party_ then.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> I'm sure that Unite Community is just for unwaged.





Spoiler: More or less, but not quite...



If you are not in paid employment; a student, carer, retired or unemployed, membership costs just 50p a week which can be paid annually or monthly by Direct Debit. Unite is currently looking into other forms of payment for those who do not have bank accounts, such as pay point and cash payments. You can join online, collect an application form at any one of Unite’s local offices or download a form via the website www.unitetheunion.org/community. If a member finds paid work after joining Unite Community, they will either transfer onto the full Unite membership rate or be advised to join the appropriate union if the work is not in an area covered by Unite. If you join another union for work, you can still maintain your Unite Community Membership and continue campaigning for a better society within your community group


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Bit broader than that. Unwaged, pensioners etc. Also, I know people who are working, in other unions and have still signed up to it.


Its for those 'not in paid employment; a student, carer, retired or unemployed' - 'If a member finds paid work after joining Unite Community, they will either transfer onto the full Unite membership rate or be advised to join the appropriate union if the work is not in an area covered by Unite' - so joining up whilst in work is a little naughty.  But fuck it, do it anyway


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> I don't know. I'm asking.


yeah i know! I was just answering for me personally.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Its for those 'not in paid employment; a student, carer, retired or unemployed' - 'If a member finds paid work after joining Unite Community, they will either transfer onto the full Unite membership rate or be advised to join the appropriate union if the work is not in an area covered by Unite' - so joining up whilst in work is a little naughty.  But fuck it, do it anyway





> If you join another union for work, you can still maintain your Unite Community Membership and continue campaigning for a better society within your community group


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> yeah i know! I was just answering for me personally.



Ah. Ok.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure, but I suspect the new NEC only comes in at the Conference in September.



Ah well, worth a thought. Either way, a better NEC can only be helpful once the fallout comes.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Its for those 'not in paid employment; a student, carer, retired or unemployed' - 'If a member finds paid work after joining Unite Community, they will either transfer onto the full Unite membership rate or be advised to join the appropriate union if the work is not in an area covered by Unite' - so joining up whilst in work is a little naughty.  But fuck it, do it anyway


Cheers, I was just looking for that definition.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> If/when he wins, most of them will come crawling back. It's a minority of wreckers, the rest just joined in because they thought they could see which way things were going and wanted it over quickly, I think.



Maybe happening already. From an internal source* so I don't know if it's in the public domain but apparently several of the shadow cabinet resigners are now talking about regretting a hasty decision. Nandy was mentioned but also that it wasn't just her.

Many of the shadow cabinet even before the mass resignation were relatively politically inexperienced, of course, so it wouldn't be that surprising. I'd hope most of them would be welcomed back with open arms - better to have them on side again, with what might be a chastened but more courageous sense of loyalty in light of the reprieve they've been given. Not all of them though - Benn should fuck right off.

*that's not a euphemism for 'me' - I'm not a member


----------



## Cid (Jul 13, 2016)

This article (Mandy crying over spilt long-term members) puts membership at 370,000 in December - about double what it was when Ed lead. In August 2015 270,000, with many joining immediately after the election.

Looking at the results quimmy posted:







Not sure of membership figures at the exact point of the election but at most 310,000. I think the more important figure is the level of membership support since the Iraq war anyway (TB had a brief high point of 380k) which levelled out around 180-190k. Basically, even if all the gerrymandering holds, Corbyn looks likely to win.

e2a: member vote about equal between Corbyn/not Corbyn at that point. Can they really muster up that many more? Especially in the context of at least 60,000 eligible new members since then (and possibly some deserting old ones).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Maybe happening already. From an internal source* so I don't know if it's in the public domain but apparently several of the shadow cabinet resigners are now talking about regretting a hasty decision. Nandy was mentioned but also that it wasn't just her.
> 
> Many of the shadow cabinet even before the mass resignation were relatively politically inexperienced, of course, so it wouldn't be that surprising. I'd hope most of them would be welcomed back with open arms - better to have them on side again, with what might be a chastened but more courageous sense of loyalty in light of the reprieve they've been given. Not all of them though - Benn should fuck right off.
> 
> *that's not a euphemism for 'me' - I'm not a member


Welcomed back with open arms? Let back in on punitive terms you mean?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

> Angela Eagle has urged Labour supporters to "save" the party, and "heal" the country by signing up to remove leader Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> Ms Eagle has pleaded with opponents of Mr Corbyn to pay the *increased* £25 fee to challenge his leadership.
> 
> ...


  Here's Eagle encouraging people to pay the £25 (ITV website).  Interesting that she's left grubbing about trying to recruit 25 quidders after she and her ilk have spent months deriding the _3 quidders_.  And because of the machinations last night, she can't actually put out an appeal for people to _join_ the party.  Squalid.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Welcomed back with open arms? Let back in on punitive terms you mean?



With that phrase I was thinking more about how it looks from the outside. No doubt there'd (need to) be some agreements reached behind closed doors beforehand.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Welcomed back with open arms? Let back in on punitive terms you mean?



A finger from each of them? Works for the Yakuza.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

so becoming unite community union member gets you a vote in the leadership for sure? how did they leave that one open. I take back the stalinist comment. He was more efficient.


billy_bob said:


> several of the shadow cabinet resigners are now talking about regretting a hasty decision


must be galling to realise that no, the sun does not shine out of your arse and wining elections using a well oiled machine in safe seats does not make you fucking machiavelli


----------



## gosub (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> josef stalin approves tho


Does he work in advertising standards now?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

The new economics:

£3 - Militant Tendency wreckers
£25 - decent Labour People


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 13, 2016)

Someone mentioned that they will keep on making leadership challengers until corbyn goes. Can they really do that? Would there be a majority in the PLP for such a move? Couldn't they be expelled/deselected for such malicious action - effectively deliberately sabotaging the party? 
Its clearly a fight to the death and the Blairites will do anything to stop the membership and corbyn - but is this a realistic scenario?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> A finger from each of them? Works for the Yakuza.


And each one needs to do it to another _pentito_.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The new economics:
> 
> £3 - Militant Tendency wreckers
> £25 - decent Labour People



Sounds ok to me. I fucking hate decent people and I'm sick of hearing about them.


----------



## kavenism (Jul 13, 2016)

Got an email from my local CLP branch secretary. Says she is in the dark regarding cancellation of meetings however she is aware that some MPs are lobbying for it. Official leadership hustings period does not open until July 22nd so that is not a good excuse if that's the one they're peddling.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> New members can vote on NEC election, so vote in Corbyn supporting candidates and there's time yet to revert back to proper voting rules.



Due to the suspension of all CLP activities the membership will find it difficult to organise new NEC lists. Perhaps that's why the NEC have mandated this cessation of all perfidious local party democracy.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

For final clarification Unite Community is for unwaged, unemployed, sick and disabled, retired, students, etc. You are entitled to vote and the emails giving details will go out when the process begins

From UC Officers.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Due to the suspension of all CLP activities the membership will find it difficult to organise new NEC lists. Perhaps that's why the NEC have mandated this cessation of all perfidious local party democracy.



Ah, the old stick in the spokes ploy?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

Decimation (Roman army) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> For final clarification Unite Community is for unwaged, unemployed, sick and disabled, retired, students, etc. You are entitled to vote and the emails giving details will go out when the process begins
> 
> From UC Officers.


Entitled to vote from what membership date? That doesn't clarify about new members or relatively new members at all.


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 13, 2016)

One little tip for people not in affiliated unions / not a member long enough - join the Hebden Bridge Trades Club, affiliated to the party as part of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs. Members got a vote last time. Obviously there are other affiliated Labour clubs (though surprisingly few these days) but the Trades lets you join online and you might even fancy going to a (discounted) gig afterwards. The Trades Club - Holme Street, Hebden Bridge, West Yorks, HX7 8EE

Have no idea if they will process membership quickly enough but if they are clever about it could be a nice little earner for a club that is perennially short of cash.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Decimation (Roman army) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Kidnap them, tie them up and dump them, alive and well, on the steps here.


----------



## kavenism (Jul 13, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Due to the suspension of all CLP activities the membership will find it difficult to organise new NEC lists. Perhaps that's why the NEC have mandated this cessation of all perfidious local party democracy.



My CLP was due to select delegates for the AGM tonight. I can't see how they're going to justify putting that off.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Due to the suspension of all CLP activities the membership will find it difficult to organise new NEC lists. Perhaps that's why the NEC have mandated this cessation of all perfidious local party democracy.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2016)

kavenism said:


> My CLP was due to select delegates for the AGM tonight. I can't see how they're going to justify putting that off.



Of all the shit that the NEC pulled last night this suspension of CLPs to meet is the first thing that needs to be challenged by Corbyn/McDonnell et alia.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

surely even right-labour CLP members must guard their territory with some jealousy? even if they agree that corbyn should fuck off, nobody likes their toes stepped on, right? 'we win you these elections you dicks' would be my thoughts.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Someone mentioned that they will keep on making leadership challengers until corbyn goes. Can they really do that? Would there be a majority in the PLP for such a move? Couldn't they be expelled/deselected for such malicious action - effectively deliberately sabotaging the party?
> Its clearly a fight to the death and the Blairites will do anything to stop the membership and corbyn - but is this a realistic scenario?


once a year before conference is how I read the rules on that.

If they refuse to follow the party whip continuously in the meantime then that should put them at risk of having the whip removed, though Corbyn is on a bit of a sticky wicket with that one given his rebellious history. Some sort of bringing the party into disrepute charge could also probably be made against MPs found leaking to the press and briefing against the leadership.

But that presumably all depends on the make up of the NEC and willingness of the NEC to take on the PLP plotters and support the leadership that the party members elect (assuming corbyn is elected again).


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

> Retweeted Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand):
> 
> ‪#‎LabourNEC‬ £25 quid fee ruling shows they aren't against entryism as long as it comes from middle class rather than the working class.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

There's another 10 weeks of this bollocks at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> There's another 10 weeks of this bollocks at least.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

> Firstly, people can join the Unite union as a community member, paying 50p a week until becoming an affiliate member by 8 August.
> 
> This would allow members or anyone interested, including students and the unemployed, to vote in the upcoming election.
> 
> ...



This is ridiculous, as myself, Belboid,has pointed out, those in work have to join Unite itself.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Exactly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> This is ridiculous,* as myself, Belboid,*has pointed out, those in work have to join Unite itself.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



In (nearly) Carole King's words, It might as well bane until September!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

AKA, what's the difference between a wild eyed, orders from Moscow, fanatical entryist and a decent, hardworking person who looks to Labour to defend them in these uncertain times? 
- £22.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Exactly.



Just contacted Indy.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Didn't have you down as a pedant, thats Pickmans trade.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Just found out Owen Smith was a senior lobbyist for Pfizer!


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

so if I join LGBT Labour for £8 a year it means I can vote, according to the Independent article?I thought new members couldn't? (i joined the party last week)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 13, 2016)

If a CLP decided to hold a meeting, the NEC would be able to do precisely what to stop them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Just found out Owen Smith was a senior lobbyist for Pfizer!


yeh. it's been referred to above.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> so if I join LGBT Labour for £8 a year it means I can vote, according to the Independent article?I thought new members couldn't? (i joined the party last week)


I think that article is nonsense and you have to be a labour party member to join that internal group - same for BAME LAbour.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> so if I join LGBT Labour for £8 a year it means I can vote, according to the Independent article?I thought new members couldn't? (i joined the party last week)



So they say. Not sure if they'll have a chance to close that loophole, sure they'll try though.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> so if I join LGBT Labour for £8 a year it means I can vote, according to the Independent article?I thought new members couldn't? (i joined the party last week)


'Probably', though I expect plenty on the right are scurrying round as we speak to close these 'loopholes'.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Just been noticing on social media just how many RTS, anti-capitalists from the 90's/early 2000's, etc, are now with Corbyn. This is from the cartoonist Kate Evans


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> If a CLP decided to hold a meeting, the NEC would be able to precisely what to stop them?



Practically, nothing. But they would say any attempt to meet and any motions passed were illegitimate.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

It would be interesting to know when the right came up with this cunning plan to restrict the party electorate.  Perhaps they've not really thought it through.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think that article is nonsense and you have to be a labour party member to join that internal group - same for BAME LAbour.


It did sound a bit strange to me. 
Tho I guess as a new member I cd join to get voting rights... if that bit is even accurate.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Just found out Owen Smith was a senior lobbyist for Pfizer!



Also in favour of Iraq, NHS PFI/privatisation etc.

Owen Smith opens up on by-election

Public supportive of moves to increase choice but government must do more to make it a reality

and recently of more austerity

Martin Shipton: Is there really an alternative to more austerity?

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/ex...n-Smith-on-backing-Andy-Burnham-Labour-leader


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It would be interesting to know when the right came up with this cunning plan to restrict the party electorate.  Perhaps they've not really thought it through.


It was mentioned as part of eagle's challenge plan last week.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It was mentioned as part of eagle's challenge plan last week.


Ah, right. Cheers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Ah, right. Cheers.


I was going to mention it but  didn't think it would get past the NEC...


----------



## andysays (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Not only that but some right-wing Labour MPs are claiming that it was Corbyn wot done it to keep the sudden flood of anti-Corbyn members (lol) from ousting him.



He's such a tyrant he even manages to introduce and force through a motion undder AOB once he's left the meeting.

Will no one save us from this monster...


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I sit with despair and am not sure really. The party have not covered themselves in glory, what with all the fighting
> back stabbing Etc. I really wish that all had not happened. The should be as strong as they have ever been right not,
> ready to hit the tories hard and win the next election. Right now this is not very likly. However, I have a possibly misguided
> admiration for Corbyn, the way he has taken it on the chin as opposed to rolling over and quitting. So fair play to him on that one. BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.
> Mixed blessings.


hash tag are you sure about that?

I think you have to be very careful with this. This is logic that makes one go along with the crowd. It can turn a small group of bullies into a large group of bullies.

Let me give you an example to illustrate. Take Christophe Bassons. A cyclist whose record was unremarkable, except for the fact that he was perhaps the only clean rider on the tour during the reign of Lance Armstrong. Looking back with hindsight it seems the man was practically a saint, however he was horrendously hounded and had to quit Christophe Bassons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was he the wrong cyclist? No.

You can find many others of whistleblowers, or otherwise well-motivated people who come against harassment because they are threatening an order of things.

You have to ask yourself, do the attacks make any sense? If it does not, maybe there is something else behind it all.

Might Corbyn be a threat to an established order of things? I very much think so.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 13, 2016)

Unite Community website is struggling...


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Unite Community Leeds Office is now saying you can join as a worker, but can't get advice on work issues, very confusing.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Unite Community Leeds Office is now saying you can join as a worker, but can't get advice on work issues, very confusing.


I don't think it's very confusing; not this particular bit anyway!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.





hash tag said:


> I sit with despair and am not sure really. The party have not covered themselves in glory, what with all the fighting
> back stabbing Etc. I really wish that all had not happened. The should be as strong as they have ever been right not,
> ready to hit the tories hard and win the next election. Right now this is not very likly. However, I have a possibly misguided
> admiration for Corbyn, the way he has taken it on the chin as opposed to rolling over and quitting. So fair play to him on that one. BUT, if he really was the right man for the job, none of this fighting would have happened.
> Mixed blessings.


tbh he is the righter man for the job than any of the lightweight magenta scum trying to bump him out. indeed you can see he is the right man for the job given the immense efforts the right wing shits are putting into trying to defenstrate him.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Unite Community website is struggling...



Too many people trying to join or a DDoS attack organised by some shady Blairite new media agency? 

It's a funny old world in which you have to at least half-seriously entertain the latter possibility


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 13, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Too many people trying to join or a DDoS attack organised by some shady Blairite new media agency?
> 
> It's a funny old world in which you have to at least half-seriously entertain the latter possibility



Probaby too many people trying to join. FB is full of folk telling everyone to join unite (or Hebden Bridge trades club) to get a vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

If you want to do that hebden bridge thing you better get moving as you need to post a form to them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

thats so hebden bridge


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Too many people trying to join or a DDoS attack organised by some shady Blairite new media agency?
> 
> It's a funny old world in which you have to at least half-seriously entertain the latter possibility



Wouldn't a DDos attack organized by a shady Blairite new media agency consist of bulky package after bulky package of 3.5" discs being delivered through the Royal Mail?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

*Mike Smithson* @MSmithsonPB
Latest @IpsosMORI Westminster voting intentions 
CON 36% 
LAB 35% 
LD 11% 
 UKIP 8%

Look at those LD twats.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Tony Blair still gets a vote. Other mass murderers need to get onto their solicitors, FAST.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Message to disabled people regarding Owen Smith MPs Leadership bid



Owen Smith in "media-pleasing, egotistic, cripple-bashing shitcunt" non-shocker.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Probaby too many people trying to join. FB is full of folk telling everyone to join unite (or Hebden Bridge trades club) to get a vote.



many people saying phone line not being answered, I suspect its going to show UC is somewhat under-resourced.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> *Mike Smithson* @MSmithsonPB
> Latest @IpsosMORI Westminster voting intentions
> CON 36%
> LAB 35%
> ...


Ukip vote is interesting (but that's another thread).


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Owen Smith in "media-pleasing, egotistic, cripple-bashing shitcunt" non-shocker.



Tbf, I think he has been on a 'journey' and his position on the WCA has hardened.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> many people saying phone line not being answered, I suspect its going to show UC is somewhat under-resourced.



How many new member services staff do you think UC should keep/would need to keep on the payroll to cope with these sorts of events?


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Corbs doing well on Labours last PMQ's.


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> many people saying phone line not being answered, I suspect its going to show UC is somewhat under-resourced.


no-one except the NEC members and their backers could have forseen what would happen nor the speed or determination of it happening.  And they just expose how moribund their thinking is.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think that article is nonsense and you have to be a labour party member to join that internal group - same for BAME LAbour.



Not so sure, if you go to the affiliated supporter sign up page on the Labour website it lists the above organisations (and many others) just after the unions with no mention of having to be Labour member as well.

Never realised there was a "Chinese for Labour" group, good to know I can be more specific than BAME Labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> How many new member services staff do you think UC should keep/would need to keep on the payroll to cope with these sorts of events?


treelover never misses a chance to put in a dig against the left


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Tbf, I think he has been on a 'journey' and his position on the WCA has hardened.



Into the fucking sea with him, then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Not so sure, if you go to the affiliated supporter sign up page on the Labour website it lists the above organisations (and many others) just after the unions with no mention of having to be Labour member as well.
> 
> Never realised there was a "Chinese for Labour" group, good to know I can be more specific than BAME Labour.


Crazy stuff then - i have been having a dig around affiliated groups and the thing is just so unclear. The labour rules basically say here's some loose guidelines that are subject to random unchallengable NEC changes.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> *Mike Smithson* @MSmithsonPB
> Latest @IpsosMORI Westminster voting intentions
> CON 36%
> LAB 35%
> ...


jsut a off the top reaction but isnt that UKIP down and LAB up? Ukip voter back to Labour?

theres some much worse polls for LAB gone up on Polling Report recently


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> many people saying phone line not being answered, I suspect its going to show UC is somewhat under-resourced.



Nope.
The entire national structure uses the same call centre, so what's happening is that phone calls to all parts of Unite are suffering,not just UC.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 13, 2016)

The Unite website is easily overwhelmed and from my own experience it can take a while to be rectified.
My log-in took many phone calls, resets and about a month to settle down.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

curses, exposed!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

unnasailable ten point lead if it wasn't for the octocunts. Toynbee wankers


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

When all this is over the new shadow cabinet and leader should really try and nail the big lie the Tories push they they are a party of compassion, they aren't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> When all this is over the new shadow cabinet and leader should really try and nail the big lie the Tories push they they are a party of compassion, they aren't.


showing your true colours now: who is the new leader you want to see?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Not so sure, if you go to the affiliated supporter sign up page on the Labour website it lists the above organisations (and many others) just after the unions with no mention of having to be Labour member as well.
> 
> Never realised there was a "Chinese for Labour" group, good to know I can be more specific than BAME Labour.


however BAME labour isn't taking new registrations at moment! (my partner just tried)


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 13, 2016)

The website was buggered this morning, I couldn't even log into my members account as it kept coming up with "incorrect password."
I knew it was correct anyway as logged in yesterday, and it worked in the end.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> showing your true colours now: who is the new leader you want to see?


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> however BAME labour isn't taking new registrations at moment! (my partner just tried)



Come support the Chinese in solidarity!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


>


that cock won't fight


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Come support the Chinese in solidarity!


do they do any um checks?
lgbt might be safer for me, i don't want to be accused of "entryism"


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> do they do any um checks?
> lgbt might be safer for me, i don't want to be accused of "entryism"



No idea tbh, I wasn't even aware of it until this morning.  

I think if straight people can join LGBT Labour as "ally/solidarity" than non Chinese should be able to join in the same manner!


----------



## Cid (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


>



I preferred call of Pripyat.


----------



## JimW (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> do they do any um checks?
> ...



You have to perform a medley of Emil Chau karaoke numbers and win at least three hands at mah jongg against a really mean granny.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 13, 2016)

LGBT Lab, Scientists for Lab, Lab Campaign for International development signup pages not working  any moar?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ...she who soars...





DotCommunist said:


> ...the octocunts...





DotCommunist said:


> ...Toynbee wankers...



Good work


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 13, 2016)

Scientists for Labour statement:



> *Temporary suspension of membership applications*
> We've just recieved a massive spike in membership applications - it's great to be loved! However, it's come to our attention that this may not be because science policy has become a priority for the nation but perhaps more to do with people trying to side-step the Labour NEC decision that eligibility to vote in the upcoming leadership election includes a cut-off threshold for membership: you have to have joined before Feb 2016.
> 
> Scientists for Labour is a science policy group. We are not a means for non-Labour members to hijack the Labour leadership election. That is not a judgement against or for any leadership candidate - we don't even know who will stand at this stage - but is a defence of the Labour NEC's rules.
> ...


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 13, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

IC3D said:


> LGBT Lab, Scientists for Lab, Lab Campaign for International development signup pages not working  any moar?


couldn't find an lcid joining page


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

never trust the whitecoats


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

From the graunid on PMQs



> He gets a round of applause. Tory MPs give him a standing ovation. Opposition MPs are applauding too, but they have not got to their feet *(apart from some Lib Dems)*.



edit: wrong thread


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

tbf it's reasonable that Labour subgroups should take that attitude.  Unions can continue to recruit- can the LP NEC impose similar timelimits on union members?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> From the graunid on PMQs


Table banging cunts all round.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

newbie said:


> tbf it's reasonable that Labour subgroups should take that attitude.  Unions can continue to recruit- can the LP NEC impose similar timelimits on union members?



I don't really know where people are getting the idea that affiliated unions will get around the rule. IMO if the rule stands there is no way that will be allowed, only union members who have been in the union for 6 months+ will get to vote.


----------



## wtfftw (Jul 13, 2016)

And there was me just thinking Labour were going to process new proper members at a snail's pace.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know where people are getting the idea that affiliated unions will get around the rule.


From the Independent ha


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

Has anything come from Corbyn or close allies about this voting eligibility NEC vote taken after he left?


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know where people are getting the idea that affiliated unions will get around the rule. IMO if the rule stands there is no way that will be allowed, only union members who have been in the union for 6 months+ will get to vote.



an alternative view will depend on exactly what union regulations say.  I haven't a scooby atm, but if, for instance, a union rule confers a leadership vote on any signed up member (who pays the levy) there's a legal clash there, iyswim, because the LP rule is retrospective.  It's not entirely clearcut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

wtfftw said:


> And there was me just thinking Labour were going to process new proper members at a snail's pace.


that would have been the obvious thing: 'we regret that due to a spike in membership we cannot guarantee everyone's membership will be processed with our usual speed.'


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know where people are getting the idea that affiliated unions will get around the rule. IMO if the rule stands there is no way that will be allowed, only union members who have been in the union for 6 months+ will get to vote.


The unions are getting some mileage out of this. It's bringing in new TU members who might not have otherwise joined. Some of them will be transient but some will stick, much more so if they are supported and get to vote.

If there's any ambiguity about whether new TU members are eligible (this I don't know), and the NEC moves against them, then to some extent it's a declaration of war on the unions, a tangible and well-formed entity rather than the largely disparate hordes of individual would-be supporters.

Could be fun.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> never trust the whitecoats


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

Actually, perhaps I am wrong

Your Party Your Voice



> All Unite members are eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election provided:
> 
> 
> They pay the political levy – this will be the case unless the member has opted out.
> ...



but there is a caveat....



> The Labour party will be first check applications against the electoral register and then will conduct checks on members to ensure that they are not supporters of any other parties. Unite does not have any role in this process.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Has anything come from Corbyn or close allies about this voting eligibility NEC vote taken after he left?





> The rules of the Labour Party have changed since the last election. If you registered as an affiliated supporter for the last election, you'll need to re-register for £25. Alternatively, you can join an affiliated union which are listed below.
> 
> Click this link to sign up: Supporters | The Labour Party
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Good work


its nice that you appreciate my victories as well as my failures dave


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Kidnap them, tie them up and dump them, alive and well, on the steps here.


Is that the Tories or the Lib Dems HQ? I'm happy to dump them at either, just wondering.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its nice that you appreciate my victories as well as my failures dave


Could you stop getting things slightly wrong btw.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know where people are getting the idea that affiliated unions will get around the rule. IMO if the rule stands there is no way that will be allowed, only union members who have been in the union for 6 months+ will get to vote.



You might be right, but the emergency shutdown by the science one suggests there may actually be a loophole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Raheem said:


> You might be right, but the emergency shutdown by the science one suggests there may actually be a loophole.


there isn't a loophole if they close it


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2016)

Has the Guardian surrendered?


----------



## newbie (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Has anything come from Corbyn or close allies about this voting eligibility NEC vote taken after he left?





> *McDonnell says he was 'disappointed' by NEC's decision to stop new members voting in leadership contest*
> McDonnell has just told BBC News that he was “disappointed” by the NEC’s decision to insist that Labour members can only vote in the leadership contest as members if they joined at least six months ago. (See 9.10am.)
> 
> But he said he would accept the decision. He did not call for it to be reconsidered.


David Cameron's final PMQs: 'I was the future once'  - Politics live
at 09.47


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Kidnap them, tie them up and dump them, alive and well, on the steps here.


walk them up the tarpeian rock -- and then


Spoiler


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Could you stop getting things slightly wrong btw.


probably not


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> Has the Guardian surrendered?



No, they give the decent part of their readership something half good once in a while so they can continue their saturation of shit


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Scientists for Labour statement:





> *Temporary suspension of membership applications*
> We've just recieved *a massive spike in membership applications*


 I was hoping for something more _precise_ from them. Disappointed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was hoping for something more _precise_ from them. Disappointed.


disappointed they got received wrong too


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> never trust the whitecoats


The goldcloaks of the Eagle dynasty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> disappointed they got received wrong too



Spelling errors?  Website malfunctions?  All tell-tale signs of resistance activity.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> My understanding (based on local news) is that things have been getting silly there for a while, nothing to do with Corbyn though. Just local faction fights over the succession in a safeish seat.


That's Gerald Kaufman's seat, isn't it? I can see the Blairites wanting to get their hands on it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Turning to the grauniad at the moment is like starting up a random shit generator:



> Jeremy Corbyn tacitly endorsed bullying and intimidation of Labour staff by voting against the proposal for a secret ballot on Wednesday night, an NEC member has said.
> 
> Johanna Baxter, who is a former trade union official and represents constituency parties on Labour’s National Executive Committee, said she generally avoided speaking to the press about Corbyn but called the NEC meeting “an utter disgrace to our movement”.



Corbyn 'endorsed bullying by voting against secret ballot'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its nice that you appreciate my victories as well as my failures dave


I am like a stern schoolmaster - any cruelty is meant only to foster your development


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> walk them up the tarpeian rock -- and then
> 
> 
> Spoiler


No no no. Bernoulli's principle is that they only fly if they're on fire.

Handy pictorial guide:






I'm sure you wouldn't want to push them off a cliff without first setting them on fire.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Turning to the grauniad at the moment is like starting up a random shit generator:
> 
> 
> 
> Corbyn 'endorsed bullying by voting against secret ballot'


like stirring a cesspit with a big stick it brings to light shits you'd never seen before, in this case one johanna baxter


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> No no no. Bernoulli's principle is that they only fly if they're on fire.
> 
> Handy pictorial guide:
> 
> ...


my principle is that chucking them off a big cliff is good enough.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I think this would not have happened with a good leader, because a good leader would have kept the party together for a whole number of reasons.


"Good leader"? That's a value judgement based entirely on the notion that a "good leader" is someone like Blair or some other dull functionary that speaks in PR slogans. You've totally ignored the internal party dynamic and the Right's hostility to anything that looks vaguely left-wing. If anything, it's the Right (those you support) who have thrown their toys out of the pram and want to split the party. What's left of the left in Labour shut up and got behind the leader but the Right? They throw tantrums and that's been going on since the days of George Lansbury.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Turning to the grauniad at the moment is like starting up a random shit generator:
> 
> Corbyn 'endorsed bullying by voting against secret ballot'


"plans to release her full notes from the meeting later on Wednesday"! Does anyone just _do _anything any more?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Turning to the grauniad at the moment is like starting up a random shit generator:
> 
> 
> 
> Corbyn 'endorsed bullying by voting against secret ballot'





> “A prominent journalist was texting members of the NEC, saying they had to vote for Jeremy, a union general secretary was phoning round members of the NEC telling them they had to vote for Jeremy,” she said. “It is intimidation and he endorsed it.”


PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY CALLING ME ON THE PHONE


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 13, 2016)

If anyone has been trying in vain to sign up with Unite Community, keep trying, I just managed to sign up with them.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

Also:


> Eagle will formally launch a clean campaign pledge later on Wednesday, using the slogan “*Keep it comradely*”


I can't take it any more.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> If anyone has been trying in vain to sign up with Unite Community, keep trying, I just managed to sign up with them.


I did it last night.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> "plans to release her full notes from the meeting later on Wednesday"! Does anyone just _do _anything any more?


I bet the bastards were even arguing their position.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Also:
> I can't take it any more.



Heard that line a few times, seems to mean 'don't disagree with me'.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Heard that line a few times, seems to mean 'don't disagree with me'.


If you Google it, you get a thin array of different stuff but mostly relating to Corbyn campaigns from 2015.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 13, 2016)

Does it matter if the right split their vote? My recollection was that Corbyn had an overall majority last time (not of the membership which was something like 49% in favour of him, but of the total once supporters and affiliated TU members etc. were taken into consideration). Can a candidate win with less than 50% of the vote, or do they use PR/multiple rounds of voting to get a candidate with an overall majority?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Does it matter if the right split their vote? My recollection was that Corbyn had an overall majority last time (not of the membership which was something like 49% in favour of him, but of the total once supporters and affiliated TU members etc. were taken into consideration). Can a candidate win with less than 50% of the vote, or do they use PR/multiple rounds of voting to get a candidate with an overall majority?


Rounds last time, so second preference carries over etc.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 13, 2016)

That's a shame - there's not much harm in them splitting the vote then.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

True, other than obfuscating the picture for anyone who might yet be convinced to vote against Corbyn.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Is that the Tories or the Lib Dems HQ? I'm happy to dump them at either, just wondering.



LibDem.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Just been noticing on social media just how many RTS, anti-capitalists from the 90's/early 2000's, etc, are now with Corbyn. This is from the cartoonist Kate Evans




Plenty of us aren't. But you wouldn't see that on social media would you?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY CALLING ME ON THE PHONE



They sound like anxiety-ridden 13 year old drama llamas


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If you want to do that hebden bridge thing you better get moving as you need to post a form to them.


You can email it and do a bank transfer rather than cheque.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> You can email it and do a bank transfer rather than cheque.


That's good. I think i misread their don't use a bank transfer thing anyway. _Getting things slightyl wrong._


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So why not simply hold over any further items to the next meeting?



Well that's what you do if you're not out to gerrymander.


----------



## heinous seamus (Jul 13, 2016)

Anyone know what the score is with Unison members voting in the leadership race? Looks like I'm signed up to the general political fund but not the labour link.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2016)

How you can vote in the Labour party leadership election without paying £25


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2016)

> *Steven McCluskey*
> 2 hrs ·
> Don't Panic!! - I just spoke to Unite the Union who are in the process of preparing a statement to be launched on there website later today advising what to do to secure a vote in the upcoming labour leadership contest. It is likely to include advice on the following..
> 
> ...


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

As someone who is rather semi-detached from British politics by distance, I have a couple of questions I'd like answers to please.

Was John Smith considered to be from the left-wing of the Labour party and if not who was the last leader of the party to come from the left-wing?

Who was the last Leader of the Labour party to win a general election and was considered to be from the left-wing of the party?

Has there ever been a situation in the British Parliament where the leader of the opposition has been unable to fill all the shadow ministerial posts?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> like stirring a cesspit with a big stick it brings to light shits you'd never seen before, in this case one johanna baxter



You should have heard her performance on The World at One, I felt like passing her a tissue through the front of the radio as her tears pooled on the kitchen worktop.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Was John Smith considered to be from the left-wing of the Labour party and if not who was the last leader of the party to come from the left-wing?


Smith was in the Gaitskellite mould. He was no left-winger. Bryan Gould, his challenger, was more left-wing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> How you can vote in the Labour party leadership election without paying £25


Things I particularly like about this:
1) The speed at which the diversionary routes came out
2) Everyone registering this way makes a mockery of this latest ploy in a hilarious and neat "we are smarter than you as well as more numerous" way
3) The numbers registered this way will all be reported on, highlighting over and over again to everyone the shitty behaviour of the chickens, partidges and other bird-brains, which can only undermine their scummy plot further
4) They cannot close every door, window, chimney, vent etc. Collective will shall have its way.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2016)

Pretty much all the Labour Prime Ministers from 1945-70s advocated and implemented policies similar to Corbyn, though at the time the left wing of the party was probably considerably to the left of most of them.

historically he's not really that left wing, he seems to be standing on a pretty solid social democratic platform, eg.



> “We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise, alongside a private sector with a long-term private business commitment, that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future. Labour will always seek to distribute the rewards of growth more fairly. But to deliver that growth demands real change in the way the economy is run,” Corbyn said.



eta it's just that the political consensus moved to neoliberalism while he's largely stuck to what worked in the post war period (and it demonstrably did work a lot better than neoliberalism in most ways)


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er I guess last time Labour had a leader from the left-wing of the party was under Michael Foot, when the right split off to form the SDP and Thatcher was elected in 1983 with 42.5% of the vote as against a combined total of 53% for Labour and the SDP/Liberal Alliance.

ETA: The decision of Ramsay MacDonald, Labour's first PM, to abandon the party from the right to form a national government also caused a crisis for the party throughout the 1930s. The right-wing of the Labour Party bare their fair share of responsibility for Labour's electoral misfortunes over the years.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist I guess by deleting your post you no longer believe Ramsay MacDonald is the answer to my question, but an interesting wiki page never the less


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

heinous seamus said:


> Anyone know what the score is with Unison members voting in the leadership race? Looks like I'm signed up to the general political fund but not the labour link.



Edit - ignore that, I read it as Unite, not Unison and posted wrong info.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> DotCommunist I guess by deleting your post you no longer believe Ramsay MacDonald is the answer to my question, but an interesting wiki page never the less



I didn't want to argue with people today, its been a long day so i deleted. If you want an interesting read on brit politics shennanigans try the wiki on the Zinoviev Letter.


----------



## oneflewover (Jul 13, 2016)

My union, the TSSA, has just emailed me with a link on how to get a vote in the leadership election.



> As a member of TSSA, one of Labour's affiliated trade unions, you can vote in this election provided you register as a Labour supporter. You can do this here  www.tssa.org.uk/Labour-supporter. For the reasons outlined in this letter, we would like you to vote for Jeremy. However, that is you choice.



I could, like some, shouted indignantly amount the amount of bullying i'm getting to vote JC, but there isn't any.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 13, 2016)

oneflewover said:


> I could, like some, shouted indignntly amount the amount of bullying i'm getting to vote JC, but there isn't any.


That's no reason to refrain!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> That's no reason to refrain!



Indeed, the opposite is true


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't want to argue with people today, its been a long day so i deleted. If you want an interesting read on brit politics shennanigans try the wiki on the Zinoviev Letter.


Fuck me the Daily Mail has been "at it" for years 

I think I'll do a lesson plan around that letter, thanks.


----------



## heinous seamus (Jul 13, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Edit - ignore that, I read it as Unite, not Unison and posted wrong info.



I'm always doing that


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Fuck me the Daily Mail has been "at it" for years
> 
> I think I'll do a lesson plan around that letter, thanks.


be sure to mention the times they endorsed fascists


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They sound like anxiety-ridden 13 year old drama llamas


Somebody nearly rang me up once. It was terrifying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> be sure to mention the times they endorsed fascists



I see the straw man was alive and well back then.  Of course the Socialists hated Fascism because it was foreign.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

This is amazingly pathetic

Tearful Labour official slams Corbyn, 13/07/2016, World at One - BBC Radio 4

Is Johanna Baxter actually this upset? If so I feel sorry for her, she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be put in situations where... well I don't know, she has to talk to people? If not, what a manipulative nasty piece of work.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Somebody nearly rang me up once. It was terrifying.



They should try working in a call centre...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is amazingly pathetic
> 
> Tearful Labour official slams Corbyn, 13/07/2016, World at One - BBC Radio 4
> 
> Is Johanna Baxter actually this upset? If so I feel sorry for her, she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be put in situations where... well I don't know, she has to talk to people? If not, what a manipulative nasty piece of work.


Madam, I salute your tremulosity!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

To be honest, _assuming it's true_, short of doing it to the fash, posting up personal/mobile numbers is a cunt's trick.


----------



## Cid (Jul 13, 2016)

Threats of legal action? My god the fear, the terrible fear.


----------



## Cid (Jul 13, 2016)

I refuse to pay my council tax, the court summons was a bullying tactic and should be condemned...


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

tbf, a lot of the people on the NEC are lay union bureaucrats, or sometimes minor officials, they wont be used to this kind of public exposure, and the vitriol will be surprising.

The MP's can fuck off, obviously.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> be sure to mention the times they endorsed fascists


Yes the more I read the more I find, I think I'll widen the issue.

Just to make it clear I am not a professional teacher, but get invited now and again to speak at my local university by a friend who teaches politics there, it is more about the fact that I have lived in the UK and USA rather than my political views.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> tbf, a lot of the people on the NEC are lay union bureaucrats, or sometimes minor officials, they wont be used to this kind of public exposure, and the vitriol will be surprising.
> 
> The MP's can fuck off, obviously.



Maybe I'm just being an insensitive dick but I don't know, I could understand and sympathise and believe it was genuine more if it was spontaneous rather than being paraded around in order to cause maximum political damage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is amazingly pathetic
> 
> Tearful Labour official slams Corbyn, 13/07/2016, World at One - BBC Radio 4
> 
> Is Johanna Baxter actually this upset? If so I feel sorry for her, she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be put in situations where... well I don't know, she has to talk to people? If not, what a manipulative nasty piece of work.



don't know where the 'h' in her name came from


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Yes the more I read the more I find, I think I'll widen the issue.
> 
> Just to make it clear I am not a professional teacher, but get invited now and again to speak at my local university by a friend who teaches politics there, it is more about the fact that I have lived in the UK and USA rather than my political views.


don't


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They should try working in a call centre...



Having read up a bit on Baxter and realising that she originally did indeed work in a call centre as a CWU rep I feel like a bit more of a dick for making this comment but tbh I still find this whole crying during broadcast thing more than a bit suspicious.

It seems like a tactic now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Having read up a bit on Baxter and realising that she originally did indeed work in a call centre as a CWU rep I feel like a bit more of a dick for making this comment but tbh I still find this whole crying during broadcast thing more than a bit suspicious.
> 
> It seems like a tactic now.


i'm told imagining a submarine disaster helps open up the waterworks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> tbf, a lot of the people on the NEC are lay union bureaucrats, or sometimes minor officials, they wont be used to this kind of public exposure, and the vitriol will be surprising.
> 
> The MP's can fuck off, obviously.



Anyone coming from a union would understand the notion of being accountable to those they are meant to represent, and for that to be possible their voting record has to be available. They can vote how they chose - they are representatives not delegates - but they have to be able to be held to account. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> tbf, a lot of the people on the NEC are lay union bureaucrats, or sometimes minor officials, they wont be used to this kind of public exposure, and the vitriol will be surprising.
> 
> The MP's can fuck off, obviously.


Yeah, there's a thin line, but contacting someone at the official number of the body through which they are ex-officion on the NEC is fine.  Genuine threats - if such there are - is out of order, calling them a cunt is marginal, but anything else ... well, who the fuck do they think they are and responsible to?  I don't personally expect the labour party or even a corbynised labour party to actually achieve much, but for those who think the party might make a difference to people's lives this is important stuff.  And however it's spun, those trying to remove Corbyn are the ones who have caused this shitstorm.  What the fuck did they expect?


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Anyone coming from a union would understand the notion of being accountable to those they are meant to represent, and for that to be possible their voting record has to be available. They can vote how they chose - they are representatives not delegates - but they have to be able to be held to account.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Full-timer, isn't she? The democratic bits of the union are a pain in the arse


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Yes the more I read the more I find, I think I'll widen the issue.
> 
> Just to make it clear I am not a professional teacher, but get invited now and again to speak at my local university by a friend who teaches politics there, it is more about the fact that I have lived in the UK and USA rather than my political views.


You were asked abou  uk politics. Your're Freemason obsessed loon. Who asked you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, there's a thin line, but contacting someone at the official number of the body through which they are ex-officion on the NEC is fine.  Genuine threats - if such there are - is out of order, calling them a cunt is marginal, but anything else ... well, who the fuck do they think they are and responsible to?  I don't personally expect the labour party or even a corbynised labour party to actually achieve much, but for those who think the party might make a difference to people's lives this is important stuff.  And however it's spun, those trying to remove Corbyn are the ones who have caused this shitstorm.  What the fuck did they expect?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Yes the more I read the more I find, I think I'll widen the issue.
> 
> Just to make it clear I am not a professional teacher, but get invited now and again to speak at my local university by a friend who teaches politics there, it is more about the fact that I have lived in the UK and USA rather than my political views.


i thought it might be to do with the fact you know the man at the university


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought it might be to do with the fact you know the man at the university


Yep that's it, no more to it than that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Full-timer, isn't she? The democratic bits of the union are a pain in the arse



Maybe but they still know about them. 
I'm just trying to put her outrage in context.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## 1%er (Jul 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You were asked abou  uk politics. Your're Freemason obsessed loon. Who asked you?


LOL I've had nothing to do with freemasonry for over 37 years, you are the one who thinks they have some sort of power, that's the lunacy


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Good piece on the political failure of Labour's right, by Gary Younge
Corbyn’s critics are hellbent on destroying the party they claim to love | Gary Younge


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> LOL I've had nothing to do with freemasonry for over 37 years, you are the one who thinks they have some sort of power, that's the lunacy


37 years. Not your massive


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 13, 2016)

Bristol CWU pulled out of funding Lab MPs - the irony

Lost the bastard link now


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 13, 2016)

Should this also go in passive aggressive office emails thread?

I know it's not an email,  but it is a note.



The fucking cheek.   Pickets at place of work not allowed? Sums up new Labour really.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 13, 2016)

*Bristol MP 'not welcome' at campaign office | West Country ...*
www.itv.com › news › bristol-mp-not-we...


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

How do I copy a tweet to here when I'm not on Twitter? Just wondering as I did a search to find out if Johanna Baxter had reported her phone number being put online to police (which is the only element of bullying) and found this from her twitter feed:
Johanna Baxter (@JohannaBaxter) on Twitter 
"Jul 11
Johanna Baxter ‏@JohannaBaxter
@Redlabour2016 no, partial bits of one piece of advice is on line. I want to see all legal advice received on this matter. Not unreasonable."

So she asked for the legal advice. It included a statement that the lawyers were notified they would intend to hold people on NEC liable if they broke the rules and how the lawyers advised they would proceed. That's not bullying, that's the information she asked for. She has a very fluffy idea of what "accountable" means if she thinks it excludes legal action.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Having read up a bit on Baxter and realising that she originally did indeed work in a call centre as a CWU rep I feel like a bit more of a dick for making this comment but tbh I still find this whole crying during broadcast thing more than a bit suspicious.
> 
> It seems like a tactic now.


Partisan Tears, wrenched from the ducts of our call centre comrades.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Should this also go in passive aggressive office emails thread?
> 
> I know it's not an email,  but it is a note.
> 
> ...



Never mind that, no demonstrations at events!?!?!

The kindest interpretation is that he's stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> How do I copy a tweet to here when I'm not on Twitter? Just wondering as I did a search to find out if Johanna Baxter had reported her phone number being put online to police (which is the only element of bullying) and found this from her twitter feed:
> Johanna Baxter (@JohannaBaxter) on Twitter
> "Jul 11
> Johanna Baxter ‏@JohannaBaxter
> ...


use the snipping tool or print screen and whittle down


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Should this also go in passive aggressive office emails thread?
> 
> I know it's not an email,  but it is a note.
> 
> ...




Yep numbers 3 and 4 could be flatly contradictory. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> *Bristol MP 'not welcome' at campaign office | West Country ...*
> www.itv.com › news › bristol-mp-not-we...


Is this the first 3 traitor MPs with a formal vote of no confidence? Nice touch to explain withdrawing funding, no visiting the office etc.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> use the snipping tool or print screen and whittle down


On a phone...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Should this also go in passive aggressive office emails thread?
> 
> I know it's not an email,  but it is a note.
> 
> ...




saved for posterity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> On a phone...


oh


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

After the euro ref, where I was predicting remain would win 2 or 3 hours into the count, I should keep out of the prediction game. However this is shaping up more and more as a split.  The right probably have to stay till the announcement of the leadership result in September.  However if there have been half a dozen no confidence votes by corbynite local parties by then, along with constitutional proposals to shift power towards the members, that's probably it.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

How about #keepitcomradely outside of Labour leadership election times as well by not scabbing, not waging illegal aggressive war, not privatising public assets etc?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 89552
> don't know where the 'h' in her name came from


Is Prospect one of the unions that was a product of a merger of the AEEU with other unions?


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2016)

The CLPS are suspended from meeting til after the election, so no motions of no confidence. They're suspended for that exact reason I expect.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> The CLPS are suspended from meeting til after the election, so no motions of no confidence. They're suspended for that exact reason I expect.



Yep...and in particular no motions from Wallasey CLP.

It's a good thing they're so opposed to bullying and intimidation that they've banned members from coming together to exercise their constitutional rights...without such protectors where would we be?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> The CLPS are suspended from meeting til after the election, so no motions of no confidence. They're suspended for that exact reason I expect.


It explains the urgency, I think I saw somewhere that Eagle's CLP were meeting this Friday.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Is Prospect one of the unions that was a product of a merger of the AEEU with other unions?


No that's gmb. Prospect was engineering and other managers


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

Do you know what I'm hating most about all this?

That "politics" has collapsed into internal Labour Party loopholing.

So much so that the seduction is that to feel like a participant I need to join Labour, and not just that, but that I need to do it secret squirrel style. Oh the glamour, the excitement,  the sheer daring!

I hate that I'm being made to feel like that.

I hate that Corbyn, who was dismissed as the enemy in the 80s, is now the saviour.

I hate that everything feels like it's on hold whilst the Labour Party fights a battle they've fought before.

I hate that I'm cheering on Corbyn, knowing that if he wins I'm going to be arguing against him. Yet, I'm still cheering him on.

And I hate that I'm moaning about this, because hostile or not , Labour has become the locus(t) of the left once again.

You bastards.

:


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Found this, Labour Leadership - NEC Member seeking your views.
This public letter from Johanna Baxter explicitly says she wants to be contacted by people about their views on how to vote at NEC and right down at the bottom of the page it includes her mobile number as well as her email address. Can somebody save a copy of the page please?

FRAUDULENT TEARS.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> No that's gmb. Prospect was engineering and other managers



(BECTU voting currently over a proposed merge with Prospect)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do you know what I'm hating most about all this?
> 
> That "politics" has collapsed into internal Labour Party loopholing.
> 
> ...


Spot on, every bit of it.


----------



## inva (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do you know what I'm hating most about all this?
> 
> That "politics" has collapsed into internal Labour Party loopholing.
> 
> ...


the struggle against Blairism begins with the struggle against Corbynism

or something


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

fuck me that's a weak signature


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Found this, Labour Leadership - NEC Member seeking your views.
> This public letter from Johanna Baxter explicitly says she wants to be contacted by people about their views on how to vote at NEC and right down at the bottom of the page it includes her mobile number as well as her email address. Can somebody save a copy of the page please?
> 
> FRAUDULENT TEARS.



What site is that though?  

Anyway here:


FreezePage


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 13, 2016)

Meanwhile Novara Media who really oughta know better are running a deselection guide on their website and say "_This requires years of hard work in branches and constituencies across the country." _Meanwhile struggles around housing, migrant rights, anti-raids, support of grassroots unions are neglected and money that could have been spent on some of these is chucked at Labour


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> It was reported on BBC this morning that they have also suspended all CLP meetings until after the election, due to concerns about the level of abuse and Intimidation.



I believe my CLP is still going ahead this Friday because it's part 2 of the AGM (the AGM was so busy they had to split it over 2 months), and not a normal meeting. It had emerged over the past couple of days that there was to be an emergency motion from the floor for a vote of confidence in Corbyn. Not sure whether that will be allowed to go ahead since it's not regular AGM business. It's all a muddy, sneaky mess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> What site is that though?
> 
> Anyway here:
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

anyway

jo(h)anna baxter

when did the errant h take up residence in her name? it wasn't there in 2010


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

Recent piece by Paul Mason. 



> Corbyn was only ever a placeholder around which Labour’s membership could create a new kind of politics: a more networked, more activist, and much more radical form of social democracy than has existed within Labour since the 1930s. A form of leftism rooted in the very communities where Labour is battling right wing populism, through community activism and grass roots engagement.
> 
> So whatever happens in the legal battles and the election ahead, the issue is no longer Corbyn.
> 
> It is whether the membership will take root and branch control — not only of the party but of the struggle in society against the neo-Thatcherism planned by the Conservatives as Brexit unfolds.



Corbyn: the summer of hierarchical things — Mosquito Ridge


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> DotCommunist I'M BACK ON FORM.
> 
> right going for the big one now: labour to win next general election with a Momentum/Corbyn-affiliated leader.



Do we have to rub you for luck or something? How does this work?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> What site is that though?
> 
> Anyway here:
> 
> ...


Thanks for making the copy.

It's her own site and it's public. She asked people for their views, she demanded all legal paperwork, she published her own phone number and then she cried that Bad Corbyn bullied her. Fabian fraud.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> It's her own site and it's public. She asked people for their views, she demanded all legal paperwork, she published her own phone number and then she cried that Bad Corbyn bullied her. Fabian fraud.


shurely 'flatulent fabian fraud'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Please understand this is not a criticism in anyway of anyone on the boards. But I am surprised by the number of posters on here who are not members of a trade union.
> I know that there is a significant cost and also the reputation of unions for being more interested in selling insurance etc can put people off. As well as the crippling laws that prevent former union effectiveness.
> This brings my other off topic point that the Labour Party, though eager to grasp the support of trade unions as never as much lifted one finger to repeal the draconian anti-union laws.
> No offence intended as I said above, just an observation.



I wasn't in one because I'm not in work and I honest to goodness didn't know you could be. Now I know, and I'll never not be in one again. (Unless they all turn into evil zombie Tory cults or something.)

(I've always been in one while at work.)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> anyway
> 
> jo(h)anna baxter
> 
> when did the errant h take up residence in her name? it wasn't there in 2010


((((credit card fraud)))))


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> ((((credit card fraud)))))




(((johanna baxter's good name))) rip


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 89555


I had a little scroll through some other documents, she's been publishing her mobile number many many times and requesting calls. I think she's lonely: NEC Distribution list.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do you know what I'm hating most about all this?
> 
> That "politics" has collapsed into internal Labour Party loopholing.
> 
> ...


... in fact, I wish I'd come up with that instead of the 200+ posts I've made on this thread.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do you know what I'm hating most about all this?
> 
> That "politics" has collapsed into internal Labour Party loopholing.
> 
> ...



Indeed - well apart from the 'cheering on' bit in my case.

However according to Paul Mason Labour now has the potential to become a 'counter power'.

Corbyn: the summer of hierarchical things - Medium
Labour can become the counter-power




> Corbyn was only ever a placeholder around which Labour’s membership could create a new kind of politics: a more networked, more activist, and much more radical form of social democracy than has existed within Labour since the 1930s. A form of leftism rooted in the very communities where Labour is battling right wing populism, through community activism and grass roots engagement.





> So whatever happens in the legal battles and the election ahead, the issue is no longer Corbyn.
> 
> It is whether the membership will take root and branch control?—?not only of the party but of the struggle in society against the neo-Thatcherism planned by the Conservatives as Brexit unfolds.
> 
> During the past three years the focus of social justice struggles in Britain got pulled towards voting.





> Corbyn’s victory in 2015, Brexit in 2016 and the near victory of the Scottish yes campaign in 2014 all held out the possibility of a effortless exit from a dying and unpopular neo-liberal structure.
> 
> A kind of “free revolution”, handed to you by a hapless elite, where all you had to do was tick a box.





> But revolutions are never effortless. The revolution that’s put Podemos on 20% in Spain, and Syriza into power in Greece, involved masses of people on the streets, resisting the elite’s attacks, and creating a new kind of power in communities and on the streets and in universities and schools.
> 
> This is the modern counter-power, and Corbyn’s election was only ever a reflection of it.



ugh


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> I had a little scroll through some other documents, she's been publishing her mobile number many many times and requesting calls. I think she's lonely: NEC Distribution list.


she should get out more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> ... in fact, I wish I'd come up with that instead of the 200+ posts I've made on this thread.


you will, dear boy, you will


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck me that's a weak signature



I do like how its only "supporters" who use social media in an abusive, aggressive or threatening way.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was hoping for something more _precise_ from them. Disappointed.


Massive spike sounds kinda science like.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY CALLING ME ON THE PHONE


For fucks sake. The big parties have teams of people called 'whips' just what is these people think the whips do?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 13, 2016)

Maybe good news for Corbyn .......was how low the public turnout was at the palace  for the May / Cameron handover ........ seemingly mostly tourists caught up in the moment..taking photos wondering WtF .....those funny English people...and their ways ...!

I'm sure Corbyns been to allotment meetings with a higher attendance level than that ...!

Who's the fukker with the megaphone...?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Thanks for making the copy.
> 
> It's her own site and it's public. She asked people for their views, she demanded all legal paperwork, she published her own phone number and then she cried that Bad Corbyn bullied her. Fabian fraud.


And yet she described as "attacks" the very documents about the legal position that the NEC risked being in if it didn't endorse Corbyn as a candidate for leader...


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2016)

Anyway here's what Unite have to say about joining and vote eligibility.

Your Party Your Voice



> All Unite members are eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election provided:
> 
> 
> They pay the political levy – this will be the case unless the member has opted out.
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Massive spike sounds kinda science like.


They could have at least said it was _off the scale_. Then I'd know they actually _had_ a scale.  I bet the Libdem scientists have got a scale.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 13, 2016)

They have god ...!

There is no scale .....

It's infinite

God tells Tim this is so


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> They could have at least said it was _off the scale_. Then I'd know they actually _had_ a scale.  I bit the Libdem scientists have got a scale.


For LibDem members it's like ancient Australian Aboriginal counting; 1, 2, 3, 4, many.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> No that's gmb. Prospect was engineering and other managers



GMB is a separate union not connected with the AEEU which was a product of an amalgamation of the AEU and EEPTU which later morphed into MSF which became a precursor of Unite.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck me that's a weak signature



Looks like he's taken it seriously enough to sign in his own blood, though.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> GMB is a separate union not connected with the AEEU which was a product of an amalgamation of the AEU and EEPTU which then became a precursor of Unite.


doh!  You're quite right


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Looks like he's taken it seriously enough to sign in his own blood, though.



that made me lol


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 13, 2016)

An anti-Corbyn Facebook person has just described him as the High Sparrow


----------



## Tankus (Jul 13, 2016)

Pound land high sparrow surely


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2016)

Corbyn so unelectable that Theresa May just nicked most of his ideas.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> Corbyn so unelectable that Theresa May just nicked most of his ideas.



She's being described as more Ed Miliband than Ed Miliband.

Buzzfeed did a quiz: Who said this, Theresa May or Ed Miliband?

And one of Ed's former people took the test and scored 6/12


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Looks like he's taken it seriously enough to sign in his own blood, though.


Thin stuff, the sanguinary version of invisible ink.  As the son of a Lord he's a A, but definitely negative.

Coat


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

I tell you what though, I'm about ready for a day without so many politics and not as many news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Tankus said:


> Pound land high sparrow surely


Anagram thread >>>


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Looks like AGMs are banned as well.

ffs.

They're hoping no more votes of no confidence in MPs or confidence in Jez with take the wind out of the sails a bit, and also that all these new members who want to get right stuck in will be deflated by not being able to get stuck into anything at all for the next 2 months and will drift off.

My brain can't process all the swear words I'm trying to stick together atm.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Following chilango 's excellent post above there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about active anti-capitalists feeling 'drawn in'.  Politically, there are a few parallels and obvious differences to the formation, growth and ultimate disappointments of Syriza - very different as a coming together of existing parties, in a PR system, but one way in which a centre of gravity shaped up amid austerity.  Even bearing in mind Syriza's climbdowns, Corbynism is pretty thin by comparison.  But, following Chilango's post, the interesting bit is the psychological, the way all kinds of leftists and even anarchos are rationalising something they wouldn't remotely have considered doing 18 months ago.  You can see people you know in real life or on facebook thinking it through, not really changing their views, but doing it anyway.  Like others,* I'm not having a go* and it also reflects the weakness of class struggle outside of Labour. Trouble is, in the absence of becoming something other than a social democratic parliamentary party, the new labour left will be forced to play to the rules and logic of being exactly that.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 13, 2016)

What is the definition of a meeting in this context? Does it count if it's over Skype or something? Could that be a cheeky way round the ban of meetings, even if the purpose is just to piss off the PLP?


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Following chilango 's excellent post above there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about active anti-capitalists feeling 'drawn in'.  Politically, there are a few parallels and obvious differences to the formation, growth and ultimate disappointments of Syriza - very different as a coming together of existing parties, in a PR system, but one way in which a centre of gravity shaped up amid austerity.  Even bearing in mind Syriza's climbdowns, Corbynism is pretty thin by comparison.  But, following Chilango's post, the interesting bit is the psychological, the way all kinds of leftists and even anarchos are rationalising something they wouldn't remotely have considered doing 18 months ago.  You can see people you know in real life or on facebook thinking it through, not really changing their views, but doing it anyway.  Like others,* I'm not having a go* and it also reflects the weakness of class struggle outside of Labour. Trouble is, in the absence of becoming something other than a social democratic parliamentary party, the new labour left will be forced to play to the rules and logic of being exactly that.



Fuck yeah.


----------



## inva (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Following chilango 's excellent post above there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about active anti-capitalists feeling 'drawn in'.  Politically, there are a few parallels and obvious differences to the formation, growth and ultimate disappointments of Syriza - very different as a coming together of existing parties, in a PR system, but one way in which a centre of gravity shaped up amid austerity.  Even bearing in mind Syriza's climbdowns, Corbynism is pretty thin by comparison.  But, following Chilango's post, the interesting bit is the psychological, the way all kinds of leftists and even anarchos are rationalising something they wouldn't remotely have considered doing 18 months ago.  You can see people you know in real life or on facebook thinking it through, not really changing their views, but doing it anyway.  Like others,* I'm not having a go* and it also reflects the weakness of class struggle outside of Labour. Trouble is, in the absence of becoming something other than a social democratic parliamentary party, the new labour left will be forced to play to the rules and logic of being exactly that.


alienation 
I reckon it's people who feel isolated from their colleagues (lone lefty in the office syndrome), family (arguing with Daily Mail reading relatives) and the prevailing media narratives (which are often taken to be represenative of society generally). so joining the labour party feels like doing something, nec wrangling over balots feels like winning. I sympathise with this and think these motivations are usually coming from a good place, but it doesn't solve the problem, and the alienation of the left remains - the far more essential work is to end the isolation, but that takes a different view of where we are and what needs doing.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Fuck yeah.



Ignorant (of me) as it is I saw a picture a while back of an old march where the banner read 'Vote Labour with a Communist Group in Parliament', or words to that effect. Not that it practically means anything at the moment and Labour isn't going to take any really radical shifts but an amenable party which has a strong voice for more concrete Left wing stuff from the ground up (and a say for normal members) is something to aim for at least.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

inva said:


> alienation
> I reckon it's people who feel isolated from their colleagues (lone lefty in the office syndrome), family (arguing with Daily Mail reading relatives) and the prevailing media narratives (which are often taken to be represenative of society generally). so joining the labour party feels like doing something, nec wrangling over balots feels like winning. I sympathise with this and think these motivations are usually coming from a good place, but it doesn't solve the problem, and the alienation of the left remains - the far more essential work is to end the isolation, but that takes a different view of where we are and what needs doing.



Yep. That's where I'm at, almost.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What is the definition of a meeting in this context? Does it count if it's over Skype or something? Could that be a cheeky way round the ban of meetings, even if the purpose is just to piss off the PLP?


Yeah, can they do confidence / no confidence votes by email?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What is the definition of a meeting in this context? Does it count if it's over Skype or something? Could that be a cheeky way round the ban of meetings, even if the purpose is just to piss off the PLP?



Absolutely nothing to stop members meeting up for a chat or a pint or whatever. Just can't conduct any official party business.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Yeah, can they do confidence / no confidence votes by email?


Deselection by flashmob.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Thin stuff, the sanguinary version of invisible ink.  As the son of a Lord he's a cunt, but definitely negative.
> 
> Coat


c4u


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Deselection by _*mob*_.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

'To vote to keep Angela, dial 0800....'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Deselection by flashmob.



If only.

Having said that, networked social movement stuff, alongside attempts to loosen capital's hold on the Labour party a bit ...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

*Jeremy faces another bushtucker trial.*


----------



## inva (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yep. That's where I'm at, almost.


it;s why I like the IWCA's view of the need to orient your politics towards the working class instead of to the left. the left is nowhere and the labour party is a dead end, but the working class is still adapting, learning, fighting. if it really wants to be relevant the left has to see it and learn too.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> *Jeremy faces another bushtucker trial.*



_Keep me off the ballot would you? This is going right up you mate._


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

My mother, a tory voter (without a mean bone in her body I should add) is hopping mad about the PLP and NEC's shenanigans and has been asking me how she can join Unite to vote for him


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> My mother, a tory voter (without a mean bone in her body I should add) is hopping mad about the PLP and NEC's shenanigans and has been asking me how she can join Unite to vote for him


You could help her with that


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> My mother, a tory voter (without a mean bone in her body I should add) is hopping mad about the PLP and NEC's shenanigans and has been asking me how she can join Unite to vote for him


Has she got a science O Level?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 13, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You could help her with that



I've told her how to do it if she wants to. I fear that since she's the least deceptive and most genuinely honest and guilt-ridden person in existence that once she sees the bit that says "you must believe in labour party values" she won't go through with it


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

C4 news now Johanna Baxter pretty much in tears because "Jeremy" voted against secret ballots.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> C4 news now Johanna Baxter pretty much in tears because "Jeremy" voted against secret ballots.



She doesn't get the being an accountable representative thing at all...which is odd for a trade unionist.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

So Baxter managed to cry on both Radio 4 and Channel 4. I shouldn't have doubted myself, this is performative.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2016)

From 2014


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> For LibDem members it's like ancient Australian Aboriginal counting; 1, 2, 3, 4, many.


Watch it, mate.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> C4 news now Johanna Baxter pretty much in tears because "Jeremy" voted against secret ballots.


tbf she'd also received some emails, read some unsupportive posts on social media and been lobbied. Beasts.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> tbf she'd also received some emails, read some unsupportive posts on social media and been lobbied. Beasts.


Slightly sarcastic smiley deployment can be very upsetting.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Politics can be a nasty business, but fucking hell, the nerve of her - attacking Corbyn for voting to stop her keeping her votes secret from the people who put her there! 

[apologies in advance for the ]


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Of the three posts there one is definitely out of order - the one which comes from a nutjob who mentions 'FemiNazis' in their profile - while the others are lukewarm criticism. Is this the level of bullying she's complaining about? Really? Was open to taking it seriously, but Jesus.


----------



## chilango (Jul 13, 2016)

If political opponents had threatened me to the point that I was repeatedly physically shaking at the thought of it, and that I felt I needed to resort to secret ballots to protect me then the last thing I'd do is appear on a series of national news bulletins broadcasting how badly these threats had hit me.

I guess Baxter is just braver than me.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 13, 2016)

Some folk just need to get the fuck off social media.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Of the three posts there one is definitely out of order - the one which comes from a nutjob who mentions 'FemiNazis' in their profile - while the others are lukewarm criticism. Is this the level of bullying she's complaining about? Really? Was open to taking it seriously, but Jesus.



Comments on Baxter's Twitter are clear that the nasty one is a member of BNP, who aren't known for supporting Corbs.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Comments on Baxter's Twitter are clear that the nasty one is a member of BNP, who aren't known for supporting Corbs.



Pfft, so they say, but let's face it Nick Griffin is just Corbyn with a bottle of hair dye and after a bottle of vodka.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

> Sign up as a Member or Supporter to help choose the new Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party!
> Want to have your say in who Labour's next leader is?
> Register as a supporter for as little as £3.
> Labour Party Supporters


 Interestingly, the above, which was on the Labour site last night takes you to a further link, onto _Membership_ prices only. Tried several links in and around the Party site and there's no mention of the £25 thing (or the £3 thing for that matter).  Suggests they haven't got much confidence in last night's decision - 24 hours into the mere 48 hours people were given to register within.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Interestingly, the above, which was on the Labour site last night takes you to a further link, onto _Membership_ prices only. Tried several links in and around the Party site and there's no mention of the £25 thing (or the £3 thing for that matter).  Suggests they haven't got much confidence in last night's decision - 24 hours into the mere 48 hours people were given to register within.


The prices quoted there are per month. If you multiply them by 12 you arrive back at over £25 per year. And that is for those who can claim the reduced memberships.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Also:
> I can't take it any more.



Argh !


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The prices quoted there are per month. If you multiply them by 12 you arrive back at over £25 per year.


Nah, they are _membership_ prices, which if you joined now wouldn't allow you to vote anyway. I meant the 'pay £25 in the next 48 hours' to become a registered _supporter_ and get a vote.

Edit: I just meant the whole registered supporter thing - £3 or £25 - seems to have disappeared.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 13, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Ignorant (of me) as it is I saw a picture a while back of an old march where the banner read 'Vote Labour with a Communist Group in Parliament', or words to that effect. Not that it practically means anything at the moment and Labour isn't going to take any really radical shifts but an amenable party which has a strong voice for more concrete Left wing stuff from the ground up (and a say for normal members) is something to aim for at least.



This one?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 13, 2016)

Patteran said:


> This one?
> 
> 
> View attachment 89568



That's the one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2016)

its great that bullying has become something openly unnaceptable, school  home or workplace. But these cynical shits are just using it.
Really can't believe they have suspended all CLP activity. I really hope some entrenched CLP egos get the raving and go c-byn just for the cheek of having been told to STFU by the PLP

Chilangos right though, the enemy is stil with us even if we can see a labour left victory. Remember thier record in power. Just want killary and all the coup by beaurocracy cunts to die in a fire now.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 13, 2016)

Truth re: Tessa  Jowells ridiculous homophobia vs Angela Eagle @ Wallasey CLP lies : Homophobic slurs against Angela Eagle in Wallasey? I've only experienced the opposite


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Following chilango 's excellent post above there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about active anti-capitalists feeling 'drawn in'.  Politically, there are a few parallels and obvious differences to the formation, growth and ultimate disappointments of Syriza - very different as a coming together of existing parties, in a PR system, but one way in which a centre of gravity shaped up amid austerity.  Even bearing in mind Syriza's climbdowns, Corbynism is pretty thin by comparison.  But, following Chilango's post, the interesting bit is the psychological, the way all kinds of leftists and even anarchos are rationalising something they wouldn't remotely have considered doing 18 months ago.  You can see people you know in real life or on facebook thinking it through, not really changing their views, but doing it anyway.  Like others,* I'm not having a go* and it also reflects the weakness of class struggle outside of Labour. Trouble is, in the absence of becoming something other than a social democratic parliamentary party, the new labour left will be forced to play to the rules and logic of being exactly that.



But still, a defeat for the Blairites is a political defeat for neo liberalism in general . A  strong challenge to this " common sense , no alternative" consensus that solidified over decades and ripped the heart out of everyone . It's an angry and vocal public rejection of it and has the potential to remove some of the levers of power at their disposal. There's a window to change the narrative opening up . Because like it or not there's not a hell of a lot else going on on the left at the minute . 
Some of the issues Corbyn can start putting into the mainstream are definitely worthwhile . It's up to leftists to take up that ball and run with it once that happens . Outside of the labour party obviously . Plainly if people constrain themselves to this type of parliamentary activity then they're on a hiding to nothing, and will shortly be back to the square one of power for powers sake and the same self defeating game . But there's still a potential for some change here . A change in set in stone " truths " and false assumptions about the neo liberal project . I do t believe Corbyn himself will manage to change society but he has the potential to be a catalyst for change by possibly changing some of the rules and successfully challenging various assumptions .
Corbyn or Labour obviously shouldn't be the limit of any socialists horizons but 
there are definite advantages to be had in his victories . Even if only slight ones.
Even if all he accomplishes is to make it abundantly clear to anyone who might have faith in that system changing anything , that it's completely fucking rigged to ensure change doesn't happen .


----------



## Cid (Jul 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its great that bullying has become something openly unnaceptable, school  home or workplace. But these cynical shits are just using it.
> Really can't believe they have suspended all CLP activity. I really hope some entrenched CLP egos get the raving and go c-byn just for the cheek of having been told to STFU by the PLP
> 
> Chilangos right though, the enemy is stil with us even if we can see a labour left victory. Remember thier record in power. Just want killary and all the coup by beaurocracy cunts to die in a fire now.



Sadly the death by fire Killary could usher in might be less discriminating.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> If political opponents had threatened me to the point that I was repeatedly physically shaking at the thought of it, and that I felt I needed to resort to secret ballots to protect me then the last thing I'd do is appear on a series of national news bulletins broadcasting how badly these threats had hit me.
> 
> I guess Baxter is just braver than me.



Nobody even knew who she was before she went on the telly and radio . And you daren't challenge her for lying because she'll only start fucking crying again at the drop of a hat .


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> If political opponents had threatened me to the point that I was repeatedly physically shaking at the thought of it, and that I felt I needed to resort to secret ballots to protect me then the last thing I'd do is appear on a series of national news bulletins broadcasting how badly these threats had hit me.
> 
> I guess Baxter is just braver than me.


I don't think that's fair criticism. Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't. The consequence of this line of argument is that subject to genuine bullying she could not complain about it and be believed.

I think the point is that she can't whine because Corbyn countered a fixing of the proceedings against him with some legal hardball and resolute but fair defence of his position, she received a few emails of which I'm sure only a tiny minority were actually out of order, seems she publicised her email herself, and you know maybe a thick skin is called for at times for politicians


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2016)

Frankie Boyle recently pointed out the above has been scientifically proven to be a  load of old bollocks . The Brits have nearly all turned into gibbering mentalists at the drop of a hat .

It's all gorn maaaad .


----------



## coley (Jul 14, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Frankie Boyle recently pointed out the above has been scientifically proven to be a  load of old bollocks . The Brits have nearly all turned into gibbering mentalists at the drop of a hat .
> 
> It's all gorn maaaad .



We lost it when Diana got offed, the only winners since then has been the florists.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2016)

for anyone pissed off about the restrictions on new-ish members voting - some suggestions via tweeter today that legal advice is being sought about challenging the NEC decision.

so may be worth not tearing up membership cards / sending them back with a nasty note just quite yet.

momentum also saying they will offer advice on how to register, either via the  £ 25 scheme, or via unions / affiliated organisations and so on.

'saving labour' (i'm sure they were encouraging people to join the party a few days ago) is offering the chance to add your e-mail address to their mailing list which will apparently "make a difference"


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 14, 2016)

inva said:


> it;s why I like the IWCA's view of the need to orient your politics towards the working class instead of to the left. the left is nowhere and the labour party is a dead end, but the working class is still adapting, learning, fighting. if it really wants to be relevant the left has to see it and learn too.



Momentum needs to take a leaf out of the IWCAs book. Develop a real power base beyond the CLPs.


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 14, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yep numbers 3 and 4 could be flatly contradictory.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



1 is very ambiguous


----------



## coley (Jul 14, 2016)

NoBystander said:


> Momentum needs to take a leaf out of the IWCAs book. Develop a real power base beyond the CLPs.


Dream on, the CLP needs to get a power base from 'the people' something that might actually be happening.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2016)

YouSir said:


> That's the one.


Lenin had an amusingly ludicrous misunderstanding of how British elections and the Labour Party worked, in left wing communism, communists didn't even have to be elected to get a seat, supposedly. Poor lamb.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is amazingly pathetic
> 
> Tearful Labour official slams Corbyn, 13/07/2016, World at One - BBC Radio 4
> 
> Is Johanna Baxter actually this upset? If so I feel sorry for her, she is obviously out of her depth and shouldn't be put in situations where... well I don't know, she has to talk to people? If not, what a manipulative nasty piece of work.


Jesus that's fucking amazing. I get threats of legal action on a near weekly basis about not paying TV licence but I don't have a 5 minute cry fest every time I get told 'we've opened an investigation' and 'we're sending goons round for a visit' 

Fuck it I'm gonna vote but not paying 25 quid. I'm a part time worker in a shop so therefore skint. What's the cheapest and most amusing way I can sign up to vote? I've seen many options but not sure what's the cheapest and easiest way. I've got a BSc so I can do science and shit so does that mean I can be a labour scientist and cook up insane social engineering projects for Comrade Corbyn's new union of deformed workers states (Formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 14, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Jesus that's fucking amazing. I get threats of legal action on a near weekly basis about not paying TV licence but I don't have a 5 minute cry fest every time I get told 'we've opened an investigation' and 'we're sending goons round for a visit'
> 
> Fuck it I'm gonna vote but not paying 25 quid. I'm a part time worker in a shop so therefore skint. What's the cheapest and most amusing way I can sign up to vote? I've seen many options but not sure what's the cheapest and easiest way. I've got a BSc so I can do science and shit so does that mean I can be a labour scientist and cook up insane social engineering projects for Comrade Corbyn's new union of deformed workers states (Formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)?


The scientists turned out to not want to play. Some other affiliated groups could follow suit if they're inundated. Unions presumably aren't amusing enough. Momentum have said something about helping people with cost, but also less amusing.

Given that the coup was supposedly based on him not trying hard enough during Brexit, you might sneak in through "Labour Movement for Europe"? Or, join the Fabian Society and bring us news from the dark side too (plus they'll definitely still register, thinking you're an anti). List is here: Affiliated organisations.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 14, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Jesus that's fucking amazing. I get threats of legal action on a near weekly basis about not paying TV licence but I don't have a 5 minute cry fest every time I get told 'we've opened an investigation' and 'we're sending goons round for a visit'
> 
> Fuck it I'm gonna vote but not paying 25 quid. I'm a part time worker in a shop so therefore skint. What's the cheapest and most amusing way I can sign up to vote? I've seen many options but not sure what's the cheapest and easiest way. I've got a BSc so I can do science and shit so does that mean I can be a labour scientist and cook up insane social engineering projects for Comrade Corbyn's new union of deformed workers states (Formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)?


Can you imagine the furore if Corbyn won by one vote and it turned out to have been someone who signed up for the scientists, but actually had a degree in English Lit?  It would cheapen British democracy.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> The scientists turned out to not want to play. Some other affiliated groups could follow suit if they're inundated. Unions presumably aren't amusing enough. Momentum have said something about helping people with cost, but also less amusing.
> 
> Given that the coup was supposedly based on him not trying hard enough during Brexit, you might sneak in through "Labour Movement for Europe"? Or, join the Fabian Society and bring us news from the dark side too (plus they'll definitely still register, thinking you're an anti). List is here: Affiliated organisations.


Its *Labour Business (previously* *Labour Finance and Industry Group)*  all the way for me.  I could wear that suit I went to the funeral in.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Can you imagine the furore if Corbyn won by one vote and it turned out to have been someone who signed up for the scientists, but actually had a degree in English Lit?  It would cheapen British democracy.


Better yet would be Doctor Carrot piping up to the newspapers that it was the Fabians who let him in. Split the splitters.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> The scientists turned out to not want to play. Some other affiliated groups could follow suit if they're inundated. Unions presumably aren't amusing enough. Momentum have said something about helping people with cost, but also less amusing.
> 
> Given that the coup was supposedly based on him not trying hard enough during Brexit, you might sneak in through "Labour Movement for Europe"? Or, join the Fabian Society and bring us news from the dark side too (plus they'll definitely still register, thinking you're an anti). List is here: Affiliated organisations.


Boo! The Europe movement aren't playing either. I wonder if I can cunningly slip by Chinese for Labour's security using the alias Barry Chang or better still Christians on the Left by simply using the initials JC


----------



## Wilf (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Better yet would be Doctor Carrot piping up to the newspapers that it was the Fabians who let him in. Split the splitters.


*In yer face Beatrice Webb*!


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 14, 2016)

coley said:


> Dream on, the CLP needs to get a power base from 'the people' something that might actually be happening.


As a tool to defeat the right within the CLPs. Not give them the CLPs.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)

Turns out Barry Chang is actually mayor of Cupertino and in the Democratic party so that avenue is now blocked


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 14, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> GMB is a separate union not connected with the AEEU which was a product of an amalgamation of the AEU and EEPTU which later morphed into MSF which became a precursor of Unite.



MSF amalgamated with AUEW that emerged as Amicus. Which merged with TGWU to become Unite.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I tell you what though, I'm about ready for a day without so many politics and not as many news.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2016)

according to the news Jez now faces a legal challenge from a wealthy party donor
Labour leadership: Donor to challenge Corbyn ballot ruling - BBC News
he's another one who uses anti Semitic smear tactics....
Ignorant, Godless, Hateful - Corbyn's contempt for Jews is a disgrace
.......and no stranger to vile threats against rivals himself
Labour candidate accused of launching 'vile rant' at political rival


----------



## inva (Jul 14, 2016)

NoBystander said:


> Momentum needs to take a leaf out of the IWCAs book. Develop a real power base beyond the CLPs.


it's an interesting thought  but I don't think there's any real prospect of Momentum or Corbynists generally facing outwards in that way. It's in the nature of what they're doing - they're under attack all the time and I can't see that changing. They've got a major fight on their hands even to achieve a measure of control over their own political party and then there's local elections, general elections, it never ends. I think the IWCA themselves came up against some of these problems themselves on a smaller scale. I recently saw a comment on here about Corbyn himself campaigning strongly against them in Islington council elections I think it was... nothing can really be outside the party because that is a challenge to the party.

I'm reminded of something Martin Glaberman said about becoming union officials:



			
				Martin Glaberman said:
			
		

> In the case of Johnny Zupan, there was no self-aggrandizement. There was none of this business of, “I’ve got to get off this machine so I’m going to run for office.” Zupan was militant. He was willing to take on the establishment, willing to take on the company. It was not a question of good or bad about Johnny Zupan, but that, if you become a committeeman you have an objective role, and no matter who you are, you are an alternative bureaucrat. There’s a certain objective reality to enforcing the contract that separates union officials from the rank and file. The role creates the person and how you have to function.



That seems to be the obstacle. I wonder, in the event of Corbyn forming a government, Corbyn loyalists controlling councils and being MPs, how long would it be before his supporters/Momentum members found themselves having to defend this or that budget cut, closing a hospital, not fulfilling a promise made in a campaign, all that kind of stuff that's part and parcel of that level of politics. Can you really be honest with people and build outside the party in communities when your whole main project is facing away from that and fixed on different priorities? Once you're about parliamentary politics you're already playing the game by their rules and that shapes you - MPs are not all bad people, but so what?


----------



## newbie (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Momentum have said something about helping people with cost, but also less amusing.


Is buying votes legal?


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 14, 2016)

I notice Owen Smith has "made demanding another Brexit referendum a key policy point."

That is totally going to win over so many working-class Labour voters outwith London.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 14, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> according to the news Jez now faces a legal challenge from a wealthy party donor
> Labour leadership: Donor to challenge Corbyn ballot ruling - BBC News
> he's another one who uses anti Semitic smear tactics....
> Ignorant, Godless, Hateful - Corbyn's contempt for Jews is a disgrace
> ...


This makes me so cross, I can't stand this conflation of Israel with Zionism. He says "try replacing... ‘Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine’". Ok, I'll try 'Hezbollah can't cope with anyone supporting rights for Israel." Yeah, true. Next question?



newbie said:


> Is buying votes legal?


No idea, depends what the rulebook says about it. It's illegal in public elections, but parties are a different animal.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 14, 2016)

Isn't paying £25 quid buying a vote, anyway?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2016)

it could be spun as buying votes though, not sure it's a good idea?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Isn't paying £25 quid buying a vote, anyway?



true but this could be said to be buying a vote for someone else


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 14, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I notice Owen Smith has "made demanding another Brexit referendum a key policy point."
> 
> That is totally going to win over so many working-class Labour voters outwith London.



Surely it's more of a short term measure aimed at Labour members (who were majority Remain)?

He can win the WWC back by offering them a referendum on the return of capital punishment just before the GE.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I notice Owen Smith has "made demanding another Brexit referendum a key policy point."
> 
> That is totally going to win over so many working-class Labour voters outwith London.


But he's not even actually committing to that demand when you look at what he said....


> he added, the public wanted to know what deal would be struck, adding: “And then we should give them another chance. That does mean a second referendum *or a general election* when the terms are clear. The Labour government should be committing to that.”


----------



## chilango (Jul 14, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I don't think that's fair criticism. Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't. The consequence of this line of argument is that subject to genuine bullying she could not complain about it and be believed.



Nah. I'm not having that.

If she feels she is subject to genuine bullying or intimidation then _of course_ she should complain and _of course_ she should be believed.

But multiple news programmes are not the people to make those complaints to. The police and/or Labour Party disciplinary structures are.

Publicly and repeatedly confirming that the alleged bullying is working is not an effective response and should not be encouraged imho.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 14, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> But still, a defeat for the Blairites is a political defeat for neo liberalism in general . A  strong challenge to this " common sense , no alternative" consensus that solidified over decades and ripped the heart out of everyone .



No it isn't. It's a Westminster bubble defeat inflicted by people who are already hostile to neoliberalism (ie lefties). And it possibly opens some space in the media in which Corbs can talk about austerity, framed at all times by a press corps that consistently says he's talking madness.

At best it opens the _possibility_ of a relatively mild challenge to some aspects of neoliberalism at some point down the line by a woefully inadequate political grouping which is yet to provide a plan of how that might happen in the absence of y'know, a mass working class movement, or indeed any leverage of any kind against market pressure. Followed in all likelihood by the project's total defeat, prompting the collapse of left Parliamentarism and the rise of far-right demagogues - as has happened repeatedly on the continent and looks set to happen imminently in France.



> Because like it or not there's not a hell of a lot else going on on the left at the minute .



I fucking hate this line. An alternative might be "oh everything else is shit therefore I may as well waste loads of time on something that looks vaguely popular, never mind whether it's actually got a long-term future or has any strategic value." If you believe in the project fair enough, but don't fuck off everyone else's hard work, modest as it might or might not be, to lend credibility to your own actions.



> Some of the issues Corbyn can start putting into the mainstream are definitely worthwhile .



Yeah because no-one was criticising austerity before now. Never heard it in "the mainstream." Thank fuck there's some old boy talking about it at the dispatch box eh? That'll make the difference. Watch the masses rise up!



> It's up to leftists to take up that ball and run with it once that happens . Outside of the labour party obviously .



Indeed leftists _should_ try to actually organise outside the Labour Party. Rather than getting sidetracked by the bloody Labour Party. Again.



> I do t believe Corbyn himself will manage to change society but he has the potential to be a catalyst for change by possibly changing some of the rules and successfully challenging various assumptions .



He won't be a catalyst either. He riles up social democrats to get involved with electoralism, there's no swing towards mass direct action going on here, nor does it look like there will be. The most exciting thing to have happened in actively organising working people to have come out of this so far is a possible uptick in union applications - an unintended artifact of rightist gerrymandering.



> Even if all he accomplishes is to make it abundantly clear to anyone who might have faith in that system changing anything , that it's completely fucking rigged to ensure change doesn't happen .



Everyone knows that already. What he's doing is fostering an unwarranted hope in the possibility that waiting four years for a ballot is all people need to do about it. Like Nick Clegg did, or Obama did, or Alexis Tspiras. These people pop up every year. Bernie Sanders has "proved" the US Democrats' system is rigged, but you watch, there'll be another of his ilk along soon enough and it'll be "this time guys, this time our candidate will topple the shills."


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 14, 2016)

chilango said:


> Nah. I'm not having that.
> 
> If she feels she is subject to genuine bullying or intimidation then _of course_ she should complain and _of course_ she should be believed.
> 
> ...



She's denouncing him for trying to out her ..and then subject her to intimidation..by trying to stop her from voting against him in secret. Which he failed to prevent . And now having voted against him in secret ....and failed to defeat him...she immediately plasters herself and her "secret" decision all over the fucking media ?
She's a wind up merchant . Taking everyone for a ride and turning the tears on like a tap . Purely because she failed to defeat him in secret .
Maximum secrecy didn't work, now she wants maximum publicity for the very same ignoble end . She failed to upend democracy in secret .Now she seeks to delegitimise it by publicly turning the tears on .

Itd also be interesting to know whether she was one of those scabs who stayed behind to take that membership vote . Because this seems like a very opportune distraction from even further outrageous behaviour .


----------



## kabbes (Jul 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Its *Labour Business (previously* *Labour Finance and Industry Group)*  all the way for me.  I could wear that suit I went to the funeral in.


Our Role



> *LFIG’s values*
> The financial sector is key to sustaining this vision for the UK economy to lend to SMEs to create wealth, employment and generate tax revenues to keep the nation’s finances afloat.
> 
> Finance and industry is the ultimate source of funding for all government activity, enabling us to look after the health and welfare of our society, creating a bastion of widespread opportunity



Trickle-down is alive and well, eh?

And let us not forget


> Nevertheless, government can still play an important role.  We at LFIG believe that it is the role of government to manage markets to create the right environment to foster sustainable wealth creation, job opportunities and consumer protection.


Sustainable wealth creation!

It would be pretty cool to use this bastion of Blairism as the vehicle to bring down the Blairite candidate.

£48 subscription is more expensive than the £25 option, mind.  Although if you are under 31, it is only £24 -- save yourself a whole £1!


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 14, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> according to the news Jez now faces a legal challenge from a wealthy party donor
> Labour leadership: Donor to challenge Corbyn ballot ruling - BBC News
> he's another one who uses anti Semitic smear tactics....
> Ignorant, Godless, Hateful - Corbyn's contempt for Jews is a disgrace
> ...



A right charmer by the sounds of it

Can a top showbiz agent turned Labour candidate keep his cool on the campaign trail?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 14, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Isn't paying £25 quid buying a vote, anyway?


Well, if you paid to be a member since January, the only way to vote now seems to be to become a registered supporter as well.  The customer facing Blairites probably see it as _adding items to your bundle_.


----------



## Ole (Jul 14, 2016)




----------



## kabbes (Jul 14, 2016)

"Anti-democrats"?  Is this being levelled against the people who are seeing an attempted coup from a small group of MPs against the guy that got voted in with twice the score of his next best rival ?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 14, 2016)

Anti democrats possibly in the sense that " democracy isn't working " . They've gone and broken it, these bloody awful people who keep voting wrong . No wonder all these good people keep breaking down in tears . 
Eagle, Margaret Beckett, joHanna wotsername, Smeeth. Even Blair was getting emotional the other day. 
It's Labours Trail of Tears .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Following chilango 's excellent post above there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about active anti-capitalists feeling 'drawn in'.  Politically, there are a few parallels and obvious differences to the formation, growth and ultimate disappointments of Syriza - very different as a coming together of existing parties, in a PR system, but one way in which a centre of gravity shaped up amid austerity.  Even bearing in mind Syriza's climbdowns, Corbynism is pretty thin by comparison.  But, following Chilango's post, the interesting bit is the psychological, the way all kinds of leftists and even anarchos are rationalising something they wouldn't remotely have considered doing 18 months ago.  You can see people you know in real life or on facebook thinking it through, not really changing their views, but doing it anyway.  Like others,* I'm not having a go* and it also reflects the weakness of class struggle outside of Labour. Trouble is, in the absence of becoming something other than a social democratic parliamentary party, the new labour left will be forced to play to the rules and logic of being exactly that.


I'm not. Fuck that. I was at a barbecue Saturday night and the general tone was denial of previous support for Corbyn in the leadership election  and a sort of don't bring up it up vibe. Not seeing many here in bristol playing the game this time around.

edit: of course, that's my social group not bristol as a whole


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 14, 2016)

Ole said:


>



It's been shown frequently that people do what you want when you call them idiots. Excellent tactic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But he's not even actually committing to that demand when you look at what he said....
> ​


Has he even managed to get 50 signatures yet? I keep on seeing all this stuff about him standing but I've yet to see anything that actually says that he's made the requirement to get on the ballot.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 14, 2016)

Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.

Blimey


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 14, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.
> 
> Blimey


How have they done that, did somebody rewrite the minutes of the meeting, like they rewrite every other fucking event to suit their story?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> How have they done that, did somebody rewrite the minutes of the meeting, like they rewrite every other fucking event to suit their story?



What do words even mean really?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Has he even managed to get 50 signatures yet? I keep on seeing all this stuff about him standing but I've yet to see anything that actually says that he's made the requirement to get on the ballot.



Give him time - don't forget it took Eagle more than a fortnight to move from almost standing to standing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> How have they done that, did somebody rewrite the minutes of the meeting, like they rewrite every other fucking event to suit their story?


I's the procedures cmmtee - so i would expect the full NEC to be able to overrule if it comes to it. The NEC seems to be able to do whatever it likes basically.

Oh look, we're talking about internal labour committees and their struggles. How fab.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.
> 
> Blimey



Seriously? You have a link for this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Seriously? You have a link for this?


Have a look at @LOS_Fisher


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look at @LOS_Fisher



What a bunch of pricks although I don't know why I'm surprised really.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 14, 2016)

At this point I hope Labour does split so the right wing with their zero grassroots support and zero public credibility can be annihilated at a general election. Maybe then they'll get the message, but then again maybe not. They'll probably just try and change the rules of elections so that it's no longer who gets the most votes, but who _really feels like they ought to be in power._


----------



## andysays (Jul 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Has he even managed to get 50 signatures yet? I keep on seeing all this stuff about him standing but I've yet to see anything that actually says that he's made the requirement to get on the ballot.



When (if) he does, we can expect an announcement something like this one, made on Monday when Eagle eventually got round to making her bid official


> Labour's general secretary, Iain McNicol, says: "I have now received sufficient nominations to trigger a contest for the position of Leader of the Labour Party. I will now ask the chair of the National Executive Committee to convene a meeting to confirm arrangements for an election.”



Personally, I reckon Smith is frantically looking round for a new team to re-design his campaign launch press conference backdrop before he makes his play...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 14, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.
> 
> Blimey



For fuck's sake. I coughed up however much it was to join Labour, found out I couldn't vote, then coughed up some more to join Unite, and now I find out I still can't vote. Wankers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

Smith - and anyone else, thinking of you andy - has ages to get his noms in. Does anyone know if each MP is only allowed a single nomination? I know they have to do a proper letter and actually turn up to conference, but does that mean there's a limited supply? Suddenly become more valuable if so.


----------



## newbie (Jul 14, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Isn't paying £25 quid buying a vote, anyway?


dems de roolz and anyway paying to participate was accepted last time.  

If Progress wants to pay for for people to vote any way they please we can all happily take them up on it. If they'll only pay for those who vote their way they're attempting to buy the election.  The same has to be true of Momentum.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> For fuck's sake. I coughed up however much it was to join Labour, found out I couldn't vote, then coughed up some more to join Unite, and now I find out I still can't vote. Wankers.



You may as well get stuck in to organising with the union then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> For fuck's sake. I coughed up however much it was to join Labour, found out I couldn't vote, then coughed up some more to join Unite, and now I find out I still can't vote. Wankers.


Thread over.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smith - and anyone else, thinking of you andy - has ages to get his noms in. Does anyone know if each MP is only allowed a single nomination? I know they have to do a proper letter and actually turn up to conference, but does that mean there's a limited supply? Suddenly become more valuable if so.


I was wondering that too, as presumably if you need 20% of the PLP and everyone only gets one nom that limits the number of candidates to a max of five?

Not that that would ever make much difference, I suppose.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 14, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.
> 
> Blimey



Why don't they just get a big sign that says " fuck off low paid and benefits scum " . Actually a poster campaign, billboards, with Jeremy Kyle. They clearly don't have a problem with new members signing up to vote. The only problem they have is with those members levels of disposable income.
It's like means testing for voting rights .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I was wondering that too, as presumably if you need 20% of the PLP and everyone only gets one nom that limits the number of candidates to a max of five?
> 
> Not that that would ever make much difference, I suppose.


I could see that being both a help and a hinderance - lots of _quick, sign this_ vs lots of _not yet_.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 14, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Looks like the Labour NEC have banned newly joined union affiliates from voting. Twenty five quid or nothing.
> 
> Blimey



Won't these changes block the entirety of the FBU?


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2016)

Fairly sure it's one nom per MP - certainly has been in the past anyway.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smith - and anyone else, thinking of you andy - has ages to get his noms in. Does anyone know if each MP is only allowed a single nomination? I know they have to do a proper letter and actually turn up to conference, but does that mean there's a limited supply? Suddenly become more valuable if so.


I had assumed they could nominate more than one, but were unlikely to. But I'm not sure how I formed that idea.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 14, 2016)

With a first past the post system, splitters, not able to take the Labour Party name, will be annihilated. I was reading somewhere (maybe on here) yesterday that the first past the post system means that 'entryism' is the only way to gain a viable change to party direction. So unless they want to jump ship and join the LibDem rubber dinghy they're going to have to put up or bugger off entirely.

(meant as areply to SpookyFrank on the previous page, but postings are happening quicker than Tory MPs being sacked).


----------



## andysays (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smith - and anyone else, thinking of you andy - has ages to get his noms in. Does anyone know *if each MP is only allowed a single nomination*? I know they have to do a proper letter and actually turn up to conference, but does that mean there's a limited supply? Suddenly become more valuable if so.



Has to be this surely? The same person can't nominate Eagle and then Smith/Burnham/whoever.

As I understand it it's MEPs as well who can nominate, so a slightly larger supply, but still limited.


----------



## JimW (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Fairly sure it's one nom per MP ...


Fnaar fnaar


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I had assumed they could nominate more than one, but were unlikely to. But I'm not sure how I formed that idea.


I read through the 2016 rulebook yesterday but can't remember what it said on this - if it said anything at all. Can't face looking at it again today. As with all things it has a _NEC does what it wants_ proviso anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

andysays said:


> Has to be this surely? The same person can't nominate Eagle and then Smith/Burnham/whoever.
> 
> As I understand it it's MEPs as well who can nominate, so a slightly larger supply, but still limited.


Yes, anything else doesn't really make much sense. So, what's the price?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> With a first past the post system, splitters, not able to take the Labour Party name, will be annihilated. I was reading somewhere (maybe on here) yesterday that the first past the post system means that 'entryism' is the only way to gain a viable change to party direction. So unless they want to jump ship and join the LibDem rubber dinghy they're going to have to put up or bugger off entirely.
> 
> (meant as areply to SpookyFrank on the previous page, but postings are happening quicker than Tory MPs being sacked).


lib dems actually were a third force once. Difficult to believe I know. Dogshit politics, years of work. Apparently they were devious shits at a local level back then as well, no tactic to low. Clegg and the orange booker crew pissed it all up the wall for a sniff of the big chair.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 14, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> They'll probably just try and change the rules of elections so that it's not longer who gets the most votes, but who _really feels like they ought to be in power._



Then still be baffled to find themselves totally stuffed by the Tories.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> lib dems actually were a third force once. Difficult to believe I know. Dogshit politics, years of work. Apparently they were devious shits at a local level back then as well, no tactic to low. Clegg and the orange booker crew pissed it all up the wall for a sniff of the big chair.



Indeed. It is amazing, I lived in a solid LibDem constituency for years, the local MP was well liked, Norman Baker, I even got his book on the David Kelly murder - er death I mean. Hard to think they've blown it. But I can't see where else the PLP members against Corbyn will go. They are doomed if they refuse to work with him. And I really can't see him losing the leadership battle. 

Maybe they'll be happy on the back benches taking an MP's salary, until the next election, then they're off to the jobcentre for sure.


----------



## andysays (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, anything else doesn't really make much sense. So, what's the price?



Depends on how easy the potential candidates find it to get enough nominations, I guess. 

The horse trading would really only start in earnest when they get close to the magic number. But the price is also related to the candidate's perceived chance of actually winning and being able to deliver on their end of the deal.

I have a vague recollection of something along these lines happening before (can't remember when, what party) where how many backers each possible candidate had/still needed was being discussed and speculation on how/who they might make up the last few they needed. Something to look forward to this time..?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smith - and anyone else, thinking of you andy - has ages to get his noms in. Does anyone know if each MP is only allowed a single nomination? I know they have to do a proper letter and actually turn up to conference, but does that mean there's a limited supply? Suddenly become more valuable if so.


They dont have to turn up to conference or owt. PLP & EPLP members nominations open on the 18th and close on the 20th, one member, one nomination.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

belboid said:


> They dont have to turn up to conference or owt. PLP & EPLP members nominations open on the 18th and close on the 20th, one member, one nomination.


Rulebook says:

vi. Nominees who do not attend the relevant
Party conference shall be deemed to have
withdrawn their nominations, unless they
send to the General Secretary – on or before
the day on which the conference opens – an
explanation in writing of their absence
satisfactory to the CAC

is a nominee the candidate? If so, that's where my confusion came from on this. See also iv.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 14, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Indeed. It is amazing, I lived in a solid LibDem constituency for years, the local MP was well liked, Norman Baker, I even got his book on the David Kelly murder - er death I mean. Hard to think they've blown it. But I can't see where else the PLP members against Corbyn will go. They are doomed if they refuse to work with him. And I really can't see him losing the leadership battle.
> 
> Maybe they'll be happy on the back benches taking an MP's salary, until the next election, then they're off to the jobcentre for sure.



They're so full of self importance they might try and reinvent the wheel . Thinking they can steal the Lib Dems clothes as well as the " proper" modern labour vibe . They believe they have a future that'd be better served if they could ditch the corbyny rabble once and for all.  A new political party is not all that unlikely. They've got the seats, the spin doctors and pr men . All the media and business connections. I really wouldn't rule that out.
Needless to say its a disaster in the making and theyre remnants would be going cap in hand to the lib deems in a few years time seeking to merge . Like the SDP before them .


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Rulebook says:
> 
> vi. Nominees who do not attend the relevant
> Party conference shall be deemed to have
> ...


Yeah, tho they are getting around that as well by having the nominees confirm they accept the nomination (on the 21st) and only then formally opening the contest.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> For fuck's sake. I coughed up however much it was to join Labour, found out I couldn't vote, then coughed up some more to join Unite, and now I find out I still can't vote. Wankers.



It's all been an incredibly successful ploy to get people to join Labour, Momentum and a union. I can't think of any other way they'd have had this many people join. 

And I've been meaning to join a union for a long time, on a personal level I don't care whether I can vote or not.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> lib dems actually were a third force once. Difficult to believe I know. Dogshit politics, years of work. Apparently they were devious shits at a local level back then as well, no tactic to low. Clegg and the orange booker crew pissed it all up the wall for a sniff of the big chair.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

6000 replies. Hash tag must be proud.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

#proud


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Indeed. It is amazing, I lived in a solid LibDem constituency for years, the local MP was well liked, Norman Baker, I even got his book on the David Kelly murder - er death I mean. Hard to think they've blown it. But I can't see where else the PLP members against Corbyn will go. They are doomed if they refuse to work with him. And I really can't see him losing the leadership battle.
> 
> Maybe they'll be happy on the back benches taking an MP's salary, until the next election, then they're off to the jobcentre for sure.


Yeh. Like any of them would be eligible for benefits anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> #proud


Yeh. Or at least he would be if it was such a bloody awful op and thread title.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

it'll be calling in favours to get cushy non-actual-work positions with whoever they have shilled for hardest.

still, if (and with this stitch up job I am uncertain) corbyn does get back in tho it means we get to see real blairite anguish for a second time. Fixed expressions while the cameras are on. Only thisw time round it might be tears. They won't have a third shake of the dice.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> For fuck's sake. I coughed up however much it was to join Labour, found out I couldn't vote, then coughed up some more to join Unite, and now I find out I still can't vote. Wankers.



Maybe, I'm too relaxed but I'm not that worried. Without the £3 voters, Corbyn would have won last year by 80 thousand or something along those lines. I grant that a lot of those may have switched sides but I reckon that a lot more of others will have joined the party just so as to help make the voices of the membership heard.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> At this point I hope Labour does split so the right wing with their zero grassroots support and zero public credibility can be annihilated at a general election. Maybe then they'll get the message, but then again maybe not. They'll probably just try and change the rules of elections so that it's not longer who gets the most votes, but who _really feels like they ought to be in power._



I don't think there's much chance of that. They all clapped the other day when Kinnock proclaimed "It's our party, dammit!".


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 14, 2016)




----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)




----------



## mk12 (Jul 14, 2016)

I'll just leave this here...

"The Labour Party should change its leader before the next election":
Agree: 66% (+24)
Disagree: 25% (-6)
(via Ipsos Mori)
Chgs. from Oct 15


----------



## Cid (Jul 14, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


>




Bit weak without comparison to other leaders/leading figures surely?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> 
> "The Labour Party should change its leader before the next election":
> Agree: 66% (+24)
> ...



Who were they asking? 

And we've had a relentless press campaign against him, remember.


----------



## gosub (Jul 14, 2016)

Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - BBC News  The problem with that is if you don't take what's agreed you can only get a worse deal (though one more likely to be able to address immigration)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> 
> "The Labour Party should change its leader before the next election":
> Agree: 66% (+24)
> ...


What about the other 9%?


----------



## Sifta (Jul 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - BBC News  The problem with that is if you don't take what's agreed you can only get a worse deal (though one more likely to be able to address immigration)



With Smith's desired result being assured by charging £25 a vote


----------



## Raheem (Jul 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - Labour leadership: Smith 'wants referendum on EU deal' - BBC News  The problem with that is if you don't take what's agreed you can only get a worse deal (though one more likely to be able to address immigration)



That depends on how the process goes. If the other 27 stick to a50 being irreversible and no pre-talks, there's not much point in a referendum anyway.

Even though I think what he's talking about is more-or-less inevitable and the right thing, it's pretty stupid IMO to let the Tories off the hook by making it the Labour platform.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

Cid said:


> Bit weak without comparison to other leaders/leading figures surely?



Full report here:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf


----------



## J Ed (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Fairly sure it's one nom per MP - certainly has been in the past anyway.



David Miliband gave Diane Abbot his nomination, didn't he?


----------



## gosub (Jul 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That depends on how the process goes. If the other 27 stick to a50 being irreversible and no pre-talks, there's not much point in a referendum anyway.
> 
> Even though I think what he's talking about is more-or-less inevitable and the right thing, it's pretty stupid IMO to let the Tories off the hook by making it the Labour platform.


We are at least 3 years from a EUropean treaty change that could possibly alter article 50 mechanism. Get with reality. 
Government should however take parliament with it on the renegotiation process say a day every 3months to add input


----------



## Raheem (Jul 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> We are at least 3 years from a EUropean treaty change that could possibly alter article 50 mechanism. Get with reality.
> Government should however take parliament with it on the renegotiation process say a day every 3months to add input



Altering the mechanism doesn't need treaty change, but it needs unanimity in the council of ministers.


----------



## gosub (Jul 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Altering the mechanism doesn't need treaty change, but it needs unanimity in the council of ministers.


So you think you can change the wording of a treaty without changing a treaty
And it impacts on Commission so under Vienna rules you need them on board and probably EUropean parliament


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 14, 2016)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That depends on how the process goes. If the other 27 stick to a50 being irreversible and no pre-talks, there's not much point in a referendum anyway.
> 
> Even though I think what he's talking about is more-or-less inevitable and the right thing, it's pretty stupid IMO to let the Tories off the hook by making it the Labour platform.


They must do, being a democratic body.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> So you think you can change the wording of a treaty without changing a treaty
> And it impacts on Commission so under Vienna rules you need them on board and probably EUropean parliament



They wouldn't be amending the treaty, just being flexible with the UK. AFAIK, it wouldn't give rise to any further complications. But, at the moment, there is unanimity to not be flexible.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 14, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> .


----------



## discokermit (Jul 14, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> You may as well get stuck in to organising with the union then.


i tried that. '88. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
tried again in the early nineties. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
tried again in the mid nineties. got sacked.
gave it a rest til two thousand and twelve. got sacked. place now empty.
everytime the unions coffers got bigger, me and my mates ended up without jobs, union fulltimers shrugged.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 14, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i tried that. '88. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
> tried again in the early nineties. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
> tried again in the mid nineties. got sacked.
> gave it a rest til two thousand and twelve. got sacked. place now empty.
> everytime the unions coffers got bigger, me and my mates ended up without jobs, union fulltimers shrugged.



Jesus sounds like you were put through the mill . If it's any consolation a lot of union coffers now are a lot smaller than they used to be, in part because their fulltimers kept shrugging. That's all part of a much bigger conversation about organising and work mind, which my glib one-liner would be a bit unsuited for .


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

Mark Steel: Corbyn's supporters took over Labour before they were even born


> Eagle he claims she could win a general election – and to be fair she might have a slight chance, as long as she’s allowed to keep all the other parties off the ballot paper. She does have a gift for explaining her ideas, after all. Asked on the _Today_ programme why she voted for the Iraq war, she said “I’m a Northern working class girl who understands the nuances of modern life.”
> 
> That put the Chilcot report in its place. It was all very well Sir John writing millions of words about weapons inspectors and UN resolutions, but instead of that waffle he should have asked everyone if they were from the North. Tomorrow she’ll be asked, “Why are you in favour of Trident?” and her answer will be “I’ve been to Manchester and understand the rules of table tennis.”
> 
> The majority of Labour MPs say they have to overthrow Corbyn, because he “sits in his office and doesn’t reach out to anyone.” He was cheered by tens of thousands at last week’s gala in Durham, and attracted crowds of several thousand during the first leadership contest, but that doesn’t count as anyone compared to Angela ‘U2’ Eagle, or Owen ‘crash the website as soon as tickets go on sale’ Smith. Neither can they go out of the house without facing hordes of fans screaming “we love the way you abstain on Tory bills to cut welfare” and demanding selfies.


----------



## chilango (Jul 14, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Why don't they just get a big sign that says " fuck off low paid and benefits scum " .



They've got one. It's called their record when in power. Doesn't get much clearer than thst.


----------



## chilango (Jul 14, 2016)

As for fptp and splinters....no reason why the system couldn't accommodate another party. It has before.


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 14, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i tried that. '88. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
> tried again in the early nineties. got sacked. the place is now rubble.
> tried again in the mid nineties. got sacked.
> gave it a rest til two thousand and twelve. got sacked. place now empty.
> everytime the unions coffers got bigger, me and my mates ended up without jobs, union fulltimers shrugged.




....did you blow them up?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 14, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> ....did you blow them up?


management did.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 14, 2016)

Turns out the "prominent journalist" sending "intimidating" text messages was Owen Jones.

Check the intimidation out!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Turns out the "prominent journalist" sending "intimidating" text messages was Owen Jones.
> 
> Check the intimidation out!


fuck knows how they'd cope if people were proper intimidating to them


----------



## mauvais (Jul 14, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Turns out the "prominent journalist" sending "intimidating" text messages was Owen Jones.
> 
> Check the intimidation out!


It's kind of brick shaped.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 14, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Turns out the "prominent journalist" sending "intimidating" text messages was Owen Jones.
> 
> Check the intimidation out!


Post needs a trigger warning.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 14, 2016)

So, as it stands now:

If you were a Labour Party member or a registered affiliated member of an affiliated union BEFORE 12th Jan 2016 you can vote. If you joined Labour or became affiliated after that point, you cannot. But you CAN still pay your £25 between 18th-20th July and register as a supporter to vote, even if you are a member of Labour or an affiliated union.


----------



## baldrick (Jul 14, 2016)

I'm still confused. So can I opt in to the Labour fund of my union now and get a vote?

Edit: On second reading that's saying I can't. No way am I paying 25 quid.


----------



## Cid (Jul 14, 2016)

baldrick said:


> I'm still confused. So can I opt in to the Labour fund of my union now and get a vote?
> 
> Edit: On second reading that's saying I can't. No way am I paying 25 quid.



From the Graun:

"People who have been union members for more than six months can still register as an affiliate supporter and vote if they register before 8 August."


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 14, 2016)

baldrick said:


> I'm still confused. So can I opt in to the Labour fund of my union now and get a vote?
> 
> Edit: On second reading that's saying I can't.



That's what I have read today as well.


----------



## Pugnax (Jul 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck knows how they'd cope if people were proper intimidating to them



Yeah, I'm fully against bullying and victim blaming, but this is just ridiculous. Aside from the seeming underhandedness of the whole thing, it massively undermines the struggle against harassment and trolling that isn't going to go away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

Pugnax said:


> Yeah, I'm fully against bullying and victim blaming, but this is just ridiculous. Aside from the seeming underhandedness of the whole thing, it massively undermines the struggle against harassment and trolling that isn't going to go away.


If they want to see what proper intimidation looks like they need only ask


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 14, 2016)




----------



## cantsin (Jul 14, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>




really encouraging news, and the only realistic way fwd now


----------



## Tankus (Jul 14, 2016)

if they run an election every few months ...just how many elections will it take to put the party back into profit 

is this a political pyramid scheme ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

union barons holding the country to ransom 

Fair play. I thought the unions might cave, I mean they do that so its not an unworthy thought from me. But Unite has not. Excellent. Suspend CLP's all you like then eh, no confidence noises can come from other quarters


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2016)

UNISON seem to be suggesting members before 12 Jan can register, unclear if there's a deadline.

Labour leadership elections 2016 | Labour link | UNISON National


----------



## Cid (Jul 14, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> UNISON seem to be suggesting members before 12 Jan can register, unclear if there's a deadline.
> 
> Labour leadership elections 2016 | Labour link | UNISON National



There are articles on the graun and BBC that say this is possible (linked upthread and in the less than £25 thread), the deadline is 8th August.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 14, 2016)

This is encouraging from my clp in greenest Tory Surrey 

I wanted to send you an update on the current situation in the party.
As many of you will know from media sources there is a Leadership election campaign. Nominations have not closed but the Party's National Executive ruled that the leader Jeremy Corbyn will be on the ballot. In a latter part of the meeting they voted on a motion which ruled that only members as at 31.12.2015 can vote in the election. Those joining later have a possibility of voting if they pay a supplementary fee of £25. I understand that this fee and registration would have to occur between 18-20 July. The motion was not on the meeting agenda and the vote on it occurred after Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the National Executive had left the meeting. I am very disappointed with this decision. It is undemocratic and unfair. However the situation is fluid and it may yet be reversed! I sincerely hope so.
A further ruling stated that branch and constituency meetings be cancelled during the Leadership election campaign. Again this is a disappointing decision.
Notwithstanding the above our recent branch meeting agreed to meet on the second Tuesday of August(9th). Dependent on rulings from our National Executive this meeting will be either formal or informal....we can organise a "Red Drinks" evening in a local pub. At the same meeting we did discuss the issues in the party. It was a very healthy and comradely discussion where everyone had an opportunity to express their views. The majority at the meeting were disappointed with the Parliamentary Labour Party and were in support of Jeremy Corbyn. 
I am very excited by the huge growth in our membership. Nationally and locally we have grown considerably and have a real opportunity to build a mass party which can be a force to change society. I believe that the bureaucratic attempts to stifle democracy can and will be overcome and we, the members, will be able to shape the party. This is a time to stand firm and overcome these challenges.
I will send a further update next week together with meeting minutes etc.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

Is it only me that can't get into labour.org.uk?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2016)

Every now and again I misread this as "James Corden's time is up"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Every now and again I misread this as "James Corden's time is up"


Must be a constant disappointment when you check and it's Corbyn


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> Is it only me that can't get into labour.org.uk?


Some sort of a dirty trot, eh?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2016)

Saw something about labour trawling through social media so they can ban people who use uncomradely language (hollow laugh) like traitor and scab.  Whose job would that be and on instruction from who?  Seems a bit unlikely that they could find the time to trawl through 100ks of peoples' fb and twitter.   Now I can't remember what language I used in my email to Ummuna...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Some sort of a dirty trot, eh?



I think I visited the page while they were adding info into the website. When you click to join it warns you that you won't be entitled to vote in this election and there's a election information banner thing that leads you to who can and who cannot vote in the leadership election


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> Is it only me that can't get into labour.org.uk?


 
the NEC have put new checking on there - your IP address obviously suggests you might be working class and / or have socialist tendencies...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> Is it only me that can't get into labour.org.uk?





brogdale said:


> Some sort of a dirty trot, eh?



*++ PROJECT WEED CONTROL SCANNERS ARE NOW FULLY OPERATIONAL ++ *

*




*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 14, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Saw something about labour trawling through social media so they can ban people who use uncomradely language (hollow laugh) like traitor and scab.  Whose job would that be and on instruction from who?  Seems a bit unlikely that they could find the time to trawl through 100ks of peoples' fb and twitter.   Now I can't remember what language I used in my email to Ummuna...



I saw that story sourced on the Canary, which I'd treat as barely a step or two more reliable than David Icke based on its performance so far.

Having said that, I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that in particular cases, _pour encourager les autres, _but I doubt they have either the manpower or the tech to do it systematically.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I saw that story sourced on the Canary, which I'd treat as barely a step or two more reliable than David Icke based on its performance so far.
> 
> Having said that, I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that in particular cases, _pour encourager les autres, _but I doubt they have either the manpower or the tech to do it systematically.



Yep. I don't normally click on them but couldn't resist the headline claim.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

I'm going to laugh like a drain, and my arse will fall off and I'll need major surgery on the splits in my sides if corbyn creams it with a larger majority than first time round. And hopefully that Cunt won't have fucked all the doctors off so someone will be around to stitch my arse (scant though it may be) back on


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

tammany hall cunts


----------



## Tankus (Jul 14, 2016)

been sniggering away for over two weeks  ............the news is just perfect entertainment ...real time satire


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2016)

I heard on the news that the PLP are having a secret ballot to decide which of smith or eagle will go forward to go head to head with Corbyn: looks to me like Smith is the chosen one.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> I heard on the news that the PLP are having a secret ballot to decide which of smith or eagle will go forward to go head to head with Corbyn: looks to me like Smith is the chosen one.


An announcement of the announcement of the contest to decide who will contest Corbyn?


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> I heard on the news that the PLP are having a secret ballot to decide which of smith or eagle will go forward to go head to head with Corbyn: looks to me like Smith is the chosen one.


"You do it"
"No, you do it"
"No, I've had enough already. You do it"


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2016)

Meanwhile legal challenges, media smear campaigns not entirely in keeping with the comradely behaviour they are suddenly so keen on and NEC meetings every day to move goalposts around. 

Meanwhile, meanwhile, over the last couple of weeks I have attempted to find my CLP details and, although I have seen reference that suggests it exists I can't seem to find anything useful like where it meets, email address etc.  Not sure I've even allowed to attend with being an affiliate member only.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2016)

@LabourEoin Brighton CLP, a massive 6,000 members strong, has just been suspended by Labour HQ after voting overwhelmingly confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 14, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Meanwhile legal challenges, media smear campaigns not entirely in keeping with the comradely behaviour they are suddenly so keen on and NEC meetings every day to move goalposts around.
> 
> Meanwhile, meanwhile, over the last couple of weeks I have attempted to find my CLP details and, although I have seen reference that suggests it exists I can't seem to find anything useful like where it meets, email address etc.  Not sure I've even allowed to attend with being an affiliate member only.


Have you tried to find your local Momentum group? That might be an easier point of access.


----------



## binka (Jul 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> I heard on the news that the PLP are having a secret ballot to decide which of smith or eagle will go forward to go head to head with Corbyn: looks to me like Smith is the chosen one.


Wonder who Corbyn will vote for


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2016)

Warren Morgan's (labour leader Brighton) mask has well & truly slipped, the utter cunt!


----------



## Cakes (Jul 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> This is encouraging from my clp in greenest Tory Surrey
> 
> I wanted to send you an update on the current situation in the party.
> As many of you will know from media sources there is a Leadership election campaign. Nominations have not closed but the Party's National Executive ruled that the leader Jeremy Corbyn will be on the ballot. In a latter part of the meeting they voted on a motion which ruled that only members as at 31.12.2015 can vote in the election. Those joining later have a possibility of voting if they pay a supplementary fee of £25. I understand that this fee and registration would have to occur between 18-20 July. The motion was not on the meeting agenda and the vote on it occurred after Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the National Executive had left the meeting. I am very disappointed with this decision. It is undemocratic and unfair. However the situation is fluid and it may yet be reversed! I sincerely hope so.
> ...


Wow. This is a world away from my CLP's response to the growth in membership!


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Warren Morgan's (labour leader Brighton) mask has well & truly slipped, the utter cunt!



Not much of a mask, though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @LabourEoin Brighton CLP, a massive 6,000 members strong, has just been suspended by Labour HQ after voting overwhelmingly confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2016)

agricola said:


> Not much of a mask, though.



Oh indeed, bloke's a proto Tory cunt. Suppose it was the Brighton LP vote for discrimination against travellers & the homeless that nailed it today.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 14, 2016)

What have they been suspended _for_? Meeting at all?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 89603



Do the NEC meet every day to do this sort of thing?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What have they been suspended _for_? Meeting at all?



Warren Morgan doesn't support Corbyn so (apparently) whinged to the NEC.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Do the NEC meet every day to do this sort of thing?


I'd guess no.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Warren Morgan doesn't support Corbyn so (apparently) whinged to the NEC.


Of course, I get why, but what's the official, rulebook explanation?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Of course, I get why, but what's the official, rulebook explanation?



Maybe anti-Corbyn "whinging" has been amended to the rule book? You tell me!


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 14, 2016)

Surely a split is now inevitable, assuming they can't fuck around with the vote by excluding people.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Maybe anti-Corbyn "whinging" has been amended to the rule book? You tell me!


My guess would be something to do with the NEC's conditional suspension of all CLP meetings, you know, that pesky freedom of association. Even though they're allowed to meet to sort out supporting a candidate, I think.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 14, 2016)

How do these people not get that the more you try to control this stuff the stronger you make it? I bet there are a handful of anti-Corbyns absolutely despairing at how the majority of them are carrying on making these blunders.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @LabourEoin Brighton CLP, a massive 6,000 members strong, has just been suspended by Labour HQ after voting overwhelmingly confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.


ffs


----------



## Cid (Jul 14, 2016)

Can they suspend membership/voting rights?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> Surely a split is now inevitable, assuming they can't fuck around with the vote by excluding people.


I dunno how deep wider party loyalty goes. How can you admit the project you've been at for so many years is going to shit and you are helping? Its possible I suppose but they seem convinced that everyone else, the entire party is wrong and they are not. Serious cognitive dissonance


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

What does suspension mean?

e2a: Oops, didn't realise Cid had asked the q already


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 14, 2016)

Cid said:


> Can they suspend membership/voting rights?


 


MochaSoul said:


> What does suspension mean?


 
I am fairly sure it means that the local party organisation has been stopped from carrying out business - i don't see that they could suspend individual membership / voting rights of all the local members (if that's what you mean) - irrespective of whether they have been active / been to meetings / voted

this (about south shields) has a bit about what happens


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

Thanks Puddy_Tat.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 14, 2016)

Suspension of a CLP means it gets additional oversight from the regional office for its official business. It can still carry on as normal, but all motions and so on have to be ratified by region, and they oversee everything.

It's different to individual members being suspended. It's more like 'special measures.'

Source: him indoors, who oversaw our CLP being brought out of suspension a few years ago.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 14, 2016)

It is relatively common. I hear there are several CLPs officially suspended at any one time.

Pesky buggers.


----------



## newbie (Jul 14, 2016)

there's a list of pro- and anti-Corbyn CLPs here, with a few motions of no confidence from mostly inner London constituencies while confidence motions have come from all over the country.  It's almost as though a small cabal has infiltrated in the metropolis....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2016)

the naughty step. Fucking party politics. Pull a stalin while weeping about bullying


----------



## Raheem (Jul 14, 2016)

newbie said:


> there's a list of pro- and anti-Corbyn CLPs here, with a few motions of no confidence from mostly inner London constituencies while confidence motions have come from all over the country.  It's almost as though a small cabal has infiltrated in the metropolis....



I make that 80-16. But it's a game of two halves, of course.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 14, 2016)

Our (part 2 of the) AGM was meant to go ahead tomorrow but instead it's going to be an informal drink at the pub with no official business. 

Mostly going for the gossip and to see if I can catch any pokemon along the way


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2016)

newbie said:


> there's a list of pro- and anti-Corbyn CLPs here, with a few motions of no confidence from mostly inner London constituencies while confidence motions have come from all over the country.  It's almost as though a small cabal has infiltrated in the metropolis....



London is the island of red in a sea of blue in the GE and an island of blue labour in a sea of red labour.  My CLP that I can't find any details for is anti-Corbyn.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Fucking party politics. Pull a stalin while weeping about bullying



It took me some time to stop laughing at that one


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 15, 2016)

As an affiliate you are entitled to go to CLP meetings, quimcunx - at least Unite affiliate members are, so presumably other unions/pro bodies would too?


----------



## newbie (Jul 15, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> London is the island of red in a sea of blue in the GE and an island of blue labour in a sea of red labour.  My CLP that I can't find any details for is anti-Corbyn.


it's quite stark how far London is drifting offshore.

As for Streatham CLP, you're far braver than me.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 15, 2016)

newbie said:


> it's quite stark how far London is drifting offshore.
> 
> As for Streatham CLP, you're far braver than me.



I haven't been!  Never tried.  Never had any intention of going!  Only joined the labour party by accident. Just felt I should at least have a nosy after recent events, but they seem to be very coy about how to find them.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2016)

What universe do the blairites inhabit if they think that blatantly gerrymandering the leadership election to the point of farce and trying to freeze all activity in CLPs is going to deliver membership votes for Eagle and/or Owen?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> I haven't been!  Never tried.  Never had any intention of going!  Only joined the labour party by accident. Just felt I should at least have a nosy after recent events, but they seem to be very coy about how to find them.



Might want to check your local Momentum lot, Facebook page or something. Heard a few tales of ward secretaries being 'slow' to contact new members at the moment.


----------



## coley (Jul 15, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> ffs



If it all ends up in divorce,who gets what? If for instance, a large chunk of the PLP decides to set up a separate party or buggers off and joins the Lib dems, or greens (or if they are really honest, the Tories) who gets control of the bank account, the membership and the actual bricks and mortar?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> What universe do the blairites inhabit if they think that blatantly gerrymandering the leadership election to the point of farce and trying to freeze all activity in CLPs is going to deliver membership votes for Eagle and/or Owen?



One where winning at the cost of all credibility, most members and national humiliation is still winning. Limit the electorate to just Angela Eagle and her pet dog and victory is guaranteed.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

coley said:


> If it all ends up in divorce,who gets what? If for instance, a large chunk of the PLP decides to set up a separate party or buggers off and joins the Lib dems, or greens (or if they are really honest, the Tories) who gets control of the bank account, the membership and the actual bricks and mortar?



The lawyers who argue it in court will get all the money. The membership will split in Corbyn's favour regardless.


----------



## coley (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> The lawyers who argue it in court will get all the money. The membership will split in Corbyn's favour regardless.


That's a given, but who would retain what Labour Party infrastructure/finances that would be left remaining after the vultures of the legal profession had taken their share?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

coley said:


> That's a given, but who would retain what Labour Party infrastructure/finances that would be left remaining after the vultures of the legal profession had taken their share?



Who knows? Sure someone here can make an educated guess but it'd still come down to a legal battle.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Who knows? Sure someone here can make an educated guess but it'd still come down to a legal battle.



Having been Labour's backers over the years the unions would have a big say on that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> What universe do the blairites inhabit if they think that blatantly gerrymandering the leadership election to the point of farce and trying to freeze all activity in CLPs is going to deliver membership votes for Eagle and/or Owen?



That so many of them are going along with this madness is hard to credit. OK, maybe they all genuinely think Corbyn needs to go, but is there nobody who at least realises that the way they're going about it is doomed to failure?

They were never going to be able to stop CLPs meeting, they have no conceivable right or authority to do so. God only knows what their next scheme will be once this one fails.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

it's a nuts response to 150k new members joining a party to then decide to ban all local parties from meeting for several months.

Shows that they care more for their personal positions than they do for winning elections or being seen to be an effective opposition to the new Tory government.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> The lawyers who argue it in court will get all the money. The membership will split in Corbyn's favour regardless.


There is a big advantage to keeping the name and current membership and infrastructure in the event of a split.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Warren Morgan doesn't support Corbyn so (apparently) whinged to the NEC.


his blog post on this says that he was the NUC president at Hull uni prior to Tom Watson, so presumably that'll have been who he was able to winge to who had the power to suspect the CLP on his say so.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

I wonder how much of this is prélude to mass expulsions of Corbynistas. Not a very left-progressive move if so.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> I wonder how much of this is prélude to mass expulsions of Corbynistas. Not a very left-progressive move if so.


I expect they're setting up this bullying scenario so that they can expel anyone who's been abusive about labour MPs etc on social media.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> I wonder how much of this is prélude to mass expulsions of Corbynistas. Not a very left-progressive move if so.



Not sure if this has been posted yet, on my day off from politics as well as work but...



Apparently from the NEC Procedures Committee, judge the provenance for yourself. Warnings going about too, keep an eye on your personal posts, new Facebook requests, Twitter followers etc. Paranoia inducing, but had some odd requests myself so who knows. Add it on to the routine requests for 'civil' discourse from the right and you've got a potent atmosphere to keep people quiet. 'Civil' in this case meaning don't say anything that suggests any disdain or disagreement with the orthodox narrative of course.

e2a: Applies to registered supporters, but not full members, apparently. Presumably because so many on the wrong side have form for abuse.


----------



## oryx (Jul 15, 2016)

Not that much in the media about Corbyn having received death threats himself.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

oryx said:


> Not that much in the media about Corbyn having received death threats himself.



Oh I've read Marina "Edward" Hyde from The Guardian question them. I'll try and find the article


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

oryx said:


> Not that much in the media about Corbyn having received death threats himself.



Here you go:Eyes down, apocalypse bingo players: Labour’s Jedi council has spoken | Marina Hyde



> Before the NEC’s decision was known, Jeremy issued one of his signature relativist statements, condemning the attack on Eagle’s office “as someone who has also received death threats this week and previously”. Which raises several crucial questions. Namely: are the attacks on Corbyn false flags, or is it just the ones on Eagle? Is a false-false flag just a flag? And could whoever is Labour leader this autumn conclude conference with a rousing rendition of new party anthem The False Flag?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 15, 2016)

oryx said:


> Not that much in the media about Corbyn having received death threats himself.



They're probably not considered that big a deal. Just routine AOB at PLP meetings.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I expect they're setting up this bullying scenario so that they can expel anyone who's been abusive about labour MPs etc on social media.



While I'm painfully aware of reflecting my mum's warnings to me about how my race would collour everything I did in my life in many people's eyes, it's hard for me not to think "You guys know the whole movement is under the microscopes of people who don't like you, don't want you and feel threatened by you. If you really want the new gentler kind of politics then start by practicing it yourselves!"

I know, I know.... my own head is a fucking whirl on this one.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2016)

How can anyone other than the self obsessed wing nuts of the PLP think any of this is remotely democratic, effective, helpful or even remotely sane? Their behavior makes a three year old rolling on the ground screaming because their toast has been into squares not triangles look a model of reasonableness. 
And yet the bulk of the media has either nothing to say or just carrys on with  project sneer and smear.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> How can anyone other than the self obsessed wing nuts of the PLP think any of this is remotely democratic, effective, helpful or even remotely sane? Their behavior makes a three year old rolling on the ground screaming because their toast has been into squares not triangles look a model of reasonableness.
> And yet the bulk of the media has either nothing to say or just carry's on with  project sneer and smear.



They haven't realised yet they're in the Hamptons.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 15, 2016)

Here's the text of the letter to Brighton CLP, with 'references to fabricated smears' according to branch secretary's twitter feed.

Full text: The letter suspending Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party (sent to former EC…


----------



## mauvais (Jul 15, 2016)

Wow. You voted wrong, so you're banned from voting until it doesn't matter any more.


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2016)

My Mrs reckons that the CLP suspensions prevents the local parties having any input into what's discussed at conference, as the period of the leadership challenge just happens to be the run up to the conference too. Not sure how much input the CLPS have to conference though, anyone?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 15, 2016)

Why won't Corbyn resign after the Nice attacks?


----------



## inva (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 89607
> 
> Why won't Corbyn resign after the Nice attacks?


is that not a bad taste joke?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 15, 2016)

Well maybe but


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 15, 2016)

@bbcsoutheast #Brighton Council Leader says the city Labour party's suspension has 'no impact' on council administration which will "carry on as normal"

Yeah, you carry on like fuck all's happened, eh Warren!


----------



## Sue (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well maybe but



Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## inva (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well maybe but



you're right, it isn't a joke is it? 
just sick.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 15, 2016)

inva said:


> you're right, it isn't a joke is it?
> just sick.



I had to double check when you asked, tbh.

But yes, it's desperate really. I do worry that this approach of hateful blaming Corbyn for everything and simultaneously accusing Corbynistas of all sorts of misrepresentation and intimidation will cause problems.

But it is mainly bubble stuff, so perhaps not.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?

What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's the text of the letter to Brighton CLP, with 'references to fabricated smears' according to branch secretary's twitter feed.
> 
> Full text: The letter suspending Brighton, Hove and District Labour Party (sent to former EC…




'Reports that ballot results were not properly reached'...you mean they waited until half the people had left the room before sneakily voting on a six month suspension of voting rights and the banning of all local party activity? Oh no wait, that was you lot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well maybe but




Maybe just don't share this crap? Time was the views of ranting muppets like this never made it past the walls of the pub they were sat in at the time. Those were better times IMO.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?
> 
> What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.


An actress, with 29.9K followers. I'd never heard of her before either lol but Twitter is not a vacuum. Lots of people use it as a news source, I've used it for lots of middle eastern info but the important thing here is the amount of followers she's got. Whether the majority of them agree with her on this issue is another matter.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well maybe but




Wow! Just... wow!


----------



## Sue (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?
> 
> What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.


I've no idea who she is either. I do though think using something like this to make some petty (and unrelated) political jibe is pretty fucking disgusting. And that she thinks this is a reasonable/position-enhancing point to make...well.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 15, 2016)

I think it's interesting how barking mad it is, but it should probably be taken with a pinch of salt, yes.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?
> 
> What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.



Anything that gets said hundreds of thousands of times makes a difference on some level. Bullshit like hers included. Every tweet another drop in the great bucket of stupidity.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe just don't share this crap? Time was the views of ranting muppets like this never made it past the walls of the pub they were sat in at the time. Those were better times IMO.



I wonder... I've heard quite nasty stuff from people old enough to be my grandmothers to my face and in front of my son. I could tell you a few but it's enough they pollute my memory


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Anything that gets said hundreds of thousands of times makes a difference on some level. Bullshit like hers included. Every tweet another drop in the great bucket of stupidity.



I want to believe most people will dismiss it as nasty trolling but, as things stand right now, can you imagine how many headlines this would make if this was directed at Angela Eagle instead of Corbyn?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe just don't share this crap? Time was the views of ranting muppets like this never made it past the walls of the pub they were sat in at the time. Those were better times IMO.



I dunno, is useful to know about these - perhaps a long list of them (together with the newspaper headlines that belie the actual story) is useful to show how stupidly biased much of the criticisms are.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

... and people are feeding her. How unbelievably stupid is that?


----------



## Cid (Jul 15, 2016)

Do leadership elections have any oversight by an external body?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


> An actress, with 29.9K followers. I'd never heard of her before either lol but Twitter is not a vacuum. Lots of people use it as a news source, I've used it for lots of middle eastern info but the important thing here is the amount of followers she's got. Whether the majority of them agree with her on this issue is another matter.


This is the mistake people keep making.  29.9k is nothing.  A lot of those -- probably the vast majority -- will have pressed follow and stopped reading Twitter or no longer pay attention thereafter.  Be generous and say 10k read it.  I bet at least that many read urban.  10k out of 70m is nothing at all.  And those 10k probably already agree with her anyway.

It looks important to those that think that Twitter is important.  To everyone else, it means nothing.


----------



## maomao (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Be generous and say 10k read it. I bet at least that many read urban.


I'd be genuinely surprised if Urban had 2,000 regular readers.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> This is the mistake people keep making.  29.9k is nothing.  A lot of those -- probably the vast majority -- will have pressed follow and stopped reading Twitter or no longer pay attention thereafter.  Be generous and say 10k read it.  I bet at least that many read urban.  10k out of 70m is nothing at all.  And those 10k probably already agree with her anyway.
> 
> It looks important to those that think that Twitter is important.  To everyone else, it means nothing.


Haha yes well neither of us have heard of her, but all I'm saying is don't underestimate Twitter's value as a news source.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> This is the mistake people keep making.  29.9k is nothing.  A lot of those -- probably the vast majority -- will have pressed follow and stopped reading Twitter or no longer pay attention thereafter.  Be generous and say 10k read it.  I bet at least that many read urban.  10k out of 70m is nothing at all.  And those 10k probably already agree with her anyway.
> 
> It looks important to those that think that Twitter is important.  To everyone else, it means nothing.



I attach nothing to numbers of twitter/FB followers because I have pretty distasteful characters on my lists. I've long held the belief that it does no good to be caught by surprise so I like to keep an eye on the people I disagree with.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2016)

Why don't you members demand/hold ward meetings and have votes of confidence/no confidence at that level? Like, right now.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)

That seems like an excellent plan, take the battle to them


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you members demand/hold ward meetings and have votes of confidence/no confidence at that level? Like, right now.



Because such an action would only be as effective as the number of branches that decided to defy the ruling and few will do it before being sure the others will follow suit. With so many anti-Corbyn CLPs few will want to take such plunges. Momentum could/should help but being itself a target... 

e2a: I'm assuming.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2016)

MochaSoul said:


> Because such an action would only be as effective as the number of branches that decided to defy the ruling and few will do it before being sure the others will follow suit. With so many anti-Corbyn CLPs few will want to take such plunges. Momentum could/should help but being itself a target...


Ward meetings aren't suspended though, unless the CLP suspensions automatically mean that, but that wasn't mentioned in the NEC statement of what is happening.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 15, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well maybe but




she excelled herself last year with a 2am drunken, racist rant vs a 'Muslim Uber driver' who had supposedly assaulted her on way back from Old Vic,which was then downgraded to supposedly verbally assaulted her, then Uber got involved, and despite repeated requests for further info / evidence etc, the whole thing then went v quiet . 

ie : like Cathy Newman, but perma semi sozzled . Total dickhead.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

maomao said:


> I'd be genuinely surprised if Urban had 2,000 regular readers.


I'd be surprised if Frances Barber had 1000


----------



## chilango (Jul 15, 2016)

maomao said:


> I'd be genuinely surprised if Urban had 2,000 regular readers.



One of the mods could probably tell you.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Ward meetings aren't suspended though, unless the CLP suspensions automatically mean that, but that wasn't mentioned in the NEC statement of what is happening.



Don't ask me. The little I know of the engine I've learned from this thread. I had your thought last night and then I remembered a few lessons on terror without masses of blood I got from my Portuguese elders as I was growing up.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Haha yes well neither of us have heard of her, but all I'm saying is don't underestimate Twitter's value as a news source.


I genuinely don't think it is possible to underestimate Twitter's value as a news source.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

Cid said:


> Do leadership elections have any oversight by an external body?



Doesn't look like it tbh.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you members demand/hold ward meetings and have votes of confidence/no confidence at that level? Like, right now.



In my ward the committee is split, same with the membership. We passed a motion of support for Corbyn but the MP has her backers too. Any meeting called would immediately be labelled a Momentum split and entail no end of bullshit. Better, for now, to stick to the Momentum meeting and ensure that all those who want to vote, can vote. I think anyway.


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Ward meetings aren't suspended though, unless the CLP suspensions automatically mean that, but that wasn't mentioned in the NEC statement of what is happening.


branch meetings are also suspended.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> In my ward the committee is split, same with the membership. We passed a motion of support for Corbyn but the MP has her backers too. Any meeting called would immediately be labelled a Momentum split and entail no end of bullshit. Better, for now, to stick to the Momentum meeting and ensure that all those who want to vote, can vote. I think anyway.



This is the crux of the problem. Those that joined Labour to bring in socialism, expect the dirty work to be done by someone else.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

BeverlyCrusher said:


> This is the crux of the problem. Those that joined Labour to bring in socialism, expect the dirty work to be done by someone else.



Eh?


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Eh?



It's do or die. You won't get any favourable change in the LP if you're unwilling to get your hands dirty and attempt to avoid "bullshit".

A lot of the people I know who've joined up recently have given up their grassroots organising elsewhere. You cannot expect someone else to do the work for you.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 15, 2016)

My CLP aren't responding. Happy to before the NEC meeting, not so interested now.

The MP is Ivan Lewis, sacked from Shadow Sec for NI by text on day one, getting a beating from his super-Jewish constituents for the perceived anti-semitism of the LP (supposedly, on various counts), running for Mayor, and vocal in asking Corbyn to resign.

Appetite for an argument aside, I suspect I have very few mates here, but we'll see.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

BeverlyCrusher said:


> It's do or die. You won't get any favourable change in the LP if you're unwilling to get your hands dirty and attempt to avoid "bullshit".
> 
> A lot of the people I know who've joined up recently have given up their grassroots organising elsewhere. You cannot expect someone else to do the work for you.



Yes - and the work at the moment is ensuring people can vote for Corbyn. Then it's pushing for a reselection process and rescinding the voting restrictions through a new NEC. It's not alienating potential ward allies and investing in a fight to vote no confidence in an irrelevant MP.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)




----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)

Unite pushes for reselection of MPs


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


>




Surely either the atmosphere is so physically dangerous that it is irresponsible to hold any events and any deviation from that is being cavalier with safety or this exposes how hollow the justification for the ban is.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 15, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn has turned the Labour Party into a safe haven for violent thugs

Tom Harris is a former Labour MP and government minister at the Department for Transport. He now runs his own company, Third Avenue Communications Ltd, offering lobbying and political strategy advice. He is a member of the advisory board of the Reform Scotland think tank and maintains a Blairite perspective on UK politics.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2016)

Is it correct (I swear I saw this somewhere this morning) that one of Labour's rules is that no CLP meetings are allowed while a leadership election is in progress?

Bit strange if it is because our local CLP has a meeting soon.

Eta: J.Ed's post above clears up the confusion


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

I bet these fix job wankers are the sort who cheat at cards. The sort who slyly kicks the dog when you aren't there. Disgraceful behaviour.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 15, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Jeremy Corbyn has turned the Labour Party into a safe haven for violent thugs
> 
> Tom Harris is a former Labour MP and government minister at the Department for Transport. He now runs his own company, Third Avenue Communications Ltd, offering lobbying and political strategy advice. He is a member of the advisory board of the Reform Scotland think tank and maintains a Blairite perspective on UK politics.


What an odious fuck. Jesus, weve got two months of this kind of shit to look forward to before the vote.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

Has anyone _without_ a personal interest in seeing Corbyn thrown out reported any bullying, thuggery or intimidation? Apart from that ubiquitous Anonymous Labour Source person I mean?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 15, 2016)

Novara/Mason interview

Brexit, Labour, Immigration & Trident – Paul Mason in conversation

nb: I haven't actually listened to this so have no idea what it's like


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 15, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @bbcsoutheast #Brighton Council Leader says the city Labour party's suspension has 'no impact' on council administration which will "carry on as normal"
> 
> *Yeah, you carry on like fuck all's happened, eh Warren*!



Could that be this Warren?

I’d made a promise to the person who succeeded me as President of the Students Union at Hull University that I’d join when Labour adopted “one member, one vote”. ​And the person he's referring to? None other than one Mr T Watson.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Has anyone _without_ a personal interest in seeing Corbyn thrown out reported any bullying, thuggery or intimidation? Apart from that ubiquitous Anonymous Labour Source person I mean?



Yeah, sift through this if you are sufficiently interested (((Labour Abuse))) (@LabourCoupAbuse) on Twitter

Apparently this is what politics is now - being victimised and collecting examples of it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

heh, harriet harman must be pretty astonished at how much better this weaponised bureaucracy stitch up is than hers, which now looks like a vicars tea party compared to this which has turned into the battle of Tsaritsyn


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from that ubiquitous Anonymous Labour Source person I mean?



If it's ever revealed who that fucker is, I swear I'm going to go round to their house and...

...no, maybe better not


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 15, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Could that be this Warren?
> 
> I’d made a promise to the person who succeeded me as President of the Students Union at Hull University that I’d join when Labour adopted “one member, one vote”. ​And the person he's referring to? None other than one Mr T Watson.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



One & the same. Can't link to it on my phone but check out Tony Greenslimes latest blog post.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> If it's ever revealed who that fucker is, I swear I'm going to go round to their house and...
> 
> ...no, maybe better not



Careful now, the Labour NEC Thought Crimes Division have purged better men than you for less incendiary remarks than that


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?
> 
> What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.



Frances Barber - IMDb


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 15, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Novara/Mason interview
> 
> Brexit, Labour, Immigration & Trident – Paul Mason in conversation
> 
> nb: I haven't actually listened to this so have no idea what it's like



He looks like he's been on the lash a bit too much recently.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yes - and the work at the moment is ensuring people can vote for Corbyn. Then it's pushing for a reselection process and rescinding the voting restrictions through a new NEC. It's not alienating potential ward allies and investing in a fight to vote no confidence in an irrelevant MP.



The time for such niceties is long over. Your problem will take much more than casting votes to resolve.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Frances Barber - IMDb


As I say, none the wiser.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> As I say, none the wiser.


isn't this really the nub of the issue though? Those who're being randomly accused of bullying and abuse online are equally non-entities, yet they're being used as the main reason to halt all CLP meetings, hold secret ballots and attack corbyn for not controlling these people.

Even when it turns out that the worst example is from a far right troll, that's still held up as an example of how bad momentum / corbyn are with their online bullying.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

all the while using a dead young womans brutal murder to justify themselves. Out the sides of their mouths. My horse has more religion than ye etc


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet, on my day off from politics as well as work but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, that means any members or supporters of the Green Surge who've jumped ship to Labour, any supporters of TUSC or Left Unity are barred, and anyone who's got riled up and attacked the PLP plotters in anything other than the politest of terms.

This is nuts, they'll happily accept defecting MPs from other parties straight away, but not former members or supporters of those parties even if they've given up their memberships in order to join Labour to help them defeat the tories under Corbyn.

Basically unless you've been entirely apolitical, or entirely supportive of the previous austerity light Labour Party prior to Corbyn, then you'll be lucky to get through the scrutiny process, and even if you do then you'll need to keep your head down because anyone from the hierachy of the party at any time can just do a trawl of your social media activity and get you kicked out if you've ever shared more than 1 facebook post from another party.

This is really undemocratic McCarthy style witch hunt stuff, and completely counter productive in terms of the key task of winning elections and kicking the tories out.

Not unexpected though, I had a feeling they'd still not allow me to join even if I resigned from the Green Party. I hope Corbyn wins through, and the momentum backed reps get elected to the NEC and they can start to properly assert themselves on the party to stop this crap and start welcoming new members properly rather than viewing them all as the enemy.


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> As I say, none the wiser.


 She kidnapped baby River Song.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet, on my day off from politics as well as work but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A tad ironic that you can be excluded for calling someone scum, but Tony 'father of a million dead' Blair still gets a vote. Manners, that's what's important, yeah.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> A tad ironic that you can be excluded for calling someone scum, but Tony 'father of a million dead' Blair still gets a vote. Manners, that's what's important, yeah.



Does calling blair a war criminal count as abuse?

That'd be pretty much every corbyn supporter fucked.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I just looked up who France's Barber is and, to be honest, I'm none the wiser.  So why does it matter what nonsense she spews into the vacuum that is Twitter?
> 
> What gets said on Twitter makes even less difference to the country than what gets said on here.


She's a real zoomer. She was all over Twitter threads during the indyref calling people anti-English racists for supporting independence. Including people who _were_ English.  And using hateful language, then calling others hateful when they called her on it. Bizarre person altogether. 

But you're right: it's Twitter. It's the place that anyone can post ill considered garbage before they've had a chance to think about it. 

As for her fame: she's a well known actor of stage and screen, with an artistic credibility that doesn't match that of her views. I've seen her in many things, and, before I came across her Twitter feed, quite liked her.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 15, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> Novara/Mason interview
> 
> Brexit, Labour, Immigration & Trident – Paul Mason in conversation
> 
> nb: I haven't actually listened to this so have no idea what it's like


This is worth a listen. Lots to think about. It is thoughtfully and carefully optimistic.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2016)

Santino said:


> She kidnapped baby River Song.


Ah, that one.  Now that means something to me.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you members demand/hold ward meetings and have votes of confidence/no confidence at that level? Like, right now.


Yep, that gets right to it, not just for urban's labour members, but the corbyn left more generally.  If you think the corbyn thing is worth doing, if you think it's worth investing your time in, if you think there is a way or running a party that isn't top-down, clique based, now's the time to prove it.  And the paradox of the whole thing is that whilst there needs to be energy put into this internal shit, it's just the time when you need to be building outside the party and in the wider class.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yep, that gets right to it, not just for urban's labour members, but the corbyn left more generally.  If you think the corbyn thing is worth doing, if you think it's worth investing your time in, if you think there is a way or running a party that isn't top-down, clique based, now's the time to prove it.  And the paradox of the whole thing is that whilst there needs to be energy put into this internal shit, it's just the time when you need to be building outside the party and in the wider class.


but any ward that did this would be placing themselves in the firing line for suspension and being placed under the control / scrutiny of the regional party hierachy for as long as they wanted to.

Which would be a bit of an own goal.

Unless it was co-oridinated and hundreds did it at the same time.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Unless it was co-oridinated and hundreds did it at the same time.


which would seem to be the next thing to arrange, then.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> which would seem to be the next thing to arrange, then.


or wait for the new NEC elections and new NEC to take over, then overturn it.

This could well backfire spectacularly on them anyway, as in the absence of official meetings the only meetings for new members to attend for the next 3 months are going to be momentum meetings.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> but any ward that did this would be placing themselves in the firing line for suspension and being placed under the control / scrutiny of the regional party hierachy for as long as they wanted to.
> 
> Which would be a bit of an own goal.
> 
> Unless it was co-oridinated and hundreds did it at the same time.


But for those who think that Corbynism/The Labour Party is the right way to go, surely they should have the nous to get something together (I don't mean individuals who have just joined obviously, but the likes of Momentum).  The social democrats have had the numbers in the party, if not the leading positions at the CLP/NEC level.  FFS, do something about it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> or wait for the new NEC elections and new NEC to take over, then overturn it.
> 
> This could well backfire spectacularly on them anyway, as in the absence of official meetings the only meetings for new members to attend for the next 3 months are going to be momentum meetings.


yes everyone's thus far assumed the changes were pushed through by the magenta scum: but when you look at it in that light...


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> But for those who think that Corbynism/The Labour Party is the right way to go, surely they should have the nous to get something together (I don't mean individuals who have just joined obviously, but the likes of Momentum).  The social democrats have had the numbers in the party, if not the leading positions at the CLP/NEC level.  FFS, do something about it!


it looks like their core plan is to get all 6 members of the NEC who're up for election to be momentum members, which would tilt the balance of the NEC in their favour til the next NEC elections.

That looks like a sensible strategy, keep their eyes on the prize rather than walking into the current NEC's carefully laid trap.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 15, 2016)

Cid said:


> Do leadership elections have any oversight by an external body?



Presumably the electoral commission.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

To be fair to momentum.... the blairite's house magazine, the guardian, is reporting 'unofficial' meetings are taking place:
Labour suspends Brighton branch amid accusations of improper ballot


> The Guardian has received numerous reports of unofficial meetings in some branches in defiance of an edict from the central party. At the same time, Momentum, the grassroots group of Corbyn supporters, is mobilising to defend the position of the leader.
> 
> Unite, the party’s biggest union donor, has now also raised the prospect of mandatory reselection, meaning MPs could be under threat of losing the right to stand for Labour at the next general election if they are not in tune with their local membership.
> 
> ...


Just listen to the fucking language they use.

But back to Momentum, fair play as I said, but it does seem a bit haphazard and a bit late.  If you want to play the dirty game of internal party battles, you need to get moving.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yeah, sift through this if you are sufficiently interested (((Labour Abuse))) (@LabourCoupAbuse) on Twitter
> 
> Apparently this is what politics is now - being victimised and collecting examples of it



That account generally collects examples of people harassing and saying mean things about pro-Corbyn supporters. It throws in the odd one or two in the opposite direction as an attempt at 'balance' to appear more legitimate, but my understanding after following it for a few days is that it is using the language of the #keepitcomradely right in order to obliquely point out their hypocrisy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be fair to momentum.... the blairite's house magazine, the guardian, is reporting 'unofficial' meetings are taking place:
> Labour suspends Brighton branch amid accusations of improper ballot
> 
> Just listen to the fucking language they use.
> ...


we've spoken before about the relative inexperience at the game most will have but if loads of old salts from PA, TUSC #insert left vehicle here. They will have had some experience of getting shit organised, right? and many have joined the c-wagon


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

Just for record, Angela Eagle is scum, Owen Smith is a traitor and Alan Johnson smells of elderberries.  Right, that should save me if I ever weaken and think about joining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Just for record, Angela Eagle is scum, Owen Smith is a traitor and Alan Johnson smells of elderberries.  Right, that should save me if I ever weaken and think about joining.


alan johnson smells of _putrid_ elderberries. for the record, like.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 15, 2016)

Keep the momentum rolling folks.
Remember.

''It's a movement not a monument.''

Mick McGahey. 1925-1999.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Just for record, Angela Eagle is scum, Owen Smith is a traitor and Alan Johnson smells of elderberries.  Right, that should save me if I ever weaken and think about joining.


my anti labourism has been sorely tested of late. In a way, jacking it up to 25 quid was a kindness to me personally. I'm not blowing my weed budget just to spite the labour right.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> alan johnson smells of _putrid_ elderberries. for the record, like.


Steady on, that's you banned from wasting 25 quid for all of recorded time!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> my anti labourism has been sorely tested of late. In a way, jacking it up to 25 quid was a kindness to me personally. I'm not blowing my weed budget just to spite the labour right.


"Corbyn stooges: the link to the drugs trade"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> That'd be pretty much every corbyn supporter fucked.



And Mr Chilcott.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> That account generally collects examples of people harassing and saying mean things about pro-Corbyn supporters. It throws in the odd one or two in the opposite direction as an attempt at 'balance' to appear more legitimate, but my understanding after following it for a few days is that it is using the language of the #keepitcomradely right in order to obliquely point out their hypocrisy.



Yes, that was my impression too.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> And Mr Chilcott.


Shurely, "the thug behind the seven year obsessive hunt to blacken the Dear Leader's name"?


----------



## Cid (Jul 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Presumably the electoral commission.



I don't think they do... I had a look at the legislation that sets out their remit and their website. They oversee elections that you could define as public; that everyone can participate in (even if it's everyone within a specific geographic area). And party funding. I don't think there's any independent body that oversees the internal running of parties, which seems somewhat ridiculous.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 15, 2016)

What happens in Brighton if the re run puts forward the same people? They can't keep anulling the results surely!


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2016)

It'll be after the conference though, and give them time to organise against the left in Brighton.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> What happens in Brighton if the re run puts forward the same people? They can't keep anulling the results surely!


are you sure? easy enough, surely, simply expel the victorious candidates.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 15, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Jeremy Corbyn has turned the Labour Party into a safe haven for violent thugs
> 
> Tom Harris is a former Labour MP and government minister at the Department for Transport. He now runs his own company, Third Avenue Communications Ltd, offering lobbying and political strategy advice. He is a member of the advisory board of the Reform Scotland think tank and maintains a Blairite perspective on UK politics.



Isn't he the one who did that Alex Salmond as Hitler thing?


----------



## Sifta (Jul 15, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Isn't he the one who did that Alex Salmond as Hitler thing?



Yes. Kinder, gentler politics:

Labour's 'Twitter tsar' forced to quit after comparing Alex Salmond to Hitler in 'Downfall' spoof


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the naughty step. Fucking party politics. Pull a stalin while weeping about bullying



What better time to pull one?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 15, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


> What happens in Brighton if the re run puts forward the same people? They can't keep anulling the results surely!



It stays suspended if historical precedent is anything to go by. The party was suspended in 1990 following the refusal of six Labour councilors to pay the poll tax; by 1992 the party had lost 8 local council seats and the disciplinary action had spread to a further twenty party members.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2016)

Re Brighton, I've just had this email...



> I'm writing to let you know that following the recent Brighton and Hove AGM, many complaints and reports of concern have been made to the National Labour Party. These allege abusive behaviour by some attendees, as well as reports that the ballots results were not properly reached. We are particularly concerned that the safety of members at the meeting was compromised. The decision of the Chair of the NEC’s Disputes Panel is that the results of this AGM be voided.
> 
> There will be a new AGM at a later date which will be organised and operated by Party staff and members of the regional board, who will also act as monitors.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2016)

Uncle Joe is very concerned that you have may breached the politburo's safe space policy with abusive and threatening language, therefore for your safety and that of fellow party members you will be taking a trip to Siberia


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

newbie said:


> it's quite stark how far London is drifting offshore.
> 
> As for Streatham CLP, you're far braver than me.



Streatham CLP is a pit of cunts, and no mistake. Has been since the 90s, and probably always will be.

It was one of the first in S.W. London to become dominated by Blairists, and they've held on there since, often through extremely dirty tricks against local party officers - and ward councillors - who don't toe the line.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 15, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> Re Brighton, I've just had this email...



I hope members are funneling that anger into undermining these toerags.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> I haven't been!  Never tried.  Never had any intention of going!  Only joined the labour party by accident. Just felt I should at least have a nosy after recent events, but they seem to be very coy about how to find them.



Mount Ephraim Rd, IIRC.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mount Ephraim Rd, IIRC.



they probably turn their noses up at the ABC Roads set


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2016)

Is Gisela Stuart shadow Brexit minister yet?


----------



## andysays (Jul 15, 2016)

Owen Smith: Only one MP should challenge Corbyn

this made me laugh


> Former shadow business secretary Angela Eagle was the first to mount a challenge, with Mr Smith - the former welfare spokesman - now also putting himself forward. Speaking on the Daily Politics, Mr Smith said the party owed Ms Eagle a "debt of gratitude" for mounting the challenge, and that *he had delayed coming forward himself because he had been visiting his brother in hospital.*


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2016)

> These allege abusive behaviour by some attendees, *as well as reports that the ballots results were not properly reached*.



What does that _mean_? ETA - Sorry, I mean what are they _implying_ it means?!



> Ballot papers have been retained and anyone can inspect them in paper or electronically on request to the secretary on secretary@bhlabour.org.uk.



(The last from EC 2016 Results )


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> But for those who think that Corbynism/The Labour Party is the right way to go, surely they should have the nous to get something together (I don't mean individuals who have just joined obviously, but the likes of Momentum).  The social democrats have had the numbers in the party, if not the leading positions at the CLP/NEC level.  FFS, do something about it!


Like the 'red drinks ' being organised by my clp then ( see earlier post )


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> NUC president at Hull uni



Freudian much?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> One where winning at the cost of all credibility, most members and national humiliation is still winning. Limit the electorate to just Angela Eagle and her pet dog and victory is guaranteed.



Assuming the dog wouldn't vote Corbyn, of course. I just bet the monstrous bastard would suborn Fido with Bonios!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you members demand/hold ward meetings and have votes of confidence/no confidence at that level? Like, right now.



Which is exactly what used to happen back in the 70s when local branches were suspended with alarming frequency.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> Owen Smith: Only one MP should challenge Corbyn
> 
> this made me laugh



Slightly better than "the dog ate my bus pass", but only slightly.


----------



## Cid (Jul 15, 2016)

I'm not a member yet incidentally. Applied last Wednesday, suspiciously pending.

Labour have edited their member sign up page... No longer do they say you can take part in leadership elections. And apparently "We now have over 380,000 members". Lost the other 120,000 down the back of the sofa did you?


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? easy enough, surely, simply expel the victorious candidates.


----------



## wtfftw (Jul 15, 2016)

Cid said:


> I'm not a member yet incidentally. Applied last Wednesday, suspiciously pending.
> 
> Labour have edited their member sign up page... No longer do they say you can take part in leadership elections. And apparently "We now have over 380,000 members". Lost the other 120,000 down the back of the sofa did you?


I'm pending since just before the no confidence vote.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> alan johnson smells of _putrid_ elderberries. for the record, like.



Smells of putrid elderberries that John McCririck keeps warm and snug up his sweaty bum hole as a marinade gourmet snack, I think you'll find .


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 15, 2016)

Fuck the Labour party. All cunts.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 15, 2016)

Xenonxenon said:


> Fuck the Labour party. All cunts.



Knew a Blairite would turn up here eventually.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Smells of putrid elderberries that John McCririck keeps warm and snug up his sweaty bum hole as a marinade gourmet snack, I think you'll find .



Jesus H triggered by that and demand mind bleach on tap ffs


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> Owen Smith: Only one MP should challenge Corbyn
> this made me laugh





> Owen Smith said there was a "widespread view" among MPs that there should only be one challenger, but that he was not sure how they should be chosen.


A pre-ballot ballot to see who goes on the ballot?

But only mates are allowed to vote.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 15, 2016)

Wait, he's also calling for a second EU ref., isn't he? I think he's just stuck in that schoolkid mentality where a vote means a day off!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2016)

cometh the hour, cometh the PPE cunt


----------



## kenny g (Jul 15, 2016)

I got this piece of shite through my inbox earlier today:-



> In recent months there has been a marked increase in reports of intimidation and threatening behaviour taking place at party meetings. Whilst the NEC recognises that the majority of our members hold vigorous yet collegiate meetings, the NEC has a duty of care for individuals who feel that their safety is threatened. It was therefore saddened to have to take the decision to suspend all normal party meetings at CLP and branch level until the completion of the leadership election.
> 
> However, in recognition that there is some essential business which must be agreed by CLPs, the NEC has made a number of exceptions to this suspension while this timetable is in place.
> 
> ...




So, in effect I am paying subs to a group that is no longer allowed to meet. If people are displaying threatening behaviour the police should be called. Otherwise, people should be allowed to meet. If this had been  South Africa 30 years ago people the same arseholes writing this tripe would have been marching with placards.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No one says there's been a bloodless coop.
> It's coo.
> So it doesn't make sense to write chicken coup. Chickens don't coo. Pigeons do.


Do turkeys coo?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> Owen Smith: Only one MP should challenge Corbyn
> 
> this made me laugh


He probably just went along to check his brother wasn't claiming benefits in hospital.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> A pre-ballot ballot to see who goes on the ballot?
> 
> But only mates are allowed to vote.



the selection of the challenger should be under Highlander or Thunderdome rules, I feel


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

By the way, have they managed to be specific about this 'intimidation'?  Beyond Angela Eagle's brick of destiny, have any of the 'victims' managed to say what form it took?

In most of these meetings where the Corbynites have taken over, presumably the chair up till that point was a Blairite.  If things were so intimidating, why did the chair not suspend the meeting?


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 15, 2016)

Biscuitician said:


>


If Liam Neeson turns up, I'm voting fucking Tory...


----------



## kenny g (Jul 15, 2016)

Having chaired numerous meetings I can't imagine how you could be intimidated unless people were actually threatening to beat the shit out of you.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> By the way, have they managed to be specific about this 'intimidation'?  Beyond Angela Eagle's brick of destiny, have any of the 'victims' managed to say what form it took?
> 
> In most of these meetings where the Corbynites have taken over, presumably the chair up till that point was a Blairite.  If things were so intimidating, why did the chair not suspend the meeting?



Nothing that I've heard about, no members named, no specific claims.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 15, 2016)

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

Apologies if posted already. Couldn't find it. LSE research on media reporting of Corbyn. Nothing we didn't know but academic research counts right?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Nothing that I've heard about, no members named, no specific claims.


Surprising really. The Blairites know a thing or two about intimidation, given that they deployed ATOS against the poor.  Maybe they think being interrupted in a meeting is worse than that.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Surprising really. The Blairites know a thing or two about intimidation, given that they deployed ATOS against the poor.  Maybe they think being interrupted in a meeting is worse than that.



True suffering is a dirty look from a stranger in a public meeting.


----------



## coley (Jul 15, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> That so many of them are going along with this madness is hard to credit. OK, maybe they all genuinely think Corbyn needs to go, but is there nobody who at least realises that the way they're going about it is doomed to failure?
> 
> They were never going to be able to stop CLPs meeting, they have no conceivable right or authority to do so. God only knows what their next scheme will be once this one fails.


These are people who are in their positions because of the work of their CLPs yet they now want to shut their sponsors up? Their arrogance is unbelievable, can only hope the CLPs get their act together and deselect the bastards.


----------



## coley (Jul 15, 2016)

inva said:


> you're right, it isn't a joke is it?
> just sick.



Wtf is this person?


----------



## coley (Jul 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Unite pushes for reselection of MPs



Says it all.
"Mike Hedges, another London delegate, said: “Four weeks ago I would have spoken against this motion but after the treachery of 172 MPs … we have no option"


----------



## Lodger (Jul 15, 2016)

Attended a 'non-meeting' of the local clp earlier with a better turnout than regular meetings. A lot of anger at the decision to suspend formal meetings as well as cut off date and the situation in general. The anger seemed evenly spread, amongst anti-Corbyn people as well as the pro and suspect the general clampdown will backfire and counteract (at least in part) any drift from Cornyn amongst older members.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 16, 2016)

Lodger said:


> . A lot of anger at the decision to suspend formal meetings as well as cut off date and the situation in general.


_Its our party dammit.
_
says kinnock as even right CLP member react with fury to being told to fuck off in no uncertain terms.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 16, 2016)

Oh my,   can anyone can confirm this is true?

If so it's a doozy! I *really* hope this has legs. 

Basically it says that Eagle missed the cut off for  triggering a leadership race by two weeks... which she was involved in setting

lol.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Oh my,   can anyone can confirm this is true?
> 
> If so it's a doozy! I *really* hope this has legs.
> 
> ...


Link?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 16, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Oh my,   can anyone can confirm this is true?
> 
> If so it's a doozy! I *really* hope this has legs.
> 
> ...



*Parks tank on the NEC's lawn* 
eta having read brogdale's link below stalls tank and pisses off for a brew.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Link?


https://m.facebook.com/groups/519949641500248?view=permalink&id=589461457882399


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> https://m.facebook.com/groups/519949641500248?view=permalink&id=589461457882399


Cheers.
He's wrong about the dates...


> *Thurs 21 July*: Noon Deadline for validly nominated candidates to consent to nomination


http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/leadership16/A Procedural Guidelines & Timetable.pdf

Still time for more nominations!


----------



## free spirit (Jul 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Cheers.
> He's wrong about the dates...
> ​http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/leadership16/A Procedural Guidelines & Timetable.pdf
> 
> Still time for more nominations!


they've only just released that after the challenge though, he's referring to a decision taken last October.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> they've only just released that after the challenge though, he's referring to a decision taken last October.


After who's challenge?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> After who's challenge?


After Eagle's challenge started a leadership contest.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> After Eagle's challenge started a leadership contest.


Difficult to say without sight of the claimed October decision. Who knows with the LP?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Difficult to say without sight of the claimed October decision. Who knows with the LP?


true, but it reads like he'd got the rulebook in front of him when writing that post. The rules you posted have definitely only come out in the last few days, since the NEC meeting.

It'd probably be best all round if they could find a proceduraly reason to end this farce and spend the summer uniting to attack the tories rather than forcing the party to grind to a halt across the country for 3 months, disenfranchising 150k members and seeking to get as many other members as possible kicked out to attempt to jerimander the leadership election. It's not as if either of the challengers have got their campaign off to a flying start or look like significantly better leaders than Corbyn.

Prob won't happen, but could avoid a lot of messiness and a potential split in the party.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 16, 2016)

Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious

Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


----------



## free spirit (Jul 16, 2016)

> A strong democracy as the Tories lurch to the right
> A Labour party that can win elections and deliver radical change
> A Labour party that can deliver for everyone


What variety of radical change are they thinking of?


----------



## andysays (Jul 16, 2016)

free spirit said:


> true, but it reads like he'd got the rulebook in front of him when writing that post. The rules you posted have definitely only come out in the last few days, since the NEC meeting.
> 
> It'd probably be best all round if they could find a proceduraly reason to end this farce and spend the summer uniting to attack the tories rather than forcing the party to grind to a halt across the country for 3 months, disenfranchising 150k members and seeking to get as many other members as possible kicked out to attempt to jerimander the leadership election. It's not as if either of the challengers have got their campaign off to a flying start or look like significantly better leaders than Corbyn.
> 
> Prob won't happen, but could avoid a lot of messiness and a potential split in the party.



Really doesn't look like any procedural fix can sort this out now, and whichever side it came from it would rightly be seen as just as much of an anti-democratic stitch-up as the various attempts that have already been made.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2016)

Hilary Benn last night on the coup in Turkey.


Shame he cares so little for democracy in his own party. Cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilary Benn last night on the coup in Turkey.
> 
> 
> Shame he cares so little for democracy in his own party. Cunt.



Yeh but it's far off so democracy more attractive there than here


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but it's far off so democracy more attractive there than here


Just like Thatcher's love of trade unions only went as far as Solidarnosc in Poland.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious
> 
> Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community



Looks useful to me, I'm sure a lot of people don't know what a table looks like.


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious
> 
> Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community



Liked this comment;

"The majestic, mewling screech of the Neoliberal Shithawk."


----------



## oryx (Jul 16, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious
> 
> Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


 'its winning values'


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious
> 
> Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community



All very well, but they've missed the Henley Regatta.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2016)

McDonnell on the gerrymandering:

John McDonnell: voting restrictions could rig Labour leadership race

Every bit of it is true, though a part of me still thinks the corbyn lot were naïve in leaving the meeting early.  However much the blairites are a bunch of unprincipled shits in pulling this trick, getting outflanked by  them is a bit embarrassing.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 16, 2016)

All a bunch of muppets


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> McDonnell on the gerrymandering:
> 
> John McDonnell: voting restrictions could rig Labour leadership race
> 
> Every bit of it is true, though a part of me still thinks the corbyn lot were naïve in leaving the meeting early.  However much the blairites are a bunch of unprincipled shits in pulling this trick, getting outflanked by  them is a bit embarrassing.



Genuinely astonishing no-one thought to do AOB and formally close the meeting.


----------



## gosub (Jul 16, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Genuinely astonishing no-one thought to do AOB and formally close the meeting.


Maybe they did but the Blairites had their fingers crossed.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Every bit of it is true, though a part of me still thinks the corbyn lot were naïve in leaving the meeting early.



The 'leaving early' bit is just a bullshit story to give Erdobyn some cover for a deal, isn't it? He gets to be in leadership contest but in return the party gets to disbar a significant number of his acolytes. It was a Granita moment.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jul 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that if you believe that, you're so politically-naive that you aren't old enough to vote. That, or you're just plain stupid.
> 
> You "don't think" this, and you believe he's "possibly cost" that. So what? Nail those accusations down with some facts, rather than with your opinions.
> 
> ...



A quick trawl though blair's legacy and the achievements of the blairites since the deposing of blair by brown will make anyone think given what is available as the alternative to Corbyn then Corbyn is currently the best choice for me..................................Then there is Chilcot and the fallout from that to come for the blairite zombies. A labour party led by likes of mandelson, miliband or any other of the blair clones no thanks


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2016)

It was always on the agenda I think. It does seem odd they didn't stay to deal with the inevitable attack.


----------



## andysays (Jul 16, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The 'leaving early' bit is just a bullshit story to give *Erdobyn* some cover for a deal, isn't it? He gets to be in leadership contest but in return the party gets to disbar a significant number of his acolytes. It was a Granita moment.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 16, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Erdobyn


Is your life really this empty, Downward old man?


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf
> 
> Apologies if posted already. Couldn't find it. LSE research on media reporting of Corbyn. Nothing we didn't know but academic research counts right?




Lord Freud while Welfare Minister(now joined the Tories) took 13 weeks to create New labour's Welfare system despite having no experience of social security law, policy, etc, at all.


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

Cid said:


> Liked this comment;
> 
> "The majestic, mewling screech of the Neoliberal Shithawk."



Been deleted/erased from history but kept as a example for the media of the bullying Corbynistas.


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> It was always on the agenda I think. It does seem odd they didn't stay to deal with the inevitable attack.



I'm not sure normal critical faculties can be expected to withstand 6 hours of arguing with Blairites.


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Been deleted/erased from history but kept as a example for the media of the bullying Corbynistas.



It's on the youtube comments.


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

There was a very typical labour rightwing supporter/possibly councillor, from Manchester on Any Answers earlier on R4, Wendy something, head teacher, attacking trots and bullies undermining the L/P, is she aware that MCC has just brought in rules for people getting social care that instead of having paid supported toileting breaks with carers, they will be now only be issued with toileting pads, that is real bullying, it her allies supporting it, maybe herself, take no advice from these time servers like her..


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Just like Thatcher's love of trade unions only went as far as Solidarnosc in Poland.



And the UDM scabs .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 16, 2016)

Balbi said:


> Progress trying to educate its members in running a street stall is fucking hilarious
> 
> Street stall  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community



I see it mentions something about volunteers turning up to man them. Some apparently who might only be there for a very short time. And instructions that those running the stall should be friendly and welcoming to such volunteers at all times .
I personally think it'd be a nice comradely gesture , in the spirit of unity, healing and comradliness for Corbyn minded people to show up and volunteer their services . There's way too much bitterness and division these days . What an opportunity to set a good example .


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 16, 2016)

South Shields CLP members have received letters that suggest they will be suspended if, at meetings, they 'roll their eyes' amongst other things.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> South Shields CLP members have received letters that suggest they will be suspended if, at meetings, they 'roll their eyes' amongst other things.



To be fair, an aggressively timed eye roll can be awfully intimidating.


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

The activist scene 'safe spaces' concept seems to be spreading.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 16, 2016)

I believe folding arms and shrugging are on the list as well.


----------



## realitybites (Jul 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> It was always on the agenda I think. It does seem odd they didn't stay to deal with the inevitable attack.


Sounds a done deal, Why wait around when you're voice isn't being heard anyhow? Corbyns backs against the wall and he's still fighting poor man.. It will be a great relief if/when his leadership role is back in place and the whinging heads start to fall.


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

Hurrumping?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> South Shields CLP members have received letters that suggest they will be suspended if, at meetings, they 'roll their eyes' amongst other things.


Sounds like a testy exhalation is right out then.  And I know I'm being a monster if I do it, but what if I sneak a look at my watch when an opponent is speaking?


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2016)

Hard to stomach that these are the old hard labour right councillors who shout and scream at each other in the council chamber.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hurrumping?



Scary as fuck that sort of behaviour. Worse than Hitler.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2016)

Acceptable: 
Ambiguous:  
The Weapons of the Outright Bully:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 16, 2016)

is about as passive aggressive as you can get. 10 year automatic suspension, right there.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2016)

Reason for Expulsion: an eggy fart emanated from the seats largely occupied by Corbyn fans. On the balance of probabilities, one of their arses was the culprit.  Decision: close down their Branch and Nuke the CLP from Orbit.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2016)

This is all so far beyond satire that it's gone round the track and lapped it.


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hard to stomach that these are the old hard labour right councillors who shout and scream at each other in the council chamber.



Were this The Thick of it we'd be having Tucker appearing on TV tremulously accusing Glenn of bullying.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2016)

Cid said:


> Were this The Thick of it we'd be having Tucker appearing on TV tremulously accusing Glenn of bullying.


Well, he did brutally assault Malcolm's fist with his head


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 16, 2016)

Is Corbyn taking the extra salary that comes with him being Leader of the Opposition?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 16, 2016)

Tbh the amount of shit he has got since being actually elected I think he should get double


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2016)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 16, 2016)




----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


>



This has been on the opinion pages of The Guardian and The Mirror now, so it's official. No point trying to deny it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 16, 2016)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


>


Yeah but Carole Malone is a disgrace I'd expect nothing less of her ( wanted to call her something else but didn't want to be accused of bullying  )


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> South Shields CLP members have received letters that suggest they will be suspended if, at meetings, they 'roll their eyes' amongst other things.





Vintage Paw said:


> I believe folding arms and shrugging are on the list as well.



Why have they banned the French?

Je dis "NON"


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 16, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Tbh the amount of shit he has got since being actually elected I think he should get double


It is about double his Mp salary 
 I'm not sure he's earning it but whatever


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 16, 2016)

Oh well, haters gwanna hate


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 16, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


>


She's a bit late with the Tolling Gang expose. Mebbe she got a duff tip-off from her esteemed colleague at t'_FT_


----------



## cantsin (Jul 16, 2016)

bi0boy said:


>




this bloke seems to devote a lot of time / energy to producing anti Corbo stats / data / surveys etc ...does anyone know anything about him / his outfit / his credibility ?


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

Cid said:


> Liked this comment;
> 
> "The majestic, mewling screech of the Neoliberal Shithawk."


Couldn't get that far, tried to register but couldn't get past the "would you like to send your labour  MP ,MEP a message" thought wouldn't I like to just, but you can apparently only send the  standard 'progress' scripted blurb and if you don't want that, seemingly you can't progress further.
Mind, me interweb skills is Shyte!


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Couldn't get that far, tried to register but couldn't get past the "would you like to send your labour  MP ,MEP a message" thought wouldn't I like to just, but you can apparently only send the  standard 'progress' scripted blurb and if you don't want that, seemingly you can't progress further.
> Mind, me interweb skills is Shyte!



They've hosted the video on youtube and embedded on their site. The comment is on the youtube video.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Couldn't get that far, tried to register but couldn't get past the "would you like to send your labour  MP ,MEP a message" thought wouldn't I like to just, but you can apparently only send the  standard 'progress' scripted blurb and if you don't want that, seemingly you can't progress further.
> Mind, me interweb skills is Shyte!


It's been said afore but I'll say it again as its a blinder - the comment is on the you tube video they linked to. Still there as of 4 hours ago :


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> There was a very typical labour rightwing supporter/possibly councillor, from Manchester on Any Answers earlier on R4, Wendy something, head teacher, attacking trots and bullies undermining the L/P, is she aware that MCC has just brought in rules for people getting social care that instead of having paid supported toileting breaks with carers, they will be now only be issued with toileting pads, that is real bullying, it her allies supporting it, maybe herself, take no advice from these time servers like her..


Christ that's grim, don't they realise most people who need assisting with toilet breaks can't use pads?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 16, 2016)

Cid said:


> They've hosted the video on youtube and embedded on their site. The comment is on the youtube video.


Whoops copycat post, commenter is now an urban legend in one or both respects.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Christ that's grim, don't they realise most people who need assisting with toilet breaks can't use pads?


Yup they don't get issued if you can get to the toilet. Fuck sake.


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hurrumping?


Blindfold against the wall and a last tab


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Yeah but Carole Malone is a disgrace I'd expect nothing less of her ( wanted to call her something else but didn't want to be accused of bullying  )


Blonde?


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

diamarzipan said:


> It's been said afore but I'll say it again as its a blinder - the comment is on the you tube video they linked to. Still there as of 4 hours ago :


Can't find it, just the progress drone, er, droning, lots of advert placements though, B&Q and Asda etc certainly endorse 'progress'


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

diamarzipan said:


> Yup they don't get issued if you can get to the toilet. Fuck sake.


Don't want to derail, but most people who have toilet assistance, have it because they can't get to the toilet without assistance! What world do these people live in?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2016)

PMSL. The coup plotters are having a laugh. These two aren't electable.
Labour divisions widen as anti-Corbyn leadership rivals turn on each other


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Can't find it, just the progress drone, er, droning, lots of advert placements though, B&Q and Asda etc certainly endorse 'progress'


You on iPhone? You scroll all the way down the bottom of the page and then click on where it says comments and they come up then. But I've screenshotted for you:


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't want to derail, but most people who have toilet assistance, have it because they can't get to the toilet without assistance! What world do these people live in?


I might have seemed like I was arguing with you, I meant if you are assisted to go to the toilet- you'd not likely to be issued pads, as you'd be partially continent or something- maybe we are talking at cross purposes?


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

diamarzipan said:


> You on iPhone? You scroll all the way down the bottom of the page and then click on where it says comments and they come up then. But I've screenshotted for you:  View attachment 89644


Thanks, can't use the link, every buggers asleep and I can't use headphones


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

diamarzipan said:


> I might have seemed like I was arguing with you, I meant if you are assisted to go to the toilet- you'd not likely to be issued pads, as you'd be partially continent or something- maybe we are talking at cross purposes?


No, we agree, people who are incontinent or are partially incontinent and who need pads shouldn't be deprived of whatever assistance they need, whether it is pads or carer assistance.


----------



## coley (Jul 16, 2016)

diamarzipan said:


> You on iPhone? You scroll all the way down the bottom of the page and then click on where it says comments and they come up then. But I've screenshotted for you:  View attachment 89644



Love it, though, Shytehawk may have scanned it slightly better


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> PMSL. The coup plotters are having a laugh. These two aren't electable.
> Labour divisions widen as anti-Corbyn leadership rivals turn on each other





> ...Tom Watson, in an article in the _Observer_, slams Corbyn...Also writing in the _Observer_, Eagle...turns on Corbyn



SHOCKED, I say, SHOCKED


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 17, 2016)

A thought struck me. I am actually happier having Corbyn leading an opposition than having a Blairite-led Labour government.

Would the Iraq war have happened had the Tories been in power, and Corbyn leading the opposition?

I think the answer is no.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> A thought struck me. I am actually happier having Corbyn leading an opposition than having a Blairite-led Labour government.
> 
> Would the Iraq war have happened had the Tories been in power, and Corbyn leading the opposition?
> 
> I think the answer is no.


think about the carve up. Money wise. Recon they would. Besides, need to keep tight with Uncle Sam etc business as usual


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 17, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> PMSL. The coup plotters are having a laugh. These two aren't electable.
> Labour divisions widen as anti-Corbyn leadership rivals turn on each other



“Angela needs to be very careful,” said the source. “It is not a question of who deserves to be leader; it is about the best possible candidate to beat Jeremy.”

That's the problem there for Labour. 

They make the same argument for "Beating the Tories". It ain't about the policies, or the person,  but their ability to beat the bogey man. 

They just don't get why that won't work.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> think about the carve up. Money wise. Recon they would. Besides, need to keep tight with Uncle Sam etc business as usual


Well but the point is a warmongering Labour party is not going find much opposition with a Tory party. However a warmongering Tory party is certainly going to find substantial opposition with a Labour party with Corbyn at the helm.


----------



## tim (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


>



Oh dear, she's going soft. Surely, it should be Stalinesque henchmen putting a bullet in the back of the neck.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 17, 2016)

Leading plotter's sharp political analysis:


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 17, 2016)

I had no idea that I was such a monster for supporting Corbyn, but thankfully the Observer has put me straight. Oblivious to the fact that most Corbyn supporters are actually its readers, it pumps out pieces pushing Eagle's stance, an interview with Owen Smith and a piece by Tom Watson. They then have a nice editorial piece that declares us all rapists and mysogynists because of a few tossers on the internet (they must not use the internet often because Mysogyny and rape threats seem to appear in any discourse about anything on youtube):



> The party is no longer even capable of providing a space for a respectful political discourse. Some of its MPs and elected officials are receiving death and rape threats, many from those who appear to be supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
> 
> Last week, the party took the unprecedented step of suspending constituency party meetings until after the leadership election so as to avoid the risk of intimidation and abuse at local level.
> 
> ...



The Observer view on the Labour party | Observer editorial

Also annoying in that piece is the continued myth it pushes about:



> That can only happen if it appeals to a far greater constituency than it does at present. And that will be a long, hard road.
> 
> Or it can choose a much easier option and restrict itself to a narrow set of slogans that allow it to bathe in self-indulgence while the rest of the country turns its back or, more likely, turns to Ukip, the Tories, the Lib Dems or the Greens.
> 
> This may be terrific for those activists who show disdain for actually winning elections, but will be less fun for that constituency of people who have historically relied on the party to work on its behalf in parliament.



Because it keeps up the presumption that it will guarantee a win if it a adopts a centre/right stance. If you sell out people with disabilities, people on benefits etc and then fail to get elected (as has happened in the last two elections) how have you helped them at all?! It's actually more detrimental than standing up for them because you've conceded the argument to the Tories and helped to demonise them.

And finally, the Observer finishes off by relieving itself on it's readers with a piece by Nick Cohen, which I'm not even going to bother reading or linking!


----------



## mauvais (Jul 17, 2016)

Has The People's Brick had a second outing, or is it still a singular window that it's laid waste to?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2016)

From that Guardian article: 



> Last week, the party took the unprecedented step of suspending constituency party meetings until after the leadership election so as to avoid the risk of intimidation and abuse at local level.



Is it unprecedented? I thought the Labour rules say you can't have CLP meetings while there's a leadership campaign (I may be wrong). 

CLP meetings are also allowed to deal solely with the leadership, and to carry on essential business - there's a local one down here next week. So not *that* bothered about intimidation and abuse at local level.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> <snip>
> 
> And finally, the Observer finishes off by relieving itself on it's readers with a piece by Nick Cohen, which I'm not even going to bother reading or linking!



I have read it, or at least in part - cannot manage that much shit in one sitting - to add to a complaint to the Beeb about this particular wankstain. In particular I have been following the links given in his article and have yet to find one that says what Cohen says or implies about it. Starting to feel pretty frightened for the world because I doubt there will be anyone with a national platform to call him out on this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 17, 2016)

'Who cares about the grassroots' - 11 months ago - John McTernan


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Who cares about the grassroots' - 11 months ago - John McTernan




McTernan and others should listen to that and think about why McTernan repeatedly says he has 'no idea' why people are supporting the people and policies they are. It is startling that he doesn't see his lack of any idea as to why things are they way they are, as being his problem.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Libertad (Jul 17, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> McTernan and others should listen to that and think about why McTernan repeated says he has 'no idea' why people are supporting the people and policies they are. It is startling that he doesn't see his lack of any idea as to why things are they way they are, as his being his problem.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



His Twitter profile pic really fucks me off, his adoption of an IWW poster is just taking the piss. Cunt.

John McTernan (@johnmcternan) on Twitter


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 17, 2016)

"Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband trashed" the Labour party...


----------



## Combustible (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> I had no idea that I was such a monster for supporting Corbyn, but thankfully the Observer has put me straight. Oblivious to the fact that most Corbyn supporters are actually its readers, it pumps out pieces pushing Eagle's stance, an interview with Owen Smith and a piece by Tom Watson. They then have a nice editorial piece that declares us all rapists and mysogynists because of a few tossers on the internet (they must not use the internet often because Mysogyny and rape threats seem to appear in any discourse about anything on youtube):



They also use the abuse of Luciana Berger as something to smear Corbyn supporters with. The person who admitted doing it has a history of sending abuse to female public figures, including Caroline Criado-Perez. No evidence for anything to do with supporting Corbyn and I think its very unlikely that he does. The other people convicted of abusing Berger are far right.


----------



## Pugnax (Jul 17, 2016)

Pretty great headline/pic combo here though:


"You call that a coup?"


----------



## Pugnax (Jul 17, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> A thought struck me. I am actually happier having Corbyn leading an opposition than having a Blairite-led Labour government.
> 
> Would the Iraq war have happened had the Tories been in power, and Corbyn leading the opposition?
> 
> I think the answer is no.



Watching that video of the director of Progress showing people how to buy and operate a folding table from B&Q (just lol), I was pretty much thinking the same thing. There's something particularly depressing about hearing somebody repeating the mantra "A parlimentary route to *our *socialism", when I know that that 'sociallism' still won't give a fuck about me and the struggles I face.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Kill em all


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Pro-austerity, pro-nuclear annihilation 

What's not to love?


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pro-austerity, pro-nuclear annihilation
> 
> What's not to love?



"for the agency worker's bomb"


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 17, 2016)

tim said:


> Oh dear, she's going soft. Surely, it should be Stalinesque henchmen putting a bullet in the back of the neck.



There's a few weeks left. She's ....they...just warming up.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 17, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> I have read it, or at least in part - cannot manage that much shit in one sitting - to add to a complaint to the Beeb about this particular wankstain. In particular I have been following the links given in his article and have yet to find one that says what Cohen says or implies about it. Starting to feel pretty frightened for the world because I doubt there will be anyone with a national platform to call him out on this.



Peston seemed to be calling some of this stuff out a while back but it looks like his chain was yanked .


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> I have read it, or at least in part - cannot manage that much shit in one sitting - to add to a complaint to the Beeb about this particular wankstain. In particular I have been following the links given in his article and have yet to find one that says what Cohen says or implies about it. Starting to feel pretty frightened for the world because I doubt there will be anyone with a national platform to call him out on this.



The rise of post-fact journalism seems to be coinciding with the rise of articles complaining about 'post-fact voters'. I wonder if they can figure out the cause and effect.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 17, 2016)

From an unnamed Labour source in the Guardian:


> “Angela needs to be very careful,” said the source. “It is not a question of who deserves to be leader; it is about the best possible candidate to beat Jeremy.”



Priceless. Says it all really.

So what's that about wanting someone that can lead?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Personally as someone who takes a pessimistic view of the future I have been won over to Owen Smith, going to go and canvass for him later so that I can do my bit in working for the inexorable march towards total nuclear annihilation


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Personally as someone who takes a pessimistic view of the future I have been won over to Owen Smith, going to go and canvass for him later so that I can do my bit in working for the inexorable march towards total nuclear annihilation



Do you need folding table advice?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Kill em all




For some reason Smith esp but Eagle also building up to it, they have decided to try and make trident the key battleground of their anti-Corbyn campaigns  - probably because the issue has historically worked wonders for the labour right, from Bevan (i know he wasn't on the right, but his naked into the conference chamber rhetoric marked a significant victory for them) to Foot and Benn being attacked through CND and unilateralism in the 80s. And Marr is very happy to go along with that , of course. Does trident, beyond jobs, have that same popular resonance today? I'm not so sure.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pro-austerity, pro-nuclear annihilation
> 
> What's not to love?


He's up for privatising the NHS too.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 17, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Scary as fuck that sort of behaviour. Worse than Hitler.



In fairness to Hitler even he didn't ban harrumphing . At most it would have been a warning from the Gestapo that harrumphing had been observed , and a note was being made of it . But banning harrumphing outright would have been a bridge too far . 
Bit like a smoking ban . He'd have liked to ban it but didn't dare .

Blair however banned smoking in pubs . And now the great British harrumphing tradition is next on his minions list .political correctness gorn maaaad .


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2016)

campanula said:


> OMG Eagle feels 'bullied'. This is a woman who can callously vote for children to be immolated by bombs and yet a brick through a window constitutes 'bullying'.


Here's something that may be relevant and which - maybe? IANAL - might set a precedent for what can and cannot be considered 'bullying' during internal political disputes within an organization:

Nipsa: Tribunal criticises union in 'communist' dispute - BBC News

The deal is this: the Northern Ireland Public Service Association was hit by a dispute between the broad left faction within it, and a couple of followers of the CPI (described in the story as 'Marxist Leninist'). The union then argued that this couple, although elected as officers and delegates of their branch were not eligible for membership of the union - hence the case.

Key point: "It added that name-calling or trolling on social media is not sufficient to show political difference nor is "alleged adherence to Trotsky's 1938 Transitional Program"."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The 'leaving early' bit is just a bullshit story to give Erdobyn some cover for a deal, isn't it? He gets to be in leadership contest but in return the party gets to disbar a significant number of his acolytes. It was a Granita moment.



Fuck off, you Tory cunt, with your "Erdobyn".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> is about as passive aggressive as you can get. 10 year automatic suspension, right there.



Strategic farting is the way forward!


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 17, 2016)

200 pages of pure intimidation.

Surely nows the time to accept the inevitable?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2016)

Ted Striker said:


> pure intimidation.



Anyone else got the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory song in their head now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone else got the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory song in their head now?


always the gene wilder version. Always. Depp got it so close to 'nonce' that I'm suprised they had the gall to air that non version


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> For some reason Smith esp but Eagle also building up to it, they have decided to try and make trident the key battleground of their anti-Corbyn campaigns  - probably because the issue has historically worked wonders for the labour right, from Bevan (i know he wasn't on the right, but his naked into the conference chamber rhetoric marked a significant victory for them) to Foot and Benn being attacked through CND and unilateralism in the 80s. And Marr is very happy to go along with that , of course. Does trident, beyond jobs, have that same popular resonance today? I'm not so sure.



With which voters? Members of the Labour Party or the general population? I can see it working with the latter but how could it work with the former after they have previously voted for Corbyn?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Also why is no one pointing out that Owen 'I will revoke the referendum/keep UK voting till it gets question right' Smith would wipe the Labour vote out across Northern England?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> With which voters? Members of the Labour Party or the general population? I can see it working with the latter but how could it work with the former after they have previously voted for Corbyn?


I'm not sure it was opposition to trident that stung it for corbyn at all, more the not Blair etc stuff. There were rumours last week that he's softening his opposition anyway, with the review or whatever it is on the horizon.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Leading plotter's sharp political analysis:
> 
> View attachment 89647



What the actual fuck though?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> With which voters? Members of the Labour Party or the general population? I can see it working with the latter but how could it work with the former after they have previously voted for Corbyn?



Think he is pitching to the PLP that they will be safe if they dump Eagle. He can't possibly defeat jc by making it about austerity and trident. Maybe that's not his main objective.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> What the actual fuck though?



Chris Bryant is an obvious idiot, I think we can all safely conclude that


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2016)

That eye rolling thing I talked about a few pages back... apparently it's old news. It happened back in April because 2 right-wing factions within the CLP had been getting really aggro with each other, to the point of actual fisticuffs... 

I did a George Eaton


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2016)

I do, of course, fully support the banning of right-wing eye rolling.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2016)

Here's a piece arguing that the bricking of Angela Eagle's window _was not all it appeared to be:

Angela Eagle LIED about her office window being vandalised by a Corbyn-supporting ‘bully’_


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2016)

Yes, apparently it was in a shared stairwell. 

It could have been anyone, frankly. It could have been a kid, it could have been a random vandal, it could have been an attempted break-in, it could have been a disgruntled LP member who supports Corbyn... who the fuck knows? What's important is that we use it to show Corbyn is actually Darth Vader.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2016)

if these people don't know how to cope with eye rolling how the fuck will they get on with people like me making the wanker handsign and doing fart noises with my hand under my armpit.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes, apparently it was in a shared stairwell.
> 
> It could have been anyone, frankly. It could have been a kid, it could have been a random vandal, it could have been an attempted break-in, it could have been a disgruntled LP member who supports Corbyn... who the fuck knows? What's important is that we use it to show Corbyn is actually Darth Vader.



But you'd imagine that a disgruntled LP member would know her actual office is round the back. 

Is there a photo of the broken glass outside the window? I've looked but nothing convincing. That you'd think would be a Sherlock Holmes moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2016)

'the thing is, and its something thats been bothering me sir, I checked with all the brickmakes in England and none of them recall selling a brick of that type. Its these little details, troubling me sir.'

'Architectural salvage is a lucrative business luitenant. Many a fine brick has been had from a building site in skegness'
*hand on forehead*
'Of course sir, of course.'

*makes out like he's leaving*

'Just one more question, clear something for me. My wife, she dislikes shared acces to places, always values her own space. They say this was a shared stairwell?'

'I fail to see what relevance this has luitenant'

etc


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 17, 2016)

Check this big pile of steaming bullshit out. Fuck me! 

This story about how Jeremy Corbyn treated an MP with cancer is truly astonishing


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Check this big pile of steaming bullshit out. Fuck me!
> 
> This story about how Jeremy Corbyn treated an MP with cancer is truly astonishing


He brought her divorce papers while she was on her sick bed? No, wait, that was Newt Gingrich. 

And it happened in a different country.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 17, 2016)

The first Indy comment sums it up perfectly. Doesn't take the brains of an arch bishop either tbh. Stroll on!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The first Indy comment sums it up perfectly. Doesn't take the brains of an arch bishop either tbh. Stroll on!



What is it? I can't see the comments, I think my ad blocking software stops them.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2016)

This suggests that Corbyn didn't agree to change the rules in exchange for getting on the ballot paper automatically.

Jeremy Corbyn suggests he will challenge new Labour leadership rules in court


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if these people don't know how to cope with eye rolling how the fuck will they get on with people like me making the wanker handsign and doing fart noises with my hand under my armpit.


"Do you have someone who looks after you?"


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Check this big pile of steaming bullshit out. Fuck me!
> 
> This story about how Jeremy Corbyn treated an MP with cancer is truly astonishing


Bristol's a fiarly progressive city.

Unfortunately it's Labour MP's are steaming shitsirens


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 17, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What is it? I can't see the comments, I think my ad blocking software stops them.



It would seem that all comments have been deleted & now closed


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 17, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It would seem that all comments have been deleted & now closed



I can still read them?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2016)

what did the comment suggest?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 17, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I can still read them?



Can't on my phone now, could earlier - connection is bollocks though...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

I know that butchersapron has identified, I'm sure correctly, Richard Murphy as well to the right of most of us I think there are still some interesting insights here albeit he comes to some conclusions that I think are anti-democratic and politically stupid like calling for a second referendum.

The rise and fall of Corbyn’s economics



> What I felt was a need to reply in more than 14o characters to answer three questions. The first is why it had been worth giving Corbyn a go. The second is why that did not work. The third is what now?
> 
> I’ve recounted several times, already, that despite the media suggestions I did not, as such, write Corbynomics. It’s true that a significant number (but not all) of the ideas in Jeremy’s economic manifesto (which has now gone from his website, and of which I never seemed to keep an electronic copy) were written by me, but not for Jeremy per se, and certainly not in the way in which he presented them.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2016)

Tolpuddle.


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2016)

Nye Bevan News | Facebook

For those who are skint, Nye Bevan news have some funds


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2016)

This is interesting. Document in circulation strongly suggesting a serious data breach involving Labour member lists being misused by the Thwart Corbyn campaign.


> If Saving Labour (or rogue individuals) are attempting to recruit Labour members back into Labour, then the processing of data is likely to be a breach of Data Protection’s fairness requirements.
> 
> If Saving Labour are trying to recruit members to Saving Labour’s mailing list or retaining data for its purposes, it’s potentially a lot worse.



Labour pains


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2016)

The crowds look massive at the Tolpuddle speech, is this usual and can folk estimate how many?


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2016)

treelover said:


> Nye Bevan News | Facebook
> 
> For those who are skint, Nye Bevan news have some funds






> I can barely afford it but I'm gonna try my best to get it so I can vote x
> "}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 6 · Yesterday at 18:27
> 
> 
> ...



Some great people around.


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2016)

> Yeah Gabriella about time you paid it back lol xxx
> "}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Thinking about it Smith's decision to promise a second referendum is very smart in a way, Corbyn isn't going to offer it and there are undoubtedly a good number of liberals who joined the party to support Corbyn who are into this whole 'we are the 48%' nonsense. It has potential to peel away a good amount of JC's support even if its implementation would be disastrous.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 17, 2016)

Smith and his promise of a 2nd referendum  can FRO.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Thinking about it Smith's decision to promise a second referendum is very smart in a way, Corbyn isn't going to offer it and there are undoubtedly a good number of liberals who joined the party to support Corbyn who are into this whole 'we are the 48%' nonsense. It has potential to peel away a good amount of JC's support even if its implementation would be disastrous.



I'm not so sure. There definitely will be anti-Brexit votes to be had, but all he really needs to do is distinguish his position from the perceived "not arsed, mate" attitude of the leadership. Something like "The referendum isn't a suicide-pact, let's see what happens and keep our options open" would have done it. I think he's only gone in stronger to gain more support from MPs. But it gives rise to a potential problem further down the river, because the Tories might be able to u-turn and blame Labour: "We need the support of the Labour party for the Brexit Bill, given our slim majority, but they're wedded to the idea of a second referendum, so we had to include it, even though it makes us want to cry".


----------



## ska invita (Jul 17, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> For some reason Smith esp but Eagle also building up to it, they have decided to try and make trident the key battleground of their anti-Corbyn campaigns  - probably because the issue has historically worked wonders for the labour right, from Bevan (i know he wasn't on the right, but his naked into the conference chamber rhetoric marked a significant victory for them) to Foot and Benn being attacked through CND and unilateralism in the 80s. And Marr is very happy to go along with that , of course. Does trident, beyond jobs, have that same popular resonance today? I'm not so sure.


The trident vote is tomorrow iirc. Will be less of an issue after that


----------



## gosub (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Thinking about it Smith's decision to promise a second referendum is very smart in a way, Corbyn isn't going to offer it and there are undoubtedly a good number of liberals who joined the party to support Corbyn who are into this whole 'we are the 48%' nonsense. It has potential to peel away a good amount of JC's support even if its implementation would be disastrous.



Course means there will have to be another leadership election cos people don't like who won this one.


----------



## coley (Jul 17, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> He brought her divorce papers while she was on her sick bed? No, wait, that was Newt Gingrich.
> 
> And it happened in a different country.


"Ms Debbonaire said that she “profoundly wished” that she would not have to discuss the issue publically but had decided that people “have a right to know the truth about what Corbyn’s leadership is like.”
Aye, I believe in Unicorns as well.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2016)

coley said:


> "Ms Debbonaire said that she “profoundly wished” that she would not have to discuss the issue publically but had decided that people “have a right to know the truth about what Corbyn’s leadership is like.”



Who's Debbonaire, you ask?

That's showbiz. Sorry Glen


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 17, 2016)

Well the party conference should be a fucking hoot this year.


----------



## coley (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I know that butchersapron has identified, I'm sure correctly, Richard Murphy as well to the right of most of us I think there are still some interesting insights here albeit he comes to some conclusions that I think are anti-democratic and politically stupid like calling for a second referendum.
> 
> The rise and fall of Corbyn’s economics


Some reasonable ideas in there ( amongst all the self justification) but he misses the point, Corbyn hasn't had a chance to put together a cohesive manifesto, as he has been under relentless attack from all sides of the PLP since he became leader.


----------



## coley (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Thinking about it Smith's decision to promise a second referendum is very smart in a way, Corbyn isn't going to offer it and there are undoubtedly a good number of liberals who joined the party to support Corbyn who are into this whole 'we are the 48%' nonsense. It has potential to peel away a good amount of JC's support even if its implementation would be disastrous.



He knows it a totally empty, without risk,  promise, the signing of A50 will be a distant memory by the time labour gets its act together.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 17, 2016)

NEC elections this week. JC's lot are organised enough to send you a slate if you have liked him on facebook.. Interesting times.


----------



## Cakes (Jul 17, 2016)

One of my local MPs (Thangham Debbonair) proper getting her rant on today. Interesting to read specific accusations, instead of generalisations about bad leadership. I'm not sold, but what she's saying about the Policy Forum does feed a suspicion I have about his office not functioning effectively.


> Dear everyone who has asked me what my problems are with Corbyn's leadership,
> 
> Here is my experience.
> 
> ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 17, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> JC's lot are organised enough to send you a slate


 What does that mean?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What does that mean?



Maybe s/he meant "brick"?


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What does that mean?


It means soon they might not be able to play the dirty tricks, because instead of a list of anonymous names to vote for, we know who the JC supporters are.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 17, 2016)

Slate (elections) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## scifisam (Jul 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Thinking about it Smith's decision to promise a second referendum is very smart in a way, Corbyn isn't going to offer it and there are undoubtedly a good number of liberals who joined the party to support Corbyn who are into this whole 'we are the 48%' nonsense. It has potential to peel away a good amount of JC's support even if its implementation would be disastrous.



Who would be stupid enough to fall for that? He's not prime minister - he can't hold a second referendum. It'd be like me promising to hold a second referendum.


----------



## Cakes (Jul 17, 2016)

Sorry didn't see this had already been posted. Thread moving faster than me!



Cakes said:


> One of my local MPs (Thangham Debbonair) proper getting her rant on today. Interesting to read specific accusations, instead of generalisations about bad leadership. I'm not sold, but what she's saying about the Policy Forum does feed a suspicion I have about his office not functioning effectively.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2016)

scifisam said:


> It'd be like me promising to hold a second referendum.



So _are _you promising to hold a second referendum, and if not, why not?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 17, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> So _are _you promising to hold a second referendum, and if not, why not?



The people's decision is final!  Even if the people are stupid.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 17, 2016)

Cakes said:


> One of my local MPs (Thangham Debbonair) proper getting her rant on today. Interesting to read specific accusations, instead of generalisations about bad leadership. I'm not sold, but what she's saying about the Policy Forum does feed a suspicion I have about his office not functioning effectively.


This is the first attack on JC that feels a fair shot to me.

However for me this is all secondary to the question of direction, policies, integrity. The stuff you cannot buy. I don't want to be sold out, no matter how efficiently or professionally.

I expect that Corbyn's office will improve in functionality, especially if he doesn't have to deal with the craziness of constant mutiny.


----------



## Sirena (Jul 17, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I expect that Corbyn's office will improve in functionality, especially if he doesn't have to deal with the craziness of constant mutiny.



I see the image of a new teacher whose class has secretly conspired to make his life a non-co-operative misery.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I see the image of a new teacher whose class has secretly conspired to make his life a non-co-operative misery.



I hadn't thought of it that way but it's a good analogy


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> This is the first attack on JC that feels a fair shot to me.
> 
> However for me this is all secondary to the question of direction, policies, integrity. The stuff you cannot buy. I don't want to be sold out, no matter how efficiently or professionally.
> 
> I expect that Corbyn's office will improve in functionality, especially if he doesn't have to deal with the craziness of constant mutiny.



Some of it is, but quite a lot of it repeats criticisms that were leveled at Blair and Brown as well (small cliques running things, inability to give decisions / reasons for those decisions quickly, appointing and sacking people mistakenly).   He also appears to have missed (and is missing) a trick in terms of policy by keeping up the modern convention of the centre generating / approving a lot of policies; what he should have done is returned to the older style whereby the Shadow Cabinet agreed a general framework and then let shadow ministers come up with their own ideas.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 18, 2016)

Cakes said:


> One of my local MPs (Thangham Debbonair) proper getting her rant on today. Interesting to read specific accusations, instead of generalisations about bad leadership. I'm not sold, but what she's saying about the Policy Forum does feed a suspicion I have about his office not functioning effectively.



Meh I can't buy it.  She's my MP and I've learnt more about her through this whole debacle than at any other time.  I can't buy it because she's quick to use her cancer treatment for various reasons. I realise that sounds fucking awful to say it but there ya go.  I'll qualify this statement by saying that while I don't think Corbyn's the most decisive of politicians I just don't buy the fact he, or at least someone in his office, were so clueless about their MPs that they appointed her as a shadow secretary completely unaware she was in the middle of cancer treatment.  I'll further qualify it by saying that on the one hand she'll mention her cancer treatment but on the other hand she is quite happy to endorse leadership candidates who said, this morning on national TV no less, that they're happy to support continuing austerity, a policy that has hounded and hassled cancer patients all over the land to despair and early graves so forgive me if I'm not quite as sympathetic to her and her rantings.  I hope she gets deselected as her politics are about as exciting as an empty crisp packet scraping the concrete in a light and insignificant breeze.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2016)

#hackinglabour is trending on tweeter

seems to be based on this - suggesting that the progress lot are abusing party membership data


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> NEC elections this week. JC's lot are organised enough to send you a slate if you have liked him on facebook.. Interesting times.



I've been told on this very forum that the NEC elections are at the same time as the leadership elections


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 18, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> This is the first attack on JC that feels a fair shot to me.
> 
> However for me this is all secondary to the question of direction, policies, integrity. The stuff you cannot buy. I don't want to be sold out, no matter how efficiently or professionally.
> 
> I expect that Corbyn's office will improve in functionality, especially if he doesn't have to deal with the craziness of constant mutiny.



Given what's been going on sabotage can't be ruled out either .


----------



## Cakes (Jul 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Meh I can't buy it.  She's my MP and I've learnt more about her through this who debacle than anything other time.  I can't buy it because she's quick to use her cancer treatment for various reasons. I realise that sounds fucking awful to say it but there ya go.  I'll qualify this statement by saying that while I don't think Corbyn's the most decisive of politicians I just don't buy the fact he, or at least someone in his office, were so clueless about their MPs that they appointed her as a shadow secretary completely unaware she was in the middle of cancer treatment.  I'll further qualify it by saying that on the one hand she'll mention her cancer treatment but on the other hand she is quite happy to endorse leadership candidates who said, this morning on national TV no less, that they're happy to support continuing austerity, a policy that has hounded and hassled cancer patients all over the land to despair and early graves so forgive me if I'm not quite as sympathetic to her and her rantings.  I hope she gets deselected as her politics are about as exciting as an empty crisp packet scraping the concrete in a light and insignificant breeze.


It leaves a bad taste in my mouth but I'm going to say it seems like at times her cancer treatment has been used to exploit sympathy for her position. Right back when she was appointed her shadow ministerial position the pitch was not only was she awesome for managing her treatment at the same time as serving (no doubt, that was unbelievably strong of her), but how progressive Corbyn was for not overlooking her suitability just because she was on longterm sick. Then the day before she resigned from that position and added her name to the no confidence vote, she announces that she is "going twitter dark" because of insensitive comments (almost immediately deleted) regarding her treatment. I feel shit for being suspicious, but I am.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 18, 2016)

Nick Cohen really going for it here . Corbyn supporters - stench of death, killers, rape threats, misogyny, homophobia, anti semitism , hovering above the labour party like yellow smoke in a Munich beer hall.

Labour has the stench of death – meet the killers | Nick Cohen

There you go. Corbyns supporters are basically violent fascists .

This entire campaign of demonisation is solely to do with delegitimising support for Corbyn . It's not about democracy. A pro corbyn choice has no legitimacy according to these bastards . Supporting Corbyh itself is a form of bullying and intimidation . And akin to fascism .


----------



## emanymton (Jul 18, 2016)

Cakes said:


> It leaves a bad taste in my mouth but I'm going to say it seems like at times her cancer treatment has been used to exploit sympathy for her position. Right back when she was appointed her shadow ministerial position the pitch was not only was she awesome for managing her treatment at the same time as serving (no doubt, that was unbelievably strong of her), but how progressive Corbyn was for not overlooking her suitability just because she was on longterm sick. Then the day before she resigned from that position and added her name to the no confidence vote, she announces that she is "going twitter dark" because of insensitive comments (almost immediately deleted) regarding her treatment. I feel shit for being suspicious, but I am.


She still has a fucking awesome name though.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Meh I can't buy it.  She's my MP and I've learnt more about her through this whole debacle than at any other time.  I can't buy it because she's quick to use her cancer treatment for various reasons. I realise that sounds fucking awful to say it but there ya go.  I'll qualify this statement by saying that while I don't think Corbyn's the most decisive of politicians I just don't buy the fact he, or at least someone in his office, were so clueless about their MPs that they appointed her as a shadow secretary completely unaware she was in the middle of cancer treatment.  I'll further qualify it by saying that on the one hand she'll mention her cancer treatment but on the other hand she is quite happy to endorse leadership candidates who said, this morning on national TV no less, that they're happy to support continuing austerity, a policy that has hounded and hassled cancer patients all over the land to despair and early graves so forgive me if I'm not quite as sympathetic to her and her rantings.  I hope she gets deselected as her politics are about as exciting as an empty crisp packet scraping the concrete in a light and insignificant breeze.



If you look at her twitter timeline a lot of it really is trying to invoke sympathy in this way to win points in petty disputes. She claimed that a constituent telling her to 'get in the sea' was a death threat, extending that pattern of behaviour to Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't be so much an escalation of that behaviour as a continuation.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 18, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Nick Cohen really going for it here . Corbyn supporters - stench of death, killers, rape threats, misogyny, homophobia, anti semitism , hovering above the labour party like yellow smoke in a Munich beer hall.
> 
> Labour has the stench of death – meet the killers | Nick Cohen
> 
> ...




I deliberately avoided reading that article in the Observer yesterday because I suspected (from the headline  ) that he was going to go thoroughly OTT with his rant.

But in general I'm well pissed off with all this violence and threats stuff as media orthodoxy, because :

1. Rarely if ever mentioned, Corbyn himself having received a death threat (and Macdonell too I think)
2. The brick through Angela Eagle's office story having been unquestioningly accepted as fact all over the media ... when it simply didn't happen
(Thanks to Bernie Gunther for posting that link in the 'invented/concocted abuse' thread)
3. Corbyn's emphatic condemnation of any threats -- rarely if ever mentioned.
4. Most importantly, the constant implication that all Corbyn's supporters indulge in/condone threatening behaviour, when the actual number involved is almost certainly miniscule.

None of the above is at all surprising, but it's still absolutely infuriating.

(Edited to add the link)


----------



## kabbes (Jul 18, 2016)

Apologies if I missed it, but I've not yet seen this story linked to on this thread

Academic study reveals that three-quarters of media articles fail to accurately report Corbyn's views

The Independent carried this story and immediately continued to misrepresent him.  The Guardian, AFAIK, didn't even carry the story at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Apologies if I missed it, but I've not yet seen this story linked to on this thread
> 
> Academic study reveals that three-quarters of media articles fail to accurately report Corbyn's views
> 
> The Independent carried this story and immediately continued to misrepresent him.  The Guardian, AFAIK, didn't even carry the story at all.


Do you have a link to continued misrepresentation?


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

If you sign the 'Respect Jeremy Corbyn's right to automatically be on the leadership ballot' petition on change.org, it asks you if you'd like to donate £3, £10, £25 or £50. It would be so much better if it was just £3 or £25.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

The latest line of attack - he's incompetent - looks like it could cause some damage to me.

Greenwood's speech that everyone is sharing around in a _not at all co-ordinated_ way this afternoon is very persuasive... Lilian's speech to Nottingham South Labour Party members


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you have a link to continued misrepresentation?


kabbes


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> The latest line of attack - he's incompetent - looks like it could cause some damage to me.
> 
> Greenwood's speech that everyone is sharing around in a _not at all co-ordinated_ way this afternoon is very persuasive... Lilian's speech to Nottingham South Labour Party members



That is indeed pretty damning.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

All the more so because any seasoned Corbyn watcher knows it's largely true. 

I suppose like democracy being the worst system of government apart from all the other systems, Corbyn is the worst possible leader for the Labour party, apart from all the other possible leaders...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> The latest line of attack - he's incompetent - looks like it could cause some damage to me.
> 
> Greenwood's speech that everyone is sharing around in a _not at all co-ordinated_ way this afternoon is very persuasive... Lilian's speech to Nottingham South Labour Party members



I agree, this is damaging and probably mostly true. She doesn't seem like any kind of determined anti-Corbyn plotter either.

I'll always defend Corbyn against plotters, splitters, Blairites etc, and all that shit I've just expressed pissoffedness about in post 6043 is totally out of order.

But at the same time it's hard not to have some criticisms that are just about his/his team's competence.

Yes I know almost all the media are out to get him but some mistakes seem unnecessary, naive even.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> All the more so because any seasoned Corbyn watcher knows it's largely true.
> 
> I suppose like democracy being the worst system of government apart from all the other systems, Corbyn is the worst possible leader for the Labour party, *apart from all the other possible leaders..*.



That's right, the others might be more 'competent', but in every other way they'd be far worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

I note she didn't resign at that point - and was indeed kept on. She waited 6 months to do it until the point when it might do the most damage. Corbyn surely cannot base reshuffles around a date one shadow cabinet members feels is very important or how hard their team has worked on what she feels is important. Maybe she should have brought her concerns forward and maybe they could have been addressed. Maybe they were and she's decided to keep tactically quiet about that  - i don't know. I do know i don't trust the oxbrdridge MP though - esp as she's the 2nd one out the traps with this new angle.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2016)

AAAAAND I was beaten to it, by several other posters.

I agree it could play well with some - the line that he's not a team leader or team player - but it might have been better if they had run with that one.

And it's hard to be a team leader or a team player, if you spent your life arguing for a different game than the one Lillian G. wants to play.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> A guy who is a life-long Liberal - an actual member of the Northern Irish sister party of the Lib Dems, the Alliance - posted this on facebook:
> 
> Lilian's speech to Nottingham South Labour Party members
> 
> Claims she's not a plotter, did not time her resignation with anyone, and that she simply feels that El Corbo just isn't leadership material. What do you lot reckon?


We reckon you should read the thread's recent posts.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> We reckon you should read the thread's recent posts.


You win this round, apron - but we shall meet again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> AAAAAND I was beaten to it, by several other posters.
> 
> I agree it could play well with some - the line that he's not a team leader or team player - but it might have been better if they had run with that one.
> 
> And it's hard to be a team leader or a team player, if you spent your life arguing for a different game than the one Lillian G. wants to play.


...and there's just so much missing from that letter that no ones knows what's going on. Maybe she had been cold shouldering corbyn's team and effectively put herself out of the loop in protest, maybe she was the incompetent one and missed something. Maybe she had been up to something else that clashed and so was avoiding anything that might put her own plans in jeopardy. When we're presented with what, at first glance, appears to be an information filled genuine account but that, on further scrutiny, appears to be almost skeletal in substantive detail, then i think we have to ask what's going on her with this person - esp if it's a person from a group of people we spend day after day, year after year, arguing are almost wholly untrustworthy and devious self-interested manipulators.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I note she didn't resign at that point - and was indeed kept on. She waited 6 months to do it until the point when it might do the most damage. Corbyn surely cannot base reshuffles around a date one shadow cabinet members feels is very important or how hard their team has worked on what she feels is important. Maybe she should have brought her concerns forward and maybe they could have been addressed. Maybe they were and she's decided to keep tactically quiet about that  - i don't know. I do know i don't trust the oxbrdridge MP though - esp as she's the 2nd one out the traps with this new angle.


I remember at the time of the reshuffle there being a facepalm from all sides that he was spiking his own party's public transport policy launch. 

I don't doubt that this is a partial account released now to do the most damage, but it's still very convincing, and the many of the facts presented are known and indisputable.


----------



## red & green (Jul 18, 2016)

BFF of Heidi Alexander ....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Talking of the reshuffle:



> The shadow transport secretary, Lilian Greenwood, told Sky News’s Murnaghan that the party should “get on with holding the government to account rather than talking about internal Labour party matters”.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ...and there's just so much missing from that letter that no ones knows what's going on. Maybe she had been cold shouldering corbyn's team and effectively put herself out of the loop in protest, maybe she was the incompetent one and missed something. Maybe she had been up to something else that clashed and so was avoiding anything that might put her own plans in jeopardy. When we're presented with what, at first glance, appears to be an information filled genuine account but that, on further scrutiny, appears to be almost skeletal in substantive detail, then i think we have to ask what's going on her with this person - esp if it's a person from a group of people we spend day after day, year after year, arguing are almost wholly untrustworthy and devious self-interested manipulators.


Given that I was already defriended by one facebook contact, I have had to resist jerking my knee and posting that on the page of the facebooker I referred to in my previous post. Maybe I should just lawyer up, hit the gym and delete facebook.

Your point about the 'first glance' is well made. Instead of leading with 'Jeremy Corbyn is an avatar of the Horned Deceiver, sent here to destroy the planet Earth', this one is cool, calm and collected. But still waters run deep.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2016)

Oh dear! I would like to hear Corbyn's response to this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> I remember at the time of the reshuffle there being a facepalm from all sides that he was spiking his own party's public transport policy launch.
> 
> I don't doubt that this is a partial account released now to do the most damage, but it's still very convincing, and the many of the facts presented are known and indisputable.


Not saying this isn't the case, but i'm having difficulties finding any public criticism of the timing.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2016)

It seems a bit ironic that Lilian Greenwood's main criticism of Corbyn's leadership relates to poor timing, what with the leadership challenge letting the Tories off the hook for what could have been a once-in-a-generation political crisis.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

If you check google news, the media had been speculating about a reshuffle for ages, weeks before the monday announcement - that _was_ the news at that point. A public transport policy announcement was never going to knock that off the headlines. No matter how strongly Greenwood felt that it should.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Also, if the work had all been done, as she says it had been, why not ask to do the launch either on the actual day - the sat 2nd, or postpone it for a week or 4 days. She says the fuss had died down in three days. The reshuffle was finished weds night.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2016)

I really don't care about competence in comparison to sound policies, following through on promises, a tendency towards not being a total bastard, etc. Competence can be learned.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

I am starting to think that Corbyn actually stands a chance of losing the leadership election.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2016)

And two of Lilian's criticisms are (although fair enough that he seemed to be briefing against his staff) that he doesn't like HS2 and seemed to prefer a Leave vote. Both quite tenable positions really - the latter being compatible with his 70/30 pro/anti the EU.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I really don't care about competence in comparison to sound policies, following through on promises, a tendency towards not being a total bastard, etc. Competence can be learned.



Well, you kind of need both, I guess. But this 'it's about competence not ideology' is bullshit anyway. The people who say it will not go on to promote a candidate whom they believe is like Corbyn ideologically but more competent, will they? They'll line up behind another post-Blairite careerist shell of a politician, occasionally mumbling along to social-democratic lyrics without any idea what key the song's in.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I really don't care about competence in comparison to sound policies, following through on promises, a tendency towards not being a total bastard, etc. Competence can be learned.


In some kind of thought experiment, I could just about see Corbyn as PM, something like a chairman/president figure, leading a cabinet of all the talents. For that to happen, all the stars would have to be lined up in his favour. At the moment, they aren't - Labour is behind in the polls and he isn't surrounded by a bunch of inventive potential ministers. Most of all, as was mentioned a few pages back about economic policy, he/they are not doing the vision thing - and as a variant on that he hasn't re-engaged with the working class.  Yes, I know I'm playing the logic of Westminster politics and saying the things BBC commentators would say, but that's the game Corbyn has chosen play and, for the moment, is the ground on which the labour left still seeks to fight.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And two of Lilian's criticisms are (although fair enough that he seemed to be briefing against his staff) that he doesn't like HS2 and seemed to prefer a Leave vote. Both quite tenable positions really - the latter being compatible with his 70/30 pro/anti the EU.



I found the lukewarm pro-remain positions more persuasive because they admitted that there are problems but leaving is not a good idea, at least not right now. Much more believable than yay, everything in the EU is great and anyone who doesn't think so is a racist!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I am starting to think that Corbyn actually stands a chance of losing the leadership election.


if he does then it really is the end for the labour left.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> chairman


steady on...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> steady on...


I'm from one of those earlier centuries.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I found the lukewarm pro-remain positions more persuasive because they admitted that there are problems but leaving is not a good idea, at least not right now. Much more believable than yay, everything in the EU is great and anyone who doesn't think so is a racist!



I don't know anyone who voted remain who _doesn't_ feel lukewarm and sceptical about the EU. On the surface of it, Corbyn's (apparent) attitude to it would seem to be in tune with that of most remainers.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2016)

red & green said:


> BFF of Heidi Alexander ....


Didn't they both share a flat with Pippi Longstocking?


----------



## Cakes (Jul 18, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> It seems a bit ironic that Lilian Greenwood's main criticism of Corbyn's leadership relates to poor timing, what with the leadership challenge letting the Tories off the hook for what could have been a once-in-a-generation political crisis.


It does seem a bit thin if this is supposed to be helping us understand what a terrible leader he is. Bad enough to deserve even an individual resignation

Interesting to be reading these more specific critiques of his failures though. From Greenwood and Debbonair. Wonder if we'll be seeing a run of these.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I found the lukewarm pro-remain positions more persuasive because they admitted that there are problems but leaving is not a good idea, at least not right now. Much more believable than yay, everything in the EU is great and anyone who doesn't think so is a racist!


I agree actually, it was - cliché alert - 'grown up politics', even if I disagreed with it.  Somehow though it all got added to the narrative of 'isn't he shit'.  The referendum was a lost opportunity for Labour, a reasonable message, badly executed, that failed to get any purchase.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

Cakes said:


> Wonder if we'll be seeing a run of these.


without a doubt.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if he does then it really is the end for the labour left.



I guess the Labour right don't feel they've got as much to lose on this front. If they beat him, you're right. If they lose, they may get some ridicule on sites like this, where no-one likes them anyway, but their overwhelmingly superior access to money and media outlets will enable them to continue the business of undermining JC by any means necessary as if there had never been a second leadership election. Party members who voted for him twice might be outraged, but I'm not sure how significant a proportion of the wider electorate will be...


----------



## Cakes (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> without a doubt.


Good to see them leading with these heavy hitters then!

The next one needs to leave out the "imagine if your boss did something like that" line though, because it just makes me think, well actually he does do that and I have a bit of a bitch behind his back and then get on with it.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

Cakes said:


> Wonder if we'll be seeing a run of these.





killer b said:


> without a doubt.



Probably hardly needs saying, but McDonnell was at pains to stress this at a Momentum thing the other day. It's all been very obviously timed in successive waves, _just _haphazard enough to look spontaneous to someone not really paying attention but always conveniently aligning so that as soon as the fuss around one thing dies down, something else pops up to replace it.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> without a doubt.



Yes I think that the PLP or whoever is advising them have realised that this whole hysterical 'Berniebro' victimhood narrative isn't going to work with many people beyond those who already dislike Corbyn anyway. Good propaganda has at least a basis in truth, and you can mix in some lies with that truth which seems now to be what is happening.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Probably hardly needs saying, but McDonnell was at pains to stress this at a Momentum thing the other day. It's all been very obviously timed in successive waves, _just _haphazard enough to look spontaneous to someone not really paying attention but always conveniently aligning so that as soon as the fuss around one thing dies down, something else pops up to replace it.



Yes, it is worth remembering that political obsessives aren't the targets of this PR offensive. 

At the very least I suppose we all now know what the entire media and political class going in on a socialist leader looks like in Britain.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if he does then it really is the end for the labour left.



Perhaps I just have my pessimist hat on today but to be completely honest I think that you are right and that it will be another step along the road we are on towards the eventual replacement of Labour as the main pole of opposition with UKIP. Not entirely unlike the situation in France, Hungary and other European countries.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps I just have my pessimist hat on today but to be completely honest I think that you are right and that it will be another step along the road we are on towards the eventual replacement of Labour as the main pole of opposition with UKIP. Not entirely unlike the situation in France, Hungary and other European countries.



when dennis skinner was voted out of the NEC by cunts I had consigned labour left to the eternal darkness of squabbling at Left Unity meetings. But then arose a new champion and astonished us all by winning it. The fact that he ran against thin gravy candidates in no way lessens the impact its had. I don't even vote labour I just want these cheap suit cheap politics faux sincerity liars to get fucked. _It's our party dammit _cunts.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 18, 2016)

how the fk did Emily Thornbury end up in the labour party ..?

.is she a tory sleeper agent ?...what ..what ... I don't understand ...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 18, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I agree, this is damaging and probably mostly true. *She doesn't seem like any kind of determined anti-Corbyn plotter either*.
> 
> I'll always defend Corbyn against plotters, splitters, Blairites etc, and all that shit I've just expressed pissoffedness about in post 6043 is totally out of order.
> 
> ...



My understanding is she very much isn't a plotter, and it was precisely this that led her to resign once the other resignations started rolling in, and not any kind of pressure or strong-arming.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


>



Hateful Corbynite abuse etc


----------



## emanymton (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I am starting to think that Corbyn actually stands a chance of losing the leadership election.


I was thinking that a few days ago, but couldn't be arsed posting it and getting into a argument about it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I was thinking that a few days ago, but couldn't be arsed posting it and getting into a argument about it.


Wondered that myself, though even with the gerrymandering I suspect he's still got the numbers.  Might just be a few doubts in the minds of previous Corbyn fans, particularly as the party haven't made much progress, along with the chipping away about bullying.  Though against that his voters and a few that didn't vote for him will be angry about the shenanigans. Who knows, maybe win it on a reduced majority?

The other thing is Corbyn himself. Not impossible he might have passed on the baton 18 months before the 2020 election anyway. However he must be incandescent about the treachery, so much so that he sees holding onto his job as the front line of not giving the party back to the Blairite [banned word warning] scum - which it is.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wondered that myself, though even with the gerrymandering I suspect he's still got the numbers.  Might just be a few doubts in the minds of previous Corbyn fans, particularly as the party haven't made much progress, along with the chipping away about bullying.  Though against that his voters and a few that didn't vote for him will be angry about the shenanigans. Who knows, maybe win it on a reduced majority?
> 
> The other thing is Corbyn himself. Not impossible he might have passed on the baton 18 months before the 2020 election anyway. However he must be incandescent about the treachery, so much so that he sees holding onto his job as the front line of not giving the party back to the Blairite [banned word warning] scum - which it is.


From memory he was just shy of 50% of the existing membership last time. Since the 3 quiders won't be a thing this time, I think it could be closer than many people think.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 18, 2016)

I don't doubt that some of the criticisms are true, it just strikes me that poor timing and the leadership riding roughshod over ministerial plans are not exactly unusual in politics, and probably even more likely for a leadership effectively under siege. I don't doubt many of the facts, I doubt the conclusions she's trying to draw from them.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

By the by, the page is now up for those who want to become 25 quidders.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

emanymton said:


> From memory he was just shy of 50% of the existing membership last time. Since the 3 quiders won't be a thing this time, I think it could be closer than many people think.


Loads of the 3 quidders then joined though (even if they didn't do much after).


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

emanymton said:


> From memory he was just shy of 50% of the existing membership last time. Since the 3 quiders won't be a thing this time, I think it could be closer than many people think.


True, but got by far the biggest vote. Logically, he might not have got many 2nd preferences from the other cunts candidates, but he would have got over the winning line.  But yes, I think you are right, could well be close. The ballots go out 22nd August and people vote over the following month. There'll be plenty of co-ordinated knocking copy all the way through.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> By the by, the page is now up for those who want to become 25 quidders.


*reaches out hand to labours head*

My mind to your mind. My thoughts to your thoughts. Wait what the fuck is this? I'd force feed you the pureed 25 quids first


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Yes, the key will be how manuy £3 registered supporters who regged to vote fore Corbyn went on to join - and we've see the rise of membership in the intervening period. Would be amazing if vast majority were not corbyn supporters.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 18, 2016)

Someone just paid the 25 quid and reported on fb that they asked for her twitter and fb details.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Someone just paid the 25 quid and reported on fb that they asked for her twitter and fb details.


Not asterisked.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

You'd have to be pretty dumb to give up that sort of info.

eta: twitter _handle = _Sonoftrot


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not asterisked.



Yeah but they will blatantly go through your stuff in order to ensure you can't vote if you do put it I bet


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yeah but they will blatantly go through your stuff in order to ensure you can't vote if you do put it I bet


Exactly...as I said, you'd have to be a complete fool to offer it.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Exactly...as I said, you'd have to be a complete fool to offer it.



Yes, that is true, but I bet some still will do it


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, that is true, but I bet some still will do it


Some people are foolish, yes.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yeah but they will blatantly go through your stuff in order to ensure you can't vote if you do put it I bet



Do they actually have the resources to go trawling through thousands of facebook and twitter accounts looking for reasons to disallow people? And more to the point, even if they do, is this really the most effective use of their time?

Fucking ridiculous...


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2016)

> From Greg Philo:
> 
> "I have been reading criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn from people who say they are socialist and committed to change, but that JC is just not the right person to lead, because of confusion in his office, failure to unite, inability to give clear economic vision etc.
> I think these all miss a rather fundamental point. Leave aside for the moment that the astonishing level of attacks from the media, plus his own MPS , and the sheer volume of tasks in running an opposition , in such circumstances would make it unlikely that the path would be smooth .
> ...



Greg Philo(Glasgow University Monitoring Group, did the seminal report on Miners Strike, more recently how disabled claimants are reported on)

reposted from FB, no link


----------



## NoXion (Jul 18, 2016)

treelover said:


> Greg Philo(Glasgow University Monitoring Group, did the seminal report on Miners Strike, more recently how disabled claimants are reported on)
> 
> reposted from FB, no link



Facebook is part of the the internet like every other website, you know.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 18, 2016)

treelover said:


> Greg Philo(Glasgow University Monitoring Group, did the seminal report on Miners Strike, more recently how disabled claimants are reported on)
> 
> reposted from FB, no link



What annoys me is the sense of entitlement the bulk of the present PLP have- they and only they have a right to rule, how else do you explain the absolute tantrum they threw as soon as Corbyn got elected. If their leadership candidates had won last year and the party had performed exactly the same as Corbyn has, they'd never in a million years be pulling this mass resignation shit- their outrage is that someone not of their kind is in the driving seat. This sense of entitlement seems to blind them to any genuine, critical appraisal or perspective of themselves- the Iraq war is a simple mistake to them- despite the fact its resulted in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of deaths, it just gets a barely acknowledged shrug of the shoulders. What other job could you do whereby you accidentally killed hundreds of thousands and you were allowed to even remain in that post? 

They then, thanks to their embrace of the free market and scaling back of regulations on it, brought us the 2008 crash which wiped out all the extra spending the Blair years boast about, and has set us on the path for the complete destruction of the welfare state. Again hardly any acknowledgement- certainly no questioning of their own judgement or right to rule- indeed they still think that they and only they have the answers and can't seem to understand why everyone else can't seem to grasp that.

Like Chomsky said, with regards to the West's moral certainty in foreign policy, they seem to think everything they do is right and just, simply because they do it.


----------



## binka (Jul 18, 2016)

Confirmed on  C4 news that it will be Eagle or Owen depending on who gets the most nominations with the loser agreeing to drop out. I really do wonder who Corbyn will vote for


----------



## red & green (Jul 18, 2016)

What is this saving labour ? Where did they get the money?


----------



## keybored (Jul 18, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Facebook is part of the the internet like every other website, you know.


Or it might not have been a public post.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> Loads of the 3 quidders then joined though (even if they didn't do much after).


I know. It's just a feeling I have really.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> What annoys me is the sense of entitlement the bulk of the present PLP have- they and only they have a right to rule, how else do you explain the absolute tantrum they threw as soon as Corbyn got elected. If their leadership candidates had won last year and the party had performed exactly the same as Corbyn has, they'd never in a million years be pulling this mass resignation shit- their outrage is that someone not of their kind is in the driving seat. This sense of entitlement seems to blind them to any genuine, critical appraisal or perspective of themselves




Right. The most powerful thing I saw McDonnell say, in a speech to a Momentum crowd I was gatecrashing the other day, was "it's not about us, it's not about Jeremy. it's about you [pointing at the audience]. YOU are the problem."

He's right: the PLP is in a state of fury and indignation at the discovery that its wishes can be disregarded by ordinary members like this. It makes no difference to them that those wishes are largely unrepresentative of the millions of people who have elected them over the years - very often through gritted teeth and for want of anything better on offer, as is pretty clear as soon as there's something even slightly better on offer.

How FUCKING dare ordinary people act like they have the right to steer the direction of the Labour Party, when they haven't even studied PPE? When they haven't been following a 15-year plan, steadily groping their way up the slippery slope of having to deal with shite like constituency business in godawful places like South Shields or Barnsley, with the aim of one day achieving significant office and forging valuable relationships with company directors? When all they've done is sit around, having families and doing semi-skilled work for crap wages? Who do they think they are?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

My partner's just become a 25 quidder.

(((( 20 cans of lager))))


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My partner's just become a 25 quidder.
> 
> (((( 20 cans of lager))))


Or a bottle of good or at least reasonable brandy


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2016)

Corbyn Media Watch on FB

donate or get some funds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn Media Watch on FB
> 
> donate or get some funds.


You don't do links do you


----------



## NoXion (Jul 18, 2016)

keybored said:


> Or it might not have been a public post.



Even so, that doesn't stop them from posting the URL along with a note that it's a private post. At least then it's possible for someone who does have access to check the source.


----------



## binka (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My partner's just become a 25 quidder.
> 
> (((( 20 cans of lager))))


Maybe consider reclaiming the money by repeatedly ransacking Progress stalls for their pens. 10 Bics on eBay go for £1.99. I reckon you'd need to steal around 200-250 taking into account eBay, Paypal and postage fees.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My partner's just become a 25 quidder.
> 
> (((( 20 cans of lager))))



People I know with very little money are trying to save up for the extra amount atm, it's really fucking depressing.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Or a bottle of good or at least reasonable brandy



Or a bottle of excellent wine.

Ahem. I mean, up the proletariat


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 18, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> People I know with very little money are trying to save up for the extra amount atm, it's really fucking depressing.



There were a couple of crowdfuning thingies to help people but you have to pay out first then hope to be reimbursed.  Also there was another matching donors to those wanting to sign up.  I didn't take a note of the links though.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Or a bottle of good or at least reasonable brandy


Or approx 1.4% of my weekly bottle.


----------



## Sue (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My partner's just become a 25 quidder.
> 
> (((( 20 cans of lager))))


A dumpable offence for sure.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2016)

binka said:


> Maybe consider reclaiming the money by repeatedly ransacking Progress stalls for their pens. 10 Bics on eBay go for £1.99. I reckon you'd need to steal around 200-250 taking into account eBay, Paypal and postage fees.



Just whip the table.


----------



## Sue (Jul 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Or approx 1.4% of my weekly bottle.


Sold out I see. 

The brandy that is...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> Sold out I see.
> 
> The brandy that is...


Well...I did pick up a few dozen cases last week.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 18, 2016)

Having become a member of the LP, and then a member of Unite, I have now paid my £25 in what has been a ridiculous game of pin the tail on the democracy.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 18, 2016)

I'm not going to pay it. Never been a party member, and although I'd accept the 'supporter' label (sometimes) this is a step too far. On balance I'd rather see Corbyn succeed, but more because of the way the movement has shifted the ground on which political discussion takes place in this country. I still suspect the Labour Party will and should fall apart, even if it takes a generation for anything to grow up in its place - if it ever does.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 18, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Having become a member of the LP, and then a member of Unite, I have now paid my £25 in what has been a ridiculous game of pin the tail on the democracy.



When we sieze Angela Eagle's wealth you can have the big pink signs, if you like.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Having become a member of the LP, and then a member of Unite, I have now paid my £25 in what has been a ridiculous game of pin the tail on the democracy.


A snip; at this (annual) rate of inflation it will cost proletarians £208 for the privilege of voting for the leadership of the 'people's party' next summer.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 18, 2016)

is there any anti corbs labour MP  who has not yet gone public on the news with some fuckin bleat or other ?

if this is the the kind of whinging turncoat shitrag backstabber that defines the major cohort of labour MP's, then the party needs rebooted and the viruses removed


----------



## gosub (Jul 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> A snip; at this (annual) rate of inflation it will cost proletarians £208 for the privilege of voting for the leadership of the 'people's party' next summer.


provided they pass vettiing


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

gosub said:


> provided they pass vettiing


£208 says fine.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 18, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Right. The most powerful thing I saw McDonnell say, in a speech to a Momentum crowd I was gatecrashing the other day, was "it's not about us, it's not about Jeremy. it's about you [pointing at the audience]. YOU are the problem."
> 
> He's right: the PLP is in a state of fury and indignation at the discovery that its wishes can be disregarded by ordinary members like this. It makes no difference to them that those wishes are largely unrepresentative of the millions of people who have elected them over the years - very often through gritted teeth and for want of anything better on offer, as is pretty clear as soon as there's something even slightly better on offer.
> 
> How FUCKING dare ordinary people act like they have the right to steer the direction of the Labour Party, when they haven't even studied PPE? When they haven't been following a 15-year plan, steadily groping their way up the slippery slope of having to deal with shite like constituency business in godawful places like South Shields or Barnsley, with the aim of one day achieving significant office and forging valuable relationships with company directors? When all they've done is sit around, having families and doing semi-skilled work for crap wages? Who do they think they are?


This is precisely why i've gone to a wee bit of trouble to get a vote in this time around, despite never having voted labour in....actually never, i was 15 in 1997. I wasn't into it first time around but it's not about jeremy anymore..... Cunts!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

binka said:


> Maybe consider reclaiming the money by repeatedly ransacking Progress stalls for their pens. 10 Bics on eBay go for £1.99. I reckon you'd need to steal around 200-250 taking into account eBay, Paypal and postage fees.



'CORBYN FIENDS RE-ENACT VIKING RAIDS ON INNOCENT LABOUR SUPPORTERS'


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> 'CORBYN FIENDS RE-ENACT VIKING RAIDS ON INNOCENT LABOUR SUPPORTERS'


Handy authentic looking picture to go with this- feel free to re use for the scottish threat indy ref 2


----------



## Cid (Jul 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Or approx 1.4% of my weekly bottle.



Weird, cognac. I mean every review on world of malt says 'this stuff is really smooth'. Well, fuck - bourbon is smooth but generally I'll take a nice, interesting single malt Scotch/Japanese. 

'This stuff cost me as much as your car'
'good is it?'
'well it certainly goes down easily'


----------



## Cakes (Jul 18, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> is there any anti corbs labour MP  who has not yet gone public on the news with some fuckin bleat or other ?
> 
> if this is the the kind of whinging turncoat shitrag backstabber that defines the major cohort of labour MP's, then the party needs rebooted and the viruses removed


Oh I don't know, all this constructive criticism might come in useful for one of those 360 management performance appraisals.


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> People I know with very little money are trying to save up for the extra amount atm, it's really fucking depressing.



There are people genuinely trying to help, they can try 'Nye Bevan News' on FB


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> A dumpable offence for sure.


Just registering to support the labour party - and on my fucking computer  - is enough to start proceedings. The lager equivalence is pushing me towards fast track.


----------



## Sue (Jul 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Just registering to support the labour party - and on my fucking computer  - is enough to start proceedings. The lager equivalence is pushing me towards fast track.


I was more thinking about the waste of money that could've been spent on lager/drink of your choice tbf...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 18, 2016)

I've paid the 25.

They didn't make it too easy mind you. No paypal option and your card address had to match up as the one you are registered as a supporter with.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.


This is pretty funny, must say.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


>



Not "_not gay"?_


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.



*eats words*


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

Can't see that shifting much now either - both sides are pretty firmly entrenched


----------



## Raheem (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


>




Christ. He'd need to be getting the police's opinion all the time as PM. Could be a serious problem.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.



As with the leadership election itself, Corbyn is helped by his enemies being so incredibly objectionable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> Can't see that shifting much now either - both sides are pretty firmly entrenched


All the members polled in that are pre 2016 full members btw


----------



## 8den (Jul 18, 2016)

Top fact about @OwenSmith_MP, man who cd be Lab leader: as young BBC producer asked to get police comment on story, he called 999 #newsnight


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

These are the run offs. Hilarious - they must be tearing their hair out. 

CORBYN 58 
EAGLE 34 
DK/NV 7 

CORBYN 56 
SMITH 34 
DK/NV 10


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

Time to start making predictions about what comes after Corbyn wins again?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 18, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Christ. He'd need to be getting the police's opinion all the time as PM. Could be a serious problem.



he'll have a bat phone

with a special loudness button ...for the quiet bat people


----------



## Raheem (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> Can't see that shifting much now either - both sides are pretty firmly entrenched



Probably right. But there's weeks and weeks of drip, drip and drip ahead.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2016)

Doesn't matter, no one is listening.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> Doesn't matter, no one is listening.



What can they level at Corbyn now? The kitchen sink has already been thrown, that's it and it hasn't worked.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What can they level at Corbyn now? The kitchen sink has already been thrown, that's it and it hasn't worked.


Only thing is, her didn't join in the attack on Jeremy Corbyn. Self, self, self.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2016)

They have already said that he's a proxy homophobe, that his supporters have verbally and physically attacked 'moderates' basically with his blessing etc

Where do you even go from there? If we get to leadership debates, hustings and Smeagle (Smith + Angela) rallies it's going to be a bloodbath.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They have already said that he's a proxy homophobe, that his supporters have verbally and physically attacked 'moderates' basically with his blessing etc
> 
> Where do you even go from there? If we get to leadership debates, hustings and Smeagle (Smith + Angela) rallies it's going to be a bloodbath.



They keep saying the same things, get new people to say them, and brief about the split ahead (if this is made to seem like more than losing a gaggle of Blairites, it will worry a lot of LP members).

I'm not saying it will work. I guess time will tell.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Murphy is to the right of the lib-dems. He's not a turncoat - at least not politically.


BA , have you got more info on this / Murphys politics plse
 ? ( have searched / failed )


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What can they level at Corbyn now? The kitchen sink has already been thrown, that's it and it hasn't worked.



It will just be more of the same - for a start they refuse to understand why he won the first time, and even if they did understand it they don't have the ability or the nous to come up with a coherent alternative.  

Just look at Woodcock today for instance, gamely co-operating with the Tories; or how more than a few of them reacted to Chilcot by openly saying they would do exactly the same thing again.  How do they expect a Labour electorate to react?


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 19, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I've been told on this very forum that the NEC elections are at the same time as the leadership elections



I voted on Sunday for the NEC.

"Ballots are currently being issued to those eligible to vote by post and online- we recommend you vote online as soon as you get the email. Polls close at 12pm on August 5."

Left slate in poll position for NEC race after late spate of nominations | LabourList

Leadership election:


Monday 18 July at 7pm — Nominations open (MPs and MEPs)
Thursday 21 July at Noon — Nominations close
Friday 22 July — Hustings period begin
Monday 8 August at Noon — Members must be fully paid up and in compliance to be eligible to vote
Week beginning Monday 22 August — Ballots packs will begin to be despatched (you'll receive yours in the fortnight following)
Wednesday 14 September — last date to request a reissue of your ballot
Wednesday 21 September at Noon — Ballot closes
Saturday 24 September — Special conference to announce result


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> These are the run offs. Hilarious - they must be tearing their hair out.
> 
> CORBYN 58
> EAGLE 34
> ...



The people have spoken... the bastards!

I'm surprised the other two did as well as that tbh, but still pretty clear-cut.


----------



## inva (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Time to start making predictions about what comes after Corbyn wins again?


could they in theory just continously challenge him again and again, or is there some limit on it?


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 19, 2016)

treelover said:


> There are people genuinely trying to help, they can try 'Nye Bevan News' on FB



Good call, I've donated to their hardship fund.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

inva said:


> could they in theory just continously challenge him again and again, or is there some limit on it?



That's the stated plan of Luke Akehurst + Labour First


----------



## inva (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That's the stated plan of Luke Akehurst + Labour First


just the kind of creative thinking the country needs


----------



## andysays (Jul 19, 2016)

inva said:


> could they in theory just continously challenge him again and again, or is there some limit on it?



There's an interesting contrast between how easy and frequently the leader can be challenged by the PLP, and how difficult and rare it is for Labour MPs to be challenged by their CLP.

If these challengers think it's right that JC (or any leader) can be challenged less than a year after being elected, on the basis of 20% of PLP members nominating someone else, perhaps that power of recall should be extended to their positions too...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2016)

peadophile. Thats what they will be gagging to throw.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

andysays said:


> There's an interesting contrast between how easy and frequently the leader can be challenged by the PLP, and how difficult and rare it is for Labour MPs to be challenged by their CLP.
> 
> If these challengers think it's right that JC (or any leader) can be challenged less than a year after being elected, on the basis of 20% of PLP members nominating someone else, perhaps that power of recall should be extended to their positions too...


recall isn't available, only deselection - and I'm not sure it makes much tactical sense deselecting so far in advance of an election. all the deselected MPs would still be in parliament, just not on the labour benches - with more time to position themselves as a 'credible alternative' type parry.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2016)

inva said:


> could they in theory just continously challenge him again and again, or is there some limit on it?



At some point even that lot would realise how stupid they were making themselves look. So maybe four or five more goes.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 19, 2016)

inva said:


> could they in theory just continously challenge him again and again, or is there some limit on it?



Think it's once a year, according to the rules.


----------



## andysays (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> recall isn't available, only deselection - and I'm not sure it makes much tactical sense deselecting so far in advance of an election. all the deselected MPs would still be in parliament, just not on the labour benches - with more time to position themselves as a 'credible alternative' type parry.



All that is true, I'm simply pointing out the contrast in how Labour party internal democracy works.

And if tactical sense is the primary concern, repeatedly fighting battles over the leadership doesn't make much either, if your objective is actually to be an effective opposition with a decent chance of fighting the next GE effectively.


----------



## andysays (Jul 19, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Think it's once a year, according to the rules.



It's less than a year since he was elected


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> peadophile. Thats what they will be gagging to throw.



We have already had that, or at least we've had the 'he ignored/helped cover up paedophilia'


----------



## Raheem (Jul 19, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's less than a year since he was elected



And he's been challenged once.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Think it's once a year, according to the rules.


the rules? we don't need no stinking _rules_


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 19, 2016)

Steve McCabe is a minor presence on the Labour backbenches, but he's just as contemptuous of people in poverty as the rest of the Blairites/Blue Labourites/whatever. Check out this Tweet.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2016)

Christ, not even smart enough to even try and hide it


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

andysays said:


> All that is true, I'm simply pointing out the contrast in how Labour party internal democracy works.
> 
> And if tactical sense is the primary concern, repeatedly fighting battles over the leadership doesn't make much either, if your objective is actually to be an effective opposition with a decent chance of fighting the next GE effectively.


For all their talk, I can't see this repeated challenge idea taking hold.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 19, 2016)

McCabe's just blocked me for quoting his Tweet.


----------



## inva (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> For all their talk, I can't see this repeated challenge idea taking hold.


I think that's right, it would surely mean pressing the self destruct button and I doubt many outside of the fringe would contemplate that.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 19, 2016)

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't SWP have in the region of 6000 members? 

Is there really a secretive mass cabal of socialists hiding within the UK, just waiting to overthrow the establishment?


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 19, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't SWP have in the region of 6000 members?
> 
> Is there really a secretive mass cabal of socialists hiding within the UK, just waiting to overthrow the establishment?



What, didn't you get your invite?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 19, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> What, didn't you get your invite?




No, I'm really fucking annoyed. I want a secret handshake and to weasel my way into a secure unionised job with no effort.


----------



## maomao (Jul 19, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't SWP have in the region of 6000 members?


Far less than that especially since it became nothing but a rape apologist cult.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't SWP have in the region of 6000 members?
> 
> Is there really a secretive mass cabal of socialists hiding within the UK, just waiting to overthrow the establishment?


Where on earth did you get that figure from?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Where on earth did you get that figure from?



Google search, it was the closest I could find to a legible result seeing as no other site seemed to give actual figures


----------



## YouSir (Jul 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Where on earth did you get that figure from?



The fervent imagination of an SWP paper seller.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 19, 2016)

On a side note, whatever the official SWP estimate of their membership is you could knock 75℅ off for people who don't know they're in it or don't want to be.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 19, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> No, I'm really fucking annoyed. I want a secret handshake and to weasel my way into a secure unionised job with no effort.



I'll see what I can do, comrade


----------



## Tankus (Jul 19, 2016)

And me..!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2016)

***outdated figures***


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> recall isn't available, only deselection - and I'm not sure it makes much tactical sense deselecting so far in advance of an election. all the deselected MPs would still be in parliament, just not on the labour benches - with more time to position themselves as a 'credible alternative' type parry.


Not sure I agree.

If you deselect a handful, then the rest will fall in line. You wouldn't need to do anything with most of the 172. Their careers are dependent on being in the Labour party. And sitting on the opposition benches for decades collecting an MPs salary for simply having a rose next to your name on the ballot is a pretty cushy number. Why risk that?


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Makes me wonder how that compares with other fringe parties that don't have parliamentary representation (whether they want it or not).  So ignoring obviously bigger outfits like Ukip and Greens, are there any other parties on left or right with that many members?


----------



## chilango (Jul 19, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't SWP have in the region of 6000 members?
> 
> Is there really a secretive mass cabal of socialists hiding within the UK, just waiting to overthrow the establishment?



Knock a zero off that and you'd be closer these days.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Not sure I agree.
> 
> If you deselect a handful, then the rest will fall in line. You wouldn't need to do anything with most of the 172. Their careers are dependent on being in the Labour party. And sitting on the opposition benches for decades collecting an MPs salary for simply having a rose next to your name on the ballot is a pretty cushy number. Why risk that?


They won't even need to do that: if conference manages to push through a decent deselection trigger, they'll mostly fall into line. Hence, conference is going to be very bloody this year...


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 19, 2016)

Guardian Liveblog's Libby Brooks expressing befuddlement today that after all the coup plotters' efforts Corbyn's reputation has actually improved.


> It may well be the case that Corbyn’s approval ratings have gone up precisely because he is perceived at war with his MPs. If so, this suggests that Labour’s attempt to find a leader acceptable to both members and its MPs could be doomed to failure.



Yeah it's weird, almost as though behaving like a bunch of unprincipled bullying shits, nominating useless opponents and challenging Corbyn in a way that was guaranteed to make him look like a tough guy somehow backfired. Who knew.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?

So what if we are sabotaging Corbyn, you stupid plebs


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> They won't even need to do that: if conference manages to push through a decent deselection trigger, they'll mostly fall into line. Hence, conference is going to be very bloody this year...


that reminds me, the party conference wasn't in the timetable posted above, which ends on _Saturday 24 September — Special conference to announce result_. When is it, are they going to have two?


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?
> 
> So what if we are sabotaging Corbyn, you stupid plebs



Look at the way he dresses, he was asking for it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Not sure I agree.
> 
> If you deselect a handful, then the rest will fall in line. You wouldn't need to do anything with most of the 172. Their careers are dependent on being in the Labour party. And sitting on the opposition benches for decades collecting an MPs salary for simply having a rose next to your name on the ballot is a pretty cushy number. Why risk that?


It's still too early to begin the reelection process. It's done on a timetable with the safest held seats done last. So there'll be no opportunity to deselect until 2019, if this parliament somehow lasts full term.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> that reminds me, the party conference wasn't in the timetable posted above, which ends on _Saturday 24 September — Special conference to announce result_. When is it, are they going to have two?


Starts on the 25th, basically same as when JC was first elected.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.



What's interesting when you look at the detailed results is that this lead is almost entirely due to the new members. 42:53 among pre-2015 members but 73:25 among new ones.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

belboid said:


> Starts on the 25th, basically same as when JC was first elected.


tvm


----------



## binka (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?
> 
> So what if we are sabotaging Corbyn, you stupid plebs


Just posted that on the guardian is shit thread didn't realise youd beaten me to it. It is quite an astonishing article but also not in the least bit surprising


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Crispy said:


> What's interesting when you look at the detailed results is that this lead is almost entirely due to the new members. 42:53 among pre-2015 members but 73:25 among new ones.


the geek in me wonders if they explain why they weighted their sample as heavily as they did, and whether they weighted proportionately or selectively. Maybe they couldn't contact sufficient post 2015 members?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

They've just sampled it that way so only members who can vote are included haven't they?


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> They've just sampled it that way so only members who can vote are included haven't they?


All were members before the start of the year, so all can vote. my reading is that they asked  613 pre 2015 and 406 post, but counted them in the ratio 489:530


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Kid_Eternity Helpful(ish) tip of the day: You can get get rid of that irritating signature thingy by trawling through Tapatalk's preferences. Can't remember where it is though.



Ah ain't nobody got time for dat!


.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

the geek in me has given up doing something else and read the detail.  they seem to have downgraded the views of ABC1s aged 25-64 and living in London and the north and uprated everyone else.

or, to put it another way, their sample was rubbish.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Ah ain't nobody got time for dat!
> 
> 
> .


Strange, it took me less time than than you might waste thinking about upgrading to the latest model.


----------



## poului (Jul 19, 2016)

A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".



> I’m so sorry to bore on about politics, I promise I'll stop soon. But from today everyone has a very short opportunity to vote in a really important election. The result will not only decide the future of the Labour Party, but whether we have a functioning opposition to keep the Government in check. Labour is on the verge of collapse and if it does it will be nothing short of devastating.
> 
> To my lovely and principled friends who are considering supporting Corbyn, may I say this: I worked in Parliament for a few years and do not know of a single Labour MP who does not believe in eradicating poverty and homelessness, tackling inequality, investing in public services, solving the housing crisis and creating a fairer, more tolerant society. We all want a better world and it’s why the Labour Party exists. The real challenge is how to achieve these aims without unintended consequences, what to prioritise with limited money and how to win voters’ trust on the other stuff that matters - like managing the economy and keeping the country safe.
> 
> ...


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?


"We're just having a bit of fun officer"


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

poului said:


> A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".



This is basically identical to the right-wing arg that goes along the lines of 'just because I believe private sector partners should ground up poor children into hamburgers to feed the privately education doesn't mean I hate the poor, it just means I have different ideas from you about how we can work to eliminate poverty'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2016)

and liberals seem genuinly bewildered when you use the term with contempt


----------



## brogdale (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is basically identical to the right-wing arg that goes along the lines of 'just because I believe private sector partners should ground up poor children into hamburgers to feed the privately education doesn't mean I hate the poor, it just means I have different ideas from you about how we can work to eliminate poverty'.





> _He may be popular in *some social circles*...._


Dinner parties?


----------



## maomao (Jul 19, 2016)

poului said:


> A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".



'Functioning opposition to keep the government in check' lol. By not opposing them on benefits or Trident for instance?


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2016)

> The other candidates may not set your world on fire, but if you prefer them to no Labour Party at all then you should vote



Lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2016)

absolutrly and totally convinced that thier 'moderate', windbaggy notion of what politics is and should be are are correct. So fucking certain that they have a stake and the vote is so important and we must instruct the plebs because they vote wrongly. Cross them and get the threats. Useless idiots


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> the geek in me has given up doing something else and read the detail.  they seem to have downgraded the views of ABC1s aged 25-64 and living in London and the north and uprated everyone else.
> 
> or, to put it another way, their sample was rubbish.



Deliberately slanted to erode support via "doesn't need me to make an effort cos its in the bag" you think?


----------



## Enviro (Jul 19, 2016)

Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of _"Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party _(wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!)_ and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."_?


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Deliberately slanted to erode support via "doesn't need me to make an effort cos its in the bag" you think?


I generally tend to the cockup theory tbh. Seems likely their online methodology favours some demographics and they work with what they've got, but when they have to significantly massage that into what they'd ideally want, and considering that their client is Murdoch, I can see why you might raise the question.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

No sampling method is perfect, it always needs weighting. That's where the hard work is tbh.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2016)

Enviro said:


> Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of _"Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party _(wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!)_ and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."_?



Their website is worse; its basically a device for you to give them your personal data so that they can send a whiny letter to your MP.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 19, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> McCabe's just blocked me for quoting his Tweet.



You are now, the enemy without!


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> No sampling method is perfect, it always needs weighting. That's where the hard work is tbh.


thats why my inner geek says the scale of weighting is too great because their sample is rubbish and not that they're deliberately manufacturing the result. 

We know from the ref that London is out of step with elsewhere.  They had 228 respondents in London but weighted them so only 148 counted as such, showing them 48% pro Corbyn.  The others were grouped with contributions from the north & a couple from Scotland so that the 216 respondents they found in the Midlands/Wales swelled to 339 in the counting. So about 1/4 of responses that should* have come from people in the Midlands/Wales were actually filled in by Londoners. The result shows the weighted 339 voted 57% pro Corbyn but not the votes of the 216 who actually live in the Midlands and Wales. It's plausible that without the Londoners that would have been higher.  Their sampling is too unrepresentative to know.



* if their unexplained 148:339  London:M/W split has any legitimacy.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2016)

Enviro said:


> Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of _"Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party _(wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!)_ and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."_?


Would be interesting to know who is bank rolling the SL campaign


----------



## Ole (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> the geek in me wonders if they explain why they weighted their sample as heavily as they did, and whether they weighted proportionately or selectively. Maybe they couldn't contact sufficient post 2015 members?


If that's heavy weighting what would you expect 'non-heavy' weighting to look like in this scenario, and why? Could you also explain what you mean by weighting proportionately or selectively?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Would be interesting to know who is bank rolling the SL campaign



It's a Progress effort isn't it? So Sainsbury probably.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 19, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> You are now, the enemy without!


I shall wear that status like a row of medals on a war veteran.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Ole said:


> If that's heavy weighting what would you expect 'non-heavy' weighting to look like in this scenario, and why? Could you also explain what you mean by weighting proportionately or selectively?



Well Ashcroft's weighting in the ref exit poll amounted to half a dozen or so being moved geographically to get the weighting right (in a much larger sample).  Not 25% of respondents from London being counted as though they represented opinion in the Midlands.  Or sampling which included 910 of 1019 respondents admitting to voting Remain.  It's way out of line with reality. 

I was getting at whether their views are moved from London to the Midlands based on proportional demographic information only, without looking at what they said, or chosen more selectively for their views.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

That sounds like a very odd weighting methodology. Are you sure you've got it right?


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 19, 2016)

YouSir said:


> It's a Progress effort isn't it? So Sainsbury probably.



Spinwatch has it linked to an NHS contractor http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/lobbying/item/5883-saving-labour-linked-to-nhs-contractor
So who is bankrolling it, heaven knows, but the registration by Quality Health might give a clue as to which interests are being served here. They probably ain't ours.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2016)

Angela Eagle quits Labour leadership contest


----------



## Tankus (Jul 19, 2016)

will anyone outside the party notice ?


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 19, 2016)

My blood pressure must be all over the fucking place.


----------



## Ole (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> Well Ashcroft's weighting in the ref exit poll amounted to half a dozen or so being moved geographically to get the weighting right (in a much larger sample).



That can't be right can it? Do you have a link to the poll?



> Not 25% of respondents from London being counted as though they represented opinion in the Midlands.  Or sampling which included 910 of 1019 respondents admitting to voting Remain.  It's way out of line with reality.



What are the real Remain figures then? IIRC previous polls have found it to be >80%. 



> I was getting at whether their views are moved from London to the Midlands based on proportional demographic information only, without looking at what they said, or chosen more selectively for their views.



I was under the impression that all weighting was done 'proportionally' i.e. according to some number of variables which are known for the population (which looks like the case here). Not that I've ever conducted a scientific poll. How does 'selective' weighting work then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Angela Eagle quits Labour leadership contest



The nation mourns


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Angela Eagle quits Labour leadership contest



Thing is, are us proles supposed to think Aaargh Eagle was a half way decent choice to begin with, though tainted with the blood of the innocents of Iraq, and then grateful for a less gaffe-prone, more people friendly NHS privatiser?

Maybe the people promoting Aaargh's bid had thought Iraq was as far from the membership's minds as it is from theirs and then needed just anybody at all that cannot be branded a warmongering, election-rigging bastard.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 19, 2016)

The brick would have been a better candidate. Is it too late to get the nominations?


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Ole said:


> That can't be right can it? Do you have a link to the poll?


well, eg Ashcroft sampled 1292 voters in London and allocated 8 to elsewhere.  
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/How-the-UK-voted-Full-tables-1.pdf


> What are the real Remain figures then? IIRC previous polls have found it to be >80%.


48% nationally.  60% in London. Full results are in wiki. Ashcroft estimated 63% of Labour voters voted Remain. A poll based on 90% Remain voters being representative lacks credibility.



> I was under the impression that all weighting was done 'proportionally' i.e. according to some number of variables which are known for the population (which looks like the case here). Not that I've ever conducted a scientific poll.



I posted a bit about Ashcrofts take on variables and compared it to the census on one or other of these threads.	 

Nor me. 


> How does 'selective' weighting work then?


Unethically.


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2016)

Rumours going around that the fee is also so high so they can pay companies to search prospective voters FB etc for insults like 'traitor' etc.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

That isn't how weighting works newbie. The respondents aren't allocated elsewhere, the figures are inflated (or reduced) for each demographic sampled so they reflect the actual % demographic split is all.


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2016)

> Hello
> 
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> ...



Some people are getting this automated email, its from the last leadership election!


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 19, 2016)

Smith says he's just as radical as Corbyn. He also said on Sunday he's a supporter of austerity. They really, really, really do not get it do they? Interestingly I  spoke to a woman who comes into my shop, early 20s, politics student and a big supporter of Corbyn. She said she's a member and will be voting for him but she's so disgusted with the way the party has tried to rig this with its voting barriers and exclusionary tactics that she'll leave if Corbyn doesn't win. I actually think she was a member before Corbyn. If that's repeated across the board, which I believe it will be then that's cause for some optimism regardless of the result.


----------



## Ole (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> 48% nationally.  60% in London. Full results are in wiki. Ashcroft estimated 63% of Labour voters voted Remain. A poll based on 90% Remain voters being representative lacks credibility.


The population in this case is Labour members though, not the general population.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Dinner parties?



Food banks


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> That isn't how weighting works newbie. The respondents aren't allocated elsewhere, the figures are inflated (or reduced) for each demographic sampled so they reflect the actual % demographic split is all.


If I've misunderstood I'd appreciate a decent explanation based on the numbers. In the Yougov poll 1019 people responded, 1019 responses counted.  216 people were in Midlands/Wales but 339 responses were allocated there.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Smith says he's just as radical as Corbyn. He also said on Sunday he's a supporter of austerity. They really, really, really do not get it do they?



Plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Smith and attack him, but I think the sunday austerity comment was just him mangling his words and Eagle & Marr doing a somewhat confusing job of correcting the error.

I'm pretty sure he misspoke because elsewhere the non-mangled version of his oh so cleverly planned sound-bite was reported. e.g.:

'The biggest idea I will be offering is yes we need to be anti-austerity but we need to be pro prosperity'.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> If I've misunderstood I'd appreciate a decent explanation based on the numbers. In the Yougov poll 1019 people responded, 1019 responses counted.  216 people were in Midlands/Wales but 339 responses were allocated there.


each Midlands/Wales response was weighed at x1.56944444444 its original value - so, 21 polled would become 33 responses in the final figures


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

Ole said:


> The population in this case is Labour members though, not the general population.


do you have figures for how (2015) Labour members voted in the ref?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> If I've misunderstood I'd appreciate a decent explanation based on the numbers. In the Yougov poll 1019 people responded, 1019 responses counted.  216 people were in Midlands/Wales but 339 responses were allocated there.


You're probably best just reading about survey methodology rather than have me attempt a further explanation tbh. This is as good as anything I can find after a cursory google.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 19, 2016)

Apparently you can only pay the £25 fee if you have a credit card. What. The. Fuck.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2016)

belboid said:


> each Midlands/Wales response was weighed at x1.56944444444 its original value - so, 21 polled would become 33 responses in the final figures


ok, tvm


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Apparently you can only pay the £25 fee if you have a credit card. What. The. Fuck.



I wonder if they're PCI-DSS compliant or whether it's some sort of last minute lash up?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 19, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I wonder if they're PCI-DSS compliant or whether it's some sort of last minute lash up?



PCI-DSS?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Apparently you can only pay the £25 fee if you have a credit card. What. The. Fuck.



It doesn't work with a Visa debit card?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2016)

it did with mine


----------



## NoXion (Jul 19, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It doesn't work with a Visa debit card?



I wouldn't know, I don't have one. There's a Visa logo but that could mean anything, I've always paid for things with either cash or gift vouchers.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> PCI-DSS?


Security data protection etc for transactions.
I'm filling out the form for this right now and its ***ing murder


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> I wouldn't know, I don't have one. There's a Visa logo but that could mean anything



OK, what you've got (most likely) is a Visa debit card then. You should be able to pay with it.


----------



## Ole (Jul 19, 2016)

newbie said:


> do you have figures for how (2015) Labour members voted in the ref?


No. But that is the only population this sample is supposed to represent. So saying that the sample is not credible because it is 90% remain and the general population was 48% remain, doesn't make any sense.

ETA: A YouGov poll post-Brexit says pre-2015 election Labour members voted 93% remain.

That same poll has all Labour members at 90% remain.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...ogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf


----------



## NoXion (Jul 19, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> OK, what you've got (most likely) is a Visa debit card then. You should be able to pay with it.



Sorry, I meant the Visa logo was on the application page. There is no such logo on my card and previous attempts to use it in such a manner have uniformly been failures. The only thing I know for certain that I can use the card for is to withdraw money from the ATMs of the bank that issued the card.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't even know where to start with this. 

Like...  WHAT?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Sorry, I meant the Visa logo was on the application page. There is no such logo on my card and previous attempts to use it in such a manner have uniformly been failures. The only thing I know for certain that I can use the card for is to withdraw money from the ATMs of the bank that issued the card.



Ah, OK gotcha. That's not good then.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> OK, what you've got (most likely) is a Visa debit card then. You should be able to pay with it.



it did with mine


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I don't even know where to start with this.
> 
> Like...  WHAT?



they all say they're left wing. it just doesn't mean anything.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Angela Eagle quits Labour leadership contest



I think she spent longer announcing she was going to stand than she did standing.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 19, 2016)

elbows said:


> Plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Smith and attack him, but I think the sunday austerity comment was just him mangling his words and Eagle & Marr doing a somewhat confusing job of correcting the error.
> 
> I'm pretty sure he misspoke because elsewhere the non-mangled version of his oh so cleverly planned sound-bite was reported. e.g.:
> 
> 'The biggest idea I will be offering is yes we need to be anti-austerity but we need to be pro prosperity'.



If being pro-prosperity is not the same thing as being anti-austerity, what is it?

It's kind of easier to muddle your words when they are coming from the head and not the heart. Like fuck is Owen Smith anti-austerity. He is, like the good PR man that he is, embarking on a Orwellian rebranding of the term 'austerity'. "prosperity' sounds so much more appealing doesn't it?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 19, 2016)

On JC's tweeter.



I thought having ever expressed any opinion in favour of another party ruled you out now.

Or are ex-tories welcome?


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 19, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> If being pro-prosperity is not the same thing as being anti-austerity, what is it?
> 
> It's kind of easier to muddle your words when they are coming from the head and not the heart. Like fuck is Owen Smith anti-austerity. He is, like the good PR man that he is, embarking on a Orwellian rebranding of the term 'austerity'. "prosperity' sounds so much more appealing doesn't it?



'Pro-prosperity' is textbook neoliberal trickle-down-economics 'intensely relaxed about the rich' Blairism, is what it is. Utterly incompatible with anti-austerity but who cares because 'middle England'll probably be fine with it as long as we promise not to make them any worse off.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 19, 2016)

elbows said:


> Plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Smith and attack him, but I think the sunday austerity comment was just him mangling his words and Eagle & Marr doing a somewhat confusing job of correcting the error.
> 
> I'm pretty sure he misspoke because elsewhere the non-mangled version of his oh so cleverly planned sound-bite was reported. e.g.:
> 
> 'The biggest idea I will be offering is yes we need to be anti-austerity but we need to be pro prosperity'.


Oh wow what a wonderfully inspiring phrase that sounds nothing like new labour at all. I'll rush to pay my £25 and throw my full weight behind him immediately...


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2016)

Well I'm so cynical I probably shouldn't bother following this party political circus at all. But since I am, I will ascribe a more neutral interpretation to the phrase pro-prosperity. I know it is probably very easy to find the phrase being used across quite a range of right wing and libertarian political and economic stances. But I think its been used by the left too, perhaps more in the USA than here. 

So for now I'm going to assume its a totally empty phrase at the moment, rather than a demonstration of his latent Blairism. I'll have to wait for slogans that have at least a hint of actual policy in them to judge properly. 

Part of the reason I'm doing this is that its not clear to me that all those who worshipped at the altar of Blairism and neoliberalism think that the future will be cast along the very same boundaries. They are probably seeking a reconstruction, and there are battles to be fought about what aspects of blairism gets ditched, what stuff 'of the left' can be turned into policy, etc. It's not a battle I'm truly fascinated by because its still most likely to be shit, wedded to the dominant economic ideologies, and going nowhere near far enough towards a future I'd like to see. But there is still a little bit of wiggle room in terms of future policy positions of the PLP so I won't assume too much yet.

Take for example trickle-down which you mention. I vividly remember it being acknowledged in the wake of the financial crisis that this particular aspect of neoliberal economic propaganda was dead. It's one of the only things I saw conceded on the ideological front. But then nothing much else happened. We were still treated to austerity and the dull, narrow crap non-debates around it. And even the master bullshitters seemed low on the sort of bullshit that they could jam into the hole that trickle-down once filled. The internal 'debate' about Labours future would be much easier for the Blairites to ride to success if the could come up with something at least half-convincing to fill that hole too. Maybe there is nothing of that sort that will fill it. Its no wonder people seek to return to some previously ditched labour left policies instead, see if any of them can be scrunched into the hole without ditching any other part of the capitalism & markets dream. Hell look at the noises even Theresa May makes on this front - I'm not claiming the Tories will follow through with any of them but its blatantly obvious that the message she thinks she needs to send out on the economic front is not of the Blairite style.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2016)

elbows said:


> Well I'm so cynical I probably shouldn't bother following this party political circus at all. But since I am, I will ascribe a more neutral interpretation to the phrase pro-prosperity. I know it is probably very easy to find the phrase being used across quite a range of right wing and libertarian political and economic stances. But I think its been used by the left too, perhaps more in the USA than here.
> 
> So for now I'm going to assume its a totally empty phrase at the moment, rather than a demonstration of his latent Blairism. I'll have to wait for slogans that have at least a hint of actual policy in them to judge properly.



I think they repeatedly use it because it works - especially when faced with challenges from the left where the stock response seems to be tax and spend, or borrow, tax and spend.  It is a very easy thing to package to an electorate whose experience is that they cannot spend their way out of a crisis, so don't expect the Government to be able to.  

I am not sure that McDonnell et al recognize this sufficiently yet either, especially based on recent statements - what they should be doing before anything else is highlighting waste like PFI deals, the IEP contract, the NHS market, all the HB money that goes to private landlords (rather than building council housing) etc etc; after all the PLP being in revolt does give them an opportunity to absolutely slate their record, as well as that of the Tories.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 19, 2016)

Smith says he is as radical as corbyn. Anyone know bona fide credentials such as extra parliamentary activism etc?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Smith says he is as radical as corbyn. Anyone mnpw bona fide credentials such as extra parliamentary activism etc?


Check him out on Wikipedia. He is just a recycled PR man from a drug company.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2016)

He didn't say he's a radical left winger tbf. Just that' he's radical.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Angela Eagle quits Labour leadership contest





> Mr Smith has positioned himself slightly to the left of Ms Smith, stressing his anti-austerity credentials


 They mean Eagle right? 



> Angela will be alongside me as my right hand woman.


 AHa!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I don't even know where to start with this.
> 
> Like...  WHAT?




She would nationalise things in an alternate universe, how dare you question her socialist credentials.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Check him out on Wikipedia. He is just a recycled PR man from a drug company.



And born to be Taffia by way of his dad.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> He didn't say he's a radical left winger tbf. Just that' he's radical.



Weren't the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fond of saying that too ? 
Iirc they were irritating cunts and all .


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

Watching Newsnight, momentum in Sheffield come across a lot better than 'Saving Labour' in London. The anti-Corbynites appear hostile, rude, called Corbyn a 'monster' and so on while the momentum members calmly persuade.

Total opposite of media narrative.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2016)

That being said, why is James Schneider on Newsnight as Corbyn's spokesperson? Not sure if having someone who is both privately educated and so young vs Stephen Kinnock looks great, makes the leadership look unserious.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2016)

Saving Labour seems quite shady ...

'Saving Labour' linked to NHS contractor


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2016)

I saw today  that Momentum are changing their name to Jeremy For Leader? True?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Saving Labour seems quite shady ...
> 
> 'Saving Labour' linked to NHS contractor




Reg Race?? I thought he was dead.

Might as well be ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I saw today  that Momentum are changing their name to Jeremy For Leader? True?




Surely  #JC4PM   ??


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2016)

just googled and this came up? Momentum Deny Changing Its Name After Company Becomes 'Jeremy For Labour'

The Jeremy Corbyn-backing Momentum group has denied changing its name, despite the company which runs the organisation rebranding ahead of this summer’s Labour leadership contest. The organisation was registered with Companies House as Momentum Campaign Ltd until Monday, when it was changed to Jeremy for Labour Ltd. The new name echoes the group’s original title, Jeremy Corbyn Campaign 2015 (Supporters) Ltd, which it was called when officially registered on June 24 last year. Despite the company literally changing its name, Momentum spokesman James Schneider told HuffPost UK: “Momentum hasn’t changed its name. “The company that has changed its name is a Data Controller registered with the ICO [Information Commissioner’s Office]. “The company has changed its name to make clear its relationship with this year’s Jeremy for Labour leadership campaign, for which it is the Data Processor. ‘Data Controller’ and ‘Data Processor’ are terms used by the ICO to determine who decides what to do with data and who subsequently acts upon it. In the context of the leadership election, it means personal information submitted to Momentum – such as email addresses and phone numbers - can now be used by the Jeremy for Labour Ltd campaign. Labour MPs Angela Eagle and Owen Smith are currently both seeking to challenge Corbyn for the Labour leadership, after the Islington North MP lost a vote of no confidence among the parliamentary party. Momentum has been organising rallies in support of Corbyn’s leadership which have attracted not only Labour members but followers of other political parties – such as the Socialist Workers. Thousands of Corbyn supporters crammed into Parliament Square last month as members of the Shadow Cabinet quit en masse in protest at the party leader. Corbyn himself addressed the activists, as did long-term ally Diane Abbott and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. ▶ Full story on huffingtonpost.co.uk


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I saw today that Momentum are changing their name to Jeremy For Leader? True?


 
nothing on their website or tweeter feed about it.

they have got the web domain Jeremy for Labour as well.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That being said, why is James Schneider on Newsnight as Corbyn's spokesperson? Not sure if having someone who is both privately educated and so young vs Stephen Kinnock looks great, makes the leadership look unserious.



The leadership is pretty relaxed about private, or at least privileged, education. How could they not be?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The brick would have been a better candidate. Is it too late to get the nominations?


Unfortunately, the brick signed the papers for a Socialist Alliance candidate in 2002.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Stephen Kinnock is a loathsome twat. Not sure where he got that from?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 20, 2016)

The interview on HS2 that the ex shadow transport minister was using as part of her justification of resigning.



> NEW Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has told the New Journal that he backs spending on high-speed rail, but will urge the government to investigate terminating a new north-south railway before it reaches Euston.
> 
> With confusion reigning at the Labour Party conference in Brighton as to how the party now views a  £50billion spend on the High Speed 2 project from London to Birmingham and the North, we tracked down Mr Corbyn, his shadow chancellor John McDonnell and new shadow transport secretary Lilian Greenwood.
> 
> ...


LABOUR IN BRIGHTON: Corbyn says yes to high speed rail but raises alarm over HS2's final stop in Euston | Camden New Journal

Looks to me like Corbyn pretty much said the same thing as Greenwood, just went a bit further on discussing the options he thought should be considered around Old Oak Common, and saying that this still needed discussing at cabinet.

If anything it looks like she jumped the gun in thinking her view was the official collective view of the party leadership if it hadn't been discussed at a cabinet meeting. Collective responsibility surely means that sort of thing should be discussed before being viewed as official policy, discussions with policy head or leader would be just that.  That's probably how Corbyn would have viewed it anyway.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Stephen Kinnock is a loathsome twat. Not sure where he got that from?



That nut hasn't fallen far from the tree  as it!


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 20, 2016)

This post cropped up on a facebook page. Have no idea if it is the real story but it sounds plausible.


******************************************************************
Please read and share this Exposé on Owen Smith MP

Owen Smith MP, who is challenging Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, has a lot of dirty linen that he does not want washed in public. Luckily, I have brought my own box of Daz.

I have it on very good authority (from someone within the Blarite Labour camp, who is disgusted by the behind-the-scenes secret-deals, funny handshakes, and distain for the voters), of the following:

1. Owen Smith is actually the original perpetrator of the challenge to Jeremy Corbyn (and has been for a very time). The agenda for the leadership challenge was set up in April! Yes, that’s right, April and not July. Angela Eagle was brought in as a ruse, to make Owen look good. Eagle actually believed that she had a chance. She had none. This was a coup d'état with only a few of the players in the know. Angela Eagle was not one of them. She was deliberately led down the garden path to make mistakes and look foolish (and didn’t she rise to the challenge). Owen Smith’s agenda during the interview with Eagle on the recent BBC news show is obvious for all to see. When Owen indicated that: “He would withdraw from the contest if Ms Eagle won more support among Labour MPs”, you could almost see him snigger. Smith already knew the agenda was set. He already knew who his supporters were and also those of Eagle. So, the interview was merely play-acting on his part.

2. Owen Smith had always intended to split the Labour Party (right from the beginning). Apparently, Owen Smith believes he can head Jeremy Corbyn off at the pass. It goes something like this: should Corbyn win, none of the MP’s will take cabinet positions (this has already been decided by those in the know). Smith believes that by doing this, it will split the party in two. This is what he wants. Smith realises that Jeremy has so much grass-roots support, that he is unable to successfully win in that quarter. However, a split party is a weakened party and he intends to take full advantage of it.

3. Many of the Blairite MP’s have been offered powerful positions and sweetheart deals, should they vote against Corbyn. It is extremely hush-hush and it does explain why so many MP’s suddenly went against Corbyn. Those who sat on the fence eventually decided to support ANYBODY other than Corbyn. I would suggest that once Jeremy Corbyn gets in, that the bank accounts and behind-the-scene deals of these MP’s are investigated. The whole system that they are involved in is so incredibly corrupt.

4. As many of you know, Smith was a lobbyist for Pfizer. As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right-wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services.

Pfizer is among the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. Big Pharma seeks enormous profits over the health and well-being of the humans it serves, and these drug companies invasively corrupt the way that the healthcare industry delivers its vital services. Corrupt being the operative word.

So, why was Owen involved with an American company? Well, Owen Smith is on record as saying that: “.... Pfizer had been “extremely supportive” of his aspirations to public office”. Make of that what you will.

Well, I am sure that Pfizer would love to get their toe in the door of the British NHS and Owen is their man to do just that!

During his time as chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Owen Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. Therefore, we know that the NHS will definitely not be safe in his hands. Should he become leader of the Labour Party, it will only be a matter of time before he will use his influence to start the process for privatisation of the NHS.

What we will end up with is something akin to the American system, where you will need to show your credit card (or insurance papers), before receiving treatment. Americans (rich and poor), have to find ways of paying for their very expensive treatments, should they get sick. This is our future, should Owen Smith become leader of the Labour Party.

And, if you think things could not get dirtier, Owen Smith is a strong supporter of Trident and assiduously courts the arms industry. He is a regular at defence industry events.

This is dirty dealing, folks. THIS is what we will get should Smith rise to power. If you value your future and well-being of your family, then you must do everything you can to ensure that he cannot continue his corrupt agenda. If he gains leadership, we really can say goodbye to the NHS and a whole lot more.

Please share this message as far and wide as you can, since the people need to know what is going on.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 20, 2016)

Why would Blairite MPs need to be offered anything to vote against Corbyn?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 20, 2016)

Good question .... but squirrelp , I hope you don't mind that I've just crossposted a link to the above onto the other (Owen Smith) thread also. Need to be read/assessed there too.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 20, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Why would Blairite MPs need to be offered anything to vote against Corbyn?


Voting no-confidence in Corbyn is utterly absurd by any reasonable measure and treacherous. I think it's important to take a step back and realise that groups just do not behave in such a way unless they are corrupted somehow.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Don't buy it. There's nothing there, it's pure speculation.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 20, 2016)

The stuff about Eagle being set up is highly plausible.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

So what? Anyone can make up a plausible story. There's no evidence there though, just a convenient  (unnamed) 'disgusted blairite'.

It pays to be suspicious of anything that finishes with _Please share this message as far and wide as you can_ IMO.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> It pays to be suspicious of anything that finishes with _Please share this message as far and wide as you can[/i ] IMO._



Or anything that "cropped up on a Facebook page"


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 20, 2016)

Do Labour intend to overturn EVEL? Because if not, Owen Smith, were he to become PM, would not be able to vote on his own government's health or education policies.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b is right of course -- I was going to add anyway myself that there's a fuck load of speculation in there. Circumstantial stuff, light on actual evidence.

Maybe not _complete_ bollocks though? Thought it was worth a read whatever.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 20, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Good question .... but squirrelp , I hope you don't mind that I've just crossposted a link to the above onto the other (Owen Smith) thread also. Need to be read/assessed there too.


You're most welcome William


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 20, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> You're most welcome William




No probs, but as I've just posted, I have big doubts about the actual story -- just wanted people to read/talk about it.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 20, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> killer b is right of course -- I was going to add anyway myself that there's a fuck load of speculation in there. Circumstantial stuff, light on actual evidence.
> 
> Maybe not _complete_ bollocks though? Thought it was worth a read whatever.


There's no evidence at all. It's not speculation. It claims to be the inside story which it either is or isn't.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> killer b is right of course -- I was going to add anyway myself that there's a fuck load of speculation in there. Circumstantial stuff, light on actual evidence.
> 
> Maybe not _complete_ bollocks though? Thought it was worth a read whatever.


You know how conspiracy theories take hold right? They take some known fact, then whip em all up with some plausible (and not so plausible) speculation. It's going to be really tedious the next few days as people triumphantly post this made up story all over the shop as if it's check mate. I doubt even the canary would print this, it's so empty of facts.


----------



## elbows (Jul 20, 2016)

It doesn't read like an insider expose, in part because it lacks focus. Especially the second half is just a mishmash of already well discussed factoids, taken somewhat out of context.

For example the following:



squirrelp said:


> So, why was Owen involved with an American company? Well, Owen Smith is on record as saying that: “.... Pfizer had been “extremely supportive” of his aspirations to public office”. Make of that what you will.



That was from his first disastrous attempt to become an MP in a by-election. Since he was still working for Pfizer at the time of the campaign it was just a standard canned response to questions about that dynamic. Thats not to say I trust him with NHS decisions at all or think his Pfizer history is irrelevant, but that particular quote is hardly a useful part of a focussed insider expose.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Aside from the valid cynicism already expressed above, to believe that post is accurate, wouldn't you have to accept that Owen Smith is _it_ - that Eagle was a stalking horse for this... guinea pig?

The Blairites' sheer arrogance may yet be their undoing, but I still find it hard to believe they don't have _anyone _more plausible than this up their sleeves. It seems much more likely that the real candidate, whoever it was, has quietly and wisely withdrawn back into the shadows after seeing the widespread scorn and derision the two declared candidates' bids have attracted from their electorate. Unlike Eagle, Smith does at least seem to have some sort of plan beyond blankly repeating what gender he is and which part of the country he's from, but surely to fuck he's not their secret weapon?


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> There's no evidence at all. It's not speculation. It claims to be the inside story which it either is or isn't.


it isn't. someone has worked up the stuff that's already been doing the rounds of twitter etc and sprinkled it with a bit of guess work. there's no detail whatsoever that suggests it came from anyone in the know and most of the points don't seem like the sort of thing a Blairite insider would raise anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Aside from the valid cynicism already expressed above, to believe that post is accurate, wouldn't you have to accept that Owen Smith is _it_ - that Eagle was a stalking horse for this... guinea pig?
> 
> The Blairites' sheer arrogance may yet be their undoing, but I still find it hard to believe they don't have _anyone _more plausible than this up their sleeves. It seems much more likely that the real candidate, whoever it was, has quietly and wisely withdrawn back into the shadows after seeing the widespread scorn and derision the two declared candidates' bids have attracted from their electorate. Unlike Eagle, Smith does at least seem to have some sort of plan beyond blankly repeating what gender he is and which part of the country he's from, but surely to fuck he's not their secret weapon?


Now you know why they wanted to keep it secret


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 20, 2016)

I've seen a couple of other source-less things like this being pushed on social media.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Now you know why they wanted to keep it secret



Seriously. Eagle as Trojan Rabbit, Smith as the empty space within.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 20, 2016)

elbows said:


> It doesn't read like an insider expose, in part because it lacks focus. Especially the second half is just a mishmash of already well discussed factoids, taken somewhat out of context.
> 
> For example the following:
> 
> ...



Also "why was Owen involved with an American company?" Is ridiculous - Pfizer uk have a couple of thousand uk employees.

You could say similar things about someone who had worked for any multinational employer.

Alex


----------



## Ole (Jul 20, 2016)

I knew it was bollocks when it said at the beginning that the challenge actually began behind the scenes in April ('April!'). John Mann has recently gone on the record to say he was approached 6 months ago to back Owen Smith in a leadership challenge, which he declined to do.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 20, 2016)

Local TUSC member proclaiming on the local "news" page on Facebook that there will be a 'huge' rally for Corbyn on the weekend - 150-200 to attend, they've been liaising with the police...
"Come along and hear over 7 Trade Union and Socialist Party speakers".
Over 7!

Same guy predicts Corbyn will win and return Labour to socialism.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

55,000 have signed up so far despite the £25, apparently. The party coffers will certainly benefit, even if no one else does.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

S☼I said:


> "Come along and hear over 7 Trade Union and Socialist Party speakers".
> Over 7!



The left can't do marketing at all, can it? 'Nearly 10' would obviously sound better.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Not mentioning them at all would probably work best.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 20, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Voting no-confidence in Corbyn is utterly absurd by any reasonable measure and treacherous. I think it's important to take a step back and realise that groups just do not behave in such a way unless they are corrupted somehow.



All 172 MPs who were voted no confidence have been promised jobs? There are also a significant amount (but unlikely a majority) of Labour members councillors,  particularly fulltimers or those in minor or higher up party positions who also support getting rid of Corbyn. Are they all doing it because they have been promised a reward?

It's quite clear that they are not all being bribed into turning on Corbyn, they are doing it because he is taking the party into a direction they don't want and they think they are losing control. For a long time the party has been managed so that it operates along very narrow ideological lines, essentially supporting the neoliberal consensus. Some justify it on the grounds that anything else makes them unelectable, others don't even require that justification. Either way this means they will do whatever they can to get rid of Corbyn as soon as possible.

There's an anti-Corbyn post going around facebook "debunking" a lot of the myths about Corbyn and the plot. One point they make is that it's not a Blairite plot against Corbyn because there are many Brown supporters involved as well. They kind of have a point in that the Labour establishment's opposition to Corbyn goes beyond just the committed Blairites, a wider section of the party's management also feel threatened. I do think that the 'Brownites' or so called soft left are somewhat being set up. They have done the dirty work in the coup and even if they topple Corbyn there is very little chance of winning the next election. After that the Blairites such as Dan Jarvis, Chuka Umunna can turn around and point to the repeated failure of the 'soft left', Brown, Miliband and Smith and say that the only way of winning is to push even further to the right.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> Not mentioning them at all would probably work best.



How about 'no more than 7 or your money back'?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

I love that Labour Party people are suddenly really concerned about Owen Smith being misrepresented over this Pfizer role.

What possible cause could there be for the rise of a climate in which half truths and deliberate falsehoods are spread?


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Combustible said:


> All 172 MPs who were voted no confidence have been promised jobs? There are also a significant amount (but unlikely a majority) of Labour members councillors,  particularly fulltimers or those in minor or higher up party positions who also support getting rid of Corbyn. Are they all doing it because they have been promised a reward?
> 
> It's quite clear that they are not all being bribed into turning on Corbyn, they are doing it because he is taking the party into a direction they don't want and they think they are losing control. For a long time the party has been managed so that it operates along very narrow ideological lines, essentially supporting the neoliberal consensus. Some justify it on the grounds that anything else makes them unelectable, others don't even require that justification. Either way this means they will do whatever they can to get rid of Corbyn as soon as possible.
> 
> There's an anti-Corbyn post going around facebook "debunking" a lot of the myths about Corbyn and the plot. One point they make is that it's not a Blairite plot against Corbyn because there are many Brown supporters involved as well. They kind of have a point in that the Labour establishment's opposition to Corbyn goes beyond just the committed Blairites, a wider section of the party's management also feel threatened. I do think that the 'Brownites' or so called soft left are somewhat being set up. They have done the dirty work in the coup and even if they topple Corbyn there is very little chance of winning the next election. After that the Blairites such as Dan Jarvis, Chuka Umunna can turn around and point to the repeated failure of the 'soft left', Brown, Miliband and Smith and say that the only way of winning is to push even further to the right.



I think most people using the term 'Blairite' in this context are using it as shorthand for 'New Labour', ie everything that the party has stood for since it dropped even the rhetoric of opposing Thatcherite ideals. The idea that there's any _meaningful _ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

S☼I said:


> Local TUSC member proclaiming on the local "news" page on Facebook that there will be a 'huge' rally for Corbyn on the weekend - 150-200 to attend, they've been liaising with the police...
> "Come along and hear over 7 Trade Union and Socialist Party speakers".
> Over 7!
> 
> Same guy predicts Corbyn will win and return Labour to socialism.


a magnificent seven
but before the day's out there'll have been the return of the seven, not to mention the magnificent seven ride again
perhaps one or two would be better as you'll soon clear the square or park with seven


----------



## Combustible (Jul 20, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> The idea that there's any _meaningful _ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.



I broadly agree, especially when comparing Brown to Blair. I don't think the opposition to Ed Miliband from the Progress supporters was purely down to personal rivalries, they clearly wanted to push Labour into an even more pro-austerity, pro-privatisation direction. But that doesn't mean there was a massive difference between them and one of the ways to maintain a very narrow ideological conformity is to make a big deal out of any slight deviation from the orthodoxy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I think most people using the term 'Blairite' in this context are using it as shorthand for 'New Labour', ie everything that the party has stood for since it dropped even the rhetoric of opposing Thatcherite ideals. The idea that there's any _meaningful _ideological difference between Blairites and Brownites is misleading - those factions only exist because of the personal rivalry between the two.


But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party. 

All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 20, 2016)

So did you lot see Newsnight last night? It was suggested that if, I mean when, Corbyn wins the leadership that MPs could possibly then continue an ongoing protest of attrition by just not being willing to serve on the front bench. I would have thought that Corbyn would then just appoint MPs that are willing to serve. 

However, then it really gets down to the issue they are in contention with Jeremy about. If his leadership skills are as they suggest then do these other MPs stick with him as well? If so then the current lot have totally lost and would have to split. If not then Labour is back to where it is today. ( I would have thought that it would be easy for Corbyn to obviously appoint those willing to serve no matter what, so I don't really get how this supposed act of attrition would work, but I'm just relaying what was muted on the tellybox ).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> So did you lot see Newsnight last night? It was suggested that if, I mean when, Corbyn wins the leadership that MPs could possibly then continue an ongoing protest of attrition by just not being willing to serve on the front bench. I would have thought that Corbyn would then just appoint MPs that are willing to serve.



Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Labour First and Luke Akehurst will have to keep the bulk of the party with them: which is unlikely, after another Corbyn victory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.


just in case it's never been said here before, luke akehurst is a right wing zionist shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Labour First and Luke Akehurst have explicitly said this was the strategy being pursued.


Akehurst may be getting a bit ahead of his boots there. Most MPs are MPs for a reason - and it's not to pursue the sort of far-right-labour politics he actually believes in and fights dirty for. #1 is to keep their job


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 20, 2016)

Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*

I think we can all stop this blairite-this and pfizer-that stuff now and just cheer on the two chaps and hope the best one wins.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

Owen Smith on Victoria Derbyshire today, arguing that Corbyn had nothing to do with fighting cuts to PIP payments and that Smith was the only person who slew the IDS dragon.

This was followed by his accusation that Corbyn has encouraged the abuse and harassment of women online. This narrative is actually more specific and more top down than the berniebro narrative the HRC campaign used in the US, at least Hillary Clinton was smart enough to have other people accuse Bernie Sanders of harassing women instead of associating herself directly with obvious lies.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

Sort of means he can't adopt the "well I know that Corbyn's an honest candidate with integrity but it's his leadership and policies I'm criticizing".


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*
> 
> I think we can all stop this blairite-this and pfizer-that stuff now and just cheer on the two chaps and hope the best one wins.



I drink my tea out of a crystal champagne flute balanced on the backs of subjugated workers. What are my chances of becoming the next leader of the Labour Party?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Sort of means he can't adopt the "well I know that Corbyn's an honest candidate with integrity but it's his leadership and policies I'm criticizing".



He's obviously to run on a platform of 'I am as left-wing as Corbyn but I don't hate Britain and I don't encourage the harassment of women'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

... but clearly a better candidate than the woman who was up against me.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 20, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Didn't you all read the guardian interview with Owen? He's very trustworthy because he *usually has his tea in a mug* like *a normal person*


I would trust him more if he openly flouted the fact that he imbibes a heady mix of hydraulic fluid, methanol and congealed infant blood from the broken skull of a murdered monk via his manifold gleaming mouth-tentacles.

At least then he would have something about him, more than this nothing-to-see-here-officer shell of a man that would only be properly at home on the bleaker episodes of Doctor Who.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party.
> 
> All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.


Could you define the difference between those three groups? I'm sure there are differences but in practice I wonder what they are


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

mauvais said:


> this nothing-to-see-here-officer shell of a man that would only be properly at home on the bleaker episodes of Doctor Who.


yes.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ... but clearly a better candidate than the woman who was up against me.


To be fair, he is a better _candidate_ and he seems to be running a better campaign in that he's actually discussing policies and politics unlike Aargh who just kept repeating she was a northern woman. There was never any hope of taking Corbyn from an obviously right wing position, that's why he's claiming to be left wing. He's assured the right's 'anyone but Corbyn' vote anyway so he has to try to steal as many left wing votes as possible.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> yes.


How did I get here? Why is there this puddle of family-appropriate syrup in the Prime Minister's office? Why can't I forget that man's face? _Oh god, why can't I remember that man's face?_


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn just won the right to fight those that want to keep him off leadership ballot


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> Don't buy it. There's nothing there, it's pure speculation.


Neither do I (except point 2 - Stephen Kinnock was already using the 'I won't serve in his  shadow cabinet' line on Newsnight last night).  It's devoid of specifics about the when and who of the coup, whilst also being stuff that you'd guess is obviously true about plotters anyway.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> But there are meaningful differences between the New Labour/Progress group, the "soft-left" group and the Blue Labour/Labour right grouping. To simply put all these people into the same Blairite group is daft, it misses lots of intra-party politicking that is going on and gives a false picture of the internal dynamics of the Labour Party.
> 
> All three groups might be allied at the moment but there's still multiple competing tendencies beyond pro/anti-Corbyn.


I'm sure that's true, but the irony is even with this coalition of anti-Corbyn forces they are still very likely to lose the leadership election (even after the gerrymandering). A united minority, lol.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure that's true, but the irony is even with this coalition of anti-Corbyn forces they are still very likely to lose the leadership election (even after the gerrymandering). A united minority, lol.


the collective name for this united minority would be a rump. a rump of arses.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

I found these two articles (the second is a response to the first) worth reading - plenty to disagree with in both, but also lots to chew on: 

The Terrifying Hubris of Corbynism
The Matter of Corbynism


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Could you define the difference between those three groups?


The differences are as much to do with the historical traditions in the party as ideological.

Progress are the New Labour, neoliberal, "Blairites", people like Tristam Hunt, Kendall, Woodcock, Twigg etc.
The Blue Labour/Labour Right tendency is the most socially conservative grouping, in principle opposed to neoliberal economics but in practice these days their economic policies aren't a million miles from Progress.
The "soft-left" tendency are socially liberal but have a few remnants of social democratic beliefs still remaining in their political ideology, for example Ed Miliband keeping open some possible state involvement in railway services as opposed to Ball's desire for complete private ownership. Eagle, Owen Smith, Burnham are also in this section.

And here's an article (first posted by killer b) giving a quick summary of the different tendencies and looking at how they behaved in the last years leadership election



> To understand the emergent situation, it’s also necessary to have some sense of the internal political topology of the Labour Party. Broadly speaking, there are four main political currents which can be identified as still active in the party: the “hard left,” the “soft left,” the old Labour right, and the Blairites. None of these have had any official institutional form, although there have been formal organisations clearly associated with specific tendencies (such as the organisation Progress, which effectively functions as a Blairite caucus and cheerleading team). These are at best casual labels for tendencies which are themselves internally differentiated, but they are useful reference points nonetheless.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the collective name for this united minority would be a rump. a rump of arses.


Though after Aaargh's withdrawal they are a single united buttock.  I never thought this contest would throw up a Candide reference.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Though after Aaargh's withdrawal they are a single united buttock.  I never thought this contest would throw up a Candide reference.


everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds 

pity voltaire was such an anti-semite.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Jeremy Corbyn just won the right to fight those that want to keep him off leadership ballot



Haha McNichol was going to be the defendant, great defence I'm sure he'd have put up. "Plaintiff wishes to remove Corbyn's name from ballot paper". Defendant: "Ok go on then".


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 20, 2016)

Has anyone got any evidence that Smith proposed NHS privatisation during his time lobbying for Pfizer?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The differences are as much to do with the historical traditions in the party as ideological.
> 
> Progress are the New Labour, neoliberal, "Blairites", people like Tristam Hunt, Kendall, Woodcock, Twigg etc.
> The Blue Labour/Labour Right tendency is the most socially conservative grouping, in principle opposed to neoliberal economics but in practice these days their economic policies aren't a million miles from Progress.
> ...


I'll have a look at that article in a minute (broadband's fucked, it's loading it line by line), but Corbyn's own position in that schema is interesting. Throughout, particularly after going to one of his mass meetings before the last leadership election, I've always referred to him as a social democrat pure and simple.  That's probably a bit simplistic, but all of his solutions were around a defence of the NHS/welfare state, higher public spending and nationalisation (along with a defence of migrants that was perhaps a left position in the party as opposed to a social democratic one). He still holds onto a Labourist position, thinking the unions represent the working class and so are the party's prime link with the working class - though like the rest of the left he has moved beyond that, also seeing the party having a representative role around gender, ethnicity, disability and the like.  He's perhaps a 'left social democrat' - maybe a 'confident' social democrat, even a naïve social democrat in this era of globalisation.  Many of his supporters perhaps have a more definite view about extra-parliamentary action. However he also indicates how far the party has shifted for his brand of social democracy now to be the 'left position' in the party.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Has anyone got any evidence that Smith proposed NHS privatisation during his time lobbying for Pfizer?


I don't think he did. Crick has this from his 2005 tilt at a seat:


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Has anyone got any evidence that Smith proposed NHS privatisation during his time lobbying for Pfizer?



It depends what you mean by NHS privatization.  If you mean its removal and replacement by a US-style insurance system, then he probably didn't.  If you mean that he advocated getting Pfizer into the NHS market so that it could get guaranteed money off the state in return for providing services, then I would imagine there will be bucket-loads of evidence that he did - otherwise what would be the point of employing an ex-Labour SPAD?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

The other obvious point about Corbyn is that he managed to remain in the party - _supporting_ the party - amid the horrors of Blair's neo-liberalism and mass murders.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think he did. Crick has this from his 2005 tilt at a seat:


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

I was just reading this telegraph article on the very same topic.

No welcome in these valleys for Labour

Interviewer: And Mr Blair, is he a Socialist? 

Owen Smith: Yes


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

not just any auld lobbyist but pfizer's head of government affairs


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 20, 2016)

After having just watched PMQs the PLP really do make me sick.  The new PM has already continued with her party's smug, gloating, patronising and arrogant tone. Corbyn engaged with none of it, reminded her that people have sent them all there to represent them, brought up the issue of zero hours, shite pay, shite housing and food banks. What did the PLP do? Nothing, no cheering, no support they just sat there and let May answer again in the same tone.  Fuck the Labour Party.  I hope it fucking drowns if Corbyn loses and all his supporters can abandon it and build a movement outside of it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not just any auld lobbyist but pfizer's head of government affairs
> 
> View attachment 89746



This article  - This reform of NHS drug funding is not a sweet deal for big pharma - and the comments make interesting reading re. Pfizer and it interests...I'm not sure what sort of 'radical' would be their preferred 'head of government affairs'?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I found these two articles (the second is a response to the first) worth reading - plenty to disagree with in both, but also lots to chew on:
> 
> The Terrifying Hubris of Corbynism
> The Matter of Corbynism



Also this reply to the original article is worth a read I think

Thanks, in a way, for writing this.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 20, 2016)

elbows said:


> That was from his first disastrous attempt to become an MP in a by-election. Since he was still working for Pfizer at the time of the campaign it was just a standard canned response to questions about that dynamic. Thats not to say I trust him with NHS decisions at all or think his Pfizer history is irrelevant, but that particular quote is hardly a useful part of a focussed insider expose.


Fair point elbows.



Doctor Carrot said:


> Has anyone got any evidence that Smith proposed NHS privatisation during his time lobbying for Pfizer?



On the pfizer / NHS issue we have this from Craig Murray who asserts that Smith will indeed plan to privatise the NHS



> As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:
> 
> We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda.
> 
> ...


The Entirely Fake Owen Smith - Craig Murray


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Also this reply to the original article is worth a read I think
> 
> Thanks, in a way, for writing this.


Yes, this is good.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

More on the radical milieu from which Owen Smith emerged: Corporate Watch : Newsletter 27 : 3 - PFTHINK TANK PFONIES | Corporate Watch

If your looking for picket line heroics or day to battles in the workplace and the community you will come away disappointed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

I'm not sure which are worse, the Blairites who worked for companies like Pfizer before becoming an mp, or those who waited till after, leaving a decent interval of 30 seconds before sprinting towards the open arms of corporate filth.


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> More on the radical milieu from which Owen Jones emerged: Corporate Watch : Newsletter 27 : 3 - PFTHINK TANK PFONIES | Corporate Watch
> 
> If your looking for picket line heroics or day to battles in the workplace and the community you will come away disappointed.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


owen smith possibly?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

inva said:


> owen smith possibly?



Yep. And I bet it's not the last time I do it either.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yep. And I bet it's not the last time I do it either.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


he's so bland you can't even remember his name


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2016)

inva said:


> he's so bland you can't even remember his name



Was just writing an article about him, had to repeatedly Google his name and even now I get the feeling I've written Owen Jones by mistake.


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 20, 2016)

Older I get the harder it is to tell one capitalist running dog from another 

(It's even worse outside urban).


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 20, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> 55,000 have signed up so far despite the £25, apparently. The party coffers will certainly benefit, even if no one else does.


A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work. 

Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work.
> 
> Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members


Interesting - they were in massive debt until earlier this year, which hampered a lot of the ground based stuff that decent CLPs could get up to. Corbyn was personally liable for that debt i believe (happy to be be corrected). When he wins he now has the financial space to fund that sort of local/extra-parliamentary stuff he says he is going to based his leadership on. So thank you PLP.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work.
> 
> Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members


It would be interesting to see a transcript of the NEC meeting where they debated the £25 thing, whether this was part of the smokescreen they emitted for the shift from 3 quid to 25.


----------



## gosub (Jul 20, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work.
> 
> Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members


better off buying shares in B&Q: Wallpapering tables £7, bricks 50p


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 20, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work.
> 
> Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members



They may need the influx of funds ready for when the trade unions dump them. As if that would ever happen!


----------



## chilango (Jul 20, 2016)

My wife arrived home from the pub last night so pissed of with Tory voters going on about how "unelectable" Corbyn is that she was talking about signing up as a £25er and trying to persuade me to too 

Cold light of morning dissuaded her but still...a snapshot of how this playing out in unexpected places/ways.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> A cool £1,375,000 in the party's bank account. Nice work.
> 
> Perhaps if they challenge corbyn annually the party will be rich and have millions of members



Electorate's what? 40 million? If they got 75,000 per challenge it would take just over 50 challenges/years for everyone to be a member.

I'm not trying to say he's unelectable, but I'm not sure even JC's got that in him.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I was just reading this telegraph article on the very same topic.
> 
> No welcome in these valleys for Labour
> 
> ...



In fairness, what do you expect a Labour candidate to do when asked if their leader is a socialist? Say "No he's a fucking neoliberal war criminal"?

It wouldn't bother me that much what Owen Smith has done or said in the past if I felt he was credible now. It's totally dismal, though, that you have someone positioning themselves as Labour left and having to issue denials that they want to privatise the NHS. Emblematic of the mess Labour are in, really.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Raheem said:


> In fairness, what do you expect a Labour candidate to do when asked if their leader is a socialist? Say "No he's a fucking neoliberal war criminal"?
> 
> It wouldn't bother me that much what Owen Smith has done or said in the past if I felt he was credible now. It's totally dismal, though, that you have someone positioning themselves as Labour left and having to issue denials that they want to privatise the NHS. Emblematic of the mess Labour are in, really.


My struggling broadband doesn't allow me to read the link, but in answer to your question - Blair, a socialist? - the obvious answer for someone presenting himself as 'just as left wing as Jeremy' would be No.  If he can't even make that political/emotional breach with Blairism/neo-liberalism it says quite a lot about him.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My struggling broadband doesn't allow me to read the link, but in answer to your question - Blair, a socialist? - the obvious answer for someone presenting himself as 'just as left wing as Jeremy' would be No.  If he can't even make that political/emotional breach with Blairism/neo-liberalism it says quite a lot about him.


that was in 2006, when Blair was still leader, and Smith had no plans to present himself as 'just as radical as Jeremy Corbyn' in a future leadership battle. still nonsense then, mind.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 20, 2016)

chilango said:


> My wife arrived home from the pub last night so pissed of with Tory voters going on about how "unelectable" Corbyn is that she was talking about signing up as a £25er and trying to persuade me to too
> 
> Cold light of morning dissuaded her but still...a snapshot of how this playing out in unexpected places/ways.


my dad's done that because he's disgusted at the media and PLP ripping into him.

First time in his life he's joined / registered with a political party.

Says he'll join properly if corbyn wins and go to meetings, dish out leaflets etc.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

free spirit said:


> my dad's done that because he's disgusted at the media and PLP ripping into him.
> 
> First time in his life he's joined / registered with a political party.
> 
> Says he'll join properly if corbyn wins and go to meetings, dish out leaflets etc.



A good friend's partner and step-daughter have registered as supporters for the same reasons. It's a funny old world!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2016)

55,000 this morning - 

@DMcCafferySKY NEW: Labour sources suggesting at least 100,000 people have registered as supporters to vote in #LabourLeadership. Full numbers later.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> 55,000 this morning -
> 
> @DMcCafferySKY NEW: Labour sources suggesting at least 100,000 people have registered as supporters to vote in #LabourLeadership. Full numbers later.



The mobilized 'Save Labour' masses no doubt.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

I read 4 million quid to the labour coffers, but haven't been able to find a source. That'd be 160000.


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> The mobilized 'Save Labour' masses no doubt.


it was the words on everyone's lips at the supermarket earlier


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I read 4 million quid to the labour coffers, but haven't been able to find a source. That'd be 160000.


now they can spend it on investigating their new members and disqualifying them


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I read 4 million quid to the labour coffers, but haven't been able to find a source. That'd be 160000.



Dan Hodges is saying 150,000 too.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

I can't believe that many people are willing to pay £25 to vote in a Labour leadership election


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

free spirit said:


> my dad's done that because he's disgusted at the media and PLP ripping into him.
> 
> First time in his life he's joined / registered with a political party.
> 
> Says he'll join properly if corbyn wins and go to meetings, dish out leaflets etc.


Same here, though the little green man in the queue is a bliddy slow walker!


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can't believe that many people are willing to pay £25 to vote in a Labour leadership election


Coz it's disgusting the way the PLP is behaving, and trying to attract only those who are predisposed to voting for them by upping the ante to £25 is, I am hoping, going to backfire on them, big time.
Back to the little green man


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 20, 2016)

I've seen the 150k figure too. That's a lot of people. And a lot of money.


----------



## Cid (Jul 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Coz it's disgusting the way the PLP is behaving, and trying to attract only those who are predisposed to voting for them by upping the ante to £25 is, I am hoping, going to backfire on them, big time.
> Back to the little green man



Er, if you're still trying to register you're too late.


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

Cid said:


> Er, if you're still trying to register you're too late.


No, I joined the queue before 1700.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've seen the 150k figure too. That's a lot of people. And a lot of money.


The Labour party establishment will piss it up against the wall


----------



## Cid (Jul 20, 2016)

coley said:


> No, I joined the queue before 1700.



Ha, yeah - I'm sure they'll honour that. Good luck anyway.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 20, 2016)

I hope Corbyn spends it on jam making supplies.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

New shed for the allotment.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sue (Jul 20, 2016)

Lentils, surely?


----------



## gosub (Jul 20, 2016)

Sorting out his front garden


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

I might grass our lass up to the witchfinders and pretend she's a trot.  Anything to get our booze money back.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2016)




----------



## Sue (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I might grass our lass up to the witchfinders and pretend she's a trot.  *Anything to get our booze money back*.


I think that's called misplaced optimism or something.


----------



## Cid (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> New shed for the allotment.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Can get a decent greenhouse for that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

Cid said:


> Can get a decent greenhouse for that.



You think a man of Corbyn's calibre grows veg that needs such molly coddling? Away with you.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Sue said:


> I think that's called misplaced optimism or something.


Ok, if that doesn't work I'll tell them she didn't think Britannia was that cool anyway, and that she once made a risqué joke about Hazel Blears.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

The amount of money made by this leadership contest must surely reflect at least the possibility of willingness to give money to the Labour Party in a similar way to the crowdfunding of Podemos and Bernie Sanders' primary run.

The only problem then is, who gets the money?

I doubt that the people who would be willing to give money to Corbyn would want their money to go to getting say Wes Streeting re-elected, though they might be happy if it went towards Clive Lewis or other figures on the left of the party.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 20, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've seen the 150k figure too. That's a lot of people. And a lot of money.



Maybe the whole mutiny was a cunning ploy, to increase membership and fill the coffers.


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

Cid said:


> Ha, yeah - I'm sure they'll honour that. Good luck anyway.


Seems you were right, got to the end of the queue, was asked to provide personal details, then another form asking me to confirm details and plus why did I want to sign up, 
Mebbes the answer "to vote for Corbyn" wasn't the answer they wanted to hear;
As I got a big red announcement that applications closed at 5, though I was in the queue shortly after 4!


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

183,541


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2016)

oof


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

That's £4,588,525


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

coley did you get screenshot?

I've heard a few people that happened to - I put 'to vote on the leadership election' which they had no problem with. You'd think it was conspiracy type stuff if they weren't such arseholes  

that's me off the list


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I'm sorry to verge off topic a bit and be slightly morbid but before you shuffle off this mortal coil can you please put down in a legally binding document that the only things to be inscribed on your gravestone are the dates you existed and the above mentioned quote. Cheers


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm sorry to verge off topic a bit and be slightly morbid but before you shuffle off this mortal coil can you please put down in a legally binding document that the only things to be inscribed on your gravestone are the dates you existed and the above mentioned quote. Cheers



I might just do that.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

So what are we guessing then? I'm going for Corbyn to win by 70/30


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

60/40 again.


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

The best odds you can get on Corbyn to win are 2/5 with Stan James (from oddschecker) Can you think of a better way to make a 40% return in less than 2 months?


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> 60/40 again.


Last time about 75% of supporters voted Corbyn and a lot of them then became full members. I would guess nearer 85% this time will be Corbyn supporters because quite frankly who the fuck is Owen Smith? And wht would anyone pay £25 to vote for him?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

Harry Potter would


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

binka said:


> The best odds you can get on Corbyn to win are 2/5 with Stan James (from oddschecker) Can you think of a better way to make a 40% return in less than 2 months?



tempting


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Harry Potter would


Potter supports Corbyn, his creator supports Smith.


----------



## Cid (Jul 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Seems you were right, got to the end of the queue, was asked to provide personal details, then another form asking me to confirm details and plus why did I want to sign up,
> Mebbes the answer "to vote for Corbyn" wasn't the answer they wanted to hear;
> As I got a big red announcement that applications closed at 5, though I was in the queue shortly after 4!



Be interesting to know how many missed out in that way... I was queued on Monday at 5.30ish where I imagine traffic was fairly high, but that only took 5 minutes or so.


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

Cid said:


> Be interesting to know how many missed out in that way... I was queued on Monday at 5.30ish where I imagine traffic was fairly high, but that only took 5 minutes or so.


Checked me e mails about 4 and there was one, "2 hrs to save labour" so it must  have been about 10 past when I joined the queue and nearly six when I got to the end and got fucked off.


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> tempting


It is isn't it? The only way Corbyn loses is through fraud surely.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Checked me e mails about 4 and there was one, "2 hrs to save labour" so it must  have been about 10 past when I joined the queue and nearly six when I got to the end and got fucked off.



e-mail them, let them know


----------



## stupid kid (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can't believe that many people are willing to pay £25 to vote in a Labour leadership election



I joined in 2010 and voted. Think it cost me a quid?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 20, 2016)

Only the current Labour party could be so useless they can't even manage to fail to raise millions of pounds. I can fail to do that before I even get out of bed.


----------



## stupid kid (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> A good friend's partner and step-daughter have registered as supporters for the same reasons. It's a funny old world!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




A lot of people on my FB who I never considered to be political have either joined for the last leadership contest or in the wake of Brexit. I have about 250 friends on there, and I'm getting news feed posts from about 10 re: Corbyn. I know 10 isn't many by itself, but I'm really surprised by it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

stupid kid said:


> A lot of people on my FB who I never considered to be political have either joined for the last leadership contest or in the wake of Brexit. I have about 250 friends on there, and I'm getting news feed posts from about 10 re: Corbyn. I know 10 isn't many by itself, but I'm really surprised by it.


They know Corbyn is pushing for article 50 to be invoked immediately right?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 20, 2016)

Labour's finances were in dire straits before the GE. They were in debt. All that debt was paid off last year thanks to the various membership surges.

So that's one way that Corbyn was #SavingLabour


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

So, with Labour on 29%... will a run of similar polling be bad for JC in the leadership contest? What if it gets worse?


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Labour's finances were in dire straits before the GE. They were in debt. All that debt was paid off last year thanks to the various membership surges.
> 
> So that's one way that Corbyn was #SavingLabour



I wouln't bet on Smith making that a key point in his gracious loser's speech.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 20, 2016)

Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> New shed for the allotment.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Probably flip it like ol' two sheds


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 20, 2016)

It is fun trolling shaving labour on facebook...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2016)

telling because theres trots flogging papers? they always do that. So?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2016)

183k £25 quidders in 48 hours.
Crick confirms that's >total membership of any other party.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.


What does it tell you?


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

Oh gosh, the swappies. Fucking bellends.


----------



## Cakes (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> 183,541


Shut the door!

Wow Owen Smith is way more inspiring than I gave him credit for.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Swappies - in shorts!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick is a twat.

This is a Corbyn pyramid scheme money making scam!!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.



I recognise one of them from Sheffield, he's been at it a long time, must have annoyed so many thousands of people in his time.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

If Labour people told them to just go away or at least stop their conspicuous advertising and paper flogging would they do it? Presumably people have already asked...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Aside from individual donations of £x million coming in to the Tories, probably the largest amount raised by a party* over a couple of days.... ever? 

* edit: UK party that is.  I can think of a few parties that have had their coffers swelled substantially by organised crime etc.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Crick is a twat.
> 
> This is a Corbyn pyramid scheme money making scam!!




Actually it's a reverse funnel system


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If Labour people told them to just go away or at least stop their conspicuous advertising and paper flogging would they do it? Presumably people have already asked...


Of course they would! The Corbynites are very good at intimidation, try and keep up. 

'And if the brick doesn't scare you, then we may say something slightly unflattering on twitter'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2016)

that quote deffo happened. Its not bullshit in any way


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.



The ex student leader Michael Chessum in the beige chinos and purple t shirt, and is that a senior SWP head next to the guy in the bucket hat?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> The ex student leader Michael Chessum in the beige chinos and purple t shirt, and is that a senior SWP head next to the guy in the bucket hat?



Chessum is ex-AWL, now just Labour afaik


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2016)

> * Labour supporters have cooled on Corbyn, Guardian survey finds *
> Research finds enthusiasm waning for party leader but no evidence of support for any other candidate
> 
> Labour supporters have cooled on Corbyn, Guardian survey finds



Oh, what a surprise, new research finds what the Guardian wants.

Never mind Team Milliband were invisible for the first four years of the last parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> Oh, what a surprise, new research finds what the Guardian wants.
> 
> Never mind Team Milliband were invisible for the first four years of the last parliament.


By asking only party officers and councilors it appears. Do they get multiple votes or something?

So, the LP =PLP line from the Guardian having failed, it has now _democratised_ into LP=party officers and elected members.


----------



## inva (Jul 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> By asking only party officers and councilors it appears. Do they get multiple votes or something?
> 
> So, the LP =PLP line from the Guardian having failed, it has now _democratised_ into LP=party officers and elected members.


and claimed it can be broadened out not just to the membership but labour supporters as a whole. blatantly dishonest


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

binka said:


> The best odds you can get on Corbyn to win are 2/5 with Stan James (from oddschecker) Can you think of a better way to make a 40% return in less than 2 months?


Stan James has already come in from 2/5 (to make a 40% return on investment) to 3/10 (30% ROI). Best odds now available are 4/11 with William Hill and Coral - that represents a 36% ROI.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 20, 2016)

I reckon the 25 quidder numbers are so high because of gut reaction. They realise Jez is playing an honest game against dirty tricks, and they like him including his heartfelt left belief. I think a lot of the less commited wider electorate will feel the same after the PLP have come into line or been deselected.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 20, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Could you define the difference between those three groups? I'm sure there are differences but in practice I wonder what they are


 
one's a bunch of twunts.  that one's a bunch of twunts.  and the other one's a bunch of twunts.

hope that helps.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

inva said:


> and claimed it can be broadened out not just to the membership but labour supporters as a whole. blatantly dishonest


There's a reasonably ethical history of doing a 'state of the party' surveys by contacting the chair's of constituency parties/associations. For example I can remember the BBC doing them in the Tory Party throughout John Major's travails. Far from scientific, but reasonably consistent with regard to who at least gets asked the question. This seems to be much more random, mixture of chairs, secretaries, local exec members, councillors.  Certainly smacks of a trawl intended to garner up 'disatisfaction'.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I reckon the 25 quidder numbers are so high because of gut reaction. They realise Jez is playing an honest game against dirty tricks, and they like him including his heartfelt left belief. I think a lot of the less commited wider electorate will feel the same after the PLP have come into line or been deselected.



Will the wider electorate respond well afterwards? Labour is polling at 29% now, clearly it would be doing much better without the backstabbing but would it be doing well enough? I'm not sure I see it. I don't see it with any other leader either.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I reckon the 25 quidder numbers are so high because of gut reaction. They realise Jez is playing an honest game against dirty tricks, and they like him including his heartfelt left belief. I think a lot of the less commited wider electorate will feel the same after the PLP have come into line or been deselected.


You can imagine their reaction, after gerrymandering it to the point of making it £25 a vote: 'fuck, me they are STILL registering to support out party. _What's wrong with these people_?'


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> You can imagine their reaction, after gerrymandering it to the point of making it £25 a vote: 'fuck, me they are STILL registering to support out party. _What's wrong with these people_?'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

The court hearing about whether Corbyn's name is indeed automatically on the ballot paper was today. I don't think there's been a result yet but I heard the judge wasn't altogether thrilled that McNicol seemed to be rolling over to the Plaintiff and saying 'tickle me'.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I reckon the 25 quidder numbers are so high because of gut reaction. They realise Jez is playing an honest game against dirty tricks, and they like him including his heartfelt left belief. I think a lot of the less commited wider electorate will feel the same after the PLP have come into line or been deselected.



Over the course of this thread quite a few people have come on to say that people they know who have had very little interest in politics up to now have joined to vote Corbyn purely because they have become utterly disgusted at the actions of the PLP.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> one's a bunch of twunts.  that one's a bunch of twunts.  and the other one's a bunch of twunts.
> 
> hope that helps.


Is these subtle differences that prompted my question. Thanks


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The court hearing about whether Corbyn's name is indeed automatically on the ballot paper was today. I don't think there's been a result yet but I heard the judge wasn't altogether thrilled that McNicol seemed to be rolling over to the Plaintiff and saying 'tickle me'.


It's next week - on tuesday.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The court hearing about whether Corbyn's name is indeed automatically on the ballot paper was today. I don't think there's been a result yet but I heard the judge wasn't altogether thrilled that McNicol seemed to be rolling over to the Plaintiff and saying 'tickle me'.


I'd be amazed if the case goes against Corbyn. However, if it did and they had to restart the leadership election, we'd be at the far end of farce, twice round the track and out the other side. Theresa May might as well just launch her loudest eggyist farts at PMQs the state the labour party is in.


----------



## Sue (Jul 20, 2016)

I thought articul8 would've been all over these threads like a rash.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

Sue said:


> I thought articul8 would've been all over these threads like a rash.



Would imagine that he is quite busy these days

Or you would hope anyway


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

He's on the phone to John Mcdonnell right now.


----------



## Sue (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Would imagine that he is quite busy these days
> 
> Or you would hope anyway


Or hope not...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Would imagine that he is quite busy these days


He's probably Shadow Foreign Secretary by now.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's next week - on tuesday.



ah ok, ta - apparently eoin on twitter has quoted some of the judge's initial statements.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'd be amazed if the case goes against Corbyn. However, if it did and they had to restart the leadership election, we'd be at the far end of farce, twice round the track and out the other side. Theresa May might as well just launch her loudest eggyist farts at PMQs the state the labour party is in.



Yes the wording about the 'challenger' having to have a certain number of votes combined with the NEC ruling that Corbyn should appear would you'd think clinch it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's on the phone to John Mcdonnell right now.


"Right, so if we do have to get 51, how many have we got so far?"
- Erm, Dianne Abbott and Dennis Skinner.
"Dammit, I don't employ you to bring me bad news!"


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2016)

Just been reading some sniping from coup supporters - cunts. Really, I try to keep a moderate face on things, be nice in discussion, but they're arrogant, sneering, ignorant, hypocritical cunts. Fuck the lot of them.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.



Yes, it tells you that the Swappies are rampant opportunists. Next time make a point if you want to make one, shut up if you don't.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yes, it tells you that the Swappies are rampant opportunists. Next time make a point if you want to make one, shut up if you don't.


Was that the point being made?
If so, note the stalls are OUTSIDE Conway hall, as they clearly haven't been invited in and have pitched up outside anyway. Opportunist to the last. Standard behavior


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Just been reading some sniping from coup supporters - cunts. Really, I try to keep a moderate face on things, be nice in discussion, but they're arrogant, sneering, ignorant, hypocritical cunts. Fuck the lot of them.



Lots of 'these cockroach Corbynites need to be eliminated like the vermin they are especially after they dared to disagree with me which gave me a panic attack so I reported it as another case of abuse' sort of thing about in those circles.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Lots of detail on past and previous labour leadership contests, for anyone who wants to geek-o-splurge on it:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03938/SN03938.pdf


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Lots of 'these cockroach Corbynites need to be eliminated like the vermin they are especially after they dared to disagree with me which gave me a panic attack so I reported it as another case of abuse' sort of thing about in those circles.



All with a smug fucking tone too, the temptation to be every inch the angry cunt they seem to pretend they're bravely rallying against is hard to resist.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 20, 2016)

What happens to the four million quid in various scenarios, like a split, or Corbyn losing?

To be honest, I can't fathom it, or anything like it. I'm probably lacking imagination but I can't think of anything, outside pier-based amusement arcades anyway, where people have ploughed so much money into something that they're only a hair's breadth away from wanting to see burn to the ground.


----------



## binka (Jul 20, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What happens to the four million quid in various scenarios, like a split, or Corbyn losing?


Split makes it sound like a divorce where assets are divided up but the assets belong to the Labour party and any who split will be leaving Labour to form a new party so they'd start with nothing


----------



## mauvais (Jul 20, 2016)

I thought that would be so, but is it definitely the case? Not something I know much about really, but it seems to me that depending on the nature of the incorporation, a split of a business entity could be anywhere between divorce-like and what you describe. How that applies to parties, even less idea.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I thought that would be so, but is it definitely the case? Not something I know much about really, but it seems to me that depending on the nature of the incorporation, a split of a business entity could be anywhere between divorce-like and what you describe. How that applies to parties, even less idea.


If something like 100 MPs went off and said 'right that's us done, we are now members of the newly formed x party' it's clear cut (the departure of the SDP was a mini version of this - initial departures, followed by a string of other Labour MPs, but never a full CLP).  Suspect it wouldn't play out like that and there will be a battle over the name and assets.  Could well be a battle where decisions made at conference and in the NEC play a major role in terms of who gets what.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 20, 2016)

I think you'd have some inner London CLPs voting to leave this time, which would complicate matters.


----------



## Azrael (Jul 20, 2016)

If they do clear off, real nastiness comes with discussions over an electoral pact. Corbyn would obviously refuse to stay at 40 or so MPs, but the rebels ain't gonna cheerfully give up dozens of seats to even the parties out. Then there's the issue of who becomes the official opposition. I guess they could agree to share it, if that's even possible, but can't see 'em in the mood for that.

Electoral MAD looking depressingly inevitable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2016)

The labour party isn't incorporated.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> I think you'd have some inner London CLPs voting to leave this time, which would complicate matters.


If that happened there could be the odd spat over the ownership of local HQs (owned by local  parties rather than the national Labour Party, I think).


----------



## Cid (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ah ok, ta - apparently eoin on twitter has quoted some of the judge's initial statements.



I've not read any details on this but afaik the initial hearing was to decide who the case was being brought against. Corbyn has won the right to defend, initially the case was intended to have Mcuntface as defendant, which raised some obvious problems.


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> e-mail them, let them know


Don't think they would be interested, I think they may have more pressing concerns than the moans of a disgruntled would be Corbyn supporter
Then again, the disgruntled factor may bite them in the arse.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ah ok, ta - apparently eoin on twitter has quoted some of the judge's initial statements.


you can safely ignore everything eoin on twitter has to say.


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I reckon the 25 quidder numbers are so high because of gut reaction. They realise Jez is playing an honest game against dirty tricks, and they like him including his heartfelt left belief. I think a lot of the less commited wider electorate will feel the same after the PLP have come into line or been deselected.


Read the last word as decimated, can't think why


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 20, 2016)

Out of all the new members and if they are really wanting to be behind Jezza , surely there would be more than a few to stand up and become councillors / MPs to replace the plp ?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 20, 2016)

Owen's 'furious':
Owen Smith 'furious' at Corbyn's performance against Theresa May


----------



## coley (Jul 20, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Over the course of this thread quite a few people have come on to say that people they know who have had very little interest in politics up to now have joined to vote Corbyn purely because they have become utterly disgusted at the actions of the PLP.


Or tried to, I've been turned off politics for years but the effect of Corbyns stated policies and the referendum has certainly roused my interest, mebbes things are going to change? There  is certainly a hunger for it, it's years since I have heard people take this much interest.


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Owen's 'furious':
> Owen Smith 'furious' at Corbyn's performance against Theresa May



“I’m just as radical as Jeremy,” he said. “I’ve got wider life experience than Jeremy has, to fuel my radicalism. It helps having worked in the private sector. *It helps having lived in Surrey,* in order to see the massive gap that exists between the life experiences, 

Absolute arsehole, mebbes if he had lived in Ashington or Blyth ( two very deprived areas around here) he might have had a whiff of credibility, but to claim a knowledge of hardship from living in the leafy Surrey suburbs! He is totally representative of everything those voting for Corbyn hate and resent.
Putting this shytehawk up as Corbyns opponent could really be the move that destroys the tattered remains of the PLP, or I can hope.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 21, 2016)

I liked Corbyn.  Nice, elderly chap.  Had opinions about things that it seemed like he'd actually thought about.  We've moved on from that sort of thing, though.

Thinking.

It's very _analogue_, isn't it?  When you think about it.  When you think about the thinking.  Takes up lots of time.  Thinking about the thinking about the thinking.  You know what the opinion-makers call that?  _Dead tim_e, that's what they call it.

And uphill all the way.  Like cycling, which Corbyn also likes.  Here is a man who will make an unnecessary effort purely because he thinks it is the right thing to do.  In short, a man who hates efficiency. Efficiency, and, very probably, health.  He grows his own food for fuck's sake.  A man in London growing his own fucking food.  When you think about it (but don't spend too long over it, you feckless, inefficient scum), it's amazing that it's even legal. 

And he keeps saying weird things, like he's unwilling to murder millions of people.
Obviously if it was me or you, then saying we were willing to murder millions of people would be a bad thing.

But things are different in Westminster.  They're not people like us.  They're people who _have what it takes_.  On a good day, anyway.

Jeremy doesn't have what it takes.  Stop Jeremy before he doesn't kill again.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> “I’m just as radical as Jeremy,” he said. “I’ve got wider life experience than Jeremy has, to fuel my radicalism. It helps having worked in the private sector. *It helps having lived in Surrey,* in order to see the massive gap that exists between the life experiences,
> 
> Absolute arsehole, mebbes if he had lived in Ashington or Blyth ( two very deprived areas around here) he might have had a whiff of credibility, but to claim a knowledge of hardship from living in the leafy Surrey suburbs! He is totally representative of everything those voting for Corbyn hate and resent.
> Putting this shytehawk up as Corbyns opponent could really be the move that destroys the tattered remains of the PLP, or I can hope.





> Let’s get the terms right – I was never a lobbyist. I was head of policy at Pfizer, then director of health economics and corporate affairs at Amgen


 In some future People's Tribunal, he'd better not choose to defend himself, or he'll be up against the wall as quick as you can say Nye Bevan.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Lots of detail on past and previous labour leadership contests, for anyone who wants to geek-o-splurge on it:
> http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03938/SN03938.pdf


That's a surprisingly badly written document for a HoC library briefing!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> That's a surprisingly badly written document for a HoC library briefing!


Even worse, I just thought I'd spotted a very odd umlaut placed over the word _Labour_ - then realised it was a fly on the screen.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 21, 2016)

Labour could do with an umlaut.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 21, 2016)

Regardless of whether Corbyn is shit or not, the PLP cannot be allowed to win after the nonsense they have pulled. That right there is one of the reasons his approval rating has been going up since they tried to stab him in the back. It's an anti-Blairite thing as much as it is a pro-Corbyn one.


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Owen's 'furious':
> Owen Smith 'furious' at Corbyn's performance against Theresa May



"He said he would like to see Corbyn become Labour “president” – in charge of the party in the country, not in parliament"

I bet he would,the arrogant prick,
Corbyns answer to that should have been along the lines of "thank you for the offer, should the membership choose to support me, then I would like to offer you,an yer marras, a few years on the dole"


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> "He said he would like to see Corbyn become Labour “president” – in charge of the party in the country, not in parliament"
> 
> I bet he would,the arrogant prick,
> Corbyns answer to that should have been along the lines of "thank you for the offer, should the membership choose to support me, then I would like to offer you,an yer marras, a few years on the dole"



On a giant fucking spike more like.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 21, 2016)

Owen is such a terrible choice of candidate to put against corbyn that you almost wonder if the PLP did it on purpose. A blow in with zero background in any campaigning who glided into a safe seat having worked as a fucking lobbyist for a drugs company. He's represents everything about nu-labour and its empty-suited, mealy mouthed debasement of politics that was overwhelmingly rejected at the last leadership election.

He is a worse candidate by far than any of the beige trio of Cooper, Kendal and Burnham. His desperate bullshitting about being some sort of leftwinger only makes it worse.
I hope someone challenges him to provide any evidence of any sort of campaigning work he done in the past - I bet the cunt cant even produce a single signature on a petition, let alone an example of him addressing a demo. Yeah Owen - you were deeply opposed to the iraq war - like fuck you were.

He is going to get flattened in the leadership election (in no small part as a reaction to the gerrymandering and assorted anti-membership antics of the PLP) - and corbyn will be doing his tour of packed out rallies again, his often obscured message re-broadcast. He may well end having an even bigger mandate than last time.  A new NEC will have a more corbynite slant, the party will have huge number of new members who will be overwhelmingly pro-corbyn - and have full coffers.

The anti-corbyn faction have proved themselves to so fucking useless that their actions have made Corbyns position far stronger than if they'd have just carried on muttering and moaning under their breath.


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Regardless of whether Corbyn is shit or not, the PLP cannot be allowed to win after the nonsense they have pulled. That right there is one of the reasons his approval rating has been going up since they tried to stab him in the back. It's an anti-Blairite thing as much as it is a pro-Corbyn one.


Very true, and though I have me doubts as to whether JC is electable,he is laying the ground, hopefully, for a new class of labour politicians who will actually listen to their constituents. 
 JCs task is in the cleaning of the PLP Augean stables, 30 years plus of Shyte needs a lot of shifting.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> "He said he would like to see Corbyn become Labour “president” – in charge of the party in the country, not in parliamen"


They just don't see it... Corbyn isn't a personality cult, we're in it for the democracy lol


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

What's amazed me, and I hold me hands up, I have,like many others of my generation 'tuned out' as far as politics goes over the last thirty years.
But the realisation,that most of the PLP are just Tories that couldn't make the grade in Tory heartlands and had to pretend to be pro WC to use the voters in these areas to propel them onto the political gravy train.
Does anyone know of a site where there is an honest unbiased record of members of the PLP, their backgrounds, their beliefs and voting records?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> voting records?


Theyworkforyou.com


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Theyworkforyou.com


Used it before, bit " bare bones"


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 21, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> They just don't see it... Corbyn isn't a personality cult, we're in it for the democracy lol



I think there's a bit of a danger of it _becoming _'about Corbyn' while struggling with people for whom sellability of a charismatic front-person is all-important.


----------



## Ole (Jul 21, 2016)

Tom Watson's Ill-founded Attempt to Divide Our Union Will Fall Flat on Its Face

McCluskey:

He underestimates the unity, strength and determination of Unite - which was so evident at our Policy Conference last week - qualities which cannot be undone by anyone. If we support Jeremy Corbyn it is because this decent and progressive man has secured the overwhelming backing of our democratic structures, which Tom Watson was once proud to associate himself with.

Tom also invents a fictitious £250,000 which Unite is supposed to be donating to Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign. Nothing like that sum has been agreed by the union, nor even requested. It is a made-up figure bearing no relationship to reality.

Yet Tom alleges that Unite members would be disturbed by such a phantom donation. He had no such scruples about verifying the members’ views when this union gave him £70,000 for his deputy leadership election campaign last year. Nor when we donated £50,000 to fund his personal tour of key constituencies before the last General Election.

And only last year he sought half a million pounds of our members’ money to launch an online news journal. We could not support that project, but it was not for want of Tom trying to float his ambitious plans on a sea of Unite money.

Indeed, Tom was more than keen on Unite members’ money in the days before he fell for the charms of Max Mosley’s support. His complaints now are hypocritical, as well as ill-founded, and his attempt to divide our union will fall flat on its face.​£500k for a poxy centrist online news journal. What a waste of skin he is.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Owen's 'furious':
> Owen Smith 'furious' at Corbyn's performance against Theresa May



Was Smith hoping that Corbyn would start by lobbing a few bricks at the Tory front bench.
(I would to be honest!)

ETA: I mean I would be the MP representing Lobber of Bricks constituents!


----------



## chilango (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Owen's 'furious':
> Owen Smith 'furious' at Corbyn's performance against Theresa May



Who gives a fuck about the "dispatch box"? if Corbyn isn't playing the stupid PMQ game beloved of the bubble then that's a plus for me.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

chilango said:


> Who gives a fuck about the "dispatch box"? if Corbyn isn't playing the stupid PMQ game beloved of the bubble then that's a plus for me.


Except that the Great British Public get to see him being bested by Theresa May.


----------



## chilango (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> Except that the Great British Public get to see him being bested by Theresa May.



Do they? Who watches PMQs anyway?

Its just part of conning us into thinking politics is just a spectator sport.


----------



## Gromit (Jul 21, 2016)

183,000 people registered at £25 each to vote. 

That's £4.5mill. 

Apparently the decision to allow the leader to stand in the election challenge to his leadership is being taken to the high court. How much of Labour's membership money is being wasted on that I wonder?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 21, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do they? Who watches PMQs anyway?
> 
> Its just part of conning us into thinking politics is just a spectator sport.


Yes, the idea that PMQs is something important to people outside the Westminster bubble is ludicrous.


----------



## chilango (Jul 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes, the idea that PMQs is something important to people outside the Westminster bubble is ludicrous.



It only matters if we keep believing them telling us that it matters.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

chilango said:


> Who gives a fuck about the "dispatch box"? if Corbyn isn't playing the stupid PMQ game beloved of the bubble then that's a plus for me.



FWIW I thought Ed Miliband was, at least some of the time, pretty good at PMQs. Didn't ultimately make any difference because Labour wasn't genuinely opposed to any of the bad things the coalition were doing - only promising to round off their sharpest edges. So 'who gives a fuck' is right if there's nothing of substance behind it.

In contrast, Corbyn is not often great at the dispatch box, but I thought his tactic when being jeered by May as 'unscrupulous' (still find that a bizarre choice of all the possible lines of attack against him) -- of looking down, reading his notes and looking like he had his mind on more important things -- was as good as any.

I think when he says he wants a different, more civil kind of politics he really does mean it (he's having trouble getting McDonnell on board with that, but that's another story) and if that's the case then a kind of disdainful indifference is probably the best response in these situations. The PM might 'win' a few bouts, but a Tory who thinks they're winning is a particularly unappealing one - boorish, smug and high-handed. And too much of that might be a good way for May to chip away at one of the few things in her favour -- that she seems like a more grown-up, serious politician than her predecessor and any of the people she beat to the top job.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2016)

Gromit said:


> 183,000 people registered at £25 each to vote.
> 
> That's £4.5mill.
> 
> Apparently the decision to allow the leader to stand in the election challenge to his leadership is being taken to the high court. *How much of Labour's membership money is being wasted on that I wonder?*



None of it (see upthread for more details of the challenge)

I wonder how much of the total will be used to check the backgrounds of those registering and other spurious "administrative" measures. I suspect the eventual net income to the LP will be significantly less than £4.5 million...


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> Except that the Great British Public get to see him being bested by Theresa May.



Even if Corbyn wiped the floor with her, the media's agenda is such that it just wouldn't be shown anyway, or would be framed in some other unhelpful way -- so it's just the same media-bias problem taht Corbyn and co have whether he's good at PMQ or not.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes, the idea that PMQs is something important to people outside the Westminster bubble is ludicrous.



As someone pointed out on 5live following Cameron's last performance that out of the four thousand plus questions asked of him he answered one.
The rest were prepared statements and poor humour. 
The listener suggested renaming it 
Prime ministers statements and remove the questions that are mostly asked by the governments own backbencher's cloying for attention.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't think they would be interested, I think they may have more pressing concerns than the moans of a disgruntled would be Corbyn supporter
> Then again, the disgruntled factor may bite them in the arse.



I meant more inform them that you were unable to register without saying you're supporting Corbyn. Having such a short registration period was clearly aimed at limiting the number, and I've heard of a few people saying the site kept timing out. The more people who let them know they couldn't vote, the more ludicrous they look. 

They may also let you register because you tried within the deadline.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 21, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> As someone pointed out on 5live following Cameron's last performance that out of the four thousand plus questions asked of him he answered one.
> The rest were prepared statements and poor humour.
> The listener suggested renaming it
> Prime ministers statements and remove the questions that are mostly asked by the governments own backbencher's cloying for attention.



Turn it into a pub style quiz. Winner gets to run the country.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> Except that the Great British Public get to see him being bested by Theresa May.


Hilarious.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Even if Corbyn wiped the floor with her, the media's agenda is such that it just wouldn't be shown anyway, or would be framed in some other unhelpful way -- so it's just the same media-bias problem taht Corbyn and co have whether he's good at PMQ or not.



He didn't preface his question with "Simon says ..."


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

chilango said:


> Do they? Who watches PMQs anyway?
> 
> Its just part of conning us into thinking politics is just a spectator sport.


It was all over the news media. 

he had lots of opportunities to put her back in her box, but he simply doesn't seem to be able to think and react quickly enough for something like that. 

You can that is fine, and that he is not playing the game, but the media is what gets to the GBP, and the media report what they see. (Well, sometimes...)


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Even if Corbyn wiped the floor with her, the media's agenda is such that it just wouldn't be shown anyway, or would be framed in some other unhelpful way -- so it's just the same media-bias problem taht Corbyn and co have whether he's good at PMQ or not.


i don't agree. 

if he had wiped the floor with her the press would have been so stunned it would have been headline news. 

Besides which, not all the media is against Corbyn....


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious.


I found it really quite sad, actually. 

He needs to play the Westminster game if he is going to be a good leader of a parliamentary party, which is part of being Leader of the Opposition.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 21, 2016)

What a performance:


The media sees what it wants to see, and his rejection of this countries public-school-debating-club style of political discourse is refreshing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> i don't agree.
> 
> if he had wiped the floor with her the press would have been so stunned it would have been headline news.
> 
> Besides which, not all the media is against Corbyn....



If he had wiped the floor with (which is a pretty subjective judgement call) I am willing to bet we would have seen stories saying:


Corbyn is inconsistent...the country needs a leader who can always be counted on;
Corbyn bullies May in a way he didn't do with Cameron...more evidence of his problem with women.
I know this looks ridiculous on the screen, but this is where we've got to with so much of the reporting on the Labour Party leader.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2016)

8ball said:


> Labour could do with an umlaut.


Heavy metal social democracy


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> I found it really quite sad, actually.
> 
> He needs to play the Westminster game if he is going to be a good leader of a parliamentary party, which is part of being Leader of the Opposition.



Absolutely,  It's the ultimate test of leadership in front of your peers. Thinking on your feet, being able to articulate policy, justify it, back it up with examples. Blair with all his media skills hated it and wanted it scripted, Thatcher hated it - because it's a proper test. May breathed a huge sigh of relief when it was over. Most importantly it's what the media report on every week and they use it to add to the public image of MPs. If you want to be PM it really helps if you're good at PMQs.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If he had wiped the floor with (which is a pretty subjective judgement call) I am willing to bet we would have seen stories saying:
> 
> 
> Corbyn is inconsistent...the country needs a leader who can always be counted on;
> ...



Well no because you could see for yourself as it happened, there was a live feed, reports on all media outlets and you could watch it and make your own mind up on BBC Parliament. You can see it impartially if you want to.


----------



## Kesher (Jul 21, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> What a performance:
> 
> 
> The media sees what it wants to see, and his rejection of this countries public-school-debating-club style of political discourse is refreshing.




She sounds a bit like Thatcher's puppet from Spitting Image. Some of comments by the media were sickening: James O'Brien said that May owned Corbyn and that she was better than Cameron at PMQs. Also heard Quentin Letts say it was a work of genius.


----------



## Gromit (Jul 21, 2016)

That the media thinks landing a few cheap shots in a political debate about the state of the nation is 'wiping the floor' with someone is worrying. 

It's like saying I won a boxing match by telling your momma is soo fat jokes. 

It's kind of missing the point that PMQs should be about landing solid political blows rather than constant dodging and weaving and occasional crowd pleasing bitch slap.


----------



## maomao (Jul 21, 2016)

He wouldn't be allowed to wipe the floor with her. She has 300 jeering pricks sitting behind her. However sharp his one-liners, however childish and dull her responses they will win because it's a bully's game not a serious debate. However the media chooses to represent it he is taking the best possible approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Absolutely,  It's the ultimate test of leadership in front of your peers. Thinking on your feet, being able to articulate policy, justify it, back it up with examples. Blair with all his media skills hated it and wanted it scripted, Thatcher hated it - because it's a proper test. May breathed a huge sigh of relief when it was over. Most importantly it's what the media report on every week and they use it to add to the public image of MPs. If you want to be PM it really helps if you're good at PMQs.


It's not a proper test.  And if policy is made by reactive thinking on your feet in response to scripted barbs by your opponent...well surely you see the problem?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

Cross-posted on the Prime minister May thread:

The new poll which shows Jeremy Corbyn and Labour really are in crisis



> Theresa May has given the Conservative Party an immediate bounce in the opinion polls which, if sustained, could revive speculation that she will call an early general election.
> 
> Ms May made an assured debut at Prime Minister’s Questions when she ridiculed Jeremy Corbyn after he raised the issue of insecurity at work. She told him: “I suspect that there are many members on the Opposition benches who might be familiar with an unscrupulous boss. A boss who doesn't listen to his workers, a boss who requires some of his workers to double their workload and maybe a boss who exploits the rules to further his own career. Remind him of anybody?”...



So I am wondering how much of this is media spin, particularly aimed at portraying Corbyn in a negative light. Haven't watched it myself but it seems likely to me.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a proper test.  And if policy is made by reactive thinking on your feet in response to scripted barbs by your opponent..



Obviously policy isn't made on your feet, but you should be able to know your policies so well you can answer question on it from any angle and be able to defend it. It very much is a test - of your knowledge, thinking around the subject, bringing in other points to validate yours, etc, etc. All sorts of transferable skills in there, but the main one being - showing leadership and authority.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If he had wiped the floor with (which is a pretty subjective judgement call) I am willing to bet we would have seen stories saying:
> 
> 
> Corbyn is inconsistent...the country needs a leader who can always be counted on;
> ...


No doubt some press would have spun it that way, but plenty of others would report that Corbyn has stepped up to the plate (or whatever) and learnt how to deal with PMQs. 

It's part of his job, like it or not. And he's constantly showing how crap he is at it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Obviously policy isn't made on your feet, but you should be able to know your policies so well you can answer question on it from any angle and be able to defend it. It very much is a test - of your knowledge, thinking around the subject, bringing in other points to validate yours, etc, etc. All sorts of transferable skills in there, but the main one being - showing leadership and authority.


Have you ever watched the thing? None of that happens. None. It's not an actual debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> No doubt some press would have spun it that way, but plenty of others would report that Corbyn has stepped up to the plate (or whatever) and learnt how to deal with PMQs.
> 
> It's part of his job, like it or not. And he's constantly showing how crap he is at it.


No they wouldn't.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

Where is this Corbyn supporting press? The morning star? The Canary?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

Jesus H Christ


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have you ever watched the thing? None of that happens. None. It's not an actual debate.



I've watched it on several occasions - it's verbal sparring, but within that it shows the mettle of the person. Blair didn't like being seen to not have answers so demanded to know what he was going to be asked beforehand, completely ducking the pressure and so appearing to always look in control. If people like Blair and Thatcher found it a pressure, it's a good thing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 21, 2016)

We've just had an referendum were despite the government, all major and medium political parties bar one, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bank of England, the IMF, foreign governments and any number of 'experts' telling people that they must vote one way 52% of voters gave them two fingers and people really think PMQs matters.

Christ, some pages back it was asked what the pitfalls of getting involved with the Labour Party are, well you've got a perfect example here over the last two pages.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> No doubt some press would have spun it that way, but plenty of others would report that Corbyn has stepped up to the plate (or whatever) and learnt how to deal with PMQs.


Which paper? Bar the Morning Star all the papers are opposed to him. This is deluded.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I've watched it on several occasions - it's verbal sparring, but within that it shows the mettle of the person. Blair didn't like being seen to not have answers so demanded to know what he was going to be asked beforehand, completely ducking the pressure and so appearing to always look in control. If people like Blair and Thatcher found it a pressure, it's a good thing.


These are pointlessly vague terms aren't they 'mettle' and so on. Every Prime Minister is going to know what questions they're going to be asked and have had extensive briefs prepared by a whole team of civil servants and political appointments. There is no back and forth, no testing of command of info, no bringing in of other knowledge. It's not even verbal sparring when one sides quips have been pre-written and_ the whole farce is just to manouvere to be able to use those quips._ Pretty much the same for the other side. It's like a panel show where they lie they haven't been given lines.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2016)

The Mirror has been pro corbyn. If he did a good job they'd show it, as they did when he landed a few blows on Cameron at his smuggest. However, anyone can see he was shit against May, and that he should be a lot sharper. It isn't bloody sacrilege to point out the obvious.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> These are pointlessly vague terms aren't they 'mettle' and so on. Every Prime Minister is going to know what questions they're going to be asked and have had extensive briefs prepared by a whole team of civil servants and political appointments. There is no back and forth, no testing of command of info, no bringing in of other knowledge. It's not even verbal sparring when one sides quips have been pre-written and_ the whole farce is just to manouvere to be able to use those quips._ Pretty much the same for the other side. It's like a panel show where they lie they haven't been given lines.


And yet PM's have been made to look foolish time and time again. Because they're outmanoeuvred.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If he had wiped the floor with (which is a pretty subjective judgement call) I am willing to bet we would have seen stories saying:
> 
> 
> Corbyn is inconsistent...the country needs a leader who can always be counted on;
> ...



Absolutely right. And also:


I thought he said he wasn't going to do this kind of yah-boo politics? Hypocrite.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> These are pointlessly vague terms aren't they 'mettle' and so on. Every Prime Minister is going to know what questions they're going to be asked and have had extensive briefs prepared by a whole team of civil servants and political appointments. There is no back and forth, no testing of command of info, no bringing in of other knowledge. It's not even verbal sparring when one sides quips have been pre-written and_ the whole farce is just to manouvere to be able to use those quips._ Pretty much the same for the other side. It's like a panel show where they lie they haven't been given lines.



And yet the media report where a PM is seen to be unable to answer direct questions on policy or where an opposition leader is made to look daft and has been out-witted. If the media are reporting it it matters.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2016)

In my lifetime, the most able, respected and experienced parliamentary orators and party leaders I ever heard was Michael Foot and we all remember how he was made 'un-electable' too.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

It might sound like an odd comparison, but the last couple of pages' discussion has reminded me of Griffin on Question Time. Afterwards, the media was full - as they were themselves - of how Bonnie Greer and Jack Straw had 'bested' the BNP leader and 'defeated' his arguments, but in reality Griffin was tactically smart enough to know that he had nothing to gain by engaging with them on their terms.

His aim was to cement the appearance of the mainstream-ness and normality of his views, while also emphasising and making a virtue of the fact that he was outside the 'bubble' which the other panellist inhabited, where they're insulated from real people and any understanding of their lives. If you looked at most of his supporters' reactions at the time to his performance, he achieved this pretty successfully. Obviously the BNP pissed away any advantage this gave them pretty soon afterwards, and I've even seen media commentators try to claim that the QT appearance had something to do with that, but that's absolute ill-informed bollocks.

Similarly, Corbyn may or may not be up to the knockabout atmosphere of PMQs, but he has clearly judged that even 'succeeding' at that would not be to his benefit. By not engaging in it he is cementing his claim to many of the qualities that people support him for in the first place, and has at least some hope of conveying that to a wider section of society who see the punch and judy show of the Commons and are completely turned off politics by it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> And yet the media report where a PM is seen to be unable to answer direct questions on policy or where an opposition leader is made to look daft and has been out-witted. If the media are reporting it it matters.


So not quite the broad and informed open debate and demonstration of informed thinking on your feet you first suggested? Just making someone look daft like on a panel show? I really don't think a) the media does report across the board on such things - it's always selective in a number of ways, from which incidents you choose to report and which not, and how to frame them in their own terms and against you organisations wider narrative vs the narrative of others. The media never just reports. 2) I don't think most people give a shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

New political strategy - _recklessly attack the enemy on grounds of their choosing._


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> So not quite the broad and informed open debate and demonstration of informed thinking on your feet you first suggested? Just making someone look daft like on a panel show? I really don't think a) the media does report across the board on such things - it's always selective in a number of ways, from which incidents you choose to report and which not, and how to frame them in their own terms and against you organisations wider narrative vs the narrative of others. The media never just reports. 2) I don't think most people give a shit.



It does show all the abilities or lack of as I mentioned earlier, if you watch it it's obvious. Most people probably don't give a shit week by week, but the media will report it and over the course of time it goes into the drip-drip view that people will use to formulate their view of a PM or an opposition leader. Air time is oxygen to your policies and how you put those across is extremely important. People vote on their perceptions and those perceptions are formulated from all sorts of inputs. Saying there's no problem with Corbyn at PMQs because no-one watches it anyway, or it's not a real debate, is like a child closing their eyes and saying 'you can't see me because I can't see you.'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> It does show all the abilities or lack of as I mentioned earlier, if you watch it it's obvious. Most people probably don't give a shit week by week, but the media will report it and over the course of time it goes into the drip-drip view that people will use to formulate their view of a PM or an opposition leader. Air time is oxygen to your policies and how you put those across is extremely important. People vote on their perceptions and those perceptions are formulated from all sorts of inputs. Saying there's no problem with Corbyn at PMQs because no-one watches it anyway, or it's not a real debate, is like a child closing their eyes and saying 'you can't see me because I can't see you.'


No it doesn't. It shows one person trying to manouvere another onto the ground where they can deliver a pre-scripted quip and hope the media choose that 5 seconds to show if they even bother to report it. It demonstrates none of this:



> should be able to know your policies so well you can answer question on it from any angle and be able to defend it. It very much is a test - of your knowledge, thinking around the subject, bringing in other points to validate yours



it demonstrates that one side has a lot of people + civil service helping them and the other less so. That's all it is.

I just listed some problems with the media just reports model. Let me ask you do you think that the reporting (with all the things i mentioned above about choice of when to report, various framings and relations to wider politics etc), the drip drip is entirely neutral? It must be to make your point have any power - a good performance reported neutrally, maybe not immediately noticed but a consistent performance will be reported neutrally and consistently leading to a positive drip drip in the public perception via the media. Where you been the last 20 years?

 Of course people vote on their perceptions (or at least that's part of their calculations), that's precisely why you won't get the above as the media are straining to provide a certain perception (consciously or unconsciously in the case of individuals - rather openly in the case of the wider organisations - see the Guardian recently saying yeah, _we're not reporting honestly, so what?)_ regardless of what, say corbyn, does.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't. It shows one person trying to manouvere another onto the ground where they can deliver a pre-scripted quip and hope the media choose that 5 seconds to show if they even bother to report it. It demonstrates none of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just see what was in front of you for goodness sake. If you can't then mind your step on the way out.


----------



## chilango (Jul 21, 2016)

When I was 16, 17 or so I went to Parliament as part of my Politics A-Level course. We saw PMQs. 

It was during the Poll Tax.

I left having had it made starkly clear to me that the braying, jeering MPs really did inhabit a different world to me.

I returned to my constituency and helped set up an anti-poll tax group of sorts. Next time I saw my MP I was ambushing him with a surprise protest at my school.

politics vs. Politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Just see what was in front of you for goodness sake. If you can't then mind your step on the way out.


What just _neutrally _happened to be in front of you for 10 seconds on the 9pm news etc


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> He needs to play the Westminster game if he is going to be a good leader of a parliamentary party, which is part of being Leader of the Opposition.


The "Westminster game" bears no relation or, indeed, relevance to what's happening outside the rarefied world of Parliament. As for being "Leader of the Opposition", Corbyn has been more successful in that role than his immediate predecessor, who failed to oppose anything of significance (the bombing of Syria being a notable exception). He told the media that he would offer "constructive opposition", which translated means "I will oppose fuck all".


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> The Mirror has been pro corbyn. If he did a good job they'd show it, as they did when he landed a few blows on Cameron at his smuggest. However, anyone can see he was shit against May, and that he should be a lot sharper. It isn't bloody sacrilege to point out the obvious.


Really curious what the public make of it. In all honesty I was surprised and disgusted by Mays performance, and I'd expect most people would think Jesus, Who the fuck is running our country now ... 

  Corbyn looked dignified in comparison.... I am biased, but that was a impartial impression. I think May is massively unlikeable, and will become increasingly so with every public performance, if PMQs is anything to go by.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

Lol


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> People vote on their perceptions and those perceptions are formulated from all sorts of inputs. Saying there's no problem with Corbyn at PMQs because no-one watches it anyway, or it's not a real debate, is like a child closing their eyes and saying 'you can't see me because I can't see you.'



He does need to work on that side of things - though I don't think its the case that he is simply rubbish at it because there are days where he has been really good there (Cameron's last PMQs, or the Queens Birthday speech).  It should also be pointed out that, even if he was regularly smashing Cameron and May, its doubtful that the media would report it honestly or that most of the PLP would get behind him.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Just see what was in front of you for goodness sake. If you can't then mind your step on the way out.



We're *all *seeing a combination of what we're shown, what we want to see and what actually happened. The only way to see through that blur is to be aware of and alert to that fact. It's rather naive to imagine that the camera is ever just plonked down in the right place so that we can all see 'what's in front of us'.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well no because you could see for yourself as it happened, there was a live feed, reports on all media outlets and you could watch it and make your own mind up on BBC Parliament. You can see it impartially if you want to.





butchersapron said:


> What just _neutrally _happened to be in front of you for 10 seconds on the 9pm news etc



I refer to my earlier post above.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Just see what was in front of you for goodness sake. If you can't then mind your step on the way out.



What you see is different depending on how it's presented though, voiceover introduction: "May wipes the floor with Corbyn" versus "May refuses to condemn Johnson's racist 'picaninny' slur"


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

I presume our loyal Labour MPs behind Corbyn are leaving him to fight it on his own, usually you have a constant barrage of heckling to back up the point. 

The bit I saw where May didn't answer the question he remarked on that. I'd like to have see him address her statement about stop and search, though, but that is presumably going to need his 'people' researching her stock answers for suitable replies.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2016)

He's just delivered a good, relaxed speech + Q&A to open his campaign.  Strong performance I thought.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What you see is different depending on how it's presented though, voiceover introduction: "May wipes the floor with Corbyn" versus "May refuses to condemn Johnson's racist 'picaninny' slur"



That's just picking out 2 items though. The impression across the whole PMQs is what is important. I agree that Johnson's remark was horrendous, but it could have been pressed home more, she didn't answer it, so he should have just kept asking her or highlight the fact she's refusing to answer.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Well no because you could see for yourself as it happened, there was a live feed, reports on all media outlets and you could watch it and make your own mind up on BBC Parliament. You can see it impartially if you want to.


You could, but how many do? I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the public still consume politics through headlines and soundbites, and the echo chamber of their own social media.


----------



## JimW (Jul 21, 2016)

Apparently (off Twitter) he's just said that all MPs will need to be reselected after the boundary review in 2018. So he has to last out that long.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> That's just picking out 2 items though. The impression across the whole PMQs is what is important. I agree that Johnson's remark was horrendous, but it could have been pressed home more, she didn't answer it, so he should have just kept asking her or highlight the fact she's refusing to answer.



"I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I have just given."


----------



## kabbes (Jul 21, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> You could, but how many do? I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the public still consume politics through headlines and soundbites, and the echo chamber of their own social media.


My impression is that most people consume politics through their friends.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2016)

I really couldn't give two flying fucks about pmq's, & id wager the majority of the w/c struggling to feed their kids couldn't either. It's pathetic.


----------



## Ole (Jul 21, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Lol
> View attachment 89768




I can't even laugh at that. The sorry excuse for a human being. Fucking CUNT.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Here's the entrance to a keep Corbyn rally in London tonight. Quite telling.



Only if  you're a fuckwit, because venues rarely have control over anything but their immediate forecourt, certainly not the public highway (AKA "the pavement").

Interesting that you try to imply that Corbyn is in cahoots with the rape apologists, though.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> The Mirror has been pro corbyn. If he did a good job they'd show it, as they did when he landed a few blows on Cameron at his smuggest. However, anyone can see he was shit against May, and that he should be a lot sharper. It isn't bloody sacrilege to point out the obvious.


Absolutely. If the game you want to play is winning power in a Westminster system, you are always going to be up against largely hostile media. You are also going to find your efforts are inevitably funnelled into such absurdities as PMQs.  That's the path you've chosen. That Corbyn has been undermined by an intensely vile PLP, to the point where Labour is barely functioning as a party, shouldn't stop you making judgements on his performance.  He delivers on compassion, on seriousness and shows a strength under fire. But there's plenty he isn't managing to do, particularly setting out a vision or a strategy for reconnecting with the working class.  This is the bigger thing, not pmqs, but it would be daft to suggest he does pmqs well. 

To be honest, his claim of establishing a 'gentler politics' might have some resonance if everything was lined up in his favour, but the PLP have made sure that won't happen.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only if  you're a fuckwit, because venues rarely have control over anything but their immediate forecourt, certainly not the public highway (AKA "the pavement").
> 
> Interesting that you try to imply that Corbyn is in cahoots with the rape apologists, though.


Yeah if they were a part of it they'd have had stalls in the lobby... Stalls outside means hanger-on


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

Ole said:


> I can't even laugh at that. The sorry excuse for a human being. Fucking CUNT.


I can entirely see your point but Congolesa Rice is very incisive in her put downs which obviously I know, is what made me laugh. She took the piss out of a QC the other day who blocked her in very short order. Managing to leave a QC short of words, quite a feat. That was a classic too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

some glorious trolling here from a guy on the huffington post. 





You can see dan punching the air for 15 minutes, then...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

Can't see tweets dunno if it is something wrong with board software, but that's why I've started using screenshots:



e2a sorted cleared cache  However you can't see them if you are using Tapatalk on a phone anyway


----------



## chilango (Jul 21, 2016)

kabbes said:


> My impression is that most people consume politics through their friends.



Yep. Friends, workmates, neighbours...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Consume really isn't the right word though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Can't see tweets dunno if it is something wrong with board software, but that's why I've started using screenshots:
> 
> View attachment 89769


If you're on laptop or desktop it's a ghostery thing and you have to add an exclusion.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If you're on laptop or desktop it's a ghostery thing and you have to add an exclusion.


Not using Ghoshtery using Privacy Badger but I have it disabled for U75 see edit


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If you're on laptop or desktop it's a ghostery thing and you have to add an exclusion.



Which means I've got to do what?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> some glorious trolling here from a guy on the huffington post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





But it does mean many tens of thousands anti-corbyn voters who may become active against him, going to be interesting times in the LP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which means I've got to do what?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I'll tell you - if no one else has - when I'm back on laptop about half one, if I can remember what to do.


----------



## inva (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which means I've got to do what?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


if you're using the ghostery extension on your web browser there ought to be a button (it's a little blue ghost probably with a number on it) somewhere on your toolbar. if you click that you can choose to allow the twitter button on the drop down menu and that should sort it I think.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 21, 2016)

she wasn't all that, and that 'unscrupulous boss' drivel doesnt even work. hes not the plp's boss, hes a manager. this is like when everyone in the media wet them selves over what a brilliant speech hillary benn made when it was mediocre at best.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Owen is such a terrible choice of candidate to put against corbyn that you almost wonder if the PLP did it on purpose. A blow in with zero background in any campaigning who glided into a safe seat having worked as a fucking lobbyist for a drugs company. He's represents everything about nu-labour and its empty-suited, mealy mouthed debasement of politics that was overwhelmingly rejected at the last leadership election.
> 
> He is a worse candidate by far than any of the beige trio of Cooper, Kendal and Burnham. His desperate bullshitting about being some sort of leftwinger only makes it worse.
> I hope someone challenges him to provide any evidence of any sort of campaigning work he done in the past - I bet the cunt cant even produce a single signature on a petition, let alone an example of him addressing a demo. Yeah Owen - you were deeply opposed to the iraq war - like fuck you were.
> ...



I keep getting a tickle in my brain that says "Smith is a stooge _a la_ Eagle", but who for? Smith is certainly egotistic enough to believe he's a big cheese, but in reality he's a self-important nobody, who'd be the desperation shag at any office party. Is he being set up to show Chooks or Andy "Scott Tracey" Burnham in a better light?


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> It was all over the news media.
> 
> he had lots of opportunities to put her back in her box, but he simply doesn't seem to be able to think and react quickly enough for something like that.
> 
> You can that is fine, and that he is not playing the game, but the media is what gets to the GBP, and the media report what they see. (Well, sometimes...)


Bit hard to react quickly and decisively when you have people who are supposed to be your supporters siting in a sulky hostile silence behind you, they are an absolute disgrace disgrace.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> they are an absolute disgrace disgrace.



I think you missed out at least one 'fucking' there


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2016)

*i quite liked that they were quiet. it made all the yaa boo bullshit from the otherside seem even more insane than usual. I think it should become party policy!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> she wasn't all that, and that 'unscrupulous boss' drivel doesnt even work. hes not the plp's boss, hes a manager. this is like when everyone in the media wet them selves over what a brilliant speech hillary benn made when it was mediocre at best.


... and it inverts the reality where the party and its members voted for Corbyn, where they are the real 'bosses' of the MPs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> some glorious trolling here from a guy on the huffington post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Either punching the air, or bashing the bishop...


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

Seymour has done an essay you can download from verso if you fancy

VersoBooks.com


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Which paper? Bar the Morning Star all the papers are opposed to him. This is deluded.


There are plenty of journalists who are not opposed to Corbyn but who want him to succeed.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Seymour has done an essay you can download from verso if you fancy
> 
> VersoBooks.com



I don't


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 21, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> There are plenty of journalists who are not opposed to Corbyn but who want him to succeed.


But not many editors.


----------



## Ole (Jul 21, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I can entirely see your point but Congolesa Rice is very incisive in her put downs which obviously I know, is what made me laugh. She took the piss out of a QC the other day who blocked her in very short order. Managing to leave a QC short of words, quite a feat. That was a classic too.


No drama, wasn't having a go.


----------



## billy_bob (Jul 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I keep getting a tickle in my brain that says "Smith is a stooge _a la_ Eagle", but who for? Smith is certainly egotistic enough to believe he's a big cheese, but in reality he's a self-important nobody, who'd be the desperation shag at any office party. Is he being set up to show Chooks or Andy "Scott Tracey" Burnham in a better light?



I'm sure he was when it began. But it feels now like the big boys have run off home for their tea, and Smith has to front it out alone and pretend he's still feeling just as brave even now he hasn't got the hard lads standing behind him.


----------



## maomao (Jul 21, 2016)

Smith isn't a stooge. He's taking a run at it for his own benefit. It's a disaster for Eagle because she was an ex cabinet minister and has been shamed completely. Her career's over. He on the other hand is a brand new MP and can only raise his profile. He's thinking that even if he's defeated, Corbyn's leadership won't go on forever and when the right get back in control of the party he'll be rewarded.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

maomao said:


> Smith isn't a stooge. He's taking a run at it for his own benefit. It's a disaster for Eagle because she was an ex cabinet minister and has been shamed completely. Her career's over. He on the other hand is a brand new MP and can only raise his profile. He's thinking that even if he's defeated, Corbyn's leadership won't go on forever and when the right get back in control of the party he'll be rewarded.


He'll be boss - he'll be the one handing out rewards.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I keep getting a tickle in my brain that says "Smith is a stooge _a la_ Eagle", but who for? Smith is certainly egotistic enough to believe he's a big cheese, but in reality he's a self-important nobody, who'd be the desperation shag at any office party. Is he being set up to show Chooks or Andy "Scott Tracey" Burnham in a better light?



If the past twelve months prove anything, its that there aren't any big beasts lurking on the back-benches.  They are all nobodies - which is why so many of them are described, even by themselves, as _what_ they are/were than _who_ they are.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I keep getting a tickle in my brain that says "Smith is a stooge _a la_ Eagle", but who for? Smith is certainly egotistic enough to believe he's a big cheese, but in reality he's a self-important nobody, who'd be the desperation shag at any office party. Is he being set up to show Chooks or Andy "Scott Tracey" Burnham in a better light?



Smith has long wanted to be leader, so as far as he's concerned this is his big chance.

As far as some others are concerned, this is no different to Eagle. Anyone with serious intentions towards the leadership who isn't of a Corbyn-lite bent would be absolutely stupid beyond measure to put themselves forward at the moment. To be sure, Tom Watson is holding off until next time (as long as next time isn't against Corbyn in any way), as I'm sure are people like Jarvis and possibly Ummuna, although I really do think we're seeing the Blairite-proper star wane now.

Despite hyperbole to the opposite effect, there aren't that many true Blairites left -- most of these 'moderates' are simply products of an individualist politics that doesn't understand the role of party and membership (perhaps doesn't want to understand it) and are scattered here there and everywhere between Blairism, Brownism, and various other non-nameable positions that you might simply just call soft-left/liberal. Certainly, it's easier to just say 'Blairite' but it's not strictly true, unless all we mean is 'the end result of Blair's experiments with the party.'

Anyway, the usual suspects who you would expect to have an eye on the leadership are biding their time. They'd be stupid to throw their hat in the ring while Corbyn is still leader. They'll wait for him to go -- however that might happen -- and then they'll make their move seemingly untainted by the unseemly business of coups and plots. Which is why we haven't heard a great deal from Creasy, Ummuna, Hunt, Jarvis, etc. And which is why, although we've heard a lot from Watson, he very quickly put to rest the idea that he might want to stand himself. Of course he's shot himself in the foot by being the bully boy with the unions -- they won't forget that.

Also, Burnham wants to be mayor of Manchester -- I don't think he'll stand for leader again unless something extraordinary happens that requires him to step up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 21, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Despite hyperbole to the opposite effect, there aren't that many true Blairites left -- most of these 'moderates' are simply products of an individualist politics that doesn't understand the role of party and membership (perhaps doesn't want to understand it) and are scattered here there and everywhere between Blairism, Brownism, and various other non-nameable positions that you might simply just call soft-left/liberal. Certainly, it's easier to just say 'Blairite' but it's not strictly true, unless all we mean is 'the end result of Blair's experiments with the party.'.


I'll give you a bare-bones definition, and one that seems to fit with Smith:

A Blairite talks not of collective achievement but of spreading opportunity. A Blairite talks not of community but of hard-working families. To a Blairite, each voter is to be appealed to in terms of what you can do for them and their family - appeal to enough of these narrow individualist-framed self-interests and you win power. A Blairite is a variant on a Tory, essentially, but one who has chosen to make their way through politics in the Labour party, perhaps because they think the Tories have too much class-based baggage to make the necessary wide appeal, or perhaps because their liberal social values feel like a poor fit with the Tory bigots. 

A Blairite is not so much a legacy of Blair as a legacy of Thatcher. We're nearly at the US-style situation where declaring yourself pro-choice and in favour of gay marriage is enough to be 'left-wing'.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2016)

All coming out in the wash now regarding the Brighton pub incident - Cllrs showing their true colours too.

Revealed: The anti-Corbyn “moderate” in Brighton and Hove who stands accused of the hate-crime…


----------



## poului (Jul 21, 2016)

The latest from a Saving Labour lieutenant. Notice how she doesn't bother proposing any alternative, just focuses on attacking Corbyn so much so that she seems unaware of the inconsistency in following a string of attacks on him for being too left-wing by now apparently attacking him for not being left-wing enough.



> Corbyn identifies inequality as one of the great social ills of our time. Okay excellent, agreed. So what’s his solution to this, after almost a year as leader and lifetime of left wing radicalism? “Equal pay audits for companies of more than 21 people”. Really? Is that the best he has to offer? A rehash of legislation pioneered by the Labour Government in 2010 that the Conservatives committed to. Are we really splitting up the Labour Party for this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll give you a bare-bones definition, and one that seems to fit with Smith:
> 
> A Blairite talks not of collective achievement but of spreading opportunity. A Blairite talks not of community but of hard-working families. To a Blairite, each voter is to be appealed to in terms of what you can do for them and their family - appeal to enough of these narrow individualist-framed self-interests and you win power. A Blairite is a variant on a Tory, essentially, but one who has chosen to make their way through politics in the Labour party, perhaps because they think the Tories have too much class-based baggage to make the necessary wide appeal, or perhaps because their liberal social values feel like a poor fit with the Tory bigots.
> 
> A Blairite is not so much a legacy of Blair as a legacy of Thatcher. We're nearly at the US-style situation where declaring yourself pro-choice and in favour of gay marriage is enough to be 'left-wing'.


Or right wing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Interesting the people supporting corbyn because of brexit. Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think you missed out at least one 'fucking' there


This place is getting to me, or at least the behaviour of the PLP is, never been one for swearing, normally


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting the people supporting corbyn because of brexit. Wtf is wrong with you?



I've been trying to work this out as well, the only thing I can imagine is that they have spectacularly under thought the issue?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

Owen Jones has really taken to his role of trying to sell the coup to the left


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I've been trying to work this out as well, the only thing I can imagine is that they have spectacularly under thought the issue?


Over-educated thickos.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones has really taken to his role of trying to sell the coup to the left




The dirty little lickspittle.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones has really taken to his role of trying to sell the coup to the left




There's something of the Rod Liddle about his approaching middle age.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

Jones has totally shat the bed hasn't he? Writes a best selling book about the iniquities of the establishment, then goes running to them to sort things out as soon as shit gets vaguely real.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## inva (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Jones has totally shat the bed hasn't he? Writes a best selling book about the iniquities of the establishment, then goes running to them to sort things out as soon as shit gets vaguely real.


he's got an afterword at the end of Lisa McKenzie's book I read the other day. he's shit.

e2a instead of an afterword at the beginning that is


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

He's done what we said he'd do. He's tied himself into labour. That's principled.  It's also why we can now show he's a two faced dick with nothing other than oxbridge air beneath him.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I keep getting a tickle in my brain that says "Smith is a stooge _a la_ Eagle", but who for? Smith is certainly egotistic enough to believe he's a big cheese, but in reality he's a self-important nobody, who'd be the desperation shag at any office party. Is he being set up to show Chooks or Andy "Scott Tracey" Burnham in a better light?



I can't see the value in using two dummy candidates in a row tbh. If someone else stands against Smith at this point (although tbf a pine cone would probably get more votes than him) it'd make the anti Corbyn faction look even more incompetent and out of touch than they've already demonstrated themselves to be.

e2a: Not to say this definitely isn't the plan. Only that if it is, it's a fucking stupid plan.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

BeverlyCrusher said:


> The dirty little lickspittle.



He has so obviously been tasked, or has tasked himself, with winning over the people who are familiar with the language and rituals of the Labour left and the left of Labour to Owen Smith. He's doing interviews with people who could conceivably be just convincing enough, he's posting texts of anti-Corbyn analyses disguises themselves as Marxist because they use academic jargon and he is repeating the smears about bigotry and violence.

Interesting that at the end of his interview he says that he hopes to do an interview with Corbyn or pro-Corbyn people, he sounds unsure that they would be willing to do that and I can see why.



Why should the Corbyn team reward Jones with an interview so he can continue to boost his brand and sell the coup?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why should the Corbyn team reward Jones with an interview so he can continue to boost his brand and sell the coup?



And he writes for a paper which has been regularly printing hatchet jobs against Corbyn for a year now.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

The thing I find surreal is how he has spent the past few months swanning around in Spain to promote Podemos/his personal ethical brand (tm) and yet here he is attacking Podemos' ally who is leader of the Labour Party. I suppose it's lucky that Podemos did so badly in the elections, if it looked like they could have formed a government Jones might have lunged at Iglesias with an icepick.


----------



## BeverlyCrusher (Jul 21, 2016)

He's a cold lover too I hear. Invites men in to fuck him but doesn't let them in his front room, just keeps them in his hall, drops his kegs, gets them to fuck him and then boots them out......or so I've heard from a reliable source.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> All coming out in the wash now regarding the Brighton pub incident - Cllrs showing their true colours too.
> 
> Revealed: The anti-Corbyn “moderate” in Brighton and Hove who stands accused of the hate-crime…


I'm sure that's all true about the event itself and it was nasty, though not too much beyond what passes for normal bad behaviour in political parties.  Though all that forensic detail about twitter feeds and electoral registers is a bit of a turn off. Fair enough, expose the lies and bullying - I suspect there's fair bit of that going on on both sides - but the best way to beat the Blairites is to show them up as neo-liberal, anti working class scumbags. This sort of stuff seems like a bit of a side show.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure that's all true about the event itself and it was nasty, though not too much beyond what passes for normal bad behaviour in political parties.  Though all that forensic detail about twitter feeds and electoral registers is a bit of a turn off. Fair enough, expose the lies and bullying - I suspect there's fair bit of that going on on both sides - but the best way to beat the Blairites is to show them up as neo-liberal, anti working class scumbags. This sort of stuff seems like a bit of a side show.



Call out culture and grievance collection through social media has a real life of its own, it is a side show but the way that political campaigns have started to make it _the issue_ _to discuss_ means you can't really just ignore it, can you? I agree with you that just responding in kind doesn't seem like a very good way of countering it, especially when your response isn't going to be featured in the media, but I don't know what response would be better.

Is it even effective for either side to use it in the first place anyway? Clearly a lot of people must think it is, otherwise they wouldn't be using it, but is there any evidence it works?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

BeverlyCrusher said:


> He's a cold lover too I hear. Invites men in to fuck him but doesn't let them in his front room, just keeps them in his hall, drops his kegs, gets them to fuck him and then boots them out......or so I've heard from a reliable source.


Fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The thing I find surreal is how he has spent the past few months swanning around in Spain to promote Podemos/his personal ethical brand (tm) and yet here he is attacking Podemos' ally who is leader of the Labour Party. I suppose it's lucky that Podemos did so badly in the elections, if it looked like they could have formed a government Jones might have lunged at Iglesias with an icepick.


They're always better. Them. Long running trope of the british middle class left. A reflection and projection of their disgust of the real w/c in this country.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure that's all true about the event itself and it was nasty, though not too much beyond what passes for normal bad behaviour in political parties.  Though all that forensic detail about twitter feeds and electoral registers is a bit of a turn off. Fair enough, expose the lies and bullying - I suspect there's fair bit of that going on on both sides - but the best way to beat the Blairites is to show them up as neo-liberal, anti working class scumbags. This sort of stuff seems like a bit of a side show.


It's bollocks, and the breathless language they write it with is laughable. 

Someone in a political faction that's just been heavily defeated getting a bit shouty in his cups that evening? Hold the front page. Pricks.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Call out culture and grievance collection through social media has a real life of its own, it is a side show but the way that political campaigns have started to make it _the issue_ _to discuss_ means you can't really just ignore it, can you? I agree with you that just responding in kind doesn't seem like a very good way of countering it, especially when your response isn't going to be featured in the media, but I don't know what response would be better.
> 
> Is it even effective for either side to use it in the first place anyway? Clearly a lot of people must think it is, otherwise they wouldn't be using it, but is there any evidence it works?


Yeah, I agree, if somebody accused me of something, I'd probably get just as forensic.  Catch 22 really, if you are trying to achieve something positive, which I suppose the Corbynites are doing, certainly as opposed to the entirely negative Blairite schtick. It just seem soul destroying to be expending energy on this kind of stuff.


----------



## binka (Jul 21, 2016)

binka said:


> Stan James has already come in from 2/5 (to make a 40% return on investment) to 3/10 (30% ROI). Best odds now available are 4/11 with William Hill and Coral - that represents a 36% ROI.


The best odds you can now is 1/5 with Betfred (20% ROI) his odds have halved in 24 hours - must have been some serious money put on him. Really wish I'd backed him at 2/5 now with some of my savings!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I agree, if somebody accused me of something, I'd probably get just as forensic.  Catch 22 really, if you are trying to achieve something positive, which I suppose the Corbynites are doing, certainly as opposed to the entirely negative Blairite schtick. It just seem soul destroying to be expending energy on this kind of stuff.


Prepare for _twenty years of boredom._


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Jones has totally shat the bed hasn't he? Writes a best selling book about the iniquities of the establishment, then goes running to them to sort things out as soon as shit gets vaguely real.



Pre-Corbyn I saw him on telly a couple of times and would find myself nodding along at what he said then facepalming when his solution to whatever problem he laid out was always 'So support Labour'!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's bollocks, and the breathless language they write it with is laughable.
> 
> Someone in a political faction that's just been heavily defeated getting a bit shouty in his cups that evening? Hold the front page. Pricks.



It's worse than that though, it's more like 'a male Corbynite disagreed with a woman, why is the Labour Party such a hostile environment for women?' and then of course in response someone on the 'other team' will respond in kind when they see a chance to do so.

The thing I find so depressing about the whole thing is that it's a game which virtually everyone now plays but no one believes in. It's so cynical and depressing and predictable.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2016)

Yeah, absolutely - it validates the bollocks 'attacks' the other side have been breathlessly denouncing


----------



## mather (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's worse than that though, it's more like 'a male Corbynite disagreed with a woman, why is the Labour Party such a hostile environment for women?' and then of course in response someone on the 'other team' will respond in kind when they see a chance to do so.
> 
> The thing I find so depressing about the whole thing is that it's a game which virtually everyone now plays but no one believes in. It's so cynical and depressing and predictable.



This is the result of the left allowing sloppy liberal thinking and identity politics to infect it. Now it is being used against them, in many cases by people who are not even part of the left but from the right too. Anyone can now play the 'you are not being nice to me or the minorities card', the politics of victimhood and point scoring by people who use this to hide the fact that either they have no politics or that their politics stink. What makes this worse is, as you have said, that it is all so cynical.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 21, 2016)

word.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

mather said:


> This is the result of the left allowing sloppy liberal thinking and identity politics to infect it. Now it is being used against them, in many cases by people who are not even part of the left but from the right too. Anyone can now play the 'you are not being nice to me or the minorities card', the politics of victimhood and point scoring by people who use this to hide the fact that either they have no politics or that their politics stink. What makes this worse is, as you have said, that it is all so cynical.



Bit of a tangent but I read this last night, the whole piece is worth reading but the bits I've pasted address the consequences of this sort of thinking.

Passing for Politics



> Debates over trigger warnings tend to represent them as the primary threat to university pedagogy. But when it comes to incursions on the quality of education, trigger warnings are vastly overshadowed by financialization and budget cuts. Public university privatization is part of a general social trend of austerity, and the stakes are high — for faculty and teaching assistants overwhelmed by ballooning class sizes, adjuncts commuting between teaching gigs at three or four different colleges, and students working full time after class to pay rent.
> 
> When the University of California Board of Regents announced a 27% tuition hike in November 2014, the Santa Cruz campus erupted. I hadn’t expected much; I was sitting in my office grading, planning to make a quick appearance at the rally on the way home. Then I heard the crowd outside: the building next door had been occupied, the administration ejected. Change of plans.
> 
> ...



Another thing I get stuck on about stuff like this is - if you were to design a political or social movement that you intended to be successful would you have this sort of culture 'built in'? I don't think you would, you'd build it in if you wanted it to fail. The right are more than happy to join in with these ritual denunciations, Cameron talked about how criticisms of Laura Kuenssberg were sexist but they never apply it to their own ranks.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 21, 2016)

I don't understand Owen Smith instead of Angela Eagle. She's a woman, a gay woman. That all by itself would have drawn some intersectionalist support from Corbyn. But he's up against just some bloke, and a less famous one at that, who once worked for Pfizer ffs. I don't know what they think they're doing, they're fucked. Or being really canny in some way I can't see.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 21, 2016)

I don't think this has been posted yet. It's a link from the shameless Guardian piece upthread, to a study of the UK print media that confirms what everyone knows. I just like it because it has data.

''Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press:
From Watchdog to Attackdog''

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't know what they think they're doing



You have that in common with the PLP I fear.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 21, 2016)

Fairly sure I heard Smith on Radio 4 criticising Corbyn for allegedly telling MPs they had to get behind him and work hard or they'd be sacked. But he can't have been saying that because he'd of course realise how out of touch from ordinary workers that would make him sound; to the point of being ludicrous.


----------



## elbows (Jul 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Jones has totally shat the bed hasn't he? Writes a best selling book about the iniquities of the establishment, then goes running to them to sort things out as soon as shit gets vaguely real.



Alas Smith & Jones.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Fairly sure I heard Smith on Radio 4 criticising Corbyn for allegedly telling MPs they had to get behind him and work hard or they'd be sacked. But he can't have been saying that because he'd of course realise how out of touch from ordinary workers that would make him sound; to the point of being ludicrous.



Think I'll throw a temper tantrum at work tomorrow and refuse to do anything. Will let you all know how that goes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Think I'll throw a temper tantrum at work tomorrow and refuse to do anything. Will let you all know how that goes.


I often refuse to do anything at work. But I keep it to myself. And let my inaction speak for itself.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

The whole 'would you like it if your boss did this?' argument fails on another significant level which is the fact that 99.9% of us do not work for managers which are elected democratically.


----------



## oryx (Jul 21, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Think I'll throw a temper tantrum at work tomorrow and refuse to do anything. Will let you all know how that goes.


 and slag off your leader/boss!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The whole 'would you like it if your boss did this?' argument fails on another significant level which is the fact that 99.9% of us do not work for managers which are elected democratically.



There's also the little matter that he hasn't actually done anything wrong other than not let some of them bully him out of post.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They're always better. Them. Long running trope of the british middle class left. A reflection and projection of their disgust of the real w/c in this country.



Sorry, but that sounds like Corbs to a degree. He is certainly pro WC, but my word does he like the romantic internationalism both in politics and in the personal. More likely to be seen at SOAS than in Dudley.

Right, where's my Sandinista LP?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like Corbs to a degree. He is certainly pro WC, but my word does he like the romantic internationalism both in politics and in the personal. More likely to be seen at SOAS than in Dudley.
> 
> Right, where's my Sandinista LP?


Nothing to do 'corbs'. Sounds like most of the left. Not the PLP left though. Nor the non-corbyn left. Other causes to support.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> All coming out in the wash now regarding the Brighton pub incident - Cllrs showing their true colours too.
> 
> Revealed: The anti-Corbyn “moderate” in Brighton and Hove who stands accused of the hate-crime…



Blimey, more long winded than Joseph Conrad!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2016)

yes refutations need to be concise


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> yes refutations need to be concise



No they don't! 

Oh bollocks!


----------



## binka (Jul 21, 2016)

Terrible interview of Corbyn by Jackie Long on C4 news just now - she was just awful. Is Corbyn getting more assertive? His big clunking fist smashing the lectern to pieces in his speech today and twice in that interview he had to scream in her face 'let me finish answering the question!!'


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

binka said:


> Terrible interview of Corbyn by Jackie Long on C4 news just now - she was just awful. Is Corbyn getting more assertive? His big clunking fist smashing the lectern to pieces in his speech today and twice in that interview he had to scream in her face 'let me finish answering the question!!'



I think he is getting more assertive. Now he just needs to stop apologising for things that aren't his fault.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2016)

Just seen the first reference to 'Bromentum'. Fucksake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can't see the value in using two dummy candidates in a row tbh. If someone else stands against Smith at this point (although tbf a pine cone would probably get more votes than him) it'd make the anti Corbyn faction look even more incompetent and out of touch than they've already demonstrated themselves to be.
> 
> e2a: Not to say this definitely isn't the plan. Only that if it is, it's a fucking stupid plan.



I'm not saying he's a stalking horse for another candidate this time around, but his bald fibs about radicalism, and his past mean that a lot of ire will be expended on him, ire that means that next time round - and there will be a next time - that those who've kept themselves aloof this time, may be able to soft-soap/slime their way past the electorate's guard next time.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2016)

treelover said:


> Blimey, more long winded than Joseph Conrad!


Shurely "Charles Dickens"


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 21, 2016)

Fuck me! Michael Crick is annoying as sin!

Because everyone knows, the management and the company represent the workforce....  criticising global corporations is directly criticising the workforce. Or something.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 21, 2016)

We'll keep triggering ballots until you stupid plebs do what we tell you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

Note the expectation of continued defeat. Changes how many PLP are on their side. A reverse siege.


----------



## oryx (Jul 21, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fuck me! Michael Crick is annoying as sin!
> 
> Because everyone knows, the management and the company represent the workforce....  criticising global corporations is directly criticising the workforce. Or something.




Michael Crick was on C4 News tonight asking a group of Momentum supporters how their homeless mate could afford the £25 to become a registered Labour supporter...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

After this, akehurst etc will be told to shut up in very strong terms


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2016)

binka said:


> Terrible interview of Corbyn by Jackie Long on C4 news just now - she was just awful. Is Corbyn getting more assertive? His big clunking fist smashing the lectern to pieces in his speech today and twice in that interview he had to scream in her face 'let me finish answering the question!!'



It was interesting so see the anti semitism Ruth Smeeth issue - pretty much disproved within a few hours of the initial furore- being brought back up in the interview. pretty sloppy and biased questioning from a journo


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 21, 2016)

Jesus fuck the man's ego just now on newsnight. May must be laughing even harder than Cameron when he first faced him. An arrogant cunt beyond belief. Go on, vote for him. You're voting for May.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 21, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fuck me! Michael Crick is annoying as sin!
> 
> Because everyone knows, the management and the company represent the workforce....  criticising global corporations is directly criticising the workforce. Or something.




But they're Wealth Creators, dammit! _Wealth Creators!_


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> There's also the little matter that he hasn't actually done anything wrong other than not let some of them bully him out of post.


Oh yes he has! He has put socialist principles before electrobility(is there such  a word)? The greatest sin known to Blarites, off with his head!!


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Note the expectation of continued defeat. Changes how many PLP are on their side. A reverse siege.



"Mr Smith said: “It didn’t seem very friendly, kind or gentle to me for Jeremy to threaten everybody who works for him with the sack. It’s not much of an employer who says ‘work for me, work harder or I am going to sack you all’, which is effectively what he is doing today"

Owen Smith is Theresa Mays speechwriter, or just plagiarism?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Jesus fuck the man's ego just now on newsnight. May must be laughing even harder than Cameron when he first faced him. An arrogant cunt beyond belief. Go on, vote for him. You're voting for May.



fuck off


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> After this, akehurst etc will be told to shut up in very strong terms


A favour?could you lot,( those who have been following this for years and are generally well informed) put a link in when you mention names, positions ect?
Ta.


----------



## coley (Jul 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Jesus fuck the man's ego just now on newsnight. May must be laughing even harder than Cameron when he first faced him. An arrogant cunt beyond belief. Go on, vote for him. You're voting for May.


If you want real dyed in the wool smarmy "arrogance" listen to Owen Smith.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> "Mr Smith said: “It didn’t seem very friendly, kind or gentle to me for Jeremy to threaten everybody who works for him with the sack. It’s not much of an employer who says ‘work for me, work harder or I am going to sack you all’, which is effectively what he is doing today"
> 
> Owen Smith is Theresa Mays speechwriter, or just plagiarism?



This is what I heard. It's so fucking clueless. Jesus, having to work, and work harder for your employer or face the sack. No idea what austerity has been like for most people, what working conditions are like for everyone else.  The poor MPs! My heart fucking bleeds!


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> A favour?could you lot,( those who have been following this for years and are generally well informed) put a link in when you mention names, positions ect?
> Ta.



Luke Akehurst - Cunt. I'll leave the more indepth analysis to those better informed than myself, solid starting point though.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> If you want real dyed in the wool smarmy "arrogance" listen to Owen Smith.



Or any of his backers and most of his supporters. I'm sure a psychologist could spot some terrifying patterns amongst that shower.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No they don't!
> 
> Oh bollocks!


Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Note the expectation of continued defeat. Changes how many PLP are on their side. A reverse siege.



Sending the PLP over the top over and over again, whilst the rebel leadership sip fine wines in their chateaux.  At least they have a sense of history.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 21, 2016)

coley said:


> A favour?could you lot,( those who have been following this for years and are generally well informed) put a link in when you mention names, positions ect?
> Ta.



Moral-free zone on the right of the party. Big in the Progress faction, likes to think he's an eminence grease while writing about "strategies for moderates" on his relatively high-profile Labour List blog, but is really just a cunt. Hate-figure on the Labour left because he actually says all the deepest, darkest fantasies of the Blairites out loud and stands for the NEC on a ticket of "destroy the hard left" - by which he means anyone to his left, which is everyone.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fuck me! Michael Crick is annoying as sin!
> 
> Because everyone knows, the management and the company represent the workforce....  criticising global corporations is directly criticising the workforce. Or something.




I love how for these people jobs are totally expendable, 'creative destruction' of jobs by the 'free market' is fine but the second it comes to ethical considerations that might cause the loss of a single job suddenly they transform themselves into faux trade union reps.


----------



## Ole (Jul 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Jesus fuck the man's ego just now on newsnight. May must be laughing even harder than Cameron when he first faced him. An arrogant cunt beyond belief. Go on, vote for him. You're voting for May.



I remember you.


Reiabuzz said:


> Fuck Britain. Backward little fucking island. I'm out, never should've come back to this shithole. That's it. The only thing it had going for it was that was 'in' Europe.





Reiabuzz said:


> Off to bed.
> 
> Fuck Britain. That's all I have to say. At least I have an escape route out of this godforsaken, closetly racist little shitfuck.





Reiabuzz said:


> Other halfs European thank god, so I'm getting that passport and we're scarpering. I feel humiliated to say I live in the UK now. I'm seeing it as an opportunity as I've been disillusioned with this country for a while and this is the icing on the cake.




You're still fucking bleating on here. You tedious fucking cunt.

DO ONE.


----------



## Ole (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> We'll keep triggering ballots until you stupid plebs do what we tell you.



They'll be up for mandatory reselection in 2018 in any case, won't they? 

Jeremy Corbyn just described how all his Labour MP critics could soon be wiped out

Besides, this triggering leadership ballots stuff isn't a card that can be played without consequences repeatedly. Career suicide beckons.


----------



## Draygo (Jul 22, 2016)

If its a contest between Corbyn and Smith - and it is - then I'm voting for Corbyn. Smith's policy platform as based on his launch is perfectly good, but his background shows his left-side is skin-deep (to weirdly mix metaphors.) Pfizer, NHS, academies et al - you know the drill. He's playing to the left-crowd now and would as soon flip tomorrow. I still have reservations about Corbyn but Smith is not the answer.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2016)

Ole said:


> They'll be up for mandatory reselection in 2018 in any case, won't they?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn just described how all his Labour MP critics could soon be wiped out
> 
> Besides, this triggering leadership ballots stuff isn't a card that can be played without consequences repeatedly. Career suicide beckons.



If they win all sins are absolved, could challenge 50 times over but if they win on the 51st then they're loyal party servants again. Internally anyway, which is as far as they think, externally amongst real people they'll piss away their seats along the way. Or, preferably, get deselected and get sent to stuff envelopes for the Lib Dems.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2016)

Ole said:


> They'll be up for mandatory reselection in 2018 in any case, won't they?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn just described how all his Labour MP critics could soon be wiped out
> 
> Besides, this triggering leadership ballots stuff isn't a card that can be played without consequences repeatedly. Career suicide beckons.


Id like to read a more indepth analysis of the mandatory reselection process and how it might play out - if anyone has a link or knows themselves... what will happen exactly/what the procedure would be etc etc etc.


----------



## Ole (Jul 22, 2016)

mather said:


> This is the result of the left allowing sloppy liberal thinking and identity politics to infect it. Now it is being used against them, in many cases by people who are not even part of the left but from the right too. Anyone can now play the 'you are not being nice to me or the minorities card', the politics of victimhood and point scoring by people who use this to hide the fact that either they have no politics or that their politics stink. What makes this worse is, as you have said, that it is all so cynical.





J Ed said:


> Bit of a tangent but I read this last night, the whole piece is worth reading but the bits I've pasted address the consequences of this sort of thinking.
> 
> Passing for Politics
> 
> ...



Yes. I find it's a good rule of thumb for analysing these kinds of lasting phenomena, by asking "who does it really benefit?".

The African-American scholar Adolph Reed puts it like this:

Identity politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature.

An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do.​


----------



## mather (Jul 22, 2016)

Thanks for that reply Ole. I had never heard of Adolph Reed before but having just read up on him from various sources on the internet, he seems spot on on so many issues, namely identity politics and his criticisms of Obama. He is an author that I am definitely going to add to my reading list.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Luke Akehurst - Cunt. I'll leave the more indepth analysis to those better informed than myself, solid starting point though.


I'll settle for that, just trying to wade through the the waves of political interests the referendum and auld Corby has stirred up, 
FFS, had no idea what a swappie was! Thought it was mebbes a hard left 'hoy in the car keys' bunch of sexual deviants, but upon further reading, it seems no self respecting 'swappie' would  deign to own such a capitalist conveyance!
Bit confusing for us 'auld uns' left despairing after Kinnock and Blair.
Might be sounding a bit daft and auld fashioned, but I'd rather remain out of power and honest, rather than compromise and sell out me beliefs for the sake, or sniff of ( come on in Clegg) power.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Moral-free zone on the right of the party. Big in the Progress faction, likes to think he's an eminence grease while writing about "strategies for moderates" on his relatively high-profile Labour List blog, but is really just a cunt. Hate-figure on the Labour left because he actually says all the deepest, darkest fantasies of the Blairites out loud and stands for the NEC on a ticket of "destroy the hard left" - by which he means anyone to his left, which is everyone.


Ta, that's the sort of link I was after


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> If they win all sins are absolved, could challenge 50 times over but if they win on the 51st then they're loyal party servants again. Internally anyway, which is as far as they think, externally amongst real people they'll piss away their seats along the way. Or, preferably, get deselected and get sent to stuff envelopes for the Lib Dems.


Or in many cases, the Tories.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

Draygo said:


> If its a contest between Corbyn and Smith - and it is - then I'm voting for Corbyn. Smith's policy platform as based on his launch is perfectly good, but his background shows his left-side is skin-deep (to weirdly mix metaphors.) Pfizer, NHS, academies et al - you know the drill. He's playing to the left-crowd now and would as soon flip tomorrow. I still have reservations about Corbyn but Smith is not the answer.


The only reservations I have about Corbyn is that he isn't skilled at playing up to the media, now in the short term that could and will be a disadvantage, but given the turbulent times ahead, his lack of shallow presentational skills compared to his rock solid set of beliefs could change the common medias presentation, esp if the groundswell of support continues to grow, nowt as fickle as the fourth


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

Aaargh has cancelled surgeries on the 'advice of police' - whilst pushing the ongoing line that Corbyn is permitting the 'abuse. The police however, get rather close to contradicting her (to say the least):
Angela Eagle accuses Jeremy Corbyn of allowing abuse to flourish

edit: more on the police advice bit here - she even manages to bring in the word 'terrorism'.  What a fucking weasel.
Angela Eagle stops walk-in surgeries amid security concerns


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 22, 2016)

I have been blocked from Owen Smith's facebook page after making one comment which contained no personal abuse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2016)

BeverlyCrusher said:


> There's something of the Rod Liddle about his approaching middle age.


physically he seems to be getting younger  Dorian Gray?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> physically he seems to be getting younger  Dorian Gray?


Over a massive 4 weeks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> no personal abuse



Shame on you


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

Kneecappings, now?



> _It transpired that Jeremy, in deliberations about how to respond to my interview, had said that he intended to ring my father to discuss it with him and ask him to speak to me about it. The leader of the Labour Party was proposing to address an issue with one of his own MPs by ringing his Dad. Jeremy does not know my father so I can only presume that because of the much-publicised fact that my father was a Sinn Féin councillor, Jeremy felt that they would share a political affinity and was proposing to use that to ask my father to apply pressure on me. Thankfully, others dissuaded Jeremy from taking this course of action. The call was not made, and it would not have been well received._


Not enough s

e2a : this is 'real'...


​


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Kneecappings, now?
> 
> ​Not enough s
> 
> ...




Is it possible that Corbyn was attempting humour that was missed?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Is it possible that Corbyn was attempting humour that was missed?


More likely an attempt at humour that has now been cast as something else in the cause of _saving Labour._
Venal fucking scum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Kneecappings, now?
> 
> ​Not enough s
> 
> ...



where are you getting kneecappings from?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> where are you getting kneecappings from?


I'm not. I made it up...like McGinn is doing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Aaargh has cancelled surgeries on the 'advice of police' - whilst pushing the ongoing line that Corbyn is permitting the 'abuse. The police however, get rather close to contradicting her (to say the least):
> Angela Eagle accuses Jeremy Corbyn of allowing abuse to flourish
> 
> edit: more on the police advice bit here - she even manages to bring in the word 'terrorism'.  What a fucking weasel.
> Angela Eagle stops walk-in surgeries amid security concerns



That first story repeats the canard about the brick. Yes, *by now *it says the brink went through the window *of the building* where her constituency office is (I'm sure earlier Guardian versions were, erm, less clear on that  ). But in the context of the rest of that first story above the brick paragraph, it's repeating the lie. By implication at the very least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm not. I made it up...like McGinn is doing.


i thought more of you, i really did


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Kneecappings, now?
> 
> ​Not enough s
> 
> ...




Ha ha- this is hilarious! 

_"It transpired that Jeremy, in deliberations about how to respond to my interview, had said that he intended to ring my father to discuss it with him and ask him to speak to me about it."
_
Corbyn is a modern day monster!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

McGinn goes on to make explicit the danger that lay behind the monster's threat...



> _When I watched Jeremy’s interview on Newsnight last night, I am afraid I could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy of him talking about a kinder, gentler politics when I knew for a fact that *he had proposed using my family against me in an attempt to bully me* in to submission because he didn’t like something I said. That is why I have reluctantly and sadly chosen to make this information public now._


​


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

Reluctantly and sadly.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 22, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Ha ha- this is hilarious!
> 
> _"It transpired that Jeremy, in deliberations about how to respond to my interview, had said that he intended to ring my father to discuss it with him and ask him to speak to me about it."
> _
> Corbyn is a modern day monster!



Note the slight difference between this quote and the tweet. Did Corbyn demand an apology and issue a threat (Tweet) or did McGinn pick up some sort of second-hand rumour or account (above quote)?

This is a rhetorical question btw.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 22, 2016)

Do we need a new thread for (likely &/or preferred) policy direction of the Labour left (assuming that the forces currently moving that way within the grassroots have a future) given that this one is mostly about Corbyn and the multitude of people and PR front groups sticking knives in him?

Or is there one already? I just had a look and couldn't see anything obvious.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

> In my constituency, a group of people gained access to my shared office building under false pretences and filmed themselves protesting outside the door of my office, in an incident that has been reported to the police. They threatened to disrupt my surgeries and events I was attending, requiring me to have a police presence at those last weekend.



Where's the vid then?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

Guardian helpfully running this story with a 'live' panel...


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2016)

I think Corbyn should ring Owen Smith's dad as soon as possible!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 22, 2016)

Coming soon: Our exclusive story about how Corbyn threatened and bullied an Islington hedge with a pair of garden shears: "i'll cut you down to size"


----------



## Nostradamus (Jul 22, 2016)

coley said:


> "Mr Smith said: “It didn’t seem very friendly, kind or gentle to me for Jeremy to threaten everybody who works for him with the sack. It’s not much of an employer who says ‘work for me, work harder or I am going to sack you all’, which is effectively what he is doing today"
> 
> Owen Smith is Theresa Mays speechwriter, or just plagiarism?


Owen Smith = f***ing moron - this is is the MOof EVERY employer!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Nostradamus said:


> Owen Smith = f***ing moron - this is is the MOof EVERY employer!


You were banned last week for being annoying. Roll on the next one.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2016)

Ole said:


> They'll be up for mandatory reselection in 2018 in any case, won't they?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn just described how all his Labour MP critics could soon be wiped out
> 
> Besides, this triggering leadership ballots stuff isn't a card that can be played without consequences repeatedly. Career suicide beckons.



Hey all you Labour rebels, never fear Dame Rosie will look after you. 

Chief whip calms reselection fears of Labour MPs who oppose Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Nostradamus (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You were banned last week for being annoying. Roll on the next one.


First time here, why do you like Owen Smith?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Nostradamus said:


> First time here, why do you like Owen Smith?


Can you tell the past? 

He's got a very confident walk. It exudes strength. I am in thrall to strength.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 22, 2016)

He is kind of dreamy


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Coming soon: Our exclusive story about how Corbyn threatened and bullied an Islington hedge with a pair of garden shears: "i'll cut you down to size"



Corbyn in sourdough scandal; 'I will cut you' threatens the besieged Marxist.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Ha ha- this is hilarious!
> 
> _"It transpired that Jeremy, in deliberations about how to respond to my interview, had said that he intended to ring my father to discuss it with him and ask him to speak to me about it."
> _
> Corbyn is a modern day monster!



Wait, I thought Tom Watson was his dad?


----------



## Nostradamus (Jul 22, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> He is kind of dreamy


Careful, no sexism here please.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Nostradamus said:


> Careful, no sexism here please.


Oh yeah, that was the thing you were really banned for.


----------



## Nostradamus (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Can you tell the past?
> 
> He's got a very confident walk. It exudes strength. I am in thrall to strength.


You don't need to read about the past cos you were there
nur nu nur nu nur nur


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2016)

agricola said:


> Wait, I thought Tom Watson was his dad?



If they ever remade Chesney Hawkes vehicle _Buddy's Song_, himself there would be perfect for the Roger Daltrey role.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

This is really offensive.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.



Has Owen Smith been hit in the head with a massive tea mug or something?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2016)

AND IF NOT WHY NOT  etc


----------



## Raheem (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.




I used to work at Sports Direct. When they tried that trick, I just made sure I claimed my £150k expenses in full and went back into the pharmaceutical industry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> AND IF NOT WHY NOT  etc


because a brick would be better


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.




In that case, I'll just leave this here:


----------



## Sue (Jul 22, 2016)

Yes, being an MP is just like working on a zero-hours, (less than) minimum wage contract where you can be sacked for spending too long in the toilet or having time off sick. These fucking people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.



this one of those ratner eagle moments in't it


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

God, it is getting ugly, Smith just had interviews on both major broadcast channels bascially saying JC is condoning bullying, the thing is it will make people who have some issues with Corbyn but support the general direction and like the integrity and commitment even more determined to beat the 'rebels'


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 22, 2016)

I think Corbyn needs to start nicking the stationary and mugs with the Labour logo on. When the fighting starts over who uses the brand he can whip them out

Corbyn: 'well I've got the stationary and mugs so dibs it's mine'
Smith: 'can't argue with that'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Jesus fuck the man's ego just now on newsnight. May must be laughing even harder than Cameron when he first faced him. An arrogant cunt beyond belief. Go on, vote for him. You're voting for May.



The only arrogant cunt is you, assuming you've got a strategic political mind, when your posts show you'd lose a game of draughts.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

Some great results in local elections for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party:

There were 11 by-elections last night. So far, we have 10 full results in. Labour successfully defended three seats with an increased percentage of the vote. That included a whopping 21.4% increase in Southcote ward in Reading. In two of the 10 seats that Labour was standing in, there was no previous Labour candidate. Both achieved respectable results, showing that Labour can make inroads in supposedly hostile ground. In all but one of the 10 results in, there has been an increase in the percentage of Labour vote. As we have said before, the argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable does not stand up to the evidence. Last night by elections confirm that view.










LikeShow More Reactions
CommentShare

From JC4PM FB


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2016)

With all this stuff Smith is coming up with regarding Corbyn being a bad boss, why doesn't he take action by joining an affiliated Union, raising a grievance and taking his 'boss' to a tribunal? 
But then surely Smith's bosses are the CLP that chose him and the constituents he is employed to represent!


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Kneecappings, now?
> 
> ​Not enough s
> 
> ...




I wonder what his dad's (Pat McGinn, former Newry councillor) shadier mates make of all this, watching the next generation whine about intimidation by meanie Mr Corbyn. Pat reportedly labelled fellow councillor Martin Cunningham a tout for showing sympathy with the family of Robert McCartney after the latter's murder in 2005, allegedly by the provos, so a soft touch he certainly ain't.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.



Made even more so by representing a 'tag-team' approach with May's PMQs performance.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> God, it is getting ugly, Smith just had interviews on both major broadcast channels bascially saying JC is condoning bullying, the thing is it will make people who have some issues with Corbyn but support the general direction and like the integrity and commitment even more determined to beat the 'rebels'



The Guardian have a transcript of one of those interviews, perhaps the highlight being:



> There has been intolerance and abuse in the Labour party, that we have never seen before.



Has he not heard of what happened to Elizabeth Filkin?  Or Brown throwing office supplies at people?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> McGinn goes on to make explicit the danger that lay behind the monster's threat...
> 
> 
> ​


He knows this for a "fact" because he's apparently been told it by other's.


----------



## gosub (Jul 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Coming soon: Our exclusive story about how Corbyn threatened and bullied an Islington hedge with a pair of garden shears: "i'll cut you down to size"


Hmmh bit like Arrrggghhs leadership announcement - I'll believe it when I see it


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2016)

Its not a policy coming from Corbyn, its long been decided:


treelover said:


> Some great results in local elections for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party:
> 
> There were 11 by-elections last night. So far, we have 10 full results in. Labour successfully defended three seats with an increased percentage of the vote. That included a whopping 21.4% increase in Southcote ward in Reading. In two of the 10 seats that Labour was standing in, there was no previous Labour candidate. Both achieved respectable results, showing that Labour can make inroads in supposedly hostile ground. In all but one of the 10 results in, there has been an increase in the percentage of Labour vote. As we have said before, the argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable does not stand up to the evidence. Last night by elections confirm that view.
> 
> ...


Ah thanks for that - I went past a poll booth in Lower Sydenham yesterday and thought theyd forgotten to take signs down from the referendum vote

itd be nice to see all 11? results

ETA: These are they i think
Council by-election results from yesterday | Conservative Home
Labour gain in all but one it looks like to me


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Kneecappings, now?
> 
> ​Not enough s
> 
> ...



Mad Dog's involvement in this sort of thing has already been noted - “they haven't gone a whey, you know” as the man himself might say


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

> I received my reply from my MP Chris Evans, via letter, today (21-07-16).
> As a young(ish), disabled woman in his constituency I am furious at his response to my complaint. I am neither violent nor intimidating. I, like many, just want a fairer shot at life, for my voice to be heard and that is why I support Corbyn. Chris Evans, what you said is not only dismissive and arrogant, but it is hurtful ...




Very disingenuous reply to a constituent, sounds full on smears.

from FB, no link


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

_Here's some compensatory foil. I used the rest._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Anyway, there can't be that many Rees' in Islwyn.


----------



## gosub (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _Here's some compensatory foil. I used the rest._


I thought that.  (its covering her personal details)


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

Liverpool last night.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> Liverpool last night.


a fine picture of the backs of people's heads


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

We must all be aware of Mr Corbyn's ability to pull a crowd by now, surely?


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

‘Entryism-on-Sea’ –

Smears or based on fact, article attacking the AWL and its role in the new labour party, clearly has a 'labour right wing' agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

I think we need an album of treelovers crowd shots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> ‘Entryism-on-Sea’ –
> 
> Smears or based on fact, article attacking the AWL and its role in the new labour party.


which do you think it is, a smear or "based on fact"?


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

> This is a story of fringe leftwing groups insinuating their way into local parties and attempting to force their agenda – explicitly revolutionary and contemptuous of parliamentary democracy – onto the Labour Party. Groups like the Alliance for Workers Liberty, a Trotskyist sect committed to revolution which grew out of the Militant Tendency in the early 90s.



Well, the author had already got that bit wrong.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _Here's some compensatory foil. I used the rest._



Probably evidence that Corbyn is the one who steals the middle out of every Polo.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> Very disingenuous reply to a constituent, sounds full on smears.
> 
> from FB, no link


What a despicable letter. 

The bullying accusations are bizarre considering that what's happening to Corbyn can easily be described as bullying. He doesn't use that description because he doesn't do personality politics, but the collusion of the "rebels" and the media to constantly batter him with lies in the press and heckle him from his own backbenches is definitely bullying. They're basically crying because they keep hitting him and he refuses to fall down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> from FB, no link


strange how rarely that happens to other people and how often it happens to you


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 22, 2016)

What do we think Dai Smith makes of his son's political trajectory? I don't know his politics, but holding the Raymond Williams Chair of Cultural History and writing biographies of Williams and Bevan suggest he might be a little disappointed. Perhaps someone ask him to have a word, try to get his son to see sense, no need for a clip around the year, but he could lend him a copy of _Mayday Manifesto_, or _Keywords_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> What do we think Dai Smith thinks of his son's political trajectory? I don't know his work, but holding the Raymond Williams Chair of Cultural History and writing biographies of Williams and Bevan suggest he might be a little disappointed. Perhaps someone ask him to have a word, try to get his son to see sense, no need for a clip around the year, but he could lend him a copy of _Mayday Manifesto_, or _Keywords_.


never mind dai smith's dad, what about conor mcginn's dad?

lest we forget





kieran nugent, first blanket man after LABOUR withdrew special category status


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 22, 2016)

Pickman's model, that might seem more relevant to Conor's da than Owen's.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Pickman's model, that might seem more relevant to Conor's da than Owen's.


yes, as it says


----------



## Sue (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> What a despicable letter.
> 
> The bullying accusations are bizarre considering that what's happening to Corbyn can easily be described as bullying. He doesn't use that description because he doesn't do personality politics, but the collusion of the "rebels" and the media to constantly batter him with lies in the press and heckle him from his own backbenches is definitely bullying. They're basically crying because they keep hitting him and he refuses to fall down.



I specially like this bit: 

'Of course we would not have had a leadership election had Jeremy Corbyn done the honourable thing and resigned as leader of the party.'

which certainly illustrates that they wouldn't recognise 'honourable' if they fell over it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> What do we think Dai Smith makes of his son's political trajectory? I don't know his politics, but holding the Raymond Williams Chair of Cultural History and writing biographies of Williams and Bevan suggest he might be a little disappointed. Perhaps someone ask him to have a word, try to get his son to see sense, no need for a clip around the year, but he could lend him a copy of _Mayday Manifesto_, or _Keywords_.



Probably thinks the same of his sons as would Ralph Miliband and Tony Benn!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This is really offensive.



I was going to say this shows Smith to be an incompetent, heavy handed PR propagandist (which it does). But the more obvious point is it also shows how far detached he is from the real lives of people employed by firms like sportsdirect. What a twat.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

Having said a couple of pages back that it's depressing to get all forensic on the bullying claims/counter claims... I'm going to do just that.  Apart from the brick of destiny (aka the brick NOT thrown Aaargh's window), what is the best evidence for the bullying claim? Amid all the wailing, media briefing, spit-gates and cancelled surgeries, do we have any concrete allegations?  Anyone named, anyone interviewed by police? Any individuals suspended by the party itself?

p.s. I do know about the bloke arrested in Scotland for death threats (to Aaargh, I think).


----------



## maomao (Jul 22, 2016)

Sue said:


> I specially like this bit:
> 
> 'Of course we would not have had a leadership election had Jeremy Corbyn done the honourable thing and resigned as leader of the party.'
> 
> which certainly illustrates that they wouldn't recognise 'honourable' if they fell over it.


It's also a really dumb thing to say. If Corbyn had resigned there would surely have to be a leadership election.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

A note from 2013 during the direct action campaign against workfare firms (itself far more active than what's going on now), which I always like to remember at times like these:

When politicians scream about "thugs intimidating workfare providers" it may be worth reminding them of what happened to landowners who tried to impose a workhouse in Suffolk in the 1760s. Workhouses were where people who couldn't support themselves were sent and were notorious for demanding long days of toil for little more than room and board at what amounted to a prison.

First, the entrepreneurs funding the new facility got a letter in which they were told: "Let them tak care of thin selves for farit that is hap on shall there Brains be Blown out and that as sure as death and fail not and the hous shall not be bilt a toyle."

Then when these directors met at the White Hart in Wickham Market, on 11th August....

"The inn was soon surrounded by a crowd of 500, men, women, and children. Armed with cudgels the men first occupied the outbuildings, then forced their way into the room where the officials were gathered. The directors were taken away to a nearby bowling green and held under guard.
"The records of the poor in the different parishes were destroyed, and the 'leaders of the mob' insisted that the poor should be maintained as before, and that, 'they should range at liberty and be their own masters; that this was only the beginning of their work, for they intended that Nacton House and all other buildings of that sort should be levelled with the ground'."

Several workhouses - and at least one house of a local gent who refused to provide beer - were levelled over the next few weeks.​_That's_ intimidation. This crap is playtime.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> We must all be aware of Mr Corbyn's ability to pull a crowd by now, surely?



Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country. 

On top of the dire voting intention polls, these are pretty damning:

(ICM 13-15 July) Better able to manage the economy: May/Hammond 53%, Corbyn/McDonnell 15%
(ComRes 16 July) Who will make a better PM: May 58%, Corbyn 19%
(Ipsos Mori 14 July) Labour should change its leader before next election: Yes 66%, No 25%


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.


so is your prescription a) that he seek to persuade "w/c opinion" (by which i suppose you mean "the opinion of those parts of the w/c which don't already agree with him"); or b) that he seek to adjust his politics to suit those people who don't agree with him?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> (ICM 13-15 July) Better able to manage the economy: May/Hammond 53%, Corbyn/McDonnell 15%
> (ComRes 16 July) Who will make a better PM: May 58%, Corbyn 19%
> (Ipsos Mori 14 July) *Labour should change its leader before next election*: Yes 66%, No 25%


Ironically, the Blairites have probably made this less rather than more likely.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

Right of centre people will vote Tory or Lib Dem. There is absolutely no point trying to win them over. All it does is alienate waverers and left of centre voters. 

And yes, it's no bloody surprise Corbyn's polling low right now - given the behaviour of those Labour MPs it'd be astounding if he weren't. Pointing at his low poll ratings after being undermined by his MPs is like kneecapping someone then criticising them for not being able to walk.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Pointing at his low poll ratings after being undermined by his MPs is like kneecapping someone then criticising them for not being able to walk.



Hang on a second. Did you just threaten, in unambiguous language, to kneecap Angela Eagle? I can't see any other way to read that comment.

Now, where's that bloody number for the Mirror exclusives desk?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

Also I don't think his views on Brexit and immigration are that out of step with the working classes, unless the suggestion is that all the working class are racists and that the working class leave votes were driven largely by that.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Right of centre people will vote Tory or Lib Dem.



What about those that vote UKIP in former Labour heartlands?


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.
> 
> On top of the dire voting intention polls, these are pretty damning:
> 
> ...


We all saw those figures yesterday, I'm not sure why you're posting them here now as if it's check mate.

I don't deny they look bad: but as with any figures, context is everything. We're in the middle of a dirty battle for control of Labour, one which has been ongoing since before Corbyn became leader. One of the tactics of the rebels is to question the competence of the leadership in the most strident terms, which had been echoed and amplified by an onside press. 

Even people who might otherwise be sympathetic to Corbyn's politics can be forgiven for looking at the basket case that is the labour party in 2016 and think 'fuck that'. 

Before the latest flare up of the dirty war, even with a relentlessly hostile press and substantial portions of the party openly briefing against the leadership, labour was level against the tories. Imagine where they might have been had there been a party and shadow cabinet United behind the leader? They would be ahead. It might even have been possible for them to have run a more effective campaign for staying in the EU, enough for the referendum result to be different... but no. 

If labour's polls are disastrous atm, the fault for that doesn't lie with Corbyn. It lies with the plp who've sabotaged his every move for the last 9 months.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Also I don't think his views on Brexit and immigration are that out of step with the working classes, unless the suggestion is that all the working class are racists and that the working class leave votes were driven largely by that.



Where did race come into it? Poll after poll shows that immigration is one of the top issues facing Britain today, and that most people want immigration reduced. But Corbyn barely talks about, I suspect because he is unashamadely pro-free movement and because he knows that that view isn't really a vote winner.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> We all saw those figures yesterday, I'm not sure why you're posting them here now as if it's check mate.
> 
> I don't deny they look bad: but as with any figures, context is everything. We're in the middle of a dirty battle for control of Labour, one which has been ongoing since before Corbyn became leader. One of the tactics of the rebels is to question the competence of the leadership in the most strident terms, which had been echoed and amplified by an onside press.
> 
> ...



They are not just looking at the Labour party and thinking 'fuck that', those polls suggest they have a serious problem with _Corbyn_.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't deny they look bad: but as with any figures, context is everything.



More than that, posting them is singular evidence that mk12 still has no idea what's actually going on. He still doesn't get that Corbyn's personal polling data is not and has never been the issue either for his own side or for the 172 rebels.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> What about those that vote UKIP in former Labour heartlands?


Doesn't UKIP do at least as well in former Tory heartlands? My hometown is strongly UKIP in its council but is historically Tory. So's Carswell's Clacton. In fact I think you might well have it backwards about "Labour heartlands." 

My neighbours who voted UKIP were not all racist, either, and I mean genuinely not racist, not just hiding it well. Racism is only part of Ukip's appeal. 

You seem to be using UKIP votes, wrongly, as evidence that the working class are mostly racist. That's a pretty shitty point of view.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> More than that, posting them is singular evidence that mk12 still has no idea what's actually going on. He still doesn't get that Corbyn's personal polling data is not and has never been the issue either for his own side or for the 172 rebels.


His personal polling data is important if he hopes to win the next election.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

But he's not hoping to win the next election. Nor are the rebels (or at least the key players). They both want to win the Labour Party.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Doesn't UKIP do at least as well in former Tory heartlands? My hometown is strongly UKIP in its council but is historically Tory. So's Carswell's Clacton. In fact I think you might well have it backwards about "Labour heartlands."
> 
> My neighbours who voted UKIP were not all racist, either, and I mean genuinely not racist, not just hiding it well. Racism is only part of Ukip's appeal.
> 
> You seem to be using UKIP votes, wrongly, as evidence that the working class are mostly racist. That's a pretty shitty point of view.



I have absolutely no idea how you've come to that conclusion. You seemed to be suggesting that right-of-centre people can't be won to Labour. Fair enough. I was wondering how you think w/c UKIP voters can be won back to Labour.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I have absolutely no idea how you've come to that conclusion. You seemed to be suggesting that right-of-centre people can't be won to Labour. Fair enough. I was wondering how you think w/c UKIP voters can be won back to Labour.


I read the words you wrote. What did you mean by saying that Corbyn's views on immigration and Brexit were out of step with the working classes, then? Either you're accusing Corbyn of being racist or it's the working class you're accusing. Which is it? 

You're wrong about UKIP mostly being strong in former Labour heartlands. Don't assume that working class = Labour; there have always been working class Tories.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> They are not just looking at the Labour party and thinking 'fuck that', those polls suggest they have a serious problem with _Corbyn_.


His 'personal ratings' are intimately tied up with how well he's doing as labour leader. Even the most ardent Corbyn fan would recognise he's not having such an easy ride there.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I read the words you wrote. What did you mean by saying that Corbyn's views on immigration and Brexit were out of step with the working classes, then? Either you're accusing Corbyn of being racist or it's the working class you're accusing. Which is it?



Corbyn is pro-immigration and was pro-remain. Most w/c people in Britain have concerns with immigration and want it reduced, and voted Leave. What has racism got to do with any of this?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn is pro-immigration and was pro-remain. Most w/c people in Britain have concerns with immigration and want it reduced, and voted Leave.



Which working class would that be then? Older working class? Younger working class? Northern working class? Urban working class? Black working class? White working class? What was their reasoning? Are there other ways to deal with the causes of such voting trends than pandering to "send 'em back" viewpoints?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn is pro-immigration and was pro-remain. Most w/c people in Britain have concerns with immigration and want it reduced, and voted Leave. What has racism got to do with any of this?


Given that all sides want free movement - or recognise this as inevitable - what is the point of suggesting Corbyn is uniquely doing badly because of this?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> We all saw those figures yesterday, I'm not sure why you're posting them here now as if it's check mate.
> 
> I don't deny they look bad: but as with any figures, context is everything. We're in the middle of a dirty battle for control of Labour, one which has been ongoing since before Corbyn became leader. One of the tactics of the rebels is to question the competence of the leadership in the most strident terms, which had been echoed and amplified by an onside press.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with your analysis, just the emphasis.  Where you have the figures looking bad, I'd go with _very bad_ and I'd quibble about Labour being level before the latest onslaught of attacks.  I won't bother rehearsing the problems with polls, but on the raw figures they've only had 3 leads since the last election:
Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point isn't to quibble with the figures/terms, it's more that it's hard to see Labour/Corbyn as party/pm shaping up for power.  May well be that if the right are purged it has a chance of being a functional party in the future, who knows, but for the foreseeable period things are only going to get worse (battles over de-selections, legal challenges etc.).


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Given that all sides want free movement - or recognise this as inevitable - what is the point of suggesting Corbyn is uniquely doing badly because of this?


I wouldn't say that he is doing uniquely badly because of this, but it certainly doesn't help his cause.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2016)

McCluskey calls the Corbynist 'bullying' as false flag.



> _*Intelligence services posing as Jeremy Corbyn supporters could be behind the abuse and intimidation of MPs on social media in an attempt to “stir up trouble” for the Labour leader,* the Unite boss Len McCluskey has suggested, writes Jessica Elgot and Decca Aitkenhead
> 
> Speaking to the Guardian, the general secretary of the UK’s largest trade union and one of Corbyn’s strongest supporters said he thought “dark practices” would ultimately be uncovered by the 30-year rule, under which classified documents are released into the public domain three decades after being written._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't disagree with your analysis, just the emphasis.  Where you have the figures looking bad, I'd go with _very bad_ and I'd quibble about Labour being level before the latest onslaught of attacks.  I won't bother rehearsing the problems with polls, but on the raw figures they've only had 3 leads since the last election:
> Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> My point isn't to quibble with the figures/terms, it's more that it's hard to see Labour/Corbyn as party/pm shaping up for power.  May well be that if the right are purged it has a chance of being a functional party in the future, who knows, but for the foreseeable period things are only going to get worse (battles over de-selections, legal challenges etc.).


In terms of polls - does doing really badly a year after the election always = omg destruction? Quite a big thing to answer regardless of the wider context this is happening in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I wouldn't say that he is doing uniquely badly because of this, but it certainly doesn't help his cause.


if it doesn't help anyone then there's no need to pick his position up. Unless, you think the LP and it's voters are - again, uniquely - concerned with immigration. Given the spread of cross class party voting over the last 20 years, i don't think this is true.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't disagree with your analysis, just the emphasis.  Where you have the figures looking bad, I'd go with _very bad_ and I'd quibble about Labour being level before the latest onslaught of attacks.  I won't bother rehearsing the problems with polls, but on the raw figures they've only had 3 leads since the last election:
> Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> My point isn't to quibble with the figures/terms, it's more that it's hard to see Labour/Corbyn as party/pm shaping up for power.  May well be that if the right are purged it has a chance of being a functional party in the future, who knows, but for the foreseeable period things are only going to get worse (battles over de-selections, legal challenges etc.).


For sure: and regardless of where the blame lies, it's difficult to see how things are going to calm down anytime soon.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of polls - does doing really badly a year after the election always = omg destruction? Quite a big thing to answer regardless of the wider context this is happening in.


Polls do what polls do, yes, at 12 months after an election. The context is obvious, yes. But would you rather be consistently behind in the polls or ahead - and, much more to the point, does it look the Corbyn left can turn this round and win, get a swift victory over the Blairites?  We'll have to see, but I doubt it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Polls do what polls do, yes, at 12 months after an election. The context is obvious, yes. But would you rather be consistently behind in the polls or ahead - and, much more to the point, does it look the Corbyn left can turn this round and win, get a swift victory over the Blairites?  We'll have to see, but I doubt it.


That's why i asked - for some historical comparison.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

But why would that matter? I mean I actually agree, I think Corbyn is unlikely to win a general election unless something truly earth-shattering happens (which it might, Hammond's not been left with much room and there's every chance something will go very wrong for Tory-linked economics in the next four years). But none of this is about 2020. At the outside it might be about 2025 if general elections are your bag.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.


Agree ... having already done a tour of the country to his core audience 9 months back, and always turning up at every Tolpuddle, Durham miners, etc, since then, I would say he'd be better of trying to use this forthcoming campaign as a chance to connect with other voters - not sure how exactly, but I guess booking different venues that arent traditionally associated with the converted, or getting in amongst the local communities more directly. Converted'll probably turn up anyway, if theyre worried halls will be empty


butchersapron said:


> Given that all sides want free movement - or recognise this as inevitable - what is the point of suggesting Corbyn is uniquely doing badly because of this?


Parties /MPs of the right on the whole make noise about wanting to bring down immigration and Take Back Control, even if in practice they do the opposite


----------



## Sifta (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> McCluskey calls the Corbynist 'bullying' as false flag.
> 
> ​



Reading it, it sounds like some fairly innocuous remarks from Len have been spun up into a "he's a conspiraloon" smear. I think I've seen a couple of trial balloons relating to Corbyn's mental stability floated. I wouldn't put it past the likes of McTernan to think trying to section Corbyn would be a good plan.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn is pro-immigration and was pro-remain. Most w/c people in Britain have concerns with immigration and want it reduced, and voted Leave. What has racism got to do with any of this?


You're being extremely disingenuous here, like a true Blairite. "What has racism got to do with any of this?" Bollocks. 

Please provide proof that most working class people are concerned with immigration - more than other classes. Is it actually true, or is it just that you know a lot of middle class people and very few working class? 

When it comes to Brexit it's odd how the news focused on working class regions voting to leave while ignoring the home counties voting en masse to leave and inner cities mostly not.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> You're being extremely disingenuous here, like a true Blairite. "What has racism got to do with any of this?" Bollocks.
> 
> Please provide proof that most working class people are concerned with immigration - more than other classes. Is it actually true, or is it just that you know a lot of middle class people and very few working class?
> 
> When it comes to Brexit it's odd how the news focused on working class regions voting to leave while ignoring the home counties voting en masse to leave and inner cities mostly not.


As I wrote in my earlier posts, I'm not basing this on my personal experiences. I'm basing it on years and years of polls and data. Here are just some examples of many:

"The AB social group (broadly speaking, professionals and managers) were the only social group among whom a majority voted to remain (57%). C1s divided fairly evenly; nearly two thirds of C2DEs (64%) voted to leave the EU."

How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday... and why - Lord Ashcroft Polls

"Generally speaking, do you think the level of immigration into Britain over the last ten years has been too high, too low or about right?"

ABC1		 C2DE​Much too high:		40			58
A little too high:	 29			23
About right:		   23			13
A little too low:	  2			 1
Much too low:		1			  1
Don't know:			6			  4

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f4rr9eo24l/YG-Archive-Pol-Times-results-2502015-W.pdf

[eta: Apologies for the misaligned table]


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Please provide proof that most working class people are concerned with immigration - more than other classes.



From pages 19 and 20 of this report by ipsos-mori:



> Recent work published by Lord Ashcroft on public attitudes towards immigration reflects the importance of age, class and education in shaping views. His report, Small island: Public opinion and the politics of immigration suggests there are seven segments of opinion among Britons on the topic of immigration.
> 
> “Universal Hostility” (16% of the population): the most negative group, hostile to all aspects of immigration and with nine in ten saying it is one of the top three issues facing the country. Members of this group are most likely to be working class, middle-aged and with low levels of formal education.
> 
> ...





edited to add: I'm not sure what the categories on the right of the graph correspond to. I'm guessing income brackets?


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> From pages 19 and 20 of this report by ipsos-mori:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 89827


You can prove anything with facts can't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> From pages 19 and 20 of this report by ipsos-mori:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


social class


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.



He is also popular with Labour Party members and private sector trade unionists. His 70/30 view on the EU is probably far closer to many of the working class who voted leave than the uncritical Europhilia of his opponents in the PLP. 

As for immigration, I'll concede he's out of step with the polls, but here we come to one of the key elements of leadership - it's to lead not follow. If you think the way forward is for Labour to go back to its 2015 election commitment on immigration then you're the one out of step.

Also I don't think the polls give an accurate picture of working class attitudes - for well rehearsed reasons far too complex to go into here.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> social class



Ahh yes, just did a google.



> *A*: Higher managerial, administrative or professional
> *B*: Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
> *C1*: Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional
> *C2*: Skilled manual workers
> ...



Interesting that grade E seem relatively comfortable with immigration.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> You're being extremely disingenuous here, like a true Blairite. "What has racism got to do with any of this?" Bollocks.
> 
> Please provide proof that most working class people are concerned with immigration - more than other classes. Is it actually true, or is it just that you know a lot of middle class people and very few working class?
> 
> When it comes to Brexit it's odd how the news focused on working class regions voting to leave while ignoring the home counties voting en masse to leave and inner cities mostly not.



If Mk12 is now a Blairite its a long road he has travelled.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Ahh yes, just did a google.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that grade E seem relatively comfortable with immigration.


its a bit outdated when builders "average" wage is 62k a year tbh
Average Builder salary in UK | Builder salaries on CWJobs.
(that link may not be the best, but certainly i know builders who make that much
I reckon an average wage is near 35k based on guesstimate)


----------



## red & green (Jul 22, 2016)

I notice how that question in the poll quoted was phased ...

Polls can tell you what you want to hear


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

red & green said:


> I notice how that question in the poll quoted was phased ...
> 
> Polls can tell you what you want to hear


So w/c people aren't concerned with immigration and they didn't, in the main, vote leave. Gotcha.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> You can prove anything with facts can't you?


Well, you can try. But your stats don't back up what you say - they don't show a big difference between working class people and middle class. They show that, statistically, a majority of both middle class *and* working class people are concerned about immigration with not much between them. Given that working class people feel the immediate impact of immigration more it's surprising the difference isn't larger, really. 

And Corbyn isn't going to change his policies to appeal to stastics. That's part of his appeal. He'd lose a lot of support if he were to change that.


----------



## red & green (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> So w/c people aren't concerned with immigration and they didn't, in the main, vote leave. Gotcha.



That is not what I'm saying - posing a question where immigration being too high is planted in the question is not necessarily reflective of the views of the person being questioned - these are narrow and specific parameters - the issue is more complex than that . Tbh  I pay no attention to these polls beloved of pundits and career politicians -


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

I'm still none the wiser which working class mk12 is referring to, it's almost as though he doesn't want to think about the complications inherent in talking about broad populations as one entity.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

red & green said:


> That is not what I'm saying - posing a question where immigration being too high is planted in the question is not necessarily reflective of the views of the person being questioned - these are narrow and specific parameters - the issue is more complex than that . Tbh  I pay no attention to these polls beloved of pundits and career politicians -



What about the question posed in the graph I posted?


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Well, you can try. But your stats don't back up what you say - they don't show a big difference between working class people and middle class. They show that, statistically, a majority of both middle class *and* working class people are concerned about immigration with not much between them. Given that working class people feel the immediate impact of immigration more it's surprising the difference isn't larger, really.
> 
> And Corbyn isn't going to change his policies to appeal to stastics. That's part of his appeal. He'd lose a lot of support if he were to change that.



I never said that w/c people are concerned with immigration more than other classes. Are you really arguing that the majority of w/c people in this country aren't concerned with immigration?

What about the Brexit stats? Are you satisfied with my argument on that issue?


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm still none the wiser which working class mk12 is referring to, it's almost as though he doesn't want to think about the complications inherent in talking about broad populations as one entity.


No idea, the statistics we've been discussing don't go into that level of detail. Of course using any broad concept like 'working class' is problematic. Just like using 'northern working class'. Do you mean Yorkshire or Lancashire? etc etc


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> So w/c people aren't concerned with immigration and they didn't, in the main, vote leave. Gotcha.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

Christ, are we really doing this again? The polls are pretty clear, there is widespread anti-immigration sentiment in the working class. We shouldn't still be debating that ffs - we should be talking about why that's happened, and what the response should be (clue: 'controls on immigration' carved into a tombstone isn't it)


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> No idea, the statistics we've been discussing don't go into that level of detail. Of course using any broad concept like 'working class' is problematic. Just like using 'northern working class'. Do you mean Yorkshire or Lancashire? etc etc



So in reality you have no idea who actually thinks these things, or why, you're just mashing your preconceptions, which seem to be media-fed as they fit so nicely into mainstream narratives, onto a non-existent homogenous glob you're calling "the working class" based on a broad trend of responses to the most base and simplistic of polling questions. And then extracting from that a recommendation for what politicians "should" be saying in response.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> So in reality you have no idea who actually thinks these things, or why, you're just mashing your preconceptions, which seem to be media-fed as they fit so nicely into mainstream narratives, onto a non-existent homogenous glob you're calling "the working class" based on a broad trend of responses to the most base and simplistic of polling questions.



Yeah, we can't generalise at all about anything. Ever.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> McCluskey calls the Corbynist 'bullying' as false flag.
> 
> ​



I don't know whether it is being directed by the security services or not (though it would be in keeping with modus operandi outlined in Snowden leaks) but this definitely happened during the Democratic Primaries in the US.

That being said of course some, no doubt most, of the abuse does not need any outside prompting. People are angry.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Yeah, we can't generalise at all about anything. Ever.



In this case, no. Because class responses to immigration are fucking complicated. If you want to go no further than rote repeating newspaper editorials there's always facebook.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> If you want to go no further than rote repeating newspaper editorials there's always facebook.



Or in-depth 132 page reports like the one linked to above.


----------



## Cid (Jul 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Or in-depth 132 page reports like the one linked to above.



There's a less than 10% variation on the graph you posted upthread. And most classes are clustered within 5%, with C2 (about 21% of the population) outside that. If you scroll up that report a bit you'll see far greater variation by age; about 17.5%. Off the top of my head the post-ref statistics for brexit voters were something like 50% saying national sovereignty was most important, 35% immigration. That may be wrong though, have to check.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> there is widespread anti-immigration sentiment in the working class. We shouldn't still be debating that


oh dear.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

Cid said:


> There's a less than 10% variation on the graph you posted upthread. And most classes are clustered within 5%, with C2 (about 21% of the population) outside that. If you scroll up that report a bit you'll see far greater variation by age; about 17.5%. Off the top of my head the post-ref statistics for brexit voters were something like 50% saying national sovereignty was most important, 35% immigration. That may be wrong though, have to check.



I'm not denying that. Neither am I denying that class plays a role in peoples' attitudes towards immigration. These are not contradictory statements. Both can be true.


----------



## NoBystander (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> So w/c people aren't concerned with immigration and they didn't, in the main, vote leave. Gotcha.


Remain lost by insisting Leave was only about immigration and racism and ignoring what everyone else was saying. Now they tell the same silly story with added whining. 

The fragile UK economy has a chance to abandon failed policies post-Brexit

"They feel bereft. They feel that they were defeated by underhand means. They feel that those who voted for Brexit were uneducated and didn’t really understand what they were doing. There is a nasty undercurrent of disdain, bordering on contempt, to all this angst."


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2016)

I'd also add that even if most of those concerned with immigration were working class, it does not imply that most working class people are concerned with immigration.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> McCluskey calls the Corbynist 'bullying' as false flag.
> 
> ​


The lrb just posted this hitchens article from 1994 on twitter, a review of a book by seamus milne on deep state involvement in the miners strike: worth reading if anyone thinks they aren't at work atm. It's behind a paywall, so I'll post it here (in three parts, it's quite long).



> *Who Runs Britain?*
> *Christopher Hitchens*
> 
> The Enemy Within: MI5, Maxwell and the Scargill Affair by Seumas Milne
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

Part 2



> And it lends poignance to Harold Macmillan’s later lachrymose invocation of the splendour of the British mining communities, as they brass-banded off to war against the Kaiser and thus, presumably, earned the right of any survivor to a home fit for a hero. In 1914 Karl Liebknecht told the German labour movement that ‘the main enemy is at home.’ In our own time the British Tories came to the same conclusion by a different route. We may thank Lawson for making this connection in its most crass and insulting form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2016)

part 3



> Things being what they are in the libel courts (which protected Maxwell to the end but which never afforded Arthur Scargill the majesty of the law) Milne treads very carefully on the tracks of Roger Windsor, who emerged mole-like from the heart of the NUM to tell the most alarming stories about the Scargill entourage, and who became the pet of the _Daily Mirror_, and who seems to have shown something like an excess of zeal in getting himself photographed with his arms around Colonel Gaddafi while allegedly on union business. My best advice to readers who want to know more about this man, who rose without trace and who seems to have sunk without trace, is to consult the remarks made under Parliamentary privilege by Tam Dalyell MP, which have so far survived all challenge and which are cited on pages 170-5 of this densely-documented book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## inva (Jul 22, 2016)

thanks for posting that up killer b - very interesting


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 22, 2016)

_The Enemy Within_ is definitely worth a read, makes the case for state



mk12 said:


> He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.


How does the first sentence connect with the second one? And which do you care about? 

His views on the EU are more in step with both Labour voters and the wider population than his opponents who are strongly pro-EU.


----------



## irf520 (Jul 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Ahh yes, just did a google.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that grade E seem relatively comfortable with immigration.



Probably a lot of immigrants in that category ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

> * Female Labour MPs call on Jeremy Corbyn to act over 'escalating abuse' *
> Open letter signed by 44 MPs condemns leader for what they say has been an inadequate response to threats
> 
> Female Labour MPs call on Jeremy Corbyn to act over 'escalating abuse'



Is this identity politics incarnate or genuine concern?, the Momentum people I have met wouldn't dream of performing this abuse, especially to WOC.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2016)

On a ligher note


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 22, 2016)

Received an e-mail from Momentum today, subject

"TOMORROW: Join the Jeremy for Labour UK wide launch"

At first attempt, I read that as join "the Jeremy"


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> Is this identity politics incarnate or genuine concern?, the Momentum people I have met wouldn't dream of performing this abuse, especially to WOC.



Whatever it is, it is not genuine concern though some may have deluded themselves that that is what they are motivated by.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

> Is this identity politics incarnate or genuine concern?, the Momentum people I have met wouldn't dream of performing this abuse, especially to WOC



I don't know that it's identity politics as such, more media savvy politicians who have been around the language of professionalised diversity policies and use it to play their games.  Of course it needs saying that if there have been death threats, rape threats or genuine intimidation then the abusers should get what's coming to them - full stop. However, apart from brickgate and the bloke in Scotland who has been arrested, they've been remarkably unspecific as to naming the specific Corbynites/Momentumeers who have been doing the abuse.  If they really are playing games with this or generalising out of a couple of incidents or somebody simply being a bit arsey in a meeting, it's a nasty and exploitative use of the women who have suffered genuine abuse (in cyberspace and beyond).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't know that it's identity politics as such, more media savvy politicians who have been around the language of professionalised diversity policies and use it to play their games.  Of course it needs saying that if there have been death threats, rape threats or genuine intimidation then the abusers should get what's coming to them - full stop. However, apart from brickgate and the bloke in Scotland who has been arrested, they've been remarkably unspecific as to naming the specific Corbynites/Momentumeers who have been doing the abuse.  If they really are playing games with this or generalising out of a couple of incidents or somebody simply being a bit arsey in a meeting, it's a nasty and exploitative use of the women who have suffered genuine abuse (in cyberspace and beyond).



They have also outright lied about bigotry and abuse, probably worst and most clear cut example is the accusations of homophobia Angela Eagle homophobia claims 'completely untrue'


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _Here's some compensatory foil. I used the rest._


, was wondering about the tin foil.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Having said a couple of pages back that it's depressing to get all forensic on the bullying claims/counter claims... I'm going to do just that.  Apart from the brick of destiny (aka the brick NOT thrown Aaargh's window), what is the best evidence for the bullying claim? Amid all the wailing, media briefing, spit-gates and cancelled surgeries, do we have any concrete allegations?  Anyone named, anyone interviewed by police? Any individuals suspended by the party itself?
> 
> p.s. I do know about the bloke arrested in Scotland for death threats (to Aaargh, I think).



As scifisam  has already said,the only bugger in this whole sorry mess who has a clear cut case of a massive 'bullying' campaign banging away at him is Corbyn, and yet  he goes out of his way to avoid whinging on about it! 
The bloke is going up in my estimation every day, he's got his faults, but his decency and genuine commitment shine out more and more against the Shyte coloured backdrop of the PLP and their serried associates.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2016)

coley said:


> As scifisam  has already said,the only bugger in this whole sorry mess who has a clear cut case of a massive 'bullying' campaign banging away at him is Corbyn, and yet  he goes out of his way to avoid whinging on about it!
> The bloke is going up in my estimation every day, he's got his faults, but his decency and genuine commitment shine out more and more against the Shyte coloured backdrop of the PLP and their serried associates.


100%.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. He is very popular among left-of-labourites (greens, trots, various other socialists), public sector trade union activists and politicised students. He is not popular enough among those that really matter electorally. Basically, he's good at preaching to the converted, but his views on immigration and Brexit are way out of step with w/c opinion in this country.
> 
> On top of the dire voting intention polls, these are pretty damning:
> 
> ...



An excellent demonstration on how the right wing establishment, fully aided and abetted by the PLP,  is winning the publicity war. 
 If Corbyn can get those PLP bastards off his back long enough to do his job, IE, sort out a shadow cabinet and formulate and articulate policies,then polls may start to look a tad different.
As it is, since the day he was elected, he has had a full time job defending himself from those greasy, greedy gobshytes who are shit scared of Corbyn becoming a successful leader of HM opposition and exposing most of the PLP as a bunch of trough swilling neo Tories.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 22, 2016)

coley said:


> If Corbyn can get those PLP bastards off his back long enough to do his job, IE, sort out a shadow cabinet and formulate and articulate policies,then polls may start to look a tad different.
> As it is, since the day he was elected, he has had a full time job defending himself from those greasy, greedy gobshytes who are shit scared of Corbyn becoming a successful leader of HM opposition and exposing most of the PLP as a bunch of trough swilling neo Tories.



Or possibly he's a bit thick, out of his depth, with only a few old friends around him? Just putting that out there, like.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Right of centre people will vote Tory or Lib Dem. There is absolutely no point trying to win them over. All it does is alienate waverers and left of centre voters.
> 
> And yes, it's no bloody surprise Corbyn's polling low right now - given the behaviour of those Labour MPs it'd be astounding if he weren't. Pointing at his low poll ratings after being undermined by his MPs is like kneecapping someone then criticising them for not being able to walk.


Don't be to sure, there are many who have drifted towards centrist positions because there was no credible 'left of centre' now there is, I for one will be moving leftwards.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Also I don't think his views on Brexit and immigration are that out of step with the working classes, unless the suggestion is that all the working class are racists and that the working class leave votes were driven largely by that.



His long time views, regarding the EU were spot on, his reluctant endorsement of the remain camp, an attempt to keep the PLP 'onside' I imagine, backfired spectacularly and I don't doubt he now regrets this backtracking on his principles, but, understandable, under the circumstances.


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> They are not just looking at the Labour party and thinking 'fuck that', those polls suggest they have a serious problem with _Corbyn_.


Aye, engineered by the right wing press and the bliddy PLP,who are terrified of any bugger who can upset their friggin comfortable 'status quo'


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't disagree with your analysis, just the emphasis.  Where you have the figures looking bad, I'd go with _very bad_ and I'd quibble about Labour being level before the latest onslaught of attacks.  I won't bother rehearsing the problems with polls, but on the raw figures they've only had 3 leads since the last election:
> Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> My point isn't to quibble with the figures/terms, it's more that it's hard to see Labour/Corbyn as party/pm shaping up for power.  May well be that if the right are purged it has a chance of being a functional party in the future, who knows, but for the foreseeable period things are only going to get worse (battles over de-selections, legal challenges etc.).



Spot on, but hopefully what will emerge from the ruins is a Labour Party that is 'fit for purpose' one that will seek to represent the WC and the general public, as opposed to the trough snuffling elitist shytehawks masquerading as 'the labour party'


----------



## coley (Jul 22, 2016)

mk12 said:


> As I wrote in my earlier posts, I'm not basing this on my personal experiences. I'm basing it on years and years of polls and data. Here are just some examples of many:
> 
> "The AB social group (broadly speaking, professionals and managers) were the only social group among whom a majority voted to remain (57%). C1s divided fairly evenly; nearly two thirds of C2DEs (64%) voted to leave the EU."
> 
> ...


ABC1 C2DE

I've been called a lot of things over the years, but an "ABC1 C2DE' is a first!


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its a bit outdated when builders "average" wage is 62k a year tbh
> Average Builder salary in UK | Builder salaries on CWJobs.
> (that link may not be the best, but certainly i know builders who make that much
> I reckon an average wage is near 35k based on guesstimate)



The 'average' including those at the top, Branson, Sugar etc, and those at the bottom, Eastern European workers cleaning the bogs at Heathrow!
Sorry, but the "average" wage around here is much less than that, mebbes £20k? If your lucky.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 23, 2016)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but Ann Black, who's on the pro-Corbyn, Left slate for the NEC supported the suspension of the Brighton branch and upheld the £25 fee. Which apparently was lost by 2 votes. Seen a bit of anger about it but the consensus seems go be to vote for her now and remember what she did for later. Too late for a lot of people anyway, I've already voted on the NEC and there's no one else to be a ready replacement. Better her than Akehurst anyway. Still, the borders aren't always crystal clear.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2016)

coley said:


> Spot on, but hopefully what will emerge from the ruins is a Labour Party that is 'fit for purpose' one that will seek to represent the WC and the general public, as opposed to the trough snuffling elitist shytehawks masquerading as 'the labour party'


If that happens losing the next election (far from inevitable) would be well worth it.

We all know the limitations of parliamentary party politics, but nonetheless a reshuffling of the pack that leaves the main parties with distinct identities and positions has to be a step forward.

There are bigger forces going on in the western world, political tectonic plates are shifting, and it's long overdue in small c conservative uk politics. 

I just can't see the status quo of the last twenty years surviving... The Plp are on the wrong side of history i reckon


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> No idea, the statistics we've been discussing don't go into that level of detail. Of course using any broad concept like 'working class' is problematic. Just like using 'northern working class'. Do you mean Yorkshire or Lancashire? etc etc



The North starts at  Tyne /Tees, 
Don't let those Northern midlanders confuse you, you sound a bit confused already


----------



## YouSir (Jul 23, 2016)

coley said:


> The North starts at  Tyne /Tees,
> Don't let those Northern midlanders confuse you, you sound a bit confused already



Believe you'll find the North starts on the wrong side of the Thames and goes all the way to Scotland.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Christ, are we really doing this again? The polls are pretty clear, there is widespread anti-immigration sentiment in the working class. We shouldn't still be debating that ffs - we should be talking about why that's happened, and what the response should be (clue: 'controls on immigration' carved into a tombstone isn't it)


No, there is widespread concern about 'uncontrolled'  immigration amongst some in the WC, translated into racist WC racism by the right wing establishment,  unfortunately this is being used as a big stick amongst the 'sore losers'
Controlled immigration and helping refugees isn't a problem here in the 'frozen North' can't comment on other parts of the UK.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Yeah, we can't generalise at all about anything. Ever.


Not on U75, ever
Just trying to save you a bit of time and effort,yiknaaws


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Believe you'll find the North starts on the wrong side of the Thames and goes all the way to Scotland.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> part 3



Late, but will read it the morn, sounds very interesting, ta


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Or possibly he's a bit thick, out of his depth, with only a few old friends around him? Just putting that out there, like.


Possibly, but by fuck he resonates,what does that tell you!


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

ska invita said:


> If that happens losing the next election (far from inevitable) would be well worth it.
> 
> We all know the limitations of parliamentary party politics, but nonetheless a reshuffling of the pack that leaves the main parties with distinct identities and positions has to be a step forward.
> 
> ...



The Chinese curse is coming home 'big time'
Trump FFS, Owen, even bigger FFS


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Believe you'll find the North starts on the wrong side of the Thames and goes all the way to Scotland.


The stated position of the Tories and the PLP


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 23, 2016)

coley said:


> The stated position of the Tories and the PLP


 
dunno - most of them don't recognise the existence of south london...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

coley said:


> Possibly, but by fuck he resonates,what does that tell you!



Lazy, smug middle-class metropolitan self-righteousness has never resonated with me. You?


----------



## oryx (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Or possibly he's a bit thick, out of his depth, with only a few old friends around him? Just putting that out there, like.



Thought I'd call you out on this.

Why do you think he's 'thick'? What's your evidence of him being 'thick'?

He is someone who while a seasoned parliamentarian has never previously held a cabinet post and never expected to become leader of the party. He is holding his own admirably against a sea of media opposition and against manipulative forces in his own party who have become so far from what Labour was set up to be that they have disappeared up their own neo-liberal arses.

Those who have stayed with him I do not see as exclusively 'a few old friends' - McDonnell and Abbott may be that but there are other strong allies like Lewis, Burgon and Thornberry who do not fit that description.

Doing a new type of politics is never going to be easy and I'm absolutely behind Corbyn for moving away from the 'Oxbridge Union' style of debate within Parliament, for raising *real* issues on behalf of *real* people, for getting young and previously disinterested/disillusioned people into what's meant to be a party for the 99%, and for being resolute in the face of very aggressive PLP and media opposition for doing this.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

oryx said:


> Thought I'd call you out on this.
> 
> Why do you think he's 'thick'? What's your evidence of him being 'thick'?



It's probably unfair to bring up his privileged education and despite that a complete lack of qualifications but, eh, who said politics was fair? How's this:


----------



## oryx (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's probably unfair to bring up his privileged education and despite that a complete lack of qualifications but, eh, who said politics was fair? How's this:




Er.... some Twitter post from 2010 about alternative medicine doesn't really prove he's 'thick'...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

oryx said:


> Er.... some Twitter post from 2010 about alternative medicine doesn't really prove he's 'thick'...



Well, we'll have to disagree there. "they both come from organic matter...". That's probably true, but eh, bit thick?

I wonder what he thinks organic matter is?


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's probably unfair to bring up his privileged education and despite that a complete lack of qualifications but, eh, who said politics was fair? How's this:




It is true, there is a world of difference between his simplistic "I believe" and the much more refined and erudite "I believe" that Blair picked up at Fettes and Oxford.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 23, 2016)

I'm as big an anti- homoeopathist as you could be but I'm still always shocked at how seemingly intelligent and aware people confuse herbalism with homoeopathy...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

agricola said:


> It is true, there is a world of difference between his simplistic "I believe" and the much more refined and erudite "I believe" that Blair picked up at Fettes and Oxford.



Whataboutery is a *terrible* look on anyone.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 23, 2016)

Looks like they're enforcing a rule that only delegates who have been a member for 12 months are allowed to go to conference.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 23, 2016)

There is no universal "thick", just as there is no universal "clever" (apart from me, obvs).  People can be incredibly clued up in some ways and completely clueless in others.  On his own ground -- social policy -- Corbyn speaks with insight and erudition.  That'll do me just fine.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's probably unfair to bring up his privileged education and despite that a complete lack of qualifications but, eh, who said politics was fair? How's this:




Conclusive stuff that


----------



## Authentic (Jul 23, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> I'm as big an anti- homoeopathist as you could be but I'm still always shocked at how seemingly intelligent and aware people confuse herbalism with homoeopathy...


Authentic an bonfide an erbal!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Or possibly he's a bit thick, out of his depth, with only a few old friends around him? Just putting that out there, like.



Well it's policies that really count unless you're one of the lazy, smug middle-class metropolitan self-righteous. Bernie Gunther on his thread gave this list of Corbyn's policies, which would you say back you up about him being thick? 



> Get rid of PFI (buy NHS trust out of debt?)
> Higher taxation in the upper bands
> £10 minimum wage
> Invest in HMRC to enable it to collect tax from corporations / wealthy more effectively
> ...



Getting rid of PFI? 100% publically run/funded NHS perhaps? Return to free education? Peoples' Quantitative Easing?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> 100% publically run/funded NHS perhaps?


Extending this to not financially supporting private drugs research, just to try and put Owen Smith in an awkward position, is as thick as pig shit.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

not seen that - what did he say?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 23, 2016)

More detail later today, apparently. Corbyn seems unaware that medical research is hideously expensive and that the NHS has enormous buying power when dealing with these companies.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 23, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> More detail later today, apparently. Corbyn seems unaware that medical research is hideously expensive and that the NHS has enormous buying power when dealing with these companies.




How does it get paid for now?


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> How does it get paid for now?


It gets paid for by whatever's left after they've divied up the profits from boner pills and dodgy antidepressants. I'm no expert but medical research seems like one of the great failures of the free market.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> I read the words you wrote. What did you mean by saying that Corbyn's views on immigration and Brexit were out of step with the working classes, then? Either you're accusing Corbyn of being racist or it's the working class you're accusing. Which is it?
> 
> You're wrong about UKIP mostly being strong in former Labour heartlands. Don't assume that working class = Labour; there have always been working class Tories.



In what way is it racist to want less immigration?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> More detail later today, apparently. Corbyn seems unaware that medical research is hideously expensive and that the NHS has enormous buying power when dealing with these companies.




Looks like it might be an actual policy soon



No doubt a long-considered, carefully thought out policy and nothing to do with an unthinking comment about Owen Smith at all, oh no.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Can't read tweets on here - this one: "We need to tackle the problem of the big pharmaceutical companies #*bbcqt*"? 

plus "The NHS needs to get much more involved in both research and production of medicines so they're cheaper" ?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Looks like it might be an actual policy soon
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt a long-considered, carefully thought out policy and nothing to do with an unthinking comment about Owen Smith at all, oh no.




How about the list of policies Bernie gave above? Which of those show he's thick?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2016)

Liberals love this pharma stuff cos it lets them use all their well rehearsed sceptic args


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Ah ok you mean this one: 



> Launching his bid to retain the Labour leadership, Corbyn said this week: ‘I hope Owen will fully agree with me that our NHS should be free at the point of use, should be run by publicly employed workers working for the NHS not for private contractors, and medical research shouldn’t be farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and others but should be funded through the Medical Research Council.’



What's wrong with funding medical research through the MRC rather than drugs companies? Sounds like it would be incredibly profitable to me given many drugs companies' profits. It would also reduce the huge drugs costs to the NHS.

You'd also be able to choose which research to fund rather than just having the research that will be most profitable to drugs companies. I read somewhere that many people are suffering in poor countries because they can't afford high drugs costs so it's not worth the drugs companies putting in the research.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How about the list of policies Bernie gave above? Which of those show he's thick?



There's nothing terrible about any of those policies (well, I don't know what People's Quantative Easing really means in practice), save that buying out existing PFI contracts is likely more trouble and expense than it is worth. Just don't enter into new ones.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2016)

Just had an email from my MP via Nationbuilder endorsing Owen Smith.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but Ann Black, who's on the pro-Corbyn, Left slate for the NEC supported the suspension of the Brighton branch and upheld the £25 fee. Which apparently was lost by 2 votes. Seen a bit of anger about it but the consensus seems go be to vote for her now and remember what she did for later. Too late for a lot of people anyway, I've already voted on the NEC and there's no one else to be a ready replacement. Better her than Akehurst anyway. Still, the borders aren't always crystal clear.



I think voting is still open for the NEC?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's nothing terrible about any of those policies (well, I don't know what People's Quantative Easing really means in practice)



He's so thick that he's got policies that even you don't understand, then  



> , save that buying out existing PFI contracts is likely more trouble and expense than it is worth. Just don't enter into new ones.



Bernie put a question mark after buying them out - just said 'getting rid of' which could mean not entering into more. But even buying them out if he could do that at a reasonable cost:

*



			PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years
		
Click to expand...

*


> One in five PFI assets will remain in private, rather than public, ownership even after the contracts have ended ...
> 
> By the time the PFI contracts have all been paid off – in 2049/50 – they will have cost £307bn in total, according to new figures released by the Treasury last month.This is more than five times the £57bn the assets are actually worth.



PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years

Another one that Bernie didn't mention is renationalising railways, which seems eminently sensible to me if you could do that at reasonable cost, too.

It's the policies that are important, not all the media shit.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Well it's policies that really count unless you're one of the lazy, smug middle-class metropolitan self-righteous. Bernie Gunther on his thread gave this list of Corbyn's policies, which would you say back you up about him being thick?
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of PFI? 100% publically run/funded NHS perhaps? Return to free education? Peoples' Quantitative Easing?



Hasn't Corbyn said he will get rid of WCA, possibly benefit sanctions?, sure i saw that somewhere.

I would hope so.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2016)

It's hard to find something I think is too snobbish even for 90% of actual Tories to think let alone say but here it is


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Looks like it might be an actual policy soon
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt a long-considered, carefully thought out policy and nothing to do with an unthinking comment about Owen Smith at all, oh no.





Taking on Big Pharma(at this stage) may be a step too far.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I don't know what People's Quantative Easing really means in practice


It means printing new money to spend on infrastructure rather than printing new money to chuck at the financial services industry as we have been doing. The economic effects should be similar (preventing deflation, easing debt through inflation) but we get roads, bridges and trains (and jobs) out of it rather than bankers putting it all up their noses or into offshore funds.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> More detail later today, apparently. Corbyn seems unaware that medical research is hideously expensive and that the NHS has enormous buying power when dealing with these companies.




That quote you gave missed out this bit: "but should be funded through the Medical Research Council" which is just dishonest (not by you but by the guy quoting him) because it made it look like there was going to be no funding at all. 

Apparently "The world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies between them spent just under £50 billion – 100 times as much as the MRC." (The NHS would be crippled without big pharma | Coffee House)

So that's half the UK's NHS spending, and apparently it's quite profitable.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years



I'm typing this with an imperfectly straight face, you understand, but £209bn over 35 years isn't all that much really 



> Another one that Bernie didn't mention is renationalising railways, which seems eminently sensible to me if you could do that at reasonable cost, too.



Just don't put the operating contracts out to tender as they expire, bring them in house.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I'm typing this with an imperfectly straight face, you understand, but £209bn over 35 years isn't all that much really



Two years' complete funding of the NHS, and so 50 billion to buy them out is nothing at all  



> Just don't put the operating contracts out to tender as they expire, bring them in house.



Yes indeed.


----------



## red & green (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's hard to find something I think is too snobbish even for 90% of actual Tories to think let alone say but here it is




Robert Webbe showing true colours and ignorance there -


----------



## YouSir (Jul 23, 2016)

treelover said:


> I think voting is still open for the NEC?



It is, a lot of people voted on the first few days though and besides, you can't replace someone on a coherent slate when votes are already being cast.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Just don't put the operating contracts out to tender as they expire, bring them in house.



They would come in house anyway, that is how PFI works.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

agricola said:


> They would come in house anyway, that is how PFI works.



The rail operator contracts are much shorter term than the typical PFI ones - 10 years against 25. Rail renationalisation could be completed by any two-term government willing to do so, and probably be de-facto done by a one-term one, depending how the contract end dates fall.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Liberals love this pharma stuff cos it lets them use all their well rehearsed sceptic args



And great to see the *real* liberal left sticking up for private drugs companies instead of having the nasty inefficient state taking the profits instead  

As my gf used to sing to me after I'd made some sharp comment about someone:


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The rail operator contracts are much shorter term than the typical PFI ones - 10 years against 25. Rail renationalisation could be completed by any two-term government willing to do so, and probably be de-facto done by a one-term one, depending how the contract end dates fall.



You'd also think that removing the cushy rail contracts from private companies might cause a wee drop in the share pricess and free up a lot of rolling stock that could be bought up cheap


----------



## YouSir (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's hard to find something I think is too snobbish even for 90% of actual Tories to think let alone say but here it is




The less talented half of a mediocre coming duo. How proud he must be. Been a twat for a long time though.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And great to see the *real* liberal left sticking up for private drugs companies instead of having the nasty inefficient state taking the profits instead



Lots of risks in drug development too though.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> He's so thick that he's got policies that even you don't understand, then
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Re-nationalising the railways shouldn't be that costly,just keep the contracts in public ownership rather than flogging them off to incompetent private companies( southern being a good example) the east coast line made a considerable profit for the GP before it was flogged off to Branson.
Oops, hadn't seen the posts already airing these ideas


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

red & green said:


> Robert Webbe showing true colours and ignorance there -


Come the revolution,his sort will be decorating the streets, not sweeping them


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Lots of risks in drug development too though.



True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.

Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)

Financial Statements for Pfizer Inc. - Google Finance

That's a third of the yearly NHS cost?


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> You'd also think that removing the cushy rail contracts from private companies might cause a wee drop in the share pricess and free up a lot of rolling stock that could be bought up cheap


It's odd that so many on the right can convince themselves that fairly normal practices such as state owned railways and utilities are one step away from full blown revolution,some of the crap posted about Corbyn has him as the embodiment of every left wing dictator that ever breathed.


----------



## Cid (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.
> 
> Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)
> 
> ...



Profits in big pharma can be somewhat shady though. I'd think part of the point in nationalising would be to properly regulate and publish trials, reward well-conducted research that leads nowhere, not try and find uses for drugs simply because there's a lot of money invested in their development... It would also be a colossal undertaking unless you could simply take over an existing pharma giant.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.
> 
> Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)
> 
> ...


That's a lot of profit, canny level of return on investment, pity about the poor sods denied treatment because of costs.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.
> 
> Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)
> 
> ...



That's worldwide though, including the fantastically lucrative US market. Do you see the NHS as a competitor there?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Cid said:


> Profits in big pharma can be somewhat shady though. I'd think part of the point in nationalising would be to properly regulate and publish trials, reward well-conducted research that leads nowhere, not try and find uses for drugs simply because there's a lot of money invested in their development...



Yes, totally. 



> It would also be a colossal undertaking unless you could simply take over an existing pharma giant.



Funding existing university research would be a good start rather than drug companies helping to fund it in exchange for the profits. But yes I'd imagine you'd want to do it gradually.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2016)




----------



## Cid (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.
> 
> Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)
> 
> ...



Also you're looking at revenue. You should be looking at operating income/net income.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That's worldwide though, including the fantastically lucrative US market. Do you see the NHS as a competitor there?



I'm sure NHS drugs could be sold abroad at a profit. 

There's also a fair bit of "tax efficient" money transferring going on.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Cid said:


> Also you're looking at revenue. You should be looking at operating income.



Ok - strange that it's called 'gross profit' though - what profit does that give?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2016)

Thia kinda policy probably could be articulated in a fairly "safe" way within the confines of neoclassical orthodoxy. Ie that certain drugs such as new anti biotics are not being developed due to being relatively  unprofitable ergo market failure for public good to be developed...... thus legitimate space for state intervention...


----------



## Cid (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ok - strange that it's called 'gross profit' though - what profit does that give?



sorry, yes - I thought you were talking about a different bit as I just scanned. Similar thing though - gross profit is profit before any expenses are taken into account.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'm sure NHS drugs could be sold abroad at a profit.



No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say,  GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Cid said:


> sorry, yes - I thought you were talking about a different bit as I just scanned. Similar thing though - gross profit is profit before any expenses are taken into account.



Phew  

with R&D costs just under $10 billion for the year as a comparison


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say,  GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.



If only there was a nationalised bank to provide the capital for that... shit there was for a bit! Maybe just nationalise the assets of some pharma here with or without compensation ?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2016)

Any good books on big pharma from a left perspective btw?


----------



## Cid (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Phew
> 
> with R&D costs just under $10 billion for the year as a comparison



Sorry, I'm being slightly confusing - gross profit I think includes cost of manufacture of things profited from but doesn't include reinvestment (e.g in R&D). I think.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

xslavearcx said:


> Maybe just nationalise the assets of some pharma here with or without compensation ?



That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say,  GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.



From that article I quoted above that was trying to rubbish the idea but seeming (to me anyway) to fail dismally:  



> The MRC last year spent £506 million on research grants. Pfizer spent $6.6 billion (£4.8 billion).



It would mean greatly expanding that £506 million - and I'll bet drugs companies get a bloody good return on investment from the university research.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Cid said:


> Sorry, I'm being slightly confusing - gross profit I think includes cost of manufacture of things profited from but doesn't include reinvestment (e.g in R&D). I think.



Yes R&D comes out of that I think - about $10 billion as above.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

xslavearcx said:


> Any good books on big pharma from a left perspective btw?



Dunno if it's really from a left perspective - it's from an aaaaarghhhh perspective really -  but Goldacre's book is worth a read 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008PCVGKI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.


Aye I think not respecting property rights would bring on big capital punishments! Guess such policies not being on agenda shows limitations to what's on offer with corbyn s brand of leftism...


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Dunno if it's really from a left perspective - it's from an aaaaarghhhh perspective really -  but Goldacre's book is worth a read
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008PCVGKI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


Cheers for that  I've got in laws who work in big pharma and it would be good to know something about this for when the inevitable post brexit politics convo comes up ...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.



I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?

And we know the government can do that because IDS did it with jobseekers' ruling as I recall.

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?
> 
> And we know the government can do that because IDS did it with jobseekers' ruling as I recall.
> 
> DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling


it'd cause massive capital flight, across all sectors. You take it by force and you'd better be prepared to go the whole hog.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?



The big pharma companies would just move all their UK operations if that was on the cards - they are hugely globalised as it is. GSK is Glaxo-Smith-Klein-Beecham I think, and some of those amalgamated companies were already amalgamated companies before they amalgamated.

So, how's everyone else's Saturday going? I'm sitting here in my underwear quacking on pointlessly on the internet. You?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Ahh yes, just did a google.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that grade E seem relatively comfortable with immigration.



Not really interesting, just pragmatic. When you're at the bottom of the pile, you've got two choices: Pull together, or fall apart. Most of us go for the former.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Looks like they're enforcing a rule that only delegates who have been a member for 12 months are allowed to go to conference.



Not sensible. If any of the Noobs have any knowledge of Labour Party history, they'll just parallel-organise.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Fuck me what a load of liberal wankers 

"Come on lads, lets take over the means of production" "ooo I don't know drug research is a bit costly, their profits have to go to pay for lots of stuff you know. They wouldn't like it. Barricades next thursday? Noooo I'm washing my hair then".

Scratch a marxist you see a neoliberal apologist cunt


----------



## gosub (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's hard to find something I think is too snobbish even for 90% of actual Tories to think let alone say but here it is





He is right though you do get some right muppets street cleaning 



Spoiler


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ah ok you mean this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'd also be able to remove some of the obstacles that funding of research in academe throws up with regard to control over publication, and editorial control. Big Pharma has been implicated way too many times now of suppressing research and researchers whose work might interfere with the bottom line.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So, how's everyone else's Saturday going? I'm sitting here in my underwear quacking on pointlessly on the internet. You?



Just given the door a wood treat now listening to the cricket


----------



## irf520 (Jul 23, 2016)

xslavearcx said:


> Thia kinda policy probably could be articulated in a fairly "safe" way within the confines of neoclassical orthodoxy. Ie that certain drugs such as new anti biotics are not being developed due to being relatively  unprofitable ergo market failure for public good to be developed...... thus legitimate space for state intervention...



Yes. How much money can you make on a drug which people take for a week when they're actually ill, compared to drugs which you can push onto people to take for the rest of their lives whether they're sick or not under the pretence of 'preventative medicine' (e.g. statins) ?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 23, 2016)

Clip of Owen Smith event on TV. Behind, him a stage full of women. Synergy with the bullying letter, presumably. But someone seems to have had an afterthought. They're all white so, just at the edge of shot, a BME man.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The big pharma companies would just move all their UK operations if that was on the cards - they are hugely globalised as it is. GSK is Glaxo-Smith-Klein-Beecham I think, and some of those amalgamated companies were already amalgamated companies before they amalgamated.
> 
> So, how's everyone else's Saturday going? I'm sitting here in my underwear quacking on pointlessly on the internet. You?


Just had the dogs n bairns down to the beach,now trying to think of ways to avoid the pile of gardening work waiting for me.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 23, 2016)

Apparently 1700 at the Corbyn rally in Salford


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2016)

Repeat of debunked homophobia allegations. These people are fucking disgusting.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> He's so thick that he's got policies that even you don't understand, then  ...



That line deserves to be posted on the "memorable put-downs to other posters' bollocks" thread, but a "like" will have to do for now coz I can't find it


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Repeat of debunked homophobia allegations. These people are fucking disgusting.



*comments are closed*

Snide.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

andysays said:


> That line deserves to be posted on the "memorable put-downs to other posters' bollocks" thread, but a "like" will have to do for now coz I can't find it



Go on then, tell me the mechanism to be used for People's Quantative Easing. How the "printing of money" will lead to new roads etc. I'm genuinely ignorant and curious. The usual QE injects liquidity into the system through bonds, and that itself is a bit opaque, but walk me through the Peoples Easing, and explain how that works with local council responsibility for most roads. 

It's not just a slogan, surely?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Go on then, tell me the mechanism to be used for People's Quantative Easing. How the "printing of money" will lead to new roads etc. I'm genuinely ignorant and curious. The usual QE injects liquidity into the system through bonds, and that itself is a bit opaque, but walk me through the Peoples Easing, and explain how that works with local council responsibility for most roads.
> 
> It's not just a slogan, surely?



From what I can gather it involves first setting up a 'National Investment Bank'. The Bank of England would then electronically create money which it would use to buy bonds from the NIB who would lend it out for infrastructure projects, scientific research, etc. Don't quote me on that though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Repeat of debunked homophobia allegations. These people are fucking disgusting.


I love this opening sentence.


> This article has been written by 14 Labour Party members



What is that saying about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 23, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> From what I can gather it involves first setting up a 'National Investment Bank'. The Bank of England would then electronically create money which it would use to buy bonds from the NIB who would lend it out for infrastructure projects, scientific research, etc. Don't quote me on that though.



So there would be a new entity that issues bonds that the central bank would buy? What's the point of that?


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So there would be a new entity that issues bonds that the central bank would buy? What's the point of that?


I don't know the nitty gritty of how bonds work but it seems it's a simple enough policy that Theresa May's nicked the basics of it when she was talking about issuing £100bn in infrastructure bonds. And you're not really debating here anymore, you're just expressing incredulity at everything for the sake of it. If you want the details go start a thread in the theory forum.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So there would be a new entity that issues bonds that the central bank would buy? What's the point of that?



Presumably because the government would have control over where the new money is spent, forcing the NIB to invest in useful things rather than speculating on rising property prices etc. From the FT:



> The policy’s cheerleader-in-chief is Richard Murphy, a left-wing tax campaigner, who says people’s QE “would stimulate the economy, boost employment and tackle climate change”.
> 
> Mr Corbyn, Mr Murphy and others such as Ken Livingstone say people’s QE would be different to the QE undertaken by the Bank of England between 2009-12 because it would support infrastructure rather than prop up the banking system. On Thursday Mr Livingstone told the BBC: “If we can get the Bank of England to fund the banking system, why don’t we get them to build us a proper broadband system . . . or to modernise our transport system?” [...]
> 
> ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2016)

Tom Harris on Twitter earlier.


He followed that with this.




I asked the same question when I quoted his Tweet but I think he's avoiding me.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Presumably because the government would have control over where the new money is spent, forcing the NIB to invest in useful things rather than speculating on rising property prices etc. From the FT:


Yes, instead of increasing Fincap liquidity by buying up Govt. debt from the financial corps, the electronic £ would be directed towards stimulating demand directly in the real economy via building firms, civil engineering firms etc.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 23, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn has more than double the support of Owen Smith, poll shows

Smith is fucked.

But obviously this non-story is the main headline - 

Corbyn aide accused of ‘illegal entry’ to MP’s Westminster office


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 23, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Apparently 1700 at the Corbyn rally in Salford



Indeed there was (Lowry was at maximum capacity which is where the 1,700 figure comes from)- I've just got back from it. Very friendly atmosphere and lovely people- NHS workers, care workers, students, survivors of austerity, teachers, trade unionists, anti racism campaigners, etc- all people who, if you follow the media and plp, are nazi black-shirts who are beyond the pale and have no place in modern society, let alone politics.

The general mood was friendly, some pantomime light hearted booing of the plp and Owen Smith, which apparently constitutes nuremberg rally-esq abuse nowadays. Some good speeches especially by Richard Burgon (an MP who I hadn't heard of but will now be following).

Most people bewildered by the PLPs strategy to win them over- reject our decision in the last leadership election, threaten to not accept this one if we don't vote the way they want us to, demonise us, call us a bunch of misogynistic, anti-semitic, racist bullies, patronise us and make zero effort to engage with us or understand where we are coming from, then expect us to vote for you. Bizarre.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jeremy Corbyn has more than double the support of Owen Smith, poll shows
> 
> Smith is fucked.
> 
> ...


The party is pretty fucked if 22% of members would vote for Smith as leader.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 23, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jeremy Corbyn has more than double the support of Owen Smith, poll shows
> 
> Smith is fucked.
> 
> ...



Of course- would you expect anything else from the Guardian/Observer?- looking forward to the delights the Observer has in store for us tomorrow, they really outdid themselves last week!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2016)

Leeds Hyde Park seems pretty pro-Corbyn:


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2016)

Just had a thought today. Has anyone considered the possibility that the bodies of middle aged Labour mps have been taken over by tumblr blogging 13 year olds? They seem to think that disagreeing with them constitutes a microaggression, how long till they denounce Corbyn for his intolerance towards otherkin?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Just had a thought today. Has anyone considered the possibility that the bodies of middle aged Labour mps have been taken over by tumblr blogging 13 year olds? They seem to think that disagreeing with them constitutes a microaggression, how long till they denounce Corbyn for his intolerance towards otherkin?


I haven't a clue what this post means. Can we have tranlsation into modern English for those of us not used to using crossword dictionaries.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I haven't a clue what this post means. Can we have tranlsation into modern English for those of us not used to using crossword dictionaries.


Yawn


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I haven't a clue what this post means. Can we have tranlsation into modern English for those of us not used to using crossword dictionaries.


You could try using google


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2016)

> J_eremy Corbyn, Labour voters like me want a champion for British workers – not a sandal-wearing socialist with *the charisma of an ageing Labrador*_


says....Janet Street-Porter.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Repeat of debunked homophobia allegations. These people are fucking disgusting.


It's all as thin as air: seemingly no specific examples of bullying/abuse (except the one which has been debunked), apparently no reports to the police or official complaints etc. They just hope the public/labour members take it at face value (which some will.)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

Corbyn aide accused of ‘illegal entry’ to MP’s Westminster office
More high drama! Seema Malhotra (MP) says Corbyn's bods invaded her office without permission.  Sounds like they did do, given their response that it was a 'small matter', though they may well put a different construction on events. Perhaps an attempt to stop Malhotra deleting documents as the other resigning MP did?  Reporting it the speaker - all getting a bit bonkers now. Not sure they can put humpty dumpty together again.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 23, 2016)

killer b 's post about the enemy within reminded me about seumas milne: does anyone know much about what he's been doing for JC?

He's corbyns head of comms/strategy (on loan from the guardian) - obviously a tough gig. Tbh i don't know a great deal about him, other than the journo/writer background.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _*Jeremy Corbyn, Labour voters like me want a champion for British workers – not a sandal-wearing socialist *_
> says....Janet Street-Porter.



*Indeed *


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> *comments are closed*
> 
> Snide.


Seems that if there's one thing worse than getting homophobic insults and having bricks through your window, it's not getting homophobic insults and not having bricks through your window.

((((people who haven't been insulted by anyone at all in any way))))


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn aide accused of ‘illegal entry’ to MP’s Westminster office
> More high drama! Seema Malhotra (MP) says Corbyn's bods invaded her office without permission.  Sounds like they did do, given their response that it was a 'small matter', though they may well put a different construction on events. Perhaps an attempt to stop Malhotra deleting documents as the other resigning MP did?  Reporting it the speaker - all getting a bit bonkers now. Not sure they can put humpty dumpty together again.



From that article, Corbyn bod said: 



> “As an office manager on the leader of the opposition’s floor Karie has a key to open all offices. She accessed the office in question to confirm when it would be vacated. It is a month since Seema Malhotra resigned as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, and the office is intended for the person holding that position.”


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

For some reason the non-brick, non-homophobia thing reminds me of the Monty Python sketch:

"There now follows a TV appeal on behalf of extremely wealthy people who have nothing wrong with them".


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 23, 2016)

Just been to the coop (supermarket, not backstabbing or military take-over). The guy was doing the paper returns at the check out. 

An unusually high number of Guardians were being sent back (and quite a lot of Expresses).

I'm in a Brightonish bit of Manchester. Bet it is the way they have dealt with Labour party events meaning they aren't trusted. Just speculation.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> From that article, Corbyn bod said:


Mahotra's staff may well have been squatting for a bit too long after they resigned and the officer manager may well have barged in. But its the fucking childish whining and running to the press that annoys me.  90%+ of this is going on on the Blairite side, but the blog about being told to fuck off in a pub was an example on the Corbyn wing (what pissed me off not so much that the blogger mentioned it - it really did sound aggressive and unpleasant - but  going into pages of forensic detail).  They all know it's a propaganda war, but you should have a sense of personal dignity that kicks in before you launch into the latest round of 'he looked at me funny'.  Fucking embarrassing.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

The grauniad piece ends with:


> A spokesman for Bercow said: “The Speaker will respond to Ms Malhotra once he has had an opportunity to consider fully the contents of her letter, but there’s nothing further to say at this stage.”
> 
> It is understood that Malhotra has also written to Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, to demand a party investigation.


Fucking hell, how many _'investigations'_ have these fuckers asked for in the last fortnight?  Even McNicol who is no innocent in all this must be getting a bit weary.  Every day he comes home from a hard day's investigating, only to find he's got a few more to do. More graft at the investigating factory.  Those who aren't investigating are investigating someone else.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> *comments are closed*
> 
> Snide.



Certainly is, yet no complaining when the arghh ( who is the role model for these people,who the article claims are being discriminated against) is rudely pushed aside by the PLP in favour of a young, (OK, youngish) white, straight male, wheyaye, no 'discrimination' there!


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I love this opening sentence.
> 
> 
> What is that saying about monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare?


Kindly refrain from smearing monkeys by association with the PLP


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2016)

coley said:


> Certainly is, yet no complaining when the arghh ( who is the role model for these people,who the article claims are being discriminated against) is rudely pushed aside by the PLP in favour of a young, (OK, youngish) white, straight male, wheyaye, no 'discrimination' there!


Can you *imagine* the fucking furore there'd have been if it had ended up Aargh Vs Corbyn and he'd come out with the 'I'm a normal family man' line!?!

Fwiw, I think Smith was just clumsy and it was unintentional, but that wouldn't have mattered if Corbyn had said it.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

maomao said:


> I don't know the nitty gritty of how bonds work but it seems it's a simple enough policy that Theresa May's nicked the basics of it when she was talking about issuing £100bn in infrastructure bonds. And you're not really debating here anymore, you're just expressing incredulity at everything for the sake of it. If you want the details go start a thread in the theory forum.



Aye, and we know who the net beneficiaries of said "£100 billion infrastructure bonds" will be, the 50p in the  £ to thon lunnern and surrounding areas and the 1p to the NE will end up looking like a generous bliddy settlement!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The rail operator contracts are much shorter term than the typical PFI ones - 10 years against 25. Rail renationalisation could be completed by any two-term government willing to do so, and probably be de-facto done by a one-term one, depending how the contract end dates fall.



Sorry, misread your post.  It would be easier to do that, especially as if you announced it in advance you would probably pick them up even easier than that.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Tom Harris on Twitter earlier.
> 
> 
> He followed that with this.
> ...




Can you put this in some kind of perspective for the twitter free aged?;
Ta


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Indeed there was (Lowry was at maximum capacity which is where the 1,700 figure comes from)- I've just got back from it. Very friendly atmosphere and lovely people- NHS workers, care workers, students, survivors of austerity, teachers, trade unionists, anti racism campaigners, etc- all people who, if you follow the media and plp, are nazi black-shirts who are beyond the pale and have no place in modern society, let alone politics.
> 
> The general mood was friendly, some pantomime light hearted booing of the plp and Owen Smith, which apparently constitutes nuremberg rally-esq abuse nowadays. Some good speeches especially by Richard Burgon (an MP who I hadn't heard of but will now be following).
> 
> *"Most people bewildered by the PLPs strategy to win them over- reject our decision in the last leadership election, threaten to not accept this one if we don't vote the way they want us to, demonise us, call us a bunch of misogynistic, anti-semitic, racist bullies, patronise us and make zero effort to engage with us or understand where we are coming from, then expect us to vote for you. Bizarre"*






Mm, as a leaver I feel your pain


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You could try using google



Or being surrounded by younger relatives, though google( at times) seems the more peaceful alternative


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

Wilf said:


> *Indeed *



You utter bastard, a bliddy spoiler at least,


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2016)

It still isn't appropriate to pass comment on a woman's appearance just cause she's Janet Street Porter y'know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> It still isn't appropriate to pass comment on a woman's appearance just cause she's Janet Street Porter y'know.


I quite like her idiosyncratic dress sense. But not allowed to be positive about poor jsp I see.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Can you *imagine* the fucking furore there'd have been if it had ended up Aargh Vs Corbyn and he'd come out with the 'I'm a normal family man' line!?!
> 
> Fwiw, I think Smith was just clumsy and it was unintentional, but that wouldn't have mattered if Corbyn had said it.


Doubt if there is any 'clumsiness' amongst the Owen/PLP attack dogs, other than a 'fall back' to excuse particularly nasty lines of attack, 'oops we were 'misrepresented, we didn't actually mean to infer that' 
Whereas, the slightest slip by Corbyn and his team are headline news and represented as 'hard line Corbyn gospel'
Aye, it's fucking nasty, and will get even more so, but the upside is,more and more people are taking an interest and are waking up,to the idea that there is an alternative to the status quo of the last 30+ years.
Interestingly, Corbyn and Farage, on opposing spectrums of the political divide,have energised political debate amongst those of us who had largely given up on representative politics, aye it may settle back down to the usual background sludge, time and developments will tell.


----------



## coley (Jul 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> It still isn't appropriate to pass comment on a woman's appearance just cause she's Janet Street Porter y'know.


My post wasn't directed at her dress sense or sex, just her general existence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2016)

coley said:


> Kindly refrain from smearing monkeys by association with the PLP


Or Badgers in association with the PLP


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 24, 2016)




----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2016)

> Momentum | Facebook
> 
> At his launch today, to thousands of attending people in Salford and 1.8 MILLION people through the live stream, Jeremy Corbyn reiterated again his adamant opposition to any personal abuse in politics.



1.8 milllion, surely that can't be right? across the world, maybe?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 24, 2016)

Dunno I'm sure a lot more than 1.8 million have access to the internet here in the uk... If it is true ( not saying it is ) that's pretty amazing


----------



## Authentic (Jul 24, 2016)

coley said:


> You utter bastard, a bliddy spoiler at least,


see below


----------



## Authentic (Jul 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> It still isn't appropriate to pass comment on a woman's appearance just cause she's Janet Street Porter y'know.


looks quite good there though doesnt she?


----------



## Authentic (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> *Indeed *


this i meant


----------



## Cakes (Jul 24, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's all as thin as air: seemingly no specific examples of bullying/abuse (except the one which has been debunked), apparently no reports to the police or official complaints etc. They just hope the public/labour members take it at face value (which some will.)


They're having to inflate some tenuous examples of poor management, angry meeting attendees and sweary tweets as bullying. Its hard to counter though because no-one wants to invalidate or dismiss victims or make people hesitate to complain about bullying. But it's a fucking stretch for a tweet tell my MP to "get in the sea" and later "fuck off" to be called abuse and a threat of drowning. Get a grip.

The bright side is that team anti-corbyn cant have any real dirt if the best they can scrabble round for is this. 

I wouldn't mind hearing more about their opposition to his policy and proposals for party reform. This mewling about his barbarianism and management style is getting old.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

I got into it and lost my rag with a member on Facebook who isn't voting Corbyn. I kinda lost my rag because his sly comments about how long he'd been a member, how he knew personally this or that person, and him describing corbyn supporters as a hard left rabble really wound me up. He also heavily implied that his views were more valid by sole virtue he's a member. There was no nastiness in my reply, I simply said this is the way the wind is blowing, social movements are where things happen, if people cry on the radio about being called a cunt on twitter or whatever they shouldn't be in politics. The worst it got was I told him he was talking a load of toss about one particular aspect. I of course was labelled the bully, the extremist and yada yada. That pissed me off further in fact. Him and another person couldn't figure out why I'd be annoyed taking that sort of shit from someone who supports a position that votes in favour of things like ESA. They just could not make the connection. To me it just demonstrates, along with 'it's my party' type attitude, why they're going to lose and why they deserve to lose.

It's ugly all this and pathetic. I don't see how the party can recover from it really.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I got into it and lost my rag with a member on Facebook who isn't voting Corbyn. I kinda lost my rag because his sly comments about how long he'd been a member, how he knew personally this or that person, and him describing corbyn supporters as a hard left rabble really wound me up. He also heavily implied that his views were more valid by sole virtue he's a member. There was no nastiness in my reply, I simply said this is the way the wind is blowing, social movements are where things happen, if people cry on the radio about being called a cunt on twitter or whatever they shouldn't be in politics. The worst it got was I told him he was talking a load of toss about one particular aspect. I of course was labelled the bully, the extremist and yada yada. That pissed me off further in fact. Him and another person couldn't figure out why I'd be annoyed taking that sort of shit from someone who supports a position that votes in favour of things like ESA. They just could not make the connection. To me it just demonstrates, along with 'it's my party' type attitude, why they're going to lose and why they deserve to lose.
> 
> It's ugly all this and pathetic. I don't see how the party can recover from it really.



Labour moderates can't be the bad ones, can they? Not ever. The media has created a climate where they are justified in whatever they do and that attitude results in stuff like this.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Labour moderates can't be the bad ones, can they? Not ever. The media has created a climate where they are justified in whatever they do and that attitude results in stuff like this.


I was fucking enraged all day yesterday, it started by learning about the Tory bursary cuts and then went on from there. Upon reflection this morning I can now see that he was essentially baiting me. I just read this and related it to how he was speaking to me:






I actually said 'I'd appreciate if you stopped misrepresenting me' at one point because he kept accusing me of claiming all the people saying they were victims of abuse were lying. In reality I said being called a cunt on twitter is part and parcel of being in politics and that crying to the press about it is transparent because if everyone in politics did that every time they got shit on Twitter there'd never be room for any actual news.

So he misrepresented me, said I couldn't accept others had different views, drew me into bickering and made me look like the arsehole. Well played I guess you live and learn.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

The shinners getting dragged into this now . I actually know a bit about these particular punters from my general neck of the woods . Labour MP Conor McGinn, originally from co Armagh but currently a blow in , parachuted in to an iron clad safe labour seat in merseyside , after a career bum kissing in London is the son of former Sinn Fein mayor of Newry Pat McGinn. Little Conor....a fanatical Blairite, defence obsessed ,  is alleging Corbyn threatened to phone his dad after Conor briefed against him publicly . Needless to say this careerist was part of the coup as was his boss Coaker . Wailing to the high heavens about a phone call that never happened , between 2 men who've never met or spoke.


Corbyn denies threatening to phone MP's father over row


As a point of interest his father once won the title of " biggest liar in the world " back in the early 2000s in some half arsed contest . Unsure if that's a genetic trait or something his son reckons is an essential political skill


Eta 

Whoops. Hadn't noticed this was mentioned earlier


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> The shinners getting dragged into this now . I actually know a bit about these particular punters from my general neck of the woods . Labour MP Conor McGinn, originally from co Armagh but currently a blow in , parachuted in to an iron clad safe labour seat in merseyside , after a career bum kissing in London is the son of former Sinn Fein mayor of Newry Pat McGinn. Little Conor....a fanatical Blairite, defence obsessed ,  is alleging Corbyn threatened to phone his dad after Conor briefed against him publicly . Needless to say this careerist was part of the coup as was his boss Coaker . Wailing to the high heavens about a phone call that never happened , between 2 men who've never met or spoke.
> 
> 
> Corbyn denies threatening to phone MP's father over row
> ...



Guido Fawkes has a screenshot from Whatsapp showing McGinn the younger whipping backbenchers to 'keep up the pressure on JC'. I tried to find it from a less scummy source and no major newspaper had reported it. The anti-Corbyn press discipline/group think in this country is amazing. David Axelrod was right when he said it is even worse here than the US.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 24, 2016)

Here's a screenshot of a screenshot.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

An interview with young McGinn here  , were he rhymes off his political heroes. Blair, Campbell, Bertie a-fucking-hern....basically the scum of the earth .

Conor McGinn Interview: My Dad Stood For Sinn Fein But Harriet Harman Is A Hero To Me

For the record Tony Blair is NOT immensely popular over here . That's a fucking lie too.

And a guy that grew up in Camlough who's so enthusiastic about MOD policy and wants to work there. 

You've no idea how badly my toes are curled up and how loud I've been shouting at my iPad like a fucking madman . My front windows are open and my poor neighbours are bound to be scared I've gone off on one again . Fuck you McGinn you little bollocks you .


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 24, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> The shinners getting dragged into this now . I actually know a bit about these particular punters from my general neck of the woods . Labour MP Conor McGinn, originally from co Armagh but currently a blow in , parachuted in to an iron clad safe labour seat in merseyside , after a career bum kissing in London is the son of former Sinn Fein mayor of Newry Pat McGinn. Little Conor....a fanatical Blairite, defence obsessed ,  is alleging Corbyn threatened to phone his dad after Conor briefed against him publicly . Needless to say this careerist was part of the coup as was his boss Coaker . Wailing to the high heavens about a phone call that never happened , between 2 men who've never met or spoke.
> 
> 
> Corbyn denies threatening to phone MP's father over row
> ...



His wife also worked for Owen Smith. And previous to that worked as a whip in Islington. Reckon there's a lot of bad blood. 

Kate Groucutt | LinkedIn


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

Did you read that shit about the Queens speech and all the parliamentary conventions he loves ? Aaaaaaaarggghh !!!!

What a cunt. A smug looking turncoat cunt . Fuck him and his Garth brooks


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Can you *imagine* the fucking furore there'd have been if it had ended up Aargh Vs Corbyn and he'd come out with the 'I'm a normal family man' line!?!
> 
> Fwiw, I think Smith was just clumsy and it was unintentional, but that wouldn't have mattered if Corbyn had said it.



Didn't leadsome have to commit instant Hari Kari after saying something fleeting about May having no kids ? And that was between 2 hetero Tory women .
Different rules for these bozos .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

I'm not remotely trying to infer there's any link between young Conor's obsession with the need for a strong MOD, with him at the helm,  and his reverence for Queen Elizabeth and this .

Unite leader Len McCluskey: MI5 may be behind online abuse of Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> David Axelrod was right when he said it is even worse here than the US.



It's miles worse. There's obviously a lot of shit in US news (and maybe ignoring Fox here) and there's still a window of what's acceptable but they do at least allow the people they have on to act like they're speaking to adults and not idiots that need to be force fed. That's so rare here.

I have to admit I was surprised when I first went there and actually watched US news. We tend to assume stuff like that is better here* and it's really not.


*Generalising here obviously before anyone starts to huff about how they do no such thing.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2016)

As others have observed, on Twitter if not here, Saving Labour have not endorsed Owen Smith and still present their aim as to oppose Corbyn rather than backing the only other candidate. This has caused speculation about them not wanting to be associated with a no mark candidate, but it also seems to suit him to keep Progresses's dirty tricks at arms length. For example it looks like the photo of the vermin t-shirt was photoshopped:
Blairites FAKED ‘vermin’ t-shirt pic
Although if this is the case it seems almost deliberately amateurish to have members of their team in the photo.

ETA: Here is the article that brought the apparent gap between Progress/Saving Labour and Owen Smith to my attention:
Saving Labour makes no mention of Owen Smith - The i newspaper online iNews

Seemed like quite a good piece apart from the last line, which claims the allegations against Corbyn supporters are 'well documented'.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2016)

Damning.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Seemed like quite a good piece apart from the last line, which claims the allegations against Corbyn supporters are 'well documented'.



Yeah this is what has bugged me a lot. There's this constant stream of how well this abuse is documented, how relentless it is and blah blah but I've not seen any of it documented.  Guy last night was saying things like 'I've seen the abuse on my friends timeline, it's sickening and beyond the pale' and yet no evidence is produced.  I don't doubt there's some utter cunts sending death threats but I doubt their even reaches into the hundreds and how many are signed up Corbyn supporters? Being called a cunt, told to shut up or whatever is of course forceful and yes a bit abusive, or at best disrespectful but these people have painted it as if it's some sort of siege.   It's part and parcel of online debate, well it is on here anyway haha and it's certainly part and parcel of being a politician.  Be nice if it wasn't but politics isn't all nicey nicey touchy feely, despite what Corbyn may want. What do they expect him to?

Corbyn: 'I call for a nicer, kinder politics'
Smith: 'Yeah, don't be abusive'
Twitter Person @Smith 'Fuck off you empty suited, grasping cunt sock'
Smith: 'This campaign of abuse is terrible. Corbyn must do more'
Corbyn: 'Abuse has no place in the Labour party from any side of it. We are a family that needs to unite'
Smith: 'This isn't enough, more needs to be done'
Twitter Person @Smith 'Stop being an anti democratic arsehole and unite behind the party then'
Smith: 'Boo-Hoo a person said a nasty thing to me on Twitter'
Corbyn: 'I don't do abuse it has no place'

On and on it goes


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Damning.



What's that an image of? Corbyn rally? Let's see Smith fill a room like that...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Leeds Hyde Park seems pretty pro-Corbyn:



Nice one. I working about 10 yards away in the band tent and forgot to add my ball to the corbyn pile. so support is at least one ball greater than the picture suggests!


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What's that an image of? Corbyn rally? Let's see Smith fill a room like that...




Its the launch rally at the Lowry, and full, 

Round the corner from the Working Class Library, Ruth will be looking down and smiling.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> As others have observed, on Twitter if not here, Saving Labour have not endorsed Owen Smith and still present their aim as to oppose Corbyn rather than backing the only other candidate. This has caused speculation about them not wanting to be associated with a no mark candidate, but it also seems to suit him to keep Progresses's dirty tricks at arms length. For example it looks like the photo of the vermin t-shirt was photoshopped:
> Blairites FAKED ‘vermin’ t-shirt pic
> Although if this is the case it seems almost deliberately amateurish to have members of their team in the photo.
> 
> ...



Ha this made me laugh from the i article. Not least because it's so childish but because this is what they constitute as abuse.



> Meanwhile, Smith’s own campaign website is picking up a steady stream of supporters – not all of them respectable. Recently registered names on its Get Involved page include Jimmy Savile, Margaret Thather (sic), Fred West and Adolf Hitler. Yesterday, Smith called on Corbyn to crack down harder on the widely documented abuse and threats made in his name



I mean it's on a level with Boaty McBoatFace but with a bit of teeth.

'They call me Plotty McPlotFace! End this abuse!'

'Fuck off Cunty McCuntFace'


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Damning.


FFS If you are going to post silly images perhaps you've grabbed from somewhere maybe you should at least provide a description of what they are off and a link.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Its the launch rally at the Lowry, and full,
> 
> Round the corner from the Working Class Library, *Ruth will be looking down and smiling*.


----------



## Ole (Jul 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Guido Fawkes has a screenshot from Whatsapp showing McGinn the younger whipping backbenchers to 'keep up the pressure on JC'. I tried to find it from a less scummy source and no major newspaper had reported it. The anti-Corbyn press discipline/group think in this country is amazing. David Axelrod was right when he said it is even worse here than the US.





Rob Ray said:


> View attachment 89901
> 
> Here's a screenshot of a screenshot.



Let's see what Owen Jones has to say about this.








Survival of the slickest.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2016)

Owen Jones is going to have to move to the right to find a new niche for his ethical brand.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 24, 2016)

Ole said:


> Let's see what Owen Jones has to say about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was sick on Paul Staines. True story.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> FFS If you are going to post silly images perhaps you've grabbed from somewhere maybe you should at least provide a description of what they are off and a link.



Fuck you, why is it a silly image, not that this place doesn't have its quota of them, just pathetic this constant sniping from a few unreconstructed bores.


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Fuck you, why is it a silly image, not that this place doesn't have its quota of them, just pathetic this constant sniping from a few unreconstructed bores.


Sources would be good and not at all difficult to provide. Otherwise it is just a silly picture.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Fuck you, why is it a silly image, not that this place doesn't have its quota of them, just pathetic this constant sniping from a few unreconstructed bores.


they are right, you hardly ever provide any context or source
if you did people wouldn't have to pick you up on it
also no need for your abusive tone, just post properly


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2016)

maomao said:


> Sources would be good and not at all difficult to provide. Otherwise it is just a silly picture.



A lot are from FB, fair few people on here don't like that source or are not on FB.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> A lot are from FB, fair few people on here don't like that source or are not on FB.


and where do the fb posts come from? there is an original source that isn't fb, unless it's the person posting their own biased photoshop


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 24, 2016)

What a fucking carcrash. Flipped on marr this morning in time to catch possibly the most bizarre bit I've seen on the show since Cameron jigging to that indie band. What a fucking cunt. Lying, arrogant, actually insane I think, and I'm not talking about marr.

Rip, labour. It's a crying shame. I suppose at least ashdown was attempting to offer an alternative. But let's face it. With Corbyn there it's the Tories in power for the long foreseeable future. Labours not recovering from this. In a way, good riddance. But the thought of 20 years of the fucking Tories, well.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> What a fucking carcrash. Flipped on marr this morning in time to catch possibly the most bizarre bit I've seen on the show since Cameron jigging to that indie band. What a fucking cunt. Lying, arrogant, actually insane I think, and I'm not talking about marr.
> 
> Rip, labour. It's a crying shame. I suppose at least ashdown was attempting to offer an alternative. But let's face it. With Corbyn there it's the Tories in power for the long foreseeable future. Labours not recovering from this. In a way, good riddance. But the thought of 20 years of the fucking Tories, well.



What's the point of you?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> What a fucking carcrash. Flipped on marr this morning in time to catch possibly the most bizarre bit I've seen on the show since Cameron jigging to that indie band. What a fucking cunt. Lying, arrogant, actually insane I think, and I'm not talking about marr.
> 
> Rip, labour. It's a crying shame. I suppose at least ashdown was attempting to offer an alternative. But let's face it. With Corbyn there it's the Tories in power for the long foreseeable future. Labours not recovering from this. In a way, good riddance. But the thought of 20 years of the fucking Tories, well.



What do you think he was lying about? Do you believe the break in story?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What do you think he was lying about? Do you believe the break in story?


Like most people at work I've walked in to find contractors, computer techs and all sorts in our office.  Also had people who were coming into our room after a move, metaphorically measuring up the curtains.  Ok, there's a minor security twist to it, them being in the 'palace' of Westminster and all, but most of all it shows they don't ever see themselves just _being at work_.  So fucking precious that they have to run to the press and _THE SPEAKER_! Fuck off, entitled twats, it's just everyday life.  And more to the point, you are the fuckers who started this, you are the fuckers who resigned your jobs, you are the fuckers who were supposed to move out anyway!


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Rip, labour. It's a crying shame. I suppose at least ashdown was attempting to offer an alternative. But let's face it. With Corbyn there it's the Tories in power for the long foreseeable future. Labours not recovering from this. In a way, good riddance. But the thought of 20 years of the fucking Tories, well.


We've had 37 years of Tories already, Eagle or Smith aren't going to win an election anyway and we need an opposition that's actually going to oppose them. The fucking Tory party did a better job of opposition to the Tory Blair government than Labour have for the last 6 years.


----------



## Cid (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Like most people at work I've walked in to find contractors, computer techs and all sorts in our office.  Also had people who were coming into our room after a move, metaphorically measuring up the curtains.  Ok, there's a minor security twist to it, them being in the 'palace' of Westminster and all, but most of all it shows they don't ever see themselves just _being at work_.  So fucking precious that they have to run to the press and _THE SPEAKER_! Fuck off, entitled twats, it's just everyday life.  And more to the point, you are the fuckers who started this, you are the fuckers who resigned your jobs, you are the fuckers who were supposed to move out anyway!



Isn't it also a shadow cabinet office? i.e one that she's spent a month not leaving.

ah wait, you said that. Remember to read posts. I wonder whether this abuse is someone popping their head in and saying 'fucking hell, are you still here?'.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 24, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What's the point of you?



Jesus wept


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 24, 2016)

maomao said:


> We've had 37 years of Tories already, Eagle or Smith aren't going to win an election anyway and we need an opposition that's actually going to oppose them. The fucking Tory party did a better job of opposition to the Tory Blair government than Labour have for the last 6 years.



You think Corbyn and his absurd, frankly embarrassing 'shadow chancellor' are an effective opposition?

The Tories openly giggle when the deluded cunt approaches the despatch box with another question from Sandra from Hull rather than being arsed to actually challenge the cunts opposite him.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2016)

Can you answer some of the questions put to your rather than just sounding like a broken record.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Jesus wept



There is none then?


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You think Corbyn and his absurd, frankly embarrassing 'shadow chancellor' are an effective opposition?
> 
> The Tories openly giggle when the deluded cunt approaches the despatch box with another question from Sandra from Hull rather than being arsed to actually challenge the cunts opposite him.


And you think a Labour party that is so cowed by Tory success that it refuses to oppose them on anything of worth is more effective? Why not just join the Tories if that's what you want anyway?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2016)

Cid said:


> Isn't it also a shadow cabinet office? i.e one that she's spent a month not leaving.


Indeed, though there was some discussion about swapping rooms it seems.  I haven't seen McDonnell of Corbyn responding to any of these claims for a few days as our broadband is too fucked to watch clips.  I suspect they are just getting overwhelmed and haven't got the time to research or construct a proper defence. They probably need a little team beavering away to do rapid rebuttals, though without getting dragged in too much.  McDonnell's speech to camera was probably the right tone. 

Just as an aside, it's an interesting question: how should left parties and party groupings play all this shit?  New Labour - not left obviously - had a clear strategy of insinuation with the media owners, some kind of mechanism for rebutting dodgy stories - and outright bullying of key correspondents from Alistair Campbell.  Very little of this is either desirable or possible for the Corbyn team, so what do they do?  Probably not much they can do other than putting out statements, dealing with favourable press contacts and running things through social media.  As with so much of the Corbyn thing, the unexpected nature of the victory meant he had no plans or team in place.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The Tories openly giggle when the deluded cunt approaches the despatch box


yeah he needs to win the respect of the tories by adressing the agenda set by them and a complicit media. God forbid the voices of constituents might be heard over the sound of 28k a year school braying.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

Going back to the argument I had last night he said MPs were right to raise concerns about abuse to the press just as they did about the Iraq war when there was a debate in the run up to it. I mean what do you even say to that? 

Concerns raised to the press in 2003: 'I'm worried my party is going to take this country into an illegal war that will destabilise the entire middle east, cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and weaken our standing on the world stage'

Concerns raised to the press in 2016:
'Somebody called me a cunt on the Internet and it hurt my feelings'

What they don't get is that all this calls their judgement into question. It's not simply a case of crying about abuse it's the fact they're crying to the press, the speaker, postman or anyone who listens and every little thing that approaches even being disagreed with robustly is accused of being threatening, abusive, bullying, intimidating and so on. To run a country you need to have some balls, vagina, back bone, thick skin or whatever you wanna call it. Crying to the press about the slightest thing looks like a 3 year old crying to the nursery nurse because Peter knocked the bricks over on purpose. I wouldn't vote for them on that basis alone. Say what you like about Corbyn, there's plenty to criticise but damn he's got some cajones to take this from the entire press, his own MPs, a section of his membership, the Tories, gloating SNP members and so on. To take all that in stride I find pretty remarkable.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Can you answer some of the questions put to your rather than just sounding like a broken record.



I've yet to see them do anything but pop up, be abusive and then disappear in a huff, so wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

That's what tories often seem to do. Funny that.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jul 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah he needs to win the respect of the tories by adressing the agenda set by them and a complicit media. God forbid the voices of constituents might be heard over the sound of 28k a year school braying.



The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.

The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 24, 2016)

Ole said:


> Let's see what Owen Jones has to say about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I suspect the Guardian will have Owen Jones write a "I used to be a big supporter of Corbyn , but now will vote Owen Smith" piece on the eve of the leadership vote.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Indeed, though there was some discussion about swapping rooms it seems.  I haven't seen McDonnell of Corbyn responding to any of these claims for a few days as our broadband is too fucked to watch clips.  I suspect they are just getting overwhelmed and haven't got the time to research or construct a proper defence. They probably need a little team beavering away to do rapid rebuttals, though without getting dragged in too much.  McDonnell's speech to camera was probably the right tone.
> 
> Just as an aside, it's an interesting question: how should left parties and party groupings play all this shit?  New Labour - not left obviously - had a clear strategy of insinuation with the media owners, some kind of mechanism for rebutting dodgy stories - and outright bullying of key correspondents from Alistair Campbell.  Very little of this is either desirable or possible for the Corbyn team, so what do they do?  Probably not much they can do other than putting out statements, dealing with favourable press contacts and running things through social media.  As with so much of the Corbyn thing, the unexpected nature of the victory meant he had no plans or team in place.


Your last sentence is really key. Once he sees this bollocks off he's really got to get to work restructuring the party, getting these people on board or clearing them out and having a good media strategy, particularly a social media strategy because I think that's really under tapped. It's been used pretty well so far but I think a lot more can be done going forward. Momentum understand that but the labour party under Corbyn are lagging behind in that regard.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.


and islington for 30 years, and with the biggest leadership vote in labours recent history. I don't know what electorate you claim to know the minds of, all 40 illion of them, but I think there's a lot more complexity to peoples voting intentions than you do. Great to see you claim JC has arrogance while high handedly telling us what the electorate will or won't buy. Allanis


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.


What is this airy socialist bollocks then?


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.



I'm always amazed by how angry people can get while having absolutely no clue what they're talking about. Just vomiting out half-digested lumps of other people's equally idiotic opinions but really _feeling_ it, y'know?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What is this airy socialist bollocks then?



"Corbyn the Beast in lewd exposure of 'airy socialist bollocks"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2016)

...dipped his airy socialist bollocks in the punch bowl at Labour's christmas party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2016)

_stalinist teabagging_


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> "Corbyn the Beast in lewd exposure of 'airy socialist bollocks"


Even more misogyny


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.


And yet you haven't yet told us once who _is_ electable. Either stop repeating the same old whiney crap or just fuck off. You're not having a conversation, you're not persuading anyone, you're not even having an argument, you're just being an annoying whining prick.


----------



## campanula (Jul 24, 2016)

Indeed - whenever this unelectable theme comes up in conversation, the suggestion of an alternative (plausible) candidate is rarely forthcoming.

Also, Relabuzz, 'arrogant dick' might pass muster for scintillating and erudite political analysis in your circles...but it really doesn't cut the mustard for me.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.



So.. 

Pretend to have policies vaguely similar to the tories in the hope that the electorate will be fooled and choose the lesser of 2 evils, then do an about turn on those election policies to "change shit". 

Incisive stuff. Who needs principles eh? 

Not only are you a moron, you're the shit kind of moron.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Indeed, though there was some discussion about swapping rooms it seems.  I haven't seen McDonnell of Corbyn responding to any of these claims for a few days as our broadband is too fucked to watch clips.  I suspect they are just getting overwhelmed and haven't got the time to research or construct a proper defence. They probably need a little team beavering away to do rapid rebuttals, though without getting dragged in too much.  McDonnell's speech to camera was probably the right tone.
> 
> Just as an aside, it's an interesting question: how should left parties and party groupings play all this shit?  New Labour - not left obviously - had a clear strategy of insinuation with the media owners, some kind of mechanism for rebutting dodgy stories - and outright bullying of key correspondents from Alistair Campbell.  Very little of this is either desirable or possible for the Corbyn team, so what do they do?  Probably not much they can do other than putting out statements, dealing with favourable press contacts and running things through social media.  As with so much of the Corbyn thing, the unexpected nature of the victory meant he had no plans or team in place.



The tsunami of lies and exaggerations means he'd be playing endless whackamole with endless accusations . Which I suspect is what his opponents want . There's a real issue of giving credence to the ludicrous by addressing it in detail . The Blairites weren't facing this type of thing or anything comparable . Not until they'd stacked up a literal mountain of very real sleaze . 
I think a far better strategy is to lump all the bullshit together in a bullshit category and adress *why* it's being alleged by these bulshitters . Rather than the specifics of *what* is being alleged by these bullshitters .


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

That just looks like you're denying it, though, or being paranoid. I like the blog? linked to recently that lists each of the accusations and succinctly the specifics of why it's wrong. After you've demonstrated that you can start looking at why.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 24, 2016)

There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:



> *PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM*
> (in increasing order of effectiveness)
> 
> 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).
> ...


 Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System

I think it's instructive to ask yourself where in this framework the interventions of the people joining Labour to vote for Corbyn (or possibly more accurately, against nuLabour/neoliberalism) are aimed..

... and then to ask the same question about the PLP & the donors who support the PLP & the punters who align with the PLP and their donors.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

Oh look, another misleading Guardian headline:

*'Stop destroying our party' John McDonnell's plea to supporters*

With a subhead:



> Shadow chancellor issues direct appeal to Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents amid claims member of staff broke into MP’s office



So not actually his 'supporters' but the PLP supporters, and repeats the 'broke into MP's office' slur for good measure.


----------



## JHE (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Say what you like about Corbyn, there's plenty to criticise but damn he's got some cajones...



...and not just for socks, pants and membership lists.  Many of Corbyn's cajones will be full of old leaflets, pamphlets, back copies of London Labour Briefing and press clippings going back to the 70s.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That just looks like you're denying it, though, or being paranoid. I like the blog? linked to recently that lists each of the accusations and succinctly the specifics of why it's wrong. After you've demonstrated that you can start looking at why.



I'd like to see that blog, I've missed it I think. Could someone please put the link up again? Thanks.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That just looks like you're denying it, though, or being paranoid. I like the blog? linked to recently that lists each of the accusations and succinctly the specifics of why it's wrong. After you've demonstrated that you can start looking at why.



As has been stated before here it's not paranoia when they really are all out to get you . This is an actual establishment conspiracy . That needs explained to people .
I do agree that the accusations ultimately need to be addressed and refuted , such as in the blog, but to micromanage them from the top is utterly futile in my view . And even self defeating . It's symptoms rather than cause .


----------



## mauvais (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That just looks like you're denying it, though, or being paranoid. I like the blog? linked to recently that lists each of the accusations and succinctly the specifics of why it's wrong. After you've demonstrated that you can start looking at why.


You might have to knock a few down to prove a point but it's folly to get bogged down in it - I think that's CR's point and if so he's right. The opponents can serve this stuff up forever, and it doesn't matter if it's weak, has mistakes in it etc, because it's just spam, whereas the response will be seized upon if it's lacking. There's no point engaging with it because overall the only outcomes are negative.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> You might have to knock a few down to prove a point but it's folly to get bogged down in it - I think that's CR's point and if so he's right. The opponents can serve this stuff up forever, and it doesn't matter if it's weak, has mistakes in it etc, because it's just spam, whereas the response will be seized upon if it's lacking. There's no point engaging with it because overall the only outcomes are negative.



Semantic denial of service attack.

They can generate flak at a lower cost (effort etc) than you can produce a reasoned response.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 24, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Semantic denial of service attack.
> 
> They can generate flak at a lower cost (effort) than you can produce a reasoned response.


That, and as per the old cliche about terrorism or whatever it's from, 'they only have to get it right once'.

And not just cost in effort but in reputation. Whatever comes of it, success or failure, noone will ever negatively remember whoever it was (see) that complained about their office being entered. So if it flops, no harm done.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'd like to see that blog, I've missed it I think. Could someone please put the link up again? Thanks.




I thought I'd bookmarked it but can't see it - can anyone do the honours?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> You might have to knock a few down to prove a point but it's folly to get bogged down in it - I think that's CR's point and if so he's right. The opponents can serve this stuff up forever, and it doesn't matter if it's weak, has mistakes in it etc, because it's just spam, whereas the response will be seized upon if it's lacking. There's no point engaging with it because overall the only outcomes are negative.



I still think you have to point out the lies first. Anyone who's read the press stories is going to start from them being true. If we start from 'ah but *why* are they saying that?' it makes us look like defensive and dishonest. 

A good list of the accusations and their refutations I think is central, along with things like the LSE research. You've then got something to start off from - evidence that the accusations are spurious, *then* you can go into why people are doing it. They need to know that the accusations are wrong first, though. 

It has to be succinct (which the references I saw were), and they're also interesting/entertaining to read. They show what the papers have alleged and just how they distorted the story, which is a  good lesson in how papers work more generally and a solid base to ask why they're doing it all.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> Fuck you, why is it a silly image, not that this place doesn't have its quota of them, just pathetic this constant sniping from a few unreconstructed bores.


It's a silly image because nobody besides you had a clue of what it was an image of. If you want to make a point then fine but fucking make the point rather than just posting up some image unexplained.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I still think you have to point out the lies first. Anyone who's read the press stories is going to start from them being true. If we start from 'ah but *why* are they saying that?' it makes us look like defensive and dishonest.
> 
> A good list of the accusations and their refutations I think is central, along with things like the LSE research. You've then got something to start off from - evidence that the accusations are spurious, *then* you can go into why people are doing it. They need to know that the accusations are wrong first, though.
> 
> It has to be succinct (which the references I saw were), and they're also interesting/entertaining to read. They show what the papers have alleged and just how they distorted the story, which is a  good lesson in how papers work more generally and a solid base to ask why they're doing it all.


You're drawn into playing the game on someone else's terms. It's inescapable.

Consider this: who - in the real world of apolitical non-obsessives - cares if they accessed someone's office? Who cares if Jeremy Corbyn himself did it in a rage like a besandaled bicycling Liam Neeson? What, nobody? So don't legitimise it and don't give any import by attaching a response. The game isn't the story, it's the campaign.

Imagine you're commander of a military base in Afghanistan or somewhere. Every few days a ragtag bunch of insurgents appear, take potshots at the base then run away again. No damage is ever really done. You have a choice: pursue or not?

Don't, and the attacks keep coming. You look weak to all kinds of people.

So you make the rules of engagement that attackers will be pursued. Nine more attacks, nine successful pursuits, bunch of dead insurgents. Number ten though and a soldier gets kidnapped, used as propaganda and killed live on the internet.

And what did you gain?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2016)

I'm taken aback by quite how cynically a large chunk of the women in the Parliamentary Labour Party have been prepared to instrumentalise gender and sexual politics. I don't expect them to take class politics seriously or have any sort of economic vision beyond neoliberalism, but I imagined that more of them would have been sincere in their liberal feminist values. But if you genuinely believe that male violence against women should be addressed and that social mobility includes giving women equal access to labour markets, shouldn't you avoid cynically manipulate these issues for political gain?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2016)

I think there is value in allowing the labour right and their willing press friends to go completely radio rental with the accusations and smears. The other choice is engage and end up being mocked for eating a bacon sarnie. What do you have to lose by ignoring them? What do you have to lose by engaging?
weigh it up. They'll crucify you either way and any engagement will just be combed over for ways to spin it that you rim the devil

time will tell if it  works, but watching the press grow ever more shrill is excellent. Wail on sunday today suddenly becoming champions of bangladeshi textile workers in shit conditions and shitter pay. Really.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

I think a lot of people will be put off by stories of homophobia, Momentum supporters spitting at people, abusing women, throwing bricks through windows, death threats against MPs, abuse of women MPs, and the like. 

When people bring these things up and you can just refute them by pointing them to the where they're shown to be lies, why wouldn't you? After you've shown they're lies you can start discussing why they're doing it. You can't discuss why they're doing it before the people you're talking to realize that they are lies/distortions.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2016)

The whole _project smear_ strategy suggests that Corbyn's 'decent chap' ratings have held annoyingly (for them) firm in their focus group work. Though they may be convinced by _post-truth _politics, they're ignoring the fact that _project_ fear failed one month ago.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> That, and as per the old cliche about terrorism or whatever it's from, '*they only have to get it right once'*.
> 
> And not just cost in effort but in reputation. Whatever comes of it, success or failure, noone will ever negatively remember whoever it was (see) that complained about their office being entered. So if it flops, no harm done.



'Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war'. Statement after Brighton 1984. I've got it in my head that it's a Franz Fanon reference/paraphrase, but a quick google finds no proof of this.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> It's a silly image because nobody besides you had a clue of what it was an image of. If you want to make a point then fine but fucking make the point rather than just posting up some image unexplained.


seemed perectly self explanatory to me, given the context of this thread - the bbc making out a corbyn rally was a lot smaller than it was...and its clear the source of it was "someone off the internet made it"






I think treelover deserves a break......


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I'm taken aback by quite how cynically a large chunk of the women in the Parliamentary Labour Party have been prepared to instrumentalise gender and sexual politics. I don't expect them to take class politics seriously or have any sort of economic vision beyond neoliberalism, but I imagined that more of them would have been sincere in their liberal feminist values. But if you genuinely believe that male violence against women should be addressed and that social mobility includes giving women equal access to labour markets, shouldn't you avoid cynically manipulate these issues for political gain?



Not if you're a cynical bastard with an inherent belief in the rightness of the establishment and your place within it . No . Look at McGinn . Every bit the outsider who's brought up fully aware of what damage the British establishment has wrought . And yet he's in awe of it . Because it let him in . And for that kindness hell be it's staunchest defender . A true believer . Same as the rest of them. They're fully co opted by a shitty system . Plus a commitment to feminist values without an equal commitment to class and socialist values is just little more than identity politics and posturing . It's an empty stance with no real conviction . It's a card they play one day for one purpose and the next for another . It's all cynicism .


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'd like to see that blog, I've missed it I think. Could someone please put the link up again? Thanks.



Found it: Archive: Disputing Claims of Thuggery levelled at Jeremy Corbyn Supporters 

cantsin pointed to it in the excellent imaginary invented / concocted abuse thread ( Corbyn/Momentum/all) thread

Take an example - someone says to you 'So why isn't Corbyn condemning his supporters for throwing a brick through Aaargh's office window? Eh? Eh?' How do you respond?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think a lot of people will be put off by stories of homophobia, Momentum supporters spitting at people, abusing women, throwing bricks through windows, death threats against MPs, abuse of women MPs, and the like.
> 
> When people bring these things up and you can just refute them by pointing them to the where they're shown to be lies, why wouldn't you? After you've shown they're lies you can start discussing why they're doing it. You can't discuss why they're doing it before the people you're talking to realize that they are lies/distortions.



Corbyn has a platform for change . They don't want him talking about that. They're controlling the narrative. They can churn out one lie after another endlessly . They want him bogged down endlessly explaining away other irrelevant personalised stuff .

It simply doesn't matter whether he refutes it successfully or not. There'll be yet another lie along 2 minutes later .It's about controlling him, caging him in . Dictating his agenda for him. And they're doing it with the direct assistance..at the very least..of a heavily biased media which will ensure any reply he makes is spun to his detriment . If he dances to their tune he's fucked, simple as.
This is war and knowing which battles to fight will determine whether he wins or not. He can't win this name calling battle, they have all the advantages and what they dearly want is to draw him onto the ground they've prepared for him . He needs to stand back from that . To an extent. Not to get personally sucked right into the middle of it. To stay calm and measured and stick to his message . To talk about that instead .

This stuff is the essence of no win for Corbyn .


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

Yes I agree with Corbyn's message but how can he not condemn his supporters spitting at people? That's just disgusting - what sort of country are we going to have when he's in power if you have his supporters going round spitting at people and he doesn't even condemn it?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

This was the problem Doctor Carrot said he came up against the other day. Sounds like he had trolls in the discussion but you've got the onlookers viewing too - we need some sort of response to them and I can't see anything better than refuting the allegations wherever you can. Then you can go on to the more general points. 

But anyway, I've said my piece.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Yes I agree with Corbyn's message but how can he not condemn his supporters spitting at people? That's just disgusting - what sort of country are we going to have when he's in power if you have his supporters going round spitting at people and he doesn't even condemn it?



He has roundly condemned all such actions in a blanket fashion . Regardless of from which side they originate. He didn't send anyone to do it or remotely encourage it, therefore he has no obligation to take ownership of such specific actions . None . And to do so in an environment were all sorts of dirty tricks and smears are in abundance he'd be very foolish to do so . We know very little about the actual backgrounds of such allegations or the anonymous individuals who are supposed to have done it. Or what their agenda is . Taking ownership of them would be very foolish indeed. He's condemned all such actions till he's blue in the face. I fail to see how you haven't heard that .


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah this is what has bugged me a lot. There's this constant stream of how well this abuse is documented, how relentless it is and blah blah but I've not seen any of it documented.  Guy last night was saying things like 'I've seen the abuse on my friends timeline, it's sickening and beyond the pale' and yet no evidence is produced.  I don't doubt there's some utter cunts sending death threats but I doubt their even reaches into the hundreds and how many are signed up Corbyn supporters? Being called a cunt, told to shut up or whatever is of course forceful and yes a bit abusive, or at best disrespectful but these people have painted it as if it's some sort of siege.   It's part and parcel of online debate, well it is on here anyway haha and it's certainly part and parcel of being a politician.  Be nice if it wasn't but politics isn't all nicey nicey touchy feely, despite what Corbyn may want. What do they expect him to?
> 
> Corbyn: 'I call for a nicer, kinder politics'
> Smith: 'Yeah, don't be abusive'
> ...



Too true, anybody but anybody, can tweet or Facebook an offensive message, the supposed abuse could be coming from Donald Trump supporters FFS, how progress has managed to implicate Corbyn supporters in this 'alleged abuse' clearly indicates a cosy relationship between them and the right wing  leaning media (ie most of the buggers) and the right wing establishment in general.
A clear demonstration of the forces who are prepared to align,even more sharply, against even a small move towards an even society.
The upside is,they seem to be shitting themselves


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Nice one. I working about 10 yards away in the band tent and forgot to add my ball to the corbyn pile. so support is at least one ball greater than the picture suggests!



Owen has only got one ball, the other is....
Sorry, grabs coat


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2016)

ska invita said:


> seemed perectly self explanatory to me, given the context of this thread - the bbc making out a corbyn rally was a lot smaller than it was...and its clear the source of it was "someone off the internet made it"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seconded.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> He has roundly condemned all such actions in a blanket fashion . Regardless of from which side they originate. He didn't send anyone to do it or remotely encourage it, therefore he has no obligation to take ownership of such specific actions . None . And to do so in an environment were all sorts of dirty tricks and smears are in abundance he'd be very foolish to do so . We know very little about the actual backgrounds of such allegations or the anonymous individuals who are supposed to have done it. Or what their agenda is . Taking ownership of them would be very foolish indeed. He's condemned all such actions till he's blue in the face. I fail to see how you haven't heard that .



Yes that's good. Also Coley's last but one post.

I'd still add "(for examples you can see Archive: Disputing Claims of Thuggery levelled at Jeremy Corbyn Supporters on how far they'll go)" though


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What's the point of you?



Encouraging pre teens to get involved?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think a lot of people will be put off by stories of homophobia, Momentum supporters spitting at people, abusing women, throwing bricks through windows, death threats against MPs, abuse of women MPs, and the like.
> 
> When people bring these things up and you can just refute them by pointing them to the where they're shown to be lies, why wouldn't you? After you've shown they're lies you can start discussing why they're doing it. You can't discuss why they're doing it before the people you're talking to realize that they are lies/distortions.


I don't deny that there will be damage incurred by not constantly engaging in a top-down fashion - but the risk/reward balance is very poor. Plus you can't refute something anyway when it's merely he-said-she-said, either in substance or significance. You can't show that Jeremy is doing enough to tackle Twitter abuse because waiiiit it's a stupid construct in the first place. Can't win.

And I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled at all, just not symmetrically. To the extent that they can make a success of this at all given the odds, I think the whole pro-Corbyn entity is actually doing a decent job of playing this game, not getting entrenched in tit-for-tat and leaving activists and commenters to put the truth out there. I think on balance that's won them some public support (either explicitly or via the absence of the opposite)


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

maomao said:


> And you think a Labour party that is so cowed by Tory success that it refuses to oppose them on anything of worth is more effective? Why not just join the Tories if that's what you want anyway?


Can't think why most of the PLP just don't do that and get a lot of the forthcoming Shyte dispensed with.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2016)

Just an unformed musing here but feel free to correct me those who know better.

Blair managed to bring onside a large chunk, a very large chunk of the p/b. Cool Brittannia, remember that shite? But retained labours w/c vote cos 'fuck it, its labour, better than the tories'

It seems to me that they have lost that w/c labour vote, not everywhere and not so simply but I'm no psephologist.

The kendalls, the burnhams, the owens- they aren't talking to the vote labour lost in droves are they? They are still reaching out to the m/c swingers. Much as with the astonishment and and anger from those quarters about the brexit vote. We never exist untill we are use or impediment to be removed


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I don't deny that there will be damage incurred by not constantly engaging in a top-down fashion - but the risk/reward balance is very poor. Plus you can't refute something anyway when it's merely he-said-she-said, either in substance or significance. You can't show that Jeremy is doing enough to tackle Twitter abuse because waiiiit it's a stupid construct in the first place. Can't win.
> 
> And I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled at all, just not symmetrically. To the extent that they can make a success of this at all given the odds, I think the whole pro-Corbyn entity is actually doing a decent job of playing this game, not getting entrenched in tit-for-tat and leaving activists and commenters to put the truth out there. I think on balance that's won them some public support (either explicitly or via the absence of the opposite)



Yes fair play.

And adding 'and most important of are the policies, which all the media flak is sort of designed to obscure - if they weren't making up stories about the supporters they'd have to address his policies <cue Bernie Gunther list in his thread>. Those tend to be popular with the people he explains them to, but not so popular with the tory party and the owners of the national papers.


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Indeed, though there was some discussion about swapping rooms it seems.  I haven't seen McDonnell of Corbyn responding to any of these claims for a few days as our broadband is too fucked to watch clips.  I suspect they are just getting overwhelmed and haven't got the time to research or construct a proper defence. They probably need a little team beavering away to do rapid rebuttals, though without getting dragged in too much.  McDonnell's speech to camera was probably the right tone.
> 
> Just as an aside, it's an interesting question: how should left parties and party groupings play all this shit?  New Labour - not left obviously - had a clear strategy of insinuation with the media owners, some kind of mechanism for rebutting dodgy stories - and outright bullying of key correspondents from Alistair Campbell.  Very little of this is either desirable or possible for the Corbyn team, so what do they do?  Probably not much they can do other than putting out statements, dealing with favourable press contacts and running things through social media.  As with so much of the Corbyn thing, the unexpected nature of the victory meant he had no plans or team in place.



And with the unrelenting hostility from most quarters he and his team have had had no time to do anything but spend time rebutting,frankly ludicrous, allegations of bullying, racism and god knows how many other 'isms'
It's very deliberate, keep him on the back foot so he isn't allowed to articulate well thought out policies and when he offers thoughts on policies,  tear him to pieces on the assumptions that the pundits have read into what he actually didn't say.
The right wing media and establishment have always been a cowardly bunch, but Corbyn seems to have driven them into overdrive, he must be doing something right


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Not if you're a cynical bastard with an inherent belief in the rightness of the establishment and your place within it . No . Look at McGinn . Every bit the outsider who's brought up fully aware of what damage the British establishment has wrought . And yet he's in awe of it . Because it let him in . And for that kindness hell be it's staunchest defender . A true believer . Same as the rest of them. They're fully co opted by a shitty system . Plus a commitment to feminist values without an equal commitment to class and socialist values is just little more than identity politics and posturing . It's an empty stance with no real conviction . It's a card they play one day for one purpose and the next for another . It's all cynicism .



McGinn's cynicism is breathtaking, but pointing it out has limited value: anyone who is likely to be receptive to the point will already get it.


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Going back to the argument I had last night he said MPs were right to raise concerns about abuse to the press just as they did about the Iraq war when there was a debate in the run up to it. I mean what do you even say to that?
> 
> Concerns raised to the press in 2003: 'I'm worried my party is going to take this country into an illegal war that will destabilise the entire middle east, cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and weaken our standing on the world stage'
> 
> ...



Aye, and to take it without responding in kind! TBH I wasn't to keen on him at first, terrorist liking baggage etc, but as time goes by I find meself warming to his sense of decency and the kind of society he seems to want,
And compared to those who oppose him, what's not to like


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> McGinn's cynicism is breathtaking, but pointing it out has limited value: anyone who is likely to be receptive to the point will already get it.



My old fella ..no longer with us...knew his dad very well back in the day . He wouldn't have been shy about telling him what he thought of these antics. Or all that surprised either . New sinn fein and new labour have a lot in common .


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> The guys an arrogant fucking dick. Leaving that aside, he's also massively incompetent. He should be nowhere near a shadow cabinet let alone trying to lead one. No policies, just some airy juvenile socialist bollocks that will never fly with the electorate.
> 
> The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit. But he's not gonna be there as he's completely and utterly unelectable outside student pubs.


Aye we have plenty of this 
"The goal of the opposition is to be in government. Once he's there, yes, change shit.
Never seems to happen though, does it?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

coley said:


> TBH I wasn't to keen on him at first, terrorist liking baggage etc,



And a lot of that was taken out of context, too. Classiest of all was Cameron's twisting of the quote that it was a "tragedy" that Bin Laden had been killed. That was the action of a pure scumbag.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> This was the problem Doctor Carrot said he came up against the other day. Sounds like he had trolls in the discussion but you've got the onlookers viewing too - we need some sort of response to them and I can't see anything better than refuting the allegations wherever you can. Then you can go on to the more general points.
> 
> But anyway, I've said my piece.



Quite, I made the mistake of getting riled up. I wouldn't consider the way I approached it bullying and neither did anyone else except the member I was talking to and another person, well the member said I had a bad attitude.  Really it was a mild version of some debates I've had and seen on here but it's easily painted as bullying.  I approached it wrong and was robust (love that word) in my replies. What I should've done is not engaged further because my initial reply was to someone sharing Debonaire's explanation about why she doesn't support Corbyn. My response was this wasn't about Corbyn, it's about a social movement and so on which got a good response from people.  This member piped up listing Blair's achievements,  how Brown was gonna rebalance the economy and how Corbyn's a left wing rabble and blah blah. Anyway I shan't bore on much more about it but this is a snap shot of what sort of debates and arguments are being had.  

I think the way to deal with it is calmly refute their lies and then link to things like that blog or don't engage at all.  I also made the mistake of forgetting who my audience was so to speak.  The woman who called me a bully approaches things from a very wet centre liberal/leaning a bit right perspective.  Posts links about privildge, liberal middle class feminism and links about how terrible Syria is but also weighs in pretty heavy in support of neo liberal economics.  It's a constant source of amazement to me that people like this either cannot or will not link these types of issues to the economic system we live under but there you go. Anyway, I started going on about you should know the history of mass movements, how that's where actual politics happens and where pressure can build on politicians in parliament.  Even the Labour member seemed unaware of this fact or unwilling to engage on that point, another fact I found startling.  I can't see much options other than calmly refute or don't engage. Either way I should probably get out to meetings and such more often instead of social media as it kinda gets under my skin - perhaps I should go to the press about it?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2016)

ska invita said:


> seemed perectly self explanatory to me, given the context of this thread - the bbc making out a corbyn rally was a lot smaller than it was...and its clear the source of it was "someone off the internet made it"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> So..
> 
> Pretend to have policies vaguely similar to the tories in the hope that the electorate will be fooled and choose the lesser of 2 evils, then do an about turn on those election policies to "change shit".
> 
> ...


Possibly a 16 year old intern on job creation for the progress group?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I'm taken aback by quite how cynically a large chunk of the women in the Parliamentary Labour Party have been prepared to instrumentalise gender and sexual politics. I don't expect them to take class politics seriously or have any sort of economic vision beyond neoliberalism, but I imagined that more of them would have been sincere in their liberal feminist values. But if you genuinely believe that male violence against women should be addressed and that social mobility includes giving women equal access to labour markets, shouldn't you avoid cynically manipulate these issues for political gain?


Indeed - and I think the language is often telling.  The complaints against Corbyn are often made in the wording of professionalised, personnel department 'diversity'.  Not the language of struggle and liberation.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> My old fella ..no longer with us...knew his dad very well back in the day . He wouldn't have been shy about telling him what he thought of these antics. Or all that surprised either . New sinn fein and new labour have a lot in common .



The timing of this whole fiasco makes his involvement particularly telling: the Tories precipitate the political crisis of a generation, which, among everything else, throws the context underpinning the peace process out the window. When better to initiate a power struggle within the Labour Party that distracts attention from the multiple cans of worms that the government have just opened?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2016)

I'd also like to see Owen Smith's condemnation of the abuse and death threats that Corbyn's received. Smith's been verrrrrrrrrrrrrry quiet about them


----------



## coley (Jul 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Seconded.


Plus 10, obvious.


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Just an unformed musing here but feel free to correct me those who know better.
> 
> Blair managed to bring onside a large chunk, a very large chunk of the p/b. Cool Brittannia, remember that shite? But retained labours w/c vote cos 'fuck it, its labour, better than the tories'
> 
> ...



Word, big time.


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'd also like to see Owen Smith's condemnation of the abuse and death threats that Corbyn's received. Smith's been verrrrrrrrrrrrrry quiet about them



Corbyns received 'death threats'  and hasn't run to the media with the lurid details? Mebbes he just wants to get on with the job he was elected to do?!! Odd sort of politician! 
Undermine the deviant swine forthwith!


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 25, 2016)

Does anyone know if Twitter has an algorithm that tells you what you want to hear, or is Owen Smith getting buried under a mountain of fairly mild-mannered ridicule.*

*Obviously who you follow is a factor in terms of what you see, but this is based on looking at his profile or following their hashtags.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 25, 2016)

On allegations against Corbyn supporters I agree that they can't get bogged down with investigating and refuting every single one.  There will be one a day until the election if the PLP think it's working.  I think best to just rebutt in the most general terms on the 'incidents' but be specific about Corbyn.   has advocated and practiced and modelled respectful behaviour towards his peers and generally throughout his career... against the boorish culture of parliamentary politics.....something that some in labour have neither joined him in condemning indee have practiced themselves towards Jeremy as very publicly seen in parliament.... until 2 weeks ago when they themselve were the targets of legitimate criticism over their destructive actions.....  aided and abetted by the media. etc etc.  Getting all that out without Marr or whoever interrupting with more bollocks about being greatly distressed by someone opening a door though is another thing.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

Just look how pathetic it is everywhere.

'These Corbynistas are very abusive on Twitter'

'All I've seen is plotters being abusive on Twitter'


'Maybe but they're not as abusive as the Corbynistas'

'No, you're more abusive'

'Nah-ah you are'

'No, no I think you'll find it's you'

'No it's definitely you'

'I'm telling! MISS! MISS!'

Just fuck off. How the hell do they hope to win with whoever ends up leading it if this is the level it's descended to?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2016)

I'd say I find that very strange with Corbyn's attitude to such things and ask for an example.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> being greatly distressed by someone opening a door.



That illicited a much needed LOL


----------



## gosub (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just look how pathetic it is everywhere.
> 
> 'These Corbynistas are very abusive on Twitter'
> 
> ...


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That illicited a much needed LOL



They could put a warning at the end.  Please note that Jeremy does, however, occasionally open doors. Please remain calm.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just look how pathetic it is everywhere.
> 
> 'These Corbynistas are very abusive on Twitter'
> 
> ...



So the person in the image above believes that Corbyn supporters have avatars with Enoch Powell on them?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2016)

again and again I keep being reminded of St Kinnock of the Sea saying the other other day 'It's our party dammit!'

Tells you all you need to know, three quid or twenty five, corbyn or the ghost of lenin. No labour vote here.

Have they set a date for the leadership election yet? I want to see the lab right wearing fixed smiles and blinking back tears again


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> So the person in the image above believes that Corbyn supporters have avatars with Enoch Powell on them?



That's correct, yes. It's beyond ridiculous now isn't it?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> So the person in the image above believes that Corbyn supporters have avatars with Enoch Powell on them?



It's not impossible. People are generally a big old bundle of contradictions and inconsistencies. It is just about conceivable that someone who admires Powell could also admire JC, whether for different reasons or because they see what they want in him. 

People often get angry and abusive when arguing on the internet, and elsewhere.  This holds for Corbyn supporters too, regardless of Corbyn's own super-human ability to avoid doing so. It's hard to see what more he can do about it beyond what he already says and how he behaves.  The PLP only say it, they don't live it.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's correct, yes. It's beyond ridiculous now isn't it?



I only wish that Corbyn supporting Labour Party members BNPalltheWay88 and StormfrontSteve1939 would stop harassing Labour Party moderates


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> again and again I keep being reminded of St Kinnock of the Sea saying the other other day 'It's our party dammit!'
> 
> Tells you all you need to know, three quid or twenty five, corbyn or the ghost of lenin. No labour vote here.
> 
> Have they set a date for the leadership election yet? I want to see the lab right wearing fixed smiles and blinking back tears again



Yeah I just listened to that speech. I was amazed that here was this utter fucking wind bag going on about the labour movement and democracy when the cunt lost two elections, now sits in the house of Lords and was a European commissioner.  It just boggles the mind how utterly clueless these fucks are.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 25, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The timing of this whole fiasco makes his involvement particularly telling: the Tories precipitate the political crisis of a generation, which, among everything else, throws the context underpinning the peace process out the window. When better to initiate a power struggle within the Labour Party that distracts attention from the multiple cans of worms that the government have just opened?



If any element of the shinners are involved in this then MI5s rotten handprints are all over this. No matter what they might say the shinners leadership are Blairite through and through . The people McGinn adulates...Blair , Powell and Campbell are massive fans of Adams and McGuiness and vice versa. The shinners are still sharing public platforms withpowell . Backslapping each other publicly . McGinn worked under Coaker..who's briefs were NI shadow secretary and MOD . It's a tangled web.
The main " nationalist " daily here in the north is the Irish News. They ran with this on the front page, givi g McGinns angle wholly uncritically . Going further to say that the entire McGinn family...via an unnamed family member..are hopping mad with Corbyn. Even though they've never met or spoke to him in their lives and no phone call was ever made . That's a definite sign there's been briefing going on . 


I also think it goes a lot deeper than brexit . Back in the 80s Corbyn denounced the Anglo Irish agreement as ...correctly...strengthening partition and legitimising the unionist veto . He voted against it . Gerry Adams however was quite wishy washy about it despite the party policy back then to utterly rejectit ..understandable considering what he delivered later . Fast forward to the late 90s and John McDonnell was stating very clearly the republican struggle wasn't waged so republicans would sit in a Stormont assembly . But sit there they did . McDonnell would have been turfed out of the shinners as a dissident had he been a member . Now they're leading the labour party with a real chance of being in government. Frankly both of them are more hard line republicans than the entire sinn fein leadership combined . Blair and co are not happy about that one bit, they can easily see the dangers. And if they can so can Adams . 


Let's say for example McDonnell and Corbyn assume leadership in a GE and open up the Steakknife affair. That's the entire sinn fein leadership of most of the Adams period outed as Mi5 agents most likely . Done for. There's a shared interest in upholding " Blairs achievement " both sides of the Irish sea . While Pat McGinn hasn't publicly come out and denounced Corbyn ...instead there's an anonymous family source doing the denouncing on behalf of the family...there's a clear message being sent very publicly to the sinn fein...indeed Irish nationalist ... base that Corbyn is a cunt . And to be going totally off message like that against the Labour leadership..especially a long time ally like Corbyn , absolutely reeks of it being blessed from above. Even though none of it is directly attributable to anyone but the son himself . This stinks of a stab in the back .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 25, 2016)

coley said:


> The upside is,they seem to be shitting themselves



I think that's very true . And apparent . And I also think the more Corbyn stands aloof from it the more people will see through it. It'll stink of panic and hysteria the more they overdo it at some point . It'll start to attract very real ridicule the more hysterical it gets . So is best to keep it totally one sided. To stay out of that game as much as possible.


----------



## Ole (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah I just listened to that speech. I was amazed that here was this utter fucking wind bag going on about the labour movement and democracy when the cunt lost two elections, now sits in the house of Lords and was a European commissioner.  It just boggles the mind how utterly clueless these fucks are.



He's not clueless, he's a bluffing cunt of the very highest order. Voicing the bluff, and seeing others believe it, is probably his own sick way of coming to believe his own lies. Blair does this with Iraq, constantly, too.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2016)

Fake Twitter accounts create pretence of support for Owen Smith

Another Clintonite tactic being used.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2016)

It's based on an Eoin 'scoop' but looking through what he has found he seems to be right


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2016)

How do they know they are fake accounts? Timing of all the messages?

hehe apart from the identical wording. 

Does this mean they've got MPs who are bots?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> If any element of the shinners are involved in this then MI5s rotten handprints are all over this. No matter what they might say the shinners leadership are Blairite through and through . The people McGinn adulates...Blair , Powell and Campbell are massive fans of Adams and McGuiness and vice versa. The shinners are still sharing public platforms withpowell . Backslapping each other publicly . McGinn worked under Coaker..who's briefs were NI shadow secretary and MOD . It's a tangled web.
> The main " nationalist " daily here in the north is the Irish News. They ran with this on the front page, givi g McGinns angle wholly uncritically . Going further to say that the entire McGinn family...via an unnamed family member..are hopping mad with Corbyn. Even though they've never met or spoke to him in their lives and no phone call was ever made . That's a definite sign there's been briefing going on .
> 
> Is there a specific Brexit angle here as well? The deep state fear that a Corbyn administration might actually execute the will of the people, and completely fuck Good Friday?
> ...


Is there a specific Brexit angle? The deep state fear of an administration that might actually enact the will of the 52% and consequently fuck-up Good Friday?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

adams and corbyn in happier times


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> adams and corbyn in happier times


1983 didn't always feel like 'happier times' but, in retrospect...yep.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 1983 didn't always feel like 'happier times' but, in retrospect...yep.


times when they weren't fallen out


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 1983 didn't always feel like 'happier times' but, in retrospect...yep.


and of course 'uptown girl' got into the charts too.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How do they know they are fake accounts? Timing of all the messages?
> 
> hehe apart from the identical wording.
> 
> Does this mean they've got MPs who are bots?



Having looked into it I am less sure now, it looks to me like the accounts are spam accounts repeating 'real tweets' in order to avoid being banned by twitter. Looks like another Eoin fuck up.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 25, 2016)

Harrods bomb dec17 1983


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> times when they weren't fallen out


Just the background of the picture tells us of an era when we had a Greater London Council and a proper NHS. Never mind a coal industry, unions...etc.


----------



## killer b (Jul 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Looks like another Eoin fuck up.


You should always assume this straight away when he's involved, saves bothering looking into it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

Tankus said:


> Harrods bomb dec17 1983







what of it?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what of it?


Unauthorised action?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Unauthorised action?


falling down on duty a serious offence in the met.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> adams and corbyn in happier times


Look at 'em, hipster cunts!


----------



## Patteran (Jul 25, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:
> 
> Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System
> 
> ...



Ta for the link, really interesting - there's a Nancy Fraser lecture where she defines a role of critical theorists as 'identifying the most effective/vulnerable areas for action/intervention/change' (i'm paraphrasing from memory), & this describes the same process from a different perspective.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 25, 2016)

Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough | Frances Ryan

Frances Ryan - as a champion of disability rights and a disabled person herself she comes out in support of the man who abstained on the welfare bill rather than the person who voted against it.

Its just laughable - and shes being ripped to shreds in the comments section. I really hope they are overplaying their hand with the "get corbyn" campaign. It wont wash with the labour membership - its being overwhelmingly countered on social media and in day to day conversations - but Im wondering if the wider public will start to see it through it as well - and there is anecdotal evidence of this.
As with Trump, Fargage and Sanders - and the brexit campaign -  the more he is vilified the more it cements his anti-establishment credentials.

On a side note - this cant be doing much for the guardian's sales figures either.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 25, 2016)

WRT the diversity issues smears against Corbyn and the membership - rather than detailed erbuttals - maybe one way to counter it is for leading gay, Jewish, disabled, feminist etc activists to attack the PLP for their disgusting exploitation of these issues for their shitty agenda. Some of this has already happened - but it needs to be co-ordinated.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> On a side note - this cant be doing much for the guardian's sales figures either.





> Guardian Media Group will this week reveal a higher than expected full-year operating loss of £69m as the owner of The Guardian newspaper battles to bring its finances under control.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:
> 
> Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System
> 
> ...


i had never previously heard of leverage points and am grateful to you for bringing them to my attention.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough | Frances Ryan
> 
> Frances Ryan - as a champion of disability rights and a disabled person herself she comes out in support of the man who abstained on the welfare bill rather than the person who voted against it.
> 
> ...



I'm aghast at it really. If there's one thing all this has exposed (and it's not just one thing) it's the snivelling slimyness of  liberals.  I've learnt more and more over the years why there's such disdain for them on here but never really got the vitriol they received, I never thought they were quite as disgusting as many on here made out, yes even when in coalition, but I really, really get it now.  That article is just disgusting really.  I mean listen to it:

'The Labour leadership's decision to abstain on the welfare bill showed Labour had abandoned disabled people' - I'm paraphrasing but it subtley attempts to equate the leadership with Corbyn so therefore Corbyn abandon the disabled, even if Corbyn wasn't leader at the time the bill was voted on (I can't remember) it still, in the context of that article, equates Corbyn's leadership with that article.  It then goes on to say 'Notably Corbyn voted against the bill' right so which is it? Corbyn, and therefore the leadership, abandons disabled people or it doesn't? It then goes on to say Owen Fucking Smith is the man for the disabled... What? The man who abstained on that bill? The man who said Labour couldn't abandon WCA tests because it would make them appear weak? The man who supports the version of Labour that brought in thoses tests?  It's another mind boggler.

It's a pattern I've noticed though recently, both in the wider press and in personal discussion.  Again I'll go back to that Facebook argument.  I pointed out that Debonaire's account is probably at best exagerated and at worst bullshit.  I made the point that when she got the job of shadow secretary she was delighted and went on about how progressive Corbyn was for giving somebody with cancer such a job,  a few weeks later she essentially called him an incompetent arse. I asked him which position was true? No answer, he dodged the question.  Whether they're conscious they're doing this or not I don't know. I do know when you point it out you're called a bully, a liar and so on.  It's not even a question of whether Debonaire's a liar or not it's the fact it shows up how piss poor her, and others like her's judgment is.  Again, point this out and it's bully, bad attitude and so on.  That fact alone and that people can see through it quite easily is why they're going to lose.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough | Frances Ryan
> 
> Frances Ryan - as a champion of disability rights and a disabled person herself she comes out in support of the man who abstained on the welfare bill rather than the person who voted against it.
> 
> ...




Been in dialogue with Frances, bit shocked by this. I have major issues with JC, he has admitted turning around public opinion on benefits will be hard, and at first chose to not prioritise it, but i still think he is the one who would do more to challenge the sanctions, etc.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> WRT the diversity issues smears against Corbyn and the membership - rather than detailed erbuttals - maybe one way to counter it is for leading gay, Jewish, disabled, feminist etc activists to attack the PLP for their disgusting exploitation of these issues for their shitty agenda. Some of this has already happened - but it needs to be co-ordinated.




I think you are right, it can't be left to the media and the PLP/Rebels to set the agenda, i note Tani Grey-Thompson has been quiet upto now.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm aghast at it really. If there's one thing all this has exposed (and it's not just one thing) it's the snivelling slimyness of  liberals.  I've learnt more and more over the years why there's such disdain for them on here but never really got the vitriol they received, I never thought they were quite as disgusting as many on here made out, yes even when in coalition, but I really, really get it now.  That article is just disgusting really.  I mean listen to it:
> 
> *'The Labour leadership's decision to abstain on the welfare bill showed Labour had abandoned disabled people' - I'm paraphrasing but it subtley attempts to equate the leadership with Corbyn so therefore Corbyn abandon the disabled, even if Corbyn wasn't leader at the time the bill was voted on (I can't remember) it still, in the context of that article, equates Corbyn's leadership with that article.*  It then goes on to say 'Notably Corbyn voted against the bill' right so which is it? Corbyn, and therefore the leadership, abandons disabled people or it doesn't? It then goes on to say Owen Fucking Smith is the man for the disabled... What? The man who abstained on that bill? The man who said Labour couldn't abandon WCA tests because it would make them appear weak? The man who supports the version of Labour that brought in thoses tests?  It's another mind boggler.
> 
> It's a pattern I've noticed though recently, both in the wider press and in personal discussion.  Again I'll go back to that Facebook argument.  I pointed out that Debonaire's account is probably at best exagerated and at worst bullshit.  I made the point that when she got the job of shadow secretary she was delighted and went on about how progressive Corbyn was for giving somebody with cancer such a job,  a few weeks later she essentially called him an incompetent arse. I asked him which position was true? No answer, he dodged the question.  Whether they're conscious they're doing this or not I don't know. I do know when you point it out you're called a bully, a liar and so on.  It's not even a question of whether Debonaire's a liar or not it's the fact it shows up how piss poor her, and others like her's judgment is.  Again, point this out and it's bully, bad attitude and so on.  That fact alone and that people can see through it quite easily is why they're going to lose.



No, of course he wasn't, it was Harriet Harman who was acting leader, I actually think she did it on tactical/strategic grounds and probably would have voted against in other circumstances.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Been in dialogue with Frances, bit shocked by this. I have major issues with JC, he has admitted turning around public opinion on benefits will be hard, and at first chose to not prioritise it, but i still think he is the one who would do more to challenge the sanctions, etc.


Thought I'd read Corbyn has said he'll end sanctions but I'm not certain that is policy.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, of course he wasn't, it was Harriet Harman who was acting leader, I actually think she did it on tactical/strategic grounds and probably would have voted against in other circumstances.



What's the tactical/strategic grounds?


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

I'm sure John McDonnell has said he will end WCA, but yes, not sure about sanctions, Momentum will have to make sure it is a priority.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What's the tactical/strategic grounds?



So, they didn't look weak on welfare at present, "but will will review it later , etc", the soft left have kept saying this, the Blairites just hate Social Security..


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> So, they didn't look weak on welfare at present, "but will will review it later , etc", the soft left have kept saying this, the Blairites just hate Social Security..



The Owen Smith line of reasoning. Served them well at the previous election...


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Tbh, a lot of people had/have bought into the 'scroungers line', not surprising with the years of state sponsored propaganda.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> *Been in dialogue with Frances,* bit shocked by this. I have major issues with JC, he has admitted turning around public opinion on benefits will be hard, and at first chose to not prioritise it, but i still think he is the one who would do more to challenge the sanctions, etc.



I think you get a bit of shit on here, treelover, probably more than you deserve but as just a friendly suggestion it looks a bit sycophantic when you say things like that and refer to people like that on first name terms.  The labour member the other day was saying things like 'I like Paul (Mason) and have met him several times' 'I know Jeremy (Corbyn) but he's flawed' and so on and he was saying it in every response. It got on my wick, frankly because it gives an air of 'ooh look at me I move in such circles and I know things and people more than Mr Average on the street.'  With regards to that member it gave an air of 'I know more than you, who the fuck are you to tell me about how things are?' and he confirmed that attitude when he said, and I quote 'I care about this party, I'm a member of it not you and I won't take lectures from people like you on what direction it should take.'  I'm not saying you view people like that but that's how it can be construed.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 25, 2016)

This from a link in the Guardian article comments thread:

Message To Disabled People Regarding Owen Smith MPs Leadership Bid

Reads like bullying to me. Any chance the Guardian will publicise Smith's use of legal threats to silence criticism?

Eta: She blogged about Smith responding to a question about not promising to end WCAs with the "important not to be seen as soft on welfare" line and commented to a journalist who picked it up. Then when libel action was threatened she felt local party would back Smith and not her!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 25, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> What a fucking carcrash. Flipped on marr this morning in time to catch possibly the most bizarre bit I've seen on the show since Cameron jigging to that indie band. What a fucking cunt. Lying, arrogant, actually insane I think, and I'm not talking about marr.
> 
> Rip, labour. It's a crying shame. I suppose at least ashdown was attempting to offer an alternative. But let's face it. With Corbyn there it's the Tories in power for the long foreseeable future. Labours not recovering from this. In a way, good riddance. But the thought of 20 years of the fucking Tories, well.


And that, of course, is the long game that Progress is playing. They can afford to be scum, because all they have to be is less scum than the Tories, and that's hardly difficult. If they succeed in ousting Corbyn, we're in for 20 years of the fucking Tories regardless, just under a Labour figleaf.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 25, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> You think Corbyn and his absurd, frankly embarrassing 'shadow chancellor' are an effective opposition?
> 
> The Tories openly giggle when the deluded cunt approaches the despatch box with another question from Sandra from Hull rather than being arsed to actually challenge the cunts opposite him.


So what's your solution?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2016)

existentialist said:


> And that, of course, is the long game that Progress is playing. They can afford to be scum, because all they have to be is less scum than the Tories, and that's hardly difficult. If they succeed in ousting Corbyn, we're in for 20 years of the fucking Tories regardless, just under a Labour figleaf.


a tiny figleaf which still leaves the bollocks swinging in the wind for all to see


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think you get a bit of shit on here, treelover, probably more than you deserve but as just a friendly suggestion it looks a bit sycophantic when you say things like that and refer to people like that on first name terms.  The labour member the other day was saying things like 'I like Paul (Mason) and have met him several times' 'I know Jeremy (Corbyn) but he's flawed' and so on and he was saying it in every response. It got on my wick, frankly because it gives an air of 'ooh look at me I move in such circles and I know things and people more than Mr Average on the street.'  With regards to that member it gave an air of 'I know more than you, who the fuck are you to tell me about how things are?' and he confirmed that attitude when he said, and I quote 'I care about this party, I'm a member of it not you and I won't take lectures from people like you on what direction it should take.'  I'm not saying you view people like that but that's how it can be construed.



Not all, its just how it is, I only know people who campaign on these issues and have no issue calling them by their first names, unlike many I don't really like the confrontational approach to politics.


----------



## Cid (Jul 25, 2016)

existentialist said:


> And that, of course, is the long game that Progress is playing. They can afford to be scum, because all they have to be is less scum than the Tories, and that's hardly difficult. If they succeed in ousting Corbyn, we're in for 20 years of the fucking Tories regardless, just under a Labour figleaf.



They'd have to actually win some elections for 20 years of labour Tories. Which is unlikely.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough | Frances Ryan
> 
> Frances Ryan - as a champion of disability rights and a disabled person herself she comes out in support of the man who abstained on the welfare bill rather than the person who voted against it.
> 
> ...




Closed comments now, , midday, ffs.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

> Perhaps the leaderly thing to do would have been to just kick them all out of the party at the first opportunity. There is, after all, a queue a milelong of Labour members eager to step into the shoes of these unprofessional, dishonest and despicable MPs. It is seats that matter, not the individuals who happen to fill them - something that many of Corbyn's opponents will remember only too well from when they were parachuted into theirs.



Absolutely, there are loads of incredibly talented left wing party members who could do the job, as very well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not all, its just how it is, I only know people who campaign on these issues and have no issue calling them by their first names, unlike many I don't really like the confrontational approach to politics.


Then it is a surprise you should so frequently call for direct action in those causes you affect to espouse.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 25, 2016)

*Iain McNicol,* Labour’s general secretary, is urging people to report any Labour members engaged in abusive behaviour so that they can be suspended from the party, and banned from taking part in the leadership contest.

He made the call in a lengthy statement that you can read here, on the party’s website.

Here is an extract.

The Labour party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and of campaigns to change society.

However, for a fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn’t be shouted down, they shouldn’t be intimidated and they shouldn’t be abused, either in meetings or online.

Put plainly, there is simply too much of it taking place and it needs to stop ...

The NEC has already taken the difficult decision to suspend most party meetings while the Leadership election is ongoing. And over the coming days and weeks the Party will be taking further action to protect our members and to identify those responsible for this appalling behaviour.

I want to be clear, if you are a member and you engage in abusive behaviour towards other members it will be investigated and you could be suspended while that investigation is carried out.

If you are a registered supporter or affiliated supporter and you engage in abusive behaviour you will not get a vote in this Leadership election.

Details of any abusive behaviour can be reported by emailing validation@labour.org.uk.



The issue of course is what counts as abusive behaviour - a definition would be helpful, to put it mildly


----------



## YouSir (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> *Iain McNicol,* Labour’s general secretary, is urging people to report any Labour members engaged in abusive behaviour so that they can be suspended from the party, and banned from taking part in the leadership contest.
> 
> He made the call in a lengthy statement that you can read here, on the party’s website.
> 
> ...



Wonder if the SaveLabour lot will try to organize an informing drive. Is your neighbor a Red?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Wonder if the SaveLabour lot will try to organize an informing drive. Is your neighbor a Red?


Are you or have you ever been a member of the Labour Party (Corbyn-McDonnelist)?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Are you or have you ever been a member of the Labour Party (Corbyn-McDonnelist) you arsehole?



cfy


----------



## existentialist (Jul 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a tiny figleaf which still leaves the bollocks swinging in the wind for all to see


If they're bothered. The only reason this scum campaign of propaganda and harassment against Corbyn has any traction - and they know this - is because most of the population are too credulous or unconcerned to look beyond the lies and insinuations.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 25, 2016)

Cid said:


> They'd have to actually win some elections for 20 years of labour Tories. Which is unlikely.


It could do what it's done for the last 20 years, and be Labour Tories alternating with Tory ones


----------



## existentialist (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> The issue of course is what counts as abusive behaviour - a definition would be helpful, to put it mildly


"Things it suits us, from time to time, to take exception to" seems to cover it quite nicely so far.


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

> Real intimidation is being a young, enthusiastic volunteer who is new to politics and have to worry about your life and potential career being ruined by slander in the national press because you dared to support Jeremy – *yet some in our own party laughed and jeered at the misogynist abuse directed at female supporters of Corbyn in a Daily Mail article talking about Jeremy’s ‘besotted groupies.*’



From JC4PM FB page, comment by team.

works both ways doesn't it, have they been reported, etc?

The idea that Blairites like Akehurst doesn't do abuse is laughable, though of course when in power, they used other methods.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> *Iain McNicol,* Labour’s general secretary, is urging people to report any Labour members engaged in abusive behaviour so that they can be suspended from the party, and banned from taking part in the leadership contest.
> 
> He made the call in a lengthy statement that you can read here, on the party’s website.
> 
> ...


Ha it's so tempting:

'I felt talked down to by some patronising, name dropping prick in your party who accused me of being a hard left rabble and who wasn't welcome to be a member of your party. It really hurt my feelings and made me feel shut out in the cold by the labour family'

I'm sure they'll investigate right away


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2016)

Look at the numbers- they'd have to get rid of at least 100 000 people in 8 weeks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Look at the numbers- they'd have to get rid of at least 100 000 people in 8 weeks.


each requiring an investigation, however perfunctory I suppose. Yeah put that way then time is not on thier side


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 25, 2016)

I'm a bit embarrassed that I joined tbh. I might report myself and get kicked out. I'm sure self-abuse counts.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> *Iain McNicol,* Labour’s general secretary, is urging people to report any Labour members engaged in abusive behaviour so that they can be suspended from the party, and banned from taking part in the leadership contest.



Two-edged sword that. If the Blairites are actually believing their own hype about all the nastiness being from Corbynites they may be in for a surprise.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 25, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Two-edged sword that. If the Blairites are actually believing their own hype about all the nastiness being from Corbynites they may be in for a surprise.


And which side has the numbers and energy to do the reporting?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> And which side has the numbers and energy to do the reporting?


Doesn't matter. Depends who does the follow up. It's a cul-de-sac anyway, designed just to produce and atmos of_ these people taking over my party i better vote for the MP elected in 2010 _amongst longer standing members. All about those members.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't matter. Depends who does the follow up. It's a cul-de-sac anyway, designed just to produce and atmos of_ these people taking over my party i better vote for the MP elected in 2010 _amongst longer standing members. All about those members.



But then you have lots of people decrying bias in the process "I reported this person *screenshot* and nothing was done."  As an atmosphere generator it could easily backfire (again)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> But then you have lots of people decrying bias in the process "I reported this person *screenshot* and nothing was done."  As an atmosphere generator it could easily backfire (again)


All possible - in terms of voting i think it's not going to matter. In terms of media coverage it might matter. But, that's neither here nor there. Or if it is, it's too early.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> So, they didn't look weak on welfare at present, "but will will review it later , etc", the soft left have kept saying this, the Blairites just hate Social Security.



TBF, abstaining so as not to appear "weak on welfare" is neither tactical nor strategic, unless you're taking your core vote for granted. This was another case of the PLP going for a position that would play well with the media, regardless of the effect on a sizeable minority of their core vote. Better to wank off Murdoch, than to ease the possibility of more deaths through sanctions and/or benefits loss.


----------



## killer b (Jul 25, 2016)

No link as it's Guido, but apparently Sarah Champion is attempting to un-resign back into the cabinet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2016)

existentialist said:


> If they're bothered. The only reason this scum campaign of propaganda and harassment against Corbyn has any traction - and they know this - is because most of the population are too credulous or unconcerned to look beyond the lies and insinuations.



Under the weight of about 40 years of outright demonisation of even vaguely leftist political activity, then *some* (I totally disagree with "most") of the population can't or won't see beyond what the media offers them. That's entirely understandable. What's less understandable is the uncritical acceptance by more of the population, that neoliberalism really is the only game in town.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> No link as it's Guido, but apparently Sarah Champion is attempting to un-resign back into the cabinet.



Starting to see the iceberg looming ahead, bound to see some people coming back to the fold. Although how many of them should be forgiven is a different matter. Hang 'em all and let God deal with them I say but Corbyn is more New Testament.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> No link as it's Guido, but apparently Sarah Champion is attempting to un-resign back into the cabinet.


Confirmed in Daily Mirror.

Sarah Champion unresigns as Labour Shadow Minister in letter to Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> Confirmed in Daily Mirror.
> 
> Sarah Champion unresigns as Labour Shadow Minister in letter to Jeremy Corbyn


Oh, the integrity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2016)

you don't unresign. You take the door marked supplicants


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> Confirmed in Daily Mirror.
> 
> Sarah Champion unresigns as Labour Shadow Minister in letter to Jeremy Corbyn



Maybe this has more to do with representing her Rotherham constituents in as much as being involved with the ongoing investigations, as I said, maybe?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 25, 2016)

I reckon more will follow.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't unresign. You take the door marked supplicants



Good news if its genuine.  Could this be a way of sneaking people back on to the NEC, though?


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I reckon more will follow.


The heady whiff of deselection proceedings is starting to concentrate minds.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2016)

agricola said:


> Good news if its genuine.  Could this be a way of sneaking people back on to the NEC, though?


wouldn't put anything past them at this point, the desperation is reaching fever pitch. The shennanigans of the last few months have been a wonder to behold, and its not working


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Starting to see the iceberg looming ahead, bound to see some people coming back to the fold. Although how many of them should be forgiven is a different matter. Hang 'em all and let God deal with them I say but Corbyn is more New Testament.


We had a maths teacher who had no control over his classes. Folk used to climb out of the window and go for a smoke. He'd shout "come back boy!" But nobody cared. 

The other maths teacher next door. Nobody climbed out of her window. Even though everyone wanted to. Probably more so than in the other guy's lessons. 

Corbyn comes across like the first guy.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I reckon more will follow.



Rats returning to a no longer sinking ship.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 25, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> We had a maths teacher who had no control over his classes. Folk used to climb out of the window and go for a smoke. He'd shout "come back boy!" But nobody cared.
> 
> The other maths teacher next door. Nobody climbed out of her window. Even though everyone wanted to. Probably more so than in the other guy's lessons.
> 
> Corbyn comes across like the first guy.


I thought he was supposed to be a sandal wearing geography teacher.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 25, 2016)

19force8 said:


> I thought he was supposed to be a sandal wearing geography teacher.


He's not like my geography teacher. Mind you, I didn't take geography for O grade. I did history. You couldn't really do both because of the columns.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I reckon more will follow.


One an hour would be nice but it ain't going to happen. Maximum half a dozen between now and the election.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> He's not like my geography teacher. Mind you, I didn't take geography for O grade. I did history. You couldn't really do both *because of the columns*.



Ah, those damnable columns! What we all could have been without those....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> Confirmed in Daily Mirror.
> 
> Sarah Champion unresigns as Labour Shadow Minister in letter to Jeremy Corbyn


The irony of her being "shadow minister for preventing abuse".


----------



## YouSir (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> One an hour would be nice but it ain't going to happen. Maximum half a dozen between now and the election.



I think it'll be more than that, too many lesser forces in the coup with too much to lose by going down with it. Not a majority by any means though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> One an hour would be nice but it ain't going to happen. Maximum half a dozen between now and the election.


Maybe, but I'd like to see how McTernan spins this - the poisonous cunt that he is.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 25, 2016)

Labour MP who quit Jeremy Corbyn's front bench last month 'unresigns' and gets her old job back

Accepted


----------



## Raheem (Jul 25, 2016)

maomao said:


> One an hour would be nice but it ain't going to happen. Maximum half a dozen between now and the election.



Surely they'll want to do it before the leadership vote. A bit weak otherwise: "Jeremy, now that Owen's lost, can I have my old job back?"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 25, 2016)

Dandred said:


> Labour MP who quit Jeremy Corbyn's front bench last month 'unresigns' and gets her old job back
> 
> Accepted


----------



## Dandred (Jul 25, 2016)

How many more before the end of the week?


----------



## Cid (Jul 25, 2016)

Graun's really on a roll today;

The one about disability mentioned upthread,
Jeremy Corbyn is a great populist. But that’s no good for our democracy - Julian Baggini
McDonnell and Corbyn called for protection for pharmaceuticals in 2014


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 25, 2016)

I hope he's not going to kick out the faithful to give any further flipfloppers their old jobs back.   If they'd rather return to the back benches then fine.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2016)

Cid said:


> McDonnell and Corbyn called for protection for pharmaceuticals in 2014



Wehey another one under 'Misleading Guardian articles'. Because Corbyn wants pharmaceutical research to be done by the MRC and wants to scrap the 'patent box' tax loophole the Guardian suggests he's a hypocrite in previously calling for protection of a British pharmaceutical company (it "contrasts" with his previous action). The accusation:



> An early day motion in April 2014 by Corbyn and McDonnell, then backbenchers, sponsored by three other MPs, called on the government to “protect employment and skills” within UK pharmaceuticals.
> 
> It was prompted by a takeover attempt by US drugs company Pfizer of UK-based AstraZeneca. The motion noted worries about British jobs if the takeover went through and asked ministers to “ensure that the UK continues to be a world leader in science and pharmaceuticals research and development”.



The explanation:



> A spokesman for Corbyn said there was no contradiction between the 2014 motion and the proposed tax changes.
> 
> He said: “Jeremy and John always support the retention of high-quality research jobs in the UK, building on our extraordinary history of scientific research and making full use of our publicly funded research system.
> 
> “But with Pfizer having closed in 2011 a world-class research centre, at a cost of over 1,500 jobs, it’s clear that government action is needed to protect our research system and those who work in it. That is why we are supporting closing tax loopholes to fund a major increase in publicly funded research, which can be contracted to private research organisations, including the medical research needed to address pressing medical issues like dementia.”


----------



## treelover (Jul 25, 2016)

agricola said:


> *Good news if its genuine.  *Could this be a way of sneaking people back on to the NEC, though?



Good news, she is really dedicated to those issues, plus it makes a mockery of the letter about misogeny, etc.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 25, 2016)

Amazing.

It's just possible that this thing could collapse like a house of cards now. Here's hoping


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Good news, she is really dedicated to those issues, plus it makes a mockery of the letter about misogeny, etc.



She was in social work, ran a children's home or something like that before being an MP no?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2016)

then she fell in with a bad lot


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 25, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> She was in social work
> Ran a children's home
> Or something like that
> Before being an MP
> No?



That tricky third solo album clearly proving troublesome for Jarvis Cocker


----------



## binka (Jul 25, 2016)

Typical Corbynesque bullying behaviour to welcome her back with open arms


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 25, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> That tricky third solo album clearly proving troublesome for Jarvis Cocker



I'm not Jesus Christ but I have the same initials...


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 25, 2016)

The graun has decided that this is a bigger news story than Champion returning to the shadow cabinet. 

Currently 5th story with champion story buried down the page within the 'politics live' blog.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 25, 2016)

It's about the NEC vote. If the softies control the machinery we have to hope the PLP gets loyal or splits (or a mix); I hope the dynesties jump first, lemming like. This is assuming the leadership vote goes as it is looking.

I don't think it will be as bad as ice picks, but that came of not holding the party levers.

Talk of a legal challenge to excluding recent members too, but only seen it on the Canery.


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn’s support for disabled people is not enough | Frances Ryan
> 
> Frances Ryan - as a champion of disability rights and a disabled person herself she comes out in support of the man who abstained on the welfare bill rather than the person who voted against it.
> 
> ...


The article and the editor reach a new level in the hypocrisy stakes, she is obviously willing to stab the disabled and the vulnerable in the back to score a few popularity points for a shytehawk who abstained on this particular bill, along with many of his 'colleagues' in the PLP.
Eta, for a


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

All down to Brexit of course, or at least their coverage of it,


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> No, of course he wasn't, it was Harriet Harman who was acting leader, I actually think she did it on tactical/strategic grounds and probably would have voted against in other circumstances.


Could you elaborate on these "tactical/strategic grounds"? 
Ta.


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> So, they didn't look weak on welfare at present, "but will will review it later , etc", the soft left have kept saying this, the Blairites just hate Social Security..


So, appealing to the hard right?


----------



## coley (Jul 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Tbh, a lot of people had/have bought into the 'scroungers line', not surprising with the years of state sponsored propaganda.


Aye, and most of that "state sponsored propaganda" originated from the Blair years.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Under the weight of about 40 years of outright demonisation of even vaguely leftist political activity, then *some* (I totally disagree with "most") of the population can't or won't see beyond what the media offers them. That's entirely understandable. What's less understandable is the uncritical acceptance by more of the population, that neoliberalism really is the only game in town.


Look, we actually put the lights out in the 70s, the right ( and the increasingly flaccid left)has used that fact to resonate a distrust of the left ever since, the fact we only put the lights out, was out of desperation, is largely overlooked.
Buggerinhell, I'd  like to put thon slimey bastard Owens lights out, but in a polite twittery/facebookey kind of  way, with absolutely no hint of bullying or physical violence


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Maybe this has more to do with representing her Rotherham constituents in as much as being involved with the ongoing investigations, as I said, maybe?


This look like being funnier than anything MTW or HIGNFY could conjure up in their wildest dreams, oh crack on you PLP waverers.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> The heady whiff of deselection proceedings is starting to concentrate minds.


Too late, many have shown their true colours, dark/or pale blue, won't make a difference come the reckoning.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> We had a maths teacher who had no control over his classes. Folk used to climb out of the window and go for a smoke. He'd shout "come back boy!" But nobody cared.
> 
> The other maths teacher next door. Nobody climbed out of her window. Even though everyone wanted to. Probably more so than in the other guy's lessons.
> 
> Corbyn comes across like the first guy.


Do I see a convoluted reference to your 'dear leader' there


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The irony of her being "shadow minister for preventing abuse".



Or possibly returning in order to validate the 'abuse concerns'?


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

binka said:


> Typical Corbynesque bullying behaviour to welcome her back with open arms


Such evilness in one person


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> I'm not Jesus Christ but I have the same initials...



So have I, but I would have smacked her cheeks, both, but her right one twice and told her to bugger off.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 26, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> It's about the NEC vote. If the softies control the machinery we have to hope the PLP gets loyal or splits (or a mix); I hope the dynesties jump first, lemming like. This is assuming the leadership vote goes as it is looking.
> 
> I don't think it will be as bad as ice picks, but that came of not holding the party levers.
> 
> Talk of a legal challenge to excluding recent members too, but only seen it on the Canery.



Reported in the Graun:

Labour sued by members barred from leadership vote

It repeats the brick through Eagle's window lie again. Well, it implies that its linked to Corbyn's supporters.


----------



## JimW (Jul 26, 2016)

There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than any number of three quidders going in to bat on Twitter. Jeremy 4:17


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

JimW said:


> There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than any number of three quidders going in to bat on Twitter. Jeremy 4:17


----------



## gosub (Jul 26, 2016)

Dandred said:


> Labour MP who quit Jeremy Corbyn's front bench last month 'unresigns' and gets her old job back
> 
> Accepted


Testing the water for Ed Milliband.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2016)

coley said:


> Do I see a convoluted reference to your 'dear leader' there


Who is my dear leader?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Who is my dear leader?


The hunter who shot Bambi's mum?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> The hunter who shot Bambi's mum?


I've never seen Bambi all the way through, because when I grew up Disney usually only allowed clips to be shown on TV.  There were bank holiday specials, usually presented by the Blue Peter team (Singleton, Purves, Noakes, of course), Harry Secombe or Roy Castle.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I've never seen Bambi all the way through, because when I grew up Disney usually only allowed clips to be shown on TV.  There were bank holiday specials, usually presented by the Blue Peter team (Singleton, Purves, Noakes, of course), Harry Secombe or Roy Castle.



It's on netflix now. I watched it all for the first time last year. It wasn't quite as I imagined.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> It's on netflix now. I watched it all for the first time last year. It wasn't quite as I imagined.


I've not got Netflix, but I imagine Bambi to be a maudlin melodrama. The bit I've seen is where he (she?) learns how to ice skate with a rabbit called Thumper.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I've not got Netflix, but I imagine Bambi to be a maudlin melodrama. The bit I've seen is where he (she?) learns how to ice skate with a rabbit called Thumper.


Definitely he.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Reported in the Graun:
> 
> Labour sued by members barred from leadership vote
> 
> It repeats the brick through Eagle's window lie again. Well, it implies that its linked to Corbyn's supporters.


Surprised anyone vaguely to the left still reads thon pile of Shyte.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Who is my dear leader?


I would imagine, North of the Tweed it would be NC?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 26, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> It's on netflix now. I watched it all for the first time last year. It wasn't quite as I imagined.


It is really pretty similar to Antichrist.... same vibe.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I've not got Netflix, but I imagine Bambi to be a maudlin melodrama. The bit I've seen is where he (she?) learns how to ice skate with a rabbit called Thumper.



spoiler alert.  the bit where his mum twists her ankle running away from the hunter and has to go stay with her sister happens much later in the film than I thought.  I thought that happened and the scenes we would see on Disney club were the attempts of his woodland chums to bring him up in her absence.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> It is really pretty similar to Antichrist.... same vibe.


One of the opening scenes has Bambi as a new born child with all the animals crowding around to look at him admiringly. The owls fly over to look at him. This is almost a biblical nativity scene and we are told that he will become a prince when he grows up.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

this is good: Pretending to be someone else


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 26, 2016)

Someone's not happy with Connor Mcginn


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2016)

coley said:


> I would imagine, North of the Tweed it would be NC?


You're obsessed.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> this is good: Pretending to be someone else



I particularly liked the endnote.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Yes!


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> One of the opening scenes has Bambi as a new born child with all the animals crowding around to look at him admiringly. The owls fly over to look at him. This is almost a biblical nativity scene and we are told that he will become a prince when he grows up.


and then he looks at the camera and says CHAOS REIGNS.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2016)

I know it's pointless expecting the graun to report anything accurately, but I've looked at the grauniad app again this morning and I can't find any mention of Champion returning to labour front bench. When you compare this to the full headlines with pictures and rolling news ticker and accompanying Toynbee pronouncements that heralded the resignations, it bears a tremendous similarity to the sort of page 15 apology byline after an a front page sensation beloved of the tabloids. 

Owen Smith questioning Corbyn's patriotism has however made the front 'page.' I've been having a fairly long running debate with a mate about whether Corbyn is shit or not, it's been a gift recently to just answer his claims for the inefficacy (is that a word?) of Corbyn with 'Owen Smith.'


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> I know it's pointless expecting the graun to report anything accurately, but I've looked at the grauniad app again this morning and I can't find any mention of Champion returning to labour front bench. When you compare this to the full headlines with pictures and rolling news ticker and accompanying Toynbee pronouncements that heralded the resignations, it bears a tremendous similarity to the sort of page 15 apology byline after an a front page sensation beloved of the tabloids.
> 
> Owen Smith questioning Corbyn's patriotism has however made the front 'page.' I've been having a fairly long running debate with a mate about whether Corbyn is shit or not, it's been a gift recently to just answer his claims for the inefficacy (is that a word?) of Corbyn with 'Owen Smith.'



Think Champion was mentioned yesterday, way down the list though as you say.

If one positive has come out of all this it's in the amount of people who've seen the Guardian for what it is and turned their back on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> and then he looks at the camera and says CHAOS REIGNS.


Unreigns, hang on.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Think Champion was mentioned yesterday, way down the list though as you say.
> 
> If one positive has come out of all this it's in the amount of people who've seen the Guardian for what it is and turned their back on it.



Yeah, it was buried within a blog, it didn't seem to merit an article of its own. The non reporting of events feels more insidious than the continual opinion pieces from yer Freedland's and Toynbee's. At least they stimulate a debate, but simply not reporting something that doesn't suit is quietly very sinister.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> I know it's pointless expecting the graun to report anything accurately, but I've looked at the grauniad app again this morning and I can't find any mention of Champion returning to labour front bench. When you compare this to the full headlines with pictures and rolling news ticker and accompanying Toynbee pronouncements that heralded the resignations, it bears a tremendous similarity to the sort of page 15 apology byline after an a front page sensation beloved of the tabloids.
> 
> Owen Smith questioning Corbyn's patriotism has however made the front 'page.' I've been having a fairly long running debate with a mate about whether Corbyn is shit or not, it's been a gift recently to just answer his claims for the inefficacy (is that a word?) of Corbyn with 'Owen Smith.'




It was reported, but part of Andrew Sparrows politics update I think


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2016)

JimW said:


> There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than any number of three quidders going in to bat on Twitter. Jeremy 4:17




There are hundreds and hundreds of posts on her FB page welcoming her back, so much for bullying misogenists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> It was reported, but part of Andrew Sparrows politics update I think


Not a mention at all.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Testing the water for Ed Milliband.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not a mention at all.


It was on *a* blog on the graun app yesterday but it wasn't exactly prominent, I had to go to the UK politics page to find it. A search of articles today shows nothing. 

I don't know why I'm even moderately surprised.


----------



## coley (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> this is good: Pretending to be someone else


Makes a number of assumptions though, are the "middle classes" the main supporters of JC?


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Yes, he even says in the article he's making that assumption rather than getting bogged down with the question. Did you even read it?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> It was on *a* blog on the graun app yesterday but it wasn't exactly prominent, I had to go to the UK politics page to find it. A search of articles today shows nothing.
> 
> I don't know why I'm even moderately surprised.


FWIW it did appear briefly as a front page item, probably the title of the day's liveblog at that time. Not that it counts for much - thoroughly shit journalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

mauvais said:


> FWIW it did appear briefly as a front page item, probably the title of the day's liveblog at that time. Not that it counts for much - thoroughly shit journalism.


They had _Diane abbot said return of the empire _for a whole day. Not the liveblog bit either. The lead item.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> There are hundreds and hundreds of posts on her FB page welcoming her back, so much for bullying misogenists.



And where were the messages of goodwill when she resigned eh? That sort of cold shouldering from the corbynites is yet another example of their thuggery.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 26, 2016)

David Osland on Facebook earlier.


> More on the Socialist Health Association ballot rigging attempt yesterday. SHA now saying 'dodgy votes on both sides' but about four times as many suspect votes for Smith as Corbyn. This should be a serious news story. I'd try and sell it somewhere myself, but too busy today.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Think Champion was mentioned yesterday, way down the list though as you say.
> 
> If one positive has come out of all this it's in the amount of people who've seen the Guardian for what it is and turned their back on it.


Have you any evidence for that, even anecdotal comment from people who have made this move?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Have you any evidence for that, even anecdotal comment from people who have made this move?



Yes, I've spoken to people who seemed genuinely shocked at the Guardian's behaviour and weren't buying it any more - still seem to read online though. Also people on FB who seem to be relying more on The Canary, for better or worse. All anecdotal though, I'm not speculating on their circulation numbers.


----------



## inva (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yes, I've spoken to people who seemed genuinely shocked at the Guardian's behaviour and weren't buying it any more - still seem to read online though. Also people on FB who seem to be relying more on The Canary, for better or worse. All anecdotal though, I'm not speculating on their circulation numbers.


hardly anyone actually buys it, but all these people are still clicking angrily I reckon


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

inva said:


> hardly anyone actually buys it, but all these people are still clicking angrily I reckon



Angry clicking is a step up from smug clicking, right?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yes, I've spoken to people who seemed genuinely shocked at the Guardian's behaviour and weren't buying it any more - still seem to read online though. Also people on FB who seem to be relying more on The Canary, for better or worse. All anecdotal though, I'm not speculating on their circulation numbers.


Fair enough, a pity about the Canary though which cannot be any better than The Guardian. I understand that they don't pay their so called 'reporters' at all. Not sure how this business model works.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Fair enough, a pity about the Canary though which cannot be any better than The Guardian. I understand that they don't pay their so called 'reporters' at all. Not sure how this business model works.


Loads of ways not to do the  Guardian model surely?  Maybe not so many  if you imagine yourself to be a _newspaper _or something.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Fair enough, a pity about the Canary though which cannot be any better than The Guardian. I understand that they don't pay their so called 'reporters' at all. Not sure how this business model works.



I thought they paid them by clicks, which is why everything is so SENSATIONAL and uncritical. The Canary is terrible.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

...and frankly, you should have to pay to write most of the guff on there.


----------



## gosub (Jul 26, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


>



no it'll be more Dallas, we'll wake up to find its early May 2015 and Ed's still in the shower.

Goiing to sleep having had too much cheese is the only logical explanation.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ...and frankly, you should have to pay to write most of the guff on there.


Sounds like a practise used in the stripping/erotic dancing field. The "artists" pay the club owner up front and get to keep the tips they earn.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2016)

> A cowardly and unnamed backbench Labour MP has reacted to Sarah Champion's un-resignation from Jeremy Corbyn's team by claiming that she was intimidated and bullied into rejoining the shadow cabinet and saying that she and other shadow cabinet members are unintelligent, "politically unemployable" and will be frozen out of front bench politics if the Anyone But Corbyn coup is successful."



FB post on Momentum, but indicates bullying comments by the 'rebels' if true



> Channel4 blog say " They believe that the Rotherham MP has clocked that boundary changes will be published this September and mean she could face a challenge to hold onto her seat. One Labour source said the Rotherham MP had been “semi-imposed” on the seat in a by-election and there had been suspicions she’d hadn’t had much of a commitment to the Party before she applied for the candidacy."



More smears.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> FB post on Momentum, but indicates bullying comments by the 'rebels' if true
> 
> 
> 
> More smears.


And if not true it indicates absolutely nothing.


----------



## JimW (Jul 26, 2016)

At least her return will get wider reporting now they have a negative spin


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2016)

so the challenge to him being on the ballot automatically is being heard today. Brought by a party donor who clearly thinks hoofing a big wedge at the party entitles him to have it run as he sees fit, over the heads of the unions and wider membership. How do we rate his chances here? I'd have thought the NEC vote on the matter should have settled the matter, but then I'm not used to using courts and money to enforce my will.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

All the twitter lawyers were of the view that the NEC decision would  be final when it was initially discussed.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2016)

This is just nuts. After last time telling me that I was not eligible to vote because 'the organisation that you are a member of has no record of your membership' (really) I get, with out doing anything at all an email the start of which says:



> You were eligible to vote in the 2015 leadership election as an affiliated supporter of the Labour Party. As a result, we've contacted your affiliated organisation to confirm your continued membership. We will then re-check you against the electoral register.
> 
> We will be in touch over the coming weeks, including letting you know if you need to take any actions, but in the meantime we wanted to share more information about our upcoming leadership elections.
> 
> ...



The words piss-up and brewery spring to mind.

yours, nonplussed of Tunbridge Wells.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

Labour's Future, Radical Politics

In my inbox today. RADICAL! Words, miners, Wales, stuff.


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Labour's Future, Radical Politics
> 
> In my inbox today. RADICAL! Words, miners, Wales, stuff.



Standing, standing - standing, stand and standing.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

teqniq said:


> This is just nuts. After last time telling me that I was not eligible to vote because 'the organisation that you are a member of has no record of your membership' (really) I get, with out doing anything at all an email the start of which says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't knock it, you'll have a vote!


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Don't knock it, you'll have a vote!


hahaha don't know about that.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

WTF Guardian. Headline "Labour rules 'misapplied' when Corbyn put on leadership ballot".
Turns out in the article that's only what the bad lawyers said and there's no result yet  Labour rules 'misapplied' when Corbyn put on leadership ballot, court told - Politics live


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

That's just a standard court proceedings headline tbf. the 'court told' bit is the clue.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

Cid said:


> Standing, standing - standing, stand and standing.


Who is he to adopt the cloak of a radical politician?  All that guff about the South Wales valleys and the Miners Strike. He is a would-be con artist. We all know that he earned a very good living as a PR man for a drug company that was interested in undermining the NHS with a PFI scheme. No radical but an unconvincing Blair clone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Who is he to adopt the cloak of a radical politician?  All that guff about the South Wales valleys and the Miners Strike. He is a would-be con artist. We all know that he earned a very good living as a PR man for a drug company that was interested in undermining the NHS with a PFI scheme. No radical but an unconvincing Blair clone.


he is not a would-be con artist.

he very much is a con artist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

Report one side as fact. Then say you reported what happened. Blur cases with conclusions.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> That's just a standard court proceedings headline tbf. the 'court told' bit is the clue.


I know, it's just the use as a headline rather than just saying the trial is on.

(Edited to fix typo)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> That's just a standard court proceedings headline tbf. the 'court told' bit is the clue.


Well spotted killer b. I was thinking that it was the conclusion of the court proceedings but in fact it is just a digest of the input evidence at the beginning. There is hope that the court will come to a more useful conclusion when all is taken into account.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2016)

When Corbyn's barrister puts his side we'll of course have the balancing headline: 

Labour rules 'properly applied' when Corbyn put on leadership ballot, court told.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Fair point.


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 26, 2016)

It is truly wonderful to look at the contrast between this leadership election and the last one. Owen, desperate to talk about the miners and his radicalism vs Andy, Yvette and Liz barking on about business and aspiration. Everything has changed, the ground has shifted and the consequences of that will be felt for a long time even if Corbyn were to lose.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> It is truly wonderful to look at the contrast between this leadership election and the last one. Owen, desperate to talk about the miners and his radicalism vs Andy, Yvette and Liz barking on about business and aspiration. Everything has changed, the ground has shifted and the consequences of that will be felt for a long time even if Corbyn were to lose.


depends of anyone who followed corbyn was capable of walking the walk not just talking the talk


----------



## maomao (Jul 26, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> It is truly wonderful to look at the contrast between this leadership election and the last one. Owen, desperate to talk about the miners and his radicalism vs Andy, Yvette and Liz barking on about business and aspiration. Everything has changed, the ground has shifted and the consequences of that will be felt for a long time even if Corbyn were to lose.


Nope. If Corbyn goes it'll all be dropped immediately and it'll be back to aping the Tories and worrying about floating voters,


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2016)

It's a bit weird this court thing. I mean the reason the NEC has been able to do the membership, £25 stuff is that it has the power to interpret and rule on the application of the rulebook (and change it). Administration of the LP isn't governed by legislation, it's an unincorporated association whose constitution governs its operation. I'm not quite sure on what basis the court would step into that... I think the earlier (pro) Corbyn argument was based on breach of contract, but even then it seemed somewhat weak. Not going to start reading the rulebook again though, just have to see what happens.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

It is governed by legislation. Everything is. Hence this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

Cid said:


> It's a bit weird this court thing. I mean the reason the NEC has been able to do the membership, £25 stuff is that it has the power to interpret and rule on the application of the rulebook (and change it). Administration of the LP isn't governed by legislation, it's an unincorporated association whose constitution governs its operation. I'm not quite sure on what basis the court would step into that... I think the earlier (pro) Corbyn argument was based on breach of contract, but even then it seemed somewhat weak. Not going to start reading the rulebook again though, just have to see what happens.


The NEC can''t rule that the courts don't apply to them.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 26, 2016)

Presumably counts as a disputed contract?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

> Labour’s leadership contest rules make “no trace of distinction” between an incumbent leader and a challenger and thus both should be required to seek nominations, the high court has heard.



I can spot one. Can anyone else - where's my 20 grand btw?


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The NEC can''t rule that the courts don't apply to them.


You know they would if they could though.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

Bercow's told Seema Malhotra that the entry into her office wasn't a breach of the rules. So that's that one done. Again probably no massive headlines around it.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I can spot one. Can anyone else - where's my 20 grand btw?



was it where the rules specifically refer to a "challenger" as needing the MPs' nominations?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2016)

They literally  have different rules for if there is a challenger or if the seat is vacant. I reckon that is  a prior formal admission of distinction. 5 grand that one.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 26, 2016)

maomao said:


> Nope. If Corbyn goes it'll all be dropped immediately and it'll be back to aping the Tories and worrying about floating voters,


This. The only thing the member I was talking to the other day cared about was  reaching out to swing voters, how labour's perceived and so on. I think this is precisely why this has been so forceful because the aping Tories route is largely the easier route to power for these people and the easiest way of staying in their cushy jobs.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

Cid said:


> It's a bit weird this court thing. I mean the reason the NEC has been able to do the membership, £25 stuff is that it has the power to interpret and rule on the application of the rulebook (and change it). Administration of the LP isn't governed by legislation, it's an unincorporated association whose constitution governs its operation. I'm not quite sure on what basis the court would step into that... I think the earlier (pro) Corbyn argument was based on breach of contract, but even then it seemed somewhat weak. Not going to start reading the rulebook again though, just have to see what happens.





Bernie Gunther said:


> Presumably counts as a disputed contract?


Unincorporated associations are effectively in themselves contracts.

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They literally  have different rules for if there is a challenger or if the seat is vacant. I reckon that is  a prior formmal admission of distinction. 5 grand that one.



Also, the previous rule made it clear that both the challenger and the incumbent needed nominations. By changing to the current rule which only mentions the need for nominations to challenge strongly implies the intent was that an incumbent wouldn't need nominating.

But you know how barristers are, right?

Eta: Taken from this anti-Corbyn QC's Tweet:


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 26, 2016)

This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It is governed by legislation. Everything is. Hence this.



You could say that the general legislation of the UK applies to unincorporated organisations, but that's not what I mean. If you want to challenge a public body (arbitrary decision by a tribunal or something) you can do so via judicial review, the way in which they operate is governed by legislation. There isn't an analogous process for unincorporated associations, they're largely free to draw up their constitution as they see fit... if that constitution allows for a decision making method then the courts are likely to hold to that. There isn't legislation that tells an unincorporated association how it should operate; if it were in the rulebook decisions on the labour leader could be made on the basis of whether Iain McNicol's cat shits in box a or b. There may well be something in the rulebook (not going to start reading it again) that prevents introduction of absurd measures, but tbh it probably is open to the NEC to amend any part of it. E.g changing the wording of a fundamental clause doesn't seem to have been a problem.

e2a: Far as I can tell challenges are being brought on the basis of contractual relationship between members of a UA. Complicated though.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2016)

19force8 said:


> This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large



that was what I think eoin was referring to on twitter last week


"howsoever inadvertent"


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

19force8 said:


> This little gem shows that high court judges are more clued up about the realities of dirty politics than you might expect:
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn1z6fPWgAAB_yw.png:large


Nice bit of acid tongue in the "howsoever inadvertent".

This was a good tweet, showing a change only for potential challengers to seek nominations:
.


----------



## captainmission (Jul 26, 2016)

Clearly they need to go full on freeman on this one - JEREMY CORBYN is a legal fiction. Owen Smith for common law leader of the Labour Party


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Not sure if this is most appropriate for the commentariat thread or here: 

How Jeremy Corbyn won Facebook

I liked this little slip up:
_
There is no regulation of these spaces. The law cannot touch them and, for many, they are more trusted as a source of news than the “MSM”. They are encouraging an anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-media populist tone in politics. To begin to tackle this, we should acknowledge just how powerful Facebook has become._

The elision of _elites_ and _the media_ with _experts_. They are the same thing to Lewis.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Nice bit of acid tongue in the "howsoever inadvertent".
> 
> This was a good tweet, showing a change only for potential challengers to seek nominations:
> .



That's pretty cut and dried. The text without the explanation was pretty clear anyway though, it concerns me that some of the people who can't interpret this sort of thing are elected or want to be elected to the place that drafts and approves our laws.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

It isn't cut and dried at all, hence why it's in court. It just looks that way to the inexpert eye.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 26, 2016)

free spirit said:


> That's pretty cut and dried. The text without the explanation was pretty clear anyway though, it concerns me that some of the people who can't interpret this sort of thing are elected or want to be elected to the place that drafts and approves our laws.


That must be why so many PLP had to abstain from voting against the disability cuts, poor poppets didn't understand what it said.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't cut and dried at all, hence why it's in court. It just looks that way to the inexpert eye.


it's in court because it looks that way to an inexpert eye who has lots of money.

Hopefully the judge will confirm it's cut and dried status shortly.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> That must be why so many PLP had to abstain from voting against the disability cuts, poor poppets didn't understand what it said.


probably not, but the wording on some of the stuff they do pass can make very little sense. [/derail]


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

It just _isn't_ cut and dried. I've read a lot of legal bloggers on this, and while there's a range of views out there (which don't necessarily line up with the ideological slant of the writer - Maugham is against Corbyn for example) they seem to mainly agree that a) it's a poorly drafted set of rules which could be interpreted a number of ways, hence b) it would end up in court, regardless of what the NEC decided, and c) the court would agree with whatever the NEC decided.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides... /weltweit


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

Anyone know when the judgement is due?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 26, 2016)

How Jeremy Corbyn won Facebook





> That’s how you end up with unofficial Corbyn-supporting pages on which words such as “Zio” (short for “Zionist” and proscribed by Shami Chakrabarti’s review into anti-Semitism in the party) are bandied about



What is this bollocks? Has anyone ever seen such a thing?


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> What is this bollocks? Has anyone ever seen such a thing?


Yeah, actually - but almost exclusively from Tony Greenstein, who mounts a very spirited defence of his use of the term. I don't doubt it gets an occasional airing from other people, but it's a tiny minority and I very much doubt it'll be done without challenge.


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> Yeah, actually - but almost exclusively from Tony Greenstein, who mounts a very spirited defence of his use of the term. I don't doubt it gets an occasional airing from other people, but it's a tiny minority and I very much doubt it'll be done without challenge.



That notorious anti-semite frogwoman from a quick search of urban...


----------



## Combustible (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Anyone know when the judgement is due?



Thursday apparently


----------



## classicdish (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Anyone know when the judgement is due?


Thursday (as tweeted by Guardian reporter Jessica Elgot)

[edit: beaten to it!!!]


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> It just _isn't_ cut and dried. I've read a lot of legal bloggers on this, and while there's a range of views out there (which don't necessarily line up with the ideological slant of the writer - Maugham is against Corbyn for example) they seem to mainly agree that a) it's a poorly drafted set of rules which could be interpreted a number of ways, hence b) it would end up in court, regardless of what the NEC decided, and c) the court would agree with whatever the NEC decided.
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides... /weltweit


So I'm not a lawyer. But I think (a) only holds true in the sense that by absolute mutual agreement of all parties and with knowing winks all round  you could creatively interpret them to mean something other than the obvious. Come any disagreement however and it's frivolous to try it. In the absence of unambiguous clarity, the law operates on intent and reasonable interpretation, and that is very close to 'cut and dried' here. I expect the ruling will less than subtly express this, but again we'll see.

(b) is only the case if someone is actually willing to embark on that folly. I half suspect that the legal challenge is merely a might-as-well hail mary endeavour and the meat of this was in the brinksmanship beforehand. Which has failed.

As for (c) I very much doubt that an opposite NEC ruling would in itself be upheld, which is not to say it would produce an ultimately favourable outcome for Corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think your point a) is true. The reason there is ambiguity is because when drafting the rules, it was never imagined that a sitting leader might struggle to get the required noms - had it been, then another clause (the sitting leader requires/does not require nomination) would have been added, and there would not be a court case happening now. 

While I think Corbyn should be on the ballot for a number of reasons, to my untrained mind the opposing view also seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they stand


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

Anyway, I can think of fewer things more fruitless than arguing the toss about the legal status of Labour party procedures and rules when none of us really know wtf we're talking about. Just... it isn't cut and dried. The fact it's arguable at all kind of makes that clear.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

Trouble is, there's an unhelpful intent conveyed not just by the words as they are now, but by the delta change(s) to them over time. The specific layman explanation in the document up thread isn't that significant in itself but the motivation is important.

The lack of provision for the unpopular leader scenario is also inherently unhelpful to a challenger trying to assert a specific requirement. In that case at least your (c) is more likely to be true.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> this is good: Pretending to be someone else



This phenomenon is very much active on the right I have noticed, middle-class ukippers have suddenly discovered that they are in fact working-class.


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2016)

I imagine we've had this but; speaker says there was no break-in.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2016)

Watergate it ain't


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2016)

If its matters(i think it does) the mood on JC4PM/Momentum sites, both posters and admins(some key players on JC side), seems to be hardening towards the 'hard core' plotters, I am now thinking there may be a split whatever happens.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> If its matters(i think it does) the mood on JC4PM/Momentum sites, both posters and admins(some key players on JC side), seems to be hardening towards the 'hard core' plotters, I am now thinking there may be a split whatever happens.


if it matters why does it matter?

you consistently manage to make bimble look like an informed and incisive commentator by comparison, which is - let me tell you - no mean feat


----------



## irf520 (Jul 26, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:
> 
> Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System
> 
> ...



Number 1 on that list is why, if you want to take over a society, you always go for the education system. After 10+ years of being told black is white, most people will continue to believe it even against the evidence of their own eyes.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> It just _isn't_ cut and dried. I've read a lot of legal bloggers on this, and while there's a range of views out there (which don't necessarily line up with the ideological slant of the writer - Maugham is against Corbyn for example) they seem to mainly agree that a) it's a poorly drafted set of rules which could be interpreted a number of ways, hence b) it would end up in court, regardless of what the NEC decided, and c) the court would agree with whatever the NEC decided.
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court decides... /weltweit


well there we have it, the court of legal bloggers is confused therefore........

The meaning of 'challenger' is pretty clear cut. It refers to the person or people who are challenging the incumbent. 

It's even the example used in the oxford dictionary definition.


> A person who makes a rival claim to or threatens someone’s hold on a position:_a serious challenger for the titlea potential challenger for the party leadership_



IIRC in the section for elections with a vacancy they refer to 'candidates' not 'challengers', which further clarifies the intent in using that specific word. If it was intended to refer to all candidates then they'd have kept the same wording for both sections.

I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 26, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a classic essay I'm very fond of by systems theorist Donella Meadows:
> 
> Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System
> 
> ...


Hmm, the impression I got from this was that our cities will be so much better when we get rid of all council houses/flats. Not saying there are no valid insights, but that one did slightly prejudice me.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.



Unless he gets off because he's not a challenger but a only candidate for paying costs and therefore not there at all really.

Sounds fairly cut and dried to me but barristers can play with meanings of words until you can't see what's there any more, so I'll wait for what the judge says.

I liked his comments about the danger of McNichol perhaps not making the best case for Corbyn as he might, though.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2016)

mutterings reported from the 'moderate' plp camp about the shitness of Owen Smith's campaign.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

free spirit said:


> mutterings reported from the 'moderate' plp camp about the shitness of Owen Smith's campaign.




Given that those 'moderate' MPs had so much say in engineering this you'd imagine they'd offer at least some support. Not even publically, just give Smith a list of quotes to call a set of beliefs. What do they gain from churning out sacrificial lambs with no backing? Or is this them trying to be coherent? Or are they just working through the entire party until they reach their favourite? Hillary Benn, at a guess.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Given that those 'moderate' MPs had so much say in engineering this you'd imagine they'd offer at least some support. Not even publically, just give Smith a list of quotes to call a set of beliefs. What do they gain from churning out sacrificial lambs with no backing? Or is this them trying to be coherent? Or are they just working through the entire party until they reach their favourite? Hillary Benn, at a guess.



I don't think the "moderates" ever wanted Smith. He isn't offering the kind of rollback they are seeking. He put himself forward and forced Eagle out off his own bat.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 26, 2016)

I don't consider there to be an arguable case for Corbyn being kept off the ballot and it is ridiculous it is being presented in court. I expect the judge to throw this case out the window Thursday.

I don't honestly believe that the plaintiff can think he might win. This is a vexatious suit. All this is highly disruptive to Corbyn.

The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I don't think the "moderates" ever wanted Smith. He isn't offering the kind of rollback they are seeking. He put himself forward and forced Eagle out off his own bat.



Aye, maybe 'accepted' is closer to it than 'wanted'. He got his nominations though, they haven't condemned him completely or tried to put up their own runner - so they must at least be/have been open to him. Plus I imagine he'll be happy to revert to whatever New Labour derivative vision they have if he wins, not exactly a man of strong moral conviction.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I don't consider there to be an arguable case for Corbyn being kept off the ballot and it is ridiculous it is being presented in court. I expect the judge to throw this case out the window Thursday.
> 
> I don't honestly believe that the plaintiff can think he might win. This is a vexatious suit. All this is highly disruptive to Corbyn.
> 
> The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.



Never underestimate the law's capacity to be a twat, no one with half a soul or half a mind could think it was fair but that doesn't mean much here.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2016)

free spirit said:


> well there we have it, the court of legal bloggers is confused therefore........
> 
> The meaning of 'challenger' is pretty clear cut. It refers to the person or people who are challenging the incumbent.
> 
> ...


My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?



That's the same definition my mum's always used though.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?


That's what I would expect a lawyer to do in court, they have special ones for legal terms of course


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?


'Common sense' meanings are absolutely valid in law though. 'The man on the Clapham omnibus' IS of legal origin. It's especially important for unincorporated organisations, which operate according to their own rules (as long as they don't contradict wider laws). 

So it is likely that any disinterested legal opinion would side with the NEC decision. The only problem being, 'our' legal system is anything but disinterested.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 26, 2016)

Here's an example of a judge quoting the dictionary (in fact two dictionaries) to consider the meaning of the word 'useful'
references 27 / 28
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/brdanin/acdec/en/021211sep-op.pdf

I would expect any respectable lawyer's library to have the complete OED in hardback


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> That's what I would expect a lawyer to do in court, they have special ones for legal terms of course


Actually they don't seem to for everything. I was on a jury where we asked for clarification about the definition of "with intent", the judge advised us it was the usual definition.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

I don't give a shit if they quote the OED in court, it just amazed me that someone's doing it on the internet to try and win an argument, in 2016.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> My God, you're actually trying to win an argument by quoting the Dictionary?


erm yes.

as other posters have pointed out, that's how it works when you need to clarify what a word is commonly understood to mean in court or out of court.

what I'm getting from this discussion is that you don't have much understanding of how the law works, so there's probably not much point in continuing to discuss it with you.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

we aren't in court you googling twat.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 27, 2016)

We can pretend though. That's the point


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> we aren't in court you googling twat.


no, but the aspect we're discussing is being taken to court.

it's a funny state of affairs when bothering to do some research to support your case / check you've understood it right is viewed as something to be used as an insult. It'd make the internet a lot less full of stupid comments if more people bothered to do the same thing.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 27, 2016)

I mean, it would be a bit of a drag to discard the football forum on the basis that we aren't actually playing in Wembley stadium, or the politics forums because we aren't speaking to the United Nations.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

I always enjoyed the drunken pre-internet pub discussions which could go on for several hours about some factoid that was either true or it wasn't but which would take about 2 minutes to actually check. Some of them were about definitions of words as I recall.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

I'm aware of the terms that the case hinges on, and their dictionary meanings: it's been discussed constantly on the Internet for weeks now. 

All I'm disputing is the idea that it's 'clear cut' what the rules mean. Because it isn't 'clear cut', much as you'd like it to be.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> we aren't in court you googling twat.



It is a pseudo star chamber as perceived by the main political throbbers that post on here...though


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> All I'm disputing is the idea that it's 'clear cut' what the rules mean. Because it isn't 'clear cut', much as you'd like it to be.



Not me - as I said I'm waiting for what the judge says.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 27, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I always enjoyed the drunken pre-internet pub discussions which could go on for several hours about some factoid that was either true or it wasn't but which would take about 2 minutes to actually check. Some of them were about definitions of words as I recall.



It's a shame that pub life as we knew has withered away. Better than going on about stuff on a forum wasn't it?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

"Garcia never played with New Riders of the Purple Sage."

"He did my mate saw him in 1970"

"Nah he was with Grateful Dead then"

"He fucking did ..."

"Nah you're wrong"


on for hours or what seemed like hours


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

Christ. Maybe forums _is_ better.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm aware of the terms that the case hinges on, and their dictionary meanings: it's been discussed constantly on the Internet for weeks now.
> 
> All I'm disputing is the idea that it's 'clear cut' what the rules mean. Because it isn't 'clear cut', much as you'd like it to be.


I don't see that it could impartially be read in any other way by anyone with half a clue.

Sure people can attempt to make a case against it, but it just reflects their bias. It's clear what it means, and it's clear what the intent was when the wording was changed in 2010.

Kinnock muddied the waters a lot by pointing to his previously having had to gain MPs support when he was challenged, but that's irrelevant because of the rule change to clarify this point.


----------



## Smoking kills (Jul 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I don't consider there to be an arguable case for Corbyn being kept off the ballot and it is ridiculous it is being presented in court. I expect the judge to throw this case out the window Thursday.
> 
> I don't honestly believe that the plaintiff can think he might win. This is a vexatious suit. All this is highly disruptive to Corbyn.
> 
> The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.


"Lawyers"  "whoring themselves". Your point is?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 27, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I hope the person challenging this gets ordered to pay all costs associated with the case.



He's extremely wealthy so can afford to. He also seems to be a bit of a nut job with anger management problems. Who gets quite vengeful and vexatious against anyone who's " crossed him " . With Corbyn now on his list apparently .  Suspect it'll be a voodoo doll with pins once this vexatious, vindictive case fails. Or just fuming at the tv . Mind you he's already harassed and heckled him at public events and accused him of anti semitism . So who knows .


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 27, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Hmm, the impression I got from this was that our cities will be so much better when we get rid of all council houses/flats. Not saying there are no valid insights, but that one did slightly prejudice me.



Yeah she doesn't really make that point well.

It's been a while since I read the thing she's referring to, which is a bit lacking in politics like most of that group's stuff. What they're good at is producing largely apolitical models, in this one about equlibrium between housing quality vs local job prospects, which can have really interesting political implications.

What I got from it was more like:

'Unless you fix a bunch of other stuff that's wrong with capitalism at the same time, subsidising low quality housing creates ghettoes/sink estates and actually if you _do _fix the other things, it removes the motive to stuff low paid and unemployed into crap housing in horrible areas with no proper facilities in the first place.

So the leverage point you want to be looking at is actually capital accumulation.'

Which is a bit more complex than what she's saying in order to make her point about counter-intuitive results, but still problematic in all sorts of ways in the details.

If you want to do more on this, I suggest a separate thread. I think the subject is an interesting one, but nothing much to do with Corbyn and the PLP's machinations.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 27, 2016)

All this legal talk has missed the actual legal argument, by the way.

It's not about that paragraph relating to challengers, per se. It's about what happens _after_ a challenger is nominated. That triggers a leadership contest and their claim is that Corbyn needs nominations for that, outside of the provisions of that para. It may amount to the same thing but not necessarily.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

I haven't missed that at all!


----------



## mauvais (Jul 27, 2016)

Well there's a whole page on what challenger means, so...


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

There's a whole page of me beating my head against the wall,


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> He's extremely wealthy so can afford to. He also seems to be a bit of a nut job with anger management problems. Who gets quite vengeful and vexatious against anyone who's " crossed him " . With Corbyn now on his list apparently .  Suspect it'll be a voodoo doll with pins once this vexatious, vindictive case fails. Or just fuming at the tv . Mind you he's already harassed and heckled him at public events and accused him of anti semitism . So who knows .



I think he might not be the Labour candidate for Camborne & Redruth next time round


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

Favelado said:


> It's a shame that pub life as we knew has withered away. Better than going on about stuff on a forum wasn't it?


I blame the middle classes and their smoking ban


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2016)

Step 1. Act like Corbynites are sexist in order to smear them
Step 2. Convince yourself that what you are saying about sexism is true
Step 3. Pander to this fictional misogynistic voting bloc with misogynistic comments


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Step 1. Act like Corbynites are sexist in order to smear them
> Step 2. Convince yourself that what you are saying about sexism is true
> Step 3. Pander to this fictional misogynistic voting bloc with misogynistic comments




a thirty-five second history of the coup so far:


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Step 1. Act like Corbynites are sexist in order to smear them
> Step 2. Convince yourself that what you are saying about sexism is true
> Step 3. Pander to this fictional misogynistic voting bloc with misogynistic comments



sorry, this is bollocks. Just because May once famously wore some heels doesn't mean any reference to the word 'heels' is automatically misogyny. Just playing their bullshit game.


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 27, 2016)

Interesting that Smith is at least pretending to be left wing. Burnham, Kendall, Cooper etc didn't even bother.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

Seriously – this kind of minute study of your opponent’s statements looking for anything that could possibly be twisted into a way of painting them a racist / misogynist / whatever is one of the things that turns people right off. No one gives a shit outside of twitter tosspot bubbles, and it makes you look like a tool.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

Xenonxenon said:


> Interesting that Smith is at least pretending to be left wing. Burnham, Kendall, Cooper etc didn't even bother.


remember that was in the wake of losing the GE where the plp right all lined up to say how sorry they were to have tried to win an election from the left (they didn't but hey). Kendals risible 4.5% may have sunk in by now.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 27, 2016)

"to smash her back on her heels" - Never heard that expression before. Pretty nasty considering who he is.
I find the _violence_ a concern. Is this an expression that is used about men too? 'smash him back on his heels' ? Or is it solely used for women?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 27, 2016)

Seems to be his own violent version of this:

_To put someone on their heels'_ is a variation on _'rock someone back on their heels'_.

_set (or rock) someone back on their heels
Definition of set or rock someone back on their heels in English:
Astonish or disconcert someone:
'She said something that rocked me back on my heels'. 'Then, just as the team seemed to be establishing a foothold, two interceptions set them back on their heels'. 'A tremendous drive set them back on their heels, forcing them to concede a penalty.' 'They counter attack from deep in their own defence and our forwards should have been tackling them with a ferocity that would have disrupted them and rocked them back on their heels near their own lines.'

Essentially it describes a physical shock that almost knocks someone backward, but they manage to retain their balance while pivoting on the heels of their shoes. The next stage would be, 'To knock someone on their back (or whatever local expression applies to buttocks).'


What's the meaning of "put someone on one's heels"?_


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

He's presenting himself as a more combative politician than Corbyn, so is using more forceful language to underline that. It isn't misogyny. No one give a shit.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 27, 2016)

To rock someone back on their heels is a pretty standard term, he seems to have tried to mix it with an aggressive tone but was too linguistically incompetent to do so elegantly and ended up just sounding like an abusive prick.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Seriously – this kind of minute study of your opponent’s statements looking for anything that could possibly be twisted into a way of painting them a racist / misogynist / whatever is one of the things that turns people right off. No one gives a shit outside of twitter tosspot bubbles, and it makes you look like a tool.



Ordinarily I would agree with you, as I did upthread. Looks I am guilty here of what I have accused others of doing, I did not know it was an established phrase... I had never heard it before.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's presenting himself as a more combative politician than Corbyn, so is using more forceful language to underline that. It isn't misogyny. No one give a shit.



Agreed. It's part of this line they keep trying to sell that they can stop the Tories doing what they like through being a 'strong opposition.' We'll just ignore the Parliamentary majority here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

normally used in self reference ime, 'i was rocked back on my heels'. The connotations of smash however are less pleasant

but its a sideshow as kb says


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> normally used in self reference ime, 'i was rocked back on my heels'. The connotations of smash however are less pleasant
> 
> but its a sideshow as kb says


He's just using the same language the media do when they talk about PMQs. Have a look at some of the stories from May's first run last week - it's gladiatorial.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 27, 2016)

It's a storm in a teacup, but it's damning of his competency given that his whole schtick is that he's a better communicator than Corbyn. It's not like this kind of blunder wouldn't also be hammered by the Tories, that's modern politics — Cameron and "calm down dear" anyone?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> normally used in self reference ime, 'i was rocked back on my heels'. The connotations of smash however are less pleasant
> 
> but its a sideshow as kb says


Yes, normally used as a term of astonishment, as with '_I was taken aback'._


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's presenting himself as a more combative politician than Corbyn, so is using more forceful language to underline that. It isn't misogyny. No one give a shit.



The stronger point is that the right-wing of the Labour Party have double standards. On the one hand it is it acceptable for them to call union leaders 'arseholes', threaten to 'knife Corbyn in the front' and use this sort of figurative language, but they then conflate legitimate criticism from members of the public  - whether or not in includes a bit of robust language - with he worst violent/mysoginistic abuse that they no doubt also receive.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

Look at how successful the Labour RW's smears have been. Why would anyone want to ape their tactics? 

There seems to be a bizarre attempt to smear Smith as a wife beater going on (I guess this latest thing feeds into that), which is just mental.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, normally used as a term of astonishment, as with '_I was taken aback'._


see also: shaken/shocked to the core. Anyone who doesn't use that in a deprecating manner is a dick


----------



## YouSir (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> Look at how successful the Labour RW's smears have been. Why would anyone want to ape their tactics?
> 
> There seems to be a bizarre attempt to smear Smith as a wife beater going on (I guess this latest thing feeds into that), which is just mental.



How the fuck did that article even get written? Random speculation based on a random comment from an unnamed reader. Fuck Smith and all but that's still a disgrace.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 27, 2016)

Owen Smith has just publicly attacked John McDonnell for never having done anything on employment rights.

"McDonnell has been on more early morning picket lines & protests than any other MP I can think of. John was a founder member of the Blacklist Support Group, fighting our cause when not many others were that interested. That's why the rank & file of the labour movement consider him one of our own."

(from Dave Smith - Blacklist Support Group)


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 27, 2016)

YouSir said:


> How the fuck did that article even get written? Random speculation based on a random comment from an unnamed reader. Fuck Smith and all but that's still a disgrace.



It is published by the writer's own website.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 27, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Seems to be his own violent version of this:
> 
> _To put someone on their heels'_ is a variation on _'rock someone back on their heels'_.
> 
> ...





Rob Ray said:


> To rock someone back on their heels is a pretty standard term, he seems to have tried to mix it with an aggressive tone but was too linguistically incompetent to do so elegantly and ended up just sounding like an abusive prick.


quick, we've got a couple more dictionary users here!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 27, 2016)

In shocking news the Guardian thinks Smith's launch speech has suddenly made him competitive. Who would have thought?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 27, 2016)

The betting markets think Corbyn is automatically on the ballot.

British Politics Labour Leadership Election Betting Odds | Politics


----------



## Raheem (Jul 27, 2016)

IMO, it's not worth picking holes in Owen Smith when he's doing his "Tonight, Matthew..." left-wing act. Maybe it's not authentic, and by all means point that out, but it contributes usefully to exorcising Blairism-Brownism. He's not going to win, because JC as leader is pretty much an unofficial clause in the Labour Party constitution for the immediate future. Anyone saying they want to (figuratively) smash Theresa May is likely to be a good thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> In shocking news the Guardian thinks Smith's launch speech has suddenly made him competitive. Who would have thought?


the guardian really is shit these days


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The betting markets think Corbyn is automatically on the ballot.
> 
> British Politics Labour Leadership Election Betting Odds | Politics


The Betting markets think we're still in the eu


----------



## hash tag (Jul 27, 2016)

We are still in the EU?


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 27, 2016)

hash tag said:


> We are still in the EU?


Yes.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2016)

This thread just gets better and better.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2016)

Quick, someone consult the dictionary to check whether we are still in the EU


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Quick, someone consult the dictionary to check whether we are still in the EU


I think you need Wikipedia for that.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2016)

Labour was formed as the party of the worker. But we’ve forgotten who that is | Yvette Cooper

Words fail me.  We should all back Owen Smith because only he has a strong, loud voice? 

And fuck what that voice is shouting, so long as you can hear it rasping out its nonsense, apparently.  "We may argue amongst ourselves about whether we are too far to the right or left, but the real question is whether our whole movement is being left behind."


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 27, 2016)

Purely anecdotal, but I've had 3 phonecalls over the past week from Unite, all letting me know I'm eligible to vote in the leadership election and that Unite suggest I vote for Corbyn


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

yvette cooper talking about the party of the coalfields and socialism. Pull the other one.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yvette cooper talking about the party of the coalfields and socialism. Pull the other one.


Don't worry.  That's only what it was _founded_ as.

"As work changed in the white-collar revolution, Labour policies adapted to keep up. We championed technology, new universities, the unionisation of public-sector workers, new rights for women, an end to discrimination, the national minimum wage, tax credits and Sure Start."

It's all about white-collar workers now.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Don't worry.  That's only what it was _founded_ as.
> 
> "As work changed in the white-collar revolution, Labour policies adapted to keep up. We championed technology, new universities, the unionisation of public-sector workers, new rights for women, an end to discrimination, the national minimum wage, tax credits and Sure Start."
> 
> It's all about white-collar workers now.



If this actually included proletarianised 'white collar' jobs then that would be great but they don't mean that, they mean start up workfare IT consultant wankers.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2016)

Some of my best friends are IT consultant wankers.



Actually, that's not true.  It just amused me to say it.  I confess in the name of St. Jeremy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Don't worry.  That's only what it was _founded_ as.
> 
> "As work changed in the white-collar revolution, Labour policies adapted to keep up. We championed technology, new universities, the unionisation of public-sector workers, new rights for women, an end to discrimination, the national minimum wage, tax credits and Sure Start."
> 
> It's all about white-collar workers now.


i would have liked them to champion new universities: these would i suppose be the former polys. but er they were turned into universities by the tories. what would have been nice was for "non-traditional learners", people who aren't 18-21 or from a middle class background, to be championed by the labour party, with e.g. the open university able to retain its lower fees so people could study at home. but their fees have gone through the fucking roof. same with other avenues of part-time study. they went through the fucking roof under er labour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

'bring out the banners from the days gone by'

this really is thin gruel indeed, fronting up a transparent cunt like owen and warming over the founding myths of the labour party, mentioning the fabians without spitting and so on. These complete cunts, playing catch up with opinion and desperate to unseat corbyn. So much so they dare utter the dreaded S word. Don't expect to hear it again if they get their man in


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'bring out the banners from the days gone by'
> 
> this really is thin gruel indeed, fronting up a transparent cunt like owen and warming over the founding myths of the labour party, mentioning the fabians without spitting and so on. These complete cunts, playing catch up with opinion and desperate to unseat corbyn. So much so they dare utter the dreaded S word. Don't expect to hear it again if they get their man in


Even Blair used the S word before he was elected. A _Christian_ S, mind, whatever that's supposed to be.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i would have liked them to champion new universities: these would i suppose be the former polys. but er they were turned into universities by the tories. what would have been nice was for "non-traditional learners", people who aren't 18-21 or from a middle class background, to be championed by the labour party, with e.g. the open university able to retain its lower fees so people could study at home. but their fees have gone through the fucking roof. same with other avenues of part-time study. they went through the fucking roof under er labour.


I think they mean the Glass Plate uni's of the sixties when they say the  'new' Universities.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2016)

hash tag said:


> We are still in the EU?


Doh! You know what I mean


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2016)

The thing is that he obviously just has no idea what is going on in the world of ordinary people.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2016)

Hahahahahahahaha.

The important thing is that it is not zero.  Yes, Smith.  That is the important thing.  The _important _thing.  _The_ important thing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 27, 2016)

I've had a really odd email from Labour this morning.

Saying that I was eligible to vote in last year's leadership election as an affiliated supporter (no I wasn't - I paid £3). And that they are re-checking with my affiliated organisation (I have no idea what this is) to make sure I have continued my membership (that I never had) and they will then check me against the electoral roll (which I am on) and get back to me with details of my vote.

Wut?

My current actual status is:

Paid £3 last year to vote.
Joined the LP shortly after Brexit as a full member.
Joined Unite a few days later after the vote rigging shenanigans began.
Paid my £25 when it emerged I wouldn't be able to vote via Unite either.

So, wut?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

headless chickens


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've had a really odd email from Labour this morning.
> 
> Saying that I was eligible to vote in last year's leadership election as an affiliated supporter (no I wasn't - I paid £3). And that they are re-checking with my affiliated organisation (I have no idea what this is) to make sure I have continued my membership (that I never had) and they will then check me against the electoral roll (which I am on) and get back to me with details of my vote.
> 
> ...



Their admin systems are a absolute mess, I have it on good authority, even without what the recent coup and NEC shambles have done to confuse matters. 

As an affiliate member I don't get to vote in the NEC do I?  Anyone know?  That's what they've told me but I'm not taking their word for it.

Unite has given me 3 conflicting pieces of advice on the leadership election today, none of them the answer to my actual question so I guess they are struggling to keep up too.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 27, 2016)

My biggest worry atm is they'll look into this 'affiliated organisation' and discover I wasn't a member and tell me I don't have a vote, entirely ignoring the fact I paid £25 to get one as a registered supporter.

This is going to be a pain, isn't it?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 27, 2016)

Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2016)

its almost like there is an inept attempt to disenfranchise new members


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 27, 2016)

Got to love this bit: 



> But pressed on his remarks by 5 News he said: "Perhaps it backfired, but we should have a bit of robust language in politics, I think."



Robust language eh? Unless it's from someone you don't like then it's abuse.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 27, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Got to love this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> Robust language eh? Unless it's from someone you don't like then it's abuse.



Right? The hypocrisy. You can understand why people want to hurl expletives (and tomatoes and eggs) at them.


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Right? The hypocrisy. You can understand why people want to hurl expletives (and tomatoes and eggs) at them.


And rocks. 

And grenades.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 27, 2016)

Got to laugh at this from the right given all they've done to disenfranchise members in the leadership election and purge the left from the last one:

"Some Smith supporters raised concerns that the email could have been designed to identify those who are not loyal to the current leader – information that could potentially be used against them.

Linda Grant, a Labour member and novelist, said she feared being put on a “disloyal” list after ticking a box saying she would not support the leadership if Corbyn won.


“What I meant is that I would still be a member of the Labour party and would still vote Labour, but I probably wouldn’t actively campaign because it would seem like a waste of energy,” she said.

Tom Blenkinsop, a Labour MP and Smith supporter, said members should be careful about handing over that information to the Corbyn leadership campaign, which required “North Korea-style loyalty” from members even though Corbyn had rarely been supportive of his predecessors.

“They draw up lists. It’s what the hard left do,” said Blenkinsop. “They draw up lists of people with _j’accuse_ and all that type of nonsense. It’s all they are interested in – identifying traitors.

“I wouldn’t reply to anything that [the Corbynist grassroots movement] Momentum sends. They are not affiliated and should be proscribed. They can change their name but it’s the same thing – if people are wise, they will see it is the devious politics of the hard left.”"


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its almost like there is an inept attempt to disenfranchise new members



Yes, but I still wouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to a bollocksed up admin system.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 27, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Yes, but I still wouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to a bollocksed up admin system.



I agree. I can also understand why it's tempting to attribute it to malice since they've hardly been embarrassed at their blatant bullshittery recently.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

"What do we want?" 
"One-hour contracts"
"When do we want them?"
"As soon as employers can reasonably incorporate them into their busy business schedules lets look again in say 2019 perhaps ..."


----------



## elbows (Jul 27, 2016)

I am starting to get the impression that some journalists who have to deal with Smith don't like him and are trying harder than normal to trap him, make him look stupid (not hard) or dig up stuff from his past (e.g. the bitter question time gender remark he made off-air).

What a shame  To be honest I might have made this comment prematurely and don't have a suitable quantity of examples to make the argument properly yet but hey, he is such a useless sack of shit that I thought I'd get in early.

When the dust settles I might offer him a one minute contract, thats the important thing.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Right? The hypocrisy. You can understand why people want to hurl expletives (and tomatoes and eggs) at them.



Read that as explosives, but expletives will do


----------



## elbows (Jul 27, 2016)

Someone from RT is amused by the sarcasm team Corbyn can throw almost effortlessly at Smith now.



> The team has, apparently sarcastically, lauded the adoption by Owen Smith of a number of the current leader’s policies in recent days.





> A spokesman for the ‘_Jeremy for Labour_’ campaign told the Guardian on Wednesday that the campaign welcomed Smith’s “_focus on equality of outcome, re-industrialisation, and workers’ rights,_” as well as his “_support for policies announced in recent months by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell._”
> 
> The campaign also applauded Smith for “_repeating the Labour leader’s call for a ban on exclusive workforce recruitment from abroad, made during the referendum campaign, among other policies._”
> 
> “_Owen’s speech today shows the leadership that Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated in placing economic justice and fairness back at the heart of Labour politics,_” the spokesman added.



Is Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith just copying Corbyn’s ideas?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> That's what I would expect a lawyer to do in court, they have special ones for legal terms of course



And Archbold, for making oneself look taller in court, if you're a criminal lawyer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2016)

Smoking kills said:


> "Lawyers"  "whoring themselves". Your point is?



That lawyers have a keen but sometimes over-inflated sense of their value?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> There's a whole page of me beating my head against the wall,



Pics or gtfo!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> I think they mean the Glass Plate uni's of the sixties when they say the  'new' Universities.


yeh but what unis have they championed recently?  eh?  eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The lawyers that have made arguments against Corbyn being on the ballot are surely just whoring themselves.


at least with whores there is a certain honesty about their profession not found with barristers


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Read that as explosives, but expletives will do



An expletive earlier:


----------



## Sifta (Jul 27, 2016)

Oh the bastards
No they are though
For want of a better word
The erudite is all very well but
I shall be erudite but
Long live the expletive


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2016)

Another great headline from the Independent. The article slates Owen Smith and his campaign, taking the piss throughout. The headline: 



> Owen Smith just gave his leadership speech and Labour is a complete mess



Not 'he' or 'it' is a complete mess but 'Labour', giving the impression that Corbyn's responsible for that too. 

Owen Smith just gave his leadership speech and Labour is a complete mess


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 27, 2016)

I intended no disrespect to professionals in the sex industry with my lawyers remark


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left

Clive Lewis calls for some kind of electoral arrangement with greens, libscum and snp.  Apart from the fact it won't happen, it's a bit of an admission of weakness, explicitly saying Labour can't win on their own (even if its true).


----------



## Raheem (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left
> 
> Clive Lewis calls for some kind of electoral arrangement with greens, libscum and snp.  Apart from the fact it won't happen, it's a bit of an admission of weakness, explicitly saying Labour can't win on their own (even if its true).



Why do you say it won't happen? I'm not saying it will, but I can't see why it's so implausible.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Why do you say it won't happen? I'm not saying it will, but I can't see why it's so implausible.


Greens might well, libs probably won't, snp absolutely won't.  It would also be a major wrench for labour, a party who won 3 elections on the run shifting to the point where they don't fight every seat.


----------



## Supine (Jul 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Another great headline from the Independent. The article slates Owen Smith and his campaign, taking the piss throughout. The headline:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The headline is factually correct. In this day and age you should applaud a journalist for managing that little


----------



## Raheem (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Greens might well, libs probably won't, snp absolutely won't.  It would also be a major wrench for labour, a party who won 3 elections on the run shifting to the point where they don't fight every seat.



Couldn't it be a major boost for the LDs? It's not something I've studied, but there are probably a lot of seats they could potentially take from the Tories if there were no Labour candidate. SNP is a lot less obvious, but what might Labour offer to induce them?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 28, 2016)

Owen Smith has lifted an Alan Partridge quote... "we need revolution, not evolution"



hope he keeps them coming


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 28, 2016)

Haha no way?! Ffs


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Couldn't it be a major boost for the LDs? It's not something I've studied, but there are probably a lot of seats they could potentially take from the Tories if there were no Labour candidate. SNP is a lot less obvious, but what might Labour offer to induce them?


LDs could benefit, from their current lowpoint, though there's always a risk they might lose some of their own voters to the tories if they were seen to part of something 'left wing'.  I just think that most parties who claim to operate across the whole country in a first past the post system would struggle to go into a position where they effectively give that up.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 28, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Owen Smith has lifted an Alan Partridge quote... "we need revolution, not evolution"
> 
> 
> 
> hope he keeps them coming




Think Partridge wanted it the other way around. He wanted to evolve, not revolve. But, yeah, the echo is unfortunate.

Bit odd to be opposing Corbyn on the basis that what the Labour Party needs is revolution.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Aye, maybe 'accepted' is closer to it than 'wanted'. He got his nominations though, they haven't condemned him completely or tried to put up their own runner - so they must at least be/have been open to him. Plus I imagine he'll be happy to revert to whatever New Labour derivative vision they have if he wins, not exactly a man of strong moral conviction.


A disposable "stand in" until the ( deluded) real players decide to make their pitch.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I blame the middle classes and their smoking ban


I want to know the Corbyn line on ECigs before committing mesel


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> In shocking news the Guardian thinks Smith's launch speech has suddenly made him competitive. Who would have thought?


I suppose any cobbled up,revisionist, pick the best bits of Wilsons, Foots, Kinnocks et al ( but miss out any Blairite bits) will do.
Coherence doesn't seem to be his strong point.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the guardian really is shit these days



Not like you to reiterate the obvious slow day at the library


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Labour was formed as the party of the worker. But we’ve forgotten who that is | Yvette Cooper
> 
> Words fail me.  We should all back Owen Smith because only he has a strong, loud voice?
> 
> And fuck what that voice is shouting, so long as you can hear it rasping out its nonsense, apparently.  "We may argue amongst ourselves about whether we are too far to the right or left, but the real question is whether our whole movement is being left behind."



"We were founded as the party of labour, the party of work, in the furnaces, factories and coalmines"

All largely gone, with the enthusiastic help of what's now laughingly termed the "Labour Party"


----------



## cantsin (Jul 28, 2016)

could be imagining this, but there seems to be a distinct lack of appreciative noise for Owen Smith today from a bunch of well heeled music /culture related meejah /twitter clebs who'd been on a a slimey anti Corbo / pro Smith mini mission over the last 2 weeks - cant help suspecting that  Smith's proposed ' £150k + PA' wealth tax wasn't exactly what they were looking for first and foremost from the horn rimmed smoothie.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Labour was formed as the party of the worker. But we’ve forgotten who that is | Yvette Cooper
> 
> Words fail me.  We should all back Owen Smith because only he has a strong, loud voice?
> 
> And fuck what that voice is shouting, so long as you can hear it rasping out its nonsense, apparently.  "We may argue amongst ourselves about whether we are too far to the right or left, but the real question is whether our whole movement is being left behind."



He hasn't, it's a nasal, whining sort of noise, bit like Tinnitus.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'bring out the banners from the days gone by'
> 
> this really is thin gruel indeed, fronting up a transparent cunt like owen and warming over the founding myths of the labour party, mentioning the fabians without spitting and so on. These complete cunts, playing catch up with opinion and desperate to unseat corbyn. So much so they dare utter the dreaded S word. Don't expect to hear it again if they get their man in


They won't, and mebbes the ideals of socialism can get a decent airing once this Owen/ PLP crap is dispensed with.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The thing is that he obviously just has no idea what is going on in the world of ordinary people.



The blokes a total plonker, get rid of zero hours contracts and replace them with a minimum hours contract which though not perfect, gives new employees basic rights.
He's not even credible as a stalking horse, I've got an unexpected foal that has more credibility than this areshole 
Sorry, wee bit of a derail


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2016)

coley said:


> They won't, and mebbes the ideals of socialism can get a decent airing once this Owen/ PLP crap is dispensed with.


I've never known a labour party that payed more than lip service to the ideals of socialism. At their best they are negotiators with capital, a political union if you like. They have never been that in my lifetime. God bless St Jez and all that but I cannot in good conscience cast a lot in with even a so called socialist labour party. In the end they bow to _pragmatism _every time. There is but one solution.


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 28, 2016)

I've suddenly got a bit nervous about the court ruling today/tomorrow.
I can see the next few months being appeal and counter appeal. The PLP punching itself in the face as more and more people are drawn to UKIP, meanwhile the Tories go 'full Nero' as the country burns.

But then again, the Court can see reason, Corbyn nails it in the election, Conference roles around, purges and deselection all over the shop, and the Blairite/New Labour sink into the shadows - probably uttering that they'll form their own party with Angela Eagle and Owen Smith as their bright new leaders, and Hilary Benn talking loudly over the hum of his father, spinning in his grave...
The country will still probably burn, but at least there'll be a party opposite to call the Tories cunts when it does...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> LDs could benefit, from their current lowpoint, though there's always a risk they might lose some of their own voters to the tories if they were seen to part of something 'left wing'.  I just think that most parties who claim to operate across the whole country in a first past the post system would struggle to go into a position where they effectively give that up.


Lewis has also floated alternatives to FPTP in the past so this should be seen as part of that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 28, 2016)

dont spose we know what time we get the court judgment?


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> dont spose we know what time we get the court judgment?



Labour leadership: Ruling due on Corbyn ballot challenge



> Mr Justice Foskett's reserved ruling, which could have major implications for the leadership contest and Mr Corbyn's future, is expected to be published on Thursday afternoon. He is also expected to spell out any grounds for appeal.



That's as specific as it gets, as far as I can see...


----------



## Patteran (Jul 28, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> dont spose we know what time we get the court judgment?



2pm according to George Eaton - so going by his track record for accuracy, it'll be 2am. Or next year. Or yesterday.


----------



## coley (Jul 28, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Lewis has also floated alternatives to FPTP in the past so this should be seen as part of that.


A temporary election coalition with the focus on introducing PR would be possible, its very much in the interests of labour and other smaller parties.
Might involve a lot of people holding their noses in the short term but well worth it in the long term.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

Have to admit it would be funny as fuck if the court did rule against the NEC decision and, effectively, ruled Corbyn out of the 'contest'. They'd then have to crown Smith as leader! 
All very Bolingbroke.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have to admit it would be funny as fuck if the court did rule against the NEC decision and, effectively, ruled Corbyn out of the 'contest'. They'd then have to crown Smith as leader!
> All very Bolingbroke.



They wouldn't would they? They'd reopen nominations - Corbyn would have a chance to get his 51 even though he'd obviously struggle - and no doubt someone else would come out of the woodwork.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 28, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They wouldn't would they? They'd reopen nominations - Corbyn would have a chance to get his 51 even though he'd obviously struggle - and no doubt someone else would come out of the woodwork.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They wouldn't would they? They'd reopen nominations - Corbyn would have a chance to get his 51 even though he'd obviously struggle - and no doubt someone else would come out of the woodwork.


I don't think there's 51 socialists in the PLP.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 28, 2016)

Michael Foster clearly has more money than sense, but he's also an ignorant blustering fool, who thinks that pursuing his pet peeves through the legal system is a good use of the court's time. I hope he gets his fingers badly burnt.


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They wouldn't would they? They'd reopen nominations - Corbyn would have a chance to get his 51 even though he'd obviously struggle - and no doubt someone else would come out of the woodwork.



The way things have gone, I wouldn't be surprised if there were then* further squabbling about whether Corbyn (or anyone else) hadn't already missed the deadline to get their 51 noms in.

* assuming the ruling goes against the NEC decision, which I don't think it will


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2016)

andysays said:


> The way things have gone, I wouldn't be surprised if there were then* further squabbling about whether Corbyn (or anyone else) hadn't already missed the deadline to get their 51 noms in.
> 
> * assuming the ruling goes against the NEC decision, which I don't think it will



I guess it would go back to the NEC? My impression is that although they want Corbyn out virtually no-one actually wants Owen Smith in (apparently his mum is sitting on the fence), so they'd only try and stitch it up like that if they thought Corbyn would get the nominations.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

I think we'd see another Court Case to prevent the NEC from extending the deadline so Corbyn couldn't stand.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think we'd see another Court Case to prevent the NEC from extending the deadline so Corbyn couldn't stand.


He wouldn't get 51 nominations, no matter how long they gave him.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2016)

An excellent Newsnight package last night featured various people from Burnley, one said she had no interest in politics, didn't know who Corbyn was, but it was clear she had been very politically aware, she cited Brown's comments about Gillian Duffy as the key moment she switched off, etc. They also interviewed a young UKIP organiser who spoke about workers rights and how they had been abandoned, others spoke about how all the Mills and factories had gone and there was 'no future' I wonder how Corbyn and Co can connect in these places that also voted en masse to leave the EU etc.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> others spoke about how all the Mills and factories had gone and there was 'no future' I wonder how Corbyn and Co can connect in these places


It's a mystery!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> hey also interviewed a young UKIP organiser who spoke about workers rights and how they had been abandoned,


UKIP hasn't got a clue. They can whine all they like but when push comes to shove, they treat the working class with as much disdain as the Labour Right does.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I don't think there's 51 socialists in the PLP.



Was there ever ?


----------



## inva (Jul 28, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's a mystery!


the solution from a Labour Party point of view doesn't seem that obvious to me, not that I'm a Labour supporter myself.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Was there ever ?


Possibly not, at any one time.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 28, 2016)

inva said:


> the solution from a Labour Party point of view doesn't seem that obvious to me, not that I'm a Labour supporter myself.


Rebalance the economy away from financial services, rebalance the country away from London. Bewilderingly radical, I know.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

Patteran said:


> 2pm according to George Eaton - so going by his track record for accuracy, it'll be 2am. Or next year. Or yesterday.



If Angela Eagle were announcing the verdict it could also be this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday at one, Thursday at four and on and on and on!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

He's won.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 28, 2016)

BBC News have announced judge rules in favour of Corbyn


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He's won.




Oh dear, someone wasted a few bob!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

Looking forward to reading the judgment


----------



## mauvais (Jul 28, 2016)

Who knew? Let's have some verbose legal kickings please


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Looking forward to reading the judgment


Here.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 28, 2016)

Foster has wasted his time and the court's time. What a squalid, self-obsessed little shitcunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

Seem to be be the straightforward reading that i think was the 'natural impression' most here saw.


----------



## inva (Jul 28, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Rebalance the economy away from financial services, rebalance the country away from London. Bewilderingly radical, I know.


no need to be like that about it.
what would a rebalanced economy look like? maybe this isn't the thread for it, but I think it would be very difficult to achieve. I don't know that the methods used to tie people in to Labour in the past are open to them now.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Foster has wasted his time and the court's time. What a squalid, self-obsessed little shitcunt.



Well said reverend!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Here.


Not difficult, is it...this judging lark?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

"entirely clear" he says.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

How long before Owen Smith stands down? Let's say for health reasons or something else he comes up with and the circus of the leadership elections re-start with a couple of more senior names in the frame.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not difficult, is it...this judging lark?


Easy work. Trebles all round!


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2016)

How long before we hear accusations that Corbyn knobbled the judge?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

> Here is a comment on the ruling from* Iain McNicol*, the Labour party general secretary:-
> 
> _We are delighted that the court has upheld the authority and decision of the National executive committee of the Labour party.
> 
> We will continue with the leadership election *as agreed by the NEC*._


Dependent on the LP not losing the class action by post-January joiners for breach of contract.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

andysays said:


> How long before we hear accusations that Corbyn knobbled the judge?


Judge a trot?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

Foster says he won't be attempting to appeal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2016)

frabjouse  I hope this cunts pockets are emptied


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 28, 2016)

andysays said:


> How long before we hear accusations that Corbyn knobbled the judge?


The PLP are that perverse, it wouldn't surprise me if they accused Corbyn of not doing enough to promote their challenge.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

The judgment was just dry legal arguments  . I was hoping it would at least banish Foster to the tower and instruct Corbyn to be carried shoulder high into Parliament to take over Prime Ministership by popular acclaim  . 

Interesting that he ruled that words should mean what they're generally taken to mean except when they're not. And nice phrase 



> I say “objective” to distinguish the LP member who for political reasons wants to believe the words mean what he or she wants them to say from the person who takes a detached view of the position.



I wonder who that might refer to ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 28, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Who knew? Let's have some verbose legal kickings please



bombastic
circumlocutory
diffuse
flowery
full of air
fustian
gabby
garrulous
grandiloquent
involved
loquacious
magniloquent
palaverous
periphrastic
pleonastic
prolix
redundant
repeating
repetitious
repetitive
rhetorical
talkative
talky
tautological
tautologous
tedious
tortuous
windy
yacking


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

Foster has to pay his+labours costs. Looks like Corbyn has to pay his own.


----------



## agricola (Jul 28, 2016)

BBC News ticker - _"Jeremy Corbyn welcomes a High Court decision to throw out a bid to overturn his automatic inclusion on the party's leadership ballot *despite lacking the required support of his MPs*".

_


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Foster has to pay his+labours costs. Looks like Corbyn has to pay his own.



Strange - is that because Corbyn added his name to the suit (although I don't see why that would change things)?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2016)

this is of course more evidence of corbyn's rampant stalinism


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Strange - is that because Corbyn added his name to the suit (although I don't see why that would change things)?


He had separate representation - due largely i would suspect to - correctly - not trusting Mcnichol. Corbyn's lot submitted papers outlining why in their application to be accepted as co-defendants. Why that would mean he didn't have the same treatment after that i don't know.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Foster has wasted his time and the court's time. What a squalid, self-obsessed little shitcunt.


Cheeky cunt: 





> After the three legal teams thanked the judge, Foster’s lawyer began a long discussion with the judge on the issue of costs.


 (grauniad)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

I think i've read it wrong actually - i think Foster must pay Corbyn's costs as well.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

Goodoh


----------



## agricola (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Cheeky cunt:  (grauniad)



I suppose when you are paid by the hour, any discussion will be a long one.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 28, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> How long before Owen Smith stands down? Let's say for health reasons or something else he comes up with and the circus of the leadership elections re-start with a couple of more senior names in the frame.


The only way I could see him as a softening-up act would be in favour of someone _really_ special. You know, wheel Gordon Brown, Ed (or David) Milliband out, that kind of thing. Maybe Peter Mandelson could come back from Beyond The Grave. It's the only step they can take if they want to keep upping the farce ante.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 28, 2016)

inva said:


> no need to be like that about it.
> what would a rebalanced economy look like? maybe this isn't the thread for it, but I think it would be very difficult to achieve. I don't know that the methods used to tie people in to Labour in the past are open to them now.


It would probably look a bit more like Germany, FWIW. Bit late now of course. And no, the old structures are toast in favour of individualism, but that wasn't the question - it was how to appeal to people in (say) northern satellite towns. So invest in deprived areas a la EU regional development, flawed as it may have been, whilst reconfiguring the national economy (subsidies, taxes, legislation, infrastructure, public spending) to encourage something other than banking.

It's far from impossible - for example Nissan didn't pitch up to Sunderland of its own accord, and JLR didn't make a success of its Midlands operations without a lot of supporting preconditions. Not nearly enough, but a pattern. So form and properly articulate such policy, believably so, and then we'll see whether it wins votes in such places. Sounds like a bit too much like hard work though.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 28, 2016)

Costs awarded to both defendants against Foster.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Costs awarded to both defendants against Foster.


**Warning, the link below is to the Daily Mail!**
Excellent. Will it be the Primrose Hill gaff or the Cornish mansion that has to go?


> You c***. If you pick on me again I will destroy you.’


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> How long before Owen Smith stands down? Let's say for health reasons or something else he comes up with and the circus of the leadership elections re-start with a couple of more senior names in the frame.


Unless I'm misreading it, that's it for this time round - candidates had to formally accept nominations a week ago (table at the bottom of this document):
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/leadership16/A Procedural Guidelines & Timetable.pdf

Of course there's always the possibility of another challenge at some point, though logically they wouldn't be able to mount another challenge till this one is over (September).  Someone like Hilary Benn or whoever would also look weak for not standing in this one.

My guess is, following a further Corbyn victory in September, there's lots of scurrying and speculation about splits, but it doesn't happen. A lot will depend on the extent to which the left pursue no confidence and deselection of particular Blairite MPs and whether Labour also stays so far behind in the polls.  Sorry, obvious points, just saying there's no obvious resolution to this weird civil war (very top of the party and membership Vs bulk of MPs and many other councillors etc.). A Corbyn victory might get a few soft leftists to stfu, but it isn't going to derail the Blairites.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2016)

someones just encountered the idea that you can't buy everything and its not your party dammit. Oh its a good day today.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

Now just down to whether they can rig the vote by expelling enough Corbyn voters in time


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> someones just encountered the idea that you can't buy everything and its not your party dammit. Oh its a good day today.


Along similar lines, Bernie Ecclestone's mother in law just got kidnapped. When I saw that story I thought _'wtf, how can Bernie Ecclestone have a mother in law'._

[Ageism, the last prejudice ]


----------



## mauvais (Jul 28, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> How long before Owen Smith stands down? Let's say for health reasons or something else he comes up with and the circus of the leadership elections re-start with a couple of more senior names in the frame.


I wonder how long before he says something properly unacceptable? He seems to be a bit of an unpolished liability, and the PR-oriented, bump-smoothing machinery of the LP doesn't seem to be massively onboard with him either.


Wilf said:


> Unless I'm misreading it, that's it for this time round - candidates had to formally accept nominations a week ago (table at the bottom of this document):
> http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/leadership16/A Procedural Guidelines & Timetable.pdf
> 
> Of course there's always the possibility of another challenge at some point, though logically they wouldn't be able to mount another challenge till this one is over (September).  Someone like Hilary Benn or whoever would also look weak for not standing in this one.


This is going off memory of the tedious Rule Book from way upthread, but the main stipulation is that it happens before conference, which is the only time that the actual election can happen. So I reckon they could abort the current attempt now and start another, as would have probably happened (under different circs, admittedly) if Corbyn had lost this legal fight. But time is running out.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Unless I'm misreading it, that's it for this time round - candidates had to formally accept nominations a week ago (table at the bottom of this document):
> http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/leadership16/A Procedural Guidelines & Timetable.pdf
> 
> Of course there's always the possibility of another challenge at some point, though logically they wouldn't be able to mount another challenge till this one is over (September).  Someone like Hilary Benn or whoever would also look weak for not standing in this one.
> ...


I would imagine that the focus of the factional war would transfer to the constituency level with the prospect of deselections becoming more of a reality. How things would pan out with 'Labour' MPs sitting in Parliament until 2020, but knowing they had been deselected is anybody's call. Perhaps that's how the split may open?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Along similar lines, Bernie Ecclestone's mother in law just got kidnapped. When I saw that story I thought _'wtf, how can Bernie Ecclestone have a mother in law'._
> 
> [Ageism, the last prejudice ]


He's 18 years older than his mother-in-law.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> **Warning, the link below is to the Daily Mail!**
> Excellent. Will it be the Primrose Hill gaff or the Cornish mansion that has to go?
> ​


Charming chap. I would guess that he has this covered though with other funds. Wonder what the total is. Things add up pretty quickly once you are in the high court. It will be several hundred thousand


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I would imagine that the focus of the factional war would transfer to the constituency level with the prospect of deselections becoming more of a reality. How things would pan out with 'Labour' MPs sitting in Parliament until 2020, but knowing they had been deselected is anybody's call. Perhaps that's how the split may open?


That sounds likely. Last time round there was the gang of four who set up the SDP, but individual defections were largely motivated by the threat of deselection. In many ways, a party made out of self interest. 

Even then though, I'd have thought it could be slow and uncertain.  At the moment, I can't see a leadership lead push to deselect the Blairites - Corbyn doesn't actually want the party to split.  But there might just be enough, ahem, momentum if and when a few local parties start the process - along with a some set piece voting splits in Parliament or Conference, engineered by the right.  Labour going unilateralist and anti-EU were used by the emerging SDP last time as straws that broke the camel's back.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He's 18 years older than his mother-in-law.


Yes, not often you can say 'old enough to be her father' when referring to your mother in law.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

The Camborne-Redruth Labour candidacy's up for grabs now at least.


----------



## magneze (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think i've read it wrong actually - i think Foster must pay Corbyn's costs as well.


Yep, he does.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 28, 2016)

mauvais said:


> This is going off memory of the tedious Rule Book from way upthread, but the main stipulation is that it happens before conference, which is the only time that the actual election can happen. So I reckon they could abort the current attempt now and start another, as would have probably happened (under different circs, admittedly) if Corbyn had lost this legal fight. But time is running out.


In paragraph 39 the judge mentions in passing that the timing clause is more of an "exhortation" than a strict rule. So a challenge could occur at any time with the NEC calling an appropriate special conference. In other words, any time Corbyn stumbles there could be an immediate challenge.

Such fun.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 28, 2016)

agricola said:


> BBC News ticker - _"Jeremy Corbyn welcomes a High Court decision to throw out a bid to overturn his automatic inclusion on the party's leadership ballot *despite lacking the required support of his MPs*".
> 
> _


The BBC article also had a photo of a glum looking Corbyn and the headline "Corbyn legal challenge fails" making it look like JC had actually lost the case!


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

19force8 said:


> In paragraph 39 the judge mentions in passing that the timing clause is more of an "exhortation" than a strict rule. So a challenge could occur at any time with the NEC calling an appropriate special conference. In other words, any time Corbyn stumbles there could be an immediate challenge.
> 
> Such fun.


There won’t be an appetite for it though, whatever the more vocal rebels say. They had one chance before the next general election, and they’ve fucked it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The BBC article also had a photo of a glum looking Corbyn and the headline "Corbyn legal challenge fails" making it look like JC had actually lost the case!



^ from the article
from the front page v


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

Corbo in a nice Ralph Lauren Harrington there, I see. Man of the people.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Corbo in a nice Ralph Lauren Harrington there, I see. Man of the people.


market knock off for sure


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

Tk maxx- they're got millions in there for £34 and have had for years now. That's why you don't buy one.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Corbo in a nice Ralph Lauren Harrington there, I see. Man of the people.


i thought it was a plain brown jacket of the sort i used to wear in my warehouse jobs


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Tk maxx- they're got millions in there for £34 and have had for years now. That's why you don't buy one.


Certainly not until the yellow label's been slapped over the red.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Certainly not until the yellow label's been slapped over the red.


Clearance dweller.

Edit: maybe £44. Tops.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> i thought it was a plain brown jacket of the sort i used to wear in my warehouse jobs



maoist chique


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

I know – sorry I wasn’t clear, I meant he’s actually dressed like a normalish person.


----------



## agricola (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Tk maxx- they're got millions in there for £34 and have had for years now. That's why you don't buy one.



I suppose that means the next Labour leadership election will be £35 a vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

agricola said:


> I suppose that means the next Labour leadership election will be £35 a vote.


This is the last election.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Clearance dweller.


Er, I think you'll find I'm known to the 'industry' as a _price-led replacer*, *_actually.


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

It's yellow label season in there atm lads, worth popping in over the next few weeks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Er, I think you'll find I'm known to the 'industry' as a _price-led replacer*, *_actually.


I'm a _shrinkage specialist_ as well.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's yellow label season in there atm lads, worth popping in over the next few weeks.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> Corbo in a nice Ralph Lauren Harrington there, I see. Man of the people.



Probably a knock off from Marmaris!


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2016)

As butch helpfully points out, you don't really need to knock off Ralph.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2016)

I think Smith's plan now is to demand debates. Head to head debates. Where he can be rude and that and get on tv for being rude.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> someones just encountered the idea that you can't buy everything and its not your party dammit. Oh its a good day today.



Why doesn't Foster start his own party and take his mates with him!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 28, 2016)

I was alerted to this New Statesman article written by someone called Martin Robbins, who describes himself as 


> a Berkshire-based researcher and science writer. He writes about science, pseudoscience and evidence-based politics.



For someone so dedicated to "evidence-based politics", his article is rather evidence free and does a whistle stop tour of all the anti-Corbyn tropes. He also claims that Corbyn has a "paranoid leadership style". 

There's no comments thread, so therefore no right of reply.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 28, 2016)

Corbyn taking money from the Iranian government



The Iranian government hanging people







At least he did not work for someone bad like a pharmaceutical company.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2016)

It would be wise for Corbyn to say he was ignoring the leadership challenge. Go out in the country and get as many mass meetings as possible, ideally out in communities as well as the usual venues.  A 'not the leadership' campaign based around resistance, opposing the tories and new policy initiatives.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 28, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn taking money from the Iranian government
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*and* he's currently an employee for the British state, who have far more blood on their hands than Iran

the British army destroying the middle east:


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 28, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn taking money from the Iranian government
> At least he did not work for someone bad like a pharmaceutical company.



Shared interests certainly do make for strange political bedfellows, I remember Blair courting Gadaffi, Brown courting the Sauds, Cameron also the Sauds (any number of dodgy dictatorships in fact). The only reason Owen Smith hasn't got that sort of resume yet is he's got no other interests to serve beyond his own and even so, managed to get in some NHS privatisation lobbying just for his own pockets - and of course he was at one point a Spad for allies of the war criminal Tony Blair as they helped his push to war.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there are long-term Westminster politicians _without_ dodgy bits in their resumes?


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> An excellent Newsnight package last night featured various people from Burnley, one said she had no interest in politics, didn't know who Corbyn was, but it was clear she had been very politically aware, she cited Brown's comments about Gillian Duffy as the key moment she switched off, etc. They also interviewed a young UKIP organiser who spoke about workers rights and how they had been abandoned, others spoke about how all the Mills and factories had gone and there was 'no future' I wonder how Corbyn and Co can connect in these places that also voted en masse to leave the EU etc.


Aye, and like the BBC doesn't pick individuals to represent its particular slant! Was in Newcastle a few days before the ref vote and watched BBC 'look North' interview prospective voters, as expected they portrayed 'the usual suspects'  lager swilling,  gobshytes,that can be found in any city centre,  as representative of the leavers, and the well dressed 50+ types who expressed 'concerns' at the prospect of leaving.
Corbyn, or realistically, those who carry forward his message,can connect to those who have been abandoned because, unfortunately ( for the right wing) there is many more 'have nots' compared to the 'we haves,
And Corbyn, despite his 'unelectability'  has put a fire under the political 'elitist establishment'
And TBH I'm gobsmacked the same 'elitist establishment' has fucked up the PLP and Owen Smith in short order
ETA, earlier court judgement


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn taking money from the Iranian government
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wish you hadn't posted that second image, couldn't you have used NSFW or something.


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's a mystery!



Service industries innit, banking, insurance, retail?
 Though who's going to have money to put in the bank or buy insurance or buy goods/ food when the financial bubble bursts.
Dried food producers, best long term investment ever, just partly joking


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> *and* he's currently an employee for the British state, who have far more blood on their hands than Iran
> 
> the British army destroying the middle east:


Oh bollocks, the long time suppressed various ideological ( or totally illogical) religious factions being allowed free reign ( "to destroy the middle east")to obliterate and murder each other while a totally inadequate number of British troops were supposed to provide stability! It's been covered 'as nauseam' 
Blame Blair/brown/ Campbell and the rest of the shytehawks, but don't blame the British Regular Army for the problems in the ME, if indeed you need an Army from a supposedly democratically state who are emphatically  responsible for much of the unrest and suffering...nuff said.


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Strange - is that because Corbyn added his name to the suit (although I don't see why that would change things)?


Bit lost here, Corbyn didn't bring this case or have owt to do with it, why should it cost him a bliddy penny??


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

inva said:


> no need to be like that about it.
> what would a rebalanced economy look like? maybe this isn't the thread for it, but I think it would be very difficult to achieve. I don't know that the methods used to tie people in to Labour in the past are open to them now.


Cancel Hinckley and HS2 and other multi billion South Eastern 'vanity projects' and spend the billions saved on actually creating the snide Tory inside joke known as the  "Northern powerhouse" 
50p in the £ dedicated to  London and the SE while we get 1P in the pound up here in the frozen North? And the elitist establishment and the cosmopolitan latte drinking young of the SE wonder why we voted out!!
Fuck em


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Bit lost here, Corbyn didn't bring this case or have owt to do with it, why should it cost him a bliddy penny??


Corbyn was party to the suit. He wasn't originally being sued, but as he had an interest in the result he got in there as a second defendant so he ensured he could put up a proper fight and wasn't reliant on the NEC legal arguments. As he won with costs awarded this means the plaintiff had to pay two sets of costs


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Corbyn was party to the suit. He wasn't originally being sued, but as he had an interest in the result he got in there as a second defendant so he ensured he could put up a proper fight and wasn't reliant on the NEC legal arguments. As he won with costs awarded this means the plaintiff had to pay two sets of costs


Ta, the legalities of this affair has been beyond me.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 29, 2016)

ska invita said:


> the British army destroying the middle east:



It's not called destroying the Middle East! It's called bringing democracy to the Middle East.


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Why doesn't Foster start his own party and take his mates with him!


Mebbes because those Neo Tories who would like to, don't fancy losing the financial entitlements they can claim should they lose their seats come the boundary changes/Corbyns revenge.


----------



## coley (Jul 29, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It's not called destroying the Middle East! It's called bringing democracy to the Middle East.



Bugger the ME, can we have it here first


----------



## rioted (Jul 29, 2016)

coley said:


> Oh bollocks, the long time suppressed various ideological ( or totally illogical) religious factions being allowed free reign ( "to destroy the middle east")to obliterate and murder each other while a totally inadequate number of British troops were supposed to provide stability! It's been covered 'as nauseam'
> Blame Blair/brown/ Campbell and the rest of the shytehawks, but don't blame the British Regular Army for the problems in the ME, if indeed you need an Army from a supposedly democratically state who are emphatically  responsible for much of the unrest and suffering...nuff said.


Excuse the individuals acting "under orders" by all means. But do it to both sides. ALL governments kill but they all need obedient servants to carry out the killing. Iranian OR British.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Corbyn taking money from the Iranian government
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have one of smith consistently opposing Iran right? Or you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2016)

Because I seem to have missed those posts from you. I mean from you, not smith. The ones that show a clear consistent opposition rather than a disgusting opportunistic one. One that doesn't use the murdered bodies for its own ends. You can do that right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Judge a trot?



One cannot avoid judging the Trot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

existentialist said:


> The only way I could see him as a softening-up act would be in favour of someone _really_ special. You know, wheel Gordon Brown, Ed (or David) Milliband out, that kind of thing. Maybe Peter Mandelson could come back from Beyond The Grave. It's the only step they can take if they want to keep upping the farce ante.



Not even the most degenerate Progress uncle-fucker would vote Mandelson. He may have a rep for deal-making, but no-one in the party, not even his fans, see the creepy fuckwad as a safe pair of hands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not even the most degenerate Progress uncle-fucker would vote Mandelson. He may have a rep for deal-making, but no-one in the party, not even his fans, see the creepy fuckwad as a safe pair of hands.


Safe pair of claws maybe


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It would probably look a bit more like Germany, FWIW. Bit late now of course. And no, the old structures are toast in favour of individualism, but that wasn't the question - it was how to appeal to people in (say) northern satellite towns. So invest in deprived areas a la EU regional development, flawed as it may have been, whilst reconfiguring the national economy (subsidies, taxes, legislation, infrastructure, public spending) to encourage something other than banking.
> 
> It's far from impossible - for example Nissan didn't pitch up to Sunderland of its own accord, and JLR didn't make a success of its Midlands operations without a lot of supporting preconditions. Not nearly enough, but a pattern. So form and properly articulate such policy, believably so, and then we'll see whether it wins votes in such places. Sounds like a bit too much like hard work though.



The German model (regional/_lande_ "enterprise banks" that loan to new and established businesses at lower-than-market rates, and engage in co-ownership deals) has flaws, but it's certainly been a factor in retaining manufacturing capacity and fuelling private sector innovation in a "hands on" way that has rarely occurred in the UK, even when we had a worthwhile industrial policy. They attract new businesses and foster existing businesses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Along similar lines, Bernie Ecclestone's mother in law just got kidnapped. When I saw that story I thought _'wtf, how can Bernie Ecclestone have a mother in law'._
> 
> [Ageism, the last prejudice ]



Dude, his wife is less than half his age. His M-i-L is probably younger than he is!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Charming chap. I would guess that he has this covered though with other funds. Wonder what the total is. Things add up pretty quickly once you are in the high court. It will be several hundred thousand



He'll probably have had to "pay in" a sum to court in order to prove his liquidity/ability to finance his case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That sounds likely. Last time round there was the gang of four who set up the SDP, but individual defections were largely motivated by the threat of deselection. In many ways, a party made out of self interest.
> 
> Even then though, I'd have thought it could be slow and uncertain.  At the moment, I can't see a leadership lead push to deselect the Blairites - Corbyn doesn't actually want the party to split.  But there might just be enough, ahem, momentum if and when a few local parties start the process - along with a some set piece voting splits in Parliament or Conference, engineered by the right.  Labour going unilateralist and anti-EU were used by the emerging SDP last time as straws that broke the camel's back.



Deselection is highly unlikely to be driven by the party leadership. It's much more likely to be driven by activists in constituency parties wanting to hoy off their parachuted-in SPAD/PPE-ers, and have locals representing their interests down in The Smoke.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dude, his wife is less than half his age. His M-i-L is probably younger than he is!


His m-I-l is 18 years his junior, so there's a chance he's older than his _grandmother_ in law.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 29, 2016)

There are Rolling Stones out there that think he's a dirty old man


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> There are Rolling Stones out there that think he's a dirty old man


Rupert Murdoch would see it as _raising the profile of substantially older men_.  Bernie himself, more modestly, describes it as simply _'having a two generation head start'_.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

_'Fabiana Flosi and Dorian Gray (Attic Version) wish to announce their forthcoming wedding_...'


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 29, 2016)

Owen Jone's full interview with Corbyn is now up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXVHHxxnZQ

I like Corbyn's summary of the media at the 30min mark:

"A lot of newspapers start with their opinion of me, continue for the rest of the article and then conclude by saying what a bad person I am"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2016)

link no work my end? just me?


----------



## inva (Jul 29, 2016)

I just checked it and it doesn;t work for me either. does this work?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2016)

yep that ones running. Curse owens fresh facedness


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 29, 2016)

He strikes me as an idiot who needs to go to TV presenting school


----------



## inva (Jul 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yep that ones running. Curse owens fresh facedness


I got bored after a minute or so and turned it off mind you


----------



## wtfftw (Jul 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I was alerted to this New Statesman article written by someone called Martin Robbins, who describes himself as
> 
> 
> For someone so dedicated to "evidence-based politics", his article is rather evidence free and does a whistle stop tour of all the anti-Corbyn tropes. He also claims that Corbyn has a "paranoid leadership style".
> ...


Yeah D Miliband has tweeted it "Every voter in the labour leadership election should read this <link>"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2016)

Annoyingly twee music over the little scamp Owen. Stop coming across so cheery, dammit!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2016)

Not much today?


----------



## elbows (Jul 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not much today?



Indeed not. I had a quick look and used up my limited attention span for these matters on a shit new interview with Eagle.

Angela Eagle: ‘There’s no point being sore’


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2016)

Sore like an Eagle!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 29, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not even the most degenerate Progress uncle-fucker would vote Mandelson. He may have a rep for deal-making, but no-one in the party, not even his fans, see the creepy fuckwad as a safe pair of hands.


I knew _someone_ would bite. Eventually


----------



## elbows (Jul 29, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Sore like an Eagle!



Oh now the Ashcroft singing flashbacks are unavoidable.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2016)

This article about the Totnes council  by election that Streeting was whining about yesterday gives a different complexion to events...

No a 'Corbynite takeover' didn't cause Labour's loss in Totnes


----------



## elbows (Jul 29, 2016)

Lets hear that song sung backwards.

OK, I'm off topic, so I will at least use a spoiler tag.



Spoiler


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

Channeling new coup news through the Telegraph...lol.



> _Senior Labour rebels are so convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership contest that they are planning to elect their own leader and launch a legal challenge for the party's name.
> 
> Leading moderates have told The Telegraph they are looking at plans to set up their own “alternative Labour” in a “semi-split” of the party if Mr Corbyn remains in post.
> 
> The move would see them create their own shadow cabinet and even elect a leader within Parliament to rival Mr Corbyn’s front bench and take on the Tories._


Wankers.


----------



## inva (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Channeling new coup news through the Telegraph...lol.
> 
> ​Wankers.


genius idea. get an antipope


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

[To the tune of Kool & The Gang - Celebration] De-select the scabs come on, it's a de-selection


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> [To the tune of Kool & The Gang - Celebration] De-select the scabs come on, it's a de-selection


Yep, although the 'senior figure' this quote is attributed to deserves something more severe than deselection.


> _“It is not a ‘we’re off to set up a new party,’ it is a ‘*this is our party, we’re not leaving but our current situation is intolerable’.”*_


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, although the 'senior figure' this quote is attributed to deserves something more severe than deselection.
> ​



If we were in a position to do to these people what they _really deserved_ then it would no longer really be necessary to do it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Channeling new coup news through the Telegraph...lol.
> 
> ​Wankers.



Surely that'd just give Corbyn the chance to boot them all out the party?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If we were in a position to do to these people what they _really deserved_ then it would no longer really be necessary to do it.


Fun though.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Surely that'd just give Corbyn the chance to boot them all out the party?


Bizarre really, they seem to think that they'd be doing that to him!
Wankers.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bizarre really, they seem to think that they'd be doing that to him!
> Wankers.


It's "fog in Channel; Continent cut off" all over again, isn't it?


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2016)

inva said:


> genius idea. get an antipope





> Another said: “We can be liberated from the drag anchor and the poison that is Jeremy and his team and would be able to take the fight to the Tories.”



They are in a parallel world, when did they ever take the fight to the Tories?


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2016)

can anyone recall a time when there were outdoor evening political meetings on this scale, maybe the miners strike, or the 50's.

click on the link, then scroll out to see the scale of it.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 29, 2016)

Just for fun I thought I would mention that my local CLP decided that new members (post 12 Jan) were not permitted to attend the leadership nomination 'all members' meeting a couple of days ago. A good source tells me that this is/was unconstitutional. Whatever the powers that be were thinking, the CLP nominated JC.

Lol


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 29, 2016)

"You would cry too if it happened to you"


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Channeling new coup news through the Telegraph...lol.
> 
> ​Wankers.


Not really a ringing endorsement of Owen Smith's exciting and energising campaign is it?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

FWIW....



Er...Inner London?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FWIW....
> 
> 
> 
> Er...Inner London?




But but but... Corbyn.. something something... London Bubble!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> But but but... Corbyn.. something something... London Bubble!


Bollux, innit?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

I also liked the idea they might go to the courts to see if they could claim the title 'Labour Party'.  Well, going to the court really went well this week didn't it.

The sense of entitlement with these counts is obvious, but this little escapade really proves it.  Being a majority of the _MPs_ means you own the party.  The fact that you are in minority of the _members_ of the party is irrelevant to them.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bollux, innit?




I hadn't realised how much of Labour politics consists of rich and upper-middle-class people telling working-class people that they were too posh to understand the concerns of the people around them.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I also liked the idea they might go to the courts to see if they could claim the title 'Labour Party'.  Well, going to the court really went well this week didn't it.
> 
> The sense of entitlement with these counts is obvious, but this little escapade really proves it.  Being a majority of the _MPs_ means you own the party.  The fact that you are in minority of the _members_ of the party is irrelevant to them.





> *...this is our party...*


The very notion of ownership.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

It's like Owen Smith thought that he would make himself look more normal to working-class people by pretending that he didn't know what coffee was


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 29, 2016)

So when can a split happen? It fucking needs to happen, but what are the driving factors to force it?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So when can a split happen? It fucking needs to happen, but what are the driving factors to force it?



I don't think it will happen, the scabs have nothing much to gain from it. Perhaps if we get to deselection then the deselected ones will form their own party before they go on to lose their seats in 2020. I can't see the good people of Stoke-on-Central voting for Tristram Hunt (Hillary Fan Club UK) when there is a pro-Corbyn Labour candidate running against him.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's like Owen Smith thought that he would make himself look more normal to working-class people by pretending that he didn't know what coffee was



lol what? he did that?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 29, 2016)

Exactly, the braking force is that neither side will want to turn itself into SDP/TUSC Mark II.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> lol what? he did that?



What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom



> Receiving his "frothy coffee" in Pontypridd's Prince's cafe, Owen Smith stopped mid-sentence to express some amusement. "I tell you it is the first time I have ever been given little biscuits and a posh cup in here," Smith said, looking up at the owner David Gamberini, as his order was placed on the table. "Seriously, I would have a mug normally," the MP added, examining the refreshments in front of him.
> 
> And as everyone above the age of six knows, a coffee with frothy milk is not called a "frothy coffee"; it's a latte or a cappuccino, and it's often served with perfectly unremarkable little biscuits. This is normal now: Britain might not be in great shape, but in the 21st century Italian food no longer exclusively comes out of a tin and more than one type of coffee is available to all. It's reasonable to assume that Owen Smith, who made a six-figure salary at Pfizer, has had enough access to the good things in life that he knows the names of all the different types of coffee. Owen Smith lied to us. He pretended not to know what a cappuccino is or how it's served, and he lied.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think it will happen, the scabs have nothing much to gain from it. Perhaps if we get to deselection then the deselected ones will form their own party before they go on to lose their seats in 2020. I can't see the good people of Stoke-on-Central voting for Tristram Hunt (Hillary Fan Club UK) when there is a pro-Corbyn Labour candidate running against him.



So it'll be outing JC campaigns for the forseeable? until the PLP oust their man?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So it'll be outing JC campaigns for the forseeable?



I have no idea, given up on trying to predict stuff really. I would really like it if the Labour left went after the right-wingers to break the weakest links in the chain of anti-Corbyn forces.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom


I love this.
I really do. <foul language filter engaged>


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have no idea, given up on trying to predict stuff really. I would really like it if the Labour left went after the right-wingers to break the weakest links in the chain of anti-Corbyn forces.



Local level attacks?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom


He's quite the sure footed, well judged PR person isn't he?  He probably has a whippet and flat cap in the boot of his car for canvassing outside London.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 29, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Local level attacks?



Just don't say you want to smash them back on their heels we don't want to suggest doing violence to anyone


----------



## Patteran (Jul 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> [To the tune of Kool & The Gang - Celebration] De-select the scabs come on, it's a de-selection




 


(not my gag, from the red tweet machine)


----------



## coley (Jul 30, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The German model (regional/_lande_ "enterprise banks" that loan to new and established businesses at lower-than-market rates, and engage in co-ownership deals) has flaws, but it's certainly been a factor in retaining manufacturing capacity and fuelling private sector innovation in a "hands on" way that has rarely occurred in the UK, even when we had a worthwhile industrial policy. They attract new businesses and foster existing businesses.



Isn't one of the major "lande banks" in deep Shyte  at the mo?  plus the troubles at a certain "major" German  bank and  the possibility the German Govt may have to bail out ( big time) VW re; the dieselgate affair.
We may be facing a few domestic uncertainties post Brexit, but, CONNC, I think May might be having a quiet smirk while looking at Frau Merkels problems.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 30, 2016)

Im beginning to think that Owen Smith is a proper wrong-un. A sociopath. An egomaniacal, compulsive bullshitter with more than a hint of proper nastiness.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 30, 2016)

he speaks well of you


----------



## Tankus (Jul 30, 2016)

The central European bank have  been printing QE euros at the rate of a couple of BILLION per day
And have been doing since 2014....they have been used for bond purchases...

They can't stop it...it's fiscal crack....

When it unravels...it will go supersonic


----------



## The Pale King (Jul 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> [To the tune of Kool & The Gang - Celebration] De-select the scabs come on, it's a de-selection



Love it!

Arcade Fire: (De)Selektor


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> [To the tune of Kool & The Gang - Celebration] De-select the scabs come on, it's a de-selection


Re...sign
When the crowd says deselection


----------



## coley (Jul 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, although the 'senior figure' this quote is attributed to deserves something more severe than deselection.
> ​


"This is our party" 

In the sense that we have managed to get our self satisfied, never having had a real job arses onto the political gravy train, via what's laughingly referred to as the 'labour party.
 You!? the voters,have slowly woken up to what we have been practising for years!!
Ok, we made a mistake, or thon stupid sod Cameron did, actually allowing you plebs 
to make a decision!! 
How amusing! Please return to your state of bovine indifference while we sort out a compromise, acceptable to our EU overlords and capitalist paymasters and we will endeavour to ensure a few crumbs trickle down to the chosen few.
But only those who learn to behave themselves and vote accordingly.
Or,do you want to be greased?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom



Like the valleys don't have a history of Italian cafes ......fuck me...  I knew what an espresso and a latte was just going home from school in the 70's...there were two good ones in Caerphilly

Grandfathers - Welsh Italians







A mate of mine at school ...Luigi Antoniazzi was Antonio Antoniazzi' s great grandson.....
A lot of the valley towns had a quality Italian cafe on the main street..you would have to have been an antisocial twat not to have noticed or been in one

Can't be a local ....coffee bollacks is just beyond funny......bet even his accent is practiced......

Even get a latte from barrybados island too

What a muppet


----------



## coley (Jul 30, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Exactly, the braking force is that neither side will want to turn itself into SDP/TUSC Mark II.


Do not bank on that, the PLP has totally lost touch with reality.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 30, 2016)

coley said:


> Do not bank on that, the PLP has totally lost touch with reality.



Some aspects of reality are particularly hard to lose touch with, though. Like: Who's going to fund it?


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 30, 2016)

As an aside, the long this all goes on, the more humorous the thread's title gets.

Or it could lack of sleep...


----------



## Raheem (Jul 30, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> As an aside, the long this all goes on, the more humorous the thread's title gets.
> 
> Or it could lack of sleep...



The way things are going, the thread will probably just run and run. He'll die of a heart attack in 2023, and the OP can post to say they told us so.


----------



## agricola (Jul 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Channeling new coup news through the Telegraph...lol.
> 
> Wankers.



I honestly cannot believe that they have stumbled on the one way that they could ever contain Corbyn, after literally a year of spectacular failure followed by spectacular failure, and yet still they manage to mess it up.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 30, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im beginning to think that Owen Smith is a proper wrong-un. A sociopath. An egomaniacal, compulsive bullshitter with more than a hint of proper nastiness.



My thought exactly.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 30, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im beginning to think that Owen Smith is a proper wrong-un. A sociopath. An egomaniacal, compulsive bullshitter with more than a hint of proper nastiness.


 
isn't that what's considered the sort of 'leadership quality' that we are told jc is lacking?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think it will happen, the scabs have nothing much to gain from it. Perhaps if we get to deselection then the deselected ones will form their own party before they go on to lose their seats in 2020. I can't see the good people of Stoke-on-Central voting for Tristram Hunt (Hillary Fan Club UK) when there is a pro-Corbyn Labour candidate running against him.



Labour rebels plan to start their own party if Jeremy Corbyn gets re-elected

There's some hope!


----------



## teqniq (Jul 30, 2016)

'Leading moderates' Shouldn't that be 'Leading Neoliberals'? Why don't they just fuck the fuck off now, save everybody a load of trouble?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 30, 2016)

It shows their arrogance that they dont just join the LDs, has to be all about them dunnit?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 30, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It shows their arrogance that they dont just join the LDs, has to be all about them dunnit?


I think they'd be a bit far to the right for the LDs


----------



## BigTom (Jul 30, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It shows their arrogance that they dont just join the LDs, has to be all about them dunnit?



Leave to form "The Progressive Party". A few years later merge with the remaining Lib Dem to form "The Progressive Democrats". Continue into oblivion hopefully.


----------



## andysays (Jul 30, 2016)

teqniq said:


> 'Leading moderates' Shouldn't that be 'Leading Neoliberals'? Why don't they just fuck the fuck off now, save everybody a load of trouble?



Because they're not remotely interested in saving everybody (else) a load of trouble, they're interested in 

re-asserting control over what they see as their party
making things as awkward as possible for the Corbyn leadership and any of the membership foolish enough to support him
positioning themselves such that if/when a split does come, they themselves can extract the maximum benefit from it for them, and fuck everyone else


----------



## teqniq (Jul 30, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Leave to form "The Progressive Party". A few years later merge with the remaining Lib Dem to form "The Progressive Democrats". Continue into oblivion hopefully.



According to that Mirror article if Corbyn wins they intend to mount a legal challenge for the name of the party, it's assets etc etc, so definitely a case of if we can't have the toys then nobody else can. Worthless scumbags.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 30, 2016)

teqniq said:


> According to that Mirror article if Corbyn wins they intend to mount a legal challenge for the name of the party, it's assets etc etc, so definitely a case of if we can't have the toys then nobody else can. Worthless scumbags.


The's Mirror's "story" is just a second hand re-tred of the Telegraph bollocks. 

None of this is real.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 30, 2016)

teqniq said:


> According to that Mirror article if Corbyn wins they intend to mount a legal challenge for the name of the party, it's assets etc etc, so definitely a case of if we can't have the toys then nobody else can. Worthless scumbags.



There's no way they could win that argument in court- I hope they are deliberately bullshitting because otherwise they're delusional. Also, as soon as they push for this, couldn't they be expelled from the labour party under Labour party rules? Aside from the comments about british troops, I do believe Galloway was expelled because:


he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> There's no way they could win that argument in court- I hope they are deliberately bullshitting because otherwise they're delusional. Also, as soon as they push for this, couldn't they be expelled from the labour party under Labour party rules? Aside from the comments about british troops, I do believe Galloway was expelled because:
> 
> 
> he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
> ...


It is delusional in the sense that they/he/she appears to genuinely believe that they would be immune to any such threat as they would _own _the party...and be able to expel the socialists from it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think it will happen, the scabs have nothing much to gain from it. Perhaps if we get to deselection then the deselected ones will form their own party before they go on to lose their seats in 2020. I can't see the good people of Stoke-on-Central voting for Tristram Hunt (Hillary Fan Club UK) when there is a pro-Corbyn Labour candidate running against him.



Quite. I'm not sure that some parachuted-in MPs don't realise that their CLPs would fuck them off at the drop of a hat, if it meant they could elect someone who'd actually represent local opinion, not focus group flatus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2016)

coley said:


> Isn't one of the major "lande banks" in deep Shyte  at the mo?



Middling deep, but survivable shite.



> plus the troubles at a certain "major" German  bank and  the possibility the German Govt may have to bail out ( big time) VW re; the dieselgate affair.



The "major" bank you're referring to has been having those troubles since 2008. I strongly suspect that given the scale of troubles, the Bundesbank has been squirrelling away support for the last 8 years, for just such an eventuality. As for VW, the govt will only go in as deep as their stake dictates. They'll let VW - who still have a massive asset base - mortgage themselves for the rest.



> We may be facing a few domestic uncertainties post Brexit, but, CONNC, I think May might be having a quiet smirk while looking at Frau Merkels problems.



She'd be stupid to. Brexit brings its own issues, some of which will be unpredictable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2016)

here's some warmed over 'trump support is like corbyn support' from the woeful hadley freeman

From Labour's hard left to Donald Trump, it's been the summer of the personality cult

this line, it should be mentioned, was being peddled by self satisfied twats in the FT and Telegraph during the leadership election. So not only is she chatting shit, its stale shit


----------



## oryx (Jul 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> here's some warmed over 'trump support is like corbyn support' from the woeful hadley freeman
> 
> From Labour's hard left to Donald Trump, it's been the summer of the personality cult
> 
> this line, it should be mentioned, was being peddled by self satisfied twats in the FT and Telegraph during the leadership election. So not only is she chatting shit, its stale shit


Stale, puerile and smug shit. Freeman is a prime example of going down the pan syndrome. I believe she's originally a fashion journalist, certainly one who shouldn't go anywhere near politics. 

I haven't even read that particular article but can imagine what's in it!


----------



## emanymton (Jul 30, 2016)

oryx said:


> Stale, puerile and smug shit. Freeman is a prime example of going down the pan syndrome. I believe she's originally a fashion journalist, certainly one who shouldn't go anywhere near politics.
> 
> I haven't even read that particular article but can imagine what's in it!


I used to find her quire amusing as long as she didn't try and do too much politics. Don't bother to read her stuff any more.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It is delusional in the sense that they/he/she appears to genuinely believe that they would be immune to any such threat as they would _own _the party...and be able to expel the socialists from it.



I guess we can look forward to the enigmatic billboard campaign telling us it's illegal to be in a legal party.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I wonder what his dad's (Pat McGinn, former Newry councillor) shadier mates make of all this, watching the next generation whine about intimidation by meanie Mr Corbyn. Pat reportedly labelled fellow councillor Martin Cunningham a tout for showing sympathy with the family of Robert McCartney after the latter's murder in 2005, allegedly by the provos, so a soft touch he certainly ain't.



I come from the same village as Conor and know him and his dad very well. The general consensus around here is that he is a complete and utter shit cunt and that's by people who were previously quite matey and close with him. 

I seen him in the pub here about a year ago with his wife and even then you could tell he was quite uncomfortable and even joked that he wasn't welcome around here anymore but there was a sense of seriousness when he said it too and he was right he isn't welcome anymore. Think it's a bit of a touchy subject with Pat so have never mentioned it to him but knowing Pat I'm sure he's embarrassed as fuck but what can you do.


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 30, 2016)

coley said:


> Cancel Hinckley and HS2 and other multi billion South Eastern 'vanity projects' and spend the billions saved on actually creating the snide Tory inside joke known as the  "Northern powerhouse"
> 50p in the £ dedicated to  London and the SE while we get 1P in the pound up here in the frozen North? And the elitist establishment and the cosmopolitan latte drinking young of the SE wonder why we voted out!!
> Fuck em


Those young Londoners, they got it made, free houses, lattes-for-nothing, skinny jeans subsidies, beard trimming by state hairdressers, free south eastern nuclear power. WHERE IS MY HANDOUT? I AM THE VICTIM HERE!


----------



## Xenonxenon (Jul 30, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> I love this.
> I really do. <foul language filter engaged>


Owen Smith is coley !!! Exposed. Fucking latte drinking young Londoners with their little biscuits.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 30, 2016)

lulz


----------



## two sheds (Jul 30, 2016)

Now this is surprising: 

*



			Media 'persistently' biased against Jeremy Corbyn, academic study finds
		
Click to expand...

*


> 'Bias in mainstream media coverage of the Labour Party crisis was not inevitable or unavoidable given a minority of outlets that were relatively balanced'



The UCL study didn't include TV as I recall. 



> Across 10 days, the study analysed 465 online articles from eight news websites and 40 prime time news bulletins from the BBC and ITV. The research spanned the period between the series of shadow cabinet resignations aimed at removing Mr Corbyn, and the publication of the Chilcot report.
> 
> The BBC was especially criticised in the report, which found reporters in its main evening broadcasts used more “pejorative language” to describe Mr Corbyn and his supporters. However, the research did not look at the wider range of BBC political journalism which appeared outside of these times.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2016)

Massive crowd in Hull

anyone want to estimate the size of the crowd?


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2016)

Newcastle rally

Is any of this making the national news?


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2016)

Corbyn accused of 'bottling' hustings with Smith after rejecting debate

Meanwhile, the Guardian/Observer ignores the massive rallies and instead its this,

never mind he is doing other debates.

and this

Jeremy Corbyn urges MPs to rethink 'bizarre' attempts to split Labour


Look at the image of Smith speaking at the 'headlingley stadium'  

as if he could fill any stadium


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2016)

He's in Leeds today. Sold out.


----------



## agricola (Jul 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Newcastle rally
> 
> Is any of this making the national news?


 
_"Corbyn supporter threatens to set rabid wolf on photographer"_


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Jul 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Massive crowd in Hull
> 
> anyone want to estimate the size of the crowd?




Ha, I work at the youth project in the background there! Good to see him get such a big crowd, obviously no national media outlet will carry it! Hull daily mail estimated 3,000, said it was the biggest political rally there


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 30, 2016)

N_igma said:


> I come from the same village as Conor and know him and his dad very well. The general consensus around here is that he is a complete and utter shit cunt and that's by people who were previously quite matey and close with him.
> 
> I seen him in the pub here about a year ago with his wife and even then you could tell he was quite uncomfortable and even joked that he wasn't welcome around here anymore but there was a sense of seriousness when he said it too and he was right he isn't welcome anymore. Think it's a bit of a touchy subject with Pat so have never mentioned it to him but knowing Pat I'm sure he's embarrassed as fuck but what can you do.



If that linked to article from The Blanket is anything to go by, then the Dad is a bit of a charmer himself.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 30, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> If that linked to article from The Blanket is anything to go by, then the Dad is a bit of a charmer himself.



Edit: Sorry seen the article was in the piece I quoted. 

He's not a hard man by any means quite well natured ex-alcoholic type who likes to run a lot for charity not really into Republicanism these days so the whole 'I'll call your da' thing is just a completely preposterous notion to anyone who knows both men personally. 

The lying thing is true though there used to be a competition in a local festival to find the biggest liar in the world and he won so it must run in the family


----------



## oryx (Jul 30, 2016)

I've just seen ITV news - Corbyn rally in Hull and Smith rally in Liverpool both featured.

I really thought that the Corbyn rally had been filmed so as not to show the size of the crowd - though it did have a brief interview with him - and the Smith rally was filmed from the front so as to make it look a bigger crowd.

Shouldn't be surprised at that, really.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 30, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 30, 2016)

oryx said:


> I really thought that the Corbyn rally had been filmed so as not to show the size of the crowd - though it did have a brief interview with him - and the Smith rally was filmed from the front so as to make it look a bigger crowd.



I saw this sort of thing happen in real life once - 2001 election campaign, William Hague came to Bristol, and appeared outside on the Bristol Floating Harbour a few yards away from the hotel where he had been addressing the party faithful for an ‘impromptu public walkabout’.

Outside were maybe thirty local Tory activists - proper blue rinse/retired colonels crowd - plus some younger Smith Square goons, being marshalled by Seb Coe. As Hague was ushered onto a kitchen step to address the ‘throng’, the whole group was surrounded/intermingled with around the same number of (or probably more) heckling lefties.

This small bunch of rabidly loyal party hacks was wrapped tightly around a rather short bald man, and encircled by a slightly bigger crowd of hostile antis, on a small bit of pedestrianised pathway hidden from the main road by an ugly hotel, at lunchtime on a weekday afternoon, maybe a hundred yards away from the city centre where thousands of ordinary Bristolians were going about their normal business completely unaware that this shamelessly stage-managed panto was going on (the snap visit hadn't been pre-announced publicly).

And yet the TV cameras were pulled in so tight onscreen that on telly that night it looked like Hague was in the middle of a sea of friendly faces!


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>





That is massive, we really are bordering on a Stalinist media if they ignore that.

can these videos be posted on BBC sites or are they restricted?


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> That is massive, we really are bordering on a Stalinist media if they ignore that.
> 
> can these videos be posted on BBC sites or are they restricted?


It's a public group


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 30, 2016)

i can't be bothered to find / embed tweets, but one or two of today's pictures are doing the rounds with something along the lines of "of course, corbyn only appeals to a small, middle class, london elite"


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2016)

Éoin (@LabourEoin) on Twitter

Some good stuff on Eoin's Twitter.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 30, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>


----------



## JTG (Jul 31, 2016)

coley said:


> Cancel *Hinckley* and HS2 and other multi billion *South Eastern* 'vanity projects'


----------



## miktheword (Jul 31, 2016)

They will probably say that this article is because  The Spectator wants Corbyn to win 



10 reasons why Corbyn’s critics are the worst people in British politics right now | Coffee House


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 31, 2016)

miktheword said:


> They will probably say that this article is because  The Spectator wants Corbyn to win
> 
> 
> 
> 10 reasons why Corbyn’s critics are the worst people in British politics right now | Coffee House


I liked the last sentence "in the land of the bland the ever so slightly principled politician can become king".


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 31, 2016)

miktheword said:


> They will probably say that this article is because  The Spectator wants Corbyn to win
> 
> 
> 
> 10 reasons why Corbyn’s critics are the worst people in British politics right now | Coffee House



Rhetorical question alert!

That article was written in December 2015; you'd have thought _someone_ in the Labour party might have read and digested its contents, yes? But what kind of people, wedded as they are to the 'appearance is all' school of politics, could hear that criticism and ignore every word of it? 
I know, it's the kind of people that think club assets belong to a tiny subset of club members.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

I can't read that cause I'm not a subscriber, but it is brendan O'Neil.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> but it is brendan O'Neil.


The sort of phrase employed when one tries to explain away the questionable antics of, for example, a drunken racist uncle


ETA

I hasten to add I don't have any drunken racist uncles.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

It's more that he's a sort of reverse weather vane. It's like approvingly quoting a Katie Hopkins article


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2016)

Anyone else get a desperate 3am text from Owen Smith ['s campaign]?


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

A friend on Facebook is complaining that they thought it was a booty call, excitedly grabbed their phone then... oh.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Anyone else get a desperate 3am text from Owen Smith ['s campaign]?


My husband and daughter did 
I keep my phone number to myself.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2016)

At least now there's something - of the night - about him.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

I've got an image in my mind of Owen smith stuck in a late night coke fueled wank loop, desperately texting the entire labour party membership list in the hope that someone, somewhere will text back 'yes'.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 31, 2016)

Just checked junk mail; yep, there he is. He says all the right things. It's a pity that he doesn't have the voting record or history of activism to support a single thing he says. Perhaps the Taffia exist in an alternate reality.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've got an image in my mind of Owen smith stuck in a late night coke fueled wank loop, desperately texting the entire labour party membership list in the hope that someone, somewhere will text back 'yes'.


You're far too generous. More like a moment of downtime having completed his late night session of accountancy study for the corporeal undead, simultaneously working an array of grey Nokia 6210s with his gliding, oily tentacles.

</stephenie-meyer>


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> You're far too generous. More like a moment of downtime having completed his late night session of accountancy study for the corporeal undead, simultaneously working an array of grey Nokia 6210s with his gliding, oily tentacles.
> 
> </stephenie-meyer>



The 6210 was a good phone! Don't taint it with other than being an honest, decent phone.


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 31, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> My husband and daughter did
> I keep my phone number to myself.


I got a questionable email from the Smith literature asking if I was going to vote for him. 
I didn't feel the need to reply..


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

how's he got your e-mail addresses?


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 31, 2016)

A 25 quider I helped to realise they could have a say got one from both sides at the same time. 

I got one about JC ages ago and just got the Owen one. I don't know why they are asking me how I intend to vote? The email from both say they are from he party, not the candidate.

I might join Momentum, they don't sound that bad and I'm big enough not to join in phone campaigns if I'm not in the spirit at the time.
I've never been a member of a trot organisation, but I did like having a gawp at some of the more thoughtful monthlies. I even saved a couple of copies of The Leninist. Not trots them lot, love the way it looks like the FT.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

ah ok ta I'm a 25 quidder too and they've not contacted me. Possibly I've not been 'processed' yet though.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Anyone else get a desperate 3am text from Owen Smith ['s campaign]?


 
no, but then i try not to give my mobile number to any organisation - and if a website or something insists on one, they usually get the PAYG mobile that i use very rarely

i would be more than a little bit pissed off if i got woke up at 3 am by something like that...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Anyone else get a desperate 3am text from Owen Smith ['s campaign]?


when I worked it market research we weren't allowed to call anyone past 9pm, I'd complain to the Labour party and to ofcom etc if I got a text like that. Especially if it woke me


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 31, 2016)

Puddy_Tat 'i can't be bothered to find / embed tweets, but one or two of today's pictures are doing the rounds with something along the lines of "of course, corbyn only appeals to a small, middle class, london elite'

I saw one piece saying that a lot of the joiners were stjdents, as if it were a bad thing. I know a wide variety of classes, ethnicity, occupations who joined, including students but id love to know why people sneer at folk for being young and persuing an education. A lot of people who sneer at 'middle class' are middle class themselves, its thus a form of self hstred. Theres a logic in deriding 'middle-class leftie' that anyone who by accident of birth had a relatively lucky start should really be a tory, and that giving a shit for others is a form of treachery


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 31, 2016)

Anyone with a vote for the NEC please understand it is probably more important than the leadership vote now. The NEC will suspend local constituancies it doesn't like and make odd changes to the rules. It isn't glam, it is important. Glad I rejoined as a full member in time to have a vote.

Votes close on the 5th. 

Some of those who know the history of gits in our movement (shits and giggles), know how often we forget the detail that makes all the difference.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> how's he got your e-mail addresses?


From the Labour party database in my (family's) case.


----------



## timeforanother (Jul 31, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Puddy_Tat 'i can't be bothered to find / embed tweets, but one or two of today's pictures are doing the rounds with something along the lines of "of course, corbyn only appeals to a small, middle class, london elite'
> 
> I saw one piece saying that a lot of the joiners were stjdents, as if it were a bad thing. I know a wide variety of classes, ethnicity, occupations who joined, including students but id love to know why people sneer at folk for being young and persuing an education. A lot of people who sneer at 'middle class' are middle class themselves, its thus a form of self hstred. Theres a logic in deriding 'middle-class leftie' that anyone who by accident of birth had a relatively lucky start should really be a tory, and that giving a shit for others is a form of treachery




They refined the terms in the USA. Working class is called middle class.

I'm working class sort-of. I make shit my company sells, a lot of it to the US. I make software. I often go home with a headache because it is difficult. I am one of the few that helps to improve the daft metrics about imports/exports.

I didn't have a union helping me when we all got sacked last time, or when I was forced to work though the night and at weekends. Unison should figure what made Joe Hill tick. Then they should do what he was doing knowing they aren't likely to be shot yet.

I get better pay than my friend at Starbucks, but she doesn't get bullied like that.

I am comfortable in my current job, and they were good when I was sick. I am still being payed what I was 8 years ago.

I'd count myself in the labour aristocracy. With all the shit that implies, with only a little credit for having a decent job. Be nice if I had a house, but my ex needed that to bring up my kids. You don't get a pension in the little companies, or extensions of anerican compaies that apparently are so important.

I thought Thatch was going to decimate the public sector. As it works out I should have got a council job or been a plasterer. People wonder why they can't get STEM graduates? It is because they aren't payed properly and are sneered at. Theses digital marketeers wouldn't know a digit even they have a prostate test.

Bring it on. I have nothing to lose, and making the world a better place is my reward.

I don't have it bad, but it is shit if this is as good as it gets working my arse off for 30 years being creative as well as skilled in my field.

Sod it. I've not tried acid yet.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2016)

A masterpiece of concern trolling here Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer

Does anyone think that Owen 'I am going to 'act' working class by pretending to not know what coffee is' Smith would answer any of his namesake's questions?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> A masterpiece of concern trolling here Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer



TLDR


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> A masterpiece of concern trolling here Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer
> 
> Does anyone think that Owen 'I am going to 'act' working class by pretending to not know what coffee is' Smith would answer any of his namesake's questions?


Having trouble getting past the "me me me me me" bit. Does it stop?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

Article should have started "Labour and the left teeter on the brink of disaster. I'm helping push it over the edge."


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Having trouble getting past the "me me me me me" bit. Does it stop?



Sort of, skip down to the questions. Then it gets more mememe at the end again.

What I can't get over about Jones is that surely Corbyn is what he has been working towards all his life. His parents met in militant, his whole 'brand' has been built on his status as a left of Labour journo and now here he is, backing a no hoper who discovered socialism five minutes ago and would abandon it five minutes after winning the leadership. If you look at what the people who are against Corbyn say about Jones, it isn't nice, they think he has brought the whole situation on himself and should eat the meal he asked for. As someone said upthread, Jones has shit the bed.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Anyone else get a desperate 3am text from Owen Smith ['s campaign]?


A friend got this:


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> A friend got this:
> 
> View attachment 90216



Prolly will get them suspended for abuse lol


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 31, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> A friend got this:
> 
> View attachment 90216



Owen Smith receiving said text:


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

The article he refers to (at a skim) 

In the weeks before Corbyn’s victory, I wrote a long detailed suggested strategy for his leadership to follow.

has a couple of points but looks long and tedious, too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

Weren't they moaning about Corbyn's Stalinist lists when his campaign asked a similar question last week?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> Weren't they moaning about Corbyn's Stalinist lists when his campaign asked a similar question last week?



1. clean bicycle
2. buy cheese
3. set aside area for re-education camps
4. ...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 31, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Owen Smith receiving said text:



Had to be done...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 31, 2016)

Jones sort of does have a point about Corbyn being pretty useless at the media management stuff Blairites were good at.

Thing is though, the PLP are *counting* on Corbyn getting the same treatment as Michael Foot and doing everything in their power to guarantee that, so they can present themselves as 'Labour's only hope' next time around.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 31, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Jones sort of does have a point about Corbyn being pretty useless at the media management stuff Blairites were good at.



A couple of months ago I was telling anyone who would listen that the PLP should be helping Corbyn out with his admittedly shonky media management. 

Having seen the coup in action and the Eagle and Smith leadership campaigns I'm very pleased they left alone.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

I think what with Kinnock and "will the _last_ person to leave Britain please turn _out_ the _lights_" along with Miliband and the bacon sarnie *anyone* leading Labour is going to get pilloried in the press.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 31, 2016)

All that stuff about the coup being managed by sharp Blairite PR firms seems not to be very true. Or if it is, they've put the interns on this one.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2016)

I don't think jones' questions are unreasonable: was his plan to make sure no-one got as far as them with that endless turgid lead up? Talk about effective media strategies...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think jones' questions are unreasonable: was his plan to make sure no-one got as far as them with that endless turgid lead up? Talk about effective media strategies...



Yes I waded through all the turgid stuff to get to one thinking 'yes that's something they should look at' before losing the will to live.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think jones' questions are unreasonable: was his plan to make sure no-one got as far as them with that endless turgid lead up? Talk about effective media strategies...



I agree, but why are they specific to Corbyn? Smith would be better on the media strategy probably, but the rest apply to him as much if not moreso than Corbyn.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think what with Kinnock and "will the _last_ person to leave Britain please turn _out_ the _lights_" along with Miliband and the bacon sarnie *anyone* leading Labour is going to get pilloried in the press.



There'd be a media honeymoon period if Smith won to help him consolidate power, though it probably wouldn't last all the way to a 2020 election.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> There'd be a media honeymoon period if Smith won to help him consolidate power, though it probably wouldn't last all the way to a 2020 election.



It would probably last right up until the Labour right decided to defenestrate him so that they could install one of their own.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2016)

Just before the election he'd be suddenly become responsible for any anti-semitism in the party since the 1990s, for example. And loads of it would be discovered, probably one instance a day all through the election campaign.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It would probably last right up until the Labour right decided to defenestrate him so that they could install one of their own.



Oh I imagine the Labour right would be happy enough to let him stay a while if he wins, he's only been tacking left in an effort to swipe Corbyn backers after all.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I agree, but why are they specific to Corbyn? Smith would be better on the media strategy probably, but the rest apply to him as much if not moreso than Corbyn.


Exactly. The Corbyn media strategy (or lack thereof) does strike me as particularly poor, and I agree that he should have put forward a clearer alternative by now. But all the rest of it is long term trends that Labour has been struggling with for years. Presumably Jones knows this, which means the whole post is quite dishonest.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I agree, but why are they specific to Corbyn? Smith would be better on the media strategy probably, but the rest apply to him as much if not moreso than Corbyn.



Yep. Literally the only thing I've seen from the Labour right/PLP about why they fucked the last election was Tristram Hunt wittering on about needing more flag waving (and definitely not less posh people parachuted into safe Northern seats). Their position isn't mine but there's plenty to criticise Corbyn for. If they were coming up with some coherent ideas and recognition that a lot of the problems the party has aren't his doing then they might get somewhere. All they seem to have is pointing and shouting though.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All that stuff about the coup being managed by sharp Blairite PR firms seems not to be very true. Or if it is, they've put the interns on this one.



A cynic might suggest they're not trying to win, they're trying to make sure the membership's swing to the left is an electoral disaster.


----------



## Sifta (Jul 31, 2016)

Not bad from Mason:

Labour: The Way Ahead — Mosquito Ridge

"As the inimitable @chunkymark — a pro-Corbyn taxi driver and artist — put it in an impromptu watercolour: “It’s not Jeremy Corbyn they’re afraid of, it’s you”."


----------



## Ole (Jul 31, 2016)

Attracting large crowds is a sign of limited electoral appeal. Getting bothered about politics is to behave like a crazed religious cult member. The independent studies that demonstrate media bias against a left wing Labour Party? What independent studies? They don't exist. 

These are some of the things I've learned on the Internet this last fortnight.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2016)

The numbers at the corbyn rallies seem to indicate that Corbyn's support base has increased since the last leadership elections. Take the Leeds event last night as an example, last time he sold out the royal armouries biggest hall, this time he sold it out and had 1500 people outside the place who couldn't get in.

And that's on the same day as he spoke at a huge rally in Hull, another in York and had 1500 people marching in support of him in Newcastle. So it's not like the supporters were being bussed in from surrounding areas too much.

I can't remember any politician in my lifetime being able to draw anything like those crowds to events around the country as Corbyn. 

Someone elsewhere said that Michael Foot was also drawing big crowds but then lost badly.... conveniently missing the role in that played by those who left Labour to form the SDP. Obviously that was Foot's fault, just as Corbyn's being blamed now for potentially splitting the labour party, rather than those who're considering breaking away.


----------



## inva (Jul 31, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Not bad from Mason:
> 
> Labour: The Way Ahead — Mosquito Ridge
> 
> "As the inimitable @chunkymark — a pro-Corbyn taxi driver and artist — put it in an impromptu watercolour: “It’s not Jeremy Corbyn they’re afraid of, it’s you”."


It's very generous of Mason to stop wanking over supermarket self checkouts long enough to deliver the brilliant electoral strategy of 'just lie and promise a ton of stuff to everyone that you won't deliver'. Labour should also emulate Podemos and Syriza. Apparently Podemos, who from what I've heard haven't done very well, prove that Labour doesn't need to worry about swing voters. Or something like that.

I also liked his insight into the composition of the right:


> On the right of British politics are: the elite, their fake-tan flunkies, minders and PR people, and a large suburban middle class which will vote Conservative or Libdem forever, unless a major crisis disturbs them


bizarre 

Best of all, Labour should 'if possible' make an alliance with the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 31, 2016)

About 15-18% of people would trust Corbyn on the economy, think he is providing a decent opposition and think he would make a better PM than May. He has among the lowest personal rating of any Labour or Tory leader since polling began, he has seen the Labour vote pretty much rooted to its core c. 30% vote on national voting intentions, he has done nothing to to appeal beyond the Labour core and his fanbois seem intent on alienating many within that core who do not like him, his flag ship issue, the nuclear deterrent is the wrong side of public polling. I calculated the average polling from Labour for three time tranches

Labour average Election to Dec 2015 30.81395
Laboue average Jan-Brexit 31.66667
Labour average brexit to now 30.8


Contrary to what people will tell you, the Labour vote is hovering around the 30% level with little actual change. It seems as if a significant % of the Labour vote is currently in spite of St Jeremy rather than because of him.

This is the 2015 GE vote:
Party   Leader   MPs   Votes Of total	   % Of total  
Conservative Party	 David Cameron   330   50.8%   *11,300,109*   36.8%  
Labour Party	 Ed Miliband   232   35.7%  * 9,347,324 *   30.5%  
Scottish National Party	 Nicola Sturgeon   56   8.6%   *1,454,436*   4.7%  
Liberal Democrats	 Nick Clegg   8   1.2%  * 2,415,862  * 7.9%  
Democratic Unionist Party	 Peter Robinson   8   1.2%   *184,260 *  0.6%  
Sinn Féin	 Gerry Adams   4   0.6% *  176,232   *0.6%  
Plaid Cymru	 Leanne Wood   3   0.5%* 181,704*   0.6%  
Social Democratic & Labour Party	 Alasdair McDonnell   3   0.5% *  99,809  * 0.3%  
Ulster Unionist Party	 Mike Nesbitt   2   0.3%   *114,935   *0.4%  
UK Independence Party	 Nigel Farage   1   0.2%  * 3,881,099   *12.7%  
Green Party	 Natalie Bennett   1   0.2%   *1,157,613*   3.8%  



Labour got 9.3 million votes, it needs to add something like 2 million voters without driving any voters to other parties, or adding 2 million plus as many more new voters as those who leave for other parties. It needs to do so in marginals where there is little evidence that radical far left politics has much appeal and there is a strong distrust of the current Labour leadership.

You can all hunker down in your echo chamber, smelling each others farts and declaring it Chanel No 5 for the 3 years 9 months. You can sit weeping at the cruelty of the world that does not appreciate the beneficent magnanimity of your holy leader.  But in 2020 you will have to face the electorate. If you have not put together a range of policies that millions who did not trust Labour in the economy in 2015 find convincing, do not alienate people who have doubts about your leaderships patriotism and commitment to defending the nation and its values, have a set of changes to employment legislation that does not scare people into thinking a return to the 70s and a host of other issues that form the complex psychological mix that informs peoples voting then you will have pissed away the one shot the left will get in your self indulgence and vanity and the people of this country will get another 5 years of tory rule.


----------



## inva (Jul 31, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> You can all hunker down in your echo chamber, smelling each others farts and declaring it Chanel No 5 for the 3 years 9 months. You can sit weeping at the cruelty of the world that does not appreciate the beneficent magnanimity of your holy leader.  But in 2020 you will have to face the electorate. If you have not put together a range of policies that millions who did not trust Labour in the economy in 2015 find convincing, do not alienate people who have doubts about your leaderships patriotism and commitment to defending the nation and its values, have a set of changes to employment legislation that does not scare people into thinking a return to the 70s and a host of other issues that form the complex psychological mix that informs peoples voting then you will have pissed away the one shot the left will get in your self indulgence and vanity and the people of this country will get another 5 years of tory rule.


who are you talking to?


----------



## Cid (Jul 31, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> About 15-18% of people would trust Corbyn on the economy, think he is providing a decent opposition and think he would make a better PM than May. He has among the lowest personal rating of any Labour or Tory leader since polling began, he has seen the Labour vote pretty much rooted to its core c. 30% vote on national voting intentions, he has done nothing to to appeal beyond the Labour core and his fanbois seem intent on alienating many within that core who do not like him, his flag ship issue, the nuclear deterrent is the wrong side of public polling. I calculated the average polling from Labour for three time tranches
> 
> Labour average Election to Dec 2015 30.81395
> Laboue average Jan-Brexit 31.66667
> ...




Cheers for making your position clear.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Strange, it took me less time than than you might waste thinking about upgrading to the latest model.



Really? Given I never think about that I doubt that's true![emoji16]


.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> You can all hunker down in your echo chamber, smelling each others farts and declaring it Chanel No 5 for the 3 years 9 months. You can sit weeping at the cruelty of the world that does not appreciate the beneficent magnanimity of your holy leader.  But in 2020 you will have to face the electorate. If you have not put together a range of policies that millions who did not trust Labour in the economy in 2015 find convincing, do not alienate people who have doubts about your leaderships patriotism and commitment to defending the nation and its values, have a set of changes to employment legislation that does not scare people into thinking a return to the 70s and a host of other issues that form the complex psychological mix that informs peoples voting then you will have pissed away the one shot the left will get in your self indulgence and vanity and the people of this country will get another 5 years of tory rule.


and MPs constantly sniping, plotting, leaking and eventually launching a leadership challenge after a failed campaign to force him to resign helps improve this situation how?

I note you don't mention the 300k or so extra members who've joined because of Corbyn, which should add around £12 million a year to the Labour coffers / nearly £50 million by the next election. Might that not help with the election campaign? Along with the potential for huge numbers of extra activists to help with the campaigning work.

Also Milliband took 4 years to unveil any significant policy positions for the election, started out opposing austerity then ended up changing to an austerity light position by the election. Why should corbyn have to have produced full policy proposals within a year of being elected?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 31, 2016)

it's terrible, isn't it. 

corbyn taking the labour party to such depths after the triumphs in the 2010 and 2015 elections...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 31, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Really? Given I never think about that I doubt that's true![emoji16]
> 
> 
> .


FUCK OFF


----------



## Ole (Jul 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> The numbers at the corbyn rallies seem to indicate that Corbyn's support base has increased since the last leadership elections. Take the Leeds event last night as an example, last time he sold out the royal armouries biggest hall, this time he sold it out and had 1500 people outside the place who couldn't get in.
> 
> And that's on the same day as he spoke at a huge rally in Hull, another in York and had 1500 people marching in support of him in Newcastle. So it's not like the supporters were being bussed in from surrounding areas too much.
> 
> ...



I don't think large crowds are necessarily indicative of any general electoral appeal, but they probably show he will win any leadership contest held now with his eyes closed.

The 'argument' the Labour right are making regarding Michael Foot's/Tony Benn's large crowds prior to losing in 1983 is literally a textbook logical fallacy that could be taught to children as an outstanding example of an illogical argument.

The Labour right demonstrably don't believe a word they're saying about the most important task being to keep the Conservatives out of government. They show by their actions, time and time again, that they are more than willing to *put* the Conservatives into government in order to consolidate their power inside the party and take the leadership away from the left.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> The numbers at the corbyn rallies seem to indicate that Corbyn's support base has increased since the last leadership elections. Take the Leeds event last night as an example, last time he sold out the royal armouries biggest hall, this time he sold it out and had 1500 people outside the place who couldn't get in.
> 
> And that's on the same day as he spoke at a huge rally in Hull, another in York and had 1500 people marching in support of him in Newcastle. So it's not like the supporters were being bussed in from surrounding areas too much.
> 
> ...


I love that the coup attempt is having the reverse effect the establishment wanted by creating a surge of active support for Corbyn.

I can't remember any UK politician having this effect either. You generally go to pelt tomatoes at the guys.

The Michael Foot situation is not to be compared straight. Firstly, we didn't have social media then. Secondly, Thatcher had a huge boost from the Falklands conflict. Thirdly, privitisation, market-worshipping, Thatcherist policy may have resonated well in the 1980s, but we are all wiser now. Things like British Rail don't seem like such a bad idea. Nor does the idea of 'society'. Maybe the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Fourthly, while Foot may have been a great intellectual and orator, Corbyn has some utterly exceptional qualities which I doubt Foot had - he has an incredible talent for relating to people and reducing complex matters to simple ones (so much better than appearing obviously 'intellectual'). This shines through despite him maybe a bit rough around the edges and not a slick presenter and however much he might get hammered in PMQs.

Was Michael Foot ever described (however incorrectly) as a 'cult leader'?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I note you don't mention the 300k or so extra members who've joined because of Corbyn,


30,691,680 people voted in 2015. 

Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much. 

Warwick and Leamington (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Conservative Christopher Mark Francis White *24,249* 47.9 +5.4
Labour Lynnette Kelly *17,643 *34.9 -0.5
UKIP Alastair MacBrayne[6] 4,183 8.3 +6.4
Liberal Democrat Haseeb Arif 2,512 5.0 -13.3
Green Azzees Minott 1,994 3.9 +2.1

Labour lost Warwick and Leamington by about 6606 votes. So they need something like 3303 people who voted Tory in '15 to change their mind or a combination of some of those 3303 people to switch plus an larger number to vote Labour than any prompted to move to the Tories. Warwick and Leamington was one of the most marginal seats in 2005, its the kind of seat Labour need to be winning to be in government. 

Either people want Labour to be in government or they just want someone who can get onto the national press to validate their personal beliefs by repeating them from a stage that has national attention. 

May 2020 is coming. The millions of people needed are not reading Urban 75, they are not reading your social media updates, they are not thinking the neoliberal consensus has inhibited the road to socialist nirvana. 

And then their is boundary changes. 
And the SNP\Lab coalition barrier, (you have to look like you will beat the Cons by more than the SNPs number of seats for people not to hesitate over an SNP\Lab government)

People want to play the grown up version of politics in which you actually try to form a big enough coalition of voters you get to form a government, then its time to ditch the conspiracies and hostility and work on a program for government that 11 million people will find acceptable. 

Or you can all just entertain yourself for the next (just short of 4 years) and hurl abuse at everyone who disagrees with you. 

Politics eh. Its all fun and games until suddenly you have to win an election.


----------



## Ole (Jul 31, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 30,691,680 people voted in 2015.
> 
> Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.
> 
> ...



You soft cunt. 'Grown up politics' is people fighting for their livelihoods. Fighting to keep their heads above water. Not selling out workers to get a poxy Labour government.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2016)

ferrelhadley I see you missed the point about the impact on Labour's finances and campaigning capacity from this huge increase in membership.

Last election Milliband aimed to have 4 million conversations - ie 4 million doors knocked by canvassers. If the membership is trebled and that new enthused membership is worked with and trained up this number could also be trebled.

I know in this constituency Labour didn't have the numbers to mount an effective campaign across the entire constituency, their posterboards only made it to around 2/3 of the constituency and they apparently had to resort to paying to have some of their leaflets delivered.

Extra members should equal extra votes come the election if the local parties welcome them in and work with them properly rather than viewing them as some sort of left wing infiltrators and hoping they'll go away soon.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2016)

btw ferrelhadley  in the July IPSO Mori polling Labour were 5% ahead of the tories on 38% to 33% based on all respondents. It was only when they adjusted the figures based on likelihood of voting / whether they voted at the last election that the poll then showed the Tories in a 1% lead.

Corbyn can win by persuading the people to vote who stopped voting entirely after Blair's first election victory. Those figures clearly show that he's appealing to that section of the population, and in sufficient numbers to win an election by a significant margin as long as they can be motivated to get out to the polling station (which a trebbling of the membership should help with).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 1, 2016)

I still reckon he should come out fully in favour of Brexit. Vote winner, believe me.


----------



## Ole (Aug 1, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I still reckon he should come out fully in favour of Brexit. Vote winner, believe me.


I agree that's what he should've done.

Really comical how the Labour right accuse Corbyn of only being in touch with the metropolitan elite, and out of touch with the working-class, while they are the biggest cheerleaders of the EU and attack him for being too tepid in his support for it. Stupid cunts.


----------



## mather (Aug 1, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> You can all hunker down in your echo chamber, smelling each others farts and declaring it Chanel No 5 for the 3 years 9 months. You can sit weeping at the cruelty of the world that does not appreciate the beneficent magnanimity of your holy leader. But in 2020 you will have to face the electorate. If you have not put together a range of policies that millions who did not trust Labour in the economy in 2015 find convincing, do not alienate people who have doubts about your leaderships patriotism and commitment to defending the nation and its values, have a set of changes to employment legislation that does not scare people into thinking a return to the 70s and a host of other issues that form the complex psychological mix that informs peoples voting then you will have pissed away the one shot the left will get in your self indulgence and vanity and the people of this country will get another 5 years of tory rule.



If that is the case and given the fact that the politics of New Labour/Blairites is exactly the same as the Tories, why not give up on Labour altogether and accept perpetual Tory rule?

At least then your rotten politics would have some degree of honesty and consistency to it.


----------



## mather (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> It's very generous of Mason to stop wanking over supermarket self checkouts long enough to deliver the brilliant electoral strategy of 'just lie and promise a ton of stuff to everyone that you won't deliver'. Labour should also emulate Podemos and Syriza. Apparently Podemos, who from what I've heard haven't done very well, prove that Labour doesn't need to worry about swing voters. Or something like that.
> 
> I also liked his insight into the composition of the right:
> 
> ...



Mason makes a fool of himself yet again. I still wonder why this idiot gets so much time from the political left for his half-baked 'ideas'?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 1, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 30,691,680 people voted in 2015.
> 
> Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.
> 
> ...


Go boil ya head ya dullard. Don't you pricks get it? If the plank of wood offered up as Corbyn's challenger wins the leadership contest then I don't give a fuck if labour get in government or not because it makes no difference to me and millions of other people. All I got from labour was war and tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. I don't even get tax credits as I can't get enough hours. Oh but woo minimum wage what a grand fucking policy, worthless when it's wiped out by high rent and the introduction of local housing allowance, another wonderful fucking labour policy. So no I don't give a shit if labour drowns after this because they're nothing to me and never have been. Policies like those put up by Corbyn punch a hole in all this bullshit, they won't make my life grand, they won't have me farting rainbows but it's a start. It's that or business as usual despite what pricks like you wanna say otherwise, I've heard it all before and I'm no longer listening.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2016)

Former economic advisers to Corbyn back rival for Labour leader

BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING Top story on Guardian: People who have been slagging off Corbyn for months continue to slag him off


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 30,691,680 people voted in 2015.
> 
> Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.
> 
> ...


I doubt there are many 'revolutionary Marxists' on here. I'm not a Corbyn supporter or a Labour supporter at all, but I am a bit puzzled that you seem to think you're talking to the people responsible for Labour Party policy (revolutionary Marxists?) and that we ought to be working on a 'programme of government' . I reckon we could get one sorted on this thread though if you like, then maybe we'll email it to Jeremy.

You pompous arse.


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

mather said:


> Mason makes a fool of himself yet again. I still wonder why this idiot gets so much time from the political left for his half-baked 'ideas'?


half baked ideas and the political left are a famous combination tbf

I guess maybe it's similar to why Russell Brand had that spell of popularity a little while ago. If you experience being political as alienation it's a way to feel like you're not on your own. There's people in the media on your side.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 1, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> it's terrible, isn't it.
> 
> corbyn taking the labour party to such depths after the triumphs in the 2010 and 2015 elections...


Yes, it seems there is massive denial about this on the labour right. They lost twice to Shiny Poshboy and his even more unimpressive second in command, Posh Sneer. But they can't ask themselves why. It's much easier to attack Corbyn.

I'd see the value in debating Corbyn's leadership if it wasn't with these weird denialists. There doesn't seem any point in talking to people who, for instance, can't even begin to understand why they lost Scotland, or why constituents of trad labour northern seats are pissed off with them.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 1, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Yes, it seems there is massive denial about this on the labour right. They lost twice to Shiny Poshboy and his even more unimpressive second in command, Posh Sneer. But they can't ask themselves why. It's much easier to attack Corbyn.
> 
> I'd see the value in debating Corbyn's leadership if it wasn't with these weird denialists. There doesn't seem any point in talking to people who, for instance, can't even begin to understand why they lost Scotland, or why constituents of trad labour northern seats are pissed off with them.



Yeah - Its is the gaping hole in their argument. Yet strangely invisible to the media.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 1, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yeah - Its is the gaping hole in their argument. Yet strangely invisible to the media.



A hole that is filled with whinging.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Exactly. The Corbyn media strategy (or lack thereof) does strike me as particularly poor, and I agree that he should have put forward a clearer alternative by now. But all the rest of it is long term trends that Labour has been struggling with for years. Presumably Jones knows this, which means the whole post is quite dishonest.


It's not just a media strategy he's on about though, it's the lack of clear policies and direction.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not just a media strategy he's on about though, it's the lack of clear policies and direction.



He should announce a 5 year plan like a proper commie


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

Ole said:


> I don't think large crowds are necessarily indicative of any general electoral appeal, but they probably show he will win any leadership contest held now with his eyes closed.
> 
> The 'argument' the Labour right are making regarding Michael Foot's/Tony Benn's large crowds prior to losing in 1983 is literally a textbook logical fallacy that could be taught to children as an outstanding example of an illogical argument.
> 
> The Labour right demonstrably don't believe a word they're saying about the most important task being to keep the Conservatives out of government. They show by their actions, time and time again, that they are more than willing to *put* the Conservatives into government in order to consolidate their power inside the party and take the leadership away from the left.


Large crowds might not necessarily correlate to electoral success, but the larger the crowds get, the better the explanations as to why they don't correlate need to be.


----------



## Ole (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not just a media strategy he's on about though, it's the lack of clear policies and direction.



Is it fuck! One minute he's hard left, next minute he's not clearly about anything at all? This is palpable nonsense.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2016)

Tbf, Jones has never complained about Corbyn being hard left.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not just a media strategy he's on about though, it's the lack of clear policies and direction.



Just because they're not appearing very often in the media doesn't mean he hasn't got any policies. A selection:



> The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.
> 
> *Britain's railways should* be renationalised. He is also opposed to the HS2 rail scheme, saying it would turn northern cities into "dormitories for London businesses".
> 
> ...



24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes - BBC News

What else would you like to see?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Just because they're not appearing very often in the media doesn't mean he hasn't got any policies. A selection:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's worse than I thought, returning the Falklands, An allotment for everyone?.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's worse than I thought, returning the Falklands



Yeah - trying to find a negotiated solution that takes both sides' views into account, rather than pointless jingoistic sabre-rattling. What a monster.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's worse than I thought, returning the Falklands, An allotment for everyone?.



Collected by the BBC largely at random, why did you pick on the least important ones? 

How about rent control, higher taxes for the rich, tacking tax evasion/avoidance, renationalizing railways and electricity companies, end to PFI, return to free education and some of the others I listed above. 

Want to withdraw your statement that he has no policies and direction? Or criticize him for having two bikes perhaps?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's worse than I thought, returning the Falklands, An allotment for everyone?.


Yeah giving more space to be in nature and the opportunity to grow a few spuds - what a bastard!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2016)

Two Bikes Corbyn could be a terrible thing to hang on him. Nearly as bad as Two Jags Prescott. That was a false accusation really. One of those jags was his original fairly ancient one that he had owned for years and the second one was his official car provided for his Government job.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 1, 2016)

I think the issue is more one of communicating those policies and building some momentum around them outside of the immediate Corbyn/McDonnell base of support.

On a side note: need a term for this grouping, don't like 'Corbyinsta' etc because that misses the point that these people would be supporting any vaguely honest looking Labour leader who wasn't obviously a neoliberal stooge.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

I'm comfortable with social democrat although a lot of people supporting him might not be.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Collected by the BBC largely at random, why did you pick on the least important ones?


 Do you think a shift like that on the Falklands is not important?. How do you think it would go down with people?.


> How about rent control, higher taxes for the rich, tacking tax evasion/avoidance, renationalizing railways and electricity companies, end to PFI, return to free education and some of the others I listed above.
> 
> Want to withdraw your statement that he has no policies and direction? Or criticize him for having two bikes perhaps?


All nice stuff, but it needs figures, costings etc before it can turn into an actual policy.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think a shift like that on the Falklands is not important?. How do you think it would go down with people?.


It's not nearly as important, to most people, in their daily lives, as most of the other things he's laid out.

It is, however, very useful as a convenient canary for spotting people who like to ignore the broad thrust and focus only on the less consequential issues 


sleaterkinney said:


> All nice stuff, but it needs figures, costings etc before it can turn into an actual policy.


That's an artefact of how we do politics. Most people aren't interested in figures or costings other than as a way of arguing against something they disagree with in their gut. And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments *do* give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the *chancellor, *remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2016)

existentialist said:


> And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments *do* give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the *chancellor, *remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)



Yes. In the whole history of economics as an academic discipline the whole lot of them have pretty much failed to come up with a reliable method for predicting anything, ever. Stuff like economic growth projections is always an educated guess at best or a convenient fiction at worst - that's not just about Osborne although he was particularly shameless about it.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 1, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Two Bikes Corbyn could be a terrible thing to hang on him. Nearly as bad as Two Jags Prescott. That was a false accusation really. One of those jags was his original fairly ancient one that he had owned for years and the second one was his official car provided for his Government job.



At last, we've identified the true victim of New Labour.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think a shift like that on the Falklands is not important?. How do you think it would go down with people?.



I dunno, I'd not seen the idea of a joint administration before. Sounds a fair solution to a number of rocks a couple of thousand miles away.



> All nice stuff, but it needs figures, costings etc before it can turn into an actual policy.



Indeed and (bearing in mind what existentialist just said) it's what I'd like to see, too. But they still show direction and policies, which you claimed he didn't have. Redefining what you accept as a policy is a bit slippery. I have a policy of going for a walk every day. I've never costed that but it's worked out well so far.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I dunno, I'd not seen the idea of a joint administration before. Sounds a fair solution to a number of rocks a couple of thousand miles away.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed and (bearing in mind what existentialist just said) it's what I'd like to see, too. But they still show direction and policies, which you claimed he didn't have. Redefining what you accept as a policy is a bit slippery. I have a policy of going for a walk every day. I've never costed that but it's worked out well so far.


And - this is something we've forgotten in the last 30 yers of politics, in my view - sometimes things have to be done because they're the Right Thing To Do, not because the amortised rate of return on the yield, projected over 25 years, demonstrates a 0.013% upshift.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 1, 2016)

I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said somewhere he's going to open policymaking to the party membership, so more people can have a say on it. Plenty of time (4 years) until the next election to sort it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's not nearly as important, to most people, in their daily lives, as most of the other things he's laid out.
> 
> It is, however, very useful as a convenient canary for spotting people who like to ignore the broad thrust and focus only on the less consequential issues


 We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.

Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .



> That's an artefact of how we do politics. Most people aren't interested in figures or costings other than as a way of arguing against something they disagree with in their gut. And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments *do* give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the *chancellor, *remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)


 it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

I'd have thought that rent controls are the policy that would have single most significant effect on peoples' lives and that would affect peoples' finances much more than it would on *national* finances. Has to be beneficial, though: increasing the money available to people, along with (presumably) a drop in house prices.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.



How does taxing the rich and tackling tax avoidance and evasion cost money? And quantitative easing? How does that cost money? 

(Admittedly it used to be called 'printing money' when I was young and frowned on but we know it's a *good thing*.)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2016)

whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.
> 
> Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .
> 
> it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.


Do they?
What about the Tory record?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to



Yes, the repudiation of PFI as odious debt should be a priority.


----------



## agricola (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'd have thought that rent controls are the policy that would have single most significant effect on peoples' lives and that would affect peoples' finances much more than it would on *national* finances. Has to be beneficial, though: increasing the money available to people, along with (presumably) a drop in house prices.



Rent controls would be a bad idea, building a lot of new council / social housing would be a lot better one - you would achieve the same result as rent controls (lowering rental costs, and possibly lowering house prices) whilst also creating jobs and creating assets that could be sold (perhaps as some kind of right to buy for long-term tenants, ie: pay slightly more over 30 years and they give you the house at the end) further down the line.


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, the repudiation of PFI as odious debt should be a priority.


does the idea of odious debt have any legal standing?


----------



## agricola (Aug 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to



PFI needs to be got rid of, but there is a good case for nationalizing "bad" debt - at least in terms of home ownership.  If (when) the banks go to the wall again, the state really should look to have their mortgage books off them in exchange for a bailout; you could probably prevent a lot of harm to people as well as reduce government costs (in terms of having to pay the costs associated with people who have been foreclosed on), whilst also bringing cash in.  It would also (in terms of the buy-to-let crowd, who might be at risk when things go wrong) be quite a good way of getting housing stock quickly.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.
> 
> Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .
> 
> it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.


It's funny, you know, because for most of my adult life I simply swallowed this notion that Labour == tax'n'spend. And it was only, during the life of the last Parliament, when I started wondering how bad a Government would have to be to be worse than Osborne's chancellorship, and did a bit of digging around, that I discovered that, while Tories are very good at telling the fiscal responsibility story, they're actually pretty fucking awful at making the books balance, quite apart from the horrors they inflict on the most vulnerable in society. Not that I'd necessarily excuse those horrors if they WERE balancing the books, but at the moment we seem to be having very much the worst of both worlds.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> does the idea of odious debt have any legal standing?



Yes, in the context of PFI  I have no idea but I imagine no.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 1, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's funny, you know, because for most of my adult life I simply swallowed this notion that Labour == tax'n'spend. And it was only, during the life of the last Parliament, when I started wondering how bad a Government would have to be to be worse than Osborne's chancellorship, and did a bit of digging around, that I discovered that, while Tories are very good at telling the fiscal responsibility story, they're actually pretty fucking awful at making the books balance ...



Which is slightly scary when you realise it means that neither of the parties that have held power for the last 100 years, whatever it is they seek to do with that power, are actually any good at all at controlling what happens in the economy. As I get older and especially obviously since 2007/8, the whole idea of 'the economy' as a thing which exists and has any coherent rules or patterns seems more and more like smoke and mirrors. The whole thing's an illusion.  I'm hope I'm not going to be full-on unabomber survivalist material by the time I'm in my 50s


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes, in the context of PFI  I have no idea but I imagine no.


can't see him going down that road anyway frankly. although it's interesting Corbyn's said if I remember rightly that he would as a policy make the entire NHS state owned again. Does anyone know would that extend to the actual buildings and things, and if so what would happen with PFI and so on? The buildings in those cases are privately owned is that right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 30,691,680 people voted in 2015.
> 
> Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.
> 
> ...



Corbyn isn't a revolutionary Marxist, he's a Parliamentarian and a proponent of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics. The vast majority of his supporters are not revolutionary Marxists, they're proponents of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics. The vast majority of posters on Urban75 are not revolutionary Marxists, they are similarly proponents of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics.  

Try to contain your hysteria a little better, please.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

mather said:


> Mason makes a fool of himself yet again. I still wonder why this idiot gets so much time from the political left for his half-baked 'ideas'?



Because he's saying stuff that people want to hear, regardless of whether or not what he's saying has any political utility.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy


That's an old Tory narrative. If anything, history shows us that the Tories have an exceedingly poor record on managing the nation's economy. For example: each time they've left office, they've left incoming Labour governments with massive balance of trade deficits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> I doubt there are many 'revolutionary Marxists' on here. I'm not a Corbyn supporter or a Labour supporter at all, but I am a bit puzzled that you seem to think you're talking to the people responsible for Labour Party policy (revolutionary Marxists?) and that we ought to be working on a 'programme of government' . I reckon we could get one sorted on this thread though if you like, then maybe we'll email it to Jeremy.
> 
> You pompous arse.



He doesn't seem to get that if you favour the Parliamentary system of politics - as the vast majority of Urbanites do - then you can't possibly be a revolutionary Marxist!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Which is slightly scary when you realise it means that neither of the parties that have held power for the last 100 years, whatever it is they seek to do with that power, are actually any good at all at controlling what happens in the economy. As I get older and especially obviously since 2007/8, the whole idea of 'the economy' as a thing which exists and has any coherent rules or patterns seems more and more like smoke and mirrors. The whole thing's an illusion.  I'm hope I'm not going to be full-on unabomber survivalist material by the time I'm in my 50s


If you go out in the rain without a raincoat, you'll get wet. There's a rule. And it rains more in winter than summer, probably. There's a pattern. Now, go control the weather.

The specific failure of a century of politicians, within the system's parameters anyway, isn't failure to control the economy per se. It's a failure to roll with the punches because it doesn't suit their narrative or ideology. Failure to extract the most advantage or greatest shelter from the inevitable but partly-predictable chaos. So for example not preventing the European debt crisis per se, but the lack of regulation and economic diversification that made its domestic effects worse. Or trying to apply austerity, as befits the Tory ideology, in a time when that was counterproductive to growth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said somewhere he's going to open policymaking to the party membership, so more people can have a say on it. Plenty of time (4 years) until the next election to sort it.



That would be "re-open policy-making to the party membership", as until about '99, the wider membership could introduce ideas and data at Conference - before the Lord of the Flies started neutering the party as an effective policy forum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.



Not quite.

Go have a look at the data for the last 50 years or so. Over half the stuff Labour are traditionally blamed for - several devaluations, the IMF loans, etc - had their roots either in the failures of Previous Tory governments, or in international crises over which they had no control.

The problem isn't Labour, it's that lazy people accept Establishment economic narratives unquestioningly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How does taxing the rich and tackling tax avoidance and evasion cost money? And quantitative easing? How does that cost money?
> 
> (Admittedly it used to be called 'printing money' when I was young and frowned on but we know it's a *good thing*.)



It's *controlled* printing of money though, which is slightly less awful.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That's an old Tory narrative. If anything, history shows us that the Tories have an exceedingly poor record on managing the nation's economy. For example: each time they've left office, they've left incoming Labour governments with massive balance of trade deficits.


Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2016)

the perception of tory economic competence is also linked to how wealthy the buggers are individually. Must know something about money right? Yep, how to inherit it and bank it offshore


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> If you go out in the rain without a raincoat, you'll get wet. There's a rule. And it rains more in winter than summer, probably. There's a pattern. Now, go control the weather.
> 
> The specific failure of a century of politicians, within the system's parameters anyway, isn't failure to control the economy per se. It's a failure to roll with the punches because it doesn't suit their narrative or ideology. Failure to extract the most advantage or greatest shelter from the inevitable but partly-predictable chaos. So for example not preventing the European debt crisis per se, but the lack of regulation and economic diversification that made its domestic effects worse. Or trying to apply austerity, as befits the Tory ideology, in a time when that was counterproductive to growth.



I guess it's whether or not the weather analogy holds that I'm increasingly unsure about. _Is _The Economy a thing independent of us, about which all we can do is try to predict appropriate responses based on past patterns? Because when I say 'controlling' maybe I don't mean any more/different than 'managing', which is what you'd need to do whether you're in control of the overall system or not. But then, have _any _ideologies resulted in an effective approach in practice to the economy, in which people prosper but not at the expense of others? I increasingly feel that the relative certainties I might have once had about how it _should _be approached might be as unreliable and ideology-based as the approaches of politicians which I've always condemned.

Maybe all this uncertainty is just part of the ageing process...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.



Yes, _New_ Labour did that by following the Tories lead. They were Thatcher's greatest achievement remember.

Oh, and on borrowing there's this:











So Thatch/Major borrowed more on average, and Blair even ran a surplus (not that I think running deficits is necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary it may be a good thing at times).


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Go have a look at the data for the last 50 years or so. Over half the stuff Labour are traditionally blamed for - several devaluations, the IMF loans, etc - had their roots either in the failures of Previous Tory governments, or in *international crises over which they had no control.*
> 
> The problem isn't Labour, it's that lazy people accept Establishment economic narratives unquestioningly.


It's unnecessary to give Labour a free ride here. Any Tory-led criticisms can be quashed with the valid retort that what Labour did is exactly what the Tories would have done, and indeed did do previously, but claiming it was inescapable misfortune is more than just a step too far, it's a tumble down several sets of stairs.

They couldn't stop some of the named events, which are in large part the product of global and irrational sentimental markets, but again they had a degree of control over the domestic magnitude. The events that made up the globally-repeated mess of subprime mortgages was probably beyond control, but that we then had to bail out RBS et al after a decade of Labour government is their failure.

Prudence might have been unpopular, and had its own costs, but there was ample opportunity to identify and mitigate the looming crisis.

So you can't get out of Labour complicity in the historical mismanagement of the economy. In fact, the best thing for contemporary Labour to do, in the face of both reputation and reality, may be to openly admit that, whilst proposing a significant detour from the well-trodden path to failure, and not by way of 'an end to boom and bust' either. I wonder if anyone is well placed to do that?


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.



If you're saying it's because of ideological differences that that happened under the last Labour government, well that Labour government's ideological position was barely distinguishable from Thatcherist Tory ideology. If you're saying it was a managerial problem, virtually all of the key personnel have changed since then. So what are you suggesting the implications are for who can or can't be trusted on the economy _now_?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.


Rubbish. What got the banks into that mess was the cynical slackening of controls on their activities that was perpetrated by the previous Tory government. Admittedly, New Labour helped nothing (and I note your willingness to elide the very-different neoliberal New Labour approach with Corbyn's anything-but-neoliberal approach when it suits you), but the ball was already rolling before they took power.

Your parroting of Tory cant, aimed at ignorant voters and loyal followers, says a lot more about you than what you're criticising.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the perception of tory economic competence is also linked to how wealthy the buggers are individually. Must know something about money right? Yep, how to inherit it and bank it offshore


That's _exactly_ it. The Tories have been shockingly incompetent in power, they rely on their personal wealth to project competence.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 1, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yes, _New_ Labour did that by following the Tories lead. They were Thatcher's greatest achievement remember.
> 
> Oh, and on borrowing there's this:
> 
> ...



Thatcher and Major borrowed during recessions and headed towards a surplus as the country emerged from recessions. Blair committed to stick with Tory spending plans post-election to help reassure voters. What he (and Brown) should have done is achieve a surplus before 2006, then the highest bars on the graph in financial crisis would have been at the same height as previous recessions.

^^ This is the narrative that was came up repeatedly during the 2015 election and is big reason why Labour lost imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2016)

Amazing to hear that the Labour Party were in control of the global economy since the mid-70s and that it was they who helped foster a massive increase in the global mobility of capital with its concomitant fincialisation and imposed conditions favourable to the same across pretty much every state and economy that plays a role in the global economy whilst enforcing crippling debt across those states that didn't in order to draw them into that economy as defenceless victims of that newly mobile capital. Always learn something new on here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's unnecessary to give Labour a free ride here. Any Tory-led criticisms can be quashed with the valid retort that what Labour did is exactly what the Tories would have done, and indeed did do previously, but claiming it was inescapable misfortune is more than just a step too far, it's a tumble down several sets of stairs.
> 
> They couldn't stop some of the named events, which are in large part the product of global and irrational sentimental markets, but again they had a degree of control over the domestic magnitude. The events that made up the globally-repeated mess of subprime mortgages was probably beyond control, but that we then had to bail out RBS et al after a decade of Labour government is their failure.
> 
> ...



Hence my not absolving Labour, but merely commenting that "over half" wasn't *directly* their fault.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

That's excellent, they can go out to the voters and say it wasn't us, it was the Tories that did it!.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.


1. You mean to tell me that the Tories wouldn't have bailed out the banks? Come off it. 2. You're still pursuing the establishment narrative that the Tories have a better record on the economy, yet there is nothing to even remotely suggest that they're better. As VP says, Labour governments have often had to clear up the mess left behind by the Tories. 3. The only person who's "sticking their head in the sand" is you. Why? Because you keep repeating the same old tropes and myths.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's excellent, they can go out to the voters and say it wasn't us, it was the Tories that did it!.


I expect that's exactly what some media-obsessed neoliberal New Labour operation would do, yes.

One of the primary appeals of Corbyn is that he at least gives the appearance of being a great deal more principled, whatever you might happen to think of those principles.

Much as Thatcher, though mad and evil, at least stuck to the majority of her evil principles, unlike, say, David Cameron, whose principles were as flexible as the jaws of the pig's head he porked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's excellent, they can go out to the voters and say it wasn't us, it was the Tories that did it!.



No, because the narrative - the one you regurgitated - is so strong that the blame, however much it is deserved, is now fixed.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> If you go out in the rain without a raincoat, you'll get wet. There's a rule. And it rains more in winter than summer, probably. There's a pattern. Now, go control the weather.
> 
> The specific failure of a century of politicians, within the system's parameters anyway, isn't failure to control the economy per se. It's a failure to roll with the punches because it doesn't suit their narrative or ideology. Failure to extract the most advantage or greatest shelter from the inevitable but partly-predictable chaos. So for example not preventing the European debt crisis per se, but the lack of regulation and economic diversification that made its domestic effects worse. Or trying to apply austerity, as befits the Tory ideology, in a time when that was counterproductive to growth.


I agree with this but what I would emphasise is that the economy, like the weather, is essentially chaotic.  Like the way that weather is made up of a million small moving pieces, the economy is made up of an awful lot of individual segments that each have their own drivers that feed into and are fed back from other drivers for other segments.  On top of that, it has shocks that have no predicable factor and those shocks have a chaotic impact.

This is why it's preposterous to view economics as anything inherently scientific in nature, or to think that you can have experts in economic prediction.  You can't set up repeatable or controllable tests (necessary for science) and you don't get rapid and clear feedback loops from prediction (necessarily for expertise). 

Not sure where we go with that, but it does mean that when somebody predicts that lever A will cause consequence B, we should be _extremely_ sceptical that they can make such a claim except in the most straightforward of circumstances.  Lever A causes consequence A1 but that causes further consequences B1 to B100, which have chaotic interactions with each other and the result is that Brexit is predicted to cause a stock market crash but actually sees a stock market rally.



sleaterkinney said:


> Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a  Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.


When precisely the disaster hits is purely a matter of luck.  What is done about the disaster is what a government can be judged by, including the mitigations they had in place to limit the damage and improve the result.

The mitigation to the 2008 problems _would_ have been very tight banking regulations.  Their absence can be primarily laid at the door of the Tories that took them away.  I also blame Labour for not putting them straight back in place, but that doesn't mean I let the Tories off the hook.

Fundamentally, Tory governments tend to be _terrible_ at managing the economy because they are ideologically driven towards free market fundamentalism, supply-side management and trickle-down economics -- three things shown time and again to be nonsense both theoretically and in practice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Rubbish. What got the banks into that mess was the cynical slackening of controls on their activities that was perpetrated by the previous Tory government. Admittedly, New Labour helped nothing (and I note your willingness to elide the very-different neoliberal New Labour approach with Corbyn's anything-but-neoliberal approach when it suits you), but the ball was already rolling before they took power.
> 
> Your parroting of Tory cant, aimed at ignorant voters and loyal followers, says a lot more about you than what you're criticising.



I'd say it was perpetrated by the previous Tory government, but *perpetuated* by New Labour, through their wanting to send that "intensely relaxed about wealth" message.


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

kabbes said:


> This is why it's preposterous to view Fundamentally, Tory governments tend to be _terrible_ at managing the economy because they are ideologically driven towards free market fundamentalism, supply-side management and trickle-down economics -- three things shown time and again to be nonsense both theoretically and in practice.


no they're not.
and whatever economics Labour governments subscribe to are also nonsense in theory and in practice.

amazingly it seems like everyone is terrible at managing the economy. I wonder why?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> no they're not.


Er, yes they are.  It's the fundamental tenets of Conservatism.  In what way do you say they're not?


> and whatever economics Labour governments subscribe to are also nonsense in theory and in practice.


So you don't actually _know_ whatever economics Labour governments subscribe to, and yet you _know_ they are nonsense in theory and practice?  Clever!



> amazingly it seems like everyone is terrible at managing the economy. I wonder why?


Because of the reasons I described in the part of my post that you deleted.


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Er, yes they are.  It's the fundamental tenets of Conservatism.  In what way do you say they're not?


nobody bothers with tenets. they've been Keynesian consensus types when it's suited. they're certainly not free market fundamentalists - that's not what capital wants and it's not want they want, whatever stuff they may come out with.


> So you don't actually _know_ whatever economics Labour governments subscribe to, and yet you _know_ they are nonsense in theory and practice?  Clever!


ah but it's even cleverer than that, I know that what they subscribe to has changed over time, hence why I said whatever - as in, they've all turned out to be nonsense in the end.


> Because of the reasons I described in the part of my post that you deleted.


could be, I didn't read that part sorry


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

great days


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd say it was perpetrated by the previous Tory government, but *perpetuated* by New Labour, through their wanting to send that "intensely relaxed about wealth" message.


So they can share in a little bit of the blame then.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2016)

All this stuff is subject to the points people made about that Owen Jones article isn't it - it's true to say there is a lot of convincing Labour needs to do on the economy I think. But to argue that the answer to that is to get rid of Corbyn and return to people who were actually directly associated with the response to the crash (and if Owen Smith wasn't you know his cabinet would be made up of people who were) is a strange one to say the least.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

agricola said:


> Rent controls would be a bad idea,



Why? On the one side you've got reducing the insane rents for a few million people, many of whom are in real difficulties because of them.

On the other side you're reducing unearned profits from people who paid very little for the houses - so nearly all profit once you've got a couple of people in a house. On a sliding scale of profit down to people who've bought at the height of the market - many of whom I presume will be buy to let. Investments can go down as well as up.



> building a lot of new council / social housing would be a lot better one - you would achieve the same result as rent controls (lowering rental costs, and possibly lowering house prices) whilst also creating jobs and creating assets that could be sold (perhaps as some kind of right to buy for long-term tenants, ie: pay slightly more over 30 years and they give you the house at the end) further down the line.



Yep house building too, but if you're going to do it on a huge scale then a lot of greenbelt will go.

And building new houses won't necessarily bring rents down. Houses aren't simple supply and demand. The huge house price increases we've had have come from inflationary bubbles, not sudden drops in supply.

As an aside, one point of concern for me is who's going to build the houses. I'm hoping Corbyn won't be like the EU which seemed to just throw money at the big companies for infrastructure projects. I think we need (properly managed) co-operatives and similar to spread the money more widely.


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> All this stuff is subject to the points people made about that Owen Jones article isn't it - it's true to say there is a lot of convincing Labour needs to do on the economy I think. But to argue that the answer to that is to get rid of Corbyn and return to people who were actually directly associated with the response to the crash (and if Owen Smith wasn't you know his cabinet would be made up of people who were) is a strange one to say the least.


but according to the polls at least, many more people currently think the Tories who are also directly associated with the response to the crash to be more credible on the economy than Corbyn. So there is a logic to seeing Smith, broadly representing a continuation of that, as an answer to this problem (although god help them if he really is their answer) and that problem is one that Corbyn/Labour are going to have to find a way past.

It's quite possible I suppose to think that Smith would be shit on the economy but at the same time to think that Corbyn would be shitter, for instance.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2016)

The difference between labour and tory on budget - tories no better than labour - marginally worse up  to 2008 I'd have thought.





Deficit, national debt and government borrowing - how has it changed since 1946?

(I'm presuming these allow for inflation).


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> but according to the polls at least, many more people currently think the Tories who are also directly associated with the response to the crash to be more credible on the economy than Corbyn. So there is a logic to seeing Smith, broadly representing a continuation of that, as an answer to this problem (although god help them if he really is their answer) and that problem is one that Corbyn/Labour are going to have to find a way past.
> 
> It's quite possible I suppose to think that Smith would be shit on the economy but at the same time to think that Corbyn would be shitter, for instance.



Sure - I'm not trying to argue that Corbyn is necessarily better, or will be more popular, just that those questions still exist if he's replaced by someone else. And there's nothing coming out about how they do it, they seem to think that replacing him will suddenly make them credible, or 'electable'. And they're totally wrong as far as I can see.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The difference between labour and tory on budget - tories no better than labour - marginally worse up  to 2008 I'd have thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not a meaningful measure that one on its own. Measuring the deficit as a percentage of GDP is the way to go. I mean a thousand pound debt for me would be a sign of real trouble, but a thousand pound debt for Bill Gates wouldn't cause much loss of sleep.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The difference between labour and tory on budget - tories no better than labour - marginally worse up  to 2008 I'd have thought.
> 
> Deficit, national debt and government borrowing - how has it changed since 1946?
> 
> (I'm presuming these allow for inflation).


They don't account for inflation. So as you move towards the LHS, you need to imagine the charts stretching more and more.

On the face of it, though, Blair-era Brown inherited something that was travelling in the 'right' direction, and gradually reversed the trend, only rescued by Osborne. So really only something to be used against Labour.

I say 'right' because that whole argument takes place on someone else's terms, where deficit automatically equals bad.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> So they can share in a little bit of the blame then.


Because blame solves everything


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Sure - I'm not trying to argue that Corbyn is necessarily better, or will be more popular, just that those questions still exist if he's replaced by someone else. And there's nothing coming out about how they do it, they seem to think that replacing him will suddenly make them credible, or 'electable'. And they're totally wrong as far as I can see.


it probably would make them look more credible. Smith at least has the dubious advantage of virtually nobody knowing who he is or what he stands for, whereas Corbyn has a particular problem on the issue.

And it's not surprising that it should be that way, given that all comentators will I imagine pretty much agree that Smith is more credible, his parliamentary party will agree he's more credible, even the Tories will probably agree he's more credible, and only some easily smeared lefties will disagree. Corbyn won't get a fair hearing to develop credibility in the usual way and maybe people wouldn't think him credible in any case, I don't know. On the other hand, it's potentially early days before a general election and Labour is in the middle of a factional dispute playing out in the national media so I'm not sure it's really possible for Corbyn to look all that strong policy-wise until that's resolved anyway.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I say 'right' because that whole argument takes place on someone else's terms, where deficit automatically equals bad.



That's true; there's an argument to be made that running a surplus can actually cause a recession.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Go have a look at the data for the last 50 years or so. Over half the stuff Labour are traditionally blamed for - several devaluations, the IMF loans, etc - had their roots either in the failures of Previous Tory governments, or in international crises over which they had no control.
> 
> The problem isn't Labour, it's that lazy people accept Establishment economic narratives unquestioningly.


The problem isn't Labour *or *the tories; it's the totality of their combined macro-economic strategy post 1973 which has been a shared project.

As this graph for the US economy illustrates, very nearly all OECD states attempted to compensate for the neoliberal divergence between returns to capital & labour by stimulating first inflation, then public debt and finally private debt. Irrespective of which particular party of capital held office, this was the script followed on behalf of FinCap.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> That's true; there's an argument to be made that running a surplus can actually cause a recession.


Even simpler than that - any good capitalist understands 'speculate to accumulate'.

Or the only slightly more nuanced tactic of borrowing from someone who will never be in a position to demand repayment


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said somewhere *he's going to open policymaking to the party membership, so more people can have a say on it*. Plenty of time (4 years) until the next election to sort it.



He's not even prepared to take responsibility for coming up with his own policies, the monster !!1!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 1, 2016)

kabbes said:


> <snip>
> 
> Fundamentally, Tory governments tend to be _terrible_ at managing the economy because they are ideologically driven towards free market fundamentalism, supply-side management and trickle-down economics -- three things shown time and again to be nonsense both theoretically and in practice.



I think it would be a very good thing for any progressive version of Labour to focus on getting this message across to the general public.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think it would be a very good thing for any progressive version of Labour to focus on getting this message across to the general public.


Yep, and continue to identify the ideology, processes and impacts of neoliberalism in concrete terms as the source of working people's problems. The fact that the many vermin have attempted to close down discourse about neoliberalism by casting the term as the habitat of conspiraloons is proof that Corbyn is on to something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

inva said:


> amazingly it seems like everyone is terrible at managing the economy. I wonder why?



Because management is inimical to the function of a free market economy, and even a mixed economy is a difficult beast to manage, because of inherent tensions between different modes of operation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> So they can share in a little bit of the blame then.



I haven't said they shouldn't.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2016)

The media can't ignore this, can they?


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because management is inimical to the function of a free market economy, and even a mixed economy is a difficult beast to manage, because of inherent tensions between different modes of operation.


its not inimical in the way Tories mean the free market. they love a bit of management.

anyway its capitalism and you can't manage away crisis


----------



## existentialist (Aug 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> The media can't ignore this, can they?



Yep. They can.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> The media can't ignore this, can they?




Nice wide shot to make sure the crowd looks smaller.

Cunts.


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 1, 2016)

Really powerful stuff today from Corbyn. "Rip-off Britain".

This is such a dangerous narrative for the establishment. We have to have austerity, 'live within our means', look after the 'wealth creators'... of course we cannot have suggestions that the people themselves are actually wealth creators and they are being increasingly stolen from...


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> The media can't ignore this, can they?



I was wondering where you'd got to. Can't have big crowd shots all over twitter without you demanding why the media aren't covering it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2016)

Anyway, this is an excellent response to jones' questions.

Questions one Jeremy Corbyn supporter tries to address (for Owen Jones) | Wounded Thinker


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2016)

I don't know if my computer is set up wrongly but I see no images at all in treelover's recent posts. 
somebody please advise


----------



## inva (Aug 1, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't know if my computer is set up wrongly but I see no images at all in treelover's recent posts.
> somebody please advise


are you running the ghostery extension and is it blocking facebook social plugin or something like that? if so, try unblocking it and reload the page.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2016)

There aren't any, just a video from Liverpool this evening of corbo addressing a rally of about 10,000 people


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> There aren't any, just a video from Liverpool this evening of corbo addressing a rally of about 10,000 people


There is no video on my page.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2016)

TL only posts stuff from facebook, I dunno if you'd have problems seeing content from there?


----------



## fnord (Aug 1, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



You're getting your news from the wrong sources.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Anyway, this is an excellent response to jones' questions.
> 
> Questions one Jeremy Corbyn supporter tries to address (for Owen Jones) | Wounded Thinker


Probably the most reasonable and clear headed assessment I've read from anyone regarding all this. I wish I could put it like that because virtually everything he says is what I think only I'm far too angry to be so calm about it but I'm glad there's someone like that who can be calm because it dismisses the notion that all of Corbyn's supporters are bullies etc.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2016)

Immense turnout


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 2, 2016)

Four times Owen Smith has made sexist comments

I may be slow on the uptake, but who with the PLP decided it would be a good idea to put OS up for leadership? 

I've just read an article about his 'gaffes' in the Statesman, and it seems to me his political career has essentially steering himself to one embarrament to another - a bit like Joe Biden, but less endearing.

My point is that, despite it all, somebody in the PLP went "Right, we need some one who'll bring the part together, enhance our ability to win votes, and ultimately win us the election - I know, we'll get the bloke who used to on the Today programme."


Also, where the fuck has Hilary Benn gone?
I've seen more of Farrage since the 'Coup'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 2, 2016)

I think Benn and the other 'heirs apparent' are staying the fuck out of it while their mates try to orchestrate an electoral disaster to bring these inconvenient popular moves to the left to an end.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 2, 2016)

Don't know if this has already been posted but this is in my opinion is a far more perceptive and wider reaching analysis by John  Cruddas than the Owen Jones article. 

The mortal threat to Labour


----------



## kabbes (Aug 2, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Don't know if this has already been posted but this is in my opinion is a far more perceptive and wider reaching analysis by John  Cruddas than the Owen Jones article.
> 
> The mortal threat to Labour


Eugh, wall o' text.  The man needs to learn to use paragraphs.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Don't know if this has already been posted but this is in my opinion is a far more perceptive and wider reaching analysis by John  Cruddas than the Owen Jones article.
> 
> The mortal threat to Labour


I really don't think it is very perceptive to claim that "The closest historical parallel with this situation lies not in Westminster but in Berlin in 1918..."

And subbing his piece "*The party is losing touch with the working class..", *Cruddas then appears to endorse the leadership candidate committed to blocking Brexit and insisting on a 2nd ratifying referendum. 

Wank.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Eugh, wall o' text.  The man needs to learn to use paragraphs.


Too dense; didn't read: Corbyn is proto-Hitler.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Eugh, wall o' text.  The man needs to learn to use paragraphs.


He did, whoever took that from the FT doesn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I really don't think it is very perceptive to claim that "The closest historical parallel with this situation lies not in Westminster but in Berlin in 1918..."
> 
> And subbing his piece "*The party is losing touch with the working class..", *Cruddas then appears to endorse the leadership candidate committed to blocking Brexit and insisting on a 2nd ratifying referendum.
> 
> Wank.


my understanding was that sub-editors were employed to do the er subbing while journalists and other authors wrote the articles. is jon cruddas now a subbie at the financial times (famously found btw by that great chancer and fraudster horatio bottomley)?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> my understanding was that sub-editors were employed to do the er subbing while journalists and other authors wrote the articles. is jon cruddas now a subbie at the financial times (famously found btw by that great chancer and fraudster horatio bottomley)?


Yes; I wasn't concentrating enough...missed that it was lifted from the FT...thought it was his own/sanctioned blog.
Anyways...the same criticism stands from the actual text; Cruddas says that  "It is telling that as the working class reasserted the primacy of parliament by voting to Leave..." and then appears to endorse Owen '2nd referendum' Smith.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes; I wasn't concentrating enough...missed that it was lifted from the FT...thought it was his own/sanctioned blog.
> Anyways...the same criticism stands from the actual text; Cruddas says that  "It is telling that as the working class reasserted the primacy of parliament by voting to Leave..." and then appears to endorse Owen '2nd referendum' Smith.


don't get me wrong, i think cruddas is a cunt: but let's hang him for his mistakes and not the ft's.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't get me wrong, i think cruddas is a cunt: but let's hang him for his mistakes and not the ft's.


Yes; I presume the copy is his, though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes; I presume the copy is his, though?


don't care, i wouldn't read anything he is supposed to have written anyway.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't care, i wouldn't read anything he is supposed to have written anyway.


Right oh.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> The media can't ignore this, can they?



I can see Lime Street station in the background. Ah, memories...


----------



## belboid (Aug 2, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Don't know if this has already been posted but this is in my opinion is a far more perceptive and wider reaching analysis by John  Cruddas than the Owen Jones article.
> 
> The mortal threat to Labour


Wow, laughably bad. The worst Blue Labourite nonsense, using falsehoods as evidence and wild speculation in place of insight. The lack of paragraphs was probably the most interesting thing about it


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

belboid said:


> Wow, laughably bad. The worst Blue Labourite nonsense, using falsehoods as evidence and wild speculation in place of insight. The lack of paragraphs was probably the most interesting thing about it


they should have taken a screenshot from the ft and used their layout.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Right oh.


i made the mistake of reading something by him once, and in the famous phrase i won't get fooled again


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i made the mistake of reading something by him once, and in the famous phrase i won't get fooled again


Based on the pile of wank being discussed, I can see that.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Eugh, wall o' text.  The man needs to learn to use paragraphs.


As a dyslexic, I just gave up.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

emanymton said:


> As a dyslexic, I just gave up.


I hope you got as far as this bit, though?



> _The closest historical parallel with this situation lies not in Westminster but in Berlin in 1918. Friedrich Ebert led the Social Democratic party (SPD) and the national government in the Reichstag, claiming legitimacy from the democratic vote of the people, whereas the Spartacists, including Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky, claimed theirs from the workers’ movement, the factory committees and works councils. *Ebert ultimately unleashed the Freikorps against the leaders of the insurrection leading to the establishment of the German Communist party and a wider political polarisation across German society and the eventual victory of fascism*._


Corbyn, you bastard!


----------



## emanymton (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I hope you got as far as this bit, though?
> 
> ​Corbyn, you bastard!


Oh yeah I got that far, and decided it really wasn't worth the amount of effort it was taking.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I hope you got as far as this bit, though?
> 
> ​Corbyn, you bastard!



Wow that's quite an insight isn't it. Corbyn is just like that when you think about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2016)

all politicians are obsessed with the 30's and using the histories as allegories for the modern political situation. Never mind wether its relevant or accurate. Just mention ze germanz


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> all politicians are obsessed with the 30's and using the histories as allegories for the modern political situation. Never mind wether its relevant or accurate. Just mention ze germanz


Yes, 'ze germanz' as you say...but claiming parallels with the denouement of the Januaraufstand is quite special.


----------



## jakethesnake (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, 'ze germanz' as you say...but claiming parallels the denouement of the Januaraufstand is quite special.


It's fucking hilarious.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2016)

If he's going to argue a situation of dual power surely he needs mid 1917? But he can't because the forces he's daftly mapping on corbyn's supporters won that one. I think he's been reading a bit too many of Mason's breathless historical comparisons. The wider point about the left and the w/c is correct though. It didn't need bolstering with silly stuff like that.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 2, 2016)

emanymton said:


> As a dyslexic, I just gave up.



Never give up, we are all unique in our own way.


----------



## agricola (Aug 2, 2016)

An interview with Corbyn carried out by Peter Oborne and David Hearst (apologies if its been posted before).


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

> More than a quarter of people who have signed up as registered Labour supporters in the run-up to the party’s leadership election could be barred from taking part, something some supporters of Jeremy Corbyn are worried could skew the vote.
> 
> Under revised rules for the contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith, introduced by Labour’s national executive committee last month, full members cannot vote unless they joined in January or before.
> However, the party allowed newly registered supporters, a lesser category of affiliation, to sign up and vote for a £25 fee; 183,000 did so.
> ...



Not going to go down well, accepted, crazy to think a party is going to turn down new members, many experienced in campaigning, etc, do they have a death wish?


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

> Thousands turn out in Liverpool city centre for Jeremy Corbyn rally



Includes video

5000 plus, organised with two days notice!

and yes, no SWP placards!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not going to go down well, accepted, crazy to think a party is going to turn down new members, many experienced in campaigning, etc, do they have a death wish?


what's your gut reaction?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Includes video


worth watching?


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

Lots of young people there, looks a little like the rallies there in the 80's.

Apparently, they had to close Lime St, not often that happens.


----------



## agricola (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Lots of young people there, looks a little like the rallies there in the 80's.
> 
> Apparently, they had to close Lime St, not often that happens.



and not a placard in sight


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> I was wondering where you'd got to. Can't have big crowd shots all over twitter without you demanding why the media aren't covering it.




I mean the broadcast media as i am sure you know, back to sniping then.


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

agricola said:


> and not a placard in sight



Yes, its great, people on the march, by themselves, for themselves.

btw, I genuinely am pleased to see spontaneous political protest, (and in the holiday season) whether the participants go on to do more in their communities, challenge basic issues like sanctions, etc, (as many already will) is another thing.

btw, Echo is saying 10,000, so that can be increased.


----------



## Lorca (Aug 2, 2016)

looks like even mermaids support corbyn


----------



## weltweit (Aug 2, 2016)

I don't understand why Corbyn's demonstrable ability to fill halls and squares does not translate into political poll popularity.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I don't understand why Corbyn's demonstrable ability to fill halls and squares does not translate into political poll popularity.


Maybe the pollsters are speaking to some people that don't go to Corbyn rallies?


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2016)

David Icke can fill stadiums but everyone still thinks he's a fucking nutter. The wonder stuff sell out the Brixton academy, but when did they last have a record in the charts?


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I don't understand why Corbyn's demonstrable ability to fill halls and squares does not translate into political poll popularity.


Guardian says there were 5,000 people there. Let's assume they were lying _and_ be generous and say there were 15,000. Population of Liverpool is 466,000. Assuming that 15,000 people came and they were all from Liverpool itself rather than its many satellite towns and you've got about 0.3% of the population. Be less generous and you're looking at 0.1-0.2%. A fraction of a fraction.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2016)

and thats liverpool, a place known for its sympathy and ear for labour left/social democrat style politics


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

Much better vid here.


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

maomao said:


> Guardian says there were 5,000 people there. Let's assume they were lying _and_ be generous and say there were 15,000. Population of Liverpool is 466,000. Assuming that 15,000 people came and they were all from Liverpool itself rather than its many satellite towns and you've got about 0.3% of the population. Be less generous and you're looking at 0.1-0.2%. A fraction of a fraction.




There will plenty from the Wirral, Skem, etc, but so there were in the mass rallies of the 80's, the famous Militant one outside the Town Hall was about as big, its what the numbers represent.


----------



## FuckParade (Aug 2, 2016)

maomao said:


> Guardian says there were 5,000 people there. Let's assume they were lying _and_ be generous and say there were 15,000. Population of Liverpool is 466,000. Assuming that 15,000 people came and they were all from Liverpool itself rather than its many satellite towns and you've got about 0.3% of the population. Be less generous and you're looking at 0.1-0.2%. A fraction of a fraction.



I remember Blair and Campbell did similar maths after the 2 million anti-war march in 2003. 

NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 2, 2016)

In an internal leadership campaign those numbers bolster his current support and undermine his opposition, morale building stuff. I agree with some people saying they don't mean that much in a wider context though, both sides are getting obsessed with that aspect of things. More important focuses tbh, as far as both internal and wider struggles go.


----------



## FuckParade (Aug 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I don't understand why Corbyn's demonstrable ability to fill halls and squares does not translate into political poll popularity.



The media, in short. Us politicos often make the mistake assuming everyone else is focused on what we are. When you're not actively cross checking the deception, lies and agendas in the media the level of bile Corbyn is under will have a greater impact on his appearance in many peoples minds.

NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2016)

FuckParade said:


> NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


Nor are many (most?) Of the posters in politics tbf. You can post without caveats.


----------



## inva (Aug 2, 2016)

FuckParade said:


> The media, in short. Us politicos often make the mistake assuming everyone else is focused on what we are. When you're not actively cross checking the deception, lies and agendas in the media the the level of bile Corbyn is under will have an impact on the impression of him.
> 
> NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


So are you saying that if it wasn't for the media Corbyn would be wildly popular?
And if that is the case, why don't you support him (on the basis that you seem to be saying you're not deceived by the media)?

Maybe all these other people don't support him for similar reasons?


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

You could easy add a few thousand on to these rallies, if it was in college time, etc.


----------



## FuckParade (Aug 2, 2016)

inva said:


> So are you saying that if it wasn't for the media Corbyn would be wildly popular?



He would be rating higher in the polls than he is now. That is fair to assume.

NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


----------



## FuckParade (Aug 2, 2016)

inva said:


> And if that is the case, why don't you support him?



The Labour Party.

Consistently cunts.

NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


----------



## inva (Aug 2, 2016)

FuckParade said:


> The Labour Party.
> 
> Consistently cunts.
> 
> NOTE: This is not an endorsement of Corbyn. The Fuck Brigade are not Corbynistas.


I expect there's a fair number of people who share that view without needing the media to tell them


----------



## kabbes (Aug 2, 2016)

30 to 40 years of swimming in a neoliberal sea mean that many take it for granted that the basic philosophy of neoliberalism is synonymous with freedom and good moral fibre.  When you argue for even the smallest step towards centralisation or wealth redistribution, you are competing with these ingrained assumptions.  This was Thatcher's great triumph.

Most of my friends who work in middle management or professional roles have no _intent _to accumulate wealth or power away from the disenfranchised but they react even to concepts such as rent controls (that affect them not one jot as they are neither tenant nor landlord) as if Stalin himself had come back from the dead.  That's because they provide a challenge to the inherent neoliberal narrative of society. 

If Ed Milliband could be viewed as a socialist, how does this middle Englander view Corbyn?

The important thing to realise is that _none of that_ is helped by having a Labour leader to the right of Corbyn.  In fact, the succession of Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Milliband actually simply reinforced that the neoliberal narrative is the right one and so helped to _prevent_ future Labour governments once the Tories had managed to throw off their socially hard right shackles.

The only way to achieve anything is to accept that maybe Corbyn can't win _but is still the best choice anyway_.  Society changes only once certain ideas take hold and that only happens once the window of acceptable debate is driven towards those ideas.  One side chasing the middle ground does nothing but shift the middle ground itself.  Only once left-leaning ideas are seen as natural rather than extreme will it be realistic for a left-leaning party to be elected.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2016)

the reaction to iron corbz mild soc/dem old labour stuff by the meeja has been fairly mental. And they went to town on milliband ffs, this stuff is just off the hook


----------



## rioted (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> David Icke can fill stadiums but everyone still thinks he's a fucking nutter.


Perhaps other people haven't got the same discriminating attitude to the mentally ill as you? He may be a nutter but that doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2016)

rioted said:


> He may be a nutter but that doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute.



That's true...he still doesn't though.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 2, 2016)

rioted said:


> Perhaps other people haven't got the same discriminating attitude to the mentally ill as you? He may be a nutter but that doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute.


That's true, but in his specific case he does actually have nothing to contribute.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2016)

rioted said:


> Perhaps other people haven't got the same discriminating attitude to the mentally ill as you? He may be a nutter but that doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute.


do fuck off.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> You could easy add a few thousand on to these rallies, if it was in college time, etc.


Are we now referring to university as 'college'? If we're not careful, people will soon be using the American expression 'school' to refer to university. Nevertheless, it would appear that you've also bought into the well-worn trope (much loved by the Right and especially Corbyn's detractors) that Corbyn's supporters are composed mainly of university students. Students will attend rallies outside of term time too. The idea that they only do so during term-time is quite frankly silly.


----------



## andysays (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not going to go down well, accepted, crazy to think a party is going to turn down new members, many experienced in campaigning, etc, do they have a death wish?



It shouldn't be necessary to point out that the article you've quoted from is not about them turning away new members, it's about them rejecting (for a variety of reasons, some more justfied than others perhaps) people attempting to sign up as supporters in order to vote in the leadership election. 

I hope that on reflection you can recognise the difference between these two things and therefore reconsider the validity of your claims of a "death-wish".


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2016)

Christ Andy, are you going for some kind of pound shop Pickman's position or something?


----------



## andysays (Aug 2, 2016)

It certainly has an nice alliterative ring to it, but no, I wasn't.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> *pound shop Pickman's*




Is this product available anywhere else?


----------



## andysays (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Is this product available anywhere else?



There's always a bargain-basement brogdale as an alternative


----------



## two sheds (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Is this product available anywhere else?



Only 99p down the road


----------



## andysays (Aug 2, 2016)

Or even a K-mart-killer b


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> It shouldn't be necessary to point out that the article you've quoted from is not about them turning away new members, it's about them rejecting (for a variety of reasons, some more justfied than others perhaps) people attempting to sign up as supporters in order to vote in the leadership election.
> 
> I hope that on reflection you can recognise the difference between these two things and therefore reconsider the validity of your claims of a "death-wish".


if you're going to kick treelover please be less verbose about it


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> Or even a K-mart-killer b


a k-tel killer b


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2016)

Bargain basement b, ta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Are we now referring to university as 'college' now? If we're not careful, people will soon be using the American expression 'school' to refer to university. Nevertheless, it would appear that you've also bought into the well-worn trope (much loved by the Right and especially Corbyn's detractors) that Corbyn's supporters are composed mainly of university students. Students will attend rallies outside of term time too. The idea that they only do so during term-time is quite frankly silly.


no surprise shared by treelover, who notoriously despises socialists not to mention students


----------



## emanymton (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Christ Andy, are you going for some kind of pound shop Pickman's position or something?


Is that the more up market model?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> There's always a bargain-basement brogdale as an alternative


----------



## brogdale (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a k-tel killer b


Ah....k tel...dates you old boy!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

A kiosk killer b


----------



## two sheds (Aug 2, 2016)

A germ killer b


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> A germ killer b


A boot sale killer b


----------



## wtfftw (Aug 2, 2016)

Booths bargain buffet b


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 2, 2016)

Costcutter Corbyn (north London's Nisa nutter) v Sainsburys Smith & the Welsh Waitrose wannabes


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Costcutter Corbyn (north London's Nisa nutter) v Sainsburys Smith & the Welsh Waitrose wannabes


Shurely Smug Selfridges Smith the Welsh windbag


----------



## Cid (Aug 2, 2016)

Prada Pickmans and Burlington Arcade B.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

Cid said:


> Prada Pickmans and Burlington Arcade B.


Piccadilly Pickman's I think you'll find


----------



## Cid (Aug 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Piccadilly Pickman's I think you'll find



Hmm... Yes, that would have made more sense.


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> 30 to 40 years of swimming in a neoliberal sea mean that many take it for granted that the basic philosophy of neoliberalism is synonymous with freedom and good moral fibre.  When you argue for even the smallest step towards centralisation or wealth redistribution, you are competing with these ingrained assumptions.  This was Thatcher's great triumph.
> 
> Most of my friends who work in middle management or professional roles have no _intent _to accumulate wealth or power away from the disenfranchised but they react even to concepts such as rent controls (that affect them not one jot as they are neither tenant nor landlord) as if Stalin himself had come back from the dead.  That's because they provide a challenge to the inherent neoliberal narrative of society.
> 
> ...



This is what some of the wiser Tories have noted, the possibility that a leftwards turning opposition can shift the ground to the left?

Is May responding to this with her 'inequality' agenda?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> This is what some of the wiser Tories have noted, the possibility that a leftwards turning opposition can shift the ground to the left?
> 
> Is May responding to this with her 'inequality' agenda?


 
maybe

although I would be inclined to say 'bullshit' rather than 'agenda'...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> This is what some of the wiser Tories have noted, the possibility that a leftwards turning opposition can shift the ground to the left?
> 
> Is May responding to this with her 'inequality' agenda?


All tories have an inequality agenda


----------



## existentialist (Aug 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not going to go down well, accepted, crazy to think a party is going to turn down new members, many experienced in campaigning, etc, do they have a death wish?


I imagine that they're operating from the premise that the Worst Thing Possible would be Corbyn winning a leadership election, and that anything else is preferable...including alienating a huge and otherwise welcome support base.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Bargain basement b, ta.



killer b+m


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 2, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> killer b&m



CFY

Bit provincial for them fancy dan clean underpants Lunnoners mind


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 2, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I imagine that they're operating from the premise that the Worst Thing Possible would be Corbyn winning a leadership election, and that anything else is preferable...including alienating a huge and otherwise welcome support base.



I think the premise is, 'we have to demonstrate conclusively to these uppity proles via an electoral disaster that they should just let us public school, oxbridge, corporate/bar/PR firm types run things properly and provide a very slightly nicer neoliberally orthodox alternative to Tory dystopian horror'

So they're actually *trying *to create an electoral disaster 'pour encourager les autres'


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I really don't think it is very perceptive to claim that "The closest historical parallel with this situation lies not in Westminster but in Berlin in 1918..."
> 
> And subbing his piece "*The party is losing touch with the working class..", *Cruddas then appears to endorse the leadership candidate committed to blocking Brexit and insisting on a 2nd ratifying referendum.
> 
> Wank.



Yes the historical example is wank but there is no ringing endorsement of Smith, get the feeling that he is holding his hands up in the air in exasperation. Where he gets it right though is a) labours disconnection with what at one time would have been its natural heartland especially over the factors that underpin The Brexit vote and B) the potential for the space to open up for a party or movement that fills that sentiment.
Don't get me wrong there are times when part of me really wants Corbyn to win but that's mainly after a few beers reading the press and Twitter . It's tempting see the latest candidate or the latest offering from the left as being something to back. But at the end if the day it's just what's left . He's a candidate of the left and nothing more. Cruddas analysis ( lack of paragraphs and faulty allusions to 1919 excepted) hits the nail on the head about the gap between Labour and the working class. Perhaps it's the wrong working class for the left ?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 2, 2016)

My weird email from last week seems to have come to nothing. I've just had my "thanks for registering - you check out, we've taken your money, you'll get your ballot at the end of August" email.

Jeremy might be coming to Stoke this month


----------



## free spirit (Aug 3, 2016)

maomao said:


> Guardian says there were 5,000 people there. Let's assume they were lying _and_ be generous and say there were 15,000. Population of Liverpool is 466,000. Assuming that 15,000 people came and they were all from Liverpool itself rather than its many satellite towns and you've got about 0.3% of the population. Be less generous and you're looking at 0.1-0.2%. A fraction of a fraction.


except you're out by a factor of 10.

That should be 3.3% of the population.

Also, as I've pointed out a few times, this actually is translating into popular support, Labour were leading by 5% on 38% in the last ipso mori poll if you look at the data for all respondents. It's only when the figures are adjusted based on whether they voted at the last election and if they're likely to vote next time that the tories had a 1% lead.

Corbyn is reaching out to significant numbers of people who've been switched off from the political process  - if he continues with this labour could reclaim the 10% or so of voters who stopped voting completely due to blair


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2016)

A single poll, before it's been adjusted to make it more representative is almost completely meaningless. It certainly isn't enough for you to wildly extrapolate such an optimistic outlook.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2016)

kabbes said:


> 30 to 40 years of swimming in a neoliberal sea mean that many take it for granted that the basic philosophy of neoliberalism is synonymous with freedom and good moral fibre.  When you argue for even the smallest step towards centralisation or wealth redistribution, you are competing with these ingrained assumptions.  This was Thatcher's great triumph.
> 
> Most of my friends who work in middle management or professional roles have no _intent _to accumulate wealth or power away from the disenfranchised but they react even to concepts such as rent controls (that affect them not one jot as they are neither tenant nor landlord) as if Stalin himself had come back from the dead.  That's because they provide a challenge to the inherent neoliberal narrative of society.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, as obviously do a lot of other posters from the likes.  It gets to the dilemma of electoral politics - do you develop policies and a stance aimed simply at winning an election or is there an electoral route to win with what you actually believe in (in this case perhaps a left social democratic position). But if you are going to try and do that - essentially, to win the election after next - it still contains all the contradictions of electoral politics, even more so as you are trying to shift the terms of debate, consensus, what is possible, call it what you like.  At one level, there's doing struggle, which is immediate and involves social forces, fighting round issues that affect people in their lives and then there's electoral politics which may overlap, but always has an endpoint of a general election.  It also, necessarily, involves all the dispiriting and time consuming stuff of responding to media attacks (much more than this, an active media _strategy_), a heavy focus on manoeuvres in parliament and the like.  It's hard to keep the left position when the polls show it isn't working and your life gets sucked into the Westminster village.

I don't support Labour and so it's not something I really want to happen, but it's seemed to me that one way to start linking the party into actual struggle is to move beyond Westminster, open the party structure up, essentially to think about becoming a 'movement'.  And as a social democratic party rather than socialist/transformatory party, there would be plenty of scope for that extending beyond traditional Labour towns, the labour movement - to have a rather fuzzy view of class .  That itself is a mechanism/channel of communication to start shifting the consensus or at least to normalise more radical ideas beyond neo-liberalism.  Again, I'd rather see people involved in struggle - and class politics full stop - than what would still be jump leads on the chest of social democracy.  Ironically, the betrayals of the right, through to the potential departure of most of the Parliamentary party, might make this more likely to happen.  I don't think it _will_ happen, so far Corbyn has shown himself still trapped in the mindset of Labourism. He still seems to think the route to the working class is via the unions and Labour Party itself.  But he might be left in  a position where he has to be a bit more creative.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 3, 2016)

There's a map of CLP declarations doing the rounds, veracity unknown, in which Owen Smith is currently being beaten by abstentions 



Spoiler


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2016)

Worth bearing in mind that CLP nomination meetings are only open to members eligible to vote (pre Jan 12). My CLP (Sheffield Central) is also delegate based, so those voting on nominations will have been elected at the AGMs back in May/June.


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2016)

Yougov have done a poll on which way labour voters would go in the event of a split - which illustrates quite nicely why there won't be a split. 

YouGov |  But who gets to keep the voters?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 3, 2016)

Cid said:


> Worth bearing in mind that CLP nomination meetings are only open to members eligible to vote (pre Jan 12). My CLP (Sheffield Central) is also delegate based, so those voting on nominations will have been elected at the AGMs back in May/June.



Why did yours end up as a delegate vote? What was the outcome?


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Why did yours end up as a delegate vote? What was the outcome?



It has a General Committee structure apparently... vote isn't until 13th.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2016)

Almost amusing: Labour's turmoil meant it missed the opportunity to attack the Tories at their point of weakness after brexit; now ukip are having their own civil war at the very moment they could have been profiting from Labour's fucked-upness.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2016)

Incidentally, any of you Labour types having any luck defying the 'thou shalt not meet about anything other than the Leadership election till conference' edict?  Heard a couple of people talking about informal pub meetings. What's next, meeting round a Sycamore tree in Dorset?


----------



## gosub (Aug 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Almost amusing: Labour's turmoil meant it missed the opportunity to attack the Tories at their point of weakness after brexit; now ukip are having their own civil war at the very moment they could have been profiting from Labour's fucked-upness.


Yeah but no.  If they can both get through without actually splitting.... Looking very like needing opposition MP's to get the actual split from EU through the Commons (tory divisions ain't settled yet)


----------



## andysays (Aug 3, 2016)

mauvais said:


> There's a map of CLP declarations doing the rounds, veracity unknown, in which Owen Smith is currently being beaten by abstentions



I've seen CLP declarations mentioned (here or elsewhere) before. 

Do they have any significance beyond being indicative? I thought it was now just down to the individual votes of party members/members of affiliates like unions etc/ recently signed and paid up supporters.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> I've seen CLP declarations mentioned (here or elsewhere) before.
> 
> Do they have any significance beyond being indicative? I thought it was now just down to the individual votes of party members/members of affiliates like unions etc/ recently signed and paid up supporters.


 
fairly sure it comes down to one member one vote but some people will be influenced by local clp or union declaring support for candidate x


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Incidentally, any of you Labour types having any luck defying the 'thou shalt not meet about anything other than the Leadership election till conference' edict?  Heard a couple of people talking about informal pub meetings. What's next, meeting round a Sycamore tree in Dorset?



Going to a Red Labour meeting on Saturday, organised by and held at the local Unite/T&G offices, I think. Plenty of things like that, none of which go against the rules. It's just formal CLP meetings, organised by the CLP, in order to conduct CLP business, that are banned. CLP members organising to meet amongst themselves to discuss matters regarding the party but without attempting to conduct any CLP business are fine and dandy. The party can't stop people meeting -- they can only stop official 'in our name' business.

Some Wallasey trade union held a public meeting the other night. (Prob been talked about already, soz haven't been keeping up with the thread.) Essentially it was the CLP but under a different name, and with some supporters from outside the area. It aimed to discuss why meetings were suspended and the allegations of abuse made by Eagle about them.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Going to a Red Labour meeting on Saturday, organised by and held at the local Unite/T&G offices, I think. Plenty of things like that, none of which go against the rules. It's just formal CLP meetings, organised by the CLP, in order to conduct CLP business, that are banned. CLP members organising to meet amongst themselves to discuss matters regarding the party but without attempting to conduct any CLP business are fine and dandy. The party can't stop people meeting -- they can only stop official 'in our name' business.
> 
> Some Wallasey trade union held a public meeting the other night. (Prob been talked about already, soz haven't been keeping up with the thread.) Essentially it was the CLP but under a different name, and with some supporters from outside the area. It aimed to discuss why meetings were suspended and the allegations of abuse made by Eagle about them.


Ta.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 3, 2016)

CLPs are still allowed for discussing the leadership and for essential business as I recall.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 3, 2016)

Those maps with CLP nominations -- there's a twitter account set up to track them as they happen. They have the map, and they also break it down each time a CLP nominates, stating who they nominated last time. Lots of Burnham and Cooper CLPs choosing Corbyn this time around, as well as a few 'did not nomintate' ones too. 

It's not in any way binding. It's just a show of support. It can sway some people's minds, but people's minds will largely already be made up. It's a way of registering what you support, in a more public way than just marking your x in the box.

What's interesting is looking at the breakdown of how many in each CLP voted for Corbyn or Smith. From what I've seen, there are very few close calls. They're almost all a massive landslide for Corbyn. So that's not just 'entryists' who joined during and after the last race (and obv not anyone from the last 6 months as we're not allowed to nominate), but dyed in the wool, long term, seasoned-at-door-knocking members as well.


----------



## elbows (Aug 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Those maps with CLP nominations -- there's a twitter account set up to track them as they happen.



Whats the account?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Yougov have done a poll on which way labour voters would go in the event of a split - which illustrates quite nicely why there won't be a split.
> 
> YouGov |  But who gets to keep the voters?



Labour could 'bust apart and disappear', Smith warns Corbyn

Reported here in the Guardian as 'the difficulty the left would face in the event of a split' with no reference to the other side at all.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2016)

elbows said:


> Whats the account?


@CLPNominations


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Incidentally, any of you Labour types having any luck defying the 'thou shalt not meet about anything other than the Leadership election till conference' edict?  Heard a couple of people talking about informal pub meetings. What's next, meeting round a Sycamore tree in Dorset?



Correspondence societies.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 3, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Correspondence societies.


I was hoping for blood curdling oaths at the very least.


----------



## gosub (Aug 3, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 30,691,680 people voted in 2015.
> 
> Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.
> 
> ...



But you don't give a shit about elections or rather how any public interface with future development -technocrats know better.  Two way sword.


----------



## coley (Aug 3, 2016)

How the press gets away with describing Corbyn as "hard left" while supposedly regarding the Wanker from Wales, as in someway acceptably 'left wing'  is beyond me?
I was going to put "'Welsh Wanker"  but it's seems to have a racist sniff about it


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> But you don't give a shit about elections or rather how any public interface with future development -technocrats know better.  Two way sword.


Word salad. 
Data is my life.
I know what I see. You religious zealots can entertain yourselves until May 2020. 

Tick





tock.


----------



## gosub (Aug 4, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Word salad.
> Data is my life.
> I know what I see. You religious zealots can entertain yourselves until May 2020.
> 
> ...


No was a response to saying anyone made unemployed should have a word with Leave voters.... Well thats an anti you upped, and one that your perscribed path would have left us out of synch on the the economy(not in EUro), immigration (not in Schengen) under a system of QMV with erosion of democracy by technocrats and unelected judges.  PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN DEMOCRACY BEFORE BANGING ON.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 4, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Word salad.
> Data is my life.
> I know what I see. You religious zealots can entertain yourselves until May 2020.
> 
> ...



Just because you have the data don't mean you're interpreting it right.


----------



## inva (Aug 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> No was a response to saying anyone made unemployed should have a word with Leave voters.... Well thats an anti you upped, and one that your perscribed path would have left us out of synch on the the economy(not in EUro), immigration (not in Schengen) under a system of QMV with erosion of democracy by technocrats and unelected judges.  PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN DEMOCRACY BEFORE BANGING ON.


watch it or he'll do some science on you


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> A single poll, before it's been adjusted to make it more representative is almost completely meaningless. It certainly isn't enough for you to wildly extrapolate such an optimistic outlook.


the trend was there from the last 3 ipso mori polls, so not a single poll.

It's not meaningless at all, the meaning is clear - Corbyn is appealing to those who've not been voting recently / say they're less likely to vote and are therefore excluded from the official weighted figures.

This is important IMO because it is the clear alternative route to him winning the election - winning back those voters who felt excluded by labour's swing to the right who'd stopped voting entirely, rather than chasing tory votes. Turnout in 92 was 77.7%, last election it was 66.1%, so  there's a potential 11% of extra votes available to a party that can convince those lost voters that they're worth voting for again, which should* easily enough to give Labour a clear majority over the tories.


*depending how it works in FPTP constituency terms.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

The meaning isn't clear at all. You simply don't have enough information for it to be clear- you're just using a single, partially weighted poll to support your own wildly optimistic reading of the situation.

I'm not unsympathetic to the labour left, and nor am I predicting electoral destruction: but at the same time any plan for what they need to do next has to come from a realistic assessment of where they are now. Which is 12 points or so behind in the polls, and struggling to get the working class labour Base on board. 

On a separate point, this analysis is interesting 
Labour’s Crisis


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Turnout in 92 was 77.7%, last election it was 66.1%, so  there's a potential 11% of extra votes available to a party that can convince those lost voters that they're worth voting for again, which should* easily enough to give Labour a clear majority over the tories.


do you think those electors who died between 1992 and 2015 might be persuaded to return to the labour fold?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> The meaning isn't clear at all. You simply don't have enough information for it to be clear- you're just using a single, partially weighted poll to support your own wildly optimistic reading of the situation.
> 
> I'm not unsympathetic to the labour left, and nor am I predicting electoral destruction: but at the same time any plan for what they need to do next has to come from a realistic assessment of where they are now. Which is 12 points or so behind in the polls, and struggling to get the working class labour Base on board.
> 
> ...


but they weren't 12 points behind before this crap.

The stats aren't conclusive, but they do pretty clearly indicate what I'm saying - among those who're excluded from the final polling figures the tories had the support of 53 people, Labour had the support of 90 people. The May figures indicate something similar as well, though not quite to the same extent - June's figures aren't available in the same format

Those are people who're currently viewed as being less likely to vote, and that's the only reason they're excluded from the headline figures.

A grassroots get out the vote campaign via the half million membership could easily turn those supporters who're considered unlikely to vote into voters and win the election for Labour in much the same way as the SNP did in Scotland where turnout increased by 7.3% from 2010-2015.

These figures (and the SNP experience) demonstrate that this is a viable alternative route to election victory for labour rather than the failed new labour model of chasing tory votes while disenfranchising and losing the votes of a significant proportion of previous Labour voters.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2016)

It's more than a viable alternative route, it's the only route.  Labour are not going to win an election by persuading people that they can do Tory politics better than the Tories.  If I want Tory principles, I'll vote Tory. 

Victory can only come by appealing to the VAST section of the population that don't vote at all.  Why don't they vote?  In most cases because they don't see anybody who represents them.  So represent them and see what happens.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It's more than a viable alternative route, it's the only route.  Labour are not going to win an election by persuading people that they can do Tory politics better than the Tories.  If I want Tory principles, I'll vote Tory.
> 
> Victory can only come by appealing to the VAST section of the population that don't vote at all.  Why don't they vote?  In most cases because they don't see anybody who represents them.  So represent them and see what happens.



Conservative to Labour switchers have twice the electoral value of DNV to Labour switchers.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Conservative to Labour switchers have twice the electoral value of DNV to Labour switchers.


Only if you can get them.  How are you going to get them?  More to the point, how are you going to get them without losing twice as many existing Labour voters out of the system entirely?


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

free spirit said:


> but they weren't 12 points behind before this crap.
> 
> The stats aren't conclusive, but they do pretty clearly indicate what I'm saying - among those who're excluded from the final polling figures the tories had the support of 53 people, Labour had the support of 90 people. The May figures indicate something similar as well, though not quite to the same extent - June's figures aren't available in the same format
> 
> Those are people who're currently viewed as being less likely to vote, and that's the only reason they're excluded from the headline figures.


They just don't clearly indicate that. They aren't 'people viewed less likely to vote' by the polling company, the metric is the respondent's _own rating _of how likely they are to vote (which could be low for any number of reasons - tribal labour voters unconvinced by Corbyn's leadership for example).


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 4, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Conservative to Labour switchers have twice the electoral value of DNV to Labour switchers.



That's been the logic since '94 yes. The problem is one of long-term trends. By consistently reinforcing a rightist view and pandering to "the centre" while ignoring the socialists you shift politics as a whole to the right, pushing the "centre" further away from your main support base. Which is why Blair made initial headway in '97, and also why his strategy lost 4 million votes, along with the whole of Scotland and most of the party's activist core, over time.

And now Labour's being called unelectable on even a vaguely left-wing ticket, with the same people who backed Blair's "shift right a bit" style unable to even push back against say, welfare cuts, for the sake of courting these switchers by "pretending" (at what point does it cease to be pretense, I wonder) to be identical to the Tories, just rhetorically nicer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> <snip>
> 
> On a separate point, this analysis is interesting
> Labour’s Crisis



It is interesting, but he doesn't trouble to demonstrate his claim that neoliberalism is dead.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 4, 2016)

So I have a ticket to the first leadership debate this evening. On the slim chance I get to ask a question I was thinking of asking about either a/records of practical activism or b/ where to focus electoral strategy and why. Any suggestions?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> So I have a ticket to the first leadership debate this evening. On the slim chance I get to ask a question I was thinking of asking about either a/records of practical activism or b/ where to focus electoral strategy and why. Any suggestions?



Ask Smith how we know that he won't go back on all the promises he has made during the campaign the second he wins the leadership contest.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 4, 2016)

Not sure if it's been post yet and can't be arsed to check, but here's the Labour leadership debate: Leadership Debates 2016


----------



## shygirl (Aug 4, 2016)

Its stopped streaming


----------



## oryx (Aug 4, 2016)

It's on BBC news 24.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 4, 2016)

None of the front row liked smith lol


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2016)

Liked it when Smith said he wasn't part of the coup.
Always good to see politicians being laughed at.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Liked it when Smith said he wasn't part of the coup.
> Always good to see politicians being laughed at.



He really is a fucking twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> None of the front row liked smith lol


none of those people sat behind him on the stage that time with red t-shirt girl like him, i woudln't be surprised if smith got some dolees sent by the job centre on pain of sanctions.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2016)

Smith really happy to run with the tory anti-semitism tactic. Good look.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ask Smith how we know that he won't go back on all the promises he has made during the campaign the second he wins the leadership contest.


he won't go back on them. he'll have abandoned them all by the time of the vote anyway.


----------



## oryx (Aug 4, 2016)

Smith making flippant reference to Theresa May as 'first lady' in a debate about the promotion of women.

His persistent running over time and patronising repeat use of Corbyn's forename are really annoying me.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 4, 2016)

Yeah that and the fact he looks like he's trying to sell me a used car


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Yeah that and the fact he looks like he's trying to sell me a used car


Yeh. Just without the car.  he's a snake oil man and no mistake


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 4, 2016)

Does OS know that he's got a microphone?

He does like to shout...


----------



## oryx (Aug 4, 2016)

He fancies himself as a demagogue and rabble rouser but is just a windbag.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

I'm not watching this, but how do they need to do nine of them?


----------



## inva (Aug 4, 2016)

I flicked over to this and heard Owen Smith say 'day in daily' twice in a minute or so. Then I turned it off.

does he mean 'day in day out' or have I just not heard that expression before?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2016)

inva said:


> I flicked over to this and heard Owen Smith say 'day in daily' twice in a minute or so. Then I turned it off.
> 
> does he mean 'day in day out' or have I just not heard that expression before?


Clearly a wrong'un.


----------



## inva (Aug 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Clearly a wrong'un.


I was dismayed the moderator didn't intervene so had to stop watching.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 4, 2016)

Final speeches, he just stood there and told Wales their leave vote was TERRIBLE.  There were two rows at the end not clapping. Jeremy got a standing ovation. Going by what i'm reading upthread i'm glad that's all i saw.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> .
> Always good to see politicians being laughed at.



That's awfully harsh. Jeremy is doing his best.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2016)

The pro-Smith lot seemed to have been strategically placed in front of the camera to make their 'standing ovation' look a bit more impressive than it was.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 4, 2016)

maomao said:


> The pro-Smith lot seemed to have been strategically placed in front of the camera to make their 'standing ovation' look a bit more impressive than it was.


That was funny, it had the opposite effect of making it look like his mum and dad and siblings had turned up to show their support, could have spread them out a bit or something !


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2016)

inva said:


> I was dismayed the moderator didn't intervene so had to stop watching.


Sadly the moderator not permitted to beat irritating candidates unconscious


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 4, 2016)

Just left the debate, here are my half baked thoughts from within the room. Not sure what of the crowd was shown on telly.

There was a large group of Smith supporters in reserved seats at the far left (!) mostly bussed in from his CLP. They behaved disgracefully throughout, shouting abuse at Corbyn throughout every answer and shouting at Corbyn supporters sat nearby.

Smith was as expected the slicker politician, I was disappointed that Corbyn did less figures on economics as I'm sure McDonnell could. Initially in that environment Smith's attacks had some power but over time Corbyns refusal to engage seemed statesman like. I'm not sure how it came across on telly but Smith seemed to do best with the audience on the referendum despite my personal feeling on that. Corbyn seemed to do better on other topics. Towards the end Smith just seemed to shout we need to win at every question.  I don't know, I personally felt the low key approach had some power over the course of the debate but I don't know how it would have come across on screen.

At the end there was the obligatory ovation off which Corbyn won hugely comfortably. Remember this is Smith's backyard. Quite a few Smith storm outs at that point. Had a discussion with a Smith voter who tried to persuade me that the sole SWP newspaper seller outside was evidence of mass infiltration. Thought of this thread.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 4, 2016)

wankers


----------



## NoBystander (Aug 4, 2016)

free spirit said:


> the trend was there from the last 3 ipso mori polls, so not a single poll.
> 
> It's not meaningless at all, the meaning is clear - Corbyn is appealing to those who've not been voting recently / say they're less likely to vote and are therefore excluded from the official weighted figures.
> 
> ...



There's this too from @britainelects







In the May local elections they were 3% behind in the polls but equalled the 2012 results when Miliband was 10% ahead in the polls.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 4, 2016)

It was telling that Smith thought the way to win back voters in the Valleys was to insist on a second Brexit referendum.


----------



## gosub (Aug 4, 2016)

Odd they think it's about attractive policy at this stage... If a policy looks good with four years to go before an election..  The government will nick it


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> Odd they think it's about attractive policy at this stage... If a policy looks good with four years to go before an election..  The government will nick it



They always do


----------



## two sheds (Aug 4, 2016)

renationalizing the railways and NHS it is then


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

Why would that be a bad thing? I'd much rather a Tory government nicked policies from a socialist (ish) Labour party than came up with them themselves.


----------



## gosub (Aug 4, 2016)

two sheds said:


> renationalizing the railways and NHS it is then


Never understood why railways a higher priority than water utilities


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> Never understood why railways a higher priority than water utilities



Only reason I can think of is people actually get their water supplied 99.99% of the time without issue.  They may pay through the nose for it but they get it.  They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on.  It's more of an obvious problem that needs dealing with than water, both need nationalising though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 4, 2016)

oryx said:


> Smith making flippant reference to Theresa May as 'first lady' in a debate about the promotion of women.
> 
> His persistent running over time and patronising repeat use of Corbyn's forename are really annoying me.



I watched a bit of it which left me thinking...How the hell has Owen The Unknown suddenly become the all seeing, all knowing eye of the Labour Party?

Listening to him today I got a parallel vision of him looking at himself in the mirror calling himself The Messiah. It was a really cringe worthy listen tbh. He came across as a know it all pretender with a seriously sly streak.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> They just don't clearly indicate that. They aren't 'people viewed less likely to vote' by the polling company, the metric is the respondent's _own rating _of how likely they are to vote (which could be low for any number of reasons - tribal labour voters unconvinced by Corbyn's leadership for example).


Labour got 30.5% of the vote at the last election, the IPSO Mori polling had them on 38% of all respondants, so whichever way you want to cut it there's an extra 7.5% in the all respondents data that can't come from the previous vote.

 The figures are mostly there if you really want to dig into the details.

33 out of those 90 labour supporters who're in the less certain to vote category voted labour at the last election, 57 didn't.

but also 38 of those from the more certain to vote category either didn't vote at the last election, or voted for a party other than Tory, Lib, Lab, UKIP.

In total 94 out of 316 of all respondants saying they'd vote Labour didn't vote for any of Tory, Lab, Ukip, Lib Dems. Some will have come from the greens, SNP, Plaid, or others (TUSC etc) but most must be from non-voters as Green, Plaid and SNP figures are roughly equal to the last election.

So, it is clear from this data that there's a significant level of support coming from those who didn't vote last time around, which isn't being reflected in the headline figures. Labour can win if it focusses on solidifying that vote and getting it to the polling stations rather than chasing tory voters, and the best way of doing that is via a massively enlarged and enthused membership base.

Basically IMO this data gives the lie to Owen Smith and co's assertions about Corbyn's potential for winning the next election.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It's more than a viable alternative route, it's the only route.  Labour are not going to win an election by persuading people that they can do Tory politics better than the Tories.  If I want Tory principles, I'll vote Tory.
> 
> Victory can only come by appealing to the VAST section of the population that don't vote at all.  Why don't they vote?  In most cases because they don't see anybody who represents them.  So represent them and see what happens.


exactly, and that data seems to show that it was starting to work.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

I'm sure those details are there if you dig, but they weren't the details you were talking about. You were talking about the likelihood to vote adjustment, which you hadn't understood. You can't just switch what you're arguing about halfway through and hope no-one will notice.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

And btw, that data doesn't show what you want it to show: not by itself anyway. You need to compare it with previous polls, and if you can show an increase over time of respondents who previously didn't vote saying they plan to vote labour, then you might have the start of an argument. I doubt it'll be there though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2016)

this is a bit iffy:
Corbyn's offer of peerage to Shami Chakrabarti causes Labour tensions


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2016)

Yeah, I don't really understand why that's happened. It's like they're trying to look corrupt and completely discredit the anti-semitism report them got her to do all at the same time. Bizarre.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 5, 2016)

And it's a reminder that Corbyn isn't really a socialist


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 5, 2016)

I like that Corbyn isn't trying to make things all about him, and he is doing a good job about showing neoliberism isn't the only path.

I'm impressed by the new people who have been allowed to be on telly; I think the team around him are doing a great job without scaring all the horses.

I think that is part of the appeal.

Contrarily, hero worship doesn't last. I hope he has done more than that, and if some of the suport is because they see as the messiah, shucks. 

I don't believe in all of his ideas, but that isn't the point. Which side are you on?


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 5, 2016)

The only thing I really see standing in the way of a Corbyn general election victory is the constant undermining of him that has come from within the party so far. That is it.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 5, 2016)

That and It's the Sun wot wins it.

And of course there are always huge potentials for balls-ups.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 5, 2016)

Had a look at the summary video of the JC/OS debate on the bbc website: one and a half minutes of OS, followed by 20 seconds of JC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

NoBystander said:


> There's this too from @britainelects
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's interesting to see who's taking votes from who in this chart


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on.



These problems won't be magically solved by nationalisation though, and they could be solved by better regulation, more investment, and changes to transport policy, without nationalisation. I'm not necessarily against renationalising the railways but it's not the main thing that needs to change. An easy concept for people to attach their dissatisfaction to though, a bit like Brexit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2016)

oryx said:


> He fancies himself as a demagogue and rabble rouser but is just a windbag.



Just as long as he doesn't start yelling "alright!!!!" _a la_ Kinnock!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just as long as he doesn't start yelling "alright!!!!" _a la_ Kinnock!


"We're alrite! We're Alrite!! WE'RE ALRITE!!!"


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2016)

pride before a fall has never been so amply demonstrated. Except for that literaal fall into the sea by one...niel kinnock


----------



## bendeus (Aug 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> "We're alrite! We're Alrite!! WE'RE ALRITE!!!"




Jesus! I had until this moment managed to successfully block that from my memory. No longer


----------



## happie chappie (Aug 5, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Only reason I can think of is people actually get their water supplied 99.99% of the time without issue.  They may pay through the nose for it but they get it.  They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on.  It's more of an obvious problem that needs dealing with than water, both need nationalising though.




It’s more about ease and cost rather than priorities.

Trains were privatised under a franchise system so as each franchise period comes to an end (or the train operating company voluntary gives up the franchise) the Government can simply take it over, in effect nationalising it piecemeal.

Over time, all of the train operating companies would be taken out of private hands without having to pay any compensation to the operating company’s shareholders making it a relatively cheap, but drawn out, option.

To nationalise the utilities (not just water) would cost an absolute fortune, assuming you’d do it with compensation that is.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> To nationalise the utilities (not just water) would* cost an absolute fortune*, assuming you’d do it with compensation that is.


Private ownership of socialised assets is illegitimate, so the appropriate level of compensation is zero...and the thieves should count themselves lucky not to be strung up.
If, on the other hand, for some reason the state chose to compensate the illegitimate owners, then precedents like yesterday's BoE conjuring-up of £70bn out of thin air should be recognised.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Private ownership of socialised assets is illegitimate, so the appropriate level of compensation is zero...and the thieves should count themselves lucky not to be strung up.
> If, on the other hand, for some reason the state chose to compensate the illegitimate owners, then precedents like yesterday's BoE conjuring-up of £70bn out of thin air should be recognised.



That sort of thing has worked so well in Venezuela


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> That sort of thing has worked so well in Venezuela


QE?


----------



## poului (Aug 5, 2016)

Christ. Libsplaining overload.



> We all had things we disagreed with. For me it was an approach to public services that put too much faith in marketisation. For many it was Iraq – but we should remember that was born of idealistic hubris, not malignancy, a belief that we could overthrow fascist dictatorships and install humane liberal democracies in the world’s trouble spots.
> 
> You can keep your big rallies with mediocre speakers; you can keep your Twitter storms and social media abuse; you can keep your 16% Tory poll leads and spitting at CLP AGMs; you can keep your blind-eye to antisemitism and your fetishising of dodgy Latin American regimes and Middle Eastern terror groups; you can keep your snappy slogans and absence of policy, you can keep your mass recruitment of passive clicktivists to stack internal elections; you can keep your elevation of a faction above a 116-year old party that founded the NHS.
> 
> Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer retro Labour from 20 years ago as my model of what a “social movement” or a political party should look like. I won’t be taking any lectures about socialism from people who are busy destroying, demeaning, diminishing, eroding the only social movement that can ever, and has ever, delivered it in this country: the Labour party.



I personally wouldn't call him old-fashioned. Would call him something else, though.

New Labour showed the party can be a social movement and an electoral force | Luke Akehurst


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

poului said:


> Christ. Libsplaining overload.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wanker will do for a start. should be strung up by his knackers from a hackney lamp-post


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 5, 2016)

Are they worried it might start (restart) a movement?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Private ownership of socialised assets is illegitimate, so the appropriate level of compensation is zero...and the thieves should count themselves lucky not to be strung up.
> If, on the other hand, for some reason the state chose to compensate the illegitimate owners, then precedents like yesterday's BoE conjuring-up of £70bn out of thin air should be recognised.


Surely the thieves are the ones who sold _our_ infrastructure - not the ones who bought it? But definitely, those thieves should have been strung up. _Pour encourager les autres_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Surely the thieves are the ones who sold _our_ infrastructure - not the ones who bought it? But definitely, those thieves should have been strung up. _Pour encourager les autres_.


thieves and fences and receivers of stolen goods


----------



## inva (Aug 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Surely the thieves are the ones who sold _our_ infrastructure - not the ones who bought it? But definitely, those thieves should have been strung up. _Pour encourager les autres_.


and the ones who nationalised them, and any private companies before that. We've been robbed by all of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

Chrispeptide said:


> All the journos are saying he's going to have to be nominated!



that'll learn you to believe what you read in the papers.


----------



## Cid (Aug 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> "We're alrite! We're Alrite!! WE'RE ALRITE!!!"




A great politician of our time, truly the elder statesman of the labour party.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 5, 2016)

I liked the bit in the leadership debate where Smith basically smeared the members, particularly the new ones,  as being anti-semitic to the audience, and then complained to the same audience  the reaction he got from them was uncomradely.

What a massive cock end.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 5, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I liked the bit in the leadership debate where Smith basically smeared to  the members, particularly the new ones,  as being anti-semitic to the audience, and then complained to the same audience  the reaction he got from them was uncomradely.
> 
> What a massive cock end.



Not to mention the way he tried to claim that every decent policy was basically his idea, even if someone else had announced it. Owen Smith. Giving streaks of piss a bad name since 2010.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 5, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Not to mention the way he tried to claim that every decent policy was basically his idea, even if someone else had announced it. Owen Smith. Giving streaks of piss a bad name since 2010.



Well!  I didn't think that needed mentioning. I do wonder in Owen Smith's head, if he manages to topple Jezza, where he thinks the policies will come from? I mean he's just a policy vacuum isn't he? Or a policy black hole? Sucking in all the policies from the cosmos and spitting them out into an alternative universe somewhere where he himself is Grand Ruler. 

I would love to see that in art form.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2016)

Now F4J have come out against him. Surely that should settle matters... in his favour... once and for all?

Men stage child custody protest on Jeremy Corbyn's roof

What's that supposed Gandhi saying?

_First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then Fathers For Justice protest on your roof._


----------



## Sue (Aug 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> wanker will do for a start. should be strung up by his knackers from a hackney lamp-post


I believe he's in Oxford these days though no reason why we couldn't perform the coup de grace in his old stamping ground...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

Sue said:


> I believe he's in Oxford these days though no reason why we couldnt perform the coup de grace in his old stamping ground...


it matters not a jot to me whether he is strung up in oxford, in hackney or in timbuktu. it is the stringing which is the important aspect of the event, not the location.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Now F4J have come out against him. Surely that should settle matters... in his favour... once and for all?
> 
> Men stage child custody protest on Jeremy Corbyn's roof
> 
> ...





wtf is this banner?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2016)

nm it's from 2008


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> wtf is this banner?



more to the point the masses who were behind it seem to have taken a wrong turning some time before the photo was taken.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2016)

Oh i see, another supporter of dawn's lesbo dads.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> wtf is this banner?


No idea - what's the 'take it in the face' one about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i see, another supporter of dawn's lesbo dads.


they're a cracking band, if they ever play down bristol you should see them.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> wtf is this banner?



Aimed at Dawn Primarolo presumably. She was a Home Office Minister for families and young people. As to the "Lesbo Dads", maybe Wifebeaters for Justice are showing their politically correct side, by using inverted commas?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> they're a cracking band, if they ever play down bristol you should see them.


Indeed they are, but with Gay Dad and Gaye Bikers on Acid they found the market was getting a bit crowded. Changed their name to something else, can't remember, Coldplay I think.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 5, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Aimed at Dawn Primarolo presumably. She was a Home Office Minister for families and young people. As to the "Lesbo Dads", maybe Wifebeaters for Justice are showing their politically correct side, by using inverted commas?


yes - had to look it up - in response to Fathers 4 Justice attack Sir Elton John for ‘denying kids the love of a mother’
"Protesting then-government minister Dawn Primarolo, they waved banners reading “KIDS NEED REAL DADS NOT DAWN’S LESBO DADS”.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 5, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Now F4J have come out against him. Surely that should settle matters... in his favour... once and for all?
> 
> Men stage child custody protest on Jeremy Corbyn's roof
> 
> ...


"Theresa May take it in the face" wtf is that about then?!?

"We might stay here all day!" Clearly channelling the spirit of Bobby Sands


----------



## Cakes (Aug 5, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Now F4J have come out against him. Surely that should settle matters... in his favour... once and for all?
> 
> Men stage child custody protest on Jeremy Corbyn's roof
> 
> ...


Every night for the last month Corbyn must get home, shut the door and think: WTF next?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2016)

Cakes said:


> Every night for the last month Corbyn must get home, shut the door and think: WTF next?


His ultimate horror must be that, one day, someone will ask: 'so Jeremy, why did you remain in the Parliamentary Party of an outfit that brought us the Iraq War, developed the PFI, failed to renationalise rail, increased the gap between rich and poor, deregulated the financial sector, kept the anti-union laws, allowed tax dodging by the super rich, launched ATOS on us and expanded private prisons. Why was that Saint Jeremy?'


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2016)

Wilf said:


> His ultimate horror must be that, one day, someone will ask: 'so Jeremy, why did you remain in the Parliamentary Party of an outfit that brought us the Iraq War, PFI, failed to renationalise rail, increased the gap between rich and poor, deregulated the financial sector, kept the anti-union laws, allowed tax dodging by the super rich, launches ATOS on us and expanded private prisons. Why was that Saint Jeremy?'


Not whilst Owen Smith walks the earth.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2016)

Cakes said:


> Every night for the last month Corbyn must get home, shut the door and think: WTF next?


Maybe Angela Eagle's Brick of Destiny could have been hoyed at F4J roofists?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 6, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i see, another supporter of dawn's lesbo dads.



Dawn's lesbo dads are the best people in the country I am sure of it...


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 6, 2016)

You have to feel a bit sorry for fathers for justice. They want to see their kids, but only seem to be able to express it as a UKIP day trip to a comic convention.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 6, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> You have to feel a bit sorry for fathers for justice. They want to see their kids, but only seem to be able to express it as a UKIP day trip to a *comic convention*.


 In that case it would shurely be Dawn _of the_ Lesbian Dads.


----------



## pesh (Aug 6, 2016)

are they using balloons to swell their numbers?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 6, 2016)

pesh said:


> are they using balloons to swell their numbers?


Inflating their membership


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 6, 2016)

That name is way too long for a protest group and why is it even asking a question in the middle of it? Ridiculous.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2016)

Latest seems to be that someone tried to send the corbyn leadership campaign a cheque that they were unable to cash. Note calling the non-donation a donation.



> Corbyn’s campaign said it did not declare the donation because its bank subsequently rejected the cheque, as it was made out to the wrong person. A spokesman for Corbyn was unable to explain on Saturday what then happened to the cash raised. A spokesman said: “I’m told a second cheque may have been sent, but this was not received by the campaign.”



Why should Corbyn have to explain what happened to someone else's cash? Or indeed, a phantom one.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 6, 2016)

Was at the local Red Labour meeting tonight. My first time meeting many of the people there, what with me being a new member and largely refusing to go along to any stuff when him indoors has asked me in the past 

It felt nice and positive, lots of thinking about how to campaign in the future, to shore up support in the coming months, getting more people involved and so on. 

And it looks like, barring last minute catastrophe, the Corbster is coming here in a couple of weeks. Official announcement due Monday if all goes to plan. The place booked only holds 1000, so if it goes like any of the others I expect there to be decent over spill. 

Gonna try to get a selfie


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Was at the local Red Labour meeting tonight. My first time meeting many of the people there, what with me being a new member and largely refusing to go along to any stuff when him indoors has asked me in the past
> 
> It felt nice and positive, lots of thinking about how to campaign in the future, to shore up support in the coming months, getting more people involved and so on.
> 
> ...


touch the hem of his robe


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

teuchter said:


> These problems won't be magically solved by nationalisation though, and they could be solved by better regulation, more investment, and changes to transport policy, without nationalisation. I'm not necessarily against renationalising the railways but it's not the main thing that needs to change. An easy concept for people to attach their dissatisfaction to though, a bit like Brexit.


Get the trains  to run on time and imprison Blair, don't really fancy the vision of him swinging from a lamppost.
21st century solutions to 21s century problems


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

happie chappie said:


> It’s more about ease and cost rather than priorities.
> 
> Trains were privatised under a franchise system so as each franchise period comes to an end (or the train operating company voluntary gives up the franchise) the Government can simply take it over, in effect nationalising it piecemeal.
> 
> ...


Deduct their profits since privatisation plus a deduction in the lack of improvements and service and they would probably end up owning the govt money for taking them back into public ownership!


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 7, 2016)

coley said:


> Get the trains  to run on time and imprison Blair, don't really fancy the vision of him swinging from a lamppost.
> 21st century solutions to 21s century problems


He would need to get a fasion designer for uniforms first.


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it matters not a jot to me whether he is strung up in oxford, in hackney or in timbuktu. it is the stringing which is the important aspect of the event, not the location.


No, got to be up here in the North, you lot have got more than your fair share of publicly funded entertainment


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> He would need to get a fasion designer for uniforms first.


Seen wot you done there,I think


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2016)

Corbs takes the fight into enemy territory (sort of). 
You don't need to settle for the future the Tories are creating


----------



## two sheds (Aug 7, 2016)

Good article - I think he should have covered how it's going to be funded, though. I can imagine Telegraph readers asking him that all the way through it, and it's something he can answer. 

As for the pledges themselves I think he needs to show he's serious - carve them into a stone plinth for all to see, for example.


----------



## inva (Aug 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Corbs takes the fight into enemy territory (sort of).
> You don't need to settle for the future the Tories are creating






			
				Jeremy Corbyn said:
			
		

> And don’t doubt that Governments can’t run railways


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2016)

I agree it's a decent piece that knows the target market, largely appealing to self-interest with some typical hobby horses. I also think there's a missed opportunity of some sort - the Keynesian benefits of public spending and working infrastructure to all those entrepreneurs or at least entrepreneur sympathisers. Noone spends anything at your non-essential small business if there's no money to go around, or barriers to access etc.

The trouble with it all is, as two sheds points towards, how to shrug off the reputation of Labour as profligate overspenders, even if it was a given that an increase in spending is required. It's probably easier for the Tories to make concessions to spend more than it is for Labour to articulate a capacity for restraint.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 7, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Was at the local Red Labour meeting tonight.


 
who they?

web search suggests they exist mainly on farcebook (which i don't do) and their website is kinda minimalist...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 7, 2016)

A relatively new-ish group within the LP, wanting to bring together people on the left of the party internally, rather than through something like Momentum, although there are Momentum members who are part of it -- and there are also people hostile to Momentum who are part of it. There's no formal membership, it's more a loose collective that aims to like I say bring people together, and help them organise, coordinate, get others involved etc. I don't know what I expected in terms of turnout, but considering it was just a facebook call-out for a meeting in an area where there's usually pretty low turnout at regular CLP meetings, there were about 25 people there from all of Stoke, Newcastle, and Staffs Moorlands. Organisers and people from the execs/officers of the various CLPs were there in their capacity as Red Labour members and union people. They're also the ones leading the organising for the Corbyn event.

I'm not on facebook either. They're looking at ways to better connect with new and old members alike.

It was a good discussion, anyway. Covered the local nomination meetings that have gone ahead so far (2 the night previous), the one that's happening next week (mine), and the one that isn't going ahead at all (Ruth Smeeth's), informal guestimates of how many will be there to vote for Corbs next week, planning for the future once he's won and there's continued pressure from the right when they start hunkering down worried about the potential for deselections, discussion about getting officers and execs to be left majorities, and stuff about logistics of the Corbyn event. They're trying to sort out meeting every month, and they've also been organising phone banking and that sort of thing too.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 7, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> A relatively new-ish group within the LP, wanting to bring together people on the left of the party internally, rather than through something like Momentum, although there are Momentum members who are part of it -- and there are also people hostile to Momentum who are part of it. There's no formal membership, it's more a loose collective that aims to like I say bring people together, and help them organise, coordinate, get others involved etc. I don't know what I expected in terms of turnout, but considering it was just a facebook call-out for a meeting in an area where there's usually pretty low turnout at regular CLP meetings, there were about 25 people there from all of Stoke, Newcastle, and Staffs Moorlands. Organisers and people from the execs/officers of the various CLPs were there in their capacity as Red Labour members and union people. They're also the ones leading the organising for the Corbyn event.
> 
> I'm not on facebook either. They're looking at ways to better connect with new and old members alike.
> 
> It was a good discussion, anyway. Covered the local nomination meetings that have gone ahead so far (2 the night previous), the one that's happening next week (mine), and the one that isn't going ahead at all (Ruth Smeeth's), informal guestimates of how many will be there to vote for Corbs next week, planning for the future once he's won and there's continued pressure from the right when they start hunkering down worried about the potential for deselections, discussion about getting officers and execs to be left majorities, and stuff about logistics of the Corbyn event. They're trying to sort out meeting every month, and they've also been organising phone banking and that sort of thing too.



What do they stand for that Momentum don't? Are there other left grouplets within the LP aside from these two?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What do they stand for that Momentum don't? Are there other left grouplets within the LP aside from these two?


I know someone who was part of setting up Red Labour - i think 3 or 4 years ago, so they've been going before Jeremy Corbyn was elected.  Around here it seems to be lots of older "Old Labour" types with some younger people joining more recently.  Momentum is specifically about building and harnessing support for Corbyn, while most of Red Labour is supportive of Corbyn its not built around supporting one particular candidate.  Another more formal left group within the Labour party is the Labour Representation Committee.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2016)

Reports that the Friends of Al Aqsa raised and donated £10k for Corbyn. The agenda of the guardian and telegraph in linking it to the anti-Semitism stuff is obvious - though it hardly an illegitimate line of enquiry. Most of all the Corbyn lot sound like amateurs in terms of not being able to tell a clear tale as to what happened. I don't mean they are lying, just that they seemingly can't answer what was cashed and what happened to the money. This might have been acceptable amid a shoestring leadership bid they never expected to win, but not now.
‘There’s nothing dodgy’: Questions over Jeremy Corbyn donation


----------



## free spirit (Aug 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Reports that the Friends of Al Aqsa raised and donated £10k for Corbyn. The agenda of the guardian and telegraph in linking it to the anti-Semitism stuff is obvious - though it hardly an illegitimate line of enquiry. Most of all the Corbyn lot sound like amateurs in terms of not being able to tell a clear tale as to what happened. I don't mean they are lying, just that they seemingly can't answer what was cashed and what happened to the money. This might have been acceptable amid a shoestring leadership bid they never expected to win, but not now.
> ‘There’s nothing dodgy’: Questions over Jeremy Corbyn donation


it sounds like the cheques were discretely filed in a drawer to avoid awkward questions while also not publicly offending the organisations involved.

But if a cheque isn't cashed then it won't appear on the accounts or be listed as a donation as no funds had been received, so there's nothing dodgy about that side of it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2016)

free spirit said:


> it sounds like the cheques were discretely filed in a drawer to avoid awkward questions while also not publicly offending the organisations involved.
> 
> But if a cheque isn't cashed then it won't appear on the accounts or be listed as a donation as no funds had been received, so there's nothing dodgy about that side of it.


Hard to tell, though it looks like 1 cheque did get cashed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Reports that the Friends of Al Aqsa raised and donated £10k for Corbyn. The agenda of the guardian and telegraph in linking it to the anti-Semitism stuff is obvious - though it hardly an illegitimate line of enquiry. Most of all the Corbyn lot sound like amateurs in terms of not being able to tell a clear tale as to what happened. I don't mean they are lying, just that they seemingly can't answer what was cashed and what happened to the money. This might have been acceptable amid a shoestring leadership bid they never expected to win, but not now.
> ‘There’s nothing dodgy’: Questions over Jeremy Corbyn donation


In 2012, Ian Austin accused the Friends of Al Aqsa, which is a human rights organisation, of being "Holocaust deniers". He was forced into making an apology. If the Labour Right and their media chums are trying to make an issue out of this, it's not a great line of attack. Corbs needs to stand firm and face them down.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> In 2012, Ian Austin accused the Friends of Al Aqsa, which is a human rights organisation, of being "Holocaust deniers". He was forced into making an apology. If the Labour Right and their media chums are trying to make an issue out of this, it's not a great line of attack. Corbs needs to stand firm and face them down.


I agree and suspect that guardian are trying to go down exactly that road.  I've no objection to him taking their money, certainly when you compare it to the cash the tories received from Russian oligarchs. It just seems that in the game of parliamentary politics it isn't very sure footed, to say the least, to be coming out with the answers the Corbyn spokesperson was reported to have come out with in the story.  Afaik there are supposed to be rules about taking money from overseas based groups, which I presume the Al Aqsa group is. The usual way to get round this is to have personal donations, which have to be made by someone on the electoral register.  They say donations were rejected by the bank because they were made out _to_ the wrong 'person' (curious in itself).  I do wonder though if they were made out _by_ the wrong person - somebody not on the UK register?  I really don't think there's anything dodgy here, just that after the anti-Semitism row they should have been ready for this.

edit: though the other side of this is that if the guardian know that the other donations, beyond the one declared, really weren't ever cashed, they really playing a dirty game.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2016)

Cheques to the wrong person/entity probably aren't uncommon. Since 'A/C payee only' got printed on all cheques, the name needs to match. I just had to return one as it was made out jointly and we don't have a joint account. In this case it probably needed to be the legal name or the treasurer and it's entirely possible someone addressed it to another person.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I agree and suspect that guardian are trying to go down exactly that road.  I've no objection to him taking their money, certainly when you compare it to the cash the tories received from Russian oligarchs. It just seems that in the game of parliamentary politics it isn't very sure footed, to say the least, to be coming out with the answers the Corbyn spokesperson was reported to have come out with in the story.  Afaik there are supposed to be rules about taking money from overseas based groups, which I presume the Al Aqsa group is. The usual way to get round this is to have personal donations, which have to be made by someone on the electoral register.  They say donations were rejected by the bank because they were made out _to_ the wrong 'person' (curious in itself).  I do wonder though if they were made out _by_ the wrong person - somebody not on the UK register?  I really don't think there's anything dodgy here, just that after the anti-Semitism row they should have been ready for this.
> 
> edit: though the other side of this is that if the guardian know that the other donations, beyond the one declared, really weren't ever cashed, they really playing a dirty game.


it's not an overseas group.



> About Us
> *Friends of Al-Aqsa* is a UK based non-profit making NGO concerned with defending the human rights of Palestinians and protecting the sacred al-Aqsa Sanctuary in Jerusalem. This vision is supported by various international groups and organisations. Friends of Al-Aqsa was first established in 1997 and now has an international support base.
> 
> *Aims & Objectives*
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 7, 2016)

Utter non-scandal IMO. 

Should scarcely have appeared on page 33 of the Observer today let alone page 1 or even 13 

(It was continued on page 13 from a very minor 3 paragraphs at the foot of page 1 in the paper edition. That probably tells you enough).


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 7, 2016)

My daughter, who I hadn't seen in ages, is voting for the better candidates in the NEC, just before it's too late. Ballot closes tomorrow. Huge smiles from me. Her girlfriend is cool too, a proper leftie nerd.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 7, 2016)

Tom Watson seems to be in censureship mode on facebook. I didn't imagine facebook could be so good at spreading ideas.


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Corbs takes the fight into enemy territory (sort of).
> You don't need to settle for the future the Tories are creating


Aye, read it earlier, he is so 'hard left' good that he mentioned publicly owned  industries can make a profit for the public, interesting that he got space on the ST though!


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> In 2012, Ian Austin accused the Friends of Al Aqsa, which is a human rights organisation, of being "Holocaust deniers". He was forced into making an apology. If the Labour Right and their media chums are trying to make an issue out of this, it's not a great line of attack. Corbs needs to stand firm and face them down.


It's the name innit, any organisation with the prefix 'Al' gets a negative response from your average mail/ sun reader.
And the likes of the Guardian know this full well, just by associating Corbyn with any organisation connected to Islam will ring alarm bells with this those who skip read the headlines on the way to the sports section.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 7, 2016)

coley said:


> It's the name innit, any organisation with the prefix 'Al' gets a negative response from your average mail/ sun reader.
> And the likes of the Guardian know this full well, just by associating Corbyn with any organisation connected to Islam will ring alarm bells with this those who skip read the headlines on the way to the sports section.



I wonder if the Friends of Al-Gore found the same disdain pointed at them?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 7, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> FUCK OFF



Eh?


.


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I wonder if the Friends of Al-Gore found the same disdain pointed at them?


 bugger off, you know what I meant.
Did Al Gore actually have any friends?


----------



## coley (Aug 7, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Eh?
> 
> 
> .


Why the "eh" ? seems self explanatorily?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 7, 2016)

coley said:


> Why the "eh" ? seems self explanatorily?



He keeps posting abuse, the 'eh' is just a fuck you...


.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> He keeps posting abuse, the 'eh' is just a fuck you...
> 
> 
> .


its cos you won't disable yer damned 'set from iphone usin twattalk' thingy. It is annoying tbf


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its cos you won't disable yer damned 'set from iphone usin twattalk' thingy. It is annoying tbf


he got a warning from mods about it too


----------



## BigTom (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its cos you won't disable yer damned 'set from iphone usin twattalk' thingy. It is annoying tbf


Anti social too but I've put him on ignore, cos so often it's one line of post, one line of signature. Takes a couple of seconds to disable, can only be refusing cos he's being a dick for some reason. Tapatalk doesn't do ignore though so have seen his posts this morning and sadly feel I've made the right choice to put him on ignore as it's so annoying to read every post.

KE just turn it off, from the initial losing screen, me - setting - edit signature - none
2 seconds, done and you stop annoying everyone.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 8, 2016)

Stop ganging up on him it's hardly a big deal is it ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 8, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Stop ganging up on him it's hardly a big deal is it ?


Yeah it is


----------



## Cakes (Aug 8, 2016)

This opinion piece is very long but an interesting read: The truth about Corbyn. Share a lot of these feelings of supporting his policies but having concerns about competence and the viability of the Labour party.

Like the description of the four way disconnect between Labour leader and membership vs PLP and potential electorate.

Kind of liked this analogy :


> Hostility from large quadrants of the press, disloyalty from parts of the PLP, the fragmentation of the Labour vote, the current unstable climate, the natural conservatism of the British public – all these are mountains to climb. Being shit at climbing makes them insurmountable obstacles.


but would describe it less as being shit at climbing as never having invested in climbing equipment.

Still going to the rally in Bristol tonight though. Totally getting a selfie.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 8, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Stop ganging up on him it's hardly a big deal is it ?



Urban's advert free status is a big deal to a lot of people who post here. We all know editor could have coined it in from this site but chose not to. For posters to then stick up a load of adverts because they're too lazy to disable them is fucking rude IMO.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

Ah, 'the natural conservatism of the British public.'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 8, 2016)

Some comment here that echoes other things I've heard from long term members disgusted by how bent Labour is.



> The one group of members overlooked in nearly all dissections of Corbynism are the existing members switching from whoever they supported in 2015 to Jeremy. We're not talking people who joined to vote last summer and have stayed, but comrades who've knocked about the block ( as well as a few doors) and have served the party in various capacities. I know this party constituency exists because, a) I'm one of those people, and b) so are nearly all my comrades. I know folks who voted Andy, Yvette, and Liz last time who are all hitting the Corbyn button on this occasion. It's not that Jez has so much won them over, but rather the behaviour of his opponents have driven their support into the arms of his campaign. Jeremy hasn;t attracted them, the political geniuses of core group hostile, you know, the people supposedly specialising in reaching out beyond bases and comfort zones, _lost them_.


Reluctant Corbynism All That Is Solid ...: Reluctant Corbynism


----------



## andysays (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ah, 'the natural conservatism of the British public.'



That's a clumsy and ugly phrase, and I would hope the author expands on it/ attempts to justify it in the piece it's an excert from. I'd be wary of dismissing the whole piece simply on that basis though.

To develop the mountain climbing analogy, maybe we should be asking whether getting a small team of climbers to the top of the mountain of parliamentary representation is necessarily the best or only goal, and considering whether we might also/rather focus on working on getting a larger group of people to occupy a different type of terrain.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

Cakes said:


> This opinion piece is very long but an interesting read: The truth about Corbyn. Share a lot of these feelings of supporting his policies but having concerns about competence and the viability of the Labour party.
> 
> Like the description of the four way disconnect between Labour leader and membership vs PLP and potential electorate.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the 'truth' according to Alex Andreou. He can fuck off. How does he or even you define 'competence'? Are the plotters 'competent'? Andreou doesn't actually deal with that part of the equation. I wonder why?

Speaking in PR slogans and buzzwords isn't a sign of competence; it's a sign that you don't have any ideas beyond the confines of the so-called Westminster village. If the coup plotters want to appeal to the electorate, then they're going to have to speak in a way that connects with ordinary people. They'll also have to offer something that resembles a vision. Instead Owen Smith talks about "practical socialism" and a "new industrial revolution" but these are nothing but empty words.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Not long now....


----------



## newbie (Aug 8, 2016)

I dk if this has been posted, I haven't noticed it, but today is the deadline for 'affiliated supporters'- union members etc, to register.  

The Labour Party


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 8, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's a clumsy and ugly phrase, and I would hope the author expands on it/ attempts to justify it in the piece it's an excert from. I'd be wary of dismissing the whole piece simply on that basis though.



It's pathetic liberal left, shit


> Things really started to turn during the EU referendum campaign. Whatever you think on the issue or the result, there was a strange disconnect there; an active avoidance. Corbyn refused to share a platform, turned down interviews and debates, campaigned half-heartedly, obsessed about obscure directives nobody gave a fig for, and even went on holiday during the short campaign.


Oh no! He didn't work with the Tories.


> I always thought that socialism could combine with liberal values.


Nice of the bloke to advertise his stupidity and lack of backbone.



> The only counter-narrative is SyRizA in Greece. It took a disparate alliance of factions, organised them into a party, harnessed the energy of the Syntagma Square protesters, and won power within established structures. It has been a process of, sometimes unpallatable, compromise, of sullying something pure, which has seen some factions break off. Key to this was the charismatic, quick-thinking, pragmatic and competent Alexis Tsipras. He held the party together, until the glue had become fixed.


There you have it, he want's Labour to emulate a party that is currently attacking the poorest in the country.

Pricks like this are the reason why the Labour Party is a dead end.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

His holiday was sat-monday btw - as if that shit matters.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Members win right to vote. 100 000 extra corbyn voters added.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Lol


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Members win right to vote. 100 000 extra corbyn voters added.


will it be that many? A lot of them paid the 25 quid I think, so there'll  be doubling up.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> will it be that many? A lot of them paid the 25 quid I think, so there'll  be doubling up.


Next class action there?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 8, 2016)

Cakes said:


> This opinion piece is very long but an interesting read: The truth about Corbyn. Share a lot of these feelings of supporting his policies but having concerns about competence and the viability of the Labour party.
> 
> Like the description of the four way disconnect between Labour leader and membership vs PLP and potential electorate.
> 
> ...



Androu is a twerp - had an absolute liberalmungous meltdown re : brexit, decides it's all Corbos fault, then exposed the fact he had no idea whatsoever that Corbyn had quietly opposed the EU for 30'years  - just not sure how / why anyone would take this dude seriously ( do they ? Who is he ? )


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> will it be that many? A lot of them paid the 25 quid I think, so there'll  be doubling up.


I expect they did - no way of knowing from here though. I think what Brogdale suggests above may be next... would give some clue at least.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Yeah, let's hope they haven't spent that £4.5m already.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

Alex Andreou isn't going to be happy that the disenfranchised have been re-enfranchised. Well, fuck him.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

£4.5m says....


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ah, 'the natural conservatism of the British public.'



In many ways, it's my own (small c) conservatism that makes Corbyn seem quite appealing. I've never seen the Conservatives as anything other than free market radicals out to disturb the calm of a quiet English Sunday afternoon - and I like Sunday afternoons. Corbyn has an allotment, is modest and slightly bumbling. These are good things. They make me feel safe.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> £4.5m says....



Good luck with that, buddy.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, let's hope they haven't spent that £4.5m already.


"Corbyn loses £4.5m from Labour party coffers"


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 8, 2016)

Ha ha ha


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Granted right to appeal.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> to speak in a way that connects with ordinary people.



What/who are "ordinary people", exactly?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What/who are "ordinary people", exactly?


Use your imagination.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


>



It will be interesting to see what grounds they think they have for an appeal. That's a pretty fucking unambiguous decision.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> What/who are "ordinary people", exactly?



People that don't do that weird fingerless pointing thing when trying to emphasise a point, or start every sentence with "you know...", or  tell us constantly how 'passionate' they are about the labour party.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


>


Again, easy money this judgery lark. Plain as fucking day, innit?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 8, 2016)

This is fucking farcical from Labour. Why would people vote for them based on this alone regardless of who's leader? Students running a real ale appreciation society look more competent than Labour at the moment. Wouldn't be surprised to see polling drop further now and of course Corbyn will be blamed for all of it


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Use your imagination.


They are imaginary, then.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> They are imaginary, then.



If ordinary people are imaginary, does that make non-ordinary people the norm?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Next class action there?


Judge already said it should be refunded


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If ordinary people are imaginary, does that make non-ordinary people the norm?



Well, it would mean that all people are non-ordinary people, obviously.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2016)

Are they likely to appeal though? 
The QC asking if they have leave to appeal might just be standard practice  -becasue surely it would be totally pointless. Unless you were actively trying to fuck things up as much as possible.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2016)

Also - when does the new NEC take over - is it not till conferance?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 8, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Also - when does the new NEC take over - is it not till conferance?



Yeah, won't be til it's all over. Plus only partially new, though hopefully enough to shift the balance.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> They are imaginary, then.


That doesn't make sense.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2016)

They've been ordered to pay back the £25 of 3 of the complainants so anyone who has doubled up should be able to get their money back.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2016)

(((Labour admin staff)))


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

This level of fuck up should be a resignation matter for Mcnicol. Total shambles.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Nicely done.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 8, 2016)

Who's betting the farce surrounding this is used as the excuse for Smith to withdraw the leadership challenge, saying that the process needs to be clear before such a challenge can be made, and thus denying Corbyn a victory that might make him stronger? I reckon at some point the Progress types will realise this election is damaging to their cause.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Who's betting the farce surrounding this is used as the excuse for Smith to withdraw the leadership challenge, saying that the process needs to be clear before such a challenge can be made, and thus denying Corbyn a victory that might make him stronger? I reckon at some point the Progress types will realise this election is damaging to their cause.


Well, that would be funny as.
Great position to take; "I'll not stand in an election in which members can vote"


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 8, 2016)

Agent Smith, stealing Corbyn's ideas and setting them as a right wing marker on what's acceptible policy in the Labour party, then dropping out of the race. Right wingers now fucked. He was a Corbynista all along


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Smith has got himself in short-medium term lose/lose situation. The lesser loss is to stick it through until formal defeat as it could potentially mark him as  big beast and first challenger on the paper next time around. That could backfire though and he'd instead been seen as an opportunistic chiseller with a poor tactical grasp of the party and wider issues. To pull out will ensure this is the case.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

Just posting this here so we can all laugh at him:



"bourgeois courts" 

AH-HAHAHAHA!

McTernan, you salty bastard.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2016)

Everyone should apply for a £25 refund.

There's fuck all chance this lot have the capacity to work out whether you actually paid it or not.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Just posting this here so we can all laugh at him:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sadly, another far left Labourite with no respect for the rule of law.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Everyone should apply for a £25 refund.
> 
> There's fuck all chance this lot have the capacity to work out whether you actually paid it or not.


I can see opportunist businesses being set up: 'think you might have been mis-sold Labour Party Supportership?


----------



## Libertad (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Sadly, another far left Labourite with no respect for the rule of law.



Or any understanding of the irony of his using an IWW poster as his Twitter avatar. Cunt.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That doesn't make sense.


You asked me to imagine what you mean, instead of just explaining what you mean. That doesn't make much sense.


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 8, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Or any understanding of the irony of his using an IWW poster as his Twitter avatar. Cunt.



Winds me up everytime I see a tweet from him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm imagining the labour coupists and their legal team, glum faces and stools in the brewery with nary a drink between them

for fucks sake. Three, twenty five or one pound fifty. No ta.


----------



## agricola (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Smith has got himself in short-medium term lose/lose situation. The lesser loss is to stick it through until formal defeat as it could potentially mark him as  big beast and first challenger on the paper next time around. That could backfire though and he'd instead been seen as an opportunistic chiseller with a poor tactical grasp of the party and wider issues. To pull out will ensure this is the case.



Given how they have acted so far, I think there has to be very good odds on "pull out".


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

agricola said:


> Given how they have acted so far, I think there has to be very good odds on "pull out".


On the basis that thus far when presented with two bad options they've plumped for the worse of the two?


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 8, 2016)

Is it me or does Owen Smith's social media team seem to favour the _avalanche of garbled drivel _approach to twitter?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Maybe Labour need a Bond Guarantee Scheme - 'pay your £25 safe in the knowledge you'll get it back if the NEC fucks up'.

Labour are increasingly looking like some dodgy lettings agency: _yeah, I know it wasn't on the inventory, but you've lost a teaspoon, so..._


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> View attachment 90468
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Peter noone? That's a good offer. The new album was surprisingly good. Seriously.

Transact? They have a program running stuff that just changes words in a set-piece don't they?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

agricola said:


> Given how they have acted so far, I think there has to be very good odds on "pull out".


Well, I've certainly got a sneaking suspicion he now wishes Sore Like an Eagle had got more nominations than him. It would have been humiliating, but he wouldn't have been left thinking, 'oh, sweet fuck, not another 2 months of this'.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> View attachment 90468
> 
> Is it me or does Owen Smith's social media team seem to favour the _avalanche of garbled drivel _approach to twitter?


It's a very, very light breeze away from a good parody.

Stuff like this...



...only needs the mere passage of time to make for a decent joke.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe Labour need a Bond Guarantee Scheme - 'pay your £25 safe in the knowledge you'll get it back if the NEC fucks up'.
> 
> Labour are increasingly looking like some dodgy lettings agency: _yeah, I know it wasn't on the inventory, but you've lost a teaspoon, so..._


used car salesmen. Gmail adress and shit portacabin office


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's a very, very light breeze away from a good parody.
> 
> Stuff like this...
> 
> ...



owen smith has been a very funny joke for many years now


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> View attachment 90468
> 
> Is it me or does Owen Smith's social media team seem to favour the _avalanche of garbled drivel _approach to twitter?


it's the thousand monkeys at computers school of thought


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well, I've certainly got a sneaking suspicion he now wishes Sore Like an Eagle had got more nominations than him. It would have been humiliating, but he wouldn't have been left thinking, 'oh, sweet fuck, not another 2 months of this'.


the Arghh must be quietly pleased that she isn't the only person whose going to end up looking a right wally over all this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the Arghh must be quietly pleased that she isn't the only person whose going to end up looking a right wally over all this.


must be pleased with how lightly she's got off


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2016)

Who is actually respoinsible for the legal challenge? Chair of the NEC?

The coup-ists have massively fucked this up - support for corbyn will surely only grow as a result of their serial incompetance and extremely damaging behvoir - as well as the financial and reputational cost to the labour party. I imagine a lot of long term people within the party who are not neccesarily  Corbyn supporters will furious with the way they have behaved.


----------



## agricola (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> On the basis that thus far when presented with two bad options they've plumped for the worse of the two?



Sort of, yes.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Everyone should apply for a £25 refund.
> 
> There's fuck all chance this lot have the capacity to work out whether you actually paid it or not.



Is there any chance trade union members could claim the subs they have paid into the Labour party since they joined?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 8, 2016)

They can keep my £25. 

My favourite bit of all this is that the people who are pulling the party apart are still blaming Corbyn for the poor Labour polling figures.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> not neccesarily Corbyn supporters will furious with the way they have behaved.


its a display of contempt for internal party democracy that offends everyone  As for Owen 'happening dad' Smith, well the lols continue. Theeres one who will claim Prodigy but his car stereo has only a Scorpion cd in it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Urban's advert free status is a big deal to a lot of people who post here. We all know editor could have coined it in from this site but chose not to. For posters to then stick up a load of adverts because they're too lazy to disable them is fucking rude IMO.



Totally agree!

Sent from my consciousness using my vast psychic powers


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Androu is a twerp - had an absolute liberalmungous meltdown re : brexit, decides it's all Corbos fault, then exposed the fact he had no idea whatsoever that Corbyn had quietly opposed the EU for 30'years  - just not sure how / why anyone would take this dude seriously ( do they ? Who is he ? )



I like "liberalmungous", and shall be expropriating it as needed.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> used car salesmen. Gmail adress and shit portacabin office


'Rigging a leadership vote is very much like making love to a tightly defined and much reduced party membership'


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Is there any chance trade union members could claim the subs they have paid into the Labour party since they joined?


Since 1900.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

If Owen Smith did withdraw from the leadership it would probably leave the party at least morally bound to offer the return of all the £25s. I don't think he will given that, on balance, withdrawing makes him look an even bigger fool than sticking it out till September and getting crushed in the vote. However since his faction seem keen to utterly fuck the party there must be a few neurons in his reptilian brain that like the idea.


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2016)

This might be a silly question but the judge said that the claimants must have their £25 refunded, is it actually clear that Labour are legally obliged to give votes to all the recent members, or just refund the £25 to those recent members who signed up as registered supporters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

I dunno Wilf, I know little about Smith but what I have seen shows me someone motivated by a lot of self belief. I think he buys his own shit iyswim. On that grounds hhe would be more likely to go 'fuck you all I will win'. Rather than deciding to damage Corbyn/party chances by pulling out of the contest. Ego is something I always forget with politicians. Theirs are MASSIVE


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> This might be a silly question but the judge said that the claimants must have their £25 refunded, is it actually clear that Labour are legally obliged to give votes to all the recent members, or just refund the £25 to those recent members who signed up as registered supporters.


The latter I think.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

Hahaha oh  god the new members ruling is the icing on the cake. I thought the anti-Corbyn people were the 'competent' ones?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The latter I think.


You've got to wonder whether the party bureaucracy is seriously  capable of sorting all this shit out now.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to wonder whether the party bureaucracy is seriously  capable of sorting all this shit out now.


'Can I have my £25 back please'
- Well, we could give you a credit note for the next challenge to Corbyn.
'No thanks I'll have my £25 back'
- Okay, what about if we throw in one month's Netflix?
'No, £25 please'
- Would a massage from Neil Kinnock seal the deal?


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The latter I think.


Ah if that's the case, it's obviously good for those members who paid the money, but doesn't actually improve Corbyn's chances.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Ah if that's the case, it's obviously good for those members who paid the money, but doesn't actually improve Corbyn's chances.


But allowing all post January members to vote (presumably) will.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

fourth circle of hell, a happy ending from kinnock as he does the 'we're alright!' shouts


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Hahaha oh  god the new members ruling is the icing on the cake. I thought the anti-Corbyn people were the 'competent' ones?


the wafer thin competency of middle managment who haven't had a real fight since school


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Hang on  - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on  - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?


Yes, the party machine will now have to sort out those recent joiners who've then also forked out the £25, thinking they'd been disenfranchised.
Looks potentially very messy.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on  - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?


Some people who joined after January paid the further £25 in order to get a vote.  Presume the money bit of the decision refers to them.


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> But allowing all post January members to vote (presumably) will.


What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on  - isn't this just about members who joined before jan 12th - not the £25. Those who joined before would not have paid £25? The £25 paid by people after doesn't enter into it does it?


I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.

(Did I answer the question you were asking?)


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.


The judge found against the party (NEC) decision to time-limit the franchise based on contract law.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.


If you joined up and paid £25 you get a vote already.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> What I meant, is that it isn't clear to me that the ruling necessarily says that all post January members must be given a vote. It seemed clear that those who joined post January and then paid £25 to be registered supporters will get a refund. But for Corbyn to benefit it would be necessary that those post January members who didn't sign up as registered supporters, be given a vote.


The ruling is that all members who were members before the leadership contest was announced are eligible to vote.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> This might be a silly question but the judge said that the claimants must have their £25 refunded, is it actually clear that Labour are legally obliged to give votes to all the recent members, or just refund the £25 to those recent members who signed up as registered supporters.


They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.


I don't think the ruling says anything about people who previously registered as supporters. Only people who became members after 12 January.

People who didn't join as members won't get their £25 back.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.
> 
> (Did I answer the question you were asking?)


Yes, clear ta. There seems to be confusion on here between people who joined before 12th jan and what they paid and those who joined after and who didn't have a vote (before this ruling).



Athos said:


> They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.


There aren't any 3 quidders though are there - surely that was just for the last leadership election.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> They have to allow all the three quidders to vote, and refund the £25 to those of them who paid to 'upgrade' their three quid status, thinking that was the only way they'd get a vote.


Really?  Do you have a link? I haven't seen that aspect mentioned in the reporting.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

You can't pay 3 quid last year then vote in labour leadership elections forever.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

3 quid was not membership. Never was.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, clear ta. There seems to be confusion on here between people who joined before 12th jan and what they paid and those who joined after and who didn't have a vote (before this ruling).
> 
> 
> There aren't any 3 quidders though are there - surely that was just for the last leadership election.


 Yes, afaik. The party explicitly said supporters had to re-register and that the £3 was a one off - and I haven't seen that bit challenged in the court reports.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> I don't think the ruling says anything about people who previously registered as supporters. Only people who became members after 12 January.
> 
> People who didn't join as members won't get their £25 back.


Surely, people who joined before 12 Jan were always eligible.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 8, 2016)

looks like NEC will appeal.

What kind of mindset assumes to get away with something so clearly unlawful?

The kind that gets away with warcrimes, 100 000s of dead iraqis and the birth of ISIS.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2016)

I may have got this arse about face, second-hand. Will read the judgement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

clear attempt to price out the new members and corbyn supporters trot entryists. Failed. I wonder how many of the people who paid 25 quid to get around the stitch up job will claim it back? I imagine plenty will just be satisfied that the PLP right has been slapped down. Me, I'd be asking for the 25 plus interest. And compo for hurting my feelings.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> 3 quid was not membership. Never was.


I took it to mean you were affiliated as a labour supporter with one off voting rights rather than full member, thats how it was sold at the time iirc. What a mess


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> I think this is about members who joined after 12 January. They can now vote in the election. If, on the NEC ruling that they weren't eligible to vote, they signed up as a £25 supporter in order to vote, they should now be refunded that money as it was unnecessary given that they are in fact eligible.
> 
> (Did I answer the question you were asking?)



If that's the case then great. It is just that the reports that I've seen so far  say that the judge found that the NEC decision was unlawful and that the claimants (who all paid £25 to be registered supporters) must be refunded. But it wasn't clear to me that just because the NEC decision was unlawful, they would necessarily be obliged to allow those post January members who didn't pay £25 to vote and  I didn't see any  mention of the judge saying that they would (since it's not applicable to the claimants who all did pay £25). For example, the Labour party could make restitution in other ways, such as by refunding the membership fees.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> If that's the case then great. It is just that the reports that I've seen so far  say that the judge found that the NEC decision was unlawful and that the claimants (who all paid £25 to be registered supporters) must be refunded. But it wasn't clear to me that just because the NEC decision was unlawful, they would necessarily be obliged to allow those post January members who didn't pay £25 to vote and  I didn't see any  mention of the judge saying that they would (since it's not applicable to the claimants who all did pay £25). For example, the Labour party could make restitution in other ways, such as by refunding the membership fees.


Separate )or forget) the money from membership - they are now not allowed to cut off members post jan 12th from voting.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> clear attempt to price out the new members and corbyn supporters trot entryists. Failed. I wonder how many of the people who paid 25 quid to get around the stitch up job will claim it back? I imagine plenty will just be satisfied that the PLP right has been slapped down. Me, I'd be asking for the 25 plus interest. And compo for hurting my feelings.


I could certainly see Ian McNicol on a future episode of Judge Judy. 'The cases are _real_, the people are _real'_.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Some people who joined after January paid the further £25 in order to get a vote.  Presume the money bit of the decision refers to them.


I joined just before the rule change, then cancelled the membership direct debit as soon as i found out and paid £25. I reckon I could end up £25 up here.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

All relevant facts here 
Labour members barred from leadership ballot win right to vote


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I joined just before the rule change, then cancelled the membership direct debit as soon as i found out and paid £25. I reckon I could end up £25 up here.


Are you one of those people who go to tk maxx buy some trousers that are too skinny return them (minus bus fare) and think you've won?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I joined just before the rule change, then cancelled the membership direct debit as soon as i found out and paid £25. I reckon I could end up £25 up here.


spend it all on scratchcards


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I joined just before the rule change, then cancelled the membership direct debit as soon as i found out and paid £25. I reckon I could end up £25 up here.


Probably... but fucking hell, what kind of lawyers does the party retain, it was obvious the January 12th thing was at best dodgy.  It's one thing to change the rules in order to gerrymander a result - but at least have the common sense to think it through first.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Athos said:


> Surely, people who joined before 12 Jan were always eligible.


Yes. And now, those who joined after 12 Jan can too.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Are you one of those people who go to tk maxx buy some trousers that are too skinny return them (minus bus fare) and think you've won?


Ian McNicol's party machine has become a rail of inaccurately sized trousers with each customer getting a random returns policy. What could possibly go wrong?  'If you get your kecks home and find the left leg is missing, send us £25 and we'll rummage round in the storeroom and see what we've got'.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Are you one of those people who go to tk maxx buy some trousers that are too skinny return them (minus bus fare) and think you've won?


I live within walking distance of a TK maxx so 1) any illusions I had about their good value have been destroyed and 2)  no bus fare.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> If that's the case then great. It is just that the reports that I've seen so far  say that the judge found that the NEC decision was unlawful and that the claimants (who all paid £25 to be registered supporters) must be refunded. But it wasn't clear to me that just because the NEC decision was unlawful, they would necessarily be obliged to allow those post January members who didn't pay £25 to vote and  I didn't see any  mention of the judge saying that they would (since it's not applicable to the claimants who all did pay £25). For example, the Labour party could make restitution in other ways, such as by refunding the membership fees.


It wasn't the charging of £25 that was found to be unlawful. That isn't what the case was about.

What was found to be unlawful is denying a vote in the leadership election to paid-up full members of the Labour Party. So the ruling is that members must be allowed to vote.

The judge only ordered the repayment of the £25 because it shouldn't have been taken from the members who paid it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2016)

Has was pointed out at the introduction of the £25 fiasco, it amounts to selling votes.
A perfect reflection of today's democratic processes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Ian McNicol's party machine has become a rail of inaccurately sized trousers with each customer getting a random returns policy. What could possibly go wrong?  'If you get your kecks home and find the left leg is missing, send us £25 and we'll rummage round in the storeroom and see what we've got'.


there's an entire storeroom of 'sir' ian mccartney's soiled strides.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Peter noone? That's a good offer. The new album was surprisingly good. Seriously.
> 
> Transact? They have a program running stuff that just changes words in a set-piece don't they?



It's those dodgy Blairist type soundbites, slogan and alliteration that everyone's fucking sick to the stomach of raising it's ugly head again.

"*P*utting into *p*ractice our *p*rinciples"

"We win not to *t*rade our *p*rinciples for *p*ower but to *t*ransact those *p*rinciple into *p*ower. I will *t*rade my socialist *p*rinciples for noone"

Linguistically that last sentence is really interesting.  Firstly he's using unvoiced plosives - which are basically "power syllables".  Unvoiced means they don't resonate in the voice box - unvoiced plosives are safer to use with microphones because the voiced ones can cause serious distortion way more easily.  Voiced once tend to sound more aggressive to (Bs, Ds, Gs).

The second thing that's interesting in the repetition of syllables (and therefore the necessary use of the word transact) and omission of the P on the final word. TPP,TPP, TP...N?   It leaves the listener surprised, and is more likely to stick.

I bet they took a week to come up with it.

Anyway,  just some loose thoughts.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there's an entire storeroom of 'sir' ian mccartney's soiled strides.


Poor lad's had to economise after being forced to pay back £15,000 expenses.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> clear attempt to price out the new members and corbyn supporters trot entryists. Failed. I wonder how many of the people who paid 25 quid to get around the stitch up job will claim it back? I imagine plenty will just be satisfied that the PLP right has been slapped down. *Me, I'd be asking for the 25 plus interest. And compo for hurting my feelings*.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's those dodgy Blairist type soundbites, slogan and alliteration that everyone's fucking sick to the stomach of raising it's ugly head again.
> 
> "*P*utting into *p*ractice our *p*rinciples"
> 
> ...


...and it's on twitter. Which doesn't mean he's not doing that in his wind-swept meetings. If it's a part of a strategy (taking on info about the stuff you've highlighted) then we'll see this taffia endowment  clown doing it in public very soon.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> You asked me to imagine what you mean, instead of just explaining what you mean. That doesn't make much sense.


You're still not making sense and then you try and project your daftness onto me. On your bike and take your pedantry with you.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's those dodgy Blairist type soundbites, slogan and alliteration that everyone's fucking sick to the stomach of raising it's ugly head again.
> 
> "*P*utting into *p*ractice our *p*rinciples"
> 
> ...



Don't forget the nauseating 'not pro austerity but pro prosperity' that one seriously makes me gag.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ...and it's on twitter. Which doesn't mean he's not doing that in his wind-swept meetings. If it's a part of a strategy (taking on info about the stuff you've highlighted) then we'll see this taffia endowment  clown doing it in public very soon.



I already heard him doing it at the 1st hustings with Corbyn.  I'd love to give you time-stamps but it's too fucking long to sit through for a nauseating soundbites


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Don't forget the nauseating 'not pro austerity but pro prosperity' that one seriously makes me gag.


Pro pomposity, more like.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I already heard him doing it at the 1st hustings with Corbyn.  I'd love to give you time-stamps but it's too fucking long to sit through for a nauseating soundbites


Thanks for those two posts, interesting.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for those two posts, interesting.



From what I remember he really starts going for it at about 32 minutes in.  I'm a sadist so I whacked it on youtube to try and find a few choice cuts, but he's so annoying it'd torturous.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> From what I remember he really starts going for it at about 32 minutes in.  I'm a sadist so I whacked it on youtube to try and find a few choice cuts, but he's so annoying it'd torturous.



all stuff straight out of the managment cult/NLP playbook is it not? Attempts to use language as a 'hacking' tool rather than just saying what you actually think and not trying to program the zombies you secretly despise etc


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> all stuff straight out of the managment cult/NLP playbook is it not? Attempts to use language as a 'hacking' tool rather than just saying what you actually think and not trying to program the zombies you secretly despise etc



Exactly that.

butchersapron 

Here's an example from the hustings with timestamp added.  Jezza interrupts him much to Owen's annoyance cos he doesn't get to finish his sentence with 100% audience attention.  LOL!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> all stuff straight out of the managment cult/NLP playbook *is it not?* Attempts to use language as a 'hacking' tool rather than just saying what you actually think and not trying to program the zombies you secretly despise etc


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Exactly that.
> 
> butchersapron
> 
> Here's an example from the hustings with timestamp added.  Jezza interrupts him much to Owen's annoyance cos he doesn't get to finish his sentence with 100% audience attention.  LOL!



Ta.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

Seen estimates of the legal costs of mounting the challenge to today's ruling that go as high as £250k. They'll be using the proceeds from the registered supporters (who can vote) in an attempt to block the franchise of actual members (who they don't want voting). These people.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're still not making sense and then you try and project your daftness onto me. On your bike and take your pedantry with you.


I simply asked what you mean by "ordinary people". It's not pedantry, it's a very straightforward question. For some reason you can't answer it. I suspect that's because it's essentially meaningless to talk about "ordinary people".


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 8, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I simply asked what you mean by "ordinary people". It's not pedantry, it's a very straightforward question. For some reason you can't answer it. I suspect that's because it's essentially meaningless to talk about "ordinary people".


I think you're being an ignorant fuckwit. Goodbye.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

The NEC is going to appeal. What a disgrace.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I think you're being an ignorant fuckwit. Goodbye.


Clearly you're in a good position to advise politicians on how to "connect with ordinary people".


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's those dodgy Blairist type soundbites, slogan and alliteration that everyone's fucking sick to the stomach of raising it's ugly head again.
> 
> "*P*utting into *p*ractice our *p*rinciples"
> 
> ...


To be fair, you will be able to find rhetorical devices from Corbyn, he makes very full use of the 'three-part list' in particular, which he surely does consciously e.g. from his leadership launch he produces a stream of them.

"Come September, when this election is done and dusted,
_there will still be_ a Tory government in office,
_there will still be_ grotesque levels of inequality in our society,
_there will still be _parts of this country that are 'left-behind Britain'.
_
It's the job,
it's the duty,
it's the responsibility_ of every Labour MP to get behind the party at that point, and put it there, against the Tories, about the
_
different,
fairer,
kinder_ Britain that we can build together

Oldie but a goodie.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's those dodgy Blairist type soundbites, slogan and alliteration that everyone's fucking sick to the stomach of raising it's ugly head again.
> 
> "*P*utting into *p*ractice our *p*rinciples"
> 
> ...




Great work. I just learned something.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> The NEC is going to appeal. What a disgrace.


they're probably appealing in a vain attempt to protect the idea that the NEC can interpret the rules however it wants.

In a way it may be good that they're appealing as it will settle that crap argument and make it clear that the NEC should follow and interpret the rules as they're written not make them up as they go along.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

As everyone was so keen on Jo Maugham's legal opinion when he agreed with them, his opinion on this might be of interest (he thinks the judgment is wrong. I've no idea, but it's worth reading why whatever IMO - he expands in the thread of tweets following this initial tweet)


----------



## Combustible (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> It wasn't the charging of £25 that was found to be unlawful. That isn't what the case was about.
> 
> What was found to be unlawful is denying a vote in the leadership election to paid-up full members of the Labour Party. So the ruling is that members must be allowed to vote.
> 
> The judge only ordered the repayment of the £25 because it shouldn't have been taken from the members who paid it.



Yes I know that the court ruled that denying the post January members a vote was unlawful. However the judge did not directly order that they be given a vote. It seems that David Allen Green made the same point, but he also points out that the claimants could proceed with further court action if they are not happy with the NEC's response, so it would be mad for the NEC not to change the rules and let all the members vote. In which case all is good.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2016)

Why the fuck are they going to appeal? Its cut and dried. What are they hoping to achive other than to spunk away yet more party funds to try and disenfranchise the membership - when its clear that owen is going to lose handsomely even with the post jan joiners excluded.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 8, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> To be fair, you will be able to find rhetorical devices from Corbyn, he makes very full use of the 'three-part list' in particular, which he surely does consciously e.g. from his leadership launch he produces a stream of them.
> 
> "Come September, when this election is done and dusted,
> _there will still be_ a Tory government in office,
> ...



Absolutely, I was going to mention it and then I forgot to write it. Using triplets in public speech is the oldest trick in the book. Works wonders too. 

I don't know how many people pick up on these sorts of things. But yes,  Corbyn isn't at all immune, however I rather suspect that he does it as having picked it up from being in politics for 30 years, ,  Smith I reckon has a group of writers coming up with this shite.

Obviously part of being great politically I'd being gifted rhetorically. Owens stuff is bland as fuck and relies heavily on alliteration tricks without actually saying much.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Absolutely, I was going to mention it and then I forgot to write it. Using triplets in public speech is the oldest trick in the book. Works wonders too.
> 
> I don't know how many people pick up on these sorts of things. But yes,  Corbyn isn't at all immune, however I rather suspect that he does it as having picked it up from being in politics for 30 years, ,  Smith I reckon has a group of writers coming up with this shite.
> 
> Obviously part of being great politically I'd being gifted rhetorically. Owens stuff is bland as fuck and relies heavily on alliteration tricks without actually saying much.


There's also a world of difference between writing a speech with attractive and memorable rhythm and cadence to try and keep people's attention and the murky world of advertising speak where linguistic tricks are taught at £500 seminars.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why the fuck are they going to appeal? Its cut and dried.


It hinges on freeze dates, which have been applied retrospectively in recent selection processes (mayoral candidates etc) with no fuss at all. And then there was the stuff on the LP website, which made voting in a leadership election one of the attractions of signing up, without any mention of freeze dates - I suppose what they're thrashing out is whether the website text or the rulebook  (or an interpretation of the rulebook anyway) applies. 

Either way, as ever it isn't actually clear cut.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> As everyone was so keen on Jo Maugham's legal opinion when he agreed with them, his opinion on this might be of interest (he thinks the judgment is wrong. I've no idea, but it's worth reading why whatever IMO - he expands in the thread of tweets following this initial tweet)



He's a QC, so undoubtedly his knowledge of company law is a bazillion miles better than mine, but I think this is "ex post facto" (the term for restrospective application of a law or rule). When applying to court, in absence of other legal framework or specific company laws / existing membership organisation rules, judges move to common law, which apparently "frowns upon" any retrospective application: ex post facto law. So, unless there's specific case law that he knows about that I can't find on Google, I think he's wrong in this case.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 8, 2016)

Clean sweep for the Left in NEC vote apparently National Executive Committee elections 2016

Now let's all laugh at Luke Akehurst.


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Yes I know that the court ruled that denying the post January members a vote was unlawful. However the judge did not directly order that they be given a vote. It seems that David Allen Green made the same point, but he also points out that the claimants could proceed with further court action if they are not happy with the NEC's response, so it would be mad for the NEC not to change the rules and let all the members vote. In which case all is good.



Ok, I see what you mean. But how could the judge order the NEC to allow all members to vote? The NEC hasn't yet done anything illegal, in that the vote has happened yet. I can see that if the vote had already taken place and only pre-12 Jan voters had been sent a ballot that the judge could make some order on what action the NEC would have to take for the vote to be valid... Does the court have the power to order action where no illegal action has taken place?


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 8, 2016)

Corbyn might be able to improve his rhetoric, but a big part of his appeal is the lack of speachifying, just being the honest bloke with the spotless record.

Hopefully the party will return 25 quids with no arguement, but offer making a donation to campaigning, or downpayment on full membership for next time (if the leadership thing goes right). It would be cool if they get a breakdown of what the 25ers prefer.

NEC ballot ends today. My eldest daughter voted for the right slate .

In other news Tom W seems to be deleting his social media comments, because the replies are so (politely) hostile (including mine).


----------



## cantsin (Aug 8, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Clean sweep for the Left in NEC vote apparently National Executive Committee elections 2016
> 
> Now let's all laugh at Luke Akehurst.



boy, I hope this is the case - am blocked by Akehurst, would be great to see his twitter response if anyone had time /inclination ?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 8, 2016)

cantsin said:


> boy, I hope this is the case - am blocked by Akehurst, would be great to see his twitter response if anyone had time /inclination ?





e2a: Crying on the inside at least I hope.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 8, 2016)

cantsin said:


> boy, I hope this is the case - am blocked by Akehurst, would be great to see his twitter response if anyone had time /inclination ?










*Olly Hudson* ‏@*OWHudson*  5m5 minutes ago
At what Labour moderates strategy meeting was it ever thought to be a good idea to run Luke *Akehurst* for NEC?

0 retweets	0 likes













*Presley Hoolahan* ‏@*Mr_Considerate*  10m10 minutes ago
‘What? *Akehurst* not on NEC? Launch strike now. Now I tell you!’






1 retweet	4 likes













*keewa* ‏@*keewa*  14m14 minutes ago
*Akehurst* climbs into his taxi, the sad Incredible Hulk music begins to play

1 retweet	2 likes













*Nick Barlow* ‏@*nickjbarlow*  15m15 minutes ago
Well, at least I won't get any more Vote Luke *Akehurst* ads on my Facebook feed. (And no idea why I was getting them)

0 retweets	2 likes













*prst skrz krk* ‏@*prstskrzkrk*  17m17 minutes ago
congratulations to Luke *Akehurst* on 12th place in the NEC elections! a solid foundation to build on

0 retweets	2 likes













*Jonathan* ‏@*poundstoremike*  17m17 minutes ago
Luke *Akehurst* just casually chatting to himself dressed as a soldier.





0 retweets	10 likes













*Derek Wall* ‏@*Anothergreen*  23m23 minutes ago
Luke *Akehurst* off of the Labour NEC.

8 retweets	11 likes













*Isobel* ‏@*Isobel_waby*  25m25 minutes ago
Isobel Retweeted Red Labour

YEAH...... fantastic... tell me *Akehurst* DID NOT get a look in... sicko was picking an office for himself.

Isobel added,

 
*Red Labour*  @Redlabour2016
LP NEC officers. BLACK Elected SHAWCROFT Elected WEBBE Elected…
1 retweet	2 likes













*Jamie* ‏@*GreenJamieS*  33m33 minutes ago
The 6th candidate elected got just under 82,000, Luke *Akehurst* just over 48,600. Not even close lad. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







2 retweets	8 likes













*Rev. Paul Farnhill* ‏@*RevPaulCA*  34m34 minutes ago
Delighted to see Luke *Akehurst* wasn't elected. #*LabourNEC*

0 retweets	5 likes













*MARTIN* ‏@*AsifitsMartin*  35m35 minutes ago
Can only assume that when they nicknamed Mars 'the red planet', they hadn't seen Luke *Akehurst*'s head.

3 retweets	1 like










In reply to *The Labour Party*


*EllyS* ‏@*BDSJustice*  35m35 minutes ago
@*UKLabour* Israel lobbyist Luke *Akehurst* only got 48,632 votes. Great result!

5 retweets	12 likes













*Ben Gartside* ‏@*BenGartside98*  37m37 minutes ago
All that's happened is that it's business as usua, but we're all pleasantly surprised how many people like Luke *Akehurst*.

1 retweet	3 likes













*Lаuга* ‏@*krasnyy_*  41m41 minutes ago
luke *akehurst* was 12th

3 retweets	7 likes













*Luke Akehurst* ‏@*lukeakehurst*  44m44 minutes ago
And in other news the brilliant @*aliceperryuk* and @*nick_forbes* held the 2 councillor seats on the NEC by a huge margin

12 retweets	22 likes













*Luke Akehurst* ‏@*lukeakehurst*  47m47 minutes ago
Thank you to the 48,632 members who voted for me. I will not give up the fight to save Labour and I ask you all to stay in Labour and fight.

35 retweets	114 likes


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

MY EYES!!!!


----------



## Mation (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ok, I see what you mean. But how could the judge order the NEC to allow all members to vote? The NEC hasn't yet done anything illegal, in that the vote has happened yet. I can see that if the vote had already taken place and only pre-12 Jan voters had been sent a ballot that the judge could make some order on what action the NEC would have to take for the vote to be valid... Does the court have the power to order action where no illegal action has taken place?


I've just been corrected in the (closed!!) Vauxhall Labour group on Facearse from 'illegal' to 'unlawful' by someone whose position I'm thinking _most_ uncomradely thoughts about.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> He's a QC, so undoubtedly his knowledge of company law is a bazillion miles better than mine, but I think this is "ex post facto" (the term for restrospective application of a law or rule). When applying to court, in absence of other legal framework or specific company laws / existing membership organisation rules, judges move to common law, which apparently "frowns upon" any retrospective application: ex post facto law. So, unless there's specific case law that he knows about that I can't find on Google, I think he's wrong in this case.


as mentioned above, apparently freeze dates have been applied in other recent LP selection contests, and commonly have been in the past. FWIW I don't have any problem with the principle of excluding very recent members from a leadership election - but in this case there's the promise made on the website to new sign-ups which did explicitly say they would be able to vote, and the option for non-members to pay to vote - in the light of these it's morally indefensible to try and exclude new members. Not legally though, by the looks of it.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 8, 2016)

Joanne Baxter , booted off after her lies re: the intimidation at the Corbyn / on the Ballot NEC meeting


----------



## Cid (Aug 8, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ok, I see what you mean. But how could the judge order the NEC to allow all members to vote? The NEC hasn't yet done anything illegal, in that the vote has happened yet. I can see that if the vote had already taken place and only pre-12 Jan voters had been sent a ballot that the judge could make some order on what action the NEC would have to take for the vote to be valid... Does the court have the power to order action where no illegal action has taken place?



Illegality means something specific in contract law, best to avoid using it. The court could either issue a mandatory injunction (an injunction making someone do something) or order specific performance (make them carry out their contractual obligations). These tend to be alternatives to damages, but in this case the damages seem to be for the additional £25 rather than the membership - i.e it's clearly implied that the membership should allow a vote (or the court might also have offered refund of that). I've not read any detail on the judgment so no idea why neither of those remedies has been used - possibly it is just because the vote hasn't started yet and that part of the contract hasn't been technically been breached. Have to see what happens I suppose.


----------



## Cid (Aug 8, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Joanne Baxter , booted off after her lies re: the intimidation at the Corbyn / on the Ballot NEC meeting



Johanna.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Joanne Baxter , booted off after her lies re: the intimidation at the Corbyn / on the Ballot NEC meeting


She was off anyway - no-one who wasn't on the left slate stood a chance. I notice that Willsman was the lowest placed of the winners - didn't Baxter imply he was a misogynist beast in her article for proposing they all leave their mobile phones outside? Wonder if that's the effect a slur like that can have (or maybe there's other reasons - but I find it unlikely many people do anything other than vote for a slate in this kind of election)


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

(actually maybe it wasn't baxter who wrote the article I'm thinking of - can't remember who did though)


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> She was off anyway - no-one who wasn't on the left slate stood a chance. I notice that Willsman was the lowest placed of the winners - didn't Baxter imply he was a misogynist beast in her article for proposing they all leave their mobile phones outside? Wonder if that's the effect a slur like that can have (or maybe there's other reasons - but I find it unlikely many people do anything other than vote for a slate in this kind of election)



My daughter didn't know who to vote for. There wasn't much information floating around.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

no, no-one knew who to vote for. That's why the left slate wiped the floor with everyone else.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> as mentioned above, apparently freeze dates have been applied in other recent LP selection contests, and commonly have been in the past. FWIW I don't have any problem with the principle of excluding very recent members from a leadership election - but in this case there's the promise made on the website to new sign-ups which did explicitly say they would be able to vote, and the option for non-members to pay to vote - in the light of these it's morally indefensible to try and exclude new members. Not legally though, by the looks of it.


That's irrelevant if they weren't ex post facto, I.e. barred from voting AFTER they joined. Last year for example, the freeze date was set in advance and was long after nominations according to the dates on wiki:

*Tuesday 9 June 2015* – Nominations open
*Wednesday 12 August 2015 (15:00)* – Last date to join as member, affiliated support or registered supporter and be able to vote
*Friday 14 August 2015* – Ballot papers are sent out


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

I know what happened last year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'Can I have my £25 back please'
> - Well, we could give you a credit note for the next challenge to Corbyn.
> 'No thanks I'll have my £25 back'
> - Okay, what about if we throw in one month's Netflix?
> ...



'Now I want £50. £25 refund, and £25 damages for the mental trauma you just put me through with your Kinnock offer'.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

The 'moderate' meltdowns over the NEC elections are wonderful


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> It hinges on freeze dates, which have been applied retrospectively in recent selection processes (mayoral candidates etc) with no fuss at all. And then there was the stuff on the LP website, which made voting in a leadership election one of the attractions of signing up, without any mention of freeze dates - I suppose what they're thrashing out is whether the website text or the rulebook  (or an interpretation of the rulebook anyway) applies.
> 
> Either way, as ever it isn't actually clear cut.


I'm sure that's right, but that amounts to 'there might just be a route for arguing they did a legal thing'. There's nothing in any of this that suggested they should try out a 6 month previous date as the freeze date, which was obviously a political choice.  Even if they were to win an appeal there's nothing here that makes them look any better.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The 'moderate' meltdowns over the NEC elections are wonderful


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


>




Gulag


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

Seriously though, what a wanker. Nasty, sneering, ignorant and arrogant. He is Blairism personified.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> It hinges on freeze dates, which have been applied retrospectively in recent selection processes (mayoral candidates etc) with no fuss at all. And then there was the stuff on the LP website, which made voting in a leadership election one of the attractions of signing up, without any mention of freeze dates - I suppose what they're thrashing out is whether the website text or the rulebook  (or an interpretation of the rulebook anyway) applies.
> 
> Either way, as ever it isn't actually clear cut.


Incidentally, what was the freeze date for full members in the Labour London Mayoral vote? I've looked round a few sites and all I found was Labour reining back on a promise to let 3 quidders sign up right till voting day.  In the end they were given 12 days - which was of course shrunk to 2 days in the current shitfest.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

it's on wikipedia, just a sec.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

12 august. although it's not clear when that was set (presumably not after 12 august, as the ballots were sent out on the 14th)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

maomao said:


> There's also a world of difference between writing a speech with attractive and memorable rhythm and cadence to try and keep people's attention and the murky world of advertising speak where linguistic tricks are taught at £500 seminars.


the former is what you strive for in any writing, but especially in fiction. Make them feel. The latter is the sheer arrogance to believe you can just mould reaction by speech. It might work sometimes and I question how often thats down to social circumstances anyway. But the linguistic voodoo? get to fuck. Makes me think of freemen on the land and their inane belief that noises coming out of cake holes have any binding relevance unless you can back it up by force of arms


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

While the Israel lobbyist/arms dealer/shit comedian have a meltdown, Corbyn takes a moment to reflect...


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the former is what you strive for in any writing, but especially in fiction. Make them feel. The latter is the sheer arrogance to believe you can just mould reaction by speech. It might work sometimes and I question how often thats down to social circumstances anyway. But the linguistic voodoo? get to fuck. Makes me think of freemen on the land and their inane belief that noises coming out of cake holes have any binding relevance unless you can back it up by force of arms



The thing is that there is no academic literature to back up any of the NLP claims, and a wealth of evidence which shows what a scam it is yet it is a very widely believed in. Councils pay for it, corporations pay their 'trainers' and 'teachers' to go on NLP courses, and then they patronise poor captive audiences of employees lower down the corporate hierarchy. What gets me is that these people who invest so much belief into NLP don't, you know, fucking google it to find out about it. How intellectually uncurious do you have to be to not do that?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> It hinges on freeze dates, which have been applied retrospectively in recent selection processes (mayoral candidates etc) with no fuss at all.


It 'hinges on freeze dates' in so far as the whole thing is inherently about them, and then they become a specific point of argument as to reasonable interpretation. However the judgment is fundamentally about contractual expectations and whether anything afforded the NEC the opportunity to belatedly set a cutoff.

It's only because five people challenged it that we have this ruling. Presumably noone challenged previous exclusions, so hardly a sound foundation for precedent.

Also it's not clear to me that there _have_ been prior retrospective restrictions, rather than 'prospective' as they call it, i.e. where you can't sign up after the process begins.

This time, however, I do agree that it wasn't (isn't, less sure) cut & dried.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> 12 august. although it's not clear when that was set (presumably not after 12 august, as the ballots were sent out on the 14th)


This suggests full members had the right to vote right up till the 12th August i.e. it didn't create a precedent for anything like the January thing in the current election. People could join as a member, become a 3 quidder or do it via other organisations/unions all on the same day.
Mayoral and Leadership timetable


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It 'hinges on freeze dates' in so far as the whole thing is inherently about them, and then they become a specific point of argument as to reasonable interpretation. However the judgment is fundamentally about contractual expectations and whether anything afforded the NEC the opportunity to belatedly set a cutoff.
> 
> It's only because five people challenged it that we have this ruling. Presumably noone challenged previous exclusions, so hardly a sound foundation for precedent.
> 
> ...


In fact in the London vote - link I just posted - you could join/get a vote right up till the very last logistical point in the process (when ballots were about to go out).


----------



## wheelie_bin (Aug 8, 2016)

For the 2015 leadership elections, the NEC set out the timetable on 13th May, with a cut off on 13th August. 

Wiki says London mayoral was 12th August for 10th September vote. Originally NEC said 20th May for the freeze (<4 months), then on 17th March they extended it to June 12th (3 months)
(NEC extends deadline for supporters to register for London Mayoral Primary | LabourList). I don't know when that extended again.

If it were to be six months membership enforcement, that would logically under standard definition of terms be 21st March cut-off, but the NEC will struggle to prove their need for that given that they gave extra time in multiple other elections. More than 2 days, sure. More than 8 months to final voting, no. At the moment it falls under the category of "arbitrary", which company law doesn't tend to like when money has changed hands to form a contract and there's a retrospective change. Looking at the dates, I don't see why a judge would uphold the appeal.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Aug 8, 2016)

All that said, given that there are now new NEC members, perhaps they could just meet again, vote in a fixed admin period such as 2 weeks prior to ballot paper issue and set a new cut-off date accordingly. There's clear precedence for them changing the dates anyway from last year and it saves the waste of money on appeal.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> All that said, given that there are now new NEC members, perhaps they could just meet again, vote in a fixed admin period such as 2 weeks prior to ballot paper issue and set a new cut-off date accordingly. There's clear precedence for them changing the dates anyway from last year and it saves the waste of money on appeal.


They'll certainly need to meet to respond to the court decision. They might even go completely mad and allow the CLPs to have normal meetings.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

When I was a Labour member - half a lifetime ago, thankfully - I have a vague memory they used to announce the new NEC at the conference. Have they brought the process forward now?  What I'm getting at is do the newly elected bods join the NEC now or wait till September?


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2016)

I don't think anything changes til conference re: the NEC. either way, the election has only changed three members out of 30-odd. It's shifted the balance of power, but it's not exactly all change.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

Wilf said:


> When I was a Labour member - half a lifetime ago, thankfully - I have a vague memory they used to announce the new NEC at the conference. Have they brought the process forward now?  What I'm getting at is do the newly elected bods join the NEC now or wait till September?


... answered my own question - it is September (buried in this piece):
Corbyn consolidates grip on Labour with high court and NEC successes

So, the current NEC can still fuck about for a bit longer.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think anything changes til conference re: the NEC. either way, the election has only changed three members out of 30-odd. It's shifted the balance of power, but it's not exactly all change.


Yes, but other bits of the NEC might change before then - or not of course. Presumably the unions and other groups who have reps are currently going through their own elections to select their reps.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> Wiki says London mayoral was 12th August for 10th September vote. Originally NEC said 20th May for the freeze (<4 months), then on 17th March they extended it to June 12th (3 months)
> (NEC extends deadline for supporters to register for London Mayoral Primary | LabourList). I don't know when that extended again.


As I understand it, and I may be wrong, all of these dates were after the timetable was announced, so prospective, no matter how far in advance they may have been of the actual voting.

This is distinct from declaring an election and immediately saying that some members are already ineligible to vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The thing is that there is no academic literature to back up any of the NLP claims, and a wealth of evidence which shows what a scam it is yet it is a very widely believed in. Councils pay for it, corporations pay their 'trainers' and 'teachers' to go on NLP courses, and then they patronise poor captive audiences of employees lower down the corporate hierarchy. What gets me is that these people who invest so much belief into NLP don't, you know, fucking google it to find out about it. How intellectually uncurious do you have to be to not do that?


oh I know its the preserve of managment cultists and rapists


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh I know its the preserve of managment cultists and rapists



I thought I was being sensible to go into the private sector (I'm an electronics engineer, now doing software). Thatch looked like she was going to destroy the public sector, but she just destroyed industry.

So having suffered from the dot com crash, commoditisation and globalisation, outsourcing and the financial crisis, I have no pension or property (I'm quite good at what I do too).

I know I'm not the only one without anything to fall back on, who is going to have to work till they drop.

Sometimes I wish I went to work for the council in one of those jobs that don't add to the GDP. Or the NHS, or whatever that doesn't need to be better than the other workplaces; being better includes the people selling the stuff we make and managers who have a clue and care about what they are doing.

So bollocks to tricking people into thinking they are better as a long time solution. We need to actually make them better. Give them chances to make a decent life, and not be stressed to death.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The 'moderate' meltdowns over the NEC elections are wonderful


don't hold out on me. I need links


----------



## J Ed (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> don't hold out on me. I need links



my faves


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> While the Israel lobbyist/arms dealer/shit comedian have a meltdown, Corbyn takes a moment to reflect...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> my faves



oh a Roman Empire reference to look good. Problem is they have been stabbing him with rubber dagger long since march and finding to their extreme frustration that corbyn is made out of iron and cannot be slain by rubber daggers. Loving this tbf, nearly the entire plp despises what he stands for (got questions meself tbh but he's at least onside) yet nearly the entire rest of the party think C-Byn is a god. Going to court over wether your members can vote, fuck me. I'll say gold plated Corbz of iron cannot lose a leadership battle. But a house divided is never a good look and these cunts will tank a GE result rather than give ground. 60k a year before you touch expenses


----------



## teqniq (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh a Roman Empire reference to look good. Problem is they have been stabbing him with rubber dagger long since march and finding to their extreme frustration that corbyn is made out of iron and cannot be slain by rubber daggers. Loving this tbf, nearly the entire plp despises what he stands for (got questions meself tbh but he's at least onside) yet nearly the entire rest of the party think C-Byn is a god. Going to court over wether your members can vote, fuck me. I'll say gold plated Corbz of iron cannot lose a leadership battle. *But a house divided is never a good look and these cunts will tank a GE result rather than give ground. 60k a year before you touch expenses*



That is the problem right there. Entitled snouts in the trough and all that.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 9, 2016)




----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> *oh a Roman Empire reference to look good*. Problem is they have been stabbing him with rubber dagger long since march and finding to their extreme frustration that corbyn is made out of iron and cannot be slain by rubber daggers. Loving this tbf, nearly the entire plp despises what he stands for (got questions meself tbh but he's at least onside) yet nearly the entire rest of the party think C-Byn is a god. Going to court over wether your members can vote, fuck me. I'll say gold plated Corbz of iron cannot lose a leadership battle. But a house divided is never a good look and these cunts will tank a GE result rather than give ground. 60k a year before you touch expenses


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert  (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:


> We should stop talking about ‘austerity’. Many commentators (including me) have always thought that ‘austerity’ was too abstract a concept to make the basis for a political critique and also has a particular problem in the English context, where the long legacy of puritanism means that for many people ‘austerity’ sounds like desirable self-discipline rather than something to be opposed.
> 
> But there is a far more important reason to shut the fuck up about ‘austerity’. ‘Austerity’ is used as a shorthand for the failed economic response to the post-2008 crisis  which focussed on cuts and reducing government spending and real wages. The trouble with attacking this particular programme is that doing so completely ignores the plight of people who have ben suffering continually since the 1970s. The fact is that ‘austerity’ is mainly a problem for the metropolitan left who, before 2008, were mainly having a pretty good time of it, although those of us working in the public sector resented New Labour’s imposition of neoliberal norms on schools, the NHS, etc. The post-industrial working classes, the people who just swung the vote in favour of Brexit and are the prime targets for UKIP, have not seen their prospects drastically reduced since 2008 – they are suffering the effects of a continual undermining of their communities and their economic infrastructure since the late 1970s.



Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2016)

Strikes a chord with me straight away ...



> One of the key problems here, which very few people on either side of the debate want to admit, is that the existing Parliamentary Labour Party is made up mostly of people who are just not suited in any way to the task of representing even a mildly left-wing political party in the early 21st century.
> 
> This means that however bad a leader Corbyn may be, he will at least not be as obstructive to the renewal of the party and the labour movement as almost any of his colleagues would be, even if some of them would perform better in TV interviews.


 source above


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

This in the openlabour interview is nailed on:

"the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on. And since then – since the 1970s – that agenda has remained in place pretty consistently up until the present. On the basis of these examples you can say that what happens in elections is a symptom of underlying social forces, rather than being the absolute and determining factor in terms of outcomes. Elections determine who gets to be in government, but they don’t determine what those in power actually do.

I would say that actual political outcomes are, to use a Gramscian phrase, an expression of the balance of forces – they are an effect of the relative strength of different groups in society to influence outcomes and shape the agenda. Generally speaking, from the 40s to the 70s, the two strongest social constituents were manufacturers and the trade unions. Between them they more or less shaped most of the direction of social and economic policy. Since the 80s, the most powerful force in Britain and globally has been financial capital. So unless you can build up some social coalition which means you can organise things differently, then things aren’t going to fundamentally change, regardless of the results of the election. You’ve got to think about how the balance of forces can be shifted."


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> "the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on.



Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - *I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.*


No.
It was presented to the public as the inevitable consequence of Healy's IMF bail-out; a _structural adjustment programme, _if you like.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.


I'm sure you're right - although the precise timeline of these kinds of things is always going to be arguable, as there's rarely a single identifiable tipping point: the thrust of his argument is undeniable though, IMO.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2016)

Yesterday I forgot the blindingly obvious - never mind the London mayoral elections where the freeze was apparently prospective; the Manchester one appears to be six months retrospective. Announced in Jan this year that you have to have been in the area since July 2015. Up for challenge now I suppose? But noone will anyway as Burnham is probably the most left leaning choice (ho ho ho) and he's going to win. West Mids is the same I think but I don't know anything about it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

Is Burnham looking like he's going to win now? I thought Tony lloyd had better local support? Be glad if he isn't, I was deeply unconvinced when I heard him speak last month...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is Burnham looking like he's going to win now? I thought Tony lloyd had better local support? Be glad if he isn't, I was deeply unconvinced when I heard him speak last month...


Supposedly Burnham, then Lloyd, then Lewis. If Lewis wins I'll get a new MP  but he'll also be mayor 

Haven't read much good about Lloyd. Lots of people annoyed about various things like traffic and transport and AFAICS he's not doing much to address them.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> No.
> It was presented to the public as the inevitable consequence of Healy's IMF bail-out; a _structural adjustment programme, _if you like.



Ok ta - 



> Healey later claimed that the Treasury had grossly overestimated the public sector borrowing requirement, the key figure used during the IMF crisis, and that if he had been given accurate figures, he would not have had to ask for the loan. He also said that accepting the IMF’s strictures was a “Pyrrhic defeat”, forcing him into the proto-Thatcherite fiscal stringency he wanted to practise anyway.



Defining Moment: Denis Healey agrees to the demands of the IMF - FT.com

The IMF loan was to stop a run on the pound because speculators sold pounds because they thought the government was overvalued. I don't know what the treasury had predicted the PSBR to be but looking at the national debt (a graph ) there wasn't anything around that time. The peak just before 1950 was to fund the post-war social contract? (Which itself seemed to do a remarkable job in reducing the national debt over the years, leveling out around the early 70s). 






And back to the point about different governments not making much difference - certainly true of the post-war social contract up to the early 70s. It took an ideology and an aim to change it: full employment (etc) to start it off, and Thatcher's aim of selling it all off again.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ok ta -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might be worth your while having a nose in here?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

bookmarked, ta


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

About 2000 people on college green last night. Didn't see debboinaire.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

The NEC results then?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert  (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:
> 
> 
> Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party


Those paragraphs you quoted are bang on.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> This in the openlabour interview is nailed on:
> 
> "the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on. And since then – since the 1970s – that agenda has remained in place pretty consistently up until the present. On the basis of these examples you can say that what happens in elections is a symptom of underlying social forces, rather than being the absolute and determining factor in terms of outcomes. Elections determine who gets to be in government, but they don’t determine what those in power actually do.
> 
> I would say that actual political outcomes are, to use a Gramscian phrase, an expression of the balance of forces – they are an effect of the relative strength of different groups in society to influence outcomes and shape the agenda. Generally speaking, from the 40s to the 70s, the two strongest social constituents were manufacturers and the trade unions. Between them they more or less shaped most of the direction of social and economic policy. Since the 80s, the most powerful force in Britain and globally has been financial capital. So unless you can build up some social coalition which means you can organise things differently, then things aren’t going to fundamentally change, regardless of the results of the election. You’ve got to think about how the balance of forces can be shifted."


That contains a very damaging and rather naive understanding of the autonomy of the political - of the state. How would that analysis work in say...the miners strike? The state as simple outcome of the balance of forces is crazy - the state/politics is an active player in that balance. The only way it could possibly work after that statement is as a direct weapon of the winners of the balance of forces. So right now it's a simple tool of financial capital. That's the mirror of the comintern view of fascism being the direct tool of monopoly capital. That didn't work out very well.  And to make it worse, it argues its grounds _on the political _- on what he says is the epiphenomenon of other _real _forces.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

Hmm, I guess you're right that the state plays an active role, but how come the active role it plays has been so uniform across governments of all stripe, unless that active role is very limited?


----------



## CNT36 (Aug 9, 2016)

agricola said:


>


118 posts in the Force Awakens thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Hmm, I guess you're right that the state plays an active role, but how come the active role it plays has been so uniform across governments of all stripe, unless that active role is very limited?


His answer would be balance of forces which a) is a very localised almost nationalistic view - i was going to make that comment about his other pieces. What's been going on globally? Ironically he can only answer by re-instating the state/politics as key. Despite setting out to make the point that its derivative and secondary (which it is, but not in this simplistic way) B) would to be totally ignore intra-capital competition - which takes places on the political plane. The state is not a simple tool of capital, it's a place where capital fights capital (war of the brothers) to manage the fight against labour - see, again, the miners strike. It acts.

In that is my answer, the state is the political form of the class struggle. The class struggle always contains, is based on, attempts by capital to win it. That's the state. Sometimes there is benefit to total capital having a period of peace - the state manages that for them, and it manages it against the interests of single capital in the interest of wider capital.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert  (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:
> 
> 
> Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party


Gilbert is often very astute and interesting, but that bits rubbish. Was everyone working in the public sector part of the 'metropolitan left'?  No. Did people who didn't work in the public sector feel affected by the cuts to the services they used? Yes. Sure, they didn't benefit as much from the Blairite investment as some others (not just the metropolitan left, millions of others too), but they have suffered the cuts just as badly. Just look at what austerity had meant for benefits.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

Regardless, I think he's right in the thrust of his argument there.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

Looks like Burnham got the nomination for Mayor btw.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

(which means Corbyn needs a new shadow home sec sharpish, as much as anything else)


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2016)

Tom!  Tom!



> He also condemned Ed Miliband’s decision to ditch the electoral college for choosing Labour leaders, which allowed trade unions, MPs and party members all to have a say. Watson said this was a “terrible error of judgment” by Corbyn’s predecessor and that he would like to see it reinstated.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 9, 2016)

In fairness Watson was always dead against the Falkirk fallout, possibly in part because his aide was the one implicated. Silly thing to say now though, puts no pressure on Corbyn and reminds everyone about how undemocratic the process was before.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Regardless, I think he's right in the thrust of his argument there.


Sorry, the bit you quoted wasn't the thrust of his argument? What the hell was then?


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> (which means Corbyn needs a new shadow home sec sharpish, as much as anything else)


He's got nine months. Arguably.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2016)

agricola said:


> Tom!  Tom!


There's a massive irony in all this in that it was the right who always wanted OMOV.

Lovely little Section this:



> “Many members of the grassroots Momentum movement, set up to support Corbyn’s leadership, are “deeply interested in political change, in building a more equal society, and are just on a journey in politics that they’re new to”, Watson said. But he suggested some are being manipulated by seasoned hard-left operators.
> 
> There are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate. Sooner or later, that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it.”


Manages to be absurdly and offensively patronising to supposedly naïve new members, whilst reinforcing the accusation of violence and menace with the 'arm twisting' bit - and then layering in the entryism/Trotskyist theme. Good work Thomas, but it would have been a 10 is you'd squeezed 'brick' in there as well.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

belboid said:


> Sorry, the bit you quoted wasn't the thrust of his argument? What the hell was then?


The thrust of his argument is that going on about austerity is meaningless to loads of people who've been fucked over for decades. That he's been a bit sloppy about exactly who those people are or aren't isn't that important (I think you've also misread it a bit, but can't really be arsed arguing the toss)


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2016)

Okay. I thought that was what it meant. It's bollocks.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2016)

This sort of goes back to a discussion we had earlier about how Corbyn should try and react to the tide of stories and claims, with regard to both substance and responding to the media.  As an example, if you strip the hyperbole of Watson's claims about hard left manipulators/Trots away, how does the claim stand?  There clearly has been an influx of youngish people, most joining a party for the first time - along with a significant number of ex Labour members who left at any point from the 80s onwards.  Also, there will of course have been a significant but relatively small number of trots, left of Labour people who have never been in the party before.  But how do you respond to Watson's claim, is it worth trying?  Are leading members of Momentum ex Trots or long standing Labour members?  I'm sure they could spend some time on social media along the lines of 'do you mean me Tom? If it's not me, who do you mean?' They could draw a contrast to their political histories in various campaigns against Owen Smith's working for Phizer - or all the corporate grasping done by Blair and members of his Cabinet. But is it worth it?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way. 

Also the point he made about investment being quite high under Blair. I presume a lot of that was with from PFIs which were actually "privatization by the back door" for NHS and other infrastructure investments.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

I'd got some time for him what with his outspoken voice on the establishment noncery but he really is a disloyal shite. Do they really believe this 'trot takeover' guff or is it simply a line to use for convenience?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way.


So why on earth are you supporting corbyn?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.

Quantitative easing to fund infrastructure investments and retaking under public control the NHS, utilities/rail, council housing, schools plus improved wages and benefits.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.
> 
> Quantitative easing to fund infrastructure investments and retaking under public control the NHS, utilities/rail, council housing, schools plus improved wages and benefits.


But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?



Doesn't mean something isn't better than nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Doesn't mean something isn't better than nothing.


What an inspiring speech!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> But "I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one."?



Apart from the government that set up the Post War Social Contract and the one selling it all off again. 

If Corbyn is allowed to do what he's said he wants to do then we'll be properly rebuilding the economy while sharing out the wealth more fairly. 

What's the alternative?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Apart from the government that set up the Post War Social Contract and the one selling it all off again.
> 
> If Corbyn is allowed to do what he's said he wants to do then we'll be properly rebuilding the economy while sharing out the wealth more fairly.
> 
> What's the alternative?


You can't 1)say govts don't matter, individual party policies don't matter, and 2) here's why govts and individual parties policies matter. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out the incoherence of such a position.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 9, 2016)




----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You can't 1)say govts don't matter, individual party policies don't matter, and 2) here's why govts and individual parties policies matter. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out the incoherence of such a position.



A Labour government set up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. A tory government tore up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. I think that by having a proper aim for the government Corbyn's policies can bring similar benefits to the gains that were made under the Post War Social Contract. 

That's not incoherent, so what's the alternative?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> A Labour government set up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. A tory government tore up the Post War Social Contract, after that the flavour of government made little difference to the conditions people lived under. I think that by having a proper aim for the government Corbyn's policies can bring similar benefits to the gains that were made under the Post War Social Contract.
> 
> That's not incoherent, so what's the alternative?


Labour didn't set up any such thing - by social contract i take it you mean the corporatist tri-partite state that was established by the state (tory and Labour) Unions and Capital rather than the actual social contract that the Labour Party tried to force down the necks of the w/c? That was a collective effort on the parts of all these and was happening across all comparable states in the same period, So 1) not due to the Labour party and it's policies and 2) if it _were _it would make a nonsense of the claim that "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions". That's the incoherence - cheer-leading for a set of policies whilst saying policies don't matter and never have.

Again, i don't need to provide an alternative to point this out and it's a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What an inspiring speech!



I have a cold, can't be arsed with 'inspirational'.


----------



## inva (Aug 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> View attachment 90520


70s rather than 80s surely?


----------



## Libertad (Aug 9, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> View attachment 90520



"Rearrange those barricades comrades" would've been better.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Labour didn't set up any such thing - by social contract i take it you mean the corporatist tri-partite state that was established by the state (tory and Labour) Unions and Capital? That was a collective effort on the parts of all these and was happening across all comparable states in the same period, So 1) not due to the Labour party and it's policies



Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.



> and 2) if it _were _it would make a nonsense of the claim that "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions". That's the incoherence - cheer-leading for a set of policies whilst saying policies don't matter and never have.



You're making up an argument and pretending that's what I said. I was clear from the start that I was talking about the period after the Post War Social Contract and the period after that was torn up. During those periods it seems to have mattered little what the flavour of government was. I've made clear what I believe so stop lying about it.



> Again, i don't need to provide an alternative to point this out and it's a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.



And prancing round an argument pretending I'm saying something I'm not saying is also a pretty shitty trick to keep trying to pull.

I learn a lot from your political analysis but then you get into this heavily stupid bullying mode picking up small points and trying to pretend they're critically important. It's dishonest. I've seen you accuse people of lying but you're not above doing it yourself.

I've said why I'd like to see Corbyn get elected. Why can't you say what you'd like to see instead? You're just dishonestly avoiding the question.


----------



## inva (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.


tories/national government involved as well. a more complex picture than Labour '45


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

indeed, and initially proposed by a Liberal. Doesn't affect the statement I made.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Nice footwork. In the UK it was introduced by a Labour government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was introduced by a Labour govt? Point to what was introduced? Do you mean the general across the board agreement by tories, Labour, capital and labour that became known as the post-war social contract? You must do, you can't mean the actual social contract legislation introduced by the Labour party in the early 70s? The former was never 'introduced' but developed over time through the actions of all the above in the period up till the early 60s - that is, a period with majority tory party governance. And more to the point, was the established thinking of capital/state in all comparable countries. To claim otherwise is like the mad claims that the Labour party caused the 2008 financial crisis.

Lying? Bullying? Dishonesty? wtf?

You have said "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions" is correct. I'm saying that it's not and that your position of support for Corbyn _relies in it not being true._ It's of central importance if you're going to argue that politics can change things (a position that i entered this to support against Gilberts' claims that they don't really) that you don't argue that they don't.

I don't have to say a damn thing about corbyn or offer you an alternative to make that point.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2016)

Got the email from the secretary yesterday saying "sorry, you can't come to the nomination meeting" and I thought poor timing on the scheduling of your emailing, Pat me ode fruit. Got another one this morning saying "yeah sozzard, you can come, see you there!"

Our CLP deciding to hold the meeting late in the cycle turned out pretty good for me 

Disclaimer: actual emails may have contained more formal language than used when paraphrased here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

nearly the entire party hates its elected MP's. This is so not a good look. Especially when the executive tries a stitch up and is defeated in court. Power to your arm Vintage Paw but no way hose. Even if was what it said it was when it was a bit.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What was introduced by a Labour govt? Point to what was introduced? Do you mean the general across the board agreement by tories, Labour, capital and labour that became known as the post-war social contract? You must do, you can't mean the actual social contract legislation introduced by the Labour party in the early 70s? The former was never 'introduced' but developed over time through the actions of all the above in the period up till the early 60s - that is, a period with majority tory party governance. And more to the point, was the established thinking of capital/state in all comparable countries. To claim otherwise is like the mad claims that the Labour party caused the 2008 financial crisis.



The following quote 



> In practice, Labour governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 are associated with important programmes of social and economic reform.
> 
> 
> Major industries such as Coal, Gas, Electricity, the Railways and Iron and Steel were taken into public ownership or nationalized as was the Bank of England.
> ...


www.earlham*socio*logypages.co.uk/*laboursocial*ismideology.doc

is what I had generally understood. Fine, define it in your terms, it's still a side issue. The Post-War Social Contract was introduced, and existed.



> Lying? Bullying? Dishonesty? wtf?



Yes in this instance lying and dishonesty. I've told you at least twice what I meant and still you're pretending I've said something else. Once would be a mistake, twice and you're lying about what I've said.

And you honestly don't know that your default mode of internet argument regularly turns into you adopting a nasty bullying personality to someone who you feel doesn't display your required ideological purity? That would show such stunning lack of self awareness that I can only assume you're lying again. I've seen you accuse someone of lying when it was quite possible they'd made an honest mistake so don't go all wtf innocent.



> You have said "the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions" is correct. I'm saying that it's not and that your position of support for Corbyn _relies in it not being true._ It's of central importance if you're going to argue that politics can change things (a position that i entered this to support against Gilberts' claims that they don't really) that you don't argue that they don't.



I've said what I think. The flavour of government *after the Post War Social Contract* made relatively little difference until the tories tore it down. *After that*, the flavour of government has made little difference until now. Disagree with it if you like but stop lying about what I've said.

I feel that Corbyn could form a government that introduced something like the Post War Social Contract and so make a difference like the Post War Social Contract made a difference.



> I don't have to say a damn thing about corbyn or offer you an alternative to make that point.



I know you don't. But you've made your point, and still you don't answer the question. That's dishonest argument again. I've seen you in the past repeatedly and aggressively demand in several successive posts that someone answers your question (you've done it to me for example).

Why can't you now answer that simple question? What's the alternative? It's a fair question. Stop avoiding it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The following quote
> 
> 
> www.earlham*socio*logypages.co.uk/*laboursocial*ismideology.doc
> ...



Jesus christ. Right so politics _does _matter after all.  Despite you opening this exchange by agreeing with something that says that it pretty much doesn't. I'm going to leave the rest of the bad tempered stuff you came out with alone. As i will do to your childish sign-off demand.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

I ask a simple and relevant question and you don't answer. It's a bit basic - what's the alternative?

Bizarre*©*



© Butchersapron


----------



## two sheds (Aug 9, 2016)

This is getting embarrassing©. 



© Butchersapron c.2012


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2016)

I suggest that you review this exchange before posting again. Maybe you'll be able to flesh out why i should propose an alternative to something i haven't opposed. And all the other stuff. I do hope this is just an off day.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I ask a simple and relevant question and you don't answer. It's a bit basic - what's the alternative?



There are as you know many alternatives. This is a much-used rhetorical device aimed at diverting criticism and making someone sound unduly utopian by changing subject to talk about things which are much more difficult to achieve than the "realistic approach" of merely forcing a vote and getting your man in Parliament.

Which is essentially the same line of argument the Tories, media etc use about Labour's left. Pie in the sky, these socialists should work with reality, etc. You're right, it is rather embarrassing, not to mention tiresome, but in this case not for Butchers.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 9, 2016)

Well this has sealed the deal. Corbyn's time _is _up.



Take that, 'Jezza'!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

I see ed has had a shave.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

nope, gave up when he said may was using the language of the left. Right. On planet bollocks


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 9, 2016)

That's fucking surreal, why on earth would you want an endorsement from that fucking loser?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I see ed has had a shave.



It all went downhill from there, tbh


----------



## teqniq (Aug 9, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's fucking surreal, why on earth would you want an endorsement from that fucking loser?


I entirely take your point but the whole thing is surreal, in a not particularly nice way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It all went downhill from there, tbh


I'd so love to see a bearded old goat in the big chair. Last time the beard convo came up it was established that the last bearded PM was Lord Salisbury and he had jihadi level facial foliage going on


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well this has sealed the deal. Corbyn's time _is _up.
> 
> 
> 
> Take that, 'Jezza'!




If you pause the video at 1:44, he looks like a ghost that has just found that their still-living partner has moved on with their life.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

agricola said:


>


I blame beer. And the increasing licentiousness of our young people. And red ants


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 9, 2016)

Seems to be a certain amount of bitterness in Bristol 

Labour Bristol


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 9, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's fucking surreal, why on earth would you want an endorsement from that fucking loser?



In much the same way he wants a good slap . A complete lack of self awareness .

The interesting thing Ive noticed is in that one he *really and truly* does look like that Wallace and Gromit punter. Other times I seen him it was just more superficial a resemblance but in that display it was really more noticeable.

Although its quite likely I just wasn't bothering my arse to pay that twat the slightest bit of attention before just now. Highly likely..now I think about it . Amazing how these things can pass you by .

Makes you think. 


What else have I missed ?


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seems to be a certain amount of bitterness in Bristol
> 
> Labour Bristol


Love it. They're moaning about members organising politically, like they do.


----------



## campanula (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd so love to see a bearded old goat in the big chair.



Mmm, I would fit right in then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

campanula said:


> Mmm, I would fit right in then.


just so long as you flush Tom Watsons head down the toilet, then its all good


----------



## existentialist (Aug 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It all went downhill from there, tbh


I didn't realise there was that much downhill left!


----------



## Tankus (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> just so long as you flush Tom Watsons head down the toilet, then its all good



Wouldn't fit the pan....I doubt you could even get his head far enough in to wet his hair


We need ... surely...an oily stone......with lots of meaningful comments .......twice as big as eds as it's twice as meaningful....and don't launch it in any old car park ...make it an m&s one .....as the aspiration is what we are selling

Vote oily and
...it's frothy hoffi coffi for all
...BBQs for the common man
...free Icecream
...free Elvis costello albums
1 book of oily's cast iron pledges  ( it's blank...make your own up)
10 volumes of oily's most memorable quotes ..with a free pen
Free round life-sized  signed photo of oilys head ..,so you Know who he is ...!
_Fits most makes of dart board_


----------



## Cid (Aug 9, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Yesterday I forgot the blindingly obvious - never mind the London mayoral elections where the freeze was apparently prospective; the Manchester one appears to be six months retrospective. Announced in Jan this year that you have to have been in the area since July 2015. Up for challenge now I suppose? But noone will anyway as Burnham is probably the most left leaning choice (ho ho ho) and he's going to win. West Mids is the same I think but I don't know anything about it.



Was the mayoral election mentioned in the sign up page? That's what lies at the root of this breach of contract... The wording that people agreed to explicitly stated that new members would be able to vote. 

There are arguments about the degree that this was contradicted by the underlying documents - I think Maugham's argument is that a web editor would essentially be writing the rule book - but I suppose these would affect who is liable for the breach and what effect it will have.


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 9, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well this has sealed the deal. Corbyn's time _is _up.
> 
> 
> 
> Take that, 'Jezza'!



Surely this is akin to getting an endorsement from David Moyes?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> Surely this is akin to getting an endorsement from David Moyes?


----------



## a_chap (Aug 9, 2016)

Corbyn and Watson in happier times.


----------



## coley (Aug 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> Hmm, I guess you're right that the state plays an active role, but how come the active role it plays has been so uniform across governments of all stripe, unless that active role is very limited?



butcher mentions the miners strike, all political parties, including labour,  were actively against supporting it, labour at the time made some accommodating noises but on the whole followed the line of it was detrimental to the economy,
IMO, the timeline whenLabour sold out to Neoliberalism and ushered in the Blairite socially acceptable version of , fuck it gawd knows, 
Tired of trying to understand where, and if any vestige of socialism remains in mainstream politics.
Bugger, gannin to join the Green Party.
Tired and slightly pissed, goodnight  all.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 10, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn's time has been up for quite a lot of pages now.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 10, 2016)

8ball said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's time has been up for quite a lot of pages now.


Since stealing this novelty boat from a bunch of underprivileged children he has sneered at all entreaties from the park keepers that his time is up, instead preferring to paddle about, biting the heads off swans


----------



## 8ball (Aug 10, 2016)

I'm sure I won't be the last to say that, frankly, he is a fucking bastard.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2016)

coley said:


> gannin to join the Green Party.


steady on.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 10, 2016)

Meanwhile, in a far off land...


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well this has sealed the deal. Corbyn's time _is _up.
> 
> 
> 
> Take that, 'Jezza'!




Well, what a surprise. Owen What's-is-name's "rescuing mediocrity from the jaws of neo-liberalism" approach is a fairly seamless continuation of Miliband's tenure so this "endorsement" is par for the course.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 10, 2016)

Callinicos and Bragg respond to Watson's Trot line on R4 this morning (2:47 in)

10/08/2016, Today - BBC Radio 4


----------



## YouSir (Aug 10, 2016)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Callinicos and Bragg respond to Watson's Trot line on R4 this morning (2:47 in)
> 
> 10/08/2016, Today - BBC Radio 4



What do they say?


----------



## inva (Aug 10, 2016)

YouSir said:


> What do they say?


couldn't get past the bit where the interviewer says 'good morning to you both' and one of them replies 'heloew' myself
suddenly realised I had better things to do...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2016)

Callinicos, ffs yer party held its own informal rape trial and it was fucked up beyond all belief. Bragg once again proving he doesn't care what company he keeps.


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2016)

Calinicos says that he'd be surprised if there's more than 30 trots in Hull. Which is probably at odds with swp claims.

Also there's no mention in the piece of callinicos' own (large) role in contemporary trotskyism, which seems a little odd.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 10, 2016)

Yeah Michael 'reds under the beds' Crick tweeted afterwards about R4 not 'outing' the Prof as swp. Which hardly undermines the Prof's argument as the swp are explicitly against entryism!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Callinicos, ffs yer party held its own informal rape trial and it was fucked up beyond all belief. Bragg once again proving he doesn't care what company he keeps.


Or Bragg put defending the left against McCarthyite smears from the right ahead of more intra left blood letting. How dare he.


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2016)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the swp are explicitly against entryism!


Surely this would be the perfect opportunity for a senior SWP member to let people know this? Recent SWP activity at pro-Corbyn rallies etc has given the general public the exact opposite impression.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

I have just read this announcement from Monday.

USDAW - Usdaw nominates Owen Smith for leader of the Labour Party

I must say I am not surprised in the least having dealt with them in joint ventures over the years.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2016)

Liverpool City Region: Steve Rotheram named as Labour's mayoral candidate - BBC News

Rotherham to run Liverpool then. Yet another example of Yorkshire taking over Historic Lancashire


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 10, 2016)

belboid said:


> Liverpool City Region: Steve Rotheram named as Labour's mayoral candidate - BBC News
> 
> Rotherham to run Liverpool then. Yet another example of Yorkshire taking over Historic Lancashire


You could say it's Riding roughshod


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> You could say it's Riding roughshod


To be honest, it's happened hundreds of times.


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, it's happened hundreds of times.


Suprised they don't wapentake their ball home.


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 10, 2016)

He'll have a big fight on his hands from the current Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson.

Incidentally, they were both Labour councillors in Liverpool.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2016)

JimW said:


> Suprised they don't wapentake their ball home.


Had to look that one up. 

Anyway, I heartily approve of this diversion into historic public administration.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Had to look that one up.
> 
> Anyway, I heartily approve of this diversion into historic public administration.



O/T. Besides it's historic importance as a unit of local authority, (I live in what was the Tickhill/Strafforth Wapentake).
It was also the name of one of the most memorable pubs we spent hours and most of our wages in, in Sheffield.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It was also the name of one of the most memorable pubs we spent hours and most of our wages in, in Sheffield.


Where I first copped off with mrs b


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 10, 2016)

belboid said:


> Where I first copped off with mrs b


Explains the historic frostiness from and anti-Yorkist antipathy of killer b


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> O/T. Besides it's historic importance as a unit of local authority, (I live in what was the Tickhill/Strafforth Wapentake).
> It was also the name of one of the most memorable pubs we spent hours and most of our wages in, in Sheffield.


I lived in Chesterfield for a year and I have the _vaguest_ memory of that pub name from nights out in Sheffield.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2016)

What's next, dogging in the Sheriffwick?


----------



## JimW (Aug 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> What's next, dogging in the Sheriffwick?


Something Peculier at Masham


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

JimW said:


> Something Peculier at Masham



Or being under the influence of the Riggwelter.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2016)

> Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour



Taffe rejoining Labour?

actually its wider than that, about readmitting SP/Militant, 

I don't think it has wings.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2016)

> The Socialist party’s website reports that members have attended a number of rallies and meetings of Momentum, the grassroots movement set up to back Corbyn. Taaffe said his colleagues had received a warm welcome from some in Labour. “People say: you were a long time gone, welcome back.”



Not overtly they haven't, Momentum doesn't allow attendance by members of other parties, rallies, yes.

btw,is this the Guardian stirring it, when have they ever published an interview with Taffe, etc?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Taffe rejoining Labour?
> 
> actually its wider than that, about readmitting SP/Militant,
> 
> I don't think it has wings.



It's from the Blairite house paper so IMO little more than mud slinging.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not overtly they haven't, Momentum doesn't allow attendance by members of other parties, rallies, yes.
> 
> btw,is this the Guardian stirring it, when have they ever published an interview with Taffe, etc?


Yes they have, perfectly openly. Some places have barred them, some haven't.


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 10, 2016)

as we were discussing him a page or two back, my award for the cunt of the day award goes to

The Tories should crush the rail unions once and for all – voters would thank them for it


----------



## teqniq (Aug 10, 2016)

McTernan looks to be in pole position for the salt mines.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> as we were discussing him a page or two back, my award for the cunt of the day award goes to
> 
> The Tories should crush the rail unions once and for all – voters would thank them for it



Could the trophy to mark his award be a brick through his office window?
Out of respect for set precedent.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 10, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 90613


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2016)

here's a dossier of evidence of hard right infiltration, for balance.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 10, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> as we were discussing him a page or two back, my award for the cunt of the day award goes to
> 
> The Tories should crush the rail unions once and for all – voters would thank them for it


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 90613



TBH I like the idea of Tom Watson having his own little Trot file in a secret draw.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 10, 2016)

Tom Watson in a drawer be better!


----------



## ska invita (Aug 10, 2016)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 90614
> View attachment 90615
> View attachment 90616


apart from the shadow cabinet one  good one


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 10, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Tom Watson in a drawer be better!



 

It's the only one that'd fit his ego.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> View attachment 90618



We're gonna need a bigger drawer


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 10, 2016)

Sophy Ridge being barracked a bit for this one, lazy as hell from Tom Watson.






Edit: in the full version (as opposed to Ridge's screengrab) Watson does note the source as Crick's book, however gives no information on why he thinks the phrase is being sent round people.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2016)

Corbyn's time really is up.












according to Smith.


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 10, 2016)

I love that social media is so quickly and effectively exposing a great deal of sly manoeuvring. One wonders how much used to be gotten away with that isn't now.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 11, 2016)

Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.

Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour

Some images of Militant members trying to join Labour in disguise has been obtained




Spoiler



https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7_z.jpg?zz=1


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 11, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.
> 
> Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour
> 
> ...


----------



## bendeus (Aug 11, 2016)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 90613


The hand-gesture, the expression on his face and the use of the word 'infiltration' all tell me that this would be better placed on the 'Labour Cumface' thread.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 11, 2016)

Just back from my CLP meeting, or the pub, depending on your point of view. We won, we also won Lewisham where I used to live. Lots of enthusiasm, lots of talk about winning over jobs on ECs and all good. And a few pints, grand.


----------



## JimW (Aug 11, 2016)

Won a vote at Stroud CLP with about 75% backing. Smith should just throw in the towel.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 11, 2016)

Back in the day, before Young Labour got suspended there were lots of lovely people who I didn't completely agree with, who knew exactly what they were after, and it was a bit different from the Militant party line; I don't know how the discussions went internally.

I bet the soft left loves Milala. Her speaches sounded a bit famililiar, she is part of the gang. Wish they just got a bit more flexible and inventive.

Jez and the rest of the movement aren't behaving like any of the 80s trot gangs now.. JC would look more like RCG in the past, not a threat, but supportive of groups that were oppressed without challenging their other beliefs.

I am so pleased that the JC gang are promoting party democracy rather than a line. I'd argue that we need to be able to stand up to Putin even if it costs a fortune. I think we need nuclear power to stop the sea levels rising. I'm looking forward to some friendly discussions, but the energy one is the one that is crucial. We need not to freeze to death and stll have a world that can support us.

The rubbish thrown at Ken is ridiculous, but there is no doubt that a lot of the middle east would like to destroy Israel and all Jews. Thank fuck for the Kurds for lookimg after the minorities. Curse Israel for doing the opposite, and the amount of cash they were given could have brokered a peace, even if it took time.

So yeah, there is antisemitism. Not like Mann says. I got beaten up as a kid for being a yid. I don't remember the board of deputies standing up for me. I am amazed that Israel hasn't realised it needs to to make peace and a lot more. 

I may be off topic and ranting, but this thread has gotten off topic, and it's my birthday.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I suggest that you review this exchange before posting again. Maybe you'll be able to flesh out why i should propose an alternative to something i haven't opposed. And all the other stuff. I do hope this is just an off day.


First, I’d understood that you’re against social democracy but instead favour violent revolution. That’s why I kept on about what’s the alternative (to voting Corbyn). If that’s wrong I apologize.

As to the rest, my original was:



two sheds said:


> I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way.
> 
> Also the point he made about investment being quite high under Blair. I presume a lot of that was with from PFIs which were actually "privatization by the back door" for NHS and other infrastructure investments.



I was fairly clear - I was talking about the period of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s and then neoliberalism since then. It seems to me that, during those two periods the flavour of government made less difference than the governments adhering to the PWSC itself and to neoliberalism.

But no:



butchersapron said:


> So why on earth are you supporting corbyn?



Which I answered:



two sheds said:


> Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.



But again no, half a dozen posts from you pretending that I’d said governments and party policies don’t matter. But I hadn’t said that, had I? You're deliberately distorting what I said just so you can have a go. You were lying. And again - I've seen you accuse people of lying when it could have been an honest mistake so I’m happy to use the word with you.

I don’t enjoy this aggressive shit and find it quite disturbing which is why I’m generally polite to people. Last exchange we had you turned this into me being “passive aggressive”. Fair enough, I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

"Bad tempered stuff" is fucking Ironic coming from you. When I was on the site last time you started picking on things I said pretty well at random just so you could have a go. I even asked to you leave off with the contempt which seemed to have become your default position with me. Of course that made it worse.

So, back to what I understand:

During the 30 years of the PWSC – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power - we had full employment with generally rising sickness and unemployment benefits, free healthcare with NHS under public ownership, council housing and relatively low house prices and rents, essential industries and utilities under public control, free university education, wages rising pretty well in proportion to productivity, and the rich paid some tax.

During the 30 years since then under neoliberalism – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power – we’ve had high unemployment, consistent privatization of the NHS, dismantling council housing and and ever increasing house prices and rents, privatization of utilities and other essential industries, scrapping of grants, general attacks on unemployment and sickness benefits, and wages stagnating in proportion to productivity with money instead being siphoned off by the rich into tax havens.

I respect your opinion on politics and would be interested why you don’t agree  – if my opinion is wrong then I’ll happily modify it. But if you get into your bullying mode where you pick on a small point and keep pushing it to pretend you've won the argument or your pretend-Socratic-argument-mode just to make the other person look small then fuck you. I’m going to respond in precisely the same ©Butchersapron way.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.
> 
> Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour
> 
> ...




You do realise that all that's happened is that Watson put out a heavily _elsewhere-sourced _series of accusations of trottery in the labour party and the editor at the anti-corbyn asked what a trot is and what angle they could use to attack Corbyn. Someone said she should ask Toynbee what they are and their role in splitting the party in the 80s and helping them lose elections. It was then suggested someone google them to see if they're still going and then to ring Taafe and see if they could make him say something damaging to Corbyn. Taafe was mug enough to deliver. Don't worry - you're not going to be taken over by Socialists.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> There are as you know many alternatives. This is a much-used rhetorical device aimed at diverting criticism and making someone sound unduly utopian by changing subject to talk about things which are much more difficult to achieve than the "realistic approach" of merely forcing a vote and getting your man in Parliament.



No, it's a question as to what is your alternative to social democracy. I'm not convinced Corbyn will be successful but he needs to be given a try. I'm sorry if you feel that your political position sounds so stupid that you don't want to say what it is. 



> Which is essentially the same line of argument the Tories, media etc use about Labour's left. Pie in the sky, these socialists should work with reality, etc. You're right, it is rather embarrassing, not to mention tiresome, but in this case not for Butchers.



Well yes, it's also essentially the same line of argument if someone says that what you want to do won't work. It's a fairly reasonable question: what's the alternative?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> No, it's a question as to what is your alternative to social democracy. I'm not convinced Corbyn will be successful but he needs to be given a try. I'm sorry if you feel that your political position sounds so stupid that you don't want to say what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, it's also essentially the same line of argument if someone says that what you want to do won't work. It's a fairly reasonable question: what's the alternative?


No one was arguing that what you're supporting won't work. I didn't even touch on that in the slightest. You have totally misread what i was saying. That's why i suggested you review the exchange. It seems that you have but made the same misreading again. I'm not bothering with this while that's going on.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You do realise that all that's happened is that Watson put out a heavily _elsewhere-sourced _series of accusations of trottery in the labour party and the editor at the anti-corbyn asked what a trot is and what angle they could use to attack Corbyn. Someone said she should ask Toynbee what they are and their role in splitting the party in the 80s and helping them lose elections. It was then suggested someone google them to see if they're still going and then to ring Taafe and see if they could make him say something damaging to Corbyn. Taafe was mug enough to deliver. Don't worry - you're not going to be taken over by Socialists.


There was a piece on the BBC yesterday where they claimed the WRP has 3000 members.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No one was arguing that what you're supporting won't work. I didn't even touch on that in the slightest. You have totally misread what i was saying. That's why i suggested you review the exchange. It seems that you have but made the same misreading again. I'm not bothering with this while that's going on.



I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray. 

If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make. 

You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray.
> 
> If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make.
> 
> You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.


One more time - review our exchange. I would ask anyone else whose baffled at this vitriol and abuse to, from the piece where i commented on the Gilbert stuff linked to.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> There was a piece on the BBC yesterday where they claimed the WRP has 3000 members.


Jesus christ. Can you recall which program?


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

it was in this, but the text has changed: What is a Trotskyist? - BBC News


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

no mention of paper selling. Standards are slipping at the beeb.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray.
> 
> If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make.
> 
> You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.


To me, it seems reasonably clear what you were saying. And unclear exactly what BA is trying to argue about.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> it was in this, but the text has changed: What is a Trotskyist? - BBC News


Old Wheels! Fantastic! He doesn't even get the CPGB right - they spent years trying to be allowed properly and legally into the Labour Party - not practicing entryism. 

"Supporters of the Marxist newspaper Militant, they underwent intensive training in Trotskyist ideology " - genius


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 11, 2016)

It's true that members of Militant weren't allowed to masturbate, right?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> One more time - review our exchange. I would ask anyone else whose baffled at this to, from the piece where i commented on the Gilbert stuff linked to.



I had understood that the UK version of the PWSC was specifically aligned to Beveridge's"five giants on the road to reconstruction", and that Thatcher pioneered neoliberalism in the UK. Fair enough if that was happening worldwide - similar things were happening in the USA, and I'd assumed it had been exported to elsewhere because of them. 

You were commenting on what Gilbert said, though. I'm making a narrower point which I summarized above: 



> During the 30 years of the PWSC – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power - we had full employment with generally rising sickness and unemployment benefits, free healthcare with NHS under public ownership, council housing and relatively low house prices and rents, essential industries and utilities under public control, free university education, wages rising pretty well in proportion to productivity, and the rich paid some tax.
> 
> During the 30 years since then under neoliberalism – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power – we’ve had high unemployment, consistent privatization of the NHS, dismantling council housing and and ever increasing house prices and rents, privatization of utilities and other essential industries, scrapping of grants, general attacks on unemployment and sickness benefits, and wages stagnating in proportion to productivity with money instead being siphoned off by the rich into tax havens.



Where am I wrong on that?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

teuchter said:


> To me, it seems reasonably clear what you were saying. And unclear exactly what BA is trying to argue about.



Ta 

Eta: I don't have BA's political understanding so the wider political point he's making may be quite correct, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

Btw - this nonsense that Watson took from Crick claming this is how Corbyn supporters are being told to operate:




> First, make the meetings boring. Flood the branches and constituency meetings with procedural requests, the minutes of the last meeting and process.
> This turns off the faint-hearted. Those with better things to do - attend to their family, careers or community groups - simply no longer turn up.





> Part two: make the event adversarial. Uncomradely questions to sitting councillors and the MP, challenging the chair's method and motive, defining the politics of the speaker before they have defined their own - all these things become the norm.
> This behaviour basically reduces the attendance of the remaining sensible types. Then the meeting [is] ours to control.





> Now for the piece de resistance. Once the troublesome moderates - organised or otherwise - are out of the way, motions and debates on policy and political positions will commence. Each will pass almost by acclaim.
> 
> No need for speeches against. If there is, allow it to be taken by the pantomime villain from the rump of 'Labour right' attending membership.





> From here on it will be easy and the minutes often reflect the result of debates as 'unanimous'.Subsequent speeches at Labour gatherings - Labour party conference and the like - will then be narrated with how much support they got at constituency Labour party level.



...does not appear in the recently republished edition of Militant - the one with Watson's comments on the cover. I wonder if that is because it was Crick's tendentious and hostile  summing up of something he didn't understand rather than a factually correct document - and as such not really re-publishable? Maybe Watson knowa why it wasn't included - was it on grounds of inaccuracy? After all it still included Watson accepting money from Derek Hatton.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

One of the things I was concerned about going to Labour CLP meetings was if the first 15 minutes were taken up with boring reading of the minutes. I was quite encouraged when I received a summary of the previous Momentum meeting's minutes by e-mail.

I do wonder whether the Blairite CLPers will try to do exactly this and make the meetings ultra-boring to discourage the new members. At least if they do I can now accuse them of being Trotskyites


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

I have heard of meetings being very boring, members using procedural requests and the like to disrupt business, and waiting til your adversaries have left the meeting before pushing through unpopular motions - these tactics are not ones I've heard associated with the left though.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2016)

One of the things abusers do is accuse the other party of exactly the same abuse that they're doing. It's quite successful because as an outsider (a Court Judge for example) you don't know which side is lying.

That actually looks a good checklist for when they try those tactics. Nice one Tom.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 11, 2016)

Dulwich and West Norwood party backed Corbyn at meeting last night. The pendulum is swinging against the bliarites in lambeth.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

didn't someone try to put together a list of active far-left groups and their numbers on here a couple of years ago?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I have heard of meetings being very boring, members using procedural requests and the like to disrupt business, and waiting til your adversaries have left the meeting before pushing through unpopular motions - these tactics are not ones I've heard associated with the left though.



Locally quite a few reports of hostile receptions to new members at ward level (I'm fortunate my ward is pretty friendly, possibly because our councillors are pro Corbyn), and at CLP meetings there's been use of procedure in an attempt to prevent votes in support of Corbyn. The attempts failed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2016)

Party appealing decision.


> Party officials are going to the court of appeal on Thursday in an attempt to reinstate a block imposed by Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) on 130,000 recruits getting the vote.
> 
> Falconer said the party was right to appeal against the high court ruling. “It’s for the NEC to decide what the rules are of any contest,” he told the programme.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

the graun have a live blog up, if anyone if finding their morning too exciting.

Labour NEC challenges decision allowing new members to vote – live


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

Seems to me that the NEC is not contesting the breach of contract, but arguing they are allowed to do so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

surely thats a bust argument? we are right because we say we are.


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 11, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.
> 
> Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour
> 
> ...



almost as dated as the stereotypes of Scousers that feed your feeble imagination


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

wtf -  the BBC are showing it live.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to me that the NEC is not contesting the breach of contract, but arguing they are allowed to do so.


yep - that's pretty much what Maugham was saying earlier in the week too.


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 11, 2016)

Its the £25 supporters thing that marks them out as hypocritical scum. Have a cut-off point to prevent people joining just to get a vote seems fair enough, even if imposing one inconsistently and retrospectively is a bit dubious. But to then allow people a vote who become supporters after that point makes a mockery of any logical argument to legitamise such a policy.


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> surely thats a bust argument? we are right because we say we are.


If the rules say that the NEC are the only legitimate definers of those rules, it's fair game. Now they are apparently arguing about how one defines 'define'


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

belboid said:


> If the rules say that the NEC are the only legitimate definers of those rules, it's fair game. Now they are apparently arguing about how one defines 'define'


Surely the beneficiaries of a breach of contract are not allowed to draw up internal rules saying they can breach contract whenever they like - that's what we have courts for isn't it? They're actually asking the judge to rule that they (the judge) are powerless in this case, despite the judge hearing the case precisely on the basis of having power, the power to define breach of contract.

Anyway, the judge seems to have just rejected a large part of the NEC's (rather oddly focused) argument about 6 months continuous membership by rejecting their contention that this had always existed just hadn't been applied by saying that past NEC decisions indicate that no such rule ever existed, not that it did but hadn't been applied.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

belboid said:


> If the rules say that the NEC are the only legitimate definers of those rules, it's fair game. Now they are apparently arguing about how one defines 'define'


I've just tuned in to it on auntie and now they are arguing what another word means. Please send help or a drone strike. Either will do.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 11, 2016)

Loving this 

The six month freeze date was to only allow members who had a proven commitment to the party to vote in elections. 

The £25 fee for voting was to give people another way they could show their commitment to the party.

All said without even a smirk.

Priceless!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

words has been repeated enough to lose all meaning now


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the beneficiaries of a breach of contract are not allowed to draw up internal rules saying they can breach contract whenever they like - that's what we have courts for isn't it? They're actually asking the judge to rule that they (the judge) are powerless in this case, despite the judge hearing the case precisely on the basis of having power, the power to define breach of contract


The judge is judging whether they can judge, simples. Next up is how it's illegal to use a legal name.


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2016)

“I’m trying to have my cake and eat it,” Sheldon admits

Genius


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

reprimandish diss there


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

'i don't mean to waste your time'

'you do'

if my ears a right today. lolz


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

You've got to say that, even by the standards of party politics, historians are surely got to look back on this episode with more than a little amusement. The _party of the people _begging the (bourgeois) courts to allow it not to let its own members vote in a party election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to say that, even by the standards of party politics, historians are surely got to look back on this episode with more than a little amusement. The _party of the people _begging the (bourgeois) courts to allow it not to let its own members vote in a party election.


I pity the futture politics student who has to read this transcrip (probably on his 2060 nueral lace) because theres only been two funny bits and a couple of good bits.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I pity the futture politics student who has to read this transcrip (probably on his 2060 nueral lace) because theres only been two funny bits and a couple of good bits.


Neural lance, eh?


----------



## gosub (Aug 11, 2016)

you can't fit the last 3 months of politics into one syllabus


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I had understood that the UK version of the PWSC was specifically aligned to Beveridge's"five giants on the road to reconstruction", and that Thatcher pioneered neoliberalism in the UK. Fair enough if that was happening worldwide - similar things were happening in the USA, and I'd assumed it had been exported to elsewhere because of them.



That's a horribly simplistic, compressed and historically-inaccurate representation of what actually happened.

The post-war Social Contract was capital agreeing to certain conditions for fear of social unrest -and therefore affected profits. While Beveridge's "five giants" were used as political material, a quick analysis shows that none of them have been conquered, and that from '45-onward, most of what has happened has been the amelioration of the most egregious social harms caused by capitalism, not the curing of them. They can't be cured because that too would undermine capitalist logic.

As for neoliberalism, it wasn't pioneered in the UK, and it wasn't pioneered by Thatcher. It wasn't even *really* pioneered in Chile, although that's the first site where it was seen in it's full -murderous - effect. What Thatcher - or more realistically,Sir Keith Joseph and Allen Walters - pioneered in the UK was a form of monetarism, which is often a concomitant of neoliberalism.


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 11, 2016)

I like how the Guardian homepage now has a piece above the link to the livefeed by Jess 'The Knife' Phillips objecting to three men being nominated as mayorial candidates.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Btw - this nonsense that Watson took from Crick claming this is how Corbyn supporters are being told to operate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nah, Watson got it off the Progress website.

Militant’s modus operandi  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Nah, Watson got it off the Progress website.
> 
> Militant’s modus operandi  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


Ta - the guardian got it completely wrong again. Why did i take their word for it?  And the Huffington Post. And Momentum themselves. How odd of the usually very busy Crick not to correct any of these - and others - mistakes.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2016)

"A central plank of the original claimants’ case was that the Labour party website said they would be eligible to vote in a leadership contest. But Sheldon says: “The website can’t be relied upon as providing a definitive meaning of the rules.”

From the gaurdian feed.That seems very weak to me. If the website is how they are selling a service - i.e. labour membership with the right to vote in a leadership election - then its entiely resonable for the the services offered on the website to be contractually binding.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> "A central plank of the original claimants’ case was that the Labour party website said they would be eligible to vote in a leadership contest. But Sheldon says: “The website can’t be relied upon as providing a definitive meaning of the rules.”
> 
> From the gaurdian feed.That seems very weak to me. If the website is how they are selling a service - i.e. labour membership with the right to vote in a leadership election - then its entiely resonable for the the services offered on the website to be contractually binding.


The judge has said the website isn't the contract - which is where one place where Sheldon wants his cake and to eat it too. He argues as you say above but _also _that the website contained terms and conditions that outlined the NEC could change them as it liked. And the Judge just slapped him down then.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Ta - the guardian got it completely wrong again. Why did i take their word for it?  And the Huffington Post. And Momentum themselves. How odd of the usually very busy Crick not to correct any of these - and others - mistakes.


Within minutes of reporting this on C4 News last night, he was tweeting to advertise his (re-published) tome.
Kerching!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Within minutes of reporting this on C4 News last night, he was tweeting to advertise his (re-published) tome.
> Kerching!


I bet he was - did he correct it though and point out Watson (if this is correct) is quoting from a hostile (to militant) review from ant-corbyn Progress rather than his book? Or that he appears to have turned that review into an actual document from militant?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

is this bloke seriously trying to argue that contract rules don't apply if you become a mamber? The NEC basicaly declaring itself above the law as stands?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

peas n beans


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I bet he was - did he correct it though and point out Watson (if this is correct) is quoting from a hostile (to militant) review from ant-corbyn Progress rather than his book?


When quizzed (live on air) by Jacqui Long, he did concede that the quote(s) attributed to himself had, in fact, been derived from a review of his book. But he did appear delighted with the exposure.
£££


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

ecellent erring here


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 11, 2016)

I cannot believe the basis of this legal argument, they are saying that the NEC can make it up as they go along and who is the high court to say otherwise. wtf?

And Labour members are paying for this!


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 11, 2016)

I've never been part of a Trot organisation, but I think without Stalin's purges the second world war would have been over much more quickly, and Kinock must have been a Stalin fan. As so the glorious peoples' deputy leader.


----------



## FuckParade (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> peas n beans





I see the members have Mr Charisma as a barrister.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 11, 2016)

Withington CLP has cancelled Christmas, well at least the debate before we nominated JC.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 11, 2016)

FuckParade said:


> I see the members have Mr Charisma as a barrister.



I've been up the High Court a couple of times and it never ceases to amaze me how stumbling and inarticulate most barristers are.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2016)

Judgement 3pm tomorrow.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Its the £25 supporters thing that marks them out as hypocritical scum. Have a cut-off point to prevent people joining just to get a vote seems fair enough, even if imposing one inconsistently and retrospectively is a bit dubious. But to then allow people a vote who become supporters after that point makes a mockery of any logical argument to legitamise such a policy.


Spot on. The retrospective thing could be okay if it was a matter of days, just to stop some insane scramble to join on the cut off day. It could also be used to stop people joining on instalment payments, voting and then cancelling.  Could _just about_ be an argument for something like that, providing it was consistent and not too far into the past. But as we went through yesterday, the London mayoral cutoff was actually a _future date_, so rank hypocrisy in this vote.  Even more so as people were actually told they could fully participate on joining. But as you say, the real fucker is the £25 thing. Absurd that a non-member can buy a vote denied to a full member of up to 6 months standing - fucking hell! Along with that a dirty little assumption that £3 was too frivolous, that you need to pay significant cash to value a thing.


Long winded paragraph above, could be summed up thus:

'Can I vote, I'm a member of 6 months standing?' - No, certainly not.
'But that wasn't the case for the London Mayor' - Don't give a shit
'Can I buy a vote?' - But of course!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I've been up the High Court a couple of times and it never ceases to amaze me how stumbling and inarticulate most barristers are.


Often a result of them being hungover and/or on a comedown


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

fell asleep. Was there any more funny bits or any actual argument of substance

Also Judge Swollenpockets leaves it till tomorrow so he can get his pockets on swole. Again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

gosub said:


> you can't fit the last 3 months of politics into one syllabus


would make for a good essay. Death and Disaster: British socio-politics in 2016


could try to make out Bowies death caused Brexit or something


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2016)

gosub said:


> you can't fit the last 3 months of politics into one syllabus


You mean you can't. If times of great upheaval e.g. WW2, Russian revolution, Europe 1485-1715, the reformation etc can all be put in one syllabus there is no reason the past 90 days can't


----------



## gosub (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> would make for a good essay. Death and Disaster: British socio-politics in 2016
> 
> 
> could try to make out Bowies death caused Brexit or something


2000 words on what Angela Eagle was thinking and when


----------



## a_chap (Aug 11, 2016)

Sirena said:


> ...it never ceases to amaze me how stumbling and inarticulate most barristers are.



But they make good coffee though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

Sirena said:


> I've been up the High Court a couple of times and it never ceases to amaze me how stumbling and inarticulate most barristers are.


its almost like they are beneficiaries of a system that values private education and expensive legal training rather than direct and unambiguos discussion to solve matters. They spent fucking hours umming and arhing over the definition of words! What the fuck is going on. I'm taking my belt off


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> would make for a good essay. Death and Disaster: British socio-politics in 2016
> 
> 
> could try to make out Bowies death caused Brexit or something


You mean it wasn't?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 11, 2016)

Labour leadership debate: Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith face off in Gateshead – live

_Face: Off - In Gateshead_

Now that's an ambitious reboot


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Labour leadership debate: Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith face off in Gateshead – live
> 
> _Face: Off - In Gateshead_
> 
> Now that's an ambitious reboot



Not too bad really - the Sage Gateshead or Millennium bridge would be good climactic finale locations.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 11, 2016)

'You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job, now behave yourself!'


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Not too bad really - the Sage Gateshead or Millennium bridge would be good climactic finale locations.



I'd say go full Get Carter, but they've demolished the car park.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> fourth circle of hell, a happy ending from kinnock as he does the 'we're alright!' shouts



Usually I adore your picaresque imagery, but this is too much!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Labour leadership debate: Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith face off in Gateshead – live
> 
> _Face: Off - In Gateshead_
> 
> Now that's an ambitious reboot



this time its personal


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Usually I adore your picaresque imagery, but this is too much!


I once collaborated on David Starkey slashfic. I'm not proud of it but it happened. It seemed funny at the time but now makes me recoil in horror from what I have become


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ...I once collaborated on David Starkey slashfic...



Sort of up there with



> ...I was strolling along in the park late one night minding my own business when all of a sudden my trousers and pants dropped down and I tripped over and fell onto this dildo that was nestled in the bushes, and that's why I'm here in A&E at 3am, doctor...



as the sort of thing that demands somewhat more rigorous and candid exposition than is initially on offer


----------



## Ground Elder (Aug 12, 2016)

I'm now going to have to part with a tenner for the Get Carter soundtrack LP I ummed and arred about in a charity shop today. You bastard Corbyn


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 12, 2016)

PLP - You were only meant to blow the bloody doors off.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 12, 2016)

Swappies - fawwwsands of 'em. Don't shoot til you see the off-whites of their papers


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 12, 2016)

a tenner?  in a charity shop?  blimey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

Ground Elder said:


> I'm now going to have to part with a tenner for the Get Carter soundtrack LP I ummed and arred about in a charity shop today. You bastard Corbyn


Well worth it tbh


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Well worth it tbh


I got it (the whole film) from a download of dubious origins. Seeing as I have the day off I may well watch it today.

BTW, it's 25 quid now unless some bloke in a wig says it is legit.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> No, it's a question as to what is your alternative to social democracy. I'm not convinced Corbyn will be successful but he needs to be given a try. I'm sorry if you feel that your political position sounds so stupid that you don't want to say what it is.
> 
> Well yes, it's also essentially the same line of argument if someone says that what you want to do won't work. It's a fairly reasonable question: what's the alternative?



But we're not talking about "what's my alternative," we're talking about Corbyn and co. If you want to _start_ a follow-on conversation about extra-parliamentary strategies then go right ahead, it's a huge subject and well worth discussing. It's not the topic here though and trying to sidetrack the subject to that when challenged so you don't have to deal with your own strategy's inadequacies is poor form.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 12, 2016)

Jesus

Get in the Sea lands student in hot water.


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 12, 2016)

That is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

I've every sympathy for joe cox's family and friends and she didn't deserve to be murdered, who does? How many workplace deaths take place annually and go uneulogized? but the way these people are cynically using her murder to claim victimhood because they are being given the mildest of barrackings is pretty sickening.


----------



## dendrite (Aug 12, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Jesus
> 
> Get in the Sea lands student in hot water.



91% of 270 voters there chose the "No, it's been taken in completely the wrong way" response to *"Could 'get in the sea' be taken as a threat to life?" *

Wonder how that would have split if options for both deliberate and accidental misconstruing had been given.

She's only convinced me to regard her as dishonest till proven otherwise. There's no threat and I don't believe she	"believe(s) that is a threat to kill" either.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

For those unaware of recent developments in Facebook memes, I suppose 'get in the sea' could be seen as a convoluted way of telling someone to go and drown themselves. It doesn't look like a threat to kill from any angle though does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> For those unaware of recent developments in Facebook memes, I suppose 'get in the sea' could be seen as a convoluted way of telling someone to go and drown themselves. It doesn't look like a threat to kill from any angle though does it?


Recent? Facebook? And even if it was, it's ok to do that. I bet that thangamm was not even a mate of the sainted Cox.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Recent? Facebook? And even if it was, it's ok to do that. I bet that thangamm was not even a mate of the sainted Cox.


I wondered that myself. She may have been, but I'm wary of how many gr8 m8s MPs hitherto unknown to have been her friend are using her name when this sort of stuff comes up. Its utterly cynical


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 12, 2016)

I wish the whole fucking debacle would get in the fucking sea.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Jesus
> 
> Get in the Sea *lands student in hot water*.



That's clearly a threat by you to boil the student alive in a great big cauldron of water, you monster...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's clearly a threat by you to boil the student alive in a great big cauldron of water, you monster...



Oh dear, thats me in deep trouble then


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's clearly a threat by you to boil the student alive in a great big cauldron of water, you monster...


with corbyns blessing. And a reading from the Protocols is aired.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Recent? Facebook? And even if it was, it's ok to do that. I bet that thangamm was not even a mate of the sainted Cox.


It may be an old insult, but it's only come to national prominence recently through the facebook 'get in the sea' page. I'd certainly never heard of it before then anyway...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> It may be an old insult, but it's only come to national prominence recently through the facebook 'get in the sea' page. I'd certainly never heard of it before then anyway...


It was better before no one had heard of it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It was better before no one had heard of it.



You're such a hipster


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2016)

I think her only mitigation is that she might be a bit fragile after a prolonged cancer treatment, but otherwise she's worked really quite hard first at perceiving that as a death threat and then acting to fuck up the person who said it.  But she really hasn't done herself any favours


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)




----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



WTF is wrong with these people?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

NEC appeal is won. Gold for GB+ NI


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> WTF is wrong with these people?


The very spirit of parliamentary social democracy...preventing people from voting.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> WTF is wrong with these people?


morality and legality are only tangentially related.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

Utter cunts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

so, people being mugged off aside, does st C still have the numbers?


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

yeah.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

I expect an appeal to SC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Utter cunts.



that's the labour establishment for you


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

Who represented the LP over these two hearings?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

so this entire debacle was an exercise in futility, can't win it anyway. These pointless cunts.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so this entire debacle was an exercise in futility, can't win it anyway. These pointless cunts.


They keep the 4 million. Not totally pointless.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 12, 2016)

So what changed from the other day to today?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


>




He will win anyway, doesn't matter


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2016)

counter appeal :going to Supreme court


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

I had not considered the money there.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I wish the whole fucking debacle would get in the fucking sea.



With this latest legal development, it looks like the whole Labour party is moving inexorably seaward


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> They keep the 4 million. Not totally pointless.


Minus the legal fees


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The very spirit of parliamentary social democracy...preventing people from voting.


it's in the spirit of the great reform act


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Minus the legal fees


Not if they get their way...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

Leave to appeal turned down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> With this latest legal development, it looks like the whole Labour party is moving inexorably seaward


perhaps the 172 mps who objected to jeremy corbyn could be made to stand in a river or in the sea to form a human pier for corbyn's supporters to promenade along until at last the weight and exhaustion forced the disloyal mps' heads beneath the waves.


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Minus the legal fees


Still a decent enough return.


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps the 172 mps who objected to jeremy corbyn could be made to stand in a river or in the sea to form a human pier for corbyn's supporters to promenade along until at last the weight and exhaustion forced the disloyal mps' heads beneath the waves.


thats slightly more deathy than "get in the sea"


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

Judgement is here Christine Evangelou and others -v- Iain McNicol (Appeal)


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> Still a decent enough return.



pr disaster, how much to turn that around


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> pr disaster, how much to turn that around


they don't give a shit. they just want him out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> thats slightly more deathy than "get in the sea"


i wonder how long, under such circumstances, debbonaire would remain debonair


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> pr disaster, how much to turn that around


well the PR disaster of it all benefits the labour right. They are engaged in doing their best to tank the party so as to oust corbyn and the labour left by blaming them for the shambles. Money and a shit-stinking image. Not a bad days work for them


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

gosub said:


> pr disaster, how much to turn that around


i'll do it for £50,000


----------



## ska invita (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> well the PR disaster of it all benefits the labour right.


does it? 
I think the 30k legal bill makes them look nasty and vindicative. I note the Guardian coverage has ignored this element of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> does it?
> I think the 30k legal bill makes them look nasty and vindicative. I note the Guardian coverage has ignored this element of it.


guardian shit thread >>>


----------



## ska invita (Aug 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> guardian shit thread >>>


i brought it up as a point of how it makes them look bad (hence its exculsion)
cant be bothered to post on that thread as it would be a full time job


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

It is a particularly good look, isn't it?
Take £ off folk to join your party, then use the proceeds to go to court to stop them participating and claiming costs off those that dared to challenge the party machine.
Anyone thinking of joining?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It is a particularly good look, isn't it?
> Take £ off folk to join your party, then use the proceeds to go to court to stop them participating and claiming costs off those that dared to challenge the party machine.
> Anyone thinking of joining?



It's a good look if you want to create a house divided and then blame Corbyn for it. 'Look at what we've done while he is leader, he has no control!'


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> does it?
> I think the 30k legal bill makes them look nasty and vindicative. I note the Guardian coverage has ignored this element of it.


thats just it. They don't care how it looks. They want to fuck corbyn off out of it and the resurgent labour left slapped back into the box marked 'yesterdays men'. In order to do that you create crisis. Strategy of tension and all that. The idea goes that once the dust has settled OS swoops in as the moderate candidate to save the party from the shambles.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

with his frothy coffee and dismal burgers


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats just it. They don't care how it looks. They want to fuck corbyn off out of it and the resurgent labour left slapped back into the box marked 'yesterdays men'. In order to do that you create crisis. Strategy of tension and all that. The idea goes that once the dust has settled OS swoops in as the moderate candidate to save the party from the shambles.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats just it. They don't care how it looks. They want to fuck corbyn off out of it and the resurgent labour left slapped back into the box marked 'yesterdays men'. In order to do that you create crisis. Strategy of tension and all that. The idea goes that once the dust has settled OS swoops in as the moderate candidate to save the party from the shambles.


Oh yes.
Bit like _total war _now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats just it. They don't care how it looks. They want to fuck corbyn off out of it and the resurgent labour left slapped back into the box marked 'yesterdays men'. In order to do that you create crisis. Strategy of tension and all that. The idea goes that once the dust has settled OS swoops in as the moderate candidate to save the party from the shambles.


yeh but you'll know that anything that gets a new os spends the next six months ironing out all the problems with it


----------



## a_chap (Aug 12, 2016)

Just heard the news. 

It's not often I say "What the actual fuck" out loud in the office.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 12, 2016)

Labour is rivalling the Tories for being the least democratic political party in parliament, isn't it? What a bunch of fucking control freaks.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 12, 2016)

What a load of bs. The new members mean nothing to those judges.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 12, 2016)

It's almost as if the lawyers are prolonging the contest in order to get more work.


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's almost as if the lawyers are prolonging the contest in order to get more work.


why in the name of Jarndyce would you think that?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 12, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> But we're not talking about "what's my alternative," we're talking about Corbyn and co. If you want to _start_ a follow-on conversation about extra-parliamentary strategies then go right ahead, it's a huge subject and well worth discussing. It's not the topic here though and trying to sidetrack the subject to that when challenged so you don't have to deal with your own strategy's inadequacies is poor form.



Well it's related since you were questioning the benefits of social democracy with the cartoon you put up, and that's what Corbyn seems to be moving back to, but fair enough. 

How do you mean about my own strategy's inadequacies?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How do you mean about my own strategy's inadequacies?



Well in this case it was lack of consistency in your logic - arguing that it doesn't matter "which flavour" of politician is in charge very much but also that backing Corbyn is the best hope for real change. If it doesn't matter much, who cares whether Corbyn's in charge? A strategy where you don't actually expect change to happen as a result of your actions is a fairly flawed one.

I guess what you're trying to get at is that getting Corbyn in will make _some_ limited difference within a broader pattern of non-change, but your original posts seemed to contradict themselves.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 12, 2016)

No, read them again. I did after ba asked me to. I was pretty bloody clear. I'm happy to admit my mistakes but I think the criticisms of those particular posts have been just mierenneuken as the dutch would put it. I  think because it's just too disturbing to think that social democracy could have actually worked in some way.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Again, easy money this judgery lark. Plain as fucking day, innit?


I obviously over-estimated my judicial abilities. Clearly logic is not enough.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> No, read them again. I did after ba asked me to. I was pretty bloody clear. I'm happy to admit my mistakes but I think the criticisms of those particular posts have been just mierenneuken as the dutch would put it. I  think because it's just too disturbing to think that social democracy could have actually worked in some way.


You were saying that it was only for the last 30-40 or so years that the flavour of party in charge has made no difference, prior to that the flavour of party in charge did make a significant difference, and that if Corbyn remains leader/gets in to power it would shake the system up enough that it would once again make a significant difference, I think? I follow that, it doesn't seem contradictory to me.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 12, 2016)

Ta - yes and for the 30 years before that, too, with the post war social contract. 

One problem though is that it took WWII to set up the PWSC and there was a real demand for change - I'm not sure that 'Rip-off Britain' with the priorities people have now because of the media is going to be enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ta - yes and for the 30 years before that, too, with the post war social contract.
> 
> One problem though is that it took WWII to set up the PWSC and there was a real demand for change - I'm not sure that 'Rip-off Britain' with the priorities people have now because of the media is going to be enough.



it took two world wars and near a century of violent and non violent labour agitation to get there. This is why I express disbelief when people don't think they will kill you for asking for crumbs from the table. Oh and the russian revolution focused certain minds on how not to end up gunned down in a cellar as well


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

or more than a century. LCS maybe shouldn't be taken as the point of origin. Deeper roots


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 12, 2016)

Well, the ruling came with 3 hours to go before I was going to go and nominate Jeremy. I won't be allowed now. No idea if I'll be allowed in the meeting at all. Previously new members weren't to be allowed in, but with this coming on such short notice I don't know now. I certainly won't be able to vote, regardless.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2016)

Does this mean that nominations made by CLPs last week (when new members were suddenly allowed) will now all become invalid?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 12, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> Does this mean that nominations made by CLPs last week (when new members were suddenly allowed) will now all become invalid?



I'm going to guess no. They went on the current rules/ruling as it stood at the time. It wouldn't do them any good anyway. Before last week's ruling CLPs were voting for Corbyn by landslides already.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

**


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> All CLP nominations are indicative and wank. What were you told?


Oh I realise that. But in would be in character of the NEC Procedures Committee to rule them invalid anyway just as another petty swipe at the membership.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 12, 2016)

Will is make any difference to the result. I'm betting no.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 12, 2016)

The big unknown is how union members vote. It's likely to be far closer among the union affiliate bloc than the members (and of course the registered supporters). Close enough to cause Corbyn to sweat a bit? Probably not, but it might not be the devastating landslide for him that some are predicting.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> The big unknown is how union members vote. It's likely to be far closer among the union affiliate bloc than the members (and of course the registered supporters). Close enough to cause Corbyn to sweat a bit? Probably not, but it might not be the devastating landslide for him that some are predicting.


70 000 last time. Not really in the game. They were known last time - 60+ corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

+


two sheds said:


> Ta - yes and for the 30 years before that, too, with the post war social contract.
> 
> One problem though is that it took WWII to set up the PWSC and there was a real demand for change - I'm not sure that 'Rip-off Britain' with the priorities people have now because of the media is going to be enough.


also sheds, in my theorising both those wars brutalised our entire class, that and post-war rationing. Finest minds of their generation starved and all that. Where have all the flowers gone? etc


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I've every sympathy for joe cox's family and friends and she didn't deserve to be murdered, who does? How many workplace deaths take place annually and go uneulogized? but the way these people are cynically using her murder to claim victimhood because they are being given the mildest of barrackings is pretty sickening.


She also seemed genuinely nice and well intentioned. I feel no need to learn more about her voting record now.

Totally agree about all the toilers who's deaths are ignored.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 12, 2016)

I've had the email. With a couple of hours to go before the meeting. "Yeah but no but..." Bet loads will still turn up.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2016)

The judgment basically follows similar lines to the ballot case; Rulebook allows NEC certain powers, NEC has exercised them. It might be interesting to read paras 47-51ish which deal with unreasonable exercise of power by decision making bodies (mainly in mutuals), but these are somewhat narrow legal points... Could potentially have swung the other way, but without delving into previous case law it's difficult to say. 

In any case it's something of a side issue. If you want an important thing to be angry about it's that the labour party is subject to the same external rules as your average golf club.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 12, 2016)

Cid said:


> In any case it's something of a side issue. If you want an important thing to be angry about it's that the labour party is subject to the same external rules as your average golf club.



I'm more angry that the PLP is abusing its power against the members (while proclaiming loudly that it's the other way round).


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 12, 2016)

Is it possible to draw a spunking cock on a online ballot paper?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 12, 2016)

Reading the judgement it would seem the NEC can bar from voting anyone who intends to for for Corbyn if it wishes and can probably apply that rule after the vote.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Reading the judgement it would seem the NEC can bar from voting anyone who intends to for for Corbyn if it wishes and can probably apply that rule after the vote.



No, that would definitely be unreasonable/arbitrary/capricious.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2016)

This is specifically answering two questions; does the rulebook allow the NEC to set a freeze period? Is there anything in contract law that prevents the specific freeze period from being a legitimate exercise of their power?

It doesn't have any wider effect than that.

e2a: Well, maybe 3 - does the rulebook prevent this type of freeze period?


----------



## Raheem (Aug 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Is it possible to draw a spunking cock on a online ballot paper?



Yes, but you're best advised not to do it with anything solvent-based.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 12, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> he got a warning from mods about it too



I did?


.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 12, 2016)

Labour are in a right mess...worse than at any time in their history too...Corbyn is utterly useless but backed by a HUGE number of people who care about people agreeing with them more than making policy which shapes the country. Sad times...


.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 12, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Labour are in a right mess...worse than at any time in their history too...Corbyn is utterly useless but backed by a HUGE number of people who care about people agreeing with them more than making policy which shapes the country. Sad times...



But they're still not as empty and pointless as your post. Keep up the good work.

Cheers - Louis (typing it out each time) MacNeice


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Is it possible to draw a spunking cock on a online ballot paper?



It fucking should be! What an absolute crock of shite.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But they're still not as empty and pointless as your post. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Cheers - Louis (typing it out each time) MacNeice



His post does have a point, at the bottom, where his silly signature used to be, the prat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> His post does have a point, at the bottom, where his silly signature used to be, the prat.


what, where it used to say crapatalk?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what, where it used to say crapatalk?



Yeah, he's replaced it with a .

Advertising schwarzpunt probably.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Labour are in a right mess...worse than at any time in their history too...Corbyn is utterly useless but backed by a HUGE number of people who care about people agreeing with them more than making policy which shapes the country. Sad times...
> 
> 
> .


so policy shaping is to be done by whom? Don't you like democracy?

Sent from Mordor using a Palantir


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 12, 2016)

Wow, is this true?:


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Wow, is this true?:



He's certainly worked for Brown/D Miliband in the past; not sure that necessarily makes him an insider...but maybe?


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He's certainly worked for Brown/D Miliband in the past; not sure that necessarily makes him an insider...but maybe?



One of the sources linked to the tweet basically says he owes his career to Blair-



> shortly after Labour’s victory, the Treasury passed over three more experienced candidates for First Junior to choose Philip Sales, a 35 year old member of Irvine’s former chambers, who specialised in European public law. The position generated £100-200,000 annually in briefs and virtually ensured a judicial appointment.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so policy shaping is to be done by whom? Don't you like democracy?
> 
> Sent from Mordor using a Palantir


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> One of the sources linked to the tweet basically says he owes his career to Blair-


Ah, the Irvine link,eh?
Probably correct then.
How convenient for the party establishment that he heard & agreed the appeal...and prevented SC appeal.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2016)

There's quite a weak piece in the indie about the 'possibility' of MI5 getting on to Momentum. Of course, they have probably been on to them more or less from inception so the piece could be limited hangout.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Labour are in a right mess...worse than at any time in their history too...Corbyn is utterly useless but backed by a HUGE number of people who care about people agreeing with them more than making policy which shapes the country. Sad times...
> 
> 
> .



You can do better than that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's quite a weak piece in the indie about the 'possibility' of MI5 getting on to Momentum. Of course, they have probably been on to them more or less from inception so the piece could be limited hangout.



Don't tease, post a link.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2016)

Pink = remain?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 12, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Pink = remain?




I was going to ask what the fucks up with Scotland being so pro-owen (prowen?) since they are supposedly more left wing up that way. Then I realised that Scottish labour fucked up so badly that they are now in third place behind the tories. Makes perfect sense now.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I was going to ask what the fucks up with Scotland being so pro-owen (prowen?) since they are supposedly more left wing up that way. Then I realised that Scottish labour fucked up so badly that they are now in third place behind the tories. Makes perfect sense now.



Yes, almost all the Labour left-wingers left for greener pastures in Scotland.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 12, 2016)

Seems to me the court decision is good news. On the one hand, noone appears to think it remotely possible that it will result in ultimate victory for Smith. But, on the other, it will make it harder in future to challenge the NEC in court. For example, regarding rules about candidate selection and deselection.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Don't tease, post a link.



I was reluctant because a lot of it is bollocks as u will see.


Why MI5 could start tracking pro-Corbyn Momentum members of the Labour Party


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2016)

is it fair to say the Labour Party executive is now openly thieving from its membership? Cos thats how it reads to me.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 12, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Seems to me the court decision is good news. On the one hand, noone appears to think it remotely possible that it will result in ultimate victory for Smith. But, on the other, it will make it harder in future to challenge the NEC in court. For example, regarding rules about candidate selection and deselection.



....and those members should fuck off taking it to the SP. It'll only drain their own coffers.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I did?
> 
> 
> .


uh huh


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 12, 2016)

I haven't joined Momentum so I can say I was never a part of anything like a party within the party.

The Withington CLP didn't get back about cancelling the leadership debate yet. I don't think we will get a chance to colour it in on the map.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

Christ, this shytefest only benefits two groups, the lawyers and the Tories and the PLP must know this, what are the hoping to achieve? 
Apart from ten years of well fed, lucrative, 'cosy opposition'?
The CLP should start the appropriate deselection processes ASP, they really have nothing to lose by doing so and plenty  to gain in the long term.


----------



## oryx (Aug 13, 2016)

Isn't today's decision likely to affect those who signed up to 'Saving Labour'  (should be a derisory smiley) as well as Corbyn supporters? Probably a lot fewer of the former than the latter, though.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Labour are in a right mess...worse than at any time in their history too...Corbyn is utterly useless but backed by a HUGE number of people who care about people agreeing with them more than making policy which shapes the country. Sad times...
> 
> 
> .


'Tory lite' policies you mean? Mebbes their is a growing number of ordinary people who see, if not Corbyn as PM, but his beliefs as a game changer?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> uh huh



I noticed some pages ago you said corbyn wasn't a socialist.

Socialism is a broad church and he's at the mild mannered, beardy beige, social democrat end but I'd still call him a socialist. Or have I missed something?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

coley said:


> Christ, this shytefest only benefits two groups, the lawyers and the Tories and the PLP must know this, what are the hoping to achieve?
> Apart from ten years of well fed, lucrative, 'cosy opposition'?
> The CLP should start the appropriate deselection processes ASP, they really have nothing to lose by doing so and plenty  to gain in the long term.



The redrawn constituencies are going to announced in September....is that right?

...and the newly elected NEC takes over in October?

Is there any reason to wait longer for the reselections?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I noticed some pages ago you said corbyn wasn't a socialist.
> 
> Socialism is a broad church and he's at the mild mannered, beardy beige, social democrat end but I'd still call him a socialist. Or have I missed something?


no, but i'm not sure what that has to do with the post you replied to!
though i can't see how a socialist could agree with the honours system


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no, but i'm not sure what that has to do with the post you replied to!
> though i can't see how a socialist could agree with the honours system



Sticking someone in the lords is not the same as agreeing with the honours system is it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Sticking someone in the lords is not the same as agreeing with the honours system is it?


no, but it's on a scale that i still wouldn't expect a socialist to willingly position themselves.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 13, 2016)

My CLP voted Corbyn tonight. 2 spoiled papers, 4 votes for Smith, 45 or so for Corbyn. They voted for Cooper last time in a close vote.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no, but it's on a scale that i still wouldn't expect a socialist to willingly position themselves.



So you think the correct thing for a socialist to do is allow the tories to pump the house of lords full with their choice of scrotes?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> My CLP voted Corbyn tonight. 2 spoiled papers, 4 votes for Smith, 45 or so for Corbyn. They voted for Cooper last time in a close vote.



That's quite funny. Have you punted that out on twitter?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you think the correct thing for a socialist to do is allow the tories to pump the house of lords full with their choice of scrotes?


i dunno. People are arguing that Corbyn is allowing the Tories to keep in power indefinitely just by being a mild social democrat.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no, but i'm not sure what that has to do with the post you replied to!
> though i can't see how a socialist could agree with the honours system



Until you can change the system, then unfortunately you have to ' hold yer nose' and work the system, or hand your opponents an unassailable advantage over your political views.
Or, end up like Thailand?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's quite funny. Have you punted that out on twitter?



It's already on there, on the CLP Nominations twitter page. It was 40-4, not 45-4, my mistake. There were only a couple of votes in it last time for Cooper (with Corbyn second).

Tristram was not in attendance.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i dunno. People are arguing that Corbyn is allowing the Tories to keep in power indefinitely just by being a mild social democrat.



Who are these 'people' what are their interests?

You know corbyn has been life long republican?


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i dunno. People are arguing that Corbyn is allowing the Tories to keep in power indefinitely just by being a mild social democrat.



Fair point, but what's the difference atween the the PLP and our present Govt? Its so slight it could 
be measured on the thickness of a tab paper! ( Rizzlas, to you non Northern, unfortunate individuals 
Ought be worth letting them slug it out in the hope that what emerges resembles a socialist WC representative party?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Who are these 'people' what are their interests?
> 
> You know corbyn has been life long republican?


Of course they are Blairites, but still, it's just got me thinking - Corbyn has to dissemble even more than Blair to get power. Not that I should be surprised that it is impossible to get power without dishonesty


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course they are Blairites, but still, it's just got me thinking - Corbyn has to dissemble even more than Blair to get power. Not that I should be surprised that it is impossible to get power without dishonesty


Corbyn and the EU  referendum have woken up a lot of people to the fact that their vote can actually make a difference, that's something that is scaring the Shyte out of the Murdoch dominated ( and their political lackeys) media.
They desperately want a return to the 'same old' as existed before the 23/6/16


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> My CLP voted Corbyn tonight. 2 spoiled papers, 4 votes for Smith, 45 or so for Corbyn. They voted for Cooper last time in a close vote.


My ward was busier than that!


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

It isn't about JC anymore. He is just the guy who shows we need honest politicians who stick to their word and offer a vote that counts for the average woman and man.

Bernie in the states is even less revolutionaty, but putting his supporters into office will change the world.

We need to bomb less countries, even if we make sure we can look after ourselves.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> or more than a century. LCS maybe shouldn't be taken as the point of origin. Deeper roots



LCS?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> My CLP voted Corbyn tonight. 2 spoiled papers, 4 votes for Smith, 45 or so for Corbyn. They voted for Cooper last time in a close vote.


I desperately want to know how you get 2 spoilt, and what was on them.


----------



## Tankus (Aug 13, 2016)

Pretty poor Welsh valley response for Owen .....you would have thought ...being a pseudo local boyo and all that ....?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 13, 2016)

Tankus said:


> Pretty poor Welsh valley response for Owen .....you would have thought ...being a pseudo local boyo and all that ....?


I doubt Barrybados is flocking to the cause, either. They do have those fancy coffees in the cafe on Barry Island so probably too elite for the message.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Who are these 'people' what are their interests?
> 
> You know corbyn has been life long republican?


Is this your shit way of saying you've joined the labour party?


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is this your shit way of saying you've joined the labour party?



*Netflix and chill?*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> LCS?


London Corresponding Society


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I was going to ask what the fucks up with Scotland being so pro-owen (prowen?) since they are supposedly more left wing up that way. Then I realised that Scottish labour fucked up so badly that they are now in third place behind the tories. Makes perfect sense now.


I'd never heard of Jim Murphy but he seemed like a bit of a twat so I asked our weepiper if he'd ever done a real days work in his life. 9 years in student politics then straight into labour politics. The wasteman.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd never heard of Jim Murphy but he seemed like a bit of a twat so I asked our weepiper if he'd ever done a real days work in his life. 9 years in student politics then straight into labour politics. The wasteman.


tbf corbyn pretty much went straight into the Labour Party


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

You've got to admire the brass neck of the party establishment...


> _The NEC applied the cut-off period in response to concerns from some in the party about new Labour members signing up solely to vote._


As opposed to the complete lack of concern about anybody willing to cough-up £25 _solely to vote.
_
No wonder so many of the Blairite wing are selling this as a battle to defend the right of the NEC to govern on party matters, no matter how illogical, calculating or anti-democratic their decisions might be.
Draws you in, doesn't it?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to admire the brass neck of the party establishment...
> ​As opposed to the complete lack of concern about anybody willing to cough-up £25 _solely to vote.
> _
> No wonder so many of the Blairite wing are selling this as a battle to defend the right of the NEC to govern on party matters, no matter how illogical, calculating or anti-democratic their decisions might be.
> Draws you in, doesn't it?


its that contradiction that made me think it wouldnt pass in court.... sus


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its that contradiction that made me think it wouldnt pass in court.... sus


The judiciary don't deal in logic, morality or democracy, though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> We need to bomb less countries


Fewer. We need to bomb_ fewer_ countries.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to admire the brass neck of the party establishment...
> ​As opposed to the complete lack of concern about anybody willing to cough-up £25 _solely to vote.
> _
> No wonder so many of the Blairite wing are selling this as a battle to defend the right of the NEC to govern on party matters, no matter how illogical, calculating or anti-democratic their decisions might be.
> Draws you in, doesn't it?


That all important lower case "_*n" *_in new.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's a horribly simplistic, compressed and historically-inaccurate representation of what actually happened.



That doesn’t surprise me. 



> The post-war Social Contract was capital agreeing to certain conditions for fear of social unrest -and therefore affected profits.



Isn’t that a horribly simplistic, compressed and historically-inaccurate representation of what actually happened?

Yes capital “agreed” but it was more complicated than just that. We were going through a murderous war when Beveridge wrote his report. Whatever else he believed in, he believed in full employment, and the report itself was widely seen as inspirational (10 things you may not know about the Beveridge report).

Bevin was Minister for Labour at the time and you’re not telling me he was a representative of capital. Britain was nearly bankrupt but Attlee influenced by Bevin still implemented nearly all its election promises after the landslide victory in 1945. 



> While Beveridge's "five giants" were used as political material, a quick analysis shows that none of them have been conquered, and that from '45-onward, most of what has happened has been the amelioration of the most egregious social harms caused by capitalism, not the curing of them. They can't be cured because that too would undermine capitalist logic.



Well the ‘five giants’ were what we’d call an Aim, weren’t they. “Conquering” full employment, public ownership of essential industries, proper universal housing and benefits and free healthcare and education is a bit of a fucking harsh requirement for any government. Has anyone done that in the history of the world? Is it even possible to conquer them (which suggests for all time)? England didn’t win the World Cup that year either the bastards but I wouldn’t hold that against them.

And I know it’s seen as cheating but what was the alternative? You’ve very strongly condemned that social democratic government, which suggests that there must have been an obvious alternative strategy that they could have pursued. I suppose they could have nationalized the banks and insurance companies for example, but then wouldn’t we have been treated like a pariah state like Cuba? Or we could have aligned with Soviet communism as some of the trades unions and others wanted to do, but I don’t think that would have worked out very well either.

It would have taken virtually a worldwide workers’ revolution to do what you’re demanding. Social democracy for 30 years delivered full employment, built habitable housing, and brought public ownership of essential industries along with free health and education. Those are the important things that affect peoples’ lives, and what a socialist government of any variety should also tackle. Demanding that they should have broken up capitalism too seems like dogma replacing practical improvements.

/disclaimer I’m not really keen on adversarial political discussions when I’m broadly in favour of what the other person says (and particularly as here where I know a lot less about the background material), but it’s clearly urban’s way so I'm having a go. 



> As for neoliberalism, it wasn't pioneered in the UK, and it wasn't pioneered by Thatcher. It wasn't even *really* pioneered in Chile, although that's the first site where it was seen in it's full -murderous - effect. What Thatcher - or more realistically,Sir Keith Joseph and Allen Walters - pioneered in the UK was a form of monetarism, which is often a concomitant of neoliberalism.



Interesting, ta. Monetarism is much better word than neoliberalism in explanation, and Blair did accept Thatcher’s changes and he and Brown continued along the same lines so that seems to cover through to today.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fewer. We need to bomb_ fewer_ countries.


Or lesser countries.*

*Less likely to defend themselves/retaliate.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Or lesser countries.*
> 
> *Less likely to defend themselves/retaliate.


Yes, as in "we need to bomb lesser countries" because of their relative status to us.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> *Monetarism is much better word than neoliberalism in explanation*, and Blair did accept Thatcher’s changes and he and Brown continued along the same lines so that seems to cover through to today.


It really isn't.
The macro-economic policy of 'tight money' was merely a means by which the state transitioned from one economic stop-gap to the next. Of the 3 main 'fixes' to the neoliberal 'capital strike' attempted by OECD states, inflation was the first. When this policy threatened to curtail processes of accumulation, governments were compelled to 'squeeze' inflation out of the economy and substitute stimulation in the form of public debt.
Hence 'monetarism' was just one facet of the macro-economic management of neoliberalism.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It really isn't.
> The macro-economic policy of 'tight money' was merely a means by which the state transitioned from one economic stop-gap to the next. Of the 3 main 'fixes' to the neoliberal 'capital strike' attempted by OECD states, inflation was the first. When this policy threatened to curtail processes of accumulation, governments were compelled to 'squeeze' inflation out of the economy and substitute stimulation in the form of public debt.
> Hence 'monetarism' was just one facet of the macro-economic management of neoliberalism.



I like monetarism more because it's much more readily understandable to people who don't have a political background. 

The 'capital strike' has been since 2008 or do you mean against the New Deal? The three fixes were inflation, then stimulation in the form of public debt, and then a third?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I like monetarism more because it's much more readily understandable to people who don't have a political background.
> 
> The 'capital strike' has been since 2008 or do you mean against the New Deal? The three fixes were inflation, then stimulation in the form of public debt, and then a third?


Since the late 60's/early 70's.

3rd 'fix' = Private debt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2016)

I'm not good with graphs but something about that one is screaming THIEF! WHERES THE MONEY GOING?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

Monetarism and neo-liberalism _are different things_. Not different words for the same thing. The former is tight control of money, restricting the operations of financial capital, the other is letting it have ful rein. /bullying.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not could with graphs but something about that one is screaming THIEF! WHERES THE MONEY GOING?


I think you're under-estimating your graphic literacy.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2016)

ta brogdale interesting I'd not seen about the capital strike. And there's a graph that I think shows precisely where the money went (although there may be better ones).



One of the things that needs to be considered is why the PWSC broke down. Was that related to the capital strike? One official version is:



> During the 1960s and 1970s, the main parties competed to reverse Britain’s relative economic decline. There was a growing awareness that the economic league tables showed that Britain was at the wrong end for figures regarding strikes, productivity, inflation, economic growth and rising living standards.
> 
> Virtually all European countries, except for Britain, had so-called 'economic miracles'. Britain was often described as the 'sick man of Europe'. The targets for blame included: failure to invest in new plant and machinery; restrictive working practices and outdated attitudes on the shop floor ('us and them'); amateurish management; loss of markets; and rise of competition.



BBC - History -				  British History in depth: Thatcherism and the End of the Post-War Consensus


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

The fear diminished.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is this your shit way of saying you've joined the labour party?



Have I fuck. But I won't sneer at those that have.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Have I fuck. But I won't sneer at those that have.


Course you won't.


----------



## andysays (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to admire the brass neck of the party establishment...
> ​As opposed to the complete lack of concern about anybody willing to cough-up £25 _solely to vote.
> _
> No wonder so many of the Blairite wing are selling this as a battle to defend the right of the NEC to govern on party matters, no matter how illogical, calculating or anti-democratic their decisions might be.
> Draws you in, doesn't it?



Out of interest, anyone know how much in monthly subs someone who joined the LP six months ago would have paid by now?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Course you won't.



I'm conflicted. The PLP and those that back them are mainly filth. The party as a whole appears to have shifted.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

The reslections and the right to recall will shift the power from the PLP to the CLPs. I hope they suceed.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> Out of interest, anyone know how much in monthly subs someone who joined the LP six months ago would have paid by now?


I think that's about £24. (6 x £4 approx pcm)


----------



## andysays (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think that's about £24. (6 x £4 approx pcm)



So someone who joined up six months ago "solely to vote" has by now made an almost identical financial contribution to someone who paid the £25 supporter's fee entitling _them_ to vote but nothing else...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> So someone who joined up six months ago "solely to vote" has by now made an almost identical financial contribution to someone who paid the £25 supporter's fee entitling _them_ to vote but nothing else...


Yep, _win-win f_or the Blairites.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 13, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> I doubt Barrybados is flocking to the cause, either. They do have those fancy coffees in the cafe on Barry Island so probably too elite for the message.


Why pseudo-local boyo?  He lived in Ponty for his entire schooling until sixth-form.... Went to Coed-y-lan school.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 13, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Why pseudo-local boyo?  He lived in Ponty for his entire schooling until sixth-form.... Went to Coed-y-lan school.



He grew up in Barry and went to Barry Comp. Barry isn't in the Valleys. This isn't contested.


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2016)

Sheffield Central voted not to nominate anyone last night (bloody liberals). Heeley went 51-47 Corbyn, Brightside & Hillsborough 17-10 Corbyn. 

The last one was delegates only, have there been any like that'd ones anyone know? Caused some kerfuffle locally.


----------



## Cid (Aug 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Central voted not to nominate anyone last night (bloody liberals). Heeley went 51-47 Corbyn, Brightside & Hillsborough 17-10 Corbyn.
> 
> The last one was delegates only, have there been any like that'd ones anyone know? Caused some kerfuffle locally.



Central is a delegate only vote, although eligible members could attend the meeting. Delegates elected back in May/June.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Sheffield Central voted not to nominate anyone last night (bloody liberals). Heeley went 51-47 Corbyn, Brightside & Hillsborough 17-10 Corbyn.
> 
> The last one was delegates only, have there been any like that'd ones anyone know? Caused some kerfuffle locally.



Louise Haigh won't be happy. She's been increasingly vocal about her support for the coup, which probably explains the close CLP vote.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 13, 2016)

I think any vote my CLP would hold would be delegate only, and we haven't had our AGM because of the ban on meetings. I think it would still go Corbyn which may be why there's been no sign of it happening.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2016)

good discussion from Novara ^


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2016)

Important to note that the court victory is still important if corbyn wins the vote, as it will probably reduce the margin. Anything below 60/40, or even above it, will be taken as a signal to keep shaking the tree.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2016)

So any result is a signal to keep shaking the tree then?


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2016)

On reflection, i think Tom Watson stirring up the trots entryist stuff this week has been mostly for the benefit of the appeal Court judges - days of headlines about the extremists the labour party want to lock out of the election process just as the judges were ruminating on whether to allow them to be locked out were sure to concentrate their minds...


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2016)

Milton Keynes today, large turn out in a place not known for left wing politics.


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2016)

Detailed video from Bristol on Monday


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

Our agm didn't explain who most of the candidates were, and all the women got automatically through because of the 50% rule. I'd prefer no delegates than bad ones. Our ward has 650 or so members now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've got to admire the brass neck of the party establishment...
> ​As opposed to the complete lack of concern about anybody willing to cough-up £25 _solely to vote.
> _
> No wonder so many of the Blairite wing are selling this as a battle to defend the right of the NEC to govern on party matters, no matter how illogical, calculating or anti-democratic their decisions might be.
> Draws you in, doesn't it?



Thing is, Eagle was begging people in all her campaign lit to sign up solely to vote, so...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thing is, Eagle was begging people in all her campaign lit to sign up solely to vote, so...


Also pretty much the entire point of savinglabour dot com.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thing is, Eagle was begging people in all her campaign lit to sign up solely to vote, so...


Ker-ching.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> So any result is a signal to keep shaking the tree then?




Thats how i think it will roll. Anything can be spun and probably will be.

Last year Corbyn beat 3 challengers, this year he can only beat 1. Its a disaster.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 13, 2016)

And if anyone at all quits the party after he wins, it'll obviously be a split and entirely his fault, orchestrated in the bunker with trots. The HARD LEFT will have returned to our TV screens and column inches, and it'll be MILITANT this and POLITICS OF ENVY that.

All Corbyn's personal fault, of course, till he dies and then it'll be MAN OF PRINCIPLE but you know, those principles don't actually _work _though do they?

I do fucking hate this country, a lot.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

_Thunderbirds are go! Virgil, the pod._



> _Labour MPs are appealing to David Miliband to return to UK politics in a desperate bid to oust Jeremy Corbyn .
> 
> Senior backbenchers want Miliband, who quit politics to run a charity in the US, back here as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

I didn't join Momentum so I could troll propperly. I'm more polite in it than the comradely chat is here. Looks a bit sternly at some of the posters who should know better.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Thunderbirds are go! Virgil, the pod._
> 
> ​


something you said earlier- 'total war'. It made me think a bit. When St C was ushered in (riding into jerusalem on a donkey while union members laid down the palm leaves) the coverage and indeed the behaviour of the wider party was mildly indulgent, bit panicky but not this rabid. I've come to believe they'd rather have no party at al than one with him in charge. It has become ABC


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

Twitter tells me that the 'senior backbencher' is (unsurprisingly) Dugher.
Very believable.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Thunderbirds are go! Virgil, the pod._
> 
> ​


Bit awkward given Brendan Cox's statements:



> He said he hoped she would be replaced by a woman, saying it would be "a lovely symbolism" if they became Labour's 100th female MP.


Jo Cox 'died for her views', her widower tells BBC - BBC News


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> something you said earlier- 'total war'. It made me think a bit. When St C was ushered in (riding into jerusalem on a donkey while union members laid down the palm leaves) the coverage and indeed the behaviour of the wider party was mildly indulgent, bit panicky but not this rabid. I've come to believe they'd rather have no party at al than one with him in charge. It has become ABC


Certainly prefer no party over a socialist one.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Bit awkward given Brendan Cox's statements:
> 
> 
> Jo Cox 'died for her views', her widower tells BBC - BBC News


Easily overlooked for 'the greater good'...and all that.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 13, 2016)

Look forward to seeing campaign rosettes bearing the acronym IWJWHW


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

tbf, if the NEC move the freeze date back to 6 years, not months, I reckon Miliband's a shoe-in, MP or no MP.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

The establishment seems a bit worried we might get to choose someone who isn't one of them,


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> The establishment seems a bit worried we might get to choose someone who isn't one of them,


He's a 40 year MP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2016)

flask of tea for the lads


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He's a 40 year MP.


Never close to any kind of power before


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Never close to any kind of power before


He's as Establishment as they come - regardless of being close to power or not. _He's an MP._


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

Mr Apron, I don't even know what kind of left wing you come from. CPGB-ML?

Getting more people excited about changing things for the right reasons can't be bad.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Mr Apron, I don't even know what kind of left wing you come from. CPGB-ML?
> 
> Getting more people excited about changing things for the right reasons can't be bad.


Yes, i am the leader of the CPGB-ML.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i am the leader of the CPGB-ML.



More like leader of CPGB-MAML


----------



## Cid (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Thunderbirds are go! Virgil, the pod._
> 
> ​



Yeah, give up your £400k/year job in New York and come back to South Shields so you can lose an election. What an an appealing offer.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i am the leader of the CPGB-ML.


 I like that the rag looks like the FT.

You almost seemed to smile then. I like that.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

Cid said:


> Yeah, give up your £400k/year job in New York and come back to South Shields so you can lose an election. What an an appealing offer.


Batley & Spen.
They're psychopathically drawn to power; it's not just the £ with these people.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2016)

Is it the time of the week that someone moots David Milliband as a replacement leader again? Seems to come round quicker and quicker each time.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> And if anyone at all quits the party after he wins, it'll obviously be a split and entirely his fault, orchestrated in the bunker with trots. The HARD LEFT will have returned to our TV screens and column inches, and it'll be MILITANT this and POLITICS OF ENVY that.
> 
> All Corbyn's personal fault, of course, till he dies and then it'll be MAN OF PRINCIPLE but you know, those principles don't actually _work _though do they?
> 
> I do fucking hate this country, a lot.


There's always the option of emigrating to the US or Russia, plenty of other places better than here, depending on what 'floats yer boat'


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is it the time of the week that someone moots David Milliband as a replacement leader again? Seems to come round quicker and quicker each time.



Milliband war-monger and no-doubt even more right wing now. I don't think that would sit well with Labour of today.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is it the time of the week that someone moots David Milliband as a replacement leader again? Seems to come round quicker and quicker each time.


Not just _someone....

_


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Milliband war-monger and no-doubt even more right wing now. I don't think that would sit well with Labour of today.


It doesn't matter cause it's not going to happen. Same as it wasn't going to happen the other 7000 times its been suggested


----------



## Cid (Aug 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Batley & Spen.
> They're psychopathically drawn to power; it's not just the £ with these people.



He's the head of an NGO - an important humanitarian. You'd have to be uniquely thick to want to get involved in the current shambles anyway...


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 13, 2016)

coley said:


> There's always the option of emigrating to the US or Russia, plenty of other places better than here, depending on what 'floats yer boat'



No, everywhere is equally hateful.
I think it's just been one of they days.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Milliband war-monger and no-doubt even more right wing now. I don't think that would sit well with Labour of today.


Aye, but what is the 'labour of today' ?seems it's the Courts who decide, not the membership, something brought on by the PLP.
Deselect the bastards and find a way of charging the money wasted In this latest round of 'legal gerrymandering' to the members of the PLP responsible.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> No, everywhere is equally hateful.
> I think it's just been one of they days.


Aye, fair enough, we all have them kind of days, take care


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, fair enough, we all have them kind of days, take care


Sorry,DP


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is it the time of the week that someone moots David Milliband as a replacement leader again? Seems to come round quicker and quicker each time.


Poor old Dilibrand


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

JC has got all the lefties out of the closet. He's not the Messiah...


----------



## Sue (Aug 14, 2016)

Oh God, some liberal, handwringing Corbynistas discussing politics on the Hackney-bound bus...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> JC has got all the lefties out of the closet. He's not the Messiah...


his soc/dem shake brings all the boys to the yard


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

and the PLP are told 'Its better than yours'

while frothy coffee man stares endlessly into the dregs of his cup and contemplates a life that doesn't so closely resemble imminent humiliation. Don't even think these people have an inner voice. Don't they talk to themselves, just mull things over and decide 'you know what, fuck running against St C, I'll just keep my head down and keep my salary. What will be will be'. They must have some soaring egos to think it will be forgotten come election time


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 14, 2016)

Re: Novara interview......I'm astonished at that Guardian hack's criticism Corbyn's integrity, claiming he lacked 'dynamism' as he's beliefs haven't wavered.

Jesus fucking wept.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> his soc/dem shake brings all the boys to the yard




It would be boys if that were my taste.

Don't be arses trying to put people off engaging in politics,

If I was brave enough to put on big boots to scare off the BNP, I think I can have my say.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Don't be arses trying to put people off engaging in politics,


eh I never have. I might take the piss a bit but its just that, mockery of a gentle kind. Of course its good to see people engaging with politics, but I fear the labour party is going to let them down. They always do.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> eh I never have. I might take the piss a bit but its just that, mockery of a gentle kind. Of course its good to see people engaging with politics, but I fear the labour party is going to let them down. They always do.


Cheers dot. Maybe things are changing. You can only hope so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Cheers dot. Maybe things are changing. You can only hope so.



perhaps so. There is a real sense of anger and desire for the fraud to stop being a fraud but can it be articulated through the Labour Party or is it doomed to succumb to that parties traditional habit of suppressing working class militancy in order to present itself as a negotiator with capital? Taking union money and shitting on union members? Shitting on single mothers, shitting on the unemployed. Sure the tories are satans ballsack but they never pretended to be anything else. Here is a song your post called to mind which is always worth a spin:


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> perhaps so. There is a real sense of anger and desire for the fraud to stop being a fraud but can it be articulated through the Labour Party or is it doomed to succumb to that parties traditional habit of suppressing working class militancy in order to present itself as a negotiator with capital? Taking union money and shitting on union members? Shitting on single mothers, shitting on the unemployed. Sure the tories are satans ballsack but they never pretended to be anything else. Here is a song your post called to mind which is always worth a spin:





Maybe you are right, but it is a litmus paper on the body politic.

I prefer "which side are you on" If you hate billy bragg there are lots of other versions.

I know JC getting elected again would just be the begining. I have read some history.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I prefer "which side are you on" If you hate billy bragg there are lots of other versions.


this is a good one:


I cannot stand with the Labour Party though. Time and again they have betrayed us. Parliamentary poltics isn't my bag either, I'm afraid I'm one of those who favour violent revolution (there is no other sort that will work here) and the imposition of a working class led socialist state. Please don't ask me to outline the shape that such a thing would take, there are many models discussed. If pressed I would say I like what I have read about council communism. Either way the palace of westminster must burn imo


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Maybe you are right, but it is a litmus paper on the body politic.
> 
> I prefer "which side are you on" If you hate billy bragg there are lots of other versions.
> 
> I know JC getting elected again would just be the begining. I have read some history.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is a good one:
> 
> 
> I cannot stand with the Labour Party though. Time and again they have betrayed us. Parliamentary poltics isn't my bag either, I'm afraid I'm one of those who favour violent revolution (there is no other sort that will work here) and the imposition of a working class led socialist state. Please don't ask me to outline the shape that such a thing would take, there are many models discussed. If pressed I would say I like what I have read about council communism. Either way the palace of westminster must burn imo




Thought you'd joined Labour? Not that that means much at the moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Thought you'd joined Labour? Not that that means much at the moment.


nah, thought about it 'by any means neccesary' but in the end my mind kept going back to the anti unionism, that smiling prick who murdered tons of iraqis and brought shiny faced young men into a grand army adventure that they are still recovering from if indeed they made it out. And for what? For the DWP adverts showing gunsights focusing in on a single mum doing her ironing 'we're on to you'. Thats for having your BF/GF stay more than thee days a week. For not getting rid of the JSA regime. For the constant lies, for PFI for Peter fucking Mandleson and Alistair fucking Cambell. For leaving us behind when our money made them and paid them. No, I was tempted but the devil quotes scripture. Not well enough to fool me again tho


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, thought about it 'by any means neccesary' but in the end my mind kept going back to the anti unionism, that smiling prick who murdered tons of iraqis and brought shiny faced young men into a grand army adventure that they are still recovering from if indeed they made it out. And for what? For the DWP adverts showing gunsights focusing in on a single mum doing her ironing 'we're on to you'. Thats for having your BF/GF stay more than thee days a week. For not getting rid of the JSA regime. For the constant lies, for PFI for Peter fucking Mandleson and Alistair fucking Cambell. For leaving us behind when our money made them and paid them. No, I was tempted but the devil quotes scripture. Not well enough to fool me again tho



Fair enough. No vengeful wrath though? Place as little faith as you like in Labour but giving the right of the party who found all that to be fair and reasonable a kicking is something surely? Not even talking about grand shifts in British politics, just a bit of a shock to complacency, a bit of fear about who really owns the power they think is theirs.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

Some good songs posted anyway. Someone want to find a link to a good version of Joe Hill? I'm busy listening to the other ones.

I wonder what the wobblies could have done without Uncle Joe spoiling it all.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

By the way, I was a liberal when I was a kid, but never a cock dem

Young Liberals were Yippies then, when Callahan was just being a general nob


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Fair enough. No vengeful wrath though? Place as little faith as you like in Labour but giving the right of the party who found all that to be fair and reasonable a kicking is something surely? Not even talking about grand shifts in British politics, just a bit of a shock to complacency, a bit of fear about who really owns the power they think is theirs.


oh believe me I do like seeing the labour right taking a kicking, but I don't trust the labour left at all. They compromise at our expense, always have. I'll cheer from the sidelines but no vote. No membership. Its not what I want. Even at its best its a negotiator with capital, and fights a corner. Theres one soltion I'm afraid. Sure They might make things easier under capital by doing the soc/dem dance but it never lasts and its never got rid of our ancien regime


timeforanother said:


> Some good songs posted anyway. Someone want to find a link to a good version of Joe Hill? I'm busy listening to the other ones.
> 
> I wonder what the wobblies could have done without Uncle Joe spoiling it all.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

D


DotCommunist said:


> oh believe me I do like seeing the labour right taking a kicking, but I don't trust the labour left at all. They compromise at our expense, always have. I'll cheer from the sidelines but no vote. No membership. Its not what I want. Even at its best its a negotiator with capital, and fights a corner. Theres one soltion I'm afraid. Sure They might make things easier under capital by doing the soc/dem dance but it never lasts and its never got rid of our ancien regime




Don't take the piss here



Maybe with a bit more support in Spain we could have avoided the second world war.

I would have been in a camp and my daughter is called Rosa.

Maybe you would have been in a camp too, we shouldn't fight too much.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

I mean no mockery I just love that tune. and yes I would have been behind the wire. They came for the reds as well


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I mean no mockery I just love that tune. and yes I would have been behind the wire. They came for the reds as well


I don't doubt. They would have me twice and the other daughter 3 times.

Which side are you on is the defining song. We need to stick together even when we disagree.

I got it with the miners strike; some of the other fights were easier to define.

Even if Scargill was a bit of a nob, it was important to support them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

if yer in the mood for political music try 'Ghosts of Cable Street' the video is fantastic (its footage from the battle of cable street. Good couple of shots of mosely looking like a man who realises hes just fucked up badly). Fighty song.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if yer in the mood for political music try 'Ghosts of Cable Street' the video is fantastic (its footage from the battle of cable street. Good couple of shots of mosely looking like a man who realises hes just fucked up badly). Fighty song.


 
I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks. One of my favorite hobbies is winding up shaving labour. It may work in more than one way.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

And I'd buy you a pint Mr Dot.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2016)

What a pleasant conversation to wake up to of a Sunday morning  ta both 

Ta for the Pete Seeger Which Side are you on timeforanother . The other substitute (although I've not really kept up with Bragg to know why he's so disliked) is World Turned Upside Down. I saw Tofu Love Frogs do it 20 years ago and I'd never heard anything like it. This one will do nicely though:



I'd not heard of Dick Gaughan but then played 

Fuck me the lyrics on that:  Stand Up For Judas - Dick Gaughan's Song Archive


----------



## NoXion (Aug 14, 2016)

There may be plenty of disappointments to be found in parliamentary politics, but given that capitalism is still here and shows no sign of going away soon, I would say that revolutionary purism has been just as disappointing.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2016)

_Feudalism hasn't given us the wealth redistribution and equality we were hoping for, but as the same people seem to end up in charge whatever we might as well stick with it. _


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What a pleasant conversation to wake up to of a Sunday morning  ta both
> 
> Ta for the Pete Seeger Which Side are you on timeforanother . The other substitute (although I've not really kept up with Bragg to know why he's so disliked) is World Turned Upside Down. I saw Tofu Love Frogs do it 20 years ago and I'd never heard anything like it. This one will do nicely though:
> 
> ...



It's not his song.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> By the way, I was a liberal when I was a kid, but never a cock dem
> 
> Young Liberals were Yippies then, when Callahan was just being a general nob


Is it still your birthday?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's not his song.



Ta, the original:


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

Wow, more good songs for Sunday. Good one.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is it still your birthday?


Silly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Re: Novara interview......I'm astonished at that Guardian hack's criticism Corbyn's integrity, claiming he lacked 'dynamism' as he's beliefs haven't wavered.
> 
> Jesus fucking wept.



For some of the liberal left, the sort of dynamism that means changing your opinions every five minutes based on what other wiberals are saying, is their version of "permanent revolution".


----------



## Cid (Aug 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The other substitute (although I've not really kept up with Bragg to know why he's so disliked) is World Turned Upside Down.



When the Southbank Centre was up for redevelopment he wrote an article (for the graun of course) endorsing the demolition of the undercroft (the skater bit). Adopted the language of 'pop-ups', praised Lambeth council and generally went on as though his own projects were more important than the 40 year history of skating in the UK. It was his vision of a sort of capitalist utopia, homeless people tending the gardens so they can work again, local pop up businesses; all working to the sound of his 'big busk'. With the skaters in their custom-built new place a few hundred meters down the road.

All this from his house in Dorset.

Also wrote some stuff back when Occupy was occupying; along the lines of 'we shouldn't see this as anti-cap, just anti corporate lobbying'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

And it's not his song.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

bowing your head to her maj might not seem like a big deal, its just a respectful nod right? But no. Its what that represents. The fraud.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> And it's not his song.



Indeed, Dick Gaughan as I discover.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, Dick Gaughan as I discover.


Nope, old Leon again.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2016)

Moneybags Michael Foster, the man who thought he could use his large pile of loot to rig the leadership election, goes one step further with this smear job in the Heil on Sunday. According to him, Jeremy Corbyn leads a gang of "Nazi stormtroopers". As a Jew, he's pissing on the memories of those who died at the hands of the Nazis. What a squalid cunt of a man.

Foster also seems to have forgetten the history of the paper that's published his article. This man isn't a Jew; he's a fraud.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, old Leon again.



Oops I took that from Dick Gaughan: World Turned Upside Down - Lyrics but yes Rosselson who I also don't remember having heard of


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Oops I took that from Dick Gaughan: World Turned Upside Down - Lyrics but yes Rosselson who I also don't remember having heard of


You can have a version of the proper diggers song here (not an endorsement of the band, though i love this album of english rebel songs they did)


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2016)

The Papers - BBC News

Sunday Times, no direct link, is reporting the L/P are blacklisting 1000 members a day


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Moneybags Michael Foster, the man who thought he could use his large pile of loot to rig the leadership election, goes one step further with this smear job in the Heil on Sunday. According to him, Jeremy Corbyn leads a gang of "Nazi stormtroopers". As a Jew, he's pissing on the memories of those who died at the hands of the Nazis. What a squalid cunt of a man.
> 
> Foster also seems to have forgetten the history of the paper that's published his article. This man isn't a Jew; he's a fraud.




Truly shocking, people should sue him.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2016)

Bottom column.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You can have a version of the proper diggers song here (not an endorsement of the band, though i love this album of english rebel songs they did)



There are reasons to be proud of our heritage.

If we want to name a few, I'd add the Lancashire mill workers who went hungry against slavery.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There are reasons to be proud of our heritage.
> 
> If we want to name a few, I'd add the Lancashire mill workers who went hungry against slavery.


One for the Guardian-down-the-pan thread too.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

_immortal historical honour_


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2016)

In view of the Heil article, heres a stirring Rothermere piece of yore

NAZI YOUTH IN CONTROL - The Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 - 1950) - 4 Sep 1933


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

These are the reasons we don't need splitters when we all agree.

If Trump starts his own militia (for instance) those days could come back.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Truly shocking, people should sue him.



Quite like how he anticipates Corbyn fans will accuse him of making false accusations



> If you are like me, a Jewish donor to Labour, you are smeared as a Blairite conspirator, plotting to falsely use the accusation of anti-Semitism to damage the Left.


But then...




> To me, respect for the rule of law is fundamental to a democracy. Once political parties believe they are above the law it ends with all opposition silenced, whether it is my grandparents in Dachau, or the Left in Erdogan’s Turkey rounded up and held uncharged in prison.
> 
> The courts decided that the rules as they stand allowed it. This decision advantaged Corbyn and his Sturm Abteilung (stormtroopers), but on Friday afternoon the Appeal Court handed down a big decision for British democracy.



That's really quite impressive.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Quite like how he anticipates Corbyn fans will accuse him of making false accusations
> 
> 
> But then...
> ...





> If you are like me, a Jewish donor to Labour, you are smeared as a Blairite conspirator, plotting to falsely use the accusation of anti-Semitism to damage the Left.


For all his protests, many Jews are lining up to condemn him. I'm afraid it ain't gonna wash, Mikey my son.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

Not sure if Foster is still a member? He's usually referred to as a 'donor', but was certainly a recent candidate. If he is, the 'stormtroopers' thing is every bit as bad as anything Livingstone said. Livingstone was (rightly) suspended, so too should Foster be.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

Challengers against the NEC ruling are now abandoning their case - run out of money.
Labour leadership: Members drop voting legal challenge - BBC News


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Not sure if Foster is still a member? He's usually referred to as a 'donor', but was certainly a recent candidate. If he is, the 'stormtroopers' thing is every bit as bad as anything Livingstone said. Livingstone was (rightly) suspended, so too should Foster be.


I'm going to have to do some digging. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Tory and UKIP donor too.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

A really squalid tactic - 'I know, I'll use the most painful and personal thing that has affected my family and my community - the most dramatic historical event of the last Century - to try and win some bald men and combs internal political battle'. Fucking hell, it's like using a parents cancer to try and stop somebody getting on the committee at the bowls club. What a cunt.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

Ken shouldn't have been suspended. He may be a gobshite, you may not like him, but he isn't any kind of racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Ken shouldn't have been suspended. He may be a gobshite, you may not like him, but he isn't any kind of racist.


He just uses their arguments.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Ken shouldn't have been suspended. He may be a gobshite, you may not like him, but he isn't any kind of racist.


Didn't say he was a racist, just that like Foster he was being stupid and coming out with offensive stuff to play political games.  I said he was rightly suspended, but that was pretty much along the lines of him just being a prick. To be honest though I don't really care if he was suspened, it's not my party.   My point was ultimately that whatever Livingstone's offence, Foster trumped it.  As well as the Godwin's aspect to it, it's the utter stupidity of calling Corbyn followers stormtroopers. To my mind, Corbyn's fans can be a bit embarrassing and uncritical, but they are not in the same universe as, say, Trump followers, some of whom would probably kill on the orders of their leader.  Most Corbynistas wouldn't know one of a brick from the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

> Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

KL was an arse. I prefer to see him on the telly than that Owen whathisname.

I'll take the piss out of anyone; I will out of JC too.

I did roll my eyes in a potentially offensive way when Ken let that out of his mouth.

In contrast I offer you what our government has been up to recently, and I know which I'm more bothered by.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02628/tory-van-620_2628143b.jpg


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2016)

Can't you care about both?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2016)

If Corbyn really is supported by nazi stormtroopers he should at least get an easier ride from rothermeres rags in future.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> KL was an arse. I prefer to see him on the telly than that Owen whathisname.
> 
> I'll take the piss out of anyone; I will out of JC too.
> 
> ...


Why the 'in contrast' sentence? Should Home Office racism in some way qualify our attitude towards what Livingstone said?


----------



## andysays (Aug 14, 2016)

Labour leadership: Members drop voting legal challenge


> Labour's leadership election will go ahead with the exclusion of about 130,000 new members after five of them dropped a legal challenge against the decision to bar them.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 14, 2016)

Watson has proof!!!






Tom Watson claims proof of far-left planning to infiltrate Labour


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Watson has proof!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, which one of you was it? 
No-one is leaving until the culprit owns up...come on..who was it? Which UrbLefty tried to infiltrate?
It's your own time you're wasting; I've got to be here marking anyway....nobody leaves until...


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 14, 2016)

I know a couple of AWLers; haven't they been in Labour for years? Funny how it's being raised now, eh.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 14, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> I know a couple of AWLers



Sorry to hear that.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 14, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Sorry to hear that.



One of them is really sound. I sometimes forget they're in the AWL.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Why the 'in contrast' sentence? Should Home Office racism in some way qualify our attitude towards what Livingstone said?


 Ken was a gobshite,as he often is.

He didn't say anything evil, and I want him with us more than the board of deputies if the fash get active again.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 14, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> One of them is really sound. I sometimes forget they're in the AWL.



Oh they'll remind you.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Ken was a gobshite,as he often is.
> 
> He didn't say anything evil, and I want him with us more than the board of deputies if the fash get active again.


I think you're destroying  your own _we're all comrades _spiel. I'm no comrade of someone who takes money from the sun (post Hillsborough at that) and the gay-hangig iranian union persecuting regime, calls on people to cross RMT picket lines and jew-baits. You might be.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're destroying  your own _we're all comrades _spiel. I'm no comrade of someone who takes money from the sun (post Hillsborough at that) and the gay-hangig iranian union persecuting regime, calls on people to cross RMT picket lines and jew-baits. You might be.


Are you actually a member of the security forces?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Are you actually a member of the security forces?


I reckon he might be. After all he is actually the leader of the CPGB-ML.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 14, 2016)

By the way, I have nothing much to spy on.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2016)

The "Nazi stormtroopers" article in the Daily Mail


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> By the way, I have nothing much to spy on.


"Spy on" or be spied upon?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 14, 2016)

Have you seen that toerag John McTernan's twitter profile picture?

The snide fucker, especially after his article in the telegraph proposing smashing the rail unions.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK, which one of you was it?
> No-one is leaving until the culprit owns up...come on..who was it? Which UrbLefty tried to infiltrate?
> It's your own time you're wasting; I've got to be here marking anyway....nobody leaves until...


It was me. I'm ex SSP.Well before the sex and suchlike, i was young. And in the highlands, fuck knows what was going on down there i only ever saw Sheridan in speech mode, my other further north anarchist friend can proudly claim to have poured a cup of her piss over Tommy's white suit when he turned up to a save the forest demo making out it was his work, she'd been up a tree for about a week. I digress, yeah it was me. Sorry.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 14, 2016)

I didn't even hear back about my union vote, it all seems like a crazy stint that has dragged the whole social democratic movement down, fucking crashing stock markets and now this, i'm such a cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Moneybags Michael Foster, the man who thought he could use his large pile of loot to rig the leadership election, goes one step further with this smear job in the Heil on Sunday. According to him, Jeremy Corbyn leads a gang of "Nazi stormtroopers". As a Jew, he's pissing on the memories of those who died at the hands of the Nazis. What a squalid cunt of a man.
> 
> Foster also seems to have forgetten the history of the paper that's published his article. This man isn't a Jew; he's a fraud.



He's a Jew who's also a fraud, a chucker-around of terms he poorly comprehends - anyone who describes Corbyn supporters as "hard left socialists" doesn't really understand parliamentary socialism, the hard left or socialists - and someone who purports to know about Nazis, but doesn't apparently know that storm-troopers were the _sturmabteilung_, not the _Sturm Abteilung_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Watson has proof!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure that 300-odd Matgamnaites would make a pisspot of difference in influencing Labour's direction, even if all of them worked flat-out.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 15, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> One of them is really sound. I sometimes forget they're in the AWL.


Never forget, never forgive.


----------



## inva (Aug 15, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Ken was a gobshite,as he often is.
> 
> He didn't say anything evil, and I want him with us more than the board of deputies if the fash get active again.


he can set his newts on them


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's a Jew who's also a fraud, a chucker-around of terms he poorly comprehends - anyone who describes Corbyn supporters as "hard left socialists" doesn't really understand parliamentary socialism, the hard left or socialists - and someone who purports to know about Nazis, but doesn't apparently know that storm-troopers were the _sturmabteilung_, not the _Sturm Abteilung_.


A squalid cunt, who's also a thick cunt. Could there be any worse a cunt?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> He grew up in Barry and went to Barry Comp. Barry isn't in the Valleys. This isn't contested.


He went to Barry in the sixth form when his family moved from Ponty to Barry.  For the rest of his schooling he was in ponty in Coed-y-lan.  As someone who knows him,  his father and his teachers,  I can tell you this for a fact.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> He grew up in Barry and went to Barry Comp. Barry isn't in the Valleys. This isn't contested.


‘I’ll overturn disadvantage. Theresa May’s Tories will entrench it’ | Owen Smith

Note the schools he attended


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> He went to Barry in the sixth form when his family moved from Ponty to Barry.  For the rest of his schooling he was in ponty in Coed-y-lan.  *As someone who knows him*,  his father and his teachers,  I can tell you this for a fact.


Was he always like this?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Was he always like this?


Like what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

a massive twat and inept liar


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

a blatant stalking horse for the labour right who is happy to chat fauxcialist.


----------



## gosub (Aug 15, 2016)

Neil Kinnock condemns Corbyn for 'silence or ignorance' over Brexit

As a Leaver, can I thank Kinnock for everything he's done,  his continued existance shored up the Welsh vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

kinnock should get in the sea


----------



## gosub (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> kinnock should get in the sea



fucked that up too


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Like what?



Politics, current affairs and news not your thing, then?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Politics, current affairs and news not your thing, then?


Has he been in the news?!! 
From my experience,  he's always been in and around the local party,  and always been a keen follower of the rugby club.....Not surprising really considering who his father is.  Not really had negative experiences of him,  and he's been a great constituency MP.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a blatant stalking horse for the labour right who is happy to chat fauxcialist.


Didn't know we were at that level,  but if you're that convinced it must be true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

at what level? the level where the labour right are attempting all sorts of shennanigans to unseat their leader over the heads of a party who gave him a historical landslide of a mandate? If you think owen and argggh eagle weren't put up jobs then you are niave


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> argggh eagle


I just spotted this from  Eagle- do you think it's some kind of meta joke, or is she not that self aware?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

I'd be inclined to assume the latter tbf


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> at what level? the level where the labour right are attempting all sorts of shennanigans to unseat their leader over the heads of a party who gave him a historical landslide of a mandate? If you think owen and argggh eagle weren't put up jobs then you are niave


The level of posting insults and opinions.  All I was doing was correcting some incorrect information about Owen,  as I'm sure everyone is interested in having their facts straight.  I wasn't particularly looking to engage in childish name calling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

good job I didn't call you a name then isn't it?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a massive twat and inept liar


This isn't name calling?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> This isn't name calling?


unless you are Owen Smith, no it isn't. Are you Owen Smith?


----------



## sojourner (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> unless you are Owen Smith, no it isn't. Are you Owen Smith?


BUSTED hahaa


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

sojourner said:


> BUSTED hahaa


There's no need to be childish.  I didn't say you called me any names,  I said you were name calling,  you were.  Try to be mature.


----------



## sojourner (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> There's no need to be childish.  I didn't say you called me any names,  I said you were name calling,  you were.  Try to be mature.


It's a good job that *I *didn't call you any names either then isn't it?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> There's no need to be childish.  I didn't say you called me any names,  I said you were name calling,  you were.  Try to be mature.


There's a bloke I work with who I called 'a right so-and-so'. I'm sorry.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

when did politics become full of self important 14 YO demands for maturity (because you aren't secure in your own)? its distracting, and its a control thing. You don't get to define the terms of the debate. Also perhaps in your maturity you overlooked who you were responding to.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

sojourner said:


> It's a good job that *I *didn't call you any names either then isn't it?


Apologies.  I quoted the wrong post!


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

I'm Owen Smith and so is my wife.


----------



## JimW (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> There's no need to be childish.  I didn't say you called me any names,  I said you were name calling,  you were.  Try to be mature.


I'd hang in there, few more times back and forth and you can sell your story of online lefty bullying hell to all the newspapers.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

JimW said:


> I'd hang in there, few more times back and forth and you can sell your story of online lefty bullying hell to all the newspapers.


"And, sob, whilst it was only names.... sob, there was always a BRICK lurking in the background"


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 15, 2016)

If it walks like a cunt, talks like a cunt and acts like a cunt.... it's Owen Smith


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when did politics become full of self important 14 YO demands for maturity (because you aren't secure in your own)? its distracting, and its a control thing. You don't get to define the terms of the debate. Also perhaps in your maturity you overlooked who you were responding to.


Fuck off you stormtrooper cunt!


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when did politics become full of self important 14 YO demands for maturity (because you aren't secure in your own)? its distracting, and its a control thing. You don't get to define the terms of the debate. Also perhaps in your maturity you overlooked who you were responding to.



In discussions with the powerful they are able to use it as a way of disciplining people who are less powerful than themselves without engaging in the substance of what they are saying. In discussions like this it doesn't really serve any function at all, I think centrists just see the people who they want to emulate doing it and decide that it's just a good way to conduct debate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In discussions with the powerful they are able to use it as a way of disciplining people who are less powerful than themselves without engaging in the substance of what they are saying. In discussions like this it doesn't really serve any function at all, I think centrists just see the people who they want to emulate doing it and decide that it's just a good way to conduct debate.


its also totally illogical. You do not reach adulthood without having heard and perhaps used a deal of salty language. Perhaps not as freely as I do but the level of affront taken, well, when did everyone become a vicar? 'ooooh swearing and names! names!'

normally followed up by 'I'm telling'


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

'The Right To Call A Third Party A Cunt' - a rare moment of Urban Unity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its also totally illogical. You do not reach adulthood without having heard and perhaps used a deal of salty language. Perhaps not as freely as I do but the level of affront taken, well, when did everyone become a vicar? 'ooooh swearing and names! names!'
> 
> normally followed up by 'I'm telling'


I had this at work a while ago in a dispute with a colleague. I used the word 'fuck', or possibly 'fucking' as an adjective. It was not directed at him directly, but he seized on it as inappropriate. He feigned offence, and from that moment on I couldn't win. It's a dishonest but sometimes effective trick.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 15, 2016)

What has happened to this thread?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its also totally illogical. You do not reach adulthood without having heard and perhaps used a deal of salty language. Perhaps not as freely as I do but the level of affront taken, well, when did everyone become a vicar? 'ooooh swearing and names! names!'
> 
> normally followed up by 'I'm telling'



Well, most political pundits now are a weird amalgamation of a Labour student at the NUS and Mary Whitehouse


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I had this at work a while ago in a dispute with a colleague. I used the word 'fuck', or possibly 'fucking' as an adjective. It was not directed at him directly, but he seized on it as inappropriate. He feigned offence, and from that moment on I couldn't win. It's a dishonest but sometimes effective trick.



Ah for a world in which these people are punished instead of rewarded for that sort of behaviour


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What has happened to this thread?


Cwmflame has turned up to put us all straight.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> There's no need to be childish.  I didn't say you called me any names,  I said you were name calling,  you were.  Try to be mature.


LOL   that is positively mild for round these parts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a dishonest but sometimes effective trick.


Thing is I do control my language around kids, nans, people who I think might take umbrage legitimately because they are indeed offended, genuinly. You don't blaspheme in front of my mother without being pulled up for it. But its usage as you describe is a cunts trick indeed


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Cwmflame has turned up to put us all straight.



4 years after joining it felt the right time to say something.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Thing is I do control my language around kids, nans, people who I think might take umbrage legitimately because they are indeed offended, genuinly. You don't blaspheme in front of my mother without being pulled up for it. But its usage as you describe is a cunts trick indeed


Sure. In this case, he wasn't offended. He was delighted that I'd done something he could fixate on to deflect from the fact he was acting like an arse. But yes, as a general rule in any dispute, "don't be the first to swear" is a good strategy. 

In cwm's case, it's more a matter of desperation, I feel.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Well that escalated quickly!

All I did initially was reply to something I read on here that was definitely factually inaccurate.  I wasn't  looking to debate.  I was then asked for an opinion about Owen,  and from that, this is the result.  Being from ponty does not necessarily mean I support him.  I've enjoyed this forum for a few years and the was something I knew that was factually correct to contribute.  I was naive to think you'd be interested in knowing the facts.  I think you all need to calm down a bit.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 15, 2016)

I am so calm I am almost not here.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

I am calm. At the moment it's 52% Dalai Lama and 48% Begbie.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2016)

I'm extremely upset and offended.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Well that escalated quickly!
> 
> All I did initially was reply to something I read on here that was definitely factually inaccurate.  I wasn't  looking to debate.  I was then asked for an opinion about Owen,  and from that, this is the result.  Being from ponty does not necessarily mean I support him.  I've enjoyed this forum for a few years and the was something I knew that was factually correct to contribute.  I was naive to think you'd be interested in knowing the facts.  I think you all need to calm down a bit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2016)

if you aren't angry you aren't paying attention


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ranbay said:


>


Surely


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In discussions with the powerful they are able to use it as a way of disciplining people who are less powerful than themselves without engaging in the substance of what they are saying. In discussions like this it doesn't really serve any function at all, I think centrists just see the people who they want to emulate doing it and decide that it's just a good way to conduct debate.


Small drumlins of 'moral high-ground' for those lacking any real elevation.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 15, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Surely


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

“I disapprove of being called a cunt, but I will defend to the death your right to call me a cunt.”  Actually, I *am* a cunt.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> “I disapprove of being called a cunt, but I will defend to the death your right to call me a cunt.”  Actually, I *am* a cunt.



I doubt you have the warmth depth or capacity! (jokes obvs)


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> I doubt you have the warmth depth or capacity! (jokes obvs)


I've searched through my politically correct playbook and found there's not a single reply I can safely make.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Well that escalated quickly!
> 
> All I did initially was reply to something I read on here that was definitely factually inaccurate.  I wasn't  looking to debate.  _*I was then asked for an opinion about Owen*_,  and from that, this is the result.  Being from ponty does not necessarily mean I support him.  I've enjoyed this forum for a few years and the was something I knew that was factually correct to contribute.  I was naive to think you'd be interested in knowing the facts.  I think you all need to calm down a bit.



That's true, you were...and this was your reply:-


Cwmflame said:


> From my experience, he's always been in and around the local party, and always been a keen follower of the rugby club.....Not surprising really considering who his father is. Not really had negative experiences of him, and he's been a great constituency MP.


Which was, obviously 3 irrelevant facts and 1.5 positive opinions completely un-related to his current role as a disingenuous, duplicitous, back-stabbing, disloyal plotter working on behalf of the neoliberal tendency within the party.
Which might explain some of the reaction to your posting.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

'Keen follower of the rugby club', isn't that like his 'café latte, never heard of it. I just want the working man's coffee'?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 15, 2016)

Latest horse shit from Brighton council leader. Still not a peep from him regarding the savage 8k a year to the pay of Nursery care staff! Labour my fucking hairy arse!

Five reasons Corbyn would lead Labour to defeat


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'Keen follower of the rugby club', isn't that like his 'café latte, never heard of it. I just want the working man's coffee'?


Not gay.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> That's true, you were...and this was your reply:-
> ​Which was, obviously 3 irrelevant facts and 1.5 positive opinions completely un-related to his current role as a disingenuous, duplicitous, back-stabbing, disloyal plotter working on behalf of the neoliberal tendency within the party.
> Which might explain some of the reaction to your posting.


As I said,  I was only trying to add to the debate with some facts.  I've then given my opinion of Owen as I've known him.  I could more easily describe the politics of his father from my experience as I was a student of his,  and have read all his publications. If you then want to burn the witch then go ahead,  I'm sure it's great fun for you all.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 15, 2016)

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/burn_her_burn_her.jpg


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'Keen follower of the rugby club', isn't that like his 'café latte, never heard of it. I just want the working man's coffee'?



'...and just what do you call this careening box with four circles on the side which is propelling us at a speed which I find disturbing and frightening? I am merely a simple man who wants to lead the Labour Party, I have no time for this sort of contraption.' - Owen Smith, probably


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> As I said,  I was only trying to add to the debate with some facts.  I've then given my opinion of Owen as I've known him.  I could more easily describe the politics of his father from my experience as I was a student of his,  and have read all his publications. If you then want to burn the witch then go ahead,  I'm sure it's great fun for you all.


Who's _the witch?_


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn 'planning clear out of Labour HQ once he wins contest'



> A former Labour Foreign Secretary has warned Jeremy Corbynagainst “bullying and spite” as fears grow of reprisals against party officials following the bitter legal fight over the leadership contest.
> 
> Margaret Beckett’s words came as one senior Corbyn-backing figure said a “clear-out” of the party’s Southside HQ was coming if the current leader wins the contest as expected.



Purge, purge, purge


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'planning clear out of Labour HQ once he wins contest'
> 
> 
> 
> Purge, purge, purge


it'll only be a proper purge when beckett and her sort are digging a canal across south georgia


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Who's _the witch?_


Redirect Notice


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> As I said,  I was only trying to add to the debate with some facts.  I've then given my opinion of Owen as I've known him.  I could more easily describe the politics of his father from my experience as I was a student of his,  and have read all his publications. If you then want to burn the witch then go ahead,  I'm sure it's great fun for you all.


hanging more traditional in this country.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

People who have literally tried to force Corbyn to resign by attacking him in a way that weakens his mental health for nearly a year now: 'being civil to us but removing some of us from the paid employment that we receive a wage for but don't actually do any work for? Wow, this doesn't seem like kinder, fairer politics to me...'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'planning clear out of Labour HQ once he wins contest'
> 
> 
> 
> Purge, purge, purge



I mean though, what the actual fuck?

We're going to be spiteful and bully you for a year, and we're going to try to break you, and we're going to smear you and anyone who supports you, in the press and in parliament, and we're going to undermine every single effort that you make to be effective so that we can have our way. But please, if you win, don't be mean to us, because that wouldn't be right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I mean though, what the actual fuck?
> 
> We're going to be spiteful and bully you for a year, and we're going to try to break you, and we're going to smear you and anyone who supports you, in the press and in parliament, and we're going to undermine every single effort that you make to be effective so that we can have our way. But please, if you win, don't be mean to us, because that wouldn't be right.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I mean though, what the actual fuck?
> 
> We're going to be spiteful and bully you for a year, and we're going to try to break you, and we're going to smear you and anyone who supports you, in the press and in parliament, and we're going to undermine every single effort that you make to be effective so that we can have our way. But please, if you win, don't be mean to us, because that wouldn't be right.



This, pretty much in a nutshell.


----------



## Sue (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> That's true, you were...and this was your reply:-
> ​Which was, obviously 3 irrelevant facts and 1.5 positive opinions completely un-related to his current role as a disingenuous, duplicitous, back-stabbing, disloyal plotter working on behalf of the neoliberal tendency within the party.
> Which might explain some of the reaction to your posting.


I'm still a bit unclear about your view on Smith though...


----------



## ska invita (Aug 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 90961



And some of these shadow ministers have children. What sort of christmas are they going to have ?


----------



## coley (Aug 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 90961



Now they know how Corbyn and his supporters have felt for this last year, purge them good!


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> I'm still a bit unclear about your view on Smith though...


I believe that through exasperation with what's going on in the party be decided to stand.  He described to the local clp that he wasn't part of the coup,  and I believed him.  I think that he realised that if there was to be a contest and a very public debate about the shape of the party,  that being part of it he could (can)  try to shape the debate around what matters for the membership eg making the party a genuinely democratic socialist one.  I believe that he believes that in having a debate where the terms are about what the membership cares about,  there's a chance that the party might hold together.  If one of the blairites,  or red tories,  or right of the party had stood,  the debate would have been completely different and the party would definitely split.  If he'd acquiesced on the matter,  he would be part of the future Corbyn leadership,  but that would be as part of a split party. As it stands, it probably will still split,  but he's trying to do something to stop it. 

The silence from the blairites in regards to supporting Smith is telling as to where he stands in the party.   I believe that for all the noise going on around the debate,  you've got a guy who wants to save the party he cares about.... Save it from the right of the party as much as the left. 

If I'm naive, or if I'm trying to control the debate,  I apologise.  I just tried to correct a falsehood about my local MP.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Purge, purge, purge



Why can you never find a picture of Richard Blackwood having colonic irrigation when you need it? 

Richard Blackwood having a prostate examination on live TV will have to plug the gap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Why can you never find a picture of Richard Blackwood having colonic irrigation when you need it?
> 
> Richard Blackwood having a prostate examination on live TV will have to plug the gap.


Spymaster


----------



## Sue (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I believe that through exasperation with what's going on in the party be decided to stand.  He described to the local clp that he wasn't part of the coup,  and I believed him.  I think that he realised that if there was to be a contest and a very public debate about the shape of the party,  that being part of it *he could (can)  try to shape the debate around what matters for the membership eg making the party a genuinely democratic socialist one.*  I believe that he believes that in having a debate where the terms are about what the membership cares about,  there's a chance that the party might hold together.  If one of the blairites,  or red tories,  or right of the party had stood,  the debate would have been completely different and the party would definitely split.  If he'd acquiesced on the matter,  he would be part of the future Corbyn leadership,  but that would be as part of a split party. As it stands, it probably will still split,  but he's trying to do something to stop it.
> 
> The silence from the blairites in regards to supporting Smith is telling as to where he stands in the party.  * I believe that for all the noise going on around the debate,  you've got a guy who wants to save the party he cares about.... Save it from the right of the party as much as the left.*
> 
> If I'm naive, or if I'm trying to control the debate,  I apologise.  I just tried to correct a falsehood about my local MP.


I was actually making a joke about/to brogdale but hey.

As it turns out, based on what you say in the bold bits above, you do sound really naive. Stick around though and we'll soon sort that out...


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> I was actually making a joke about/to @brogd


Oops


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Richard Blackwood having a prostate examination on live TV will have to plug the gap.


Wonder how the hell he ended up in that position? Maybe his keyboard released toxins that made him more suggestible.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Wonder how the hell he ended up in that position? Maybe his keyboard released toxins that made him more suggestible.


There's personal grooming, and then there's _personal grooming_


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I believe that through exasperation with what's going on in the party be decided to stand.


His actions suggest that his exasperation is not with '_the party', _merely the membership. His 'exasperation' with the PLP appears to be so slight that he is happy to lead their undemocratic assault on the leader.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> His actions suggest that his exasperation is not with '_the party', _merely the membership. His 'exasperation' with the PLP appears to be so slight that he is happy to lead their undemocratic assault on the leader.


If you say so.  I'd caution though that if you think the rank and file membership who pound the streets talking to non members will do so for Corbyn,  you're being similarly naive.  This can be extended to thinking that the new members will fill that void.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> If you say so.  I'd caution though that if you think the rank and file membership who pound the streets talking to non members will do so for Corbyn,  you're being similarly naive.  This can be extended to thinking that the new members will fill that void.



New members are already filling that void and plenty of longer term members will be happy to join them, even some who support Smith but have more about them than your impressions suggest.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> If you say so.  I'd caution though that if you think the rank and file membership who pound the streets talking to non members will do so for Corbyn,  you're being similarly naive.  This can be extended to thinking that the new members will fill that void.


(Top tip; cut the unhelpful passive/aggressive openings)
I've made no prediction about the campaigning capabilities of the respective supporters, but it seems like you're arguing for Smith on the basis that the 'old guard' rank & file might refuse to campaign for a Corbyn led party? Wow, that's some endorsement.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> that being part of it he could (can)  try to shape the debate around what matters for the membership eg making the party a genuinely democratic socialist one.


Right and this commitment to democratic socialism is shown how? In his arguing for privatisation of the NHS, that Tony Blair is a socialist, his abstention on the welfare bill, his support for the Iraq war?

Smith's current play to the left, and the Labour right's current silence, is because both he and they know that otherwise Corbyn would thrash him to an even greater extent than he will, not because either he or the Progress scum have any commitment such mild social democracy (let alone democratic socialism).


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2016)

The long term rank & file back Corbyn though, on the whole. Of course they'll campaign for him.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> (Top tip; cut the unhelpful passive/aggressive openings)
> I've made no prediction about the campaigning capabilities of the respective supporters, but it seems like you're arguing for Smith on the basis that the 'old guard' rank & file might refuse to campaign for a Corbyn led party? Wow, that's some endorsement.


I'm new to interacting on these things so excuse my etiquette,  I'm attempting to be polite. 
That is exactly what I'm arguing though,  and I'm not a massive supporter of Smith or his style.  

I've been at party meetings in the last year,  and there isn't that enthusiasm to convert non supporters to the cause under corbyn.   There is a greater spirit at party rallies and events   but this isn't going to win votes. 

  I do believe Smith is being portrayed unfairly though.... For instance,  the claim he's dishonest about valleys heritage  when he indisputably is from ponty, and various other smears to his character. 

And I know this is happening to corbyn to a greater extent.

My fear is for what's left of the country after another decade plus of tory rule  because that's what we're enabling.  I don't think the tone of our internal debate is helping.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Right and this commitment to democratic socialism is shown how? In his arguing for privatisation of the NHS, that Tony Blair is a socialist, his abstention on the welfare bill, his support for the Iraq war?
> 
> Smith's current play to the left, and the Labour right's current silence, is because both he and they know that otherwise Corbyn would thrash him to an even greater extent than he will, not because either he or the Progress scum have any commitment such mild social democracy (let alone democratic socialism).


And this is encapsulates what I mean.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm new to interacting on these things so excuse my etiquette,  I'm attempting to be polite.
> That is exactly what I'm arguing though,  and I'm not a massive supporter of Smith or his style.
> 
> I've been at party meetings in the last year,  and there isn't that enthusiasm to convert non supporters to the cause under corbyn.   There is a greater spirit at party rallies and events   but this isn't going to win votes.
> ...


There's no need to fabricate stuff that implicates Smith; his career choices and voting record are a testament to his acceptance of centrist, crony-capitalism unthreatening to neoliberal interests. If that's what LP members want, they'll vote for him.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> And this is encapsulates what I mean.


OK if I'm being unfair post some examples of his commitment to democratic socialism. Things that he's actually done rather than shitty soundbites.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 15, 2016)

Smith's a snake and no mistake.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> OK if I'm being unfair post some examples of his commitment to democratic socialism. Things that he's actually done rather than shitty soundbites.


Joined the Labour Party,  got elected MP,  served in two shadow cabinets,  caused the government u-turn on disability benefits


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Joined the Labour Party,  got elected MP,  served in two shadow cabinets,  caused the government u-turn on disability benefits


None of that shows any commitment to democratic socialism, and the last claim is bullshit anyway, if anybody in Labour can claim that it's Corbyn/McDonnell/etc. Despite the protestation of fuckwits the Labour party has never been a socialist party and during Smith's time couldn't even claim to be a social democratic party. The shadow cabinet he didn't resign from wouldn't commit to nationalisation of the railways and didn't campaign on an opposition to austerity.

Rachel 'tougher than the Tories on welfare' Reeves joined the labour party, got elected as an MP* and served in the shadow cabinet but only an utter moron could claim that she's anything other than neo-liberal filth. Pathetic Labour=socialism bullshit.

*Love how getting elected as an MP shows a commitment to democratic socialism, is Teresa May part of the way there.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Why is the last point (it's not a claim,  he was the shadow dwp secretary) bullshit? 

Your equation is interesting though.  Angry much?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Joined the Labour Party,  got elected MP,  served in two shadow cabinets,  caused the government u-turn on disability benefits



'Joined the Labour Party' - Does not denote socialist of any hue.
'Got elected MP' - See above
'Served in two shadow cabinets' - How does that make you a socialist?
'caused the government u-turn on disability benefits' - It was his job to oppose Tory benefit cuts and yet he still abstained from the welfare bill vote. Repugnant. 

But of course his flip flopping with the wind is a sign of his 'dynamism'.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

Why would a non socialist join the Labour Party?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 15, 2016)

There it is Labour=socialism and socialism=Labour.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2016)

The labour party is famously a broad ideological coalition which includes socialists among its ranks rather than being a socialist party - didn't you say you were a member?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> The labour party is famously a broad ideological coalition which includes socialists among its ranks rather than being a socialist party - didn't you say you were a member?


I suppose I'm misreading clause 1 on my card


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2016)

Christ.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Why would a non socialist join the Labour Party?


Is that a serious question?


----------



## Sue (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Why would a non socialist join the Labour Party?


Oh my.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Why would a non socialist join the Labour Party?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)




----------



## 8ball (Aug 15, 2016)




----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

I'm obviously too dense for this.  What's your collective point?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm obviously too dense for this.  What's your collective point?



I think you hit on it in your first sentence.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm obviously too dense for this.  What's your collective point?


they're hardly socialists - neoliberals the lot of them.*

Have you been in a coma for 30 years?

eta with the possible exception of Prescott.


----------



## Sue (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Why would a non socialist join the Labour Party?


Why would a socialist join the Labour Party?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 15, 2016)

8ball said:


>


A veritable plethora of Che Guevara wannabes.


----------



## Cid (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm obviously too dense for this.  What's your collective point?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?



Being a Socialist generally helps.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?


Maybe jump through the Google hoop and type 'socialism' into the search box?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?


anyone saying this sort of thing probably isn't much of a socialist.


> "I'm intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes"



eta to avoid confusion, that was Mandelson, the arch creator of the new labour project.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm obviously too dense for this.  What's your collective point?


Smith decided to join the party within a year of Kinnock's shameful betrayal of the miners and witch-hunt of socialists. He took £ to SpAd for Paul Murphy and thrived within the party under Blair/Brown. 
I expect that might be behind some of the mirth caused by your naivety.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> anyone saying this sort of thing probably isn't much of a socialist.


I think you're missing my point


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?



Not being a lobbyist  for a pharmecutecal corporation would be a good start. A career choice that's up there with hedge fund manager or arms dealers as a key indicator of  not being a socialist.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Smith decided to join the party within a year of Kinnock's shameful betrayal of the miners and witch-hunt of socialists. He took £ to SpAd for Paul Murphy and thrived within the party under Blair/Brown.
> I expect that might be behind some of the mirth caused by your naivety.


I think the timings had more to do with age than party policy at the time.  I joined when Blair was leader of the opposition,  but at the time identified as a syndicalist (I get the hypocracy). I think if you're 16, left leaning,  and want to be involved in politics you generally join the Labour Party.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2016)

Until Corbyn I never knew that there were so many people who called themselves socialists in the Labour Party on the basis of 'socialism is what socialist parties do, and Labour is a socialist party therefore whatever I do I am a socialist'. Yet there are loads of the fuckers.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Until Corbyn I never knew that there were so many people who called themselves socialists in the Labour Party on the basis of 'socialism is what socialist parties do, and Labour is a socialist party therefore whatever I do I am a socialist'. Yet there are loads of the fuckers.


There's never been a shortage of socialists in Welsh Labour.


----------



## coley (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Until Corbyn I never knew that there were so many people who called themselves socialists in the Labour Party on the basis of 'socialism is what socialist parties do, and Labour is a socialist party therefore whatever I do I am a socialist'. Yet there are loads of the fuckers.


It the same old, the red rosette claims the vote, even if it's a monkey wearing it, Christ knows we are seeing just how many Neo Tories are actually in the 'labour party' people who are basically Tories but used the labour machine to get themselves to the front of the trough.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

.


----------



## coley (Aug 15, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> There's never been a shortage of socialists in Welsh Labour.


Pity none of them put themselves forward to oppose auld Corby then!


----------



## coley (Aug 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> .


..


----------



## Wilf (Aug 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Until Corbyn I never knew that there were so many people who called themselves socialists in the Labour Party on the basis of 'socialism is what socialist parties do, and Labour is a socialist party therefore whatever I do I am a socialist'. Yet there are loads of the fuckers.


“All members of the Labour Party are socialists. Peter Mandelson is a member of the Labour Party. Peter Mandelson is a socialist".


----------



## rioted (Aug 15, 2016)

Socialism is obviously for the intelligensia. For those who have read the right books and been certified ideologically sound by the Urban75 Central Committee. No others should be entitled to membership of the Labour Party. I'm fucking glad I don't want to join.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 15, 2016)

rioted said:


> Socialism is obviously for the intelligensia. For those who have read the right books and been certified ideologically sound by the Urban75 Central Committee. No others should be entitled to membership of the Labour Party. *I'm fucking glad I don't want to join.*


I'll hazard a guess that Labour are also quite pleased.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> Socialism is obviously for the intelligensia. For those who have read the right books and been certified ideologically sound by the Urban75 Central Committee. No others should be entitled to membership of the Labour Party. I'm fucking glad I don't want to join.



Yes. That's exactly it, you've rumbled us.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> Socialism is obviously for the intelligensia. For those who have read the right books and been certified ideologically sound by the Urban75 Central Committee. *No others should be entitled to membership of the Labour Party.* I'm fucking glad I don't want to join.


Unlike the real thing, to which anyone can join...but they're not entitled to vote for a socialist*.


*Unless they pay £25 extra, obvs.


----------



## 8den (Aug 16, 2016)

He looks like Steptoe Snr is going to a Halloween party as Citizen Smith.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?


Call me mad but maybe hold the belief, and more importantly act in accordance with that belief, that the means of production should be controlled by the workers.

So supporting the growth of the private sector into the health/education/transport/postal services etc through schemes like PFI and academies (like Owen Smith) would pretty much rule you out as a socialist.


----------



## Sue (Aug 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Call me mad but maybe hold the belief, and more importantly act in accordance with that belief, that the means of production should be controlled by the workers.
> 
> So supporting the growth of the private sector into the health/education/transport/postal services etc through schemes like PFI and academies (like Owen Smith) would pretty much rule you out as a socialist.


TBF,  that would rule out most of the PLP over the last couple of decades too.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 16, 2016)

Have we had this one yet?
Owen Smith: Corbyn is exploiting my former work in pharmaceuticals
Owen Smith unhappy that Corbyn mentions he used to work for pharma-biz to make him look bad.   To my mind, the way round that would have been to ignore the job advert that said 'do you want to get shedloads of money working for Pharmaceutical monsters that hold the poor and sick to ransom?'


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 16, 2016)

Oh dear, this is very funny, if only it wasn't true.


----------



## rioted (Aug 16, 2016)

*Corbyn is stuck in the last century says Billy Bragg* 
Pity it's behind the Times paywall.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> *Corbyn is stuck in the last century says Billy Bragg*
> Pity it's behind the Times paywall.



Yea, he wants to get with modern times and get himself a mansion by the sea.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

you could get a skate park on that


----------



## discokermit (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> *Corbyn is stuck in the last century says Billy Bragg*
> Pity it's behind the Times paywall.


all it needs is bono and sting to join in to make this perfect.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> *Corbyn is stuck in the last century says Billy Bragg*
> Pity it's behind the Times paywall.



The best thing about a break down in law and order in Britain would be that someone might get rid of Billy Bragg


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I cannot stand with the Labour Party though. Time and again they have betrayed us. Parliamentary poltics isn't my bag either, I'm afraid I'm one of those who favour violent revolution (there is no other sort that will work here) and the imposition of a working class led socialist state. Please don't ask me to outline the shape that such a thing would take, there are many models discussed. If pressed I would say I like what I have read about council communism. Either way the palace of westminster must burn imo



I can’t say I’m totally against a revolution but it depends on who takes over. If it’s someone like Chomsky then I’m all for it. I’m concerned though that (a) it’s not going to be ‘us’ that takes over (b) even if it is ‘us’ I’m not sure the people who take control are going to be any better.

That was what I wanted to say by asking what’s the alternative, and I have problems as I say with the adversarial urban discussions. I apologize to butchers though butchersapron. You’ve been more than fair with Corbyn and have recently explained stuff to me quite patiently, I shouldn’t have lost it with you. I’ve learned as much on politics from you as anyone on urban. Anyway, sorry.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yes. That's exactly it, you've rumbled us.


I hope the new majority is right and I'm wrong,  because a decade plus of an unchecked Tory party,  spurred to go further right by the likes of Ukip,  will be a disaster of our own making.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

That's it though - we've had tory lite labour for a decade. I'd have loved to have voted Labour but the Blair legacy has been too toxic for me. The first whiff of an actual social democrat and the PLP turns on him.

It's not about Corbyn versus Smith it's the membership who have made their views clear against the right wing of the labour party.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I hope the new majority is right and I'm wrong,  because a decade plus of an unchecked Tory party,  spurred to go further right by the likes of Ukip,  will be a disaster of our own making.


But in saying _'right' _and _'wrong' _you seem to be viewing the ideological struggle for the party as a mere electoral strategy. Either the LP is a socialist (social democratic) party or its not.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

Can we stop saying 'tory-lite' please? It's a really irritating phrase. There are significant ideological differences between the parties, and where they do/did agree - on neoliberal economics - there wasn't anything 'lite' about new labour's commitment.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I can’t say I’m totally against a revolution but it depends on who takes over. If it’s someone like Chomsky then I’m all for it. I’m concerned though that (a) it’s not going to be ‘us’ that takes over (b) even if it is ‘us’ I’m not sure the people who take control are going to be any better.
> 
> That was what I wanted to say by asking what’s the alternative, and I have problems as I say with the adversarial urban discussions. I apologize to butchers though butchersapron. You’ve been more than fair with Corbyn and have recently explained stuff to me quite patiently, I shouldn’t have lost it with you. I’ve learned as much on politics from you as anyone on urban. Anyway, sorry.


No worries. Blame the daft heat - I've not go much time to post here this week anyway.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But in saying _'right' _and _'wrong' _you seem to be viewing the ideological struggle for the party as a mere electoral strategy. Either the LP is a socialist (social democratic) party or its not.


And here's the issue.  We're fighting the wrong battle. This struggle could leave the left irretrievably split. The only winners will be the right.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 16, 2016)

I would have thought that it's pretty obvious from the last four pages that for plenty of those who have posted on this thread don't have the same aims as you, there is no 'we' that includes you and them


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> And here's the issue.  *We're fighting the wrong battle*. This struggle could leave the left irretrievably split. The only winners will be the right.


You might be.
The struggle to make the LP a genuinely social democratic party might split off the majority of the neoliberal PLP but that could not possibly represent an _irretrievable split _of _the left._


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

My only aim from posting was to point out that Smith isn't being dishonest to say he's a 'valley boy'.  I've also defended his motives from what I've seen of him.  You have no idea what my 'aims' beyond this are.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 16, 2016)

[


Cwmflame said:


> I hope the new majority is right and I'm wrong,  because a decade plus of an unchecked Tory party,  spurred to go further right by the likes of Ukip,  will be a disaster of our own making.



Not mine it isn't, no idea what you've been up to.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> My only aim from posting was to point out that Smith isn't being dishonest to say he's a 'valley boy'.  I've also defended his motives from what I've seen of him.  You have no idea what my 'aims' beyond this are.


I don't think anyone has suggested that they know what your 'aims' are. You could tell us to avoid any confusion.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I can’t say I’m totally against a revolution but it depends on who takes over. If it’s someone like Chomsky then I’m all for it. I’m concerned though that (a) it’s not going to be ‘us’ that takes over (b) even if it is ‘us’ I’m not sure the people who take control are going to be any better.
> 
> That was what I wanted to say by asking what’s the alternative, and I have problems as I say with the adversarial urban discussions. I apologize to butchers though butchersapron. You’ve been more than fair with Corbyn and have recently explained stuff to me quite patiently, I shouldn’t have lost it with you. I’ve learned as much on politics from you as anyone on urban. Anyway, sorry.


I'm not an expert but i don't think even chomsky would find the idea of having a revolution so we can replace westminster with NOAM CHOMSKY  particularly palatable, this explanation of council communism mentioned in the post you responded to looks accessible enough, although i'm not educated enough to know if it has any big errors   Council communism - an introduction and  2 minutes from Noam Chomsky talking about partcipatory democracy and structures of dominance with links to the whole talk in the description "very rarely you can justify a structure of dominance, and where you can't, it should simply be dismantled"  unless i've misread your post but it seems the opposite of what chomsky or those interested in council communism and would be advocating, otherwise i'm probs teaching grannie to suck eggs!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

I was using the image of Chomsky storming into Downing Street figuratively, honest. 

Will look at that when I get back from walking the dog - ta


----------



## andysays (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> My only aim from posting was to point out that Smith isn't being dishonest to say he's a 'valley boy'.  I've also defended his motives from what I've seen of him.  You have no idea what my 'aims' beyond this are.



Why should any but the most narrowly parochial care if he's a "valley boy" or not?

It's more that, with his pretence not to know what a frothy coffee is and other _faux naif_ affectations, he has deliberately and dishonestly sought to play up his valley boy roots and simultaneously play down his role as a cog in the capitalist machine.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I think the timings had more to do with age than party policy at the time.  I joined when Blair was leader of the opposition,  but at the time identified as a syndicalist (I get the hypocracy). I think if you're 16, left leaning,  and want to be involved in politics you generally join the Labour Party.


I think that's pretty much what you don't do under Blair and Kinnock if you're 16 and left-leaning. It might be where you end up, but rarely is it where you start. And for those who do (thinking of Smith here) it probably has something to with local ins (personal and institutional) that his father and family could provide him with rather than any burning political principle. The lack of any substantive record of him actually doing anything during the political/social struggles in this period or the later fights (orgreave, hillsborough etc) would also seem to back that up.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

andysays said:


> Why should any but the most narrowly parochial care if he's a "valley boy" or not?
> 
> It's more that, with his pretence not to know what a frothy coffee is and other _faux naif_ affectations, he has deliberately and dishonestly sought to play up his valley boy roots and simultaneously play down his role as a cog in the capitalist machine.


I was pointing out that people claimed he was not from the valleys,  he was from Barry. He is undoubtedly from ponty.  I was merely correcting a factual error. 

My aims,  in so far as I have any,  are to support the party who is most likely to bring social democratic change to the country.  I don't think Labour is perfect in this regard,  and I do understand the burning desire to have purity of thought and intention in the party.  I just think that holding out for unconditional victory is a path that can lead us to having no victories at all.  I don't particularly want to have no social reform,  no policies to help the people who need it etc just because I can't have everything.  If we can't convince the whole of the party,  how will we convince the whole country (and obviously, beyond)?

And as a valley boy myself,  parochialism is hard to shift!


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> The level of posting insults and opinions.  All I was doing was correcting some incorrect information about Owen,  as I'm sure everyone is interested in having their facts straight.  I wasn't particularly looking to engage in childish name calling.


Seen the thread title? Not wondered what the relevance of Smith is on a thread like this? That must have taken some pretty selective perception. 

Nice pearls you're clutching there, though


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

JimW said:


> I'd hang in there, few more times back and forth and you can sell your story of online lefty bullying hell to all the newspapers.


I imagine it was being written before Burning Gulch had clicked Post on his first contribution to Urban.


----------



## inva (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I was pointing out that people claimed he was not from the valleys,  he was from Barry. He is undoubtedly from ponty.  I was merely correcting a factual error.
> 
> My aims,  in so far as I have any,  are to support the party who is most likely to bring social democratic change to the country.  I don't think Labour is perfect in this regard,  and I do understand the burning desire to have purity of thought and intention in the party.  I just think that holding out for unconditional victory is a path that can lead us to having no victories at all.  I don't particularly want to have no social reform,  no policies to help the people who need it etc just because I can't have everything.  If we can't convince the whole of the party,  how will we convince the whole country (and obviously, beyond)?
> 
> And as a valley boy myself,  parochialism is hard to shift!


given the record of the Labour Party both in and out of power this seems a strange ambition


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Seen the thread title? Not wondered what the relevance of Smith is on a thread like this? That must have taken some pretty selective perception.
> 
> Nice pearls you're clutching there, though


Just thought you'd be interested in having the facts straight, obviously I was mistaken


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I just think that holding out for unconditional victory is a path that can lead us to having no victories at all.



But isn't this what the right of PLP are doing though? They want to contorl the party and stick to their dogma of PR poltics and blairite triangualtion - offering a few "consumer freindly" policies whilst sticking to the fundamentals of neo-liberalism.
But this apporach lost the last two elections, led to the eradication of labour scotland, fueled the rise of UKIP and led to Brexit - becasue people are not buying it any more.
To continue down this route is dilusional - it will lead to the labour party withering away into insignificance.
With Corbyn and a newly enthused mass movement there is - at least - the potentail for change via grassroots campaigning and tradiationally social democratic policies (build council houses, renationaliste the railways, a mild dose of redistibution) as a way of regaining the trust of the voters.
The PLP keep decrying Corbyn "unelectability" - but withtout any evidence that they can win themselves.


----------



## Lorca (Aug 16, 2016)

serious question, assuming you're right and this 'pragmatism' is an electoral necessity - that there can never be a realistic political alternative to centre-rightism of one form or another, other than tinkering a little round the edges. if this consensus becomes normalised to the extent that you can't concieve of any other way, what are the long term implications for example, for ordinary people like me (a van driver on a zero hours contract)? is the limit of your thinking, a perpetual electoral cycle between tory/labour right? is that it? sorry, but i for one am fucking tired of that shite and so are plenty of members of your own party afaics. (note - not that anyone here is uncritically claiming jc is the messiah, obvs.)


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I believe that through exasperation with what's going on in the party be decided to stand.  He described to the local clp that he wasn't part of the coup,  and I believed him.  I think that he realised that if there was to be a contest and a very public debate about the shape of the party,  that being part of it he could (can)  try to shape the debate around what matters for the membership eg making the party a genuinely democratic socialist one.  I believe that he believes that in having a debate where the terms are about what the membership cares about,  there's a chance that the party might hold together.  If one of the blairites,  or red tories,  or right of the party had stood,  the debate would have been completely different and the party would definitely split.  If he'd acquiesced on the matter,  he would be part of the future Corbyn leadership,  but that would be as part of a split party. As it stands, it probably will still split,  but he's trying to do something to stop it.
> 
> The silence from the blairites in regards to supporting Smith is telling as to where he stands in the party.   I believe that for all the noise going on around the debate,  you've got a guy who wants to save the party he cares about.... Save it from the right of the party as much as the left.
> 
> If I'm naive, or if I'm trying to control the debate,  I apologise.  I just tried to correct a falsehood about my local MP.


Bless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I hope the new majority is right and I'm wrong,  because a decade plus of an unchecked Tory party,  spurred to go further right by the likes of Ukip,  will be a disaster of our own making.


yeh. cos 75% of the electorate didn't vote tory.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> If you say so.  I'd caution though that if you think the rank and file membership who pound the streets talking to non members will do so for Corbyn,  you're being similarly naive.  This can be extended to thinking that the new members will fill that void.


Is Urban suddenly so important in the Labour Party's civil war that we've been allocated a handler? 

(and is this the best they could manage?)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Is Urban suddenly so important in the Labour Party's civil war that we've been allocated a handler?
> 
> (and is this the best they could manage?)


i will get onto john smith house 105 victoria street and demand we receive the handler we deserve.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

I too am tired of it,  and Corbyn and the new movement represent the views I would guess of most of the membership.  What we don't want to do is lose the marginals for good.  If the party splits,  which it could,  that will happen.  I believe Smith is sincere in his motives (I think he'll lose), but I think it's a result of exasperation.  We have to find a way of winning the argument nationwide,  and this lust for denouncing all bar the fervent acolytes is doing nothing to help this. 

We need to find a way to unite in a collegiate way.  And I know the right of the party are not the people to put on a pedestal in this regard. Then we might have one clear voice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I too am tired of it,  and Corbyn and the new movement represent the views I would guess of most of the membership.  What we don't want to do is lose the marginals for good.  If the party splits,  which it could,  that will happen.  I believe Smith is sincere in his motives (I think he'll lose), but I think it's a result of exasperation.  We have to find a way of winning the argument nationwide,  and this lust for denouncing all bar the fervent acolytes is doing nothing to help this.
> 
> We need to find a way to unite in a collegiate way.  And I know the right of the party are not the people to put on a pedestal in this regard. Then we might have one clear voice.


"winning the argument": like there's only one to be had
"a way to unite" "one clear voice" "a collegiate way" "sincere in his motives" "fervent acolytes": i think you've imbibed the labourspeak dictionary for too long.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think that's pretty much what you don't do under Blair and Kinnock if you're 16 and left-leaning.


I did, tbf. I was a fairly confused teenager.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> "winning the argument": like there's only one to be had
> "a way to unite" "one clear voice" "a collegiate way" "sincere in his motives" "fervent acolytes": i think you've imbibed the labourspeak dictionary for too long.



How should I have worded that?  We do have to win the argument,  because I don't see much appetite for a bloody revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> How should I have worded that?  We do have to win the argument,  because I don't see much appetite for a bloody revolution.


you're not doing very well here


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I was using the image of Chomsky storming into Downing Street figuratively, honest.
> 
> Will look at that when I get back from walking the dog - ta


Haha yeah i didn't think you quite meant storming, more the structure you were describing seemed at odds. It's a nice image though


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I've also defended his motives from what I've seen of him. You have no idea what my 'aims' beyond this are.


Are you working for his campaign? If you are, you're doing a shit job.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> My only aim from posting was to point out that Smith isn't being dishonest to say he's a 'valley boy'.  I've also defended his motives from what I've seen of him.  You have no idea what my 'aims' beyond this are.


i hope winning our respect isn't one of them.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope winning our respect isn't one of them.


Oh no,  what will I do without the respect of the big boys on the forum?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I don't see much appetite for a bloody revolution.


Interestingly, the only people who are permitted to use the word 'revolution' in the public domain are the Tories. They and their allies in the media will always wax lyrically about the so-called 'Thatcher revolution'. There was no 'Thatcher revolution' and if anything, it was very much a counter-revolution. Yet, if anyone on the left uses the word, it's immediately associated with the spilling of blood and reigns of terror. The raising of consciousness in the masses is itself a form of revolution.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you working for his campaign? If you are, you're doing a shit job.


No,  I don't like the fact there is a campaign in the first place.  I just know the guy and will defend against any untruths said about him....and the only one i corrected is about where he's from


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> No,  I don't like the fact there is a campaign in the first place.  I just know the guy and will defend against any untruths said about him....and the only one i corrected is about where he's from


Yeah, sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Oh no,  what will I do without the respect of the big boys on the forum?


piss off with any luck. but it's not just the big boys, it's the middling and indeed small boys, the small medium and big girls, and teuchter.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I too am tired of it,  and Corbyn and the new movement represent the views I would guess of most of the membership.  What we don't want to do is lose the marginals for good.  If the party splits,  which it could,  that will happen.  I believe Smith is sincere in his motives (I think he'll lose), but I think it's a result of exasperation.  We have to find a way of winning the argument nationwide,  and this lust for denouncing all bar the fervent acolytes is doing nothing to help this.
> 
> We need to find a way to unite in a collegiate way.  And I know the right of the party are not the people to put on a pedestal in this regard. Then we might have one clear voice.



Weren't that many denunciations prior to the coup though were there? Most new members either didn't know enough about the landscape or were conciliatory to all wings - so not forcing splits. 

You want to encourage unity? Take it up with your boy Smith and his 'acolytes', they seem to be the ones fixated on causing strife.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 16, 2016)

rioted said:


> *Corbyn is stuck in the last century says Billy Bragg*
> Pity it's behind the Times paywall.


Not quite what it seems...


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Oh no,  what will I do without the respect of the big boys on the forum?



Carry on like I do?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Oh no,  what will I do without the respect of the big boys on the forum?


Sounds like a "no", then.

I suspect that your agenda is more one of confirming the prevailing view that anyone who doesn't think that Owen Smith is some kind of Second Coming is therefore a nwasty bully who is howwible to Genuine Socialists Everywhere.






A Labour "Progress" supporter, earlier.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

andysays said:


> Why should any but the most narrowly parochial care if he's a "valley boy" or not?



Be fair, we were the ones who brought that up . 

If it's a Corbyn thread we ought to bow to his wishes this one thread and moderate language towards the challenger a tad?  (not aimed at you andy but generally)


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

So, chances Cwmflame is Owen's mum?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Sounds like a "no", then.
> 
> I suspect that your agenda is more one of confirming the prevailing view that anyone who doesn't think that Owen Smith is some kind of Second Coming is therefore a nwasty bully who is howwible to Genuine Socialists Everywhere.
> 
> ...


You really think that.... Calling me parochial is closer to my intentions.  I'm sincere in what I say though,  and I didn't think I was saying too much that's controversial.... I was obviously wrong.  It is entertaining to debate something though.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Be fair, we were the ones who brought that up .
> 
> If it's a Corbyn thread we ought to bow to his wishes this one thread and moderate language towards the challenger a tad?  (not aimed at you andy but generally)


I think, though, that our Progress chum has fostered a rather convenient misunderstanding - namely, that it's all about where Smith was born, rather than whether his attitudes mirror the general position of those communities now.

Judging by the "hoffi frothi coffi" misstep and its friends, there's fairly good reason to doubt those attitudes (quite apart from Smith's record as a not-exactly-core-Labour-demographic type in terms of his career and political stance on the most pivotal events in the last 30 years of UK labour relations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> If you say so.  I'd caution though that if you think the rank and file membership who pound the streets talking to non members will do so for Corbyn,  you're being similarly naive.  This can be extended to thinking that the new members will fill that void.



Maybe not in your constituency.

I'd caution though, against thinking that your own experience in Pontypridd can be extrapolated to apply across the UK, regarding new members. At least in my own constituency, many of the "new members" are returners, veteran Labour activists who left at the height of Blairism, and regard Corbyn's promises to re-democratise the party as a step toward democratic socialism.

Your Smith hasn't said much about re-empowering the membership yet.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> You really think that.... Calling me parochial is closer to my intentions.  I'm sincere in what I say though,  and I didn't think I was saying too much that's controversial.... I was obviously wrong.  It is entertaining to debate something though.


No, there was nothing controversial in what you said. We've seen it all, _ad nauseam_, from Owen Smith, Angela Eagle, and the rest of the vapidly flustering non-Socialist Labour crew.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> It is entertaining to debate something though.


go on then.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think, though, that our Progress chum has fostered a rather convenient misunderstanding - namely, that it's all about where Smith was born, rather than whether his attitudes mirror the general position of those communities now.
> 
> Judging by the "hoffi frothi coffi" misstep and its friends, there's fairly good reason to doubt those attitudes (quite apart from Smith's record as a not-exactly-core-Labour-demographic type in terms of his career and political stance on the most pivotal events in the last 30 years of UK labour relations.



Fair play. It does look like Owen is just picking Corbyn's policies as convenient and if he gets in he'll dilute it all suddenly because otherwise he won't get the backing of the PLP. Or he'll be in exactly the same position as Corbyn is now and we'll have a split with the rest of the PLP again.

Thoughts cwm - that his past statements and actions don't align with the image he's trying to put across, and he'll ditch them if voted in? That's one thing Corbyn has built his campaign on - honesty and lack of PR spin so that if he gets in he'll at least try to do what he's promised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Joined the Labour Party,  got elected MP,  served in two shadow cabinets,  caused the government u-turn on disability benefits



I'm sorry, but that last claim is myth-making. He *caused* nothing. In fact his supine abstaining on the Health and Welfare Reform Bill made the reforms a reality. Claiming credit for engineering a "u-turn on disability benefits" misses the point that the u-turn was mostly driven by a combination of pragmatism, and the effects of Iain Dunked-in Shit resigning. Smith's work iced the cake, that's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> So what specific hoops must you jump through to be defined as a socialist in your views,  just so I can be clear for the future?



Practising socialism generally works.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

didn't the papers try to make out Miliband was a raving socialist as well? lol! When they weren't engaged in dog whistle anti semitism and digging his father up to trash his memory. Classy press we have eh


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

Lorca said:


> serious question, assuming you're right and this 'pragmatism' is an electoral necessity - that there can never be a realistic political alternative to centre-rightism of one form or another, other than tinkering a little round the edges. if this consensus becomes normalised to the extent that you can't concieve of any other way, what are the long term implications for example, for ordinary people like me (a van driver on a zero hours contract)? is the limit of your thinking, a perpetual electoral cycle between tory/labour right? is that it? sorry, but i for one am fucking tired of that shite and so are plenty of members of your own party afaics. (note - not that anyone here is uncritically claiming jc is the messiah, obvs.)



Last week, at a community meeting, I heard some well-reasoned arguments for Smith over Corbyn, but they all relied on faulty reasoning: That Corbyn, due to hard-leftism/age/misogyny/dithering/lack of leadership qualities, could never be Prime Minister. I argued back that if you removed the media narrative from the equation, and based an analysis on fact, then Corbyn is soft-left, younger than many previous Prime Ministers,  on-side with sexual equality, decisive and has displayed many leadership qualities in the past 9 months, including probably the most important one - patience. The Smith-ites couldn't answer that. 

There's also a fairly decent argument to be made that Corbyn doesn't intend to lead Labour into the next General Election, but instead wants to put the party on a footing where the membership once more have a say, where Conference isn't a meaningless series of photo-ops and glad-handing for the front bench to meet "big business", but a forum for the membership to contribute to policy. Of course, that sort of re-democratisation is precisely what the right of Labour is afraid of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> didn't the papers try to make out Miliband was a raving socialist as well? lol! When they weren't engaged in dog whistle anti semitism and digging his father up to trash his memory. Classy press we have eh



Yep.
The fact that what E.M. was offering was a slightly soc-dem gloss on neoliberalism seemed to escape most of our privately-educated, Oxbridge alumni media.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Fair play. It does look like Owen is just picking Corbyn's policies as convenient and if he gets in he'll dilute it all suddenly because otherwise he won't get the backing of the PLP. Or he'll be in exactly the same position as Corbyn is now and we'll have a split with the rest of the PLP again.
> 
> Thoughts cwm - that his past statements and actions don't align with the image he's trying to put across, and he'll ditch them if voted in? That's one thing Corbyn has built his campaign on - honesty and lack of PR spin so that if he gets in he'll at least try to do what he's promised.



I don't think there's much controversial in his past aside from a couple of years working for Pfizer,  which if I were him i'd regret. In his past be started on a different career path.... I don't think that bars him from being a socialist,  and if we can only be led by people who've been active socialist campaigners their whole lives,  we'll not have enough worldly experience for universal appeal.   I've heard him talk at clp meetings before he decided to stand,  when he decided to stand and since he's decided to stand,  and from what he says I don't believe he'd renege on any of what he's said.... That being said,  I don't think he'll win.  He doesn't have the support of the majority of the membership.  I do believe he wants to do one of two things.  Most likely,  and what I hope  is to ensure the party doesn't split,  something he's been very passionate about.  Less likely (at least I hope) is that he's trying to position himself to lead a breakaway faction of the plp to create that as the de facto opposition..... I am painfully aware that this is a possibility,  but I hope  it's not true. 

And I'm not Progress,  not  part of any campaign,  not part of the party machine at all.  I am just a concerned member of the party,  anxious about the prospect of twenty years rule from the right.


----------



## Whagwan (Aug 16, 2016)

For fans of Corbyn and turn of the century metalcore;


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I am just a concerned member of the party, anxious about the prospect of twenty years rule from the right.



In other words, you've internalised the narratives that have been constantly spouted by the Labour right, the Tories and their allies in media and have accepted defeat as inevitable. That's the same defeatism I've seen from Labour for the last 35 years. "If we don't do what the papers say, we'll be out of power for generations" is their mantra, but it's predicated on falsehoods. You and those who adopt this line are actively colluding in your own oppression to the extent that you actually welcome 20 years of Tory rule because it vindicates your mistaken beliefs.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

I think it's possible to have this debate without telling your opponents they're brainwashed dupes of capital.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

note also: socialists don't live in the real world. That ones pernicious


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> In other words, you've internalised the narratives that have been constantly spouted by the Labour right, the Tories and their allies in media and have accepted defeat as inevitable. That's the same defeatism I've seen from Labour for the last 35 years. "If we don't do what the papers say, we'll be out of power for generations" is their mantra, but it's predicated on falsehoods. You and those who adopt this line are actively colluding in your own oppression to the extent that you actually welcome 20 years of Tory rule because it vindicates your mistaken beliefs.


I wish I had your wisdom and imagination


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I wish I had your wisdom and imagination



I wish you did too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I wish I had your wisdom and imagination


you don't really do debate, do you


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> And I'm not Progress,  not  part of any campaign,  not part of the party machine at all.  I am just a concerned member of the party,  anxious about the prospect of twenty years rule from the right.


how concerned were you between say 1994 and 2010?


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't really do debate, do you


Seems a reasonable response to that particular line of debate tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> Seems a reasonable response to that particular line of debate tbh.


i am glad you agree with me


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

I thought I'd seen a list of Smith's voting record and involvement with privatizing the NHS, etc. That would be a fair starting point to compare vs Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I thought I'd seen a list of Smith's voting record and involvement with privatizing the NHS, etc. That would be a fair starting point to compare vs Corbyn.


obligatory link:
Owen Smith MP, Pontypridd - TheyWorkForYou


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't really do debate, do you


This is a great forum for debate.  Everyone is so open minded.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> note also: socialists don't live in the real world. That ones pernicious



I missed that, what was the quote?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> This is a great forum for debate.  Everyone is so open minded.



Grow up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I missed that, what was the quote?


paraphrasing. Socialists lacking worldly experience. Its just a thing that always annoys me because I'd think most socialists are so _because _they have experience of 'real life'. I think it ties in with the idea that 'socialist ideas are good but in order to enact them we have to be realistic'. Labour hopeful for corby pulled that old chestnut on my ma last GE and it went down hook line and sinker


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Grow up.


Touched a nerve?


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

probably it can be done without dismissing your opponents as close-minded ideologues too.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> paraphrasing. Socialists lacking worldly experience. Its just a thing that always annoys me because I'd think most socialists are so _because _they have experience of 'real life'. I think it ties in with the idea that 'socialist ideas are good but in order to enact them we have to be realistic'. Labour hopeful for corby pulled that old chestnut on my ma last GE and it went down hook line and sinker


I think you're confusing your metaphors


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I think you're confusing your metaphors


mixing them them ftw. The labour hopefull lost by double, double! the votes of the incumbent. I think he'll be here till he dies or retires tbf


----------



## YouSir (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Touched a nerve?



Just added to my endless disappointment with political discourse (or lack of) within portions the Labour Party. Well done.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Until Corbyn I never knew that there were so many people who called themselves socialists in the Labour Party on the basis of 'socialism is what socialist parties do, and Labour is a socialist party therefore whatever I do I am a socialist'. Yet there are loads of the fuckers.


Its been an eye opener - i knew there were loads of them, but for some reason i didnt realise it was all of 80% of them!





Cwmflame said:


> If we can't convince the whole of the party,  how will we convince the whole country !


Other way round:
I think the PLP are harder to convince than the country.
They're so desperate to keep their jobs, and they're so entrenched in their view of how the system should be, that there's no room for change. The public conscience is much more fluid... In fact it's hungry for change.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Its been an eye opener - i knew there were loads of them, but for some reason i didnt realise it was all of 80% of them!
> Other way round:
> I think the PLP are harder to convince than the country.
> They're so desperate to keep their jobs, and they're so entrenched in their view of how the system should be, that there's no room for change. The public conscience is much more fluid... In fact it's hungry for change.


Do you feel it's yearning to go down the progressive route though,  towards socialism? Many are lurching right.  Have the left got the numbers to combat it?


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

It’s difficult to say – do you think a lurch towards realistic centrist politics-as-usual is going to work?


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> It’s difficult to say – do you think a lurch towards realistic centrist politics-as-usual is going to work?


Slightly left of that! Keeping the tories out whilst trying to implement it would be a start.  You can do more good in power than opposition I reckon


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

Wasn’t that Liz Kendal’s pitch last year?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> This is a great forum for debate.  Everyone is so open minded.



You sound a bit like Owen Smith.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> You can do more good in power than opposition I reckon


yes. worked for blair, didn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

That depends on if you think there was nothing good that came out of that time.  I know it was better for my area than the preceeding 18 years. Granted it was a million miles from perfect.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> That depends on if you think there was nothing good that came out of that time.  I know it was better for my area than the preceeding 18 years. Granted it was a million miles from perfect.



Iraq Body Count

Were the crumbs worth it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> That depends on if you think there was nothing good that came out of that time.  I know it was better for my area than the preceeding 18 years. Granted it was a million miles from perfect.


yeh but i don't suppose you live in kosovo or iraq. sure britain's better after pissing away a ton of money on blowing people up because the americans said to.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

I was there protesting that with the rest of you,  even got myself interviewed on the protest in Cardiff in the local paper, if you want to verify,  so I'm not going to argue that.  It's the biggest source of shame for our party that I've ever experienced.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Cwmflame
> View attachment 91021
> View attachment 91022


What are you trying to say with these attachments,  or is it just highlighting Corbyn's credentials?  I'm not trying to deny them.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I was there protesting that with the rest of you,  even got myself interviewed on the protest in Cardiff in the local paper, if you want to verify,  so I'm not going to argue that.  It's the biggest source of shame for our party that I've ever experienced.


Oh please! Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean Labour's record on war and empire hasn't been absolutely disgusting throughout it's history.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> What are you trying to say with these attachments,  or is it just highlighting Corbyn's credentials?  I'm not trying to deny them.


just highlighting the sort of utter bollocks that's put out to denigrate yer man. he must be doing something right.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I was there protesting that with the rest of you,  even got myself interviewed on the protest in Cardiff in the local paper, if you want to verify,  so I'm not going to argue that.  It's the biggest source of shame for our party that I've ever experienced.



I missed it, was in the Hippo Club the night before.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Oh please! Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean Labour's record on war and empire hasn't been absolutely disgusting throughout it's history.


I said that I've ever experienced.  I don't need a history lesson thanks.


----------



## Whagwan (Aug 16, 2016)

Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey



> Is it fair that I should upgrade my ticket whilst others who might not be able to afford such a luxury should have to sit on the floor? It’s their money I would be spending after all


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> What are you trying to say with these attachments,  or is it just highlighting Corbyn's credentials?  I'm not trying to deny them.



Corbyn's consistent record speaks for itself. He is far less likely to turn around once in office and become a neoliberal war monger. Whereas Smith oozes self interest. He's already gleefully stated he'd be well up for nuclear holocaust.....and then tried wiggling out of it by saying "that's what you have to say".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn's consistent record speaks for itself. He is far less likely to turn around once in office and become a neoliberal war monger. Whereas Smith oozes self interest. He's already gleefully stated he'd be well up for nuclear holocaust.....and then tried wiggling out of it by saying "that's what you have to say".


not just said. Voted in favour of according to his TheyWorkForUs record.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> not just said. Voted in favour of according to his TheyWorkForUs record.


Were the Soviets unilateralists?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 16, 2016)

Yeah, DC. Answer that.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey



It's only a small thing but I don't think there are a lot of politicians who would do this.


----------



## Sandra B (Aug 16, 2016)

And I believe he lives in a council house (not that there is anything wrong with that) I know this isn't a major deal but can you imagine a politician living in accommodation that is anything other than some plush, Edwardian or Victorian period accommodation?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Were the Soviets unilateralists?


tsarina says no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Sandra B said:


> And I believe he lives in a council house (not that there is anything wrong with that) I know this isn't a major deal but can you imagine a politician living in accommodation that is anything other than some plush, Edwardian or Victorian period accommodation?


you wouldn't be lauding victorian accommodation as plush if you'd lived in the victorian accommodation i've lived in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you wouldn't be lauding victorian accommodation as plush if you'd lived in the victorian accommodation i've lived in.


have you got one of those water tanks halfway up the wall and chain pull flush shitters? I haven't 'enjoyed' the use of one of those for ages


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> have you got one of those water tanks halfway up the wall and chain pull flush shitters? I haven't 'enjoyed' the use of one of those for ages


it's more the general dank atmosphere


----------



## Sandra B (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you wouldn't be lauding victorian accommodation as plush if you'd lived in the victorian accommodation i've lived in.


Was there damp and pest infestations? If so, I am very familiar with those problems...Lovely!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think it's possible to have this debate without telling your opponents they're brainwashed dupes of capital.


I think you've woefully (and rather predictably) misrepresented my post. Even someone with a cursory familiarity with Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence wouldn't suggest that I was telling someone that they were the "brainwashed dupes of capital". Instead, they would see it for what it is: the embodiment of a narrative. 



> I am just a concerned member of the party, anxious about the prospect of twenty years rule from the right.



This is a constant theme and it's repeated by the Labour right, media commentators and yes, posters like Cwmflame and the departed LeslieB ad infinitum/ad tedium/ad nauseum. It is indicative of an internalisation of the "Labour out of power for a generation if Corbyn remains as leader of the party" narrative. 

Perhaps your next move will be to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I wish I had your wisdom and imagination


You're clearly lacking in both departments.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> probably it can be done without dismissing your opponents as close-minded ideologues too.


Who are you replying to? It sort of helps to quote the post. No?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Slightly left of that! Keeping the tories out whilst trying to implement it would be a start.  You can do more good in power than opposition I reckon



And yet some of what the last Labour government did in power had nothing to do with "good". For disabled people, 1997 was the start - with the Benefits Integrity Project - of an all-out assault on disability benefits. An assault culminating in the obscene replacement of Incapacity Benefit with Employment & Support Allowance.

Labour did so much good there, started something so wonderful, that hundreds or thousands have died before their time, and thousands more have become more ill because of the stress that making and chasing a claim for ESA causes.

That's what happens when you have the same shit coming from different arseholes, and even given his pronouncements of recent weeks, Smith is still selling us the same old neoliberal shit sandwich.


----------



## andysays (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Were the Soviets unilateralists?



Don't forget "If you love Russia so much, why don't you go and live there?"


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I think you've woefully (and rather predictably) misrepresented my post


Why predictably?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> Why predictably?


Because it's hardly unheard of


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

I wasn't asking you.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2016)

A sober article assessing the data about Labour's polling and elections results. Short version: Labour under Corbyn are doing poorly but not half as badly as Corbyn's detractors claim. The article possibly needs to be more sceptical about polls in general, but I thought the Rallings-Thacker thing assessing the local election results was interesting or at least fun (I don't know about it's validity).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wasn't asking you.


So? It's not as tho nino_savatte is the only poster to have observed this trait.


----------



## a_chap (Aug 16, 2016)

Cymflame's profile.

Joined 2012. Posts 49. All of them in this thread.



Hmm.... now what _is_ that word I'm trying to think of. Rhymes with "troll"...


----------



## andysays (Aug 16, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Cymflame's profile.
> 
> Joined 2012. Posts 49. All of them in this thread.
> 
> ...



"recently-activated-Owen-Smith-deep-cover-sleeper-agent" doesn't rhyme with "troll"


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 16, 2016)

welcome to 5 pages ago, but yeah that


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Cymflame's profile.
> 
> Joined 2012. Posts 49. All of them in this thread.
> 
> ...


I'm  honestly not trying to troll.  I know this has got out of hand and I probably should have cut my losses pages ago,   but I was genuinely only trying to point out that Smith isn't lying when he says he's from the valleys.  I've answered sincerely,  generally without attacking since, but I do have a problem 'letting it go'.

And regarding my lack of activity,  I have never interacted on a forum before,  as is probably evident.  I do enjoy reading this one though,  and access it most days, as broadly speaking I share the views on here.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Even someone with a cursory familiarity with Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence wouldn't suggest that I was telling someone that they were the "brainwashed dupes of capital". Instead, they would see it for what it is: the embodiment of a narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a constant theme and it's repeated by the Labour right, media commentators and yes, posters like Cwmflame and the departed LeslieB ad infinitum/ad tedium/ad nauseum. It is indicative of an internalisation of the "Labour out of power for a generation if Corbyn remains as leader of the party" narrative.


do you think the posts on this thread are an effective way of challenging this narrative?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm  honestly not trying to troll.  I know this has got out of hand and I probably should have cut my losses pages ago,   but I was genuinely only trying to point out that Smith isn't lying when he says he's from the valleys.  I've answered sincerely,  generally without attacking since, but I do have a problem 'letting it go'.



But he is a billy bullshitter. An ambitious, opportunistic, salesman that is far more suited to hawking viagra than spearheading radical political change within the labour party.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm  honestly not trying to troll.  I know this has got out of hand and I probably should have cut my losses pages ago,   but I was genuinely only trying to point out that Smith isn't lying when he says he's from the valleys.  I've answered sincerely,  generally without attacking since, but I do have a problem 'letting it go'.
> 
> And regarding my lack of activity,  I have never interacted on a forum before,  as is probably evident.  I do enjoy reading this one though,  and access it must days, as broadly speaking I share the views on here.



Tbh the reason I didn't think he could possibly be from Ponty (and I stand corrected) was his utter bullshit about Italian cafes and 'fancy coffees' when even this English incomer knows fine well of the long Welsh Italian tradition. It just smacked of utter incompetent crap, and really fucking patronising of that locality. Yeah, no one in the Valleys knows what a cappuccino is, have to go to those fancy Pontcanna places for that. Fuck right off. 


And that's before we even consider the politics and the leadership bid.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 16, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Tbh the reason I didn't think he could possibly be from Ponty (and I stand corrected) was his utter bullshit about Italian cafes and 'fancy coffees' when even this English incomer knows fine well of the long Welsh Italian tradition. It just smacked of utter incompetent crap, and really fucking patronising of that locality. Yeah, no one in the Valleys knows what a cappuccino is, have to go to those fancy Pontcanna places for that. Fuck right off.
> 
> 
> And that's before we even consider the politics and the leadership bid.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 16, 2016)

Ranbay said:


>



Hasn't she usually got foxier glasses than that?


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Cwmflame
> View attachment 91021
> View attachment 91022




Good grief scraping the barrel, its nearly twenty years ago!


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2016)

Derby, lunch time rally


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Tbh the reason I didn't think he could possibly be from Ponty (and I stand corrected) was his utter bullshit about Italian cafes and 'fancy coffees' when even this English incomer knows fine well of the long Welsh Italian tradition. It just smacked of utter incompetent crap, and really fucking patronising of that locality. Yeah, no one in the Valleys knows what a cappuccino is, have to go to those fancy Pontcanna places for that. Fuck right off.
> 
> 
> And that's before we even consider the politics and the leadership bid.


Before this exchange it's the first I heard of the coffee remarks.  From reading the article, I think though he was trying to show just how often he goes to Princes in ponty (which does sell frothy coffee,  for what it's worth).  But I take the point that he was deliberately playing up to his roots.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

As an interesting aside (to me anyway),  and sorry for indulging myself.  I've just been made a community member,  and reading the Jonathan Bishop thread,  someone who I had a run in with years ago,  he quotes the newspaper article where I was questioned about the Iraq protests. 

This is not a setup I promise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Good grief scraping the barrel, its nearly twenty years ago!


And it doesn't say what they claim


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> Before this exchange it's the first I heard of the coffee remarks.  From reading the article, I think though he was trying to show just how often he goes to Princes in ponty (which does sell frothy coffee,  for what it's worth).  But I take the point that he was deliberately playing up to his roots.



Have you read this.... What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom

It had me and OT in tears but the serious point is he looks down on normal people. His current political position is just that. Zero conviction. Fuck all integrity.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

It's upthread somewhere. I quite like Sam kriss, but he needs an editor. And he's ever so keen to let you know all the books he's read.


----------



## Cwmflame (Aug 16, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Have you read this.... What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom
> 
> It had me and OT in tears but the serious point is he looks down on normal people. His current political position is just that. Zero conviction. Fuck all integrity.


I get the point of the article (It's not exactly subtle),  but the reference to the mug and the biscuits in the original article is Smith pointing out he's a regular,  and only being treated differently because there are Londoners in the cafe. It's patronising for different reasons


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

I bet he has a cursory familiarity with Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence, for example.


----------



## Sue (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I bet he has a cursory familiarity with Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence, for example.


Who hasn't..?


----------



## Sirena (Aug 16, 2016)

Jess Phillips somehow manages to conflate a million things and obliquely find Jeremy Corbyn responsible for Jo Cox's death....  

No, that's unfair but I bet that's how many will read it.....

Labour MP Jess Phillips installing 'panic room' at office following threats


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> have you got one of those water tanks halfway up the wall and chain pull flush shitters? I haven't 'enjoyed' the use of one of those for ages


And is it outside at the bottom of the yard, next to the coal hoose


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 16, 2016)

DIRTY BASTARD

Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

Knotted said:


> A sober article assessing the data about Labour's polling and elections results. Short version: Labour under Corbyn are doing poorly but not half as badly as Corbyn's detractors claim. The article possibly needs to be more sceptical about polls in general, but I thought the Rallings-Thacker thing assessing the local election results was interesting or at least fun (I don't know about it's validity).


These polls thingymigigs, didn't they predict a vote for remain in some referendum or other aye bliddy infallible they are.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

Cwmflame said:


> I'm  honestly not trying to troll.  I know this has got out of hand and I probably should have cut my losses pages ago,   but I was genuinely only trying to point out that Smith isn't lying when he says he's from the valleys.  I've answered sincerely,  generally without attacking since, but I do have a problem 'letting it go'.
> 
> And regarding my lack of activity,  I have never interacted on a forum before,  as is probably evident.  I do enjoy reading this one though,  and access it must days, as broadly speaking I share the views on here.


Don't give up, most will give you the benefit of the doubt, but your position is not unlike thon poor Greek forever condemned to pushing a rock uphill.
Smiths a wriggly little opportunist.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't give up, most will give you the benefit of the doubt, but your position is not unlike thon poor Greek forever condemned to pushing a rock uphill.
> Smiths a wriggly little opportunist.



I'm not sure if he/she actually said anything positive about him. Nothing against him either though. Difficult to keep track on this thread. It isn't wrong to come from the same part of the UK.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Have you read this.... What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom
> 
> It had me and OT in tears but the serious point is he looks down on normal people. His current political position is just that. Zero conviction. Fuck all integrity.


Fair point, and it's amusing, but " coffeegate" ? There are more substantial points, already pointed out that he can be nailed on.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

coley said:


> These polls thingymigigs, didn't they predict a vote for remain in some referendum or other aye bliddy infallible they are.


a few predicted the result we got (ICM I think?), and all were within the margin of error.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Have you read this.... What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom
> 
> It had me and OT in tears but the serious point is he looks down on normal people. His current political position is just that. Zero conviction. Fuck all integrity.



With very few exceptions, 'they' all look down on ordinary people, that's why Corbyn is different, and why  he is in a unique position to upset the status quo, hence the unified hostility from all quarters of the 'establishment'


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

Sue said:


> Who hasn't..?



Err, me


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's upthread somewhere. I quite like Sam kriss, but he needs an editor. And he's ever so keen to let you know all the books he's read.


He could fit neatly on here then


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> a few predicted the result we got (ICM I think?), and all were within the margin of error.


I'll take your word for it


----------



## Sue (Aug 16, 2016)

coley said:


> Err, me


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 16, 2016)

coley said:


> With very few exceptions, 'they' all look down on ordinary people, that's why Corbyn is different, and why  he is in a unique position to upset the status quo, hence the unified hostility from all quarters of the 'establishment'


He has changed the whole discussion on the left to be so much less preachy. I have my disagreements, but his whole gang are a breath of breath of fresh air, and the popularity seems to have made them much less insular.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2016)

coley said:


> I'll take your word for it


I don't understand what the weird winking smiley is for.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

Sue said:


>


Been meaning to read em for years, but thon annoying git Pratchett kept getting in the way, now he's gone I meant to catch up on me socialist backlog of worthy reading, but after half a chapter decided to re-read Pratchett from the beginning.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't understand what the weird winking smiley is for.


Nowt sinister, just hit the Wrong whatitsname on this stupid I pad, technobiff with spatulate fingers, apols if it gave you any worries.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> He has changed the whole discussion on the left to be so much less preachy. I have my disagreements, but his whole gang are a breath of breath of fresh air, and the popularity seems to have made them much less insular.


I totally agree, but the establishment, including his own PLP, is trying to demonise him as "the hard left"  WTF is hard left? Not allowing failing train companies making massive profits to continue to carry on ripping off the GP?
Hardly putting landlords/owners against the wall!!


----------



## Humberto (Aug 16, 2016)

The man has some principles. 95% don't. So we find ourselves in a strange position. Besides which he also avoids vindictive petty assaults in the press on his opponents and society's easy targets. Almost as if he has been paying attention instead of "parachute me in" to suck up all the self advancement he can. Again that is the 95%.

He is the type we should expect, not see as some out of nowhere breath of fresh air. Personally, I see him as someone who could stop or slow down the rot. Is there an argument that he could honestly do that? In the meantime you have less threat to the immediate circumstances of millions. It may even change the perception of the 'left' if they hold their nerve and don't abandon Corbyn's good ideas.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 16, 2016)

Humberto said:


> The man has some principles. 95% don't. So we find ourselves in a strange position. Besides which he also avoids vindictive petty assaults in the press on his opponents and society's easy targets. Almost as if he has been paying attention instead of "parachute me in" to suck up all the self advancement he can. Again that is the 95%.
> 
> He is the type we should expect, not see as some out of nowhere breath of fresh air. Personally, I see him as someone who could stop or slow down the rot. Is there an argument that he could honestly do that? In the meantime you have less threat to the immediate circumstances of millions. It may even change the perception of the 'left' if they hold their nerve and don't abandon Corbyn's good ideas.


Margaret Becket on the radio today was classic. Not long till they bring out louder that he 'did things' with Fenians. Even if they all love Malala despite being such an obvious Millie.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

Humberto said:


> The man has some principles. 95% don't. So we find ourselves in a strange position. Besides which he also avoids vindictive petty assaults in the press on his opponents and society's easy targets. Almost as if he has been paying attention instead of "parachute me in" to suck up all the self advancement he can. Again that is the 95%.
> 
> He is the type we should expect, not see as some out of nowhere breath of fresh air. Personally, I see him as someone who could stop or slow down the rot. Is there an argument that he could honestly do that? In the meantime you have less threat to the immediate circumstances of millions. It may even change the perception of the 'left' if they hold their nerve and don't abandon Corbyn's good ideas.



Spot on post, let's hope they hold their nerve, Corbyn at first, though,impressing me with his beliefs,didn't seem to hold out much hope of changing the direction of the LP.
How wrong can you be? implacable is the only word I can find to describe him, he's not showy or even media friendly but he trudges on with his message, not lashing out, not seeking showy confrontations, just pushing his ideas, crack on Corbyn.


----------



## coley (Aug 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Margaret Becket on the radio today was classic. Not long till they bring out louder that he 'did things' with Fenians. Even if they all love Milala despite being such an obvious Millie.


Aye and Blair (and Thatcher didn't?) have me reservations regarding some of his actions, but nowt compared to some of our recent 'PMs'


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 17, 2016)

Corbyn *actually* sits on the floor of a train whereas Owen only claims to usually have his coffee in a mug.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 17, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Corbyn *actually* sits on the floor of a train whereas Owen only claims to usually have his coffee in a mug.


I was reminded of this tale....

"Gandhi was a first-class nurse to the sick. Where he picked up nursing is a mystery.  In the Ashram at Sabarmati all sick persons came directly under his eye and care. Doctors were, of course, consulted, but the care of the sick person was arranged by Gandhi.
There was once a young lad who went down with dysentery. He had done his best to get to terms with the hard Ashram dietary, but failed. He was an inveterate addict to coffee. But in the Ashram there was no coffee for him - coffee was taboo. In good time he got rid of his dysentery, and was convalescing. Gandhi visited him for a few minutes everyday during his usual rounds. Those few minutes were like a tonic to the poor lad.
During his convalescence he pined for a cup of hot coffee. One day he was lying on his back dreaming of that glorious rich brown beverage to which he was accustomed in his distant South Indian home. Just then he heard the welcome, click-click of the wooden sandals of Gandhi approaching. A minute later, he entered with his never-failing smiling and cheering word.
He looked at the lad and said: 'Now you are decidedly better. You must be getting your appetite back. What would you like to eat? Ah! some good uppama or dosa?'
Gandhi evidently knew all about the lad's partiality for these two good old items of the South Indian menu. Gandhi was laughing. The youngster had a sudden brain-wave.
'Could I have a cup of coffee?' he blurted out. Gandhi answered with a peel of laughter - 'Oh, you unrepentant sinner, that is what you want! And then seeing the disturbed look on the lad's face, he added: You certainly shall have your cup of coffee. Yes, light coffee will soothe your stomach. And what will you have with the coffee? I don't think we can make uppama or dosa but warm toast would go well with coffee. I shall send you a tray.'
Some twenty minutes passed. Hark! what was that sound? The click-click of Gandhi's wooden sandals again. Why was Gandhi coming back? Had the coffee been called off as an after-thought? But there was Gandhi carrying a tray covered with a white khadi napkin. The lad was dazed. What had really happened?
Gandhi was speaking,'Now here is your coffee and toast. And, mind you, I made you, coffee myself. Now like a good South Indian, will you certify I can make a good coffee?"


----------



## newbie (Aug 17, 2016)

so... coffee was taboo but the great leader could lay his hands on some in an instant, and then wanted an ego stroke for his skill?


> “Is it fair that I should upgrade my ticket whilst others who might not be able to afford such a luxury should have to sit on the floor? It’s their money I would be spending after all.”


far less ambiguous


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 17, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> DIRTY BASTARD
> 
> Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 17, 2016)

Och wrang thread


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Corbyn *actually* sits on the floor of a train whereas Owen only claims to usually have his coffee in a mug.


When he was Head of Corporate Affairs at Angem, Smith no doubt did the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch when the brews came round. 'Nowt fancy fer me, just fookin nescaff. In me chipped mug - and there'll be 'ell to pay if it's got froth on'.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

If/when JC does decide to call it a day...possible new career as P&J man on the beach @ Margate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If/when JC does decide to call it a day...possible new career as P&J man on the beach @ Margate?



you mean the p&J professor


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2016)

Smith getting the Wales - Belgium score wrong was a particular highlight for me.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you mean the p&J professor


"professor", as opposed to Professor, as in Dywer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> "professor", as opposed to Professor, as in Dywer.


you have it the wrong way round. professor, as opposed to "professor", as in dwyer


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you have it the wrong way round. professor, as opposed to "professor", as in dwyer


Assist-----> back of the net!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ...viagra...spearheading...



In your dreams!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Jess Phillips somehow manages to conflate a million things and obliquely find Jeremy Corbyn responsible for Jo Cox's death....
> 
> No, that's unfair but I bet that's how many will read it.....
> 
> Labour MP Jess Phillips installing 'panic room' at office following threats



The woman is a gobshite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

coley said:


> And is it outside at the bottom of the yard, next to the coal hoose



Leading to the occasional drunken "shitting on the coal" mishap.


----------



## Tankus (Aug 17, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn's consistent record speaks for itself. He is far less likely to turn around once in office and become a neoliberal war monger. Whereas Smith oozes self interest. He's already gleefully stated he'd be well up for nuclear holocaust.....and then tried wiggling out of it by saying "that's what you have to say".



Went from a couple of decades worth of vehemently all out...to all in when it mattered.. ...to invoke A 50 right now ......all in the space of a 12 month...... utterly inconsistent...I would have to say


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Jess Phillips somehow manages to conflate a million things and obliquely find Jeremy Corbyn responsible for Jo Cox's death....
> 
> No, that's unfair but I bet that's how many will read it.....
> 
> Labour MP Jess Phillips installing 'panic room' at office following threats



TBF it is sort of hard to read anyway:



> Phillips, who has been a vocal critic of Corbyn’s leadership, said she did not feel welcome by “huge swaths of people” in the Labour party.
> 
> “Every day I receive messages that I’m not good enough, that I should lose my job,” she said, calling that the tame attacks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

swathes ffs


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

How long before labour MP's are claiming to check under the motor for bombs every morning and claiming expenses for two lads from a PMC?


----------



## coley (Aug 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Leading to the occasional drunken "shitting on the coal" mishap.


Not telling  We' re all modern these days, indoor plumbing and hot water


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

Jess Phillips complains about Twitter 'abuse' but if you check out her feed its full of her getting into protracted rows with anyone who disagrees with her. Not exactly the best way to go about using social media if you're concerned about 'trolls'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

its the line now. Complain about 'abuse' which is mild barracking or political disagreement, invoke the memory of a recently dead colleague (classy). That and the corbyns a misogynist line. I'm suprised she didn't manage to shoehorn his massive hatred of jewish people in there somwhere


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

agricola said:


> Smith getting the Wales - Belgium score wrong was a particular highlight for me.


 i missed that one, couldn't find anything during brief online search, what did he say?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its the line now. Complain about 'abuse' which is mild barracking or political disagreement, invoke the memory of a recently dead colleague (classy). That and the corbyns a misogynist line. I'm suprised she didn't manage to shoehorn his massive hatred of jewish people in there somwhere


Another classic was she complained about her family being harassed, so she took photos of the inside of her house when the locks were apparently being changed , complete with a picture of all the names of her kids written on the wall


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

I don't think there's much to be gained from criticising Philips on this tbh. Her colleague was recently murdered, and she does get the vilest abuse imaginable (threats to pour molten metal into her vagina etc). I think it's probably ok for her to complain about it, and to be worried. Challenging her just looks like victim blaming.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

A small dose of self awareness could be beneficial. Few condone the actual abuse. It doesn't put you above criticism tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

how we laughed


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> swathes ffs


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Maybe she should listen to the _swathes_.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Few condone the actual abuse.


So? Saying that a woman shouldn't have got so drunk/walked home late at night isn't condoning her being raped either, but it's still victim blaming. 

It really isn't a good look. I don't know what the way forward is on this stuff, but telling women to argue less on twitter isn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> So? Saying that a woman shouldn't have got so drunk/walked home late at night isn't condoning her being raped either, but it's still victim blaming.
> 
> It really isn't a good look. I don't know what the way forward is on this stuff, but telling women to argue less on twitter isn't it.


it is strange how frequently 'the way forward' is confused for 'what i consider a desirable outcome'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> So? Saying that a woman shouldn't have got so drunk/walked home late at night isn't condoning her being raped either, but it's still victim blaming.
> 
> It really isn't a good look. I don't know what the way forward is on this stuff, but telling women to argue less on twitter isn't it.


It isn't 'telling women'. It's telling a politician who is a woman. There's a massive difference, particularly when she herself attempts to make political capital out of the abuse she's receiving by deliberately conflating it with valid criticism, which she very certainly is doing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

What victim blaming kb? An observation that engaging in prolonged rows with people that despise you is unlikely to be helpful?

Many public servants, inc MPs, get social media training. One of the key suggestions is to avoid engaging in stuff like this. You can't blame her for getting abuse.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It isn't 'telling women'. It's telling a politician who is a woman. There's a massive difference, particularly when she herself attempts to make political capital out of the abuse she's receiving by deliberately conflating it with valid criticism, which she very certainly is doing.


Right. So pull her up on that then, rather than saying she argues too much on twitter.


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> i missed that one, couldn't find anything during brief online search, what did he say?



Footage of it here.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

Agricola said:


> Footage of it here.


Ta. 

"The Labour leadership candidate insists he forgot the score because he had too many beers"

Interestingly, there's a bbc profile of him in which he suggests one of his vices is "too many beers". I wonder what else he's done after too many beers?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Ta.
> 
> "The Labour leadership candidate insists he forgot the score because he had too many beers"
> 
> Interestingly, there's a bbc profile of him in which he suggests one of his vices is "too many beers". I wonder what else he's done after too many beers?


Bit of a lad, eh? (not gay)


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bit of a lad, eh? (not gay)



A man's man, like that other sinker of pints, William Hague.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

does he pass the holding a pint test though? I bet he does, tbh. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> does he pass the holding a pint test though? *I bet he does, tbh*. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


If only there were someone posting on here who could clarify that.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> does he pass the holding a pint test though? I bet he does, tbh. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


Relentlessly attack and smear your opponent?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> does he pass the holding a pint test though? I bet he does, tbh. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


Dance the samba at the Notting Hill Carnival?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dance the samba at the Notting Hill Carnival?



The Notting Hill carnival was Owen Smith's idea too no doubt!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> does he pass the holding a pint test though? I bet he does, tbh. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


Join the pride parade with a flower garland around your neck?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Join the pride parade with a flower garland around your neck?


tick.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Ta.
> 
> "The Labour leadership candidate insists he forgot the score because he had too many beers"



Sounds like he's drumming up business for some Pfizer branded hangover cure.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2016)

He truly is a man for all seasons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> tick.
> 
> View attachment 91076


perhaps he could be dumped in san francisco bay with some flowers in his hair. from 20,000'.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps he could be dumped in san francisco bay with some flowers in his hair. from 20,000'.



A little close to 'get in the sea' for my liking. Very nasty.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> tick.
> 
> View attachment 91076


That's a very revealing 'but'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> Why predictably?


You have form for this kind of thing and not just with me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> A little close to 'get in the sea' for my liking. Very nasty.


doesn't have to be the sea. somewhere over an unpopulated area would do fine afaic


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> I bet he has a cursory familiarity with Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence, for example.


I bet you know fuck all about Gramsci or Bourdieu.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> do you think the posts on this thread are an effective way of challenging this narrative?


How about you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think there's much to be gained from criticising Philips on this tbh. Her colleague was recently murdered, and she does get the vilest abuse imaginable (threats to pour molten metal into her vagina etc). I think it's probably ok for her to complain about it, and to be worried. Challenging her just looks like victim blaming.


Yet she's quite happy to hurl abuse at others and whatever you think of Diane Abbott, Phillips abuse of her was out of order. Phillips is not only a gobshite, she's a hypocrite.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I bet you know fuck all about Gramsci or Bourdieu.


Very little. You're probably debating at too high a level for me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> Very little. You're probably debating at too high a level for me.


Hilarious.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Yet she's quite happy to hurl abuse at others and whatever you think of Diane Abbott, Phillips abuse of her was out of order. Phillips is not only a gobshite, she's a hypocrite.


She is a hypocrite, I agree. I'm not sure what relevance that has though.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

3-0 or 3-1, whatever.

The "I Can Assure You I Celebrated With Gusto" was pathetic though

I cant remember as single scoreline for this years Euros and I watched loads of games (with gusto)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2016)

JP's Twitter could be packed full of smears and distortions and pointless arguments and it still wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of abuse she has received. It's pretty easy to not do this and at the same time criticise any suggestions that somehow Corbyn is to blame, rather than it being a general social problem that needs dealing with.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

It's all pretty basic stuff this isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't have to be the sea. somewhere over an unpopulated area would do fine afaic



If we're sticking with SF Bay, Alcatraz.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I bet you know fuck all about Gramsci or Bourdieu.



Does it matter though, as long as you know he's gobshite?


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

yawn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> yawn.


time for bed, killer b.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> JP's Twitter could be packed full of smears and distortions and pointless arguments and it still wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of abuse she has received. It's pretty easy to not do this and at the same time criticise any suggestions that somehow Corbyn is to blame, rather than it being a general social problem that needs dealing with.



Let's be blunt:
Sometimes criticism - criticism, rather than rape threats, death threats and other threats of extreme violence - is necessary.
Often, criticism is not welcomed by those receiving it.
Some people will use the fact that they receive threats as a means of ignoring criticism.
The former is seldom related to the latter, so using it in such a way is at best foolish.
Jess Philips' political career so far is laced with almost as many instances of conflating criticism with threats, as Simon Danczuk's is of being a misogynist cunt.

All these wankers attempting to avoid the consequences of their policies and their politics, has fuck-all to do with Corbyn, and everything to do with an inability or unwillingness in people to take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> yawn.



That's nice, dear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's all pretty basic stuff this isn't it?



Not if you've spent your professional life de-coupling your actions from their consequences, as many of our professional politicians do.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm not talking about what _they_ do though. I'm more interested in what we do, and how criticism can be used effectively rather than turned against us.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Let's be blunt:
> Sometimes criticism - criticism, rather than rape threats, death threats and other threats of extreme violence - is necessary.
> Often, criticism is not welcomed by those receiving it.
> Some people will use the fact that they receive threats as a means of ignoring criticism.
> ...


An article I read about her the other day nailed it. She insists that this should not be about Corbyn, or about her. At the same time, she makes it _all about her_. The 'i'd resign tomorrow if that were what was best for my constituents' is nauseating. Yeah yeah. You employ your husband as your constituency support manager (what that?). Sorry, _we_ employ her husband as her constituency support manager - she claims him as an expense.

I would far rather mps were honest and ditched this public service charade. We all have jobs in which we serve the public in some way. Just be honest - I've got a well-paid job with a fantastic pension and the opportunity to travel the world (business class, natch) on expenses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm not talking about what _they_ do though. I'm more interested in what we do, and how criticism can be used effectively rather than turned against us.



Unfortunately it's the nature of criticism -even informed, even-handed constructive criticism - that some people will react to it in such a way, and attempt to turn the critic into a subject to be censured. 

With some people - Philips among them - there's no utility to refining the criticism, or softening the language, because whatever is said, if it's even mildly critical of them, they'll turn it into an attack and react accordingly.

So _we_ are left with a quandary that only really leaves us two choices, if we wish to criticise, and do so effectively (by whatever gauge you'remeasuring "effectiveness"): We can back completely off of such people, and watch as their gobshitery reaches new heights of self-delusion, or we can continue criticising, aware of how they'll react.

Personally, I prefer the latter to the former, whatever social media storm gets stirred up by the _soi-disant_ victim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An article I read about her the other day nailed it. She insists that this should not be about Corbyn, or about her. At the same time, she makes it _all about her_. The 'i'd resign tomorrow if that were what was best for my constituents' is nauseating. Yeah yeah. You employ your husband as your constituency support manager (what that?). Sorry, _we_ employ her husband as her constituency support manager - she claims him as an expense.
> 
> I would far rather mps were honest and ditched this public service charade. We all have jobs in which we serve the public in some way. Just be honest - I've got a well-paid job with a fantastic pension and the opportunity to travel the world (business class, natch) on expenses.



Constituency support manager - office manager, sweeper and tea-maker, making appts for constituents to attend surgeries, passing them onto appropriate agencies, coordinating constituency events, who has to be glad-handed etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Constituency support manager - office manager, sweeper and tea-maker, making appts for constituents to attend surgeries, passing them onto appropriate agencies etc.


Thing is, I don't necessarily even object to her employing her husband to do that. It's the hair-shirt hypocrisy I can't stand. Almost all of us do the paid jobs we do at least partly for the money, and so does she. Most of us do it entirely for the money. She's actually being incredibly patronising in her attitude without even realising it.


This is possibly the first time I've thought to say that horrible phrase 'check your privilege'.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately it's the nature of criticism -even informed, even-handed constructive criticism - that some people will react to it in such a way, and attempt to turn the critic into a subject to be censured.
> 
> With some people - Philips among them - there's no utility to refining the criticism, or softening the language, because whatever is said, if it's even mildly critical of them, they'll turn it into an attack and react accordingly.
> 
> ...


Bollocks - all criticism isn't equal. Yes, she'll try to turn any criticism against the critic, but you don't have to make it easy for her.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> Bollocks - all criticism isn't equal. Yes, she'll try to turn any criticism against the critic, but you don't have to make it easy for her.



I haven't claimed that all criticism is equal though, have I? All I've stated is that some people will be more reactive to *any*criticism, than others, *regardless* of the severity (or mildness) of the criticism.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2016)

you said there's no utility in refining your criticism. I think that's nonsense. You must think that's nonsense, on reflection.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 18, 2016)

Jeremy doesn't know who Ant and Dec are, the swine. 

Corbyn v Smith at Labour hustings: whose finger is on the pulse?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Jeremy doesn't know who Ant and Dec are, the swine.
> 
> Corbyn v Smith at Labour hustings: whose finger is on the pulse?



I am rather pleased he doesn't.
My Mrs and I although knowing who they are would only have a 50/50 guess at knowing which individual was Ant or Dec!


----------



## inva (Aug 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I am rather pleased he doesn't.
> My Mrs and I although knowing who they are would only have a 50/50 guess at knowing which individual was Ant or Dec!


Ant's the tall one


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2016)

inva said:


> Ant's the tall one



Thank you, I will try to retain that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2016)

inva said:


> Ant's the tall one


They're both on the diminutive side tho aren't they


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 18, 2016)

I'd like to see Corbyn take the Billy Mack approach in this important matter - 



> Dec:
> Billy, I believe you've brought a prize for our competition winners.
> 
> Billy Mack:
> Yes I have, Ant or Dec. It's a personalized felt tip pen.


----------



## inva (Aug 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Thank you, I will try to retain that.


now you've got no excuse


----------



## inva (Aug 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> They're both on the diminutive side tho aren't they


very good knowledge there, Pickman


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I am rather pleased he doesn't.
> My Mrs and I although knowing who they are would only have a 50/50 guess at knowing which individual was Ant or Dec!



Ant = PJ, Dec = Duncan


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 18, 2016)

i thought ant was the one who looks like an ant, seems to be the other one tho.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2016)

telling them apart doesn't really matter as they are joined at the hip like Chang and Eng


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2016)

As a teenager I looked a bit like Dec, so can confirm that ant is the shred lookalike, the other one is Dec.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 18, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Jeremy doesn't know who Ant and Dec are, the swine.
> 
> Corbyn v Smith at Labour hustings: whose finger is on the pulse?





> *What’s worse: being described as a Tory, or as a smarmy post-Tribunite nonentity swathed in unrealistic ambition?*


----------



## discokermit (Aug 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> My Mrs and I although knowing who they are would only have a 50/50 guess at knowing which individual was Ant or Dec!


they always stand the way it's written. ant and dec, ant on the left, dec on the right.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 18, 2016)

PJ and Duncan


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2016)

discokermit said:


> they always stand the way it's written. ant and dec, ant on the left, dec on the right.



Thanks for that, though I think these days I am in a minority by knowing Left from Right!


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 18, 2016)

How can he not know who Ant and Dec are? We were all there. December '92. PJ losing his sight in a paintball fight. "He cannae see, man!". Remember, Jezzer? Remember how we shared?


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 18, 2016)

"Let's Get Ready To Rhumble" would make a decent campaign song to be fair.

"Watch Jez wreck the mic, watch Jez ride his bike,
Watch Jez back the strike.... Psyche!"

and so on and so forth.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> How can he not know who Ant and Dec are? We were all there. December '92. PJ losing his sight in a paintball fight. "He cannae see, man!". Remember, Jezzer? Remember how we shared?




Jeremy Corbyn 'trying too hard' to hide Byker Grove obsession


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> How can he not know who Ant and Dec are? We were all there. December '92. PJ losing his sight in a paintball fight. "He cannae see, man!". Remember, Jezzer? Remember how we shared?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>




This is the version Jezzer will remember.




Bet his dad liked Jacques Brel.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'trying too hard' to hide Byker Grove obsession



Newsthump is fucking shite.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Newsthump is fucking shite.



Don't read it then, div.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Don't read it then, div.



The entire Exodus Collective are 'divs' for wantin some control over the parties they organise. I'm a 'div' for not finding the lazy, uninspired and laboured dribbles of newsthump tickling. Who else is a 'div'?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The entire Exodus Collective are 'divs' for wantin some control over the parties they organise. I'm a 'div' for not finding the lazy, uninspired and laboured dribbles of newsthump tickling. Who else is a 'div'?




Leviticus are divs for still pretending they have something that the original Exodus crew had. Exodus were never divs, just arseholes.

hth.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Leviticus are divs for still pretending they have something that the original Exodus crew had. Exodus were never divs, just arseholes.
> 
> hth.



Doing good community work = divs.

Triffic


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Doing good community work = divs.
> 
> Triffic



Rolling up to Beautiful Days every 12 months with a ropey rig and dated vinyl equates to good community work. 

And you wonder why I think you're a div.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rolling up to Beautiful Days every 12 months with a ropey rig and dated vinyl equates to good community work.
> 
> And you wonder why I think you're a div.



You're ignorant (willfully?) of the work the old crew still do in and around Luton. 

Just cos you got turned over for taking liberties 20 years ago. Dry your fucking eyes.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 18, 2016)

Well this thread has gone pwoppa nawty, and no mistake.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2016)

CROSS-THREAD BEEF, BRRRRRAPP!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> PJ and Duncan


Why aye, canny lad!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> She is a hypocrite, I agree. I'm not sure what relevance that has though.


Of course it's relevant, soft la'.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I am rather pleased he doesn't.
> My Mrs and I although knowing who they are would only have a 50/50 guess at knowing which individual was Ant or Dec!


imaginary invented / concocted abuse thread ( Corbyn/Momentum/all)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You're ignorant (willfully?) of the work the old crew still do in and around Luton.
> 
> Just cos you got turned over for taking liberties 20 years ago. Dry your fucking eyes.



You're such a fucking loser. I never got turned over, as stated on the thread that you are such a div you can't seem to read. But feel free to carry on making stuff up if it makes you feel better about your yourself


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You're such a fucking loser. I never got turned over, as stated on the thread that you are such a div you can't seem to read. But feel free to carry on making stuff up if it makes you feel better about your yourself



Sorry 'a mate' def not you. Pray tell what great stuff you do that gives you the right to deride the efforts of that crew?


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 18, 2016)

Can we have an official calming voice? That way less people get branded appologist. If there are serious personal issues being acted out, I didn't know wht I was getting into.

Serious stuff by all means, but big Jez does have a point.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Sorry 'a mate' def not you. Pray tell what great stuff you do that gives you the right to deride the efforts of that crew?




Not a mate either, are you not even able to argue the toss without making shit up?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> does he pass the holding a pint test though? I bet he does, tbh. whats the holy trinity: kiss a baby, hold a pint convincingly and...?


Accidentally wank someone off in a public toilet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2016)

The Boy said:


> Well this thread has gone pwoppa nawty, and no mistake.



The dowager duchesses of Urban are getting handbag-happy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Accidentally wank someone off in a public toilet?



Or, on a public common?


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 18, 2016)

lol, classic. What a two-faced, gutless cunt.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 18, 2016)

Haven't really kept up with the Corbyn Diaries in the past few days, but I can only assume he was caught in bed with the Byker Grove lads? That's what I understand from reading the last page of this thread at least.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 18, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Haven't really kept up with the Corbyn Diaries in the past few days, but I can only assume he was caught in bed with the Byker Grove lads? That's what I understand from reading the last page of this thread at least.


World's worst threesome.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 18, 2016)

PMQs: "I've had a letter from Anthony and Declan from Newcastle. A saucy letter..."


----------



## coley (Aug 18, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Why aye, canny lad!



Wheyaye, bonnie lad, just doing a pickmans


----------



## coley (Aug 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> World's worst threesome.



Jeez, urgent need of mind bleach


----------



## coley (Aug 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not a mate either, are you not even able to argue the toss without making shit up?


Wtf are you two on about?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> PMQs: "I've had a letter from Anthony and Declan from Newcastle. A saucy letter..."


'Dear Jeremy, I always thought these letters were made up, but then on saturday last week...'


----------



## coley (Aug 18, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> PMQs: "I've had a letter from Anthony and Declan from Newcastle. A saucy letter..."


"Saucy eh" must be HP.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 19, 2016)

coley said:


> "Saucy eh" must be HP.


Odd that. I'm a computer nerd. Compaq took over DEC, then HP took over Compaq. Sucked the juice out of some nice computers (if you are into that kind of thing).

I think of them as Anton DEC. Sod HP.


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Odd that. I'm a computer nerd. Compaq took over DEC, then HP took over Compaq. Sucked the juice out of some nice computers (if you are into that kind of thing).
> 
> I think of them as Anton DEC. Sod HP.


I wouldn't know one arse end of a computer from an I pad(the reference/ joke) was 'sauce' HP ....houses of parliament ....sorry
My observations and sense of humour are seriously skewed at this time of night due to circumstances, apologies


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> World's worst threesome.



I can think of a few people who'd love a bit of that.....not total wronguns either.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 19, 2016)

neonwilderness said:


>




More like...'I ve got to keep my job, my benefits, my expenses claims and back anyone, who we can shoe into the leadership role, once Corbin has been thrown under the bus'


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 19, 2016)

Who is that in the video? Jack Dromey perhaps? (Harriet Harperson's hubby?)


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Cymflame's profile.
> 
> Joined 2012. Posts 49. All of them in this thread.
> 
> ...


Profiterole


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
> It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.


Yes let's have a big fuck off war if that's the price of entry into number 10


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

Everyone already knows the answer he would give to that question, so it leaves him in a difficult bind: say yes, and be accused of being insincere, or say no (or, as I expect actually happened, refuse to give a yes/no answer) and be accused of appeasement. Both ways he loses, but at least this way he keeps his rep for being straight.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes let's have a big fuck off war if that's the price of entry into number 10


  Appeasement has stopped so many wars, hasn't it?



killer b said:


> Everyone already knows the answer he would give to that question, so it leaves him in a difficult bind: say yes, and be accused of being insincere, or say no (or, as I expect actually happened, refuse to give a yes/no answer) and be accused of appeasement. Both ways he loses, but at least this way he keeps his rep for being straight.


   I guess you are right. I'd rather he didn't lose ,because of stupid things like this. Russia isn't going to invade the Baltics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Appeasement has stopped so many wars, hasn't it?


Fuck me you're stupid

D'you not know jaw-jaw is better than war-war? Bet you were mad keen for Iraq in 03 til it turned into a clusterfuck


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Fuck me you're stupid
> 
> D'you not know jaw-jaw is better than war-war? Bet you were mad keen for Iraq in 03 til it turned into a clusterfuck



 Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

It wasn't a real question at all, it's just a trap. His only feasible response was to say what he did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


Oh yeh? Evidently eh. Go on then. State your case.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's all pretty basic stuff this isn't it?


What is?


----------



## maomao (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> telling them apart doesn't really matter as they are joined at the hip like Chang and Eng


Chang and Eng were joined at the sternum.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
> It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.



You would happily go to war with Russia? Sorry, you would happily send other people to go to war with Russia while you relaxed at home? You honestly think that would be a good idea?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> What is?


This.


FridgeMagnet said:


> JP's Twitter could be packed full of smears and distortions and pointless arguments and it still wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of abuse she has received. It's pretty easy to not do this and at the same time criticise any suggestions that somehow Corbyn is to blame, rather than it being a general social problem that needs dealing with.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
> It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.


That's actually you not understanding how shitty politics works nowadays -  seeking to trap your opponent with ridiculous hypothetical situations. That you don't recognise the politics at play but instead take for reality the fantasy situation devised to spring the trap tells us a lot.


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 19, 2016)

Like it's the 1930s all over again, with Corbyn cast as George Lansbury


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


The question was designed exactly to get responses like this from people like you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


so you can't support this proposition


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2016)

If he'd said 'yes' we'd have had headlines of "Corbyn threatens to invade Russia"


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> You would happily go to war with Russia? Sorry, you would happily send other people to go to war with Russia while you relaxed at home? You honestly think that would be a good idea?



 I wouldn't be happy with it ,but If I was ordered to go would go.  You think letting Russia do whatever it likes to NATO members is a good idea?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> I wouldn't be happy with it ,but If I was ordered to go would go.  You think letting Russia do whatever it likes to NATO members is a good idea?


you think posting up a load of crap you can't support is a grand notion?


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
> It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.


Oh for the days of empire when we fought so many famously "not stupid" wars which everyone could support. Just like the one that began a century ago. You know, the one where the UK automatically declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality. That worked out well didn't it.

Happy days!


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


"
Pushed on whether he would become involved if he had to, he said: "I don't wish to go to war. What I want to do is achieve a world where we don't need to go to war, where there is no need for it. That can be done."

Hardly " appeasement" though he should have added a qualifier along the lines of , however if we are left with no alternative?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Not as bone headed as yourself evidently appeasement does not work.


you don't know who said 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war', do you you twat.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

Nice to see 'I'm a dyed in the wool socialist' Owen Smith offer to jump into conflict at the drop of a hat.


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't know who said 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war', do you you twat.


Everybody does, but better isn't always achievable, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

...and who could imagine long term labour-left socialists like Corbyn would have any problems with NATO? Lovely cuddly neutral, simply reactive NATO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

coley said:


> Everybody does


dylanredefined doesn't


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ...and who could imagine long term labour-left socialists like Corbyn would have any problems with NATO? Lovely cuddly neutral, simply reactive NATO.


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> ...and who could imagine long term labour-left socialists like Corbyn would have any problems with NATO? Lovely cuddly neutral, simply reactive NATO.


It's a good point, but his stance will be savaged by his opponents, no matter how principled it is.


----------



## flypanam (Aug 19, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Nice to see 'I'm a dyed in the wool socialist' Owen Smith offer to jump into conflict at the drop of a hat.



Yeah another one of those huggy and thanks for sharing Blairite principles, Owen has.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 19, 2016)

Appeasement has usually been remembered as an act of naivety carried out from a position of weakness. It was actually an act of cynicism carried out from a position of strength.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

this mason piece is quite good I think: The sound of Blairite silence — Mosquito Ridge


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

coley said:


> It's a good point, but his stance will be savaged by his opponents, no matter how principled what it is.


c4u


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> this mason piece is quite good I think: The sound of Blairite silence — Mosquito Ridge


Very good, if spoilt a bit by letting his 'Brexit bitterness' influence it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

coley said:


> Very good, if spoilt a bit by letting his 'Brexit bitterness' influence it.


where? are we reading the same article?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> this mason piece is quite good I think: The sound of Blairite silence — Mosquito Ridge


it is good, but I really dont think the Occupy Labour/Bagheot* plan will happen...it might do, it can do, and the more desperate elements of the right in Labour may wish it to, but I dont believe they have the competence or courage to follow it through.  

Plus many of the resigners did so, not under duress as such, but just as good political animals looking out for whats best for their careers - following what they saw as a winning trend -  rather than any deeper misgivings. In theory they should flock back to the fold. Though the lack of "resigners" officially returning to the JC camp so far (just one so far yeah?) isn't ideal - i thought more would come back by now.

Whether Occupy Labour kicks in once JC wins is also down to how much he might reshape the party in a fashion that would lock them out for good. Maybe Labour watchers can explain this to me - can the necessary redemocratising laws be passed at conference in September, swiftly after his win? What is the clause that would need repealing? How much of an effect would this really have, etc? 

One final reason for Blairite silence is i think a lot of people are on holiday  - though I agree with what Paul says about the press letting Owen get away with things...I though the ISIS comment would sink him, but it barely got a mention.

* The Bagheot plan (published 2 weeks ago) was mooted months ago, cant remember who by, but probably a guardian columnist. We definitely talked about it ages ago. I dont know who Bagheot is, but he doesnt deserve any credit!


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't know who said 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war', do you you twat.



If your jaw-jaw is "go ahead, we won't do anything" it ends up as war-war.  Such as Kuwait, Falklands, late 30's....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> If your jaw-jaw is "go ahead, we won't do anything" it ends up as war-war.  Such as Kuwait, Falklands, late 30's....


yes. but where was the 'jaw-jaw' before your falklands and kuwait? eh?


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> where? are we reading the same article?



"how people feel once the Tory Brexit begins sucking the life out of the economy, combined with a Boris-led fiasco in the exit negotiations"


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

He said 'tory brexit' for a reason.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> I wouldn't be happy with it ,but If I was ordered to go would go.  You think letting Russia do whatever it likes to NATO members is a good idea?


But who says Russia is going to do _anything_?


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Does Corbyn actually understand how Politics works? Latest row is him not saying  yes  to backing military intervention if Russia invaded a NATO member.
> It is one thing to oppose stupid wars ,being seen as happy with appeasement is political suicide IMHO.



The proper response would have been, "It depends." Seeing how NATO members have behaved towards Russia in the recent past, I would say at least one of them deserves a damn good invasion. Hope it doesn't happen, mind.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> it is good, but I really dont think the Occupy Labour/Bagheot* plan will happen...it might do, it can do, and the more desperate elements of the right in Labour may wish it to, but I dont believe they have the competence or courage to follow it through.
> 
> Plus many of the resigners did so, not under duress as such, but just as good political animals looking out for whats best for their careers - following what they saw as a winning trend -  rather than any deeper misgivings. In theory they should flock back to the fold. Though the lack of "resigners" officially returning to the JC camp so far (just one so far yeah?) isn't ideal - i thought more would come back by now.
> 
> ...




Bagheot is the column currently written by Jeremy Cliffe(any relation to Tony?) in The Economist, a former staffer to Chukka.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

treelover said:


> Bagheot is the column currently written by Jeremy Cliffe(any relation to Tony?) in The Economist, a former staffer to Chukka.


tony cliff no e


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

AnnaKarpik said:


> The proper response would have been, "It depends." Seeing how NATO members have behaved towards Russia in the recent past, I would say at least one of them deserves a damn good invasion. Hope it doesn't happen, mind.


it has long been a russian ambition to control the dardanelles


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

Mason appears to be getting quite wild - seeing string pullers everywhere, using buzzwords and banging out 0 instead of o numerous times. He suggests that Smith cannot win, but that his true role is to be a placeholder - something he surely can only do if he wins. And when he wins the power behind him will be...wait for it Brenda Dean and David Blunkett and behind them a single millionaire with no background clout or backing in the party. I think he needs some kip and a decent meal in him - and reading something other than stuff about the period leading up to the october revolution.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> I wouldn't be happy with it ,but If I was ordered to go would go.  You think letting Russia do whatever it likes to NATO members is a good idea?



It's not going to happen though you plonker. That's the whole point they asked the question.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Mason appears to be getting quite wild - seeing string pullers everywhere, using buzzwords and banging out 0 instead of o numerous times. He suggests that Smith cannot win, but that his true role is to be a placeholder - something he surely can only do if he wins. And when he wins the power behind him will be...wait for it Brenda Dean and David Blunkett and behind them a single millionaire with no background clout or backing in the party. I think he needs some kip and a decent meal in him - and reading something other than stuff about the period leading up to the october revolution.


Sure you're right, but they must be up to _something_... surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Sure you're right, but they must be up to _something_... surely?


Of course they are, but Mason's article is just a mess of well established banalities (and contradictory ones at that at times) and a general counsel to people under attack to prepare for an attack. I really think he needs to calm down and stop acting as if he's reporting from and interpreting the frontlines of history when he's basically just saying what everyone knows and expects (and not just him, loads of people i respected as people who would keep their heads seem to have gone the same way). He's really annoying me recently.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

When is the earliest Corbyn could declare deselections?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Of course they are, but Mason's article is just a mess of well established banalities (and contradictory ones at that at times) and a general counsel to people under attack to prepare for an attack. I really think he needs to calm down and stop acting as if he's reporting from and interpreting the frontlines of history when he's basically just saying what everyone knows and expects (and not just him, loads of people i respected as people who would keep their heads seem to have gone the same way). He's really annoying me recently.



I suspect he's been on the pop a bit too much.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

I don't think everyone does know or expect all that stuff though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> When is the earliest Corbyn could declare deselections?


He couldn't do any such thing ever.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

When he got teary eyed over the Syriza win was enough for me.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Sure you're right, but they must be up to _something_... surely?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> When is the earliest Corbyn could declare deselections?


What do you mean? He can't.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> He couldn't do any such thing ever.



Typo! re-selections


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Typo! re-selections


Same.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2016)

Bit embarrassing for Jack Dromey


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think everyone does know or expect all that stuff though.


Anyone whose been following all this stuff has been saying for ages once corbyn wins there be another struggle - one based possibly on parliamentary cold shouldering by the PLP to further drive a wedge then followed up with legal action on the basis that the PLP is now the effective labour party etc - we've literally been talking about that for months on here haven't we. I certainly know it's been part of the wider expectation by the people i know who've got a dog in this fight anyway.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

neonwilderness said:


>




Jack Dromey you are ridiculous, Mrs Desai will be turning in her grave, remember her obituary you wrote for the Guardian?
Shame on you.

Jayaben Desai obituary

ETA: It is forty years tomorrow since the start of the Grunwick dispute.


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but where was the 'jaw-jaw' before your falklands and kuwait? eh?



US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that the US would regard any invasion as a local matter.... Falklands, Argentina was strongly inflenced by a debate in House of Commons a few months before where budget cuts reduced the Royal Navy support for the Island.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Same.



The NEC can do this can they not? Which will be under control of corbyn allies shortly?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> Falklands, Argentina was strongly inflenced by a debate in House of Commons a few months before where budget cuts reduced the Royal Navy support for the Island.


i ask again, where was the jaw-jaw? was the galtieri regime party to the commons debate?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The NEC can do this can they not? Which will be under control of corbyn allies shortly?


The current rules have reselection happening in the run up to an (expected) election. Regardless of the rules of how that reselection process is carried out, I can't see that there's any point in doing it this far ahead and having a load of deselected MPs still in parliament with time to organise properly for the election as a split off party or whatever.


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i ask again, where was the jaw-jaw?


in the Commons as I said.  Thats the point. Those looking to covert things will look at the internal jaw-jaw and it can influence their actions.  

Very much a "I wouldn't start from here" position though:  There should have been far more internal discussion of NATO expansion BEFORE it happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that the US would regard any invasion as a local matter


so? in the context of corbyn's comments that's utterly fucking irrelevant: he said (in essence) preventing a war better than joining one.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

Nice to hear that Labour councillors in the most 'marginal, knife edge seats' are backing Smith.
Who would ever have thunk it?

Labour councillors overwhelmingly backing Owen Smith for leader - poll


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> in the Commons as I said.  Thats the point. Those looking to covert things will look at the internal jaw-jaw and it can influence their actions.


utterly utterly irrelevant. by 'jaw-jaw' i meant - as well you know - discussions between countries  - BETWEEN countries - better than war. not 'oh but they took this signal from that' bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Nice to hear that Labour councillors in the most 'marginal, knife edge seats' are backing Smith.
> Who would ever have thunk it?
> 
> Labour councillors overwhelmingly backing Owen Smith for leader - poll


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> The current rules have reselection happening in the run up to an (expected) election. Regardless of the rules of how that reselection process is carried out, I can't see that there's any point in doing it this far ahead and having a load of deselected MPs still in parliament with time to organise properly for the election as a split off party or whatever.



So he can call for reselections. You've just decided it's not the right time.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 91192



A lovely lass I hear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> A lovely lass I hear.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So he can call for reselections. You've just decided it's not the right time.


The NEC can change when the reselection process happens, and the terms of the reselection process, if it chooses. I suppose it could choose to do this soon, but it won't. 

It isn't a simple matter of Corbyn's allies now controlling the NEC btw, the recent elections have only changed the balance of power by two (or maybe 3?).


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2016)

Paranoid drool from today's Torygraph.



> Hard-left groups are working together to help Jeremy Corbyn stay at the helm of the Labour party and "pull society to the left".
> 
> At least five organisations have got involved in the Labourleader's campaign in the hope that he will push a more left-wing agenda if reelected.
> 
> Groups including the Socialist Party, have called for a new convention which will be "open to all pro-Corbyn left forces" to discuss the rebuilding of the labour movement.



It's a story that stitches together a few quotes from "leading Trotskyists" and comes up with, well, not much really. It exists solely to pander to the papers paranoid 'reds under the bed' readers.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> The NEC can change when the reselection process happens, and the terms of the reselection process, if it chooses. I suppose it could choose to do this soon, but it won't.
> 
> It isn't a simple matter of Corbyn's allies now controlling the NEC btw, the recent elections have only changed the balance of power by two (or maybe 3?).



But a majority. So, he could call for reselections.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> But a majority. So, he could call for reselections.


doesn't matter if he has a majority or not, he can still call for reselections.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So he can call for reselections. You've just decided it's not the right time.


You switched here from



> When is the earliest Corbyn could declare deselections?



to



> So he can call for reselections.



He never could declare de or reselections. He can support and urge the NEC to make arrangements that make the chances more likely - or support moves in the NEC to make the trigger process and other things less favourable to current MPs. But he can't just declare anything - the Labour Party's internal stuff just doesn't work like that.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

As ever the NEC is the power behind the frown!


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone whose been following all this stuff has been saying for ages once corbyn wins there be another struggle - one based possibly on parliamentary cold shouldering by the PLP to further drive a wedge then followed up with legal action on the basis that the PLP is now the effective labour party etc - we've literally been talking about that for months on here haven't we. I certainly know it's been part of the wider expectation by the people i know who've got a dog in this fight anyway.


Not sure how widespread these kinds of details are - most people I speak to have some vague thoughts about a split, but nothing more than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Not sure how widespread these kinds of details are - most people I speak to have some vague thoughts about a split, but nothing more than that.


I didn't really see any details in the mason piece tbh though just a vague warning of what people might try and some methods that might help them achieve their ends. Anyway, we'll see soon enough.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

Wtf is this bullshit on facebook though. Jesus.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Mason appears to be getting quite wild - seeing string pullers everywhere, using buzzwords and banging out 0 instead of o numerous times. He suggests that Smith cannot win, but that his true role is to be a placeholder - something he surely can only do if he wins. And when he wins the power behind him will be...wait for it Brenda Dean and David Blunkett and behind them a single millionaire with no background clout or backing in the party. I think he needs some kip and a decent meal in him - and reading something other than stuff about the period leading up to the october revolution.


the bits about the free ride Owen Smith is getting ring true though. And the possibilities of the split-proper arent just insomniac fantasy - its definitely possible. I just dont think itll happen


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Wtf is this bullshit on facebook though. Jesus.


Bizarre - he barely wears glasses.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Wtf is this bullshit on facebook though. Jesus.


well down with kids


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> the bits about the free ride Owen Smith is getting ring true though. And the possibilities of the split-proper arent just insomniac fantasy - its definitely possible. I just dont think itll happen


I didn't say it didn't ring true - just that a) people have been saying he's been left to swing in the wind by the right for some time now and b) that mason is mad on what the impossible smith victory would mean - Brenda Dean ffs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> well down with kids


Kids can't vote.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2016)

Was that actually created by the Corbyn team?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

it's being publicised by Corbyn's official fb account, so I guess so.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Kids can't vote.


we're all kids now (see pokemon thread )


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> utterly utterly irrelevant. by 'jaw-jaw' i meant - as well you know - discussions between countries  - BETWEEN countries - better than war. not 'oh but they took this signal from that' bollocks.



Them's that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Best way of avoiding wars is speak softly and carry a big stick.  Given state of NATO and the wider world Corbyn's statement would be alarming, leader of the opposition in a Parliament with a small majority and all that.  But the Labour party is such a joke at mo, think its less problematic.


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone whose been following all this stuff has been saying for ages once corbyn wins there be another struggle - one based possibly on parliamentary cold shouldering by the PLP to further drive a wedge then followed up with legal action on the basis that the PLP is now the effective labour party etc - we've literally been talking about that for months on here haven't we. I certainly know it's been part of the wider expectation by the people i know who've got a dog in this fight anyway.



Of all the criticisms of their incompetence, that they (the PLP) still haven't taken any steps towards the one course of action that can ever hope to pay dividends for them is the most damning.  Instead of cold-shouldering him and yet another doomed leadership election, they could easily replace him as leader of the opposition with the Chair of the PLP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

Even at the peak of Empiah nobody fancied it with Russia. Let napoleon waste his time. Owen Smith is an idiot, a puppet. If the press set up a 'would you jump off a cliff?' question he'd be taking his run up straight away


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> Best way of aviding wars is speak softly and carry a big stick.


oh dear

that was theodore roosevelt's way of conducting foreign policy, but let's recall he was er president of the united states and the united states cannot be accused of avoiding wars.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It's not going to happen though you plonker. That's the whole point they asked the question.


 I know that fucktard it was a reply to this.


Mr.Dogg said:


> You would happily go to war with Russia? Sorry, you would happily send other people to go to war with Russia while you relaxed at home? You honestly think that would be a good idea?


  I'm actually serving so would actually have to go pratt. Should only take a weekend we launch the helicopters they all get shot down and then we get stomped flat by rockets doubt I would need a change of socks tbh.  Last Slightly longer than in the old cold war role and a bit more paperwork ,but, less digging so swings and roundabouts.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Even at the peak of Empiah nobody fancied it with Russia. Let napoleon waste his time. Owen Smith is an idiot, a puppet. If the press set up a 'would you jump off a cliff?' question he'd be taking his run up straight away


 
 You forgot the Crimean War which makes the last couple of wars look like the works of genius.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> You forgot the Crimean War which makes the last couple of wars look like the works of genius.


by no means. the war in iraq makes the crimean war look a model of logistical efficiency and tactical and strategical genius.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> You forgot the Crimean War which makes the last couple of wars look like the works of genius.


oh yeah, the birth of telegraph and the canned meal. Recall there being some...problems* in the supply lines there iirc the docu I saw. 


*proper fuck ups/theivery. Starving men pictured in the papers, underdressed for the weather. Very much a fuck up


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear
> 
> that was theodore roosevelt's way of conducting foreign policy, but let's recall he was er president of the united states and the united states cannot be accused of avoiding wars.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> we're all kids now (see pokemon thread )



/shudder


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh yeah, the birth of telegraph and the canned meal. Recall there being some...problems* in the supply lines there iirc the docu I saw.
> 
> 
> *proper fuck ups/theivery. Starving men pictured in the papers, underdressed for the weather. Very much a fuck up


as opposed to the wars in afghanistan where 'our boys' sent out proper dressed but with vehicles very vulnerable to ieds and shooting etc


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh yeah, the birth of telegraph and the canned meal. Recall there being some...problems* in the supply lines there iirc the docu I saw.


Half a million dead, sure, but on the other hand, Fray Bentos and Snapchat.

So who knows what we'd get out of war with Russia? Possibly a new kind of cake with its own app. I'm all for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> as opposed to the wars in afghanistan where 'our boys' sent out proper dressed but with vehicles very vulnerable to ieds and shooting etc


shortage of bullet proof jackets also iirc. I remember a story of someone who died cos he was shot without one and how people were buying their own.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

mauvais said:


> So who knows what we'd get out of war with Russia?


a shortage of stoli


----------



## YouSir (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> shortage of bullet proof jackets also iirc. I remember a story of someone who died cos he was shot without one and how people were buying their own.



Isn't that standard form in the US? All the jarheads go on Amazon to buy their armour, with the odd jumble sale to help out. Not a mistake I reckon, just some sod deciding the value of a human life from an office somewhere.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2016)

Ooh, it's turned into a war thread. Can  we have in-depth discussion on tanks next lads?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Isn't that standard form in the US? All the jarheads go on Amazon to buy their armour, with the odd jumble sale to help out. Not a mistake I reckon, just some sod deciding the value of a human life from an office somewhere.



this was a british soldier. The equipment shortages throughout were noted, and they were stuff the MoD is meant to provide. Of course our lot go out and buy their own, better gear but brit infantry is notorious for always being short of neccesaries. Its cos the MoD is a vast maw designed to suck down tax money and funnel int into shonky defence contractors and the pockets of people like Liam Fox and suadi royalty. Allegedly


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ooh, it's turned into a war thread. Can  we have in-depth discussion on tanks next lads?



A bigger possibility would be an in-depth discussion on tank-tops!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ooh, it's turned into a war thread. Can  we have in-depth discussion on tanks next lads?


it was an ant n dec thread five minute ago.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2016)

Many things this thread has been. The ant and dec sexing, a great disruption in the force that was.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Many things this thread has been. The ant and dec sexing, a great disruption in the force that was.


millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think everyone does know or expect all that stuff though.


Found it quite informative.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone whose been following all this stuff has been saying for ages once corbyn wins there be another struggle - one based possibly on parliamentary cold shouldering by the PLP to further drive a wedge then followed up with legal action on the basis that the PLP is now the effective labour party etc - we've literally been talking about that for months on here haven't we. I certainly know it's been part of the wider expectation by the people i know who've got a dog in this fight anyway.


I agree Mason is OTT on the whole True Labour thing, but looked at from the outside the behaviour of the PLP majority shows an extraordinary level of message discipline. That 100+ attention hungry gobshites could pretty much keep a lid on it for even a day would have been unthinkable a month ago. It's no wonder conspiracy theories abound.

It's much more likely that the big beasts of the PLP have recognised they can't shift Corbyn, so are manoeuvring to get the unions onside when it comes to reselection processes and the policy forum. Given the track record of the unions within the Labour Party I'd bet they'll be telling Corbyn to stand down before the 2018 conference and then pushing for an unopposed unity candidate.

See what I mean about conspiracy theories abounding?


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 19, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I think of them as Anton DEC. Sod HP.


That just gave me a flashback to one of the trolls on Harry's Place. 

You bastard!


----------



## coley (Aug 19, 2016)

No 


killer b said:


> Ooh, it's turned into a war thread. Can  we have in-depth discussion on tanks next lads?


No bother, but they have all been rubbish since the Chieftan


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 19, 2016)

Ralph Milliband 1961:


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Ralph Milliband 1961:
> View attachment 91200


whats the book?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> whats the book?


ralph miliband, 'parliamentary socialism'


----------



## YouSir (Aug 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone whose been following all this stuff has been saying for ages once corbyn wins there be another struggle - one based possibly on parliamentary cold shouldering by the PLP to further drive a wedge then followed up with legal action on the basis that the PLP is now the effective labour party etc - we've literally been talking about that for months on here haven't we. I certainly know it's been part of the wider expectation by the people i know who've got a dog in this fight anyway.



Being kind to Mason there are still people who're being charitable enough to not see how determined those set on a divide are. Even more who aren't prepared for an ongoing struggle. Those people do need reminding and prepping for what comes next and he's doing it. Not for you certainly, not for me or for most Urbanites but for the people new to politics who still think there are fair rules and morals to it. I've seen and heard a lot of enthusiasm for Mason as an honest voice and that's all to the good, he's serving a purpose that the likes of Owen Jones have run away from.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 19, 2016)

treelover said:


> Bagheot is the column currently written by Jeremy Cliffe(any relation to Tony?) in The Economist, a former staffer to Chukka.


You do know that Tony Cliff (no E) was a pseudonym? Once again I find myself thinking that for someone so obsessed with the SWP you don't seem to know a great deal about them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> You do know that Tony Cliff (no E) was apseudonym? Once again I find myself thinking that field someone so obsessed with the SWP you don't seem to know a great deal about them.


What he knows about could be written in large letters on a couple of sheets of small paper.


----------



## a_chap (Aug 19, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Cymflame's profile.
> 
> Joined 2012. Posts 49. All of them in this thread.
> 
> ...





Pickman's model said:


> Profiterole



Troll - Profiterole

Warholl - Hole


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Tony Cliff (no E)



Gluckstein on ecstasy - I'm having a pancake-pupilled sweaty comedown just thinking about it


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think everyone does know or expect all that stuff though.





YouSir said:


> Being kind to Mason there are still people who're being charitable enough to not see how determined those set on a divide are. Even more who aren't prepared for an ongoing struggle. Those people do need reminding and prepping for what comes next and he's doing it. Not for you certainly, not for me or for most Urbanites but for the people new to politics who still think there are fair rules and morals to it. I've seen and heard a lot of enthusiasm for Mason as an honest voice and that's all to the good, he's serving a purpose that the likes of Owen Jones have run away from.



Mason is reet. He's from Leigh. Nuff said.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 19, 2016)

Hmmm.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Hmmm.


Could they make one out of this?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 19, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Hmmm.


Ridiculous eh? It's doing the rounds though. Lot of wrong 'uns out there, youth of today etc etc


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2016)

I think we need promises carved in stone.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2016)

Hero worship for Jeremy Corbyn as thousands turn up at Sheffield rally


Huge Corbyn rally in Sheff tonight, very mixed crowd, up to 3000 there. very confident speech from Corbyn and a moving barnstorming one from ex Miner John Dunn.

One thing though, the biggest cheer was for abolishing TTIP, which most people in the country probably have never heard of.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2016)




----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> One thing though, the biggest cheer was for abolishing TTIP, which most people in the country probably have never heard of.


it got a fair amount of exposure in the EU referendum campaigning, so I don't think it's as obscure as you're thinking.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 20, 2016)

I would think those politically aware such as those who make time to attend political gatherings would be knowledgeable about TTIP.
Trade Unions and the TUC website have been highlighting TTIP for around two years at least.
Sadly it's the rest of the country who remain outside political debate through choice, apathy or disillusionment that miss these important issues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hero worship for Jeremy Corbyn as thousands turn up at Sheffield rally
> 
> 
> Huge Corbyn rally in Sheff tonight, very mixed crowd, up to 3000 there. very confident speech from Corbyn and a moving barnstorming one from ex Miner John Dunn.
> ...


Nice dig at 'the ignorant proles'


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 20, 2016)

Conference doubts remain as security firm’s union stand-off continues | LabourList

I find this whole situation very suspect, especially with the GMB (who's leadership backed Owen Smith) and the NEC being in charge of sorting it out. Can't help but feel they will deliberately ensure the conference doesn't go ahead to try and embarrass Corbyn


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Nice dig at 'the ignorant proles'




Yawn, not at all, most people will not be aware of this treaty, more than usual, yes, because of brexit, thats no smear, just a fact. My comment was to signpost the concerns of the crowd, which may not completely chime with the wider public.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 20, 2016)

I think you will find that more people are aware of it than you imagine.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 20, 2016)

Icke, for example, goes on about it all the time, an article a week just about. You don't need to be clever or politically astute to know what TTIP is.


----------



## oryx (Aug 20, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Conference doubts remain as security firm’s union stand-off continues | LabourList
> 
> I find this whole situation very suspect, especially with the GMB (who's leadership backed Owen Smith) and the NEC being in charge of sorting it out. Can't help but feel they will deliberately ensure the conference doesn't go ahead to try and embarrass Corbyn


Yes, I thought exactly the same.


----------



## tony.c (Aug 20, 2016)

Corbyn is speaking at a rally in Kilburn, NW London, tomorrow (Sunday) 6-8pm. If anyone is interested in going the details are here:
www.jeremyforlabour.com/rally_join_jeremy_corbyn_in_london?recruiter_id=117470


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 20, 2016)

Desperate stuff - Corbyn’s past will destroy Labour’s future


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> Yawn, not at all, most people will not be aware of this treaty, more than usual, yes, because of brexit, thats no smear, just a fact. My comment was to signpost the concerns of the crowd, which may not completely chime with the wider public.


Signposts never chime


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Signposts never chime



What if they're verbs though? No, verbs can't chime either.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Desperate stuff - Corbyn’s past will destroy Labour’s future


Desperate or not, he's right, and it something pretty solid that can be used against him and his opponents certainly will do so.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> this mason piece is quite good I think: The sound of Blairite silence — Mosquito Ridge



The Blairite/media silence is very interesting but I can't take the Bagehot article hence this article seriously. The fact that the Labour right cannot gain control of the party means that "True Labour" are going to struggle to outcompete Labour who are going to maintain the bulk of the grass roots base. If they are following the Bagehot plan they need to start out with the momentum to carry the "soft left" with them, which I think is unlikely.

More seriously the very fact that the Labour right are being so politically quietist means they have not ideologically paved the way for the formation of a new party. On this a new centrist split from Labour will be in a worse position than the SDP who were at least vocal about what they were about and what the problems with Labour were as they saw it. The criticism of the likes of Roy Jenkins was much more deep rooted and much more strategic - an attempt to reorganise British politics away from confrontation and class war as they saw it and that criticism was made over a number of years. The criticism of Corbyn is that he is weak leader and unelectable (at least in the critics' imagination), but don't ask us what we want, we just want to defeat the Tories etc. The very fact of right wing quietism demonstrates in part their own weakness and in part a belief that Corbynism is superficial fad that will eventually blow over. I don't think they are about to abandon what they see as their party to a bunch of lefties many of whom only joined the party this year.

I'm really not sure what is going to happen next. The whole coup was a demonstration of hubris and that hubris makes the Labour right unpredictable. I also agree with Mason that they are demonstrating an impressive level of discipline. So they're going to try something. But a split? No sign of it that I can see.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 20, 2016)

I've used the terms "Blairite" and "Corbynism" and "soft left" and I'm regretting it already. It's not about Corbynites versus Blairites with a soft left bouncing between them. That picture is far too simplistic and implies greater unity within the camps than there really is. It's not unreasonable to see the quietism as being in part a product of division and a lack of direction other than opposition to the leadership.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2016)

This article from The Torygraph retreads familiar but shaky ground but adds that some Labour MPs have apparently "approached Andrew Bridgen" and begged May to call an early General Election. If true, then the MPs in question should have the whip withdrawn forthwith. Given that this story is in the Telegraph, its validity should be questioned.



> Almost 6,000 people have been reported to the party’s National Executive Committee as part of a new initiative introduced in mid-July to curb threats and poor behaviour.
> 
> It came as Tory MP Andrew Bridgen revealed he had been approached by Labour MPs as part of an attempt to secure an early general election to “get rid of Jeremy Corbyn” as the party’s leadership contest continues.
> 
> ...



For me, this whole leadership election is about more than Corbyn or the Labour Party; it's about the wider issue of democracy in this country or, rather, the lack of it.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This article from The Torygraph retreads familiar but shaky ground but adds that some Labour MPs have apparently "approached Andrew Bridgen" and begged May to call an early General Election. If true, then the MPs in question should have the whip withdrawn forthwith. Given that this story is in the Telegraph, its validity should be questioned.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, this whole leadership election is about more than Corbyn or the Labour Party; it's about the wider issue of democracy in this country or, rather, the lack of it.



Disgusting as  this is, I don't know how much ground the leadership would have to stand on given that Corbyn has called for an early election too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Disgusting as  this is, I don't know how much ground the leadership would have to stand on given that Corbyn has called for an early election too.


Indeed, hence my comment about the article's validity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

I'm sick of people calling for things. Why can't we go back to demand. I've called for loads of things and the only time it works is with a dog who suspects treats may be imminent.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This article from The Torygraph retreads familiar but shaky ground but adds that some Labour MPs have apparently "approached Andrew Bridgen" and begged May to call an early General Election. If true, then the MPs in question should have the whip withdrawn forthwith. Given that this story is in the Telegraph, its validity should be questioned.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, this whole leadership election is about more than Corbyn or the Labour Party; it's about the wider issue of democracy in this country or, rather, the lack of it.



Aye, but you can guarantee the " three MPs " (if they actually exist) will be in ultra safe seats!


----------



## maomao (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, but you can guarantee the " three MPs " (if they actually exist) will be in ultra safe seats!


Not just that. An early election would probably circumvent the reselection/deselection process.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sick of people calling for things. Why can't we go back to demand. I've called for loads of things and the only time it works is with a dog who suspects treats may be imminent.



or pizza.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

BigTom said:


> or pizza.


Or a refill


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Desperate stuff - Corbyn’s past will destroy Labour’s future



Nice of the writer to actually make a little draft up of a tory election ad. It helpful for my imagination, who so often fail.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2016)

Guardian's grubby agenda very clear with the 2 pieces it is leading its politics page with - as the ballot papers are due to go out:

Item 1 - Heidi Alexander - Smith's campaign manager - why she thinks Corbyn is shit + spats she had with McDonnell. All the events are at least months ago, no news value at all:
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership unprofessional and shoddy, says Heidi Alexander

Item 2 - shrill headline that momentum has dropped its commitment to non-violence, feeding of course into the long running' bullying of the blairites' theme. If you actually read it its a rather pedantic change in wording to stop them having to expel people who were arrested for defensive violence if attacked by fash/police (to be honest I don't think there's _too much_ risk of momentum types getting arrested for that sort of thing  ). They also manage to squeeze in some trot entryism stuff as well):
Momentum drops pledge to nonviolence from code of ethics


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Guardian's grubby agenda very clear with the 2 pieces it is leading its politics page with - as the ballot papers are due to go out:
> 
> Item 1 - Heidi Alexander - Smith's campaign manager - why she thinks Corbyn is shit + spats she had with McDonnell. All the events are at least months ago, no news value at all:
> Jeremy Corbyn's leadership unprofessional and shoddy, says Heidi Alexander


This first one seems a stupid move from Owen's camp, she basically admits that she (unlike Corbyn and McDonnell) didn't back the junior doctors strike. How that is going to win over any votes I've no idea.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> This first one seems a stupid move from Owen's camp, she basically admits that she (unlike Corbyn and McDonnell) didn't back the junior doctors strike. How that is going to win over any votes I've no idea.


Yes, I thought that.  My pure guess is that there actually was a shadow cabinet agreement not to go on the picket line, which shows up the contradictions of the Corbyn project, seeking to put together a shadow cabinet with a Blairite majority.  But yeah, most of all she's happy to reveal she didn't support the docs in order to make her cheap dig.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2016)

AKA 'Look! We agreed not to support the workers - then you went ahead and _supported the workers_. Bastard!'


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Nice of the writer to actually make a little draft up of a tory election ad. It helpful for my imagination, who so often fail.











That's herself, laying a wreath at an IRA memorial in Dublin. A memorial dedicated to ALL who gave their lives in the persuit of Irish freedom . With no cut off date .

Garden of Remembrance (Dublin) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That's herself, laying a wreath at an IRA memorial in Dublin. A memorial dedicated to ALL who gave their lives in the persuit of Irish freedom . With no cut off date .


not to mention auld charlie


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

maomao said:


> Not just that. An early election would probably circumvent the reselection/deselection process.


A General election called before the LP leadership election was settled would mean Corbyn wouldn't have the opportunity to call for the deselection of the those who have been actively looking to maintain their position at the parliamentary trough?


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That's herself, laying a wreath at an IRA memorial in Dublin. A memorial dedicated to ALL who gave their lives in the persuit of Irish freedom . With no cut off date .
> 
> Garden of Remembrance (Dublin) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An IRA memorial, don't imagine PIRAs mentioned on it, though yer link won't lift?


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention auld charlie



Would love to have known what "auld Charlie" was actually thinking, realpolitik can be a real bastard.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Signposts never chime


No, they whistle


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Or a refill



Just had one, the cats didn't though


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2016)

"Ditch Corbyn or Lose Election"


Breaking, Observer will have a major article by Sadiq Khan in which he will say "Corbyn is a disastrous leader" and backs Smith.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> An IRA memorial, don't imagine PIRAs mentioned on it, though yer link won't lift?



It doesn't specifically mention anyone . It's a memorial to ALL those who were killed persuing Irish freedom by means of insurrection and insurgency. That would include PIRA as well as all the other manifestations of the IRA . Past and current . It's a ..politically embarassing..fact , whether you approve or not .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Would love to have known what "auld Charlie" was actually thinking, realpolitik can be a real bastard.



" as you're a British military intelligence operative my mum is your commander in chief . Well done getting your chaps to accept her glorious reign over you and surrender their guns to her commissioned officer representative, General de Chastelain  . Top notch job . Couldn't have asked for more  "

Something along those lines.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> It doesn't specifically mention anyone . It's a memorial to ALL those who were killed persuing Irish freedom by means of insurrection and insurgency. That would include PIRA as well as all the other manifestations of the IRA . Past and current . It's a ..politically embarassing..fact , whether you approve or not .


As your link to it won't open I can't really comment, but given how the newly  'independent' Irish republicans went at each other hammer n tong after independence, then I imagine any sentiments expressed on said memorial are rather 'open to interpretation'


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> As your link to it won't open I can't really comment, but given how the newly  'independent' Irish republicans went at each other hammer n tong after independence, then I imagine any sentiments expressed on said memorial are rather 'open to interpretation'



Basically JC is a terrorist supporting cunt, & Maam isn't, for doing exactly the same thing.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> " as you're a British military intelligence operative my mum is your commander in chief . Well done getting your chaps to accept her glorious reign over you and surrender their guns to her commissioned officer representative, General de Chastelain  . Top notch job . Couldn't have asked for more  "
> 
> Something along those lines.


Aye quite, but "I'm going to remember you had a hand in knocking off me uncle, make sure yer toast before I'm king, or I'll come looking"


----------



## J Ed (Aug 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Basically JC is a terrorist supporting cunt, & Maam isn't, for doing exactly the same thing.



Premature peacemongering


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> As your link to it won't open I can't really comment, but given how the newly  'independent' Irish republicans went at each other hammer n tong after independence, then I imagine any sentiments expressed on said memorial are rather 'open to interpretation'



It wasn't built until 1966 . We don't have full independence yet . Interpret that . Or imagine what you prefer. All the same to me.

But the memorial is what it is . A memorial to ALL who died in the cause of Irish freedom . In 1966 when it was built it was very much recognised by the southern state that full Irish freedom had not been achieved. no patriot is excluded from it. Very deliberately. There's no dates, no cut off points. Very deliberately .


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Basically JC is a terrorist supporting cunt, & Maam isn't, for doing exactly the same thing.


Aye, but the 'reconciliation gestures' only happened after the IRA surrendered, got to give them some crumbs, I wouldn't, but peace is peace.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> It wasn't built until 1966 . We don't have full independence yet . Interpret that . Or imagine what you prefer. All the same to me.
> 
> But the memorial is what it is . A memorial to ALL who died in the cause of Irish freedom . In 1966 when it was built it was very much recognised by the southern state that full Irish freedom had not been achieved. no patriot is excluded from it. Very deliberately. There's no dates, no cut off points. Very deliberately .



It wasn't built until 1966 
Nowt further to discuss


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye quite, but "I'm going to remember you had a hand in knocking off me uncle, make sure yer toast before I'm king, or I'll come looking"



" do you have an inconvenient wife ? Does she need a lift anywhere ?.....and I'm pretty sure if I took you round the corner, dropped my keks and stuck the royal arse out you'd profusely slobber all over it if asked "


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Nice of the writer to actually make a little draft up of a tory election ad. It helpful for my imagination, who so often fail.



The context of that being something like a minutes silence to remember those killed by in an SAS ambush on an IRA team that killed 8 IRA men plus 1 civilian under the shoot to kill policy, so they were basically assassinated rather than being arrested.

Also the statement comes from a quote in the Express, so isn't necessarily exactly what he said.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> It wasn't built until 1966
> Nowt further to discuss



Why ? And can you explain how you've suddenly become such a fucking expert on IRA memorials in the past half hour ? Where does your incisive insight derive from ? 

You've no idea what your talking about. In this instance I actually do .


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> " do you have an inconvenient wife ? Does she need a lift anywhere ?.....and I'm pretty sure if I took you round the corner, dropped my keks and stuck the royal arse out you'd profusely slobber all over it if asked "


I was wondering why you aren't on here as much as usual, the above explains it, pity, you were always worth a read.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2016)

Things I have learnt since joining the Labour Party:

1: 'Them' is far more popular than 'we'. 'They' need us, 'we' deserve power, 'they' don't understand 'we' do.

2: Those who have power, from councillors to local officials to MPs see no problems at all, all those who do are attacking them.

3: 'They' shouldn't be given a voice, because 'we' know what to do.

4: Polls are almighty, mostly because people view themselves as above those outside the party.

5: I can put up with an amazing amount of patronising when I need to.

6: The 'they' I see are really, really bad at dealing with people, which will be their arrogant downfall.

Still supporting Corbyn mind. The day he wins will be a happy one.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Why ? And can you explain how you've suddenly become such a fucking expert on IRA memorials in the past half hour ? Where does your incisive insight derive from ?
> 
> You've no idea what your talking about. In this instance I actually do .


Built in 66, does that offer a tiny insight?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2016)

Safe to say I'm at a low ebb in my party political experience.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Things I have learnt since joining the Labour Party:
> 
> 1: 'Them' is far more popular than 'we'. 'They' need us, 'we' deserve power, 'they' don't understand 'we' do.
> 
> ...



Corbyn and Brexit, times are a changin


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Safe to say I'm at a low ebb in my party political experience.


Aye, I'm seriously looking at joining the Greens, if I'm going to be politically pointless I'd rather be environmentally positive


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Safe to say I'm at a low ebb in my party political experience.


have you made the mistake of attending party meetings?

I don't think it matters which party you're in, the meetings always seem to make you come away feeling like that. I haven't been to a Green Party meeting in 7 months and I feel so much better for it.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2016)

free spirit said:


> have you made the mistake of attending party meetings?
> 
> I don't think it matters which party you're in, the meetings always seem to make you come away feeling like that. I haven't been to a Green Party meeting in 7 months and I feel so much better for it.



I've been to the meetings but in my experience people will seldom talk shite to your face, just online where they imagine they're anonymous. Not new to me either, been to Left stuff over the years, just never anything with this level of dripping disdain. Even if there's a sweary argument I'm used to thinking of people as comrades, these days I can see I'm the enemy to some.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Built in 66, does that offer a tiny insight?



No. Explain please .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> I was wondering why you aren't on here as much as usual, the above explains it, pity, you were always worth a read.



What ??


----------



## brogdale (Aug 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> "Ditch Corbyn or Lose Election"
> 
> 
> Breaking, Observer will have a major article by Sadiq Khan in which he will say "Corbyn is a disastrous leader" and backs Smith.





> _Explaining his backing for Smith, who is the former shadow work and pensions secretary, Khan says: “*On the big issues Owen and I have been on the same side of the argument, including opposing the Iraq war.* Owen led and – more importantly – won our fight against the Tories’ unfair cuts to tax credits and disability allowances, which would have hurt the most disadvantaged people in our society.”_


lol

None of which 'explains' why Khan nominated Corbyn a year ago.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I've been to the meetings but in my experience people will seldom talk shite to your face, just online where they imagine they're anonymous. Not new to me either, been to Left stuff over the years, just never anything with this level of dripping disdain. Even if there's a sweary argument I'm used to thinking of people as comrades, these days I can see I'm the enemy to some.


they don't like people upsetting their cosy clique that's used to running things and not having anyone question them too much.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I've been to the meetings but in my experience people will seldom talk shite to your face, just online where they imagine they're anonymous. Not new to me either, been to Left stuff over the years, just never anything with this level of dripping disdain. Even if there's a sweary argument I'm used to thinking of people as comrades, these days I can see I'm the enemy to some.



This is about neo liberalism. These people are neo liberals . You aren't, your a left wing person of some stripe . You are the enemy to these neo liberals  because you are ideologically opposed to what they are about. And vice versa. that they inhabit..and have successfully colonised..a political sphere which once had a vague, tangential socialistic bent to it is immaterial to the fact they are neo liberals .

That's all that's happening .

Unfortunately Corbyn, for all his good qualities, does suffer from a lack of expertise in both co ordination and communication . That's being exploited to the hilt by the neo liberals . However I'm confident they'll lose eventually. People are sick of them , to the back teeth. And Corbyns failings can be easily addressed by a group of people who know how to do shit like that . Not a massive issue at this point I reckon .


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> ​lol
> 
> None of which 'explains' why Khan nominated Corbyn a year ago.



That is proper dirty bullshitting about Owen's anti war stance. Filthly little toerag.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is proper dirty bullshitting about Owen's anti war stance. Filthly little toerag.



It puts his own anti war stance and principles under a fairly dark cloud as well . If he's that fucking cynical on the issue .


----------



## brogdale (Aug 20, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is proper dirty bullshitting about Owen's anti war stance. Filthly little toerag.


And his own...


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> This is about neo liberalism. These people are neo liberals . You aren't, your a left wing person of some stripe . You are the enemy to these neo liberals  because you are ideologically opposed to what they are about. And vice versa. that they inhabit..and have successfully colonised..a political sphere which once had a vague, tangential socialistic bent to it is immaterial to the fact they are neo liberals .
> 
> That's all that's happening .
> 
> Unfortunately Corbyn, for all his good qualities, does suffer from a lack of expertise in both co ordination and communication . That's being exploited to the hilt by the neo liberals . However I'm confident they'll lose eventually. People are sick of them , to the back teeth. And Corbyns failings can be easily addressed by a group of people who know how to do shit like that . Not a massive issue at this point I reckon .



Aye, and I'd love to agree with you ( there's always a first) but his endorsement of terrorist groups ( freedom fighters if you like) is going to be a major handicap, his anti nuclear weapons  stance can be 'massaged' and his support for the Palestinians can be addressed, but his enthusiasm for MCG and JA is going to take a lot of work here on the "home front"
Personally, I hope he can manage it as I support his main policies.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 20, 2016)

Jez has a history of supporting groups without critisism. RCG like. I'll stick up for him anyway, I guess that is me being a bit like him. The man has an understated mettle. That is worth standing up for before any differences.

I never liked the new mayor of London. Shame on him.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Jez has a history of supporting groups without critisism. RCG like. I'll stick up for him anyway, I guess that is me being a bit like him. The man has an understated mettle. That is worth standing up for before any differences.
> 
> I never liked the new mayor of London. Shame on him.



He has shown that he is happy with proper debate within the party too; some things might change, but he has a long history of not selling out for careerism.

I know that won't be enough for some people here, it is good enough for me for now. nothing else has come close to making a real difference for a very long time.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, and I'd love to agree with you ( there's always a first) but his endorsement of terrorist groups ( freedom fighters if you like) is going to be a major handicap, his anti nuclear weapons  stance can be 'massaged' and his support for the Palestinians can be addressed, but his enthusiasm for MCG and JA is going to take a lot of work here on the "home front"
> Personally, I hope he can manage it as I support his main policies.


it's an odd line of attack to take these days when a former IRA commander has been the deputy first minister in NI for the last decade.

I'm not sure it will turn out the way those making that attack on him expect it to. The other take on it being that Corbyn was on the right side of history a decade before the rest of the party and government caught up and ended the troubles by doing a deal with the IRA that released political prisoners and put their political wing into government.


----------



## coley (Aug 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> He has shown that he is happy with proper debate within the party too; some things might change, but he has a long history of not selling out for careerism.
> 
> I know that won't be enough for some people here, it is good enough for me for now. nothing else has come close to making a real difference for a very long time.



I'm bothered by his support for the PIRA in years gone by, but they were effectively neutered by the GFA, it's his present policies which interest me, though he will have to introduce a more coherent defence policy than the total absence of one which he is guilty of at the moment


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, and I'd love to agree with you ( there's always a first) but his endorsement of terrorist groups ( freedom fighters if you like) is going to be a major handicap, his anti nuclear weapons  stance can be 'massaged' and his support for the Palestinians can be addressed, but his enthusiasm for MCG and JA is going to take a lot of work here on the "home front"
> Personally, I hope he can manage it as I support his main policies.


Absolute cobbers, no one is going to be influenced by the IRA stuff, it simply isn't on most people's register. SF has been part of the NI gov for 20 years and McGuinness now a senior statesmen. The only people who are going to get upset about JC past on this score are loons like those in the blog linked to, which were never going to vote for him anyway.

If any of the "friendly to terrorists" claims are going to be problematic it's the Hamas and Hezbollah stuff.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, I'm seriously looking at joining the Greens, if I'm going to be politically pointless I'd rather be environmentally positive


I studied electrical engineering. I'll tell you why the greens are wrong if you pm me (about energy and recycling; others will point out other issues; pissing in the wind rather than doing something serious to make things better doesn't suit me).


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

free spirit said:


> it's an odd line of attack to take these days when a former IRA commander has been the deputy first minister in NI for the last decade.
> 
> I'm not sure it will turn out the way those making that attack on him expect it to. The other take on it being that Corbyn was on the right side of history a decade before the rest of the party and government caught up and ended the troubles by doing a deal with the IRA that released political prisoners and put their political wing into government.



Not really, many of us swallowed Shyte in order to see peace and security for the majority of those in NI, 
Allowing a few murderers their 'freedom'   (who will be under constant supervision, and encouragement to grass up their former 'comrades' ) is, when all is said and done, a small price to pay in order to let NI resume it's place in the UK.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I studied electrical engineering. I'll tell you why the greens are wrong if you pm me (about energy and recycling; others will point out other issues; pissing in the wind rather than doing something serious to make things better doesn't suit me).



I studied electrical engineering. I'll tell you why recycling and renewable energy are good ideas if you pm me


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2016)

Those that are wobbling, I'd say dont expect to create change by voting alone. It you wish to destroy the cancer that is Thatcher's 'greatest acheivement' expect a war. Dig in. It's going to get a lot bloodier.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

The masses are listening to the voice of the fens.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I studied electrical engineering. I'll tell you why recycling and renewable energy are good ideas if you pm me


I will! Too late now though. Got nothing against either by the way, but not council style recycling, and wind and solar aren't enough. Serious about a personal chat though. Don't want to derail this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

Tell them, tell them!


----------



## YouSir (Aug 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Those that are wobbling, I'd say dont expect to create change by voting alone. It you wish to destroy the cancer that is Thatcher's 'greatest acheivement' expect a war. Dig in. It's going to get a lot bloodier.



Don't think anyone's wobbling (much), just the effects of effects of a long campaign that's getting longer. Frayed nerves, as you say - things will get a lot bloodier from a local level up as people snap and arguably more important decisions are made.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Don't think anyone's wobbling (much), just the effects of effects of a long campaign that's getting longer. Frayed nerves, as you say - things will get a lot bloodier from a local level up as people snap and arguably more important decisions are made.


I think the point is it won't finish at the conference. We will get more frayed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The masses are listening to the voice of the fens.



More Dennis of Grunty Fen.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Tell them, tell them!



Have I missed something?


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolute cobbers, no one is going to be influenced by the IRA stuff, it simply isn't on most people's register. SF has been part of the NI gov for 20 years and McGuinness now a senior statesmen. The only people who are going to get upset about JC past on this score are loons like those in the blog linked to, which were never going to vote for him anyway.
> 
> If any of the "friendly to terrorists" claims are going to be problematic it's the Hamas and Hezbollah stuff.



Ok, before I reply, what's your age group? Coz I can tell you,  certain age groups,  ( who are still allowed the vote)  (despite the remainders hostility) certainly  remembers "the troubles" 
And yet I can forgive Corbyn his mistakes, because the NI situation is largely settled, his domestic policies will garner him huge support but his defence policies will scupper him
Idiotic in a real sense,  as the Tories "defence policies" can't even guarantee sufficient forces to defend the south coast, much less the capability to send an expeditionary force to support NATO in the event of Russia invading a newly acquired NATO statelet


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 21, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Have I missed something?



More than a decade of beef.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> More than a decade of beef.



Good.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Ok, before I reply, what's your age group? Coz I can tell you,  certain age groups,  ( who are still allowed the vote)  (despite the remainders hostility) certainly  remembers "the troubles"


Sure but that doesn't make them an issue on which people will shift their vote. If you think NI is a live issue to the majority of England and Wales you're deluded, it's not. And for those that it is an issue for they were never going to vote for Corbyn in a million years anyway. 

(I'm in my mid-30s for reference)


----------



## two sheds (Aug 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> (I'm in my mid-30s for reference)



 well what can you expect?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> what's your age group? Coz I can tell you, certain age groups, ( who are still allowed the vote) (despite the remainders hostility) certainly remembers "the troubles"


I grew up in the last days of that war. Both parents soldiers. Its yesterdays war and yes the lid was put on a pot that never truly stopped boiling but the uncritical condemnation of the tactics used by BOTH sides seems to land one way whereas things like the pitchforkmurders get
nary a mention. It's part of a blanket common narrative that views ANY non state armed political groups as mindless thugs and terror wrists. We let loyalist torture gangs pull peoples fucking teeth out before they were beaten to death. They knew, 14nth int. knew. They were fucking handling them. It was a playground for agencies honing counter insurgency skills. The fucking scum of it all, makes me want to weep. What waste and war for the games?


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Sure but that doesn't make them an issue on which people will shift their vote. If you think NI is a live issue to the majority of England and Wales you're deluded, it's not. And for those that it is an issue for they were never going to vote for Corbyn in a million years anyway.
> 
> (I'm in my mid-30s for reference)



Agreed, 'the troubles'  isn't a live 'issue' these days, but the references that the media will make to Corbyns support for 'terrorists' won't make a distinction between the burnt out, defeated PIRA and the modern day Islamic groups, will it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Agreed, 'the troubles'  isn't a live 'issue' these days, but the references that the media will make to Corbyns support for 'terrorists' won't make a distinction between the burnt out, defeated PIRA and the modern day Islamic groups, will it?


But that's not what you said, you specifically pointed to NI as an issue which would cost Labour votes. The Hamas/Hezbollah might be an issue but the PIRA stuff isn't going to be.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I grew up in the last days of that war. Both parents soldiers. Its yesterdays war and yes the lid was put on a pot that never truly stopped boiling but the uncritical condemnation of the tactics used by BOTH sides seems to land one way whereas things like the pitchforkmurders get
> nary a mention. It's part of a blanket common narrative that views ANY non state armed political groups as mindless thugs and terror wrists. We let loyalist torture gangs pull peoples fucking teeth out before they were beaten to death. They knew, 14nth int. knew. They were fucking handling them. It was a playground for agencies honing counter insurgency skills. The fucking scum of it all, makes me want to weep. What waste and war for the games?



Aye, I wept and still do on occasion, but what me sons viewed in other parts of the world, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, makes my experiences in NI look like a walk in the park.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> But that's not what you said, you specifically pointed to NI as an issue which would cost Labour votes. The Hamas/Hezbollah might be an issue but the PIRA stuff isn't going to be.


Corbyns  support for terrorist leaders during the troubles in NI, 
Despite the fact they may be ' rehabilitated members of the political community' some may remember them as murdering  terrorists, could be a bit of a speed bump for for those of us wanting to support Corbyn for his policies yet remembering 'his history'


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> terrorist leaders


they were as much affiliated to their armed wings as the british deep state was affiliated to the loyalist gangs. No honour was earned here, if there ever was such a thing as a clean conflict outside of greek epics. Warrenpoint is remembered as a great tragedy as is bloody sunday. Who won? Who really won? Who did terror while wearing the face of legitimacy because 'we are the Official Army and everyone else is a crim'? Fucking idiocy. All that blood for nothing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Despite the fact they may be ' rehabilitated members of the political community' some may remember them as murdering  terrorists,'


The people remembering them as that would never have voted for Labour under Corbyn anyway


----------



## Sue (Aug 21, 2016)

brogdale said:


> ​lol
> 
> None of which 'explains' why Khan nominated Corbyn a year ago.


Cynical people might think it had something to do with the Mayoral election...


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Aye, and I'd love to agree with you ( there's always a first) but his endorsement of terrorist groups ( freedom fighters if you like) is going to be a major handicap, his anti nuclear weapons  stance can be 'massaged' and his support for the Palestinians can be addressed, but his enthusiasm for MCG and JA is going to take a lot of work here on the "home front"
> Personally, I hope he can manage it as I support his main policies.



Dude I don't care. I went out to work yesterday at ten am and I still haven't made it ho e . Been pinting like fuck ever since . I'm about 30 yards from my front door but stilll can't get there . Currently surrounded by 4 birds from Finland , very impressed that I know " Suomi " and " Karelia " . macgregor fight is on. Pub is mental. Full of knackers. And I'm pisssed . For2 days now

Omg


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

Fuck me it's " traveller " central here . Mcgegor fight.

Fuckin hell. 2 days drinking straight .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

Punch him square in the jaw...and kick his balls in

Ffs

Sort it out you pikey fecker


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

Omg I'm so pissed at this moment. And the gypsies are going mental


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

Aaaaaargh....mental .

With gypsies


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2016)

Time for bed, I think.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

mcgeregor wins.....bloodbath. Theresa bloodbath about to start in the pub tool. It's mental here..seriously. Going to get worse after the fight.

Seriously . Feckin gypsies. Pubs mental.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 21, 2016)

Aaaarrghhh


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> very impressed that I know " Suomi " and " Karelia "



They're just really into philatelists


----------



## Libertad (Aug 21, 2016)

Philately will get you nowhere.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2016)

**warning** links to Daily Mail online!

This could/should(?) go in a number of threads, but here'll do I suppose. Hodges has been tasked with articulating the Blairite ditching of Smith. A very amusing piece of 'journalism' all round...I think we could all find our own favourite Hodgephrase in there...here's mine (I think)...



> _*Amazingly, this ‘Dump Corbyn, Get Corbyn’ line isn’t resonating with the Corbynite true believers. For the simple reason that while many of them are stark-staring mad, they aren’t stupid.*_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Philately will get you nowhere.


That's a Gibbon


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Not really, many of us swallowed Shyte in order to see peace and security for the majority of those in NI,
> Allowing a few murderers their 'freedom'   (who will be under constant supervision, and encouragement to grass up their former 'comrades' ) is, when all is said and done, a small price to pay in order to let NI resume it's place in the UK.


FYI NI never left the UK


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The people remembering them as that would never have voted for Labour under Corbyn anyway


I would, bloke made some bad calls but I like most of his domestic polices.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they were as much affiliated to their armed wings as the british deep state was affiliated to the loyalist gangs. No honour was earned here, if there ever was such a thing as a clean conflict outside of greek epics. Warrenpoint is remembered as a great tragedy as is bloody sunday. Who won? Who really won? Who did terror while wearing the face of legitimacy because 'we are the Official Army and everyone else is a crim'? Fucking idiocy. All that blood for nothing.


Bout sums it up.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Agreed, 'the troubles'  isn't a live 'issue' these days, but the references that the media will make to Corbyns support for 'terrorists' won't make a distinction between the burnt out, defeated PIRA and the modern day Islamic groups, will it?


that's an odd take on the good friday agreement. The PIRA were defeated yet ended up with their representatives in a power sharing agreement with a large degree of devolved powers, and their prisoners released. Odd form of defeat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they were as much affiliated to their armed wings as the british deep state was affiliated to the loyalist gangs. No honour was earned here, if there ever was such a thing as a clean conflict outside of greek epics. Warrenpoint is remembered as a great tragedy as is bloody sunday. Who won? Who really won? Who did terror while wearing the face of legitimacy because 'we are the Official Army and everyone else is a crim'? Fucking idiocy. All that blood for nothing.


It wasn't the British deep state affiliated to loyalist murder gangs, it was the British state directing loyalist murder gangs with cues taken on occasion from politicians' statements in the Commons. Nothing deep about it.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

S


free spirit said:


> that's an odd take on the good friday agreement. The PIRA were defeated yet ended up with their representatives in a power sharing agreement with a large degree of devolved powers, and their prisoners released. Odd form of defeat.


Scotland got the same deal, without thirty years of blood and suffering.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 21, 2016)

free spirit said:


> that's an odd take on the good friday agreement. The PIRA were defeated yet ended up with their representatives in a power sharing agreement with a large degree of devolved powers, and their prisoners released. Odd form of defeat.


It was a face-saving "defeat" for the benefit of those for whom the dogma of "not negotiating with terrorists" was more important than achieving peace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> S
> 
> Scotland got the same deal, without thirty years of blood and suffering.


No they didn't


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No they didn't


Near enough as not worth arguing about, but it's drifting away from the thread, Corbyns big weakness is defence and his sometimes dodgy associations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

coley said:


> Near enough as not worth arguing about, but it's drifting away from the thread, Corbyns big weakness is defence and his sometimes dodgy associations.


Brave sir robin


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Aug 21, 2016)

Peace in Ireland is a temporary situation, which will end when republican militants decide the international climate is more sympathetic to their cause. We're not there yet, but with Britain leaving the EU and a neo-Lindburgh/Caughlin about to take power in the U.S., it's closer than you think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> Peace in Ireland is a temporary situation, which will end when republican militants decide the international climate is more sympathetic to their cause. We're not there yet, but with Britain leaving the EU and a neo-Lindburgh/Caughlin about to take power in the U.S., it's closer than you think.


Didn't know hrc a neo-lindburgh/caughlin


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2016)

brogdale said:


> ​lol
> 
> None of which 'explains' why Khan nominated Corbyn a year ago.



Absolute bullshit about Smith having carried the main load regarding tax credits and disability benefits. All the gawp-mouthed fuckpig did was take credit for something that was already happening.

Never forget that Smith abstained on the Welfare Reform Act. Someone who's hot to trot on helping those who need social security, wouldn't have abstained, they'd have proudly broken the whip. Smith didn't, the careerist cuntbag.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The masses are listening to the voice of the fens.



" 'ello, moi bootiful, how does yer loike moi webbed handies?"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 21, 2016)




----------



## teqniq (Aug 21, 2016)

Yes, well that didn't last long did it?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 21, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


I do like his hair though.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 21, 2016)

brogdale said:


> **warning** links to Daily Mail online!
> 
> This could/should(?) go in a number of threads, but here'll do I suppose. Hodges has been tasked with articulating the Blairite ditching of Smith. A very amusing piece of 'journalism' all round...I think we could all find our own favourite Hodgephrase in there...here's mine (I think)...
> 
> ​


Random thought of the day: Smith's leadership tactic is an inversion of strategy for the party. For the leadership he's cynically steering leftwards, assuming all the Blairites and assorted right wingers in the party will still vote for him. For the general election he'll offer warmed up Blairism to the middle classes, hoping he'll still get enough working class voters to sneak a victory. Neither of these strategies will work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Random thought of the day: Smith's leadership tactic is an inversion of strategy for the party. For the leadership he's cynically steering leftwards, assuming all the Blairites and assorted right wingers in the party will still vote for him. For the general election he'll offer warmed up Blairism to the middle classes, hoping he'll still get enough working class voters to sneak a victory. Neither of these strategies will work.


the base his sort took for granted have had a fucking gutful. There's all that is to it imo. The liberal middle classes will vote for financial stability and be fucking thick enough to think tories are safe hands. Yeah. Safe enough if you can pay for what has been cut in terms of public services. Fuck them anyway, more of us than they here.


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the base his sort took for granted have had a fucking gutful. There's all that is to it imo. The liberal middle classes will vote for financial stability and be fucking thick enough to think tories are safe hands. Yeah. Safe enough if you can pay for what has been cut in terms of public services. Fuck them anyway, more of us than they here.


who should the liberal middle classes vote for?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> who should the liberal middle classes vote for?


I don't believe in voting very strongly so they must go with their conscience, pauce as it may be


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

The middle classes are still wage slaves.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

I feel for them


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't believe in voting very strongly so they must go with their conscience, pauce as it may be


you seemed to be saying they'd be thick for voting Tory, but if that's in line with their interests it's not really stupid. It's pretty mad to see Labour as safe hands too. Look what they've done for us.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I feel for them


So do you have to work with your hands and not to have done A levels to be working class?

A lot of those who got themselves in debt through university and found out there weren't the promised decent jobs for them consider themselves middle class; in the US it seems everyone is branded middle class unless you have no job.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> you seemed to be saying they'd be thick for voting Tory, but if that's in line with their interests it's not really stupid. It's pretty mad to see Labour as safe hands too. Look what they've done for us.


in the intrests of old money. New money can sink or swim.


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> in the intrests of old money. New money can sink or swim.


Tories have got a wider base than old money and they have that base for good reasons - it's not stupidity.
otherwise it ends up with liberal moaning, why do these thickos vote against their interests!?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> So do you have to work with your hands and not to have done A levels to be working class?
> 
> A lot of those who got themselves in debt through university and found out there weren't the promised decent jobs for them consider themselves middle class; in the US it seems everyone is branded middle class unless you have no job.


working class is a dirty word in US politics. Blue collar is the phrase but I can't recall the last time I saw it. I mean no rudeness here but class definitions are very obvios from the lower rung. If you have to ask...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> Tories have got a wider base than old money and they have that base for good reasons - it's not stupidity.
> otherwise it ends up with liberal moaning, why do these thickos vote against their interests!?



oh the working class tory vote has never been about thick proles at all, its chiefly the percieved economic interests. Plus a deal of social and moral stuff as well. I reserve the right to call them prats as I have to live with them year on end. My MP is in the sally army ffs

its that percived notion of economic competence that persuades some of the time imo. some is tribal of course, vote as yer nan did. Floaters will be swayed by the financial bullshit.

e2a remember gradients as well


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> working class is a dirty word in US politics. Blue collar is the phrase but I can't recall the last time I saw it. I mean no rudeness here but class definitions are very obvios from the lower rung. If you have to ask...


It's why I phrased it as I did before, wage slaves. I don't want to turn this into one of those silly conversations about personal situations, silly american tried that on me last weekend elsewhere. 

Burn-out is a very real thing in many 'good' jobs where they still want to suck you dry. The money you get for it isn't always better than in manual jobs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> It's why I phrased it as I did before, wage slaves. I don't want to turn this into one of those silly conversations about personal situations, silly american tried that on me last weekend elsewhere.
> 
> Burn-out is a very real thing in many 'good' jobs where they still want to suck you dry. The money you get for it isn't always better than in manual jobs.


'by hand and by brain'
ownership of the means is the goal. Those doing well have consistently thwarted that or ignored people who struggled to secure the right to a fair days pay for a fair days work. Consitently. Its not new.

e2a not everyone obvs. Collectively


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh the working class tory vote has never been about thick proles at all, its chiefly the percieved economic interests. Plus a deal of social and moral stuff as well. I reserve the right to call them prats as I have to live with them year on end. My MP is in the sally army ffs
> 
> its that percived notion of economic competence that persuades some of the time imo. some is tribal of course, vote as yer nan did. Floaters will be swayed by the financial bullshit.


hang on, are we talking about the liberal middle classes or the working class? 
I'm getting a bit lost but my argument is really that if it's a straight choice between Tories and Labour over who's the 'safe pair of hands' on the economy, well, it's easy to see why the Tories might pick up points there. I don't think it's stupidity.

Like you I can't see much reason to vote for any of them as I hate Labour just about as much as the Tories, but there you go.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I never liked the new mayor of London. Shame on him.



And yet he's completely right, if Corbyn is still leader by 2020 then we'll have the tories until 2025 at least.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

Wasn't somebody talking about Gramski a bit ago? Not that I read him in the original.


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's completely right, if Corbyn is still leader by 2020 then we'll have the tories until 2025 at least.


whereas Owen 'get ISIS round the table' Smith will have the Tories on the ropes...?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> whereas Owen 'get ISIS round the table' Smith will have the Tories on the ropes...?


I am inclined to agree with the Paul Mason piece 'The sound of Blairite silence' that killer b posted a link to. Cometh the hour Smith will turn out to be the fall guy.


----------



## inva (Aug 21, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I am inclined to agree with the Paul Mason piece 'The sound of Blairite silence' that killer b posted a link to. Cometh the hour Smith will turn out to be the fall guy.


you mean that they'd put forward yet another challenger after this? but who? they couldn't come up with an effective candidate to stand against him when Corbyn first became leader, and the pool of possible contenders isn't looking any better now as far as I can see. They've tried from the right and failed, they're failing from the left now. It's a strange strategy if they are trying that


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)




----------



## two sheds (Aug 21, 2016)

Middle classes are being squeezed too - having to pay for things that used to be free. Everyone wants good housing, job, healthcare, education for their kids. 

Can't see why Corbyn can't deliver for both working and middle classes.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> you mean that they'd put forward yet another challenger after this? but who? they couldn't come up with an effective candidate to stand against him when Corbyn first became leader, and the pool of possible contenders isn't looking any better now as far as I can see. They've tried from the right and failed, they're failing from the left now. It's a strange strategy if they are trying that


Have a read of the piece. Form your own opinion, to me it looks to be fairly plausible.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

The idea isn't that they put up another challanger but another party.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The idea isn't that they put up another challanger but another party.


With a big paternity/maternity fight for the assets and who is the real inheritor to the history.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

Maybe that is the point of Owen. Not to win, but to make a better claim (rubbish as it is in fact, but it plays better in the media).


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2016)

I don't think it's that coordinated.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

Which is why the mason peice is so flawed - it runs together all sorts of people into one group with one aim. The actual 'blairites'  lost with ed milibands victory and were left in external media positions alone. I'm sure mason wrote about exactly this in 2010. The more i think about that piece the worse it is. Filling incompetent silence with coherent omnipotent malevolence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think it's that coordinated.


you think desperation/short termism?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Aug 21, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's completely right, if Corbyn is still leader by 2020 then we'll have the tories until 2025 at least.



Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.


----------



## jakethesnake (Aug 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.


Can you point to something that Corbyn has said or done that shows him to be egotistical please.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.


Labour under JC are polling not far behind the Tories, even when there are so many fellow members (cock joke too) trying to pull the party apart. 

People want something better than bureaucrats and neocons.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Labour under JC are polling not far behind the Tories, even when there are so many fellow members (cock joke too) trying to pull the party apart.
> 
> People want something better than bureaucrats and neocons.


They're polling miles behind the tories. They would be under any leader. Because they're rubbish.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 21, 2016)

Two stories in the Indie.

Respect has deregistered: Why the end of Respect could spark a new crisis for Jeremy Corbyn

Khan teeing up for the leadership in 2020? How Sadiq Khan positioned himself as future Labour leader


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.


You, you think with another labour leader that the political front the Tories do for capital, would be blunted. Capital would stop? This naivety is what has got the labour party in the trouble it is.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.



so - pray tell -  under what leader and with which policies would labour do better then they are with Corbyn?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 21, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Two stories in the Indie.
> 
> Respect has deregistered: Why the end of Respect could spark a new crisis for Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> Khan teeing up for the leadership in 2020? How Sadiq Khan positioned himself as future Labour leader



The respect article is dismal specaulative puff. Is there any talk of galloway being readmitted? i cant see any clamour for that to happen.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you think desperation/short termism?


I don't think Smith is having his strings pulled by the Blairites. He's just an ambitious egotist who's been punting himself as the acceptable face of the left since last summer, and decided to have a go once the coup got under way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


He came along to a regional union meeting I was at and I thought he was a wanker


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yup. A vote for Corbyn is effectively voting for 10 more years of the Tories. Bonkers how anyone in their right mind cannot see that. I'm sure Theresa is sitting in her chalet in the Alps basking in this. She knows she can get away with blue murder and as long as that egotistical fuck Jez and his weird sidekick are still there she's bulletproof.



What's "bonkers" is the way various people are trotting out the idea that keeping Corbyn as leader now means he will still be leader at the next GE, and the unexamined assertion that the LP under his leadership then would automatically lose, whereas under a different leader* they will immediately turn things around and win. 

There may be arguments to be made for this point of view, but you, Andrew Hertford and the various others aren't actually making them, you're just repeating the assertion like some article of holy dogma and it's convincing no one.

*Smith? - I can't see it myself but try to persuade us; someone else? suggest who and attempt to explain how they will so much more successful than you think Corbyn will be


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Which is why the mason peice is so flawed - it runs together all sorts of people into one group with one aim. The actual 'blairites'  lost with ed milibands victory and were left in external media positions alone. I'm sure mason wrote about exactly this in 2010. The more i think about that piece the worse it is. Filling incompetent silence with coherent omnipotent malevolence.



Is that his 'The Sound of Blairite Silence' from a few days ago?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Is that his 'The Sound of Blairite Silence' from a few days ago?


Yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Maybe that is the point of Owen. Not to win, but to make a better claim (rubbish as it is in fact, but it plays better in the media).



"Owen"? Mate of yours, is he?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Two stories in the Indie.
> 
> Respect has deregistered: Why the end of Respect could spark a new crisis for Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> Khan teeing up for the leadership in 2020? How Sadiq Khan positioned himself as future Labour leader



Ah, _The Indie_ showing its usual accomplished grasp of modern party politics.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Random thought of the day: Smith's leadership tactic is an inversion of strategy for the party. For the leadership he's cynically steering leftwards, assuming all the Blairites and assorted right wingers in the party will still vote for him. For the general election he'll offer warmed up Blairism to the middle classes, hoping he'll still get enough working class voters to sneak a victory. Neither of these strategies will work.


He won't; he won't win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

it is funny watching them wrestle with that fact. Well the nato phonetic alphabet and british love of bad words has this guidance: foxtrot oscar


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

I 


ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, _The Indie_ showing its usual accomplished grasp of modern party politics.


I don't think Respect got much, and the BB thing, that it was hard to avoid, killed it forever. Fabulous George?


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

Sadly I see now domesticated ex swap shoppers thinking Sadiq is lovely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I
> 
> I don't think Respect got much, and the BB thing, that it was hard to avoid, killed it forever. Fabulous George?


took a labour safe seat in bradford west 2012. Long after his ill judged BB outing. Admittedly their were circumstances that made it unusual but it still happened. With the bearded rape apologist still in charge


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I
> 
> I don't think Respect got much, and the BB thing, that it was hard to avoid, killed it forever. Fabulous George?


Fabulous George Formby.
Gorgeous George Galloway.
You don't know your Georges, do you.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Fabulous George Formby.
> Gorgeous George Galloway.
> You don't know your Georges, do you.


I think I have seen him called such, but I offer you this in return. Because you are probably right about the names in general usage.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I do like his hair though.



I'd like it better hanging up outside an apaches wigwam!


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

inva said:


> who should the liberal middle classes vote for?


The ones who won't dump them in the Shyte post the next election.


----------



## coley (Aug 21, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's completely right, if Corbyn is still leader by 2020 then we'll have the tories until 2025 at least.


Aye? And if we have a Blairite labour Govt? The difference atween them and the Tories would be about the same dimensions as a Rizzlas tab paper! 
Far better to grit our teeth and endure until we have a proper democratic socialist alternative!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's completely right, if Corbyn is still leader by 2020 then we'll have the tories until 2025 at least.


Yes. Far better to have leadership election after leadership election to show how the party respects democracy.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 22, 2016)

Scottish Labour leader backs Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn

He's fucked now. If there's anyone who knows about winning elections it's the leader of Scottish Labour.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

I wonder who's on the grid for tomorrow?


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Scottish Labour leader backs Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> He's fucked now. If there's anyone who knows about winning elections it's the leader of Scottish Labour.



Interesting (or maybe not) that she too is simply repeating the "anyone but Corbyn" believers' mantra


> “I don’t think Jeremy [Corbyn] can unite our party and lead us into government. He cannot appeal to a broad enough section of voters to win an election,” she wrote. “I believe Owen can.”


And if Kezia says she believes it, then obviously we all will too


----------



## newbie (Aug 22, 2016)

If May sticks with the existing timetable, when the Boundary Commission reports in 2018 all the cards will be thrown up in the air and every MP will have to fight for selection for a 2020 GE. All the parties will have 12-18 months to form new constituency organisations out of the existing arrangements, with horsetrading for every position, from chair to ppc. Until it becomes clear where the pinch points will be, every sitting MP has to prepare to fight their neighbours (and allcomers?) for a seat. If/when that happens any MP who isn't well supported will be toast, and they know it. 

So the anti Corbyn lot are caught: split now, and spend the next couple of years building a whole new shortterm constituency party and apparatus, as well as collectively trying to assemble national brand, image and presentation (and policies, if they matter).  Or don't and... what?  With continuing strong opposition in most local, now pro-Corbyn, constituency parties they face a long wait for inevitable career change.

Once the silly season is over, and the party conference has clarified the new balance of forces, many of them will see a pressing need to get their ducks in a row.  Mass reconciliation before xmas?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Scottish Labour leader backs Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> He's fucked now. If there's anyone who knows about winning elections it's the leader of Scottish Labour.


All we need now is for Jim Murphy (has anyone seen him since he lost?) to come out for Owen Smith.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

newbie said:


> So the anti Corbyn lot are caught: split now, and spend the next couple of years building a whole new shortterm constituency party and apparatus, as well as collectively trying to assemble national brand, image and presentation (and policies, if they matter).  Or don't and... what?  With continuing strong opposition in most local, now pro-Corbyn, constituency parties they face a long wait for inevitable career change.
> 
> Once the silly season is over, and the party conference has clarified the new balance of forces, many of them will see a pressing need to get their ducks in a row.  Mass reconciliation before xmas?



Or make a legal grab for the party name and assets.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

Suppose the strategy is now to get the votes from long-time members over 50% for Smith to support the legal grab - the case will look pretty thin without at least that.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Or make a legal grab for the party name and assets.


Would be proper pop-corn time.


----------



## inva (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Would be proper pop-corn time.


I dunno, I can think of more entertaining things than Labour party wrangling tbf


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

This silence is getting rather loud isn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Momentum's latest guide to deselection.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> Suppose the strategy is now to get the votes from long-time members over 50% for Smith to support the legal grab - the case will look pretty thin without at least that.


That would mean they win the election surely?


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That would mean they win the election surely?


no, there's still a hundred thousand or so registered supporters. I guess by 'long time members' I meant those who've been members since before last summer too, if the results can be broken down to that level (you can be sure they'll try to either way...)


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Or make a legal grab for the party name and assets.



Or this? First I've heard of it, from LabourList,



> There are signs, however, that centrists are planning for life beyond this summer, however, with rumours increasing they will sign up more MPs to the Co-operative banner and set up a large group to provide an alternative Opposition. There are 25 Labour/Co-op MPs currently but this could soar to more than 100 if Corbyn triumphs again. An indication, perhaps, of the belief that a formal split would help nobody but the Conservatives.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> no, there's still a hundred thousand or so registered supporters. I guess by 'long time members' I meant those who've been members since before last summer too, if the results can be broken down to that level (you can be sure they'll try to either way...)


Ok. My feeling is there is no strategy now and hence no split. There's plenty of stuff being thrown on the table as possible moves but there's no force which could make the moves possible. And the least likely is a court challenge.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

I suppose everyone is just trying to fill in the blanks. Basically it's _actually _just Blanks?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

..


----------



## newbie (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Or make a legal grab for the party name and assets.


so their attempts at building a new party apparatus takes place while everyone is saying "well it depends what the bourgeois courts decide..." and their carefully crafted resonance with the public erodes ever faster?  'the Co-operative banner' mentioned above is a step towards reconciliation- it gives them a fighting chance to politik locally prior to 2018.  I think that's the personal priority for every one of them (except those who've already decided to retire) and all their outmaneuvering will be based on the boundary changes.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

If they could get half the MPs to split off they could (I think) become the official Opposition party, and get funding instead of the Corbyn faction as such. Then I could quite see a legal challenge for name and assets. Not sure of the practicalities, though, is it the NEC that holds the rights to them?

In which case could we expect at the next NEC meeting when everyone else has gone home and the doors have been locked for the refuseniks to jump out of hiding from a cupboard to pass one final unannounced vote " ...and the NEC agrees to turn over name and assets to ....".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If they could get half the MPs to split off they could (I think) become the official Opposition party, and get funding instead of the Corbyn faction as such. Then I could quite see a legal challenge for name and assets. Not sure of the practicalities, though, is it the NEC that holds the rights to them?
> 
> In which case could we expect at the next NEC meeting when everyone else has gone home and the doors have been locked for the refuseniks to jump out of hiding from a cupboard to pass one final unannounced vote " ...and the NEC agrees to turn over name and assets to ....".


mcdonnel refuses to leave the room, they won't pull that trick again, not on his watch. He's bought a pack up and everything


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

cloroform


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

newbie said:


> If May sticks with the existing timetable, when the Boundary Commission reports in 2018 all the cards will be thrown up in the air and every MP will have to fight for selection for a 2020 GE. All the parties will have 12-18 months to form new constituency organisations out of the existing arrangements, with horsetrading for every position, from chair to ppc. Until it becomes clear where the pinch points will be, every sitting MP has to prepare to fight their neighbours (and allcomers?) for a seat. If/when that happens any MP who isn't well supported will be toast, and they know it.
> 
> So the anti Corbyn lot are caught: split now, and spend the next couple of years building a whole new shortterm constituency party and apparatus, as well as collectively trying to assemble national brand, image and presentation (and policies, if they matter).  Or don't and... what?  With continuing strong opposition in most local, now pro-Corbyn, constituency parties they face a long wait for inevitable career change.
> 
> Once the silly season is over, and the party conference has clarified the new balance of forces, many of them will see a pressing need to get their ducks in a row.  Mass reconciliation before xmas?


In terms of reselections driven by a boundary review I have a feeling that only sitting MPs would be shortlisted (except for specific circumstances - sitting MP about to retire, the review creates an _extra_ seat etc.). Haven't looked it up and I'd imagine the NEC could decide to open it up anyway. However that's my memory from one I was involved in a long time ago (maybe for the 83 election?).  Of course the other point about the review is that it makes it even less likely that Labour will win in 2020, lead by Corbyn or anyone else.  Given that, the reselection process is more about altering the balance of the PLP for the next round of internal battles rather than altering the complexion of a Labour Government.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If they could get half the MPs to split off they could (I think) become the official Opposition party, and get funding instead of the Corbyn faction as such. Then I could quite see a legal challenge for name and assets. Not sure of the practicalities, though, is it the NEC that holds the rights to them?
> 
> In which case could we expect at the next NEC meeting when everyone else has gone home and the doors have been locked for the refuseniks to jump out of hiding from a cupboard to pass one final unannounced vote " ...and the NEC agrees to turn over name and assets to ....".


Only if the Labour Party is the PLP. Which it isn't. Not constitutionally or legally. I had a great piece outlining this but can#'t seem to find it now. They could try but zero chance - Corbyn is totally safe on this route. I will look again.


----------



## newbie (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Haven't looked it up and I'd imagine the NEC could decide to open it up anyway.


 or a resolution at party conference 2017? Whatever the rules say, recent history suggests this will all be hard fought when the time is right.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

newbie said:


> or a resolution at party conference 2017? Whatever the rules say, recent history suggests this will all be hard fought when the time is right.


Yes, absolutely, particularly that it will be hard fought at both the national and CLP level.  I haven't been following the discussion on the practicalities and legalities of a split, but the timing and nature of the reselection process will presumably have a bearing on that too. If the right see there's a real chance that many of their MPs will be deselected for 2020 it _may_ push them towards a pre-emptive strike.

My only observation on the split is that it's... simply hard to predict.  As well as the machinations and actual plans of the right, it's also about events.  In particular the party's performance in by elections and opinion polls, perhaps even more so whether they get purchase on the voters around specific campaigns (indeed if Labour can get to the point where it can do any issue based campaigning).  All that's a bit drip drip, but will have an impact on levels of depression within the party.  More specifically, I imagine the month or so after Corbyn is re-elected will be important in seeing where the dividing lines in the paty end up.  Whether some of the right peel off and feel they have to go for a sullen silence rather than daily plotting - or whether the active plotters start upping the rhetoric and openly musing about a 'new' labour party.  This is ultimately about structural issues and an attempt to restore a neo-liberal party to social democracy, but events and randomness are important.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Scottish Labour leader backs Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> He's fucked now. If there's anyone who knows about winning elections it's the leader of Scottish Labour.


Even the Guardian is taking the piss



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Kezia Dugdale, who led Labour to its worst defeat in the Scottish elections earlier this year, said only Smith could unite the divided party and win over voters outside the party’s traditional base.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Even the Guardian is taking the piss


took the fall for Jim Murphy's incompetence in a way. After the reff debacle the ghost of kier hardie wouldn't have been able to bring back those rightly resentful voters


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 22, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Even the Guardian is taking the piss



It's almost bizarre isn't it. She can stand there and go on about how Corbyn can't attract new voters and seemingly not worry that she's both failed to do that AND fucked off all the traditional voters. Even if she's right and Corbyn only gets the old lefty vote it's still better than she's done. 

Total head in the sand stuff.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Only if the Labour Party is the PLP. Which it isn't. Not constitutionally or legally. I had a great piece outlining this but can#'t seem to find it now. They could try but zero chance - Corbyn is totally safe on this route. I will look again.



I hope you're right. If the MPs *could* get a hearing before, say, a judge who was a long-time friend of Blair they could point out that they were representing millions of loyal Labour voters, not just a few thousand violent and abusive trotskyite-inflamed entryist members who were taking over the Labour party for their own ends.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Corbyn 51% : Smith 49% or similar might be interesting.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2016)

this (from end of June) suggests buthers is right - it talks about MPs splitting off and gaining privileges at Corbyn's expense (chairing some subcomittees and gaining funding), and then



> The majority grouping would be walking away from all of the assets of the Labour Party, most notably the buildings that it owns. This would present challenges to local parties, many of which own their own properties. Many local parties, as well as the national party, would obviously be likely to split.
> Those remaining with the original Labour Party would retain its assets, but also its debts. The Labour Party’s finances have often been somewhat perilous. A big question would be which grouping financial supporters (both trade unions and major donors) chose to support after a split. A rump Labour Party with little electoral or financial support could ultimately face collapse.
> In terms of personnel, there would be very big questions regarding party staff, representatives at other levels (local councillors, members of devolved bodies and MEPs) as well as the wider membership.



What if Labour splits?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 22, 2016)

Dugdale and Khan coming out pubically in support of smith seems to make no political sense - as hes is going to get flatened in the election leaving them irreconciably opposed to a re-eclected corbyn. Its a strong signal that the PLP and the rest of the labour establishment will publically refuse to accept the result.
Its now a fight to the death - I think they will try every means at their disposal and some sort of split may happen in order to make labour ever more dysfunctional.
Cant really see a way out of this. Maybe Corbyn will resign once enough structures are in place in ensure a left wing sucessor.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> this (from end of June) suggests buthers is right - it talks about MPs splitting off and gaining privileges at Corbyn's expense (chairing some subcomittees and gaining funding), and then
> 
> 
> 
> What if Labour splits?


That article makes explicit that any 'breakaway' would have to be just that; it seems that constitutionally the speaker can only anoint the largest group of MPs not in government _if they represent a distinct/new party_. There is, apparently*, no 'half-way house' open to the rebels; it's shit or bust for them.

*I claim no constitutional expertise, here.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 22, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dugdale and Khan coming out pubically in support of smith seems to make no political sense - as hes is going to get flatened in the election leaving them irreconciably opposed to a re-eclected corbyn.



They are just trying to get the result close enough so that having another leadership challenge with somebody else seems feasible


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dugdale and Khan coming out pubically in support of smith seems to make no political sense - as hes is going to get flatened in the election leaving them irreconciably opposed to a re-eclected corbyn. Its a strong signal that the PLP and the rest of the labour establishment will publically refuse to accept the result.
> Its now a fight to the death - I think they will try every means at their disposal and some sort of split may happen in order to make labour ever more dysfunctional.
> Cant really see a way out of this. Maybe Corbyn will resign once enough structures are in place in ensure a left wing sucessor.


Good point, though Khan is in a much stronger position than Dugdale.  After Corbyn is re-elected there are probably 2 scenarios. The first is just a continuation of what we have, open season on Corbyn, daily briefings to the media - the Tories have probably given up keeping a record of soundbites they can use against Corbyn from his own side.  Labour with nil chance of winning in 2020.  The other is the split, either a slow motion split where the right build towards it over a couple of years, bigging up their (next) chosen candidate and all that - again, completely killing off any chances of even an honourable defeat in 2020 - or getting on with it before the deselections start.

Edit: your point about there being no good way out of it is the key one though. There's no good route for left or right in the party.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 22, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> They are just trying to get the result close enough so that having another leadership challenge with somebody else seems feasible



They cant have another leadership challenge for another year.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

I know a guy in the labour party, a long term member who is voting for smith after having campaigned for corbyn initially, and says that he thought the result is going to be a lot closer than anyone thinks. He also  agreed with me that smith has a tendency to say stupid shit but reckons there is such a lack of talent on the front benches that they have to make do with him.  he says that he likes corbyn's ideas but not him, for various reasons.

I don't like smith at all lol but I find it interesting that he thinks the result could be a lot closer than most people are assuming. then again it might just be wishful thinking on his part


----------



## Raheem (Aug 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If they could get half the MPs to split off they could (I think) become the official Opposition party, and get funding instead of the Corbyn faction as such. Then I could quite see a legal challenge for name and assets.



It seems pretty clear that this can't happen, at least not simply. Who the official opposition is and who gets the money is based on the most recent GE results, not on the number of MPs each party has at a given time.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I know a guy in the labour party, a long term member who is voting for smith after having campaigned for corbyn initially, and says that he thought the result is going to be a lot closer than anyone thinks. He also  agreed with me that smith has a tendency to say stupid shit but reckons there is such a lack of talent on the front benches that they have to make do with him.  he says that he likes corbyn's ideas but not him, for various reasons.
> 
> I don't like smith at all lol but I find it interesting that he thinks the result could be a lot closer than most people are assuming. then again it might just be wishful thinking on his part


The pollsters have fucked up on, well, pretty much everything over the last few years.  That's a world I like.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

Raheem said:


> It seems pretty clear that this can't happen, at least not simply. Who the official opposition is and who gets the money is based on the most recent GE results, not on the number of MPs each party has at a given time.


Short money isn't key to who owns the party name and assets though. It might make up part of any splitters argument though.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

oh yeah regarding a split, he said that he thought the party wouldn't split if Corbyn won but they'd try and force another leadership election in a year's time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> He also  agreed with me that smith has a tendency to say stupid shit but reckons there is such a lack of talent on the front benches that they have to make do with him.


This is the bit I don't get. Corbyn can't win in 2020, they say. But surely they must know that Smith can't win in 2020. He'll turn in an election performance of such cringeworthy mediocrity that he'll make Ed Milliband look like a statesman. So they can't be voting for Smith because they want to win the next election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

how can anyone look at smith and think 'there's a geez, I like his policies and I think he's got the best chance'

slow motion meltdown of the labour party. Who ever thought you'd see the day


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I don't like smith at all lol but I find it interesting that he thinks the result could be a lot closer than most people are assuming. then again it might just be wishful thinking on his part


 Given the way the pollsters have indeed fucked up and are probably finding it difficult to do effective surveys on Labour's changing electorate, there's almost a reversion to old fashioned ways of reading the runes in this contest.  It's a bit like the way they judged who was going to win a general election 100 years ago, on the strength of mass meetings, canvassing and letters to local papers (even if today's 'letters to the editor' are facebook and twitter).


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> how can anyone look at smith and think 'there's a geez, I like his policies and I think he's got the best chance'
> 
> slow motion meltdown of the labour party. Who ever thought you'd see the day


Yep, they are trapped in an 'anyone but Corbyn/it's my party and I'll cry if I want to' thing and are not making decisions that are either rational or strategic.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the bit I don't get. Corbyn can't win in 2020, they say. But surely they must know that Smith can't win in 2020. He'll turn in an election performance of such cringeworthy mediocrity that he'll make Ed Milliband look like a statesman. So they can't be voting for Smith because they want to win the next election.


Of course they're not; this is pure factional warfare...to the death. They want 'their' party back.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

I think there's a bit too much 'they' going on in this thread recently - and from mason etc - i don't think there is a 'they' anymore.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think there's a bit too much 'they' going on in this thread recently - and from mason etc - i don't think there is a 'they' anymore.


Do you not think the group-think/'campaigning' from the 172 of the PLP represents the core of 'they'? Are they not acting as an effective, anti-leftist whole?


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I think there's a bit too much 'they' going on in this thread recently - and from mason etc - i don't think there is a 'they' anymore.


There was some 'insider' comments at the start of the coup saying there was at least three different factions in the anti-corbyn PLP, and they couldn't agree on anything. I guess the apparent lack of strategy is down to that?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

From what he said it's not only about the election, as also being able to unite the party and work effectively in a team, he cited the thangam debbonaire thing as another example and also was put off by the behaviour of some of the momentum supporters. I have to admit when he told me I was surprised since he was quite a strong Corbyn supporter before. He's a mate although we don't share most of the same views politically and I don't want to repeat my entire conversation with him on here though. He reckons that restricting some of the rules as to who can vote in the contest will also have an impact as to whether corbyn wins or not.

im not really prepared to take the statistics in the polls seriously or what people say on facebook or twitter tbh. he might be talking total bollocks but I also suspect there are going to be some "shy" smith supporters who don't say anything on facebook or anything (and maybe don't use it) but vote for him anyway. I still reckon corbyn will win though.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> There was some 'insider' comments at the start of the coup saying there was at least three different factions in the anti-corbyn PLP, and they couldn't agree on anything. I guess the apparent lack of strategy is down to that?



yeh, their not united at all.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the bit I don't get. Corbyn can't win in 2020, they say. But surely they must know that Smith can't win in 2020. He'll turn in an election performance of such cringeworthy mediocrity that he'll make Ed Milliband look like a statesman. So they can't be voting for Smith because they want to win the next election.



2020 is a lost cause but Smith would at least have the self-awareness to quit afterwards giving them a chance in 2025. I doubt losing 50 or even 100 seats would cause Corbyn to step down voluntarily.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> yeh, their not united at all.


United in one thing, though?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

killer b said:


> There was some 'insider' comments at the start of the coup saying there was at least three different factions in the anti-corbyn PLP, and they couldn't agree on anything. I guess the apparent lack of strategy is down to that?





brogdale said:


> Do you not think the group-think/'campaigning' from the 172 of the PLP represents the core of 'they'? Are they not acting as an effective, anti-leftist whole?



My reading is at the start the factions were able to unite under an anti-corbyn FOC - they thought it would be a piece of piss and were happy to then fight it out for the new leader. When that went to pot they fell apart. That, i think is the reason for the silence and lack of apparent strategy. And the reason why (i keep going back to that mason piece i know) people are filling in the gaps with stuff an ideally placed unified opposition _would do_ - if it existed. I think there's a a massive overestimation of the anti-corbyn types and their capabilities. Understandable given their previous hold over the party since the early mid 90s -and their current more pervasive media contacts/presence.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Do you not think the group-think/'campaigning' from the 172 of the PLP represents the core of 'they'? Are they not acting as an effective, anti-leftist whole?


I think there's certainly a 'they' as defined by anti-Corbynism. There are no doubt a range of ideological positions in there in terms of how they've escaped from the neo-liberalism in power. However another thing that does seem to unite them is their horror about the possibility that Labour might become some vaguely defined activist/grassroots driven party.  To be honest I'm far from convinced that a good chunk of the_ pro-Corbyn_ forces have actually come round to that position either.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> My reading is at the start the factions were able to unite under an anti-corbyn FOC - they thought it would be a piece of piss and were happy to then fight it out for the new leader. When that went to pot they fell apart. That, i think is the reason for the silence and lack of apparent strategy. And the reason why (i keep going back to that mason piece i know) people are filling in the gaps with stuff an ideally placed unified opposition _would do_ - if it existed. I think there's a a massive overestimation of the anti-corbyn types and their capabilities. Understandable given their previous hold over the party since the early mid 90s -and their current more pervasive media contacts/presence.


I suspect you may well be right, and that I may be as guilty of 'filling the void' as Mason, but it has to be said that what we are seeing/Mason describes...could have resulted from the simple strategy of unify/truce to kill off Corbyn, then let the old soft left/centrist/right factional battle recommence?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I suspect you may well be right, and that I may be as guilty of 'filling the void' as Mason, but it has to be said that what we are seeing/Mason describes...could have resulted from the simple strategy of unify/truce to kill off Corbyn, then let the old soft left/centrist/right factional battle recommence?


That's what's so odd about this - where is that battle? Where is the competing agendas and programs being forwarded by a stable group of recognisbale people. There's just...nothing. Which is why i can't see any 'they' anymore.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's what's so odd about this - where is that battle? Where is the competing agendas and programs being forwarded by a stable group of recognisbale people. There's just...nothing. Which is why i can't see any 'they' anymore.


Could it be that the right of the party have actually developed some self-awareness - eg that they are toxic to a large part of the membership and that for the duration of this leadership contest they had best be quiet? Tactically it's probably better for them that Smith does as well as possible, especially if they are going to go for the line that the party has been 'taken over' but the real long standing members don't want Corbyn. Hence the use of has-beens like Brenda Dean to front up new outfits while the likes of Chukka and Tristram keep their heads down for now?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's what's so odd about this - where is that battle? Where is the competing agendas and programs being forwarded by a stable group of recognisbale people. There's just...nothing. Which is why i can't see any 'they' anymore.


But consistently and exclusively _playing the man_ excuses the 172ists from any requirement for an explicit agenda/programme that might threaten their....nearly said _momemtum!
_
Maybe this is what intra-party, factional conflict looks like in the post-truth, post-democracy age?


----------



## Sue (Aug 22, 2016)

Iirc, she (Dugdale) initially said he'd be rubbish if elected, then he got elected and she changed her tune and now she's back to saying he's rubbish...


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's what's so odd about this - where is that battle? Where is the competing agendas and programs being forwarded by a stable group of recognisbale people. There's just...nothing. Which is why i can't see any 'they' anymore.


I'm sure you're right and at that level there isn't a 'they'. I didn't watch any of the debates but haven't got any sense of 'new' or 'radical' ideas emerging from the centre/centre right groupings.  Again, as you suggest I think the headline reason for that is that they are only united by what they oppose. The other thing is, what _could_ they actually say about policy?  That they don't favour rail nationalisation or that want more private sector involvement in the nhs?  There's not much along those lines that will help them win either the leadership or a general election.  The 'third way' is long gone.  The other thing is the right haven't and can't have much to say as to _who Labour are appealing to_. It isn't in their vocabulary to say working class - and they are not appealing to the working class anyway. What's left to say - 'working people and their families?  All been said and done.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> Could it be that the right of the party have actually developed some self-awareness - eg that they are toxic to a large part of the membership and that for the duration of this leadership contest they had best be quiet? Tactically it's probably better for them that Smith does as well as possible, especially if they are going to go for the line that the party has been 'taken over' but the real long standing members don't want Corbyn. Hence the use of has-beens like Brenda Dean to front up new outfits while the likes of Chukka and Tristram keep their heads down for now?


This is what makes this difficult to talk about really - the above sort of starts from the assumption there still is a 'they'. It's unavoidable gap filling. I can't see how they would have gone from the public incompetence of  the leadership challenge ball rolling of only last month to a tightly knit and disciplined group following a medium-long term strategy 4 weeks or so later. The mess they made of getting the ball rolling on the leadership challenge suggests to me that this isn't a people capable of that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> Could it be that the right of the party have actually developed some self-awareness - eg that they are toxic to a large part of the membership and that for the duration of this leadership contest they had best be quiet?


I had considered this but then I thought about private school bluffers and how much they buy their own bullshit and the bullshit of their frenemies. Its possible but I don't think so. Could be wrong


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure you're right and at that level there isn't a 'they'. I didn't watch any of the debates but haven't got any sense of 'new' or 'radical' ideas emerging from the centre/centre right groupings.  Again, as you suggest I think the headline reason for that is that they are only united by what they oppose. The other thing is, what _could_ they actually say about policy?  That they don't favour rail nationalisation or that want more private sector involvement in the nhs?  There's not much along those lines that will help them win either the leadership or a general election.  The 'third way' is long gone.  The other thing is the right haven't and can't have much to say as to _who Labour are appealing to_. It isn't in their vocabulary to say working class - and they are not appealing to the working class anyway. What's left to say - 'working people and their families?  All been said and done.


Yes - there's not much they can say. They can't articulate a different political position because they haven't got one. They haven't got any politics full stop. That's why this is simply a battle for control, for ownership.  Which is why i think this _'they're not scared of corbyn, they're scared of you_' is so much desperate _please let it be true_ guff. They're scared for their individual jobs.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

I'm almost tempted to say this is what a Labour right wing cabal looks like without Mandelson, Blair and Brown.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm almost tempted to say this is what a Labour right wing cabal looks like without Mandelson, Blair and Brown.


But it's not just the right, is it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm almost tempted to say this is what a Labour right wing cabal looks like without Mandelson, Blair and Brown.


don't forget cambell


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

This is where they're at...


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 22, 2016)

It's also possible there's an underestimation going on of how the Blairites' resignations have affected their ability to access the media on demand. Bear in mind, for the media the key is landing Big Fish to talk about stuff. No-one cares about "former shadow backbencher" much beyond the actual resignation and their explanation of why they did it. 

The key people left over are the ones who actually held or hold major positions of power - Blair, Mandie, McTernan, Miliband, Watson, Khan, and with the exception of Blair (wisely staying out given his dismal personal record last time) they've been anything but quiet. Meanwhile if you go on the Twitter page of Chuka Umunna it's a veritable cornucopia of retweeted anti-Corbyn articles and snide comments.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But it's not just the right, is it?


No, I agree, I was just musing on 'their' lack of direction and organisational capacity.  The emergence of New Labour came in very different circumstances, with regard to the preceding 2 decades of neo-liberalism, Thatcherism and events in the Labour Party itself. But it was a 'project' for those at the top at least.  That level of capacity and strategic thinking doesn't seem to be present amongst the current lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

oh yeh - my mate reckoned there are only 20 or 30 actual blairites in the PLP (as in right wingers/people who support blair) and the rest don't care about ideology but care more about competence and what they think will win elections, some of those include people with views closer to corbyn's. I reckon there's some truth to that - they don't seem to be united at all except around the idea of "anyone but corbyn" . the feeling I get is that some of them were plotting a coup for ages and the rest just jumped on the bandwagon, which means that they definitely aren't united ideologically at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> oh yeh - my mate reckoned there are only 20 or 30 actual blairites in the PLP (as in right wingers/people who support blair) and the rest don't care about ideology but care more about competence and what they think will win elections, some of those include people with views closer to corbyn's. I reckon there's some truth to that - they don't seem to be united at all except around the idea of "anyone but corbyn" . the feeling I get is that some of them were plotting a coup for ages and the rest just jumped on the bandwagon, which means that they definitely aren't united ideologically at all.


60k a year before you touch expenses or employ a rellie. Its a powerful bribe. I've been dong it with the tory party, trying to spot the naked spivs and then the ideolouges. There's a deal of overlap there though. Surely some of the ABC lot must be convinced that they are saving the soul of the party. Delusions.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Harman's message to her CLP members is a fine example of saying absolutely nothing  other than _not Corbyn:-
_
_



			I've always respected the right of members to choose who they vote for in our internal party elections for Leader.  And I've never, in the past, felt the need to intervene to urge members in Camberwell and Peckham to vote for any particular candidate.  But I'm writing to you today to urge you to vote for Owen Smith and not for Jeremy Corbyn because I feel it is fundamental for the prospect of a progressive future for our country.

I believe Owen Smith recognises what I believe to be the case.  That it is our duty to protect people from the unfairness and the reactionary policies of the Tories.  That it is only with a Labour government that we can do that and that only Labour will make the changes which challenge entrenched inequality, prejudice and discrimination.

The job of the leader of the party is to unite us and take us towards that.  It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn cannot unite the party.  The party has become deeply divided under his leadership. We have seen that both at national and at local level here in Camberwell and Peckham.  A leader cannot blame others for division.  The buck stops with the leader. 

I believe with Owen Smith for Leader we can get on track to put our progressive principles into practice.  I will be voting for him and I hope you will too.
		
Click to expand...

_​


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Harman's message to her CLP members is a fine example of saying absolutely nothing  other than _not Corbyn:-
> _
> ​


'but the tories' is the old saw in there. Its up there with 'we will protect the NHS' as their favourite carrot and stick approaches. The lying shites


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'but the tories' is the old saw in there. Its up there with 'we will protect the NHS' as their favourite carrot and stick approaches. The lying shites


But, we can't possibly accuse her of only defining her politics by what she's against; look, she's in favour of...


> _the prospect of a *progress*ive future for our country._


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 60k a year before you touch expenses or employ a rellie. Its a powerful bribe. I've been dong it with the tory party, trying to spot the naked spivs and then the ideolouges. There's a deal of overlap there though. Surely some of the ABC lot must be convinced that they are saving the soul of the party. Delusions.



I think some of them are terrified that under corbyn they won't win an election again and their own parliamentary ambitions will come to naught tbh.

when is the election? the 24th isn't it?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

In terms of defining who 'they' are the centre right(s) have a problem with old and new. So far their pitch is that they represent traditional Labour voters, abandoned by 'hard left' Corbynism - that's part of their claim to authenticity. But then the part of 'they' that is still Blairite needs to talk about 'newness' and dealing with the realities of 'global economy' (which, of course, meant breaking the institutions of social democracy and the welfare state in the actual Blairite project). Marrying the old and the new isn't just a linguistic problem for them, or even an ideological one. It's probably something that can't be married.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But, we can't possibly accuse her of only defining her politics by what she's against; look, she's in favour of...
> ​


Words like _inclusion_ have long become toxic, but _progressive_ is also following the same trajectory.


----------



## gosub (Aug 22, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It's also possible there's an underestimation going on of how the Blairites' resignations have affected their ability to access the media on demand. Bear in mind, for the media the key is landing Big Fish to talk about stuff. No-one cares about "former shadow backbencher" much beyond the actual resignation and their explanation of why they did it.
> 
> The key people left over are the ones who actually held or hold major positions of power - Blair, Mandie, McTernan, Miliband, Watson, Khan, and with the exception of Blair (wisely staying out given his dismal personal record last time) they've been anything but quiet. Meanwhile if you go on the Twitter page of Chuka Umunna it's a veritable cornucopia of retweeted anti-Corbyn articles and snide comments.


Yes and No.  If the media ever wants to stoke Tory divisions over say Europe Clarke and Heseltine are still on speed dial


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I think some of them are terrified that under corbyn they won't win an election again and their own parliamentary ambitions will come to naught tbh.
> 
> when is the election? the 24th isn't it?


I'm not sure but I hope they get that bloke who looks like an extra from Alien Nation in to do the compering again. I've never seen such impressive liver spots. Either way its too long away. This farce will be going on for time. And when corbyn wins again it'll just get more meltdowny


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

I do think that corbyn probably wouldn't win a general election and would hit a wall in terms of his support and who hes likely to appeal to, so if winning elections is your thing I understand why you'd want to get rid of him, especially if you think about the sort of people most likely to turn out to vote. I think some of these guys are concerned not enough has been done in terms of winning over the people who voted tory the last time.

im not convinced that owen smith is gonna be that person though, since so much of his career is just a succession of gaffe's from start to finish. I read a couple of articles saying they want him as an interim leader and then get a new, "better" leader for 2020 - but I just cant see it, surely that would make things even worse for Labour.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

surely if it would just make it worse if Smith becomes leader now, and then in 2018 or so he resigns and goes umm "er actually..."


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

I was, without much enthusiasm, about to track down transcripts of speeches by Smith and even Aaaargh, to have look at whether words like _modernise_ and _inclusion_ were still there. Instead, I came upon this headline: 'Owen Smith: the David Brent of Britsh Politics'. 
Owen Smith: The David Brent of politics

Edit: 'fairness', 'aspiration' and 'investment' were all in play it seems. The Blairite bingocard still lives.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I do think that corbyn probably wouldn't win a general election and would hit a wall in terms of his support and who hes likely to appeal to, so if winning elections is your thing I understand why you'd want to get rid of him, especially if you think about the sort of people most likely to turn out to vote..


But this goes back to the basic contradiction at the heart of the PLP. They say Corbyn can't win, and cite his inability to rally them, the PLP, as the reason. They've stabbed him, and are now complaining that you can't have someone with a knife in his back as leader.

How's about they all get behind him and build a broad left alliance? If winning elections is your thing, that's the way to do it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was, without much enthusiasm, about to track down transcripts of speeches by Smith and even Aaaargh, to have look at whether words like _modernise_ and _inclusion_ were still there. Instead, I came upon this headline: 'Owen Smith: the David Brent of Britsh Politics'.
> Owen Smith: The David Brent of politics
> 
> Edit: 'fairness', 'aspiration' and 'investment' were all in play it seems. The Blairite bingocard still lives.


Looks like Smith is the Hazel Blears for the new century.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But this goes back to the basic contradiction at the heart of the PLP. They say Corbyn can't win, and cite his inability to rally them, the PLP, as the reason. They've stabbed him, and are now complaining that you can't have someone with a knife in his back as leader.
> 
> How's about they all get behind him and build a broad left alliance? If winning elections is your thing, that's the way to do it.


But Labourism is as much about what it prevents as what it can achieve.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But this goes back to the basic contradiction at the heart of the PLP. They say Corbyn can't win, and cite his inability to rally them, the PLP, as the reason. They've stabbed him, and are now complaining that you can't have someone with a knife in his back as leader.
> 
> How's about they all get behind him and build a broad left alliance? If winning elections is your thing, that's the way to do it.



because broad left alliances have worked so well electorally speaking in the past


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But Labourism is as much about what it prevents as what it can achieve.


Not sure about that, but, accepting that there may not be a particularly coherent 'they', there certainly appear to be those in the PLP who would rather a Corbyn-led Labour party lose the next election than win it. I'd turn this on its head rather - the anti-Corbyn types are making a move that will ensure Labour loses the next election because they would rather that than a Corbyn govt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> because broad left alliances have worked so well electorally speaking in the past


Isn't that what the Labour party was from the 40s to the 70s?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But this goes back to the basic contradiction at the heart of the PLP. They say Corbyn can't win, and cite his inability to rally them, the PLP, as the reason. They've stabbed him, and are now complaining that you can't have someone with a knife in his back as leader.
> 
> How's about they all get behind him and build a broad left alliance? If winning elections is your thing, that's the way to do it.


How's that going to work now then?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was, without much enthusiasm, about to track down transcripts of speeches by Smith and even Aaaargh, to have look at whether words like _modernise_ and _inclusion_ were still there. Instead, I came upon this headline: 'Owen Smith: the David Brent of Britsh Politics'.
> Owen Smith: The David Brent of politics
> 
> Edit: 'fairness', 'aspiration' and 'investment' were all in play it seems. The Blairite bingocard still lives.



 that does sound terrible lol



> A lacklustre speech which lacked coherence or detail delivered with all the charisma of a regional bank manager giving a presentation to an uninterested workforce was combined with the honesty and integrity of an estate agent.



this is just ... this is just scathing


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How's that going to work now then?


Now? Well it can't work now. It's being sabotaged. I don't see a bright future atm because there are those who seem determined that Corbyn must fail at any cost.


----------



## inva (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I was, without much enthusiasm, about to track down transcripts of speeches by Smith and even Aaaargh, to have look at whether words like _modernise_ and _inclusion_ were still there. Instead, I came upon this headline: 'Owen Smith: the David Brent of Britsh Politics'.
> Owen Smith: The David Brent of politics
> 
> Edit: 'fairness', 'aspiration' and 'investment' were all in play it seems. The Blairite bingocard still lives.


tbf, from John McDonnell:


> we lay the foundations of a new society that is radically *fairer*, more equal and more democratic, based upon a prosperous economy





> But we have to also meet the *aspirations* of people





> *Investment* is the key to shared prosperity now, and in the future


they all talk like that


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

There is nothing outside of the Labour Party to 'ally' with. They killed that shit off in the 20s. The slow death of the ILP is where that ends. The LP exists to crush stuff to the left of it. Even with Corbyn leading.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that what the Labour party was from the 40s to the 70s?



tusc, respect, socialist alliance ...  i can understand why your average middle of the road progress type is anxious about that prospect lol


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I think some of them are terrified that under corbyn they won't win an election again and their own parliamentary ambitions will come to naught tbh.
> 
> when is the election? the 24th isn't it?



The voting page is up and says you can vote until Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 12:00 noon. Not sure if it's actually opened for voting yet.

I applied for a vote as a Labour Party Affiliated Supporter just over a month ago and I've had nothing but an email confirming my application since then. 

Has anyone here actually been issued with the means to vote yet? Looks like you need a two part security code to vote online, but there way be other methods available


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

inva said:


> tbf, from John McDonnell:
> 
> 
> 
> they all talk like that


Fair enough, that's a reasonable point to make against Corbynism. But I'm not a Corbynite.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Now? Well it can't work now. It's being sabotaged. I don't see a bright future atm because there are those who seem determined that Corbyn must fail at any cost.


I meant how can these 172 MPs actually support  a broad left coalition? A coalition with who? You're ceding ground to these people by even saying this tbh. The whole point of this last throw of the labour left dice is to make it not about them. 

The Labour Party _produced_ these people. It's what it's for.


----------



## inva (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Fair enough, that's a reasonable point to make against Corbynism. But I'm not a Corbynite.


didn't mean to imply you were, just commenting that it's not specifically a blairite trait


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

inva said:


> didn't mean to imply you were, just commenting that it's not specifically a blairite trait


 well, it kind of 'is' a Blairite trait. I'd just say that the Labour left are also infected by it - and not only in terms of the words.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I meant how can these 172 MPs actually support  a broad left coalition? A coalition with who? You're ceding ground to these people by even saying this tbh. The whole point of this last throw of the labour left dice is to make it not about them.
> 
> The Labour Party _produced_ these people. It's what it's for.


Ok, I understand the point. But last time there was a genuinely left-leaning Labour leadership, it took the SDP split to sabotage them. The Labour Party also produced the likes of McDonnell. What the Labour Party is _for_ is a contested thing, surely.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I understand the point. But last time there was a genuinely left-leaning Labour leadership, it took the SDP split to sabotage them. The Labour Party also produced the likes of McDonnell. What the Labour Party is _for_ is a contested thing, surely.


That truism about Labour having the historic role of managing the working class, the relationship with organised Labour, wage demands etc - all still true. Didn't McDonnell say he would stick with the idea that the deficit had to be reduced? Even with his social democratic politics, that indicates he's still in the same game to me.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *Not sure about that*...


Really? It's what this thread is all about.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I understand the point. But last time there was a genuinely left-leaning Labour leadership, it took the SDP split to sabotage them. The Labour Party also produced the likes of McDonnell. What the Labour Party is _for_ is a contested thing, surely.


To the victor the spoils. A machine for what? It's purpose has to be to stop anything from the left. That's the game.

Is the lesson then that Labour does it again? What else is to be learnt from 1981?


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> ...Has anyone here actually been issued with the means to vote yet? Looks like you need a two part security code to vote online, but there may be other methods available



I may just have found the answer to my own question...

Labour leadership: Ballot papers for contest to be sent out



> Ballot papers will be issued later to nearly 650,000 people with a vote in the Labour leadership contest.


----------



## inva (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That truism about Labour having the historic role of managing the working class, the relationship with organised Labour, wage demands etc - all still true. Didn't McDonnell say he would stick with the idea that the deficit had to be reduced? Even with his social democratic politics, that indicates he's still in the same game to me.


yes I'm pretty sure he did. this is part of his proposed 'fiscal credibility rule' iirc


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 22, 2016)

inva said:


> yes I'm pretty sure he did. this is part of his proposed 'fiscal credibility rule' iirc



I think he's gone back on that now though. Presumably the group of economic  advisors they brought in told him it was a stupid idea.


----------



## inva (Aug 22, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I think he's gone back on that now though. Presumably the group of economic  advisors they brought in told him it was a stupid idea.


this from Richard Murphy suggests it was still his policy as of the beginning of this month at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That truism about Labour having the historic role of managing the working class, the relationship with organised Labour, wage demands etc - all still true. Didn't McDonnell say he would stick with the idea that the deficit had to be reduced? Even with his social democratic politics, that indicates he's still in the same game to me.


When was the last time an incoming government said "no, we're not sticking by the last government's spending plans" or "we are


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That truism about Labour having the historic role of managing the working class, the relationship with organised Labour, wage demands etc - all still true. Didn't McDonnell say he would stick with the idea that the deficit had to be reduced? Even with his social democratic politics, that indicates he's still in the same game to me.


When was the last time an incoming government said "no, we're not sticking by the last government's spending plans" or "we are of the opinion the deficit should be increased"?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> When was the last time an incoming government said "no, we're not sticking by the last government's spending plans" or "we are of the opinion the deficit should be increased"?


Yeah, but that's my point. McDonnell is playing by the rules.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 60k a year before you touch expenses or employ a rellie. Its a powerful bribe.



*£74,962 *in fact - plus free travel, a free flat in London (which you can air b&b during the hols), free salaries to employ your partner & kids as office managers, plus all the free stationery and duck houses you want


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> *£74,962 *in fact - plus free travel, a free flat in London (which you can air b&b during the hols), free salaries to employ your partner & kids as office managers, plus all the free stationery and duck houses you want


No duck houses? Fucking outrageous!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> *£74,962 *in fact - plus free travel, a free flat in London (which you can air b&b during the hols), free salaries to employ your partner & kids as office managers, plus all the free stationery and duck houses you want


remember the chartists demand for MP wages so that men 'without means' could draw a wage and thusly parliament wouldn't be so rotten? That fucking went very well. The theiving cunts. Workers wage now!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

the labour party is a _negotiator_ with capital. Always has been. Even with the good ship social democracy mark 2 its not going to be more than that. These people sell a workforce, thats it. They believe heartily in the project but they sell a workforce. 300 odd years of dissidence and so on. Thats what produced the labour party. And lets not talk about record in power eh? No they are as much the enemy as all the ancien regime they never got rid of. I'll still be on team Iron Cobz tho because why not, it has about as much relevance to real conditions as I do to the international space station.

Given they can't actually deliver that w/c vote and don't even want to try, well what use are they?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> remember the chartists demand for MP wages so that men 'without means' could draw a wage and thusly parliament wouldn't be so rotten? That fucking went very well. The theiving cunts. Workers wage now!


Yep. And they keep voting themselves 11% pay rises.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Subtle.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Subtle.




Pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic and now Islamophobic too. The smears really do run the spectrum.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic and now Islamophobic too. The smears really do run the spectrum.


Like a really desperate antibiotic.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Subtle.



'The people' - ooh, I'd forgotten that one! _The workers whether by hand or by portfolio_.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Wonder if 'the people' includes the people who clean MP's moats?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, but that's my point. McDonnell is playing by the rules.


on the basis that he agrees this deficit should be reduced. 

could you actually, in your own words, describe what this deficit consists of?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 22, 2016)

Labour leadership: Could Corbyn lose?

Desperate, speculative stuff. 

But OS supporters need this sort of thing to stop them giving up.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Labour leadership: Could Corbyn lose?
> 
> Desperate, speculative stuff.
> 
> But OS supporters need this sort of thing to stop them giving up.


Glancing through that, there's a few trends and what ifs that are probably true (regardless of the motivations of the ex-mp who wrote it). However I suspect that they won't affect the result too much.  On the other side of the equation there will be members old and new who are sick at the right and their treachery.  In a situation where there's hardly any data that can be relied on, my pure guess would be Corbyn winning with around 53-4%.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2016)

Anyone receive their ballot today?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 22, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Anyone receive their ballot today?



Yep, well - email vote. Came late afternoon though so guessing they're still trickling out.


----------



## wtfftw (Aug 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> The voting page is up and says you can vote until Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 12:00 noon. Not sure if it's actually opened for voting yet.
> 
> I applied for a vote as a Labour Party Affiliated Supporter just over a month ago and I've had nothing but an email confirming my application since then.
> 
> Has anyone here actually been issued with the means to vote yet? Looks like you need a two part security code to vote online, but there way be other methods available


Nothing since?
no subject line, "Your vote in the Leadership election" and "About your ballot"?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 22, 2016)

I'm hoping 60/40 for the result. No idea if that's stupidly optimistic or not but any less and they'll never stop whining. Not that they'll stop whining anyway but it's a nice round figure to slap them down from.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

The Guardian must have an attack-a-day pencilled in for the voting period. This time 'with racism thrown in'.
Ex-shadow minister accuses Jeremy Corbyn of discrimination


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I'm hoping 60/40 for the result. No idea if that's stupidly optimistic or not but any less and they'll never stop whining. Not that they'll stop whining anyway but it's a nice round figure to slap them down from.


No doubt the losing Smith will claim he had the 'support of a substantial number of Labour members'.  I'd say if gets _under_ 40% that gives the interviewer the green light to say 'are you fucking kidding?'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I'm hoping 60/40 for the result. No idea if that's stupidly optimistic or not but any less and they'll never stop whining. Not that they'll stop whining anyway but it's a nice round figure to slap them down from.


50 : 50 is 'rounder'.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> I'm hoping 60/40 for the result. No idea if that's stupidly optimistic or not but any less and they'll never stop whining. Not that they'll stop whining anyway but it's a nice round figure to slap them down from.



The question is who controls the count? How is it monitored? I really wouldn't put it past certain interests to manipulate this.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Guardian must have an attack-a-day pencilled in for the voting period. This time 'with racism thrown in'.
> Ex-shadow minister accuses Jeremy Corbyn of discrimination


Lordy, talk about desperation.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The question is who controls the count? How is it monitored? I really wouldn't put it past certain interests to manipulate this.


I guessed at the Electoral Reform Society, but was wrong (at least they didn't do the last one). Presume it's done internally, with some kind of oversight from appointed verifiers/auditors?  However beyond actual, unambiguous cheating - literally or metaphorically chucking votes in the bin -  I'm not sure where the manipulation could come in. Dunno, is it an entirely electronic process?  Of course the manipulation has been going on for a while in terms of stopping people actually _having a vote_.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Lordy, talk about desperation.


Yeah, obviously need to say that you should take claims of institutional racism seriously, but I struggle to do so when they are stored up and used on the day the ballots go out.  Also, didn't Blair forget who Aaargh was and that she was already a junior minister? Was that homophobia or misogyny?


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not sure but I hope they get that bloke who looks like an extra from Alien Nation in to do the compering again. I've never seen such impressive liver spots. Either way its too long away. This farce will be going on for time. And when corbyn wins again it'll just get more meltdowny



Not nice.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The question is who controls the count? How is it monitored? I really wouldn't put it past certain interests to manipulate this.


It's being overseen by Electoral Reform Services (essentially the election running arm of the Electoral Reform Society).  I don't think you need to be concerned with tampering tbh.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Guardian must have an attack-a-day pencilled in for the voting period. This time 'with racism thrown in'.
> Ex-shadow minister accuses Jeremy Corbyn of discrimination


What a poor article. It even contradicts itself on whether she is actually a shadow minister or not.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That would mean they win the election surely?



Edit: been discussed, ignore me.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 22, 2016)

Just got my vote through email , voted Corbyn fwiw


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

More than a whiff of desperation around some the stuff being flung around now...


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

wtfftw said:


> Nothing since?
> no subject line, "Your vote in the Leadership election" and "About your ballot"?



No, none of that. This is what they sent on 22 July



> Thank you for applying to become a Labour Party Affiliated Supporter - it's great that you want to take part in deciding who leads the Labour Party. Shaping our party's future direction is both an opportunity and a responsibility - thank you for choosing to be part of it.





> This email confirms that we have received your application, and will begin to process it, beginning with checking with your affiliated organisation that you're a member (and have been since 12 January 2016), and matching you to the electoral register.





> As soon as your application has been processed, we'll be in touch again to confirm your Affiliated Supporter status.We'll also let you know the full timetable for this Leadership Election, how you can cast your vote and when you should expect to receive your ballot information.





> For more information about the leadership election, please visit labour.org.uk/leadership Thank you again for wanting to be part of this important decision.
> 
> Best wishes, Iain McNicol
> General Secretary of the Labour Party



and nothing since. If anyone has Iain's number, maybe I should give him a ring...


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The question is who controls the count? How is it monitored? I really wouldn't put it past certain interests to manipulate this.



The website for voting appears to be run by the Electoral Reform Service, but maybe it's all an elaborate spoff to colect the names of Corbyn supporters


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 22, 2016)

I haven't got anything either - I expect they are staggering the emails. I wouldn't be worried yet.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 22, 2016)

I got mine today.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

What a treat.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What a treat.


Should damn well be, for 3 and half hours work on NMW.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Should damn well be, for 3 and half hours work on NMW.


It's ok, if you're a national treasure your kids gets jobs too. Oh hang on...


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The Guardian must have an attack-a-day pencilled in for the voting period. This time 'with racism thrown in'.
> Ex-shadow minister accuses Jeremy Corbyn of discrimination


Does anyone else find it rather pathetic that people on at least £90k (plus ekkies, etc) need their hand holding to this extent:



> No one knew what he wanted us to do, no one was clear on what we should be doing.


Perhaps it's just the legacy of the Blair/Campbell (micro) managerial style.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> No, none of that. This is what they sent on 22 July
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I got a letter last week saying they want copies of two forms of identification. I'm not a trot entryist, don't care for Corbyn, and no longer care two hoots about Labour (excepting my MPand mayor). Why can't SNP stand in London?


----------



## magneze (Aug 22, 2016)

Even if half the stories about Corbyn were true, they're now assumed false because of their relentlessness. Another awesome tactic by his opponents. Masterful.


----------



## JimW (Aug 22, 2016)

Newsnight is having a round table about whether the media is biased against Corbyn


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 22, 2016)

magneze said:


> Even if half the stories about Corbyn were true, they're now assumed false because of their relentlessness. Another awesome tactic by his opponents. Masterful.


I'm not sure that's true. Mud sticks, and some of the people flinging it have been on his side previously. I think this vote is going to be a lot closer than I would've guessed even a few weeks ago.


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2016)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I got a letter last week saying they want copies of two forms of identification. I'm not a trot entryist, don't care for Corbyn, and no longer care two hoots about Labour (excepting my MPand mayor). Why can't SNP stand in London?



On what basis are you trying to get a vote? I'm a member of Unite, and as I understand it (based on the email and other stuff I've read) the LP simply check with Unite that I've been a member for more than 6 months and that I'm on the Electoral Register. There should be no problem with either of those, so we'll see.

If you're trying to sign up as a £25 registered supporter, it might be different, they might expect you to provide further proof of ID, but that seems a little over the top. It's almost like they don't want people to vote...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2016)

Peak Guardian?


> _The hasty introduction in 2014 of the new election rules, giving every member an individual say in the leadership, changed one piece of a complicated interlocking system without considering its impact. The upshot is a democratic car crash. Somehow a situation has been created where a majority of MPs may not support the winning leadership candidate, but the new leader cannot become prime minister without MPs’ backing. *At a single unintentional stroke the purpose of having a Labour party has been undermined.*_


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's almost like they don't want people to vote...


I think that's it, I would have thought a standing order and the fact I'm on the electoral register would have been all they needed. I tried to join in May and opted not to pay the £25 so I won't be voting, I'm just so disillusioned with the whole Labour Party (recognising the voting fiasco is not Corbyn's doing) . I can't see us having a Labour government for a decade or so


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Peak Guardian?
> ​


nadir rather than zenith


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 22, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I haven't got anything either - I expect they are staggering the emails. I wouldn't be worried yet.


What would the purpose of that be? Why wouldn't you just hit 'all members' and send? That's a genuine question.

Well, all pre Jan 2016 members...


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2016)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I got a letter last week saying they want copies of two forms of identification. I'm not a trot entryist, don't care for Corbyn, and no longer care two hoots about Labour (excepting my MPand mayor). Why can't SNP stand in London?


You don't live in Tower Hamlets, do you? Corruption here has meant you have to put in extra effort to be accepted as a member of the Labour Party.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> What would the purpose of that be? Why wouldn't you just hit 'all members' and send? That's a genuine question.



You've got to be careful with large mass-mailings not to trip automated spam filters at the Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo etc level, I guess.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 23, 2016)

I received a letter from Unite yesterday that urged that I check all my email files, including spam, daily, for my ballot form.
I also received a email from the Labour Party expressing the need to vote online to save the party money!
Not as though they have spent a fortune trying to oust the elected leader of said party!
It was quite nostalgic to get notifications from Labour, it is at least fifteen years since my previous one.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Peak Guardian?


So Labour did everything right in 2015 - they had the perfectly triangulated "technocratic vote-maximising strategies aimed at winning marginal seats." Racism-lite, austerity-lite, unionism-lite, what could possibly have gone wrong?

Well, we were let down by the "catastrophic TV interview that disclosed Ed Miliband's two kitchens."

Who are these people? How much lower can they go?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 23, 2016)

JimW said:


> Newsnight is having a round table about whether the media is biased against Corbyn


I hope it had Nick Cohen , Mike Smithson and Rob Ford on it , just for balance.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> I hope it had Nick Cohen , Mike Smithson and Rob Ford on it , just for balance.


It had that Kerry-Ann Mendoza from The Canary, apparently. 

I think Nick Cohen would have been better...


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> It had that Kerry-Ann Mendoza from The Canary, apparently.
> 
> I think Nick Cohen would have been better...


Or Owen Smith for leftist balance.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

it's almost as if they chose the most easily dismissable person as leftist balance. Apparently she recommended people read Vox Political for political reportage. The mind boggles.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> What would the purpose of that be? Why wouldn't you just hit 'all members' and send? That's a genuine question.
> 
> Well, all pre Jan 2016 members...



Well they may be hoping by staggering the sending of the emails the polls in favour of Corbyn may waver with the continued offensive. The more shit they can bung the more may stick.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 23, 2016)

The plotters' plan to hijack the Cooperative Party have been dealt a severe blow as this article from Labour List tells us.

The party's rules are quite explicit too.



> Nominations Self-Nomination 1. Candidates will be self-nominating by way of written application to the Co-operative Party Head Office. Eligibility 2. Nominees must have been an individual member of the Co-operative Party and a Co-operative Society at the time of application. 3. Nominees must be on the Labour Party’s list of approved candidates for nomination as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. 4. *Sitting MPs are ineligible*. 5. Prospective Parliamentary Candidates are ineligible.



http://party.coop/wp-content/blogs....ection-H-Rules-of-the-Parliamentary-Panel.pdf

Oops! 

There are only 25 Co-op/Labour MPs.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

Train-seatgate...the utter monster!


----------



## CNT36 (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Train-seatgate...the utter monster!


Great quality video.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

I don't get it, he chose to sit on the floor cos principles yet somehow thats evidence of monstous duplicity?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

He should have stayed sitting on the floor even though there were seats for the second half of the journey  I always do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

can't stand balls and arse going numb, I'm in the seat like flash.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The plotters' plan to hijack the Cooperative Party have been dealt a severe blow as this article from Labour List tells us.
> 
> The party's rules are quite explicit too.
> 
> ...


like my auld chemistry teacher used to say, it helps to read the question


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> He should have stayed sitting on the floor even though there were seats for the second half of the journey  I always do.


Virgin claim there were seats available at the start of the journey.

Media Room & Brand News - Virgin Trains

although their footage does show loads of people standing, so fuck knows.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Train-seatgate...the utter monster!


yeh cos when you see tories in tanks or wearing hard hats at factories that's what they actually do all day


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Virgin claim there were seats available at the start of the journey.
> 
> Media Room & Brand News - Virgin Trains
> 
> although their footage does show loads of people standing, so fuck knows.



He should have elbowed those two little old ladies out of the way, they were only faking the broken legs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't get it, he chose to sit on the floor cos principles yet somehow thats evidence of monstous duplicity?


No, he walked past empty seats, found a seat, then went to do his floor thing, then returned to his seat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> He should have elbowed those two little old ladies out of the way, they were only faking the broken legs.


stamped on their knees to check


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

no leadership


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 23, 2016)

Can't believe Corbyn was reading the Zinoviev letter on the train.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Virgin claim there were seats available at the start of the journey.
> 
> Media Room & Brand News - Virgin Trains
> 
> although their footage does show loads of people standing, so fuck knows.


strangely no mention of "sir" richard branson's politics


or brian souter's


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

And all the seats in that photograph have reserved notes on them, although doesn't mean reserved at that point in the journey. Will be interested to see what Corbyn says.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> strangely no mention of "sir" richard branson's politics
> 
> View attachment 91394
> or brian souter's
> ...





Spoiler: Yes, who's driving this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Spoiler: Yes, who's driving this?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 91396


has branson got wanker's palm?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Spoiler: Yes, who's driving this?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 91396


urgh, that photo is deffo set to an Oasis track. Wonderwall I say


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> has branson got wanker's palm?


Wrong'un,as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> like my auld chemistry teacher used to say, it helps to read the question


Absolutely. These PLPers always seem to go off half-cocked. I wonder what they were like in school? They probably cheated on their exams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Absolutely. These PLPers always seem to go off half-cocked. I wonder what they were like in school? They probably cheated on their exams.


paid other people to take them for them i wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> urgh, that photo is deffo set to an Oasis track. Wonderwall I say


champagne supernova


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> urgh, that photo is deffo set to an Oasis track. Wonderwall I say



It may be one Owen Smith wrote for them!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It may be one Owen Smith wrote for them!


of course, he needed something to do after securing Nelson Mandelas release


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> You don't live in Tower Hamlets, do you? Corruption here has meant you have to put in extra effort to be accepted as a member of the Labour Party.


How did you know? 
I'll write them a letter some time, there's no rush as who knows how long it takes to assent to being a voting member


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Spoiler: Yes, who's driving this?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 91396


Later that day:







_"I didn't come into politics to crash this train. I came into politics to crash the country."_


----------



## Mation (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Virgin claim there were seats available at the start of the journey.
> 
> Media Room & Brand News - Virgin Trains
> 
> although their footage does show loads of people standing, so fuck knows.


Where is the footage? I can only see stills...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

its a tawdry little off the cuff piece to reasure the reader that anyone with principles is faking it. They know they are, so everyone else must be. Bob crow lived in a council house, the hypocrite sort of vein


----------



## ska invita (Aug 23, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Who are these people?



lead editorial writer in the Guardian



two sheds said:


> . Will be interested to see what Corbyn says.


I doubt it.
The thought of weeks, months or even years more of this is too much to take...never ending


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

ska invita said:


> lead editorial writer in the Guardian
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> The thought of weeks, months or even years more of this is too much to take...never ending


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

Mation said:


> Where is the footage? I can only see stills...


the stills of the footage even.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its a tawdry little off the cuff piece


now lead item on the guardian website


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2016)

It's not that I think JC is JC or anything, but I find it hard to imagine him deliberately setting up the sitting-on-the-floor as a PR piece. Not really his style is it? This is a man who feels awkward getting overly dramatic in PMQs for gods sake. 

Which means it's interesting to watch the amount of effort going into ignoring the obvious explanation that has already been given and is included in the guardian piece if you read far enough (many won't, and they know that):



> Mendez said that the seemingly empty seats shown on an image released by Virgin Trains, timestamped 11.07am, had bags or coats placed on them by passengers.
> 
> The filmmaker said there were a number of other passengers sitting on the floor during the initial part of the trip. “We filmed Jeremy Corbyn at 11.30am, sat at the front of the train. There were many other people sat on the floor during that journey.
> 
> “After the video was shot we managed to get a seat at around 11.40am, because Virgin staff moved people around the train, but other people were unable to get a seat.”


----------



## Wilf (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> has branson got wanker's palm?


Fuck him and the balloon he rode into town on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Fuck him and the balloon he rode into town on.


i'll take that as a yes then


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 23, 2016)

If I read one more thing about fucking trains...

People are legit arguing about where a train stops first. Political Discourse 2k16.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> of course, he needed something to do after securing Nelson Mandelas release


yeh but it was only fair after owen smith led the apartheid forces to mandela in the first place


----------



## Mation (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> the stills of the footage even.


Sorry - it was less of me being pedantic (for once!) and more me wondering whether there is any link to it. I couldn't find it via the press release. 

Has anyone seen it?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Fucking hell does anyone else remember real political scandals like the Dodgy Dossier, and Brexit NHS lies? Or A Tory Chancellor snorting lines of coke with a Dominatrix?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Or A Tory Chancellor snorting lines of coke with a Dominatrix?


i suppose you mean george osborne with natalie rowe in the 1990s. when er he was not chancellor.
but if you mean john major, norman lamont or ken clarke please post up details.


----------



## inva (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Fucking hell does anyone else remember real political scandals like the Dodgy Dossier, and Brexit NHS lies? Or A Tory Chancellor snorting lines of coke with a Dominatrix?


'_was there a spare seat Jeremy?_'


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

inva said:


> '_was there a spare seat Jeremy?_'



Also, what could possibly motive the owner of a train company to attack a politician who wants to renationalise the train companies?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose you mean george osborne with natalie rowe in the 1990s. when er he was not chancellor.
> but if you mean john major, norman lamont or ken clarke please post up details.



Photos came to light while he was Chancellor, I think. But I'll happily stand corrected. And you forgot Mellor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Photos came to light while he was Chancellor, I think. But I'll happily stand corrected. And you forgot Mellor.


never chancellor


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Photos came to light while he was Chancellor, I think. But I'll happily stand corrected. And you forgot Mellor.



Natalie Rowe: 'I licked George Osborne's ear, my boyfriend saw and they started fighting'


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

Mation said:


> Sorry - it was less of me being pedantic (for once!) and more me wondering whether there is any link to it. I couldn't find it via the press release.
> 
> Has anyone seen it?


It hasn't been released I don't think. The graun have some footage but I think it's from a phone.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> never chancellor



Stand corrected, Treasury Secretary.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Fucking hell does anyone else remember real political scandals like the Dodgy Dossier, and Brexit NHS lies? Or A Tory Chancellor snorting lines of coke with a Dominatrix?



To be fair the most dodgy politician I remember was John Stonehouse, mostly due to my brother-in-law pushing me to the floor so he could stab the radio with a carving knife during a news bulletin about Stonehouse. 
People were a lot more passionate about politics back then!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Why had his team not reserved their seats?

Presumably they knew weeks ago that they would need to take that train.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Why had his team not reserved their seats?
> 
> Presumably they knew weeks ago that they would need to take that train.



Probably part of a plan to have to sit on the floor. What a conniving bastard that Corbyn is.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

The latest in Traingate: 

Passengers dispute Virgin Trains' claims about Jeremy Corbyn 'sitting on floor' video



> The bizarre row over whether Jeremy Corbyn had to sit on the floor of a Virgin train has taken a new twist as passengers on the service dispute the company’s version of events.



I think we're going to find he Paintshopped those people into those corridors.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Why had his team not reserved their seats?
> 
> Presumably they knew weeks ago that they would need to take that train.



Good fuck you've know idea how politics works. Even if the meeting was scheduled weeks in advance, they'd have no idea what time they'd arrive or leave at.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Good fuck you've know idea how politics works. Even if the meeting was scheduled weeks in advance, they'd have no idea what time they'd arrive or leave at.



Really?

Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.

It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Will be fascinating to see how Corbyn responds anyway.

Wasn't he supposed to be moving things away from PR stunts and onto substance?

Odd way to do it...


----------



## inva (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.


'Jeremy' was probably the only passenger anyway.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 23, 2016)

inva said:


> 'Jeremy' was probably the only passenger anyway.



On the last train to Wankin Panda!


----------



## inva (Aug 23, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> On the last train to Wankin Panda!


they've got it on ITV news in a second, I just hope we'll finally get some answers


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.



If it was being cynically spun it wouldn't be incompetence at booking a train ticket it would be a deliberate PR stunt. Make your mind up.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Will be fascinating to see how Corbyn responds anyway.
> 
> Wasn't he supposed to be moving things away from PR stunts and onto substance?
> 
> Odd way to do it...



Why should he respond to what is clearly another shitty smear? As for PR stunts, when they boarded there were no seats available for all of them to sit, so he opted for the floor for approx 45 mins, until train staff managed to shuffle people around so he could sit with colleagues. It's all over Twitter now by a female passenger who happened to witness it.


----------



## xenon (Aug 23, 2016)

This is so fucking pathetic and tedious (the news/twitterati focus)


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.



They had seats reserved, Corbyn got talking to a member of the public and they missed the original train.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> If it was being cynically spun it wouldn't be incompetence at booking a train ticket it would be a deliberate PR stunt. Make your mind up.



Ok - I'll step through this possible narrative:

Corbyn team forget to reserve a number of seats (5+?) on busy train to known meeting.

End up having to make do - decide to ignore available seats and/or split up (as normal passengers would do) and instead turn an inconvenient cock-up into a PR op, which unfortunately doesn't quite stack up when everything comes out in the wash.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.



Or they knew there was no point in booking seats, as Corbyn could be delayed BECAUSE HE'S THE LEADER OF NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2016)

xenon said:


> This is so fucking pathetic and tedious (the news/twitterati focus)



At least Twitter gets to the truth, unlike the media spin


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Will be fascinating to see how Corbyn responds anyway.
> 
> Wasn't he supposed to be moving things away from PR stunts and onto substance?
> 
> Odd way to do it...



In no way will this ever, ever be fascinating to anyone. Ever.

Another bullshit story amongst a great many.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> They had seats reserved, Corbyn got talking to a member of the public and they missed the original train.



This, considering Corbyn's habit of stopping for a chat, if I was part of his team, I'd give up trying to get him anywhere on time.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> They had seats reserved, Corbyn got talking to a member of the public and they missed the original train.



Ok - so they cocked up by missing their train and their reserved seats so decided to manufacture a PR op out of it instead...

Which is actually even more cynical when you think about it - had seats but too incompetent to claim them on first train so booted onto another train, inconveniencing folk on the first train who wouldn't know whether to take reserved seats or not and folk on the second train where demand for seats would have increased - cue PR op.


----------



## xenon (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - I'll step through this possible narrative:
> 
> Corbyn team forget to reserve a number of seats (5+?) on busy train to known meeting.
> 
> End up having to make do - decide to ignore available seats and/or split up (as normal passengers would do) and instead turn an inconvenient cock-up into a PR op, which unfortunately doesn't quite stack up when everything comes out in the wash.



You boring cunt.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - so they cocked up by missing their train and their reserved seats so decided to manufacture a PR op out of it instead...
> 
> Which is actually even more cynical when you think about it - had seats but too incompetent to claim them on first train so booted onto another train, inconveniencing folk on the first train who wouldn't know whether to take reserved seats or not and folk on the second train where demand for seats would have increased - cue PR op.



Lots of jumping to conclusions going on there.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - so they cocked up by missing their train and their reserved seats so decided to manufacture a PR op out of it instead...
> 
> Which is actually even more cynical when you think about it - had seats but too incompetent to claim them on first train so booted onto another train, inconveniencing folk on the first train who wouldn't know whether to take reserved seats or not and folk on the second train where demand for seats would have increased - cue PR op.



How important would this be compared to, say, stopping the privatization of the NHS?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

xenon said:


> You boring cunt.



Thank you. Concise and to the point.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How important would this be compared to, say, stopping the privatization of the NHS?



Six NHSs out of ten.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - so they cocked up by missing their train and their reserved seats so decided to manufacture a PR op out of it instead...
> 
> Which is actually even more cynical when you think about it - had seats but too incompetent to claim them on first train so booted onto another train, inconveniencing folk on the first train who wouldn't know whether to take reserved seats or not and folk on the second train where demand for seats would have increased - cue PR op.



Yes you're absolutely right, realising they missed the train, Corbyn's elite black OPs team staged an elaborate photo op, that destroyed the reputation  of innocent Virgin trains. 

I'd fucking love to be a right wing conspiracy nutjob, their world is so much more complicated and fun.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

virtue signalling obvs, thats the


Wilf said:


> Fuck him and the balloon he rode into town on.


crashed


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How important would this be compared to, say, stopping the privatization of the NHS?



It goes, either way, directly to his personal credibility.

This looks a lot like Jeremy Corbyn doing the kind of stuff that Jeremy Corbyn apparently never does.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Yes you're absolutely right, realising they missed the train, Corbyn's elite black OPs team staged an elaborate photo op, that destroyed the reputation  of innocent Virgin trains.
> 
> I'd fucking love to be a right wing conspiracy nutjob, their world is so much more complicated and fun.



Or how about they decided to make the best of a bad situation?


----------



## Combustible (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> This looks a lot like Jeremy Corbyn doing the kind of stuff that Jeremy Corbyn apparently never does.



What? Missing trains?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> Yes you're absolutely right, realising they missed the train, Corbyn's elite black OPs team staged an elaborate photo op, that destroyed the reputation  of innocent Virgin trains.



I know, right?! Because Virgin trains are just *so* good!


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - I'll step through this possible narrative:
> 
> Corbyn team forget to reserve a number of seats (5+?) on busy train to known meeting.
> 
> End up having to make do - decide to ignore available seats and/or split up (as normal passengers would do) and instead turn an inconvenient cock-up into a PR op, which unfortunately doesn't quite stack up when everything comes out in the wash.



Shit Jez we forgot we're going by train to that meeting even though we're on a fucking train and there's loads of available seats but we can't sit together so get on your arse and we'll make it look like the world has gone to shit. If that doesn't do it next time you're on the roof etc

eta he's not a 'normal' passenger, the other fella is


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It goes, either way, directly to his personal credibility.
> 
> This looks a lot like Jeremy Corbyn doing the kind of stuff that Jeremy Corbyn apparently never does.



Only it doesn't, if you bother listening to the people who were there rather than playing CSI Boring Cunt.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It goes, either way, directly to his personal credibility.
> 
> This looks a lot like Jeremy Corbyn doing the kind of stuff that Jeremy Corbyn apparently never does.



You don't believe the people who were sat/stood in the corridors at the time because there were no spare seats? You believe Virgin trains heavily commercial PR release above them?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

I remember at the time that the original video was published thinking that it was shot from a pretty odd angle which totally excluded any other passengers, seating etc but assumed it was done for reasons of privacy.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

stop replying to the wanker - it's turning this thread into twitter, 4 hours ago.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Will be fascinating to see how Corbyn responds anyway.



No it won't be. This 'scandal' is the least interesting thing on earth.


----------



## a_chap (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> ...Corbyn's elite black OPs team...



Racist


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Or how about they decided to make the best of a bad situation?



So they staged a photo op of Jeremy sitting on the ground, which is something that never happens to ordinary commuters on Virgin trains. 

Fucking hell the PLP and "traingate" are making the GOP with the Benghazi fetish look positively sane.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> You don't believe the people who were sat/stood in the corridors at the time because there were no spare seats? You believe Virgin trains heavily commercial PR release above them?



Apparently seats became free when people got off according to those witnesses but my understanding is that there were no stops for anyone to get off at between the video being shot and when staff found him a seat.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

I.e same number of people, same number of seats throughout the relevant time


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> So they staged a photo op of Jeremy sitting on the ground, which is something that never happens to ordinary commuters on Virgin trains.
> 
> Fucking hell the PLP and "traingate" are making the GOP with the Benghazi fetish look positively sane.



It's a 50 second or so video of a man sat next to a train door - not exactly big budget stuff


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> No it won't be. This 'scandal' is the least interesting thing on earth.


one interesting thing has been seeing all the media tosspots running with it all day, without getting a second source, despite the fact it was a packed train and should be pretty easy to corroborate. Now people who were actually on the train have got home from work and their reports have started to filter through, every one of them (that I've seen) supports Corbyn's version.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It's a 50 second or so video of a man sat next to a train door - not exactly big budget stuff


Not much of a PR stunt then?


----------



## Knotted (Aug 23, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes - there's not much they can say. They can't articulate a different political position because they haven't got one. They haven't got any politics full stop. That's why this is simply a battle for control, for ownership.  Which is why i think this _'they're not scared of corbyn, they're scared of you_' is so much desperate _please let it be true_ guff. They're scared for their individual jobs.



I've got three thoughts on this. Firstly it strikes me as amazing just how vacuous Angela Eagle's abortive bid for leadership was and it's amazing just how far Owen Smith is willing to crib from Corbyn and McDonnell. They really don't have any new ideas, or at least any new ideas that they are willing to pitch to the membership.

My second thought is that they (anti-Corbyn MPs and Labour members in general regardless of their particular alignment) can't continue this state of guerilla warfare for too long without threatening many of those MP's jobs. Come the general election and if Labour are still in a faction fight they are going to be all but wiped out. Not only that, although it would force Corbyn to resign, it would still injure their cause against the pro-Corbyn membership as they would lose a chunk of their greatest asset in this faction fight ie. the members of parliament who refuse to work with Corbyn (or whoever will be the heir to Corbyn).

Thirdly you are going to have some MPs and bigwigs who are going to want to run for cover, cut losses and try to sit out Corbyn's leadership. This united front, which I still think is impressive in terms of organisation (they've actually managed to herd cats!), surely cannot survive the leadership contest if Corbyn gets anything above 60% of the vote.

So I'm inclined to say that a split isn't on the cards and a prolonged Mexican standoff (perhaps with annual leadership challenges and alternative shadow cabinets) is also off the cards.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Apparently seats became free when people got off according to those witnesses but my understanding is that there were no stops for anyone to get off at between the video being shot and when staff found him a seat.



And they were lying when they said the guards moved people around to free more space?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> Not much of a PR stunt then?



They don't always work exactly as intended...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2016)

I've just heard that Jonny Chilcot's been summoned. He'll be at Labour HQ by this time next year.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And they were lying when they said the guards moved people around to free more space?



Isn't that worse - the real complaint was that there weren't multiple seats immediately available together for Corbyn's team who had already missed their train with reserved seats necessitating the intervention of the guards to create sufficient space while in the interim Corbyn is doing a piece to camera on the floor about how horrendously under-resourced the trains are...


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It's a 50 second or so video of a man sat next to a train door - not exactly big budget stuff



They'd be literally be no point. Why because it would explode back in their face. Passengers on the train would spot the publicity stunt, and post it on social media. If it was staged Corbyn's credibly would be ruined, and for what, a minor story.

The fact is, passengers support Corbyn's claim, while the Billionaire owner of a railway Corbyn wants to nationalise attacks him. That's why I dont believe Branson. That and Branson is a cunt.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Apparently seats became free when people got off according to those witnesses but my understanding is that there were no stops for anyone to get off at between the video being shot and when staff found him a seat.



They said the staff started "shuffling people around" - that is, upgrading some people to first class, which freed up spaces in regular carriages. No stops needed.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

That's why Corbyn's reaction will be interesting - because all of this goes to credibility.

He made a statement that played on his credibility and authenticity. Now he's being challenged on that.

I suspect that he'll try and dismiss this all as being inconsequential and of no real importance, which would be characteristic and also very damaging.


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> That's why Corbyn's reaction will be interesting - because all of this goes to credibility.
> 
> He made a statement that played on his credibility and authenticity. Now he's being challenged on that.
> 
> I suspect that he'll try and dismiss this all as being inconsequential and of no real importance, which would be characteristic and also very damaging.



Oh fuck off Diamond.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> They said the staff started "shuffling people around" - that is, upgrading some people to first class, which freed up spaces in regular carriages. No stops needed.



Haven't seen the free upgrade stuff - links?

And wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade Corbyn and his team to first class if that was possible anyway?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> That's why Corbyn's reaction will be interesting - because all of this goes to credibility.
> 
> He made a statement that played on his credibility and authenticity. Now he's being challenged on that.
> 
> I suspect that he'll try and dismiss this all as being inconsequential and of no real importance, which would be characteristic and also very damaging.



Are you a shit journalist by trade by any chance?


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> They don't always work exactly as intended...



Well obviously because in this case as you said, they missed the fucking train!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2016)

Virgin don't really run the East Coast railway, by the way, even though it's their name on it. It's 10% Virgin, and the rest mostly Stagecoach. So a different cunt.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Haven't seen the free upgrade stuff - links?
> 
> And wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade Corbyn and his team to first class if that was possible anyway?



Link.

Why would it make more sense? Because they should take advantage of privilege?

Every time you come up with a shitty reason that Corbyn must have lied about this, you're given an answer, and then you come up with an even shittier reason. It's totally pathetic.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Isn't that worse - the real complaint was that there weren't multiple seats immediately available together for Corbyn's team who had already missed their train with reserved seats necessitating the intervention of the guards to create sufficient space while in the interim Corbyn is doing a piece to camera on the floor about how horrendously under-resourced the trains are...



you're havin a larf. Lots of people were in corridors so he sat in a corridor rather than upgrading to first class. I've been in trains where they didn't upgrade us oiks to first class even though the rest of the train was overflowing.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Link.
> 
> Why would it make more sense? Because they should take advantage of privilege?
> 
> Every time you come up with a shitty reason that Corbyn must have lied about this, you're given an answer, and then you come up with an even shittier reason. It's totally pathetic.



Anyone would think he's a lawyer or something.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Link.
> 
> Why would it make more sense? Because they should take advantage of privilege?
> 
> Every time you come up with a shitty reason that Corbyn must have lied about this, you're given an answer, and then you come up with an even shittier reason. It's totally pathetic.



I stand corrected - a family were upgraded, freeing up seats.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> That's why Corbyn's reaction will be interesting - because *all of this* goes to credibility.


"All" of this!
lol
You vacuous tool.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2016)

To be fair Corbyn could never win whatever he did. Sit on the floor? Cynical publicity stunt. Sit in an empty but reserved chair? Entitled Corbyn steals seat from hardworking family. Upgrade to first class? Hypocritical champagne socialist expects better treatment than the rest of us.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

The Guardian quotes a Labour source saying that the issue was that Corbyn couldn't find a pair of available seats together.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2016)

Oh and the fourth option - stand up in isle? Corbyn forces crotch into old ladies face.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

I think the central point as to why this is an issue is pretty obvious - if you make a political point in this way, you should expect scrutiny when the facts don't stack up.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2016)

Yes, that's _definitely _the central point.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> To be fair Corbyn could never win whatever he did. Sit on the floor? Cynical publicity stunt. Sit in an empty but reserved chair? Entitled Corbyn steals seat from hardworking family. Upgrade to first class? Hypocritical champagne socialist expects better treatment than the rest of us.


Disembark, spot a landslide, run down the track and use a stray red petticoat to flag down the express and prevent a tragedy?







Witness him flaunt his disgusting Stalinist undergarments of the hard-left as innocent hardworking™ people look on in horror


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

In all this pathetic non-story..it turns out...there is a story; plenty of tory no-mark MPs have been on social media joining with the Labour right. Funny that, I thought the tory line was that he was an unelectable liability that they wanted to preserve in situ. Hmmm


----------



## inva (Aug 23, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> No it won't be. This 'scandal' is the least interesting thing on earth.


it's slightly more interesting than say the intricacies of the Labour Party rule book tbf


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Also, taking a step back - this was also clearly an attempt to frame the political debate in that day's news cycle ahead of his performance in the hustings.


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> one interesting thing has been seeing all the media tosspots running with it all day, without getting a second source, despite the fact it was a packed train and should be pretty easy to corroborate. Now people who were actually on the train have got home from work and their reports have started to filter through, every one of them (that I've seen) supports Corbyn's version.


not really 6 oclock news did the first 10mins on people in track suits get on a plane.  Then this, then gender pay differences based on a think tank piece that could have been published anytime: S L  O	W newsday

+ on coorbiration. Happened a few weeks back, this is Virgin train pr counter attack


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Apparently seats became free when people got off according to those witnesses but my understanding is that there were no stops for anyone to get off at between the video being shot and when staff found him a seat.



Do you never get on busy trains? As someone who often ends up sat on the floor, this is usually what happens- people get on the train, they avoid the empty reserved seats because it's embarrassing for all people concerned when someone comes along and tells you you're sat on their seat. You walk past unreserved seats with bags on, again in a desperate attempt to avoid the embarrassment of asking people to move their shit, hoping to find another empty seat in the next carriage to avoid any form of social interaction. You then try the next carriage (at this point you're thinking "shit, I should have just asked that wanker to move their bags"), onto the next carriage and.. SHIT! It's the the last one and it's full. You turn back hoping to find one of the earlier empty ones but crap, the corridors between carriages has people stood up- there must be no seats anywhere! Resigned, you slump onto the floor. About half an hour into the train journey, the guard pulls off all the reserved tickets that aren't taken and starts telling the people who are standing that there are seats further down. They tell people to move their bags off the seats. It's not fraud or incompetence, it's just how trains work.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

Telegraph.
"...*much more dishonest..."
*


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

I know it's a slow news day. Not sure if it's ever slow enough to unquestioningly publish a press release calling the leader of the opposition a liar without corroboration though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 23, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> To be fair the most dodgy politician I remember was John Stonehouse, mostly due to my brother-in-law pushing me to the floor so he could stab the radio with a carving knife during a news bulletin about Stonehouse.
> People were a lot more passionate about politics back then!


Yes, the man who faked his own death and resurfaced in Australia, where he was arrested iirc. What a dick.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph.
> "...*much more dishonest..."
> *



Do you think all these critics genuinely believe their own shit? That Corbyn really is a racist, misogynistic, Trotskyite Commie-Nazi liar, ISIS supporting, IRA loving, anti-semitic fraud, peace loving hippy- pacifist bully, allotment growing danger to Britain? I mean at the very least he's straddling a lot of ideologies there- it's quite an impressive achievement.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Do you never get on busy trains? As someone who often ends up sat on the floor, this is usually what happens- people get on the train, they avoid the empty reserved seats because it's embarrassing for all people concerned when someone comes along and tells you you're sat on their seat. You walk past unreserved seats with bags on, again in a desperate attempt to avoid the embarrassment of asking people to move their shit, hoping to find another empty seat in the next carriage to avoid any form of social interaction. You then try the next carriage (at this point you're thinking "shit, I should have just asked that wanker to move their bags"), onto the next carriage and.. SHIT! It's the the last one and it's full. You turn back hoping to find one of the earlier empty ones but crap, the corridors between carriages has people stood up- there must be no seats anywhere! Resigned, you slump onto the floor. About half an hour into the train journey, the guard pulls off all the reserved tickets that aren't taken and starts telling the people who are standing that there are seats further down. They tell people to move their bags off the seats. It's not fraud or incompetence, it's just how trains work.



But that's not really evidence of market failure, is it?

Especially if you have to go through that rigmarole because you have missed reserved seats on an earlier train, as explained by another poster above.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> I know it's a slow news day. Not sure if it's ever slow enough to unquestioningly publish a press release calling the leader of the opposition a liar without corroboration though.



This is one of those stories the press want to believe, so they don't bother fact-checking it


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph.
> "...*much more dishonest..."
> *


  From here on in the news is going to get very dull if it moves to focus on the reveal that "straight after the photo was taken, they put the paint brush down without actually painting any of it."	The worst it makes him is a politiciany as the rest of them.
Then it goes on to say he smeared Virgin trains " a respected private company with a global reputation" - that just about works, but only if they advertise Virgin Trains as better than the Mumbai rush hour.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> But that's not really evidence of market failure, is it?
> 
> Especially if you have to go through that rigmarole because you have missed reserved seats on an earlier train, as explained by another poster above.



You really don't take trains often do you? Everyone who does will declare them a failure, honestly I hate them-  always late, usually over crowded, stupidly expensive. I missed having a last evening with my dad before he became bed ridden due to terminal cancer because the trains were 3 hours late. The amount of time stolen by them- friends I was meant to meet up with, appointments I was meant to make, work I've been late for. I even get trains hours before I even have to be there for and they're still late!


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> You really don't take trains often do you? Everyone who does will declare them a failure, honestly I hate them-  always late, usually over crowded, stupidly expensive. I missed having a last evening with my dad before he became bed ridden due to terminal cancer because the trains were 3 hours late. The amount of time stolen by them- friends I was meant to meet up with, appointments I was meant to make, work I've been late for. I even get trains hours before I even have to be there for and they're still late!


tbf His answer of "more trains" would probably make things worse - its longer trains or double decker trains- to allow more passangers to travel without further congesting the railways


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> You really don't take trains often do you? Everyone who does will declare them a failure, honestly I hate them-  always late, usually over crowded, stupidly expensive. I missed having a last evening with my dad before he became bed ridden due to terminal cancer because the trains were 3 hours late. The amount of time stolen by them- friends I was meant to meet up with, appointments I was meant to make, work I've been late for. I even get trains hours before I even have to be there for and they're still late!



I took one on Sunday evening from Salisbury to London - it was very busy but I got an unreserved seat and my ticket was a bargain £16 because I got it last minute.

But I don't dispute that the service is normally abysmal and extremely expensive and I really am sorry to hear about your Dad.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Aug 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> tbf His answer of "more trains" would probably make things worse - its longer trains or double decker trains- to allow more passangers to travel without further congesting the railways


 
I think the thing holding back double decker trains is the cost of heightening all the bridges. I think Corbyn has a much more holistic solution to train overcrowding- yes more trains, but also rectifying the housing crisis, which is a big reason for all the long distance commuting


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> I think the thing holding back double decker trains is the cost of heightening all the bridges. I think Corbyn has a much more holistic solution to train overcrowding- yes more trains, but also rectifying the housing crisis, which is a big reason for all the long distance commuting


Turning into the transport forum but they've raised a load of bridges/lowered tunnels on routes out of Southampton to accommodate some standard of increased height containers. Bit more of an undertaking to do e.g. a whole mainline but not impossible.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> tbf His answer of "more trains" would probably make things worse - its longer trains or double decker trains- to allow more passangers to travel without further congesting the railways



Double-decker trains aren't a goer due to bridges and longer trains usually have a problem with train station platforms not being long enough. If it's just one or two stations that can't be extended then you can warn the people in those carriages, but if it's most of them then it's not really workable. "More trains" is something that can be done almost instantly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Double-decker trains aren't a goer due to bridges and longer trains usually have a problem with train station platforms not being long enough. If it's just one or two stations that can't be extended then you can warn the people in those carriages, but if it's most of them then it's not really workable. "More trains" is something that can be done almost instantly.


Yep. Mind you pretty often, just 'trains as long as can already be accommodated' would be an improvement. 

tis a shame about the double-deckers.


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Double-decker trains aren't a goer due to bridges and longer trains usually have a problem with train station platforms not being long enough. If it's just one or two stations that can't be extended then you can warn the people in those carriages, but if it's most of them then it's not really workable. "More trains" is something that can be done almost instantly.


Live by the line they are going to trial double deckers on Waterloo- Basingtoke.   At present a lot of outbound trains split at  Woking to reduce the congestion to Waterloo and Clapham.  The track round London terminuses is v.busy


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

quite, how many times have you been waiting on a crowded platform and a two-carriage train (already full) turns up?


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Haven't seen the free upgrade stuff - links?
> 
> And wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade Corbyn and his team to first class if that was possible anyway?




BECAUSE JEREMY CORBYN IS NOT GEORGE FUCKING OBSOURNE YOU DAFT COCKWOMBLE.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

At risk of extending the rail diversion... 

It is very very very long overdue for trains to, by law if necessary, be forced to allow any passenger to sit in 1st class if there are no other seats available. It's an ongoing disgrace that people are forced to stand while there are empty seats.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> Live by the line they are going to trial double deckers on Waterloo- Basingtoke.   At present a lot of outbound trains split at  Woking to reduce the congestion to Waterloo and Clapham.  The track round London terminuses is v.busy



That's interesting - hope it works. I could see maybe some double-deckers working to suburban stations and then people transferring to an ordinary train. However, it would take an awful lot longer than just running more trains or making sure you run ones that cover the whole platform - it's true, they often don't.


----------



## tim (Aug 23, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> Do you think all these critics genuinely believe their own shit? That Corbyn really is a racist, misogynistic, Trotskyite Commie-Nazi liar, ISIS supporting, IRA loving, anti-semitic fraud, peace loving hippy- pacifist bully, allotment growing danger to Britain? I mean at the very least he's straddling a lot of ideologies there- it's quite an impressive achievement.



The Liberals seemed to manage to fuse most of the above for decades.  Corbyn, of course, also goes for hat old Liberal Party beard and sandals look


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

labour right believe none of it. Its total cyniscm and bad faith politicking.


----------



## tim (Aug 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> From here on in the news is going to get very dull if it moves to focus on the reveal that "straight after the photo was taken, they put the paint brush down without actually painting any of it."	The worst it makes him is a politiciany as the rest of them.
> Then it goes on to say he smeared Virgin trains " a respected private company with a global reputation" - that just about works, but only if they advertise Virgin Trains as better than the Mumbai rush hour.



At least Branson's trains are safer than his sky rockets


----------



## tim (Aug 23, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Are you a shit journalist by trade by any chance?



No a shit lawyer


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

Surprisingly balance from C4 news report, finishing with "whats the big deal?"


----------



## teqniq (Aug 23, 2016)

Perhaps it has belatedly dawned on them exactly how stupid it makes them look.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

4s not any good but it doesn't do slavish devotion to the cycle quite like the beeb


----------



## 8den (Aug 23, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At risk of extending the rail diversion...
> 
> It is very very very long overdue for trains to, by law if necessary, be forced to allow any passenger to sit in 1st class if there are no other seats available. It's an ongoing disgrace that people are forced to stand while there are empty seats.



A pregnant friend coming into central London on the train, came into work in near tears often, because southern rail staff refused to allow her to sit in first class seats. Despite the fact that pregnant women are allowed to sit in first class if no other seats are available.

Diamond' "why didn't' they give the 1st class seats to Corbyn" smacks of that public school, forelock tucking, suggesting that people "above your station" should be allowed better service is a perfect example of the British class system at work.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> quite, how many times have you been waiting on a crowded platform and a two-carriage train (already full) turns up?



You regularly just get the one carriage between here (Stoke-on-Trent) and Derby. Thankfully I don't have to travel that much anymore (also, sadly I don't have to travel that much anymore, since my relatives are all dead in that direction). But when I did, it was absolutely crucial you learn where the doors stop.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> quite, how many times have you been waiting on a crowded platform and a two-carriage train (already full) turns up?


The franchise operators do not own the rolling stock, they have to lease it. For more info see here. This goes some way to explaining their reluctance to have what we, the travellers would consider a reasonable number of carriages in any given train. This is not meant to excuse the whole setup in any way whatsoever.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> A pregnant friend coming into central London on the train, came into work in near tears often, because southern rail staff refused to allow her to sit in first class seats. Despite the fact that pregnant women are allowed to sit in first class if no other seats are available.
> 
> Diamond' "why didn't' they give the 1st class seats to Corbyn" smacks of that public school, forelock tucking, suggesting that people "above your station" should be allowed better service is a perfect example of the British class system at work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

those that scheme see only schemes tbf


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2016)

Is it just me that's a bit disturbed by Virgin distributing CCTV footage (supposedly for "safety and security" according to them) for political reasons? Should I be concerned that if I tweet something nasty about rail franchises now there'll be a video of me scratching my arse in my replies? Do I have to enlist other passengers to take photos to prove that I was just checking how much change was in my back pocket?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is it just me that's a bit disturbed by Virgin distributing CCTV footage (supposedly for "safety and security" according to them) for political reasons? Should I be concerned that if I tweet something nasty about rail franchises now there'll be a video of me scratching my arse in my replies? Do I have to enlist other passengers to take photos to prove that I was just checking how much change was in my back pocket?


Are there not legal restrictions on how this stuff can be used? I'm a bit surprised if there aren't.

Strikes me as a case of something likely to be a massive backfire. Virgin setting themselves up as victims? Really? Even tory commuters won't be buying that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are there not legal restrictions on how this stuff can be used? I'm a bit surprised if there aren't.
> 
> Strikes me as a case of something likely to be a massive backfire. Virgin setting themselves up as victims? Really? Even tory commuters won't be buying that.


There might well be a DPA issue - CCTV footage is personal data, and it's explicitly stated that it's collected for safety and security purposes (according to some Virgin franchise PDF I read today). Nobody has given consent for it to be used to boost the circulation figures of the Telegraph.

Obviously JC would look petty going for that but it's pretty unpleasant.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is it just me that's a bit disturbed by Virgin distributing CCTV footage (supposedly for "safety and security" according to them) for political reasons? Should I be concerned that if I tweet something nasty about rail franchises now there'll be a video of me scratching my arse in my replies? Do I have to enlist other passengers to take photos to prove that I was just checking how much change was in my back pocket?


Must have been 'legal reasons'; can't see any other justification from their bullet points...



> We reserve the right to withhold information where permissible by the Data Protection Act and we will only retain CCTV images for a reasonable period or as long as is required by law. *In certain circumstances we may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons.* When this is done there is a requirement for the organisation that has received the images to adhere to the Data Protection Act.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Obviously JC would look petty going for that but it's pretty unpleasant.


Yep, as ever, his best response is to rise above it. tbh he does seem very good at that. I'd have exploded several times by now after the shit of the last year.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Must have been 'legal reasons'; can't see any other justification from their bullet points...
> 
> ​


No chance that disclosure was ordered by a court there, we'd have heard about that.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No chance that disclosure was ordered by a court there, we'd have heard about that.


Exactly.
They appear to have breached their own policy (as published). The twats.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

perhaps they're suing him for defamation


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Exactly.
> They appear to have breached their own policy (as published). The twats.


Corbyn getting someone else to calmly point this out might be nice.


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 23, 2016)

Ultimately, I don't think it does anything to lessen the general feeling that OS is just a contemptible cunt.

At the core of it the story is 'Man deliberately sat on the floor'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> perhaps they're suing him for defamation




All they do is draw attention to the racket that is private rail and the need for them to have it taken off them. 

In the end it's just an August slow-news story, but Virgin have done themselves no favours.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

I can't decide if this is more trivial than bowgate or not. On the one hand his insufficient depth of bow was at a formal occasion. On the other hand this shit is so trivial you'd struggle to get it to be a contender. Fucking silly season.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Exactly.
> They appear to have breached their own policy (as published). The twats.


Strangely enough the Guardian, which has a well-populated tag for data protection, doesn't mention this aspect at all.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 23, 2016)

Ryan Lochte levels of busted lying to the public.  

Only the usual dim clowns are left defending him, or trying to deflect from another cluster fuck. They have really sunk to near climate change denier levels of braying moral certainty mixed with fact free stupidity. 

Still his supporters and his brother will have lots to talk about then. Perhaps  he can show them his super computer that predicts earthquakes from the Sun Spots.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Ryan Lochte levels of busted lying to the public.
> 
> Only the usual dim clowns are left defending him, or trying to deflect from another cluster fuck. They have really sunk to near climate change denier levels of braying moral certainty mixed with fact free stupidity.
> 
> Still his supporters and his brother will have lots to talk about then. Perhaps  he can show them his super computer that predicts earthquakes from the Sun Spots.


That's incoherent, even by your standards. 

wtf has his brother got to do with it? 

You do know he doesn't agree with his brother over climate change, don't you?


----------



## inva (Aug 23, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Ryan Lochte levels of busted lying to the public.
> 
> Only the usual dim clowns are left defending him, or trying to deflect from another cluster fuck. They have really sunk to near climate change denier levels of braying moral certainty mixed with fact free stupidity.
> 
> Still his supporters and his brother will have lots to talk about then. Perhaps  he can show them his super computer that predicts earthquakes from the Sun Spots.


_have you lied to the public Jeremy?
_
sent from outside Corbyn's house using Tapatalk


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 23, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Ryan Lochte levels of busted lying to the public.
> 
> Only the usual dim clowns are left defending him, or trying to deflect from another cluster fuck. They have really sunk to near climate change denier levels of braying moral certainty mixed with fact free stupidity.
> 
> Still his supporters and his brother will have lots to talk about then. Perhaps  he can show them his super computer that predicts earthquakes from the Sun Spots.



Do you feel better now?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> That's why Corbyn's reaction will be interesting - because all of this goes to credibility.
> 
> He made a statement that played on his credibility and authenticity. Now he's being challenged on that.
> 
> I suspect that he'll try and dismiss this all as being inconsequential and of no real importance, which would be characteristic and also very damaging.


Fucking state of you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2016)

he should baldly state that his cheeks went numb. And his balls were getting there. We all know it happened, you don't sit on a hardarse deck for that long without consequences.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 23, 2016)

man [potentially] lies to highlight how shit privatised trains are - untrustworthy cunt
man [potentially] lies, definitely exagerates and definitely subverts democracy to cement power for him and his mates - electable saint


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is it just me that's a bit disturbed by Virgin distributing CCTV footage (supposedly for "safety and security" according to them) for political reasons?


But they have a right of reply surely?, especially if he is being deceptive.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 23, 2016)

Virgin Trains could have released the CCTV footage of the 'Great Train Snobbery' as a warning to punters not to try to sit in first class without a valid ticket. But they didn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> But they have a right of reply surely?, especially if he is being deceptive.


With CCTV footage? Really? Is that what it's for?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With CCTV footage? Really? Is that what it's for?


Isn't it a much bigger deal that the leader of the opposition and a bloke who trades on his principles is telling fibs?. Why are you not mad about that?.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Isn't it a much bigger deal that the leader of the opposition and a bloke who trades on his principles is telling fibs?.


No.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

Christ, it's become some hideous loop.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2016)

anyway, this made me laugh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> anyway, this made me laugh.



That is pretty good


----------



## J Ed (Aug 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> those that scheme see only schemes tbf



yes, and bastards think everyone else is a bastard and when they do immoral things to get ahead just assume that they are the only ones doing it because the other bastards aren't smart enough to have thought of it.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Isn't it a much bigger deal that the leader of the opposition and a bloke who trades on his principles is telling fibs?. Why are you not mad about that?.



Where has he told fibs? 

I'm now wondering whether I imagined the last time I had to sit in the space for bike racks from Cornwall half the way up to Birmingham.  I must have been lying about it  

and they didn't offer *me* first class upgrade


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Where has he told fibs?
> 
> I'm now wondering whether I imagined the last time I had to sit in the space for bike racks from Cornwall half the way up to Birmingham.  I must have been lying about it
> 
> and they didn't offer *me* first class upgrade


The cctv shows him walking past unoccupied unreserved seats, which he returned to once he had done his bit on the floor.


----------



## muscovyduck (Aug 23, 2016)

I thought by now everyone was polarised one way or another but today I have seen people moving towards the corbyn movement away from the blarites (I know they ain't technically blarites but that's how most people name them because they're not pro-smith, are they? Just anti Corbyn)


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The cctv shows him walking past unoccupied unreserved seats, which he returned to once he had done his bit on the floor.





> Branson also tweeted to his 8.2 million followers a third image of Corbyn walking through a crowded carriage, timed at 11.11am, where the seats were clearly marked with reservation tickets. The Virgin entrepreneur wrote: “Mr Corbyn & team walked past empty-unreserved seats then filmed claim train was ‘ram-packed’”.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Jeremy Corbyn fends off Branson's attack over 'ram-packed' Virgin train

That photo showed most of the seats he was walking past being reserved. 

And not only was he lying but the people he was traveling on the train with were lying?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 23, 2016)

Newsnight have a former adviser to Ed Millibland and a former pollster to Gordon Brown talking about Corbyn is Definitely Lying about traingate


----------



## coley (Aug 23, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.


When was the last time you 'reserved a seat on a train? and more importantly found your 'reservation' actually got you a seat?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

Fucking leaders of the opposition were sat in my fucking reserved seat


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The cctv shows him walking past unoccupied unreserved seats, which he returned to once he had done his bit on the floor.


Right now. So you believe that total cunt Branston_ who tweeted CCTV footage_? 

The head of a train company _tweeted CCTV footage_ from one of his trains. That beggars fucking belief. He really should have stuck to the pickles.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Jeremy Corbyn fends off Branson's attack over 'ram-packed' Virgin train
> 
> That photo showed most of the seats he was walking past being reserved.
> 
> And not only was he lying but the people he was traveling on the train with were lying?


The first photo shows him walking past lots of empty unreserved seats.

Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News

I don't think it would be beyond him to lie given his aim of re-nationalising the railways.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right now. So you believe that total cunt Branston_ who tweeted CCTV footage_?
> 
> The head of a train company _tweeted CCTV footage_ from one of his trains. That beggars fucking belief. He really should have stuck to the pickles.


Is the CCTV footage faked or something?.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 23, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> ...
> 
> At the core of it the story is 'Man deliberately sat on the floor'



Sadly it's man sat on floor and then made a video about it. He told us why he had to sit on the floor, but it turned out it was the bastard public reserving one seat and sitting in another. Pure 'In the thick of it'.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

From that article I particularly liked: 



> A spokesperson for Virgin Trains said: “We know that some of our services on our east and west coast franchises are extremely popular, and it can be hard to find a seat.”



making it the travellers' faults for travelling on their "extremely" popular" (the new definition of "overcrowded") trains 



> It usually happened in particular circumstances, the operator added, for example when there’s a big sporting event, or on the first off-peak train out of London.



So at least once a day they recognize there's likely to be overcrowding and they do fuck all about it except offer to upgrade people like the Leader of the Opposition to first class if he happens to be travelling on it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is the CCTV footage faked or something?.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The first photo shows him walking past lots of empty unreserved seats.
> 
> Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News
> 
> I don't think it would be beyond him to lie given his aim of re-nationalising the railways.



The footage was taken "as he was boarding the train"

For which read "before other people have sat down in their seats"?

And you're still maintaining that the other travelers on the train were lying when they also say it was 'ram packed'?


----------



## coley (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Anyone would think he's a lawyer or something.


If that's the case hope I never need a lawyer, though I prefer the terms solicitor or barrister


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 23, 2016)

From the Grauniad:

"...Virgin staff spotted Corbyn sitting in a vestibule they offered him a complimentary upgrade to first class, which he refused."

Why would they offer him an upgrade to first class if there were standard class seats available?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That photo showed most of the seats he was walking past being reserved.



Maybe I've been using trains wrong, but if those seats are reserved out of a station, and are unoccupied after the train has left that station, then anyone can sit there. Similarly, if the seats are reserved from a station down the line, anyone can sit there until the person with the reservation gets on and claims the seat. 

So we need CCTV timestamps and a train timetable, stat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> From the Grauniad:
> 
> "...Virgin staff spotted Corbyn sitting in a vestibule they offered him a complimentary upgrade to first class, which he refused."
> 
> Why would they offer him an upgrade to first class if there were standard class seats available?


And more's the point, why isn't it standard practice whenever there are seats in first class????

I hope Virgin keep pushing this. It might just get them to change their disgusting policy.


----------



## coley (Aug 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> tbf His answer of "more trains" would probably make things worse - its longer trains or double decker trains- to allow more passangers to travel without further congesting the railways


Bet he's an ardent supporter of HS2, designed to keep the oinks in their place!


----------



## treelover (Aug 23, 2016)

The latest article in the Guardian on 'The War of Jeremy's Seat' has over 16000 comments, must be a record, what other countries make of it I do wonder.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 23, 2016)

This is literally all his opponents have got now.


----------



## Chilli.s (Aug 23, 2016)

Whether the train was full or not its still true that rail transport is expensive, overcrowded and unreliable. Ask anyone who uses SE train network. I wouldn't trust Virgins response to this, not when it makes them look like they skim a profit without providing the service customers are paying to use.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> From the Grauniad:
> 
> "...Virgin staff spotted Corbyn sitting in a vestibule they offered him a complimentary upgrade to first class, which he refused."
> 
> Why would they offer him an upgrade to first class if there were standard class seats available?



Because he's been on the telly?


----------



## treelover (Aug 23, 2016)

I think Team Corbyn are going to run with it, binary divide , Branson vs the People.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Because he's been on the telly?


Ha. 

Can you imagine the shit if he'd accepted the upgrade?!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe I've been using trains wrong, but if those seats are reserved out of a station, and are unoccupied after the train has left that station, then anyone can sit there. Similarly, if the seats are reserved from a station down the line, anyone can sit there until the person with the reservation gets on and claims the seat.
> 
> So we need CCTV timestamps and a train timetable, stat.



Indeed, and someone on the train said that some of those seats had bags on them. So we'll need signed witness statements from the relevant passengers, too. 

Strange why loads of other passengers were standing too, though. They must all have been using trains wrongly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> making it the travellers' faults for travelling on their "extremely" popular" (the new definition of "overcrowded") trains
> 
> .


Problem is, they're just _too good_.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> They must all have been using trains wrongly.



That might actually be true. But it does look like the train left London with lots of unoccupied seats. Anyway, it's August, the political journos have got hee-haw else to write about, and basically no-one else gives a shit.


----------



## coley (Aug 23, 2016)

8den said:


> BECAUSE JEREMY CORBYN IS NOT GEORGE FUCKING OBSOURNE YOU DAFT COCKWOMBLE.


I imagine as the leader of HMs opposition he would have the opportunity and clout to book a full Ist class  carriage for him and his staff, not being TB he didn't.


----------



## treelover (Aug 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That might actually be true. But it does look like the train left London with lots of unoccupied seats. Anyway, it's August, the political journos have got hee-haw else to write about, and basically no-one else gives a shit.




Its on many of the front pages, I do think many people will use this to judge him, ridiculous as that is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

treelover said:


> Its on many of the front pages, I do think many people will use this to judge him, ridiculous as that is.


Balls. Most people know that trains are ridiculously overcrowded and that train companies have policies to make people stand rather than allow them to sit in first class. 

If they didn't, they do now.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Most people know that trains are ridiculously overcrowded and that train companies have policies to make people stand rather than allow them to sit in first class.



I doubt most people do. Most people don't use trains to get to work, for a start.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 23, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I doubt most people do. Most people don't use trains to get to work, for a start.


In that case, Well done JC! More people know now.


----------



## coley (Aug 23, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The first photo shows him walking past lots of empty unreserved seats.
> 
> Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News
> 
> I don't think it would be beyond him to lie given his aim of re-nationalising the railways.


Aye, he will be filmed dying in an NHS hospital corridor next, just to prevent the privatisation of the NHS! Only he will be to late, great chunks of it are already 'privatised'


----------



## ska invita (Aug 24, 2016)

How has the BBC reported this on the news? As truth, as a maybe, or as bollocks? Has anyone got an impartial view on that?


----------



## coley (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I doubt most people do. Most people don't use trains to get to work, for a start.


Pity the poor buggers who do, couldn't believe the prices for a 'season ticket' in some cases it's 25% of the average wage up here!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2016)




----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2016)

The London to Newcastle Virgin train was “ram-packed” – Beyond the Headlines



> *Jeremy also met Ellen and her baby, who couldn’t find a seat either. We have been in touch with Ellen (pictured below), who says: *
> 
> “I was already sitting on the floor between the carriages because there wasn’t enough room for me and my two children to get seats or enough space to store our luggage. I saw Jeremy sitting on the floor between carriages further up the train and spoke to him there.
> 
> There were plenty of other people sitting on the floor throughout the train, it was very overcrowded and as a regular traveller I don’t find that unusual at all. Luckily during the journey the train did become less full and we were able to find seats, as did Jeremy, in standard class.”


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2016)

ska invita said:


> How has the BBC reported this on the news? As truth, as a maybe, or as bollocks? Has anyone got an impartial view on that?



They seem to be saying, (BBC, Sky) most people have made up their minds about Corbyn, this will fall if you like him or not.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> The London to Newcastle Virgin train was “ram-packed” – Beyond the Headlines



I think you'll find she was lying.


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2016)

Who was?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

sorry ironic


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find she was lying.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2016)

How did the train get less full after leaving King's X and before getting to York? I thought it was the fast train to Edinburgh?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 24, 2016)

don't tell the press about el gato


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


>



Thinking about it, it is fucking ACE that Branston himself got involved in this. 

Corbyn really hit a nerve.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> How did the train get less full after leaving King's X and before getting to York? I thought it was the fast train to Edinburgh?



because people got moved from second (which was "ram packed") to first (which "wasn't"). This only seems to happen when someone famous is in second.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2016)

Down in Lambeth - 100% Blairite / Progress Labour Council my Cllrs are tweeting about JC.

This was retweeted by Cllr Jack Hopkins. They hate Corbyn.They supported Liz Kendall for the first leadership contest. She failed miserably.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

Now here's a *proper* lie, but of course much less important than someone sitting in a corridor on a busy train

Jeremy Hunt weekend NHS death claims unhelpful, say civil servants


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> because people got moved from second (which was "ram packed") to first (which "wasn't"). This only seems to happen when someone famous is in second.



OK, look at the pictures of coaches H and F here.

Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News

Is coach H the first-class one? That's the largely empty unreserved one he walked through before eventually getting a seat there.  Coach F, where there were also vacant seats (if reserved ones) that could also be sat in?


----------



## Supine (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Now here's a *proper* lie, but of course much less important than someone sitting in a corridor on a busy train
> 
> Jeremy Hunt weekend NHS death claims unhelpful, say civil servants



Because err yeah, Corbyn. No effective oposition at the mo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

This is _so_ going to change Virgin's policy on seating people. 

The more they whine about it, the more CCTV footage they wrongly disseminate, the more they are going to have to change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> Because err yeah, Corbyn. No effective oposition at the mo.


It's August. Don't forget that. Nothing serious happens in the politics world in August. Corbyn's the only one not on holiday.

Revel in the fact that Richard Branston himself has taken time out from his time on his island in the Caribbean to tweet about it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Corbyn's the only one not on holiday.



Got his in in the run-up to the Brexit vote


----------



## Supine (Aug 24, 2016)

> Corbyn's the only one not on holiday.



And still managing to fuck it up


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> And still managing to fuck it up


Really? He's got the state of Britain's overcrowded railways to centre-stage while everyone else is on holiday. 

Pretty clever.


----------



## Supine (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? He's got the state of Britain's overcrowded railways to centre-stage while everyone else is on holiday.
> 
> Pretty clever.



He told people something they already knew. Or don't care about.

He also came across as somebody who told lies about his rail travel situation.

I don't know the truth of the situation but can only think negatively of him as an opposition leader because of this.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Is coach H the first-class one?



One of them, yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> He told people something they already knew. Or don't care about.
> 
> He also came across as somebody who told lies about his rail travel situation.
> 
> I don't know the truth of the situation but can only think negatively of him as an opposition leader because of this.


Nah. He got Richard Branston himself to tweet in defence of the indefensible, doing massively dodgy things by showing CCTV footage that they realllly shouldn't have. He got some mealy-mouthed awful crap about trains being 'popular' from Virgin's publicity cunts, who've no doubt been working overtime today. And he's probably got Virgin Trains to change their policy - offer Corbs an upgrade? Well you should offer one to everyone always whenever there are no seats. 

win, win and win.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 24, 2016)

I thinks JCs media plan must be never to look wound up or start ranting. If so he's managed it again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Anyhoo I'm leaving it here that Virgin Trains will change their policy on empty seats in 1st class as a result of this. 

_If they do_, then Corbyn will have scored a massive win with this, even if he was lying. If he manages it through a lie, it's almost a double-plus. Crap politician is he?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> OK, look at the pictures of coaches H and F here.
> 
> Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News
> 
> Is coach H the first-class one? That's the largely empty unreserved one he walked through before eventually getting a seat there.  Coach F, where there were also vacant seats (if reserved ones) that could also be sat in?



Can't see the H and F, but the seats in the first (empty) carriage look more spaced than the reserved carriage, and trains I've traveled on first and second is often separated by the Foodbar or whatever they call it (which you can see on the video).

Other people have said the train was overcrowded and people were sat/stood in corridors. Why do you want to call him a liar because of this? Were they all lying?  Were they lying when the conductor offered him seats in first class because there was no room in second class?

Why was nobody else sitting in them if they weren't reserved? People were sitting in the corridors by choice? Last time that happened to me as I say I had to sit in the guard's van which was space for bikes. I had a reserved seat but couldn't get to it. Perhaps I'm lying and there was loads of space.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 24, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I took one on Sunday evening from Salisbury to London - it was very busy but I got an unreserved seat and my ticket was a bargain £16 because I got it last minute.
> 
> But I don't dispute that the service is normally abysmal and extremely expensive and I really am sorry to hear about your Dad.


This isn't a good thing. I got a train from London to a station a little further along that line for a quid, yes a fucking quid because I booked three weeks in advance. If I turn up and book on the day it's 60 quid. The fact I don't wanna reveal my stop in order to prevent that absurdly cheap fare becoming too popular and increasing the price should tell you just how ridiculous train fares are. It's a train that gets me from a to b there shouldn't be such wild differences in price for the same train just because I managed to book a super duper crazy whacky hype special deal three weeks in advance. 

As for this whole recent debacle I'm just lost for words with it really. Man sits on floor and highlights problem every cunt and his dog who travels to work by train every morning knows exists. Massive greedy prick who causes said problem by being too much a tight fisted fuck to issue more trains releases footage and complains about the way the problem he causes was highlighted. Pretty much entire press sides with massive greedy prick who causes said problem even though press highlights said problem on a fairly regular basis. Ffs.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> OK, look at the pictures of coaches H and F here.
> 
> Virgin challenges Jeremy Corbyn train footage - BBC News
> 
> Is coach H the first-class one? That's the largely empty unreserved one he walked through before eventually getting a seat there.  Coach F, where there were also vacant seats (if reserved ones) that could also be sat in?



And how does that compare with Hunt saying that more people die because there's no weekend elective surgery when that's been shown to be untrue?

Not bothered about that clearly, you're trying to blow up some little story to be something important.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> This isn't a good thing. I got a train from London to a station a little further along that line for a quid, yes a fucking quid because I booked three weeks in advance. If I turn up and book on the day it's 60 quid. The fact I don't wanna reveal my stop in order to prevent that absurdly cheap fare becoming too popular and increasing the price should tell you just how ridiculous train fares are. It's a train that gets me from a to b there shouldn't be such wild differences in price for the same train just because I managed to book a super duper crazy whacky hype special deal three weeks in advance.
> .


It is the result of trains removing themselves from the realm of public service and being run on purely capitalist terms. Elasticity of demand is a well-worked capitalist principle, one that EasyJet were early pioneers of. With modern technology it is possible to maxmise profit in this way by offering hugely cheap tickets to fill seats when needed and hugely expensive seats when there is excess demand.

That our railways should be run in this way is shameful.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is the result of trains removing themselves from the realm of public service and being run on purely capitalist terms. Elasticity of demand is a well-worked capitalist principle, one that EasyJet were early pioneers of. With modern technology it is possible to maxmise profit in this way by offering hugely cheap tickets to fill seats when needed and hugely expensive seats when there is excess demand.
> 
> That our railways should be run in this way is shameful.


Indeed. I can reserve a seat basically for free several weeks in advance. It cost me more to get the bus from the station to my flat then it did to travel across the country. But turn up on the day i'd pay a couple of days wages for a minimum wage earner. It's, as you say, shameful our railways are run like this.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And how does that compare with Hunt saying that more people die because there's no weekend elective surgery when that's been shown to be untrue?
> 
> Not bothered about that clearly, you're trying to blow up some little story to be something important.



And how does it compare with Syria, eh? Or climate change? Or, or? Jeez


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is the result of trains removing themselves from the realm of public service and being run on purely capitalist terms. Elasticity of demand is a well-worked capitalist principle, one that EasyJet were early pioneers of. With modern technology it is possible to maxmise profit in this way by offering hugely cheap tickets to fill seats when needed and hugely expensive seats when there is excess demand.
> 
> That our railways should be run in this way is shameful.


Is elasticity of demand an economic principle? I've often wondered how this works and how profit is able to be made. I take it this is why there's all this early bird bullshit when buying gig tickets these days. Will have to look this up tomorrow. Cheers for providing the terminology for it.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And how does it compare with Syria, eh? Or climate change? Or, or? Jeez



You're blowing up a minor story to call him a liar, making other people on that train liars. Jeez.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Is elasticity of demand an economic principle? I've often wondered how this works and how profit is able to be made. I take it this is why there's all this early bird bullshit when buying gig tickets these days. Will have to look this up tomorrow. Cheers for providing the terminology for it.


Yes. And it works (in terms of maximising profit). 'Price elasticity of demand' is the thing to look up. But it's really no more complicated than the idea that you can charge more for an ice cream on a hot day than a cold day. 

That said, it does form the basis of pricing in all kinds of services, including rail and air travel, and now coaches. It's spread rapidly now there are computer algorithms to work out prices. 

"So you need to travel today?"

"Yes, we're burying our mum."

"If only you'd known she was going to die three weeks ago. Didn't you have an inkling? Sorry, that will be £200."


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> You're blowing up a minor story to call him a liar, making other people on that train liars. Jeez.



It's possible that Jeremy and his top team of experts are fallible, you know


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's possible that Jeremy and his top team of experts are fallible, you know



That's true, I wouldn't dispute it.

It's also possible that Branson and his top team of PR agents are fallible, you know.

And that the train was over full (as Virgin admit can happen once a day and which thousands of passengers regularly experience and which Virgin could easily alleviate by letting second class passengers sit in first but which they don't).

But instead Corbyn and the passengers on the train were liars, you know. Jeez.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> As for this whole recent debacle I'm just lost for words with it really. Man sits on floor and highlights problem every cunt and his dog who travels to work by train every morning knows exists. Massive greedy prick who causes said problem by being too much a tight fisted fuck to issue more trains releases footage and complains about the way the problem he causes was highlighted. Pretty much entire press sides with massive greedy prick who causes said problem even though press highlights said problem on a fairly regular basis. Ffs.



Thems that use trains will see it that way,  thems that don't - this isn't a magic bullet


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

It's such a trivial story this that I haven't followed it much. However after 'team corbyn' were forced to admit he walked past empty seats because he wanted 2 seats together it was obvious there was a bit of a game in play. Wants to portray himself as not like the other politicians... film crew... the case for rail nationalisation - come on!  In this story he might be up against some almighty cunts, virgin, branson, the press, but let's be honest, he's over egged it for political reasons.  He's not Saint Jeremy he's a very naughty boy a career politician who was able to rationalise supporting New Labour for 15 years in Parliament. So it's not impossible he could have been playing a teensy weensy game over this is it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 24, 2016)

OH MY GOD I DONT CARE ABOUT FUCKING TRAINS

While Rome fucking burns.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 24, 2016)

Shami C. is going have to clear her Google calendar so she can do an inquiry into #traingate.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Aug 24, 2016)

I reckon it was poorly thought out BLM protest.


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 24, 2016)

It's just another pointless deflection story by the Blue side of Labour. 
They can't get Corbyn on policies, because ultimately no one has got any.
They can't get him on principles, because JC's are fairly nailed to the wall and have been for decades.
And they certainly can't get him on personality because OS is pretty much the archetypal identikit modern politician that ultimately lead to people voting for UKIP and the Greens (I know I did).
So they pull this story for some dark recess of some Virgin Trains security room, with the sole intention of deflecting away from theor own narrow minded power trip.


----------



## Sue (Aug 24, 2016)

Fuck's sake, when will all this be over? So utterly bored of the whole thing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 24, 2016)

Video proof that Virgin and Branson are lying about Jeremy Corbyn and #traingate


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Ok - so they cocked up by missing their train and their reserved seats so decided to manufacture a PR op out of it instead...
> 
> Which is actually even more cynical when you think about it - had seats but too incompetent to claim them on first train so booted onto another train, inconveniencing folk on the first train who wouldn't know whether to take reserved seats or not and folk on the second train where demand for seats would have increased - cue PR op.


Fucking hell. It's like watching Progress Central's Smear-O-Matic running with the doors open.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2016)

Looks like Virgin broke the Information Commissioner's code of practice on cctv, which is part of compliance of the Data Protection Act : see section 5.2.2 on disclosure

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf


Disclosure

Disclosure of information from surveillance systems must be controlled and consistent with the purpose(s) for which the system was established [for "safety and security" in Virgin's case]. For example, it can be appropriate to disclose surveillance information to a law enforcement agency when the purpose of the system is to prevent and detect crime but it would not be appropriate to place them on the internet in most situations. It may also not be appropriate to disclose information about identifiable individuals to the media.

Placing such information on the internet incorrectly, or without full consideration of what is being done, may cause the disclosure of individuals’ personal data and sensitive personal data. In severe cases, this may lead to the ICO taking enforcement action. In 2011 the ICO took action in a case related to streamed CCTV footage that ended up on the YouTubewebsite. Information can be released to the media for identification purposes; this should not generally be done by anyone other than a law enforcement agency.


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It's such a trivial story this that I haven't followed it much. However after 'team corbyn' were forced to admit he walked past empty seats because he wanted 2 seats together it was obvious there was a bit of a game in play. Wants to portray himself as not like the other politicians... film crew... the case for rail nationalisation - come on!  In this story he might be up against some almighty cunts, virgin, branson, the press, but let's be honest, he's over egged it for political reasons.  He's not Saint Jeremy he's a very naughty boy a career politician who was able to rationalise supporting New Labour for 15 years in Parliament. So it's not impossible he could have been playing a teensy weensy game over this is it?


at risk of going off topic from if there was a free seat on a train or not, I wonder what it would have taken for Corbyn to decide that the Labour Party isn't for him? Iraq War - stuck by them, all manner of anti working class policies - stuck by them, anti disabled policies - stuck by them, anti 'scrounger' policies - stuck by them, racist policies - stuck by them, privatisation - stuck by them, tuition fees - stuck by them, probably loads of other stuff too I can't think of off the top of my head. Did he have some sort of line that if the Party crossed it he'd say, right that's it I can't support them or campaign for people to vote for them anymore.

Far from being ultra principled he seems like the worst kind of party hack to me. At least the Blairites believed in what they were doing - he supposedly didn't. But apparently no matter what Labour did and said he was always there time after time to help shore up the left flank - we can't be that bad because I'm still here! Him and McDonnell. And didn't McDonnell claim at one time to be an anti capitalist? Now he finds himself contemplating what's best for business, just like magic 

I don't believe there really was any sort of point where Labour could have gone too far for him. I think his idea of socialism is so shrivelled and pathetic that it just amounts to Labour whatever Labour is and does. There's nothing else really. I guess if it ever came to it we'd find that, just like those Old Labour governments that were so great, it'll turn out that Corbyn and co have simply got to bomb someone or attack our living standards or something like that. Making tough choices. Anyway, if I did an interview with Corbyn that's what I'd ask about.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> at risk of going off topic from if there was a free seat on a train or not, I wonder what it would have taken for Corbyn to decide that the Labour Party isn't for him? Iraq War - stuck by them, all manner of anti working class policies - stuck by them, anti disabled policies - stuck by them, anti 'scrounger' policies - stuck by them, racist policies - stuck by them, privatisation - stuck by them, tuition fees - stuck by them, probably loads of other stuff too I can't think of off the top of my head. Did he have some sort of line that if the Party crossed it he'd say, right that's it I can't support them or campaign for people to vote for them anymore


A ban on wearing sandals with socks? 

A policy which would have my full support by the way.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It's such a trivial story this that I haven't followed it much. However after 'team corbyn' were forced to admit he walked past empty seats because he wanted 2 seats together it was obvious there was a bit of a game in play. Wants to portray himself as not like the other politicians... film crew... the case for rail nationalisation - come on!  In this story he might be up against some almighty cunts, virgin, branson, the press, but let's be honest, he's over egged it for political reasons.  He's not Saint Jeremy he's a very naughty boy a career politician who was able to rationalise supporting New Labour for 15 years in Parliament. So it's not impossible he could have been playing a teensy weensy game over this is it?


I've got to be honest, when the first video came out I wonderd if he would have done the same if there hadn't been a film crew there.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Now here's a *proper* lie, but of course much less important than someone sitting in a corridor on a busy train
> 
> Jeremy Hunt weekend NHS death claims unhelpful, say civil servants



A perfect example of deflection.
The May and Murdoch mafia decide to vilify someone who raises the prospect of re nationalising the rail network whilst covering the ineptitude of a government minister who dismissed the advice of NHS staff as scare tactics over under staffing for his holy grail mission of a seven day health service.

The rail network is dreadful, Mrs S. Commutes from Doncaster to Leeds and everyday in both directions she is either crammed in a corridor or the trains simply do not turn up.
But JC is a liar so she has gone to work today on a Virgin train expecting to maybe get a seat, because Branson runs a good service.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 24, 2016)

19,600 comments on the guardian's seatgate story. Nearly twenty thousand comments on fuck all, because Branson decided to attack a politician who directly threatens his economic interests and we all have to take that seriously.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 24, 2016)

Well it's run to quite a few pages here.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 24, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Video proof that Virgin and Branson are lying about Jeremy Corbyn and #traingate



This is helpful but the general point remains that his team need to avoid off the cuff pieces like this that are easily holed. No one is going to think that turning up for a busy train without a reservation is worthy of a piece to camera. You could satire it all day long.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> He told people something they already knew. Or don't care about.
> 
> He also came across as somebody who told lies about his rail travel situation.
> 
> I don't know the truth of the situation but can only think negatively of him as an opposition leader because of this.



Pathetic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Fuck's sake, when will all this be over? So utterly bored of the whole thing.


Agreed, why they decided on such a long campaign fuck knows, none of this matters at all, the situation is polarised no-ones changing their mind. The LP could have had a 2 week campaign and the end result would have been the same.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2016)

Meta: this thread will be the 5th biggest in UK P&P at some point today. It looks likely to be the 3nd biggest, at least, before this is all over.

And it's only been 2 months.


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Meta: this thread will be the 5th biggest in UK P&P at some point today. It looks likely to be the 3nd biggest, at least, before this is all over.
> 
> And it's only been 2 months.



And there's every chance of it running on well beyond the current contest and being re-visited for a future leadership challenge next year


----------



## ska invita (Aug 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Agreed, why they decided on such a long campaign fuck knows, none of this matters at all, the situation is polarised no-ones changing their mind. The LP could have had a 2 week campaign and the end result would have been the same.


To allow maximum smear time
To deny Corbyn a holiday and hope he keels over with exhaustion


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> And there's every chance of it running on well beyond the current contest and being re-visited for a future leadership challenge next year



Surely that would be.
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up 2,
This time it's serious!


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> And there's every chance of it running on well beyond the current contest and being re-visited for a future leadership challenge next year


This thread will eventually die down, only to be necromanced back into action during the first crisis of PM Corbyn's government...probably a comment on the Falklands on day 2 of his premiership


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2016)

ska invita said:


> To allow maximum smear time
> To deny Corbyn a holiday and hope he keels over with exhaustion


And to put as much distance between the coup and the election. Plenty of people would have been angry at the coup. Now it's rarely mentioned as the leadership race and Corbyn's monsterous behaviour are the focus. The coup doesn't matter anymore. Its old news. It's now bland, safe Owen vs the dangerous cult leader.


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Surely that would be.
> Jeremy Corbyn's time is up 2,
> This time it's serious!



I'm sure at least one poster here would have something to say about a new thread being started when there's a perfectly good existing thread to resurrect...


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> *This thread will eventually die down*, only to be necromanced back into action during the first crisis of PM Corbyn's government...probably a comment on the Falklands on day 2 of his premiership



I'm not convinced it will die down when (as seems v. likely) Corbyn defeats the current challenger.

The speculation about what happens next (party split, another leadership challenge, Corbyn being knobbled by MI5...) seems likely to continue unabated, both here and in the world beyond Urban


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Meta: this thread will be the 5th biggest in UK P&P at some point today. It looks likely to be the 3nd biggest, at least, before this is all over.
> 
> And it's only been 2 months.


The article on the guardain nearly has 20,000 comments.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The article on the guardain nearly has 20,000 comments.


I just went and had a look to see what was most upvoted. It's all banal shit.

I did like this, though: "Ah but don't you see, since he only joined the train in January he's allowed to sit on the floor, but he can't take part in any of the actual seating."


----------



## Supine (Aug 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> seems likely to continue unabated, both here and in the world beyond Urban



There's a world beyond urban?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 24, 2016)

Supine said:


> There's a world beyond urban?



Only attainable if there is room on the train.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2016)

In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is the result of trains removing themselves from the realm of public service and being run on purely capitalist terms. Elasticity of demand is a well-worked capitalist principle, one that EasyJet were early pioneers of. With modern technology it is possible to maxmise profit in this way by offering hugely cheap tickets to fill seats when needed and hugely expensive seats when there is excess demand.
> 
> That our railways should be run in this way is shameful.


This is not really correct. The most expensive fares are the walk-up fares and these are regulated by government. The train companies are not allowed to set these as they wish - they are the fares that they agree to provide when they sign up for a franchise. These fares are basically a continuation of the fare structure that was in place before privatisation. It's true they have increased somewhat but that increase is determined by the government and is related to how much they are willing to subsidise the railways. Just as it was before privatisation.

The cheap advance fares are what have been introduced by the "free market". These cheaper-than-the-regulated-fares did not exist before.

I am not defending the current fare structure, because I think it is a mess and not functional for something that should be a public service. However it is not true that the railways operate under some kind of free-for-all. They are very heavily regulated by government and most franchisees have very little room for maneuver. It's a red herring to blame expensive fares on "privatisation". Much more significant is govenment policy. They have the say on what the upper limit of rail fares is. I wish people would concentrate on that rather than making ill informed statements about how rail tickets are priced. If we want cheaper fares then we have to lobby those who make the political decisions that affect the cost of rail travel. This will remain the case if the franchises become nationalised.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.



I'm delighted to see serious investigative journalism is not yet a thing of the past.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2016)

teuchter said:


> This is not really correct.


It is correct. The fact that many of the most expensive tickets are still regulated doesn't change the fact that pricing is done by the principle of elasticity of demand, which is why the sometimes extremely cheap fares exist.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

teuchter said:


> This is not really correct. The most expensive fares are the walk-up fares and these are regulated by government. The train companies are not allowed to set these as they wish - they are the fares that they agree to provide when they sign up for a franchise. These fares are basically a continuation of the fare structure that was in place before privatisation. It's true they have increased somewhat but that increase is determined by the government and is related to how much they are willing to subsidise the railways. Just as it was before privatisation.
> 
> The cheap advance fares are what have been introduced by the "free market". These cheaper-than-the-regulated-fares did not exist before.
> 
> I am not defending the current fare structure, because I think it is a mess and not functional for something that should be a public service. However it is not true that the railways operate under some kind of free-for-all. They are very heavily regulated by government and most franchisees have very little room for maneuver. It's a red herring to blame expensive fares on "privatisation". Much more significant is govenment policy. They have the say on what the upper limit of rail fares is. I wish people would concentrate on that rather than making ill informed statements about how rail tickets are priced. If we want cheaper fares then we have to lobby those who make the political decisions that affect the cost of rail travel. This will remain the case if the franchises become nationalised.





*scribbles teuchter's name in undisclosed section of a tatty old black book*


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It's such a trivial story this that I haven't followed it much. However after 'team corbyn' were forced to admit he walked past empty seats because he wanted 2 seats together it was obvious there was a bit of a game in play. Wants to portray himself as not like the other politicians... film crew... the case for rail nationalisation - come on!  In this story he might be up against some almighty cunts, virgin, branson, the press, but let's be honest, he's over egged it for political reasons.  He's not Saint Jeremy he's a very naughty boy a career politician who was able to rationalise supporting New Labour for 15 years in Parliament. So it's not impossible he could have been playing a teensy weensy game over this is it?



Yes, but...Its quite a concerted effort to go to, to show he's on the same level as the other politicians, and I don't get how that somehow makes him worse.  Not particularly a Corbyn fan, but he's clearly got his enemies riled.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> at risk of going off topic from if there was a free seat on a train or not, I wonder what it would have taken for Corbyn to decide that the Labour Party isn't for him? Iraq War - stuck by them, all manner of anti working class policies - stuck by them, anti disabled policies - stuck by them, anti 'scrounger' policies - stuck by them, racist policies - stuck by them, privatisation - stuck by them, tuition fees - stuck by them, probably loads of other stuff too I can't think of off the top of my head. Did he have some sort of line that if the Party crossed it he'd say, right that's it I can't support them or campaign for people to vote for them anymore.
> 
> Far from being ultra principled he seems like the worst kind of party hack to me. At least the Blairites believed in what they were doing - he supposedly didn't. But apparently no matter what Labour did and said he was always there time after time to help shore up the left flank - we can't be that bad because I'm still here! Him and McDonnell. And didn't McDonnell claim at one time to be an anti capitalist? Now he finds himself contemplating what's best for business, just like magic
> 
> I don't believe there really was any sort of point where Labour could have gone too far for him. I think his idea of socialism is so shrivelled and pathetic that it just amounts to Labour whatever Labour is and does. There's nothing else really. I guess if it ever came to it we'd find that, just like those Old Labour governments that were so great, it'll turn out that Corbyn and co have simply got to bomb someone or attack our living standards or something like that. Making tough choices. Anyway, if I did an interview with Corbyn that's what I'd ask about.



Tend to agree. Fwiw I'd describe myself as an anarchist, certainly an anti-capitalist, so I'm never going to be on board for parliamentary politics. It's not just that it entails a top down model of change but also that you ultimately end up serving the interests of capital and managing the working class.  I'm not having a go at anyone, people make their own choices, but I'm surprised at the number of people on the left who have got on board for Corbynism. You end up focusing your energy on a party which, almost certainly isn't going to win, but more to the point doesn't seem to be acting as a catalyst to wider left activity.  But that's all me shooting the breeze - again, people make their own choices.  What I think the relevant point to make about Corbynism is that it isn't particularly radical or creative _in its own right_, as a force for parliamentary politics.  Obviously he's had his mind on other things, but there's not been much going on with regard to forging links to the working class outside of the party and his vision still seems dominated by 1945. 

As discussed, this is indeed a mega thread, probably inspired by the novelty of a genuine soft left (or whatever term you prefer) moving towards control in the Labour Party.  He's been given a lot of slack because of the treachery and dishonesty of his opponents, the relentlessness of the attacks - the _idiocy_ of the attacks as well. However I think we should be able to ask serious questions about the whole Corbyn project (and I don't mean about traingate).


----------



## Chilli.s (Aug 24, 2016)

Last year on a London/Newcastle train I couldn't even find my reserved seat as the train was so busy. Later that weekend a train from Durham was so packed it was not possible to get further into the carriages than the door.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

Chilli.s said:


> Last year on a London/Newcastle train I couldn't even find my reserved seat as the train was so busy. Later that weekend a train from Durham was so packed it was not possible to get further into the carriages than the door.


you should have worn your uniform


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Yes, but...Its quite a concerted effort to go to, to show he's on the same level as the other politicians, and I don't get how that somehow makes him worse.  Not particularly a Corbyn fan, but he's clearly got his enemies riled.


I agree, of course, about the way he's being attacked. However, in part, with this story he _*is*_ being like other politicians.  It's akin to Cameron cycling to work whilst a car rode behind him with his bags and belongings.  I'd only put it at the level of over egging rather than outright deception, but there's certainly an element of dare I say it..... spin.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I agree, of course, about the way he's being attacked. However, in part, with this story he _*is*_ being like other politicians.  It's akin to Cameron cycling to work whilst a car rode behind him with his bags and belongings.  I'd only put it at the level of over egging rather than outright deception, but there's certainly an element of dare I say it..... spin.



Oh I'd agree with that.  He is, shock, horror,a politician


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

Sorry, throwing in random points here, but at the level of personality and behaviour I can fully understand the easy ride Corbyn has had on this thread. As much as any MP can he seems to have behaved well at a personal level.  Certainly in comparison to that other saint, Tony Benn, who I always thought could never see beyond his own self interest.  Benn did have some kind of approach to the relationship between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary action, but it was always garbled and sound byte-y.  But - with regard to Corbyn -  at a political level any genuine 'socialist' should have found a point when enough was enough, certainly after the carnage of the Iraq war (but also in terms of domestic policy as inva has said).


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 24, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> And to put as much distance between the coup and the election. Plenty of people would have been angry at the coup. Now it's rarely mentioned as the leadership race and Corbyn's monsterous behaviour are the focus. The coup doesn't matter anymore. Its old news. It's now bland, safe Owen vs the dangerous cult leader.



"Blood on the tracks"


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is correct. The fact that many of the most expensive tickets are still regulated doesn't change the fact that pricing is done by the principle of elasticity of demand, which is why the sometimes extremely cheap fares exist.


It's incorrect to say that the trains are currently run on purely capitalist terms. They are run under heavily regulated terms set by central government (as they should be, in principle).

If the railways were run under purely capitalist terms, lots of lines would be closed, the upper end of ticket prices would be higher, and timetables would be optimised to maximise profit rather than to provide a decent service. The franchisees are not allowed to do any of these things.

It's also incorrect to imply that the "elasticity of demand" principle is what causes certain tickets to be "hugely expensive". What sets the upper limit of the range is what the government decides. The elasticity of demand sets the range of prices available below the cheapest walk-up regulated fares.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

teuchter said:


> It's incorrect to say that the trains are currently run on purely capitalist terms. They are run under heavily regulated terms set by central government (as they should be, in principle).
> 
> If the railways were run under purely capitalist terms, lots of lines would be closed, the upper end of ticket prices would be higher, and timetables would be optimised to maximise profit rather than to provide a decent service. The franchisees are not allowed to do any of these things.
> 
> It's also incorrect to imply that the "elasticity of demand" principle is what causes certain tickets to be "hugely expensive". What sets the upper limit of the range is what the government decides. The elasticity of demand sets the range of prices available below the cheapest walk-up regulated fares.


you confuse capitalist for free market. they are not the same thing.

next


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I agree, of course, about the way he's being attacked. However, in part, with this story he _*is*_ being like other politicians.  It's akin to Cameron cycling to work whilst a car rode behind him with his bags and belongings.  I'd only put it at the level of over egging rather than outright deception, but there's certainly an element of dare I say it..... spin.



Sort of see whats going on then:  After years of French polished media spin, a scruffy bloke comes along saying people are sick of that...so his detractors are quick to point out -thats not Ronseal quick drying wood stain. Between the two is varnish and he's still learning how to apply an even coat...which will never sit well amongst the French polished stuff that's already there.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> at risk of going off topic from if there was a free seat on a train or not, I wonder what it would have taken for Corbyn to decide that the Labour Party isn't for him? Iraq War - stuck by them, all manner of anti working class policies - stuck by them, anti disabled policies - stuck by them, anti 'scrounger' policies - stuck by them, racist policies - stuck by them, privatisation - stuck by them, tuition fees - stuck by them, probably loads of other stuff too I can't think of off the top of my head. Did he have some sort of line that if the Party crossed it he'd say, right that's it I can't support them or campaign for people to vote for them anymore.



If he'd have voted with the party on all of those issues I'd have agreed with you. He generally voted against them though didn't he?



> Far from being ultra principled he seems like the worst kind of party hack to me. At least the Blairites believed in what they were doing - he supposedly didn't.



Again if he'd have voted along party lines I'd have agreed with you. I'd have thought he believes in the Labour party and parliamentary democracy, so stayed in the party to fight those things - as he's now been given the chance.

I'd say the same for Dennis Skinner - every so often he sticks his head above the parapet and says something to make his point. If there weren't labour MPs who'd stayed in the party despite disagreeing it would have been 100% Blairites and we wouldn't be having the discussion at all.



> But apparently no matter what Labour did and said he was always there time after time to help shore up the left flank - we can't be that bad because I'm still here! Him and McDonnell. And didn't McDonnell claim at one time to be an anti capitalist? Now he finds himself contemplating what's best for business, just like magic
> 
> I don't believe there really was any sort of point where Labour could have gone too far for him. I think his idea of socialism is so shrivelled and pathetic that it just amounts to Labour whatever Labour is and does. There's nothing else really. I guess if it ever came to it we'd find that, just like those Old Labour governments that were so great, it'll turn out that Corbyn and co have simply got to bomb someone or attack our living standards or something like that. Making tough choices. Anyway, if I did an interview with Corbyn that's what I'd ask about.



How far do we take that? What sort of shrivelled human being sees everything that the British Government has done and doesn't give up their British citizenship? Talk about bombing people and attacking citizens - how far would they have to go for you to do that?

How much fraud would HSBC/Barclays/etc. have to perpetrate before people stopped banking with them? How far would energy providers have to accelerate global warming before people changed to an ethical supplier? How far would Tescos have to go in concreting over the country before people stopped shopping with them?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> thats not Ronseal quick drying wood stain.



And what shit stuff that is - I coated loads of wood with it last year and it's half peeled off. Didn't say that on the fucking tin


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If he'd have voted with the party on all of those issues I'd have agreed with you. He generally voted against them though didn't he?


yeah, but so what? That was his role in the party - stay with Labour, there's still vaguely sympathetic people like me there. That's what he's for.


> Again if he'd have voted along party lines I'd have agreed with you. I'd have thought he believes in the Labour party and parliamentary democracy, so stayed in the party to fight those things - as he's now been given the chance.


what does it mean to believe in the Labour Party? Believes what about it? As I asked, what would have to happen before he didn't believe in it anymore? You could join the Tory party to fight for those things and vote against the whip and it'd mean similarly little to me.


> I'd say the same for Dennis Skinner - every so often he sticks his head above the parapet and says something to make his point. If there weren't labour MPs who'd stayed in the party despite disagreeing it would have been 100% Blairites and we wouldn't be having the discussion at all.


I don't like Skinner either I guess. Yeah they're all behind the parapet.


> How far do we take that? What sort of shrivelled human being sees everything that the British Government has done and doesn't give up their British citizenship? Talk about bombing people and attacking citizens - how far would they have to go for you to do that?


I don't tell people they should become British citizens, I don't campaign against people not being British citizens. Corbyn didn't have to be a member of the Labour Party telling people to vote for them and campaigning against alternatives, but he did. He's a politician, a member of parliament, he's got to take some responsibility for the party he's spent decades in and working for. It's a pretty different situation isn't it.


> How much fraud would HSBC/Barclays/etc. have to perpetrate before people stopped banking with them? How far would energy providers have to accelerate global warming before people changed to an ethical supplier? How far would Tescos have to go in concreting over the country before people stopped shopping with them?


Come on.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If he'd have voted with the party on all of those issues I'd have agreed with you. He generally voted against them though didn't he?
> 
> Again if he'd have voted along party lines I'd have agreed with you. I'd have thought he believes in the Labour party and parliamentary democracy, so stayed in the party to fight those things - as he's now been given the chance.
> 
> I'd say the same for Dennis Skinner - every so often he sticks his head above the parapet and says something to make his point. If there weren't labour MPs who'd stayed in the party despite disagreeing it would have been 100% Blairites and we wouldn't be having the discussion at all.


 Yes, he voted against it, but in not leaving he was still _part of it_.  Skinner too.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


This sounds like it should be a joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


guardian shite thread ->->->->->->->->


----------



## coley (Aug 24, 2016)

The medias still at it, a press conference where Corbyn was going to outline his plans to cut out contractors from the NHS has been hijacked by 'traingate' 
It's gone beyond a joke.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And what shit stuff that is - I coated loads of wood with it last year and it's half peeled off. Didn't say that on the fucking tin


Literally two sheds?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

coley said:


> The medias still at it, a press conference where Corbyn was going to outline his plans to cut out contractors from the NHS has been hijacked by 'traingate'
> It's gone beyond a joke.


it went beyond a joke when


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2016)

emanymton said:


> This sounds like it should be a joke.


"So I got the train without a hitch. It doesn’t seem to be hugely busy. In fact, I’m slightly worried that it will be mostly full of journalists.

I’m standing outside the toilet in coach H watching someone from the BBC dictate a piece into their phone – or possibly they were broadcasting live. So you can at least say there’s one positive #Traingate outcome already – the media are suddenly much more interested in the standard of service on the east coast mainline."Behind Traingate: retracing Corbyn's trip to see reality of UK rail travel – live


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


If you've got anything to fill in the gap for tomorrow that'd be great.

Friday we're going to run a piece on how Corbyn and his hard-left gang failed to help a young train passenger after she sought his assistance aboard a relaxed and what's more pleasantly fragrant Virgin service.

We've got a three page pictorial spread about how thanks to Jeremy's inability to lead, she ended up without any seat at all and perched on a remote island somewhere outside Newcastle (?)


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> "So I got the train without a hitch. It doesn’t seem to be hugely busy. In fact, I’m slightly worried that it will be mostly full of journalists.
> 
> I’m standing outside the toilet in coach H watching someone from the BBC dictate a piece into their phone – or possibly they were broadcasting live. So you can at least say there’s one positive #Traingate outcome already – the media are suddenly much more interested in the standard of service on the east coast mainline."Behind Traingate: retracing Corbyn's trip to see reality of UK rail travel – live


I thought killerb was joking


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> "So I got the train without a hitch. It doesn’t seem to be hugely busy. In fact, I’m slightly worried that it will be mostly full of journalists.
> 
> I’m standing outside the toilet in coach H watching someone from the BBC dictate a piece into their phone – or possibly they were broadcasting live. So you can at least say there’s one positive #Traingate outcome already – the media are suddenly much more interested in the standard of service on the east coast mainline."Behind Traingate: retracing Corbyn's trip to see reality of UK rail travel – live


'Well Brian, here I am, _literally_ walking in the footsteps of Corbyn. And if I'm not mistaken, that's the _very spot_ where his arsecheeks started this whole clusterfuck off'


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, he voted against it, but in not leaving he was still _part of it_.  Skinner too.


And lets not pretend that they weren't helpful to the party, it kept them around precisely to make sure people like my mum kept voting Labour even though she hated Blair and co. The Labour left helped prop up New Labour.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Tend to agree. Fwiw I'd describe myself as an anarchist, certainly an anti-capitalist, so I'm never going to be on board for parliamentary politics. It's not just that it entails a top down model of change but also that you ultimately end up serving the interests of capital and managing the working class.  I'm not having a go at anyone, people make their own choices, but I'm surprised at the number of people on the left who have got on board for Corbynism. You end up focusing your energy on a party which, almost certainly isn't going to win, but more to the point doesn't seem to be acting as a catalyst to wider left activity.  But that's all me shooting the breeze - again, people make their own choices.  What I think the relevant point to make about Corbynism is that it isn't particularly radical or creative _in its own right_, as a force for parliamentary politics.  Obviously he's had his mind on other things, but there's not been much going on with regard to forging links to the working class outside of the party and his vision still seems dominated by 1945.
> 
> As discussed, this is indeed a mega thread, probably inspired by the novelty of a genuine soft left (or whatever term you prefer) moving towards control in the Labour Party.  He's been given a lot of slack because of the treachery and dishonesty of his opponents, the relentlessness of the attacks - the _idiocy_ of the attacks as well. However I think we should be able to ask serious questions about the whole Corbyn project (and I don't mean about traingate).


I think I've said it before (possibly on this thread) but I think he is getting so much support because after so many years of defeats his election win felt on some (pretty low) level like some kind of victory for 'our' side.

I think after he won it was people who are more or less on the same side as me that went into their workplaces or union branches holding their heads a little higher.

I am (and was) sceptical about how positive it will be long term. But all this has to mean something doesn't it? If nothing else hundreds of thousands of people have now identified themselves as being on the left, when they may not have done so previously?


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Sorry, throwing in random points here, but at the level of personality and behaviour I can fully understand the easy ride Corbyn has had on this thread. As much as any MP can he seems to have behaved well at a personal level.  Certainly in comparison to that other saint, Tony Benn, who I always thought could never see beyond his own self interest.  Benn did have some kind of approach to the relationship between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary action, but it was always garbled and sound byte-y.  But - with regard to Corbyn -  at a political level any genuine 'socialist' should have found a point when enough was enough, certainly after the carnage of the Iraq war (but also in terms of domestic policy as inva has said).


one of the things that irritates me about Corbyn is that it's easy to romanticise about the Labour Party's historical links with the labour movement or whatever and go on about 'the people' and socialism when you're not the one getting taunted and threatened by the likes of Rachel Reeves (I think it was) saying Labour was going to be tougher than the Tories on benefits, for example.

This 'principled' man could stomach sitting through that, through all Blair's smirking bollocks, on the same benches, calling on us all to vote for that party. I wouldn't trust him an inch. He's not on my side or he couldn't have stood by them.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> However after 'team corbyn' were forced to admit he walked past empty seats because he wanted 2 seats together it was obvious there was a bit of a game in play.


I often do that I'm with someone I want to sit with. Totally normal behaviour, IMO.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, he voted against it, but in not leaving he was still _part of it_.  Skinner too.


Unlike St George?


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> one of the things that irritates me about Corbyn is that it's easy to romanticise about the Labour Party's historical links with the labour movement or whatever and go on about 'the people' and socialism when you're not the one getting taunted and threatened by the likes of Rachel Reeves (I think it was) saying Labour was going to be tougher than the Tories on benefits, for example.
> 
> This 'principled' man could stomach sitting through that, through all Blair's smirking bollocks, on the same benches, calling on us all to vote for that party. I wouldn't trust him an inch. He's not on my side or he couldn't have stood by them.




So, sadly could much of civil society, much of the left, etc.


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

treelover said:


> So, sadly could much of civil society, much of the left, etc.


Charities and things you mean? I found out I was quite naive about them before I became aware of all the workfare and so on. Sometimes particular issues come along and really show you whose side people are on I suppose.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 24, 2016)

Virgin Trains faces data protection inquiry over Corbyn CCTV footage


> The ICO said: “We are aware of the publication of CCTV images of Jeremy Corbyn and are making inquiries. All organisations have an obligation to comply with the Data Protection Act and must have legitimate grounds for processing the personal data they hold.
> 
> “Where there’s a suggestion that this hasn’t happened, the ICO has the power to investigate and can take enforcement action if necessary.”
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Virgin Trains faces data protection inquiry over Corbyn CCTV footage


Well predicted.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, he voted against it, but in not leaving he was still _part of it_.  Skinner too.


And if Skinner was such a rebel he would have stood by the Clay Cross councillors, but no, he was loyal to the Wilson/Callaghan government.

Always have to remember that despite the causes, the rhetoric and the posing the Labour left are still unrepentantly Labour.

One key difference between now and 80's Bennism is that while Benn himself was moving left a lot of the people he drew into Labour were themselves moving right. They were the '68 generation, the "Fragments," the IMG, Socialist Organiser, etc. Whereas the mass of Corbynistas seem to be moving leftwards from a position of vague dissatisfaction with Tweedle Dum/Dee neoliberalism to active support for left Social Democratic ideas. Who knows where some of them will end up?

For that reason it's worth emphasising support for Corbyn over hostility to Labourism. 

For the moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

19force8 said:


> And if Skinner was such a rebel he would have stood by the Clay Cross councillors, but no, he was loyal to the Wilson/Callaghan government.


yeh. but i remember going to see dennis skinner as part of a london fight the poll tax delegation back in '91 iirc, when he made it clear that there was nothing he or the labour party could do about the poll tax and advised us to carry on our campaign. which is a lot better than a lot of other labour councillors or mps were doing, and a lot more honest than they were being!


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2016)

What 'enforcement' can the ICO bring to bear that could have any effect whatsoever on Virgin? This was a political attack, and possible ICO action will have been allowed for. They don't give a shit.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2016)

answering my own question...

Data Protection Act (DPA) Penalties


*Monetary penalty notices:* Fines of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the DPA.
*Prosecutions:* Including possible prison sentences for deliberately breaching the DPA.
*Undertakings:* Organisations have to commit to a particular course of action to improve their compliance and avoid further action from the ICO.
*Enforcement notices:* Organisations in breach of legislation are required to take specific steps in order to comply with the law.
*Audit:* The ICO has the authority to audit government departments without consent.
The only one they'd care about is prison, and that just isn't going to happen.


----------



## magneze (Aug 24, 2016)

It'd be funny if Branson was imprisoned over this. It's not going to happen, but


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

magneze said:


> It'd be funny if Branson was imprisoned over this. It's not going to happen, but


none of this would be happening if his stupid balloon journey had only ended in tragedy


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

magneze said:


> It'd be funny if Branson was imprisoned over this. It's not going to happen, but


He'd end up in an open on Sheppey; probably buy the fucking island.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> none of this would be happening if his stupid balloon journey had only ended in tragedy


It's all Oldfield's fault.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

lengthly posts sying 'he might be alright, but he's still labour when alls said and done'

while traingate rattles on and we have the bizarre sight of journos doing a reconstruction of his journey. I hope theirs a little crime scene tape around the floor and a chalk outline of his backside on the floor. Its too hot, things are getting too weird.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> In case you didn't have enough yesterday, the graun is sending a journalist on the same train today, and liveblogging it.


Lol. And they wonder why they are losing 69 million quid a year.


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> lengthly posts sying 'he might be alright, but he's still labour when alls said and done'


I don't even think he's alright myself


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but i remember going to see dennis skinner as part of a london fight the poll tax delegation back in '91 iirc, when he made it clear that there was nothing he or the labour party could do about the poll tax and advised us to carry on our campaign. which is a lot better than a lot of other labour councillors or mps were doing, and a lot more honest than they were being!


You're right. 

It's easy to misstep online - I was trying to make the point that we shouldn't focus on the negatives when we have a common enemy, but I shouldn't have used that particular sectarian jibe to illustrate it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2016)

Have to admit I've not followed every page of this thread...but having got my excuses in...

It looks pretty clear that Corbyn will win the leadership election by a landslide, and that most Urbs are either with Corbyn or think he's "not left wing enough/alright but he's still Labour".

But that leaves him pretty much where he was - with masses of support among Labour's membership and wider society but with no/almost no reliable support in Parliament, unable to win an election and struggling to put together a Cabinet. 

What do people want to see happen afterwards? For me, while I was and still am really boosted to see Corbyn win the leadership and receive the support he has, he has been disappointing, and I wasn't expecting much. Haven't joined Labour (obviously) and still won't. The only thing that might convince me to do so would be if Corbyn dropped the nice guy shite, took the fight to the Labour right and pushed hard for mandatory re-selection of MP's and genuine democratisation of the party. Can anyone see this happening? What do others want to see him do?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

Ooh McTernan's getting feisty. Bets on folks, it's the Rumble in the Lidl, who's backing the McTernananator and who's got their money on Pete "Punisher" Wishart...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

offering people out on the internet  now thats classy politicking


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do others want to see him do?


I want to see him crush his enemies, drive them before him and hear the lamentations of their spads


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> offering people out on the internet  now thats classy politicking


_Come dahn 'ere to Peckanham...m8...


_
Big man.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

Take that, Smith!


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

What's the url for that page?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What's the url for that page?



labour.org.uk/leader2016

They send you a special code by email for logging on.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> labour.org.uk/leader2016
> 
> They send you a special code by email for logging on.



Sketchy as fuck if you ask me.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Sketchy as fuck if you ask me.



Why do you say that?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why do you say that?



Electronic voting undermines the integrity of the vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Come dahn 'ere to Peckanham...m8...
> 
> 
> _
> Big man.


and you know he hasn't had a ruck since school. early morning hardmanning it


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Electronic voting undermines the integrity of the vote.



How so? If the system is open to inspection by a neutral third party then I don't see the problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Electronic voting undermines the integrity of the vote.


I do not trust e voting at all. Theres evidence of widespread corruption  and fraud in the USA. I don't know about india specifically but I bet theres been shennanigans there as well.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How so? If the system is open to inspection by a neutral third party then I don't see the problem.


A fascinating watch, this:


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

kabbes said:


> A fascinating watch, this:


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How so? If the system is open to inspection by a neutral third party then I don't see the problem.



So, let's compare it to traditional paper voting. During the count there are many people counting and many people watching the count. If one or two people are corrupt and get away with adding or subtracting votes the damage would most likely be minimal.

Whereas how many cyber security engineers are there? How many people wrote this software? How many people are involved in the count. It's essentially a black box in that pretty everybody cannot look and understand the underlying mechanisms. Even if you were a security software engineer chances are you'd miss something lurking in there.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, let's compare it to traditional paper voting. During the count there are many people counting and many people watching the count. If one or two people are corrupt and get away with adding or subtracting votes the damage would most likely be minimal.
> 
> Whereas how many cyber security engineers are there? How many people wrote this software? How many people are involved in the count. It's essentially a black box in that pretty everybody cannot look and understand the underlying mechanisms. Even if you were a security software engineer chances are you'd miss something lurking in there.


what a load of drivel. If you actually believe this nonsense you are worse than Jazzzzz. And if you are unaware of how so many 'paper' elections have been fiddled, then you need to read a bit more.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and you know he hasn't had a ruck since school. early morning hardmanning it


tbf, neither have I,....but I did teach for 30 years.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2016)

There is very good encryption and two factor authentication in electronic voting these days. It's not beyond subversion (nothing is) but then again neither is the current paper voting system.

The advantage is electronic voting potentially enables more people to vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, let's compare it to traditional paper voting. During the count there are many people counting and many people watching the count. If one or two people are corrupt and get away with adding or subtracting votes the damage would most likely be minimal.
> 
> Whereas how many cyber security engineers are there? How many people wrote this software? How many people are involved in the count. It's essentially a black box in that pretty everybody cannot look and understand the underlying mechanisms. Even if you were a security software engineer chances are you'd miss something lurking in there.


you underestimate the ability of one or two determined people to stuff ballot boxes.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> what a load of drivel. If you actually believe this nonsense you are worse than Jazzzzz. And if you are unaware of how so many 'paper' elections have been fiddled, then you need to read a bit more.



Prove me wrong. This is something i know a little about.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There is very good encryption and two factor authentication in electronic voting these days. It's not beyond subversion (nothing is) but then again neither is the current paper voting system.
> 
> The advantage is electronic voting potentially enables more people to vote.



2FA and transit encryption is irrelevant if there is a vulnerability or malicous code further up the chain.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> what a load of drivel. If you actually believe this nonsense you are worse than Jazzzzz. And if you are unaware of how so many 'paper' elections have been fiddled, then you need to read a bit more.



Watch that video.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Prove me wrong. This is something i know a little about.


No it isn't


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Grow up.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

In fairness it's not unheard of for election system cracking to happen, but it requires a lot of expertise, money and time. In many cases just turning a couple of paper ballot-counters in marginals is potentially a lot simpler/easier (not that I've done either, obv).


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Take for instance the long and arduous audit of Truecrypt. Even though they had funding and the experts to do a highly professional job there were still vulnerabilities found by other people post audit.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Come dahn 'ere to Peckanham...m8..._



That's somewhere in Manchester. Peckham is se15.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Grow up.


Show don't tell. If you want anyone to believe you, put forward some evidence, not just absurd assertion.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

Ted Striker said:


> That's somewhere in Manchester. Peckham is se15.


I know...but I'm more _down with da yoot _than you are...obviously.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> Show don't tell. If you want anyone to believe you, put forward some evidence, not just absurd assertion.



What do you do for a living?

Did you watch that video above? 

Anyone seen this......


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

e voting is deffo easier to rig. You don't get caught in TH with a bootfull of ballot papers where they shouldn't be for starters


----------



## fuck seals (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> e voting is deffo easier to rig./snip



& *much* easier to scale too


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 24, 2016)

As if the Labour party wouldn't completely fuck it up if they tried. 'So, no votes for Corbyn, 120,000 for Owen Smith and 315 million for Ed the Duck...'


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What do you do for a living?
> 
> Did you watch that video above?
> 
> Anyone seen this......



You don't get the notion of providing evidence do you? 

Still waiting for you to provide some for the notion that evoting _has been _more victim to fraud than paper voting. Not just that it's possible to carry out such fraud, but that it's actually happened. In our reality.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> As if the Labour party wouldn't completely fuck it up if they tried. 'So, no votes for Corbyn, 120,000 for Owen Smith and 315 million for Ed the Duck...'



Labour party or a small band of tories at GCHQ?


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Sketchy as fuck if you ask me.



So rather than talking in generalities, maybe you could explain to the rest of us 

who you think is likely to be rigging the current vote

how they are going to achieve that (given that it's being run/supervised by the ERS) and 

to what end exactly?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> You don't get the notion of providing evidence do you?
> 
> Still waiting for you to provide some for the notion that evoting _has been _more victim to fraud than paper voting. Not just that it's possible to carry out such fraud, but that it's actually happened. In our reality.



So you admit it's totally possible?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> You don't get the notion of providing evidence do you?
> 
> Still waiting for you to provide some for the notion that evoting _has been _more victim to fraud than paper voting. Not just that it's possible to carry out such fraud, but that it's actually happened. In our reality.


just watch the video kabbes posted on the previous page.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> So rather than talking in generalities, maybe you could explain to the rest of us
> 
> who you think is likely to be rigging the current vote
> 
> ...



1. It seems many parts of the state are going above and beyond to undermine Corbyn.
2. I refer you to my earlier point about auditing
3. To prevent the potential power shift in the Labour party.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you admit it's totally possible?



The question isn't whether it's possible (the old canard is that any system built by humans can be exploited by humans) but whether it's easy and/or likely.


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> 1. It seems many parts of the state are going above and beyond to undermine Corbyn.
> 2. I refer you to my earlier point about auditing
> 3. To prevent the potential power shift in the Labour party.



All those answers are so vague as to be worthless


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

its got to be more reliable than buying people. Machines don't have fits of conscience or a sudden desire for a second payday


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> The question isn't whether it's possible (the old canard is that any system built by humans can be exploited by humans) but whether it's easy and/or likely.



Easy or to use the lingo 'work factor' is not a good way of relying on securing a system. 

Likely boils down to if an adversary has the motivation and the resources.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its got to be more reliable than buying people. Machines don't have fits of conscience or a sudden desire for a second payday


yeh they stay bought


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you admit it's totally possible?


Of course it's 'possible' - but that was never the question. The question was is it, in reality, easier. 

You have provided no evidence to that end. None.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

If i was top dog in the security services employed to 'defend the realm' i.e. Maintain the status quo I would be concerned about social media. The dissemination of information peer-2-peer. A few years ago this mass media barrage against Corbyn would have been sufficient in curtailing his vote. I'd be looking at my options and one of them would be manipulating the election in electronic ways.

This post is dedicated to kingfisher x


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> Of course it's 'possible' - but that was never the question. The question was is it, in reality, easier.



Of course it is you great 'nana.

Watch that video that was posted ffs.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Of course it is you great 'nana.
> 
> Watch that video that was posted ffs.


You really don't understand the concept of evidence, do you?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> You really don't understand the concept of evidence, do you?



Well youre definitely not an engineer, that is for sure.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

Is belboid  wanting to see a degree certificate or something? Is that what is happening here?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> You really don't understand the concept of evidence, do you?



There we go......Hursti Hack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 24, 2016)

The vote isn't being conducted by Labour Party systems, it's through ERS.

ERS


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is belboid  wanting to see a degree certificate or something? Is that what is happening here?


No, I just want the idiot Ringring to say something other than 'look at the video'. And, maybe, to provide some evidence to support his assertion.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2016)

kabbes said:


> A fascinating watch, this:



^ just watch this video


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Easy or to use the lingo 'work factor' is not a good way of relying on securing a system.
> 
> Likely boils down to if an adversary has the motivation and the resources.



No system is secure, you can only ever talk in terms of easy or hard. And yes of course it depends on the adversary, duh. You're yet to explain why it would be easier than ballot-stuffing however, and have only offered an "if I was head of Mi5" view on who might have the wherewithal to do it. You're not head of Mi5 though, so you can't possibly say what their priorities are in this matter.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> There we go......Hursti Hack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks. 

Nothing from an actual election then. And not particularly easier than stuffing ballot boxes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2016)

are we really arguing whats harder to manipulate, data or a large group of electoral officials?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> are we really arguing whats harder to manipulate, data or a large group of electoral officials?


no


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> No system is secure, you can only ever talk in terms of easy or hard. And yes of course it depends on the adversary, duh. You're yet to explain why it would be easier than ballot-stuffing however, and have only offered an "if I was head of Mi5" view on who might have the wherewithal to do it. You're not head of Mi5 though, so you can't possibly say what their priorities are in this matter.



With respect you do not know what youre chatting about. A system can be 'secured' if you have an appropriate security policy and threat model.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The vote isn't being conducted by Labour Party systems, it's through ERS.
> 
> ERS



Are they immune from coercion, infiltration and do they write secure code? What is there threat model?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence for the fact that such a fraud has actually happened, DrRingDing


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are they immune from coercion, infiltration and do they write secure code? What is there threat model?


Lol, good job coercion and infiltration couldn't possibly affect a paper based vote, isn't it?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> Lol, good job coercion and infiltration couldn't possibly affect a paper based vote, isn't it?



You don't have a single point of failure in traditional paper based voting systems. There is oversight and monitoring by various parties. 

With electronic voting it's little more than a black box and a single point of failure.


----------



## inva (Aug 24, 2016)

is anyone else remembering the train discussion a bit more fondly now?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> Still waiting for you to provide any evidence for the fact that such a fraud has actually happened, DrRingDing


If the fraud was effective enough, who would ever know?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> is anyone else remembering the train discussion a bit more fondly now?


with nostalgia.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 24, 2016)

It's the perfect silly season story. Radio 4's PM program is currently featuring a journalist reporting from a Kings Cross to Edinburgh service, counting the number of empty seats as he moves through the train.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's the perfect silly season story. Radio 4's PM program is currently featuring journalist reporting from a Kings Cross to Edinburgh service, counting the number of empty seats as he moves through the train.


satire is truly dead


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's the perfect silly season story. Radio 4's PM program is currently featuring journalist reporting from a Kings Cross to Edinburgh service, counting the number of empty seats as he moves through the train.


and then he'll do the same as he returns to london from edinburgh


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> Still waiting for you to provide any evidence for the fact that such a fraud has actually happened, DrRingDing


I'm a little confused here.

DrRingDing is saying there's a fairly convincing argument that Electronic Voting is vulnerable to attack.

Are you saying that because he can't produce evidence of an attack succeeding* we shouldn't worry?

* by definition a successful attack wouldn't leave any evidence


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If the fraud was effective enough, who would ever know?


same as the 1992 election fraud then?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 24, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Unlike St George?


A) Nobody said anything like that.
B) He didn't choose to leave, he was expelled.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _Come dahn 'ere to Peckanham...m8...
> 
> 
> _
> Big man.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

19force8 said:


> I'm a little confused here.
> 
> DrRingDing is saying there's a fairly convincing argument that Electronic Voting is vulnerable to attack.
> 
> Are you saying that because he can't produce evidence of an attack succeeding* we shouldn't worry?


No (and I will leave it her, as I doubt there is much to add). I'm saying that just because it is possible to do something, it doesn't make it especially likely. We have large amounts of evidence that there has been fraud in paper based elections, so it is silly to pretend that they are particularly more secure. And DrRD has,imo, contradicted himself (eg 10142 & 10143)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 24, 2016)

By the way, that video is about electronic voting, not online voting (which is being used in the lab election).


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 24, 2016)

emanymton said:


> A) Nobody said anything like that.
> B) He didn't choose to leave, he was expelled.


A) ?
B) True, but wasn't that because his opposition to the Iraq war was less measured than other MPs? Does it matter if he was pushed or he jumped? He did what Wilf was arguing for by putting his principles first. The fact he was otherwise a creep only goes to show up those others who would rather keep their lucrative safe seats than rock the boat.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> No (and I will leave it her, as I doubt there is much to add). I'm saying that just because it is possible to do something, it doesn't make it especially likely. We have large amounts of evidence that there has been fraud in paper based elections, so it is silly to pretend that they are particularly more secure. And DrRD has,imo, contradicted himself (eg 10142 & 10143)



I was considering noting that, and then I realised I just didn't care enough about this bit of the conversation.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 24, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> By the way, that video is about electronic voting, not online voting (which is being used in the lab election).



Because the interwebs aren't electronic.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Literally two sheds?



Yes I'm using Blackfriar's now, much better soaks into the wood rather than sitting on top.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> No (and I will leave it her, as I doubt there is much to add). I'm saying that just because it is possible to do something, it doesn't make it especially likely. We have large amounts of evidence that there has been fraud in paper based elections, so it is silly to pretend that they are particularly more secure. And DrRD has,imo, contradicted himself (eg 10142 & 10143)



Single. Point. Of. Failure.


Brixton Hatter said:


> By the way, that video is about electronic voting, not online voting (which is being used in the lab election).



Online only increases the attack surface.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

Should let it go, I suppose, but good opportunity to post pic of _Caalambo

_


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> By the way, that video is about electronic voting, not online voting (which is being used in the lab election).


He does actually cover online voting too, pointing out that it is even worse


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2016)




----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Single. Point. Of. Failure.


L.O.L.

(Like a printers?)

You think you've proved, your point, I don't.  Unless you actually have anything to actually add, may as well leave it there.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2016)

belboid said:


> L.O.L.
> 
> (Like a printers?)
> 
> You think you've proved, your point, I don't.  Unless you actually have anything to actually add, may as well leave it there.



You can take a horse to water......


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2016)




----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It's all Oldfield's fault.


Another Tory iirc.


----------



## Tankus (Aug 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> satire is truly dead


It died at the back of a Hastings carpark ...embedded in stone


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Another Tory iirc.


There must be a _tory musicians _thread? If not, why not?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2016)

inva said:


> is anyone else remembering the train discussion a bit more fondly now?


I always lag about 2 days behind, I was just about at the point where I could say something about St Corbyn of Islington sat on the dusty floor in his slacks. Now we're onto stuff about hanging chads or summat.  Get back to me in a couple of days when I've had a chance to get that Wikipedia book out of the library.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 24, 2016)

Virgin Trains controversy 'has helped Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid'

''Another complained that the leader was impossible to reach for some time on Tuesday because he was making jam.'' 

lol.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> There must be a _tory musicians _thread? If not, why not?



Ask And Ye Shall Receive

The Super Soaraway TORY MUSICIANS Thread


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 24, 2016)

discokermit said:


> Virgin Trains controversy 'has helped Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid'
> 
> ''Another complained that the leader was impossible to reach for some time on Tuesday because he was making jam.''
> 
> lol.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's the perfect silly season story. Radio 4's PM program is currently featuring a journalist reporting from a Kings Cross to Edinburgh service, counting the number of empty seats as he moves through the train.


And yet, real news stories are being passed over for this.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2016)

And you wonder why we don't trust polling companies? Have a look at this.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I think I've said it before (possibly on this thread) but I think he is getting so much support because after so many years of defeats his election win felt on some (pretty low) level like some kind of victory for 'our' side.
> 
> I think after he won it was people who are more or less on the same side as me that went into their workplaces or union branches holding their heads a little higher.
> 
> I am (and was) sceptical about how positive it will be long term. But all this has to mean something doesn't it? If nothing else hundreds of thousands of people have now identified themselves as being on the left, when they may not have done so previously?


At one level I've played the role of chip-pisser on this thread, hopefully not out of some kind of ultra-leftism and I've tried to be analytical. But even from my pov as someone who isn't on board with corbynism that pretty much sums up how I feel (and some of this is about how you feel, not just what you think).  Yes, definitely, in an era of defeats it feels positive not just to see the centre/right of the party losing out - just nice to see, literally, hundreds of thousands moving towards _some kind_ of activism against neo-liberalism.  The numbers signing up for Corbyn last year were staggering and genuinely unexpected.

The more critical bit of me is still wondering what the 'something' actually is. I think there are lots of potential reasons people have joined up - the notion of a simpler/less cynical politics; this being the first chance to oppose neo-liberalism in the relatively safe environment of major party politics; people worried about precarious jobs, pensions, the future - all that.  The more cynical part of me wonders where all these people have been for the last 10 years and why they couldn't do actual class struggle. Yes, okay a significant number of people who were involved in anti-cuts stuff have now signed up for Corbyn, but the vast majority weren't.  I also struggle to see a coherent approach in terms of re-establishing social democracy within the context of a neo-liberal world. Ditto in terms of the relationship between the party and the working class. In fact if that relationship isn't established you've simply got a few hundred thousand focusing their activity on internal battles and winning elections.  I'm repeating myself from earlier posts and it's also best to admit that the treachery of the plp has created a situation where things were bound to be internally focused.  Suppose in the end though, a year on, there doesn't seem to be much progress with regard to reshaping what the party is.  And I think that's my ultimate problem - I'm not sure that's what the project is about.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2016)

In many cases, the people signing up are in their 20s.  If you're wondering where they were 10 years ago, the answer is "Geography class".


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

kabbes said:


> In many cases, the people signing up are in their 20s.  If you're wondering where they were 10 years ago, the answer is "Geography class".


 Yes, I realise and half anticipated a comment like that.  But there was an _equivalent_ group of 20 somethings 10 years ago who weren't involved in politics.  Again though, I think the numbers are significant as is the demographic. In terms of a historical parallel I'd have to think a bit, but it *is* of historic significance - and the overall increase in Labour membership is equally significant.  It's more a case of what the project is, how it sees itself and what it actually _does_ that I have more of a problem with.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2016)

kabbes said:


> In many cases, the people signing up are in their 20s.  If you're wondering where they were 10 years ago, the answer is "Geography class".



Maybe the people you know are in their 20s. Most of the people I know who have gone full momentum are older.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Maybe the people you know are in their 20s. Most of the people I know who have gone full momentum are older.


My experience in the northeast is a good spread of age ranges at the big leadership meetings, but Momentum being a bit more like you say (middles aged and older, already involved in politics/union activism - though still a few younger people).


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

This business about Bernie S. denying he sent Jez a message of support - could that one turn out to be more serious than the ball of smoke over traingate?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> This business about Bernie S. denying he sent Jez a message of support - could that one turn out to be more serious than the ball of smoke over traingate?



I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn's team was socially engineered to believe Bernie Sanders had contacted them?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Maybe the people you know are in their 20s. Most of the people I know who have gone full momentum are older.


The people *I* know are in their fifties and sixties and in some cases were part of Thatcher's QANGOs.  I don't think we know the same people.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

Sorry, another retrospective interjection - also points probably made at the time when it was discussed - but I've just gone back and read the Mason piece. I'm sure he's right to regard Smith as a useful idiot for the genuine Blairite forces. He may also be right that the real phase will begin after the conference this year. However he over rationalises the positions and capacities of the Blairites.  20 years ago there was an emerging political machine that felt it had (neo-liberal) history on its side. Nowadays it's a husk, not quite a disorganised rabble - powerful people are never truly disorganised -but they certainly aren't what they were. Events will take over at some point, there may well be splits and even legal challenges. But ultimately the genuine Blairites haven't got what it takes to create a new party.  Whether they have the ability to keep the soft left with them is also questionable.  Think we are heading back to Butcher's points about 'they'.  Where all that leaves Labour is more difficult to assess.  It's a good outcome if the right were to just fuck off, but it's unlikely they well, at least with regard to sitting MPs.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My experience in the northeast is a good spread of age ranges at the big leadership meetings, but Momentum being a bit more like you say (middles aged and older, already involved in politics/union activism - though still a few younger people).


Yep round here it is all the old labour/trade union lefties they have been around for decades. I'm not sure how true it is that lots of new people are being drawn in. There will be some obviously, but I think it might be overstated.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> But ultimately the genuine Blairites haven't got what it takes to create a new party


This is why I would refer to them as parasitic: they feed off the party and without their host, they're shall we say 'toast'?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2016)

Might depend on how much funding the theys get as to how much damage they do if they lose.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> At one level I've played the role of chip-pisser on this thread, hopefully not out of some kind of ultra-leftism and I've tried to be analytical. But even from my pov as someone who isn't on board with corbynism that pretty much sums up how I feel (and some of this is about how you feel, not just what you think).  Yes, definitely, in an era of defeats it feels positive not just to see the centre/right of the party losing out - just nice to see, literally, hundreds of thousands moving towards _some kind_ of activism against neo-liberalism.  The numbers signing up for Corbyn last year were staggering and genuinely unexpected.
> 
> The more critical bit of me is still wondering what the 'something' actually is. I think there are lots of potential reasons people have joined up - the notion of a simpler/less cynical politics; this being the first chance to oppose neo-liberalism in the relatively safe environment of major party politics; people worried about precarious jobs, pensions, the future - all that.  The more cynical part of me wonders where all these people have been for the last 10 years and why they couldn't do actual class struggle. Yes, okay a significant number of people who were involved in anti-cuts stuff have now signed up for Corbyn, but the vast majority weren't.  I also struggle to see a coherent approach in terms of re-establishing social democracy within the context of a neo-liberal world. Ditto in terms of the relationship between the party and the working class. In fact if that relationship isn't established you've simply got a few hundred thousand focusing their activity on internal battles and winning elections.  I'm repeating myself from earlier posts and it's also best to admit that the treachery of the plp has created a situation where things were bound to be internally focused.  Suppose in the end though, a year on, there doesn't seem to be much progress with regard to reshaping what the party is.  And I think that's my ultimate problem - I'm not sure that's what the project is about.


I agree, but I'm not sure it could be any other way, it is always a lot easier to say what needs to be done than to actually do it.

This has to be better than Corbyn not getting enough nominations and Burnham winning though.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This is why I would refer to them as parasitic: they feed off the party and without their host, they're shall we say 'toast'?


I think they've definitely got the self interest to try and carry on as a separate parliamentary block after Corbyn's victory and also to battle for the party name. Just not to do the hard slog in the country to maintain a party.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I think they've definitely got the self interest to try and carry on as a separate parliamentary block after Corbyn's victory and also to battle for the party name. Just not to do the hard slog in the country to maintain a party.


They relied on the ever-dwindling numbers of working class supporters to do the work for them. That Saving Labour page giving advice on how to "organise a whelk street stall" says it all.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I agree, but I'm not sure it could be any other way, it is always a lot easier to say what needs to be done than to actually do it.
> 
> This has to be better than Corbyn not getting enough nominations and Burnham winning though.


Yes also. The real shock was Corbyn getting all that support last year. In some ways, everything since then with the attacks on him, the treachery of the right, has all been events playing out. I still remain critical that even within this perma-crisis for the Corbyn team/Momentum there hasn't been enough of an attempt to focus on the world outside the party... but again, far from ideal circumstances to do that. Seems to me both sides are now trapped in a fatalistic logic with no obvious way out.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> And you wonder why we don't trust polling companies? Have a look at this.




No fair questions I think, could perhaps suggest another one:

Richard Branson was lying through his fucking teeth when he put the video up and it doesn't matter ...
Richard Branson was lying through his fucking teeth when he put the video up and it matters ...
Richard Branson was possibly not lying through his fucking teeth when he put the video up and it doesn't matter ...
Richard Branson was possibly not lying through his fucking teeth when he put the video up and it matters ...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2016)

Got my vote. I see from Owen's prospectus that he's bravely nominated himself. I wasn't sure he'd have the conviction.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2016)

What's happened here then? 

"Bakers' union general secretary Ronnie Draper says he has been suspended from the #Labour party and cannot vote in the leadership election"

@skynewsbreak


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's happened here then?
> 
> "Bakers' union general secretary Ronnie Draper says he has been suspended from the #Labour party and cannot vote in the leadership election"
> 
> @skynewsbreak


Had his membership card sliced up.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2016)

Don't give up the day job Wilf


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Don't give up the day job Wilf



He didn't knead it to vote, anyway.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2016)

Kin ell


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 25, 2016)

He's been disenflanchised?


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2016)

He's toast...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

Seems reasonable, unless the party have made dreadful bloomer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

The cake is a lie.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2016)

Just what the country needs, another Labour Party bun fight.

One he ought to win with his access to buns.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

Pita, really.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Don't give up the day job Wilf


Probably not helping my cause to go with dough based puns then?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2016)

The world scone mad!


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2016)

A decision that is bound to result in a lot of pain.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


>



Probably like the one they sent Shaun Woodward.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's happened here then?
> 
> "Bakers' union general secretary Ronnie Draper says he has been suspended from the #Labour party and cannot vote in the leadership election"
> 
> @skynewsbreak



I've always had difficulty understanding the bakers' union. They talk thirteen to the dozen.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I've always had difficulty understanding the bakers' union. They talk thirteen to the dozen.


They've never reached the heights they hit in the sixties, those heady days of flour power.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2016)

Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


>



Jesus, how do you build support and win elections if you can't accept the support of people who used to vote for/support other parties? 

I think i read somewhere that they've done at least 6,000 of these refusal letters.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Just what the country needs, another Labour Party bun fight.
> 
> One he ought to win with his access to buns.



In addition to preventing Corbynites from voting it adds to the sense of chaos that the anti-Corbyn people are trying to forment


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Jesus, how do you build support and win elections if you can't accept the support of people who used to vote for/support other parties?
> 
> I think i read somewhere that they've done at least 6,000 of these refusal letters.


And that's despite the party website actively encouraging people who have previously supported other parties to get involved a few month ago (discussed upthread a while back). 

Just in terms of something simple like the number of employees working on certain tasks, it would be interesting to know that % of party activity is currently being spent on identifying people to be refused a vote.  Admittedly, that 'process' will be little more than councillors or local party secretaries harvesting and passing them on for disenfranchisement, but still a sign of how bizarre the party has become. An official party machine spending its time seeking out ways to remove the official party leader.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In addition to preventing Corbynites from voting it adds to the sense of chaos that the anti-Corbyn people are trying to forment


Not sure that large batch of disenfranchised, recent joiners were all Corbynites, though?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not sure that large batch of disenfranchised, recent joiners were all Corbynites, though?



Speaking purely anecdotally on the ones I've seen - most were.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Speaking purely anecdotally on the ones I've seen - most were.


_Large batch._
FS


----------



## ska invita (Aug 25, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?


Yup. I really hate buns. I mean puns.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?



maybe you should just rise above it...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?


Yesterday's chip paper


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Yup. I really hate buns. I mean puns.


They're the yeast of your worries


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2016)

D'oh


----------



## Raheem (Aug 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Yup. I really hate buns. I mean puns.



I feel you're trying to have your cake and eat it with this post.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

I've just worked out over 3% of my urban posts over the last 15 years or so have gone into this thread alone.   For that reason I give notice that I will not be drawn into further bread based puns. Fuck, all those posts -  and I'm still naan the wiser.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've just worked out over 3% of my urban posts over the last 15 years or so have gone into this thread alone.


Proving what, exactly?
Pin it down.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Proving what, exactly?
> Pin it down.


Do you need it spelt out?


----------



## Raheem (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've just worked out over 3% of my urban posts over the last 15 years or so have gone into this thread alone.   For that reason I give notice that I will not be drawn into further bread based puns. Fuck, all those posts -  and I'm still naan the wiser.



3%. That's quite a turnover.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I've just worked out over 3% of my urban posts over the last 15 years or so have gone into this thread alone.   For that reason I give notice that I will not be drawn into further bread based puns. Fuck, all those posts -  and I'm still naan the wiser.


Well, whilst your posting intensity on this thread is, say, tenfold that of Thee Apron, young Rob Ray has expended nearly one-quarter of all his posts here


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm unleavening these breadgames alone. Proof I'm losing my touch.


I like how tory frontbench will be tanning balls in the seycheles atm wheras st corbyn is making jam and going to allotment society meetings.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Do you need it spelt out?


Less waffle might help?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2016)

urbans managed a funhouse mirror version of silly season this last few pages. We should baguette back to the point


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 25, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, whilst your posting intensity on this thread is, say, tenfold that of Thee Apron, young Rob Ray has expended nearly one-quarter of all his posts here



and all of it a load of croque, monsieur.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> urbans managed a funhouse mirror version of silly season this last few pages. We should baguette back to the point


Might be a rather flat and sour note to end on?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2016)

But you have to ask what in this instance is Owen Smith's roll?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

I think Corbyn will just ignore all the loose balls flying around and baton.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> I think Corbyn will just ignore all the loose balls flying around and baton.


Dust himself down, first?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 25, 2016)

Can we discuss the future of the (cha)pati, please?


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

My naan always said you should think of the future.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2016)

John Dunn has been suspended, he spoke at a Corbyn rally in Sheffield recently.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 25, 2016)

Lol I got an email today for my vote with a security code. Almost can't believe it after the bollox I had from them last time.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Can we discuss the future of the (cha)pati, please?


Took me ages to work out what the hell you meant then, as I'm _not a southerner _


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> John Dunn has been suspended, he spoke at a Corbyn rally in Sheffield recently.


Is he the miner who challenged OS about Orgreave?

If so, have these people got no fucking shame?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> Took me ages to work out what the hell you meant then, as I'm _not a southerner _



It was a bit crepe, a pun too farl.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Is he the miner who challenged OS about Orgreave?
> 
> If so, have these people got no fucking shame?



The very same, and no.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> It was a bit crepe, a pun too farl.


Soda, so good.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Is he the miner who challenged OS about Orgreave?
> 
> If so, have these people got no fucking shame?



Here he is, challenging Smith


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Is he the miner who challenged OS about Orgreave?
> 
> If so, have these people got no fucking shame?


kinnock refused to support the miners strike. Shame isn't in their vocab. Milliband refused to support a few strikes then turned up at durham miners gala. The lack of shame is such that they would probably curl one out on the steps of a church for votes


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Less waffle might help?


To be honest, I'm glazing over.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, I'm glazing over.



Do nut let it get to you.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Here he is, challenging Smith


Woman in the red dress, presumably one of his staff, is thinking "fucking hell, where's the car? Fucking hurry up, this could be a gillian duffy moment, i need to rescue owen from this situation but I'm not sure how to speak to real people."


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's happened here then?
> 
> "Bakers' union general secretary Ronnie Draper says he has been suspended from the #Labour party and cannot vote in the leadership election"
> 
> @skynewsbreak



think people are making a whole meal out of it, he got a bit floury with his language and wasn't kneaded any more


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2016)

oh well I'm sure he'll land on the right side up


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2016)

Blooming eck! 

Any other Gen Secs been barred since lunchtime?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 25, 2016)

Amusing


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2016)

ska invita
 

take screen grabs


----------



## Diamond (Aug 25, 2016)

Labour Party conference may be cancelled because of security cock-up around an NEC boycott of G4S according to the Granuiad:

Labour conference in peril as G4S rules out last-minute deal

How does this fit into the Corbyn narrative?

It seems like a pretty basic and fundamental error - is it the fault of an anti-Corbyn fifth column or does the blame lay at the feet of the great man and his confederates...?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Labour Party conference may be cancelled because of security cock-up around an NEC boycott of G4S according to the Granuiad:
> 
> Labour conference in peril as G4S rules out last-minute deal
> 
> ...



It's probably not a cock up but another thing manufactured to throw at Corbyn.


----------



## rioted (Aug 25, 2016)

Diamond said:


> - is it the fault of an anti-Corbyn fifth column or does the blame lay at the feet of the great man and his confederates...?


Perhaps you would like to indicate how Corbyn has ANY responsibility for this. The Annual Conference is (dis)organised by the Blairite dominated National Executive Committee. How are you tying that to Corbyn?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

rioted said:


> Perhaps you would like to indicate how Corbyn has ANY responsibility for this. The Annual Conference is (dis)organised by the Blairite dominated National Executive Committee. How are you tying that to Corbyn?



Because Diamond is like a shit Columbo - always asking one more question when no one cares.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

Assuming nobody watched it - Glasgow hustings were a win to Corbyn. Weakest point is NATO but only rhetorically, asking for a parliamentary vote for war is no bad thing. Smith had a hissy fit over the EU.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 25, 2016)

The Granuiad links the boycott behind the cock-up to Jennie Formby of Unite on the NEC.

Is she pro or anti-Corbyn?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 25, 2016)

Poor Jeremy Corbyn. Everyone's been saying for years how he's not a proper politician and doesn't have the stomach to do what needs to be done in the top flight of the Westminster rough-and-tumble. 

Then the minute he starts lying and fabricating stories for mass-media consumption, everyone starts losing their shit. __


----------



## 8ball (Aug 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Amusing




Next to tall guy, behind tall guy, next to seat behind tall guy.

</Richard Branson>


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 25, 2016)

Apparently John Dunn, the Orgreave miner who has been suspended from the Labour Party and therefore cannot vote in the leadership election, has been a Labour Party member for 45 years, which give or take a few days is the same amount of time Owen Smith has been alive for.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

The conference thing is really, really, really odd. It's almost as if the numbers suggest Corbyn is winning and they know with mass support he can enact some serious changes to the party structure via conference that will be very difficult to roll back so at all costs, they have to delay conference to make time for plan b (or plan c,d,e,f,g) making up a story that sounds credible such as 'it's loony left political sensitivities about Israel which scuppered it.' It's like something from a satire about the left of the Labour party. It stinks of a cleverly placed story.

I'm not a tin foil hat person normally, but that sounds about as likely as 'they all just forgot they needed security' in a time when politicians are (and with good reason tbf) somewhat jumpy about their security arrangements.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It's probably not a cock up but another thing manufactured to throw at Corbyn.



This has been highlighted on the Unite website for about a month and the refusal of security companies to recognise trade union members.
I am surprised that unions and the Labour Party are still using private security companies for Conference venues. Surely there are enough members and workers who are capable of being trained for such duties and paid a decent wage for doing it.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> This has been highlighted on the Unite website for about a month and the refusal of security companies to recognise trade union members.
> I am surprised that unions and the Labour Party are still using private security companies for Conference venues. Surely there are enough members and workers who are capable of being trained for such duties and paid a decent wage for doing it.



Even training shouldn't be an issue I wouldn't have thought. You need a certificate right? Must be enough who have it. Or am I being overly optimistic?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 25, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> This has been highlighted on the Unite website for about a month and the refusal of security companies to recognise trade union members.
> I am surprised that unions and the Labour Party are still using private security companies for Conference venues. Surely there are enough members and workers who are capable of being trained for such duties and paid a decent wage for doing it.


then the press would get a picture of one looking faintly grumpy and do a headline about jc's hired thugs / stormtroopers or some such bollocks


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> This has been highlighted on the Unite website for about a month and the refusal of security companies to recognise trade union members.
> I am surprised that unions and the Labour Party are still using private security companies for Conference venues. Surely there are enough members and workers who are capable of being trained for such duties and paid a decent wage for doing it.



I'd suggest in the current climate it was a case of being pragmatic and just getting the best security you could, holding your nose and knowing that the conference was a step towards being in a position to force union recognition or enact an appropriate policy towards Israel. You'd still need someone to train those people, presumably that would be one of the two large security companies capable of co-ordinating the event in the first place so you'd be giving them trade (albeit less) if they were willing to undertake such training. It's a good idea though.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Even training shouldn't be an issue I wouldn't have thought. You need a certificate right? Must be enough who have it. Or am I being overly optimistic?



But it's not a case of just getting some bouncers is it? It's a big operation, especially in the light of a recent murder and so on. You'd need someone to co-ordinate it and train people to organise and supervise. I don't know to what to degree the more nuanced elements of security for a large event of this nature are down to the police or part of the whole private sector deal means this sort of thing isn't really down to the police at all and you have to 'buy in' a service, instead of paying a policing bill.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> But it's not a case of just getting some bouncers is it? It's a big operation, especially in the light of a recent murder and so on. You'd need someone to co-ordinate it and train people to organise and supervise. I don't know to what to degree the more nuanced elements of security for a large event of this nature are down to the police or part of the whole private sector deal means this sort of thing isn't really down to the police at all and you have to 'buy in' a service, instead of paying a policing bill.



Yeah but from top to bottom there are going to be members whose job this is and organising them into a rota isn't that hard. Or maybe it is, I'm just speculating. Either way the idea of conference being cancelled over this makes me highly cynical.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2016)

I understand the problems of efficient security in today's world isn't just a case of standing large men shouting 'no trainers or white socks', but it is something that I think would be worth a few of us putting forward at branch or constituency meetings.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

Presumably such events are subject to permission and licensing at some level also. That permission must be subject to certain arrangements and given well in advance. You can't just gather thousands of people for a one off event without telling the local police or other authorities can you? That makes it even more unlikely that security could just be 'overlooked' - even stranger is the idea that it was an individual responsibility, it's not like asking someone to make a quiche for a jacob's join in the end of term staffroom lunch, it's a pretty fundamental element of the event and presumably, given as the party seems to have procedure for everything, there is some sort of policy and procedure and some sort of checking and corporate responsibility. The Labour Party is a big beast with a multi-million pound turnover. My work place is tiny in comparison but we have systems to ensure event arrangements are double + triple checked. The leader might change, but the procedure remains the same.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 25, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I understand the problems of efficient security in today's world isn't just a case of standing large men shouting 'no trainers or white socks', but it is something that I think would be a few of us putting forward at branch or constituency meetings.



Won't be any before conference though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2016)

I really think people are seeing more than there is, that the PLP and allies are more organised than they are. As butchers mentioned earlier in the thread, the whole leadership challenge (Eagle vs Smith etc) has shown how disorganised they are rather than the opposite. 

The conference thing (on which my money is on the NEC reversing the G4S decision) is just an outcome of the current disunity in the party rather than anything sinister.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2016)

> McDonnell claimed the party was exercising double standards in suspending Draper while allowing long-time party donor Lord Sainsbury to remain a member, despite having given more than £2m to the Liberal Democrats.



John McDonnell accuses Labour committee of 'rigged purge' of members

Still, clearly not as bad as saying something nice about the greens.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

The conference thing (on which my money is on the NEC reversing the G4S decision) is just an outcome of the current disunity in the party rather than anything sinister.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> It's a fucking joke is what it is. More effort and oversight seems to have gone into arranging 20 cups of tea for the last meeting at work than the national conference of one of the two main powers in 'the worlds greatest democracy'


----------



## Diamond (Aug 25, 2016)

The story doing the rounds is that even if the NEC did a sudden u-turn and asked for G4S to take up the reins, G4S are not in a position to do so.

The whole thing smacks of incompetence but possibly also incompetence that was allowed to spiral for tactical reasons...


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Won't be any before conference though.



Of course this is a solution for the future, the coming conference does seem to be at risk.

Hopefully the problem will resolve itself by the security company's recognition of union members. By heck I really miss closed shops, collective bargaining and a show of hands. (Not Steve Knightley and his mate)

Edited due to rant!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Blooming eck!
> 
> Any other Gen Secs been barred since lunchtime?


Come on, we all know there's no Secs in the Champagne Room


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 25, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Apparently John Dunn, the Orgreave miner who has been suspended from the Labour Party and therefore cannot vote in the leadership election, has been a Labour Party member for 45 years, which give or take a few days is the same amount of time Owen Smith has been alive for.


And how much _wealth_ did that lazy coaldust-sniffing bastard ever _create_ in those forty-five years, eh? Clearly voting rights need to be commensurate to a person's economic contribution - no more freeloaders!


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

I was trying to explain to someone only yesterday who is kind of apolitical why they all hate Corbyn.

I thought the most credible explanation I could think of without dredging up arcane history and talking in fairly meaningless terms (to the person I was talking too) was that the party don't trust him, not because they are all completely opposed to his ideas but because they perceive him as keen to restructure the party to make them far more accountable to CLPs. This worries a lot of MPs who have seen an influx of members, seemingly hostile to the existing power dynamic.

I also explained that Corbyn might be able to create a much stronger position for himself at the next conference by setting in motion changes that enable some of the things many MPs figure will make their positions less secure. The 'coup' encouraged by the relatively small rump of MPs most ideologically opposed to him was embraced by MPs who aren't fundamentally anti his ideas because really, underneath it all, they see someone like Smith as a much safer bet for their careers.

Even MPs in very safe seats fear changes to party structure and they know Smith won't challenge their positions as he's not about empowering the local members. I think some of them probably weren't even completely conscious that that's why they were supporting the coup. It's easy to convince yourself you are doing something essentially selfish for moral reasons. It explains why some of them seem to have come up with the crappest justifications you can think of as they can't bring themselves to say (perhaps even in private or to the mirror) "because I don't want to be deselected"

Literally the next day 'conference in danger of cancellation um... Israel'


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 25, 2016)

Go to news.google.com and type in Corbyn and see what helpfully comes up as suggestions for extra searches.

Israel. And its been the same for months. Funny that.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 25, 2016)

Re No Security - time to call in the Hell's Angels...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 25, 2016)

david owen agrees with jc







oh shit


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

Owen's right in a way - Labour really should be able to broadly unite around some simple, no brain popular policies which the majority of the party fundamentally agree on. 

the clear route forward for me would be for Corbyn to be able to say nice things about the achievements on education 97-2010 and say he wants to build on the past and take further what was started - credit the right with some achievement. We might want him to say 'You fucking pisscunt twatface bastards introduced tuition fees, slapped down targets all over the place, made Ofsted like a gestapo and encouraged a corporate culture of bullying in education and you couldn't even pay teaching assistants properly and hows Iraq looking now Tony you creepy fucking leathery cancer skeleton' but I would really rather he didn't say that and instead had at least one moment where everyone clapped and smiled and we could all feel optimistic and happy and part of one big family.

Kind of like it was your grans 90th birthday and you all just agreed not to mention certain stuff or bring up certain topics for the sake of gran.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 25, 2016)

I think his pre conference facebook video should simply be him saying 'CAN WE JUST HAVE ONE NICE DAY OUT? IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?' and he should send John Mcdonnell to walk around and spot any dodgy characters doing 'off the record' briefings or snide pieces to camera with instructions just to shout 'THIS! THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!'


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 25, 2016)

not saying i disagree, but not sure that getting the dr death seal of approval is good for any politician...


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The Granuiad links the boycott behind the cock-up to Jennie Formby of Unite on the NEC.
> 
> Is she pro or anti-Corbyn?


Gee, I wonder why a pro_smith newspaper would try and blame a (prominently) pro-Corbyn NEC member.  Maybe to divert attention from the fact that it is in the control of the (pro-Smith) GS Iain McNicol


Diamond said:


> The story doing the rounds is that even if the NEC did a sudden u-turn and asked for G4S to take up the reins, G4S are not in a position to do so.


'Doing the rounds'??  You mean reported on every single news channel. Stop pretending to be 'in the know' you sad sack.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> Gee, I wonder why a pro_smith newspaper would try and blame a (prominently) pro-Corbyn NEC member.  Maybe to divert attention from the fact that it is in the control of the (pro-Smith) GS Iain McNicol
> 
> 'Doing the rounds'??  You mean reported on every single news channel. Stop pretending to be 'in the know' you sad sack.



"Pretending to be 'in the know,"...

"Sad sack"...

Truly pathetic attempts to contrive something that you can rail against.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 25, 2016)

Anyways - just to be clear here...

It looks like Labour won't have a conference because no one bothered to sort out any security.

And none of that falls within the leadership's realm of responsibility.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - just to be clear here...
> 
> It looks like Labour won't have a conference because no one bothered to sort out any security.
> 
> And none of that falls within the leadership's realm of responsibility.


lol. Glad to see you not bothering to let facts get in your way.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> lol. Glad to see you not bothering to let facts get in your way.



Please expand


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Even training shouldn't be an issue I wouldn't have thought. You need a certificate right? Must be enough who have it. Or am I being overly optimistic?


SIA. You need it to ward the doors on a pub. Its all down to insurance.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Please expand


I think you'll find it's you making the claims, hence up to you to support your fallacious statements.


----------



## coley (Aug 26, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?


Not going to rise!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> I think you'll find it's you making the claims, hence up to you to support your fallacious statements.



I've posted an article above written by a guardian journalist.

e2a - surely it falls to you to identify the errors that render it fallacious...?


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I've posted an article above written by a guardian journalist.
> 
> e2a - surely it falls to you to identify the errors that render it fallacious...?


the link you gave doesn't mention Jennie Formby, it mentions Iain McNicol, for one


----------



## Diamond (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> the link you gave doesn't mention Jennie Formby, it mentions Iain McNicol, for one



Odd - they've edited the Formby bit out in that version.  You can find the old copy on google news.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 26, 2016)

Whether the Labour conference goes ahead or not I think the argument here is that we once again have a situation that highlights how the Labour Party after all the years in power did nothing to repeal the anti trade union laws. These laws repress workers, workers labour expect to vote for them. Members of unions that Labour expect donations off. The PLP is as anti trade union as the tories and once again evidence that those at the bottom and the oppressed never mattered to Labour since the mid seventies.
This situation is about trade union members receiving recognition.
Ultimately the problem is one allowed to continue under successive Labour governments. So if the conference is cancelled, so be it!


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Odd - they've edited the Formby bit out in that version.  You can find the old copy on google news.


lol, off you fuck.


----------



## JimW (Aug 26, 2016)

Bit I saw on newsnight last night had some journo claiming it was about G4S investments in Israel with no mention of union recognition. First I'd heard, is this a narrative that's being pushed by PLP to make it seem less cut and dried?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 26, 2016)

JimW said:


> Bit I saw on newsnight last night had some journo claiming it was about G4S investments in Israel with no mention of union recognition. First I'd heard, is this a narrative that's being pushed by PLP to make it seem less cut and dried?



This is another angle from last week trying to show a division developing between unions over the matter, but it is all just wind in the sails of the vessel trying to vilify unions.

EXCL GMB and Unite go to war over Labour party conference security row


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

JimW said:


> Bit I saw on newsnight last night had some journo claiming it was about G4S investments in Israel with no mention of union recognition. First I'd heard, is this a narrative that's being pushed by PLP to make it seem less cut and dried?


G4S aren't being used because of Israel, the union recognition row is the alternative company Showsec.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:
			
		

> young Rob Ray has expended nearly one-quarter of all his posts here



In fairness my posting rate generally is pretty low and I have a lot of Corbyn-related stuff go past my desk because of the job. Also wtf?



quimcunx said:


> and all of it a load of croque, monsieur.



A delicious mix of meaty comment with cheese on top? You're too kind.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> G4S aren't being used because of Israel, the union recognition row is the alternative company Showsec.


Yes, according to Newsnight, the (old) NEC decision to boycott was taken in response to G4S's Israeli involvement, and still stands...despite G4S's (apparent) decision to withdraw from Israel.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, according to Newsnight, the (old) NEC decision to boycott was taken in response to G4S's Israeli involvement, and still stands...despite G4S's (apparent) decision to withdraw from Israel.


A cause championed by Sarah Champion, so the right can't even blame it on Corbyn (not that that will stop certain dumb and dishonest elements).


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> A cause championed by Sarah Champion, so the right can't even blame it on Corbyn (not that that will stop certain dumb and dishonest elements).


Yes. The reports about last November's NEC sound oddly familiar:-



> _It’s understood the decision took place on Tuesday evening after the Labour Party’s NEC meeting._
> 
> *It is also believed that the majority of the NEC’s 33 members had already left the meeting, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and deputy leader Tom Watson.*


----------



## treelover (Aug 26, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It's probably not a cock up but another thing manufactured to throw at Corbyn.




Interesting how Labour boycotted G4S over its involvement in Israel, not its cheap labour/olympics/workfare involvement.


----------



## treelover (Aug 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Apparently John Dunn, the Orgreave miner who has been suspended from the Labour Party and therefore cannot vote in the leadership election, has been a Labour Party member for 45 years, which give or take a few days is the same amount of time Owen Smith has been alive for.




His speech at the Corbyn rally was superb: moving, powerful, angry but compassionate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> Interesting how Labour boycotted G4S over its involvement in Israel, not its cheap labour/olympics/workfare involvement.


interesting how you never suggested labour should boycott g4s in the past.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> His speech at the Corbyn rally was superb: moving, powerful, angry but compassionate.


so you liked his delivery. but which parts of the content did you agree with?


----------



## treelover (Aug 26, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> then the press would get a picture of one looking faintly grumpy and do a headline about jc's hired thugs / stormtroopers or some such bollocks




Still wouldn't compare with the one where they physically threw the veteran member and pensioner Walter Wolfgang out of the Blair led conference in 2005


----------



## treelover (Aug 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Presumably such events are subject to permission and licensing at some level also. That permission must be subject to certain arrangements and given well in advance. You can't just gather thousands of people for a one off event without telling the local police or other authorities can you? That makes it even more unlikely that security could just be 'overlooked' - even stranger is the idea that it was an individual responsibility, it's not like asking someone to make a quiche for a jacob's join in the end of term staffroom lunch, it's a pretty fundamental element of the event and presumably, given as the party seems to have procedure for everything, there is some sort of policy and procedure and some sort of checking and corporate responsibility. The Labour Party is a big beast with a multi-million pound turnover. My work place is tiny in comparison but we have systems to ensure event arrangements are double + triple checked. The leader might change, but the procedure remains the same.




Maybe Free Spirit could organise it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> Maybe Free Spirit could organise it.


Ha! Yes. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Get on it FS - Jeremy needs you now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so you liked his delivery. but which parts of the content did you agree with?



In fairness he's entitled to express admiration for the general thrust and approach of someone's speech without needing to break it down line by line. I thoroughly enjoyed Corbyn going full geography teacher on Owen Smith at the hustings over their respective European referendum contributions, while caring very little about which one of them was actually right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> In fairness he's entitled to express admiration for the general thrust and approach of someone's speech without needing to break it down line by line.


and he has done that. "in fairness" i am entitled to ask him which parts of the content he agreed with.


----------



## rioted (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i am entitled ...


You demonstrate your adherence to that state of mind very well. And very often.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and he has done that. "in fairness" i am entitled to ask him which parts of the content he agreed with.



You surely are entitled to ask a question tangential to what he was saying. Seems a waste of time to me, but then again we're all posting on Urban I suppose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> You surely are entitled to ask a question tangential to what he was saying. Seems a waste of time to me, but then again we're all posting on Urban I suppose.


if you think it's a waste of time i have to question why you're posting on urban.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

rioted said:


> You demonstrate your adherence to that state of mind very well. And very often.


and you post up vacuous wank with a frequency that in any other poster would defy credulity.

anyone with a mere ounce of nous would have recognised i was echoing the language in the post i quoted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

so st J's not done anything exciting today. Maybe he went for a walk by the canal, checked over his marrows. While plotting to overthrow western civilisation and institute communism obvs


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> if you think it's a waste of time i have to question why you're posting on urban.



Because I get bored at work, mainly. You?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Because I get bored at work, mainly. You?


a range of reasons i have addressed in several places over the years. but i still wonder why you bother if you think it a waste of time when there's so much of the internet you could be exploring.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a range of reasons i have addressed in several places over the years. but i still wonder why you bother if you think it a waste of time when there's so much of the internet you could be exploring.



I just love your cranky posts too much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I just love your cranky posts too much.


i dearly wish i could say the same of your contributions.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i dearly wish i could say the same of your contributions.



Aw babe why'd you have to go there?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Aw babe why'd you have to go there?


i've never thought your posts cranky tbh


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 26, 2016)

We all have our off days .


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> We all have our off days .


yeh but then we're back at work and posting here


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2016)

Anyone missing the electronic voting discussion now!


----------



## agricola (Aug 26, 2016)

In other news, Richard Branson has been seriously injured in a bicycle crash.  Apparently he was going downhill at speed and in the dark, then hit a sleeping policeman and came off - so momentum is to blame.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

can't ride a bike or fly a balloon the daft twat. St J never falls off his 'chairman mao style' bike


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> can't ride a bike or fly a balloon the daft twat. St J never falls off his 'chairman mao style' bike


in that case i wish he'd take a train or plane


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

lets not restart traingate


----------



## inva (Aug 26, 2016)

belboid said:


> Anyone missing the electronic voting discussion now!


I think we're already past missing the electronic voting chat:


mauvais said:


> Is anyone else remembering the electronic voting fraud discussion a bit more fondly now?


so we're probably feeling wistful about baking puns just about now


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

inva said:


> so we're probably feeling wistful about baking puns just about now


use your loaf and come up with some then


----------



## inva (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> use your loaf and come up with some then


couldn't you have just left me with my memories?


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 26, 2016)

Saw this on shitebook:

"The investigations team deciding the expelling and suspensions is currently under investigation by the Police for wasting police time, political intimidation & making false statements to the Police."

That's expulsions and suspensions from the LP, natch. Is this claim about them having incurred the Wrath of Plod for real?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

inva said:


> couldn't you have just left me with my memories?


----------



## flypanam (Aug 26, 2016)

agricola said:


> In other news, Richard Branson has been seriously injured in a bicycle crash.  Apparently he was going downhill at speed and in the dark, then hit a sleeping policeman and came off - so momentum is to blame.



Just to flesh this out a bit 'I thought I was dead' - Richard Branson reveals how he cheated death in horror bike crash - Independent.ie


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Saw this on shitebook:
> 
> "The investigations team deciding the expelling and suspensions is currently under investigation by the Police for wasting police time, political intimidation & making false statements to the Police."
> 
> That's expulsions and suspensions from the LP, natch. Is this claim about them having incurred the Wrath of Plod for real?


Well, that's put a damper on their little game.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Saw this on shitebook:
> 
> "The investigations team deciding the expelling and suspensions is currently under investigation by the Police for wasting police time, political intimidation & making false statements to the Police."
> 
> That's expulsions and suspensions from the LP, natch. Is this claim about them having incurred the Wrath of Plod for real?


be bare lols if it is. Political intimidation? 'we know your chief super fairly well' sort of thing? Well when that backfires, it backfires hard


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> be bare lols if it is. Political intimidation? 'we know your chief super fairly well' sort of thing? Well when that backfires, it backfires hard


Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. 

(if it really is happening, mind)


----------



## a_chap (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> anyone with a mere ounce of nous would have recognised i was echoing the language in the post i quoted.



oh, I'll have an ounce of nous.

er... it's for a friend, officer.


----------



## agricola (Aug 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Saw this on shitebook:
> 
> "The investigations team deciding the expelling and suspensions is currently under investigation by the Police for wasting police time, political intimidation & making false statements to the Police."
> 
> That's expulsions and suspensions from the LP, natch. Is this claim about them having incurred the Wrath of Plod for real?



Doubt it - "political intimidation" isn't an offence, and for them to be done for wasting police time and making a false statement would require them to have reported allegations (and its hard to see why the investigations team would be reporting allegations, rather than individual MPs / councillors / NEC members etc).


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 26, 2016)

a_chap said:


> oh, I'll have an ounce of nous.
> 
> er... it's for a friend, officer.



Beware the louts, sticking nous up their snouts
Not so much as an ounce between them


I'm like John Cooper Clarke me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

Shock! Horror! The Daily Heil reveals the Leader of the Official Opposition earns a salary and is in line to get a pension when he retires! He even lives in a £600,000 house. Whatever next? I bet he has a comfy chair too! FFS. You call this journalism? I piss better journalism.


> Jeremy Corbyn today said he does not consider himself wealthy, despite earning more than £137,000 a-year, owning a £600,000 home and a £1.6million pension.
> 
> The Labour leader was announcing a new policy to fund the arts during a visit to Edinburgh as he said high arts such as ballet and opera should not be the preserve of the wealthy, adding: 'I don't consider myself high-brow or wealthy, but I still enjoy some aspects of classical music.'
> 
> ...



Hang on, didn't they run this story last year? 

Oh, it was April. FFS.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

tbf, he is very wealthy. There's not much I wouldn't do for £138,000/y


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

its just bob crow lived in a council house stuff. I've been finding their anti-charity splashers a bit more concerning. Its proper sinister. Say that things are getting more fucked up and come under the eye of sauron. There is no real except the new one.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> tbf, he is very wealthy. There's not much I wouldn't do for £138,000/y


No, he isn't "very wealthy". He's certainly not in the same bracket as Branson, Green or even Geoffrey Robertson (former Labour MP). Those are examples of the "very wealthy". Corbyn may earn more than either you or I and may live in a house that has appreciated in value since he bought it, but that doesn't make him "very wealthy".


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 26, 2016)

Has the Foo Fighters story made it here? 

There is no knead for bread based puns to leaven the mood, the whole(meal) thing is just a farce that never seems to reach a climax.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Has the Foo Fighters story made it here?
> 
> There is no knead for bread based puns to leaven the mood, the whole(meal) thing is just a farce that never seems to reach a climax.


Labour Party suspend member over 'inappropriate' Foo Fighters post | NME.COM



> Foo Fighters themselves have not yet commented on the matter.



hehehe


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2016)

TBF if any other politician with his income & means had claimed not to consider themselves wealthy, they'd be branded out of touch too. It's a ridiculous thing for him to say.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Has the Foo Fighters story made it here?
> 
> There is no knead for bread based puns to leaven the mood, the whole(meal) thing is just a farce that never seems to reach a climax.


Oh gawd, this has risen up again.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No, he isn't "very wealthy". He's certainly not in the same bracket as Branson, Green or even Geoffrey Robertson (former Labour MP). Those are examples of the "very wealthy". Corbyn may earn more than either you or I and may live in a house that has appreciated in value since he bought it, but that doesn't make him "very wealthy".


His earnings put him in the top 1% of earners in the UK. Even in the USA he'd be in the top 2%.

He's very wealthy. People like Branson are outliers. There's not many of them. There's thousands of Corbyns, on over £100k a year. He is very wealthy.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 26, 2016)

I think the key point in this is the Foo Fighters are shit and have been releasing the same anodyne track for about 65 years non stop so tweeting about 'fucking loving' them is at yeast a formal warning.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

Ban him...


----------



## steveo87 (Aug 26, 2016)

What shit band did he 'recommend' to Milliband when he resigned, you know, the first time?


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 26, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> What shit band did he 'recommend' to Milliband when he resigned, you know, the first time?



Status Quo?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

same album. over and over. I liked the one that had 'visiting is pretty, visiting is good seems that all they ever wanted was a brother'. Thats their only truly good 'I'll youtube it when in my cups' song. The rest is just quiet/loud verse/chorus nonsense. And I liked nirvana. The foo fighters have been rubbish for years and Dave Grohl should personally apologise to corbyn for his decade of not trying hard enough


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> His earnings put him in the top 1% of earners in the UK. Even in the USA he'd be in the top 2%.
> 
> He's very wealthy. People like Branson are outliers. There's not many of them. There's thousands of Corbyns, on over £100k a year. He is very wealthy.


You're using a highly subjective yardstick. He's not "very wealthy".


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> same album. over and over. I liked the one that had 'visiting is pretty, visiting is good seems that all they ever wanted was a brother'. Thats their only truly good 'I'll youtube it when in my cups' song. The rest is just quiet/loud verse/chorus nonsense. And I liked nirvana. The foo fighters have been rubbish for years and Dave Grohl should personally apologise to corbyn for his decade of not trying hard enough


They've always been rubbish ffs. I bet you're one of those people who reckon the red hot chilli peppers were good until Mothers Milk too. Gross.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> TBF if any other politician with his income & means had claimed not to consider themselves wealthy, they'd be branded out of touch too. It's a ridiculous thing for him to say.


Are you addressing me, kb? Tell me, how would you define "very wealthy" or do you conflate that with "slightly wealthy" and "filthy rich"? Serious question.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> They've always been rubbish ffs. I bet you're one of those people who reckon the *red hot chilli peppers were good* until Mothers Milk too. Gross.


Full sleeve band t-shirt. And I still maintain that 'Otherside' is a damn tune

#goes off to his dadrock


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 26, 2016)

What has happened  about the problems in getting security cover for the Labour Conference. I thought I heard on the electric wireless that a last minute solution had been found but no mention of who is stepping in?

Sorry to interrupt the flow of meaningless chatter on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> tbf, he is very wealthy. There's not much I wouldn't do for £138,000/y


Yeh. But tbh there's not much you wouldn't do for £13.80


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you addressing me, kb? Tell me, how would you define "very wealthy" or do you conflate that with "slightly wealthy" and "filthy rich"? Serious question.


"You're very wealthy if you have an income greater than than 99% of the population" seems like a good 'yardstick' to me.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you addressing me, kb?


I'm joining in the discussion in the thread.

I'm not really interested in defining 'very wealthy', you're talking to fez about that. Corbyn apparently said he doesn't think of himself as *just* wealthy - he's wrong on that.


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What has happened  about the problems in getting security cover for the Labour Conference. I thought I heard on the electric wireless that a last minute solution had been found but no mention of who is stepping in?
> 
> Sorry to interrupt the flow of meaningless chatter on this thread.



Labour signs deal with conference security firm

Strangely, it doesn't mention whether the Foo Fighters are appearing, but maybe they'll be "surprise guests"...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> "You're very wealthy if you have an income greater than than 99% of the population" seems like a good 'yardstick' to me.


And if he gets ousted and drops down to a backbencher's pay I'm sure you'll pop and and say he's no longer wealthy


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm joining in the discussion in the thread.
> 
> I'm not really interested in defining 'very wealthy', you're talking to fez about that. Corbyn apparently said he doesn't think of himself as *just* wealthy - he's wrong on that.


Yeah, I don't want to get hung up on the difference between wealthy and very wealthy...Corbyn is, at the least, wealthy.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And if he gets ousted and drops down to a backbencher's pay I'm sure you'll pop and and say he's no longer wealthy


He'd still be "well off".

What's your point here? Do you disagree or you just looking for an argument?

Is someone who earns more than 99% of the population wealthy?


----------



## muscovyduck (Aug 26, 2016)

did he actually say he didn't consider himself weathy


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

muscovyduck said:


> did he actually say he didn't consider himself weathy


The Mail article linked above has this: 'I don't consider myself high-brow or wealthy, but I still enjoy some aspects of classical music.'

Single quotes tend not to be direct quotes, but it _seems _like a direct quote. Though who knows with the Mail.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> Labour signs deal with conference security firm
> 
> Strangely, it doesn't mention whether the Foo Fighters are appearing, but maybe they'll be "surprise guests"...


Thanks andysays. I am three hours behind on this story. Carry on chatting, as you were.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> He'd still be "well off".
> 
> What's your point here? Do you disagree or you just looking for an argument?
> 
> Is someone who earns more than 99% of the population wealthy?


No. Someone who earns that year in, year out: yes. But someone who has that for one year? And who knows where he'll be in another year. Next you'll be saying sharon shoesmith rich as croesus from her wrongful dismissal payout.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No. Someone who earns that year in, year out: yes. But someone who has that for one year? And who knows where he'll be in another year. Next you'll be saying sharon shoesmith rich as croesus from her wrongful dismissal payout.


He's been an mp most of his adult life. He's 'well off'. Not stinking rich, but 'well off' at the very least.  He's well off in the way that a senior doctor or head teacher at a big school is well off. And he'd be better off admitting that.

That he chooses to live simply and has few expensive needs - which I can well imagine he does - is a rather separate matter. The fact of his income makes any such spartan tastes a matter of _choice_ that is denied someone with a smaller income.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> And I still maintain that 'Otherside' is a damn tune



Ta for that - and Under the Bridge


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 26, 2016)

Oh jesus. Oh fucking jesus.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 26, 2016)




----------



## two sheds (Aug 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus. Oh fucking jesus.



Sorry  I thought it was a good track


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 26, 2016)

I hope this thread doesn't enter the same banal universe that the labour leadership contest inhabits!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus. Oh fucking jesus.


deffo wore a sock on his cock


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> deffo wore a sock on his cock


Socks not worn in Palestine until 1099


----------



## binka (Aug 26, 2016)

If this is turning into a confessional I would like to take this opportunity to say I like the first _two_ foo fighters albums


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus. Oh fucking jesus.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ta for that - and *Under the Bridge*


its sposed to be about heroin addiction. So my brain says anyway


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

My eldest liked RHCP when he was 12.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> My eldest liked RHCP when he was 12.



I liked custard when I was 12, I still do. Proves nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Shock! Horror! The Daily Heil reveals the Leader of the Official Opposition earns a salary and is in line to get a pension when he retires! He even lives in a £600,000 house. Whatever next? I bet he has a comfy chair too! FFS. You call this journalism? I piss better journalism.
> 
> 
> Hang on, didn't they run this story last year?
> ...


Should be constantly pointed out that wages should be raised, so many people paid so little


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I liked custard when I was 12, I still do. Proves nothing.


More of a roobarb man myself


----------



## agricola (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Socks not worn in Palestine until 1099



deus vult!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2016)

Well, I voted for Mr Corbyn the Geography Teacher (I'm a Unite member) 

He's pretty useless but my intent was to say "Not supporting neoliberalism at any price"


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I liked custard when I was 12, I still do. Proves nothing.


I agree. It proves nothing more, or less, than that my eldest enjoyed listening to RHCP when he was 12, but he was done with them within a year.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No. Someone who earns that year in, year out: yes. But someone who has that for one year? And who knows where he'll be in another year. Next you'll be saying sharon shoesmith rich as croesus from her wrongful dismissal payout.


He'll be earning that for the next 4 years, I'd imagine. And he's got a year under his belt. So, 5 years @ £137k is £685k

A minimum wage earner would have to work 52 years to earn that. Someone on the "average" wage would have to work 27 years. Or it's 72 years of job seekers allowance.

I bet his mortgage is paid off, too. Most people either don't have a mortgage because they're renting, or they're still paying it. He's very well off/wealthy.

One year of his salary could keep me going for 6 years at my current lifestyle. Not too shabby. I'll take it.

I don't know who Sharon Shoesmith is, but I bet she's not sat at home with her payout thinking, "I'm not well off".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> He'll be earning that for the next 4 years, I'd imagine. And he's got a year under his belt. So, 5 years @ £137k is £685k
> 
> A minimum wage earner would have to work 52 years to earn that. Someone on the "average" wage would have to work 27 years. Or it's 72 years of job seekers allowance.
> 
> ...


Yes. You're repeating my point that most people are on shit wages and should be paid more. Do you want to add something new or are you just going to trail after me repeating what I've said?


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. You're repeating my point that most people are on shit wages and should be paid more. Do you want to add something new or are you just going to trail after me repeating what I've said?


What is wealth if not a higher proporition of money/capital compared to your peers?

If everyone was paid more, then no, Corbyn wouldn't be wealthy. At least in UK terms. But we aren't, so he is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> What is wealth if not a higher proporition of money/capital compared to your peers?
> 
> If everyone was paid more, then no, Corbyn wouldn't be wealthy. At least in UK terms. But we aren't, so he is.


To his peers. So how wealthy is he in comparison to other MPs and members of the house of Lords?


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> To his peers. So how wealthy is he in comparison to other MPs and members of the house of Lords?


Bad choice of words.

Countrymen/women?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


>


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> They've always been rubbish ffs. I bet you're one of those people who reckon the red hot chilli peppers were good until Mothers Milk too. Gross.



I could play the bass solo from 'Stone Cold Bush' on my headless 5-string bass whilst wearing a long sleeve RHCP shirt. Grossed out yet?

(Yes, I'd probably throw my younger self in the sea).


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 26, 2016)

Branson crashed his bike on purpose so as to goad corbynites into gloating about it on social media, thus getting themselves banned from voting by the NEC vetting committee. Sharp move.


----------



## magneze (Aug 26, 2016)

Virgin v British Airways: was the Corbyn saga part of the old rivalry?

All about spoiling coverage of the Olympic medalists coming home on a BA flight apparently.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm joining in the discussion in the thread.


Yeah, sure you are.


killer b said:


> I'm not really interested in defining 'very wealthy', you're talking to fez about that. Corbyn apparently said he doesn't think of himself as *just* wealthy - he's wrong on that.


I find it interesting that you're more interested in seizing on that one aspect rather than recognising the fact that the article is essentially recycled mush from a previous article. Not only that, the subtext (that is to say the underlying discourse) of the article that because Corbyn is receiving an MPs salary and extra for his role as leader of the official opposition, he should be earning much less or he's a hypocrite, or to use the parlance that's much loved by the right-wing press, a 'Champagne socialist'. 

But do you actually know what property prices are like in London? Oh and that _is _relevant.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> "You're very wealthy if you have an income greater than than 99% of the population" seems like a good 'yardstick' to me.


Subjectivity.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Should be constantly pointed out that wages should be raised, so many people paid so little


Goes without saying.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Subjectivity.


Wow.

Definte wealthy then?


----------



## Sirena (Aug 27, 2016)

A friend of mine just had his Facebook page hacked somehow.

A big red meme appeared saying something like "I support Owen Smith because he wants a second vote on Europe'.

He deleted it but I have never heard of this sort of thing happening before.  It credited him with commenting on the meme when he hadn't.

Curious....


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2016)

Bollocks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 27, 2016)




----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 27, 2016)

#LabourPurgeSongs

"WHEN THE CROWD SAY BO, DESELECTA"

"(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Stay in the Party)"

etc etc...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2016)

Oh jesus. Lord no.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2016)

At a _personal_ level he hasn't gone in for the usual enrichment that being a senior Mp brings, doesn't seem to have offshore accounts, isn't angling to be on the board of a multinational (lol). But he is very well paid in UK terms - _wealthy_ I'd say.  Not exactly a big issue, but it was a bit daft him claiming he isn't.

Edit: his salary takes him well into the 50p tax rate Labour wanted to restore in 2015 and, as mentioned, he has other financial benefits as an MP (not only pension but the 'readjustment' allowance or whatever they call it when he finally retires).


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 27, 2016)

I've been to the pub on a Friday night for the first time in a long time so I'm emboldened to say the RHCP are fucking awful. They are as bad as toploader. If not worse. I'd rather listen to a Timmy Mallet album as at least there is some humour in that as opposed to the fucking horrible alpha male kfc frat boy music. It's music to listen to in a Range Rover with the guys from work, driving to do some tepid 'extreme sports' whilst whooping and then getting blind drunk in the local pub loudly and with no regard for anyone around you and then crying and starting a fight with a stranger because your a man child who has unresolved emotional issues with your mother and can't handle the fact you've been dumped 8 months ago by a girl you only went out with for 3 months and you didn't really click with but was fit and had expensive tastes like you. You can listen to the sensitive songs whilst you sit in the hotel room with guys and carry on drinking some expensive spirit and then later you can drive dangerously home over the limit and hit a child because of distracting banter.

Anyway, that aside I do like the idea of the National Education Service. I wonder if there will be uniforms.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 27, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> I've been to the pub on a Friday night for the first time in a long time so I'm emboldened to say the RHCP are fucking awful. They are as bad as toploader. If not worse. I'd rather listen to a Timmy Mallet album as at least there is some humour in that as opposed to the fucking horrible alpha male kfc frat boy music. It's music to listen to in a Range Rover with the guys from work, driving to do some tepid 'extreme sports' whilst whooping and then getting blind drunk in the local pub loudly and with no regard for anyone around you and then crying and starting a fight with a stranger because your a man child who has unresolved emotional issues with your mother and can't handle the fact you've been dumped 8 months ago by a girl you only went out with for 3 months and you didn't really click with but was fit and had expensive tastes like you. You can listen to the sensitive songs whilst you sit in the hotel room with guys and carry on drinking some expensive spirit and then later you can drive dangerously home over the limit and hit a child because of distracting banter.
> 
> Anyway, that aside I do like the idea of the National Education Service. I wonder if there will be uniforms.



engage somehow surely.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 27, 2016)

"Champagne Socialist" - a polite way of saying 'class traitor'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2016)

Corbyn is most certainly not a traitor to his class.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 27, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> I've been to the pub on a Friday night for the first time in a long time so I'm emboldened to say the RHCP are fucking awful. They are as bad as toploader. If not worse. I'd rather listen to a Timmy Mallet album as at least there is some humour in that as opposed to the fucking horrible alpha male kfc frat boy music. It's music to listen to in a Range Rover with the guys from work, driving to do some tepid 'extreme sports' whilst whooping and then getting blind drunk in the local pub loudly and with no regard for anyone around you and then crying and starting a fight with a stranger because your a man child who has unresolved emotional issues with your mother and can't handle the fact you've been dumped 8 months ago by a girl you only went out with for 3 months and you didn't really click with but was fit and had expensive tastes like you. You can listen to the sensitive songs whilst you sit in the hotel room with guys and carry on drinking some expensive spirit and then later you can drive dangerously home over the limit and hit a child because of distracting banter.


Best post of the thread


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

Bloke receives appropriate remuneration for the job he's doing 'shocker'
FFS.


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Bloke receives appropriate remuneration for the job he's doing 'shocker'
> FFS.


Like killer b said, would you be defending Corbyn's claim not to be wealthy if it was from Owen Smith for example, or a Tory or Lib Dem? He's a career politician, don't cut him any slack.


----------



## andysays (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> Like killer b said, would you be defending Corbyn's claim not to be wealthy if it was from Owen Smith for example, or a Tory or Lib Dem? He's a career politician, don't cut him any slack.



Before this issue rolls on any further, maybe it's worth pausing to remind ourselves where and how this issue came up.

This is the quote as it appeared within the Daily Mail's report, using the opportunity of JC announcing a proposed new policy as a chance to attack him


> The Labour leader was announcing a new policy to fund the arts during a visit to Edinburgh as he said high arts such as ballet and opera should not be the preserve of the wealthy, adding: 'I don't consider myself high-brow or wealthy, but I still enjoy some aspects of classical music.'



Corbyn's not above criticism, but is it really necessary to do it on terms defined by the Daily Mail? Or maybe some of you think that "high" arts such as ballet and opera *should* be the preserve of the wealthy...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2016)

People are talking about the claim that having that much money and resources means you're wealthy or not - regardless of where the discussion started. Your post would only make sense if people were attacking corbyn (no one has) under clear manipulation from the Daily Mail. That's not what's happened. How else would you wish a discussion of a wealthy man claiming not to be wealthy to proceed? Who is allowed to point it out to make it not in terms defined by the Daily Mail?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Definte wealthy then?


You first. You seem to think Corbyn is "very wealthy".


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You first. You seem to think Corbyn is "very wealthy".


I've already defined it ffs. A lot more money than everyone else. Corbyn fits the bill.

Your go.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I've already defined it ffs. A lot more money than everyone else. Corbyn fits the bill.
> 
> Your go.


You're only asking me that question because I disputed your claim that Corbyn was "very wealthy". It's not a good look.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 27, 2016)




----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>


You can facepalm all you like. I disputed your claim that he was "very wealthy" and you repeated it.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

I think we can all agree he's got a bob or two


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

andysays said:


> Before this issue *rolls* on any further, maybe it's worth pausing to remind ourselves where and how this issue came up.
> 
> This is the quote as it appeared within the Daily Mail's report, using the opportunity of JC announcing a proposed new policy as a chance to attack him


we've stopped the puns now, thank you.
and it's alright, I hadn't forgotten how it came up. Can I only disagree with things said by Corbyn if they are quoted in approved publications? and what would those be, for future reference?


> Corbyn's not above criticism, but is it really necessary to do it on terms defined by the Daily Mail?


I don't really follow you, how has it defined the terms? And if it has, how could I have avoided it? I'm disagreeing with Corbyn's claim that he's not wealthy - how should I have gone about it?


> Or maybe some of you think that "high" arts such as ballet and opera *should* be the preserve of the wealthy...


if you think 'some' argued anything approaching that feel free to quote those posts and argue with them directly because I don't see what it has to do with what I've said.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 27, 2016)

The most expensive ticket at ROH next season is £225. Many tickets at lower prices too. Even at that price corbyn could choose to go every month and treat a friend if that's how he wanted to prioritise his money. So if the definition of wealthy is can afford to go to the ROH once a month paying top whack then he's wealthy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2016)

well he still rides a bike and farms marrows and makes jam for his entertainment. Thats the sort of genteel asceticism we can all get behind. When I say all, I mean everyone other than me. I'm on my yacht snorting marching powder.


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> Like killer b said, would you be defending Corbyn's claim not to be wealthy if it was from Owen Smith for example, or a Tory or Lib Dem? He's a career politician, don't cut him any slack.


I haven't, his finances seem fairly  modest considering his career and his position, he's wealthy compared to mr average, but not disgustingly so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2016)

from where I'm standing its the life of riley.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> The most expensive ticket at ROH next season is £225. Many tickets at lower prices too. Even at that price corbyn could choose to go every month and treat a friend if that's how he wanted to prioritise his money. So if the definition of wealthy is can afford to go to the ROH once a month paying top whack then he's wealthy.


Tbh I could go once a month at that rate if I cut out croissants and sandwiches and coffee and Marlborough buns. Couldn't take someone else but would probably do wonders for my health. But I think I'll keep my breakfasts and dinners.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You can facepalm all you like. I disputed your claim that he was "very wealthy" and you repeated it.


He has shuffled the goalposts from very wealthy to wealthy


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh I could go once a month at that rate if I cut out croissants and sandwiches and coffee and Marlborough buns. Couldn't take someone else but would probably do wonders for my health. But I think I'll keep my breakfasts and dinners.


Don't forget the fizzy lemonade


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't forget the fizzy lemonade


EtA, what are " Marlborough buns"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Don't forget the fizzy lemonade


Yeh. I'll cut out the shoplifting too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> EtA, what are " Marlborough buns"?


Very nice


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> I haven't, his finances seem fairly  modest considering his career and his position, he's wealthy compared to mr average, but not disgustingly so.


so we are agreed that he was wrong to claim not to be wealthy though? I mean, if the Mail quote is accurate he's on £137 000 a year.

I'm not disgusted by it, it's just laughable. I don't know what world he lives in where that's not wealthy (well, a parliament full of millionaires I guess, but not the world most of us live in).


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> He has shuffled the goalposts from very wealthy to wealthy


I only did that because I didn't want to get into a discussion about wealthy vs very wealthy. But I know it when I see it, and Corbyn is very wealthy.

Fuck your goalposts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I only did that because I didn't want to get into a discussion about wealthy vs very wealthy. But I know it when I see it, and Corbyn is very wealthy.
> 
> Fuck your goalposts.


Yeh. You say lots of things it turns out you don't mean.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 27, 2016)

Maybe one day we'll wake up and Jeremy Corbyn will never have existed. There'll be a small cross section of society who won't be able to remember what they talked about for about a year and will be haunted by the idea that they've wasted a lot of time on something but can't quite say what it is. The main thought will be, 'I'm sure Labour leader Andy Burnham looked healthier/younger/less stressed yesterday' and 'just what IS it about marrows?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I only did that because I didn't want to get into a discussion about wealthy vs very wealthy. But I know it when I see it, and Corbyn is very wealthy.
> 
> Fuck your goalposts.


And? Where are you going with this or is your entire point that he is 'very wealthy' iyo? That he's a vile hypocrite without an honest bone in his body?


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And? Where are you going with this or is your entire point that he is 'very wealthy' iyo? That he's a vile hypocrite without an honest bone in his body?


Nope. I like Corbyn, and would vote for him had I not been banned from doing so. But to claim he's not wealthy is ridiculous, and doesn't help his cause.


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

and what does he mean he likes 'some aspects' of classical music? Oh, I like piano and bassoon but not any of the other stuff. Or maybe the artisan jam crafter only likes non mainstream, underground classical 

I suppose what he really means is he likes classical music but because he doesn't want to seem too "high-brow or wealthy" he wouldn't come straight out and say it.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 27, 2016)

It doesn't matter very much. We've established a long time ago that he doesn't handle some situations as well as he could if he wasn't him. In this case had he left it at 'I don't consider myself highbrow - but cellos and that' everything would be fine. That said, we or the papers and twitter probably wouldn't have said anything at all and therefore Arts funding wouldn't be having such (all be it whatever the word my hungover brain can't think off for when something is a secondary focus for a discussion) coverage. See also traingate. Perhaps he's using his reasonably priced beard trimmer he got in a sale at a local supermarket and looking in his mirror chuckling to himself and thinking 'Firky and Ninjaboy are amateurs at this trolling shit' 

I will conceed that the idea that Corbyn is actually a post-everything genius at manipulating the media agenda by deliberately focusing ire on his personality which lures his opponents into discussing the very topics he knows will gently manipulate public thinking towards a realisation of the failings of neo-liberal society _seems_ unlikely but y'know, hey - we're through about the 8th looking glass with all this stuff and I don't know which way is up or down anymore. 

I like it when he gets grumpy and tells journos and Owen Smith off. Should do more of that.


----------



## tim (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> and what does he mean he likes 'some aspects' of classical music? Oh, I like piano and bassoon but not any of the other stuff. Or maybe the artisan jam crafter only likes non mainstream, underground classical
> 
> I suppose what he really means is he likes classical music but because he doesn't want to seem too "high-brow or wealthy" he wouldn't come straight out and say it.



It means he listens to Classic FM when he's having breakfast.


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> so we are agreed that he was wrong to claim not to be wealthy though? I mean, if the Mail quote is accurate he's on £137 000 a year.
> 
> I'm not disgusted by it, it's just laughable. I don't know what world he lives in where that's not wealthy (well, a parliament full of millionaires I guess, but not the world most of us live in).


Shows you have to be very careful what you say when their is as many knives aimed at your back!
He should have been more careful in the way he phrased his comment.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 27, 2016)

tim said:


> It means he listens to Classic FM when he's having breakfast.



He likes the way an orchestra is a metaphor for human co-operation. Together we can create something beautiful using all our different skills but alone we are just banging a drum emptily. Imagine there's no heaven etc... Maaan.


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

tim said:


> It means he listens to Classic FM when he's having breakfast.


I listen to it all the time and they do come any more lowbrow than me


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> I listen to it all the time and they do come any more lowbrow than me


But not much?


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> He likes the way an orchestra is a metaphor for human co-operation. Together we can create something beautiful using all our different skills but alone we are just banging a drum emptily. Imagine there's no heaven etc... Maaan.


Corbyns going in the right direction but we really need a Simon Rattle.


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Corbyns going in the right direction but we really need a Simon Rattle.


Oi, how did you do that? I said "don't" in my post and it's disappeared!


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 27, 2016)

coley said:


> Corbyns going in the right direction but we really need a Simon Rattle.


We need the RPO rather than the RTO.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> and what does he mean he likes 'some aspects' of classical music? Oh, I like piano and bassoon but not any of the other stuff. Or maybe the artisan jam crafter only likes non mainstream, underground classical
> 
> I suppose what he really means is he likes classical music but because he doesn't want to seem too "high-brow or wealthy" he wouldn't come straight out and say it.


vivaldi's four seasons. Everyone loves that. Secretly he has some rare recordings of Captain Sensible's solo work which he listens to while fucking a marrow


----------



## cantsin (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> and what does he mean he likes 'some aspects' of classical music? Oh, I like piano and bassoon but not any of the other stuff. Or maybe the artisan jam crafter only likes non mainstream, underground classical
> 
> I suppose what he really means is he likes classical music but because he doesn't want to seem too "high-brow or wealthy" he wouldn't come straight out and say it.



am not quite sure what you mean here - do you think only liking some forms / eras / sub genre's of 'classical music' is somehow picky ? Do you just like all 'pop' or 'rock' or something ?


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 27, 2016)

cantsin said:


> am not quite sure what you mean here - do you think only liking some forms / eras / sub genre's of 'classical music' is somehow picky or something ? Do you just like all 'pop' or something?



He only likes the early (music) stuff. 

Thankyou very much, I'm here all week. Actually I'm going to go the fuck out and stop interneting now.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 27, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> He only likes the early (music) stuff.
> 
> Thankyou very much, I'm here all week. Actually I'm going to go the fuck out and stop interneting now.



I've got him down more as a Stockhausen kinda guy tbh


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2016)

Bakfark ftw


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> so we are agreed that he was wrong to claim not to be wealthy though? I mean, if the Mail quote is accurate he's on £137 000 a year.



Ah but he didn't claim not to be wealthy did he, he said he didn't "consider" himself wealthy. Very different things. I do consider myself wealthy, for example, even though I don't have a fraction of his money.


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

cantsin said:


> am not quite sure what you mean here - do you think only liking some forms / eras / sub genre's of 'classical music' is somehow picky ? Do you just like all 'pop' or 'rock' or something ?


so if you ask someone what music they like and they tell you pop music do you assume they like every bit of pop music? I mean, it's not a big deal I just find it funny the way he's trying to present his image.


----------



## inva (Aug 27, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ah but he didn't claim not to be wealthy did he, he said he didn't "consider" himself wealthy. Very different things. I do consider myself wealthy, for example, even though I don't have a fraction of his money.


or maybe he was talking about spiritual wealth


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

And would you expect the Daily Mail to understand that? Load of ungodly philistines


----------



## andysays (Aug 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> People are talking about the claim that having that much money and resources means you're wealthy or not - regardless of where the discussion started. Your post would only make sense if people were attacking corbyn (no one has) under clear manipulation from the Daily Mail. That's not what's happened. How else would you wish a discussion of a wealthy man claiming not to be wealthy to proceed? Who is allowed to point it out to make it not in terms defined by the Daily Mail?



The point I was trying to make, and maybe I made it badly, is that people seem to me to be picking up the aspect of this story which the Daily Mail has chosen to push, ie the fact that Corbyn apparently* said he doesn't consider himself to be wealthy. 

If he did say it, it was at the least a careless thing to say, but the context in which he said it, speaking about a new policy to fund the arts, makes it rather different, IMO, than if he'd said something along the lines of "I don't consider myself to be wealthy, and if I can manage on my £137k salary, I don't know why those on minimum wage/zero hour contracts can't do just as well". Except I'm not sure that the DM would have chosen to highlight that in quite the same way.

But behind the business about whether JC is wealthy or not, there is another possible story about a new policy he's announcing. Maybe this arts-supporting policy is good; maybe it's not. Maybe there is even some way in which a discussion about it could support a wider discussion about whether Corbynite social-democracy is really all that its supporters are claiming. But because everyone has followed the line of least resistance, pointing out the obvious fact that whether Corbyn considers himself wealthy or not, he certainly *is* by most people's standards, any chance of having that discussion has been lost.

And clearly anyone is *allowed* to point that out and to focus on that, I just find it a little disappointing at times.

* and I say apparently because as far as I've seen, the Mail is the only source of this story, and I don't think it's impossible that they have distorted the quote to fit their agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2016)

andysays said:


> The point I was trying to make, and maybe I made it badly, is that people seem to me to be picking up the aspect of this story which the Daily Mail has chosen to push, ie the fact that Corbyn apparently* said he doesn't consider himself to be wealthy.
> 
> If he did say it, it was at the least a careless thing to say, but the context in which he said it, speaking about a new policy to fund the arts, makes it rather different, IMO, than if he'd said something along the lines of "I don't consider myself to be wealthy, and if I can manage on my £137k salary, I don't know why those on minimum wage/zero hour contracts can't do just as well". Except I'm not sure that the DM would have chosen to highlight that in quite the same way.
> 
> ...


I'm interested in what people on here have said about someone with that amount of money not being wealthy, nothing about corbyn himself. And also the way in which they've said that.


----------



## andysays (Aug 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm interested in what people on here have said about someone with that amount of money not being wealthy, nothing about corbyn himself. And also the way in which they've said that.



I agree that that is interesting. 

I guess some people feel they have to support him whatever the likes of the DM throws at him, even if they end up following the terms the DM has set. I'd rather the discussion wasn't reduced to if he is wealthy or not (of course he is FFS, he's been an MP for 30+ years and even before that he comes from a background which most would regard as wealthy), but focussed more on how far his approach is likely to get.

I still have very serious doubts, but they're more a gut rejection of what looks like reheated social democracy than anything I can argue coherently, which is why I'm hoping that can be part of the discussion here - it's unlikely to be happening any where else I'm aware of.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2016)

in the end the implication, from DM etc is to reassure the reader that St J is actually a massive hypocrite cos he earns more than a workers wage. Therefore his principles are just bollocks and he is duping thick plebs with his rabble rousing ways. Really is all this is. But he deffo will be getting the rounds in should I ever be in the same public house, the flush cunt


----------



## emanymton (Aug 27, 2016)

inva said:


> and what does he mean he likes 'some aspects' of classical music? Oh, I like piano and bassoon but not any of the other stuff. Or maybe the artisan jam crafter only likes non mainstream, underground classical
> 
> I suppose what he really means is he likes classical music but because he doesn't want to seem too "high-brow or wealthy" he wouldn't come straight out and say it.


He used to like Bach, then he went all mainstream.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 27, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2016)

Another victory for the bearded assassin


----------



## Tankus (Aug 27, 2016)

Where did his wife go when he was on the the floor ..then took a seat  ?  did she take the first class option ?


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 27, 2016)

Snitches get stitches


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2016)

In all the bakery puns, I'd missed the Mark Serwotka story.

Perhaps totally insignificant, but I attended one of the many EUref debate meetings that Serwotka addresssed; he was articulating the party line for remain.


----------



## rioted (Aug 27, 2016)

That is so last year. What about this time round?


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 27, 2016)

Just heard Radio 4's hatchet job on Seumas Milne. Listen again here:
Seumas Milne, Profile - BBC Radio 4


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2016)

rioted said:


> That is so last year. What about this time round?


Might be why I thought I'd missed it! I had, by almost exactly 12 months!

In my defence...of a piece with current LP gerrymandering of the selectorate.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2016)

Jeremy is coming to Stoke on the 1st. No venue - it's an outdoor 90 minute event before he heads up to Glasgow I think. Bloke must be bloody knackered.

Owen Smith came to Stoke today (or yesterday). About 25 people turned up. 

In other news, I learned a fun anecdote about Angela Eagle today. She once (1992 I think) went for selection in Stoke South (or was it North? I think South). During her speech to convince people to choose her, she said something along the lines of, "you should choose me because if you don't you'll be depriving yourself of cabinet material."

wtf?

She wasn't selected.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

"cabinet material" = wooden?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2016)

In related Jeremy-in-Stoke news, the local Socialist Party have started a facebook event for it, which has a heavy suggestion of "he's coming because we organised it" about it. "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn coming to Stoke-on-Trent for an event organised by Corbynistas, supported by the Socialist Party and others."

omfg


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

yeh well stoke 



/scarpers


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2016)

It's a lovely place. We've got... oatcakes, and... erm... plates, and... oatcakes!

And this song:


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

i used to work near stoke i actually like stoke and stone


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2016)

My favourite part about that video is that apparently Pete Waterman used to work at a pot-bank here?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 27, 2016)

not ... pete waterman ...


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Jeremy is coming to Stoke on the 1st. No venue - it's an outdoor 90 minute event before he heads up to Glasgow I think. Bloke must be bloody knackered.
> 
> Owen Smith came to Stoke today (or yesterday). About 25 people turned up.
> 
> ...


Aye, solid wood from the neck up, actually feeling a bit sorry for the poor sod these days, a bit, not a lot


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

two sheds said:


> "cabinet material" = wooden?



Bugger, should read new posts before posting


----------



## coley (Aug 27, 2016)

two sheds said:


> i used to work near stoke i actually like *stoke and stone *


We back to obscure bands now? Or is it a kind of bread roll


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 27, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's a lovely place. We've got... oatcakes, and... erm... plates, and... oatcakes!


 
you don't have pmt buses any more 

or longton bus station, once probably the country's only bus depot / bus station / bowling alley / restaurant / nightclub / cabaret venue all in one building. 

and mmm, oatcakes

for reasons i don't understand but don't argue about, one of the sainsbuggers in reading sells packs of oatcakes.  i developed a taste for them when i lived in north staffs (newcastle, actually) for a couple of years.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

oatcakes are compulsory in scotland i think


----------



## coley (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> oatcakes are compulsory in scotland i think


Only since the iron fist of the SNP, irn bru and deep fried mars bars were commonplace before them


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

i went past a chippy in scotland on west coast somewhere down southish that proudly advertised it was the origin of deep fried mars bars


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 28, 2016)

Red Hot Chilli Peppers live from Reading on BBC2 now mates 

Right thread I hope...


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

under the bridge


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> under the bridge


at least I hve her though, the eagle she loves me. Together we cry 'arghh'


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Bloke must be bloody knackered.


must be keeping his strength up by all that sitting down on train floors


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> oatcakes are compulsory in scotland i think


 
they are somewhat different to the staffordshire oatcake


----------



## J Ed (Aug 28, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> they are somewhat different to the staffordshire oatcake



Both are v nice


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2016)

unlike corbyn who is a monster


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> you don't have pmt buses any more
> 
> or longton bus station, once probably the country's only bus depot / bus station / bowling alley / restaurant / nightclub / cabaret venue all in one building.
> 
> ...



Bloody hell, they had some talent there.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2016)

The Staffordshire oatcake is a thing of beauty. Best consumed with cheese and either sausage or bacon. But definitely cheese.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2016)

corbyn eats dry unbuttered matzo crackers


----------



## Celyn (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> i went past a chippy in scotland on west coast somewhere down southish that proudly advertised it was the origin of deep fried mars bars


 
Supposedly they were invented as a joke 'cos teenagers asked for them by a chippie in 
Stonehaven.


----------



## muscovyduck (Aug 28, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> In related Jeremy-in-Stoke news, the local Socialist Party have started a facebook event for it, which has a heavy suggestion of "he's coming because we organised it" about it. "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn coming to Stoke-on-Trent for an event organised by Corbynistas, supported by the Socialist Party and others."
> 
> omfg



Why do they insist on doing things like this istg it winds me up so much!! You'd think an anti-capitalist organisation would understand not to stamp their branding over everything they want.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

Celyn said:


> Supposedly they were invented as a joke 'cos teenagers asked for them by a chippie in
> Stonehaven.



Stonehaven that was where it was


----------



## tony.c (Aug 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> corbyn eats dry unbuttered matzo crackers


Nah he wouldn't eat matzo crackers as he is a secret anti-semite who should be purged from the party.
He only eats vegetables grown on his allotment. He's a vegetarian - like Hitler.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Stonehaven that was where it was



You sure?  stonehaven is east coast and far north.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> corbyn eats dry unbuttered matzo crackers



Aren't they jewish?  Can't see an antisemitic monster like corbyn eating one of those.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

The Boy said:


> You sure?  stonehaven is east coast and far north.



Stonehaven rings a bell because that's where I was staying at the time but I saw the sign pointing to the chippy while being driven through somewhere. 

Wiki thinks so too, though, as does the chippy there. 



But with political correctness gorn maaad they were told to take the sign down.

'Birthplace of the deep fried Mars bar' banner is banned - BBC News


----------



## coley (Aug 28, 2016)

Being popping around the various Corbyn related threads, now my, somewhat limited understanding, was that Corbyns main objectives were to 're-nationalise' or, if you like bring back into public ownership) the railways and the core utilities, water, energy ( in its various forms) plus an investment bank that would focus on financing infrastructure such as social housing.
Is he now retreating from these commitments or were they never really  solid commitments in the first place?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2016)

coley said:


> Being popping around the various Corbyn related threads, now my, somewhat limited understanding, was that Corbyns main objectives were to 're-nationalise' or, if you like bring back into public ownership) the railways and the core utilities, water, energy ( in its various forms) plus an investment bank that would focus on financing infrastructure such as social housing.
> Is he now retreating from these commitments or were they never really  solid commitments in the first place?


Look up what Smith says tomorrow; that should help clear up Corbyn's latest position.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Stonehaven rings a bell because that's where I was staying at the time



Oh, I can quite believe it to be a legitimate claim - the outlaws live so that way, and nothing will surprise me about that part of the world.

It was more that you initially said SW, then remembered that it was at the polar opposite end of the country.  For some reason this tickled me.


----------



## tony.c (Aug 28, 2016)

coley said:


> my, somewhat limited understanding, was that Corbyns main objectives were to 're-nationalise' or, if you like bring back into public ownership) the railways and the core utilities, water, energy ( in its various forms) plus an investment bank that would focus on financing infrastructure such as social housing.
> Is he now retreating from these commitments or were they never really  solid commitments in the first place?


I don't think he has made any commitment to bring core utilities back into public ownership, only the railways.
The pledges he has made are here: Pledges


----------



## two sheds (Aug 28, 2016)

The Boy said:


> Oh, I can quite believe it to be a legitimate claim - the outlaws live so that way, and nothing will surprise me about that part of the world.
> 
> It was more that you initially said SW, then remembered that it was at the polar opposite end of the country.  For some reason this tickled me.



Aha - my dad came from the area and I was visiting an aunt who lived there. And  @ 'outlaws'

Conversely explains your 'far north' remark, I was thinking 'not really far north of Scotland'.


----------



## tony.c (Aug 28, 2016)

I don't know if this has been posted yet. London cabbie rants about Corbyn (in a good way!):


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I don't think he has made any commitment to bring core utilities back into public ownership, only the railways.
> The pledges he has made are here: Pledges


5 secures amongst the guff.

Viral


----------



## inva (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it has gone viral apparently. London cabbie rants about Corbyn (in a good way!):



he's such a prick


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I don't think he has made any commitment to bring core utilities back into public ownership, only the railways.
> The pledges he has made are here: Pledges



Very threadbare I'm afraid and his promises on Rail Nationalisation are wrong-headed as a a big part of the issue with the railways is due to regulatory capture and fleecing by the publicly-owned part of the railways - Network Rail. Maybe Network Rail should be privatised along with the nationalisation of the TOCs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Very threadbare I'm afraid and his promises on Rail Nationalisation are wrong-headed as a a big part of the issue with the railways is due to regulatory capture and fleecing by the publicly-owned part of the railways - Network Rail. Maybe Network Rail should be privatised along with the nationalisation of the TOCs.


Perhaps when the toc nationalised the whole can be more rationally structured.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Maybe Network Rail should be privatised


That went well last time.


----------



## Cid (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> Nah he wouldn't eat matzo crackers as he is a secret anti-semite who should be purged from the party.
> He only eats vegetables grown on his allotment. He's a vegetarian - like Hitler.



Only the purest Aryan Knackebrod will do for Corbyn.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps when the toc nationalised the whole can be more rationally structured.



I'm sure that there are some synergies, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. There are, I believe, deeply entrenched coteries of middle level and junior managers within Network Rail who charge very high fees; have a monopoly on very rare skillsets and expertise on regulation and who have resisted years, if not decades of attempts to rationalise.  Its not just the senior managers it goes through the whole organisation.  I have some experience of this through my involvement in building a new train station in London over the past few years.

My comment about privatisation was a bit flippant btw it was just reflecting a feeling that there needed to be a really big root and branch shakeup of the whole organisation and entrenched interests within the organisation were experts at confounding less than thoroughgoing reviews.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> I'm sure that there are some synergies, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. There are, I believe, deeply entrenched coteries of middle level and junior managers within Network Rail who charge very high fees; have a monopoly on very rare skillsets and expertise on regulation and who have resisted years, if not decades of attempts to rationalise.  Its not just the senior managers it goes through the whole organisation.  I have some experience of this through my involvement in building a new train station in London over the past few years.


Network Rail hasn't existed for decades. 

Also "synergies"?


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Network Rail hasn't existed for decades.
> 
> Also "synergies"?



Yeah I know 'synergies' but it does have a real meaning in English.  Network Rail hasn't existed for decades but before it there was Railtrack and before that British Rail.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 28, 2016)

And "rationalise", lovely. Maybe what's needed is more _flexibility_.


----------



## newbie (Aug 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> That went well last time.


every time a train was late the government got the blame.  Corbyn bleating about renationalisation is nothing like as corrosive for our rulers as daily calls for the minister of transport to be ritually boiled alive.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

newbie said:


> every time a train was late the government got the blame.  Corbyn bleating about renationalisation is nothing like as corrosive for our rulers as daily calls for the minister of transport to be ritually boiled alive.


I was thinking more about the crashes and loss of life that were the result of chronic under-investment and incompetence.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 28, 2016)

I'm sure there will be somebody along in a while to  confirm that I am not making this shit up. There has got to be a better way with rail infrastructure. Without this I predict nationalising the TOCs will be a failure. Talking about the shortcomings of Railtrack is interesting but its not addressing the problem.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> I'm sure there will be somebody along in a while to  confirm that I am not making this shit up. There has got to be a better way with rail infrastructure. Without this I predict nationalising the TOCs will be a failure. Talking about the shortcomings of Railtrack is interesting but its not addressing the problem.


Of course there will be a better way. Privatising it, isn't that way, however.


----------



## newbie (Aug 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I was thinking more about the crashes and loss of life that were the result of chronic under-investment and incompetence.


I was being flippant.  I'll take your word that those were the causes, although according to wiki human error seems to have been a significant factor. Maybe better technology existed but hadn't been implemented for reasons of cost or competence?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 28, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> I'm sure there will be somebody along in a while to  confirm that I am not making this shit up. There has got to be a better way with rail infrastructure. Without this I predict nationalising the TOCs will be a failure. Talking about the shortcomings of Railtrack is interesting but its not addressing the problem.


Actually, the "better way" really _was_ British Rail.

It all went pear-shaped every time the Government got involved - the Modernisation Plan in the late 50s was a cautious experiment into new forms of traction that was then - at the Government's behest - turned into a headlong dash to implement unproven designs, many of which were disastrous (though many others of which are still doing sterling service, half a century later); the Beeching Plan was only half-implemented by a Department of Transport that was determined to do no more than cut costs; then Thatcher, who was notoriously anti-railways, slashed funding and enforced all kinds of ridiculous compartmentalisation (anyone remember "sectorisation"? Another example of stupid internal markets, like the ones that have gone so well for the NHS). In between all that interference, the railways were actually pretty impressive. The only subsequent improvements have been the result of massive investment (from the private sector? Nah, get real - it's been publicly funded), and the occasional example, like West Coast, where privatisation failed and the railway ended up being operated by an (albeit arms-length) public sector organisation.

I don't suppose it'll just be a question of painting everything dark blue and putting semaphore signals up again, but I cannot see how the layers and layers of profit-taking, regulatory stuff, and vast teams of contract lawyers can be adding much to our public transport infrastructure.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

newbie said:


> I was being flippant.  I'll take your word that those were the causes, although according to wiki human error seems to have been a significant factor. Maybe better technology existed but hadn't been implemented for reasons of cost or competence?


It wasn't a lack of technology, it was not following procedures. They know about the broken railways before the Hatfield crash, for instance, but didn't fix it.



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The problem was known about before the accident; a letter from the infrastructure company Railtrack in December 1999 warned that the existing Railtrack Line Specification was insufficient to guard against this type of fatigue. Replacement rails were made available but never delivered to the correct location for installation.


The Potters Bar crash was also caused by lack of maintenance.


----------



## newbie (Aug 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> It wasn't a lack of technology, it was not following procedures. They know about the broken railways before the Hatfield crash, for instance, but didn't fix it.
> 
> The Potters Bar crash was also caused by lack of maintenance.


Hatfield and Potters Bar were both post privatisation. So was Ladbroke Grove, which had many more fatalities.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 28, 2016)

newbie said:


> Hatfield and Potters Bar were both post privatisation. So was Ladbroke Grove, which had many more fatalities.


Yep, that's what I was trying to point out?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. toblerone3 was arguing _for _privatisation of the rail network. I was trying to highlight how disasterous it was last time.


----------



## tony.c (Aug 28, 2016)

inva said:


> he's such a prick


Chunky Mark (Mark McGowan) says he is an anarchist and doesn't vote.


----------



## inva (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> Chunky Mark (Mark McGowan) says he is an anarchist and doesn't vote.


having an interest in disabilty/welfare stuff I get subjected to his videos all the time.
one of them had that weird toad Max Keiser in it as I remember. can't stand him or his 'art'.


----------



## tony.c (Aug 28, 2016)

I haven't seen any of his other video blogs, but I thought this one was good. A bit of a contradiction to the stereotype London cabbie who is usually regarded as a right wing bigot ranting about immigrants. A lot of cabbies were previously Royal Mail drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers and couriers, with trade union grounding, and the ones I know are all left wing (and one anarchist!).


----------



## inva (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I haven't seen any of his other video blogs, but I thought this one was good. A bit of a contradiction to the stereotype London cabbie who is usually regarded as a right wing bigot ranting about immigrants. A lot of cabbies were previously Royal Mail drivers, bus drivers and couriers, with trade union grounding, and the ones I know are all left wing (and one anarchist!).


due to trouble getting about I have to use cabs quite a bit, and tend to think the stereotype about them all being right wing comes mainly from people who think the same about virtually everyone.


----------



## coley (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I don't think he has made any commitment to bring core utilities back into public ownership, only the railways.
> The pledges he has made are here: Pledges


Ta for that, seems that some of the modest pledges he seems to have made,have been somewhat "exaggerated"  bit disappointing though.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 28, 2016)

tony.c said:


> I haven't seen any of his other video blogs, but I thought this one was good. A bit of a contradiction to the stereotype London cabbie who is usually regarded as a right wing bigot ranting about immigrants. A lot of cabbies were previously Royal Mail drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers and couriers, with trade union grounding, and the ones I know are all left wing (and one anarchist!).


The latter will be the one that gets lost


----------



## free spirit (Aug 28, 2016)

Is this how policy making is done in the labour party - the leader decides the policies and that's what the policies become?

Or are these policy positions just indicative of what they'd want the platform to be that the next election, but would have to be ratified by conference or something?

Genuine question, I'm really not sure how this works.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Is this how policy making is done in the labour party - the leader decides the policies and that's what the policies become?
> 
> Or are these policy positions just indicative of what they'd want the platform to be that the next election, but would have to be ratified by conference or something?
> 
> Genuine question, I'm really not sure how this works.


You not a member then?


----------



## coley (Aug 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You not a member then?


Seemingly they don't want some of us back, can't understand why


----------



## coley (Aug 28, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Is this how policy making is done in the labour party - the leader decides the policies and that's what the policies become?
> 
> Or are these policy positions just indicative of what they'd want the platform to be that the next election, but would have to be ratified by conference or something?
> 
> Genuine question, I'm really not sure how this works.


It's a doddle, the PLP look at Tory policies, water them down a tad, then claim them as their own!


----------



## agricola (Aug 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Yep, that's what I was trying to point out?
> 
> I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. toblerone3 was arguing _for _privatisation of the rail network. I was trying to highlight how disasterous it was last time.



TBH the way that it was privatized was far more relevant than the fact that they privatized it.  If they had split the network regionally - into entities that controlled the track as well as stations, trains and maintenance (as Major claimed he wanted to do after it was obvious what a disaster it had become) - its hard to see how those accidents would have happened.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2016)

The platform gets voted on at conference by delegates. The majority of delegates at this year's conference are likely to be quite similar in make up to those at last year's, so don't expect too many changes to official policy (expect Tridant renewal to remain, for example).

There are 2 wings to the party, in practice (discounting the members, as they are wont to do lol). The leader, cabinet, MPs, etc, and then the administrative wing, which is McNichol and the NEC. McNichol has a lot of power. It's not an elected position - he's a civil servant, employed by the party, and has a contract like any other job (which is why he can't simply be gotten rid of). The NEC is generally the main administrative body, and in recent times McNichol and the NEC have been in step. McNichol is officially accountable to the NEC, but there are practical limits on that accountability. Now the balance of power has shifted somewhat in the NEC, McNichol's job might be slightly more complicated. The NEC vote on any administrative rule changes to the party. The exception might be if it's a significant change - like one member one vote, or changing the role of the Chair - in which case it would likely have to go to conference as well.

In reality, the leader can end up with little actual power, but nevertheless is generally deferred to (as long as he's not too left wing  ). If McNichol and the NEC don't like the leader, as we have seen they can run the party how they want instead.

And then of course we have all the officials at regional level. They're also unelected employees, usually put in place by the NEC (to my knowledge). Many of the 'reluctant Corbynistas' who are long time members have been pushed over to Jez's corner in part because of the years-old culture of stitch-ups and bullshit from region. The way region is run makes a mockery of any pretense of 'democracy'. NEC and region are how and why there are parachutes that local members can usually do precious little about.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> He has shuffled the goalposts from very wealthy to wealthy


Yup. It's obvious that a very wealthy MP is one that has a considerable private income on top of their salary. Margaret Hodge *spits* springs to mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Yup. It's obvious that a very wealthy MP is one that has a considerable private income on top of their salary. Margaret Hodge *spits* springs to mind.


MH the paedos' friend


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> MH the paedos' friend


She's managed to get away with it for so long too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> unlike corbyn who is a monster


He kicked my dog. The swine!


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> She's managed to get away with it for so long too.


Was that connivance or a mixture of arrogance and incompetence?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Was that connivance or a mixture of arrogance and incompetence?


She didn't reckon with the pesky kids


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Was that connivance or a mixture of arrogance and incompetence?


All three, I reckon. 

Spotlight on Abuse provides a timely reminder.



> In 1992, the Evening Standard published allegations about widespread sexual abuse in children’s homes run by Islington council. It said every home contained staff who were paedophiles, pimps, or child pornographers. The leader of Islington council, Margaret Hodge, dismissed the story as “gutter journalism”, and accused Evening Standard journalists of waiting outside homes to bribe children for their stories with £50 notes.



And



> In 1995 the White inquiry published its findings, which proved the Evening Standard right about its allegations. This was despite Islington council’s best efforts to frustrate the inquiry and cover their tracks, including hundreds of vital files going missing. There was one allegation, however, that the White report didn’t support. Social workers had identified 61 children who were thought to be involved in “organised, network abuse”



She had a reputation to protect. She also has considerable wealth...


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2016)

Another former heavyweight enters the fray

Ed Balls describes Corbyn leadership as 'leftist fantasy'



> ...the remarks are made in his autobiography, Speaking Out, which also includes candid reflections on Labour's general election defeat last year...





> ...Mr Balls offers his reflections as MPs prepare to return to Westminster, and he prepares to appear on Strictly Come Dancing...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2016)

andysays said:


> Another former heavyweight enters the fray
> 
> Ed Balls describes Corbyn leadership as 'leftist fantasy'


All serialised in The Times too.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 29, 2016)

> ...Mr Balls offers his reflections as MPs prepare to return to Westminster, and he prepares to appear on Strictly Come Dancing...



That's my favourite bit


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 29, 2016)

I expect his performances on Strictly will make the Great British Public yearn for the days when he was shadow chancellor.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 29, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I expect his performances on Strictly will make the Great British Public yearn for the days when he was shadow chancellor.


The professional dancer they get paired with has to look enthusiastic about it on the first programme.  Whoever it is, if anyone wants a definition of 'smile that doesn't reach they eyes', that will be a good place to start.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 29, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The professional dancer they get paired with has to look enthusiastic about it on the first programme.  Whoever it is, if anyone wants a definition of 'smile that doesn't reach they eyes', that will be a good place to start.


I doubt if a professional dancer cares about politics. They might not even remember Ed Balls. He is long forgotten in the real world now.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Aug 29, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I doubt if a professional dancer cares about politics. They might not even remember Ed Balls. He is long forgotten in the real world now.



Whoa, so dancers have no interest in politics and no memory? Can you hear yourself say that out loud to a bunch of people where the only thing you know about them is they dance?


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 29, 2016)

They are like goldfish Meet Britain's biggest, grumpiest goldfish - who terrorises cats


----------



## free spirit (Aug 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You not a member then?


couldn't be even if I decided I wanted to be due to the NEC rules.

I saw someone had been refused membership simply for sharing a couple of green party facebook posts prior to the last election. It seems that you now need to have quit all activity with the Green party or any other party for at least 2 years before you could become a Labour member.

Too much on anyway at the moment to be jumping into the middle of this sort of internal political shitstorm even if I decided it was right to jump ship.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 30, 2016)




----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


>


That really is an outrage.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 30, 2016)

coley said:


> It's a doddle, the PLP look at Tory policies, water them down a tad, then claim them as their own!


Its been the other way around since new labour


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> That really is an outrage.


'thankyou for your money but we cyberstalked you and so we'll keep them p's but you get no vote'


----------



## sojourner (Aug 30, 2016)

Mate of mine just got told her vote's been rejected because she nominated a friend to stand for the Green Party.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

They ask if you support the aims and values *now*, not if you always have or if you've never supported anyone else.  Once again, they break their own contractual wording.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

If this were Corbyn doing it there'd be the word "Stalinist" attached to every story as the papers printed them.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

by coincidence two sheds given your mention of Stalinism I was just about to ask what do Corbyn supporters think about this piece by Sam Hamad? A few quotes to give an idea of the argument:


> Indeed, in almost every debate held in the British parliament regarding Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has used his voice to oppose and slander the plight of the Syrian rebels.  Of course he maintains that he has no sympathy for Assad, but all of his interventions on this subject reproduce narratives that essentially justify the Assad's counter-revolutionary war effort and hostility to the revolutionary forces.





> This is not ignorance on his part. His interventions have been intricate and calculated in putting forward the idea that rebels in Syria ought never to be materially supported.  The figurehead of a movement that considers itself to be opposed to the fearmongering politics of the "war on terror" has been remarkably fervent in accusing the Syrian rebels of being akin to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.





> The actually existing evil of the Assad regime pales in comparison to the abstract evil of the rebels, here so squalidly elided with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.





> It's the intricacy of Corbyn's hostility to the Syrian revolution that is quite extraordinary. A quick look through his interventions in parliament regarding Syria will illustrate the above notion being repeated over the course of a few years.


Regarding this bit:


> Corbyn's politics are rooted in Stalinism, and in many ways, he and his movement represent the Stalinism of the 21st century, with history repeating the initial tragedy of Stalinism in a more farcical but nonetheless dismal and dangerous manner.


I'm not sure about the Stalinist angle. He has links with the Morning Star lot which I guess is a descendent of Stalinists, but he seems more to be a product of the decayed liberal left which contains the dregs of Labourism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and other stuff in a cartoonish anti-imperialist swamp, hence why he was chair of the decidedly dodgy Stop the War Coalition. As usual, his politics are top down - calling for imperialist powers and a savage dictatorship to get round the table and sideline the opposition on the ground.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

If it's true then definitely a mark against Corbyn, but I'd reserve judgment until seeing what Corbyn's actually said about Syria rather than what he's said Corbyn's said. 

Not saying it will be the same but in just about every criticism of Chomsky where I've seen someone say "Chomsky says ... " you look at what he actually said and he didn't say that at all.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If it's true then definitely a mark against Corbyn, but I'd reserve judgment until seeing what Corbyn's actually said about Syria rather than what he's said Corbyn's said.
> 
> Not saying it will be the same but in just about every criticism of Chomsky where I've seen someone say "Chomsky says ... " you look at what he actually said and he didn't say that at all.


as it happens Chomsky's pretty shit on Syria too as far as I know.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> as it happens Chomsky's pretty shit on Syria too as far as I know.



What did he say?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'thankyou for your money but we cyberstalked you and so we'll keep them p's but you get no vote'



They PAID to be spied on ffs


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> by coincidence two sheds  He has links with the Morning Star lot which I guess is a descendent of Stalinists.



Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:

Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
Impose a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on City financial transactions.
Increase the rate of corporation tax on the profits of large companies.
Place a windfall tax on monopoly profits in specific industries as necessary.
Close all tax havens under British jurisdiction.
Implement deep cuts in VAT on essential goods and services.
Replace the council tax by local income, wealth, land and property taxes based clearly on the ability to pay.
Renegotiate and, where appropriate, cancel Private Finance Initiative contracts in order to eliminate excessive corporate profiteering.
Cut British military spending and end all state subsidies for armaments exports.
Control movements of capital in and out of Britain.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What did he say?


on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:


> It claims to be “anti-imperialist,” yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a government,” while he endorses the conservative “realism” of Patrick Cockburn whose writing has often come down on the side of the Assad regime.


In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it, I'd also add that he talks of the US and it's allies backing Islamists, but fails to mention Shia Islamists and their role in Syria. I wonder why? He says, 'if you attack Assad, you're undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra'. Where to start with that? He also says wrongly, 'if you go back to the 2012 there was no uprising' - news to the countless people who during that time and earlier were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared during largely peaceful (on their side at least) protests against the regime.

e2a: in fact in a short space of time he manages to be wrong about an impressive number of things


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

Some interesting if vague and wishy-washy stuff in today's Digital Manifesto (PDF)

Already attracting fire from people who don't appear to know anything about software


----------



## gosub (Aug 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'thankyou for your money but we cyberstalked you and so we'll keep them p's but you get no vote'



must get the money back surely?


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:
> 
> Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
> Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
> ...


cheers, not something I've spent much time investigating I have to admit


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:
> 
> In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it, I'd also add that he talks of the US and it's allies backing Islamists, but fails to mention Shia Islamists and their role in Syria. I wonder why? He says, 'if you attack Assad, you're undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra'. Where to start with that? He also says wrongly, 'if you go back to the 2012 there was no uprising' - news to the countless people who during that time and earlier were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared during largely peaceful (on their side at least) protests against the regime.



Bookmarked, ta, will take a look. 

On that article, if nothing else it's a useless piece of writing for making up your mind. If what Corbyn said was so atrocious you'd think it would be easy enough for him to quote it to show us how atrocious it was.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Bookmarked, ta, will take a look.
> 
> On that article, if nothing else it's a useless piece of writing for making up your mind. If what Corbyn said was so atrocious you'd think it would be easy enough for him to quote it to show us how atrocious it was.


he provides some quotes and there's a number of links to speeches etc by Corbyn. I don't think the article claims he's said anything specifically atrocious exactly, and as Hamad says he criticises Assad - it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice. The characterisation of Corbyn's views on Syria certainly matches what I remember of the debates that ocurred around UK military intervention as well as the wider politics of Stop the War etc, which Corbyn was (and is?) a part of.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 30, 2016)

> Indeed, in almost every debate held in the British parliament regarding Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has used his voice to oppose and slander the plight of the Syrian rebels.  Of course he maintains that he has no sympathy for Assad, but all of his interventions on this subject reproduce narratives that essentially justify the Assad's counter-revolutionary war effort and hostility to the revolutionary forces.



How the cult of the Syrian "revolution" works. Criticise the rebels and you side with Assad. Love the use of the word "essentially".



> The actually existing evil of the Assad regime pales in comparison to the abstract evil of the rebels, here so squalidly elided with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.



Abstract evil of he rebels. What do you mean? The rebels deserve the right to actualise their evil? Assad has a state apparatus of oppression and torture, an airforce that kills thousands with barrel bombs, give the rebels a bit gear so that their horrors can compete on a similar scale! Or are we waiting for them to win before they can be criticised? File under other bright ideas like don't criticise the Mullahs when fighting the Shah.

Corbyn's position is terrible and it can't be anything but terrible. He wants a negotiated solution to end the fighting and negotiations mean the various parties all of whom are collectively responsible for the plight of Syria get all the say and ordinary Syrians get to say nothing at all. But good grief, at least he isn't supporting the "rebels".

The interesting thing about this piece is that this sort of thing isn't being said all the time. It shows just how far in retreat the foreign policy outlook of 1999-2003 is. At one point foreign intervention was the orthodoxy of all three major parties, along with hyperbolic attacks on Milosevic and Saddam and simple narratives of good and evil. Go back fifteen years and we would all supposed to be overlooking al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham in order to fight genocide in the shape of the new Hitler.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> he provides some quotes and there's a number of links to speeches etc by Corbyn. I don't think the article claims he's said anything specifically atrocious exactly, and as Hamad says he criticises Assad - it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice. The characterisation of Corbyn's views on Syria certainly matches what I remember of the debates that ocurred around UK military intervention as well as the wider politics of Stop the War etc, which Corbyn was (and is?) a part of.



ah ok sorry I only read the bits of the article you quoted, will look at the rest. butchersapron would be the man to judge I'd have thought (others too of course).


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

Knotted said:


> How the cult of the Syrian "revolution" works. Criticise the rebels and you side with Assad. Love the use of the word "essentially".
> 
> Abstract evil of he rebels. What do you mean? The rebels deserve the right to actualise their evil? Assad has a state apparatus of oppression and torture, an airforce that kills thousands with barrel bombs, give the rebels a bit gear so that their horrors can compete on a similar scale! Or are we waiting for them to win before they can be criticised? File under other bright ideas like don't criticise the Mullahs when fighting the Shah.
> 
> Corbyn's position is terrible and it can't be anything but terrible. He wants a negotiated solution to end the fighting and negotiations mean the various parties all of whom are collectively responsible for the plight of Syria get all the say and ordinary Syrians get to say nothing at all. But good grief, at least he isn't supporting the "rebels".


----------



## rioted (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> - it's more about what his politics and warped anti imperialism mean in practice.


You think, in practice, Western governments should support regime change by military means?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Probably more accurate to say it still has a lot of old Tankies in it and a bit of a streak of grumpy "they'll be first against the wall" going on, but the CPB/Star core document Britain's Road to Socialism has for a while been very much on the old Labour left wavelength when it comes to the core economic policies rather than Corbyn being on theirs. Their 2011 document for example includes a very familiar list:
> 
> Increase tax rates on higher rates of income.
> Levy an annual wealth tax on the richest section of the population.
> ...



Fairly uncontentious middle of the road stuff then.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

rioted said:


> You think, in practice, Western governments should support regime change by military means?


not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 30, 2016)

On the registered supporter application, they ask you why you want to register. My partner put something like 'cos I love Jezzer'.   I was hoping they'd reject her on those grounds alone. But even for McNicol's happy band of censors, loving the leader of the party isn't yet a grounds for returning our hard earned booze money.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> They ask if you support the aims and values *now*, not if you always have or if you've never supported anyone else.  Once again, they break their own contractual wording.


indeed, but luckily the high court decided that the NEC can basically do whatever it wants whatever any other rules might say.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 30, 2016)

You get your £25/whatever back though, right?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 30, 2016)

Wilf said:


> On the registered supporter application, they ask you why you want to register. My partner put something like 'cos I love Jezzer'.   I was hoping they'd reject her on those grounds alone. But even for McNicol's happy band of censors, loving the leader of the party isn't yet a grounds for returning our hard earned booze money.



They key thing, I thought, was to not put your facebook or twitter details on the form. Seemed like really fucking obvious common sense but I bet there were LOADS of people who did it anyway. Also keeping your privacy settings on fb and twitter so no one can find you via your email seems like a good idea, also not using your real name, like.

I don't have a fb account, so that's not an issue, and my twitter name isn't my real name.

The rest of it is down to whether someone locally who knows you dobs you in for personal reasons, as is happening an awful lot. There are lots of personal beefs in local CLPs, and there are some people who revel in being a grass even if they don't know you personally.


----------



## rioted (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.


But what do you mean "support"? Get the RAF to drop bombs on them? What else do you suggest? Pass motions of condemnation? Rant on obscure bulletin boards? You're critical of Corbyn's position, what's yours?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They key thing, I thought, was to not put your facebook or twitter details on the form. Seemed like really fucking obvious common sense but I bet there were LOADS of people who did it anyway. Also keeping your privacy settings on fb and twitter so no one can find you via your email seems like a good idea, also not using your real name, like.
> 
> I don't have a fb account, so that's not an issue, and my twitter name isn't my real name.
> 
> The rest of it is down to whether someone locally who knows you dobs you in for personal reasons, as is happening an awful lot. There are lots of personal beefs in local CLPs, and there are some people who revel in being a grass even if they don't know you personally.


Yep, bet there's only been a handful of central investigations, bulk of it has been local grassing.  Whole thing has got laughable, Mcnicol deliberately spending his days with a process designed to defeat his own boss - and that boss seemingly incapable of doing anything about it (even if he will almost certainly win).  Under normal circumstances NcNicol would resign after the result, but the Corbynistas are not yet secure - or for that matter, capable - of pulling that off.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

rioted said:


> But what do you mean "support"? Get the RAF to drop bombs on them? What else do you suggest? Pass motions of condemnation? Rant on obscure bulletin boards? You're critical of Corbyn's position, what's yours?






			
				Robin Yassin-Kassab & Leila al-Shami said:
			
		

> The start of solidarity is to correct the narrative


By support I mean show solidarity with, like we would for many other causes. A fair bit was done in support of Kurds during the Islamic State's attack on Kobani, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about - and equally the PYD/PKK deserve their share of criticisms. Does support for Palestinians end the conflict there? No, but perhaps it's worth something all the same.

On the other hand:



			
				Yassin al-Haj Saleh said:
			
		

> I am afraid that it is too late for the leftists in the West to express any solidarity with the Syrians ... Before helping Syrians or showing solidarity with Syrians, the mainstream Western left needs to help themselves


Maybe we aren't really capable of helping any more if we ever were, with all that has happened since the uprising began and was met with total repression. Trying to see events on a deeper level than state rivalries, learning some kind of lesson for developing our politics so we can see the people who have vanished in so many narratives, that could be a start.

e2a: if we're going to go further down this route it should probably move to the Syria thread instead of here though


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> not generally. Do I think those on the left should support a popular uprising against a dictatorship and those who, between the horrors of the regime and IS/JaF etc are still struggling to live freely of all of them? Yes.


tbh there are popular uprisings and popular uprisings. i wouldn't want to say 'let's support the most popular one' just because it is most popular.


----------



## inva (Aug 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh there are popular uprisings and popular uprisings. i wouldn't want to say 'let's support the most popular one' just because it is most popular.


that's a fair point


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> They ask if you support the aims and values *now*, not if you always have or if you've never supported anyone else.  Once again, they break their own contractual wording.



Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?


Haven't seen the wording but, presumably, so that past supporters of other parties who have 'seen the light' can join.  Something they now seem less keen on.  Even in the proud history of gerrymandering, NcNicol et al should feel a tiny bit embarrassed.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2016)

coley said:


> Ta for that, seems that some of the modest pledges he seems to have made,have been somewhat "exaggerated"  bit disappointing though.




Outside of foreign policy, human rights, etc Corbyn has been quite cautious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Outside of foreign policy, human rights, etc Corbyn has been quite cautious.


even by your low standards that's a poor effort.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Out of interest, where do they use that "wording"?


When you sign up as a registered supporter.

I did it as a three quidder last time round.  The wording you click you accept is a subset of that on their membership terms and conditions.

Terms and Conditions



> Applications to become an Affiliated or Registered Supporter will be rejected if:
> 
> 
> The Labour Party has reason to believe that you do not support the Labour Party’s aims and values.
> ...


Note "do not support" not "have not always supported".  There's nothing in there about having a spotless history of unquestioning loyalty.  Who the fuck has such a thing in any case?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?



no


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 30, 2016)

I am entitled and have received confirmation of my right to vote, yet i somehow feel that I will not receive my ballot form because I have upset and rattled quite a few of the faithful over the years.
I will keep you posted on developments.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

They get to keep your £25 too.  Great way to alienate for all time somebody that has just decided to support you


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> no



So you want the world to implode in an implosion of environmental nastiness


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 30, 2016)

On a side note I received two letters from Smith today even though I did text back NO for any further contact, yet Jezzer as not reached out yet and it all seems to be a fiasco to say the least.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> On a side note I received two letters from Smith today even though I did text back NO for any further contact, yet Jezzer as not reached out yet and it all seems to be a fiasco to say the least.



Shows he's quietly confident as opposed to Smith who's panicking upon panic.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 30, 2016)

Maybe it's because I only signed up as an affiliate the day after the election was announced!


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Some interesting if vague and wishy-washy stuff in today's Digital Manifesto (PDF)
> 
> Already attracting fire from people who don't appear to know anything about software



Who doesn't like it? It seems fairly straightforward stuff to me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 30, 2016)

I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. No private profits from public money.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> When you sign up as a registered supporter.
> 
> I did it as a three quidder last time round.  The wording you click you accept is a subset of that on their membership terms and conditions.
> 
> ...



It's certainly not as crystal clear as you read it, to my mind at least.

"Reason to believe" alone is sufficient to undermine your reading.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

tangerinedream said:


> Who doesn't like it? It seems fairly straightforward stuff to me.


Corbyn promises to 'democratise the internet' - Politics live

The open source software bit has a bunch of people up in arms, saying it would be mandatory (which tbf he might have said out loud, but is not what the manifesto says) for all kinds of wrongheaded reasons like security concerns. Oh but you can't write OSS for GCHQ and the military etc. Well, yes you can, and we do.

The platform cooperative bit is vague but to the extent that it's anything coherent, it aligns with a vision that The Co-Op were expressing in a talk (on technoethics no less) that I attended last week.



Vintage Paw said:


> I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. *No private profits from public money.*


This is inescapably balls though.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> This is inescapably balls though.



In what way? i.e. no private gain from public money


----------



## belboid (Aug 30, 2016)

'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

belboid said:


> 'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'



Yes I think that's the precise legal term.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> In what way? i.e. no private gain from public money


There's a _vast _amount wrong with government IT procurement, at every turn and in every conceivable way, but when you want to commission a massive, national scale enterprise-grade system, you need to contract an entity able to assume both ownership and the very large risks associated with it. With risk comes reward, and that reward is profit.

Now you can argue that it should be done in-house, not by the private sector - and the UK government is no stranger to in-house software development by the way - but the 'profit' is then merely somewhere else, most likely contractors, whom you require for flexibility, and even the permie SW engineers' remuneration. Otherwise you're arguing that it should be voluntary costs-basis work, or god forbid 'democratised' in the worst sense of open sourced - in which case good luck finding anyone competent that's even remotely interested in your nightmare.

There's potentially lots of profit in OSS too, in case that escapes anyone. It's not free as in beer.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

belboid said:


> 'Reason to believe' simply translates to 'we can do what we want'



It is an agreement around the membership of a political party with that party being broadly able to set down its membership requirements as it sees fit.

It would be mighty odd if the party could not do that or even chose to fetter its discretion in the manner that kabbes' reading implies.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

ok fair play - my point was largely what as I recall Chomsky remarks about the state (i.e. all of us) often putting in the money to perform basic research (e.g. BT when it was a public company) which is then made available free of charge to companies who develop their own intellectual property from it. Public money funding private gain.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It is an agreement around the membership of a political party with that party being broadly able to set down its membership requirements as it sees fit.



true that, and may I say profound



> It would be mighty odd if the party could not do that or even chose to fetter its discretion in the manner that kabbes' reading implies.



And how did kabbes imply it fettered its discretion?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> So you want the world to implode in an implosion of environmental nastiness



Yes I love it


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes I love it



thought so


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And how did kabbes imply it fettered its discretion?



By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the  "here and now"


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

Oh fuck off Desmond


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

Sooo....... no counter-argument kabbes?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

Was "fuck off" not clear enough for you?  How's your "hounding off the board" going for you, by the way?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the  "here and now"



But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?

p.s. what kabbes said.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

Anyways - back to JC - in the event that he bows out and McDonnell picks up the baton, would JC supporters here be happy to support him?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?
> 
> p.s. what kabbes said.



You've lost me now


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Sooo....... no counter-argument Diamond? 

p.s. what kabbes said


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the  "here and now"





two sheds said:


> But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?



Do you not understand plain English?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Was "fuck off" not clear enough for you?  How's your "hounding off the board" going for you, by the way?



So, to be clear, your final word on the matter is "fuck off"?

In a way one has to admire such small minded precision.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ok fair play - my point was largely what as I recall Chomsky remarks about the state (i.e. all of us) often putting in the money to perform basic research (e.g. BT when it was a public company) which is then made available free of charge to companies who develop their own intellectual property from it. Public money funding private gain.


In theory it's a fine principle, but in reality if you made all government-commissioned software public open source tomorrow, then on a £s spent basis, there would still be very little interesting IPR or material that would lend itself to cost-efficient reuse. Not just for smaller entities but even for anyone other than the original author. The government are actually already reasonably good at managing their contractual terms with regard to further commercial exploitation by the commissioned developers.

Admittedly the above concentrates on the large scale and bespoke, and there is something to be said for the public good derived from avoiding vendor lock-in and such, but it's no panacea. In most realms, doing the same thing better should be a more urgent priority. Doesn't make for very exciting techno-policy though.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - back to JC - in the event that he bows out and McDonnell picks up the baton, would JC supporters here be happy to support him?



I didn't realise that people actually thought that was a possibility. I suppose some people do believe what they read in the Telegraph.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

My favourite Desmond moment

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-men-and-women.332753/page-9#post-13755480

Does promising to "hound someone out" and then failing to do so count as a breach of contract, Desmond?  Do enlighten us in a yet another tedious failure to understand context and nuance.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Do you not understand plain English?



Well, I don't really understand your point, to be perfectly frank.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> My favourite Desmond moment
> 
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-men-and-women.332753/page-9#post-13755480
> 
> Does promising to "hound someone out" and then failing to do so count as a breach of contract, Desmond?  Do enlighten us in a yet another tedious failure to understand context and nuance.



Moving away from your little black book, shall we return to the point at hand...?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> In theory it's a fine principle, but in reality if you made all government-commissioned software public open source tomorrow, then on a £s spent basis, there would still be very little interesting IPR or material that would lend itself to cost-efficient reuse. Not just for smaller entities but even for anyone other than the original author. The government are actually already reasonably good at managing their contractual terms with regard to further commercial exploitation by the commissioned developers.
> 
> Admittedly the above concentrates on the large scale and bespoke, and there is something to be said for the public good derived from avoiding vendor lock-in and such, but it's no panacea. In most realms, doing the same thing better should be a more urgent priority. Doesn't make for very exciting techno-policy though.



You know more about this than I do but couldn't government research IP be charged similarly to private research IP? A lot of university research is now (I understand) privately funded but the private company benefits from the IP. 

Large amounts of government funded research (again I think - not totally sure) goes into setting standards. It's good that these standards are freely available but private IP isn't freely available - seems weighted on only one side of the scale.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Well, I don't really understand your point, to be perfectly frank.



ok - explain this: 



Diamond said:


> By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the  "here and now"


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

Why should I engage with you, you insufferable prick, Desmond?  There's literally nothing in it for me whatsoever.  No insight, no humour, no goodwill.  Just endless tedious hair splitting.  No thanks, I'd rather you just fuck off.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Why should I engage with you, you insufferable prick, Desmond?  There's literally nothing in it for me whatsoever.  No insight, no humour, no goodwill.  Just endless tedious hair splitting.  No thanks, I'd rather you just fuck off.



But you are posting stuff that is pretty misleading and deserves to be challenged.

Given the personal animus, which to be clear is not shared and I find more than a little mystifying, it is perhaps not ideal for you that I'm the one asking the questions but it's better that someone does rather than no-one at all because what you've asserted as written is very weak indeed.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Sooo....... no counter-argument Diamond?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> ok - explain this:



I think the point is explained above but, broadly speaking and simply put, it is very difficult to see how Labour would limit its assessment in the manner that kabbes' suggests given the current wording and well established principles in general.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I think the point is explained above but, broadly speaking and simply put, it is very difficult to see how Labour would limit its assessment in the manner that kabbes' suggests given the current wording and well established principles in general.



and how is that?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> and how is that?



The relevant wording is deliberately broad and to limit it to kabbes' reading would probably be illegal if challenged.

e2a - maybe that's a bit strong - may be found to be illegal - is closer to the mark.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Why had his team not reserved their seats?
> 
> Presumably they knew weeks ago that they would need to take that train.



Can I just check your first post on this thread?

You will agree that your question is actually, legally speaking and from a normal English language perspective, a load of bollocks.

Could we just establish that before going on to these later fine points of English law?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The relevant wording is deliberately broad and to limit it to kabbes' reading would probably be illegal if challenged.
> 
> e2a - maybe that's a bit strong - may be found to be illegal - is closer to the mark.



but what is the relevant wording? You're making circular references now


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> bit what is the relevant wording?



"reason to believe" is the operative part.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> "reason to believe" is the operative part.



but reason to believe what???


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2016)

inva said:


> by coincidence two sheds given your mention of Stalinism I was just about to ask what do Corbyn supporters think about this piece by Sam Hamad? A few quotes to give an idea of the argument:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyone painting Corbyn as a Stalinist clearly can't distinguish between dictatorship and Parliamentarism, the fuckwits.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> but reason to believe what???



kabbes' has posted a link above if you need to read the text again.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> You know more about this than I do but couldn't government research IP be charged similarly to private research IP? A lot of university research is now (I understand) privately funded but the private company benefits from the IP. Although simultaneously _very _bad at commercialisation.
> 
> Large amounts of government funded research (again I think - not totally sure) goes into setting standards. It's good that these standards are freely available but private IP isn't freely available - seems weighted on only one side of the scale.


To be honest I don't know much about the university model, other than that they're very good at maintaining IP rights, even if the private entity shares them equally.

The thing is that most (per £) software development isn't conventional research, any more than construction is. Think of it as blueprints followed by a lot of heavy lifting, wiring and plumbing. It's different every time based on the nature of the building you commission, and it's not easy, but having the blueprints to the building you just paid for - or a job lot of pipes for that matter - doesn't _really _help you build the next one. There may be original and novel work in there too, of course, but not necessarily as a single block to be lifted out and intelligently duplicated.

Now if you take a sector that _is _more research oriented, like the military and weapons development, you might be on to something. The trouble is that you start to meddle with the raison d'etre of your suppliers. Force your defence contractor to pony up all their research to their competitors - ignore that it's a small incestuous gene pool these days - and you take away the momentum of reusable, resellable IP that keeps them in the game. At least traditionally, anyway. Then if you want to keep being supplied, since noone else can do it, you're back to some form of nationalisation and doing it in-house. Not _necessarily _a bad thing but probably not what was intended.

And as you mention standards, standards are a key part of software and the antidote to vendor lock-in. If you commission your massive software system to be built in an appropriate way, using proper interfaces and proper standards, then it's only a secondary consideration as to whether the deliverable is open source or not. If you want someone to extend it, or have it talk to something else, you can build on what you have because it was designed to allow this. That's far more important than whether you can theoretically give someone the entire codebase and get them to run with it - after paying the original amount again to have them figure it out.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> but reason to believe what???


It will never end, I'm telling you now.  The actual reality of any interpretation is utterly irrelevant.  All that awaits you is endless hair splitting that ignores 90% if what you say and misinterprets the other 10%


----------



## coley (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?


CONC, makes it sound like every bugger that likes the Green Party is a budgy or a spuggy, tweeting!?  WTF invented thon stupid term!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2016)

This thread is confusing me now. 

I've no idea what mauvais is on about, but he's probably right.

I've no idea what Diamond is on about, but he's probably wrong.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> kabbes' has posted a link above if you need to read the text again.



what you said makes no sense without the context. give the context.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This thread is confusing me now.
> 
> I've no idea what mauvais is on about, but he's probably right.
> 
> I've no idea what Diamond is on about, but he's probably wrong.




Corbyn's digital manifesto, in the news today.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> what you said makes no sense without the context. give the context.



The context is the assessment of an application!  Isn't that obvious?


----------



## coley (Aug 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. No private profits from public money.


While I agree in principle,  in reality,  putting that into practice would fuck society up 'big time'


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It will never end, I'm telling you now.  The actual reality of any interpretation is utterly irrelevant.  All that awaits you is endless hair splitting that ignores 90% if what you say and misinterprets the other 10%



I know


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

Anyway, to swing cross purposes here - peeps need to be fairly careful about what they mean by IP rights versus know-how versus confidential information versus standard-setting/FRAND issues when discussing innovation on a policy level.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The context is the assessment of an application!  Isn't that obvious?



Of course it is  that's why I asked



two sheds said:


> But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?
> 
> p.s. what kabbes said.



Diamond why are you avoiding this question???


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Anyway, to swing cross purposes here - peeps need to be fairly careful about what they mean by IP rights versus know-how versus confidential information versus standard-setting/FRAND issues when discussing innovation on a policy level.


Exactly.

See mauvais???


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Of course it is  that's why I asked
> 
> 
> 
> Diamond why are you avoiding this question???



I did not say that it did!  Where did you get the impression that I took that line...?

e2a - you seem to be getting confused between the basis of the assessment and some imaginary list of required information...


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> Yep, I've no idea how these hustings work so if you know better then fine but I find it a bit surprising that the only thing that they would have had to organise around is a date and a place, preventing them from reserving seats.
> 
> It all smacks a bit of incompetence being cynically spun.



And your second post - this was bollocks too wasn't it. You're expecting Corbyn and his team to reserve seats on *every* train just so that they get seats? Or perhaps seats on every train every day that week - so depriving *yet more* people on several trains of seats. 

And it wasn't actually "Corbyn and his team" who needed seats, was it, it was Corbyn and his wife, we now learn. 

Would you like to withdraw the statement that it was a bit of incompetence being cynically spun?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

Can I switch rails too?

Never mind the wording, the failure to return the £25 is surely unlawful if push comes to shove - via Unfair Contract Terms Act or similar. At best they might be able to show costs of processing applications and deduct that.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I did not say that it did!  Where did you get the impression that I took that line...?
> 
> e2a - you seem to be getting confused between the basis of the assessment and some imaginary list of required information...



What did you not say that it did? You're being confusing now. 

eta just fuck off from the thread can you


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What did you not say that it did? You're being confusing now.
> 
> eta just fuck off from the thread can you



I did not say that - the assessment made it a stated requirement for specific information (*including beyond the "here and now"*) to be provided

The problem that you have, I think, is around the idea of the fettering of discretion in the decision making process.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I stand corrected - a family were upgraded, freeing up seats.



Can I just confirm that you originally made 15 posts on the thread accusing Corbyn of dishonesty and all sorts of other things before admitting that you'd been talking a load of bollocks.

Could you please just fuck off this thread you're making no contribution with your pretend lawyerese.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Can I switch rails too?
> 
> Never mind the wording, the failure to return the £25 is surely unlawful if push comes to shove - via Unfair Contract Terms Act or similar. At best they might be able to show costs of processing applications and deduct that.



Given that that is dealt explicitly with in the Ts and Cs, which you agree to upon making the application, I don't see how it is unlawful and it's also difficult to see how UCTA would be remotely relevant here.

You agree to those Ts and Cs when you make your application and pay your fee so...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 30, 2016)

Lol

A so-called lawyer just told us all that if it is in the t and cs, it must be binding.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Given that that is dealt explicitly with in the Ts and Cs, which you agree to upon making the application, I don't see how it is unlawful and it's also difficult to see how UCTA would be remotely relevant here.
> 
> You agree to those Ts and Cs when you make your application and pay your fee so...


Heh. I'm not qualified in law by anyone's measure, and yet I'm compelled to wonder if I have more legal knowledge than you. What do you think the UCTA is _for _exactly?


----------



## coley (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I did not say that - the assessment made it a stated requirement for specific information (*including beyond the "here and now"*) to be provided
> 
> The problem that you have, I think, is around the idea of the fettering of discretion in the decision making process.


Come the revolution ye'll. be one of the first fuckers fettered and fettled, and consigned to read your offerings on here for the next five years, and if you survive that? transportation can be arranged


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Heh. I'm not qualified in law by anyone's measure, and yet I'm compelled to wonder if I have more legal knowledge than you. What do you think the UCTA is _for _exactly?



I'm not remotely an UCTA specialist but it deals with things like liability, negligence, misrep, indemnities and so on.

The £25 point would go to simple things like consideration and performance.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

why are you avoiding the questions Diamond ?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

UCTA is not a magic wand to correct a "bad bargain", in other words...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> why are you avoiding the questions Diamond ?



You have pressed me for the last several pages on the narrow point around the basis of the assessment referred to by kabbes.

I have very precisely answered you on that and now you have chosen to ignore my answer, told me to fuck off, and then brought up some other distant issues and demanded answers to *all of it
*
What do you want?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> UCTA is not a magic wand to correct a "bad bargain", in other words...



how about when the website explicitly promises you a vote if you join up. saying "As a member, you'll be a key part of the team. You'll be eligible to vote in leadership elections ..."? 

ah yes and given your extensive grounding in the law could you explain again why it's ok to defraud your insurance company for the price of a bike?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I'm not remotely an UCTA specialist but it deals with things like liability, negligence, misrep, indemnities and so on.
> 
> The £25 point would go to simple things like consideration and performance.


Yes, it could be tackled on the basis of consideration, receiving nothing in return. But, and I'm not deeply familiar with UCTA either, hence 'or similar', it seems to me that if the LP fail to discharge their contractual responsibilities (admitting the member) on the basis of a disclaimer, then there is scope for considering whether that disclaimer is reasonable. On reflection it might turn out to be provided for via the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which replaced Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts. I don't know. Regardless, I would be surprised if I was allowed to set up a non-refundable 'pay to try and join' members' club.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I did not say that - the assessment made it a stated requirement for specific information (*including beyond the "here and now"*) to be provided
> 
> The problem that you have, I think, is around the idea of the fettering of discretion in the decision making process.



So why have you ignored my point about your previous contribution to this thread? You know, when you accused Corbyn of being a liar before you realised and apologised for talking bollocks. 

This is an interesting thread and you're shitting over it. Please just fuck off to another thread.


----------



## belboid (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - back to JC -


because you've had your arse handed to you on   a plate - yet again


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 30, 2016)

I've lost the point about what Diamond was on about.

On the 'digital' stuff, I was impressed by the lack of bollocks; on the other hand I don't think open source matters in big government contracts, noone will reuse the huge lump of government requirements. Taking it in-house and listeninng to the users seems to matter more (don't get ripped off by the few big companies who bid for this kind of thing).

Broadband for everone seems a bit much for someone who decides to live in the middle of nowhere near a phone cabinet; It will cost a bomb when they chose to be hermit like.


----------



## JimW (Aug 30, 2016)

Diamond is in fact the early iteration of a GCHQ bot designed to bore any left of liberal discussion into submission by despair. The non-sequiturs were a bug but they've discovered they actually up the efficacy.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 30, 2016)

Hopefully the socialist utopia won't require constant growth and we will share things enough that we don't need endless disposable stuff. We will still need to decide what we put resources into.

I'm not suggesting JC will make evrything good. I trust he will shake things up enough that it gets a bit better.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I've lost the point about what Diamond was on about.



I don't think he had one 



> Broadband for everone seems a bit much for someone who decides to live in the middle of nowhere near a phone cabinet; It will cost a bomb when they chose to be hermit like.



Hasn't everyone got broadband now? I'm in the middle of nowhere and we left dialup behind several years ago.


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 30, 2016)

Hasn't everyone got broadband now? I'm in the middle of nowhere and we left dialup behind several years ago.[/QUOTE]
There are still folks in leafy bits considering satelite, not realising the limitations and cost, well before you get to the most isolated parts of these islands.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 30, 2016)

I'm in the arse-end of cornwall - don't even have mobile reception but I got broadband. 

And you do realize that Scotland doesn't count. 






/scarpers


----------



## timeforanother (Aug 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'm in the arse-end of cornwall - don't even have mobile reception but I got broadband.
> 
> And you do realize that Scotland doesn't count.
> 
> ...


Didn't Cornwall get independance ages ago, in the great pasty wars?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 31, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Didn't Cornwall get independance ages ago, in the great pasty wars?


Top-crimped oval Devon pasty FTW


----------



## two sheds (Aug 31, 2016)

Jam goes on before cream you philistine


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

kabbes said:


> They get to keep your £25 too.  Great way to alienate for all time somebody that has just decided to support you


Is that the case? Has anyone had their £25 back yet?  Not doubting you, just haven't heard of actual refunds taking place. Would have thought they'd be on dodgy legal grounds (though how has that stopped them throughout the process...). Even if there are other 'benefits' to being a registered supporter - presumably they send you updates, invites to events and the like - the only real purpose of registering is to the vote in the election. It's not even a donation, even if the word donation appeared on the webpage where you sign up (?), it's clearly a contractual thing. A payment for a vote.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 31, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It's not even a donation, even if the word donation appeared on the webpage where you sign up (?), it's clearly a contractual thing. A payment for a vote.



I think you'll find it means exactly what the High Court has decided it means. 

Until the NEC is taken over by trotskyist Corbynites when there will be another appeal to the High Court when they decide that the NEC does  not indeed mean what it said in the T&Cs.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find it means exactly what the High Court has decided it means.
> 
> Until the NEC is taken over by trotskyist Corbynites when there will be another appeal to the High Court when they decide that the NEC does  not indeed mean what it said in the T&Cs.


Do you mean the t&cs posted 3 pages back i.e. these?
Terms and Conditions
That page is headed 'Donations', but if you scroll down it refers to Registered Supporters paying a *fee*. But anyway, I don't know, I was asking a factual question: is it currently assumed that those refused a vote get their £25 back?  Like I said, it looks dodgy, but I'm not even sure where we are up to in terms of what McNicol's factotums are actually _doing_.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 31, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Do you mean the t&cs posted 3 pages back i.e. these?
> Terms and Conditions
> That page is headed 'Donations', but if you scroll down it refers to Registered Supporters paying a *fee*. But anyway, I don't know, I was asking a factual question: is it currently assumed that those refused a vote get their £25 back?  Like I said, it looks dodgy, but I'm not even sure where we are up to in terms of what McNicol's are actually _doing_.



No, don't know sorry. I'm in limbo at the moment they've told me they can't find me on the electoral register but I think it's because they've not looked hard enough because I am.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

We've probably had this before, but the Huffingtonpost are predicting up to 50,000 of 180,000 reg supporters will be barred.  However doesn't give the breakdown as to reasons (not on register, payment transactions, politically undesirable).
Up To 50,000 'Registered Supporter' Applicants In Labour Leadership Election Set To Be Rejected


----------



## Diamond (Aug 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Yes, it could be tackled on the basis of consideration, receiving nothing in return. But, and I'm not deeply familiar with UCTA either, hence 'or similar', it seems to me that if the LP fail to discharge their contractual responsibilities (admitting the member) on the basis of a disclaimer, then there is scope for considering whether that disclaimer is reasonable. On reflection it might turn out to be provided for via the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which replaced Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts. I don't know. Regardless, I would be surprised if I was allowed to set up a non-refundable 'pay to try and join' members' club.



The contractual analysis would probably frame the contract simply as £25 moves from the applicant to the party (consideration) in exchange for an assessment (consideration) that may eventually result in membership.

In that light, it is payment for an assessment that may result in a benefit, which is not a very controversial way of doing things at all.

e2a - and if you are going down the route of arguing that the mere payment of a £25 fee imposes contractual obligations upon Labour to admit the applicant, then you are deep in unilateral contractual offer territory and way, way off beam.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

Ah, I see there's been intermittent discussion about the £25 since kabbes post 3 pages ago which I originally replied to.  I glanced and thought everything since was just cunting off and something or other digital.


----------



## Supine (Aug 31, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The contractual analysis would probably frame the contract simply as £25 moves from the applicant to the party (consideration) in exchange for an assessment (consideration) that may eventually result in membership.
> 
> In that light, it is payment for an assessment that may result in a benefit, which is not a very controversial way of doing things at all.
> 
> e2a - and if you are going down the route of arguing that the mere payment of a £25 fee imposes contractual obligations upon Labour to admit the applicant, then you are deep in unilateral contractual offer territory and way, way off beam.



T&c's are one thing, plain english on the website promising a vote that counts is the main thing.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

Anyway, I'll try again: if I grass our lass up to McNicol's peelers - perhaps say she has a propensity to brick stairwell windows in shared buildings - will we get our £25 back?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 31, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, I'll try again: if I grass our lass up to McNicol's peelers - perhaps say she has a propensity to brick stairwell windows in shared buildings - will we get our £25 back?


Not according to those terms and conditions, you won't.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

Wow, 4 pages overnight: looks like something exciting has happene... oh.


----------



## inva (Aug 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone painting Corbyn as a Stalinist clearly can't distinguish between dictatorship and Parliamentarism, the fuckwits.


many Stalinists have engaged in Parliamentarism, that's not the reason it's wrong.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 31, 2016)

inva said:


> many Stalinists have engaged in Parliamentarism, that's not the reason it's wrong.



It's the killing of millions of people before the division bell that makes it awkward!


----------



## inva (Aug 31, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It's the killing of millions of people before the division bell that makes it awkward!








_watch it_


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2016)

Why Corbyn so terrifies the Guardian - TruePublica


----------



## two sheds (Aug 31, 2016)

Good old Kuhn - but does this mean we're going to have to wait until all the Blairites die out?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2016)




----------



## inva (Aug 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Why Corbyn so terrifies the Guardian - TruePublica


A bit of a strange article...


> Most Labour MPs call Jeremy Corbyn “unelectable”, even though they have worked tirelessly to undermine him from the moment he became leader


There's no real contradiction there.


> Meanwhile, the Guardian, the house paper of the British left – long the preferred choice of teachers, social workers and Labour activists


the house paper of British liberalism. It seems odd too that he doesn't seem to consider how that might reflect the Guardian's politics and the way it has intervened in the leadership contests.


> The Labour party ignores its members’ views, just as the Guardian ignores its readers’ views. What is going on?


Man, the Labour Party ignoring its members - can you believe it? As for the Guardian, the Corbyn lot seem to keep on clicking, so what do they care whether it's in agreement or disagreement? The Mail and other papers pull the same trick. And given its politics, why would the Guardian support Corbyn in this contest anyway?


> Corbyn’s style of socialism draws on enduring traditions and values – of compassion, community and solidarity – that the young have never really known except in history books


hard to know what to say about that. the young have never known compassion? weird.


> But whatever his critics claim, Corbyn isn’t just a relic of past politics. Despite his age, he is also a very modern figure. He exudes a Zen-like calm, a self-awareness and a self-effacement that inspires those who have been raised in a world of 24-hour narcissism.


sorry but 


> It involves the old coming to accept – however reluctantly – that the young may have found an answer to a question they had forgotten needed answering.


generation war drivel. 'the young'. there's loads of older Corbyn supporters, many of them old Labour types so I hear. what's he on about?


> _Jonathan Cook is an award winning British journalist_


oh well, that explains it


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Can I switch rails too?
> 
> Never mind the wording, the failure to return the £25 is surely unlawful if push comes to shove - via Unfair Contract Terms Act or similar. At best they might be able to show costs of processing applications and deduct that.


I'd consider it a total swindle. Thievery. A hand in my pocket. Like a mugging.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 31, 2016)

The new polling is upsetting a lot of horrible people.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The new polling is upsetting a lot of horrible people.


Oh what a shame.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2016)

the tantrums can only get more intense. End of the month week should be radio rental


----------



## J Ed (Aug 31, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the tantrums can only get more intense. End of the month week should be radio rental



Can't wait!


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2016)

Interesting


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Not according to those terms and conditions, you won't.


Ah, right, I've finally read the t&cs right through to the bottom of the page.    Which takes us back to your original point - it's  outrageous, stupid and counter productive.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Interesting
> 
> View attachment 91783


Meaningless, I'd be shocked if the errors on those cross-breaks aren't larger than the 2% difference


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2016)

So after all the stuff of the last year we have a Labour Party where 40% of members/supporters actually back Owen Smith and think he should be leader.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Interesting
> 
> View attachment 91783


George Eaton is a cherry-picking, dishonest cunt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> So after all the stuff of the last year we have a Labour Party where 40% of members/supporters actually back Owen Smith and think he should be leader.


68% of pre-2015 GE members back him


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> 68% of pre-2015 GE members back him


That's interesting, as is Corbyn's massive lead amongst the EU leavers (with the usual qualifications about sample size). I suspect his opponents will find a way of using both of those findings against him. To be honest, they haven't got much else.


----------



## belboid (Aug 31, 2016)

Hmm, 80% of OS voters think Corbyn will lead the party to defeat at the next GE, but only 12% of them think OS would win it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> 68% of pre-2015 GE members back him


 
Given that the party has trebled in size since then (what with all the entryists, thugs and anti-Semites) no wonder a thoroughly good purge is needed. More seriously, given Smith's policy steals from Corbyn and his attempts at talking left, it seems likely that a sizeable chunk of that 68% is to the left of the majority of the PLP (some of whom must be biting their lips and pulling their hair out at the promises Smith is making).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Meaningless, I'd be shocked if the errors on those cross-breaks aren't larger than the 2% difference


Um I'm no psephologist so I'm not too sure what you're talking about here, I just found it mildly surprising (if true) that the stats produced that result. He's been touted I seem to recall as appealing more to younger voters.



nino_savatte said:


> George Eaton is a cherry-picking, dishonest cunt.


Whilst this may be true  (I have no real idea who he is or what he stands for) he doesn't appear to be spinning the stats, just reporting them. Unless of course he's taken them completely out of context.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> 68% of pre-2015 GE members back him



what % of total membership is that?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Um I'm no psephologist so I'm not too sure what you're talking about here, I just found it mildly surprising (if true) that the stats produced that result. He's been touted I seem to recall as appealing more to younger voters.


The errors on the values will be greater than the 2% difference between 40-59 and 18-23 year-olds, so Easton's conclusion is nonsense. Statistically those number are the same.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> what % of total membership is that?


Sorry not quite clear what you are asking, what % of the total membership are pre-2015 or what % of the total membership are pre-2015 and OS backers?

Going by the numbers YouGov used the pre-2015 members count for ~48% of members, so 33% of members were members before May 2015 and back OS.

EDIT No idea if those YouGov breaks are correct though.

Also despite his revolting sexism Corbyn is doing better with women than men.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The new polling is upsetting a lot of horrible people.



links please.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry not quite clear what you are asking, what % of the total membership are pre-2015 or what % of the total membership are pre-2015 and OS backers?
> 
> Going by the numbers YouGov used the pre-2015 members count for ~48% of members, so 33% of members were members before May 2015 and back OS.
> 
> ...



which percentage of the total membership are pre-2015. I see you've answerd that, thanks


----------



## J Ed (Aug 31, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> links please.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry not quite clear what you are asking, what % of the total membership are pre-2015 or what % of the total membership are pre-2015 and OS backers?
> 
> Going by the numbers YouGov used the pre-2015 members count for ~48% of members, so 33% of members were members before May 2015 and back OS.



I don't think that's quite right is it - 33% of the members entitled to vote are were members before May 2015 and back OS. It'll be lower for total members though as the recent joiners are excluded from that figure.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think that's quite right is it - 33% of the members entitled to vote are were members before May 2015 and back OS. It'll be lower for total members though as the recent joiners are excluded from that figure.


Yes that's true, as I said I'm just using YouGov's numbers


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's interesting, as is Corbyn's massive lead amongst the EU leavers (with the usual qualifications about sample size). I suspect his opponents will find a way of using both of those findings against him. To be honest, they haven't got much else.


because appealing to the 52% of the electorate who voted leave makes him the unelectable one?

You're probably right though, they will attempt to attack him for it and in doing so increase his appeal to that portion of the electorate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2016)

its already been said that he didn't campaign hard enough for remain. I thought his speech, against his own personal convictions on the matter, was fair enough. What did tey want, a battlebus tour or some shit


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its already been said that he didn't campaign hard enough for remain. I thought his speech, against his own personal convictions on the matter, was fair enough. What did tey want, a battlebus tour or some shit


I know, but that's different to objecting to the fact that he now has strong personal support from those who voted leave. That's 52% of the electorate, so it's be pretty hard for anyone to win an election without having some level of appeal to that portion of the electorate.

Personally I think Corbyn judged his remain campaigning extremely well politically with an eye to the next election rather than just to winning the referendum at the cost of being seen standing on the same platform as the tories making the same case as them, as happened in the scottish referendum immediately prior to labour being wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. These figures showing his support among leave voters would seem to vindicate that approach to me, hopefully they can be replicated to some degree among UKIP supporters.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2016)

these poll results seem to have disappeared totally from the guardian website


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> These figures showing his support among leave voters would seem to vindicate that approach to me, hopefully they can be replicated to some degree among UKIP supporters.



Those inclined to kipperdom won't be lapping up his views on immigration.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> he now has strong personal support from those who voted leave. That's 52% of the electorate,
> These figures showing his support among leave voters would seem to vindicate that approach to me


you are mixing up labour members/supporters who voted leave with the part of the general population that voted leave.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2016)

To clarify, this was just a poll of Labour supporters, yes?

If so, the support for JC among Labour supporters who voted leave is not surprising. Said Labour supporters voting leave are a minority of Labour supporters, including, no doubt, a sizeable number quite a bit to the left of the average Labour supporter polled, the believers in 'Lexit'.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 31, 2016)

that's what i said.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

discokermit said:


> you are mixing up labour members/supporters who voted leave with the part of the general population that voted leave.


FS misreading polling data because he thinks it supports his position? How surprising.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

discokermit said:


> you are mixing up labour members/supporters who voted leave with the part of the general population that voted leave.


I know it was just the labour side of the leave vote, but do you not think it's likely to be indicative to some extent of the level of support for either candidate among the wider leave voting electorate?



> hopefully they can be replicated to some degree among UKIP supporters.


that'd be the bit that should have made it obvious that I was well aware it wasn't a poll of the entire population.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> FS misreading polling data because he thinks it supports his position? How surprising.


not at all.

Killer B deciding to have a dig for the hell of it... how surprising.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I know it was just the labour side of the leave vote, but do you not think it's likely to be indicative to some extent of the level of support for either candidate among the wider leave voting electorate?


i'm just pointing out your error. it's not an inconsequential slip of the tongue. start again and show all your working out.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

Hey, my digs _always_ have a purpose.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I know it was just the labour side of the leave vote, but do you not think it's likely to be indicative to some extent of the level of support for either candidate among the wider leave voting electorate?.


I don't really. The 'leave' vote wasn't just one thing - it was made up of various sub-groups with entirely different motivations, hopes and desires. Most tory voters voted leave, but it wouldn't surprise me if tory voters who voted remain held in general more favourable opinions of JC.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

It's 155 of the respondents to the poll that voted leave btw - I don't think you can learn much from a single poll of such a tiny section of the labour membership.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

This article about crossbreaks is pretty essential reading for people who want to use data from them to support their flimsy arguments.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i'm just pointing out your error. it's not an inconsequential slip of the tongue. start again and show all your working out.


It's a common enough form of analysis to extrapolate a result from one section of the population and discuss the likelihood that it also applies to some extent to another section of the population who held similar views on the key issue in question.

I didn't mean to indicate that the support shown in the poll from the labour leave side would automatically transfer completely across to the entire 52% who voted leave, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a preference for corbyn vs smith from those on the leave side more generally on the specific issue of the EU referendum.

Those figures for labour supporters though do directly tie in with the Scottish referendum and subsequent labour annihilation though, as in that case Labour lost the support of it's former supporters who'd voted for independence largely because of the way it had been seen to campaign. This poll does fairly clearly indicate that Corbyn is likely to be best placed to retain the leave section of the labour support base and stop it from losing those swathes of the historically labour supporting country that voted leave in the same way it did in scotland. (If UKIP were to really take the fight to Labour in those areas rather than imploding).


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

155 respondents. it clearly indicates sweet fuck all.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> This article about crossbreaks is pretty essential reading for people who want to use data from them to support their flimsy arguments.


what do you think it says in reference to what we're discussing?


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

You're claiming the response from a tiny crossbreak supports your argument, that it's a 'clear indication' that you're right. The article warns against extrapolating anything from such a small sample.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> You're claiming the response from a tiny crossbreak supports your argument, that it's a 'clear indication' that you're right. The article warns against extrapolating anything from such a small sample.


TBF Mary is normally very good at predicting the trend


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

dunno what you're linking to there dave, but my computer doesn't like it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> dunno what you're linking to there dave, but my computer doesn't like it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> dunno what you're linking to there dave, but my computer doesn't like it.


computer says no


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> You're claiming the response from a tiny crossbreak supports your argument, that it's a 'clear indication' that you're right. The article warns against extrapolating anything from such a small sample.


The figures I was discussing are statistically significant, and I was aware of that before I started discussing them because although I'm a bit rusty I do have a decent grounding in statistics.

Roughly on that sample base it would have a margin of error of 6% either way for the leave supporters (to 95% CI), so the margin of error figures would be...

Among leave supporters
Owen Smith = 17% (11%-23% CI)
Corbyn = 83% (77%-89% CI)

Among the overall voter pool (95% CI of 3%)
Owen Smith = 38% (35%-41% CI)
Corbyn = 62% (59%-65% CI)


So the confidence interval figures do not overlap for any of the figures, and there is a statistically significant difference in the level of corbyn support of at least 12% at the outside bounds of those confidence intervals between those who supported leave, and the overall voter pool.

So contrary to your assertions, it's perfectly reasonably to draw conclusions from these figures as they are statistically significant, and also perfectly reasonable to says that it 'clearly indicates' something (and by a wide enough margin that this was fucking obvious without needing to do the full calcs to prove it).

That article you posted was discussing people who were extrapolating meaning from polling data where the outer bounds of the confidence intervals were overlapping, so there was no statistical significance to the figures, it therefore doesn't apply in this situation as you'd have known if you weren't trying to pull me up on something that you don't understand yourself.


----------



## belboid (Aug 31, 2016)

killer b said:


> 155 respondents. it clearly indicates sweet fuck all.


Correctly sampled, 155 is a reasonable number for a cohort of 100,000 odd labour leave voters.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2016)

The real problem is seeking to leap from the views of brexit voting labour members/registered supporters to the views of brexit voting labour _voters_.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The real problem is seeking to leap from the views of brexit voting labour members/registered supporters to the views of brexit voting labour _voters_.


I don't see that it's too much of a leap to assume that the views of leave supporting labour members / supporters will correlate reasonably closely with those of wider labour voting leave supporters, not when the differences are that big in the survey results. The supporters are more likely to be influenced by the pro-corbyn social media campaigns than the wider labour voting electorate so that probably will cause some level of difference, but I'd still be very surprised if such a big difference among members was reversed among labour voters.

There's a lot more uncertainty involved in extrapolating from those figures to the wider leave population, which is why I said "hopefully they can be replicated to some degree among UKIP supporters." rather than claiming that the figures showed this would be the case.

As it is, bmg polling shows no significant difference between the 2 among UKIP supporters or Leave voters when it comes to their preference for smith vs may or corbyn vs May - smith is marginally ahead with both, but it's within the margin of error. Whether Corbyn would have been further behind with those groups had he spent the time campaigning on platforms alongside cameron or not is probably going to remain a question that can't really be answered from the polling data - my take on it being that he would have been, others may disagree.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2016)

free spirit said:


> if you weren't trying to pull me up on something that you don't understand yourself.


Nah, I was trying to pull you up on your tendency to take what occasional crumbs of polling data you think support your views and extrapolate wildly beyond anything the figures could possibly tell you.

FWIW I think if Corbyn was going to campaign for remain (I bet he's wondering why he bothered now), the line he took was probably the best he could take. I've no idea if it's made any real difference to how he's seen by leave voters: as you say, it remains a question that can't really be answered from the polling data. Other polls consistently suggest he's deeply unpopular with them, and whether his EU ref position will have made the difference between political oblivion or political oblivion +1 is pretty academic.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 1, 2016)

inva said:


> on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:
> 
> In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it …



Hamad said: 





> It [the left] claims to be “anti-imperialist,” yet you have no less a figure as Noam Chomsky so absurdly and pathetically claim that Russia’s intervention in Syria is not “imperialist” since “it’s supporting a government,” while he endorses the conservative “realism” of Patrick Cockburn, whose writing has often come down on the side of the Assad regime.



Chomsky actually says:



> “… *Russia is supporting a brutal, vicious government. *I don’t think they should, but it’s not imperialism. To support a government is not imperialism. *It’s completely wrong *but it’s not imperialism. …



Hamad’s quote suggests that Chomsky is in some way (“absurdly and pathetically”) dismissing the importance of Russia’s intervention. That is hugely misleading if you look at the text I’ve bolded. He’s making a point about the definition of the word “imperialism”.

I know it seems to be frowned upon to resort to dictionary definitions but the Oxford on-line dictionary defines Imperialism with “A policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.”

At first sight I’d probably agree that it is imperialism, although I suspect that Chomsky is comparing Russia's motives to those of  American "imperialism". Either way, though, to focus on his use of the word ‘imperialism’ while not giving the full quite is just disingenuous. It makes Chomsky (and hence 'the left') look like a Russian apologist while if you look at the complete quote he's no such thing.

If you give the full Chomsky quotes you’re referring to in your own criticisms I’ll take a look at them too - I'm always willing to be proved wrong - but until then I still maintain that the only criticisms of Chomsky that I’ve seen chased down are where the person criticizing:

(a) does actually quote him and says or implies how disgusting it is that he would say such a thing and you look at what they’re quoting and it’s actually quite true (example “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”)

(b) says “Chomsky says ...” and you look at the actual quote and he’s not actually saying that at all and

(c) where they give Chomsky's words but they're taken out of context (Hamad quote's another example).


----------



## two sheds (Sep 1, 2016)

inva said:


> on one of the Syria threads Geri posted this article also by Hamad:
> 
> In that link Hamad provides a source which is a youtube video of a talk by Chomsky, and having listened to it, I'd also add that he talks of the US and it's allies backing Islamists, but fails to mention Shia Islamists and their role in Syria. I wonder why?



I don’t know, but I suspect that it’s because that wasn’t the question he was being asked.



> He says, 'if you attack Assad, you're undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra'. Where to start with that?



The original question he was answering was whether he would support US ‘humanitarian’ i.e. military intervention. He says:



> Is there such a thing as humanitarian intervention? Actually that’s not an idle question. If you look over modern history what you discover is just about every use of force is called humanitarian intervention. Literally, we’re doing it for noble purposes. But then you always have to ask the question “is it true”. And the answer to that is almost always no. I wouldn’t say 100% but overwhelmingly the intervention is for the purposes of those carrying out the force. So would it be a legitimate thing yeh it would if it existed but the question is does it exist?



So he’s saying he would intervene but doesn’t believe the US (or Russia or UK ….) intervention will actually be humanitarian.

You quote “If you attack Assad, you’re undermining resistance to the Islamic state and al-Nusra Front’, but you didn’t give the context (“I wonder why”).

He’s just said that Russia is supporting Assad (“also comparably brutal and destructive”) , Turkey is supporting the jihadi Al-Nusra Front, and Saudi Arabia supported what became the Islamic State.

Just before your quote he asks the specific question "who would you attack?", and after your quote he says that if you do that then "[the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State] will then take over. Is that what you want for Syria?” To pick on that quote to suggest he’s in some way an Assad apologist is disingenuous.



> He also says wrongly, 'if you go back to the 2012 there was no uprising' - news to the countless people who during that time and earlier were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared during largely peaceful (on their side at least) protests against the regime.



Where has he denied that people were arrested, tortured, murdered and disappeared before 2012? He’s obviously referring to the escalation after 2012 (in 2012 the fighting spread across Syria and the UN declared there was a civil war) and people began "pouring in from outside". So you’ve turned him giving a different date into some sort of denial of atrocity.



> e2a: in fact in a short space of time he manages to be wrong about an impressive number of things



I know very little about the Syrian conflict but the ‘impressive number’ seems to be zero unless you can back up what you've said. As far as I can see you're just doing (c) again – distorting the context.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 1, 2016)

Anyone else think that one of the best things about Corbyn (and to an extent Brexit) is that it's got all these Radio 4 middle-class liberals to show their hand? I don't even mean the people who listen to Radio 4, I mean their actual shit 'left-wing' comedians like Marcus Brigstock and Mitch Benn, they are all a handful of tweets away from calling for a kale-eating Pinochet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Hamad said:
> 
> Chomsky actually says:
> 
> ...



This is a simple misreading of Hamad's intentions here - and i suspect not being aware of the historical debates within the left not around what constitutes imperialism but what political response imperialism entails. Hamad's claim is that Chomsky's idea that Russia's intervention is Syria does not count as imperialism as it has been asked to intervene by the 'brutual, vicious government" is what is absurd and pathetic in itself - simply plain wrong (and in that it is entirely justified to focus on the question of imperialism - something which you seem to think is disingenuous for some reason).

 Now the importance of this, and the reason for the focus, is that for the historical left - including chomsky from the 60s onwards - if something constituted imperialism then you were obliged to actively support it, or pretend that it wasn't imperialism at all. Chomsky during the Syrian uprising has moved from the first position to the second - to that of the stalinists and orthodox trots he had always previously opposed. And in the process it takes the sides of all states against all protests, against all uprisings against dictatorships because the regimes are formally legal, and so by extension any outsid intervention they decide on to further their murderous actions are also legal. From calling the US actions in Vietnam imperialism to arguing that they're not in effect. That's why it's absurd and pathetic and Hamad is right to say so. 

And it's also actually is why that logic is a demonstration of part of the the left being "russian apologists". That's the intention of the article and there's nothing at all in your post that undermines the article or its claims. None of those three things you list at the end were done in Hamad's article.

This is the second time someone has been outraged by this specific outrage of challenging Chomsky with the words absurd and pathetic btw. See from here on for previous.


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds
don't have much time today unfortunately and butchersapron has written a good reply already, but I thought you might be interested in this piece, also by our friend Sam Hamad, about the relationship between Saudi Arabia, Wahabism, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, among other things - relevant to what Chomsky has to say on the subject in that talk.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I don’t know, but I suspect that it’s because that wasn’t the question he was being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's most def not saying the he/or anyone else should intervene. He opposes intervention. He might helpfully offer grounds to those on the left who don't and need reasons to support such positions, but he doesn't support intervention itself.

As for the impressive number of things he's wrong in on that video you quote two of them - SA being behind ISIS and Turkey being behind what was JAN. They are simply not true and only someone whose not really been following what's going on and instead falling back on old shopworn myths. SA funded the groups that nearly destroyed ISIS in 2013 - that's why they've became targets themselves for example. The best corrective to this old nonsense is actually Hamad himself in the article “The Rise of Daesh in Syria—some Inconvenient Truths” in the book Khiyana: Daesh, The Left and the Unmaking of the Syrian Revolution. There is  a much shortened version of the text here

Another one is there being no uprising in 2012 - that, again, is simply untrue and no serious book suggests such a thing. The regimes militarisation of the uprising a) took place in late 2011 and b) didn't kill the uprising. If it did, why are we here now and why is the uprising continuing? There are now many books demonstrating this but the best is Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution & War by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami. So why would Chomsky be claiming there was no uprising in 2012 during an interview in late 2015 and what was his basing this misreading on? And why did he find it one he could use?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

inva said:


> two sheds
> don't have much time today unfortunately and butchersapron has written a good reply already, but I thought you might be interested in this piece, also by our friend Sam Hamad, about the relationship between Saudi Arabia, Wahabism, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, among other things - relevant to what Chomsky has to say on the subject in that talk.


Just pointed out in that second reply, that this is much shortened version, but does cover the exact points. I reckon also this isn't the right thread for this discussion.


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Just pointed out in that second reply, that this is much shortened version, but does cover the exact points. I reckon also this isn't the right thread for this.


thanks for that, and yeah it should be on the Syria thread.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else think that one of the best things about Corbyn (and to an extent Brexit) is that it's got all these Radio 4 middle-class liberals to show their hand? I don't even mean the people who listen to Radio 4, I mean their actual shit 'left-wing' comedians like Marcus Brigstock and Mitch Benn, they are all a handful of tweets away from calling for a kale-eating Pinochet.



Mitch Benn's a prick. I once gave him a gig back in the 1990s. I recently had a Twitter scrap with him. He kept repeating the same spiel as the rest of the anti-Corbyn types and each time I challenged him, he'd reply with another pre-packaged spiel.

His songs are shite too.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else think that one of the best things about Corbyn (and to an extent Brexit) is that it's got all these Radio 4 middle-class liberals to show their hand? I don't even mean the people who listen to Radio 4, I mean their actual shit 'left-wing' comedians like Marcus Brigstock and Mitch Benn, they are all a handful of tweets away from calling for a kale-eating Pinochet.




Even in the steaming pile of shite that is the Now Show, Mitch Benn was always an especially rancid turd.  Brigstocke is a bit more disappointing because at least he's funny. But he's posh as fuck, of course. Upper-middle-class lefties like that only really want society to be a _bit_ nicer to people less well off than them. I guess that's better than being an upper-middle-class _right-wing_ cunt, but not much, as many of them are revealing now, like you say.

I guess I have to own up to being a middle-class lefty myself (not at the public-school, getting-on-R4 level though. Being from the North East helps in that respect - our idea of middle class wouldn't really cut it in Islington.) Not all of 'us' are showing that hand right now - I don't find Corbyn _that _left wing, never mind threateningly so, and I share your contempt for those whose left-wing 'principles' have taken flight so easily.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

When was Brigstocke funny?


----------



## belboid (Sep 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> When was Brigstocke funny?


He's had some good one liners. Then again, so has Jimmy Carr.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 1, 2016)

Funnier than Mitch Benn.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is the second time someone has been outraged by this specific outrage of challenging Chomsky with the words absurd and pathetic btw. See from here on for previous.



"outrage"  

errm those were the words he used, I was quoting him to disagree

But yes fair point I'll take it over to the Syria thread when I've had a look at what you're saying.

How has Corbyn been on Syria btw? Anything he's said that you've seen that you dislike?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> When was Brigstocke funny?



Sometimes. Of course, even Rudolph Hess would have the odd decent joke if you put him up against Mitch Benn and Punt and Dennis though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> "outrage"
> 
> errm those were the words he used, I was quoting him to disagree
> 
> ...


I know, but it was those two exact words that both you and the other poster responded to. I even put them in quotes to make sure in the first post.

Yes, he's been worse than chomsky. He was the head of the STWC when they took a simple pro-assad position, invited nutter pro-assad speakers, sidelined anti-assad syrians (calling the police on them when they tried to speak at meetings), helped cover-up the depth of the democratic revolutionary elements of the uprising by reducing them simply down to 'western-backed rebels' (and that's a code-word the 2nd sort of people i mentioned in my first post used to use to support USSR backed imperialism) and basically used a top-down geo-political rivalry interpretation to quietly leave the mass murdering, barrel boming, tens of thousands of torturing to death, people disappearing regime alone - and disappearing the anti-regime revolutionaries in the process.

And this has been the default position of much of the old left (the stalinists and ortho-trots) and their new _anti-imperialist_ coalition partners, the SWP and ex-swp milieu. Essentially the old stalinist position won. Corbyn was _always _part of that former group.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

btw, the massively publicised thievery of money and the trifling reasons given is to put people off attempting to join or register_ next time_. Not to cost corbyn the election this time around. The more the stories are built up and shared the better for them. Pretty clever.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Sometimes. Of course, even Rudolph Hess would have the odd decent joke if you put him up against Mitch Benn and Punt and Dennis though.


'I've got tickets for the ballet, _it's a Spandau Ballet_, geddit?  I'm here all week. Well, 40 years to be accurate'.


----------



## rioted (Sep 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Now the importance of this, and the reason for the focus, is that for the historical left - including chomsky from the 60s onwards - if something constituted imperialism then you were obliged to actively support it, or pretend that it wasn't imperialism at all.


Weird.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 'I've got tickets for the ballet, _it's a Spandau Ballet_, geddit?  I'm here all week. Well, 40 years to be accurate'.



'Und was ist das?' [frowning and mincing at the same time] 'Yah, das ist concentration camp!' Boom tish.


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Mitch Benn's a prick. I once gave him a gig back in the 1990s. I recently had a Twitter scrap with him. He kept repeating the same spiel as the rest of the anti-Corbyn types and each time I challenged him, he'd reply with another pre-packaged spiel.
> 
> His songs are shite too.



There is a classic scene in the documentary on the National Theatre(no link) where the technicians all go on strike, and 'leftie' Peter Hall is distraught and offended, Branson has done similar.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 1, 2016)

I listened to bbc radio 4 smear job on seumas milne earlier. Easily the worst allegation was from michael white (guardian political editor) who said that when SM was at the guardian he had TWO lockers whilst other journalists had to share one between two.

What was in the lockers Michael? 
"Books. Or Kalashnikovs. Probably books."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I listened to bbc radio 4 smear job on seumas milne earlier. Easily the worst allegation was from michael white (guardian political editor) who said that when SM was at the guardian he had TWO lockers whilst other journalists had to share one between two.
> 
> What was in the lockers Michael?
> "Books. Or Kalashnikovs. Probably books."


He's another shitbag in the same vein as the stuff i mentioned above as regards Assad and the stalinist tradition.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Jolly nice event in Hanley with Corbyn today. The weather was good, the wasps were only mildly annoying, and there were more people than you'd expect in a supposedly politically disengaged city like ours. And I got my selfie, which is the most important thing. Even more important is that while everyone else took their selfies with him themselves, Jeremy made me give my camera to someone else to take the picture... and then told me it was the man who took the picture of him on the train. Oh how we laughed, me and my new friend Jeremy.

Nello was there too. Always knew he was a good 'un


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

The photographer, John Harris, who took the infamous Orgreave picture was there as well. I got a pretty good picture of him I think:


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> There is a classic scene in the documentary on the National Theatre(no link) where the technicians all go on strike, and 'leftie' Peter Hall is distraught and offended, Branson has done similar.


I remember it well. I used to know someone who worked backstage as a DSM.


----------



## andysays (Sep 1, 2016)

Just had an email giving me the details I need to cast my vote, and I thought the wording was slightly curious


> Dear andysays,
> 
> You can now cast your vote in the Labour Party’s leadership election *to decide the Labour candidate for Britain’s next Prime Minister*. Your vote must be received by 12 noon on Wednesday 21 September to count...



This appears to suggest that whoever wins this contest will therefore be the leader of the party at the next GE, whereas it's still possible that there may be a further challenge before we get to that point.

So who has chosen to use this particular form of words and why have they been chosen?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Sometimes. Of course, even Rudolph Hess would have the odd decent joke if you put him up against Mitch Benn and Punt and Dennis though.


Cunt and Penis... what a pair. Smug bastards. Fuck 'em both.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Sometimes. Of course, even Rudolph Hess would have the odd decent joke if you put him up against Mitch Benn and Punt and Dennis though.


Strangely I recently met someone who was one of his guards at Spandau prison back in the '70's. Apparently he was one of the most obnoxious unpleasant people he had ever met, so perhaps not. /derail


----------



## Wilf (Sep 1, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Strangely I recently met someone who was one of his guards at Spandau prison back in the '70's. Apparently he was one of the most obnoxious unpleasant people he had ever met, so perhaps not. /derail


That must have been a fucking weird job. Wasn't  he the only prisoner for the latter years of his sentence?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 1, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Strangely I recently met someone who was one of his guards at Spandau prison back in the '70's. Apparently he was one of the most obnoxious unpleasant people he had ever met, so perhaps not. /derail



Who'd have thought it, eh?


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2016)

andysays said:


> Just had an email giving me the details I need to cast my vote, and I thought the wording was slightly curious
> 
> 
> This appears to suggest that whoever wins this contest will therefore be the leader of the party at the next GE, whereas it's still possible that there may be a further challenge before we get to that point.
> ...



I think it may be a snide way to get you to think, oh, do i really want JC to be PM, is he PM material, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Strangely I recently met someone who was one of his guards at Spandau prison back in the '70's. Apparently he was one of the most obnoxious unpleasant people he had ever met, so perhaps not. /derail


Sasaferrato  rarely posts now but i'm happy to hear that he was as well thought of by Hess as by me.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 1, 2016)

Still not got my ballot (nor abs) GMB affiliates - nor have thousands of others it would seem. Gotta phone a number tomorra. If OS wins this, I want riots.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

So, an observation or two from today.

You hear a lot about how Jeremy always exasperates his 'handlers' after events, and how they're trying to ferry him onto the next event but he keeps hanging on to talk to one more person - always one more person.

It sounds a bit forced and hokey but by god it's true. I was chatting on and off to those handlers and yes, their exasperation was real, and yes, he was entirely ignoring them and speaking to just one more person, just one more. 

There were plenty of people there with big grins on their faces who were just excited to meet him, but there were also people who felt like they just wanted to be able to speak to him, to tell them why he had to listen, why _someone_ had to listen. And he did listen. It's really easy to underestimate what that means to some people. It won't change their lives tomorrow, and it won't usher in the great revolution next week. But for some of the people in Stoke-on-Trent, they just really bloody well want to be heard.

 

^ That means a lot.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

There was one man who kept him talking for ages. He was desperate, begging him to please just come back. Tell me you'll come back to Stoke-on-Trent. Tell me you won't forget about us. Everyone else has forgotten about us. We're the most deprived of areas. Please just come back.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

I fucking hate what the Tories and New Labour did to people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I fucking hate what the Tories and New Labour did to people.


If I had the authority they'd be fucking digging a canal on south Georgia, all those fucking MPs and councillors. Then they could get started on the Falklands Malvinas bridge of friendship from West Falkland to Buenos Aires


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I fucking hate what the Tories and New Labour did to people.


How you going to kick them out of your party?


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I fucking hate what the Tories and New Labour did to people.


what will happen when Corbyn does it too?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 1, 2016)

Heh, good questions both.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Dunno.


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 1, 2016)

Can't see your pictures btw Vintage Paw


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Huh. I used the file uploader on here - they're not linked externally. Anyone else having problems?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 1, 2016)

nope. Maybe you are using a privacy plugin wtfftw ?


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Huh. I used the file uploader on here - they're not linked externally. Anyone else having problems?


I can see them alright


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 1, 2016)

Interesting. I'm on my phone. So no exciting extensions or anything.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Well, here they are linked:

John Harris, the photo expert:







Corbyn listening:






And Nello for good measure because why not, the guy's a legend:






Unlike most people in Stoke  I only had the pleasure of chatting to Neil the once before he shot to fame. Like everyone else at Keele, I encountered him all the bloody time as he pottered here and there with his shopping bag (which he had with him today).


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 1, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Sometimes. Of course, even Rudolph Hess would have the odd decent joke if you put him up against Mitch Benn and Punt and Dennis though.


I have been thinking about what type of jokes Rudolph Hess might have told but I have found it very hard to come to any conclusion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> I have been thinking about what type of jokes Rudolph Hess might have told but I have found it very hard to come to any conclusion.


Shit ones

Next


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw

Who is Neil?


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> Vintage Paw
> 
> Who is Neil?


Is he this chap? How Neil Baldwin became Keele University's mascot


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Neil Baldwin (Keele University) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surely you've seen Marvellous? If not, I recommend it. It's a lovely piece of work.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Neil Baldwin (Keele University) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Surely you've seen Marvellous? If not, I recommend it. It's a lovely piece of work.


No, I hadn't heard of him until your post and idly googled Neil+Keele and he was the first to come up. What an extraordinary story.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

I can't recommend Marvellous enough. Cried my eyes out each time I've watched it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

Not too shabby for a thursday dinner time in Stoke


----------



## JimW (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Neil Baldwin (Keele University) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Surely you've seen Marvellous? If not, I recommend it. It's a lovely piece of work.


I was thinking by Nello you meant Dave Nellist who I thought was a bit out of his way up hanley


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 1, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> I have been thinking about what type of jokes Rudolph Hess might have told but I have found it very hard to come to any conclusion.



It certainly is, but its all conjecture anyway. On the other hand, we have years of hard evidence that Punt and Dennis can't tell any kind of jokes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 1, 2016)

JimW said:


> I was thinking by Nello you meant Dave Nellist who I thought was a bit out of his way up hanley



Haha, no. Anyway, he has to be referred to as The Nellist.


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2016)

JimW said:


> I was thinking by Nello you meant Dave Nellist who I thought was a bit out of his way up hanley



So did I!


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I can't recommend Marvellous enough. Cried my eyes out each time I've watched it.


Lovely photo of him you captured there. He's spotted you.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 1, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> There was one man who kept him talking for ages. He was desperate, begging him to please just come back. Tell me you'll come back to Stoke-on-Trent. Tell me you won't forget about us. Everyone else has forgotten about us. We're the most deprived of areas. Please just come back.


I have all sorts of problems with Corbyn's politics but I like that he is giving lots of people hope.


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I have all sorts of problems with Corbyn's politics but I like that he is giving lots of people hope.


trapped them in his jam jars


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

inva said:


> trapped them in his jam jars


I think the lids are all off, we might see a bit of party democracy; let's see where it goes.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 2, 2016)

Huffington Post  have REVEALED why some of you have been BANNED from voting.   You're all way too abusive.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c85b1ee4b01e35922a55a0

“I would cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire the murdering cunt. 1 million deaths on his hands. Fuck him.”


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I have all sorts of problems with Corbyn's politics but I like that he is giving lots of people hope.



False hope is exactly what people need during difficult times


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Huffington Post  have REVEALED why some of you have been BANNED from voting.   You're all way too abusive.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c85b1ee4b01e35922a55a0
> 
> “I would cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire the murdering cunt. 1 million deaths on his hands. Fuck him.”



That Owen Smith is a terrible fellow!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> False hope is exactly what people need during difficult times


It's what you do with that hope that matters.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2016)

Seeing lots of chatter online about "100,000" missing votes/ballot emails. I suspect the number is made up but there's clearly a lot of people who've yet to receive the email. (That would be a neat way of stealing the election: simply fail to send out voting papers to  large numbers of people who joined post May 2015, and hope they can't be bothered to chase it up.)


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Huffington Post  have REVEALED why some of you have been BANNED from voting.   You're all way too abusive.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c85b1ee4b01e35922a55a0
> 
> “I would cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire the murdering cunt. 1 million deaths on his hands. Fuck him.”



A fair enough opinion in my view, but what about this abuse, beyond the pale


> “I used to vote Labour. Plaid for me this time as well”


----------



## Skyfallsz (Sep 2, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's what you do with that hope that matters.



Join the Labour Party, vote, and share lots of pictures and links on facebook


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 2, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Join the Labour Party, vote, and share lots of pictures and links on facebook


The 'mainstream' Labour leadership candidate just sent out a letter boasting about his links with trade unions.

If you think the Corbyn supporters are having no effect beyond facebook just think on that for a while, and how unlikely it would have been two years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> The 'mainstream' Labour leadership candidate just sent out a letter boasting about his links with trade unions.
> 
> If you think the Corbyn supporters are having no effect beyond facebook just think on that for a while, and how unlikely it would have been two years ago.


The effect, in this case, being a labour leader candidate sharing stuff to labour members that he doesn't believe? Fucking get in there!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If I had the authority they'd be fucking digging a canal on south Georgia, all those fucking MPs and councillors. Then they could get started on the Falklands Malvinas bridge of friendship from West Falkland to Buenos Aires


new information has reached me forcing a rethink of the route of the tony clifff memorial canal on south georgia

they will now instead be mining on main island in the willis islands group off the northwest tip of south georgia


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The effect, in this case, being a labour leader candidate sharing stuff to labour members that he doesn't believe? Fucking get in there!


But the publicly acceptable discourse matters, no? It was said to Labour members but it is still publicly available and can be quoted, and he'll have to defend it if asked. If it mattered (and I think many on here thought it did)  when Labour leaders distanced themselves from trade unionism, doesn't it also matter when they publicly support it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> But the publicly acceptable discourse matters, no? It was said to Labour members but it is still publicly available and can be quoted, and he'll have to defend it if asked. If it mattered (and I think many on here thought it did)  when Labour leaders distanced themselves from trade unionism, doesn't it also matter when they publicly support it?


Is a labour leadership candidate sharing things to facebook labour members that he doesn't believe 'the publicly acceptable discourse'? I think not. Is 'the publicly acceptable discourse' being able to trip up a dishonest labour leadership candidate? I rather hoped it was a bit more than that. But oh well, crack on.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Really got my left wing juices flowing now these last exchanges. Really feel up for the fight now!


----------



## gosub (Sep 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Huffington Post  have REVEALED why some of you have been BANNED from voting.   You're all way too abusive.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c85b1ee4b01e35922a55a0
> 
> “I would cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire the murdering cunt. 1 million deaths on his hands. Fuck him.”



or not creative enough with the insults.

It would appear to be OK if you are displeased that the cockwomble Blair felches Goldman Sachs


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is a labour leadership candidate sharing things to facebook labour members that he doesn't believe 'the publicly acceptable discourse'? I think not. Is 'the publicly acceptable discourse' being able to trip up a dishonest labour leadership candidate? I rather hoped it was a bit more than that. But oh well, crack on.


You are right that ultimately it's all bollocks. However there is something to be said for shifting the political narrative leftwards from "we're all thatcherites now".


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> new information has reached me forcing a rethink of the route of the tony clifff memorial canal on south georgia
> 
> they will now instead be mining on main island in the willis islands group off the northwest tip of south georgia
> View attachment 91893
> ...



Are you finding these amazingly intricate fantasies of violence and repression helpful?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You are right that ultimately it's all bollocks. However there is something to be said for shifting the political narrative leftwards from "we're all thatcherites now".


I'm questioning if a labour leadership candidate sending lies to labour members is actually shifting the overton window. Because it's not really is it? Where the public element for starters? Then, where is the evidence that this (whatever it is) is becoming a start point for actual extra-party public discourse?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Huffington Post  have REVEALED why some of you have been BANNED from voting.   You're all way too abusive.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c85b1ee4b01e35922a55a0
> 
> “I would cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire the murdering cunt. 1 million deaths on his hands. Fuck him.”


"Blairite bellend"


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm questioning if a labour leadership candidate sending lies to labour members is actually shifting the overton window. Because it's not really is it?


Do brexit campaigners sharing immigration scare stuff on Facebook make a difference?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Idaho said:


> Do brexit campaigners sharing immigration scare stuff on Facebook make a difference?


Is that a good comparison do you think? What would be the differences?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Are you finding these amazingly intricate fantasies of violence and repression helpful?


Prior Planning Prevents Pisspoor Performance.  you seem to be more a man who likes to do things off the wrist.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is that a good comparison do you think? What would be the differences?


It's a far from perfect comparison. But they are both examples of "now publicly acceptable" political statements - that weren't previously.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Idaho said:


> It's a far from perfect comparison. But they are both examples of "now publicly acceptable" political statements - that weren't previously.


One is made on a semi-closed public platform, one is made on a semi-closed public platform to a closed group.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Are you finding these amazingly intricate fantasies of violence and repression helpful?



I would think they are just a miner diversion.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You are right that ultimately it's all bollocks. However there is something to be said for shifting the political narrative leftwards from "we're all thatcherites now".



Gramsci's 'commonsense', hegemony and all that

Overton window, even.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 2, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I would think they are just a miner diversion.



The steelworkers are probably enjoying them too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Strangely I recently met someone who was one of his guards at Spandau prison back in the '70's. Apparently he was one of the most obnoxious unpleasant people he had ever met, so perhaps not. /derail



The guard was the most obnoxious person Hess had ever met?

Must have been Sasaferrato


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> I have been thinking about what type of jokes Rudolph Hess might have told but I have found it very hard to come to any conclusion.


oh I'm sure he had a wealth of anti semetic jokes to tell


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The guard was the most obnoxious person Hess had ever met?
> 
> Must have been Sasaferrato


Sorry I think I can see how you misread that, no Hess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Gramsci's 'commonsense', hegemony and all that
> 
> Overton window, even.


common sense paine


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh I'm sure he had a wealth of anti semetic jokes to tell


I am sure you mean anti-semitic. Anti-semetic would be something to to cure feeling sick, as in being emetic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am sure you mean anti-semitic. Anti-semetic would be something to to cure feeling sick, as in being emetic.


or emetic jokes, one that would make you chuck


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 2, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn: After-work drinks discriminate against mothers


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> or emetic jokes, one that would make you chuck



Or anti-sematic jokes - those which defy meaning.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2016)

I should have just gone with 'racist jokes'. I know how to spell it and we can be sure he had a few about slavs and gypsies as well


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 2, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Or anti-sematic jokes - those which defy meaning.


Or more accurately ones that do not act as a warning of danger.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

An Englishman, an Irish man and a German walk into a war crimes tribunal...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 2, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: After-work drinks discriminate against mothers





> According to Mr Corbyn an after-work drinks culture "benefits men who don't feel the need to be at home looking after their children and it discriminates against women who will want to, obviously, look after the children that they have got"



What's with all the sweeping generalisations about "men" and "women" and won't somebody think of the children. Piss off mate.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 2, 2016)

.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

He's right though.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: After-work drinks discriminate against mothers



Where do they find this nonsense...?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

And this is what the leader of the opposition chooses to address in the circumstances...

Nothing on Brexit, nothing on energy policy, nothing about actually opposing the government.

Way to set the agenda Jezza...


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2016)

Idaho said:


> You are right that ultimately it's all bollocks. However there is something to be said for shifting the political narrative leftwards from "we're all thatcherites now".



Belushi (RIP) said he spent the whole of 1997 telling people blair was more left-wing than he appeared.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And this is what the leader of the opposition chooses to address in the circumstances...
> 
> Nothing on Brexit, nothing on energy policy, nothing about actually opposing the government.
> 
> Way to set the agenda Jezza...




this is what the media *chose to report*. do you not understand that the media report things the way they want, not the way you want or indeed the way the people being reported on would like?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this is what the media *chose to report*. do you not understand that the media report things the way they want, not the way you want or indeed the way the people being reported on would like?



It's what he chose to speak to...

Are the media not supposed to report it?

Are they supposed to divine the true currents of policy that run deep below ludicrous statements about the "ethic" (that's the word he actually used our Jezza!) of after work drinks?  The "ethic"...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It's what he chose to speak to...
> 
> Are the media not supposed to report it?
> 
> Are they supposed to divine the true currents of policy that run deep below ludicrous statements about the "ethic" (that's the word he actually used our Jezza!) of after work drinks?  The "ethic"...


there's a rather fuller report here Jeremy Corbyn calls to end after-work drinks

but the reporting of jeremy corbyn has been appalling over the past year, it's as though none of the papers or media like him  must have passed you by, i suppose, all the stories like 'corbyn ruined christmas' etc etc. the thing is the media all have their own little agendas and for a change they pretty much all agree they dislike corbyn. that's why you get this shit reporting instead of them actually reporting what was going to be launched, the other measures he announced.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It's what he chose to speak to...
> 
> Are the media not supposed to report it?
> 
> Are they supposed to divine the true currents of policy that run deep below ludicrous statements about the "ethic" (that's the word he actually used our Jezza!) of after work drinks?  The "ethic"...



The report I saw said "culture" not ethic. 

And you're seriously saying that he's made no other political comments this week than about this? Fuck me Diamond you've scraped the barrel on this thread, starting from the lies you repeated about the ludicrous train journey story. You're just coming in, taking a shit on the floor and leaving.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> The report I saw said "culture" not ethic.
> 
> And you're seriously saying that he's made no other political comments this week than about this? Fuck me Diamond you've scraped the barrel on this thread, starting from the lies you repeated about the ludicrous train journey story. You're just coming in, taking a shit on the floor and leaving.



Watch the video


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there's a rather fuller report here Jeremy Corbyn calls to end after-work drinks



Diamond - any comments on what he said on that video? About women and cuts to rape crisis centres for example? Or do you want to witter on about that peripheral and somewhat unimportant point?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Belushi (RIP) said he spent the whole of 1997 telling people blair was more left-wing than he appeared.


 yes he was quite self-deprecating about that. I can't talk, my first GE vote went to blair. The shame of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Diamond - any comments on what he said on that video? About women and cuts to rape crisis centres for example? Or do you want to witter on about that peripheral and somewhat unimportant point?


he is Diamond so the answer is "the latter"


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Diamond - any comments on what he said on that video? About women and cuts to rape crisis centres for example? Or do you want to witter on about that peripheral and somewhat unimportant point?



The "peripheral and somewhat unimportant point" which he deemed important enough to speak directly about, you mean...?

This truly is absurd - no, some of what Jezza said should be ignored because it is clearly marginal and unimportant and he only spoke about it because, because er, er....?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

The problem with being a leader is that you are accountable for everything that you say and do.

Corbyn fans seem to have difficulty with this idea.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

In a way the fact that he talks about the ethic of after work drinks alongside two sheds', presumably, "central and important" points is almost worse - diminishing both by association...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The "peripheral and somewhat unimportant point" which he deemed important enough to speak directly about, you mean...?



One statement out of a speech and the media pick it up and you pick on it to pretend it's important. He mentioned cuts affecting women and womens' rape crisis centres are they unimportant? 
Your statement above that he said "nothing on opposing the government" was actually a lie wasn't it. 



> This truly is absurd - no, some of what Jezza said should be ignored because it is clearly marginal and unimportant and he only spoke about it because, because er, er....?



He mentioned it in passing. You truly are absurd, yes.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

And then there are all the questions about liberties and the tentacles of government - how are you supposed to go about this - by encouraging employers to police their employees' "early evening socialisation" backed up by government incentives and prospective sanctions...?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Oh just fuck off Diamond. I'm polite to anyone who'll debate honestly but you're a nasty cunt aren't you. He makes one throw-away statement and you're blowing it up like it's important and he's a Stalinist. 

Tell us again how it's ok for a lawyer to defraud his insurance company.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Oh just fuck off Diamond. I'm polite to anyone who'll debate honestly but you're a nasty cunt aren't you. He makes one throw-away statement and you're blowing it up like it's important and he's a Stalinist.
> 
> Tell us again how it's ok for a lawyer to defraud his insurance company.



You're a vindictive individual who likes to make ad hominem arguments.

Your lookout but you're not convincing anyone with such mealy mouthed statements.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> In a way the fact that he talks about the ethic of after work drinks alongside two sheds', presumably, "central and important" points is almost worse - diminishing both by association...


so you don't see the informal marginalisation of women in organisations by their effective exclusion from socialising with colleagues as an issue. 

not sure if i had you down as sexist before.

i do now.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 2, 2016)

I've deleted my earlier criticism of the comment re after work drinks. There are some people you just don't want to be anywhere near the same side of an argument as.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's right though.


Yeah, this seems to be getting lost in the noise.  Fact 1: women take on a disproportionate amount of of housework, including childcare.  Fact 2: if you have primary responsibility for children, it is difficult to take part in after-work activities.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> You're a vindictive individual who likes to make ad hominem arguments.
> 
> Your lookout but you're not convincing anyone with such mealy mouthed statements.



he said making an ad hominem argument  

*vindictive: "*having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge.

lol

Why did you lie about what he said? Correct your lie and I'll respond


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The "peripheral and somewhat unimportant point" which he deemed important enough to speak directly about, you mean...?
> 
> This truly is absurd - no, some of what Jezza said should be ignored because it is clearly marginal and unimportant and he only spoke about it because, because er, er....?



It's certainly "peripheral and somewhat unimportant" to the main part of the story, which we might hope would be about how 





> Mr Corbyn's flagship 10 pledges would advance gender equality for women, and tackle gendered violence and harassment.



But instead of that, the story ignores all of that actual political stuff which Corbyn is announcing and focuses almost entirely on a remark which he made at the after event drinks party, observing out that an after-work drinks culture can discriminate against women (and perhaps therefore pointing out the irony of doing things that way?)

And here you come, blundering in and attacking Corbyn for not making the sort of statements you think he should be making and utterly missing the way that his policy announcements and other statements are downplayed every time they're reported (see also, eg, the stuff about arts funding the other day) in favour of finding something relatively minor they can focus on and try to rubbish him with.

You fucking plum...


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, this seems to be getting lost in the noise.  Fact 1: women take on a disproportionate amount of of housework, including childcare.  Fact 2: if you have primary responsibility for children, it is difficult to take part in after-work activities.



And if you work part-time you are less likely to be at work at 'clocking off and going to the pub' time anyway.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, this seems to be getting lost in the noise.  Fact 1: women take on a disproportionate amount of of housework, including childcare.  Fact 2: if you have primary responsibility for children, it is difficult to take part in after-work activities.


Friends who've had jobs in the city tell me participating in post-work drinks is necessary if you want to get anywhere. It's a total no-brainer that this discriminates against women.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, this seems to be getting lost in the noise.  Fact 1: women take on a disproportionate amount of of housework, including childcare.  Fact 2: if you have primary responsibility for children, it is difficult to take part in after-work activities.



Yes. Whatever you think of this particular argument (and he has a point IMO although clearly people aren't about to stop any time soon) 'it's a generalisation' is a terrible argument against. Any argument based on such large populations is necessarily a generalisation but it doesn't mean it's not valid. Some women earn shit loads of money for example.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Friends who've had jobs in the city tell me participating in post-work drinks is necessary if you want to get anywhere. It's a total no-brainer that this discriminates against women.


I think if we were having this discussion 15-20 years ago it would be a _simple_ no brainer.  Nowadays it's a _complex_ no brainer. Work patterns have altered, people do family life in different ways, but the points made by kabbes are every bit as much in play.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

once again diamond does his part to draw disparate urbanites together


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's certainly "peripheral and somewhat unimportant" to the main part of the story, which we might hope would be about how
> 
> But instead of that, the story ignores all of that actual political stuff which Corbyn is announcing and focuses almost entirely on a *remark which he made at the after event drinks party*, observing out that an after-work drinks culture can discriminate against women (and perhaps therefore pointing out the irony of doing things that way?)
> 
> ...



You haven't watched the video, have you?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Friends who've had jobs in the city tell me participating in post-work drinks is necessary if you want to get anywhere. It's a total no-brainer that this discriminates against women.



I have worked in the City and this is grade A bollocks.

e2a - but why is this about the "City" anyway...?  Jezza makes no such distinction


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

But let's just recap here - this is peripheral and unimportant but, in the alternative, despite the fact that it is a massively broad generalisation that obscures modern gender roles in the workplace (e2a - and at home), it still gets to some really, really important home truths.  And, finally, there were drinks associated with it anyway so it was a cute piece of irony...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I have worked in the City and this is grade A bollocks.
> 
> e2a - but why is this about the "City" anyway...?  Jezza makes no such distinction


I too have worked in the city and it's true


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 2, 2016)

I've worked in _a _city.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> But let's just recap here - this is peripheral and unimportant but, in the alternative, despite the fact that it is a massively broad generalisation that obscures modern gender roles in the workplace (e2a - and at home), it still gets to some really, really important home truths.  And, finally, there were drinks associated with it anyway so it was a cute piece of irony...


There's no argument you won't get on the wrong side of, is there


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I've worked in _a _city.


Ah! But me and diamond have worked in The City. Not together, mind, I'd like to make that clear.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 2, 2016)

So it's unacceptable to criticise Corbyn's generalisations about "men" and "women" and childcare roles because there were more important things in his speech that the the media ignored?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah! But me and diamond have worked in The City. Not together, mind, I'd like to make that clear.



Ha!  Could be fun...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 2, 2016)

Having worked around Temple for a long time the observations from my evening drinking is that lawyers like to go for a drinky after work and there is usually one older man and a bunch of middling aged folk and a smattering of juniors, all hanging off every word coming from old, fat man. Of course we have no way of knowing how many people wern't there cos they finished at 3 to pick the kids up etc.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> So it's unacceptable to criticise Corbyn's generalisations about "men" and "women" and childcare roles because there were more important things in his speech that the the media ignored?



You have to read the right bits, naturally.

Very cryptic, wise leader etc...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's right though.



Not just women either, also people of both genders who do not drink alcohol. I have gone for 'after work drinks' and enjoyed it but it isn't always optional. I have had jobs in workplaces where all the social activities (which it was necessary to attend if you wanted to advance) were based around very boozy nights. That makes things really difficult if you're, for example, Muslim or Mormon or especially if you are an alcoholic.


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> You haven't watched the video, have you?



No, I haven't watched the video, I'm basing my description on the written story on the ITV website.

Maybe the detail contained there is incorrect, but neither that or any other little nitpicking can get round the fact that the story recounted there focusses on this minor point and completely ignores "Mr Corbyn's flagship 10 pledges [which] would advance gender equality for women, and tackle gendered violence and harassment", and which you have dismissed as being not important or significant policy announcements.

Obviously they're not important *to you*, and you're more interested in rubbishing his criticisms of the unfair networking opportunities available to men through an after-work drinks culture, just as you're seeking to dismiss my comment because I haven't watched the video.

I wonder why that might be...


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Having worked around Temple for a long time the observations from my evening drinking is that lawyers like to go for a drinky after work and there is usually one older man and a bunch of middling aged folk and a smattering of juniors, all hanging off every word coming from old, fat man. Of course we have no way of knowing how many people wern't there cos they finished at 3 to pick the kids up etc.



Chances are that that older man is the sad, ageing partner with a booze problem, a wife that they don't want to go home to and zero influence among the wider partnership, in my experience.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> No, I haven't watched the video, I'm basing my description on the written story on the ITV website.
> 
> Maybe the detail contained there is incorrect, but neither that or any other little nitpicking can get round the fact that the story recounted there focusses on this minor point and completely ignores "Mr Corbyn's flagship 10 pledges [which] would advance gender equality for women, and tackle gendered violence and harassment", and which you have dismissed as being not important or significant policy announcements.
> 
> ...



You haven't read that story very closely, have you?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

apologies for losing it earlier peoples

it's just that it's been such an interesting and enjoyable thread that has thrown up interesting ideas about how to judge corbyn and his policies. 

And you get someone who only jumps in to poke at something peripheral and unimportant. Nothing about the major ideas like PQE to generate money to invest in the NHS and utilities and rail and housing and care for the elderly et al, along with improving the chances of the poor and women and other "minorities". 

Just the meaningless shit that gets thrown up by the media in amongst the lies and distortions because they don't want to talk about the real issues ... 

... but of course that's exactly what the thread's about


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Chances are that that older man is the sad, ageing partner with a booze problem, a wife that they don't want to go home to and zero influence among the wider partnership, in my experience.


I'll leave a space here for other urbanites to supply the punchline:


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

After a few pints they'd be seeing double diamond


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> You haven't read that story very closely, have you?



What are you suggesting I've missed and, more important, how does this relate to my overall point about the media reporting of JC?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

andysays said:


> What are you suggesting I've missed and, more important, how does this relate to my overall point about the media reporting of JC?



Corbyn made the point explored above in the said speech/presentation/event, not at some after event drinks.  It was not marginal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn made the point explored above in the said speech/presentation/event, not at some after event drinks.  It was not marginal.


But nonetheless you see it as more markworthy that the substantial policy announcement. The attitude you've taken is a sexist attitude, which tbh is consonant with your orientalist frothing about the Kingsland Road mosque


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 2, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes. Whatever you think of this particular argument (and he has a point IMO although clearly people aren't about to stop any time soon) 'it's a generalisation' is a terrible argument against. Any argument based on such large populations is necessarily a generalisation but it doesn't mean it's not valid. Some women earn shit loads of money for example.



I was one of those originally making the 'it's a generalisation' argument against, and, having reconsidered my knee-jerk reaction and deleted my earlier post, I agree completely.

Clearly it's a complex picture these days depending on sector, nature and level of role, etc, and although my experience was never that the women in my workplace were less likely than the men to participate in and benefit from after-work drinks, that's anecdote, not data. Until I set up on my own, I hadn't worked full-time in a long time, and for at least 15 years had been in sectors where the majority of the workforce was women, and I was never at a very senior level. So obvs there are all kinds of scenarios nothing like mine.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> But nonetheless you see it as more markworthy that the substantial policy announcement. The attitude you've taken is a sexist attitude, which tbh is consonant with your orientalist frothing about the Kingsland Road mosque



How is it sexist?


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn made the point explored above in the said speech/presentation/event, not at some after event drinks.  It was not marginal.



And how does that relate to the wider point about the written story, and the headline, and the subsequent discussion here more-or-less ignoring Corbyn's actual policy announcements?

This is, to me, the important part of the issue - you're criticising Corbyn for not having any policy announcements, and completely missing the fact that these policies are being ignored by those reporting them, in favour of reporting relatively minor (though still significant) aspects.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Sorry - I'm paying attention to the _*wrong*_ words, evidently...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 2, 2016)

There seems to be a suggestion here that Corbyn making some shit sweeping generalisation about "men" and "women" and childcare roles isn't up for discussion, because it wasn't part of the main focus of the speech. So calling him on anything other than the main body speech is 'sexist' ?

Riiiiight.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2016)

Shadow cabinet elections bid 'not anti-Corbyn' - BBC News

Anyone here read the Eye's story on this in the most recent issue, btw...?


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I have worked in the City and this is grade A bollocks.


I guess you mustn't have been invited.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> There seems to be a suggestion here that Corbyn making some shit sweeping generalisation about "men" and "women" and childcare roles isn't up for discussion, because it wasn't part of the main focus of the speech. So calling him on anything other than the main body speech is 'sexist' ?
> 
> Riiiiight.


It is being discussed. He's right.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 2, 2016)

If you haven't received your ballot today. 

Labour Leadership Election Voting Information


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> How is it sexist?


there are a number of formal and informal exclusionary practices in operation which serve to sideline women from participating in events which play an important part at work although ostensibly solely social. You do not see this as an issue and have indeed pooh-poohed it. The sidelining of women is a sexist issue; the denigrating of the topic is a sexist activity. '.you are being sexist


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 2, 2016)

Finally got mine today after going through the reissue shite!

Fuck you Smith.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck you Smith.



That means you can't vote now


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That means you can't vote now



Just seen this on faceache - 

No wonder youngsters can't be fucking arsed with it all, especially after this farcical fucking Labour shite!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

They're clearly testing the policy to see whether they can use it for  General Elections, too.


----------



## Lorca (Sep 2, 2016)

wonder if any labour mps have ever tweeted support/agreement with anything from another party


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

They didn't mind Peter Hain joining. No tweeting back then.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 2, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


>


yeh i always get peter haining, the anthologist of horror stories, confused with peter hain, the former anti-apartheid activist, too.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


>


Sighs. Hain did stuff while a Liberal that would probably stop them from letting him join Labour now, before his soul ran dry. He even got sent a letter bomb, presumably by apartheid sympathisers.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 2, 2016)

Lorca said:


> wonder if any labour mps have ever tweeted support/agreement with anything from another party




eta I think that's what I was confused about but now I'm not so sure.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> There seems to be a suggestion here that Corbyn making some shit sweeping generalisation about "men" and "women" and childcare roles isn't up for discussion, because it wasn't part of the main focus of the speech. So calling him on anything other than the main body speech is 'sexist' ?
> 
> Riiiiight.



Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the main carer of a young child? 

I'm not asking "does the father ever do the main caring role," because sometimes they do, just in smaller overall numbers. Those men who can't attend afterwork drinks due to childcare responsibilities lose out too, but that's because parenting isn't valued by employers, and that's partly because it's a role traditionally alloted to women. 

And the fact that parents who have to go home straight from work for childcare responsibilities lose out on networking, and that said parents are usually female, is part of the reason for women not being promoted despite being equally qualified. It is relevant to bring up gender here because gender is involved.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

Bah. This was a daft one; want to ban socialising with workmates?
It is even dafter to blow it out of proportion.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Bah. This was a daft one; want to ban socialising with workmates?
> It is even dafter to blow it out of proportion.


Who said anything about banning socialising with workmates?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 2, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Who said anything about banning socialising with workmates?



Corbyn the Stalinist, obvs. Crushing fun with his Iron Fist whilst using a velvet one to wank over archive footage of Gulags.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 2, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the main carer of a young child?
> 
> I'm not asking "does the father ever do the main caring role," because sometimes they do, just in smaller overall numbers. Those men who can't attend afterwork drinks due to childcare responsibilities lose out too, but that's because parenting isn't valued by employers, and that's partly because it's a role traditionally alloted to women.
> 
> And the fact that parents who have to go home straight from work for childcare responsibilities lose out on networking, and that said parents are usually female, is part of the reason for women not being promoted despite being equally qualified. It is relevant to bring up gender here because gender is involved.



Exactly.

It's pretty bleeding obvious if you spend more than half a second thinking about it rather than pretending to be outraged on behalf of women when your usual MO is to talk about women as if they are pieces of shit.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It's pretty bleeding obvious if you spend more than half a second thinking about it rather than pretending to be outraged on behalf of women when your usual MO is to talk about women as if they are pieces of shit.


Just to be clear that it was skyscraper I was replying to and I don't think you mean him as someone who's usually anti-woman.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2016)

It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men.  I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men.  I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.


Diamond is a constant surprise to all of us


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men.  I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.


I think it's less "taken aback" and more not wanting to admit something they do has consequences.

EDIT: And an opportunity to confirm their existing prejudices/politics.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men.  I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.


Oh come on. It's not as straightforward as that. It's played as if he's accepting the situation where small children are mostly cared for by their mothers (is that still true?) and by accepting, endorsing it. He doesn't endorse that, of course, but that is how it's being played.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.

It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.

Of course taking time out with kids impacts womens' careers more often then mens', I don't see how you can do more than ameliorate this by better childcare, after school clubs and so on. A lot of women WANT to be the principal carers, and that changes how much you get paid over the course of your life.

The only realistic kind of change is one that changes everything, and allows us to live a little more humbly but more equally.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.
> 
> It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.
> 
> ...


Do you reckon women tend to want this more than men, and if so, do you think it's possible to work out how much of that is social conditioning? I don't know, to be honest, trying to keep an open mind. But sure as eggs, so long as childcare is seen as a women's issue things aren't likely to change.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

They do now (much more often). I was the only bloke at the playgroup. If it is nurture or nature, I have no evidence, and don't want to say something uninformed.

It is easy to spout reasonable sounding stuff, harder to make it fact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Oh come on. It's not as straightforward as that. It's played as if he's accepting the situation where small children are mostly cared for by their mothers (is that still true?) and by accepting, endorsing it. He doesn't endorse that, of course, but that is how it's being played.


Why wouldn't he endorse it, though? And surely it is still the case that small children are mostly cared for by their mothers.

Isn't this looking at the problem the wrong way round? Some people, mostly women, are less committed to/able to attend worky things and so are losing out on opportunities - shown by the way the gender pay gap is wider among parents. But it's good that kids form strong attachments from a young age with at least one parent - it's a good thing for a parent to step back from work commitments to be a parent for a bit at least. If that parent is more often the mother than the father, is that necessarily something that shouldn't be accepted?

This is a massively tricky problem, one that no country in the world has managed to address, at least partly for the above reason - because this is a part of something that many people, many women, want to do.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

So meantime, we have to go with what is, rather than what anyone thinks it should be? And what is, is that women do the bulk of child-rearing, even now? Hmm. And let's not overlook the not-so-subtle social cues that encourage women to think they are uniquely programmed, and which disparage male parenting skills.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 2, 2016)




----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why wouldn't he endorse it, though? And surely it is still the case that small children are mostly cared for by their mothers.
> 
> Isn't this looking at the problem the wrong way round? Some people, mostly women, are less committed to/able to attend worky things and so are losing out on opportunities - shown by the way the gender pay gap is wider among parents. But it's good that kids form strong attachments from a young age with at least one parent - it's a good thing for a parent to step back from work commitments to be a parent for a bit at least. If that parent is more often the mother than the father, is that necessarily something that shouldn't be accepted?
> 
> This is a massively tricky problem, one that no country in the world has managed to address, at least partly for the above reason - because this is a part of something that many people, many women, want to do.




But it would be good if the menfolk didn't feel stupid for helping out too (not just because of man pressure), because that is how it sometimes feels like.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> But it would be good if the menfolk didn't feel stupid for helping out too (not just because of man pressure), because that is how it sometimes feels like.


Does it? Who makes it feel like that?


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

Why cannot men be as good as women at looking after small children?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 2, 2016)

Boys thinking you don't have a proper job, girls thinking what are you doing here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> So meantime, we have to go with what is, rather than what anyone thinks it should be? And what is, is that women do the bulk of child-rearing, even now? Hmm. And let's not overlook the not-so-subtle social cues that encourage women to think they are uniquely programmed, and which disparage male parenting skills.


Part of what should be, though, is surely that kids should have lots of time with a primary carer? And the mother is the one who goes through pregnancy, gives birth, has functional nipples. There is _some_ biology to this, surely. 

The problem, as noted above, has to be more related to the low status attached to child-rearing. It's a deep structural problem. Not easily addressed.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Boys thinking you don't have a proper job, girls thinking what are you doing here.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.
> 
> It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.
> 
> ...


Not nobody, not even the Great Dictator himself, has suggested banning workmates from socialising. Part of the reason for commenting on it is because people ask why women don't get promoted as often. Well, this is one of the reasons. It's simple acknowledgement. 

However, while bans on socialising would be counterproductive, it would be beneficial for everybody if socialising organised by the employers were reduced. In some workplaces Friday night drinks are practically obligatory - for example, if you don't go you won't even hear about a new project coming up that would help you in future promotions. Anyone claiming this sort of thing doesn't happen is either lying or very stupid.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Part of what should be, though, is surely that kids should have lots of time with a primary carer? And the mother is the one who goes through pregnancy, gives birth, has functional nipples. There is _some_ biology to this, surely.
> 
> The problem, as noted above, has to be more related to the low status attached to child-rearing. It's a deep structural problem. Not easily addressed.


Functional nipples? 
Right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Not nobody, not even the Great Dictator himself, has suggested banning workmates from socialising. Part of the reason for commenting on it is because people ask why women don't get promoted as often. Well, this is one of the reasons. It's simple acknowledgement.
> 
> However, while bans on socialising would be counterproductive, it would be beneficial for everybody if socialising organised by the employers were reduced. In some workplaces Friday night drinks are practically obligatory - for example, if you don't go you won't even hear about a new project coming up that would help you in future promotions. Anyone claiming this sort of thing doesn't happen is either lying or very stupid.


Yeah. Bosses could definitely help in this matter by making a point of not announcing shit at drinkies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Functional nipples?
> Right.


Yeh
That's the least of lbj's problems, liberalism a rather larger issue


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Functional nipples?
> Right.


Yes. It's not nothing. Of course men can look after children too, but the idea that mothers and fathers are biologically equal in the matter is just wrong.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 2, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. It's not nothing. Of course men can look after children too, but the idea that mothers and fathers are biologically equal in the matter is just wrong.


Right. Just tell that to all the women who don't breastfeed. There are quite a lot of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> But it would be good if the menfolk didn't feel stupid for helping out too (not just because of man pressure), because that is how it sometimes feels like.


To you


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 2, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Just to be clear that it was skyscraper I was replying to and I don't think you mean him as someone who's usually anti-woman.



It was general venom at the usual suspects.


----------



## coley (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And this is what the leader of the opposition chooses to address in the circumstances...
> 
> Nothing on Brexit, nothing on energy policy, nothing about actually opposing the government.
> 
> Way to set the agenda Jezza...


It grinds me teeth to say it, but  I actually agree with you.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2016)

Jezza will remain quiet until he wins the election and then the late night knock on the door and those carrying the large black bin liners will be about.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> To you


Yes, to me. I think it is fair to generalise somewhat. Have you anything to offer of your personal experiences?


----------



## coley (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> One statement out of a speech and the media pick it up and you pick on it to pretend it's important. He mentioned cuts affecting women and womens' rape crisis centres are they unimportant?
> Your statement above that he said "nothing on opposing the government" was actually a lie wasn't it.
> 
> 
> ...


Hate to agree with the geezer but Corbyn should know the 'rules of engagement' by now, he should have known this one comment would overshadow, and take precedence over the general substance of his main points


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

I think our Mr C may be more combative after facing down the gits, when he wins again.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing do you have some insight you'd like to share?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

I didnt think this thread could get much worse.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> DrRingDing do you have some insight you'd like to share?



I've got terrible wind after eating some tasty bean thing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I didnt think this thread could get much worse.



You've been here long enough to know that ain't true.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Yes, to me. I think it is fair to generalise somewhat. Have you anything to offer of your personal experiences?


anything more, you mean


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I didnt think this thread could get much worse.


Right, the feminists have been dominating it too long. Back to normal service.


----------



## coley (Sep 3, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I've worked in _a _city.


I haven't, worked and was. usually too knackered, ( and too hard up)  to even contemplate after work 'drinky poos'
Obliviously  MC and even UMC, that's sorted that definition out.


----------



## coley (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Chances are that that older man is the sad, ageing partner with a booze problem, a wife that they don't want to go home to and zero influence among the wider partnership, in my experience.


Experience? or a recent look in the mirror? Or both?


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

That whole drinky poos culture is shit. It's so ingrained we (I) hardly even notice what shit it is. I'm well out of it now but wish I had recognised it at the time for the wheedling shit it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

I've had a good laugh at workplaces with a big drinks culture.


----------



## coley (Sep 3, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Why cannot men be as good as women at looking after small children?


Good question, looking forward to the answers


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

coley said:


> Good question, looking forward to the answers


Rhetorical question. I reckon they can.
E2A, in my experience, they can.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

It excludes a lot of people. Going for a curry is more inclusive and less damaging.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It excludes a lot of people. Going for a curry is more inclusive and less damaging.


Depends where you work. I can think of a couple of places where everyone's been a drinker without exception. 

While I agree with everything scifisam's said on this, the idea that there is something wrong with having some drinks with colleagues after work is in danger of becoming pretty puritanical. That's not the solution to the problem. If only it were so easy, tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

The idea of drinking anywhere near your boss - or any of the wannabe bosses - is repellent.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It excludes a lot of people. Going for a curry is more inclusive and less damaging.


Going for a curry excludes me. I can't digest strong spices. (OK, I have to settle for the pasanda.  )
And no, drinks can't ever be inclusive. But is there actually a problem that needs solving by bonding after work? In the far-off days that we could all do it thoughtlessly, it was great, but is it actually necessary?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Depends where you work. I can think of a couple of places where everyone's been a drinker without exception.



That's a insensitive attitude to take. A lot of people suffer from drinking....and the people around them. It's problematic on a number of levels. 

There's serious pressure to join in work drinks and some people may go along due to this pressure. 

Historically I've been a 'real ale enthusiast' but i also recognise the harm.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Going for a curry excludes me. I can't digest strong spices. (OK, I have to settle for the pasanda.  )
> And no, drinks can't ever be inclusive. But is there actually a problem that needs solving by bonding after work? In the far-off days that we could all do it thoughtlessly, it was great, but is it actually necessary?



Eating together releases oxytocin which helps bonds groups.

Food is the answer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's a insensitive attitude to take. A lot of people suffer from drinking....and the people around them. It's problematic on a number of levels.
> 
> There's serious pressure to join in work drinks and some people may go along due to this pressure.
> 
> Historically I've been a 'real ale enthusiast' but i also recognise the harm.


I'm not really talking of the kind of 'obligatory drinks', just socialising because you want to socialise. You're right about 'top-down' organised drinks, but ime in the places I've worked it's not been like that. The drinkers have gone drinking, is all.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not really talking of the kind of 'obligatory drinks', just socialising because you want to socialise. You're right about 'top-down' organised drinks, but ime in the places I've worked it's not been like that. The drinkers have gone drinking, is all.



I'm not refering to drinks you are ordered to go to. There is huge pressure to go on purely 'social' sessions.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> The idea of drinking anywhere near your boss - or any of the wannabe bosses - is repellent.



...and is ripe for potential exploitation and abuse.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The drinkers have gone drinking, is all.


Yeh. Not a good strategy, not a good look.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm not refering to drinks you are ordered to go to. There is huge pressure to go on purely 'social' sessions.


If there are people you want to hang out with who don't drink, then you will maybe organise something else. Maybe not. Maybe they'll end up being excluded from a night out. But it's heavy-handed social engineering to tell a bunch of people who fancy getting drunk that they shouldn't be going off to the pub.

I've also worked in one place that had tea and cakes on a Friday afternoon. I found it boring as hell, tbh. If we're no longer working, can I have a beer please?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Yeh. Not a good strategy, not a good look.


If you give a shit about how it looks, probably not.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

No, I don't really. I was being flippant. But yeh, you go ahead.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

I've never worked in a place where drinking after work was important. If it happened it was a nice surprise if it fitted in.

Eating is cool too, but takes a much bigger chunk out of the evening.

Anyway, this was a small point in a much larger agenda from Jez and his team, and they seem pretty open to discussion if you don't start from the position of hating them.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 3, 2016)

But there are workplaces were staying late and drinking are the culture, and socialising with the boss, colleagues and clients are still a key part of getting ahead. It's not coincidence these are often highly paid sectors dominated by white men from certain public schools. As a lowly nurse I've never worked in such places (although with hindsight going down the pub *all the time* wasn't the most inclusive thing we could've done in several old jobs given the amount of Muslim co-workers) but I have mates in banking and accountancy who were completely sidelined after children for not fitting into the long hours, drinking culture.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> ...and is ripe for potential exploitation and abuse.


Yep.  Even if it's not wandering hands level gross abuse, a boss with a few drinks inside them usually ends up, under the guise of 'banter', offering opinions on fellow workers and expecting you to join in. Yuk. I don't go the pub much after work now, but one of the pleasures about it was a few of you trooping off to the boozer and seeing the the slightly hurt expression in the eye of your now promoted ex colleague. Make the fuckers know they aren't welcome!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Nice to see we're following the tabloid agenda and ignoring the equality policies announced.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> But there are workplaces were staying late and drinking are the culture, and socialising with the boss, colleagues and clients are still a key part of the culture. It's not coincidence these are often highly paid sectors dominated by white men from certain public schools. As a lowly nurse I've never worked in such places (although with hindsight going down the pub *all the time* wasn't the most inclusive thing we could've done in several old jobs given the amount of Muslim co-workers) but I have mates in banking and accountancy who were completely sidelined after children for not fitting into the long hours, drinking culture.


Yep, what I've been talking about hasn't been that at all, tbf. I have a mate who works in accountancy and it is all about that with him. He earns shitloads of money. 

Corbyn does need to be careful when he addresses this, because there will be a lot of people who drink after work (but not with the bosses) who won't really relate to it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 3, 2016)

But there's also loads of people for whom it's a no brainer. Even in my NHS job I feel the pressure of long hours culture from some quarters; that I'm somehow taking the piss by working flexible (full time) hours to facilitate childcare. I've been told in at least one job interview that I couldn't have the job if I wanted to work non 9-5 hours without real justification.


----------



## bluescreen (Sep 3, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> But there's also loads of people for whom it's a no brainer. Even in my NHS job I feel the pressure of long hours culture from some quarters; that I'm somehow taking the piss by working flexible (full time) hours to facilitate childcare. I've been told in at least one job interview that I couldn't have the job if I wanted to work non 9-5 hours without real justification.


 That's appalling, Plumdaff. I'm not doubting it happens, just appalled that we let it.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Nice to see we're following the tabloid agenda and ignoring the equality policies announced.


Agree with PM, and stop overanalysing a small point; after all we have already done it to death anyway.

Given this is a JC thread, can anyone work out how long it will take throwing people out to get the new contender close. I think it was a 24% lead in that poll, not to be complacent.

I didn't like the last Welsh guy in charge, and I am part Welsh (not proper Welsh Welsh).


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 3, 2016)

Yeah, it's definitely the Welshness that's the fucking problem


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> That's appalling, Plumdaff. I'm not doubting it happens, just appalled that we let it.


Ignore my last comment if there are real stories to tell. I feel a bit of a fool, except most of this subthread was posturing or not knowing what juggling kids and work is like.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Yeah, it's definitely the Welshness that's the fucking problem


Sighs again, humour! And given my welsh grandma I can make a joke pretending that the problem with Kinnock was tha he had a problem with the Clifton Suspension Bridge.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah! But me and diamond have worked in The City. Not together, mind, I'd like to make that clear.



And I worked in The CIty. Shit, none of us are much good. You'd think we could have bombed the Square Mile or brought it to its knees somehow.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Friends who've had jobs in the city tell me participating in post-work drinks is necessary if you want to get anywhere. It's a total no-brainer that this discriminates against women.



Or it discriminates against people who have to dash home for childcare responsibilities, or people whose evenings are devoted to evening classes or Open University, or people who want to get home sharpish to go to meetings of their local trainspotter group or foreign language conversation meetings or chess club or computery-gaming thingy or some kind of religious evening service thing, or Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, or exercise classes or running around hunting Pokemon, or people who prefer not to spend a minute more than necessary with the work colleagues, or people who have to get home to feed their large collection of pet rattlesnakes* or whatever, and some of these might be women and some of them might be men, and judging by some people I have worked with, some of them might be extremely strange aliens, but it is by no means obvious that all are women. 

And all of those dash-home-ASAP things are no doubt terribly important to the people who choose to do them, but they do *choose* to do them. Their choices do not in and of themselves prove that somebody is discriminating against them. 

Actually, it could *very *well be that women joining in an after-work drinks scene could find themselves being deliberately frozen out and made to feel very uncomfortable by the men, and that would indicate discrimination rather more than people staying away from such in-group "networking" for other reasons does.

* It occurs to me that snakes might be things that don't really care about feeding times. Oh well then, illegal pet wolves or something.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It excludes a lot of people. Going for a curry is more inclusive and less damaging.


But you could agree for stop for one drink or two, then be heading off soonishly, whereas going for a curry takes a bit more time, and you're pretty much committed to waiting for the food to happen and then eating it, and then possibly a drink to wash it down ... quite a time sink.

Also, might really not like curry, whereas most people are capable of finding some liquid that they enjoy drinking.

I can see that the many woes of the Labour Party are going to get subsumed into worries about workplace cultures.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2016)

I've read* that the cultural expectation in Denmark us that at the end of the contacted work day, you go home to spend time with your family and friends, and that those hanging around are looked down on and that everybody is the happier for it.  The idea that you hang around after work to spend yet more time with the people you are already contractually obliged to spend 40 hours a week with seems to be particularly anglophone.  It isn't a natural law. 


*Affluenza by Oliver James, if memory serves.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

coley said:


> It grinds me teeth to say it, but  I actually agree with you.



That Corbyn has said "Nothing on Brexit, nothing on energy policy, nothing about actually opposing the government."?

It's not true though is it - even in that one talk he talked about actually opposing the government. And he was discussing problems experienced by women in the work place so why would he discuss Brexit or energy policy?

And from the discussions it seems the after work drinks culture is actually a problem with some jobs. You might find it trivial (it's not something I've come across because I'm male and I work freelance) but he was addressing problems experienced by women and it seems it's a problem experienced by women.

Is he not allowed to raise it because it's going to be pounced on by the media? Just about anything he says is pounced on by the media.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

Never had the culture in my career of drinks after work, we all were more concerned at getting home to our families and/or pastimes.
Most of the blokes I have worked with would never drink with management anyway.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

I saw this link saying Corbyn pledged to support all-women shortlists and 50:50 representation in the cabinet and shadow cabinet and a number of other things regarding Labour Party structures and behaviour of members. And I also remember when Corbyn first became leader he said about women being a majority in a Labour shadow cabinet for the first time (might have misremembered, but it was something like that), though I don't know if that's still the case for his new cabinet.

This got me thinking has he implemented any measures or pledged to do so about working class representation in the Labour Party? I've not heard of anything, though with the way his leadership has gone it might not have been publicised. I would've thought for someone of parliamentary socialist views this would be quite important (though I kind of think that if you become an mp it's not really credible to claim you're working class anymore mind you but leaving that aside...).

Has there been any talk of all-working class shortlists (or from working class backgrounds anyway)? Or a proportionate ratio of MPs, councillors, etc? It ought to be about 60:40 in favour of working class if that were implemented.

Searching on google hasn't come up with anything - has anyone heard of policies like that?


----------



## belboid (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> Has there been any talk of all-working class shortlists (or from working class backgrounds anyway)?


Not really workable, is it?  Define 'working class' - just for starters. Lawyers still sell their labour, y'know


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 3, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I've read* that the cultural expectation in Denmark us that at the end of the contacted work day, you go home to spend time with your family and friends, and that those hanging around are looked down on and that everybody is the happier for it.  The idea that you hang around after work to spend yet more time with the people you are already contractually obliged to spend 40 hours a week with seems to be particularly anglophone.  It isn't a natural law.



Yes, apparently it's perfectly normal over there for high-level executives to run out of important board meetings to pick the kids up from school.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> Not really workable, is it?  Define 'working class' - just for starters. Lawyers still sell their labour, y'know



'Not privately educated' maybe?


----------



## belboid (Sep 3, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> 'Not privately educated' maybe?


Seamus wont let that one past


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> Not really workable, is it?  Define 'working class' - just for starters. Lawyers still sell their labour, y'know


I suppose so. You'd think there'd be some kind of measure they could use that would at least move in that direction. I don't really know what though I have to admit.

It's in keeping with Labour traditions as it is I guess.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> Seamus wont let that one past



This is one of those 'part of the solution' vs 'part of the problem' things I expect


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> I suppose so. You'd think there'd be some kind of measure they could use that would at least move in that direction. I don't really know what though I have to admit.
> 
> It's in keeping with Labour traditions as it is I guess.



Consistently and genuinely being the kind of party that working class people want to play an active part in might work.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Consistently and genuinely being the kind of party that working class people want to play an active part in might work.


would it? I don't know. it doesn't help much to breach the barriers in the way of it as far as I can see. Barriers of education, connections, available time, familiarity negotiating bureaucratic/political structures and language, self confidence in being 'leadership'/politician material, various other forms of social capital, etc.

You could have a political party with a mass working class membership base that is still dominated at the top level by non working class people because of those barriers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that described the Labour Party in the past, though I haven't looked in to it.

I mean, personally I don't care about representation in the Labour Party, but as Corbyn has gone down that road already I was just curious about it really.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I've read* that the cultural expectation in Denmark us that at the end of the contacted work day, you go home to spend time with your family and friends, and that those hanging around are looked down on and that everybody is the happier for it.  The idea that you hang around after work to spend yet more time with the people you are already contractually obliged to spend 40 hours a week with seems to be particularly anglophone.  It isn't a natural law.
> 
> 
> *Affluenza by Oliver James, if memory serves.



I worked for while in Denmark and would often be downing schnapps at 8am for whoevers birthday it was.....but only went boozing once after work.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> I saw this link saying Corbyn pledged to support all-women shortlists and 50:50 representation in the cabinet and shadow cabinet and a number of other things regarding Labour Party structures and behaviour of members. And I also remember when Corbyn first became leader he said about women being a majority in a Labour shadow cabinet for the first time (might have misremembered, but it was something like that), though I don't know if that's still the case for his new cabinet.
> 
> This got me thinking has he implemented any measures or pledged to do so about working class representation in the Labour Party? I've not heard of anything, though with the way his leadership has gone it might not have been publicised. I would've thought for someone of parliamentary socialist views this would be quite important (though I kind of think that if you become an mp it's not really credible to claim you're working class anymore mind you but leaving that aside...).
> 
> ...


He has promised to bring in bursaries for working class people who want to put themselves up for selection as parliamentary candidates. You need thousands to be able to mount a campaign, ( the blairite candidate for thamesmead had a £30k pot given to her although she was still beaten), so unless you have private funds or serious backing of a union you're excluded.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2016)

Is he? That was Tom Watson's policy. It's also tory policy. 

But then why would i want w/c labour MPs? Is the problem really that MPs aren't from w/c backgrounds? Or is it something deeper, more structural?


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> But then why would i want w/c labour MPs? Is the problem really that MPs aren't from w/c backgrounds? Or is it something deeper, more structural?


was that bit to me? was just idle curiosity really. Whatever class they're from they'll not be on my side, but then I'm not a supporter of the project in the first place.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2016)

No, to Southlondon.


----------



## Sue (Sep 3, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> 'Not privately educated' maybe?



Not saying you're doing it but being state educated seems to be increasingly equated with 'working class'. Which is very strange.

(Guess it's up there with Kate Middleton and her £30k+ a year schooling being constantly referred to as 'middle class'.)


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I too have worked in the city and it's true


Likewise. Or certainly was 10 years ago.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Sorry - I'm paying attention to the _*wrong*_ words, evidently...


As ever, Diamond, as ever...


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is he? That was Tom Watson's policy. It's also tory policy.
> 
> But then why would i want w/c labour MPs? Is the problem really that MPs aren't from w/c backgrounds? Or is it something deeper, more structural?


Corbyn endorsed it. Hopefully it will contribute towards getting MPs that look more like the people they represent, rather than suited  professional politicians chosen from on high. I still have that image in my head of mandelson looking awkward eating fish and chips with the good people of Hartlepool. 
While we have a parliamentary system we will have MPs so I'd still rather have a working class Labour Mp than someone with no life experience other than uni and a think tank or a lobby group.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 3, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> Corbyn endorsed it. Hopefully it will contribute towards getting MPs that look more like the people they represent, rather than suited  professional politicians chosen from on high. I still have that image in my head of mandelson looking awkward eating fish and chips with the good people of Hartlepool.
> While we have a parliamentary system we will have MPs so I'd still rather have a working class Labour Mp than someone with no life experience other than uni and a think tank or a lobby group.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> Corbyn endorsed it. Hopefully it will contribute towards getting MPs that look more like the people they represent, rather than suited  professional politicians chosen from on high. I still have that image in my head of mandelson looking awkward eating fish and chips with the good people of Hartlepool.
> While we have a parliamentary system we will have MPs so I'd still rather have a working class Labour Mp than someone with no life experience other than uni and a think tank or a lobby group.


i'll certainly enjoy it far more having my living standards attacked by people who are at ease eating fish and chips


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 3, 2016)

Guacamole or mushy peas ?


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> it'll certainly enjoy it far more having my living standards attacked by people who are at ease eating fish and chips


I am a leftie in the party becaus I want to help elect MPs that won't attack my living standards. More council tenants and and benefit-experienced etc members in positions of power and I would hope we can refocus to protecting and enhancing our living standards


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 3, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I am a leftie in the party becaus I want to help elect MPs that won't attack my living standards. More council tenants and and benefit-experienced etc members in positions of power and I would hope we can refocus to protecting and enhancing our living standards



Like Stephen Crabb and John Major.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Like Stephen Crabb and John Major.


can't deny Crabb has put his experiences to good use


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Like Stephen Crabb and John Major.




Crabbe has gone from DWP now.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

Bursaries for garden gnome manufacturers.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> would it? I don't know. it doesn't help much to breach the barriers in the way of it as far as I can see. Barriers of education, connections, available time, familiarity negotiating bureaucratic/political structures and language, self confidence in being 'leadership'/politician material, various other forms of social capital, etc.
> 
> You could have a political party with a mass working class membership base that is still dominated at the top level by non working class people because of those barriers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that described the Labour Party in the past, though I haven't looked in to it.
> 
> I mean, personally I don't care about representation in the Labour Party, but as Corbyn has gone down that road already I was just curious about it really.



I believe it could, yes, and I believe the history of the party bears out at least that it's _possible _for that to work - though clearly it hasn't done consistently throughout its history, or at all for a long time now. Some of the most active and effective small-p-political activists I've known were part of a group of working class women for whom all the barriers you mention and more existed at least in theory. Most of them had been active in the Labour party at a time when it still felt like there was some hope for it but from the early 80s on became disillusioned/disengaged as it moved further and further from being of and for the working class. Had the party followed a different path I've no doubt some of them would now be household names nationally.

Can the Labour Party do it now is a different question - like you I'm not sure I really care. I think the movement behind Corbyn has been an interesting development but I've wondered from the start and am more and more sure that focusing everyone's attention on trying to steer the Labour Party (back?) in a more positive direction is misguided and futile.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 3, 2016)

So what the Labour Party really needs is more horny handed sons of toil like Frank Field and Alan Johnson, and fewer public schoolboys who've never had a real job - Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 3, 2016)

I wasn't for a second suggesting every working-class MP who's 'pulled themselves up by the bootstraps' is fine and every middle-class do-gooding one is a monster and part of the problem.  Cherry-picking individuals - especially individuals who've risen to their current positions within a party context which clearly _is_ part of the problem - doesn't prove anything. Obviously the working-class candidates who are likely to succeed in a party which doesn't genuinely or consistently care about the working class are going to be the ones who most enthusiastically ditch any semblance of solidarity, even if they like to make a big show of their roots for historical/rhetorical reasons.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 3, 2016)

The Guardian (John Crace - A digital dilemma for Corbyn, and business as usual again for the Tories) point out that when Corbyn launched his digital manifesto earlier in the week, attendees were pointed towards this web domain by his Facebook page:

HugeDomains.com - JeremyCorbyn.com is for sale (Jeremy Corbyn)


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2016)

The BBC reveal the mystery man behind the campaign to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader...

Saving Labour? The secretive battle to oust Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Diamond (Sep 3, 2016)

What I can't understand about the incompetence of the Corbyn office is whether it is just a question of genuine, honest failures by a team that is not used to doing all the boring stuff around running an effective opposition or whether there is something more sinister to do with the Labour party machine not deigning to offer him material support.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That Corbyn has said "Nothing on Brexit, nothing on energy policy, nothing about actually opposing the government."?
> 
> It's not true though is it - even in that one talk he talked about actually opposing the government. And he was discussing problems experienced by women in the work place so why would he discuss Brexit or energy policy?
> 
> ...



But that's the thing with being the leader of a political party - anything and everything you say will be and should be scrutinised.

How else are people supposed to form an opinion on the man?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> What I can't understand about the incompetence of the Corbyn office is whether it is just a question of genuine, honest failures by a team that is not used to doing all the boring stuff around running an effective opposition or whether there is something more sinister to do with the Labour party machine not deigning to offer him material support.



He's blatantly going to win his second leadership contest in as many years, despite the massed forces of all those who've been running the party for decades, and of course the financial clout of their backers, and almost the entire media. And you think it's Corbyn's side that's incompetent?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 3, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> He's blatantly going to win his second leadership contest in as many years, despite the massed forces of all those who've been running the party for decades, and of course the financial clout of their backers, and almost the entire media. And you think it's Corbyn's side that's incompetent?



My view is that Corbyn and his team have not demonstrated anything like the level of competence required to take on the Tories and win a mandate to govern.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> But that's the thing with being the leader of a political party - anything and everything you say will be and should be scrutinised.
> 
> How else are people supposed to form an opinion on the man?



By - for example - whether he/she's going to sell off the NHS cheaply to the people who funded his/her party and election campaign? 

You know, something important rather than just trivia.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> My view is that Corbyn and his team have not demonstrated anything like the level of competence required to take on the Tories and win a mandate to govern.


Ah, the old competence chestnut. Tell me, do you think the coup plotters are a competent bunch? Each attempt they've made to oust Corbyn has made the Keystone Kops look like shit-hot criminologists. From what I've seen the coup plotters couldn't run a proverbial piss-up in a brewery. The current government isn't exactly competent either, yet the focus of this 'competence' narrative is on Corbyn. Funny that.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2016)

Fuck off, Desmond.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Eh?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> The BBC reveal the mystery man behind the campaign to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader...
> 
> Saving Labour? The secretive battle to oust Jeremy Corbyn



Lol. I used to remember Reg Race being in just about any platform that Socialist Organiser organised.sure he used to contribute to their paper and some other Trots in the Labour Party's paper. Was definitely on the Bennite left. Anyone else remember him?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Eh?


It's the only reasonable response to Desmond's shit trolling.  Telling him to fuck off.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The Guardian (John Crace - A digital dilemma for Corbyn, and business as usual again for the Tories) point out that when Corbyn launched his digital manifesto earlier in the week, attendees were pointed towards this web domain by his Facebook page:
> 
> HugeDomains.com - JeremyCorbyn.com is for sale (Jeremy Corbyn)


John Crace?  I'm splitting my sides.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Lol. I used to remember Reg Race being in just about any platform that Socialist Organiser organised.sure he used to contribute to their paper and some other Trots in the Labour Party's paper. Was definitely on the Bennite left. Anyone else remember him?



Only for his company Quality Health making millions from the NHS.
The treacherous, turncoat swine.
He and Owen Smith should get along well


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Lol. I used to remember Reg Race being in just about any platform that Socialist Organiser organised.sure he used to contribute to their paper and some other Trots in the Labour Party's paper. Was definitely on the Bennite left. Anyone else remember him?



I recognised the name, but can't really say I actually remembered him.


> ...His views, he says, have changed...


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> The BBC reveal the mystery man behind the campaign to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader...
> 
> Saving Labour? The secretive battle to oust Jeremy Corbyn



He's the person that has been selected to be the face of Saving Labour. It is highly likely he was chosen due to his previous of being left wing and thus a more credible opponent of Corbyn. I highly doubt he is the main man, just one of the plotters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> My view is that Corbyn and his team have not demonstrated anything like the level of competence required to take on the Tories and win a mandate to govern.


Yes. I would take your opinion more seriously if you had a history of competent political analysis instead of which every time you pop up and start posting in P&P you end up looking like a superficial, ignorant idiot. This outing of yours won't be any different


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Lol. I used to remember Reg Race being in just about any platform that Socialist Organiser organised.sure he used to contribute to their paper and some other Trots in the Labour Party's paper. Was definitely on the Bennite left. Anyone else remember him?


My brain momentarily confused him with Reg Prentice who was, from memory and before the SDP, one of the first MPs to cross the floor from Lab > Con. Woodward went the other way.  But yes, I remember him from the 70s, appearing in Tribune and on various Bennite platforms.  Haven't heard of him for years, surprised he's still above ground.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My brain momentarily confused him with Reg Prentice who was, from memory and before the SDP, one of the first MPs to cross the floor from Lab > Con. Woodward went the other way.  But yes, I remember him from the 70s, appearing in Tribune and on various Bennite platforms.  Haven't heard of him for years, surprised he's still above ground.


... and for what it's worth, having just looked on wiki, Prentice was motivated to defect to the Tories after being deselected (which was quite difficult in the 70s, before some changes made circa 81/2).  Whether any future deselections will lead to right wing MPs dashing to the Tories (rather than some as yet unformed new-New Labour party) will be interesting. To be honest though the Tories are in such a strong position they'd be wise to tell any aspiring defectors to fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2016)

kabbes said:


> particularly anglophone


factory system. Replicated through social life, _imposed _on social life


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2016)

I've worked in factories that still had the punch cards. Cross thread perhaps but it ties in with workplace discipline. If that card stamp was a minute late you got docked 15 mins pay. Guess what you got for staying 15 mins later at request. Shit all.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I've worked in factories that still had the punch cards. Cross thread perhaps but it ties in with workplace discipline. If that card stamp was a minute late you got docked 15 mins pay. Guess what you got for staying 15 mins later at request. Shit all.



and sadly these places not only still exist, but are more numerous every year!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

DP.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 3, 2016)

We had the electronic punch cards at one of my workplaces. Was easy to get someone to clock your card in for you though, so fuck em.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

Corbyn was in Ramsgate today, good move, he should visit other 'left behind' places, etc.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn was in Ramsgate today, good move, he should visit other 'left behind' places, etc.


LRB · James Meek · In Farageland


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

1000+ in Ramsgate, pretty good going.

update, organisers are saying well over 2000

of course many will be from surrounding areas, but still.

Voter turnout in 2015 was 70.4%. Tories got 38% of the vote. Labour got 24% of the vote. UKIP got 32% of the vote. Greens got 2% of the vote.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> LRB · James Meek · In Farageland



that is a fantastic article, read it ages ago.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> that is a fantastic article, read it ages ago.


Yes, it is good. I've meant to read some of his other stuff, must get round to it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My brain momentarily confused him with Reg Prentice



I considered asking for this thread to be closed as the appearance of this name as tainted and corrupted a decent thread. This weasel is unforgivable, he made Thatcher and Blair look trustworthy.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I considered asking for this thread to be closed as the appearance of this name as tainted and corrupted a decent thread. This weasel is unforgivable, he made Thatcher and Blair look trustworthy.


Yeah, he was a watchword for treachery in the Labour movement - till the SDP came along and took it to another level.  Rhodes Boyson was another one, labour councillor and possibly mayor (?) before heading Torywards.  Oh fuck, I've done it again...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

Since the thread was talking about the women's initiative stuff, as well as working class stuff, I don't know if Angela Rayner's mini-speech was linked to or not, but I thought it was really good. 

It showed how to talk about women's issues without it being empty, and tied it to class and poverty and education, and issues that will be far closer to most people's experiences than the stuff some other politicians come out with.

If we want more working class politicians, we want them to sound like her (not just in accent - but accent of course has an effect), and not Alan Johnson, for example. She spoke with a passion that showed she absolutely understood what it is to struggle and be ground down. Can you imagine her talking to constituents about their problems, and contrast it to someone like Tristram talking to his? Just that initial impression has an impact. But beyond that, for someone like Tristram those struggles are abstract. For someone like her they're a reality. (I'm not suggesting she's the second coming, I don't know much else about her tbh.)

It's not as easy as Corbs saying "right, 75% of all MPs must have worked in a factory" or whatever. As I wrote in another post, while he has some power, the party machinery (NEC and McNicol, and then region below them) have substantially more when it comes to things like shortlists and the like. It's easy for Corbyn to make his pledges about all-women shortlists - not least because Labour already has them (not sure what's so different about his conception of them) - because that's the way the wind is already blowing and there are few who would disagree with the general point. But all-working class shortlists? Quite apart from the impossibility of deciding what the criteria would be, it would be a policy based firmly in class, and the wind very much is not blowing in that direction in wider politics/society. It's pushing back against it, in fact. So it would require one heck of a lot more manoeuvring before it could be a manifesto point or party policy, or even a vague intention. For a start, McNicol needs to go, and then regional officers. But they're all employed, and not elected, so the way it's done would have to be very delicate to say the least. I hope the new NEC starts that work when they come in after conference, but the new 6 on the NEC aren't the only ones on there, so it's not like they suddenly have a clear road ahead of them to do what they want. McNicol's still there, for a start. 

I agree he needs to make it clear he wants 'ordinary people' coming into the ranks as MPs and administrative officers. A very overt announcement would be great, but I don't think it's going to happen in the way it did with something like all-women shortlists. This is the stuff of backroom manoeuvring. It's ensuring new members get involved in their CLPs so they can eventually stand for local positions, and it's getting rid of McNicol and regional officers so they can't stitch up selections, and it's getting those local people in a position where they can start standing, and actually have a chance of winning a selection (which is rare precisely because of the stitch-up culture; you'll get some golden boy parachuted in and region will fix it so the only others on the shortlist are really so abysmally dire you wouldn't vote for them even if they are a lefty - that plus other underhand shenanigans). It's the long game, which is incredibly frustrating of course.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2016)

Just been for after-work drinks with Mrs Hatter. Caned. Can't remember where Little Hatter is. Might have left him in the 3rd or 4th pub.

CORBYN WHERE'S MY BABY??


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 3, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Can't remember where Little Hatter is. Might have left him in the 3rd or 4th pub.


 
you're david cameron??


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, he was a watchword for treachery in the Labour movement - till the SDP came along and took it to another level.  Rhodes Boyson was another one, labour councillor and possibly mayor (?) before heading Torywards.  Oh fuck, I've done it again...




Boyson was Labour!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> Corbyn was in Ramsgate today, good move, he should visit other 'left behind' places, etc.



He's been to Cornwall twice this year.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> you're david cameron??


Absolutely not. We left mini hatter in a _decent_ boozer with good ale and cheap sandwiches


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> Boyson was Labour!


Yep, and alleged nonce.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

Just on the relatability thing:

Shortly after I saw Rayner's speech, I saw a clip of someone interviewing Rupa Huq. Now, I think she's a perfectly nice person, and not as... problematic as some of them in the PLP. But anyway. She was asked what jobs she had before she became an MP, and she said the usual stuff like working at WHSmiths. Then she said her job right before becoming an MP was lecturing, and in fact she was still lecturing afterwards because she hadn't wanted to hand in her resignation before the election since it was a swing seat and she might be out of a job. Then she said, "so I was sitting as an MP, and I was still marking exam papers. That brings you back down to earth, I can tell you."

Does it?

Does it?

Which earth would that be? Not the same one the majority of Labour Party voters would recognise.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Just on the relatability thing:
> 
> Shortly after I saw Rayner's speech, I saw a clip of someone interviewing Rupa Huq. Now, I think she's a perfectly nice person, and not as... problematic as some of them in the PLP. But anyway. She was asked what jobs she had before she became an MP, and she said the usual stuff like working at WHSmiths. Then she said her job right before becoming an MP was lecturing, and in fact she was still lecturing afterwards because she hadn't wanted to hand in her resignation before the election since it was a swing seat and she might be out of a job. Then she said, "so I was sitting as an MP, and I was still marking exam papers. That brings you back down to earth, I can tell you."
> 
> ...


She lectures at Kingston University and her specialism is hip-hop iirc. She's also Konnie Huq's sister - if that means owt.


----------



## belboid (Sep 3, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Lol. I used to remember Reg Race being in just about any platform that Socialist Organiser organised.sure he used to contribute to their paper and some other Trots in the Labour Party's paper. Was definitely on the Bennite left. Anyone else remember him?


The first man to (officially) say 'fuck' in parliament. And then the man that managed to lose Chesterfield to the libscum, after Benn retired.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

I know. (to nino)


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Just on the relatability thing:
> 
> Shortly after I saw Rayner's speech, I saw a clip of someone interviewing Rupa Huq. Now, I think she's a perfectly nice person, and not as... problematic as some of them in the PLP. But anyway. She was asked what jobs she had before she became an MP, and she said the usual stuff like working at WHSmiths. Then she said her job right before becoming an MP was lecturing, and in fact she was still lecturing afterwards because she hadn't wanted to hand in her resignation before the election since it was a swing seat and she might be out of a job. Then she said, "so I was sitting as an MP, and I was still marking exam papers. That brings you back down to earth, I can tell you."
> 
> ...



I dunno, sorry, I've never marked exam papers but I'd say it counts as valuable work.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Just on the relatability thing:
> 
> Shortly after I saw Rayner's speech, I saw a clip of someone interviewing Rupa Huq. Now, I think she's a perfectly nice person, and not as... problematic as some of them in the PLP. But anyway. She was asked what jobs she had before she became an MP, and she said the usual stuff like working at WHSmiths. Then she said her job right before becoming an MP was lecturing, and in fact she was still lecturing afterwards because she hadn't wanted to hand in her resignation before the election since it was a swing seat and she might be out of a job. Then she said, "so I was sitting as an MP, and I was still marking exam papers. That brings you back down to earth, I can tell you."
> 
> ...



Surely it depends on your position in the university, a lot of academics are very poorly paid and do not have great conditions at all. Rupa Huq appears to be a senior lecturer, so obviously that does not apply to her, though I suppose compared to the background of some MPs it might be constitute a modest salary.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I dunno, sorry, I've never marked exam papers but I'd say it counts as valuable work.



I don't think anyone questioned that either way


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think anyone questioned that either way



Indeed.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Surely it depends on your position in the university, a lot of academics are very poorly paid and do not have great conditions at all. Rupa Huq appears to be a senior lecturer, so obviously that does not apply to her, though I suppose compared to the background of some MPs it might be constitute a modest salary.



My point, as I stated right at the top of that post, was about relatability. I'm not bashing university lecturers or the act of marking exam papers (him indoors wouldn't be too pleased if I was). Relating to other academics isn't the same as having broad working class appeal.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

I know a fair few people who could be a trendy teacher but never will.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2016)

In the last election, I remember some callow youth pushing Ed Miliband on what actual real life experience he had and Miliband's best effort was to talk about the time he spent as a  lecturer in Harvard.  Car crash telly.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

kabbes said:


> In the last election, I remember some callow youth pushing Ed Miliband on what actual real life experience he had and Miliband's best effort was to talk about the time he spent as a  lecturer in Harvard.  Car crash telly.



In the run up to the last election someone I worked with told me that they were voting UKIP, not Labour, because Ed Miliband was privately educated. Now obviously Farage was privately educated and Miliband was not but if anything I think those facts demonstrate exactly what you are saying.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

It's relative isn't it but I'd love the modest salary of a lecturer.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Since the thread was talking about the women's initiative stuff, as well as working class stuff, I don't know if Angela Rayner's mini-speech was linked to or not, but I thought it was really good.
> 
> It showed how to talk about women's issues without it being empty, and tied it to class and poverty and education, and issues that will be far closer to most people's experiences than the stuff some other politicians come out with.
> 
> ...


I didn't really think Corbyn was going to implement all working class shortlists or a 60:40 ratio, just to be clear 
christ though, is it really worth playing this long game in Labour? According to that poll from a few days ago, about 40% of your own membership/supporters dislike Corbyn enough to vote for a total incompetent, unredeemable waste of space like Owen Smith. And if they boot out enough Corbyn supporters maybe they can increase that by a couple more percent. What a state Labour is in. All these battles you have to fight - what if they challenge him again? Then you've got to sort out the NEC some more, deselections, all sorts of rules in the party to overturn...

Meanwhile the closest I've heard anyone outside the internet come to a positive thing to say about Corbyn has been a bit of mild sympathy with the way he gets attacked all the time in the media - similar to Ed Miliband in that respect. It still is relatively early days I guess, but that's kind of the point too isn't it? There's such a long way to go.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> It's relative isn't it but I'd love the modest salary of a lecturer.


If you're an Hourly Paid Lecturer, you may be earning £50 an hour, but you're only getting between 2 and 4 hours a week. A lot of universities are operating in this way. Meanwhile VCs are swanning around on £600k+ per annum.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Indeed.



Yes fair play I was seeing it from her pov - "I'd like to be off doing something else that I enjoy but I've got to be sat here judging whether some young idiot has understood what we've been teaching them" rather than a house painter got back from a day's work. 

Still think she's got a point though.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> If you're an Hourly Paid Lecturer, you may be earning £50 an hour, but you're only getting between 2 and 4 hours a week. A lot of universities are operating in this way. Meanwhile VCs are swanning around on £600k+ per annum.



One of my co-workers was on nearly 9 quid an hour but had her hours reduced from 24 to 8 (original contract) last year.  Thank goodness she still lives with her parents.  It isn't an exercise in being prolier than thou, just an illustration.  Seems like similar things are happening to the unskilled as well as highly educated.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> One of my co-workers was on nearly 9 quid an hour but had her hours reduced from 24 to 8 (original contract) last year.  Thank goodness she still lives with her parents.  It isn't an exercise in being prolier than thou, just an illustration.  Seems like similar things are happening to the unskilled as well as highly educated.


Zero hours and temporary contracts are being pushed all over the place - especially in the public sector, where wages have been frozen for years.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> One of my co-workers was on nearly 9 quid an hour but had her hours reduced from 24 to 8 (original contract) last year.  Thank goodness she still lives with her parents.  It isn't an exercise in being prolier than thou, just an illustration.  Seems like similar things are happening to the unskilled as well as highly educated.



why although i totally understand it, I think the stress on only the working class is a mistake. The middle class are getting squeezed too. There's a lot of them and we need them to be onside too. And no reason why they shouldn't be.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> why although i totally understand it, I think the stress on only the working class is a mistake. The middle class are getting squeezed too. There's a lot of them and we need them to be onside too. And no reason why they shouldn't be.



Most people who consider themselves to be middle class I'd consider to be prole like me.  And when the media has been talking about the squeezed middle it's about people far from those.  It's almost as if millions of people don't exist in this society.  

The battleground is where this needs to be recognised and differences argued.  And a 'working class' politics which either consciously or unconsciously reproduces these divisions is not very useful to me.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Zero hours and temporary contracts are being pushed all over the place - especially in the public sector, where wages have been frozen for years.



Sure.  Here too.


----------



## inva (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Most people who consider themselves to be middle class I'd consider to be prole like me.  And when the media has been talking about the squeezed middle it's about people far from those.  It's almost as if millions of people don't exist in this society.
> 
> The battleground is where this needs to be recognised and differences argued.  And a 'working class' politics which either consciously or unconsciously reproduces these divisions is not very useful to me.


and this being onside in cross class alliances seems usually to mean in practice middle class dominance of movements/organisations


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

And fuck the well-fed public schoolboy saying class isn't a useful concept.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Zero hours and temporary contracts are being pushed all over the place - especially in the public sector, where wages have been frozen for years.



They are multiplying all the time.
It is a shame there is no effective opposition to their implementation in Westminster.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Zero hours and temporary contracts are being pushed all over the place - especially in the public sector, where wages have been frozen for years.



Our branch (Brighton) have done the math - in the last 9 years, us council bods have taken a 22% pay cut, whilst we're fed these fucking 1% pay rises every 2-3 years.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> and this being onside in cross class alliances seems usually to mean in practice middle class dominance of movements/organisations



Yep.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Our branch (Brighton) have done the math - in the last 9 years, us council bods have taken a 22% pay cut, whilst we're fed these fucking 1% pay rises every 2-3 years.


And many if not all council chief executives earn more than the PM. It's fucking obscene.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> They are multiplying all the time.
> It is a shame there is no effective opposition to their implementation in Westminster.


I don't think Mr. Normal's had anything to say on the subject of casualisation. I don't think he cares. Neither do any of the other megalomaniacs.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> It is a shame there is no effective opposition to their implementation in Westminster.



General Strike. Followed by months of rioting. Smash the fuckers.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> General Strike. Followed by months of rioting. Smash the fuckers.


You've just been banned from the next 8 LP Leadership elections.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> And many if not all council chief executives earn more than the PM. It's fucking obscene.



And d'ya know what fucks me off, Labour council leader going "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa, but the Tories are cutting our funding", whilst said Labour leader attacks lowest paid in sector. Over priv'd self serving careerist cunt.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You've just been banned from the next 8 LP Leadership elections.



Good. Fuck the LP.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

I've just been banned for liking that 

But they've stopped me voting anyway (subject to appeal) so fuck em


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Do you see any sign of a general strike happening soon? TUC get off your knees?

People in general are irritated now, not angry. It isn't a bad start.

A few hundred thousand people new to or back behind a less ranty version of a proper left should be celebrated as part of a shift we haven't seen for ages. If they all get stabbed in the back, there will be angry zombies.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

I've got no LGPS cos I can't afford it. I'll go rental on their arse when I'm a pensioner - blaze of glory! 

EX ARMED FORCES ANARCHIST PENSIONER IN WESTMINSTER TERROR HIT SHOCKER!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Do you see any sign of a general strike happening soon? TUC get off your knees?
> 
> People in general are irritated now, not angry. It isn't a bad start.
> 
> A few hundred thousand people new to or back behind a less ranty version of a proper left should be celebrated as part of a shift we haven't seen for ages. If they all get stabbed in the back, there will be angry zombies.



Fuck the TUC!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I've got no LGPS cos I can't afford it. I'll go rental on their arse when I'm a pensioner - blaze of glory!
> 
> EX ARMED FORCES ANARCHIST PENSIONER IN WESTMINSTER TERROR HIT SHOCKER!



I always promised myself I'd take someone out if I got an incurable disease but also understood that they'd find a cure the day after


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck the TUC!


Not my type.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Not my type.








Unoriginal, & fucking dry.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> EX ARMED FORCES ANARCHIST PENSIONER IN WESTMINSTER TERROR HIT SHOCKER!



ViolentPanda's fave wank fantasy!


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Unoriginal, & fucking dry.


More my type though, with a bit of cheese and apple.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ViolentPanda's fave wank fantasy!



It's no fantasy.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> More my type though, with a bit of cheese and apple.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Better a cracker for the masses than a prince charles wank cake


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

.. than a macker for the crasses? 

don't work


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Better a cracker for the masses than a prince charles wank cake



Don't get me started on that jug eared cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Don't get me started on that jug eared cunt


pass the duchy on the left hand side


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> pass the duchy on the left hand side





You finished oiling my Purdey's?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> You finished oiling my Purdey's?


oh dear 

shotgun not oiled






sidekick oiled


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Sacked!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Sacked!


another bastard boss


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Diana Rigg was better, especially kicking arse in a catsuit. She still rules.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Diana Rigg was better, especially kicking arse in a catsuit. She still rules.


yes. but she played emma peel and not purdey. do you see how this wouldn't have worked?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but she played emma peel and not purdey. do you see how this wouldn't have worked?


Quite right. I stand corrected.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> another bastard boss



Boss & Co - inferior gun makers compared to James Purdey. James's scroll work was heavenly. Guns made by the Borg to kill the Borg.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Boss & Co - inferior gun makers compared to James Purdey. James's scroll work was heavenly. Guns made by the Borg to kill the Borg.


i referred of course to your sacking me


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

I'm going to tweet Corbyn - would he prefer a Boss or a Purdey to kill his opposition


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

or a Bishie????


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i referred of course to your sacking me



I'd never sack you comrade. My 'sacked' comment was rather a cheap sexist comment to your pic of Purdey tbh


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> or a Bishie????



He'll be resigned to the infirmary (or dead) before i go full on Guy Fawkes! VP might beat me to it though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'd never sack you comrade. My 'sacked' comment was rather a cheap sexist comment to your pic of Purdey tbh


i will withdraw my approach to the employment tribunal


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i will withdraw my approach to the employment tribunal



Grazie!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> Crabbe has gone from DWP now.


And John Major is no longer Prime Minister.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Penitenziagite


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> What I can't understand about the incompetence of the Corbyn office is whether it is just a question of genuine, honest failures by a team that is not used to doing all the boring stuff around running an effective opposition or whether there is something more sinister to do with the Labour party machine not deigning to offer him material support.


Well, now, umm....

You do ask some dashed tricky questions, Mister Diamond.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

existentialist said:


> And John Major is no longer Prime Minister.


you can discern the quality of recent prime ministers when john major's administration looks by contrast to today's a model of rectitude and honesty


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Well, now, umm....
> 
> You do ask some dashed tricky questions, Mister Diamond.


we can explain it to him but we cannot understand it for him


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Well, now, umm....
> 
> You do ask some dashed tricky questions, Mister Diamond.


also 

there is in fact no question there.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2016)

Diamond said:


> My view is that Corbyn and his team have not demonstrated anything like the level of competence required to take on the Tories and win a mandate to govern.


I think he has more immediate challenges to address right now.

As for "your view" - that would probably be true within the current paradigm, whereby two right wing parties jostle to try and offer some semblance of competition on narrow threads of interest while actually being wholly alongside each other on the bulk of their outlooks.

The point about Corbyn is that he represents something different - something which is not predicated on the notions that Blairite Labour and Thatcherite Tories jointly share about society, work, benefits, and money. If he wins, it won't because he's charmed the electorate like Ed Milliband, demonstrated the Scottish Presbyterian morality of Tony Blair, or embodied the affable, easy charm of Gordon Brown. He'll win because sufficient people are fed up and frightened of what might happen to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's no fantasy.



You should know, Bish. We were trained by the best.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> I didn't really think Corbyn was going to implement all working class shortlists or a 60:40 ratio, just to be clear
> christ though, is it really worth playing this long game in Labour? According to that poll from a few days ago, about 40% of your own membership/supporters dislike Corbyn enough to vote for a total incompetent, unredeemable waste of space like Owen Smith. And if they boot out enough Corbyn supporters maybe they can increase that by a couple more percent. What a state Labour is in. All these battles you have to fight - what if they challenge him again? Then you've got to sort out the NEC some more, deselections, all sorts of rules in the party to overturn...
> 
> Meanwhile the closest I've heard anyone outside the internet come to a positive thing to say about Corbyn has been a bit of mild sympathy with the way he gets attacked all the time in the media - similar to Ed Miliband in that respect. It still is relatively early days I guess, but that's kind of the point too isn't it? There's such a long way to go.



There is with any method though, isn't there? It's not as if should all these new Corbyn supporters leave the party there will be a mass worker's party by the end of the year, or a non-party movement that's going to smash the state by 2020.

Whichever way you decide to challenge things, you have to be aware that it's going to take hard work and be a constant uphill struggle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> And fuck the well-fed public schoolboy saying class isn't a useful concept.



What they generally mean when they say that, is "it's not useful to me", in my experience.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You should know, Bish. We were trained by the best.



Indeed we were. It'll be time to return the favour.

<for plod reading this, this is just a fantasy & in no way implicit>

Yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> And fuck the well-fed public schoolboy saying class isn't a useful concept.


ime denying one fits into the class system or saying that class doesn't exist is a sure sign the speaker is

a) full of shit;
b) comfortably middle class; and
c) not to be trusted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

inva said:


> and this being onside in cross class alliances seems usually to mean in practice middle class dominance of movements/organisations



Which means, in turn, that primarily middle class interests are represented.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't think Mr. Normal's had anything to say on the subject of casualisation. I don't think he cares. Neither do any of the other megalomaniacs.



Without the likes of labour casualisation, Mr Normal and his ilk can't get those big post-government paydays they believe that they're entitled to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ViolentPanda's fave wank fantasy!



Nope, well down the (J.Arthur) rank in my wank fantasies.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

See Robert Tressell for the Labour Aristocracy. 'Middle class' is a label invented to divide. 

It includes lots of unrelated groups. Black taxi drivers own a small business. People who went to university are unemployable, or bullied into working weekends without overtime.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

People who are smug selling cupcakes do count as _petite bourgeoisie_


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

mmmmm cupcakes


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

American shite.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

(((( cupcakes ))))


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

racist


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Workers' cupcakes. Full of the blood and sweat of honest labour. I've just gone off them.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Where was this comforting cupcake in the 70's when we were being shafted?

Baked beans & spud! Up the proles!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> .


good point well made


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> good point well made



Giving far too much away..


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Giving far too much away..


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>




No words needed!


----------



## oryx (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, it is good. I've meant to read some of his other stuff, must get round to it.



A bit off original thread topic, but re James Meek, his piece on social housing is excellent.

LRB · James Meek · Where will we live?: The Housing Disaster


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Yes to spuds and beans, but our food had been shit due to rationing that lasted well past the 2nd big punch up, and early industrialisation. Just as well we didn't go as nasty as the american big portions of rubbish.

Who decided that spam fritters and plastic custard were fit to feed to children? Hospital food is as bad unless you take the Halal menu (the Kosher stuff was horrid).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

I was admitted to hospital after a car accident in (iirc 76) & the grub was lush - I  remember proper mash, ham hock, peas & parsley sauce! #ILOVETHENHS


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

These vacillating comfortable liberals like Owen Jones and Laurie Penny are even worse than the people who have the balls to at least stab Corbyn in the back and let their corporate brand take the hit. Let everyone know that you are abandoning your years worth of principles/personal brand positioning


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Can you imagine what would happen if they were in a situation where there was a possibility of actual revolutionary violence? They would back death squads.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can you imagine what would happen if they were in a situation where there was a possibility of actual revolutionary violence? They would back death squads.



They wouldn't back death squads. They'd be the first to hide under their kitchen tables.

Pathetic over priv'd cunts that they both are.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can you imagine what would happen if they were in a situation where there was a possibility of actual revolutionary violence? They would back death squads.


I'd like to think some of them would come back to the fold instead, with a proper glint in their eyes.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> They wouldn't back death squads. They'd be the first to hide under their kitchen tables.



They would definitely tweet agonised support for the leftist-murdering death squads.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> They wouldn't back death squads. They'd be the first to hide under their kitchen tables.



they'd have to get me out first


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They would definitely tweet agonised support for the leftist-murdering death squads.



Me & VP would hunt them down & exterminate with extreme prejudice.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Liberals before Corbyn: Let's storm the halls of power! For a British Podemos/Occupy/forrin leftist flavour of the month

Liberals after Corbyn: Actually, social democracy is misogynist and needs to stop. Here's all the great things Blair did.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> they'd have to get me out first



You're not worth wasting lead.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

that's what i'm counting on and you'd have to find me first with your pencils


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> These vacillating comfortable liberals like Owen Jones and Laurie Penny are even worse than the people who have the balls to at least stab Corbyn in the back and let their corporate brand take the hit. Let everyone know that you are abandoning your years worth of principles/personal brand positioning



To be honest, this makes it much more likely that I'll scream at a beloved children's author. I'm hoping it's JK Rowling - might look a fucking idiot hurling abuse at Enid Blyton's grave.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Rowling - Tory cunt.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Rowling - Tory cunt.



Boyle's bit on her is great, was true then and even truer now


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, this makes it much more likely that I'll scream at a beloved children's author. I'm hoping it's JK Rowling - might look a fucking idiot hurling abuse at Enid Blyton's grave.



famous five


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed - beat me to it - great minds an all that..


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Rowling - Tory cunt.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2016)

Harry Potter is shit anyway who gives a fuck


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Harry Potter is shit anyway who gives a fuck


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

Private school wank.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 3, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Rowling - Tory cunt.


But Harry (or at least Mr Ratcliffe) came out for Jez.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> But Harry (or at least Mr Ratcliffe) came out for Jez.



I'm sure the right wing press are getting stuck into the young wizard as I type. How dare he cast anti-austerity spells.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

I suspect this post goes on some Embarrassing Confessions thread, so allow me a run up:

having never read a jk rowling book I heard she had good reviews for a murder mystery novel she wrote under a pen name. Anyway, I came across The Casual Vacancy in a charity shop and thought that must be it.   About 3 pages in I could tell it was fucking awful - the writing and the attitudes - but for some perverse reasons carried on with it. It's about - and yes these are fucking SPOILERS, I don't care, I'm saving you from a _fate worse than death_ - a vacancy on a parish council, which gets fought over by traditional bigoted conservatives and _ENLIGHTENED LIBERALS_. Essentially, it's a battle between grubby people in trade and a band of solicitors, doctors and fellow travellers. At the heart of it are the conservatives wanting to sell off some land which will cut the village off from a working class estate. On the face of it, the author is on the side of the liberals and wants the estate to still be part of the village.

The reason I'm giving you this rubbish book review is that Rowling employs  every cliché when referring to the council estate - a dangerous place, sofas in gardens, peeling paint, pissed up parents, babies and needles.... the whole fucking lot.  It's horrible - Rowling is fucking horrible.  In fact it almost inspired me to do a thread on anti-working class novelists.  Ian Rankin, who can actually write, would have been on there. When he has Rebus going into the schemes it's not just anti-polis stuff, but the idea of alien places.  Stephen King, somebody who I imagine is a democrat and probably still sees himself as part of the anti-Vietnam generation manages it as well. Plenty of others.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 4, 2016)

I'm surprised there hasn't been a red wedge type thing yet, with a bit more enthusiasm that they aren't just being against. Maybe we'll see that before the GE.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 4, 2016)

My excuse was I started reading the potter books to my young kids before it got huge. People feel the same way about Enid Blighton, and she was far worse.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 4, 2016)

I still really don't get these liberals. It honestly confuses me. How do people like Jones look themselves in the mirror? They have spent their entire fucking lives waiting for this and the second the waters get slightly choppy they want to start setting fire to the social democratic dinghy in order to win the approval of HMS Capital.

What comes after that exactly for Jones? Does he just wait for the next G4S-approved Labour leader to come along and then resume the previous position of telling left-wingers to join the Labour Party and wait for a socialist leader?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I suspect this post goes on some Embarrassing Confessions thread, so allow me a run up:
> 
> having never read a jk rowling book I heard she had good reviews for a murder mystery novel she wrote under a pen name. Anyway, I came across The Casual Vacancy in a charity shop and thought that must be it.   About 3 pages in I could tell it was fucking awful - the writing and the attitudes - but for some perverse reasons carried on with it. It's about - and yes these are fucking SPOILERS, I don't care, I'm saving you from a _fate worse than death_ - a vacancy on a parish council, which gets fought over by traditional bigoted conservatives and _ENLIGHTENED LIBERALS_. Essentially, it's a battle between grubby people in trade and a band of solicitors, doctors and fellow travellers. At the heart of it are the conservatives wanting to sell off some land which will cut the village off from a working class estate. On the face of it, the author is on the side of the liberals and wants the estate to still be part of the village.
> 
> The reason I'm giving you this rubbish book review is that Rowling employs  every cliché when referring to the council estate - a dangerous place, sofas in gardens, peeling paint, pissed up parents, babies and needles.... the whole fucking lot.  It's horrible - Rowling is fucking horrible.  In fact it almost inspired me to do a thread on anti-working class novelists.  Ian Rankin, who can actually write, would have been on there. When he has Rebus going into the schemes it's not just anti-polis stuff, but the idea of alien places.  Stephen King, somebody who I imagine is a democrat and probably still sees himself as part of the anti-Vietnam generation manages it as well. Plenty of others.


 Shorter version: imagine the bastard offspring of The Archers and Midsomer Murders, as read to his children by a weeping Nick Clegg.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 4, 2016)

Don't dis the archers.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 4, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Don't dis the archers.



If we wiped out the audience of The Archers, Britain would be more or less great.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> My excuse was I started reading the potter books to my young kids before it got huge. People feel the same way about Enid Blighton, and she was far worse.



famous five


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I suspect this post goes on some Embarrassing Confessions thread, so allow me a run up:
> 
> having never read a jk rowling book I heard she had good reviews for a murder mystery novel she wrote under a pen name. Anyway, I came across The Casual Vacancy in a charity shop and thought that must be it.   About 3 pages in I could tell it was fucking awful
> 
> .



oh - fuck - they made this into a TV drama and I endured the first episode or two - heroic liberals saving the proles from their feckless debauchery - utter shit.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

Forgive the continued derail, but this says something not just about the shit, anti-working class attitudes of liberals, but also the guardian's understanding of where the left actually is. The bit below is from wiki on the politics of The Casual Vacancy:



> *Politics and poverty[edit]*
> One of the novel's major themes is politics. _The Guardian_ referred to _The Casual Vacancy_ as a "parable of national politics", with Rowling saying, "I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society, We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?"[8] Rowling was also critical of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that had led since the general election in 2010 saying, "There has been a horribly familiar change of atmosphere [since the 2010 election], it feels to me a lot like it did in the early 90s, where there's been a bit of redistribution of benefits and suddenly lone-parent families are that little bit worse off. But it's not a 'little bit' when you're in that situation. Even a tenner a week can make such a vast, vast difference. So, yeah, it does feel familiar. Though I started writing this five years ago when we didn't have a coalition government, so it's become maybe more relevant as I've written."[8] Rowling went on to say that Britain held a "phenomenally snobby society", and described the middle class as "pretentious" and "funny".[8]
> 
> Rowling has commented on her economic situation before the success of _Harry Potter_ as being "poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless"[9][11] and said that this was why she was drawn to writing about poverty.[12]
> ...


So, it's supposedly a commentary on austerity and the attack on the poor. It's supposed to be about real economics but also judgements and the contempt shown for the poorest.  Ironically, I suspect she genuinely thinks that's what the book is - that it gives a voice to the poor, stops them being treated as "this homogeneous mash, like porridge".  But when it comes to her central characters actually _encountering_ working class people, her quite brutal prejudices shine through.  She portrays poor families as virtually a different species.  Genuinely gruesome stuff. What's more, that's the central conceit for wealthy liberals - that GB Shaw quote I was struggling for on another thread earlier - 'I'm not a socialist because I like the working class, I'm a socialist because I hate them'.


----------



## inva (Sep 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> There is with any method though, isn't there? It's not as if should all these new Corbyn supporters leave the party there will be a mass worker's party by the end of the year, or a non-party movement that's going to smash the state by 2020.
> 
> Whichever way you decide to challenge things, you have to be aware that it's going to take hard work and be a constant uphill struggle.


Well that's really the point isn't it? They're all so much hard work I agree. The question is, are all the options equally worthwhile?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> If you're an Hourly Paid Lecturer, you may be earning £50 an hour, but you're only getting between 2 and 4 hours a week. A lot of universities are operating in this way. Meanwhile VCs are swanning around on £600k+ per annum.


and the grace and favour residence. And the car. The fucking cheek of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Harry Potter is shit anyway who gives a fuck


we know what muggles means, even if she doesn't know it herself


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 4, 2016)

All I keep hearing from these Labour plotters is "we want to be a [credible] party of government". What seems to have escaped these fantasists (for fantasists they are) is that they're not in government; they're in opposition and no amount of fantasising will change that. Their coup efforts are laughable and they've hired McTernan as a spin doctor. If they were serious about winning anything, they wouldn't hire a two-time loser as a spin doctor. But they're so delusional and so lacking in self-awareness that they're unable to see the obvious: they're not winners, they're losers.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2016)

Can't say I disagree. I met a couple of Momentum people yesterday though, and one of them remarked that after (touch wood) Corbyn's won, he and supporters  are going to have to work with the MPs who've been against him.

Will be difficult, but fair point I thought. It'll mean peace having to break out on both sides - they'll not have to keep briefing against him but we'll have to be a bit less abrasive too.

He also said he'd prefer it if people start saying 'Vote Labour' rather than 'Vote Corbyn' when it gets to electioning times. Which I thought was another good point.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Met a couple of Momentum people yesterday and one of them remarked that after (touch wood) Corbyn's won, he and supporters  are going to have to work with the MPs who've been against him.
> 
> Will be difficult, but fair point I thought. It'll mean peace having to break out on both sides - they'll not have to keep briefing against him but we'll have to be a bit less abrasive too.
> 
> He also said he'd prefer it if people start saying 'Vote Labour' rather than 'Vote Corbyn' when it gets to electioning times. Which I thought was another good point.


there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything, they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 4, 2016)

JC will have to chop a few heads off though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything, they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.


This is not true though - this is all, almost entirely in fact, about electoral success. Their own individual success. This is only an ideological battle in the sense they genuinely think left positions will cost them their jobs and privileges. If Corbyn led Labour was on 45%+ in the polls the PLP would simply not be doing this.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything,



they've had enough practice  



> they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.



yes true - I'm not looking forward to lots of them getting funding to stand against the official Labour candidate though, splitting the vote.


----------



## Sue (Sep 4, 2016)

two sheds said:


> He also said he'd prefer it if people start saying 'Vote Labour' rather than 'Vote Corbyn' when it gets to electioning times. Which I thought was another good point.


A master stroke of political strategy there.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2016)




----------



## rioted (Sep 4, 2016)

two sheds said:


> why although i totally understand it, I think the stress on only the working class is a mistake. The middle class are getting squeezed too. There's a lot of them and we need them to be onside too. And no reason why they shouldn't be.


The vast majority of the "middle class" are actually working class. That "the left" go along with the false distinction is one of the things that perpetuate the divisions in society and weakens the opposition to capital.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2016)

I'd suggest saying 'working people' instead but that omits the ill and unemployed. Improving conditions for everyone is what it's about. 

Taxing the rich fairly to give back some of the money they've taken out of society will improve their conditions, too, because they won't suffer as much resentment from the rest of us.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> oh - fuck - they made this into a TV drama and I endured the first episode or two - heroic liberals saving the proles from their feckless debauchery - utter shit.



I read it and helped a GCSE student write a long project book review about it.

So a take on the men from the council estate in Fields:

Every single male associated with Krystal's family at the heart of the novel, and the Fields estate, in general, has absolutely nothing redeeming about them. A majority of male Fields adults are simply absent from any real social interaction, the implication being they are either in prison or on standard male criminal activitiy, which means they cannot return home to sleep.

Michael has violently abused his daughter Terri and presumably his whole family to the point where his mother one day abandons home with her suitcase while Terri (aged 11) is at school. The two elder daughters (Cheryl and Danielle) move out to their respective boyfriends' homes, leaving 11-year old Terri alone with her father, who then throws "a pan of burning chip fat at her. Her Human League T-shirt had caught fire".

Terri after some respite with her Nana Cath, simply returns to live alongside with Michael, who begins to sexually abuse her aswell "When Michael was not beating Terri, he was doing the other things to her, the things she could not talk about." Eventually Terri runs away from home aged 13 and is placed into social care, where in Yarvil she goes to school and becomes friends with Obbo there from the age of 15. Michael's abusive fatherhood does not stop, but continues: "After Terri had been taken into care, her father had had more kids. Nine in total, Cheryl reckoned, to five different mothers. Terri had never met her half-siblings, but Krystal had told her that Nana Cath saw them."

Terri's first partner, Ritchie Adams, dad to Krystal's step-siblings, is in prison. He has habitually stubbed out cigarettes on his one-year-old daughter's arms, and kicked her cracking her ribs and also disfigured Terri's face. For some reason, never adequately explained, the children are removed into care but Terri is left in the flat and hands of this domestic abuser for some time until he then goes on to murder someone, and is then arrested, sentenced, now serving life in Bristol.

Krystal's father, Banger, presumably has something to do with an unnamed man being found dead in the bathroom, whilst Krystal is young. (Banger is only mentioned once anyhow). "Krystal had told Tessa how, when she was six years old, she had found the corpse of an unknown young man in her mother’s bathroom. It had been the catalyst for one of her many removals into the care of her Nana Cath", Krystal's great-grandmother. We are not told exactly what happens but can guess either that Banger has been violent towards him or this figure has overdosed.

Terri's on-off boyfriend, associate, pimp and partner-in-crime (storing drugs and burglarised goods in her council flat), her friend since the age of 15 - is Obbo, the villian of the novel. He is a drug supplier for the estate, supplying Terri with heroin, even when she is continuing her methadone programme. He also stores burglarised computers and large quantities of packets of other stolen stuff in Terri's council flat. This flat is one where social workers and police regularly call ie not a safe fence house at all. Why does he do this? No information is given.

Obbo rapes Krystal in her own home, while her mum is asleep after a methadone/heroin hit. Sort of associated with him is an unnamed figure, a 'boy' ie a young adult, who works as a forklift driver but only really for the purposes of criminality deals in burglarised goods for Obbo. 

Obbo is sort of simply beyond the pale. We find out nothing about his family or his home or anything else - we find out he is a rapist, a pimp, a heroin dealer to a woman and involved in burglary, but nothing more. 

We are told several times that Terri's entire family, including the men, have disowned her and refused to assist her financially in any way. The only member Terri has contact with is her sister Cheryl, whose son is Dane, a hard lad in the school. Dane Tully, Krystal's cousin, also in Y11 aged 16, has beaten up a 19-year old on away turf on a rival estate with his father Shane Tully, Terri's brother-in-law, handling the three elder brothers. What were the reasons? What happened? Who cares - they fight just because that's what they do. We are simply told in two short sentences: "Tully’s family was infamous. His two older brothers and his father spent a lot of time in prison."

It's the same state of play story about Terri's life, in a council home, as a shoplifter, prostitute, fence for burglarised goods, heroin user and mother to two children. "Terri, who had remained with Ritchie until his arrest, never saw Anne-Marie or Liam [her first two children], for reasons Krystal did not entirely understand; the whole story was clotted and festering with hatred and unforgivable things said and threatened, restraining orders, lots more social workers." For some reason the omniscient narration just cuts out here as if the author cannot be bothered to detail these sordid lives. According to the narrator in a bracketed paragraph, The Wheedons' life is dependent on methadone:  "without methadone, they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back." 

Out of eight named males tied to Krystal's family, every single one (Banger, Obbo, Shane Tully, his son Dane Tully, Pikey Pritchard, Michael, Ritchie Adams) is a partaker in violent behaviour (wider anti-social and/or domestic violence). The only point of doubt could be Banger, Krystal's dad, who who theoretically might not be responsible for the serious manslaughter or violence that lead to the unnamed man dead in the bathroom for 6-year old Krystal to inspect. (None of this is particularly clear because we are told Krystal's mum has told her that her dad was the dead man in the bathroom, but later explains her dad is in prison in Bristol.)
Beyond the named list are her Krystal’s cousins, Dane's brothers - unnamed but violent and nasty - Pikey's brother ditto, and Obbo's unnamed burglary-related operative. 

Out of the ex-Fields residents - Simon Price is a paranoid and periodically psychotic-violent-abusive man. Barry Fairbrother's brother has served time in prison, whilst Barry Fairbrother has come out as an angel - bank manager, volunteer and inspiring hero. However the strain of trying to help people from Fields is too much and he is cut dead by an aneurysm from trying too hard, thus causing the title's 'Casual Vacancy' on the local council.

Barry becomes something of a redeemer myth figure, we see him in real time for only a page until his aneurysm. From that point on, so much is written in favour of him in narration so often it's hard to imagine his actual existence. He is honest and trustworthy and a successful bank manager and engaging to Fields teenagers and young carers. He is warm and funny in general, and such a good boss that his workers attend his funeral, he is magically able to convince wavering right-wing middle-class councillors to support the Fields estate, and he is the sole tour-de-force coach and motivator behind the local school Winterdown Girls’ Rowing eight.

Tallying it up, one can only conclude all the Fields men, are basically irredeemable, morally crippled savages; except the one true Barry Fairbrother. He left a long, long time ago and became a bank manager. Barry is unlike his brother and presumably they grew up in the same circumstances. 
Barry became a bank manager but his brother SImon passed through prison. 

Simon Price, born and raised in the Fields estate, but living in the posh village now with a nurse wife, Ruth, is also a violent abuser - but neither wife nor the two children have taken any action at all against him. He has been on the verge of beating up a neighbour's son for damaging a shelf in his garage, held back at the last moment by the boy's mother. He regularly strikes his elder son and his wife. He is not quite as sociopathic as others on the estate, being as he left it years ago, became an apprentice printer and then print-works site manager but not senior management. (One of the lucky ones obviously somehow became trained and climbed up from the shop-floor whilst the printing industry was being decimated in the 1970s and 1980s). 

His behaviour makes no sense in general, he is just out on the grasp for no good reason at all. He serially practices fraud in the Harcourt Walsh print-works, and also deals in burglarised goods only for himself, managing to associate himself with Obbo in the process, even though Obbo, we are told, is also known character as a pimp and supplier. Throughout the novel he never calls his son by his real name (Andrew) but Pizza Face because of his acne. We learn little about him beyond generalised violence and paranoia except that since he has moved out of the Fields he looks down on its inhabitants, plus one fact: he watches Match of the Day.

The deepest sentences we ever get on Simon: "passing the house in which Simon had grown up. He had not been past the place for years; his mother was dead, and he had not seen his father since he was fourteen and did not know where he was. It unsettled and depressed Simon to see his old home with one window boarded over and the grass ankle-deep. His late mother had been house proud."

Not a single male currently living on Fields has any redeeming qualities at all.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 4, 2016)

It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.

What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

opiate dose notoriously effective for ones ability to sustain a hard on of course . I know thats a minor aside but ffs. Yeah I read an excerpt when the book was released. Total caricatures based on zero knowledge


----------



## J Ed (Sep 4, 2016)

Latest SCIENTIFIC PROOF that people support only Corbyn because they are wrong and stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Latest SCIENTIFIC PROOF that people support only Corbyn because they are wrong and stupid.



So i must have imagined eg Corbyn ruined christmas


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2016)

sihhi said:


> It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.
> 
> What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."


A shit kind of author


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Me & VP would hunt them down & exterminate with extreme prejudice.



Although we'd immediately be faced with a quandary:

Bullet or entrenching tool?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although we'd immediately be faced with a quandary:
> 
> Bullet or entrenching tool?


Toss a coin


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

sihhi said:


> It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.
> 
> What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."


And the astonishing thing is she said that in contemporary society: 





> The poor are discussed as this homogeneous mash, like porridge. The idea that they might be individuals, and be where they are for very different, diverse reasons, again seems to escape some people


I was so astonished by the book when I read it, I looked up a couple of reviews.  Most of them missed the points we are making entirely and had it as 'gritty' and 'brave novel'.  In fact the Mail (or perhaps the Telegraph) were up in arms about the attacks it makes on the _middle classes_!  To be fair to her, it _does_ attack their small minded judgementalism, but in doing so reveals she has a much deeper contempt and, almost certainly, _fear_ of the poor.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although we'd immediately be faced with a quandary:
> 
> Bullet or entrenching tool?



No contest. Here VP, allow me to sharpen that for you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 4, 2016)

inva said:


> Well that's really the point isn't it? They're all so much hard work I agree. The question is, are all the options equally worthwhile?



Unless we have a way of seeing into the future, I'd say it's not very easy to know. We can make predictions, but in so doing we're bringing to it all sorts of different criteria and our predictions will likely be different.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 4, 2016)

Laurie Penny on the Rowlingverse:

"Ironic, then, that I actually did get to go to wizard school—or as close as you can get in the mundane world. I went, on a scholarship, to a local private school that had houses and weird uniforms and trained you to believe that you were special."

(urban: but Idris, didn't you, also, go to a fee-paying private school? NO, I FUCKING DIDN'T)

It's actually not bad, even if it's by Laurie of House Penny:

"The Harry Potter books are a childish rescue fantasy that feeds into a far more adult escapism: they are, after all, the ultimate fairytale of social mobility through merit. If you’re born with magical ability, you get to go to a special school where they’ll teach you special skills, and that’s okay, because you’ll be part of the good elite, who get to mess around catching pixies and playing wizard chess and protecting the powerless, and not the bad elite, who are like Nazis with better hair. In these stories, liberal meritocracy is set against the simpler evil of aristocracy—those wizards, including the Dark Lord himself, whose main bugbear throughout the series is the corruption of “pure” magical blood by Muggle-born witches and wizards. In a feat of worldbuilding that chimed perfectly with liberal triumphalism of the mid-nineties, it turns out that all magic is really good for—all Rowling’s Wizard government, the Ministry of Magic, exists to do—is to maintain the wizarding world as a secretive parasite universe, invisible to ordinary folk."

Harry Potter and the Conscience of a Liberal - The Baffler


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2016)

> Nye Bevan News
> 33 mins ·
> 
> Labour First .... the support group of the right of the Labour party have sent out an email to CLP members in Glastonbury and street labour. They sound cheery about conference and are gearing up quickly. They also hope to organise at a local level after conference. Here is part of their message....
> ...



From FB, Nye Bevan News, the Right seem to be mobilising.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

Fun for all the family eh


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 4, 2016)

Whoever posted those old socialist songs, thank you. It makes you remember what it is all about. A movement, not the arguements.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although we'd immediately be faced with a quandary:
> 
> Bullet or entrenching tool?



Ploughing in every time, returning a usable resource in exchange for the years of parasitic grasping!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> From FB, Nye Bevan News, the Right seem to be mobilising.



According to a Corbyn supporter who attended the Brighton meeting 'There was about 10 - 15 people'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

the contras just can't get the numbers


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> From FB, Nye Bevan News, the Right seem to be mobilising.


Pardon me for being obtuse, but is it Nye Bevan News or Labour First that has "secured a very strong position in the election of CLP delegates?"

Oh, and wtf is Nye Bevan News?


----------



## treelover (Sep 5, 2016)

Labour First

Nye Bevan News is a left wing online news service on FB.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> From FB, Nye Bevan News, the Right seem to be mobilising.


You seem keen to be hoodwinked


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 5, 2016)

Do they use usually use The Leader next to responses of accusations of execution squads?



> The leader also responded to the suggestion from Labour MP Frank Field that MPs felt they were facing an “execution squad” from Corbyn supporters who wanted to deselect politicians ahead of a general election.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Do they use usually use The Leader next to responses of accusations of execution squads?


Naturally the comments thread is open to attract as many frothing nutjobs as possible. This one is typical.



> pucksfriend
> 31s ago
> 01
> The anti semitism by Corbyn supporters I've seen in the last week on Twitter and reported shows that the antisemitism report did nothing. They feel it's fine to have Swastikas appearing through broken Stars of David - that is apparently OK because of Israel. Apparently that isn't antisemitism but proper outrage. So when they are excluded that is also an outrage and a sign of rigging.
> It's apparently not fashionable to deplore antisemitism in Corbyn's world - or rather it's fashionable to pretend it is something else.



ETA: The author of this comment is talking about something completely separate to the article.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2016)

our old friend frank eugeniscist field.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is not true though - this is all, almost entirely in fact, about electoral success. Their own individual success. This is only an ideological battle in the sense they genuinely think left positions will cost them their jobs and privileges. If Corbyn led Labour was on 45%+ in the polls the PLP would simply not be doing this.



O rly?


----------



## belboid (Sep 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is not true though - this is all, almost entirely in fact, about electoral success. Their own individual success. This is only an ideological battle in the sense they genuinely think left positions will cost them their jobs and privileges. If Corbyn led Labour was on 45%+ in the polls the PLP would simply not be doing this.


Like large numbers weren't doing likewise in the early eighties? When they had those 45%+ polls pre-falklands.  Not the majority, admittedly, not quite.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 5, 2016)

belboid said:


> Like large numbers weren't doing likewise in the early eighties? When they had those 45%+ polls pre-falklands.  Not the majority, admittedly, not quite.


You know what you have to  do know? Good luck. See you in a bit.


----------



## co-op (Sep 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is not true though - this is all, almost entirely in fact, about electoral success. Their own individual success. This is only an ideological battle in the sense they genuinely think left positions will cost them their jobs and privileges. If Corbyn led Labour was on 45%+ in the polls the PLP would simply not be doing this.



It can't be all about 'electoral success'; most Labour MPs - like most MPs in all parties - are in safe seats, it would take landslides to remove them. Sure there are the odd 20 or 30 who need to worry but that isn't 174 of them, in fact some of the ardent Corbynistas are in less safe seats than some of the rebels. Moreover, as the right of the party are fond of pointing out, the biggest increases in party membership are in seats which Labour already hold - the right's point is obviously that the membership surge is not going to win them any seats because it's not happening in swing seats, but it makes retaining Labour seats more likely since they may actually be able to put boots on the ground (for the first time in decades in some seats).

They've all got more to worry about from the boundary changes (which are being announced in the next week or so), but that will lose them 30 seats regardless of who's in power.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 5, 2016)

co-op said:


> It can't be all about 'electoral success'; most Labour MPs - like most MPs in all parties - are in safe seats, it would take landslides to remove them. Sure there are the odd 20 or 30 who need to worry but that isn't 174 of them, in fact some of the ardent Corbynistas are in less safe seats than some of the rebels. Moreover, as the right of the party are fond of pointing out, the biggest increases in party membership are in seats which Labour already hold - the right's point is obviously that the membership surge is not going to win them any seats because it's not happening in swing seats, but it makes retaining Labour seats more likely since they may actually be able to put boots on the ground (for the first time in decades in some seats).
> 
> They've all got more to worry about from the boundary changes (which are being announced in the next week or so), but that will lose them 30 seats regardless of who's in power.


Making safe seats into non- safe seats.


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2016)

Can anyone bring themselves to watch the Corbyn/UB40 joint press conference live feed? 

I was under the impression silly season was supposed to be over.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Can anyone bring themselves to watch the Corbyn/UB40 joint press conference live feed?
> 
> I was under the impression silly season was supposed to be over.


ther's some rats in mi party what am I gonna do etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

I didn't even think they were still going. Still got a soft spot for '1 in 10'


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't even think they were still going.



They've split into two rival factions, and are currently in dispute about who owns the name...


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 6, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> They've split into two rival factions, and are currently in dispute about who owns the name...


And whats Corbyn done to sort that out, nothing as per usual....


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ther's some rats in mi party what am I gonna do etc


 
That's just a red red whine.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't even think they were still going. Still got a soft spot for '1 in 10'


Apparently they split, the Campbell (?) brothers not talking to each other, the usual legal battles over the name.  Don't know which side it is, but the losers in the legal battle have a title along the lines 'featuring an original member of UB40 and 2 other blokes who were in the band for quite a while'.

edit: oh, as said by THC 10 minutes ago.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

situational irony lol


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

If there's going to be a couple of pages of UB40 puns, I want no part. That's me signing off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2016)

I am the one in ten
your name is on a List


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I am the one in ten
> your name is on a List



That's given me food for thought.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> If there's going to be a couple of pages of UB40 puns, I want no part. That's me signing off.



That was my way of thinking...but now I've changed my mind.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Sep 6, 2016)

I had totally forgotten who UB40 were and thought that the press conference thing was a bit silly but given the absolutely bizarre journalistic attacks on it I have decided that I am very much in favour.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That was my way of thinking...but now I've changed my mind.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


When you say things like that, I can't help falling in love with you.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 6, 2016)

i don't like their music but have a lot of respect for ub40. formed when ali campbell got some money from criminal injuries compo and bought his mates musical instruments. 
they get slagged off for the amount of covers they did but for them it was partly about the musicians they loved getting some financial compensation as most of them had been ripped off in the sixties.
later on they built a recording studio in wednesbury for sandwell college. 
i think they fit in quite well with what corbyn is saying about the arts.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 6, 2016)

I studied at that studio in Sandwell college for my HND , iirc it was at the Smethwick campus, we were taught by their sound engineer Alan Caves 

had their gold discs in the corridors and everything


----------



## discokermit (Sep 6, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> I studied at that studio in Sandwell college for my HND , iirc it was at the Smethwick campus, we were taught by their sound engineer Alan Caves
> 
> had their gold discs in the corridors and everything


my apologies, it was the photography dept that was based in wednesbury.
some of my mates did sound engineering hnd's at sandwell. 96-98 ish.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 6, 2016)

that's when I was there ( 97-99 ish ), well half the year we were based at Salford uni then the rest at Smethwick, ask your friends if they stayed at the legendary Bolton Court...

we may well have known each other


----------



## discokermit (Sep 6, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> that's when  was there ( 97-99 ish ), well half the year we were based at Salford uni then the rest at Smethwick, ask your friends if they stayed at the legendary Bolton Court...
> 
> we may well have known each other


i used to sell a lot of black at bolton court! mike, marie, sarah and pete, they lived over the red cow in smethwick.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 6, 2016)

I was good mates with all of them, and used to frequent the red cow all the time when they lived there !!

Still see Sarah occasionally

small world..  (PM sent as to not derail thread )


----------



## discokermit (Sep 6, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> I was good mates with all of them, and used to frequent the red cow all the time when they lived there !!
> 
> Still see Sarah occasionally
> 
> small world..


sarah is ace. small world indeed!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2016)

This is what it's all about, Jezzer comes to Tarn, all four Barnsley MPs are supporting Smith.
Wonder if the turnout will worry them?

Rally: Jeremy Corbyn comes to Barnsley


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 6, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Making safe seats into non- safe seats.



To be fair the idea is to win.



DotCommunist said:


> I am the one in ten
> your name is on a List



A statistical reminder of the percentage of the British people who are convinced by Jeremy?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> To be fair the idea is to win.


Is it? Whose? What is winning then?


----------



## Xenonxenon (Sep 6, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? Whose? What is winning then?


It's like that Brexit thing you jissed your union jack pants over


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 6, 2016)

Nothing wrong with union jack pants. Buy enough pairs and you get to rub yr arse and yr knob and / or fanny all over the flag every day.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 6, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> And whats Corbyn done to sort that out, nothing as per usual....


FFS
Jeremy Corbyn fails to win backing of other UB40


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> FFS
> Jeremy Corbyn fails to win backing of other UB40


ub40 so passe. es40 or similar these days, isn't it?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 6, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> FFS
> Jeremy Corbyn fails to win backing of other UB40





I asked my dog what she thought of him and she said "Ruff", I should have contacted the guardian.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

ub20


----------



## discokermit (Sep 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> ub20


ub25, to be a bit more accurate.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

discokermit said:


> ub25, to be a bit more accurate.


Right, challenge accepted. Where's that calculator...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 6, 2016)

ub-takin the piss mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> ub-takin the piss mate.


this is urban, it's what we do


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

Current members - wild eyed Pro-Corbyn Faction

Jimmy Brown (born 20 November 1957, Birmingham) – drums (December 1978 – present)
Robin Campbell (born 25 December 1954, Birmingham) – guitar, vocals (December 1978 – present)
Earl Falconer (born 23 January 1959, Birmingham) – bass guitar (December 1978 – present)
Norman Hassan (Arabic: نورمان حسن‎‎; born 26 January 1958, Birmingham) – percussion, trombone, vocals (December 1978 – present)
Brian Travers (born 7 February 1959, Birmingham) – saxophone (December 1978 – present)
Duncan Campbell (born 3 April 1958, Birmingham, England) – vocals (April 2008 – present)
Former members - Running Dogs

Ali Campbell (born Alistair Campbell, 15 February 1959, Birmingham) – guitar, vocals (December 1978 – January 2008)
Yomi Babayemi – percussion (December 1978 - February 1979)
Jimmy Lynn – keyboards (December 1978 - February 1979)
Mickey Virtue (born Michael Virtue, 19 January 1957, Birmingham) – keyboards (February 1979 – February 2008)
Astro (born Terence Wilson, 24 June 1957, Birmingham) – percussion, trumpet, vocals (March 1979 – November 2013

5/6 of band are originals - and they have 5/8 of the original members.

5/8 x 40/1 = UB25 ............ oh, fuck, you're right.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

Anyway, I preferred The Beat


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 6, 2016)

One of the one seven two,
Am I on your list?
One of the one seven two,
Bet you wish I didn't exist?
Though no-one wants me,
I still cling on there,
A statistic, a reminder,
The PLP doesn`t care


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> One of the one seven two,
> Am I on your list?
> One of the one seven two,
> Bet you wish I didn't exist?
> ...


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2016)

I bet the Campbell brothers dad, the late, great Ian Campbell may well have backed The Corbyn harvester!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I bet the Campbell brothers dad, the late, great Ian Campbell may well have backed The Corbyn harvester!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



Melt Kingston (bass) lives down here now. I bump into him in pubs on the occasional jam night. I've never heard him do "Combine Harvester", though


----------



## mauvais (Sep 6, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, I preferred The Beat


They've been posting pro-Corbyn stuff on FB for a while now, IIRC (edit: I may have totally made this up). I don't know if there's a New Beat splinter faction lurking somewhere though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2016)

In a huge surprise the PLP votes for the idea that they should decide on Shadow Cabinet positions (link).



> A huge majority of Labour MPs today voted in favour of the restoration of Shadow Cabinet elections.
> 
> The move will now be considered by the party’s NEC and will have to be agreed by annual conference before becoming a rule. If elections are confirmed and carried out then it would establish a significant power base in parliament for centrist MPs who are critical of the leadership. Jeremy Corbyn has indicated an interest in allowing Labour’s grassroots a vote on the make-up his top team as part of  a wider set of reforms to party democracy.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 6, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Melt Kingston (bass) lives down here now. I bump into him in pubs on the occasional jam night. I've never heard him do "Combine Harvester", though



Ask him how many acres he's got.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 6, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Ask him how many acres he's got.


I think he's heard every last one of those 

I might ask him if he's got any good Ruddy Yurts stories, though...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 6, 2016)

(Posted on the bandwidthz thread but might as well go here as well.)


----------



## two sheds (Sep 6, 2016)

(Posted on the bandwidthz thread but might as well go here as well.)

That's them banned from voting then


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 6, 2016)

So will the Corbyn corner get to table the motion of getting the membership or conference to vote in the shadow cabinet?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 6, 2016)

Black Lace?? Fucking hell, _Black Lace_!


----------



## ska invita (Sep 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Black Lace?? Fucking hell, _Black Lace_!


you jsut know theyre still minted off that fucking "career" of theirs


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 7, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So will the Corbyn corner get to table the motion of getting the membership or conference to vote in the shadow cabinet?


NEC to make the next move.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2016)

see I've been saying this, all of it, the entire fucking world is a shit re-run of the 70s for ages and no one believed me. At least this farce lacks the noncery. A bit.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 7, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> They've split into two rival factions, and are currently in dispute about who owns the name...


One faction apparently call/called themselves 'The real UB40'.... Would have been bleakly amusing if the other faction went with 'Continuity UB40'....


/coat


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 7, 2016)

More votes apparently lost/stolen A new twist: Non-contributory union members excluded from Labour leadership vote


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 7, 2016)

With all this vote-rigging going on, might it just be possible that Smith wins?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 7, 2016)

So the PLP intend to aid the party to become less disfunctional so they can properly get a coherent policy position across to the public by ensuring that the elected leader has no say in who he was to work with in the cabinet, and the PLP will simply elect those who represent the policies that the rest of the part has rejected.

They really are determined to ensure that a corbyn lead labour party actually is unelectable due to being an incoherent mess.


----------



## tim (Sep 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> With all this vote-rigging going on, might it just be possible that Smith wins?





ItWillNeverWork said:


> With all this vote-rigging going on, might it just be possible that Smith wins?



No, because nobody wants that to happen, except, perhaps, Owen Smith.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 7, 2016)

tim said:


> No, because nobody wants that to happen, except, perhaps, Owen Smith.



The NEC don't want Smith to win?


----------



## tim (Sep 7, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The NEC don't want Smith to win?




From the start it was clear that Corbyn will win. The defeat of Smith will be used to justify some kind of split within the party after which a more competent leader will be chosen. Smith is clearly not an election winner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> see I've been saying this, all of it, the entire fucking world is a shit re-run of the 70s for ages and no one believed me. At least this farce lacks the noncery. A bit.


No revival of bless this house


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 7, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> More votes apparently lost/stolen A new twist: Non-contributory union members excluded from Labour leadership vote



Typical, the Labour Party may as well say:
Thank you for your support and contributions all your working life. Now in your retirement when you need someone to stand and fight for you and you could elect someone of your choice to lead that fight, fuck off!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Black Lace?? Fucking hell, _Black Lace_!



Is this the 'Agadoo' Black Lace, whose singer served a prison sentence for trousering disability benefits while still performing with the 'band'?


----------



## phillm (Sep 7, 2016)

Jeremy should do an eighties night fundraiser and get Billy Bragg to curate it - working title Red Wedge maybe ?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 7, 2016)

there's a petition from LRC against the purge of members:

LRC Newsletter - Stop the Purge!

It says 'for LRC members' but asks for your CLP and/or Union.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 7, 2016)

two sheds said:


> there's a petition from LRC against the purge of members:
> 
> LRC Newsletter - Stop the Purge!
> 
> It says 'for LRC members' but asks for your CLP and/or Union.


What if its a boobytrap.....


----------



## two sheds (Sep 7, 2016)

hehe yes I wondered since I still haven't got my vote


----------



## hash tag (Sep 8, 2016)

For those of you that may have missed it, I see corbyn and Smith are on a  special on bbc1 shortly.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 8, 2016)

hash tag said:


> For those of you that may have missed it, I see corbyn and Smith are on a  special on bbc1 shortly.



BBC desperate to find an audience that will not think Smith's a prick.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2016)

hash tag said:


> For those of you that may have missed it, I see corbyn and Smith are on a  special on bbc1 shortly.


I assume Farage, Soubury and some twat from the TPA will be on as well to help Owen?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I assume Farage, Soubury and some twat from the TPA will be on as well to help Owen?


I thought it was just the two of them?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I thought it was just the two of them?


Was attempt at humour.


----------



## belboid (Sep 8, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> BBC desperate to find an audience that will not think Smith's a prick.


I think they've failed. Even the ones who say they're going to vote for him clearly think he's shit.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

belboid said:


> I think they've failed. Even the ones who say they're going to vote for him clearly think he's shit.



Have you managed to encounter a single person either online or in person who thinks he isn't awful? I've spoken online and in person to a handful of people who are voting for him and they all think about as much of him as I do.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 8, 2016)

on momentum's tweeter today







i suppose the obvious answer, "because they are a massive tory twunt" might not be in keeping with the one in JC's name about being abusive

and in other news, i had a phone call this evening from owen smith's team (like the text message last week thinking i am called jade) - i wish i knew who this jade was, and whether she was likely to vote for smith.  in which case telling them to fuck off might get her purged...


----------



## binka (Sep 8, 2016)

I am enjoying the total derision of the audience to everything Owen Smith says


----------



## belboid (Sep 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Have you managed to encounter a single person either online or in person who thinks he isn't awful? I've spoken online and in person to a handful of people who are voting for him and they all think about as much of him as I do.


He's just said the AWL are anti-semitic!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

hahaha


----------



## binka (Sep 8, 2016)

Owen Smith with a strong ending there repeating his offer to Jeremy Corbyn of a position that doesn't exist. Always finish on a high point


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

QT audience just booed Alastair Campbell's name. Hahaha. Oh god, anti-Corbyn people are going to be in absolute hysteria about that, like everything else.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> QT audience just booed Alastair Campbell's name. Hahaha. Oh god, anti-Corbyn people are going to be in absolute hysteria about that, like everything else.


Selfie central with JC at the end there...Oily just slunk off.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2016)

binka said:


> Owen Smith with a strong ending there repeating his offer to Jeremy Corbyn of a position that doesn't exist. Always finish on a high point


He's not still going on about making him party president is he? I thought even he could see that's the ludicrous proposal.


----------



## binka (Sep 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> He's not still going on about making him party president is he? I thought even he could see that's the ludicrous proposal.


Yes the final question was if they'd serve in each others shadow cabinets. Corbyn had already brought it up earlier in the debate and made Smith look like a total mug then. Great political instincts to allow Corbyn to repeat it at the end


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 8, 2016)

How arse clenchingly cringeworthy was QT tonight? Just weighing if I'll watch it on iPlayer later.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 8, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> How arse clenchingly cringeworthy was QT tonight? Just weighing if I'll watch it on iPlayer later.



I'd rather drop me bollocks in the toaster than watch that shite. It really is fucking guff of the highest order.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 8, 2016)

This was the best bit..... let's all get a selfie and ignore Smith


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2016)

Safe to say Owen, your appearance on BBCQT was an utter car crash.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 8, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> This was the best bit..... let's all get a selfie and ignore Smith


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

I didn't watch it but twitter is safely coming down on the side of Corbs winning the night, and Owen being an absolute tool.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I didn't watch it but twitter is safely coming down on the side of Corbs winning the night, and Owen being an absolute tool.



Yep, pretty much


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

^ That's been deleted.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 8, 2016)

Even the Guardian seem to begrudgingly admit it was a Corbyn win:



> *Corbyn v Smith - Verdict*
> *Corbyn v Smith - Verdict:* Owen Smith is articulate and combative, but it feels as if he has not really found a way of dismantling Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal and in tonight’s hustings that showed. Having adopted large chunks of the Corbyn policy agenda, he has two main offers: competence/electability, and Europe. He was probably at his best in the early stages of the debate, talking about Labour’s performance in the polls but it did not feel as if his arguments, robust as they were, were going to make much impression on those like the “feel the love” Corbynista councillor. (See 9.10am.)
> 
> On Europe, Smith has a distinctive position which should be attractive to Labour’s pro-European membership. And tonight he seemed to go further than he has in the past, making explicit something previously only implicit and saying that if he were leader Labour could reject the EU referendum result and opt to keep the UK in the EU. Many pro-European politicians, like Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair, would back this 100%. But it is a tricky argument to make now, because it is tantamount to saying “ignore the referendum”, and the studio audience reacted quite badly when he made his case.
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2016)

Jsut watched a bit of this -- have to say corbyn was looking pretty prime ministerial - confident and even charismatic - definitely wasnt like that in the recent past. All this back to back campaigning seems to have become a bit of a boot camp for him to his benefit in terms of presentation


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 8, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Ploughing in every time, returning a usable resource in exchange for the years of parasitic grasping!



In fairness you could use the entrenching tool to dig the bullet out and then recycle it . Just saying there's options and we shouldn't be closed minded .


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Jsut watched a bit of this -- have to say corbyn was looking pretty prime ministerial - confident and even charismatic - definitely wasnt like that in the recent past. All this back to back campaigning seems to have become a bit of a boot camp for him to his benefit in terms of presentation



I agree. That was a knock out performance tonight. Smith was visibly frustrated. he was doing a lot of that hand gesture stuff that Tony Blair and Tories are fond of doing. Corbyn leant into the table and occasionally made a pointy finger at the ground. How it should be done.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> He's not still going on about making him party president is he? I thought even he could see that's the ludicrous proposal.


 
when i first saw the headline about smith wanting JC to be president, i was quite inspired.

then i read it in more detail


----------



## Supine (Sep 8, 2016)

Car crash tv. Who in the labour party thought that a debate would help needs sacking. Both sides lost.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2016)

Smith felt further embarrassment at the end when  he put his hand out to shake another bloke hand and the bloke just walked straight past him. Ouch.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

> he has two main offers: competence/*electability*, and Europe



(from the Guardian piece quoted on the last page)

They keep saying this (that he's their panacea to electability), but I'm yet to see any of them show their workings.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 8, 2016)

I got about 8 minutes before turning it off from cringing. 

2nd round now!


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 8, 2016)

Smith is such a billy bullshitter.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2016)

The Telegraph... well, McTernan, actually, thinks otherwise. No surprise there.

First, the title


> Owen Smith wiped the floor with Jeremy Corbyn in Labour's Question Time debate – but his supporters won't care




Now the first paragraph.


> In tonight’s BBC “Question Time” special, devoted to the Labour leadership election, the foundational myth of Corbynism was repeated again and again. It is that old favourite – “the stab in the back”.
> 
> Audience members who support Corbyn claimed that Labour were ahead in the polls until the resignations from the Shadow Cabinet. Owen Smith gently corrected them – in 89 polls Labour were behind in 85 and level pegging in 4. Rather than concede the point, Corbyn played to his support and repeated their lie, adding that hostile media coverage was also to blame for poor polls.
> 
> This was the pattern throughout the debate: Smith answering questions clearly and punchily, talking through the camera to the country; Corbyn basking in adulation and talking in generalities.


That's all folks!

He's no Lynton Crosby, so why are the Blairites hiring this cunt?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

McTernan is not a serious person, he is a total joke even amongst the most hysterical and delusional elements of the various anti-Corbyn factions of the Labour Party.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 8, 2016)

I don't think I have seen someone fuck themselves right over to this degree for quite a long time. Well done Owen son, keep digging.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I don't think I have seen someone fuck themselves right over to this degree for quite a long time. Well done Owen son, keep digging.



He is coasting now because he knows he is going to lose, anything else is just more fuel for the fire of the next planned leadership challenge.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

That electability thing really pisses me off.

They have no fucking awareness of context (nor a desire to have any). They look no further than the end of their nose balancing those 1997-rose-tinted glasses. 

And they go on about "the most important thing is that Labour is in government so we can help people, and if it means having to make compromises so be it" seemingly ignoring the Great God Tone who declared "I'd rather a Tory government than a Left Wing Labour government" while Corbs was standing this time last year, and ignoring that they're fighting tooth and nail to ensure there can never be a Corbyn government. It's not that fucking important then, is it? If only they'd show a bit of honesty and admit it's ideological and about their jobs, rather than all this bullshit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

I think they all know Corbyn is going to win. They're hoping for as small a margin as possible so they can say "see, people are starting to see what a mess he is" and beyond that they're just using the whole event as another opportunity to ram in as much anti-Corbyn smearing and briefing as possible. The idea is it'll all add up, and eventually the tipping point will be reached, even if it isn't during this race.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> That electability thing really pisses me off.
> 
> They have no fucking awareness of context (nor a desire to have any). They look no further than the end of their nose balancing those 1997-rose-tinted glasses.
> 
> And they go on about "the most important thing is that Labour is in government so we can help people, and if it means having to make compromises so be it" seemingly ignoring the Great God Tone who declared "I'd rather a Tory government than a Left Wing Labour government" while Corbs was standing this time last year, and ignoring that they're fighting tooth and nail to ensure there can never be a Corbyn government. It's not that fucking important then, is it? If only they'd show a bit of honesty and admit it's ideological and about their jobs, rather than all this bullshit.



It's all for show, no one actually thinks that Owen Smith is 'electable'. It's all about attacking Corbyn.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2016)

What they hadn't banked on was the long-serving members who would by rights be PLP backers, or rather, wouldn't necessarily be wholeheartedly supporters of Corbyn, who are starting to back him now out of sheer frustration and anger at their absolute cockwomblery. The 'reluctant Corbynista'.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 9, 2016)

So hopefully 140 or so MPs will get behind Corbyn if/when he wins, leaving only the refuseniks as a rump?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> So hopefully 140 or so MPs will get behind Corbyn if/when he wins, leaving only the refuseniks as a rump?



Can you actually see that happening? I think a handful of people who aren't currently in the Shadow Cabinet will come back and agree to reconcile but beyond that no way.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 9, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Black Lace?? Fucking hell, _Black Lace_!



I have a bass guitar that is ex-Black Lace. Truth.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2016)

It's always worth taking note of who's being quiet. I know I've said it before, but Ummuna, Cooper, Jarvis, Creasy, etc. You hear something from them once in a while, but they're not leading the charge. I doubt they're even primary plotters (I think there are several groups, not at all cohesive beyond a small ragtag band that includes Benn and followers and Watson and whoever would be stupid enough to follow him). But they're waiting for their chance to come in and put themselves forward as the 'sensible' and 'professional' saviours to take us back to before all of this got out of hand. They'll let Watson and Smith and whoever else do all the dirty work and clear a path for them. And most importantly they'll claim to be 'not Corbyn' but also not associated with the worst of the plotters nor with Smith.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 9, 2016)

That was the best performance I've seen Corbyn give.

The bullshitting from Smith was bare for all to see.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 9, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Safe to say Owen, your appearance on BBCQT was an utter car crash.



I agree.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's always worth taking note of who's being quiet. I know I've said it before, but Ummuna, Cooper, Jarvis, Creasy, etc. You hear something from them once in a while, but they're not leading the charge. I doubt they're even primary plotters (I think there are several groups, not at all cohesive beyond a small ragtag band that includes Benn and followers and Watson and whoever would be stupid enough to follow him). But they're waiting for their chance to come in and put themselves forward as the 'sensible' and 'professional' saviours to take us back to before all of this got out of hand. They'll let Watson and Smith and whoever else do all the dirty work and clear a path for them. And most importantly they'll claim to be 'not Corbyn' but also not associated with the worst of the plotters nor with Smith.



i think that may well be the case - but I cant see how labour can go back to its previous policy postions now - arguing for an end to  austerity, renationalisation, tackling inequality, investment in socail housing and manufacturing are now mainstream ideas - an we can thank corbyn for that. Even the tories are making these sort of noises. The membership are going to have a bigger role now as well.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> i think that may well be the case - but I cant see how labour can go back to its previous policy postions now - arguing for an end to  austerity, renationalisation, tackling inequality, investment in socail housing and manufacturing are now mainstream ideas - an we can thank corbyn for that. Even the tories are making these sort of noises. The membership are going to have a bigger role now as well.



I agree, but they'll argue they can put forward those positions in a 'moderate' and 'sensible' way that is 'actually achievable' - which will for them for the most part mean more of the same. They genuinely don't understand that politics has shifted. They don't understand the context. Or, rather, they feel something shifting but don't understand its social, political and historical context and so are clinging on hoping to stop it shifting if only they can say Corbyn is bad enough times.

It's a really complex state of affairs, and their response is just going to keep getting uglier as they keep on not getting their way. I'm kind of depressed, kind of angry, but also kind of excited to see where things are going. Not especially in terms of the LP, but more generally. It's not just about a few hundred thousand new LP members, but about larger trends. Younger people who, had they been that age in the 90s wouldn't have been remotely interested in politics, are becoming engaged in one way or another in large numbers (whether or not the are 'doing it right'). The decline of the centre/centre-left and neoliberalism more broadly is happening all over the place, and the 'populism' that draws so much scorn that's rising in its place grows from a deep disaffection from decades of shit. We can make all sorts of predictions about what it means and where it'll go, but on a far broader scale than just the fate of who leads the LP it's heralding _something_... and the likes of the PLP can feel that foreboding and are hoping if they say it ain't so it won't be.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's all for show, no one actually thinks that Owen Smith is 'electable'. It's all about attacking Corbyn.



You may be partially right in that its probably the way it has now panned out, and theyll go down fighting regardless and cause as much damage for the sake of it . But  I believe they actually did think that he was electable initially . He was the replacement for _Aaargh_ . Who was laughably unelectable despite being massively hyped  . So why even bother replacing her ? 
I think we credit these twats with too much intelligence sometimes. I reckon they truly thought they'd win . Even with _Aaargh. _Cheifly because they had the majority of MPs and viewed that as an unassailable seal of legitimacy. They just didn't foresee the full extent of the backlash , just as they didn't foresee brexit .


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 9, 2016)

holy mother of pearl


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's always worth taking note of who's being quiet. I know I've said it before, but Ummuna, Cooper, Jarvis, Creasy, etc. You hear something from them once in a while, but they're not leading the charge. I doubt they're even primary plotters (I think there are several groups, not at all cohesive beyond a small ragtag band that includes Benn and followers and Watson and whoever would be stupid enough to follow him). But they're waiting for their chance to come in and put themselves forward as the 'sensible' and 'professional' saviours to take us back to before all of this got out of hand. They'll let Watson and Smith and whoever else do all the dirty work and clear a path for them. And most importantly they'll claim to be 'not Corbyn' but also not associated with the worst of the plotters nor with Smith.



Note also who is playing the longer game - Burnham and Khan keeping themselves out of the way for now, rising above it all and generally being quiet.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 9, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Note also who is playing the longer game - Burnham and Khan keeping themselves out of the way for now, rising above it all and generally being quiet.


Khan has come out in favour of smith recently, and pretty emphatically
Sadiq Khan has given his backing to Owen Smith for the Labour leadership
Tosser.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> McTernan is not a serious person, he is a total joke even amongst the most hysterical and delusional elements of the various anti-Corbyn factions of the Labour Party.


Yet, the party continues to employ him as a spin doctor. If he's not a serious person, then why does he continue to get work? It makes no sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can you actually see that happening? I think a handful of people who aren't currently in the Shadow Cabinet will come back and agree to reconcile but beyond that no way.



I think it'll come down to the constituency parties, in part. I've heard that some may flex their muscles with regard to the issues caused by boundary changes. If that's the case, we'll see how many members of the PLP value their principles over their seat.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think it'll come down to the constituency parties, in part. I've heard that some may flex their muscles with regard to the issues caused by boundary changes. If that's the case, we'll see how many members of the PLP value their principles over their seat.



I suspect many, perhaps most, would call their CLP's bluff and resign the whip rather than be coerced into co-operation with the Corbyn cabinet. I didn't think that before MPs like Louise Haigh became outspokenly anti-Corbyn but imo there is no way back now. I can't really see how the party will move on beyond the stalemate that currently exists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's always worth taking note of who's being quiet. I know I've said it before, but Ummuna, Cooper, Jarvis, Creasy, etc. You hear something from them once in a while, but they're not leading the charge. I doubt they're even primary plotters (I think there are several groups, not at all cohesive beyond a small ragtag band that includes Benn and followers and Watson and whoever would be stupid enough to follow him). But they're waiting for their chance to come in and put themselves forward as the 'sensible' and 'professional' saviours to take us back to before all of this got out of hand. They'll let Watson and Smith and whoever else do all the dirty work and clear a path for them. And most importantly they'll claim to be 'not Corbyn' but also not associated with the worst of the plotters nor with Smith.



I don't know about the others, but Chuckles is currently in heavy schmooze mode with the local constituency party, because he wants to be MP for a new Brixton constituency, post-boundary changes. Currently he values his seat over his ambitions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I suspect many, perhaps most, would call their CLP's bluff and resign the whip rather than be coerced into co-operation with the Corbyn cabinet. I didn't think that before MPs like Louise Haigh became outspokenly anti-Corbyn but imo there is no way back now. I can't really see how the party will move on beyond the stalemate that currently exists.



I'd say to you "look to party history". In just about every Labour govt, including Blair's, you've had people who absolutely shat on each other, working together in power. I can't see a possible Corbyn govt being any different, however pumped the antipathy currently is.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 9, 2016)

> In tonight’s BBC “Question Time” special, devoted to the Labour leadership election, the foundational myth of Corbynism was repeated again and again. It is that old favourite – “the stab in the back”.


Aah, the old Dolchstoßlegende - much favoured by the NSDAP:






Stab-in-the-back myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E2a I'm not sure McTernan is that historically literate, but given the recent antisemitism/stormtrooper furore who knows?


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2016)

Labour crushed in Sheffield by-election just 3 weeks after huge Corbyn rally

Mirror sticking the boot in after loss in Mosborough seat to LD's.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Currently he values his seat over his ambitions.


surely his seat is central to his ambitions?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Labour crushed in Sheffield by-election just 3 weeks after huge Corbyn rally
> 
> Mirror sticking the boot in after loss in Mosborough seat to LD's.



The Mosborough results are really odd. I don't understand them at all, did people who previously voted UKIP go for the Lib Dems to keep Labour out or did they just not turn out this time?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know about the others, but Chuckles is currently in heavy schmooze mode with the local constituency party, because he wants to be MP for a new Brixton constituency, post-boundary changes. Currently he values his seat over his ambitions.



Are the CLP swallowing it?


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The Mosborough results are really odd. I don't understand them at all, did people who previously voted UKIP go for the Lib Dems to keep Labour out or did they just not turn out this time?


Personal vote, probably. The winner used to be a councillor for the same ward, lost it in 2012. Now the need to punish the Libdems has receded, people who voted for her in the past probably went back. 

Round here the lib dems have a number of council strongholds in working class areas that would normally be labour, that they've maintained through hard ward work over the years - they were eaten away at in the coalition years, but there's been a bounce back in the last 12 months. I expect the same is happening elsewhere.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Personal vote, probably. The winner used to be a councillor for the same ward, lost it in 2012. Now the need to punish the Libdems has receded, people who voted for her in the past probably went back



Good points, and I would imagine that effect is magnified even more when the Labour candidate is not local.


----------



## gosub (Sep 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The Mosborough results are really odd. I don't understand them at all, did people who previously voted UKIP go for the Lib Dems to keep Labour out or did they just not turn out this time?


Sheffield City Council - Mosborough Ward 2012 Local Election Result


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 9, 2016)

I just got a new membership card for that labour party, so I guess my vote was counted, despite chiding my party local secretary that our leafleting should take leasons from Class War, and Workers Liberty are being far too sensitive about the allegations of antisemitism (I don't need to feel sensitive given my roots here).

Remember votes close on the 21st

Look here if you aren't sure if you have a vote Labour Leadership Election Voting Information

I know, I know, he's not the messiah. He isn't Kinnock or Blair either. A mass labour movement that is united could start to make a differnce. Nothing was built in a day, not even an airfix kit if it deserves painting properly.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 9, 2016)

Labour, UKIP and Conservative votes all down by 8-10% in Mosborough.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 9, 2016)

Pulled pork is the height of dining excellence in Mosbrough!
It was probably lost to labour due to the anti Libdem feelings following 2010's GE.
Besides 500 approx votes is not what I could call 'crushing'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Labour crushed in Sheffield by-election just 3 weeks after huge Corbyn rally
> 
> Mirror sticking the boot in after loss in Mosborough seat to LD's.


yeh it's all over for the labour party now 

last nail in auld corbo's coffin 

*treelover sips champagne, glorying in the socialists' sorrow*


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Besides 500 approx votes is not what I could call 'crushing'.


she won the ward with almost a 1000 majority in 2008. Sheffield City Council election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2016)

> _Smith said Labour would be entitled to go against the referendum vote because people were lied to_


_
_
Dimble bum had a sly smirk on his face as the end bit was done. Could just have resting smugface tho


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2016)

Blower was a very long standing LP Councillor.


"and while our excellent candidate was knocking on doors, trying to get out the vote ..."




Btw, Angela Smith is milking the Momentum Phone bank night incident


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2016)

"PLP complain when members distracted by election it called for. Hilarious."

reply to Angela Smith on T.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> "PLP complain when members distracted by election it called for. Hilarious."
> 
> reply to Angela Smith on T.


thank you for providing your invaluable running commentary


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2016)

That is what most do on here, why the constant sniping, it is unproductive.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Blower was a very long standing LP Councillor.
> 
> 
> "and while our excellent candidate was knocking on doors, trying to get out the vote ..."
> ...




The anti-Corbynites were posting that picture within seconds of the result. One of the reasons for the pearl clutching apparently was the fact that they were phone canvassing while drinking, something that apparently must never be done. Considering the hysteria over the after work drinks stuff you could be forgiven for being a bit confused as to what approach you are supposed to have to alcohol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2016)

tbh if september doesn't end soon everyones going to be on the suace


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh if september doesn't end soon everyones going to be on the suace



Within the Labour Party, with those opposing Corbyn at least, surely everyone already must be? In political history, have so many people ever been so continually outraged and offended by so little for so long?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Note also who is playing the longer game - Burnham and Khan keeping themselves out of the way for now, rising above it all and generally being quiet.



Burnham's got his mayoral thing though. I don't think he's going to want to return to leadership stuff again. Not saying there wasn't anything strategic in him being quiet -- of course there was, he had a mayoral race to win.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know about the others, but Chuckles is currently in heavy schmooze mode with the local constituency party, because he wants to be MP for a new Brixton constituency, post-boundary changes. Currently he values his seat over his ambitions.



The majority of them will follow suit. The ones most likely to resign the whip are those who have a strong relationship with their constituents and can make a case for them voting indie rather than sticking with the LP loyalty. I wonder, then, how much Jess Phillips has been cultivating her relationships with her constituents that she feels so certain she could resign the whip? And I wonder whether she's ever even thought about it in terms of loyalty to the party name.

You only have to look at the fact the seat here has remained staunchly Labour despite the parachuting of Trissy to see it's the party affiliation that matters. There will be exceptions, but they're exceptions that prove the rule. 

If Trissy resigned the whip (he won't) he'd lose his seat without a shadow of a doubt. He's likely to anyway because Stoke's almost definitely going to be losing a seat in the boundary review, and I'm reasonably certain he'd be okay with going now his ambitions of front bench-hood have been briefly realised and then potentially taken away for good.

If Joan Whalley was still MP for Stoke North she'd be an example of someone who could potentially risk it (I'm not sure she would have, though, nor that she'd have still won), because she was generally well-liked for helping her constituents locally, but now she's been replaced by Ruth Smeeth...

You keep hearing this nonsense about MPs getting their mandate from the electorate and not the members, but it fundamentally misunderstands the role of party and affiliation/loyalty. 1) it misunderstands the fact that people vote for the party in the main (as explained above) and not for individual MPs; and 2) it misunderstands that with 1 being what it is it's the party selectorate who ultimately give the mandate to a particular MP to represent the party in that seat. Without the party these MPs wouldn't exist, and would certainly have never been elected. Perhaps it should be that the MPs get their mandate from the electorate, but that isn't the reality of party politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are the CLP swallowing it?



Streatham CLP is. The boundary changes are likely to mean that Chuka retains the northern half of Streatham, and takes a bite out of southern and central Brixton too, and it might be a harder sell to the Dulwich & West Norwood CLP, to see a lump of their constituency being nicked.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You only have to look at the fact the seat here has remained staunchly Labour despite the parachuting of Trissy to see it's the party affiliation that matters. There will be exceptions, but they're exceptions that prove the rule.
> 
> If Trissy resigned the whip (he won't) he'd lose his seat without a shadow of a doubt. He's likely to anyway because Stoke's almost definitely going to be losing a seat in the boundary review, and I'm reasonably certain he'd be okay with going now his ambitions of front bench-hood have been briefly realised and then potentially taken away for good.
> .



I would absolutely love to see some of those people chance their arms against an official Labour party candidate. I'd be staying up all night just to see Hunt's face.

I doubt any of them are quite that stupid though unfortunately whatever they might say about their personal mandates.


----------



## andysays (Sep 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ...





> Smith said Labour would be entitled to go against the referendum vote because people were lied to


That's an interesting idea, but rather a dangerous precedent for him to set. I wonder if it will work when the rest of us refuse to accept results of elections, votes in Parliament, etc on the basis that the electorate was lied to


----------



## Sue (Sep 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> The majority of them will follow suit. The ones most likely to resign the whip are those who have a strong relationship with their constituents and can make a case for them voting indie rather than sticking with the LP loyalty. I wonder, then, how much Jess Phillips has been cultivating her relationships with her constituents that she feels so certain she could resign the whip? And I wonder whether she's ever even thought about it in terms of loyalty to the party name.
> 
> You only have to look at the fact the seat here has remained staunchly Labour despite the parachuting of Trissy to see it's the party affiliation that matters. There will be exceptions, but they're exceptions that prove the rule.
> 
> ...


And not forgetting the Labour members on the ground leafletting, canvassing, getting nominations etc. 

Oh, hang on. They seem to have forgotten the Labour party members on the ground. Or maybe not *forgotten*, more like 'we know better than them and can ignore their views' until of course they need them for the work on the ground that gets/keeps them elected.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2016)

You've got to be the right kind of member, Sue. For a start, you've got to have been door knocking at least once a week for at least 10 years. And you've also got to not like Corbyn. Then, and only then, are you a 'real' member who matters. Only then are you the lifeblood of the party.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2016)

The headline says one thing, but the contents are a bit of a mixed bag and the mix is in favour of the plotters. This is a stand-out paragraph.


> One former frontbencher said that if Labour MPs did not fall back into line, it would continue to “feed the narrative” that Mr Corbyn was being undermined by “Blairite” enemies in the Parliamentary Labour party. “Quite a few of my colleagues feel the same way, although not everyone.”



"A former frontbencher"? Typical. But here we have another example of just how incapable these people are at taking responsibility for their actions. Remember: these are the people that continue to blame the SNP for losing Scotland. In this case they're blaming Corbyn's supporters for their unpopularity.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 10, 2016)

I caught Dan Jarvis on any questions. Corbyn should be thanked for "reminding" the labour party of its roots and shadow cabinet elections will unite the party and make it better at reaching out. Clear implication that the message to Jezza is actually "thankyou and fuck off". 
Again it seems that the old gaurd are accepting they are going to have to talk the talk on being less rightwing - but through audibly gritted teeth.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 10, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum

Not too clever there Jezza...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...


Because he hates Jews? Thinks the holocaust didn't happen? Because you arrogantly place too weight much on what you deem important?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

Jesus.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

April this.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...



Why should he go to Israel exactly? Maybe the Israeli Labour Party should sort out trying to stop their support of ethnic cleansing, torture, illegal occupation etc before they try and guilt Corbyn into going to their museum which is itself built on top of land that Israel occupies illegally.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2016)

In other news unfortunately I am currently insulting the Armenian people as I am just too busy to visit the memorial to the Armenian genocide in Yerevan.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...


Put that in some context. How many invitations do you think he receives to go places? How many does he turn down? How many of those other invitations that he turns down get reported by the fucking Guardian. 

It's the Guardian you should be attacking here for their campaign against JC. Remember the time it was reported in the G and on the BBC that he had refused his first invitation to the privy council cos of prior engagements? Remember that? A snub to the queen, no less. When he did exactly the same thing that Cameron had done when he became leader. Because it wasn't a priority and he had prior engagements that were more important. And somehow, mysteriously, it wasn't reported when Cameron refused.

You need to learn how to read stuff better, otherwise you will just remain a passive victim to the crudest of propaganda techniques.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

If this is all they have left the two weeks leading into the election....


----------



## oryx (Sep 10, 2016)

I 'like' the way the article has two direct quotes from anti-Corbyn people and none from his side.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If this is all they have left the two weeks leading into the election....



Did you have the misfortune of watching any of the debate on Question Time? Half of what Owen Smith said was 'you support Hamas', 'you brought hard left anti-Semites into the party like the AWL' and so on. Desperate doesn't cover it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Put that in some context. How many invitations do you think he receives to go places? How many does he turn down? How many of those other invitations that he turns down get reported by the fucking Guardian.
> 
> It's the Guardian you should be attacking here for their campaign against JC. Remember the time it was reported in the G and on the BBC that he had refused his first invitation to the privy council cos of prior engagements? Remember that? A snub to the queen, no less. When he did exactly the same thing that Cameron had done when he became leader. Because it wasn't a priority and he had prior engagements that were more important. And somehow, mysteriously, it wasn't reported when Cameron refused.
> 
> You need to learn how to read stuff better, otherwise you will just remain a passive victim to the crudest of propaganda techniques.


One thing he is not in this is passive. He's an active and aware part of the plan to smear corbyn as anti-semitic.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 10, 2016)

The G are shits. I have Jewish blood, I know I'd prefer JC in charge if the fash start mobilising again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Did you have the misfortune of watching any of the debate on Question Time? Half of what Owen Smith said was 'you support Hamas', 'you brought hard left anti-Semites into the party like the AWL' and so on. Desperate doesn't cover it.


I didn't. They have run out of time and road.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> The G are shits. I have Jewish blood, I know I'd prefer JC in charge if the fash start mobilising again.


Triple G - soon.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 10, 2016)

The AWL are softies, they were sweet as SO too.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

> Most importantly, there was no Israel. After six months working as a policy adviser for Jeremy Corbyn, it was clear to me that the way Corbyn and those around him think about Jewish people is shaped by a frenetic anti-imperialism, focused on Israel and America. Without a hint of irony, one senior aide asked that I remove the greeting “Chag Kasher VeSameach” from Corbyn’s Passover message, for fear that Corbyn’s supporters might think the use of Hebrew “Zionist”.
> 
> In modern Britain, it is no longer true that intellectuals are ashamed of antisemitism. In the eyes of the leaders of the British far left, Israel’s occupation – for some, even Israel’s existence – offers a firm moral basis for antipathy towards Jews in Israel or, more ambitiously, towards Jews everywhere.



Why Jews in Labour place little trust in Jeremy Corbyn  | Joshua Simons

All the above is marginal and irrelevant to the current Labour leadership, then...?


----------



## Nylock (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...


Fair play, you don't half show yourself up to be a tawdry little pillock sometimes....


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Why Jews in Labour place little trust in Jeremy Corbyn  | Joshua Simons
> 
> All the above is marginal and irrelevant to the current Labour leadership, then...?


Did you read the entire article?



> Antisemitism is not rife in the British Labour party, quite the opposite in fact. It is only thought to be so because Labour is currently led by a team whose political identity is driven first and foremost by a visceral contempt for America and for Israel. Equally, while it is true that Israel’s current policies exacerbate antisemitism, it is not at all true that antisemitism exists because of the Jewish state or that antisemitism would have been extinguished if only the Jewish state had never existed


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 11, 2016)

I identify as a jew, even if it is from my dad's side. It turns out my daughters are 'proper' jews from a matriarchal line. So stop bringing up the antisemitism. Socialists should support the Palastinians, even if Hamas are more angry than PC.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Why Jews in Labour place little trust in Jeremy Corbyn  | Joshua Simons
> 
> All the above is marginal and irrelevant to the current Labour leadership, then...?


All Jews? Get to fuck.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2016)

In other news, Michael Foster has been suspended.


> Labour has suspended a prominent donor over an article he wrote in which Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid team were likened to Nazi stormtroopers.
> 
> Michael Foster wrote that Mr Corbyn and his team had "no respect for others and worse, no respect for the rule of law".
> 
> ...



He didn't use the word 'Nazi' himself? He didn't have to. The suggestion was there.


> The courts decided that the rules as they stand allowed it. This decision advantaged *Corbyn and his Sturm Abteilung* (stormtroopers), but on Friday afternoon the Appeal Court handed down a big decision for British democracy.



Today's headline in the Heil on Sunday is predictably hysterical.



> Jeremy Corbyn reignites race row engulfing Labour as he launches vicious act of revenge and purges top Jewish donor who criticised his regime




It wasn't Corbyn who suspended Foster, it was McNicol.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 11, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...


I note he isn't visiting a beach or a bar or sewage works or undertakers while he's there either.


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> In other news, Michael Foster has been suspended.



All I could think on reading the Foster piece, was that his probably expensive lawyers must not have told him why he lost.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ‘too busy’ for visit to Israel’s Holocaust museum
> 
> Not too clever there Jezza...



Entirely sensible of Corbyn. Deferring a visit to Yad Vashem that was offered by the Israeli Labor Party makes perfect sense. As for LFI having a pop at him, they're shills for Zionism. Always have been, always will be.

Of course, you'd have to have some kind of idea about the various perambulations into racism and fascism that Labor has made, to understand why deferring is sensible, and I suspect that you don't.


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

There's an absolute fucking pearler in The Times today.



Spoiler: The Times piece



*




*




The embattled Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was accused of deliberately courting controversy last night when he failed to condemn unequivocally the 9/11 terrorist attacks...

"My thoughts are with those whose lives were shattered 15 years ago in the horrific atrocity on 9/11 - and in the wars and terror unleashed across the globe in its aftermath."

One Labour MP accused him of making the "deeply upsetting" comments to boost his leadership campaign.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 11, 2016)

kin ell!


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

It's definitely the best one yet isn't it 

It's genuinely possibly the best one of all-time - in any country. We are getting right up there now.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


>



"He's got mass appeal to a small section of the electorate" 

Why isn't this nonsense ever challenged? The follow up question should have been, "do you know what mass appeal even means, Owen?"


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> "He's got mass appeal to a small section of the electorate"
> 
> Why isn't this nonsense ever challenged? The follow up question should have been, "do you know what mass appeal even means, Owen?"


I think he meant Corbyn is marmite, andhe thinks he can win because he is magnolia

I fucking hate beige


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

gosub said:


> He means Mr Corbyn is marmite, and can win because he is magnolia.
> 
> 
> I fucking hate beige


Corbyn is marmite, tbf.

Owen Smith's not even beige. He's vegemite. A pale immitation of marmite that nobody wants because why not have the genuine thing?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

Labour's shock Sheffield by-election defeat 'not about Jeremy Corbyn', says Lib Dem winner



> The woman who won a surprise Sheffield by-election victory over Labour has insisted that Jeremy Corbyn was not the reason for her success. Liberal Democrat Gail Smith made the comments after being elected to represent the Mosborough ward in a by-election called following the death of Labour councillor Isobel Bowler earlier this year.
> 
> In a surprise result, she beat Labour party candidate and current Stocksbridge town councillor Julie Grocutt - just months after the Lib Dems came fourth in the ward. Penistone and Stocksbridge MP Angela Smith has suggested the result was down to traditional Labour voters in Mosborough turning their backs on the party due to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership - but Councillor Smith said she didn’t believe that was the case. Writing on the Star website, she said: “My Lib Dems team and I have spent the last 10 weeks working seven days a week in Mosborough, knocking on just about every door, and I can tell you Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than Angela Smith wants to admit. I certainly do not agree that is why I won.
> 
> “Most people told us that they never saw Labour, only at election time and they felt taken for granted. One lady told me that she had been canvassed by Labour, who when she told them she was voting for me, was told 'You cannot vote Lib Dems, you live in a Labour area'. “And that is the arrogance of this Labour Party here in Sheffield - Corbyn is not as unpopular as they would like you to think. They need to look very closely at their own leadership in Sheffield.”



IME a lot of people in Sheffield really do hate the Labour council.


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> "He's got mass appeal to a small section of the electorate"
> 
> Why isn't this nonsense ever challenged? The follow up question should have been, "do you know what mass appeal even means, Owen?"



Whereas Smith has negligible appeal to the vast mass of the electorate.

It doesn't really need to be challenged by the interviewer - one way or another, he shows himself up as a cunt every time he opens his mouth...


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Corbyn is marmite, tbf.
> 
> Owen Smith's not even beige. He's vegemite. A pale immitation of marmite that nobody wants because why not have the genuine thing?



Agreed.  But he's taking less people not buying vegmite as having less haters.......anything to keep the self delusion going.


----------



## newbie (Sep 11, 2016)

the first 5 minutes or so of the World at One are well worth a listen.  Foster first, live, saying he'd been purged because McDonnel, then pre-recorded McDonnel condemning the purge(s), then Foster saying McDonnel was sly and to blame anyway.  Wonderful stuff.


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Corbyn is marmite, tbf.
> 
> Owen Smith's not even beige. He's vegemite. A pale immitation of marmite that nobody wants because why not have the genuine thing?











> We're happy little Vegemites
> As bright as bright can be.
> We all enjoy our Vegemite
> For breakfast, lunch, and tea.
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

agricola said:


>



Those teenagers really are both incredibly photogenic and sad!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2016)

The one in the middle in red is surely parodying marian iconography.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> It's definitely the best one yet isn't it
> 
> It's genuinely possibly the best one of all-time - in any country. We are getting right up there now.



thats as good as the cenotaph bowgate.


----------



## newbie (Sep 11, 2016)

I thought soviet style social realism- though I'll credit the photographer with the blue cap- together with the king over the water allusion from the crossed fingers.  Whatever it is, she's got it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Corbyn is marmite, tbf.
> 
> Owen Smith's not even beige. He's vegemite. A pale immitation of marmite that nobody wants because why not have the genuine thing?


gone off lemon curd that no one has thrown out yet


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Corbyn is marmite, tbf.
> 
> Owen Smith's not even beige. He's vegemite. A pale immitation of marmite that nobody wants because why not have the genuine thing?



No way, vegemite is just like concentrated marmite so if Corbyn is marmite then vegemite is the WRP or something


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

faces like a wet weekend.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 11, 2016)

inva said:


> whereas Owen 'get ISIS round the table' Smith will have the Tories on the ropes...?



Nope, why would I think that?

Labour are fucked... it's tory governments til 2025 at the very least and no matter what anyone on here says, ordinary working class people are always going to fair better under a Labour government than a tory one.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> it's tory governments til 2025


A decade is a long time in politics.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 11, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The one in the middle in red is surely parodying marian iconography.








The one in the red looks like they're getting ready to make a rude gesture with their left hand.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

fare


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nope, why would I think that?
> 
> Labour are fucked... it's tory governments til 2025 at the very least and no matter what anyone on here says, ordinary working class people are always going to fair better under a Labour government than a tory one.



Only in an imaginary world where events that proceed bear no relation to events that precede them; and where all other things are equal except that one variable. And even then - probably, not always.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

Ole said:


> Only in an imaginary world where events that proceed bear no relation to events that precede them; and where all other things are equal except that one variable. And even then - probably, not always.



Sometimes I feel like we are living in that world


----------



## inva (Sep 11, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nope, why would I think that?


don't ask me it's from too long ago


> Labour are fucked... it's tory governments til 2025 at the very least and no matter what anyone on here says, ordinary working class people are always going to fair better under a Labour government than a tory one.


One reason Labour is fucked is that no matter what anyone says a very substantial number of ordinary working class people don't think it's at all obvious they'll be better off under a Labour government, or not enough to vote for them anyway.

Labour may be a shambles at the moment, but it's shit when unified too, so...


----------



## Ole (Sep 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Sometimes I feel like we are living in that world


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


>


The things some people will do for a free ice cream


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

inva said:


> don't ask me it's from too long ago
> 
> One reason Labour is fucked is that no matter what anyone says a very substantial number of ordinary working class people don't think it's at all obvious they'll be better off under a Labour government, or not enough to vote for them anyway.
> 
> Labour may be a shambles at the moment, but it's shit when unified too, so...


If Labour are truly fucked then so be it. Do you think no party will replace them? The FPTP system always defaults to two parties. It's inevitable.

I don't think UKIP or the SNP or the Lib Dems are going to be the 2nd party.


----------



## inva (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> If Labour are truly fucked then so be it. Do you think no party will replace them? The FPTP system always defaults to two parties. It's inevitable.
> 
> I don't think UKIP or the SNP or the Lib Dems are going to be the 2nd party.


I didn't say anything about there not being a 2nd party or that Labour will disappear (I don't think it will).


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> If Labour are truly fucked then so be it. Do you think no party will replace them? The FPTP system always defaults to two parties. It's inevitable.
> 
> I don't think UKIP or the SNP or the Lib Dems are going to be the 2nd party.


UKIP is pretty much bankrupt and membership taken a real hit since June


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

agricola said:


>


Druggies, all of 'em.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

Thornberry made a complete tool of herself on Sky News earlier today.

She couldn't name the French foreign minister or the South Korean president (and just to double down she couldn't name the latter's gender either) so accused Dermot Murnaghan of sexism.

Both France and South Korea have been major focal points of foreign affairs in recent weeks, as have the former's foreign minister and the latter's president.

Thornberry is Corbyn's choice as shadow foreign secretary.

Emily Thornberry accuses Sky presenter Murnaghan of sexism


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Thornberry made a complete tool of herself on Sky News earlier today.
> 
> She couldn't name the French foreign minister or the South Korean president (and just to double down she couldn't name the latter's gender either) so accused Dermot Murnaghan of sexism.
> 
> ...


It's OK, when it comes to it she can just wing it like everybody else these days. It's where Wiki comes in handy.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

And there are people who think these guys are actually capable of winning a general election.

Not only is there zero chance of that ever happening but they are so bloody incompetent that there is no meaningful opposition to the Tories right now!

And it's not going to change! If you put a team of people together who simply aren't up to the  job and have them marshalled by a man who at heart doesn't want to be there, the only thing you can expect is total marginalisation and irrelevance.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> at heart doesn't want to be there


see you repeat variations on this regularly- do you think a career politician, a 30 years man and boy career politician, doesn't want it?  Ludicrous, these peole are desirous of power. Wether thats 'I can do good with the power' or simply naked ambition, they are MP's. They want it.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

There is no chance of a Labour victory next time no matter who's at the helm, especially if May manages to pull off a successful EU exit beforehand. *

* I don't think this will happen. We're not really allowed to leave.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> There is no chance of a Labour victory next time no matter who's at the helm, especially if May manages to pull off a successful EU exit beforehand. *
> 
> * I don't think this will happen. We're not really allowed to leave.


we can check out any time we like etc


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 11, 2016)

There'll be another referendum eventually, this time with only one choice. They've got form after all.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Druggies, all of 'em.



I hope so, if I had to be there I would bring along a lot of ketamine


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I hope so, if I had to be there I would bring along a lot of ketamine



Carfentanil is the future I hear!


----------



## Cid (Sep 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The one in the red looks like they're getting ready to make a rude gesture with their left hand.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



The bloke on the right is Marvel cinematic universe Loki, busy making mischief.

I think the bloke in the middle just missed being in a 90s boy band. Born 20 years too late.


----------



## Cid (Sep 11, 2016)

Smith supporters do have a weird, waxen look to them.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Smith supporters do have a weird, waxen look to them.



Well they literally don't exist, other than Smith and (maybe) his wife...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

the minute I realised smith was truly doomed was when he could only gather such a meagre crowd on a hot day in a park withe free beer and burgers on offer. Not even free bbq and alcohol could get the crowds. I bet most just scored the free eats and fucked off


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the minute I realised smith was truly doomed was when he could only gather such a meagre crowd on a hot day in a park withe free beer and burgers on offer. Not even free bbq and alcohol could get the crowds. I bet most just scored the free eats and fucked off



For me it was when he pretended not to know what coffee was because he thought that would make him seem working-class, the man is a genuine idiot.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Thornberry made a complete tool of herself on Sky News earlier today.
> 
> She couldn't name the French foreign minister or the South Korean president (and just to double down she couldn't name the latter's gender either) so accused Dermot Murnaghan of sexism.
> 
> ...



Such gaffes never stopped the Tories, why should they harm Labour's chances?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 11, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Such gaffes never stopped the Tories, why should they harm Labour's chances?



Her Tory counterpart is the ..cunt..who referred to African children as " picanninies " while claiming their parents had " watermelon smiles " . And wrote about the Turkish president fucking a goat. And that's just off the top of my head. 

Unless she goes full Griffin she's streets ahead of that lowlife


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Her Tory counterpart is the ..cunt..who referred to African children as " picanninies " while claiming their parents had " watermelon smiles " . And wrote about the Turkish president fucking a goat. And that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> Unless she goes full Griffin she's streets ahead of that lowlife



And where is the opposition who is pointing all this stuff out?

If they are such a mess and if there are so many political open goals available to the Corbynistas, why are they apparently incapable of landing a single blow against the Tories. Not one.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And where is the opposition who is pointing all this stuff out?
> 
> If they are such a mess and if there are so many political open goals available to the Corbynistas, why are they apparently incapable of landing a single blow against the Tories. Not one.


Can't fight a war on two* fronts. Kill off Smith first, then go for the Tories.

*three if you include the media.


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And where is the opposition who is pointing all this stuff out?
> 
> If they are such a mess and if there are so many political open goals available to the Corbynistas, why are they apparently incapable of landing a single blow against the Tories. Not one.


How would you know if they had? Would it be reported in the so-called mainstream media?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

backed em down over tax credits cuts. Full academisation not going ahead. Can we credit those to the labour party though, or vocal opposition from non parliamentary sources?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> How would you know if they had? Would it be reported in the so-called mainstream media?



"So-called mainstream media"

Is this story just a media confection which does not reflect at all upon the shadow cabinet's competence under Corbyn?

I think the especially excruciating bits are (i) where she plays the sexism card to simply mask her incompetence and then (ii) threatens to basically "take this outside" when she gets really frustrated at Murnaghan pointing out her incompetence.


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Is this story just a media confection which does not reflect at all upon the shadow cabinet's competence under Corbyn?


Pretty much, yes.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Pretty much, yes.



How do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> How do you come to that conclusion?


By observing the hilarious bias of almost all of the reporting of Corbyn and his shadow cabinet.


----------



## Duncan2 (Sep 11, 2016)

I bet Thornberry knows what Aleppo is.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the minute I realised smith was truly doomed was when he could only gather such a meagre crowd on a hot day in a park withe free beer and burgers on offer. Not even free bbq and alcohol could get the crowds. I bet most just scored the free eats and fucked off



If you took the hacks, curious corbyn supporters & park drinkers out of the crowd it would be even more hilarious.


----------



## Duncan2 (Sep 11, 2016)

Watching his piss-poor performance on Question Time at every moment I was expecting him to throw in the towel live on air.He was that bad and he clearly is that unloved.If he has any friends they should tell him.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 11, 2016)

So what do you reckon the result of the vote will be?

I'm hoping for just over 70% for Corbyn leaving OS on twentysomething percent. That would be a fair spanking.

I guess the vote has been rigged enough for that to be a possibility.


----------



## Duncan2 (Sep 11, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So what do you reckon the result of the vote will be?
> 
> I'm hoping for just over 70% for Corbyn leaving OS on twentysomething percent. That would be a fair spanking.
> 
> I guess the vote has been rigged enough for that to be a possibility.


I would like to be able to say he will definitely bow out some time this week but I guess he may soldier on to just the sort of spanking you predict.Its awful.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

so long as it is what the people on the olden days called a drubbing I shall be satisfied. I thinks nakedly becoming clear if it wasn't before 'we own the machine, you have the mandate'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I would like to be able to say he will definitely bow out some time this week but I guess he may soldier on to just the sort of spanking you predict.Its awful.



at this point he has to go over the top and face the machine guns of utter failure. Aargh bowed out early enough to retain some dignity. Smith has left it to late for that.


----------



## Duncan2 (Sep 11, 2016)

Christ what was he thinking of though?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> Christ what was he thinking of though?


they are all incredibly ridden with hubris and self belief. Some of them are quick enough to temper that with pragmatic self interest. Others, well others get used and look into the void of a coffee cup


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 11, 2016)

The worst thing for Smith is, even if he wins (lol), can you imagine the outcry? He literally would not be allowed to lead. No one would believe it was possible without vote rigging on a vast scale.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 11, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> The worst thing for Smith is, even if he wins (lol), can you imagine the outcry? He literally would not be allowed to lead. No one would believe it was possible without vote rigging on a vast scale.



Watch this space


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2016)

nah it won't happen. Owen Smith winning. Who wishes to lay a fiver with me. I'll honour it but only one person. I'm not exactly made of fivers


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 11, 2016)

|I'm looking forward to the aftermath. Maybe we will get proper debates going about how to do things better, and say goodbye to the privilaged children.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Smith supporters do have a weird, waxen look to them.



Its amost as if they've been hired from some modeling agency....


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 11, 2016)

Not a very good agency


----------



## Sirena (Sep 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Smith supporters do have a weird, waxen look to them.


If you watch the Question Time show, you will notice that a Saul Miller asks the question about anti-semitism.  Now, he is almost not a real human.

Curiously, he is also a regular on Question Time.  He is so oddly plastic, I remember having seen him a couple of times before, usually when Mad Mel is on.  Unfortunately, I can't find a photo....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 11, 2016)

agricola said:


>


 
i think the one in the red is checking his pulse to see if he's about to die of boredom...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 12, 2016)

agricola said:


>


It's as if the Hunger Games were real


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And there are people who think these guys are actually capable of winning a general election.
> 
> Not only is there zero chance of that ever happening but they are so bloody incompetent that there is no meaningful opposition to the Tories right now!
> 
> And it's not going to change! If you put a team of people together who simply aren't up to the  job and have them marshalled by a man who at heart doesn't want to be there, the only thing you can expect is total marginalisation and irrelevance.


Shaddap.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 12, 2016)

Diamond: wait till the new people start knocking on doors.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so long as it is what the people on the olden days called a drubbing I shall be satisfied. I thinks nakedly becoming clear if it wasn't before *'we own the machine, you have the mandate'*



DC where does this come from?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 12, 2016)

Unfortunate juxtaposition...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2016)

Ole said:


> Only in an imaginary world where events that proceed bear no relation to events that precede them; and where all other things are equal except that one variable. And even then - probably, not always.



That's a pretty good analysis of where Hertford lives.


----------



## phillm (Sep 12, 2016)

The Spectator is dissing the Momentum fundraiser at Brixton Jamm.

Corbynistas run out of momentum at fundraiser | Coffee House


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I bet Thornberry knows what Aleppo is.



A nickname for a leper, innit!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its amost as if they've been hired from some modeling agency....



Madame Tussauds.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> DC where does this come from?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


my brain I think.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

This is one way of ensuring corbyns time is up!......

Corbyn's seat set to vanish from map under Tories' boundary changes


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2016)

How? He won't have the slightest difficulty getting another seat.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> How? He won't have the slightest difficulty getting another seat.



What seat?


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2016)

I dunno, Leicester east is probably up for grabs soon?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I dunno, Leicester east is probably up for grabs soon?



All women shortlists?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 13, 2016)

Only certain seats have all women shortlists.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 13, 2016)

We need more women leaders, and folk from the different ethnic groups (I'm not a WASP), but sod having useless people with bad politics, Eagle? Come fly with me.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 13, 2016)

I'd look forward to jez winning an unwinnable seat  There are lots of new people who will knock on doors. 

He won't want to challenge Dianne or Emily (that is how the seats lie). Lots of CLPs would want him as their MP in an instant.


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> All women shortlists?


I think you need to calm down.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Only certain seats have all women shortlists.



Aren't there particular situations where all-women shortlists come into play, rather than specific seats? 

I have a vague idea (and it is just that) than in the case of a "retiring" MP there has to be an AWS to choose their replacement, which would limit Corbyn's ability to be parachuted into Leicester East or any other vaguely safe seat.


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2016)

ordinary selection rules won't apply in this case. Jess Phillips will get to call him a misogynist, he'll get to run in a safe seat. That's all that'll happen.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What seat?


Pontypridd? There's a certain justice to it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Pontypridd? There's a certain justice to it.


 thats just what ma said. But yeah he'll win whichever labour seat he goes for imo. Carried forward on the backs of the adoring crowd. St Jez.


----------



## JimW (Sep 13, 2016)

He can come down to Stroud and win it back off our Tory mannequin. He claimed to be a Rovers fan last time he was here so he can hang around the New Lawn with his mate Dave Drew, when he's not out smiting the unrighteous.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Pontypridd? There's a certain justice to it.



I think we have a winner.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 13, 2016)

Worth pointing out that the Independent is a rather different slant on the issue


> Mr Corbyn said he was unhappy about the changes, which will now be consulted on, but "very confident" about the future. Despite the abolition of his seat, it is unlikely he would not be selected in the new Finsbury Park & Stoke Newington constituency largely formed from his current North Islington base.



No idea which is correct but I it's hardly the forgone conclusion the ES would like to believe


----------



## teqniq (Sep 13, 2016)

Sleaford Mods frontman suspended from Labour Party for “online abuse”


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 13, 2016)

I like how he responds to it. "fucking scum." lol.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 13, 2016)

There are a lot of folk complaining about not getting their votes, definitely not all trots (not a slur on that group).

Thing is, they can't ban people fast enough.

Thumbs up to the mods, for their music too.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2016)

What do we think about this 'organising school' business?

No idea if it'll work but if it actually happens in any meaningful way it'll be more proactive engagement than I've seen from Labour in, well, forever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What do we think about this 'organising school' business?
> 
> No idea if it'll work but if it actually happens in any meaningful way it'll be more proactive engagement than I've seen from Labour in, well, forever.


theres a LOT of new members who won't have much experience in organizing. I dunno, I have none myself but I think a class on it would have to be hand in hand with learning on the hoof with the vets. Yes I went there.

but yeah, entire generation switched off to parly politics and what you do to get there- the bread and butter work, the dogshit politics etc. Wash your hands before eating.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 13, 2016)

Looks like thanks to the boundary review I'll be trading in Tristram Hunt for Ruth Smeeth. lol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2016)

just watching the QT debate. Owen is a massive cunt, claiming 'abuse' because someone asked him why he wouldn't serve under a labour leader. He's a freak and clearly losing it. Its painful.


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> just watching the QT debate. Owen is a massive cunt, claiming 'abuse' because someone asked him why he wouldn't serve under a labour leader. He's a freak and clearly losing it. Its painful.



See the bit at the end, during the credits, when a lot of the audience go up to shake JC's hand, and everyone ignores Smith.  He hovers hopefully for a while, then skulks off.  Painfully cringe-making.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2016)

it was. The squirming he did over Prevent was also lol. People just openly laughing at him. He's fucked, St Jez made him look like a schoolboy. Fucking shambles. Roll on the 24th. That should be one where I'll lay in the weed and popcorn


----------



## Athos (Sep 14, 2016)

Do you thin he believes he's anything but fucked?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

Jez isn't perfect, but you have to admire that stamina. (I voted for him)

I so want to talk about some real issues, not stupid things like the left are abusive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do you thin he believes he's anything but fucked?


Hard to say. He certainly comes across as one who believes himself. Hubris again.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 14, 2016)

He's said if he loses he could stand again. WHY?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's said if he loses he could stand again. WHY?


If at first you don't succeed...have the party loyalty to endorse the legitimate winner like a grown up.

Lots of evidence in attitudes from the labour right that they are simply unused to losing. Total melts


----------



## inva (Sep 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Lots of evidence in attitudes from the labour right that they are simply unused to losing. Total melts


been more than a decade since they won a general election


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Looks like thanks to the boundary review I'll be trading in Tristram Hunt for Ruth Smeeth. lol.



Hey, you're trading in a mediocre posh historian for a CIA agent, that's much cooler!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> just watching the QT debate. Owen is a massive cunt, claiming 'abuse' because someone asked him why he wouldn't serve under a labour leader. He's a freak and clearly losing it. Its painful.


If he'd been a politician in the years before Blair-Brown, he'd have needed a thicker skin. Many of our contemporary politicians are weak of mind and spirit (one and the same thing in France) and are incapable of taking criticism. MPs on the stump were routinely heckled and Alec Douglas-Home once had to climb out of a window to avoid an angry crowd.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2016)

They aren't incapable of taking criticism, it's just a tactic for deflecting it.


----------



## newbie (Sep 14, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What do we think about this 'organising school' business?
> 
> No idea if it'll work but if it actually happens in any meaningful way it'll be more proactive engagement than I've seen from Labour in, well, forever.



this is nothing new, the other lot have been teaching people how to erect pasting tables for yonks.


----------



## agricola (Sep 14, 2016)

One of his better PMQs, that.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 14, 2016)

agricola said:


> One of his better PMQs, that.


Easily his best so far in my view.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 14, 2016)

Even his staunchest critics amongst the PLP have been tweeting that PMQs was excellent for Jezza.

I don't trust them


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Indeed. Fuck em.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2016)

I'd imagine it's good practice to allow it occasionally - then you can point to your praise and say _see? it isn't an MSM conspiracy, we praise him when he's good_, then get back to twisting the knife.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2016)

well, that and denying the obvious makes you look deluded/dishonest. Which we know them to be but you have to put a face on when its obvious. CF: guardian backhanded praise over the QT massacre of Owen swingin dick Smith


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

It is not often I post links from the SWP but fuck me....



> Right wing Labour MPs have insisted they will keep trying to force party leaderJeremy Corbyn out—even if he wins next week’s leadership election.
> 
> Party activists were told that “nothing changes” if Corbyn wins the election on 24 September, at a meeting with several Labour MPs on Monday.
> 
> ...



More...

Inside the 'Moderates' meetup': Vows to keep fighting to oust Corbyn


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> well, that and denying the obvious makes you look deluded/dishonest.


The BBC didn't get the memo about that - the only clip they played in the R4 evening bulletin was May's 'Labour will take the advantages of grammar schools and pull up the ladder for the rest' line.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 14, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Even his staunchest critics amongst the PLP have been tweeting that PMQs was excellent for Jezza.
> 
> I don't trust them



Well there are many things Jezza can do well including speech making, making jam and pulling. He's just not going to get elected PM in the opinion of many with or without an axe to grind. When he wins this contest he should be doing so with the succession in mind.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

So there is a Sky News special at 8pm on the leadership race before the debate.  I predict it will be utter bollocks.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

First post, just signed up - gotta say, I'm looking forward to the Sky debate,  though can't say I'm a fan of either of the two - prefer Jezza though!


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> First post, just signed up - gotta say, I'm looking forward to the Sky debate,  though can't say I'm a fan of either of the two - prefer Jezza though!



Welcome to Urban!


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

My prediction
Survation will have massively stacked the audience
Smith will come across as tense and defensive
Smith will spend the hour telling Labour Party members they were wrong
Smith will accidentally mention his 29 inch cock again
Corbyn will let Smith hang himself again.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

is there even any point of this second 'debate', I mean both these guys are total no hopers anyway - Smith wants a second ref, and Corbo just wans to save the world by being 'nice' - LOL, bet Isis are really shaking in their boots!


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> is there even any point of this second 'debate', I mean both these guys are total no hopers anyway - Smith wants a second ref, and Corbo just wans to save the world by being 'nice' - LOL, bet Isis are really shaking in their boots!



Corbyn is putting forward issues that affect every day working people which New Labour or the Tories are not. Owen is pretending to but no one is buying it.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

This documentary is shite as expected. Total focus on Momentum but nothing on the right wing infiltrator known as 'Progress'.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

How about the fact that many,many people are against mass-immigration, the EU, the emasculation of our defence forces etc..how about those people- what  is Corbyn doing for them? And how about non-working people,  what is Jezza doing for them?


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> This documentary is shite as expected. Total focus on Momentum but nothing on the right wing infiltrator known as 'Progress'.


 Not watching it - but who's helping to keep us safe from the Jihadis?? not Labour that's for sure - they want to let them all in with the refugees , by by Labour


----------



## inva (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> How about the fact that many,many people are against mass-immigration, the EU, the emasculation of our defence forces etc..how about those people- what  is Corbyn doing for them? And how about non-working people,  what is Jezza doing for them?


what is the emasculation of our defence forces?


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> Not watching it - but who's helping to keep us safe from the Jihadis?? not Labour that's for sure - they want to let them all in with the refugees , by by Labour



Can you explain how Labour have not kept us safe from terrorists and your issue with refugees please?


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

I think we have a Kipper lol.This should go well.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> Not watching it - but who's helping to keep us safe from the Jihadis?? not Labour that's for sure - they want to let them all in with the refugees , by by Labour


the tories came up with the nice covenant of security with the jihadis so i wouldn't have much faith in them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I think we have a Kipper lol.This should go well.








a nice kipper recently





a nutty kipper playing with himself recently


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Can you explain how Labour have not kept us safe from terrorists and your issue with refugees please?


 Leftie ideologies in Europe have let many jihadis with the refugee invasion, don't you remember Paris and Belgium, or how about the gropers in Cologne? Labour would 'let them all in ' here given the chance, just listen to Yvette Cooper


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> Leftie ideologies in Europe have let many in with the refuges invasion, don't you remember Paris and Belgium, or how about the gropers in Cologne? Labour would 'let them all in ' here given the chance, just listen to Yvette Cooper


i hate to break it to you but angela merkel is not a leftie.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> Leftie ideologies in Europe have let many jihadis with the refugee invasion, don't you remember Paris and Belgium, or how about the gropers in Cologne? Labour would 'let them all in ' here given the chance, just listen to Yvette Cooper


oh and no one listens to yvette cooper. except you.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

inva said:


> what is the emasculation of our defence forces?


 the attempt to abolish Trident is the most obvious example


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


no, Mr.Bishie, angela merkel is not a leftie.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Come on Martina2016 - show us ya true colours!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> is there even any point of this second 'debate', I mean both these guys are total no hopers anyway - Smith wants a second ref, and Corbo just wans to save the world by being 'nice' - LOL, bet Isis are really shaking in their boots!


Without wishing to suggest in any way that it is a defining moment, but take a look at the footage of Corbyn in today's PMQs, and tell me that's someone being "nice".

It suits a certain agenda to paint Corbyn in that beautifully stereotypical mould of the British "nice but ineffectual" type, but, as with all generalisations (some more than others), it misses a lot of the story. 

The anti-Corbyn tendency like to - perhaps unwittingly - emphasise the importance of the role of the leader of the Party in the political context, but in doing so ignore the significant support he's garnering outside that establishment. Worse (from their point of view), I think they actually run the risk of turning him into an "outsider candidate" which could result in them suddenly having to deal with a leader who's totally out of step with the party, but carries a massive popular mandate.

There comes a point where, whatever clever tricks you pull, someone commanding such wide public support actually begins to trancend all of your machinations. That might be fantasy today, as far as Corbyn is concerned, but it's not impossible. Owen Smith, on the other hand, doesn't really have that advantage. I expect that's Corbyn's fault, somehow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> the attempt to abolish Trident is the most obvious example


what, not the tory insistence on sending our gallant lads into combat in helmand in scantily clad landrovers?


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> the attempt to abolish Trident is the most obvious example



is that the mass murdering weapons system we cannot use without the permission of the United States?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, Mr.Bishie, angela merkel is not a leftie.



Fuck me! Really?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Come on Martina2016 - show us ya true colours!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck me! Really?


apparently so


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Without wishing to suggest in any way that it is a defining moment, but take a look at the footage of Corbyn in today's PMQs, and tell me that's someone being "nice".
> 
> It suits a certain agenda to paint Corbyn in that beautifully stereotypical mould of the British "nice but ineffectual" type, but, as with all generalisations (some more than others), it misses a lot of the story.
> 
> ...


corbyn stole smith's charisma


----------



## two sheds (Sep 14, 2016)

Trident's a lot of use against suicide bombers  you going to nuke London to stop em?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> Leftie ideologies in Europe have let many jihadis with the refugee invasion, don't you remember Paris and Belgium, or how about the gropers in Cologne? Labour would 'let them all in ' here given the chance, just listen to Yvette Cooper


and how is a nuke going to stop attacks in belgium , paris or as you say the 'gropers in cologne ?'


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

I don't mind the nukes, they won't be turned on us, prefer if we shared them with the French though. Having a PM who doesn't want to bomb anything that moves is far more important.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

TRUE BRIT - TRUE HERO!



'You're not laughing now!'

Can you figure out who said that and the relevance to this thread? Yes,of course you can, don't you see , the joke's on you!

We got Brexit , get over it!


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> We got Brexit , get over it!


Oh noes!


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 sounds like a bad dating site nick name


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 is Nige & I claim my five pounds!

Welcome aboard Nige lol


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> TRUE BRIT - TRUE HERO!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well done, you won a shit sandwich which your campaigners ran away from like cowards. You must feel good about that.


----------



## Martina2016 (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i hate to break it to you but angela merkel is not a leftie.


 LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Martina2016 sounds like a bad dating site nick name



Martina sounds like a blind date who turns out to be Owen Smith.


----------



## inva (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL


so how come you prefer Jeremy Corbyn to Owen Smith?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers - fiver goes to you for well early spottage


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Martina sounds like a blind date who turns out to be Owen Smith.


Did you have to?
I've just had my tea


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> the attempt to abolish Trident is the most obvious example


Ignorant people tend to a kind of view that, if it goes "bang", it's military, and lump the whole lot together.

To some extent, that's fair: Hercules transports can deliver paratroopers or aid; armies can invade, or protect, and so on. But the nuclear thing stands apart, to a pretty significant degree, and Trident certainly does. All of the rest of the military estate exists to be able to go to particular parts of the world and do something - oust a dictator, perform humanitarian aid, do a "policing operation", defend against an invasion, etc. But Trident has only one purpose. Its loss would mean the loss of a comparatively isolated segment of the military infrastructure, without any detrimental effect whatsoever on the rest of it. Whatever the merits of keeping or scrapping Trident, your attempt to characterise that as a generalised assault on the military (presumably stopping to grab a suitably wrappable flag along the way, to garner a bit of patronising and vicarious "our boys" sentiment), is pretty dishonest.

Personally, I have a problem with a country our size and with the comparatively small conventional military capability we have possessing strategic nuclear weapons, particularly since we don't even have the authority to use it autonomously anyway. We are being invited to spend a grandiose sum in order to be a junior member of a club that only really needs us to led some international respectability to its aims. Anyone so seriously concerned - and probably with some reason - at the state of our conventional military might be very keen to divert towards them even a part of the vast sums we'd save by losing Trident.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL


refugeEs. a refuge is what refugees want. unless it's a refuge for battered women.,


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 - fuck of ninjaboy


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Martina sounds like a blind date who turns out to be Owen Smith.


tbh i would rather go on a date with smith than martina


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL


Oh dear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL


i don't see the germans letting you in, darling. they're not THAT stupid


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

Martina2016 said:


> TRUE BRIT - TRUE HERO!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how's he a true brit when he spends all his time hobnobbing with foreigners in brussels and strasbourg?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

I'd be glad to take discussion of defence to another thread. I think we need 'atoms for peace' (I know that slogan was an excuse), we need engineers who can make reliable carbon free energy close, and scare off the world power nutters; like I said, better to share it with the French.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 14, 2016)

Oh dear, Martina has fallen victim to the terrorists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

a pub bore irritating british workers recently


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

Hmm, Martina was rubbish and a bit of a troll, but was that worthy of a ban?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Hmm, Martina was rubbish and a bit of a troll, but was that worthy of a ban?


yeh, i'm bored now


----------



## inva (Sep 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Hmm, Martina was rubbish and a bit of a troll, but was that worthy of a ban?


it's probably not their 1st ban


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 14, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Hmm, Martina was rubbish and a bit of a troll, but was that worthy of a ban?



When it's a racist cunt of a returnee, yes it is!


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 14, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> When it's a racist cunt of a returnee, yes it is!


Fair point


----------



## bendeus (Sep 14, 2016)

Auto banning for using 'LOL LOL LOL' as any kind of rhetorical device should be a given anyway


----------



## Nylock (Sep 15, 2016)

For fucks sake...



Martina2016 said:


> is there even any point of this second 'debate', I mean both these guys are total no hopers anyway - Smith wants a second ref, and Corbo just wans to save the world by being 'nice' - LOL, bet Isis are really shaking in their boots!





Martina2016 said:


> How about the fact that many,many people are against mass-immigration, the EU, the emasculation of our defence forces etc..how about those people- what  is Corbyn doing for them? And how about non-working people,  what is Jezza doing for them?


...The policy idea of binning nukes and properly investing in conventional forces? That sort of emasculation yeah?



Martina2016 said:


> Not watching it - but who's helping to keep us safe from the Jihadis?? not Labour that's for sure - they want to let them all in with the refugees , by by Labour





Martina2016 said:


> TRUE BRIT - TRUE HERO!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Martina2016 said:


> LOL - letting in 1 million refuges just because they  are 'poor' LOL LOL LOL



...I ALWAYS miss out on the cast-iron copper-bottomed frothers


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Sep 15, 2016)

Been stupidly busy & lost track of this a bit, but: are there any other 25 quidders on here who haven't received an email ballot yet? I think they were supposed to have been sent out by the end of August, but I've seen sod-all in my inbox.
Chasing it up now of course, & was previously confirmed as eligible to vote.

Hmm.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 15, 2016)

Orangesanlemons said:


> Been stupidly busy & lost track of this a bit, but: are there any other 25 quidders on here who haven't received an email ballot yet? I think they were supposed to have been sent out by the end of August, but I've seen sod-all in my inbox.
> Chasing it up now of course, & was previously confirmed as eligible to vote.
> 
> Hmm.



Remember to say Owen needs all the support he can get ;-)


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Sep 15, 2016)

I suppose it's one way to conduct a purge: just don't bother to send out the ballots.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 15, 2016)

They extended the deadline because a shit-ton of people never received their ballot. Chase it up, chase it up again, and then chase it up once more.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 15, 2016)

I've not had mine yet, they say they can't find me on the Electoral Register so  I've e-mailed them again.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2016)

On another thread two posters got their voting email yesterday.  Voted.  Then got their purge email.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm not getting to vote due to living in Tower Hamlets and having to triple-verify everything _after_ the vote is in (I've moved since I last registered so have to do it all again).

Oddly my flatmate who doesn't support Corbyn (but not Smith either, so doesn't know what to do) was accepted without question. I didn't give them my Facebook or twitter details or anything but they can search by my email username.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2016)

we shall never forget the Great Purge of 2016


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 15, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> On another thread two posters got their voting email yesterday.  Voted.  Then got their purge email.



Our very own silver fox, marty21 is famous today on twitter - just seen eion with a little list of 'the purged 9' and our marty is front and centre


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 15, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> On another thread two posters got their voting email yesterday.  Voted.  Then got their purge email.


Will their votes be counted though?

Cos Labour aren't conducting the election, the ERS are. Surely ERS can't accept Labour sending them a list "oh by the way, these people you sent ballot papers to? yeah they not eligible anymore (and they voted Corbyn)"


----------



## Fingers (Sep 15, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Will their votes be counted though?
> 
> Cos Labour aren't conducting the election, the ERS are. Surely ERS can't accept Labour sending them a list "oh by the way, these people you sent ballot papers to? yeah they not eligible anymore (and they voted Corbyn)"



I am wondering that. I voted straight away after I got the ballot just in case I got purged.  I have been on Owen Smith's case ever since and quite publicly accused him of being an Blairite arse goblin.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Our very own silver fox, marty21 is famous today on twitter - just seen eion with a little list of 'the purged 9' and our marty is front and centre


That went a bit viral  I kept getting notifications all day  gained a few followers though #whichisnice  . Got an email today from Hackney Labour asking if I could help  it's the Hackney Mayoral Election today  After purgegate I really can't be arsed voting today which is


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They extended the deadline because a shit-ton of people never received their ballot. Chase it up, chase it up again, and then chase it up once more.


I Chased up 2 days ago then the purge happened


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Will their votes be counted though?
> 
> Cos Labour aren't conducting the election, the ERS are. Surely ERS can't accept Labour sending them a list "oh by the way, these people you sent ballot papers to? yeah they not eligible anymore (and they voted Corbyn)"


I was told in my purge letter that my vote wouldn't count


----------



## Fingers (Sep 15, 2016)

I have just changed my email address on Facebook. Didn't know you could still search for people via email address!


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 15, 2016)

It is only a week to go. They can't chuck people out fast enough, and soon we get a more balanced NEC


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 15, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I have just changed my email address on Facebook. Didn't know you could still search for people via email address!


I think you can turn it off in privacy settings.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> It is only a week to go. They can't chuck people out fast enough, and soon we get a more balanced NEC



More balanced but still not majority pro-Corbyn


----------



## Fingers (Sep 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> More balanced but still not majority pro-Corbyn



It will be after they take their places after the conference. The six corbyn bloc that were voted in ousted the Luke Akeshite types and will form the majority.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 15, 2016)

They weren't replacing 6 anti-Corbynites were they though? I'd though it only made 3 or 4 difference.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2016)

Four of them were already on.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 15, 2016)

2 difference then?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 16, 2016)

From here - John McDonnell 'furious' over Labour list of Corbyn detractors - I liked this little snippet:


> Watson made clear he accepted the apology, and insisted he had never abused Corbyn. “I was a bit surprised by it,” he told House magazine. "I’ve never personally abused Jeremy in public"


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2016)

just been reported on Daily Politics that Aaron Banks is now certain to set up a RW Momentum aimed at labour/ex labour voters.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 16, 2016)

so is this election also for the NEC?

I don't really understand how they are elected?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 16, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> so is this election also for the NEC?
> 
> I don't really understand how they are elected?


NEC elections were a few weeks ago, you could vote for 6 possible candidate, and all 6 pro Corbyn were elected.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> so is this election also for the NEC?
> 
> I don't really understand how they are elected?


the NEC has several different sections, only a small number of whom are elected by the members. That election was last month, and the momentum backed slate won all 6 places which were up. They only join the NEC after conference though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> the NEC has several different sections, only a small number of whom are elected by the members. That election was last month, and the momentum backed slate won all 6 places which were up. They only join the NEC after conference though.



So how many pro-corbyn vs anti-corbyn members will there be on the NEC at the end of all this?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2016)

Not sure. Here's the current list though - it's easy enough to tot up who's pro and anti from the ones you know, I'd imagine the other members will be googleable.

Of those, Baxter, Reeves (I think) and one of the councillor reps are out. Not sure how the election of the other reps is arranged, some of them might well be changing too.

Labour's National Executive Committee


----------



## emanymton (Sep 16, 2016)

mauvais said:


> From here - John McDonnell 'furious' over Labour list of Corbyn detractors - I liked this little snippet:


Never personally or in public


----------



## mauvais (Sep 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Never personally or in public


No - never personally _and _in public. Either/or not being denied.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

he arranged in private for someone else to do it that's worse - conspiracy


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> just been reported on Daily Politics that Aaron Banks is now certain to set up a RW Momentum aimed at labour/ex labour voters.


Good luck with that. *sniggers from behind his hand*


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2016)

He did however call Emily Thornberry a traitor:


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2016)

It's like borgen only better


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> He did however call Emily Thornberry a traitor:



I've actually got a lot of time for the Wild Thornberry.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

I'm glad mr clean has a few cunning people on his side; those who don't know history are doomed


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> just been reported on Daily Politics that Aaron Banks is now certain to set up a RW Momentum aimed at labour/ex labour voters.



Not sure if I can see this getting off the ground personally, my assumption would be that most of the people who would be sufficiently enthused about something like this wouldn't actually attend these sorts of meetings. Momentum is mostly made up of people who at one point or another have been involved in similar left projects, albeit mostly outside of the Labour Party, or who know people who have been. That tradition doesn't really exist on the right and hasn't for some time. In fact many of those who would be attracted to this sort of project ideologically are probably actually hostile to the idea of participatory democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Not sure if I can see this getting off the ground personally, my assumption would be that most of the people who would be sufficiently enthused about something like this wouldn't actually attend these sorts of meetings. Momentum is mostly made up of people who at one point or another have been involved in similar left projects, albeit mostly outside of the Labour Party, or who know people who have been. That tradition doesn't really exist on the right and hasn't for some time. In fact many of those who would be attracted to this sort of project ideologically are probably actually hostile to the idea of participatory democracy.


It does exist. It's the labour party. That's why this is an answer to a joke that doesn't exist. Clearly.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

Mr Apron, keep watching. I bet we would both be pleased if it comes to more.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Mr Apron, keep watching. I bet we would both be pleased if it comes to more.


It's a repeat.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's a repeat.


Some songs stick in your head


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Hmm, Martina was rubbish and a bit of a troll, but was that worthy of a ban?


Suicide troller


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

There may be troubles ahead, but I think it is a time to be positive for a change, as long as we are active. Talking to people, even just getting them to agree that having a choice is a good idea, if it got to more serious, I'd be an engineer


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There may be troubles ahead, but I think it is a time to be positive for a change, as long as we are active. Talking to people, even just getting them to agree that having a choice is a good idea, if it got to more serious, I'd be an engineer


Nope, doesn't scan.


----------



## inva (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There may be troubles ahead, but I think it is a time to be positive for a change, as long as we are active. Talking to people, even just getting them to agree that having a choice is a good idea, if it got to more serious, I'd be an engineer


for the lefties at least, isn't the collapse into Labour more a sign of total pessimism?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

inva said:


> for the lefties at least, isn't the collapse into Labour more a sign of total pessimism?


More people collapsing than ever before


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

If we get fucked it is the start of a new movement, you can't disguise it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

What 'we'? The idea that _our _'we' has been unfairly fucked over. Waste your time.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> If we get fucked it is the start of a new movement, you can't disguise it.


Who's "we"?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

Keep on keeping on. I prefer to do my bit when I can


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> If we get fucked it is the start of a new movement, you can't disguise it.


I'm not on the same side as you, you are on the same side as the NEC.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Who's "we"?


That particular 'we' was about the socialists in labour. I know not everyone is in that group.


----------



## inva (Sep 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> More people collapsing than ever before


oddly it's all happening at a time when (in my experience anyway), Labour has hardly seemed less relevant to people than now


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> That particular 'we' was about the socialists in labour. I know not everyone is in that group.


This is why you will lose.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 16, 2016)

Butchers, I imagine we could enjoy a pint, but I'm big enough to disagree


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Butchers, I imagine we could enjoy a pint, but I'm big enough to disagree


I reckon you've had mine.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2016)

Dan Jarvis Among 'Moderate' Figures Tipped To Join Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Team | Huffington Post 

What was that earlier about repetition?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

_I can't deal with this ineptness. MAY 2017. Cuckoo._


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2016)

_The former Paratrooper and ex-shadow foreign minister _

Anyone?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _The former Paratrooper and ex-shadow foreign minister _
> 
> Anyone?


Poor man's Eric Joyce.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2016)

It's all part of the long-game.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 16, 2016)

Surely the Corbyn Cabal must be plotting to undermine this return to the PLP electing the cabinet business. The PLP are hardly going to vote them in?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2016)

The PLP have said that they want elected Shadow Cabinet positions, beyond that there's been no move to re-introduce them.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The PLP have said that they want elected Shadow Cabinet positions, beyond that there's been no move to re-introduce them.



What the procedure for proposals at NEC meetings?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

whatever the NEC wants


----------



## Duncan2 (Sep 16, 2016)

I think they know that there would be an immediate mass exodus of party members.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2016)

yep that's what they're probably after


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2016)

They've voted on it and won the vote (just amongst the PLP) and in order to become party policy it must be ratified by NEC and conference. I don't know if it has officially been put on the order of business for either yet.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 16, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> an immediate mass exodus of party members.


Movement of Jer people


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Movement of Jer people


Babylon is Bernie.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Babylon is Bernie.



Jarvis and Reeves in the street
fighting the nation with their guns and ammunition


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 17, 2016)

If anyone does nowhere man i'll get a bit angry


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 17, 2016)

Shots from both sides


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2016)

Corbyn to give members power to choose shadow team and policies


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

​


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

I'll try again....quite an interesting presentation...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> ​



Where are all the other labour leaders?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Where are all the other labour leaders?


Further back in time.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Further back in time.



Not really that informative then. You may as well say "Here are a list of people that are not Tony Blair. None of them won an election. Corbyn isn't Tony Blair either. Therefore Corbyn won't win an election".


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Not really that informative then. You may as well say "Here are a list of people that are not Tony Blair. None of them won an election. Corbyn isn't Tony Blair either. Therefore Corbyn won't win an election".


Not really; every one of them, except Corbyn are ex-leaders and can't change/improve their ratings. Corbyn has the opportunity to do so.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not really; every one of them, except Corbyn are ex-leaders and can't change/improve their ratings. Corbyn has the opportunity to do so.



True. So the graphic is even less informative than I first thought.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> True. So the graphic is even less informative than I first thought.


OK, as you wish. Too pished to argue...just thought it might be of some interest to some??


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2016)

Fair play, although have any other of the leaders experienced a revolt like the one Corbyn and the labour membership's had?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Fair play, although have any other of the leaders experienced a revolt like the one Corbyn and the labour membership's had?


No. Given that, his personal performance is remarkably creditable...really.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2016)

It is interesting - but only as a rather small piece of the picture. Another caveat - it says 'no-one has won a GE outside this zone' - but four people who haven't are partially within that zone. Three of those four are more in it than not, including Miliband, whose bid for the top job was woeful. Plus one of four made the rather conclusive error of dying before his ability to win a GE could be tested.

All that suggests to me that if there is a straightforward explanatory factor for what leads Labour leaders to win/not win general elections, it's not on that graph.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> It is interesting - but only as a rather small piece of the picture. Another caveat - it says 'no-one has won a GE outside this zone' - but four people who haven't are partially within that zone. Three of those four are more in it than not, including Miliband, whose bid for the top job was woeful. Plus one of four made the rather conclusive error of dying before his ability to win a GE could be tested.
> 
> All that suggests to me that if there is a straightforward explanatory factor for what leads Labour leaders to win/not win general elections, it's not on that graph.


Yep. I think (?) it is essentially graphically superimposing two separate things; one being the first 12 month's ratings and the other being the electoral 'win' parameters. Clearly the two things are often separated by a number of years.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 17, 2016)

There isn't a point in socialists that emulate tories to get elected. There a lot of people who aren't in Labour who are glad it isn't all the same right wing agenda,

The graph would change without the PLP antics


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There isn't a point in socialists that emulate tories to get elected. There a lot of people who aren't in Labour who are glad it isn't all the same right wing agenda,
> 
> The graph would change without the PLP antics


Yeah, but assuming it's been plotted accurately based upon sound polling methodology, it is what it is. That's the fact of Corbyn's polling FWIW.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but assuming it's been plotted accurately based upon sound polling methodology, it is what it is. That's the fact of Corbyn's polling FWIW.


Only now, I hope that we get a mass labour movement that motivates the populace (deliberately lower case). It isn't about one poll now, it is about what might be coming


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There isn't a point in socialists that emulate tories to get elected. There a lot of people who aren't in Labour who are glad it isn't all the same right wing agenda,



That's a fair point of course. But it does underline the dilemma for the part of the Labour party that doesn't just want to be elected whatever it takes: we need a viable, credible, electable opposition now at least as much as we ever have. But really turning the current LP into something worth electing could be the work of a couple of generations at least. I mean, it all sounds great when Corbyn talks about giving the power back to the members but grassroots-up politics will take a very long time to do properly. The problem is, they've got two essential jobs to do - real opposition, and totally overhauling the party - which it doesn't appear possible to do at the same time.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 18, 2016)

Came across a nice quote from Ralph Nader. _"If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less"_.

I kind of think, if democracy is just about firefighting and compromising principles to stop the other mob getting in... well surely it would then be worth looking at alternative systems of governance.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> That's a fair point of course. But it does underline the dilemma for the part of the Labour party that doesn't just want to be elected whatever it takes: we need a viable, credible, electable opposition now at least as much as we ever have. But really turning the current LP into something worth electing could be the work of a couple of generations at least. I mean, it all sounds great when Corbyn talks about giving the power back to the members but grassroots-up politics will take a very long time to do properly. The problem is, they've got two essential jobs to do - real opposition, and totally overhauling the party - which it doesn't appear possible to do at the same time.


Watch this space, I'm not alone


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2016)

The problem with that graph is the same as the problem with this one:


----------



## two sheds (Sep 18, 2016)

Yeh you wait though, I understand the police are already correlating his recent visits to swimming pools.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

Good graph kabbes, wouldn't be scary if we found out it was more than correlation?


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 18, 2016)

I think the problem with the graph is that is far too small a sample to draw firm conclusions from. We can though expect leader approval statistics to correlate with electability, but Corbyn's approval stats can move, and freaky results are certainly possible (take Brexit for instance)


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Good graph kabbes, wouldn't be scary if we found out it was more than correlation?


Cage celebrates every film role he gets by drowning 30 people


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord Kinnock warns against Jeremy Corbyn re-election



> Speaking to the BBC's Panorama programme, Lord Kinnock said: "Unless things change radically, and rapidly, it's very doubtful I'll see another Labour government in my lifetime."





> Lord Kinnock, who led the fight against left-wing extremism in the 1980s, when Labour was paralysed by faction fighting, said: "Not just in my lifetime but stretching back to the 1930s, by any examination *this is the greatest crisis that the Labour Party has faced*."


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2016)

kabbes said:


> The problem with that graph is the same as the problem with this one:
> View attachment 92678


I'm not sure that the Labour leaders graph does actually fall into the trap of '_correlation (between 2 different variable)not = causation'_ criticism. Although it is plotted on 2 axes, it's primarily a means of comparison of one data set, that of polling performance.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 18, 2016)

andysays said:


> Lord Kinnock warns against Jeremy Corbyn re-election



Kinnock, such a great leader.
Or better known as the start of the rot!


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> That's a fair point of course. But it does underline the dilemma for the part of the Labour party that doesn't just want to be elected whatever it takes: we need a viable, credible, electable opposition now at least as much as we ever have. But really turning the current LP into something worth electing could be the work of a couple of generations at least. I mean, it all sounds great when Corbyn talks about giving the power back to the members but grassroots-up politics will take a very long time to do properly. The problem is, they've got two essential jobs to do - real opposition, and totally overhauling the party - which it doesn't appear possible to do at the same time.


the way forward is clear comrade. Effective opposition will be built when the party membership elects the shadow SoS for Brexit and the PLP chooses the shadow minister for abattoirs.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Surely the Corbyn Cabal must be plotting to undermine this return to the PLP electing the cabinet business. The PLP are hardly going to vote them in?



So, the Corbyn lot have cooked up an alternative proposal that will keep the plp in their box. 1/3 of the shadow cabinet to be chosen by the leader, 1/3 by the plp & 1/3 by the membership.

Corbyn to give members power to choose shadow team and policies


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm not sure that the Labour leaders graph does actually fall into the trap of '_correlation (between 2 different variable)not = causation'_ criticism. Although it is plotted on 2 axes, it's primarily a means of comparison of one data set, that of polling performance.


A better comparison would have been one for which the variables are genuinely related but not through direct causation.

Like the fact that in children, shoe size is correlated with IQ.  Because older children have bigger feet and higher IQ than younger children.  The correlation doesn't tell you *nothing*, exactly, but it is obfuscating the true relationships of variables.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord Kinnock can shove his ermine up his backside. Whose he to talk about winning elections the doss cunt


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2016)

kabbes said:


> A better comparison would have been one for which the variables are genuinely related but not through direct causation.
> 
> Like the fact that in children, shoe size is correlated with IQ.  Because older children have bigger feet and higher IQ than younger children.  The correlation doesn't tell you *nothing*, exactly, but it is obfuscating the true relationships of variables.


Perhaps reading the graph without the grey "winning zone" might be better.


----------



## chilango (Sep 18, 2016)

andysays said:


> Lord Kinnock warns against Jeremy Corbyn re-election




Kinnock's right though. Unless things change radically Labour probably won't win another GE in his lifetime (short as that may be) and Labour is facing an existential crisis.

But the answer to both is the opposite of what he thinks it is.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Watch this space, I'm not alone



Well good luck to you. But that response doesn't even attempt to address the point I made, so it's very far from convincing/reassuring. I don't _yearn _for the mainstream left to spend 20 years in the wilderness reassessing itself: I just think it may not have much choice if it really wants to be more than the slightly less nasty party.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 18, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, the Corbyn lot have cooked up an alternative proposal that will keep the plp in their box. 1/3 of the shadow cabinet to be chosen by the leader, 1/3 by the plp & 1/3 by the membership.
> 
> Corbyn to give members power to choose shadow team and policies



Not sure how a PM can govern with two thirds of their government being chosen by someone else. Perhaps they don't envisage that problem arising.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Sep 18, 2016)

andysays said:


> Lord Kinnock warns against Jeremy Corbyn re-election



"won't see another Labour government in my lifetime"

Here's hoping he's right because he keels over before 2020, the cunt.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2016)

kabbes said:


> A better comparison would have been one for which the variables are genuinely related but not through direct causation.
> 
> Like the fact that in children, shoe size is correlated with IQ.  Because older children have bigger feet and higher IQ than younger children.  The correlation doesn't tell you *nothing*, exactly, but it is obfuscating the true relationships of variables.


That's boosted my self esteem as I'm size 11.5


----------



## Libertad (Sep 18, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> That's boosted my self esteem as I'm size 11.5



I cultivate an aura of intellectual superiority by wearing flippers. Never seen without them.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Not sure how a PM can govern with two thirds of their government being chosen by someone else. Perhaps they don't envisage that problem arising.


It's the _shadow_ cabinet not the cabinet, Blair/Brown choose their cabinets.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 18, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> It's the _shadow_ cabinet not the cabinet, Blair/Brown choose their cabinets.



The whole point of the shadow cabinet is that it is prepared to govern. Will the 1/3rd rules be ripped up the moment an election is won?


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 18, 2016)

I have received a text from a trustworthy colleague saying.
Beware of phone calls purportedly from the Corbyn election team, but really from team Smith, trying to fool folk into saying something anti labour so they can be reported and their vote removed.
Anyone else heard this or is it just more twaddle?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2016)

Anyone read the article in the Guardian/ Observer 'the new Left don't call them Corbynistas'?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 18, 2016)

no, was it any good?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> I have received a text from a trustworthy colleague saying.
> Beware of phone calls purportedly from the Corbyn election team, but really from team Smith, trying to fool folk into saying something anti labour so they can be reported and their vote removed.
> Anyone else heard this or is it just more twaddle?


I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were recording calls and reporting any members they found to be corbyn supporters who said anything remotely out of line.

I doubt they're specifically stating they're calling from the corbyn campaign.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2016)

Ran into someone who I had last really spoken to in about 2013, one of the last conversations we had was about the Labour Party. He justified his membership in Labour to me on the basis that he was just waiting for a socialist leader, and then once one came it would be all be worth it. I asked him who he was voting for in the leadership election this time round... it was, 'agonisingly', Owen Smith. Can't make it up, can you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ran into someone who I had last really spoken to in about 2013, one of the last conversations we had was about the Labour Party. He justified his membership in Labour to me on the basis that he was just waiting for a socialist leader, and then once one came it would be all be worth it. I asked him who he was voting for in the leadership election this time round... it was, 'agonisingly', Owen Smith. Can't make it up, can you?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2016)

Have we had this?
Elite goes tinfoil over Momentum – Mosquito Ridge

Labour right "Infiltration" into momentum ... and forthcoming coordinated vilification programme - according to paul mason


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2016)

Anyone got a screen grab of The Sunday Times article.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2016)

treelover said:


> Anyone got a screen grab of The Sunday Times article.


i think its this?
Spies and spreadsheets: the hard left seizes Labour
(but still could do with a screen grab)


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2016)

two sheds said:


> no, was it any good?


The only time the working class was mentioned was by a Progress spokesperson!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 18, 2016)

two sheds said:


> no, was it any good?


no

It interviewed a very small set of Momentum types and made them out to be nice middle-class liberals with a slightly different but valid point of view, in a way that you'd imagine a Guardian editor could have thought "well this is sympathetic, we're giving them a fair go". They're only interested in Momentum and a fairly small slice of that, clearly, as it's something identifiable to them; it didn't go anywhere outside of that brief.

The whole thing was also run through with constant chippy references to how these Corbynistas hate the "MSM", and had an obligatory downbeat ending, where they talked to Paul Mason and then said "ooh I dunno he wants to smash capitalism that sounds a bit extreme I guess these guys aren't so great even though they're nice middle class liberals".


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

When I read comments on facebook or see who turns up to the rallies, it seems clear to me it isn't just about these youngsters who haven't read enough books, there are lots of older faces too (of different colours and hairiness) who want a return to the values that did good in the past, and take it much further.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2016)

I refuse to read but you might want to...

Corbyn supporters are 'tyrannical middle-class smart-a***s'


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I refuse to read but you might want to...
> 
> Corbyn supporters are 'tyrannical middle-class smart-a***s'


Eve with the bias against the left, I've been surprised how many pro articles slip through in things like the Standard and the MEN. You can't totally alienate your audience, as the Sun is finding out in Liverpool and beyond


----------



## cantsin (Sep 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I refuse to read but you might want to...
> 
> Corbyn supporters are 'tyrannical middle-class smart-a***s'



"I used to go to loads of really tough union meetings, telling Liverpool strikers to go back to work. They always listened, they never booed."

scabby, lightweight no mark tw*T


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> The whole point of the shadow cabinet is that it is prepared to govern. Will the 1/3rd rules be ripped up the moment an election is won?


Under the old system (pre-2011) that's exactly what did happen.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 18, 2016)

I wonder how you'd get rid of someone who turned out to be (for example) terminally incompetent if they'd been voted in by MPs or even more difficult by the membership.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I wonder how you'd get rid of someone who turned out to be (for example) terminally incompetent if they'd been voted in by MPs or even more difficult by the membership.



It's a stupid policy. I don't know why he is bothering with this appeasement stuff, if he has the votes at the NEC to get this stuff through fuck the compromise, have the members vote on 100% of it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 18, 2016)

cantsin said:


> "I used to go to loads of really tough union meetings, telling Liverpool strikers to go back to work. They always listened, they never booed."
> 
> scabby, lightweight no mark tw*T



Absolutely, it shows his true self when he can pull stunts like this having been the general secretary of a trade union.
No shame either, quite proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the capitalist bosses rather than the working people he has the audacity to say he represents.
Obviously he has more faces than Goldthorpe town clock!
(4BTW)


----------



## oryx (Sep 18, 2016)

Quite an interesting comment under the ES article:


> Jeremy Corbyn's constituency voted 75% to Remain and over 60% of the Labour Party voted to Remain under his leadership. Alan Johnson's constituency voted between 60% to 70% to Leave. Who's the useless one, Mr Johnson?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

oryx said:


> Quite an interesting comment under the ES article:


I count myself anoungst the useless who weren't talking to people in the mill towns,


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I refuse to read but you might want to...
> 
> Corbyn supporters are 'tyrannical middle-class smart-a***s'


If the 'right' of the party were to put up someone with an ounce of charisma, or the merest appearance of leadership potential, then maybe they'd have a reasonable shot at winning *something*. 
The reality it that the PLP has more than a passing resemblance of the Tories circa 1994, listlessly trying to look authoritarian and purposeful - but instead looking lost without that ACTUAL charismatic/Authoritarian (delete where applicable) leader.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

There is a sad irony if the UK gets TTIP and the EU doesn't


----------



## cantsin (Sep 18, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> There is a sad irony if the UK gets TTIP and the EU doesn't



How wld this happen ? ( may have missed something here )


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 18, 2016)

cantsin said:


> How wld this happen ? ( may have missed something here )


It is more likely with the UK out of the EU. The tories are desperate for trade deals and were fans. The French seemed to hate the idea.


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I refuse to read but you might want to...
> 
> Corbyn supporters are 'tyrannical middle-class smart-a***s'



One of the comments 


_"In the last week at alone I have been a depressed Welsh vegetarian, an alien parasite and now I'm a middle class smart a***. I can't keep up; it calls for more costume changes that Mr Benn used to have in the Fancy Dress Shop. Does one thing supersede another or do I have to be everything at the same time; I ask because my Nazi stormtrooper and dog costumes could do with a wash."_


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone read the article in the Guardian/ Observer 'the new Left don't call them Corbynistas'?


this was my favourite line: 

_She studied international politics at Goldsmiths, but it was doing work experience at the House of Commons that turned her off Westminster. “All these people were getting pissed at lunchtimes, do you know what I mean? I’d see MPs out on the river terrace and I just thought, You guys live in a bubble. _
_
The new left: don’t call them Corbynistas_


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2016)

'_you guys_ live in a bubble'


----------



## JHE (Sep 19, 2016)

Getting pissed at lunchtime is not an activity peculiar to the Palace of Westminster.  If may not be as common as it was 20 years ago, but there are loads of office bods, other workers and of course students guzzling booze at lunchtime.  Did the young woman quoted there never see her fellow Goldsmith students in the SU bar at lunchtime?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

The point is the bubble(s), not the getting pissed in the day.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> '_you guys_ live in a bubble'


That's how some young people speak tbf


----------



## Cid (Sep 19, 2016)

JHE said:


> Getting pissed at lunchtime is not an activity peculiar to the Palace of Westminster.  If may not be as common as it was 20 years ago, but there are loads of office bods, other workers and of course students guzzling booze at lunchtime.  Did the young woman quoted there never see her fellow Goldsmith students in the SU bar at lunchtime?



Probably, but it's unlikely they were attempting to run the country at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Bubble.


----------



## chilango (Sep 19, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> That's how some young people speak tbf


Yeah, it was the Goldsmiths politics alumni (seems to be a lot of them about in this world - at least two in this article alone) doing work experience at the HoC complaining about someone else being _in a bubble.
_
That Goldsmiths - the British home of screeching identarianism - seems to be providing so many of the spokespeople for Momentum gives me some cause for concern, must say...


----------



## ska invita (Sep 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Yeah, it was the Goldsmiths politics alumni (seems to be a lot of them about in this world - at least two in this article alone) doing work experience at the HoC complaining about someone else being _in a bubble.
> _
> That Goldsmiths - the British home of screeching identarianism - seems to be providing so many of the spokespeople for Momentum gives me some cause for concern, must say...


i see what you mean...


----------



## Cid (Sep 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Yeah, it was the Goldsmiths politics alumni (seems to be a lot of them about in this world - at least two in this article alone) doing work experience at the HoC complaining about someone else being _in a bubble.
> _
> That Goldsmiths - the British home of screeching identarianism - seems to be providing so many of the spokespeople for Momentum gives me some cause for concern, must say...



I dunno. I mean School -> uni is a pretty common path these days, and has inherently bubblish characteristics. In terms of her hypocrisy I mean, I find it hard to be too cynical about someone who is basically young and inexperienced having a bit of an epiphany about the way Westminster politics actually works. And she's gone off and set up an organisation that at least tries to do grass roots organising...

... that said she seems rather front and centre in it, and she is running for the GLA. And certainly agree that Goldsmiths bubble -> Momentum post-student activist bubble is probably not a great thing.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2016)

Cid said:


> I dunno. I mean School -> uni is a pretty common path these days


I don't think I said anything about school did I?


----------



## chilango (Sep 19, 2016)

I doubt "hypocrisy" was the prime concern.


----------



## Cid (Sep 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think I said anything about school did I?



I mean the school to uni transition doesn't leave much room for experience of the world.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

It's the specific uni + access to (oxbridge journo) Guardian (on numerous occasions now) + work experience at the house of commons. Oddly enough though, that person seems the most grounded of the lot in that piece - and i've read some good things by/about her this morning.


----------



## rioted (Sep 19, 2016)

Real person doesn't match up to lazy stereotype, shock, horror.


----------



## andysays (Sep 19, 2016)




----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2016)

rioted said:


> Real person doesn't match up to lazy stereotype, shock, horror.


Where's the lazy stereotype? That she has some sensible views doesn't make the statement I highlighted any less ridiculous.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 19, 2016)

Who is it that _doesn't_ live in a "bubble"?  If by "bubble" we mean a life experience limited by the experiences and individuals we are surrounded by?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 19, 2016)

Yep I'd say just about everyone in the UK lives in a bubble if we're comparing that to many countries.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Who is it that _doesn't_ live in a "bubble"?  If by "bubble" we mean a life experience limited by the experiences and individuals we are surrounded by?


It's the _specific_ bubble  - the goldsmiths/oxbridge/guardian/commons/intern nexus we're talking about here. 

_So what if he's addicted to heroin - we all take drugs don't we?_


----------



## treelover (Sep 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> Yeah, it was the Goldsmiths politics alumni (seems to be a lot of them about in this world - at least two in this article alone) doing work experience at the HoC complaining about someone else being _in a bubble.
> _
> That Goldsmiths - the British home of screeching identarianism - seems to be providing so many of the spokespeople for Momentum gives me some cause for concern, must say...




Lots of workshops based on intersectionalism at the World Transformed Event


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2016)

its always goldsmiths


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 19, 2016)

So I had a weird experience the other day. 

Got a call from a posh bloke who was jabbering like he was coked to the eyeballs, said he represented the Corbyn campaign, wanting to know how I'd voted. I told him I thought it was a secret ballot and he said 'well yes, it is, I expect you voted for Owen Smith' 

Then he gibbered at me about far-left grouplets most of whom I'd not heard of, even on here, and about why he was a 'Corbynista' despite being a private landlord, until I politely asked him to go away and stop bothering me.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So I had a weird experience the other day.
> 
> Got a call from a posh bloke who was jabbering like he was coked to the eyeballs, said he represented the Corbyn campaign, wanting to know how I'd voted. I told him I thought it was a secret ballot and he said 'well yes, it is, I expect you voted for Owen Smith'
> 
> Then he gibbered at me about far-left grouplets most of whom I'd not heard of, even on here, and about why he was a 'Corbynista' despite being a private landlord, until I politely asked him to go away and stop bothering me.


The not much missed maurice picarda i expect.

Can you prove this happened btw? I'm not doubting you at all Bernie, but can you prove it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The not much missed maurice picarda i expect.
> 
> Can you prove this happened btw? I'm not doubting you at all Bernie, but can you prove it?



Well, if I wanted to tie this identity to my real one I could prove I received a call, but that's about all really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Who is it that _doesn't_ live in a "bubble"?  If by "bubble" we mean a life experience limited by the experiences and individuals we are surrounded by?


Most of us don't claim to speak for people outside our own bubbles, though.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 19, 2016)

I asked where my vote was again today (deadline Wednesday) and got an automatic reply:


*Don’t worry if it is several days before you hear from us, we will get to your email, it will not affect your eligibility to vote and you do not need to follow this up.

 
*


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So I had a weird experience the other day.
> 
> Got a call from a posh bloke who was jabbering like he was coked to the eyeballs, said he represented the Corbyn campaign, wanting to know how I'd voted. I told him I thought it was a secret ballot and he said 'well yes, it is, I expect you voted for Owen Smith'
> 
> Then he gibbered at me about far-left grouplets most of whom I'd not heard of, even on here, and about why he was a 'Corbynista' despite being a private landlord, until I politely asked him to go away and stop bothering me.


What side do you think he was on? Confused. Perhaps he was calling from C4 ahead of tonight's Dispatches?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> What side do you think he was on? Confused. Perhaps he was calling from C4 ahead of tonight's Dispatches?


Is there a massive game changing expose on the way then?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

It doesn't paint a pretty picture


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> It doesn't paint a pretty picture


Have you seen the dispatches program? If so, how?


----------



## andysays (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have you seen the dispatches program? If so, how?



There's a write-up here, including some footage.

It doesn't seem to me to be anything too earth-shattering, but maybe C4 has embargoed the really juicy stuff and it will only be shown when the programme goes to air


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

andysays said:


> There's a write-up here, including some footage.
> 
> It doesn't seem to me to be anything too earth-shattering, but maybe C4 has embargoed the really juicy stuff and it will only be shown when the programme goes to air


Or maybe Reiabuzz is making shit up they don't know about. Given their past efforts this is odds on.


----------



## andysays (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Or maybe Reiabuzz is making shit up they don't know about.



I would say that's certainly a strong possibility


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2016)

Summary here:
The Battle for The Labour Party: Channel 4 Dispatches - Channel 4 - Info - Press
Couldn't be arsed reading beyond the few paragraphs, but it was entirely predictable.  So much so that you could do a bingo card on it: far left - check; entryism - check; Kinnock - check; Trotskyist - check; plot - check; take over - check; extremist - check....


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

Yes, 'they' have seen it. No, nothing groundbreaking - nothing that wasn't previously known about Corbyn and momentum anyway. TBH, pointless wasting resources on it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2016)

huff article has insinuations of misuse of funds. Nothing over momentum hating all jewish people though, perhaps they forgot that one


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Summary here:
> The Battle for The Labour Party: Channel 4 Dispatches - Channel 4 - Info - Press
> Couldn't be arsed reading beyond the few paragraphs, but it was entirely predictable.  So much so that you could do a bingo card on it: far left - check; entryism - check; Kinnock - check; Trotskyist - check; plot - check; take over - check; extremist - check....


Check the production company, the bidding commissioning editor - all sorts i reck.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Or maybe Reiabuzz is making shit up they don't know about. Given their past efforts this is odds on.



Were you not aware this was going to air tonight? Seriously?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Were you not aware this was going to air tonight? Seriously?


Can you answer my question please?

And no, i had no idea.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

What was your question?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> What was your question?


Have you seen the dispatches program? If so, how?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 19, 2016)

This came up earlier. Same production company as the Panorama version.

BBC and Channel 4 'hatchet jobs' on Corbyn use the same private production company | EvolvePolitics.com

Giving it far more prominence than it deserves at this point IMO.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2016)

Amid all the shrill nonsense there will no doubt be in this expose I'll be genuinely interested to hear more about Jon Lansman and the offices space he has (apparently) provided in the family 'asset stripping'* business.

* a phrase I vaguely remember the telegraph used a few months back when they were doing their own Momentum'expose'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Amid all the shrill nonsense there will no doubt be in this expose I'll be genuinely interested to hear more about Jon Lansman and the offices space he has (apparently) provided in the family 'asset stripping'* business.
> 
> * a phrase I vaguely remember the telegraph used a few months back when they were doing their own Momentum'expose'.


Wouldn't touch them.  Directly capitalist scum not politician scum.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Have you seen the dispatches program? If so, how?



I work with some of the people who produced it. I was curious. It's not exactly the puff piece seen in the guardian on the weekend, no. Slightly more accurate. Just slightly.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> I work with some of the people who produced it. I was curious. It's not exactly the puff piece seen in the guardian on the weekend, no. Slightly more accurate. Just slightly.


You wasn't curious. Did you see it before broadcast. You must have to say the latter part of your post. The production company stuff to friends? I reckon they don't. Shall we check what this means if they have? Maybe you could tell us.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> I work with some of the people who produced it. I was curious. It's not exactly the puff piece seen in the guardian on the weekend, no. Slightly more accurate. Just slightly.


You've seen it. How?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You've seen it. How?



On the mac of the editor, while it was being edited. why do you keep asking the same question?


----------



## binka (Sep 19, 2016)

This really is some weak shit. I liked when they caught Corbyn on the hidden camera talking about Smith and he was still achingly polite about him - the mildest joke imaginable about ISIS having an office on Bond Street.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> On the mac of the editor, while it was being edited. why do you keep asking the same question?


Because you didn't answer. 

Good - now we have the editor of the program and the production company allowing it to be leaked before broadcast. Thanks.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Because you didn't answer.
> 
> Good - now we have the editor of the program and the production company allowing it to be leaked before broadcast. Thanks.



Really? yes I did. For a seasoned internet warrior (and I think you might believe you're quite a good one) you're remarkably thick.

Did you enjoy the show though?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Really? yes I did. For a seasoned internet warrior (and I think you might believe you're quite a good one) you're remarkably thick.
> 
> Did you enjoy the show though?


No, you didn't.

And you're the one whose just dropped your mate in it.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)

binka said:


> This really is some weak shit. I liked when they caught Corbyn on the hidden camera talking about Smith and he was still achingly polite about him - the mildest joke imaginable about ISIS having an office on Bond Street.


Interestingly, they didn't choose to ask their tame lawyer about the consequences of breaching the Channel's own guidelines for secret filming.

AFAICS Corbyn appears to be law-abiding.


> _Law-abiding individuals who have done nothing wrong are entitled to have their privacy respected._


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 19, 2016)

It's 'who's'

And if you knew anything about an editing suite you'd realise how fucking thick you sound butcherapron.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 19, 2016)

Post deleted as it wasn't worth it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> It's 'who's'


Is that right?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> And if you knew anything about an editing suite you'd realise how fucking thick you sound butcherapron.


Is that right?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> On the mac of the editor, while it was being edited. why do you keep asking the same question?


So was it David Preston or Ronnie Newman who allowed this program to be leaked to political mates before being shown?


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2016)

"I'm totally anti-sugar on health grounds, so eat very few biscuits,but if forced to accept one, it's always a pleasure to have a shortbread."


Must make pretty shit jam then.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 19, 2016)

Didn't watch Dispatches, not going to watch Panorama, am I missing anything exciting?


----------



## oryx (Sep 19, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Didn't watch Dispatches, not going to watch Panorama, am I missing anything exciting?



Not really, as far as Dispatches goes. It was moderately interesting in a 'sod all else on' way. It was unbalanced in so far as they interviewed Neil Kinnock, an anti-Corbyn party member in Bristol and a lawyer who thought the funding of staff was irregular, but no-one actually from Corbyn's campaign or Momentum.


----------



## binka (Sep 19, 2016)

oryx said:


> lawyer who thought the funding of staff was irregular


He was a QC and he described Momentum as devious. Well worth the half hour imo.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 19, 2016)

binka said:


> He was a QC and he described Momentum as devious. Well worth the half hour imo.



Why? What was there to learn?


----------



## Xenonxenon (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> It's 'who's'
> 
> And if you knew anything about an editing suite you'd realise how fucking thick you sound butcherapron.


Cunts calling cunts cunts.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 19, 2016)

He's the QC who advised Labour that Corbyn shouldn't be on the ballot automatically.

A fine piece of balanced reporting 

If twitter is to be believed, he's also brother-in-law to a certain A. Campbell.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)




----------



## binka (Sep 19, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Why? What was there to learn?


Momentum support Corbyn apparently


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> On the mac of the editor, while it was being edited. why do you keep asking the same question?


And what do you think of your mates program?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The not much missed maurice picarda i expect.
> 
> Can you prove this happened btw? I'm not doubting you at all Bernie, but can you prove it?



OK so I figured out a way of backtracking this and identifying the caller. 

Basically the number he used goes right back to him if you put it into Google and he's obviously an "eccentric", probably harmless.


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 19, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Didn't watch Dispatches, not going to watch Panorama, am I missing anything exciting?



Trot entryists consorting with the IRA and ISIS.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 19, 2016)

binka said:


> Momentum support Corbyn apparently



bastards


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 19, 2016)

binka said:


> Momentum support Corbyn apparently



That's literally the only thing I took away from this. Amazing, really.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 19, 2016)

I think it's brilliant. I love a bit of infiltration. I joined U75 all that time ago just because some BNP numpty got caught 'infiltrating' my uni student union and there was a thread about it on here.

And much like that, this little episode seems a lot less _Our Man In Havana_ and a lot more like, well, getting hold of a Sainsburys uniform and stacking shelves for free.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 19, 2016)

I particularly liked the parts where they were like, "yeah, I'm a trot, what of it?"


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 19, 2016)

Hey guys and gals, new politics mean we have to be subtle when we call people complete and utter bastards


----------



## Sirena (Sep 19, 2016)

Alan Moore – Momentum Northants


----------



## rioted (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is that right?





butchersapron said:


> Is that right?





butchersapron said:


> So was it David Preston or Ronnie Newman who allowed this program to be leaked to political mates before being shown?





butchersapron said:


> Good - now we have the editor of the program and the production company allowing it to be leaked before broadcast. Thanks.





butchersapron said:


> And you're the one whose just dropped your mate in it.


A cross between Hercule Poirot and a grass?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 19, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Alan Moore – Momentum Northants


I wouldn't mess with him. luckily if we did meet I think I wouldn't have to.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's the QC who advised Labour that Corbyn shouldn't be on the ballot automatically.
> 
> A fine piece of balanced reporting
> 
> If twitter is to be believed, he's also brother-in-law to a certain A. Campbell.


Same surname certainly - Gavin Millar and Fiona Millar.

edit: confirmed in this (in which he defends the vile Phil Woolas - seems to make a good few quid from the labour party). BBC - North by North West: Election Court prepares to hear the case against Phil Woolas MP


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2016)

Xenonxenon said:


> Cunts calling cunts cunts.



great stuff, well done


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 20, 2016)

The most unsettling part of the Dispatches expose of Momentum was Jon Lansmann's taste in shirts.


----------



## inva (Sep 20, 2016)

Sirena said:


> Alan Moore – Momentum Northants


politics as personal religious vows


----------



## Wilf (Sep 20, 2016)

Watson 'calls for unity': 
Tom Watson urges Labour  to 'put band back together' in case of snap election
He isn't really calling for unity, he's starting the ball rolling in terms of abandoning the current system of electing the leader.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Because you didn't answer.
> 
> Good - now we have the editor of the program and the production company allowing it to be leaked before broadcast. Thanks.



Well its not like it's a legal document or anything .......and don't all programmes put it out there to some extent (critics, press)  to drum up some cheap publicity before mass release ?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Watson 'calls for unity':
> Tom Watson urges Labour  to 'put band back together' in case of snap election
> He isn't really calling for unity, he's starting the ball rolling in terms of abandoning the current system of electing the leader.


He claimed that "most sections in the party" were against the changes (registered supporters etc), but he's being disingenuous: it's only the right-wing institutions within the party that are opposed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> He claimed that "most sections in the party" were against the changes (registered supporters etc), but he's being disingenuous: it's only the right-wing institutions within the party that are opposed.


Aka "wreckers"


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2016)

Tankus said:


> Well its not like it's a legal document or anything .......and don't all programmes put it out there to some extent (critics, press)  to drum up some cheap publicity before mass release ?


No, no they don't


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2016)

Xenonxenon said:


> Cunts calling cunts cunts.



And speaking of cunts, I see you're back, you cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2016)

Xenonxenon said:


> Cunts calling cunts cunts.


Cunt


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> The most unsettling part of the Dispatches expose of Momentum was Jon Lansmann's taste in shirts.



Lack of taste in shirts.

I felt nauseated.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2016)

How's this for complete fuckwittery? The phrase "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" springs to mind.
Labour loses its majority on Bristol City Council after 'purge' of Corbyn supporters


----------



## Wilf (Sep 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How's this for complete fuckwittery? The phrase "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" springs to mind.
> Labour loses its majority on Bristol City Council after 'purge' of Corbyn supporters


Yep, it really comes to something when the prospect of having a mildly social democratic party leadership appals you so much you are willing to kill the party. There's clearly no strategy at all from the right(s) within the party. Other than trying to get back to some kind of electoral college it's just a case of expel everyone to do with Corbyn, make increasingly shrill announcements about never seeing another Labour Government in your lifetime etc.  Suppose when there's nothing you could plausibly say about policy or rebuilding working class support that's all you've got left. It's a vicious vacuum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> make increasingly shrill announcements about never seeing another Labour Government in your lifetime etc.


Perhaps the people who say this could make it true by doing "the decent thing".

 I have now ensured I will never ever get a vote in a Labour leadership contest


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How's this for complete fuckwittery? The phrase "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" springs to mind.
> Labour loses its majority on Bristol City Council after 'purge' of Corbyn supporters



Unbelievable. Utter vandals.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps the people who say this could make it true by doing "the decent thing".
> 
> I have now ensured I will never ever get a vote in a Labour leadership contest


I was thinking along similar lines when Kinnock Senior made his 'never see another Labour Government in my lifetime'.  His death appears seems to be a necessary condition.

'Make it so'


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 20, 2016)

Well the pathetic hatchet job has prompted me to join Momentum just to spite the fuckers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2016)

ftyguhj


timeforanother said:


> I wouldn't mess with him. luckily if we did meet I think I wouldn't have to.


he's a frail old dude with mobility problems, I think you could take him


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Well the pathetic hatchet job has prompted me to join Momentum just to spite the fuckers.


friday is popcorn day


----------



## mauvais (Sep 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ftyguhj
> 
> he's a frail old dude with mobility problems, I think you could take him


Yeah, but he also looks like God. Can you be sure it's not actually Him?


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ftyguhj
> 
> he's a frail old dude with mobility problems, I think you could take him


He does magick and would probably curse you or something... best not to take the chance.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ftyguhj
> 
> he's a frail old dude with mobility problems, I think you could take him


You don't know what I am like.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Well the pathetic hatchet job has prompted me to join Momentum just to spite the fuckers.


I did take the mickey out of someone in public who was past of the original 80s cull (or at least a supporter of it), but I'm careful with my words usually.

Bring it on, and I'll start being much more active again.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 20, 2016)

Why didn't he just be honest about Israel when he was asked? Oven Smith was expected to arse lick the Zionist cunts. Jeremy has proved he has no spine. Shame was hoping for someone credible on the left.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2016)

damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The press and his enemies have been banging the 'jeremy jew-hater' and 'labour antisemitism' line from day one.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The press and his enemies have been banging the 'jeremy jew-hater' and 'labour antisemitism' line from day one.


I feel well qualified to take them on as I am Jew-ish  .

I don't think the original Zionists thought it would turn out like this, Israel as a state has just made a bad problem into a horror story.

You would thought all that cash from the states could have made the plight of the Palastinians into living in 5 star hotels.


----------



## andysays (Sep 20, 2016)

Dandred said:


> ... Oven Smith...



Your spell checker appears to be trying to get your voting rights withdrawn at the eleventh hour


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

Any reports from the NEC meeting?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)




----------



## chilango (Sep 20, 2016)

Watching Dispatches right now. It's pretty tame stuff isn't it?

If the AWL are the scariest bogeyman they can drag out, well, it's pretty dismal all round isn't it?

Edit to add: Was that it? Is that all they've got? Frankly everyone's a loser in this one aren't they?


----------



## Sifta (Sep 20, 2016)

Hearing Matgamma's bizarre pro-imperialist cult described as "anti-Semitic" is one of life's small pleasures


----------



## chilango (Sep 20, 2016)

The AWL must be loving the attention. Finally _they're_ the big boys!

Are there any soggies on here out of interest?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

Labour’s governing body defers decision on shadow cabinet elections until party conference

Can they pull a fillibuster on Saturday?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

chilango said:


> The AWL must be loving the attention. Finally _they're_ the big boys!
> 
> Are there any soggies on here out of interest?


Haha, ages since i heard that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn to put Labour Party on election footing - BBC News

If they want to convert the numbers that joined to support Corbyn to a campaigning force then the sooner the better.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 20, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Labour’s governing body defers decision on shadow cabinet elections until party conference
> 
> Can they pull a fillibuster on Saturday?





> Mr Watson said: "We've had a very bruising summer, we are going to get a new leader elected on Saturday, we all think there is the likelihood of a very early general election and so we have got to put the band back together.
> 
> "For me, the heart of our party is the parliamentary party... and we have got to bring people back in. I think to have an elected shadow Cabinet, not an appointed shadow Cabinet, is one way we do that."


No new leader elected, no likelihood of an early election, PLP not the heart of the party, elected shadow Cabinet meaningless.

0/4 - Nice one Watson


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2016)

I 


chilango said:


> Watching Dispatches right now. It's pretty tame stuff isn't it?
> 
> If the AWL are the scariest bogeyman they can drag out, well, it's pretty dismal all round isn't it?
> 
> Edit to add: Was that it? Is that all they've got? Frankly everyone's a loser in this one aren't they?




I have spoken to M.P's, LP members,  not all have taken that from the programme, some see the AWL involvement as a clear example of entryism and tolerance of.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> I have spoken to M.P's, LP members,  not all have taken that from the programme, some see the AWL involvement as a clear example of entryism and tolerance of.


The soggies never seemed that organised to me, but usually trying to do the right thing.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> The soggies never seemed that organised to me, but usually trying to do the right thing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 20, 2016)

AWL's Sacha Ismail responds:



I must say, his 1980s lefty accent is coming on leaps and bounds. I remember when he used to talk like Novara media's Darren Bacardi.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


>


It think it was them who got me involved it the small things I did against the BNP.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 20, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> It think it was them who got me involved it the small things I did against the BNP.



The AWL and SWP are often the first port of call into radical left politics.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AWL's Sacha Ismail responds:
> 
> 
> 
> I must say, his 1980s lefty accent is coming on leaps and bounds. I remember when he used to talk like Novara media's Darren Bacardi.




That is a bit sad.

The accent isn't as bad as Ed Miliband with Russel Brand.. Why be a fake though? I should sound North London, but my mum wouldn't have it (that was how we talked in the playground). My mum isn't posh. I didn't go fake northern when I moved up here ages ago.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 20, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The AWL and SWP are often the first port of call into radical left politics.


That was way back, and I wasn't going to join either group even if I liked some things they did.  Lived round the corner from RCP too (odd, that lot, even if they dressed well and again, did some good work), and had very good Millie mates.


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2016)

Appparently hundreds of people have joined Momentum since the Dispatches programme.


----------



## Supine (Sep 20, 2016)

treelover said:


> Appparently hundreds of people have joined Momentum since the Dispatches programme.



And thousands will have watched and thought the left are a shambles


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 21, 2016)

Supine said:


> And thousands will have watched and thought the left are a shambles


I like hundreds and thousands.

A hundred activists will persuade many more.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 21, 2016)

The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night



What a wanker


----------



## emanymton (Sep 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night
> 
> 
> 
> What a wanker



I think it's a typo, he neat to put 'i'm a type of leftist...'.

Actually who the hell uses the word leftist anyway?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night
> 
> 
> 
> What a wanker



I think he's got a point. A hallmark of the 1970s schoolboy leftism I experienced was a kind of trying-too-hard prolier than thou-ness, which wasn't very edifying. I was more impressed by people who walked the walk than by those who had to belabour you with the purity of their ideology at every turn.

Course, along came Thatcher, and all the right wing kids started, too...


----------



## chilango (Sep 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night
> 
> 
> 
> What a wanker




TBH I think you have to look quite hard these days to find any kind of _soi dissant_ (thanks Laura) Leftists IRL.

Says more about the world, dare I use the word "bubble"?, that Jones inhabits than it does for anything else frankly.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think he's got a point. A hallmark of the 1970s schoolboy leftism I experienced was a kind of trying-too-hard prolier than thou-ness, which wasn't very edifying. I was more impressed by people who walked the walk than by those who had to belabour you with the purity of their ideology at every turn.
> 
> Course, along came Thatcher, and all the right wing kids started, too...



Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.


----------



## chilango (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.



...and the same "prolier than thou" poseurs dismiss people as m/c on the basis of the same superficial caricaturing.

That said, it's been a while since I met any of these sorts.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

What worries me some times is a type of corporate shill whose main aim is to prove how many pharmaceuticals they can sell. That's not medicine, it's exploitation of the sick.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2016)

Supine said:


> And thousands will have watched and thought the left are a shambles


That's the whole point behind the media's construction of these kinds of narratives. If we look back to Orgreave, we can see that the BBC, especially, presented the event as the police being charged by a group of thugs. The bizzies even planted a gun on the site in order to make the claim that the miners were prepared to shoot the police. Thanks to the sterling work of Glasgow University's Media Unit (run by Greg Philo), this was shown to be a fabrication.

Another incident took place on the day of 9/11, when BBC News used 10 year old footage of Palestinians celebrating to construct a narrative that suggested that they, and by extension all Arabs, were celebrating the collapse of the Twin Towers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night
> 
> 
> 
> What a wanker



He doesn't understand the concept of performance art, the wee prick.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.


Indeed, there is a history of an educated working class. We used libraries (that they're trying to close down). In my family, reading and self-improvement through education was considered important. There are many middle class people that don't read books.

I really hate it when the likes of Dan Hodges claim McDonald's is a working class institution. Well, I've got news for Dan: not all working class people eat Big Macs or shop in Sports Direct. Middle class people eat McDonalds and some shop in Sports Direct.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2016)

Zac Goldsmith said _that_? 
Channel 4 branded an 'absolute embarrassment' over Dispatches' investigation into Momentum


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.


Frothy coffee.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Zac Goldsmith said _that_?
> Channel 4 branded an 'absolute embarrassment' over Dispatches' investigation into Momentum


Goldsmith normally disgusts me, but unless I'm being naïve he seems to be being genuine in that comment. My autopilot tells me to look out for the strategic, rotten agenda behind any politician's comments, but I can't think of one at first glance.


----------



## Cid (Sep 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Goldsmith normally disgusts me, but unless I'm being naïve he seems to be being genuine in that comment. My autopilot tells me to look out for the strategic, rotten agenda behind any politician's comments, but I can't think of one at first glance.



Well it's helping him stay in the public eye.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2016)

Cid said:


> Well it's helping him stay in the public eye.


And improving his reputation as someone who is ""fair" after his reputation was damaged by the racially charged bollocks of his London Mayor campaign.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Frothy coffee.



?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> ?


In an embarrassing attempt at establishing his credentials, Smith said he had no understanding of frothy-expresso malarkey and only had normal brews in a cracked mug.  Round about the time he said he couldn't remember the Wales football score because he was so pissed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> ?



What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom

Bizarrely, probably the most damning article about OS.

Me and my OH read it out loud and had to often stop due to belly laughs.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2016)

I see. I know about his massive cock.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2016)

Wilf said:


> In an embarrassing attempt at establishing his credentials, Smith said he had no understanding of frothy-expresso malarkey and only had normal brews in a cracked mug.  Round about the time he said he couldn't remember the Wales football score because he was so pissed.



In front of the telly slurping sugary tea from a cracked mug while his lass puts a plate of fried egg and chips in his lap.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> In front of the telly slurping sugary tea from a cracked mug while his lass puts a plate of fried egg and chips in his lap.


"I hope these fookin eggs are not organic?"


----------



## gosub (Sep 21, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Frothy coffee.



I don't have a problem with that.  if you go somewhere like a Poppins and ask for a coffee,you get one with a froth on it but you couldn't really call it a latte.  (might be different now not been in a Poppins for years)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> In front of the telly slurping sugary tea from a cracked mug while his lass puts a plate of fried egg and chips in his lap.



Veggie muck! Where's the bacon, where's the sausage, where's the meat pie?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> I don't have a problem with that.  if you go somewhere like a Poppins and ask for a coffee,you get one with a froth on it but you couldn't really call it a latte.  (might be different now not been in a Poppins for years)



see I don't understand that


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> I don't have a problem with that.  if you go somewhere like a Poppins and ask for a coffee,you get one with a froth on it but you couldn't really call it a latte.  (might be different now not been in a Poppins for years)


Because they make it with Nescafe granules in a smoky glass mug blasted with boiling water from the Magic Shiny Pipes that burst through the counter top


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> I don't have a problem with that.  if you go somewhere like a Poppins and ask for a coffee,you get one with a froth on it but you couldn't really call it a latte.  (might be different now not been in a Poppins for years)


There used to be one in Penzance but it closed down. Never realised it was a chain. Much better than the trendy shithole that replaced it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> I see. I know about his massive cock.


He _is_ a massive cock.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 21, 2016)

CNT36 said:


> There used to be one in Penzance but it closed down. Never realised it was a chain. Much better than the trendy shithole that replaced it.



Did it leave when the wind changed?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 21, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Did it leave when the wind changed?



Possibly...it certainly made for a jolly holiday.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2016)

The Ken Loach film on Corbyn, etc is now live

Great that the people in working class Gleadless in Sheffield are being shown telling the truth about sanctions, benefit cuts, etc.

its very moving and a snapshot of left behind britain.


----------



## gosub (Sep 21, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Because they make it with Nescafe granules in a smoky glass mug blasted with boiling water from the Magic Shiny Pipes that burst through the counter top


I liked, coz you explained it, not coz I'm a fan of Nescafe granuales


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 21, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Ken Loach film on Corbyn, etc is now live
> 
> Great that the people in working class Gleadless in Sheffield are being shown telling the truth about sanctions, benefit cuts, etc.
> 
> its very moving and a snapshot of left behind britain.




Nice to see the library in use too, though it's a while since I visited the Blackstock next door!
Some familiar faces in the film too.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 21, 2016)

A more interesting documentary would have been to stick an undercover journalist into the Progress movement - that's where they would have been more likely to find scheming and foul play. I wonder why the 'Battle for Labour' only showed one side?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

Rolling out Corbyn's ex-wife again.



> Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, she told listeners that her that Mr Corbyn had not changed his politics since the 1970s.



That's kinda the idea.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.


To be fair, by the sounds of it they have pretty much nailed me.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 21, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Part of the 'prolier than thou' thing can be middle class people acting out caricatures of 'working class' people, which excludes the latter.  We don't read books or think apparently.  Just swear... And belch.  I can't stand that sort of rubbish.  It's offensively ignorant and fundamentally misunderstands working class people.  Posh boy with a tooth missing, you're still being received into the loving care of Gulag later on.


That would certainly account for a large proportion of that type in my experience...but not all.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> I liked, coz you explained it, not coz I'm a fan of Nescafe granuales


Corbyn's stuck in the 70s for his politics, I'm stuck in the 70s for coffee. Nescafe all the way for me.  Mellow Birds can fuck right off though.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What Owen Smith's Attempt at Being 'Normal' Tells Us About the State of Politics | VICE | United Kingdom
> 
> Bizarrely, probably the most damning article about OS.
> 
> Me and my OH read it out loud and had to often stop due to belly laughs.



Sam Kriss is an exceptionally funny and clever writer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The stuff that keeps Owen Jones up at night
> 
> 
> 
> ...



he's becoming more and more of a prick with each passing year. Ageing like a fine wine, into an arsehole


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's becoming more and more of a prick with each passing year. Ageing like a fine wine, into an arsehole



I can't think of a more duplicitous hack. I should have lumped him when I had the chance.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I can't think of a more duplicitous hack. I should have lumped him when I had the chance.


That's the thing about this life, you think you've missed your chance, but then you get an opportunity to redeem yourself. If you see him again, be ready!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2016)

*rocky style training montage*


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I can't think of a more duplicitous hack. I should have lumped him when I had the chance.


Yeh you could have been a contender


----------



## Sue (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I can't think of a more duplicitous hack. I should have lumped him when I had the chance.


Seem to recall fawning was more your style.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> Seem to recall fawning was more your style.



Excuse me?

You weren't there. And I got a bollocking from Callie, who was there, for being mean to OJ.


----------



## Sue (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> You weren't there. And I got a bollocking from Callie, who was there, for being mean to OJ.


I was there. And left because I found it all extremely annoying.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> I was there. And left because I found it all extremely annoying.



Dont remember you at all.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

i hope jeremy beats owen means even less of a chance for a labour gov in the future.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 21, 2016)

canny username there adolf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> You weren't there. And I got a bollocking from Callie, who was there, for being mean to OJ.


I was there as well. You weren't exactly close to blows with him.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> i hope jeremy beats owen means even less of a chance for a labour gov in the future.



It is a truth universally acknowledged that anyone calling themselves the 'voice of reason' on an internet forum is anything but.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

haha


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

i think i am atleast


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2016)

You at most, I'm afraid.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

He's also a hitler worshipping weirdo.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> i think i am atleast



a tosser?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

Channel 4 up to no good choosing OJ as the voice of corbyn when he's been doing his best to undermine him.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

carnt stand nazis and ye im a tosser


----------



## existentialist (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> i hope jeremy beats owen means even less of a chance for a labour gov in the future.


You know, you trolls would do _so_ much better if you could only write as if you weren't mouthbreathing and drooling over the keyboard.


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2016)

I never realised raisins had voices. What about sultanas?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> carnt stand nazis and ye im a tosser



Youre something. Most likely a banned returner.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was there as well. You weren't exactly close to blows with him.



The only reason I chipped in was everyone was fawning over him, lapping up all the politician speil he was squirting in your general direction. I thought i had to uphold some dignity for Urban. Can have him think we're all Guardianistas.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

people get banned for not having a left point of view on here do they? nothing ive said is unraisenable and no im not only just signed up hour ago. is it only me that knows what there on about on here?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> people get banned for not having a left point of view on here do they? nothing ive said is unraisenable and no im not only just signed up hour ago. is it only me that knows what there on about on here?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> people get banned for not having a left point of view on here do they? nothing ive said is unraisenable and no im not only just signed up hour ago.* is it only me that knows what there on about on here?*



Yes only you know. That is the problem as I see it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The only reason I chipped in was everyone was fawning over him, lapping up all the politician speil he was squirting in your general direction. I thought i had to uphold some dignity for Urban. Can have him think we're all Guardianistas.




I liked him.

There, I've said it.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> people get banned for not having a left point of view on here do they? nothing ive said is unraisenable and no im not only just signed up hour ago. is it only me that knows what there on about on here?



"People get banned for not having a left point of view on here, do they? Nothing I've said is unreasonable, and no, I only just signed up an hour ago. Is it only me that knows what they're on about on here?"

Nope, still unconvincing.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I liked him.
> 
> There, I've said it.



He's cute. He's amiable. But he is contrived, he's playing the game and he's out to mug you off.

He, imo, is worse than Richard Littlejohn. With Littlejohn there is no pretence, he's paid to be a bigoted gobshite and thats pretty much it. You know where you stand, he sets his stall you know whats coming and you dig in until it passes.

OJ presents himself as left wing but he is in cahoots with the walking slapped arse that is Lisa Nandy. He has spent the summer dropping well timed articles that have been trying to push thr corbyn campaign just enough over the edge. But he does it from painting himself as being inside.

He's is cold, egotistical and calculating.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> people get banned for not having a left point of view on here do they? nothing ive said is unraisenable and no im not only just signed up hour ago. is it only me that knows what there on about on here?


Mostly, people get banned for being cunts. Are you a cunt?


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 21, 2016)

Wasn't there an american docudrama about OJ?


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

most people are arnt they.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 21, 2016)

hi, owen


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2016)

I think Jones _feels_ genuine, to himself. I don't think he's being purposefully dishonest or conniving. He just gets it wrong.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think Jones _feels_ genuine, to himself. I don't think he's being purposefully dishonest or conniving. He just gets it wrong.



So wrong he gets himself pieces on Channel4 news and given a free rein on the staunchly anti-corbyn Guardian?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2016)

Quite a lot of people actually believe the things they say.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 21, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Quite a lot of people actually believe the things they say.


Remeber he was a spin doctor for pfizer


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Remeber he was a spin doctor for pfizer



Owen _Jones_, not Owen Smith.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Remeber he was a spin doctor for pfizer


Other Owen.  I'm with vp on Jones.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 21, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Owen _Jones_, not Owen Smith.


Facepalm, blame in on me being a bit unwell.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

that's what a tory government does to you


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 21, 2016)

What is your prediction on the percentage vote for Corbyn?  I think anything above 55% will be a complete and utter triumph for him in the face of a very heavy negative media campaign against him and a anti-Corbyn purge among party members.  My actual prediction of his share of the vote is 64%.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 22, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> What is your prediction on the percentage vote for Corbyn?  I think anything above 55% will be a complete and utter triumph for him in the face of a very heavy negative media campaign against him and a anti-Corbyn purge among party members.  My actual prediction of his share of the vote is 64%.


We don't know how big the purge got, but I think it will be confortable. I think my vote counted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2016)

Tbh anything less than 90 percent will be spun as disunity and discord. 

90 percent plus would of course make him worse than stalin.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tbh anything less than 90 percent will be spun as disunity and discord.
> 
> 90 percent plus would of course make him worse than stalin.



What about exactly 90%?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2016)

Just to be on the safe side, Robert Owen can fuck off as well, mill owning cunt.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 22, 2016)

Corbyn's polling in my prediction for Saturday will be 67.3%

Less than three quarters -- appalling score


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Just to be on the safe side, Robert Owen can fuck off as well, mill owning cunt.


I was almost tempted to say never trust an Owen. I am talking personally as well as politically. That Robert was OK.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 22, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> carnt stand nazis and ye im a tosser



Interesting user name. What do the last two characters signify?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 22, 2016)

400 pages in and it would appear Jeremy Corbyn's time is far from up.


----------



## gosub (Sep 22, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> 400 pages in and it would appear Jeremy Corbyn's time is far from up.



but his jam and gardening are suffering.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2016)

I'd say his jam has been suffering for some time seeing as though he doesn't put sugar in it.

OH MY GOD *jumps off a cliff*

Can it not just be over, please?


----------



## Nylock (Sep 22, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> i hope jeremy beats owen means even less of a chance for a labour gov in the future.


tit


----------



## tangerinedream (Sep 22, 2016)

Owen Oyston. What a cunt.


----------



## tony.c (Sep 22, 2016)

JimW said:


> I never realised raisins had voices. What about sultanas?


Sour Grapes!


----------



## tony.c (Sep 22, 2016)

JimW said:


> I never realised raisins had voices. What about sultanas?


The Grapes of Wrath?


----------



## tony.c (Sep 22, 2016)

JimW said:


> I never realised raisins had voices. What about sultanas?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2016)

Former Blair spin doctor pumps loads of dosh into Labour Tomorrow's (I can barely type that without laughing) coffers. Dirty money from dirty people.

ETA: Perhaps I should have posted that in Blairite Watch.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 22, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Former Blair spin doctor pumps loads of dosh into Labour Tomorrow's (I can barely type that without laughing) coffers. Dirty money from dirty people.
> 
> ETA: Perhaps I should have posted that in Blairite Watch.



Was he just a proxy for Blair's own cash?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 22, 2016)

These cunts won't stop until Corbyn kicks out the self-styled 'moderates'. Lukehurst admits that Mr. Normal was just a stooge; a stalking horse; a patsy.

Gaslighting on an epic scale.


> The ‘moderates’ claim it is Jeremy Corbyn that is helping the Tories, yet it is their persistent spoiling that is boosting Theresa May. To rub salt into the wounds, Akehurst _et al _are using money from the members they despise in order to pay for internal Labour Party elections. The brass-neck on these people is astounding.
> 
> Since the Labour Party’s inception, it is the left that has had to compromise, the left that has had to unify, the left that has had to stand in line and shut up, the left that is fair-game to be smeared, purged and deselected. The right of the party never has and never will compromise. Their cultish and entitled arrogance means that they think they own Labour Party and the direction it should take. Their collective behaviour since day one of Corbyn’s leadership conclusively proves the point.
> 
> You can only imagine the damage that Akehurst’s suggestion of repeated leadership elections will do to the Labour Party. Yet it won’t be the fault of the ‘moderates’ that instigate them. It will be the fault of the left for resisting them. This is indicative of the illogical positions that the moderates take. When Labour members left the party in 1981 and formed the SDP it was not they who were blamed for splitting the party. Bizarrely it was the left’s fault for not being right-wing (sorry, moderate) enough.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2016)

Akehurst seems increasingly like a friendless Walter Mitty with a twitter profile tbh. Like a right wing Eoin Clarke


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2016)

‘I really enjoyed that,’ says Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2016)

How did that canary-copy manage to get an article out of a single tweet from akehurst that essentially stated was is the common sense of a lot of Corbyn supporters (and i suspect Corbyn himself) - including many here and many in the new informal_ anarchists for Labour_ grouping?

£3 he got for what is essentially a forum post.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2016)

I don't think that's fair butch.














It was two tweets.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 22, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Mostly, people get banned for being cunts. Are you a cunt?





voiceofreason88 said:


> most people are arnt they.



No.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I liked him.
> 
> There, I've said it.



Yeah, but everyone knows that you're a wiberal!


----------



## Libertad (Sep 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Just to be on the safe side, Robert Owen can fuck off as well, mill owning cunt.



But Frank Owen gets a pass.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 22, 2016)

Loadsa spin contained herin

Jeremy Corbyn campaign criticised over official video showing supporters 'dismissing antisemitism claims'


----------



## teqniq (Sep 22, 2016)

David Miliband savages 'unelectable' Jeremy Corbyn, and his own brother too


----------



## hash tag (Sep 22, 2016)

no surprise I suppose


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 22, 2016)

Daily Mail - "Labour MPs hire BODYGUARDS to protect them from hard-left disciples of Jeremy Corbyn."

(No link because cunts)


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2016)

Owen of the Day:

Owen Jones has another bash, in the grauniad
Voters may back Corbyn’s policies. But they won’t accept a freakshow | Owen Jones


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 22, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Daily Mail - "Labour MPs hire BODYGUARDS to protect them from hard-left disciples of Jeremy Corbyn."
> 
> (No link because cunts)



You can just imagine how puffed up some of them are to feel they need bodyguards can't you.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 22, 2016)

Found by accident; Chris Mullin writes 
“But if he wins again, as he is expected to, then I think those who oppose him need to settle down, not make mischief and make the best of it because what is really damaging is disunity.

Read more at: Chris Mullin: 'Corbyn is not leadership material'


----------



## teqniq (Sep 22, 2016)

Researchers preparing to SUE the BBC over biased Jeremy Corbyn coverage


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You can just imagine how puffed up some of them are to feel they need bodyguards can't you.


Costs will probably go on expenses too!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 22, 2016)

could a group be hired to shuffle along behind corbyn to make sure the MPs don't stab him in the back?


----------



## inva (Sep 22, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Researchers preparing to SUE the BBC over biased Jeremy Corbyn coverage


have you seen their tag line thing on that website? "For The Awakened Generation"


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Loadsa spin contained herin
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn campaign criticised over official video showing supporters 'dismissing antisemitism claims'



Momentum maybe being a bit too clever there.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2016)

> This week Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth told how she has received more than 25,000 incidents of abuse, much of it racial.



This will be emails, social media, while some will be just valid, argument, etc , it is pretty incredible, and appalling


----------



## Sifta (Sep 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> This will be emails, social media, while some will be just valid, argument, etc , it is pretty incredible, and appalling



Three points to keep in mind:

1) She's probably making it up
2) There is clear documentary evidence that she is a US asset. Pointing this out would no doubt be characterized as "abuse"
3) She is thoroughly deserving of abuse (political, rather than racial)


----------



## teqniq (Sep 22, 2016)

inva said:


> have you seen their tag line thing on that website? "For The Awakened Generation"


Haha no, I didn't I must've been half asleep.


----------



## inva (Sep 22, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Haha no, I didn't I must've been half asleep.


that's the spirit


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 22, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Three points to keep in mind:
> 
> 1) She's probably making it up
> 2) There is clear documentary evidence that she is a US asset. Pointing this out would no doubt be characterized as "abuse"
> 3) She is thoroughly deserving of abuse (political, rather than racial)


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 22, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Three points to keep in mind:
> There is clear documentary evidence that she is a US asset.


Link please.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2016)

It was a wikileaks thing. Treat with extreme suspicion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was a wikileaks thing. Treat with extreme suspicion.


True or not it would explain a torrent of abuse. Not necessarily linked to Corbyn supporters at all.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> True or not it would explain a torrent of abuse. Not necessarily linked to Corbyn supporters at all.



This is true. There's a distinct shift of late to lots of people in the public eye being subject to torrents of different kinds of abuse, and although it sometimes looks like it's orchestrated by or at least comes from the same people/group it often becomes a site of 'catch all' abuse, where any and every wanker on the internet starts having a go.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was a wikileaks thing. Treat with extreme suspicion.


Why?

This is the leaked cable, one of quarter of a million. I don't see how or why wikileaks would be in the business of fabricating
Cable: 09LONDON956_a


----------



## cantsin (Sep 23, 2016)

Sifta said:


> Three points to keep in mind:
> 
> 1) She's probably making it up
> 2) There is clear documentary evidence that she is a US asset. Pointing this out would no doubt be characterized as "abuse"
> 3) She is thoroughly deserving of abuse (political, rather than racial)



yep, repeatedly this week the Graun / elsewhere has included "  Mossad / CIA agent" as one of the main lines of abuse aimed at Smeeth. Orwellian stuff.

On the other hand, anti semitic creeps crawling around on Twitter, enjoying it all a lot, happy to come over as pro Corbyn, but with Alison Chabloz RT's in their t/ls etc .Fucking mess, and if the Lab Right / anti BDS lot want to break down the divide between principled anti Zionist /pro BDS elements, and anti semites, get them all lumped in together, they're getting results on Twitter.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 23, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Link please.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was a wikileaks thing. Treat with extreme suspicion.



I shld probably know more about this ( as with most things ), but can we have a quick / idiots guide to Wikileaks unreliability / reasons to "treat with extreme caution " etc ?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2016)

20 000 in a 12 hour period. And all done in the name of Corbyn. Bullshit.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> could a group be hired to shuffle along behind corbyn to make sure the MPs don't stab him in the back?



Momentum could form a Conga cadre.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 23, 2016)

MP reveals the anti-Semitism that's the norm in her Party's hard left

You dont have to click on the link but Ruth is engaging with the Mail. The story of how  a perceived slight turned into anti semitic abuse is again rolled out but again, I am still unclear on how it came to be anti semitic - can someone clear this up for me ?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> MP reveals the anti-Semitism that's the norm in her Party's hard left
> 
> You dont have to click on the link but Ruth is engaging with the Mail. The story of how  a perceived slight turned into anti semitic abuse is again rolled out but again, I am now clear on how it came to be anti semitic - can someone clear this up for me ?


It's from the standard but she would presumably have to have agreed for it to be used by the mail.


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's from the standard but she would presumably have to have agreed for it to be used by the mail.


Don't think so - I've got friends who've been interviewed in local press who've later found their interview part of a DM story, no permission sought or given.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Don't think so - I've got friends who've been interviewed in local press who've later found their interview part of a DM story, no permission sought or given.


But this is actually a simple reproduction of the whole piece - not just parts taken from it. Don't know if that makes a difference. Doesn't really matter anyway - it's clear she's a genuinely nasty lying shit-stirrer, and engaging with the mail (or not) wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2016)

The nationals (particularly the mail, but all of them) often reuse entire articles from local press - presumably they have licensing agreements or similar. It's how a lot of stories about benefit cheats and the like come from, and why it seems so baffling that the subject of the article would talk to the mail/sun - they didn't, they spoke to their local rag.

Smeeth is still a dick tho, obv.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 23, 2016)

There's some background/links on Smeeth here:
Ruth Smeeth and Israeli lobby links come under the spotlight across the web -
Suspect most people know this stuff already (particularly via Notes from the Borderland), but I wanted a quick crash course in terms of the 'strictly protect' bit and how much of an asset she is to them.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 23, 2016)

Fucking hell, She is awful. manipulative,horrible and evasive ..


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

Red Ken has a video on the beeb atm, moderatly amusing. He eats a curry and talks up st J


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2016)

The relevant NFTB bits are here. (Pdf)


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 23, 2016)

FYI - here's a debate between a Telegraph columnist and a Morning Star writer on Corbyn and the future of Labour:

Live Q&A: Is Jeremy Corbyn the saviour or destroyer of the Labour Party? Join the debate


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> The nationals (particularly the mail, but all of them) often reuse entire articles from local press - presumably they have licensing agreements or similar.



No, they just steal the stories.

E.g see: Written out of the great newspaper click chase


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> No, they just steal the stories.
> 
> E.g see: Written out of the great newspaper click chase


yes, and they also have licensing agreements with locals (or the national & local paper is often owned by the same company).


----------



## Ole (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was a wikileaks thing. Treat with extreme suspicion.


Why?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2016)

cantsin said:


>




It doesn't give context, does it.

What does strictly protect mean? Protect her? Don't give her name? Protect how we got the info? And how and in what context did she tell them that? Was it that someone who didn't identify themselves as being with the US govt was talking to her and she told them that?

It may well be exactly as wikileaks et al are suggesting. It might not be. I'd say it's more likely that a member of the CIA is undercover than a British MP, no matter what I think of their politics. 

We start veering off into the territory of loonspuddery when we jump on whatever conclusion suits us when in fact there are multiple things that could in fact be true.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2016)

Also lol, potteye.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It doesn't give context, does it.
> 
> What does strictly protect mean? Protect her? Don't give her name? Protect how we got the info? And how and in what context did she tell them that? Was it that someone who didn't identify themselves as being with the US govt was talking to her and she told them that?





> The 1.73-GB file and passphrase werepublished Thursday on Cryptome, a competing secret-spilling site, after news broke over the last week that the file had been circulating on the internet unnoticed for several months. Wired.com’s keyword search of the file shows that the uncensored cables contain more than 2,000 occurrences of the phrase “strictly protect”, which is used in cables to denote sources of information whose identities diplomats consider confidential.


U.S. Sources Exposed as Unredacted State Department Cables Are Unleashed Online


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2016)

And why do they consider it confidential? Because she's paid by them to feed them information? Because they don't particularly want to say how they got that information? It's very easy to jump to the biggest and most damning conclusion because it fits the narrative you like the most. Conspiracies everywhere.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 23, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> FYI - here's a debate between a Telegraph columnist and a Morning Star writer on Corbyn and the future of Labour:
> 
> Live Q&A: Is Jeremy Corbyn the saviour or destroyer of the Labour Party? Join the debate



Were the two on the right purchased in some sort of kit form? Just look at them.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 23, 2016)

And he keeps looking directly at the camera. Agggrrr!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> And why do they consider it confidential? Because she's paid by them to feed them information? Because they don't particularly want to say how they got that information? It's very easy to jump to the biggest and most damning conclusion because it fits the narrative you like the most. Conspiracies everywhere.


Can't remember where I read it but I do recall reading someone say the Zinoviev letter, and the neccesarily clandestine nature of some of the currents that formed the labour party (guilds, unions) engendered a paranioa they've never truly shaken off. On the other hand it WAS a forgery and if spooks haven't been through st J's bins by now then standards are slipping.

I have no opinion on the wikileaks stuff yet, I just thought it was an interesting idea that a party formed from currents that had a very closed organisational structures could be prone to seeing the hand of er maj's finest everywhere. They did go through Militants bins as well so its not helping matters when itts re inforced by true infiltration. Eh. Who knows.


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2016)

You'd hope a proper spook would be less obvious. More likely to be just a friendly contact than anything more formal surely?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2016)

I have no doubt that people are still 'monitored' despite all the various scandals and outrages over it as its been uncovered over the years (there have been some recent outrages over it, with current MPs having been monitored for decades etc). We know they monitor regular activists who are attached to this and that group, so it's not a huge leap for them to monitor MPs and union leaders and whoever else if they're all threatening the same interests.

It's one thing to acknowledge that and quite another to jump into massive shady conspiracy theories with undercover agents and CIA infiltration and whatever else. It's comforting to imagine a sinister and mysterious puppet master making the system dance to his tune, but the reality is far more fractured and ad hoc and messy and unsophisticated than that. If only we can bring that puppet master to account. We can't. There isn't one. That's scarier.

This Smeeth stuff just feeds into that bigger conspiracy stuff. And frankly, it's not in the least bit helpful if you (not you personally dotty - none of this is at you directly) want any of your arguments against the current PLP to be taken remotely seriously.

What's more likely? That she is on the pay roll of the CIA to feed them such crucial and clandestine information as Gordon Brown is going to call an election; or she was having an 'insiders' conversation - the likes of which go on in every Westminster cafe and every CLP meeting and in every constituency office and in every random council corridor - where she mentioned something she'd heard (because frankly people with a modicum of power like to puff themselves up by looking like they know important things) and probably said something like "but don't tell anyone I told you" because it wasn't meant to be public knowledge? It does them no favours to say "hey guys, we heard this thing and it was Ruth Smeeth wot told us" because it just puts everyone in the shit, and shows up how this kind of information gets passed around - which is very easily because all these people move in the same circles, being the ruling/political class that they are.

But by all means, continue insinuating she's some deep cover agent on the CIA payroll, just watch out for the black helicopters coming for you in the night.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Red Ken has a video on the beeb atm, moderatly amusing. He eats a curry and talks up st J



Well there's an endorsement. The last corrupt, egotistical nutter with juvenile politics he backed did a great job. Just ask a Venezuelan.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Well there's an endorsement. The last corrupt, egotistical nutter with juvenile politics he backed did a great job. Just ask a Venezuelan.


So you seem to be saying jc is a corrupt egotistical nutter with juvenile politics.

I for one look forward to the day your politics ascend to the juvenile.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 23, 2016)

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn's time is up (or not) at precisely 11.45am tomorrow, when the result is announced. 

Then we can go all the way back to the first page of this thread and start again


----------



## mauvais (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It doesn't give context, does it.
> 
> What does strictly protect mean?


It's  just a security classification. Like 'top secret', 'US eyes only' and so on.

All sorts of things get protected, it's quite conservative.


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Apparently Jeremy Corbyn's time is up (or not) at precisely 11.45am tomorrow, when the result is announced.


Chuka Ummuna got it in early this evening.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Chuka Ummuna got it in early this evening.



Note in that Twitter thread Green Party activist happy to collude with Guido.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's  just a security classification. Like 'top secret', 'US eyes only' and so on.
> 
> All sorts of things get protected, it's quite conservative.



This was sort of my point. It doesn't mean she's in their pay and it's all some sort of massive cover up.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 23, 2016)

Wasn't the information she'd passed on in that leak confidential?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Well there's an endorsement. The last corrupt, egotistical nutter with juvenile politics he backed did a great job. Just ask a Venezuelan.


he left venuezala better place than he found it. And vicious right wing interests heavily tied up with narco stuff, well take the chang out and you've a milkwater version as the PLP flail desperatly to unseat the Glorious C. Aint life grand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

we'll fucking burn it before you can have it

answers

a) OK then we'll be a bit like you only not so harsh

b) Fuck you, we shall deal with you presently

which is best?

caveat: I have no time for the labour left and many crits of.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 23, 2016)

Just got back from the tattooists...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 23, 2016)

I think that assuming that it''s completely uncontroversial that Chavez was bad for the average Venezuelan is a very clear indication of someone's unquestioned political dogma.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

as if the byns beard was ever that tidy


----------



## mauvais (Sep 23, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> This was sort of my point. It doesn't mean she's in their pay and it's all some sort of massive cover up.


Yeah. Basically it just means she's slightly more interesting than the coffee invoice. I doubt any of these people get paid.


----------



## binka (Sep 23, 2016)

What time's the results in tomorrow?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 23, 2016)

11.45 a.m. i think


----------



## binka (Sep 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> 11.45 a.m. i think


 Thanks. And im presuming full communism will follow some time mid-afternoon?


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 23, 2016)

Has anybody got any predictions?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 23, 2016)

Yes, JC

Next


----------



## binka (Sep 23, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Has anybody got any predictions?


65/35 for Corbyn


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 23, 2016)

I make it 64/36 for Corbyn.


----------



## binka (Sep 23, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> I make it 64/36 for Corbyn.


If this is done on Price Is Right rules I am going to be furious with you


----------



## kenny g (Sep 23, 2016)

Massive vote for JC, massive predictions of total collapse of labour vote and early election. No election until 2020 - May becomes ever increasingly unpopular - Tories rip each other to shit - UKIP split assunder - Lib dems increase support as they bleat incessantly about any issue under the sun. Greens garner increased support. Nats get 60% of scotts votes.  Tories win 2020 election on pitiful turnout and split anti-tory vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Has anybody got any predictions?


I'll have something to do on a saturday morning that doesn't include washing up.

And Smith will be smote greatly by the hammer of votes.

its all about if corbyns vote shares down. If it is, thats what will be spun loudly as no confidence.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> This was sort of my point. It doesn't mean she's in their pay and it's all some sort of massive cover up.


I doubt anyone is claiming she's some sort of cold war, dead letter drop, invisible ink spy. She no doubt exists in that hinterland between Westminster, corporate lobbying and Israeli PR. It's a very short step from there to regular contact with the Americans, of a more or less 'public' nature (that is to say not _open_, but run of the mill commercial/confidential/political). It does though look she goes beyond that, to the point of actual visits and the Embassy and has some regular, ongoing contact. She's, literally, an _asset_ to them, if not an _Asset_. In some kind of Venn diagram of her relationships I'm not particularly worried if you were to go with the _intelligence circle_ or the _political circle_. To some degree, it doesn't matter, it's run of the mill elite power, even if she's not quite at the top of the tree.


----------



## Ole (Sep 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's  just a security classification. Like 'top secret', 'US eyes only' and so on.
> 
> All sorts of things get protected, it's quite conservative.


It's not a security classification. "Strictly protect" means 'strictly protect the identity of this source'. The context is key. If it's a Chinese or Russian source, it's serious business. If it's a British source, they are just trying to save their source from embarrassment. 

The security classification of the document is 'CONFIDENTIAL' and 'NOFORN'. The former is the lowest security classification in the US government and means that millions of people in it are free to view it. This hints that any protected sources named within it are not very important, to put it bluntly. 



Vintage Paw said:


> This was sort of my point. It doesn't mean she's in their pay and it's all some sort of massive cover up.


To be fair, no-one has suggested she was paid, or was an agent, or has anything to do with the CIA. I realise you are being rhetorically hyperbolic, but perhaps you want to take it down a few gears.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

Ole said:


> To be fair, no-one has suggested she was paid, or was an agent, or has anything to do with the CIA. I realise you are being rhetorically hyperbolic, but perhaps you want to take it down a few gears.



I shan't take it down any gears, thanks. I'm talking about the stuff I see people saying about her all over the place, not just on this thread. My discussions about everything I talk about are informed by numerous things. That's what we all do. I've lost count of the amount of people online I've seen quoting the wikileaks stuff either heavily implying or outright stating she's working with or for the CIA. It's frankly ridiculous. Whether or not anyone here is saying that is largely immaterial because we're talking about things that are happening at large not just what's happening on urban. So thanks, I'll talk about what I want duck.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I doubt anyone is claiming she's some sort of cold war, dead letter drop, invisible ink spy. She no doubt exists in that hinterland between Westminster, corporate lobbying and Israeli PR. It's a very short step from there to regular contact with the Americans, of a more or less 'public' nature (that is to say not _open_, but run of the mill commercial/confidential/political). It does though look she goes beyond that, to the point of actual visits and the Embassy and has some regular, ongoing contact. She's, literally, an _asset_ to them, if not an _Asset_. In some kind of Venn diagram of her relationships I'm not particularly worried if you were to go with the _intelligence circle_ or the _political circle_. To some degree, it doesn't matter, it's run of the mill elite power, even if she's not quite at the top of the tree.



You're somewhat right. She has a friend at the embassy. Just a friend. I have no doubt that as soon as you get any kind of job further up the ladder in politics you get friends in all sorts of places. As you say, and as I said earlier, this is who they mix with. The point is that it is entirely normal. That is not to excuse what it means structurally or politically, but to explain that there is nothing more covert and shady about her saying Brown was going to call an election (a point on which she was wrong about at the time anyway - what an asset) than there is any of them gossiping about the latest rumours over a glass of wine at the end of the day. Westminster, and London politics more generally, is a hive of this stuff - puffed up wonks and wannabes and think-they've-made-its talking themselves up to each other, schmoozing, a nudge here, a wink there. It's all bullshit, but it's all terribly quotidian. The glassy eyed glee with which this wikileaks thing has been passed around as some sort of evidence of something or another is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst feeding into some really unhelpful and stupid stuff. If it were being discussed with wider framing of how the political classes network and set against the idea of grassroots politics it would at least be more useful than the ways in which it's being used at present.


----------



## Ole (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I shan't take it down any gears, thanks. I'm talking about the stuff I see people saying about her all over the place, not just on this thread. My discussions about everything I talk about are informed by numerous things. That's what we all do. I've lost count of the amount of people online I've seen quoting the wikileaks stuff either heavily implying or outright stating she's working with or for the CIA. It's frankly ridiculous. Whether or not anyone here is saying that is largely immaterial because we're talking about things that are happening at large not just what's happening on urban. So thanks, I'll talk about what I want duck.



It only takes a few words to make it clear who you are talking about. If you don't, it sounds like you are having digs at people for even uttering that she is a U.S source.

Did you plan to share a reason for urging people to treat Wikileaks with extreme suspicion by the way?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 24, 2016)

Ole said:


> It's not a security classification. "Strictly protect" means 'strictly protect the identity of this source'. The context is key. If it's a Chinese or Russian source, it's serious business. If it's a British source, they are just trying to save their source from embarrassment.
> 
> The security classification of the document is 'CONFIDENTIAL' and 'NOFORN'. The former is the lowest security classification in the US government and means that millions of people in it are free to view it. This hints that any protected sources named within it are not very important, to put it bluntly.


It is still a classification akin to document protective marking, just one attached to a person within a document. The rest of what you say, I agree.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 24, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Has anybody got any predictions?


I don't think the margin will be as big as others so am going to say 58% for Corbyn.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Sep 24, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I don't think the margin will be as big as others so am going to say 58% for Corbyn.



I would agree- considering so many of his supporters have been barred from voting, for Corbyn to get over 60% would be ridiculous (but great!).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 24, 2016)

What time will the result come in?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 24, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What time will the result come in?


When the clock strikes thirteen


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Sep 24, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What time will the result come in?



Labour website says 11.45am (at a guess, probably the actual result will be announced 12 noon)


----------



## Celyn (Sep 24, 2016)

For light relief, I quite liked this:

View attachment 92936
 
(stolen from Wings Over Scotland, Chris Cairns, and I hope they don't mind)

Damn, I'm sure I used to know how to post a pic but I am not sure whether this works.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 24, 2016)

Labour leadership election result: Jeremy Corbyn appeals for unity - Politics live



> (There has also been some online abuse from anti-Corbynites, although generally it has been much harder to find.)



You haven't tried very fucking hard to find it, have you?


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 24, 2016)

The Morning Star didn't seem to have a problem finding:

LABOUR SPIES  BLIND TO VILE ANTI-CORBYN ONLINE ABUSE


----------



## Ole (Sep 24, 2016)

It's extremely, painfully difficult not to find it - if not impossible.

The shamelessness of the Labour Party this election has been useful if nothing else.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

I so hope Owen Smith wins this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 24, 2016)

Is the result being broadcast?


----------



## Ole (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I so hope Owen Smith wins this.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is the result being broadcast?


To the world - via _anarchists for the labour party_  network.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I so hope Owen Smith wins this.



So fun if he does


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> To the world - via _anarchists for the labour party_  network.


Actually, that's not true. No one will be able to know unless they are there. That's the modern world i'm afraid.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

*



			Jeremy Corbyn is 'out of touch' and an 'election loser' among working class voters, poll finds
		
Click to expand...

*


> Poll for The Independent shows a major disconnect between traditional Labour voters and new Corbyn supporters



The poll that shows what the working classes really think of Jeremy Corbyn

Another great poll finding - "after over a year of the media calling Corbyn 'out of touch' and an 'election loser'" people think he's 'out of touch' and an 'election loser'. 

Strangely, they don't report which papers the people in the poll read.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Actually, that's not true. No one will be able to know unless they are there. That's the modern world i'm afraid.





You'll rejoice at this... Fans to unfurl Corbyn banner on the Kop


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Actually, that's not true. No one will be able to know unless they are there. That's the modern world i'm afraid.



And even they won't know, that's the modern world.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You're somewhat right. She has a friend at the embassy. Just a friend. I have no doubt that as soon as you get any kind of job further up the ladder in politics you get friends in all sorts of places. As you say, and as I said earlier, this is who they mix with. The point is that it is entirely normal. That is not to excuse what it means structurally or politically, but to explain that there is nothing more covert and shady about her saying Brown was going to call an election (a point on which she was wrong about at the time anyway - what an asset) than there is any of them gossiping about the latest rumours over a glass of wine at the end of the day. Westminster, and London politics more generally, is a hive of this stuff - puffed up wonks and wannabes and think-they've-made-its talking themselves up to each other, schmoozing, a nudge here, a wink there. It's all bullshit, but it's all terribly quotidian. The glassy eyed glee with which this wikileaks thing has been passed around as some sort of evidence of something or another is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst feeding into some really unhelpful and stupid stuff. If it were being discussed with wider framing of how the political classes network and set against the idea of grassroots politics it would at least be more useful than the ways in which it's being used at present.


I'm not interested in defending WikiLeaks as an organisation nor, fwiw, Assange at all.  But yes, it's about power, it's Miliband Vs Poulantzsas. It might be mundane, but it's also significant, it's how power and influence work. However I think that with her background in Bicom it's worth at least imagining her influence with the Americans to be a bit more focused.  I agree with you in terms of the things that WikiLeaks can lead into - conspiraloonery - but then the actual leaks themselves sometimes indicate something genuine and plausible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is the result being broadcast?


No, it is being disseminated by telepathy


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is the result being broadcast?


----------



## inva (Sep 24, 2016)

Ole said:


> It's extremely, painfully difficult not to find it - if not impossible.
> 
> The shamelessness of the Labour Party this election has been useful if nothing else.


what's it been useful for?


----------



## Ole (Sep 24, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You'll rejoice at this... Fans to unfurl Corbyn banner on the Kop


As a Man United fan... good on em.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2016)

on now - bbc news 24 - jezza time


----------



## oryx (Sep 24, 2016)

On BBC 2 now.


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

JC 313,209
rest 193,229


----------



## oryx (Sep 24, 2016)

61.8 is that up on last time?
ETA yes it is


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

Increased share then...


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 24, 2016)

Go Jezza 61.8 %


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

2015 he got 59.5.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## quimcunx (Sep 24, 2016)

oryx said:


> 61.8 is that up on last time?
> ETA yes it is



And how many purged who would most likely have voted for him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


Haha


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> And how many purged who would most likely have voted for him?



Almost all of them, I would hazard a guess.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 24, 2016)

hah, even with all the legal shenanigans, voter purging, smears, and reduced alternatives, they didn't even get the basic concession of a reduced majority.  lol.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 24, 2016)

Funny stuff!


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

Jon-of-arc said:


> hah, even with all the legal shenanigans, voter purging, smears, and reduced alternatives, they didn't even get the basic concession of a reduced majority.  lol.



These are the colossi of electoral success who walk among us.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

Jon-of-arc said:


> hah, even with all the legal shenanigans, voter purging, smears, and reduced alternatives, they didn't even get the basic concession of a reduced majority.  lol.


No, and Corbyn secures maj in all categories of the selectorate.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> Almost all of them, I would hazard a guess.



Sorry I was asking how many were purged more than what % of those purged would have voted  for him.


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 24, 2016)

A bigger majority this time. Go Jezza


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry I was asking how many were purged more than what % of those purged would have voted  for him.



I think the Guardian reported around 150,000 who had joined within six months were denied the vote, which would represent 20% of the electorate as a whole (its not clear whether the 23% of the electorate that didn't vote include the purged).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

So Jeremy Corbyn wins the second annual labour leadership election. Yet the question on everyone's lips is already who will stand against him next year?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 24, 2016)

My flatmate who hates Corbyn is spinning this as a failure for Corbyn. Apparently this is less of a mandate than last year because he was only up against one person. Ffs.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 24, 2016)

With all due respect to you, your flatmate's an idiot...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> And how many purged who would most likely have voted for him?


Less than half a percent.


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

Norman Smith bravely trying to stem the tide of Smith supporters fleeing the auditorium, desperate not to miss the last chopper out.


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

Umunna decrying the fact that immigration wasn't a more prominent part of the contest.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 24, 2016)

Unelectable apparently. FFS!


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

There are probably some people looking at the figures and saying 'Hey, that bloke, y'know - whatsisname, got 22,000 more than not-Corbyn did in 2015 - surely that gives us grounds for hope next year?'.


----------



## oryx (Sep 24, 2016)

Umunna being interviewed now - mentions 'online thuggery' within seconds...


----------



## kenny g (Sep 24, 2016)

Can't find teh breakdown on the web - anyone have a link?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 24, 2016)

he seems to be stumbling about..


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

kenny g said:


> Can't find teh breakdown on the web - anyone have a link?



Graun.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 24, 2016)

owen Smith today


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 24, 2016)

So far BBC has only talked to anti-Corbyn people.....they're now getting to his supporters, not sure how many minutes that is in to the report.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 24, 2016)

Last year #corbyn beat 3 others, this year he's only beaten one. His ability to defeat rivals has plummeted by 67%. It's a disaster #Lab16


----------



## J Ed (Sep 24, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> So far BBC has only talked to anti-Corbyn people.....they're now getting to his supporters, not sure how many minutes that is in to the report.



The coverage is a lot more balanced than it was before and after the previous leadership election declaration.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Less than half a percent.


 Yes, minimal (though is that rejected votes or does it include the full list of expelled and rejected £25ers?  Either way, doesn't matter, it isn't many in the context of the overall Labour electorate).  Turns out the impact of the whole grassing, reporting and 'purging' saga was to discredit the Labour left and by extension the party itself, rather than have any impact on the result.

Edit: yes, still under 0.5%.
Revealed: 3,107 People 'Purged' From Labour Leadership Election | Huffington Post
3,000 rejected, as of a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 24, 2016)

61- 38

Fuck off Smith you cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Last year #corbyn beat 3 others, this year he's only beaten one. His ability to defeat rivals has plummeted by 67%. It's a disaster #Lab16


Yeh not his opponent's inability to muster more than one 'unity' candidate


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

150,000 eligible voters were so disgusted by Corbyn that they didn't vote at all. That leaves him 14,000 votes short of a majority. It's a travesty to call this democracy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Luckily Smith had already reserved himself a nice plot in the graveyard of history, right next to Nick Clegg.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Sep 24, 2016)

I suppose it's better to have a geography teacher from 1980 as party leader instead of another product of the cloning factory.


----------



## agricola (Sep 24, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Last year #corbyn beat 3 others, this year he's only beaten one. His ability to defeat rivals has plummeted by 67%. It's a disaster #Lab16


----------



## kenny g (Sep 24, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> So far BBC has only talked to anti-Corbyn people.....they're now getting to his supporters, not sure how many minutes that is in to the report.



LBC have Matt Fry of Channel 4 news presenting - far better than the beebs coverage.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> Umunna decrying the fact that immigration wasn't a more prominent part of the contest.


whuut?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 24, 2016)

Smith and clegg aint in graveyards, they make multiples of the average wage in salary and expenses for an ego fuelling job. They will have many opportunities beyond as well.


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

Here's an interesting one... Registered supporters

2015: Corbyn 88,449, Not Corbyn: 17,149
2016: Corbyn 84, 918, Smith: 36, 599

2015 Members C: 49.6%, Affiliates C 57.7%.
2016 Members C: 59%, Aff C 60%.

So yeah, damn Corbynite entryists eh? Ruining the vote for moderates...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

First anarchist victory since 38.


----------



## alien nation (Sep 24, 2016)

Mandate across the board............

_Members_

Corbyn: 59%

Smith: 41%

_Registered supporters_

Corbyn: 70%

Smith: 30%

_Affiliated supporters_

Corbyn: 60%

Smith: 40%


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

If only Aarrrgh would have stood. 

Right, let's get the ball rolling for 2017...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> First anarchist victory since 38.


Didn't you hear; we're all out on the streets of Kent, Bucks, Sutton and Lincs next Saturday to smash up the grammars.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 24, 2016)

Owen Smith has said he's going to campaign for a second vote over the election: ""If the Labour Party believes that working people in this country are going to be ill-served by Jeremy Corbyn we should have the courage to say to party members - we still think you should think again"


----------



## pesh (Sep 24, 2016)

Da fuk


----------



## TopCat (Sep 24, 2016)

I'm pleased. The next CLP meeting might be worth going to just to see their faces.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2016)

Corbyn's full of asthma drugs. Watch out!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

How many pages on this thread before Corbyn's time is actually up then do we think? I've got a fiver on 2,814.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Okay, let's have some predictions. Who will make the first call for a split - and when?


----------



## Nylock (Sep 24, 2016)

Within a week of the close of conference


----------



## TopCat (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Okay, let's have some predictions. Who will make the first call for a split - and when?


Anyone who calls for a split utters a doomed cry. There will be lots of Labour MP's resigning to get fat jobs in industry and others sinking into a tax payer subsidised alcoholism.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

quimcunx said:


> And how many purged who would most likely have voted for him?



Well with me counted in that's 313,210


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

LOL  the man of steel and jam sees off another contender. Have to laugh really.


Wilf said:


> Okay, let's have some predictions. Who will make the first call for a split - and when?


I think they'll stand another challenger first- one more credible than arrgh or swingin dick owen


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

Satisfactory but concerning result for Corbyn. Given the large increase in mostly pro-Corbyn members to the party a small percentage increase in his vote means that a lot of people are turning away from him.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Anyone who calls for a split utters a doomed cry. There will be lots of Labour MP's resigning to get fat jobs in industry and others sinking into a tax payer subsidised alcoholism.


David Miliband's Armada still hasn't left Spanish waters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

From Smith's statement:



> today’s result shows that our movement remains divided



All too predictable. Corbyn clearly didn't win by _enough_.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Satisfactory but concerning result for Corbyn. Given the large increase in mostly pro-Corbyn members to the party *a small percentage increase in his vote means that a lot of people are turning away from him*.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

so presumably a large percentage increase in his vote would mean that a lot *more* people would have turned away from him


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Satisfactory but concerning result for Corbyn. Given the large increase in mostly pro-Corbyn members to the party a small percentage increase in his vote means that a lot of people are turning away from him.


60,000 more votes than he got last year. Anti-Corbyn vote went up by 20,000.

Some people may be turning away from him, most are not.

ETA: 

And a year on, some people were bound to have turned away from him. But looking at those figures, it will only be at most about 10 per cent of the people who voted for him last year. 9 out of 10 Corbyn voters from last year were satisfied enough by him to vote for him again this year. Plus he added lots of new people. Hardly a crisis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

the breakdown of the figures doesn't show that either. Mainly 60-40 type margins. Thats a result. Solidly. No point arguing otherwise to salve ones wounds at another victory for St J lol

I suppose its fruitless to speculate on who they'll run next but the name Dan Jarvis has been bandied about on here before


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the breakdown of the figures doesn't show that either. Mainly 60-40 type margins. Thats a result. Solidly. No point arguing otherwise to salve ones wounds at another victory for St J lol
> 
> I suppose its fruitless to speculate on who they'll run next but the name Dan Jarvis has been bandied about on here before



Alan Johnson is still alive and still an ex-postman apparently.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

And Blair's given up his business operations so he'll be free


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 60,000 more votes than he got last year. Anti-Corbyn vote went up by 20,000.
> 
> Some people may be turning away from him, most are not.



Good way to look at the figures, against my judgement it _seems_ that he is retaining support among old members (anti-Corbyn vote is steady in absolute terms).


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Satisfactory but concerning result for Corbyn. Given the large increase in mostly pro-Corbyn members to the party a small percentage increase in his vote means that a lot of people are turning away from him.



Yes. Eh. What?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

Good campaign tune btw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Good way to look at the figures, against my judgement it _seems_ that he is retaining support among old members (anti-Corbyn vote is steady in absolute terms).


I'm greedy. I was hoping for a 2:1 majority. But given the shenanigans that have gone on wrt attempting to block new voters, this seems pretty solid.

And it's a clear majority across all three constituencies. Nobody can claim Corbyn's support isn't widely spread across the party.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

Most interesting I think is the bigger turnout among affiliates. Up by a factor of 40% and coming out more strongly for Corbyn.


----------



## a_chap (Sep 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Didn't you hear; we're all out on the streets of Kent, Bucks, Sutton and Lincs next Saturday to smash up the grammars.



Leave them alone! Pick on the grandpas instead.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Most interesting I think is the bigger turnout among affiliates. Up by a factor of 40% and coming out more strongly for Corbyn.



I think you'll find that actually means there's less of a bigger turnout among the rest.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find that actually means there's less of a bigger turnout among the rest.



No, I'm looking absolute numbers. 71546 affiliate votes last year 99745 this year.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

I'm guessing the GMB coming out against Corbyn didn't have a significant effect on the votes of its members. Corbyn supporters more motivated to turn out.


----------



## a_chap (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

owen jones speaks from guardian towers:

Corbyn Mark II looks like a leader – now he must set out a clear, coherent vision


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Good way to look at the figures, against my judgement it _seems_ that he is retaining support among old members (anti-Corbyn vote is steady in absolute terms).



Anti-Corbyn vote among members dropped by 6809. Bearing in mind that's with a total vote of 285k against 251k (2015) and the overall turnout percentage point increase. And obviously that only includes new members sept-Jan. Smith does seem to have increased absolute numbers of affiliates voting not Corbyn (by about 9000), but that's with a significant increase in affiliate vote overall. Possibly union support etc. He's done 'well' on the registered supporters by getting a massive 30% as opposed to 2015's 16.3%.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Most interesting I think is the bigger turnout among affiliates. Up by a factor of 40% and coming out more strongly for Corbyn.


By 'factor of 40%' what factor do you in fact mean?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

It's a very good result for Corbyn, if some way short of the killer blow. If his opponents had got something around 43/44% they'd have had the green light to crank it up, who knows even use the threat of a split to carry the fight on.  This probably shuts a few of them up for a bit, brings a few of them into a position where they have to show a nominal loyalty for a few weeks, whilst still briefing against him.  What's the next pressure point - council elections next year?  Anything other than a clear victory will set them off again. To be honest though the anti-Corbyn lot won't have a clear plan.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Actually, the next couple of weeks would be a good time for an investigative journalist to offer various 'disaffected' Labour right wingers some cash for questions.  Push the boat out, see what you can sign them up for - arms dealing, manacles, defoliants...


----------



## Knotted (Sep 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> By 'factor of 40%' what factor do you in fact mean?



Absolute number of affiliate votes in 2015 X 1.4 = Absolute number of affiliate votes in 2016


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> Absolute number of affiliate votes in 2015 X 1.4 = Absolute number of affiliate votes in 2016


Ah, a factor of 1.4.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be honest though the anti-Corbyn lot won't have a clear plan.


they must have some strategies prepared surely, Smith was never going to win, this was obvious weeks ago


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they must have some strategies prepared surely, Smith was never going to win, this was obvious weeks ago


These are the people for whom Smith was the strategy this year. Don't overestimate their abilities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they must have some strategies prepared surely, Smith was never going to win, this was obvious weeks ago


When will you learn the ruling class don't do prepared strategies? Northern Ireland? Iraq? Libya? Corbyn? When?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they must have some strategies prepared surely, Smith was never going to win, this was obvious weeks ago


Maybe. Perhaps they had plans for what to do at various levels of defeat.  They might have been hoping for 55-45 overall or, most of all, a victory amongs the members. That would have given them permission - in their minds at least - to carry on regardless, go for broke.  77-25 and they really would have to slink off and console themselves with their money.  62-38 is a very good result for corbyn in the circumstances and, the word I'd go with, _deflating_ for his opponents - not quite the killer blow.  Suppose what I mean is, what could they possibly do now, other than some kind of sullen silence, half hearted acceptance of the vote?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Oh, and Man United are 4 - 0 up against Leicester. Just shows what you can do if you drop your leader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Oh, and Man United are 4 - 0 up against Leicester. Just shows what you can do if you drop your leader.


Yeh either that or Leicester have returned to their traditional form


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe. Perhaps they had plans for what to do at various levels of defeat.  They might have been hoping for 55-45 overall or, most of all, a victory amongs the members. That would have given them permission - in their minds at least - to carry on regardless, go for broke.  77-25 and they really would have to slink off and console themselves with their money.  62-38 is a very good result for corbyn in the circumstances and, the word I'd go with, _deflating_ for his opponents - not quite the killer blow.  Suppose what I mean is, what could they possibly do now, other than some kind of sullen silence, half hearted acceptance of the vote?


true enough, 60k a year for poundshop machiavellis. curse the world. Corbyn spotted whistling this earlier:


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe. Perhaps they had plans for what to do at various levels of defeat.  They might have been hoping for 55-45 overall or, most of all, a victory amongs the members. That would have given them permission - in their minds at least - to carry on regardless, go for broke.  77-25 and they really would have to slink off and console themselves with their money.  62-38 is a very good result for corbyn in the circumstances and, the word I'd go with, _deflating_ for his opponents - not quite the killer blow.  Suppose what I mean is, what could they possibly do now, other than some kind of sullen silence, half hearted acceptance of the vote?


You'll soon find out


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 24, 2016)

so what was the fucking point in all that


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh either that or Leicester have returned to their traditional form


Maybe their performance is in honour of the Leicester East MP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> so what was the fucking point in all that


we got to see all the sad faces of labour rightists. Again. That'll do.


----------



## Sue (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they must have some strategies prepared surely, Smith was never going to win, this was obvious weeks ago


Given the strategy (such as it was when Corbyn didn't throw the towel in initially as expected) involved Aargh then Smith, I think your expectations are way too high.

Couldn't even organise a coup properly ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Maybe their performance is in honour of the Leicester East MP.


If that were the case something quite different would be happening on the pitch


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Given the strategy (such as it was when Corbyn didn't throw the towel in initially as expected) involved Aargh then Smith, I think you're expectations are way too high.
> 
> Couldn't even organise a coup properly ffs.


Let alone Xmas drinks


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If that were the case something quite different would be happening on the pitch


Passports for penalties scandal.


----------



## Sue (Sep 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Let alone Xmas drinks


Well quite. Sure there's a new 'piss up in a brewery' saying in there somewhere...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Given the strategy (such as it was when Corbyn didn't throw the towel in initially as expected) involved Aargh then Smith, I think you're expectations are way too high.
> 
> Couldn't even organise a coup properly ffs.


Ah Aargh. I'd forgotten her. As I shall soon enough with Smith. Owen Jones can go back to not being mistaken for some other bloke all the time.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Might be the wrong day to start a moan about corbyn, but the question should be 'right, you've just had a third of a million votes, what are your plans?  What are you going to persuade those people to actually do?  How will local parties engage with working class communities?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah Aargh. I'd forgotten her. As I shall soon enough with Smith. Owen Jones can go back to not being mistaken for some other bloke all the time.


Yeh he'll no longer be mistaken for a journalist


----------



## gosub (Sep 24, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> so what was the fucking point in all that



The spotlight of scrutiny exposed why Corbyn can never be PM.  Anti-sugar AND pro-jam????  Just doesn't make sense.


----------



## binka (Sep 24, 2016)

Knotted said:


> I'm guessing the GMB coming out against Corbyn didn't have a significant effect on the votes of its members. Corbyn supporters more motivated to turn out.


My dad's a GMB shop steward and he's convinced that ballot to back Smith was bollocks


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah Aargh


quick, someone get him a glass of water


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> quick, someone get him a glass of water


Politician as Heimlich Manoeuvre.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 24, 2016)

Heimlich Manoeuvre? Didn't he get twenty years at Nuremburg?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

By the way, not that anybody has had the good manners to ask me, but United won 4-1.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

Leicester lost then


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Heimlich Manoeuvre? Didn't he get twenty years at Nuremburg?


Flew to Scotland to broker a deal with John McDonnell.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 24, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> so what was the fucking point in all that


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Heimlich Manoeuvre? Didn't he get twenty years at Nuremburg?


german electronic outfit from the late 80s


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

binka said:


> My dad's a GMB shop steward and he's convinced that ballot to back Smith was bollocks


Any ballot based on a (claimed) 8% turnout is likely to be bollux. How the GMB leadership engineered it is another matter.


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 24, 2016)

Oh the Blairite tears


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah Aargh. I'd forgotten her. As I shall soon enough with Smith. Owen Jones can go back to not being mistaken for some other bloke all the time.




Don't! In twenty years time, the answer "Owen Smith" will win you at least a cheese (or whatever is your chosen name for it) in Trivial Pursuit, mark my words.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Sue said:


> Well quite. Sure there's a new 'piss up in a brewery' saying in there somewhere...


couldn't get a coup in a pigeon loft


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 24, 2016)

Poor Jezza's time is up


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Oh the Blairite tears


Richard Wilson's resigned? I don't believe it.

Coat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

*Heidi Alexander: I won't rejoin Jeremy Corbyn's team - and he must take action now to unite Labour*

Classic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> *Heidi Alexander: I won't rejoin Jeremy Corbyn's team - and he must take action now to unite Labour*
> 
> Classic.


thus far I made it


> You can't complain about the mainstream media if you’re not willing to talk to them in the first place.



*headesk*


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

"Dear Pfizer, I always enjoyed my time working with you and wondered..."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

seymour article:
The Bastards Live


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

"... since working for you I've enhanced by CV by slaughtering the ferocious Aaargh and then came within a mere 24 points of bringing down the Wild Corbyn. I feel this skillset will enhance greatly your campaign to sell defective heart valves and cover up the gastrointestinal bleeding caused by Feldene"


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

"My interests involve heavy football related drinking and not knowing about coffee. Full driving licence".


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Sep 24, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> so what was the fucking point in all that



Surprisingly, as well as wasting 3 months and letting the Tories settle in a new leader, I think some good has come out of it, namely Corbyn developed a much better media team- compare the shaky start he got off to with the 'Bevins 5 new evils' stuff (quickly dropped), then once the new team was in place his campaign was much better. Hopefully he keeps the leadership campaign team (though I think one of them was on loan from a trade union).


----------



## kenny g (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> seymour article:
> The Bastards Live


 Very much agree about the rightists Leninist tactics.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

FTR...Owen Smith received exactly 193,229 more votes from his party than Theresa May did from hers.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 24, 2016)

Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> "My interests involve heavy football related drinking and not knowing about coffee. Full driving licence".


and being Normal in world full of homosexualists and miscarriages.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

oh noes, some blagging freaks on the mail board are having a wank. Last person to leave britain please turn off the lights etc


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.


There was no £3 option.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.



#CompleteToss


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.



The DM and its readership still think it's the 20th century. The status quo is changing and Corbyn's ongoing popularity very much reflects this. Futures.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.



Yes but in the alternate reality they inhabit we are just days away from Sharia Zones being declared across great swathes of England which Corbyn will be able to help rule with an iron fist


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Tom Baldwin said:
			
		

> The best – perhaps only – way to remove Corbyn is by fighting on the same set of rules he has exploited so successfully. That means signing up more members than Momentum. Those who want the chance to be leader in the future need to earn it by beginning a national campaign to sign up half a million mainstream Labour members over the next two years.
> 
> It is no small task. But I do not understand how almost an entire generation of mainstream Labour MPs can throw their hands up in horror at the prospect of trying to recruit more members than a far-left fringe that has just emerged from the woods. Presumably, they went into politics because they felt they had some skill in winning support. Now is the time they need to demonstrate such talents by expanding, not shrinking, the selectorate.



we shall fight them on the beaches etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.


You are contemptible in your ignorant triumphalism.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> we shall fight them on the beaches etc



They already tried that for two days or perhaps less. It wasn't working so instead decided to extend the cut off date and disenfranchise the handful of people who they did manage to recruit.

I don't see anyone being enthused enough to join Labour to defend the neoliberal consensus other than a handful of oddball political obsessives, why would they be? There is a party for that, the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 24, 2016)

Now that is all over I think I am going to celebrate Corbyn's victory with a nice cup of tea.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, minimal (though is that rejected votes or does it include the full list of expelled and rejected £25ers?  Either way, doesn't matter, it isn't many in the context of the overall Labour electorate).  Turns out the impact of the whole grassing, reporting and 'purging' saga was to discredit the Labour left and by extension the party itself, rather than have any impact on the result.
> 
> Edit: yes, still under 0.5%.
> Revealed: 3,107 People 'Purged' From Labour Leadership Election | Huffington Post
> 3,000 rejected, as of a couple of weeks ago.



I heard 3000 purged and an additional 5000 didn't receive their ballot because of that 'admin error' shenanigan. I believe it was one of the left slate NEC who looked into it and came up with those numbers. (Haven't read that article, it probably says the same in there. If so, apols.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Now that is all over I think I am going to celebrate Corbyn's victory with a nice cup of tea.


Ah, but it is not over -- not while a single right shit exists in the plp


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 24, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> The DM and its readership still think it's the 20th century. The status quo is changing and Corbyn's ongoing popularity very much reflects this. Futures.



Sorry, I'm overstating badly, "the status quo" may not be changing much but there's a new generation coming into adulthood who are sick of thatcherism in its Tory and Labour versions. The DM and its fucking absurd readership want it still to be the 1950s and I'm tired of hearing their views and responses like they're in any way interesting or relevant in 2016.

So excuse my hyperbollocks.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn received many thousands of votes from 3 quid Tories though. The mail boards are fucking horrific at the moment in their triumphilaism. Job done. A decade more of the Tories. Excellent work guys.



Even if this were true, did you miss the bit about him increasing his majority amongst full members and affiliates?

They could abolish the registered supporters thing tomorrow and he would still win.

Diddums.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

The next few months should be interesting.

Remember, the resigners and plotters and generally disaffected amongst the PLP are not a cohesive group. They never were. Corbyn's supporters, Momentum, whoever else, needs now to try and understand the different motivations they all have. I'm sure Corbyn and his team are well aware already. 

The PLP will use different strategies, and I expect that while Watson might try to get them all in line to be cohesive it's not going to work - at least not behind the scenes - and they'll be undermining each other. That's why the coup ultimately failed (well, rather that's why it was a shambles) - because it's not a united front against him. If they had any nous they'd group together and put aside differences to be able to work strategically against him in the long term but there are too many interests at play for that to happen. It depends whether any particular grouping can gain enough power and influence that the presence of the others is no longer an issue. Doubtful.

The most important thing now is to get rid of McNicol. That has to be Corbyn's primary task. And it has to be done very carefully. It can't be done at the same time as getting rid of the rest of the apparatus, because there have already been rumblings of strike action and that would be very bad. God. Sounds like I'm a strike busting Tory cunt lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

The battle is now for the labour party. Again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2016)

This time...


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2016)

Ok, how do I show my support* for the new left wing Labour Party led by Corbyn?

I guess I could vote for them.

Which would mean voting (chances are) for some right-winger opponent of Corbyn.

Oh. How's that gonna work?


*I'm don't actually support it/them. Was just pondering it hypothetically!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

fucking liberals


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

some interesting union responses. Unison bod said it plain 'time to stop talking to ourselves about ourselves' (by which I took it to mean all labour members in whatever catagory)

USDAW was much more hedgy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This time...


once more unto the breach, dear friends


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 24, 2016)

Same time next year?


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2016)

Eat
Sleep
Battle for the soul of the Labour Party
Reoeat


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 24, 2016)

Being a Hero of Socialist Labour ain't easy.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 24, 2016)

Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why


> _That means over 172,000 would-be voters were unable to participate in the election – of which the *vast* majority would incontestably have voted for Corbyn – almost as many as Smith was able to win in total and far more than his share if the 128,000 12/1/16 voters had not been excluded._


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

So those members who weren't stopped from voting because of the cut off date - why were they stopped from voting? They weren't purged, and they weren't caught up in the 'admin error', so why were they not able to vote?

What I'm most interested to see is how many full members became registered supporters. Until we know that number, we can't say with confidence how many full members truly ended up without a vote. A good portion of those who didn't meet the cut off ended up paying their extra £25.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
> The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why
> ​


There's a real disjuncture between the numbers of members without a vote in that piece and the 3000 'purged' mentioned earlier (even if the 3000 was as of a couple of weeks ago). I wonder if the issue is the term 'members without a vote'? That would include those not up to date with their subs and maybe other categories refused a vote for reasons other than a purge e.g. failure to update contact details.  Still, that wouldn't explain the massive gap between the 2 quoted figures. I'm


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> So those members who weren't stopped from voting because of the cut off date - why were they stopped from voting? They weren't purged, and they weren't caught up in the 'admin error', so why were they not able to vote?
> 
> What I'm most interested to see is how many full members became registered supporters. Until we know that number, we can't say with confidence how many full members truly ended up without a vote. A good portion of those who didn't meet the cut off ended up paying their extra £25.



It also makes the assumption that £25ers would all vote and that turnout among members with a vote should be 'very high'. And he doesn't say where he's getting his figures from (for total reg/members).

Granted 2/3rds of £25ers would be an absurdly low turnout. But figures, where from?


----------



## andysays (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> There's a real disjuncture between the numbers of members without a vote in that piece and the 3000 'purged' mentioned earlier (even if the 3000 was as of a couple of weeks ago). I wonder if the issue is the term 'members without a vote'? That would include those not up to date with their subs and maybe other categories refused a vote for reasons other than a purge e.g. failure to update contact details.  Still, that wouldn't explain the massive gap between the 2 quoted figures. I'm



As far as I can see, the author of that article has taken the number of members who didn't vote and assumed, with no evidence whatever, that 80% of them were "denied a vote".


> Not absolutely every member would necessarily have voted if they could, but in such a contentious contest, the percentage would have been very high. But let’s be cautious and say only 80% would have and couldn’t, because of suspensions or because they simply didn’t receive their ballot (a situation we already knew was high). That means over 172,000 would-be voters were unable to participate in the election.



It's nonsense, frankly


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's nonsense, frankly


welcome to the internet


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 24, 2016)

What numbers do we have that are credibly sourced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What numbers do we have that are credibly sourced?


61.8%

not sure any other numbers have that much bearing on this figure.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> As far as I can see, the author of that article has taken the number of members who didn't vote and assumed, with no evidence whatever, that 80% of them were "denied a vote".
> 
> 
> It's nonsense, frankly


yep, though I'm still slightly unsure as to what the figures represent. The column heading is 'members without a vote', which is presumably the term the party itself is using.  I'd guess it is' not paid up to date', 'not on the register',' no working text/phone details' - and a much smaller number of 'actively refused a vote' (the 3,000+ already mentioned. It's an odd phrase, 'members without a vote', but it must also include those who had a vote but just didn't use it (because the other column is 'members voting'?
Here are the (presumably) comparable figures from last time (from wiki):
"The number of those rejected would eventually reach 56,000,[85] around 9.1% of the 610,753 considered eligible to vote at the start of the contest.[86] According to the party, 45,000 of those were rejected for not being on the electoral register.[87]"


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> According to the party, 45,000 of those were rejected for not being on the electoral register.[87]"



And they lied, at least one of those was


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

I like to think owen smith is consoling himself by having a newly discovered treat, the latte and then a big wank, for which he must use two hands obvs

but seriously, is it really likely they'd rip the party up in twain by standing another more credible challenger. I thought that would be the case but now I am not so sure. Have to see how things unfold I suppose but yer boys n gyals got spanked thrice, surely it must be sinking in


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> but seriously, is it really likely they'd rip the party up in twain by standing another more credible challenger. I thought that would be the case but now I am not so sure. Have to see how things unfold I suppose but yer boys n gyals got spanked thrice, surely it must be sinking in


It's like some shit horror film where the hero has to fight 7 increasingly nasty and powerful monsters. Andy Burnham had aggressive eyebrows, but no other powers to speak of. Liz Kendal could give you a Chinese burn with the power of her nothingness, but it's going to be a while before Blair leaps back into the ring hurling thunderbolts of money at our man.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2016)

In terms of numbers, Christine Shawcroft of the NEC determined there were 3000 purged and 5000 who didn't receive their ballot. I can't for the life of me find a link for it but him indoors told me that's who looked into it and that's what she found.

I don't know whether that's from across all sections of the selectorate or just within registered supporters.


----------



## Cid (Sep 24, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It's like some shit horror film where the hero has to fight 7 increasingly nasty and powerful monsters. Andy Burnham had aggressive eyebrows, but no other powers to speak of. Liz Kendal could give you a Chinese burn with the power of her nothingness, but it's going to be a while before Blair leaps back into the ring hurling thunderbolts of money at our man.



Martials arts tower film... though I don't think the PLP has anyone up to the standards of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## tangerinedream (Sep 24, 2016)

If only Owen had got his usual mug....


----------



## mauvais (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.


Burnham's been passive throughout. He's in a unique position, effectively Mayor of Gtr Manchester already and has nothing to gain (or to a lesser extent lose) by taking sides in this. If anything the unity position suits him best.


----------



## inva (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> The next few months should be interesting.
> 
> Remember, the resigners and plotters and generally disaffected amongst the PLP are not a cohesive group. They never were. Corbyn's supporters, Momentum, whoever else, needs now to try and understand the different motivations they all have. I'm sure Corbyn and his team are well aware already.
> 
> ...


strike busting is a grand old Labour tradition so you're alright there


----------



## Shirl (Sep 24, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


No, yer wrong there mate


----------



## mauvais (Sep 24, 2016)

Shirl said:


> No, yer wrong there mate


One of the more productive opening gambits tbf.


----------



## JimW (Sep 24, 2016)

Alas, (Owens) Smith and Jones.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2016)

lets all just contemplate how blair feels right now. Sure, he'll be miserable in luxury but I bet he's got a right sour face on tonight. He'll never and never did want for anything but this will give him piles. Or at least a good month of agonising. All that is solid melts onto blair


----------



## Raheem (Sep 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Burnhams been on the unity chat tbf, which suprised me. Its possible that there may be a lot of 'face front and wait for the time' going on but even so, a lot of them don't display the strategic nous for that either.



I had a pretty low opinion of Burnham previously, but he was clear at the time of the coup - not necessarily hyper-vocal, but clear - that he wanted no part of it and that it was disrespectful to the members. That might be characterised as cynical dry powder-keeping, but even if that's true, he still distinguished himself by having the nous to realise that what was going on was stupid and it was not in his interests to join in.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2016)

Will be interesting to see what the NEC passes before the changes. The idea of getting everyone to promise to stop swearing on the internet is just insane. But of course will be a great way of expelling people pro Corbyn - get people to wind them up and just ban em.


----------



## inva (Sep 24, 2016)

Paul Mason said:
			
		

> I’m posting this from the conference hall floor where there’s almost a visible generational change: people in suits from the Blairite era alongside people with wild coloured hair and nose rings definitely not from the Blairite era.



link

what a nob Mason is.
I knew he'd get the word 'youth' in that article somewhere too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Burnham's been passive throughout. He's in a unique position, effectively Mayor of Gtr Manchester already and has nothing to gain (or to a lesser extent lose) by taking sides in this. If anything the unity position suits him best.


Burnham may actually believe what he's saying.

just throwing that out there. It happens, and he's been consistent in this since way before the mayor thing.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 24, 2016)

Yoot


----------



## tendril (Sep 24, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I heard 3000 purged and an additional 5000 didn't receive their ballot because of that 'admin error' shenanigan. I believe it was one of the left slate NEC who looked into it and came up with those numbers. (Haven't read that article, it probably says the same in there. If so, apols.)


I had to phone 4 times to get my ballot. It finally arrived Thursday evening. And I've been a member from before the cut off date. It was a fucking shambles tbh.

Still, did eventually get to vote and got the result I wanted.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
> The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why
> ​



Credible as in made up.  Apologies for quoting myself, replace the DWP/benefits system for Corbyn.



> There are several perhaps coincidentally pro-Labour blogs and websites who have continually misrepresented or misunderstood the various activities of the DWP and published wildly speculative stories that often turn out to be untrue. When this has been shown to them they have refused to back down, or publish corrections, instead entrenching their positions and insisting what they say is true in spite of over-whelming evidence. Because these sites present themselves as authorititive, or more often a new fearless form of journalism telling the stories the mainstream media don't, they are trusted by some people as such misinformation becomes widely distrubuted.
> 
> Whilst I don't doubt they are well meaning, the motivation that underlies this seems to be generating web traffic. Sensationalist stories about the benefits system often go viral. In the case of The Canary that is being done to earn money. For the others I get it, getting loads of hits is addictive, there's pressure to pump out new stuff all the time, and many temptations to cut corners or make more of something than it really is. But it's not helpful, and it's not good journalism.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2016)

inva said:


> link
> 
> what a nob Mason is.
> I knew he'd get the word 'youth' in that article somewhere too.





> I am trying to produce a social movement “toolkit” focused for Labour activists. I’ve been questioning activists and I’ll release the questionnaire later if you want to help. Watch this space. But the main principles are:
> 
> 
> Resist in a way that forces those in power into a “decision dilemma”
> ...



At the 2005 G8 protests Mason was outside, posting police press releases and sun headlines as facts like the crap that stakes were being sharpened to be used against the old bill.  That's probably the nearest he's ever got to an activist based social movement.  I was pretty ambivalent towards him before reading that, bit of a tit with a good heart who occassionally says something slightly interesting compared to his peers.  But what an arrogant fucking cock.


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Sep 25, 2016)

tendril said:


> I had to phone 4 times to get my ballot. It finally arrived Thursday evening. And I've been a member from before the cut off date. It was a fucking shambles tbh.
> 
> Still, did eventually get to vote and got the result I wanted.



Yep, utter shambles, either by accident or design.

Registered supporter here & despite multiple communications didn't manage to prod them into sending me my actual ballot, although given the result I fail to see what the end design of all that ineptitude was.

Be interesting to see a reliable breakdown of eligible/actual votes amongst the £25ers, given the relative unlikeliness of being committed enough to pay a fair wedge to vote & subsequently thinking 'nah, can't be bothered after all'...


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2016)

Orangesanlemons said:


> Be interesting to see a reliable breakdown of eligible/actual votes amongst the £25ers, given the relative unlikeliness of being committed enough to pay a fair wedge to vote & subsequently thinking 'nah, can't be bothered after all'...



Given such a large population there were probably people who paid £25 and then a) forgot or were too busy to vote, b) changed their minds about corbyn but not enough to vote for Smith or c) died. But you would expect their to be far fewer abstainers among those who paid for a vote than among members and affiliate members.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Some fairly credible, final 'purge' numbers here:-
> The numbers Labour did NOT want you to see on TV this morning – and why
> ​





> Firstly, they show that Corbyn won a clear majority in *every* category, whereas last year the only one in which he (just) failed to win was that of full members, where he polled 49.5%.



Except there were three other candidates lat year so 49.5% means he clearly did win amongst full party members.


----------



## Mr.Dogg (Sep 25, 2016)

The Independent seem to be pleased with the result, their top stories on the website today:

"Teresa May Enjoys Huge Popularity Ratings with Voters"
"Owen Smith Would Have Been A Better Leader Say Public"
"Jeremy Corby's re-election is a Disaster For Labour"
"Lib Dems Welcome New Members as Corbyn is Re-elected"


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2016)

inva said:


> link
> 
> what a nob Mason is.
> I knew he'd get the word 'youth' in that article somewhere too.



The salariat bomb.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 25, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Credible as in made up.  Apologies for quoting myself, replace the DWP/benefits system for Corbyn.


I think I may have made a bit of an error in posting that link and describing it as credible; apologies.
My only excuse, that I'm recovering from a serious op.
Need to up my game.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 25, 2016)

Was interesting to see the figures anyway. 

Hope you're ok.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> The Independent seem to be pleased with the result, their top stories on the website today:
> 
> "Teresa May Enjoys Huge Popularity Ratings with Voters"
> "Owen Smith Would Have Been A Better Leader Say Public"
> ...


Fucks sake.


----------



## binka (Sep 25, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Except there were three other candidates lat year so 49.5% means he clearly did win amongst full party members.


Yeah he obviously was the clear winner amongst full members in 2015 but 49.5% is a plurality not a majority - he has turned that into an absolute majority this time


----------



## Wilf (Sep 25, 2016)

binka said:


> Yeah he obviously was the clear winner amongst full members in 2015 but 49.5% is a plurality not a majority - he has turned that into an absolute majority this time


To be honest, if there had been 4 candidates this time he wouldn't have won an absolute majority of party members. And Owen Smith was hardly a strong candidate, he got worse and worse as the contest went on, though he would have attracted pretty much all the anti-corbyn votes.  It's a very good result for Corbyn - and a massive defeat for Smith - but not that different to last time.


----------



## binka (Sep 25, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, if there had been 4 candidates this time he wouldn't have won an absolute majority of party members. And Owen Smith was hardly a strong candidate, he got worse and worse as the contest went on, though he would have attracted pretty much all the anti-corbyn votes.  It's a very good result for Corbyn - and a massive defeat for Smith - but not that different to last time.


You can only beat what's  put in front of you


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

binka said:


> You can only beat what's  put in front of you


finbarr saunders moment


----------



## teqniq (Sep 25, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> The Independent seem to be pleased with the result, their top stories on the website today:
> 
> "Teresa May Enjoys Huge Popularity Ratings with Voters"
> "Owen Smith Would Have Been A Better Leader Say Public"
> ...


Yes that was pretty much the first thing I noticed when I looked at their site this morning. It has all become so fucking obvious to me that it is really fucking tiresome.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I like to think owen smith is consoling himself by having a newly discovered treat, the latte and then a big wank, for which he must use two hands obvs
> 
> but seriously, is it really likely they'd rip the party up in twain by standing another more credible challenger. I thought that would be the case but now I am not so sure. Have to see how things unfold I suppose but yer boys n gyals got spanked thrice, surely it must be sinking in



I read that as 'i like to think owen smith is consoling himself with a newly discovered teat' 

Which is an image i would rather not have had


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I read that as 'i like to think owen smith is consoling himself with a newly discovered teat'
> 
> Which is an image i would rather not have had



In future please keep such thoughts to yourself...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

bitty


----------



## AnandLeo (Sep 25, 2016)

Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn for his indomitable popularity among labour members. After a year of bickering, Corbyn returns with even a bigger majority.  What else a leader could wish for. However, there are few nagging polemics involved in this euphoria. The many of the bigwigs and MPs of the labour party lament that Corbyn’s leadership means the demise of the labour party as a governing political party. Do the members who vote for Jeremy Corbyn want the labour party to win a general election to come to power and run the country, or they want a leader for his socio-political ideologies and values which are incongruous with the agenda of the labour MPs and other political fraternity. People would do PhDs on this political stalemate.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 25, 2016)

AnandLeo said:


> Do the members who vote for Jeremy Corbyn want the labour party to win a general election to come to power and run the country, or they want a leader for his socio-political ideologies and values which are incongruous with the agenda of the labour MPs and other political fraternity.



This is a false dilemma.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

also polemics doesn't mean what the poster thinks it does. Autocorrect from problems maybe


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> "Lib Dems Welcome New Members as Corbyn is Re-elected"


Farron claiming a mighty three hundred, The walls of jezzico will fall then eh Tim


----------



## two sheds (Sep 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Farron claiming a mighty three hundred, The walls of jezzico will fall then eh Tim



half of them will be labour MPs though


----------



## YouSir (Sep 25, 2016)

two sheds said:


> half of them will be labour MPs though



Wonder how many coups they could bring to the Lib Dems? Farron would end up making the tea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

the feed from the conference is quite funny. Yvette Cooper said McDonnel should apologise for calling Esther McVey a stain on humanity and in so many words he told her to jog on cos its true. And it is


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Wonder how many coups they could bring to the Lib Dems? Farron would end up making the tea.


Wouldn't trust him to do that


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 25, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

> But this year’s - for anyone interested in Labour party Kreminology



good old guardian, shite as ever


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


except for gays who will burn in hell according to tims faith


----------



## two sheds (Sep 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Wonder how many coups they could bring to the Lib Dems? Farron would end up making the tea.



 

They'd all round on Farron as being ' unelectable'.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 25, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I read that as 'i like to think owen smith is consoling himself with a newly discovered teat'
> 
> Which is an image i would rather not have had


Gold


----------



## TopCat (Sep 25, 2016)

The proposed new rules on abuse mean I can't cunt fuckers off at all ever. A possible resigning matter.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 25, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The proposed new rules on abuse mean I can't cunt fuckers off at all ever. A possible resigning matter.



Well that's the intention of the motion now in front of the NEC I think.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 25, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The proposed new rules on abuse mean I can't cunt fuckers off at all ever. A possible resigning matter.


If you do resign be sure to throw in lots of abuse at the time.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> except for gays who will burn in hell according to tims faith



He is willing to work with them and get their votes before they burn in hell, what better illustration of tolerance is there than that?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

Mr.Dogg said:


> The Independent seem to be pleased with the result, their top stories on the website today:
> 
> "Teresa May Enjoys Huge Popularity Ratings with Voters"
> "Owen Smith Would Have Been A Better Leader Say Public"
> ...



Such a pity they're now out of print.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 25, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The proposed new rules on abuse mean I can't cunt fuckers off at all ever. A possible resigning matter.


By no means. It means you can say to the slightest criticism from the right that any more of that sort of thing and they're in danger of defenestration from the party


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


>



Please someone else tell me they see the resemblance to Prince George.


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Please someone else tell me they see the resemblance to Prince George.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2016)

I see that the berniebro crap isn't going to stop now that Iron Corbz has won



> *Angela Eagle condemns culture of abuse in Labour*
> Rajeev Syal
> 
> *Angela Eagle*, the former leadership candidate and minister, has accused Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters of allowing a culture of abuse of MPs and Labour party staff which could lead to a form of “populist authoritarian rule”.



If only...

Although, oddly enough, part of what has apparently enabled this culture is Jeremy Corbyn failing to stop things like, for example, Australians living in Australia who have nothing to do with the Labour Party sending abusive messages to Yvette Cooper.

Now if he could stop things like that it would really be a sign of authoritarianism...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Please someone else tell me they see the resemblance to Prince George.


Yes, both parasites


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2016)

I see Owen Jones is continuing with his wolf in sheep's clothing schtick.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 25, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Please someone else tell me they see the resemblance to Prince George.



What precisely are you insinuating?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)

Raheem said:


> What precisely are you insinuating?



That he looks like Prince George.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)

omg, I wasn't looking for this picture but <3


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2016)

its lord vs lord as Prescott put


Vintage Paw said:


> omg, I wasn't looking for this picture but <3


tim farron in that photo:


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 25, 2016)

I enjoyed John Prescott's response to Kinnock's "Labour won't be elected in my life" speech:

Along the lines of:

He advised Micheal Foot: LOST
Stood in two himself: LOST
Advised Gordon Brown: LOST
Advised David Milliband: LOST


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2016)

JimW said:


> Alas, (Owens) Smith and Jones.


Any excuse to post this


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> I enjoyed John Prescott's response to Kinnock's "Labour won't be elected in my life" speech:
> 
> Along the lines of:
> 
> ...



The Eddie Izzard of Labour leaders


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


>



Piece of piss being united when there's only one of you.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2016)

TopCat said:


> The proposed new rules on abuse mean I can't cunt fuckers off at all ever. A possible resigning matter.



One of the advantages of only being an interested onlooker - I can call the bunch of cunts a bunch of cunts as often as I like.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2016)

Listening to a Radio 5 Live call in and Owen Jones really is taking the most right-wing position he possibly can. He's attacking membership votes on policy and the Shad Cabinet while calling for the PLP to be able to vote on Shad Cab roles. Fuck you Owen Jones.

Here he is at breakfast time


----------



## mauvais (Sep 25, 2016)

[


Cid said:


>


Nah, he's more like a Blackpool Waxworks version of Robson Green.

The first one, that is, not Michael Gove.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 25, 2016)




----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2016)

Momentum spending their money wisely


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2016)

.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2016)

.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2016)

It's finally time for this thread title to be edited to 'time isn't up' if you can be arsed please editor


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)

Treat like a George Eaton tweet for the time being, of course.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 25, 2016)




----------



## Tankus (Sep 25, 2016)

or change corbyn to labour


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2016)

If he's been given an embargoed press release, shouldnt he be keeping his cake hole shut?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2016)

Lets hope there's a fair few chucking the towel in.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2016)

I hope this is true. I need some entertainment.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2016)

Gunna be released at 7.45am


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 26, 2016)

Bring it on


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I hope this is true. I need some entertainment.



this one wasn't as good as the first one with burnham and mint cake. They were genuinly blindsided there but this one had the air of grim formality and upper lips were stiff


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 26, 2016)

Who would your favorites to form SDP2?

For me, Aaagh and the bad Benn. Tom Watson won't jump I think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Who would your favorites to form SDP2?
> 
> For me, Aaagh and the bad Benn. Tom Watson won't jump I think.



just don't see it tbf, had thought perhaps but I'm leaning towards the idea that there will be another challenge with a candidate who is not so clearly inept or freakish


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2016)

Clearly there are a hardcore of malcontents who want to carry on the war - but they will be met with a lot of "SHUT THE FUCK UP" from accross the labour party and from well beyond team jez.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 26, 2016)

Corbyn tightens grip on power as MPs prepare for a fight



> If the leader does appoint his own shadow cabinet it means the crucial seats its members take on Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee could all be held by his backers - further strengthening his control over that crucial decision-making body.



In which case he'd be incredibly stupid to let the PLP MPs choose shadow cabinet. Or rather even more incredibly stupid.



> But the daunting task facing them [the splitters] became clear when it emerged there had been a further membership boost even in the hours since Mr Corbyn’s victory, with a further 15,500 people joining the party.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2016)

^ the above is exactly why the PLP are pushing for shad cab elections. And why corbyn is pushing any changes back till after the new NEC is formed. 

What i glean from all this is that the plotters are saying "we will stop fucking things up if you let us vote for the shadow cabinet posts" 

I should think that Corbyn and Mc Donald will face them down and dare them to rebel again - and face the wrath of the rest of the party.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 26, 2016)

Labour has changed. thank fuck. Corbyn is looking like a leader now, and he has lovely schemers with him too.

Some of the new people seem more like boy-band fans than political analysts, but they are telling everyone we need this Labour anyway. Can't beat enthusiasm, and I don't think their enthusiasm will fade quickly, this isn't just teenagers.

The membership is looking good, and good for all left leaning folk, do we need to get to a million before we call it a proper mass movement?

I am quite happy, even if there are bound to be very difficult times.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 26, 2016)

It is time to bring Ken back, gobshite he might be sometimes, he is no antisemite.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 26, 2016)

On the subject of resignations, I've just seen someone say "the letter is real, up to 84 to resign in stages tomorrow."



I very much doubt that is true.


----------



## timeforanother (Sep 26, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> On the subject of resignations, I've just seen someone say "the letter is real, up to 84 to resign in stages tomorrow."


Again, bring it on. Aaagh wouldn't last 5 minutes. How many had such a close relationship with their constituancy to do much longer. It is cleaner than a purge.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 26, 2016)

Unless they had a solid plan with legal standing to take the Labour name and infrastructure it's simply not going to happen. And as we've seen, they're not the best at having solid plans. Neither are they a cohesive group. I doubt they could find 40 who would be prepared to jump ship together, let alone 84.


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 26, 2016)

I'm pretty sure I've said it before (at least twice), the right could very well form their own party, find their own backers, and even have a sizable number of candidates to fight elections. What they're missing is a leader, since Blair left and Mandelson spending most of his time in his crypt, New Labour is just a bunch of schemers, essentially sitting around Millbrook thinking "What would the Tories do in this situation?"
And in this situation is breakaway and from their own party, ie UKIP.
BUT (sorry) where UKIP had a simple remit of being acceptably racist. New New Labour have "We're like the Tories, just not the Tories. VOTE FOR US!!"


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 26, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> On the subject of resignations, I've just seen someone say "the letter is real, up to 84 to resign in stages tomorrow."
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that is true.


I hope it is! Let's get this over with.


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 26, 2016)

I hope my MP jumps ship - I want to vote labour in the next election but i would struggle to vote for him (Ben Bradshaw - arch blairite) - let alone go out knocking on doors for him.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> I hope my MP jumps ship - I want to vote labour in the next election but i would struggle to vote for him (Ben Bradshaw - arch blairite) - let alone go out knocking on doors for him.



He's on The List. So, he may be one of those up for deselection.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2016)

Luckily my house is being moved from Rachel Reeves constituency to Greg Mullholland's in the boundary review, so I can vote Labour without voting for "we'll cut worse than Thatcher" Reeves _and _help turn the octocunts into the heptocunts


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> I'm pretty sure I've said it before (at least twice), the right could very well form their own party, find their own backers, and even have a sizable number of candidates to fight elections. What they're missing is a leader, since Blair left and Mandelson spending most of his time in his crypt, New Labour is just a bunch of schemers, essentially sitting around Millbrook thinking "What would the Tories do in this situation?"
> And in this situation is breakaway and from their own party, ie UKIP.
> BUT (sorry) where UKIP had a simple remit of being acceptably racist. New New Labour have "We're like the Tories, just not the Tories. VOTE FOR US!!"



They could replicate the phenomenal success of Scottish Labour


----------



## Bingo (Sep 26, 2016)

I'm in West Leeds too, they seem to keep the CLP meetings pretty secret around here


----------



## Bingo (Sep 26, 2016)

Where's this press release then? =)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

Bingo said:


> Where's this press release then? =)



Seems like a single councillor has left.


----------



## Bingo (Sep 26, 2016)

Earth shattering!!!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Seems like a single councillor has left.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 26, 2016)

Haha.

'John Ferrett'


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

Seems like more of a weasel to me


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)




----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


>


Was that in response to NEC election?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Seems like more of a weasel to me


Why I otter


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Was that in response to NEC election?



Yeah I think so


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 26, 2016)

And then Derek arrives..

Derek Hatton returns to first Labour Party conference since 1985


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 26, 2016)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


>



Holy fuck! Almost respect how brazen he is with that. Almost.

I wonder if he was allowed to vote in the leadership election with comments like that


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 26, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Holy fuck! Almost respect how brazen he is with that. Almost.
> 
> I wonder if he was allowed to vote in the leadership election with comments like that


I've asked him if he was allowed to vote in this leadership election, though he's quite busy at the moment so not sure if he'll reply...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Seems like more of a weasel to me


Yes, a shitweasel.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


>


Another fucking crybaby that hasn't learnt the lessons of history. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, buddy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Luckily my house is being moved from Rachel Reeves constituency to Greg Mullholland's in the boundary review, so I can vote Labour without voting for "we'll cut worse than Thatcher" Reeves _and _help turn the octocunts into the heptocunts



oh - im in reeves seat as well - any details on where the boundry changes will happen? Much more fun to vote to unseat  that smug, arrogant tosser mullholland then protest vote agasint whiny reeves.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 26, 2016)

wes streeting on R4 this a.m re: anti semitism - link to the leaflets he got at Momentum rally yday that he regards as 'anti semitic abuse', and containing ' classic  anti semitic tropes' ;


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> oh - im in reeves seat as well - any details on where the boundry changes will happen? Much more fun to vote to unseat  that smug, arrogant tosser mullholland then protest vote agasint whiny reeves.




Red = old
Black lines = new.

Amusingly I'm in the same constituency as Otley despite being 2 miles from the centre of Leeds.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2016)

Same here by the look of that.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


>



I have considerably more respect for that, misguided and hysterical as some of it is, than for any of the better-known figures who have stayed/will stay in the party, perhaps superficially pretending to accept the result, but continuing to look for any and every opportunity to undermine Corbyn and McDonnell.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2016)

This is good, like


----------



## existentialist (Sep 26, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


>


"it's"

Refuse to accept his resignation, and then chuck him out.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 26, 2016)

Good point - he was still a member while writing that.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2016)

I hope the Councillor changes his mind, then it will be a reverse ferrett.


----------



## JimW (Sep 26, 2016)

Secret Corbyn mole pointing up the fact that the rebels are crypto-Tories.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


>



No he hasn't.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> No he hasn't.


he had, but the letter 'under embargo' was from a single councillor. I think they call it 'clickbait'


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> he had, but the letter 'under embargo' was from a single councillor. I think they call it 'clickbait'


He said letter*s*. I'm sure he saw a letter. But he said he'd seen _letters_. He hadn't. It was a lie.


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Seems like more of a weasel to me



Ferrets and weasels are stoatly different...


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2016)

cantsin said:


> wes streeting on R4 this a.m re: anti semitism - link to the leaflets he got at Momentum rally yday that he regards as 'anti semitic abuse', and containing ' classic  anti semitic tropes' ;




I'm apparently a little rusty on my "classic anti-semitic tropes" so can anyone point out which tropes are contained here?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> He said letter*s*. I'm sure he saw a letter. But he said he'd seen _letters_. He hadn't. It was a lie.



maybe he meant the letters of the alphabet that make up 1 epistle?  The billy bullshitter lol


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 26, 2016)

right I can rejoin labour then... I had to cancel the direct debit before so I could afford to pay the £25 to vote, I reckon I've saved my £25 worth of membership fees by now so I can start paying again now i'm sure I got the person I want voted in. It was more the principle of it than the money.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 26, 2016)

i hope JC lets el gato reply to cllr ferret-features


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> maybe he meant the letters of the alphabet that make up 1 epistle?  The billy bullshitter lol


Ah, that makes sense of: "Is this co-ordinated?"

_Are the letters coordinated into a sentence_?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

"resignations planned for tomorrow morning and calls for PLP to form new party. Is this co-ordinated?"

No, you liar, nothing was _coordinated_.  It was _one bloke_.  One bloke nobody has heard of.

BBC.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2016)

Vermin have been sharing this pic on SM, but it still made me giggle...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Vermin have been sharing this pic on SM, but it still made me giggle...


  ^is that Kurt Cobain?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2016)

its vasily blokhin awaiting orders OBVS


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm apparently a little rusty on my "classic anti-semitic tropes" so can anyone point out which tropes are contained here?





> The leaflets claimed that the Jewish Labour Movement acted as “a representative of a foreign power, Israel” and called for it to be disaffiliated from the Labour Party.
> 
> Mr Streeting told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “That last comment, ‘acts as a representative of a foreign power’, this isn’t ambiguous. This is classic anti-semitic trope, at our conference.


 Wes Streeting: Corbyn shows lack of leadership on anti-Semitism


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm apparently a little rusty on my "classic anti-semitic tropes" so can anyone point out which tropes are contained here?


I must be mistaken about what "trope" means. I used to think it meant "motif" or "theme". Apparently it means something else, like "sick".  Young people.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Wes Streeting: Corbyn shows lack of leadership on anti-Semitism



So a (non-Jewish?) career politician is accusing Jewish party members of anti-semitism for objecting to the use of anti-semitism as a political football? You couldn't make it up.

Also, look at this Streeting blokes blog. It sounds like a CV you put on linkedIn or Monster.



> Welcome to my blog. I’m a Labour and Co-operative Party councillor for Chadwell Ward in the London Borough of Redbridge and I’m also a member of Progress, the Fabian Society, LGBT Labour and UNITE.
> 
> Until June 2010 I was the National President of the National Union of Students (NUS) – the 53rd holder of that office. I was twice elected as President of NUS after completing two terms as NUS’ Vice President for Education and a year on the NUS National Executive Committee, during which time I served as NUS’ liaison with the National Union of Teachers (NUT) with responsibility for teacher education. Throughout my time in NUS I stood for election as a Labour Students candidate and served as a member of the Labour Students’ National Committee for four years.
> 
> ...



What a self-serving twat. I'm surprised he didn't list his GCSE results there too.


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Wes Streeting: Corbyn shows lack of leadership on anti-Semitism



I can't see the claimed phrase “a representative of a foreign power, Israel” within the photo of the leaflet posted earlier. It seems strange that, if it does in fact appear, the photo purporting to back it up doesn't actually show it.

I also note that these leaflets were apparently distributed *outside* a Momentum meeting, which suggests someone other than Momentum was responsible for distributing them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2016)

trope does mean themes. I.E, greedy, cheats, working in secret against us, stab in the back etc


ItWillNeverWork said:


> So a (non-Jewish?) career politician is accusing Jewish party members of anti-semitism for objecting to the use of anti-semitism as a political football? You couldn't make it up.
> 
> Also, look at this Streeting blokes blog. It sounds like a CV you put on linkedIn or Monster.
> 
> ...


Swimming certificates, 5 and 10 metres

'I spent my formative political career in student politics' isn't quite the endorsment he thinks it is either


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2016)

For someone who apparently graduated from Cambridge with a History degree, Streeting isn't very bright. 

So what do we know about him, aside from his obvious devotion to the state of Israel; his NUS presidency; his PR consultancy work with PwC and him continuing to sit as a councillor on Redbridge Borough Council? Oh, and his blatant ambition?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> I can't see the claimed phrase “a representative of a foreign power, Israel” within the photo of the leaflet posted earlier. It seems strange that, if it does in fact appear, the photo purporting to back it up doesn't actually show it.
> 
> I also note that these leaflets were apparently distributed *outside* a Momentum meeting, which suggests someone other than Momentum was responsible for distributing them.


It's there on the end of the last picture. And yes, the idea is very close to classical anti-semitic tropes. Just a bit updated. However it relates to a specific formal political grouping rather than jewish people full stop. So the charge doesn't stick. The authors of the leaflet clearly know they're sailing provocatively close to the wind by choosing to use that sort of language.

They've also printed the wrong address for their website.


----------



## phillm (Sep 26, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> View attachment 93041



Who of a certain age could forget .....


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> IThe authors of the leaflet clearly know they're sailing provocatively close to the wind by choosing to use that sort of language.



They should fucking know better, though.


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's there on the end of the last picture...


For some reason that bit of the leaflet didn't appear in cantsin's post as it appears on my PC, but on clicking through to the original tweet, it is visible


> And yes, the idea is very close to classical anti-semitic tropes. Just a bit updated. However it relates to a specific formal political grouping rather than jewish people full stop. So the charge doesn't stick. The authors of the leaflet clearly know they're sailing provocatively close to the wind by choosing to use that sort of language.
> 
> They've also printed the wrong address for their website.



So the phrase does appear, but as you say, given the full context that it's talking about a particular group rather than jewish people in general, it still doesn't seem that the accusation of using the trope stands up.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They should fucking know better, though.


It's done on purpose. Their material seems to rely on open or borderline comparisons between nazi material/classical anti-semitic tropes and current Israeli state policy. They know full well what they're doing.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 26, 2016)

phillm said:


> Who of a certain age could forget .....




I read somewhere Lord Kinnock (multi-millionaire) spent twelve months preparing for that tirade.
The previous year he was too busy betraying the miners.
He admitted he was reaching out to daily mail readers. Fat lot of good that did him too.


----------



## treelover (Sep 26, 2016)

Labour Clive Lewis, Corbyn ally, says Trident will stay, John Rees, STWC/Ex SWP, is splitting blood as is CND.


Labour conference: CND accuses party of 'disastrous' Trident U-turn - Politics live


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> Labour Clive Lewis, Corbyn ally, says Trident will stay, John Rees, STWC/Ex SWP, is splitting blood as is CND.
> 
> 
> Labour conference: CND accuses party of 'disastrous' Trident U-turn - Politics live



Seems sensible. As someone who voted Corbyn, the whole 'get rid of Trident' thing was the only policy that I objected to. Reckon quite a few people feel the same.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 26, 2016)

Yes just saw that. I'm in favour of Trident being dropped but I think the decision needs to be put to the people for his second term of office.  

He's already said he won't use it, hasn't he. 

It's the core policies to tackle some of the poverty and unfairness that make him electable.


----------



## treelover (Sep 26, 2016)

There will be more, backtracking, migration, etc.


----------



## treelover (Sep 26, 2016)

Shrewbury 24

For all his faults, can you imagine any other past leader of the last thirty years, post Foot, doing this.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Seems sensible. As someone who voted Corbyn, the whole 'get rid of Trident' thing was the only policy that I objected to. Reckon quite a few people feel the same.


What policy?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What policy?



To abolish Trident. Should have said 'possible' policy really. But you get my point.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> To abolish Trident. Should have said 'possible' policy really. But you get my point.


There never was such a policy though. As today has shown. There was a rhetorical individual commitment by Corbyn.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> There never was such a policy though. As today has shown. There was a rhetorical individual commitment by Corbyn.



Which is why I clarified to say 'possible'.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 26, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> finbarr saunders moment


At this stage it's all about the BIG BEASTS OF THE PARTY


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 26, 2016)

Dunno how accurate it is, but Milne tagged as throwing his weight around again.  

Clive Lewis Trident speech changed by Seumas Milne on conference autocue


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Dunno how accurate it is, but Milne tagged as throwing his weight around again.
> 
> Clive Lewis Trident speech changed by Seumas Milne on conference autocue


It's seems to be what happened - speeches are pre-circulated to get good journo 'expected to say' crap and the change then being obvious (if it was circulated), plus the film of him receiving a note and it going against his own views. Either way, both views are pro-trident surely? At least for now.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm apparently a little rusty on my "classic anti-semitic tropes" so can anyone point out which tropes are contained here?




folk have been asking big Wes to help us out on this thorny issue, but alas, nothing doing


----------



## cantsin (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's there on the end of the last picture. And yes, the idea is very close to classical anti-semitic tropes. Just a bit updated. However it relates to a specific formal political grouping rather than jewish people full stop. So the charge doesn't stick. The authors of the leaflet clearly know they're sailing provocatively close to the wind by choosing to use that sort of language.
> 
> They've also printed the wrong address for their website.



ah, someone referred to that elsewhere , but cldnt see it - now i see there's 4 photos up, so presume it's visible now


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Either way, both views are pro-trident surely? At least for now.



Yeah seems fairly unnecessary on Milne's part, undermining key people just to make a pissy rhetorical point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

andysays said:


> I can't see the claimed phrase “a representative of a foreign power, Israel” within the photo of the leaflet posted earlier. It seems strange that, if it does in fact appear, the photo purporting to back it up doesn't actually show it.
> 
> I also note that these leaflets were apparently distributed *outside* a Momentum meeting, which suggests someone other than Momentum was responsible for distributing them.


I couldn't see it either, the way the image was displayed on my screen. 

However, although it's an odd phrase, I have to admit I don't understand the reference. What's the trope here?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> I couldn't see it either, the way the image was displayed on my screen.
> 
> However, although it's an odd phrase, I have to admit I don't understand the reference. What's the trope here?


The suggestion is that by claiming a group secretly holds allegiance to a foreign power they are then understood as internal largely unseen enemies, skulking about in the dark with their anti-our-state agenda. The same way that anti-semites have always claimed jewish allegiance to a larger hostile jewish interest.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 26, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Seems sensible. As someone who voted Corbyn, the whole 'get rid of Trident' thing was the only policy that I objected to. Reckon quite a few people feel the same.



Yeah. I want it gone, but it's a vote loser. And while it's important not to give in to the 'but it won't win you an election' thing, trident is one area that can be compromised on imo. It shows conciliation and frankly atm the Tories and press are able to whip up so much fear about terrorism and defence that it's an easy way to counter the idea that Corbyn will have us all sat there waving white flags when the furriners come to take us over.

It's something that can be revisited once the narrative has been challenged a bit more. It's not a permanent reversal, but a strategic one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The suggestion is that by claiming a group secretly holds allegiance to a foreign power they are then understood as internal largely unseen enemies, skulking about in the dark with their anti-our-state agenda. The same way that anti-semites have always claimed jewish allegiance to a larger hostile jewish interest.


Ah, I see.

It is an odd thing to say.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The suggestion is that by claiming a group secretly holds allegiance to a foreign power they are then understood as internal largely unseen enemies, skulking about in the dark with their anti-our-state agenda. The same way that anti-semites have always claimed jewish allegiance to a larger hostile jewish interest.


See also Catholics and the Pope.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 26, 2016)

Haven't we got better things to do than maintain weapons so devastating that their use can barely be contemplated?


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2016)

Sure, but there's probably more important things to deal with atm.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 26, 2016)

Get rid of the weapons and hopefully get more peace then spend the cash on nhs, schools, elder people's services etc. Job done.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Get rid of the weapons and hopefully get more peace then spend the cash on nhs, schools, elder people's services etc. Job done.


Lovely to see the hard _realpolitik _of your OP kick back in again.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 26, 2016)

I did not know who John Ferret was until today but his all day Twitter meltdown has been hilarious.

He now has the hump because someone has accused him of being a 'piss weasel'


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Get rid of the weapons and hopefully get more peace then spend the cash on nhs, schools, elder people's services etc. Job done.



And we can get round the campfire and have a good sing...


----------



## Wilf (Sep 26, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I did not know who John Ferret was until today but his all day Twitter meltdown has been hilarious.
> 
> He now has the hump because someone has accused him of being a 'piss weasel'


Other members of the rodent family are much more _resilient_.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 26, 2016)

Fingers said:


> I did not know who John Ferret was until today but his all day Twitter meltdown has been hilarious.
> 
> He now has the hump because someone has accused him of being a 'piss weasel'


STOAT'S HUMOURLESS


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> Labour Clive Lewis, Corbyn ally, says Trident will stay, John Rees, STWC/Ex SWP, is splitting blood as is CND.
> 
> 
> Labour conference: CND accuses party of 'disastrous' Trident U-turn - Politics live



Thankfully no one cares what Rees thinks or says, nor should they


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2016)

I did have a look though, out of morbid curiousity, this is what he had to say about Lewis - "Turns out you can take the boy out of the army but you can't take the army out of the boy."

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2016)

Cid said:


> And we can get round the campfire and have a good sing...



I believe Mcdonnell ended his speech quoting 'Imagine'.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2016)

Tory shows her true colours: Folkestone councillor Claire Jeffrey quits Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn re-election


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Tory shows her true colours: Folkestone councillor Claire Jeffrey quits Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn re-election


And the husband of this new Tory councillor is secretary of the local Labour Party, interesting times in the Jeffrey household.
(And potentially profitable times for Folkestone's popcorn and deckchair hawkers.)


----------



## Fingers (Sep 26, 2016)




----------



## TopCat (Sep 26, 2016)

Brixton Hatter said:


> And the husband of this new Tory councillor is secretary of the local Labour Party, interesting times in the Jeffrey household.
> (And potentially profitable times for Folkestone's popcorn and deckchair hawkers.)


They will continue to get on fine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2016)

treelover said:


> There will be more, backtracking, migration, etc.



You say backtracking, I say "giving the MoD enough rope to hang themselves with".


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 26, 2016)

Fingers said:


> View attachment 93065


I asked him about this again about 20 mins ago. Still to receive a reply.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 26, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I asked him about this again about 20 mins ago. Still to receive a reply.



i have been trolling him all day but he is ignoring me


----------



## extra dry (Sep 27, 2016)

From an old school friend... on facebook, comments show that some people netheir read or remember any history.


----------



## squirrelp (Sep 27, 2016)

I am starting to enjoy all of this. It is massive.

It's not simply an internal battle within the Labour Party.
It's not simply a battle between the Labour party and the Conservative Party.

It's much more than all that.

It is a battle between the new social intelligence, the 'hive' mind, with social media, and crowd-sourced actions, and the old, centralised top-down control with its orders, debt-based control and propaganda channels.

And the hive is going to win.

And this is why it's all so crazy. It is a changing of the order of things. So life is going to be pretty strange for a while.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 27, 2016)

But it's the NEC which sets the rules, and it's now changing the rules to invite new anti-Corbyn members onto the board to keep their majority. 

Then, they can happily continue to fritter away the new money they've been given to expel people and bring  the yearly leadership challenge to make Labour properly unelectable.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> .
> It's not simply a battle between the Labour party and the Conservative Party.
> .


 Very little of that going on at all.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 27, 2016)

Conrad Landin's been doing regular updates on the NEC thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2016)

Cook is  employed to carry out and monitor polling. What's he doing advising conference chair what to do? He's not even on the NEC.


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Cook is  employed to carry out and monitor polling. What's he doing advising conference chair what to do? He's not even on the NEC.


that was in 2014 I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2016)

killer b said:


> that was in 2014 I think.


He's been doing that since the late 80s where he - with Gould- engineered the very tight focused style of ignoring trad labour voters as they had nowhere else to go and getting to what appealed to the better off voters that Blair later jumped on.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 27, 2016)

So this happened on Sunday



VETERANS BACK “SICK TOYS”



> On Sunday night two establishment media outlets tried to use a veteran-endorsed satirical art project to attack Momentum and Labour.
> 
> Let us be clear. The superb ‘Army, Be The Meat’ project and the ‘Action Man: Battlefield Casualties’ films, which were launched 18 months ago, are nothing to do with Labour or Momentum.
> 
> The credit belongs to the artist who conceived and created it and, spiritually, to the hundreds of veterans who endorsed it. This work was conceived in response to years of dishonest army recruitment material and we continue to endorse it....


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2016)

> 6 - Banning Labour councillors from voting for an illegal budget.



New NEC rule, to be voted on, quite emasculating for Corbyn activists, etc.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 27, 2016)

I was wondering while walking the dog what the makeup of the conference delegates is. Particularly for the vote on whether to give Welsh and Scottish delegates a seat on the NEC. 

If the right get it through that they are appointed by the PLP then I presume that's Corbyn's majority gone. If the left get them voted in by the membership then I presume that adds to his majority. 

Are these the rule changes being discussed?


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> So this happened on Sunday
> 
> 
> 
> VETERANS BACK “SICK TOYS”





This is an artists work, the work of one man, but obviously the right wing press, etc are going to focus on it.

Seem to remember the the official Gulf War artist depicted Mickey Mouse sitting on a toilet.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> This is an artists work, the work of one man, but obviously the right wing press, etc are going to focus on it.


I know what it is, I've even seen some of it at a friend's gallery and it's rather good - the other publication that carried the story is the Fail btw


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> New NEC rule, to be voted on, quite emasculating for Corbyn activists, etc.


No it's not, it was unanimously voted for by the NEC, there's no appetite within Labour for such a course of action.


----------



## alsoknownas (Sep 27, 2016)

That film is fab.  It's clearly scathingly anti-military rather than 'mocking soldiers'.  Right on.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 27, 2016)

Good response from Veterans For Peace.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 27, 2016)

Its a tricky  and confrontational piece for many to get their heads around but in no way is it mocking or sneery, despite how the fail and its comments section view it.

anyway, how many squaddies would love a mug saying "MAKE STUFF DEAD" ?

ETA, Dan Jarvis should be drowned in a barrel of his own fucking piss. destroy the officer class


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2016)

I went to the world transformed for a bit on Saturday, and was mostly horrified by the art on display. Words failed me.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2016)

Lots better than that, works from the South Yorkshire artists and the sculptor upstairs in the gallery


----------



## emanymton (Sep 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> No it's not, it was unanimously voted for by the NEC, there's no appetite within Labour for such a course of action.


It's actually let's the Labour left rather nicely off the hook.


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> No it's not, it was unanimously voted for by the NEC, there's no appetite within Labour for such a course of action.


some years ago I awoke to find both the local councils I supported had been seen to because they defied the government.  The GLC was abolished completely, while Lambeth merely had its councillors removed and surcharged. If I thought either Lambeth or the GLA would defy now I'd support them again, but since then I think the law has been changed to make defiance even less likely to achieve anything, though I can't remember the details.  So isn't this vote just symbolic?  Not that I like the symbolism...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> So this happened on Sunday
> 
> 
> 
> VETERANS BACK “SICK TOYS”








Not a fucking clue. 

You all still think the working people of Britain are too fucking stupid to have their own views on the way you all act. "You cant be offended by my tweet because look at how clever I am and what I was a-ckt-ually trying to say"
"How dare you be offended by my emotionally engaging work of art, I am far too clever to be judged by the likes of Sun readers".


Keep it up. May 2020's coming.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Not a fucking clue.
> 
> You all still think the working people of Britain are too fucking stupid to have their own views on the way you all act. "You cant be offended by my tweet because look at how clever I am and what I was a-ckt-ually trying to say"
> "How dare you be offended by my emotionally engaging work of art, I am far too clever to be judged by the likes of Sun readers".
> ...



It's not Sun readers that are the problem, it's the writers.

I don't actually know what that other photo is about though. Is it supposed to be a big deal that some people have white vans and England flags?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 27, 2016)

scifisam said:


> It's not Sun readers that are the problem, it's the writers.
> 
> I don't actually know what that other photo is about though. Is it supposed to be a big deal that some people have white vans and England flags?



It caused a huge political bunfight during the last general election campaign because it allegedly showed how all Labour MPs under Miliband were totally disconnected from Britain's "normal" patriotic flag-waving white van driving working classes.

Which it did and it didn't. It _was _patronising shite based on standard liberal tropes about little-England working class racism, but didn't really prove anything about Labour MPs, beyond the largely already-known point that Emily Thornberry herself is sometimes a bit of a dickhead.

And the people pushing the "out of touch Labour" line were basically exactly as patronising and engaged in the same process of stereotyping, except they were coming at it from a perspective that little-England working class _patriotism_ (by which they also, on the quiet, meant forms of jingoism) is a jolly laudable thing.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 27, 2016)

Ah, right, thanks. Well, if she was genuinely trying to make some working-class people are racists haha point, then she was both stupid and bigoted. But the art stuff made in collaboration with a veterans' organisation is hardly the same thing. It's not offensive crap disguised as postmodern commentary (like Come Fly With Me, say) - it's fairly straightforwardly anti-war and pro-veteran. There's not actually anything about it to be offended by unless you misrepresent it like the Sun did - the writers, not the readers.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 27, 2016)

Friends of friends are at the Labour Party Conference and they say that a rumour is swirling that a letter from the PLP is embargoed to the press until tomorrow.

So that means more nastiness is probably afoot....


----------



## Nylock (Sep 27, 2016)

without a doubt... probably timed to cause maximum damage as well (unless it's another couple of dickhead councilors with the massive hump...)


----------



## teqniq (Sep 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Not a fucking clue.
> 
> You all still think the working people of Britain are too fucking stupid to have their own views on the way you all act. "You cant be offended by my tweet because look at how clever I am and what I was a-ckt-ually trying to say"
> "How dare you be offended by my emotionally engaging work of art, I am far too clever to be judged by the likes of Sun readers".
> ...


Have a word with yourself. Veterans for Peace don't seem to have a problem with his art


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 27, 2016)

scifisam said:


> But the art stuff made in collaboration with a veterans' organisation is hardly the same thing. It's not offensive crap disguised as postmodern commentary (like Come Fly With Me, say) - it's fairly straightforwardly anti-war and pro-veteran. There's not actually anything about it to be offended by unless you misrepresent it like the Sun did - the writers, *not the readers.*


The sanctimonious patronising never stops round here. Its all the fault of the Sun journalists that people might not get this fine work of genius.

The only way someone could look at this "art" and not think it fine is if the Sun shoots them with its thought control brain waves, eh? Peoples reactions to something like this are diverse and can be understandably not in with the sniggering undergrad jokeyness of the "art". 

And this is one of the reasons why Corbyn's Labour is crashing in the polls. The thinly disguised patronising contempt so many of his supporters hold the majority of the UKs people. 

May 2020s coming. Keep up the good work. 

and Rob Ray


> Britain's "normal" patriotic flag-waving white van drivingworking classes.


"normal" not normal.  

*Shurgs*.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> The sanctimonious patronising never stops round here. Its all the fault of the Sun journalists that people might not get this fine work of genius.
> 
> The only way someone could look at this "art" and not think it fine is if the Sun shoots them with its thought control brain waves, eh? Peoples reactions to something like this are diverse and can be understandably not in with the sniggering undergrad jokeyness of the "art".
> 
> ...



But it's not jokey. Have you even looked at it? And yeah, if a newspaper misrepresents something then obviously people will buy it - you have.


----------



## James McFadden (Sep 27, 2016)

A gang of kids walked by me today all shouting 'Jellemy' in sketchy Chinese accents. Not sure if it referred to Corbyn or not. WTF is that about?...casual racism aside? Did I miss something?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> and Rob Ray
> "normal" not normal.
> 
> *Shurgs*.



Yes Ferrel, it's a shorthand for "not everyone puts England flags in their windows, or drives a white van, or is particularly patriotic or jingoistic, but some brainless wonders think it's what working people are all like and thinks anyone who isn't is some sort of traitor to good ole' normal Blighty." Y'know, the sort of moron who thinks the Sun Says is just what the straightforward man in the street knows to be common sense, as opposed to being a comic written by reporters with cut-glass accents to manipulate people they despise.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2016)

> *Jeremy Corbyn rules out any pledge to cut immigration *
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn rules out any pledge to cut immigration



High stakes move?


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2016)

What do you think?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> High stakes move?



High stakes suggest the chance of a big win as well as the chance of a big lose - I doubt this will have any upside or any downside, no one who isn't already in the Labour fold is going to flock to them because of this policy, and no one who's inside the fold is going to think 'eh, what, you mean Corbyn isn't going to send them all home...?' and jump ship to the Tories or UKIP...

Corbyn talking to people who think the same things as him. Shores up his position in the party, does nothing to change the 10% lead the Tories have.

Personally I'm unconvinced that UKIP will clear up in the northern and midland constituencies over immigration, majorities might drop but I doubt seats will change hands, but this kind of stuff does nothing to put what are now Tory marginals under any kind of pressure in 2020 - put that with the boundary changes that look set to chop 30 labour seats and Labour may as well go on holiday during the 2020 GE campaign.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Have a word with *yourself*.


Because this is about me. Well in your mind.


> Veterans for Peace


Who?
Did I miss the vote when they were installed as sole spokespersons for how everyone outside of Momentum was permitted to think about war and its consaquencies?

None of you get it, because to get it would hurt your egos. Me? I am irrelevant. You lot, every bit as much so.

But Corbyn's Labour have to reach to about 11 million people and convince them to vote for him. That means talking too them _and about them_ as if they were intelligent people with valid views. "I personally found it moving but I can appreciate why someone may have seen it as trivialising the sacrifice of young British people."
"All art is subjective and open to many interpretations and I am keen to hear from people as to why they found this to be not in the best of taste".

You want people to vote for your boy, you have to show them you empathise with their world view and their values. Its not about one moron on a ever so clever stall at an irrelevant side show. Its about the attitude you take into each and every one of these situations.

You can fake it for a bit but you will get caught out. This kind of "look at me being clever" shit hurts, not much but it adds to the pile of misery heaped on the lefts shoulders by the electorate.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 27, 2016)

whatever lol.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Its not about one moron on a ever so clever stall at an irrelevant side show


So why does Corbyn need to address it?


----------



## treelover (Sep 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> What do you think?



Could have told you on saturday.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 28, 2016)

The new NEC met for the first time this evening. 2 new members appointed to swing the balance of power back against Corbyn, and a new chair appointed, who isn't a Corbyn supporter but I'm not sure how openly hostile she is.

Rumous of something 'reportable' planned for during Corbyn's speech tomorrow, to divert attention away from it and make the story whatever this reportable thing is rather than his speech. Also rumours people are being told there are no tickets available for the speech, and anti-Corbyn delegates being told to stay away, so the hall looks empty.

No idea how true this is but I wouldn't put anything past them now.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 28, 2016)

Yep wouldn't be surprised. 



> Exclusive: Officials and MPs worked for months behind the scenes to ensure decision-making delegates sent to Liverpool were not from the party’s hard-left



Labour centrists execute secret plan for months to win conference vote 

Hard left


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 28, 2016)

They can only play that tactic so long, though. You have to, I believe, have been a member for 12 months before you can be elected as a delegate. Come the next conference all of those new pro-Corbyn members will be eligible.

The biggest hurdle was always going to be the administration. The Blair years ensured it was tied down tight in their favour, it'll be a fight to change that, and nothing can be done until it is changed.

At this point there are two things we can do/hope for: put in the fucking hard work of 'winning' each CLP, getting new members, doing the 'ground up' stuff; hoping the right over-extend themselves and drop a bollock.

In the meantime, planning on how to make the administrative structure work for us rather than for them. It can be done.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 28, 2016)

Interesting though that the PLP is doing exactly what it accused Militant and Momentum of doing - using procedure to get things through that are against what the majority wants. 

If they remain in control of the NEC though they can do what they like - Great Orpington doesn't have an NEC representative for example. And yes we need to go for new members but seems a bit counterproductive if the NEC is banning them.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 28, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It caused a huge political bunfight during the last general election campaign because it allegedly showed how all Labour MPs under Miliband were totally disconnected from Britain's "normal" patriotic flag-waving white van driving working classes.
> 
> Which it did and it didn't. It _was _patronising shite based on standard liberal tropes about little-England working class racism, but didn't really prove anything about Labour MPs, beyond the largely already-known point that Emily Thornberry herself is sometimes a bit of a dickhead.
> 
> And the people pushing the "out of touch Labour" line were basically exactly as patronising and engaged in the same process of stereotyping, except they were coming at it from a perspective that little-England working class _patriotism_ (by which they also, on the quiet, meant forms of jingoism) is a jolly laudable thing.


Of course the guy in question had the proper salt of the earth working class job of being a 'car dealer'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Could have told you on saturday.


Yeh. But you didn't. Why not?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> It is an odd thing to say.



It's not an unusual thing to say unfortunately. I keep seeing it on social media and forums. There seems to be a sizable patriotic pro-Corbyn following who are latching onto anti-semitic themes either consciously or unconsciously (ie. Labour Friends of Israel and/or Progress are working for/agents of a foreign country). The whole of the Labour Party, right and left, are economic nationalists so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. I think there's even a handful of fash entrists trying to exploit it all. I keep seeing people with a mix of pro-Corbyn, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish views.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 28, 2016)

Knotted said:


> It's not an unusual thing to say unfortunately. I keep seeing it on social media and forums. There seems to be a sizable patriotic pro-Corbyn following who are latching onto anti-semitic themes either consciously or unconsciously (ie. Labour Friends of Israel and/or Progress are working for/agents of a foreign country). The whole of the Labour Party, right and left, are economic nationalists so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. I think there's even a handful of fash entrists trying to exploit it all. I keep seeing people with a mix of pro-Corbyn, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish views.


Really? 

The modern world is far more confusing that I'd realised.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Really?
> 
> The modern world is far more confusing that I'd realised.



danny la rouge, As Brian Wilson said,
We just weren't made for these times!


----------



## Diamond (Sep 28, 2016)

Sadiq Khan - sits impassively, poker face on, not applauding, when explicitly congratulated during Corbyn's conference speech before winking at the TV camera focused on him.

Top politicking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2016)

he's been hedging his bets for ages hasn't he? Mayoral role is what he cares about


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 28, 2016)

And here it is. What a tosser


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> And here it is. What a tosser



Looks tired.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 28, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> And here it is. What a tosser



Werther's or Polo?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Sep 28, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Werther's or Polo?


Wasps


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Looks tired.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2016)

sound keeps cutting out on the iplayer. Its a conspiracy


----------



## Fingers (Sep 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> sound keeps cutting out on the iplayer. Its a conspiracy



same on facebook


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2016)

the impassive face of tom watson lol


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> sound keeps cutting out on the iplayer. Its a conspiracy



Just about when he was banging on about Iraq too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> And here it is. What a tosser



That gob could sour milk.

What a bitter bastard.

Sweet.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That gob could sour milk.
> 
> What a bitter bastard.
> 
> Sweet.


Remind anyone else of that 3:1 down, Mourinho look?


----------



## Fingers (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2016)

Fingers said:


>



He wants to come to down here to Pecknarm to say that to our faces.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2016)

Oh my; the people's party...


----------



## Fingers (Sep 28, 2016)

The bellend is proper losing it.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Oh my; the people's party...




*"*They are not the enemy of the public but provide a vital service. Think we could do without them? No other housing system does"


----------



## red & green (Sep 28, 2016)

Respect to jc for the Langston Hughes and Bill shankley quotes - who wrote the speech?


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2016)

red & green said:


> Respect to jc for the Langston Hughes and Bill shankley quotes - who wrote the speech?


Milne and Andrew Fisher apparently.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 28, 2016)

I thought it was a good speech. Seen some criticism but they seem to be struggling to find anything to latch on to without outing themselves as cunts.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He wants to come to down here to Pecknarm to say that to our faces.



Still walking down from Liverpool, arms flailing in outrage.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 28, 2016)

Party Political Broadcast now showing on BBC.....it's proper cringe


----------



## two sheds (Sep 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> sound keeps cutting out on the iplayer. Its a conspiracy



Have you not paid your full licence money yet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## ska invita (Sep 28, 2016)

Do they still sing the red flag at end of conference? Penultimate line of Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer (we'll keep the red flag flying here) seems particularly apt this year


----------



## YouSir (Sep 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Do they still sing the red flag at end of conference? Penultimate line of Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer (we'll keep the red flag flying here) seems particularly ap this year



They did this year, was a bizarre Glee version though, selectively cut out the good bits. My drunken rendition is far better. Also sang Jerusalem, which apparently the Tories do too, which made my Mum laugh - stealing from Tories and all.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 28, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Really?
> 
> The modern world is far more confusing that I'd realised.



The very essence of the new politics is to borrow from the radical left and the radical right and anything outside the sphere of neo-liberal centrism is grist to the mill. Idiot anti-Zionists nodding along with third positionists is the future. It'll get worse before it gets better and it won't get better.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 28, 2016)

Knotted said:


> It's not an unusual thing to say unfortunately. I keep seeing it on social media and forums. There seems to be a sizable patriotic pro-Corbyn following who are latching onto anti-semitic themes either consciously or unconsciously (ie. Labour Friends of Israel and/or Progress are working for/agents of a foreign country). The whole of the Labour Party, right and left, are economic nationalists so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. I think there's even a handful of fash entrists trying to exploit it all. I keep seeing people with a mix of pro-Corbyn, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish views.



I have seen this too. Is it too hopeful to suggest that some of it might be from sockpuppets who are trying to smear Corbynites by association? I know that in light of Livingstone and Jackie Walker etc it probably is.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have seen this too. Is it too hopeful to suggest that some of it might be from sockpuppets who are trying to smear Corbynites by association? I know that in light of Livingstone and Jackie Walker etc it probably is.



so many blatant  troll accounts about, and of course the Bla*rites etc quote / RT without a second thought , eg John 'fucknugget' Ferret monday :



I had another two blatant ones from mon / tues, have lost them both , one of them the RT gave a feeble ' sorry ., didnt realise' when had up on it, but you know they know


----------



## cantsin (Sep 28, 2016)

then you've got Momentum Trumpton RT ing Alison Chabloz's gas chamber shite, with the obvious implication that;s she Momentum linked :


----------



## JHE (Sep 28, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Also sang Jerusalem, which apparently the Tories do too...



The Tories have a tradition of singing it, but they nicked a song they have no right to.  I didn't know Labour had started using it, but it seems more appropriate than the Tories singing it.  Blake's weirdo Christian patriotic poem is a hymn to English revolution, even bloody revolution: "I shall not cease from mental fight, nor shall the sword sleep in my hand, till we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land"


----------



## agricola (Sep 28, 2016)

Peter Oborne muses on today's Corbyn speech.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have seen this too. Is it too hopeful to suggest that some of it might be from sockpuppets who are trying to smear Corbynites by association? I know that in light of Livingstone and Jackie Walker etc it probably is.


It's not connected to Corbyn specifically, but the "socialism of fools" is still way too popular and tolerated in groups opposing Israeli govt actions, and has a significant presence anywhere there's talk of finance. Both of those are going to be more concentrated around Corbyn than other Labour groups.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 28, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not connected to Corbyn specifically, but the "socialism of fools" is still way too popular and tolerated in groups opposing Israeli govt actions, and has a significant presence anywhere there's talk of finance. Both of those are going to be more concentrated around Corbyn than other Labour groups.



Yes, I agree. To the extent as well that otherwise well meaning people ignorantly use anti-Semitic tropes.


----------



## not a trot (Sep 28, 2016)

So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.

Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


----------



## JimW (Sep 28, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


Eh? When hasn't he accepted the decision of the electorate? He was for staying in the EU and yet he's accepted BREXIT, leaving aside however many decades of milquetoast parliamentarianism. Troll harder.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 28, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


No, they'll declare the result invalid and go mad, eating babies and burning down branches of Waitrose.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2016)

I will say this...JC is not good at bullshitting. He gave some very strong and classic indicators of saying one thing but believing the other in his speech today. He does need to be trained up better.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 28, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


You think he won't be returned as an MP at the next General Election?


----------



## greenfield (Sep 28, 2016)

Sorry, did I just hear Tony Blair's former speechwriter - and current Labour member - let slip that he would prefer people voted for the Tories on Newsnight just now???

Whoops!


----------



## binka (Sep 28, 2016)

greenfield said:


> Sorry, did I just hear Tony Blair's former speechwriter - and current Labour member - let slip that he would prefer people voted for the Tories on Newsnight just now???
> 
> Whoops!


I was watching Bouncers on 4Music. Who was it?


----------



## greenfield (Sep 28, 2016)

binka said:


> I was watching Bouncers on 4Music. Who was it?



Phil Collins, the Times columnist. He was being interviewed with Paul Mason who actually confronts him over what he's just - mistakenly, I guess, said. He weazles out of it.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 28, 2016)

did i hear socialism mentioned ?


----------



## gosub (Sep 28, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> did i hear socialism mentioned ?



21st Century Socialism.  A bit like sticking 'NEW' infront of Labour


----------



## treelover (Sep 28, 2016)

> *Bending reality like a spoon: the week Labour entered The Matrix *
> 
> Bending reality like a spoon: the week Labour entered The Matrix




Marina Hyde on the Momentum gathering, etc, did anyone see her there, I didn't, lots of journo's looking official there though.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 29, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


Fucksake. This is weak stuff...


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2016)

Yet people are responding. Disappointing really, you should make 'em work for your ire.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 29, 2016)

'ire' is a bit strong... 'Pity' maybe.... Possibly 'disappointment' at a wasted trolling effort... but that's as far as it goes....


----------



## Knotted (Sep 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have seen this too. Is it too hopeful to suggest that some of it might be from sockpuppets who are trying to smear Corbynites by association? I know that in light of Livingstone and Jackie Walker etc it probably is.





cantsin said:


> so many blatant  troll accounts about, and of course the Bla*rites etc quote / RT without a second thought , eg John 'fucknugget' Ferret monday :
> 
> 
> 
> I had another two blatant ones from mon / tues, have lost them both , one of them the RT gave a feeble ' sorry ., didnt realise' when had up on it, but you know they know




It's the type of thing that gets likes and upvotes from progressive Corbynista types even if they don't produce it themselves. I haven't been paying much attention to what Labourites have been saying until this past year, but my impression is that there are some dark traditions within the Labour Party that have been awoken or have returned after the Blair/Brown/Miliband years. I don't think it's a new fangled thing. It's an older generation finding an audience with a younger generation. That comment comes with the caveat that I only have a small sample to go on. But it's certainly not just a bunch of trolls. (I don't think Livingstone's or Walker's comments are part of this though, they're more just general provocation, the nationalist bite isn't there.)


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Marina Hyde on the Momentum gathering, etc, did anyone see her there, I didn't, lots of journo's looking official there though.


She lacks the self-awareness to realise that The Matrix she talks about is the one her and her fellow hacks have been constructing for the last year.


----------



## not a trot (Sep 29, 2016)

gosub said:


> 21st Century Socialism.  A bit like sticking 'NEW' infront of Labour




Well at least he's acknowledged in public it's not the 70s anymore.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 29, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Well at least he's acknowledged in public it's not the 70s anymore.


 
Are you here all week?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2016)

I suspect not.


----------



## JimW (Sep 29, 2016)

Weren't the 1970s the period of lowest income inequality and highest social mobility in modern history?


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2016)

The Jackie Walker incident at the Conference is causing real tensions at a number of Momentum groups and on FB, is the Israel/Palestine and the antisemitism issues going to weaken, perhaps destroy the emergent new left?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Jackie Walker incident at the Conference is causing real tensions at a number of Momentum groups and on FB, is the Israel/Palestine and the antisemitism issues going to weaken, perhaps destroy the emergent new left?


What do you mean by causing tension? And between who and who?


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2016)

Argument between factions, yes, they are still there, ordinary members on the FB sites, who are despairing at these unpleasant disputes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> Argument between factions, yes, they are still there, ordinary members on the FB sites, who are despairing at these unpleasant disputes.


What factions? Factions within momentum?


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2016)

If Seumas Milne leaves Jeremy Corbyn, he'll do it on his own terms


Lots of rumours Seumas Milne is to quit


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What factions? Factions within momentum?



yes, but lots of arguing by others about Livingstone, Walker, Palestine, why does this happen?

btw, this is without the SWP, so this time they can't be blamed!


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Jackie Walker incident at the Conference is causing real tensions at a number of Momentum groups and on FB, is the Israel/Palestine and the antisemitism issues going to weaken, perhaps destroy the emergent new left?


At face value, Walker's comments appear a little uninformed, but to characterise them as anti-semitic is a bizarre distortion....unless those saying so believe that the HMDT are themselves operating to an anti-semitic agenda.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> At face value, Walker's comments appear a little uninformed, but to characterise them as anti-semitic is a bizarre distortion....unless those saying so believe that the HMDT are themselves operating to an anti-semitic agenda.


Is that the entire "Jackie Walker incident?" Christ, those delegates are so ready for a rumble they could be urbanites.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 29, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.



It's a fucking membership organisation.

This is the fundamental problem with the non-Corbyn supporting wing's ire, to me: 'Oh, he's saying we have to accept the decision of the members, is he? Bloody Stalinist!'

But how can you possibly argue that that isn't _exactly _what should be happening in a democratic membership organisation? It's the other side who hijacked the thing for their own ends - and it's only possible for _anyone _to see their current outrage as reasonable and understandable as a result of the fact they've had free rein with the party for so long that they think it's their fucking birthright denied if anyone disputes their right to take it in any direction they see fit, regardless of what the bulk of the people their organisation _consists of_ and _exists for_ think.

I'm not particularly a cheerleader for JC - you'll see that from my previous posts if you care to. But I can't see _any _evidence that suggests he's done something undemocratic here, as you're implying. Or that suggests he'd be likely to not 'accept the decision of the electorate at the next election' (how exactly he _could _do that is something you might like to clarify) if they rejected him.

I can understand that, some time back, the Blairites etc. might have believed that this was all a matter of crushing some annoying hard-left flare-up and getting on with the business of being in charge as usual. But I can't understand how they can't see, now, that it's gone irretrievably beyond that. None of this, of course, proves that Corbyn will be electable or elected, but the other lot have already proven they no longer are. Why they don't all fuck off and set up profitable management consultancy firms instead is beyond me.


----------



## AnandLeo (Sep 29, 2016)

After hearing the conference speech of the re-elected leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, I am confounded to see a discord with his socio-political agenda and Labour values, and at a loss to see what is the disharmony between his leadership and the Labour party mainly represented by Labour MPs.  Of course the party conference speech is rhetoric. Whether the Labour Party can win the next general election is more of a result of the performance of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Theresa May, taking into account the result of negotiations of Brexit with EU.

I like to elaborate on my post.

Jeremy Corbyn delivered a note on socialist agenda which is congruent with Labour values in contrast to capitalist manifesto. Tony Blair came into power with a landslide victory in 1997 on a capitalist manifesto of the brand of New Labour which is unprecedented in the history of Labour Party. The global economic climate was salubrious during the New Labour rule, it was capitalism under a socialist regime. New Labour’s capitalist agenda was ideal for the economic and social climate of the day and trends, until the calamity of banking crisis which propagated in the USA. If the Jeremy Corbyn manages to calm and unite his political fraternity, the socialism under his leadership will be blessed by the trade unions which makes no difference in a general election, because traditionally trade unions support the Labour Party. The remaining question is, will the rest of the country buy the rhetoric of Corbyn’s socialism.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 29, 2016)

AnandLeo said:


> After hearing the conference speech of the re-elected leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, I am confounded to see a discord with his socio-political agenda and Labour values, and at a loss to see what is the disharmony between his leadership and the Labour party mainly represented by Labour MPs.  Of course the party conference speech is rhetoric. Whether the Labour Party can win the next general election is more of a result of the performance of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Theresa May, taking into account the result of negotiations of Brexit with EU.



I don't think it is about 'clash of values', is it? It's about some factions wanting to keep 'values' out of it altogether so they can more easily carry on merely swapping managerial responsibility between themselves and the Tories every couple of elections.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 29, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> It's a fucking membership organisation.
> 
> This is the fundamental problem with the non-Corbyn supporting wing's ire, to me: 'Oh, he's saying we have to accept the decision of the members, is he? Bloody Stalinist!'
> 
> ...



A fine rant


----------



## kebabking (Sep 29, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> ...But I can't understand how they can't see, now, that it's gone irretrievably beyond that...



i think a very sizable part of it is - in addition to what you've said - simple outrage at rampant hypocracy.

i hold no torch for the anti-Corbyn PLP, a bunch of more useless, less-inspiring people you couldn't hope to meet - but when, for example, Blair got 13 million votes in 1997, did Corbyn, McDonnell or Abbot etc say 'oh well, Blair has a massive mandate - what he espouses goes against our principles but the mandate is so overwhelming that we should put our personal views aside and support his programme..'?

no, they didn't, they kept banging away because they also had a mandate - so the current PLP take the view that if Corbyn _et al_ weren't persuaded by Blairs' 13 million, why should they give a shit about Corbyns 300,000?

its a complete gangfuck, and whatever fudge tries to paper over the cracks simply can't last - firstly because the 'top' of the Labour party is irrevocably, genuinely and passionately split on the issues that are at the very heart of what people believe to be morally right (on all sides), and secondly because of the deeply personal, poisonous atmostphere within it - and the loathing, dispising and utter contempt goes in all directions, its not something that can be put aside or ascribed to one faction.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 29, 2016)

I wasn't aware that 13 million people lived in Sedgefield.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I wasn't aware that 13 million people lived in Sedgefield.


That's what happens when you leave immigration unchecked for all these years.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 29, 2016)

brogdale said:


> At face value, Walker's comments appear a little uninformed, but to characterise them as anti-semitic is a bizarre distortion....unless those saying so believe that the HMDT are themselves operating to an anti-semitic agenda.



The accusation is that she ignorantly suggested it was a Jewish only event with the implication being that Jewish people do not recognise the importance of other genocides. She then didn't help matters by tweeting all holocaust denial is acceptable before correcting that mistakes happen on car journeys nor by questioning why Jewish schools need protection. According to reports I add.

I think the Labour anti-semitism problem is well overstated but if she wants to help the Party she just needs to zip it up.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2016)

This is it. A perfectly normal disagreement at a meeting. Have none of these people ever actually been at meetings where debate and discussion happens? The later tweet - not the mistake one - suggests she still does not accept that this is the basis in reality (despite being formally so) for the HMD.

Every single meeting about any related issues is now going to filmed/recorded - so this nonsense is going to carry on. People like Walker are never going to 'zip it'. That's exactly not what they're about.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is it. A perfectly normal disagreement at a meeting. Have none of these people ever actually been at meetings where debate and discussion happens? The later tweet - not the mistake one - suggests she still does not accept that this is the basis in reality (despite being formally so) for the HMD.
> 
> Every single meeting about any related issues is now going to filmed/recorded - so this nonsense is going to carry on. People like Walker are never going to 'zip it'. That's exactly not what they're about.



You are right that there needs to be space for debate and that means not everything said can be 100% right on first time. Unfortunately her tone seems argumentative on the point to the point of unsoundness.

And that is the milieu of the moment. Everyone is under scrutiny so good behaviour from left and right is demanded. The leader expects it to be so.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 29, 2016)

Not to sidetrack or anything, but a moment of appreciation for this please, which is at the bottom of the Huffpo article:


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This is it. A perfectly normal disagreement at a meeting. Have none of these people ever actually been at meetings where debate and discussion happens? The later tweet - not the mistake one - suggests she still does not accept that this is the basis in reality (despite being formally so) for the HMD.
> 
> Every single meeting about any related issues is now going to filmed/recorded - so this nonsense is going to carry on. People like Walker are never going to 'zip it'. That's exactly not what they're about.



Walker says 3 things in that clip:

1. She's never heard "a definition of antisemitism that she can work with".
2. Wouldn't it be great if the Jews stopped hogging Holocaust day.
3. If jews have security at al their community buildings that's not because of any legitimate fear they might feel about being attacked for being jews because look even her grandsons nursery has security.

What is the point she is making here ? At a meeting billed as 'Confronting antisemitism and engaging Jewish voters' ?
Like Livingstone, she might not be a bona fide antisemite but definitely comes across to me as a silly shit stirrer intent on making things worse every time she opens her mouth on the subject.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2016)

bimble said:


> Walker says 3 things in that clip:
> 
> 1. She's never heard "a definition of antisemitism that she can work with".
> 2. Wouldn't it be great if the Jews stopped hogging Holocaust day.
> ...


I'm not particularly interested in debating the content of her views. My point is that is what political disagreement at a meeting looks like and that reporting it as some massive bust up is performative neutrality at its best.

But as regards point 3, Walker is Jewish I believe.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i think a very sizable part of it is - in addition to what you've said - simple outrage at rampant hypocracy.
> 
> i hold no torch for the anti-Corbyn PLP, a bunch of more useless, less-inspiring people you couldn't hope to meet - but when, for example, Blair got 13 million votes in 1997, did Corbyn, McDonnell or Abbot etc say 'oh well, Blair has a massive mandate - what he espouses goes against our principles but the mandate is so overwhelming that we should put our personal views aside and support his programme..'?
> 
> ...



Did McDonnell, Corbyn and Abbott collude with the media to try to overthrow Blair, say negative (and often false) things about him as often as possible, make grand public resignations, etc, etc? No. Not quite the same, is it?


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not particularly interested in debating the content of her views. My point is that is what political disagreement at a meeting looks like and that reporting it as some massive bust up is performative neutrality at its best.
> 
> But as regards point 3, Walker is Jewish I believe.



The headlines about Rage and Fury are hyperbolic nonsense that's true. 

She has talked a lot about having jewish ancestry yes, she included them in her recent statements about how jews were the major financiers of the slave trade. But that's not relevant to what she's doing in that clip, where she says that all schools have security now, there's no reason for jews to feel they need more of it than the next person etc.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 29, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not particularly interested in debating the content of her views. My point is that is what political disagreement at a meeting looks like and that reporting it as some massive bust up is performative neutrality at its best.



I think it's worse than that - this has been billed as a *training* session. Now my expectation is that what happens in a training event stays in the room. The idea that anything you say can be recorded and distributed publicly is a breach of trust and will ensure that people aren't honest and open about their views.

But all seems fair in the rush to attack the left.


----------



## rioted (Sep 29, 2016)

Yeah, everybody should just zip it. Who would that suit?


----------



## inva (Sep 29, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Did McDonnell, Corbyn and Abbott collude with the media to try to overthrow Blair, say negative (and often false) things about him as often as possible, make grand public resignations, etc, etc? No. Not quite the same, is it?


are you arguing for them or against them?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 29, 2016)

bimble said:


> What is the point she is making here ?



The point she is making is "look at me."


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 29, 2016)

rioted said:


> Yeah, everybody should just zip it. Who would that suit?



People who don't think the airing of her comments on the subject is in any way vital.

If you believe that is in any way a dangerous self censorship an elephant trap of enormous proportions awaits you.

But it would clearly suit Jeremy who above all wants to create at lead the appearance of unity.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2016)

Just watched this - its a 1 minute long video made by JC's team, made to show how there is no antisemitism issue at all.  
If you tried really hard you couldn't cobble together a more dismissive piece. It ends with people laughing at the whole idea. Seriously misjudged. Imagine doing this about any other kind of prejudice in the world.  
Jeremy Corbyn campaign video reignites antisemitism anger


----------



## scifisam (Sep 29, 2016)

inva said:


> are you arguing for them or against them?



Not sure I've ever used the words collude or false to describe things I approve of.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 29, 2016)

not a trot said:


> So Jeremy says we must accept the decision of the members.
> 
> Ok Jeremy. Will you and the left accept the decision of the electorate at the next election when they most certainly will reject you.


You mean like that proven election winner Neil Kinnock did in the 80s when he lost one election and erm didn't resign, then lost a 2nd election?

Surely as in that case, it should be up to the membership to decide if they prefer to stick with Corbyn even Labour haven't won the election at his first attempt, shouldn't it?


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 29, 2016)

Good article from Peter Oborne... he is a conservative who obviously finds Corbyn's message appealing.  Corbyn is starting to win over old style one nation conservatives like Oborne. Strange days. 
Goodbye New Labour: Victorious Corbyn consigns Blairism to history


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2016)

Oborne has been on his side since the first time he was elected.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 29, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Good article from Peter Oborne... he is a conservative who obviously finds Corbyn's message appealing.  Corbyn is starting to win over old style one nation conservatives like Oborne. Strange days.



I don't know - I'd imagine full employment, proper NHS, good housing for people etc etc would appeal to old-school tories before profit became everything.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Oborne has been on his side since the first time he was elected.



With Oborne I get the impression he is supportive of Corbyn's foreign policy more than anything else.


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2016)

> Manuel Cortes, the general secretary of the TSSA union and a strong backer of Corbyn, called on Walker to resign from the Labour party immediately. “I am asking Jackie that, in the interests of unity, she resigns at once from our party and also as vice-chair of Momentum,” he said. “If she doesn’t, both the Labour party and Momentum need to act to get rid of her at once. Furthermore, TSSA will seriously reconsider our union’s support for Momentum if she is still in post by this time next week.”
> 
> Momentum likely to oust Jackie Walker over Holocaust remarks



I wonder what is going to happen next, personally i see big tensions in Momentum, as usual the far left is its own worse enemy.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> With Oborne I get the impression he is supportive of Corbyn's foreign policy more than anything else.



Perhaps, though Oborne did predict the rise of politicians like Corbyn (and their opposites like Farage and Trump) in his conclusion at the end of his book _The Triumph of the Political Class_.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> I wonder what is going to happen next, personally i see big tensions in Momentum, as usual the far left is its own worse enemy.



Am getting bored of her, eg :  tnite :  C4 news re : being filmed asking why Holocaust day didnt honour non Jews, and people pointing out ' IT DOES' ....her latest explanation is she was asking why no no honouring of pre ww2 ' Holocausts' ....? 

You can debate whether there were actually any pre WW2 'Holocausts' , but surely the victims ( jews / non jews,,,but especially jews, due to scale )  of Nazi Germany are entitled to a day of commemoration ?

And if you really want to debate this kind of point endlessly, and are vice chair of Momentum, do it in fucking private or something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> I wonder what is going to happen next, personally i see big tensions in Momentum, as usual the far left is its own worse enemy.



Momentum as a political force is about as "far left" as my right testicle. They may have individual members with a pedigree as Trots or Tankies, but their organisation's politics have nothing to do with the "far left", and everything to do with tagging along with Corbynite social democracy.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 29, 2016)

Yep that's my (limited) experience too.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 29, 2016)

Meanwhile Emily Thornberry has missed QT to go to Shimon Peres funeral.

Cue uncaptioned tweeted picture of some Israeli's house and van with a big flag hanging across the windows followed by Emily's swift resignation.


----------



## treelover (Sep 30, 2016)

Officially or on a private visit?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Sep 30, 2016)

scifisam said:


> Did McDonnell, Corbyn and Abbott collude with the media to try to overthrow Blair, say negative (and often false) things about him as often as possible, make grand public resignations, etc, etc? No. Not quite the same, is it?


More shame them, that they didn't...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2016)

She is talking about Angela Rayner.


----------



## Sue (Sep 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> She is talking about Angela Rayner.



What's her accent? And why (whatever it is) would that stop her being sharp/funny? Or make her being so unexpected?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 30, 2016)

It's Twitter, it's a response to someone else saying 'she can barely speak'.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 30, 2016)

That Steph woman from BBC Breakfast has talked about many BBC journalists being astounded that someone with a regional accent could be 'educated' and inhabit their world. It really is us and them.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 30, 2016)

Rayner started her conference speech with a reference to snobbery over her accent and background:


----------



## Sue (Sep 30, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> That Steph woman from BBC Breakfast has talked about many BBC journalists being astounded that someone with a regional accent could be 'educated' and inhabit their world. It really is us and them.


Can't say I've ever heard of her before. But this ^ absolutely.


----------



## Sue (Sep 30, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's Twitter, it's a response to someone else saying 'she can barely speak'.


Rubbish response though. Why not make the point that it's nonsense to judge someone's intelligence (or otherwise) by their accent rather than making it sound like she's intelligent *despite* her accent..?


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2016)

presume that's why the tweet was posted?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Jackie Walker incident at the Conference is causing real tensions at a number of Momentum groups and on FB, is the Israel/Palestine and the antisemitism issues going to weaken, perhaps destroy the emergent new left?


You do realise that Jackie Walker is actually Jewish. No? Not all Jews are white.

As for the "tensions" you mention, all of those have been manufactured.


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You do realise that Jackie Walker is actually Jewish. No? Not all Jews are white.
> 
> As for the "tensions" you mention, all of those have been manufactured.


Really? People on here have been complaining about a rise in anti-semitic stuff on the left for years - sure it's been taken advantage of and amplified well beyond it's actual size, but it's not entirely trumped up.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You do realise that Jackie Walker is actually Jewish. No? Not all Jews are white.


FFS. This is so boring now and so absurd.
Having jews in your their family tree doesn't mean you get a free pass to spout whatever bollocks you feel like and people are not allowed to take offence / question you, does it? 
For instance "The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.."etc etc.  That's totally cool and beyond reproach because marx came from a long line of rabbis innit.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 30, 2016)

Ditto Henry Makow (no link to that poison. Anyone interested can use Google)


----------



## Vivity Report (Sep 30, 2016)

bimble said:


> FFS. This is so boring now and so absurd.
> Having jews in your their family tree doesn't mean you get a free pass to spout whatever bollocks you feel like and people are not allowed to take offence / question you, does it?
> For instance "The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.."etc etc. That's totally cool and beyond reproach because marx came from a long line of rabbis innit.



Do you mean like the stuff Bobby Fischer came out with ?? Bobby Fischer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia cus yeah I would not let that stuff slide and I am not even jewish. Is it like black people who are in favour of segregation or people of colour who agree with profiling ?? I always found that sort of thing facinating.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You do realise that Jackie Walker is actually Jewish. No? Not all Jews are white.
> 
> As for the "tensions" you mention, all of those have been manufactured.


Did you see her on Newsnight? She made a decent reply as to her comments on the definition of anti-semitism, but just restated her wrong position on HMD - "it's just for Jews". Sadly, she's a fucking idiot.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2016)

Vivity Report said:


> Do you mean like the stuff Bobby Fischer came out with ?? Bobby Fischer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia cus yeah I would not let that stuff slide and I am not even jewish. Is it like black people who are in favour of segregation or people of colour who agree with profiling ?? I always found that sort of thing facinating.


Saw a film about Bobby Fischer once, he obviously struggled a lot with severe mental health stuff in later years, and the global conspiracy of Joos coming to get you is quite a common focus for paranoid delusions, so I'd be inclined to give him a pass.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 30, 2016)

Corbyn has spelled out exactly why the establishment hate him so much


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> Really? People on here have been complaining about a rise in anti-semitic stuff on the left for years - sure it's been taken advantage of and amplified well beyond it's actual size, but it's not entirely trumped up.


1. When you say "Left" which groups specifically? 2. When you say "years", how many years are we talking about? 10? 20? 30? 3. I don't suppose it occurred to you that the entire anti-Semitism row has been largely manufactured since Corbyn became leader. Funny how no one said anything while Blair, Brown or Miliband were leading the party and now, all of a sudden, the Labour Party and by extension the Left is awash with anti-Semites.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2016)

bimble said:


> FFS. This is so boring now and so absurd.
> Having jews in your their family tree doesn't mean you get a free pass to spout


"Absurd", my arse. Her mother was Jewish. Not her grandmother or great-grandmother. I'm only surprised you haven't reached for the stick marked "self-hating Jew".


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> 1. When you say "Left" which groups specifically? 2. When you say "years", how many years are we talking about? 10? 20? 30? 3. I don't suppose it occurred to you that the entire anti-Semitism row has been largely manufactured since Corbyn became leader. Funny how no one said anything while Blair, Brown or Miliband were leading the party and now, all of a sudden, the Labour Party and by extension the Left is awash with anti-Semites.


I've seen anti-semitic stuff from people on 'the left' - mostly coded, but sometimes not - for years, and it has become worse in the last 5 or so. We've had this discussion before loads of times though (most recently here - you posted on the thread 59 times so I presume you're aware of the issue). 

this article by Kenan Malik summarises the situation well, IMO.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> "Absurd", my arse. Her mother was Jewish. Not her grandmother or great-grandmother. I'm only surprised you haven't reached for the stick marked "self-hating Jew".


What is your point? Same as last time, that she's got a special dispensation and should not be questioned about anything she chooses to say on this topic. Waste of time talking about this with you isn't it seeing as you're apparently adamant that the problem doesn't exist at all in the 1st place.


----------



## treelover (Sep 30, 2016)

Barbara Ntumy, (Momentum go to person) is saying Jackie must go.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Barbara Ntumy, (Momentum go to person) is saying Jackie must go.



She should, I can't believe she hasn't yet.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> She should, I can't believe she hasn't yet.



The political class has long-since realised that unless your position is untenable for some other reason (eg. your most powerful allies have had enough of you or reckon there's enough political capital to be gained to make your departure worthwhile) "popular pressure" in the modern sense of Twitter/media outrage is both powerless and temporary. A full moral panic can't even dislodge a Goldsmiths Student Union rep who doesn't want to go, let alone a hardened political wonk well used to faction fights.


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2016)

Anti-semitism _has _been cynically weaponised by enemies on the right - but it's only been made possible because there is something there for them to weaponise. Spluttering outraged denial of reality just doesn't counter it. If anything, it makes you look either complicit, or a fool.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> Anti-semitism _has _been cynically weaponised by enemies on the right - but it's only been made possible because there is something there for them to weaponise. Spluttering outraged denial of reality just doesn't counter it. If anything, it makes you look either complicit, or a fool.



IMO both the cynical weaponisation, and the response of total denial from some, must in themselves be contributing factors in the actual growth of anti-Semitism.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2016)

The fact that The Canary is run by a troofer who's backing Walker to the hilt doesn't help either, does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The fact that The Canary is run by a troofer who's backing Walker to the hilt doesn't help either, does it?


There are very few things that the Canary helps.


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> There are very few things that the Canary helps.


It helps identifying idiots.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> It helps identifying idiots.


There's far too many ways to do that now we have the internet.


----------



## rioted (Sep 30, 2016)

bimble said:


> What is your point? Same as last time, that she's got a special dispensation and should not be questioned about anything she chooses to say on this topic. Waste of time talking about this with you isn't it seeing as you're apparently adamant that the problem doesn't exist at all in the 1st place.


This is fair enough if you accept the obverse: have supporters of Israel got special dispensation for supporting apartheid regimes? Ignoring the expansion of the Israeli state? Because the howls of "anti-semitism" from those people would suggest they do. Or they think they do. It's shocking how many supporters of the right of existence of Israel can't bring themselves to support the rights of Palestinians.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2016)

rioted said:


> This is fair enough if you accept the obverse: have supporters of Israel got special dispensation for supporting apartheid regimes? Ignoring the expansion of the Israeli state? Because the howls of "anti-semitism" from those people would suggest they do. Or they think they do. It's shocking how many supporters of the right of existence of Israel can't bring themselves to support the rights of Palestinians.


What? 
edit: never mind. Would rather just poke a pencil in my eye repeatedly than sit here trying to explain what i reckon is wrong with that post of yours.


----------



## not a trot (Sep 30, 2016)

free spirit said:


> You mean like that proven election winner Neil Kinnock did in the 80s when he lost one election and erm didn't resign, then lost a 2nd election?
> 
> Surely as in that case, it should be up to the membership to decide if they prefer to stick with Corbyn even Labour haven't won the election at his first attempt, shouldn't it?




Kinnock was a victim of the Foot legacy. My father was a fireman during that era and relays some real horror stories concerning the lefts influence in the party and union. On hearing Corbyns election as leader he simply said that Labour fucked for good.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Kinnock was a victim of the Foot legacy. My father was a fireman during that era and relays some real horror stories concerning the lefts influence in the party and union. On hearing Corbyns election as leader he simply said that Labour fucked for good.


What has your dads work got to do with anything? What, for that matter, are historical non-specific claims supposed to mean? It's all fucking made up shit anyway.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 30, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Kinnock was a victim of the Foot legacy. My father was a fireman during that era and relays some real horror stories concerning the lefts influence in the party and union. On hearing Corbyns election as leader he simply said that Labour fucked for good.



The son of an ex-Labour MP (from the right-wing of the party) told me that Kinnock used to physically attack other party members in the toilets at the party conference. Is that the sort of horror story you mean?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2016)

Now I'm imagining kinnock saying 'where's ya fackin tool?'


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Kinnock was a victim of the Foot legacy.



What does this mean politically and historically? What do you mean by it?


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Now I'm imagining kinnock saying 'where's ya fackin tool?'


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 30, 2016)

not a trot said:


> a victim of the Foot legacy



The foot leg what?

A split like that was bound to (r)ankle. They just didn't (k)need it, did they? ''Toe''tally ridiculous.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> The foot leg what?
> 
> A split like that was bound to (r)ankle. They just didn't (k)need it, did they? ''Toe''tally ridiculous.


he was the sole survivor of the acrimonious fight


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he was the sole survivor of the acrimonious fight



He did bring the lefties to heel though


----------



## JHE (Sep 30, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The son of an ex-Labour MP (from the right-wing of the party) told me that Kinnock used to physically attack other party members in the toilets at the party conference. Is that the sort of horror story you mean?



I think the story - probably put about by Kinnock - was that, when he (Kinnock) refused to vote for Benn to be deputy leader, an angry Bennite made the mistake of attacking Kinnock in the loo, but Kinnock beat up his attacker.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 30, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Meanwhile Emily Thornberry has missed QT to go to Shimon Peres funeral.
> 
> Cue uncaptioned tweeted picture of some Israeli's house and van with a big flag hanging across the windows followed by Emily's swift resignation.



and while we're airing the odd Corbo related grievance ....Thornberry just does my head in...long on airs n graces, short on detail, private landlord ( of former soc housing ) , ships kids off to selective school, husband a Sir..

Corbo's too non judegemental /  inclusive etc to let all this stuff get in the way maybe, but as per recent 'pub quiz' bollocks,flag photo etc, she combines all that with just not seeming very good - what's the point of her in such a prominent position ?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2016)

cantsin said:


> and while we're airing the odd Corbo related grievance ....Thornberry just does my head in...long on airs n graces, short on detail, private landlord ( of former soc housing ) , ships kids off to selective school, husband a Sir..
> 
> Corbo's too non judegemental /  inclusive etc to let all this stuff get in the way maybe, but as per recent 'pub quiz' bollocks,flag photo etc, she combines all that with just not seeming very good - what's the point of her in such a prominent position ?


Why is she even an MP? Don#t go down that rabbit hole. Just shit MPs.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 30, 2016)

cantsin said:


> and while we're airing the odd Corbo related grievance ....Thornberry just does my head in...long on airs n graces, short on detail, private landlord ( of former soc housing ) , ships kids off to selective school, husband a Sir..
> 
> Corbo's too non judegemental /  inclusive etc to let all this stuff get in the way maybe, but as per recent 'pub quiz' bollocks,flag photo etc, she combines all that with just not seeming very good - what's the point of her in such a prominent position ?


She's the mp for Islington south, and corbyn is Islington north. They're old friends on the same patch. Tight and trustworthy. He needs all the friends he can get

Pretty sure that's correct


----------



## kebabking (Sep 30, 2016)

Are they actually political allies - she was happy to be shadow AG under Milliband and, iirc, didn't appear to chafe at the capitalist running dog bars put around her - or is she just there for mutual convenience as no one else would employ her and no one else will work for Corbyn?

She's shadow Foreign Sec, Shadow Brexit, is running (assuming it's still happening..) Labours defence and security review from her tim as shadow Defence Sec, and shadow Sec State for not scaring the Middle Classes...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The son of an ex-Labour MP (from the right-wing of the party) told me that Kinnock used to physically attack other party members in the toilets at the party conference. Is that the sort of horror story you mean?



In the khazi? Sounds like Pillock was a bit of a pervert!


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 30, 2016)

cantsin said:


> and while we're airing the odd Corbo related grievance ....Thornberry just does my head in...long on airs n graces, short on detail, private landlord ( of former soc housing ) , ships kids off to selective school, husband a Sir..
> 
> Corbo's too non judegemental /  inclusive etc to let all this stuff get in the way maybe, but as per recent 'pub quiz' bollocks,flag photo etc, she combines all that with just not seeming very good - what's the point of her in such a prominent position ?



Corbyn never joined in the pointless self flagellation of her first sacking which was just for show rather than any real engagement with the concerns of those veering to nationalism.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Momentum as a political force is about as "far left" as my right testicle. They may have individual members with a pedigree as Trots or Tankies, but their organisation's politics have nothing to do with the "far left", and everything to do with tagging along with Corbynite social democracy.



of course they're not 'far left', but I do think there could be more to Momentum , beyond Corbo / whoever next...and if there isn't, there'll  be something else coming in it's wake, possibly less tied into the LP, maybe more potentially impactful. Shits changing...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> What is your point? Same as last time, that she's got a special dispensation and should not be questioned about anything she chooses to say on this topic. Waste of time talking about this with you isn't it seeing as you're apparently adamant that the problem doesn't exist at all in the 1st place.


I could ask you the same question. Perhaps you could tell me why the press has studiously avoided any mention of her Jewishness and the fact that her partner is Jewish? No? I didn't think so.

You're also putting words into my mouth, which is part for the course in your case. You trivialise genuine anti-Semitism by joining in the chorus of faux outrage. Does that comfort you at night?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've seen anti-semitic stuff from people on 'the left' - mostly coded, but sometimes not - for years, and it has become worse in the last 5 or so. We've had this discussion before loads of times though (most recently here - you posted on the thread 59 times so I presume you're aware of the issue).
> 
> this article by Kenan Malik summarises the situation well, IMO.


Nothing that Jackie Walker said can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic" and by joining in the chorus of the outraged, you trivialise real anti-Semitism. Your use of thw word "coded" suggests to me that you're quite prepared to see even the most innocuous remarks as anti-Semitic. But if you're suggesting that I'm giving a free pass to anti-Semites, then you're barking up the wrong tree. However, I'm at a loss to understand why you felt it necessary to count the number of posts I made on that thread. What were you hoping to achieve?

My first post on the thread you've cited reads thus:


> Any claim that the Labour Party is somehow uniquely anti-Semitic is easily shot down when you consider that the Tories and Kippers have their own anti-Semites.
> 
> What these Progressites/Blairites/whatever-you-want-to-call-them (I think WoodCOCK, Dugher and Angela Smith are the main instigators behind the latest smears tbh) are trying to claim is that Corbyn is "soft" on anti-Semitism, which is bullshit. They're also claiming there's a "growth" in anti-Semitism, which is also frankly bullshit.



So what's your point?


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

nino_savatte  Happily, it's not up to you to declare whether or not what she or indeed anyone else says "can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic". With or without the inverted commas. 
I sleep fine thanks. 
Personally I find it hard to imagine the same generosity being extended to someone who said "I've never heard a definition of islamophobia / misogyny / racism that I can work with".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> nino_savatte  Happily, it's not up to you to declare whether or not what she or indeed anyone else says "can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic". With or without the inverted commas.
> I sleep fine thanks.
> Personally I find it hard to imagine the same generosity being extended to someone who said "I've never heard a definition of islamophobia / misogyny / racism that I can work with".


Generosity? From someone who repeatedly insists that societal anti-semitism and anti-semtism in a formal membership organisation are the same  - and that denying the widespread existence of it in the latter is the same as denying that it exists at all in the former.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> nino_savatte
> I sleep fine thanks.


another example of you not doing comprehension.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> another example of you not doing comprehension.


Nino suggested that I ought to lie in bed worrying about how, by taking issue with anything Walker has said, I'm trivialising real genuine anti semitism. But don't want to get into this again, better for me to just leave the subject alone and defer to Nino, who knows exactly what is and is not 





nino_savatte said:


> "anti-Semitic"


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble yes perhaps it would be


----------



## Raheem (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> nino_savatte  Happily, it's not up to you to declare whether or not what she or indeed anyone else says "can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic". With or without the inverted commas.
> I sleep fine thanks.
> Personally I find it hard to imagine the same generosity being extended to someone who said "I've never heard a definition of islamophobia / misogyny / racism that I can work with".



To be fair, that's not what she said. The quote that's been in the press is "I came in here and I was looking for information and I still haven't heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with". In other words, not that she has never heard a good definition of anti-Semitism, just that she hasn't heard one in the last 30 minutes or whatever. Whether this constitutes an anti-Semitic remark would very much depend on what definition or definitions had been presented at the meeting and what her problem with them was, surely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> nino_savatte  Happily, it's not up to you to declare whether or not what she or indeed anyone else says "can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic". With or without the inverted commas.
> I sleep fine thanks.
> Personally I find it hard to imagine the same generosity being extended to someone who said "I've never heard a definition of islamophobia / misogyny / racism that I can work with".



I've never heard a definition of Islamophobia, misogyny, sexism or racism I can completely work with. Every definition I've ever come across has been as value-laden as definitions - and there are many - of anti-Semitism.  I don't believe that holding such a position makes me Islamophobic, misogynistic, racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. I believe that holding such a position merely indicates that I prefer to look behind/unpack what someone has said, rather than shrilling along with the media, or taking a position based purely on my politics or heritage.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

Yep, she did say, after the thing blew up, that she liked this definition which she'd found online by someone called david schneider. 



Looks like she's deleted her whole twitter account now, leaving only traces in other people's feeds.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

"by someone called david schneider." ...WTF?

MONKEY TENNIS!


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2016)

Next in The Canary, why Gilad Atzmon and David Duke might have a point...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep, she did say, after the thing blew up, that she liked this definition which she'd found online by someone called david schneider.
> 
> View attachment 93255
> 
> ...


David Schneider (actor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> "by someone called david schneider." ...WTF?
> 
> MONKEY TENNIS!


No, pisspoor research skills


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, pisspoor research skills



erm...how so?

Alan Partridge and the BBC controller | Dave Schneider.co.uk


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> erm...how so?
> 
> Alan Partridge and the BBC controller | Dave Schneider.co.uk


Not yours, hers


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> erm...how so?
> 
> Alan Partridge and the BBC controller | Dave Schneider.co.uk


Don't explain ffs


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not yours, hers


Indeed...so clear


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not yours, hers


who me or Jackie Wilson? I didn't think it relevant to state that he's an actor / comedian, the source she cited from twitter for her preferred definition. He seems to have been very surprised to be cited as an authority by her anyway.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 1, 2016)

is it a new phenomenon or just something I've only recently picked up on, to hound out people who are themselves from an ethnic minority background from the top of left wing organisations for making supposedly racist / anti-semetic comments?

thinking here of the recent attempts to hound out the newly elected NUS head as well.

Something would seem to be going wrong with the whole safe spaces type line of protecting those from ethnic minority backgrounds when it ends up with those it's supposed to be protecting being the ones being hounded out from high level positions in the organisation.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that 2 of the most high profile people who've had this happen to them recently have both been from ethnic minority backgrounds and attempting to discuss basically the same issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> who me or Jackie Wilson? I didn't think it relevant to state that he's an actor / comedian, the source she cited from twitter for her preferred definition. He seems to have been very surprised to be cited as an authority by her anyway.


Very easy to say after the event yes you knew who it was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

free spirit said:


> is it a new phenomenon or just something I've only recently picked up on, to hound out people who are themselves from an ethnic minority background from the top of left wing organisations for making supposedly racist / anti-semetic comments?
> 
> thinking here of the recent attempts to hound out the newly elected NUS head as well.
> 
> ...


Yes


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Very easy to say after the event yes you knew who it was.


Never heard of him before I went to his Twitter .


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2016)

free spirit said:


> is it a new phenomenon or just something I've only recently picked up on, to hound out people who are themselves from an ethnic minority background from the top of left wing organisations for making supposedly racist / anti-semetic comments?
> 
> thinking here of the recent attempts to hound out the newly elected NUS head as well.
> 
> ...



People aren't going after Walker because she is black or because her father is Jewish, they are going after her because what she said was anti-Semitic and instead of responding to objections to her comments by shutting up she has repeated the comments over and over.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> People aren't going after Walker because she is black or because her father is Jewish, they are going after her because what she said was anti-Semitic and instead of responding to objections to her comments by shutting up she has repeated the comments over and over.


but is there not something a bit wrong about a whole host of lefty white non jewish people attacking a person of mixed african / Jewish descent for being anti-semitic when what she was attempting to do was make a nuanced point from the perspective of someone from a mixed african Jewish background?

I suspect she was assuming that her background might give her some level of protection from such daft accusations and allow her to open up a wider discussion on African holocausts that have largely been swept under the carpet and forgotten about in the West, and was just a bit flabberghasted to find that she was met with these sorts of accusations instead.

Maybe she was cack handed in how she put it, but anti-semitism accusations look a bit fucking stupid from where I'm sitting. It's like the racism equivalent of 'Mansplaining' - "no you're wrong to want to discuss that issue, and certainly can't be discussing it in those terms because we've decided what is an isn't permitted to be discussed and in what terms and we clearly know best because we're right on lefties and some of us have been to seminars on the subject and everything, so your viewpoint is invalid and you should shut up and let those who know better how to frame the discussion discuss it for you."

Doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 1, 2016)

Worthwhile interview with Chakrabarti here - really disappointing performance from her.

I wasn't aware of precisely how dodgy the circumstances of her report was.

She actually joined the party to prepare an _independent _report.

And then she is ennobled by the party who commissioned her _independent _report.

And now it looks like she is being brought in as shadow AG - this being the person who prepared an _independent_ report into anti-Semitism in the Labour party.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2016)

free spirit said:


> but is there not something a bit wrong about a whole host of lefty white non jewish people attacking a person of mixed african / Jewish descent for being anti-semitic



No. Not if what they are saying is right, and who said that everyone who is criticising her is white and non-Jewish anyway? A lot of Jewish members of the Labour Party are upset and rightly so and of those who aren't Jewish I doubt that all of them are blonde blue eyed types. I also just don't see the relevance of the ethnicity of any of the participants, bringing that up just seems to me to be an attempt to obfuscate any kind of discussion about what Walker has said.



> when what she was attempting to do was make a nuanced point from the perspective of someone from a mixed african Jewish background?



It wasn't a nuanced perspective, she used an anti-Semitic trope used by cranks which doesn't have much if any historical truth to it anyway. Jews only made up a tiny minority of people who were responsible for the slave trade and they certainly were not its 'chief financiers' as Walker claimed, Walker also claimed that British Holocaust memorial day excluded non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust but that isn't true and what about her comments about extra security at Jewish schools? I don't think it is unreasonable for Jewish schools to want extra security given the very recent history of attacks on them in Europe.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Worthwhile interview with Chakrabarti here - really disappointing performance from her.
> 
> I wasn't aware of precisely how dodgy the circumstances of her report was.
> 
> ...





Sheesh...I wasn't even sure there was a major problem till I saw that.
She's a fuckin snake.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 1, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Sheesh...I wasn't even sure there was a major problem till I saw that.
> She's a fuckin snake.



The whole thing absolutely reeks of corruption and this from the former director of Liberty!


----------



## Diamond (Oct 1, 2016)

It is genuinely worth watching from the beginning - she starts squirming straight away and is quicksilver slippery (although not very effective) throughout.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2016)

Just watched that, she does look very uncomfortable but I dunno really, she was going to be peeraged anyway inevitably with or without this little report. And his banging on asking which major Jewish institutions have supported you seemed pointless and the wrong question to ask. Having said that I do think the recommendations at the end of her report are kind of pathetic.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamond said:


> It is genuinely worth watching from the beginning - she starts squirming straight away and is quicksilver slippery (although not very effective) throughout.


I did. It's the eyes. She's not even good...all the classic 'tells'. I'd love to play poker with her...but to be fair, she'd be better just handing over all her dough and saving us both the time and trouble.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 1, 2016)

The way that she uses Jo Cox to try and shut down the discussion early on is pretty nauseating.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The way that she uses Jo Cox to try and shut down the discussion early on is pretty nauseating.


Bring us more freedom.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The way that she uses Jo Cox to try and shut down the discussion early on is pretty nauseating.


It is.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> People aren't going after Walker because she is black or because her father is Jewish, they are going after her because what she said was anti-Semitic and instead of responding to objections to her comments by shutting up she has repeated the comments over and over.



There's also the fact that there's a civil war within the LP, though.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2016)

People have been talking about antisemitism on the left for years. 

Ive kind of given up now because nobody is fucking listening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> There's also the fact that there's a civil war within the LP, though.


Fucking 33 rpm


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Worthwhile interview with Chakrabarti here - really disappointing performance from her.
> 
> I wasn't aware of precisely how dodgy the circumstances of her report was.
> 
> ...



Faux outrage and froth


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 1, 2016)

I don't see any problems with Shami Chakrabarti or that interview. She seemed to me to remain calm in the face of a hectoring attack by Andrew Neal who has a reputation for that style. I haven't read her report though.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 1, 2016)

Andrew Neil is basically Kelvin MacKenzie with a shave and a wash.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It wasn't a nuanced perspective, she used an anti-Semitic trope used by cranks which doesn't have much if any historical truth to it anyway. Jews only made up a tiny minority of people who were responsible for the slave trade and they certainly were not its 'chief financiers' as Walker claimed, Walker also claimed that British Holocaust memorial day excluded non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust but that isn't true and what about her comments about extra security at Jewish schools? I don't think it is unreasonable for Jewish schools to want extra security given the very recent history of attacks on them in Europe.










> Ms Walker defended her comments, posted on Facebook in February, saying they were complex.
> 
> "What I said was that some Jews were major financiers in the slave trade and some of those people were my ancestors - as were some slaves," she said.
> 
> "What I was pointing out in that context was that I have ancestors coming from both sides of a holocaust."



That's the nuance to her comments. Could she have put it better, probably, is she anti-semitic and was she making the point to incite anti-semitic sentiment, no.

I never said everyone criticising her was white, but the vast majority of the offended people in the meeting she made the latest comments at seemed to be from the video, and the vast majority of people on twitter calling for her to be sacked, and from a quick trawl I think the same applies to most of the media commentators.

John Mann is a particularly vocal example;



> Labour MP John Mann called Ms Walker's comments "unacceptable in a modern political party" by any standard.
> 
> He also suggested the comments had "inspired waves of anti-Semitic and racist backlash including Holocaust denial".



That's a white non Jewish man accusing a black half Jewish woman of inciting an anti-semitic racist backlash and holocaust denial.

Here's something else she said at the recent meeting prior to the holocaust comments.



> "What is extraordinary, amongst what can only be described as a tumult of accusations, is at this point, when discussions of racism in the Labour Party has the most media attention I have ever known, is that no person of colour, no group representing the interests of black and minority ethnic people has been heard - has been allowed to insert their perspective on this debate.
> 
> "Black people yet again have been made invisible."



Pretty bad IMO that the next thing that happens is that one of the highest profile BME activist to attempt to address the issue is then hounded out of the party and Momentum. That seems a very odd form of anti-racist action.


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 1, 2016)

Right wing Zionists have been using these kind of arguments for decades. "Self hater" hasn't come out yet as a tactic.

Much as I hate descending into identity politics, as someone who has been beaten up for being a yid, I think I can comment on this. 

Recently it has turned lots of decent  people to navel gazing.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 1, 2016)

John Mann's a weird one, probably the most vocal campaigner against anti-semitism in parliament, yet seems to have barely said anything about other forms of racism.

He was also the most vocal of those outraged about Naz Shah's facebook post and suspension, as well as Jackie Walker's comments and Malia Bouattia.


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 1, 2016)

free spirit said:


> John Mann's a weird one, probably the most vocal campaigner against anti-semitism in parliament, yet seems to have barely said anything about other forms of racism.
> 
> He was also the most vocal of those outraged about Naz Shah's facebook post and suspension, as well as Jackie Walker's comments and Malia Bouattia.


And I've not seen much more intimidating from members of the same party than his treatment of Ken, he should have been suspended for that.

Yes, I know Ken was a gobshite, but only that.

I don't even read about all the accusations now, the majority of Labour need to get a grip on the bureaucracy, and let debate not be treading on eggshells.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> Nino suggested that I ought to lie in bed worrying about how, by taking issue with anything Walker has said, I'm trivialising real genuine anti semitism. But don't want to get into this again, better for me to just leave the subject alone and defer to Nino, who knows exactly what is and is not


The one thing that really bugs me about your initial response was your dismissive attitude to my suggestion that racism has played a part in this. It would appear that there is, in your mind at least, a_ hierarchy of racisms_ in which anti-Semitism comes top and other forms of racism are further down the scale. Do you always dismiss black people's concerns of racism with a "you're imagining it" or "that's absurd"? The one that I've heard since I was a child was "you've got a chip on your shoulder". I'm surprised you didn't choose that as a reply tbh. Are you always this casually dismissive of concerns of racism? Clearly you take complaints of anti-Semitism more seriously, even if those complaints are without foundation.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> nino_savatte  Happily, it's not up to you to declare whether or not what she or indeed anyone else says "can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic". With or without the inverted commas.
> I sleep fine thanks.
> Personally I find it hard to imagine the same generosity being extended to someone who said "I've never heard a definition of islamophobia / misogyny / racism that I can work with".


Yet you're quite happy to dismiss my concerns of racism but take flimsy suggestions of anti-Semitism more seriously.

They'd have loved you in the Jim Crow south.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The one thing that really bugs me about your initial response was your dismissive attitude to my suggestion that racism has played a part in this. It would appear that there is, in your mind at least, a_ hierarchy of racisms_ in which anti-Semitism comes top and other forms of racism are further down the scale. Do you always dismiss black people's concerns of racism with a "you're imagining it" or "that's absurd"? The one that I've heard since I was a child was "you've got a chip on your shoulder". I'm surprised you didn't choose that as a reply tbh. Are you always this casually dismissive of concerns of racism? Clearly you take complaints of anti-Semitism more seriously, even if those complaints are without foundation.


What are you on about. Where have I dismissed black peoples concerns of racism ? Are you saying walker has been suspended because she's black?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> What are you on about. Where have I dismissed black peoples concerns of racism ? Are you saying walker has been suspended because she's black?


You're either an idiot, a liar or you have a short memory. Go back and look at your initial reply to me, fuckwit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> FFS. This is so boring now and so absurd.


This was the opening sentence of your reply, bimble 

How is it absurd? Is it the case that you only see what you want to see?


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're either an idiot, a liar or you have a short memory. Go back and look at your initial reply to me, fuckwit.


 Can't be arsed with you today.  You lost me when you said that all the tensions are manufactured.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> People aren't going after Walker because she is black or because her father is Jewish, they are going after her because what she said was anti-Semitic and instead of responding to objections to her comments by shutting up she has repeated the comments over and over.


Nothing that she said was anti-Semitic. Nothing at all.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> Can't be arsed with you today.  You lost me when you said that all the tensions are manufactured.


You're a complete and utter idiot. You put words into people's mouths and you respond with straw men. You also appear to suffer from a selective reading disorder.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Nothing that she said was anti-Semitic. Nothing at all.



In that case what was her not anti-Semitic motivation for falsely claiming that Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade and that non-Jews are excluded from Holocaust memorial day?


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Nothing that Jackie Walker said can, in any way, be described as "anti-Semitic" and by joining in the chorus of the outraged, you trivialise real anti-Semitism. Your use of thw word "coded" suggests to me that you're quite prepared to see even the most innocuous remarks as anti-Semitic. But if you're suggesting that I'm giving a free pass to anti-Semites, then you're barking up the wrong tree.


there's only one of us 'outraged' here. It isn't me.


> My first post on the thread you've cited reads thus:
> 
> 
> > Any claim that the Labour Party is somehow uniquely anti-Semitic is easily shot down when you consider that the Tories and Kippers have their own anti-Semites.
> ...


I agree anti-semitism isn't a problem unique to Labour, but there are a couple of strands of anti-semitic thought which have found their way into parts of the far left (and now with the rise of Corbyn, Labour) - mostly through conspiracy and pro-palestine stuff - which are pretty much unique to the far left, and are real. That there are racists in the ranks of the tories and ukip is irrelevant - we're supposed to hold our allies to higher standards than our enemies aren't we?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In that case what was her not anti-Semitic motivation for falsely claiming that Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade and that non-Jews are excluded from Holocaust memorial day?


On C4 News she claimed that the slavery comment came about in the context of her relating the particualr experience of her own mixed-race (Caribbean) family background. Has anyone seen the actual quote, or is it lost in the mists of leftist time?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In that case what was her not anti-Semitic motivation for falsely claiming that Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade and that non-Jews are excluded from Holocaust memorial day?



Here's Norman Finkelstein on Ken's suspension a while back: 





> These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin.


 https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ja...-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scandal


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> On C4 News she claimed that the slavery comment came about in the context of her relating the particualr experience of her own mixed-race (Caribbean) family background. Has anyone seen the actual quote, or is it lost in the mists of leftist time?



The full quote is here The Left's Jewish Problem

The context of the quote doesn't make it any better, does it?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> On C4 News she claimed that the slavery comment came about in the context of her relating the particualr experience of her own mixed-race (Caribbean) family background. Has anyone seen the actual quote, or is it lost in the mists of leftist time?


I quoted it a mere page ago


----------



## not a trot (Oct 2, 2016)

Well at least Corbyn was right about a 2017 election. Bloody obvious the Tories are gearing up for a May or June election now.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The full quote is here The Left's Jewish Problem
> 
> The context of the quote doesn't make it any better, does it?


Not particularly, no. I'd imagine her only defenxe would be along the lines of Livingstone's "factually correct" one(s)?
The point she made on C4 News about the exclusivity of HMD relates, I think, to her concerns about pre-Nazi, imperialist genocides that appear not to be explicitly acknowledged by the HMDT. Their website does reference the Armenian "atrocity" but, thereafter, with the exception of the Holocaust, appears to use 11-12-1946 as their start-point.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I quoted it a mere page ago


Apologies; I've not been following properly this week.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The full quote is here The Left's Jewish Problem
> 
> The context of the quote doesn't make it any better, does it?


to be historically accurate it would probably have needed to have the qualifying words 'some of' before 'the major financiers' and 'in the early' before 'slave trade', but it was a quick facebook post that she probably didn't expect more than half a dozen people would read so she was probably a bit sloppier in her wording than if she'd been writing a newspaper article.

But there is an entirely different context to it when the person making the statement is doing it to point out that her ancestors* were involved on both sides of that earlier holocaust. It's different to the Nazi's blaming 'the Jews' for all the wrongs in the world, because unless she's particularly suicidal, she's presumably not seeking to move on from discussing the historical interelationship between the 2 sides of her family background to then saying that the jews therefore are not to be trusted and must be exterminated as a race.

From reading quite a fer of her articles / posts, her main point all the way through this seems to have been to question why the holocaust of the African slave trade isn't remembered and treated in the same way as the Nazi holocaust. That was the point she was attempting to make at the recent meeting before being met by a chorus of (mainly white) people wrongly telling her that it is part of HMD (it potentially could be covered by it as it's founding declaration mentions 'other holocausts' in one place, but other than that sentence the entire declaration is related to the Nazi holocaust).

She's also raised concerns that the focus on anti-semitism in the labour party has been to the exclusion of debate on wider BME inclusion and involvement in the party.

She clearly felt that she was in a position to be able to raise those points by relating it to the Jewish holocaust commemorations and the fact that there was also Jewish involvement in the African slave trade because her joint Black / Jewish identities should have insulated her from accusations of anti-semitism. On that point she's definitely been proved wrong.

Anyway, this white man hasn't seen anything to make him think that her intentions were anything other than honorable with anything she's written or said, so I'm not going to whitemansplain her actions any further. I think some others* should be having a long hard look at themselves and why they felt they should be in a position to leap to judgement against her on this and whitemansplain to her what the boundaries of discussion should be.


*not aimed at anyone on this thread, just a more general observation on the ethnic make up of many of those publicly criticising her.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Well at least Corbyn was right about a 2017 election. Bloody obvious the Tories are gearing up for a May or June election now.



Possibly, but I think "bloody obvious" is a stretch. They're very likely to be in open internal warfare by then, and it's extremely unlikely that they will have any sort of Brexit plan, which wouldn't make for a great electoral pitch. It's not just about whether they would win, but about the potential damage an election campaign could inflict on them.

On the other hand, if they calculate that they need an increased majority to get this Great Repeal Bill through, maybe they don't have a choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Well at least Corbyn was right about a 2017 election. Bloody obvious the Tories are gearing up for a May or June election now.


So tell me, not a trot, how is this election going to happen?


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 2, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Possibly, but I think "bloody obvious" is a stretch. They're very likely to be in open internal warfare by then, and it's extremely unlikely that they will have any sort of Brexit plan, which wouldn't make for a great electoral pitch. It's not just about whether they would win, but about the potential damage an election campaign could inflict on them.
> 
> On the other hand, if they calculate that they need an increased majority to get this Great Repeal Bill through, maybe they don't have a choice.



Hasn't Theresa May just said that there will be no general election before 2020.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Hasn't Theresa May just said that there will be no general election before 2020.



I don't know if she's just said it, but she definitely said it a while ago. She also said that there'd be no vote in parliament, and now she's proposing one.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

She said it back in June, but I don't know that she's recently said it.

It's not like she can just call an election though. 

If I understand rightly, she needs 2/3s commons vote or a successful no-confidence motion in her own government, which might seem a bit strange.

Or she needs to repeal the Fixed-Term Parliament Act entirely ...


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> She said it back in June, but I don't know that she's recently said it.
> 
> It's not like she can just call an election though.
> 
> ...




She said it again this morning.

*May says a pre-2020 general election would create 'instability'*
*Theresa May* has given a full interview to the Sunday Times.

In it, she announced the “great repeal” bill that I’ve already mentioned. (See8.42am.) But here are some of the other lines from Tim Shipman’s interview.


*May was more explicit than she has been before about ruling out a general election before 2020.* She said:
I think it’s right that the next general election is in 2020. This isn’t about political games, it’s about what is right for the country. I think an early general election would introduce a note of instability for people.

May has ruled out a “snap” election before, and argued that there is “no need” for an election before 2020. But if May is now saying an early election would introduce “instability”, then it would be harder for her to justify changing her mind on why there might be a need for a pre-2020 poll.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Or she needs to repeal the Fixed-Term Parliament Act entirely ...



Which wouldn't be difficult.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Which wouldn't be difficult.



Would it not?

It's not obvious to me that votes would split on clear party lines on that in present circumstances.

Or are you assuming some other scenario?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Would it not?
> 
> It's not obvious to me that votes would split on clear party lines on that in present circumstances.
> 
> Or are you assuming some other scenario?



I'm assuming that the PM will not indicate that she intends to call a general election unless her MPs are behind her. Assuming they are, they'll vote to make it happen, and the Lords wouldn't be able to interfere to prevent a general election.

I don't think she will call an election in the foreseeable, though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 2, 2016)

Finally got a response, if not an answer...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Well at least Corbyn was right about a 2017 election. Bloody obvious the Tories are gearing up for a May or June election now.


What warning signs do you see?


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> On C4 News she claimed that the slavery comment came about in the context of her relating the particualr experience of her own mixed-race (Caribbean) family background. Has anyone seen the actual quote, or is it lost in the mists of leftist time?


I think you mean this (on her facebook back in feb).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 2, 2016)

free spirit said:


> That's the nuance to her comments. Could she have put it better, probably, is she anti-semitic and was she making the point to incite anti-semitic sentiment, no.
> 
> I never said everyone criticising her was white, but the vast majority of the offended people in the meeting she made the latest comments at seemed to be from the video, and the vast majority of people on twitter calling for her to be sacked, and from a quick trawl I think the same applies to most of the media commentators.
> 
> ...



John Mann is the PLP's self-appointed Anti-Semitism-finder General. A pathetic, talent-free man who has found his niche as a useful idiot for the PLP's right wing.


----------



## bemused (Oct 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> What warning signs do you see?



I'm not sure it doesn't benefit her waiting until 2020, Labour will be eating themselves for the next few years and having a thin majority should keep many of her MPs in line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not particularly, no. I'd imagine her only defenxe would be along the lines of Livingstone's "factually correct" one(s)?
> The point she made on C4 News about the exclusivity of HMD relates, I think, to her concerns about pre-Nazi, imperialist genocides that appear not to be explicitly acknowledged by the HMDT. Their website does reference the Armenian "atrocity" but, thereafter, with the exception of the Holocaust, appears to use 11-12-1946 as their start-point.



Since HMD's inception there's been a less than mannerly debate about who "owns" it. Zionists tend to push for Jewish ownership because it feeds their narrative of Israeli exceptionalism. More rational, less politically-motivated parties tend in the other direction, talking about *all* genocides, so that they're kept in public memory, so *perhaps* won't recur. I'm with the latter. Exceptionalism and the sense of entitlement it bestows upon some of the state of Israel's people, is a very scary thing.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think you mean this (on her facebook back in feb).
> View attachment 93308



For someone who spends a lot of her time calling herself Jewish, the use of the phrase 'what debt do we owe the Jews?' is very curious.


----------



## belboid (Oct 2, 2016)

Why is anyone still bothering to defend Walker?  Whether she is anti-Semitic or not (and I don't think she is), she is definitely fucking stupid. Only a brain dead moron would go on national TV and repeat statements that were not true. And yet, she did just that.  She is an imbecile, and should not be in any kind of charge of a chair, let alone a political movement.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> For someone who spends a lot of her time calling herself Jewish, the use of the phrase 'what debt do we owe the Jews?' is very curious.


The other person in the conversation may previously have referred to the jewish debt...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

belboid said:


> Why is anyone still bothering to defend Walker?  Whether she is anti-Semitic or not (and I don't think she is), she is definitely fucking stupid. Only a brain dead moron would go on national TV and repeat statements that were not true. And yet, she did just that.  She is an imbecile, and should not be in any kind of charge of a chair, let alone a political movement.



She probably thinks they're true.

The poor judgement she showed was saying anything beyond, at the very most, exact citations of some unarguably respected academic authority on the early slave trade to support her case.

In the present context of a viciously unprincipled smear campaign based on accusations of anti-semitism even something precisely sourced on utterly solid scholarship is probably an unreasonably risky thing to come out with, because it's going to get misquoted and used as ammunition no matter how well it stands up.

Sloppy stuff like her statements in those quotes, or Ken's Hitler/Zionism stuff or whatever is just idiocy. Sure, a fair-minded person might look at the sources and say 'yeah ok I see what you mean and you sort of have a point but ... '

The Labour party is not dealing with fair-minded people here, it's dealing with a viciously unprincipled smear campaign and has been long enough that you'd hope they'd started taking that fact seriously even if they aspire to a more civilised kind of politics.

Part of the technique of running a smear campaign is getting people to say stuff like this by provoking them through sheer nastiness, as Finkelstein implies in that quote re Ken's nonsense I linked above.

Giving ammunition like this to your enemies as a free gift while riding a personal hobby-horse, no matter how worthy, is sheer self-indulgence.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2016)

Sirena said:


> The other person in the conversation may previously have referred to the jewish debt...


Not sure what you mean. What debt ? I'd guess most likely the other person might have said something about Arab involvement in the slave trade but it hardly matters does it. As others have said she mostly just comes across as an idiot, with that 'we are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice' bollocks, and that comment about how chakrabati has been questioned about her peerage "because she didn't do what the Zionists wanted".
She'll be back in a couple of weeks probably but it does seem odd that someone so bad at expressing themselves is in such a prominent position.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Part of the technique of running a smear campaign is getting people to say stuff like this by provoking them through sheer nastiness, as Finkelstein implies in that quote re Ken's nonsense I linked above.
> 
> Giving ammunition like this to your enemies as a free gift while riding a personal hobby-horse, no matter how worthy, is sheer self-indulgence.


Exactly this. It's just fucking stupid.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 2, 2016)

the problem with the "African holocaust" is its not simply evil white men turning up capturing black people and shipping them off.
*African participation in the slave trade*



Slave traders in Gorée, Senegal, 18th century
Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers. The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups .These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe" ; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans.

from wikkipedia  thats no excuse for the slave buyers having anything to do with slavery but it was fellow Africans who sold Africans to the Europeans

with out African slavers their wouldn't be a slave trade.
as disease and resistance would make it almost impossible.
	The whole horror of africa needs its own day to remember and shouldnt really be tacked on to the remeberance of an attempt by the nazis to wipe out the Jews.
	 She's clever just lacks wisdom biting your tongue is a powerful tool especially when people will use what you say against you especially when you hand out free ammo.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

oh god.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2016)

no discussion involving the slave trade is complete without somebody wheeling that out


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

The Irish were the only true slaves in America


----------



## bemused (Oct 2, 2016)

belboid said:


> Why is anyone still bothering to defend Walker?  Whether she is anti-Semitic or not (and I don't think she is), she is definitely fucking stupid. Only a brain dead moron would go on national TV and repeat statements that were not true. And yet, she did just that.  She is an imbecile, and should not be in any kind of charge of a chair, let alone a political movement.



Sometimes I watch these debates about historical tragedies and wonder if there is some game of victim-hood Top Trumps I'm missing? It is almost like people wants to stack rank historical events to gain some sort of points.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

Also the Moors kidnapped Cornish people, remember that


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> there's only one of us 'outraged' here. It isn't me.
> 
> I agree anti-semitism isn't a problem unique to Labour, but there are a couple of strands of anti-semitic thought which have found their way into parts of the far left (and now with the rise of Corbyn, Labour) - mostly through conspiracy and pro-palestine stuff - which are pretty much unique to the far left, and are real. That there are racists in the ranks of the tories and ukip is irrelevant - we're supposed to hold our allies to higher standards than our enemies aren't we?



I'm not sure I consider these people my allies tbh.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm not sure I consider these people my allies tbh.


Perhaps not. Nino clearly does though.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Perhaps not. Nino clearly does though.



...and equally I doubt they're particularly interested in the likes of me either.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Also the Moors kidnapped Cornish people, remember that



But this was only ever possible with substantial collusion from the pasty industry. I'm only mentioning this because I've heard it's true.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm not sure I consider these people my allies tbh.


that said, I think even if you don't consider them your allies they still present a problem: How do you talk to people about radical politics when to many people, _these people_ are who they think of when they think about radical politics (if at all)?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 2, 2016)

bemused said:


> Sometimes I watch these debates about historical tragedies and wonder if there is some game of victim-hood Top Trumps I'm missing? It is almost like people wants to stack rank historical events to gain some sort of points.



Here's the alternate view on playing off one against another.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> that said, I think even if you don't consider them your allies they still present a problem: How do you talk to people about radical politics when to many people, _these people_ are who they think of when they think about radical politics (if at all)?



Yeah. True.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The Irish were the only true slaves in America


This is why you shouldn't let Irish people into your country.

I'm here all week, try the potatoes.

But seriously folks. I can remember a time when there was an analysis of the Atlantic Slave trade as an event in the history of capitalism, as a capitalist event. That kind of analysis seems to be utterly absent in Walker's remarks. And in the absence of that kind of analysis, you get a situation where bad analysis drives out good, and it won't be long before you find entire ethnic or ethnoreligious groups being held responsible for events like, e.g. the Atlantic slave trade.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> This is why you shouldn't let Irish people into your country.
> 
> I'm here all week, try the potatoes.
> 
> But seriously folks. I can remember a time when there was an analysis of the Atlantic Slave trade as an event in the history of capitalism, as a capitalist event. That kind of analysis seems to be utterly absent in Walker's remarks. And in the absence of that kind of analysis, you get a situation where bad analysis drives out good, and it won't be long before you find entire ethnic or ethnoreligious groups being held responsible for events like, e.g. the Atlantic slave trade.



Well we have got to a position where significant numbers of Corbynites seem to have decided that the hill they want to die on is that of Jackie Walker saying things that are both inaccurate and offensive.

I think it would be difficult to describe just how stupid that is politically.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 2, 2016)

I suppose part of the problem is that ideas appear to be seen as owned by individuals, they, the person, or people, or party, then represent the idea, or prejudice, rather than seeing ideas, or prejudice, as being created by people together in action.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well we have got to a position where significant numbers of Corbynites seem to have decided that the hill they want to die on is that of Jackie Walker saying things that are both inaccurate and offensive.
> 
> I think it would be difficult to describe just how stupid that is politically.


You may well be right, but given the extent to which the vermin and neolib Labour have weaponised anti-semitism for party/factional purposes it should come as no surprise when elements of the labour left react in knee-jerk defence.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You may well be right, but given the extent to which the vermin and neolib Labour have weaponised anti-semitism for party/factional purposes it should come as no surprise when elements of the labour left react in knee-jerk defence.



Nor if some who weren't anti-semites before, become such as a result of being attacked in this way ...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nor if some who weren't anti-semites before, become such as a result of being attacked in this way ...


Hmm...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nor if some who weren't anti-semites before, become such as a result of being attacked in this way ...



That might be true but if that was all it took then perhaps they were close to being anti-Semites in the first place.


----------



## inva (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> You may well be right, but given the extent to which the vermin and neolib Labour have weaponised anti-semitism for party/factional purposes it should come as no surprise when elements of the labour left react in knee-jerk defence.


and given the extent to which conspiracy theory pervades a section of Corbyn supporters


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

I think that you can scarcely say that what is happening is that anti-Corbyn people are laying traps and Corbynites are falling into them. What seems to be happening is that people in the Corbyn camp are responsible for these scenarios in which lay traps of their own making which they enthusiastically throw themselves into and are then followed by thousands of others.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

inva said:


> and given the extent to which conspiracy theory pervades a section of Corbyn supporters


Is that so?


----------



## inva (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Is that so?


yeah


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think that you can scarcely say that what is happening is that anti-Corbyn people are laying traps and Corbynites are falling into them. What seems to be happening is that people in the Corbyn camp are responsible for these scenarios in which lay traps of their own making which they enthusiastically throw themselves into and are then followed by thousands of others.


Again a great deal of truth in that, but it has become increasingly obvious that back in 2015 the tories decided that this was a very effective way of getting at Corbyn/the Labour left and isolating/discrediting them from sections of their core and fellow travellers. It has worked.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

inva said:


> yeah


Go on, I'm really not aware of this...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

inva said:


> yeah



I think brogdale may have been asking for examples.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Go on, I'm really not aware of this...



It's pretty clear that The Canary, which I'm sure you are familiar with, is read very widely in Corbynite circles and it is run by a (former?) follower of David Icke and member of the Zeitgeist movement who subscribes to 9/11 conspiracy theories and continues to peddle crank theories.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's pretty clear that The Canary, which I'm sure you are familiar with, is read very widely in Corbynite circles and it is run by a (former?) follower of David Icke and member of the Zeitgeist movement who subscribes to 9/11 conspiracy theories and continues to peddle crank theories.


Oh right.
Actually I'm not really familiar with that site tbh.


----------



## inva (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Go on, I'm really not aware of this...


from a wider problem in the left of Occupy/Anonymous/money cranks/Free Men on the Land/Zeitgeist/truthers a fairly substantial number in or emerging from that orbit have ended up in Labour or Corbyn supporters. As mentioned The Canary is a good example.

I don't think they'd amount to more than a relatively small minority but they have a loud voice on the internet and are good at circulating their ideas.

It's been an issue in anti cuts/disability stuff from my experience, and that's moved into Labour to quite an extent.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That might be true but if that was all it took then perhaps they were close to being anti-Semites in the first place.



Things can have more than one cause (Heading off out, so no time for longer reply. Will try to expand later.)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

inva said:


> from a wider problem in the left of Occupy/Anonymous/money cranks/Free Men on the Land/Zeitgeist/truthers a fairly substantial number in or emerging from that orbit have ended up in Labour or Corbyn supporters. As mentioned The Canary is a good example.
> 
> I don't think they'd amount to more than a relatively small minority but they have a loud voice on the internet and are good at circulating their ideas.
> 
> It's been an issue in anti cuts/disability stuff from my experience, and that's moved into Labour to quite an extent.


Do you think it's useful to view the Walker incident in this context?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Do you think it's useful to view the Walker incident in this context?


They're both examples of the dangers of bullshit.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 2, 2016)

Everyone who took part in the slave trade waso evil it was done for money and because they could.
  It was done for profit not because the jews or the Whites saw africans as sub human that came later to justify carrying on with it.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think that you can scarcely say that what is happening is that anti-Corbyn people are laying traps and Corbynites are falling into them. What seems to be happening is that people in the Corbyn camp are responsible for these scenarios in which lay traps of their own making which they enthusiastically throw themselves into and are then followed by thousands of others.



In the case at hand, maybe we have on the one hand a hapless, pratfalling amateur but, on the other, we also have someone secretly filming from the back of the room and passing the video to the press.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They're both examples of the dangers of bullshit.


and of the problems you end up with when you can't resist simple stories about us and Them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 2, 2016)

bimble said:


> and of the problems you end up with when you can't resist simple stories about us and Them.


That would be the case with Walker's Yank style identity politics, at any rate. There must be some analyses that link that sort of politics to the ethnic machine politics that have been the norm in the U.S. since the 19th century.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2016)

Raheem said:


> In the case at hand, maybe we have on the one hand a hapless, pratfalling amateur but, on the other, we also have someone secretly filming from the back of the room and passing the video to the press.


Considering the constant attacks against Momentum from this particular angle, could they really expect anything else? It was inevitable that every session with a bearing on anti-semitism was going to be monitored - if they'd an ounce of sense they'd have made sure Walker was on the other side of the building doing something (anything) else.


----------



## inva (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Do you think it's useful to view the Walker incident in this context?


my initial post was referring to the response by pro Corbyn supporters


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

inva said:


> my initial post was referring to the response by pro Corbyn supporters


OK.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Considering the constant attacks against Momentum from this particular angle, could they really expect anything else? It was inevitable that every session with a bearing on anti-semitism was going to be monitored - if they'd an ounce of sense they'd have made sure Walker was on the other side of the building doing something (anything) else.



You're probably right, but the point I was making was against the denial that anyone is on the hunt for this type of thing.


----------



## inva (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK.


by the way, apologies if I've been making heavy weather of this - it's not been a good day


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Considering the constant attacks against Momentum from this particular angle, could they really expect anything else? It was inevitable that every session with a bearing on anti-semitism was going to be monitored - if they'd an ounce of sense they'd have made sure Walker was on the other side of the building doing something (anything) else.


I probably a bit behind the curve of this story, but did she actually say things in the meeting that could be construed as anti-semitic? I thought I'd read that she came out with some woefully ill-informed stuff about definitions and HMD, and that had triggered the media feeding frenzy that had produced the more damaging quotes? Added to which, I'd imagine that it would have been a ballsy Momentum organiser who would have shunted the Vice Chair somewhere else?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That might be true but if that was all it took then perhaps they were close to being anti-Semites in the first place.



I think we're all close to being racist or sexist or ablist or any number of different ways in which we get rid of things we don't like about ourselves by a process of projection and scapegoating. Its precisely this need to expel the bad stuff that is going on in the labour party etc. Just get rid of it - look its over there, not here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 2, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Also the Moors kidnapped Cornish people, remember that



I always knew that Bobby Moore was a wrong'un!


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 2, 2016)

Everyone and their dog has been slaves at some point. The dog still is, for the most part.

Anyway, ''Non Angli, sed Angeli'' etc. Nobody really has a monopoly on being exploited, downtrodden and abused for fun and profit. Except the poor, obvs.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 2, 2016)

I should've quoted a couple of earlier posts for that, but whatever.

Hey look, Labour still fighting itself! What a bunch of clowns!
(that's the main point anyway)


----------



## J Ed (Oct 3, 2016)

Virtually every Momentum group seems to be signing and giving a statement in favour of Jackie Walker. What a waste.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Virtually every Momentum group seems to be signing and giving a statement in favour of Jackie Walker. What a waste.


bunker mentality? niavety?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> bunker mentality? niavety?



Social media is a powerful groupthink amplifier, especially when that group is subject to concerted attack ...


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Which wouldn't be difficult.


this (repeal the FTPA) has been discussed before.  Apparently, according to lawyers who study this stuff, it's not possible to just repeal it and thus return to the previous, unwritten, constitutional arrangements. A new statutory arrangement would have to be created, which brings with it weighty questions of concentration of power in the hands of the PM.  So simple repeal is not going to happen.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

Tony Greenstein's Blog: Jon Lansman Replies to the Letter from Jewish Momentum Supporters

In letters...


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Tony Greenstein's Blog: Jon Lansman Replies to the Letter from Jewish Momentum Supporters
> 
> In letters...


What do you think?


----------



## teqniq (Oct 3, 2016)

Interestingly in relation to Greenstein:

 

May not be directly related but would be unsurprised if it was.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> What do you think?



I am at work and don't have time to read them. The link seems relevant to recent posts/discussion here though.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am at work and don't have time to read them.


Are you familiar with Greenstein? I'm not sure if I'd post anything of his uncritically - he's pretty unhinged.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Are you familiar with Greenstein? I'm not sure if I'd post anything of his uncritically - he's pretty unhinged.



No, I have no clue who he is. I will bear your comments in mind when I read him.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2016)

You've posted a link to an article you haven't read, written by a source you've no idea of the reliability of? Why?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Virtually every Momentum group seems to be signing and giving a statement in favour of Jackie Walker. What a waste.





DotCommunist said:


> bunker mentality? niavety?





Rutita1 said:


> I am at work and don't have time to read them. *The link seems relevant to recent posts/discussion here though.*


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 3, 2016)

After the end of the conference last week I was feeling pretty positive. Today though I'm holding my head in my hands wondering why parts of the left have to be so tactically stupid. Of course Jackie Walker has to go - it's not about the facts of what she said and whether it's anti-semitic or not, it's about political reality - her own stupidity and the rabid reaction of the media make her toxic for the time being. Then there's the additional stupidity of people deciding that Clive Lewis is now a bad guy. Then there's the fact that my local Momentum has decided that its big campaigning priority should be an Equality campaign based on intersectionality. Why is the Parliamentary Road to Socialism lined with crowds of idiots walking the wrong way?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2016)

because the road to hell is paved with good intentions maybe


----------



## J Ed (Oct 3, 2016)

lazythursday said:


> Why is the Parliamentary Road to Socialism lined with crowds of idiots walking the wrong way?



Zionist infiltrators and manipulators are clearly undermining the Corbyn project no matter what they do, they must be confronted in a final boss battle in which Jackie Walker will be the champion of Momentum.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> .


Ah ok. Greenstein is very much on the extreme fringe of Momentum tbh, not sure if anything he puts his name to can be seen as representative of the organisation in general (although he is very noisy so its understandable some might think it is).

Marginalising idiots like Greenstein (and Walker) is a pretty critical task for Momentum if they want to get anything done IMO. Otherwise it's constant firefighting at their latest idiocy is paraded by their enemies.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 3, 2016)

Once all the voters know the truth about Holocaust Memorial Day and the Jewish role in the slave trade the people will rally to the Labour banner.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Zionist infiltrators and manipulators are clearly undermining the Corbyn project no matter what they do, they must be confronted in a final boss battle in which Jackie Walker will be the champion of Momentum.


A 770 foot tall Jackie Walker like ISIS think about Jesus. _It's happening people. The ball is rolling._


----------



## JimW (Oct 3, 2016)

You hear nothing else in the canteen, pub and at the school gate but what will Corbyn's position on historical atrocity be?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> A 770 foot tall Jackie Walker like ISIS think about Jesus. _It's happening people. The ball is rolling._



lol yes I was actually thinking of the Dabiq boss battle


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Once all the voters know the truth about Holocaust Memorial Day and the Jewish role in the slave trade the people will rally to the Labour banner.


there was a mention of the old 'socialism of fools' line in a New Statesman piece I skimmed a few days ago (thats from me googling the phrase, not when the article was published, didn't look at the date). There's a book, a good one that I read ages ago that had a similar title but I'm damned if I can remember. Googling for it was what lead me to the statesman article



butchersapron said:


> A 770 foot tall Jackie Walker like ISIS think about Jesus. _It's happening people. The ball is rolling._



you almost certainly have said book on epub


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> there was a mention of the old 'socialism of fools' line in a New Statesman piece I skimmed a few days ago (thats from me googling the phrase, not when the article was published, didn't look at the date). There's a book, a good one that I read ages ago that had a similar title but I'm damned if I can remember. Googling for it was what lead me to the statesman article


There's loads on the subject but there's a newish one by Michele Battini called Socialism of Fools: Capitalism and Modern Anti-Semitism (well published in 2010 but only translated into english this year so prob not the one you read). I've not read it yet, but it's in my kindle 'read asap' pile.


----------



## steveo87 (Oct 3, 2016)

Kinnock's on Hardtalk on BBC News now.
His first gambit:
NK: A new generation joined the Labour Party looking for a Socialist identity.
HT: So Corbyn then?
NK: Oh no! That Socialism doesn't work. More of a Blair-type of Socialism.

With Smith back into political wilderness, I'm glad I can still get my fill of accidental satire...

He also used the "No Labour government in my lifetime" again. Which at the age of 75, is remarkably optimistic...


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

The idiot has been sacked Momentum vice-chair sacked after anti-Semitism row - BBC News


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> The idiot has been sacked Momentum vice-chair sacked after anti-Semitism row - BBC News


Sacked for bad PR.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Sacked for bad PR.


Quite rightly so. It wasn't so much what she said, as her refusal to STFU when it became the obvious thing to do.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

> "Having read reports of what Jackie Walker is alleged to have said, listened to the leaked video, and heard Jackie's version of events, the committee does not regard any of the comments she appears to have made, taken individually, to be anti-Semitic."
> 
> It said Ms Walker "should have done more to explain herself to mitigate the upset caused and should have been careful about statements on this and related subjects, whatever her record as an anti-racist, which the committee applauds".



So she didn't do what she was accused of but has been sacked for not doing enough to defend herself and the party from what she was accused of.

Right.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

I wonder what the democratic process of this sacking was.maybe what her appointment was


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So she didn't do what she was accused of but has been sacked for not doing enough to defend herself and the party from what she was accused of.
> 
> Right.


That's what a defensive statement would say rather than an in-depth investigation. Do you think a defence of jackie walker (and the comments) are what momentum should do now?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

The repetition of 'taken individually' from the piece above and the lansman/greensten thing. It suggests a) taken together it does mean something nasty and b) whose in charge


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So she didn't do what she was accused of but has been sacked for not doing enough to defend herself and the party from what she was accused of.
> 
> Right.


Sacked for being an idiot and defending herself utterly incompetently.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> Sacked for being an idiot and defending herself utterly incompetently.



So guilty of not being able to defend herself 'adequately' but not of the things she was accused of?


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what the democratic process of this sacking was.maybe what her appointment was


A vote of 7-3 on the steering committee


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So guilty of not being able to defend herself 'adequately' but not of the things she was accused of?


For being incompetent. Not what you want in a 'leader'


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So she didn't do what she was accused of but has been sacked for not doing enough to defend herself and the party from what she was accused of.
> 
> Right.


There is nothing innocent about repeatedly insisting on specific jewish guilt. That they didn't see that is wrong. Or maybe they did and wanted to frame it another way.

Let's just get this right - defenders of the content of her comments here:



Opposers here:


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> A vote of 7-3 on the steering committee


How's that work then? You must be in it?


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How's that work then? You must be in it?


The Steering Committee? Not quite. It was elected in March, iirr. Will be voted on again at the (delayed, ahem) conference next year


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

belboid said:


> The Steering Committee? Not quite. It was elected in March, iirr. Will be voted on again at the (delayed, ahem) conference next year


I mean in it, not on it. Sorry.

 Proper conference is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2016)

Same voting rules as for the labour election?


----------



## belboid (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I mean in it, not on it. Sorry.
> 
> Proper conference is there?


Arrangments are still being made. We'll see.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

She, Jackie, has asked people not to resign, lots saying they will, mostly angry anti-zionists, very.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

> "Me too. Any more of this disgusting capitulation to the zios and I'm off."



Someone on Momentum FB hasn't got the memo, just used the term 'Zio's



> "I have never known anything like this except for Argentina in the 70s, I never thought this could happen in the uk"



yeah momentum deaths squads are calling for you.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> yeah momentum deaths squads are calling for you.



"and you and you...Jez'll fix it for you" Now then, now then...az it happens


----------



## likesfish (Oct 4, 2016)

It's politics its not a nice or fair game.
	  If you are going to play on the national stage you have to expect people to play dirty and if you keep putting up giant Glasshouses people are  going to lob rocks


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> Someone on Momentum FB hasn't got the memo, just used the term 'Zio's
> 
> 
> 
> yeah momentum deaths squads are calling for you.



I think I saw the same post or one like it. Also comparisons to Stalinist purges of Trots in the Eastern Bloc!

Have you seen the stuff calling for a retaliatory purge of AWL members? 

This whole thing is just so stupid I am still having difficulty processing what is going on. Imagine if any of these people ever managed to get anything resembling real power.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2016)

Even fucking UKIP has the nous to get rid of people like this, and quickly, but that is obviously far beyond what we can expect here. Instead they are planning months of trench warfare to get someone who is obviously both an idiot and a bigot (the only things worth disputing is what percentage of each are at play) reinstated to what is in the scheme of things a pretty meaningless position in an organisation with limited influence anyway.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think I saw the same post or one like it. Also comparisons to Stalinist purges of Trots in the Eastern Bloc!
> 
> Have you seen the stuff calling for a retaliatory purge of AWL members?
> 
> This whole thing is just so stupid I am still having difficulty processing what is going on. Imagine if any of these people ever managed to get anything resembling real power.


Drive out the sort  people why say "zio's" and then purge the AWL, that would be moving in a positive direction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> She, Jackie, has asked people not to resign, lots saying they will, mostly angry anti-zionists, very.


Very


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Drive out the sort  people why say "zio's" and then purge the AWL, that would be moving in a positive direction.



Nah. Keep 'em in. Safely occupied. In a "battle for the Labour Party" and out of the way of anything real. Get all the lefties in. Left Unity, People's Assembly, StWC, TUSC...the lot of 'em. It'll be a dream come true for them. Hopefully it'll keep them busy enough to be off the streets for a good while.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 4, 2016)

The time has probably passed to start a Jackie Walker's Time is up thread,
do we think?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 4, 2016)

If you call it "Jackie Walker's Red Libel" I want my fee.


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> She, Jackie, has asked people not to resign, lots saying they will, mostly angry anti-zionists, very.


Bet they'll be missed.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Even fucking UKIP has the nous to get rid of people like this, and quickly, but that is obviously far beyond what we can expect here. Instead they are planning months of trench warfare to get someone who is obviously both an idiot and a bigot (the only things worth disputing is what percentage of each are at play) reinstated to what is in the scheme of things a pretty meaningless position in an organisation with limited influence anyway.



And then what? When you get rid of the idiot and the bigot. What happens then?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> And then what? When you get rid of the idiot and the bigot. What happens then?


Depends how many people they have like this I suppose.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Depends how many people they have like this I suppose.



I work psychoanalytically, I mean that's my day job, and the more I do my job the more I see this process of getting rid of is ubiquitous, in individuals and groups and organisations. The thing that is got rid of though, I'm not sure if its ever really got rid of; when an organisation gets rid of a bully, the same kind of group dynamic tends to resurface, it just moves around. So I'm wondering, this person or people are got rid of (and I'm not saying they shouldn't be) and then what happens? 

I don't intend to be psychologically reductionist, but other people here can do the political and the economic much better than I can.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

The return of the repressed.The 770 foot Jackie Walker we talked about earlier. 

Tbh in terms of how this plays out for jackie walker, and momentum and labour are all different questions with different answers depending on what the motivation behind the question is. I've been responding on the simple political plane - i wouldn't want to, or wouldn't be a member of an organisation that had this person as a leading member and i would make moves to 'get rid'. But i recognise this might place me rather close to the anarchist party police that seem to be very evident in the Labour Party right now.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I work psychoanalytically, I mean that's my day job, and the more I do my job the more I see this process of getting rid of is ubiquitous, in individuals and groups and organisations. The thing that is got rid of though, I'm not sure if its ever really got rid of; when an organisation gets rid of a bully, the same kind of group dynamic tends to resurface, it just moves around. So I'm wondering, this person or people are got rid of (and I'm not saying they shouldn't be) and then what happens?
> 
> I don't intend to be psychologically reductionist, but other people here can do the political and the economic much better than I can.



Interesting.

I work a lot with group dynamics amongst young people and have observed "tipping points" where the balance of group behaviours can decisively shift after the addition or removal of individual young people.

Edit to add: I also often work with young people who have been "got rid of" from a range of contexts.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> there's only one of us 'outraged' here. It isn't me.



Hilarious.



> I agree anti-semitism isn't a problem unique to Labour, but there are a couple of strands of anti-semitic thought which have found their way into parts of the far left (and now with the rise of Corbyn, Labour) - mostly through conspiracy and pro-palestine stuff - which are pretty much unique to the far left, and are real. That there are racists in the ranks of the tories and ukip is irrelevant - we're supposed to hold our allies to higher standards than our enemies aren't we?



Just great. You're doing the job of the witch-hunters for them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In that case what was her not anti-Semitic motivation for falsely claiming that Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade and that non-Jews are excluded from Holocaust memorial day?


The 5 - 9 million people that were killed in the Congo Free State aren't mentioned nor are the millions of Africans that died during the slave trade. She was right to indicate the selectivity of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Casting aspersions on her Jewishness sails pretty close to racism in my view.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

It's funny how some of you continue to believe that all Jews are outraged by Jackie  Walker. Not true. Will you call these people "self-hating Jews"?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I work a lot with group dynamics amongst young people and have observed "tipping points" where the balance of group behaviours can decisively shift after the addition or removal of individual young people.
> 
> Edit to add: I also often work with young people who have been "got rid of" from a range of contexts.


Traces of ways thing 'were done' will always exist after the person animating those ways is gone - whether in mute replication or specific formal rejection.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's funny how some of you continue to believe that all Jews are outraged by Jackie  Walker. Not true. Will you call these people "self-hating Jews"?


Name these people - there must be 'some' right? And then nail that last "self-hating jews" bit to them.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think I saw the same post or one like it. Also comparisons to Stalinist purges of Trots in the Eastern Bloc!
> 
> Have you seen the stuff calling for a retaliatory purge of AWL members?
> 
> This whole thing is just so stupid I am still having difficulty processing what is going on. Imagine if any of these people ever managed to get anything resembling real power.




lots leaving are I think, ex left unity, serial joiners, 

btw, they are also convinced Jackie has been expelled from Momentum, she hasn't, in fact she is still on steering committee.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nor if some who weren't anti-semites before, become such as a result of being attacked in this way ...


I think this is true, sadly. Nobody wins here apart from the people who have got it in for JC & Momentum. I mean Walker & Livingstone being ousted in a giant media circus certainly isn't going to reduce the total amount of conspiracy theory Zio stuff likely to be going around in the future.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The return of the repressed.The 770 foot Jackie Walker we talked about earlier.
> 
> Tbh in terms of how this plays out for jackie walker, and momentum and labour are all different questions with different answers depending on what the motivation behind the question is. I've been responding on the simple political plane - i wouldn't want to, or wouldn't be a member of an organisation that had this person as a leading member and i would make moves to 'get rid'. But i recognise this might place me rather close to the anarchist party police that seem to be very evident in the Labour Party right now.



Yes, I think the 770 foot Jackie Walker puts it very well.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Traces of ways thing 'were done' will always exist after the person animating those ways is gone - whether in mute replication or specific formal rejection.



Something about environment/context and structures too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Name these people - there must be 'some' right? And then nail that last "self-hating jews" bit to them.


 Would it kill you to click on the link?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Would it kill you to click on the link?


Is it a link to posters here and what they're saying or have said? Because your post was - quite specifically and deliberately.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

Richard Silverstein isn't a self-hating Jew either.
UK Israel Lobby Excoriates Leading Jewish Corbyn Supporter for Pointing Out Jews Weren't Only Victims of Holocaust - Tikun Olam תיקון עולם


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Is it a link to posters here and what they're saying or have said? Because your post was - quite specifically and deliberately.


Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## inva (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Huh?


who is the 'some of you' you referred to?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

inva said:


> who is the 'some of you' you referred to?


I'm sorry, am I now supposed to provide a list? I think you know who you are.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Huh?


I said that your post that i replied to, this one:



> It's funny how some of you continue to believe that all Jews are outraged by Jackie Walker. Not true. Will you call these people "self-hating Jews"?



quite specifically and deliberately accuses poster on here of doing a specific thing. Can you name these people and where they did what you have claimed?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I said that your post that i replied to, this one:
> 
> 
> 
> quite specifically and deliberately accuses poster on here of doing a specific thing. Can you name these people and where they did what you have claimed?


Diversions. Read the article


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Diversions. Read the article


Why do you fucking bother?


----------



## inva (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm sorry, am I now supposed to provide a list? I think you know who you are.


start with a few examples and we'll go from there


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I work a lot with group dynamics amongst young people and have observed "tipping points" where the balance of group behaviours can decisively shift after the addition or removal of individual young people.
> 
> Edit to add: I also often work with young people who have been "got rid of" from a range of contexts.



The new person and the absent person will carry a lot for the group; in our minds there is the physically present group and those not in the group. So, a feeling of cohesiveness and working together could be achieved by ejecting someone (the problem) from the group and disturbed by adding someone new.


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2016)

inva said:


> start with a few examples and we'll go from there


Just one. Start with just one I reckon.


----------



## inva (Oct 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> Just one. Start with just one I reckon.


I've just got a cup of tea and I'm waiting patiently


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2016)

biscuit anyone?


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> biscuit anyone?



I was about to offer ginger nuts but thought better not in case of causing accidental offence!


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

> The Israelites are taking the piss out of you JC...



This was a post on Momentum, where Corbyn was wishing Jewish people a Happy New year, 

not sure he should be in Momentum, if he is.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> This was a post on Momentum, where Corbyn was wishing Jewish people a Happy New year,
> 
> not sure he should be in Momentum, if he is.



Apart from people who push in front of me at queues I struggle to waste the effort hating people. Why do the Jews get some much hate in some parts of the left? I assume it has something to do with Israel.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 4, 2016)

Was it Desmond Dekker? He's the only person in my lifetime I'm aware of banging on about the 'Israelites'.


----------



## Cid (Oct 4, 2016)

bemused said:


> Apart from people who push in front of me at queues I struggle to waste the effort hating people. Why do the Jews get some much hate in some parts of the left? I assume it has something to do with Israel.



For most student-type activists of my generation there was a strong anti-war component... People who cut their teeth on the Iraq war march, DSEI protests, 2006 Lebanon war etc. And attached to that there's a strong pro-Palestine/anti-Israel element. The SOAS/UCL/Kings milieu, international politics focus... Galloway and Livingstone, Pilger and Fisk. For the most part it isn't anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel (specifically anti-zionist state/anti-Likud) but it makes for strange bedfellows... And there is certainly an element of it that uncritically accepts 'from the river to the sea' type rhetoric. Beyond that there are conspiracy types who buy into the wider anti-jewish, Bilderberg conference Jewish illuminati stuff. From personal experience of student politics in the early 2000s, and linked London political stuff, squat scene etc. Can't speak for anything wider than that.


----------



## belboid (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's funny how some of you continue to believe that all Jews are outraged by Jackie  Walker. Not true. Will you call these people "self-hating Jews"?


Who here has used the phrase 'self hating Jews'? And, as it is no one, why have you put it in quote marks?  That's a tad dishonest, no?


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2016)

I think the argument nino imagines he's having is quite different to the one he's getting. It's all quite confusing.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> For most student-type activists of my generation there was a strong anti-war component... People who cut their teeth on the Iraq war march, DSEI protests, 2006 Lebanon war etc. And attached to that there's a strong pro-Palestine/anti-Israel element. The SOAS/UCL/Kings milieu, international politics focus... Galloway and Livingstone, Pilger and Fisk. For the most part it isn't anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel (specifically anti-zionist state/anti-Likud) but it makes for strange bedfellows... And there is certainly an element of it that uncritically accepts 'from the river to the sea' type rhetoric. Beyond that there are conspiracy types who buy into the wider anti-jewish, Bilderberg conference Jewish illuminati stuff. From personal experience of student politics in the early 2000s, and linked London political stuff, squat scene etc. Can't speak for anything wider than that.



Yuk


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 4, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's funny how some of you continue to believe that all Jews are outraged by Jackie  Walker. Not true. Will you call these people "self-hating Jews"?




I was not outraged by Ms Walker's comments, because she was right.

The death of circa 6m Jews caused by the Nazis, which included members of my family, was hideous. The Armenian genocide was equally hideous, as was the death of the Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Japan's actions in Nanking, Pol Pot in Cambodia... history is littered with instances of man's inhumanity towards man.

There is no hierarchy in terms of the 'importance' of atrocity, be it a single death, or the death of millions. Every life was important to someone, every death is equally dreadful.

Perhaps Holocaust Memorial Day needs to be renamed, to include all those who died as a result of someone else's fucked up ego.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> For most student-type activists of my generation there was a strong anti-war component... People who cut their teeth on the Iraq war march, DSEI protests, 2006 Lebanon war etc. And attached to that there's a strong pro-Palestine/anti-Israel element. The SOAS/UCL/Kings milieu, international politics focus... Galloway and Livingstone, Pilger and Fisk. For the most part it isn't anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel (specifically anti-zionist state/anti-Likud) but it makes for strange bedfellows... And there is certainly an element of it that uncritically accepts 'from the river to the sea' type rhetoric. Beyond that there are conspiracy types who buy into the wider anti-jewish, Bilderberg conference Jewish illuminati stuff. From personal experience of student politics in the early 2000s, and linked London political stuff, squat scene etc. Can't speak for anything wider than that.



True and ive been trying to point this out for years and pretty much given up tbh. There's loads of antisemitism in the milieu around the far left eg the squatter scene and sometimes but much less often on the far left itself. I could name countless examples ive personally experienced, in fact id say its more prevalent there in some respects than in wider society. I havent been following the whole walker row but i will say its not surprising to me in the least that some of these people seem to have a bigger political voice or think they have been given a bigger one than perhaps was so in the past


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 4, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was not outraged by Ms Walker's comments, because she was right.
> 
> The death of circa 6m Jews caused by the Nazis, which included members of my family, was hideous. The Armenian genocide was equally hideous, as was the death of the Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Japan's actions in Nanking, Pol Pot in Cambodia... history is littered with instances of man's inhumanity towards man.
> 
> ...



I don't see why we should dictate to people how they go about recognising the significant events of their oppressions. If we recognise they are all horrific then we also recognise there will be different experiences.

It would be a bit like saying to Black Americans that maybe before they commemorate slavery they must first consider all the slaveries of the ages. Ghastly. Inappropriate.

The left needs to let people get on with it and stop feeling the need to take a position unless something is really being neglected and denied.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2016)

I wasn't outraged by anything Walker has said either, or by Livingstone's nonsense. Or by the many people I've happened to meet over the years in squat / environmental / student politics / pro Palestine stuff who seem great until they say something about how the Rothschild lizards are funding the Zionist media conspiracy whatever. It's really just  now, exactly as Fogwoman said.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

Yeah the most egregious example of it that i can remember was when i was on a mark duggan demo with someone, got chatting to them in a cafe after and it emerged that they had 'interesting views' on the holocaust. 

Sick of this and sick of the general disbelief on the left that its even a thing. 

I also suspect a lot of the people going on about HMD dont give a shit about the other genocides, its like israeli apologists who go waaaah what about iran when gaza is brought up.  


bimble said:


> I wasn't outraged by anything Walker has said either, or by Livingstone's nonsense. Or by the many people I've happened to meet over the years in squat / environmental / student politics / pro Palestine stuff who seem great until they say something about how the Rothschild lizards are funding the Zionist media conspiracy whatever. It's really just  now, exactly as Fogwoman said.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

Anyway yeah thats a big reason why ive always had serious reservations about corbyn and that, and the general reaction to any suggestion that antisemitism is even an issue, ie that its just being used to attack jc, even more so and makes me even less likely to want anything to do with it.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

Is all this a new (or at least revived) thing?

Barring one over-enthusiastic supporter of Palestine I don't recall encountering any noticeable anti-Semitism back in my "activist" days (late 80s to early 00s).

...but then neither conspiracism nor identity politics were really present IME back then.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2016)

Had a brief look at social media stuff on this. Holy shit. People defending the idea that Jews were the chief financiers of slavery, quoting demographics in the Netherlands in the 16th Century.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is all this a new (or at least revived) thing?
> 
> Barring one over-enthusiastic supporter of Palestine I don't recall encountering any noticeable anti-Semitism back in my "activist" days (late 80s to early 00s).
> 
> ...but then neither conspiracism nor identity politics were really present IME back then.


I'm pretty sure its not, the book I cannot remember the name of was at least 1970s. Right wingers have always had a deep conspiracist streak with jews at the heart of a hidden history etc. I'm pretty sure it was also present in less than modern conspiracy thinking as well though, templars, rosicrucians, all the pre 9/11 acid tinged stuff from the 60s etc.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty sure its not, the book I cannot remember the name of was at least 1970s. Right wingers have always had a deep conspirascist streak with jews at the heart of a hidden history etc. I'm pretty sure it was also present in less than modern conspiracy thinking as well, templars, rosicrucians, all the pre 9/11 acid tinged stuff from the 60s etc.



Yeah, what I meant was it's presence within the Left. My experience is that it was peripheral at worst with likes of David Icke and that guy in Bristol (who I think posted here briefly) only getting a toehold in the fringes of the Green movement. 

At least until the very end of the 90s onwards when Indymedia started to go a bit weird and the whole "We are all Hamas " and Respect type bollocks started filling the gap left by an exhausted anti-cap scene.

It just seems to have gradually got closer and closer to the "mainstream" of what passes for the left/protest scene than I ever recall.

A real indicator of how weak we are right now imo, and makes me very glad that I'm working outside the scene now. Maybe that needs to be "outside and against" hmm?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is all this a new (or at least revived) thing?
> 
> Barring one over-enthusiastic supporter of Palestine I don't recall encountering any noticeable anti-Semitism back in my "activist" days (late 80s to early 00s).
> 
> ...but then neither conspiracism nor identity politics were really present IME back then.


The socialist movement had to fight in the 1870s to get rid of this nonsense. People like Lasalle were openly anti-semitic. Umberto Eco's Prague Cemetery is great on this _if _you follows the footnotes. It _was _beaten which is why oh so innocent shit about it being part of the labour movement is quite sickening. We chased it out. Very few other movements did -and if they tried to they didn't succeed or intend to succeed in such a thorough manner.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yeah, what I meant was it's presence within the Left. My experience is that it was peripheral at worst with likes of David Icke and that guy in Bristol (who I think posted here briefly) only getting a toehold in the fringes of the Green movement.
> 
> At least until the very end of the 90s onwards when Indymedia started to go a bit weird and the whole "We are all Hamas " and Respect type bollocks started filling the gap left by an exhausted anti-cap scene.
> 
> ...


Tony Gosling. Scum


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2016)

It's always been there in the background, but has multiplied since 9/11 IME. It's rise is directly related to the rise in popularity of conspiracy theory. I don't think there's many full-blooded anti-semites out there in the radical left, it's more a problem of people uncritically repeating stuff they've heard without understanding it's origin or meaning.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Tony Gosling. Scum



That's the one.

We chased those kinds out too.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Is all this a new (or at least revived) thing?
> 
> Barring one over-enthusiastic supporter of Palestine I don't recall encountering any noticeable anti-Semitism back in my "activist" days (late 80s to early 00s).
> 
> ...but then neither conspiracism nor identity politics were really present IME back then.


While I think there's probably more of them than there used to be the other thing is that bloody twitter gives these dicks the type of profile they dream of and with less comeback than they'd get if they made some of these comments in person.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's always been there in the background, but has multiplied since 9/11 IME. It's rise is directly related to the rise in popularity of conspiracy theory. I don't think there's many full-blooded anti-semites out there in the radical left, it's more a problem of people uncritically repeating stuff they've heard without understanding it's origin or meaning.


I don't think that's possible. If one side of the internet is that these clowns believe anything they read it and that now they are exposed to more, then it also means they are exposed to the idea and the contention that what they read is anti-semitic. Yet they persist.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2016)

Maybe barking up a totally weird tree but I've been wondering also about how there used to be large communities of working class Jews, in London for instance in the garment industry etc and that whole demographic where's it gone (I don't know the answer), maybe this is also some small part of what's happened.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's always been there in the background, but has multiplied since 9/11 IME. It's rise is directly related to the rise in popularity of conspiracy theory. I don't think there's many full-blooded anti-semites out there in the radical left, it's more a problem of people uncritically repeating stuff they've heard without understanding it's origin or meaning.



11th September 2001 provided so much instantaneous nourishment to so many cranks, that we'll still be feeling the effects in 15-20 years time. Magazines like _Nexus_ doubled and tripled their circulation in a couple of years, and the appearance of conspiracy theory as a quasi-acceptable mode of questioning of capitalism is - to me - the most worrying development, because it diverts so much energy away from meaningful political activism, and toward circular arguments about who controls what.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 4, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> True and ive been trying to point this out for years and pretty much given up tbh.



I dont think its been a waste of time froggy. Your well evidenced arguments on here convinced me for one - and im sure im not the only one. Its led to me being far more pro-active in recognising and  challenging anti-semitc tropes - often where the left meets conspiracy land.

On the wider point, the response of the left to accusations of anti-antisemitism shouldn't be to deny it and/or resort to "what-about - armenia/rwanda" etc - but to acknowledge just how insidiousness and deep rooted these tropes are and challenge them within its own ranks. 
And there is an argument for recognising the  Nazi holocaust as a landmark of barbarism - it was a product of a supposedly "superior", modern European state and had its roots in centuries of bigotry and oppression that continues to this day.
It was industrial slaughter,  that was deliberately and  meticulously planned by people who were highly skilled in logistics, engineering, science, medicine and justified by a people schooled in western philosophy. It committed  vast resources to the extermination of an entire people  - not because they were a threat or an inconvenience - but because of a complete, pathological hatred that had somehow become the core purpose of an entire nation.  Yes - the other peoples thrown into the ovens deserve more recognition, but it was rabid anti-semitism that was rasion d'etre of the whole operation. 
So yeah, Jewish people have every fucking right to be offended, dismayed and upset when ignorant twats indulge in anti-Semitic rothchilds/bankers/mossad/troofer/illuminati conspiracy shite or the likes of Livingstone gob off about Hitler and zionism. Recognising this should be inseparable from challenging the brutality of the Israeli state towards the Palestinians - and challenging its own cynical use of the holocaust to silence its critics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe barking up a totally weird tree but I've been wondering also about how there used to be large communities of working class Jews, in London for instance in the garment industry etc and that whole demographic where's it gone (I don't know the answer), maybe this is also some small part of what's happened.



The greatest shift was to Essex, places like Dagenham, Upminster, Basildon, Ilford etc, and that wasn't just Jews from East End communities, but from the likes of Brixton, Fulham, Soho and Streatham too, between about 1960 and the '90s.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I work a lot with group dynamics amongst young people and have observed "tipping points" where the balance of group behaviours can decisively shift after the addition or removal of individual young people.
> 
> Edit to add: I also often work with young people who have been "got rid of" from a range of contexts.


I think this is why it's a mistake to assume that the kind of goings-on Labour is experiencing at the moment has any kind of rationality to it! I suspect that the prevailing group dynamic is probably akin to being on a storm-tossed ship, with nobody able to focus on a coherent goal for being flung from side to side and slipping up on other people's sick.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The greatest shift was to Essex, places like Dagenham, Upminster, Basildon, Ilford etc, and that wasn't just Jews from East End communities, but from the likes of Brixton, Fulham, Soho and Streatham too, between about 1960 and the '90s.



Did Jewish people move from the East End and other areas to these areas at the same time that other London populations did?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The greatest shift was to Essex, places like Dagenham, Upminster, Basildon, Ilford etc, and that wasn't just Jews from East End communities, but from the likes of Brixton, Fulham, Soho and Streatham too, between about 1960 and the '90s.




I thought that the movement of Jewish people from East London was also to North London, Golders Green and around/outwards (of London).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Did Jewish people move from the East End and other areas to these areas at the same time that other London populations did?



At first - there was a big shift of the general east end populations out to the Essex borders in the '50s - partially documented in Wilmot & Young's "Family & Kinship in East London" - but a sort of "accelerated" Jewish migration in the 60s and 70s that has been attributed partly to the arrival of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis into those areas in those decades, and partly because many families felt that they'd moved up a class - mostly due to their jobs - and the suburban life appealed more than living in the inner city.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Did Jewish people move from the East End and other areas to these areas at the same time that other London populations did?


This suggests that the inner city working class jews seem to have moved out to the suburbs faster than their neighbours?  (before 1939 it says  the bulk of London jews lived in the east end, by the mid 1970s 70% of them were in the suburbs.
(I know nothing about the author or the book just the fruits of a quick google)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I thought that the movement of Jewish people from East London was also to North London, Golders Green and around/outwards (of London).



Sparser, and more concentrated on specific areas in Nth London, as far as I could make out. Golders Green though, that was a Jewish enclave even before WW2.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sparser, and more concentrated on specific areas in Nth London, as far as I could make out. Golders Green though, that was a Jewish enclave even before WW2.



Yeah that makes sense...the tube line extensions also had an influence later on IIRC as it did with all people moving out to 'then' more surburban areas.


----------



## co-op (Oct 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe barking up a totally weird tree but I've been wondering also about how there used to be large communities of working class Jews, in London for instance in the garment industry etc and that whole demographic where's it gone (I don't know the answer), maybe this is also some small part of what's happened.




Moved up and out, hence the old joke, 

Q; what's the difference between the Tailors and Garment-makers Union and the British Union of Psychiatrists?

A. About a generation.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2016)

edit: probably not worth sharing even some of the most bizarre stuff on social media on this, it's everywhere for anyone who wants to see it


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's always been there in the background, but has multiplied since 9/11 IME. It's rise is directly related to the rise in popularity of conspiracy theory. I don't think there's many full-blooded anti-semites out there in the radical left, it's more a problem of people uncritically repeating stuff they've heard without understanding it's origin or meaning.



Exactly. The left isn't full of antisemites, it's full of people who ignore or are ignorant of what antisemitism actually is


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 4, 2016)

Where's this bollocks from, then?


----------



## Benjamin F (Oct 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sparser, and more concentrated on specific areas in Nth London, as far as I could make out. Golders Green though, that was a Jewish enclave even before WW2.



Largest Jewish community isn't in new London of leafy Golders Green but in the East London/Essex borders of GantsHill/Redbridge/Ilford. Mainstream and indeed much of the Jewish Community's own media (Jewish Chronic) always portrays it as the former.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 4, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Exactly. The left isn't full of antisemites, it's full of people who ignore or are ignorant of what antisemitism actually is



Yes, there is a lazyness of thought about it - it's undisciplined identity politics (which is a jealous politics of others identities) that says 'I must take a side'. I simply can't get my head around the middle east without disliking someone's race or culture.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, there is a lazyness of thought about it - it's undisciplined identity politics (which is a jealous politics of others identities) that says 'I must take a side'. I simply can't get my head around the middle east without disliking someone's race or culture.



Can you explain this to me please. The only time I ever read comments regarding and insisting on the 'the politics of envy' is from right wing nuts seeking to justify themselves and deny long standing, institutionalised inequalities have a real impact on people's lives... Have I misunderstood you? Does 'jealous politics of other identities' mean something completely different?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> 11th September 2001 provided so much instantaneous nourishment to so many cranks, that we'll still be feeling the effects in 15-20 years time. Magazines like _Nexus_ doubled and tripled their circulation in a couple of years, and the appearance of conspiracy theory as a quasi-acceptable mode of questioning of capitalism is - to me - the most worrying development, because it diverts so much energy away from meaningful political activism, and toward circular arguments about who controls what.



I'm very aware that when I talk about politics in a more radical way than a vague kind of socialist one that I may come across as a conspiracy theorist. And that fear makes me more silent than I ought to be.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 4, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Can you explain this to me please. The only time I ever read comments regarding and insisting on the 'the politics of envy' is from right wing nuts seeking to justify themselves and deny long standing, institutionalised inequalities have a real impact on people's lives... Have I misunderstood you? Does 'jealous politics of other identities' mean something completely different?



I merely mean it can get a bit jealous when everyone is asking has my identity had its due airtime? I'm not saying most people do either, but it can happen.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

> I dont think its been a waste of time froggy. Your well evidenced arguments on here convinced me for one - and im sure im not the only one. Its led to me being far more pro-active in recognising and challenging anti-semitc tropes - often where the left meets conspiracy land.



Thanks but I kind of feel like it's been a waste of time tbh when talking about it all too often gets you met with disbelief at best and suspicion and bigoted comments at worst. I suspect there is going to be an even bigger closing of ranks by some given that criticism of antisemites in the left is becoming equated with criticism of corbyns leadership.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> I merely mean it can get a bit jealous when everyone is asking has my identity had its due airtime? I'm not saying most people do either, but it can happen.



Do you mean when people are asking/demanding to be heard because they don't feel they been?

Is that jealousy?

Maybe if they are saying well 'such and such' always gets a say it might seem that way but I am not sure that any comparison, if based in truth, is 'fairly' described as jealousy.

Maybe we need an example?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Thanks but I kind of feel like it's been a waste of time tbh when talking about it all too often gets you met with disbelief at best and suspicion and bigoted comments at worst. I suspect there is going to be an even bigger closing of ranks by some given that criticism of antisemites in the left is becoming equated with criticism of corbyns leadership.




Kaka Tim


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

> The Zionist forces that have chosen to weaponise the claims of antisemitism against Labour, will not rest until Jeremy Corbyn in no longer leader...



posted on FB, onward to Victory Comrades

Crazy stuff really.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

Cann


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 4, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Thanks but I kind of feel like it's been a waste of time tbh when talking about it all too often gets you met with disbelief at best and suspicion and bigoted comments at worst. I suspect there is going to be an even bigger closing of ranks by some given that criticism of antisemites in the left is becoming equated with criticism of corbyns leadership.



well - we can only do what we can. I think you (and violent panda) identified a lot of antisemitic tropes, particularly within CP stuff, that a lot of people on urban weren't fully aware of. Most of us lefties on here have social media interactions with people in and around momentum - so its a basis for challenging it from people who are generally seen as  pro-Palestinian and pro corbyn. Every little helps.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

Cannibalising begins.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2016)

Guido is on the case, picking up on all the dodgy memes.


btw, what is interesting much of the worst stuff comes from people at least in their forties, many much older, it doesn't seem to be exercising the younger members, who seem bemused by it all.


----------



## Sue (Oct 4, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I'm very aware that when I talk about politics in a more radical way than a vague kind of socialist one that I may come across as a conspiracy theorist. And that fear makes me more silent than I ought to be.



Oh Red Cat.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I'm very aware that when I talk about politics in a more radical way than a vague kind of socialist one that I may come across as a conspiracy theorist. And that fear makes me more silent than I ought to be.



Me too. It never seems to stop real conspiracy theorists oddly enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2016)

keep to structural analysis and never mention the List I recon


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 4, 2016)

treelover said:


> Guido is on the case, picking up on all the dodgy memes.
> 
> 
> btw, what is interesting much of the worst stuff comes from people at least in their forties, many much older, it doesn't seem to be exercising the younger members, who seem bemused by it all.


Guido used to be a eugenicist. I moved in the same circles (meaning parties and mutual acquaintances) as a teenager.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 4, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> Guido used to be a eugenicist. I moved in the same circles as a teenager.



Please do expand on that.


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 4, 2016)

I was told that by friends who looked disgusted by it, I think it was the stupid he looked down on most. He was an arrogant shit.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 4, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I'm very aware that when I talk about politics in a more radical way than a vague kind of socialist one that I may come across as a conspiracy theorist. And that fear makes me more silent than I ought to be.


The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that. And it gets us self-censoring, as you say. I suggest ignoring all that.

After all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News


----------



## Cid (Oct 4, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that. And it gets us self-censoring, as you say. I suggest ignoring all that.
> 
> After all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News



Warning: link is to a direct PDF download of yet more bollocks about 9/11 controlled demolition.


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 4, 2016)

To get more contentious, athe only real antisemitism I have seen recently is from Muslims. Not IS, or from very political types. I don't know how common it is, my Muslim or from that background friends and coleagues don't think like that.

The Momentum woman was stupid to say what she did after the rest of the fuss, which I think was mostly a smear.

Not taking the 'correct' line on an issue from a perspective of giving a shit about even more victims might be clumsy, but it isn't racist. 

It is bizarre to think you can't critisise Israel without being considered antisemitic. That is not a 'trope'.

I think it was nino_savatte who asked if anyone has brought up "self haters" as a concept. I did, but just to say I hadn't seen it used yet, but maybe I'm not getting out enough. It has been used to attack Jews in favour of Palastinian rights for decades.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> Warning: link is to a direct PDF download of yet more bollocks about 9/11 controlled demolition.


Well the 'bollocks' you refer to is published in Europhysics News which is a pretty serious scientific publication.


----------



## Cid (Oct 4, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Well the 'bollocks' you refer to is published in Europhysics News which is a pretty serious scientific publication.



Argued with conspiracy theorists enough in my time and you have a track record, anyone who wants the actual truth can do a bit a of googling. You can fuck off.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Well the 'bollocks' you refer to is published in Europhysics News which is a pretty serious scientific publication.



And what did Europhysics News say about the article? 



> The Editors of EPN are shocked that the article has been used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

Cid said:


> Argued with conspiracy theorists enough in my time and you have a track record, anyone who wants the actual truth can do a bit a of googling. You can fuck off.


You are suggesting that articles in scientific publications are to be ignored, and those posting them dismissed, in place of googling. Interesting


----------



## timeforanother (Oct 5, 2016)

"Truther scientists" get article published in EuroPhysics News magazine - International Skeptics Forum


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> You are suggesting that articles in scientific publications are to be ignored, and those posting them dismissed, in place of googling. Interesting



No, I'm suggesting you fuck off.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

Classic cognitive dissonance reaction.

As you were.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 5, 2016)

^Muppet


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 5, 2016)

This is what happens to troofers in these parts boy -


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

Let's bring it back to jeremy corbyn.


----------



## keybored (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Classic cognitive dissonance reaction.
> 
> As you were.



Lol.


----------



## 2hats (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Well the 'bollocks' you refer to is published in Europhysics News which is a pretty serious scientific publication.


It's a magazine. It publishes opinions, not peer reviewed science. In fact the editors of said organ have issued this statement regarding that very article:


> The Editors of EPN are shocked that the article has been used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.


Forthcoming _Letters to the Editor_ should be interesting.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

2hats said:


> It's a magazine. It publishes opinions, not peer reviewed science. In fact the editors of said organ have issued this statement regarding that very article:


Yes - the science here is only concerned with _how,_ and not _who. _It is clearly not the place of Europhysics News to endorse any theories as to _who_.



> Forthcoming _Letters to the Editor_ should be interesting.


Absolutely!


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that. And it gets us self-censoring, as you say. I suggest ignoring all that.
> 
> After all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News



Errrr, no thanks.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 5, 2016)

Once we convince everyone of The Truth about nine eleven the Labour Party will surely sweep to power. But first we must battle the Eternal J... I mean Zionist.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 5, 2016)

timeforanother said:


> To get more contentious, athe only real antisemitism I have seen recently is from Muslims. Not IS, or from very political types. I don't know how common it is, my Muslim or from that background friends and coleagues don't think like that.
> 
> The Momentum woman was stupid to say what she did after the rest of the fuss, which I think was mostly a smear.
> 
> ...



Which muslims, who? Give us some examples, even if anecdotally.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that.



Bollocks.



squirrelp said:


> all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News



That article is a mishmash of nitpicking, speculation and whataboutery. It offers nothing conclusive and the publisher has added a disclaimer at the start.


----------



## bimble (Oct 5, 2016)

I didn't know but looks like there's a long history of people claiming that Jews were chief financiers of the slave trade and should carry a special guilt for it. It has no basis in fact at all but it's been said a lot over the years, mostly by people like David Duke and on unashamedly fascist type websites, or specialist sites like 'jew watch'.
Far as I can see it's either ok to repeat that sort of claim or it's not ok.
If it's not ok when white supremacists say it, then we really do live in strange times when so many people are willing to argue that its totally different when Jackie Walker makes the same mistake.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> You are suggesting that articles in scientific publications are to be ignored, and those posting them dismissed, in place of googling. Interesting


You know, the fact that scientific publications might have the integrity to publish a "dissenting view" (and think about how your average 9/11 troofer treats views that dissent from *their* narrative) does not automatically mean it's scientifically valid. Anyone going from "published into a scientific journal" to "must therefore be true" is demonstrating an appalling degree of naivety.

Not to mention that this is a rather classic example of the way in which the "truther" movement is very, very happy to cherrypick its sources - Big Science is bad, corporate, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple most of the time...but then it does something which the conspiraloon tendency can drag in as part of its scattershot argument, and all of a sudden, it's "Hey, but it's *science*!".

See also creationism.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> This is what happens to troofers in these parts boy -


He missed an opportunity there: that police van is (badly) parked on a double yellow line. He should have whipped out his Freeman on the Land non-Birth Certificate, and made a citizen's arrest of the 5 coppers arresting him. Tsk. I'm sure there must be some 1348 law about tying your sheep to bollards that could have been unrecognisably bent and twisted to suit the purpose.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 5, 2016)

Can't make a citizen's arrest if you renounce the validity of citizenship itself. Or do they just make it up as they go along?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> He missed an opportunity there: that police van is (badly) parked on a double yellow line. He should have whipped out his Freeman on the Land non-Birth Certificate, and made a citizen's arrest of the 5 coppers arresting him. Tsk. I'm sure there must be some 1348 law about tying your sheep to bollards that could have been unrecognisably bent and twisted to suit the purpose.



Was this the last sighting of Dr Jazz?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 5, 2016)

alsoknownas said:


> Can't make a citizen's arrest if you renounce the validity of citizenship itself. Or do they just make it up as they go along?



It's ok if you spell your name on the form in capitals or cross your fingers behind your back. Judges will accept either.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 5, 2016)

two sheds said:


> It's ok if you spell your name on the form in capitals or cross your fingers behind your back. Judges will accept either.



Don't forget pretending that the courtroom is a boat and that you are a man overboard


----------



## inva (Oct 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> Yeah, what I meant was it's presence within the Left. My experience is that it was peripheral at worst with likes of David Icke and that guy in Bristol (who I think posted here briefly) only getting a toehold in the fringes of the Green movement.
> 
> At least until the very end of the 90s onwards when Indymedia started to go a bit weird and the whole "We are all Hamas " and Respect type bollocks started filling the gap left by an exhausted anti-cap scene.
> 
> ...


A few muddled thoughts on this from my experience:
as others have said it really seemed to erupt after 9/11 (though due to my age I wouldn't really remember it before then anyway), but as you rightly point out the weakness of the left and I think its alienation from the working class and the neoliberalisation of sections of it prepared the ground for the right situation to bring it out into the open.

Neoliberalism and the mutual turning away of the working class from the left and the left from the working class paved the way for an individualised politics concerned with the moral failings of 'elites' and an alienated world view leading to the key question of why everyone else can't see what the 'leftist' can. It's a breeding ground for classist conspiracy theory. Some of the ingredients are ever present among the liberal left - the brainwashed masses reading the Sun or the Mail etc, the liberal obsession with cobbled together 'facts', and smug explanations going even so far as to assert that 'right wingers'/'conservatives' are genetically disposed to reject them. Politics can become transformed into a comodified individual awakening.

It seemed as though the legacy of cold war anti imperialism provided the initial focus for its expression post 9/11, with the war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq etc. Obviously the 9/11 Truth stuff, but also a wider tendency where the decayed remnants of global socialist/working class struggle became warped and re expressed in all kinds of bizarre ways (suspect there was always this tendency, but now the counter influences have to a large extent vanished). I remember contorted leftist defences of Ahmadinejad. This is where I first encountered it I think - with what I thought of at the time as uni student Chomsky fans who liked posting links to znet. Stop the War/Respect provided another wing.

Another strand is Anonymous, which in my view has been quite important in normalising conspiracy theory and to a degree anti semitism. The development of Anonymous has strong roots in 9/11 conspiracy theory and right wing anti semitism/racism, both seriously and as a 'joke' of sorts. Early exposure arrived through the Jews Did 9/11 website which got them on Fox News as I remember, as well as racist/sexist etc trolling. The Ron Paul presidential campaign in 2007/8 provided another opportunity for right wing conspiracy theory to coalesce within Anoynmous and an early venturing into overtly political action. The left wing version such as it is kind of arrived with the anti-Scientology protests which were around the same time as the Ron Paul campaign. It then ventured into various other protests, and there was related stuff like the LulzSec hackers (and an FBI informant), which again I remember leftists defending and getting excited about, in spite of their attacks against ordinary people.

The point with that is that whereas I don't think all Anonymous members/supporters are anti semitic, it has roots in it and conspiracy theory more widely, but also it emerged from an internet culture where anti semitism was (and likely still is) rife, and where it was virtually never challenged, or what challenges there were got attacked as by 'outsiders'/'fags' who didn't get the joke. So I think it was normalised, and where Anonymous has been incorporated into the wider liberal left that normalisation has followed to some extent. This was visible in Occupy etc, where you may remember the Ron Paulist/libertarian right wingers and the more leftist incarnation were both present (at least early on), both at times united around crank money theories and anti semitic banker stuff for example.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Don't forget pretending that the courtroom is a boat and that you are a man overboard



pushed out by someone who's hysterical


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You know, the fact that scientific publications might have the integrity to publish a "dissenting view" (and think about how your average 9/11 troofer treats views that dissent from *their* narrative) does not automatically mean it's scientifically valid. Anyone going from "published into a scientific journal" to "must therefore be true" is demonstrating an appalling degree of naivety.
> 
> Not to mention that this is a rather classic example of the way in which the "truther" movement is very, very happy to cherrypick its sources - Big Science is bad, corporate, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple most of the time...but then it does something which the conspiraloon tendency can drag in as part of its scattershot argument, and all of a sudden, it's "Hey, but it's *science*!".
> 
> See also creationism.


It's a fair point.

I guess my observation was the telling of people to ignore the scientific publication and use google instead, as cid did, is the exact reverse of the usual exhortation.


----------



## not a trot (Oct 5, 2016)

Neoliberalism, wtf is that all about ? Why is it not being discussed more in the media, why are the working classes not discussing this down the pub. More to the point, why is Corbyn not mentioning it at every opportunity.


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2016)

inva said:


> A few muddled thoughts on this from my experience:
> as others have said it really seemed to erupt after 9/11 (though due to my age I wouldn't really remember it before then anyway), but as you rightly point out the weakness of the left and I think its alienation from the working class and the neoliberalisation of sections of it prepared the ground for the right situation to bring it out into the open.
> 
> Neoliberalism and the mutual turning away of the working class from the left and the left from the working class paved the way for an individualised politics concerned with the moral failings of 'elites' and an alienated world view leading to the key question of why everyone else can't see what the 'leftist' can. It's a breeding ground for classist conspiracy theory. Some of the ingredients are ever present among the liberal left - the brainwashed masses reading the Sun or the Mail etc, the liberal obsession with cobbled together 'facts', and smug explanations going even so far as to assert that 'right wingers'/'conservatives' are genetically disposed to reject them. Politics can become transformed into a comodified individual awakening.
> ...



Really good post, but i would say there are some amazing people in Momentum who are disgusted and dismayed by what is going on most recently. I also think you seem to be talking more about the U.S.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> well - we can only do what we can. I think you (and violent panda) identified a lot of antisemitic tropes, particularly within CP stuff, that a lot of people on urban weren't fully aware of. Most of us lefties on here have social media interactions with people in and around momentum - so its a basis for challenging it from people who are generally seen as  pro-Palestinian and pro corbyn. Every little helps.



I don't know about frogwoman , but my biggest fuck-off point is the minority of people who use "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably. That isn't ignorance, it's malice, given that a significant minority of Jews are anti-Zionist. A lot of the "basic" anti-Semitism, conversely, *is* ignorance - it's the sort of ignorance that believes folk tales because they're easier to digest than reality; the sort of ignorance that prefers a scapegoat that can be seen and felt, rather than admitting that you're being screwed over by a state whose primary interest isn't in you, but in perpetuating itself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that. And it gets us self-censoring, as you say. I suggest ignoring all that.
> 
> After all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News



No, conspiracy theorist is a label that *can be used* as a perjorative. It wasn't designed as such. A designed perjorative is "fuckwit" or "shitcunt". The *only* use is offensive.

Legitimate enquiry is also a label with multiple uses. For example, I recall a poster on here labelling his constant posting of "truther" material as "legitimate enquiry", even though it was fairly obvious that his "enquiry" was bounded by his preconceptions and beliefs about 9/11.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Classic cognitive dissonance reaction.
> 
> As you were.



"Cognitive dissonance", a concept from cognitive psychology now commonly used by non-psychologists as a dismissal, such use often denoting a degree of cognitive dissonance in the user themselves, with regard to people not accepting their minority beliefs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Let's bring it back to jeremy corbyn.



That WPC only has one leg!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> I didn't know but looks like there's a long history of people claiming that Jews were chief financiers of the slave trade and should carry a special guilt for it. It has no basis in fact at all but it's been said a lot over the years, mostly by people like David Duke and on unashamedly fascist type websites, or specialist sites like 'jew watch'.
> Far as I can see it's either ok to repeat that sort of claim or it's not ok.
> If it's not ok when white supremacists say it, then we really do live in strange times when so many people are willing to argue that its totally different when Jackie Walker makes the same mistake.



It has a minor basis in fact, regarding the sources of finance for early Portuguese colonialism - most money came from the crown and the nobility, but some came from Iberian Jews (many of whom within a century migrated to various Italian city-states), who were good enough to borrow money from, but not good enough to not be victimised by ignorant pre-enlightenment churchy types.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

inva said:


> A few muddled thoughts on this from my experience:
> as others have said it really seemed to erupt after 9/11 (though due to my age I wouldn't really remember it before then anyway), but as you rightly point out the weakness of the left and I think its alienation from the working class and the neoliberalisation of sections of it prepared the ground for the right situation to bring it out into the open.
> 
> Neoliberalism and the mutual turning away of the working class from the left and the left from the working class paved the way for an individualised politics concerned with the moral failings of 'elites' and an alienated world view leading to the key question of why everyone else can't see what the 'leftist' can. It's a breeding ground for classist conspiracy theory. Some of the ingredients are ever present among the liberal left - the brainwashed masses reading the Sun or the Mail etc, the liberal obsession with cobbled together 'facts', and smug explanations going even so far as to assert that 'right wingers'/'conservatives' are genetically disposed to reject them. Politics can become transformed into a comodified individual awakening.
> ...



In the UK, there's also the weight of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-left indoctrination within education and the workplace - something that's always been an issue, but the influence of which has expanded greatly in the last 35 years.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, conspiracy theorist is a label that *can be used* as a perjorative. It wasn't designed as such. A designed perjorative is "fuckwit" or "shitcunt". The *only* use is offensive.


Ah but ViolentPanda any truthseeker worth his salt knows that the phrase 'conspiracy theories' was introduced by the CIA along with the propaganda strategies for dealing with those who believe them in a 1967 memo. 

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative | Zero Hedge


----------



## inva (Oct 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the UK, there's also the weight of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-left indoctrination within education and the workplace - something that's always been an issue, but the influence of which has expanded greatly in the last 35 years.


what sort of thing do you have in mind? anti union stuff? the old ways by which I think some were socialised into left wing/class politics have broken down post 70s, I suppose.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> It's a fair point.
> 
> I guess my observation was the telling of people to ignore the scientific publication and use google instead, as cid did, is the exact reverse of the usual exhortation.



Because actual dismissals of this stuff have been done time and time again. On here and elsewhere. Your convictions have presumably weathered 15 years of exasperated mates, stacks of evidence and well constructed arguments taking apart each element of controlled collapse theories. I.e it's not worth arguing with you. In the unlikely event that anyone wanted to check the provenance of the article they can use google to find information about where the article was published and who wrote it. Google is not a terrible way of finding information, you just need to know how to filter it, get down to original sources, as with wiki etc. Most people who've weathered the storm that is urban p&p are able to do this to at least some degree.

Basically what I was saying is 'this has been done before, fuck off derailing the thread'. Which purpose I have now been defeated in.


----------



## inva (Oct 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> Really good post, but i would say there are some amazing people in Momentum who are disgusted and dismayed by what is going on most recently. I also think you seem to be talking more about the U.S.


thanks treelover. I've tried to avoid following internal Labour Party/Momentum stuff too much, but to be clear though it's difficult to tell at times I think this is a minority tendency within that and the left more broadly.

With the role the internet now has US politics has definitely exerted a big influence. Of course it gets applied in different ways depending on the context, but in terms of the background I think it is quite US-centric at least from what I have experienced.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 5, 2016)

Still waiting for timeforanother to expand on their point re: muslim antisemitism.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Ah but ViolentPanda any truthseeker worth his salt knows that the phrase 'conspiracy theories' was introduced by the CIA along with the propaganda strategies for dealing with those who believe them in a 1967 memo.
> 
> In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative | Zero Hedge



Thats a right wing ayn randist site that promoted an isis video as a good background on the gold standard.


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2016)

Its clear that many Momentum supporters need to have victims and betrayers, i wonder how many of them were in Left Unity.

btw, this poster wouldn't even allow comments on his meme.


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2016)

Who are these people you keep quoting  treelover? Do you know how representative they are of the wider organisation?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Thats a right wing ayn randist site that promoted an isis video as a good background on the gold standard.



NB, this REALLY HAPPENED.


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> this poster wouldn't even allow comments on his meme.


an outrage.


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> Who are these people you keep quoting  treelover? Do you know how representative they are of the wider organisation?



Thats the million dollar question, just don't know how representative, its certain though that any later Momentum mass event/meeting will be very fractious and could lead to a split.


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> Thats the million dollar question, just don't know how representative, its certain though that any later Momentum mass event/meeting will be very fractious and could lead to a split.


Why is it certain when you don't know how representative these dickheads are?


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2016)

If all the hysterical racists decided to split, it'd be great for momentum anyway wouldn't it?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> an outrage.


Also, an inrage.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> Thats the million dollar question, just don't know how representative, its certain though that any later Momentum mass event/meeting will be very fractious and could lead to a split.



A split over antisemitism? Yeah right. 

What will end up happening is people will either ignore the bad stuff or drop out. Or both. 

I don't think a split would necessarily be a good thing btw. I just wish it would all go away.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Ah but ViolentPanda any truthseeker worth his salt knows that the phrase 'conspiracy theories' was introduced by the CIA along with the propaganda strategies for dealing with those who believe them in a 1967 memo.
> 
> In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative | Zero Hedge



Zero Hedge. About as credible as prisonplanet, just slightly more literate. 
Do some research into the JFK assassination and you'll see from contemporaneous reporting that the term pre-dates 1967 by 4 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2016)

inva said:


> what sort of thing do you have in mind? anti union stuff? the old ways by which I think some were socialised into left wing/class politics have broken down post 70s, I suppose.



Mostly anti-union stuff, but also some degree of curriculum and syllabus manipulation that led to certain pieces of history, for example, being de-emphasised. My step-nephew, who recently sat his GCSEs, including history, didn't know that the English Civil War was also the English Revolution, nor anything about the freethinkers that arose from it, and played a part in the politics of the next two centuries.


----------



## rioted (Oct 5, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I just wish it would all go away.


It won't go away all the time Israel wants more land and people object.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2016)

Every fucking time.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> The phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative designed to shut down legitimate enquiry - it's designed like that. And it gets us self-censoring, as you say. I suggest ignoring all that.
> 
> After all what is in Nexus years ago might be in yesterday's Europhysics News


Against my better judgement I opened that link, only to find that the lead author is an employee of the Brigham Young University - or should I say the so-called Brigham Young so-called University. This is the Mormon uni, in Utah, and it's the biggest fucking joke of the Yank tertiary sector, a sector that is already oversupplied with it share of humorous incidents.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> It's a fair point.
> 
> I guess my observation was the telling of people to ignore the scientific publication and use google instead, as cid did, is the exact reverse of the usual exhortation.


It's also not the answer, though...although it is a terribly good way of avoiding the question.

So, someone makes a statement.

Someone else says "Really? So how's that, then?"

Person 1 can either choose to substantiate his statement, by (eg) providing evidence to support it, or not substantiate it, by (eg) suggesting that Person 2 go and do his own research.

There's nothing wrong with either approach, but Person 1 is not in a position to take it amiss if Person 2 continues to be critical of his theory - until *he* has attempted to substantiate it, Person 2 owes him no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise it's just too easy for people to fling assertions around and insist they're as good as fact until someone has gone to the trouble of doing enough research to repudiate them. And, of course, it is inevitable that you can do all the research you like, but if you come back to someone like Person 1 with the fruits of your endeavours, they'll only tell you it's the wrong evidence anyway.

If someone wants to make a point, they're going to have to substantiate it, at least in a critical community like this.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2016)

rioted said:


> It won't go away all the time Israel wants more land and people object.



Oh for those halcyon days free from anti-semitism in the years before 1945 eh?


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's also not the answer, though...although it is a terribly good way of avoiding the question.
> 
> So, someone makes a statement.
> 
> ...



It's not worth it. There's some decent discussion of left anti-semitism/differences between student and working class politics going now. Do you really want to get sidetracked by arguing about standards of proof with an entrenched conspiracy theorist?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> Oh for those halcyon days free from anti-semitism in the years before 1945 eh?



Come now. The first Labour leader since fuck knows when to stand up to Israeli war crimes? The global call for the BDS movement? The fear of Israel of being hit in the pockets. Many leading BDS campaigners in the UK are also leading lights in Momentum? Plus that creepy arse wipe Mark Regev as  the newly installed Israeli Ambassador?

Israel is taking BDS very seriously. Having a major nation such as the UK under a pro-Palestinian pro-BDS administration would be a very dangerous precedent. One that must be defeated. 

Turn those spurious claims up to 11.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's also not the answer, though...although it is a terribly good way of avoiding the question.


Mate a question has to be asked before it can be said to have been avoided. Respectfully, I don't think you were following the exchange.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 5, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Ah but ViolentPanda any truthseeker worth his salt knows that the phrase 'conspiracy theories' was introduced by the CIA along with the propaganda strategies for dealing with those who believe them in a 1967 memo.
> 
> In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative | Zero Hedge





frogwoman said:


> Thats a right wing ayn randist site that promoted an isis video as a good background on the gold standard.



Also, it's not actually true.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, it's not actually true.



 no
 Really


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 5, 2016)

I know, right?
It is a good link though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> an outrage.


Just think how treelover would be unable to source any of the material needed for his posts if everyone was to do this . What would we do!


----------



## agricola (Oct 5, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Come now. The first Labour leader since fuck knows when to stand up to Israeli war crimes? The global call for the BDS movement? The fear of Israel of being hit in the pockets. Many leading BDS campaigners in the UK are also leading lights in Momentum? Plus that creepy arse wipe Mark Regev as  the newly installed Israeli Ambassador?
> 
> Israel is taking BDS very seriously. Having a major nation such as the UK under a pro-Palestinian pro-BDS administration would be a very dangerous precedent. One that must be defeated.
> 
> Turn those spurious claims up to 11.



To be fair, ever since Regev was appointed Ambassador he has been on the TV a lot less.  This is something to be cherished, I feel.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 5, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> BDS movement



I had to Google that ... shows how much I know


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 5, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I just wish it would all go away.



So do I ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 5, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I had to Google that ... shows how much I know



same. although i guessed that it probably  did not refer to bondage and sado-masochism


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 5, 2016)

Labour needs to stop arguing about all this shit and start attacking the Tories disastrous Brexit plans.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 6, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, it's not actually true.


I stand corrected on that one. thank you for the link.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I just wish it would all go away.



Agree, but the tories have notched things up quite a bit, now calling Labour the nasty party! Now calling themselves the party of the workers. Now standing in the middle ground Etc.


----------



## killer b (Oct 6, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Agree, but the tories have notched things up quite a bit, now calling Labour the nasty party!


That's really turning the heat up.


----------



## inva (Oct 6, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Agree, but the tories have notched things up quite a bit, now calling Labour the nasty party! Now calling themselves the party of the workers. Now standing in the middle ground Etc.


they've been claiming the middle ground and the workers party thing for ages eg link. not really a new thing.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 6, 2016)

I didnt say they hadn't ie blue collar party, considerate consertavism Etc. But May has really gone for it again


----------



## inva (Oct 6, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I didnt say they hadn't ie blue collar party, considerate consertavism Etc. But May has really gone for it again


they can go for it all they like, the question is can it gloss over the reality of what they have to do in office and undermine what is driving right wing populism? I don't think it can.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> To be fair, ever since Regev was appointed Ambassador he has been on the TV a lot less.  This is something to be cherished, I feel.



What's he signing off behind the scenes? I think we can see the fruits of his Labour.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 6, 2016)

inva said:


> they can go for it all they like, the question is can it gloss over the reality of what they have to do in office and undermine what is driving right wing populism? I don't think it can.



That goes for the majority of people on these boards, but it's not about us it's about those who cannot see behind the gloss or headlines.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2016)

hash tag said:


> That goes for the majority of people on these boards, but it's not about us it's about those who cannot see behind the gloss or headlines.


This sort of thing you mean?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

Here's owen jones showing off about how he predicted the content of Theresa May's speech 6 years ago. There’s a fight over working-class voters. Labour must not lose it | Owen Jones


----------



## inva (Oct 6, 2016)

hash tag said:


> That goes for the majority of people on these boards, but it's not about us it's about those who cannot see behind the gloss or headlines.


who are those who can't see behind it?


----------



## teqniq (Oct 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> To be fair, ever since Regev was appointed Ambassador he has been on the TV a lot less.  This is something to be cherished, I feel.


Erm... but the papers are another thing it would seem







Remember Cable Street, when the labour movement and Zionists were allies | Mark Regev


----------



## free spirit (Oct 6, 2016)

an alternative take on that being that zionists are using the charge of anti-semitism to deter and deflect legit criticism of Israeli policies and the activities of their supporters here that help give them political cover for their actions, as well as to destroy the BDS movement that was gaining traction from the left and starting to get into a position where it could start to hurt Israel economically.

Alongside some level of genuine anti-semitic sentiment that has crept in particularly via the CTer route where stuff about the Rothschilds supposed ownership of central banks etc has sucked in some of the more gullible.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

What is a Zionist these days? Do we have a definition we can work with? Seems to have morphed into 'anyone not actively pro-palestinian'. Means nothing more precise than 'liberal' any more?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> What is a Zionist these days? Do we have a definition we can work with? Seems to have morphed into 'anyone not actively pro-palestinian'. Means nothing more precise than 'liberal' any more?


I'd have thought that was quite straightforward. It is someone who believes that there needs to be a Jewish state - in the words of the 1917 Balfour declaration, 'a national home for the Jewish people'. 

Seems quite a precise, well-defined term to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought that was quite straightforward. It is someone who believes that there needs to be a Jewish state - in the words of the 1917 Balfour declaration, 'a national home for the Jewish people'.


yes. you would believe it was quite straightforward, when it is of course more complicated than that.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 6, 2016)

Not quite so straightforward, perhaps. There's the loony tunes 'end times' christians as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Not quite so straightforward, perhaps. There's the loony tunes 'end times' christians as well.


There are the ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist 'end times' Jews as well, for that matter.

Still don't think that dilutes the term. If anything it merely reinforces the point that to be anti-Zionist is not to be confused with being anti-Jewish.

Also quite possible and reasonable to be neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist, of course.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

No its not but some people come out with any old antisemitic shit referring to zionists and then say its not antisemitic cos they said zionism instead of jew.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> No its not but some people come out with any old antisemitic shit referring to zionists and then say its not antisemitic cos they said zionism instead of jew.


Yep, very certainly. That still doesn't change what Zionism means, though. And antisemites hiding behind anti-Zionist language are pretty easy to spot ime. David Icke, for instance.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, very certainly. That still doesn't change what Zionism means, though. And antisemites hiding behind anti-Zionist language are pretty easy to spot ime. David Icke, for instance.



They often defend themselves from the charge of antisemitism using that argument though. 

'I didnt say jews controlled the federal reserve, i said zionists did'


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2016)

Zionist isn't really the problematical term here. Anti-zionist is. What sort of politics takes on as a founding principle nor just opposition to the  formal political  zionism but demands the adoption of an aggressive whole world view that sees their enemies hand behind things far beyond the remit of regional interest, into almost a trans-historical universal nature. 

Opposition to zionism within a wider political propect and worldview that analyses and examines how and why zionism came to exist and then places that within wider understanding of how modern capital-states works ona higher/wider level = great. Anti-zionism as your primary political character = rubbish.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> They often defend themselves from the charge of antisemitism using that argument though.
> 
> 'I didnt say jews controlled the federal reserve, i said zionists did'


Yes. Conversely, the Israeli state also uses this tactic in reverse - labelling any criticism of Israel that has an anti-Zionist angle to it antisemitic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Zionist isn't really the problematical term here. Anti-zionist is. What sort of politics takes on as a founding principle nor just opposition to the  formal political  zionism but demands the adoption of an aggressive whole world view that sees their enemies hand behind things far beyond the remit of regional interest, into almost a trans-historical universal nature.
> 
> Opposition to zionism within a wider political propect and worldview that analyses and examines how and why zionism came to exist and then places that within wider understanding of how modern capital-states works ona higher/wider level = great. Anti-zionism as your primary political character = rubbish.


Yep, well-made point. If someone asks me if I'm anti-Zionist, I certainly have to answer 'yes'. But if they ask me if I'm 'an anti-Zionist', I need to clarify further what they mean by that 'an'.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought that was quite straightforward. It is someone who believes that there needs to be a Jewish state - in the words of the 1917 Balfour declaration, 'a national home for the Jewish people'.
> 
> Seems quite a precise, well-defined term to me.


And you're aware of the concept of the etymological fallacy?

Eta: Your definition, now I read it again, relies on a quote from a 'declaration' which doesn't contain the term 'Zionist'.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> And you're aware of the concept of the etymological fallacy?
> 
> Eta: Your definition, now I read it again, relies on a quote from a 'declaration' which doesn't contain the term 'Zionist'.


Eta2: also, Not sure how you draw equation between 'Jewish State' and 'homeland for Jewish people'. Latter doesn't necessarily involve sovereignty...the term 'British Mandated Palestine' is relevant here. 'Jewish State' does imply sovereignty and further implies that sovereignty will in some sense be Jewish.
Now I come to think of it, your definition is no good at all. Precision needed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Eta2: also, Not sure how you draw equation between 'Jewish State' and 'homeland for Jewish people'. Latter doesn't necessarily involve sovereignty...the term 'British Mandated Palestine' is relevant here. 'Jewish State' does imply sovereignty and further implies that sovereignty will in some sense be Jewish.
> Now I come to think of it, your definition is no good at all. Precision needed.


You're misquoting. The quote says 'national home for the Jewish people', not 'homeland'. (The 'national' bit is important - at root, Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism.) But take out the Balfour bit if you like - Zionism existed before then after all. A belief in the need of a Jewish state, with the term subsequently becoming attached to the political movement whose aim this was.

There's no imprecision there.

ETA:

And there is also absolutely no doubt that Israel was established as this Jewish state. Here are the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:



> The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
> 
> After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
> 
> ...



The word 'rebuild' is of course crucial here - the idea that the establishment of Israel was the returning to Jews of something that had been taken from them long ago.

There are clearly many layers to Zionism and the various claims to the lands of Israel/Palestine. But the complexity of the issues surrounding it doesn't necessarily make it hard to define.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2016)

Chief whip Winterton is already gone; replaced by former CW Nick Brown.
More to come...


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought that was quite straightforward. It is someone who believes that there needs to be a Jewish state


I probably shouldn't touch this with even a very long stick but it _seems_ to me that in common usage lately the Z word has come to be used to describe anyone who does not argue that the country that was created in 1948 ought somehow (in some totally undefined way) to be entirely removed, because it has no 'right to exist' etc. I could be totally wrong that's just my impression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I probably shouldn't touch this with even a very long stick but it _seems_ to me that in common usage lately the Z word has come to be used to describe anyone who does not argue that the country that was created in 1948 ought somehow (in some totally undefined way) to be entirely removed, because it has no 'right to exist' etc. I could be totally wrong that's just my impression.


yeh. again, it's not as straightforward as that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are clearly many layers to Zionism and the various claims to the lands of Israel/Palestine. But the complexity of the issues surrounding it doesn't necessarily make it hard to define.


yeh. you haven't shown yourself up to the task thus far tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, well-made point. If someone asks me if I'm anti-Zionist, I certainly have to answer 'yes'. But if they ask me if I'm 'an anti-Zionist', I need to clarify further what they mean by that 'an'.


have a pedant point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. Conversely, the Israeli state also uses this tactic in reverse - labelling any criticism of Israel that has an anti-Zionist angle to it antisemitic.


if, as you claim, a zionist is someone who believes there needs to be a jewish state, then an anti-zionist is someone who does not believe there needs to be a jewish state. now, anyone who believes in the two state solution sees one of those states as jewish and so what they say is not necessarily anti-zionist. i think you'll find the zionist entity labels any criticism of it as anti-semitic, regardless of whether the critic is being anti-zionist or no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I probably shouldn't touch this with even a very long stick but it _seems_ to me that in common usage lately the Z word has come to be used to describe anyone who does not argue that the country that was created in 1948 ought somehow (in some totally undefined way) to be entirely removed, because it has no 'right to exist' etc. I could be totally wrong that's just my impression.


Various people have called Barack Obama socialist. Do we have to abandon our definition of socialism because of this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Various people have called Barack Obama socialist. Do we have to abandon our definition of socialism because of this?


yes, if it includes someone like b.o.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 6, 2016)

Only just found this from the weekends papers: Cornelia Parker: I dressed up a statue of Churchill as a Dadaist act

*"Jeremy Corbyn** makes me angry.* He seems vain. He’s enjoying his moment at the expense of the Labour party whose future he is wilfully jeopardising. We, the British public, would love to have an opposition."


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Thing is everyone fucking knows that criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. What I do have a problem with is people who just add a token mention of Israel to excuse antisemitism. Or explain it by the fact the Israeli government are wankers. You wouldn't fucking use isis as a reason why someone complaining about islamophobia on the left should be ignored, well some people would but a lot of the people doing this shit think they are better than that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Every fucking time. Every fucking time it's like waaaa blairites waaaa Israel.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

^ yes. And remember how we laughed when someone (can't remember who it was now) said that it was the responsibility of all muslim people to explain and denounce the actions of terrorists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is everyone fucking knows that criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. What I do have a problem with is people who just add a token mention of Israel to excuse antisemitism. Or explain it by the fact the Israeli government are wankers. You wouldn't fucking use isis as a reason why someone complaining about islamophobia on the left should be ignored, well some people would but a lot of the people doing this shit think they are better than that.


One of the things I like about this place. Such people get short-shrift on here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> ^ yes. And remember how we laughed when someone (can't remember who it was now) said that it was the responsibility of all muslim people to explain and denounce the actions of terrorists.


If you're talking about on here, a very similar attitude was taken towards Jews and Israel by a poster, Falcon, who was torn to shreds for it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're talking about on here, a very similar attitude was taken towards Jews and Israel by a poster, Falcon, who was torn to shreds for it.


No, sorry, wasn't suggesting that someone here said that, I think it was a politician.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2016)

Diane Abbott = Shad to Rudd.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're talking about on here, a very similar attitude was taken towards Jews and Israel by a poster, Falcon, who was torn to shreds for it.


and Annuder Oik who was at least gracious enough to withdraw the collective responsibility taking after taking on board others arguments as to why that was a shit attitude


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and Annuder Oik who was at least gracious enough to withdraw the collective responsibility taking after taking on board others arguments as to why that was a shit attitude


One easy telltale sign that you're talking to an antisemite is the use of the definite article 'the', as in 'the Jews'. I don't think it's difficult to tell where people are coming from in their arguments. It's actually very hard to hide your underlying attitudes - they leak out.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One easy telltale sign that you're talking to an antisemite is the use of the definite article 'the', as in 'the Jews'. I don't think it's difficult to tell where people are coming from in their arguments. It's actually very hard to hide your underlying attitudes - they leak out.


ok, just to be annoying then, what do you reckon of Jackie Walker's question (on her facebook)  "what debt do we owe the jews"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> ok, just to be annoying then, what do you reckon of Jackie Walker's question (on her facebook)  "what debt do we owe the jews"?


Can you give me some context? She could be using the term sarcastically, after all.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you give me some context? She could be using the term sarcastically, after all.


Are we really going to recycle this again? Wasn't my intention. This is all i've got.
It is of course possible that the invisible interlocutor said something about 'us' owing a debt to 'the Arabs', but i think that is unlikely.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Holocaust memorial day does focus on other genocides, too. Has anyone looked ar the website?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Also - im sure that in some countries jews there would disagree that 'oppression doesnt continue'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Are we really going to recycle this again? Wasn't my intention. This is all i've got.
> It is of course possible that the invisible interlocutor said something about 'us' owing a debt to 'the Arabs', but i think that is unlikely.
> 
> View attachment 93523


So  no chance of context then


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Holocaust memorial day does focus on other genocides, too. Has anyone looked at the website?


Yes, that's been done plenty. It did sadden me that the Jews For Justice For Palestinians weekly newsletter felt the need to do this, trying hard to agree with her that jews were not the main victims of the nazi death camps: Feverish witch-hunt against Jackie Walker
(There is a small sentence in the middle of this rambling essay which says "However it may not be true that ‘proportionately [Jews were not] the main victim of the Nazis'", then it launches into the attempt to explain why she may have made this mistake.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is everyone fucking knows that criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. What I do have a problem with is people who just add a token mention of Israel to excuse antisemitism. Or explain it by the fact the Israeli government are wankers. You wouldn't fucking use isis as a reason why someone complaining about islamophobia on the left should be ignored, well some people would but a lot of the people doing this shit think they are better than that.



These days people who post pictures on twitter of octopuses with stars of David rampaging over parliament say they are only being anti-Zionist, it's surreal. At that point, why bother? You obviously aren't _that _concerned about seeing that way, otherwise you wouldn't be posting up pictures of fucking octopuses


----------



## J Ed (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, that's been done plenty. It did sadden me that the Jews For Justice For Palestinians weekly newsletter felt the need to do this, trying hard to agree with her that jews were not the main victims of the nazi death camps: Feverish witch-hunt against Jackie Walker
> (There is a small sentence in the middle of this rambling essay which says "However it may not be true that ‘proportionately [Jews were not] the main victim of the Nazis'", then it launches into the attempt to explain why she may have made this mistake.



I have to wonder about stuff like this, who are these people and why are they motivated to defend something so obviously and manifestly untrue and offensive?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have to wonder about stuff like this, who are these people and why are they motivated to defend something so obviously and manifestly untrue and offensive?


I have to admit that when I looked at that latest newsletter I wondered too. I signed their statement years ago and have been a subscriber ever since but not sure tbh, after this latest seemingly desperate contortion.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I have to wonder about stuff like this, who are these people and why are they motivated to defend something so obviously and manifestly untrue and offensive?



Deleted a high ranking SP member when they shared a meme which originated as a white supremacist thing which said 'an antisemite used to mean someone who doesnt like jews, now its just someone the jews dont like'.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I have to admit that when I looked at that latest newsletter I wondered too. I signed their statement years ago and have been a subscriber ever since but not sure tbh, after this latest seemingly desperate contortion.



I signed it too but yeah ive had issues with them for years.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Are we really going to recycle this again? Wasn't my intention. This is all i've got.
> It is of course possible that the invisible interlocutor said something about 'us' owing a debt to 'the Arabs', but i think that is unlikely.
> 
> View attachment 93523


First I've seen of it, sorry. Be nice to see the question before as well, but her final answer is rambling and incoherent, and yes, the whatabouttery of it puts me on my guard. Someone brings up the Holocaust and she replies with a ramble about Jewish involvement in the slave trade. 'many Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade'. Hmm. Some were, no doubt, but most weren't - she comes very close to allocating collective guilt there. And what does that have to do with the Holocaust? Also, this bit ''we are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice'? What does that even mean? Some Hegelian bullshit, or some less high-minded bullshit? I really don't know.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're misquoting. The quote says 'national home for the Jewish people', not 'homeland'. (The 'national' bit is important - at root, Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism.) But take out the Balfour bit if you like - Zionism existed before then after all. A belief in the need of a Jewish state, with the term subsequently becoming attached to the political movement whose aim this was.
> 
> 
> Yeah. That's a fair cop. I'd prefer 'misremembered' but you're right. It was 'national home for the Jewish people' not 'Jewish homeland'. I'd be accusing you of hairsplitting but if I'm reading you right, you're saying 'national' already implicitly assumes self-determination and sovereignty. On this, I'm la bit...hmmmm?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Are we really going to recycle this again? Wasn't my intention. This is all i've got.
> It is of course possible that the invisible interlocutor said something about 'us' owing a debt to 'the Arabs', but i think that is unlikely.
> 
> View attachment 93523


Every time I read that it sounds worse. It's just wrong on every conceivable level. Even if Jews were the main financiers of the slave trade what does it matter?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Every time I read that it sounds worse. It's just wrong on every conceivable level. Even if Jews were the main financiers of the slave trade what does it matter?


Ok this is what I reckon underlies her many recent statements on the topic of of jews, when you take all her various statements together (the ones about the holocaust, the one about the slave trade, the one about security at jewish schools being nothing special cos everyone has security nowadays etc):
She's been suggesting that there are two kinds of people in the world, the victims and the aggressors, the powerful and the powerless, and that 'the jews' must stop pretending to be on the victim side of that dichotomy, because Israel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Every time I read that it sounds worse. It's just wrong on every conceivable level. Even if Jews were the main financiers of the slave trade what does it matter?


I don't know anything about the person in question, but for me it's appears to be a prime example of the confusion that identity politics can lead to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

its also the arrogance of not STFU when pulled but doubling down. Been mentioned previously in the thread but what a liability.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

Seems Diane Abbott is now shadow home secretary and Shami Chakrabarti also has found a front bench gig.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2016)

Starmer = Shad to David Davis.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

Title of this thread seems to suggest this is the right place...or is there a reshuffle thread.
However, Abbott's appointment really does look like shark jumping. Purely in terms of the predictable effect. He must have known the reaction even if he thinks she's any use. Chakrabati..pure fuckin sleaze.

Can even think he made the calculation that criticism can be explained in terms of insecure white males objecting to experienced and educated black women...racist misogyny etc.
I'm not impressed. He seems to want to put together a team for a short burst of intense posturing and hand-wringing before they all slide off into the abyss. It's fuckin sad and a wasted opportunity.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Title of this thread seems to suggest this is the right place...or is there a reshuffle thread.
> However, Abbott's appointment really does look like shark jumping. Purely in terms of the predictable effect. He must have known the reaction even if he thinks she's any use. Chakrabati..pure fuckin sleaze.
> 
> Can even think he made the calculation that criticism can be explained in terms of insecure white males objecting to experienced and educated black women...racist misogyny etc.
> I'm not impressed. He seems to want to put together a team for a short burst of intense posturing and hand-wringing before they all slide off into the abyss. It's fuckin sad and a wasted opportunity.



I have residual respect for Chakrabati, however, Abbott is deeply unlikable; she'll make Amber Rudd look like the affable aunt that stuffed you full of cake when you visited her.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

sent her kid private


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

bemused said:


> I have residual respect for Chakrabati, however, Abbott is deeply unlikable; she'll make Amber Rudd look like the affable aunt that stuffed you full of cake when you visited her.


Agree. Chakrabati's pretty sharp. No problem with her in normal circumstances. Abbott is and has long been a clown.
Just seems to be another 'rub their noses in diversity' moment...kinda big "fuck you' to the judge before he 'goes down'.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Agree. Chakrabati's pretty sharp. No problem with her in normal circumstances. Abbott is and has long been a clown.
> Just seems to be another 'rub their noses in diversity' moment...kinda a big "fuck you' to the judge before he 'goes down'.



i doubt it - given that the Tories can count two female PM's and two female Home Secretaries while Labour can count none and one, i think he'd be well advised to keep his hole shut on the subject. Abbot has been put into Shadow HS because she's one of his oldest political friends, holds very similar views and will probably be the last of the Corbynistas to stick the knife in when it becomes a political neccesity.

and, as the man says, she can't be sent to shadow Education because she sent her son to a very nice school (can't recall if it was actually private or whether it was a Grammar in all but name..) that was a very long way from where she lived while saying that others should have their kids go to the local comp. she's also quite a bit posher than Justine Greening...


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Holocaust memorial day does focus on other genocides, too. Has anyone looked ar the website?



Including the genocide being commited in Palestine?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Including the genocide being commited in Palestine?


I think we have a winner.
Just out of curiosity, what's your definition of a Zionist Dr Ding? 
It's a word you use a lot so you must know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i doubt it - given that the Tories can count two female PM's and two female Home Secretaries while Labour can count none and one, i think he'd be well advised to keep his hole shut on the subject. Abbot has been put into Shadow HS because she's one of his oldest political friends, holds very similar views and will probably be the last of the Corbynistas to stick the knife in when it becomes a political neccesity.
> 
> and, as the man says, she can't be sent to shadow Education because she sent her son to a very nice school (can't recall if it was actually private or whether it was a Grammar in all but name..) that was a very long way from where she lived while saying that others should have their kids go to the local comp. she's also quite a bit posher than Justine Greening...


actually private. Abbott has clearly been given a job cos she's a close Corbyn ally. tbh it's pretty offensive to suggest that every non-white-male is somehow being chosen out of tokenism (not you).


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think we have a winner.
> Just out of curiosity, What's your definition of a Zionist Dr Ding?



You've been shown to be wrong on many occasions now. To your credit you have acknowledge the error of your position on a couple of occasions....but then you just carry on conflating bigotry with the state of Israel.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You've been shown to be wrong on many occasions now. To your credit you have acknowledge the error of your position on a couple of occasions....but then you just carry on conflating bigotry with the state of Israel.


I did not ask you what you think about me.

What does the word Zionist mean?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Including the genocide being commited in Palestine?


Between 1942 and 1945 the Jewish population of Europe fell by one third.

Since the Six Day war, the Palestinian population has double. Desperate though the Palestinian situation is, it's not genocide.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I did not ask you what you think about me.
> 
> What does the word Zionist mean?



Nationalism. In a word. 

What it has meant in practice is ethnic cleansing, slow drip genocide and war crimes committed by 'the only democracy in the middle east' for over 60 years.

Nothing to see here.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Between 1942 and 1945 the Jewish population of Europe fell by one third.
> 
> Since the Six Day war, the Palestinian population has double. Desperate though the Palestinian situation is, it's not genocide.



What the state of Israel has commited over this long period of time is textbook genocide....

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Nationalism. In a word.
> 
> What it has meant in practice is ethnic cleansing, slow drip genocide and war crimes committed by 'the only democracy in the middle east' for over 60 years.
> 
> Nothing to see here.



Nationalist? That is what you mean when you say Zionist? ok.
Are all manifestations of nationalism that result in the forced displacement and murder of civilians equally repugnant?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Between 1942 and 1945 the Jewish population of Europe fell by one third.
> 
> Since the Six Day war, the Palestinian population has double. Desperate though the Palestinian situation is, it's not genocide.


Agreed. And it doesn't help to misconstrue this, especially when far more apt comparisons, such as that with apartheid South Africa (not coincidentally a regime that was very chummy with Israel), are there.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Nationalism. In a word.
> 
> What it has meant in practice is ethnic cleansing, slow drip genocide and war crimes committed by 'the only democracy in the middle east' for over 60 years.
> 
> Nothing to see here.


It's not genocide. 

Would it kill people to think about things?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> It's not genocide.
> 
> Would it kill people to think about things?





> Legal definition of genocide Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."



It's genocide.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Nationalist? That is what you mean when you say Zionist? ok.
> Are all manifestations of nationalism that result in the forced displacement and murder of civilians equally repugnant?



Yes, ethnic cleansing and murder is repugnant. Next.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Yes, ethnic cleansing and murder is repugnant. Next.


They're repugnant, you've got that much right at least. But they're not genocide.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They're repugnant, you've got that much right at least. But they're not genocide.



"Legal definition of genocide Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "*any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part*1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.""

Let's do this slowly...

The bits in bold. Do you believe Israel has not committed those crimes?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Yes, ethnic cleansing and murder is repugnant. Next.


Next?
You agree that Zionism is an example of nationalism and that all manifestations of nationalism that result in people being killed displaced and becoming refugees is equally repugnant. Great.

ok next:
What does anti-Zionist mean ?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> "Legal definition of genocide Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "*any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part*1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.""
> 
> Let's do this slowly...
> 
> The bits in bold. Do you believe Israel has not committed those crimes?


No, I believe the Israelis are peace loving agrarian reformers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Including the genocide being commited in Palestine?



Should a memorial to the genocide in srebrenica say spend pages banging on about isis?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> No, I believe the Israelis are peace loving agrarian reformers.



So, you accept that by the UN definition of genocide that Israel has been committing this crime?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Next?
> You agree that Zionism is an example of nationalism and that all manifestations of nationalism that result in people being killed displaced and becoming refugees is equally repugnant. Great.
> 
> ok next:
> What does anti-Zionist mean ?



Christ this is boring. I much preferred it when you was black


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Should a memorial to the genocide in srebrenica say spend pages banging on about isis?


Yes, why not. Just last week I gatecrashed a funeral down the road to tell them about my mate who is also dead.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Should a memorial to the genocide in srebrenica say spend pages banging on about isis?



I was being facetious.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, you accept that by the UN definition of genocide that Israel has been committing this crime?


No I don't accept that I have been beating my wife, because I do not have a wife.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Christ this is boring. I much preferred it when you was black


Come on Dr.Ding. You are a passionate anti-zionist. What does it mean ?
I really am interested in your answer no rush.


----------



## JimW (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Should a memorial to the genocide in srebrenica say spend pages banging on about isis?


This is the thing. You might well mention the Assyrians at an event commemorating the Armenian genocide but if you didn't it wouldn't make the event invalid or suspect.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

'We are gathered here today, to remember the 1 million people killed in the armenian geocide, and also all the bad things armenia did in the nagorno karabakh war'


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Come on Dr.Ding. You are a passionate anti-zionist. What does it mean ?
> I really am interested in your answer no rush.



Well, have a think. If I've loosely defined Zionism as a form of nationalism and that the state of Israel is committing genocide. What do you think that being opposed to Zionism could mean?

Clue: It's not bigotry.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

JimW said:


> This is the thing. You might well mention the Assyrians at an event commemorating the Armenian genocide but if you didn't it wouldn't make the event invalid or suspect.



You wouldnt expect a litany of armenian crimes to be recited at such an event either.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Well, have a think. If I've loosely defined Zionism as a form of nationalism and that the state of Israel is committing genocide. What do you think that being opposed to Zionism could mean?
> 
> Clue: It's not bigotry.


Oh, I get it now, you are someone who doesn't like genocide.
Please try harder.
I expected more from you, you've been a human shield after all. Are you just a general purpose anti-genocider?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

The Holocaust was a particular thing. I dislike the idea that some have to call it 'special' or 'unique', but it was a very particular thing that was directed primarily at a particular group. Surely it's a silly dead end to complain about commemorations of that thing, which is still - just - in living memory. Those many Jews who survived WW2 in Europe and then sought a new life in Israel had very good reason to do so. That's worth remembering, whatever the Israeli state has done since, or indeed did before.

It's right to be on a keen lookout to see if this commemoration is being hijacked to political ends, but I can't see the sense in having a go at the thing in and of itself.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I was being facetious.



Wonder if srebrenica commemoration events should also include references to the arab slave trade and every crime alledgedly commited by a muslim.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Oh, I get it now, you are someone who doesn't like genocide.
> Please try harder.



You're right. What a silly sausage I've been. Getting all worked up over a little genocide.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Wonder if srebrenica commemoration events should also include references to the arab slave trade and every crime alledgedly commited by a muslim.



You've done that already.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Have you looked at the HMD website?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You've done that already.



Why did you ask that question then?!


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You're right. What a silly sausage I've been. Getting all worked up over a little genocide.


No I'm totally with you, genocide is definitely a bad thing. So being an anti-zionist just means that, that you don't like genocide, or Nationalism, and will stand up to it when you see it. ok.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

I have to say this has been a very successful attack by Israel. It has really dirtied those that oppose and organise against Israeli war crimes.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

I thought antisemitism and anti zionism weren't the same thing...


----------



## JimW (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have to say this has been a very successful attack by Israel. It has really dirtied those that oppose and organise against Israeli war crimes.


Aided and abetted by silly twats who present them an open goal.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have to say this has been a very successful attack by Israel. It has really dirtied those that oppose and organise against Israeli war crimes.


I'm glad you're here Ding. 
When you say 'this has been a successful attack by Israel' you mean jackie walker being temporarily removed from her position, yes? For never actually mentioning Israel, just her views on The Jews.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I thought antisemitism and anti zionism weren't the same thing...



That's what they want you to think.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have to say this has been a very successful attack by Israel. It has really dirtied those that oppose and organise against Israeli war crimes.


Yeah, well, you're hectoring rhetorical question "is this genocide?" looks to me like exactly the same rhetorical maneuver supporters of Israel pull when they demand to know if you believe in Israel's right to exist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have to say this has been a very successful attack by Israel. It has really dirtied those that oppose and organise against Israeli war crimes.


tbh I've only just heard of this Jackie Walker affair, but reading about it, it has emphasised a very important point. 

If you are going to organise against Israeli war crimes, you really really really need to make sure you don't do so in an antisemitic way. And I'm afraid, whether by design or stupidity, that is what Walker did. 

For example, don't start waffling on about Jewish bankers financing the slave trade when someone brings up the Holocaust. Just. Don't. Really, this shouldn't be so hard.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

finger is hovering over the report button. I think you've lost it. 
please tell me why I am wrong. 
Who is they?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yeah, well, you're hectoring rhetorical question "is this genocide?" looks to me like exactly the same rhetorical maneuver supporters of Israel pull when they demand to know if you believe in Israel's right to exist.



I though we were getting somewhere. 

 

...nope I cannot be arsed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I've only just heard of this Jackie Walker affair, but reading about it, it has emphasised a very important point.
> 
> If you are going to organise against Israeli war crimes, you really really really need to make sure you don't do so in an antisemitic way. And I'm afraid, whether by design or stupidity, that is what Walker did.
> 
> For example, don't start waffling on about Jewish bankers financing the slave trade when someone brings up the Holocaust. Just. Don't. Really, this shouldn't be so hard.



I'm not refering to Jackie Walker per se but the unrelenting anti-semitsim claims that has been turned up to 11 for months on end now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 93531
> finger is hovering over the report button. I think you've lost it.
> please tell me why I am wrong.
> Who is they?



Are you fucking simple?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm not refering to Jackie Walker per se but the unrelenting anti-semitsim claims that has been turned up to 11 for months on end now.



Bloody hell. This is some swp level shit.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

That's 2 people off my Christmas card list.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you fucking simple?


You certainly are


----------



## treelover (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's what they want you to think.



really been outed here, as have a number of the Momentum crowd.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm not refering to Jackie Walker per se but the unrelenting anti-semitsim claims that has been turned up to 11 for months on end now.


You're absolutely right that the Israeli govt does do this - they conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism on purpose in an attempt to shut down criticism. They've been doing it for years. But that's just one more reason to avoid anti-Semitism, as if 'it's plain wrong' weren't enough reason. Anti-Semitic attacks on Israel do the Palestinian cause no favours - aside from providing ammo to the Israeli propaganda machine, they alienate potential allies.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you fucking simple?


No, I'm not particularly simple but I think you are. 
I think you crave simplicity. 
Who are this 'they" that you refer to, the they that want you to think that antisemitism & anti zionism are the same thing?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

This is like people banging on about how the comrade delta stuff was just a campaign of harassment in 'the bourgeois press'


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> No, I'm not particularly simple but I think you are.
> I think you crave simplicity.
> Who are this 'they" that you refer to, the they that want you to think that antisemitism & anti zionism are the same thing?



I was taking the piss out of frogwoman's nasty post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 93531
> finger is hovering over the report button. I think you've lost it.
> please tell me why I am wrong.
> Who is they?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> This is like people banging on about how the comrade delta stuff was just a campaign of harassment in 'the bourgeois press'



It really isn't.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's what they want you to think.



Eh? My point was that.. We always hear that antisemitism and anti zionism werent the same thing. Everyone fucking knows that. yet time and time again 'anti zionists' insist on bringing up zionism every time something to do with anti semitism is mentioned. I dont think they even know they are fucking doing it most of the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> No, I'm not particularly simple but I think you are.
> I think you crave simplicity.
> Who are this 'they" that you refer to, the they that want you to think that antisemitism & anti zionism are the same thing?


I wouldn't be surprised if he meant the jews


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 6, 2016)

It's as if all nationalism is bad, but jewish nationalism is especially bad: ''anti-zionism'' not just anti-nationalism.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's 2 people off my Christmas card list.


If I was in a good mood that would be funny.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> It's as if all nationalism is bad, but jewish nationalism is especially bad: ''anti-zionism'' not just anti-nationalism.


10/10.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> If I was in a good mood that would be funny.


Don't fuss, no fucker sends dingaling a card anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> It's as if all nationalism is bad, but jewish nationalism is especially bad: ''anti-zionism'' not just anti-nationalism.


Yeh. But this ignores xian zionists, who aren't jewish nationalists, indeed many of them don't support the existence of the z.e. as an expression of jewish nationalism but as a step towards the end of days


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It really isn't.



'Israel' banging on about anti semitism in the corbyn campaign despite the fact people have pointed out examples of it and been trying to drive it out the left long before cornyn was even running as a leader. And then 'the bourgeois press' trying to orchestrate some sort of feminist smear campaign of comrade delta although yet again people have been banging on about that shit in the left for years. 

Every fucking time when this issue is brought up even when examples of antisemitism in someones personal life is someone always mentions israel and now jeremy corbyn. It gets used as a waiy to discredit people.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't fuss, no fucker sends dingaling a card anyway



So mean :'(


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So mean :'(


Didn't know you partook in celebrating the nazarene's birth.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Didn't know you partook in celebrating the nazarene's birth.



I spent Christmas Day in Nazareth one year. No tinsel or Christmas pop hits anywhere. It was bliss.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 6, 2016)

Just when Jeremy was having his best run, he has, in a move set to thrill the country, made the always popular Diane Abbott Shadow Home Secretary.

Sorry time is up. Someone should start a thread on it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

You've abjectly failed DrRingDing at defining what zionist or anti-zionist means, the only thing you came up with was that zionism is a sort of nationalism, and nationalism is bad, plus the assertion that the state of israel has done genocide & genocide is bad. You took the time to go over there and be a human shield. I'm disappointed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I spent Christmas Day in Nazareth one year. No tinsel or Christmas pop hits anywhere. It was bliss.


Specially for those of us in blighty


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Just when Jeremy was having his best run, he has, in a move set to thrill the country, made the always popular Diane Abbott Shadow Home Secretary.
> 
> Sorry time is up. Someone should start a thread on it.


hash tag will ride again


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Just when Jeremy was having his best run, he has, in a move set to thrill the country, made the always popular Diane Abbott Shadow Home Secretary..


Not sure you have to be popular to be effective as a politician. I don't like Abbott much but she's an effective politician. I'll be interested to see what her take on law and order is, what Corbyn's shadow cabinet's team's take is, because this is an area that needs to be radically rethought from top to bottom. Does she have any history in the area?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i doubt it - given that the Tories can count two female PM's and two female Home Secretaries while Labour can count none and one, i think he'd be well advised to keep his hole shut on the subject. Abbot has been put into Shadow HS because she's one of his oldest political friends, holds very similar views and will probably be the last of the Corbynistas to stick the knife in when it becomes a political neccesity.
> 
> and, as the man says, she can't be sent to shadow Education because she sent her son to a very nice school (can't recall if it was actually private or whether it was a Grammar in all but name..) that was a very long way from where she lived while saying that others should have their kids go to the local comp. she's also quite a bit posher than Justine Greening...



What is it you doubt? Corbin knows he's a dead man walking. You either go with dignity or do a White Heat Jimmy Cagney. So obviously, you do a Cagney.
It's a bid to piss off the retired miner in Rossington who likes a pint and is gonna splutter like fuck once News at 10 comes on and he hears woman who revealed his secret bid to re-establish the Raj,through a devious divide-and-rule master plan, is SHS. The same miserable reactionary fucker who has no business in the party in the first place with his fascist opposition to Jez's identitarian utopia. You heard it here first.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Corbin knows he's a dead man walking. .


Every election he walks, his plight becomes ever more desperate.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> You've abjectly failed DrRingDing at defining what zionist or anti-zionist means, the only thing you came up with was that zionism is a sort of nationalism, and nationalism is bad, plus the assertion that the state of israel has done genocide & genocide is bad. You took the time to go over there and be a human shield. I'm disappointed.



I'm sorry but I'm not your performing monkey. You are willfully being ignorant. I find this a genuinely unpleasant trait.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

Winning the leadership of the labour party is very different to winning a national election tbf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Just when Jeremy was having his best run, he has, in a move set to thrill the country, made the always popular Diane Abbott Shadow Home Secretary.
> 
> Sorry time is up. Someone should start a thread on it.



well I suppose he tried keeping his enemies close but look how that went...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Winning the leadership of the labour party is very different to winning a national election tbf.


True. He's not had a go at that yet. Not saying he will even, but the irony can't be lost on people like Kinnock and Milliband Jnr calling him unelectable.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Winning the leadership of the labour party is very different to winning a national election tbf.



That doesn't mean Israel is not taking this seriously enough to assign significant resources to.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Every election he walks, his plight becomes ever more desperate.



Touché young Datagnon, but his last electoral triumph got him his own job back. Electoral success requires progression.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

I think this antisemitism thing will pass. People, news editors too, get bored with stories. And it doesn't help the story that Corbyn himself isn't antisemitic at all.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you have to be popular to be effective as a politician. I don't like Abbott much but she's an effective politician. I'll be interested to see what her take on law and order is, what Corbyn's shadow cabinet's team's take is, because this is an area that needs to be radically rethought from top to bottom. Does she have any history in the area?



Well she is certainly not popular. 

It doesn't shout 'new beginning'. I thought Keir Starmer was being lined up for swift promotion? Maybe that's Justice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Touché young Datagnon, but his last electoral triumph got him his own job back. Electoral success requires progression.


We're a year and a bit into this parliament. There is a very long way to go to the next election. Corbyn winning last year was the start of a process of returning the Labour party to some kind of social democratic position (with hints of socialism). Corbyn gets branded an extremist at first, but that is already lessening. It's still early days.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Touché young Datagnon, but his last electoral triumph got him his own job back. Electoral success requires progression.



Curious new poster, is curious.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Every election he walks,...


2016 local elections Labours share of the vote dropped by 3%. 



> Walk in silence,
> Don't turn away, in silence.
> Your confusion,
> My illusion,
> ...


Walking of a sort.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That doesn't mean Israel is not taking this seriously enough to assign significant resources to.



Do you think all the antisemitism claims in around labour/momentum are originating with israel!?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Well she is certainly not popular.
> 
> It doesn't shout 'new beginning'. I thought Keir Starmer was being lined up for swift promotion? Maybe that's Justice.


Well she's also a pal and an ally, of course. But I'll be listening out to see what she says. We need root-and-branch penal reform in this country. No idea if she's interested in starting an agenda for that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Do you think all the antisemitism claims in around labour/momentum are originating with israel!?



You know full well I don't think that. Nor have I stated that, infact I have stated the opposite. Shoddy work.


----------



## agricola (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That doesn't mean Israel is not taking this seriously enough to assign significant resources to.



They almost certainly aren't, though.  The people who are attacking Corbyn for this anti-Semitism would (and have) gone after him for almost anything else; they don't need a foreign state to get involved.  

If anything Regev is probably doing what the the PLP maquis have asked him to do, rather than the other way around.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> 2016 local elections Labours share of the vote dropped by 3%.
> 
> Walking of a sort.



Ian Curtis would have been brexit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Ian Curtis would have been brexit


Probably. He was a Tory, after all.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You know full well I don't think that. Nor have I stated that, infact I have stated the opposite. Shoddy work.



Well what did you mean? 

you've been coming out with some pretty odd stuff this evening that i was surprised at. What do you think israel's role in this is?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you have to be popular to be effective as a politician. I don't like Abbott much but she's an effective politician. I'll be interested to see what her take on law and order is, what Corbyn's shadow cabinet's team's take is, because this is an area that needs to be radically rethought from top to bottom. Does she have any history in the area?



I'm not entirely convinced that Abbott, speaking about immigration, counter-terrorism and crime, is going to win many hearts in either Labours traditional working class heartlands that voted for BREXIT or indeed in the currently Tory voting swing constituencies in the Midlands.

He had to give her one of the big three jobs, Treasury is taken by John McDonnell who isn't going anywhere, and she'd be even worse at shadow FCO than she would as shadow HO.

I think she's an effective politician when measured within a fairly narrow set of constraints - audience and issue - but I get the feeling that she is widely disliked by the electorate at large...


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> They almost certainly aren't, though.  The people who are attacking Corbyn for this anti-Semitism would (and have) gone after him for almost anything else; they don't need a foreign state to get involved.
> 
> If anything Regev is probably doing what the the PLP maquis have asked him to do, rather than the other way around.



Then you underestimated how severely Israel views the BDS movement.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Well what did you mean?
> 
> you've been coming out with some pretty odd stuff this evening that i was surprised at. What do you think israel's role in this is?



What are you desperately going to try and misrepresent next?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're a year and a bit into this parliament. There is a very long way to go to the next election. Corbyn winning last year was the start of a process of returning the Labour party to some kind of social democratic position (with hints of socialism). Corbyn gets branded an extremist at first, but that is already lessening. It's still early days.


That's why it's fuckin ridiculous. He was on a rising thermal after the conference and a half competent speech. Why pull a stunt like Abbott? He knows he's a corpse?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What are you desperately going to try and misrepresent next?



You're saying that israel has a role in all this labour stuff. So what role is that then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

kebabking said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that Abbott, speaking about immigration, counter-terrorism and crime, is going to win many hearts in either Labours traditional working class heartlands that voted for BREXIT or indeed in the currently Tory voting swing constituencies in the Midlands.
> 
> He had to give her one of the big three jobs, Treasury is taken by John McDonnell who isn't going anywhere, and she'd be even worse at shadow FCO than she would as shadow HO.
> .


I think you have a point about that - given the things she'll be talking about. But, shadow FCO, why not? It's not as if Foreign Secretary actually does much nowadays. I'd love to think that she has some ideas about reforming our judicial and prison systems and was bursting to do the job. I'd love to thing that...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Ian Curtis would have been brexit


Another election Corbyn "walked".


----------



## agricola (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Then you underestimated how severely Israel views the BDS movement.



Perhaps, though I have a very hard time believing that the Israeli government would devote significant resources to a fight that everyone on "its" side are taking part in anyway, for free.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Curious new poster, is curious.



Short of any feline DNA, I think you're probably safe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Another election Corbyn "walked".


oh ffs. I've been hearing this loads from all quarters. Corbyn didn't call that referendum, didn't call for it, didn't want it. Nearly two thirds of labour voters voted remain, about the same as SNP voters. Nobody's banging on about how Sturgeon lost the referendum.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you have to be popular to be effective as a politician. I don't like Abbott much but she's an effective politician. I'll be interested to see what her take on law and order is, what Corbyn's shadow cabinet's team's take is, because this is an area that needs to be radically rethought from top to bottom. Does she have any history in the area?



Well, her first job after Cambridge was as a Home Office trainee, and then NCCL so there's some history I guess.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> You're saying that israel has a role in all this labour stuff. So what role is that then?



It has a serious vested interest in undermining a Corbyn regime. They know he'll accelerate BDS. What strings are being pulled, stories being placed, people being monitored, we will never know but this partly Regev's job... to influence the UK for Israel's gain overtly or covertly.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though I have a very hard time believing that the Israeli government would devote significant resources to a fight that everyone on "its" side are taking part in anyway, for free.



Be specific.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> oh ffs. I've been hearing this loads from all quarters. Corbyn didn't call that referendum,


You said he walked every vote.
Did you mean every vote that included a large number of his supporters only or every vote he participated in?
Lets find out what counts as a "walk".


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Ian Curtis would have been brexit



He loved a party with a happy Atmosphere. Or was that Russ Abbott?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> You said he walked every vote.
> Did you mean every vote that included a large number of his supporters only or every vote he participated in?
> After all he walks everything he takes part in.
> Lets find out what counts as a "walk".


That wasn't an election. It was a referendum. Corbyn wasn't standing in an election.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It has a serious vested interest in undermining a Corbyn regime. They know he'll accelerate BDS. What strings are being pulled, stories being placed, people being monitored, we will never know but this partly Regev's job... to influence the UK for Israel's gain overtly or covertly.



blimey ....


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That wasn't an election. It was a referendum. Corbyn wasn't standing in an election.



There is an irony that the same people who claim he is unelectable are the ones blaming him for not getting the vote out in the referendum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you have to be popular to be effective as a politician. I don't like Abbott much but she's an effective politician. I'll be interested to see what her take on law and order is, what Corbyn's shadow cabinet's team's take is, because this is an area that needs to be radically rethought from top to bottom. Does she have any history in the area?



She's also a walking talking gaffe machine. I think we are all agreed a single week without a Labour gaffe would be a triumph.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> He loved a party with a happy Atmosphere. Or was that Russ Abbott?


remind me to do a 'he's lost control again' gag when the maquis stand another challenger


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That wasn't an election. It was a referendum.


So his defeats in the two national elections he has been involved in are not actual elections because he was not on the ballot. 
Basically he wins when his fan alone club get to to vote for him. 
Looking good for 2020.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You know full well I don't think that. Nor have I stated that, infact I have stated the opposite. Shoddy work.



I'm much confused,  please bear with me.








DrRingDing said:


> You know full well I don't think that. Nor have I stated that, infact I have stated the opposite. Shoddy work.



Please kindly indicate where you have stated the opposite ?

I thought that you were of the opinion that mark Regev (arsewipe that he is) has had a significant hand in secretly instigating all of this latest stuff re Walker.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> She's also a walking talking gaffe machine. I think we are all agreed a single week without a Labour gaffe would be a triumph.



This is the person that made Michael Portillo look human. The reason Abbott is unlikable is because she is such a poor communicator, Rudd is going to get a very easy ride.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> I'm much confused, , lease bear with me.
> View attachment 93533
> 
> View attachment 93534
> ...



Where have I mentioned Walker? Please retract that statement.


----------



## agricola (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It has a serious vested interest in undermining a Corbyn regime. They know he'll accelerate BDS. What strings are being pulled, stories being placed, people being monitored, we will never know but this partly Regev's job... to influence the UK for Israel's gain overtly or covertly.



Its the job of every ambassador to influence the country they are posted to for their home country's gain, though.  

As for the rest, all of that is (and would be) taking place anyway because the PLP maquis are trying to get rid of Corbyn.  I am not sure it makes that much sense to suggest those activities are taking place at the behest of a foreign government because of a policy it dislikes, when there are abundantly obvious domestic reasons for it taking place.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

agricola said:


> Its the job of every ambassador to influence the country they are posted to for their home country's gain, though.
> 
> As for the rest, all of that is (and would be) taking place anyway because the PLP maquis are trying to get rid of Corbyn.  I am not sure it makes that much sense to suggest those activities are taking place at the behest of a foreign government because of a policy it dislikes, when there are abundantly obvious domestic reasons for it taking place.



Regev's job would be to nudge the controversies in the direction that benefits Israel.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Where have I mentioned Walker? Please retract that statement.


You never did mention her.
You just said, yesterday,


DrRingDing said:


> Come now. The first Labour leader since fuck knows when to stand up to Israeli war crimes? The global call for the BDS movement? The fear of Israel of being hit in the pockets. Many leading BDS campaigners in the UK are also leading lights in Momentum? Plus that creepy arse wipe Mark Regev as  the newly installed Israeli Ambassador?
> Israel is taking BDS very seriously. Having a major nation such as the UK under a pro-Palestinian pro-BDS administration would be a very dangerous precedent. One that must be defeated.
> *Turn those spurious claims up to 11.*



Nothing specifically to do with the most recent story, so yeah, you were probably talking about Livingstone or something . I totally retract my statement.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Regev's job would be to nudge the controversies in the direction that benefits Israel.


That definitely sounds like a sound course for an Israeli ambassador.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> You never did mention her.
> You just said, yesterday,
> 
> 
> Nothing specifically to do with the most recent story, so yeah, you were probably talking about Livingstone or something . I totally retract my statement.



Please show me where I have mentioned where this revolves around Walker? If not please retract you statement.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> That definitely sounds like a sound course for an Israeli ambassador.



One thing we know about Regev is that he doesn't do subtle.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> That definitely sounds like a sound course for an Israeli ambassador.


Yes, but also he is excremental. On the plus side he is an ambassador from another country and I should not be made to feel ashamed and culpable for whatever shit he comes out with.


----------



## agricola (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Regev's job would be to nudge the controversies in the direction that benefits Israel.



Those controversies do not require nudging, though.  The PLP maquis have an elite nudging section.  

That said, if that is what Regev is meant to do then I can only hope he is on some kind of performance related pay.  Can you imagine the claim he could put in for a year's worth of wall-to-wall anti-Corbyn pieces in nearly every media outlet?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> That definitely sounds like a sound course for an Israeli ambassador.



Incidentally, is that a 'curious' thing to say?


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Please show me where I have mentioned where this revolves around Walker? If not please retract you statement.


As I said above, you refrained from ever mentioning Walker, or commenting on any of her statements, you just suggested that in some undefined way Mark Regev had something underhand and unseen to do with the latest accusations of antisemitism against labour. 
Its almost as if what Walker said and why people get upset about it doesn't matter, its all just a zionist conspiracy anyhow.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, but also he is excremental. On the plus side he is an ambassador from another country and I should not be made to feel ashamed and culpable for whatever shit he comes out with.



5 Points to House Bimble for the use of 'excremental'. Minus 10 points for conflating the shit you're getting for defending Israel rather than being Jewish.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, but also he is excremental. On the plus side he is an ambassador from another country and I should not be made to feel ashamed and culpable for whatever shit he comes out with.



Well indeed, but his job is to enact the wishes of the Israeli government, not to behave in a way which doesn't offend your sensibilities. Incidentally, I don't disagree. He's a fuck-faced gibbon, but even fuck-faced gibbons have jobs to do.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> As I said above, you refrained from ever mentioning Walker, or commenting on any of her statements, you just suggested that in some undefined way Mark Regev had something underhand and unseen to do with the latest accusations of antisemitism against labour.



I didn't 'refrain' she wasn't in my mind at all. We've gone over the rest.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I didn't 'refrain' she wasn't in my mind at all. We've gone over the rest.


No we have not gone over anything. You've just crumpled into incoherence and platitutes when asked what zionism and anti-zionism mean.

This is sad because they ought to be very meaningful words to you somehow, in terms of defining your own self.
You're just a simpleton who has defined himself as an anti-zionist but has no clue what that even means.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> No we have not gone over anything, you've just crumpled into incoherence and platitutes when asked what zionism and anti-zionism mean. This is sad because they are obviously very meaningful words o you somehow, in terms of defining your own self.
> You're just a simpleton who has defined himself as an anti-zionist but has no clue what that even means.



I do not have to define anything for you. Get it?

You think any bigotry aimed at you in your personal life somehow invalidates the Palestinian struggle. 

Bimble, please go back to cultural appropriation. You're much better at it than this.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I do not have to define anything for you. Get it?.


Oh, ok. You're a fervent anti-zionist, who called me a zionist apoligist but it is not ok to ask you to define your terms.
right.
Your best attempt when questioned today was that zionism = Nationalism.
And that nationalism is bad.
I totally agree with that definition by the way.



DrRingDing said:


> You think any bigotry aimed at you in your personal life somehow invalidates the Palestinian struggle.


What the fuck are you talking about ?


DrRingDing said:


> Bimble, please go back to cultural appropriation. You're much better at it than this.


Fuck off. My dubious hairstyles are irrelevant to this thread. 
You have to choose, either I'm a zionist stooge or I'm a pound shop Rachel Donezal :what's it gonna be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Oh, ok. You're a fervent anti-zionist,  *who called me a zionist apoligist*


Did he use those actual words? 

If so, I have to agree with bimble, drding, you owe her a definition.


----------



## treelover (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Probably. He was a Tory, after all.



he died a couple of years into her reign, he might have changed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did he use those actual words?
> 
> If so, I have to agree with bimble, drding, you owe her a definition.



I owe bimbleclot fuck all.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

Bimbleclot. I like it.
Ding has no clue, when questioned, about what he actually means by the words he defines himself by. It is sad to witness.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Touché young Datagnon, but his last electoral triumph got him his own job back. Electoral success requires progression.


 
With an increased vote share...progression.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Oct 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did he use those actual words?
> 
> If so, I have to agree with bimble, drding, you owe her a definition.





DrRingDing said:


> I owe bimbleclot fuck all.



DrRingDing yesterday


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Agree. Chakrabati's pretty sharp. No problem with her in normal circumstances. Abbott is and has long been a clown.
> Just seems to be another 'rub their noses in diversity' moment...kinda big "fuck you' to the judge before he 'goes down'.




So JC has given Abbot and Chakrabarti those jobs for no other reason than to rub other people's noses in it?

What you are suggesting would be the worst kind of tokenism on the part of JC. That he doesn't view these women as having anything to offer other than being women and being Black and Asian?

It's a big claim on your part and a fucking nasty one to boot.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 7, 2016)

Diane Abbott gets some things right:


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2016)

Seeing as we're still on the definition of zionism...



littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought that was quite straightforward. It is someone who believes that there needs to be a Jewish state - in the words of the 1917 Balfour declaration, 'a national home for the Jewish people'.
> 
> Seems quite a precise, well-defined term to me.


In today's context it's common usage is more related to those who believe in and promote ongoing expansionist policies for the Jewish state of Israel, which seek to expand it's borders by one ruse or another until they've swallowed up pretty much all of the Palestinian territory, and view the harsh oppression of the Palestinian people as a necessary party of ensuring the security of the State of Israel.

Referring back to a century old definition from before the State of Israel existed is one of the tactics I've seen used to discredit those who're opposed to those expansionist polices but have no issue with the actual existence of the state of Israel / support it's right to exist. 'Oh you're against Zionism are you, well you're as bad as Hamas then and want Israel to not exist' etc.

The OED has it as meaning


> A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> You have to choose, either I'm a zionist stooge or I'm a pound shop Rachel Donezal :what's it gonna be.


you could of course be both


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> Bimbleclot. I like it.
> Ding has no clue, when questioned, about what he actually means by the words he defines himself by. It is sad to witness.


he doesn't have a clew the rest of the time either


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That he doesn't view these women as having anything to offer other than being women and being Black and Asian?



Chakrabarti makes sense as she's a lawyer and expert in civil liberties. She has a the shadow of her anti-semitism report hanging over her but I've seen her say she didn't do a deal and have no reason not to believe her.

However, Abbott as shadow Home Secretary would seem to be a rather odd choice - but good luck to her.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> Chakrabarti makes sense as she's a lawyer and expert in civil liberties. She has a the shadow of her anti-semitism report hanging over her but I've seen her say she didn't do a deal and have no reason not to believe her.
> 
> However, Abbott as shadow Home Secretary would seem to be a rather odd choice - but good luck to her.



Something seeming odd isn't unusual though...Boris Johnson as foreign minister anyone?  

'Odd' is a lot different to what James McFaddon suggested. He was specific about it being to rub other people's noses in 'diversity'. 

Do you agree with him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> I've seen her say she didn't do a deal and have no reason not to believe her


yeh. but if she did a deal and then she's asked 'did you do a deal' she is unlikely to fess up, isn't she?


----------



## andysays (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Agree. Chakrabati's pretty sharp. No problem with her in normal circumstances. Abbott is and has long been a clown.
> *Just seems to be another 'rub their noses in diversity' moment*...kinda big "fuck you' to the judge before he 'goes down'.



As others have already said, this suggestion is offensive bollocks.

There is, however, a genuine issue with the appointment of Chakrabati as Shadow AG - the fact that she's only been a member of the LP for 5 months, and rather than being an elected MP, she was effectively appointed as a Peer by Corbyn himself only last month.

Can Jezza really only fill his shadow cabinet by bringing in the recently ennobled?


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Do you agree with him?



I think he put them there because they are allies.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but if she did a deal and then she's asked 'did you do a deal' she is unlikely to fess up, isn't she?



It's going to be pretty terminal for her it turns out there was a deal. It does underline how awful the House of Lords system is.


----------



## Santino (Oct 7, 2016)

This thread used to be fun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

Santino said:


> This thread used to be fun.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

andysays said:


> Can Jezza really only fill his shadow cabinet by bringing in the recently ennobled?



He's not exactly replete with high-powered allies, any solid names he can get I'd imagine. Same goes for promoting Abbott when Burnham made his exit, looks to me like it's about making sure the right's got as little influence in top spots as possible. Olive branches are one thing, but the 172 won't get anything vital.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> He's not exactly replete with high-powered allies, any solid names he can get I'd imagine. Same goes for promoting Abbott when Burnham made his exit, looks to me like it's about making sure the right's got as little influence in top spots as possible. Olive branches are one thing, but the 172 won't get anything vital.


tbh it's not like the plp is replete with high-powered and/or competent people.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it's not like the plp is replete with high-powered and/or competent people.



Fair point.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 7, 2016)

Labour said its shadow Cabinet now had the most ethnic minority members in of any Cabinet or shadow Cabinet ever

I wonder if anyone's beginning to feel like their nose is being rubbed in anything yet? Of course this would be by the media and not necessarily Labour itself, as I've not found any actual source for that statement (some clumsy version may yet turn up though)


----------



## cantsin (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it's not like the plp is replete with high-powered and/or competent people.



though the way the current mood is most Western Democracies, 'high powered'' ' or conventionally perceived "competent" politicians seem pretty low on voters list of priorities at the moment - if Corbyn and Co took the bull by the horns, pushed  CLP democracy onto the agenda, allowed local parties to select the MPs that they wanted to represent their political hopes /aspirations, within 5 years or so, Corbyn / his successor could be drawing on a different pool of PLP 'talent', one that better reflects the grassroots, and we could end up with a shadow ( or actual )  Cabinet that goes some way to the reflecting the people they're meant to be serving. ( eg : would like to see Matt Wrack / FBU in there in the future ) .

(As for Shami / Abbot having to defend their sprogs @ private school when the anti grammar campaign gets going on, + Thornberry shipping hers half way accross London to a selective ... : (	)


----------



## kebabking (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it's not like the plp is replete with high-powered and/or competent people.



He's doing it to his own people - Clive Lewis, a proper Corbyn loyalist, was shad defence secretary and did the job reasonably well and made it very clear it was a job he relished. He had talent, he had credibility, and he was one of Corbyns people. He's been replaced by someone so anonymous that I've forgotten her name after reading it 2 minutes ago.

He's bee shoved over to business, effectively under that non-corbynite Kier Starter at Shadow Brexit.

For those who've lost count, Corbyn is now on his fourth shadow Defence secretary...


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So JC has given Abbot and Chakrabarti those jobs for no other reason than to rub other people's noses in it?
> 
> What you are suggesting would be the worst kind of tokenism on the part of JC. That he doesn't view these women as having anything to offer other than being women and being Black and Asian?
> 
> It's a big claim on your part and a fucking nasty one to boot.



Alternative is what? He thinks Abbott'll do a good job...and it's a sound electoral strategy? Nope. They're just lashing out while they still can. He knows fuckin well how the MoS readers will react when Shami decides a   Labour Government would prosecute the army en masse  because of..guns....or excessive heteronormativity..or a squaddie looked at her funny, once.

It's a big fuckin wind up...and it'll teach old labour its place and serve them right for being so hideously white.
You seen the papers this morning?...which took me by surprise, btw...CIF has gone all Essex man. Looks like whether or not my suggestion is a) right or b) fuckin offensive, the consequence of what he's done is the same.
Also, is my point offensive because I'm suggesting that party strategists preconsider the effect of race on an electorate or because I'm suggesting Corbyn's doing it? I doubt there'd be any criticism if I cited a few Tory or UKIP dog-whistle stunts from the past few years. Why is it fuckin offensive to suggest Corbyn might pull a reverse dog-whistle manoeuvre for his own devious reasons? And, again, Abbott is a liability and a very poor debater. He's doing nobody any favours with her.

Not impressed with your post at all. If it's a roundabout way of labelling me racist, incidentally, go fuck yourself.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Nope. They're just lashing out while they still can. He knows fuckin well how the MoS readers will react when Shami decides a Labour Government would prosecute the army en masse because of..guns....or excessive heteronormativity..or a squaddie looked at her funny, once.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So JC has given Abbot and Chakrabarti those jobs for no other reason than to rub other people's noses in it?
> 
> What you are suggesting would be the worst kind of tokenism on the part of JC. That he doesn't view these women as having anything to offer other than being women and being Black and Asian?
> 
> It's a big claim on your part and a fucking nasty one to boot.



Quite right. It's bollocks that it's tokenism. They are his mates was the correct answer, but sometimes that's what's required.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


>




Lost on me, that one. There's probably a level of nuance in there somewhere which disqualifies me from any more than:."stay indoors Ethel, it's PC gone mad out here".


----------



## miktheword (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Alternative is what? He thinks Abbott'll do a good job...and it's a sound electoral strategy? Nope. They're just lashing out while they still can. He knows fuckin well how the MoS readers will react when Shami decides a   Labour Government would prosecute the army en masse  because of..guns....or excessive heteronormativity..or a squaddie looked at her funny, once.
> 
> It's a big fuckin wind up...and it'll teach old labour its place and serve them right for being so hideously white.
> You seen the papers this morning?...which took me by surprise, btw...CIF has gone all Essex man. Looks like whether or not my suggestion is a) right or b) fuckin offensive, the consequence of what he's done is the same.
> ...




The ex labour now a bit right wing w/c who I know in Essex slagging abbot for her private school hypocrisy not her race.. although it may be a hidden factor for some..they say the same with doreen Lawrence when not speaking  out when a white lad gets stabbed...essex also voted pritti patel. Were warsi and javid seen as negative factors by tories when weighing up potential w/c votes..
Don't think ur post is racist at all..but what might Corbyn's devious reasons be?
Thornbury is a liability because of that wvm tweet..will resonate for many for a long time.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

miktheword said:


> The ex labour now a bit right wing w/c who I know in Essex slagging abbot for her private school hypocrisy not her race.. although it may be a hidden factor for some..they say the same with doreen Lawrence when not speaking  out when a white lad gets stabbed...essex also voted pritti patel. Were warsi and javid seen as negative factors by tories when weighing up potential w/c votes..
> Don't think ur post is racist at all..but what might Corbyn's devious reasons be?
> Thornbury is a liability because of that wvm tweet..will resonate for many for a long time.



I think Corbyn's knows he has zero chance electorally.
I think he wants to achieve something with the short window of power he has, albeit as leader of a small and unpopular opposition.
He'll achieve little by acting as a conventional leader of opposition.
More chance to capitalise on the massive (and generally hostile) media scrutiny.
Best way to do so is to pull stunts like appointing Abbott and harnessing the whirlwind to slide through anything he can get away with even if he only gets to highlight and firmly establish Tory abuses rather than reverse them.
He at least gets to do so under full spotlight As long as there's controversy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> I think Corbyn's knows he has zero chance electorally.
> I think he wants to achieve something with the short window of power he has, albeit as leader of a small and unpopular opposition.
> He'll achieve little by acting as a conventional leader of opposition.
> More chance to capitalise on the massive (and generally hostile) media scrutiny.
> ...


tell you what, why not log off and spend the rest of the afternoon reading about politics so when you return you can have an air of authority rather than a fart of failure about you.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, why not log off and spend the rest of the afternoon reading about politics so when you return you can have an air of authority rather than a fart of failure about you.


OK. Any suggestions for the reading matter? 'Observer Book of Opposition Tactics'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> OK. Any suggestions for the reading matter? 'Observer Book of Opposition Tactics'?


ah, george sampson's 1963 book. 

perhaps you could simply start with wikipedia's article on the 2015 general election, and explore the history of the labour party perhaps through the same source. when you say things like corbyn is 'leader of a small and unpopular opposition' you don't cover yourself in glory.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, why not log off and spend the rest of the afternoon reading about politics so when you return you can have an air of authority rather than a fart of failure about you.



Don't worry...got it...'What is to be done" (Lenin's and Chernyshevsky's)

Seems Abbott's the erm...grit in the oyster and I've misread the whole scene. Thanks guru.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ah, george sampson's 1963 book.
> 
> perhaps you could simply start with wikipedia's article on the 2015 general election, and explore the history of the labour party perhaps through the same source. when you say things like corbyn is 'leader of a small and unpopular opposition' you don't cover yourself in glory.


And they're polling at what? 23%....think that covers unpopular, frankly.
Small? I even think Wiki could firmly establish that one.

Nah, not really seeing what you're getting at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> And they're polling at what? 23%....think that covers unpopular, frankly.
> Small? I even think Wiki could firmly establish that one.
> 
> Nah, not really seeing what you're getting at.


a quick google reveals you're rather off the mark. 


if you think corbyn's doing so badly why do you think the tories have suddenly started talking about an industrial strategy, ripping it off from er john mcdonnell?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Nah, not really seeing what you're getting at.


there are none so blind as those who will not see


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a quick google reveals you're rather off the mark.
> View attachment 93569
> 
> if you think corbyn's doing so badly why do you think the tories have suddenly started talking about an industrial strategy, ripping it off from er john mcdonnell?



Fuck off...YouGov.!!? Anyway, apparently it's the economy, stupid.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 7, 2016)

does anyone outside the bubble give a flying one about the make up of the shadow cabinet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Fuck off


yeh i thought you'd be shown wanting.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> does anyone outside the bubble give a flying one about the make up of the shadow cabinet?



Actually, I do and I'm outside the bubble. I take it 'you lot' are inside pissing out?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i thought you'd be shown wanting.



Sorry. That was offensive. I should have replaced 'Fuck off..." with...

"Please don't think you're gonna score a quick point by quoting anything as wholly spurious as a poll by..."


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> It's a big fuckin wind up...go fuck yourself.



There you go James to save you valuable key strokes in future; cut out all the silly waffle and get to the point.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a quick google reveals you're rather off the mark.
> View attachment 93569
> 
> if you think corbyn's doing so badly why do you think the tories have suddenly started talking about an industrial strategy, ripping it off from er john mcdonnell?



I believe Corbyn and team believe they can win, however, Labour currently have the second worst polling since William Hague was Tory leader. 

I don't think he can win but it'll be very interesting to watch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Sorry. That was offensive. I should have replaced 'Fuck off..." with...
> 
> "Please don't think you're gonna score a quick point by quoting anything as wholly spurious as a poll by..."


i have at least produced a poll. while you have blustered away. fuck off yourself.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

I'm always a bit unimpressed when a poster under a certain amount of pressure ducks out because they've got to go and do something urgent...but I've just noticed we're right out of those little cocktail umbrellas so I better nash...etc...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> I believe Corbyn and team believe they can win, however, Labour currently have the second worst polling since William Hague was Tory leader.
> 
> I don't think he can win but it'll be very interesting to watch.


it is unsurprising that they are not doing so well in the polls considering the behaviour of so many members of the parliamentary labour party.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i have at least produced a poll. while you have blustered away. fuck off yourself.


You at least produced a poll from 30th Sept which failed to take into account a big Tory gain post conference you mendacious twat. Who do you think you are kidding Rodney?


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it is unsurprising that they are not doing so well in the polls considering the behaviour of so many members of the parliamentary labour party.



To be fair it is a little rich for a serial rebel to moan about disloyal PLP members. I guess the question is are the PLP or the leadership more in tune with where the voters are - that's what so interesting for me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> You at least produced a poll from 30th Sept which failed to take into account a big Tory gain post conference you mendacious twat. Who do you think you are kidding Rodney?


and yet you produce nothing to support your claim. you fucking plonker.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and yet you produce nothing to support your claim. you fucking plonker.


Ok. I'll have a look for you shit-for-brains


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Ok. I'll have a look for you shit-for-brains


won't hold my breath


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

*taps watch* James McFadden


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> won't hold my breath


 
Well, there are three big post conference season polls out on Sunday for the broadsheets apparently. In the meantime-suppose I'm a bit iffy about the source but what the hell-http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/716585/Theresa-May-snap-election-early-2020-Conservative-Party-vote-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyn


#With Labour engulfed in its own political storm, a shrewd Mrs May - who does not yet have a mandate from the British public - could use a snap vote to her advantage.

Analysis by Professor John Curtice, president of the British Polling Council, shows her majority in the House of Commons would rocket from 12 to 62 on current polling.#

Anyway, I'm going out on a limb and call Sunday's results now. No fuckin way will Labour top 25%. If they do, I'll publically acknowledge your political savvy. You wanna call it? Go on gobshite, make a prediction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Well, there are three big post conference season polls out on Sunday for the broadsheets apparently. In the meantime-suppose I'm a bit iffy about the source but what the hell-http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/716585/Theresa-May-snap-election-early-2020-Conservative-Party-vote-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyn
> 
> 
> #With Labour engulfed in its own political storm, a shrewd Mrs May - who does not yet have a mandate from the British public - could use a snap vote to her advantage.
> ...


perhaps you could highlight where in the express article it mentions the % support for either tories or labour.

e2a: i saw that article earlier today but wouldn't have linked to it as it doesn't substantiate your claim about labour support in the region of 23%


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

erm...taps watch...rolls fag...reads paper...walks the dog...picks nose..


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> erm...taps watch...rolls fag...reads paper...walks the dog...picks nose..


yeh. because it doesn't mention what % support labour or the tories, it just says there's 11% between the two. and that on frankly rather spurious grounds - where's the working? you fucking muppet.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could highlight where in the express article it mentions the % support for either tories or labour.
> 
> e2a: i saw that article earlier today but wouldn't have linked to it as it doesn't substantiate your claim about labour support in the region of 23%


Perhaps you could call the Sunday poll result...y'know actually make a determinate statement and hold yourself to it?

eta: sorry forgot to add..'you fuckin air-brained goon'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Perhaps you could call the Sunday poll result...y'know actually make a determinate statement and hold yourself to it?
> 
> eta: sorry forgot to add..'you fuckin air-brained goon'


i could do. but why the fuck should i? why can't you produce something to substantiate your claim about labour on 23% now, like you said they were in 13214?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i could do. but why the fuck should i? why can't you produce something to substantiate your claim about labour on 23% now, like you said they were in 13214?



I think the 'why the fuck should I?' is easily answered. Because you're on here claiming a certain amount of political nous and, likewise, the opposite for me. I arrive at a perfectly reasonable solution which  involves actually calling the political temperature in a quantifiable way and you duck out. Why's that? And let's recall, all you've done is cite a poll which was taken between the two conferences...which is self-evidently pointless.
Anyway, I am away now for an hour or two. Lick a window or two while I'm gone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> IAnd let's recall, all you've done is cite a poll which was taken between the two conferences...which is self-evidently pointless.


you haven't even managed that. 

don't hurry back


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 7, 2016)

This is interesting, in the context of the media attacks on the expression of democracy within the Labour party that we've been discussing on this thread.



> “hate spin”—a double-sided technique that combines hate speech (incitement through vilification) with manufactured offense-taking (the performing of righteous indignation)


 Hate Spin

I stumbled across this earlier today, and it seems to parallel some of what I've been trying to articulate about the escalating feedback loops created by a campaign of unremitting, unprincipled media vilification of the Momentum tendency within Labour coupled with sensationalised promotion of manufactured offence to their responses.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you haven't even managed that.
> 
> don't hurry back


Well perhaps I'm too prone to cite 'arguments from authority'?
You've gone with a pointless YouGov exercise in masturbatory polling.
I went with Professor John Curtice, president of the British Polling Council.

See ya later...and on Sunday maybe? Go on: more or less than 25%? how much fuckin easier do you want it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Well perhaps I'm too prone to cite 'arguments from authority'?
> You've gone with a pointless YouGov exercise in masturbatory polling.
> I went with Professor John Curtice, president of the British Polling Council.


yes. which doesn't provide any information about the proportion of people supporting the conservative party or the labour party. could be 39% labour, 50% tory. could be 1% labour 12% tory. who knows? but, i note, nothing yet to support your assertion labour polling c.23%.





> See ya later...and on Sunday maybe? Go on: more or less than 25%? how much fuckin easier do you want it?


who is conducting the poll published on sunday?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Lost on me, that one. There's probably a level of nuance in there somewhere which disqualifies me from any more than:."stay indoors Ethel, it's PC gone mad out here".



No subtexts, it's just a facepalm over the sheer stupidity of your comment, which ranks along with stuff like "if we let the gays get married people will be marrying dogs next." It could also apply to any number of your subsequent posts, apart from this one:



> I'm always a bit unimpressed when a poster under a certain amount of pressure ducks out because they've got to go and do something urgent.



Too true James, too true.



James McFadden said:


> Anyway, I am away now for an hour or two. Lick a window or two while I'm gone.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Actually, I do and I'm outside the bubble. I take it 'you lot' are inside pissing out?



who is "my lot"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> who is "my lot"?


like the policeman's, not a happy one.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> who is "my lot"?



Isn't that Sherlock Holmes brother?


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> who is "my lot"?



That would be you lot inside the bubble. I thought you must be a bubbler since you questioned whether anybody else cared about the shadow HS and AG on a thread where the shadow HS and AG were being actively discussed. 

Pickman's Model

Hmmm...seems I've gotta fess up. Can't find 23 but any number of sources for 26. So I'm ducking out till Sunday when I shall return in triumph. 
That said 26 puts them on a par with Michael Foot's polling nadir...which pretty much Kevlar coats my original 'unpopular opposition' claim, no?
So, till Sunday my hair-splitting, anal-retentive, reptilian friend.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2016)

andysays said:


> As others have already said, this suggestion is offensive bollocks.
> 
> There is, however, a genuine issue with the appointment of Chakrabati as Shadow AG - the fact that she's only been a member of the LP for 5 months, and rather than being an elected MP, she was effectively appointed as a Peer by Corbyn himself only last month.
> 
> Can Jezza really only fill his shadow cabinet by bringing in the recently ennobled?


First thing Tony Blair did when he got elected was to make his mate a life peer then instantly appoint him as Solicitor General.

And we really are talking mate here, the guy was an ex flatmate of his from 20 years earlier.

Chakrabati on the other hand afaik has no similar links to Corbyn, and is a very well respected figure in her own right, so I don't see the problem.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> That would be you lot inside the bubble. I thought you must be a bubbler since you questioned whether anybody else cared about the shadow HS and AG on a thread where the shadow HS and AG were being actively discussed.
> 
> Pickman's Model
> 
> ...


what caused the poll ratings to drop so low?

It wasn't Corbyn who decided to very publicly attempt to rip the party apart and launch a 3 month long all out assault on the credibility of the leader of the party.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

free spirit said:


> what caused the poll ratings to drop so low?
> 
> It wasn't Corbyn who decided to very publicly attempt to rip the party apart and launch a 3 month long all out assault on the credibility of the leader of the party.


No but it was Corbyn who leads a party where this was allowed to happen. Effective leaders lead United parties.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2016)

Anyone who thinks recent appointments to the Shadow Cabinet are 'rubbing their noses in diversity' is the sort of person who becomes an anxious shivering wreck whenever a teenager walks past them on the street.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> No but it was Corbyn who leads a party where this was allowed to happen. Effective leaders lead United parties.


Allowed?

The PLP chose to abuse the privilege the Labour party rules grant it in terms of deciding when to call for a leadership election. The end result of that being a ~10% drop in the polls and the leader returned on a bigger mandate than previously. That's their fault, not Corbyn's.


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2016)

free spirit said:


> First thing Tony Blair did when he got elected was to make his mate a life peer then instantly appoint him as Solicitor General.
> 
> And we really are talking mate here, the guy was an ex flatmate of his from 20 years earlier.
> 
> Chakrabati on the other hand afaik has no similar links to Corbyn, and is a very well respected figure in her own right, so I don't see the problem.


I see a problem with a champion of democracy filling shadow cabinet positions with non-elected politicians.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> No but it was Corbyn who leads a party where this was allowed to happen. Effective leaders lead United parties.


What like Thatcher with a famously divided tory party?


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> I see a problem with a champion of democracy filling shadow cabinet positions with non-elected politicians.



The political elites are running scared.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2016)

BTW I see that Corbyn has let that Watson snake back in the cabinet, not smart. Too much New Testament cheek turning going on.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> No but it was Corbyn who leads a party where this was allowed to happen. Effective leaders lead United parties.



It could have been literally anyone leading Labour from the left, they'd still have faced mass rebellion and been battered with every weapon the right had to hand. It's an ideological split manifesting as a struggle over the leadership, not a personality problem. How you can womble around acting like the big political guru when you _still _haven't incorporated this very simple point into your arguments - even having had it explained to you when you made a dick of yourself on here last time - is baffling.


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> BTW I see that Corbyn has let that Watson snake back in the cabinet, not smart. Too much New Testament cheek turning going on.


He doesn't have a choice. Watson is elected.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> He doesn't have a choice. Watson is elected.



I know that, but he doesn't have to give him a brief does he?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I know that, but he doesn't have to give him a brief does he?



Watson himself says he's barely spoken to Corbyn since it all kicked off, but they can't keep him out of shadow cabinet meetings.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> I think he put them there because they are allies.



Oh right so only because they are allies...because that stands out about this right, other parties/leaders do something completely different? 

These aren't double standards they are fucking quadrupled, with knobs on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Not impressed with your post at all. If it's a roundabout way of labelling me racist, incidentally, go fuck yourself.



I don't post to impress you. I asked a question and if I thought you were a racist I would outright call you one, so incidentially, fuck yourself right back. 

 If you don't like being questioned or asked to explain be clearer? ...I'll now go back and read your explanation... and think about whether you are a fucking arsehole or not.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh right so only because they are allies...because that stands out about this right, other parties/leaders do something completely different?
> 
> These are double standards they are fucking quadrupled, with knobs on.



What are you on about? You asked if I thought they were put there to hit some sort of diversity goal - I said no I think they were there because they were allies.  Everything else you've created on your own.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't post to impress you. I asked a question and if I thought you were a racist I would outright call you one, so incidentially, fuck yourself right back back.
> 
> If you don't like being questioned or asked to explain be clearer? ...I'll now go back and read your explanation... and think about whether you are a fucking arsehole or not.


Having the strangest sensation of déja vu with jm


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Oh, so hang on. From Pickman we have the point that significantly divided parties can be led effectively by, say, Thatcher. OK, point taken. Then from the Mr  McGregor, we are told, the party was so split nobody could have done it...a post which Pickman goes on to recommend.
And I'm mixed up?
Get your fuckin stories straight...you have until Sunday. I'm going to Ullswater.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Oh, so hang on. From Pickman we have the point that significantly divided parties can be led effectively by, say, Thatcher. OK, point taken. Then from the Mr  McGregor, we are told, the party was so split nobody could have done it...a post which Pickman goes on to recommend.
> And I'm mixed up?
> Get your fuckin stories straight...you have until Sunday. I'm going to Ullswater.


I have recommended no posts


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> I'm going to Ullswater.


 don't forget to pack your cocktail umbrellas.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 7, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It could have been literally anyone leading Labour from the left, they'd still have faced mass rebellion and been battered with every weapon the right had to hand. It's an ideological split manifesting as a struggle over the leadership, not a personality problem. <snip>



The nature of the propaganda attack though, is to avoid engaging with the mass support for a move to the left and to drag the battle onto more favourable territory of personality contests and/or identity politics.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> What are you on about? You asked if I thought they were put there to hit some sort of diversity goal - I said no I think they were there because they were allies.  Everything else you've created on your own.



Perhaps then you should have a little review at the ways in which you are making decisions about what JC is doing and why as opposed to those you accept other party leaders do and why. 

Allies? Of course they fucking are..that's normal! 

Odd with regards, DA? How can you say that given we see the likes of BJ being given the FS position.

Your standards are quadrupled, I don't know why.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The nature of the propaganda attack though, is to avoid engaging with the mass support for left policies and to drag the battle onto more favourable territory of personality contests and/or identity politics.



They've engaged with both afaics, as befits a no-holds-barred approach. They've not been shy of saying his economic, defence, labour progreammes etc are irrelevant 70s-era throwbacks at best and actively dangerous to Britain's sovereignty at worst. Hell for months before they went after him for being "arrogant" etc that'd been saying what a nice guy he was, it's just his ideals which were unworkable.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps then you should have a little review at the ways in which you are making decisions about what JC is doing and why as opposed to those you accept other party leaders do and why.
> 
> Allies? Of course they fucking are..that's normal!
> 
> ...



Still no idea what you're cross about.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 7, 2016)

Yeah, I edited a bit because 'policies' wasn't quite what I thought they didn't want to engage with, more the mass rejection of 'business as usual'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> Still no idea what you're cross about.


Convenient dismissal of the obvious points I have made.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 7, 2016)

The Chakribati thing hasn't damaged Corbyn, its damaged her - which damages Labours ability to attack the government given that she'll be the one doing the attacking.

She had credibility because she acted in a non-partisan way as director of Liberty - she did a good job and held governments of both colours to account. However, whether a deal was done or not, by doing an 'independant' report for Corbyn which exonerates him, then immediately accepts a peerage from him, and then joins his SC she has completely shot her own fox - she might get a hearing (when arguing against X or Y legal measure the government wishes to bring in...) in the Morning Star, but to every other media organisation she's a complete joke.

Not only can her integrity be criticised, but it seems obvious that she has the political nous of a mouldy sponge...


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Convenient dismissal of the obvious points I have made.



Because you didn't ask me what other leaders do, you asked if I thought they'd been put there to hit a diversity target which I said no - you've inferred everything else all by yourself so I'll leave you to it.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> The Chakribati thing hasn't damaged Corbyn, its damaged her - which damages Labours ability to attack the government given that she'll be the one doing the attacking.
> 
> She had credibility because she acted in a non-partisan way as director of Liberty - she did a good job and held governments of both colours to account. However, whether a deal was done or not, by doing an 'independant' report for Corbyn which exonerates him, then immediately accepts a peerage from him, and then joins his SC she has completely shot her own fox - she might get a hearing (when arguing against X or Y legal measure the government wishes to bring in...) in the Morning Star, but to every other media organisation she's a complete joke.
> 
> Not only can her integrity be criticised, but it seems obvious that she has the political nous of a mouldy sponge...




^ this 

I have great respect for her but she joined the party to write a report on anti-Semitism which not a single Jewish group have endorsed, then be made a peer and promoted to the front bench in under six months - the optics on it are piss poor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2016)

some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 7, 2016)

bemused said:


> Because you didn't ask me what other leaders do, you asked if I thought they'd been put there to hit a diversity target which I said no - you've inferred everything else all by yourself so I'll leave you to it.



I gave examples that challenged your assumptions/expectations which you gave in reply to my original question regarding 'cynical diversity appointments'. So you don't agree with JM, but saying 'they are allies' or 'it's odd'  doesn't seem very fair...given what we know and have to accept other leaders/politicians etc routinely do.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?



That's a fair point a this point, the PLP need to like it or lump it at this point. In this case letting JC pick the team he wants and ride them to victory or defeat would seem the best route.


----------



## andysays (Oct 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?



But the fact that he has to bring in someone unelected and very recently ennobled like SC demonstrates that he doesn't actually have enough allies within the PLP to form a shadow cabinet, or can be used to make that argument, even if it's not literally true.

It's an indication of his continuing weakness, despite having won the leadership election, and it will be used against him by his enemies both in and out of the LP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2016)

andysays said:


> But the fact that he has to bring in someone unelected and very recently ennobled like SC demonstrates that he doesn't actually have enough allies within the PLP to form a shadow cabinet, or can be used to make that argument, even if it's not literally true.
> 
> It's an indication of his continuing weakness, despite having won the leadership election, and it will be used against him by his enemies both in and out of the LP.


oh anything will be used. Thought occured to me to wonder if there are any nuetrals in the PLP at all, keeping the head down wait it all out see what happens come 2020. Surely there must be some


----------



## kebabking (Oct 7, 2016)

From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.

Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

Spend more time pretending to like Bands  now Watson.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.
> 
> Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).


the problem is that the labour mps see having a ruck with the newly elected leader as preferable to representing the millions of people who voted for them. they are exposing what democracy really means in this country, more effectively that anything the tories have as yet done.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.
> 
> Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).



Would the same people work for a _different _reasonably honest, mildly left-wing leader who was acceptable to the mass of new joiners and re-energised supporters?

I'd bet they'd give any equivalent leader just as much shit as they're giving Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.
> 
> Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).


Does it traditionally being that number  mean it always has to be? Politically there are 5-6 jobs that count and get the headline stuff.  There is no  damaging public expectation of of 100 shadows now spurned either.


----------



## bemused (Oct 7, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Spend more time pretending to like Bands  now Watson.



One of my guilty pleasures is chuckling at Tom Watson's sour mug on PMQs - it's a thing of beauty.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Spend more time pretending to like Bands  now Watson.



I did wonder whether the appointment was partly a joke or something because of that picture of him at that festival drinking cider.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 7, 2016)

Next year's leadership candidate has already laid down a marker  

Tony Blair hints at return to UK politics: ‘It’s an open question’



> Tony Blair has suggested he might return to politics in order to battle the Conservative Party’s vision of Brexit Britain.
> 
> In an interview with _Esquire_ magazine, the former Prime Minister said the Tories had created a “one-party state” in the face of a weak Labour Party.


----------



## agricola (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.
> 
> Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).



A hundred is way too much, don't forget that loads of Shadow roles were (like PPS's) given out in an effort to increase the payroll vote.  In terms of actually holding the Government to account, you could probably do it with twenty shadow ministers (as long as that was their main focus), a competent team of researchers backing them up and a wider Parliamentary party encouraged to find things on their own.	Of course Corbyn can probably rely on one of those things, when he would need all three to make it work.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 7, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ..
> 
> who was acceptable to the mass of new joiners and re-energised supporters?...



Who cares about what the members what, the kind of lunatics and weirdos who join political parties are the absolute last people on earth you should consult on pretty much any topic you could think of. 

The electorate is what matters, and it's the electorate the MP's work for, not Corbyn (or when Corbyn was a backbencher, Kinnock, Blair, Brown or Milliband which he was happy to mention once or 500 times...) or even the LP.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 7, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Who cares about what the members what, the kind of lunatics and weirdos who join political parties are the absolute last people on earth you should consult on pretty much any topic you could think of.
> 
> The electorate is what matters, and it's the electorate the MP's work for, not Corbyn (or when Corbyn was a backbencher, Kinnock, Blair, Brown or Milliband which he was happy to mention once or 500 times...) or even the LP.



This is the same electorate that has previously rejected the Red Tory non-entities in favour of the Real McCoy, yes?


----------



## treelover (Oct 7, 2016)

EDL seem to be re-appearing on social media, some disgusting posts on JC4PM, with DA and Corbyn pictured as you would assume.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

treelover said:


> EDL seem to be re-appearing on social media, some disgusting posts on JC4PM, with DA and Corbyn pictured as you would assume.


imaginatively or simply crudely?


----------



## treelover (Oct 7, 2016)

Crudely


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2016)

I see that the New Statesman are offering a free copy of that not very well rated anti-Corbyn book 'Comrade Corbyn' that came out with a 12 issue subscription. lol

The other 'free gift' for a subscription for a year or two years is wine. Presumably the free gift is to help you stomach the contents of the magazine...


----------



## Sue (Oct 8, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Would the same people work for a _different _reasonably honest, mildly left-wing leader who was acceptable to the mass of new joiners and re-energised supporters?
> 
> I'd bet they'd give any equivalent leader just as much shit as they're giving Corbyn.


I wish they'd all just shut the fuck up. I am so utterly bored of all this nonsense and the whining and bleating from the anti Corbynites. They still don't seem to get/accept they lost and that they are in no position to dictate terms on anything. Ffs, can someone make them all go away?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

tony can


----------



## Nylock (Oct 8, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Next year's leadership candidate has already laid down a marker
> 
> Tony Blair hints at return to UK politics: ‘It’s an open question’


The only role in British politics i would want that cunt to adopt is one of 'defendant'. At the Hague....


----------



## Nylock (Oct 8, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> So his defeats in the two national elections he has been involved in are not actual elections because he was not on the ballot.
> Basically he wins when his fan alone club get to to vote for him.
> Looking good for 2020.


Even by your low standards that's a pretty fucking dire piece of verbal subterfuge.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 8, 2016)

Nylock said:


> The only role in British politics i would want that cunt to adopt is one of 'defendant'. At the Hague....


I would like him to assist the police force. 


With their enquiries


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

What's Dr Sausages doing about it? Even the Labour Party Anarchist Police are making an effort of patrolling the edges. Make sure they don't go wrong like.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I would like him to assist the police force.
> 
> 
> With their enquiries


Fuck off, twat. Don't try and cosy in.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off, twat. Don't try and cosy in.


mate that was my 75th post on this thread. Why the abuse?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis,


Cobblers, there never used to be that number of people in the (shadow) cabinet. The % of MPs that are backbenchers has decreased markedly since WWII, the increase in size of the (shadow) cabinet and PPSs is/was a deliberate tactic used to push loyalty to the gov/opposition.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Who cares about what the members what, the kind of lunatics and weirdos who join political parties are the absolute last people on earth you should consult on pretty much any topic you could think of.
> 
> The electorate is what matters, and it's the electorate the MP's work for, not Corbyn (or when Corbyn was a backbencher, Kinnock, Blair, Brown or Milliband which he was happy to mention once or 500 times...) or even the LP.



The members (or 'selectorate' if you want to be picky) have in the real world decided to elect Corbyn, which the (current) party rules allow them to do. It doesn't matter what you think of them. That's just the fact of the matter.

You're asserting that Corbyn can't do the job, because he's objectionable to most of the PLP, but unless the members are also replaced with people whose views the PLP finds acceptable, coerced into changing their views or somehow prevented from expressing those views by ballot, that problem doesn't go away by replacing Corbyn.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2016)

Actually, there's an obvious flaw in my previous post. If they scrags Corbyn the PLP could probably keep anyone acceptable to the Momentum crowd off the ballot.

So the underlying problem doesn't go away, but if they could shove Corbyn under a bus or something, the PLP would at least change the nature of the infighting. 

They could claim the high ground of electability and portray the people trying to democratically deselect them at a constituency level as a threat to democracy.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 8, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ...You're asserting that Corbyn can't do the job, because he's objectionable to most of the PLP, but unless the members are also replaced with people whose views the PLP finds acceptable, coerced into changing their views or somehow prevented from expressing those views by ballot, that problem doesn't go away by replacing Corbyn.



i think the problem is caused by a fundamental - and probably genuine - disagreement of over who MP's 'belong' to. Corbyn - in stark contrast to when he was a backbencher - seems to take the view that MP's belong to the party and the party belongs to the members. the PLP takes the view that MP's belong to the electorate of their constituancies (remarkably enough, a view Corbyn held before he became leader...) and should vote/argue in a way broadly consistant with the personal and party manifesto that those constituants voted for.

so, for example, the Labour candidate in my constituancy got 16,000 votes in the 2015 GE. she campaigned on the Milibandite manifesto, and apart from some local interest stuff never campaigned on or talked about anything far from the LP manifesto. she didn't win, but assuming she had she'd have become our MP based on a centerist, pro-NATO, pro-Trident manifesto. why should she vote in a different way to the the promises she made to - and were accepted by - the 18,000 or so constituants she'd have needed to win just because perhaps 500 of her constituants voted for Corbyn in the leadership election?

(500 based on Corbyns 313k votes in Sept 2016 divided by the 620 or so CLP's. if you want to go wild you could divide the 313k by the 220 Labour MP's, which comes out at around 1400. even then its a pitiful number compared to the number of people who voted for whatever manifesto - party or personal - the MP stood on in 2015, and very few of them could be described as Corbynesque).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2016)

Well, it's a three way relationship in practice isn't it? There are three groups that MPs and candidates are accountable to.

Members
Electorate - or at least the bit they try to win votes from because they can afford to ignore those who vote tribally most of the time

Dodgy Millionaires and Billionaires - because they need their cash for campaign costs and the support of their media outlets to win over the swing voters in key marginals who decide general elections.
There are also interactions between the three groups (e.g. Members are also part of and can locally influence the electorate, campaign contributions pay for political technology and propaganda influences elections, most members have very different political goals to Lord Sainsbury and Rupert Murdoch etc)

What's causing turmoil right now is a shift in the balance of power from the latter to the former. The PLP have become accustomed to only really being accountable in practice to the third group and taking the other two largely for granted.

You could think of it as a political ecology, within which sucking up to Lord Sainsbury and Rupert Murdoch defined an important fitness function, but now something systemic has changed making other evolutionary pressures (ie relevance to political aims of members) more relevant than previously.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2016)

Tbh all this infighting is if not *the* reason then a major part of why Corbyn won't be the next prime minister


----------



## tommers (Oct 8, 2016)

As soon as the election was done the thread's declined into squabbling.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i think the problem is caused by a fundamental - and probably genuine - disagreement of over who MP's 'belong' to. Corbyn - in stark contrast to when he was a backbencher - seems to take the view that MP's belong to the party and the party belongs to the members. the PLP takes the view that MP's belong to the electorate of their constituancies (remarkably enough, a view Corbyn held before he became leader...) and should vote/argue in a way broadly consistant with the personal and party manifesto that those constituants voted for.
> 
> so, for example, the Labour candidate in my constituancy got 16,000 votes in the 2015 GE. she campaigned on the Milibandite manifesto, and apart from some local interest stuff never campaigned on or talked about anything far from the LP manifesto. she didn't win, but assuming she had she'd have become our MP based on a centerist, pro-NATO, pro-Trident manifesto. why should she vote in a different way to the the promises she made to - and were accepted by - the 18,000 or so constituants she'd have needed to win just because perhaps 500 of her constituants voted for Corbyn in the leadership election?
> 
> (500 based on Corbyns 313k votes in Sept 2016 divided by the 620 or so CLP's. if you want to go wild you could divide the 313k by the 220 Labour MP's, which comes out at around 1400. even then its a pitiful number compared to the number of people who voted for whatever manifesto - party or personal - the MP stood on in 2015, and very few of them could be described as Corbynesque).


I must say, i've never seen Corbyn outline such a position - i've never even seen him say the the PLP based opposition should do anything beyond vague 'unite' guff. I've never seen him argue on that well trodden ground at all. I've seen him say the party belongs to its members when talking about internal matters but never about the role MPs must play in anything beyond being members.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh all this infighting is if not *the* reason then a major part of why Corbyn won't be the next prime minister



I disagree, Corbyns policies and history are the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to become the next PM - this stuff widens the gap between possible and no chance, but opposing NATO and trident while Vlad the Invader rolls through eastern Europe, and is 'friends' with Hamas and believes the police should be disarmed and the security services abolished while IS rampages through France is the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to be PM.

The left may have chosen a great candidate to win elections in the Labour party, but they have chosen a really shit candidate to win an election amonst the wider electorate...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> I disagree, Corbyns policies and history are the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to become the next PM - this stuff widens the gap between possible and no chance, but opposing NATO and trident while Vlad the Invader rolls through eastern Europe, and is 'friends' with Hamas and believes the police should be disarmed and the security services abolished while IS rampages through France is the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to be PM.
> 
> The left may have chosen a great candidate to win elections in the Labour party, but they have chosen a really shit candidate to win an election amonst the wider electorate...


Yeh. Well, they could dump him tomorrow and elect St Francis of assisi reincarnated and they would still lose in 2020 in large measure because of the PLP refusal to abide by 2 leadership elections.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 8, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You're asserting that Corbyn can't do the job, because he's objectionable to most of the PLP, but unless the members are also replaced with people whose views the PLP finds acceptable, coerced into changing their views or somehow prevented from expressing those views by ballot, that problem doesn't go away by replacing Corbyn.



I don't think it's got anything do with their "views" as Labour MPs are nothing if not ideologically malleable. If they thought Corbyn could lead them to a 100+ seat majority they wouldn't give a shit about his views and would swaddle themselves in the Hezbollah flag and be right up for nationalising Argos. They just think he can't win a GE and will probably lead them a shafting on a scale that will take a generation to recover.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 8, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Dodgy Millionaires and Billionaires


Tautological.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> I disagree, Corbyns policies and history are the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to become the next PM - this stuff widens the gap between possible and no chance, but opposing NATO and trident while Vlad the Invader rolls through eastern Europe, and is 'friends' with Hamas and believes the police should be disarmed and the security services abolished while IS rampages through France is the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to be PM.
> 
> The left may have chosen a great candidate to win elections in the Labour party, but they have chosen a really shit candidate to win an election amonst the wider electorate...



Putin is not 'rolling' through Europe.
Corbyn is not friends with Hamas.
Large swathes of Scottish voters are against Trident....incidently where labour needs to make inroads.
The police have again and again been shown to be irresponsible, trigger happy, bigotted liabilities with guns.
He has not pledged to abolish the security services just that he saw now demand for 1000 more MI6 officers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

_*****ne nah ne nah anarchist labour party police here ne nah ne nah*****

Now what's all this disturbance that jews done, nothing to see here, go home._


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I don't think it's got anything do with their "views" as Labour MPs are nothing if not ideologically malleable. If they thought Corbyn could lead them to a 100+ seat majority they wouldn't give a shit about his views and would swaddle themselves in the Hezbollah flag and be right up for nationalising Argos. They just think he can't win a GE and will probably lead them a shafting on a scale that will take a generation to recover.



Well yes, but apart from a few relics, they've mostly been selected and then elected in an environment where they didn't really need to give a shit about what their membership thought, nor the punters except for a few swing voters.

The few voters who they did have to worry about were engaged through a) the party drawing enough millions in donations to fund expensive political technology to target swing voters with and b) the propaganda support of a few media billionaires.

Now they're caught between competing with the Tories to serve the interests of that small group of rich donors and media owners, which they still think is paramount electorally (and of course they're probably right, but it's not yet been put to the real test) and being challenged to serve the very different (and yes, somewhat naive and incoherent) interests of an insurgent membership.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 8, 2016)

Corbyn is speaking at the STWC today.

There was a time when I would have thought that the idea of a Labour Party leader speaking at STWC was just fantastic but these days it just seems stupid. STWC is an anachronism, it has become what it was once caricatured as - an instinctively anti-Western group rather than an anti-war organisation. I don't think that it is morally defensible to attend, it is led by people who back Russia while it is barrel bombing Syrian hospitals. Politically it doesn't make any sense either, the number of people who are even aware of STWC is a tiny constituency to say the least and all of them back Corbyn anyway. Why is he spending any time with them at all?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2016)

He was chair of it for years wasn't he, right up until he got elected leader last year. Why should he now not go?
I can imagine there might be more important less silly things for him to do but it is the weekend after all.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why is he spending any time with them at all?



you can't teach an old dog new tricks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn is speaking at the STWC today.
> 
> There was a time when I would have thought that the idea of a Labour Party leader speaking at STWC was just fantastic but these days it just seems stupid. STWC is an anachronism, it has become what it was once caricatured as - an instinctively anti-Western group rather than an anti-war organisation. I don't think that it is morally defensible to attend, it is led by people who back Russia while it is barrel bombing Syrian hospitals. Politically it doesn't make any sense either, the number of people who are even aware of STWC is a tiny constituency to say the least and all of them back Corbyn anyway. Why is he spending any time with them at all?


Here's an argument: while STWC might be awful politically, most people are unaware of this unless they've looked at it in detail, and so the message of Corbyn appearing at a STWC conference is that the leader of the Labour Party is anti-war, and pretty much just that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

Let's just get this  right-  Corbyn was the president of STCW for years. He didn't'' 'appear anywhere. _These are his his people. _Scum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Probably. He was a Tory, after all.



Unlikely, given he was also a philanderer with a Belgian mistress, who liked popping over to see her.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Let's just get this  right-  Corbyn was the president of STCW for years. He didn't'' 'appear anywhere. _These are his his people. _Scum.


Oh sure, yes, it's not just some random group holding a conference that he's decided to show up for. Important to be clear about his involvement. I just mean that if the question is "why is he spending any time with them at all" part of the answer is "because it is going to do him no political damage at all" as well as "because he's one of them and has been for years".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Don't worry...got it...'What is to be done" (Lenin's and Chernyshevsky's)



I prefer "left wing communism - an infantile disorder" by yer man. Some excellent rhetorical contortions in it!



> Seems Abbott's the erm...grit in the oyster and I've misread the whole scene. Thanks guru.



Abbott is good at politics. She's there as a lightning rod. Both Abbott and Corbyn *know* that certain elements of the media won't be able to resist attacking her, but what they don't realise is her skin's as thick as rhino hide. While Murdoch's lackeys are slagging her, they may not pay as much attention to internal changes in the party as they might.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2016)

bemused said:


> ^ this
> 
> I have great respect for her but she joined the party to write a report on anti-Semitism which not a single Jewish group have endorsed, then be made a peer and promoted to the front bench in under six months - the optics on it are piss poor.



TBF, given that the Jewish "establishment" in the UK is basically comprised of the Chief Rabbi, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, plus various bodies that work with them, such as the CST, endorsement was always unlikely. You're talking about an establishment that fundamentally supports *nationalist-Zionism as the overarching ideology in the state of Israel. As an anti-Zionist, it's that particular nationalist ideology and the policies it spawns and has spawned - and their results - that I'm against

*Let's not forget that Zionism was always about *a* (to borrow a term from Herbert Samuels) "Jewish national home", but even Theodor Herzl himself, dog-fucking rightwing shitcunt though he was, didn't fixate on the historical territory of Judea and Samaria until very late in the day. For around thirty years prior to the First Zionist Congress, he'd investigated the possibilities of enclaves in Southern Africa; Argentina and Brazil.
Let's also not forget that Zionism was not always an aggressive nationalism, and for quite a while was mostly a current in European Jewish socialism, spawning the original _kibbutzniks_ and their co-operative commune-like settlements in Palestine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Spend more time pretending to like Bands  now Watson.



Watson being the crap drummer that you can't get rid of, cos he's got the van.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Oct 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn is speaking at the STWC today.
> 
> There was a time when I would have thought that the idea of a Labour Party leader speaking at STWC was just fantastic but these days it just seems stupid. STWC is an anachronism, it has become what it was once caricatured as - an instinctively anti-Western group rather than an anti-war organisation. I don't think that it is morally defensible to attend, it is led by people who back Russia while it is barrel bombing Syrian hospitals. Politically it doesn't make any sense either, the number of people who are even aware of STWC is a tiny constituency to say the least and all of them back Corbyn anyway. Why is he spending any time with them at all?



It is exactly the sort of thing that shows how unserious he is. If he really wanted to lead a government he would be walking round a marginal seat talking to the public, not a gaggle of jumper wearing tambourine tappers.


----------



## coley (Oct 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn is speaking at the STWC today.
> 
> There was a time when I would have thought that the idea of a Labour Party leader speaking at STWC was just fantastic but these days it just seems stupid. STWC is an anachronism, it has become what it was once caricatured as - an instinctively anti-Western group rather than an anti-war organisation. I don't think that it is morally defensible to attend, it is led by people who back Russia while it is barrel bombing Syrian hospitals. Politically it doesn't make any sense either, the number of people who are even aware of STWC is a tiny constituency to say the least and all of them back Corbyn anyway. Why is he spending any time with them at all?



Not disagreeing in the slightest, but STWC agreeing and supporting Russia and Assad? Im a bit out of the loop ATM but a link to these positions would be appreciated, Ta


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 8, 2016)

Bunch of cunts tbf

British Muslims turn their back on Stop the War Coalition over Assad 'apologists'

And what STWC had to say

For avoidance of doubt: the positions of Stop the War Coalition


----------



## coley (Oct 8, 2016)

Sue said:


> I wish they'd all just shut the fuck up. I am so utterly bored of all this nonsense and the whining and bleating from the anti Corbynites. They still don't seem to get/accept they lost and that they are in no position to dictate terms on anything. Ffs, can someone make them all go away? [/QUOTE
> 
> 8867"]I wish they'd all just shut the fuck up. I am so utterly bored of all this nonsense and the whining and bleating from the anti Corbynites/*remainers,*They still don't seem to get/accept they lost and that they are in no position to dictate terms on anything. Ffs, can someone make them all go away?



I agree (hope you don't mind the small addition, in bold)


----------



## coley (Oct 8, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Next year's leadership candidate has already laid down a marker
> 
> Tony Blair hints at return to UK politics: ‘It’s an open question’


Jeez, Trumps bad enough but Blair back on the scene? Just when i thought Neoliberalism (and the FF industry was approaching terminal decline) up pop the zombies to give it a few mair years!


----------



## coley (Oct 8, 2016)

kebabking said:


> I disagree, Corbyns policies and history are the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to become the next PM - this stuff widens the gap between possible and no chance, but opposing NATO and trident while Vlad the Invader rolls through eastern Europe, and is 'friends' with Hamas and believes the police should be disarmed and the security services abolished while IS rampages through France is the reason he is astonishingly unlikely to be PM.
> 
> The left may have chosen a great candidate to win elections in the Labour party, but they have chosen a really shit candidate to win an election amonst the wider electorate...



Unfortunately you are totally correct, I like Corbyns broadly socialist ideals, as I do the Greens, but they need to be tempered by a bit of 'real world reality'
There are some really nasty political realities emerging,  Le Pen, Trump etc, given they will be in competition with well entrenched  'nationalists' ( Putin, springs to mind)
Then the world seems a far less safer place then just ten years ago.
It's not going to be a conflict of nationalities, rather than a conflict of the various strands of 'neoliberalism' 
The 'super rich'  corporations, irrespective of nationality, fighting it out to achieve corporate and financial dominance.
And for fucking what?
So a tiny % of the worlds poulation can dine on larks togues  and rub their flaccid dicks with powdered rhino horn?


----------



## Humberto (Oct 9, 2016)

.


----------



## alsoknownas (Oct 9, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Bunch of cunts tbf
> 
> British Muslims turn their back on Stop the War Coalition over Assad 'apologists'
> 
> ...


The STWC statement seems pretty spot on so far as I can see, and specifically denies supporting Assad .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Bunch of cunts tbf
> 
> British Muslims turn their back on Stop the War Coalition over Assad 'apologists'
> 
> ...



they claim stwc is confused but it is others that appear to be the confused. The article starts with claims that stwc support Assad then changes tack to statements that they should condemn him. 

Very weak imo. They don't attack stwc's opposition to bombing Libya, merely their lack of vocal condemnation of Gaddafi. Think they're confused as to what stwc is, something their statement is very clear about.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

coley said:


> Not disagreeing in the slightest, but STWC agreeing and supporting Russia and Assad? Im a bit out of the loop ATM but a link to these positions would be appreciated, Ta



They are just within that orbit. There is no official pro-Assad policy but Rees appears very often on Russia Today, and STWC have offered speaking platforms to pro-Assad Issa Chaer and Mother Agnes while routinely denying them to anti-Assad speakers. In fact, the organisation does not just deny anti-Assad groups a platform they also remove them from events. They allow Syrian government flags, but not Syrian revolutionary flags at their events.

Of course it isn't that simple, they have also published (and subsequently deleted) an article which was sympathetic to ISIS



> To evoke the international brigades in support of Cameron’s bombing campaign requires real audacity, bad faith, and an indifference to history or the political realities of the 21st century.   Benn does not even seem to realize that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit  of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron’s bombing campaign – except that the international jihad takes the form of solidarity with oppressed Muslims, rather than the working class or the socialist revolution.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

Corbyn is also getting a lot of flak for appearing at an SWP event yesterday, it is made even worse by the fact that he initially promised to withdraw from it after being told what I am sure he already knew about the SWP. He then relented and went anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

and that is why some people won't give three or twenty five groats. The labour left, its just 'well its not the labour right for a change' isn't it. A swapshoppie event ffs after 'cmrd' delta and an already inglorious history. The devil quotes scripture


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

So much wasted potential and energy.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and that is why some people won't give three or twenty five groats. The labour left, its just 'well its not the labour right for a change' isn't it. A swapshoppie event ffs after 'cmrd' delta and an already inglorious history. The devil quotes scripture



_Get thee behind me... _Except that bit obvs.


----------



## bemused (Oct 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, given that the Jewish "establishment" in the UK is basically comprised of the Chief Rabbi, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, plus various bodies that work with them, such as the CST, endorsement was always unlikely.



When asked about who supported her report he answer is many people contacted her privately ... I like her, but, the entire exercise looks very shady and as a result makes her look shady with it.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 9, 2016)

bemused said:


> When asked about who supported her report he answer is many people contacted her privately ... I like her, but, the entire exercise looks very shady and as a result makes her look shady with it.


 
'hundreds of PM's of support'....

She sold her previously well regarded reputation for the dubious rewards of sitting in Corbyns SC, and the amusing thing is that squabbling over the contents of her report is now entirely superfluous: it could be a genuinely decent piece of work that told the truth of the situation, but now she's jumped into Corbyn-land with both pace and enthusiasm (not sure about hypocrisy - I can't recall her previously held views on the house of Lords...), no one believes a word of it anyway.

Has she read 'how to win friends and influence people' by one Donald J. Trump?


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2016)

Of all the sticks with which Corbyn has been beaten this past year, this "sacking of Rosie Winterton" one is perhaps the most annoying. 



> One senior Labour source said Winterton, who was made a dame in the last New Year’s honours list, had a reputation for being one of the most discreet and loyal of the shadow team, working behind the scenes to try to keep Labour’s warring groups together.
> 
> “She more than anyone tried to keep things together over the summer, coming up with plans about how to unite the shadow cabinet and the party,” the source said. “She has really tried to make it work.”



Apparently Conor McGinn is going to resign in protest.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 9, 2016)

agricola said:


> Of all the sticks with which Corbyn has been beaten this past year, this "sacking of Rosie Winterton" one is perhaps the most annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Conor McGinn is going to resign in protest.



Two sides to it - everyone knows that Winterton is no Corbynite. She doesn't share his political views and she doesn't like him personally, and realistically you can't have a leader and chief whip who can't stand each other, and for good or ill he's the leader so she has to go. 

However, the damaging thing for Corbyn is that it's another example of him seemingly being unable to act in good faith - it appears he is simply unable to agree to a compromise he doesn't like but recognises is politically necessary without turning around 5 minutes later and repudiating it but doing so without having the integrity to tell the person involved that the deal is off.

Stiffing people who think they have an agreement with him - look at his close ally Clive Lewis - is going to dramatically shorten the list of people who are prepared to work for him. They disagree with him on policy so they aren't keen to begin with, but if they think that it's only a matter of time before he has one of his press creatures annul whatever publicly agreed policy they've managed to hammer out between them, then they simply won't bother.


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Two sides to it - everyone knows that Winterton is no Corbynite. She doesn't share his political views and she doesn't like him personally, and realistically you can't have a leader and chief whip who can't stand each other, and for good or ill he's the leader so she has to go.
> 
> However, the damaging thing for Corbyn is that it's another example of him seemingly being unable to act in good faith - it appears he is simply unable to agree to a compromise he doesn't like but recognises is politically necessary without turning around 5 minutes later and repudiating it but doing so without having the integrity to tell the person involved that the deal is off.
> 
> Stiffing people who think they have an agreement with him - look at his close ally Clive Lewis - is going to dramatically shorten the list of people who are prepared to work for him. They disagree with him on policy so they aren't keen to begin with, but if they think that it's only a matter of time before he has one of his press creatures annul whatever publicly agreed policy they've managed to hammer out between them, then they simply won't bother.



How hasn't he acted in good faith with regards to that sacking?  She spent most of this year organizing rebellions against him.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 9, 2016)

agricola said:


> How hasn't he acted in good faith with regards to that sacking?  She spent most of this year organizing rebellions against him.



He was negotiating with her regarding the make up if the SC, good faith would have been to sack her immediately he was re-elected (which he'd have the absolute right to-do as leader), or let her know that he would be replacing her with another CW who he could work with when the inevitable reshuffle took place.

It's bad faith to negotiate knowing full well that you won't be implementing anything you agree to.


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> It's bad faith to negotiate knowing full well that you won't be implementing anything you agree to.


Bad faith to take a job then spend your time constantly trying to undermine the person who gave you it, I'd have thought...


----------



## cantsin (Oct 9, 2016)

So, Chakrabarti's first big media engagement since appointment,

Peston : "Grammars ? "

SC : "Bad "

Peston : " but your ....private ...blah ." 

"Labour Hypocrisy " all over twitter etc .

Repeat ad infinitum until either Grammars are off the agenda, or Abbo + Chakrabarti gone .



grim


----------



## kebabking (Oct 9, 2016)

Sue said:


> Bad faith to take a job then spend your time constantly trying to undermine the person who gave you it, I'd have thought...



In which case he should have sacked her, not started a conversation with her about building 'unity' together while looking for a successor.

He could simply have told her that shadow cabinet appointments were not up for discussion, and that he would appoint who ever the hell he liked in the forthcoming reshuffle, and then sacked her - as is absolutely his right as party leader. He had absolutely no need to deceive anyone, or spin a line, or keep people guessing, or to suggest that he wanted to walk on one path while knowing he was about to walk down another.


----------



## Sue (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> In which case he should have sacked her, not started a conversation with her about building 'unity' together while looking for a successor.
> 
> He could simply have told her that shadow cabinet appointments were not up for discussion, and that he would appoint who ever the hell he liked in the forthcoming reshuffle, and then sacked her - as is absolutely his right as party leader. He had absolutely no need to deceive anyone, or spin a line, or keep people guessing, or to suggest that he wanted to walk on one path while knowing he was about to walk down another.


Cue 'Evil mysogonist Corbyn sacks woman' headlines. I'm not a fan of Corbyn but he really can't win with these fuckers. What a shower.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> He was negotiating with her regarding the make up if the SC, good faith would have been to sack her immediately he was re-elected (which he'd have the absolute right to-do as leader), or let her know that he would be replacing her with another CW who he could work with when the inevitable reshuffle took place.
> 
> It's bad faith to negotiate knowing full well that you won't be implementing anything you agree to.



Did he actually make an agreement? agricola said they thought they had an agreement but was that just because he was negotiating with them? 

With the number who've been stabbing him in the back it might not be sensible to tell them what he's going to do in advance.


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> In which case he should have sacked her, not started a conversation with her about building 'unity' together while looking for a successor.
> 
> He could simply have told her that shadow cabinet appointments were not up for discussion, and that he would appoint who ever the hell he liked in the forthcoming reshuffle, and then sacked her - as is absolutely his right as party leader. He had absolutely no need to deceive anyone, or spin a line, or keep people guessing, or to suggest that he wanted to walk on one path while knowing he was about to walk down another.



That is a daft argument, though.  For a start, the idea that the Chief Whip should be negotiating with the leader on behalf of the PLP is surely the opposite of how things should work.  Secondly, discussions about unity can only be held if both sides are honest - and there is abundant evidence that Winterton's wasn't (and hasn't been since Corbyn was elected), hence all the usual suspects coming out and saying what a moderate, unifying influence she was over the past few days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> seemingly being unable to act in good faith


he has tried the enemies close approach. Good faith is a two way street, I'll turn one cheek but part both no I won't

Of all the crits of corbyn this is a weak suace indeed. He gave everyone, even virulent enemies, a fair shake. Thats his bag, compromise and consensus. But fool me once shame on you etc

Don't keep vipers in the bed.


----------



## treelover (Oct 9, 2016)

cantsin said:


> So, Chakrabarti's first big media engagement since appointment,
> 
> Peston : "Grammars ? "
> 
> ...






Aaron Bastani has created a furore(within certain circles) for arguing Corbyn shouldn't have gone to a Stop Racism 16 (SWP Front) as by endorsing the event it condones rape abusers, the organisers.


----------



## treelover (Oct 9, 2016)

> We are about advancing a radical democratic politics which demands the flourishing of every single person - regardless of race, class and gender.
> 
> Thats the opposite of working with organisations run by central committee which cover up sexual assault.
> 
> Aaron Bastani | Facebook


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

Sue said:


> I wish they'd all just shut the fuck up. I am so utterly bored of all this nonsense and the whining and bleating from the anti Corbynites. They still don't seem to get/accept they lost and that they are in no position to dictate terms on anything. Ffs, can someone make them all go away?



You don't seem to appreciate that Corbyn is unelectable.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Did he actually make an agreement? agricola said they thought they had an agreement but was that just because he was negotiating with them?
> 
> With the number who've been stabbing him in the back it might not be sensible to tell them what he's going to do in advance.



Whilst I appreciate that the current government isn't overburdened with talented people, Corbyn's picks are largely people I've never heard of. Barrel scraping on his part?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> You don't seem to appreciate that Corbyn is unelectable.



He has a mountain to climb. But has a huge team of sherpas to help him.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Whilst I appreciate that the current government isn't overburdened with talented people, Corbyn's picks are largely people I've never heard of. Barrel scraping on his part?



I don't know whether picking people to serve in the Shadow Cabinet based on whether they are well known or not is a very good criteria for selection


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> He has a mountain to climb. But has a huge team of sherpas to help him.


Who?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who?



Our lord and saviour.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Our lord and saviour.


No, who are the sherpas? You're in the anarchist labour party police. Who are your sherpas?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 9, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Whilst I appreciate that the current government isn't overburdened with talented people, Corbyn's picks are largely people I've never heard of. Barrel scraping on his part?



name recognition factor should be a central concern in appointing a shadow cabinet, definitely. 

Who would you have in mind ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2016)

treelover said:


> Aaron Bastani has created a furore(within certain circles) for arguing Corbyn shouldn't have gone to a Stop Racism 16 (SWP Front) as by endorsing the event it condones rape abusers, the organisers.


Which circles?


----------



## Libertad (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> He has a mountain to climb. But has a huge team of sherpas to help him.



One of Corbyn's huge team of sherpas.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

cantsin said:


> name recognition factor should be a central concern in appointing a shadow cabinet, definitely.
> 
> Who would you have in mind ?



Your reply made me chuckle.

One would have expected for those of sufficient ability for Cabinet rank, to have registered on your radar, surely?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

Libertad said:


> One of Corbyn's huge team of sherpas.



His aren't in such splendid nick.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Our lord and saviour.



I suspect that Corbyn would capitalise the 'lord'.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 9, 2016)

cantsin said:


> grim



...cringe making...not exactly car-crash but definitely that horrible grinding noise as your entire side panel is scraped along a badly-judged width-restriction bollard.....tbh the right can always be nailed to the floor over their championing of standards of personal and sexual morality that they never seem to practice in private...the left will always be wide open over their BTL property portfolios, children's school arrangements, rush to take up seats in unelected chambers etc...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

agricola said:


> That is a daft argument, though.  For a start, the idea that the Chief Whip should be negotiating with the leader on behalf of the PLP is surely the opposite of how things should work.  Secondly, discussions about unity can only be held if both sides are honest - and there is abundant evidence that Winterton's wasn't (and hasn't been since Corbyn was elected), hence all the usual suspects coming out and saying what a moderate, unifying influence she was over the past few days.



The fact that the erstwhile Chief Whip had to negotiate with the PLP, on the part of the leader says it all.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...cringe making...not exactly car-crash but definitely that horrible grinding noise as your entire side panel is scraped along a badly-judged width-restriction bollard.....tbh the right can always be nailed to the floor over their championing of standards of personal and sexual morality that they never seem to practice in private...the left will always be wide open over their BTL property portfolios, children's school arrangements, rush to take up seats in unelected chambers etc...



The message I get from your post is that politicians of all stripes are mendacious and self-serving. 

Very perspicacious of you, I fully agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> The fact that the erstwhile Chief Whip had to negotiate with the PLP, on the part of the leader says it all.


What does it say?


----------



## Tankus (Oct 9, 2016)

The Judean people's front are still not happy with the people's front of Judea....?





' kin splitters...!


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No, who are the sherpas? You're in the anarchist labour party police. Who are your sherpas?



The troops. The ones theyre hoping to send to bootcamp and then battle harden them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The troops. The ones theyre hoping to send to bootcamp and then battle harden them.


Then  they're not sherpas. Who are the sherpas you talked about?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he has tried the enemies close approach. Good faith is a two way street, I'll turn one cheek but part both no I won't
> 
> Of all the crits of corbyn this is a weak suace indeed. He gave everyone, even virulent enemies, a fair shake. Thats his bag, compromise and consensus. But fool me once shame on you etc
> 
> Don't keep vipers in the bed.



If he really did. He often seems passive aggressive to me, calling on unity, but actually working with only his own clique. Maybe he gets forced into that position, but clearly Jeremy rarely does anything he doesn't wish to do. I would suggest he is someone for whom consensus is not important other than with his allies.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Then  they're not sherpas. Who are the sherpas you talked about?



Don't colonise my analogy. The sherpas are the raw recruits.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Don't colonise my analogy. The sherpas are the raw recruits.


You don't know what a sherpa is then and instead use a pretty outdated piece of imperial racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

You're an absolute embarrassment btw. I hope the anarchist Labour Party police keep you quiet.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> If he really did. He often seems passive aggressive to me, calling on unity, but actually working with only his own clique. Maybe he gets forced into that position, but clearly Jeremy rarely does anything he doesn't wish to do. I would suggest he is someone for whom consensus is not important other than with his allies.



And neither his allies, nor the Labour Party members who voted for him to be leader, have sufficient mass to elect him as PM.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> And neither his allies, nor the Labour Party members who voted for him to be leader, have sufficient mass to elect him as PM.


Given that no one in the Labour party has been able to do this for two successive elections why do you put the results of  your crystal  ball  gazing down to Corbyn?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You don't know what a sherpa is then and instead use a pretty outdated piece of imperial racism.



That must have been a double portion of sticky toffee pudding in spoons this afternoon to fuel that heady leap of logic.

Please explain to the class why referring to sherpas as sherpas is racist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> If he really did. He often seems passive aggressive to me, calling on unity, but actually working with only his own clique. Maybe he gets forced into that position, but clearly Jeremy rarely does anything he doesn't wish to do. I would suggest he is someone for whom consensus is not important other than with his allies.


blokes got the backing- on an increased majority- from his whole party and still calls for clean slate? Come on. Passive aggresive wonn't wash here. I'd agree that there will be lines and issues he won't compromise on but its leadership, everyones going to have a few issues they won't budge on and as democratically elected leader the PLP should respect that. Instead they go aggressive-aggressive with all the stagey resignations and crap stalking horses.

I'm sure the disunity matters more to most people but its the going to a swappie thing thats been annoying me today. Theres absolutely no way he doesn't know who he was breaking bread with there and why people would find it shite


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

Speaking of Corbyn's sherpas, I see that Tony Greenstein has been elected to the Brighton Momentum committee.

The Zios will be trembling into their boots


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That must have been a double portion of sticky toffee pudding in spoons this afternoon to fuel that heady leap of logic..


Ah bless ya. On the one hand, look how working class I am, on the other, you use a class-based insult to get at someone. 

that's really poor, drding, really really poor.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah bless ya. On the one hand, look how working class I am, on the other, you use a class-based insult to get at someone.
> 
> that's really poor, drding, really really poor.



That's what i had in spoons today you middle class liberal twerp. It really speaks volumes you think accusing someone of eating in spoons is an insult. Pompous prick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's what i had in spoons today you middle class liberal twerp.


Nope. You don't get off that. 'I also eat at spoons'? Nope. You weren't attempting empathy there. You were having a go.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. You don't get off that. 'I also eat at spoons'? Nope. You weren't attempting empathy there. You were having a go.



Yes i was having a dig, it was a play on accusing ba of being drugged. You just saw being accused of eating in spoons as an insult. Absolute scum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That's what i had in spoons today you middle class liberal twerp. It really speaks volumes you think accusing someone of eating in spoons is an insult. Pompous prick.


Ok, your edit just makes it worse. Shit post is followed by a shit apology for the post.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, your edit just makes it worse. Shit post is followed by a shit apology for the post.



Youre nowhere near as smart as you think you are. On any topic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Youre nowhere near as smart as you think you are. On any topic.


fuck's sake, just own up and say 'yeah, not cool'. You're now just making yourself sound utterly absurd.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fuck's sake, just own up and say 'yeah, not cool'. You're now just making yourself sound utterly absurd.



Snobby liberals like you have no fucking place. Take your nose out of the air.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 9, 2016)

this thread keep falling down holes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> He was negotiating with her regarding the make up if the SC, good faith would have been to sack her immediately he was re-elected (which he'd have the absolute right to-do as leader), or let her know that he would be replacing her with another CW who he could work with when the inevitable reshuffle took place.
> 
> It's bad faith to negotiate knowing full well that you won't be implementing anything you agree to.


The discussions are still ongoing, just with Brown replacing Winterton.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Snobby liberals like you have no fucking place. Take your nose out of the air.


way to miss the point. You're a fucking prick sometimes.

Or were you being pally with butchers - yeah, I eat in spoons too. You don't even realise that you're the snobby prick here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

corbyn probably forgoes spoons in favour of a packed lunch in the shed on his allotment


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> way to miss the point. You're a fucking prick sometimes.



Whereas youre an unrelenting selfregarding snooty herbert all the time.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> corbyn probably forgoes spoons in favour of a packed lunch in the shed on his allotment



Yea but no pork pies or secret swigs of whisky


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Whereas youre an unrelenting selfregarding snooty herbert all the time.


Classy response: yeah, my bad.

Your response: XXXXXXXX

* i'll leave you with the honour of the last word on this.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

Does anyone know what Corbyn grows in his allotment? I bet he exclusively grows shit foods that taste disgusting like kale


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Corbyn's sherpas, I see that Tony Greenstein has been elected to the Brighton Momentum committee.


Fucking hell. That's depressing.  Surprised he's still allowed a twitter account let alone being elected to anyone's committe.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Classy response: yeah, my bad.
> 
> Your response: XXXXXXXX
> 
> * i'll leave you with the honour of the last word on this.



3 words: pompous liberal shitcunt


----------



## Raheem (Oct 9, 2016)

Since the thread is already totally derailed...

I quite like Wetherspoons. They've got some nice pubs. Newcastle Union Rooms is ace. Am I supporting a monster? I know the boss is a twat, but are they an OK employer etc? Anyone know?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> Fucking hell. That's depressing.  Surprised he's still allowed a twitter account let alone being elected to anyone's committe.



If you have ever had the misfortune of reading anything he has written it is very clear that he is unwell, yet apparently he has found an audience that not only do not think that he is unwell but thinks that what he is saying is sufficiently sensible to put him in a position of influence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone know what Corbyn grows in his allotment? I bet he exclusively grows shit foods that taste disgusting like kale


those giant marrows that taste of nothing


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Since the thread is already totally derailed...
> 
> I quite like Wetherspoons. They've got some nice pubs. Newcastle Union Rooms is ace. Am I supporting a monster? I know the boss is a twat, but are they an OK employer etc? Anyone know?


Me too. They serve many fine ales and their food is good for the price.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> View attachment 93742
> 
> 
> 3 words



LOL


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> View attachment 93742
> 
> 
> 3 words: pompous liberal shitcunt


Sorry, going to break my own rule here. But lol. Proper lol. you think the point of this was that I didn't think you'd eaten at Wetherspoons today?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

I also have had a decent amount of drink + a bit of food from spoons pubs but I have never saved a receipt from there.

Perhaps I should start saving them if I ever need to prove my proletarian credentials on the internet.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If you have ever had the misfortune of reading anything he has written it is very clear that he is unwell, yet apparently he has found an audience that not only do not think that he is unwell but thinks that what he is saying is sufficiently sensible to put him in a position of influence.


Enough of dinding.

TG put up a load of stickers in  brighton accusing people of being fascists. People who are not fascists. He tried to get them excluded from the unemployed centre too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, going to break my own rule here. But lol. Proper lol. you think the point of this was that I didn't think you'd eaten at Wetherspoons today?


He kept the receipt too. This is not a well man.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah bless ya. On the one hand, look how working class I am, on the other, you use a class-based insult to get at someone.
> 
> that's really poor, drding, really really poor.



Lol, you must have a different view of the Spoons to me / us lot down here in N Devon -our local  deffo not a place that folk look down on, and didn't cross my mind that was what D Ding was doing.

Maybe a bit low falutin' for you tho ?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

A big old shibboleth on lbj's part.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> View attachment 93742
> 
> 
> 3 words: pompous liberal shitcunt


I've been posting on here for 15 years. I think this is the saddest post i've ever seen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Maybe a bit low falutin' for you tho ?


Nope, not at all. But I'm pleased drding has something to like.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> A big old shibboleth on lbj's part.


Ask two shed for a use of his birthday dictionary.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I've been posting on her for 15 years. I think this is the saddest post i've ever seen.



Made me laugh.

Have you got any closer to explaining how referring to sherpas as sherpas is racist yet?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 9, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope, not at all. But I'm pleased drding has something to like.



...and yet your immediate, knee jerk reaction was offence at being accused of eating in spoons.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Lol, you must have a different view of the Spoons to me / us lot down here in N Devon -our local  deffo not a place that folk look down on, and didn't cross my mind that was what D Ding was doing.
> 
> Maybe a bit low falutin' for you tho ?



I think you can not look down on people who go to wetherspoons while also being aware that there are people who do, in fact I've been sat in wetherspoons pubs with people slagging off wetherspoons pubs without knowing that they were in one!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ...and yet your immediate, knee jerk reaction was offence at being accused of eating in spoons.


Knew that post was a mistake. I leave this here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think you can not look down on people who go to wetherspoons while also being aware that there are people who do, in fact I've been sat in wetherspoons pubs with people slagging off wetherspoons pubs without knowing that they were in one!


they vary quite a lot in food quality, a lot is down to how kitchen trained the staff are- microwaving readymade curries is something anyone can do, but the fresher stuff needs someone with kitchen experience even if its just years of home cooking. As for the quality of the surroundings that varies as well- think that depends on how much the landlord/lady gives a shit and how long its been since the chain paid for a refurb.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they vary quite a lot in food quality, a lot is down to how kitchen trained the staff are- microwaving readymade curries is something anyone can do, but the fresher stuff needs someone with kitchen experience even if its just years of home cooking. As for the quality of the surroundings that varies as well- think that depends on how much the landlord/lady gives a shit and how long its been since the chain paid for a refurb.



Yea I have a friend who worked in the kitchen as a cook at a Wetherspoons and he couldn't fry an egg, the food there was not good but he said he got treated like shit there as a worker which answers a Q upthread. Pubs generally seem to treat workers like shit though.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 9, 2016)

Can someone retitle the thread "Jeremy Corbyn's time is up/Wetherspoons" please?


----------



## campanula (Oct 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If you have ever had the misfortune of reading anything he has written it is very clear that he is unwell, yet apparently he has found an audience that not only do not think that he is unwell but thinks that what he is saying is sufficiently sensible to put him in a position of influence.


Jesus Fuck - I had to work alongside him for 3 years! Unwell - tip of the icebwerg - well recalling the uncountable different BUC bank accounts (friends of etc.) and midnight break-ins to mash up hard drives - the man is a fucking loon.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they vary quite a lot in food quality, a lot is down to how kitchen trained the staff are- microwaving readymade curries is something anyone can do, but the fresher stuff needs someone with kitchen experience even if its just years of home cooking. As for the quality of the surroundings that varies as well- think that depends on how much the landlord/lady gives a shit and how long its been since the chain paid for a refurb.



Variety is good though. Wetherspoons doesn't force an identikit brand identity wherever it lands. I don't want to sound like a shareholder, but I can't see what's wrong with it. There's no music, so you get the sound of people talking instead. It's reasonably inclusive. Even at down-at-heel Wetherspoons, you can chat with strangers in a way that's actually pretty unusual for a pub. 

My question above was serious though. There must be a catch. Someone give me credible evidence that it's a union-busting, zero-hours hive of racist bullying secretly controlled by the Masons. If you don't, I will keep going there and, as a consequence, capitalism wins.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Variety is good though. Wetherspoons doesn't force an identikit brand identity wherever it lands. I don't want to sound like a shareholder, but I can't see what's wrong with it. There's no music, so you get the sound of people talking instead. It's reasonably inclusive. Even at down-at-heel Wetherspoons, you can chat with strangers in a way that's actually pretty unusual for a pub.
> 
> My question above was serious though. There must be a catch. Someone give me credible evidence that it's a union-busting, zero-hours hive of racist bullying secretly controlled by the Masons. If you don't, I will keep going there and, as a consequence, capitalism wins.



its a chain, they'll sweat their labour and use size to drive down purchasing price throughout the length of the supply chain. Thats just how shit works. Hungry Horse or a Toby Carvery aren't going to be much different. Don't even think the  landlord/license holders are on a massive wedge either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Variety is good though. Wetherspoons doesn't force an identikit brand identity wherever it lands. I don't want to sound like a shareholder, but I can't see what's wrong with it. There's no music, so you get the sound of people talking instead. It's reasonably inclusive. Even at down-at-heel Wetherspoons, you can chat with strangers in a way that's actually pretty unusual for a pub.
> 
> My question above was serious though. There must be a catch. Someone give me credible evidence that it's a union-busting, zero-hours hive of racist bullying secretly controlled by the Masons. If you don't, I will keep going there and, as a consequence, capitalism wins.


Sorry, but unions for barstaff? Do you think we're Denmark or something? 

Truth is that spoons operates at the minimum legal requirement and it would be hard for them, as a big chain, to be below that (other pubs might - just cos it's an independent doesn't mean the staff are treated better). 

But more generally, in the UK, bar staff are paid really fucking badly. No just spoons. Generally.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2016)

corbyn in spoons:

'A glass of water please. Tap'







thinking 'another cheap night out for me'


----------



## two sheds (Oct 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Ask two shed for a use of his birthday dictionary.





> A custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important.
> _‘liberal shibboleths about education’ _



See there's a proper use of the word 'liberal' 
_
_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> corbyn in spoons:
> 
> 'A glass of water please. Tap'
> 
> ...


That's true everywhere, though.

Truth is more sinister. Truth is everyone rushing to the bar to buy the round cos it's a spoon's.

'Stand back, I'm getting this one'.

_Cheap cunt. _

_eta:_

_Still counts if he's buying the round , though... 

*pah, but, you hold the door open for everyone like a lovely person. And then lo, you're the last to the bar... *_


----------



## treelover (Oct 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Corbyn's sherpas, I see that Tony Greenstein has been elected to the Brighton Momentum committee.
> 
> The Zios will be trembling into their boots



That is a grade A disaster.


----------



## Cid (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Made me laugh.
> 
> Have you got any closer to explaining how referring to sherpas as sherpas is racist yet?



When you refer to a sherpa what do you mean?


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> View attachment 93742
> 
> 
> 3 words: pompous liberal shitcunt



It is worth reading all 400+ pages of this thread just to get to this moment.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 10, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Since the thread is already totally derailed...
> 
> I quite like Wetherspoons. They've got some nice pubs. Newcastle Union Rooms is ace. Am I supporting a monster? I know the boss is a twat, but are they an OK employer etc? Anyone know?



Pretty good employers as far as chain pubs go. Which is not saying much of course.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Don't colonise my analogy.



This is a perfect little nugget of stupidity and it's already made my morning, so thanks for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Don't colonise my analogy. The sherpas are the raw recruits.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

We've stayed at the Weatherspoons pub/hotel in King's Lynn - the family room was excellent with lots of room for all the beds, the food very good and the breakfast delicious and mighty...

The spoons hotel in Bewdley always gets good reviews - excellent location as well.


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2016)

I had some appalling rubbery scrambled eggs in a Catford Wetherspoons.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2016)

Sausage and mash is OK at the 'spoons each time I've had some, usually a working lunch or tea. Last one was Chepstow, before that Abergavenny. Wouldn't eat it if I was paying for myself but when it's work buying I'm happy enough.


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2016)

If work is buying you go somewhere more expensive don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

I had a fry-up at one in London where they _forgot the bacon. 
_
Which is why we need to get out of the EU.


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I had a a fry-up at one in London where they _forgot the bacon._


Creeping islamification. There'll be sharia courts in Harvester before you know it,


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> Creeping islamification. There'll be sharia courts in Harvester before you know it,


ISIS your first time in a Harvester?


----------



## Libertad (Oct 10, 2016)




----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 10, 2016)

Is it time's up for the Jeremy Corbyn's Time is up thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2016)

killer b said:


> If work is buying you go somewhere more expensive don't you?



I used to in other jobs, nowadays I work for a charity so I try to be more careful what I spend out of the petty cash.


----------



## Ground Elder (Oct 10, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Sausage and mash is OK at the 'spoons each time I've had some, usually a working _class_ lunch or tea. Last one was Chepstow, before that Abergavenny. Wouldn't eat it if I was paying for myself but when it's work buying I'm happy enough.


Post corrected for you.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2016)

Every lunch and tea I've ever had is a working class lunch or tea. I feel lucky when it's a working lunch or tea as opposed to an unemployed lunch or tea. So leave it out.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> Every lunch and tea I've ever had is a working class lunch or tea. I feel lucky when it's a working lunch or tea as opposed to an unemployed lunch or tea. So leave it out.



Odd phrase 'working class'. As I've worked all my life, I wouldn't consider myself anything other than working class.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2016)

Right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> blokes got the backing- on an increased majority- from his whole party and still calls for clean slate? Come on. Passive aggresive wonn't wash here. I'd agree that there will be lines and issues he won't compromise on but its leadership, everyones going to have a few issues they won't budge on and as democratically elected leader the PLP should respect that. Instead they go aggressive-aggressive with all the stagey resignations and crap stalking horses.
> 
> I'm sure the disunity matters more to most people but its the going to a swappie thing thats been annoying me today. Theres absolutely no way he doesn't know who he was breaking bread with there and why people would find it shite



I actually thought it seemed a reasonable event to be at given recent Labour Party problems and an historical event always worth commemorating. 

It's the SWP banners at his own rallies that will cause him the biggest problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

I must correct my post above, it wasn't in London - it was the Square Peg in brum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> those giant marrows that taste of nothing



His whole lifestyle is somewhat odd for  someone who has earnt 3x the average wage for 30 years. It's like he's living to a script written for him by Mike Leigh. Home grown nutrients, check, bike that looks like he knitted it himself, check. Pure 'Nuts in May'.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> His whole lifestyle is somewhat odd for  someone who has earnt 3x the average wage for 30 years. It's like he's living to a script written for him by Mike Leigh. Home grown nutrients, check, bike that looks like he knitted it himself, check. Pure 'Nuts in May'.



It's a fairly right-wing worldview that says anyone whose sole goals in life aren't '(i) get money (ii) flaunt it' is odd.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



That's this year's Secret Santa sorted.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> His whole lifestyle is somewhat odd for  someone who has earnt 3x the average wage for 30 years. It's like he's living to a script written for him by Mike Leigh. Home grown nutrients, check, bike that looks like he knitted it himself, check. Pure 'Nuts in May'.



He seems like someone who  genuninely doesnt feel the usual consumerist urges in quite the same way as the rest of us - which all feeds healthily into the wider Corbo picture / adds to the core brand strength.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2016)

Tories 17% ahead of Labour.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> I'm going out on a limb and call Sunday's results now. No fuckin way will Labour top 25%. If they do, I'll publically acknowledge your political savvy.


Does this mean pickman wins by one point?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does this mean pickman wins by one point?



The living definition of a Pyrrhic victory?


----------



## bemused (Oct 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Tories 17% ahead of Labour.



Conservatives: 43% (up 2)

Labour: 26% (down 2)

Ukip: 11% (down 2)

Lib Dems: 8% (down 1)

That's pretty grim.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does this mean pickman wins by one point?


it means James McFadden has to prostrate himself in publick, or at least in a thread in community chat, and acknowledge his lack of political nous.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 10, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> Anyway, I'm going out on a limb and call Sunday's results now. No fuckin way will Labour top 25%. If they do, I'll publically acknowledge your political savvy.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2016)

bemused said:


> Conservatives: 43% (up 2)
> 
> Labour: 26% (down 2)
> 
> ...


That 26% is just about the worst figure Labour has ever received, certainly since WW2.  You can find a database here -
British voting intention opinion poll database, 1943-
I just glanced at the period leading up to the 1983 election and there were a few in the high 20s there too (think they got 28% in the actual election), but otherwise this is as bad as it gets.  Different situation at the time, with the SDP/Liberal Alliance - UKIP is now the party challenging Labour - but still ultra grim.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That 26% is just about the worst figure Labour has ever received, certainly since WW2.  You can find a database here -
> British voting intention opinion poll database, 1943-
> I just glanced at the period leading up to the 1983 election and there were a few in the high 20s there too (think they got 28% in the actual election), but otherwise this is as bad as it gets.  Different situation at the time, with the SDP/Liberal Alliance - UKIP is now the party challenging Labour - but still ultra grim.


Ugh, I've just discovered Mark Pack's is a lib dem.   But still.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That 26% is just about the worst figure Labour has ever received, certainly since WW2.  You can find a database here -
> British voting intention opinion poll database, 1943-
> I just glanced at the period leading up to the 1983 election and there were a few in the high 20s there too (think they got 28% in the actual election), but otherwise this is as bad as it gets.  Different situation at the time, with the SDP/Liberal Alliance - UKIP is now the party challenging Labour - but still ultra grim.


being as the plp has destabilised the party for the past fifteen months it's hardly surprising the rate's as it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Ugh, I've just discovered Mark Pack's is a lib dem.   But still.


*adds name to list*


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2016)

Things Can Only Get Better


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> *adds name to list*



List of Lib Dems? How many times can you write it on the back of a stamp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> List of Lib Dems? How many times can you write it on the back of a stamp?


i'm not. i am engraving it on the head of a pin.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 10, 2016)

Santino said:


> Things Can Only Get Better



Unless Corbyn calls someone a bigot when he thinks the mike's switched off, or puts a cat in a bin, you're probably right.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Unless Corbyn calls someone a bigot when he thinks the mike's switched off, or puts a cat in a bin, you're probably right.



Oh I don't know - Shami Chakribati's antics on Preston on Sunday probably wouldn't have gone into the polling mix, and Diane Abbott hasn't had a chance to get started as shadow HS yet....


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> being as the plp has destabilised the party for the past fifteen months it's hardly surprising the rate's as it is.



It is the politically naive who have destabilised Labour, by re-electing Corbyn. 

They had their fun in electing him the first time, but have failed to join the world of 'grown up'* politics, by electing him again.

*Only the very naive could possibly think that Labour could win an election under Corbyn. Labour should be surging in the polls at the moment, but they are clearly not. If May calls a snap election, Labour are beyond fucked, and frankly, it serves them right.


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 10, 2016)

Remind me how inspirational and vote winning Owen Smith is again please?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato is here to tell everyone off


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> If May calls a snap election, Labour are beyond fucked, and frankly, it serves them right.



She won't.  May and her cabinet are far too busy trying their damnest to tank the economy at the moment.  To be fair to them they're doing a reasonable job at it thus far.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

How the fruck an she do this? Is there something going on behind my back?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

I've as much power to call a snap election as her.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I've as much power to call a snap election as her.



Don't you do it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Don't you do it


Fuck it, i'm doing it.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2016)

Nooo


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

It's fucking on.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 10, 2016)

Corbyn did stand a chance of winning before the coup... Looks less likely now, but not entirely impossible. A plan that activates the half a million membership could have a significant impact on an election campaign.

However I'd be satisfied with Corbyn democratising the internal party structure, and generally reshaping labour into something of some use.. That would be a massive achievement.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Remind me how inspirational and vote winning Owen Smith is again please?



That's true.  More acceptable than Corbyn though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is the politically naive who have destabilised Labour, by re-electing Corbyn.
> 
> They had their fun in electing him the first time, but have failed to join the world of 'grown up'* politics, by electing him again.
> 
> *Only the very naive could possibly think that Labour could win an election under Corbyn. Labour should be surging in the polls at the moment, but they are clearly not. If May calls a snap election, Labour are beyond fucked, and frankly, it serves them right.


tosh.

if the labour party in parliament had lined up behind corbyn last year rather than doing their damndest to undermine him from the word go, then the history of the last 18 months would be very different. the prospects for 2020 would be very different. but any attempts he has made to hold the government to account have been stymied by the activities of wreckers and traitors, which have received rather more media attention than corbyn's efforts.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> Remind me how inspirational and vote winning Owen Smith is again please?



The one thing the non-entities like Smith (actually Smith was about the least attractive, most vacuous candidate old-new-old-new Labour could have found...) have is that there is at least the possibility that they might win an election on the basis of buggins turn - Smith/Empty Labour for example would probably have beaten John Majors fag end government in 1997, and *might* have a decent chance against an in-reccesion, post-Brexit, squabbling fag end Tory government in 2020. 

Not an absolute of course, but it seems to me that Corbyns Labour evokes a great deal of 'absolutely no way on earth!' from people who have voted for previous incarnations of Labour.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

With people like DrRingDing and Tony Greenstein as your sherpas aint no mountain high enough.


----------



## treelover (Oct 10, 2016)

Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO

Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tosh.
> 
> if the labour party in parliament had lined up behind corbyn last year rather than doing their damndest to undermine him from the word go, then the history of the last 18 months would be very different. the prospects for 2020 would be very different. but any attempts he has made to hold the government to account have been stymied by the activities of wreckers and traitors, which have received rather more media attention than corbyn's efforts.



Very neat summary. No one may argue with it, literally.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO
> 
> Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.



Hope he shows his artworks off too, for the kidz like.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO
> 
> Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.



Do you think it will create a bigger or smaller bounce in the polls than when the news emerged that UB40 had endorsed him?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Five kids at private school.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO
> 
> Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.


nice to know the stars of today are on corbyn's side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO
> 
> Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.


will you be going?



of course you won't, you don't support socialists of any stripe.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Five kids at private school.



Can have a chat with Shami about it.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> nice to know the stars of today are on corbyn's side.


This is what musicians think of Jeremy Corbyn | Gigwise


----------



## Beermoth (Oct 10, 2016)

treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO


 
Wow, Robert Wyatt's playing?! Must be the first time in 15 years or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Wow, Robert Wyatt's playing?! Must be the first time in 15 years or something.


Excellent. An open anti Semite is just what's needed.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

emanymton said:


> This is what musicians think of Jeremy Corbyn | Gigwise



despite being young, hip and happening, i've never heard of any of those people - and what the fuck is a 'MJ from Hookworm'?



treelover said:


> Paul Weller Supergroup To Play Concert For Corbyn | MOJO
> 
> Weller creating a supergroup to endorse Corbyjn, etc, suprised though he had become cynical about politics gone down the purely hedonist route;.



despite being an old fart who knows who Paul Weller is and indeed remembers him from the first time (ish..), i'm afraid i have not one single clue who any of the other other _artistes _or acts are.

_Onwards Comrades! first Brighton and a load of people no one has ever heard of, next, probably not 80+ Tory marginal constitiuancies!_


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

emanymton said:


> This is what musicians think of Jeremy Corbyn | Gigwise


or at least did a year ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent. An open anti Semite is just what's needed.


better than these closet ones


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Wow, Robert Wyatt's playing?! Must be the first time in 15 years or something.



Is it worth it?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> better than these closet ones



saves time, means you can avoid all the tedious arguing about anti-Semitism vs anti-Zionism and just crack into the old favourites the crowd have come to see. 

can you get the lyric '_Blood debt_' into a song about 'international finance'? will we soon find out?


----------



## Beermoth (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Is it worth it?



Well, I ask you...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> saves time, means you can avoid all the tedious arguing about anti-Semitism vs anti-Zionism and just crack into the old favourites the crowd have come to see.
> 
> can you get the lyric '_Blood debt_' into a song about 'international finance'? will we soon find out?


i'm sure you can, it's probably called 'rootless cosmopolitans'


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tosh.
> 
> if the labour party in parliament had lined up behind corbyn last year rather than doing their damndest to undermine him from the word go, then the history of the last 18 months would be very different. the prospects for 2020 would be very different. but any attempts he has made to hold the government to account have been stymied by the activities of wreckers and traitors, which have received rather more media attention than corbyn's efforts.



No, not tosh, which you actually acknowledge with your use of 'if'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, not tosh, which you actually acknowledge with your use of 'if'.


By no means. Had the PLP not chucked their toys out the pram and made the best of things labour would be in a better position, and the tories in a worse. It's to do with the (im)maturity of Labour MPs who have dragged the party down with their wrecker ways. The current abysmal position the fault not of the members and supporters but of a couple of hundred people in Westminster.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> By no means. Had the PLP not chucked their toys out the pram and made the best of things labour would be in a better position, and the tories in a worse. It's to do with the (im)maturity of Labour MPs who have dragged the party down with their wrecker ways. The current abysmal position the fault not of the members and supporters but of a couple of hundred people in Westminster.



I would suggest that the couple of hundred people in Westminster have their feet on the ground, and realise no matter how much the ultra-left support Corbyn, the vast majority of the population do not.

At the moment, I should imagine that the vast majority of the PLP are more anxious about their individual seats, than they are about a Labour election victory. Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet appointments have made it clear that he is extraordinarily vindictive, sane Labour MPs will be very worried about deselection by the ultra-left.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum in the Labour Party, and no one seems to have the inclination, or energy to remove them. It is Militant all over again, except that this time they have their man in the driving seat.

You are absolutely right though, when you say that this continued fuckwittery on the part of Labour, is giving the Conservatives a free run.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would suggest that the couple of hundred people in Westminster have their feet on the ground, and realise no matter how much the ultra-left support Corbyn, the vast majority of the population do not.
> 
> At the moment, I should imagine that the vast majority of the PLP are more anxious about their individual seats, than they are about a Labour election victory. Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet appointments have made it clear that he is extraordinarily vindictive, sane Labour MPs will be very worried about deselection by the ultra-left.
> 
> ...


I would suggest most people have their feet on the ground. But not me, up on a footstool


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 10, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Wow, Robert Wyatt's playing?! Must be the first time in 15 years or something.





Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would suggest that the couple of hundred people in Westminster have their feet on the ground, and realise no matter how much the ultra-left support Corbyn, the vast majority of the population do not.


what is the ultra left?


----------



## jakethesnake (Oct 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Fuck me that is really bad.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would suggest that the couple of hundred people in Westminster have their feet on the ground, and realise no matter how much the ultra-left support Corbyn, the vast majority of the population do not.
> 
> At the moment, I should imagine that the vast majority of the PLP are more anxious about their individual seats, than they are about a Labour election victory. Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet appointments have made it clear that he is extraordinarily vindictive, sane Labour MPs will be very worried about deselection by the ultra-left.
> 
> ...



If you actually think that Militant in the 1980s and what is happening now are even similar then you really haven't got a clue! 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 10, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Fuck me that is really bad.



Musically, politically or just generally?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## jakethesnake (Oct 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Musically, politically or just generally?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yes all of those.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is the politically naive who have destabilised Labour, by re-electing Corbyn.
> 
> They had their fun in electing him the first time, but have failed to join the world of 'grown up'* politics, by electing him again.
> 
> *Only the very naive could possibly think that Labour could win an election under Corbyn. Labour should be surging in the polls at the moment, but they are clearly not. If May calls a snap election, Labour are beyond fucked, and frankly, it serves them right.



Speaking of political naivety, you do realise that due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, May couldn't call a snap election if her life depended on it?

Hmm, thought not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2016)

I've read so called expert political journos at the guardian and the beeb talking about 'If Mrs May were to call a snap election' as if there never was a fixed term act. Its either thickness from blustering posh journo cunts or outright dishonest reportage


----------



## cantsin (Oct 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> despite being young, hip and happening, i've never heard of any of those people - and what the fuck is a 'MJ from Hookworm'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



soooo..you haven't "heard of " : Djano Django / Paloma Faith , Bombay B Club, Temples , Enter Shikari,Robert Wyatt.....and think they constitute "_a load of people no one has ever heard of "  ? _

You sound like you really know what you're talking about here...good stuff


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

There could be an election though. It would require a two thirds vote of MPs for it, so for Lab and Con to agree to it essentially.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> With people like DrRingDing and Tony Greenstein as your sherpas aint no mountain high enough.



Bimbleclot is the last person on this forum to start chucking around accusations of racism.

Maybe hold yer hand up to to your blackface nonsense first.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speaking of political naivety, you do realise that due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, May couldn't call a snap election if her life depended on it?
> 
> Hmm, thought not.



There is a mechanism...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you actually think that Militant in the 1980s and what is happening now are even similar then you really haven't got a clue!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Then enlighten me please.


----------



## Cid (Oct 10, 2016)

jakethesnake said:


> Yes all of those.



The original is a lot better on the musical front.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> There could be an election though. It would require a two thirds vote of MPs for it, so for Lab and Con to agree to it essentially.



Indeed.

It rather puts Labour into the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' category though. They have seldom been less ready for an election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> There could be an election though. It would require a two thirds vote of MPs for it, so for Lab and Con to agree to it essentially.


well yes but its fairyland stuff for political journos, paid to know this shit to be talking about 'if mrs may calls a snap election' as if Darth May actually has the power to do it


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Bimbleclot is the last person on this forum to start chucking around accusations of racism.
> 
> Maybe hold yer hand up to to your blackface nonsense first.



Hi DrDing. Hows it going.
I never called you a racist did I, just wished you well on your journey up the mountain, you plucky Sherpa you.

If you think I'm a racist please say why you think so:
Is it because of my dodgy hairdo ?
Or is it because I rejoice in sipping the blood of palestinian babies.
Could you clarify? Maybe its both.

Actually I can't be arsed, would rather sort out my sock drawer than try to engage in conversation with you.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> There could be an election though. It would require a two thirds vote of MPs for it, so for Lab and Con to agree to it essentially.



Difficult to envisage a set of circumstances in which that could happen, isn't it?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> . It is Militant all over again, except that this time they have their man in the driving seat.



amazing how you can sound so sure of yourself, whilst at the same showing clearly you havent got a scooby doo what your actually talking about.

Especially so, with your track record of total ignorance /  reactionary cretinism re: Liverpool related matters of the 80's.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> There could be an election though. It would require a two thirds vote of MPs for it, so for Lab and Con to agree to it essentially.



With Labour rubbing along at 26%, I would hazard a guess that there won't be too many Labour MP's who'll be wildly keen on walking into the 'yay' lobby - the true believers might want to go for it, but there are lots of Labour MP's who have no intention of foregoing another 3 years on an MP's salary...

There's also a legitimate political calculation - at the moment the Tories have a limited, if not wafer thin majority. Labour can stop things, they can certainly blunt things - if they go for an election and, if the polls are correct, get an absolute fucking rodding and the Tories walk back in with a 100 seat majority, then there's no stopping and no blunting anything.


----------



## Supine (Oct 10, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed.
> 
> It rather puts Labour into the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' category though. They have seldom been less ready for an election.



They are so tied up in their own bubble, believing they can win by getting ordinary non voters to vote, they might just agree to it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Hi DrDing. Hows it going.
> I never called you a racist did I, just wished you well on your journey up the mountain, you plucky Sherpa you.
> 
> If you think I'm a racist please say why you think so:
> ...



Here's a simple illustration why blackface is not ok...

What's offensive about blackface? Imagine you're from another planet...


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 10, 2016)

Oh fuck off the both of you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> With Labour rubbing along at 26%, I would hazard a guess that there won't be too many Labour MP's who'll be wildly keen on walking into the 'yay' lobby - the true believers might want to go for it, but there are lots of Labour MP's who have no intention of foregoing another 3 years on an MP's salary...
> 
> There's also a legitimate political calculation - at the moment the Tories have a limited, if not wafer thin majority. Labour can stop things, they can certainly blunt things - if they go for an election and, if the polls are correct, get an absolute fucking rodding and the Tories walk back in with a 100 seat majority, then there's no stopping and no blunting anything.


labour rightist in a safe seat might think it worth a go to topple the Glorious Leader but no one in a marginal is ever going to go for it. Libs and SNP wouldn't either


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

DrRingDing What is the plan. How are you as a sincere and dedicated trooper / Sherpa going to help Corbyn to the summit?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Difficult to envisage a set of circumstances in which that could happen, isn't it?



Yes. It would require both to fancy their chances or some sort of Brexit induced crisis.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> labour rightist in a safe seat might think it worth a go to topple the Glorious Leader but no one in a marginal is ever going to go for it. Libs and SNP wouldn't either



True, if you've a safe seat then a snap election means no boundary commission changes, and no deselection problems, and a calculation that when Labour gets trounced all the Corbynites will just piss off back to trotland and trouble you no more...

Are there enough of the anti-Corbynites in really, really safe seats to do the business though?

Personally I don't think May is interested - her 'brand' is serious government for serious times, and having said there will be no election she'll fear that if she starts tinkering with the image she might cause the whole thing to fall apart.

She also knows that if she can get the boundary changes through then Labour is fucked, that the Tories and Labour could swap places in the polls and she'd still be in with a chance of getting enough of a result to stay in government. 

The temptation to try an engineer a snap election must be significant, but it also has risks, whereas waiting till 2020 probably carries fewer, or just different risks.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> DrRingDing What is the plan. How are you as a sincere and dedicated trooper / Sherpa going to help Corbyn to the summit?


These aren't the Sherpas you are looking for.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 10, 2016)

And as I'm drunk on a Monday evening:

"The Houses of Parliament - you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> DrRingDing What is the plan. How are you as a sincere and dedicated trooper / Sherpa going to help Corbyn to the summit?



Eeww. Nope. I'm not Labour nor a Corbynista. I loathe the blairites, blair and his little helpers. 

Blair needs to face some prosecution in at least some form. He'll never end up in the Hague but the outside chance of a corbyn government is obviously focussing old Tone's attention.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

Oh. I'm disappointed. Thought you were a trooper.

Do we have anywhere on this website a person who is a proper articulate conscious Sherpa For Corbyn and not just an anti-Zio confused waste of time?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> Oh. I'm disappointed. Thought you were a trooper.
> 
> Do we have anywhere on this website a person who is a proper articulate conscious Sherpa For Corbyn and not just an anti-Zio confused waste of time?



who the fuck are you again ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

cantsin said:


> who the fuck are you again ?


Who am I? Jeez, I don't know. Good question.

I'm just some random person from the internet, surprised by DrRingDing saying he's not a Momentum soldier, cos I thought he was.
How would you like me to define myself, I'm willing to try.
Who are you again cantsin ?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> Who am I? Jeez, I don't know. Good question.
> 
> I'm just some random person from the internet, surprised by DrRingDing saying he's not a Momentum soldier, cos I thought he was.
> How would you like me to define myself, I'm willing to try.
> Who are you again cantsin ?



it's just a lot of empty noise pal


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

Agreed. I don't care who you are either. 
was just saying, if DrDing isn't a sherpa who here is. I thought there were loads.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I've read so called expert political journos at the guardian and the beeb talking about 'If Mrs May were to call a snap election' as if there never was a fixed term act. Its either thickness from blustering posh journo cunts or outright dishonest reportage



She could always just repeal (or amend) it using her mighty majority (and the Parliament Act if necessary).


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> She could always just repeal (or amend) it using her mighty majority (and the Parliament Act if necessary).


no snap about that though is there? The way these press clowns go on its as if it could be called tomorrow. Mechanisms may exist but they will need work. In any case she'd be better off letting the labour party continue to fuck itself up and clean up in 2020. It may seem like strategic sense to try it (however tortuous the process may be) now but why bother. Let the labour right plp do the heavy lifting.

shambles


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> no snap about that though is there? The way these press clowns go on its as if it could be called tomorrow. Mechanisms may exist but they will need work. In any case she'd be better off letting the labour party continue to fuck itself up and clean up in 2020. It may seem like strategic sense to try it (however tortuous the process may be) now but why bother. Let the labour right plp do the heavy lifting.
> 
> shambles



I suspect part of why the press is so cavalier, in talking as though calling an immediate election were a trivial matter, is to maintain pressure against the leftward tendency and Corbyn in particular.

If there's no election until 2020 and everybody knows it, the screaming urgency of removing Corbyn _right now_ and replacing him with someone who fully understands the importance of fellating billionaires, goes away to some degree.


----------



## Supine (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> labour rightist in a safe seat might think it worth a go to topple the Glorious Leader but no one in a marginal is ever going to go for it. Libs and SNP wouldn't either



Or perhaps the people in marginal seats would go for the nuclear option, thinking they could rescue their seats by getting a new more populist leader.


----------



## andysays (Oct 11, 2016)

Supine said:


> Or perhaps the people in marginal seats would go for the nuclear option, thinking they could rescue their seats by getting a new more populist leader.



It's still early and my sarcasm meter may not be working yet, but are you *seriously* suggesting that right-wing Labour MPs in marginal seats will vote for an early GE in the expectation that they will lose their seats, on the basis that they hope that a new "moderate" Labour leader will emerge from the wreckage and they themselves may win back their seats (assuming they're still even the candidate) five years further down the line?

That's a cunning plan of truely epic proportions


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> DrRingDing What is the plan. How are you as a sincere and dedicated trooper / Sherpa going to help Corbyn to the summit?


How do sherpas normally help people to the top?


----------



## Nice one (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How do sherpas normally help people to the top?



hard on the fucking clutch


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Can have a chat with Shami about it.



I like watching the politics shows on a Sunday morning with a bacon roll and cup of coffee - Shami's answer to the 'if you don't like them why do you send your kids to them' question was awful.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> I like watching the politics shows on a Sunday morning with a bacon roll and cup of coffee - Shami's answer to the 'if you don't like them why do you send your kids to them' question was awful.



it was horrible, is still reverberating around soc media, and she's going to to have to trot it out for as long as she's in the shad cabinet/ grammar school roll out is on the agenda...painful.

Throw in Abbot / the dismal Thornberry / Seamus H all with sprogs in selective schools, and it just makes a mockery of Labour's current opposition to Grammars, something they could be really strong on. Depressing. 

( Cue more Butchers "anarchists policing the Lab. borders"  jibes, which are both warranted / quite funny  
not that I'd ever self describe as an anarcho, but I get his point. )


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2016)

Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's still early and my sarcasm meter may not be working yet, but are you *seriously* suggesting that right-wing Labour MPs in marginal seats will vote for an early GE in the expectation that they will lose their seats, on the basis that they hope that a new "moderate" Labour leader will emerge from the wreckage and they themselves may win back their seats (assuming they're still even the candidate) five years further down the line?


Given the talent they've shown - or not - for tactical self-preservation so far, anything seems possible.

Labour do have a problem with rejecting the fantasy not-so-snap election though. It would explicitly legitimise May's government, not just in this term but for the next. All those Brown-like 'unelected' attacks are dead in the water. Plus it implicitly legitimises Corbyn, not only in that he doesn't lose but in that they withheld his opportunity to fight. Then finally, what would the message to the electorate be from it? That they're the party of maybe-later? I suppose that's only relevant if there's a functioning whip/command, but still.


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.



If you have the money to send your kids to private school good luck to you. However, the position that she forwarded which was that selection scared people emotionally whilst sending her kid to one of the most expensive private selective schools in the country is hypocrisy plain and simple.

It is disingenuous because if she disliked selective schools she wouldn't have sent her son to one; you can only assume she doesn't mind them.

Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2016)

Considering Corbyn_ divorced his wife _when she expressed the wish to send their kid to a grammar school i can't see how he's allowed this nonsense to happen.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> If you have the money to send your kids to private school good luck to you.


No. And especially not if you purport to believe in equality and fairness as this lot claim to.


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> No. And especially not if you purport to believe in equality and fairness as this lot claim to.



That is the rub isn't it? You can't say you loathe selective education but use if for your own kids because you have the cash,


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.



There's no contradiction at all between having been to a grammar school and not being in favour of them. They might try throwing that one about but it won't stick.

Having sent your own kids to a private school is a bit different though.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.



can't be really, not if you're trying to sell political integrity / consistency / opposition to rotten self serving hypocrisy as your core strength in the face of never ending  questions re; electability


----------



## mauvais (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> Both Corbyn and McDonald went to grammar schools, Dianne Abbott famously sent her son private after saying she was scared he'd join a gang if he went to a local school - it is going to be a car crash.


It's not _inherently_ hypocritical, although it's a fairly good fit.

You could argue that you are doing what's best for your child right now within the current mess of a system whilst campaigning for improvements to that system. Paying the ransom doesn't mean you're in favour of being taken hostage. There's also some legitimacy to be claimed in not using your children as pawns in that process - not that the opposite is true either, see below.

Obviously you can only do that if you're willing to advance two positions: the obvious one being that state schools are currently not comparatively up to scratch, and the second that poor schools are not in part a product of the mix of children sent there, a self-perpetuating cycle which parents hold some responsibility for.

Both those things are false and should be attacked, I think.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is there an answer to that question (i.e. the 'if you don't like private schools why do you sedn your kids to one')? I mean other than not appointing people who send their kids to private schools to these jobs in the first place.



According to Alan Partridge the answer was "You can't mess about when it comes to your own kids."


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> That is the rub isn't it? You can't say you loathe selective education but use if for your own kids because you have the cash,



You said good luck to people who can afford to and do send their kids to a private school. I think they're scum tbh.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> According to Alan Partridge the answer was "You can't mess about when it comes to your own kids."


Truly wisdom for the ages.


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's not _inherently_ hypocritical, although it's a fairly good fit.



I think May will make it stick. Once Abbot, Corbyn and McDonald are lined up on the front bench she'll point out that she went to a grammar school as did Corbyn and McDonald and that some of his own front bench send their kids private - and then paint them as wanting to deny the system that gave them advantages to other 'ordinary hard working people'

I personally don't have a problem with selective schools, but, my concern would be that selective schools become better funded and access to higher education shouldn't be discriminated based on if the applications went to grammar or comprehensive schools.


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> You said good luck to people who can afford to and do send their kids to a private school. I think they're scum tbh.



Why?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 11, 2016)

Yep, it's effective political ammunition for sure.


----------



## Santino (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> I personally don't have a problem with selective schools, but, my concern would be that selective schools become better funded and access to higher education shouldn't be discriminated based on if the applications went to grammar or comprehensive schools.


What's the point of a selective school if it doesn't give its pupils an advantage over non-selective schools?


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

Santino said:


> What's the point of a selective school if it doesn't give its pupils an advantage over non-selective schools?



They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results. 

I use to interview people and get quite annoyed when other interviewers brushed off Open University degrees - those folks really worked hard for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results..


Access to higher education is mostly based on grades, though, not what school you went to. In fact Bristol University attempted to do the opposite of what you suggest and discriminate in favour of comprehensive school candidates over private school candidates after recognising that the higher grades produced by private schools are a poor predictor of performance at higher education. 

The thing the people sending their kids to selective schools will be looking for, as those who send their kids private do, is higher grades.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results.



This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including soft skills like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including soft skills like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.



Are _all_ those who attended such schools actually like that?


----------



## Santino (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> They get an advantage in the education but they shouldn't have an advantage if someone goes to a comprehensive and gets the same results.
> 
> I use to interview people and get quite annoyed when other interviewers brushed off Open University degrees - those folks really worked hard for it.


 So one sort of advantage is ok, but another isn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is precisely what happens though and is one of the reasons why selective schools appeal to people. It's the education (including *soft skills* like being an over-confident wanker), plus hanging around with kids of other rich people, plus the old school tie.


Dunno about state selective schools, but the evidence is that private ones are in general poor at giving kids soft skills, such as a questioning mind and the initiative to thrive in a higher education setting. Hence Bristol Uni's finding - a kid from a comp with three Cs at A level will do as well on average at uni as a kid from a private school with three Bs.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Are _all_ those who attended such schools actually like that?


In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Are _all_ those who attended such schools actually like that?



I'm sure there are a handful who manage to overcome these obstacles.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.


tbf the excuse most kids have for going to a fee-paying private school is that _they're kids_ and it wasn't their decision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is a mechanism...



...which involves 67% of the Commons supporting a motion. That's something that's vanishingly-unlikely to happen, even if the Tories were unanimously behind the motion - and they're not.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> Why?


They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.



Hard realities for Jeremy when he promoted Diane and Shami. At least it was the wife's fault when his kids went to Grammar.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.



Only one. Wow.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.



And what if they misguidedly wanted "the very best" for their child?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2016)

bemused said:


> I think May will make it stick. Once Abbot, Corbyn and McDonald are lined up on the front bench she'll point out that she went to a grammar school as did Corbyn and McDonald and that some of his own front bench send their kids private - and then paint them as wanting to deny the system that gave them advantages to other 'ordinary hard working people'
> 
> I personally don't have a problem with selective schools, but, my concern would be that selective schools become better funded and access to higher education shouldn't be discriminated based on if the applications went to grammar or comprehensive schools.



There is absolutely no need for selective schools.

Most secondary schools are so big that they can create a critical masses of science or arts or any other disciplines to push their grades up. If they don't they could work with neighbouring schools.

The social mobility argument is completely spurious.


----------



## not a trot (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.



I am sure Corbyn et al and various other leading Leftwingers from the past would agree with you.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what if they misguidedly wanted "the very best" for their child?


I guess that depends on what you perceive as 'the very best' really.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

not a trot said:


> I am sure Corbyn et al and various other leading Leftwingers from the past would agree with you.



Disagree. You can be left and not think other people are scum just because they don't agree with you.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Disagree. You can be left and not think other people are scum just because they don't agree with you.


I don't think they're scum because they don't agree with me. I think they're scum because they're actively supporting/promoting inequality and unfairness.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> I guess that depends on what you perceive as 'the very best' really.



Who, me? No, it would be what the parents think. Kids don't have the choice where they get schooled at. It's a bit unfair to have them all down as "scum". It'd be like saying all those who voted Brexit are xenephobic. It's emotive and not true. As I've learnt.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Disagree. You can be left and not think other people are scum just because they don't agree with you.



An important point because all evidence suggests that this judgemental behaviour puts ordinary folk, who fear being judged, off.

But nevertheless you are scum for airing it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> I don't think they're scum because they don't agree with me. I think they're scum because they're actively supporting/promoting inequality and unfairness.



And do you think that they are actively aware of supporting/promoting equality?


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Who, me? No, it would be what the parents think. Kids don't have the choice where they get schooled at. It's a bit unfair to have them all down as "scum". It'd be like saying all those who voted Brexit are xenephobic. It's emotive and not true. As I've learnt.


I didn't say the children were scum; as you say, they likely have little choice in the matter.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> I didn't say the children were scum; as you say, they likely have little choice in the matter.



Fair enough.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And do you think that they are actively aware of supporting/promoting equality?


Dp phone nonsense.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Sue said:


> Dp phone nonsense.



Nope. Right over my head.

Well, I reckon parents should have the right to send their kids to whatever schools they like. In a better world, of course, all schools would be top drawer and equal but that's sadly not going to happen.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Nope. Right over my head.
> 
> Well, I reckon parents should have the right to send their kids to whatever schools they like. In a better world, of course, all schools would be top drawer and equal but that's sadly not going to happen.



But most schools are pretty good at the least.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2016)

Where I live and where I work, _not_ sending your kids to fee-paying schools is the unusual decision.  I've had this fee-paying talk many, many times with many, many friends.  I've pointed out until I am blue in the face both the problems socially with such a system and also the evidence that the kids themselves may actually do better in a state school anyway.

I get a lot of general agreement from people... but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anybody's decision.  Everybody the parents know who also has kids is sending their kids to private school, and swimming against that crowd would seem like taking a strong position, which seems like a gamble with their kids' futures.

I don't know if I exactly have a point there, but there is at least a _perspective_.  People from all walks of life do things because that's what people like them do.  You can condemn them for it, but it's a pretty broad blanket of condemnation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> But most schools are pretty good at the least.



That's excellent. For years we were told that the British education system and the schools were in a shocking state; so it's a relief to know that that isn't the case. I'm no fan of the posh schools and old school tie bs, just to clarify. I think that most parents just want what they perceive to be "the best" available education for their kids and it's not some diabolical plan (on their part) to shit on those who can't afford it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Then enlighten me please.



Try comparing the membership, politics and organisation of Militant and Momentum; you'll see that apart from the initial big M they don't actually share much at all. Go on do some research.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That's excellent. For years we were told that the British education system and the schools were in a shocking state; so it's a relief to know that that isn't the case. I'm no fan of the posh schools and old school tie bs, just to clarify. I think that most parents just want what they perceive to be "the best" available education for their kids and it's not some diabolical plan (on their part) to shit on those who can't afford it.



Sure, but they need to question what they've heard about how terrible schools are if they really wish to make an informed decision. If they want to use the received wisdom about schools as a fig leaf to do what they wish then they can just carry on.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Nope. Right over my head.
> 
> Well, I reckon parents should have the right to send their kids to whatever schools they like. In a better world, of course, all schools would be top drawer and equal but that's sadly not going to happen.


Phone was playing up so double posted by accident hence the deletion. No deep political point.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2016)

Of course there is no '_right_' to engage in anti-social behaviour that damages the life chances of other people and forces society into being organised around the continued dominance of a tiny privileged minority. What does exist is the _power _(economic/political/cultural) to impose that anti-social behaviour on the rest of us - and to sell it as a precious liberty.

To even talk of the collective provision of a such a central social necessity in terms of rights in this manner is to have swallowed the idea of society as simply separate individuals competing with each other and to have turned consumer rights into an overarching principle for how society _should _be organised. It sounds harmless to talk of rights, but in this instance it is poison. Exactly why those who would impose this damaging behviour seek to talk of it in those terms.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Nope. Right over my head.
> 
> Well, *I reckon parents should have the right to send their kids to whatever schools they like*. In a better world, of course, all schools would be top drawer and equal but that's sadly not going to happen.



Really? So we'd all have an actual realisable right to send our kids to Eton...how would that work?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really? So we'd all have an actual realisable right to send our kids to Eton...how would that work?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I guess if they dropped the fees? Opened it up to all?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2016)

Have you ever known anybody who has been to Eton, krtek?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess if they dropped the fees? Opened it up to all?



Made it a comprehensive?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Made it a comprehensive?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



If it offered the best education, sure.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Have you ever known anybody who has been to Eton, krtek?



There was one lad who worked in another department, years back and he had the poshest accent, ever. But he didn't act all superior etc. I was told he went to one of the posh schools but that was second hand info.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> There was one lad who worked in another department, years back and he had the poshest accent, ever. But he didn't act all superior etc. I was told he went to one of the posh schools but that was second hand info.


"One of the posh schools" is not Eton.  Did he go to Eton?  Or, for that matter, Rugby or Winchester?  Or one of the other public schools?


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 11, 2016)

For the record, I was on a scholarship at a posh school and(I hope) I'm not scum.  Don't see anyone I went to school with as an adult though, all my mates were from the local comprehensive.

And I don't use the old school tie business, it's never been something I've even thought of despite being told I "should make something of it" by a consultant a couple of years back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

kabbes said:


> "One of the posh schools" is not Eton.  Did he go to Eton?  Or, for that matter, Rugby or Winchester?  Or one of the other public schools?



He went to one of the posh schools, I don't know anymore than that. I thought Eton was a posh school. My apologies.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> He went to one of the posh schools, I don't know anymore than that. I thought Eton was a posh school. My apologies.


Eton is so far beyond posh school. 

I know people who went to Eton and Rugby and Winchester.  I'm even friends with some, in as much as people you hang out with from time to time can be considered friends.  We get on well enough.  But they view me with indulgence like a pet, as an oik who somehow has slipped into their world.  And I am no salt-of-the-earth mockney estuary type, for the record. 

The point is this: you can open up financial access to Eton as much as you like and it will change _nothing_.  People go there because it is their world, not my world and certainly not your world.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Eton is so far beyond posh school.
> 
> I know people who went to Eton and Rugby and Winchester.  I'm even friends with some, in as much as people you hang out with from time to time can be considered friends.  We get on well enough.  But they view me with indulgence like a pet, as an oik who somehow has slipped into their world.  And I am no salt-of-the-earth mockney estuary type, for the record.
> 
> The point is this: you can open up financial access to Eton as much as you like and it will change _nothing_.  People go there because it is their world, not my world and certainly not your world.



Oh, I wouldn't want it to be my world! But surely if you opened it up, as suggested, wouldn't the ethos and attitude of the place inevitably change? Eventually?

The bloke at work never talked down to me. But I don't doubt that many from that life are capable of it.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, I wouldn't want it to be my world! But surely if you opened it up, as suggested, wouldn't the ethos and attitude of the place inevitably change? Eventually?


Eton hasn't changed in 575 years and no sticking plaster fix is going to do so now.  The only way it's changing is to turn it into a state school under local authority control and make entry subject to a lottery approach.



> The bloke at work never talked down to me. But I don't doubt that many from that life are capable of it.


Did he go to one of these seven schools?

Charterhouse, Eton College, Harrow School, Rugby School, Shrewsbury School, Westminster School, and Winchester College

Or did he just go to a generically "posh" private school?


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Disagree. You can be left and not think other people are scum just because they don't agree with you.


Wherever did you get such a quaint notion?


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 11, 2016)

Watches everyone getting irate for no apparent reason, notices 'show ignored content' link, considers clicking on it, thinks better of it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

cantsin said:


> amazing how you can sound so sure of yourself, whilst at the same showing clearly you havent got a scooby doo what your actually talking about.
> 
> Especially so, with your track record of total ignorance /  reactionary cretinism re: Liverpool related matters of the 80's.



One can enlighten, or one can launch an 'ad hom' attack. The gentleman enlightens, the thug...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

Supine said:


> They are so tied up in their own bubble, believing they can win by getting ordinary non voters to vote, they might just agree to it.



Heaven help them if they do. As has been pointed out, the Conservative majority is small, and their house isn't in great order at the moment either.

I feel that it would be better for Labour to hang in there at the moment. Their internal squabbles will be resolved with time, or at least one would hope so.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

453


littlebabyjesus said:


> Access to higher education is mostly based on grades, though, not what school you went to. In fact Bristol University attempted to do the opposite of what you suggest and discriminate in favour of comprehensive school candidates over private school candidates after recognising that the higher grades produced by private schools are a poor predictor of performance at higher education.
> 
> The thing the people sending their kids to selective schools will be looking for, as those who send their kids private do, is higher grades.



There is a great deal of truth in that. Once the university place is given that's that. The child who has been hothoused to get good grades doesn't cut it at university, and drops out. That is a wasted place that should have gone to a more able person.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what if they misguidedly wanted "the very best" for their child?



That doesn't fit the 'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> That doesn't fit the 'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal.



Care to explain what this "'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal" is when it's at home?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Try comparing the membership, politics and organisation of Militant and Momentum; you'll see that apart from the initial big M they don't actually share much at all. Go on do some research.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Both are/were ultra-left groups, trying to push the Labour party leftwards. There is not, and never has been an appetite for ultra-left politics in the UK, and such groups harm the mainstream socialist cause.

A synopsis would have been handy, I don't have time to read up on every subject, life is too short.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Both are/were ultra-left groups, trying to push the Labour party leftwards. There is not, and never has been an appetite for ultra-left politics in the UK, and such groups harm the mainstream socialist cause.


you have it the wrong way round, 'mainstream' socialists harm the ultra-left cause.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> 453
> 
> 
> There is a great deal of truth in that. Once the university place is given that's that. The child who has been hothoused to get good grades doesn't cut it at university, and drops out. That is a wasted place that should have gone to a more able person.


a lot of people drop out of university. this doesn't mean they're not able. it doesn't mean they've been hothoused. it can happen for a range of reasons, to do with debt, family issues, it being a wrong course and that.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

It's sad that she attempted to explain her decision to send her kid private by saying you don't understand my culture.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Both are/were ultra-left groups, trying to push the Labour party leftwards. There is not, and never has been an appetite for ultra-left politics in the UK, and such groups harm the mainstream socialist cause.
> 
> A synopsis would have been handy, I don't have time to read up on every subject, life is too short.



One was a democratic centralist, revolutionary Trotskyist organisation with at the most about 8000 members. The other is a collection of social democrats, parliamentary socialists and some revolutionary socialists, numbering something in excess of 20000 and aimed at supporting Corbyn. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you have it the wrong way round, 'mainstream' socialists harm the ultra-left cause.





That's true I suppose.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> One was a democratic centralist, revolutionary Trotskyist organisation with at the most about 8000 members. The other is a collection of social democrats, parliamentary socialists and some revolutionary socialists, numbering something in excess of 20000 and aimed at supporting Corbyn.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




And in both cases damaging to the Labour cause.

It has been my observation over half a century, that extremist politics, right or left, don't play well in Britain. We're a fairly conservative lot really.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> It's sad that she attempted to explain her decision to send her kid private by saying you don't understand my culture.
> 
> View attachment 93802



And others don't? A bit bloody patronising. I've done the best I can for my child, and that includes not sending her to a public school. It wasn't for her, at that time. No financial sacrifice on my part either, the taxpayer would have paid the bill.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 11, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Care to explain what this "'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal" is when it's at home?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It _seems_ like the politics of envy, akin to 'I can't afford a BMW, so I'm forbidding you from having one'.

If we were prepared to increase the education budget twenty fold, all schools could have the facilities of Eton, but we are not going to do that.

I have experience of both a state comprehensive, and one of the best public schools in Scotland. In truth, there wasn't a huge difference in the ability of the teachers between the two, but there was a huge difference in classroom discipline. Probably the biggest difference was that you had the same teacher right through, and smaller classes. Because of the smaller classes, the teacher picked up on the weaker aspects of your understanding, and did something about it. In the last year I was at the state comprehensive, I had four English teachers, none of which were interested enough to realise that the four of us right at the back were passing the time playing pontoon.

My parents weren't wealthy, I got a partial scholarship, but even so, it was a major outlay for them. That kind of spurred you on to succeed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> It's sad that she attempted to explain her decision to send her kid private by saying you don't understand my culture.
> 
> View attachment 93802


Fuck me what a shithouse excuse. I'd fogotten that.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

Why is the news saying that Shami Chakrabarti (along with everyone else in labour) is planning to abstain and say nothing at all when Investigatory Powers Bill / snoopers charter goes through in a couple of weeks?


----------



## bemused (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Fuck me what a shithouse excuse. I'd fogotten that.



I wonder why these people simply don't change their minds? It's pretty clear that she thinks private education has better outcomes for kids.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

Okay, I'm jet lagged to hell at the moment please be gentle. 

I'm really not getting this Chakrabati thing - haven't seen the Peston piece in full, but it looked to me like a case of someone who's very capable in their own speciality being caught off guard when asked to take up a wider brief. In this case Human Rights lawyer meets the dirty art of the political interview. She'll learn - she's a barrister, she'll learn fast.

On the issue of her sending her kids to private school, well that's just a thing some people do. Like buying a Lamborghini or private healthcare. I don't agree with it, but in a capitalist society there's worse behaviour. It'd be another matter if she was a life long socialist, then I'd feel I had the right to talk about hypocrisy, etc.

The reason she's in the Labour Party is not because of some burning commitment to socialist principles. I assume she was offered the job because Team Corbyn wanted someone with the right instincts and able to handle the detail of the crap that's been poured down on us for the last thirty odd years. I also assume she was given assurances about the backing of the party to resist more of the same and who knows maybe even repeal some of it one day. [_god, some people are gullible_]

So, potato/tomato - Lamborghini/Fettes. At least it wasn't the London Oratory.

I used to have a much tougher line on Diane Abbot - life long socialist, sent her kids to private school, weak excuses about gang culture, blah blah. That was until mine went to school. [_I'm not criticising the inner London schools they went to and no, we didn't send them private_] Over the last two years of primary a few of the kids were taken out by their parents and put in private prep schools. As far as I could tell all the families were Afro-Caribbean and those I knew weren't well off. Talking to a couple of the mums they were concerned that the system hadn't serve the needs of black kids well [_couldn't argue there, besides they were talking from personal experience_] and that their kids [_mostly boys_] had one chance and if they didn't grab it now they'd be fucked for life.

As a socialist I still say that Diane should have done the right thing, but I won't be calling her scum. Besides, not my thing*.


* Except for Kinnock, Blair, Blunkett, Straw, and on and on and on.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Okay, I'm jet lagged to hell at the moment please be gentle.
> 
> I'm really not getting this Chakrabati thing - haven't seen the Peston piece in full, but it looked to me like a case of someone who's very capable in their own speciality being caught off guard when asked to take up a wider brief. In this case Human Rights lawyer meets the dirty art of the political interview. She'll learn - she's a barrister, she'll learn fast.
> 
> ...



no one here called Abbot' scum', or said that there wasn't "worse behaviour" out there than Chakrabarti's hypocrisy - just that with the Grammar schools issue a big, ongoing one, there couldn't be a worse time to pack the shadow cabinet with politicians who opt to use private / selective school for their own kids, knowing that they'll be (rightly ) the object of scorn, every - bloody - time - it comes up.

+ , it is just hypocritical wank.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

the best bit about abbot sending her kid private was that these non private schools were in her own bloody constituency. What a cheek. I believe she later claimed her son had begged her to let him go private

but yes, its hard to see how an effective opposition to grammars can be mounted if the other person simply has to point out your hypocrisy to win the exchange.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

cantsin said:


> no one here called Abbot' scum', or said that there wasn't "worse behaviour" out there than Chakrabarti's hypocrisy - just that with the Grammar schools issue a big, ongoing one, there couldn't be a worse time to pack the shadow cabinet with politicians who opt to use private / selective school for their own kids, knowing that they'll be (rightly ) the object of scorn, every - bloody - time - it comes up.
> 
> + , it is just hypocritical wank.


Erm, yes they did:


Sue said:


> They're actively supporting/promoting something that perpetuates inequality and unfairness. To my mind that makes them scum.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Erm, yes they did:



ah well, sorry, I was wrong on that point, one person did, you didn't, whatevs


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

cantsin said:


> ah well, sorry, I was wrong on that point, one person did, you didn't, whatevs


I think Butchers did too, but that might have been about something else [jet lag].


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

19force8 said:


> I think Butchers did too, but that might have been about something else [jet lag].



( no worries, but just fyi, you may be confusing me with someone that gives a flying feck about this 'scum' non issue)


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

cantsin said:


> ( no worries, but just fyi, you may be confusing me with someone that gives a flying feck about this 'scum' non issue)


Oh I do love the passive-aggressive tense. More please.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Oh I do love the passive-aggressive tense. More please.



again, easy to confuse (I guess ) , but pass-agg ( as a 'tense' ? did you mean 'tone' ? ) and "slowly growing impatience with irrelevant gubbins" very different beasts really


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And what if they misguidedly wanted "the very best" for their child?


And fuck everybody else, lovely.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 11, 2016)

cantsin said:


> again, easy to confuse (I guess ) , but pass-agg ( as a 'tense' ? did you mean 'tone' ? ) and "slowly growing impatience with irrelevant gubbins" very different beasts really


A weak attempt at a pun, ho hum.


----------



## Smoking kills (Oct 11, 2016)

Sorry to butt in to the love in in a pass agg kinda way, but I recall seeing stacks of Labour leaflets about Grammar schools at their stall at the local fayre a fortnight ago. Central office stuff, Mc Nicoll name on them. Another booby trap not avoided?


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> In the Irish case, I would say, yes, pretty much. I've only met one who wasn't a wanker, and his excuse for going to a fee-paying private school was that his parents were aid workers in some impossibly remote part of Ethiopia, where there were no schools that do the Leaving Cert.



Plenty of middle class wankers who weren't sent to them...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> And in both cases damaging to the Labour cause.
> 
> It has been my observation over half a century, that extremist politics, right or left, don't play well in Britain. We're a fairly conservative lot really.



If you've been observing for half a century you will know that in that time Corbyn and co's social democratic solutions used to enjoy cross party consensual support for decades; it was referred to as the post-war settlement or Butskillism.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> It _seems_ like the politics of envy, akin to 'I can't afford a BMW, so I'm forbidding you from having one'.
> 
> If we were prepared to increase the education budget twenty fold, all schools could have the facilities of Eton, but we are not going to do that.
> 
> ...



None of your anecdata answers my question. So once again what is this "'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal" is when it's at home?  What makes it socialist and where is the evidence of it being put forward....I haven't seen anyone calling for the banning of BMWs?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Eton hasn't changed in 575 years and no sticking plaster fix is going to do so now.  The only way it's changing is to turn it into a state school under local authority control and make entry subject to a lottery approach.
> 
> Did he go to one of these seven schools?
> 
> ...



I never asked him, as I said, someone else told me. I don't ask people what school they went to, generally.



redsquirrel said:


> And fuck everybody else, lovely.



As I said, I imagine those do it for the love of their kids without any diabolical s_hit on those that can't afford it_ plan...


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 12, 2016)

They don't do it to keep their little dears away from _other_ people's children?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you've been observing for half a century you will know that in that time Corbyn and co's social democratic solutions used to enjoy cross party consensual support for decades; it was referred to as the post-war settlement or Butskillism.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



That was ... communism  

And just think ourselves lucky we've not had any extremists in power since then eh.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I never asked him, as I said, someone else told me. I don't ask people what school they went to, generally.


So you -- quite literally -- don't know what you are talking about on the subject.  You knew a man once, is what your anecdote boils down to.  You don't know anything about him, and you particularly don't know if he is relevant to any debate about Eton, but hey, he seemed quite posh but nice.

Why leap in with an observation that even you don't know the point of?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> So you -- quite literally -- don't know what you are talking about on the subject.  You knew a man once, is what your anecdote boils down to.  You don't know anything about him, and you particularly don't know if he is relevant to any debate about Eton, but hey, he seemed quite posh but nice.
> 
> Why leap in with an observation that even you don't know the point of?



You don't like what I've posted; it doesn't fit your criteria so I should shut the fuck up. Gotcha.


----------



## chilango (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Access to higher education is mostly based on grades, though, not what school you went to. In fact Bristol University attempted to do the opposite of what you suggest and discriminate in favour of comprehensive school candidates over private school candidates after recognising that the higher grades produced by private schools are a poor predictor of performance at higher education.
> 
> The thing the people sending their kids to selective schools will be looking for, as those who send their kids private do, is higher grades.



It's not about the grades.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> As I said, I imagine those do it for the love of their kids without any diabolical s_hit on those that can't afford it_ plan...


Whether they plan it or not that's the effect. Thatchers children.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> You knew a man once, is what your anecdote boils down to.


People have become Prime Minister on this ticket.

_As I was going to St Ives
I met a 40 year old black man
He said, "there's too many immigrants in this country"
Chives._


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Whether they plan it or not that's the effect. Thatchers children.



But if you deny their right to send the kids to a particular school; then they'd become more reactive, I'm guessing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> But if you deny their right to send the kids to a particular school; then they'd become more reactive, I'm guessing.


see here


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> see here



And?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

And it answer's your (horrible) question.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> And it answer's your (horrible) question.



What horrible question? What the merry hell are you on about????


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> What horrible question?


Sorry assumption,


krtek a houby said:


> But if you deny their *right* to send the kids to a particular school


(my emphasis)


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry assumption,
> (my emphasis)



Well, surely all parents have the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated? Whether you or I like it or no?

It's like faith schools, I personlly disagree with them but we can't close them down, can we?


----------



## Sue (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, surely all parents have the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated? Whether you or I like it or no?
> 
> It's like faith schools, I personlly disagree with them but *we can't close them down, can we*?


Why not?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Sue said:


> Why not?



Religious freedoms (ironic description) or something like that? If you close down those schools, where do you draw the line? Close down synagogues, churches, mosques, temples?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, surely all parents have the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated? Whether you or I like it or no?


No some parents, currently, have ability to act in an anti-social manner.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> No some parents, currently, have ability to act in an anti-social manner.



Oh sure, yes. I don't doubt it. And where do their children end up being schooled, after being taken away?


----------



## Sue (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Religious freedoms (ironic description) or something like that? If you close down those schools, where do you draw the line? Close down synagogues, churches, mosques, temples?


Nonsense. They manage to have synagogues, mosques and temples in countries where they don't have state run denominational schools.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 12, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Plenty of middle class wankers who weren't sent to them...


What can this mean?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Sue said:


> Nonsense. They manage to have synagogues, mosques and temples in countries where they don't have state run denominational schools.



Ok. Do you not think there would be a backlash if these schools were shut, though? And just to clarify; I am not religious in the slightest - I'm not particularly in favour of them.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, *surely all parents have the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated*? Whether you or I like it or no?
> 
> It's like faith schools, I personlly disagree with them but we can't close them down, can we?



What does this mean? What are the alternatives on offer as a right to all parents? What are the mechanisms for choosing available as a right to all parents? It feels like an empty and distracting promise.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What does this mean? What are the alternatives on offer as a right to all parents? What are the mechanisms for choosing available as a right to all parents? It feels like an empty and distracting promise.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Ok, a socialist Govt should determine how and where children are educated, then.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, surely all parents have the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated? Whether you or I like it or no?
> 
> It's like faith schools, I personlly disagree with them but we can't close them down, can we?



we should definitely close all faith schools , disestablish the C of E, immediately remove the charitable status of private schools, before closing them down over a 5-10 yr period, whilst substantially reinvesting in State schools ( having bought Free + Academies back into local authority control - these LA's having been completely re hauled via local, directy democratic elections of instantly re-callable representatives ) .

All private school lands / playing fields / assets to be reallocated on shared basis to local peopoles schools, and strictly no bullying of the hog warts crew as they're integrated back into the real world ( their fambos will already be dealing with the expropriation / redistribution  of 90 % minimum of their ill gained wealth / assets etc, and we need to keep it all nice / fluffy if poss)  .


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, a socialist Govt should determine how and where children are educated, then.



How is that an answer to the question I asked?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How is that an answer to the question I asked?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Tell me what to say then because I'm not sure what the answer is.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, a socialist Govt should determine how and where children are educated, then.



Nope, just simple equality of opportunity to all, as far as resources allow ( eg : no point people shuttling kids all over the place via private / public transport when we need to be slashing fuel consumption etc ) - equally funded / resourced schools will take away a lot of the need for array of choices etc

( though none of this will make that much difference if grotesque inequality still exists in every other facet of peoples lives, obvs).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Tell me what to say then because I'm not sure what the answer is.



I asked you what the 'the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated' actually meant in practice; what are the real choices and how are they able to be made? And what I get back is something about a 'socialist Govt' and now the above.  To be honest you're not making a lot of sense. Why not go back to the questions and have a go at answering them...or asking for clarification of them if they aren't clear?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I asked you what the 'the right to chose how they wish their kids to be educated' actually meant in practice; what are the real choices and how are they able to be made? And what I get back is something about a 'socialist Govt' and now the above.  To be honest you're not making a lot of sense. Why not go back to the questions and have a go at answering them...or asking for clarification of them if they aren't clear?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I think the best education and teachers should be available to all, without prejudice. But I'm not sure that the posh schools are going to be closed any time soon.

If I don't make sense it's because I'm not very clever and good at vocalising what I want to say. Apologies.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok. Do you not think there would be a backlash if these schools were shut, though? And just to clarify; I am not religious in the slightest - I'm not particularly in favour of them.



I'm more surprised that there isn't a massive backlash against the curriculum and agenda of some faith schools. 

All children should enjoy a secular and progressive education and be given the opportunity to experiement with ideas,to understand science, to think and to know how to access learning. They should not have the teachings and medieval values of cranks shoved down their throat basically.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I'm more surprised that there isn't a massive backlash against the curriculum and agenda of some faith schools.


they often work as feeders into the 'better' state schools of your town. Not officially of course but everyone knows it goes on. Whats a few skewed RE lessons? thinks parent. It'll get him into [insert ranked school name here]. Part of the sly cherry picking that goes on


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I'm more surprised that there isn't a massive backlash against the curriculum and agenda of some faith schools.
> 
> All children should enjoy a secular and progressive education and be given the opportunity to experiement with ideas,to understand science, to think and to know how to access learning. They should not have the teachings and medieval values of cranks shoved down their throat basically.



I agree. But there's a lot of these faith schools about. How do you end them without upsetting the parents?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they often work as feeders into the 'better' state schools of your town. Not officially of course but everyone knows it goes on. Whats a few skewed RE lessons? thinks parent. It'll get him into [insert ranked school name here]. Part of the sly cherry picking that goes on



Absolutely that goes on.  But why do the "better" state schools prefer to accept children from faith schools?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2016)

good question. Praps one of our resident teaching people might have an answer cos I have not


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> good question. Praps one of our resident teaching people might have an answer cos I have not



Maybe they believe the kids will be more obedient or "moral"?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I agree. But there's a lot of these faith schools about. How do you end them without upsetting the parents?



You end them by making clear that we are a secular country, and that whilst people are entitled to practise religion in their own time, in respect of education the plan is to give every kid the best chance possible to learn, think, develop skills and mix with people other faiths and none, background and cultures.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I agree. But there's a lot of these faith schools about. How do you end them without upsetting the parents?



God knows!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> they often work as feeders into the 'better' state schools of your town. Not officially of course but everyone knows it goes on. Whats a few skewed RE lessons? thinks parent. It'll get him into [insert ranked school name here]. Part of the sly cherry picking that goes on



When I was at school the religious schools were seen as the 'best' local schools (non grammer or private). That's how I ended up at a catholic school of which there are loads in Birmingham.

When I look back on it now it's so clear that it was a dangerously backward method of education with banned books, the downplaying of really important science and damaging ideas and politics rammed into kids (and let's not even start with the dracionian 'disciplinary' system plus the weirdo priests and nuns)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Try comparing the membership, politics and organisation of Militant and Momentum; you'll see that apart from the initial big M they don't actually share much at all. Go on do some research.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



A chap from our local Momentum group (Lambeth & Southwark) was saying how he'd been in Workers' Power for years. He got a bit mardy when I asked "have the other thirteen members joined Momentum too?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> One can enlighten, or one can launch an 'ad hom' attack. The gentleman enlightens, the thug...


...pretends to be a gentleman.


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You end them by making clear that *we are a secular country*, and that whilst people are entitled to practise religion in their own time, in respect of education the plan is to give every kid the best chance possible to learn, think, develop skills and mix with people other faiths and none, background and cultures.



Britain isn't a secular country.

I wish it was, but it isn't, and unless/until it is, I don't think the banning of religious schools is likely to happen.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You end them by making clear that we are a secular country, and that whilst people are entitled to practise religion in their own time, in respect of education the plan is to give every kid the best chance possible to learn, think, develop skills and mix with people other faiths and none, background and cultures.



Ideally, yes. But what if some of the faith school parents balk at this and homeschool the child/children. You then get isolated kids not mixing with others and not being open to others opinions?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 12, 2016)

Where I live, the local primary school is a Church of England school.  But children of all/no faith backgrounds attend.  Even though it's nominally attached to the church, it's not religious at all, apart from having a carol concert at christmas!   It has an extremely good reputation, and feeds into the "better" state secondary school.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ideally, yes. But what if some of the faith school parents balk at this and homeschool the child/children. You then get isolated kids not mixing with others and not being open to others opinions?



They are already isolated from other kids and cultures, in sme cases deliberately so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Both are/were ultra-left groups, trying to push the Labour party leftwards. There is not, and never has been an appetite for ultra-left politics in the UK, and such groups harm the mainstream socialist cause.
> 
> A synopsis would have been handy, I don't have time to read up on every subject, life is too short.



You're embarrassing yourself. The fact that both Militant and Momentum accepted electoralism - accepted that the people will either vote for them or not - shows that they're not "ultra-left", and that you don't understand what ultra-leftism.
Broadly speaking, ultra-leftists are revolutionaries, not electoralists. Electoralists tend to be advocates of social democracy and - if we're fortunate - socialism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ideally, yes. But what if some of the faith school parents balk at this and homeschool the child/children. You then get isolated kids not mixing with others and not being open to others opinions?


What if they do? Only a tiny proportion of parents have the capacity and willingness to homeschool.

Bottom line ought to be that state money should not be spent on religious education. Of any kind. Start there, and work from there.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> Britain isn't a secular country.
> 
> I wish it was, but it isn't, and unless/until it is, I don't think the banning of religious schools is likely to happen.



I don't think it will either. But having attended a school like this I would never send my kid to one and I don't think anyone with progressive politics can support their seggregational nature.


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don't think it will either. But having attended a school like this I would never send my kid to one and I don't think anyone with progressive politics can support their seggregational nature.



I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think the banning of faith schools is likely, or that it's a big issue politically.

Out of interest, has Corbyn ever offered an opinion on either faith schools or becoming a secular state?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> A chap from our local Momentum group (Lambeth & Southwark) was saying how he'd been in Workers' Power for years. He got a bit mardy when I asked "have the other thirteen members joined Momentum too?".


 
Not so much a flood as a slight suspicion of dampness.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think the banning of faith schools is likely, or that it's a big issue politically.


Problem is, since Blair, there has been a considerable extension of faith schools in the state sector, and an emphasis on religion has grown in other schools where it was previously in the background. I think this is a big issue politically, and it is likely to become bigger - in many areas, parents have very little choice outside of faith schools.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You don't like what I've posted; it doesn't fit your criteria so I should shut the fuck up. Gotcha.


What the fuck are you talking about?  I don't even _know_ what you posted.  Neither do you.  You posted "I knew a man".  What the hell are we supposed to do with that information?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, since Blair, there has been a considerable extension of faith schools in the state sector, and an emphasis on religion has grown in other schools where it was previously in the background. I think this is a big issue politically, and it is likely to become bigger - in many areas, parents have very little choice outside of faith schools.



especially so with expansion now guaranteed, and admission guidelines to be relaxed : 

Theresa May to relax faith schools admissions rules - BBC News


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, since Blair, there has been a considerable extension of faith schools in the state sector, and an emphasis on religion has grown in other schools where it was previously in the background. I think this is a big issue politically, and it is likely to become bigger - in many areas, parents have very little choice outside of faith schools.



I think rather than describing it as a big issue it might help if we distinguished between something being an important issue (to us personally, or to a bunch of people here) and a politically significant issue.

The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.

From what I've seen, the abolition of faith schools is not a significant political issue within the context of this thread or current British political discourse, nor (IMO) are they likely to become one, unless you have something specific to demonstrate they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> I think rather than describing it as a big issue it might help if we distinguished between something being an important issue (to us personally, or to a bunch of people here) and a politically significant issue.
> 
> The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.
> 
> From what I've seen, the abolition of faith schools is not a significant political issue within the context of this thread or current British political discourse, nor (IMO) are they likely to become one, unless you have something specific to demonstrate they are.


Those distinctions are missing a further key  one - that something can be having a socially damaging effect (through various forms of social-apartheid, covert transmission of privilege, cementing religious/cultural/racial/identity based ways of organising social institutions and ways of _doing politics _and so on) whilst not being politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society. This, i think, is the case now, but i would add for the main parties this is actually a way in which they organise their support bases - they're perfectly happy with the social atomisation it relies on and produces, and the formal groupings and leaders they can then fall back on to legitmise their own lack of bigotry or prejudice.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> I think rather than describing it as a big issue it might help if we distinguished between something being an important issue (to us personally, or to a bunch of people here) and a politically significant issue.
> 
> The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.
> 
> From what I've seen, the abolition of faith schools is not a significant political issue within the context of this thread or current British political discourse, nor (IMO) are they likely to become one, unless you have something specific to demonstrate they are.



IMO this is something that will become more and more significant, May wants to take the cap off admissions to faith schools which otherwise in theory if not in reality ensure that even faith schools are mixed. Recipe for even further atomisation along the lines that butchers describes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.


The way to widen it would be to talk about selection at schools - selection by examination of the child, and also by interview with the parents and requirements for religious attendance, something which it is frankly extraordinary that state schools are allowed to do. 

That approach covers both grammars and faith schools. Extension of grammars and extension of selective faith schools are very much linked, and they should be linked in any political discourse about them.


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Those distinctions are missing a further key  one - that something can be having a socially damaging effect (through various forms of social-apartheid, covert transmission of privilege, cementing religious/cultural/racial/identity based ways of organising social institutions and ways of _doing politics _and so on) whilst not being politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society. This i think is the case now, but i would add for the main parties this is actually a way in which they organise their support bases - they're perfectly happy with the social atomisation it relies on and produces, and the formal groupings and leaders they can then fall back on to legitmise their own lack of bigotry or prejudice.



Yeah, I agree with this.

To be clear what I'm saying, I'm not saying that the existence and extension of faith schools isn't significant politically/socially/whatever. I am saying that the banning of faith schools which some (including me, for the avoidance of any doubt) would like to see is not 





> politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society


nor do I see it becoming so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> I am saying that the banning of faith schools which some (including me, for the avoidance of any doubt) would like to see is not nor do I see it becoming so.


Banning totally, you're probably right, not a priority for many. But as they see non-selective schools disappearing around them, the extension of faith schools does grow as an issue. Their existence and their role in society then becomes a thing that needs discussing.


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The way to widen it would be to talk about selection at schools - selection by examination of the child, and also by interview with the parents and requirements for religious attendance, something which *it is frankly extraordinary that state schools are allowed to do*





littlebabyjesus said:


> That approach covers both grammars and faith schools. Extension of grammars and extension of selective faith schools are very much linked, and* they should be linked in any political discourse about them*.





littlebabyjesus said:


> Banning totally, you're probably right, not a priority for many. But as they see non-selective schools disappearing around them, the extension of faith schools does grow as an issue. *Their existence and their role in society then becomes a thing that needs discussing*.


Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.

What's your response/reaction to this, particularly the bit in bold?


> something can be having a socially damaging effect (through various forms of social-apartheid, covert transmission of privilege, cementing religious/cultural/racial/identity based ways of organising social institutions and ways of _doing politics _and so on) whilst not being politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society.





> This i think is the case now, but i would add *for the main parties this is actually a way in which they organise their support bases - they're perfectly happy with the social atomisation it relies on and produces, and the formal groupings and leaders they can then fall back on to legitmise their own lack of bigotry or prejudice*


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

kabbes said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  I don't even _know_ what you posted.  Neither do you.  You posted "I knew a man".  What the hell are we supposed to do with that information?



Do you know what; even that tidbit of information is enough. Make of it what you will. I don't believe all the kids who go to those schools end up wrong 'uns. That's my useless, simple thick logic for you. Sincere apologies all the same.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.


You've bolded the last bit in my last post while ignoring the first bit. As non-selective schools disappear around people, the existence and extension of the various selective ones grows as an issue. You might disagree with that, but 'not willing or able' is not a response to what I wrote.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What if they do? Only a tiny proportion of parents have the capacity and willingness to homeschool.
> 
> Bottom line ought to be that state money should not be spent on religious education. Of any kind. Start there, and work from there.



Yes, I agree - of course. But I think there will be a lot of resistance to that move if and when it happens.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2016)

Would you have to ban faith schools? Couldn't you just require them to adhere to the same rules as state schools for  balanced treatment of religions?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2016)

require all you like, it doesn't always get adhered to in reality. What was those muslim faith schools that got in trouble over that sort of thing a few years back?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Would you have to ban faith schools? Couldn't you just require them to adhere to the same rules as state schools for  balanced treatment of religions?


imo the issue that could very well gain in traction is that of selection - in the case of religious schools, often in the form of religious observance by parents. Removing the freedom to do that would go a long way towards ending that as an issue, I think, yes (although I'd certainly want to remove all religion from state schools as they do in France).

As for whether or not it could be in the interests of a Labour party to advocate the removal/reduction of selection, I don't agree with butchers on this. In the 1970s, the Labour party saw it as in its interests to all but abolish grammar schools. I see no reason why that could not be the case again, extending it to ending/reducing the number of selective religious schools.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When I was at school the religious schools were seen as the 'best' local schools (non grammer or private). That's how I ended up at a *catholic school* of which there are loads in Birmingham.
> 
> When I look back on it now it's so clear that it was a dangerously backward method of education with banned books, the *downplaying of really important science* and damaging ideas and politics rammed into kids (and let's not even start with the dracionian 'disciplinary' system plus the weirdo priests and nuns)



Not to suggest that Catholic education is flawless, but did you attend school before 1950? I attended a few catholic schools. While corporal punishment* was administered with enthusiasm by some teachers and I had interesting discussions with others about womens' reproductive freedom, science was always taught well. Church doctrine on the natural sciences has been fairly pragmatic since papal encyclial _Humani Generis:
_


> 'the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter'.



'Men of experience' seems to have been interpreted quite broadly in practice. Steven Jay Gould writes well on this from the perspective of an agnostic, Jewish scientist.

* Not sure how different this would have been in secular schools at the time.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> require all you like, it doesn't always get adhered to in reality. What was those muslim faith schools that got in trouble over that sort of thing a few years back?



The Trojan horse thing was in academies in Birmingham rather than faith schools, although that isn't the only example of this stuff.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is, since Blair, there has been a considerable extension of faith schools in the state sector, and an emphasis on religion has grown in other schools where it was previously in the background. I think this is a big issue politically, and it is likely to become bigger - in many areas, parents have very little choice outside of faith schools.



Aye, it my area of London (like most areas) there is a chronic shortage of school places.  The council then found some land to build a new one and then promptly decided it was going to be a catholic school.  So this is a state funded school which prioritizes places for children of catholic parents.  Great.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2016)

This place may or may not still be in operation, in London. Not only did they teach nothing but religious nonsense they refused to let them speak or learn English. If it's hard to shut down something like this I don't have much hope.
Jewish school which banned English 'still open despite order to close'


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 12, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ideally, yes. But what if some of the faith school parents balk at this and homeschool the child/children. You then get isolated kids not mixing with others and not being open to others opinions?


The governments own report into the 2001 Bradford riots concluded the the growth of faith schools reinforced community segregation. Not that that stopped the government from promoting faith schools.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 13, 2016)

So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that. 

Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 13, 2016)

Fingers said:


> So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.
> 
> Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?


What a pity you don't know the difference between the words loose and lose. Not too impressive for a contribution an an education question.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 13, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What a pity you don't know the difference between the words loose and lose. Not too impressive for a contribution an an education question.



I could have replied to your post and made myself look like I have* c*ondescending twat issues also, but I will not mate.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2016)

Fingers said:


> So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.
> 
> Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?



Doesn't sound as left wing as you can get to me. You don't have to go very far beneath the surface to find a very right-wing moralistic tinged streak in a lot of teachers.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2016)

That isn't teacher bashing btw, just something I have noticed and in some cases been caught off guard and surprised by.


----------



## chilango (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That isn't teacher bashing btw, just something I have noticed and in some cases been caught off guard and surprised by.



Yeah, the whole "Leftie teacher" narrative that the media and successive governments have pushed since (at least) the 80's can be pretty misleading.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Doesn't sound as left wing as you can get to me. You don't have to go very far beneath the surface to find a very right-wing moralistic tinged streak in a lot of teachers.



Define 'right wing' in this context. Teachers are certainly concerned with behaviour and so they have to take an opinion on it. Uniforms, maybe I'll grant  you though I can see the downside of the race to wear the most expensive, most sexualised or tough looking clothing.

Maybe you feel any discipline is 'right wing'? But are teachers really more right wing than the rest of society? And do we need to slag them off?


----------



## JimW (Oct 13, 2016)

Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Define 'right wing' in this context. Teachers are certainly concerned with behaviour and so they have to take an opinion on it. Uniforms, maybe I'll grant  you though I can see the downside of the race to wear the most expensive, most sexualised or tough looking clothing.
> 
> Maybe you feel any discipline is 'right wing'? But are teachers really more right wing than the rest of society? And do we need to slag them off?



The idea of whether discipline and uniform wearing in schools are right-wing ideas seems like it could be an interesting debate, I don't really think so and I don't have any strong opinions on it either way. It's not really something that I know enough about to make an informed comment, but I am sure that there will be people on here who have actually thought about it and would be able to offer you an opinion. I am not sure whether either of those things are actually relevant since individual teachers don't decide a school's uniform or behaviour policy.

What I am talking about is the fact that there are a lot of teachers are literally Tories and there are plenty of others who are Labour voters (or left of Labour) but who have some pretty nasty views about welfare, people on welfare and working-class kids. I wonder how much of that is a function of the job, I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that teachers are disproportionately drawn from the upper-middle-class and that's a trend that seems to be getting worse not better. 

I don't think that teachers are to the right of most of society, they are almost certainly to the left of it though I think not as left as portrayed or many think, and I am not slagging them off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Fingers said:


> So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.
> 
> Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?


Is higher tax necessarily bad, if it pays for a more equitable society?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.
> 
> What's your response/reaction to this, particularly the bit in bold?


Lbj is a particularly vapid liberal with the critical thinking skills of an ignorant lobster so you shouldn't expect too much.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2016)

JimW said:


> Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.



Now, y'see... no one is as left-wing as me, but really.. this so-called Mr Corbyn is going to absolutely make the lives of those who live in absolute luxury marginally worse to the benefit of everyone else and actually that's going a bit to far.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> who have some pretty nasty views about welfare, people on welfare



Social security shirley?


----------



## inva (Oct 13, 2016)

JimW said:


> Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.


not in public anyway


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2016)

Looks like JC did a good PMQs, pushing her on the way she's been interpreting / handling brexit.  
Jeremy Corbyn pushes Theresa May over 'shambolic Tory Brexit'


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2016)

I didn't recognise his voice when i was in the other room, very assured, direct, etc, when i looked at the TV it was JC, i think he is having some good media training.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> I didn't recognise his voice when i was in the other room, very assured, direct, etc, when i looked at the TV it was JC, i think he is having some good media training.



he's definately doing much better against May than he did against Cameron - whoever has bullied him into sticking to one subject, and a subject that at least 10% of the PLP care about, should be given a lollypop.

May is not the performer that Cameron was, she gets flustered much more easily, she needs to slow down her delivery so she has less 'err..' and 'umm' and having to repeat her words in the right order.


----------



## agricola (Oct 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> he's definately doing much better against May than he did against Cameron - whoever has bullied him into sticking to one subject, and a subject that at least 10% of the PLP care about, should be given a lollypop.
> 
> May is not the performer that Cameron was, she gets flustered much more easily, she needs to slow down her delivery so she has less 'err..' and 'umm' and having to repeat her words in the right order.



Corbyn has certainly got better over time.  I do however think the criticism of May is a bit overblown; at least half of the noise comes from the Tory modernizers (via their chums in the media) calling her out for things that Cameron was serially guilty of.  Her ongoing failure to deal with them, or at least take out the person who they would look to replace her with, will probably doom her in the not too distant future.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> Corbyn has certainly got better over time.  I do however think the criticism of May is a bit overblown; at least half of the noise comes from the Tory modernizers (via their chums in the media) calling her out for things that Cameron was serially guilty of.  Her ongoing failure to deal with them, or at least take out the person who they would look to replace her with, will probably doom her in the not too distant future.


You think so? I see her as secure right up to 2020 if she wants to be. Yes, she is making a mess of brexit. But so would anybody else - nobody knows how to do it. They must know that.


----------



## agricola (Oct 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think so? I see her as secure right up to 2020 if she wants to be. Yes, she is making a mess of brexit. But so would anybody else - nobody knows how to do it. They must know that.



The Tory position is secure; hers isn't.  They are already talking down her PMQs performances, attacking almost every policy that is floated, and looking to organize Parliamentary defeats (like this pre-negotiation Article 50 vote nonsense) - which with a Government majority that is less than the number of modernizing Tory MPs is something they are more than capable of.   Indeed the strength of the Tory position up to 2020 will probably be a weakness to her, because they will be able to claim that she is putting that nailed-on victory at risk if (more likely when) Labour starts to do better in the polls.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> Corbyn has certainly got better over time.  I do however think the criticism of May is a bit overblown; at least half of the noise comes from the Tory modernizers (via their chums in the media) calling her out for things that Cameron was serially guilty of.  Her ongoing failure to deal with them, or at least take out the person who they would look to replace her with, will probably doom her in the not too distant future.



I think May is awful and will be in danger as soon as the economy struggles. She's all over the show politically and has one gear (bossy authoritarian) that will soon grate. Trying to be in the middle is actually quite a lonely position and she'll be sniped upon from all sides.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The idea of whether discipline and uniform wearing in schools are right-wing ideas seems like it could be an interesting debate, I don't really think so and I don't have any strong opinions on it either way. It's not really something that I know enough about to make an informed comment, but I am sure that there will be people on here who have actually thought about it and would be able to offer you an opinion. I am not sure whether either of those things are actually relevant since individual teachers don't decide a school's uniform or behaviour policy.
> 
> What I am talking about is the fact that there are a lot of teachers are literally Tories and there are plenty of others who are Labour voters (or left of Labour) but who have some pretty nasty views about welfare, people on welfare and working-class kids. I wonder how much of that is a function of the job, I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that teachers are disproportionately drawn from the upper-middle-class and that's a trend that seems to be getting worse not better.
> 
> I don't think that teachers are to the right of most of society, they are almost certainly to the left of it though I think not as left as portrayed or many think, and I am not slagging them off.



'A very right wing moralistic streak in a lot of teachers' was what I was replying to. I don't think that quite sits as a neutral comment. But ok I'm pleased we can avoid slagging them off.


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2016)

What are Tory 'modernisers'?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> What are Tory 'modernisers'?


tories with slick new, modern sounding ways of fucking the rest of us over.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> What are Tory 'modernisers'?



very roughly its the Cameron/Osbourne circle (socially and economically liberal) - theres some overlap with hardcore Thatcherites who don't like Mays post-war concensus leanings.


----------



## agricola (Oct 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> What are Tory 'modernisers'?



The group that used to be around Cameron and Osborne - Gove, Letwin, Boles, Vaizey, Soubry etc.


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2016)

Why call them modernisers? That's what they want you to call them, same as with the Labour right wingers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> The group that used to be around Cameron and Osborne - Gove, Letwin, Boles, Vaizey, Soubry etc.


They were always a minority within the party, though. May, Hammond, etc, surely represent the tory mainstream. And that's why I would think she's secure. She would have won the leadership election if there had been one.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Why call them modernisers? That's what they want you to call them, same as with the Labour right wingers.



broadly because they, err... modernised the Tory party - in a particular way. they ditched the hang'um/flog'um/lock'um up image, they went - in presentational terms - green, and they bought into (to whatever degree) the equality agenda. youth also had a great deal to do with it - Cameron etc.. were all in their early 40's they took over the party, they physically looked modern, rather than like Sir Horace Tufton-Bufton sat on the backbences with his Regimental tie, grey hair and dandruff.

you could just call them the Cambournes, but that doesn't reaflect that while the personality/image thing is part of what they believe, they would genuinely differenciate themselves interms of policy and attitudes (particularly social attitudes) from both previous tory governments and the then membership and elected elements of the party.

May in the other hand, as well as taking revenge for doing the hardest job in government while being excluded from the special gang at No 10/11, is a much more MacMillian/Butler/Heath Tory.


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2016)

> The Middle Class English Southern Majority will for completly selfish reasons continue to vote Tory. Our only hope is the cities and the Ethinic Minorities getting behind Corbyn. Normal White people inthis country are just stupid and selfish and cannot see beyond their own front garden. Once Jeremy and Diane are in charge, I hope they crucify these people.



This was posted on Momentum FB site two hours earlier, it is still there, there are a number like this, it may only be social media, but these are real people, maybe activists saying this.


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> broadly because they, err... modernised the Tory party - in a particular way. they ditched the hang'um/flog'um/lock'um up image, they went - in presentational terms - green, and they bought into (to whatever degree) the equality agenda. youth also had a great deal to do with it - Cameron etc.. were all in their early 40's they took over the party, they physically looked modern, rather than like Sir Horace Tufton-Bufton sat on the backbences with his Regimental tie, grey hair and dandruff.
> 
> you could just call them the Cambournes, but that doesn't reaflect that while the personality/image thing is part of what they believe, they would genuinely differenciate themselves interms of policy and attitudes (particularly social attitudes) from both previous tory governments and the then membership and elected elements of the party.
> 
> May in the other hand, as well as taking revenge for doing the hardest job in government while being excluded from the special gang at No 10/11, is a much more MacMillian/Butler/Heath Tory.


Call them after the ideology they follow and advocate, not some neutral term like 'moderniser'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> This was posted on Momentum FB site two hours earlier, it is still there, there are a number like this, it may only be social media, but these are real people, maybe activists saying this.


If you believe that's 'real people I think you may need a new pair of glasses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> This was posted on Momentum FB site two hours earlier, it is still there, there are a number like this, it may only be social media, but these are real people, maybe activists saying this.


this was posted on urban 15 minutes ago. it is still there. there are a number like this. although it may only be social media, these are _real people_, maybe even _activists_, saying this.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> This was posted on Momentum FB site two hours earlier, it is still there, there are a number like this, it may only be social media, but these are real people, maybe activists saying this.



Well I for one think that ordinary people are crying out for a bit of Maoist Third Worldism in this di$united KKKingdom of $$$nake$


----------



## andysays (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this was posted on urban 15 minutes ago. it is still there. there are a number like this. although it may only be social media, these are _real people_, maybe even _activists_, saying this.



Only one person, and I'm still not 100% convinced it's a real person


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> Only one person, and I'm still not 100% convinced it's a real person


yeh, treelover fails the turing test.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well I for one think that ordinary people are crying out for a bit of Maoist Third Worldism in this di$united KKKingdom of $$$nake$



And if that doesn't work then there's always Gonzalo Thought:






Revolutionary  Greetings - Comrade MaNeice


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well I for one think that ordinary people are crying out for a bit of Maoist Third Worldism in this di$united KKKingdom of $$$nake$



Is there any chance we could get clarification as to whether Worcestershire is in the south? Obviously I enjoy digging ditches as much as any other white middle class man, but I wonder if perhaps by dint if not being in Surrey or Hertfordshire I could go for a kind of part time agricultural servitude - perhaps something in the autumn when it's not too hot and not too cold, and the trees look lovely?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Is there any chance we could get clarification as to whether Worcestershire is in the south? Obviously I enjoy digging ditches as much as any other white middle class man, but I wonder if perhaps by dint if not being in Surrey or Hertfordshire I could go for a kind of part time agricultural servitude - perhaps something in the autumn when it's not too hot and not too cold, and the trees look lovely?



No it's ditches for you and me both.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No it's ditches for you and me both.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Is there not some union we could go to? It's just that I have quite soft hands and having to dig in the cold rain of winter would give me terribly chapped skin...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Is there not some union we could go to? It's just that I have quite soft hands and having to dig in the cold rain of winter would give me terribly chapped skin...



I think chapped skin may be the least of our worries; just make sure you have some of this...only £67 for 500ml: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





...I've heard there won't be any artisan sourdough bread!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Well I for one think that ordinary people are crying out for a bit of Maoist Third Worldism in this di$united KKKingdom of $$$nake$



Nah, it's the United Kingdumb and the United $nakes of Amerikkka. Oh, and don't forget Klanada.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> Only one person, and I'm still not 100% convinced it's a real person



It could be, there were a couple of people in SWSS 20-odd years ago who claimed they wanted to go down the Khmer Rouge line with lots of ditches for intellectuals and the like. Facebook tells me that at least one of them is still involved in SWP and posts Corbyn supporting stuff...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're embarrassing yourself. The fact that both Militant and Momentum accepted electoralism - accepted that the people will either vote for them or not - shows that they're not "ultra-left", and that you don't understand what ultra-leftism.
> Broadly speaking, ultra-leftists are revolutionaries, not electoralists. Electoralists tend to be advocates of social democracy and - if we're fortunate - socialism.



I've never been able to understand the infinitesimal differences between the various 'ist' groups in left wing politics, nor am I particularly interested.

Whether one is an adherent of Trotsky, Marx or Mao, the outcome is pretty much the same. Revolution isn't going to happen, nor is the far left ever going to attain more than a smidgen of political power via the ballot box.

To all, barring themselves, they are an irrelevance.

Please accept my humble apology in not being au fait with the bagful of splinters, and I fear I never will be.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

andysays said:


> I think rather than describing it as a big issue it might help if we distinguished between something being an important issue (to us personally, or to a bunch of people here) and a politically significant issue.
> 
> The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.
> 
> From what I've seen, the abolition of faith schools is not a significant political issue within the context of this thread or current British political discourse, nor (IMO) are they likely to become one, unless you have something specific to demonstrate they are.



Try abolishing faith schools in Scotland, and you will be lynched. The faith schools in Scotland are virtually 100% Roman Catholic, and it is a very sensitive subject.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Try abolishing faith schools in Scotland, and you will be lynched. The faith schools in Scotland are virtually 100% Roman Catholic, and it is a very sensitive subject.


there are as you say 370 faith schools in scotland, of which iirc 366 are catholic, 3 episcopalian, 1 jewish.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> None of your anecdata answers my question. So once again what is this "'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal" is when it's at home?  What makes it socialist and where is the evidence of it being put forward....I haven't seen anyone calling for the banning of BMWs?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



OK, I'll put it another way. Dianne Abbott, a socialist politician, is opposed to selective education. Every child should go to a comprehensive school, well, the children of the plebs that is.

Her children are privately educated. A stunning endorsement of comprehensive education?

Gross hypocrisy of course, and a tacit admission that comprehensive schools are not the ideal.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there are as you say 370 faith schools in scotland, of which iirc 366 are catholic, 3 episcopalian, 1 jewish.




Funnily enough, my late father went to one of the Episcopalian schools, St Mary's in Dunblane. The family wasn't Episcopalian, but became so, in order that the children could attend the best school. That was damn near a century ago, he'd have been 101 this year, shows you how little things have changed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think so? I see her as secure right up to 2020 if she wants to be. Yes, she is making a mess of brexit. But so would anybody else - nobody knows how to do it. They must know that.



Never a truer word. It is a potential clusterfuck.


----------



## Santino (Oct 13, 2016)

Can we go back to arguing about antisemitism please?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> This was posted on Momentum FB site two hours earlier, it is still there, there are a number like this, it may only be social media, but these are real people, maybe activists saying this.



Oh well, nice to know what the cunts think of their fellow citizens.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 13, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Never a truer word. It is a potential clusterfuck.



This is kinda true. There's no safe course forward, taking everything into account. But the government seem to be busily painting itself into a hard brexit corner. This consolidates TM's position as Tory leader in the short term, but she was never under threat anyway. Apart from that, it seems like a bad negotiating position, politically unnecessary and unlikely to end well for her.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 13, 2016)

Santino said:


> Can we go back to arguing about antisemitism please?



 Please not.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> OK, I'll put it another way. Dianne Abbott, a socialist politician, is opposed to selective education. Every child should go to a comprehensive school, well, the children of the plebs that is.
> 
> Her children are privately educated. A stunning endorsement of comprehensive education?
> 
> Gross hypocrisy of course, and a tacit admission that comprehensive schools are not the ideal.



So Dianne Abbot is being hypocritical and no evidence of a "'lowest common denominator' socialist ideal" ...glad we've got that clear now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## kebabking (Oct 14, 2016)

in actual Corbyn news...

the new Shadow Defence Secretary, Nia Griffith, has confirmed that Labour will support the renewal of the Trident missile submarine fleet.

Labour will continue to back Trident, shadow defence secretary says

the mischievous might wonder how long Corbyns' forth, and newly appointed, Shadow Defence Secretary will remain in post having commited the same the same offence as Corbyns' third, and short-lived Shadow Defence Secretary...


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

That's him - a man of consistently fast and decisive action


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> That's him - a man of consistently fast and decisive action




Wait, are we still talking about Corbyn?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

consistently fast and decisive yet measured and just action then


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I've never been able to understand the infinitesimal differences between the various 'ist' groups in left wing politics, nor am I particularly interested.
> 
> Whether one is an adherent of Trotsky, Marx or Mao, the outcome is pretty much the same. Revolution isn't going to happen, nor is the far left ever going to attain more than a smidgen of political power via the ballot box.
> 
> ...



As long as the splintering and infighting remains, there probably won't be a revolution. But I'd like to see one, all the same. If only to curb the vile tory smugness.


----------



## agricola (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They were always a minority within the party, though. May, Hammond, etc, surely represent the tory mainstream. And that's why I would think she's secure. She would have won the leadership election if there had been one.



They are a minority - but there are enough of them to cause her serious problems (given the size of the Tory majority in the Commons) and, as Corbyn has found, the modernizing sort have a prominence in the media out of all proportion to their actual numbers.  If unchallenged they will fill the media with sly digs and stories attacking her competence.

As an example, take Osborne's call for Heathrow expansion today - something which he didn't actually do himself for six years but for which there is apparently an overwhelming economic case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I've never been able to understand the infinitesimal differences between the various 'ist' groups in left wing politics, nor am I particularly interested.
> 
> Whether one is an adherent of Trotsky, Marx or Mao, the outcome is pretty much the same. Revolution isn't going to happen, nor is the far left ever going to attain more than a smidgen of political power via the ballot box.
> 
> ...


----------



## cantsin (Oct 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


>



its the way he wears his ignorance like a badge of pride, wading about in threads he has zero to contribute to because, as he admits, he knows virtually nothing about the subject being discussed, but still thinks people want to hear what he has to say - the kind of lame, narcisistic f*ckwit you'd go to great lengths to avoid IRL


----------



## not a trot (Oct 14, 2016)

cantsin said:


> its the way he wears his ignorance like a badge of pride, wading about in threads he has zero to contribute to because, as he admits, he knows virtually nothing about the subject being discussed, but still thinks people want to hear what he has to say - the kind of lame, narcisistic f*ckwit you'd go to great lengths to avoid IRL ( or possibly discreetly put on his mopey arse if really pushed / circumstances permitted )




That's quite an appraisal of Corbyn.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 14, 2016)

not a trot said:


> That's quite an appraisal of Corbyn.



lunchbreak playtime ?


----------



## Dandred (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Whether one is an adherent of Trotsky, Marx or Mao, the outcome is pretty much the same. Revolution isn't going to happen, nor is the far left ever going to attain more than a smidgen of political power via the ballot box.
> 
> To all, barring themselves, they are an irrelevance.



This is actually pretty spot on unfortunately.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 14, 2016)

Thangam Debbonaire sounds like someone who should be covering Gangham Style K-Pop.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 14, 2016)

What's Paul Masons game ?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 14, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> What's Paul Masons game ?



didnt think anything he said was particularly controversial tbh, shame it all happened, but Corbo seems a sensible, unegotistical type who hopefully doesn't believe the daft hype swirling around him, and will broadly agree with Mason on his own shortcomings / Lewis obvious potential etc

all these muppets rubbing their hands together with glee are buying into the ludicrous Cobo cult bollocks, ignoring the fact it's about so much more than him ( and will possibly outgrow/ouflank him / Mason or any of the rest of them over time).


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2016)

Not summat you want one of your most prominent, and generally competent, media performers (and prospective MP for Leigh) to be caught saying tho.

Still, the movement's the thing, civil society is more important than the state.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 14, 2016)

belboid said:


> Not summat you want one of your most prominent, and generally competent, media performers (and prospective MP for Leigh) to be caught saying tho.
> 
> Still, the movement's the thing, civil society is more important than the state.


Has Mason won selection ?


----------



## Tankus (Oct 14, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thangam Debbonaire sounds like someone who should be covering Gangham Style K-Pop.



Sounds a bit 1980's  pornish to me ..lots of made up names in the film credits


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> As long as the splintering and infighting remains, there probably won't be a revolution. But I'd like to see one, all the same. If only to curb the vile tory smugness.



That can be done very effectively via the ballot box. Labour needs to get its act together first though.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

cantsin said:


> its the way he wears his ignorance like a badge of pride, wading about in threads he has zero to contribute to because, as he admits, he knows virtually nothing about the subject being discussed, but still thinks people want to hear what he has to say - the kind of lame, narcisistic f*ckwit you'd go to great lengths to avoid IRL



My, how wounding.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Oct 14, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> What's Paul Masons game ?



Squash.


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2016)

> *If they really wanted to Stop the War in Syria, they’d target Russia *
> 
> If they really wanted to Stop the War in Syria, they’d target Russia | Jonathan Freedland



Freedland has a go at the STWC, Stoppers or 'Stop Some Wars'


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Freedland has a go at the STWC, Stoppers or 'Stop Some Wars'



This argument is silly too, I think that the STWC argument that they focus on UK and NATO wars because they can actually have some influence on them is reasonable enough. I notice that Freedland doesn't refer to US/UK backing of Saudi Arabia's murderous campaign in Yemen in which the Saudis have been using the same tactics he talks about the Russians using. 

If Freedland wants to protest outside the Russian embassy then he should go and do it instead of concern trolling other people, it's not as if they don't happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This argument is silly too, I think that the STWC argument that they focus on UK and NATO wars because they can actually have some influence on them is reasonable enough. I notice that Freedland doesn't refer to US/UK backing of Saudi Arabia's murderous campaign in Yemen in which the Saudis have been using the same tactics he talks about the Russians using.
> 
> If Freedland wants to protest outside the Russian embassy then he should go and do it instead of concern trolling other people, it's not as if they don't happen.


Totally agree. That said, the stwc could have responded better. Surely the correct response would be that they are a British group that campaigns to stop Britain's wars, but that they have an internationalist outlook and of course work closely with similar groups around the world trying to stop their governments' wars.


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2016)

Nineham and co are cultists, disgusting people


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Nineham and co are cultists, disgusting people



Yea, I don't like them either but Freedland is a dick too


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2016)

Both sides will cheer on a hospital getting bombed as long as it's the _right hospital_


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> This argument is silly too, I think that the STWC argument that they focus on UK and NATO wars because they can actually have some influence on them is reasonable enough.



They are quite interested in Israel's wars and they don't exactly have a great deal of capacity to influence those.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> They are quite interested in Israel's wars and they don't exactly have a great deal of capacity to influence those.


Don't know enough about stwc tbh, but assuming you're right, that's a bit of a shame. There is a place for a coalition that focuses only on Britain and Britain's actions. However, there could be another justification, if it were broadened to the actions of Britain's allies.

Problem when an action group broadens to become about everything. I can see the temptation, but it can be a mistake. The strength of effective NGOs can be their self-imposed limitations, the things they don't say even though they'd like to. Red Cross is the extreme eg of that, but it also applies to Amnesty.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> They are quite interested in Israel's wars and they don't exactly have a great deal of capacity to influence those.



Politicians in Britain and the US have a pretty significant amount of influence over Israel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Politicians in Britain and the US have a pretty significant amount of influence over Israel.


You could extend it to 'everyone the UK sells arms to'. That doesn't narrow things down much though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Politicians in Britain and the US have a pretty significant amount of influence over Israel.


Thing is, and forgive me as I'm pretty ignorant about stwc generally, but what exactly are they trying to achieve now? It seems fuzzy to me.

What I'd like them to do is to build a mass-movement against war in the UK. Are they doing that, or trying to do that?


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, and forgive me as I'm pretty ignorant about stwc generally, but what exactly are they trying to achieve now? It seems fuzzy to me.



It's not fuzzy at all. Nineham was completely honest about it on R4. The purpose of StWC is to "oppose the West".


----------



## cantsin (Oct 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Politicians in Britain and the US have a pretty significant amount of influence over Israel.



U.S. Provides $4bn military ' aid'  to Israel p.a. I.i.r.c.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Politicians in Britain and the US have a pretty significant amount of influence over Israel.



British politicians have pretty much no influence over Israel, and British politicians trying to influence Israel via the US government have even less.

They buy some of our stuff, not much, but some, and we buy stuff from them - the difference however is that we buy stuff from them that we can't get elsewhere and that is at the top end of whats available. As a rule its non-lethal stuff like ECM gear, body armour and helmets, surveillance and targeting systems, but during the Afghanistan war they provided a missile system called Spike NLOS from their own war stocks - we used it to attack Taliban IED laying teams that we had spotted from aircraft. The advantage it had over other systems was that it had a much smaller warhead - something like a tenth of the size of the GMLRS warhead which we would have used otherwise - which meant that the chances of non-Taliban casualties was much reduced.

The relationship is friendly, but not really friends - we provide them with snapshot int and that is returned, but neither side gives the other a great stream of int: they don't trust us and we don't trust them, and our politicians don't want to have a relationship they can be criticised for, and their politicians don't want to have to listen to our politicians having a go at them.

It's a working relationship, not a close one, and it gives UK politicians no real influence - and if we want to be honest about it, that suits UK politicians just fine.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 15, 2016)

The key difference in UK terms between Russia and Israel as targets for protest is that the UK government has historically and continues to be broadly supportive of Israeli security policy (while occasionally criticising some aspect of it), whereas for Russia the UK government is already broadly opposed to Russian foreign policy, and is already enforcing sanctions against Russia.

STWC's main influence (if any) is over UK government position on other country's actions, rather than being able to directly influence that country.

The STWC position seems pretty consistent to me, and Borris Johnson is playing a very dangerous game by calling for protests outside the RUssian Embassy - at least if he want's UK embassies to be able to function safely without being surrounded by crowds of hostile protestors.


----------



## treelover (Oct 15, 2016)

You give this organisation headed by cynical and disingenuous SWP retreads, German, Rees, Nineham, any credibility?


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Have to say, I'd never have the faintest idea what Nineham, German and Rees were up to if you didn't keep us up to date TL. It's an important public service you're doing them.


----------



## treelover (Oct 15, 2016)

Pleased to do so, i had never heard of them till the European Social Forums, and saw first hand how they operate

Nineham was on the Today Programme, thousands of supporters, etc, they still have some influence.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> It's not fuzzy at all. Nineham was completely honest about it on R4. The purpose of StWC is to "oppose the West".



Israel is a western colony to all intents and purposes. It wants to be considered part of Europe . Plays in European football leagues, Eurovision . All that stuff. It's also got a lot of vocal and influential supporters in the Uk . Supporters in very high places and it's fair game for their line to be challenged.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

free spirit said:


> The key difference in UK terms between Russia and Israel as targets for protest is that the UK government has historically and continues to be broadly supportive of Israeli security policy (while occasionally criticising some aspect of it), whereas for Russia the UK government is already broadly opposed to Russian foreign policy, and is already enforcing sanctions against Russia.
> 
> STWC's main influence (if any) is over UK government position on other country's actions, rather than being able to directly influence that country.
> 
> The STWC position seems pretty consistent to me, and Borris Johnson is playing a very dangerous game by calling for protests outside the RUssian Embassy - at least if he want's UK embassies to be able to function safely without being surrounded by crowds of hostile protestors.



It's a diplomatic gaffe. A serious blunder. From a fucking asshole engaging in whataboutery while grandstanding For the media . That toffee nosed show pony is also making these calls for protests against a backdrop of British generals being publicly instructed to come up with plans for potential military attacks against Russian forces and their allies. It's very dangerous talk that could backfire .  and Labour are every bit as bad, invoking the besainted Jo Cox and her warmongering to back up Johnsons nonsense . 

Does he not stop for a second to consider what might actually happen if Putin urged the Russian people , and those elsewhere who are pro Russian..Serbs, Belarus etc to start retaliatory protests at British embassies ? It's a damn sight more certain people would actually listen to him. And the response would be a bit more than some lone hippy in pink chinos .


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 15, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> That can be done very effectively via the ballot box. Labour needs to get its act together first though.



Indeed. They need to ditch the tory lite, Blairite tendency.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 16, 2016)

This hasnt been posted has it? Secret recording of Paul mason expressing the limitations of Corby and suggesting Clive Lewis would be the best next replacement for him when the time comes.....


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> This hasnt been posted has it? Secret recording of Paul mason expressing the limitations of Corby and suggesting Clive Lewis would be the best next replacement for him when the time comes.....




People in that milieu have been fairly open about this sort of medium term plan for ages, nothing new in this recording really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Pleased to do so, i had never heard of them till the European Social Forums, and saw first hand how they operate
> 
> Nineham was on the Today Programme, thousands of supporters, etc, they still have some influence.


millions of pms of support all over again


----------



## ska invita (Oct 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> People in that milieu have been fairly open about this sort of medium term plan for ages, nothing new in this recording really.


I agree...its been billed as an expose, a bit embarrassing maybe, but interesting about Clive Lewis...Ive seen him interviewed once as a non-coup-er


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

as long as it's clive lewis and not clive derby lewis.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I agree...its been billed as an expose, a bit embarrassing maybe, but interesting about Clive Lewis...Ive seen him interviewed once as a non-coup-er



Clive Lewis is the usual presumed successor candidate in the plan, Louise Haigh came up a lot too before she threw her lot in with the coup gang.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I agree...its been billed as an expose, a bit embarrassing maybe, but interesting about Clive Lewis...Ive seen him interviewed once as a non-coup-er



Why is it being considered an expose? It's a man saying something not particularly interesting over dinner.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 16, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why is it being considered an expose? It's a man saying something not particularly interesting over dinner.


Traitor to corby


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> People in that milieu have been fairly open about this sort of medium term plan for ages, nothing new in this recording really.



As I've said previously - months ago - I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's Corbyn's plan too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why is it being considered an expose? It's a man saying something not particularly interesting over dinner.



Because journos love to provide a slant to stories, even if the slant is all their own invention.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Traitor to corby



I've been to Corby. Being a traitor to it isn't a big deal!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 16, 2016)

Labour MPs call for ballots to signal open dissent against Corbyn

PLP in 'continuing whiny temper tantrum' shock.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 16, 2016)

God I wish they'd fuck off.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I agree...its been billed as an expose, a bit embarrassing maybe, but interesting about Clive Lewis...Ive seen him interviewed once as a non-coup-er



edit / delete


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 16, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Labour MPs call for ballots to signal open dissent against Corbyn
> 
> PLP in 'continuing whiny temper tantrum' shock.





> Labour backbenchers are preparing to call for a series of MPs’ ballots to signal their dissent from the party’s leadership on policy areas where they believe Jeremy Corbyn is out of step with mainstream public opinion.


Comedy that this seems to be based around Heathrow expansion - something which is massively unpopular with the public, at least all the public who live anywhere near Heathrow.


> Heathrow expansion, which Corbyn opposes, will be the test case for the new approach, which one critical backbencher called “constructively muscular”


who is this "critical backbencher"
how old is he
is he in fact twelve


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 16, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But they're still not as empty and pointless as your post. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Cheers - Louis (typing it out each time) MacNeice



Lol ok then. I stand by my comment and think yours is indicative of the problem the party now faces. A delusion has beset the membership spurned on by an incompetent leadership who prefers ego massaging via rallies rather than impacting policies which actually affect our lives...


.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so policy shaping is to be done by whom? Don't you like democracy?
> 
> Sent from Mordor using a Palantir



It's not much of a democracy if a few hundred thousand people can ruin the appeal of a party to tens of millions.

Labour of screwed and it's their own doing.


.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Comedy that this seems to be based around Heathrow expansion - something which is massively unpopular with the public, at least all the public who live anywhere near Heathrow.


And frankly no one else gives a toss.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> And frankly no one else gives a toss.


Well the PLPs CBI mates do of course.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 16, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol ok then. I stand by my comment and think yours is indicative of the problem the party now faces. A delusion has beset the membership spurned on by an incompetent leadership who prefers ego massaging via rallies rather than impacting policies which actually affect our lives...
> 
> 
> .



thought provoking and fresh new perspective on the whole thing, thanks for sharing


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's not much of a democracy if a few hundred thousand people can ruin the appeal of a party to tens of millions.
> 
> Labour of screwed and it's their own doing.
> 
> ...


these are the people the labour party is supposed to be accountable to. The PLP are accountable also to their constituents yes, and also to the party. They've been on Project Fuck Corbyn since before day one of the first leadership election as have a massively hostile press. I'm no labourite but just as an observer it should be obvious who is trying to tank the party and crush its resurgent left. Its not the members and its not the union members and its not in general the wider party.


----------



## bemused (Oct 17, 2016)

I wonder at what point the PLP will just accept their fate?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 17, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol ok then. I stand by my comment and think yours is indicative of the problem the party now faces. A delusion has beset the membership spurned on by an incompetent leadership who prefers ego massaging via rallies rather than *impacting policies which actually affect our lives*..


What are these policies? Supporting Trident? Attacking those on welfare? Supporting the expansion of Heathrow? Ethical bombing campaigns?


----------



## Libertad (Oct 17, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> welfare



Social security?


----------



## agricola (Oct 17, 2016)

bemused said:


> I wonder at what point the PLP will just accept their fate?


----------



## Convention (Oct 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> these are the people the labour party is supposed to be accountable to. The PLP are accountable also to their constituents yes, and also to the party. They've been on Project Fuck Corbyn since before day one of the first leadership election as have a massively hostile press. I'm no labourite but just as an observer it should be obvious who is trying to tank the party and crush its resurgent left. Its not the members and its not the union members and its not in general the wider party.


This is true 100%. But isn't the other bit true as well? Corbyn is pretty shit generally at doing politics. He's a bit of a warm lettuce leaf. The Blairites have been trying to screw a warm lettuce leaf, and failed. Owen Smith couldn't even squeeze it. But then there are a lot of weirdos like Milne, some people from Momentum (Ms Walker), the freaks from the right of Labour like Bradsahw and the guy that shouted at Livingstone, Livingstone himself and so on and so on and so on. And generally the wider public, even sympathisers, just think, you bunch of absolute fucking cocks. I mean, you utter two-bob blends.
It's almost as if the Labour Party is a useless vehicle for change, or that it is a vehicle for change but it will take years - at least - for it to be roadworthy. Meanwhile the right and the far right are steaming ahead...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 18, 2016)

For example, this is one of those people. Business owning neoliberal, very pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders. Happy both to maintain a boycott which hurts working-class people while donating to the party which is responsible for the bathroom law, gerrymandering, union-busting, some of the worst under funding of schools in the country.






but don't worry it isn't much money


----------



## mauvais (Oct 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> For example, this is one of those people. Business owning neoliberal, very pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders. Happy both to maintain a boycott which hurts working-class people while donating to the party which is responsible for the bathroom law, gerrymandering, union-busting, some of the worst under funding of schools in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong thread sir


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Wrong thread sir



I've just googled her, what is shocking is people pay to listen to her talk.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 18, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Wrong thread sir



Serves me right for posting before coffee!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol ok then. I stand by my comment and think yours is indicative of the problem the party now faces. A delusion has beset the membership spurned on by an incompetent leadership who prefers ego massaging via rallies rather than impacting policies which actually affect our lives...
> 
> 
> .



Please remind me, what is the extent of the policy-making apparatus available to either Corbyn or the PLP currently?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 18, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please remind me, what is the extent of the policy-making apparatus available to either Corbyn or the PLP currently?



If it wasn't for Corbyn the Tories would have to face the sheer ferocity of Andy Burnham or Owen Smith. They'd be powerless to resist with only their HoC majority to rely on.


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Andy Burnham



When he wins Manchester Mayor he'll be the 3rd most smug person in Labour.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 18, 2016)

Convention said:


> This is true 100%. But isn't the other bit true as well? Corbyn is pretty shit generally at doing politics. He's a bit of a warm lettuce leaf. The Blairites have been trying to screw a warm lettuce leaf, and failed. Owen Smith couldn't even squeeze it. But then there are a lot of weirdos like Milne, some people from Momentum (Ms Walker), the freaks from the right of Labour like Bradsahw and the guy that shouted at Livingstone, Livingstone himself and so on and so on and so on. And generally the wider public, even sympathisers, just think, you bunch of absolute fucking cocks. I mean, you utter two-bob blends.
> It's almost as if the Labour Party is a useless vehicle for change, or that it is a vehicle for change but it will take years - at least - for it to be roadworthy. Meanwhile the right and the far right are steaming ahead...



oh purlease, getting your knickers in a twist about "useless vehicles ...for change " and "the right and the far right ..steaming ahead" when you could barely fit a rizzla between May, UKIP and most of the LP's actual politics / policies over the last 20 yrs, and given the way May + co are suddenly rediscovering their inner Keynsians when it suits, it's not exactly an ideological chasm that divides her n' Corbo + Co. half the time.
Get real cuz.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Oct 18, 2016)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol ok then. I stand by my comment and think yours is indicative of the problem the party now faces. A delusion has beset the membership spurned on by an incompetent leadership who prefers ego massaging via rallies rather than impacting policies which actually affect our lives...



Fuck all these 2nd hand media homilies masquerading as genuine insight. Corbyn is a wet fart but for the first time in god knows how long values I hold dear are actually getting seeing the light of day. Time to actually get behind something instead of constantly bitching.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Fuck all these 2nd hand media homilies masquerading as genuine insight. Corbyn is a wet fart but for the first time in god knows how long values I hold dear are actually getting seeing the light of day. Time to actually get behind something instead of constantly bitching.


So what you doing then?


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 19, 2016)

NEC report says that despite denials from party members and the fact that she wasn't even at the meeting Aaaargh was subjected to homophobic abuse.  What the report into abuse allegations of Angela Eagle says


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

I don't know what happened but i wanted to say this earlier when this was first reported - it's perfectly possible to be the victim of homophobic abuse without being present.


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 19, 2016)

TBH, it is more this that makes me call bullshit:  Homophobic slurs against Angela Eagle in Wallasey? I've only experienced the opposite


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> TBH, it is more this that makes me call bullshit:  Homophobic slurs against Angela Eagle in Wallasey? I've only experienced the opposite


You're def calling it bullshit then? Have to say that a non-eye witness report saying it wouldn't happen because my parents are great (and one that actually says it wouldn't go unchallenged, not that it didn't happen) isn't a killer bit of evidence for me.


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2016)

According to that article


> The confidential report on the investigation into Wallasey Constituency Labour Party says: “The investigation has found that some members have truthfully claimed that homophobic instances occurred during the AGM. Others truthfully said that they were not aware of those instances.





> “It is possible for the events to have occurred without the knowledge of all members. The allegations are not that the CLP is institutionally homophobic or that members were aware of homophobia but took no action, but are specific to individuals. These allegations will be reported to the Disputes Panel regarding individual disciplinary action.”



It's worth pointing out that the article is based on a leaked confidential report, so until the individuals concerned have faced whatever "disciplinary action" is thought necessary, we're unlikely to hear the full story and be able to judge for ourselves how serious or significant it all is.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know what happened but i wanted to say this earlier when this was first reported - it's perfectly possible to be the victim of homophobic abuse without being present.



self evidently true - but seems massively unlikely to have happened in this case - Tessa fucking Jowell's third hand hearsay vs every CLP member that was present


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

cantsin said:


> self evidently true - but seems massively unlikely to have happened in this case - Tessa fucking Jowell's third hand hearsay vs every CLP member that was present


Was the report based on Tessa Jowell saying something do you think?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Was the report based on Tessa Jowell saying something do you think?



honestly mate, if this is some theoretical exercise to get the day going, I'll leave you to it, just too daft .


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

cantsin said:


> honestly mate, if this is some theoretical exercise to get the day going, I'll leave you to it, just too daft .


It's not theoretical no. What was the basis for the report? Was it the evidence from a 100 people or just what tessa jowell said? What basis did they offer for saying homophobic abuse from individuals took place? Because tessa jowell said it did? So far today i've seen two rejections of the report based on 'it's _unlikely _and _my parents wouldn't allow it._

I think it's a bit shoddy to treat the claim so lightly - regardless of whether there's some substance to to it or not. And it's doing exactly what someone who would make it up would hope you do.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2016)

Could be entertaining?


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2016)




----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2016)

RE:local party environment, they seem to be complaining about new members wanting structure, accountability, sending in motions, etc, why is that wrong?, if older members aren't happy, its not or should be a cosy social meeting(though it should be cordial) well, i seem to recall they didn't mind when hundreds were booted out in the Poll Tax days or forced out many many more.


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2016)

> What will Jeremy Corbyn go on today at #pmqs? "Who knows?!" says @bbclaurak #bbcdp



No smears/bias eh Laura?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 19, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> TBH, it is more this that makes me call bullshit:  Homophobic slurs against Angela Eagle in Wallasey? I've only experienced the opposite



Butchers is right that it can't be assumed that the report is inaccurate or produced with ill will.

And the article is good too because it's the truth that most people into left politics are because of their desire for equality and rejection of prejudice. She does also concede that she has experienced plenty of prejudice generally. No one can claim the Labour Party is totally immune. The better it's dealt with the shorter the stick for opponents.

It's weird because if you wish to insult AE her sexuality is just about the most neutral thing about her. Anything competence or charisma related, knock yourselves out.


----------



## bemused (Oct 19, 2016)

I think the fact that someone bricked her window probably her local party isn't the most collegiate of the group.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's not theoretical no. What was the basis for the report? Was it the evidence from a 100 people or just what tessa jowell said? What basis did they offer for saying homophobic abuse from individuals took place? Because tessa jowell said it did? So far today i've seen two rejections of the report based on 'it's _unlikely _and _my parents wouldn't allow it._
> 
> I think it's a bit shoddy to treat the claim so lightly - regardless of whether there's some substance to to it or not. And it's doing exactly what someone who would make it up would hope you do.



None of us are in a position to make a serious assessment of this confidential report because a conveniently selective leak tells us that it is based on one hundred anonymous statements, but gives no indication of how many of them support the allegations (never mind any other tools to evaluate it in less crudely quantitative terms). Any organisation should tackle sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism within its ranks. Yet the 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party also seems willing to cynically exploit, exaggerate, and misrepresent such issues to conflate them with political differences, legitimate public anger, and online abuse by right-wing trolls. It might be bad strategy for Corbyne supporters to point this out and doing so might also prevent them from examining homophobic or anti-semitic attitudes that are tolerated by segments of the left (an issue that is mirrored by those 'moderates' who erase Jewish anti-Zionism by simply equating the two).

--------------



bemused said:


> I think the fact that someone bricked her window probably her local party isn't the most collegiate of the group.



Why should we assume that the brick thrower was a member of the Labour Party? This is exactly the sort of the muddying of the water I am getting at. (Not to suggest that you are doing this deliberately, but this is the effect of how this event has been written into the narrative.)


----------



## kabbes (Oct 19, 2016)

Nobody bricked her window, ffs.


----------



## Beermoth (Oct 19, 2016)

bemused said:


> I think the fact that someone bricked her window probably her local party isn't the most collegiate of the group.



Who bricked her window?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> None of us are in a position to make a serious assessment of this confidential report because a conveniently selective leak tells us that it is based on one hundred anonymous statements, but gives no indication of how many of them support the allegations (never mind any other tools to evaluate it in less crudely quantitative terms). Any organisation should tackle sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism within its ranks. Yet the 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party also seems willing to cynically exploit, exaggerate, and misrepresent such issues to conflate them with political differences, legitimate public anger, and online abuse by right-wing trolls. It might be bad strategy for Corbyne supporters to point this out and doing so might also prevent them from examining homophobic or anti-semitic attitudes that are tolerated by segments of the left (an issue that is mirrored by those 'moderates' who erase Jewish anti-Zionism by simply equating the two).


Shouldn't this be directed at those rejecting the report rather than me? And doesn't the second half of your paragraph above - from 'Yet' onwards -  then go on to do exactly what you were warning about? 

As it goes, we can assume at least some of the people interviewed did either allege homophobic things were said and that the authors of the report found them credible. That's pretty undeniable.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 19, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Who bricked her window?



That indeed is the question...


----------



## kabbes (Oct 19, 2016)

It wasn't even her window.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It wasn't even her window.



Articles based on the leaked report suggest that this version of events was over spun by her opponents. it claims the only occupants of the building were local Labour Party offices and the landlord. Labour occupied that floor - even if they shared the stairwell with the landlord. The other companies listed at this address didn't have office space. None of which establishes that the incident was politically motivated, never mind connected to a Momentum supporter or Party member.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Shouldn't this be directed at those rejecting the report rather than me? And doesn't the second half of your paragraph above - from 'Yet' onwards -  then go on to do exactly what you were warning about?
> 
> As it goes, we can assume at least some of the people interviewed did either allege homophobic things were said and that the authors of the report found them credible. That's pretty undeniable.



I think its a minefield for Corbyne supporters and left-wing opponents of Labour Party moderates, but there is also a context that makes people's cynicism understandable.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Articles based on the leaked report suggest that this version of events was over spun by her opponents. The only occupants of the building were local Labour Party offices and the landlord. Labour occupied that floor - even if they shared the stairwell with the landlord. The other companies listed at that address don't have separate office space.


According to the report they don't have any offices in the building full stop.


----------



## tim (Oct 19, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> What's Paul Masons game ?



Dominoes


----------



## kabbes (Oct 19, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Articles based on the leaked report suggest that this version of events was over spun by her opponents. it claims the only occupants of the building were local Labour Party offices and the landlord. Labour occupied that floor - even if they shared the stairwell with the landlord. The other companies listed at this address didn't have office space. None of which establishes that the incident was politically motivated, never mind connected to a Momentum supporter or Party member.


If you wanted to brick her window, you'd actually brick her window.  This is what it looks like.

 

Do you really think that smashing the window by the door is anything more than kids being arseholes?


----------



## inva (Oct 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Do you really think that smashing the window by the door is anything more than kids being arseholes?


_Momentum Kids_


----------



## tim (Oct 19, 2016)

inva said:


> _Momentum Kids_



If they'd had real momentum, they'd have gone for those juicy big windows not the piddling pane next to the door;cvery shoddy vandalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> If you wanted to brick her window, you'd actually brick her window.  This is what it looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tbh if you look at the window frame some serious structural damage appears to have been done


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 19, 2016)

kabbes said:


> ...
> Do you really think that smashing the window by the door is anything more than kids being arseholes?



It's conceivable that the broken window was politically motivated, but it seems as likely to have been random vandalism. The report's findings that it was 'highly likely' to have been political doesn't seem that convincing,without further evidence. If there was any, you might expect it to have leaked along with everything else that damages Corbyn. So what if the window was broken by an angry constituent, an inept Momentum supporter even, who got carried away after a few pints? Perhaps someone who was also an inexperienced saboteur and smashed the wrong window in the heat of the moment? A brick through the window of a communal stairwell in an empty office building might not seem like the worst instance of political violence, when compared to say Angela Eagle's voting record on military and foreign policy issues, but Corbyn's supporters can't say this.

Without condoning sexist or homophobic abuse, what seems more concerning to me than the substance of these specific allegations is how effectively these are being weaponised by the right-wing of the labour party. I don't think that it is just Corbyn supporters who need to be worried about this. Public displays of anger and contempt towards members of a political elite are being increasingly conflated with oppressive behaviour towards marginalised social groups.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2016)

Indie being v positive about what sounds like another strong Corbo PMQ session today, and interestingly, the journo wonders whether James Schneider, as new comms bod, is already making his mark, eg : MH key focus today ( assuming journo sees this as a younger orientated issue) .

It makes a  change, Schneider not getting an MSM  kicking for Momentum role, and smart move to get him away from public face of Momentum imo, easy target.

( and assume Milne now confirmed gone ? Again, prob for best )
_
"One wonders if Corbyn has been getting some coaching from his new comms man, 28-year-old James Schneider, before PMQs. The questions he asked were ones that affect the public, grab the attention of younger people and have the capacity to cause real damage to the already shaky career of the Health Secretary. "_

I'm usually the first to slam Jeremy Corbyn, but at this week's PMQs he looked like a better leader than Theresa May


----------



## bemused (Oct 20, 2016)

Theresa May's Tories open up 18-point lead over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

UKIP down to 6%, so their fantasy that Labour voters would run to them doesn't seem to have come true.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2016)

bemused said:


> Theresa May's Tories open up 18-point lead over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
> 
> UKIP down to 6%, so their fantasy that Labour voters would run to them doesn't seem to have come true.



Only because it's already happened those voters having been eased to the right now abandoning UKIP for the Tories. 29% suggests few new defectors but they are not the winning cohort.

It's very possible to see Labour build a few more percent as Corbyn's confidence rises, but the worry is that for a GE he is already holed below the waterline on his previous affiliations and his confused pitch to lead a capitalist nation state. Does he like Parliament, the Military, Industry, Agriculture? Can he convince he is batting for Britain? He appears a contradiction.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 20, 2016)

Bone's take...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Indie being v positive about what sounds like another strong Corbo PMQ session today, and interestingly, the journo wonders whether James Schneider, as new comms bod, is already making his mark, eg : MH key focus today ( assuming journo sees this as a younger orientated issue) .
> 
> It makes a  change, Schneider not getting an MSM  kicking for Momentum role, and smart move to get him away from public face of Momentum imo, easy target.
> 
> ...



Schneider has replaced Milne? I don't think that is true.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Schneider has replaced Milne? I don't think that is true.



That's my understanding as well - supplemented seems to be the term of choice - but Milne is still very much in the fold, though who has how much clout and who is listened to by whom is perhaps a matter for some debate...


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Schneider has replaced Milne? I don't think that is true.



sounds unlikely steely old Tanky warhorse Milne wld get replaced by JS at this stage, agreed


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2016)

The story of the labour councillor from Swindon who went off to join the tories then changed his mind and came back the next morning doesn't seem to be getting as much coverage as it deserves.
Labour councillor defects to Conservatives for ' most stupid 24 hours of my life'


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bone's take...
> 
> View attachment 94154


----------



## kebabking (Oct 20, 2016)

bimble said:


> The story of the labour councillor from Swindon who went off to join the tories then changed his mind and came back the next morning doesn't seem to be getting as much coverage as it deserves.
> Labour councillor defects to Conservatives for ' most stupid 24 hours of my life'



I'm not sure if I'd describe the comings and goings of councillors in Swindon as being 'hold the front page!' stuff, but perhaps you should ask who would benefit from publicity - Labour aren't really going to want to have their idiot councillor who has no idea what he believes splashed over the front pages, and the Tories aren't going to want stories of how someone only managed to be a Tory for 24 hours before changing their mind coursing through the media...

For both sides its an incident best forgotten, and for the media its only value is comedy.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2016)

Ye ok, I just thought it was funny and kind of symptomatic as well but I know it's not the very most important thing going in the world.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 20, 2016)

Strange he's not been banned under 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of a different political party?'


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Strange he's not been banned under 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of a different political party?'


it's fine to have been a member of the tories, UKIP not too much of a problem either, just not Green, Respect, TUSC or any other leftish party that would indicate you're likely to support Corbyn.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Bone's take...
> 
> View attachment 94154



Liked as if Ian can get the country to accept this Jezza might get into no 10.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 20, 2016)

I liked it because it made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 22, 2016)

And I liked it because you cannot reform capitalism.


----------



## chilango (Oct 22, 2016)

...and I _didn't_ like it because the addition of "reformist" weakens the message.

Doesn't need such qualification imho. Previous leaders didn't need it.


----------



## degsy (Oct 22, 2016)




----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2016)

Wasn't sure where to put this. 
It's not a big sample but some of the results seem to bode very badly for a Corbyn- led labour party, and some are just really surprising (to me anyway).
eg) 
'When we asked about welfare benefits, among those who want a Labour party for the workers 47% think benefits are too easy to get and go to those who don't need them, only 31% think they should be easier to get. '
 

YouGov |  Should Labour be a workers' party, or a party of the liberal left?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wasn't sure where to put this.
> It's not a big sample but some of the results seem to bode very badly for a Corbyn- led labour party, and some are just really surprising (to me anyway).
> eg)
> 'When we asked about welfare benefits, among those who want a Labour party for the workers 47% think benefits are too easy to get and go to those who don't need them, only 31% think they should be easier to get. '
> ...


Those poll findings would only bode very badly for a Corbyn-led Labour party if he/they had any intention of becoming a _workers or anti-capitalist _party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

here we go again


----------



## JimW (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 95354
> here we go again


And he got his insult in four months in advance!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)




----------



## J Ed (Nov 11, 2016)

I like the title Minister for Peace. There is a nice sounding trajectory from Minister for War > Defence Minister > Minister for Peace and Disarmament.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 11, 2016)

Couldn't Dianne Abbot do it, like one of those highlanders who runs the post office, the hotel and the taxi service?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wasn't sure where to put this.
> It's not a big sample but some of the results seem to bode very badly for a Corbyn- led labour party, and some are just really surprising (to me anyway).
> eg)
> 'When we asked about welfare benefits, among those who want a Labour party for the workers 47% think benefits are too easy to get and go to those who don't need them, only 31% think they should be easier to get. '
> View attachment 95102



Arbitrary categories falsely presented as mutually exclusive = meaningless poll. 'All' necessarily includes workers and nothing is gonna get any fairier unless somebody stands opposed to the excesses of capitalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Couldn't Dianne Abbot do it, like one of those highlanders who runs the post office, the hotel and the taxi service?


The (attempted) returning Dave Nellist would be ideal. He and the 75 comrades could share the role.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 95354
> here we go again


How do you insult a day? I hope the month doesn't get involved,else Jeremy will be in big trouble. November can cut up rough, so I'm told.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

editor said:


> How do you insult a day? I hope the month doesn't get involved,else Jeremy will be in big trouble. November can cut up rough, so I'm told.



But April is the cruellest month, apparently


----------



## Argonia (Nov 11, 2016)

Sir Gerald howarth got stung by chris Morris


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

editor said:


> How do you insult a day? I hope the month doesn't get involved,else Jeremy will be in big trouble. November can cut up rough, so I'm told.


wait eight weeks and it will be 'corbyn ruined christmas' again, just you see


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wasn't sure where to put this.
> It's not a big sample but some of the results seem to bode very badly for a Corbyn- led labour party, and some are just really surprising (to me anyway).
> eg)
> 'When we asked about welfare benefits, among those who want a Labour party for the workers 47% think benefits are too easy to get and go to those who don't need them, only 31% think they should be easier to get. '
> ...



It's not the people who currently (or recently) vote or identify with Labour they need to be attracting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2016)

It's not very surprising anyway surely; for years Labour has been deliberately supporting the concept of "benefit scroungers".


----------



## Lucy Fur (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> wait eight weeks and it will be 'corbyn ruined christmas' again, just you see


But to get us in the mood for it, we can all be chuffed to learn that Labour First have pulled forward their AGM till Nov 26 and have old cuntychops Watson doing the keynote speech.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> wait eight weeks and it will be 'corbyn ruined christmas' again, just you see



I'll be putting an extra lock on my front door - its Corbyns kind of trick to force his way into our living room on Christmas day and piss on the kids - and then the shit would steal their presents...

He's a monster.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Nov 11, 2016)

And lets not ignore the elephant in the room, what did he do to get people to vote for Clinton


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> And lets not ignore the elephant in the room, what did he do to get people to vote for Clinton


yeh, he was nowhere to see. again.


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 95354
> here we go again



And get this. Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has never started a SINGLE war. NOT ONE.

He might as well have pissed in the mouth of the unknown soldier during the Last Post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> And get this. Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has never started a SINGLE war. NOT ONE.
> 
> He might as well have pissed in the mouth of the unknown soldier during the Last Post.


he never even got in a fight in school so how can he possibly be in a position to send troops into combat


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 11, 2016)

The logical end-point of this 'he's not keen enough on war so he's insulting our troops' proposition is that, if he REALLY cared about them, he'd punch each and every one of them in the face without provocation. Like a proper, respectful warmonger.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 12, 2016)

Interesting fb reaction to a piece on Novara 'Corbyn must condemn Assad': 

I don't know the particular Syrian activists the article is talking about, but the idea of Corbyn putting some distance between himself and the kneejerk 'anti-imperialist' left positions on Syria seems fair enough. Comments go a bit mental 

Edit: can't seem to link to the fb post - it automatically substitutes the story. I'm sure you can all find it on fb anyway.


----------



## squirrelp (Nov 12, 2016)

Can someone help me out on this one.

Bashir al-Assad is democratically elected, no?


----------



## binka (Nov 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Can someone help me out on this one.
> 
> Bashir al-Assad is democratically elected, no?


Do you mean the two times he ran unopposed or the time he cheated?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> he never even got in a fight in school so how can he possibly be in a position to send troops into combat


I heard that he never even used to play with those little plastic army men, he should be tarred and white feathered the conshie scum


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Can someone help me out on this one.
> 
> Bashir al-Assad is democratically elected, no?


no

where's the point in being a democratically elected dictator?


----------



## rioted (Nov 13, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> Bashir al-Assad is democratically elected, no?


Whether he was or not is irrelevant to those who want american-funded regime change. If it was a question of democracy there's plenty of other states the west could drop bombs on.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 13, 2016)

More Daily Mail attacks on Remembrance Sunday



They look to have deleted the article now: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ig-Cenotaph-waits-Remembrance-Day-parade.html


----------



## muscovyduck (Nov 13, 2016)

Photo turned out to be cropped - he was turning to speak to a veteran


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 13, 2016)

While I get he wasn't 'dancing a jig', what _was_ he doing?!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> While I get he wasn't 'dancing a jig', what _was_ he doing?!


A reel.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2016)

More musical news!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 14, 2016)

According to the Huffington Post he was talking to WW2 veteran:

The 92-year-old told the newspaper he had known the Islington North MP for 30 years, and that Corbyn takes the memorial “very seriously”.

He said: “From what I can make of it they have taken some photographs of him walking along and you can make what you like of that. It’s absolute nonsense.”​Both the Mail and the Sun have pulled their articles which used the 'dancing photos'.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 14, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> According to the Huffington Post he was talking to WW2 veteran:
> 
> The 92-year-old told the newspaper he had known the Islington North MP for 30 years, and that Corbyn takes the memorial “very seriously”.
> 
> ...


Aye, I got that much, but I don't think he walks like that normally 

I don't think it's suspicious or disrespectful or 'owt, just an odd body motion.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 14, 2016)

Isn't it just an animated conversation which you might have with someone you've know for 30 years? Either that or he was practicing his moves for the Stop the War karaoke night; he does a mean 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Libertad (Nov 14, 2016)

Shake it like a Polaroid picture.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Nov 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> More musical news!




That's Robb Johnson (who was my daughter's reception teacher, btw - he's a lovely man).
He also performed at the concert for Corbyn put on at the Brighton Dome, which I paid for my son and his mate to go to.
I had a Momentum email about a 'flash mob' event (  ) last week which was something to do with this (not my cup of tea  and my son had a college app. so didn't make it).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2016)

How do we know it wasn't a NAZI old soldier?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2016)

corbyn breakdancing on the top of the cenotaph


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> corbyn breakdancing on the top of the cenotaph


This sounds like a half man half biscuit lyric.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> This sounds like a half man half biscuit lyric.


_sting singing from the roof of the bataclan_


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2016)

sheothebudworths said:


> That's Robb Johnson (who was my daughter's reception teacher, btw - he's a lovely man).
> He also performed at the concert for Corbyn put on at the Brighton Dome, which I paid for my son and his mate to go to.
> I had a Momentum email about a 'flash mob' event (  ) last week which was something to do with this (not my cup of tea  and my son had a college app. so didn't make it).


It's horrifying.  He should be horse whipped.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Nov 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> It's horrifying.  He should be horse whipped.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2016)

Seriously though, what does he think he's doing? What's the point?


----------



## Ergo Proxy (Nov 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> More musical news!


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> More musical news!



I lasted about 10 seconds of that. Seems a good way to convince everyone that Corbyn-mania is a weird kind of cult. Well-intentioned I'm sure but made by someone totally in their own world.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _sting singing from the roof of the bataclan_


Somewhere, Sting is _always_ on a roof_._


----------



## Wilf (Nov 14, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I lasted about 10 seconds of that. Seems a good way to convince everyone that Corbyn-mania is a weird kind of cult. Well-intentioned I'm sure but made by someone totally in their own world.


Some things are so shit they end up being good.  This isn't one of them.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 14, 2016)

Suppose its proof that the devil has the best tunes.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> made by someone totally in their own world.


Brighton, I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2016)

Argonia said:


> Sir Gerald howarth got stung by chris Morris



Gerald Howarth is a G-dbotherer and hard-right goat-fucker. He never progressed to Cabinet rank (just as far as being a junior minster) because although Thatcher and Major loved him, he was such a fucking bigot that he kept shitting on his own prospects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> While I get he wasn't 'dancing a jig', what _was_ he doing?!



The Locomotion.


----------



## agricola (Nov 16, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> While I get he wasn't 'dancing a jig', what _was_ he doing?!



Looking forward to PMQs' is a possibility, at least after today.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2016)

Corbynites have finally cracked it, this is how you communicate


----------



## Supine (Nov 21, 2016)

What does that even mean? Smart factories? Is that something labour is good at?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2016)

What Labour really need to come across as is a call centre line manager who's just come back from a course that he has not really understood and is desperately trying to bullshit about.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 21, 2016)

Am guessing it's a Paul Mason tweet with the words jumbled up for the lol's?


----------



## JimW (Nov 21, 2016)

Yet again they raid back issues of Worker's Girder for our superseded policy positions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2016)

the internet of things is a great idea till you realise how easy some people find it to fuck about with other peoples connected machinery. Also yes, that does sound like modern mason who I swear used to be better than he is now with his cyberchat balls, didn't he used to be a bit more grounded?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 21, 2016)

Vacuous nonsense pretty much covers it.


----------



## mather (Nov 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Corbynites have finally cracked it, this is how you communicate



By talking like Steve Jobs?


----------



## Beermoth (Nov 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Corbynites have finally cracked it, this is how you communicate



Long live the new flesh.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2016)

I want big data


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 21, 2016)

And I cannot lie.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2016)

'The internet of things' the phrase on the lips of all those just about managing who need little more in life than a smart kettle.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 21, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> 'The internet of things' the phrase on the lips of all those just about managing who need little more in life than a smart kettle.



I always thought "the internet of things" was a way of referring to online gay porn.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2016)

(((Raheem's fridge)))


----------



## Raheem (Nov 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> (((Raheem's fridge)))



It's a personal matter, but since you brought it up no, I'm not fridge. I have a normal libido.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I want big data


It's easy - just start off with small average-sized data, then give it a cheeky rub.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 22, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I always thought "the internet of things" was a way of referring to online gay porn.


You're mixing up your valves, transistors and silicon chips there


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

Puzzling. Sounds more like something a Blairite might say, given that most of the people who could benefit from chasing hitech waves are probably already doing ok.

I guess they could be trying to appeal to educated, endebted and opportunity-less young people, but it doesn't seem to be terribly relevant to the Sun-reading public.

The context seems to be a broader attempt at industrial policy: 





> “In 1963, Harold Wilson famously said if the country was to prosper, a ‘New Britain’ would need to be forged in the white heat of a scientific revolution. More than 50 years later. we now face the task of creating a New Britain not just out of Brexit and a new relationship with Europe but from the challenge of the fourth industrial revolution – powered by the internet of things and big data to develop cyber physical systems and smart factories.
> 
> “Labour wants to engage with business and the workforce at all levels to design an industrial strategy that meets the needs of 21st century Britain. That isn’t about picking winners, or pouring good money after bad into white-elephants. Instead we will set the missions, put in place the right institutional framework and support and provide businesses with the opportunities to develop our economy. Provided of course, that businesses live up to their side of the deal – on wages, on workers’ rights, on paying taxes. We want our relationship with business to be a partnership: Labour’s new settlement for business.”


 Corbyn tell business leaders: We’ll use the state to power a new industrial revolution | LabourList

The biggest problem I see with this stuff is that IoT, cyber physical systems etc right now are more about chasing investor trends than producing anything terribly useful.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

It was going OK up to and including 'big data' but then the last bit is total bollocks. At least IOT and big data are actual things. Cyber physical systems? What?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

It does make a kind of sense in this context, because it's a way of linking all of the less sexy engineering disciplines, especially mechanical engineering, with computing and especially with AI. So it's conceivably something to reinvigorate the UK's industrial base. 

I'm just not convinced sentient garden gnomes are the way to take voters off UKIP ...


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the internet of things is a great idea till you realise ...



... that your kettle already boils water, your fridge already keeps food cool, your light switch already turns the lights on and off ....


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

Well, your video says it - a car is a 'cyber physical system'. So so what? I don't deny it's a recognised term, but barely so, and I think it has pretty weak meaning even compared to fairly nebulous things like IOT. As for smart factories, the strongest link to that idea is surely labour reduction.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

Yeah, even if there is some sense there, it comes over as half baked in context.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

Also I'd say 'big data' has a quite limited ecosystem around it. If you build a car then you need manufacturing, design, a whole load of suppliers and they all produce jobs. Big data is a largely self contained professional, value-add service. You couldn't even begin to base an economy on it.

IOT could mean volume manufacturing. It is something to be taken seriously. Why Britain might be well placed to exploit that trend is less clear.

Then again I'm probably thinking too much about some straight up bullshit bingo.

Q: why does noone ever say less nebulous things like, let's expand car manufacturing? You know, the thing we are actually good at and already doing and basing some of our economy around


----------



## kabbes (Nov 22, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Q: why does noone ever say less nebulous things like, let's expand car manufacturing? You know, the thing we are actually good at and already doing and basing some of our economy around


Donald Trump did, I guess.


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Q: why does noone ever say less nebulous things like, let's expand car manufacturing? You know, the thing we are actually good at and already doing and basing some of our economy around


cos that's another seventies throwback.  This, embarrassingly naff, tweet thing is an attempt to throw off the smell of old fart with old fashioned ideas, that hangs around Corbyn. Shows he is hip and has real ideas about socialism in the twenty-first century.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Donald Trump did, I guess.


His lot are doing *something* - mostly trying to re-enact a hybrid of the 1930s and Season 2 of The Wire I think. Reopening the shipyards etc regardless of whether there's any demand for ships. He's also taking credit for saving various US car plants that were never in any danger.

But, and I say this as a software engineer, it still makes more sense than trying to attach an economic revival to IOT etcetera. It's barely even a workable Call of Duty plot.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

Well, that's sort of the point of cyber-physical systems. It puts AI, or at least advanced control technology into a range of more traditional engineering manufacturing.

I think there are a lot of issues worth discussing around that, but I'm not sure this thread is the place. 

The issue here is presumably more one of presentation. Nobody is going to have a scooby what he's on about (see 'call-centre manager who just went on a course he didn't understand' comment above) and it plays into the hands of hostile propaganda.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> cos that's another seventies throwback.  This, embarrassingly naff, tweet thing is an attempt to throw off the smell of old fart with old fashioned ideas, that hangs around Corbyn. Shows he is hip and has real ideas about socialism in the twenty-first century.


He should have stuck with the throwback and attached some nu-balls to that. We make more cars than we ever did. I know they'd tie it to the dark days of British Leyland etc but it's at least an actual thing that means jobs. However IME it only ever comes up when manufacturers are thinking about investing or quitting.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, that's sort of the point of cyber-physical systems. It puts AI, or at least advanced control technology into a range of more traditional engineering manufacturing.
> 
> I think there are a lot of issues worth discussing around that, but I'm not sure this thread is the place.


Agreed, this could be part of a meaningful theme. World class quality volume manufacturing is how the UK, Italy etc are still home to making certain things like cars despite globalisation and the outsourcing of many things to cheap labour countries. So that should be the message. AI and manufacturing technique and so on is an idea that adds value to something else, it doesn't stand up on its own. He's supposed to be a sensible pragmatic politician so why when it comes to tech and business do we get this guff?


----------



## magneze (Nov 22, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It was going OK up to and including 'big data' but then the last bit is total bollocks. At least IOT and big data are actual things. Cyber physical systems? What?


I thought that but a quick Google shows that it's actually a thing.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 22, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's easy - just start off with small average-sized data, then give it a cheeky rub.



I tried that i still only got little data


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2016)

This guff - reminiscent of nothing so much as Harold Wilson's rip-off of the Shah of Iran's PR for his 'White Revolution' - was from  talk/plea to the CBI - i doubt they'll be doing this stuff for real less important, less easily impressed people.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 22, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Puzzling. Sounds more like something a Blairite might say, given that most of the people who could benefit from chasing hitech waves are probably already doing ok.



Possibly OT, but I just thought I'd mention that there's no natural reason it wouldn't benefit everyone, if things were done a little differently.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This guff - reminiscent of nothing so much as Harold Wilson's rip-off of the Shah of Iran's PR for his 'White Revolution' - was from  talk/plea to the CBI - i doubt they'll be doing this stuff for real less important, less easily impressed people.



It also sounds not quite as ridiculous in the context of the speech (although I'm not saying it isn't guff all the same). The WTF part of it is that they have unsupervised chimps running the twitter feed.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> This guff - reminiscent of nothing so much as Harold Wilson's rip-off of the Shah of Iran's PR for his 'White Revolution' - was from  talk/plea to the CBI - i doubt they'll be doing this stuff for real less important, less easily impressed people.



It's a subject for a separate thread, but there are aspects to the technologies that might have got Bookchin/Kropotkin et. al. excited.

Not least, once the components have been mass produced, the ability to put together some really interesting and useful (to normal humans) stuff at local scale.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 22, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's a subject for a separate thread, but there are aspects to the technologies that might have got Bookchin/Kropotkin et. al. excited.
> 
> Not least, once the components have been mass produced, the ability to put together some really interesting and useful (to normal humans) stuff at local scale.



Raspberry Pi's for the people, a 3D printer in every library.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 22, 2016)

Raheem said:


> The WTF part of it is that they have unsupervised chimps running the twitter feed.



What part of the Corbyn experience to date led you to expect polished professionalism?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 22, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Raspberry Pi's for the people, a 3D printer in every library.



Yeah, or back-shed biotech for production of royalty-free medicines ...


----------



## Raheem (Nov 22, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> What part of the Corbyn experience to date led you to expect polished professionalism?



That time when he got the backing of UB40 but not the singer and held a press conference.


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's a subject for a separate thread, but there are aspects to the technologies that might have got Bookchin/Kropotkin et. al. excited.
> 
> Not least, once the components have been mass produced, the ability to put together some really interesting and useful (to normal humans) stuff at local scale.


The potential _is _really humungous, the fact that certain authors get wildly carried away about it, only semi-coherently, shouldn't make us forget that.

Although I do suspect that if Corbyn were asked to define any of the terms used in any detail, he'd be left spluttering.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2016)

I believe st J prefers to grow his marrows on an allotment rather than have them produced in a bio-vat nanochamber.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 22, 2016)

I've heard all that bollocks from Tories recently; same buzzwords, almost word for word. I don't know where it's come from though. Perhaps somebody has written a paper.


----------



## Sirena (Nov 22, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Puzzling. Sounds more like something a Blairite might say, given that most of the people who could benefit from chasing hitech waves are probably already doing ok.
> 
> I guess they could be trying to appeal to educated, endebted and opportunity-less young people, but it doesn't seem to be terribly relevant to the Sun-reading public.
> 
> ...


It's a spoof.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2016)

14000 replies and corbyn's still there


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


how's it gone hash tag?


----------



## inva (Nov 22, 2016)

Sirena said:


> It's a spoof.


and they got it posted on Corbyn's own twitter account. impressive


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 22, 2016)

Sirena said:


> It's a spoof.


labourlist is a spoof? I'd always suspected....


----------



## Supine (Nov 22, 2016)

Sirena said:


> It's a spoof.



 Thought so, no political party would see him as a leader


----------



## Sirena (Nov 22, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> labourlist is a spoof? I'd always suspected....


I presumed from the start - without even looking into it - that it must be a joke.

But I see, sadly, it isn't....


----------



## hash tag (Nov 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how's it gone hash tag?



I see you partially answered your own question in your previous post. Clearly I am not alone. It would still appear to be a contentious issue which still has legs


----------



## squirrelp (Nov 24, 2016)

2hats said:


> It's a magazine. It publishes opinions, not peer reviewed science. In fact the editors of said organ have issued this statement regarding that very article:
> 
> Forthcoming _Letters to the Editor_ should be interesting.



2hats, The next issue is in: there are two such letters, this is one of them:



> *Thoughts from a former NIST employee*
> 
> I was a member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997- 2011. I initially joined the High Performance Systems and Services Division and later became a member of what was, at the time, the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the Information Technology Laboratory. My fellow NIST employees were among the finest and most intelligent people with whom I have ever worked.
> 
> ...


EPN 47-5&6


----------



## mikey mikey (Nov 24, 2016)

This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello" and then comment on the thread title: This seems to be a narrative put forward by an allaiance of so-called "moderate" Labour members and MPs and the once-left "liberal" press like _The Graund _and _Indie_. Even the _Mirror_.

Not to mention the sites meant to give a voice to Labour like _Left Foot Forward, Labour List_ and other (once-upon-a-time) Left-leaning journals  like _The New Statesman.
_
It is increasingly clear to me that a genuinely Left-wing Labour leader is considered Public Enemy Number One by both Tory and Labour "moderate" alike. It suggests that while the tories were in post-referndum disarray, the Blairite factions like Progress and Labour First made a trucewith the Conservatives in order to stage the coup. One had the spotlight taken off their internal power-struggles and the other got the full cooperation of the press across the full political spectrum.


----------



## Santino (Nov 24, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello"


 Hello


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 24, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I'd briefly say "hello" and then comment on the thread title: This seems to be a narrative put forward by an allaiance of so-called "moderate" Labour members and MPs and the once-left "liberal" press like _The Graund _and _Indie_. Even the _Mirror_.
> 
> Not to mention the sites meant to give a voice to Labour like _Left Foot Forward, Labour List_ and other (once-upon-a-time) Left-leaning journals  like _The New Statesman.
> _
> It is increasingly clear to me that a genuinely Left-wing Labour leader is considered Public Enemy Number One by both Tory and Labour "moderate" alike. It suggests that while the tories were in post-referndum disarray, the Blairite factions like Progress and Labour First made a trucewith the Conservatives in order to stage the coup. One had the spotlight taken off their internal power-struggles and the other got the full cooperation of the press across the full political spectrum.



If only you'd been here in June we could have saved 467 pages.


----------



## mikey mikey (Nov 24, 2016)

Yeah, I confess i didn't read all 4000+posts!

Anyway, I thought I would start with my 2 cents.


----------



## Santino (Nov 24, 2016)

I said HELLO


----------



## two sheds (Nov 24, 2016)

No need to shout


----------



## mikey mikey (Nov 24, 2016)

Hello Santino. Sorry, work keeps interfering with my forum life.

Apologies!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 24, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> If only you'd been here in June we could have saved 467 pages.


Let's not cry over spilt milk, we just need to get him onto climate change STAT


----------



## 2hats (Nov 24, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> 2hats, The next issue is in: there are two such letters, this is one of them: ...


As pointed out in the same issue there are multiple, independent (ie not NIST), professional analyses carried out by reputable bodies (eg here from MIT's engineering department but also from engineering dept.'s outside of the US) using different methods (energy balance, finite element analysis, conservation of momentum, etc) and they all broadly agree with the NIST analysis as to the general mode and progression of the failure.

BTW, apparently the fellow who wrote the letter you quote is an iPhone developer who worked for NIST as a mathematical data visualisation programmer, neither worked on the WTC investigation nor has any training in such and has no professional background in engineering or physics (according to his own LinkedIn profile).


----------



## Cid (Nov 24, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> This is my first post on this forum



Yeah, course it is...
_



			The Graund
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2016)

Cid said:


>


Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing


----------



## classicdish (Nov 24, 2016)

Urban Dictionary: grauniad


----------



## two sheds (Nov 24, 2016)

Bad experiences of Markymark wot dunnit.


----------



## Cid (Nov 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing



Technically, yes.


----------



## squirrelp (Nov 25, 2016)

2hats said:


> As pointed out in the same issue there are multiple, independent (ie not NIST), professional analyses carried out by reputable bodies (eg here from MIT's engineering department but also from engineering dept.'s outside of the US) using different methods (energy balance, finite element analysis, conservation of momentum, etc) and they all broadly agree with the NIST analysis as to the general mode and progression of the failure.
> 
> BTW, apparently the fellow who wrote the letter you quote is an iPhone developer who worked for NIST as a mathematical data visualisation programmer, neither worked on the WTC investigation nor has any training in such and has no professional background in engineering or physics (according to his own LinkedIn profile).


I think you are missing the point that, rather than the possibly expected flurry of letters from scientists addressing and correcting flaws in the published article, we have two letters of which one is a NIST employee questioning his former employer.

I don't believe you are correct either. As I understand it the NIST model did not consider the progression of the failure - it simply modelled a scenario up to the start of the collapse. The NIST model is not, I believe, peer-reviewed.

I very much doubt the studies you quote actually confirm the NIST model either combined or singly.

There has been a full investigation going on by a team from the University of Alaska: they are going to be finished in May 2017, but they have already reached the conclusion that the NIST model is absolutely impossible.



> During an interview at the Justice In Focus Symposium, Hulsey said that the team has already investigated the theory that fire caused the building’s collapse. “It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.”
> 
> When their study concludes in April 2017, Hulsey and his team will allow a panel of experts to analyze the data and submit the study to peer-reviewed journals. The researchers are promising a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse,” and will post every step of their scientific process on WTC7Evaluation.org. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students.




Perhaps also significant is the comment from the editor of europhysicsnews:



> The scientific method is a hard discipline that leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow because defying common sense. We scientists should avoid the tendency to search for and see only evidence that confirms which we already believe. Luckily, peer-reviewing of published scientific studies is not only the best way to check their validity but also the best way to foster progress and innovation. This holds true, even if absolute certainty does not exist as we move towards the frontiers of knowledge.


EPN 47-5&6


----------



## mikey mikey (Nov 25, 2016)

Cid said:


> Yeah, course it is...



I assure you it is. It's not my first political forum, though.

I've been on various forums for over a decade and my last one was dailymailwatch.co.uk

I had the same name but one of the mods there is a staunch Blairite as are quite a few posters and they feel that they are able to abuse any non-moderate with impunity. Meanwhile the "Trots/entryists/cultists" have been driven off or banned for no reason.

Bit like they tried to do during the lead up to the last leadership election.

Nice to meet you Cid.


----------



## classicdish (Nov 25, 2016)

squirrelp 

Can you remind me what the relevance of 9/11 WTC is to Jeremy Corbyn and/or this thread?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2016)

No more 9/11 please. It's been said before.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2016)

he is suspected to have been seen parachuting out of the second plane at the last minute there tho- fucker didn't even get his beard singed


----------



## Cid (Nov 25, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> I assure you it is. It's not my first political forum, though.
> 
> I've been on various forums for over a decade and my last one was dailymailwatch.co.uk
> 
> ...



Alright, sorry - we just get _a lot_ of returners here and suspicions can be a bit high (particularly when you've been drinking on a school night ).


----------



## two sheds (Nov 25, 2016)

Cid said:


> Alright, sorry - we just get _a lot_ of returners here and suspicions can be a bit high (particularly when you've been drinking on a school night ).



How do you know he'd been drinking on a school night 






/scarpers


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 25, 2016)

killer b said:


> Everyone does that, it's a private eye thing not an urban thing



Continued...


----------



## J Ed (Nov 25, 2016)

Wasn't sure really where to put this and it doesn't deserve its own thread, so I will write it here in the absence of somewhere better

I was listening to some of this lecture The New Minority: white working class politics in an era of immigration and inequality - Public lectures and events 

I do not recommend it, it is very patronising and anthropological and has a very heavy emphasis on the sort of weird anthropological Ace Ventura: Pet Detective take that some academics seem to have decided on now for the British (and American) working-class but what I did find interesting was Stephen Kinnock's participation in it.

The stuff he says is really interesting, it shows how radically political discourse, if (as with May etc) nothing else, has changed. He talks very critically about neoliberalism which he identifies by that name but only in very generalised terms, and he fails to make any actual specific critiques of it beyond immigration. Is this what the right of the Labour Party are going to do now?


----------



## hipipol (Nov 26, 2016)

He is a sort of modern day Erasmus - purveyor of a humanist understanding in the face of massive walls of prejudice and likely to be as successful as the original
It is essential someone makes the point
It is also essential someone impinges on the general consciousness in order to lead it to congruent thought
He is unlikely to achieve that
End of the road on which tangent?


----------



## Cid (Nov 27, 2016)

hipipol said:


> He is a sort of modern day Erasmus - purveyor of a humanist understanding in the face of massive walls of prejudice and likely to be as successful as the original
> It is essential someone makes the point
> It is also essential someone impinges on the general consciousness in order to lead it to congruent thought
> He is unlikely to achieve that
> End of the road on which tangent?



Stephen Kinnock?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 30, 2016)

WTF?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 30, 2016)

Cos that's worked so well for the French.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2016)

please use the snipping tool or otherwise get a screengrab


----------



## hash tag (Nov 30, 2016)

I see Corbyn has chosen not to attend todays vote in the Commons on war criminal Bliar, instead choosing to do constituency stuff. Another no win situation.

Parliament's effort to punish Blair for the Iraq war puts Corbyn in a lose-lose situation


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 96380
> please use the snipping tool or otherwise get a screengrab


Shows up for me. I think sometimes you just have to wait a bit for it to load.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 30, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Shows up for me. I think sometimes you just have to wait a bit for it to load.


Emedded tweets don't show up in Tapatalk, it says 'unsupported media' so I now often only embed tweets if they have a vid in them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 30, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Emedded tweets don't show up in Tapatalk, it says 'unsupported media' so I now often only embed tweets if they have a vid in them.


Serves you right for using tapatalk! it's a useless app.
I CBA snipping it so here's a link:


ah, bollocks:
It's a tweet from Progress:
.@SKinnock We must move away from multiculturalism and towards assimilation. We must stand for one group: the British people. #progpolitics


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2016)

your biological and political distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resisistance is futile.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 30, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Serves you right for using tapatalk! it's a useless app.
> I CBA snipping it so here's a link:
> 
> 
> ...




lol yeah it's not the best app I've ever come across but better than using a browser on a phone imo. Screenies don't take long to do really.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Serves you right for using tapatalk! it's a useless app.
> I CBA snipping it so here's a link:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it's to kinnock - but it's also just re-stating what is one of the competing mainstream views on this and has been for decades and decades.There's nothing there either new or outrageous. The context in which it's being used above has changed of course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 30, 2016)

teqniq said:


> lol yeah it's not the best app I've ever come across but better than using a browser on a phone imo. Screenies don't take long to do really.


I've never had any trouble with chrome on my phone.
screengrabs don't look great on a phone though


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2016)

There's plenty of leftwing critiques of multiculturalism - which the second part of the tweet suggests isnt Kinnocks angle... has anyone read the full thing yet?


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2016)

Ah, I assumed it was quoting Kinnock for some reason.


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2016)

Even Corbyn doesn't mention that the crisis in social care doesn't just affect older people, it affects hundreds of thousands of disabled and sick people, inc many young ones.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2016)

killer b said:


> Ah, I assumed it was quoting Kinnock for some reason.


It is at least paraphrasing Kinnock, I am pretty sure - it's part of a series of tweets with what seem like comments by speakers at some event they were having.

If anyone fancies listening to an hour and a half of it to see what he said exactly...  (spoiler: I don't)


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is at least paraphrasing Kinnock, I am pretty sure - it's part of a series of tweets with what seem like comments by speakers at some event they were having.
> 
> If anyone fancies listening to an hour and a half of it to see what he said exactly...  (spoiler: I don't)




I posted up thread about similar remarks he made at an LSE event.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Wasn't sure really where to put this and it doesn't deserve its own thread, so I will write it here in the absence of somewhere better
> 
> I was listening to some of this lecture The New Minority: white working class politics in an era of immigration and inequality - Public lectures and events
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Shows up for me. I think sometimes you just have to wait a bit for it to load.


Yeh. well, after waiting four or five minutes I tend to get a mite pissed off when it has yet to appear


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2016)

Richmond result = zero chance of May 2017 election being called by PM

Feels like bad news for Corbo - not that there was any suggestion any GE 2107  would have been an easy ride for him or Labour, but at least there would have been some residual rank and file energy still  floating about  from his re relection.

Its obvious that he's going to struggle to ever connect in the post Brexit Lab heartlands ( majority leavers ) .....

So Clive Lewis stepping up in 2018, bit of a fresh start, " we weren't necessarily in the right place, on Brexit, we're from a long standing socialist /anti EU tradition, time to reconnect with that...." ?

Sack Kezia Dugdale immediately, progressive pact with SNP, incl ,guarantee of LP support for 2ND Indy ref , and Indie Scotland ?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 4, 2016)

They will have to somehow deal with Labour First and Progress. There is no way they will stop the infighting until a Progress leader is in charge of the Labour Party.

Meanwhile Corbyn's speech in Prague is hitting numerous nails on their head.



> We know the gap between rich and poor is widening. We know living standards are stagnating or falling and insecurity is growing.
> 
> We know that many people feel left behind by the forces unleashed by globalisation – powerless in the face of deregulated corporate power.
> 
> ...



Corbyn: “Alarming acceleration” in the populist right across Europe and beyond | LabourList


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> They will have to somehow deal with Labour First and Progress. There is no way they will stop the infighting until a Progress leader is in charge of the Labour Party.
> 
> Meanwhile Corbyn's speech in Prague is hitting numerous nails on their head.
> 
> ...



Progress and LF are a sideshow for as long as current leadership election rules stand - hopefully they'll eventually crawl off to join the Lib Dems if Lewis was next leader.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 4, 2016)

I like Lewis, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't understimate the machinations going on within the NEC.

If there is any complacence in the membership, we will find ourselves being presented the choice of some David Milliband clone or the next Tory Terror.

Over the last few years I have been shocked and saddened to learn that the so-called "moderates" within the Labour Party actually support austerity and TTIP and privatisation.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2016)

Progress and LF are a sideshow for as long as current leadership election rules stand - hopefully they'll eventually crawl off to join the Lib Dems if Lewis was next leader.Though the way it's all going, not sure if I'll personally give much of a fook by then anyway tbh


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> They will have to somehow deal with Labour First and Progress. There is no way they will stop the infighting until a Progress leader is in charge of the Labour Party.
> 
> Meanwhile Corbyn's speech in Prague is hitting numerous nails on their head.
> 
> ...



For the few in the general public who have even noticed it, i don't think his speech went down too well, the language of the 30's doesn't resonate with many, jars with some.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 4, 2016)

Which part of his speech are you describing as "language of the 30s"?
How do you know how few in the general public noticed the speech?
How do you know what resonates and jars with the general public?


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2016)

Brexit?, the rise of UKIP, 4 milllion votes,  its a new paradigm and the left is flailing.

He, Corbyn,  is now leader of a massive parliamentary party hoping to be elected anything he says will be recorded, spun by right wing papers, etc. 'Parasites' might be correct but he is attacking voters for say UKIP when he says that.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 4, 2016)

Still not getting this "1930s" language bit.


----------



## Duncan2 (Dec 4, 2016)

From the article above-Corbyn-'when we face the challenge of migration we need to work together to halt the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut pay and conditions in a race to the bottom across Europe'
This is the bit I have difficulty with i.e what it means in terms of practical policies.I think it means that the answer to the 'challenge' of migration involves raising wages in other parts of Europe by getting organised on a Trans-European basis.Otoh that would surely just be a pious hope so it must mean something more/other than that?


----------



## Humberto (Dec 6, 2016)

> Former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith will seek to change legislation to allow Parliament the option of holding a second EU referendum.
> 
> The Pontypridd MP said the government should be able to ask people if they are certain they want to leave Europe.



Thought I'd put it here. Stupid cunt. Whats his game?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 6, 2016)

Owen "Austerity is right" Smith is a corporate lobbyist; specifically _Pfizer _and _Amgen_

Owen Smith backed big pharma over use of cheaper drugs by NHS in 2010
Owen Smith worked as PR chief for biotech firm hit by $762m fine

He has been promoting back door privatisation of the NHS.



> As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:
> 
> "We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda."
> 
> ...



The Entirely Fake Owen Smith - Craig Murray


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2016)

we saw what mark of a man he was during the challenge. He's a complete fraud, a yes man, a toady and an entitled wanker who managed to intersperse crude sexual boasts with attempts at prolier than thou (over a cup of fucking coffee). Anyone who has to say 'I'm normal' generally isn't.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2016)

He livetweeted his wedding anniversary.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 6, 2016)

He used fake bot accounts on twitter during the leadership election/coup.
Éoin (@LabourEoin) on Twitter







Then he threatens to sue bloggers like Mike Siviers over at Voxpolitical





He never had the guts to actually do it, but that's cos Mr. Siviers knows his stuff.

And this is what Owen Smith had for the rest of us. 



> Q: You says you would allow minimum hours contracts, not zero-hours contracts. What would the minimum be?
> 
> Smith says we should reverse the status quo. A contract should offer a minimum number of hours.
> 
> ...



See? 

Not Tory-lite at all!

Zero hour contracts are OUT! 

Owen "saviour" Smith will bring us ONE hour contracts!

We are SAVED! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Labour leadership: Owen Smith proposes £3bn wealth tax – as it happened

And this is what he thinks of Labour rank and file






https://s3.postimg.org/9wmsafw1v/owen.png

It's no wonder he lost. He never had any support in his own CLP in the first place.

Labour Party members of Blaenau Gwent, the only Constituency Labour Party in Wales so far to have nominated Owen Smith for the party leadership, have questioned the way in which the nomination was made. 

Last year all members of the Blaenau Gwent local party had a vote and nominated Jeremy Corbyn.

This year, however, a decision was taken by senior party figures that only delegates to the constituency’s general committee would be allowed to vote in a secret ballot. This resulted in Mr Smith getting the nomination. 

Here are the complaint of one member:



> “Like a lot of other members, I was disappointed that, as a member, I couldn’t take part. Why has it been changed this time? Obviously to get a different result.”




And another here:




> “I was so disappointed at the way the voting took place. It was the first time I had attended a meeting and I was shocked to learn the results of our vote had to then be fed into a secret ballot. What is there to be secret about?
> 
> "Everyone was open about their preferred choice and surely it would have been more honest if we could have seen exactly who the delegates were voting for.”



Labour complaints over how constituency chose to back Owen Smith

And if all that wan't enough. The man hasn't got the sense to hide his own server password.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 6, 2016)

Owen Smith? Name vaguely rings a bell.


----------



## killer b (Dec 6, 2016)

Mike Siviers was the guy who called Smith a wife beater - he deserves to be sued over that tbf.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 6, 2016)

Actually that threat to sue had nohing to do with the "wife beater" article which came out over a year after the tweet I posted above.

Moreover, Mike Sivier didn't call him that. He quoted a lady saying that about him but I'll admit, it was a crap thing to say.
‘Headworker’ Owen Smith ‘resembles domestic violence perpetrator’

Oh and Owen Smith made similar comments about other MPs in the past too.

MP Owen Smith sorry for domestic violence comment - BBC News

_



			“I was a Labour Party activist who had no choice but to resign from the party after a very unpleasant encounter with Mr Smith. I am recounting it now because I believe it is very important that his views are robustly challenged if he stands for the Labour leadership.

On Saturday 7th March 2015 I attended a Labour meeting in Pontypridd at which the guest speaker was Owen Smith MP, then shadow secretary of state for Wales. When questions were invited from the floor, I asked Mr Smith why, given that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) has been responsible for a great many more deaths than the Bedroom Tax, Labour had pledged to scrap the Bedroom Tax but had said nothing about pledging to scrap the WCA. Mr Smith replied that Labour could not pledge to scrap the WCA because this would make Labour appear weak on benefits in the eyes of the media and compromise Labour’s general-election chances.

I posted this on Facebook and a journalist took it up and posted the story online. Subsequently the journalist was threatened with legal action by Mr Smith if he did not take the story down. I was very intimidated by the prospect of defending myself in court, and I had no money for a legal defence. In addition my Labour colleagues were terribly keen to maintain good relations with Mr Smith and would probably have backed Mr Smith and not me if it came to a court case (one of them had even contacted the journalist and briefed against me). So I asked the journalist to pull the story and I deleted references to it on Facebook.”
		
Click to expand...

Here’s why Owen Smith really shouldn’t kick up a fuss about bullying_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2016)

Didn't we just do all this?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 6, 2016)

My bad. I haven't had a chanceto catch up on all the threads.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 6, 2016)

Have we heard anything on the progress of hearings on expulsions? It's all gone quiet over there ...


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 6, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> My bad. I haven't had a chanceto catch up on all the threads.


Not a big deal, in a way it's good to have a summary handy of just how bad Owen was/is.


----------



## agricola (Dec 6, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Have we heard anything on the progress of hearings on expulsions? It's all gone quiet over there ...



Have they even got to the Danczuk case yet?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 6, 2016)

AWL pissing people off again.

Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AWL pissing people off again.
> 
> Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims



Well, pissing stalinists off anyway....


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 6, 2016)

The anti-Corbyn camp are no doubt hoping a moderate to win this.

EXCL Len McCluskey 'to quit as Unite boss this week' to trigger snap election


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 6, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AWL pissing people off again.
> 
> Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims


So is alt-stalinist a thing now?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 6, 2016)

"Dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyists" - that's one for the clichés thread.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2016)

19force8 said:


> So is alt-stalinist a thing now?



TBF alt-Stalinist is a great description for Trotskyism


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 7, 2016)

The only thing certain about including most Trots in a political project is that it will self destruct fairly quickly, increasingly quickly in the connected era.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AWL pissing people off again.
> 
> Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims


If the AWL are able to take over an organisation, then the organisation is already fucked.


----------



## se5 (Dec 9, 2016)

And so Labour slump to its lowest opinion poll lead since 2009 - New poll hands Tories 17 point lead as Labour suffer worst rating since 2009 | LabourList ... Time to go JC


----------



## two sheds (Dec 9, 2016)

se5 said:


> And so Labour slump to its lowest opinion poll lead since 2009 - New poll hands Tories 17 point lead as Labour suffer worst rating since 2009 | LabourList ... Time to go JC



Bring back Blair and storm to a huge election win for a real mandate to carry out more tory policies you reckon?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Bring back Blair and storm to a huge election win for a real mandate to carry out more tory policies you reckon?



bringing back Ed Milliband and storming to 30% in the polls would count as an astonishing victory compared to the current '_we kept our deposit. yaaay_!' situation...

Labour is currently running at 21% in in the Midlands and Wales. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...iahmaw8/TimesResults_161205_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

read it and weep.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

ooh ooh David Milliband! He's the one we really wanted.

or Dan Jarvis or Tristram Hunt. They look like decent chaps.

or Stella Creasy or Gloria Del Piero or Caroline Flint.

That way, I can rest assured that tory policies go through with a hint of Waitrose plonk and Guardian article to relax with while I put my feet up on the backs of he poor and tweet about aspiration.

[/moderate 2@]


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> ooh ooh David Milliband! He's the one we really wanted.
> 
> or Dan Jarvis or Tristram Hunt. They look like decent chaps.
> 
> ...



at the moment it appears that Tory policies will go through without a hint of Waitrose Pink... 

Corbyn and his accolytes have been a disaster, and it looks like they are paving the way for a 400 seat Tory government in a 600 seat parliament with 50 of those seats held by the SNP._ can we secure 15 years of Tory government unhindered by any kind of opposition? Jez, we can..
_
look through the results, Labour is behind - massively behind - amongst the unskilled and semi-skilled working class in the Midlands, which is the electorate he needs, and claims to be popular with, if he is going to win, or nearly win, an election.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

Acolytes, cultists, worshippers, all of them Trots needing the purge of Tom Watson.

Fortunately we have Labour First, Labour Tomorrow and progress to take up the fight and lead us a victory in which it will be a Labour governement implementing austerity cuts, privatising the NHS by the back door and bombing another ME country.

Yay! More Parliamentary buffets for us!


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Acolytes, cultists, worshippers, all of them Trots needing the purge of Tom Watson.
> 
> Fortunately we have Labour First, Labour Tomorrow and progress to take up the fight and lead us a victory in which it will be a Labour governement implementing austerity cuts, privatising the NHS by the back door and bombing another ME country.
> 
> Yay! More Parliamentary buffets for us!



in case you're interested, a mighty 35% of those who voted Labour in 2015 believe that Corbyn would be a better PM than May, and an astonishing 49% of those who voted Labour in 2015 would *not* vote Labour if a GE were to be held tommorow.

forward to victory, eh Comrades?


----------



## magneze (Dec 9, 2016)

Trust the polls. Never wrong.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

Those reliable polls. It's agood thing we have them, otherwise we would only have the reality of the actual results of 2016
United Kingdom local elections, 2016 - Wikipedia


----------



## two sheds (Dec 9, 2016)

It's a bit bloody worrying though


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

Fortunately the moderates are taking the fight to the Tories.

By banging on about how shit Corbyn is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Corbyn and his accolytes have been a disaster, and it looks like they are paving the way for a 400 seat Tory government in a 600 seat parliament with 50 of those seats held by the SNP._ can we secure 15 years of Tory government unhindered by any kind of opposition? Jez, we can.._


party in more or less open warfare with itself polls badly shocka. It was always going to be though, from the minute corbyn was elected the right of the plp have been shown willing to damage electoral success in favour of undermining corbyn. And of course, the openly shit slinging coverage he and his associates have had since day 1. Momentum has its own problems obvs but if uou factor in all the restof it and the indyreff/berexit/wider events. I don't think its entirely fair to blame  'corbyn and acolytes' except perhaps for failing to capitalise on the upswell for the labour left. And being labour left in the first place obvs, but from a non member point of view it certainly looks like press hostility and hostility from the entrenched party right cannot be ignored as a factor


----------



## se5 (Dec 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> party in more or less open warfare with itself polls badly shocka. It was always going to be though, from the minute corbyn was elected the right of the plp have been shown willing to damage electoral success in favour of undermining corbyn. And of course, the openly shit slinging coverage he and his associates have had since day 1. Momentum has its own problems obvs but if uou factor in all the restof it and the indyreff/berexit/wider events. I don't think its entirely fair to blame  'corbyn and acolytes' except perhaps for failing to capitalise on the upswell for the labour left. And being labour left in the first place obvs, but from a non member point of view it certainly looks like press hostility and hostility from the entrenched party right cannot be ignored as a factor



Or is it that Corbyn just isnt very good? - if Corbyn was a competent leader who gave the party a clear sense of direction on the big issues of the day and reached out to gain the support of the wider British electorate all the Labour Party would be behind him


----------



## kebabking (Dec 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> party in more or less open warfare with itself polls badly shocka. It was always going to be though, from the minute corbyn was elected the right of the plp have been shown willing to damage electoral success in favour of undermining corbyn. And of course, the openly shit slinging coverage he and his associates have had since day 1. Momentum has its own problems obvs but if uou factor in all the restof it and the indyreff/berexit/wider events. I don't think its entirely fair to blame  'corbyn and acolytes' except perhaps for failing to capitalise on the upswell for the labour left. And being labour left in the first place obvs, but from a non member point of view it certainly looks like press hostility and hostility from the entrenched party right cannot be ignored as a factor



the PLP have been pretty quiet, i don't doubt they still loathe him, but have been quiet of late.

how long do you want to give it - 6 months of quiet, a year of quiet, 10 years of quiet, so long that no one who was alive at the time of NL still exists? at what point will you say 'nah, he's a muppet, get rid...'?

if a split party always polls badly - which i agree is a normal political law - how are the Tories, who are openly split and have had two MP's resign in protest at Mays government in the last two months, rolling along on 45% or whatever?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 9, 2016)

se5 said:


> Or is it that Corbyn just isnt very good? - if Corbyn was a competent leader who gave the party a clear sense of direction on the big issues of the day and reached out to gain the support of the wider British electorate all the Labour Party would be behind him


_Really_? I suspect there's a wee bit of truth in that, in that a few of the wet, centre leftists might have kept their mouths shut if he'd been doing better and Labour riding high in the polls. But as far as the whole set of Blairites and other ideological opponents of Corbyn they were never going to support him. Ever.


----------



## se5 (Dec 9, 2016)

Wilf said:


> _Really_? I suspect there's a wee bit of truth in that, in that a few of the wet, centre leftists might have kept their mouths shut if he'd been doing better and Labour riding high in the polls. But as far as the whole set of Blairites and other ideological opponents of Corbyn they were never going to support him. Ever.



Maybe but my impression (having been a party member for 25ish years)  is that most Labour members, even the most New Labour Blairites, would agree with him 80% of the time on core principles (apart from maybe Trident), the only disagreement comes from presentation and how to gain wider support for policies so that they appeal to the person in Swindon, Southampton, Northampton or Thurrock or wherever who doesnt obsess about politics and whose vote Labour will need if its ever to elect enough MPs to form a government. 

If Corbyn was reaching out and gaining the interest and support of normal non aligned people as Blair did in 1994-1997 or Cameron to a lesser extent did 2005-2010 the whole PLP and wider Labour Party would be behind him.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

_Do _they agree with him on core principle, though?



Full employment and an economy that works for all: based around a £500bn public investment via the planned national investment bank.

A secure homes guarantee: building 1m new homes in five years, at least half of them council homes. Also rent controls and secure tenancies.

Security at work: includes stronger employment rights, an end to zero hours contracts and mandatory collective bargaining for companies with 250 or more employees.

Secure our NHS and social care: end health service privatisation and bring services into a “secure, publicly-provided NHS”.

A national education service: includes universal public childcare, the “progressive restoration” of free education, and quality apprenticeships.

Action to secure our environment: includes keeping to Paris climate agreement, and moving to a “low-carbon economy” and green industries, in part via national investment bank.

Put the public back into our economy and services: includes renationalising railways and bringing private bus, leisure and sports facilities back into local government control.

Cut income and wealth inequality: make a progressive tax system so highest earners are “fairly taxed”, shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid.

Action to secure an equal society: includes action to combat violence against women, as well as discrimination based on race, sexuality or disability, and defend the Human Rights Act.

 Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy: aims to put conflict resolution and human rights “at the heart of foreign policy”


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 9, 2016)

It's been shown time and again, most people who are asked at random actually agree with almost all of the policies Corbyn and his crew favour. So why doesn't this translate into actual support for the party?

That's the real question IMO, but I don't think I have an answer. I'd like to blame the media, but I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> It's been shown time and again, most people who are asked at random actually agree with almost all of the policies Corbyn and his crew favour. So why doesn't this translate into actual support for the party?


because asking a load of randoms what they think is no way to gauge support for a party.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

Press is only propaganda when it's Russian. Murdoch just this guy but Putin got Trump elected, apparently.

Oh and if the news is not owned by a billionaire like Richard Desmond or Viscount Rothemere, then it's fake.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 9, 2016)

I mean that what we seem to be in favour of in terms of specific policies is apparently failing to be reflected in the actual political choices we make, for reasons that remain obscure.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Press is only propaganda when it's Russian. Murdoch just this guy but Putin got Trump elected, apparently.
> 
> Oh and if the news is not owned by a billionaire like Richard Desmond or Viscount Rothemere, then it's fake.


Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes not through the press.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Press is only propaganda when it's Russian. Murdoch just this guy but Putin got Trump elected, apparently.
> 
> Oh and if the news is not owned by a billionaire like Richard Desmond or Viscount Rothemere, then it's fake.


Is there not a lot of fake news, produced and circulated by Russian state supporters with the help and support of the russian state? Taken as read that you have the critical faculties to see through domestic attempts.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

He did?

Wow!

He's like a wizard or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> He did?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> He's like a wizard or something.


Who did?

Is that a reply to me? If not, to who


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 9, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes not through the press.



Yep. It was a reply to this belter. Putin Pwnd POTUS 2016!

Amaaaaaazing!

Here you go! Read some more!
Russia aims to develop 'teleportation' in 20 years


----------



## Akkadian (Dec 9, 2016)

There have been eight by-elections since the 2015 General Election. Conservatives have won 2 Labour 5 and the Lib Dems 1.
Labour and Corbyn have enjoyed a 100% success rate in by-elections. That's hardly the record of a party or leader  'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.   The by elections in Richmond and Sleaford and North Hykeham  don't tell me anything about Corbyns Labour, other than they are not very competitive in seats in which they have never been very competitive.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2016)

Akkadian said:


> There have been eight by-elections since the 2015 General Election. Conservatives have won 2 Labour 5 and the Lib Dems 1.
> Labour and Corbyn have enjoyed a 100% success rate in by-elections. That's hardly the record of a party or leader  'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.   The by elections in Richmond and Sleaford and North Hykeham  don't tell me anything about Corbyns Labour, other than they are not very competitive in seats in which they have never been very competitive.


They don't suggest anything about seats where they have been and would hope to be competitive in the future? Nothing? Nothing at all? Full steam ahead?


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 10, 2016)

mojo pixy said:


> It's been shown time and again, most people who are asked at random actually agree with almost all of the policies Corbyn and his crew favour. So why doesn't this translate into actual support for the party?



The policies are almost irrelevant; I don't think many are credulous enough to believe they'd actually be delivered in any recognisable form. The reason it doesn't translate into support is that people have to be able to think of the LotO as a viable PM. It's hard enough to think of JC as a viable anything never mind Prime Minister.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 10, 2016)

Akkadian said:


> There have been eight by-elections since the 2015 General Election. Conservatives have won 2 Labour 5 and the Lib Dems 1.
> Labour and Corbyn have enjoyed a 100% success rate in by-elections. That's hardly the record of a party or leader  'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.   The by elections in Richmond and Sleaford and North Hykeham  don't tell me anything about Corbyns Labour, other than they are not very competitive in seats in which they have never been very competitive.



I like your optomism. The 5 labour seats were all holds and no new gains, which is quite sad to reflect optomistically that it is a 100% result.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 10, 2016)

se5 said:


> normal



Care to expand on this?


----------



## hash tag (Dec 10, 2016)

I'm hearing from Mrs Tag that Peter Tatchell has just had a go at JC, not sure if it's about anything in particular yet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2016)

new labour, new normal.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 10, 2016)

hash tag said:


> I'm hearing from Mrs Tag that Peter Tatchell has just had a go at JC, not sure if it's about anything in particular yet.


Corbyn speech descends into chaos amid protest - BBC News

Tatchell is protesting Labour's response to Syria, and calling for sanctions against Russia. I am sure the usual suspects will be out to denounce him as an "imperialist Blairite shill" before too long...


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 10, 2016)

> The human rights campaigner continued: "Hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk. We expect the leader of the Labour Party to speak out and demand UK air drops."
> 
> Mr Corbyn and Mrs Chakrabarti responded: "We did".



Peter Tatchell invades Jeremy Corbyn's stage to protest his 'lack of response' over Aleppo

Peter either didn't do his homework, or just didn't care.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Press is only propaganda when it's Russian. Murdoch just this guy but Putin got Trump elected, apparently.
> 
> Oh and if the news is not owned by a billionaire like Richard Desmond or Viscount Rothemere, then it's fake.


All BBC news is fake


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 10, 2016)

Yes, and sarcasm is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2016)

Tom A said:


> Corbyn speech descends into chaos amid protest - BBC News
> 
> Tatchell is protesting Labour's response to Syria, and calling for sanctions against Russia. I am sure the usual suspects will be out to denounce him as an "imperialist Blairite shill" before too long...



JC handled it well & fair play to Tatchell as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Yes, and sarcasm is a figment of your imagination.


pisspoor


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 10, 2016)

Gutted, I am sure.

(still sarcasm btw)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Peter Tatchell invades Jeremy Corbyn's stage to protest his 'lack of response' over Aleppo
> 
> Peter either didn't do his homework, or just didn't care.


What do you mean? That Corbyn isn't the most visible face of the STW pro-assad position?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Gutted, I am sure.
> 
> (still sarcasm btw)


Yeh, I have no expectation you will ascend above the lowest form of wit.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 10, 2016)

The failure torecognise irony does not make one superior, doncha know.


----------



## agricola (Dec 10, 2016)

Tom A said:


> Corbyn speech descends into chaos amid protest - BBC News
> 
> Tatchell is protesting Labour's response to Syria, and calling for sanctions against Russia. I am sure the usual suspects will be out to denounce him as an "imperialist Blairite shill" before too long...



To be fair, its hard to see what else to see him as if he is going to make demands for air-drops over Aleppo.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 10, 2016)

Such bullshit does Corbyn no favours, especially since anti-Semtism is one of the big sticks his enemies love to try and beat him with.



The man himself on why he did what he did.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 10, 2016)

> The city of Aleppo is in the news. Most readers and viewers will be unaware that the majority of the population of Aleppo lives in the government-controlled western part of the city. That they suffer daily artillery bombardment from western-sponsored al-Qaida is not news. On 21 July, French and American bombers attacked a government village in Aleppo province, killing up to 125 civilians. This was reported on page 22 of the Guardian; there were no photographs.





> The immediate aim is to destroy the government in Damascus, which, according to the most credible poll (YouGov Siraj), the majority of Syrians support, or at least look to for protection, regardless of the barbarism in its shadows.



Provoking nuclear war by media


> From: To: Date: 2001-01-01 03:00 Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC





> Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.



WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> _Do _they agree with him on core principle, though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately the elephant in the room is Brexit. The lib Dems are taking some of Labours Remain voters and UKIP the leavers.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 10, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> Unfortunately the elephant in the room is Brexit. The lib Dems are taking some of Labours Remain voters and UKIP the leavers.



Yes, this Third Way Brexiting strategy doesn't seem to be working for Labour. I have no idea what they could do instead at this point though.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 10, 2016)

agricola said:


> To be fair, its hard to see what else to see him as if he is going to make demands for air-drops over Aleppo.



Actually, the term you're looking for is 'imbecile'. On the other hand one of the normal bits inherent within 'warmongering' is that you'd quite like to win - the only people calling for air drops over Allepo are people who either don't understand what happens when a massively unstealthy, huge, slow and low flying aircraft traveling in a straight line meets a modern air defence system, or who don't care...

Tatchell is an idiot on this, but then so is Corbyn - Corbyn however wins because his idiocy is accompanied by a pretty unpleasant moral compass.


----------



## Geri (Dec 10, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Peter Tatchell invades Jeremy Corbyn's stage to protest his 'lack of response' over Aleppo
> 
> Peter either didn't do his homework, or just didn't care.


 
Syria Solidarity UK invited Peter Tatchell to do this with them. He has done a lot of work with Syria solidarity groups.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Actually, the term you're looking for is 'imbecile'. On the other hand one of the normal bits inherent within 'warmongering' is that you'd quite like to win - the only people calling for air drops over Allepo are people who either don't understand what happens when a massively unstealthy, huge, slow and low flying aircraft traveling in a straight line meets a modern air defence system, or who don't care...
> 
> Tatchell is an idiot on this, but then so is Corbyn - Corbyn however wins because his idiocy is accompanied by a pretty unpleasant moral compass.



Corbyn = unpleasant moral compass? How so?

I thought he was all moral compass, which in itself is a recipe for disaster in a road to hell/good intentions sort of way. But generally he appears a moral being.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 10, 2016)

Fuck me, Jeremy looks useless now...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 10, 2016)

Tatchell is an attention seeking bellend. He must have forgotten it's the tories in Government.

At least Corbyn handled it sensibly. Tatchell would probably be getting roughed up in a police van by thugs now if he'd tried it on Treesa.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 10, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn = unpleasant moral compass? How so?
> 
> I thought he was all moral compass, which in itself is a recipe for disaster in a road to hell/good intentions sort of way. But generally he appears a moral being.



He appears to have something of a blindside when it comes to the less attractive foibles of those who - he believes - share his world view.

He, from what I can see, is simply unable to condemn the actions of those he considers on his side without playing whataboutary, and to equate them with the actions of those he opposes, even when the actions of those he supports, or sympathises with, massively outweighs whatever those he dislikes have done.

The obvious example is Syria - he will only condemn Assad and the Russians if he can condemn the Americans as well, and he explicitly equates their misdemeanours even when the Assad regime is probably responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Syrians and the Americans a tiny fraction of that.

He claims to be a man of peace who speaks to warring parties in an effort to bring about resolution - he'll talk to Hamas and call them 'friends' yet you wouldn't catch him talking to Likud and calling them 'friends', he'll have lunch with the Argentine Ambassador within a week of becoming Leader of the Labour party, yet a year later he's not met anyone from the Falkland Islands representative office in London. He'll meet with Sinn Fein while PIRA are blowing up NI and call them friends in the name of peace (and absolutely not because he supports them) - but did he meet people from the UDA or UVF and call them friends in the name of peace while they were slaughtering Catholics?

It's almost as if his definition of peace is a very much one sided affair, and the side he chooses to share a platform with - in the name of peace - is laughably predicable.

No doubt he is all about the moral compass - but the needle of that compass points in some very odd directions.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 11, 2016)

Yes, he can be a bit of an old tankie, another hole below the waterline.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

Geri said:


> Syria Solidarity UK invited Peter Tatchell to do this with them. He has done a lot of work with Syria solidarity groups.



SSUK were created by members of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP): Mark Boothroyd, James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning who had all, coincidentally, supported the NATO bombing of Libya. Now they are calling for the arming of "moderate rebels" who are, of course, nothing of the sort. They split with the British Stop the War Coalition when the latter opposed UK military intervention in Syria.

It should come as no surprise that Tatchel also supported the bombing of Libya.

Libya: Shami Chakrabarti and Peter Tatchell are at odds over Gaddafi


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

These people you mention are not members of the SWP (the first is a labour party member for example) and the SWP is not behind SSUK- the SWP position on Syria is pretty much identical to Corbyn's with a slightly less pronounced tendency to let Assad off the hook publicly. Where do you think the STWC who are pretty much openly pro-assad came from btw?Just about everything in that short paragraph is wrong. SSUK  didn't come out of STWC, the people involved had been openly criticising STWC for years for their positions before February 2016 (that is, the constitution of the group, the vote on Syria was 3 month before that). You are spreading propaganda from very dodgy people - this one  is taken direct from the disgraced  loon tim anderson given it simply quotes his words without attribution - and then adds some untrue facts.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

No, I didn't.

Countering Peter Tatchell’s pro-war anti-war arguments on Syria
The strange advocacy of pro-war anti-war activist Peter Tatchell


----------



## Geri (Dec 11, 2016)

Half of them are American, you idiot! I am in Syria Solidarity UK and I can assure you that only one of the people you mention (Mark Boothroyd) is a member, and he has just joined the Labour Party.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> No, I didn't.
> 
> Countering Peter Tatchell’s pro-war anti-war arguments on Syria
> The strange advocacy of pro-war anti-war activist Peter Tatchell



I just linked to where you copied the words of loon Tim Anderson then added a fistful of untrue facts:




			
				you said:
			
		

> SSUK were created by members of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP): Mark Boothroyd, James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning who had all, coincidentally, supported the NATO bombing of Libya. Now they are calling for the arming of "moderate rebels" who are, of course, nothing of the sort. They split with the British Stop the War Coalition when the latter opposed UK military intervention in Syria.






			
				Tim anderson said:
			
		

> Spokesperson for the SSUK and SWP member Mark Boothroyd was joined by a number of his party comrades – including James Bloodworth, Razan Ghazzawi, Clay Claiborne, Kyle Orton and Paul Canning – in opposing my presentation at the conference. They had all backed the NATO bombing of Libya and now urge western arming of the al Qaeda linked groups and direct western intervention in Syria...the SSUK split from the British Stop the War Coalition, which they criticised for ‘opposing any UK military involvement’ in Syria



You really don't know what's going on here, the people you copied/listed, what role they play in SSUK if any, their political history and affiliations - or, equally importantly, the same of the people whose words you're uncritically parroting.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

Apols for going on about Syria into this thread again btw - but correcting the narratives and the agendas behind them is pretty much all that's left.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 11, 2016)

If I recall correctly, that nice Mr Corbyn was friends with that nice Mr Gaddafi when that nice Mr Gaddafi was the Lion of Africa, but that nice Mr Corbyn stopped being his friend when that nice Mr Blair and that nice Mr Gaddafi became friends - then when that nice Mr Cameron and that nice Mr Gaddafi stopped being friends that nice Mr Gaddafi and that nice Mr Corbyn became friends again.

Is anyone familiar with the work of Dave Spart in Private Eye..?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

One of those dodgy types i mentioned above - note the rothschilds bit at the end . Easy enough to ignore the attempted smear in the title. There's also some disappointing comments below from some people who really should know better that it's not so easy to ignore. Is this bloke a _known_?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

Tatchell calling to arm "moderate rebels".

Long article makes for interesting reading.



> The horrors of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya alone ought to be enough proof, if proof is actually needed, that western “intervention” is a failure (for the victims caught in the crossfire and trapped on the ground). Those calling for another “no fly zone”, as Abdulaziz Almashi and his friends on the radical left do, either have appalling amnesia, or else are acting in extremely bad faith.



Julie Burchill | wall of controversy


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

Jay Taber - from the same conspiracy sewer as Vanessa Beeley (substantial originator of defender of 'the white helmets are ISIS/AQ' thesis, which i expect will be given an airing soon)  - friend and co-activist of fascists like Alain Soral and Holocaust deniers and Tony 'protocols' Gosling. Who i'm sure you are aware of.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 11, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.



With respect, given the profusion of such views within the sector of the left that supports Corbyn, you've not been particularly successful have you?

25 years ago if you even alluded to the now standard anti-Semitic tropes within SWSS (or at least within the SWSS branch that I was a sometime member of, mainly in truth because I fancied one of the local organisers...) there would have been a punch up and instant expulsions. Care to take a stab in what the language within an average SWSS branch on such issues is like now?

(Apart, of course, from 'helllooooooooo, is there anyone there..?' and 'would you mind stumping for this round mate, the capitalist hegemon and it's lacky running dogs have left me a bit short this month?')


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

How to spot an anti-Semite in the 21st Century

1) They support Corbyn
2) They oppose hawkish neo-con foreign policy.

er..that's it.

So it's more invasions and neo-liberal economics for us and a free pass to actual neo-Nazis in Ukrain for them.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 11, 2016)

What.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 11, 2016)

Just that it doesn't take more than supporting Corbyn or not wanting to bomb Syria to get accused by cynical folks while real Nazis run riot in Kiev.

See above.


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> No, and I have argued for years against holocaust deniers and anti-semites using this very username.


Did you even read your shit link? Taber is a loon that's quoted within it. And putting Burchill's name in the title makes it look like she wrote it. Do you think she did?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Just that it doesn't take more than supporting Corbyn or not wanting to bomb Syria to get accused by cynical folks while real Nazis run riot in Kiev.
> 
> See above.


Arguing that the white helmets are a Rothschild front or that the holocaust didn't happen - or that if it did, it was a good thing - or that the protocols are a true description of jewish malevolence are not the things you mention. No one at all would call a corbyn supporter who opposed hawkish neo-con foreign policy (whatever you may mean by that) an anti-semite for those things.I'm not sure what you understand by 'bomb syria' either. And you're certainly wrong on just who is turning a blind eye to fascists in the ukraine. Anyone doing any of the above that i list are 100% anti-semites.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2016)

Dandred said:


> Fuck me, Jeremy looks useless now...



Now?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2016)

kebabking said:


> He appears to have something of a blindside when it comes to the less attractive foibles of those who - he believes - share his world view.
> 
> He, from what I can see, is simply unable to condemn the actions of those he considers on his side without playing whataboutary, and to equate them with the actions of those he opposes, even when the actions of those he supports, or sympathises with, massively outweighs whatever those he dislikes have done.
> 
> ...



Succinctly put. You have outlined why I support no political party any more. I can't stomach the 'not so good bits'.

Is there anything bad about the Lib Dems?


----------



## jcsd (Dec 11, 2016)

My own opinion is that people like Jezzer need to exist in order to be that nagging voice on issues that it is often inconvenient to nag about. Unfortunately his qualities don't translate well into leadership qualities and he's been pretty poor in providing leadership to make Labour into an effective opposition and even poorer in persuading people that he would make a good leader for the country.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Well here is Eva Bartlet, whom some posters will no doubt declare as...well whatever they can, I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

What point are you trying to make here? Is it the one this person is making that the Syrian and Russian regimes should not be "vilified" by anyone? Something else? Then spell it out. Actually say what you mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Well here is eva bartlett is not a useful contribution.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

I would strongly urge fellow forum members to take the 18 minutes it takes to watch this courageous woman speak at the Canadian Press Conference at the UN.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Well here is eva bartlett is not a useful contribution.



_Useful _to whom? That is a very odd choice of adjective. _Relevant, biased, untrue_, _unfounded _are all terms I could understand, but _useful_?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

To anyone - to any ongoing debate/discussion on here. Nor is not saying what your point is, Will you do that now?

Are you sure you weren't at the loons meeting with beeley and gosling at the palestine embassy in bristol?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> _Useful _to whom? That is a very odd choice of adjective. _Relevant, biased, untrue_, _unfounded _are all terms I could understand, but _useful_?



I would also like to know what your point is. It's kind of how it works here.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

No loons meeting. No protocols of whatever, no lizard shapeshifters.

Here are a few points about Peter Tatchell's recent actions.

When he confronted Corbyn, Jeremy answered



> “Emily Thornberry, on our behalf, during Foreign Office questions and on many other occasions, has made it absolutely clear that we do think there should be aid given to the people in Aleppo; we do think the bombing should end; we do think there should be a ceasefire; we do think there should be a political solution; we do think the war should end in Syria. We are absolutely supporting the people.”



WATCH: Jeremy Corbyn human rights speech disrupted by Syria protesters

So, really Mr. Tatchell was either misinformed or was acting in something other than the interests of the Syrian people. If he were, why not protest in front of Teresa May?

My second point is that the version of events delivered to us by the BBC and the rest of the media is highly distorted, according the video of Eva Bartlet who recently returned from Syria. Worth watching, whether you would like people to ignore it or not.

My third point is that your claim that people opposing the bombing of Syria by the UK and US are unwilling to villify or even criticise the actions of Russia and/or Assad, is just a straw man fallacy seeking to create a "with us or against us" dichotomy similar to the ones used in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Besides, talking of loonies after having claimed that Putin somewhow rigged the US election is risible.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Who is this post addressed to? The claims made in it - who are they to? if me, the last one is simply crazy, the one before that is also wrong - plenty of people have condemned both the ruaf groznying of aleppo and any wider boming of syria (a point which you've failed to expand on). Plenty of people around Corbyn and STWC who haven't though. The first one is an example of Thorneberry and, indirectly, corbyn doing the same.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this post addressed to? The claims made in it - who are they to? if me, the last one is simply crazy,



Crazy indeed.



butchersapron said:


> Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes not through the press.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Crazy indeed.


Think wells, if you wish to go down this route. You know where it will end. Again.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

You deny posting that now?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2016)

This is working out well(s)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> You deny posting that now?


On the contrary - i'm proud of posting it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> This is working out well(s)


yeh that's what i've been thinking too but mikey mikey not wishing death by cancer left right and centre which was such a hallmark of Awesome Wells contributions


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

I don't believe I have ever wished death on another poster here or anywhere else. I lost my dad to cancer over a year ago, so I would be especially rreluctant to do so. Anyway, thanks for the smear Pickman, I can see why you don't allow people to view your own full profile. I have no idea who Awesome Wells is.


----------



## Geri (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> I would strongly urge fellow forum members to take the 18 minutes it takes to watch this courageous woman speak at the Canadian Press Conference at the UN.


 
I would rather gnaw my own leg off.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> I don't believe I have ever wished death on another poster here or anywhere else. I lost my dad to cancer over a year ago, so I would be especially rreluctant to do so. Anyway, thanks for the smear Pickman, I can see why you don't allow people to view your own full profile. I have no idea who Awesome Wells is.


Reading and comprehension not your strong suit then.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2016)

Geri said:


> I would rather gnaw my own leg off.


I watched it - definitely not as bad as gnawing off a limb.

The most illuminating part was her unwillingness to accept that early protests were unarmed and peaceful. Because if they had been then what justification did Assad government have for firing on them?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Reading and comprehension not your strong suit then.



Quote it or it did not happen.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 12, 2016)

ICM have Labour 14% behind:
Conservatives have 14-pt lead over Labour, poll suggests  - Politics live
On the back of his mighty performance in Strictly, they thought they'd see if having Ed Balls as leader would help the figures.  It doesn't.


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2016)

There's something in the pipeline on Beeley. It's not like any real digging was required. Bartlett is co-founder of the pro-Assad group Syria Solidarity Movement which is top heavy with the sort of oddballs that boast about having articles published on conspiraloon sites like globalresearch. Even after one of his MPs has been murdered, Corbyn has been content to allow these freaks to set the tone of discussion on Syria.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

What has Thomas Mair got to do with not wishing to bomb Syria?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> What has Thomas Mair got to do with not wishing to bomb Syria?


What do you think 'bombing syria' is - you're parroting propaganda put out by people who _are _bombing syria - to the tune  of near half million dead and millions of refugees.

Go back to your smear on SSUK- start from there. Reply to the posts that followed that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> What has Thomas Mair got to do with not wishing to bomb Syria?


Jo Cox has been attacked as being an ISIS/AQ supporter for offering support to the white helmets - the people attacking her are the people you're swimming in the sewer with and using as support here.

You're really not in this game.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Are you able to provide direct evidence that Thomas Mair's motive for the murder of Jo Cox was her position on the UK policy regarding military intervention on Syria?

Or are you cynically using her death at the hands of a rightwing extremist in order to support your hawkish foreign policy position.

Let's not forget that you claimed on this thread that "Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you able to provide direct evidence that Thomas Mair's motive for the murder of Jo Cox was her position on the UK policy regarding military intervention on Syria?
> 
> Or are you cynically using her death at the hands of a rightwing extremist in order to support your hawkish foreign policy position.
> 
> Let's not forget that you claimed on this thread that "Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes".


Don't do this wells. Don't. It won't end well.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

"Wells"?

Don't know that poster, if you are referring to that one mentioned before.

Are you sure you're alright?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Oh yes. 100% now.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Good. Keep taking them.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Have you in it yourself to reply to any of the posts since your earlier claim about SSUK mikey mikey?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Have you in it to back up your much earlier claim that ""Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Putin got Trump elected


can you support this?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you able to provide direct evidence that Thomas Mair's motive for the murder of Jo Cox was her position on the UK policy regarding military intervention on Syria?
> 
> Or are you cynically using her death at the hands of a rightwing extremist in order to support your hawkish foreign policy position.
> 
> Let's not forget that you claimed on this thread that "Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes".


Why would i have to in order to demonstrate the freaks you get your info from have attacked her for supporting the white helmets on the basis that they're isis/AQ (despite not knowing what the situation is in Aleppo or wider syria at all).


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

Tatchell goes into further detail into explaining why he carried out his stunt - Independent

Sky News says that Tatchell's stunt is a "reckoning" for Corbyn

There is no love lost between me and the "Stop the War" Coalition - this dates way back before the mess in Syria to when they were supporting any "resistance" to the occupation in Iraq, even if that meant Islamist militias which were happy to murder people for not being Muslim/not being Muslim enough/being the wrong kind of Muslim, and I stated quite a few times, on these very boards that even though Western forces should not have gone in, they should had at least cleared up the mess they created, much to the derision to certain swppies who were once regulars here - but the end result of this is of course the rise of the IS. Tatchell also, in spite of claiming to support STWC at the time, got a lot of flak for condemning the murder of gays at the hands of the militias which made up Iraq's new order after Saddam (but then Lindsey German thought that gay rights shouldn't be a shibboleth), and by the Syrian civil war the STWC totally lost the plot by excluding ordinary Syrians from the discourse because they challenged the ideological line being trotted out by the leadership - only this time their opposition to Western imperialism, and only Western imperialism and not Russian/Iranian/Assad imperialism alienated many people who were still broadly supportive of them.

However in this incidence Tatchell does open himself up to accusations of at least being a useful idiot for those out to get Corbyn, and to me there are far more pressing things to be criticising Corbyn over, such as why his party are doing so abysmally in the polls in spite of the perceived wisdom of the left that Labour lost it in 2015 for "not being left enough". Tatchell has inadvertently played into the hands of those who say the left is doomed to collapse due to infighting over issues which the electorate have limited interest in. However I doubt that Corbyn will suddenly be able to magically transform Labour into a party which appeals to the masses, burdened as he is with his own ideological baggage.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Have you in it to back up your much earlier claim that ""Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes"?


Can someone help him out here. He's not going to believe if i explain.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Can someone help him out here. He's not going to believe if i explain.


Maybe this will help?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Tom A said:


> Tatchell goes into further detail into explaining why he carried out his stunt - Independent
> 
> Sky News says that Tatchell's stunt is a "reckoning" for Corbyn
> 
> ...


What if you do not give a fuck about how well Corbyn is doing?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Tom A said:


> Maybe this will help?


No, it won't explain the clearly satirical intentions of that post, the nonsensical nature of the elevation of a CIA claim from influencing to rigging and the mirror image of US liberals to trump supporters that it contained.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> 19force8 said:
> 
> 
> > Reading and comprehension not your strong suit then.
> ...


Okay:



Pickman's model said:


> yeh that's what i've been thinking too but mikey mikey *not* wishing death by cancer left right and centre which was such a hallmark of Awesome Wells contributions [my emphasis]


To which you replied:


mikey mikey said:


> I don't believe I have ever wished death on another poster here or anywhere else. I lost my dad to cancer over a year ago, so I would be especially rreluctant to do so. Anyway, thanks for the smear Pickman, I can see why you don't allow people to view your own full profile. I have no idea who Awesome Wells is.


Now say it ain't so.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What if you do not give a fuck about how well Corbyn is doing?


Well, do you? I only do insomuch that I want a viable opposition to the current government and its ideology which is to the left of the status quo to exist. IMO this will not happen with Corbyn, but he'll still probably fare better than anyone wanting to continue where Blair/Brown left off. If only his supporters realised that turning into a baying mob whenever someone dares utter something critical of their Dear Leader will only put people further off supporting him.



butchersapron said:


> No, it won't explain the clearly satirical intentions of that post, the nonsensical nature of the elevation of a CIA claim from influencing to rigging and the mirror image of US liberals to trump supporters that it contained.


I'll give up then. I've tried reasoning with enough conspiracy nuts to realise that they will never listen, so convinced they are that they are right.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Tom A said:


> Well, do you? I only do insomuch that I want a viable opposition to the current government and its ideology which is to the left of the status quo to exist. IMO this will not happen with Corbyn, but he'll still probably fare better than anyone wanting to continue where Blair/Brown left off. If only his supporters realised that turning into a baying mob whenever someone dares utter something critical of their Dear Leader will only put people further off supporting him.
> 
> 
> I'll give up then. I've tried reasoning with enough conspiracy nuts to realise that they will never listen, so convinced they are that they are right.


No probs with either of these replies - but it doesn't really have much to do with mikeys posts.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

jcsd said:


> My own opinion is that people like Jezzer need to exist in order to be that nagging voice on issues that it is often inconvenient to nag about. Unfortunately his qualities don't translate well into leadership qualities and he's been pretty poor in providing leadership to make Labour into an effective opposition and even poorer in persuading people that he would make a good leader for the country.



Not a huge fan of JC, but he has been doing lots of positive work, visiting food banks, etc, he also handled Tatchell's intervention really really well, (though the scowl/frown was there) it is just not reported, whereas his(frequently dubious) foreign policy announcements are, not foreign policy, but when Blair in Hungary began the assault on disability welfare with his proclamation that many people on Incapacity Benefits were 'layabouts' it got little UK coverage. He is also now besting May in PMQ's, the problem is the narrative is now set(helped along by the PLP, etc) that Corbyn is weak, odd, unpatriotic(increasingly important in these times)etc, he imo now can't win, I would suggest Clive Lewis, though he can be a loose cannon(heck of a temper) and supports(for now) free movement.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What if you do not give a fuck about how well Corbyn is doing?



This thread is about exactly that.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> can you support this?



Not at all. Fortunately I don't have to because I didn't claim this. I was amazed anybody did. Why don't you ask the author of it? You'll find him @ urban75, butcherperson.

Pickman's Spambot?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> This thread is about exactly that.


No it's not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Not at all. I didn't claim this. I was amazed anybody did. Why don't you ask the author of it. You'll find him @ urban75, butcherperson.
> 
> Pickman's Spambot?


Cheers bo


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why would i have to



You don't have to. You are free to makestuff up. Stuff like "Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> You don't have to. You are free to makestuff up. Stuff like "Putin got trump elected by hacking the voting software and changing the votes".


You know that bit where i had to explain to you what happened  that was real - i wasn't joking.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Not a huge fan of JC, but he has been doing lots of positive work, visiting food banks, etc, he also handled Tatchell's intervention really really well, (though the scowl/frown was there) it is just not reported.



Is this the litmus test then? Seriously, is this how his fans assess his performance?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this the litmus test then? Seriously, is this how his fans assess his performance?



apparently so - he _appears_ to be almost guarranteeing an unconstrained Tory government with a 100 seat majority for 2020-2025 and turning a political party that for all its many faults did at least win 40% of the GE's held within my lifetime, into the fundraising wing of the StWC and a party no more considered a party of goverment than its a tribe of travelling dancers.

but, you know, he visits food banks, so the fact that the mess he'll leave might well mean that 2025 is something of a pipedream is just fluff.

(caveats: events dear boy, events - polls can go down as well as up, the Tory party may yet implode, May could turn out to be utterly cack-handed, the economy could tank etc..)


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Okay:
> To which you replied:
> Now say it ain't so.



Well, sinceI don't know who the fuck this Wells is and I am getting compared to him, I wanted to wipe some of the mud some people are slinging (even if merely through false association) and keep my username out of death-wishing.

Hope that clears that up. Since you dived in their with denigrating comments about my reading skills, let me ask you: How are your people-skills?



butchersapron said:


> You know that bit where i had to explain to you what happened  that was real - i wasn't joking.



Bit late in the day, but I'll take your word for it. Should I assume that your comments linking Jo Cox death to people objecting to bombing Syria is also for shiggles?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

What? Did you even...No...Jesus


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this the litmus test then? Seriously, is this how his fans assess his performance?



i meant the work is he doing which is positive is not being reported(remember how Osbornes' high viz jacket visits to factories were?) while the deletorious bits are, in abundance.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Bias in the media, does not count, doncha know?
It's all Jeremy's fault for, well, reasons.
Bad press only counts when it make HRC look bad.
And/or it's Russian, or fake, or whatever 2@s like PropOrNot decide.

See Graund lamentations for details.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Wtf are you on about now wells. Address the points put before you.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> i meant the work is he doing which is positive is not being reported(remember how Osbornes' high viz jacket visits to factories were?) while the deletorious bits are, in abundance.



What is so great about him visiting a foodbank when a Labour council have just announced a 10million cut to homeless and DV services?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> .
> And/or it's Russian, or fake, or whatever 2@s like PropOrNot decide.
> 
> See Graund lamentations for details.



Meltdown.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

Whoever the that Wells was, he certainly made a lsting impression on _your _apron, Mr. butcher.

Anyway, dunno who he is, so you can relax and maybe have a lie down.

Or was that more satire?


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> What is so great about him visiting a foodbank when a Labour council have just announced a 10million cut to homeless and DV services?



Which council is that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

mikey mikey said:


> Whoever the that Wells was, he certainly made a lsting impression on _your _apron, Mr. butcher.
> 
> Anyway, dunno who he is, so you can relax and maybe have a lie down.
> 
> Or was that more satire?


Right, so back to your plagiarised post and it's claims


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 12, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> What is so great about him visiting a foodbank when a Labour council have just announced a 10million cut to homeless and DV services?



Presume this is Birmingham you are referring to? 

Over 33% percent of jobs cut, over £1/2 Billion in cuts since 2010, care services on their Arsenal and not a word from
Jeremy or John about why a Labour council is blankly doing the bidding of the Tories. In fact the only word from them has been to insist labour councils enact the cuts. Still, I'm sure the local food banks appreciate the marrow donation.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 12, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Presume this is Birmingham you are referring to?
> 
> Over 33% percent of jobs cut, over £1/2 Billion in cuts since 2010, care services on their Arsenal and not a word from
> Jeremy or John about why a Labour council is blankly doing the bidding of the Tories. In fact the only word from them has been to insist labour councils enact the cuts. Still, I'm sure the local food banks appreciate the marrow donation.



Yup, Birmingham. Fucking impotent cunts.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 12, 2016)

> On Thursday 10th December, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn attended a dinner organised by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC). Corbyn has long been associated with StWC, and until very recently was it’s chairman.
> 
> There was a small protest outside the building where the dinner was held, attended by, among others, the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, and James Bloodworth, who supports the U.S. bombing of Iraq.











> (Tatchell, centre; Bloodworth, right)





> Tatchell himself claims to be against all bombing in Syria. As here:
> 
> However, for over two years, Tatchell was calling for a ‘no-fly zone’ and ‘safe havens’ to be implemented in Syria.
> 
> Here he is at a StWC demo in 2013, calling for exactly that:










> Tatchell has recently denied that the demo he attended outside of the StWC dinner called for bombing, and accused the people who alleged this of lying. As here:
> 
> However, photos from the demo appear to show that some people were indeed holding placards supportive of airstrikes / bombing. A Sky News report showed these scenes:








The strange advocacy of pro-war anti-war activist Peter Tatchell


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Why have you posted this odd piece again wells?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2016)

Go back to your original plagiarism. Start there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2016)

kebabking said:


> May could turn out to be utterly cack-handed, the economy could tank


good job niether of those things are extant eh


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not.


Well, the thread is called "Jeremy Corbyn's time is up". That would imply that it is. Anyway, moving swiftly on...




Smokeandsteam said:


> purenarcotic said:
> 
> 
> > What is so great about him visiting a foodbank when a Labour council have just announced a 10million cut to homeless and DV services?
> ...



You would think, after just over a year at the helm, PLP shenanigans notwithstanding that Corbyn and company would be coming out fighting and challenging the Tory policy on this, rather than go on about issues that are pet subjects of the left milleu but aren't overly relevant to the concerns of the electorate (you know, those people who aren't given you a glowing reference in those pesky opinion polls). Going on an anti-Trident rally instead of trying to push the case for your party's line on the matter of Brexit also did not help. An even more radical step would be to try and utilise the party apparatus (bureaucratic issues aside) to build support networks for those suffering the burnt of Tory austerity, building support and shaming the government at the same time - and no, I know that this may not be practical in the land of _realpolitik, _but the same is true of Tatchell's proposed airdrops into Aleppo.

By the way, Manchester council are every bit as bad as Birmingham if not more in the "sheepishly carrying out Tory austerity" stakes.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

> Sheffield City Region trial to support residents with long-term health conditions or disabilities
> Published 1st November 2016 at 9:59am
> 
> Following a Government announcement on 31 October 2016, Sheffield City Region will be working with local partners to better understand how best to support people with health conditions and disabilities to return to or stay in work. Local Job Centre Plus and GP surgeries in Sheffield City Region will soon begin a trial which will offer innovative new support services to residents with long-term health conditions or disabilities.
> ...





> By the way, Manchester council are every bit as bad as Birmingham if not more in the "sheepishly carrying out Tory austerity" stakes.




Birmingham and Sheffield City Regions(along with NHS) have just agreed to implement the Tories new regionalised punitive and invasive welfare reforms. Not sure if local councils voted on it, FOI is needed.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Birmingham and Sheffield City Regions(along with NHS) have just agreed to implement the Tories new regionalised punitive and invasive welfare reforms. Not sure if local councils voted on it, FOI is needed.


This is what people in Greater Manchester were worried about for three years when their council leaders started acting very friendly towards Osborne, that devolution would mean passing on the austerity buck to devolved authorities which would do the Tories' dirty work.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

Red Tory Philip Blond gave the game away last year when he said that devolution of NHS funding to GMR would allow those with MH problems to be helped by offering them Workfare.

I wonder what Burnham;s view on that will be.


----------



## treelover (Dec 12, 2016)

Tom A said:


> This is what people in Greater Manchester were worried about for three years when their council leaders started acting very friendly towards Osborne, that devolution would mean passing on the austerity buck to devolved authorities which would do the Tories' dirty work.



It does give campaigners a more accessible target to challenge though, but make the same campaigners much more visible which some won't want, local Job Centre scrutinising FB, etc.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> Red Tory Philip Blond gave the game away last year when he said that devolution of NHS funding to GMR would allow those with MH problems to be helped by offering them Workfare.


Bastards. Of course it was Manchester that was (and may still) going to have its mental health services cut to the bone, thanks to gallant campaigning they have been given a stay of execution but it remains to see whether they'll try to cut it again when the heat goes off.



> I wonder what Burnham;s view on that will be.


Burnham says all the right things, particularly on housing, but we all know what politicians are like before and after they get elected, although having seen how the Labour Party has actually fared under Corbyn part of me wishes it was Burnham that won the leadership election last year.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> good job niether of those things are extant eh



A 17% party lead over Labour, and a 33% personal lead over Corbyn, suggests that that's not what the electorate thinks, as yet.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

treelover said:


> It does give campaigners a more accessible target to challenge though, but make the same campaigners much more visible which some won't want, local Job Centre scrutinising FB, etc.


I was under the assumption the Job Centre already was well aware of what goes down on social media. However even if the local authority was to be totally sympathetic to their cause, that means naught if central government cannot be persuaded to change track.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2016)

kebabking said:


> A 17% party lead over Labour, and a 33% personal lead over Corbyn, suggests that that's not what the electorate thinks, as yet.


suggests being the operative word given the current repuatation of pollsters...
But in either case just because someone thinks the labour party is shit (they are) it doesn't follow that they think May and austerity are doing us all good.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> suggests being the operative word given the current repuatation of pollsters...
> But in either case just because someone thinks the labour party is shit (they are) it doesn't follow that they think May and austerity are doing us all good.


The problems is that such people are inclined to support UKIP, or in more well-heeled places support a Lib Dem revival.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 12, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> What is so great about him visiting a foodbank when a Labour council have just announced a 10million cut to homeless and DV services?



It gets him out in the fresh air. It's important for him to stay active.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> suggests being the operative word given the current repuatation of pollsters...
> But in either case just because someone thinks the labour party is shit (they are) it doesn't follow that they think May and austerity are doing us all good.



If you read the minutiae of the polling, the specifics of how the government is handling each individual issue suggests that the electorate thinks that government is not doing well - the economy, BREXIT, immigration etc.. all have less than inspiring approval figures, and yet they've been over, and well over, 40% for 6 months with Labour having a wet dream at the idea of touching 30%.

Perhaps they feel that the Tories will/have screw it up but will do so well and while making the electorate feel good, whereas Labour would screw it up in a somewhat chaotic, rather undignified manner?


----------



## Tom A (Dec 12, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Perhaps they feel that the Tories will/have screw it up but will do so well and while making the electorate feel good, whereas Labour would screw it up in a somewhat chaotic, rather undignified manner?


Relying on hope that your enemy will fuck up is not a sound strategy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2016)

kebabking said:


> If you read the minutiae of the polling, the specifics of how the government is handling each individual issue suggests that the electorate thinks that government is not doing well - the economy, BREXIT, immigration etc.. all have less than inspiring approval figures, and yet they've been over, and well over, 40% for 6 months with Labour having a wet dream at the idea of touching 30%.
> 
> Perhaps they feel that the Tories will/have screw it up but will do so well and while making the electorate feel good, whereas Labour would screw it up in a somewhat chaotic, rather undignified manner?


which suggests the shambolic lurching figure that is the current labour party is being held back from credibility in some way. Possibly a rabidly hostile PLP and media? I'm sure they could bring about their own demise under corbyn-in-power, soc/dem is what it is after all, but really, this cannot be all laid at the feet of a labour left who had thought themselves elbow patching into obscurity?


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> If you read the minutiae of the polling, the specifics of how the government is handling each individual issue suggests that the electorate thinks that government is not doing well - the economy, BREXIT, immigration etc.. all have less than inspiring approval figures, and yet they've been over, and well over, 40% for 6 months with Labour having a wet dream at the idea of touching 30%.
> 
> Perhaps they feel that the Tories will/have screw it up but will do so well and while making the electorate feel good, whereas Labour would screw it up in a somewhat chaotic, rather undignified manner?



The goverment, if not totally fucked these up, are not exactly covering themseves in glory and this is when Labour should be saying so, big time.


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 13, 2016)

> Labour MPs are threatening to ‘work to rule’ after their Chief Whip Nick Brown spoke at a Momentum conference that called for mandatory reselection of Westminster candidates.
> 
> Backbenchers are also set to ‘go rogue’ in protest at Brown’s failure to discipline shadow ministers who defied the party whip on a Commons vote on Brexit last week.



Here we go again.



> HuffPost UK has been told that a delegation of veteran MPs has sought a meeting with their Chief Whip this week and a collection of backbenchers will also write to register their discontent.



No prizes who these are, eh?

Labour MPs Threaten Jeremy Corbyn With 'Work To Rule' In Row Over Momentum | The Huffington Post


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 13, 2016)

When Louise Raw wrote this open letter criticising him Dear Peter, all your protest achieved was to detract from women's issues , what did he say?


> I support all Louise's points about women's oppression and the need for female emancipation in Britain - and worldwide. Our protest was defending Syrian WOMEN (& others) against Assad's fascism. Women have been killed in Syria in their tens of thousands.


Despite the fact that Corbyn's speech talked about women in conflict zones and specifically Syria.

When the Morning Star pointed this out to Tatchell, what did he say?


> “It’s a pity, sorry about that,” but went on to claim that “it wouldn’t have received any coverage in the mainstream media anyway.”


That's him off my xmas card list!


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2016)

kebabking said:


> If you read the minutiae of the polling, the specifics of how the government is handling each individual issue suggests that the electorate thinks that government is not doing well - the economy, BREXIT, immigration etc.. all have less than inspiring approval figures, and yet they've been over, and well over, 40% for 6 months with Labour having a wet dream at the idea of touching 30%.
> 
> Perhaps they feel that the Tories will/have screw it up but will do so well and while making the electorate feel good, whereas Labour would screw it up in a somewhat chaotic, rather undignified manner?


That's it really. It's not helpful to simply say Labour are fucked (they are of course), it's that they have no obvious route to power.  When Corbyn was elected I had a daydream that the numbers he was attracting in meetings (and as new members) might have been the basis for creating some kind of movement, connecting with forces outside parliament.  Lots to say about that, it wouldn't have been in line with my own politics anyway and would have been a process full of contradictions (they parliamentary bit of the alliance always letting the extra parliamentary down). Most of all it was never going to happen. Momentum et al were never well placed to engage with working class communities - _and haven't done_.

For me, most of all, Labour is _stuck_. There's no obvious way out of the impasse of a social democratic membership stuck with various sorts of right wingers representing the party at national and local levels. Neither side can purge the other, so there's no movement and no basis for any kind of unified intense campaigning.  Not so much that Labour are behind in the polls, they are no longer significant players.  Only still in the game because they have a national organisation and a residual voter core that UKip hasn't and probably won't be able to take over lock stock and barrel. Same with the Brexit thing,  Labour didn't campaign well and didn't grasp that large numbers of people were fucked off about neoliberalism, unemployment and being abandoned.


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 14, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn may be unassailable, but he is not leading Labour | Rafael Behr

"Meanwhile, the incumbent gets to be just “Jeremy” – a rallying cry, an icon, a standard to hold aloft when enemies approach. He has won the battle to decide what Labour no longer wants to be, but he has no answers to the question of what it does next. He is unassailable at the top of the party, but he is not leading it."


----------



## mikey mikey (Dec 14, 2016)

Rafael Behr has spent the last 18 months writing mostly Corbyn-bashing crap.
 But this is what he said about David Cameron when he quit.



> Before he entered Downing Street, Cameron wanted to be a liberal, compassionate Tory, and he still wants to be one as he ponders departure.





> Downing Street strategists have a fantasy scenario: a domestic agenda based around housing, social mobility and poverty alleviation, which couples classic conservative themes of self-reliance and aspiration with a new streak of conscientious interventionism.



Compassionate Conservatism: the idea that David Cameron is forever postponing | Rafael Behr

That's the "liberal" press.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 14, 2016)

I used to be a fan of Tatchell, considering him someone who brings up inconvenient truths that the "anti-imperialist" left would rather dismiss or flatly deny. But he definitely is of a wooly liberal persuasion, and his stunts do rub people up the wrong way. Nothing wrong with it when it was homophobic policy makers as with many of the OutRage! protests in the 90s, but when it's your own comrades it gets a bit thin - his latest stunt has done nothing to get Corbyn to look critically at his party's stance on the matter (which he probably won't anyway considering how embedded he is in with the Stop the (West's) War(s) Coalition) or to get Labour members to persuade the leadership to change their stance, and on reading his social media he does big himself up a hell of a lot, always self-promoting his websites, and his arrogant demeanour isn't conducive to winning people over to his side of the argument.


----------



## General Veers (Dec 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's it really. It's not helpful to simply say Labour are fucked (they are of course), it's that they have no obvious route to power.  When Corbyn was elected I had a daydream that the numbers he was attracting in meetings (and as new members) might have been the basis for creating some kind of movement, connecting with forces outside parliament.  Lots to say about that, it wouldn't have been in line with my own politics anyway and would have been a process full of contradictions (they parliamentary bit of the alliance always letting the extra parliamentary down). Most of all it was never going to happen. Momentum et al were never well placed to engage with working class communities - _and haven't done_.
> 
> For me, most of all, Labour is _stuck_. There's no obvious way out of the impasse of a social democratic membership stuck with various sorts of right wingers representing the party at national and local levels. Neither side can purge the other, so there's no movement and no basis for any kind of unified intense campaigning.  Not so much that Labour are behind in the polls, they are no longer significant players.  Only still in the game because they have a national organisation and a residual voter core that UKip hasn't and probably won't be able to take over lock stock and barrel. Same with the Brexit thing,  Labour didn't campaign well and didn't grasp that large numbers of people were fucked off about neoliberalism, unemployment and being abandoned.


Pretty good this.  I want to vote Labour because of Corbyn but I can't bring myself to vote for my local ultra-Blairite traitorous shithouse MP.  I will have to but it doesn't sit right.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 14, 2016)

General Veers said:


> Pretty good this.  I want to vote Labour because of Corbyn but I can't bring myself to vote for my local ultra-Blairite traitorous shithouse MP.  I will have to but it doesn't sit right.


I voted for my Labour councillor (who is no Corbynista) in the elections purely to avoid a situation where a fall in the Labour vote would be blamed on Corbyn. Since then however, I have become disillusioned with Corbyn and Corbynism...


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2016)

and in news thats sure to bring the voters streaming in...

Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office

yes, thats right folks, in an effort to banish the electorates view that Corbyn is a niave old hippy with questionable taste in friends, Corbyn has announced that he has hired the head of Sinn Feins London Office to work in his office on _stakeholder engagement.





_


----------



## Tom A (Dec 14, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and in news thats sure to bring the voters streaming in...
> 
> Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office
> 
> yes, thats right folks, in an effort to banish the electorates view that Corbyn is a niave old hippy with questionable taste in friends, Corbyn has announced that he has hired the head of Sinn Feins London Office to work in his office on _stakeholder engagement._



Not doing much to allay claims he was an IRA sympathiser in the past, is he?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 14, 2016)

Liz Kendall would never have done this!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 14, 2016)

Well, maybe they'll give him some fresh ideas on how to deal with disloyalty in his organisation ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 14, 2016)

Double post


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 14, 2016)

Well, this is the thread that runs and runs.


----------



## Supine (Dec 14, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and in news thats sure to bring the voters streaming in...
> 
> Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office
> 
> ...



You couldn't make it up. I'm starting to think Corbyn is actually a Tory!


----------



## Wilf (Dec 14, 2016)

kebabking said:


> and in news thats sure to bring the voters streaming in...
> 
> Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office
> 
> ...


 To be honest, Owen Smith was planning to have some lad from the Red Hand Commandos as his Chief of Staff.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 14, 2016)

Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office

"Mr Corbyn attracted controversy in 1984 by inviting Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein to the Commons shortly after the IRA Brighton bomb nearly killed Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet".

Given that his brother is some kind of boffin, I hope it was a seminar on the new targeting technologies.


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2016)

> Momentum HQ’s solution is an unprecedented mobilisation of its membership, in the hope that the doorstep press can outweigh the hostility from Fleet Street. Beth Foster-Ogg is a Momentum organiser, one of those helping to bring Momentum’s 20,000 members and 170,000 supporters into local campaigns. She’s working at a phone bank in Momentum’s central offices when I meet her. Staff have been brainstorming some slightly off-the-wall merchandise ideas on a whiteboard – *including what looks like Labour branded champagne (“Champagne Socialist”)*.
> 
> My hopes for Momentum have been dashed by the toxic debate at the top



Oh dear, shades of Counterfire's cafe in Bloomsbury, are the leadership of Momentum aware of what is happening around the country?


----------



## agricola (Dec 15, 2016)

Went past the Emmanuel Centre (on Marsham Street) just before the "Save the NHS" rally was due to take place.   The only indication that anything was going on there was the two SWP tables set up outside, possibly staffed by former Owen Smith supporters as the tables had clearly been set up by people who knew how to do it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2016)

agricola said:


> Went past the Emmanuel Centre (on Marsham Street) just before the "Save the NHS" rally was due to take place.   The only indication that anything was going on there was the two SWP tables set up outside, possibly staffed by former Owen Smith supporters as the tables had clearly been set up by people who knew how to do it.


yeh those folding tables can be a bugger for the uninitiated.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 15, 2016)

there are videos you know


----------



## agricola (Dec 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh those folding tables can be a bugger for the uninitiated.



Indeed, in fact the recent attempt to set one up at NSY caused so much damage that they had to sell the building afterwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2016)

agricola said:


> Indeed, in fact the recent attempt to set one up at NSY caused so much damage that they had to sell the building afterwards.


that's what happens when you put a superintendent in charge of something


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Given that his brother is some kind of boffin, I hope it was a seminar on the new targeting technologies.



I take it that you've actually looked into Piers Corbyn's .... erm .... eccentricity??


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2016)

Drinks pints, or used to.

Talks shite in pubs** about climate change, and may well still do.

IMO like.

That's PC not JC, thankfully 

**Or used to. Talk denialist crap in pubs, that is,  rather than just talk in pubs.


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 16, 2016)

This


Wilf said:


> When Corbyn was elected I had a daydream that the numbers he was attracting in meetings (and as new members) *might have been the basis for creating some kind of movement, connecting with forces outside parliament.*



This


Wilf said:


> Momentum et al were never well placed to engage with working class communities - *and haven't done.*


Not sure they're all that interested

This


Wilf said:


> For me, most of all, Labour is _stuck_.



This


Wilf said:


> Neither side can purge the other, so there's no movement and no basis for any kind of unified intense campaigning. Not so much that Labour are behind in the polls, *they are no longer significant players.*



And this


Wilf said:


> Same with the Brexit thing, Labour didn't campaign well and *didn't grasp that large numbers of people were fucked off about neoliberalism, unemployment and being abandoned.*


Sometimes I wonder if they'd have fared better having campaigned for leaving. It's not as if the EU hasn't been a purveyor of neo-liberal capitalist economics.  If nothing else, JC's campaigned would have been covered better in MSM.


----------



## tim (Dec 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office
> 
> "Mr Corbyn attracted controversy in 1984 by inviting Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein to the Commons shortly after the IRA Brighton bomb nearly killed Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet".
> 
> Given that his brother is some kind of boffin, I hope it was a seminar on the new targeting technologies.



Hatred of Thatcher has been the catalyst of many unlikely friendships






She clearly doesn't begrudge or has perhaps forgiven the failure of the Brighton mission.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Dec 16, 2016)

Is it true that Corbyn has come out in favour of the Morning Star's "Aleppo liberated" line? Whether accurate or not, McDonnell, Milne and Corbyn are starting to sound like out of touch fossils still living in the Cold War and mechanically apologising for the actions of the Russian Empire and its tyrannical allies and giving "critical support" to monsters, like 1980s Orthodox-Trots or closet Tankies.


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 16, 2016)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Is it true that Corbyn has come out in favour of the Morning Star's "Aleppo liberated" line? Whether accurate or not, McDonnell, Milne and Corbyn are starting to sound like out of touch fossils still living in the Cold War and mechanically apologising for the actions of the Russian Empire and its tyrannical allies and giving "critical support" to monsters, like 1980s Orthodox-Trots or closet Tankies.



Telegraph says so - must be true.

Jeremy Corbyn backs Morning Star after newspaper praises 'liberation' of Aleppo


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2016)

Corbyn II ; _"The populist"_

Coming to a constituency near you.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Corbyn II ; _"The populist"_
> 
> Coming to a constituency near you.


I see the Guardian is still emphasising impossible early elections at every chance it gets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I see the Guardian is still emphasising impossible early elections at every chance it gets.


that's because it's going down the pan.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 16, 2016)

tim said:


> Hatred of Thatcher has been the catalyst of many unlikely friendships
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I should imagine, that despite wearing gloves, she washed her hands afterwards.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> I see the Guardian is still emphasising impossible early elections at every chance it gets.



Not impossible. Difficult, but not impossible. That said, I don't suppose Labour MPs would vote in favour, given their poll position.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2016)

I suppose some hardened wreckers might but those looking to lose a seat would not.


----------



## tim (Dec 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I should imagine, that despite wearing gloves, she washed her hands afterwards.



With the amount of blood on them over the past 60 years, I'm sure she washes them incessantly.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm seeing the strategy here, though; call yourself 'populist' and hey presto...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 16, 2016)

tim said:


> With the amount of blood on them over the past 60 years, I'm sure she washes them incessantly.



Do fuck off, please.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'm seeing the strategy here, though; call yourself 'populist' and hey presto...



The problem though, is that you need people behind you in large numbers to be 'populist'. 

I really despair. Labour should be absolutely rampant in the polls, it's a sad day when they cannot 'beat' the current brutalist government.

It used to be fairly simple in Britain, one lot got in, their supporters prospered, then the other lot got in, and their supporters prospered.

Over the last couple of decades, things have gone wrong. A 'Labour' government that introduced university tuition fees and savaged welfare benefits. The same government not only failed to spot the financial crash coming, but through their loosening of banking regulation, positively contributed to it.

We have had rocky times before, I've seen it happen a few times, but we appear to be on an unstoppable downward path now.


----------



## tim (Dec 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do fuck off, please.



Her Majesty's Armed Forces never fuck off and leave people alone


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> The problem though, is that you need people behind you in large numbers to be 'populist'.
> 
> I really despair. Labour should be absolutely rampant in the polls, it's a sad day when they cannot 'beat' the current brutalist government.
> 
> ...


Should I have used a 'Smilie'?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Should I have used a 'Smilie'?



Probably.  I did understand your meaning, but it was a handy 'hook' to hang a reply on.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Probably.  I did understand your meaning, but it was a handy 'hook' to hang a reply on.


As I've said elsewhere, the polls appear to show that about 10% of previously non-tory voting electorate _think _that the tories will deliver what they _think _they want from Brexit. Things will change.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> The problem though, is that you need people behind you in large numbers to be 'populist'.
> 
> I really despair. Labour should be absolutely rampant in the polls, it's a sad day when they cannot 'beat' the current brutalist government.
> 
> ...


Do you ever regret voting for Thatcher?


----------



## hash tag (Dec 17, 2016)

From brogdale's Guardian link
"Emily Thornberry – the shadow foreign secretary and Corbyn’s constituency neighbour – was widely perceived to have done well in pressing the government on Brexit when she stood in for him at PMQs last week. She is now regarded as the favoured pro-Corbyn candidate to take over if the 67-year-old fails to restore the party’s fortunes and faces a renewed challenge to his leadership."

Already talking again about a new leader. Corbyn has got the vote not once but twice now 
If they/Corbyn are going to raise their profile next year, they must have unity, talk like this won't help.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> The problem though, is that you need people behind you in large numbers to be 'populist'.
> 
> I really despair. Labour should be absolutely rampant in the polls, it's a sad day when they cannot 'beat' the current brutalist government.
> 
> ...



You voted for Thatcher


----------



## kebabking (Dec 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You voted for Thatcher



So what?

If Corbyn decides that he neither needs nor wants the votes of the perhaps 45% of those born prior to 1969 who voted for Thatcher in any of her 3 GE's then he may as well give up now and save us all a lot of shit poll results.

If you want the world to think that Corbyn and his supporters are lost in the past then please do continue to obsess about someone who's been out of office 25 years and since which 6 general elections have come and gone...

(I'm too young by the way, just in case you think I'm projecting...)


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2016)

I wasn't suggesting that Corbyn should not try to win the votes of those who have previously voted for Thatcher, he should. Just reflecting on the decisions of someone who is suddenly shocked to find the world as it is kebabking .


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 19, 2016)

The Mail, The Mirror, The S*n, The Express, The Independent and The Standard have all reported on the PLP Christmas story. The Labour leader supposedly “stormed out” after MPs sang the campaign song “things can only get better” whilst chanting “We want Tony.” They also sang “Like a Virgin” supposedly to mock Corbyn’s #Traingate scandal and “Back in the USSR.”

Apparently all of the above is fake news - No, Corbyn did NOT 'storm out' of the Labour Xmas party - the mainstream media is running FAKE NEWS again | EvolvePolitics.com

But in a post-truth world, who cares...


----------



## cantsin (Dec 19, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> The problem though, is that you need people behind you in large numbers to be 'populist'.
> 
> I really despair. Labour should be absolutely rampant in the polls, it's a sad day when they cannot 'beat' the current brutalist government.
> 
> ...



Old Thatcher loving, Hillsborough sneering Sass is in "despair" re: Corbyn ? 

Lol, fuck off, joker.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 19, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I should imagine, that despite wearing gloves, she washed her hands afterwards.



or had one of her minions do it, the useless parasite


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2016)

cantsin said:


> or had one of her minions do it, the useless parasite



I wonder which of the two of you has done more for the country? Who are you again?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Old Thatcher loving, Hillsborough sneering Sass is in "despair" re: Corbyn ?
> 
> Lol, fuck off, joker.


 Go fuck yourself scumbag.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As I've said elsewhere, the polls appear to show that about 10% of previously non-tory voting electorate _think _that the tories will deliver what they _think _they want from Brexit. Things will change.



How quickly though? The way it looks now, we are on course for a Conservative government with an increased majority in 2020.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> The Mail, The Mirror, The S*n, The Express, The Independent and The Standard have all reported on the PLP Christmas story. The Labour leader supposedly “stormed out” after MPs sang the campaign song “things can only get better” whilst chanting “We want Tony.” They also sang “Like a Virgin” supposedly to mock Corbyn’s #Traingate scandal and “Back in the USSR.”
> 
> Apparently all of the above is fake news - No, Corbyn did NOT 'storm out' of the Labour Xmas party - the mainstream media is running FAKE NEWS again | EvolvePolitics.com
> 
> But in a post-truth world, who cares...


tbh the whole charade since even before he was elected (the 1st time) has shown up the tabs ever more starkly for the pravda shites they are. Throw enough shit and it sticks though.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> How quickly though? The way it looks now, we are on course for a Conservative government with an increased majority in 2020.


Brave/foolish man to predict politics in 3 weeks time, let alone 3 years!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Brave/foolish man to predict politics in 3 weeks time, let alone 3 years!


 Ah! I covered my arse with 'looks'. 

You are right, of course, this far from the election, pretty much everything is speculation.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Labour MPs' fury after Jeremy Corbyn hires senior Sinn Fein staffer to work in his office
> 
> "Mr Corbyn attracted controversy in 1984 by inviting Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein to the Commons shortly after the IRA Brighton bomb nearly killed Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet".
> 
> Given that his brother is some kind of boffin, I hope it was a seminar on the new targeting technologies.



A couple of ironies here in that he's just hired the Irish equivalent of a new labour spin doctor , and one of those who'll be manufacturing the furore over the appointment will be the much loved and admired Conor McGinn . Or " local hero " as he's not generally referred to round these parts , by non sarcastic people .


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> The Mail, The Mirror, The S*n, The Express, The Independent and The Standard have all reported on the PLP Christmas story. The Labour leader supposedly “stormed out” after MPs sang the campaign song “things can only get better” whilst chanting “We want Tony.” They also sang “Like a Virgin” supposedly to mock Corbyn’s #Traingate scandal and “Back in the USSR.”
> 
> Apparently all of the above is fake news - No, Corbyn did NOT 'storm out' of the Labour Xmas party - the mainstream media is running FAKE NEWS again | EvolvePolitics.com
> 
> But in a post-truth world, who cares...



Well, I do, for one. I can accept 'slant' depending on the politics of the newspaper, but outright lies is something else. 

I wonder if Corbyn has enough in those articles to sue? Reputational damage? Libel? 

Quite disturbing. The current shambles over press regulation isn't helping either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2016)

when corbyn got voted in No10, the highest non aristo office in the land, tweeted out that labour ius now a threat to national security. Hard to see what the point is in sueing- it all be streisand effect anyway


----------



## kebabking (Dec 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Brave/foolish man to predict politics in 3 weeks time, let alone 3 years!



Paddy power are offering 9/2 on Corbyn being the next PM after May - £20 would win £110...

I'll have a punt - I take the view that while I think that Corbyn and Labour will continue to look inept and divided (because they are both..), and that under normal circumstances Labour would stand no more chance in 2020 than my repeated marriage proposals to Selma Hayek, there's big shit on the road - and if BREXIT can happen, and Trump can happen, then Corbyn can happen.

Of course, basing your electoral strategy on the economy imploding and the public doing a complete volte face could be described as 'courageous', but its probably the best Labour have...


----------



## Old Spark (Dec 19, 2016)

Some rules of politics .

1.Politics never stands still

2.There are lags from events/decisions- to their impact on the economy,politicians,policies,scribblers,activists,voters.Events/decisions happen and there are consequences from them with all elements affecting the other elements.Some lags are very long .Others impact quickly.Still others disappear without trace.

3.Er thats it.

What is obvious is that JC has received a big confidence boost from winning again and Cameron being replaced by Mrs Hiding in the Toilet(or as Gideon characterized her at the weekend Mrs sitting this one out).

He clearly senses he has her measure  (he would have felt quite the opposite with Dave).Mps on both sides know this to be true.But voters may never realise it as their views on both of them have already been formed.

JC useless twit,TM Thatcher reincarnated.

So can he relaunch himself successfully and bang on endlessly about fairness.?

The Libdems are now the party of remain and are winning byelections all over the place.This is an essential part of Labour getting back in the game under FPTP .As yet Ukip are the mouse that roared.

Nothing much will happen with Brexit in 2017 due to domestic elections in France,Germany,Austria,Holland ,Italy .

Voters could get restless.

Happy 2017.

Ps In 1914 an assassination lead to a world war  -hopefully todays in Ankara wont have too many consequences.Events dear boy Events said Macmillan.Always expect the unexpected as Jerry Hicks used to say.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 19, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I wonder which of the two of you has done more for the country? Who are you again?



	"sHE DOes LOTz foR chARIty"

you sound like a child ffs


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 21, 2016)

This will be an interesting test.

Corbyn critic quits as Labour MP, triggering tight byelection race


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2016)

£10 says its a win for the cons


----------



## agricola (Dec 21, 2016)

A parting gift for us all:



> Reed will take up his new role as head of development and community relations at Sellafield on 1 February. He applied for the job and was “an outstanding candidate”, Sellafield’s chief executive, Paul Foster, said. Reed, who was born and bred in Whitehaven, worked for Sellafield as a press officer before being elected to parliament in 2005.
> 
> *Reed said he would not be a “propagandist” for the nuclear industry, but the new job represented an opportunity to help the local economy by ensuring that the impact of the billions of pounds of public money spent at Sellafield annually would be “better felt in this part of the world”.*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2016)

Interesting - lots of old iron and mining towns apparently (i don't know the area) - exactly who UKIP reckon they can threaten and who the tories are making strong overtures to. I think Cunningham and previous may have built up a strong enough on-the ground local presence to get hold some local influence. The constituency seems quite varied, no dominant characteristic though - which could spell trouble.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2016)

agricola said:


> A parting gift for us all:


He needn't have left to do that! Oh yes, Jack Cunningham was _cleared_. I forgot.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 21, 2016)

I'm not really sure that Corbyns Labour stand much of a chance - there is a great deal of long term unemployment and a great deal of poverty, and a great number of people in West Cumbria who have been completely left behind - which sounds like Corbyn territory -however it's simply impossible to overstate how great a role Sellafeild and the submarine dockyard at Barrow play in the economy of the whole of west Cumbria.

There is simply nothing else - the fag end of tourism from the lakes, but the other industries have gone.

I take the view that a Left party has to be able to win in a constituency like Copeland - in the same way I believe that a Left party has to be able to get the votes of tennant farmers - otherwise it may as well not exist, however a Left party that effectively represents CND and StWc doesn't stand much of a chance in Copeland, and so it won't tell us much about how Labour will do in constituencies that don't have Copelands specific economics.

I will however put £5 on Labour winning with a Corbynite candidate, as I'm fully aware that politics is all over the shop at the moment...


----------



## Old Spark (Dec 21, 2016)

Labour should choose a well known internationalist EU sceptic who isnt a Blairite or from the Hard trade union Right faction as the Brexit vote will be split between tory and ukip and libdems will be squeezed.

So its got to be Red Ken --Corbyn would love that ..

Seriously tho I wouldnt be surprised if both tory and labour end up with low key candidates as this seat will still be marginal in 2020 and the ultra ambitious will be looking for a safer seat.


----------



## Old Spark (Dec 22, 2016)

Jeremys not a turkey -I knew it ,I knew it.


Exclusive - If Theresa May wants an early election, Labour will vote for it, says Corbyn


----------



## Wilf (Dec 22, 2016)

Old Spark said:


> Jeremys not a turkey -I knew it ,I knew it.
> 
> 
> Exclusive - If Theresa May wants an early election, Labour will vote for it, says Corbyn


I imagine he's had a few calls from his backbenchers: 'erm, Jeremy, y'know about that early election thing, well the kid's school fees are going up this year...'


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 23, 2016)

Some damning findings here - buth then again if you ask for views from UKIP-leaning Labour voters, what do you expect:

Labour MPs must isolate themselves from Jeremy Corbyn, says report

"67% of people answered 'don't know' when asked what was the main thing that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were saying at the moment"


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2016)

> “Infighting”, “joke” and “total mess” are some of the first words that voters came up with when asked to describe Labour.



I'd love to get paid for stating the obvious


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 27, 2016)

A new phrase - Corbynisation : Asked about a potential Corbynisation of his party, he [Obama] said: “I don’t worry about that, partly because I think that the Democratic party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality."

Corbyn hits back after Obama suggests Labour is disintegrating


----------



## Reiabuzz (Dec 27, 2016)

That could have easily turned into Obama's 'Aleppo? Where's Aleppo?' moment. Did well to diplomatically field the question.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 27, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Some damning findings here - buth then again if you ask for views from UKIP-leaning Labour voters, what do you expect:
> 
> Labour MPs must isolate themselves from Jeremy Corbyn, says report
> 
> "67% of people answered 'don't know' when asked what was the main thing that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were saying at the moment"


Ever thought why there are 'UKIP leaning Labour voters' ?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 27, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> A new phrase - Corbynisation : Asked about a potential Corbynisation of his party, he [Obama] said: “I don’t worry about that, partly because I think that the Democratic party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality."
> 
> Corbyn hits back after Obama suggests Labour is disintegrating



Obomberisation of the Democratic Party : using charisma / easy intellect to get away with doing f*ck all of significance for working class folk over 8 years, thereby paving the way for a populist cretin to destroy your dismal political heir and  slither from reality TV into the White House


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Obomberisation of the Democratic Party : using charisma / easy intellect to get away with doing f*ck all of significance for working class folk over 8 years, thereby paving the way for a populist cretin to destroy your dismal political heir and  slither from reality TV into the White House


The last US 'professional politician' trusted by the oligarchs to defend their wealth. From now on they will see to this themselves.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 27, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Obomberisation of the Democratic Party : using charisma / easy intellect to get away with doing f*ck all of significance for working class folk over 8 years, thereby paving the way for a populist cretin to destroy your dismal political heir and  slither from reality TV into the White House


Increasingly inequality, forcing the poor to buy health insurance, standing aside and letting Israel do whatever the fucks it wants (bar a pathetic gesture a week before you step down) - wonderful stuff.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 27, 2016)

cantsin said:


> Obomberisation of the Democratic Party : using charisma / easy intellect to get away with doing f*ck all of significance for working class folk over 8 years, thereby paving the way for a populist cretin to destroy your dismal political heir and  slither from reality TV into the White House


What exactly did you expect from the Democratic Party?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Some damning findings here - buth then again if you ask for views from UKIP-leaning Labour voters, what do you expect:
> 
> Labour MPs must isolate themselves from Jeremy Corbyn, says report
> 
> "67% of people answered 'don't know' when asked what was the main thing that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were saying at the moment"



Ken Loach had something to say (in today's Guardian letters) about that lamentable  article from Xmas Eve :




			
				Ken Loach said:
			
		

> As a Christmas present to Jeremy Corbyn’s critics, you headline a report from a group of Labour MPs hostile to Corbyn, rightwingers you refer to as “moderates” (‘No passion’ – swing voters’ damning verdict on Corbyn and Labour party, 24 December). The report is based on focus groups of Ukip sympathisers and – surprise, surprise – advises those same MPs to “isolate from Jeremy”. Just what they want to hear. You then repeat playground insults from the same source.
> 
> Any disarray or disunity in the party is the responsibility of those MPs. They attack Corbyn and John McDonnell day after day, refusing to promote party policy on jobs, housing, transport or the NHS, the core concerns of those they should represent. They offer no support, in parliament or outside. Worst of all, they show contempt for the hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly Corbyn supporters, who have made Labour the largest political party in Europe.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2016)

Well, it _was_ shit. "We did a focus group of people who don't like Corbyn. They didn't like Corbyn. This proves that the Labour party needs to dump Corbyn. _Science._"


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Well, it _was_ shit. "We did a focus group of people who don't like Corbyn. They didn't like Corbyn. This proves that the Labour party needs to dump Corbyn. _Science._"



I know ... when I read the original piece on Xmas Eve, my immediate thought was : *How to best get the conclusion you were all along looking for*.

'Focus Group' my arse ....


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 27, 2016)

The sooner the guardian collapses the better. It needs replacing with a paper that might represent folks in this country and not the bliarite middle class spunk stain it is. Make sure yiu use an ad blocker.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 28, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Ken Loach had something to say (in today's Guardian letters) about that lamentable  article from Xmas Eve :



The Guardian censor Ken Loach’s letter


----------



## teqniq (Dec 28, 2016)

Wishful thinking? Either way the spreading of poison continues apace.

Document reveals strategy to topple Jeremy Corbyn's main power broker, Len McCluskey


----------



## cantsin (Dec 28, 2016)

The39thStep said:


> What exactly did you expect from the Democratic Party?



Zilch - but having a couple with the Obamas charm, intellect and personal integrity ( certainly in comparison  to the various preceding dolts) , + with all the symbolic hope + promise that the first Afro American couple in the WH would inevtably bring, and THEN have the usual f*ck all happen (  divided Congress + and ever present limitations of the post  helping make that inevitable ) , has arguably Obamised the DP +  poured fuel on the economic fires that helped bring about Trump.


----------



## agricola (Dec 28, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Wishful thinking? Either way the spreading of poison continues apace.
> 
> Document reveals strategy to topple Jeremy Corbyn's main power broker, Len McCluskey



That reads as if it was largely plagiarized from the Owen Smith playbook.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 28, 2016)

teqniq said:


> The Guardian censor Ken Loach’s letter



(ie first and last lines were cut, see above)
That's the first time I've seen that full version -- which makes it even worse.

They were pretty stupid as to do it as well, given that Ken Loach was (of all people) the most likely to spread the word that a letter of his was cut.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 1, 2017)

I know this isn't very nice but, ignore the politics for a second, even for a politician Corbyn is really fucking weird. Paul Mason, who isn't exactly the sort of person that you would call a normal people person recognises this, and obviously thinks that Corbyn is really weird too. 

I was under the impression that the whole plan was this - democratise the Labour Party, let Corbyn take the flak from that and then get someone in who doesn't seem as weird to come in as the new person who doesn't have a history of going on PressTV, RT, calling Hamas friends etc. OK, well, Corbyn hasn't managed much of the democratising the Labour Party bit at all, so surely there is no more need for him to be leader and the leadership can be passed to someone like Lewis or Rayner?


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I know this isn't very nice but, ignore the politics for a second, even for a politician Corbyn is really fucking weird. Paul Mason, who isn't exactly the sort of person that you would call a normal people person recognises this, and obviously thinks that Corbyn is really weird too.
> 
> I was under the impression that the whole plan was this - democratise the Labour Party, let Corbyn take the flak from that and then get someone in who doesn't seem as weird to come in as the new person who doesn't have a history of going on PressTV, RT, calling Hamas friends etc. OK, well, Corbyn hasn't managed much of the democratising the Labour Party bit at all, so surely there is no more need for him to be leader and the leadership can be passed to someone like Lewis or Rayner?


He hasn't been leader for very long, and much of that time I guess he has been occupied with other things outside his control.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 2, 2017)

Another two pennyworth from LM http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/union-chief-len-mccluskey-claims-9547935.amp


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 2, 2017)

Len says Jeremy and John would need to consider their positions if polls are still bad in 2019.Er yes 


Union chief claims Corbyn could step down if Labour's fortunes don't improve


----------



## gosub (Jan 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Len says Jeremy and John would need to consider their positions if polls are still bad in 2019.Er yes
> 
> 
> Union chief claims Corbyn could step down if Labour's fortunes don't improve



or: No matter what happens over the next two years don't expect Jeremy to quit any time soon.


----------



## not a trot (Jan 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> or: No matter what happens over the next two years don't expect Jeremy to quit any time soon.





He'll be gone this year. By election results will finish him.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 2, 2017)

Don't think he cares


----------



## hash tag (Jan 3, 2017)

Corbyn ceratinly cares and cares very much but I am not sure he cares nor craves power it is his principles that he cares about and possibly believes that his principles will win through. In a way similar to Michael Foot, who was very clever and principled and never believed he would ever win an election.

Too weak to win, too strong to die. No Labour pacts with other parties, says shadow minister


----------



## cantsin (Jan 3, 2017)

mini shitstorm bewing on twitter re: allegedly xenophobic video re: rail privatisation from TSSA - Clive Lewis / Momentum getting a lot of stick ( for supporting it / RTing etc ) , with the likes of Libcom getting stuck in - pretty crass video tbf, seems to say little about capital and bosses, lots about 'Europeans', and feels like some folk may be approaching the 'get the UKIP voters back' brief a bit hamfistedly.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 3, 2017)

cantsin said:


> mini shitstorm bewing on twitter re: allegedly xenophobic video re: rail privatisation from TSSA - Clive Lewis / Momentum getting a lot of stick ( for supporting it / RTing etc ) , with the likes of Libcom getting stuck in - pretty crass video tbf, seems to say little about capital and bosses, lots about 'Europeans', and feels like some folk may be approaching the 'get the UKIP voters back' brief a bit hamfistedly.


Do I hear the gentle sound of karma slapping TSSA's general secretary for the disgusting role he played in Labour's anti-semitism row?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> He hasn't been leader for very long, and much of that time I guess he has been occupied with other things outside his control.



Lots of leaders have to make headway against the odds. Being hated and slated didn't stop Farage. Being ridiculed doesn't stop Boris. Sure they have their backers, but so does Labour.

It doesn't really matter if in the end it's unfair, Corbyn has to make progress  or go.


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 4, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Lots of leaders have to make headway against the odds. Being hated and slated didn't stop Farage. Being ridiculed doesn't stop Boris. Sure they have their backers, but so does Labour.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if in the end it's unfair, Corbyn has to make progress  or go.


I agree with all of this yes... it doesn't contradict what I said.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 4, 2017)

cantsin said:


> mini shitstorm bewing on twitter re: allegedly xenophobic video re: rail privatisation from TSSA - Clive Lewis / Momentum getting a lot of stick ( for supporting it / RTing etc ) , with the likes of Libcom getting stuck in - pretty crass video tbf, seems to say little about capital and bosses, lots about 'Europeans', and feels like some folk may be approaching the 'get the UKIP voters back' brief a bit hamfistedly.



Essentially the point being made to me is... If the tories are as economically competent as they'd like us to believe why are they so sure they'd be so shit at actually being in charge of these big companies when their European counterparts have no problem in fulfilling that role both in their country and in ours.

Seems a valid line of attack to me, but then I've been using it for years so maybe I'm biased.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 4, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Lots of leaders have to make headway against the odds. Being hated and slated didn't stop Farage. Being ridiculed doesn't stop Boris. Sure they have their backers, but so does Labour.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if in the end it's unfair, Corbyn has to make progress  or go.




Yes, but look at the personalities of farage and Johnston as opposed to that of corbyn. That's all part of the issue.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 9, 2017)

According to the Standard's gossipy column Corbyn is about to embark upon a Trump inspired new media strategy, code named 'Let Corbyn be Corbyn'. The basis will be negative headlines, if that's how it goes, are better than none.

Probably a load of old tosh, but hope it's true. Corbyn might as well shoot from the hip, he won't gain ground by politely playing the game. Either he may succeed or it will be hilarious. Win win.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jan 9, 2017)

Corbyn's on GMB tomorrow morning against Piers Morgan. Should be fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Corbyn's on GMB tomorrow morning against Piers Morgan. Should be fun.


Oh yeah. Fun.
Fun.

Fun.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 9, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn: UK can be better off out of the EU

Surely the genius of Seamus Milne at work.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2017)

What are you?


----------



## treelover (Jan 9, 2017)

Loads of LP members/voters saying they will leave labour/vote/join lib dem, etc,

Corbyn had no choice, unless he accepted Brexit, labour would be decimated in many working class areas.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Loads of LP members/voters saying they will leave labour/vote/join lib dem, etc,
> 
> Corbyn had no choice, unless he accepted Brexit, labour would be decimated in many working class areas.


Of course he has a choice, he could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration. Next they'll be re-issuing this:



Jesus fucking tap dancing christ!

I swear I'm on the verge of eating my bloody membership card.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I swear I'm on the verge of eating my bloody membership card.



I think we've long since reached the 'labour party membership card will eat itself' stage.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Of course he has a choice, he could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration.



What "free movement"? There's no such thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Of course he has a choice, he could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration. Next they'll be re-issuing this:
> 
> View attachment 98575
> 
> ...


Free movement? For Indians? And Jamaicans? Because the eu is set up to deny precisely that. What you call free movement is is fortress Europe, a very highly policed highly bordered entity. To support free movement would be to attack this eu.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Free movement? For Indians? And Jamaicans? Because the eu is set up to deny precisely that. What you call free movement is is fortress Europe, a very highly policed highly bordered entity. To support free movement would be to attack this eu.


So Jeremy's decision to back further immigration controls is irrelevant because the alternative isn't removal of all immigration controls. Ultra left twattery!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> So Jeremy's decision to back further immigration controls is irrelevant because the alternative isn't removal of all immigration controls. Ultra left twattery!


I beg your pardon? Pointing out that your rhetorical use of the freedom of movement trope - and that's all it is - involves an attack on real freedom of movement and a defence of EU sanctioned fortress Europe and highly exclusionary and racialised border controls is ultra left twattery?

And you're going to leave the party that you stayed a member of when it proclaimed British jobs for British workers over this?

There is certainly twattery afoot here.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I beg your pardon? Pointing out that your rhetorical use of the freedom of movement trope - and that's all it is - involves an attack on real freedom of movement and a defence of EU sanctioned fortress Europe and highly exclusionary and racialised border controls is ultra left twattery?


So do you really think that increased immigration controls is irrelevant because it's white people who are being excluded?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Ok, want to play that game. You think the highly racialised set of aggressive eu border controls - actual camps - are irrelevant because the people in them and subject to them are black?

Your parroting of the term freedom of movement hides this. It's a meaningless platitude being this function and the one of making you feel and sound like an internationalist whilst supporting racialised borders. The labour party sounds like just the right place for you.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

Yep, let's have more immigration controls then. Because that's in no way relevant to the appalling levels of racism both in the UK and the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yep, let's have more immigration controls then. Because that's in no way relevant to the appalling levels of racism both in the UK and the EU.


Have you any sort of response to what I've written?  Anything?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yep, let's have more immigration controls then. Because that's in no way relevant to the appalling levels of racism both in the UK and the EU.


Border controls are bad. Therefore I support a body whose policy is of aggressive racialised border controls. In the name of freedom of movement.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

If it's possible for you to infer that I support racialised borders from my opposition to increased immigration controls  then there is very little point.

So, to be clear I am in favour of open borders and the free movement of people. I am aware that we have immigration controls and I am opposed to them being further tightened.

Your little performance gave the impression that because we don't have open borders any further increase in immigration controls wasn't worth getting bothered about.



butchersapron said:


> Border controls are bad. Therefore I support a body whose policy is of aggressive racialised border controls. In the name of freedom of movement.


I never once said I supported the EU nor its border controls.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> If it's possible for you to infer that I support racialised borders from my opposition to increased immigration controls  then there is very little point.
> 
> So, to be clear I am in favour of open borders and the free movement of people. I am aware that we have immigration controls and I am opposed to them being further tightened.
> 
> ...



Ouch!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

You said that you wanted to play this game? Do you not want to anymore?

Don't you see that by framing your position in terms of EU freedom of movement you necessarily hide the lack of freedom of movement this entails? Have you no other way of putting this? And the performance here is this glib repition of this freedom of movement equals anti racist internationalism. Look at me being internationalist.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You said that you wanted to play this game? Do you not want to anymore?
> 
> Don't you see that by framing your position in terms of EU freedom of movement you necessarily hide the lack of freedom of movement this entails? Have you no other way of putting this? And the performance here is this glib repition of this freedom of movement equals anti racist internationalism. Look at me being internationalist.


Really?

So when I say I am in favour of open borders and the free movement of people what I'm actually doing is hiding the lack of freedom of movement in the EU?

You're right. You've won the pissing competition. I just can't compete.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Really?
> 
> So when I say I am in favour of open borders and the free movement of people what I'm actually doing is hiding the lack of freedom of movement in the EU?
> 
> You're right. You've won the pissing competition. I just can't compete.


When you pimp the eu approved 'freedom of movement' as your attack point then yes. This pathetic liberal fetish is only designed to do this. Use it and and you're doing it's wortk for it.
_
let's have three other freedoms! Freedoms are good! You're not against freedom are you? No, don't look at this but look at and defend Freedom!_


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> When you pimp the eu approved 'freedom of movement' as your attack point then yes. This pathetic liberal fetish is only designed to do this. Use it and and you're doing it's wortk for it.
> _
> let's have three other freedoms! Freedoms are good! You're not against freedom are you? No, don't look at this but look at and defend Freedom!_


fucks sake butchers, even by your standards that's a crock of horseshit.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> When you pimp the eu approved 'freedom of movement' as your attack point then yes. This pathetic liberal fetish is only designed to do this. Use it and and you're doing it's wortk for it.
> _
> let's have three other freedoms! Freedoms are good! You're not against freedom are you? No, don't look at this but look at and defend Freedom!_


You won the game already. No need to rub it in.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 10, 2017)

Had a feeling JC was on breakfast television this morning. Jeremy Corbyn CRUMBLES to Piers Morgan in epic roasting: ‘Do you actually want to be PM?'


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Lovely freedom of movement for the Roma people to leave Hungary, not so much "freedom" to enter though.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> fucks sake butchers, even by your standards that's a crock of horseshit.




19force8 's original comment that sparked this was "[Corbyn] could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration."

This could mean "I believe the EU means free movement and this should have been Corbyn's reason for positioning Labour as supporting Remain".

It could mean "I believe the EU is opposed to genuine free movement and prevents it, and for this reason Corbyn should have positioned Labour as supporting Leave".

It could mean several things in between.

So it seems fair enough that the intention of the post was questioned. But 19force8 seems to have clarified that it wasn't his/her intention to suggest the EU was a bastion of free movement, so to continue to insist that it was is tilting at windmills.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 10, 2017)

Ah, the Express^. For those even more Swivel-eyed Tory than your usual Tory.

And Piers fkn Morgan, ffs.

Here's a less "moderate" take on things.

It's Jeremy Corbyn versus Piers Morgan on immigration and Brexit


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> 19force8 's original comment that sparked this was "[Corbyn] could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration."
> 
> This could mean "I believe the EU means free movement and this should have been Corbyn's reason for positioning Labour as supporting Remain".
> 
> ...


I'm questioning not just that specific usage up above but the general idea of freedom of movement _as a term - _as a term that does political work_._ In reference to the EU it hides all those things i mentioned in an unquestioned defence of 'freedom'. Wider than the the EU it means the driving of millions of people from their homes by dull economic compulsion or rather more exciting bombs. Freedom of movement is capitals terms for its control of and use of labour-power. It's not jetting off to cyprus for the weekend. Using these terms as part of a defence of immigration - or anything - seems to me to be pointless, self defeating and not an accurate way to describe what is happening and why.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yep, let's have more immigration controls then. Because that's in no way relevant to the appalling levels of racism both in the UK and the EU.



not sure what that means , you think the current (comparatitively low due to EU free movement) level of immigration controls are causing "appalling levels of racism ..in the the UK " ?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm questioning not just that specific usage up above but the general idea of freedom of movement _as a term - _as a term that does political work_._ In reference to the EU it hides all those things i mentioned in an unquestioned defence of 'freedom'. Wider than the the EU it means the driving of millions of people from their homes by dull economic compulsion or rather more exciting bombs. Freedom of movement is capitals terms for its control of and use of labour-power. It's not jetting off to cyprus for the weekend. Using these terms as part of a defence of immigration - or anything - seems to me to be pointless, self defeating and not an accurate way to describe what is happening and why.



Millions of people in the EU have moved countries for various reasons. For love, for change, for money, for a career. 

This is a positive that is being removed. 

Just as a non-tory government is a positive that is being removed by the terrible performance of the labour party. Sad times.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm questioning not just that specific usage up above but the general idea of freedom of movement _as a term - _as a term that does political work_._ In reference to the EU it hides all those things i mentioned in an unquestioned defence of 'freedom'. Wider than the the EU it means the driving of millions of people from their homes by dull economic compulsion or rather more exciting bombs. Freedom of movement is capitals terms for its control of and use of labour-power. It's not jetting off to cyprus for the weekend. Using these terms as part of a defence of immigration - or anything - seems to me to be pointless, self defeating and not an accurate way to describe what is happening and why.



Agree with all of that if the discussion is more generally about that terminology.  But I think it's fair to note that it doesn't seem that 19force8 was intending to make the term do that much work in his/her comment though...


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Millions of people in the EU have moved countries for various reasons. For love, for change, for money, for a career.
> 
> This is a positive that is being removed.



That's a positive if it exists in a vaccuum. Not so much if that freedom is bought at the expense of less fortunate people also having the right to move country for various reasons. As it has been...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Agree with all of that if the discussion is more generally about that terminology.  But I think it's fair to note that it doesn't seem that 19force8 was intending to make the term do that much work in his/her comment though...


That's _exactly _how it works - it looks like a nice neutral term that isn't doing any work - but it is.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Agree with all of that if the discussion is more generally about that terminology.  But I think it's fair to note that it doesn't seem that 19force8 was intending to make the term do that much work in his/her comment though...


But using the term as he did perpetuates the fiction that there is such a thing as freedom of movement that may be possible within the EU or under capitalism. 

It's a nonsense like the other 'freedoms' people have, 'free' to have the type of jobs they want etc. Why would any socialist buy into this rubbish?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

The idea that there will or could be any democratic input into the form brexit will take - hence putting a position at the centre of an approach - is equally naive i think.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly _how it works - it looks like a nice neutral term that isn't doing any work - but it is.



Yes, I'm agreeing with you. But there's a difference between asking someone to reconsider the terminology they're using and how it may be loaded, and just haranging them about how bad they are for using it


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> That's a positive if it exists in a vaccuum. Not so much if that freedom is bought at the expense of less fortunate people also having the right to move country for various reasons. As it has been...



I dont believe that immigration from outside the EU has been restricted as a consequence of immigration from the EU. I dont believe that the people from outside the EU were that entered the country were less fortunate than those that entered from within. And I don't believe leaving the EU will mean less fortunate people are permitted to enter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Yes, I'm agreeing with you. But there's a difference between asking someone to reconsider the terminology they're using and how it may be loaded, and just haranging them about how bad they are for using it


He said he wanted to play the game though.

Anyway, that's done now hopefully.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

cantsin said:


> not sure what that means , you think the current (comparatitively low due to EU free movement) level of immigration controls are causing "appalling levels of racism ..in the the UK " ?


My comment was an off the cuff response in a frustrating exchange. So maybe not very well thought out.

I think immigration controls are one factor affecting levels of racism. It's probably a feedback loop, they give the message that the problem is the immigrant. By tightening them you reinforce that message resulting in calls for further restrictions.


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> I think we've long since reached the 'labour party membership card will eat itself' stage.



lots of people have joined in the last 18 months.


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> If it's possible for you to infer that I support racialised borders from my opposition to increased immigration controls  then there is very little point.
> 
> So, to be clear I am in favour of open borders and the free movement of people. I am aware that we have immigration controls and I am opposed to them being further tightened.
> 
> ...



Tell me how you can have fully open borders and a full welfare state?, O/B is an ideology like any other.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Of course he has a choice, he could put free movement at the heart of Labour's position on Brexit, but no, he wants more limits on immigration. Next they'll be re-issuing this:
> 
> View attachment 98575
> 
> ...



If you've still got a Labour Party membership card, then you'll never eat it. You'll just carry on accepting any old shite, as long as it can be justified by the pols.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The idea that there will or could be any democratic input into the form brexit will take - hence putting a position at the centre of an approach - is equally naive i think.


At electorate level, yes.  Parliament should be at the heart of things though


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you've still got a Labour Party membership card, then you'll never eat it. You'll just carry on accepting any old shite, as long as it can be justified by the pols.



What about the hundreds of thousands who joined post Corbyn, including many on here?


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The idea that there will or could be any democratic input into the form brexit will take - hence putting a position at the centre of an approach - is equally naive i think.


Whether or not there can be any "democratic input" in the form of brexit would depend on whether or not we live in a democracy. That's not an argument against pushing for progressive policies, or pushing back against regressive ones.

The position the Labour Party takes on immigration controls actually makes a difference in the day to day reality of life in this country. That is why I was so disappointed about this latest appeasement.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you've still got a Labour Party membership card, then you'll never eat it. You'll just carry on accepting any old shite, as long as it can be justified by the pols.


Fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What "free movement"? There's no such thing.



True, but some people on the left have the endearing idea that "freedom of movement" as defined by the EU is a meaningful step toward an *actual* "freedom of movement", when actually it's just another set of exclusionary rules that are - in particular - aimed at people from former colonies of European powers, and in general at anyone who doesn't conform to the "European and white" ideal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Free movement? For Indians? And Jamaicans? Because the eu is set up to deny precisely that. What you call free movement is is fortress Europe, a very highly policed highly bordered entity. To support free movement would be to attack this eu.



45 years ago, we had the last of a series of Immigration Acts removing the rights of citizens of the Commonwealth to emigrate to the UK except through a laborious application process. 112 years ago, we had the final iteration of the Aliens Act. Anyone who thinks that the UK has freedom of movement, or has ever had freedom of movement since industrialisation, is kidding themselves.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> At electorate level, yes.  Parliament should be at the heart of things though



Justify this, please. 

Parliament - when in the heart of things - opted to transfer the decision to a referendum of the electorate.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

The real headache of Brexit is the two year guillotine and what is achievable in that time frame.  Going down the immigration controls shores up Labour against UKIP, but gives the government a free ride on taking the most gnarly route out of the EU (at a time when effectively the civil service expert has resigned, thinking it can't be done).

An effective opposition would be holding the government's feet to the fire over what is practically achievable, not fighting rear guard actions that will cause further internal divisions.


The EFTA route, while ditute, puts you in a postition where you can address things properly.  May's bespoke deal in two years a disaster,and Corbyn -realistically a hard Brexit.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

sihhi said:


> Justify this, please.
> 
> Parliament - when in the heart of things - opted to transfer the decision to a referendum of the electorate.


A referendum gave direction, in a binary choice- absolutely useless at helping flesh out detail of a plan of attack -that you can and should do through parliament -there is your democratic input on shaping the country .   Beyond that you then have to agree a deal with the EU, won't be 100% what people want but you can't really put the input then coz the choice is either :this deal that you've negotiated or the biggest shit sandwich going...Clock is ticking, must be done and dusted in two years.

What seems sensible to me, is to put things in a place where they can be further addressed, with reference to the electorate AFTER the two years.  Though none of the parties involved seem to be going down that route of expectation management.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> lots of people have joined in the last 18 months.



I'm aware of that. My meaning was that it's become a self-satirising and entirely self-defeating institution and eating your card in protest seems somewhat superfluous.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> ...The EFTA route, while ditute, puts you in a postition where you can address things properly.  May's bespoke deal in two years a disaster,and Corbyn -realistically a hard Brexit.



May probably doesn't feel she has the political latitude to go for anything that allows the headline 'free movement' to be kept -and EFTA allows that, even if it does so with caveats.

Mays bind is that she's faced with a parliament thats all over the place on Brexit, and an electorate that apparently takes a pretty firm view - if she had a parliament that would back her overwhelmingly she'd almost certainly go for some form of 'soft' exit with EFTA and she'd feel that she could face down the electorate, but without that support and knowing that Parliament would take the opportunity to cut her off at the knees if it saw the political opportunity, she has no real option other than to wave the big electorate stick at parliament in order to rod Brexit through.



gosub said:


> What seems sensible to me, is to put things in a place where they can be further addressed, with reference to the electorate AFTER the two years...



which rather ignores the electoral reality of what would happen to Mays party at the 2020 GE if she's not left the EU. what might have been better ways to manage the Brexit process are now completely irrelevent, what all that matters is two absolutes - firstly that the two year limit for negotiations is pretty much unbreakable, and secondly that any government going to the polls in the 2020GE that has not left the EU and the free movement principle is going to be utterly destroyed. 

i think she'll go for a hard exit, get the election over with and then start the clear up - i'm afraid that the tea leaves do not suggest a mutually constructive approach, but a bitter, nasty break-up with lots of animosity. in that case, it would probably be better to get the divorce over with and then talk about the future when the shouting is over.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> May probably doesn't feel she has the political latitude to go for anything that allows the headline 'free movement' to be kept -and EFTA allows that, even if it does so with caveats.
> 
> Mays bind is that she's faced with a parliament thats all over the place on Brexit, and an electorate that apparently takes a pretty firm view - if she had a parliament that would back her overwhelmingly she'd almost certainly go for some form of 'soft' exit with EFTA and she'd feel that she could face down the electorate, but without that support and knowing that Parliament would take the opportunity to cut her off at the knees if it saw the political opportunity, she has no real option other than to wave the big electorate stick at parliament in order to rod Brexit through.
> 
> ...



I got a different set of tea leaves, but they won't settle til after Supreme court verdict (and preferably the Copeland by-election (but they a now talking about putting that off til May 4th (ffs)))


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Lovely freedom of movement for the Roma people to leave Hungary, not so much "freedom" to enter though.


By denying Roma people the chance to easily move out of Hungary, will we make it easier for Africans to cross the Med? I don't get the logic at all of 'The EU has a racist border regime, so let's bring back the less (but still somewhat) racist borders within it.' How does that help anyone?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> By denying Roma people the chance to easily move out of Hungary, will we make it easier for Africans to cross the Med? I don't get the logic at all of 'The EU has a racist border regime, so let's bring back the less (but still somewhat) racist borders within it.' How does that help anyone?



In the meantime the Tories are ripping up the country and selling it off and Corbyn is capping the salaries of footballers. Helpful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> By denying Roma people the chance to easily move out of Hungary, will we make it easier for Africans to cross the Med? I don't get the logic at all of 'The EU has a racist border regime, so let's bring back the less (but still somewhat) racist borders within it.' How does that help anyone?


Could you point to someone making that argument please?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Could you point to someone making that argument please?


Some seem to feel that the sum total of suffering at borders will be decreased by the imposition of renewed EU borders. I can't follow the logic of it. Feel free to clarify your argument.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> So Jeremy's decision to back further immigration controls is irrelevant because the alternative isn't removal of all immigration controls. Ultra left twattery!



No, it's not wholly irrelevant as a political marker, but in terms of any effect on legislation, what's extant already encompasses what Corbyn is agreeing to. His decision has no value in terms of affecting immigration.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Some seem to feel that the sum total of suffering at borders will be decreased by the imposition of renewed EU borders. I can't follow the logic of it. Feel free to clarify your argument.


I don't care what some feel. I asked you to point to someone arguing what you claimed that they were arguing. Can you?


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> In the meantime the Tories are ripping up the country and selling it off and Corbyn is capping the salaries of footballers. Helpful.



More nuts than that, high earners have various means of pulling money out of their work.  Salary is the least tax efficent at 45% tax.  Its a recipe for further tax avoidance


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I don't care what some feel. I asked you to point to someone arguing what you claimed that they were arguing. Can you?


But what is your argument? It's hard to follow because you constantly like to follow this aggressive and vaguely bullying version of the socratic method. If you spent less time strutting around like the one with all the answers (but oh so reluctant to share, because only an idiot wouldn't already see the answers), your position would be clearer to others. If you could deign to just give a straightforward argument you might even persuade a few people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> What about the hundreds of thousands who joined post Corbyn, including many on here?



Indeed, what about them?
They haven't, as I predicted, had much impact, have they? They're members of an organisation where the grass roots has no power, and reclaiming power/repatriating power to the membership is a difficult long-term endeavour. To me, that means that membership is pointless, except as a method of soaking up activists into futile Labour infighting.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> More nuts than that, high earners have various means of pulling money out of their work.  Salary is the least tax efficent at 45% tax.  Its a recipe for further tax avoidance



To reduce tax avoidance it wouod be necessary to simplify the tax code and fund HRMC. Sounds like actual hard work


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> But what is your argument? It's hard to follow because you constantly like to follow this aggressive and vaguely bullying version of the socratic method. If you spent less time strutting around like the one with all the answers (but oh so reluctant to share, because only an idiot wouldn't already see the answers), your position would be clearer to others. If you could deign to just give a straightforward argument you might even persuade a few people.


So no, you can't. You entered attacking an argument that no one has made. With what intention?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Indeed, what about them?
> They haven't, as I predicted, had much impact, have they? They're members of an organisation where the grass roots has no power, and reclaiming power/repatriating power to the membership is a difficult long-term endeavour. To me, that means that membership is pointless, except as a method of soaking up activists into futile Labour infighting.



The grass roots managed to elect Corbyn who then managed to destroy its electability. Sounds like a win for many people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Fuck off.



How eloquent, you tinpot pissant gobshite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The grass roots managed to elect Corbyn who then managed to destroy its electability. Sounds like a win for many people.


Hang on, Corbyn was elected because of labour un-electability surely? Losing two GE's on the trot and all that. At the very least, his election followed those failures.

Labour is the problem - not (just) Corbyn.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So no, you can't. You entered attacking an argument that no one has made. With what intention?


With the intention of pointing out the absurdity of your position if you can't (or refuse to) explain the mechanisms by which e.g. African people will be better off with more borders within the EU.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, Corbyn was elected because of labour un-electibility surely? Losing two GE's on the trot and all that. Or at the very least, his election followed those failures. Labour is the problem - not just Corbyn.



I don't think it is. Losing a general general does not mean its impossible to win the next one. 

Although judging by the people put forward to counter Corbyn, which I was shocked by, let alone the people who were too scared to stand, maybe you are right and the problem is Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> With the intention of pointing out the absurdity of your position if you can't (or refuse to) explain the mechanisms by which e.g. African people will be better off with more borders within the EU.


Can you point to someone making that argument please?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't think it is. Losing a general general does not mean its impossible to win the next one.
> 
> Although judging by the people put forward to counter Corbyn, which I was shocked by, let alone the people who were too scared to stand, maybe you are right and the problem is Labour.


They lost not one but two on the trot. Corbyn was not leader for either of them - nor was his type of politics what labour went to the polls on. So the idea that he has made labour unelectable is wrong. he may have made them less electable (i think it's too soon to say that) but he was not the author of that unelectability. In fact, of all the people with least responsibility for that he must be pretty near the top.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They lost not one but two on the trot. Corbyn was not leader for either of them - nor was his type of politics what labour went to the polls on. So the idea that he has made labour unelectable is wrong. he may have made them less electable (i think it's too soon to say that) but he was not the author of that unelectability. In fact, of all the people with least responsibility for that he must be pretty near the top.



Labour will get destroyed in the next election. The tories will win the election by a landslide and they will enact whatever policies they wish. 

This all at the time when the Tories are destroying the country. 

Corbyn has the worst of all politics. I dont know much about you but you seem to be in favour of migration from around the world. Something he seems to be against along with the reinstatement of Britain of the 1950s.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Labour will get destroyed in the next election. The tories will win the election by a landslide and they will enact whatever policies they wish.
> 
> This all at the time when the Tories are destroying the country.
> 
> Corbyn has the worst of all politics. I dont know much about you but you seem to be in favour of migration from around the world. Something he seems to be against along with the reinstatement of Britain of the 1950s.


I expect they will too. But my point is that to argue this is simply down to corbyn is to ignore the behaviour of the actual party before he became leader and the actual voting behaviour of voters before his leadership. It, in fact, gives the party a get out of jail card for all those shitty things they did and all for losing all those millions of voters.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They lost not one but two on the trot. Corbyn was not leader for either of them - nor was his type of politics what labour went to the polls on. So the idea that he has made labour unelectable is wrong. he may have made them less electable (i think it's too soon to say that) but he was not the author of that unelectability. In fact, of all the people with least responsibility for that he must be pretty near the top.



Yes and no.  But last summers failed coup didn't do anybody any favours except the tories. Half baked in every sense.  
Should have waited til this year and put forward someone credible.  Harder to do that now.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I expect they will too. But my point is that to argue this is simply down to corbyn is to ignore the behaviour of the actual party before he became leader and the actual voting behaviour of voters before his leadership. It, in fact, gives the party a get out of jail card for all those shitty things they did and all for losing all those millions of voters.



Fair enough. Although the party lost most of its millions of votes by not being right wing enough. The sad thing about the UK is how right wing it is and it saddens me.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Indeed, what about them?
> They haven't, as I predicted, had much impact, have they? They're members of an organisation where the grass roots has no power, and reclaiming power/repatriating power to the membership is a difficult long-term endeavour. To me, that means that membership is pointless, except as a method of soaking up activists into futile Labour infighting.



If anyone here is active and in the know in the LP/Momentum an update on how the 'building a social movement' work is coming along would be of interest. 

Around the time of the failed coup the resource, political capital and energy required to build an - albeit top down - Podemos like social movemert was a key pledge of Corbyn/McDonnell/Owen Jones/Paul Mason etc. It was how Labour would overcome the hostile mainstream media and reconnect in working class areas previously lost to them.  

Put bluntly, what are the leadership of the party doing with the hundreds of thousands of keen people who have joined their party??


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough. Although the party lost most of its millions of votes by not being right wing enough. The sad thing about the UK is how right wing it is and it saddens me.


It lost most of them through a) war and b) alienating w/c communities by attacking the basis of their existence


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If anyone here is active and in the know in the LP/Momentum an update on how the 'building a social movement' work is coming along would be of interest.
> 
> Around the time of the failed coup the resource, political capital and energy required to build an - albeit top down - Podemos like social movemert was a key pledge of Corbyn/McDonnell/Owen Jones/Paul Mason etc. It was how Labour would overcome the hostile mainstream media and reconnect in working class areas previously lost to them.
> 
> Put bluntly, what are the leadership of the party doing with the hundreds of thousands of keen people who have joined their party??



Are any if these new members working class in the areas that have turned to UKIP? Im sceptical. Most are probably based in the same locations as the "metropolitan elites".


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It lost most of them through a) war and b) alienating w/c communities by attacking the basis of their existence



I don't agree. Labour did not lose an election due to the war. And w/c communuities feel immigration is the biggest attack on their existence. Because fundamentally they are right wing in outlook.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Fair enough. Although the party lost most of its millions of votes by not being right wing enough.


The lost my vote for the complete opposite reason. I doubt I'm the only one.


B.I.G said:


> I don't agree. Labour did not lose an election due to the war. And w/c communuities feel immigration is the biggest attack on their existence. Because fundamentally they are right wing in outlook.


The fact there was no alternative argument proposed didn't help. Tories and Labour both blamed immigration.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't agree. Labour did not lose an election due to the war. And w/c communuities feel immigration is the biggest attack on their existence. Because fundamentally they are right wing in outlook.



Iraq war gnawed into its base in Scotland, but it was its high handed attitude in the Scots referendum that killed it there.  Labour remainers wold have done the same over the EU referendum at least Corbyn is making different mistakes


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't agree. Labour did not lose an election due to the war. And w/c communuities feel immigration is the biggest attack on their existence. Because fundamentally they are right wing in outlook.


Labour lost a hell of a lot of voters - which is what we're talking about - due to war.  Nearly 3 million lost between 97 and 2005. Why do you think they were lost in this particular period?

I don't feel like responding to you ever again after reading that 2nd bit, but the forced pace of introducing flexibility and related things at work whilst undermining collective methods of improving wages and conditions, allied with the selling off of much of the collective methods of welfare health and educational provision and introducing  a profit motive into the running of these things - this is what attacking the conditions of existence means. This is what lost them votes.

 The w/c got you your flaunted social liberalism btw


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Are any if these new members working class in the areas that have turned to UKIP? Im sceptical. Most are probably based in the same locations as the "metropolitan elites".



I don't know where they are. 

The reason I ask the question is that the priority for 2017 seems to be the 'relaunch of Jeremy' and not putting to work - in a serious, strategic and sustained manner - all of these new members. As VP said if that's the case how many of them are going to stick around for the endless infighting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The grass roots managed to elect Corbyn who then managed to destroy its electability. Sounds like a win for many people.



The grass roots of the Labour Party *helped* to elect Corbyn, that's all. 

As for Corbyn destroying Labour's electability, what electability? They had none prior to his election, under Miliband, and none of his competitors had any either, retread Blairites that they are.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Labour lost a hell of a lot of voters - which is what we're talking about - due to war.  Nearly 3 million lost between 97 and 2005. Why do you think they were lost in this particular period?
> 
> I don't feel like responding to you ever again after reading that 2nd bit, but the forced pace of introducing flexibility and related things at work whilst undermining collective methods of improving wages and conditions at work, allied with the selling off of much of the collective methods of welfare health and educational provision and introducing  a profit motive into the running of these things - this is what attacking the conditions of existence means. The w/c got you your flaunted social liberalism.



Those 3 million voters should be backing Corbyn then - is anyone more anti-war?

The northern working class are surely becoming more right wing as immigration rises. Why else are they voting UKIP?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> The lost my vote for the complete opposite reason. I doubt I'm the only one.
> The fact there was no alternative argument proposed didn't help. Tories and Labour both blamed immigration.



Its true. Is corbyn left wing enough and are there enough people to back him? I doubt it.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The grass roots of the Labour Party *helped* to elect Corbyn, that's all.
> 
> As for Corbyn destroying Labour's electability, what electability? They had none prior to his election, under Miliband, and none of his competitors had any either, retread Blairites that they are.



Losing an election is not the same as being completely wiped out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Those 3 million voters should be backing Corbyn then - is anyone more anti-war?
> 
> The northern working class are surely becoming more right wing as immigration rises. Why else are they voting UKIP?


Why on earth would they come back to a party that you think should treat them like scum.

Here we have the problem in a nutshell don't we?

Tell you what, shout _scum_ louder. That might work.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> Iraq war gnawed into its base in Scotland, but it was its high handed attitude in the Scots referendum that killed it there.  Labour remainers wold have done the same over the EU referendum at least Corbyn is making different mistakes



It was also the fact that Labour had done little in 13 years of Government to address basic issues impacting on the working class in Scotland - jobs, pay, houses, a future for kids etc etc. 

You are right about the referendum. People switched from Labour as soon as a viable alternative was on offer (previously Labour thought they could formally abadnon the working class and it would still vote for them as 'they had nowhere else to go'). The same conditions - bar the credible alternative - exist in England and Wales.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would they come back to a party that you think should treat them like scum.
> 
> Here we have the problem in a nutshell don't we?
> 
> Tell you what, shout _scum_ louder. That might work.



If I think they are scum for being so fearful of people that aren't identical to them, I don't understand what that has to do with them voting for Labour. 

Working class solidarity seems to not be be as strong as it used to appear if you are not the same nationality as the majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If I think they are scum for being so fearful of people that aren't identical to them, I don't understand what that has to do with them voting for Labour.
> 
> Working class solidarity seems to not be be as strong as it used to appear if you are not the same nationality as the majority.


I wonder who made it a point of principle to attack w/c solidarity as soon as it got in power. Hint: it wasn't Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't agree. Labour did not lose an election due to the war. And w/c communuities feel immigration is the biggest attack on their existence. Because fundamentally they are right wing in outlook.



That statement doesn't reflect my lived experience. I've lived on council estates most of my 50+ years, and none of the w/c communities inhabiting those estates have been "right wing in outlook". They're often socially-conservative, but that's a different kettle of fish. Most of my current neighbours (I've been in my current community for 20 years) are social democrats who think Corbyn is a breath of fresh air after 20 years of Labour kissing neoliberalism's arse.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder who made it a point of principle to attack w/c solidarity as soon as it got in power. Hint: it wasn't Corbyn.



The only problem I have with Corbyn is his desire to restrict immigration and the fact he can't seem to state his beliefs and win people over. 

I would have voted for him in this election up until the last couple of weeks.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That statement doesn't reflect my lived experience. I've lived on council estates most of my 50+ years, and none of the w/c communities inhabiting those estates have been "right wing in outlook". They're often socially-conservative, but that's a different kettle of fish. Most of my current neighbours (I've been in my current community for 20 years) are social democrats who think Corbyn is a breath of fresh air after 20 years of Labour kissing neoliberalism's arse.



Out of interest. Where are/were these council estates?

Are they in areas where the UKIP vote was high?


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 10, 2017)

As todays posts prove -new ,about turn,policy proposals need to be put out at the right time and very very clearly.

At the point when the nhs crisis story leads everywhere JC attempts to divert attention to max pay levels and immigration -and manages to fail to convince on either .Left wing and radical  he may be ,professional and credible he aint.


Labour has shifted focus away from the NHS crisis. For what? | Owen Jones


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Next week, Owen Jones asks why Corbyn  isn't tackling excessive pay and immigration.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Next week, Owen Jones asks why Corbyn  isn't tackling excessive pay and immigration.



Paul Mason will pen an angry comment piece for the Guardian coruscating journalists for finding ways to keep excessive pay off their front pages by running stories about the state of the NHS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Labour lost a hell of a lot of voters - which is what we're talking about - due to war.  Nearly 3 million lost between 97 and 2005. Why do you think they were lost in this particular period?
> 
> I don't feel like responding to you ever again after reading that 2nd bit, but the forced pace of introducing flexibility and related things at work whilst undermining collective methods of improving wages and conditions, allied with the selling off of much of the collective methods of welfare health and educational provision and introducing  a profit motive into the running of these things - this is what attacking the conditions of existence means. This is what lost them votes.
> 
> The w/c got you your flaunted social liberalism btw



The decline in Labour Party membership also maps quite well to the decline in the Labour vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Paul Mason will pen an angry comment piece for the Guardian coruscating journalists for finding ways to keep excessive pay off their front pages by running stories about the state of the NHS.


We'll get Toynbee defending him and the circle will be complete.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The decline in Labour Party membership also maps quite well to the decline in the Labour vote.



Labour party membership is very high at the moment


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The decline in Labour Party membership also maps quite well to the decline in the Labour vote.


Yes, and Corbyn seems to have won most of those  back now plus plenty more. Which is a step forward from where BIG seems to think they should be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Labour party membership is very high at the moment


Despite that cunt Corbyn eh?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Despite that cunt Corbyn eh?



Lets see if it transfers to votes won. I know a lot of people that rejoined Labour. They were based in the areas of the "metropolitan elites". Someone else will need to let me know how membership is going in the labour northern heartlands. Where the left wing w/c communities are hanging out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Those 3 million voters should be backing Corbyn then - is anyone more anti-war?
> 
> The northern working class are surely becoming more right wing as immigration rises. Why else are they voting UKIP?



Most people don't vote on the basis of single issues like a candidate being anti-war, they vote on the basis of the record of their particular candidate, on the manifesto and on the record of that candidate's party in-the-round.

Why are people voting UKIP? Because apart from anything else, they're offering what appears at first glance to be an alternative to "business as usual" by the three main parties; because they're a repository for "protest voting", and because people often foolishly believe that any change is for the better.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Lets see if it transfers to votes won. I know a lot of people that rejoined Labour. They were based in the areas of the "metropolitan elites". Someone else will need to let me know how membership is going in the labour northern heartlands. Where the left wing w/c communities are hanging out.


I haven't suggested it'll transfer into votes, the new membership is electorally irrelevant. I have said that they won't win back those lost votes if they adopt your preferred tactic of shouting northern working class scum at them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Losing an election is not the same as being completely wiped out.



Existentially, it's exactly the same, as the result is the same.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Existentially, it's exactly the same, as the result is the same.



The size of the majority for the winning party is very important.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most people don't vote on the basis of single issues like a candidate being anti-war, they vote on the basis of the record of their particular candidate, on the manifesto and on the record of that candidate's party in-the-round.
> 
> Why are people voting UKIP? Because apart from anything else, they're offering what appears at first glance to be an alternative to "business as usual" by the three main parties; because they're a repository for "protest voting", and because people often foolishly believe that any change is for the better.



Or because they hate inmigration and want it stopped.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Labour has shifted focus away from the NHS crisis. For what? | Owen Jones



Owen does not read his own Graund, the twat. There is a story from the day before yesterday all about Corbyn slamming May over the NHS and one today with McDonnell demanding an NHS audit. Fucking doublethink is stunning.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

Are you just reading this stuff out from Christmas crackers?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If anyone here is active and in the know in the LP/Momentum an update on how the 'building a social movement' work is coming along would be of interest...
> 
> ...Put bluntly, what are the leadership of the party doing with the hundreds of thousands of keen people who have joined their party??



in a (former) swing/marginal constituancy in the south midlands, not much.

there are enough shouty momentum people around to make pretty much anything hard work and mind-numbingly tedious, but not enough to actually do the local party work of those they've alienated sufficiently that they've left active membership.

in terms of public reaction the (formerly) Labour wards went solidly brexit, and the Labour vote has been falling in those wards since Labour last held the seat (early 2000's). the 'traditional' vote probably produced perhaps 40% of the total constituancy vote in 2015, but EUref and Corbyn has almost certainly taken lumps out of that, and UKIP's biggest votes have been in the old Labour wards for the last decade. for Corbyn the news isn't good - in the middle and skilled working class wards that previously gave the constituancy its swing/marginal nature he's just a dead loss, it would surprise me if 30% of those who have previously _ever _voted Labour would vote for Labour under Corbyn, and those wards are now much more solidly Tory than they were in 2005/10. in the 'traditional' Labour wards the results are more positive in general 'do you support Labour?' terms, but Corbyn himself is - if more popular than he is in the old swing, but now solidly tory - wards, by no means popular, and painfully unpopular compared to Theresa May (to be precise, the term probably should be 'respected'. May _is_ popular with the ex-Labour, now UKIP vote, but respected as a serious politician within the still Labour vote, whereas as Corbyn simply isn't). in this constituancy, Labour will get few votes because of Corbyn, those it gets will be in spite of Corbyn...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would they come back to a party that you think should treat them like scum.
> 
> Here we have the problem in a nutshell don't we?
> 
> Tell you what, shout _scum_ louder. That might work.



When I left Labour in '94, we were already half a decade into the debate about Labour taking the northern constituencies for granted. 13 years of New Labour govt did nothing to re-balance the loaded scales that meant more attention was paid to m/c "swing voters" and "the south". Anyone who thinks that w/c northerners voting UKIP is primarily informed by racism needs to do a bit of research into the sort of shits the Labour Party have dumped on those constituencies over and over again for arguably the past 50 years.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> When I left Labour in '94, we were already half a decade into the debate about Labour taking the northern constituencies for granted. 13 years of New Labour govt did nothing to re-balance the loaded scales that meant more attention was paid to m/c "swing voters" and "the south". Anyone who thinks that w/c northerners voting UKIP is primarily informed by racism needs to do a bit of research into the sort of shits the Labour Party have dumped on those constituencies over and over again for arguably the past 50 years.



Would people make the same excuse for the middle classes in essex voting UKIP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If I think they are scum for being so fearful of people that aren't identical to them, I don't understand what that has to do with them voting for Labour.
> 
> Working class solidarity seems to not be be as strong as it used to appear if you are not the same nationality as the majority.



And your perception is based on...?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Would people make the same excuse for the middle classes in essex voting UKIP?


Do you mean excuse or do you mean attempt at analysing and understanding? It's simply only ever the former with you isn't it? No movement, no history just excuses. Apolitical moralism at its damaging worst.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> And your perception is based on...?



On the rise of the vote for UKIP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Out of interest. Where are/were these council estates?



Lambeth and Wandsworth boroughs, mostly prior to the gentrification of those areas.



> Are they in areas where the UKIP vote was high?



No. UKIP get the same treatment round here that the NF got in the '70s and '80s. Only the m/c are interested.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Would people make the same excuse for the middle classes in essex voting UKIP?



i was rather under the impression that its the working classes voting UKIP - or Tory, or simply not bothering - thats Labours problem.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean excuse or do you mean attempt at analysing and understanding? It's simply only ever the former with you isn't it? No movement, no history just excuses. Apolitical moralism at its damaging worst.



Why should I try to understand their racism? Do tbry attempt to make an understanding of people that are different to them? Or do they blame the foreign or those in London?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lambeth and Wandsworth boroughs, mostly prior to the gentrification of those areas.
> 
> 
> 
> No. UKIP get the same treatment round here that the NF got in the '70s and '80s. Only the m/c are interested.



Exactly. Its in London. The w/c in London seem a lot less fearful of immigration than those in the North.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Why should I try to understand their racism? Do tbry attempt to make an understanding of people that are different to them? Or do they blame the foreign or those in London?


You've not made one step towards justifying the accusation of racism. Not one. Pointless time wasting


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i was rather under the impression that its the working classes voting UKIP - or Tory, or simply not bothering - thats Labours problem.



Exactly. And they do this because they have become more right wing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> On the rise of the vote for UKIP?



So on no analysis whatsoever, just on something that you're unable to prove isn't a coincidence.

I know that the _Guardian_ has tried to establish a direct link between w/c racism and the UKIP vote, but they haven't managed to do so in a year or more of attempts. You're even less successful.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You've not made one step towards justifying the accusation of racism. Not one. Pointless time wasting



If someone votes UKIP they are voting for a racist party. The rise of UKIP amongst the northern working class signifies a rise in racism or a revelation of hidden racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i was rather under the impression that its the working classes voting UKIP - or Tory, or simply not bothering - thats Labours problem.


No, UKIP = posh people.  
W/c = 1)decent non northern non corbyn supporters. The type that won labour the last two elections.
2) horrible northern types who are racist and led to UKUP winning every seat across the north. Which makes them posh really.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If someone votes UKIP they are voting for a racist party. The rise of UKIP amongst the northern working class signifies a rise in racism or a revelation of hidden racism.



and a rise in delusion and idiocy according to your holy trinity of why people vote the way they do


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Labour party membership is very high at the moment



We weren't discussing "at the moment", we were addressing the decline from 1997 to 2005 (or if you want to be thorough, until 2011).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If someone votes UKIP they are voting for a racist party. The rise of UKIP amongst the northern working class signifies a rise in racism or a revelation of hidden racism.


Let's say this child like view is true - most w/c seats in the north returned labour MPs. Across the north UKIP did not win a single seat. On what ground then do you damn the northern working class as a whole as inherently racist and right wing?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> So on no analysis whatsoever, just on something that you're unable to prove isn't a coincidence.
> 
> I know that the _Guardian_ has tried to establish a direct link between w/c racism and the UKIP vote, but they haven't managed to do so in a year or more of attempts. You're even less successful.



If you think its a coincidence then that is fine with me. I don't think its a coincidence at all.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Why should I try to understand their racism? Do tbry attempt to make an understanding of people that are different to them? Or do they blame the foreign or those in London?



if you want to achieve anything, you would be well advised to start focussing on racism  - or support for racist parties - as a symptom rather than as a driver.

if you think you can build any kind of political movement by only including those who think, and perhaps more importantly in this instance, speak in a way you approve of, you are going to discover what it looks like to be envious of the CPGB(M) and its political impact.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> We weren't discussing "at the moment", we were addressing the decline from 1997 to 2005 (or if you want to be thorough, until 2011).



And I was saying the high membership should result in electorial success. We will see.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> if you want to achieve anything, you would be well advised to start focussing on racism  - or support for racist parties - as a symptom rather than as a driver.
> 
> if you think you can build any kind of political movement by only including those who think, and perhaps more importantly in this instance, speak in a way you approve of, you are going to discover what it looks like to be envious of the CPGB(M) and its political impact.



Or I could join momentum.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> We'll get Toynbee defending him and the circle will be complete.



She has supported the high wage cap today and said he is correct.

But then said it wont work because he and Labour have no economic credibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The size of the majority for the winning party is very important.



Inaccurate. The size of a majority only matters within a narrow field. Any majority over about 30 has much the same effect, even regarding contentious legislation. It's also nowhere near as important as it used to be regarding public perception, post-"the coalition".


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Or I could join momentum.



same difference...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Inaccurate. The size of a majority only matters within a narrow field. Any majority over about 30 has much the same effect, even regarding contentious legislation. It's also nowhere near as important as it used to be regarding public perception, post-"the coalition".



If there is a majority of 50 you need more rebels on one side and less on thr other. Its always relevant I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Or because they hate inmigration and want it stopped.



Lay out for me your reasoning for positing that northern working class voters might "hate immigration", and please elide the usual "jobs and resources" tropes, as they were pretty soundly put to bed post the Oldham riots.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lay out for me your reasoning for positing that northern working class voters might "hate immigration", and please elide the usual "jobs and resources" tropes, as they were pretty soundly put to bed post the Oldham riots.



I don't know why people hate people different to them, but it seems fairly common.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Would people make the same excuse for the middle classes in essex voting UKIP?



I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't "make excuses" for the _bourgeoisie_ anywhere. 
Also, in my experience, the _bourgeoisie_ are fundamentally more racist (and classist) than the proletariat, because they feel the "threat" to their status so much more keenly than working class scum like myself do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> On the rise of the vote for UKIP?



You mean the rise in the vote that has little electoral significance with regard to Parliament - that rise?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't "make excuses" for the _bourgeoisie_ anywhere.
> Also, in my experience, the _bourgeoisie_ are fundamentally more racist (and classist) than the proletariat, because they feel the "threat" to their status so much more keenly than working class scum like myself do.



And when the northern working class felt a threat they turned to UKIP. Sad times.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean the rise in the vote that has little electoral significance with regard to Parliament - that rise?



If a party takes votes away from a party so another wins an election. Its pretty significant to me. Like the of SNP


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Why should I try to understand their racism? Do tbry attempt to make an understanding of people that are different to them? Or do they blame the foreign or those in London?



You're pre-supposing racism as a/the cause. Your "logic" is the logic of the circular argument - you won't examine their racism because they're racist, even though you haven't examined their behaviour to see whether it has other motivations.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't know why people hate people different to them, but it seems fairly common.



is there an emoji thing that signifies _Jesus suffering Christ, give me strength!_?

sorry, but if you believe that the _only_ reason that formerly Labour voting areas have moved towards UKIP is that they are utterly, irredeemibly racist, then politics is way out of your depth.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> And when the northern working class felt a threat they turned to UKIP. Sad times.


kebabking

an update on the model - 3) all those labour seats in the north were won by the m/c voters in them. Not the w/c. Who are racist and voted UKIP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If a party takes votes away from a party so another wins an election. Its pretty significant to me. Like the of SNP



Nothing like, and across constituencies (as opposed to, say, Euro-election regions) the volume of potential UKIP voters only bites in a handful of marginals.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> Iraq war gnawed into its base in Scotland, but it was its high handed attitude in the Scots referendum that killed it there.  Labour remainers wold have done the same over the EU referendum at least Corbyn is making different mistakes



I know it's become the accepted truth that it was the referendum campaign that killed Scottish Labour but they got really taken out in the 2011 Assembly elections, the SNP took 20 out of Labour's 35 constituency seats and it was only because of PR (that corrected the unfairness of the FPTP result) that the scale of Labour's defeat was concealed. The SNP were taking seats in untouchably Labour areas in Glasgow where they took 5/9, all previously Labour. The writing was seriously on the wall; whatever caused the damage it was already mostly done before the referendum.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

Fine. The northern w/c aren't racist despite the fact that most people are afraid of what they are not. And as they aren't racist they will all vote for left wing Corbyn so Labour will get back in power. Good times.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

co-op said:


> I know it's become the accepted truth that it was the referendum campaign that killed Scottish Labour but they got really taken out in the 2011 Assembly elections, the SNP took 20 out of Labour's 35 constituency seats and it was only because of PR (that corrected the unfairness of the FPTP result) that the scale of Labour's defeat was concealed. The SNP were taking seats in untouchably Labour areas in Glasgow where they took 5/9, all previously Labour. The writing was seriously on the wall; whatever caused the damage it was already mostly done before the referendum.


Yes, the SSP had been arguing that there was an open door from the late 90s onwards and that nationalism was going to wedge it open. They were right.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's not wholly irrelevant as a political marker, but in terms of any effect on legislation, what's extant already encompasses what Corbyn is agreeing to. His decision has no value in terms of affecting immigration.


When Corbyn backs down on the question of immigration it might not have an effect on legislation or on immigration, but I think it will demoralise anti-racists and encourage racists. For me that's more than "not wholly irrelevant."


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If a party takes votes away from a party so another wins an election. Its pretty significant to me. Like the of SNP


You've homed in on VP's word "significant" then used it in a different context. He quite clearly defined his context: electoral significance within the FPTP system. (Which you should read up on).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Exactly. Its in London. The w/c in London seem a lot less fearful of immigration than those in the North.



Out of the three Northern cities I've visited fairly recently (Liverpool, Manchester and Bradford), I didn't see fear of immigration - perhaps because the communities I visited were multi-cultural w/c communities where immigration had been a fact of life for over a century.

Perhaps if you stopped generalising across an entire region, a phenomenon that inhabits a minority of constituencies, your claims would have a modicum of credibility, or at least wouldn't be so downright risible.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 10, 2017)

co-op said:


> I know it's become the accepted truth that it was the referendum campaign that killed Scottish Labour but they got really taken out in the 2011 Assembly elections, the SNP took 20 out of Labour's 35 constituency seats and it was only because of PR (that corrected the unfairness of the FPTP result) that the scale of Labour's defeat was concealed. The SNP were taking seats in untouchably Labour areas in Glasgow where they took 5/9, all previously Labour. The writing was seriously on the wall; whatever caused the damage it was already mostly done before the referendum.


Yup. Labour in Scotland was a dead man walking, a toom tabard if you will, for a long time before the referendum.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Out of the three Northern cities I've visited fairly recently (Liverpool, Manchester and Bradford), I didn't see fear of immigration - perhaps because the communities I visited were multi-cultural w/c communities where immigration had been a fact of life for over a century.
> 
> Perhaps if you stopped generalising across an entire region, a phenomenon that inhabits a minority of constituencies, your claims would have a modicum of credibility, or at least wouldn't be so downright risible.



Liverpool and Manchester voted to remain in the EU. Comrades in arms


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

co-op said:


> I know it's become the accepted truth that it was the referendum campaign that killed Scottish Labour but they got really taken out in the 2011 Assembly elections, the SNP took 20 out of Labour's 35 constituency seats and it was only because of PR (that corrected the unfairness of the FPTP result) that the scale of Labour's defeat was concealed. The SNP were taking seats in untouchably Labour areas in Glasgow where they took 5/9, all previously Labour. The writing was seriously on the wall; whatever caused the damage it was already mostly done before the referendum.


the complete downer they had on anyone not towing the parties 'no' line, then bussing people up to get over the shortfall in activists left them with no way to reheal afterwards.  But yep years of being in power but taking support base for granted is what did for em


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Liverpool and Manchester voted to remain in the EU. Comrades in arms


No they didn't they voted leave and UKIP and are racists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Liverpool and Manchester voted to remain in the EU. Comrades in arms


This phenomenon that you've identified as happening across the north as a whole - does it only happen where it happens and doesn't happen where it doesn't?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If someone votes UKIP they are voting for a racist party. The rise of UKIP amongst the northern working class signifies a rise in racism or a revelation of hidden racism.



Given the "hate speech" laws, and the penalties they carry, can you point to racist UKIP policy, and if you can, why haven't you brought it to the attention of the authorities.

Reality dictates that it isn't enough for you to merely brand something or someone racist, you have to actually prove your claim. You have't done so despite being given countless opportunities to do so.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

co-op said:


> I know it's become the accepted truth that it was the referendum campaign that killed Scottish Labour but they got really taken out in the 2011 Assembly elections, the SNP took 20 out of Labour's 35 constituency seats and it was only because of PR (that corrected the unfairness of the FPTP result) that the scale of Labour's defeat was concealed. The SNP were taking seats in untouchably Labour areas in Glasgow where they took 5/9, all previously Labour. The writing was seriously on the wall; whatever caused the damage it was already mostly done before the referendum.



this is unprofessionally anecdotal and personal, but anyway...

i think in about 2008 i developed some odd facination with Glasgows industrial past and went for an explore around Springburn in the north of the city - i'd read that in the early part of the 20th century Springburn had two Locomotive construction sites and that around a full _one-third of all the locomotives in service in the whole of the Empire_ _at that time_ had been built in Springburn. 

when i was there it had a Tesco and a Costco - and i actually remember asking myself outloud why in the name of God did Springburn and places like it still vote Labour given that voting Labour had given them nothing, absolutely nothing, in the 50+ years since those industries had gone...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If you think its a coincidence then that is fine with me. I don't think its a coincidence at all.



I haven't claimed that it's a coincidence. I've stated that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to show that it *isn't* a coincidence.

Try harder.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> the complete downer they had on anyone not towing the parties 'no' line, then bussing people up to get over the shortfall in activists left them with no way to reheal afterwards.  But yep years of being in power but taking support base for granted is what did for em



I guess no one could have predicted just how daft Scottish Labour were during the Indy Ref and the 2015 GE but the rot was certainly already well established. I mean, Jim Murphy; the man's clearly impervious to reality.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the "hate speech" laws, and the penalties they carry, can you point to racist UKIP policy, and if you can, why haven't you brought it to the attention of the authorities.
> 
> Reality dictates that it isn't enough for you to merely brand something or someone racist, you have to actually prove your claim. You have't done so despite being given countless opportunities to do so.



I dont have to prove they are racist. I just believe it. 

If you don't believe they are racist that is ok. I dont want to change your mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If there is a majority of 50 you need more rebels on one side and less on thr other. Its always relevant I think.



The logic of your reply posits "party line" voting. Have a look in Hansard some time to see how often that happens outside of a three line whip.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The logic of your reply posits "party line" voting. Have a look in Hansard some time to see how often that happens outside of a three line whip.



Or I could not bother. If you aren't concerned by a massive tory majority caused by labour's collapse then that's fine with me too.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> ...I dont want to change your mind.



which is a somewhat bizaare line for anyone interested in politics to take...


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> which is a somewhat bizaare line for anyone interested in politics to take...



Im not involved in politics. Im a voter.  I have beliefs. I state them. And if someone asks me a question I answer it. Sometimes I have questions for them. 

But im not interested in changing their mind. They think what they like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't know why people hate people different to them, but it seems fairly common.



Another post that makes use of "seems" or "appears". No data, just your belief. Pish.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Another post that makes use of "seems" or "appears". No data, just your belief. Pish.



I have beliefs. Sorry I don't spend my time collecting data.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Liverpool and Manchester voted to remain in the EU. Comrades in arms



Thanks for shooting your own contentions about "the north" and northern racism down in flames.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I have beliefs. Sorry I don't spend my time collecting data.



That much is glaringly obvious.

As for your beliefs, what you believe is irrelevant. The convention on here is that if you make a claim, you're honour-bound to substantiate it or withdraw it. Stating that your opinion has utility because you believe it is the worst sort of patheticism.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That much is glaringly obvious.
> 
> As for your beliefs, what you believe is irrelevant. The convention on here is that if you make a claim, you're honour-bound to substantiate it or withdraw it. Stating that your opinion has utility because you believe it is the worst sort of patheticism.



The convention on urban is that you can't state how you feel about something? If you say so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Or I could not bother. If you aren't concerned by a massive tory majority caused by labour's collapse then that's fine with me too.



You don't appear to understand the UK's electoral system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The convention on urban is that you can't state how you feel about something? If you say so.



Don't put words in my mouth. I know it's one of your favoured tactics to do so, but don't imply I've said something I haven't, please.  I might get annoyed, and then I'd have to go and hurt somebody, what with being a working-class racist with no other way to shed my aggression.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I know it's one of your favoured tactics to do so, but don't imply I've said something I haven't, please.  I might get annoyed, and then I'd have to go and hurt somebody, what with being a working-class racist with no other way to shed my aggression.



Lots of the working class are racist. I can't change that. People have started to build it into the electoral landscape. Its very sad. 

You can ignore it or pretend its not happening if you like until someone does a study that proves it to your satisfaction. 

In the meantime the tories will rule the country.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Lots of the working class are racist. I can't change that.


But do you want to?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> But do you want to?



If I could. I would


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

And who says you can't?

Certainly not the many anti-racists in the working class.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Lots of the working class are racist. I can't change that. People have started to build it into the electoral landscape. Its very sad.
> 
> You can ignore it or pretend its not happening if you like until someone does a study that proves it to your satisfaction.
> 
> In the meantime the tories will rule the country.


Is there some sort of causal connection between your first lines and the situation outlined in the last? If not, why post it like there is?


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> And who says you can't?
> 
> Certainly not the many anti-racists in the working class.



I say I can't. If they can, then good for them.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Is there some sort of causal connection between your first lines and the situation outlined in the last? If not, why post it like there is?



There is a causal link. Because the tories are more anti-immigration and right-wing than the Labour party. If there has been a shift to the right then they will win more votes and more seats.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I say I can't. If they can, then good for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> There is a causal link. Because the tories are more anti-immigration and right-wing than the Labour party. If there has been a shift to the right then they will win more votes and more seats.


Bye.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

i could have been doing something useful, like learning to play the piano, while i was conversing with this idiot...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i could have been doing something useful, like learning to play the piano, while i was conversing with this idiot...


...watching paint dry...


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ...watching paint dry...



tbh, puckering up and steeling myself to kiss a dogturd....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> tbh, puckering up and steeling myself to kiss a dogturd....


Online dating >>>


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Online dating >>>



turns out that trust-a-trader.com isn't what i thought it was...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Lots of the working class are racist. I can't change that. People have started to build it into the electoral landscape. Its very sad.



People started to build it into the electoral landscape in the 1890s, in the 1930s, in the 1950s, 1970s and 2000s. Whither your "working class" racism?



> You can ignore it or pretend its not happening if you like until someone does a study that proves it to your satisfaction.



I'm not asking for studies, I'm asking for any evidence that has some data behind it.



> In the meantime the tories will rule the country.



Newsflash: Neoliberals do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> There is a causal link. Because the tories are more anti-immigration and right-wing than the Labour party. If there has been a shift to the right then they will win more votes and more seats.



You've earlier said that it would be to UKIP's electoral benefit. Do make up your mind.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> By denying Roma people the chance to easily move out of Hungary, will we make it easier for Africans to cross the Med? I don't get the logic at all of 'The EU has a racist border regime, so let's bring back the less (but still somewhat) racist borders within it.' How does that help anyone?


What BA said. I've not argued such a position, I've not seen anyone on U75 argue such a position, who are you claiming is making this argument?


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> same difference...



Er, not completely, there are some really good people in local groups, etc.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Er, not completely, there are some really good people in local groups, etc.



i don't know what they do elsewhere, but here they seem to just get on peoples tits until those people stop turning up, and not do any of the work the people who've left used to do.

i watched a 19yo Momentumite/Corbynite harrangue a 21yo branch official about Blair and Iraq for the best part of half an hour, both would have been in infants school at the time. oddly enough the branch official doesn't bother turning up any more - and no one has volunteered to take her place - our hero however does CiF on the Graun, so thats ok...


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 10, 2017)

Corbyn drops maximum wage idea after Blanchflower ,Murphy and others call it idiotic.

This isnt getting any better.....


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Corbyn drops maximum wage idea after Blanchflower ,Murphy and others call it idiotic.
> 
> This isnt getting any better.....



...`


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i watched a 19yo Momentumite/Corbynite harrangue a 21yo branch official about Blair and Iraq for the best part of half an hour, both would have been in infants school at the time.


I was talking to ma about this earlier, there's a generation or two, myself included (first and only GE vote that was unspoiled- blair, Pre- iraq war) that never knew anything but new labour, anything but the wars and the lies and the spin- the attacks on unions and the punitive welfare regimes and scrounger talk. So in comes corbyn looking like a revival of a mythical time when labour were the dogs tits and its all gravy. I just (JUST) scrape in as a millenial. Old enough to have read my history of labour and soc/dem in general but even so, the three quidders surge and the red flag sung once more nearly had me. The shennanigans/purges/court cases that ensued made me glad I didn't waste my precious three groats let alone the 25 nicker.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Corbyn drops maximum wage idea after Blanchflower ,Murphy and others call it idiotic.
> 
> This isnt getting any better.....


Link?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I was talking to ma about this earlier, there's a generation or two, myself included (first and only GE vote that was unspoiled- blair, Pre- iraq war) that never knew anything but new labour, anything but the wars and the lies and the spin- the attacks on unions and the punitive welfare regimes and scrounger talk. So in comes corbyn looking like a revival of a mythical time when labour were the dogs tits and its all gravy. I just (JUST) scrape in as a millenial. Old enough to have read my history of labour and soc/dem in general but even so, the three quidders surge and the red flag sung once more nearly had me. The shennanigans/purges/court cases that ensued made me glad I didn't waste my precious three groats let alone the 25 nicker.



i'm not sure what the solution is - i think its pretty obvious that 'Blair', and i mean the much wider thing than just the Grinning Goon himself, is boil who'se poison (in the widest sense, rather than this or that policy or personality) has to leave the party before it can be at peace with itself, but equally i simply don't see how endly going on about someone who left office a decade ago and castigating everyone who isn't a Corbynite for his sins is going to have any positive effect.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Link?




Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to U-turn on his 'idiotic' wage cap proposal


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Oh god the Indie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

That independent thing confuses two different things 1) the morning's talk about a possible max wage and 2) the suggestion of only allowing companies who fit a certain ratio of executive pay to be awarded  public contracts. 

Is there no one left actually working there?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Border controls are bad. Therefore I support a body whose policy is of aggressive racialised border controls. In the name of freedom of movement.


The borders of the EU arent based on racial categories, they're based on what nations are part of the pact, not the ethnicity of the citizens within those countries.



ViolentPanda said:


> Given the "hate speech" laws, and the penalties they carry, can you point to racist UKIP policy, and if you can, why haven't you brought it to the attention of the authorities.
> Reality dictates that it isn't enough for you to merely brand something or someone racist, you have to actually prove your claim. You have't done so despite being given countless opportunities to do so.


So you dont think UKIP are a racist party? Im surprised by that.

Their key policy was to leave the EU, and that was campaigned for on xenophobic, and IMO racist, terms.

Their leader knows how to dogwhistle and get away with it best, whilst those below him arent as subtle.

Who can forget that time when Nigel Farage said words to effect of "theres too many people speaking foreign on public transport" and now people are regularly getting beaten up and abused for speaking a language other than English in public.
Or when he said parts of England are like a "foreign country".
Or this lovely poster:




...which was duly reported to the authorities for inciting racial hatred.

UKIP have always been explicit that they have a "unicultural" vision of what Britain should be - its at the heart of their manifestos. And thats why so many of their racist apartchiks are part of the party.

Nice list of some UKIP key members comments here, including Rozanne Duncan who has a ‘problem with people with negroid features’, Ken Chapman who says that “islam is a cancer that needs eradicating multiculturism does not work in this country clear them all off to the desert with their camals that’s their way of life.”, or Joseph Quirk and his "Well, I reckon dogs are more intelligent, better company and certainly better behaved than most Muslims.” etc etc etc. Plenty more in the link.

Of course UKIP are a racist party.

 Are UKIP voters racist? Well, unless a voter is utterly oblivious to all this, then yes, they are racist - or if Im being generous, they dont mind supporting a racist party and arent bothered by the consequences of that. To me that makes them racist still.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The borders of the EU arent based on racial categories, they're based on what nations are part of the pact, not the ethnicity of the citizens within those countries.
> 
> 
> So you dont think UKIP are a racist party? Im surprised by that.
> ...



By your criteria, all 3 major political parties are racist, in fact Labour most of all as the PLP's policies help kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims - a task which the Tories picked up with gusto.

BTW, if you're going to condemn an entire voter bloc on the words of "key members" of a party, the 3 main parties are again fucked, under your liberaltastic criteria.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Is there no one left actually working there?


Don't think so. I mean for all the Guardian's shitness there's still a paper, the Indie is just a clickbait website.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't think so. I mean for all the Guardian's shitness there's still a paper, the Indie is just a clickbait website.



Buzzfeed is closer to a newspaper than the Independent is these days


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Corbyn drops maximum wage idea after Blanchflower ,Murphy and others call it idiotic.
> 
> This isnt getting any better.....



Ah, the two Dannys.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Ah, the two Dannys.



Yeah Danny B was a great playmaker -apart from This is your life.Danny M just ran about a bit by comparison.

They are both upset with the JC -to them he is no longer the Messiah -hes just a very........Probably because he took no notice of them.

Anyway wages and fat cats are in the news so sod the detail.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 11, 2017)

It is great to hear that Corbyn is all over the news this morning and it sounds like he has come out of his shell and is making a bit of an effort. I am not sure that all of the press has been entirely positive, but nonetheless, It is good to see him getting out there.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It is great to hear that Corbyn is all over the news this morning and it sounds like he has come out of his shell and is making a bit of an effort. I am not sure that all of the press has been entirely positive, but nonetheless, It is good to see him getting out there.



its been good and bad - its certainly true to say that Corbyn has 'got out there' and that he's been able to put his points across, and has done so in terms that are politically attractive to those outside the traditional Corbynite bubble.

the bad bit is that in changing the 'big idea' four times in the space of six hours he has consolidated his image amongst politics wonks and 'gatekeepers' as a slightly senile, if personally pleasant, old man who has trouble with his own shoelaces. 

whether we like the idea or not, gatekeepers exist and they _help_ to shape the tone of media. the idea that you can win an election having persuaded most of them that however nice you are, you couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, is a _couragous_ one...


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> How eloquent, you tinpot pissant gobshite.


Do tell me what the correct Urban response to being sneered at by a self-satisfying smug fuckwit is and I'll try to remember it next time you say something worth replying to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Do tell me what the correct Urban response to being sneered at by a self-satisfying smug fuckwit is and I'll try to remember it next time you say something worth replying to.



Better, but you've got the tense of your insult wrong, unless you're calling me a wanker, in which case, aren't we all?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 11, 2017)

> *They are trying to confuse you on Corbyn and EU immigration*


Don’t be fooled by naysayers: They are trying to confuse you on Corbyn and EU immigration
Mr Sivier sets this out very clealry and concisely. 


> *All in all, the outcry over Mr Corbyn’s speech is a fake. There is no new position; it is a re-statement of the current policy.*
> 
> But the right-wing hysterics are trying to whip you into a frenzy over it.


----------



## agricola (Jan 11, 2017)

Another victory at PMQs today, I see.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> Another victory at PMQs today, I see.



Somebody call Owen Jones and tell him to tune in. He needs to start his retraction article ASAP.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It is great to hear that Corbyn is all over the news this morning and it sounds like he has come out of his shell and is making a bit of an effort. I am not sure that all of the press has been entirely positive, but nonetheless, It is good to see him getting out there.



He's the leader of a major political party. I don't think it's necessary to praise him for making 'a bit of an effort' like a middle aged couple trying a bit of foreplay for the first time since the kids grew up.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He's the leader of a major political party. I don't think it's necessary to praise him for making 'a bit of an effort' like a middle aged couple trying a bit of foreplay for the first time since the kids grew up.



indeed - the leader of the second largest political party by number of MP's, a party that has formed 40% of the governments in my lifetime, gets in the news. well woop-fucking-woo, whats next: round of applause for man aged 67 as he shits in a toilet?

he is, i'll remind people, paid more than _ten thousand pounds_ a month for this job - whats the next hurdle he'll cross to great acclaim: single-handledly getting out of bed?


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2017)

kebabking said:


> indeed - the leader of the second largest political party by number of MP's, a party that has formed 40% of the governments in my lifetime, gets in the news. well woop-fucking-woo, whats next: round of applause for man aged 67 as he shits in a toilet?
> 
> he is, i'll remind people, paid more than _ten thousand pounds_ a month for this job - whats the next hurdle he'll cross to great acclaim: single-handledly getting out of bed?



Has he sorted his front garden out yet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2017)

gosub said:


> Has he sorted his front garden out yet?


all his horticultural time is put in at the allotment


----------



## agricola (Jan 12, 2017)

'Fury' over Corbyn aide's NATO comments:



> Labour's shadow defence secretary is "absolutely furious" after Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman said the UK should help "wind down" tensions on the Nato-Russian border, the BBC has learned,
> 
> A source close to Nia Griffith told political correspondent Ben Wright she was not considering her position, but support for Nato was a "red line".
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It is great to hear that Corbyn is all over the news this morning and it sounds like he has come out of his shell and is making a bit of an effort. I am not sure that all of the press has been entirely positive, but nonetheless, It is good to see him getting out there.



The only effort he should be making is to try and get rid of the tories at the next election and that certainly isn't going to happen while he's still leader.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The only effort he should be making is to try and get rid of the tories at the next election and that certainly isn't going to happen while he's still leader.



Who would you have replace him? Please don't say ABC because it does nothing to move the conversation forward. Names are needed.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Who would you have replace him? Please don't say ABC because it does nothing to move the conversation forward. Names are needed.



McDonnell would certainly be more effective and more focused as a leader of the opposition - his problem is that while Corbyn is mildly disliked as a person by most of the PLP, McDonnell has a personality charitably described as _abrasive_ - he's loathed by pretty much everyone including a good wedge of those who support Corbyn. Abbot is just loathed by everyone.

a good swathe of the younger, newer MP's who support(ish) Corbyn might or might not do a better job as LotL, and might or might not win the 2020GE, but they would at least start by having the enormous advantage of not having the baggage of the terrible threesome and not having Corbyns appalling personal ratings.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 12, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He's the leader of a major political party. I don't think it's necessary to praise him for making 'a bit of an effort' like a middle aged couple trying a bit of foreplay for the first time since the kids grew up.





Andrew Hertford said:


> The only effort he should be making is to try and get rid of the tories at the next election and that certainly isn't going to happen while he's still leader.



He is the leader of a major political party and he really should be out there at every opportunity laying into the tories, from day 1 of his leadership, not day 1 of 2017. One issue is the NHS and social care. The press is full of the crisis it is in. There was the Royal College of Surgeons on Radio 4 yesterday saying very rationally and eloquently how bad it was, there were surgeons on this morning saying the same thing. Corbyn should really be capitalising on this. I know he has, but for what seems like a tap on the shoulder as opposed to hitting hard, very hard. He will not oust the tories by people sitting aroind saying what a good, moralistic, principled man he is. It is, sadly, not enough.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> a good swathe of the younger, newer MP's who support(ish) Corbyn



That's a relief not to read the usual list of Progress members offered. Dan Jarvis or Stella Creasy and the like. I would sooner support the SNP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> He is the leader of a major political party and he really should be out there at every opportunity laying into the tories, from day 1 of his leadership, not day 1 of 2017. One issue is the NHS and social care. The press is full of the crisis it is in. There was the Royal College of Surgeons on Radio 4 yesterday saying very rationally and eloquently how bad it was, there were surgeons on this morning saying the same thing. Corbyn should really be capitalising on this. I know he has, but for what seems like a tap on the shoulder as opposed to hitting hard, very hard. He will not oust the tories by people sitting aroind saying what a good, moralistic, principled man he is. It is, sadly, not enough.


What exactly constitutes 'out there'? What is it that you imagine he does everyday? And what of what he does everyday do you actually get to see? What filters must his activity pass through before it ever reaches you? Are there any interests working to make it look like he's not 'out there' all the time?Are the connected to the operation of those filter - either hidden largely unconscious ones or the more open and agenda driven ones?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...I would sooner support the SNP.



in which case welcome to having 150 MP's...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> in which case welcome to having 150 MP's...



You have not gone far enough: unless the "moderates" (i.e. Labour First, Progress and Blue Labour) occupy the leadership and the shadow cabinet then the Tories will be able to finish the ancient Ritual of Summoning and rise to Magi-Pharaohs. enabling a thousand year reign of terror amongst us. And it will be all the fault of those pesky members who failed to recognise the great leadership skills in the stitching of those empty suits in the PLP.

It's Chuka or death, I tells ya!


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...And it will be all the fault of those pesky members who failed to recognise the great leadership skills in the stitching of those empty suits in the PLP....



the fault is not the membership noticing the utter vaccuity of the likes of Burnham, Kendal etc... its in assuming that because the right of the party had no candidates that could do the job, the left of the party _would_ have candidates who could do the job.

there probably are people throughout the spectrum of the party who could do the two jobs of uniting the party and looking like a potential PM to the electorate, but none of them are putting their names forward.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the fault is not the membership noticing the utter vaccuity of the likes of Burnham, Kendal etc... its in assuming that because the right of the party had no candidates that could do the job, the left of the party _would_ have candidates who could do the job.
> 
> there probably are people throughout the spectrum of the party who could do the two jobs of uniting the party and looking like a potential PM to the electorate, but none of them are putting their names forward.


And none of them are going to until Corbyn steps down. Which he's not going to do this side of the next GE - if he does step down before then all the arguments of that part of the labour left since 83 (and before) will have been demonstrated to be merely for show. And say what you like about him but his politics are not for show.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> there probably are people throughout the spectrum of the party who could do the two jobs of uniting the party and looking like a potential PM to the electorate, but none of them are putting their names forward.




Such as? Don't get me wrong, I hope that you are right. I agree that the mistake was made when we had the Beige Three (Cooper, Kendall and Burnham) and then a token nobody in order to have the semblance of "a broad spectrum" and then Jeremy was voted in because people felt "not those three fuckers".

But it isn't enough to think we can find a new leader once Jeremy is out of the picture. Luke Akehurst and his band of Red Tories will be all over it like piss on a Russian prostitute. If you can think of anybody that is not from the "moderate" (i.e. Right) of the party, then by all means, speak up. I have found some "shy (red) Tories" are unwilling to name names because they know full well that calling somebody like Tristram Hunt a "compromise" between left and right shows them up for the scheming Blairite that they are: c.f. Owen Smith.

So whom do you have in mind?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ...And say what you like about him but his politics are not for show.



i don't disagree with the rest of your analysis, and i don't _really_ disagree with this bit - however i think there _is_ a bit of show about his politics, and its a very damaging thing: the incident with Nia Griffiths and with Clive Lewis before her, and indeed Emily Thornberry (all three broadly sympathetic to his views) suggests that he is simply unable to cope with anything that does not absolutely mirror his views, even if he has previously agreed that line, and by accepting that fudge he gets the majority of what he wants.

in all three cases he will have had a conversation about policy with the potential shadow SofS, they'll have had differing views but they'll have reached a agreed compromise that both considered workable if not perfectly inline with their views - in each case the shadow then goes off and puts that policy in place, and in each case Corbyn and his team immediately back away from the agreed policy and undermine the shadow.

i met Griffiths when she came to NATO exercise, she spent about 90 minutes in my tent with a couple of senior NATO officers and National defence ministers, there is - i promise you - no possible way that anyone on Gods green earth could have been under any kind of missapprehension about her views on NATO and the commitment to the Baltic states. Corbyn must have known the strength of her views when he appointed her, and he must have agreed with her a position they could both live with (unless he's a complete idiot), the damaging thing is that - shades of Trump - he just can't keep his gob shut.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well as an "insider" I would love to hear your list of possible leadership candidates.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well as an "insider" I would love to hear your list of possible leadership candidates.


i bet you would.


----------



## Supine (Jan 12, 2017)

Thomas The Tank Engine could do a better job


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

Supine said:


> Thomas The Tank Engine could do a better job


how right you are


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Supine said:


> Thomas The Tank Engine could do a better job



In that case, could Own Smith or Dan Jarvis or Stella Creasy or Liz Kendall or Tristram Hunt?

Simple yes/no answer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> In that case, could Own Smith or Dan Jarvis or Stella Creasy or Liz Kendall or Tristram Hunt?
> 
> Simple yes/no answer.


no. i wouldn't trust any of them to lead a conga line, much less a political party.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

What about Ian Austin, Ben Bradshaw, Hilary Benn or Stephen Kinnock?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> What about Ian Austin, Ben Bradshaw, Hilary Benn or Stephen Kinnock?


what about them?


----------



## agricola (Jan 12, 2017)

Supine said:


> Thomas The Tank Engine could do a better job



the PLP is more Sodoff than Sodor, though


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Okay Rowena. Look at the last question about Labour MPs and the question of whether they could do a better job than Corbyn and/or Thoams the Tank Engine.

Now try to keep two ideas in your head at once.

Okay, now think what the second question may be referring to. 

You can do it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Okay Rowena. Look at the last question about Labour MPs and the question of whether they could do a better job than Corbyn and/or Thoams the Tank Engine.
> 
> Now try to keep two ideas in your head at once.
> 
> ...


oswald - i can do it but why the fuck should i?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Why not? Is it because you really do think Ian Austin, Ben Bradshaw, Hilary Benn or Stephen Kinnock could make a better leader, but like all shy (Red) Tories, you don't like to be candid with your real political beliefs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Why not? Is it because you really do think Ian Austin, Ben Bradshaw, Hilary Benn or Stephen Kinnock could make a better leader, but like all shy (Red) Tories, you don't like to be candid with your real political beliefs?


no.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Come on, Rowena. Let the Blairite free!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Come on, Rowena. Let the Blairite free!


come on cancerman, catch yourself on.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Which one is it? Hmm, is it Hilary Bomber Benn?

No. It must be the fabulous Ben Bradshaw!

Am I right, Rowena?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Which one is it? Hmm, is it Hilary Bomber Benn?
> 
> No. It must be the fabulous Ben Bradshaw!
> 
> Am I right, Rowena?


no


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Come on, Rowena. Let the Blairite free!



And if you want to know one of the reasons the Party is in the state it's in, take a look at yourself - no idea that doesn't fit the Corbynite narrative, no criticism, no personality and no policy that doesn't spring from St Jeremy's holy arse can be motivated by anything other than Blairism - because that's all there is in the warped, myopic world of the Corbynites: Corbyn and Blair...

You are as bad as that utter bellend who believes that the only possible reason previously solid Labour voters in the old traditional Labour heartlands turned to UKIP was that they had discovered the exilor of undisguised racism...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> And if you want to know one of the reasons the Party is in the state it's in, take a look at yourself - no idea that doesn't fit the Corbynite narrative, no criticism, no personality and no policy that doesn't spring from St Jeremy's holy arse can be motivated by anything other than Blairism - because that's all there is in the warped, myopic world of the Corbynites: Corbyn and Blair...



Well none that have been named as potential leaders yet, no. At least to my knowledge.

Owen Smith was a "moderate" as were other MPs put forward as potential challengers in the future. 

And still you refuse to name one MP that could replace Jeremy that lies somewhere between the Left of the Party and the Right.

That makes people like YOU one of one of the reasons the Party is in the state it's in.

So name those names insider man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> That makes people like YOU one of one of the reasons the Party is in the state it's in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well none that have been named as potential leaders yet, no. At least to my knowledge.


that's because the labour party is bereft of talent.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

If one truly wanted a better leader than Corbyn that the members would support, one would have a handful of potential replacements that didn't look like a list of who's who in Progress. Without it any talk about "Corbyn must go" just smacks of more Right wing coup crap.

It does not require a great leap of logic to assume that should Corbyn resign, the next candidates nominated will be only what the movers and shakers in the PLP and their patrons wish to see. 

So until then, I believe a lot of Corbyn supporters think better him than Red Tory cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> It does not require a great leap of logic to assume that should Corbyn resign, the next candidates nominated will be only what the movers and shakers in the PLP and their patrons wish to see.


it does though require an utter ignorance of the last quarter century of british politics, as anyone who recalls john major's 1995 resignation as tory leader can affirm.

politics is rarely logical mr mikey spock


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> And if you want to know one of the reasons the Party is in the state it's in, take a look at yourself - no idea that doesn't fit the Corbynite narrative, no criticism, no personality and no policy that doesn't spring from St Jeremy's holy arse can be motivated by anything other than Blairism - because that's all there is in the warped, myopic world of the Corbynites: Corbyn and Blair...
> 
> You are as bad as that utter bellend who believes that the only possible reason previously solid Labour voters in the old traditional Labour heartlands turned to UKIP was that they had discovered the exilor of undisguised racism...


Imagine these cultists out on the doorstep...frightening.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well, I am strongly reminded of the The Scorpion and the Frog - Wikipedia.

Scorpion: Let's get a better leader than Corbyn!
Frog: Who do you have in mind?
Scorpion: Well we will sort that out after we get rid of him.
Frog: Okay.
Scorpion: Good lad.
Frog: Oh no! There are only Right wing candidates to vote for!
Scorpion: Of course. It is the nature of the PLP to nominate candidates that they want to have as leader.
Frog: But what about "spectrum" and "range of political candidates".
Scorpion: We tried that, but you went and voted for the token lefty that was meant to fail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well, I am strongly reminded of the The Scorpion and the Frog - Wikipedia.
> 
> Scorpion: Let's get a better leader than Corbyn!
> Frog: Who do you have in mind?
> ...


that's nice, dear


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> If one truly wanted a better leader than Corbyn that the members would support, one would have a handful of potential replacements that didn't look like a list of who's who in Progress. Without it any talk about "Corbyn must go" just smacks of more Right wing coup crap....



All you have to do is look at the shadow cabinet, there are at least a good handful of people from the left of the PLP who seem to have a reasonable grasp of their jobs and who also have the ability to interact with the media, the electorate and the party membership and do so positively.

If you don't know who those people are then you're obviously not someone who pays much attention, and probably ought not to get a vote.

Moreover, if you don't understand why names don't get bandied about you've obviously not spent much time in the company of the hysterical loons who make up Corbyns most vocal support - though I suspect you understand exactly why names don't get bandied about, and it frustrates the shit out of you...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> All you have to do is look at the shadow cabinet, there are at least a good handful of people from the left of the PLP who seem to have a reasonable grasp of their jobs and who also have the ability to interact with the media, the electorate and the party membership and do so positively.



Who are you referring to? 

Spit.it.out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> All you have to do is look at the shadow cabinet, there are at least a good handful of people from the left of the PLP who seem to have a reasonable grasp of their jobs and who also have the ability to interact with the media, the electorate and the party membership and do so positively.
> 
> If you don't know who those people are then you're obviously not someone who pays much attention, and probably ought not to get a vote.
> 
> Moreover, if you don't understand why names don't get bandied about you've obviously not spent much time in the company of the hysterical loons who make up Corbyns most vocal support - though I suspect you understand exactly why names don't get bandied about, and it frustrates the shit out of you...


and then sadly all his shit ends up here


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Thanks Rowena. You can go now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Thanks Rowena. You can go now.


good of you to say so, oswald. but i think i'll stick about a bit longer.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>


what job do you do, mikey mikey?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

We have been over this, Rowena. Get back to stacking bookshelves and fining late returns and all that stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> We have been over this, Rowena. Get back to stacking bookshelves and fining late returns and all that stuff.


what job do you do, mikey mikey?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Told you before. Try hard to remember.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Told you before. Try hard to remember.


no, you didn't say. you said you work in education, but that's a sector not a job. what do you do in education, mikey mikey?

oh: and no more lies, please.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>


oh right, so it's fine for you to use my job to have a go at me, but it's beyond the pale for you to reveal what it is you do.

what a right-wing shit you are.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

No, I just don't give a fuck about your feelings, little man.

Go fun yourself, Rowena.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Go fun yourself, Rowena.


can't even spell fuck 

what a sorry excuse for a human being you are.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Do you know what a euphemism is, Rowena?

Gosh, Crikey, Jeez, etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Do you know what a euphemism is, Rowena?


yes, i know what a euphemism is. and that wasn't one.

next.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Yes, it was. And you are thick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yes, it was. And you are thick.




'go fun yourself' is not a euphemism for 'go fuck yourself', not least because it is an advertising slogan for toyota



you're full of fail, mikey mikey.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Not at all.



> Origin of gosh; euphemistic alteration of God



Gosh>God
Jeez>Jesus
Crikey>Christ
Fun>Fuck

As in Cheese n Wine you're a thick fun!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the first three are widely known but i call bullshit on the last one.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

I tried to avoid telling people to fuck off, mainly because I find on political forums that left leaning posters are punished by mods for it while "moderate" posters can be as abusive as they please. So I used the Harry Enfield joke, "go fun your mother" as posted above in the video. I thought most people would get it. And they did. But you, Rowena, refuse to. So from now on, I will be more clear.

Fuck off, Rowena, there's a good thicko.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 12, 2017)

Didn't you say you were a janitor before?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Fuck off, Rowena, there's a good thicko.


oswald, you don't make something true by mere repetition. and you don't win arguments or make yourself look big and clever by telling people to fuck off. and you don't enhance your message by calling men by women's names. and you most certainly don't make yourself look intelligent by fucking up the spelling of 'thick' when you're calling someone stupid.

but carry on, it's no skin off my nose. and like the famous oswald who left the labour party in 1931 i think you'll find your political home somewhere to the right in the near future.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

bi0boy 
No, as it happens. But I respect the occupation of janitor. It is essential, very hard and often thankless work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2017)

caretaker. We always called them caretakers. Or in later life 'steve from estates'


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> oswald, you don't make something true by mere repetition. and you don't win arguments or make yourself look big and clever by telling people to fuck off.



I am glad you have come to this conclusion. Hopefully you will change your behaviour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I am glad you have come to this conclusion. Hopefully you will change your behaviour.




i haven't told you to fuck off. yet.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well, I tried to say "fun off" but you were being deliberately obtuse. But you have been abusive from the start and before you get all magnanimous, these are recent posts of yours.


Pickman's model said:


> Oh fuck off you useless wanker





Pickman's model said:


> Fuck off





Pickman's model said:


> Fuck off and read the fucking post again instead of carrying on and making a twat of yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well, I tried to say "fun off" but you were being deliberately obtuse. But you have been abusive from the start and before you get all magnanimous, these are recent posts of yours.





Pickman's model said:


> i haven't told *you* to fuck off. yet.


for the hard of thinking...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Thanks Rowena, but I had acknowledged that. You still tell other people to fuck off and you are abusive with many, including myself.

Sad really. I wanted to talk about Corbyn, instead I am dealing with Rowena, here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Thanks Rowena, but I had acknowledged that. You still tell other people to fuck off and you are abusive with many, including myself.
> 
> Sad really. I wanted to talk about Corbyn, instead I am dealing with Rowena, here.


oh don't make out how you've been so nastily treated.

you don't want to talk about corbyn.

what you want to do is to discuss potential candidates for the labour leadership.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...left leaning posters...



whats particularly dispiriting, if in no way surprising, is that you have spectacularly failed to grasp the most basic understanding of the politics of the people you're - i assume - trying to persuade.

the overwhelming majority of those criticising Corbyns ability on here come not from the right of the labour party, but from well to the left of Corbyn - that you have somehow managed to miss this and automatically assume its because they are Blairites (really, what kind of moron supports someone who left office 10 years ago..?) tells us only about how limited your view, and understanding, of politics is.

if wanted to know why his fanclub is held in such contempt by all sides, just think about the magnitude of the errors you have consistantly made in attempting to understand and learn from the criticisms of his leadership.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

So kebab, name that candidate.

One name. Waiting.


----------



## Sue (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> But it isn't enough to think we can find a new leader once Jeremy is out of the picture. Luke Akehurst and his band of Red Tories will be all over it *like piss on a Russian prostitute. *



Wtf?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

Sue said:


> Wtf?


it's mikey mikey being edgy


----------



## Sue (Jan 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it's mikey mikey being edgy


'Edgy' isn't quite the word I was looking for...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

Sue said:


> 'Edgy' isn't quite the word I was looking for...


misogynist creep was nearer my feelings about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> hey are Blairites (really, what kind of moron supports someone who left office 10 years ago..?


liz kendall


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Blairites (really, what kind of moron supports someone who left office 10 years ago..?)



Just because Blair left politics 10 years ago, does not mean his ideology, i.e. Blairism, has.

According to the dictionary, proponents of Blairism are referred to as Blairites.

According to the "moderates" in the PLP, Blairites don't even exist, even when they are calling for his return to politics. Not that they really believe that for a minute. They just think people are stupid and deserve to be lied to.

Would you allow Farage to deny being a Thatcherite on the grounds that Maggie has snuffed it? Would you allow the same for a Marxist?

No. Because that is nonesense. 

Members of _Progress _ is what many people refer to as Blairites. You know that, too.

Now what about those names of non-Blairite non-Corbynista candidates?



Pickman's model said:


> misogynist creep was nearer my feelings about it.


So all that talk about trump with prostitutes abd golden showers was not mysogny until I mentioned it?

I will file that away with Trump Supporter, Crypto-Brexiter and Putin Bot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So all that talk about trump with prostitutes abd golden showers was not mysogny until I mentioned it?
> 
> I will file that away with Trump Supporter, Crypto-Brexiter and Putin Bot.


you do that


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

I will, Rowena. I will.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> liz kendall



well, i did cover moron...

she's, of course, not a moron. why she's been a member of the party for the last decade or so might be more of a mystery...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I will, Rowena. I will.


yeh but when? do it now before you forget about it.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Done so. Thanks, Rowena.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Would you allow Farage to deny being a Thatcherite on the grounds that Maggie has snuffed it?


tbh he doesn't seem very keen to deny his admiration for margaret thatcher, so i don't see the point of this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Done so. Thanks, Rowena.


grand, oswald, grand.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> well, i did cover moron...
> 
> she's, of course, not a moron. why she's been a member of the party for the last decade or so might be more of a mystery...



Why single Liz out? There are dozens of Labour MPs in the wrong party. Could it have had something to do with making Labour the equivilant of the US Democrat Party?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh he doesn't seem very keen to deny his admiration for margaret thatcher, so i don't see the point of this.



I wonder, if you tried really hard, whether you could see the point that I was trying to make about the absurdity of the notion put forwards by "moderates"  that Blairites don't exist because Blair is no longer in the HoC?


If you really really tried, could you?

Would you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I wonder, if you tried really hard, whether you could see the point that I was trying to make about the absurdity of the notion put forwards by "moderates"  that Blairites don't exist because Blair is no longer in the HoC?
> 
> 
> If you really really tried, could you?
> ...


yes i can see the point you were trying to make, but you were making a fucking pig's ear of it. you don't do analogies very well: i cannot see the point of using farage as a comparison when he is so very eager to trumpet his admiration of thatcher.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well that is something at least, Pickman. Perhaps I should have written "Would you allow an ex-Labour and now UKIP voter to claim that Farage is not a Thatcher man on the spurious grounds that the old tyrant is now worm food?"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well that is something at least, Pickman. Perhaps I should have written "Would you allow an ex-Labour and now UKIP voter to claim that Farage is not a Thatcher man on the spurious grounds that the old tyrant is now worm food?"


yes, because i believe in free speech. you seem to think the answer should be 'no' because you, by contrast, do not believe in free speech.

next.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

By allow, I meant unchallenged.

Back to Rowena mode. I see.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> By allow, I meant unchallenged.
> 
> Back to Rowena mode. I see.


if you meant unchallenged you should have said unchallenged, oswald.

such a pity you so often find yourself unable to express your meaning at the first attempt.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Why single Liz out?...



because DotCommunist mentioned her specifically?



mikey mikey said:


> ...There are dozens of Labour MPs in the wrong party....



dangerous game - theres a very good argument that Corbyn, McDonnell _et al_ were in the wrong party for 20-odd years (indeed rather more, their views only really mesh with the party of the early to mid 1980's - neither would have got much shrift in the party of Wilson or Callaghan, and certainly not Attlee..), they agreed with pretty much nothing it did, disagreed with pretty much everything it did, and all that while it won 3 elections on the trot (ha! see what i did there..?) and once or twice got to 50% in the opinion polls. 

one day the Corbynites will lose control of the party with the normal ebb and flow of politics, and they may come to regret putting about the idea that MP's are members of the wrong party...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> because DotCommunist mentioned her specifically?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tbh the worst thing about corbyn isn't his politics, it's his shitty management of the party. after more than 40 years as a councillor and mp you'd have thought he'd have gained some understanding of how the labour party leaders controlled the party, controlled policy debates and presentation and managed dissent. yet policy seems to be incoherent and badly presented, policy announcements are all too often rolled back and an air of utter chaos seems to surround the party.

if corbyn was doing a decent job of bringing his party with him then he'd be an excellent leader. but he really doesn't seem to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> because DotCommunist mentioned her specifically?


the mighty 4.5% she achieved in the leadership battle, the first one. looool. It all seems so long ago now


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> one day the Corbynites will lose control of the party with the normal ebb and flow of politics, and they may come to regret putting about the idea that MP's are members of the wrong party...



So you suggested Liz was in the wrong party, and that was okay. Because you are not a "Corbynista". Which, by Blairite logic, none of us will be when Jeremy leaves the HoC.

By the way, you do remember Kinnock's purges, right? And the recent purges of supporters pre-leadership election?

Labour picks fight with Militant Tendency: from the archive, 16 July 1991

Now, about those candidates that are neither Corbynista nor "moderate". How are you getting along with your proposals?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you'd have thought he'd have gained some understanding of how the labour party leaders controlled the party, controlled policy debates and presentation and managed dissent


NEC stitch-up showed some pretty bad politicking- ending up in court over his right to be on the ballot. Surely that was avoidable, but no it happened anyway


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...Now, about those candidates that are neither Corbynista nor "moderate". How are you getting along with your proposals?



i gave you one name, and pointed you in the direction of a 600ft neon sign for the others. none so blind as will not see...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Neon sign? No, names please. Sorry, but to save time could you repeat that one name that you gave. It eludes me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Neon sign? No, names please. Sorry, but to save time could you repeat that one name that you gave. It eludes me.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well perhaps you could point to the name, Pickman?

Much obliged.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well perhaps you could point to the name, Pickman?
> 
> Much obliged.


do it yourself you lazy sod


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

So you aren't sure either, then?

Hmm.


----------



## Argonia (Jan 12, 2017)

Why is pickman calling mikey Oswald and mikey calling pickman rowena?


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2017)

I think it's to make their exchanges even more tedious than they were to begin with.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well I had enough of his crap each time I post.

Don't forget to call for my banning while ignoring the aggressive abusive poster in your midst.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

Argonia said:


> Why is pickman calling mikey Oswald and mikey calling pickman rowena?


don't know where the rowena came from but the oswald's from the sixth baronet mosley.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

Argonia said:


> Why is pickman calling mikey Oswald and mikey calling pickman rowena?



the Rowena thing because mikey mikey thinks Pickmans is going to be wound up or intimidated by being called - and i quote - by a girls name, and Oswald is because Pickman's model ' thinks that Mikeys politics might have a veneer of Leftyism, but in fact go in a very different direction...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the Rowena thing because mikey mikey thinks Pickmans is going to be wound up or intimidated by being called - and i quote - by a girls name, and Oswald is because Pickman's model ' thinks that Mikeys politics might have a veneer of Leftyism, but in fact go in a very different direction...


given yer man's emphasis on the desirability of a homogenous party and loyalty to the leader i think it's on the cards he might opt for er a new party in the next couple of years.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

No, it is from an old sketch entitled Thick People written by Chris Morris. Something that Pickman is keen on calling people he disgarees with.

This is probably the third time I have posted this.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

So kebab. 

That name of your favoured candidate who is neither blairite orcorbynista.

In your own time....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> No, it is from an old sketch entitled Thick People written by Chris Morris. Something that Pickman is keen on calling people he disgarees with.


yeh cos you're no keen on calling anyone thick, are you 

or even thisck


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> No, it is from an old sketch entitled Thick People written by Chris Morris. Something that Pickman is keen on calling people he disgarees with.
> 
> This is probably the third time I have posted this.




calling someone thick, and managing to mispell 'thick' was rather funny - even a humourless Corbynite must see that..?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So kebab.
> 
> That name of your favoured candidate who is neither blairite orcorbynista.
> 
> In your own time....



i have done so - actually the person is a Corbynista (ish) - that you failed to notice it is i'm afraid your problem...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

So you could just type the name rather than this blather, right Kebab?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

i'm sure he could.

if he wanted to.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

And so could you.

And neither of you are.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So you could just type the name rather than this blather, right Kebab?



i could do, but i'm sad to say that writing the persons name would aimost inevitably mean that person and their family being given dogs abuse from Corbyn loons on social media.

thats the state of the party - well done, even the rapey SWP wasn't quite this bad during my (very) short membership of that vile organisation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> And so could you.


yes.

if i wanted to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i could do, but i'm sad to say that writing the persons name would aimost inevitably mean that person and their family being given dogs abuse from Corbyn loons on social media.
> 
> thats the state of the party - well done, even the rapey SWP wasn't quite this bad during my (very) short membership of that vile organisation.


naming no names of course


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i could do, but i'm sad to say that writing the persons name would aimost inevitably mean that person and their family being given dogs abuse from Corbyn loons on social media.



What? 

Your suggestion on the corner of the web in an obscure forum on a site filled with noise and nonsense, could put an MP's family at risk of Corbyn loons?

I hardly think so.

I am nobody and that is all very convenient melodrama.

Sorry. but you have just confirmed thaht you gave no such name, for the very spurious reasons you provided.

I expected more from an "insider".

Utter fantasy.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> "insider".



i don't know why you think i'm an insider - and if you don't understand why i might be hesitant about exposing someone to the dogs of momentum you've obviously not been to a party meeting or read a newspaper in the last 18 months.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

"Dogs" of momentum?  Who exactly coined that? Let me think...

Okay. So you now admit you gave no proposal as an alternative leader and never meant to.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> "Dogs" of momentum?  Who exactly coined that? Let me think...
> 
> Okay. So you now admit you gave no proposal as an alternative leader and never meant to.



i realise that you are actually stupid, like shoelaces being a problem stupid, but i've just checked - and yes, there are names in this thread that i've posted while you've been around.

it pleases me enormously that you support Corbyn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i realise that you are actually stupid, like shoelaces being a problem stupid, but i've just checked - and yes, there are names in this thread that i've posted while you've been around.
> 
> it pleases me enormously that you support Corbyn.


I think lenin's delightful phrase was "thick as pigshit"


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2017)

Mikey Mikey just stop, I don't understand what you are even getting out of this


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2017)

I'm not trying to be unkind I just don't get it


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Still waiting for one, just one, decent proposal for an alternatuve to Corbyn.

It's okay. We can discuss names here.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 12, 2017)

I think a common answer here might resemble _Who cares, fuck Labour, let it die_.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

Well here we have what went on close to home and what the insiders were up to.
All three Brixton Constituency Labour Parties back right wing Liz Kendall to become new party Leader


----------



## kebabking (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...We can discuss names here.



what, in the privacy of the internet?

if you don't understand why people are reticent about naming names then you have no place in the Labour Party. the SWP on the other hand...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

How in holy fuck would your suggestion on here amount to anything?

Get over yourself.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2017)

Momentum in bitter war of words over any move to affiliate with Labour


No one mentioning Lansman's(momentum founder and owner!) coup, seperate conference day after Momentum mk1 has one one in Rugby, OMOV, rotating committe members, everyone has to be LP member, etc.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Still waiting for one, just one, decent proposal for an alternatuve to Corbyn.
> 
> It's okay. We can discuss names here.



Clive Lewis
Angela Rayner


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2017)

Dennis Skinner lol


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 12, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Clive Lewis
> Angela Rayner



 good folks afaik

That took AGES btw


----------



## fuck seals (Jan 13, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Mikey Mikey just stop, I don't understand what you are even getting out of this


mikey mikey as been wanking on about *something* - god knows what - for over 12 hours with no real theme.  get a grip, chap.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 13, 2017)

Cracking council results yesterday for jezza and maybe .Libdems win both -36 % swing from Labour in Sunderland(i know they voted 61% to leave) and 24 per cent in Three Rivers .Just weird.

politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Corbyn’s relaunch week ends with the  LDs taking a LAB council seat in one of its heartlands on a 36% swing


----------



## timeforanother (Jan 13, 2017)

The history of socialism should have taught us at least not to pick petty fights between people who should be bothered about the real wrongs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2017)

timeforanother said:


> The history of socialism should have taught us at least not to pick petty fights between people who should be bothered about the real wrongs.


Eh? Between people who are fussed about the real wrongs, yes. But between people who should be fussed about the real wrongs - but aren't - I'm not so sure. Anyway, who to judge whether socialists' fights are petty or not? You?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Cracking council results yesterday for jezza and maybe .Libdems win both -36 % swing from Labour in Sunderland(i know they voted 61% to leave) and 24 per cent in Three Rivers .Just weird.
> 
> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Corbyn’s relaunch week ends with the  LDs taking a LAB council seat in one of its heartlands on a 36% swing


I see the lib dem taking votes from ukip


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 13, 2017)

fuck seals said:


> mikey mikey as been wanking on about *something* - god knows what - for over 12 hours with no real theme.  get a grip, chap.


I tried but the thread got trashed when it went off-message (i.e. "Corbyn must be replaced by, .....well we'll get to by whom later")
Well let's have a look at your general attitude, shall we?


YouSir said:


> Who will be you be voting for in the leadership election then?





fuck seals said:


> the one i believe will do the best job & by secret ballot.
> 
> piss off.



That's it. 
A simple question and you get very defensive and rude.

Pretty obvious really.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 13, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Cracking council results yesterday for jezza and maybe .Libdems win both -36 % swing from Labour in Sunderland(i know they voted 61% to leave) and 24 per cent in Three Rivers .Just weird.
> 
> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Corbyn’s relaunch week ends with the  LDs taking a LAB council seat in one of its heartlands on a 36% swing


Very interesting in Sunderland. Libdems got a massive swing from labour,  but also gained votes from UKIP and conservatives.
Just had a quick look to see what wearside libdems have been up to. Looks like the lib dem candidate was partly opposing the massive cuts the labour council are making,  saying that they should look at efficiency savings,  fine collection,  and specifically cut councillors dinners and perks first! Also making a big fuss about rats and fly tipping. And the by election was happening because the previous labour councillor had been forced out after not attending any meetings for 6 months.  And labour were accused of running a negative campaign,  and the labour candidate is the husband of one of the current ward councillors. 
So probably won on local issues rather than anything national.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 13, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Very interesting in Sunderland. Libdems got a massive swing from labour,  but also gained votes from UKIP and conservatives.
> Just had a quick look to see what wearside libdems have been up to. Looks like the lib dem candidate was partly opposing the massive cuts the labour council are making,  saying that they should look at efficiency savings,  fine collection,  and specifically cut councillors dinners and perks first! Also making a big fuss about rats and fly tipping. And the by election was happening because the previous labour councillor had been forced out after not attending any meetings for 6 months.  And labour were accused of running a negative campaign,  and the labour candidate is the husband of one of the current ward councillors.
> So probably won on local issues rather than anything national.



Good research


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Very interesting in Sunderland. Libdems got a massive swing from labour,  but also gained votes from UKIP and conservatives.
> Just had a quick look to see what wearside libdems have been up to. Looks like the lib dem candidate was partly opposing the massive cuts the labour council are making,  saying that they should look at efficiency savings,  fine collection,  and specifically cut councillors dinners and perks first! Also making a big fuss about rats and fly tipping. And the by election was happening because the previous labour councillor had been forced out after not attending any meetings for 6 months.  And labour were accused of running a negative campaign,  and the labour candidate is the husband of one of the current ward councillors.
> So probably won on local issues rather than anything national.



Labour run Sunderland like a medieval fiefdom so they should be an easy target. In fairness, though, Lib Dems are playing their usual populist, whatever-you-want-to-hear-in-this-neighbourhood card. No 'efficiency saving' as trivial as the cost of a few lunches, however undeserved and fancy they are, is going to touch the sides of the budget cuts that have been forced on NE urban councils over the last six years or so.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2017)

Corbyn 'won't intervene' in Hilary Benn deselection row - BBC News


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 13, 2017)

*It isn’t that Mr Corbyn – or anybody else – won’t intervene; it’s that they simply don’t have the authority.*


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2017)

If that is the case then it'll be the BBC shitstirring again


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 13, 2017)

In fact they had this very question answered clearly by McDonnell weeks ago.
McDonnell will not intervene in Benn 'deselection bid' - BBC News
So they know fine well what they are doing.

Fake news, indeed.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 13, 2017)

Akkadian said:


> There have been eight by-elections since the 2015 General Election. Conservatives have won 2 Labour 5 and the Lib Dems 1.
> Labour and Corbyn have enjoyed a 100% success rate in by-elections. That's hardly the record of a party or leader  'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.   The by elections in Richmond and Sleaford and North Hykeham  don't tell me anything about Corbyns Labour, other than they are not very competitive in seats in which they have never been very competitive.



Tristram Hunt is gone from Stoke and this may well be cause for concern, especially bearing in mind the type of constituency it is and how well UKIP did last time.
Time will tell.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 13, 2017)

James Connolly would be an effective Corbyn replacement, apart from one obvious difficulty.

its sort of unimportant, but Corby may do better than imagined at the next gen elec, if he manages to hammer away about bigger shoes like the state of the NHS and wealth inequality and homes for youngsters etc.  making the bigger shoes prominent can motivate a class vote - i think.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 15, 2017)

Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Irving is back in the papers- this bit at the end of the article was interesting

"*His new fans, he says, are the same people who in the US are supporting Donald Trump, who he believes will make a good president and “has his heart in the right place”. Though, he says, he is also impressed by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.


“The Labour party is tearing itself apart with these allegations about antisemitism,” he says, “but Corbyn seems like a veryfine man. Maybe it’s because he’s near my age, but I’m impressed by him.”*

Fuckin hell


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 15, 2017)

A majority of the public support Corbyn’s most controversial idea, poll suggests



> *Majority of public support Jeremy Corbyn's plans to cap bosses' salaries, poll suggests*
> Responding to the results, Mr Corbyn told The Independent: ‘Levels of inequality are grotesque and hurt the economy. While establishment commentators slammed our policy for tackling pay inequality, the public support it because they can see the system is rigged’


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2017)

Pretend the rest of the polling results don't exist.

ComRes have a poll in the Independent/Sunday Mirror tonight. The finding that has got the most attention is a question asking who people think would do “a better job at managing the NHS this winter”. 31% of people picked Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, 43% of people picked Theresa May and the Conservatives.
This is a very unusual result. The NHS is, essentially, Labour’s issue of last resort. Whatever happens, however bad things look, the public will almost always say they trust Labour more on the NHS. Over on Ipsos MORI’s website they have data on the question going back to 1978… and you have to go back to 1978 to find the Tories ahead. If you go back to the time of the Brown government when the Conservatives were on a high there were a couple of polls from other companies when the Tories scraped a lead on the NHS, but it is extremely rare. A twelve point Tory lead on the NHS would be unheard of.

...

If the mention of Jeremy Corbyn in a question is enough to make respondents doubt whether they’d trust Labour with the NHS – normally a banker for them – then imagine what he would do to people pondering whether they would trust Labour on the economy, security or whatever.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Pretend the rest of the polling results don't exist.
> 
> ComRes have a poll in the Independent/Sunday Mirror tonight. The finding that has got the most attention is a question asking who people think would do “a better job at managing the NHS this winter”. 31% of people picked Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, 43% of people picked Theresa May and the Conservatives.
> This is a very unusual result. The NHS is, essentially, Labour’s issue of last resort. Whatever happens, however bad things look, the public will almost always say they trust Labour more on the NHS. Over on Ipsos MORI’s website they have data on the question going back to 1978… and you have to go back to 1978 to find the Tories ahead. If you go back to the time of the Brown government when the Conservatives were on a high there were a couple of polls from other companies when the Tories scraped a lead on the NHS, but it is extremely rare. A twelve point Tory lead on the NHS would be unheard of.
> ...



If Corbyn's team could do a deal with the PLP that would ensure a fair shot for a left-wing successor like Lewis or Rayner, I wonder if they would.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 15, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If Corbyn's team could do a deal with the PLP that would ensure a fair shot for a left-wing successor like Lewis or Rayner, I wonder if they would.



Are we talking about a _third _leadership election in the space of 18 or so months?

Have we forgotten that they tried to kick Corbyn off the ballot and have a candidate list of one, the last time? After the last fiasco (bogus accusations, trumped up suspensions and expulsions, writing lies in the Tory press etc.) who the Hell would trust the right-wing PLP? To pay another £25 to then get disenfranchised?

Would the PLP agree? Well Luke Akehurst and Mandleson would relish the chance at exhausting the patience and purse of the membership, not to mention put Labour back in debt with the cost and then blame it on Corbyn. I imagine the press would love it too.

Here's an idea: The PLP members of Progress/Save Labour/Labour First et. al. present it as a proposal to Corbyn and shout about how "fair" a proposal it is because they are letting them have a "lefty" on the candidate list.

If Corbyn's team say no, declare Jeremy a dictator. That should earn a few MPs a penny writing articles about how Corbyn is Mao or whatever in the Mail and Telegraph. Might even get Graunds readership a boost, though they will have to close CiF because "trolls".

If the team accept, declare the "left wing" a mess because they have had to face two leadership challenges in under a year. Then disenfranchise as many mebers as you can and generally discourage the membership until its back down to its manageable levels and everybody who is left of Liz Kendall has fucked off.

Brilliant idea!

Labour will be back in power in 2020, just in time to be "tougher on benefits than the Tories."


----------



## kebabking (Jan 15, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If Corbyn's team could do a deal with the PLP that would ensure a fair shot for a left-wing successor like Lewis or Rayner, I wonder if they would.



I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it was something they'd thought of, and even something they started to go through with - but again, like policy things he agrees with his shadow team and then backs away from, we come back to whether the inner circle can really do compromise or passing the sacred flame on to those who didn't go through what they went through.

It's bunker mentality - the three, Abbott, McDonnell and Corbyn - have been the tightest little group at the arse end of the PLP for thirty years, they are incredibly close personally and politically in large measure because they went through the Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Milliband years as the completely ignored micro-group who kept the faith.

Given what we've seen of Corbyns, when it comes to it, inability to let go even when he's agreed the outcome, I'd not bet on a transition actually going through - rather being called off at the last moment in a flurry of accrimony and accusations of treachery.

The personality cult won't help either...


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 15, 2017)

Kebaking. Apart from the generously permitted "left" like Lewis or Rayner, who would YOU like to see join them as candidates?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it was something they'd thought of, and even something they started to go through with - but again, like policy things he agrees with his shadow team and then backs away from, we come back to whether the inner circle can really do compromise or passing the sacred flame on to those who didn't go through what they went through.
> 
> It's bunker mentality - the three, Abbott, McDonnell and Corbyn - have been the tightest little group at the arse end of the PLP for thirty years, they are incredibly close personally and politically in large measure because they went through the Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Milliband years as the completely ignored micro-group who kept the faith.
> 
> ...



It would also require the PLP not to oppose a decrease in the number of MPs required for leadership nominations, which is something that they have opposed up until now.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Kebaking. Apart from the generously permitted "left" like Lewis or Rayner, who would YOU like to see join them as candidates?


Dan Jarvis. Thanks.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 15, 2017)

Thought he was pretty good this morning on Marr tho he needs to concentrate to be passionate all the way through.

More of that please.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 15, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Dan Jarvis. Thanks.



Well you answered kebaking's question, but I suspect you mean that Mr. Jarvis would be your choice of candidate and that you would, if you could, vote for him.

Well, let's have a lookt at Dan.



> Progress is chaired by Alison McGovern.[16] Its vice-chairs are the Labour MPs Jenny Chapman, Stephen Doughty, Julie Elliott, Tristram Hunt, Dan Jarvis, Liz Kendall, Seema Malhotra, Toby Perkins, Lucy Powell, Steve Reed, Jonathan Reynolds and Nick Smith.



Well what do you know?

Now does that make him a Blairite?



> *Progress* is a ginger group political organisation within the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, founded in 1996. It is broadly viewed as supportive of the New Labour leadership of Tony Blair, a former leader of the party and former prime minister.



butchersapron might tell you such people don't even exist. But there you have it.

Also this.

These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn’t vote against the Tories' welfare bill


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well you answered kebaking's question, but I suspect you mean that Mr. Jarvis would be your choice of candidate and that you would, if you could, vote for him.
> 
> Well, let's have a lookt at Dan.
> 
> ...


Your question was 'who would you like to see join them as a candidate' not 'name some other people who aren't blairites'


----------



## kebabking (Jan 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Kebaking. Apart from the generously permitted "left" like Lewis or Rayner, who would YOU like to see join them as candidates?



Anyone who can manage shoelaces?

Did you read the polling results that butchersapron posted?

Corbyn is less trusted on the NHS than Theresa May - this is a spectacular achievement, akin only to being less trusted on equality issues than Heydrich's and less trusted on women's safety than Peter Sutcliffe.

There are Tory MP's looking at those polling results and asking if ComRes asked a load of Crystal Meth addicts their views - this isn't a policy issue, where time and time again the policy is popular well outside both the Corbynites and Labour, but it's the fatal problem that as soon as you attach the word 'Corbyn' to any policy, idea or principle, the electorate reject it out of hand, even if previously they'd liked it.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 15, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Anyone who can manage shoelaces?



Such as...


----------



## redcogs (Jan 15, 2017)

First principles suggest that Labour will betray the working class core voters whoever is leader, that's been the history.  Corbyn is never going to match the charisma of a Tony Benn as a Left leader, that spark just aint there.  He will know that, and he will certainly realise that the absence of that ingredient is quite undermining (Butchers' stats prove it).  Its therefore essential for the political issues to become central, pushing the class perspective can surely work if its done consistently.  If you are on the Left within Labour, there is nothing else, unless  your hobby is promoting permanent internecine bloodspilling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2017)

Not so good when len mcclusky says after more than a year as leader you're getting better but still on a learning curve


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Such as...


You're out obvs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Dan Jarvis. Thanks.



Because a former Paras officer is just the sort of level-headed intellect you want leading Parliament.

I wouldn't piss on most officers if they were burning.

I wouldn't piss on *any* Para.

Two strikes agin Big Dan.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn insists he's not 'toast' if Labour lose in Copeland and Stoke

In that circumstance if he isn't toast I think the Labour party will be


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 15, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because a former Paras officer is just the sort of level-headed intellect you want leading Parliament.
> 
> I wouldn't piss on most officers if they were burning.
> 
> ...


I feel the same about dickheads on the internet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> I feel the same about dickheads on the internet.



That's nice for you, dear. 

Having had direct experience of the poor quality of the British army's officers, and of the "mad dog on a leash" posturing of members of the Parachute Regt (so big, so tough, when there's a dozen of them and four of you, not so tough when the odds are evens), I feel qualified to comment.   Warrior Dan will be steeped in the mythology of his regt, and it will and does inform his politics.


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> A majority of the public support Corbyn’s most controversial idea, poll suggests



I think his 'populist' style and ideas will begin to get through, but only to a point, his ideas maybe, perhaps not him as a leader: his big stumbling block is his inconsistency on how he comes across on the media(sometime he can be pretty sharp and incisive, then well, last week), but also his attitude to the military and crucially his procrastination on freedom of movement, etc, which he is a true believer in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> I think his 'populist' style and ideas will begin to get through, but only to a point, his ideas mau, perhaps not him as a leader:his big stumbling block is his inconsistency on how he comes across on the media(sometime he can be pretty sharp and incisive, then well, last week), but also his attitude to the military and crucially his procrastination on freedom of movement, etc, which he is a true believer in.


he doesn't have a populist style 
his ideas are not populist 
as you outline he has a number of stumbling blocks. but you seem to see them all as one 
not sure that being a true believer in procrastination on freedom of movement etc is a good thing.

apart from that one of the better posts you've contributed.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

> *J*eremy Corbyn has put income inequality on the agenda. But as I found out, reducing it is hard and is not a priority


A pay cap is not only unworkable, it also detracts from the goal of a fairer society | Will Hutton

Will Hutton there, telling folks that income inequality is not important.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> A pay cap is not only unworkable, it also detracts from the goal of a fairer society | Will Hutton
> 
> Will Hutton there, telling folks that income inequality is not important.


but what do you think?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2017)

treelover said:


> I think his 'populist' style and ideas will begin to get through, but only to a point, his ideas maybe, perhaps not him as a leader: his big stumbling block is his inconsistency on how he comes across on the media(sometime he can be pretty sharp and incisive, then well, last week), but also his attitude to the military and crucially his procrastination on freedom of movement, etc, which he is a true believer in.


Each time I watch him I feel like I am a parent at a school nativity play hoping that my child doesn't fluff his lines


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Each time I watch him I feel like I am a parent at a school nativity play hoping that my child doesn't fluff his lines


and what happens next?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

> the number of Europeans living without enough money to heat their homes or cope with unforeseen expenses, known as “severe material deprivation”, rose by 7.5 million to 50 million people. These are among the 123 million people(1) - almost a quarter of the EU’s population – at risk of living in poverty, while the continent is home to 342 billionaires.



Maybe Oxfam  hadn't "found out" that it is not a priority.
Increasing inequality plunging millions more Europeans into poverty | Oxfam International


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and what happens next?


He says nothing of interest


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

It's a pity that whiz Owen Smith was robbed of his rightful position as Mandleson's puppet!

Who can forget "austerity is right"? Well let's just remind ourselves!


----------



## cantsin (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> I feel the same about dickheads on the internet.



fair enough, not sure anyone was suggesting dickheads on the internet should be leader of the LP though ?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)




----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> He says nothing of interest



He seems to think that becase he REALLY wants to achieve stuff - like ending poverty - it makes him both authentic and appealing to the working classes. His fanclub seem to also think this.

When asked if he has a programme or a plan to achieve his vision it seems to annoy him that such trifling details are even mentioned.

For a pensioner he is quite sulky/pissy imho.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Who would you like to see as his replacement, Smokeandmirrors?

I am sad to say that kebabking, _when asked if he has a programme or a plan to achieve his vision _(i.e. a new leader) _it seems to annoy him that such trifling details are even mentioned.
_
You might not get so evasive and annoyed, however.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Who would you like to see as his replacement, Smokeandmirrors?



i know thay you're a complete cretin who can't read, but i'll give you another opportunity...

there are 231 Labour MP's. 230 of them could do a better job of being Leader of the Opposition than Corbyn, and 229 of them could present a more (to whatever degree) electable, potentially competant face to the electorate as a potential PM.

hope this helps.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

See what I mean? Ask kebabking whom, from out of those 230 other Labout MPs, he would like to see replace Corbyn and he gets all abusive and angry.

And he still won't answer the question. Rather, he starts listing the possible candidates, and not his own preferred ones.

He won't even provide a shortlist of nominees that he would like to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

Anyone remember when we used to get decent, well informed new posters with interesting ideas and experiences? Just when did that stop?


----------



## Supine (Jan 16, 2017)

He just gave you 229 who would do a better job.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

it does seem  like a lot of the trolling commentators from the independents comments sections have started coming here, some even have the same user ID


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Yes, of those 229, would he, or you, _prefer_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> it does seem  like a lot of the trolling commentators from the independents comments sections have started coming here, some even have the same user ID


Oddly enough, i did type out and delete that if i wanted to see that mikey mikey level of post i'd go to the guardian or independent comments sections.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

I sometimes comment on the Guardian CiF, but very rarely, and I have even once or twice on the Indie.

Does that activity make one a troll?

Anyway, ruffneck23, who of the 230 other Labour MPs would you like to see replace Corbyn.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

The silence is very, very telling.

_Corbyn must go!
_
_Replaced by whom?
_​_Mind your own fucking business!_


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

none of your business , you tedious fuck


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Called it!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> The silence is very, very telling.
> 
> _Corbyn must go!
> _
> ...



what the silence because i dont have the time to answer immediately ?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Called it!


well done you, go and have a wank in the mirror


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

I thought you just said, as I predicted you would, that...


ruffneck23 said:


> none of your business , you tedious fuck



Were you just taking your time to call me a tedious fuck?

Or were you trying to think of your preferred leader of the Party because, honestly, you had never once given it a moment's thought?

LOL

​


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

fap fap fap


----------



## teqniq (Jan 16, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> fap fap fap


Here I was reminded of the fabulous line 'the last moped out of nowhere city'


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

_A troll is asking me questions! *sob*_


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 16, 2017)

, oh my ,' i just learnt to cut and paste gifs', as i said well done you , is that jizz in your eye ?


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

Well this is depressing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Well this is depressing.


much like the prospects of the labour left who apparently aren't even trusted with the NHS anymore. Will the last person to leave the party please turn out the lights etc.

and empty the ashtrays you animals


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

What chance of gaining the trust of the Labour Party membership do any of Corbyn's detractors have, if they won't even name one single alternative? It strongly suggests that once Corbyn is out of the way, they want a Hobson's choice of candidates and would welcome a hundred thousand or more people leaving the Party in disgust. If that seems paranoid, just look at how they behaved in the last leadership election.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> much like the prospects of the labour left who apparently aren't even trusted with the NHS anymore. Will the last person to leave the party please turn out the lights etc.
> 
> and empty the ashtrays you animals


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> What chance of gaining the trust of the Labour Party membership do any of Corbyn's detractors have, if they won't even name one single alternative?...



several people have, in response to you asking for the names of alternatives, given you some - as have i - its not our fault that either your comprehension is sub-optimal, or that your witterings are so uninteresting that even you fail to recall them...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> much like the prospects of the labour left who apparently aren't even trusted with the NHS anymore. Will the last person to leave the party please turn out the lights etc.
> 
> and empty the ashtrays you animals


The standard Blairite telling of the period from 1983 to 97 is that they slowly made the party 'electable' and 're-connected' with ordinary people. At one level I object to every element of that story. Some kind of non-dead John Smith* type leader (with clause 4 still in place) would almost certainly have won in 1997 and the people New Labour connected with were the middle class and capital - leaving the working class as assumed voting fodder without representation (and look where that's got us). Same time, I sometimes take an almost malicious pleasure in saying that the New Labour project was _highly successful_ and followed the logic of the system (electoral and neo-liberal).  The unfortunate thing is that every bit of that success has been success for the other side and has further weakened the, admittedly conservative, channels of communication between the working class and labour movement.  It was a perfect storm, destroying the village to 'save it'.  And that's part of Corbyn's problem, it's a revivalist social democratic movement based not on labourism or any real incursion into the working class, but Momentum.

Sorry, that meandered, but it does really feel as bad as you say. It's not so much that you can't imagine what a social democratic movement would look like today (to be honest I'm not sure I can given that it would have to be built within neo-liberalism) but you can't imagine who Corbyn/Labour are able to even talk to about it.

* Smith was an important staging post on the journey to new-lab, I'm just being charitable in not including him as part of the 'project'.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

kebabking said:


> several people have, in response to you asking for the names of alternatives, given you some - as have i - its not our fault that either your comprehension is sub-optimal, or that your witterings are so uninteresting that even you fail to recall them...



Quote it or GTFO!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The standard Blairite telling of the period from 1983 to 97 is that they slowly made the party 'electable' and 're-connected' with ordinary people. At one level I object to every element of that story. Some kind of non-dead John Smith* type leader (with clause 4 still in place) would almost certainly have won in 1997 and the people New Labour connected with were the middle class and capital - leaving the working class as assumed voting fodder without representation (and look where that's got us). Same time, I sometimes take an almost malicious pleasure in saying that the New Labour project was _highly successful_ and followed the logic of the system (electoral and neo-liberal).  The unfortunate thing is that every bit of that success has been success for the other side and has further weakened the, admittedly conservative, channels of communication between the working class and labour movement.  It was a perfect storm, destroying the village to 'save it'.  And that's part of Corbyn's problem, it's a revivalist social democratic movement based not on labourism or any real incursion into the working class, but Momentum.
> 
> Sorry, that meandered, but it does really feel as bad as you say. It's not so much that you can't imagine what a social democratic movement would look like today (to be honest I'm not sure I can given that it would have to be built within neo-liberalism) but you can't imagine who Corbyn/Labour are able to even talk to about it.
> 
> * Smith was an important staging post on the journey to new-lab, I'm just being charitable in not including him as part of the 'project'.


I've just about remembered the point I was supposed to be making there: however much he's been fucked over by the Labour right, circumstances and all that, Corbyn chooses to do electoral politics. And by the unforgiving logic of that, he/momentum/the labour left are failing and have no obvious route to even get back into the game.  But part of the reason he/they are fucked is the way New Labour undermined the ability of future labour lefts to build anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Quote it or GTFO!


Just gtfo


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> it's a revivalist social democratic movement based not on labourism or any real incursion into the working class, but Momentum.


I can't be the only person to have noticed the irony of a grouping called momentum who had it and have yet to capitalise on it. Thats not to knock people, the people making labour the largest party in europe and genuinley wanting a real alternative. But its Labour. Even its left aren't us. The disconect of 'politics as done to us rather than by us' is still glaring. And for all his charmingly elbow patched marrow growing labour leftism of the old school, corbyn isn't winning. If he did, if he had the big chair tomorrow and pressed forth with his policies. Well. Every dirty trick in the book would be used and they'd do a wilson/syzria job on him. _Harsh realities. _If anything watching the number done on even mild left electoral alternatives has firmed up my view that there is but one path (one solution!). We kill them all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn chooses to do electoral politics. And by the unforgiving logic of that


aye cross posted as you responded. You'd think getting to mid 30s one would know what waste that game is. But I still had some hopes. Foolish as they seem now.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He seems to think that becase he REALLY wants to achieve stuff - like ending poverty - it makes him both authentic and appealing to the working classes. His fanclub seem to also think this.
> 
> When asked if he has a programme or a plan to achieve his vision it seems to annoy him that such trifling details are even mentioned.
> 
> For a pensioner he is quite sulky/pissy imho.


What we need is a left wing John Prescott


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Ultimately, it is the British people that are fucked. Well the majority of them anyway. I am starting to think that a second Scottish Independence referendum is the only way to stop the English dragging the Scottish down with them. Hopefully the Welsh can flee too!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I've just about remembered the point I was supposed to be making there: however much he's been fucked over by the Labour right, circumstances and all that, *Corbyn chooses to do electoral politics*. And by the unforgiving logic of that, he/momentum/the labour left are failing and have no obvious route to even get back into the game.  But part of the reason he/they are fucked is the way New Labour undermined the ability of future labour lefts to build anything.



Unconvinced he has any 'choice' to do anything else, does he?

I'd agree with you that his prospects down the electoral route look pretty grim at the moment, but does he have any other route? Realistically?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 16, 2017)

Jeremy has been like a breath of fresh air. He's a bit like a football manager who has taken over an ailing, recently relegated sleeping giant of a club. He just needs a bit of time and patience from the fans and to make a few more changes to the team. In Abbot, Mcdonnell and a couple of the younger Mps he's got the spine of a really formidable team. Keep the faith. Jezwecan.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Unconvinced he has any 'choice' to do anything else, does he?
> 
> I'd agree with you that his prospects down the electoral route look pretty grim at the moment, but does he have any other route? Realistically?


No, I agree.  Electoral politics is what he does, it's all he knows and he couldn't become anything else. I wasn't making some ultra-left point, just noting that if that's what he does he has to be judged by the logic of that dirty game.  My day dream when he was elected was that with the influx into the party they might have at least _tried_ to build something outside of it, linking to communities, fighting austerity. Mind I've also been banging on about _why_ he/Momentum haven't done that.  Not only do they have a focus on the inner party shite and battles, but they also have no way of working in working class communities.  But given that the old channels of labourism have atrophied, there's not much left.  And the irony is as DC said, this is a party with over 400,000 members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> No, I agree.  Electoral politics is what he does, it's all he knows and he couldn't become anything else. I wasn't making some ultra-left point, just noting that if that's what he does he has to be judged by the logic of that dirty game.  My day dream when he was elected was that with the influx into the party they might have at least _tried_ to build something outside of it, linking to communities, fighting austerity. Mind I've also been banging on about _why_ he/Momentum haven't done that.  Not only do they have a focus on the inner party shite and battles, but they also have no way of working in working class communities.  But given that the old channels of labourism have atrophied, there's not much left.  And the irony is as DC said, this is a party with over 400,000 members.


I've been asking over and over on here since the first election, what have you done internally, what are your plans? Nothing, not an answer, not one. Now we have idiots shoutily supporting corbyn who aren't even in the party. (And putting off people from voting labour if they ever went on the knocker). Again, i think it's just paper talk though. The chance was there and it wasn't taken. The plan/idea/hope that had been the whole and sole idea since the early 80s.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jan 16, 2017)

fiannanahalba said:


> Jeremy has been like a breath of fresh air. He's a bit like a football manager who has taken over an ailing, recently relegated sleeping giant of a club. He just needs a bit of time and patience from the fans and to make a few more changes to the team. In Abbot, Mcdonnell and a couple of the younger Mps he's got the spine of a really formidable team. Keep the faith. Jezwecan.



Actual lol

Edit: that's a windup right?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Actual lol
> 
> Edit: that's a windup right?



Who was your choice last leadership election> Angela Godawful Eagle or Owen Austerity-is-right Smith?

Not like you will answer, if you're like the rest of the Shy Red Tories.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Who was your choice last leadership election> Angela Godawful Eagle or Owen Austerity-is-right Smith?
> 
> Not like you will fucking answer, if you're like the rest of the Shy Red Tories.



I'll answer you pillock. None of them. None of them were/are electable in a general election.

The Tories will enjoy an open goal and continue dismantling Britain's public services for as long as it takes for this fuckwit to stand down. And please. Never call me a Tory again.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

Just found Labour has about _515,000_ individual members, plus affiliates and supporters (£25 quidders).  On average, that's over 750 individual members per constituency, more than half of which joined up since 2015 - and mostly pro-Corbyn.  And whilst nothing like that number are ever going to 'do' something, or will do something at the same time, it's still a fucking load of people who were apparently enthused enough to join up in the last 18 months.  For a lot of them it looks to have been not much more than 'clicktivism plus the odd meeting' but fucking hell, there should have been enough there to launch/build _something_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Just found Labour has about _515,000_ individual members, plus affiliates and supporters (£25 quidders).  On average, that's over 750 per constituency, more than half of which joined up since 2015 - and mostly pro-Corbyn.  And whilst nothing like that number are ever going to 'do' something, or will do something at the same time, it's still a fucking load of people who were apparently enthused enough to join up in the last 18 months.  For a lot of them it looks to have been not much more than 'clicktivism plus the odd meeting' but fucking hell, there should have been enough there to launch/build _something_.


There is. A failure on a scale never previously seen.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Just found Labour has about _515,000_ individual members, plus affiliates and supporters (£25 quidders).  On average, that's over 750 individual members per constituency, more than half of which joined up since 2015 - and mostly pro-Corbyn.  And whilst nothing like that number are ever going to 'do' something, or will do something at the same time, it's still a fucking load of people who were apparently enthused enough to join up in the last 18 months.  For a lot of them it looks to have been not much more than 'clicktivism plus the odd meeting' but fucking hell, there should have been enough there to launch/build _something_.



Enthusiasm mostly poured into a vast black hole of scorn, cynicism and political manoeuvring. And if/when it collapses and the membership walks away that'll be that. Best to be hoped for is that some good people met some good people and go on to do something good in the future. That said I'm still a member, so what do I know.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2017)

One mild positive from all those members though, from the LP's point of view, is that a fair few of them could be encouraged to do some by-election foot slogging. It's not much, but that could work better than when membership levels were declining to rock bottom a few years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> One mild positive from all those members though, from the LP's point of view, is that a fair few of them could be encouraged to do some by-election foot slogging. It's not much, but that could work better than when membership levels were declining to rock bottom a few years ago.


All the indications are that this is exactly what they haven't done. They've done the internet socialism bit and that's it


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> All the indications is that this is exactly what they haven't done.



Labour or the members? My experience locally is that those who've held the reigns of power (if you can call local ward positions power) have actively sought to cut new members off from involvement in campaigning. While new members who're active have more or less gone off to organise amongst themselves. Like I said, a black hole for enthusiasm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Labour or the members? My experience locally is that those who've held the reigns of power (if you can call local ward positions power) have actively sought to cut new members off from involvement in campaigning. While new members who're active have more or less gone off to organise amongst themselves. Like I said, a black hole for enthusiasm.


Members. What have the new members been up to? Is it organising to change labour at all? Other than holding membership what's the labour party component to this?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> One mild positive from all those members though, from the LP's point of view, is that a fair few of them could be encouraged to do some by-election foot slogging. It's not much, but that could work better than when membership levels were declining to rock bottom a few years ago.


Yeah, though I don't see it going well for Labour in Copeland or Stoke.  But yes, Labour _should_ be able to flood the area with canvassers and get large numbers into communities and town centres.  Trouble is, even if they do, what will they _say_ to ex Labour voting (and Brexit minded) working class voters in those areas?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> The Tories will enjoy an open goal and continue dismantling Britain's public services for as long as it takes for this fuckwit to stand down.


_Corbyn must go and we'll arrange a leader on your behalf behind closed doors._


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Members. What have the new members been up to? Is it organising to change labour at all other than holding membership?



Talking locally? There were organised attempts to shift the balance of ward and CLP power with the hope that it would reflect upwards too. Also attempts to raise and push issues that weren't being addressed. They failed, at least they have so far. Generally through a mix of bullying, inertia, selective ignorance and exploitation of various positions. A lot of people who were fired up were driven off by that, for reasons you'll probably understand given your focus on more immediate self-organisation. It's one thing to fight an enemy you can actively appoint to, another to just be crippled by a structure which seems immovable and is dominated by a careerist/hobbyist handful.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, though I don't see it going well for Labour in Copeland or Stoke.  But yes, Labour _should_ be able to flood the area with canvassers and get large numbers into communities and town centres.  Trouble is, even if they do, what will they _say_ to ex Labour voting (and Brexit minded) working class voters in those areas?



Either whatever they want to be true of the party once their centrist narrative reasserts control or, ime, _I know Labour has a lot of bastards, but we're trying to change it_. Neither is a massive winner.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Either whatever they want to be true of the party once their centrist narrative reasserts control or, ime, _I know Labour has a lot of bastards, but we're trying to change it_. Neither is a massive winner.



That said there _are_ good people involved who do have the ability to change peoples minds, they might just have to do it at the doors of the 'broad church' rather than inside it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Talking locally? There were organised attempts to shift the balance of ward and CLP power with the hope that it would reflect upwards too. Also attempts to raise and push issues that weren't being addressed. They failed, at least they have so far. Generally through a mix of bullying, inertia, selective ignorance and exploitation of various positions. A lot of people who were fired up were driven off by that, for reasons you'll probably understand given your focus on more immediate self-organisation. It's one thing to fight an enemy you can actively appoint to, another to just be crippled by a structure which seems immovable and is dominated by a careerist/hobbyist handful.


When i was  member those structures were asserted as the history of the labour movement - _don't you understand what you're challenging? _And so on. And so must exist in the future. It suited variously, blairites and bevanites - but it made sure all internal opposition was doomed from the start. So we went off and did our own thing.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> One mild positive from all those members though, from the LP's point of view, is that a fair few of them could be encouraged to do some by-election foot slogging. It's not much, but that could work better than when membership levels were declining to rock bottom a few years ago.



i'm not sure thats true - i don't know about CLP's well away from where i am, but no one i know is reporting more than a tiny trickle, and i mean single figures, and half the time fingers on one hand single figures, of people coming into the foot-slogging, knocking on doors, putting leaflets through letterboxes on a wet thursday evening glamour of local politics.

theres a larger group happy to turn up to the odd meeting and have a shouting match with longer standing members, but even that group isn't large, and certainly isn't interested in doing any of the tedious stuff like doing the accounts, writing the minutes, booking function rooms and doing catering, or, indeed anything.

there were several wards that didn't get a single leaflet drop at the last local elections, in a city of about 100,000 there were less than 20 who were prepared to walk around for an hour putting leaflets in letterboxes - the post-Corbyn surge should have given upwards of 500+ 'energetic and keen to be involved' members, not least from the student population, but neither hide nor hair...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _Corbyn must go and we'll arrange a leader on your behalf behind closed doors._


If you can't get a goal against the feeble Reiabuzz you should pack up and fuck off


----------



## YouSir (Jan 16, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> When i was  member those structures were asserted as the history of the labour movement - _don't you understand what you're challenging? _And so on. And so must exist in the future. It suited variously, blairites and bevanites - but it made sure all internal opposition was doomed from the start. So we went off and did our own thing.



Yep, sounds right. New crop of people learning that lesson now though, some are going off and doing things themselves, others are just switching off. That's an ongoing process either way, I don't know what, if anything, major will come out of it in the long run although I can see some people I know setting a good pace.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

In some ways I'm being naïve asking the 'what the fuck are they doing' question. I was part of the labour left in the 80s and you found yourself fighting bureaucratic politics with yet more resolutionary bureaucratic politics.  It's not something any little group of social democrats and/or leftists can easily solve at any particular ward level (but at the constituency level, hmm... maybe).  It's bureaucracy as  barrier, both as a mindset and also a set of structures you have to change the party through. Same time, it really is a legitimate question to ask.  This was it, this was the surge, the numbers, the victory in the party.  There should have been _momentum_ to work round the careerists and actually do something.  I'd be interested to know if there have been initiatives that _have_ succeeded where members just got on and did it, just ignored the need to go through several stages of resolutions and votes?


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 16, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's nice for you, dear.
> 
> Having had direct experience of the poor quality of the British army's officers, and of the "mad dog on a leash" posturing of members of the Parachute Regt (so big, so tough, when there's a dozen of them and four of you, not so tough when the odds are evens), I feel qualified to comment.   Warrior Dan will be steeped in the mythology of his regt, and it will and does inform his politics.


Yep, I think the readers do understand you are still working through personal issues in relation to your experiences with military types.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Yep, I think the readers do understand you are still working through personal issues in relation to your experiences with military types.


Why bother coming here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Yep, I think the readers do understand you are still working through personal issues in relation to your experiences with military types.


what have your experiences with 'military types' been like?


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yes, of those 229, would he, or you, _prefer_?


This is infantile; you get someone to say a name then you .. well, we know that game from school.

You have already been told; there is an eligibility pool of 230 - unless Corbyn starts to sound like a leader, and then a leader with a clear vision, next year it will be time to move on. Let's see then who is up for it.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 16, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why bother coming here?


Who the fuck are you, and what has it got to do with you. Silly bollocks.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what have your experiences with 'military types' been like?


LOL. Would you be the resident creepy person.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> LOL. Would you be the resident creepy person.


i would consider it if you asked nicely.


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2017)

kebabking said:


> there were several wards that didn't get a single leaflet drop at the last local elections, in a city of about 100,000 there were less than 20 who were prepared to walk around for an hour putting leaflets in letterboxes - the post-Corbyn surge should have given upwards of 500+ 'energetic and keen to be involved' members, not least from the student population, but neither hide nor hair...



Several wards? I've lived in my area for years in two different wards/constituencies through general/council/Mayoral/London Assembly elections (and a couple of council by elections) and I've never received a leaflet from Labour that's been delivered by a party activist. The only leaflet I've ever received from them was delivered by Royal Mail at the last mayoral election.

Safe Labour seat, Labour run council, they obviously can't be arsed even trying to look like they can be arsed.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 16, 2017)

The successful party for the last few decades has been the one that can most effectively identify the few thousand swing voters in key marginals who actually decide elections, identify the issues that concern them, then pour all available resources into targetting them to the exclusion of everyone else.

This specialised form of market research costs a lot of money, so you can't really do it without a bunch of dodgy millionaires onside.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Yep, I think the readers do understand you are still working through personal issues in relation to your experiences with military types.



*I* think that they understand something entirely different.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> next year it will be time to move on. Let's see then who is up for it.



So no idea at all who will replace Corbyn until _after _he has resigned?

Pretty obvious stitch up. You must think people are really fkn thick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So no idea at all who will replace Corbyn until _after _he has resigned?
> 
> Pretty obvious stitch up. You must think people are really fkn thick.


He's right in your case


----------



## cantsin (Jan 16, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i know thay you're a complete cretin who can't read, but i'll give you another opportunity...
> 
> there are 231 Labour MP's. 230 of them could do a better job of being Leader of the Opposition than Corbyn, and 229 of them could present a more (to whatever degree) electable, potentially competant face to the electorate as a potential PM.
> 
> hope this helps.



Dream team: Ian Austen as leader,  Mike Gapes as shadow chancellor, Jess Phillips foreign sec, John Rentoul press sec


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yes, of those 229, would he, or you, _prefer_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Dream team: Ian Austen as leader,  Mike Gapes as shadow chancellor, Jess Phillips foreign sec, John Rentoul press sec


Gapes is is to the right of any other member. All he has is his overdone accent


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So no idea at all who will replace Corbyn until _after _he has resigned?
> 
> Pretty obvious stitch up. You must think people are really fkn thick.


Yep, and I know the Grand National winner as well. 

Muppet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Yep, and I know the Grand National winner as well.
> 
> Muppet.


Careful, almost said something there. Danger averted though.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2017)

fiannanahalba said:


> Jeremy has been like a breath of fresh air. He's a bit like a football manager who has taken over an ailing, recently relegated sleeping giant of a club. He just needs a bit of time and patience from the fans and to make a few more changes to the team. In Abbot, Mcdonnell and a couple of the younger Mps he's got the spine of a really formidable team. Keep the faith. Jezwecan.


I'd rather have Big Sam tbh


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> I'd rather have Big Sam tbh


Though Allardyce is the only one of the two of them who looks like he'd enjoy eating a bag of crisps while taking a shit.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 16, 2017)




----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Though Allardyce is the only one of the two of them who looks like he'd enjoy eating a bag of crisps while taking a shit.


That's exactly the sort of thing that would boost Labour in the polls. Read somewhere that out of the five key issues they don't lead in any of them.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2017)

Libertad said:


>


I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree pinched that off some website.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> That's exactly the sort of thing that would boost Labour in the polls. Read somewhere that out of the five key issues they don't lead in any of them.


Actually, we should get some Nigel Farage's Pint ideas together for Labour, particularly after Owen Smith's "I fookin 'ate poncey coffee me" didn't work out. Maybe even pitch some TV ideas to Channel 5?

Hilary Benn's Twerk Your Way to Fitness
Hazel Blears, My UFC Journey
Prescott and Mandy Go Dogging


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Actually, we should get some Nigel Farage's Pint ideas together for Labour, particularly after Owen Smith's "I fookin 'ate poncey coffee me" didn't work out. Maybe even pitch some TV ideas to Channel 5?
> 
> Hilary Benn's Twerk Your Way to Fitness
> Hazel Blears, My UFC Journey
> Prescott and Mandy Go Dogging




Harman's Homes- property porn show in which harman shows the viewers round the houses of the great and the good in the labour party, inviting the viewer to judge their bookshelves and taste in general. Think Through the Keyhole but shitter


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 17, 2017)

Netflix serialisation of the Cinema film about the Krays.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 17, 2017)

How about_ Strictly Henry Jackson Society _?Jim Murphy with Gisela Stuart and  Chris Bryant with Magaret Becket pair up in their glad rags and show that it's not just Ed Balls who can make a complete tit of himself on national television for the amusement of Little England. The guest star this week is Beitbart's managing editor Rasheem Kassan, an Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, who will be teaching them the how to do the  Islamaphoblay. As usual the delightful Ben Bradshaw will be the co-host along with the lovely Meg Munn.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Netflix serialisation of the Cinema film about the Krays.




Dunno why Fat Tom is seen this way -Mafia he aint.Bit like Nick Brown -people see what they want to see.

Anyway given that Benn doesnt want the leadership then Starmer ,with the Brexit brief,will be in the public eye for the next five years at least .What could go wrong for him.?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 17, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Dunno why Fat Tom is seen this way -Mafia he aint.Bit like Nick Brown -people see what they want to see.
> 
> Anyway given that Benn doesnt want the leadership then Starmer ,with the Brexit brief,will be in the public eye for the next five years at least .What could go wrong for him.?


Tom allowed thousands of members to support him in his bid for Deputy only for him to call them "thugs". So I put that down to Karma.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Harman's Homes- property porn show in which harman shows the viewers round the houses of the great and the good in the labour party, inviting the viewer to judge their bookshelves and taste in general. Think Through the Keyhole but shitter


_"So, let's review the evidence: a receipt for a plug, a replacement toilet seat and a porn subscription for the gentleman of the house. Who lives in a flipped second home like this?"_


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> How about_ Strictly Henry Jackson Society _?Jim Murphy with Gisela Stuart and  Chris Bryant with Magaret Becket pair up in their glad rags and show that it's not just Ed Balls who can make a complete tit of himself on national television for the amusement of Little England. The guest star this week is Beitbart's managing editor Rasheem Kassan, an Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, who will be teaching them the how to do the  Islamaphoblay. As usual the delightful Ben Bradshaw will be the co-host along with the lovely Meg Munn.



Meg Munn isn't even an MP anymore.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 17, 2017)

treelover said:


> Meg Munn isn't even an MP anymore.


Neither is Ed Balls. What's your point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Neither is Ed Balls. What's your point?


you've cocked it up *again*


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 17, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Dunno why Fat Tom is seen this way -Mafia he aint.Bit like Nick Brown -people see what they want to see.
> 
> Anyway given that Benn doesnt want the leadership then Starmer ,with the Brexit brief,will be in the public eye for the next five years at least .What could go wrong for him.?



For a posh lawyer type Starmer doesn't exude confidence or gravitas. 

So I expect he is a shoe-in.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Tom allowed thousands of members to support him in his bid for Deputy only for him to call them "thugs". So I put that down to Karma.



As I said people see what they want to see-he worked in no10,then at the aeeu and amicus -appointed there by ken jackson.So yes smart move taking on murdoch and alleged no10 paedophile ring and he became close to LenMc and Karie Murphy but never on the left .


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 17, 2017)

I respect his achievements but he seems to have sold out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I respect his achievements but he seems to have sold out.


when was he a true believer mikey? when?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Dream team: Ian Austen as leader,  Mike Gapes as shadow chancellor, Jess Phillips foreign sec, John Rentoul press sec



Jess Phillips as Foreign Secretary? That's on par with appointing Prince Phil the Greek as ambassador to the Peoples' Republic of China!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jess Phillips as Foreign Secretary? That's on par with appointing Prince Phil the Greek as ambassador to the Peoples' Republic of China!!!


Phil the german. Philip battenberg


----------



## cantsin (Jan 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jess Phillips as Foreign Secretary? That's on par with appointing Prince Phil the Greek as ambassador to the Peoples' Republic of China!!!



was attempting to be funny...and failing, obvs


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 17, 2017)

cantsin said:


> was attempting to be funny...and failing, obvs


I appreciate the effort , but not sure it's worth it when the thread has descended into one long private joke.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2017)

Another strong performance on the may speach. Not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2017)

cantsin said:


> was attempting to be funny...and failing, obvs



Funny peculiar, maybe!!!


----------



## Raheem (Jan 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Another strong performance on the may speach. Not.



There was a point in his bbc interview today where I found myself only being able to make an educated guess as to what he was talking about.

Imagine that. Even me.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Another strong performance on the may speach. Not.


Do you have a link to it?


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 18, 2017)

Here's an interview that draws attention to the inconsitency in May's proposal.
Jeremy Corbyn has responded to Theresa May's Brexit speech



> “I am not quite sure how that is going to go down in Europe ... She seems to be wanting to have her cake and eat it.”



He adds



> “This speech should have been given in Parliament where MPs could ask her questions on behalf of their constituents. She talks about Brexit restoring parliamentary sovereignty but, once again, she is determined to avoid real scrutiny of her plans.”


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Another strong performance on the may speach. Not.



That was his first bad PMQs for at least six months.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Another strong performance on the may speach. Not.



its been widely reported that JC's had good PMQs vs May week after weeks for months - cldnt personally give a feck either way particularly, but why bother implying otherwise ?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 18, 2017)

agricola said:


> That was his first bad PMQs for at least six months.





cantsin said:


> its been widely reported that JC's had good PMQs vs May week after weeks for months - cldnt personally give a feck either way particularly, but why bother implying otherwise ?



Supine wasn't talking about Corbyns PMQ's performance - evidenced by the fact that the comment was posted long before either of them walked into Parliament today - it was his dismal response to May's speech...

His PMQ display was no better - not that it mattered a great deal after yesterday's performance by May - it is of course worth recalling William Hagues regular trouncing of Blair at PMQ's, he was an excellent commons performer who got nowhere against Blair, whereas Corbyn is at best mediocre.

'Wasn't as shit as he has been' is not a great accolade, even when it's only one he can get.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 18, 2017)

The shit thing about Corbyn isn't his 'performance' in PMQs it's his silence on Labour councils attacking people.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Supine wasn't talking about Corbyns PMQ's performance - evidenced by the fact that the comment was posted long before either of them walked into Parliament today - it was his dismal response to May's speech...



point taken / apols on that


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

YouGov |  Voting Intention: Conservatives 42%, Labour 25%

Jan 19ths' results...







Owen Smith, Blairites etc...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> YouGov |  Voting Intention: Conservatives 42%, Labour 25%
> 
> Jan 19ths' results...
> 
> ...


i thought we were living in an era in which we treated opinion polls with the disdain they deserve


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought we were living in an era in which we treated opinion polls with the disdain they deserve



Yep, 17% margin of error. Steady as she goes. MAKE ALLOTMENTS GREAT AGAIN.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 19, 2017)

The worst thing of all the shitty things going on right now is how much the Tories must be enjoying it all, they're getting such an easy ride from the country. Electoral politics must feel to them at the moment a bit like playing croquet with a bunch of people who keep smashing themselves in the face with their mallets.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2017)

read earlier that the two Momentum factions basically, well ones stitched the other up by my eye- bureaucratic coup. Here: 
The Battle for Momentum: What Just Happened? | Novara Media


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> read earlier that the two Momentum factions basically, well ones stitched the other up by my eye- bureaucratic coup. Here:
> The Battle for Momentum: What Just Happened? | Novara Media



How incredibly surprising.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> How incredibly surprising.



i know, astonishing isn't it - who could have forecast that throwing a disparate bunch of lefties together in a personality cult could ever have resulted in a split?

perhaps some well known comedy act should make a sketch about it...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought we were living in an era in which we treated opinion polls with the disdain they deserve


Well, yes, but at the general 2015 election we discovered Labour's position in the polls had been _overstated_.  I'm not suggesting that's happening here - not sure Labour's figures _could_ be much lower - but the incompetence of the pollsters shouldn't give Corbyn false hopes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i know, astonishing isn't it - who could have forecast that throwing a disparate bunch of lefties together in a personality cult could ever have resulted in a split?
> 
> perhaps some well known comedy act should make a sketch about it...


article suggests to me its those who see Momentum only as a labour vehicle vs those who'd been in it for more grassroots and widely focused aims


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> read earlier that the two Momentum factions basically, well ones stitched the other up by my eye- bureaucratic coup. Here:
> The Battle for Momentum: What Just Happened? | Novara Media


In answer to the question I and Butchers were asking earlier, we at least now know where Momentum members have been expending their energies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In answer to the question I and Butchers were asking earlier, we at least now know where Momentum members have been expending their energies.


self-abuse


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> article suggests to me its those who see Momentum only as a labour vehicle vs those who'd been in it for more grassroots and widely focused aims


it's stalinists/old labour vs trots.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> article suggests to me its those who see Momentum only as a labour vehicle vs those who'd been in it for more grassroots and widely focused aims


I know I'm being very hard on them, to some extent if you join an organisation and find there's another group in there with an opposing view, you are forced into battling them. But the problem seems to me that those who want grass roots activism end up not doing it because they get dragged into fighting those who don't.  Ultimately though, that's what's shit about it.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's stalinists/old labour vs trots.


I'm not well enough up on momentum to know the precise line up of forces, but it does have that feel to it.  I get the impression that if you wound this back to the 80s, some of the old labour types in momentum would have been voting to expel the trots.  Irony is, they are both now part of an organisation that the Labour right has accused of being _entryist_.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 19, 2017)

It's about both of the divisions discussed above, I think: old divisions of the left had already surfaced and started fucking with Momentum to the point where (from what I've heard - I'm not directly involved) it sounded doomed long before this 'coup', which seems to be more about the PLP and their supporters trying to shut the rest up, again.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's stalinists/old labour vs trots.



A battle for the soul of the cobweb left.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 19, 2017)

Momentum is as irrelevant now as most fractured Left wing groups, participation in whatever it is they're doing is way down and from some of the votes I've heard about they may as well just grab a table in a pub and argue it out for all the rest of the world cares. On the plus side though I think most of the more canny people who wanted it to be a grassroots organising thing are already walking away from it and just doing that, under the banner of Labour where they can. My experience at least.

I'm still a member myself, technically, if only because I haven't remembered to leave but as far as I could judge it's main use was/is as a way of mobilising support during leadership campaigns. It's not much cop for anything else. On the local level I'm aware of most organisation is happening informally through people just knowing who's sound and who isn't and reaching out from there, small, open meetings and the like. A good thing I reckon, never seems to lead to any cultish splits at least and even if the outcomes haven't been uniformly great there's definitely solid connections forming that way.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's stalinists/old labour vs trots.



More or less the voting public's dream team. Carry on!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian).  Seems like a slight hostage to fortune as the deal on offer at that point might not be too grand, though it was probably his only option.  Otherwise he gets painted as opposing the will of the people. Same time its probably going to be the next battle he has with the Labour right.


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Momentum is as irrelevant now as most fractured Left wing groups, participation in whatever it is they're doing is way down and from some of the votes I've heard about they may as well just grab a table in a pub and argue it out for all the rest of the world cares. On the plus side though I think most of the more canny people who wanted it to be a grassroots organising thing are already walking away from it and just doing that, under the banner of Labour where they can. My experience at least.
> 
> I'm still a member myself, technically, if only because I haven't remembered to leave but as far as I could judge it's main use was/is as a way of mobilising support during leadership campaigns. It's not much cop for anything else. On the local level I'm aware of most organisation is happening informally through people just knowing who's sound and who isn't and reaching out from there, small, open meetings and the like. A good thing I reckon, never seems to lead to any cultish splits at least and even if the outcomes haven't been uniformly great there's definitely solid connections forming that way.




There is much more going on than that, Greater Manchester Momentum hosted 3 showings of IDB with over 600 applying for tickets, 60 people attended the last pre conf meeting here, but yes its the usual suspects effing things up.


----------



## Supine (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian)



Sell out shite bag. He wanted remain, he has made no effort to get in the way of brexit. It really is embarrassing.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

Supine said:


> Sell out shite bag. He wanted remain, he has made no effort to get in the way of brexit. It really is embarrassing.


Well, he _wanted_ brexit, but ended up campaigning (sort of) for remain.  But after the vote what else could he say/do?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> There is much more going on than that, Greater Manchester Momentum hosted 3 showings of IDB with over 600 applying for tickets, 60 people attended the last pre conf meeting here, but yes its the usual suspects effing things up.


Presumably though the pre conference meeting was around September, at the height of the leadership campaign?  As has been discussed over the last couple of pages, there were 2 broad options: working with the _momentum_  of the leadership campaign and putting a strategy in place to change the party in terms of both policy and decision making - or to look outwards, work at the grass roots and , indirectly, change the party that way (though that wouldn't be the primary aim).  I'm not involved, easy for me to say and all that... but I just don't see a strategy for doing _either_ of those things.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 19, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Momentum is as irrelevant now as most fractured Left wing groups, participation in whatever it is they're doing is way down and from some of the votes I've heard about they may as well just grab a table in a pub and argue it out for all the rest of the world cares. On the plus side though I think most of the more canny people who wanted it to be a grassroots organising thing are already walking away from it and just doing that, under the banner of Labour where they can. My experience at least.
> 
> I'm still a member myself, technically, if only because I haven't remembered to leave but as far as I could judge it's main use was/is as a way of mobilising support during leadership campaigns. It's not much cop for anything else. On the local level I'm aware of most organisation is happening informally through people just knowing who's sound and who isn't and reaching out from there, small, open meetings and the like. A good thing I reckon, never seems to lead to any cultish splits at least and even if the outcomes haven't been uniformly great there's definitely solid connections forming that way.



Indeed, Momentum runs the risk of becoming (if it's not already) not just irrelevant but a major barrier to effectively organising at the grassroots around specific issues. Labour's a tainted and doomed 'brand'. Case in point, on the NHS, different factions of Momentum appear to be organising a variety of protests etc in the coming months, some coordinated with each other and others not, and all of them at risk of putting off increasing numbers of people because of the Labour banner.

I don't think not having a banner (ie solidarity) is the answer, but it's increasingly obvious Labour's not providing the right one.

e2a: like Wilf (most of whose posts I've agreed with since this thread began) I'm not in, and I realise it's easy to diagnose problems and carp from the sidelines. I don't envy those who are inside trying to make any of this work. I do think it's time they accepted it's not going to.


----------



## Supine (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, he _wanted_ brexit, but ended up campaigning (sort of) for remain.



He should read leadership for dummies


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, he _wanted_ brexit, but ended up campaigning (sort of) for remain.  But after the vote what else could he say/do?



i'm of the same view - if he wants to fish in a pond larger than the number of remainers who _don't_ accept the finality/legitimacy of the referendum result, then he has no choice. of course May is in a similar position, and having grasped the nettle she appears to be just about managing the political tightrope with that 17% lead in the polls...


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Presumably though the pre conference meeting was around September, at the height of the leadership campaign?  As has been discussed over the last couple of pages, there were 2 broad options: working with the _momentum_  of the leadership campaign and putting a strategy in place to change the party in terms of both policy and decision making - or to look outwards, work at the grass roots and , indirectly, change the party that way (though that wouldn't be the primary aim).  I'm not involved, easy for me to say and all that... but I just don't see a strategy for doing _either_ of those things.



last week,


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> last week,


Ah, right, 'pre-conf' as in Spring Conference?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian).  Seems like a slight hostage to fortune as the deal on offer at that point might not be too grand, though it was probably his only option.  Otherwise he gets painted as opposing the will of the people. Same time its probably going to be the next battle he has with the Labour right.


tbf if he goes yup, let's vote for a.50 then a load of people have a pop at him.
if he goes i'll leave it up to individual mps' consciences, a load of people have a go at him
if he says we're all vehemently opposed to this, let's remember jo cox: then a load of people have a go at him

whatever he does - and there are options on which i have not touched - a load of people have a go at him.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jan 19, 2017)

Supine said:


> He should read leadership for dummies



He should just fuck off back to the back benches and let someone who can actually lead a party and get the fucking tories out. 

Such a fucking lying dick.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbf if he goes yup, let's vote for a.50 then a load of people have a pop at him.
> if he goes i'll leave it up to individual mps' consciences, a load of people have a go at him
> if he says we're all vehemently opposed to this, let's remember jo cox: then a load of people have a go at him
> 
> whatever he does - and there are options on which i have not touched - a load of people have a go at him.



thats politics - what matters is _who_ has a go at him.

this way the only people who are _really _unhappy with him are on the fanatical end of the remain party - everyone else either wants him to allow/whatever A50 to go through, or grudgingly accepts thats the expression of the will of the people - and the people who are at the fanatical end of the remain party are already supporting the LibDems in their decent into lunacy, so the only people he really offends by this are people who've already decided that they'll be supporting another party.

so no loss or potential loss.

leaving it to each MP to decide would look like nothing other than cowardice, so he'd just offend everyone for no result.

by helping the govt to get it through he does at least open the door to a repprochment between Labour and its brexit voters. it may well depend on other things, but he does at least open that door a bit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> He should just fuck off back to the back benches and let someone who can actually lead a party and get the fucking tories out.
> 
> Such a fucking lying dick.


someone like you perhaps


----------



## Reiabuzz (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> thats politics - what matters is _who_ has a go at him.
> 
> this way the only people who are _really _unhappy with him are on the fanatical end of the remain party - everyone else either wants him to allow/whatever A50 to go through, or grudgingly accepts thats the expression of the will of the people - and the people who are at the fanatical end of the remain party are already supporting the LibDems in their decent into lunacy, so the only people he really offends by this are people who've already decided that they'll be supporting another party.
> 
> ...



He's nuts. He's up there with Trump in terms of delusion. As long as he clings on May will continue fucking over the country's public services with absolutely no opposition, she can do what she wants. He clearly does not give a flying fuck about anything other than his own ego. Just. go. away. Jeremy. You. Cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's nuts. He's up there with Trump in terms of delusion. As long as he clings on May will continue fucking over the country's public services with absolutely no opposition, she can do what she wants. He clearly does not give a flying fuck about anything other than his own ego. Just. go. away. Jeremy. You. Cunt.


if you hadn't noticed there is a majority tory government in this country. tbh you could have much loved funnyman bernard cribbins as labour leader and there'd be nothing he could do about it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's nuts. He's up there with Trump in terms of delusion. As long as he clings on May will continue fucking over the country's public services with absolutely no opposition, she can do what she wants. He clearly does not give a flying fuck about anything other than his own ego. Just. go. away. Jeremy. You. Cunt.


Isn't Trump being inaugurated as President of the USA tomorrow? I don't think he's the one with delusions.


----------



## agricola (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> YouGov |  Voting Intention: Conservatives 42%, Labour 25%
> 
> Jan 19ths' results...
> 
> ...



Bad figures, though of course it should be pointed out who actually set up and still owns a lot of Yougov.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

agricola said:


> Bad figures, though of course it should be pointed out who actually set up and still owns a lot of Yougov.



that way lies madness - if you disbelieve Yougov because of who owns it, or who worked there, or who once walked passed its doors you'll end up doing the same to all the other polling firms, and eventually you'll start questioning the results of 2015GE.

its conspiraloon territory. don't go there...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbf if he goes yup, let's vote for a.50 then a load of people have a pop at him.
> if he goes i'll leave it up to individual mps' consciences, a load of people have a go at him
> if he says we're all vehemently opposed to this, let's remember jo cox: then a load of people have a go at him
> 
> whatever he does - and there are options on which i have not touched - a load of people have a go at him.


Yeah, certainly.  In terms of the check list to be a leader, in the dirty game of politics, he only manages a few of them. However, he is amazingly resilient and there's nobody else who could either be elected leader or do a better job _in the circumstances_.  As you say, lots of things are being unfairly projected onto him - essentially an ungovernable party made up social democratic members and randomly right wing MPs and officials - an unsolveable mix that has probably passed on from being toxic to just pointless. And Brexit, whilst it should have fucked the Tories, has just been another forum for a dysfunctional labour party to display its disfunctionality.

So yes, getting blamed unfairly for not being able to solve the problems of governing the ungovernable. Same time, he and his lieutenants don't seem to have had much idea what carrying out a left of centre revival in a political party would involve.  On one side of the equation, even if it was never going to be easy to drive the Blairites into the sea, there should have been some strategy for getting effective control of the party.  And just as much there should have been some serious attention/action directed at Labour's failure to engage working class voters.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 19, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> He's nuts. He's up there with Trump in terms of delusion. As long as he clings on May will continue fucking over the country's public services with absolutely no opposition, she can do what she wants. He clearly does not give a flying fuck about anything other than his own ego. Just. go. away. Jeremy. You. Cunt.



Rumours suggest he is holding on until Conference and getting the Mcdonnell amendment passed to ensure an actually competent Left leader is on the ballot should he step down.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> Isn't Trump being inaugurated as President of the USA tomorrow?


Imagine somebody who has been in a coma for 10 years waking up to that.  'Donald Trump, President? Ha, ha, nice one!  What? What? you're _serious_?  _Reeeally_?  *AHHHHHHH! PUT ME BACK UNDER AHHHHHHHHHHHH!'*


----------



## Beermoth (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian).



Ah right. They'll vote against it then.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> Ah right. They'll vote against it then.



i doubt it, some will - and from all over the spectrum of the party - if they are from particularly remainy constituancies and have the LibDems roaring up behind them, but very few will want to be seen to seek to get in the way of A50.

you may not have noticed, but the rebellions have stopped - the PLP see that the quickest way to get rid of Corbyn is to let him get on with it. they take the view, correctly imo, that when his friends stop circling the wagons because the PLP are no longer on the warpath they'll notice just how dire he is and either walk away or get rid of him themselves.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i doubt it, some will - and from all over the spectrum of the party - if they are from particularly remainy constituancies and have the LibDems roaring up behind them, but very few will want to be seen to seek to get in the way of A50.
> 
> you may not have noticed, but the rebellions have stopped - the PLP see that the quickest way to get rid of Corbyn is to let him get on with it. they take the view, correctly imo, that when his friends stop circling the wagons because the PLP are no longer on the warpath they'll notice just how dire he is and either walk away or get rid of him themselves.


That looks like a good prediction for the next few months.  It's certainly a good call that the next challenge to him will come from the centre left of the party.  Maybe a couple more by elections as well as more MPs head off to the consultancies, quangos and chairs of this that and the other, but most of all the whole thing running out of steam (on both sides).  Once Article 50 gets signed there _might_ be opportunities for labour to relaunch and reconnect with voters and their anxieties, but in the absence of a complete economic meltdown it's more likely to be a gung ho tory Party.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 19, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i'm of the same view - if he wants to fish in a pond larger than the number of remainers who _don't_ accept the finality/legitimacy of the referendum result, then he has no choice. of course May is in a similar position, and having grasped the nettle she appears to be just about managing the political tightrope with that 17% lead in the polls...


I think the biggest problem Labour have is the Brexit vote. I think it would be a problem no matter who was leader, but the split within the PLP make it harder for Corbyn. There is no good strategy available to him. So he went for the worst possible option of having no apparent strategy at all. Maybe this means he is trying to address that.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 19, 2017)

When I saw Milne's name trending I was hoping that Labour had sacked him, instead I see that he is being made permanent.


----------



## belboid (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian).


Except, if you read the article, he didn't actually say that. 

“It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2017)

> When I saw Milne's name trending I was hoping that Labour had sacked him, instead I see that he is being made permanent.



Yes, disastero..


----------



## gosub (Jan 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Except, if you read the article, he didn't actually say that.
> 
> “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”



A Sargent Wilson three line whip.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 19, 2017)

J Ed said:


> When I saw Milne's name trending I was hoping that Labour had sacked him, instead I see that he is being made permanent.



Someone around here is passing the rumour around that Milne is being parachuted into Stoke for Hunt's seat. This person is a big shit-stirrer who doesn't like being left out of all the insider stuff, so makes things up. Amusing though.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Baron Corbyn has just said he'll impose a 3 line whip to make his MPs vote to trigger Article 50 (guardian).  Seems like a slight hostage to fortune as the deal on offer at that point might not be too grand, though it was probably his only option.  Otherwise he gets painted as opposing the will of the people. Same time its probably going to be the next battle he has with the Labour right.


Read that as Sasha Baron Cohen which recalled to mind the Ali G Tony Benn interview


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Except, if you read the article, he didn't actually say that.
> 
> “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”


That's exactly the implication and is certainly how the grauniad are reading it:
Corbyn to order Labour MPs to vote for article 50 trigger
Admittedly, a mini rebellion may lead to him changing his mind.


----------



## belboid (Jan 19, 2017)

That's how the guardian are _reporting_ it. Almost as if they had an agenda.


----------



## Supine (Jan 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's how the guardian are _reporting_ it. Almost as if they had an agenda.



tbf, it's also the way I read it. 

A stronger leader would clearly say they will or will not be under a whip. His style is wishy washy though.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 19, 2017)

People need to stop blaming the media for Corbo coming across as an incompetent tired weak fool - the media did not like Bob Crow but he never came across as anything other than a strong and effective leader. And yes he didn't have a mass of rebellious MPs, but so what? He did have rival unions, and he didn't have 500,000 or so members.


----------



## Santino (Jan 19, 2017)

gosub said:


> A Sargent Wilson three line whip.


"Would you mind awfully falling into three lovely lines?"


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 21, 2017)

Was watching Pablo Iglesias talk and wondering what effect JC would be having if he could talk like that. You don't have to agree with Iglesias' rather liberal talk of a social contract here to see why he's able to stir people up and make a splash in the media.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Which council is that?



Birmingham city council.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 21, 2017)

What council? There is no council.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Was watching Pablo Iglesias talk and wondering what effect JC would be having if he could talk like that. You don't have to agree with Iglesias' rather liberal talk of a social contract here to see why he's able to stir people up and make a splash in the media.



He's not leader of one of the dual governing parties of a national state with 100 year tradition of w/c based organisation. Compare kike with like. It's not about presentation.


----------



## binka (Jan 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Compare kike with like


Post reported. Doesn't take long for the mask to slip does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2017)

binka said:


> Post reported. Doesn't take long for the mask to slip does it?


You'll never stop me.

Shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2017)

binka said:


> Post reported. Doesn't take long for the mask to slip does it?


Let's hope you don't make any similar typos, eh


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 23, 2017)

Trouble at mill......Labour Representation Committee has a hissy fit over Lansmans Momentum reforms(or more accurately the way it was done ).

Labour Representation Committee takes aim at “undemocratic” Momentum over controversial member reforms | LabourList

I think LRC have a fair point .


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 23, 2017)

Both sides are full of shit the so called elected bodies were just the same Trots that turn up to things as ever and elect their mates at tedious badly run meetings, and OMOV is more democratic on paper - but obviously that's not why Lansman et al moved to it.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 24, 2017)

What will happen if Lab loses in both Copeland and Stoke.?

Or if Lab wins Stoke but not Copeland ?

Or if Lab wins Copeland but not Stoke ?.

What happens to Ukip if they dont win Stoke ?.

What happens if Len McC loses.

What happens if Lab wins in Copeland and Stoke and Len McC wins.

Imo JCs priority is to pass the torch and that means getting a rule change thru conference -if he did I could see him going well before 2020.


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2017)

Disastrous PMQ's


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> What will happen if Lab loses in both Copeland and Stoke.?
> 
> Or if Lab wins Stoke but not Copeland ?
> 
> ...


I've been very confidently predicting Labour will lose both Copeland and Stoke.  Having said that, I'm just about to start trimming... a bit.  Labour are in no better position than they were before Brexit, probably worse, and Corbyn's leadership has flatlined.  Same time it's hard to predict not just ukip's potential vote in these by elections, but also whether Brexity feeling will simply translate into UKIP (or Tory) votes _now that Brexit has been done_.  I still have a feeling Labour will lose at least one of them though.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 25, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I've been very confidently predicting Labour will lose both Copeland and Stoke.  Having said that, I'm just about to start trimming... a bit.  Labour are in no better position than they were before Brexit, probably worse, and Corbyn's leadership has flatlined.  Same time it's hard to predict not just ukip's potential vote in these by elections, but also whether Brexity feeling will simply translate into UKIP (or Tory) votes _now that Brexit has been done_.  I still have a feeling Labour will lose at least one of them though.



Which means Labour will won one -so every time brillo etc says you lost copeland -they will counter with ah but we won stoke.So JC is safe imo on that scenario.Presumably stoke will declare before copeland due to geography.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 25, 2017)

Is one of these seats more important to Labour than the other?

For myself, I'm very much getting the feeling that to lose Copeland would be disappointing but it would be part of the normal ebb and flow of politics, whereas to lose Stoke would be a bit more 'stake through the heart's stuff - I'm also getting a vibe that who Labour loses to that's important - anyone else share that view?

Personally I'm betting on Tories taking Copeland, and Labour winning Stoke with a small majority, with Labour second in Copeland and the Kippers second in Stoke...

Even if Labour win both there's still a big problem - I'm a party member in the south west Midlands, and i can see the resources that are being lined up to be piled into Stoke: we're talking about 20+ marginal, 'must win' constituencies worth of GE resources. If that's what it takes to win one seat then the party is fucked at the GE....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

since the recent american election i am having trouble mustering enthusiasm for this sort of psephological contest.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Is one of these seats more important to Labour than the other?
> 
> For myself, I'm very much getting the feeling that to lose Copeland would be disappointing but it would be part of the normal ebb and flow of politics, whereas to lose Stoke would be a bit more 'stake through the heart's stuff - I'm also getting a vibe that who Labour loses to that's important - anyone else share that view?
> 
> ...



They wont have as much as the Tories but they never do.But the two leadership elections raised a bundle .

Its probably worth spending to the ,er,legal limit if the reward is to kill off ukip and nuttall.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> since the recent american election i am having trouble mustering enthusiasm for this sort of psephological contest.



The national polls werent far off as clinton got 2.9 million more votes than trump(something which keeps him awake at night).Thats a 2 percent lead.But of course you need the votes in the right places and his were almost perfect.

Her campaign seemed oblivious to what was going on so her own polling was awry.His might have been better --dunno all you can say is he visited the right states which were in play.

State polls were wrong- some by a lot.


----------



## se5 (Jan 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> ... lose Copeland would be disappointing but it would be part of the normal ebb and flow of politics, whereas to lose Stoke would be a bit more 'stake through the heart's stuff - I'm also getting a vibe that who Labour loses to that's important - anyone else share that view?



Surely the normal ebb and flow of politics is for the main opposition party to be keeping their seats in byelections - its normally the Government that loses its seats to the opposition. That Labour is having to worry about retaining its seats is a sign of the poor state of the party and the abnormal times in which we are living.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2017)

Guardian rolling cover thingy reporting Corbyn _will_ impose a 3 line whip on article 50 - with Clive Lewis already announcing he'll ignore it.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Guardian rolling cover thingy reporting Corbyn _will_ impose a 3 line whip on article 50 - with Clive Lewis already announcing he'll ignore it.



i was going to note that as a general rule i try not to have any sympathy for Corbyn, but that in this case he's in something of a no-win situation regarding whipping (ooh err missus..) on the A50 issue, and then i recalled that he and John McDonnell share the dubious title of the being the most rebelious MP's that any Labour Leader since 1924 have ever faced, and the speck of sympathy disapeared in a puff of '_if its good enough for you you hypocritical cnut_...' smoke.


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i was going to note that as a general rule i try not to have any sympathy for Corbyn, but that in this case he's in something of a no-win situation regarding whipping (ooh err missus..) on the A50 issue, and then i recalled that he and John McDonnell share the dubious title of the being the most rebelious MP's that any Labour Leader since 1924 have ever faced, and the speck of sympathy disapeared in a puff of '_if its good enough for you you hypocritical cnut_...' smoke.



its only hypocritcal if he gets 'upset' at those MP's ignoring party line.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 26, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i was going to note that as a general rule i try not to have any sympathy for Corbyn, but that in this case he's in something of a no-win situation regarding whipping (ooh err missus..) on the A50 issue, and then i recalled that he and John McDonnell share the dubious title of the being the most rebelious MP's that any Labour Leader since 1924 have ever faced, and the speck of sympathy disapeared in a puff of '_if its good enough for you you hypocritical cnut_...' smoke.



totally fucking inane comment, just says nothing


----------



## cantsin (Jan 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Guardian rolling cover thingy reporting Corbyn _will_ impose a 3 line whip on article 50 - with Clive Lewis already announcing he'll ignore it.



the fact that Lewis is now apparently putting himself in the frame as chief Remain sympathiser on the left of the party just feels like the end of this particular road for now ( a road that was never going anywhere long term anyway) . The only figure on the Corbo wing that looked / sounded like he had a chance of connecting with both the parties new membership, and some of it's more traditional base...now seen as chief Lab Remoaner.

UKIP getting towards evens with the bookies in Stoke, Corbo headed toward de facto busted flush status, Lewis blown it ...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2017)

cantsin said:


> totally fucking inane comment, just says nothing


Though it does take us to the heart of the matter. Corbyn gets judged by the rituals of the parliamentary carnival, party discipline, who gets to stand in by elections etc. He does parliamentary politics, he gets judged by that. Trouble is he isn't doing much to build _anything else_. That's why he can't avoid being judged by the standards and discourse of lobby journalism, question time, brillo and all that. Even more than the Bennites would have been had they come to power in the party, he's trapped inside parliament.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2017)

cantsin said:


> the fact that Lewis is now apparently putting himself in the frame as chief Remain sympathiser on the left of the party just feels like the end of this particular road for now ( a road that was never going anywhere long term anyway) . The only figure on the Corbo wing that looked / sounded like he had a chance of connecting with both the parties new membership, and some of it's more traditional base...now seen as chief Lab Remoaner.


Probably best to wait to find out Lewis' actual position before assuming this isn't it?


----------



## where to (Jan 26, 2017)

Lewis is making a major l/t strategic error if this is how he's going to announce himself to the general public.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2017)

where to said:


> Lewis is making a major l/t strategic error if this is how he's going to announce himself to the general public.


All sounds a bit Lib-Labby?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> What happens to Ukip if they dont win Stoke ?.



Nuthall shamelessly parachutes himself into the next byelection in any place where UKIP might win.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 26, 2017)

It's not like labour have a majority and it will change anything Labour MP Tulip Siddiq resigns from frontbench over article 50 vote


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> Probably best to wait to find out Lewis' actual position before assuming this isn't it?


Clive Lewis Bottles It - Guido Fawkes


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It's not like labour have a majority and it will change anything Labour MP Tulip Siddiq resigns from frontbench over article 50 vote


Another party heavyweight departs


----------



## hash tag (Jan 26, 2017)

I am not sure they can afford any departures. What's really needed is unity.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am not sure they can afford any departures. What's really needed is unity.


There's no unity to be had.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2017)

gosub said:


> Clive Lewis Bottles It - Guido Fawkes


I'm not reading Guido. Is there anything extra beyond what all the other outlets are reporting?


----------



## Argonia (Jan 26, 2017)

Considering that his time is meant to be up this has spawned a remarkable number of responses. Nearly 500 pages.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2017)

if Corbyn loses half a dozen from his SC over this - though i've no idea what any of these people think they'll be achieving, its not as if they're going to block Brexit - are there any MP's left to fill their shoes from the pool who'll work for him?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> There's no unity to be had.


the centre cannot hold while a rough beast, its hour come at last, has slouched towards washington to be born


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2017)

Argonia said:


> Considering that his time is meant to be up this has spawned a remarkable number of responses. Nearly 500 pages.



It is a slow and painful death


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 26, 2017)

Kate Hoeys free.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 26, 2017)

Or Gisela Stuart.

John Mann

Dave Stringer

Frank Field 

Denis Skinner


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Kate Hoeys free.


auld hunter hoey


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 26, 2017)

The media seem to be having a massive dig at him over this gaffe

Jeremy Corbyn criticised for Northern Ireland 'dead' police officer gaffe

Not exactly a nuclear missile going astray over the US coast type of thing but it's all over a lot of front pages .


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> The media seem to be having a massive dig at him over this gaffe
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn criticised for Northern Ireland 'dead' police officer gaffe
> 
> Not exactly a nuclear missile going astray over the US coast type of thing but it's all over a lot of front pages .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 26, 2017)

An horrendous blunder and pretty inexcusable .

Corbyns mistake however was just a bit silly .


----------



## cantsin (Jan 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> Probably best to wait to find out Lewis' actual position before assuming this isn't it?



fair do's , seems it he's actually supporting the vote initially, whilst reserving right to oppose at later stages of of bill


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 26, 2017)

kebabking said:


> if Corbyn loses half a dozen from his SC over this - though i've no idea what any of these people think they'll be achieving, its not as if they're going to block Brexit - are there any MP's left to fill their shoes from the pool who'll work for him?



Some will be calculating that it will help them keep their seats.Siddiq is a case in point -hampstead is highly marginal against the tories but with a large potential libdem vote so its as much about self preservation as principle.Not sure about boundary proposals in her case (update -looked it up ,her new constituency would inc 7 wards from her current seat,2 from finchley(thatchers old seat and one from holborn and st pancras)..
The interesting ones are those whose vote doesnt help them in their constituencies.And there a few tories in that list as well as labour.


Update tonight's yougov  has london -tories 42,lab 22 libdem 20


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 26, 2017)

What only some contributions have been emphasising in these recent pages, is not just how split Labour is, but how split the electorate** is ... 

**Wanted to say : 'the fucking electorate'. Best not


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 28, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> What only some contributions have been emphasising in these recent pages, is not just how split Labour is, but how split the electorate** is ...
> 
> Yes splits everywhere -bound to get much worse.52-48 was a very close result .
> 
> Grassroots Labour supporters revolt against Jeremy Corbyn over Brexit


----------



## kebabking (Jan 28, 2017)

I must admit, I think a sizable proportion of my local CLP have lost their minds...

I just don't get this attitude that the referendum result can be ignored or overturned - like many, most probably, I voted to remain, but I accept the result as legitimate, and in a narrower political way I can only imagine the impact on political stability if a popular vote were to be ignored by a political class already perceived as being divorced from wider society.

I just don't get the logic of it, either in a philosophical sense or in a electoral sense...


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 28, 2017)

It smells quite a lot like entitlement, frankly. I also voted Remain, but I also accept that what happened happened. I just wish the fucking tories weren't in power for this, it's like the worst of all possible worlds.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 28, 2017)

I'm beginning to think that Corbyn should quit, but he should call the whole party _wankers _in his resignation speech in the House. _Fuck you all,_ he should say, _You deserve everything you get. You're that_. Then wave his curled-up fingers in a cursory wank gesture and stride out.

But *sigh* he won't.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 28, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I must admit, I think a sizable proportion of my local CLP have lost their minds...
> 
> I just don't get this attitude that the referendum result can be ignored or overturned - like many, most probably, I voted to remain, but I accept the result as legitimate, and in a narrower political way I can only imagine the impact on political stability if a popular vote were to be ignored by a political class already perceived as being divorced from wider society.
> 
> I just don't get the logic of it, either in a philosophical sense or in a electoral sense...



To use a Trumpism -its not very smart.But JC has seen the polling and knows what he has to do.Watson has done the old buy british tonight and said brexit wlll free us from EU restrictions on state aid.You just have to grit your teeth and say these things .


----------



## newbie (Jan 29, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I must admit, I think a sizable proportion of my local CLP have lost their minds...
> 
> I just don't get this attitude that the referendum result can be ignored or overturned - like many, most probably, I voted to remain, but I accept the result as legitimate, and in a narrower political way I can only imagine the impact on political stability if a popular vote were to be ignored by a political class already perceived as being divorced from wider society.
> 
> I just don't get the logic of it, either in a philosophical sense or in a electoral sense...


In the last general election the manifestos of the majority of winning candidates supported the EU.  Since then the ref has given a popular mandate to leave.  May has no mandate whatsoever for her negotiating stance. Rolling over and endorsing her every move at this stage is neither opposition nor holding the government to account. A strong and resourceful politician could articulate policy which is both yet falls short of trying to overturn the ref.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I'm beginning to think that Corbyn should quit, but he should call the whole party _wankers _in his resignation speech in the House. _Fuck you all,_ he should say, _You deserve everything you get. You're that_. Then wave his curled-up fingers in a cursory wank gesture and stride out.
> 
> But *sigh* he won't.


you'd need a crowbar to turf him out of the house at thise point


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> In the last general election the manifestos of the majority of winning candidates supported the EU.  Since then the ref has given a popular mandate to leave.  May has no mandate whatsoever for her negotiating stance. Rolling over and endorsing her every move at this stage is neither opposition nor holding the government to account. A strong and resourceful politician could articulate policy which is both yet falls short of trying to overturn the ref.



But this is not the vote to do it on. On the deal for exit and the great repeal bill thats the time to do it.This just looks like waiving two fingers.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2017)

Corbyn calling for Trump to be banned from the UK until visa restrictions are lifted is really smart politics.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

Farron deciding to follow suit after first quibbling


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2017)

I have to say that I am not particularly bothered about this aspect of the visit


----------



## not a trot (Jan 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I have to say that I am not particularly bothered about this aspect of the visit




I sense another prolonged heavy cold coming on in time for his visit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I have to say that I am not particularly bothered about this aspect of the visit



Yeah I saw that, fucking libdem shits. They and Trump deserve each other, send all the fuckers to some Island.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah I saw, fucking libdem shits. They are Trump deserve each other, send all the fuckers to some Island.


I hear St Helana is fucking awful this time of year all year round.


----------



## newbie (Jan 29, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> But this is not the vote to do it on. On the deal for exit and the great repeal bill thats the time to do it.This just looks like waiving two fingers.


Do you honestly think that no political leader could possibly articulate a position that could box May in without simply waving two fingers? I certainly don't but there's no point in me trying to rally supporters to the cause because, as pikkers has reminded me on another thread, I don't any ability with words. Nor, I think does Corbyn, nor has he sufficient strategic or tactical nous.  

Ken Clarke came close the other day on the radio, Stella Creasy did quite well on Any Questions on friday but neither of them can lead, devise or fully articulate the opposition to an otherwise untroubled Tory invention of our future.  Yet someone has to. I don't really understand how or why they have been allowed to frame the narrative so that you- preumably anti-tory- see it in such polarised terms. TINA


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I have to say that I am not particularly bothered about this aspect of the visit




Lord Pantsdown can fuck right off.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 29, 2017)

Standard blue labour analysis."I am not racist but ......"

Labour is moving close to disaster. How can it reconnect with its roots? | Justin Gest


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn calling for Trump to be banned from the UK until visa restrictions are lifted is really smart politics.




Please expand?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> Please expand?



Trump is profoundly disliked by most people in Britain, including most Tories and Tory voters. By taking a strong stance on the visit he has made May look weak and foolish.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Trump is profoundly disliked by most people in Britain, including most Tories and Tory voters. By taking a strong stance on the visit he has made May look weak and foolish.



Perhaps, though May has been so profoundly absurd over Trump (that announcement today that Boris and Amber had rung their US counterparts to protest being the highlight, I mean its not as if she was just there speaking to the Donald) that Corbyn could have gone to his allotment for six hours to weed and he would still have made May look weak and foolish over the visit.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> But this is not the vote to do it on. On the deal for exit and the great repeal bill thats the time to do it.This just looks like waiving two fingers.



I disagree slightly - if he had got an amendment ready to guarantee that there will be an _effective_ vote (ie: to remain in the EU or exit on the terms of the deal) when it comes to the exit deal, it would have headed off an awful lot of the grief he has taken over the Article 50 vote and put May on the back-foot for months; worded correctly that amendment would almost certainly have succeeded.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2017)

500,000 may sign the petition, and the media is going into overdrive, but how do you know Trump's stance isn't popular in the UK, I think his ban is appalling, but have there been any polls, we have a very robust liberal left which through FB signals its outrage, but what about the rest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> Please expand?


That's fucking rich, you never do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> 500,000 may sign the petition, and the media is going into overdrive, but how do you know Trump's stance isn't popular in the UK, I think his ban is appalling, but have there been any polls, we have a very robust liberal left which through FB signals its outrage, but what about the rest.


You know it's not popular because the only person saying it's a good idea is Nigel Farage


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> I disagree slightly - if he had got an amendment ready to guarantee that there will be an _effective_ vote (ie: to remain in the EU or exit on the terms of the deal) when it comes to the exit deal, it would have headed off an awful lot of the grief he has taken over the Article 50 vote and put May on the back-foot for months; worded correctly that amendment would almost certainly have succeeded.



....if that looks like happening May triggers an election and crystallises the poll ratings...


----------



## bimble (Jan 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You know it's not popular because the only person saying it's a good idea is Nigel Farage


You've not been keeping up to date with the DM commentators it seems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> You've not been keeping up to date with the DM commentators it seems.


No, I haven't. Sadly I have been out today eating cake and not had my usual dose of daily mailery


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> That's fucking rich, you never do.



God, you are one anal ex public schoolboy who seems to spend his life on here just following other posters you dislike across the site.


There, see what its like...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> Ken Clarke came close the other day on the radio,


Clarke is a long-term pro-EU free marketeer who, like the LDs, is going to vote against leaving under any circumstances, are you really arguing that is the position Labour, under Corbyn or anyone else, should take?


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> ....if that looks like happening May triggers an election and crystallises the poll ratings...



... which makes the election about Brexit vs Remain, and not about May vs Corbyn so much.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 29, 2017)

....I'd think the current polls are pricing in Brexit already ..? however there's also the fixed term parliament act to defuse ofcourse...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> God, you are one anal ex public schoolboy who seems to spend his life on here just following other posters you dislike across the site.
> 
> 
> There, see what its like...


See what what's like? Your immediate ascent to ad hominems when your hypocrisy is pointed out?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> Do you honestly think that no political leader could possibly articulate a position that could box May in without simply waving two fingers? I certainly don't but there's no point in me trying to rally supporters to the cause because, as pikkers has reminded me on another thread, I don't any ability with words. Nor, I think does Corbyn, nor has he sufficient strategic or tactical nous.
> 
> Ken Clarke came close the other day on the radio, Stella Creasy did quite well on Any Questions on friday but neither of them can lead, devise or fully articulate the opposition to an otherwise untroubled Tory invention of our future.  Yet someone has to. I don't really understand how or why they have been allowed to frame the narrative so that you- preumably anti-tory- see it in such polarised terms. TINA



Is corbyn seriously being expected to go along with the very same type of attempts to overthrow his leadership election now being directed against the brexit vote ? Legalistic , parliamentary chicanery to overthrow democratically expressed wishes ? It'd make him a hypocrite and little better than those who tried to unseat him . It's the same carry on from mostly the same assholes .


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> I disagree slightly - if he had got an amendment ready to guarantee that there will be an _effective_ vote (ie: to remain in the EU or exit on the terms of the deal) when it comes to the exit deal, it would have headed off an awful lot of the grief he has taken over the Article 50 vote and put May on the back-foot for months; worded correctly that amendment would almost certainly have succeeded.



Unfortunately that's a proposal that involves unicorns and fairy dust - the EU rules are that you drop out of the EU on the second anniversary of triggering A50, deal or no deal. Moreover there is no legal mechanism within the EU treaties to rescind A50 once it's been triggered.

All this 'meaningfull vote' stuff is just the witterings of people who haven't read the rules, and ammusingly such witterings do nothing but play into hands of the hardest or hardest Brexiteers. To reject whatever deal May gets ensures that the UK will leave the EU on 1st April 2019 with no deal in place on pretty much anything.

You'd have thought that people who are so keen on the EU might have taken the time to read the EU's rules, but apparently not...


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 29, 2017)

kebabking said:


> You'd have thought that people who are so keen on the EU might have taken the time to read the EU's rules, but apparently not...


Have you actually read them, because you are wrong here.



			
				The House of Lords (who I assume have read them) said:
			
		

> We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.” Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:
> 
> “There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin _de novo_. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”


House of Lords - The process of withdrawing from the European Union - European Union Committee


----------



## Andrew baker (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> 500,000 may sign the petition, and the media is going into overdrive, but how do you know Trump's stance isn't popular in the UK, I think his ban is appalling, but have there been any polls, we have a very robust liberal left which through FB signals its outrage, but what about the rest.


Just wonder how many people who think trumps ban is appalling had the same stance when Obama did the same thing? Just a thought!!


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2017)

Labour has two bye elections coming up soon, ones it may lose, Momentum has posted about 15 articles on Trump, etc, little on the elections, how to win, eh?


----------



## newbie (Jan 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Clarke is a long-term pro-EU free marketeer who, like the LDs, is going to vote against leaving under any circumstances, are you really arguing that is the position Labour, under Corbyn or anyone else, should take?


no, I'm saying that he is able to articulate a position which seeks to reduce, or constrain, the enormous amount of freedom of movement May has now. Corbyn hasn't. I don't agree with what Clarke says, and i don't expect Corbyn or the Labour Party to do so, but he, and Creasy, have come closer than anyone else I've heard to actually putting forward a position which is more than the simplistic _Leave won, suck it up_. He has a long term principled record of supporting the EU, and will, as you say, vote against A50 but in doing so he'll argue a case which will seek to push the government in his direction, to hold it to account, to force concessions.  Creasy was much more ambivalent about A50, but determined not to give an inch to the tories.  I mention them not because I specifically endorse either of their positions but as a contrast to the vacuum where Labour Party opposition ought to be. 

Saying to May, as Corbyn has, _you can do what you like, without any preconditions, without any redlines_, offers nothing in the way of vision of how future arrangements, domestic and international, can be formulated by anyone other than the inner circle of venal tories and their rich mates.  Certainly not by the people and for the people, to coin a phrase.

If you know of anyone else who's attempting to push the government to take account of anyone other than themselves then please tell.  All I've heard is pointless wailing about the single market, essentially making a case that the ref result was wrong (like the LDs). Or, on the other side, _the result is clear, stop whining_.  That's history.  We know the result.  But the broad brush result did not give May any mandate to determine every single detail of the negotiations without anyone else having a say. There's no reason  for the parliamentary opposition to give the tories anything like so much room for maneuver and we'll pay for that for decades to come.  they're inventing our future and virtually nobody seems to want to stand in their way except the loons who want to overturn the result.

I've tried to be clear, I hope it makes sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> Labour has two bye elections coming up soon, ones it may lose, Momentum has posted about 15 articles on Trump, etc, little on the elections, how to win, eh?


Yeh cos obv what's on the momentum website will have a great impact on the by-elections' outcome


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Have you actually read them, because you are wrong here.
> 
> House of Lords - The process of withdrawing from the European Union - European Union Committee



If would have to be with the agreement of all parties, otherwise its just a prima donna leveraging tool, play the game I want or I'll take my ball in -isn't a good look, but equally rules say we have to do..doesn't happen if all involved agree they don't want it to.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

Clarke's position is the position of the the LD - outright opposition to leaving the EU. 

No Labour leader can take such a position, they simply can't if they don't want to have UKIP/Tory's eat into their vote even more than is currently happening. Any argument otherwise is just nonsense.


----------



## newbie (Jan 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Clarke's position is the position of the the LD - outright opposition to leaving the EU.
> 
> No Labour leader can take such a position, they simply can't if they don't want to have UKIP/Tory's eat into their vote even more than is currently happening. Any argument otherwise is just nonsense.


sigh, one last try: it's not Clarkes position I'm attempting to discuss, it's the fact that he has one, that he is fighting this government, unlike Corbyn.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> sigh, one last try: it's not Clarkes position I'm attempting to discuss, it's the fact that he has one, that he is fighting this government, unlike Corbyn.



If its Ken Clarke you are talking about, he isn't contesting the next election so he can do what he likes (though he usually did anyway)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

newbie said:


> sigh, one last try: it's not Clarkes position I'm attempting to discuss, it's the fact that he has one, that he is fighting this government, unlike Corbyn.


But Clarke's "fighting" (ludicrous pretence but it's your word so I'll go with it) of the government is completely dependant on his position. You can't separate the two.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2017)

Get well soon Diane Abbott


----------



## bemused (Feb 1, 2017)

gosub said:


> Get well soon Diane Abbott



I think Diane is the most disingenuous front bench MP I have the displeasure of seeing on my TV; Emily Thornberry following a close second.


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 1, 2017)

bemused said:


> I think Diane is the most disingenuous front bench MP I have the displeasure of seeing on my TV; Emily Thornberry following a close second.



Every time I see Thornberry speak I think she looks like she's trying to talk and breathe through her mouth at the same time so that she doesn't have to smell the people she's talking to.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2017)

20% of PLP rebelled, and 16 frontbenchers either resigned or defied whip.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2017)

bemused said:


> I think Diane is the most disingenuous front bench MP I have the displeasure of seeing on my TV; Emily Thornberry following a close second.


Ahead of the likes of May and Johnson that's saying something


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 20% of PLP rebelled, and 16 frontbenchers either resigned or defied whip.


Ah but 80% backed JC which is astonishing


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ahead of the likes of May and Johnson that's saying something



There's a fair bit of competition in Parliament for most of the insulting adjectives you can think of, I guess.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah but 80% backed JC which is astonishing



Did they back him, or did they - and him - just quite seperately acknowledge political reality?

There were always going to be Lab MP's voting against, some from deeply held principle and some from naked political survival - but would the result have been very different without the 3 line whip? Probably not imv....


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah but 80% backed JC which is astonishing


innit


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Did they back him, or did they - and him - just quite seperately acknowledge political reality?
> 
> There were always going to be Lab MP's voting against, some from deeply held principle and some from naked political survival - but would the result have been very different without the 3 line whip? Probably not imv....



Maybe ,maybe not (watsons was an unhelpful intervention)but the public now know Labour supported article 50 and that is why it was done.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2017)

I guess the metropolitan liberal part of the Labour coalition are suddenly finding themselves in the same position the working class Labour voters have been in for the last 40 years: with the party (mostly) saying 'where else can they go?'


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 1, 2017)

See below​


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> I guess the metropolitan liberal part of the Labour coalition are suddenly finding themselves in the same position the working class Labour voters have been in for the last 40 years: with the party (mostly) saying 'where else can they go?'



20 years would be more accurate and tories may have more of a problem than labour.

No doubt someone will analyse the way mps voted against the way their constituency voted.

Update Daily nazi reporting seven labour mps , a lib dem and  a snp voted no and repesent leave  constituencies.

For some reason there is no list the other way but I would bet its more than 9 mps.-well theres theresa may,philip hammond ,jeremy corbyn ,kate hoey and harriet harman for a start.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I guess the metropolitan liberal part of the Labour coalition are suddenly finding themselves in the same position the working class Labour voters have been in for the last 40 years: with the party (mostly) saying 'where else can they go?'


That's a good point. It will be interesting to see a) whether Brexit is such an issue to them that they don't come out and vote despite the risk that the Tories in Copeland and UKIP in Stoke may pose and b) how many will stomach the Lib Dems  despite  Farrons clarion call to Remain, after their role in the coalition . 
I suppose another issue is whether or not the Remainers can influence or negotiate Labours Brexit  policy but even that I think is in doubt.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I guess the metropolitan liberal part of the Labour coalition are suddenly finding themselves in the same position the working class Labour voters have been in for the last 40 years: with the party (mostly) saying 'where else can they go?'



We're not going to be triggering Article 50 for the next 40 years, though. Fingers crossed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> We're not going to be triggering Article 50 for the next 40 years, though. Fingers crossed.



Optimistic!!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 2, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> That's a good point. It will be interesting to see a) whether Brexit is such an issue to them that they don't come out and vote despite the risk that the Tories in Copeland and UKIP in Stoke may pose and b) how many will stomach the Lib Dems  despite  Farrons clarion call to Remain, after their role in the coalition .
> I suppose another issue is whether or not the Remainers can influence or negotiate Labours Brexit  policy but even that I think is in doubt.


In regards (b) I think they'll be a significant number, perhaps not so much at the by elections but definitely at the local elections in May. I mean look at all the fucks defecting to the progressive choice in Richmond.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> In regards (b) I think they'll be a significant number, perhaps not so much at the by elections but definitely at the local elections in May. I mean look at all the fucks defecting to the progressive choice in Richmond.



I take a similar view - but for a practical reason: under Farron it seems to me that the LD's have decided that they actually don't want to get into government again, the party atlarge and the majority of their MP's didn't like being in Government because it involves, even swerving past the student fees issue, all kinds of sordid compromises and choices, and actually being responsible for stuff that upsets people.

They like being in opposition, they like things not being their fault and never having to make choices they would prefer not to make, they are much happier carping from the opposition benches (50 MP's would be a nice figure...) as not having to offend either themselves or others by their actions.

People who support Labour on the other hand overwhelmingly do so because they want to achieve particular policies - whatever they may be. They accept broken eggs as the price of an omelette, the LD's on the other hand prefer the unbroken eggs...


----------



## Sue (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Update Daily nazi reporting seven labour mps , a lib dem *and  a snp voted no and repesent leave  constituencies.*
> 
> For some reason there is no list the other way but I would bet its more than 9 mps.-well theres theresa may,philip hammond ,jeremy corbyn ,kate hoey and harriet harman for a start.


Haven't seen how people voted but there weren't any leave constituencies in Scotland so the bit in bold is wrong for a start.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

Sue said:


> Haven't seen how people voted but there weren't any leave constituencies in Scotland so the bit in bold is wrong for a start.



It looks like the mail has made a mess of it and the article no longer appears on the website.

Anyway my point was if you want to make an issue of mps who voted not to trigger article 50 and their constituency voted leave you need to publish the much larger group ,full of more famous politicians,who voted to trigger but their constituency voted remain.A quick tally suggests there are at least 55 tories in that list (inc the pm and chancellor)all risking a lib dem surge.Two lib dems(out of 9) ignored their whip -a larger rebellion than labour.

It all depends on whether you think an mp should represent their constituents or their party or follow their own principles (damn your principles said disraeli).


----------



## hash tag (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Get well soon Diane Abbott



Brexit flu, apparently.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Brexit flu, apparently.



Et tu Diane?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> It all depends on whether you think an mp should represent their constituents or their party or follow their own principles (damn your principles said disraeli).


they do not have any principles.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> 20 years would be more accurate and tories may have more of a problem than labour.


What problem do the tories have?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2017)

Sue said:


> Haven't seen how people voted but there weren't any leave constituencies in Scotland so the bit in bold is wrong for a start.


Isn't it now widely accepted that Banff and Buchan had 54% leave?


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> What problem do the tories have?



Corbyn might only live another 10-15 years.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

I think he'll be done fairly soon tbh.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> they do not have any principles.


I'm pretty sure they do:

Register of Members' Financial Interests


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I'm pretty sure they do:
> 
> Register of Members' Financial Interests


you can rent an mp, i am unsure whether you can buy one


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> What problem do the tories have?



Well if you voted leave yesterday when your constituents voted remain for example-like zac goldsmith remember him.There are over 50 tories in that pickle ,may,hammond,redwood ,osborne,my mp etc etc-not sure how many labour -well.corbyn,hoey,chuka,thornberry,starmer,harman etc.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Well if you voted leave yesterday when your constituents voted remain for example-like zac goldsmith remember him.There are over 50 tories in that pickle ,may,hammond,redwood ,osborne,my mp etc etc-not sure how many labour -well.corbyn,hoey,chuka,thornberry,starmer,harman etc.


Surely this will only really matter in marginals, if at all? May has a 30,000 majority - nothing is touching that. 

I don't think we can draw many wider lessons from Goldsmith tbh - it was a pretty unusual by-election, and it's conditions won't be repeatable in a GE


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 2, 2017)

Reckon I might join the labour party now (I never got round to it before, I know I know).


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Well if you voted leave yesterday when your constituents voted remain for example-like zac goldsmith remember him.There are over 50 tories in that pickle ,may,hammond,redwood ,osborne,my mp etc etc-not sure how many labour -well.corbyn,hoey,chuka,thornberry,starmer,harman etc.



sorry, your hypothosis ignores a rather important fact - that Tory remain voters have either reconciled themselves to Brexit, or take the view that Labour/LD's/UKIP are a bigger no-no than a brexiting Tory government.

the tories could simply not be polling 40+% month-in, month-out if remainers who voted tory in 2015 had got the hump and fucked off.

the tories do not have the same problem as Labour, they have different problems and the timescale for those problems hoving into view is different - but the problem they do not appear to have is tory voting remainersdeserting the party in any great numbers.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

FWIW I'd agree there will be a lingering effect in terms of the way Labour MPs voted Vs the views of their constituents.  However it's largely irrelevant in terms of Labour's chances.  The EU was never an important issue for most voters, it just became a forum to play out their dissatisfaction with the system and the sense of alienation from the political class.  Labour/Corbyn could have played it better but there was never an easy path to follow in terms of keeping the MPs, wider party and Labour minded electorate lined up.

It's slightly surprising how the Tories have emerged from all this.  It's been the issue that's fucked them up for at least 25 years and, from the perspective of the leadership, they made a catastrophic mistake calling the referendum. But somehow the remain minded May has come out of it with a sufficiently united party and an unchallenged position.  Possibly she's in the strongest position of any Tory leader since fuck knows then, even Thatcher in her pomp. Things may fall apart if there's some post-Brexit catastrophe, but there's no signs of that happening yet, despite all the initial shrill predicitons.   But anyway, in terms of Labour, they probably need to move on.  Brexit is done and they are not likely to have any points of intervention on what remains of the process.  Labour needs to get back to the basics and think about how it got into this situation.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

Brexit isn't done. Its just starting, headaches yet to emerge.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Brexit isn't done. Its just starting, headaches yet to emerge.


It's done as a referendum and despite some random farting in the house of lords, it will be in parliament.  It's done in the sense that it's going to happen.  But beyond that, my feeling is that while the negotiations may come unstuck, they are unlikely to play out in ways that advantage Labour.  There's always the 'opposition looks good when governments fuck up' thing, but my sense is that Labour are so disconnected from any movements in voter opinion that they can't really build anything on such governmental fuck ups.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> sorry, your hypothosis ignores a rather important fact - that Tory remain voters have either reconciled themselves to Brexit, or take the view that Labour/LD's/UKIP are a bigger no-no than a brexiting Tory government.
> 
> the tories could simply not be polling 40+% month-in, month-out if remainers who voted tory in 2015 had got the hump and fucked off.
> 
> the tories do not have the same problem as Labour, they have different problems and the timescale for those problems hoving into view is different - but the problem they do not appear to have is tory voting remainersdeserting the party in any great numbers.




 So its a different problem-thats because they have become ukip.

And remainers did desert in droves in Richmond so you have to hope the byelections fall in the right places-majority of 12(plus dup ) isnt it.?

They cant call a general election due to FTPA and cant enact any legislation to speak of.Boundary changes ?

Scotland likely to hold another referendum next year.

Farage waiting to see the deal before he rejoins.

Lots of problems.

All Labour has to do is push jeremy under sadiqs bus.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Brexit isn't done. Its just starting, headaches yet to emerge.



Brexit is done _politically -_ there will undoubtedly be issues arising from Brexit to be mopped up, but Brexit is done. much like 2016, its over, we may squabble about what we think of it and the way it affects 2017 and beyond, but its done. over. gone.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It's done as a referendum and despite some random farting in the house of lords, it will be in parliament.  It's done in the sense that it's going to happen.  But beyond that, my feeling is that while the negotiations may come unstuck, they are unlikely to play out in ways that advantage Labour.  There's always the 'opposition looks good when governments fuck up' thing, but my sense is that Labour are so disconnected from any movements in voter opinion that they can't really build anything on such governmental fuck ups.



how can it advantage Labour when they 3 lined whipped giving the government a blank cheque.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

... or, to put it another way, I don't see Keir Starmer drawing the crowds to a 'yes, you all voted for Brexit, but will you join us in a campaign against the government's handling of it?'


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> how can it advantage Labour when they 3 lined whipped giving the government a blank cheque.



because 3 years is a long time in politics? because all anyone who isn't a political nerd remembers about Iraq is that it was Blair wot dun it, that the tories overwhelmingly supported it is a fact lost to the mists of time?


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Brexit is done _politically -_ there will undoubtedly be issues arising from Brexit to be mopped up, but Brexit is done. much like 2016, its over, we may squabble about what we think of it and the way it affects 2017 and beyond, but its done. over. gone.



That the remainers deluded themselves for over six months that it could be stopped is part of the problem.  That was political capital spent at the expense of ensuring Brexit could be properly managed.  Chances are it won't be and as such it isn't done and gone.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> how can it advantage Labour when they 3 lined whipped giving the government a blank cheque.


Erm, I agree.  But to me Labour's weakness on Brexit is still a playing out of their bigger weakness in terms of who they are, what they believe in and who they engage with.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> That the remainers deluded themselves for over six months that it could be stopped is part of the problem.  That was political capital spent at the expense of ensuring Brexit could be properly managed.  Chances are it won't be and as such it isn't done and gone.


But every time we don't get a deal or there's talk of tariffs and Corbyn pops up to berate May, she'll give it the 'I take no lessons from the Rt Hon gentleman...' line, aka _'are you fucking joking_, you, couldn't run a fucking whelk stall, shadow cabinet' etc.

Actually, I quite like this analogy of shadow cabinet members as sea snails.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> ... or, to put it another way, I don't see Keir Starmer drawing the crowds to a 'yes, you all voted for Brexit, but will you join us in a campaign against the government's handling of it?'



Thats le farages job tho if she does what he wants he can go back to america.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Thats le farages job tho if she does what he wants he can go back to america.



actually, i think a reasonable wedge of what made Falange effective was who he was up againt - posh boys playing at politics (oh, the irony..), whereas May is a very different kettle of fish.

we shall, of course, see - and the political landscape and Mays optics and polling may be very different in 3 years - but i'd put money on her being a much harder opponant for the Falange in 2020 than Cameron/Osborne were in 2016.

(isn't int interesting that we're completely ignoring UKIP's new leader, that nice Mr Nutter...)


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> (isn't int interesting that we're completely ignoring UKIP's new leader, that nice Mr Nutter...)


Who despite having a fraction of his predecessor's chops, is likely to end up doing the one thing he's never managed - win a Westminster seat.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 2, 2017)

Nuttalls. I saw him being doorstepped by Crick on C4 news last night, he bore an uncanny resemblance to Eddie Hitler.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Who despite having a fraction of his predecessor's chops, is likely to end up doing the one thing he's never managed - win a Westminster seat.



do you think so?

are you thinking Stoke or do you think he'll just go for every Labour by-election north of Watford and that at some point it will pay off?


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> are you thinking Stoke or do you think he'll just go for every Labour by-election north of Watford and that at some point it will pay off?


Stoke I think.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Who despite having a fraction of his predecessor's chops, is likely to end up doing the one thing he's never managed - win a Westminster seat.


If he doesn't even come close, UKIP is over


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2017)

I would be hesitant to predict the end of UKIP tbh.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

What is the point of it now?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Stoke I think.



blimey. i'd have put good money on close, but a Labour win...



killer b said:


> I would be hesitant to predict the end of UKIP tbh.



me too - cockroaches and nuclear winter leap to mind.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> What is the point of it now?



a vehicle for loons, ego's and the discontented?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> What is the point of it now?


Political systems always need swivel eyed dishonest grasping cunts. FFS, expenses don't spend themselves!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> What is the point of it now?




I've been saying that for years. They are still here, like some sort of horrible infection.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

This is the grauniad's clearly disbelieving take on Abbot's illness (migraine):
Diane Abbott missed article 50 vote due to migraine, her office says


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 2, 2017)

edit: double post somehow


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Political systems always need swivel eyed dishonest grasping cunts. FFS, expenses don't spend themselves!



Seems wrong calling them that at mo, when they were the only party entirely on the winning side of a high turnout plebiscite...though if they hadn't spent the last 20 years actively avoiding thinking about the consequences of achieving their raison d'etre; they would seem more credible


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Seems wrong calling them that at mo, when they were the only party entirely on the winning side of a high turnout plebiscite...though if they hadn't spent the last 20 years actively avoiding thinking about the consequences of achieving their raison d'etre; they would seem more credible


Well, yes, in a way they are on the right side of history - a venal bunch of nationalists and/or racists and populists who tapped into something real.  However as a hierarchy they _are_ a bunch of grasping cunts. I fully expect that they will screw the last very few quid of expenses out of the EU before we depart. _Shameless_ venal nationalists, racists and polulists.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> This is the grauniad's clearly disbelieving take on Abbot's illness (migraine):
> Diane Abbott missed article 50 vote due to migraine, her office says


Lot of people in hackney very angry, if she had turned up we would still be European


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> What is the point of it now?



Well none when the Tories have become ukip -but they could arise again like frankenstein if Maybe comes up short.

If labour wins stoke then a slow death awaits until the deal is done.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 2, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Lot of people in hackney very angry, if she had turned up we would still be European




Her vote isn't worth 300 votes in parliament...

I struggle to think she's worth anything tbh


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Her vote isn't worth 300 votes in parliament...


 SPARTANS!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> If he doesn't even come close, UKIP is over


They are still polling over 10% pretty much constantly, they are generally polling ahead of the LibDems. It's possible that like with the BNP internal squabbles, dissatisfaction with lack of progress at Westminster and other issues mean that they collapse. But that 10-15% of voters that back them, they won't simply vanish, they will still be there and ready and waiting for a hard right party.


----------



## oryx (Feb 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It's done as a referendum and despite some random farting in the house of lords, it will be in parliament.



My understanding is that Labour (overall) accept and respect the referendum result, as not to do so would be undemocratic, but want to get concessions on the terms of Brexit in the Lords (where the Tories do not have an overall majority).


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> They are still polling over 10% pretty much constantly, they are generally polling ahead of the LibDems. It's possible that like with the BNP internal squabbles, dissatisfaction with lack of progress at Westminster and other issues mean that they collapse. But that 10-15% of voters that back them, they won't simply vanish, they will still be there and ready and waiting for a hard right party.



They dont need a hard right party at the moment as the tories are making all the right noises to attract them .My guts tell me those who switched from the tories  started to go back straight after the election,those who are ex labour will probably stop voting,those who came from the libdems might become zen buddhists or bank robbers.In ten years time many will have moved on to pastures new.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

Council by elections in Rotherham-a Lab gain from ukip and a Libdem gain from Lab


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2017)

Corbyn is a bitter disappointment. If he loses the Stoke by-election on the 23rd Feb, I see no future for him, given that he's kept quiet re: Brexit in the hope of not pissing off the "will of the people" mob. Police investigate complaint over Paul Nuttall's Stoke byelection bid


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn can only be deposed successfully by his own stable-mates - the McDonnells and Abbot's of this world - because without the support of people like that for a change of leader the membership will just put him straight back in the chair. However, I'd put very good money on those same people taking the view that Corbyn is the only potential who would have them in his/her inner circle.

If they got rid of Corbyn they'd consign themselves to the political wasteground - the stench of failure provides for few friends, particularly in a party trying to distance itself from that failure...

So sadly I see no prospect of a change of leader.


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2017)

I don't think his being surrounded by the cult-like Momentum folks are doing him any favours.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 3, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Council by elections in Rotherham-a Lab gain from ukip and a Libdem gain from Lab



The ward in the Libdem gain Brinsworth and Catcliffe contains some of the new build development on the Orgreave coke plant site redevelopment.
A 31.97% turnout too, compared with the other ward Dinnington with a 19.37% turnout that returned Labour.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> So sadly I see no prospect of a change of leader.



Yes well anyone who was going to take on the Blairites in the party would have just the same problems and face equivalent (and often just invented) criticisms.

I'm not sure that the repeated suggestion that anyone in favour of Corbyn is a mindless culty type person is altogether fair. Is there anyone else in British politics who's suggesting a massive quantitative easing to pay for providing full employment, ending NHS privatization and giving it proper funding, increasing tax on the highest earners, building half a million council homes, introduce rent controls and secure tenancies, end zero-hours contracts and bring in stronger employment rights, universal public childcare and reinstate student grants and provide free education?

Not that he'd be able to deliver but I think at least he'd have a go. I'd be interested to hear what policies Corbyn critics would suggest instead, or whether they just don't think such things are important.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> They dont need a hard right party at the moment as the tories are making all the right noises to attract them .My guts tell me those who switched from the tories  started to go back straight after the election,those who are ex labour will probably stop voting,those who came from the libdems might become zen buddhists or bank robbers.In ten years time many will have moved on to pastures new.


Yeah, the last 10 years has seen the two most electorally successful hard-right parties in UK history because there's opening there. And of course the centre right moving right in France has definitely stopped the FN.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

two sheds said:


> Yes well anyone who was going to take on the Blairites in the party would have just the same problems and face equivalent (and often just invented) criticisms.
> 
> I'm not sure that the repeated suggestion that anyone in favour of Corbyn is a mindless culty type person is altogether fair. Is there anyone else in British politics who's suggesting a massive quantitative easing to pay for providing full employment, ending NHS privatization and giving it proper funding, increasing tax on the highest earners, building half a million council homes, introduce rent controls and secure tenancies, end zero-hours contracts and bring in stronger employment rights, universal public childcare and reinstate student grants and provide free education?...



openly? yes, pretty much all of the leftish Labour MP's, and most of the centerish Lab MP's would happily take most of that - the full employment thing has less popularity because no one has any interest in being seen to propose to pay people to do nothing, and the student fees has political sympathy, but its not in the top five of anyones list, and no one is going to choose students over housing or NHS spending, it fits fully in the nice to have catagory - but the rest of it could be written in the personal manifesto of any Lab MP from Yvette Cooper leftwards. 

Corbyns problem has never been his domestic economic agenda, its him personally, his defence/overseas agenda, and his baggage. the polling supports that - when people are asked about _anonymised_ policies they, from all over the political spectrum, give high approval ratings to the policies you've outlined above. however, as soon as you put Corbyns name next to them you may as well have suggested drowning puppies while getting your knob out in a junior school, the approval ratings for those polices nosedive.

its him, the electorate - and i take this from polling and my own doorknocking experience - don't like him. they don't trust him or like what he stands for and who his friends are in the defence/security/overseas sphere, and they don't think he could run a whelk stall, let alone a government, in the domestic sphere.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

Britain Elects
Labour Gain from UKIP.
Unelectable... +15.5%!
Dinnington: South Yorkshire
LAB 36.1% (+15.5)
UKIP 16.3 (-3.1)
CON 12.8 (+2.8)
IND 12.5 (-3.7)
IND 9.7 (-3.7)
IND 4.4 (+4.4)
GRN 4.2 (-3.5)
LDEM 4.0 (+4.0)


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Corbyns problem has never been his domestic economic agenda, its him personally, his defence/overseas agenda, and his baggage. the polling supports that - when people are asked about _anonymised_ policies they, from all over the political spectrum, give high approval ratings to the policies you've outlined above. however, as soon as you put Corbyns name next to them you may as well have suggested drowning puppies while getting your knob out in a junior school, the approval ratings for those polices nosedive.
> 
> its him, the electorate - and i take this from polling and my own doorknocking experience - don't like him. they don't trust him or like what he stands for and who his friends are in the defence/security/overseas sphere, and they don't think he could run a whelk stall, let alone a government, in the domestic sphere.



The difficulty, though, is understanding how much of that is due to the campaign of vilification jointly pushed by the rightist 'left' and the media. Not that I really care for Corbyn's sake whether people _really _dislike him or have just been brainwashed to do so, but if _anyone _putting forward an agenda even modestly left of the mainstream centre could expect the same kind of treatment, then it's not as easy as 'right ideas, wrong guy'.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn can only be deposed successfully by his own stable-mates - the McDonnells and Abbot's of this world - because without the support of people like that for a change of leader the membership will just put him straight back in the chair. However, I'd put very good money on those same people taking the view that Corbyn is the only potential who would have them in his/her inner circle.
> 
> If they got rid of Corbyn they'd consign themselves to the political wasteground - the stench of failure provides for few friends, particularly in a party trying to distance itself from that failure...
> 
> So sadly I see no prospect of a change of leader.



He has weathered the storm -the key to him stepping down before the election is a rule change lowering the threshold of mp nominations you need to stand.Currently its 15 percent or 35 ish).Corbynistas want it reduced ideally to 5 percent.I think this is on the agenda to be debated at this years conference (rule changes have to be submitted a year in advance).With an anti corbynista majority on the nec it wont have their support.This doesnt mean conference will oppose it -that depends who gets selected to go to conference from clps and how the unions vote (a coyne lead unite might vote differently to a mccluskey lead unite ).

If the so called " mccdonnell " rule change gets passed my view is he could step down to allow a better media performer from the corbynistas to step forward .But if not he will plough on and hope the composition of the plp helps a left challenger after 2020.


----------



## bemused (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Britain Elects
> Labour Gain from UKIP.
> Unelectable... +15.5%!
> Dinnington: South Yorkshire
> ...



Turn out drop 10% from last year and the winner polled 23% fewer votes that last year. The swing seems to have come from the UKIP vote taking a huge shit.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

> Corbyns problem has never been his domestic economic agenda, its him personally, his defence/overseas agenda, and his baggage.



That is the story of the wider left, more huge Trump protests this sat, none on basic issues.

btw, the wider left is not the few people who post on here, but the sects, cranks, liberals, church types,worthies, civil society, who can and do mobilise(successfully)  on 'sexy' issues and thus crowd out other issues such as the huge power price rises, where in other countries has brought down govt's.


----------



## bemused (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> That is the story of the wider left, more huge Trump protests this sat, none on basic issues.



I'm expecting his domestic approval polling to go up if the Worldwide protests continue.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

Whatever some posters say, the remnants of the SWP and Counterfire, Rees, German, do have resources, influence, and mobilise on their issues, usually identity politics based, creating  'coalitions', etc.

btw, till 2003 i had never heard of German and Rees, Callinicos(gone very quiet?) Nineham, etc, i encountered their disgusting Modus Operandi during the European Social Movement era, at a high level.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm expecting his domestic approval polling to go up if the Worldwide protests continue.



innit.

you'd have thought that anyone with even the slightest interest in US politics would have long understood that Americans do not take well to being lectured by European Liberals about what they must or must not do, and that when done so they swing even harder the other way - but apparently not.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

There are numerous agendas going on with these protests, many are using it to create an Open Borders movement, then there is recruiting, etc.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> This is the grauniad's clearly disbelieving take on Abbot's illness (migraine):
> Diane Abbott missed article 50 vote due to migraine, her office says


Diane Abbott urged to resign and apologise after she missed crunch Brexit vote


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

#prayfordiane


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2017)

gosub said:


> Diane Abbott urged to resign and apologise after she missed crunch Brexit vote


By not voting she ends up looking like a bigger div than if she's voted for article 50 and defied her constituents wishes.  Voting for it or against it were the only honourable positions.  Aside from the remote possibility she really did have a migraine - they can be crushing - she ends up looking like a prat over this.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

Diane is becoming a liability, its a shame, she can be very good at times.

Though it is John Mann who is doing the stirring.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> #prayfordiane


Migraleve the European Union.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Diane is becoming a liability, its a shame, she can be very good at times.
> 
> Though it is John Mann who is doing the stirring.




Becoming?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 3, 2017)

I'm glad at my work if you have to take a day off sick everyone doesn't instantly assume you're malingering. It's not like it was an important vote (as it was already a done deal), or that anyone didn't already know her position.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Diane is becoming a liability, its a shame, she can be very good at times.
> 
> Though it is John Mann who is doing the stirring.



she - and by extention, the cause she espouses - gave her political enemies (and boy, does she have them...) a 300ft gold plated spoon. she didn't even leave it lying around by mistake, but posted it to them and made sure someone would be in to take delivery.

if Corbyn doesn't understand what an utter liability she is then he's even more useless than i imagined, and to quote our favourite smuggler, i can imagine quite a lot...


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> she - and by extention, the cause she espouses - gave her political enemies (and boy, does she have them...) a 300ft gold plated spoon. she didn't even leave it lying around by mistake, but posted it to them and made sure someone would be in to take delivery.
> 
> if Corbyn doesn't understand what an utter liability she is then he's even more useless than i imagined, and to quote our favourite smuggler, i can imagine quite a lot...


About 5 people actually care.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

> Rotherham with a LibDem gain from Labour with a 50.4% increase for the LibDems and a -26.2% swing away from Labour



Wow.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Wow.



Ukip are clearly on the retreat in Rotherham -couldnt win this ward and lost another seat to labour last night.Voters are all over the place at the moment -Rotherham is for Brexit but votes libdem ?Explain.

Does this say anything about Stoke ?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'm glad at my work if you have to take a day off sick everyone doesn't instantly assume you're malingering. It's not like it was an important vote (as it was already a done deal), or that anyone didn't already know her position.


If there's any significance at all, it's her not supporting _Corbyn_.  But yes, given the way the whole Corbyn/Momentum thing has died anyway, it's not very significant.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If there's any significance at all, it's her not supporting _Corbyn_.  But yes, given the way the whole Corbyn/Momentum thing has died anyway, it's not very significant.



oh yeah, its got no significance in terms of Brexit/Remain, but its got lots of juicy significance within Labour - perhaps, though i'm horrified that i might think it - she's decided that while the Great Leaders project is very _worthy_, of greater importance is the upcoming three-way selection fight where She, Corbyn and Thornberry (?) are going after two seats between them, and voting for Brexit might be a blot on her CV.

one, of course, that the other two will have...


----------



## bemused (Feb 3, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'm glad at my work if you have to take a day off sick everyone doesn't instantly assume you're malingering. It's not like it was an important vote (as it was already a done deal), or that anyone didn't already know her position.



This gives her the ability to say later she wouldn't have voted for it, I suspect every interview she does after this she'll have to say that she would have voted with the whip.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'm glad at my work if you have to take a day off sick everyone doesn't instantly assume you're malingering. It's not like it was an important vote (as it was already a done deal), or *that anyone didn't already know her position*.


Voting record - Diane Abbott MP, Hackney North and Stoke Newington - TheyWorkForYou "Voted a mixture of for and against UK membership of the EU"


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 3, 2017)

By "position" I meant "how she would have voted in that specific vote".


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> By "position" I meant "how she would have voted in that specific vote".



Do we? I thought she was so stuck between a rock and hard place she gave herself a headache just thinking about it.


----------



## legz (Feb 3, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Ukip are clearly on the retreat in Rotherham -couldnt win this ward and lost another seat to labour last night.Voters are all over the place at the moment -Rotherham is for Brexit but votes libdem ?Explain.
> 
> Does this say anything about Stoke ?



Existing labour councillor got convicted of summat (don't know what, sorry). Area has a high muslim population, so unlikely to desert labour for ukip. Hence libdem gain......The other seat was in a very white w/c ex-mining village. Went from ukip -> labour

Most pleasing aspect for me (Rotherhams not far from me), is that the far-right have been turning up in Rotherham for ages, trying to use the CSE case as a way of causing racial-friction. Good to see them lose here


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

legz said:


> Existing labour councillor got convicted of summat (don't know what, sorry). Area has a high muslim population, so unlikely to desert labour for ukip. Hence libdem gain......The other seat was in a very white w/c ex-mining village. Went from ukip -> labour
> 
> Most pleasing aspect for me (Rotherhams not far from me), is that the far-right have been turning up in Rotherham for ages, trying to use the CSE case as a way of causing racial-friction. Good to see them lose here



Thanks local explanation was given for libdem gain in sunderland two weeks ago.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Ukip are clearly on the retreat in Rotherham -couldnt win this ward and lost another seat to labour last night.Voters are all over the place at the moment -Rotherham is for Brexit but votes libdem ?Explain.
> 
> Does this say anything about Stoke ?


It's a council by election, trying to use it as a measure of what "Rotherham" thinks is utterly stupid.


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 3, 2017)

Labour looks at collaborating with Lib Dems and Greens in Stoke

On the one hand, it would make a change from Labour's traditional arrogant refusal to collaborate with anyone else on the left. On the other, will doubtless be seen as (and, let's be honest, is) exactly the kind of establishment stitch-up that makes some people want to vote UKIP in the first place. So it might 'keep 'em out' but its hardly addressing the problem.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Labour looks at collaborating with Lib Dems and Greens in Stoke
> 
> On the one hand, it would make a change from Labour's traditional arrogant refusal to collaborate with anyone else on the left. On the other, will doubtless be seen as (and, let's be honest, is) exactly the kind of establishment stitch-up that makes some people want to vote UKIP in the first place. So it might 'keep 'em out' but its hardly addressing the problem.


I just posted that over in the LidDems shit thread.

It is worth bearing in mind that there isn't a single quote from any Labour source there, not even an anonymous one, while at the same time there's LD arse-licking aplenty, it's clearly part of the the Guardians own agenda.

That said there are people, both inside and outside the LP, that want to see this type of progressive alliance (urgh) and would cheer over an anti-UKIP message. And your completely right that this is the type of shit that is why people are voting for UKIP and merely strengthens the hard-right vote.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

Cant see it myself -tho if labour were to lose both some would rethink.Its a sign of weakness to many labour traditionalists

Its a function of the voting system surely -only under pr would you see it happen when it would be a sign of inevitability.

I sense the hard right threat is receding fast but time will tell in stoke.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 4, 2017)

If politics were logical or rational then voters would warm to Corbyn on Brexit.


politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Corbyn is more in touch on Europe with the voters Labour needs to win back than his MPs or members


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> Diane Abbott urged to resign and apologise after she missed crunch Brexit vote



Looking at the numbers it seems pretty clear that Abbot had the casting vote as well.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2017)

kebabking said:


> she - and by extention, the cause she espouses - gave her political enemies (and boy, does she have them...) a 300ft gold plated spoon.



Surely this spoon would make it incredibly hard to stir anything.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 5, 2017)

If he loses Abbott and Lewis this week who knows .

Diane Abbott’s support for Jeremy Corbyn in doubt over Brexit vote

Those boundary proposals will run and run.

On the Tory side Osborne and Patels seats disappear.Noone left behind strategy will be super stretched for Gideon -could Mrs Maybe finish him off forever.?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 5, 2017)

I heard that DA was tweeting about the time the vote was taking place.
It's complicated by DA  having a fling with JC a while back.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the full employment thing has less popularity because no one has any interest in being seen to propose to pay people to do nothing,



You seem to be agreeing with Thatcher and the big business bosses that British business (and the government) needed to be 'slimmed out' in the 80s and beyond. 

There's loads of work around - people are working two jobs just to pay then rent, loads of council employees have gone so litter isn't being collected and footpaths aren't being cut and parks aren't being kept as well as they were. Ever since '79, millions of people people have been got rid of and the workload transferred to the people staying or the work just isn't being done.

Even though productivity has gone up steadily wages haven't, the money has gone to the bosses instead. We need more nurses and people building homes and smaller class sizes with kids being taught by proper teachers. We should be making sure peoples' houses are well insulated and they have solar panels and battery back up. We should be making renewable equipment in Britain. There's loads of things around Britain that need doing to stop it turning into a shithole.



> and the student fees has political sympathy, but its not in the top five of anyones list, and no one is going to choose students over housing or NHS spending,



So you agree with the tories and lib dems on this one, too. Quantitative easing (always assuming people would buy the bonds after brexit but you'd think they might - I would with any spare cash) would mean you don't have to do it or housing or NHS spending because you'd be doing all of them. It's a disgusting policy to saddle poor and lower-middle-class kids with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they even get into a job (rich kids no problem) that will hang over some of them for 20 years. Particularly after our generation has benefited from free education and then pulled the drawbridge up again.



> it fits fully in the nice to have catagory - but the rest of it could be written in the personal manifesto of any Lab MP from Yvette Cooper leftwards.



The blairite way of raising money that nearly all? labour MPs signed up to was to privatize it using PFI, I could quite see a 'centrist' giving it another round. She's come out against quantitative easing so how do you raise the money? 'Blooper Cooper threatens HUGE tax rises on hard working people - that's YOU' would be all over the papers.



> Corbyns problem has never been his domestic economic agenda, its him personally, his defence/overseas agenda, and his baggage. the polling supports that - when people are asked about _anonymised_ policies they, from all over the political spectrum, give high approval ratings to the policies you've outlined above. however, as soon as you put Corbyns name next to them you may as well have suggested drowning puppies while getting your knob out in a junior school, the approval ratings for those polices nosedive.
> 
> its him, the electorate - and i take this from polling and my own doorknocking experience - don't like him. they don't trust him or like what he stands for and who his friends are in the defence/security/overseas sphere, and they don't think he could run a whelk stall, let alone a government, in the domestic sphere.



And after the pasting corbyn has had in the press any labour mp you'd choose to name would soon enough be "like suggesting drowning puppies while getting your knob out in a junior school". Photos of bacon sarnies, them not bowing deeply enough at a commemoration, them being anti-semite because they want israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land. Six months of that and it would be 'Last person to leave Britain turn the lights out' again.

You wouldn't trust any of them with a whelk stall after the Mail and the Sun got after them. To me it's policies that are important, not personalities.

If Labour's ratings don't improve I think I'd like to see him hand over some months before an election to someone younger but it would have to be someone that supports his policies and doesn't just pay lip service to get power and then get on with Business as Normal. I doubt there are too many of those tbh. They'd be what you'd accuse of being Corbynite groupies or cultists.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 6, 2017)

Looking at the boundary proposals it seems Abbott is in direct competition with Meg Hillier high profile chair of the Public accounts committee for the new Hackney central seat which takes in five wards from each of their current seats..And surprise surprise Hillier voted against article 50.Hence Diane has more than one headache to contend with.

And if I recall correctly as she deselected Ernie Roberts ,one of those pro moscow apologists and an old man of the left all those years ago knives could be being sharpened down the Wick.Revenge is a dish best eat cold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> knives could be being sharpened down the Wick


no they couldn't. that sort of thing no longer happens in hackney wick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Revenge is a dish best eat cold.


no, revenge is a dish best _served_ cold.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 6, 2017)

see the charitable part of me wants to believe Abbot- migrains can fell anyone and are allegedly like agony. But that good part of me is drowned out by a mental image of jimmy hill's chin waggling up and down to tune of yakety sax


----------



## Wilf (Feb 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It's complicated by DA  having a fling with JC a while back.



Shurely "_Labour reds rumpy pumpy romp breaches Brexit ballot blocking ballyhoo_"


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no, revenge is a dish best _served_ cold.



You are correct ,senior moment,actually its more machiavellian still.Because the current proposal is half of Dianes constituency is to be combined with wards from JCs islington North citadel.The old lovers have done a deal.-he goes for islington north she goes for hackney central.What a story.He knew what she was going to do.

So why is it being ignored -because boning on about his lack of authority fits the narrative better.

Cor blimey its a right old carve up and no mistake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> You are correct ,senior moment,actually its more machiavellian still.Because the current proposal is half of Dianes constituency is to be combined with wards from JCs islington North citadel.The old lovers have done a deal.-he goes for islington north she goes for hackney central.What a story.He knew what she was going to do.
> 
> So why is it being ignored -because boning on about his lack of authority fits the narrative better.
> 
> Cor blimey its a right old carve up and no mistake.


i can only assume you have not previously been a keen observer of labour party internal matters.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 6, 2017)

No dont live in London and tbh after half a lifetime its very boring so it passes me by.But no hint from the msm thats what its about.Just lazy journalism and a dominant tory narrative I suppose.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 6, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> ...Just lazy journalism and a dominant tory narrative I suppose.



I'm not sure you could describe the idea that Corbyn couldn't run a whelk stall as merely a Tory narrative...

Anyway, even if you could I'd suggest that given the alternative - that his closest, oldest political and personal ally in the Labour party thinks that his rule is likely to be sufficiently short-lived that she's prepared to throw a spanner in his spokes in order to get her mitts on the safest of safe seats - the couldn't run a whelk stall story is the one the spin doctors would be peddling....


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 7, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure you could describe the idea that Corbyn couldn't run a whelk stall as merely a Tory narrative...
> 
> Anyway, even if you could I'd suggest that given the alternative - that his closest, oldest political and personal ally in the Labour party thinks that his rule is likely to be sufficiently short-lived that she's prepared to throw a spanner in his spokes in order to get her mitts on the safest of safe seats - the couldn't run a whelk stall story is the one the spin doctors would be peddling....



They cooked it up between them -she is giving him a free run in Islington to do battle against Hillier a remainer in a remain constituency-hence her tactical abstention.If she had voted for Brexit that might have given her real problems in the selection to come.Hs on the other hand is happy for her abstention to be seen as undermining him when their joint motive is actually to give her the best chance of suurviving as an mp.No greater love etc etc works both ways .


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure you could describe the idea that Corbyn couldn't run a whelk stall as merely a Tory narrative...
> 
> Anyway, even if you could I'd suggest that given the alternative - that his closest, oldest political and personal ally in the Labour party thinks that his rule is likely to be sufficiently short-lived that she's prepared to throw a spanner in his spokes in order to get her mitts on the safest of safe seats - the couldn't run a whelk stall story is the one the spin doctors would be peddling....


sick of you denigrating the hard work of the seaside fishmonger. It requires a good eye and early mornings. Stop being dry to the whelk stallers


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 7, 2017)

But what will Diane do tomorrow -Labour will be on three line whip to support the third reading even if no amendments carried.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 7, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> But what will Diane do tomorrow -Labour will be on three line whip to support the third reading even if no amendments carried.



Well, I'll laugh my tits off if she gets another headache...

Shall we run a book - A runny tummy, or traffic, perhaps had to wait in for a parcel?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 7, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Well, I'll laugh my tits off if she gets another headache...
> 
> Shall we run a book - A runny tummy, or traffic, perhaps had to wait in for a parcel?


Michael Portillo might have bought her a surprise railway journey as a pressie, could be providing moral support for Andrew Neil's new hairweave, could be stuck in a taxi given that she spent £1,100 on them in 2009, could be doing the egg and spoon race at the City of London School.  So many demands on her time!


----------



## Wilf (Feb 7, 2017)

Acshually... my guess is she'll turn up and vote for the bill. Her no show last week was just about enough mood music to cling onto in the reselection process.


----------



## agricola (Feb 7, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Unfortunately that's a proposal that involves unicorns and fairy dust - the EU rules are that you drop out of the EU on the second anniversary of triggering A50, deal or no deal. Moreover there is no legal mechanism within the EU treaties to rescind A50 once it's been triggered.
> 
> All this 'meaningfull vote' stuff is just the witterings of people who haven't read the rules, and ammusingly such witterings do nothing but play into hands of the hardest or hardest Brexiteers. To reject whatever deal May gets ensures that the UK will leave the EU on 1st April 2019 with no deal in place on pretty much anything.
> 
> You'd have thought that people who are so keen on the EU might have taken the time to read the EU's rules, but apparently not...



That is if Article 50 remains in effect.  There is nothing to say that a member state cannot withdraw an Article 50 request before leaving - admittedly there is nothing to say that it can do it either, though given how Article 49 is worded (which doesn't say that a state could withdraw an application to join once made, even though such a course of action is obviously legal) I would have thought it is more than likely that a Court would accept that a state could do it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

agricola said:


> That is if Article 50 remains in effect.  There is nothing to say that a member state cannot withdraw an Article 50 request before leaving - admittedly there is nothing to say that it can do it either, though given how Article 49 is worded (which doesn't say that a state could withdraw an application to join once made, even though such a course of action is obviously legal) I would have thought it is more than likely that a Court would accept that a state could do it.


yeh but we've such a bunch of cackhanded wankers in parliament they'd fuck up the withdrawal of article 50 just as badly as they'll fuck up brexit


----------



## killer b (Feb 7, 2017)

Vague rumours about a left challenge to corbyn on twitter this afternoon - anyone got any more?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Vague rumours about a left challenge to corbyn on twitter this afternoon - anyone got any more?



i understand diane abbott was unable to attend the vote the other night as she was in talks with her advisors about whether to stand herself.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Vague rumours about a left challenge to corbyn on twitter this afternoon - anyone got any more?




Probably a few people eyeing up candidacies following the by-elections


----------



## killer b (Feb 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i understand diane abbott was unable to attend the vote the other night as she was in talks with her advisors about whether to stand herself.


That would be funny, if nothing else.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Vague rumours about a left challenge to corbyn on twitter this afternoon - anyone got any more?



No, I haven't though it could be interesting. Not sure what such a challenger's pitch would be?  'I agree with Jeremy, but he's not getting anywhere'?  Let's accept Brexit?


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 7, 2017)

Is it me or are the Labour leadership challenges coming round earlier every year? Groundhog's barely had time to see his shadow. Starting to feel like Bill Murray would if he began falling asleep moments after punching Ned Ryerson.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Is it me or are the Labour leadership challenges coming round earlier every year? Groundhog's barely had time to see his shadow. Starting to feel like Bill Murray would if he began falling asleep moments after punching Ned Ryerson.


it's to do with climate change


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it's to do with climate change



Yet another way in which Jeremy Corbyn has failed to make enough impact then


----------



## kebabking (Feb 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> No, I haven't though it could be interesting. Not sure what such a challenger's pitch would be?  'I agree with Jeremy, but he's not getting anywhere'?  Let's accept Brexit?



personally i've not caught even a whiff - lots of people who have previously supported him who now no longer speak up in his defence and who very obviously think he's useless but who don't neccesarily say so openly - but nothing to suggest that there is an appetite for the deeply unpleasant squabbles that would accompany such a contest.

undoubtedly there'd be fewer tears if he walked than perhaps there would have been a year ago, but i don't see the left pushing him under a bus.

at least a left/right squabble can be dressed up as policy - but a left/left squabble is down to 'you're a useless cunt and you're mates with cunts', which kind of sours that collegiate, comradely spirit...


----------



## emanymton (Feb 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Vague rumours about a left challenge to corbyn on twitter this afternoon - anyone got any more?



Any challange from the left will result in the right winning surely? Or does the left in this case actally mean someone with a similar stance to Burnham?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Probably a few people eyeing up candidacies following the by-elections


Yep, looking at her twitter malarkey it doesn't look any firmer than that.
If Labour were to lose the by elections and also do badly in the local elections I suspect the focus will shift onto the labour left trying to get him to step aside rather than challenging him outright. A leftist challenge to him would operate at the level of high farce (unlike of course the high minded challenge of owen whatsisface)


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 7, 2017)

If they take another baby step to the left once a year or so, by about 2150 they'll be roughly as Stalinist as the Mail thinks they are now.


----------



## gosub (Feb 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> That would be funny, if nothing else.



Dead Ringers would have to kill off their Andrew Neil with a heart attack


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Michael Portillo might have bought her a surprise railway journey as a pressie, could be providing moral support for Andrew Neil's new hairweave, *could be stuck in a taxi given that she spent £1,100 on them in 2009*, could be doing the egg and spoon race at the City of London School.  So many demands on her time!



Was that as a Minister?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 7, 2017)

kebabking said:


> lots of people who have previously supported him who now no longer speak up in his defence and who very obviously think he's useless but who don't neccesarily say so openly


Do you not think you might be projecting your own views on to other people's silence? Maybe they are just unwilling to be drawn into any more futile slagging matches with people who are obviously never going to change their opinion, and are just getting on with useful stuff instead?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 7, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Do you not think you might be projecting your own views on to other people's silence?..



Nope, it's the body language - the raised eyebrows, the rolling eyes, the sighs, the crossed arms when the true believers are holding forth...


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 7, 2017)

"True believers" in anything always piss normal people off though. Whether you basically agree or disagree with whatever it is they "true believe" in.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 7, 2017)

Rebecca Long Bailey the MP for Salford ( she was on Question Time the other week)is only 6-1 to be the next leader. I think she was only elected as an MP in 2015.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Rebecca Long Bailey the MP for Salford ( she was on Question Time the other week)is only 6-1 to be the next leader. I think she was only elected as an MP in 2015.



Made a good start but way too early for her(and imo Lewis,Starmer or Jarvis).

After the byelections key election this year will be West Midlands mayor.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 7, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Made a good start but way too early for her(and imo Lewis,Starmer or Jarvis).
> 
> After the byelections key election this year will be West Midlands mayor.



Experience = previous complicity atm. No reason for lack of it to hold Starmer esp back.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 8, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Experience = previous complicity atm. No reason for lack of it to hold Starmer esp back.



He cocked up tonight ,and it is said ,is still too much of a lawyer and not enough of a politician.

Governing after the 2020 election seems like a poisoned chalice to me .Maybe leave it to 2024/5.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Made a good start but way too early for her(and imo Lewis,Starmer or Jarvis).
> 
> After the byelections key election this year will be West Midlands mayor.



There is a rumour, and it may just be a rumour or an attempt to undermine Corbyn  , that he  has given a departure date ( not an immediate one) to his close circle. If its true then expect to see some jostling and maneuvering from the left MPs.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> There is a rumour, and it may just be a rumour or an attempt to undermine Corbyn  , that he  has given a departure date ( not an immediate one) to his close circle. If its true then expect to see some jostling and maneuvering from the left MPs.



I've seen that rumour, only on Twitter though. Which doesn't mean it isn't true, but definitely not one to start making bets on.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

Anyone care to speculate on potential candidates? I'm guessing Dan Jarvis, Chukka Ummuna, Clive Lewis...


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2017)

I would put my money on someone completely new, like Owen Smith.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I would put my money on someone completely new, like Owen Smith.



New glasses and a wig, presenting Mr Smithy Owens.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> There is a rumour, and it may just be a rumour or an attempt to undermine Corbyn  , that he  has given a departure date ( not an immediate one) to his close circle. If its true then expect to see some jostling and maneuvering from the left MPs.


It's just from that MEN journo I quoted above as far as I can tell. I've never known her to have any particular insight to national Labour politics before - presumably her source is someone local (Long Bailey, Burnham perhaps?)


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2017)

YouSir said:


> New glasses and a wig, presenting Mr Smithy Owens.


You only need a disguise if people will recognise you. And we need to save the money for the poorly-attended barbeque.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

Add Burgon to the list of possibles, at least in the frenzied world of idle speculation. He's alright, prefer him to Clive Lewis anyway, although a lot of people seem enthused about him. Angela Rayner's another one who's worthwhile, no idea if she'd be stepping forward mind.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

mauvais said:


> You only need a disguise if people will recognise you. And we need to save the money for the poorly-attended barbeque.



He'll have learnt from last time, it'll be a couple of Greggs sausage rolls on a park bench this time.


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 8, 2017)

YouSir said:


> He'll have learnt from last time, it'll be a couple of Greggs sausage rolls on a park bench this time.



Most park benches have space for at least three people...


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Anyone care to speculate on potential candidates? I'm guessing Dan Jarvis, Chukka Ummuna, Clive Lewis...



Useless they are. Couldn't run a whelk stall


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I would put my money on someone completely new, like Owen Smith.



Couldn't run a whelk stall him.


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Anyone care to speculate on potential candidates? I'm guessing Dan Jarvis, Chukka Ummuna*,* Clive Lewis...



what's changed?


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

newbie said:


> what's changed?
> View attachment 100136



Who knows? I remember there was talk of something shady in his past but no real proof of anything. Given time and the right (in both senses) support to counter it though he might be more willing this time. Sure he hasn't lost the lust for power.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

All hypothetical either way, only rumours so far.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2017)

They should also put up that other one that was pretty popular last time before Owen Who? took over.

I'm not good with names but you know who I mean - northern, Wallasey maybe? Down to earth, working class credentials. Made of clay and fired in a kiln.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

mauvais said:


> They should also put up that other one that was pretty popular last time before Owen Who? took over.
> 
> I'm not good with names but you know who I mean - northern, Wallasey maybe? Down to earth, working class credentials. Made of clay and fired in a kiln.



Andy Burnham? Can't remember who else there was other than Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. He sank away fairly gracefully, not sure of his credentials mind. Either way he's going to be Mayor of Manchester, so bit late for power plays.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

Word has it he just defenestrated May at PMQs with some neatly timed leaked texts re: a corrupt stitch up between the govt and Surrey Council to avoid a council tax referendum (cancelled yesterday).  So that's nice.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

Corbyn stuns Theresa May with text leak 'exposing secret deal' for Tory council


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 8, 2017)

He is doing a fine job.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

I wouldn't go _that_ far.


----------



## poului (Feb 8, 2017)

He seems to be very apt at pulling a rabbit out of the hat when he's under the most pressure before going back to being shit again.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Feb 8, 2017)

And May using the ' alternative facts ' line


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> He is doing a fine job.



In a captain of the Titanic sort of way.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

The job he's doing kind of depends on the upcoming by-elections, which I think Labour will win. And that's against the full media hysteria of supposed resignation and, yet again, a few million quids worth of free advertising for UKIP.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

the full text exchange - the bellend was texting the wrong person.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> I wouldn't go _that_ far.


I only said it for the caustic outraged replies I knew I would get.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> the full text exchange - the bellend was texting the wrong person.



An _alternative _person, no doubt.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

Peston has some more background.

_I have spoken to David Hodge, the leader of Surrey Council, whose texts were read out at Prime Minister's Questions by Jeremy Corbyn as evidence of a possible sweetheart funding deal between the government and Surrey Council.

Hodge said he "swears on the bible there was no sweetheart deal".

But he concedes the texts he sent were supposed to go to Nick King, the special adviser to Sajid Javid.

Instead they went - by mistake - to a Labour councillor, Hodge told me. He is furious because he feels that the honour code of members of the Local Government Association, that they don't leak against each other, has been breached by the leaker.

Certainly the leaks make it look as though there was some kind of deal - because they contain the phrase "the numbers you indicated are the numbers that I understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the R....."

Now the "R" in question is the controversial referendum that Surrey Council was proposing to hold, to authorise a stonking 15% increase in council tax.

This referendum was called off yesterday - which was taken by Corbyn as circumstantial evidence that Surrey had been bought off by Javid and the Department of Communities and Local Government.

This referendum and council-tax rise were hugely embarrassing to the government, because Hodge had made it clear Surrey needed the extra money to fill a black hole in social care.

Having dropped the referendum, Surrey is now imposing a smaller 4.99% rise in council tax.

Hodge told me he remains deeply concerned by what he described as the "crisis in social care" - which he says is a huge contributor to the shortage of beds in hospitals, with old people unable to leave hospitals because the money isn't available to care for them outside.

He says that the reason he called off the referendum is that he is persuaded the government is working on proposals that may put social care on a more sustainable footing.

If he was given an inside track on the government's outline ideas to restore funding for social care, that too would be embarrassing to the prime minister.

When attacked on the alleged leaks by Jeremy Corbyn today, Theresa May looked rattled._


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

'the honour code of the local government association' huh?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 8, 2017)

Mafia business.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 8, 2017)

"i'm really furious that you found out about my dirty deal" ha


----------



## andysays (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the honour code of the local government association' huh?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the honour code of the local government association' huh?


As described in Nitobe Inazō's 1899 book, '_Bushido: The Soul of The Updated Residents' Parking Permit Scheme_'.

See also: 'Accidental Partridge'


----------



## YouSir (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the honour code of the local government association' huh?



They're going to chop off Corbyn's pinkie finger in the HoC bar.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the honour code of the local government association' huh?




Quite frankly if you need an "honour code" to stop revealing dirty deals and back door rubs you should be aware that its not breaching the fucking code thats dodgy as fuck.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 8, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn 'to stand down as leader of Labour'


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2017)

we did that this morning, it's all _Jeremy Corbyn Slaughters May_ now. A couple of hours is a long time in politics...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 8, 2017)

Yeah I know I was reading the thread, I just wanted to put the link up


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 8, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn not to step down and why he wont.

Has Jeremy Corbyn named a departure date?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Feb 8, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'to stand down as leader of Labour'


That was debunked later this morning apparently


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 8, 2017)




----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2017)

"according to reports" on urban75 ...


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> we did that this morning, it's all _Jeremy Corbyn Slaughters May_ now. A couple of hours is a long time in politics...


I remained a "true believer" all through those 2 long hours.


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2017)

He's had his front garden pruned.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 8, 2017)

Rebecca Long Bailey wldnt seem like the worst choice for replacement leader tbf


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> "i'm really furious that you found out about my dirty deal" ha


no no, it is honour that has been bismerched here clearly. Simply not cricket. Hang every man jack of them.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> He's had his front garden pruned.



Is that a euphemism?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's just from that MEN journo I quoted above as far as I can tell. I've never known her to have any particular insight to national Labour politics before - presumably her source is someone local (Long Bailey, Burnham perhaps?)


I saw her tweet , she's quite well connected with the Manchester Labour more the Burnham side than the Corbynistas . The person who told me is an ex Trot whose been in Labour for years both London and Manchester but for all I know he might have just repeated her tweet.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Andy Burnham? Can't remember who else there was other than Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. He sank away fairly gracefully, not sure of his credentials mind. Either way he's going to be Mayor of Manchester, so bit late for power plays.


Actually being Mayor of Manchester could be very good for his CV in a challenge not this time around but in the future.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

Burnhams feem tune:


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2017)

A little photomontage of Wigan, there.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 8, 2017)

mauvais said:


> A little photomontage of Wigan, there.


Lots of Wigan is surprisingly green and beautiful. They had to do something with all those hastily closed coal mines.


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Is that a euphemism?


No, it's literally true


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> No, it's literally true


Worked better as a eupemism.


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Worked better as a eupemism.



I bet his neighbours don't think so.  Bloke with the tatty garden has turned this street into a media circus


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the honour code of the local government association' huh?


Somone's going to be sleeping with the fishes.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 8, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Actually being Mayor of Manchester could be very good for his CV in a challenge not this time around but in the future.



Think that ship has sailed-keep your eye on the London mayor tho.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 8, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Jeremy Corbyn not to step down and why he wont.
> 
> Has Jeremy Corbyn named a departure date?


I'd expect corbyn to be there till at least November for the next party conference.... That 13 people to nominate a candidate is now looking like his chance at a legacy.... Though New Statesman don't sound too optimistic of it passing


----------



## hash tag (Feb 9, 2017)

Diane Abbott unleashes four-letter volley after Brexit Minister 'kiss'


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Diane Abbott unleashes four-letter volley after Brexit Minister 'kiss'



As Tory official is suspended for racist tweet about Diane and complaints made to police.

Conservative official suspended over racist tweet aimed at Diane Abbott


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 9, 2017)

Long -Bailey becomes shadow Business secretary in reshuffle post Article 50 votes.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 9, 2017)

Cant see corbs hanging on much longer now tbh. Bad by-election results could be enough. Barring that - another leadership challenge could see him off as he's shat his pot with much of his fanbase after the Brexit bollocks. Mostly not his fault - he's a prisoner of circumstances and the  labour party institutions - but he lacks the pithy charisma to communicate above the deafening  media/labour establishment sneering.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Cant see corbs hanging on much longer now tbh. Bad by-election results could be enough. Barring that - another leadership challenge could see him off as he's shat his pot with much of his fanbase after the Brexit bollocks. Mostly not his fault - he's a prisoner of circumstances and the  labour party institutions - but he lacks the pithy charisma to communicate above the deafening  media/labour establishment sneering.


Yeah I'd pretty much agree with that. He didn't play it well but he was always trapped by the fact that many of those who supported him were among the most strongly Remain. Though I'm skeptical that his successor will have much more success at squaring the circle re how the LP deals with the referendum result than Corbyn.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 9, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah I'd pretty much agree with that. He didn't play it well but he was always trapped by the fact that many of those who supported him were among the most strongly Remain. Though I'm skeptical that his successor will have much more success at squaring the circle re how the LP deals with the referendum result than Corbyn.



Assuming Article 50 doesn't get delayed, what square will be left to be circled?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2017)

Just seen Angela Raynor who used to be our Unison Branch Secretary on the front bench for Labour .


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Just seen Angela Raynor who used to be our Unison Branch Secretary on the front bench for Labour .


How the mighty have fallen


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2017)

She couldn't run a whelk stall


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2017)

She's a solid , if sometimes pragmatic, left Labourite from a working class background to be fair. Surprised she was a Corbyn supporter as she wouldn't touch the Trots with a barge pole.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> if sometimes pragmatic


the labour left way.


----------



## Sue (Feb 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Diane Abbott unleashes four-letter volley after Brexit Minister 'kiss'



'An ally suggested he perhaps sought to embrace Ms Abbott but added: “I don’t think it’s right he tried to ‘plant a kiss’ and it was perfectly jovial.”

Wish she'd shown him just how jovial it all was with a swift knee to the bollocks.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the labour left way.


Yup with all its limitations.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2017)

Completely off topic but I was a bit impressed with the EFF in the South African Parliament today


----------



## free spirit (Feb 10, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Cant see corbs hanging on much longer now tbh. Bad by-election results could be enough. Barring that - another leadership challenge could see him off as he's shat his pot with much of his fanbase after the Brexit bollocks. Mostly not his fault - he's a prisoner of circumstances and the  labour party institutions - but he lacks the pithy charisma to communicate above the deafening  media/labour establishment sneering.


2 long term leftish labour members and former COrbyn supporters on my timeline saying they've just resigned due to his handling of these brexit votes. FWIW.

They're in danger of doing a Scotland here, taking their base support for granted while chasing the UKIP vote, and ending up losing the lot instead, particularly if by the next election this has all gone completely tits, we've crashed out of the EU with no trade deals at all in place, resulting in a massive recession come 2019, something that labour did fuck all to prevent. This being the point when they could have prevented it by forcing the government to accept an amendment that gave parliament a proper say in the outcome, including all options - stay as we are (don't leave the EU), go back and ask for more time to renegotiate on new terms agreed by parliament, agree to deal gov has negotiated or crash out on basic WTO terms.

Now about the only option if May comes back with SFA is a vote of no confidence then request that the EU gives the new government an extension to renegotiate and / or hold new referendum. AN option that seems far less likely to get the necessary tory support then a proper vote on the deal May has negotiated.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 10, 2017)

Sue said:


> 'An ally suggested he perhaps sought to embrace Ms Abbott but added: “I don’t think it’s right he tried to ‘plant a kiss’ and it was perfectly jovial.”
> 
> Wish she'd shown him just how jovial it all was with a swift knee to the bollocks.


Yep. Whether you call this groping, sexual harassment or 'just' unwanted physical contact, what he did was way over the line. The stuff of formal complaints in most workplaces.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2017)

free spirit said:


> they could have prevented it by forcing the government to accept an amendment that gave parliament a proper say in the outcome, including all options - stay as we are (don't leave the EU), go back and ask for more time to renegotiate on new terms agreed by parliament, agree to deal gov has negotiated or crash out on basic WTO terms.


How would they have forced the government to do this?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

free spirit said:


> 2 long term leftish labour members and former COrbyn supporters on my timeline saying they've just resigned due to his handling of these brexit votes. FWIW.


I think that is just the remnants of brexit tantrum.... I'm hoping people get it together and stop chasing after a long lost cause soon.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2017)

It may be a massive miscalculation on the Labour leadership's part, but I think they have access to more sophisticated polling data and models than we do - we basically just have our fingers in the air.

My own finger in the air from canvassing last May suggests W/C voters of all parties are overwhelmingly, often passionately against the EU. They aren't chasing UKIP votes, but shoring up their own anti-EU voters in W/C areas.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

And maybe they are also just accepting a democratic decision made by the country? I mean call me idealistic but..


----------



## free spirit (Feb 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> How would they have forced the government to do this?


If they'd indicated they'd be putting a 3 line whip in place to oppose the final bill if no amendments were included, and fighting to amend it through the lords there's a fair chance that they'd have either got May to concede to avoid losing a vote, or got enough tories to either abstain or vote with them to get the amendment passed.

By stating that they'd be giving a 3 line whip to force their MPs to vote for the bill anyway regardless of whether any of their amendments were in it they basically announced their surrender from the start and showed that they only intended to make a token effort to be seen to have put some amendments up rather than actually doing everything they could to get the key amendments passed.

It may not have worked, but at least they'd have actually done as much as they could to ensure the government were going to be held to account, not just written them a blank cheque to do whatever they want, then be left with a final vote that's either take this deal or we crash out on WTO terms. This was a token effort, nothing more.


----------



## Kesher (Feb 10, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> And maybe they are also just accepting a democratic decision made by the country? I mean call me idealistic but..



It wasn't democratic and the country did not make the decision


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2017)

free spirit said:


> If they'd indicated they'd be putting a 3 line whip in place to oppose the final bill if no amendments were included, and fighting to amend it through the lords there's a fair chance that they'd have either got May to concede to avoid losing a vote, or got enough tories to either abstain or vote with them to get the amendment passed.
> 
> By stating that they'd be giving a 3 line whip to force their MPs to vote for the bill anyway regardless of whether any of their amendments were in it they basically announced their surrender from the start and showed that they only intended to make a token effort to be seen to have put some amendments up rather than actually doing everything they could to get the key amendments passed.
> 
> It may not have worked, but at least they'd have actually done as much as they could to ensure the government were going to be held to account, not just written them a blank cheque to do whatever they want, then be left with a final vote that's either take this deal or we crash out on WTO terms. This was a token effort, nothing more.


The leadership clearly decided it was more important to unambiguously signal their acceptance of the referendum result than to give any appearance of fighting it. The result of the vote would have been the same whatever, but Nuttall would have had a massive shitty stick to beat them with in Stoke over the next couple of weeks. 

I dunno. It might have been the wrong call. I don't think there is a right call for them atm - just varying shades of really shit calls.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 10, 2017)

Kesher said:


> It wasn't democratic and the country did not make the decision


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 10, 2017)

Two more council byelection wins for the Libdems last night-38 per cent and 20 per cent swings from the Tories.Remainers flocking to Libdems ?

In one Labour got just 41 votes -they didnt stand in the other.

Tory mp remainers who voted for article 50 with under 10k majorities need to stay healthy.

No chance of an early general election now before the new boundaries are approved (or not as the case may be).


----------



## Kesher (Feb 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> The leadership clearly decided it was more important to unambiguously signal their acceptance of the referendum result than to give any appearance of fighting it. The result of the vote would have been the same whatever, but Nuttall would have had a massive shitty stick to beat them with in Stoke over the next couple of weeks.
> 
> I dunno. It might have been the wrong call. I don't think there is a right call for them atm - just varying shades of really shit calls.



Cameron made the same mistake in running scared of UKIP (and the nutters in his own party): he called the referendum.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 10, 2017)

free spirit said:


> If they'd indicated they'd be putting a 3 line whip in place to oppose the final bill if no amendments were included, and fighting to amend it through the lords there's a fair chance that they'd have either got May to concede to avoid losing a vote, or got enough tories to either abstain or vote with them to get the amendment passed.



Why on earth would May make concessions to prevent Labour going on record as trying to block the implementation of the referendum result.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

Combustible said:


> Why on earth would May make concessions to prevent Labour going on record as trying to block the implementation of the referendum result.


Yeh exactly, as far as I can see it would have had zero chance of accomplishing anything at all if they had voted against, but it would have been a massive "fuck you" to everyone who voted leave. Which I think is why maybe some people wanted them to do it but it is hardly very constructive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 10, 2017)

Combustible said:


> Why on earth would May make concessions to prevent Labour going on record as trying to block the implementation of the referendum result.


free spirit's analysis more often wishful thinking than based in concrete reality.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2017)

Kesher said:


> It wasn't democratic and the country did not make the decision



Labour can't really argue this. Democracy is flawed for sure and the Brexit debate was at a very low level, but Labour relies on the same 'democracy' to gain power. So it has to respect it.

It would be legitimate to argue on behalf of the 48% but given Labour's base and own divisions on the issue would it really be practical?


----------



## Sue (Feb 10, 2017)

Feel completely unengaged by the whole Article 50 debates and votes as it all just feels like tinkering around the edges (and I'm not even clear what these edges are). Suspect I'm not alone in this.


----------



## gosub (Feb 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour can't really argue this. Democracy is flawed for sure and the Brexit debate was at a very low level, but Labour relies on the same 'democracy' to gain power. So it has to respect it.
> 
> It would be legitimate to argue on behalf of the 48% but given Labour's base and own divisions on the issue would it really be practical?



 Government doesn't normally spend millions putting out a leaflet telling people which way to vote in an election


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> Government doesn't normally spend millions putting out a leaflet telling people which way to vote in an election


er whut yeah they do


----------



## Kesher (Feb 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour can't really argue this. Democracy is flawed for sure and the Brexit debate was at a very low level, but Labour relies on the same 'democracy' to gain power. So it has to respect it.
> 
> It would be legitimate to argue on behalf of the 48% but given Labour's base and own divisions on the issue would it really be practical?




The Brexit referendum was not democractic.

Also (for example) an Australian citizen (Commonwealth) on a two year working holiday visa in the UK was eligible to vote in the referendum; but an EU citizen who was resident in the UK was not eligible even if they had been here a lot longer. 

I think it would have been practical because amongst those who voted  leave would be electorate who will have seen that they have been lied to or are open to being shown that they have been lied to eg: no access to single market, no 350 million a week for NHS
,


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

Kesher said:


> The Brexit referendum was not democractic.


ah well your link title alone is enough to convince me.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 10, 2017)

Kesher said:


> The Brexit referendum was not democractic.


 That article is _dreadful_. One of the worst post-brexit things I've seen.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2017)

this twitter thread discusses the insane complexity of contemporary electoral politics - worth a read.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 10, 2017)

Combustible said:


> Why on earth would May make concessions to prevent Labour going on record as trying to block the implementation of the referendum result.


They'd be on the record as refusing to grant May the right to negotiate whatever version of Brexit she wanted to without the rest of parliament having any say in the matter.

The referendum didn't say what version of brexit people were voting for, not that the Prime Minister would be left to negotiate the final terms without either Parliament of the British people having any further say in it.

As long as it was pitched as 'we will support the bill, but only with this amendment to ensure that Parliament get's a proper say on the final deal' I don't see why anyone leave or remain would have anything to complain about. A key point of the Leave argument being to bring decisions back to the UK parliament, not to have a prime minister using the result to justify ignoring parliament entirely.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> this twitter thread discusses the insane complexity of contemporary electoral politics - worth a read.


includes a link for this Britain’s two-party system is heading for multiple splits
not quite sure what precisely open v closed as opposed to left v right means, but you get a gist. 

...redsquirrel asked the other day how much UKIP's soft vote might be hardening up....I guess it would need to for it to really go four ways...i think it will....UKIP arent treated like the BNP (by the media, and therefore by voters), though UKIP is basically a British nationalist party....actually an English nationalist party. I think UKIP vote will harden, despite losing voters back to Tories and Farage (hopefully) disappearing before too long.

That link suggests this will lead to growing pressure for proportional representation... I think thats probably true


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> Government doesn't normally spend millions putting out a leaflet telling people which way to vote in an election



I'm just saying Labour can't argue it. They can't claim 17m people winning a vote is somehow undemocratic when they would bite your hand off to govern off 12m.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> includes a link for this Britain’s two-party system is heading for multiple splits
> not quite sure what precisely open v closed as opposed to left v right means, but you get a gist.
> 
> ...redsquirrel asked the other day how much UKIP's soft vote might be hardening up....I guess it would need to for it to really go four ways...i think it will....UKIP arent treated like the BNP (by the media, and therefore by voters), though UKIP is basically a British nationalist party....actually an English nationalist party. I think UKIP vote will harden, despite losing voters back to Tories and Farage (hopefully) disappearing before too long.
> ...


Not convinced about any pressure for proportional representation ,if anything I think there may be more of a sentiment for regionalism .


----------



## ska invita (Feb 10, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Not convinced about any pressure for proportional representation ,if anything I think there may be more of a sentiment for regionalism .


DOnt want to derail too much, but lets say elections become increasingly 4 way with less of a clear winner, it will become harder to get a majority, there'll be more coalitions and horse trading, and it will be a more open door to push on by PR advocates.....Thats could be twenty years in the making, but still


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> DOnt want to derail too much, but lets say elections become increasingly 4 way with less of a clear winner, it will become harder to get a majority, there'll be more coalitions and horse trading, and it will be a more open door to push on by PR advocates.....Thats could be twenty years in the making, but still


It's a possibility but I think the revolt against what is seen a London based political elite could also find its way into regionalism. Who knows , PR might assist any smaller parties that go in that direction.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> free spirit's analysis more often wishful thinking than based in concrete reality.


This is the same poster currently arguing that Labour should block A50 and cut themselves who claimed that the LibDems had no choice but to go into coalition with the Tories.


free spirit said:


> that was all when there was at least the hope of doing a better deal with labour. It appears I knew the lib dems better than you, but you knew the labour party better than me, as I actually thought the labour party would do what it took to keep the tories out of power. Instead they chose your route of ensuring the lib dems had fuck all option other than to allow the tories into power even though that wasn't our preferred option.
> 
> 
> you may also be right about the potentialy for an anti-tory majority in a new election focussed around labour, with the lib dems being squeezed out now that labour have demonstrated that they won't work with us. Seeing as how the labour party's just fucked us off though, you're having a fucking laugh if you expect the lib dems to go for that option either.
> ...



Anyway he can be happy now, his new party is propping up his old one.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 10, 2017)

I reckon labour needs to use this as their new theme song, votes are gonna roll in


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 11, 2017)

Jess "stab him in the front" Phillips being fluffed mightily by the graun here. I smell a leadership bid coming. 

Jess Phillips: ‘I never felt scared in my old job. As an MP, I feel it every day’


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 11, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jess "stab him in the front" Phillips being fluffed mightily by the graun here. I smell a leadership bid coming.
> 
> Jess Phillips: ‘I never felt scared in my old job. As an MP, I feel it every day’




She can fuck off.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 11, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> She can fuck off.



She won't, though.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 11, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jess "stab him in the front" Phillips being fluffed mightily by the graun here. I smell a leadership bid coming.
> 
> Jess Phillips: ‘I never felt scared in my old job. As an MP, I feel it every day’



she's far too flakey / full of hot air for any shot at the leadership - members won't forget her attacks on Corbyn either


----------



## teqniq (Feb 11, 2017)

Meanwhile rent boy is touting Clive Lewis as a future leader.

Could Clive Lewis be the next Labour leader?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jess "stab him in the front" Phillips being fluffed mightily by the graun here. I smell a leadership bid coming.
> 
> Jess Phillips: ‘I never felt scared in my old job. As an MP, I feel it every day’


how long before theres a bronze statue of joe cox erected in the lobby of the commons for MPs to genuflect towards


----------



## killer b (Feb 12, 2017)

this is a good article, believe it or not 

Labour in crisis: Can the party reconnect with its heartland?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2017)

it is, too many decent quotes to pick out lots but this one:


> Care workers, refuse collectors, bus drivers and cleaners are doing the humble, under-appreciated jobs that are fundamental to collective wellbeing. But the cult of outsourcing and the privatisation of the public sphere has meant that the delivery of these public goods has largely become a profit-driven, high-stress, low-pay endeavour.


is spot on


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> it is, too many decent quotes to pick out lots but this one:
> 
> is spot on



I think it becomes private not only in the sense of profit-making, but private work in the sense that it becomes unseen, no longer part of public thinking, discussion or decision making.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I think it becomes private not only in the sense of profit-making, but private work in the sense that it becomes unseen, no longer part of public thinking, discussion or decision making.



yes, untill you get the odd scandal about care home abuses going on, you don't hear much. The unseen. This goes for distro warehouses nearly literally given the 6-2 2-10 10-6 shift patterns. 9 to fivers don't see much of these people outside of social events, pub visits with mates on those patterns etc.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> this is a good article, believe it or not
> 
> Labour in crisis: Can the party reconnect with its heartland?



A good article but deeply depressing. Labour has not only to reconnect with it's heartland, but with millions of voters who are not their natural supporters as well if they are to stop the tories from ruling for further decade and beyond. Can't see it myself.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 13, 2017)

ska invita said:


> includes a link for this Britain’s two-party system is heading for multiple splits
> not quite sure what precisely open v closed as opposed to left v right means, but you get a gist.
> 
> ...redsquirrel asked the other day how much UKIP's soft vote might be hardening up....I guess it would need to for it to really go four ways...i think it will....UKIP arent treated like the BNP (by the media, and therefore by voters), though UKIP is basically a British nationalist party....actually an English nationalist party. I think UKIP vote will harden, despite losing voters back to Tories and Farage (hopefully) disappearing before too long.
> ...



UKIP are not English only they have an MEP from Scotland, and numerous assembly members in Wales. It's also worth noting that another reason they're not treated like the  BNP is that they're clearly not hardcore racial nationalists but right wing populists with plenty of room for racist ideas and behaviour in practice, they also have plenty of black and Asian members.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 13, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> UKIP are not English only they have an MEP from Scotland, and numerous assembly members in Wales. It's also worth noting that another reason they're not treated like the  BNP is that they're clearly not hardcore racial nationalists but right wing populists with plenty of room for racist ideas and behaviour in practice, they also have plenty of black and Asian members.


I don't buy it.... Their selfproclaimed  uniculturalism is an English one, and looking at some ukip twitter feeds last night just reinforced in my mind the sewer they swim in...right there with other less media friendly far right groups. They're not identical to bnp, and there's already been a good discussion on characterising them here on the boards, but for all the nuances and subtleties in my mind they're different sides of the same ugly coin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2017)

,


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 13, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I don't buy it.... Their selfproclaimed  uniculturalism is an English one,


And yet they had higher share of the vote than PC in Wales at the 2015 GE, did worse than PC in the last Assembly elections and considerably better than PC in the 2014 Euro elections. 

Share of the vote UKIP achieved at the 2014 EU elections by region
East Midlands  32.90
East of England 34.48
London 16.87
North East 29.19
North West 27.47 
Scotland 10.46
South East 32.14
South West 32.29
Wales 27.55
West Midlands 31.49
Yorkshire and the Humber 31.13

Wales towards the bottom but you are splitting the pie five ways.


----------



## newbie (Feb 13, 2017)

> The socially conservative traditional working class, its habits and prejudices forged in the industrial era, is a fading irrelevance.



they're not, as the article makes clear.

fairplay, that's the challenge to those of us who are of the metropolitan elite, who have invested in the idealism that elsewhere has led to Podemas and who've been given a rude awakening over the last year or so. All sorts of fuzzy visions of a fairer, more inclusive, future have been dashed and we have to accept that those with other, socially conservative prejudices are in the ascendency.  So what does the future look like?  Are all communities who oppose development to be lauded, or only the gritty northern ones?  Does every pub bore racist view become acceptable now?  How can they reinstitute a proper market without muslims selling 'their stuff'?

The article describes the problems well enough, can anyone closer to the heartlands sketch out what this vision of "_warmer, more inclusive politics of community where local cohesion doesn’t come at the expense of the outsider._" actually means in practice, or are we to wait for Cruddas?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 13, 2017)

newbie said:


> The article describes the problems well enough, can anyone closer to the heartlands sketch out what this vision of "_warmer, more inclusive politics of community where local cohesion doesn’t come at the expense of the outsider._" actually means in practice, or are we to wait for Cruddas?


winterval calendars where advent is extended to start at Diwali and finish sometime after New Years Eve, so we all benefit from the inclusion of the hindu festival into the calendar with longer to shop for Christmas with the lights on, 3 months of opening a chocolate in the morning. What's not to like?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 13, 2017)

ps that actually is basically what happened in Newcastle for a while at least except without the extension of the advent calenders, which I think is where they cocked up.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2017)

Article in the I on UKIP and Stoke, some very alarming vox pops with ex labour voters, I was thinking Labour will just win it, but not too sure really.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I think it becomes private not only in the sense of profit-making, but private work in the sense that it becomes unseen, no longer part of public thinking, discussion or decision making.



Very incisive, bang on.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> yes, untill you get the odd scandal about care home abuses going on, you don't hear much. The unseen. This goes for distro warehouses nearly literally given the 6-2 2-10 10-6 shift patterns. 9 to fivers don't see much of these people outside of social events, pub visits with mates on those patterns etc.




The fact that much social care is now not unionised or many disabled and sick are on direct payments and hire their own care means that the client has little voice or has to fight on their own.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2017)

treelover said:


> The fact that much social care is now not unionised or many disabled and sick are on direct payments and hire their own care means that the client has little voice or has to fight on their own.



To claim direct payments or individual budgets diminish disabled people's voices individually or collectively is daft.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2017)

killer b said:


> this is a good article, believe it or not
> 
> Labour in crisis: Can the party reconnect with its heartland?





> * Julian Coman *
> Julian Coman



Not heard of the journalist before, assistant editor, interested to see if if affects editorial, Sonia Sohda is current one.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> To claim direct payments or individual budgets diminish disabled people's voices individually or collectively is daft.



Do expand, unions were a collective voice for clients, they may not have always been there, but it existed, centre closures, etc.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2017)

treelover said:


> Do expand, unions were a collective voice for clients, they may not have always been there, but it existed, centre closures, etc.



Yes like when they campaigned to keep detestable long stay hospitals for people with learning disabilities open.

Your point is valid, but only to a point. In house services have often been very restrictive to disabled people and poorly run. Replacing them with underfunded, poorly paid non-unionised care is obviously not the answer either. But no one in any sector has a monopoly on caring or fucking it up. Disabled people naturally trust themselves and the associations formed with other disabled people are also strong.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 14, 2017)

newbie said:


> The article describes the problems well enough, can anyone closer to the heartlands sketch out what this vision of "_warmer, more inclusive politics of community where local cohesion doesn’t come at the expense of the outsider._" actually means in practice, or are we to wait for Cruddas?



For me, it means that electoral politics is dead in the water. The politics of voting 'least worst' has got us into this mess we find ourselves in. I've been doing stuff with some defend social housing stuff last few months - these are all Labour councils pushing through massive regeneration programmes that actually end up ripping the heart of working class communities, sending people to the other side of the country, and leading to barely any social housing. Corbyn and 'Labour left' ministers on one hand will wring their hands and speak to their social media fanbase about what we need to do urgently, whilst not even calling out the behaviour of their own councils. Easy to merely pass the buck onto the government of course (whilst obviously the shower of cunts are very much to blame too).

Whilst people on those estates see their already precarious work/employment conditions constantly eroded further and further. And, yes some of them have either dropped out of voting altogether, or flirt with UKIP, and when both your economic and social stability is threatened - especially by your local Labour 'co-operative' council, or watching Labour privatise everything with PFI schemes over many years, no amount of talk of 'opportunity' and 'progressiveness' from liberals will prevent people from lurching towards some reactionary attitudes. But they are 'attitudes' created out of capitalism and the dire social/economic situations people find themselves in, not because people are 'born racists', or naturally 'socially conservative' which appears to be the liberal and left-liberal sneery takedown and again, why we've ended up in this state of affairs.

And so, the only way to build any kind of inclusive politics of community and local cohesion now has to be fought and built right at the heart of those communities again. Where social and economic issues are a uniting factor across all people, not a dividing one. Where people of all races/genders/sexuality are again united by class and not divided by liberal identity politics. And certainly not looking to Labour, or Corbyn, or frankly any party on the 'pseudo-left' to actually do this hard work. This is the only way now towards genuine pro-working class, pro-socialist politics again.

(Which I realise doesn't necessarily offer any great solutions and is more of a rant of where we find ourselves in general. I've been doing what I can though - spending less time on here and going out trying to fight things on such a level but also trying to challenge/persuade people away from the lure of UKIP and reactionary politics where possible. It's difficult, often infuriating, but I never give up because I refuse to consign anybody on the rough end of being left behind our great neoliberal 'choice and opportunity for all' world (sponsored by Labour) to the shitheap.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 14, 2017)

treelover said:


> Article in the I on UKIP and Stoke, some very alarming vox pops with ex labour voters, I was thinking Labour will just win it, but not too sure really.


Labour haven't got a chance. UKIP are going to walk it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Labour haven't got a chance. UKIP are going to walk it.



Not so clear in Stoke, but if they do no one could interpret it as anything but a failure of JC's.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 14, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not so clear in Stoke, but if they do no one could interpret it as anything but a failure of JC's.


How is it not clear? Look at the bloody world around us.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How is it not clear? Look at the bloody world around us.



Not so clear Labour will lose. 27% of the electorate consistently say they will vote for them. They may all stay at home. They may not. They may vote UKIP. The voters of Stoke may have voted leave, but it doesn't mean those same voters find UKIP appealing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> For me, it means that electoral politics is dead in the water. The politics of voting 'least worst' has got us into this mess we find ourselves in. I've been doing stuff with some defend social housing stuff last few months - these are all Labour councils pushing through massive regeneration programmes that actually end up ripping the heart of working class communities, sending people to the other side of the country, and leading to barely any social housing. Corbyn and 'Labour left' ministers on one hand will wring their hands and speak to their social media fanbase about what we need to do urgently, whilst not even calling out the behaviour of their own councils. Easy to merely pass the buck onto the government of course (whilst obviously the shower of cunts are very much to blame too).


Bang on the money.

And good to see you again.


----------



## killer b (Feb 14, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not so clear Labour will lose.


It isn't clear at all - far too many variables to be able to make a confident prediction. 

Mind you, even when things were less volatile, my confident predictions have been almost 100% wrong for the best part of a decade. So probably a landslide to UKIP.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2017)

I can't see UKIP "walking it", Labour will throw everything they've got at it and while it's running out fast there's still an anti-UKIP voting factor. If UKIP win I think it'll be close.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 14, 2017)

> By insisting in advance that Corbyn was “unelectable,” journalists were attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.


How the Guardian Changed Tack on Corbyn, Despite Its Readers | Novara Media

Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article by authour Alex Nunns is definitly worth a read.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> For me, it means that electoral politics is dead in the water. The politics of voting 'least worst' has got us into this mess we find ourselves in. I've been doing stuff with some defend social housing stuff last few months - these are all Labour councils pushing through massive regeneration programmes that actually end up ripping the heart of working class communities, sending people to the other side of the country, and leading to barely any social housing. Corbyn and 'Labour left' ministers on one hand will wring their hands and speak to their social media fanbase about what we need to do urgently, whilst not even calling out the behaviour of their own councils. Easy to merely pass the buck onto the government of course (whilst obviously the shower of cunts are very much to blame too).



Yep. The belief that we've only got the choice of the two or three or four different electoral options, almost seems designed to keep "the likes of us" in our place, voting for slightly different iterations of the same type of cuntitude. Me, I see a way beyond this, but it's going to take hard work to convince people that the power is theirs, and doesn't belong "as of right" to the likes of Labour, the Tories, the Lib-Dems or even the 'Kippers.



> Whilst people on those estates see their already precarious work/employment conditions constantly eroded further and further. And, yes some of them have either dropped out of voting altogether, or flirt with UKIP, and when both your economic and social stability is threatened - especially by your local Labour 'co-operative' council, or watching Labour privatise everything with PFI schemes over many years, no amount of talk of 'opportunity' and 'progressiveness' from liberals will prevent people from lurching towards some reactionary attitudes. But they are 'attitudes' created out of capitalism and the dire social/economic situations people find themselves in, not because people are 'born racists', or naturally 'socially conservative' which appears to be the liberal and left-liberal sneery takedown and again, why we've ended up in this state of affairs.



Here in sunny Tulse Hill, we've already had almost 4 years of Labour Cllrs stating that the denizens of my estate (about 70% council-tenanted, 30% leasehold and freehold) are home-owning, middle-class racists (laugh? I nearly did!), because we don't fit their ideas about the way the working class people on a council estate should act. "Sneery left-liberals" is an apt description of these cunts.



> And so, the only way to build any kind of inclusive politics of community and local cohesion now has to be fought and built right at the heart of those communities again. Where social and economic issues are a uniting factor across all people, not a dividing one. Where people of all races/genders/sexuality are again united by class and not divided by liberal identity politics. And certainly not looking to Labour, or Corbyn, or frankly any party on the 'pseudo-left' to actually do this hard work. This is the only way now towards genuine pro-working class, pro-socialist politics again.
> 
> (Which I realise doesn't necessarily offer any great solutions and is more of a rant of where we find ourselves in general. I've been doing what I can though - spending less time on here and going out trying to fight things on such a level but also trying to challenge/persuade people away from the lure of UKIP and reactionary politics where possible. It's difficult, often infuriating, but I never give up because I refuse to consign anybody on the rough end of being left behind our great neoliberal 'choice and opportunity for all' world (sponsored by Labour) to the shitheap.



If "choice" truly were choice, I'd be happy to give it a chance, but all "choice" means for the likes of me, is a choice to sink or swim. The few opportunities we have, are those we make for ourselves. Round here, that means an attempt to form an independent alternative to Labour in the wards - not to "take power", but to show people that they can, if they want, spend their votes on people whose political _raison d'etre_ is to carry out the will of the people, rather than the policies of the party. Maybe we'll crash and burn - given the amount of shit thrown by Labour at the Greens at our last ward by-election (Gipsy Hill), that's a strong possibility - but just maybe we'll take enough seats on the council to at least make the term "opposition" credible in Lambeth once again, and if we can do that HERE, where can't we (the people) do it?

PS, thanks for the card.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I can't see UKIP "walking it", Labour will throw everything they've got at it and while it's running out fast there's still an anti-UKIP voting factor. If UKIP win I think it'll be close.



The problem for Labour is that what they've "got" and what they can throw, mostly depends on convincing people to continue voting "tribally", almost *in spite* of what their head might tell them to do. Convincing people to act against their own perceived interests is ALWAYS a hard slog.


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> For me, it means that electoral politics is dead in the water. The politics of voting 'least worst' has got us into this mess we find ourselves in. I've been doing stuff with some defend social housing stuff last few months - these are all Labour councils pushing through massive regeneration programmes that actually end up ripping the heart of working class communities, sending people to the other side of the country, and leading to barely any social housing. Corbyn and 'Labour left' ministers on one hand will wring their hands and speak to their social media fanbase about what we need to do urgently, whilst not even calling out the behaviour of their own councils. Easy to merely pass the buck onto the government of course (whilst obviously the shower of cunts are very much to blame too).
> 
> Whilst people on those estates see their already precarious work/employment conditions constantly eroded further and further. And, yes some of them have either dropped out of voting altogether, or flirt with UKIP, and when both your economic and social stability is threatened - especially by your local Labour 'co-operative' council, or watching Labour privatise everything with PFI schemes over many years, no amount of talk of 'opportunity' and 'progressiveness' from liberals will prevent people from lurching towards some reactionary attitudes. But they are 'attitudes' created out of capitalism and the dire social/economic situations people find themselves in, not because people are 'born racists', or naturally 'socially conservative' which appears to be the liberal and left-liberal sneery takedown and again, why we've ended up in this state of affairs.
> 
> ...




Thankyou for taking the time, I was beginning to think no-one had any clue at all.  I don't disagree with you on very much of that tbh, though I've been told electoral politics are dead- and Labour the problem-  throughout my adult life and they appear to me to be still going strong.



> they are 'attitudes' created out of capitalism and the dire social/economic situations people find themselves in, not because people are 'born racists', or naturally 'socially conservative' which appears to be the liberal and left-liberal sneery takedown and again, why we've ended up in this state of affairs.



sure, but liberal social and economic policies have to be seen against the backdrop of capitalist technological globalisation. Earlier phases of which brought the canal, railway, foreign cotton and a much bigger workforce to somewhere like Rochdale, but more recent changes have left the swollen population with little economic reason to be there.  Raw cotton is no longer imported for them to make into textiles for us southerners to buy, the manufacturing is now done closer to where the stuff is grown, or where labour is cheapest. It's reasonable to blame the Labour party or left/liberals for their responses to those changes, but they're not wholly responsible for the underlying engines of change.  Nothing was inevitable, but technology can't be uninvented and third world populations couldn't be expected to remain drudge producers of raw materials forever just so people in Rochdale could have decent, skilled jobs.  So no, _left-liberal sneery takedown_ is not _why we've ended up in this state of affairs_.

We are where we are and the next phase appears to be robotics, automation and AI. That won't help the woman in the pub who wants to wind the clock back 25 years either. 

The academic quoted says that the "_“foundational economy” – provision of essential goods like health, education, social care, utilities, refuse collection, transport, prisons and food distribution – constitutes by far the biggest source of employment in many towns"_.  

Capital has little need for a mass workforce to make or produce stuff in former industrial towns that once thrived.  Production has moved elsewhere and dragged a workforce to it. There are, however, signs that the EU born workforce is diminishing.  Are the white w/c of Rochdale going to be prepared to move elsewhere to harvest lettuces or gut fish? There's no reason why they should, but no reason why they shouldn't either.  Their forebears moved to Rochdale for work, just as neighbours moved from Pakistan, Trinidad or Latvia.

and therein lies the problem.  it's all very well for journalists to go out and provide sketches of people grumbling about stuff and to try to draw out those examples into a narrative.  This journalist, like many on here and elsewhere, has focussed on the traditional, mostly white, working class living in industrial areas that have lost the economic relevance they once had. He's described some of the people he met, and their attitudes, well enough.  Their attitudes matter, of course they do,  (though he appears to have made no attempt to discover the attitudes of the local Asian heritage population or EU born people in Rochdale or Wigan, they matter too). But he/we need to dig deeper than that: what shape of society can realistically be built around those attitudes? We ain't going back to the glory days of working in mass manufacturing mills or factories.  It's easy to say that electoral politics is dead or that capitalism should be overthrown but that doesn't provide a particularly realistic pointer to the shape of society in 5 years time.

I don't have any answers, but equally, I don't see reading nasty drivel like the market is  "_full of tat and loads of rabbit-hutch stalls run by Muslims with their stuff_” and accepting that somehow post-Brexit society should reflect attitudes like that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2017)

newbie said:


> It's easy to say that electoral politics is dead or that capitalism should be overthrown but that doesn't provide a particularly realistic pointer to the shape of society in 5 years time.


So we should just join you in supporting the cuts to local councils your party is making?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 14, 2017)

If labour lose stoke - will corbyn go?
The pressure will be huge.


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So we should just join you in supporting the cuts to local councils your party is making?


what?
ftr I oppose cuts (& capitalism) and have never been a member of a political party. Not once not ever.

why the personal attack, why not discuss sensibly?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 14, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> For me, it means that electoral politics is dead in the water. The politics of voting 'least worst' has got us into this mess we find ourselves in. I've been doing stuff with some defend social housing stuff last few months - these are all Labour councils pushing through massive regeneration programmes that actually end up ripping the heart of working class communities, sending people to the other side of the country, and leading to barely any social housing. Corbyn and 'Labour left' ministers on one hand will wring their hands and speak to their social media fanbase about what we need to do urgently, whilst not even calling out the behaviour of their own councils. Easy to merely pass the buck onto the government of course (whilst obviously the shower of cunts are very much to blame too).
> 
> Whilst people on those estates see their already precarious work/employment conditions constantly eroded further and further. And, yes some of them have either dropped out of voting altogether, or flirt with UKIP, and when both your economic and social stability is threatened - especially by your local Labour 'co-operative' council, or watching Labour privatise everything with PFI schemes over many years, no amount of talk of 'opportunity' and 'progressiveness' from liberals will prevent people from lurching towards some reactionary attitudes. But they are 'attitudes' created out of capitalism and the dire social/economic situations people find themselves in, not because people are 'born racists', or naturally 'socially conservative' which appears to be the liberal and left-liberal sneery takedown and again, why we've ended up in this state of affairs.
> 
> ...


I think this is bang on - in terms of what you take from the article and your conclusion as to why electoral politics can't be the answer.  I've droned on several times about the 'failure' of Corbyn/Momentum, thinking about it in these terms.  It's a warmed up social democratic vision that would be infinitely better than what we have, at least if it was possible to insert a social democratic UK government into a neo-liberal international order.  But that's not the issue. Labour actually needs to not just 'engage with' it's 'base' and all that stuff. It needs to be _part_ of that struggle and really be part of actual communities. And whether you describe it as Blatchford's vision or something else, they aren't doing it.  When he was elected and there thousands flocking to meetings - 100,000s actually joining - that was the moment to say 'right, we're going to do something different, escape from all the parliamentary cretinism, rediscover real life'.  Never happened.

To be pedantic, as an anarchist or whatever, I was never going to be on board for some kind of social democratic party combined with wider social movement, even if it had happened. Too many contradictions and the logic of parliament and capital always wins out and screws the base. But my point is that if Corbynism was to ever have a chance that was at least _prerequisite_.  Yes, okay the leadership have had to find plenty of internal battles, but there's just no sense that they have accepted politics should be away from parliament and council chamber. And of course it's not surprising, most of Labour's new members are not in a (social) position to engage with working class life.  Without that link to real life the Labour Party are just repeating the same mantras they deployed against Thatcher, but with awkward words like class pushed to the background.  It's really shit as a political strategy, but as it says in the article the only group Labour has any organic links to are the liberal middle classes.  At the moment Labour is more a party of middle class grievance than working class politics (a sentence that works just as well without the first 3 words).


----------



## Wilf (Feb 14, 2017)

... and, more succinctly, it will always be hard for Labour to be an active player on the side of the working class after a couple of decades of 3rd way neo-liberalism from the party, right through to the real cuts being made by its councillors.  Hard to 'engage' with the very people you are screwing over.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> How the Guardian Changed Tack on Corbyn, Despite Its Readers | Novara Media
> 
> Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article by authour Alex Nunns is definitly worth a read.



Who cares though? The model here is Trump. The hostility Corbyn faced is nothing compared to facing down the Republicans, nor is the public ignominy. 

Corbyn doesn't begin to be able to connect with sufficient numbers. He doesn't have the skills, he doesn't have the vision, he is utterly without personal authority and he isn't even clear if he is statesman or outsider. 

No amount of the Guardian pretending to like him would have changed that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2017)

newbie said:


> what?
> ftr I oppose cuts (& capitalism) and have never been a member of a political party. Not once not ever.
> 
> why the personal attack, why not discuss sensibly?


My apologies I thought you were a member of Labour. But the essential point still stands, as steph pointed out Labour are _*at this moment*_ attacking working class communities. It's all very well Corbyn and McDonnell saying how terrible things are but they are part of a party that is cutting the services people need. 

Wilf is quite right about the re-heated luke warm social-democratic slop, but at the moment Labour aren't even that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2017)

what could a theoretical labour council do to oppose the cuts they are supposed to deliver? I know you can't set an illegal budget or Eric Pickles comes to get you but what about a mass resignation? this is purely hypothetical of course cos none would but if they did? What happens after that action


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 14, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn doesn't begin to be able to connect with sufficient numbers. He doesn't have the skills, he doesn't have the vision, he is utterly without personal authority and he isn't even clear if he is statesman or outsider.
> 
> No amount of the Guardian pretending to like him would have changed that.



Well his successor, by all accounts, will NOT be from the left. Progress will see to that, or so they say.

It's going to be another shadow cabinet of of "moderate" MPs, just after that moderate DNC that rejected Sanders for Clintonwas brought about the President Donald.

Corbyn's Labour critics organise locally to prevent leftist successor
_
"things can only get Blairite"_


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> How the Guardian Changed Tack on Corbyn, Despite Its Readers | Novara Media
> 
> Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article by authour Alex Nunns is definitly worth a read.


why?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> what could a theoretical labour council do to oppose the cuts they are supposed to deliver? I know you can't set an illegal budget or Eric Pickles comes to get you but what about a mass resignation? this is purely hypothetical of course cos none would but if they did? What happens after that action


Well the NEC unanimously passed a motion insisting that setting of illegal budgets should not happen - so even the 'left' of the party don't support the type of action that Popular took. They've argued that they should be the ones implementing the cuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> How the Guardian Changed Tack on Corbyn, Despite Its Readers | Novara Media
> 
> Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article by authour Alex Nunns is definitly worth a read.


*taps watch*


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> My apologies I thought you were a member of Labour. But the essential point still stands, as steph pointed out Labour are _*at this moment*_ attacking working class communities. It's all very well Corbyn and McDonnell saying how terrible things are but they are part of a party that is cutting the services people need.
> 
> Wilf is quite right about the re-heated luke warm social-democratic slop, but at the moment Labour aren't even that.



I live in Lambeth, I get how Labour attacks communities.  But I also have to say I recognise that the attacks from the tories are always worse. That doesn't excuse Labour in any way, it merely ranks them marginally lower on the scale of evil.

As i said, I largely agree with what Steph said and I explained my reservations about one specific bit. FWIW I largely agree with Wilf as well, particularly his point about the missed opportunity to build towards a social movement.  But the article under discussion doesn't consider an inclusive, class oriented social movement, it's focussed on the views of the '_socially conservative_' working class and gives voice to specific racists.  Yet it's been lauded on here as being somehow important.

The people quoted may be working class, and they certainly have economic and social grievances, but they're not alone in that, there's plenty of w/c economic grievances in London and other cities that doesn't manifest in racism.  What does a social movement that represents the views of the people interviewed look like?  Do I want to be part of it?  Do you? Does anyone reading this?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 14, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well his successor, by all accounts, will NOT be from the left. Progress will see to that, or so they say.
> 
> It's going to be another shadow cabinet of of "moderate" MPs, just after that moderate DNC that rejected Sanders for Clintonwas brought about the President Donald.
> 
> ...



This strongly suggests the left would do well to find a candidate who can unify. After all this is what the leader will need to do between working class and other Labour voters if the Party is to avoid relegation to Div 1.


----------



## oryx (Feb 14, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> This strongly suggests the left would do well to find a candidate who can unify. After all this is what the leader will need to do between working class and other Labour voters if the Party is to avoid relegation to Div 1.



This very much, and in terms of Labour providing an effective opposition they need to be shoutier (for want of a better word) on issues like the crisis in the NHS, the failure of privatisation and the clueless mess the Tories are making of Brexit.

They are missing too many open goals of which there are many at the moment.

The whole unpopular 'regeneration' in the face of opposition from existing residents needs to be dealt with as it is a growing issue.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 15, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> This strongly suggests the left would do well to find a candidate who can unify. After all this is what the leader will need to do between working class and other Labour voters if the Party is to avoid relegation to Div 1.



Unify the members? Unify the whole party? Or is that unify the PLP? If it is that latter, which in your case it probably is not but unfortunately does turn out to be what is meant by "unify in rags like the Graund, then the word "unify" has come to mean "do what Progress want or we leak/resign/write articles in the Tory Press until you do".

There is an odd parralel: the Tories are underfunding the NHS until its subsequent poor performance is used as a justification for privatisation. Meanwhile the "moderates" undermine the Labour Party until its subsequent poor performance is used as a justification for turning it into DNC style faux-alternative to neo-liberal policies.

Let's not forget: Labour MP Jon Cruddas as part of his Independent Inquiry into why Labour had lost the May general election tried to tell us that Anti-Austerity lost us the 2015 election (which it turned out was a fib). This was the "moderates" line pre-Corbyn. Pro-Austerity. Indivisible from Osbourne's. That is what will be on offer as "opposition" if "unity" means the "moderate" PLP get their way (i.e. no opposition at all).

Anti-austerity unpopular with voters, finds inquiry into Labour's election loss


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2017)

If you think that no leader can tame Progress then the only conclusion is that a split or purge is required. Neither play well, esp short term, for a party hoping for 12m votes.

However, the right leader, charismatic and inclined to the left could neutralise them and ensure their cooperation with the membership. This great asset the membership has is being squandered on a dead horse.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 15, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> This great asset the membership has is being squandered on a dead horse.



Who is that great asset that you refer to?


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 15, 2017)

I think I've said this before, a while back. For all of Corbyn's weaknesses, I don't think its merely a case of finding someone younger/ stronger/ representative diversity-wise/ media savvy, who shares his politics and views. The problems in the Labour party, especially PLP just run deeper than that. A lot of Labour PLP is just diametrically opposed to a lot of re-nationalisation (utilities, even railways which is popular among voters), of the belief to build proper publicly owned housing, services. Let alone the really substantial challenges of globalisation, technological advance, etc. They say what some of their supporters want to hear, say the right things on social media when criticising Tories and cuts, but in reality, they're not offering any radical shift. They're great at the whole identity politics-based 'calling out' stuff and nods to social liberalism, but even the right has mastered that one in recent years, and its not the type of structural change that will significantly move the party to any proper left/socialist/pro-working class ground again. Corbyn's occasional drifting into any kind of once 'old left' territory is soon reigned in and 'clarified' by the Labour spin and PR machine. That won't change with a different leader in the same political vein.

I still think a split is the only way forward if any kind of proper left part of party is to rise from its ashes. I don't hold any hope though. I convinced myself for years to stick with them - 'well, at least it keeps the Tories out' in the hope of anything. I didn't particularly think Corbyn was going to really change much (I'd already left the party for dead some years ago now), but what I've seen despite his popularity with the CLP (although I do think the honeymoon period is over) is the way the most vocal and powerful part of the PLP machine has reacted to his leadership and vague attempts to swing 'leftward'. So, no, replace Corbyn with a newer/diverse model with the same politics - same problems will emerge imo.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Who is that great asset that you refer to?



Choosing the leader.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 15, 2017)

So you think the membership needs to stop squandering their greatest asset on the "dead horse" that is Corbyn and vote for another.

As regards horses that are not dead: Do you have any names in mind?


----------



## treelover (Feb 15, 2017)

> Next Monday, Momentum Sheffield is holding a discussion on 'Corbynising the Council' that will focus on the ways the people of Sheffield can influence the local Council's response to its ongoing funding crisis.
> 
> The session will be both practical and educational, covering:
> - The Council's current financial situation.
> ...



Some are trying to bridge the gaps.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Well the NEC unanimously passed a motion insisting that setting of illegal budgets should not happen - so even the 'left' of the party don't support the type of action that Popular took. They've argued that they should be the ones implementing the cuts.



A motion that allowed right-leaning Labour councils like Lambeth to rule out doing so "because it's banned", rather than having to explicate their actual reasoning for doing so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So you think the membership needs to stop squandering their greatest asset on the "dead horse" that is Corbyn and vote for another.
> 
> As regards horses that are not dead: Do you have any names in mind?



Why should I? I have never met any of them. Do you believe there isn't a leader better than Jeremy in there? I can't, I'd go clean off my rocker.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 15, 2017)

So you don't have any suggestion as to who would be a good alternative as leader and yet you suggest that Corbyn must be dropped as current leader.

I see. This is the yet another Anybody But Corbyn But Don't Ask Me Who That Anybody Is bollox again.

Went several rounds with that with other coy "moderates" and it bored me nearly off this forum.

Bye now


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So you don't have any suggestion as to who would be a good alternative as leader and yet you suggest that Corbyn must be dropped as current leader.
> 
> I see. This is the yet another Anybody But Corbyn But Don't Ask Me Who That Anybody Is bollox again.
> 
> ...



Yours is a silly argument, a game of internets. You just want me to name a name so you can shoot it down. 

It should have been one of Corbyn's first jobs to establish a reasonable succession, one with enough political nous to ensure any gains weren't lost to the right. But no, the daft old sod has begun to believe his adoring crowd, begun to forget just how ordinary a performer he is. 

Your insistence on an all out win is infantile. Nothing happens but the ground gets scorched.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 16, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> You just want me to name a name so you can shoot it down.



I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a suggestion as replacement before considering a third leadership bid and/or forcing the resignation of Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership.

Your refusal to give even one indicates that you have little faith in your ability to find a "unifying" candidate. Indeed, it could be seen as the coyness of one hoping for a bid to provide a Hobson's choice of "moderates" once Corbyn has been ousted.

It is not a game but if it were, you would seem to possess very little sense of "fair play" or even the courage of your convictions.

It is as if you feel entitled to hold other people's favoured leader up for scrutiny, even dersion, and yet do not wish to mention an alternative if it risks the same scutiny or critisism.

You mentioned "silly" and infantile"....


----------



## killer b (Feb 16, 2017)

No one wants to play your shit game.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 16, 2017)

See above


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 16, 2017)

Its up to JC and his advisers-the cliff edge is in sight.

Labour mps wont have the members choice ,labour mps wont nominate rebecca double barrelled .Mexican standoff.

Livingstone said give it a year,even abbott said the polls must improve.

The left faces an impossible bind -to keep him risks being slaughtered in 2020 and ,unfairly,getting the blame for it.

Lose the west midlands mayor election in may and fail with the rule change to reduce the number of nominations at conference and no improvement in the polls then it starts to look like he will walk the plank.Traitor -you heard it here first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> See above


See post 15354


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2017)

treelover said:


> Labour has two bye elections coming up soon, ones it may lose, Momentum has posted about 15 articles on Trump, etc, little on the elections, how to win, eh?


Not sure labour have wholly cracked that, but for lessons in how to whine they'll be beating a path to your door


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 16, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Labour mps wont have the members choice ,labour mps wont nominate rebecca double barrelled .Mexican standoff.



That's a bit of a one sided "standoff". More like a _Labour MPs digging their heels in_. Or maybe _Labour MPs throwing toys out of pram_. Perhaps even _Labour MPs kill off what remains of democracy withing the party and with Luke Akehurst and co's help, turn it into the UK version of the DNC._



Old Spark said:


> Its up to JC and his advisers-the cliff edge is in sight.



From what you have said, it seems very little is "up to" anybody but Labour MPs. Especially the "moderate" ones. *Or fuckin' else!*

I'll sing it again: _"Things, can only get Balirite!"_


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> That's a bit of a one sided "standoff". More like a _Labour MPs digging their heels in_. Or maybe _Labour MPs throwing toys out of pram_. Perhaps even _Labour MPs kill off what remains of democracy withing the party and with Luke Akehurst and co's help, turn it into the UK version of the DNC._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hysterical. The left is considered a barmy footnote by most of the public in today's world. Compromise is required and it starts with throwing its lot behind a cohort who can deliver the best outcome for not only the left, but Labour's voting base too.

Being so scared of the Blairites that momentum clings on to Jeremy is just delusional. Jeremy and co should be able to get at least one name on the ticket who isn't a Blairite. It's game over then as Jezza's annointed. I mean what else is the endgame? Carry on? To what end?


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 16, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Jeremy and co should be able to get at least one name on the ticket who isn't a Blairite.



You haven't been paying attention.

Corbyn's Labour critics organise locally to prevent leftist successor


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 16, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Corbyn's Labour critics organise locally to prevent leftist successor



No you are not. It's politics - the left won't get all its own way and certainly Jeremy won't. The left needs to pick the best of what is possible right now. It's not an endgame.

Do you really believe overall that the Blairites are in ascendancy? Clearly they are not and they can be largely outmanouevered. That is the task. Jeremy can't do it, he's got no game.

They can't be outmanouevered if the whole thing fails. More likely that strengthens their hand.


----------



## hipipol (Feb 16, 2017)

Having spent so many years in a marginalised, maligned and self preservation focused group within Labour, a group who seem to prize an individual morality and attachment to principle above herd like acceptance of the leaderships demands, he is ill placed to create a new form for that herd.
TBF I cannot see the quality needed in the current PLP capable of healing the wounds and getting the broad party support needed to battle the tories - which really is tragic as it implies years of chaotic ineffective opposition while our country is being dismantled around us
He is pretty useless but currently there is no other choice


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 16, 2017)

hipipol said:


> Having spent so many years in a marginalised, maligned and self preservation focused group within Labour, a group who seem to prize an individual morality and attachment to principle above herd like acceptance of the leaderships demands, he is ill placed to create a new form for that herd.
> TBF I cannot see the quality needed in the current PLP capable of healing the wounds and getting the broad party support needed to battle the tories - which really is tragic as it implies years of chaotic ineffective opposition while our country is being dismantled around us
> He is pretty useless but currently there is no other choice



A week is a long time in Politics. I think that may have been said before.

It's way too defeatist, particularly in party politics where so much is about appearance. The Lib Dems, a busted flush if ever there was one, can suddenly win by-elections. The Labour Party is massively stronger.

Moreover there is a large anti-Tory vote to be mined. It is crying out for an idea or a focal point. A new package for Labour could send it soaring. But it would not be complete. The next struggle would await.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 16, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Do you really believe overall that the Blairites are in ascendancy?



No, I think it's worse than that. The word "Blairite" has been scrubbed MiniTruth style from the lexicon.
Croydon Labour meeting bans the use of the word ‘Blairite’

The New Reality is that Blairism is non-existent. At best it's a slur. A slur on people who support the politics espoused by Tony Blair and wish to take British politics further towards the Right by means of shifting the centre.

The New Reality is that this shift just happened. Probably the will of the Gods or some seismic whanot. It just is. And it is a New Challenge to meet (i.e. target) and will bring Difficult Choices (i.e. Austerity, welfare cuts, further erosion of employee rights)

To be on the "right" of the Labour Party is now to be "tougher on benefits than the Tories" (Liz Kendall) and to be "Soft Left" is to oppose Zero Hours contracts only to replace them with a minimum of "One Hour Contracts" (Owen Smith).

Blairism isn't on the ascendancy: it's the "New Moderate". It's what MPs mean when they say "the centre left". Making anything that could be considered socialist in an objective sense, beyond the Pale. And that centre, as it has done in the US, will drift further and further rightwards thanks to the people that you are no longer allowed to call Blairites.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2017)

> “The debilitation of the Labour party is the facilitator of Brexit. I hate to say that, but it is true,” he said...


....6 days away from 2 by-elections.

Hmmm


----------



## agricola (Feb 21, 2017)

the Maquis strike!


----------



## a_chap (Feb 21, 2017)

agricola said:


> the Maquis strike!



I have to ask; what is/are "Maquis"?


----------



## agricola (Feb 21, 2017)

a_chap said:


> I have to ask; what is/are "Maquis"?



Urban's Dan Hodges explains...


----------



## gosub (Feb 21, 2017)

a_chap said:


> I have to ask; what is/are "Maquis"?


People in the tent,  pissing in.


----------



## a_chap (Feb 21, 2017)

agricola said:


> Urban's Dan Hodges explains...





gosub said:


> People in the tent,  pissing in.



I was listening to Alizée's 2000 album "Gourmanidises" earlier today. It has a track "Mon maquis", hence my question.

On balance I'll go with Dan Hodge's version (Alizée's dad being Corsican you see)

As you were Urbs


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 21, 2017)

Coined by Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna etc to describe the "guerrilla war" being waged in the PLP against Corbyn. It caused much hilarity at the time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 21, 2017)

the funniest bit is they took the name from Star Trek Deep Space Nine's fictitious terrorist outfit (or freedom fighters ymmv) rather than the historical french resistance maquis


----------



## emanymton (Feb 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the funniest bit is they took the name from Star Trek Deep Space Nine's fictitious terrorist outfit (or freedom fighters ymmv) rather than the historical french resistance maquis


That bit realky is great.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the funniest bit is they took the name from Star Trek Deep Space Nine's fictitious terrorist outfit (or freedom fighters ymmv) rather than the historical french resistance maquis



spose we are lucky they didn't take it from Harry Potter or something like that


----------



## co-op (Feb 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the funniest bit is they took the name from Star Trek Deep Space Nine's fictitious terrorist outfit (or freedom fighters ymmv) rather than the historical french resistance maquis



Seriously?? How do we/you know this? (not doubting you but fascinated)


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> Seriously?? How do we/you know this? (not doubting you but fascinated)


it was out at the time they formed...here


> But have a look at the icon. That isn’t the logo of the Maquis (they didn’t have one), that’s the logo of the Maquis in _Star Trek: Voyager_ and _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_. This is a fictional Maquis, and like their bitter enemies, the Cardassians, they don’t exist. The imitation of reality in the _Star Trek_ series, although set in the distant future, is very much anchored in the present and is influenced by contemporary discourses. But it is not real; it is only a representation of the real. It is, as Baudrillard would describe it, a simulation.


Let’s Talk About: ‘Labour Maquis’


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 21, 2017)

could be arch humour I suppose...


----------



## gosub (Feb 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> it was out at the time they formed...here
> 
> Let’s Talk About: ‘Labour Maquis’


Umm Dassault's emblem is still the motif   Marcel used for his resistance calling card


Other cells had their own marque's.  There was no core brand identity,  they had better things to do


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

The Maquis was the French Resistance during the war, it's not a Star Trek reference!


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 23, 2017)

is their twitter profile icon. It's a symbol used by the maquis in ST. That's what seems to have given rise to this issue.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 23, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> is their twitter profile icon. It's a symbol used by the maquis in ST. That's what seems to have given rise to this issue.



It's actually slightly less distasteful.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 23, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> The Maquis was the French Resistance during the war, it's not a Star Trek reference!


It is also the name of a group in star trek. The story is they took the name from star trek not the French resistance.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

Yeah I know, I think the story is wrong ST took that symbol from a real French resistance cell


----------



## J Ed (Feb 23, 2017)

If Labour lose either by-election, will Corbyn resign and if so how quickly? I can't see how he couldn't, and it'd have to be quick wouldn't it.


----------



## chilango (Feb 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If Labour lose either by-election, will Corbyn resign and if so how quickly? I can't see how he couldn't, and it'd have to be quick wouldn't it.



Does anyone care anymore?


----------



## J Ed (Feb 23, 2017)

chilango said:


> Does anyone care anymore?



Hard to imagine that anyone who has at some point cared has not succumbed finally to Corbyn-fatigue


----------



## chilango (Feb 23, 2017)

I mean, would anyone notice IRL if Corbyn resigned now?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

It would be too late for the next election unless there is a modern day version of Blair (election winning ability wise) waiting in the wings and there isn't.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

Blair's 'election winning ability' was a one-off, and had little to do with his supposed charisma. The political currents that were in play in his time, and which saw him into Downing Street are no longer in play - no shiny centrist could step forward and do what he did today.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

Systems, not people.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Blair's 'election winning ability' was a one-off, and had little to do with his supposed charisma. The political currents that were in play in his time, and which saw him into Downing Street are no longer in play - no shiny centrist could step forward and do what he did today.



I'm not sure that anyone at all could do more than a few percentage points better than Corbyn, Labour's electoral problems are a long time in the making and it seems difficult to see how anyone could overcome them.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 23, 2017)

Immigration figures coming out today may be a boost to UKIP in Stoke.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Blair's 'election winning ability' was a one-off, and had little to do with his supposed charisma. The political currents that were in play in his time, and which saw him into Downing Street are no longer in play - no shiny centrist could step forward and do what he did today.


3 times but yes I specifically said it was in reference to electability not politics


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

Blair's electability wasn't about Blair though, is what I was _specifically_ saying. It was about politics.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Blair's electability wasn't about Blair though, is what I was _specifically_ saying. It was about politics.


It was partly his personality and partly having the right politics at the right time, which is what I was saying.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

and specifically, a political environment that no longer exists.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

Nah, it wasn't his personality. Blair was the result of the politics of the day, as Corbyn is now. You've got it the wrong way round.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Nah, it wasn't his personality. Blair was the result of the politics of the day, as Corbyn is now. You've got it the wrong way round.



Blair's charisma did have a lot to do with his popularity but his 'politics' were attractive to a huge section of the electorate too. Unfortunately Corbyn fails on both those counts and Labour will never win a general election with him as leader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Blair's charisma did have a lot to do with his popularity but his 'politics' were attractive to a huge section of the electorate too. Unfortunately Corbyn fails on both those counts and Labour will never win a general election with him as leader.


have you ever thought of bringing us something new instead of the remains of a many-times-reheated dog's dinner?


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Hard to imagine that anyone who has at some point cared has not succumbed finally to Corbyn-fatigue



Corbyn played a blinder at PMQ's this week, hammering the Headmistress on the NHS, he must have had voice training, he appeared to dominate the chamber when he spoke.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 23, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Yeah I know, I think the story is wrong ST took that symbol from a real French resistance cell



Of course the original use of the term comes from WWII France (!!) but if this 'Labour Maquis' group wanted to be associated with that they shouldn't have used the ST symbol. Sadly perhaps, we live in times when _Star Trek_ is arguably better known than_ La Résistance_. It was naive (at best) of them not to recognise this fact.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If Labour lose either by-election, will Corbyn resign and if so how quickly? I can't see how he couldn't, and it'd have to be quick wouldn't it.



He's got past that before by just not resigning. I don't see why he couldn't again tbh. It doesn't look like they have any way to force him out if he doesn't.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Nah, it wasn't his personality. Blair was the result of the politics of the day, as Corbyn is now. You've got it the wrong way round.



I think Corbyn has been an absolute godsend for the PLP and Guardian types tbh, much as they'd hate the idea. They've not had to look at the reasons for the failures of the last 2 elections at all and have been able to convince themselves it's all about needing a new leader. It must be very comforting.


----------



## belboid (Feb 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If Labour lose either by-election, will Corbyn resign and if so how quickly? I can't see how he couldn't, and it'd have to be quick wouldn't it.


No chance, not even if they lose both. He'll stay until at least a couple of key internal policy changes are pushed through, then step aside. Another year or so, I reckon


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think Corbyn has been an absolute godsend for the PLP and Guardian types tbh, much as they'd hate the idea. They've not had to look at the reasons for the failures of the last 2 elections at all and have been able to convince themselves it's all about needing a new leader. It must be very comforting.


their dual mantra, _Tony Blair's Election Winning Machine_, and _Come Back David Miliband_


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 23, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> It was partly his personality and partly having the right politics at the right time, which is what I was saying.



And partly not being a Conservative?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn played a blinder at PMQ's this week, hammering the Headmistress on the NHS, he must have had voice training, he appeared to dominate the chamber when he spoke.


Politicians' tone of voice influence their popularity


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And partly not being a Conservative?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yep that's another key point people aren't tired of the Tories yet.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 23, 2017)

chilango said:


> Does anyone care anymore?


Well the U75 posters that joined Labour after Corbyn's success presumably do. Unless they've decided it was a mistake.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

I forgot to join but still 100% behind him


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I forgot to join but still 100% behind him


No offence but what does that mean? A 100% of nothing is still nothing


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> No offence but what does that mean? A 100% of nothing is still nothing


What?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> What?


What have you done to support Jezza H Corbyn?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

Voted for him and wrote a catchy song that is sure to convince others to do the same.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> wrote a catchy song that is sure to convince others to do the same.


I need to hear more about this.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

I support Scunthorpe united too but I haven't been to a match in years, you got a problem with that too?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> I need to hear more about this.


Private archives I am afraid


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

I want to believe! teach me with catchy pop numbers please.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> I want to believe! teach me with catchy pop numbers please.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2017)

yeah, I just joined.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I support Scunthorpe united too but I haven't been to a match in years, you got a problem with that too?


Would you say you support them 100%? I've not got a problem with not supporting JC, I do have a problem with wilfully empty hyperbolic phrases


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Would you say you support them 100%? I've not got a problem with not supporting JC, I do have a problem with wilfully empty hyperbolic phrases


Well yeh of course I support them 100%. I don't support any other team. I have no other "horse in the race". That's what I mean by "100%".


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 23, 2017)

I'm def not saying "I devote 100% of my energy to supporting them" if that's what you understood.. I'm just electorate, I'm not part of the game.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 23, 2017)

Ok


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> have you ever thought of bringing us something new instead of the remains of a many-times-reheated dog's dinner?



Like what? The problem isn’t going to go away by not mentioning it. The Labour Party is pointless if it doesn’t have a chance of forming a government and rebuilding the party is on hold until Corbyn goes.


----------



## Supine (Feb 24, 2017)

CORBYN OUT. CORBYN OUT.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 24, 2017)

#



If the UKIP vote does swing to the Tories, and UKIP incompetence + May's positioning suggests that is the trend, Labour are extra fucked.


Supine said:


> CORBYN OUT. CORBYN OUT.


He has to hang on till after next conference at the very least - the party cant go through another challenge so soon after the last round of madness. (although i guess anything is possible)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Like what? The problem isn’t going to go away by not mentioning it. The Labour Party is pointless if it doesn’t have a chance of forming a government and rebuilding the party is on hold until Corbyn goes.


Tosh


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Tosh



What, it can form the next Govt or it does still have a point even if it can't or the problem may go away if not mentioned or rebuilding is not on hold? So much to choose from.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> What, it can form the next Govt or it does still have a point even if it can't or the problem may go away if not mentioned or rebuilding is not on hold? So much to choose from.


yes


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes



Ok, many thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Ok, many thanks.


Yeh, mind how you go


----------



## hash tag (Feb 24, 2017)

Copeland wasn't so good, but nothing to panic about.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Copeland wasn't so good, but nothing to panic about.



Losing one by-election is not a catastrophe - sitting at 25%, and being 15+% behind the government, and your leader having a 16% approval rating while the PM has a 45+% approval rating, and those numbers being solid for the best part of a year however probably does count as being well within the 'something to panic about' box...


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Copeland wasn't so good, but nothing to panic about.



Listening to Radio 4 interviewing life long Labour voters who voted against Corbyn should worry some people. It seems a lot of people weren't voting for the Tory party they were voting against the Labour leader.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> Listening to Radio 4 interviewing life long Labour voters who voted against Corbyn should worry some people. It seems a lot of people weren't voting for the Tory party they were voting against the Labour leader.


Voting for their jobs in Cumbria.


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Losing one by-election is not a catastrophe - sitting at 25%, and being 15+% behind the government, and your leader having a 16% approval rating while the PM has a 45+% approval rating, and those numbers being solid for the best part of a year however probably does count as being well within the 'something to panic about' box...



Agreed. But I don't see a change of leader making a blind bit of difference to this.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

chilango said:


> Agreed. But I don't see a change of leader making a blind bit of difference to this.


Disagree; if the PLP had their way they'd be able to select a leader who could easily accelerate their electoral decline.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Disagree; if the PLP had their way they'd be able to select a leader who could easily accelerate their electoral decline.


On that question - is there still any talk of purging the Blairites? Or has everything gone quiet on that front?


----------



## Supine (Feb 24, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> On that question - is there still any talk of purging the Blairites? Or has everything gone quiet on that front?



They are saving the ultimate act of hari kari for next time the conservatives have internal problems


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2017)

there remains no real mechanism for purging them, especially with most of the new members remaining inactive in the local parties. 

That said, here in Preston the left slate swept the board at the recent CLP elections - I dunno if that would translate into a similar sweep in the westminster nomination though, as the actual numbers voting in the CLP elections were pretty small.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 24, 2017)

So it's not just PASOK or bust, it's PASOK and bust.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 24, 2017)

For anyone seeking a silver lining, based on his soothsaying record, then a GAME OVER tweet by Dan Hodges is probably it:


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> So it's not just PASOK or bust, it's PASOK and bust.


PASOKification required a Syriza.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> Nah, it wasn't his personality. Blair was the result of the politics of the day, as Corbyn is now. You've got it the wrong way round.


Absolutely. Labour's 1997 victory was inevitable, particularly after the defeat snatched from the jaws of victory in 1992.  As political economy it was just more neo-liberalism, but a reset, in supposedly optimistic times. Newness playing out as inclusion - not equality - and an electoral cross class alliance in which the working class has nowhere else to go.  Having said all that, Blair was a perfect _embodiment_ of the project.  But yes, that's not where we are now.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 24, 2017)

So, all the usual suspects blaming everything on JC. Never mind the long-term abandonment of the working classes as has been pointed out by others. The only upside such as it is, is that it looks like UKIP might actually be finished.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Disagree; if the PLP had their way they'd be able to select a leader who could easily accelerate their electoral decline.


Faster than this?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> PASOKification required a Syriza.


That's the heart of it. Corbynites haven't changed the Labour Party, so it just remains a party saying 'vote for us, we believe in how things used to be 40 years ago'.  Why the fucking fuck would anybody believe them after decades of, that word again, _abandonment_. But nor have they made even a tiny step towards even thinking about becoming a social movement or, at an even more basic level, engaging with people's lives.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

Far too soon to right off UKIP.  They were never going to be anywhere in Copeland, and they fucked Stoke by having a bumbling fuckwit who is incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies.

If labour do respond by trying to pay more attention to their remain supporters, then a more coherent kipper campaign with a semi-sane candidate could run them close.

Leigh will be interesting if Burnham wins the manc mayoral (Paul Mason for MP!)


----------



## teqniq (Feb 24, 2017)

A JC supporter writes in the Indy, and identifies some of the problems that have been talked about here.

Labour needs to realise this Copeland loss isn't down to Corbyn


----------



## teqniq (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Far too soon to right off UKIP.  They were never going to be anywhere in Copeland, and they fucked Stoke by having a bumbling fuckwit who is incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies.
> 
> If labour do respond by trying to pay more attention to their remain supporters, then a more coherent kipper campaign with a semi-sane candidate could run them close.
> 
> Leigh will be interesting if Burnham wins the manc mayoral (Paul Mason for MP!)



This is why I said 'might' I feel though that one of their main problems is that the Tories have stolen some of their toys.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Far too soon to right off UKIP.  They were never going to be anywhere in Copeland, and they fucked Stoke by having *a bumbling fuckwit who is incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies*.
> 
> If labour do respond by trying to pay more attention to their remain supporters, then a more coherent kipper campaign with a semi-sane candidate could run them close.
> 
> Leigh will be interesting if Burnham wins the manc mayoral (Paul Mason for MP!)



No just candidate but also leader.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

I think I might have meant to have posted that on the Stoke thread. Hey ho, still applies

Corbo speaking now, he aint quitting - we need unity and socialism


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Far too soon to right off UKIP.  They were never going to be anywhere in Copeland, and they fucked Stoke by having a bumbling fuckwit who is incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies.
> 
> If labour do respond by trying to pay more attention to their remain supporters, then a more coherent kipper campaign with a semi-sane candidate could run them close.
> 
> Leigh will be interesting if Burnham wins the manc mayoral (Paul Mason for MP!)


I haven't written them off totally, just for now.


----------



## Chz (Feb 24, 2017)

teqniq said:


> A JC supporter writes in the Indy, and identifies some of the problems that have been talked about here.
> 
> Labour needs to realise this Copeland loss isn't down to Corbyn


It's kind of sweet that they're growing up and becoming real politicians. Learning from the Tories that your own mistakes are always someone else's fault.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Faster than this?


I think so, yes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 24, 2017)

teqniq said:


> A JC supporter writes in the Indy, and identifies some of the problems that have been talked about here.
> 
> Labour needs to realise this Copeland loss isn't down to Corbyn



Fucked if I know what he's actually saying in that article, other than blame Blair not Corbyn. He advocates change, but does not indicate _what and how._


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2017)

Is Liam saying Labour need to be more vocal in endorsing open borders, etc


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Fucked if I know what he's actually saying in that article, other than blame Blair not Corbyn. He advocates change, but does not indicate _what and how._


Paul Mason is more explicit

Labour won Stoke. Jamie Reed lost Copeland – Mosquito Ridge


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 24, 2017)

My strategy for a Labour win.

Nationalise, by issuing 1000 year bonds at 0.5%

Railways
Buses
Water
Gas & Electricity
Telephone & net (including mobiles)

Introduce road tolls for motorways at 1p a mile, and use the money to subsidise public transport.
Introduce a 1p a litre tax on petrol (3p on diesel) the money hypothecated for road repairs.
Introduce a national housing corporation, which takes over all public sector housing, and has a legal obligation to build 200,000 new homes each year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Like what? The problem isn’t going to go away by not mentioning it. The Labour Party is pointless if it doesn’t have a chance of forming a government and rebuilding the party is on hold until Corbyn goes.


if a party's worth is to be measured by the probability of it forming a government then the lib dems, ukip, greens, uup, dup, sf, sdlp, plaid cymru, snp etc etc etc ought to cease fighting elections to parliament.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> My strategy for a Labour win.
> 
> Nationalise, by issuing 1000 year bonds at 0.5%
> 
> ...


introduce a pledge to neckshoot all former tory cabinet ministers and hang former tory mps from gallows erected on horseguards - and then you'd see an upswing in support for the labour party


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2017)

What is going to be interesting is what effect, if any, there is on the 100's of LP/Momentum activists who went to Stoke and what they heard on the doorstep about Corbyn, his policies, etc.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> What is going to be interesting is what effect, if any, there is on the 100's of LP/Momentum activists who went to Stoke and what they heard on the doorstep about Corbyn, his policies, etc.


Almost nothing about corbyn himself. Lack of clarity about what labour actually stand for tho


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2017)

The Black Knight fights on.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Almost nothing about corbyn himself. Lack of clarity about what labour actually stand for tho





> Jeremy Corbyn, you broke it – now you must own it | Rafael Behr
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn, you broke it – now you must own it
> Rafael Behr



Interesting, clearly the Guardian is saying the opposite and going on full attack mode.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

He never went there tho. Read the John Harris piece (which isn't Corbyn apologism, should anyone think it might be), as he did at least spend time on both constituencies.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 24, 2017)

gosub said:


> The Black Knight fights on.


Irony of the black knight fighting on, whilst he has a massive army twiddling their thumbs.  Labour's shittest period ever is accompanied by the party having just about the highest memberships in Europe, iirc. The activists are not particularly _active_, but it really illustrates the abandonment thesis. Getting more people into a party doesn't lead to any kind of reconnection with communities.  Blair's fault, rather than Corbyn's certainly, but there's no way back from this.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Lot's of tory/media crowing about having to go back to 1982 to find comparable Govt. gain in a by...but when was the last time a party defended a seat with a majority of it's PP have voted to remove the leader?


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Lot's of tory/media crowing about having to go back to 1982 to find comparable Govt. gain in a by...but when was the last time a party defended a seat with a majority of it's PP have voted to remove the leader?


Not an entirely sound comparison really, as it was grossly unusual in being a Labour to SDP defection that simply split their vote down the middle. In terms of a straight swing between two parties, you have to go back to 1961, I believe.

And who won the next election after that?


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Lot's of tory/media crowing about having to go back to 1982 to find comparable Govt. gain in a by...but when was the last time a party defended a seat with a majority of it's PP have voted to remove the leader?



Watching Ian Lavery car crash his interview on the Daily Politics shows the problem they have. Labour can't pretend that Corbyn isn't an issue is just makes them look ridiculous.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> Watching Ian Lavery car crash his interview on the Daily Politics shows the problem they have. Labour can't pretend that Corbyn isn't an issue is just makes them look ridiculous.


"...makes them look..."?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

Shami Chakrabarti has just suggested on the Jeremy Vine show that Storm Doris was a factor as Labour voters are less likely to have cars.

I don't think she was suggesting a big factor, but it'll score high on the gaffometer.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Shami Chakrabarti has just suggested on the Jeremy Vine show that Storm Doris was a factor as Labour voters are less likely to have cars.
> 
> I don't think she was suggesting a big factor, but it'll score high on the gaffometer.



I used to like Shami - but she seems to have become a pound store Peter Mandelson.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Shami Chakrabarti has just suggested on the Jeremy Vine show that Storm Doris was a factor as Labour voters are less likely to have cars.
> 
> I don't think she was suggesting a big factor, but it'll score high on the gaffometer.



Why is that a gaffe?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why is that a gaffe?



Because everyone has a car, don't they? I mean, sure, some people can only afford to buy them second hand, but they still mostly get you from A to B.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 24, 2017)

It's a gaffe because she said it and she doesn't have a knife in Corbyn's back.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

Posh people also have horses they can use though and they are good in all weather and terrain for that long trudge to the polling station.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Because everyone has a car, don't they?



no


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why is that a gaffe?


Not a 'gaff' as widely understood, just embarrassingly lame.


----------



## Supine (Feb 24, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> My strategy for a Labour win.
> 
> Nationalise, by issuing 1000 year bonds at 0.5%
> 
> ...



Don't give up your day job


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

It's absolutely bog standard psephology, and has been for at least forty years, that bad weather affects labour supporters more than tories.  Why anyone would doubt/deny that is mysterious...unless they have an agenda


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> no



Obviously, I'm discounting the sorts of no-car cranks who put all their recycling in the right bin.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Obviously, I'm discounting the sorts of no-car cranks who put all their recycling in the right bin.



How do you run a car if you privately rent and are on minimum wage?

Yeah, it's possible in some circumstances, but prohibitively expensive in others.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> It's absolutely bog standard psephology, and has been for at least forty years, that bad weather affects labour supporters more than tories.  Why anyone would doubt/deny that is mysterious...unless they have an agenda


Yep...always referred to election day rain as 'tory weather', but that did date from a time when there were massive class-based car-owing differentials.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Obviously, I'm discounting the sorts of no-car cranks who put all their recycling in the right bin.


This is a wind-up, no?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> How do you run a car if you privately rent and are on minimum wage?
> 
> Yeah, it's possible in some circumstances, but prohibitively expensive in others.



Dividends, obvs.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Interesting to see how many tory party (_party of the workers) _goons are celebrating the death of UKIP on SM. That would be the party that put them into 3rd place in that _town of the workers?_


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This is a wind-up, no?



Some up them might go for wind-ups. Or electric ones.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yep...always referred to election day rain as 'tory weather', but that did date from a time when there were massive class-based car-owing differentials.


Just over 60% of the adult population have a driving license, and around 20% of households don't have a car, so its still significant.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 24, 2017)

Supine said:


> Don't give up your day job



You are right.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Some up them might go for wind-ups. Or electric ones.


I see.


----------



## mikey mikey (Feb 24, 2017)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> introduce a pledge to neckshoot all former tory cabinet ministers and hang former tory mps from gallows erected on horseguards - and then you'd see an upswing in support for the labour party



You're so fucking merciful, that you make me vomit!!! 

The Essex and Cheshire salt mines, for the lot of them! Then, when they're no longer capable of labouring for the good of the People, stick 'em in gibbets on Horseguards, with plaques attached to their cages stating their crimes.  There will be baskets of rotten food by each gibbet, and the public can choose - or not - to hurl such refuse at the MPs, always bearing in mind that a rotten swede is a meal for the MP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Because everyone has a car, don't they? I mean, sure, some people can only afford to buy them second hand, but they still mostly get you from A to B.



I don't have a car. only about one in five of my council estate neighbours have a car. We rely - like many of the urban poor - on public transport.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't have a car. only about one in five of my council estate neighbours have a car. We rely - like many of the urban poor - on public transport.



But you're not really interested in politics, are you, so why should it matter?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Because everyone has a car, don't they? I mean, sure, some people can only afford to buy them second hand, but they still mostly get you from A to B.



For the avoidance of further confusion, no, not everyone has a car, so that can't be the reason that suggesting that not everyone has a car is a gaffe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But you're not really interested in politics, are you, so why should it matter?



Give it up. Your humour is humourless, and your attempts to troll are shamefully weak.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if a party's worth is to be measured by the probability of it forming a government then the lib dems, ukip, greens, uup, dup, sf, sdlp, plaid cymru, snp etc etc etc ought to cease fighting elections to parliament.



Labour's different, they're still potentially the only party who could get enough votes to beat the tories. Unless of course you're happy for the tories to carry on in government for the next 5, 10, 20, 40 years??


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Give it up. Your humour is humourless, and your attempts to troll are shamefully weak.



I wasn't attempting to troll. It just seemed to happen of it's own accord. It was more you attempting to be trolled, I'd say.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 24, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> My strategy for a Labour win.
> 
> Nationalise, by issuing 1000 year bonds at 0.5%
> 
> ...



Who is going to be buying these hundreds of billions pounds worth of 1,000 year gilts?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour's different, they're still potentially the only party who could get enough votes to beat the tories. Unless of course you're happy for the tories to carry on in government for the next 5, 10, 20, 40 years??


it doesn't matter whether i am happy or not, it's not like my vote makes any difference living as i do in a very safe labour seat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It was more you attempting to be trolled, I'd say.


bully blaming their target i see.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> bully blaming their target i see.



No, i don't think posting self-evident nonsense addressed to no-one in particular can count as bullying. To do that, I would need to do something like trying to embarrass someone by way of an accusation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, i don't think <snip>


no, you wouldn't


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you wouldn't



Did you spend the whole ten minutes on that? It's pretty good.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Did you spend the whole ten minutes on that?


no, i spent 9' 55" doing a spot of work before spotting your piss puddle of a post, and 5" on the reply.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

still thinking up a snotty putdown i suppose Raheem


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> still thinking up a snotty putdown i suppose Raheem



No, it's over now. But thanks for the shoutout.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Who is going to be buying these hundreds of billions pounds worth of 1,000 year gilts?



Buy? Buy?

You misunderstand, the bonds will be issued as the nation takes ownership.

'Buy' indicates a choice, which will not be there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> *Because everyone has a car, don't they?* I mean, sure, some people can only afford to buy them second hand, but they still mostly get you from A to B.


o rly? you try running even a banger on min wage or the dole


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> o rly? you try running even a banger on min wage or the dole



Please read back up the thread. My comment was not supposed to be taken seriously. My point was that the suggestion "Labour voters are less likely to drive" is not some sort of patronising gaffe, because the part you bolded is obviously not true. You're at least the third person not to get it, so maybe I could have been clearer.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Shami Chakrabarti has just suggested on the Jeremy Vine show that Storm Doris was a factor as Labour voters are less likely to have cars.
> 
> I don't think she was suggesting a big factor, but it'll score high on the gaffometer.



 The weather was bad yesterday, bad enough for at least one fatality.  But yesterday in terms of by-elections was a biggy -the results having far more impact on the dances of our politicians than usual, plus in Stoke two different approaches in trying to reengage with the disenfranchised, dispossessed in a no holes barred, heavily resourced battle to the death - the result 39% turnout.  Thats a lot people who think it ain't worth getting wet to vote for any of these fuckers. its going to take a different approach to re motivate these people.

And in the meantime if somehow Mrs May got stuck with an election, she'd double her majority.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 24, 2017)

The Copeland test: Labour’s core vote

I should post a comment but y' know....its friday


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Who is going to be buying these hundreds of billions pounds worth of 1,000 year gilts?


 
Everyone had the hots for undated war bonds earlier this century


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> It's absolutely bog standard psephology, and has been for at least forty years, that bad weather affects labour supporters more than tories.  Why anyone would doubt/deny that is mysterious...unless they have an agenda



Likely that car ownership has changed in that 40 years even in Copeland.

What's more likely to put a voter off though, the weather or being patronised by Shami?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Everyone had the hots for undated war bonds earlier this century


Yeh? Do tell when.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Everyone had the hots for undated war bonds earlier this century


Are you sure you're not thinking of er the last century?


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Likely that car ownership has changed in that 40 years even in Copeland.
> 
> What's more likely to put a voter off though, the weather or being patronised by Shami?


Something being true for forty years means it had been true for forty years, not that it was only true forty years ago. As you have seen from the graph I posted, car ownership has gone up significantly over that time, but there is still a very substantial minority - of mostly poorer, labour leaning, voters without one. 

So Shami wasn't being patronising she was pointing to a widely accepted truth. And even is she was being patronising, the weather absolutely undoubtedly played a bigger role as her comments were made after all the votes had been counted.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Something being true for forty years means it had been true for forty years, not that it was only true forty years ago. As you have seen from the graph I posted, car ownership has gone up significantly over that time, but there is still a very substantial minority - of mostly poorer, labour leaning, voters without one.
> 
> So Shami wasn't being patronising she was pointing to a widely accepted truth. And even is she was being patronising, the weather absolutely undoubtedly played a bigger role as her comments were made after all the votes had been counted.



If car ownership has changed but the voters keep not coming out then something else, like the decline of Labour as a party that represents wc interests is a bit more likely.

Of course Shami's comments can't retrospectively affect this result. But a drip drip of clangers does so cumulatively.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> If car ownership has changed but the voters keep not coming out then something else, like the decline of Labour as a party that represents wc interests is a bit more likely.
> 
> Of course Shami's comments can't retrospectively affect this result. But a drip drip of clangers does so cumulatively.


Dear god, have you just taken a blow to the head?

The effect of poorer people having less access to cars may have decreased, but it hasnt disappeared.  Therefore, there is still an effect, even if it isn't as big as it was forty years ago. the only people denying that entirely are imbeciles


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Are you sure you're not thinking of er the last century?


 
the debt was issued from 1920-50 and killed off a couple of years ago. It was however more attractive when UKG started to issue modern stuff at lower rates 

you fucking pedant


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Dear god, have you just taken a blow to the head?
> 
> The effect of poorer people having less access to cars may have decreased, but it hasnt disappeared.  Therefore, there is still an effect, even if it isn't as big as it was forty years ago. the only people denying that entirely are imbeciles



You have a graph. That's nice. Go tell people who didn't vote it was because of their lack of access to cars and I'm sure most would tell you not to be so patronising.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> You have a graph. That's nice. Go tell people who didn't vote it was because of their lack of access to cars and I'm sure most would tell you not to be so patronising.


Nobody's got to go and tell anybody anything; we were attempting a little light evaluation of Chakrabati's suggested analysis. That's all.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2017)

The weather and transport issue may well have had an effect but in my mind I have a real doubt that Labour with or without Corbyn are capable of riding the storm per se.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2017)

Until today, I had forgotten how angry Corbyn makes a certain brand of middle-class liberal so if nothing else at least his staying leader is good for that.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2017)

May is up in Copeland already.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Until today, I had forgotten how angry Corbyn makes a certain brand of middle-class liberal so if nothing else at least his staying leader is good for that.



In which they - given their propensity to vote - will vote Tory in 2020, and I'm sure we can all agree that it will be the middle class liberal demographic who suffer most under a 3rd term Tory government.

I'm sure we'll all have a good laugh as May slaps a tax on Quinoa imports and the wearing of Berkenstocks, and cuts funding to farmers markets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> May is up in Copeland already.


And what's your feeling on that?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And what's your feeling on that?



I think her Protection Team would intervene long before it got to that stage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I think her Protection Team would intervene long before it got to that stage.


God, we'd never hear the fucking end of it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I think her Protection Team would intervene long before it got to that stage.


...if he survived


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> You have a graph. That's nice. Go tell people who didn't vote it was because of their lack of access to cars and I'm sure most would tell you not to be so patronising.


are you arguing with the facts?  Or just ignoring them in order to continue to wallow in your own ignorance?


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 24, 2017)

For Seamus and Comrade Murray Corbyn has played a blinder-his hangdog slothful approach helped Leave to win -a great step forward for Mother Russia.

The question now is can they extract any more advantage for Putin.Does JC staying and Labour getting a tanking in 2020 help or hinder Putins ambitions or will it kill the socialism in one country project.

Will the left be able to move forward or will they sent to the kulags by the social democrats.

I think he would do well in the debates of 2020 tho I reckon May will opt out if she is miles ahead.Empty chair I say.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 24, 2017)

What's a kulag? Some sort of prison built inside a wealthy peasant?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What's a kulag? Some sort of prison built inside a wealthy peasant?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


It's a small bar which serves kümmel


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What's a kulag? Some sort of prison built inside a wealthy peasant?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Why would it be that? I don't follow.

I was assuming it was a portmanteau for some sort of holiday accommodation, like glamping.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Please read back up the thread. My comment was not supposed to be taken seriously. My point was that the suggestion "Labour voters are less likely to drive" is not some sort of patronising gaffe, because the part you bolded is obviously not true. You're at least the third person not to get it, so maybe I could have been clearer.


I don't think anyone takes your posts wholly seriously


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 24, 2017)

Sorry I suffer from dyslexia Ctnus


----------



## 2hats (Feb 24, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I think her Protection Team would intervene long before it got to that stage.


They dropped the ball when Trump’s hands went wandering.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> are you arguing with the facts?  Or just ignoring them in order to continue to wallow in your own ignorance?



I'm sorry to inform you belboid but a complete knob appears to have hacked your account.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm sorry to inform you belboid but a complete knob appears to have hacked your account.


Funnily enough I was just reading the article below, explains your stupidity quite well

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 24, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What's a kulag? Some sort of prison built inside a wealthy peasant?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



A special gulag for kulaks. Abbott will present her plans for them in a green paper after Labour win the 2020 GE.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Feb 24, 2017)

What a carcrash. When will this arrogant little fuckwit just fuck off and let someone credible attempt to stop these fucking Tories destroying this country. 

Had it. Just go.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Feb 24, 2017)

Look at the grin on Theresa's face. Awful. 

Fuck. Off. Corbyn. Dickhead.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

Who might these 'credible' people be IYO?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it doesn't matter whether i am happy or not, it's not like my vote makes any difference living as i do in a very safe labour seat.



Then I’m sure people where you live are as badly affected by tory cuts to essential services as anywhere else. The tories aren’t going to change, the only thing that can stop them is an electable Labour Party.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 25, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Shami Chakrabarti has just suggested on the Jeremy Vine show that Storm Doris was a factor as Labour voters are less likely to have cars.
> 
> I don't think she was suggesting a big factor, but it'll score high on the gaffometer.



I’m just trying to imagine what my grandad would have said if I’d told him I wasn’t going to bother voting because it was too windy.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m just trying to imagine what my grandad would have said if I’d told him I wasn’t going to bother voting because it was too windy.



I believe the Tories have been on TV today making the point that the nagging granddad count was also extremely high on polling day, and should have more than compensated for the weather.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then I’m sure people where you live are as badly affected by tory cuts to essential services as anywhere else. The tories aren’t going to change, the only thing that can stop them is an electable Labour Party.


So how do you get an electable Labour Party? One that appeals to both the leavers and the remainers? The likes of blair or mandelson would have failed just as badly, if not worse. Saying labour is crap is worthless unless you can say how they can become 'electable'


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m just trying to imagine what my grandad would have said if I’d told him I wasn’t going to bother voting because it was too windy.


So why was the turnout so low? Your granddad would likely have disapproved of every reason people had for staying home


----------



## oryx (Feb 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> So how do you get an electable Labour Party? One that appeals to both the leavers and the remainers? The likes of blair or mandelson would have failed just as badly, if not worse. Saying labour is crap is worthless unless you can say how they can become 'electable'



Exploiting the state of the NHS, railways and public utilities, and the erosion of workers' rights and widely publicising the effect Tory cuts have had on local services, just for starters. Labour are really missing open goals on this and hopefully they are starting to remedy that.

Copeland and Stoke have shown that in terms of party politics, the traditional two-party situation is alive and well (for better or worse). Labour really, badly need to get their act together in terms of the above issues - to have cohesive policies, to start shouting loudly about them and to restore faith in their traditional base.


----------



## Dandred (Feb 25, 2017)




----------



## oryx (Feb 25, 2017)

Obviously, Brexit is a hugely important issue too and IMVHO Corbyn did the right thing - to do otherwise would have been disrespectful to the reasons behind the Leave vote (disenfranchisement, alienation from party politics and a perceived elite etc. I was a strong Remain supporter but believe the issues behind a Leave vote cannot be ignored).

The EU is changing and will not be the same in a decade (cf Greece, France, etc.). I don't want to come over all UKIP type ('make the country great again' etc.) but Britain is an innovative country within its context (first to have a revolution against feudalism, first to industrialise, possibly first to de-industrialise) so we will probably be the first to disengage from the EU and others will do the same.

The really important thing is to get the best possible terms from leaving the EU in terms of workers' rights, the rights of those who have come from the EU and those who have gone to the EU.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Exploiting the state of the NHS, railways and public utilities, and the erosion of workers' rights and widely publicising the effect Tory cuts have had on local services, just for starters. Labour are really missing open goals on this and hopefully they are starting to remedy that.


They did do that and it's the same message they've been banging on about since forever. All the time while Labour councils are cutting local services.


----------



## oryx (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> They did do that and it's the same message they've been banging on about since forever. All the time while Labour councils are cutting local services.



Yeah, they are. But because of Tory cuts in grant to local government.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Yeah, they are. But because of Tory cuts in grant to local government.


No because it's what they believe ideologically, austerity didn't begin with the coalition government. The 2015 LP manifesto did not argue for a reverse to the cuts. Last year the NEC unanimously passed a motion banning Labour councils from setting illegal budgets. (Never mind the however many years of attacks on the welfare state previous to 2015).	

The excuse that 'it's all the Tories fault' is pathetic bollocks, was it the Tories fault the Labour council in Millwall decided to do some dodgy deal? If they were opposed to cuts then they should put their money where their mouth is and fight them, as opposed to cravenly rolling over.


----------



## oryx (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The 2015 LP manifesto did not argue for a reverse to the cuts. Last year the NEC unanimously passed a motion against Labour councils setting budgets that are unfinancial. (Never mind the however many years of attacks on the welfare state previous to 2015).
> 
> The excuse that 'it's all the Tories fault' is pathetic bollocks, was it the Tories fault the Labour council in Millwall decided to do some dodgy deal? If they were opposed to cuts then they should put their money where their mouth is and fight them, as opposed to cravenly rolling over.





redsquirrel said:


> No because it's what they believe ideologically, austerity didn't begin with the coalition government. The 2015 LP manifesto did not argue for a reverse to the cuts. Last year the NEC unanimously passed a motion banning Labour councils from setting illegal budgets. (Never mind the however many years of attacks on the welfare state previous to 2015).
> 
> The excuse that 'it's all the Tories fault' is pathetic bollocks, was it the Tories fault the Labour council in Millwall decided to do some dodgy deal? If they were opposed to cuts then they should put their money where their mouth is and fight them, as opposed to cravenly rolling over.



Labour is now opposed to austerity and LG cuts. I completely agree with you about some right-wing Labour attacks on the welfare state (still get annoyed at the Rachel Reeves speech  and do not support her views at all). The illegal budgets is a tricky one which happened in the 80s and did not end well.

There isn't a Labour council in Millwall as such but I know a lot of local people, LP members etc. were really not happy with the issue re the land near the New Den and how it was handled by Lewisham Council. My OH is a Millwall supporter through and through and really pissed off re this (and I'm not impressed) but it still wouldn't make us vote Tory or anyone else. (Live in Lewisham in case you didn't realise!)


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Labour is now opposed to austerity and LG cuts.


So you claim but what does this opposition actually entail? Because I just see Labour councils cutting local services as they have done for 30+ years.

I guess these weren't actually Labour councils.


----------



## oryx (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So you claim but what does this opposition actually entail? Because I just see Labour councils cutting local services as they have done for 30+ years.



I can only speak for my local council but they don't want to cut local services. It is something forced upon them. Where I live the have  tried to consult but it is a 'choice' between other services, say libraries for example, and services for vulnerable children and elderly people.

Opposition to cuts is Corbyn at PMQs talking about the NHS and knock on effect to 'social care', and at least where I am starting an awareness campaign re the financing (or lack thereof) of local government services.

I didn't like Blair for obvious reasons, but the NHS and LG services were far safer back in the 90s/00s.

Austerity cuts are really starting to bite now (NHS crisis, underfunded state schools, benefit cuts, etc. etc.) and Labour really need to exploit this big time.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

Right so actually nothing other than empty rhetoric. How are they being forced? What happens if they resist this force? 

_'Please sir it's not my fault the big boys made me do it'_ is not good enough. Labour councils are implementing the cuts that's not opposing them and Labour members have to wear that.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> Not an entirely sound comparison really, as it was grossly unusual in being a Labour to SDP defection that simply split their vote down the middle. In terms of a straight swing between two parties, you have to go back to 1961, I believe.



Was Copeland a straight swing between the two parties? There was also a much larger swing away from UKIP presumably mostly to the Tories (I haven't seen what the difference would be if the UKIP vote had held)



redsquirrel said:


> Right so actually nothing other than empty rhetoric. How are they being forced? What happens if they resist this force?



It is quite clear that at the moment a Labour council refusing to set a budget with cuts would not get a lot of support and would lead to them losing a lot of councillors/control of the council. Whether you think that justifies implementing cuts or not, I don't see how there would be any other outcome in the present  situation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

Combustible said:


> It is quite clear that at the moment a Labour council refusing to set a budget with cuts would not get a lot of support and would lead to them losing a lot of councillors/control of the council. Whether you think that justifies implementing cuts or not, I don't see how there would be any other outcome in the present  situation.


So just keep on attacking public services with a sad face then? Vote Labour we'll implement the cuts better!

Setting illegal budgets was simply one example You could take other actions, but you can't claim you're opposing something when you're not actually doing anything to oppose it. By the reasoning above the LibDems also oppose attacks on public services, after all unlike Labour they actually protested about the doings in Lewisham.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So just keep on attacking public services with a sad face then? Vote Labour we'll implement the cuts better!
> 
> Setting illegal budgets was simply one example You could take other actions, but you can't claim you're opposing something when you're not actually doing anything to oppose it.



Well a Labour council can either set a legal budget which includes cuts or not do so and the consequences of not doing so would clearly be a massive loss of councillors and support. I didn't say what Labour should or shouldn't do but that is what inevitably would happen.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

Loss of councillors clearly, loss of support not necessarily. You're not just going to turn up one day and set an illegal budget out the blue, you make it part of a campaign.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 25, 2017)

This stuff is being enacted right now, by a Labour council:

Haringey, North London – the Front Line Against Gentrification.

Whilst central government cuts are obviously part of the problem, it is simply not good enough for Labour councils/councillors to use this as a constant 'but what can we do?' get-out clause when in many cases they also share the same business interests with private developers. And nor should Labour supporters allow them to get away with it.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> So how do you get an electable Labour Party? One that appeals to both the leavers and the remainers? ....



The Tories have managed to square that circle - they have probably lost a slim slice of their remain voters to the LibDems (temporarily I'd wager), but in big picture terms they have found a formula that allows both leavers and remained to continue to support them.

This is not impossible, can't go against the laws of physics stuff, it's just politics - and Labour politicians, both remainers and closet leavers, Corbyn supporters as well as his detractors, seem to be pretty shit at these relatively basic political skills.

They are fine at speaking to people who agree with them on about 98% stuff, but utterly shit at talking to the rest of the world.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 25, 2017)

Just to add that I'm involved in some social housing/anti-sell-off action at the moment, largely fighting against Labour councils. I've never witnessed such a bunch of dishonest, market/privatisation apologist and legal players as some of particularly 'progress' and suchlike councillors. Many of them also engaged in getting as many contracts to their mates in the property development or investment/finance sector too as they can, or where you find out that a councillor turns out to be former business partners of said mates.

This is exactly what my once Labour councillor Mum warned me about, even back in the 90s, when she gave it up having had enough of battling her colleagues more than trying to protect/improve local services.


----------



## Southlondon (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Loss of councillors clearly, loss of support not necessarily. You're not just going to turn up one day and set an illegal budget out the blue, you make it part of a campaign.


The other thing that happens when you set an illegal budget is the Govt takes control of the council and their people set the budget, as a council tennants id rather it was set by my local council via consultation - even a social democratic majority council, than by tories. Anyone on here remember when the tories and liberals ran Lambeth? Terrible time compared to even the progress shower that run it now. 
What we need is a socialist govt,and vest hope of fast is to get in the Labour Party, replace Corbyn with a fresh socialist leader and fight rather than whine


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Just to add that I'm involved in some social housing/anti-sell-off action at the moment, largely fighting against Labour councils. I've never witnessed such a bunch of dishonest, market/privatisation apologist and legal players as some of particularly 'progress' and suchlike councillors. Many of them also engaged in getting as many contracts to their mates in the property development or investment/finance sector too as they can, or where you find out that a councillor turns out to be former business partners of said mates.
> 
> This is exactly what my once Labour councillor Mum warned me about, even back in the 90s, when she gave it up having had enough of battling her colleagues more than trying to protect/improve local services.


It's being going on since I got involved in politics in the 1980s. One of the reasons I became disillusioned with the Labour Party was the behaviour of the local councillors (some of whom went on to national prominence).


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2017)

For whatever byelections are worth, this is Copeland's election history:


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

Southlondon said:


> The other thing that happens when you set an illegal budget is the Govt takes control of the council and their people set the budget, as a council tennants id rather it was set by my local council via consultation - even a social democratic majority council, than by tories. Anyone on here remember when the tories and liberals ran Lambeth? Terrible time compared to even the progress shower that run it now.
> What we need is a socialist govt,and vest hope of fast is to get in the Labour Party, replace Corbyn with a fresh socialist leader and fight rather than whine


Right so just go along with cuts to services for another 3 1/2 years and then, if Labour get in, the promise land arrives. And if Labour don't get elected in 2020, just implement another round of cuts?  

Ans where are these social democratic councils? I don't see any. You're not social democratic when you're attacking the welfare state.

EDIT: Two years ago it was, we just need to elect a left-wing Labour leader, now it's we have to get rid of Corbyn and have a different left-wing Labour leader.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Exploiting the state of the NHS, railways and public utilities, and the erosion of workers' rights and widely publicising the effect Tory cuts have had on local services, just for starters. Labour are really missing open goals on this and hopefully they are starting to remedy that.
> 
> Copeland and Stoke have shown that in terms of party politics, the traditional two-party situation is alive and well (for better or worse). Labour really, badly need to get their act together in terms of the above issues - to have cohesive policies, to start shouting loudly about them and to restore faith in their traditional base.


As rs pointed out...they did do those things. The NHS was the absolute heart of the campaign, and lambasting Tory cuts and austerity has been a pretty major feature too. You can't blame the defeat on them not doing those things.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The Tories have managed to square that circle - they have probably lost a slim slice of their remain voters to the LibDems (temporarily I'd wager), but in big picture terms they have found a formula that allows both leavers and remained to continue to support them.
> 
> This is not impossible, can't go against the laws of physics stuff, it's just politics - and Labour politicians, both remainers and closet leavers, Corbyn supporters as well as his detractors, seem to be pretty shit at these relatively basic political skills.
> 
> They are fine at speaking to people who agree with them on about 98% stuff, but utterly shit at talking to the rest of the world.


It's fairly easy for the tories tho. A majority of their voters voted leave and they're the party in government and so basically forced to implement Brexit, it'd be wholly anti democratic for them not too. They'll be losing a few votes, like you say, but they're essentially doing what they have to.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then I’m sure people where you live are as badly affected by tory cuts to essential services as anywhere else. The tories aren’t going to change, the only thing that can stop them is an electable Labour Party.


What would you say to those bits of the Labour Party that _have been elected_ - Labour councils - but are still making cuts to essential services?

Edit: ah, already said over the last few posts


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then I’m sure people where you live are as badly affected by tory cuts to essential services as anywhere else. The tories aren’t going to change, the only thing that can stop them is an electable Labour Party.


yeh. but when the electable labour party are tory lite then tbh it makes no odds who's in power. pretty much the first thing i was told when i started my library qualification was that we would always be working in declining budgets. and that was under a labour administration. don't fart on and on about how the only way to stop cuts - which is in effect what you're saying - is to vote labour. it isn't. labour councils have long been the most enthusiastic enforcers of tory policies, e.g. the poll tax, and the last seven years of austerity. the days of poplarism are long behind us.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 25, 2017)

FWIW, there's no easy answer in terms of being an elected council and trying to stall or overturn the cuts. There's always the chance of personal consequences and there's the threat of even bigger cuts following on your refusal to make the initial cuts.  But it's the mindset of 'we're elected, we've got a roll to play, we might not like it' that's the problem (and as others have said a lot of Labour councils have a far worse, privatising, mentality than that).  A starting point has got to be 'we're nothing special, our personal position doesn't matter. This is all about trying to engage with our town and develop strategies to resist shit that destroys lives'.  I'm not in the Labour Party, I'm not into electoral politics, but I'd forgive them a lot if their starting point was the need to develop some basic social solidarity with the people that put them their.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

Wilf said:


> FWIW, there's no easy answer in terms of being an elected council and trying to stall or overturn the cuts. There's always the chance of personal consequences and there's the threat of even bigger cuts following on your refusal to make the initial cuts.  But it's the mindset of 'we're elected, we've got a roll to play, we might not like it' that's the problem (and as others have said a lot of Labour councils have a far worse, privatising, mentality than that).  A starting point has got to be 'we're nothing special, our personal position doesn't matter. This is all about trying to engage with our town and develop strategies to resist shit that destroys lives'.  I'm not in the Labour Party, I'm not into electoral politics, but I'd forgive them a lot if their starting point was the need to develop some basic social solidarity with the people that put them their.


it's not necessarily 'we have to do this but do not have to like doing this' as much as 'we are happy to do this'.


----------



## treelover (Feb 25, 2017)

Basingstoke & Deane BC, Winklebury – 21st February 2017 
Labour 824 [61.6%, +31.2%]
Con 472 [35.3%, -10.5%]
LD 42 [3.1%, -2.7%]
[UKIP 0 [0.0%, -17.9%]]
Turnout 28.6%

Labour gain from Conservative

UKIP didn't stand, makes you wonder..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Basingstoke & Deane BC, Winklebury – 21st February 2017
> Labour 824 [61.6%, +31.2%]
> Con 472 [35.3%, -10.5%]
> LD 42 [3.1%, -2.7%]
> ...


makes you wonder what?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 25, 2017)

Wilf said:


> FWIW, there's no easy answer in terms of being an elected council and trying to stall or overturn the cuts. There's always the chance of personal consequences and there's the threat of even bigger cuts following on your refusal to make the initial cuts.  But it's the mindset of 'we're elected, we've got a roll to play, we might not like it' that's the problem (and as others have said a lot of Labour councils have a far worse, privatising, mentality than that).  A starting point has got to be 'we're nothing special, our personal position doesn't matter. This is all about trying to engage with our town and develop strategies to resist shit that destroys lives'.  I'm not in the Labour Party, I'm not into electoral politics, but I'd forgive them a lot if their starting point was the need to develop some basic social solidarity with the people that put them their.



Absolutely. There are very few examples where Labour in control of councils challenged the naked self interest of local government which is based on we are the specialists the local population is the subject and our proclaimed right is to do things to you not with you. Top down  reconstruction of services with no reexamination of the relationship between the council and those that elected it . Clients, residents, users but never citizens. Everything was about efficiency and savings and nothing about how can we at least try and help communities become resilient.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 26, 2017)

belboid said:


> So how do you get an electable Labour Party? One that appeals to both the leavers and the remainers? The likes of blair or mandelson would have failed just as badly, if not worse. Saying labour is crap is worthless unless you can say how they can become 'electable'




The only way Labour can become electable again is firstly to elect a credible leader and then to actually face up to what voters want, even if that does mean committing to things like ‘controlled’ immigration and replacing Trident. It would be worth it to save essential services such as the NHS which is getting fucked beyond repair right now.

As has been said, for all their obvious faults, essential services are far safer with a Labour government. That was even true of Blair and Brown’s government.

There is no alternative, it’s still only Labour who can rid us of tory governments. That has to be the priority.


----------



## instape (Feb 26, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The only way Labour can become electable again is firstly to elect a credible leader and then to actually face up to what voters want, even if that does mean committing to things like ‘controlled’ immigration and replacing Trident. It would be worth it to save essential services such as the NHS which is getting fucked beyond repair right now.
> 
> As has been said, for all their obvious faults, essential services are far safer with a Labour government. That was even true of Blair and Brown’s government.
> 
> There is no alternative, it’s still only Labour who can rid us of tory governments. That has to be the priority.




Labour gave me and millions of others a justified  feeling of terror when a  Brown Envelope is sat  on the door mat. (Not the clap clinic results)


----------



## J Ed (Feb 26, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The only way Labour can become electable again is firstly to elect a credible leader and then to actually face up to what voters want, even if that does mean committing to things like ‘controlled’ immigration and replacing Trident. It would be worth it to save essential services such as the NHS which is getting fucked beyond repair right now.
> 
> As has been said, for all their obvious faults, essential services are far safer with a Labour government. That was even true of Blair and Brown’s government.
> 
> There is no alternative, it’s still only Labour who can rid us of tory governments. That has to be the priority.



Labour is already committed to 'controlled' immigration and the replacement of Trident.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2017)

Getting a left wing Labour Party elected is a very hard call. Never impossible as the Tories are such treacherous bastards that there will always be plenty of ammunition and plenty of voters who despise them.

However many voters both want the system changed and for it to be run effectively. A positive and coherent campaign based around solidarity, looking after each other and the environment would have plenty of takers, but only if it also convinces that the state will be robustly run. It's a contradiction and squaring it is largely embodied in voters minds through the personality and qualities of the leader.

I think Labour needs to boil its offer down to some principles and actions easily expressed and repeated. 'We look after each other - how we will do that' a bit like Trump and his wall. Labour needs to offer this as a positive vision and not rely solely on saying everything is shit now.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 26, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Until today, I had forgotten how angry Corbyn makes a certain brand of middle-class liberal so if nothing else at least his staying leader is good for that.


He makes a lot of working class people angry as well hence the utter shitness of his leadership


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2017)

I think they're mainly uninterested rather than angry.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think they're mainly uninterested rather than angry.


Struggling to see what aspects of Corbyn's leadership would _anger _the working class.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Struggling to see what aspects of Corbyn's leadership would _anger _the working class.


I'm pretty pissed of he hasn't lynched any tories yet.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I'm pretty pissed of he hasn't lynched any tories yet.


tbf that's our role.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Struggling to see what aspects of Corbyn's leadership would _anger _the working class.



Only really his perceived lack of patriotism-cos he bumbles around they arent interested in finding out what his policies are and how these could help them.Diane winds them up far more as does Thornberry but then that is a racist and misogynist thing .


----------



## seventh bullet (Feb 26, 2017)

lol.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 26, 2017)

Anyway IDS the Tory equivalent to JC lead for 26 months so resigning after Conference votes down the McDonnell for Leader rule  amendment would be similar.

But who is Labours Michael Howard ?


----------



## Smangus (Feb 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> .Diane winds them up far more as does Thornberry but then that is a racist and misogynist thing .



Might be more to do with coming across as a pompous, condescending  arse.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 26, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Might be more to do with coming across as a pompous, condescending  arse.



Yeah but the brits invented racism right.?


----------



## Smangus (Feb 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Yeah but the brits invented racism right.?



lol prob not, it's as old as society.


----------



## Smangus (Feb 26, 2017)

What have the Romans ever done for us?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 26, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The only way Labour can become electable again is firstly to elect a credible leader and then to actually face up to what voters want, even if that does mean committing to things like ‘controlled’ immigration and replacing Trident. It would be worth it to save essential services such as the NHS which is getting fucked beyond repair right now.
> 
> As has been said, for all their obvious faults, essential services are far safer with a Labour government. That was even true of Blair and Brown’s government.
> 
> There is no alternative, it’s still only Labour who can rid us of tory governments. That has to be the priority.


I'm pretty certain I come from a very different political position to you, but I agree with _part_ of this.  Yes, there are no signs that Corbyn's brand of leftish social democracy is going to win any time soon - to say the least.  Partly because of the permanent war launched by the right of the party, partly because even such a soft left position can't just be plonked in front of the electorate. It has to be built, there has to be communication, there has to be trust.  None of this has happened - partly because of the right certainly, but partly because momentum/Corbyn/the new membership haven't created it.

But you seem to be forgetting that Brown lost in 2010 and Miliband in 2015. That brand of capital friendly politics with a veneer of 'social inclusion' has gone. Blairism was a successful politics for a period of economic growth that appealed to the middle classes and assumed the working class had nowhere else to go. Every bit as much as Austerity it has alienated working class voters and can't be put back together again. Blairism isn't there to be had - thankfully, given the damage it actually did to working class voters.  Tragedy is nothing else is happening or emerging in terms of any other sort of left alternative - but the absence of a left alternative doesn't revive Blairism as a plausible position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> What a carcrash. When will this arrogant little fuckwit just fuck off and let someone credible attempt to stop these fucking Tories destroying this country.
> 
> Had it. Just go.



The first nine words of the second sentence read like projection.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m just trying to imagine what my grandad would have said if I’d told him I wasn’t going to bother voting because it was too windy.



Possibly something like "it's like _kristallnacht_, I tells ye!!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

oryx said:


> Labour is now opposed to austerity and LG cuts. I completely agree with you about some right-wing Labour attacks on the welfare state (still get annoyed at the Rachel Reeves speech  and do not support her views at all). The illegal budgets is a tricky one which happened in the 80s and did not end well.



"Illegal" budgets weren't always illegal. As local authority spending was governed by rates, local authorities could "go to the people" if they wished to set a budget outside of the current rate take, and often residents of the authority would vote in a rate rise because they could be fairly sure that the increased take would get spent on necessary services. The centralisation of LA spending, and the Poll Tax/Community Charge/Council Tax, meant that any illegal budget can only be funded through local authority reserves, and the NEC ruling forbidding councils from setting an illegal budget basically put the last nail in the coffin of councils using their reserves to relieve pressure on services/provide adequate services to their residents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

Combustible said:


> Well a Labour council can either set a legal budget which includes cuts or not do so and the consequences of not doing so would clearly be a massive loss of councillors and support. I didn't say what Labour should or shouldn't do but that is what inevitably would happen.



I'm not convinced that not setting a budget would mean a "massive" loss of either Councillors or support. In some local authorities, the service cuts have already bitten so deep that what's left of the budget is merely keeping a corpse on life-support. Here in Lambeth there's been a noticeable across-the-board effect on services, as Lambeth have attempted to re-negotiate any contract that their legal dept has said has scope. This means we've seen the residualisation of adult social services, and the paring down of child services (with all the consequences that has for child safety issues); the shrinking of street-cleansing and refuse collection; the near-extinction of highways maintenance; the loss of more than 55% of the borough's independent welfare and housing advice provision - well, I'm sure you take my point. In some ways we're so far gone that acts of resistance by Councillors would actually garner support. Sadly, here in Lambeth we have 59 Labour Councillors, about 40 of whom are either members of Progress and/the Fabian Society, or who are vocal and visible supporters of the "moderate"/maquis tendency, so the scope for acts of resistance is small. In conversation with one cabinet member, he told me plainly that he would NEVER do such a thing, because of "the risks of losing power". When you're dealing with that sort of stupidity and lack of care for the people you're supposed to represent, then those people are fucked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So just keep on attacking public services with a sad face then? Vote Labour we'll implement the cuts better!



An argument whose threadbareness was already revealed at the 2010 election, where "we'll do austerity with a kinder face" was *kicked* in the face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Just to add that I'm involved in some social housing/anti-sell-off action at the moment, largely fighting against Labour councils. I've never witnessed such a bunch of dishonest, market/privatisation apologist and legal players as some of particularly 'progress' and suchlike councillors. Many of them also engaged in getting as many contracts to their mates in the property development or investment/finance sector too as they can, or where you find out that a councillor turns out to be former business partners of said mates.
> 
> This is exactly what my once Labour councillor Mum warned me about, even back in the 90s, when she gave it up having had enough of battling her colleagues more than trying to protect/improve local services.



Same experience here with the Progressites and their fellow-travellers. Lying, venal, neoliberally-inclined cockwipes, the lot of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

Southlondon said:


> The other thing that happens when you set an illegal budget is the Govt takes control of the council and their people set the budget...



If the DCLG sent in it's own people to set and administrate the budget, then one thing would be discovered in short order - that such a budget would damage services. Don't you think that's a story worth telling - that a govt dept couldn't manage any better than a local authority?



> ...as a council tennants id rather it was set by my local council via consultation - even a social democratic majority council, than by tories. Anyone on here remember when the tories and liberals ran Lambeth? Terrible time compared to even the progress shower that run it now.
> What we need is a socialist govt,and vest hope of fast is to get in the Labour Party, replace Corbyn with a fresh socialist leader and fight rather than whine



I lived through that (and Lambeth's supposed "looney left" years), and on any metric, the last 7 years have been worse than anything Lambeth's Lib-Dem/Tory coalition managed. Fitchett's fuckwads may have been corrupt, but they knew which side their bread was buttered. This current wunch of Progress bankers and their fellow-travellers are worse. They're cynically overseeing the destruction of communities in Lambeth in order to establish a fresh income stream by becoming a private landlord.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

treelover said:


> Basingstoke & Deane BC, Winklebury – 21st February 2017
> Labour 824 [61.6%, +31.2%]
> Con 472 [35.3%, -10.5%]
> LD 42 [3.1%, -2.7%]
> ...


Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councillor arrested on suspicion of theft perhaps they had lost something in terms of reputation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2017)

Smangus said:


> What have the Romans ever done for us?



A girl from Rome gave me a nasty rash when I was younger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

Smangus said:


> What have the Romans ever done for us?


Roman candles


----------



## gosub (Feb 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councillor arrested on suspicion of theft perhaps they had lost something in terms of reputation.



I think it was to do with a dependency on the nomination papers


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

gosub said:


> I think it was to do with a dependency on the nomination papers


A physical or psychological dependency?


----------



## gosub (Feb 26, 2017)

bloody auto correct: discrepancy


----------



## Wilf (Feb 26, 2017)

gosub said:


> I think it was to do with a dependency on the nomination papers


You mean they'd been rolled up to do coke with?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2017)

Illuminating stuff from James Roberts (he was a pollster for New Labour) in the observer today.

Labours formally and deliberately turned its back on the interests of the working class a long time before Jeremy and the gang.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Illuminating stuff from James Roberts (he was a pollster for New Labour) in the observer today.
> 
> Labours formally and deliberately turned its back on the interests of the working class a long time before Jeremy and the gang.


Link?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Illuminating stuff from James Roberts (he was a pollster for New Labour) in the observer today.
> 
> Labours formally and deliberately turned its back on the interests of the working class a long time before Jeremy and the gang.



At what point would you say Labour turned their back on the interests of the working class? Blair? Kinnock? Earlier?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Feb 26, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> At what point would you say Labour turned their back on the interests of the working class? Blair? Kinnock? Earlier?


 MacDonald.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Link?



Erm, yeah don't know what happened there. The most illuminating section of this relates to new labour pollsters surveying "less well off" labour voters 


Working-class desertion of Labour started before Corbyn


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> At what point would you say Labour turned their back on the interests of the working class? Blair? Kinnock? Earlier?



An essential component of the Blair/new labour project was the explicit and visible rejection of the interests of the working class.

It's arguable that previous labour leaders and administrations did little or nothing to advance those interests but they were definitely required to give the impression that they were.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> An essential component of the Blair/new labour project was the explicit and visible rejection of the interests of the working class.
> 
> It's arguable that previous labour leaders and administrations did little or nothing to advance those interests but they were definitely required to give the impression that they were.


1975 would be a good call.
Facing a collapse of confidence in Sterling, Chancellor Denis Healy chose to adopt a monetarist critique of the previous tory administration's 'loose money' policy and accept cuts to public expenditure as a precondition for the IMF loan that bailed the Wilson administration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

fiannanahalba said:


> MacDonald.


That late?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> At what point would you say Labour turned their back on the interests of the working class? Blair? Kinnock? Earlier?


1914, when the labour party joined the libs and tories in voting war credits


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 1975 would be a good call.
> Facing a collapse of confidence in Sterling, Chancellor Denis Healy chose to adopt a monetarist critique of the previous tory administration's 'loose money' policy and accept cuts to public expenditure as a precondition for the IMF loan that bailed the Wilson administration.



That's true, it's also the case that the Callaghan government attacked public sector pay and oversaw spiralling unemployment. My point however is that New Labour didn't merely adopt policies that run counter to the interests of the working class. Other Labour Governments routinely did that as well. The adoption of them for Blair and his friends was a policy objective in itself.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 26, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> At what point would you say Labour turned their back on the interests of the working class? Blair? Kinnock? Earlier?


TUSC, the best placed of the "Left of Labour", got about 36000 votes last election.

For a party that abandoned the working class 40 years earlier, Labour managed over 9 million votes.

Corbyn, perhaps the weakest person ever to lead the party managed to get 100 000s to join for his "liberal"\"social democratic" <boooo> politics.

I know its a shock to all the pompous intellectuals round here, but perhaps the apparently thunderously stupid oiks who make up the working class, vote Labour, vote Tory, vote UKIP and so on are the people best placed to judge who has and who has not abandoned them?  Why are the "working class" not queuing up to vote for you? Why are they not queuing round the blocks at Russel Group unis for the "Marxism and its Relevance to Workers Class Struggle in a Post Modernist Shade of Pale" type events?

Is it possible that the stupid oiks are not as stupid as you think?

Is it possible many of them see that democracy in a heterogeneous society is a really difficult thing to get right. You have to simultaneously do enough to please wildly differing groups of people who do not fit into three neat little 19th century boxes, while not so agitating the oppositions supporters in enough numbers that they come out in greater force on polling day, and on top of that doing so amidst a complex mix of other parties and their agendas and appeals as well as their potential to be coalition partners and the set of electoral headaches that brings?


Nah thats too much like subtlety and thinking. The official line is "Labour abandoned the working class in 1914 and everyone except the pound shop revolutionaries has been too stupid to work it out. "


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> TUSC, the best placed of the "Left of Labour", got about 36000 votes last election.
> 
> For a party that abandoned the working class 40 years earlier, Labour managed over 9 million votes.
> 
> ...


The fact that, in the last GE, the proportion of the social 'class' D/E electorate that declined to vote, (46%), was more than twice the size that voted Labour, (22%), lends some weight to the notion of abandonment.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2017)

the fightback is going well anyway.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2017)

have to say, his twitter game is shit anyway. but wtf is this?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The fact that, in the last GE, the proportion of the social 'class' D/E electorate that declined to vote, (46%), was more than twice the size that voted Labour, (22%), lends some weight to the notion of abandonment.



Whichever version of the Labour Party can manage to encourage better turnout because  a Labour vote has *some* chance of improving stuff locally, would have a chance.

Don't see that happening any time soon though


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 27, 2017)

Manchester Gorton Labour MP Gerald Kaufman died today. Another by election to follow. His lead was very solid in 2015.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Feb 27, 2017)

Cunt actually warned Scottish independence supporters "you can't eat a flag".


----------



## killer b (Feb 27, 2017)

Ooh. Mrs b's mp. Don't expect it to offer much excitement tho


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2017)

Let's hope Nuttall stands again.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Manchester Gorton Labour MP Gerald Kaufman died today. Another by election to follow. His lead was very solid in 2015.



Really? Father of the House no longer ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

When Reid and Hunt resigned from Copeland and Stoke Central respectively, I did propose on here that any Labour MP resigning, unnecessarily, and ahead of the General Election, should be shot. I even put up a graphic! 

I may reluctantly have to let Kaufman off that new rule now, I suppose. He was pretty old tbf.


----------



## killer b (Feb 27, 2017)

Actually there could be some fun - if you remember, Garton clp was suspended last year, I understand because of a bloody scrap between two factions over the succession (kaufman was retiring in 2020 anyway). I doubt that has been resolved in any meaningful way...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'm pretty certain I come from a very different political position to you, but I agree with _part_ of this.  Yes, there are no signs that Corbyn's brand of leftish social democracy is going to win any time soon - to say the least.  Partly because of the permanent war launched by the right of the party, partly because even such a soft left position can't just be plonked in front of the electorate. It has to be built, there has to be communication, there has to be trust.  None of this has happened - partly because of the right certainly, but partly because momentum/Corbyn/the new membership haven't created it.
> 
> But you seem to be forgetting that Brown lost in 2010 and Miliband in 2015. That brand of capital friendly politics with a veneer of 'social inclusion' has gone. Blairism was a successful politics for a period of economic growth that appealed to the middle classes and assumed the working class had nowhere else to go. Every bit as much as Austerity it has alienated working class voters and can't be put back together again. Blairism isn't there to be had - thankfully, given the damage it actually did to working class voters.  Tragedy is nothing else is happening or emerging in terms of any other sort of left alternative - but the absence of a left alternative doesn't revive Blairism as a plausible position.



Voters had had enough of Labour by 2010 and clearly weren’t ready for them again in 2015, especially under a leader who they perceived to be weak.

By the time voters are sick of the tories, not enough of them regardless of ‘class’ are going to vote for a Labour Party which they consider to be too left wing and the tories will simply win again by default.

The idea that Labour lost Copeland or that they are so far behind in the polls because of ‘a permanent war by the right’ is just plain daft. Hearing John O’Donnell blame Owen Smith for Copeland on Any Questions was excruciating.

Corbyn and his followers need to recognise that the electorate don’t want them. I know it’s become a cliché, but Labour really do need to start listening. Unity and standing by Corbyn isn’t going to win the any election.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Labour is already committed to 'controlled' immigration and the replacement of Trident.



Yes, my mistake, Labour did indeed agree with the renewal of Trident at the party conference, albeit in a chaotic way involving last minute changes to speeches, the punching of walls and the appointment of a unilateralist as defence spokeswoman. The electorate know that Corbyn is a committed unilateralist so they don’t trust him. (I’m against a UK independent nuclear deterrent myself by the way and always have been).

As for immigration, Labour’s policy is ambiguous to say the least.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Let's hope Nuttall stands again.


Hope so - Gorton is the neighbouring constituency to me so I could get some free entertainment when someone eggs him.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

farmerbarleymow : aren't UKIP fairly weak anyway in Manc, compared to lots of other places in the North?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> farmerbarleymow : aren't UKIP fairly weak anyway in Manc, compared to lots of other places in the North?



From memory it is patchy - they seem to do better in the satellite towns compared to the centre. This lists the percentages for each seat - Greater Manchester: Majority Sorted Seats

Gorton is quite interesting though - they only polled 7.8% in 2015, less than Manchester Central.  Gorton is relatively deprived like the satellite towns so I'd have expected them to poll higher than that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Whichever version of the Labour Party can manage to encourage better turnout because  a Labour vote has *some* chance of improving stuff locally, would have a chance.
> 
> Don't see that happening any time soon though


What's this mean? That you'd accept a neo-liberal Labour Party (not that it isn't that at the moment) if it was able to defeat the Conservatives?



farmerbarleymow said:


> Gorton is quite interesting though - they only polled 7.8% in 2015, less than Manchester Central.  Gorton is relatively deprived like the satellite towns so I'd have expected them to poll higher than that.


Maybe down to Kaufman? He probably had more name recognition than most MPs, been in the seat forever, 'old' labour and these days on the left of the party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Hope so - Gorton is the neighbouring constituency to me so I could get some free entertainment when someone eggs him.


Knowing how tight you are you'd offer to scrape the egg off him for an omelette


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2017)

It's a fantastic no-win situation for Nuttall; stand and there's further humiliation (probably culminating in him having to admit he's never ever been to Hillsborough) and being called a bottler if he doesn't. Love it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Voters had had enough of Labour by 2010 and clearly weren’t ready for them again in 2015, especially under a leader who they perceived to be weak.
> 
> By the time voters are sick of the tories, not enough of them regardless of ‘class’ are going to vote for a Labour Party which they consider to be too left wing and the tories will simply win again by default.
> 
> ...


Who is john o'donnell?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What's this mean? That you'd accept a neo-liberal Labour Party (not that it isn't that at the moment) if it was able to defeat the Conservatives?



Yes, that absolutely must be exactly what I meant, being such a notorious fan of neo-liberalism and Blairism on Urban ... 

Alternatively, you could avoid making assumptions about my political position. Thanks.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Yes, that absolutely must be exactly what I meant, being such a notorious fan of neo-liberalism and Blairism on Urban ...
> 
> Alternatively, you could avoid making assumptions about my political position. Thanks.


I didn't I was asking for clarification hence the question marks. Your post is incredibly unclear as to what it is actually arguing.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 27, 2017)

Gorton is a funny place , overwhelmingly  Labour constituency but about ten years ago the Lib Dems had the majority of the Council seats. And it voted Remain .


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

redsquirrel : TBF my post wasn't too clear, I admit. I wasn't arguing anything really, other than vaguely suggesting that if it's going to revive itself the LP needs to offer a platform that'll genuinely improve local conditions. That has to be a left wing and *anti*-neoliberal platform if it's going to mean anything at all. I'm not optimistic though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> TBF my post wasn't too clear, I admit. I wasn't arguing anything really, other than vaguely suggesting that if it's going to revive itself the LP needs to offer a platform that'll genuinely improve local conditions. That has to be a left wing and *anti*-neoliberal platform if it's going to mean anything at all. I'm not optimistic though.


Improve local conditions for who?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

Everyone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Everyone?


How is that possible?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Gorton is a funny place , overwhelmingly  Labour constituency but about ten years ago the Lib Dems had the majority of the Council seats. And it voted Remain .



Started a dedicated thread.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How is that possible?



Search me! But a radically (and genuinely) left wing LP would be better than previous incarnations.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2017)

skyscraper101 said:


> Manchester Gorton Labour MP Gerald Kaufman died today. Another by election to follow. His lead was very solid in 2015.



He was older than polio though tbf. Any other job he'd have been forced to retire long since.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> redsquirrel : TBF my post wasn't too clear, I admit. I wasn't arguing anything really, other than vaguely suggesting that if it's going to revive itself the LP needs to offer a platform that'll genuinely improve local conditions. That has to be a left wing and *anti*-neoliberal platform if it's going to mean anything at all. I'm not optimistic though.


OK fine, the stuff about 'versions' of Labour confused me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Search me! But a radically (and genuinely) left wing LP would be better than previous incarnations.


Don't hold your breath


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't hold your breath



I'm not!


----------



## Wilf (Feb 27, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Voters had had enough of Labour by 2010 and clearly weren’t ready for them again in 2015, especially under a leader who they perceived to be weak.
> 
> By the time voters are sick of the tories, not enough of them regardless of ‘class’ are going to vote for a Labour Party which they consider to be too left wing and the tories will simply win again by default.
> 
> ...


But that's not responding to the issues I raised. You seem to think Labour can shift policies and get a new leader, bingo, electable. It doesn't work like that. Apart from the fact that 2017 isn't 1997, economically or politically, it isn't like turning a tap on or off.  You seem to find 'class' a dodgy term, but then ignore Brexit and a whole set of indicators and events that show whole swathes of Britain have become sick of the political class (particularly the bit of it that was supposed to closest to them in terms of Labour).


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Gorton is a funny place , overwhelmingly  Labour constituency but about ten years ago the Lib Dems had the majority of the Council seats. And it voted Remain .



Plenty of students in the area.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> Plenty of students in the area.


ie naive gullible fools, as you can see from the lib dem vote


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ie naive gullible fools, as you can see from the lib dem vote


indeed


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> TUSC, the best placed of the "Left of Labour", got about 36000 votes last election.
> 
> For a party that abandoned the working class 40 years earlier, Labour managed over 9 million votes.
> 
> ...


That post is outstanding as one of the worst contributions I've seen on urban. To start at the end, fh, who bar you says the official line is the lp turned its back on the wc in 1914?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> That post is outstanding as one of the worst contributions I've seen on urban. To start at the end, fh, who bar you says the official line is the lp turned its back on the wc in 1914?



My favouite line was the attack on the 'pompous intellectuals round here' before going on to discuss the difficulties of getting democracy right in a hetrogeneuous society. 

We talk of little else round here....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My favouite line was the attack on the 'pompous intellectuals round here' before going on to discuss the difficulties of getting democracy right in a hetrogeneuous society.
> 
> We talk of little else round here....


Also the  wc cannot it seems be intellectuals


----------



## agricola (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Also the  wc cannot it seems be intellectuals



and yet our Tory masters like to pretend they spend all their time doing Foucault


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

agricola said:


> and yet our Tory masters like to pretend they spend all their time doing Foucault


(((Foucault)))


----------



## gosub (Feb 27, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

gosub said:


>



Yeh? What's it about?


----------



## gosub (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? What's it about?


mongolian yak herding


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

gosub said:


> mongolian yak herding


I'm using a phone so can't look at every video posted. Why not er follow the faq and say why it's worth watching and what it is.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the official line is the lp turned its back on the wc in 1914?


They could have waited till half past.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> It's a fantastic no-win situation for Nuttall; stand and there's further humiliation (probably culminating in him having to admit he's never ever been to Hillsborough) and being called a bottler if he doesn't. Love it.



He's always got surviving the Munich air disaster to fall back on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He's always got surviving the Munich air disaster to fall back on.


Not to mention the lusitania and titanic


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Not to mention the lusitania and titanic



There was always going to be a comedown after his roles at Agincourt, the reformation and the industrial Revolution...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

kebabking said:


> There was always going to be a comedown after his roles at Agincourt, the reformation and the industrial Revolution...


Omdurman...


----------



## Libertad (Feb 27, 2017)

Peterloo.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2017)

the building of the Pyramids..


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the building of the Pyramids..


The fall of the tower of babel


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The fall of the tower of babel



killing off all them forrin dinosaurs.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2017)

kebabking said:


> killing off all them forrin dinosaurs.



Brightest and best of Poland's dinosaurs coming over here, evolving into birds.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 27, 2017)

And JC gives the PLP a miss tonight.Shami and Diane have a drink instead.


Labour MPs express anger after Jeremy Corbyn decides not to attend weekly PLP meeting


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Feb 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But that's not responding to the issues I raised. You seem to think Labour can shift policies and get a new leader, bingo, electable. It doesn't work like that. Apart from the fact that 2017 isn't 1997, economically or politically, it isn't like turning a tap on or off.  You seem to find 'class' a dodgy term, but then ignore Brexit and a whole set of indicators and events that show whole swathes of Britain have become sick of the political class (particularly the bit of it that was supposed to closest to them in terms of Labour).



No I don't think new policies, new leader then 'bingo', that’s not what I said at all, but Labour certainly don't stand any chance whatsoever if they don't. Corbyn’s continued leadership means we might as well just stand by and watch the tories rip apart public services for the next decade or longer.

'Class' is irrelevant, a winning party has to appeal to voters across the board if it is to gain power. As for brexit, I don’t see what bearing it has on defeating the tories. Even after brexit goes pear shaped Labour will still have to appeal to millions more voters than they do now. Corbyn was a dead loss during the referendum campaign, as Labour leader he should have been 100% behind Remain. Now neither side trust him.

We need an electable Labour Party. Can you think of a better way of getting rid of the tories?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 28, 2017)

[QUOTE="Andrew Hertford, post: 14948731]

We need an electable Labour Party. Can you think of a better way of getting rid of the tories?[/QUOTE]

For a certain value of better, yes. Violent revolution would get rid of the Tories in the best possible way.


Seriously though, no point in electing labour to get rid of conservatives if both are following Tory policies. You need a social democratic labour party to elect to get rid of Tories by electing a labour party


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> For a certain value of better, yes. Violent revolution would get rid of the Tories in the best possible way.
> 
> 
> Seriously though, no point in electing labour to get rid of conservatives if both are following Tory policies. You need a social democratic labour party to elect to get rid of Tories by electing a labour party



But Labour governments don’t just follow tory policies, look at how NHS spending (% of GDP) rose to almost the EU average under the last Labour government but has fallen back again since the tories took over. For millions of people that's a difference worth having.

...And daft as it sounds, some people do actually think that violent revolution is a viable solution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But Labour governments don’t just follow tory policies, look at how NHS spending (% of GDP) rose to almost the EU average under the last Labour government but has fallen back again since the tories took over. For millions of people that's a difference worth having.
> 
> And daft as it sounds, some people do actually think that violent revolution is a viable solution.


No one has said Labour governments don't have their own policies, e.g. introducing h.e. tuition fees, invading Iraq, introducing criminalisation/ulsterisation into the six counties: but also attacking pfi while in opposition and then massively expanding it in government. The continuities between tory and labour governments are more striking than the changes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But Labour governments don’t just follow tory policies, look at how NHS spending (% of GDP) rose to almost the EU average under the last Labour government but has fallen back again since the tories took over. For millions of people that's a difference worth having.
> 
> ...And daft as it sounds, some people do actually think that violent revolution is a viable solution.


You don't recall Gordon Brown going round the city in the nineties having meals with the banksters and making out how labour was their mate.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But Labour governments don’t just follow tory policies, look at how NHS spending (% of GDP) rose to almost the EU average under the last Labour government but has fallen back again since the tories took over. For millions of people that's a difference worth having.
> 
> ...And daft as it sounds, some people do actually think that violent revolution is a viable solution.



More in common than in difference though and it's not like those Labour govts did great by the NHS, internal markets, loads more admin, foundation hospitals etc, setting up for the tory reforms under Lansley. It's not that I disagree that the marginal difference is a difference worth having, but it's not worth spending the time/energy pushing for it, when that time/energy could be spent getting something much, much further away. Whether Corbyn is the right person to carry the Labour party back that way idk but at least it's the right direction, and none of the other candidates for leadership offer anything close.
Anyway to me it says that politically speaking it'd be better to continue to work outside of the labour party - if a social democratic labour party is currently unelectable, then we need to change the conditions surrounding electoral politics so that such policies/party is electable.


----------



## not a trot (Mar 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> There was always going to be a comedown after his roles at Agincourt, the reformation and the industrial Revolution...



Be fair to the man he wrote, recorded and produced the Sgt Pepper album all on his own.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2017)

he was the whole crowd at THAT sex pistols gig.all 20 odd, nuttal


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 1, 2017)

not a trot said:


> Be fair to the man he wrote, recorded and produced the Sgt Pepper album all on his own.



You may sneer but if you look at the cover he is clearly visible in the crowd.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2017)

Andy Burnham's emailed to say that if I donate £10 to the Labour campaign, I could win a trip to Manchester to see Jeremy Corbyn.

Andy mate, I can get the tram for £3.60.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2017)

That said, if I could convince them to get me an Uber, I could probably sell that to the Graun as a front page story and get my £10 back again. Free trip into town.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Andy Burnham's emailed to say that if I donate £10 to the Labour campaign, I could win a trip to Manchester to see Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> Andy mate, I can get the tram for £3.60.


Is the Manc tram system that expensive?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Is the Manc tram system that expensive?


How much did you think it would be? A cup of Bovril and a Mark E Smith impression?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> How much did you think it would be? A cup of Bovril and a Mark E Smith impression?


Croydon's is £1.50 a pop.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Croydon's is £1.50 a pop.


Well lah-di-dah. Who knew that London would have better transport options? Don't have an intangible NORTHERN POWERHOUSE to dream of though do you.


----------



## gosub (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Croydon's is £1.50 a pop.



thats quite cheap to get out of Croydon


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Well lah-di-dah. Who knew that London would have better transport options? Don't have an intangible NORTHERN POWERHOUSE to dream of though do you.


Yeah, but seriously £3.60...is that a single? fucksake that's steep if it is.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

gosub said:


> thats quite cheap to get out of Croydon


Same in and out, smartarse.


----------



## gosub (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Same in and out, smartarse.



why would you pay to go into Croydon?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

gosub said:


> why would you pay to go into Croydon?


yawn


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but seriously £3.60...is that a single? fucksake that's steep if it is.


Depends where you live and are going, doesn't it. 60 something miles of track. As a guide, £7 travelcard, £5 offpeak, £3.80 return to go about 4 miles. And £10 with probably less explaining to do if you win the Labour Party draw which seems like a bargain in retrospect.


----------



## gosub (Mar 1, 2017)

its t £1.60 in Edinburgh, unless you want to go to the airport where the final 1/2 mile puts it up to £5.50




day ticket that also works on buses (v good value)£4


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Depends where you live and are going, doesn't it. 60 something miles of track. As a guide, £7 travelcard, £5 offpeak, £3.80 return to go about 4 miles. And £10 with probably less explaining to do if you win the Labour Party draw which seems like a bargain in retrospect.


tbf, ours is much smaller; just 17 miles track. So a return trip of 4 miles on ours would be £3 (with Oyster/contactless) so not as great a difference after all.
e2a: but ours is one zone/flat rate...so you could (theoretically) do the 17 mile (possibly much longer with connecting, inclusive valid bus routes) return for £3 as well.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> tbf, ours is much smaller; just 17 miles track. So a return trip of 4 miles on ours would be £3 (with Oyster/contactless) so not as great a difference after all.
> e2a: but ours is one zone/flat rate...so you could (theoretically) do the 17 mile (possibly much longer with connecting, inclusive valid bus routes) return for £3 as well.


Well done until I posted this you had made the most boring post on the thread.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Well done until I posted this you had made the most boring post on the thread.


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 1, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Well done until I posted this you had made the most boring post on the thread.


The future of Labour is safe in your hands.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


>


More detail please.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> More detail please.


You're right; it should have read " you cheeky cunt"


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No one has said Labour governments don't have their own policies, e.g. introducing h.e. tuition fees, invading Iraq, introducing criminalisation/ulsterisation into the six counties: but also attacking pfi while in opposition and then massively expanding it in government. The continuities between tory and labour governments are more striking than the changes.



And yet tory administrations *are* far worse.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-con...oads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png

Labour - NHS funding as % of GDP doubled between 1997 and 2009 to 8.8%. Under the tories it’ll be down to 6.6% again by 2020.
Social care budget since last Labour government cut by £4.6 billion.
Labour University fees: £3225 pa. Tories: £9000 pa and now set to rise with inflation.
Education funding to be cut by 7% per pupil by 2020.

You might not find these differences “striking”, but in reality they make a profound difference to the lives of millions of people.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> More in common than in difference though and it's not like those Labour govts did great by the NHS, internal markets, loads more admin, foundation hospitals etc, setting up for the tory reforms under Lansley. It's not that I disagree that the marginal difference is a difference worth having, but it's not worth spending the time/energy pushing for it, when that time/energy could be spent getting something much, much further away. Whether Corbyn is the right person to carry the Labour party back that way idk but at least it's the right direction, and none of the other candidates for leadership offer anything close.
> Anyway to me it says that politically speaking it'd be better to continue to work outside of the labour party - if a social democratic labour party is currently unelectable, then we need to change the conditions surrounding electoral politics so that such policies/party is electable.



But of course it’s worth spending time and energy pushing for a Labour government because that’s the only way we can get rid of the tories and save essential services. How many generations will have to wait for some fantasy alternative to turn up?

How do you propose to "change the conditions surrounding electoral politics so that such policies/party is electable"? What does that actually mean??

Labour might be ‘heading in the right direction’ under Corbyn if their goal is stay in perpetual opposition, but for people who won’t be able to do things like boost their kid's education with private tuition or afford the spiralling cost of being old or disabled, it’s a total fucking disaster.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 2, 2017)

Has anyone noticed that recent converts to the anti-Corbyn cause are about ten times more annoying than people who have been Blairites for decades?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But of course it’s worth spending time and energy pushing for a Labour government because that’s the only way we can get rid of the tories and save essential services. How many generations will have to wait for some fantasy alternative to turn up?
> 
> How do you propose to "change the conditions surrounding electoral politics so that such policies/party is electable"? What does that actually mean??
> 
> Labour might be ‘heading in the right direction’ under Corbyn if their goal is stay in perpetual opposition, but for people who won’t be able to do things like boost their kid's education with private tuition or afford the spiralling cost of being old or disabled, it’s a total fucking disaster.


The problem with this argument is and always has been that they lost under Brown, they lost under Miliband and it's pretty much nailed on that they'd have gone on to lose under Burnham, Cooper, Kendall or Smith too.  The choice here is not between winning and losing.


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The problem with this argument is and always has been that they lost under Brown, they lost under Miliband and it's pretty much nailed on that they'd have gone on to lose under Burnham, Cooper, Kendall or Smith too.  The choice here is not between winning and losing.


Ergo? So where is this leading?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet tory administrations *are* far worse.
> 
> http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-con...oads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png
> 
> ...


next you'll be telling us how it was tories who brought in tuition fees and the terrorism act 2000 etc


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> next you'll be telling us how it was tories who brought in tuition fees and the terrorism act 2000 etc


helpmeifeelfaint


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

Ok I think I get it. The purpose of Jeremy Corbyn is to ensure Labour are defeated so utterly that they cannot cause any more damage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet tory administrations *are* far worse.
> 
> http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-con...oads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png
> 
> ...


You forget Kosovo, where uk-led bombing precipitated massacres. But it's ok cos there was a mite more money for the NHS tho so much of it went straight into the hands of pfi-ers


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Ergo? So where is this leading?


Blind alley, mate


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Has anyone noticed that recent converts to the anti-Corbyn cause are about ten times more annoying than people who have been Blairites for decades?


Hertford isn't a recent convert.

He does illustrate the stupidity of the 'we all want the same thing' rubbish though. How do those who want a Corbyn led social democratic Labour party work with those who want to replace Corbyn by someone who's inevitably going to be to the right? And that's before we get on to the those of us that are opposed to the LP altogether


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Andy Burnham's emailed to say that if I donate £10 to the Labour campaign, I could win a trip to Manchester to see Jeremy Corbyn.



Second prize is two trips to Manchester to see Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 2, 2017)

Is anyone surprised? "Jeremy Corbyn’s office has accepted that Labour is heading for defeat at the 2020 general election if it cannot turn around its dismal poll ratings before then"

Speaking on Tuesday, Sir Keir, who is tipped as a potential future leader, said: “The loss in Copeland was really serious. I don’t think some of the reasons put forward are compelling.”

Corbyn admits Labour cannot win election unless things change


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

Surely no one is going to claim Corbyn is a revolutionary? In which case we are still in the valley of the least worst of neo-liberalism.

Both sides in this debate are arguing for something that has never happened, an electable left or a trustworthy moderate left.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But of course it’s worth spending time and energy pushing for a Labour government because that’s the only way we can get rid of the tories and save essential services. How many generations will have to wait for some fantasy alternative to turn up?
> 
> How do you propose to "change the conditions surrounding electoral politics so that such policies/party is electable"? What does that actually mean??
> 
> Labour might be ‘heading in the right direction’ under Corbyn if their goal is stay in perpetual opposition, but for people who won’t be able to do things like boost their kid's education with private tuition or afford the spiralling cost of being old or disabled, it’s a total fucking disaster.



Can I ask, given a free choice, would you want a social democratic party/policies or are you very much committed to neo-liberalism? If the latter there's no point in this discussion tbh.

If the former, well if you want to take credit for the marginal good labour would (have) done over conservative you also have to take the blame for eg the academisation of schools which is leading to the need for parents to boost education with private tuition, or the PFI debts that threaten to destroy various NHS trusts, or the fact that labour council's all over the country are cutting adult care services or the millions of disabled people for whom ESA is a total fucking disaster.
You need to explain why, as kabbes pointed out, Milliband lost in 2015 and why someone on a similar platform would win in 2020. If you are going further to the right of milliband then you really are into red tory territory and I'd ask why you'd want that (only reason I can think is that you want neo-liberal policies to run this country). Left of milliband is corbyn so...

Fantasy? Was the post-war social contract a fantasy? There's a period in time when both the tory and labour parties were following broadly social democratic policies, that happened because the social conditions following ww2 and pressure from working class people/organisations meant that capital needed to cede some wealth / outcome of production. You say right now that a social democratic party is unelectable, so we need to make a social democratic party electable, as has been the case in the recent past. Doing so means changing the conditions that parties exist in, policy is not a vacuum, it's generated in response to the socio-economic landscape.
As long as you are pushing for a neo-liberal labour party to be elected, you are arguing for neo-liberal policies, this pushes the overton window further right, making social democratic policies less likely to be put in place. All the time you cede arguments and grounds to tories in order to appear electable, you are making a non-tory party less likely to be elected.

In terms of actual action, recently both UK Uncut and Boycott Workfare have had successes in hegemonic/ideological and practical politics, now I would see local (linked up to make national) campaign(s) around social housing and secure housing as being most likely to be productive. Wages, benefits, NHS all offer chances to reject neo-liberal ideas in favour of social democratic ones. Arguing against the social democratic ideas to chase being elected means accepting and arguing for neo-liberal ideas which makes social democracy move further away, makes a social democratic party less electable. Why should we waste generations campaigning for a neo-liberal party when we want a social democratic party?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Surely no one is going to claim Corbyn is a revolutionary? In which case we are still in the valley of the least worst of neo-liberalism.
> 
> Both sides in this debate are arguing for something that has never happened, an electable left or a trustworthy moderate left.


Who's this addressed to?

And it's just factually wrong. You don't have to be a revolutionary not to be a neo-liberal, ans as BigTom's post points out an 'electable left' is something that has happened in the past.

What are you actually arguing? I know you want Corbyn to go but then what? Back to neo-liberalism like Hartford wants?


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet tory administrations *are* far worse.
> 
> http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-con...oads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png
> 
> ...



Weren't Labour committed in both 2010 and 2015 to make cuts to all these budgets too?


----------



## not a trot (Mar 2, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Second prize is two trips to Manchester to see Jeremy Corbyn.



For 10 quid I'd want the whole fucking party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

not a trot said:


> For 10 quid I'd want the whole fucking party.


as groucho marx said, 'call this a party? the women are cold and the beer is warm'


----------



## BigTom (Mar 2, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Weren't Labour committed in both 2010 and 2015 to make cuts to all these budgets too?



I'm also wondering how much of that NHS increase was done by PFI rather than an actual increase in spending


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Who's this addressed to?
> 
> And it's just factually wrong. You don't have to be a revolutionary not to be a neo-liberal, ans as BigTom's post points out an 'electable left' is something that has happened in the past.
> 
> What are you actually arguing? I know you want Corbyn to go but then what? Back to neo-liberalism like Hartford wants?



I can't say there is Labour policy that is too left for me and despite the alleged lurch to the left I suspect that is true for many voters. My problem is how Corbyn squares the contradictions between who he is and the role he is auditioning for, to lead HM's Government. 

For this he seems hopelessly compromised and vacillating. We know for example that Jeremy is personally against nuclear power. But as a policy this is not likely to change anytime soon especially as the Unions also back it. Nuclear power requires the full focus of the state to sustain it, massive multinational capital investment, militarised security. JC simply doesn't convince that he is a statesman with the will or capacity to ensure the governance of this type of project, nor is he the rebel or visionary to lead into a non-nuclear paradigm. 

So on this and many other issues he is neither effective rebel or statesman and the voters see that. He is not and will not be their champion. His political vision appears to be a string of things he objects to. He has not been able to project any vision of what kind of leader he could be and how the power of the state will be used. Sure he has not had a fair wind, but he won't ever so that's the territory.

I am glad you believe there is an electable left that can do good. I can't believe you believe JC can get it elected though.


----------



## Supine (Mar 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I can't say there is Labour policy that is too left for me and despite the alleged lurch to the left I suspect that is true for many voters. My problem is how Corbyn squares the contradictions between who he is and the role he is auditioning for, to lead HM's Government.
> 
> For this he seems hopelessly compromised and vacillating. We know for example that Jeremy is personally against nuclear power. But as a policy this is not likely to change anytime soon especially as the Unions also back it. Nuclear power requires the full focus of the state to sustain it, massive multinational capital investment, militarised security. JC simply doesn't convince that he is a statesman with the will or capacity to ensure the governance of this type of project, nor is he the rebel or visionary to lead into a non-nuclear paradigm.
> 
> ...



^ what he said


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I can't say there is Labour policy that is too left for me and despite the alleged lurch to the left I suspect that is true for many voters. My problem is how Corbyn squares the contradictions between who he is and the role he is auditioning for, to lead HM's Government.
> 
> For this he seems hopelessly compromised and vacillating. We know for example that Jeremy is personally against nuclear power. But as a policy this is not likely to change anytime soon especially as the Unions also back it. Nuclear power requires the full focus of the state to sustain it, massive multinational capital investment, militarised security. JC simply doesn't convince that he is a statesman with the will or capacity to ensure the governance of this type of project, nor is he the rebel or visionary to lead into a non-nuclear paradigm.
> 
> ...





Supine said:


> ^ what he said



None of that actually addresses any of the questions I asked. You think Corbyn has to go (as you thought Miliband needed to be replaced), fine - then what? What are you arguing for? A neo-liberal Labour Party like Hertford? Or a social democratic one with someone's other than Corbyn?

Hertford's liberal scum but at least he's outlined a political position. I think those aiming for a SD Labour Party are daft at best and actively harmful at worst but at least it's a political position. What've you got? You've said a whole load of nothing besides 'Corbyn must go'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> None of that actually addresses any of the questions I asked. You think Corbyn has to go (as you thought Miliband needed to be replaced), fine - then what? What are you arguing for? A neo-liberal Labour Party like Hertford? Or a social democratic one with someone's other than Corbyn?
> 
> Hertford's liberal scum but at least he's outlined a political position. I think those aiming for a SD Labour Party are daft at best and actively harmful at worst but at least it's a political position. What've you got? You've said a whole load of nothing besides 'Corbyn must go'.



Don't call people 'scum' please. You are impressing no one.

Well what have you got? It's not really clear why you hang around this thread apart from to get to the position where you can be rude to someone. Is that your politics in total? Do you really think ordinary people, tired of being looked down upon, want that sort of politics?

If you want to know, I would like a Labour Party that campaigned against the marketisation of everything. That campaigned on a platform to do things together in solidarity, as a clear alternative to the Tories and New Labour. That drew a line that everyone gets housing and working and the rewards of working get shared. I would like them to campaign that you cannot have it all. You cannot own it all, have six cars and four homes, because it is anti-social. I would like a platform of no more second homes and in some areas compulsory sales to free up housing. To build social housing and ban the building of investment properties aimed at overseas capital. i would like an environmental strategy that protects the land, promotes public pride and gets people active to enjoy their country. I would like to see salary caps and very progressive taxation. Amongst many other things. 

I don't see how the Labour Party gets to campaign not to run a capitalist economy though. It needs to regulate and mitigate the effects of that by turning the most vital services into non-profit making, particularly energy. If that is merely social democratic then so be it. It's up to the people if they wish to take it further.


----------



## agricola (Mar 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm also wondering how much of that NHS increase was done by PFI rather than an actual increase in spending



Not so much "done by" as "required by", probably


----------



## BigTom (Mar 2, 2017)

agricola said:


> Not so much "done by" as "required by", probably



oh yes, that too - I was thinking of "input" money (which pfi provided) not "output" money (which pfi takes, in vastly greater quantities than it gives). (for avoidance of doubt, I've made up those terms in quotes, I think they are clear)


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Don't call people 'scum' please. You are impressing no one.


I'll certainly call neo-liberal pricks like Hertford scum.



Mr Moose said:


> If you want to know, I would like a Labour Party that campaigned against the marketisation of everything. That campaigned on a platform to do things together in solidarity, as a clear alternative to the Tories and New Labour. That drew a line that everyone gets housing and working and the rewards of working get shared. I would like them to campaign that you cannot have it all. You cannot own it all, have six cars and four homes, because it is anti-social. I would like a platform of no more second homes and in some areas compulsory sales to free up housing. To build social housing and ban the building of investment properties aimed at overseas capital. i would like an environmental strategy that protects the land, promotes public pride and gets people active to enjoy their country. I would like to see salary caps and very progressive taxation. Amongst many other things.
> 
> I don't see how the Labour Party gets to campaign not to run a capitalist economy though. It needs to regulate and mitigate the effects of that by turning the most vital services into non-profit making, particularly energy. If that is merely social democratic then so be it. It's up to the people if they wish to take it further.



Then how does getting rid of Corbyn push the Labour Party towards social democracy? I don't believe that the Labour Party can be moved back to social democracy under Corbyn but I'm damn sure there's no chance if Corbyn quits like you want him to. If he quits now the party will swing rightwards, the party establishment are already trying (successfully IMO) to shut out any challenge to their liberalism, they aren't going to make the mistake they made in 2015 and let a crack open up.

If you want a social democratic Labour Party then you've got to take the opportunity (shit as it is) that Corbyn's leadership represents, you're not going to get something better.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 2, 2017)

I'm well to the left of Mr Moose personally, but in his defence a bit, I think he's arguing pragmatic electability more than anything else.

If Corbyn/leftish Labour could get in next election on such a moderate but OK social democrat-type programme as Mr M suggests, then I'd the last to get so paranoid (as I really am at the moment) about where Corbyn's leadership is leading the LP.

My paranoia is purely and only in terms of the next election, and the dismal current prospects of a Teresa May landslide 

I appreciate I'm close to arguing against electoral politics at all there, but I don't think a 200 seat Tory majority next time is going to do any favours to any part of the left.

And few of Corbyn's weaknesses in such a system are his own fault. The right and the capitalist press are just too powerful in this country ATM.

None of the above represents me arguing for Corbyn to be replaced by a leader any more right than him.  I just wish he, or someone with acceptably left/OKish politics (ie not his opponents in Parliament!  ) could do better at being populist-left.

And the LP need to have a less incompetent media strategy -- surely?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'll certainly call neo-liberal pricks like Hertford scum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's tactics in the end. I think Corbyn is holding up left wing advancement in the party because he makes it look unattractive and fey. Keeping him is like telling Labour voters that the members think they are wrong about most things.

I don't believe a right wing coup would succeed in any way but superficially. The membership have the upper hand.

Ultimately though in order to win the party does have to reach a broad church, which means taking plenty of people along whose politics you may feel needs developing. The party needs a unifier to keep it in order and a catalyst - we've seen how talking directly to an electorate, even having a bit of a row can work. But how can Jeremy do those things. He simply is not that kind of personality.


----------



## agricola (Mar 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Ultimately though in order to win the party does have to reach a broad church, which means taking plenty of people along whose politics you may feel needs developing. The party needs a unifier to keep it in order and a catalyst - we've seen how talking directly to an electorate, even having a bit of a row can work. But how can Jeremy do those things. He simply is not that kind of personality.



He might not be, but the uncomfortable truth is that no-one in the PLP is either.  One then ends up asking whether its more likely that such a figure could make it into the PLP under Corbyn or under some hypothetical successor; personally my money would be on Corbyn, if for no other reason than there isn't that much evidence he is fixing elections from the centre.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 2, 2017)

agricola said:


> He might not be, but the uncomfortable truth is that no-one in the PLP is either.  One then ends up asking whether its more likely that such a figure could make it into the PLP under Corbyn or under some hypothetical successor; personally my money would be on Corbyn, if for no other reason than there isn't that much evidence he is fixing elections from the centre.



Long game. Not sure what shape Labour would be in by then.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 2, 2017)

Labour lose council seat to Tories in Salford tonight.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Labour lose council seat to Tories in Salford tonight.


On a reduced share!
Must be very tiny number of folk voting and seems LP vote -> Ind & UKIP.

E2a 24% turnout.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2017)

Salford, though!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 3, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Can I ask, given a free choice, would you want a social democratic party/policies or are you very much committed to neo-liberalism? If the latter there's no point in this discussion tbh.



Sorry, but these kinds of distinctions have become meaningless to me, as I expect they are to most people. My politics have always been close Corbyn’s but most other people's simply are not.



> You need to explain why, as kabbes pointed out, Milliband lost in 2015 and why someone on a similar platform would win in 2020. If you are going further to the right of milliband then you really are into red tory territory and I'd ask why you'd want that (only reason I can think is that you want neo-liberal policies to run this country). Left of milliband is corbyn so...



Voters were sick of Labour by 2010 and they'll almost certainly be sick of the tories by 2025, if not before (although we might as well forget 2020 now). Of course that doesn't mean that Labour will be able to just step in by default, even when brexit goes pear-shaped. To stand any chance of winning they'll have to become reflective of the views of millions of voters whose support they need and be led by someone who unlike Corbyn or Miliband inspires confidence.



> Fantasy? Was the post-war social contract a fantasy? There's a period in time when both the tory and labour parties were following broadly social democratic policies, that happened because the social conditions following ww2 and pressure from working class people/organisations meant that capital needed to cede some wealth / outcome of production. You say right now that a social democratic party is unelectable, so we need to make a social democratic party electable, as has been the case in the recent past. Doing so means changing the conditions that parties exist in, policy is not a vacuum, it's generated in response to the socio-economic landscape.
> 
> As long as you are pushing for a neo-liberal labour party to be elected, you are arguing for neo-liberal policies, this pushes the overton window further right, making social democratic policies less likely to be put in place. All the time you cede arguments and grounds to tories in order to appear electable, you are making a non-tory party less likely to be elected.



By the ‘recent past’, do you mean 1945?

Please explain how "we" can "change the conditions" so as to make Corbyn's Labour electable? What kind of ‘landscape’ is needed for that? (Not one similar to 1945 I hope). Because until you do explain it's still just fantasy.



> "Actual action..." "successes in hegemonic/ideological and practical politics..." "*chances* to reject neo-liberal ideas..."



Oh please! I suggest you try coming back down to Earth. None of that is going to get rid of the tories or convince millions of people to vote Labour in 2020 when they probably voted tory or UKIP in 2015.

Pursue your own ideological dreams all you like, but a Labour government is still the only chance we have of stopping the tories. People are suffering now in 2017 and it’s getting worse. 2025 may if anything be too late to save the NHS and other essential services. How long do you expect people to wait?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of your "successes in _hegemonic_ practical politics"?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'll certainly call neo-liberal pricks like Hertford scum.




Jeez mate, Is that really necessary?

I suppose it’s symptomatic of the unnecessary antagonism which prevents people who all basically share a desire for a fairer and more equal society from ever getting on and agreeing.

You’re not even right, I’m not a liberal.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 3, 2017)

Ok I'm going to say something really stupid now.

In order for the Labour part to become a progressive social democratic force, it would need to abandoned the idea that its primary purpose is to win elections. 

I would rather have a proper social democratic Labour party in opposition than a tory lite version in power. An opposition that linked up with campaigns outside parliament and actally opposed the government. If it was successful at this it could most certainly go on to win elections and implement many of the policies we would all like to see. 

Of course this is never going to happen, and that is part of the reason the Labour party is fucked.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Salford, though!



It's changed since you were last there and is now very posh.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It's changed since you were last there and is now very posh.


Since May 2016? (46.7%)


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't believe a right wing coup would succeed in any way but superficially. The membership have the upper hand.


How? Any candidate bar Corbyn needs nominations from 20% of MPs and MEPs. Corbyn only survived last years challenge because he didn't need nominations, McDonnell wouldn't even get on the ballot.



William of Walworth said:


> I'm well to the left of Mr Moose personally, but in his defence a bit, I think he's arguing pragmatic electability more than anything else.


Then don't pretend that you're not arguing for liberalism. It's the same nonsense that Toynbee comes out with 'I really am socialist, never mind I'm backing a neo-liberal'. It's intellectually dishonest rubbish. If you're going to argue for that as Toynbee does, as Hartford does then you're a liberal and you should face up to that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Jeez mate, Is that really necessary?
> 
> I suppose it’s symptomatic of the unnecessary antagonism which prevents people who all basically share a desire for a fairer and more equal society from ever getting on and agreeing.
> 
> You’re not even right, I’m not a liberal.


This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.



Freedom for Tooting!


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Since May 2016? (46.7%)



Merely joking.


----------



## Supine (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.



Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Ok I'm going to say something really stupid now.
> 
> In order for the Labour part to become a progressive social democratic force, it would need to abandoned the idea that its primary purpose is to win elections.
> 
> ...



This reasoning is poor and it just highlights a motivation not to be seen as dodgy on any issue and provoke the wrath of the likes of Red Squirrel.


----------



## inva (Mar 3, 2017)

Supine said:


> Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.


refuse to believe this wasn't composed by some Labour Party random post generator


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> How? Any candidate bar Corbyn needs nominations from 20% of MPs and MEPs. Corbyn only survived last years challenge because he didn't need nominations, McDonnell wouldn't even get on the ballot....



Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?


----------



## Supine (Mar 3, 2017)

inva said:


> refuse to believe this wasn't composed by some Labour Party random post generator



Believe what you want


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?


People like Hertford or Toynbee. The LP establishment has opposed, usually successfully, any left turn by the membership for a hundred years, why would the present be any different?

And exactly what 'leverage' do either the general membership or the unions have? None, the unions are welded to the Labour Party and the LP has made it quite clear that they don't give tuppence for the membership. Deselection is off the cards even if there was an appetite for it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Really? A membership of hundreds of thousands and the Unions could not leverage anything against the PLP and a new leader? Who will fund, or get out on the doorsteps for a leader who sells them out?


Same people who funded Blair and Brown. At best the offer will be the new generations Andy Burnham. Personally decent, perhaps, but ready to crumble and capitulate at a moments notice.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry, but these kinds of distinctions have become meaningless to me, as I expect they are to most people. My politics have always been close Corbyn’s but most other people's simply are not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).

e2a: more broadly speaking, the fact that Corbyn became labour party leader, that Sanders came so close to being the democratic candidate, the election of syriza in greeace and the rise of podemos (?) in spain or portugal (?) are all indications of how a hegemonic/ideological move is happening - no we aren't there yet but can you imagine a social democrat nearly getting the candidacy for the USA president before last year? I Can't and if we look at previous labour leader elections, social democrats have not made it onto the ticket - we've pushed things over, we're not there yet but it's moving that way.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Freedom for Tooting!




https://imgflip.com/memegenerator


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> This is the exact type of bollocks I'm talking about. We're not on the same side, I want to destroy you and your ilk. And you're exactly a fucking liberal, you're just too stupid/dishonest to see it.


Andrew Hertford




we will bury you


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 3, 2017)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> 'm well to the left of Mr Moose personally, but in his defence a bit, I think he's arguing pragmatic electability more than anything else.





redsquirrel said:


> Then don't pretend that you're not arguing for liberalism. It's the same nonsense that Toynbee comes out with 'I really am socialist, never mind I'm backing a neo-liberal'. It's intellectually dishonest rubbish. If you're going to argue for that as Toynbee does, as Hartford does then you're a liberal and you should face up to that.



There's no point in us discussing anything if you really think my earlier post (all of it, not just the bit you quoted) is arguing for either liberalism or neoliberalism. I'm a pessimistic leftie.

In my daydreams I'd quite like a left wing, anti-austerity, popular/populist, specifically anti-neoliberal party to do well in an election or even win one. As I said in another thread though I'm not optimistic.

Toynbee might be backing a neoliberal but I'm not. I just wish Corbyn, who isn't even all that leftwing**but unlike you I understand what pragmatism actually means (the Overton window etc) , would do better. Or someone as left as him or even more so, but more effective. I'm not in the LP but I am a TU member. 

**Old style social democrat more like. I'd take that over full on Toryism, short of anything better in the real world.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 3, 2017)

TBF there's plenty of pessimism about the LP's prospects on this thread generally and I mostly share that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> TBF there's plenty of pessimism about the LP's prospects on this thread generally and I mostly share that.


what you see as pessimism is mostly realism from optimists


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Freedom for Tooting!


It's tempting to imagine some kind of common cause, but the thing to realise is that Trots hate everyone, they hate other Trots, they hate themselves.  Look at the multitude of lefty sects for example. They don't do consensus or any kind of constructive politics.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what you see as pessimism is mostly realism from optimists



Thanks for that. Another hundred similar and you'll have enough to pen one of those books they sell by the till at Waterstones for folk to read on the bog.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Thanks for that. Another hundred similar and you'll have enough to pen one of those books they sell by the till at Waterstones for folk to read on the bog.


i have published several such books, consisting solely of your posts, under the titles 'dung from mr moose', 'more dung from mr moose', 'mr moose's faeces from the forest' and 'shitting the mr moose way'.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 3, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's tempting to imagine some kind of common cause, but the thing to realise is that Trots hate everyone, they hate other Trots, they hate themselves.  Look at the multitude of lefty sects for example. They don't do consensus or any kind of constructive politics.



Didn't Tom (cvnt-in-a-man-suit) Watson say that Momentum was full of Trots? How can this be? if they hate eberybody and at the same time worship Corbyn (i.e. "cultists") then Shirley something is amiss!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 3, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Didn't Tom (cvnt-in-a-man-suit) Watson say that Momentum was full of Trots? How can this be? if they hate eberybody and at the same time worship Corbyn (i.e. "cultists") then Shirley something is amiss!


Probably because they hate people who can compromise even more than they hate fellow trots.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i have published several such books, consisting solely of your posts, under the titles 'dung from mr moose', 'more dung from mr moose', 'mr moose's faeces from the forest' and 'shitting the mr moose way'.



 Royalties or I'm lawyering up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Royalties or I'm lawyering up.


go on then. i'll see you in court.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 3, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Probably because they hate people who can compromise even more than they hate fellow trots.



When it comes to spouting hatred, look no further than articles or press releases from "moderates".

Fkn butter would't melt.

It's not Trots that want to bomb half the ME.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> People like Hertford or Toynbee. The LP establishment has opposed, usually successfully, any left turn by the membership for a hundred years, why would the present be any different?
> 
> And exactly what 'leverage' do either the general membership or the unions have? None, the unions are welded to the Labour Party and the LP has made it quite clear that they don't give tuppence for the membership. Deselection is off the cards even if there was an appetite for it.



The membership can ignore, lobby, cajole, refuse to pay subs and can ultimately seek to deselect. The Unions can withdraw their funding. Like you say an electable left can happen. But it would help if Corbyn and McDonnell found a candidate they could work with who has broader appeal than they.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> When it comes to spouting hatred, look no further than articles or press releases from "moderates".
> 
> Fkn butter would't melt.
> 
> It's not Trots that want to bomb half the ME.



Sure that's not acceptable and we also have a cohort on here who seem to seriously fantasise about killing their political enemies, were they able to drag themselves away from the internet.

Less hate required all round. It's seriously unattractive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2017)

Supine said:


> Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.



"Electable left wing party".   
If you'd said "electable social-democratic party", you might have had a point, but given the monstering of even vague-left perspectives over the last 40 years - by the Labour Party as well as by Tories and by Capital - there is *no* chance of a left-wing party taking power under the current political system of Parliamentary "democracy".


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry, but these kinds of distinctions have become meaningless to me, as I expect they are to most people. My politics have always been close Corbyn’s but most other people's simply are not.



But you clearly know what the terms mean, is it too much to ask for a straight answer? If ideological distinctions have become meaningless to you then why are you so anti-tory? I didn't ask about other people, I asked about you. If you want a neo-liberal labour party in power (or if you don't care what a parties policies are, jsut whether they are called conservative or labour) then there's no point in us having a discussion since we are not looking for the same thing [we're not really looking for the same thing anyway - I see the election of a social democratic labour party as a by-product of social movements/change rather than as something to be chased directly iyswim - but we could be close enough if you were interested in social democracy])



> Voters were sick of Labour by 2010 and they'll almost certainly be sick of the tories by 2025, if not before (although we might as well forget 2020 now). Of course that doesn't mean that Labour will be able to just step in by default, even when brexit goes pear-shaped. To stand any chance of winning they'll have to become reflective of the views of millions of voters whose support they need and be led by someone who unlike Corbyn or Miliband inspires confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, clearly I was talking post ww2 as I stated this, time period roughly 1945 - mid 1970s, the time generally talked of as the post-war social contract, a time when successive governments, whether conservative or labour, followed broadly social democratic policies. 
The financial collapse of 2008/9 changed our socio-economic conditions, it opened possibility for change in the same way that ww2 or the oil crisis did previously, but the working class and community institutions and organisations were no longer in place to be able to take advantage of this state, or at least not quickly. Corbyn, Sanders, Syriza, Podemos are all examples of how social change is bringing about political change. It's happening way to slowly of course but it is happening.
How can we change things? By working together on projects that bring together communities, that emphasise ideas of collective action and solidarity. By campaigning for secure social housing we can get new social housing built. This will help to rebuild our communities, that thatcher explicitly set out to destroy - remember the quote "the aim is to change the soul, the method is economics" - well we've got to work back on that.



> Oh please! I suggest you try coming back down to Earth. None of that is going to get rid of the tories or convince millions of people to vote Labour in 2020 when they probably voted tory or UKIP in 2015.
> 
> Pursue your own ideological dreams all you like, but a Labour government is still the only chance we have of stopping the tories. People are suffering now in 2017 and it’s getting worse. 2025 may if anything be too late to save the NHS and other essential services. How long do you expect people to wait?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of your "successes in _hegemonic_ practical politics"?



How long do you expect people to wait? You are arguing for neo-liberal policies, don't be surprised when what you get is neo-liberalism. Don't be surprised that that neo-liberalism spreads itself through both the conservative and labour parties. You want actual change you need to argue for social democratic policies and parties. The NHS is going to be fucked by Labour's PFI projects - defend that. 
Please can you also explain how you think that arguing for a neo-liberal labour party to be in charge will bring about social democratic policies, the kind of policies that corbyn wants and that you apparently feel yourself close to. Do you understand what the overton window is?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> There's no point in us discussing anything if you really think my earlier post (all of it, not just the bit you quoted) is arguing for either liberalism or neoliberalism. I'm a pessimistic leftie.


If you (general you) are arguing for a "pragmatic" "electable" Labour Party for 2020, as Toynbee is, as Hertford is, then yes you are arguing for a liberal Labour Party, to pretend otherwise is ostrich behaviour. Hertford claims he wants a more equal society, no doubt so would Toynbee and all the Labour MPs, but those desires are fucking meaningless when your actual actions are in the opposite direction.

emanymton's post summed up the situation brilliantly, the Labour Party has been neo-liberal for 30 odd years, the hollowing out of its vote has been going on for at least as long, you are not going to change those things in a couple of years. This is going to be a decade(s) long fight and it's very likely that things will get worse for the LP before they get better.



Mr Moose said:


> The membership can ignore, lobby, cajole, refuse to pay subs and can ultimately seek to deselect. The Unions can withdraw their funding. Like you say an electable left can happen. But it would help if Corbyn and McDonnell found a candidate they could work with who has broader appeal than they.


Utter ahistoric nonsense, were you asleep during the last 30 years? The unions have nowhere else to go (and a number have already indicated they want to remove Corbyn and want the party to become 'electable' again), the members don't have the ability to deselect and can just be ignored as they were for much of the last 30 years.

In the 70s/80s you had a well organised left-wing body in the membership with a higher proportion of sympathisers in the middle and upper ranks of the party and they weren't able to stop the party becoming neo-liberal. It's utter lunacy to think that in 2017 where a similar type of organisation doesn't exist, where there a handful of supporters in the upper/middle ranks, where there's been 30 years of bureaucracy and rules developed precisely to stop any challenge to the party establishment that you had a better chance than in the past.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> If you (general you) are arguing for a "pragmatic" "electable" Labour Party for 2020, as Toynbee is, as Hertford is, then yes you are arguing for a liberal Labour Party, to pretend otherwise is ostrich behaviour. Hertford claims he wants a more equal society, no doubt so would Toynbee and all the Labour MPs, but those desires are fucking meaningless when your actually actions are in the opposite direction.
> 
> emanymton's post summed up the situation brilliantly, the Labour Party has been neo-liberal for 30 odd years, the hollowing out of its vote has been going on for at least as long, you are not going to change those things in a couple of years. This is going to be a decade(s) long fight and it's very likely that things will get worse for the LP before they get better.
> 
> ...



If you think it is hopeless, fine. But I doubt you do otherwise you simply wouldn't bother with the question. Tomorrow is not just the same and carrying on with an ineffective leader is no sort of policy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2017)

I've not idea how that relates to anything I've argued or said.Like BigTom, emanyton and Wilf I've consistently said that I don't see meaningful change coming from inside the Labour Party, for me the LP is the problem not the solution.

But if your aim is a social democratic LP, as you claim you want, them to push for Corbyn's going now is utter fucking stupidity. As belboid said he'll most likely be replaced by someone like Burnham or Miliband and the (already very small) opportunity will close.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 3, 2017)

When it comes to understanding the Labour party I rather like the following quote from Andrew Thorpe's A history of the British Labour Party regarding Ramsey Macdonld.



> For Macdonld socialism would come about gradually, organically, from the existing social and economic structures. It would emerge from the growing success of capitalism. It was thus the job of socalists to promote this success.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 4, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).
> 
> e2a: more broadly speaking, the fact that Corbyn became labour party leader, that Sanders came so close to being the democratic candidate, the election of syriza in greeace and the rise of podemos (?) in spain or portugal (?) are all indications of how a hegemonic/ideological move is happening - no we aren't there yet but can you imagine a social democrat nearly getting the candidacy for the USA president before last year? I Can't and if we look at previous labour leader elections, social democrats have not made it onto the ticket - we've pushed things over, we're not there yet but it's moving that way.



I admire and support UK Uncut and Occupy, although I don’t quite see how their protests ‘hegemonic’, (unless you mean that they challenge hegemony?). But obviously such action isn’t going to displace the tory government, only an electable Labour Party can do that.

You mention Bernie Sanders and Syriza, but omit to mention Trump, UKIP, le Pen, Widers etc. Unfortunately, if established politics has been pushed over as you put it then it’s clearly benefitting the right, not the left.

And although you claim that we’re moving there, don’t forget that there are people living their lives now in 2017, bringing up children, getting sick and becoming old who can’t afford to wait another 10, 20, 30, 50 or however many years.




BigTom said:


> But you clearly know what the terms mean, is it too much to ask for a straight answer? If ideological distinctions have become meaningless to you then why are you so anti-tory? I didn't ask about other people, I asked about you. If you want a neo-liberal labour party in power (or if you don't care what a parties policies are, jsut whether they are called conservative or labour) then there's no point in us having a discussion since we are not looking for the same thing [we're not really looking for the same thing anyway - I see the election of a social democratic labour party as a by-product of social movements/change rather than as something to be chased directly iyswim - but we could be close enough if you were interested in social democracy])



I'm anti tory because I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc... 

Call me a 'Neo Liberal' if it makes you happy, but it's meaningless.



> The NHS is going to be fucked by Labour's PFI projects - defend that.



Is it? 

No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one? 



> How long do you expect people to wait? You are arguing for neo-liberal policies, don't be surprised when what you get is neo-liberalism. Don't be surprised that that neo-liberalism spreads itself through both the conservative and labour parties. You want actual change you need to argue for social democratic policies and parties.



I do want 'actual' change, I want a left wing Labour government, but that can only come when the electorate votes for it and that clearly isn’t going to happen with Corbyn as leader.

So I’ll ask again: How long will we have to wait to see the back of the tories doing it your or Corbyn’s way?



> Do you understand what the overton window is?



No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 4, 2017)

Supine said:


> Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.



There’s always been a handful of people like red squirrel on the periphery. All they want to do is get angry jump up and down. They’re irrelevant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc...


then you should also be against the labour party as it stands, surely


Andrew Hertford said:


> No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.


its a dead simple concept- chimes into the idea of manufactured consent and artificial limits of debate- what is practical in the so called 'art of the possible' given ruling electoral political direction. None of this is esoteric or unheard of phraseology so your 'well done' is simply a little sarcastic sign off isn't it?
You claim to be about realpolitik and yet its most commonly used bit of terminology is news to you?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one?



Whilst PFI might have been originally founded by the Tories in 92, the reality is that PFI expanded hugely as a core policy throughout the Labour years. Right now, Labour councils are using PFI schemes despite their dreadful failings still to 'regenerate' areas - resulting in the overall loss of social housing and publicly owned services.

Tory government and central cuts is part of that, but only part, and its become a convenient 'apportion of blame' by Labour now whilst its own councillors are as invested in privatisation as the Tories.

In short to your question, I don't actually feel the NHS is any safer any more in the hands of Labour as it stands than the Tories. Only when 'left' people start to accept what's happening with the NHS, with public services, with decimation of housing to private sell-offs to their developer mates, and actually stop colluding with this utter delusion that getting Labour back into power will actually change anything any different to the Tories, can a true pro-working class and left/socialist alternative ever be founded.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 4, 2017)

And if you think that removing Corbyn now (I'm not a Corbyn supporter, or Labour voter anymore), will end up with some sort of alternative model but broadly on the same 'democratic socialist' leftish wing of the party as him, then I think you've not been paying much attention to what's been happening in Labour PLP for a number of years now. Corbyn as far as I can see was the result of CLP/members last ditch to move the party leftwards. If/when Corbyn goes, it'll be shifted pretty rapidly towards the other way again. Even if it elects someone whom, on the face of it, is seen as being on the 'left', that won't last. And it'll still be implementing PFI deals and privatising services, and shafting the working class and sanctioning those not fit enough to work. It will just continue to hide them behind 'tough decisions' and 'new deal'  rhetoric.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.



This isn't a competition, I'm not trying to show I'm more knowledgeable than you are, I asked you because you didn't mention it in reply nor seek to address the point being made, and if you don't know what it means then I'll explain it to you, but I don't want to be patronising and generally this forum is pretty knowledgeable on political terms that we can use a shortcut to concepts to make conversation quicker and easier, not everyone does which is why I asked because it's so central to what I'm saying. 

The wikipedia explanation is actually very good: Overton window - Wikipedia







The overton window describes the range of policies that it is likely politicians will seek to enact and will be able to, these are the range of policies that are popular. Not exactly a radical idea. The overton window is not static, it moves, and it moves because people move it. It's why the tories are so keen to present corbyn's ideas (which really aren't far off what we had post ww2) as radical, hard left etc. They are portrayed as being extreme because this puts them outside the overton window.
In that diagram, if you added another scale to the right which had say libertarianism at the top, then neo-liberalism and social democracy and at the bottom soviet communism then we can see how the way we do politics, what we argue for, moves the overton window around and changes the likely possibilities of policies that any government will enact.
By painting corbyn's social democratic policies as extreme, by placing them outside of the overton window, this pushes the overton window up. So where the bottom end of neo-liberalism was level with sensible, it becomes level with popular, meanwhile at the other end, what was acceptable becomes radical. 
Historically, post ww2, social democracy was policy. Now it's radical, even unthinkable. 
When the tories say there is no alternative to austerity, and labour accept that as being policy (by following that policy in their manifesto, implementing it at council level), they accept neo-liberal ideas as policy, then social democratic ideas are unthinkable. Meanwhile ideas further to the right become acceptable, sensible. The centre shifts. When you campaign for labour regardless of what policies they have, and those policies are neo-liberal then your actions shift the centre further right (up in the diagram), and make social democracy (down in the diagram) less likely to happen.

This is the problem I have with simply calling for "labour whatever the policies". I agree that in electoral terms labour are the only possible alternative to the conservative party, but If you call for austerity (which you will do with anyone right of corbyn), not only will you get it, but you'll make the alternative less likely to happen in the future. As soon as you accept that narrative, you make social democracy unthinkable. You can't spend your way out of a debt crisis. You want an alternative to tories you need to be focusing on policy, not party. If you see a neo-liberal labour party as a better alternative to a neo-liberal conservative party, well that's a position you can take. But it's not going to get you social democracy at any time, not in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. What it will do is make it less likely to happen, by changing what set of ideas are seen as sensible, doable and are therefore popular, and making the ideas you say you want to see put into policy be seen as radical, unworkable and therefore unpopular.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 4, 2017)

I think the concept Tom is describing above is also absolutely key to any discussion of 'electable' and what it's supposed to mean.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I admire and support UK Uncut and Occupy, although I don’t quite see how their protests ‘hegemonic’, (unless you mean that they challenge hegemony?). But obviously such action isn’t going to displace the tory government, only an electable Labour Party can do that.
> 
> You mention Bernie Sanders and Syriza, but omit to mention Trump, UKIP, le Pen, Widers etc. Unfortunately, if established politics has been pushed over as you put it then it’s clearly benefitting the right, not the left.
> 
> And although you claim that we’re moving there, don’t forget that there are people living their lives now in 2017, bringing up children, getting sick and becoming old who can’t afford to wait another 10, 20, 30, 50 or however many years.



Really the substance of our conversation is in my other post but I will just reply to this.
Yes, when I was talking about ideological/hegemonic successes I was meaning that they challenged hegemony - uk uncut achieved approximately zero practical outcomes, there's been no crackdown on tax avoidance, no investment of that money into infrastructure. But I have been involved in tax avoidance campaigns before and they've gone absolutely nowhere. uk uncut challenged the hegemonic ideas of austerity, the key ones being there is no alternative and that there is money available.

I didn't mention the right because we are talking about the left. Yes, they are taking advantage of the same things, they are taking far better advantage of it than the left, because the left's base has been systematically attacked over the past 40 or so years and networks/organisations barely exist anymore to take advantage. What is happening is that the overton window is widening, as is normal during times of economic crisis and extended problems. Things are moving both ways.



> I'm anti tory because I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc...
> 
> Call me a 'Neo Liberal' if it makes you happy, but it's meaningless.



It's really not meaningless. Neo-liberalism describes a set of ideas which lead to a desired set of policies. Neo-liberal policies tend to be against racism, sexism and xenophobia, and in favour of the destruction of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth.
So unless you think that politicians and politics is entirely uninformed by ideas and that policies are picked arbitrarily it really matters.



> Is it?
> 
> No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one?



Labour has duty to resolve 'mess' of hospital PFI deals, says Jeremy Corbyn

2/3rds NHS trusts have PFI debts, it's an expensive mess to get out of and yes it threatens to destroy the NHS.
What I am saying is that under past labour governments - ones which you must have argued for to keep out the tories - the NHS has been systematically attacked, gradually privatised via outsourcing and I'm really not sure that the tories would have been able to do much worse.
A future labour government depends on what kind of labour party it is. Under Corbyn I would be very confident that the NHS would not be at risk like it would under a tory one. Under someone like milliband or burnham, I really don't know. Under someone like blair or kendall probably not.



> I do want 'actual' change, I want a left wing Labour government, but that can only come when the electorate votes for it and that clearly isn’t going to happen with Corbyn as leader.
> 
> So I’ll ask again: How long will we have to wait to see the back of the tories doing it your or Corbyn’s way?
> 
> ...



How long? We've been 40+ years getting here. It's not going to change overnight and to think it is is just foolish. I'm looking for the quickest way of getting there, and I agree with redsquirrel - if you want a left wing labour govt, you need a left wing labour party, and corbyn is (or was) your best chance at this point in time. When he is replaced it will be with someone further to the right and the opportunity will close, and social democratic ideas will get pushed further away. I think what is happening is a demonstration both of how far we've come in the past 7-9 years and how much further we have to go.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 4, 2017)

Good post BigTom. From PLP to Labour supporters on social media, from commentators in the New Stateman to Guardian, they all place (or at least allow the narrative to be perpetuated) as Corbyn being some sort of 'hard left' or 'radical', despite his politics being just about democratic socialist. It shows just how much the 'centre ground' has been able to shift to the right in the last thirty or so years, when some of Corbyn's policies/opinions are derided as 'too left' even by supporters of and colleagues inside the party. That's why the problems are bigger than Corbyn or who leads it

And its New Labour and its time in office especially (through Blair, Brown and Miliband) that allowed, but also drove this shift of the 'centre ground' rightwards - the 'new centre ground'.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 4, 2017)

I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, to those who think replacing Corbyn will help, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in? They don't exist in the PLP.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 4, 2017)

... and if they did exist, they wouldn't be 'electable' anyhow, because the neo-liberal political / media class would immediately start monstering them the way they have Corbyn


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in and stick to the left?



and if there is someone, then when they do step in, and " PLP to Labour supporters on social media, from commentators in the New Stateman to Guardian" all call them unelectable, radical, hard left; will they be in any different position to Corbyn?

edit: snap! too slow


----------



## J Ed (Mar 4, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, to those who think replacing Corbyn will help, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in? They don't exist in the PLP.


 
The idea that the LP was 'social democratic' under Ed Miliband makes no sense whatsoever unless the definition of 'social democratic' means 'whatever the Labour Party does'.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The idea that the LP was 'social democratic' under Ed Miliband makes no sense whatsoever unless the definition of 'social democratic' means 'whatever the Labour Party does'.


_Socialism means what the labour party does in govt._


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Voters had had enough of Labour by 2010 and clearly weren’t ready for them again in 2015, especially under a leader who they perceived to be weak.
> 
> By the time voters are sick of the tories, not enough of them regardless of ‘class’ are going to vote for a Labour Party which they consider to be too left wing and the tories will simply win again by default.
> 
> ...


Who is john o'donnell?


----------



## agricola (Mar 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Who is john o'donnell?








A record of 31 wins (11 by KO), 2 losses, and six articles in the _Spectator_ bemoaning the sundry treacheries of the Blairite mob.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 4, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Really the substance of our conversation is in my other post but I will just reply to this.
> 
> Yes, when I was talking about ideological/hegemonic successes I was meaning that they challenged hegemony - uk uncut achieved approximately zero practical outcomes, there's been no crackdown on tax avoidance, no investment of that money into infrastructure. But I have been involved in tax avoidance campaigns before and they've gone absolutely nowhere. uk uncut challenged the hegemonic ideas of austerity, the key ones being there is no alternative and that there is money available.
> 
> ...



You’re still just skirting around the question. You seem to agree that Corbyn is unelectable, so how long will we have to wait for your ‘real change’ to happen? 

I remember as a teenager being taken in by a group of Trots in 1975 spouting even back then that 'its coming.. something big is about to happen'. It didn't take long to realise it was all bullshit, especially when others like them were still saying the same thing 10, 20 and 30 years later.

As for NHS private funding, it isn’t just Corbyn who’s committed to reversing it. Owen Smith made it central to his bid last year, as I expect would any future leadership contender. I'm still certain that public services are going to fare much better under Labour than the tories just as they've always done.

Thanks for your post about the Overton Window, although all it really does is give a name to what most of us already know about manipulating political perceptions.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 4, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Whilst PFI might have been originally founded by the Tories in 92, the reality is that PFI expanded hugely as a core policy throughout the Labour years. Right now, Labour councils are using PFI schemes despite their dreadful failings still to 'regenerate' areas - resulting in the overall loss of social housing and publicly owned services.
> 
> Tory government and central cuts is part of that, but only part, and its become a convenient 'apportion of blame' by Labour now whilst its own councillors are as invested in privatisation as the Tories.
> 
> In short to your question, I don't actually feel the NHS is any safer any more in the hands of Labour as it stands than the Tories. Only when 'left' people start to accept what's happening with the NHS, with public services, with decimation of housing to private sell-offs to their developer mates, and actually stop colluding with this utter delusion that getting Labour back into power will actually change anything any different to the Tories, can a true pro-working class and left/socialist alternative ever be founded.



But as Corbyn's own figures and those from the King's Fund which I posted a few days ago show, public services including the NHS were far safer under the last Labour government than under the two tory governments either side.

Public services are literally in crisis now due to underfunding and only a Labour government can reverse it. We don't have time to wait and hope another 40 years for Tom's 'real change'.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I want to destroy you and your ilk.



What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of dumb-ass sense of entitlement that resulted in the murder of Jo Cox.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You’re still just skirting around the question. You seem to agree that Corbyn is unelectable, so how long will we have to wait for your ‘real change’ to happen?
> 
> I remember as a teenager being taken in by a group of Trots in 1975 spouting even back then that 'its coming.. something big is about to happen'. It didn't take long to realise it was all bullshit, especially when others like them were still saying the same thing 10, 20 and 30 years later.
> 
> ...



I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.

I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.

Now go back to the Overton window and think about what I said, please address this point, it's extremely important, it's not just about manipulating political perceptions, it's also about manipulating politicians/policy.

Tell me, how will arguing and campaigning for neo liberal politicians/policies cause the Overton window to move to bring social democratic politicians/policies into the popular/sensible range?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of dumb-ass sense of entitlement that resulted in the murder of Jo Cox.


yeah and aktion T4. clown.


----------



## newbie (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.
> 
> I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.
> 
> ...


In this regard not much has changed since the 70s, has it?  The 'left' is still split 3 ways, between those who look to the Labour Party for a principled position leading towards a social democratic golden age for the w/c, those who think the LP has to trim to win power and thus must reflect, accommodate and perhaps even celebrate capitalism and the third, fractured group who see the LP as a bigger part of the problem than of any worthwhile solution.

The balance of influence may wax and wane but the arguments are fundamentally unchanging, even if the beer and sandwiches power of union leaderships has declined a bit. The reality is also unchanging: neither of the pro LP strands has any chance of winning power without the other, and the tories win most elections anyway.  The outside left, such as it is, remains as vociferous as ever.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 5, 2017)

Former Labour cabinet minister insists Corbyn caused Copeland loss

Ben Bradshaw, member of Progress and Henry Jackson Society, decided to divert attention away from the NHS and put the boot in to Corbyn, again.

Have to love this bit of revisionism, tbh.



> “The Chilcot inquiry completely exonerated Tony Blair of all of the mad allegations that were thrown at him,” he said. “I think that quite unfairly and without any evidence there is a section of the British public that don’t like Tony Blair.
> 
> “We’ve got to get over this nonsense about Iraq – just look at Syria where we didn’t intervene, it’s far worse, far more people died, far more refugees and no solution in sight. In Iraq you now have a functioning democracy and it is beating back Isis.”



That's nearly as good as when Benny 8 years ago said it was  a good idea to have people pay for parking at hospitals.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 5, 2017)

I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.


Not really on, to call wombats thick Steve


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.


(((Wombats)))


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2017)

newbie said:


> In this regard not much has changed since the 70s, has it?  The 'left' is still split 3 ways, between those who look to the Labour Party for a principled position leading towards a social democratic golden age for the w/c, those who think the LP has to trim to win power and thus must reflect, accommodate and perhaps even celebrate capitalism and the third, fractured group who see the LP as a bigger part of the problem than of any worthwhile solution.
> 
> The balance of influence may wax and wane but the arguments are fundamentally unchanging, even if the beer and sandwiches power of union leaderships has declined a bit. The reality is also unchanging: neither of the pro LP strands has any chance of winning power without the other, and the tories win most elections anyway.  The outside left, such as it is, remains as vociferous as ever.



Yes, I agree (though I wasn't around in the 70s), what I was saying to AH was in response to him comparing what I'm saying here to what the trots were saying in the 70s - then they were saying that revolution is just about to happen, I am saying social democracy (not even revolution) is a long way off.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2017)

> I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (*unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).*



Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2017)

treelover said:


> Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.


Why not just say you hate the left and have done with it?


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2017)

> I didn't mention the right because we are talking about the left. Yes, they are taking advantage of the same things, they are taking far better advantage of it than the left, because the left's base has been systematically attacked over the past 40 or so years and networks/organisations barely exist anymore to take advantage. What is happening is that the overton window is widening, as is normal during times of economic crisis and extended problems. Things are moving both ways.



The liberal left is huge, look at the support for Calais, fighting funds, attendance on the Trump/Women's marches/rallies, etc.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Why not just say you hate the left and have done with it?



why not respond to the argument?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2017)

treelover said:


> The liberal left is huge, look at the support for Calais, fighting funds, attendance on the Trump/Women's marches/rallies, etc.


All fighting funds?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2017)

treelover said:


> why not respond to the argument?


You have an argument?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2017)

treelover said:


> Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.



There's no way that illegally sanctioned money was coming back to claimants, I'm still surprised that parliament has the power to retroactively change laws. Sadly the liberal "left" have been largely behind workfare, which began under Blair iirc. The biggest practical success - that of having the "work experience programme" changed from being mandatory once started to completely voluntary happened more or less immediately after that week where workfare was massive news for day after day, I can't remember exactly what sparked it but it was about people being forced to work for free for private companies and there was a much bigger/wider involvement for about two weeks, what was achieved could have been done much more quickly had that level of activity and resistance continued, perhaps these schemes would be off the table entirely but I doubt it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.
> 
> I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is saying it is the current policies that make Corbyn unelectable. It's that he lacks the credibility and authority to get elected to head HM Government. That many of his own MPs think this, not all of whom have horns, is not mitigation.

McDonnell was on Andrew Marr earlier and did a good job. Labour's policies are not seen as unrealistic. So who can make them happen?


----------



## newbie (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yes, I agree (though I wasn't around in the 70s), what I was saying to AH was in response to him comparing what I'm saying here to what the trots were saying in the 70s - then they were saying that revolution is just about to happen, I am saying social democracy (not even revolution) is a long way off.


but they were more or less right, something akin to 'the revolution' happened, though it wasn't particularly bloody and the wrong side won.  It's wholly possible another one is happening right now.  I agree that social democracy isn't likely any time soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford who is john o'donnell?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.
> 
> I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.
> 
> ...



But you appear to be willing to write off at least one generation, probably more, of young, old, sick and disabled who are certain to suffer under tory cuts because you have your sights set on the remote possibility of a left wing government getting elected sometime in the distant future. How many people who rely on public services (all of us to an extent) care about terms like 'neo liberal' or 'social democrat'? What they need is an end to this tory government, even if that does mean replacing it with something which doesn't live up to the far left's definition of 'real change'.

Also, if ‘real change’ is to come, it’s just as likely to come from the far right as the far left.

You can argue all you like about the manipulation of perception and party policy, as I'm sure the far right do as well (just try mentioning the BBC in a group of ukip supporters) but doing so isn't going to shift the tories from government.

As for Jezza still being electable but not in 2020, do you really think he could win the 2025 election? He'd be 76 by 2025 and his age would then become yet another factor.

Just out of interest, is your definition of ‘social democracy’ different to Wikipedia’s?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2017)

a right led labour party would be _doing the same things _for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Andrew Hertford who is john o'donnell?



Daniel's brother?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Just out of interest, is your definition of ‘social democracy’ different to Wikipedia’s?



Of course you have read that article and so understand that the definition of social democracy is heavily contested, especially with regard to it's understanding of the continuation of capitalism?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Mar 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> a right led labour party would be _doing the same things _for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.



TBH a Blair-led labour party would be doing the same things, for Gods sake.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But you appear to be willing to write off at least one generation, probably more, of young, old, sick and disabled who are certain to suffer under tory cuts because you have your sights set on the remote possibility of a left wing government getting elected sometime in the distant future. How many people who rely on public services (all of us to an extent) care about terms like 'neo liberal' or 'social democrat'? What they need is an end to this tory government, even if that does mean replacing it with something which doesn't live up to the far left's definition of 'real change'.
> 
> Also, if ‘real change’ is to come, it’s just as likely to come from the far right as the far left.
> 
> ...



jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.

So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.

Those who rely on public services very much care about whether policies are neo-liberal or social democratic because the former means fucked public services and the latter means supported public services. Whether someone knows what those terms mean is neither here nor there, you know what they mean so we can use them in this discussion. If you want, then every single post of mine I can insert 3-5 paragraphs instead of 2 words but that'd be a bit shit for conversation wouldn't it?

So once more before I answer the other things you've said.
If you want to campaign for a labour party whatever the policies, and those policies are neo-liberal and not social democratic, when that labour party actively pursures austerity (as it would under milliband and anyone else further right of corbyn), then you cement the need for cuts not just in the minds of the public but also for the politicians. This pushes social democratic policies towards the radical, unthinkable end of the overton window, it means you make it harder to get those policies. You need to show how seeking to elect a government that will fuck us a little bit less gets us towards a point where we are not being fucked. Because I can't see how that happens which means that what you are proposing stops social democracy from happening. I'm not looking for any definition from the far left, what I'm talking about is pretty much what that wikipedia article says, except for the bit about peaceful transition to socialism which can be but imo isn't necessarily part of social democratic position, and I definitely categorise the third way as a neo-liberal position. It's not a far left position by any means, except of course that it gets painted like that by those on the right because that makes it appear to be radical, unthinkable. Every time you talk about it like that you cement that even more than a tory doing it would, and push social democracy further away.
Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it.
What I'm saying, I'm saying because I think that's the quickest way to get to social democracy. I think that what you are proposing will take longer, but I don't insult you and say that you want to do that because you're an arsehole who doesn't care about all the people being fucked by the cuts do I. 

Perception is so important, I can't believe you dismiss it like that - if people perceive a party / leader as unelectable, are they going to vote for them? probably not, why would you. If people think a party has policies that are radical, unthinkable, unworkable they are less likely to vote for them. That's all perception. If people perceived Corbyn as a great leader, his policies as sensible and workable, they'd be more likely to vote for him. Having people who are ostensibly on his side saying he's not electable is massively damaging, and it's all about people's perceptions.

You've misunderstood what I said about corbyn being electable - I think that if after he was voted in by the labour party membership in 2015 (or was it 16 by the time that was done?), if the whole of the plp and rest of the membership, and the left-liberal media had got behind him, he could now be electable in 2020. I don't think he can win now, any chance there was has been totally fucked by everyone who supports the labour party undermining him at every turn. 2025 is irrelevant, he won't be around after 2020 unless he does win, and if he wins in 2020 I think you'll be assessing his chances of winning in 2025 rather differently.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.
> 
> So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.
> 
> ...



Corbyn's policies are rubbish. Is it so hard to make a speech to say "I'm going to raise disability benefit to 
X amount. Or I'm going to tax anyone that owns more than one property to x percent of their profits.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> a right led labour party would be _doing the same things _for gods sake. They all went behind austerity, all abstained or voted for these punitive cuts. If your entire argument boils down to 'we must get rid of the tories' then you are basically fucked.



But my argument is that Labour governments fund essential services far better than tory governments do. Even Blair and Brown’s did.

The election of a Labour government is the one thing which can save essential services and that’s clearly not going to happen while Corbyn remains leader.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Corbyn's policies are rubbish. Is it so hard to make a speech to say "I'm going to raise disability benefit to
> X amount. Or I'm going to tax anyone that owns more than one property to x percent of their profits.



The issue isn't with promises that are made or not. It's that few are listening.

It's pointless to hook Labour on details. It's whole philosophy needs to be inspired by solidarity and from there the policy will follow.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.
> 
> So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.
> 
> ...



I don’t think you’re ‘a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over’, nothing could be further from the truth, but I do think you’re delusional if you think that public services can be saved by hoping and waiting for the electorate to decide to vote for what you want them to.

Perception is indeed important, but less so than honesty. How do you hope to make people perceive Corbyn as ‘a great leader’ when he clearly isn’t? How are people supposed to get behind someone or something they have no faith in? Corbyn himself rightly never got behind Blair or Brown but now he's expecting everyone to get behind him.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> The issue isn't with promises that are made or not. It's that few are listening.
> 
> It's pointless to hook Labour on details. It's whole philosophy needs to be inspired by solidarity and from there the policy will follow.



More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives. Rather than vague bollocks about respecting democracy. Maybe that's why Corbyn won't announce any actual policies as he he respecting the win of the Tory government. 

NHS collapsing? Say you will put more money in and say how it will be spent and on what.

Housing shit? Commit to taxes on landlords and build more council housing. 

Etc etc. 

Or waffle on about shit and claim no one's listening.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives. Rather than vague bollocks about respecting democracy. Maybe that's why Corbyn won't announce any actual policies as he he respecting the win of the Tory government.
> 
> NHS collapsing? Say you will put more money in and say how it will be spent and on what.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't think anyone really gives much of a shit about the detail right now more than 3 years from an election. They want a champion.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I honestly don't think anyone really gives much of a shit about the detail right now more than 3 years from an election. They want a champion.



Fair enough. Everytime I see him on tv he isn't talking about anything close to my top 10 priorities for a government. No matter how vaguely.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don’t think you’re ‘a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over’, nothing could be further from the truth, but I do think you’re delusional if you think that public services can be saved by hoping and waiting for the electorate to decide to vote for what you want them to.
> 
> Perception is indeed important, but less so than honesty. How do you hope to make people perceive Corbyn as ‘a great leader’ when he clearly isn’t? How are people supposed to get behind someone or something they have no faith in? Corbyn himself rightly never got behind Blair or Brown but now he's expecting everyone to get behind him.



I'm not suggesting "hoping and waiting", I've said a number of things both reasonably specific and general in terms of actions to be taken, for instance right in the post you've just reply to I say:



> Working outside the labour party on campaigns which seek to get social democratic policies implemented, on actions or policies that emphasise collective rather than individual action, because social democracy is a collective response to capitalism, and actions which build working class networks and solidarity because social democratic policies benefit the working class most and (in the short term anyway) is not to the benefit of capital, so to get those settlements from the political arena you need significant pressure from the working class to achieve it



So please stop with this saying that I'm willing to fuck people over letting the tories in - we disagree about the quickest way to replace them and their policies, not that they should be turfed out as quickly as possible so that the policies they follow no longer apply. I also get the feeling that we disagree and actually you are looking for the quickest way to replace the tories with labour and aren't so bothered about what the policies are.

As a Labour party MP, peer or member who wants a social democratic party, you get behind corbyn because the alternatives were burnham or harman (or Kendall but lol). Or owen smith, who inspired people so much he couldn't even get them to come out with the promise of free beer and burgers (iirc maybe it was just burgers). Corbyn might not be ideal but he's the best you have available. Perhaps you don't win 2020 but by arguing for the policies you want (rather than accepting the overarching ideology of the policies you don't want) you make it more likely that in 2025 or 2030 you'll get the policies you want. Arguing for an austerity lite under someone like burnham means you will definitely still get austerity in 2025 or 2030, and at no point will social democratic policies move into the sensible/popular area of the overton window. 
Assumes you want social democracy of course, which I don't think a lot of the right wing labour MPs do.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> More might listen if he spoke about things that might improve everyone's lives.



Did you not see him arguing with Theresa May at PMQs about social care?

On a more general point, Corbyn's role has been to take the party further left which was badly needed. As has been amply demonstrated, the membership doesn't want a Liz Kendall/Owen Smith and their attempts at trying for the role have been laughable.

I try to keep an open mind about whether Corbyn should be leader in 2020. The really important thing is that members keep the veer to the left in place and do not allow the right of the party to elect a Tory-lite leader.

I don't fully agree with all that Andrew Hertford says but his view that if Labour aren't electable then a whole generation of people will be fucked is a valid one. This doesn't mean that the more right-wing element in Labour should be stabbing Corbyn in the back and putting up someone like Owen Smith for leader. The Labour membership has changed and grown in the last two years and this needs to be used to work towards an electable party, but one which is way further to the left than the Blair/Brown years.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm not suggesting "hoping and waiting", I've said a number of things both reasonably specific and general in terms of actions to be taken, for instance right in the post you've just reply to I say:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But how will your "actions to be taken" bring Labour the votes it need to win a general election or convince the public to overwhelmingly vote for 'actual change' sometime in the future?? I can't see that they will.

Yes I am looking for the quickest way to get the tories out and replace them with Labour because there are vulnerable people depending on it and because I know from experience as well as from the figures that essential services will be safer with a Labour government even if it isn't a left wing one.

I'm still curious about your definition of Social Democracy. Presumably it has nothing to do with Shirley Williams or Wikipedia's definition?...

_"Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic,egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes..."_


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> Did you not see him arguing with Theresa May at PMQs about social care?
> 
> On a more general point, Corbyn's role has been to take the party further left which was badly needed. As has been amply demonstrated, the membership doesn't want a Liz Kendall/Owen Smith and their attempts at trying for the role have been laughable.
> 
> ...



No. Unsurprisingly no one watches PMQs. 

 It means the left should stab Corbyn in the back and get someone with some ideas.

Edited to put right thing in.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 5, 2017)

I think BigTom 's post #15824 summed up my pessimism about the LP's current prospects far far better than I could ever have managed myself.

So, redsquirrel , I'm just about not neoliberal .
Just a pessimistic leftie/former TU rep/constant TU member/still in PCS 

Who on absolute principle, and family background, has *NEVER* crossed a picketline or has ever disagreed with any strike ever.

But! who also hated Tory landslides for around 20 years back then. I'm ashamed to say I put up with Tony Blair for a bit in the late Nineties  

The only thing he was occasionally right about was how to win elections


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> No. Unsurprisingly no one watches question time.
> 
> It



Fair enough point. PMQs, and arguably the whole of fucking Parliament, resembles an Oxbridge debating society (I am aware I am making a highly unoriginal point here) so it's not surprising that most people don't watch it. But within this context, Corbyn has raised important issues that matter to ordinary people.

He was derided by some for reading out questions from people who had asked him things about everyday issues that matter to ordinary people (i.e. non MPs, non politicos, i.e. most of us) which says everything about the workings of 'modern' parliament.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> Fair enough point. PMQs, and arguably the whole of fucking Parliament, resembles an Oxbridge debating society (I am aware I am making a highly unoriginal point here) so it's not surprising that most people don't watch it. But within this context, Corbyn has raised important issues that matter to ordinary people.
> 
> He was derided by some for reading out questions from people who had asked him things about everyday issues that matter to ordinary people (i.e. non MPs, non politicos, i.e. most of us) which says everything about the workings of 'modern' parliament.



Corbyn needs to stop talking to people at demonstrations and start putting his point across to voters directly. 

And some actual points would be useful! Like how to get some higher pay etc.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

Thing is, people want higher wages but they baulk at the actions necessary to get them. What can he say, ''Join or form a trades union, and demand better terms and conditions!''

That's the truth, but who the fuck wants to hear it?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 5, 2017)

.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Corbyn needs to stop talking to people at demonstrations and start putting his point across to voters directly.
> 
> And some actual points would be useful! Like how to get some higher pay etc.


what.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Corbyn needs to stop talking to people at demonstrations and start putting his point across to voters directly.
> 
> And some actual points would be useful! Like how to get some higher pay etc.



I partly agree with you - I don't think he needs to stop speaking at rallies; while this is largely preaching to the converted it means the party's views on the NHS, social care, welfare benefits etc. crisis get media attention which is important.

As I've said in this thread previously, Labour are missing out on open goals with the NHS and re-nationalisation of the railways, and do need to put out firmer and more strident views.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> I partly agree with you - I don't think he needs to stop speaking at rallies; while this is largely preaching to the converted it means the party's views on the NHS, social care, welfare benefits etc. crisis get media attention which is important.



Perhaps it may have escaped your attention but the NHS protest/march received zero coverage in the MSM so he is not going to reach anybody that way and the rest of the time they have the knives out for him anyway.



> As I've said in this thread previously, Labour are missing out on open goals with the NHS and re-nationalisation of the railways, and do need to put out firmer and more strident views.



Well good luck with all of that but please bear in mind that a substantial amount of the PLP is essentially on the neoliberal bandwagon and subsequently it'd be like turkeys voting for christmas.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2017)

Much of the Labour PLP is pretty much invested in the same privatisation/sell-off/keeping public spending down ideology as the Tories, so it's simply not an _open goal_ to be missed.

Frankly, if working class people can't trust even Labour councils to be on their side when it comes down to the basic necessity of keeping an affordable roof over their head, why the fuck should they listen to their 'promises' on anything else?

For some of those I've been active with the last little while - fighting against losing their homes by two-faced Labour councils who are busy kicking them out of their homes to then refurbish them to sell off or 'regenerating' them as private flats (invariably to their mates), frankly the thought of Labour in power means sweet fuck all to them.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Perhaps it may have escaped your attention but the NHS protest/march received zero coverage in the MSM so he is not going to reach anybody that way and the rest of the time they have the knives out for him anyway.



It did receive a lot of coverage. It was covered by the BBC and the Evening Standard, which is hardly the same as two paragraphs and a photo in the Morning Star.

I would agree with you about the media having knives out for Corbyn, though, which is problematic.

Re your other point, the right wing in the PLP are not those in charge at the moment. Look how Owen Smith really tried to veer to the left when he made the leadership challenge. Hopefully the right of the party is fucked. They have had two attempts at the leadership when Corbyn won, or three if you buy into the 'Red Ed' narrative (which I don't, although I used my union vote to vote for him as he was the most 'left' at the time, as did the majority).


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Much of the Labour PLP is pretty much invested in the same privatisation/sell-off/keeping public spending down ideology as the Tories, so it's simply not an _open goal_ to be missed.
> 
> Frankly, if working class people can't trust even Labour councils to be on their side when it comes down to the basic necessity of keeping an affordable roof over their head, why the fuck should they listen to their 'promises' on anything else?
> 
> For some of those I've been active with the last little while - fighting against losing their homes by two-faced Labour councils who are busy kicking them out of their homes to then refurbish them to sell off or 'regenerating' them as private flats (invariably to their mates), frankly the thought of Labour in power means sweet fuck all to them.



You make an absolutely valid point and as someone who works in housing and supports the Labour Party, but does not support the type of situation exemplified by Cressingham Gardens, it is hard for me to come up with any answer except to say that grassroots members and supporters who believe in the rights of tenants and do not support the marketization of 'social' housing should be massively opposing this - and many are.

ETA - the current system of funding for social housing, favouring home ownership and the oxymoronic affordable rent, is a huge problem, although it shouldn't let councils like Lambeth off the hook.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2017)

Sadly @oryx, the right/'progress' wing of the PLP are very much _in charge_. Corbyn/McDonnell being opposition leader/chancellor doesn't change that fact. I would have thought that the way that PLP has consistently undermined Corbyn for two years now, repeatedly forced him to retreat from his more 'socialist' pledges, and generally helped (through the media/press too) to reinforce the sense that he's unfit to be elected, was clearly observable.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> It did receive a lot of coverage. It was covered by the BBC and the Evening Standard, which is hardly the same as two paragraphs and a photo in the Morning Star.
> 
> I would agree with you about the media having knives out for Corbyn, though, which is problematic.
> 
> Re your other point, the right wing in the PLP are not those in charge at the moment. Look how Owen Smith really tried to veer to the left when he made the leadership challenge. Hopefully the right of the party is fucked. They have had two attempts at the leadership when Corbyn won, or three if you buy into the 'Red Ed' narrative (which I don't, although I used my union vote to vote for him as he was the most 'left' at the time, as did the majority).



Ok apologies I don't look at the BBC website much and I don't have a telly so would have missed that, nor do I live in London so the Standard is not a publication I would want to look at. However I can't find _any_ coverage on the graun and indy websites, places that you might expect to see some, well you might unless you realised that the last time there was a substantial demo concerning the NHS in London neither publication ran any stories. I had to come on here to see pics.

Re your other point, I hope you don't mind if I borrow that...  the PLP is FUBAR imo. I voted for Corbyn in the second election with my union affiliated vote only because I could, not in any expectation that it would actually change anything.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Thing is, people want higher wages but they baulk at the actions necessary to get them. What can he say, ''Join or form a trades union, and demand better terms and conditions!''
> 
> That's the truth, but who the fuck wants to hear it?



He could propose that he would legislate. Higher minimum wage. Better conditions. Self-employment when working for only one business made illegal.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> what.



Great facepalming banter


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

_Higher minimum wage_ lol. That old sticking plaster.

In any case he's already spoken in favour of a Maximum Wage .. but still nothing about regularising unions again and legally obliging employers and contractors to negotiate with them.

I have to wonder why that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Whilst PFI might have been originally founded by the Tories in 92, the reality is that PFI expanded hugely as a core policy throughout the Labour years. Right now, Labour councils are using PFI schemes despite their dreadful failings still to 'regenerate' areas - resulting in the overall loss of social housing and publicly owned services.
> 
> Tory government and central cuts is part of that, but only part, and its become a convenient 'apportion of blame' by Labour now whilst its own councillors are as invested in privatisation as the Tories.
> 
> In short to your question, I don't actually feel the NHS is any safer any more in the hands of Labour as it stands than the Tories. Only when 'left' people start to accept what's happening with the NHS, with public services, with decimation of housing to private sell-offs to their developer mates, and actually stop colluding with this utter delusion that getting Labour back into power will actually change anything any different to the Tories, can a true pro-working class and left/socialist alternative ever be founded.



Mention the sweeping deep-bow-and-scrape to neoliberalism that the Labour Party did from 1994 onward, and most left-liberals chunter on about the "minimum wage", and "spending on health and education". They don't mention how much of that health and education "spending" was actually highly-expensive "off the books" borrowing, or how the "minimum wage" has remained unofficially "pegged" at about 70% of a "living wage". They don't mention the subservience to "the City" or the fact that Labour refused to re-regulate financial institutions, or that Labour introduced such delights as the "Benefits Integrity Project" (precursor to every "benefits reform" in the next 20 years) or tuition fees.

A right-centrist Labour Party, such as the "moderates"/Maquis want, will just be more of the same fawning and grovelling before power, with a better PR spin on the oppression of any group in which they sense a weakness.  A party of Rachel Reeves-alikes that Mandy and Tony would approve of, will shit all over the poor and disabled, because that's who they go for in order to send messages about what good little neolibs they are.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> _Higher minimum wage_ lol. That old sticking plaster.
> 
> In any case he's already spoken in favour of a Maximum Wage .. but still nothing about regularising unions again and legally obliging employers and contractors to negotiate with them.
> 
> I have to wonder why that is.



The maximum wage stuff was crap. Footballers earning less. Tenders restricted to companies that implement it.

He already earns more than most in the UK. But he wants to cap other's wages. Tax people more for fucks sake.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> _Higher minimum wage_ lol. That old sticking plaster.
> 
> In any case he's already spoken in favour of a Maximum Wage .. but still nothing about regularising unions again and legally obliging employers and contractors to negotiate with them.
> 
> I have to wonder why that is.



If he pushes unions the tories will just do away with the legislation asap when they get into power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, to those who think replacing Corbyn will help, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in? They don't exist in the PLP.



"Austerity with a kinder face" was a thing, wasn't it? Ameliorationist bullshit to gull the liberals.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Sadly @oryx, the right/'progress' wing of the PLP are very much _in charge_. Corbyn/McDonnell being opposition leader/chancellor doesn't change that fact. I would have thought that the way that PLP has consistently undermined Corbyn for two years now, repeatedly forced him to retreat from his more 'socialist' pledges, and generally helped (through the media/press too) to reinforce the sense that he's unfit to be elected, was clearly observable.



I dunno, steth, I dunno. I see the right wing as fucked/on the run. Maybe I am being hopelessly optimistic. There's their utterly pathetic, chaotic and widely derided leadership coup last year and there's Owen Smith pretending to be more left wing than he is. If there was another leadership contest tomorrow my guess is that Corbyn would win it with a reduced majority, unless someone left, fresh and new like Lewis or Long Bailey stood.

The right of the party are also worried about deselection.

Labour are a sandwich at the moment, with the PLP being the meat between a more left leadership and membership!

I think the Labour right have had to tone it down recently because they do not have a feasible alternative for whom the membership would vote.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> If he pushes unions the tories will just do away with the legislation asap when they get into power.



So the main thing that the Working Class can _actually do_ to improve their (our) situation, they (we) will never be able to actually do. That seems to be what you're saying here.

*edited for inclusivity


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So the main thing that the Working Class can _actually do_ to improve their situation, they will never be able to actually do. That seems to be what you're saying here.



Not while its politically acceptable to put them down. If Theresa May outlawed unions would she stil win the next election. Probably.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2017)

BigTom said:


> jesus suffering fuck, all the time I've put in on campaigns against the cuts and you think I'm willing to write people off to them? This is the last post I'm going to try to explain it, that is really insulting thing to say to me.
> 
> So what you are saying is that if I say change can come quickly, I'm like the trots in the 70s, delusional. But if I say change is going to take time I'm a callous evil bastard who wants the tories to fuck people over? I'm fucked either way in your eyes which aside from the insult means there's no point in discussing this with you, not least because you constantly miss or avoid responding to my main point.
> 
> ...




You know what your problem is, Tom?

It's that you're worse than fucking _Kristallnacht_, you bastard!!!


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not while its politically acceptable to put them down. If Theresa May outlawed unions would she stil win the next election. Probably.



So, if that's what you think, what do you think Labour should do to win the next election? Specifically.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So, if that's what you think, what do you think Labour should do to win the next election? Specifically.



Are you asking me? Make a list of the 10 most important things to the electorate and propose what they want to do make them better. The bigger the better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But my argument is that Labour governments fund essential services far better than tory governments do. Even Blair and Brown’s did.
> 
> The election of a Labour government is the one thing which can save essential services and that’s clearly not going to happen while Corbyn remains leader.



Now did Blair and Brown fund those services? At least partially through PFI. In other words, *they* didn't fund it, the Hospital Trusts and Education Authorities did, and do, through extortionate deals that were designed to stick around long after Blair and Brown had been put out to grass.

"Far better"? Don't take the fucking piss.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Make a list of the 10 most important things to the electorate and propose what they want to do make them better.



So, populism is the answer...
How very 2017


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So, populism is the answer...
> How very 2017



I think appealing to the electorate is how elections are won in any era.

 Populism as I define it would mean bringing back hanging. Banning the foreigns. And turfing anyone without a job onto the street.

Dont think the Labour party and Corbyn should try that. 

The last thing I heard the labour party propose was gender neutral budgets. A great vote winner I am sure.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not while its politically acceptable to put them down. If Theresa May outlawed unions would she stil win the next election. Probably.



I think the tide may be turning in terms of labour relations. Look at the recent Uber/Deliveroo/Sports Direct cases.

I would like to think, perhaps optimistically, that any proposal to ban unions (pretty unlikely but not unthinkable) would result in a general strike.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> I think the tide may be turning in terms of labour relations. Look at the recent Uber/Deliveroo/Sports Direct cases.
> 
> I would like to think, perhaps optimistically, that any proposal to ban unions (pretty unlikely but not unthinkable) would result in a general strike.



A general strike which would (wrongly) turn people against them. Any labour party should surely be proposing stronger legislation not just expecting unions to fight all the time for better conditions. 

The presence of the 'gig' economy is another open goal. Left wing policies from Corbyn on them. Nothing of note.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

So despite posting that Labour should 


B.I.G said:


> Make a list of the 10 most important things to the electorate and propose what they want to do make them better.



You believe that 


B.I.G said:


> Populism as I define it would mean bringing back hanging. Banning the foreigns. And turfing anyone without a job onto the street.



I'd like to see you explain how both of these can be things you truly believe.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So despite posting that Labour should
> 
> 
> You believe that
> ...



Labour needs to appeal to the people that match their own values. If their values are really so narrow that they can't ever win an election ever again then so be it, but at the moment they are barely appealing to anyone.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Labour needs to appeal to the people that match their own values. If their values are really so narrow that they can't ever win an election ever again then so be it, but at the moment they are barely appealing to anyone.



What _values _do you mean? _The people that match their own values_ - who are these people? What _values _do you mean? I'm getting a contradiction here - that
1. Labour should have values, but
2. Should appeal to the values of 'the people'

This is like
1. Having a cake, but
2. Eating it.

You need to check your incoherence.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> What _values _do you mean? _The people that match their own values_ - who are these people? What _values _do you mean? I'm getting a contradiction here - that
> 1. Labour should have values, but
> 2. should appeal to he values of 'the people'
> 
> ...



Err no. Corbyn has values. The electorate has values. He needs to find the policies that he agrees with that will appeal to the electorate. And then campaign to win the election on those policies.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

Yes, presumably by ditching values ''the people'' don't like. Maybe also adopting a few new ones that they do like.

That's called _populism_, and its what you're advocating. Be honest about it


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> A general strike which would (wrongly) turn people against them. Any labour party should surely be proposing stronger legislation not just expecting unions to fight all the time for better conditions.
> 
> The presence of the 'gig' economy is another open goal. Left wing policies from Corbyn on them. Nothing of note.



Yeah, you're right re the open goal on the gig economy.

One really important thing is getting working people to see how they're being shafted. A large portion of the population work, and will be affected by pay freezes, zero hours, the 'race to the bottom' in terms of working conditions etc. Workers' right have been steadily eroded since Thatcher (and if the Blair/Brown government did anything specifically to address that, I must have blinked and missed it). Solidarity and a sense of community amongst the working population, and a recognition that the government and employers must be challenged on workers' rights, are all-important.

The Labour party is the one with the firm, historical and current links to trade unions, not the Tories nor LibDems nor Greens etc.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Yes, presumably by ditching values ''the people'' don't like. Maybe also adopting a few new ones that they do like.
> 
> That's called _populism_, and its what you're advocating. Be honest about it



Err no. Great banter though.

Are you saying that the electorate and the working class in particular do not share Corbyn's values as they stand?


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Are you saying that the electorate and the working class in particular do not share Corbyn's values as they stand?



As I understand things, that's what _you're _arguing.



B.I.G said:


> Err no. Great banter though.



Not really.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

oryx said:


> Yeah, you're right re the open goal on the gig economy.
> 
> One really important thing is getting working people to see how they're being shafted. A large portion of the population work, and will be affected by pay freezes, zero hours, the 'race to the bottom' in terms of working conditions etc. Workers' right have been steadily eroded since Thatcher (and if the Blair/Brown government did anything specifically to address that, I must have blinked and missed it). Solidarity and a sense of community amongst the working population, and a recognition that the government and employers must be challenged on workers' rights, are all-important.
> 
> The Labour party is the one with the firm, historical and current links to trade unions, not the Tories nor LibDems nor Greens etc.



Transport.
The NHS.
Education.
Law and Order.
The economy.
Vulnerable people in society.

These are all other open goals that Corbyn should have policies on that should be obvious. No idea why he doesn't.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> As I understand things, that's what _you're _arguing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.



Its not what I said thought.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its not what I said though.


It totally is:


B.I.G said:


> Labour needs to appeal to the people that match their own values. If their values are really so narrow that they can't ever win an election ever again then so be it, but at the moment they are barely appealing to anyone.





B.I.G said:


> Err no. Corbyn has values. The electorate has values. He needs to find the policies that he agrees with that will appeal to the electorate. And then campaign to win the election on those policies.



Also,


B.I.G said:


> Any labour party should surely be proposing stronger legislation not just expecting unions to fight all the time for better conditions.





B.I.G said:


> If he pushes unions the tories will just do away with the legislation asap when they get into power.



If the following gov't can ditch legislation on unions, they can ditch _*any *_legislation


----------



## Humberto (Mar 5, 2017)

A Labour leader worth their salt would  rigorously challenge the neoliberal orthodoxy and the austerity agenda it has spawned. Be against those that sell everything for buttons because their ideology demands it (even if it makes no sense) and look to reverse it. A Labour leader should confront this situation and have an effect in the short term and tell people what is really going on and where they are being led.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It totally is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. If the Tory party just abolished the NHS overnight it wouldn't lead to a massive electoral defeat?

As for everything else, you are deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote. Great banter as I already said.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

If I'm misunderstanding then it's not deliberate, it's because you keep contradicting yourself.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> If I'm misunderstanding then it's not deliberate, it's because you keep contradicting yourself.



No its not


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

Yes it is, and yes you do. sort yourself out.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Yes it is, and yes you do. sort yourself out.



Hahaha no I don't. For all my flaws, I am very consistent.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

Go on then, be _consistent _with this:

You asked


B.I.G said:


> Are you saying that the electorate and the working class in particular do not share Corbyn's values as they stand?


I replied that was what you were arguing, based on these posts:


B.I.G said:


> Labour needs to appeal to the people that match their own values. If their values are really so narrow that they can't ever win an election ever again then so be it, but at the moment they are barely appealing to anyone.





B.I.G said:


> Err no. Corbyn has values. The electorate has values. He needs to find the policies that he agrees with that will appeal to the electorate. And then campaign to win the election on those policies.



Then you posted:


B.I.G said:


> Any labour party should surely be proposing stronger legislation not just expecting unions to fight all the time for better conditions.





B.I.G said:


> If he pushes unions the tories will just do away with the legislation asap when they get into power.


So you'll need to explain how, if ''the tories'' can ''just do away with the legislation'' on unions, they can't do the exact same thing with whatever


B.I.G said:


> stronger legislation


you think Labour should be proposing.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Go on then, be _consistent _with this:
> 
> You asked
> 
> ...



Loads of people that vote Tory don't like or actively hate unions. Therefore they could pass legislation abolishing them and it might even help them at the ballot box. Its a very minor point though certainly not worth all these quotes.

Labour should propose a rise in the minimum wage, plus be against loopholes around it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

None of that has anything to do with what I posted, and in no way explains the blatant contradictions.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> None of that has anything to do with what I posted, and in no way explains the blatant contradictions.



There are no blatant contradictions but ok you win 

It would be useful if Labour proposed some policies that might help them win votes and maybe, just maybe, these policies could be in line with the ideas of the leadership.  oooh the contradictions!


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Labour should propose a rise in the minimum wage, plus be against loopholes around it.



Careful there. Someone'll write an angry letter to The Telegraph.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Careful there. Someone'll write an angry letter to The Telegraph.



Great banter again. Fine, the labour party should propose some hardcore revolutionary shit


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

Transport.
The NHS and Vulnerable People in Society.
Education.
Law and Order.
The economy.



B.I.G said:


> These are all other open goals that Corbyn should have policies on that should be obvious. *No idea why he doesn't.*



You numpty.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

I'M NOT EVEN IN THE LABOUR PARTY FFS


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Transport.
> The NHS and Vulnerable People in Society.
> Education.
> Law and Order.
> ...



People are always going to political websites to read up on their policies. That'sa lot of words to say not very much.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

You wanted policies, there they are.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> You wanted policies, there they are.



Election won then


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 5, 2017)

At least, if you want more specific policies, join up and go to meetings to argue for them. Obviously.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 6, 2017)

...then knock on doors and convince random neighbours to vote.

You know, all that stuff you seem to be expecting _other people_ to do...


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> At least, if you want more specific policies, join up and go to meetings to argue for them. Obviously.



I'll get right on that. I definitely spend a lot of time worrying about the Labour party and their policies.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 6, 2017)

o . . . . . k


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> ...then knock on doors and convince random neighbours to vote.
> 
> You know, all that stuff you seem to be expecting _other people_ to do...



Other people being the leader of the Labour party.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 6, 2017)

''other people'' being party activists, you numpty


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> ''other people'' being party activists, you numpty



Im expecting Corbyn to do it. He is after all paid. Good on the volunteers but I dont *expect* from them.


----------



## oryx (Mar 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Im expecting Corbyn to do it. He is after all paid.



You said that at an interesting moment!
Jeremy Corbyn's tax return appears to omit leader's salary - BBC News

I would be surprised if he'd done anything wrong - whatever anyone thinks about Corbyn he comes over as a fundamentally honest guy - but I bet the right-wing media will be all over this.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2017)

oryx said:


> You said that at an interesting moment!
> Jeremy Corbyn's tax return appears to omit leader's salary - BBC News
> 
> I would be surprised if he'd done anything wrong - whatever anyone thinks about Corbyn he comes over as a fundamentally honest guy - but I bet the right-wing media will be all over this.



Someone on here said he has always been on the right side of history, which is fair enough. 

I read those policies linked above, amazed he doesn't repeatedly go on about them all the time.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 6, 2017)

oryx said:


> You said that at an interesting moment!
> Jeremy Corbyn's tax return appears to omit leader's salary - BBC News
> 
> I would be surprised if he'd done anything wrong - whatever anyone thinks about Corbyn he comes over as a fundamentally honest guy - but I bet the right-wing media will be all over this.



JC's annual tax return fuck up seems to come round earlier and earlier each year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I'll get right on that. I definitely spend a lot of time worrying about the Labour party and their policies.


Good


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But how will your "actions to be taken" bring Labour the votes it need to win a general election or convince the public to overwhelmingly vote for 'actual change' sometime in the future?? I can't see that they will.
> 
> Yes I am looking for the quickest way to get the tories out and replace them with Labour because there are vulnerable people depending on it and because I know from experience as well as from the figures that essential services will be safer with a Labour government even if it isn't a left wing one.
> 
> ...


I'm going to answer the first bit when I have time, either at work this afternoon if it's quiet or later tonight.

Social democracy I said I roughly agreed with Wikipedia, bar a couple of points, I've said that the historical example in the UK of such a policy set is the post war social contract, what Shirley Williams says is about right, not sure about "create the conditions" phrasing as the policies create the outcomes directly, but the outcomes she states, sure, in a vague kind of way. (This doesn't mean that she herself was a social Democrat throughout her career and we'll never know if the sdp were because they never got power, and when the party they became did, well they were at one with the Tories so doesn't look good).


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> JC's annual tax return fuck up seems to come round earlier and earlier each year.



But he's getting by alright and having narrowed down his jam and gardening expenses he's on course for a new bike in 2021.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

Well Corbyn, for the first time, employed a private firm called PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is one of the four biggest accountancy firms in the world and has been ranked as  the most prestigious accounting firm in the world for seven consecutive years, as well as the top firm to work for in North America for three consecutive years.

It would seem like a wise decision after last year's scrutiny. But no.

*Willie Nelson* had employed PwC until he was prosecuted for tax evasion and he later sued Price Waterhouse, contending that they put him into tax shelters that were later disallowed by the IRS.
Willie Nelson Hopes for a Hit; So Does the I.R.S.

Then there were the infamous* Luxembourg Leaks*  is the name of a financial scandal revealed in November 2014.  It is centered on confidential information about Luxembourg tax rulings that were set up by PwC from 2002 to 2010 to the benefits of its clients. This investigation resulted in making available to the public tax rulings for over three hundred multinational companies based in Luxembourg. This had ramifications within the UK.
Luxembourg Leaks - Wikipedia

In fact in the UK alone, PwC was at the centre of financial controversies that involved *Northern Rock, BHS, Tesco.*

They even managed to hand Warren Beaty the *wrong envelope for Oscar winner of Best Film* this year.

Yes that was them.

So who was reponsible for this clusterfug?

Well if it was Jeremy, it was for choosing these clowns in the first place but he is in very good company.

I blame the people who are paid a lot of money to be responsible legally.

Incompetence on the part of PwC is to blame. That is, if all this was indeed unintentional.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 6, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> That is, if all this was indeed unintentional.



You could see the shaky scaffold of a strategy there: O'Donnell reveals his tax return which reveals he's fucking clueless at making money, attempts to put pressure on the Conservatives who are generally good at it, then JC is to increase the pressure by releasing his pathetic return, your move May/Hammond. Hang on, stand down lads, JC has fucked it all up.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

How did jeremy fuck it up?

Wasn't that the accountants paid to be responsible?

ffs


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> How did jeremy fuck it up?
> 
> Wasn't that the accountants paid to be responsible?
> 
> ffs



So it should be published without Jeremy checking it? His affairs are not massively complicated.

It's not a big deal, but you can't just say 'it's the accountants'.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

What actually happened:



> *Jeremy Corbyn* published his tax return yesterday. But if he was expecting universal acclamation, it did not quite work out like that because rightwing papers like the Sun and the Daily Mail suggested he had failed to declare the top-up to his MP’s salary that he receives for being leader of the opposition.
> 
> This lead to his office having to release a further statement late last night explaining that the extra salary had been declared, but in a different section of the tax return.



Jeremy Corbyn hits back at critics over his tax return, saying his taxes 'fully paid' - Politics live





So just the Scum and the Fail smearing shit and you just yum it up.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 6, 2017)

If that's what he's done then that's straightforward tax evasion as the pensions/benefits aren't taxed at the same rate as salary.


----------



## newbie (Mar 6, 2017)

oryx said:


> Yeah, you're right re the open goal on the gig economy.


really?  What is a 'left wing' policy on the gig economy that would be a certain vote winner, bearing in mind customers complaining their cab/curry/trainers/internet shopping will become more expensive?


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog

You and Jo Maugham wish, more like.

Nice to see you shit stirring with the best of them and taking the heat off Hammond.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2017)

It does make me feel sorry for those with 7 figure incomes though. It must all be very complicated.

Wouldn't it just be kinder to let them pay less?


----------



## Supine (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> If that's what he's done then that's straightforward tax evasion as the pensions/benefits aren't taxed at the same rate as salary.



No


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 6, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> DownwardDog
> 
> You and Jo Maugham wish, more like.
> 
> Nice to see you shit stirring with the best of them and taking the heat off Hammond.



I've been a Conservative supporter, member or voter since the Belgrano so I hope JC is LotO for a very, very long time to come.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 6, 2017)

newbie said:


> really?  What is a 'left wing' policy on the gig economy that would be a certain vote winner, bearing in mind customers complaining their cab/curry/trainers/internet shopping will become more expensive?



Lol lets cut all regulations then. Race to the bottom. I can see that being a left wing policy.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> I've been a Conservative supporter, member or voter since the Belgrano



My condolences.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> I've been a Conservative supporter, member or voter since the Belgrano so I hope JC is LotO for a very, very long time to come.


curious incident to spark your unwelcome affiliation


----------



## newbie (Mar 6, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Lol lets cut all regulations then. Race to the bottom. I can see that being a left wing policy.


If regulations to control the gig economy exist, then all that's required is enforcement, which is doubtless LP policy, but not a particularly compelling vote winner.  A 'left wing' LP policy now would not involve cutting regulation, it would involve creating new ones in order to keep up with the way 'the markets' force workers into a race to the bottom.  So what is the new 'open goal' policy?


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> If that's what he's done then that's straightforward tax evasion as the pensions/benefits aren't taxed at the same rate as salary.


If you look at the returns you will see the tax that was paid. Care to demonstrate this evasion to us? 

You can't because pensions are taxed in exactly the same way as salaries, as are most benefits.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

My comment at CiF which was identical to my post above PwC has vanished.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 6, 2017)

Um. Seems I was wrong yesterday to say there was no coverage in the Indy of the NHS march.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

Seems I was wrong about PsC doing Corbyn's accounts.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 6, 2017)

Makes some fairly obvious observations such as



> ..One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates..



and to be completely ruthless. I wonder if Corbyn and his team have the stomach for this?

Jeremy Corbyn can still lead the Labour Party into power – if he digs his heels in and removes his critics


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 6, 2017)

I doubt it would matter much who is leader of what was once the Labour Party...PASOKification is in full effect.

A squeaky neoliberal clone like Dan Jarvis might win the approval of the Daily Mail but I doubt very much would win back the droves of working class voters who have either deserted the party in the Blair year or who are so unconvinced by the current amateurish leadership that they simply sit on their hands at home.

The longer Corbyn and his team hold the reins the further a rudderless Labour will drift away from power. They aren't even a functioning opposition, let a lone a credible alternative government.

Labour should be at a historic high. Unless there are some remarkable turnarounds to come, the party is finished as a party of power right across the UK.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)




----------



## agricola (Mar 6, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Makes some fairly obvious observations such as
> 
> and to be completely ruthless. I wonder if Corbyn and his team have the stomach for this?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn can still lead the Labour Party into power – if he digs his heels in and removes his critics



That is *all* he needs to do.


----------



## agricola (Mar 6, 2017)

steeplejack said:


> *Labour should be at a historic high.* Unless there are some remarkable turnarounds to come, the party is finished as a party of power right across the UK.



I appreciate that this is a mantra that is repeated most days (and indeed has been repeated most days since the 2010 election), but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.  For a start, if Corbyn wasn't the leader the media wouldn't be owned by other, more fair-minded people, nor would the way that politics is funded be different, nor would the disaffected be silent, nor would Scotland suddenly come back into the fold.  The arguments over the EU referendum would be replaced by an idiotic and false unity that respected the right of people to vote but rejected utterly the actual vote itself.  The alternative leadership, especially if they were from the right of the party, wouldn't be able to make the criticisms of Government policy on tax and welfare (largely because they agreed with them), nor is there any real evidence to suggest that they could form a competent alternative Government.  Even the movement of politics in the English speaking world generally isn't heading in the direction of centrism, "soft-left" or whatever you want to call it.

Labour is in trouble, but it has been for the past fifteen or twenty years.  (edit)  All that has happened recently is that someone has appeared to suggest a way of fixing it.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

Tax transparency: Jeremy Corbyn’s tax return


> Jeremy’s tax return is complete and accurate. He has declared all income and paid the appropriate amount of tax.
> 
> The payment he received in 2015-16 as leader of the opposition of £27,192 appears on the return as a ‘benefit’ rather than as pay because that is how it is categorised by HMRC.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2017)

Baffling really, considering how badly it went last year, that they would try this stunt again without checking it was bulletproof.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

It was. Keep up.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2017)

Sure it was. He's had a great weekend.


----------



## agricola (Mar 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Sure it was. He's had a great weekend.



His biggest error was assuming that it would be reported accurately.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2017)

That seems a fairly elementary error.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2017)

Have May/Hammond published theirs?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 6, 2017)

I think not. Moreover Hammond has no intention of doing so.



> Following Chancellor Philip Hammond’s refusal to release his own tax return,



Jeremy Corbyn faces questions over release of his tax return


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I think not. Moreover Hammond has no intention of doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn faces questions over release of his tax return


Shouldn't be an option, should it?
Anyone who presumes to tax their fellow citizens should be compelled to complete personal tax transparency.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> That seems a fairly elementary error.



The fairly elementary error was not reading the tax return as far as page 3 of 6. And it was an intentional one.

You are basically saying that Corbyn should prevent people lying about him.

If all of your colleagues or neighbours decided to tell everybody they knew that you were crooked and dodged taxes, that would be slander.

By your standards, that would be your own fault.


----------



## agricola (Mar 6, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> The fairly elementary error was not reading the tax return as far as page 3 of 6. And it was an intentional one.
> 
> You are basically saying that Corbyn should prevent people lying about him.
> 
> ...



It is when you know exactly what they will do with it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2017)

Anything Corbyn releases into the world will be scoured by his enemies to find anything that can be used to show him up as incompetent, hypocritical, a jew hater, etc etc. Bearing that in mind, a cursory look over his tax return before emailing it to the political editors of all the newspapers might have made him pause for a second. 

_Hang on, where's my income as leader of her majesty's loyal opposition? Oh. Here it is, in benefits for some reason - I wonder why? Fucked if I know - not to worry though, I'm sure they'll all work it out. *send*_


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Makes some fairly obvious observations such as
> 
> and to be completely ruthless. I wonder if Corbyn and his team have the stomach for this?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn can still lead the Labour Party into power – if he digs his heels in and removes his critics





agricola said:


> That is *all* he needs to do.



Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

Does he need to ditch the likes of Mandelson etc - yes, can he afford to ditch a whole tranch of the centre - no.

If you think it needs to go further you are really thinking that you know better than the electorate who are to the right of you. That once the underbrush is cleared away they will see the obvious reason, self interest and morality in a socialist alternative. This is simply untrue. It wasn't true for Michael Foot on a fairly socialist manifesto in the early eighties and since then trade unionism and socialist culture have been in retreat. We now need a left that can speak to trade unionists, self employed people and all the other niches below the well off middle classes alike. Saying it has to be something well to the left of most of them is telling people they are wrong.

Have a purge of the most neo-liberal and destructive few, but keep other 'enemies' closer and build something through dialogue and compromise, which to be fair has probably been Corbyn's preference (party man that he is) all along.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Anything Corbyn releases into the world will be scoured by his enemies



But it wasn't scoured, was it? 

Exacly the opposite. It wasn't even read past the first page.

You can sort of see this as incompetence of Fail and Scum hacks, but for folks like tax specialist Jolyon Maugham QC, it's clearly orchestrated mud slinging of the most disingenuous kind. The fact that Jo has been a Labour Party stalwart, just goes to show how far the Right of the party will go to protect the Tories from harm, if it means damaging Corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2017)

You said it was intentional earlier. I agree fwiw, I think it was intentional on the part of the hacks. And avoidable on the part of Corbyn.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Wishful thinking I'm afraid.
> 
> Does he need to ditch the likes of Mandelson etc - yes, can he afford to ditch a whole tranch of the centre - no.
> 
> ...



In Lambeth (London) I don't see who the centre are. Lambeth Council is run by Progress. My local Cllr,who is not a Corbynite, finally had enough and publicly criticised the Leadership of the  ruling Labour group. She represents a Ward which is one of the most deprived in London. Despite gentrification many of her constituents are struggling. 

For this she was hauled in front of a committee and suspended for six months. To rejoin she is expected to acknowledge the error of her ways before another committee.

It's not just a few that are a problem. The Blairites / Progress supporters are ruthless in the way they run local Labour Party. If Lambeth is anything to go by they don't want compromise or dialogue. 

So from what I see in Lambeth the article is right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> In Lambeth (London) I don't see who the centre are. Lambeth Council is run by Progress. My local Cllr,who is not a Corbynite, finally had enough and publicly criticised the Leadership of the  ruling Labour group. She represents a Ward which is one of the most deprived in London. Despite gentrification many of her constituents are struggling.
> 
> For this she was hauled in front of a committee and suspended for six months. To rejoin she is expected to acknowledge the error of her ways before another committee.
> 
> ...



Well, you make a good point. Maybe I don't know how far the split should go.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 6, 2017)

Jeremy now has to publish each year and it will be difficult for any future leader not to follow suit.

It now allows him to say everyone who earns £1million plus should be required to do the same which in turn puts a bit of pressure on those individuals and hmrc to address avoidance and evasion .

Slighty different but all trade unions are required to publish the general secretarys salary ,inc the unions pension contributions as the employer (as if it were part of taxable salary ),the employers national insurance,the gs car allowance on the unions annual return to the certification officer.

So why not top politicians ,business types ,comedians,tv presenters,journos,barristers, sports men and women ,you name it etc etc.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 7, 2017)

Just to be clear about the whole "the problem is not his policies" stuff.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 7, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Just to be clear about the whole "the problem is not his policies" stuff.




Stephen Hawking: Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for Labour

“I regard Corbyn as a disaster.” “His heart is in the right place and many of his policies are sound, but he has allowed himself to be portrayed as a leftwing extremist.”


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 7, 2017)

While I have the utmost respect for Prof. Hawking, I have to wonder just how one allows oneself to be portrayed as an extremist. As you may have discovered, the press report what they wish whether or not it bears any resemblance whatsoever to the truth. Today,  in the same newspaper as your link, the reader is told that Osbourne is a "centerist" and a few days ago there was an article celebrating Dubya as an elder statesman.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 7, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> While I have the utmost respect for Prof. Hawking, I have to wonder just how one allows oneself to be portrayed as an extremist.



My top two would be:

(1) Being filmed not singing the national anthem in church. Don't get me wrong, it's hard to think of a worse song, but for the leader of the Labour Party, that was obviously stupid and self-defeating.
(2) Giving a TV interview where you appear unsure whether it was quite warranted for the police to use live bullets against the Bataclan attackers. Beyond mindboggling.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 7, 2017)

Stephen Hawking is well known as being one of the foremost political thinkers of our time.

Or is it physics he is famous for?  I always get those things mixed up.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Stephen Hawking: Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for Labour
> 
> “I regard Corbyn as a disaster.” “His heart is in the right place and many of his policies are sound, but he has allowed himself to be portrayed as a leftwing extremist.”



Yep - that's it, Corbyn is now scientifically proven (coz Hawking's said so, do you want to get in a debate with him?) to be a disaster, so you might as well pack up now......nothing to see here, move along....move along.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> You said it was intentional earlier. I agree fwiw, I think it was intentional on the part of the hacks. And avoidable on the part of Corbyn.


One of Blairs most sensible moves (pre97) was setting up the Rapid Rebuttal Unit. Nonsense like this got slapped down sharpish. Corbyn (and/or his team) must have known the tax return would be pored over, and that the extra salary looks peculiar when not listed as salary. So they should have been prepared. An immediate response saying why the commentating critics were wrong would have made them look silly. Instead the slow response made corbyn look unsure and uncertain. Poor planning.


----------



## JimW (Mar 7, 2017)

Maybe he'll do A Brief History of Jeremy Corbyn's Time Is Up.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2017)

JimW said:


> Maybe he'll do A Brief History of Jeremy Corbyn's Time Is Up.


Second Law of Corboeconomics


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2017)

Conservation of Momentum.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> My top two would be:
> 
> (1) Being filmed not singing the national anthem in church. Don't get me wrong, it's hard to think of a worse song, but for the leader of the Labour Party, that was obviously stupid and self-defeating.
> (2) Giving a TV interview where you appear unsure whether it was quite warranted for the police to use live bullets against the Bataclan attackers. Beyond mindboggling.


----------



## killer b (Mar 7, 2017)

oh wow, that pie feller shouting again. discussion _over_.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Conservation of Momentum.





Wilf said:


> Second Law of Corboeconomics



Labour approaches a black hole singularity and disappears up it's own backside?


----------



## Raheem (Mar 7, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>




I'm not sure what your point is with this video. You posed a question, I gave you an answer.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 7, 2017)

Meanwhile in other parts of the world a campaign starts they get  politcians to publish and pay their taxes.


We managed tax transparency in Pakistan. Why not everywhere else? | Umar Cheema


----------



## Supine (Mar 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Stephen Hawking is well known as being one of the foremost political thinkers of our time.
> 
> Or is it physics he is famous for?  I always get those things mixed up.



TBF Labour are rapidly descending into a black hole. We might need the prof to communicate with jezza soon.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Stephen Hawking is well known as being one of the foremost political thinkers of our time.
> 
> Or is it physics he is famous for?  I always get those things mixed up.



Yes, why anyone ever listens to anyone without a PPE degree is beyond me.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 7, 2017)

Indeed, we need a Cambridge Professor of Astrophysics to bring these North London muesli eating intellectuals and idealists back down to Earth.


----------



## killer b (Mar 7, 2017)

I bet that's what you said when he came out against Brexit and Trump too.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Stephen Hawking is well known as being one of the foremost political thinkers of our time.
> 
> Or is it physics he is famous for?  I always get those things mixed up.



He knows everything, it's a well known fact.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 7, 2017)

> I bet that's what you said when he came out against Brexit and Trump too.



Why, of course! If I support Corbyn, I must be a closet Brexiter and somehow a supporter of an sexist bigoted capitalist like the Donald!

How did you guess?

2@


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Well, you make a good point. Maybe I don't know how far the split should go.



I don't know how typical Lambeth is compared to the rest of the country. I know people who  rejoined when Corbyn was elected. It's been a bit of a shock for the ruling group to see these people turn up at constituency meetings. Instead of welcoming increased membership they don't like it. These people aren't hard left. They are traditional Old Labour. Believe in Council Housing etc. The response of the ruling Progress lot is to make damn sure none of these people get posts in the local party.

The alternative to the Progress dominated Labour party in Lambeth is the Greens. Who almost won a Council seat recently. Which one would have thought would have meant the ruling group would rethink there politics. But no. They are digging there heels in.

Cllr Matthew Bennett selected to stand for Labour in Gipsy Hill ward for 2018 Lambeth Council elections

I was chatting to someone I know who rejoined. He now supports Corbyn politics but does not think he should be leader.

The problem is the party is still full of Blairites /Progress supporters. They want Corbyn out to go back to the politics of the Third Way. Whilst I would say most people I know,even if they have doubts with Corbyn ,want something new.

My fear is that Corbyn will go and a whole swathe of people will feel disenfranchised again.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Stephen Hawking is well known as being one of the foremost political thinkers of our time.
> 
> Or is it physics he is famous for?  I always get those things mixed up.



And yet he is probably right.

Surely the objective opinion of an outsider who has what is undoubtedly a brilliant, free thinking, creative and analytical mind is as valid as that of someone who’s perpetually immersed in politics. In fact possibly more so.


----------



## Rimbaud (Mar 8, 2017)

steeplejack said:


> I doubt it would matter much who is leader of what was once the Labour Party...PASOKification is in full effect.



I think PASOKification would be what was happening if Corbyn wasn't leader. The election of Corbyn as leader was an attempt at preventing the PASOKification of the Labour Party - transforming it into SYRIZA instead of replacing it with a new party. This looks unlikely to happen though, as the Progress lot are simply impossible to cooperate with.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2017)

note hawking says 'allowed himself to be portrayed as' not ' corbyn is'


----------



## J Ed (Mar 8, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> note hawking says 'allowed himself to be portrayed as' not ' corbyn is'



Which is a really weird way of putting it. Sort of like saying 'young Jimmy has allowed himself to be put head first into a bin multiple times after school!!!'


----------



## kabbes (Mar 8, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he is probably right.
> 
> Surely the objective opinion of an outsider who has what is undoubtedly a brilliant, free thinking, creative and analytical mind is as valid as that of someone who’s perpetually immersed in politics. In fact possibly more so.


It's just an opinion about a perception of a man.  It's no more or less valid, actually, than anybody else's opinion about perception.  Arguably less valid in some way, mind, because he is the very definition of cloistered elite so what does he know about how the man on th street perceives the situation?


----------



## Supine (Mar 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Arguably less valid in some way, mind, because he is the very definition of cloistered elite so what does he know about how the man on th street perceives the situation?



You are joking surely. He got where he is through hard work and brilliance against the odds.  

The fact he is talking about Corbyn in such a way should be very worrying for the Labour Party. It's further evidence of how little the general population like him or believe he is the right man to lead a government.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 8, 2017)

Supine said:


> You are joking surely. He got where he is through hard work and brilliance against the odds.


So he's exactly like the rest of us, is what you're saying.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2017)

Both Hawkings's parents went to Oxford. He attended independent schools and also went to Oxford.

Same breaks as the rest of us then.


----------



## Supine (Mar 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> So he's exactly like the rest of us, is what you're saying.



I think you need to drink some strong coffee before attempting English comprehension!


----------



## Supine (Mar 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Both Hawkings's parents went to Oxford. He attended independent schools and also went to Oxford.
> 
> Same breaks as the rest of us then.



My parents both went to oxford. Didn't stop me from going to state school, failing my a levels and ending up at the Poly Of Wales


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2017)

Supine said:


> You are joking surely. He got where he is through hard work and brilliance against the odds.
> 
> The fact he is talking about Corbyn in such a way should be very worrying for the Labour Party. It's further evidence of how little the general population like him or believe he is the right man to lead a government.


Saying the LP needs a leader pursuing the same policy agenda as Corbyn, but not cast by the media as a left- wing extremist, demonstrates that his brilliance does not extend to politics.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2017)

I mean, Hawking clearly has a brilliant mind in his academic area, has worked hard and despite having to deal with motorneurone onset so early. But, why does that make his political opinion any more important or critical than anyone else?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2017)

Such a political mastermind...




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> Stephen Hawking, argued to be the most intelligent man on the planet, thinks that Ed Miliband is the best person to be Prime Minister.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2017)

I sure Hawking will be delighted that the chancellor was able to use his comments as a dig at Corbyn during the Budget statement today.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 8, 2017)

Supine said:


> I think you need to drink some strong coffee before attempting English comprehension!


My point was that he arguably has less insight into popular perception than the average man because he is cloistered.  You for some reason thought that an argument against this would be that he got where he is by being brilliant and hard working.  My response to that ("just like the rest of us then") was a sarcastic rejoinder, i.e. being brilliant and hard-working are not traits that give him insight into the perception of the average man.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's just an opinion about a perception of a man.  It's no more or less valid, actually, than anybody else's opinion about perception.  Arguably less valid in some way, mind, because he is the very definition of cloistered elite so what does he know about how the man on th street perceives the situation?



We won't know for sure until the next GE, but the men and women 'on the street' seem to be rejecting Corbyn in greater numbers than any other labour leader in the history of the party.

And what was that about elites?...

Disproportionate number of Labour’s new members are wealthy city dwellers

Middle-class university graduates will decide the future of the Labour Party

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the ‘if you’re not poor, disadvantaged or disabled then you can't understand it’ argument and it clearly has a hollow ring in Hawking's case.


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Have May/Hammond published theirs?


I spent quite a few seconds wondering what the fuck Top Gear had to do with this.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 8, 2017)

A taxing question?


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 8, 2017)

He had a bad start and first impressions last .Problem now is Brexit seems to inspire almost a war like fervour amongst some working class leavers -meaning they will support Maybe even when its obvious the negotiations are going down the toilet.

Crunch will come for Labour in 2019 when the final deal goes to Parliament -both parties will be split but Labour far worse than the Tories.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 8, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I spent quite a few seconds wondering what the fuck Top Gear had to do with this.



Well, Top Gear was shit and then they put some other people in charge of it and it only got shitter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Both Hawkings's parents went to Oxford. He attended independent schools and also went to Oxford.
> 
> Same breaks as the rest of us then.



I went to Oxford.
Took as long to get through the town, as it did to get from London to the town!


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But how will your "actions to be taken" bring Labour the votes it need to win a general election or convince the public to overwhelmingly vote for 'actual change' sometime in the future?? I can't see that they will.
> 
> Yes I am looking for the quickest way to get the tories out and replace them with Labour because there are vulnerable people depending on it and because I know from experience as well as from the figures that essential services will be safer with a Labour government even if it isn't a left wing one.



Apologies, life has got in the way hence delay in replying to this. Before I explain about actions to be taken, I just want to say that a government that isn't left wing is going to fuck over public services, that is the nature of a right wing government (the centre moves and is currently right wing). I really don't see how campaigning for a right wing government will deliver a left wing government at any point in the future so please also explain.

So actions, We need to look at this at three levels - the short term surface stuff, the mid term effects which are as much psychological as anything and the longer term deeper things.

Short term is really about campaigning. Campaign on an issue, get enough people onside and you'll push that issue into the centre of the overton window - from radical to sensible to popular to policy. If an issue is shown to be popular enough, parties will take on their demands as policy and parties offering to meet those demands will get votes from the people who want those things. I can't imagine you will disagree with this as it's just obvious isn't it? Getting people on side to social democratic ideas and policies is the difficult bit, but that's more about the next section than this one. At the moment social democracy is in the unthinkable/radical section of the overton window so naturally many people will need showing and convincing that these ideas are in fact sensible, it is not easy to do, especially when the nominally left wing / social democratic party is arguing against you.
successes in this area include UK Uncut, who put tax avoidance on the agenda massively, though little was done about it, and local campaigns to prevent specific council cuts. It hasn't delivered a left-wing government but at least we've got a left-wing leader of a party that has a chance of being elected - it's a long, long way to go but this is a sign of progress. Last few labour leader elections a left wing candidate hasn't even managed to get nominated, now one is leader with a clear majority of the votes in the election.

Mid term is about psychology. Going back to that quote from Thatcher - "the aim is to change the soul, the method is economics". Thatcher wanted to create a more individualisitic society, and to do so she looked to setup our material, economic world in such a way that we approach it individually, rather than collectively. Individualistic patterns of thought are more closely matched with capitalism than collective patterns of thoughts, which is why you get the libertarians who have a complete denial of the existence of community (and even thatcher said there's no such thing as society, only families and individuals). 
So you get rid of social housing. Social housing is a collective response to the issue of people needing decent homes. Instead you have private rental (intentionally made totally insecure to disrupt geographic communities and mean there's only one route to a secure home and private ownership - individual responses to the issue of me needing a decent home. Other examples of this include emphasis on private motor cars over public transport, privatisation generally, attacks on trade unions, attacks on social security.
Once you setup the structures of society to direct people towards individualistic patterns of thought, they will find it harder (or less natural) to think collectively. Often in society we are in some kind of prisoner's dillemma situation where the best result for an individual is at odds with the best result for everyone. I personally feel like I really saw that comparing the ways that student activists organised against cuts and viewed the world compared to people more of my age (which is only the generation before, I'm 38) during the anti-globalistion protests - I missed Climate Camp which I think is the transition between the two. Identity politics is also part of this - very much about the individual and not about the society or communities they live in.

Social democracy is based on collective responses to problems - social housing, social security, NHS, unionisation. To see these as the sensible responses to problems you need to be thinking collectively. Yes there is individual self-interest but not for wealthy people who hold most of the power (which I'll come onto in the next section) and also because of the prisoner's dillema type situations and the promise capitalism makes that if you just work hard enough you'll get a massive material reward, and that collective responses level things out so nobody can have that reward (but also mean nobody is totally fucked over). Rawls (an American liberal philsopher, 1950s iirc) reckoned that if you asked people if they wanted an even or uneven society, not knowing what their position would be in that society, most people (everyone?) would choose the even society unless the uneven society meant everyone was better off. I'm not so sure, there's lots of people who I think would gamble on the big reward believing it won't be them that get fucked over. At the same time I think humans have evolved as social animals and as such most people don't want to see anyone completely fucked and being in the real world are aware that most people don't get that massive reward.
So campaigns need to be working for things that are collective responses to problems. I highlighted social housing because at the moment there's a huge housing crisis, especially in London and the south east. Homes are too expensive for many to buy so the thatcherite idea of a home owning society is failing because of the material conditions of the world. Private rentals are shitty and expensive. Social housing solves a problem. Getting it implemented through campaigning (as in the first section) is not going to be easy but once it starts happening it should be something that grows quite quickly as the people who move out of private housing extol the benefits of it.
The way you organise is also important - destroying our local and work communities was important to thatcher because the more that we are individualised, the more we'll think individually. Rebuilding those communities matters in a way I can't really explain except that I know how important fucking them up was to thatcher and how the denial of community by libertarians is so central to their philosophy. 
We've got 40 or so years of this to roll back on. It won't be quick. But remember that in the post war period both the conservative and labour parties had broadly social democratic policies - getting back there isn't just about getting the Labour party to be a social democratic party, if we manage that it's likely the Conservative party will be too, because those policies will be in the sensible/popular range and they want to get elected. Of course the overton window might split, we live in interesting times. 

The last bit is about the deeper stuff. The structures of capitalism. Wealthy people don't directly benefit from the collective responses of social democracy. People who are rich are either born into it, which tends to be into a culture of entitlement, or they chose to get rich in which case being rich is something they want, and people in either category tend to want to keep their money. These are also the people who have the greatest access to power. To get social democracy you have to convince them to give you something they don't want to give you. How? With collective responses. We have power in numbers. 
To put it another way, a way I know you won't like, the wealthy people are capital. The state exists (in part) to protect capital from it's own short termism. If the working class act collectively then they can make elements of capital worried enough that they have just about dug enough of their own grave to push the state to act to force all of capital to relinquish a greater amount of the outcomes of production to the working class.
The best campaigns hit company bottom lines, this is why Boycott Workfare had successes - by driving companies and charities out of the workfare schemes.

So this is something that could be written about forever really but above is a start I guess. tl;dr? Campaign for collective solutions to problems. Make those campaigns community based and wherever possible seeking practical outcomes that can be achieved directly. The more that people think and act collectively, the more they will see collective solutions as sensible, the more they will see the advantages over individualised solutions. Get enough people seeing collective solutions and they will come into the popular range of the overton window and be likely to be enacted as policy. Put enough pressure on capital and you will get a better deal out of it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Such a political mastermind...


TBF he was probably right there.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2017)

Tories in full sneering bastard mode yesterday using Corbo to deflect from their ruthless incompetence.

I appreciate that opinions will be divided as to whether that is down to JC or wreckers within.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

Maybe they both should go: Corbyn resigns if all MPs have to face mandatory reselction.

How about that?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2017)

It sounds on the whole, quite democratic. But obv not possible now to fight 200+ by-elections and it's still a while until the next GE.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

Oh well, then. Let's just boot Jezza out, get Dan Jarvis in and start drawing up the New Labour manifesto!

1) Hard Choices. (i.e. more cuts/austerity)
2) Third Way cooperation with the private sector. (more deregulation, tax breaks and back door privatisation)
3) Strong Defence with Major Jarvis (billions wasted on a US controlled Trident and more wars in the ME)
4) Uniting Labour Party (purge anything left of Owen Smith and get choosing future Labour leaders in the hands of the PLP behind closed doors).

Any reseemblance to the Tories is completely coincidental. After all, that is what the electorate are told they want.

It reminds me of what my late uncle's abusive neighbour said: "She knows she deserves a good slap, now and then".


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Oh well, then. Let's just boot Jezza out, get Dan Jarvis in and start drawing up the New Labour manifesto!
> 
> 1) Hard Choices. (i.e. more cuts/austerity)
> 2) Third Way cooperation with the private sector. (more deregulation, tax breaks and back door privatisation)
> ...



Not really my bag, but if it's yours enjoy.

Is 'My late uncle's abusive neighbour' one of those 'Mondeo Man' type terms?


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

It was a figurative comparison: Saying that the population really wants austerity (with its foodbanks, homeless, suicides et.al.) is akin to an abusive partner saying that the victim of their abuse "knows they deserve it". A rather unpleasant comparison but not an inaccurate one, IMHO.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Apologies, life has got in the way hence delay in replying to this. Before I explain about actions to be taken, I just want to say that a government that isn't left wing is going to fuck over public services, that is the nature of a right wing government (the centre moves and is currently right wing). I really don't see how campaigning for a right wing government will deliver a left wing government at any point in the future so please also explain.
> 
> So actions, We need to look at this at three levels - the short term surface stuff, the mid term effects which are as much psychological as anything and the longer term deeper things.
> 
> ...



Thanks Tom, you clearly care a lot about this, but I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree about Corbyn.

I share your goal for a fairer and equal society gained through the democratic process, but as you say, that won’t happen for generations if it even happens at all.

So while we’re waiting, why not have a centre left party like Labour (not ‘right wing’ as you describe them) be in a position to gain power to counterbalance the relentless tory assault on ordinary working people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I share your goal for a fairer and equal society gained through the democratic process, but as you say, that won’t happen for generations if it even happens at all.


it won't happen because you can't vote a fairer and more equal society into being. 

next.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So while we’re waiting, why not have a centre left party like Labour (not ‘right wing’ as you describe them) be in a position to gain power to counterbalance the relentless tory assault on ordinary working people?



Because the very notion of "centre" (and therefore "centre-left") is constantly drifting further rightwards. Just this week, in the "centre left" Guardian, Rafael Behr, (once writer for the "centre-left" New Statesman) just decribed George Osborne as "center-left".

A new party of the centre? It makes fixing Labour seem easy | Rafael Behr

What's Tory today is "centre left" tomorrow. So fuck that.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Just this week, in the "centre left" Guardian, Rafael Behr, (once writer for the "centre-left" New Statesman) just decribed George Osborne as "center-left".


No he didn't. If you're gonna quote shit articles, at least quote them accurately. 

Corbyn is/was a means to an end, the man himself is almost immaterial. Which is part of the problem. For all his strengths he hasn't made much of an impact upon the wider public or cohered Momentumites into an organised unit with a specific aim. He needs to come up with something sharpish or he's completely fucked.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> No he didn't. If you're gonna quote shit articles, at least quote them accurately.



My bad. RB described Gideon the Cunt as "Centre" then. So slightly left  of Osborne is "centre-left". Point still stands: Tory today is "centre" tomorrow and "cenre left" the day after.

Fuck that.



> So why not something new? On the face of it, there is a vacancy for a party of the centre, straddling the liberal wing of the Tory party and New Labour in exile





> A new movement will struggle to catch the popular imagination if its most famous patrons are Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, George Osborne and Nick Clegg.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Because the very notion of "centre" (and therefore "centre-left") is constantly drifting further rightwards. Just this week, in the "centre left" Guardian, Rafael Behr, (once writer for the "centre-left" New Statesman) just decribed George Osborne as "center-left".
> 
> A new party of the centre? It makes fixing Labour seem easy | Rafael Behr
> 
> What's Tory today is "centre left" tomorrow. So fuck that.



Neo-liberal think tanks like the IPPR(set up by Patricia Hewitt, now on board of U.S health multi-national) which worked on welfare reform for NL, and Demos, currently pushing smart card for benefits(partnered with Mastercard) are frequently described as 'centre left'. Orwell would have had a field day with the manipulation of political language.


----------



## agricola (Mar 9, 2017)

McDonnell's budget response has been fantastic, don't know if anyone else has been watching it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2017)

agricola said:


> McDonnell's budget response has been fantastic, don't know if anyone else has been watching it.


It doesn't really matter what they say - we get this sort of arse Hammond was a picture of relaxed swagger – because he was in the ring alone regardless.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It doesn't really matter what they say - we get this sort of arse Hammond was a picture of relaxed swagger – because he was in the ring alone regardless.





> They can even jab an elbow in the eye of a group that in the Cameron/Osborne era was identified as a crucial voting bloc – those they called “strivers” – confident that those voters have nowhere else to go. The calculation is that the self-employed may hate this rise in NICs, but they’re never going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.



Nobody will vote for Corbyn because he's unelectable because nobody will vote for him because he's unelectable... repeat ad nauseam for years on end.

Hell, I could do that. And with more compelling prose too. I should write to the Guardian demanding they give me Freedland's job. I could use the flawless logical framework of: Jonathan Freedland is a cunt because he's obviously a cunt and nobody wants to read columns written by a cunt and Freedland is a cunt so give me his job.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 9, 2017)

It wasn't lost on some of the most upvoted comments on CiF.




			
				martyc73 said:
			
		

> Well that's your view. I must have watched something completely different because Corbyn was excellent. It would obviously help of course if the people sitting behind him would stop their childish games. And it was utterly embarrassing to watch the Tories laugh and sneer when he was particularly standing up for quite vulnerable people in society but again, that doesn't matter at all these days to Jonathan and co. as it must seem light years away from OxBridge debating societies falling over themselves arguing over the width of a cigarette paper. The journalistic profession these days really does need a good flush-out. All Tories pretending to be anti-Tory. You're a joke.






			
				Dbev07 said:
			
		

> More pre-cooked attacks on Corbyn in the Grauniad instead of focussing on the real enemy. Utterly pathetic. Call yourself a newspaper of the Left? Not anymore. You seem content to keep the Tories in power while offering nothing positive. I'm starting to feel you're happier with May than you ever would be with Corbyn hence the constant attacks.






			
				Brian Levy said:
			
		

> Hammond was not in the ring alone.... He had you, Freedland,


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Thanks Tom, you clearly care a lot about this, but I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree about Corbyn.
> 
> I share your goal for a fairer and equal society gained through the democratic process, but as you say, that won’t happen for generations if it even happens at all.
> 
> So while we’re waiting, why not have a centre left party like Labour (not ‘right wing’ as you describe them) be in a position to gain power to counterbalance the relentless tory assault on ordinary working people?



I mean how I see it is that centre left = left wing. Not left wing = right wing. So if you are saying Labour even if not left wing then you are saying Labour even if right wing, which makes no sense to me. You meant it differently obviously but that's why I said right wing.

Like Mikey said, the centre shifts, I don't see New Labour as centre left anyway, they are centre right but the more you argue for that position the more you solidify the centre as being right wing, and the more extreme/radical left wing positions appear. It's not that I'm against a slightly less awful party but I think that if you argue for centre positions what you do is uphold the status quo (which is always going to lean right in capitalism, as wealth ~= power) and make an actually left wing government less likely to come into power in the future. I don't see it being worth spending time/energy arguing/campaigning directly for this, as I think it pushes a proper left wing government further away, not brings it closer.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2017)

Worth reading this article for the final paragraph. Fair play.

'Gang of Four' say 'dangerous' Jeremy Corbyn should quit before 2020 election


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 9, 2017)

Damaged Goods.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> Worth reading this article for the final paragraph. Fair play.
> 
> 'Gang of Four' say 'dangerous' Jeremy Corbyn should quit before 2020 election


Odd - there's a whiny one from Toynbee trying to rehabilitate the SDP in the Guardian as well - Should today’s Labour pick up where the SDP left off? This play makes you wonder | Polly Toynbee


----------



## Sue (Mar 9, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Odd - there's a whiny one from Toynbee trying to rehabilitate the SDP in the Guardian as well - Should today’s Labour pick up where the SDP left off? This play makes you wonder | Polly Toynbee


Still hankering after those halcyon days.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2017)

'Odd'


----------



## Captain Christy (Mar 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> Worth reading this article for the final paragraph. Fair play.
> 
> 'Gang of Four' say 'dangerous' Jeremy Corbyn should quit before 2020 election


Do we need old man Corbyn with his finger on the button?


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2017)

Oh yes. Definitely.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'Odd'


I suppose the odd part is that any of them think this SDP bollocks is going to do anything but boost JC, though self delusion is a limitless resource for old politicians (see also Blair).


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> Damaged Goods.


Send em back


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody will vote for Corbyn because he's unelectable because nobody will vote for him because he's unelectable... repeat ad nauseam for years on end.
> 
> Hell, I could do that. And with more compelling prose too. I should write to the Guardian demanding they give me Freedland's job. I could use the flawless logical framework of: Jonathan Freedland is a cunt because he's obviously a cunt and nobody wants to read columns written by a cunt and Freedland is a cunt so give me his job.



Its relentless, especially with Freedland, its not criticism, its character assassination

btw, i agree, McDonnell has been superlative in his response, Corbyn same, but he missed the big one, the NI debacle.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 9, 2017)

Havan't seen McDonnell's stuff yet.

But I was fucking furious with Freedland's article. As was obvious, it was an anti-Corbyn rant disguised as some sort of Budget 'analysis'

But did Corbyn *really* miss Hammond's National Insurance debacle (for the self employed)???


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2017)

McDonnell missed his flight to get to QT last night, bit of a shame.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean how I see it is that centre left = left wing. Not left wing = right wing. So if you are saying Labour even if not left wing then you are saying Labour even if right wing, which makes no sense to me. You meant it differently obviously but that's why I said right wing.
> 
> Like Mikey said, the centre shifts, I don't see New Labour as centre left anyway, they are centre right but the more you argue for that position the more you solidify the centre as being right wing, and the more extreme/radical left wing positions appear. It's not that I'm against a slightly less awful party but I think that if you argue for centre positions what you do is uphold the status quo (which is always going to lean right in capitalism, as wealth ~= power) and make an actually left wing government less likely to come into power in the future. I don't see it being worth spending time/energy arguing/campaigning directly for this, as I think it pushes a proper left wing government further away, not brings it closer.



That amounts to arguing that the next two, three generations or even more need to be sacrificed for something which _might possibly _emerge sometime in the future. No thanks.

Also, there’s no guarantee that if or when the electorate permanently reject toryism, they’ll choose to replace it with socialism. It’s impossible to predict what will happen to sway opinion between now and then despite how much we try to make it positive.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it won't happen because you can't vote a fairer and more equal society into being.
> 
> next.



So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?

Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?
> 
> Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??




No, I agree with pickmans.


Andrew Hertford said:


> That amounts to arguing that the next two, three generations or even more need to be sacrificed for something which _might possibly _emerge sometime in the future. No thanks.
> 
> Also, there’s no guarantee that if or when the electorate permanently reject toryism, they’ll choose to replace it with socialism. It’s impossible to predict what will happen to sway opinion between now and then despite how much we try to make it positive.



No it doesn't, and as I had the courtesy to explain, briefly at least, how I see it leading to a left wing govt, please can you explain how you see supporting a not left wing party ever leads to a left wing government, because I don't think it ever will or can so as far as I'm concerned it's you who is abandoning everyone for indefinite toryism.
(I never said anything about permanent either, whatever gains we make we'll have to fight to keep, I agree with pickmans btw, we get what we get because of action outside the ballot box, which gives us something of an actual choice when voting comes around)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??


Yes


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> ...But did Corbyn *really* miss Hammond's National Insurance debacle (for the self employed)???



Yup, he did. Shades of Milliband and the deficit.

Contrary to reports, Corbyn did not give a superlative performance, he simply made speech 'A' - his domestic policy speech - one of two he has been making for the last 30 years. It was certainly passionate, and it was a withering criticism of where our society and economy has ended up, but it wasn't a response to the budget, it contained no dissection of the budget, it made no reference to errors, broken promises or black holes in the thinking. It was simply Corby making the same speech he always makes.

If you want the same opinion from a Corbynite, Rachel Bailey-Long was on Radio 5 in the afternoon after the budget and was asked why Corbyn had made no reference to the NIC increase in his speech. She said that Labour had only heard the budget at the same time as everyone else while his speech had been prepared beforehand - she was saying that he could not be expected to either think on his feet or respond to something that had only been announced 20 minutes previously.

Vote Jeremy, he only takes 24 hours to react to anything...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Yup, he did. Shades of Milliband and the deficit.
> 
> Contrary to reports, Corbyn did not give a superlative performance, he simply made speech 'A' - his domestic policy speech - one of two he has been making for the last 30 years. It was certainly passionate, and it was a withering criticism of where our society and economy has ended up, but it wasn't a response to the budget, it contained no dissection of the budget, it made no reference to errors, broken promises or black holes in the thinking. It was simply Corby making the same speech he always makes.
> 
> ...



Still quicker than you (and the PM for that matter).

Seriously it's the shadow chancellor who responds in detail; the leader of the opposition delivers a prepared speech...and Corbyn's wasn't bad at all. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes



One likely to happen?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> One likely to happen?


I'd expect so


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd expect so



In the U.K? Any sort of timeframe. Years or in geological periods?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> In the U.K? Any sort of timeframe. Years or in geological periods?


yes and yes


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes and yes



So essentially that's a 'no' then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> So essentially that's a 'no' then.


by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.

ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 10, 2017)

Now 19 points behind in the polls. _Nobody else would do any better._ Remember, that's the line.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.
> 
> ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.



Indulged lol. You do appear to have an inflated sense of your wisdom.

You know exactly what I'm asking, it's not a new one, whether the left puts it's efforts into Parliamentary democracy or in building for something beyond. Neither have satisfactory answers, but that doesn't generally stop you from assuming one has the high ground.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 10, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Now 19 points behind in the polls. _Nobody else would do any better._ Remember, that's the line.



The Tories' biggest threat could well be their own complacency .... 

Three years is a long time in politics (assuming there really won't be another GE until 2020, which admittedly isn't a safe bet).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Indulged lol. You do appear to have an inflated sense of your wisdom.
> 
> You know exactly what I'm asking, it's not a new one, whether the left puts it's efforts into Parliamentary democracy or in building for something beyond. Neither have satisfactory answers, but that doesn't generally stop you from assuming one has the high ground.


you assume there is high ground to be had.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 10, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Now 19 points behind in the polls. _Nobody else would do any better._ Remember, that's the line.



Odd. A _Tory _voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.  

And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you assume there is high ground to be had.



No I'm assuming you assume it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> No I'm assuming you assume it.


yeh. well you're wrong.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Odd. A _Tory _voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.
> 
> And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?



Cake and eat it.

But also they do understand that even Labour's mildly left policies appeal to millions of voters. They are more concerned about them than they like to let on. So they must be trashed.

It's also because they are triumphalist right wing cnuts who think they have won some mighty victory.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 10, 2017)

I don't completely buy that. I would if the stories were not as frequent and wildly exaggerated. Nope, I think Tories would be happiest knowing that should the unthinkable Conservative defeat ever happen, a sensible (i.e. Tory-Lite) party would temporarily replace them. Somebody like Tristram, Dan or Liz would fit their world-view of Right & Proper in the way that Downton Abbey or Sid James does. Help them sleep at night.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ...And also: Why do so many Tory Newspaper editors and political want rid of jeremy, if he is supposedly going to ensure perpetual Conservative governments?



Three reasons, one honest, two scheming: the first is that you will find any number of Tories in the media who will echo William of Walworth in thinking that any Government that doesn't have an effective opposition nipping at its heels and regularly landing punches will soon get lazy and complacent, eventually becoming its own worst enemy and in the end losing an election because its supporters just get sick of the endless screw ups and drift. 

The second is they know their audience: they know how easy it is to bait the left in to doing what they want. The more they slag Corbyn down the tighter the membership will cling on to him regardless of what the polls say and what their own experiences on the doorsteps tell them.

The third is selfish: if, as the GE of 2020 approaches, the Tories are on a solid 40% and Labour are barely touching 30% with the swing seats in the Midlands utterly unwinnable and Corbyns personal ratings in the toilet, the editors and proprietors of those newspapers will have no great influence over the government. The media have influence when the govt needs them to swing an election, but little when that government could be filmed drowning puppies and it would still cruise to a 100 seat majority.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Odd. A _Tory _voter ridiculing Corbyn's chances of winning a GE in 2020. You'd think he'd/se'd want jeremy to stay leader.



I'm not ridiculing Corbyn's chances, I'm ridiculing the Corbynite old believers who continue to maintain that nobody else could do any better. McDonnell would probably only be 15 behind just because he's less lazy and stupid than Corbyn.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 10, 2017)

"lazy and stupid", that's a new one.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 10, 2017)

"Common wisdom" amongst the Liberal media is that the bad press that Hillary got meant she lost her lead over Trump. They don't blame Clinton, they blame Putin/Russia/Alt-Right fake news.

Yet, in some act of Orwellian doublethink that would have O'Brien applauding, such excuses are not afforded Jeremy Corbyn, who "allows himself" apparently to be lied about. Now, if somebody as powerful as Hillary, with her popularity amongst pundits, celebs and Dem-backing channels like MSNBC etc. cannot win in the face of Right Wing fake news and spin, what chance does ANY left, centre-left or centre candidate have?

Your faith in the New Hope candidat might be misplaced in what is just a pipe dream.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 10, 2017)

Fantastic NS piece today about tactics for challengers to Corbyn - How to win the next Labour leadership election in 8 easy steps - but this is probably the best bit:


> Every analysis of the phenomenon of Jeremy Corbyn’s support talks about the appeal of his principles. Every criticism of it, at some point, talks about electability.
> 
> Future leadership contenders should pay heed to the numbers: few swing members value moderate totems like “moving the party to the centre” or “understanding what it takes to win an election”. While it’s tempting to dismiss these voters, the evidence suggests that when it comes to Jeremy, the swing voters are there for the movement, not the man.
> 
> This is where challengers should focus their energy - people who put a premium on electability are already in the bag. That means showing a bit of passion, having principles, and painting in primary colours on the issues that matter to swing voters. You don’t build (or co-opt) a movement by equivocating.


"Voters don't appreciate the real issues like centrism. We know you don't care about them, but you have to pretend to have principles. I dunno, have a simplistic rant about stuff, that's what they like."


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 10, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> "lazy and stupid", that's a new one.


S'okay, s/he's saving "smelly and dirty" for later. It will be accompanied with chanting "na nee na na", shrill squeals of "got the lurgy" and frantic running around the schoolyar with arms flailing.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 10, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fantastic NS piece today about tactics for challengers to Corbyn - How to win the next Labour leadership election in 8 easy steps - but this is probably the best bit:
> 
> "Voters don't appreciate the real issues like centrism. We know you don't care about them, but you have to pretend to have principles. I dunno, have a simplistic rant about stuff, that's what they like."


It's interesting in terms of the _calculations and pitch_ that a future challenger should make, though less so with regard to the way the internal party dynamics plot onto what is needed to win popular support. The points made about picking up pro-Europeans are at the heart of that contradiction.

All parties end up in a truly dire position from time to time, some actually disappear.  I don't think Labour will, it still benefits from its position in a first past the post system. Stoke was important too. However if there's a further disaster in the local elections it's probably at it's lowest point since... the 30s?  Real problem is there's no obvious route out of it, centre right control of the machine and MPs Vs social democratic membership and leader.  No obvious way for either position to win out and put together a plausible electoral package.  Maybe if the party's collective depression deepens later in the year, there's scope for a year zero candidate, talk of transforming it as an institution, moving out into the real world and all that. Trouble is Labour's roots are so shallow - and middle class - it's not obvious how it could actually achieve that.


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2017)

Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc


only this morning i got onto the street. i'll be back on the street in an hour. and i'll see if i can fit in some door knocking while i'm there.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2017)

It could really piss people off all this door knocking. We used to do it when we were 12 then run off.


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 10, 2017)

I  hardly think the union-busting NS is fit to offer pointers toward improving society.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It could really piss people off all this door knocking. We used to do it when we were 12 then run off.


Put dog shit in a bag, leave it on doorstep, set it on fire and knock. Houseowner opens door and stamps on bag to put fire out.... actually no, you're right, best stick to focus groups and party political broadcasts.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Its not the same everywhere, there are now real attempts to get on the streets, door knocking, etc


I don't dismiss that, but it's only the sort of thing that has any impact if you already have roots in communities. There are all sorts of half hearted quick fix things Labour can do, such as holding their CLP and branch meetings in _places_, moving away from their own buildings, town centres and union offices - along with losing their anxiety about organisational purity, holding meetings with other groups etc.  But in the end this is about decades of departure by Labour as an organisation, that precedes even the Blairites.  If they can't overturn that, they are just another disconnected political party. In Corbyn's case they are doing a 70s social democratic tribute act, but a free floating version that thinks it can still draw on a Labourist tradition and identity that just isn't there any more.  Offering that up to the voters is pitiful.


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2017)

They do hold CLP meetings in community places. The problem is more with them being on Friday evenings (cos the mp can get back for them)


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I don't dismiss that, but it's only the sort of thing that has any impact if you already have roots in communities. There are all sorts of half hearted quick fix things Labour can do, such as holding their CLP and branch meetings in _places_, moving away from their own buildings, town centres and union offices - along with losing their anxiety about organisational purity, holding meetings with other groups etc.  But in the end this is about decades of departure by Labour as an organisation, that precedes even the Blairites.  If they can't overturn that, they are just another disconnected political party. In Corbyn's case they are doing a 70s social democratic tribute act, but a free floating version that thinks it can still draw on a Labourist tradition and identity that just isn't there any more.  Offering that up to the voters is pitiful.


The CLP and branch meetings I attend are all held in community centres, churches etc not Union or party buildings.  Most door knocking should now involve two way dialogue with the voters, not just identifying the vote for future harvest, which was the new labour machine way, and of course, many of the members - especially those that joined post-Corbyn, are deeply involved in their local communities on tennants associations, single issue campaigns and local consultation groups etc. 
The membership is far larger than the activist base, but a lot of activists energy goes into the logistics of leafletting and door knocking, as with the hostility of the media, it's one of our only ways to get a message out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Southlondon said:


> I am a leftie in the party becaus I want to help elect MPs that won't attack my living standards. More council tenants and and benefit-experienced etc members in positions of power and I would hope we can refocus to protecting and enhancing our living standards


And how's that going?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

BigTom said:


> No, I agree with pickmans.
> 
> No it doesn't, and as I had the courtesy to explain, briefly at least, how I see it leading to a left wing govt, please can you explain how you see supporting a not left wing party ever leads to a left wing government, because I don't think it ever will or can so as far as I'm concerned it's you who is abandoning everyone for indefinite toryism.
> 
> (I never said anything about permanent either, whatever gains we make we'll have to fight to keep, I agree with pickmans btw, we get what we get because of action outside the ballot box, which gives us something of an actual choice when voting comes around)



But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.

In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means: but i wouldn't expect a change of government to take years or indeed a geological era.
> 
> ask a meaningful question or fuck off, i've indulged you quite enough.



Then you need to explain precisely _how_ we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.
> 
> In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?



Well, I would say that under new labour public services got less quickly screwed than under the previous conservative governments (although we've still not seen the full ramifications of PFI). The following conservative government had a very rare opportunity to run with that, labour in 2010 and 2015 ran on austerity platforms that would have screwed public services a bit more slowly than the tories did though. If you keep electing labour governments formed from the right of the party then how does that protect public services? They get run down a bit more slowly? Isn't that abandoning ordinary people? If you want to protect public services then you need to be supporting a party formed from the left of the labour party. The more you argue for a party from the right, which does not support social democracy, the more you solidify the idea that social democracy is radical, unthinkable. It becomes less likely to happen. Public services will die, back to the victorian age. Maybe you can delay it by a few years but you can't stop it let alone reverse it. I want a path to social democracy, not away from it.

You don't get change by voting for it. You get change by forcing capital to yield more of the outcomes of capitalism to the working class. The voting part of things happens almost as a byproduct of that. If you put enough pressure on capital then the only realistic choices available to vote for will be ones offering a better settlement, if you don't then your choice will be shit or shitter. Somewhere in between that lies ok and shit and I guess the possibility of better and shit but that's rare I think. Ultimately that pressure expresses itself through the state which means voting, but the change comes before the voting, not as a result of it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then you need to explain precisely _how_ we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.



A Government could fall, or be forced to act in any way the people choose as long as enough people down tools and pressure it to do so. But Pickman's isn't going to answer you on the likelihood of that.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 11, 2017)

I think jezza should stay.Given the 52 per cent leavers plus tory remainers he has a mountain to climb.So I can happily sacrifice him rather than a more suitable leader in 2020.Not sure any current labour mp would even stop the Tories getting a majority let alone win outright.

Registered supporters will give up on Labour and he gets the blame-whats not to like.

Some labour mps would of course lose under him that wouldnt under a more centrist figure.But heyho assuming Brexit turns sour by 2021/22 Labour has a fair chance of doing significantly better in 2024/5 .

Whether the jocks will still be involved by then who knows.And whether the uk is a gonna or a federal version rises from the ashes is equally uncertain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes



"First catch your politicians..."


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Well, I would say that under new labour public services got less quickly screwed than under the previous conservative governments (although we've still not seen the full ramifications of PFI). The following conservative government had a very rare opportunity to run with that, labour in 2010 and 2015 ran on austerity platforms that would have screwed public services a bit more slowly than the tories did though. If you keep electing labour governments formed from the right of the party then how does that protect public services? They get run down a bit more slowly? Isn't that abandoning ordinary people? If you want to protect public services then you need to be supporting a party formed from the left of the labour party. The more you argue for a party from the right, which does not support social democracy, the more you solidify the idea that social democracy is radical, unthinkable. It becomes less likely to happen. Public services will die, back to the victorian age. Maybe you can delay it by a few years but you can't stop it let alone reverse it. I want a path to social democracy, not away from it.
> 
> You don't get change by voting for it. You get change by forcing capital to yield more of the outcomes of capitalism to the working class. The voting part of things happens almost as a byproduct of that. If you put enough pressure on capital then the only realistic choices available to vote for will be ones offering a better settlement, if you don't then your choice will be shit or shitter. Somewhere in between that lies ok and shit and I guess the possibility of better and shit but that's rare I think. Ultimately that pressure expresses itself through the state which means voting, but the change comes before the voting, not as a result of it.



Well I’m not going to keep going round in circles repeating myself. Just out of interest, would you have described Ed Miliband’s Labour Party as ‘a party of the right’?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> A Government could fall, or be forced to act in any way the people choose as long as enough people down tools and pressure it to do so. But Pickman's isn't going to answer you on the likelihood of that.



But even if a government has been pressured into submission, whether they fall or are given another chance is still down to the electorate.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But even if a government has been pressured into submission, whether they fall or are given another chance is still down to the electorate.



Not exactly. If through disobedience the people made the country ungovernable the Tory Government could be told to go away and maybe even for the current players to not even consider participating again. But it's very unlikely.

Similar events took place in France in May 68 with the Government brought to the brink by strikes and actions. But also nearly a million marched for the Government. 

I'm not saying such things are likely and that's why I hope we get decent Labour Government that isn't more of the same. But it's true that politics is more than just ballots.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not exactly. If through disobedience the people made the country ungovernable the Tory Government could be told to go away and maybe even for the current players to not even consider participating again. But it's very unlikely.
> 
> Similar events took place in France in May 68 with the Government brought to the brink by strikes and actions. But also nearly a million marched for the Government.
> 
> I'm not saying such things are likely and that's why I hope we get decent Labour Government that isn't more of the same. But it's true that politics is more than just ballots.



As you say, very unlikely.

After 1968, the conservative Gaullists stayed in power until 1981. In the UK in 1974, the tories caved in to pressure from the miners and called an election which they lost. But in both cases it was the electorate who made the final decision. They are ultimately the only ones who can change a government.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well I’m not going to keep going round in circles repeating myself. Just out of interest, would you have described Ed Miliband’s Labour Party as ‘a party of the right’?



I mean i've asked you to explain how voting for a right labour party will get you social democracy but you haven't even tried to explain.

Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2017)

If there's a good thing about the continued failure of Labour Party to not be a useless bag of arseholes and its berserker rage on smelling even a hint of socialism, it's to emphasise that it really isn't going to save us.

I mean, for a brief period with JC there was a feeling that maybe now there was a point in getting Labour involved in political action, but it's kind of a relief to see that the party is completely committed to not going there. Despite all the stuff about "electability" they are clearly prepared to sacrifice even that to get rid of JC (constant infighting and undermining of proposals being death for electability). Back to business as usual then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But Labour not getting elected does mean permanent tory government. We’ll just have to disagree about what is ‘left’ or ‘right’ of centre, but there’s no question that public services do better under Labour governments that tory ones.
> 
> In what way do you agree with pickman? He says that change can’t come by voting for it. I thought your route was to change people’s perceptions and demands (and by extension party policies) so that eventually they’ll vote for it. Isn’t that right?


Why do you act like a stupid twat? I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I didn't say change can't come by voting for it. You clueless muppet.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.



That was the baffling thing about that campaign.  Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you act like a stupid twat? I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I didn't say change can't come by voting for it. You clueless muppet.



You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.

Describe it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean i've asked you to explain how voting for a right labour party will get you social democracy but you haven't even tried to explain.
> 
> Yes, Miliband in 2015 had austerity as the central economic policy. This is neo liberal, neo liberal is right wing, Miliband, as presented in 2015, was on the right. If he's not on the right of the labour party that just shows how far the centre has shifted and how much you've accepted as forever lost.



If you’re always going to simply dismiss anything other than Corbyn’s Labour as being no different to the tories then there’s probably no point in arguing with you. The facts prove you wrong, public services fair better under Labour than under the tories.

Do you think that the lives wasted during endless tory cuts are worth sacrificing because they may bring ‘real change’ closer?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> That was the baffling thing about that campaign.  Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.


That's what you have to do to be electable. Apparently.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Do you think that the lives wasted during endless tory cuts are worth sacrificing because they may bring ‘real change’ closer?



Why do you keep doing this shit when you know that's not what posters like BigTom remotely think or have said?

And you still can't answer his question - how does voting for right-leaning Labour (which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation - albeit 'less hard and fast' than the Tories) actually help to protect public services, public ownership for the benefit of the working class? And how does it in anyway lead to Labour shifting leftwards in the future (at least in government?).

BigTom has been really patient and fair, and explained his positions with you, so give him some respect and stop being such a cock.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.
> 
> Describe it.


Once you tell me who John O'Donnell is.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Once you tell me who John O'Donnell is.



John O'Donnell is a boxer. I mistook the name McDonnell for O'Donnell.

Now, explain your way of changing government which doesn't involve the democratic process...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> John O'Donnell is a boxer. I mistook the name McDonnell for O'Donnell.
> 
> Now, explain your way of changing government which doesn't involve the democratic process...


Yeh that being the case why haven't you responded to my previous requests about o'donnell?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh that being the case why haven't you responded to my previous requests about o'donnell?



So is it that you can't back up your claim? Or do you just refuse to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?
> 
> Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??


Yeh military coups. Coalitions. Changes in party leadership. Revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So is it that you can't back up your claim? Or do you just refuse to?


No, it's due to me doing other things tonight than being solely at you beck and call you effete and ineffectual twat. You don't even know what you were asking


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh military coups. Coalitions. Changes in party leadership. Revolution.



Coalitions depend on democracy, so does change of leadership. The tories changed leader recently, do you think that means we no longer have a tory government?

Do you favour revolution and military coups?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Coalitions depend on democracy, so does change of leadership. The tories changed leader recently, do you think that means we no longer have a tory government?
> 
> Do you favour revolution and military coups?


You asked about changes in government which can mean both a change in direction as well as a change of government. Coalitions don't need to depend on election s eg during ww2


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You asked about changes in government which can mean both a change in direction as well as a change of government. Coalitions don't need to depend on election s eg during ww2



The WW2 coalition did depend on democracy, the two parties involved were the ones which won most seats in Parliament at the previous GE.

I didn't ask about changes _in_ government, I asked about _changing_ government.

So that leaves coups and revolution. Do you favour either of them?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> That was the baffling thing about that campaign.  Miliband had helped expose serial press criminality and had stopped something that would have been one of the more stupid foreign policy adventures of recent times, and yet they were never mentioned and instead they spent their time talking about immigrants, agreeing with austerity and raising menhirs.



Those things weren't going to win enough votes. After the financial crisis and the 'there's no money left' disasters Labour couldn't just ignore the hole in the economy. It tried to put the case for investment/growth and less cutting but either their hearts weren't really in cutting (vote loser with those who feared 'overspending') or they were (a traditional vote loser). They could hardly ignore immigration either. It's ironic, given the reaction to the Thornberry tweet here and elsewhere and that immigration utterly dominated the referendum, that in some way you think Labour could have dodged talking about it. I bet they got it on many a doorstep.

As it was they needed a decent pitch, a war on undercutting wages, homes for all, some way that migration and need could be balanced but they tried to look tough and came over as both nasty and ineffectual.

Life will or should be easier for Labour post Brexit, post the Brexit/Trump attacks on Liberalism. It is free to make a clear pitch for doing things together and demarcate itself from the Tories. But Corbyn can't lead that. His political capital and authority was all spent years ago.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 11, 2017)

Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?

Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 11, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'



It does, as well as writing off any realistic chance of a Labour government whether it's led by him or anyone else.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'


What PLP north of the border?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The WW2 coalition did depend on democracy, the two parties involved were the ones which won most seats in Parliament at the previous GE.
> 
> I didn't ask about changes _in_ government, I asked about _changing_ government.
> 
> So that leaves coups and revolution. Do you favour either of them?


You don't know what the fuck you asked, it keeps changing


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Interesting. Could it be that Corbyn has effectively written off the PLP north of the border?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn says a second Scottish independence referendum would be 'absolutely fine'



One way for Labour to hold UKIP in check would be a simple rebranding of Labour into not only Scottish Labour but also more clearly and defined the Labour Party of England and Wales, thereby taking on a mildly national or regionalist type agenda similar to the SNP. Of course then it's Unionist position is more federal or even not at all.

He needs to be careful talking about the 'regions' though. Scotland is a nation.

Mostly though this is pure Corbo. Never wishing to offend. There will be another referendum and he'll probably campaign for the Union with the all the appetite of a cat eating dry weetabix.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Those things weren't going to win enough votes. After the financial crisis and the 'there's no money left' disasters Labour couldn't just ignore the hole in the economy. It tried to put the case for investment/growth and less cutting but either their hearts weren't really in cutting (vote loser with those who feared 'overspending') or they were (a traditional vote loser). They could hardly ignore immigration either. It's ironic, given the reaction to the Thornberry tweet here and elsewhere and that immigration utterly dominated the referendum, that in some way you think Labour could have dodged talking about it. I bet they got it on many a doorstep.
> 
> As it was they needed a decent pitch, a war on undercutting wages, homes for all, some way that migration and need could be balanced but they tried to look tough and came over as both nasty and ineffectual.
> 
> Life will or should be easier for Labour post Brexit, post the Brexit/Trump attacks on Liberalism. It is free to make a clear pitch for doing things together and demarcate itself from the Tories. But Corbyn can't lead that. His political capital and authority was all spent years ago.



I am not sure that they wouldn't have won enough votes; if anything they would have probably attracted far more votes than signing up to offer Diet versions of what the Tories were proposing did, and reminding people at every turn of what the papers had done would have at least given a response to the slating that they were giving him.  As part of the decent pitch you propose they could have easily helped people see that the Government made bad decisions that would make things worse, something that is demonstrably true in terms of the economy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't know what the fuck you asked, it keeps changing



Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.


He'd have to say wtf he means by _democracy _for there to be any hope of meaningful discourse.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> I am not sure that they wouldn't have won enough votes; if anything they would have probably attracted far more votes than signing up to offer Diet versions of what the Tories were proposing did, and reminding people at every turn of what the papers had done would have at least given a response to the slating that they were giving him.  As part of the decent pitch you propose they could have easily helped people see that the Government made bad decisions that would make things worse, something that is demonstrably true in terms of the economy.



They were always going to lose. The polls were fatal in allowing them to think that it was close (that was the view on U75) so they should play the loaded game. 

They should have kicked Ed out before and campaigned on something their supporters believed in. It was craven.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2017)

brogdale said:


> He'd have to say wtf he means by _democracy _for there to be any hope of meaningful discourse.



Hertford from Mars, Pickman's from Venus.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Hertford from Mars, Pickman's from Venus.



Good under pressure, and destroys Soviet space probes?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2017)

Cue _Uranus _jokes.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 11, 2017)

emanymton said:


> What PLP north of the border?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 12, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> And you still can't answer his question - how does voting for right-leaning Labour (which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation - albeit 'less hard and fast' than the Tories) actually help to protect public services, public ownership for the benefit of the working class? And how does it in anyway lead to Labour shifting leftwards in the future (at least in government?).
> 
> BigTom has been really patient and fair, and explained his positions with you, so give him some respect and stop being such a cock.



Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.

The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?



> Why do you keep doing this shit when you know that's not what posters like BigTom remotely think or have said?



I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 12, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Just discuss it with him and have done for heavens sakes.



I don't think he can.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.
> 
> The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?
> 
> ...


Don't know about where you live but all the Labour councils of which I'm aware have imposed austerity before and indeed during Corbyn's leadership. In a very real sense they impose austerity and privatisation - see e.g. Haringey, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth, Camden...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't think he can.


Yeh. Like you are in any sense the arbiter of debate here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?
> 
> Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??


1


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then you need to explain precisely _how_ we can change government without the democratic process. Because until you do, it's a meaningless claim.


2


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You said there was a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy.
> 
> Describe it.


... And back to 1 again

You do see how the question changes I hope


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.


So when was the last time the Labour Party, either in government or opposition, was opposed to privatisation, was not attacking the working class, wasn't neo-liberal? 

And as PM, myself, steph etc have repeatedly pointed out the Labour Party is currently imposing austerity and privatisation on communities at the local level.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.



That's what the labour party stood on in 2010 & 2015, it's what kendall, harman and burnham stood on, I paid no attention to Owen Smith. Nobody has suggested who will come after Corbyn so there's every reason to believe that after Corbyn will once again be to the right and support austerity.



> The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?



None, political parties exist to be elected. But if what you want is social democracy, there's only value in electing a social democratic party, anything else takes you away from social democracy. This is the point you refuse to engage with and I can't see myself replying to you again because you won't engage with it.




> I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.



It's not what I think, I favour making a social democratic labour party electable (sort of, I want to make the conditions in which a social democratic party will be elected, which will almost certainly be labour).

I don't favour electing a party standing on a platform of cutting essential services, as I'm sure you did in 2015, as that would be sacrificing poor and vulnerable people to cuts. The name of the party does not matter, the policies and beliefs they have does.

You don't respect my point of view enough to engage with it though, to explain why you think voting in a labour party that would cut services nationally, that is doing so at local levels, would protect services rather than just slowing their demise. You are abandoning vulnerable people, not me. I've explained why I believe that to be the case but you won't even try to say why it's not. That's not respect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.


Yeh, the past seven years have not been real enough for you I see.


----------



## oryx (Mar 12, 2017)

BigTom said:


> That's what the labour party stood on in 2010 & 2015, it's what kendall, harman and burnham stood on, I paid no attention to Owen Smith. Nobody has suggested who will come after Corbyn so there's every reason to believe that after Corbyn will once again be to the right and support austerity..



I agree with most of your post but can't see a pro-austerity leader being elected any time soon - the right of the party think they have some good potential candidates, but look what happens when they try to change the leadership! 

I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again. 

Members voted for Corbyn because of his anti- austerity stance and I can't see this changing, so I would guess if the party changes leader in the next few years it will be another relatively left wing candidate.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 12, 2017)

oryx said:


> I agree with most of your post but can't see a pro-austerity leader being elected any time soon - the right of the party think they have some good potential candidates, but look what happens when they try to change the leadership!
> 
> I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again.
> 
> Members voted for Corbyn because of his anti- austerity stance and I can't see this changing, so I would guess if the party changes leader in the next few years it will be another relatively left wing candidate.


Any challange to Coryban from the right will likely fail. If he resigns it is a whole different ball game, and whoever replaces him will invariably be more right wing and 'moderate'. They will be essentially pro-austerity in action even if not in words.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 12, 2017)

oryx said:


> I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again.


That would be Smith and Eagle who both abstained on the Welfare bill? Great fighters against austerity. 

No doubt that during the next leadership contest there'll be candidates that stress their opposition to austerity and the 'Tory' cuts but that meaningless, it's what they _do_ that counts.


----------



## oryx (Mar 12, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> That would be Smith and Eagle who both abstained on the Welfare bill? Great fighters against austerity.



You've misunderstood - I'm saying that the likes of Smith and Eagle are _*not*_ anti-austerity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 13, 2017)

oryx said:


> You've misunderstood - I'm saying that the likes of Smith and Eagle are _*not*_ anti-austerity.


Yes sorry, I misread your post. The point still stands though, Smith was as far left (and neither Smith nor Eagle are on the right of the party, as depressing as that is) as the PLP was willing to go to try and knock out Corbyn. 

If he hadn't been on the ballot because he was already leader Corbyn would not have got the nominations needed. So already you're looking at any 'left' candidate being to the right of Corbyn/McDonnell. But even when this supposed anti-austerity candidate is elected what then? Corbyn hasn't been able to stop the party from implementing cuts to services and privatisations at the local level, indeed there's been very little attempt to do so.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 13, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But even when this supposed anti-austerity candidate is elected what then? Corbyn hasn't been able to stop the party from implementing cuts to services and privatisations at the local level, indeed there's been very little attempt to do so.



A lot of Labour councillors up and down the land might be indecently phlegmatic or even enthusiastic about cuts. But there's a limit to what can be done at Local Authority level anyway. 'What then?' is you have to get a government in power that isn't about austerity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 13, 2017)

How does that work when much your parties mid (and top) level membership isn't opposed to austerity. This is just going round in circles.

EDIT: And how does this compare with past behaviour of the Labour Party? Has it been at it's most left wing when the top was dictating to the rest of the party?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> A lot of Labour councillors up and down the land might be indecently phlegmatic or even enthusiastic about cuts. But there's a limit to what can be done at Local Authority level anyway. 'What then?' is you have to get a government in power that isn't about austerity.


There is absolutely no other way to oppose austerity than to elect a party opposed to it? None?


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

emanymton said:


> There is absolutely no other way to oppose austerity than to elect a party opposed to it? None?



But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than _pro_ something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.
Brown: "No more boom and bust"...oh really. I saw it coming in 2007 when people were queuing of the East Croydon branch of Northern Rock to close their accounts. Gordon Brown couldn't see that! Idiot!


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than _pro_ something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.


Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.



go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.

The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.



Brexit is a result of an alternative to globalisation, and Bannon definitely has a plan against globalisation. Even Trump said at one rally, "...there will be no global currency." Wow....that must have pissed the globalists off.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity.


McDonnell has laid out a viable alternative.
Subscribe to read



nuffsaid said:


> And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books


Austerity does not balance the books. Even the IMF admits that.
Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes



nuffsaid said:


> Blair and Brown living off the banking system.


More "Labour sunk the economy" misinformation. The fact that the banking crash was global debunks it fairly clearly. The deregulation of the financial sector was the main cause.
Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.


we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> McDonnell has laid out a viable alternative.
> Subscribe to read
> 
> Then don't go round with "No to austerity" on placards and work at transmitting the message, coz it isn't in the public consciousness that's for sure.
> ...



And who aided the deregulation over here, and if it was so defunct how come Gordon Brown couldn't see it and kept on pandering to the banks?


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right



Well quite, so shout that from the rooftops rather than..."No to austerity!" Don't be an anti party, be a pro party. Otherwise Labour is just a protest movement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.
> 
> The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.


you mistake one lovely day very much like today for the years of campaigning against the poll tax, which started in at least 1988 - certainly, from seeing the haringey aptu minute books, work was going on there from '88 on, years which didn't finish until at least 1994, and people were still going through the courts for years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Well quite, so shout that from the rooftops rather than..."No to austerity!" Don't be an anti party, be a pro party. Otherwise Labour is just a protest movement.


it's not even that


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.
> 
> The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.


"The books" have never balanced; that's not how the state functions. There's little to be gained by peddling simplistic tory homilies.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> "The books" have never balanced; that's not how the state functions. There's little to be gained by peddling simplistic tory homilies.
> 
> View attachment 102140



True - but you can't keep building debt, debt goes up, debt goes down, but it only goes down because of the need to keep it under control, if you are really advocating ignoring that fact where do you think that will end up?

It's not simplistic Tory homilies, it's called mathematics.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> And who aided the deregulation over here,



It began with the so-called "Big Bang" in 1983 under Thatcher/Lawson. Lawson admitted that this contributed to the crash.
BBC - Radio 4 Analysis - Glass-Steagall: A Price Worth Paying?

Likewise Gordon Brown admitted that deregulation of the banking sector by the incoming Labour Government of 1997 had exasperated the impact on the UK economy of the global crash.
Gordon Brown admits 'big mistake' over banking crisis - BBC News

You won't find me apologising for Thatcher, Lawson, Blair or Brown.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You won't find me apologising for Thatcher, Lawson, Blair or Brown.


who do you apologise for?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> True - but you can't keep building debt, debt goes up, debt goes down, but it only goes down because of the need to keep it under control, if you are really advocating ignoring that fact where do you think that will end up?


Public debt is, historically, fairly low and has only risen in the last decade as a result of two main drivers. One, the specific instance of the state using our £ to bail the failed financial capitalists. And two, the secular increasing fiscal divergence between revenue and expenditure created by lowering the tax burden on corporations and the rich. Both of these processes suit the City and afford fincap even more scope to accumulate at the expense of workers paying tax. If this situation didn't suit capital it would not persist; the bond markets would worsen to a point where the administrators of the state would be compelled to change it.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right


the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better


I suppose the idea to point out that it is an ideology, a long held tory commitment to small state low taxes no matter what they say and this 'nations credit card' stuff is a sham. As you say, the so called non ideological position (even 'centrist') is itself ideological.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better


Using the term _ideological _to describe tory austerian policy does demonstrate that it is their policy choice, and that other policy directions are available. It also challenges the long-standing tory mythologising that their's is a party of pragmatism, only doing what is 'natural' and innate to the proper functioning of the capitalist state.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Using the term _ideological _to describe tory austerian policy does demonstrate that it is their policy choice, and that other policy directions are available. It also challenges the long-standing tory mythologising that their's is a party of pragmatism, only doing what is 'natural' and innate to the proper functioning of the capitalist state.


I don't know that it challenges that in a useful way though, and it seems instead to mythologise a different kind of deeply ideological and anti working class set of policies (leaving aside their viability).


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> I don't know that it challenges that in a useful way though, and it seems instead to mythologise a different kind of deeply ideological and anti working class set of policies (leaving aside their viability).


Though not socialism, there's nothing inherently anti working class about counter-cyclical demand management. Indeed, let's not forget that was the macro-economic context for the "Les Trente Glorieuses" during in which capital did actually make concessions to the working class.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Though not socialism, there's nothing inherently anti working class about counter-cyclical demand management. Indeed, let's not forget that was the macro-economic context for the "Les Trente Glorieuses" during in which capital did actually make concessions to the working class.


there is under capitalism.
the working class can win concessions under laissez faire and under neoliberalism too. Keynesianism/social democracy was constructed in a time of working class offensives and a need for stability - if its measures to suppress working class struggle and ensure profitability were more conciliatory then that was our victory, yet they still sent in the soldiers to break strikes.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> there is under capitalism.
> the working class can win concessions under laissez faire and under neoliberalism too. Keynesianism/social democracy was constructed in a time of working class offensives and a need for stability - if its measures to suppress working class struggle and ensure profitability were more conciliatory then that was our victory, yet they still sent in the soldiers to break strikes.


I don't think what I was saying disputed any of that. It's plain as day though, if the party of capital governing the capitalist economy ideologically chooses to pursue pro-cyclical macro-economic policies, that has the effect of generating more working class immiserisation than counter-cyclical management would.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Public debt is, historically, fairly low and has only risen in the last decade as a result of two main drivers. One, the specific instance of the state using our £ to bail the failed financial capitalists. And two, the secular increasing fiscal divergence between revenue and expenditure created by lowering the tax burden on corporations and the rich. Both of these processes suit the City and afford fincap even more scope to accumulate at the expense of workers paying tax. If this situation didn't suit capital it would not persist; the bond markets would worsen to a point where the administrators of the state would be compelled to change it.



The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk


Your point being?


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Your point being?



It's quite high isn't it....


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

What never seems to get asked, which I think is the more important question. Why does the govt. get charged interest on it's borrowing? Who benefits? The BofE, so we should be considering where the real power lies and consider overturning that, rather than just perpetually dealing with the shop window of power, Parliament.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I don't think what I was saying disputed any of that. It's plain as day though, if the party of capital governing the capitalist economy ideologically chooses to pursue pro-cyclical macro-economic policies, that has the effect of generating more working class immiserisation than counter-cyclical management would.


why do they 'choose' one or the other, though? is it a matter of being more or less anti working class, or a matter of where struggle has forced them? to cast it as simply a matter of state planning that they select one or the other, acting on a blank canvas, is not a helpful position. (not saying this is your view, but the liberal left)

let's not forget that if keynesianism can ever be said to have worked then we broke it. not willing to tolerate shit work, shit wages, shit housing - wars, looting the third world/colonies. rejecting the contract by which we were meant to have been bought off.

if we're in a position where social democracy becomes attractive to capital, then social democracy is reactionary.

(edited for clarity)


----------



## teqniq (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than _pro_ something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.
> 
> *And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.
> Brown: "No more boom and bust"...oh really. I saw it coming in 2007 when people were queuing of the East Croydon branch of Northern Rock to close their accounts. Gordon Brown couldn't see that! Idiot!*


Not this tired broken fucking record shit again which is actually a lie, but I see that others have already addressed this misinformation.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> What never seems to get asked, which I think is the more important question. Why does the govt. get charged interest on it's borrowing? Who benefits? The BofE, so we should be considering where the real power lies and consider overturning that, rather than just perpetually dealing with the shop window of power, Parliament.


Nation states get charged interest on what they borrow by those that lend them the £; it's not a difficult concept. Financialised capital would rather lend to the state than pay it taxes; that way it gets to keep the principle wealth, earn interest from the usury and, conveniently for them, re-distribute wealth regressively. The real power or actual sovereignty lies with the bond markets that control the supply of that debt.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> why do they 'choose' one or the other, though? is it a matter of being more or less anti working class, or a matter of where struggle has forced them? to cast it as simply a matter of state planning that they select one or the other, acting on a blank canvas, is not a helpful position. (not saying this is your view, but the liberal left)
> 
> let's not forget that if keynesianism can ever be said to have worked then we broke it. not willing to tolerate shit work, shit wages, shit housing - wars, looting the third world/colonies. rejecting the contract by which we were meant to have been bought off.
> 
> ...


The working class certainly did not 'break' the post-war 'social contract'. It's demise was a deliberate goal of (neoliberal) capital set when it became obvious that ("communist") system competition was in terminal decline. The divergence between the return to capital and that to labour can be plotted very clearly.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The working class certainly did not 'break' the post-war 'social contract'. It's demise was a deliberate goal of (neoliberal) capital set when it became obvious that ("communist") system competition was in terminal decline. The divergence between the return to capital and that to labour can be plotted very clearly.


yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.

neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
> look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
> the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.
> 
> neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.


neoliberalism not "forced" on capital, but a deliberate choice.


----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> neoliberalism not "forced" on capital, but a deliberate choice.


it had to react in some way - social democracy became untenable, neoliberalism was the response. there may have been other strategies. Paul Mattick's book on Keynesianism suggests it might have gone the 'state capitalism' route in response to its profitability crisis, but as that was shortly to collapse as well I think it may not have been viable.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 13, 2017)




----------



## inva (Mar 13, 2017)

inva said:


> yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
> look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
> the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.
> 
> neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.


to add to this post

the interesting bit to me is in terms of the neoliberal era and where we are now - how we might break neoliberalism or how it is already being broken.

it seems as though it might be less through the more obvious offensive measures we have as working class, but more through defensive means. capital has struggled to bring down the social wage and sufficiently increase productivity and it remains even this long after the 2008 crisis in a sickly state. maybe just our efforts to hold the line against attacks on living standards etc are enough to bring about neoliberalism's collapse. If the capitalist golden age and the social democratic state's methods couldn't nullify the forces that destroyed laissez-faire then in spite of its triumphalism neoliberalism has looked an even shakier solution.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Not this tired broken fucking record shit again which is actually a lie, but I see that others have already addressed this misinformation.



What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Nation states get charged interest on what they borrow by those that lend them the £; it's not a difficult concept. Financialised capital would rather lend to the state than pay it taxes; that way it gets to keep the principle wealth, earn interest from the usury and, conveniently for them, re-distribute wealth regressively. The real power or actual sovereignty lies with the bond markets that control the supply of that debt.



Quite, so why not deal with that system?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.



No, I am not absolving Brown, merely pointing out that your claim that Labour were the architects of the 2008 crash is bullshit. As has already been demonstrated.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

teqniq said:


> No, I am not absolving Brown, merely pointing out that your claim that Labour were the architects of the 2008 crash is bullshit. As has already been demonstrated.



I didn't say the architects but they were blatantly culpable.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 13, 2017)

You certainly implied it, by completely failing to mention the preceding tory policies that prepared the ground for what was to come. Brown's failure was to do nothing to remedy the situation.



> And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 13, 2017)

Yep. Bog standard buck passing. No doubt Brexit will be Labour's fault too.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

teqniq said:


> You certainly implied it, by completely failing to mention the preceding tory policies that prepared the ground for what was to come. Brown's failure was to do nothing to remedy the situation.



Good grief! Labour had over a decade to hep mitigate the crisis, a bit more regulation would have helped. I won't say they are the architects because I'd argue that the whole system we live under is obviously pro-business and elitist at it's core it's not a level playing field and we'd need a total revolution to make it so. But they had over a decade to make it more equitable..........and they didn't. "No more boom and bust". 

I still have a copy of the Guardian from the day after Blair won in '97. I've been waiting for a Labour canvasser to darken my door since March 2003 - Whenever one does they are so gonna get a rocket up their arse while I wave it in their face.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Good grief! Labour had over a decade to hep mitigate the crisis, a bit more regulation would have helped. I won't say they are the architects because I'd argue that the whole system we live under is obviously pro-business and elitist at it's core it's not a level playing field and we'd need a total revolution to make it so. But they had over a decade to make it more equitable..........and they didn't. "No more boom and bust".
> 
> I still have a copy of the Guardian from the day after Blair won in '97. I've been waiting for a Labour canvasser to darken my door since March 2003 - Whenever one does they are so gonna get a rocket up their arse while I wave it in their face.


How many other auld newspapers do you have?


----------



## gosub (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.



The actual idea of an end to the economic cycle was a bad one.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How many other auld newspapers do you have?



None.. Just that one. After growing up under Thatcher I so wanted Labour to win and May '97 was the beginning of hope, it was amazing. I was living in Brighton at the time and I'd vandalised bus stops by posting a colour copy of the front page of the then Tory manifesto over the ad for the film 'Liar, Liar', that poster had a head and shoulders image of Jim Carey that I perfectly covered by the face of John Major with the name of the film 'Liar, Liar' nicely emblazoned below..... Some people obviously took offence and ripped them off, I put another on, they ripped it off again, I put another on....and so on.

That memory of hope is what I will ram down a canvasser's throat......and how they destroyed it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> None.. Just that one. After growing up under Thatcher I so wanted Labour to win and May '97 was the beginning of hope, it was amazing. I was living in Brighton at the time and I'd vandalised bus stops by posting a colour copy of the front page of the then Tory manifesto over the ad for the film 'Liar, Liar', that poster had a head and shoulders image of Jim Carey that I perfectly covered by the face of John Major with the name of the film 'Liar, Liar' nicely emblazoned below..... Some people obviously took offence and ripped them off, I put another on, they ripped it off again, I put another on....and so on.
> 
> That memory of hope is what I will ram down a canvasser's throat......and how they destroyed it.


If 97 was the beginning of hope what did you feel during the election campaigns of 87 and 92?


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If 97 was the beginning of hope what did you feel during the election campaigns of 87 and 92?



There was no chance of a Labour win in 87 and 92 was hugely disappointing, how on earth did we give them another 4 years, even the Tories couldn't believe it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> There was no chance of a Labour win in 87 and 92 was hugely disappointing, how on earth did we give them another 4 years, even the Tories couldn't believe it.


92 to 97 traditionally 5 years


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 92 to 97 traditionally 5 years



haha - indeed. I've been watching so much American news coverage recently.............4 MORE YEARS!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 14, 2017)

BigTom said:


> That's what the labour party stood on in 2010 & 2015, it's what kendall, harman and burnham stood on, I paid no attention to Owen Smith. Nobody has suggested who will come after Corbyn so there's every reason to believe that after Corbyn will once again be to the right and support austerity.
> 
> 
> None, political parties exist to be elected. But if what you want is social democracy, there's only value in electing a social democratic party, anything else takes you away from social democracy. This is the point you refuse to engage with and I can't see myself replying to you again because you won't engage with it.
> ...



Sorry if you think that I’m being disrespectful and not engaging with you, I think what you really mean is that I’m not agreeing with you. If you want examples of disrespect then have a look at pickman’s abusive comments and red squirrel’s, who said he ‘wanted to destroy me and my kind’.

I’ve already posted figures which show that public services have always been safer and better funded under Labour governments than under tory ones, even if they’ve been to the right of Corbyn. Nothing you or anyone else has said has shown that not to be the case.

There isn’t much, if any, appetite anywhere in the Labour Party to return to PFIs. Even Owen Smith said that healthcare “will be 100% publicly funded” and set out his own funding plans during his failed leadership bid, as did Corbyn..

It’s the tory government and Labour making itself unelectable which are letting down vulnerable people, as is waiting for the right conditions for the right kind of party to be in a position to be elected, especially when you admit yourself that could take generations and may not even happen at all.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't know about where you live but all the Labour councils of which I'm aware have imposed austerity before and indeed during Corbyn's leadership. In a very real sense they impose austerity and privatisation - see e.g. Haringey, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth, Camden...



You can’t just rely on what local councils are doing to gauge what national government will do, they are tied to government grants which have been cut by up to 40% in areas such as the ones you mention.



Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Like you are in any sense the arbiter of debate here.
> 
> Yeh. Like you are in any sense the arbiter of debate here.
> 
> ...



You said that ‘military coups and revolutions’ are ways of changing governments which don’t involve any democratic process. How is that in any way relevant in this context? Do you see either actions as viable to get rid of the tories??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> He'd have to say wtf he means by _democracy _for there to be any hope of meaningful discourse.



I suspect that Mr Hertford means that farce known as "parliamentary democracy".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You can’t just rely on what local councils are doing to gauge what national government will do, they are tied to government grants which have been cut by up to 40% in areas such as the ones you mention.
> I
> 
> 
> You said that ‘military coups and revolutions’ are ways of changing governments which don’t involve any democratic process. How is that in any way relevant in this context? Do you see either actions as viable to get rid of the tories??


1) so don't judge the party by its enthusiasm for gentrification and imposing austerity. Yeh right. Did you not see what Labour did in its last 13 years in national government? 

2) will you read the fucking questions you ask you numpty twat, is it too much to expect? Why not think in future about the sort of answer you desire and frame your enquiry accordingly.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 14, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry if you think that I’m being disrespectful and not engaging with you, *I think what you really mean is that I’m not agreeing with you*. If you want examples of disrespect then have a look at pickman’s abusive comments and red squirrel’s, who said he ‘wanted to destroy me and my kind’.
> 
> I’ve already posted figures which show that public services have always been safer and better funded under Labour governments than under tory ones, even if they’ve been to the right of Corbyn. Nothing you or anyone else has said has shown that not to be the case.
> 
> ...



I really don't, we're not going to agree, that's fine, I just want you to explain and defend your position, I've asked you how we get from here to social democracy by campaigning for and electing neo-liberal labour parties, you don't engage with this at all. Your only response is that they are not the tories. So in extremis, when the tories are saying they will end all public services bar police, courts and military, and Labour say oh no, that's terrible, we'll keep the roads publicly owned, well except motorways maybe. You'd say we must protect our essential services by voting for labour. If not, then where is the line? What is the point where Labour have given up so much you won't go further? Because right now your logic is simply Labour > Tories, regardless of the policies labour has, which means the running down of public services, vulnerable people being fucked over, when Labour are a right wing party, as they have been up until Corbyn (and now are just very, very split).

If Labour went to 2025 with PFI on their policy books, would you say no, don't vote Labour? Of course not, you would say vote Labour to keep out the tories. So this doesn't affect your position at all. 
btw, 100% publicly funded NHS doesn't mean publicly owned. It could easily mean privatised with state provided health insurance. You will go for that over full privatisation of the NHS by the tories. Then they'll add restrictions, conditions, limits, sanctions onto the public health insurance, until it's so useless it's worthless. You will embrace that and destroy the NHS, because the tories would privatise it fully in one step, and Labour will take a few. How is that protection?

In 2015 you were arguing to vote for the Labour party, which ran on a platform of austerity, because they weren't taking that austerity as far as the tories. How would electing a party that would implement austerity bring about social democracy ever? 

I'm not waiting for anything, unless by waiting you mean taking action. If by waiting for the right conditions, you mean taking action to create the right conditions. But of course not. Do you not see how disrespectful it is to me to accuse me of fucking over vulnerable people by waiting for something that might never happen when I've spent the time to start to explain to you the ideas behind the actions I am taking to protect the services we have that support everyone? You don't need to call someone a fucking cunt to be disrespectful to them, you are just as insulting in that final paragraph to me as PM or RS have been to you. Everything I've said on this thread and you think I'm sitting around waiting for the roll of the dice. The actions I've been taking over the past 8 years have contributed to creating the conditions under which Corbyn got nominated and then elected as leader, at least some chance for a social democratic party. You would just continue to argue for austerity as long it's done by Labour.


----------



## treelover (Mar 15, 2017)

Guardian is reporting that at PMQ's Corbyn missed the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI, if this is the case(it may not be, didn't see it), then for me that is it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> Guardian is reporting that at PMQ's Corbyn missed the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI, if this is the case(it may not be, didn't see it), then for me that is it.




Guardian is full of shit, he asked 4 questions on the theme of the budget and self employment and 1 on education.


He did pretty fucking badly at asking those questions but he asked them. Of course Mays response mostly relied on the entire Labour party being as useless as a childs helium balloon to a man whose parachutes failed.


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> Guardian is reporting that at PMQ's Corbyn missed the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI, if this is the case(it may not be, didn't see it), then for me that is it.



They Uturned 20 mins before PMQ' I suspect deliberately, cos Corbyn has consistently shown he can't think on his feet.


----------



## Supine (Mar 15, 2017)

I thought he resigned last week


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 15, 2017)

The BBC is now officially the opposition - Maybe Jezza should just follow Kuenssberg on Twitter for ideas.

Reaction to Hammond U-turn on NI tax rise - BBC News

*BBC's Kuenssberg 'first' to raise manifesto blunder*
Posted at14:34


Philip Hammond credits BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg for first raising the point that the Government had broken a promise it made in its 2015 manifesto that it would not raise National Insurance.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2017)

Labour has lost trust with voters on the economy and that means austerity to handle the deficit, look at milliband when he forgot to mention it.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> Guardian is reporting that at PMQ's Corbyn missed the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI, if this is the case(it may not be, didn't see it), then for me that is it.



just for clarity's sake, can you talk us through what 'missing'  "the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI" would actually look like, ie : what action / lack of action it would have involved on Corbyn's part, or even what you understand it to have involved ( as you obviously havent watched it yourself ) ?


----------



## agricola (Mar 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> Guardian is reporting that at PMQ's Corbyn missed the open goal of the huge, (potentially disastrous in the right hands) Tory U Turn on NI, if this is the case(it may not be, didn't see it), then for me that is it.



Why?  Six questions about a policy that the Government have surrendered on already would have been a complete waste, and if he had done that we all know that the Guardian would probably have reported that six questions were wasted by Corbyn.  He was right to raise the issue of education, given the dire warnings uttered earlier in the week and the fact that the Government are planning to take more money out of that system and fritter it away on Free Schools, and schools claiming to be grammars.  



nuffsaid said:


> The BBC is now officially the opposition - Maybe Jezza should just follow Kuenssberg on Twitter for ideas.
> 
> Reaction to Hammond U-turn on NI tax rise - BBC News
> 
> ...



Well she is a mate of theirs, its only natural that she gets the credit.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> They Uturned 20 mins before PMQ' I suspect deliberately, cos Corbyn has consistently shown he can't think on his feet.




Bingo, he needs a run up.


----------



## The Pale King (Mar 15, 2017)

'Politics' = clever-dick debating club tactics that are so magically effective it takes the Oxbridge PPE officer-class of the press to identify them.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 15, 2017)

"no more boom and bust"......sorry just reminiscing the good old days....


----------



## agricola (Mar 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> They Uturned 20 mins before PMQ' I suspect deliberately, cos Corbyn has consistently shown he can't think on his feet.



He certainly has a plan for PMQs and prefers to stick to it; though it should also be said that even where he has done well - that Surrey thing, for instance - sufficient credit did not come his way (even though in that case he may well have got May to come up with statements that could end up as being seen to deliberately misled the House).


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2017)

agricola said:


> He certainly has a plan for PMQs and prefers to stick to it; though it should also be said that even where he has done well - that Surrey thing, for instance - sufficient credit did not come his way (even though in that case he may well have got May to come up with statements that could end up as being seen to deliberately misled the House).



First noticed it after Brexit, Cameron gave his Commons  speech, then Corbyn stood up and asked something that made no sense if he'd actually been listening to what Cameron had said. Though to be fair that was probably true of over half the MPs that spoke that session.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2017)

Loads to talk about, the u-turn, hard brexit, indyref2 and he asks questions on education..


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

Is education not an important topic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Loads to talk about, the u-turn, hard brexit, indyref2 and he asks questions on education..


Higher education will be fucked negatively impacted by brexit


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is education not an important topic?


Why should he not hold the government to account on those things?. The media is already talking about it so it's a good time to get into the public consciousness by asking tough questions. Education can wait.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 15, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Loads to talk about, the u-turn, hard brexit, indyref2 and he asks questions on education..



I try hard not to be fair on Corbyn, but in truth all of those subjects contain pitfalls for Labour - scratching at them could draw as much red blood as blue blood, particularly given that Mays performance at PMQ's is undoubtedly improving from her previously appalling standard. Corbyn had her, unlike Cameron, on the ropes for a while with his PMQ session. 

The big thing isn't the questions this week or next week, it's that it has become painfully and ever more clearly obvious that the man can't react to what happened 20 minutes ago let alone think on his feet.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

Education is in crisis at the moment. That you don't seem to be aware of this suggests that it's probably a better topic to be pressing the government on than the things that are already plastered on the front pages every day.


----------



## Supine (Mar 15, 2017)

I don't think it matters what he asks, he doesn't have any gravitas so May just bats him away with an insult.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

Oh, ok. A  minute ago you seemed to think it was essential he asked questions on the u-turn, hard brexit and indyref2.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

oh, actually that wasn't you.


----------



## Supine (Mar 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh, actually that wasn't you.



Your performance at the forum dispatch box has also been somewhat lacking


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

You are right though, it doesn't really matter what he asks. The only reason Corbyn really had for raising the U-turn would be to avoid everyone saying he'd missed an open goal. I can understand not being interested in pleasing those cunts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 15, 2017)

I doubt it's a U Turn at all. 

It looks to be the standard abusers trick of threatening something, then looking all wonderful when the threat isn't carried out. 

The r/w press will be spunking off that this is a victory - that folk being left in the same position as before is amazeballs. People lap this stuff up, but it's 101 manipulation.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> You are right though, it doesn't really matter what he asks. The only reason Corbyn really had for raising the U-turn would be to avoid everyone saying he'd missed an open goal. I can understand not being interested in pleasing those cunts.



He could have praised her for it in a clearly sarcastic way and had a laugh. Like 'pleased you are sticking to manifesto commitments, can you reassure the house no others will be broken however temporarily you mean old Tory cow?'


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

He could have. What difference would it have made?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> He could have. What difference would it have made?



Not much. He might have enjoyed it more?


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

Probably best just ask whatever question he wanted to ask then.


----------



## hipipol (Mar 15, 2017)

man gives "wimp" new power satus!!!!
Hurrgh!!!!!
Wot ace kit he's wearing
Is that is knob? looks a bit small for a knob really.......


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 16, 2017)

Corbyn is like the underdog in a feel-good film that is suddenly going to have a eureka turning point moment and become the hero against the odds.

Except this is real life and he isn't. With him as leader Labour are not only unelectable, but more seriously, are completely ineffective as the opposition. He should realise he gave it his best shot but is not good enough and fuck off now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Corbyn is like the underdog in a feel-good film that is suddenly going to have a eureka turning point moment and become the hero against the odds.
> 
> Except this is real life and he isn't. With him as leader Labour are not only unelectable, but more seriously, are completely ineffective as the opposition. He should realise he gave it his best shot but is not good enough and fuck off now.


iirc you're a tory.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2017)

Absolutely - look how well the centrist social democratic parties are doing in other European countries. Without Corbyn Labour could be reaching the heady heights in the polls the French Socialist Party and Dutch PvdA are enjoying. Things could be so much better.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> iirc you're a tory.


You remember incorrectly. Unsurprisingly. But feel free to supply some evidence to back up your claim.

You know I'm right in what I say


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> You know I'm right in what I say


If only that were ever the case


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - look how well the centrist social democratic parties are doing in other European countries. Without Corbyn Labour could be reaching the heady heights in the polls the French Socialist Party and Dutch PvdA are enjoying. Things could be so much better.


Bang on.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - look how well the centrist social democratic parties are doing in other European countries. Without Corbyn Labour could be reaching the heady heights in the polls the French Socialist Party and Dutch PvdA are enjoying. Things could be so much better.


Stating the general demise of the left as an excuse for Corbyns glaringly obvious shortcomings is ignoring the reality of how bad he is. It doesn't answer at all how incompetent his opposition government is. 

But in answer to my points, rather than argue why I might be wrong Pickmans comes back with "iitrc you're a Tory". . With supporters like that it's no wonder the Tories are shooting fish in a barrel 

I'll leave youse to it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2017)

Remember, people, the Guardian said he did really badly at PMQs that time. Doomed the party he has.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2017)

I'm not excusing corbyn's shortcomings - just illustrating that more centrist, electable leaders doesn't seem to have helped the fortunes of labours sister parties across the continent. They're just as fucked, if not more so.


----------



## yield (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Stating the general demise of the left as an excuse for Corbyns glaringly obvious shortcomings is ignoring the reality of how bad he is. It doesn't answer at all how incompetent his opposition government is.
> 
> But in answer to my points, rather than argue why I might be wrong Pickmans comes back with "iitrc you're a Tory". . With supporters like that it's no wonder the Tories are shooting fish in a barrel
> 
> I'll leave youse to it


No don't give up. Fight your corner mate.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 16, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Guardian is full of shit, he asked 4 questions on the theme of the budget and self employment and 1 on education.
> 
> 
> He did pretty fucking badly at asking those questions but he asked them. Of course Mays response mostly relied on the entire Labour party being as useless as a childs helium balloon to a man whose parachutes failed.


I watched it. And as reported in the media he asked two questions and generally ranted ineffectually the other four times. It might have made him feel good, but a better politician would have made mincemeat of May.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Stating the general demise of the left as an excuse for Corbyns glaringly obvious shortcomings is ignoring the reality of how bad he is. It doesn't answer at all how incompetent his opposition government is.
> 
> But in answer to my points, rather than argue why I might be wrong Pickmans comes back with "iitrc you're a Tory". . With supporters like that it's no wonder the Tories are shooting fish in a barrel
> 
> I'll leave youse to it


1) the opposition is not government
2) I am not a Corbyn or Labour supporter


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2017)

Let's be clear here - even by the standards of British parliamentary democracy, PMQs is an absurd and meaningless institution. It makes Black Rod look modern and relevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> You remember incorrectly. Unsurprisingly. But feel free to supply some evidence to back up your claim.
> 
> You know I'm right in what I say


My memory was mistaken then. But you've said without qualification that I'm a Corbyn supporter. Let's see your evidence.


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Let's be clear here - even by the standards of British parliamentary democracy, PMQs is an absurd and meaningless institution. It makes Black Rod look modern and relevant.


But it is one of the occasions which gets widely reported, that people that don't pay that much attention to politics will see. So, even tho it is just theatre, you should do it well.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - look how well the centrist social democratic parties are doing in other European countries. Without Corbyn Labour could be reaching the heady heights in the polls the French Socialist Party and Dutch PvdA are enjoying. Things could be so much better.



The SDP in Germany have just pulled level with the CSU in the polls.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> But it is one of the occasions which gets widely reported, that people that don't pay that much attention to politics will see. So, even tho it is just theatre, you should do it well.


Literally nobody cares about it though. Parliamentary journos and MPs care for about six hours. It gets written about but at best, only politics junkies read those reports, and they're easily distracted by the next shiny thing.

May has been embarrassingly shit at PMQs for weeks but I don't count that as a problem for her because of the above.


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Literally nobody cares about it though. Parliamentary journos and MPs care for about six hours. It gets written about but at best, only politics junkies read those reports, and they're easily distracted by the next shiny thing.
> 
> May has been embarrassingly shit at PMQs for weeks but I don't count that as a problem for her because of the above.


But for most people it may well be the only time they get to hear Corbyn speaking directly. Their only chance to form an opinion about him. So it is important, even if no one remembers any specifics.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> But for most people it may well be the only time they get to hear Corbyn speaking directly. Their only chance to form an opinion about him. So it is important, even if no one remembers any specifics.


They don't hear anything in PMQs. If they like JC, they'll retweet Twitter videos of him delivering a burn and say "oooh May is doomed"; if they don't they'll retweet Guardian articles saying how he was shit (you can't really retweet a video of somebody not saying much). There are no neutrals who care about PMQs.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2017)

Haigh was great at pmqs, he had Blair on the ropes every week. No one gave a shit.


----------



## The Pale King (Mar 16, 2017)

They'll cut it so he looks bad whatever he does - even if his performance were unimpeachable he would have twitter liberals wittering about how he blew it because he didn't wear a tie or whatever. The more voters Corbyn addresses directly, the more voters he will get - he needs to be on the road doing as many public meetings as possible.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2017)

killer b said:


> Haigh was great at pmqs, he had Blair on the ropes every week. No one gave a shit.


Quite. He was brilliant at the sixth form debate club bollocks, which impressed MPs and journos and nobody else cared about.

"Hague" though


----------



## agricola (Mar 16, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Literally nobody cares about it though. Parliamentary journos and MPs care for about six hours. It gets written about but at best, only politics junkies read those reports, and they're easily distracted by the next shiny thing.
> 
> May has been embarrassingly shit at PMQs for weeks but I don't count that as a problem for her because of the above.



Ironically Corbyn may well end up being the one leader of the opposition who actually did get rid of a PM because of PMQs.


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They don't hear anything in PMQs. If they like JC, they'll retweet Twitter videos of him delivering a burn and say "oooh May is doomed"; if they don't they'll retweet Guardian articles saying how he was shit (you can't really retweet a video of somebody not saying much). There are no neutrals who care about PMQs.


It's not that those neutrals care about it, it's the fact that they see it. Even if you have absolutely no interest in politics, it's hard to avoid knowing something about her and getting a general impression of her opinions and abilities. You can't say the same about Corbyn. And pmq's is one of the simplest ways to get your view over, a quick snap that the media can use (and cast aside), from which the mostly disinterested can get an impression of the man.


----------



## oryx (Mar 16, 2017)

Sparkle Motion said:


> It might have made him feel good, but a better politician would have made mincemeat of May.





FridgeMagnet said:


> Let's be clear here - even by the standards of British parliamentary democracy, PMQs is an absurd and meaningless institution. It makes Black Rod look modern and relevant.



I like Corbyn but not unqualifiedly.

I think one of the whole points of Corbyn's leadership is to move from the public school debating society, bully boy, point scoring milieu of the current parliamentary system and I commend him for that.

I watched the (very interesting) BBC series on the House of Lords recently and it is stunning just how steeped in unquestioned tradition the whole parliamentary system is. The 'Westminster bubble' thing goes beyond the careerist MPs and ambitious SPADs thing satirised in The Thick Of It.

I don't agree with Brexit but as most people on here are aware, a large part of the referendum result was driven by disenfranchisement and disillusionment, and it is not surprising considering how far removed the Houses of Parliament are from real life.

With his questions from real people and raising of issues that affect ordinary people, Corbyn is at least making an attempt to address this.

We could potentially have a Labour leader barking back at Theresa May, continuing the tradition, but it's only perpetuating the 'adult' extension of the public school debating society, often up its own arse and far removed from ordinary people's concerns.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 16, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> They'll cut it so he looks bad whatever he does - even if his performance were unimpeachable he would have twitter liberals wittering about how he blew it because he didn't wear a tie or whatever. The more voters Corbyn addresses directly, the more voters he will get - he needs to be on the road doing as many public meetings as possible.



He'll get torn apart outside of London if not preaching to the converted.


----------



## The Pale King (Mar 16, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He'll get torn apart outside of London if not preaching to the converted.



A risk worth taking


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 17, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> A risk worth taking



Maybe, but to say what? I don't think he has yet defined a 'Corbynism' to offer the voters. Some good stuff about fairness and investment for work and infrastructure perhaps, but statesman/rebel, it's never clear. He just comes across as a decent person prone to vacillation. Not someone who can set an agenda.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 17, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I really don't, we're not going to agree, that's fine, I just want you to explain and defend your position, I've asked you how we get from here to social democracy by campaigning for and electing neo-liberal labour parties, you don't engage with this at all. Your only response is that they are not the tories. So in extremis, when the tories are saying they will end all public services bar police, courts and military, and Labour say oh no, that's terrible, we'll keep the roads publicly owned, well except motorways maybe. You'd say we must protect our essential services by voting for labour. If not, then where is the line? What is the point where Labour have given up so much you won't go further? Because right now your logic is simply Labour > Tories, regardless of the policies labour has, which means the running down of public services, vulnerable people being fucked over, when Labour are a right wing party, as they have been up until Corbyn (and now are just very, very split).
> 
> If Labour went to 2025 with PFI on their policy books, would you say no, don't vote Labour? Of course not, you would say vote Labour to keep out the tories. So this doesn't affect your position at all.
> btw, 100% publicly funded NHS doesn't mean publicly owned. It could easily mean privatised with state provided health insurance. You will go for that over full privatisation of the NHS by the tories. Then they'll add restrictions, conditions, limits, sanctions onto the public health insurance, until it's so useless it's worthless. You will embrace that and destroy the NHS, because the tories would privatise it fully in one step, and Labour will take a few. How is that protection?
> ...



You may have contributed to Corbyn becoming leader, but all that’s done is ensure we have a tory government for the next decade and probably longer. Was that really part of the long term plan for social democracy?

It was obvious before his election that Corbyn’s leadership would make Labour unelectable and I argued that at the time on here (and got called a fucking cunt for daring to say it then as well). The counter ‘argument’ was that he appealed to young voters and that he had a good chance of winning in 2020 because people will be crying out for change by then. No one seems to be saying that now having taken them 18 months to wake up.

You ask me to defend my position but that is what I’ve been doing repeatedly. I’ve already explained why I don’t accept your premise that a Labour administration investing more in public services will delay what you call ‘real change’ and I certainly don’t agree that Labour governments just do exactly what tory governments do but in slow motion.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 1) so don't judge the party by its enthusiasm for gentrification and imposing austerity. Yeh right. Did you not see what Labour did in its last 13 years in national government?
> 
> 2) will you read the fucking questions you ask you numpty twat, is it too much to expect? Why not think in future about the sort of answer you desire and frame your enquiry accordingly.



Why don’t you try actually reading the questions and then answering them?...

You started off by saying that democracy can’t bring change and then you said that military coups and revolutions can. So do you think an anti democratic coup or revolution is viable way of getting rid of this tory government?



Pickman's model said:


> iirc you're a tory.



Still don’t get it do you? The tories are relishing Corbyn’s leadership.


----------



## yield (Mar 17, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Still don’t get it do you? The tories are relishing Corbyn’s leadership.


They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why don’t you try actually reading the questions and then answering them?...
> 
> You started off by saying that democracy can’t bring change and then you said that military coups and revolutions can. So do you think an anti democratic coup or revolution is viable way of getting rid of this tory government?
> 
> ...


Do brush up your comprehension. I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution. These are simply points you clearly don't understand. So as far as I can see there's no point you returning to this.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Do brush up your comprehension. I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution. These are simply points you clearly don't understand. So as far as I can see there's no point you returning to this.



You need to develop this 'argument'. How do we get rid of the tories with a military coup or revolution???


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You need to develop this 'argument'. How do we get rid of the tories with a military coup or revolution???




how true the biblical proverb is:





> As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 17, 2017)

yield said:


> They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.


are you corbyn then?!
nice work imo, fuck the haters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2017)

corbyn feeds on it to grow stronger. Probably


----------



## BigTom (Mar 17, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You may have contributed to Corbyn becoming leader, but all that’s done is ensure we have a tory government for the next decade and probably longer. Was that really part of the long term plan for social democracy?
> 
> It was obvious before his election that Corbyn’s leadership would make Labour unelectable and I argued that at the time on here (and got called a fucking cunt for daring to say it then as well). The counter ‘argument’ was that he appealed to young voters and that he had a good chance of winning in 2020 because people will be crying out for change by then. No one seems to be saying that now having taken them 18 months to wake up.
> 
> You ask me to defend my position but that is what I’ve been doing repeatedly. I’ve already explained why I don’t accept your premise that a Labour administration investing more in public services will delay what you call ‘real change’ and I certainly don’t agree that Labour governments just do exactly what tory governments do but in slow motion.



2010: Tories say they will eliminate the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cuting public services.
Labour say this is too much and they will do the same, more slowly. Eliminating the half the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cutting public services but slower.

2015: Obviously this didn't work, so the tories and labour say the same again. Both austerity, Tories all in 5 years, Labour half in 5 years.

Exactly the same, but in slow motion.

If in 2015, Labour had won, we'd have austerity now. How will that lead to social democracy and investment in our economy in the next decade?

If in 2015, Corbyn had not won and either Burnham or Harnham had, they would be standing in 2020 on a platform of austerity. Slower austerity than the tories will, but austerity nonetheless. You supported this by supporting, presumably, one of those two over Corbyn or Kendall. If you supported Kendall then it's just even more austerity and you didn't support Corbyn. How would an austerity platform led labour party lead to social democracy in the next decade? If Burnham or Harnam had won in 2015 and led the party to electoral victory in 2020, how would you go from their austerity to social democracy in 2025 or 2030? Wouldn't you be arguing for austerity as the electable option over the tories? Wouldn't that just cement austerity as the key economic policy?

Now let's look to the future.
Lets assume that in 2020, Corbyn loses and resigns or is challenged as leader.
Two outcomes here - either we get someone to the right of Corbyn (most likely) who will parrot social democratic policies (like Owen Smith did) or someone around Corbyn who will push social democratic policies.

So in 2025 Labour stand on a social democratic platform, instead of a neo-liberal one. Investment in our services and economy, not austerity and cuts.

This has only happened because Corbyn was elected leader. This shifted the internal labour party overton window to the left - suddenly it was clear that social democratic polices are in the popular/sensible range and surprise surprise the right of the party take those policies on board.
Had you got one of the others elected, none of the right of the labour party would be talking about social democracy and austerity would still be the central economic policy of the labour party.

So the way I see it is that if what you wanted had succeeded post 2015 election (or if Labour had won in 2015) we'd not have the option of social democratic party at all. Now we might and Corbyn getting elected is central to this, crucial in fact, whether he wins in 2020 or not.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 17, 2017)

BigTom said:


> 2010: Tories say they will eliminate the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cuting public services.
> Labour say this is too much and they will do the same, more slowly. Eliminating the half the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cutting public services but slower.
> 
> 2015: Obviously this didn't work, so the tories and labour say the same again. Both austerity, Tories all in 5 years, Labour half in 5 years.
> ...



There are logical flaws in this. It wouldn't simply have been the same. Deficit reduction would have come from different sources, less QE, maybe higher growth. Do you seriously think that Labour would have taken 40% out of Local Government and introduced a bedroom tax?

You are correct that Labour would have managed the economy, not all of it palatable, that privatisation would not have been rolled back, but this lumpen equivalence does not help your argument. I can't imagine Corbyn even agreeing with it, party man he is.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 17, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> There are logical flaws in this. It wouldn't simply have been the same. Deficit reduction would have come from different sources, less QE, maybe higher growth. Do you seriously think that Labour would have taken 40% out of Local Government and introduced a bedroom tax?
> 
> You are correct that Labour would have managed the economy, not all of it palatable, that privatisation would not have been rolled back, but this lumpen equivalence does not help your argument. I can't imagine Corbyn even agreeing with it, party man he is.



All we can talk about are the platforms they ran on, which in 2010 was to reduce half the deficit by 2015, through public sector spending cuts. In 2015 it was the same by 2020. Do you dispute that? Do we need to try to find their manifestos to memory check? Austerity-light I seem to remember it being called. The same ideas, the same methods, just less of it, slower. I think Labour would have got closer to their target than the Tories did and of course things would diverge as a result, counterfactuals are difficult. The key point/question stands regardless - how does electing a party following austerity lead us to social democracy? Whether that's full throttle austerity or a lesser version, it's still heading the wrong way.

They would have cut 20% off local government spending - half what the tories did (I assume 40% is what the tories did and that's why you are quoting that figure, Birmingham is going to end up around 50% gone). Bedroom tax specifically maybe not but labour abstained on the welfare bill that brought in the benefit cap, they voted for the retroactive legislation that stopped £120m in illegal sanctions being returned to clients, they introduced ESA and the WCA in 2008, and workfare before then. They increased sanctions on JSA before the tories came in in 2010 and picked up that ball and ran with it so very, very hard. Labour's recent record on social security (prior to Corbyn) is abysmal. If not the bedroom tax then something else.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2017)

Have your say in the development of Labour policy


Labour are doing public consultations inc social security.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 17, 2017)

BigTom said:


> All we can talk about are the platforms they ran on, which in 2010 was to reduce half the deficit by 2015, through public sector spending cuts. In 2015 it was the same by 2020. Do you dispute that? Do we need to try to find their manifestos to memory check? Austerity-light I seem to remember it being called. The same ideas, the same methods, just less of it, slower. I think Labour would have got closer to their target than the Tories did and of course things would diverge as a result, counterfactuals are difficult. The key point/question stands regardless - how does electing a party following austerity lead us to social democracy? Whether that's full throttle austerity or a lesser version, it's still heading the wrong way.
> 
> They would have cut 20% off local government spending - half what the tories did (I assume 40% is what the tories did and that's why you are quoting that figure, Birmingham is going to end up around 50% gone). Bedroom tax specifically maybe not but labour abstained on the welfare bill that brought in the benefit cap, they voted for the retroactive legislation that stopped £120m in illegal sanctions being returned to clients, they introduced ESA and the WCA in 2008, and workfare before then. They increased sanctions on JSA before the tories came in in 2010 and picked up that ball and ran with it so very, very hard. Labour's recent record on social security (prior to Corbyn) is abysmal. If not the bedroom tax then something else.



If you want to consider all platforms they ran on delivered then you have presume they would have delivered on other pledges, some positive. But a Labour Govt would also have been easier to lean on and lobby and would also have had plenty of people in it who like to grow the state rather than shrink it. It would have been more up for grabs.

I can't disagree that austerity was a shitty platform to run, but it's just not all the same, foreign adventures aside.


----------



## Spreadit (Mar 17, 2017)

So how come Jeremy Corbyn needs no bodyguards yet we pay millions of pounds for Tony Blair to have bodyguards?? Yeah the real threat to our society.

The difference is ones a man of peace and love and isn't a threat to the ordinary people and the other is a man of war and hate who needs protection.

One man cares more about money and himself over the ordinary people and the other cares about us all and would rather put the money into the NHS and social care than it paying for bodyguards.


----------



## Supine (Mar 17, 2017)

Spreadit said:


> So how come Jeremy Corbyn needs no bodyguards yet we pay millions of pounds for Tony Blair to have bodyguards?? Yeah the real threat to our society.
> 
> The difference is ones a man of peace and love and isn't a threat to the ordinary people and the other is a man of war and hate who needs protection.
> 
> One man cares more about money and himself over the ordinary people and the other cares about us all and would rather put the money into the NHS and social care than it paying for bodyguards.



Welcome to the boards Jezza


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 17, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> If you want to consider all platforms they ran on delivered then you have presume they would have delivered on other pledges, some positive. But a Labour Govt would also have been easier to lean on and lobby and would also have had plenty of people in it who like to grow the state rather than shrink it. It would have been more up for grabs.


Based on what evidence? The historic record shows time and again (McDonald, Callaghan, Blair/Brown) Labour governments and Labour councils cutting services and attacking the welfare state. In other countries - Ireland, Australia, US, France, Greece - Labour's sister parties in power during/after the GFC didn't defend what remained of the welfare state in those countries they attacked it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Based on what evidence? The historic record shows time and again (McDonald, Callaghan, Blair/Brown) Labour governments and Labour councils cutting services and attacking the welfare state. In other countries - Ireland, Australia, US, France, Greece - Labour's sister parties in power during/after the GFC didn't defend what remained of the welfare state in those countries they attacked it.



Nonsensical if you mean state provision per se. Has it always shrunk since 1945 or have the Tories grown it for Labour to cut it? Labour must have grown it sometimes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 17, 2017)

How does that answer my points?

I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, could have been pushed from attacking services if they had been elected in 2015?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> How does that answer my points?
> 
> I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, wouldn't have attacked services if they had been elected in 2015?



In fact, if this somehow did not happen then it would be against what the Labour Party promised. Rachael Reeves boasted that Labour would be tougher on welfare than the Tories.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> How does that answer my points?
> 
> I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, could have been pushed from attacking services if they had been elected in 2015?



It answers your point that Labour have not always cut services. Blair and Brown invested considerably in the NHS and Education and social care just about kept up with demographics. They doubled their 'return' through privatisation in ancillary services and social care it is true. I'm certainly not arguing that the latter approach was correct. 

Big Tom had posited they would certainly have kept their manifesto pledges. I merely pointed out that If that was the case it would be both good and bad then. It is argument upon a premise. Labour promised to deal with the deficit, but also to restore the 50% higher tax rate, freeze energy bills, scrap the bedroom tax etc. The 'economy' has 'grown' and the Tories have frittered this opportunity without barely touching the deficit. Labour would have been better I believe.

I'm not arguing for a shift to the right. I don't think right wing electability is even likely to gain many votes. I don't see a problem with Corbyn's policies and think Labour should stand very firmly as a party that offers doing things together and social solutions against antisocial individualism. I don't think Jeremy can get that vision across though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 18, 2017)

Labour haven't attacked the working class when working class power has forced them not to. Every other time - in the 30s when they went in coalition with the Tories - in the 70s when they attacked unions - in the 00s when they embarked on the policy of austerity.

New Labour spent 8 years attacking the welfare state _before_ the GFC, the fact that you're using them as an example of when Labour defend public services shows just how weak your argument is. As for manifesto commitments, well if you seriously  believe then you're even more naive than you've come across so far. Labour might argue for 'freezing energy bills' (how exactly where they intending to achieve this) or scrapping the bedroom tax but no one with any sense would believe them any more than they'd believe the promises Irish Labour or PASOK made and broke. 

Time and again Labour has shown that when the chips are down it takes the side of capital - see the miners strike, the poll tax, the attacks it's currently carrying out.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 18, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It answers your point that Labour have not always cut services. Blair and Brown invested considerably in the NHS and Education and social care just about kept up with demographics. They doubled their 'return' through privatisation in ancillary services and social care it is true. I'm certainly not arguing that the latter approach was correct.
> 
> Big Tom had posited they would certainly have kept their manifesto pledges. I merely pointed out that If that was the case it would be both good and bad then. It is argument upon a premise. Labour promised to deal with the deficit, but also to restore the 50% higher tax rate, freeze energy bills, scrap the bedroom tax etc. The 'economy' has 'grown' and the Tories have frittered this opportunity without barely touching the deficit. Labour would have been better I believe.
> 
> I'm not arguing for a shift to the right. I don't think right wing electability is even likely to gain many votes. I don't see a problem with Corbyn's policies and think Labour should stand very firmly as a party that offers doing things together and social solutions against antisocial individualism. I don't think Jeremy can get that vision across though.



I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.

My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.
> 
> My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.


And, all the time the state is beholden on the usury of financialised capital for much of its operation, this will be the case...whatever party wins the right to tax the workers. The policy 'window' being restricted to that permitted by those controlling the supply of funding via bond markets.
Until and unless a government defaults on these debts to capital, nothing substantive will change.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.
> 
> My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.



Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 19, 2017)

I dunno all these rationalists arguing on here on the head of a pin .

Its Karma man -little england gets its come uppance -all parties ,dave,cleggy,blair,brown ,jezza,maybe,boris,gove,nigel ,labours registered supporters all dancing to the power of the inevitable.

Meanwhile Momentum and Landsman in shock horror secret tape plot says fat tom.

What can it all mean -I think we should be told


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.



Why is austerity seen as economically competent? In 2010, the Tories claimed they would reduce the deficit to zero over 5 years. They got halfway, which doesn't sound competent to me. Why isn't a social democratic strategy of investment in the economy producing jobs and growth which increase tax revenues and decrease social security spending (alongside other benefits such as cheaper housing, more sustainable housing, energy production and transportation) as well as direct income (surpluses from rents from social housing & energy production) to govt, that will lead to deficit reduction seen as economically competent?

Implicit in your statement is that you think that voting for austerity will not bring about social democracy, do you believe it is impossible to get back what we have lost since the 70s? That the best we can hope for is to lose more of our services but slower? In a different order?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Why is austerity seen as economically competent? In 2010, the Tories claimed they would reduce the deficit to zero over 5 years. They got halfway, which doesn't sound competent to me. Why isn't a social democratic strategy of investment in the economy producing jobs and growth which increase tax revenues and decrease social security spending (alongside other benefits such as cheaper housing, more sustainable housing, energy production and transportation) as well as direct income (surpluses from rents from social housing & energy production) to govt, that will lead to deficit reduction seen as economically competent?


Because it means increasing spending and therefore increasing the deficit. I do agree that investing will bring rewards, but it still means spending money we haven't got at the moment and that idea won't go.



BigTom said:


> Implicit in your statement is that you think that voting for austerity will not bring about social democracy, do you believe it is impossible to get back what we have lost since the 70s? That the best we can hope for is to lose more of our services but slower? In a different order?


Why is it implicit?. The economic situation could improve but there would be a tory government in power and they won't bring it about..


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> Have your say in the development of Labour policy
> 
> 
> Labour are doing public consultations inc social security.


And people should take part why?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because it means increasing spending and therefore increasing the deficit. I do agree that investing will bring rewards, but it still means spending money we haven't got at the moment and that idea won't go.



That idea is central to social democracy. If it won't go, we need to do things to make it go. Without it, we'll never get social democracy. Arguing against it won't bring it about will it?



> Why is it implicit?. The economic situation could improve but there would be a tory government in power and they won't bring it about..



You said "either" at the end of the sentence which I took to mean that you agreed with me that electing an austerity labour party would not bring about social democracy, but not doing so would not do either.

Social democracy means saving money when the economy is doing well. If you can't implement it when the private sector is doing badly, you're not implementing social democracy, you are pursuing a pro-cyclical not counter-cyclical economic cycle, so when something fucks up in the private sector you lose anything you've gained.
If what you elect in the place of a tory government is a neo-liberal labour party, then how do you get social democracy?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> If what you elect in the place of a tory government is a neo-liberal labour party, then how do you get social democracy?


Because it's more likely to happen under a labour government, it's not going to happen at all under a tory one.


----------



## gosub (Mar 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And people should take part why?



Which other parties are asking for input on policy?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because it's more likely to happen under a labour government, it's not going to happen at all under a tory one.



How do you get a neo-liberal labour party to deliver social democratic policies? Won't you say that doing so will be seen as economically incompetent, a logic you've accepted in order to get elected, cemented in the mind of the electorate, and so going against that means losing the next election and handing things to the tories?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2017)

gosub said:


> Which other parties are asking for input on policy?


Ask treelover


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.



Labour should argue to end austerity. Ordinary people have paid more than enough and it wasn't their fuck up to begin with. Reducing the deficit and austerity are not one and the same.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> How do you get a neo-liberal labour party to deliver social democratic policies? Won't you say that doing so will be seen as economically incompetent, a logic you've accepted in order to get elected, cemented in the mind of the electorate, and so going against that means losing the next election and handing things to the tories?


No, because by being in government and managing the economy competently they can make those arguments from a position of strength.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.


probably been poster somewhere before but:

Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, because by being in government and managing the economy competently they can make those arguments from a position of strength.



Who is going to argue for social democratic policies? The neo-liberals that you've elected? Why would they do that?
And who is going to vote for policies that you've argued as being economically incompetent, how do you turn around and say that you'll start doing the opposite of what you've been arguing to do and expect to get elected?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Who is going to argue for social democratic policies? The neo-liberals that you've elected? Why would they do that?
> And who is going to vote for policies that you've argued as being economically incompetent, how do you turn around and say that you'll start doing the opposite of what you've been arguing to do and expect to get elected?


Never said anything about neo-liberalism, it's a bit sneaky bringing that in...

They are only not going to work due to the deficit.

Is endless Tory governments what you want?


----------



## agricola (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Never said anything about neo-liberalism, it's a bit sneaky bringing that in...
> 
> They are only not going to work due to the deficit.
> 
> Is endless Tory governments what you want?



It is endless Tory governments you are proposing, though.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> They are only not going to work due to the deficit.


Don't really get that; care to expand on that?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 19, 2017)

Labour should be arguing that "austerity" is a counterproductive, politically motivated position which is economically awful for a country (at least for the populace of that country) and that the "household budget" metaphor is a patronising myth that just serves to make the rich richer and excuse the culprits of economic problems.

Successfully arguing that, which should hardly be impossible if you actually want to given how much evidence there is, would enable them to be seen as economically competent. The "if you actually want to" is key of course.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Never said anything about neo-liberalism, it's a bit sneaky bringing that in...



in post #16265 I said:



BigTom said:


> *How do you get a neo-liberal labour party to deliver social democratic policies?* Won't you say that doing so will be seen as economically incompetent, a logic you've accepted in order to get elected, cemented in the mind of the electorate, and so going against that means losing the next election and handing things to the tories?



to which you replied



sleaterkinney said:


> No, because by being in government and managing the economy competently they can make those arguments from a position of strength.



hence my reply, if you are electing a labour party following austerity, which you say is necessary because only austerity will be seen as economic competence, then you are by definition electing a neo-liberal party. So they get elected, follow austerity, become seen as economically competent. You have elected neo-liberals, why would they change tack? Why would people vote for you if you did, given that you've successfully argued that austerity = competence, and now you are saying lets follow a different economic policy, one we've been arguing is economic incompetence?



> They are only not going to work due to the deficit.



I don't understand what you mean here, please expand.



> Is endless Tory governments what you want?



clearly not, a good few pages back now I gave the start of an explanation as to why I believe we need to work outside of the labour party to produce the conditions that allow social democracy and that voting, campaigning for and ultimately electing a neo-liberal labour party can never be a path to social democracy. You can disagree with me about the strategy for creating social democracy, or that social democracy is the right aim, but obviously I don't want endless tory governments, as clearly I want social democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, because by being in government and managing the economy competently they can make those arguments from a position of strength.


Neither the Labour nor tory governments have managed the economy competently


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because it's more likely to happen under a labour government, it's not going to happen at all under a tory one.


We can quibble about social democratic but the Conservative governments of the 50s clearly signed up to the post-war consensus and the welfare state. Both in this country and others (US, Australia).

So how/why did political parties move from a position hostile to a welfare state to one accommodating of it to one hostile to it? I'm pretty sure it wasn't by 


> being in government and managing the economy competently [so] they can make those arguments from a position of strength.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 19, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> We can quibble about social democratic but the Conservative governments of the 50s clearly signed up to the post-war consensus and the welfare state. Both in this country and others (US, Australia).
> 
> So how/why did political parties move from a position hostile to a welfare state to one accommodating of it to one hostile to it? I'm pretty sure it wasn't by


Exactly.
With capital it's easy; fear = concessions.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> 2010: Tories say they will eliminate the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cuting public services.
> Labour say this is too much and they will do the same, more slowly. Eliminating the half the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cutting public services but slower.
> 
> 2015: Obviously this didn't work, so the tories and labour say the same again. Both austerity, Tories all in 5 years, Labour half in 5 years.
> ...



Admittedly Brown said that there would be cuts at the height of the recession, but as has been mentioned more than once, that was after a decade of increased healthcare funding to reach almost the EU average by 2009 (as % of GDP). How do you know that Corbyn wouldn’t decide to make similar cuts if he was PM when brexshit well and truly hits the fan?

The rest of your post depends on supposition, from which you contrive to conclude that any future Labour government not led by Corbyn or his chosen successor will be no better than the tories.

Trying to project what will happen by 2025 simply reminds me of Militant in about 1980 planning out the next couple of decades on an assumption that Labour will soon win back power. But what did they get instead? They got Thatcher and 18 continuous years of tory cuts and erosions of our rights.

What’s likely to happen by 2025 is that we’ll have left the EU by, essential services will have been starved almost out of existence, we’ll be returning to a two tier elitist state education system, Scotland may have left the UK making it even harder for Labour to gain power and the far right will be shouting even louder about immigrants being to blame whilst putting forward their own nationalist solutions designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters.



> it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.



There you go again; you’re arguing on a false or at least highly questionable premise. But even if you were correct, what do you mean by “not strategically beneficial”? Not beneficial to whom? Far left activists like yourself? Or those who rely on essential services every day, whom you’ve already admitted may have to wait at least 40 years for your ‘real change’ to materialise.



> obviously I don't want endless tory governments, as clearly I want social democracy.



But you are effectively saying that we must have endless tory governments until social democracy arrives, even though it might not arrive for generations and might possibly never even arrive at all.

Sorry Tom, but it smacks of ‘It may be hard, but trust us, we know what’s best for you’…


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> how true the biblical proverb is:
> 
> As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly



So a proverb apparently created especially for you.

The only viable way to change government is through a democratic vote and the only way to bring down this tory government would be the election of a Labour one and that clearly isn’t going to happen while Corbyn remains leader. Unless of course you think we can create a fairer society while the tories remain in government!??

Unless you go around with your head in the clouds, ‘Coups’ and ‘Revolutions’ have nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So a proverb apparently created especially for you.
> 
> The only viable way to change government is through a democratic vote and the only way to bring down this tory government would be the election of a Labour one and that clearly isn’t going to happen while Corbyn remains leader. Unless of course you think we can create a fairer society while the tories remain in government!??
> 
> Unless you go around with your head in the clouds, ‘Coups’ and ‘Revolutions’ have nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.



It's entirely possible to create 'fairer society' with Tories in government - mass struggle can wring out concessions from whichever party is in government.

This point has been explained several times yet you persist with the lie.

Unfortunately your posting record shows you have no serious desire for 'fairer society' because it might clip your own status. In fact many would guess you hate mass action as a whole, in which case why carry on with anything on a board such as this that grew in no small part from anti-capitalist demos of the late 1990s?

How can you possible post something like 'Brex**it' with a straight face?

This post is not aimed at you personally but all your like who have latched onto these forums,
 sort yourselves out and stop posting patent untruths.


----------



## agricola (Mar 20, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Labour should be arguing that "austerity" is a counterproductive, politically motivated position which is economically awful for a country (at least for the populace of that country) and that the "household budget" metaphor is a patronising myth that just serves to make the rich richer and excuse the culprits of economic problems.
> 
> Successfully arguing that, which should hardly be impossible if you actually want to given how much evidence there is, would enable them to be seen as economically competent. The "if you actually want to" is key of course.



I am not sure that is the best argument to make, especially for an opposition.  I would prefer McDonnell et al to basically spend between now and the election pointing out the colossal pouring-away of money that is going on (of the kinds oft described here - PFI, outsourcing, free schools, government contracts, tuition fees, offshoring, sales of state property etc ), which are not only things that are clearly going on and which affect many people, but are also eminently explainable using the "household budget" metaphor that the Tories are so fond of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So a proverb apparently created especially for you.
> 
> The only viable way to change government is through a democratic vote and the only way to bring down this tory government would be the election of a Labour one and that clearly isn’t going to happen while Corbyn remains leader. Unless of course you think we can create a fairer society while the tories remain in government!??
> 
> Unless you go around with your head in the clouds, ‘Coups’ and ‘Revolutions’ have nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.


The more you post the clearer it is you have no grasp of what other people say.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Admittedly Brown said that there would be cuts at the height of the recession, but as has been mentioned more than once, that was after a decade of increased healthcare funding to reach almost the EU average by 2009 (as % of GDP). How do you know that Corbyn wouldn’t decide to make similar cuts if he was PM when brexshit well and truly hits the fan?



Brown was, as you point out so well, following a neo-liberal economic policy set / ideology. Corbyn, as a social democrat, would respond to a failing economic situation caused by brexit by acting to invest in the economy. If he doesn't, then we haven't created enough pressure outside of parliament for social democracy to be re-implemented, instead what we've got is continued neo-liberalism. Obviously I can't have knowledge of the future, but how do you know that he wouldn't, given that he says he wouldn't, his politics have always been of a social democratic mindset and social democratic policies in a recession are counter-cyclical, ie invest in public services (infrastructure really), not make cuts.



> The rest of your post depends on supposition, from which you contrive to conclude that any future Labour government not led by Corbyn or his chosen successor will be no better than the tories.
> 
> Trying to project what will happen by 2025 simply reminds me of Militant in about 1980 planning out the next couple of decades on an assumption that Labour will soon win back power. But what did they get instead? They got Thatcher and 18 continuous years of tory cuts and erosions of our rights.
> 
> What’s likely to happen by 2025 is that we’ll have left the EU by, essential services will have been starved almost out of existence, we’ll be returning to a two tier elitist state education system, Scotland may have left the UK making it even harder for Labour to gain power and the far right will be shouting even louder about immigrants being to blame whilst putting forward their own nationalist solutions designed to appeal to traditional Labour voters.



my supposition = bad. your supposition = good?

Of course it's supposition! I'm trying to work out your position, the one you've said you've explained and defended but I don't think you have at all. I'm trying to work out where you think we'd be if what you wanted had happened, or would happen in the future. I'm trying to see how you think it will lead to social democracy.




> There you go again; you’re arguing on a false or at least highly questionable premise.



Right, thank god, please explain why this ("it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.") is false or highly questionable because that's exactly the thing I've been asking you to explain and you haven't. How does electing a neo-liberal government take us towards social democracy? 



> But even if you were correct, what do you mean by “not strategically beneficial”? Not beneficial to whom? Far left activists like yourself? Or those who rely on essential services every day, whom you’ve already admitted may have to wait at least 40 years for your ‘real change’ to materialise.
> 
> But you are effectively saying that we must have endless tory governments until social democracy arrives, even though it might not arrive for generations and might possibly never even arrive at all.



Not strategically beneficial to the aim of achieving social democratic government. You know, the kind of governments that created the essential services we rely on, that will protect and improve those services when the private sector is doing badly, and pay off those debts created doing so whilst the private sector is doing well. This is what we've been discussing for pages ffs.

I said that we've been 40 years getting here, I'm not putting a timeframe on how long it takes to get back, but whatever because as far as you're concerned I'm dammed if I do, dammed if I don't, either change won't come quick enough or it takes too long. Is there a millisecond in time which would be not too quick to be loony, and not too long to be abandonment? It'll come as quickly as we can make it happen. 

As neo-liberalism as dismantled social security and the public sector through 40 years of economic policies, so social democracy will build it back up through years of economic policies. It'll come bit by bit because some parts of govt can follow counter-cyclical economic policies whilst others continue to follow pro-cyclical economic policies. Just as social security and the NHS still exist now as vestiges of the previous social democratic era, so there will be parts of the neo-liberal regime that will remain long into a social democratic govt. Just as some parts of social democracy such as lots of nationalised industries were dismantled quickly, so some parts of neo-liberalism will be dismantled quickly by a social democratic govt (one which remember I said I think could have come about in 2020 had the whole labour party got behind corbyn after 2015, no longer possible imo, but the parliamentary process could have started there, could start in 2025 if there is a social democratic labour party to elect, might take longer, I'm not foolish enough to try to put an exact date to it).




> Sorry Tom, but it smacks of ‘It may be hard, but trust us, we know what’s best for you’…



Putting forward an aim, a strategy, some tactics for discussion and debate is imo literally the opposite of telling people to trust me.
Would it be better to have no plan? To wander blindly in the night? To make no suppositions about what may happen in the future if we choose to follow one set of actions over another? 

I have a straight question for you which tbh if you won't answer I won't continue this conversation: Do you want social democratic government or are you only interested in electing Labour regardless of the policies they follow?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And people should take part why?



Beats doing any work.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Brown was, as you point out so well, following a neo-liberal economic policy set / ideology. Corbyn, as a social democrat, would respond to a failing economic situation caused by brexit by acting to invest in the economy. If he doesn't, then we haven't created enough pressure outside of parliament for social democracy to be re-implemented, instead what we've got is continued neo-liberalism. Obviously I can't have knowledge of the future, but how do you know that he wouldn't, given that he says he wouldn't, his politics have always been of a social democratic mindset and social democratic policies in a recession are counter-cyclical, ie invest in public services (infrastructure really), not make cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Props for having that sort of patience.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Beats doing any work.


How is it not work?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How is it not work?



Work achieves something*. This would achieve nothing, ergo it is not work. QED!

*most commonly for your boss rather than yourself of course.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Work achieves something*. This would achieve nothing, ergo it is not work. QED!
> 
> *most commonly for your boss rather than yourself of course.



Exactly, its just pissing around on the internet for a bit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Work achieves something*. This would achieve nothing, ergo it is not work. QED!
> 
> *most commonly for your boss rather than yourself of course.


Er it is work as you are being exploited - your opinion is the commodity.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I have a straight question for you which tbh if you won't answer I won't continue this conversation: Do you want social democratic government or are you only interested in electing Labour regardless of the policies they follow?



Very, very good question.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Non-fantasists on the left tend to want the most socially democratic government that is achievable.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Er it is work as you are being exploited - your opinion is the commodity.



The giving of said opinion will produce nothing of value, therefore there can be no surplus value to be exploited.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Non-fantasists on the left tend to want the most socially democratic government that is achievable.


"Achievable" as in permitted?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The giving of said opinion will produce nothing of value, therefore there can be no surplus value to be exploited.


Platform capitalism says otherwise.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> "Achievable" as in permitted?



Achievable as in elected. Or non-elected if you think a coup is achievable or desirable.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Achievable as in elected. Or non-elected if you think a coup is achievable or desirable.


Oh, so you're saying Corbyn's social democratic policy programme is too extreme, then?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Oh, so you're saying Corbyn's social democratic policy programme is too extreme, then?



No. He's not getting elected though so he might as well go a bit lefter, bit righter, who cares, right? Right????


----------



## teqniq (Mar 20, 2017)

So apparently the problem is Momentum according to Watson, no mention of Progress. Why am I not surprised?

Tom Watson will tell Jeremy Corbyn Labour will die if he doesn't act now


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> No. He's not getting elected though so he might as well go a bit lefter, bit righter, who cares, right? Right????


No fucking idea what you're prattling about tbh.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> No fucking idea what you're prattling about tbh.



Ha! The uselessness of Corbyn and the fantasy that a social democratic government will be elected in right wing England. 

And of course the fantasists the deny this. 

Pretty much is the subject of the prattling. Classic brogdale banter


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Non-fantasists on the left tend to want the most socially democratic government that is achievable.



Presumably as defined by the loudest of the 'moderate' right voices?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Ha! The uselessness of Corbyn and the fantasy that a social democratic government will be elected in right wing England.
> 
> And of course the fantasists the deny this.
> 
> Pretty much is the subject of the prattling. Classic brogdale banter


I see. You're a revolutionary, then?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Presumably as defined by the loudest of the 'moderate' right voices?



Defined by an election of people on their platforms. Obv.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I see. You're a revolutionary, then?



Not really anything apart from occasional poster on this forum.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Achievable as in elected. Or non-elected if you think a coup is achievable or desirable.





brogdale said:


> Oh, so you're saying Corbyn's social democratic policy programme is too extreme, then?





B.I.G said:


> No.



So you would keep the sanme policies but change to a more "electable" leader?


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Defined by an election of people on their platforms. Obv.



So what aspect of Corbyn's platform are you against? Would a different leader saying the same thing be ok?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2017)

Seriously guys not worth bothering with this anti-union prick. He's just going to spout a whole load of non-sequiturs and bullshit.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Seriously guys not worth bothering with this anti-union prick. He's just going to spout a whole load of non-sequiturs and bullshit.



I'm in the Labour Party, if I let that stop me I'd never say anything.

In fact I seldom do say anything, hmmh.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> _*Not really anything*_ apart from occasional poster on this forum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The giving of said opinion will produce nothing of value, therefore there can be no surplus value to be exploited.


what you seem to be saying is that labour party policy is devoid of value. but what if the people standing on it get elected and get paid for their elective office? what then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> I'm in the Labour Party


didn't know you were mates with the likes of mikey mikey (((yousir)))


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> So what aspect of Corbyn's platform are you against? Would a different leader saying the same thing be ok?



There's no answer to this question, which is why it gets asked so much on this thread. England is right wing so everything on the left is just tinkering.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not really anything apart from occasional poster on this forum.


and an anti-union and anti-anti-fascist wanker.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> There's no answer to this question, which is why it gets asked so much on this thread. England is right wing so everything on the left is just tinkering.



There's no answer to which part of his platform your against?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and an anti-union and anti-anti-fascist wanker.



Not exactly true but you know. Classic Pickers.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> didn't know you were mates with the likes of mikey mikey (((yousir)))



Can't comment on mikey mikey but it's a broad church as they say and some of us are standing across are stuck out in the car park.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Can't comment on mikey mikey but it's a broad church as they say and some of us are standing across are stuck out in the car park.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not exactly true but you know. Classic Pickers.


go on, what's your truth then?

you were very vocal in your opposition to dhfc getting involved with even the mildest forms of anti-fascism and your views on unions are of course on record here too.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> go on, what's your truth then?
> 
> you were very vocal in your opposition to dhfc getting involved with even the mildest forms of anti-fascism and your views on unions are of course on record here too.



Just cos its you and hopefully for the last time.

I'm not anti-union. I'd be happy to join one.

I have some issues with the way some of the organisations and individuals act and have acted in the past.

And I would rather DHFC as a football club did not hold an official anti-fascist stance.

Oh! The controversy!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Just cos its you and hopefully for the last time.
> 
> I'm not anti-union. I'd be happy to join one.
> 
> ...


so do you oppose kick racism out of football?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Just cos its you and hopefully for the last time.
> 
> I'm not anti-union. I'd be happy to join one.
> 
> ...


oh, and why haven't you joined a union?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so do you oppose kick racism out of football?



Of course.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> oh, and why haven't you joined a union?



What would be the point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Of course.


yeh. you see how you could be construed as opposing anti-fascism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> What would be the point?


showing solidarity with your fellow workers perhaps


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you see how you could be construed as opposing anti-fascism?



Of course. I can draw a distinction. Fascinating isn't it?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> showing solidarity with your fellow workers perhaps



That's some expensive solidarity with workers I don't even know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Of course. I can draw a distinction. Fascinating isn't it?


perhaps you could explain why you believe dhfc, and by extension other football clubs, should not associate themselves with opposing fascism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> That's some expensive solidarity with workers I don't even know.


yeh. well, here's hoping you always work for grand employers.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could explain why you believe dhfc, and by extension other football clubs, should not associate themselves with opposing fascism.



They probably have more relevant things to concern themselves with.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> That's some expensive solidarity with workers I don't even know.



Interesting view of 'solidarity' - it doesn't apply to people I don't know.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well, here's hoping you always work for grand employers.



I doubt that has been or will be the case. Then again I doubt a union would be that much assistance.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Interesting view of 'solidarity' - it doesn't apply to people I don't know.



I don't need to join a union to show solidarity with people I know. Classic lefty point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> They probably have more relevant things to concern themselves with.


yeh cos for example monkey chants at players are a thing of the past  by objecting to kick racism out of football you are objectively *supporting* racism in football.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't need to join a union to show solidarity with people I know. Classic lefty point.


so you're not up for being in a union. would you object to a pay rise won by a union? or would you take it like a parasite?


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't need to join a union to show solidarity with people I know. Classic lefty point.



How do you show solidarity with people you know? Why won't you express solidarity with people you don't?


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're not up for being in a union. would you object to a pay rise won by a union? or would you take it like a parasite?



Well if it's won by people he doesn't know then presumably it's nothing to do with him, so he wouldn't take it. Seems to be the logic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Well if it's won by people he doesn't know then presumably it's nothing to do with him, so he wouldn't take it. Seems to be the logic.


let's let him answer for himself, eh


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I would rather DHFC as a football club did not hold an official anti-fascist stance.


Matter of inclusivity for you, then?


----------



## YouSir (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> let's let him answer for himself, eh



Well I'd best be satisfied, dammit...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Well I'd best be satisfied, dammit...


i don't think b.i.g. could satisfy anyone


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Classic lefty point.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I don't need to join a union to show solidarity with people I know. Classic lefty point.



I thought that was the whole point of a  union? That it binds us with people we know and those we don't know but share interests with.

But I suppose Corbo could appeal to everyone to form tight dark ages style kinship groups and attack their neighbours.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I thought that was the whole point of a  union? That it binds us with people we know and those we don't know but share interests with.
> 
> But I suppose Corbo could appeal to everyone to form tight dark ages style kinship groups and attack their neighbours.


no one shares interests with b.i.g

no one


----------



## Wilf (Mar 20, 2017)

Watson makes himself look ridiculous in all this, though he's clearly got the press lined up to recycle his nonsense (shocked I tell ya, part 94, etc.).  I'm not a great fan of Lansman, but what he said was just what any inter party grouping says in pretty much any party. He even said all the right things about 'not purging anyone', probably aware that his comments would get out to the press.  However, admittedly I'm a broken record on this, it's more shocking that Momentum _are only now getting round to thinking about getting control of and making changes in the party._


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Watson makes himself look ridiculous in all this, though he's clearly got the press lined up to recycle his nonsense (shocked I tell ya, part 94, etc.).  I'm not a great fan of Lansman, but what he said was just what any inter party grouping says in pretty much any party. He even said all the right things about 'not purging anyone', probably aware that his comments would get out to the press.  However, admittedly I'm a broken record on this, it's more shocking that Momentum _are only now getting round to thinking about getting control of and making changes in the party._


Which also offers Watson the opportunity to interfere with Unite's leadership election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

oh dear B.I.G's gone all brave sir robin on us


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

Tom Watson given £500k in donations by Max Mosley in past year

Max Mosley, son of fascist Oswald Mosley and one-time memeber of the Tory Party.

This is a man who was involved in counter-protesting an anti-apartheid rally.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what you seem to be saying is that labour party policy is devoid of value. but what if the people standing on it get elected and get paid for their elective office? what then?



I was just joking, I'm not a member of the party so didn't look at that, if it's meant for non-members it doesn't really immediately seem to fit into my idea of community based organising/action so wouldn't personally pursue it, not so much that labour party policy is devoid of value but that it won't be affected by this forum (or at least there are other things we could be doing that would have a greater effect, since this doesn't look like it puts pressure on capital, but then I've not looked at it beyond what it would appear to be from treelovers post).


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2017)

the one who definitely doesn't pay sex workers to flog him while dressed as SS?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I was just joking, I'm not a member of the party so didn't look at that, if it's meant for non-members it doesn't really immediately seem to fit into my idea of community based organising/action so wouldn't personally pursue it, not so much that labour party policy is devoid of value but that it won't be affected by this forum (or at least there are other things we could be doing that would have a greater effect, since this doesn't look like it puts pressure on capital, but then I've not looked at it beyond what it would appear to be from treelovers post).


doesn't matter. anyone who has some input into labour policy, no matter how minor, is working as they are being exploited.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the one who definitely doesn't pay sex workers to flog him while dressed as SS?


Yep. Definitely that one and he oh so definitely doesn't have Nazi fetish. Alistair Campbell interviewed him in GQ a couple of years ago and Max said his father, Oswald Mosley, was not an anti-Semite either. Alistair never challenged him on that.

Max Mosley is not Hitler's son


----------



## Wilf (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Tom Watson given £500k in donations by Max Mosley in past year
> 
> Max Mosley, son of fascist Oswald Mosely and one-time memeber of the Tory Party.
> 
> This is a man who was involved in counter-protesting an anti-apartheid rally.


And also the Union Movement, less explicitly fascist, but nonetheless his father's next political excursion after the BUF.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yep. Definitely that one and he oh so definitely doesn't have Nazi fetish. Alistair Campbell interviewed him in GQ a couple of years ago and Max said his father, Oswald Mosely, was not an anti-Semite either. Alistair never challenged him on that.
> 
> Max Mosley is not Hitler's son


mosley

surely you can spell hitler and mussolini so why problems with mosley?


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

Tom Watson and Tony Ward sharing biscuits.

Imagine if Corbyn had tweeted about biscuits.
Hang on, we don't have to. Matt Chorley has made it all up for us.
No wonder Labour’s in a jam with a leader who is bananas about food


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Watson makes himself look ridiculous in all this, though he's clearly got the press lined up to recycle his nonsense (shocked I tell ya, part 94, etc.).  I'm not a great fan of Lansman, but what he said was just what any inter party grouping says in pretty much any party. He even said all the right things about 'not purging anyone', probably aware that his comments would get out to the press.  However, admittedly I'm a broken record on this, it's more shocking that Momentum _are only now getting round to thinking about getting control of and making changes in the party._




Its alright for Progress to be funded by a Sainsbury though, to have its own board, journal, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Its alright for Progress to be funded by a Sainsbury though, to have its own board, journal, etc.


strange you think that.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Tom Watson given £500k in donations by Max Mosley in past year
> 
> Max Mosley, son of fascist Oswald Mosely and one-time memeber of the Tory Party.
> 
> This is a man who was involved in counter-protesting an anti-apartheid rally.



No fan of Mosley, but that was in his youth, afaik.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> No fan of Mosley, but that was in his youth, afaik.


it's not going to be in his auld age is it. why is it better if he shows his colours when he's young?


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2017)

Because people can change, you were once a public school educated pedantic prig, but of course you changed.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> No fan of Mosley, but that was in his youth, afaik.



Oh yeah. You're allowed that excuse if you are on the right. Everyone left of Owen Smith gets no such luck.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos for example monkey chants at players are a thing of the past  by objecting to kick racism out of football you are objectively *supporting* racism in football.



I forgot about you, but I love the fact that this is the opposite to what I said


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I forgot about you, but I love the fact that this is the opposite to what I said


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I forgot about you, but I love the fact that this is the opposite to what I said




post 16323 snipped for posterity above.

it's not the opposite of what you said, you were asked "do you oppose kick racism out of football?" and you said "of course".


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> post 16323 snipped for posterity above.
> 
> it's not the opposite of what you said, you were asked "do you oppose kick racism out of football?" and you said "of course".



Sarcasm  perhaps if you actually went to football you would know more about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Sarcasm  perhaps if you actually went to football you would know more about it.


tbh i don't believe you, given your previous pronouncements on similar subjects. in any case, it's not "the opposite of what [you] said".


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i don't believe you, given your previous pronouncements on similar subjects. in any case, it's not "the opposite of what [you] said".



No surprise you are so literal  surprised you aren't commenting on what I wrote rather than said. 

Luckily i dont care about what you think. So good times.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Which also offers Watson the opportunity to interfere with Unite's leadership election.



So it turns out Watson was being deliberately  misleading. 

Didn't he have something to say about fake news?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> No surprise you are so literal  surprised you aren't commenting on what I wrote rather than said.
> 
> Luckily i dont care about what you think. So good times.


yeh. well, you go on thinking that while everyone else thinks you're a right-wing shit with a dubious line on racism and fascism. there are ways to indicate sarcasm here (e.g. ) - the way you fall back on sarcasm after being caught out shows you didn't intend sarcasm at all.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well, you go on thinking that while everyone else thinks you're a right-wing shit with a dubious line on racism and fascism. there are ways to indicate sarcasm here (e.g. ) - the way you fall back on sarcasm after being caught out shows you didn't intend sarcasm at all.



Not people on the internet. Oh no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not people on the internet. Oh no.


i don't suppose people off the internet have a better impression of you, tbh.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't suppose people off the internet have a better impression of you, tbh.



Do people off the internet think you are a political fantasist that spends his hours typing up crap on a forum dawn to dusk?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Do people off the internet think you are a political fantasist that spends his hours typing up crap on a forum dawn to dusk?


you do, obviously. but then you're long on lying and terse on truth, so i can't say i give a monkey's for your opinion.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2017)

Lansmann has largely got rid of the Trots, does that mean Watson won't even tolerate radicals, democratic socialists, independent minded people who make up what is left.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you do, obviously. but then you're long on lying and terse on truth, so i can't say i give a monkey's for your opinion.



Luckily my life is lived off line and yours is not - so we are both in our natural environment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Luckily my life is lived off line and yours is not - so we are both in our natural environment.


i am at work. you, from the sounds of it, are not. so i am effectively getting paid for this. however, if you think posting here is less valuable than other things you do, what the fuck are you doing posing here?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Lansmann has largely got rid of the Trots...



I had the Trots once on holiday so I can see why he would.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i am at work. you, from the sounds of it, are not. so i am effectively getting paid for this. however, if you think posting here is less valuable than other things you do, what the fuck are you doing posing here?



Posting here is as valuable as the things I do offline maybe even more so.  Its just that its not the only thing I do. I don't do very much mind you. 

I just feel bad that you constantly have to reply to my posts even when not directed at you. God knows  no one has the time to do likewise to you.


----------



## agricola (Mar 20, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I had the Trots once on holiday so I can see why he would.



the very opposite of entryism


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Posting here is as valuable as the things I do offline


no it isn't. your posts here are even worse than treelover's, and that's saying something. you'd be better advised to scramble your password and venture out into the real world if you feel your contributions here are as valuable as the things you do offline. they're not valuable in the slightest, unless you believe dross of inestimable worth.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. your posts here are even worse than treelover's, and that's saying something. you'd be better advised to scramble your password and venture out into the real world if you feel your contributions here are as valuable as the things you do offline. they're not valuable in the slightest, unless you believe dross of inestimable worth.



I just try my best to make the fantasists realise their ideal lefty government is not happening and the damage they are doing to people while they pursue it.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. your posts here are even worse than treelover's, and that's saying something. you'd be better advised to scramble your password and venture out into the real world if you feel your contributions here are as valuable as the things you do offline. they're not valuable in the slightest, unless you believe dross of inestimable worth.



And of course I aspire only to be as useful a member of the community as you are, which luckily for me, is set extremely low.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i am at work. you, from the sounds of it, are not. so i am effectively getting paid for this. however, if you think posting here is less valuable than other things you do, what the fuck are you doing posing here?



Careful, that's the post they'll produce at your disciplinary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I just try my best to make the fantasists realise their ideal lefty government is not happening


i think most people realised that on the morning of 8 may 2015 and have been reminded of it on a daily basis since then, without your ineffectual efforts being necessary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> And of course I aspire only to be as useful a member of the community as you are, which luckily for me, is set extremely low.


nonetheless it remains for you only an aspiration.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> nonetheless it remains for you only an aspiration.



Who can tell? How do we set the test?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i think most people realised that on the morning of 8 may 2015 and have been reminded of it on a daily basis since then, without your ineffectual efforts being necessary.



Really, which lefty party lost in that election?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Who can tell? How do we set the test?


because until you can post repeatedly on topic on threads you demonstrate what a useless wanker you are. as for my being a useful member of this community, i'm a fuck of a lot more useful than you, your posts here showing regularly that you don't give a fuck about this place or you wouldn't fart on and on as you have on this thread alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Really, which lefty party lost in that election?




do you think about what you post? you said 


B.I.G said:


> I just try my best to make the fantasists realise their ideal lefty government is not happening


and i think everyone has realised that.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Lansmann has largely got rid of the Trots, does that mean Watson won't even tolerate radicals, democratic socialists, independent minded people who make up what is left.



Tom Watson, while not dab dancing at PMQs while Corbyn is asking questions abut the NHS, is releasing crap about takeovers while ignoring the antics of Luke Akehurst and Peter Mandleson.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Tom Watson, while not dab dancing at PMQs while Corbyn is asking questions abut the NHS, is releasing crap about takeovers while ignoring the antics of Luke Akehurst and Peter Mandleson.


mandelson


----------



## Wilf (Mar 20, 2017)

agricola said:


> the very opposite of entryism


Disentryism.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Disentryism.



Very good, here have a Hobnob.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> because until you can post repeatedly on topic on threads you demonstrate what a useless wanker you are. as for my being a useful member of this community, i'm a fuck of a lot more useful than you, your posts here showing regularly that you don't give a fuck about this place or you wouldn't fart on and on as you have on this thread alone.



Class pickers abuse.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think about what you post? you said
> and i think everyone has realised that.



You couldn't tell by the posts on here previously. But I am relieved you have come round to my way of thinking. Cheers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Class pickers abuse.


Yeh? But the message hasn't been heard, why can't you manage to post on topic? Let's see if you can manage that here,but I think it's beyond your meagre abilities.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> because until you can post repeatedly on topic on threads you demonstrate what a useless wanker you are. as for my being a useful member of this community, i'm a fuck of a lot more useful than you, your posts here showing regularly that you don't give a fuck about this place or you wouldn't fart on and on as you have on this thread alone.



I posted on topic and then as usual you kept responding to me just to raise that post count. Classic pickers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> You couldn't tell by the posts on here previously. But I am relieved you have come round to my way of thinking. Cheers.


Your way of thinking mistakes a fart for something profound


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I posted on topic and then as usual you kept responding to me just to raise that post count. Classic pickers.


Yeh. From the b.i.g school of posting crap: when struggling bring out a baseless allegation and hold hard to it - in other words, lie and lie harder.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. From the b.i.g school of posting crap: when struggling bring out a baseless allegation and hold hard to it - in other words, lie and lie harder.



Try not responding to my posts in order to desperately raise that post count. We do all appreciate your infrequent forays into the DHFC threads as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Try not responding to my posts in order to desperately raise that post count. We do all appreciate your infrequent forays into the DHFC threads as well.


No need to respond further now I've your admission you oppose anti-racism initiatives in football.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No need to respond further now I've your admission you oppose kroof.



But its just so tempting to get that +1 that you love so so much.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Really, which lefty party lost in that election?



what does that even mean ? You think Ed's LP were a 'lefty party' ?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> what does that even mean ? You think Ed's LP were a 'lefty party' ?



Not according to Urban, but certainly more lefty than what we have and what we had. Certainly would have made me happier.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Not according to Urban, but certainly more lefty than what we have and what we had. Certainly would have made me happier.



I came accross a DHFC bod on the w/e (on twitter) who seemed as keen as you are to get his / her tired anti Corbynism heard by anyone willing...wonder if it was the same person ? (Must admit, based on not v much )  I get the feeling there's a bit of this stuff about at DHFC...but I might just be jumbling up the radical gentrification of parts of S London, the militant Progress w*ankers on Lambeth council and the Lambeth Young Labour lot, and some of these smug 'we're not political ' DHFC' folk


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I just try my best to make the fantasists realise their ideal lefty government is not happening and the damage they are doing to people while they pursue it.





Pickman's model said:


> and i think everyone has realised that.



Well that's it then, JC and this thread are on borrowed time, the walking dead until gracefully decapitated by the results of the next GE....(assuming JC stays on to fight that, which I fully expect to happen).


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> I came accross a DHFC bod on the w/e (on twitter) who seemed as keen as you are to get his / her tired anti Corbynism heard by anyone willing...wonder if it was the same person ? (Must admit, based on not v much )  I get the feeling there's a bit of this stuff about at DHFC...but I might just be jumbling up the radical gentrification of parts of S London, the militant Progress w*ankers on Lambeth council and the Lambeth Young Labour lot, and some of these smug 'we're not political ' DHFC' folk



People do make lots of incorrect assumptions about DHFC and I know way more 'political' DHFC fans than 'not political' if that helps.

But feel free to post this twitter account and I will let you know if its me or not.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

for anyone looking a chink of light, todays ICM poll has the tories on a 19% lead, and _improving_ their lead on economic competance.

even after the Budget reversal, May/Hammond are on 44% while Corbyn/McDonnell are on 11%.

11 fucking percent, my fucking dog would get better polling results than that - but, you know, Blairites...


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

Better get Chuka Umuna and austerity-with-a-smile, then.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Better get Chuka Umuna and austerity-with-a-smile, then.



Because these are the only choices. Lefties


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

Name your choice, B.I.G. Nobody from the ABC seems willing. Maybe you have the balls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Name your choice, B.I.G. Nobody from the ABC seems willing. Maybe you hace the balls.


Maybe he doesn't


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Because these are the only choices. Lefties



Who've you got in mind ?


----------



## redcogs (Mar 20, 2017)

Labour in England heading for the same exit door as they took here in Scotland.  Blairite shits work for, and even prefer that option.  Many of em would probably vote Tory rather than accept a Left led Labour Party. Utter cahnts.  And that blob Tom Watson could do with keeping his drooling mouth shut.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 20, 2017)

And while we are on the subject, who the fuck does Mandelson represent, apart from big business,  ultra privilege, and wealthy spivs?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Because these are the only choices. Lefties



It's not 'lefties', it's cultists. 

There are people in my CLP who believe that the Corbyn/McDonnell economic model is laughably and fatally compromised by its acceptance of neo-liberalism, but who in the same breath would tell you that Corbyn is an unmitigated disaster, and that they will find themselves in an impossible position come the next election as they will not, on the evidence so far, be able in good conscience to cast a vote to make Corbyn PM.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> It's not 'lefties', it's cultists.



Some of the lot following Luke Akehurst around would make Thulsa Doom jealous.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Some of the lot following Luke Akehurst around would make Thulsa Doom jealous.



one of the problems with cultists is that they believe everyone else is in rival cults.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Name your choice, B.I.G. Nobody from the ABC seems willing. Maybe you have the balls.



The classic urban question, is there anyone better than Corbyn? If not the Labour party is totally done for, but then I gave up on them recently so I don't care.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> one of the problems with cultists is that they believe everyone else is in rival cults.



Not really. I mean, I personally think Progress in an entyrist party-within-a-party and that some of the hysterics shown by members of Labour First resembles the kind of "End is Nigh" that is eerily similar to Heaven's Gate, but on a national scale, the word "cult" has been thrown more AT Jeremy's supporters than by them.



B.I.G said:


> The classic urban question, is there anyone better than Corbyn? If not the Labour party is totally done for, but then I gave up on them recently so I don't care.



So you didn't have the balls. Colour me unsurprised.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Not really. I mean, I personally think Progress in an entyrist party-within-a-party and that some of the hysterics shown by members of Labour First resembles the kind of "End is Nigh" that is eerily similar to Heaven's Gate, but on a national scale, the word "cult" has been thrown more AT Jeremy's supporters than by them.
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't have the balls. Colour me unsurprised.



The balls? The knowledge more like - I doubt I could name more than 5 member of the PLP.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Not really. I mean, I personally think Progress in an entyrist party-within-a-party and that some of the hysterics shown by members of Labour First resembles the kind of "End is Nigh" that is eerily similar to Heaven's Gate, but on a national scale, the word "cult" has been thrown more AT Jeremy's supporters than by them.
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't have the balls. Colour me unsurprised.



I must be brave if I could name someone though - considering the ramifications if I did.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> It's not 'lefties', it's cultists.
> 
> There are people in my CLP who believe that the Corbyn/McDonnell economic model is laughably and fatally compromised by its acceptance of neo-liberalism, but who in the same breath would tell you that Corbyn is an unmitigated disaster, and that they will find themselves in an impossible position come the next election as they will not, on the evidence so far, be able in good conscience to cast a vote to make Corbyn PM.



did that makes sense when you were typing it  ?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> I must be brave if I could name someone though - considering the ramifications if I did.



given that a mighty, unassailable, glistening 14% of the electorate think that Corbyn would make the better PM rather than May (48%), surely the question has got to be 'who could do _worse_ than Corbyn?'

err... Diane Abbott?

McDonnell, despite his _abrasive_ personality and similar history/baggage to Corbyn, would be a far better choice purely by dint of being able to tie his own shoelaces. there must be at least another 20 within the current PLP who come from a similar social democratic mould who can a) think on their feet, b) have a conversation with a potential minister/shadow minister in order to ascertain whether their views/priorities on the subject area broadly mesh with the leaders own*, and c) appear on the front page of a newspaper without being flanked by members of the IRA or Hamas.

*yes, thats right, the Great One managed to appoint a Shadow Defence secretary without making any effort to discover their views on NATO or nuclear weapons. in fact, given that he's on his fourth Shadow Defence secretary in 18 months, it looks like he managed to appoint four SDS without having a single conversation with any of them...


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> did that makes sense when you were typing it  ?



yes. in which the problem is you reading it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2017)

Who could do better than Corbyn is a pretty empty question ATM anyway - anyone on the left of the party wouldn't get on the ballot under current rules so he's stuck there until he gets sick of it and throws in the towel, or his support among the members drops enough that a challenge would actually succeed (which tbh I think might not be that far off). Or until there's a rule change so the bar to entry is lower - I'm doubtful whether this will happen though, and Watson's maneuvering this weekend was at least partly aimed at heading this off.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The balls? The knowledge more like - I doubt I could name more than 5 member of the PLP.



Do you often talk about things of which you know nothing?



B.I.G said:


> I must be brave if I could name someone though - considering the ramifications if I did.



And yet you hesitate.



kebabking said:


> given that a mighty, unassailable, glistening 14% of the electorate think that Corbyn would make the better PM rather than May (48%), surely the question has got to be 'who could do _worse_ than Corbyn?'



And neither will you ventue one name from the whole PLP. Why is that?



killer b said:


> Who could do better than Corbyn is a pretty empty question ATM anyway



I am sure that you would like members to accept that were so, but it really isn't to the people that you are trying to persuade to stop supporting Jeremy.



killer b said:


> or his support among the members drops enough that a challenge would actually succeed (which tbh I think might not be that far off). Or until there's a rule change so the bar to entry is lower - I'm doubtful whether this will happen though, and Watson's maneuvering this weekend was at least partly aimed at heading this off.



So you are hoping for a drop in membership in the hundreds of thousands and conragulating Watson for his attempte to disenfranchise members of your own party. Maybe the word "cult" is a misspelling..


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2017)

Again, you seem to be reading an awful lot into my posts. What angle do you think I'm coming from here? Do you ever read anything in the context of who posted it, or is it just some kind of stimulus/response thing once you see anything that could be seen as mildly critical of Corbyn?


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2017)

Seriously, you just called me a cunt. What for? It's totally baffling.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Seriously, you just called me a cunt. What for? It's totally baffling.



welcome to the cult. there is no constructive criticism, there is no friendly advice, there is no learning - there is only the light, and hateful treason.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Do you often talk about things of which you know nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you think Jeremy Corbyn is doing the best job then congratulations agent tory government.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> welcome to the cult. there is no constructive criticism, there is no friendly advice, there is no learning - there is only the light, and hateful treason.


I wouldn't draw any wider lessons from mikey mike's postings tbh.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ..And neither will you ventue one name from the whole PLP. Why is that?..



there was one name in the very post you quoted...

reading: _null points_

comprehension: _null points_


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> yes. in which the problem is you reading it.



erm, huh ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> welcome to the cult.
> there is no constructive criticism,
> there is no friendly advice,
> there is no learning -
> ...


Put a decent rhythm on that with a handy riff and it's a number one


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> The balls? The knowledge more like - *I doubt I could name more than 5 member of the PLP*.



lol - knowing stuff about things yr blathering on about online, at length, is overrated anyway


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Seriously, you just called me a cunt. What for? It's totally baffling.



No, I did not. I meant tha Watson calls Corbyn supporters "a cult" but treats them like a cunt.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> there was one name in the very post you quoted...
> 
> reading: _null points_
> 
> comprehension: _null points_



Are you trying to pretend that you were seriously suggesting Abbot?

GTFO


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you trying to pretend that you were seriously suggestin Abbot?
> 
> GTFO


What, because she's black or because she's a woman?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you trying to pretend that you were seriously suggestin Abbot?
> 
> GTFO



McDonnell was the name i mentioned - admittedly slightly tongue in cheek, but still vastly better than Corbyn by any measure of competancy. the Abbott reference was in relation to the singular honour of her being the one person in the whole of the Labour party who would be worse than Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2017)

bring in the Skinner


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bring in the Skinner


The skinner's asleep


----------



## TopCat (Mar 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Put a decent rhythm on that with a handy riff and it's a number one


The only number one I recollect that was not about love was 99 red balloons. This is an omen.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> McDonnell was the name i mentioned - admittedly slightly tongue in cheek,



Hence I didn't think it was a suggestion. Personally, I like McDonnel a lot, but I think the press would have gone even harder on him. Now if you're going to avoid giving a genuine proposal for a leader, kindly jog on.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2017)

I'm not that keen on calling people liars, but you really are a disingenuous little shit aren't you? I regret bothering, and won't do again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2017)

TopCat said:


> The only number one I recollect that was not about love was 99 red balloons. This is an omen.


Mad World the cover from the Donnie Darko soundtrack. Christmas number one for some reason.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Hence I didn't think it was a suggestion. Personally, I like McDonnel a lot, but I think the press would have gone even harder on him. Now if you're going to avoid giving a genuine proposal for a leader, kindly jog on.



backed John McD @ 16/1 - if they get the PLP leadership nom.  % down to 5% at conference, I fancy his chances - always sharp, steely, quietly combative, never phased,  will be potentially able to connect with working class voters (poss. barring the frothers who can't get over his Repub sympathies )


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm not that keen on calling people liars, but you really are a disingenuous little shit aren't you? I regret bothering, and won't do again.



Go Blair yourself.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Hence I didn't think it was a suggestion. Personally, I like McDonnel a lot, but I think the press would have gone even harder on him. Now if you're going to avoid giving a genuine proposal for a leader, kindly jog on.



i've given you at least half a dozen serious suggestions in our many interactions on this issue, but i'm afraid that the mist decends whenever theres any suggestion of either falability or mortality on the part of the Great One and you become incapable of reading words and just rant off about Blairites.

(and actually, i'm being serious about the 'who could be worse?' thing - Abbott has no redeeming features whatsoever and makes Corbyn look popular, but McDonnell does have redeeming features. he has baggage certainly, and his _winning friends and influencing people_ skills could do with a polish, but no one has ever described him as thick or lazy, he can cope with the rough stuff, and he can think on his feet. he wouldn't be my choice of leader for a number of reasons, but i think he'd certainly be an above averagely competant cabinet-level minister.)

seriously, look at the polling, there is no demographic that thinks Corbyn would be a better PM than May, and only one - BAME - that is more likely to vote Labour than Tory. the 19% lead we have seen before - if rarely - what we've never seen before is the collapse in support for Labour amongst its key working class demographics.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i've given you at least half a dozen serious suggestions in our many interactions on this issue, but i'm afraid that the mist decends whenever theres any suggestion of either falability or mortality on the part of the Great One and you become incapable of reading words and just rant off about Blairites.
> 
> (and actually, i'm being serious about the 'who could be worse?' thing - Abbott has no redeeming features whatsoever and makes Corbyn look popular, but McDonnell does have redeeming features. he has baggage certainly, and his _winning friends and influencing people_ skills could do with a polish, but no one has ever described him as thick or lazy, he can cope with the rough stuff, and he can think on his feet. he wouldn't be my choice of leader for a number of reasons, but i think he'd certainly be an above averagely competant cabinet-level minister.)
> 
> seriously, look at the polling, there is no demographic that thinks Corbyn would be a better PM than May, and only one - BAME - that is more likely to vote Labour than Tory. the 19% lead we have seen before - if rarely - what we've never seen before is the collapse in support for Labour amongst its key working class demographics.



Name another alternative or get off urban.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the 19% lead we have seen before - if rarely - what we've never seen before is the collapse in support for Labour amongst its key working class demographics.


as with its collapse in scotland these things are not so quick as 'Corbyn the devil tanks labour'. The collapse of the w/c labour vote has been longer in the making than that. If anything corbyns a last gasp. I honestly said 'well thats the last of them then' when a pre-corbyn Skinner was voted off the NEC. Close the book, I thought. The labour left are done. But the continuing shit show, well corbyn and co have not been adroit in the face of blanket hostility and momentum have lacked it a bit but to lay the disintegration at corbyns feet is a little off beam. These are old foundations, same as indyreff stance was the straw that crippled the dromedary for scottish voters who went SNP


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> as with its collapse in scotland these things are not so quick as 'Corbyn the devil tanks labour'. The collapse of the w/c labour vote has been longer in the making than that. If anything corbyns a last gasp. I honestly said 'well thats the last of them then' when a pre-corbyn Skinner was voted off the NEC. Close the book, I thought. The labour left are done. But the continuing shit show, well corbyn and co have not been adroit in the face of blanket hostility and momentum have lacked it a bit but to lay the disintegration at corbyns feet is a little off beam. These are old foundations, same as indyreff stance was the straw that crippled the dromedary for scottish voters who went SNP




Yeah anyone blaming the collapse of Labour on Corbyn hasn't been paying attention, the "natural base" of Labour have been cut off from them for over 20 years now.

Corbyn was a sink or swim moment, if he was any good we'd be getting somewhere, as it is Labour are fucked.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2017)

Apparently the meeting today was really nasty, that creep Watts(known to someone on the boards) calling Corbyn a disgrace, 

er, did Corbyn launch an illegal war, cut disability benefits, create PFI?


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i've given you at least half a dozen serious suggestions in our many interactions on this issue,



And yet you didn't just list these "suggestions" 1,2,3,4,5,6.

Let me start, and you finish.

1. Abbott. (but not really)
2. McDonnell. (but not really)
3.
4.
5.
6.

Of you go.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 20, 2017)

treelover said:


> Apparently the meeting today was really nasty, that creep Watts(known to someone on the boards) calling Corbyn a disgrace,
> 
> er, did Corbyn launch an illegal war, cut disability benefits, create PFI?



Even for you that is a really crap argument tree fucker.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 20, 2017)

And calling treelover "treefucker" is just genius.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 20, 2017)

reading the also ran Kev Scholfield dribbling, barely able to contain his glee on Twitter, seems the PLP bullshit was all about Wes Streeting and Ian Austen sticking it to JC ....If Corbyn, McD and the CLPs can't bring utter fucknuggets like this into line, start putting pressure on them via reselection, then the whole things just a waste of time. Time to show some mettle.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 20, 2017)

Why Blair hasn't been expelled is beyond me.


----------



## agricola (Mar 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> as with its collapse in scotland these things are not so quick as 'Corbyn the devil tanks labour'. The collapse of the w/c labour vote has been longer in the making than that. If anything corbyns a last gasp. I honestly said 'well thats the last of them then' when a pre-corbyn Skinner was voted off the NEC. Close the book, I thought. The labour left are done. But the continuing shit show, well corbyn and co have not been adroit in the face of blanket hostility and momentum have lacked it a bit but to lay the disintegration at corbyns feet is a little off beam. These are old foundations, same as indyreff stance was the straw that crippled the dromedary for scottish voters who went SNP



Indeed.  Leaving out what they actually did when in office, lets not forget that they (the Maquis) more than halved the membership, put the party tens of millions of pounds into debt, lost at least 50-55 safe seats, lost two General Elections *and* managed to lose to Corbyn twice.   I am not surprised Corbyn finds it tough going against opponents who aren't as utterly and serially useless as they are.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> And yet you didn't just list these "suggestions" 1,2,3,4,5,6.
> 
> Let me start, and you finish.
> 
> ...



Anyone except Corbyn


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Name another alternative or get off urban.



Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.

But what we do  know is that JC has no authority or vision and is thoroughly exposed in the eyes of the public. The gamble that he will transform the party is just that.

I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 20, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.
> 
> But what we do  know is that JC has no authority or vision and is thoroughly exposed in the eyes of the public. The gamble that he will transform the party is just that.
> 
> I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.



It was a joke. An urban joke so not that funny, but a joke nonetheless.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 21, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Name another alternative or get off urban.



Jon Ashworth? Maybe a machine politician with authentically working class teeth is what Labour need right now.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.



So the memership is not qualified to choose the leader of the party, only the PLP, is that what you're saying? 



Mr Moose said:


> So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know.



Wow. You do know that the membership elects the leader, right?



Mr Moose said:


> Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that,



Well we know how he votes and what he supports so that should be something to go on.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 21, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Jon Ashworth?



Thank you for having the temerity to suggest somebody.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.
> 
> But what we do  know is that JC has no authority or vision and is thoroughly exposed in the eyes of the public. The gamble that he will transform the party is just that.
> 
> I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.


This is urban. Speculation is what we do.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.


Right so you don't know anything about any Labour MPs but you definitely think Corbyn should go - and that when he goes Labour will definitely be able to move to the left.



Mr Moose said:


> I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.


And this rather shows your ignorance, there is no one who can unify the LP under the current policy direction because the party is hopelessly split. Starmer is not a social democrat, even if he got the leadership you'd see a move back to neo-liberalism, he's probably to the right of Miliband. 

 You've spent pages telling people how the LP can move back to social democratic policies and now you admit you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Rather sums up your posts.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Right so you don't know anything about any Labour MPs but you definitely think Corbyn should go - and that when he goes Labour will definitely be able to move to the left.
> 
> And this rather shows your ignorance, there is no one who can unify the LP under the current policy direction because the party is hopelessly split. Starmer is not a social democrat, even if he got the leadership you'd see a move back to neo-liberalism, he's probably to the right of Miliband.
> 
> You've spent pages telling people how the LP can move back to social democratic policies and now you admit you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Rather sums up your posts.



I'm pleased if nothing else to make you happy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Name another alternative or get off urban.



Who the fucking hell do you think you are, besides a cunt?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 21, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Anyone except Corbyn




If Abbott, Jess Phillips, Chukka or Burnham get the top job I'm not voting Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.
> 
> But what we do  know is that JC has no authority or vision and is thoroughly exposed in the eyes of the public. The gamble that he will transform the party is just that.
> 
> I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.



Starmer is quasi-Blairite.  He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense.  Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.

Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.

I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause.  What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause.  The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 21, 2017)

God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 21, 2017)

hash tag said:


> God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?



He was on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday - he's just putting his head above the parapet to get publicity for his knew 'centre' think-tank he's launching. He mentioned he was not going back into front-line politics, but wants to provide a 'space' for centre politics thinking. He'd rather influence from no-mans-land right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> He was on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday - he's just putting his head above the parapet to get publicity for his knew 'centre' think-tank he's launching. He mentioned he was not going back into front-line politics, but wants to provide a 'space' for centre politics thinking. He'd rather influence from no-mans-land right now.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>




On the run to the outside of everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2017)

hash tag said:


> God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?


He has to come back so he can fuck off again


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

Libertad said:


> On the run to the outside of everything.



They definitely came to a secret understanding.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Starmer is quasi-Blairite.  He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense.  Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.
> 
> Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.
> 
> I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause.  What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause.  The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.



I agree with much of what you say. There is a very narrow margin for a leader to unify without slipping back to past errors. But even Corbyn is looking for Capitalism to thrive and provide. Labour is not going to offer other than regulation and mediation of the effects. It needs to convince that it can.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> So the memership is not qualified to choose the leader of the party, only the PLP, is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what hustings are for and there are plenty of people, unionists, writers, activists, former Labour 'bigwigs' who can identify, mentor and put forward the candidates with leadership potential, not just the potential to agree with you. It would be a good change to lower the threshold for nominations and I hope it happens.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> That's what hustings are for and there are plenty of people, unionists, writers, activists, former Labour 'bigwigs' who can identify, mentor and put forward the candidates with leadership potential, not just the potential to agree with you. It would be a good change to lower the threshold for nominations and I hope it happens.



I agree with you for the most part. I especially agree with your wish to lower the threshold for nominations. I would add, however that the role and nature of the hustings are undergoing radical change with the increasingly significant role in modern forms of communication. At one time the average member was much less likely to be able to find out for themselves exactly how an MP voted, what political group they belong to, bios, their financial backers etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2017)

corbyn got on the ticket as a token lefty, he was never expected to win to start with. All sections voted him in but the three quidders surge has been well cut off now. If they seek to depose St J there is no way in hell anyone left of owen smith is on the ticket- except corbyn because his right to be auto included was decided in court (really a good look for a political party was that fucking incident) and he would win again.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> really a good look for a political party was that fucking incident



Acceptable losses. Tony said it himself: he would rather have a Tory government than a Labour Left one. Not on practical grounds, but ideological grounds. From what I can gather, the priorities are: 1) Prevent the return of a social democratic government at all costs. 2) Achieve power 3) Look like a liberal while carrying out "wet" Tory policies.


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Starmer is quasi-Blairite.  He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense.  Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.
> 
> Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.
> 
> I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause.  What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause.  The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.




The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I agree with much of what you say. There is a very narrow margin for a leader to unify without slipping back to past errors. But even Corbyn is looking for Capitalism to thrive and provide. Labour is not going to offer other than regulation and mediation of the effects. It needs to convince that it can.


A week ago you were arguing that Corbyn needed to go because he was blocking a move to the left, now this. So you're admitting that you were talking rubbish last week?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> A week ago you were arguing that Corbyn needed to go because he was blocking a move to the left, now this. So you're admitting that you were talking rubbish last week?



I'm not saying it's beyond me to talk rubbish, but you'd have to quote it. 

I think I've always been clear that I think Labour's policies are ok, but Jeremy can't deliver because he doesn't have a hope of convincing the public. He can't because his stance is hopelessly confused for a statesman. He is therefore holding Labour back electorally. Whether he is making progress towards the party emerging as a socialist party in any sense of the word I also doubt.

As you know I am not convinced an eviscerated LP reborn under Corbyn would go anywhere anyway. Get rid of the liberalism in the PLP you merely the have to then deal with how deep it runs in the voters, with their flexible working arrangements, self employment and small businesses, let alone their nationalism, if you want to get enough votes to govern that is.

I hope there is a narrow window for a left inclined leader, who has the leadership ability and can insist on discipline across the party behind a decent anti-austerity agenda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2017)

treelover said:


> The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.


you don't like socialists, do you?

let's see your evidence of his 'former marxis[m]'


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

treelover said:


> The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.



Harsh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not saying it's beyond me to talk rubbish, but you'd have to quote it.


Sorry it was a whole_ three _weeks ago


Mr Moose said:


> It's tactics in the end. I think Corbyn is holding up left wing advancement in the party because he makes it look unattractive and fey. Keeping him is like telling Labour voters that the members think they are wrong about most things.
> 
> I don't believe a right wing coup would succeed in any way but superficially. The membership have the upper hand.





Mr Moose said:


> I hope there is a narrow window for a left inclined leader, who has the leadership ability and can insist on discipline across the party behind a decent anti-austerity agenda.


So despite admitting that you're ignorant of internal Labour politics and can't name who this individual is, despite the fact that people have repeatedly outlined reasons why this is not possible (summarised here) you'll just keep on repeating this same bollocks.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry it was a whole_ three _weeks ago
> 
> So despite admitting that you're ignorant of internal Labour politics and can't name who this individual is, despite the fact that people have repeatedly outlined reasons why this is not possible (summarised here) you'll just keep on repeating this same bollocks.



Well yes, if that's alright with you I will, thanks.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 21, 2017)

I think "little people" were supposed to accept Kier Starmer is "left inclined". Just as they weren't supposed to know about Starmers record. Hopefully these pesky facts will be buried in a hundred headlines and the sites that share such details wil be either closed or dubbed "fake news".


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2017)

> At the NEC meeting, MP Ian Lavery, the party’s election coordinator, gave a presentation about the party’s local election campaign effort, saying the slogan would be: “Standing up for you.”
> 
> The party, he said, would be making five pledges:
> 
> ...



New five pledges, sound good to me,


----------



## killer b (Mar 22, 2017)

Get 'em carved on a bit of rock.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 22, 2017)

treelover said:


> New five pledges, sound good to me,



So this was what we were fighting for? 

Forward to a bright socialist future comrades


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 22, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> he's just putting his head above the parapet


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 22, 2017)

treelover said:


> New five pledges, sound good to me,



These shouldn't have to be pledges, these should be accepted basic policy.
Bah.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 22, 2017)

treelover said:


> New five pledges, sound good to me,



Uninspiring though. Most will feel they are the basic job of Government. If you don't feel Labour will do them best you won't vote for them.

Labour needs to work more on its reason for being and what should set it apart. It needs new values more than bland policy. The policy can follow. Better to campaign like so,

We favour solutions in health, care and education that work for everybody and leave no one behind.
We protect our beautiful country so all can enjoy it.
We are welcoming and fair to strangers in need.
We believe the state should not intrude upon you beyond its mandate.
We seek to promote the opportunities of technological change to benefit all.
We believe in democracy and seek to mediate concentrations of power.


----------



## nuffsaid (Mar 22, 2017)

A little lengthy for an epitaph.

The pledges above I mean.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 22, 2017)

Meaningless. The  council housing bit is the only thing that approaches an actual policy or that differentiates them from the Tories and Lib Dems.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2017)

'including' doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence either. Sounds like private-public joint effort where most of the area would be lower cost private rental and a few token council houses.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 22, 2017)

*We favour solutions in health, care and education that work for everybody and leave no one behind.*
_So PFI, disability benefits and University fees?
_
*We protect our beautiful country so all can enjoy it.*
_So fracking?
_
*We are welcoming and fair to strangers in need.*
_So immigration and refugees?
_
*We believe the state should not intrude upon you beyond its mandate.*
_So GCHQ snooping?
_
*We seek to promote the opportunities of technological change to benefit all.*
_So fast internet in remoter areas?

*We believe in democracy and seek to mediate concentrations of power.*
So Scottish Indyref2?_


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 22, 2017)

The problem Labour has had for years is not stating what they are fighting for or against.
Pleasant platitudes achieve nothing but disdain.
They haven't even got the bottle to stand by the trade union movement that finances them.
Let's be told they will repeal the constricting anti trade union laws for a start and work for the poor, the sick and those who are not represented. Fight tooth and nail against inequality and chase down the multi millions owed in income tax. But they play to the media always and cannot even mount a decent opposition, because the middle class that run the party are not affected, they would be as well letting charities sit on the opposition benches.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 22, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> *We favour solutions in health, care and education that work for everybody and leave no one behind.*
> _So PFI, disability benefits and University fees?
> _
> *We protect our beautiful country so all can enjoy it.*
> ...



I'm not sure what your comments are, satire, cynicism, lack of confidence in the LP?...

My point is that any party can say 'we will spend x on y', yawn yawn. No one particularly cares or believes it anymore. Labour needs to establish values. When it does that people will know what its approach will be whatever the issue. Like that Clause Four. That told people something.

I expect they can do better than I did in 5 minutes, but it will help a lot if they actually mean it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 22, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> The problem Labour has had for years is not stating what they are fighting for or against.
> Pleasant platitudes achieve nothing but disdain.
> They haven't even got the bottle to stand by the trade union movement that finances them.
> Let's be told they will repeal the constricting anti trade union laws for a start and work for the poor, the sick and those who are not represented. Fight tooth and nail against inequality and chase down the multi millions owed in income tax. But they play to the media always and cannot even mount a decent opposition, because the middle class that run the party are not affected, they would be as well letting charities sit on the opposition benches.



People would also vote for plenty of that.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 22, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not sure what your comments are,



You know exactly what they are: a request for your views on proposed policies and not something that looks like it was swept up off Hallmark's factory floor.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 22, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You know exactly what they are: a request for your views on proposed policies and not something that looks like it was swept up off Hallmark's factory floor.



No I don't. I don't know whether you want to know what I think they should be or on what way the LP would interpret them. Or even if that's the LP as now, or after Jeremy successfully remakes it or after the Blairites stage a coup.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Brown was, as you point out so well, following a neo-liberal economic policy set / ideology. Corbyn, as a social democrat, would respond to a failing economic situation caused by brexit by acting to invest in the economy. If he doesn't, then we haven't created enough pressure outside of parliament for social democracy to be re-implemented, instead what we've got is continued neo-liberalism. Obviously I can't have knowledge of the future, but how do you know that he wouldn't, given that he says he wouldn't, his politics have always been of a social democratic mindset and social democratic policies in a recession are counter-cyclical, ie invest in public services (infrastructure really), not make cuts.



As you say, we don't know how as PM Corbyn would react in similar circumstances to those that Brown was responding to in 2008/9. If the revenue stops coming then he will inevitably look at cuts.



> my supposition = bad. your supposition = good?
> 
> Of course it's supposition! I'm trying to work out your position, the one you've said you've explained and defended but I don't think you have at all. I'm trying to work out where you think we'd be if what you wanted had happened, or would happen in the future. I'm trying to see how you think it will lead to social democracy.



Supposition is supposition, but you seem to rely heavily on it for your argument. So let's deal in facts instead: 1. Public service spending goes up under Labour governments and down under tory ones. 2. Jeremy Corbyn cannot win a general election therefore the tories will stay in power.

My argument isn't an ideological one, it is simply that we need to save public services and only a Labour government can do that and it needs to happen asap. Picky’s ‘coups and revolutions’ aren’t going to help.



> Right, thank god, please explain why this ("it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.") is false or highly questionable because that's exactly the thing I've been asking you to explain and you haven't. How does electing a neo-liberal government take us towards social democracy?



The false premise I was referring to was that a non Corbyn Labour government would be elected on 'an austerity platform'.



> Not strategically beneficial to the aim of achieving social democratic government. You know, the kind of governments that created the essential services we rely on, that will protect and improve those services when the private sector is doing badly, and pay off those debts created doing so whilst the private sector is doing well. This is what we've been discussing for pages ffs.
> 
> I said that we've been 40 years getting here, I'm not putting a timeframe on how long it takes to get back, but whatever because as far as you're concerned I'm dammed if I do, dammed if I don't, either change won't come quick enough or it takes too long. Is there a millisecond in time which would be not too quick to be loony, and not too long to be abandonment? It'll come as quickly as we can make it happen.
> 
> As neo-liberalism as dismantled social security and the public sector through 40 years of economic policies, so social democracy will build it back up through years of economic policies. It'll come bit by bit because some parts of govt can follow counter-cyclical economic policies whilst others continue to follow pro-cyclical economic policies. Just as social security and the NHS still exist now as vestiges of the previous social democratic era, so there will be parts of the neo-liberal regime that will remain long into a social democratic govt. Just as some parts of social democracy such as lots of nationalised industries were dismantled quickly, so some parts of neo-liberalism will be dismantled quickly by a social democratic govt (one which remember I said I think could have come about in 2020 had the whole labour party got behind corbyn after 2015, no longer possible imo, but the parliamentary process could have started there, could start in 2025 if there is a social democratic labour party to elect, might take longer, I'm not foolish enough to try to put an exact date to it).



It’s pointless to say that change will ‘come as quickly as we make it happen’, when the electorate - particularly Labour's core voters - are still increasingly rejecting socialism. It’s also pointless to say that Labour would have become electable if the whole party had been behind Corbyn (like he got behind previous leaders I suppose). Have you actually spoken to many voters? They just don’t want him.



> Putting forward an aim, a strategy, some tactics for discussion and debate is imo literally the opposite of telling people to trust me.
> Would it be better to have no plan? To wander blindly in the night? To make no suppositions about what may happen in the future if we choose to follow one set of actions over another?
> 
> I have a straight question for you which tbh if you won't answer I won't continue this conversation: Do you want social democratic government or are you only interested in electing Labour regardless of the policies they follow?



Well clearly I'm not interested in electing any kind of government regardless of their policies, I'm interested in electing a Labour government whose policy is to support public services and that’s what I’ve been discussing for pages.

I admire your optimism about the prospect of ‘real change’ sometime in the future, but there's no reasonable logic in dismissing the only viable way of securing essential public services for this and however many generations it takes as 'not strategically beneficial'.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 23, 2017)

sihhi said:


> It's entirely possible to create 'fairer society' with Tories in government. - mass struggle can wring out concessions from whichever party is in government.



My first reaction was to laugh out loud at the idea we can create a fairer society under perpetual tory government, but I suppose you’re right that even they sometimes surrender one or two concessions… even if they are no more than crumbs from the table.



> How can you possible post something like 'Brex**it' with a straight face?



That was me being polite about it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The more you post the clearer it is you have no grasp of what other people say.



The more you post the clearer it is you have no grasp of what you’re even trying to say yourself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My argument isn't an ideological one, it is simply that we need to save public services and only a Labour government can do that


thats an entirely ideological argument.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2017)

and really, one big factor in the collapse of the w/c labour vote is people like you on the constant 'we must defeat the tories!' line when for a great many of us the differences between the two parties narrowed some time ago


----------



## teqniq (Mar 23, 2017)

Beige, the worst kind.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 23, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> No I don't. I don't know whether you want to know what I think they should be or on what way the LP would interpret them. Or even if that's the LP as now, or after Jeremy successfully remakes it or after the Blairites stage a coup.



Here's a clue. I wrote...



mikey mikey said:


> You know exactly what they are: a request for *your views *on proposed policies and not something that looks like it was swept up off Hallmark's factory floor.



Any better?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My first reaction was to laugh out loud at the idea we can create a fairer society under perpetual tory government, but I suppose you’re right that even they sometimes surrender one or two concessions… even if they are no more than crumbs from the table.


So inequality increased under the Macmillan/Eden governments? And it decreased under Blair/Brown?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 23, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The more you post the clearer it is you have no grasp of what you’re even trying to say yourself.


feeble


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 23, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Here's a clue. I wrote...
> 
> 
> 
> Any better?



My view on who's proposed policies? 

This is hard work.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 23, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> My view on who's proposed policies?





Mr Moose said:


> *Labour *needs to work more on its reason for being and what should set it apart. It needs new values more than bland policy. The policy can follow. Better to campaign like so,
> 
> We favour solutions in health, care and education that work for everybody and leave no one behind.
> We protect our beautiful country so all can enjoy it.
> ...



Whenever you're ready.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 23, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Whenever you're ready.



Ok, getting boring now. Just list what you want a comment on.

I know someone like Pickman's could start a quarrel in an empty room, but you might get on better with people if you weren't so obtuse.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 23, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Just list what you want a comment on.



I do apologise, but I believe I did. In case I was not clear enough, I would like you to comment on what you think the LP policies on the following should be, with regard to your suggested "new values" outlined in your post  here

_PFI
University fees
Fracking
Immigration and refugees
GCHQ snooping
_
I invite you to respond to as many or as few as you wish.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 23, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As you say, we don't know how as PM Corbyn would react in similar circumstances to those that Brown was responding to in 2008/9. If the revenue stops coming then he will inevitably look at cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So that's your position then - neo-liberalism is "inevitable" even under a government elected on a social democratic platform. Cutting services less than the tories = protecting/securing public services and we should just trust you that a future labour government will invest in services instead of cutting them, although you're clear labour will cut services if the private sector is not doing well. Logically there is no line past which Labour could go at which point you would no longer say to vote Labour, as long as the Tories were going further. 

Since you don't think social democracy is achievable there's no point in continuing this conversation - we have totally different aims, so it's hardly surprising that we can't even comprehend each other's strategy as workable. I think neo-liberalism is the wrong direction, and that if we want to go in the right direction, there's no value in continuing to go in the wrong direction whether that's faster or slower. If you think neo-liberalism is the only direction we can go, it makes sense to try to go that way more slowly. Don't see it as protecting let alone securing public services though, if as you say Labour will cut them as soon as the private sector goes wrong. Personally I look at recent, living memory history and see things being done in a different way, meaning it's possible to go in a different direction, and that's where we should head.

before we finish though, I'd just like to respond to this:




			
				andrew hertford said:
			
		

> So let's deal in facts instead: 1. Public service spending goes up under Labour governments and down under tory ones. 2. Jeremy Corbyn cannot win a general election therefore the tories will stay in power.



 
from IFS study: https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf
TME = Total Managed Expenditure, which is all government spending.
Blue line is government spending in real terms, which you can see increases under the tory governments in the 50s and 60s, and decreases under the labour government around 77/78, before increasing again under Thatcher's tory govt, aside from the mid/late 80s, then increasing under Major's Tory govt, before decrease in the final year of that govt and no increase in the first few years under labour.
So let's deal in facts. Tory goverments have increased spending, labour governments have decreased spending. The Blair/Brown govt increased spending by less than the average increase over the whole of the previous 60 odd years but by a lot more than the tory govts of the 80s/90s did. Less than the tory govts of the 50s/60s did though.

As for Corbyn being unable to win a general election that is not a fact, it is supposition. I may happen to agree with you that he's not going to win, but it's not fact and never can be, even when he loses in 2020 that doesn't mean he could never have won (although I know you think he couldn't). We can't know what would have happened if Labour had presented a united front rather than a split party following Corbyn's election in 2015 but it could have been very different. I know and speak to many more people who don't vote than people who do vote and initially largely very favourable of Corbyn - partly because of policy, partly because he is not the same scummy politician type as many other MPs, but by now they see him as unelectable, a split party is never attractive and so they won't vote at all. People I know who do vote mostly vote labour/green/tusc and they all like corbyn and his policies, many have gone back from green/tusc to labour as a result, people I know who vote tory/liberal would never vote labour anyway. The UKIP voters I know some like policies like social housing, railway nationalisation etc. and could be won back by a social democratic labour party, the others would never vote labour anyway.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 23, 2017)

Great post Tom.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 23, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I do apologise, but I believe I did. In case I was not clear enough, I would like you to comment on what you think the LP policies on the following should be, with regard to your suggested "new values" outlined in your post  here
> 
> _PFI
> University fees
> ...



With the caveat that this is what I think a Labour Party could and therefore ought to argue, rather than after the glorious day when we can all wash down caviar with nectar. 

PFI - should be scrapped and the LP should campaign on nationalising those assets through legislation. They are a burden and we have paid quite enough. The next Labour Government should lawyer up and destroy every contract. How development is funded in the future is more complex.

University fees - should be scrapped, but I agree it's not priority no 1 and education/skills should be reviewed in the round. You shouldn't have free University tuition if learning to be a plumber has to be self-funded.

Fracking - just no. Go all out on renewables like it's a war effort.

Immigration - there will not be free movement, there will be a visa and points system across the board, that's not a decision Labour will even have to make. Make travel, studying whatever as easy as possible, but not foreign capital to buy housing. Immigration is not as important as what you get for being a citizen, i.e. a roof over your head. That's what needs sorting. We should aim to be the best and most hospitable country in the world for asylum.

GCHQ - The overriding principle should be that surveillance should be court led. But I don't know much about how it really works. This is the kind of area that is a minefield for Jeremy though and sums up for me why he is the wrong person. He is aiming to be the first minister of state, but he is profoundly uncomfortable with most things the state does. The voters know this. 

I don't know if any of this is helpful. In the context of the thread it's not important what my musings are. I suspect you only ask so you can take the piss and I can fail some kind of lefty cricket test.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 24, 2017)

The path to victory!

Labour gets historic win in City of London


----------



## oryx (Mar 24, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> The path to victory!
> 
> Labour gets historic win in City of London



Interesting one. I had a quick look at the link & the corporation's website and was surprised by the sheer number of independents.

The City as a council (sic) is unlike other London boroughs but I wonder what the nature of all these independents is.


----------



## Sue (Mar 24, 2017)

oryx said:


> Interesting one. I had a quick look at the link & the corporation's website and was surprised by the sheer number of independents.
> 
> The City as a council (sic) is unlike other London boroughs but I wonder what the nature of all these independents is.



I worked with a guy a couple of years ago who's a city of London councillor. A lazier, more sexist, more name dropping, more masonically-connected, more appalling man it would be difficult to find. (Well apart from among his fellow councillors presumably. )

According to him, bringing politics and political parties into it just isn't done. It's also one of the most undemocratic things out there -- the voting system is ludicrous and archaic yet they control fuck loads of money.


----------



## oryx (Mar 25, 2017)

Sue said:


> I worked with a guy a couple of years ago who's a city of London councillor. A lazier, more sexist, more name dropping, more masonically-connected, more appalling man it would be difficult to find. (Well apart from among his fellow councillors presumably. )
> 
> According to him, bringing politics and political parties into it just isn't done. It's also one of the most undemocratic things out there -- the voting system is ludicrous and archaic yet they control fuck loads of money.



Interesting. This sort of thing is not widely known, to put it mildly.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Interesting. This sort of thing is not widely known, to put it mildly.



Pretty much like everything else about the Corporation of London!

When I was a tenant of Southwark, the Corporation's small estates within Southwark's boundaries were well known as being maintained to a *massively* better standard, and for having that long extinct thing in Southwark's blocks, resident caretakers/DIY men. And for (then?) having had none of their flats sold to tenants under right to buy (is that actually true? Not sure, but I never found any evidence to the contrary!)

Paternalist feudalism no doubt, but a lot of Southwark's tenants would have welcomed being in those other estates. We wondered whether all, or just some,  of their tenants were employees North oif London Bridge? 

In any case, I reckon the Corporation could afford to take over *all* (remaining) council estates in Southwark and in many other London boroughs 

(And thank fuck Hampstead Heath ended up in their hands rather than being privatised/sold off ... )


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 25, 2017)

So if Labour, or any, councillors at the Guildhall can push the Lord Mayor and the 'independent'  'Aldermen' to push any more of the Corporations vast funds towards the above sort of thing, then good luck to them.

Highly unlikely obviously. Co-option of the Labour ones more likely


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 25, 2017)

From the Reuters link


> "There is little appetite for introducing party politics into the City of London Corporation," said Brian Mooney, a former Reuters journalist, who was re-elected councillor for the ward of Queenhithe, which he has represented since 1998.


Ha I bet he would say that. Sounds pretty sinister.


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 26, 2017)

He has got 15 months says Lennie.

Corbyn has 15 months for a Labour recovery, says McCluskey


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 27, 2017)

BigTom said:


> So that's your position then - neo-liberalism is "inevitable" even under a government elected on a social democratic platform. Cutting services less than the tories = protecting/securing public services and we should just trust you that a future labour government will invest in services instead of cutting them, although you're clear labour will cut services if the private sector is not doing well. Logically there is no line past which Labour could go at which point you would no longer say to vote Labour, as long as the Tories were going further.
> 
> Since you don't think social democracy is achievable there's no point in continuing this conversation - we have totally different aims, so it's hardly surprising that we can't even comprehend each other's strategy as workable. I think neo-liberalism is the wrong direction, and that if we want to go in the right direction, there's no value in continuing to go in the wrong direction whether that's faster or slower. If you think neo-liberalism is the only direction we can go, it makes sense to try to go that way more slowly. Don't see it as protecting let alone securing public services though, if as you say Labour will cut them as soon as the private sector goes wrong. Personally I look at recent, living memory history and see things being done in a different way, meaning it's possible to go in a different direction, and that's where we should head.



I didn't say that social democracy isn't achievable, I'm saying that the 'real change' you want is by your own admission generations away and may possibly never happen.


> from IFS study: https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf
> 
> TME = Total Managed Expenditure, which is all government spending.
> 
> ...



If you’re seriously suggesting that essential services are better funded under the tories then you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. Look again at the caption beneath the graph you posted:

_The average real rate of increase during the Conservative years of 1979 to 1997 was 1.5 per cent, and under the Labour government from April 1997 to March 2009 it has been 3.2 per cent. The plans from April 2009 to March 2011, if realised, imply growth averaging 4.7 per cent a year._

The survey was published in 2009 and therefore doesn't take into account tory cuts since 2010.

Plenty of graphs here UK Government spending – real and as % of GDP | Economics  Help giving a more accurate and up to date picture















> *As for Corbyn being unable to win a general election that is not a fact,* it is supposition. I may happen to agree with you that he's not going to win, but it's not fact and never can be, even when he loses in 2020 that doesn't mean he could never have won (although I know you think he couldn't). We can't know what would have happened if Labour had presented a united front rather than a split party following Corbyn's election in 2015 but it could have been very different. I know and speak to many more people who don't vote than people who do vote and initially largely very favourable of Corbyn - partly because of policy, partly because he is not the same scummy politician type as many other MPs, but by now they see him as unelectable, a split party is never attractive and so they won't vote at all. People I know who do vote mostly vote labour/green/tusc and they all like corbyn and his policies, many have gone back from green/tusc to labour as a result, people I know who vote tory/liberal would never vote labour anyway. The UKIP voters I know some like policies like social housing, railway nationalisation etc. and could be won back by a social democratic labour party, the others would never vote labour anyway.



Corbyn not being able to win a GE is about as near to 'fact' as it's possible to get. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I largely support the Labour left but the reality is that Corbyn is unpopular, even among around half of those who claim to be Labour supporters. Your Overton window is moving the wrong way.

The party ‘uniting behind him’ wouldn’t have made any difference and would have resulted in most of the PLP being forced to disguise their opinions or just keep quiet. The public and media would have seen straight through it and thankfully that's not what Labour are about anyway… ask Jeremy.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> feeble



What’s feeble is bringing up "revolutions and military coups" as alternatives to democracy while not being able to explain how they are in any way relevant in this context.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What’s feeble is bringing up "revolutions and military coups" as alternatives to democracy while not being able to explain how they are in any way relevant in this context.


They are relevant to and were raised in response to a comment by you about non-democratic ways of changing governments.

I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 27, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I didn't say that social democracy isn't achievable, I'm saying that the 'real change' you want is by your own admission generations away and may possibly never happen.



Yes you did:



Andrew Hertford said:


> As you say, we don't know how as PM Corbyn would react in similar circumstances to those that Brown was responding to in 2008/9. If the revenue stops coming then he will *inevitably* look at cuts.



(My emphasis).
If you think that cuts are inevitable following a private sector crash then you think neo-liberalism is inevitable, which means you think social democracy is not achievable.




> If you’re seriously suggesting that essential services are better funded under the tories then you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. Look again at the caption beneath the graph you posted:
> 
> _The average real rate of increase during the Conservative years of 1979 to 1997 was 1.5 per cent, and under the Labour government from April 1997 to March 2009 it has been 3.2 per cent. The plans from April 2009 to March 2011, if realised, imply growth averaging 4.7 per cent a year._
> 
> The survey was published in 2009 and therefore doesn't take into account tory cuts since 2010.



That caption which I intentionally included and referenced in my post? Yes, I did look at that. You've conveniently cut off the first sentence there which clearly shows that the labour and tory governments of the 50s/60s and early 70s increased spending by more (3.4%) than the Blair/Brown governments (3.2%).
A reminder of the "FACT" you stated:



> So let's deal in facts instead: *1. Public service spending goes up under Labour governments and down under tory ones.*



As the other graphs you so helpfully provide show clearly that spending went up under Tory Govts in the 50s/60s/70s and down under Labour govts in the 70s and as your graph makes clear also in the first year or two of blair/brown. 
So do you accept then that your "fact" was actually nothing of the sort?




> Corbyn not being able to win a GE is about as near to 'fact' as it's possible to get.



so not a fact then.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2017)

You're a sucker for punishment BigTom. Like trying to nail mould.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yes you did:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Andrew Hertford is, in lenin's immortal phrase, as thick as pigshit. you are wasting your precious life on a load of pigshit. step away from the thick wanker.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

I had a chat with my dad over the weekend - he's a long-standing moderate left Labour activist, who voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections. He reckons Corbyn has been a disaster, but also doesn't see any reasonable replacement, a view which he thinks is shared across most of the party - at least among those who've been on the doorstep campaigning recently. 

Last May, all anyone wanted to talk about (if they wanted to talk about anything) was the EU referendum, no-one had anything to say about Labour or it's leadership: this May, all they want to talk about is how shit Corbyn is.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

(my own conversations with Labour activists suggest a similar view (or worse) is fairly widespread  among those who were previously sympathetic, except among the most messianic of the momentum lot)


----------



## agricola (Mar 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> I had a chat with my dad over the weekend - he's a long-standing moderate left Labour activist, who voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections. He reckons Corbyn has been a disaster, but also doesn't see any reasonable replacement, a view which he thinks is shared across most of the party - at least among those who've been on the doorstep campaigning recently.
> 
> Last May, all anyone wanted to talk about (if they wanted to talk about anything) was the EU referendum, no-one had anything to say about Labour or it's leadership: this May, all they want to talk about is how shit Corbyn is.



I think "disaster" is too strong a word, its just that the scale of what he has to do (appeal to the country, win the next election, reform the party, deal with the malcontents) is beyond him - though it would probably be beyond anyone.  Things like Danczuk still not being dealt with (for that texting or his expenses claims) by the party is a terrible sign.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

I am only relaying his words - I made a similar point to yours to him, which he agreed with. He had just come back from a dispiriting afternoon's canvassing, so I'll allow his hyperbole...


----------



## kebabking (Mar 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> (my own conversations with Labour activists suggest a similar view (or worse) is fairly widespread  among those who were previously sympathetic, except among the most messianic of the momentum lot)



my experience in our CLP with Corbyn supporters cuts four ways - the longstanding members who supported Corbyn almost universally think he's a dead loss, both within and without the party, though there are as many ideas and about what should be done about it as there are days in a year. the 'new entrants' who Corbyn brought into the party are then split three ways: a) they are deranged and think he'll win the 2020 GE with a 100+ majority despite the response we get on the doorstep, b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE, and c) don't care what happens, all that matters in the world is that Corbyn isn't Blair. or Ramsey McDonanld.

i knocked doors recently in a D/E ward in a previously held const in the south midlands. i'd reckon about 1 in 3 had something nice to say about Corbyn, but only about 1 in 5 would consider voting to have him as PM, and a good proportion of that was 'might'. UKIP support had dropped through the floor, and Theresa May appears to have taken on a God-like form, transending party politics - as a rough guess i'd say that a good _half_ of those who voted Labour in 2015 would prefer TM as PM than JC.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

That sounds about right.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

kebabking said:


> b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE,


Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...


----------



## kebabking (Mar 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...



probably evenly split between those who think that either Corbyn will see which way the wind is blowing and pull the handle of his own accord and those who think it was all part of the plan, and another group (smaller) who seem to be trusting in hope rather than any actual plan...


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 27, 2017)

Why do voters think May is wonderful.? Do they think she is Thatcher reincarnate.?

If pmqs is anything to go by she will be badly exposed in a general election campaign -presumably she will refuse to do any debates.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2017)

kebabking said:


> my experience in our CLP with Corbyn supporters cuts four ways - the longstanding members who supported Corbyn almost universally think he's a dead loss, both within and without the party, though there are as many ideas and about what should be done about it as there are days in a year. the 'new entrants' who Corbyn brought into the party are then split three ways: a) they are deranged and think he'll win the 2020 GE with a 100+ majority despite the response we get on the doorstep, b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE, and c) don't care what happens, all that matters in the world is that Corbyn isn't Blair. or Ramsey McDonanld.
> 
> i knocked doors recently in a D/E ward in a previously held const in the south midlands. i'd reckon about 1 in 3 had something nice to say about Corbyn, but only about 1 in 5 would consider voting to have him as PM, and a good proportion of that was 'might'. *UKIP support had dropped through the floor, and Theresa May appears to have taken on a God-like form, transending party politics* - as a rough guess i'd say that a good _half_ of those who voted Labour in 2015 would prefer TM as PM than JC.




A good summary, but in terms of TM, will it last?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 27, 2017)

treelover said:


> A good summary, but in terms of TM, will it last?



she doesn't appear to have been damaged by the problems within the NHS - which have been very serious around here with the minor injuries units closed to get staff into the A&E, and lots of bad news from the A&E which features regularly in the local media - the national polling suggests that Labour simply isn't trusted to do any better, and from the doorstep i'd agree with the polling.

my personal suspicion is that the friction of events will wear down the tory lead, and that fewer voters will say they like her, but i don't see Corbyns ratings improving much even if Labour starts grazing the 30/33% mark. my view that that almost regardless of what happens between now and 2020 and who peple say they will vote for, voters will walk into the polling booth and decide on than Corbyn or May - and i know who they'll choose...


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Why do voters think May is wonderful.? Do they think she is Thatcher reincarnate.?
> 
> If pmqs is anything to go by she will be badly exposed in a general election campaign -presumably she will refuse to do any debates.


8 months of the press repeatedly referring to her as a safe pair of hands despite all evidence to the contrary vs 21 months of the press and most of the PLP repeatedly referring to Corbyn as incompetent, not fit to lead etc.

Google news search results for "Theresa May" "safe pair of hands" 1280 results
Google news search results for "Corbyn" "Not a leader" 3600 results

With that level of repeat messaging from the media it's no wonder this is what the perception is of both of them.

Not that corbyn's in any way shown himself to be a great leader who's on the way to turning the party into an election winning machine, but the contrast in the way the press report on the 2 of them is pretty stark and must be a major factor in how the public perception is formed about them. 

The majority of those press reports though are quotes from prominent party figures, so the press is largely the echo chamber that amplifies the whispering campaign against corbyn from much of the PLP, and a similar campaign of support for May from the Tories. So ultimately it's probably a reflection of the grim reality of it, as had corbyn been a 'real leader' he'd have silenced his critics by booting a few high profile critics out of the party as an example to force the rest of them to STFU and tow the party line. By not doing that and attempting to be the peacemaker all he's done is given his critics the space to weaken him to such an extent that he now stands little chance of ever recovering in the public eye, and demonstrably has been a weak leader by the standards expected in Westminster politics.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...



The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary


----------



## kebabking (Mar 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary



I've been told, to my face, that I'm not knocking on the doors of 'real' voters.

In what way they aren't 'real' was never spelt out, but i think that the fact that didn't give the correct answers disqualified them from 'realness'.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary


Maybe... I don't think there's many of those ones left tbh.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2017)

A lot of the criticisms rely on rather short term thinking I think. Like 'all the new entrants to the party seem to be crap at organising'. Well of course they are. They've never done it before, and come from a whole generation of people to whom this type of organisation is utterly alien. But if only a fraction of them stay on board (and I expect it will only be a fraction of them over the long term) they will eventually get better at it.

Think how much of a fucking disaster of a party it has to be that neither the left nor the right can put forward a better leader than Corbyn. You want some newbie activists to change that clusterfuck within a year?  While the central party machine tries to suppress them? Change will take time. I don't know if it will work, and it's not my project so I've little personal investment, but let's try to think a bit beyond next year, beyond the next election even. It took decades (centuries really) to build a labour movement, decades to take it apart, and now it's all fucked. There isn't a short term solution. There isn't even a medium term solution.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

No, I'm not expecting that at all. I know why the new members haven't got involved - it isn't them I'm saying are crap at organising. The labour left isn't all fresh-faced children ffs.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> No, I'm not expecting that at all. I know why the new members haven't got involved - it isn't them I'm saying are crap at organising. The labour left isn't all fresh-faced children ffs.


Fair enough, but they've been very outnumbered until recently I guess.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2017)

Sure. Tbh I've not expected anything of them: the monolith has done what I expected, but I suppose I did have a few moments of hope that there might be a bit of fight in them. Not now though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 27, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> A lot of the criticisms rely on rather short term thinking I think. Like 'all the new entrants to the party seem to be crap at organising'. Well of course they are. They've never done it before, and come from a whole generation of people to whom this type of organisation is utterly alien. But if only a fraction of them stay on board (and I expect it will only be a fraction of them over the long term) they will eventually get better at it.


Why would they, though? In terms of staying with Labour and fighting with all of the bureaucracy and existing power structures, when they can see that even if the leader of the damn party wants to do stuff, he won't be allowed to. I wouldn't, and I know people who've joined Labour recently after Corbyn in the hope that they could do something who've now just given up.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Why would they, though?


For the same reason some of them joined I guess: because there doesn't seem to be a sniff anywhere in the air of large-scale left wing organising in any other form. You could be right and it could all come to nothing, but it's still a bit early to tell. And interesting factors like most Momentum members have no particular allegiance to Momentum itself, so that organisation could fall apart but the constituent people might still stick in the Labour Party.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2017)

Stephen Bush's analysis re: the left's struggles with shortlisting candidates is good (and points to a number of things I've been missing, namely the unions) Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?


----------



## agricola (Mar 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush's analysis re: the left's struggles with shortlisting candidates is good (and points to a number of things I've been missing, namely the unions) Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?



Half the problem there is selecting _"Corbynite"_ candidates, who as you and Bush state go on to get shot down and who come from a small talent pool anyway. 

They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).


Sorry I'm busy this year.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> Half the problem there is selecting _"Corbynite"_ candidates, who as you and Bush state go on to get shot down and who come from a small talent pool anyway.
> 
> They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).



Tricky. I'm not sure that Shami Chakrabarti's performance in her role suggests this would be a rip-roaring success for MP candidates. Success and achievement is also pretty likely to = establishment.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> Half the problem there is selecting _"Corbynite"_ candidates, who as you and Bush state go on to get shot down and who come from a small talent pool anyway.
> 
> They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).


Parachute in candidates with little connection to the local area and party activists you mean? Don't think that's really on the cards right now.


----------



## agricola (Mar 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Parachute in candidates with little connection to the local area and party activists you mean? Don't think that's really on the cards right now.



I meant directing local parties to look at, and ideally select, people based on their achievements outside politics.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2017)

kebabking said:


> she doesn't appear to have been damaged by the problems within the NHS - which have been very serious around here with the minor injuries units closed to get staff into the A&E, and lots of bad news from the A&E which features regularly in the local media - the national polling suggests that Labour simply isn't trusted to do any better, and from the doorstep i'd agree with the polling.
> 
> my personal suspicion is that the friction of events will wear down the tory lead, and that fewer voters will say they like her, but i don't see Corbyns ratings improving much even if Labour starts grazing the 30/33% mark. my view that that almost regardless of what happens between now and 2020 and who peple say they will vote for, voters will walk into the polling booth and decide on than Corbyn or May - and i know who they'll choose...




Simon Stevens(NHS Boss, former US healthcare exec) is going to make major announcements/changes, on Friday, the STP plans will mean lots of A/E closures, hospital wards, etc.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Tricky. I'm not sure that Shami Chakrabarti's performance in her role suggests this would be a rip-roaring success for MP candidates. Success and achievement is also pretty likely to = establishment.


Bearing the above article in mind are you still sticking by your ridiculous claim that if/when Corbyn goes the party can move to the left?


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2017)

Job Opportunities

Job going at Momentum

National Co-ordinator


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> I meant directing local parties to look at, and ideally select, people based on their achievements outside politics.


Like having founded a hostel for homeless veterans, or being a doctor or something? Half of the Gorton shortlist were social workers with years at the coalface... There's plenty of people with real world achievements ending up on the shortlists (which are drawn up by the NEC rather than the local party anyway) - but unsurprisingly, the nomination will go to whoever organises best. That tends to favour activists, trade unionists and councillors with networks and support in the local party & unions rather than tenuously connected 'achievers'.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 28, 2017)

Kier Starmer now looking like the great hope of the labour rightwing. The likes of Toynbee are having fevered dreams of him leading an anti-brexit, urban-liberal-friendly party.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2017)

Starmer isn't on the right of the party. the right will probably get behind him when it comes to it, but only because they don't have anyone who could get over 20%.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Bearing the above article in mind are you still sticking by your ridiculous claim that if/when Corbyn goes the party can move to the left?



What I meant was that he was preventing the left gaining ground by making it look utterly unattractive to everyone but keyboard warriors like yourself.

Imagine what a capable left wing leader could achieve with that level of membership support? But, sorry, I forgot. Everything is shit, nothing can improve and the Labour Party is full of ungovernable muppets.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2017)

So now you're no longer claiming that Corbyn's resignation will result in a move to the left, i.e. you were talking cobblers from start to finish.


----------



## inva (Mar 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Imagine what a capable left wing leader could achieve with that level of membership support?


a greater sense of disappointment?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So now you're no longer claiming that Corbyn's resignation will result in a move to the left, i.e. you were talking cobblers from start to finish.



Quote me where I wrote that. IIRC I wrote he was holding its advancement up, not a move further to the left. Nor was that a prediction of what would happen, because that would depend on who took over.

Do you think Jeremy is really delivering a move to the left or just offering the hope of one?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

"*Who will speak for liberal Britain?"





*


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2017)

cleeg, bragg and phil collins eh? a collectors edition that


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> cleeg, bragg and phil collins eh? a collectors edition that



Thought the Bragg brand was pro Corbyn


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Thought the Bragg brand was pro Corbyn


Reckon it's possible to be pro-Corbyn and still recognise the Labour party has collapsed as an effective opposition. You'd have to be a proper cultist to think otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)




----------



## Supine (Mar 29, 2017)

Doh. Own goal alert   

PMQ and no question about Brexit on A50 day. Talk about missing a trick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Supine said:


> Doh. Own goal alert
> 
> PMQ and no question about Brexit on A50 day. Talk about missing a trick.


there'll be lots of questions in the years ahead. and very few answers.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 29, 2017)

I reckon people were already aware of it happening tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I reckon people were already aware of it happening tbh.


yeh mostly


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 29, 2017)

I am heartily bored of it, I'd rather he talk about literally anything else. His garden, the NHS, whatever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2017)

don't think I've sat through a whole PMQs since the coalition years. Farcical shit


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>


 God, look at the fucking state of him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2017)

he always looks like that, like he's just cum into his gideons


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> he always looks like that, like he's just cum into his gideons


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> What I meant was that he was preventing the left gaining ground by making it look utterly unattractive to everyone but keyboard warriors like yourself.
> 
> Imagine what a capable left wing leader could achieve with that level of membership support? But, sorry, I forgot. Everything is shit, nothing can improve and the Labour Party is full of ungovernable muppets.


Don't know if this link has already been posted on this thread, but Michael Rosen is fairly cogent on why a "_capable left wing leader_" would be no different to Corbyn:

Michael Rosen: George Clooney wrong man to lead the Labour Party


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Don't know if this link has already been posted on this thread, but Michael Rosen is fairly cogent on why a "_capable left wing leader_" would be no different to Corbyn:
> 
> Michael Rosen: George Clooney wrong man to lead the Labour Party



George too busy with twins on the way. 

Much of what he says is true, but the world was against Trump and he won.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2017)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 103139



Farron always brings to mind 'Adrian Mole' to me.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> George too busy with twins on the way.


You only get busy after they arrive. 

And I don't think George will have too many sleepless nights.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> (my own conversations with Labour activists suggest a similar view (or worse) is fairly widespread  among those who were previously sympathetic, except among the most messianic of the momentum lot)



Round here, Momentum could be referred to as "previously-messianic", even though (as you said in the post previous to this) they can't name a deserving alternative for their zealous affections.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> I think "disaster" is too strong a word, its just that the scale of what he has to do (appeal to the country, win the next election, reform the party, deal with the malcontents) is beyond him - though it would probably be beyond anyone.  Things like Danczuk still not being dealt with (for that texting or his expenses claims) by the party is a terrible sign.



The problem with scum like Danczuk being that Corbyn not only has to make sure that he's treated fairly, but that he's seen to be treated fairly.  That means being scrupulous about processes that you can bet Danczuk will be examining under a microscope.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> A good summary, but in terms of TM, will it last?



Like an untreated dose of the clap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Round here, Momentum could be referred to as "previously-messianic", even though (as you said in the post previous to this) they can't name a deserving alternative for their zealous affections.


Yes NO ONE will lead them to glorious victory

All hail NO ONE


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes NO ONE will lead them to glorious victory
> 
> All hail NO ONE



Cometh the hour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes NO ONE will lead them to glorious victory
> 
> All hail NO ONE


no man has blinded me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Cometh the hour...



...cometh Tim Farron, all down your trouser leg.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...cometh Tim Farron, all down your trouser leg.



He'd pop his cork before he got near a real live leg.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Don't know if this link has already been posted on this thread, but Michael Rosen is fairly cogent on why a "_capable left wing leader_" would be no different to Corbyn:
> 
> Michael Rosen: George Clooney wrong man to lead the Labour Party


I'd have Tom Hardy in his James Delaney role .Big old boots up on the Front Bench, bit of bone dust , smoke and African magik, just staring at May and the Cabinet  before beckoning the Deputy Leader, " Watson, I have a use for you" .


----------



## Sue (Mar 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...cometh Tim Farron, all down your trouser leg.


Oh God, mind bleach.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Mar 30, 2017)

Sue said:


> Oh God, mind bleach.



Don't worry you're not his type.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2017)

Sue said:


> Oh God, mind bleach.



 Apologies.


----------



## Sue (Mar 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Apologies.


I should hope so.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

There's a piece here by John Harris about Labour's irrelevance, more than that, deep irrelevance:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/31/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn-tom-Watson
At one level I could repeat the standard criticisms of this king of writing, particularly that it neglects to even acknowledge the role of the Blairites in moving the party away from the working class - and it neglects to explore the kamikaze attacks on the party by its own MPs and shadow cabinet over the last 18 months.  But it is right about the way the party has fallen out of national political debate, ceased to be relevant to people's lives, at a time when the tories _should_ have been in crisis. But most of all, for me it highlights how there's absolutely no sense of, ahem, _momentum_. Nothing is shaping up in the party to change things, from left or right.  Doesn't seem to be anything in play designed to either make the party more effective or relevant. Utterly stuck.  I've long bewailed the failure of the Corbynites to get anything moving, using the massive influx of new members, but that's all over now anyway. Labour won't disappear as Harris hints, it's a national party in a first past the post system, but it seems unable to move.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 31, 2017)




----------



## Dom Traynor (Mar 31, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>




So what though?Corbyn is a massive drag on Labour and therefore the only chance of getting rid of the Tories now


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 31, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Corbyn is therefore the only chance of getting rid of the Tories now


Agreed


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> So what though?Corbyn is a massive drag on Labour and therefore the only chance of getting rid of the Tories now


Well, in practice, he _is_ a drag on the party, I agree - though I suspect I'm agreeing with you from a different political position.  But then the party has also been a drag on his leadership - the coups and briefings ensured he never had a chance, nor, more to the point did the attempt to restore the party to a social democratic position.  But equally, more so in fact, I blame the Corbynites for never building that project, engaging with people. It was always going to be difficult, to change direction, to get people feeling they had a connection with the party - but it was never going to happen _if they didn't actually do it_.  But all that adds up to, well, nothing.  There's no realistic prospect of any kind of even semi successful political project emerging from the ruins. A united social democratic party would have more chance - _even a united fucking Blairite party would have more chance in the polls than what there is now_ - but neither of those things is going to happen - so removing Corbyn does nothing.


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 31, 2017)

I must say that I despise the PLP for their determination to change the Labour Party into the UUK equivilent of the Democrats. In fact, I am losing all sympathy for, if not empathy with, my fellow Labour supporters. Fuck it. Go crowbar in Dan Javis or some other "non-Corbynite" and watch the front bench of the opposition fill up with the likes of Rachel  "tougher on benefis than the Tories" Reeves and Hillary "bomber" Benn. The only hope now is the SNP and a Scottish address.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I must say that I despise the PLP for their determination to change the Labour Party into the UUK equivilent of the Democrats. In fact, I am losing all sympathy for, if not empathy with, my fellow Labour supporters. Fuck it. Go crowbar in Dan Javis or some other "non-Corbynite" and watch the front bench of the opposition fill up with the likes of Rachel  "tougher on benefis than the Tories" Reeves and Hillary "bomber" Benn. The only hope now is the SNP and a Scottish address.


My guess is that if Corbyn hadn't found his way onto the ballot paper and Burnham or Cooper had won they'd be a couple of points higher in the polls, almost entirely on the grounds of being a more united party (than now), but still out of the game.  They'd also have 100,000 + less members. Labour councils would still be cutting jobs and services and we'd all be equally depressed.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But equally, more so in fact, I blame the Corbynites for never building that project, engaging with people. It was always going to be difficult, to change direction, to get people feeling they had a connection with the party - but it was never going to happen _if they didn't actually do it_.


While I often find myself... frustrated by the same issue, I think it's worth bearing in mind that this is happening for structural reasons rather than a mass failure on the part of the Corbynites. It was just never going to happen. The monolith of the party & establishment was too strong, and the organisation of the labour left too weak - and all the while they've been trying to deal with the biggest political challenges the party has faced since the war.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 103139



Crikey, we could create a whole thread out of this fella.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> While I often find myself... frustrated by the same issue, I think it's worth bearing in mind that this is happening for structural reasons rather than a mass failure on the part of the Corbynites. It was just never going to happen. The monolith of the party & establishment was too strong, and the organisation of the labour left too weak - and all the while they've been trying to deal with the biggest political challenges the party has faced since the war.


Well, I sort of agree - and you must be right because _that's exactly what's happened_.  But I still wonder what the fuck the Corbynites thought the job in hand was - 'say social democratic things and watch the voters flood back'?  And yes, okay, it goes back to the circumstances under which he was elected - totally unexpected and without any serious plans, structures or policies.  The extent to which the Blairite takeover was organised can at times be over-exaggerated, but it really did have a plan, money and a longstanding body of work to draw on from the eurocommunists through to the business friendly think tanks.  But still, and I'm left with a 'but still...', all those new members... all the money that came with them... the possibility of _something_ happening.  Corbynism isn't even to my political taste, but it's been galling watching it getting precisely nowhere.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Crikey, we could create a whole thread out of this fella.


Vinegar stroke - but organic balsamic.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Vinegar stroke - but organic balsamic.


How did you not type _*orgasmic balsamic *_?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> How did you not type _*orgasmic balsamic *_?


Hit the post.


----------



## inva (Mar 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, I sort of agree - and you must be right because _that's exactly what's happened_.  But I still wonder what the fuck the Corbynites thought the job in hand was - 'say social democratic things and watch the voters flood back'?  And yes, okay, it goes back to the circumstances under which he was elected - totally unexpected and without any serious plans, structures or policies.  The extent to which the Blairite takeover was organised can at times be over-exaggerated, but it really did have a plan, money and a longstanding body of work to draw on from the eurocommunists through to the business friendly think tanks.  But still, and I'm left with a 'but still...', all those new members... all the money that came with them... the possibility of _something_ happening.  Corbynism isn't even to my political taste, but it's been galling watching it getting precisely nowhere.


I think the thing is that to achieve that (and I'm not sure how much social democracy really is or was the aim of Corbynists) requires a political logic that must today surely point away from the Labour Party - needing a view of what is necessary for rebuilding a foundation for that politics that is antagonistic to the needs/demands of parliamentarism and of Labourism. Arguably it even points beyond social democracy itself, but that aside, I think it would have been pretty much impossible for a movement in the orbit of Labour to make that shift. Their politics exhausted itself decades ago and its roots have withered away.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

inva said:


> I think the thing is that to achieve that (and I'm not sure how much social democracy really is or was the aim of Corbynists) requires a political logic that must today surely point away from the Labour Party - needing a view of what is necessary for rebuilding a foundation for that politics that is antagonistic to the needs/demands of parliamentarism and of Labourism. Arguably it even points beyond social democracy itself, but that aside, I think it would have been pretty much impossible for a movement in the orbit of Labour to make that shift. Their politics exhausted itself decades ago and its roots have withered away.


That's it really. My paradoxical posts on this thread have been variants on 'loads of people joined, wanted to do social democracy but even within their own logic, they've failed'.  But I'm not into electoral politics and the real lost moment I saw in Corbynism was a brief time when the expanded membership could have looked outwards, engaged with communities - and in doing that started to _unravel_ the assumptions and communication channels of labourism, along with breaching the structures of the party itself.  Fwiw, even that wouldn't have been in line with my anti-system politics, but it would have been interesting. It was probably an unrealistic notion that a largely middle class membership could get back into working class communities - a membership also that hasn't discovered that social democracy isn't there to be had any more.  But even after saying all that it's disappointing that they've done _nothing at all_, give or take fighting what has become a pointless struggle to plot some route or other through the arcane systems of CLPs and rulebooks (and haven't, as far as I can tell, achieved much through that pathway either)/


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2017)

There has been some CLP action - the left slate took all the officer positions in our local CLP a few weeks ago, and I think that's happened elsewhere - but that's indicative only of how hollow the CLPs are as much as anything. In fact where there's important stuff - selection of PPCs for example - what organising they can do isn't enough, as there's more than just a few crusty time servers arranged against them.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

Up here one of the local labour parties was about to show I Daniel Blake, but then found out the People's Assembly was also signed up as a sponsor of the event, so withdrew.  At one level that's what bureaucratic parties have always done - not working with 'approved groups'.  But then ffs! I'm no great fan of the people's assembly, fwiw, but if you can't look beyond your rulebook in times like these, what chance is there of delivering... _anything?_


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Reckon it's possible to be pro-Corbyn and still recognise the Labour party has collapsed as an effective opposition. You'd have to be a proper cultist to think otherwise.



Do you not acknowledge the Shadow Cabinet are raising all sorts of issues in Parliament, particularly people like Debbie Abrahams(Works/Pensions) They are just not getting a hearing from the media, including 'liberal' ones like (especially) the Guardian, i do accept the wider public is not really listening though anyway.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> "*Who will speak for liberal Britain?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Surprised to see David Hare having a go


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, in practice, he _is_ a drag on the party, I agree - though I suspect I'm agreeing with you from a different political position.  But then the party has also been a drag on his leadership - the coups and briefings ensured he never had a chance, nor, more to the point did the attempt to restore the party to a social democratic position.  But equally, more so in fact, I blame the Corbynites for never building that project, engaging with people. It was always going to be difficult, to change direction, to get people feeling they had a connection with the party - but it was never going to happen _if they didn't actually do it_.  But all that adds up to, well, nothing.  There's no realistic prospect of any kind of even semi successful political project emerging from the ruins. A united social democratic party would have more chance - _even a united fucking Blairite party would have more chance in the polls than what there is now_ - but neither of those things is going to happen - so removing Corbyn does nothing.




just a question, how do you know they(Momentum) are not engaging with the public?

The wider party is having street stalls, open meetings, etc all the time, here.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Crikey, we could create a whole thread out of this fella.



he looked pretty cool in his band days.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> Do you not acknowledge the Shadow Cabinet are raising all sorts of issues in Parliament, particularly people like Debbie Abrahams(Works/Pensions) They are just not getting a hearing from the media, including 'liberal' ones like (especially) the Guardian, i do accept the wider public is not really listening though anyway.


Sure, I acknowledge that if you like - but they aren't a functioning opposition, whatever the reasons.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> he looked pretty cool in his band days.



That 1992 look...


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That 1992 look...
> 
> View attachment 103263


Fucking hell, 25 years a liberal democrat, must have a soul the size of a pea.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 31, 2017)

treelover said:


> just a question, how do you know they(Momentum) are not engaging with the public?
> 
> The wider party is having street stalls, open meetings, etc all the time, here.


Apart from the Corbynmania events in Middlesbrough (meeting of 700+), I've never seen a single event (I did once go to a book launch, that might have been organised by momentum). Certainly not seen any evidence of the party as a whole or the left particularly going to places abandoned by Blair. Might just be that I've not seen stuff because I've not really been involved in anything for 12 months.  Suppose a better way of putting would have been I've seen nothing that adds up to a part wide or even party-left wide *strategy* of reconnecting with the working class.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That 1992 look...
> 
> View attachment 103263


Hilary Amstrong is the winner out of that trio.


----------



## JTG (Apr 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Hilary Amstrong is the winner out of that trio.


And she was. 58% of the vote


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2017)

I agree with this guy



> “I like him, I like his policies, I like his integrity,” they say, “but he can’t convince other people, so it’s all pointless.” I’d argue if you are on board with the policies then why not spend your energies in helping argue for them? Rather than thinking in terms of a leader coming in and doing all the work, let’s think of a movement with each of us doing our bit to bring about the changes we want. If Corbyn doesn’t give great speeches then someone else should do some of the heavy lifting. But if you can’t lend your hand, as Dylan said: “Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall.”



A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen | Maurice Mcleod


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 1, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I agree with this guy
> 
> A seismic shift is needed for Corbyn to win in 2020. But it could happen | Maurice Mcleod



A seismic shift that sees the entire population except Corbyn wiped out by a mega-tsunami perhaps. Otherwise, no.

The idea that if only a bit more convincing took place, people would turn out for Labour in their droves is deluded.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A seismic shift that sees the entire population except Corbyn wiped out by a mega-tsunami perhaps. Otherwise, no.
> 
> The idea that if only a bit more convincing took place, people would turn out for Labour in their droves is deluded.


It was more the content of the article than the copy editors headline that I agree with; the idea that the party should move away from top down leadership dominated by personality and towards the membership taking more responsibility.

But you know never waste yet another opportunity to call someone deluded lol


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 1, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> It was more the content of the article than the copy editors headline that I agree with; the idea that the party should move away from top down leadership dominated by personality and towards the membership taking more responsibility.
> 
> But you know never waste yet another opportunity to call someone deluded lol



With 555 pages I'm sure everything has been said more than once.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 1, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> The idea that if only a bit more convincing took place, people would turn out for Labour in their droves is deluded.



I suspect the English will never again vote for Labour and will willingly drive themselves into a new Victorian era of landed gentry being served by people in maids and butler outfits who only get addressed by their surname. Fortunately for me, I won't be living there but I recognise that I am the one at fault in England. Since the population had only voted for a couple of decades of Labour in government, living under the boot of Tory Toffs must be what they want. Knowing that, I suppose I should just leave them to it. Walk away.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2017)

I don't suppose the labour vote actually going up in England and down in Scotland at the last election has any effect on this juvenile scenario does it?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 1, 2017)

What's juvenile about that? You know, being a condescending prat might be the reason why you don't get invited out very much.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2017)

I guess the juvenile thing (of which I am 100% guilty of probably more than anyone) is treating the construction of the kind of society you want as someone else's problem/job, which it is possible to run away from... when in fact we are all personally part of it and complicit in whatever happens!!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2017)

What's juvenile about this:

"I suspect the English will never again vote for Labour and will willingly drive themselves into a new Victorian era of landed gentry being served by people in maids and butler outfits who only get addressed by their surname."? 

Equally juvenile is the refusal to engage with facts that show this up as being juvenile nonsense.

You genuinely have no idea how you and people like you with your chest-prodding inanities drive people away from labour do you? Just about every labour person on here - including those far to the left of you - has been alienated by the content-free crap you churn out. 

And then we find, hardy political fighter that you are,that you're going to run away from the fight that you obsessively witter on about day after day. The Labour Party has done so well out of you lot hasn't it?


----------



## co-op (Apr 1, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I guess the juvenile thing (of which I am 100% guilty of probably more than anyone) is treating the construction of the kind of society you want as someone else's problem/job, which it is possible to run away from... when in fact we are all personally part of it and complicit in whatever happens!!



Well also ignoring as butchers pointed out that "the English" swung quite heavily to Labour in the last GE, they got 1,000,000 extra votes.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2017)

co-op said:


> Well also ignoring as butchers pointed out that "the English" swung quite heavily to Labour in the last GE, they got 1,000,000 extra votes.


I totally didn't know that ha although it's not a huge surprise, guess it's not that important anyway in the scheme of things.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> just leave them to it


what sort of talk is this? Never lie down or walk away.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2017)

RUK = 'Rest of UK' (minus Scottish seats)...


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> what sort of talk is this? Never lie down or walk away.


I always find this brings me back from defeatism


----------



## co-op (Apr 1, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I totally didn't know that ha although it's not a huge surprise, guess it's not that important anyway in the scheme of things.



Now I think about it that 1m figure might be England & Wales combined, I can't be arsed to plough through the figures now, soz


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2017)

co-op said:


> Now I think about it that 1m figure might be England & Wales combined, I can't be arsed to plough through the figures now, soz


No, you're right.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 1, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You genuinely have no idea how you ....drive people away from labour do you?


How would you know that?


butchersapron said:


> Just about every labour person on here - has been alienated by the content-free crap you churn out.


Well you certainly share the confidences of a lot of people.

Either that, or you are attempting a schoolyardy "Nobody likes you" bullying tactic.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Apr 1, 2017)

Cheer up you lot.
It's all to play for, a week is a long time in politics, it's not over til the fat lady sings, the wheel's still in spin, you can't predict the future etc etc etc 
Brexit+Trump+Syria+China+Climate Change+Fracking+Rising Nationalism+rapid technological change+New Media+Covert Action+Further Financial/Economic Crisis+Black Swan events= ?....


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2017)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Cheer up you lot.
> It's all to play for, a week is a long time in politics, it's not over til the fat lady sings, the wheel's still in spin, you can't predict the future etc etc etc
> Brexit+Trump+Syria+China+Climate Change+Fracking+Rising Nationalism+rapid technological change+New Media+Covert Action+Further Financial/Economic Crisis+Black Swan events= ?....


It's the new dawn baby, and here be dragons


----------



## emanymton (Apr 1, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I suspect the English will never again vote for Labour and will willingly drive themselves into a new Victorian era of landed gentry being served by people in maids and butler outfits who only get addressed by their surname. Fortunately for me, I won't be living there but I recognise that I am the one at fault in England. Since the population had only voted for a couple of decades of Labour in government, living under the boot of Tory Toffs must be what they want. Knowing that, I suppose I should just leave them to it. Walk away.


It wasn't that long ago (OK it probably was a while ago) that I heard people saying thst the Tories would never be in power again. They were an aging and dwindling bread who would shrink to a rump.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yes you did:
> 
> (My emphasis).
> If you think that cuts are inevitable following a private sector crash then you think neo-liberalism is inevitable, which means you think social democracy is not achievable.
> ...



No of course I don’t accept that, the graphs I posted clearly show that Labour governments spend more than tory ones.

Here are two more focussing on education and healthcare. (I assume you know the dates of Labour administrations).










Charts of Past Spending - UkPublicSpending.co.uk

Are you really trying to argue that a future Labour government would spend less on essential services than this tory one?



> so not a fact then.



You’re clutching at straws. Jezza isn’t going to win a GE.

One more thing: I may not agree with your approach, but I have you down as a decent person who cares about society and I respect you for that, so what’s with your ‘like’ of pickman’s infantile personal abuse?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> They are relevant to and were raised in response to a comment by you about non-democratic ways of changing governments.
> 
> I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.



But you haven’t explained it, you don’t know how to.

The only viable way of saving public services is by kicking out the tories at a GE.

A fair society can't by definition be undemocratic.

‘Coups and revolutions’ have nothing to do with it.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But you haven’t explained it, you don’t know how to.
> 
> The only viable way of saving public services is by kicking out the tories at a GE.
> 
> ...


That post appears heavy with assumption. Not least that parliamentary representation equates to democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But you haven’t explained it, you don’t know how to.
> 
> The only viable way of saving public services is by kicking out the tories at a GE.
> 
> ...


You're all over the fucking shop here you stupid cunt. I wouldn't have mentioned coups in the first place if you hadn't fucking asked how govts could be changed undemocratically. I only mentioned it in that context and never as a realistic option atm so will you stop repeating it, dishonestly making out I've said anything in favour of coups? And you can't vote a fairer society into being, it's something which needs to be worked on for years and must be bottom-up, not top-down. A fair society cannot by definition be undemocratic? A fair society cannot by definition be democratic, if by democratic you mean simply electing people now and again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That post appears heavy with assumption. Not least that parliamentary representation equates to democracy.


He's an auld cunt coming back days or a week or more after posts and then posting up some auld blathery shite which shows he hasn't got to grips with what's been said. Worst long-term poster on the boards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> One more thing: I may not agree with your approach, but I have you down as a decent person who cares about society and I respect you for that, so what’s with your ‘like’ of pickman’s infantile personal abuse?


There would be no personal abuse if you managed to get to grips with what other people post. But you seem incapable of it. You seem incapable of any sort of critical thought. Your thought seems to run on rails rather than be capable of taking different routes, your mantra that a Labour government must be elected to make things fairer flies in the face of experience between 1997 and 2010. Labour governments are explicitly pro-business governments. And if you're pro-business, someone else will come second. Part of labour's role is to play the good cop to the tories' bad cop - over things like tuition fees. Perhaps you should revisit the Blair and brown govts and think about them somewhat before posting again.


----------



## Libertad (Apr 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> what sort of talk is this? Never lie down or walk away.



Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. (((Zapata)))


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. (((Zapata)))


better to reign in hell than serve in heaven


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2017)

live free or die trying #NoFear


----------



## YouSir (Apr 2, 2017)

'Oops there goes another rubber tree plant'

Couldn't think of one that fitted.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 6, 2017)

At last we hear Corbyn and Labour coming out with a pledge Labour would fund free school meals for all primary school children by charging VAT on private school fees

Shame the lib dems announced plans to introduce this a few years ago


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> At last we hear Corbyn and Labour coming out with a pledge Labour would fund free school meals for all primary school children by charging VAT on private school fees
> 
> Shame the lib dems announced plans to introduce this a few years ago


A lib-dem promise. Marvelous. The same lib-dems who previously opposed universal free school meals as 'food for the richest kids". Does the lib-dem plan intend to newly tax private schools to fund the increase? Or, as with all their wonderful actions whilst in power, is it to come out of some other social spending?


----------



## gosub (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> At last we hear Corbyn and Labour coming out with a pledge Labour would fund free school meals for all primary school children by charging VAT on private school fees
> 
> Shame the lib dems announced plans to introduce this a few years ago


Ms Rayner said that the private school sector could afford the extra cost - and that many other businesses faced VAT charges.
She said that in a "true meritocracy" the emphasis should be on supporting the 93% of pupils in state schools schools.
*"Why should the state school system subsidise the private sector?" she said.
*
Can someone have a stab at explaining that last bit to me?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> A lib-dem promise. Marvelous. The same lib-dems who previously opposed universal free school meals as 'food for the richest kids". Does the lib-dem plan intend to newly tax private schools to fund the increase? Or, as with all their wonderful actions whilst in power, is it to come out of some other social spending?



Christ I must have missed/forgotten that. And these are the slime labelled as _progressive_.


----------



## killer b (Apr 6, 2017)

.


----------



## killer b (Apr 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> Ms Rayner said that the private school sector could afford the extra cost - and that many other businesses faced VAT charges.
> She said that in a "true meritocracy" the emphasis should be on supporting the 93% of pupils in state schools schools.
> *"Why should the state school system subsidise the private sector?" she said.
> *
> Can someone have a stab at explaining that last bit to me?


Tax breaks to private schools is effectively a subsidy, that could be better used subsidising the state sector. It's not that difficult is It?


----------



## gosub (Apr 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Tax breaks to private schools is effectively a subsidy, that could be better used subsidising the state sector. It's not that difficult is It?



Normalising the idea of VAT on education then. Glad I'll have finished OU before Labour get back into power.
The way schools are funded, its a lot easier to argue UK parents of private schools subsidise state education.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2017)

Normalising the idea of VAT on profit producing businesses.


----------



## gosub (Apr 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Normalising the idea of VAT on profit producing businesses.



Like universities


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2017)

These profit making parts of public state-funded universities - are there many of them? Are they, in fact, profit producing businesses in the same way as private schools?


----------



## hash tag (Apr 6, 2017)

State schools V private/public schools is not just about funding though. Education should be equal for all in the way it is delivered, by who it is delivered and for the pupils. If the public schools take all the brightest/priveledged pupils and the best teachers, the state schools will become poorer in quality and outlook. The education children get at state schools will be inferior (in many ways)  to that received at private schools.


----------



## gosub (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> State schools V private/public schools is not just about funding though. Education should be equal for all in the way it is delivered, by who it is delivered and for the pupils. If the public schools take all the brightest/priveledged pupils and the best teachers, the state schools will become poorer in quality and outlook. The education children get at state schools will be inferior (in many ways)  to that received at private schools.



I get the ideological argument, (I don't fully agree but I get it), more the justifications are dragging them towards a really shitty pandora's box


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> State schools V private/public schools is not just about funding though. Education should be equal for all in the way it is delivered, by who it is delivered and for the pupils. If the public schools take all the brightest/priveledged pupils and the best teachers, the state schools will become poorer in quality and outlook. The education children get at state schools will be inferior (in many ways)  to that received at private schools.


the level of educational excellence* is not why people send their kids private though. We all know why this happens.

*and lets not forget it doesn't bear out as excellence in the HE department because once the hothousing is gone...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> Ms Rayner said that the private school sector could afford the extra cost - and that many other businesses faced VAT charges.
> She said that in a "true meritocracy" the emphasis should be on supporting the 93% of pupils in state schools schools.
> *"Why should the state school system subsidise the private sector?" she said.
> *
> Can someone have a stab at explaining that last bit to me?



Note Labour - even under the social democrat Corbyn - can no longer demand equality, never mind suggest legislation to bring it about. They cannot even, as Blairites once did, demand the more nebulous 'equality of opportunity'. The demand now is 'meritocracy'. 

Understand this and you'll understand how a proposal to feed children is so controversial.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 6, 2017)

FWIW I have just been speaking to a friend/colleague, who was born into a notable socialist family and a staunch Corbyn supporter, Even he doesn't think Labour are electable at the moment


----------



## rioted (Apr 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> These profit making parts of public state-funded universities - are there many of them? Are they, in fact, profit producing businesses in the same way as private schools?


The UK does not permit for-profit schools, but there are a number of for-profit institutions in higher education.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> FWIW I have just been speaking to a friend/colleague, who was born into a notable socialist family and a staunch Corbyn supporter, Even he doesn't think Labour are electable at the moment


That's not really the question though is it. The question is why? Frankly I don't think Corbyn is the main reason.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> FWIW I have just been speaking to a friend/colleague, who was born into a notable socialist family and a staunch Corbyn supporter, Even he doesn't think Labour are electable at the moment


too many blairites, you're quite right.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> At last we hear Corbyn and Labour coming out with a pledge Labour would fund free school meals for all primary school children by charging VAT on private school fees
> 
> Shame the lib dems announced plans to introduce this a few years ago



funded via VAT on Private school fees ? Bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

cantsin said:


> funded via VAT on Private school fees ? Bollocks.


bollocks it won't raise it or bollocks your fees might be going up?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> FWIW I have just been speaking to a friend/colleague, who was born into a notable socialist family and a staunch Corbyn supporter, Even he doesn't think Labour are electable at the moment



thanks 4 sharing, the unverifiable opinions of 'notable socialist families' are much valued round these parts


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> bollocks it won't raise it or bollocks your fees might be going up?



lulz, for clarities sake " BOLLOX, THE LIBS NEVER PROPOSED VAT ON TARQUIIN'S SCHOOLS FEES"


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> FWIW I have just been speaking to a friend/colleague, who was born into a notable socialist family and a staunch Corbyn supporter, Even he doesn't think Labour are electable at the moment


a nice variation on millions of pms of support


----------



## hash tag (Apr 6, 2017)

emanymton said:


> That's not really the question though is it. The question is why? Frankly I don't think Corbyn is the main reason.



If labour are headed in the wrong direction surely it's up to their leader to recognise this and change direction or continue with sound, solid , moral principles yet remain unelectable. It's a rock and hard place.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2017)

Yeah, just do it corbyn you twat!


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> If labour are headed in the wrong direction surely it's up to their leader to recognise this and change direction or continue with sound, solid , moral principles yet remain unelectable. It's a rock and hard place.


 
"There are decades where nothing happens. And there are weeks when decades happens" -  Lenin.

The way things are going at the moment, the 2020 election is half a century away, and the count will be conducted by robots. Tell your mates the Hobsbawms not to sweat it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> If labour are headed in the wrong direction surely it's up to their leader to recognise this and change direction or continue with sound, solid , moral principles yet remain unelectable. It's a rock and hard place.


between scylla and charybdis


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> between scylla and charybdis



Quoting the classics, Sting that is.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

If Jezza can't Dan or even Jarvis, then he has to go. I mean, Labour needs someone can at least Chukka Umuna or two. Hell! If he can's Jess Philips, then he's useless! At least Liz Kendall.


----------



## belboid (Apr 7, 2017)

Why is every supposedly pro-corbyn meme so fucking shit?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> Why is every supposedly pro-corbyn meme so fucking shit?



By a man's works shall ye know him...


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2017)

political memes are like political poetry. You either nail it hard or you fuck it right up. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 7, 2017)




----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

Meh. Blairites are hilarious, however.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 7, 2017)

belboid said:


> Why is every supposedly pro-corbyn meme so fucking shit?



They are so forced, somehow they seem even more corporate than actual corporate advertising.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

Well I take full responsibilty cos I made it myself on a mem generator: check the link.

So not corporate or advertising, but if you think it looked that professional, well gee thanks.

Meanwhile






She's fucking cool , innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2017)

Jesus christ, you're the last person in the world left going on about Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2017)

Fucking freak. No nuance, no criticism or doubts allowed. Just a binary choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2017)

Unstoppable working class rage.

Surprised they still sell 35 000. Maybe they mean they pay to  _print _35 000.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Fucking freak. No nuance, no criticism or doubts allowed. Just a binary choice.


What binary choice? The last year and hald has demonstrated quite clearly that there is no choice: It's either a "Moderate" or the PLP bring the party to its knees. Show me one fucking newspaper or news channel giving the public an alternative.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Unstoppable working class rage.
> 
> Surprised they still sell 35 000. Maybe they mean they pay to  _print _35 000.



Buzzfeed? And you laugh at other people's sources. Ever heard of Clickhole, asshole?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 7, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well I take full responsibilty cos I made it myself on a mem generator: check the link...



And by a man's works shall ye know him.

Jarvis was a Major, as anyone who has picked up a newspaper or switched on the internet in the last decade will know.

You can't even claim that this basic error was done in the name of comedy, as there have got to be 10 times as many potentially useful 'Major' themes as there are for 'Captain'.

_Null points_, as always...


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

Thanks kebaking. Personally I couldn't give a flying fuck what he was. He still enabled the Tories to hack the little welfare there was left. But if it makes you feel better, I'll take the piss out of the twat buy calling a Major twat. I'll get on to a new meme straight away as of next month.
These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn’t vote against the Tories' welfare bill


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2017)

time to fuck off this nothing tosspot again lads.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

Lads? Wow, you're in a gang? How are you gonna "fuck me off" exactly? 

Are you goint to send me _bad vibes_ down _da tinternet_ in like a hi-tech seance and shit?

Bwahahah!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2017)

_Support corbyn for more of this._


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 7, 2017)

_Support the anti-Corbyn shower for more austerity, war and back-door privatisation._


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Unstoppable working class rage.
> 
> Surprised they still sell 35 000. Maybe they mean they pay to  _print _35 000.



They are going to protest at the Guardian as well, good, even if all they get is sneers and condescension from the liberals there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Buzzfeed? And you laugh at other people's sources. Ever heard of Clickhole, asshole?


Didn't know you were a septick


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Buzzfeed? And you laugh at other people's sources. Ever heard of Clickhole, asshole?



It's "arsehole", you arsehole.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 10, 2017)

I have nothing against protesting against the New Statesman or the graunid, but their message is a little bit too moderate for my tastes

Better:


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 11, 2017)

Corbyn coming out with a lot of sensible policies that I agree with at the moment. Still don't know why people are in such a tizz about him, I really don't get it tbh. (Not reading through 500 odd pages of this thread to find out either)


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 11, 2017)

ten quid min wage by 2020 is still really fucking tight.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> ten quid min wage by 2020 is still really fucking tight.


Too right.
On the _demand the impossible _continuum it's still pretty close to fundamentalist neoliberal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 11, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Too right.
> On the _demand the impossible _continuum it's still pretty close to fundamentalist neoliberal.


not only that, I think I recall it being a thing osbourne pledged back in those days before cameron fucked a pig and the world went mad.


So its 'matching tory policy- vote labour'


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> not only that, I think I recall it being a thing osbourne pledged back in those days before cameron fucked a pig and the world went mad.
> 
> 
> So its 'matching tory policy- vote labour'



True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 11, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.


hah, and here was me thinking 'fight for 15'. Must broaden my ambitions


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> True, I remember it as well, re-heated Milibandism. Should have been £20 for 2020.


£20.20 for 2020


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> £20.20 for 2020



It may well be 21 guineas by that date!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're all over the fucking shop here you stupid cunt. I wouldn't have mentioned coups in the first place if you hadn't fucking asked how govts could be changed undemocratically. I only mentioned it in that context and never as a realistic option atm so will you stop repeating it, dishonestly making out I've said anything in favour of coups?



You said coups *and revolutions. *So if not a coup, is revolution a viable way of changing government undemocratically??



> A fair society cannot by definition be undemocratic? A fair society cannot by definition be democratic, if by democratic you mean simply electing people now and again.



That's clearly not what I mean. Society needs to be far more democratic if it is to be fair, however, selecting a national government can only be done by 'electing people now and again'.



> There would be no personal abuse if you managed to get to grips with what other people post. But you seem incapable of it. You seem incapable of any sort of critical thought. Your thought seems to run on rails rather than be capable of taking different routes, your mantra that a Labour government must be elected to make things fairer flies in the face of experience between 1997 and 2010. Labour governments are explicitly pro-business governments. And if you're pro-business, someone else will come second. Part of labour's role is to play the good cop to the tories' bad cop - over things like tuition fees. Perhaps you should revisit the Blair and brown govts and think about them somewhat before posting again.



It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.

If you want to forge a radically different UK then go ahead, but it’ll mean fuck all if it’s not reached consensually.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 11, 2017)

I never expected a super hero ha


----------



## agricola (Apr 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.



Not this "the PLP as Babylon 5" thing again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It’s you who can't seem to get to grips with the fact that only Labour winning a GE can save the NHS and state education, preferring instead to hide behind childish abuse while vaguely bandying around words like ‘revolution’ and ‘coup’ without having the faintest idea about why you said them in the first place.
> 
> If you want to forge a radically different UK then go ahead, but it’ll mean fuck all if it’s not reached consensually.


Oh fuck off you dull, dull cunt. The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least.

You don't have a fucking clue.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 11, 2017)

I'm very puzzled by the notion that the neoliberal wing of labour, the very people who pushed the NHS into ruinous debt, much of it held by the very arseholes who would profit from privatization, via PFI, can be imagined to be the saviours of the our public health service.

Surely that's just some sort of cynical Blairite bullshit that they're giving us little people because they hold anyone who can't afford private health insurance and didn't go to pubic school in total contempt and think we're stupid enough to fall for their transparent lies again despite their dire history of utter faithlessness?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 12, 2017)

I have, by email, via Unite, been invited to attend a meeting at Doncaster Trades Club tomorrow with Jeremy Corbyn at 4:00 pm. Sadly at this time I will be in recovery post-op and cannot decide which would be the less fraught event.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 12, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> It may well be 21 guineas by that date!



Will he dare suggest we go back to Imperial after Brexit


----------



## brogdale (Apr 12, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> I have, by email, via Unite, been invited to attend a meeting at Doncaster Trades Club tomorrow with Jeremy Corbyn at 4:00 pm. Sadly at this time *I will be in recovery post-op* and cannot decide which would be the less fraught event.


Hope all goes well, comrade.


----------



## belboid (Apr 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Will he dare suggest we go back to Imperial after Brexit


Do be silly. Before anything else, our Jez is an anti-imperialist


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 12, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Hope all goes well, comrade.



Cheers, I hope to be back in a couple of days.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 12, 2017)

"The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least."

In the early 1980s i'd a 48 year old mate who often remarked that he would not live long enough to see another Labour government. Back then i was still starry eyed enough to challenge what i thought to be his awful pessimism, thinking that it couldn't be too long before people began to see through all the vermin's lying deceipt and would respond through the ballot box, or, i hoped, through the inevitable picket lines.  i didn't at all see the waning of social democracy and the complete eclipse of Labour.  my mate Willie died in 1996.  Had he lived he would not have recognised Blair and the awful 'Blairite project' as having anything to do with 'Labour'.  i suspect Pickman is correct, there is little possibility of a Labour administration until 2030 at the earliest.

i suppose i've turned into Willie. Depressingly i'm 65..


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 12, 2017)

Sadly redcogs it could be that we will be much older before we see another Labour government.
The problem I think is akin to the story of the Emperor's new clothes except in this version, the observer who sees that Labour is naked is beaten to death by the fawning crowd.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 13, 2017)

I'll first of all go through the ritualised bits first - yes, they were better than governments we've had since 1979, yes, the NHS was 'safe(r) in their hands' and all that. But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan. They always managed capitalism as a precarious 'settlement', but when social democracy and the post-war boom died they showed their true colours and sided unambiguously with capital.

Not having a go at anyone, btw, but let's neither put them on a point in some continuum they didn't deserve or, even worse, suggest they peddled a form of rule that was something other than being ruled, by capital.  And ultimately, the reasons Labourism and social democracy failed are the reasons, in part, Corbyn isn't able to present it as a real, plausible thing to be revivied.


----------



## inva (Apr 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan.


or Atlee


----------



## Wilf (Apr 13, 2017)

inva said:


> or Atlee


Indeed/absolutely - though I didn't dare slaughter that most sacred of sacred cows.  But Attlee makes the point just as well, he came in at the point when social democracy was the answer, but it was also capital's answer.  That gets right to an aspect of Corbyn's 'failure', it's not just the failure of him and momentum to get an active political project up and running, it's not just the behaviour of the right, it's not just the weird balance of forces in both the PLP and the party - it's also the thing that's on sale. He and his rather blinkered fans present social democracy - or whatever variation on it he holds - as a 'thing' to be had.  But it isn't a fork in the road, a path to persuade the voters to go along. It was a compromise of it's time, something that worked for capital every bit as much as it represented gains for the working class. But that world isn't there any more and capital certainly isn't going to back it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'll first of all go through the ritualised bits first - yes, they were better than governments we've had since 1979, yes, the NHS was 'safe(r) in their hands' and all that. But regardless of the nostalgia factor that I probably share, let's not start valorising the governments of Harold Wilson and Jim fucking Callaghan. They always managed capitalism as a precarious 'settlement', but when social democracy and the post-war boom died they showed their true colours and sided unambiguously with capital.
> 
> Not having a go at anyone, btw, but let's neither put them on a point in some continuum they didn't deserve or, even worse, suggest they peddled a form of rule that was something other than being ruled, by capital.  And ultimately, the reasons Labourism and social democracy failed are the reasons, in part, Corbyn isn't able to present it as a real, plausible thing to be revivied.


not to mention callaghan sending troops into the six counties and his government overseeing the withdrawal of special category status for republican (and loyalist) prisoners: the h-blocks were the scene of the blanket and dirty protests under callaghan as under thatcher.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 13, 2017)

i agree, at best Labour was only ever a rather threadbare comfort blanket, something to grip on to in the absence of the working class movement creating anything better.  my friend Willie (who i mentioned above) was born in the tough 1930's, and certainly regarded Labour as an important vehicle for reforming society and a bulwark against unemployment and actual hunger.   i absorbed a bit of that i'm sure, and even as i chained myself to the 'revolutionary left' i continued, for a time, to hope for a Labour government.  Of course, the real world, along with the Blairites, exposed my ridiculous naivety, and dear Willie checked out in 1996 before his faith in Labour could be properly tested, so he witnessed the best that UK social democracy had to offer with the Atlee progresses etc.  So i suppose his trust in Labour was a generational thing, and entirely understandable.

i'm unsure, and dont possess the capability to draw any meaningful lessons from any of this, but i agree that the free market aint gonna be shifted by Jezzer, however much he wants it.  That route is closed off by history, possibly permanently.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 13, 2017)

I think the age of ordinary people being able to have their interests represented via parliamentary politics is over.

It was nice while it lasted, and we may be able to defend the gains made then against primitive accumulation, by other means, at least for a while.

Desperately sad if I'm right about this, because all the alternatives really stink, but I'm pretty sure that the democratic option no longer exists for us.

Only for rich people, and one person one vote isn't how they exercise power.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 13, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think the age of ordinary people being able to have their interests represented via parliamentary politics is over.


The idiot ordinary people need to have their votes taken away from them so their betters like you can order the world in their interest.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 13, 2017)

That wasn't how I read that post tbf. 
Rather, it got me thinking that May 14th isn't far off.


----------



## alfajobrob (Apr 13, 2017)

No one cares but his rating is starting to go up in my book...no idea why..but interesting for me at least.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> The idiot ordinary people need to have their votes taken away from them so their betters like you can order the world in their interest.


You just make yourself look foolish posting something like that. Bernie didn't mean that and, most of all, you know he didn't. Why on earth would you pretend he did?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 14, 2017)

I think ferrel is hearing the voices again.

It's more a matter of capital having thoroughly captured the institutions and processes in between the voters and the policies enacted.

So that no matter what you thought you voted for, _what you actually get_ is always more looting.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2017)

Lol Tories take a council seat from Labour in Middlesborough


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 14, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Lol Tories take a council seat from Labour in Middlesborough



Coulby Newham though. That's not really the skag addled rape alleys that are brought to mind when one hears the word 'Middlesborough'.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Coulby Newham though. That's not really the skag addled rape alleys that are brought to mind when one hears the word 'Middlesborough'.


Have the Tories won it before?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 14, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Lol Tories take a council seat from Labour in Middlesborough



You cld at least try + disguise yr evident enjoyment of this


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Coulby Newham though. That's not really the skag addled rape alleys that are brought to mind when one hears the word 'Middlesborough'.



God , you are a pig.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2017)

cantsin said:


> You cld at least try + disguise yr evident enjoyment of this


It's hard whether I should laugh or cry tbh. On the face of its a disaster unless someone can put it in some context.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2017)

The area is a mix of big modern estates, private and social housing.  Labour should have a natural majority there and they won the seat in 2007 and 2011, though not with massive majorities in the latter. It's basically Lab Vs Cons/mixture of independents and residents. 2011 was the Residents candidates running Labour close-ish (200+ majorities - it's one of those 3 councillors elected type seats).  The idea that this is all about Corbyn can only be partly true, as Labour won a by-election last year in the same seat.

However this result really isn't good for Labour - con 38, lab 35, residents 24.  In other words it wasn't simply a case of all the former residents/independent votes going to the tories.  Actually, would have been easier if I'd posted the links. 

... so: history of the seat can be found here:
Election Results | Middlesbrough Council

And this by election result here:
Jeremy Corbyn Blamed As Middlesbrough By-Election Sees Tories Take Labour Seat | The Huffington Post

Oh, and Blenkinsop is an outright wanker.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2017)

guardian running the story prominently (of course - more a sign of the mutual speed dial they have with Blenkinsop):
Loss of Middlesbrough council seat again casts doubt on Corbyn’s leadership
It's obviously a very poor result and exactly the kind of result it should be impossible for a plausible opposition to get at this point in a parliament.  But it's not exactly an earth shattering result - Labour used to get _comfortable_ majorities in Coulby.  I'm splitting hairs and anyway my take on it is that Labour is mega fucked at the next election and maybe the one after that, but this result shouldn't be made into some kind of game changer as it's being presented.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2017)

I agree not a game changer but continued evidence of an opposition who just aren't able to engage.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 14, 2017)

I've put a couple of quid on Corbyn going in the second quarter of 2017. He needs to win big in May to survive.  

If we take the Mayoral election in Brum it's curtains IMHO.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 15, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think ferrel is hearing the voices again.


What kind of shitcunt assumes they are such a genius that it is a sign of mental illness to disagree with them. 


> It's more a matter of capital having thoroughly


A good example of why virtually no one takes the left seriously anymore. You basically are like a child that blames everything you fuck up on a bigger boy doing it and running away. 
The dozy old duffering wandering out the day after the Brexit vote and demanding Article 50 now? All the fault of "capitals capture of the media" etc etc.
The thick old clown wandering into parliament on the day Article 50 was triggered and banging on and on about school places? All the fault of capital. 

A complete and total capitulation on any effort to engage with the UK people and instead wallowing in a never ending circle jerks of self pity and self congratulation.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2017)

Terribly dishonest prof. You owe bernie an apology.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2017)

I'm talking about 'hearing voices' because you aren't as far as I can tell, engaging with anything I actually said, but appear to be referring to something else entirely.

What I _said _was that it doesn't matter how any of those people voted, they're still going to get more privatisation, worse pay and conditions, less security etc, due to structural factors that voting (for whatever or whoever), has negligible impact on.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Terribly dishonest prof. You owe bernie an apology.


Yeah, an utterly ridiculous smear. Clearly wasn't any implication of mental illness.


----------



## agricola (Apr 15, 2017)

Sion Simon visits the moral high ground, in an article in today's Guardian.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 15, 2017)

agricola said:


> Sion Simon visits the moral high ground, in an article in today's Guardian.


Yes a very interesting contest this one. Labour will almost certainly win Manchester,  and we are in a titanic struggle with the Greens and kippers for third in Liverpool  but this is the one that could go either way.

What'll  be interesting to compare will be the Tory vs Labour turnout. Even though it's now a nearly decade since BoJo took London I still suspect a minority of our more traditional voters see all devolved government as a Labour thing and simply stay at home.

Betfair Exchange has Andy Street as a firm but not overwhelming favourite at 1.63 with Sion on 2.18


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> A complete and total capitulation on any effort to engage with the UK people and instead wallowing in a never ending circle jerks of self pity and self congratulation.


 Not sure why I'm attempting a sensible answer to this, given that your post is just shit flinging, but here goes:

Pretty much all of conventional politics is trying to appropriate the interests and aspirations of particular social groups at particular moments, to the point where there's sufficient party members to do the work and voters to win elections. A big part of that is making assumptions, offering idealised accounts of groups and what is in their interest.  It's a form of 'engagement', but a dishonest and manipulative one. Liberalism on both sides of the Atlantic is fucked at the moment because it embodies a set of professionalised middle class values and is then appalled that the working class doesn't share those policies and values (brexit of course). Yes and the left too have 'lost touch', but not in the way you mean it. It also has less and less points of contacts with the working class, so is essentially parading a vision of capitalism before neo-liberalism, but isn't really 'engaging', isn't _part of_ the working class.  But when _*you*_ talk about 'engaging with the UK people', you really just mean playing the Blairite game of 'engaging with' whilst taking real engagement further away from the working class.  The sincere conjuring trick of the PR campaign, politics as marketing strategy. I'm not going to defend the Corbyn thing, I think it embodies exactly the wrong form of politics - it's an 80s left tribute act, it doesn't actually _engage_, but the guardian/liberal/Blairite use of the word engagement to _attack_ Corbyn is to refer to a process they would never undertake in a million years - something they _couldn't_ actually do.

Edit: short version - I bet I've used the word engage 20 times or more on this thread, but _engage_ is the ultimate weasel word.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2017)

I think it's still important to vote and to try to elect some representatives who actually oppose privatisation, worse pay and conditions and looting-induced insecurity and are willing to try to repair the damage neo-liberalism has done to the social contract.

It's just that those structural factors I mentioned make it very difficult to do that, and make it very difficult for them to successfully represent those interests in the unlikely event that they can be elected.

Pretending those structural factors don't exist is an option obviously, but it's a bit like pretending the science of climate change doesn't say what it actually says and yelling at people for not putting faith in corn ethanol or one of Bono's tree planting scams.

I think a constructive approach has to start from recognising the reality of the situation.

It's shit, but that's where we are.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 15, 2017)

As much as I like Corbyn, and indeed voted for him, it's become clear he's a dead man walking.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 15, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> As much as I like Corbyn, and indeed voted for him, it's become clear he's a dead man walking.


The only thing Labour have got going for them is the fact that there can't be another election for 3 years, unless TM can find a way to engineer one.

If the opinion polls are right ( and they are unlikely to be *that* far out ) we would win an election tomorrow very tidily indeed.  

But a lot can happen in two years.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2017)

Beetlebum said:


> The only thing Labour have got going for them is the fact that there can't be another election for 3 years, unless TM can find a way to engineer one.
> 
> If the opinion polls are right ( and they are unlikely to be *that* far out ) we would win an election tomorrow very tidily indeed.
> 
> But a lot can happen in two years.


"...we..."
If you insist on posting here, try to refrain from this meaningless trope.


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2017)

He means the Tories, i wonder how many others of the CJA/RTS generation are now on the Right, etc.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 15, 2017)

treelover said:


> He means the Tories, i wonder how many others of the CJA/RTS generation are now on the Right, etc.


I'd be interested to know. There was no way that I was ever going to vote Tory in 1997 but some of the things they did made it feel like they were declaring war on my generation.

  Over the top in hindsight but I didn't vote Tory until 2010 when most of that generation of Tory MPs had retired.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 15, 2017)

brogdale said:


> "...we..."
> If you insist on posting here, try to refrain from this meaningless trope.


I've just gone out and brought a QRTY keyboard


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2017)

So how does this work then?

On the one hand:

Theresa May’s Conservatives are 21 points ahead of Labour in new poll

and then the other:

Jeremy Corbyn’s policy blitz supported by majority of British public, poll says


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2017)

I think it works like this. 

Directly opposing the policies would just make more people notice that they agreed with them, so the propaganda shitstorm focuses instead on Corbyn's failings as a media personality


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> So how does this work then?
> 
> On the one hand:
> 
> ...




Okay, spaking as a Tory votr ..looking at th article you'v linked to....for a start th most popular of thos polics, ..fuck this...  

 The most popular of those policies-raising the minimum wage to £10 a hour- has cross party voter support.   The Tories have already made some substantial progress in the direction of £10 an hour... of course it's not fast enough.

I think it was a mistake to cut the top rate of tax to 45 percent.  50 percent is fine, going much higher might take us above the peak of the laffer curve. 

There have already been free school meals introduced for primary year 1 kids I think? Anyone know?

None of those policies strike me as that radical tbh


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2017)

How are we to achieve any of the following by voting?






YouGov |  Nationalise energy and rail companies, say public

... and why is it that we got to vote on Brexit and not on the above, where the "will of the people" is much clearer?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 16, 2017)

'rule by plebscite' was a phrase used a few times, with a kind of bewildered horror by guardian and telegraph journos alike in the wake of the brexit vote.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> How are we to achieve any of the following by voting?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Those are interesting and probably not surprising figures. I think the interesting bit is the high level of 'in principle' support the public sector gets, whereas that vision has been eroded as a practical way of running society for 40 years or more. Alongside the 'in principle' bit there's been a long term ideological attack from tory, labour and the commentariat on the capacity of old style public sector management and administration, the notion of non-market mechanisms. To the point that no party is willing/able to present an unapologetic return to nationalisation, strong local authorities and a general booting out of the money changers as a political package (even Corbyn). Maybe it's the long term ideological attack that has left people somehow not willing to see a return to the old public corporations, Morrisonian model as an off the peg,, ready to go means of running society. But let's not get too dewey eyed, it's also people's experiences of being a tenant, user of services and the like back in that period. And it's about the experiences of local government today.  You might like the idea of public services, but there's a disjuncture between that and the people who are carrying out real cuts to jobs and services as the guardians of that vision.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2017)

Just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make is more about the nature of democracy and the constraints on it, than about the desirability or otherwise of any particular model for providing public services and/or economic security.

You can also find majorities of voters who want to be horrible to immigrants or the unemployed, but it's far easier to make those things happen by voting for them, apparently.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 17, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn wearing a very obscure t-shirt...

Jeremy Corbyn surprises Ware cafe owners on Easter cycling trip






I was just curious about what the t-shirt actually said. In Spanish it means '7% is the grade', according to this website the slogan refers to the fact that Nicaragua spends 7% of GDP on education.


----------



## not a trot (Apr 18, 2017)

not a trot said:


> Well at least Corbyn was right about a 2017 election. Bloody obvious the Tories are gearing up for a May or June election now.




I got odds of 2/1. Won't be putting the winnings on a Corbyn victory. A tory majority of 20-50 seats.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2017)

Well, at least we know when the Corbyn era comes to an end now. Poor sod.

He probably doesn't need any more doom and gloom, but I can't possibly think what Labour's line will be in the (assumed) election:

Tories - brexit, decisive, Labour are hopeless
Libs - Europe, wail, Europe, wail...
Lab - things to say about public services, but on brexit...???


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, at least we know when the Corbyn era comes to an end now. Poor sod.
> 
> He probably doesn't need any more doom and gloom, but I can't possibly think what Labour's line will be in the (assumed) election:
> 
> ...


I suspect we may well also know now when the labour party era (as rotating govt party anyway) comes to an end. Within a few years they will be supporting PR and then the party will finally shatter if it ever comes to pass.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 18, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, at least we know when the Corbyn era comes to an end now. Poor sod.
> 
> He probably doesn't need any more doom and gloom, but I can't possibly think what Labour's line will be in the (assumed) election:
> 
> ...


it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all


----------



## Beermoth (Apr 18, 2017)

Looking forward to Labour declaring a snap leadership election.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Jeremy Corbyn wearing a very obscure t-shirt...
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn surprises Ware cafe owners on Easter cycling trip
> 
> ...



No wonder he hasn't spoken about May's announcement yet. With that bike of his he is probably still cycling home.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

If Corbyn had come out in support of Leave before the referendum there would be a very different picture right now.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If Corbyn had come out in support of Leave before the referendum there would be a very different picture right now.



He's no leader though. He can't sway opinions to follow him so has to vacillate around positions he doesn't really believe in. 

In order to do well in this election Labour will need to articulate what a soft Brexit could be like as opposed to Tory hard, or LibDem remain. Jeremy cannot lead Labour in a Remain position again. That would be just plain weird.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

Moreover, when would Jeremy's version of leaving the EU, but with continued free movement ever have satisfied either, leavers or remainers?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 18, 2017)

Corbyn should say he is all for just sending a note to Brussels saying goodbye.
Show his true belief and stop looking like a foolish man for all seasons and stand by his own principles.
At least then he would appear sincere.


----------



## Beetlebum (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If Corbyn had come out in support of Leave before the referendum there would be a very different picture right now.


This  x1000


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If Corbyn had come out in support of Leave before the referendum there would be a very different picture right now.


You reckon? He couldn't have taken the party with him, it'd have been a massive clusterfuck. Possibly no more massive than what he got anyway... but still.


----------



## Sue (Apr 18, 2017)

Sounds like Labour are going to back this.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> You reckon? He couldn't have taken the party with him, it'd have been a massive clusterfuck. Possibly no more massive than what he got anyway... but still.


I reckon so. I believe he would have tied the traditional vote to the party,. The flaky side was always going to flirt once more with the lib-dems in the case of a leave victory - and they are. The hardening polarised positions would then have him on the side of his core support rather than a) on the side of the flakes or b) with both pissed off at him. He's ended up with the latter and i think as consequence this may well be an election about labour's continued existence.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 18, 2017)

In principle, I'm not against ending fixed term parliaments. But in politics, you support that when you're in government and ahead in the polls, not when you're in opposition on 20% polling.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Sue said:


> Sounds like Labour are going to back this.


Yes, Corbyn has said he will. Not sure many labour MPs are going to be happy to vote to get the sack. It would need to be a large rebellion to stop it - at least 100.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon so. I believe he would have tied the traditional vote to the party,. The flaky side was always going to flirt once more with the lib-dems in the case of a leave victory - and they are. The hardening polarised positions would then have him on the side of his core support rather than a) on the side of the flakes or b) with both pissed off at him. He's ended up with the latter and i think as consequence this may well be an election about labour's continued existence.



Much of that traditional vote fucked off years ago though. I agree he might have got a decent handful back with a credible Leave stance, but enough to make the party look more long-term viable than it does now?


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon so. I believe he would have tied the traditional vote to the party,. The flaky side was always going to flirt once more with the lib-dems in the case of a leave victory - and they are. The hardening polarised positions would then have him on the side of his core support rather than a) on the side of the flakes or b) with both pissed off at him. He's ended up with the latter and i think as consequence this may well be an election about labour's continued existence.



Hang on, the traditional Labour vote for Remain didn't completely collapse. It was still the majority of Labour voters. How would his version of leave swayed those who voted for leave, obsessed as they were with immigration?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Much of that traditional vote fucked off years ago though. I agree he might have got a decent handful back with a credible Leave stance, but enough to make the party look more long-term viable than it does now?


Yes, much of it left. It would have been attracted to a strong LEAVE position from their former party i think given the depth of anger and the clear class element to that anger. Couldn't be any worse than now anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Hang on, the traditional Labour vote for Remain didn't completely collapse. It was still the majority of Labour voters. How would his version of leave swayed those who voted for leave, obsessed as they were with immigration?


These are the flakes who are now running (back) to the lib-dems i am on about.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> These are the flakes who are now running (back) to the lib-dems i am on about.



7 out of 10 Labour voters are not 'flakes'. I don't really get why you appear to consider only leavers 'real' Labour vote. Maybe you need to say a bit more.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 18, 2017)

not a trot said:


> I got odds of 2/1. Won't be putting the winnings on a Corbyn victory. A tory majority of 20-50 seats.



Forget bookies odds. It's our future thats at stake.
Curious that the election was called so soon after Crobyn had made a few policy announcements in the last few days. May is obviously concerned that he will start gaining popularity.


----------



## gosub (Apr 18, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Forget bookies odds. It's our future thats at stake.
> Curious that the election was called so soon after Crobyn had made a few policy announcements in the last few days. May is obviously concerned that he will start gaining popularity.


LOL


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Couldn't be any worse than now anyway.



There's no arguing with that!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> 7 out of 10 Labour voters are not 'flakes'. I don't really get why you appear to consider only leavers 'real' Labour vote. Maybe you need to say a bit more.


63% voted to stay. Most of these are going to be in seats in the south that labour do not and will not win. I think it's highly likely corbyn's lukewarm stay and post referendum urging May to get on with brexit allied with aggressive lib-dem _annul the result_ posturing means these 1.3 are going to vote lib-dem. Making them both flakes and in areas where their vote doesn't really have an effect on labours fortunes. Some of the non-london city seats - the one i'm in for example - will have a slighly different dynamic that has much more to do with whether labour exists as viable party in the medium term. And a lot of those people are still going to vote for the lib-dems and against the parties existence.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 18, 2017)

You are kidding. In 2 years we will be out of Europe................


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh fuck off you dull, dull cunt. The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least.
> 
> You don't have a fucking clue.



Labour are certainly fucked while Corbyn and Momentum are still in charge, June 8th will almost certainly be a disaster for Labour.

I’m clearly not suggesting a return to Blair or PFI, but an electable Labour Party is still the only viable way to kick out the tories and save free healthcare, free comprehensive education and increase the flow of funding into other essential services.

There is currently no alternative, so grow up and forget your fantasy ‘revolution’. That ship sailed and sank a long time ago.


----------



## not a trot (Apr 18, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Forget bookies odds. It's our future thats at stake.
> Curious that the election was called so soon after Crobyn had made a few policy announcements in the last few days. May is obviously concerned that he will start gaining popularity.



I took the odds last October on there being a general election in 2017.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If Corbyn had come out in support of Leave before the referendum there would be a very different picture right now.



If we're going to do pointless ifs, how about if Labour hadn't decided on seppuku in September 2015, we wouldn't now be facing the certainty of at least another decade of this all out tory assault on the poor and vulnerable.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 18, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If we're going to do pointless ifs, how about if Labour hadn't decided on seppuku in September 2015, we wouldn't now be facing the certainty of at least another decade of this all out tory assault on the poor and vulnerable.


No, there might be a chance of an all out Blairite assault on the poor and vulnerable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour are certainly fucked while Corbyn and Momentum are still in charge, June 8th will almost certainly be a disaster for Labour.
> 
> I’m clearly not suggesting a return to Blair or PFI, but an electable Labour Party is still the only viable way to kick out the tories and save free healthcare, free comprehensive education and increase the flow of funding into other essential services.
> 
> There is currently no alternative, so grow up and forget your fantasy ‘revolution’. That ship sailed and sank a long time ago.


td;dr


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 18, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If we're going to do pointless ifs, how about if Labour hadn't decided on seppuku in September 2015, we wouldn't now be facing the certainty of at least another decade of this all out tory assault on the poor and vulnerable.



Labour have been committing the slowest seppuku in history since the move away from Social Democracy toward their own adaptation of Neo-Liberalism in the form of Entrepreneurial Governance.
The pointless if, being the only difference is it would be Labour's kid glove assault on the poor and vulnerable.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> 63% voted to stay. Most of these are going to be in seats in the south that labour do not and will not win. I think it's highly likely corbyn's lukewarm stay and post referendum urging May to get on with brexit allied with aggressive lib-dem _annul the result_ posturing means these 1.3 are going to vote lib-dem. Making them both flakes and in areas where their vote doesn't really have an effect on labours fortunes. Some of the non-london city seats - the one i'm in for example - will have a slighly different dynamic that has much more to do with whether labour exists as viable party in the medium term. And a lot of those people are still going to vote for the lib-dems and against the parties existence.



Labour needs to do well all round for electoral success. I think you may be about right in terms of the one third and they must be dispensable if they won't vote for social democratic or socialist policies. But there are huge rifts between those left and those who jumped ship a while back. I haven't heard what convinces those voters.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> electable Labour Party is still the only viable way to kick out the tories and save free healthcare, free comprehensive education and increase the flow of funding into other essential services.


Maybe it would be if it existed. But if by 'electable' you just mean getting someone like Cooper or Benn to run things, all they are is a slightly more apologetic copy of the tories anyway. They wouldn't save those things, they'd just have the good grace to look a bit more sheepish than the Tories do while they let them fall apart.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Maybe it would be if it existed. But if by 'electable' you just mean getting someone like Cooper or Benn to run things, all they are is a slightly more apologetic copy of the tories anyway. They wouldn't save those things, they'd just have the good grace to look a bit more sheepish than the Tories do while they let them fall apart.



... plus there is of course the whole question over whether they are in fact electable, something which two General Election defeats would suggest might not be the case.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh fuck off you dull, dull cunt. The fucking game's up for labour - where will the 80, 90 seats they need to win come from? Scotland? That ship's sailed. And there's 20 or so Labour seats gone through boundary changes. You'll not see another Labour government before 2030 at least.
> 
> You don't have a fucking clue.


Less personal abuse please.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Despite all this, you have to remember that a trad hard left socialist leader like Corbyn scoring 25%+ after near two years of hammering as being hard left anywhere else in europe would be seen as a massive thing.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 18, 2017)

I've heard so many people on radio phone-in's already today saying they'll vote Lib Dem this time instead of Labour ('_if they had a leader like a Miliband or a Smith_'). Lol. Jesus


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I've heard so many people on radio phone-in's already today saying they'll vote Lib Dem this time instead of Labour ('_if they had a leader like a Miliband or a Smith_'). Lol. Jesus



It's like getting your dog to shit on your own face in protest at how much dog shit there is on the pavements.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect we may well also know now when the labour party era (as rotating govt party anyway) comes to an end. Within a few years they will be supporting PR and then the party will finally shatter if it ever comes to pass.


Could well be. Labour have benefitted from first past the post, but have also been shaped by it, holding the party together as a kind of internal coalition. But that problem remains for the Labour right. If they go off to form another party they will struggle to find a winning niche in FPP. Only real route is some kind of ghastly merger with the libscum.  Blenkinsop is probably on their website as we speak.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Could well be. Labour have benefitted from first past the post, but have also been shaped by it, holding the party together as a kind of internal coalition. But that problem remains for the Labour right. If they go off to form another party they will struggle to find a winning niche in FPP. Only real route is some kind of ghastly merger with the libscum.  Blenkinsop is probably on their website as we speak.


Paul Mason as Progressive-Fuhrer.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Paul Mason as Progressive-Fuhrer.


Polly toynbee passes on the sordid baton.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

_From arse to mouth - a long Guardian tradition._


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

Finally got round to joining labour now.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Finally got round to joining labour now.



Have left Labour, finally.

I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.

What i will do, when I'm faced with the ballot paper on 8th June, i don't know, but i know what i cannot do.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

I support basically all the policies that labour have recently announced as at least a move in the right direction and don't care about the "character" of their leader except in as much as I reckon he's not going to go nuts like trump and he is basically the only left wing choice . So it is a no brainer for me. As a not particularly activist person.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

It's not complicated is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Have left Labour, finally.
> 
> I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.
> 
> What i will do, when I'm faced with the ballot paper on 8th June, i don't know, but i know what i cannot do.


Yeh, the decent thing


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking that last like was a pity like


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Have left Labour, finally.
> 
> I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.
> 
> What i will do, when I'm faced with the ballot paper on 8th June, i don't know, but i know what i cannot do.


There's more to politics than voting, you know.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

I can totally get people not voting because they disagree with the parliamentary system and are doing other stuff. I cannot comprehend anyone who is vaguely left wing and actually going to vote not voting for the current Labour Party though.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 18, 2017)

There's no way I can vote for Corbyn, the Greens will get my vote this time.

Not that it matters around here, the Tories always get well over 50%.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I can totally get people not voting because they disagree with the parliamentary system and are doing other stuff. I cannot comprehend anyone who is vaguely left wing and actually going to vote not voting for the current Labour Party though.



I don't really get that choice (eta, voting for Corbyn's Labour Party I mean)

I get to vote for 'Mad Frankie' Field.

Which I will, for whatever difference it makes.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 18, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> There's no way I can vote for Corbyn, the Greens will get my vote this time.
> 
> Not that it matters around here, the Tories always get well over 50%.



Another failed Lib Dem then.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 18, 2017)

No heavy dilemma here, i'll loan my vote to the snp, unless a socialist candidate convinces me otherwise.  Indiref2 mandate coming.


----------



## chilango (Apr 18, 2017)

Labour are done.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 18, 2017)

chilango said:


> Labour are done.



Which raises the interesting question of "what's next?"

The social pressures due to looting are only going to get worse post-election, so where do all the Momentum kids and 'traditional' Labour supporters go after Corbyn gets scragged and Chukka et al take over and/or merge with the LibDems?


----------



## LDC (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Have left Labour, finally.
> 
> I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.
> 
> What i will do, when I'm faced with the ballot paper on 8th June, i don't know, but i know what i cannot do.



The mess Webley?


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

gosub said:


> LOL



Actually, they now have policies of real substance, not smoke and mirrors like the Tories, but yes, it may be too late.


----------



## chilango (Apr 18, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Which raises the interesting question of "what's next?"
> 
> The social pressures due to looting are only going to get worse post-election, so where do all the Momentum kids and 'traditional' Labour supporters go after Corbyn gets scragged and Chukka et al take over and/or merge with the LibDems?



The idea that opposition _necessarily_ has to be extra-parliamentary is going to be increasingly "common sense."


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> No, there might be a chance of an all out Blairite assault on the poor and vulnerable.




yes, New Labour began the 'welfare reform revolution, even Ed talked about getting rid of DLA if they won, it was in the modern labour parties DNA to cut social security, adopt co-ercion, etc.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Maybe it would be if it existed. But if by 'electable' you just mean getting someone like Cooper or Benn to run things, all they are is a slightly more apologetic copy of the tories anyway. They wouldn't save those things, they'd just have the good grace to look a bit more sheepish than the Tories do while they let them fall apart.



Especially Cooper, brought in ATOS, the 'invisible wheelchair' test for WCA.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

editor said:


> Less personal abuse please.



About time you cracked the whip on P/P


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> yes, New Labour began the 'welfare reform revolution, even Ed talked about getting rid of DLA if they won, it was in the modern labour parties DNA to cut social security, adopt co-ercion, etc.


Will you lose the "it's in their DNA" bit, it's dull


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Despite all this, you have to remember that a trad hard left socialist leader like Corbyn scoring 25%+ after near two years of hammering as being hard left anywhere else in europe would be seen as a massive thing.



I'm convince the vote would have risen as the concrete and excellent policies continue, but imo, too late now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> I'm convince the vote would have risen as the concrete and excellent policies continue, but imo, too late now.


There hasn't been a vote yet


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Have left Labour, finally.
> 
> I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.
> 
> What i will do, when I'm faced with the ballot paper on 8th June, i don't know, but i know what i cannot do.



He and John McDonnell are going to be crucified on their past history in this GE, its going to be brutal, the Scum, DM will be gearing up now.


----------



## RainbowTown (Apr 18, 2017)

Nothing against Corbyn as a man. He seems decent enough. Far better, for instance, than the opportunistic and hypocritical Tim 'the-libs-want-to-be-all-things-to-all people-etc-etc-'Farron. (Doesn't really extend to gay people though, does it Mr Farron?). But Corbyn's failure is that of being too entrenched and dogmatic his his views. He gets riled too quickly when challenged or opposed; he becomes uncomfortable and slightly belligerent; one can clearly see it in his body language - the  forced, grimaced smile, the defensive mode he switches into. Instead of engaging in debate, he shrinks from it. That someone like May can routinely dominate him in Parliament speaks volumes about him. Maybe the country sees him more as a protestor rather than a politician. He always seems way out of his depth. And comfort zone.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

Good summary, sadly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> He and John McDonnell are going to be crucified on their past history in this GE, its going to be brutal, the Scum, DM will be gearing up now.


Yeh cos after eighteen months of vilification there's so much that remains unsaid


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

Oh there is, videos on FB targeted at working class areas with strong military recruitment/histories.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> About time you cracked the whip on P/P



Yep, we're long overdue some punishment for Hertford


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 18, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Yep, we're long overdue some punishment for Hertford



Sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> Oh there is, videos on FB targeted at working class areas with strong military recruitment/histories.


Saying what?


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


> Nothing against Corbyn as a man. He seems decent enough. Far better, for instance, than the opportunistic and hypocritical Tim 'the-libs-want-to-be-all-things-to-all people-etc-etc-'Farron. (Doesn't really extend to gay people though, does it Mr Farron?). But Corbyn's failure is that of being too entrenched and dogmatic his his views. He gets riled too quickly when challenged or opposed; he becomes uncomfortable and slightly belligerent; one can clearly see it in his body language - the  forced, grimaced smile, the defensive mode he switches into. Instead of engaging in debate, he shrinks from it. That someone like May can routinely dominate him in Parliament speaks volumes about him. Maybe the country sees him more as a protestor rather than a politician. He always seems way out of his depth. And comfort zone.



That's a fair summary. It feels like in pushing his candidacy forward, the labour left thought to itself: _Blair and his acolytes were all spin. We need to move away from that. So who's the least image-conscious person we have? _Corbyn clearly has no ego. Admirable in a human, maybe, but pretty useless in a politician, regardless of political persuasion. If _he's_ not convinced he and no-one else should be in charge (beyond the acknowledgement that party members said he should be), how the hell's he going to convince anyone else?


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2017)

I think it's pretty clear there was no such calculation, it was just corbyn's turn to take a punt. His victory was as unexpected by the left as anyone else.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 18, 2017)

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it for effect. But he didn't push himself forward in the first instance, did he? Others identified him as a left alternative and encouraged him to stand and a head of steam built behind that, and presumably as much because he was the antithesis of the New Labour archetype in other ways and not just because he was further over on the left--right spectrum.

I'm prepared to have my knowledge of the facts corrected: that's how I'm under the impression it happened, but I'm an observer, not a participant.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think it's pretty clear there was no such calculation, it was just corbyn's turn to take a punt. His victory was as unexpected by the left as anyone else.


There wasn't ever enough elections to regularise taking a punt. He/they just took a punt.

edit: and it was from a  knock on. They weren't even dreaming of it.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> There wasn't ever enough elections to regularise taking a punt. He/they just took a punt.
> 
> edit: and it was from a  knock on. They weren't even dreaming of it.


Abbot stood against Miliband, and McDonnell made noises about challenging browns coronation iirc - they always had a go, but they never expected anything but humiliation.

Instead what happened this time was Corbyn totally humiliated all the other candidates, without even breaking a sweat. 

I think the scale of his victory, and the apparent ease with which it was accomplished has been one of the millstones round his neck. Too much was expected of him by his followers and the rest of the party who lent him their votes, and the weakness and lack of organisation of his branch of the party has been laid bare by the onslaught that's come since.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> Abbot stood against Miliband, and McDonnell made noises about challenging browns coronation iirc - they always had a go, but they never expected anything but humiliation.
> 
> Instead what happened this time was Corbyn totally humiliated all the other candidates, without even breaking a sweat.
> 
> I think the scale of his victory, and the apparent ease with which it was accomplished has been one of the millstones round his neck. Too much was expected of him by his followers and the rest of the party who lent him their votes, and the weakness and lack of organisation of his branch of the party has been laid bare by the onslaught that's come since.


Exactly. Why Benn always said his loss to Healy by 1% was the best possible result for the left.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2017)

Corbyn was fucking great in those debates though eh? That's why May won't go for any leader debates before the GE - he's actually really good at them.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> Corbyn was fucking great in those debates though eh? That's why May won't go for any leader debates before the GE - he's actually really good at them.


Also fact that she's absolutely shite off script.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I can totally get people not voting because they disagree with the parliamentary system and are doing other stuff. I cannot comprehend anyone who is vaguely left wing and actually going to vote not voting for the current Labour Party though.


Beacuse unless you're in one of a handful of constituencies you'll have to vote for a scumbag.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> Abbot stood against Miliband, and McDonnell made noises about challenging browns coronation iirc - they always had a go, but they never expected anything but humiliation.
> 
> Instead what happened this time was Corbyn totally humiliated all the other candidates, without even breaking a sweat.
> 
> I think the scale of his victory, and the apparent ease with which it was accomplished has been one of the millstones round his neck. Too much was expected of him by his followers and the rest of the party who lent him their votes, and the weakness and lack of organisation of his branch of the party has been laid bare by the onslaught that's come since.




That's the entire history of the left standing since 81.

Corbyn didn't humiliate anyone but labour party members. 

It showed that a) it is an empty shell that can now be taken over at will and b)the real ownership are stuck.

So, vote labour.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2017)

The humiliation of the membership came later. Wherever you stand on left politics through Labour, the routing of the blairites in that leadership election was a pleasure to watch imo. They _were _ humiliated.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> The humiliation of the membership came later. Wherever you stand on left politics through Labour, the routing of the blairites in that leadership election was a pleasure to watch imo. They _were _ humiliated.


It wasn't 4% you know; it was 4.46%...actually.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Beacuse unless you're in one of a handful of constituencies you'll have to vote for a scumbag.



True enough. But, in most constituencies, if you've decided that you will vote, you're choice is between four or five scumbags, plus the occasional mystery candidate who you have no chance of ever finding out anything about.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Raheem said:


> True enough. But, in most constituencies, if you've decided that you will vote, you're choice is between four or five scumbags, plus the occasional mystery candidate who you have no chance of ever finding out anything about.


So a lib-dem vote is ok?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2017)

Raheem said:


> True enough. But, in most constituencies, if you've decided that you will vote, you're choice is between four or five scumbags, plus the occasional mystery candidate who you have no chance of ever finding out anything about.


I was making the point that most people can't vote for "Corbyn's Labour" instead they have to vote for a Labour candidate with is opposed to him and his views.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Beacuse unless you're in one of a handful of constituencies you'll have to vote for a scumbag.


I'll be voting for the government of a nation though, not a constituency. Won't everyone?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Have left Labour, finally.
> 
> I'm not a Blairite, i actually support the economic and domestic policy he proposes, i just cannot in good conscience ask people to vote - or vote myself - to put Corbyn in No 10 given his overseas/defence/security policy, and what i know if his beliefs and character.


Right so you can't support Corbyn's foreign policies but you could stand the murder of 1 million+ people, invasions of any number of countries, support for dictatorships etc. Pathetic.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So a lib-dem vote is ok?



I don't follow.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'll be voting for the government of a nation though, not a constituency. Won't everyone?


No, nobody will unless you've got some special magic vote.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> No, nobody will unless you've got some special magic vote.


Isn't your point that you disagree with the parliamentary system entirely though? I've already said that I can understand that if yr doing other stuff, but for me there isn't any choice.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'll be voting for the government of a nation though, not a constituency. Won't everyone?


That's tosh.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Isn't your point that you disagree with the parliamentary system entirely though? I've already said that I can understand that if yr doing other stuff, but for me there isn't any choice.



Of course are other choices. For you.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That's tosh.


I guarantee you that is how people vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

It's tosh.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I guarantee you that is how people vote.


It's not what you said about yourself though.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I guarantee you that is how people vote.


It might be how some voters think they are voting, but they're not.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It's not what you said about yourself though.


I would totally include myself in that group. I will be voting for what party is going to lead the nation, not my council.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I would totally include myself in that group. I will be voting for what party is going to lead the nation, not my council.


What's wrong with you?


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Of course are other choices. For you.


Yes I agree there are other personal choices I could make.


----------



## gosub (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I'll be voting for the government of a nation though, not a constituency. Won't everyone?


As others have said it's not technically possible, but sans pedentry yep probably over half the ballots cast are about that


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 18, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I can totally get people not voting because they disagree with the parliamentary system and are doing other stuff. I cannot comprehend anyone who is vaguely left wing and actually going to vote not voting for the current Labour Party though.





redsquirrel said:


> Beacuse unless you're in one of a handful of constituencies you'll have to vote for a scumbag.


This is my 'problem'. I want Corbyn to win, but to vote Labour I'd have to put my cross next to Rachel "I'll cut deeper than Thatcher" Reeves. No thanks.

Related to that, wouldn't surprise me if she's the next leader. Having a woman in charge might be the only way Labour can have a little come-back in GE 2023 or whenever it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> This is my 'problem'. I want Corbyn to win, but to vote Labour I'd have to put my cross next to Rachel "I'll cut deeper than Thatcher" Reeves. No thanks.
> 
> Related to that, wouldn't surprise me if she's the next leader. Having a woman in charge might be the only way Labour can have a little come-back in GE 2023 or whenever it is.


Don't vote lib-dem at least.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Don't vote lib-dem at least.


I wouldn't.

Alliance for Green Socialism sometimes stand around here...though that's usually in locals. 

GE is a shit show. Think I went Green last time. Can't remember...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> Alliance for Green Socialism sometimes stand around here...though that's usually in locals.
> 
> GE is a shit show. Think I went Green last time. Can't remember...


All funking nonsense.

What's the main prob up your way?


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> All funking nonsense.
> 
> What's the main prob up your way?


Housing.

Loads of rich students and scum landlords = nightmare for people who stay here. It's in the top 10 most expensive cities in Europe for renting a room.

Or do you mean with political parties etc?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Housing.
> 
> Loads of rich students and scum landlords = nightmare for people who stay here. It's in the top 10 most expensive cities in Europe for renting a room.
> 
> Or do you mean with political parties etc?


Bristol I mean social - all space here is now given over to student housing. There's work  but it's in towns outside.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

Could be a thread for you fez: 'whats wrong with your city'?


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Despite all this, you have to remember that a trad hard left socialist leader like Corbyn scoring 25%+ after near two years of hammering as being hard left anywhere else in europe would be seen as a massive thing.



Only if it came from nowhere and he was leading a hard left party. But he's not really hard left and the party even less so. As such 25% is a disaster, a trouncing and a worse showing could lead to significant collapse as we saw in Scotland. As it is Labour will probably do badly in the local elections and take that form forward to the GE.


----------



## campanula (Apr 19, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Bristol I mean social - all space here is now given over to student housing. There's work  but it's in towns outside.


The 'student housing' scam seems to have gained massive traction - unsurprisingly since it is a blatantly disgusting and filthy con game of squeezing as many units into the smallest piece of land...with none of the usual development criteria such as parking, infrastructure such as schools, GPs etc. None of these units are occupied by recognisable 'students', are shabbily built on the cheap...and will no doubt be the future homes of (multiple) families as long as councils retain some (laughable) statutory responsibilities.

Yep, housing...or lack of it the main issue here. And the corrupt liggers on the Labour controlled council (fucking guided bus system ffs).

Not terribly happy with spunking cock option - but will consider vagina dentata...or barbed wire yoni.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 19, 2017)

campanula said:


> fucking guided bus system ffs


We got one of those as well. What a fucking ridiculous thing.

£40m was wasted on various plans for a tram system that never materialised: Leeds Supertram - Wikipedia

Which turned into a trolleybus system that never happened: Trolleybuses in Leeds - Wikipedia

And now there's talk of a "tram-train" system (trams that can go on existing branch lines) - which is actually a good idea....but won't happen.

This is what we got instead:


----------



## YouSir (Apr 19, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> We got one of those as well. What a fucking ridiculous thing.
> 
> £40m was wasted on various plans for a tram system that never materialised: Leeds Supertram - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



Aren't most busses guided? Generally by a driver?


----------



## hash tag (Apr 19, 2017)

I may not agree with all his policies, but it is a shame to see Alan Johnson standing down.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I may not agree with all his policies, but it is a shame to see Alan Johnson standing down.



Really? Jeremy Corbyn not up to job of Labour leader, says Alan Johnson


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I may not agree with all his policies, but it is a shame to see Alan Johnson standing down.



Really? He's like the Alan Curbishley of Labour. Often spoken about, but hasn't done much for a decade.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 19, 2017)

This GE has the highly unusual aspect of the local elections a month before. If Labour do anything but well what for Corbyn then?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2017)

It'll be a super-low turnout, but I doubt it'll totally reflect people's Westminster intentions anyway - my dad has been out canvassing for weeks and says there's a substantial group who're saying they'll vote Labour locally, but no chance in a general.


----------



## rubbershoes (Apr 19, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> This GE has the highly unusual aspect of the local elections a month before. If Labour do anything but well what for Corbyn then?



However  badly Labour does some people here will never allow any blame to fall on Corbyn


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2017)

However badly Labour does in the May locals, Corbyn is the leader come June 8th. But they won't do so badly in May anyway, I don't think.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 19, 2017)

An interesting diversion for the politics wonks will be Barrow-in-Furness - the sitting Lab MP, John Woodcock (Maj 800 or so over the Tory..) has said that he intends to stand as the Labour candidate but on the basis that he would not support Corbyn becoming PM...

Quite how this will be resolved - apart from the seat going Tory - is anyone's guess.

(Barrow is home to the shipyard where the nuclear submarines are built and not far from Sellafeild, Tory and Lab are not far off neck and neck, next up, but 12,000 votes behind, is UKIP with 5k with the LibDems just scraping past the thousand votes barrier...)


----------



## kebabking (Apr 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> ...But they won't do so badly in May anyway, I don't think.



No, i don't either - the canvassing i did suggested that Labour councils and councillors were seen very differently to the party at a national level - i didn't do much door-knocking for the locals next month, but what i did certainly pointed to 'traditional' Lab voters being very happy to vote Lab locally and less so nationally.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2017)

its been touched on elsewhere, but does anyone happen to know what's happening re: the proposed LP rule changes for electing the leader, reducing the the % of PLP noms to get on the ballot from 15% down to 5 %? 

ie : do the NEC  decide whether this is put before conference ? ( if not, who / what does ?) and then delegates vote the way they've been instructed by their CLP ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I may not agree with all his policies, but it is a shame to see Alan Johnson standing down.


He's filth, fuck the cunt. Says everything that Michael White admires him.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

cantsin said:


> its been touched on elsewhere, but does anyone happen to know what's happening re: the proposed LP rule changes for electing the leader, reducing the the % of PLP noms to get on the ballot from 15% down to 5 %?
> 
> ie : do the NEC  decide whether this is put before conference ? ( if not, who / what does ?) and then delegates vote the way they've been instructed by their CLP ?


Did you not join up monty? Is no one telling you?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2017)

cantsin said:


> its been touched on elsewhere, but does anyone happen to know what's happening re: the proposed LP rule changes for electing the leader, reducing the the % of PLP noms to get on the ballot from 15% down to 5 %?
> 
> ie : do the NEC  decide whether this is put before conference ? ( if not, who / what does ?) and then delegates vote the way they've been instructed by their CLP ?


Nothing is happening.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Did you not join up monty? Is no one telling you?





dipped toes in (+ joined), went to a CLP meeting pre leadership election last year, nowt since. But now supposed to be going to meet ward (? v local, at any rate ) bods tonite ( @ local Spoons ) , and tbh, trying to assess lay of land ( ie : the point of it all ) . Lot of low level cog. dissonance involved, of course, but it's like some private ...thing I do . And at least we'll get a pint this time, unlike the last meet in adry hall.


----------



## Oops (Apr 19, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> How the fruck an she do this? Is there something going on behind my back?





butchersapron said:


> I've as much power to call a snap election as her.



On the ball as ever again, Butchers. What was the last one? Anyone who can't see a Labour majority is politically inept.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

Cracking -re-registered to do this. Stored away in the cesspit of the mind for years. What a life.

And i'm right btw


----------



## rubbershoes (Apr 19, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Really? Jeremy Corbyn not up to job of Labour leader, says Alan Johnson



So anyone who doesn't think  Corbyn is up to the job should go?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 19, 2017)

How about neo-liberal fucks who supported the attacks on the welfare state, the invasion of Iraq, abstained on the disability bill, support Labour moving further to the right etc etc should fuck off (and hopefully fall under something heavy)


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> So anyone who doesn't think  Corbyn is up to the job should go?



It was actually just a bit of a passing nod to hash tag saying he doesn't agree with all his policies when Johnson and he seemed to have mostly agreed on one issue which is about the only thing Johnson ever seems to have popped up and had much of a strong opinion about for ages (this thread itself might give you a clue ).

Funny that you jumped on it though


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> How about neo-liberal fucks who supported the attacks on the welfare state, the invasion of Iraq, abstained on the disability bill, support Labour moving further to the right etc etc should fuck off (and hopefully fall under something heavy)



Corbyn is the problem though, isn't he @rubbershoes?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

(btw, neither Red Squirrel or I are Corbynites/Labour supporters so no point going down that avenue)


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 19, 2017)

I do love a good 'Sources inside No.10' yarn.... but just maybe there's a ring of truth to this:

Theresa May 'called snap election to stop Corbyn resigning'


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 19, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Labour have been committing the slowest seppuku in history since the move away from Social Democracy toward their own adaptation of Neo-Liberalism in the form of Entrepreneurial Governance.
> The pointless if, being the only difference is it would be Labour's kid glove assault on the poor and vulnerable.



Call it a ‘kid glove assault’ if you like, but the funding of services such as healthcare does go up under Labour governments and down under tory ones and they are still the only two choices. Time is running out for a lot of vulnerable people.

At least 2022 is closer than 2025, although obviously it'll give Labour even less time to win back the support they need.


----------



## gosub (Apr 19, 2017)

Labour Have No Slogan, Key Seats List Or Campaign Budget - Guido Fawkes  If true


----------



## rubbershoes (Apr 19, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Corbyn is the problem though, isn't he @rubbershoes?



He's got some good ideas but is shit at putting them across. 

But the real problem are the Tories . We all want to get rid of them  but have different views on how to do it


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 19, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Really? He's like the Alan Curbishley of Labour. Often spoken about, but hasn't done much for a decade.


The two things Alan Johnson brings to mind are:
When promoted to secretary of state for trade and industry his title was going to be, Productivity, Energy & Industry Secretary or PENIS. Then his tirade against trade unions when, I paraphrase, 'The link between trade unions and labour is more a liability than advantage, when it appears as a transaction'.
I bet as a postie he nicked Giros out of envelopes too!


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> He's got some good ideas but is shit at putting them across.
> 
> But the real problem are the Tories . We all want to get rid of them  but have different views on how to do it



That's the thing though, it's not just the Tories - moderate/right Labour are the problem too with their pursuing of the same, but slightly lighter, neoliberalism. And a rejection of Corbyn now will signal the deathknell of any leftward shift of Labour for years. Labour are already lost to much of their working class heartlands through 20 years of neoliberalism and getting it wrong with their referendum positioning. A shift to the right which will inevitably happen if they oust Corbyn will leave them for dead.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2017)

they like union money but they don't like unions much eh? First time I recall an overwhelming emphatic support message for unions was when Iron Corbz won (1st time). In his acceptance speech after Watson had bored on for a solid half a day. Was pleasantly suprised to see such a thing.  Milkwater milliband could only ever get as far as 'the government has provoked these strikes' and no further


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2017)

Momentum seem to be focusing on Farron and his lack of passion for the LGBT cause, not going too well with the wider membership.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> Momentum seem to be focusing on Farron and his lack of passion for the LGBT cause, not going too well with the wider membership.


Are you going to do this for two months?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> Momentum seem to be focusing on Farron and his lack of passion for the LGBT cause, not going too well with the wider membership.


what does this sentence even mean?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what does this sentence even mean?



Life?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 19, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> That's the thing though, it's not just the Tories - moderate/right Labour are the problem too with their pursuing of the same, but slightly lighter, neoliberalism. And a rejection of Corbyn now will signal the deathknell of any leftward shift of Labour for years. Labour are already lost to much of their working class heartlands through 20 years of neoliberalism and getting it wrong with their referendum positioning. A shift to the right which will inevitably happen if they oust Corbyn will leave them for dead.



No, it really is a total rejection of Jeremy Corbyn himself. Do you really think that the millions of new or returning voters Labour need to win an election including former Labour voters who defected to ukip are going to start supporting Labour again if Corbyn stays on after the election?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 19, 2017)

man is like a fuckin meercat int he


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I was making the point that most people can't vote for "Corbyn's Labour" instead they have to vote for a Labour candidate with is opposed to him and his views.



plenty of left wing labour members will actually be canvassing, etc for the latter.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> man is like a fuckin meercat int he


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Life?


without parole


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, it really is a total rejection of Jeremy Corbyn himself. Do you really think that the millions of new or returning voters Labour need to win an election including former Labour voters who defected to ukip are going to start supporting Labour again if Corbyn stays on after the election?



Given that most of Labour's new/returning voters and members came because of the 'Corbyn effect' - i.e. younger/first time voters seeing that he could offer something leftward in a major British party (disenchanted by the Lib Dems and previous Labour directions), and he also did bring some returning voters back who had been in the wilderness for many years (not voting at all, voting Green/minor left parties, voting UKIP), I'd say that he's at least stemmed the party from dying quite as rapidly as it would have done under Miliband or other moderate (Cooper, Kendall, Smith, etc) - trying to fight the Tories on austerity _less hard and fast_ and cosying up to the EU whilst having nothing to improve working class conditions.

He's far from ideal, but if Corbyn goes, then someone with similar politics/left outlook will not fill his shoes. I would have thought that was obvious by now. So, they're effectively dead as a party of any meaningful social democratic good or alternative to what the Tories offer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, it really is a total rejection of Jeremy Corbyn himself. Do you really think that the millions of new or returning voters Labour need to win an election including former Labour voters who defected to ukip are going to start supporting Labour again if Corbyn stays on after the election?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 19, 2017)

lol politics


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> lol politics


you have some. ah doesn't.


----------



## Southlondon (Apr 19, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Given that most of Labour's new/returning voters came because of the 'Corbyn effect' - i.e. younger/first time voters seeing that he could offer something leftward in a major British party (disenchanted by the Lib Dems and previous Labour directions), and he also did bring some returning voters back who had been in the wilderness for many years (not voting at all, voting Green/minor left parties, voting UKIP), I'd say that he's at least stemmed the party from dying quite as rapidly as it would have done under Miliband or other moderate (Cooper, Kendall, Smith, etc) - trying to fight the Tories on austerity _less hard and fast_ and cosying up to the EU whilst having nothing to improve working class conditions.
> 
> He's far from ideal, but if Corbyn goes, then someone with similar politics/left outlook will not fill his shoes. I would have thought that was obvious by now. So, they're effectively dead as a party of any meaningful social democratic good or alternative to what the Tories offer.


Don't forget the parties proposals on minimum wage, 17% increase in carers allowance and universal free school dinners are proving to be popular with the electorate. It's not the policies that are taking the flak its corbyn himself, who to be fair doesn't have any leadership experience to draw on. I'm pretty sure that if the plp left knew they would take the leadership election, they would not have chosen corbyn as their first choice, but that's who we've got. Activists will be arguing for the policies on the doorstep, as it suits the tories to focus on the man not the policies. The choice of voting for a Tory/liberal coalition, which could be the result of tactical voting to libs is one where we know the outcome. Also, corbyns "hold your nose and vote for remain" wil hold more reasonance with the 1/3 of labour voters who voted out, than the likes of Alan Johnson who jumped ship rather than explain his unconditional support for remain to his 2/3 of labour voters who voted to leave.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2017)

Many of the PLP have said they won't even feature Corbyn on their election material!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> Many of the PLP have said they won't even feature Corbyn on their election material!


we had a leaflet round for the upcoming locals from labour, week ago. Not even a mention of his name.

well they're on a hiding to nothing in this town anyway...


----------



## Southlondon (Apr 19, 2017)

treelover said:


> Many of the PLP have said they won't even feature Corbyn on their election material!


If that gets labour elected, and kids get free meals, and the lowest paid get a pay rise then I'm ok with that.


----------



## Southlondon (Apr 19, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> we had a leaflet round for the upcoming locals from labour, week ago. Not even a mention of his name.
> 
> well they're on a hiding to nothing in this town anyway...


I remember getting a leaflet when Blair took over headed as " Tony Blairs New Labour Party". Thank god we've moved on from that sychphantical fawning to a dictatorial  leader, who's first priorities were to disempower the members and the PLP


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2017)

We haven't moved on from that though - Corbo is only absent because his personal ratings are so awful.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> Nothing is happening.



ok, ta, can you shed any more light at all , ie : the cause of the apparent stasis, what needs to happen for the process to re start, or indeed start , etc ?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2017)

Southlondon said:


> Don't forget the parties proposals on minimum wage, 17% increase in carers allowance and universal free school dinners are proving to be popular with the electorate. It's not the policies that are taking the flak its corbyn himself, who to be fair doesn't have any leadership experience to draw on. I'm pretty sure that if the plp left knew they would take the leadership election, they would not have chosen corbyn as their first choice, but that's who we've got. Activists will be arguing for the policies on the doorstep, as it suits the tories to focus on the man not the policies. The choice of voting for a Tory/liberal coalition, which could be the result of tactical voting to libs is one where we know the outcome. *Also, corbyns "hold your nose and vote for remain" wil hold more reasonance with the 1/3 of labour voters who voted out, than the likes of Alan Johnson who jumped ship rather than explain his unconditional support for remain to his 2/3 of labour voters who voted to leave*.



imptnt point, but it needs to be got out there, which it isn't


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

The stasis needs to wait until the election. Then loads after.


FFS you joined - you should be doing this not asking others. You telling people how and then working to do it. If it was real.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

Join labour and_ well i done my bit - finished_


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2017)

cantsin said:


> ok, ta, can you shed any more light at all , ie : the cause of the apparent stasis, what needs to happen for the process to re start, or indeed start , etc ?


Not really - I just don't see any evidence of the level of organisation the left would have to ramp up in order to push this through. All I've seen thus far is it being some vague aspiration - nothing going on to actually make it happen. They can't even get their candidates in position for the by-elections.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not really - I just don't see any evidence of the level of organisation the left would have to ramp up in order to push this through. All I've seen thus far is it being some vague aspiration - nothing going on to actually make it happen. They can't even get their candidates in position for the by-elections.



the Left (nominally) has half the NEC ( due to exec gerrymandering, or else would be maj of 2 ) , and, numerically, the vast majority of the current membership (and therefore potentially the CLPs ), if they can't make things happen now, gawd knows when they will be able to


----------



## hash tag (Apr 19, 2017)

I certainly don't want to think beyond the election, but whats the other side of it is certainly in the back of my mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

cantsin said:


> the Left (nominally) has half the NEC ( due to exec gerrymandering, or else would be maj of 2 ) , and, numerically, the vast majority of the current membership (and therefore potentially the CLPs ), if they can't make things happen now, gawd knows when they will be able to


So what have they done?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

Where are they? When they knocking on my door?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I certainly don't want to think beyond the election, but whats the other side of it is certainly in the back of my mind.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Apr 19, 2017)

Charn?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

PursuedByBears said:


> Charn?


Just so


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2017)

You have to actually do something to make it work.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2017)

Not sure why I'm heaping more misery on the poor sod, but here's Corbyn having a go at being a populist centre lefty (probably just about the best line he could use tbh, though he desperately needs to rule out a second ref) - further down this page:
General election 2017: it's the establishment versus the people, says Jeremy Corbyn – politics live
All the stuff about Philip Green and Mike Ashley is fine, but he just hasn't got the personality to be an attack dog.


----------



## RD2003 (Apr 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Not sure why I'm heaping more misery on the poor sod, but here's Corbyn having a go at being a populist centre lefty (probably just about the best line he could use tbh, though he desperately needs to rule out a second ref) - further down this page:
> General election 2017: it's the establishment versus the people, says Jeremy Corbyn – politics live
> All the stuff about Philip Green and Mike Ashley is fine, but he just hasn't got the personality to be an attack dog.


The polls would be the same, if not worse, even it it was Scargill (pre-SLP) leading Labour.

I don't think there are any viable 'attack dogs' left now.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> The polls would be the same, if not worse, even it it was Scargill (pre-SLP) leading Labour.
> 
> I don't think there are any viable 'attack dogs' left now.


No neither do I. I was just making the point it doesn't really suit Corbyn's normal style. What's going to happen in this election will be somewhere between very bad and a genuine disaster for Labour.  To keep it nearer to the former the party probably does have to try and - very quickly - construct a political persona that picks up on all the reasons people voted for brexit, felt abandoned etc. It wouldn't be entirely sincere/convincing and, most of all, the right would undermine it. But as mentioned on the gen election thread, it's entirely a non-runner if they can't even rule out a 2nd ref.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 20, 2017)

Can I make a heartfelt request that anyone supporting corbyn please not ever make a "meme" ever again


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> No neither do I. I was just making the point it doesn't really suit Corbyn's normal style. What's going to happen in this election will be somewhere between very bad and a genuine disaster for Labour.  To keep it nearer to the former the party probably does have to try and - very quickly - construct a political persona that picks up on all the reasons people voted for brexit, felt abandoned etc. It wouldn't be entirely sincere/convincing and, most of all, the right would undermine it. But as mentioned on the gen election thread, it's entirely a non-runner if they can't even rule out a 2nd ref.



Corbyn loves campaigning. I think he enjoyes being surrounded by supporters and emoting. 

How successful a campaign - led by the MP for Islington North since 1983 - against an entrenched political establshment will be is a different point.


----------



## bimble (Apr 20, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Corbyn loves campaigning. I think he enjoyes being surrounded by supporters and emoting.
> 
> How successful a campaign - led by the MP for Islington North since 1983 - against an entrenched political establshment will be is a different point.


Depends on how stuff like this goes down with the Nation. (This be a real meme they've put on twitter today)



is he sneezing?


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 20, 2017)

That's it I've gone tory


----------



## chilango (Apr 20, 2017)

Looks like he's been caught by the paparazzi pulling a Hitler salute and is trying pull out of it and hide his face at the same time.

No surprise there then.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2017)

I don't think JC4PM are an official Corbyn/Labour account. Hideous stuff anyway. He's 'Dabbing'.


----------



## chilango (Apr 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think JC4PM are an official Corbyn/Labour account. Hideous stuff anyway. He's 'Dabbing'.



Is dabbing this years' quenelle?


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2017)

No, it's a dance move that's wildly popular with the youth. Tom Watson caused a minor sensation by executing one at the end of PMQs the other week IIRC


----------



## bimble (Apr 20, 2017)

Looks like he's stumbling forwards bravely against a harsh wind. Or wiping some snot on his sleeve.


----------



## chilango (Apr 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> No, it's a dance move that's wildly popular with the youth. Tom Watson caused a minor sensation by executing one at the end of PMQs the other week IIRC



Good god. That's even worse.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 20, 2017)

Dabbing is 2016s latest trend.

I think some of these memes are false flags. Surely.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> Looks like he's stumbling forwards bravely against a harsh wind. Or wiping some snot on his sleeve.


Desertification on his allotment blew some dust in his eye. Plans to commit some time to it after the second week in June.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 20, 2017)

Like he's passing a somewhat camp judgement over a dazzling new Hawaiian Shirt John McDonnell has pitched up in.


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> Depends on how stuff like this goes down with the Nation. (This be a real meme they've put on twitter today)
> 
> View attachment 104816
> 
> is he sneezing?



he's just seen the latest opinion poll results


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Not sure why I'm heaping more misery on the poor sod, but here's Corbyn having a go at being a populist centre lefty (probably just about the best line he could use tbh, though he desperately needs to rule out a second ref) - further down this page:
> General election 2017: it's the establishment versus the people, says Jeremy Corbyn – politics live
> All the stuff about Philip Green and Mike Ashley is fine, but he just hasn't got the personality to be an attack dog.



If his son Seb does get to contest a seat, and a safe one at that. "establishment vs the people" looks very wrong


----------



## agricola (Apr 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> Depends on how stuff like this goes down with the Nation. (This be a real meme they've put on twitter today)
> 
> View attachment 104816
> 
> is he sneezing?



maybe he just walked in on Joe Anderson's cough test?


----------



## bimble (Apr 20, 2017)

i think they might try to delete that effort. It's being laughed at all over the internet and has only been out for about an hour.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> i think they might try to delete that effort. It's being laughed at all over the internet and has only been out for about an hour.



If it was the most blistering political tirade ever he would still be laughed at. The media have made him and his delivery,  polite and truthful as it maybe into a easy, cheap shot comedy.
He has as much chance as Miliband did in being foolish and allowing this tripe is just unbelievable.
Looking forward to the Jedstone!


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 20, 2017)

Oy, nowt t'do wi me!




RD2003 said:


> The polls would be the same, if not worse, even it it was Scargill (pre-SLP) leading Labour


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> View attachment 104821
> Oy, nowt t'do wi me!


After Brexit we all get a flat in the Barbican.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 20, 2017)

Have you ever been to the Barbican? I get lost in there every time!


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 20, 2017)

gosub said:


> If his son Seb does get to contest a seat, and a safe one at that. "establishment vs the people" looks very wrong



It would also help, when setting up an establishment vs the people face off, to actually have the people on your side.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2017)

this should be his campaign song:


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> After Brexit we all get a flat in the Barbican.



Which allegedly would be bought under right to buy, sold and the money given to the NUM. Allegedly again.


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> this should be his campaign song:




God's still gonna cut him down.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2017)

This is all going well...


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 20, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This is all going well...
> 
> View attachment 104844



Oh, if only, I've had some real run ins with him over the years he's from the same village and tbh we have never liked each other. Especially when he was policy officer for the AUEW.
Will he join the liberals?
How much will his weekly column in the Barnsley 'Chronic' be missed?
I remember him standing against Ed Miliband for selection for Doncaster North also. 
Plenty of folk will step up for that.
Will Dan Jarvis be next?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 20, 2017)

Thought Dawn Butler looked / sounded comfortable / engaging at the Corbo launch this morning, bantz with the journos etc .

And then someone @ JC HQ presumably thought it might be a good idea to pack her off to do battle with Eddie Mair on R4-PM this evening


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 20, 2017)

I was listening to that while cooking dinner. If a Labour spokesperson had been like that on PM in the pre-Corbyn era I would have assumed they were having a stroke or something, but it's just par for the course with his team nowadays


----------



## kebabking (Apr 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Thought Dawn Butler looked / sounded comfortable / engaging at the Corbo launch this morning, bantz with the journos etc .
> 
> And then someone @ JC HQ presumably thought it might be a good idea to pack her off to do battle with Eddie Mair on R4-PM this evening



Perhaps we should have a 'GE comedy moments' thread?

To describe the interview as a car crash would be overly charitable - it was awful, and to cap the evening off she's spent the hours since apologising on Twitter to the lawyers of the multi-nationals she accused of not paying their taxes...


----------



## cantsin (Apr 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Perhaps we should have a 'GE comedy moments' thread?
> 
> To describe the interview as a car crash would be overly charitable - it was awful, and to cap the evening off she's spent the hours since apologising on Twitter to the lawyers of the multi-nationals she accused of not paying their taxes...



luckily its  mainly soc meejah w*nkers and the like who get over excited by R4 bollocks, will be forgotten by tmmrw, it's just the idea of someone at HQ thinking it was good idea in the first place - she too young, too green, by miles, for that Eddie Mair schtick


----------



## kebabking (Apr 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> luckily its only main meejah w*nkers and the like who get over excited by R4 bollocks, will be forgotten by tmmrw....



Nope, the transcript will be in the Sun tomorrow morning - with associated commentary - and the recording will be going through social media like the shits on a cruise ship.

It's done, there's nothing that can be done about it, but it will do damage.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Perhaps we should have a 'GE comedy moments' thread?
> 
> To describe the interview as a car crash would be overly charitable - it was awful, and to cap the evening off she's spent the hours since apologising on Twitter to the lawyers of the multi-nationals she accused of not paying their taxes...



Corporate lawyers are a very forgiving bunch. Sure it'll be fine.

Oh, and start that thread! Some pages, this one's only just managing to maintain any level of seriousness. If they're going to start handing out own goals it'll degenerate fast.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Thought Dawn Butler looked / sounded comfortable / engaging at the Corbo launch this morning, bantz with the journos etc .
> 
> And then someone @ JC HQ presumably thought it might be a good idea to pack her off to do battle with Eddie Mair on R4-PM this evening


just listened to it. Good god!


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 20, 2017)

It's embarassing. It's like the Tories have Machievelli himself on the staff, and Labour have Rik from the Young Ones.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 20, 2017)

When Major stood on a soap box as a stunt that time, the fuckwit press were all like "it's a work of political genius, he's so in touch with the people"

When Corbyn behaves in a parallel fashion and with genuine motive, the same twats are like "He's a disaster, he's not in touch with people"

Who on earth is still falling for their utter shit?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 20, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Nope, the transcript will be in the Sun tomorrow morning - with associated commentary - and the recording will be going through social media like the shits on a cruise ship.
> 
> It's done, there's nothing that can be done about it, but it will do damage.



am suspecting not, we'll see

from another angle, team Corbo take the plunge, have normal decent folk like Butler introing the launch speech, interacting with the journos on an human basis, with a smile / attempting to enjoy it all ...I guess there's a consistency to then just sending her on to face Mair / PM, saying this is what we are etc ....


----------



## RD2003 (Apr 20, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> When Major stood on a soap box as a stunt that time, the fuckwit press were all like "it's a work of political genius, he's so in touch with the people"
> 
> When Corbyn behaves in a parallel fashion and with genuine motive, the same twats are like "He's a disaster, he's not in touch with people"
> 
> Who on earth is still falling for their utter shit?



Most people. Including many who weren't even born when Major was PM and have no real idea who he is.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> luckily its  mainly soc meejah w*nkers and the like who get over excited by R4 bollocks, will be forgotten by tmmrw, it's just the idea of someone at HQ thinking it was good idea in the first place - she too young, too green, by miles, for that Eddie Mair schtick



Too young? She's 47!


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 21, 2017)

Tthirteen labour mps are standing down and a committee ,split evenly between Corbynistas and Watsonians will choose the candidates.These are key in the nominations battle to come if and when Jezza stands down.

Corbyn is said  to want at least three seats -for his son Seb,his chief of staff and McCluskeys dancing partner Karie Murphy and his political secretary Katy Clark.Prezza junior wants Alan Johnsons seat.

Dave Anderson standing down in Blaydon provides a vacancy  and Steve Rotherham running for Liverpool mayor gives another.

Watson will want a seat for Ed Balls as close to Yvettes seat in Pontefract so Michael Dughers seat in Barnsley looks favourite.Tom will also have personal supporters to advance.

Given how much rides on it -it will be a stitch up in the best blair and brown traditions -this is how watson,johnson and david miliband got their seats when mps were persuaded to stand down in exchange for peerages.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 21, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Too young? She's 47!


Just what i was thinking. 
And "too grren by miles" ... for a bloody radio interview. She's an MP ffs.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> ...she too young, too green...



She's 47, she's been an MP for 12 years. She was a junior minister under the Mighty Broon and somehow managed a marathon 3 months as a junior shadow minister under the Comrade.

What's your definition of the age/experience mix required to cope with a fairly simple radio interview - Edward III? Yoda? The Lord God Himself?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

f


kebabking said:


> She's 47, she's been an MP for 12 years. She was a junior minister under the Mighty Broon and somehow managed a marathon 3 months as a junior shadow minister under the Comrade.
> 
> What's your definition of the age/experience mix required to cope with a fairly simple radio interview - Edward III? Yoda? The Lord God Himself?



fuck, got it totally wrong, thought she was 2015 intake , and much younger - just not up to doing the R4 PM routine then.

My bad, but at least it all gives you lot more to rub your hands together about, enjoy


----------



## emanymton (Apr 21, 2017)

Just because I like to be extra miserable. It has occured to me that even if by some miracle Labour were to win the election, it would not really make a great deal of difference. Corbyn will be unable to implement any of his policies as the majority of his own parties MPs would not vote for them. He would therefore either have to follow a road that is acceptable to the right of the Labour party, or his government would collapse.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 21, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Just because I like to be extra miserable. It has occured to me that even if by some miracle Labour were to win the election, it would not really make a great deal of difference. Corbyn will be unable to implement any of his policies as the majority of his own parties MPs would not vote for them. He would therefore either have to follow a road that is acceptable to the right of the Labour party, or his government would collapse.



Not just that but the economy would also come under immediate and sustained attack from bond and currency markets etc.

Democracy is a funny thing.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Just because I like to be extra miserable. It has occured to me that even if by some miracle Labour were to win the election, *it would not really make a great deal of difference*. Corbyn will be unable to implement any of his policies as the majority of his own parties MPs would not vote for them. He would therefore either have to follow a road that is acceptable to the right of the Labour party, or his government would collapse.



of course not. 
It would be a lot of fun initially, allow for massive temporary schadenboners and virtual score settling on all sorts of fronts ( I'd be tempted to go and camp outside Ian Austins house, just to...see him, his face, I dunno...... )  and an energising signifier , ie : kinda like the leadership elections, but writ large.

But as you say, not realistic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Not just that but the economy would also come under immediate and sustained attack from bond and currency markets etc.
> 
> Democracy is a funny thing.


all of which would immediatly be pointed out as the fault of corbyns labour by the press. Never can it be suggested that capital has its own agency and methods that consider democracy a mere inconvenience


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Just because I like to be extra miserable. It has occured to me that even if by some miracle Labour were to win the election, it would not really make a great deal of difference. Corbyn will be unable to implement any of his policies as the majority of his own parties MPs would not vote for them. He would therefore either have to follow a road that is acceptable to the right of the Labour party, or his government would collapse.


most MP's would be fine with most of it.  All the economics and the vague equalities stuff is absolutely fine - as long as it is god enough to get them elected. Labour MP's only care about being elected, if a policy is popular enough to achieve that, they'll support it.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> most MP's would be fine with most of it.  All the economics and the vague equalities stuff is absolutely fine - as long as it is god enough to get them elected. Labour MP's only care about being elected, if a policy is popular enough to achieve that, they'll support it.



But there are plenty who are unlikely to want to resign themselves to the backbench place - in some cases, realistically, for the rest of their political careers -- that they'd have to accept under this mythical Corbyn administration.

The trouble is, it's chicken/egg time.

If Corbyn and McDonnell were to sweep to power in a landslide, the papers all hailed them as the saviours of the country, and the populace accepted just how wrong they'd been to ever support anyone else's policies once they saw just how much better their lives were under the new regime, then no doubt Labour MPs of all stripes would realise pretty quickly which side their bread was buttered on.

But in reality, if any victory at all is possible it would have to be scraping in amid hostility from the entire 'Westminister bubble', Labour right and all. Supporters will say it's that climate that prevents the Corbyn administration from achieving anything. Detractors will say it's the failure to achieve anything that creates the climate.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 21, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Tthirteen labour mps are standing down and a committee ,split evenly between Corbynistas and Watsonians will choose the candidates.These are key in the nominations battle to come if and when Jezza stands down.
> 
> Corbyn is said  to want at least three seats -for his son Seb,his chief of staff and McCluskeys dancing partner Karie Murphy and his political secretary Katy Clark.Prezza junior wants Alan Johnsons seat.
> 
> ...


If that's true - and I'm not suggesting it isn't - then St Corbo of Islington is every bit as much the machine man (and nepotist) as any other politician. A battle against elites and cartels!


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This is all going well...
> 
> View attachment 104844




Good news at last.


----------



## inva (Apr 21, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If that's true - and I'm not suggesting it isn't - then St Corbo of Islington is every bit as much the machine man (and nepotist) as any other politician. A battle against elites and cartels!


an anti elitist doesn't spend decades as a professional politician after all


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> f
> 
> 
> fuck, got it totally wrong, thought she was 2015 intake , and much younger - just not up to doing the R4 PM routine then.
> ...



yes, kebab king has left the building now.


----------



## bendeus (Apr 21, 2017)

Wilf said:


> just listened to it. Good god!


It's like she turned the 'Thick of It' dial up to 11. I had to turn her off I was cringing so much. Staggeringly inept.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 21, 2017)

bendeus said:


> It's like she turned the 'Thick of It' dual up to 11. I had to turn her off I was cringing so much. Staggeringly inept.


I'm such a wimp I end up actually feeling sorry for a professional politician! That was genuinely the worst politico interview I can remember in, phew, 10 years?


----------



## bendeus (Apr 21, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'm such a wimp I end up actually feeling sorry for a professional politician! That was genuinely the worst politico interview I can remember in, phew, 10 years?


Yeah. I struggle to remember worse. Humphreys eviscerated her - even he sounded slightly sorry for her in the end.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'm such a wimp I end up actually feeling sorry for a professional politician! That was genuinely the worst politico interview I can remember in, phew, 10 years?


_"The camera-men are laughing"_


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

bendeus said:


> It's like she turned the 'Thick of It' dual up to 11. I had to turn her off I was cringing so much. Staggeringly inept.



i wonder if Corbyn has a Malcom Tucker - i would love to have been a fly on the wall in the 'well, that went well...' conversation!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i wonder if Corbyn has a Malcom Tucker


clearly not because if he had he'd be winning


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

I think all his Tuckers have resigned now. He just has some GCSE media studies kids on work experience.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

I see the good folks at (Daily) Mailwatch have swung to the LibDems. The same LibDems that rule out a coalition with Labour but not with the Tories.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

a friend drew my attention to this article, regarding that particular topic... Jeremy Corbyn wants to bypass the mainstream media. So why are Labour's memes so bad?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

New Statesman bashing Corbyn. Who'da thunk it? They'll bash him all the way to a Tory landslide. Twats.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

It's right though. His social media is appalling.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

_Bash bash bash. 
Oh no! We lost!
Needed more Akehurst._


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2017)

I don't think I can bring myself to hear the Dawn Butler interview. I just heard his schools shadow minister on TV, he was fucking terrible! Just a load of guff about how we want smaller class sizes and world class education... Nothing on the substance and how it can be achieved though. They're gonna get trounced.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

BBC Nwesnight presenter


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> BBC Nwesnight presenter




Is that actually her or a windup account? If it is her then 'Kinell!


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _Bash bash bash.
> Oh no! We lost!
> Needed more Akehurst._


why do you exist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Is that actually her or a windup account? If it is her then 'Kinell!


emily m (@maitlis) on Twitter

so what are you going to do about it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> BBC Nwesnight presenter



you're just frothing, i see, not actually doing or intending to do something about it.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> BBC Nwesnight presenter




_I saw pale kings and princes too
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all
They cried ‘La Belle Dame sans Merci
Hath thee in thrall!’_


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2017)

Is that Mrs. Dog?


----------



## inva (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's right though. His social media is appalling.


better watch it


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Is that Mrs. Dog?



its the Queen over the water - Ms Kendall...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> emily m (@maitlis) on Twitter
> 
> so what are you going to do about it?



Fuck all obviously


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2017)

kebabking said:


> its the Queen over the water - Ms Kendall...


Why is she in camouflage?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2017)

This actually works, I think:


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 21, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Why is she in camouflage?



For hiding in the The Allotment with a Fairbairn-Sykes between her teeth.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Why is she in camouflage?



she's on a visit - think she was/is in one of the Commons defence groups. a play on the toys, some dressing up, an excellent lunch and a day not having to pretend to constituants that they care about dog shit in the park or UFO's or whatever.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _Bash bash bash.
> Oh no! We lost!
> Needed more Akehurst._


You're obsessed with Luke Akehurst - what do you imagine him to be? 

The other week you had him in Gorton, preparing the way for his lord and master David Miliband to be parachuted in (how did that work out btw?). This week, any discussion of the politics and tactics of the Labour Party that isn't sufficiently gushing is playing straight into his machiavellian hands. 

Is he some kind of Labour right Voldemort?


----------



## gosub (Apr 21, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> This actually works, I think:




I'm now officially old.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Fuck all obviously


as i expected.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> as i expected.



Err... Congratulations?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Err... Congratulations?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is he some kind of Labour right Voldemort?



Well he looks more like Ron, tbf.

So you've never heard of him (activist for 20 tears and one-time Hackney Councilor) or Labour First nor are you able to search for him online?

Jog on.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

I know who he is. 

How did that Gorton parachute job go btw?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well he looks more like Ron, tbf.
> 
> So you've never heard of him (activist for 20 tears and one-time Hackney Councilor) or Labour First nor are you able to search for him online?
> 
> Jog on.


12 years a hackney councillor and also served on the labour nec for a couple of years.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> I know who he is.



Funny that. Before you seemed to be suggesting that he was fictional.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

remind me about the Gorton parachute job again?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so what are you going to do about it?



Move to Scotland.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Funny that. Before you seemed to be suggesting that he was fictional.


if only that were the case


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Move to Scotland.


(((((scottish labour party)))))


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> remind me about the Gorton parachute job again?



Was Gorton the name of your dead cat?


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Was Gorton the name of your dead cat?


It's the name of a Manchester constituency that you breathlessly announced David Miliband was going to be parachuted into last month, with the help of your nemesis Luke Akehurst.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

How's the canvassing coming along round your way btw mikey? You spent much time on the doorstep?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Tthirteen labour mps are standing down and a committee ,split evenly between Corbynistas and Watsonians will choose the candidates.These are key in the nominations battle to come if and when Jezza stands down.
> 
> Corbyn is said  to want at least three seats -for his son Seb,his chief of staff and McCluskeys dancing partner Karie Murphy and his political secretary Katy Clark.Prezza junior wants Alan Johnsons seat.
> 
> ...



The problem for Watson is whether Barnsley's electorate want Balls, regardless of whether Balls is parachuted into position as the PPC.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem for Watson is whether Barnsley's electorate want Balls, regardless of whether Balls is parachuted into position as the PPC.


Isn't Balls wildly popular after his Strictly run? I'm sure I saw something a bit ago claiming he was polling as the most popular politician in the country...


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

Third most popular, after May and Johnson.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

I'm pretty sure I've heard several times that Balls isn't interested.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Isn't Balls wildly popular after his Strictly run? I'm sure I saw something a bit ago claiming he was polling as the most popular politician in the country...



Probably because he isn't currently a politician, to be fair!


----------



## gosub (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Isn't Balls wildly popular after his Strictly run? I'm sure I saw something a bit ago claiming he was polling as the most popular politician in the country...



Is that why they are doing all this bollocks about dabbing?	

Genuinely confused by it, seems like deliberately insulting the intelligence of younger voters


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I'm pretty sure I've heard several times that Balls isn't interested.


yeah, tbh that whole post looks like fairly groundless conjecture to me.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

gosub said:


> Is that why they are doing all this bollocks about dabbing?
> 
> Genuinely confused by it, seems like deliberately insulting the intelligence of younger voters


The dabbing meme was created by a supporter rather than the LP I think.


----------



## gosub (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> The dabbing meme was created by a supporter rather than the LP I think.



Seen it on several MP's twitter idents, you've got Chukka doing it, you had Watson doing it the other month....stop pretending you are down with the kids and actually come up with something that will reverse the ever worsening stitchup they've had.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Luke Akehurst and his Labour first mob arrived in Gorton yesterday, I heard.
> 
> You could've asked them.
> 
> ...



Is the only post I could find relating to the Manchester constituency: So perhaps you could explain this post below.



killer b said:


> It's the name of a Manchester constituency that you breathlessly announced David Miliband was going to be parachuted into last month, with the help of your nemesis Luke Akehurst.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

sure. you missed these two off your search.


mikey mikey said:


> _Unloseable _you say?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





mikey mikey said:


> #Labour HQ seizes control of post-#Kaufman selection – to lever in #DMiliband
> 
> Is it, really?


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

Anyway, we're keeping you from your campaigning. Best jog on, those doors won't knock themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> This actually works, I think:


I think it neatly demonstrates that C-Byn has swag


----------



## LDC (Apr 21, 2017)

Any politicians dabbing are first against the wall. People that make memes of politicians dabbing are second.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Anyway, we're keeping you from your campaigning. Best jog on, those doors won't knock themselves.


God. Please keep him from campaigning, I'd like to win.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> God. Please keep him from campaigning, I'd like to win.


A fair point. We'll have to do shifts arguing with the cunt though, I can't cope with 6 weeks of this.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> God. Please keep him from campaigning, I'd like to win.



i thought he'd had enough of the hated English and was off across the wall to join the SNP - which probably secures the Union for the next thousand years or so...


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> A fair point. We'll have to do shifts arguing with the cunt though, I can't cope with 6 weeks of this.



Didn't see me claiming Luke had used the First to resurect Dead David, tbf. But whatever. Oh and the "cunt" comment is like water off a duck's back.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> God. Please keep him from campaigning, I'd like to win.



Not a chance of either, I'm afraid.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I think it neatly demonstrates that C-Byn has swag


Has anyone done one with the Emma Goldman quote?


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> A fair point. We'll have to do shifts arguing with the cunt though, I can't cope with 6 weeks of this.


Should be quite simple to come up with a bot that succinctly responds to all of his comments.  it could keep him wrapped up for weeks


----------



## lincy (Apr 21, 2017)

Very good turnout on Whitchurch common today CByn in good form.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

just a suggestion, but might be good to veer away from the snarkier interactions on this thread -  it's not like there's a huge ammount of genuine political animus that needs to be got out into the open etc, positions aren't actually that polarised / entrenched re: project Corbo it feels like  ( unless I'm reading wrong * ) and it's going to be a horrible old 6 weeks ahead w/o this all descending into incessant gripey shite.

( * except for A Hertford )


----------



## Libertad (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> just a suggestion, but might be good to veer away from the snarkier interactions on this thread -  it's not like there's a huge ammount of genuine political animus that needs to be got out into the open etc, positions aren't actually that polarised / entrenched re: project Corbo it feels like  ( unless I'm reading wrong * ) and it's going to be a horrible old 6 weeks ahead w/o this all descending into incessant gripey shite.
> 
> ( * except for A Hertford )



Is that a "note to self"?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Is that a "note to self"?



lol, still hoping to see some evidence to support your Akehurst cribbed ' Momentum are just virtue signallers' claim *...but that's on a seperate thread, this one's moving on up to sunlit uplands of positive interaction etc

( _edit in the new spirit of the reborn thread _: but also  share a load of misgivings re : Momentum, on all sort of levels ...as I do about JC / Labour Left as whole  )


----------



## Libertad (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> lol, still hoping to see some evidence to support your Akehurst cribbed ' Momentum are just virtue signallers / no boots on ground ' claims ...but that's on a seperate thread, this one's moving on up to sunlit uplands of positive interaction etc



It was no Akehurst crib but an observation on the majority of the Momentum members of my local CLP. You're welcome to come and meet some of them at my local but you'd have to be prepared to travel and it would be your round.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

Libertad said:


> It was no Akehurst crib but an observation on the majority of the Momentum members of my local CLP. You're welcome to come and meet some of them at my local but you'd have to be prepared to travel and it would be your round.



blimey, v confused now...thought you were non labour / 'don't vote for anyone' ( which I have zero issues with personally )


----------



## Libertad (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> blimey, v confused now...thought you were non labour / 'don't vote for anyone' ( which I have zero issues with personally )



I am but I still talk to LP members. Mine's a pint of Betty Stogs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> a friend drew my attention to this article, regarding that particular topic... Jeremy Corbyn wants to bypass the mainstream media. So why are Labour's memes so bad?


An image in a tweet is not a meme. Two images are not two memes. No matter how bad the graphic design and how the NS will pay for any old toss bashing Corbyn.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

,


FridgeMagnet said:


> An image in a tweet is not a meme. Two images are not two memes. No matter how bad the graphic design and how the NS will pay for any old toss bashing Corbyn.



The Corbo dab was deffo an attempt at memetic communication, the fact that it's rubbishness meant it had
 negative virality ( so to speak ) , rather than the intended effect, doesnt really change that ?

But then again (throwing in yet another caveat)  only thought it averagely rubbish ( ie : so OVAH ) , the intention / execution wasn't horrendous on any Willy Hague baseball cap type level imo


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> ,
> 
> 
> The Corbo dab was deffo an attempt at memetic communication, the fact that it's rubbishness meant it had
> ...


The NS piece isn't about that, though, it's simply picking some images attached to tweets with text and sneering at them for being out of touch while calling them "memes". Then again, who reads the NS apart from people who'd be quite happy with that article?


----------



## gosub (Apr 21, 2017)

cantsin said:


> ,
> 
> 
> The Corbo dab was deffo an attempt at memetic communication, the fact that it's rubbishness meant it had
> ...



But you can work out the thinking for the Hague baseball cap: shit we've got no youth vote AND people don't vote for baldies...SO put this on.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The NS piece isn't about that, though, it's simply picking some images attached to tweets with text and sneering at them for being out of touch while calling them "memes". Then again, who reads the NS apart from people who'd be quite happy with that article?



ah..it predated the Dab. See what you mean.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 22, 2017)

gosub said:


> But you can work out the thinking for the Hague baseball cap: shit we've got no youth vote AND people don't vote for baldies...SO put this on.



Wrong thread I know, but how would you dress mother theresa up in order to make her more appealing, apart from in a rubbish bag?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2017)

I am alone in finding this one genuinely bizarre?



("He" being El Corbo, natch)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> Third most popular, after May and Johnson.


Looks like the scoring on that shitty QI programme.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 23, 2017)

Do not know if this has already been posted, but imo are they so out of tune with what the public think?

General election 2017: Labour wants four new bank holidays - BBC News

I would think anyone in any of the countries within the UK would prefer another bank holiday at the beginning of July and/or in the middle of that long drawn out gap between the end of August and Christmas.
In England St George's Day is purely offered to attract the Nationalist favour and as with all the days of St Patrick and St David be in around Easter, May Day holidays. I would never turn done any reasonable offer of a day off but this seems typical, we haven't any quick ideas, let's say something!
What is the opinion of urbs?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 23, 2017)

Andrew Edge of EDL tries to disrupt the Corbyn rally in Crewe


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 23, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I am alone in finding this one genuinely bizarre?
> 
> 
> 
> ("He" being El Corbo, natch)



Are you sure he's referring to Corbyn and not Tim Farron/Libdems?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 23, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Do not know if this has already been posted, but imo are they so out of tune with what the public think?
> 
> General election 2017: Labour wants four new bank holidays - BBC News
> 
> ...



You can add four new bank holidays to- Free school meals for primary school children - £10 minimum wage - Nationalise rail - Renationalise NHS - Abolish tuition fees


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 23, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Do not know if this has already been posted, but imo are they so out of tune with what the public think?
> 
> General election 2017: Labour wants four new bank holidays - BBC News
> 
> ...



It appears the questions raised have been answered in the Theresa May calls general election thread.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 23, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Andrew Edge of EDL tries to disrupt the Corbyn rally in Crewe




Once sat next to him at a meeting in the Town Hall , recognised him from a EDL picket outside the Town Hall some months ago. Had quite a bit of a conversation with him , he said was thinking of standing in the local elections .Dedicated , knew his way round the far right ( spent more time slagging rival groups off than anything else) but didn't strike me as either a good organiser or politically on the ball tbh.


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2017)

Student Tory groups swell in backlash at Left-wing activists


Not this election, but probably an effect on the next


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 24, 2017)

Indeed, the future belongs to him.


----------



## Cid (Apr 24, 2017)

gosub said:


> Student Tory groups swell in backlash at Left-wing activists
> 
> 
> Not this election, but probably an effect on the next



That article is, unsurprisingly, a mess.


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2017)

gosub said:


> Student Tory groups swell in backlash at Left-wing activists
> 
> 
> Not this election, but probably an effect on the next


It's a total nothing story. They only give percentages (except where they're giving the figures for the labour societies, funny that) - the actual numbers of people will be tiny, and doubtless dwarfed by the actual numbers given for the Labour societies. Oddly enough I can't find the actual figures for the tories.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2017)

presumably all the tory ones have been bullied to death by themselves


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 24, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Are you sure he's referring to Corbyn and not Tim Farron/Libdems?


Oh, it was definitely Corbyn, yeah.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> presumably all the tory ones have been bullied to death by themselves





> Ben Harris-Quinney, chair of rightwing thinktank the Bow Group, who gave evidence to the inquiry, said: “It would appear from the report that CCHQ officials were happy to overlook Mark Clarke’s track record and behaviour because he was able to deliver positive campaigning results using nefarious tactics.”



Tory bullying inquiry finds 13 alleged victims of Mark Clarke

Seems cut out for the job, does Mark. Poor Elliott. RIP.


----------



## Tom A (Apr 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's a total nothing story. They only give percentages (except where they're giving the figures for the labour societies, funny that) - the actual numbers of people will be tiny, and doubtless dwarfed by the actual numbers given for the Labour societies. Oddly enough I can't find the actual figures for the tories.


I would have thought that the Corbyn effect would have caused Labour societies to blossom, since students are likely to be key components of Corbyn's supporter base. However I have heard that Labour Students is facing the same conflicts that are being played out in the wider Labour Party, which may be why they may not be doing that greatly in terms of numbers. However an increase of 500% for Conservative Future is nothing when you only had, say, four members to begin with.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2017)

Tom A said:


> I would have thought that the Corbyn effect would have caused Labour societies to blossom, since students are likely to be key components of Corbyn's supporter base. However I have heard that Labour Students is facing the same conflicts that are being played out in the wider Labour Party, which may be why they may not be doing that greatly in terms of numbers. However an increase of 500% for Conservative Future is nothing when you only had, say, four members to begin with.


a 500% increase is only _possible_ if they only had four(ish) members to begin with


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2017)

Tom A said:


> I would have thought that the Corbyn effect would have caused Labour societies to blossom, since students are likely to be key components of Corbyn's supporter base. However I have heard that Labour Students is facing the same conflicts that are being played out in the wider Labour Party, which may be why they may not be doing that greatly in terms of numbers. However an increase of 500% for Conservative Future is nothing when you only had, say, four members to begin with.


could this decline in nols be linked to their underhand ways of organisation and stitching things up in student unions up and down the country? say it isn't so!


----------



## Tom A (Apr 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> could this decline in nols be linked to their underhand ways of organisation and stitching things up in student unions up and down the country? say it isn't so!


That too. I am well informed of Labour Students' past form in student politics and NUS issues, especially in the Blair/Brown years. That being said, not many 18 year old freshers will be clued up in the past history of Labour Students, and even if they do know, that wouldn't stop people from trying to "change it from within", like people are doing with the Labour Party itself.


----------



## Tom A (Apr 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> a 500% increase is only _possible_ if they only had four(ish) members to begin with


I note that these figures about the meteoric rise of the student Tories tend to be playing out in the posher Russell Group universities. I doubt the post-war universities and especially the ex-polys will have that same level of success for the Tories.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2017)

They quote numbers for only two University Labour societies btw.


----------



## Sue (Apr 25, 2017)

Tom A said:


> I note that these figures about the meteoric rise of the student Tories tends to be playing out in the posher Russell Group universities. I doubt the post-war universities and especially the ex-polys will have that same level of success for the Tories.


I believe Oxford Brookes has a very big Tory student association.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2017)

Sue said:


> I believe Oxford Brookes has a very big Tory student association.



People wanting to say "_I went to Oxford, you know_" probably explains that.


----------



## Sue (Apr 25, 2017)

agricola said:


> People wanting to say "_I went to Oxford, you know_" probably explains that.



Absolutely. The ones I came across used to get very annoyed when people referred to it as 'the poly'.


----------



## Corax (Apr 25, 2017)

Labour have just announced their Brexit plan. Ends freedom of movement.  Twats.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2017)

Sue said:


> Absolutely. The ones I came across used to get very annoyed when people referred to it as 'the poly'.



I believe the Oxford students refer to the Brookes students as 'the fools on the hill'.  What funny japes........


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

Corax said:


> Labour have just announced their Brexit plan. Ends freedom of movement.  Twats.



Announced by Keir Starmer:  General Election 2017: Labour says freedom of movement will end as part of Brexit deal

@Dr. Furface who mentioned Starmer the other day.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2017)

Tom A said:


> I note that these figures about the meteoric rise of the student Tories tends to be playing out in the posher Russell Group universities. I doubt the post-war universities and especially the ex-polys will have that same level of success for the Tories.



Sadly Sheffield Hallam Conservative Students has indeed grown.


----------



## bimble (Apr 25, 2017)

Good news, and an excellent subheading. .


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Sadly Sheffield Hallam Conservative Students has indeed grown.



Does Hallam cater for local students still or does it now attract more transitory students? When it was the Poly I remember many students were on sandwich courses from local industries. Though that too has faded away.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2017)

who actually spells the aitch in that? its not like its ever pronounce3d is it. They should make me sub ed


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> who actually spells the aitch in that? its not like its ever pronounce3d is it. They should make me sub ed



Sub hed.


----------



## gosub (Apr 25, 2017)

Corax said:


> Labour have just announced their Brexit plan. Ends freedom of movement.  Twats.



Having said earlier in the speech that Labour's priority would be Retaining the benefits of the single market and customs union would also become top priority in Brexit.

That's the fucking Liechtenstein option,Norway with invoked EEA Art 112. To get there requires among other things Liechtenstein conceding there's no difference between being a country of 37,500 and 65 million. 
It doesn't fly.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> They should make me sub ed



In preparation for the day that happens:


----------



## belboid (Apr 25, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Does Hallam cater for local students still or does it now attract more transitory students? When it was the Poly I remember many students were on sandwich courses from local industries. Though that too has faded away.


Lots and lots of Chinese students and other overseas. Still a fair few locals, but not as many is before.


----------



## Tom A (Apr 25, 2017)

Sue said:


> I believe Oxford Brookes has a very big Tory student association.





treelover said:


> Sadly Sheffield Hallam Conservative Students has indeed grown.



There seems to be two types of ex-poly, those that have thrived by being in the same city of an established redbrick uni and are just as popular a destination as their more established counterparts, and those that have a more local, community focus, and generally attract students from lower-income backgrounds. It's the latter where I presumed that Tories would not be getting much in the way of support.


----------



## Corax (Apr 25, 2017)

gosub said:


> To get there requires among other things Liechtenstein conceding there's no difference between being a country of 37,500 and 65 million.
> It doesn't fly.


The difference is only less than 1% of the global population - so nothing really.

That should defs be the argument we pursue.  Someone give me a six-figure job as a 'political advisor'.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 25, 2017)

Students are greater consumers now than was ever suggested by the shouty Situationists all those years ago. They are paying big bucks for their education and by golly , they want to make theo most of this conspicuous consumption.*

* not all of them obvs, just the legions of wealthy spoiled twats that have turned my old manor into a fast food infested manky ghetto and assisted in driving the community out to cheaper areas


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 25, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Given that most of Labour's new/returning voters and members came because of the 'Corbyn effect' - i.e. younger/first time voters seeing that he could offer something leftward in a major British party (disenchanted by the Lib Dems and previous Labour directions), and he also did bring some returning voters back who had been in the wilderness for many years (not voting at all, voting Green/minor left parties, voting UKIP), I'd say that he's at least stemmed the party from dying quite as rapidly as it would have done under Miliband or other moderate (Cooper, Kendall, Smith, etc) - trying to fight the Tories on austerity _less hard and fast_ and cosying up to the EU whilst having nothing to improve working class conditions.
> 
> He's far from ideal, but if Corbyn goes, then someone with similar politics/left outlook will not fill his shoes. I would have thought that was obvious by now. So, they're effectively dead as a party of any meaningful social democratic good or alternative to what the Tories offer.



Labour wasn’t dying before Corbyn took over, it was still the only party capable of attracting enough anti tory voters to win a GE. That pool of potential support is still there and it’s ignoring them that will kill off the party, not the other way round. Although whether there’ll be a pool of potential leaders after the election will depend on how many MPs they have left.

Corbyn himself is more the problem than his policies and by sticking with him Labour are ignoring the fact that personality wins votes as much as policy does (in fact possibly even more). Although clearly any leader with Corbyn’s ‘politics/left outlook’ is still going find it hard to win enough support.

We can keep on blaming the media and we could keep scratching our heads over why working class voters won’t do what the middle class far left thinks they should, but all the while, relentless tory cuts plus the reduction in revenue from leaving the EU could mean the death of public services by the end of the next decade. Only an electable Labour Party can stop that from happening.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>



This from someone who seems to think that 'revolution' is a viable way of getting rid of the tories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> This from someone who seems to think that 'revolution' is a viable way of getting rid of the tories.


Yeh? Go back and quote where I have said, suggested or intimated that. I'll save you time: you won't find a post of mine saying that because I never did. You made it up. In other words it's a lie.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour wasn’t dying before Corbyn took over, it was still the only party capable of attracting enough anti tory voters to win a GE. That pool of potential support is still there and it’s ignoring them that will kill off the party, not the other way round. Although whether there’ll be a pool of potential leaders after the election will depend on how many MPs they have left.



Labour have been in decline since the early 2000s, culminating in losing the 2010 election. Then turning to a 'less hard and fast' right austerity agenda to desperately stay in power. And that failed to stop the decline too which is why we've had turmoil in Labour since and why Corbyn got elected leader twice because the alternatives were also on the right.




			
				Andrew Hertford said:
			
		

> We can keep on blaming the media and we could keep scratching our heads over why working class voters won’t do what the middle class far left thinks they should, but all the while, relentless tory cuts plus the reduction in revenue from leaving the EU could mean the death of public services by the end of the next decade. Only an electable Labour Party can stop that from happening.



Well the media/press don't help, but the problem is mainly to be laid on the party having abandoned its working class and its pursuing of the same neoliberal policies that haven't radically differed from the Tories or Lib Dems over the years. Labour's shift to the centre, and to the right was always going to result in this. And prior to Corbyn, it was as much invested in cuts as the Tories (not to say that Corbyn is some magic socialist either - try telling that to communities fucked over by Labour councils). An electable Labour party now will still only stop some of the death of public services, because it's simply not invested in protecting public services anymore without an element of private investment and involvement. Ironically, if/when the inevitable shift back to the right/progress of the party happens when Corbyn gets ousted, it'll be even less wedded to protecting publicly owned services.


----------



## chilango (Apr 25, 2017)

You can't blame the Europe-wide collapse of Social Drmocratic parties on Corbyn can you?


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour wasn’t dying before Corbyn took over, it was still the only party capable of attracting enough anti tory voters to win a GE. That pool of potential support is still there and it’s ignoring them that will kill off the party, not the other way round. Although whether there’ll be a pool of potential leaders after the election will depend on how many MPs they have left.



It may not have been dying, but it was clearly in need of urgent care - not to repeat things that have already been said loads of times before, but they did lose two elections, and Scotland, most of the membership and were under increasing pressure across the North and in Wales.  It is hard to see how any of the other three 2015 candidates - or indeed anyone else in the PLP from those factions - would have reversed that trend. 



Andrew Hertford said:


> Corbyn himself is more the problem than his policies and by sticking with him Labour are ignoring the fact that personality wins votes as much as policy does (in fact possibly even more). Although clearly any leader with Corbyn’s ‘politics/left outlook’ is still going find it hard to win enough support.



"Personality" at that level is a complete fiction, though - it is an image that the media crafts for people.  Corbyn has, since before his election, been deemed unelectable by them and so we see the continual attacks on him, of which the latest - where he is deemed dangerous for opposing Trident whereas other politicians compete with each other to insist that they would launch a preemptive nuclear strike - is probably the most absurd.



Andrew Hertford said:


> We can keep on blaming the media and we could keep scratching our heads over why working class voters won’t do what the middle class far left thinks they should, but all the while, relentless tory cuts plus the reduction in revenue from leaving the EU could mean the death of public services by the end of the next decade. *Only an electable Labour Party can stop that from happening.*



I agree.  The problem Labour have is that Corbyn represents Labour's best hope of being elected.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> You can't blame the Europe-wide collapse of Social Drmocratic parties on Corbyn can you?


You got the source for that chilango? What are they defining as Western Europe? And Social-democratic parties for that matter.


----------



## chilango (Apr 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You got the source for that chilango? What are they defining as Western Europe? And Social-democratic parties for that matter.



It's from The Economist. 

Im not going to vouch for the article, but it neatly illustrated the point I wanted to make that it's not just Labour.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You got the source for that chilango? What are they defining as Western Europe? And Social-democratic parties for that matter.



The various declines in industry and working life have all affected Labour, in many ways Maggie launched a silver bullet that's paying dividends today.

The loss of industry, unions, selling off houses so people are grateful to 'get on the ladder' have slowly cut down what working class solidarity there was and Labours willingness to become Conservative-red brand in 97 onwards and not try and reverse the declines outside London have meant a complete drain of talent and support.


There's also the decline in party membership and political engagement in general over last few decades. Ironically Corbyn and the ref seems to have negated that at least.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> <snip>.


How's that related to my post?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 26, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Are you sure he's referring to Corbyn and not Tim Farron/Libdems?


He does seem to inspire a genuinely irrational hatred among certain types:



It would give you pause for thought, really.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

meh. Jen is a Liberal party supporter.
Jen RemainResistant❄ (@RemainResistant) | Twitter


----------



## chilango (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> meh. Jen is a Liberal party supporter.
> Jen RemainResistant❄ (@RemainResistant) | Twitter



Not _the_ Liberal Party though, surely?


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

My bad LibDem. You know, the two faced lying shits that claim to be the Remaian party but are angling for a second coalition with the Tories.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2017)

Farron has a fairly unique facial expression - _startled disappointment_.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> The various declines in industry and working life have all affected Labour, in many ways Maggie launched a silver bullet that's paying dividends today.
> 
> The loss of industry, unions, selling off houses so people are grateful to 'get on the ladder' have slowly cut down what working class solidarity there was and Labours willingness to become Conservative-red brand in 97 onwards and not try and reverse the declines outside London have meant a complete drain of talent and support.
> 
> ...


There's a more up to date graph here (p.7):
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> There's a more up to date graph here (p.7):
> http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf


I just did a quick search to see if there were figures on the backgrounds of those who joined Labour as part of the Corbyn surge (and are now leaving).  I think we've already had this very piece in the past from early 2016:
How middle class are Labour’s new members?
What's interesting - in the sense of being predictable and so _not very interesting_ - is the trajectory the piece takes. From a couple of generalisations and factlets about the new intake being as middle class as anyone who joins political parties, it's straight into John Mann doing John Mann stuff. You'd almost think there was an agenda! 

Don't get me wrong, I think the social background of the new members _is_ very significant and is one of the key reasons why Corbynism hasn't got very far. But the irony of the New Statesman bubbleists moaning about the party being too middles class...


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

This week Labours nec selection sub committee,split evenly between corbynistas and watsonians ,will select the candidates in the 13 seats where labour mps are standing down.

This will affect Corbyns ability to pass the torch in the event of him standing down.

Of the original 36 nominees he can probably count on the following to get elected and nominate ,sayJohn McDonnell,

Abbott,Ali,Burgon,Butler,Campbell,Corbyn,Haigh,Hopkins,Hussain,Long-Bailey,McDonnell,Morris,Osamor,Skinner,Trickett-15

Of the original 36 he wont get the "morons"who lent him their nomination
 -Beckett,Coyle,Cruddas,Efford,Field,Huq,Lammy,Marsden,Onwurah,Thomas-10

Of the original 36 he might get Champion,Lewis,Thornberry,West.-4 ,tho two of these might run themselves.

Of the original 36 the following  might not get elected or have been replaced in by elections  by mps who wouldnt nominate him -,Ogmore,Tooting,Oldham West,Siddiq,Cat Smith,Oxford East-6

Deceased -Jo Cox

So Corbyn seems to have 19 possibles and defo needs some reinforcements -Sam Tarry,Katy Clark,Karie Murphy seem to be in the running but a reduction in the nomination threshold to a max 10 percent would seem to be required.


Conclusion -he probably wont stand down before conference and maybe not then with unimaginable consequences.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

Good thing we're focusing on attacking the Tories, innit?


----------



## chilango (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Good thing we're focusing on attacking the Tories, innit?



I'm not.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

Are you not?

Why not?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you not?
> 
> Why not?


My answer. Because the class struggle is wider than Labour vs tories.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

Agreed, but right now, witch Theresa is going to consolidate her hold on Castle Mayskull.

Probably best avoided, yeah?


----------



## chilango (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Are you not?
> 
> Why not?



'Cos the Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, are the enemy too.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Good thing we're focusing on attacking the Tories, innit?



Sadly that ship has sailed -corbyns crap at it and voters wont listen to him.

So I need something to cheer me up.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 26, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Agreed, but right now, witch Theresa is going to consolidate her hold on Castle Mayskull.
> 
> Probably best avoided, yeah?


That is a very tempting position, and I still haven't decided exactly how I feel about the current election. But it is exactly that argument that has got us in the current situation. A focus on opposing the Tories as a party rather than actually engaging in class struggle.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> 'Cos the Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, are the enemy too.



They're certainly Corbyn's. Oh and if I was living in Scotland, I'd be thunking just that.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Sadly that ship has sailed



No, that ship was sunk in the bay before it even launched.


----------



## chilango (Apr 26, 2017)

Daft. Completely letting her off the hook.



> Jeremy will not take part in an opposition leaders' debate. The British people have the right to see a head-to-head debate between the only two people who could form the next Government - and the prime minister's refusal is a sign of weakness, not of strength."


 (from the BBC)


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Daft. Completely letting her off the hook.
> 
> (from the BBC)



I think both Torys and Labour don't wish to aid a Lib Dem rebirth


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2017)

I'd love to see Theresa May saying 'I agree with Tim' half a dozen times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Sadly that ship has sailed -corbyns crap at it and voters wont listen to him.
> 
> So I need something to cheer me up.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 26, 2017)

Special Brews ok but doesn't quite do it..


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Daft. Completely letting her off the hook.
> 
> (from the BBC)


Stupid, he could have used to opportunity to batter the LibDems


----------



## paolo (Apr 26, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd love to see Theresa May saying 'I agree with Tim' half a dozen times.



Ugh. I'd forgotten about that.


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2017)

> Liberals like Polly want to declare a popular front against the ugly spectre of fascism staring us in the face, which is fine, but without really including the left... They just demand our votes.
> 
> They expect us to go along with their paper-thin cosmopolitanism, that welcomes every kind of person mostly on the basis of their cuisine, and a generally capitalist economy in which the rich get to do what they want and the poor have to work long thankless hours just to feed themselves. They wish the situation was parallel with France, where the french election is now between a nazi and an investment banker. For now the nazis are a great gift for centrism, route popular anger into fascism and the status quo suddenly isn't so bad. But it is, it's just a different sort of bad. Like everyone I want Macron to win the second round but his awful non-politics virtually guarantee a National Front win in 2022, the only question asked of the voters is whether they want things to get worse slowly or catastrophically...
> 
> ...



Fantastic reply btl to Toynbee's article on Labour.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

Dugher talks dirty.

Michael Dugher: 'A remarkable achievement' for Jeremy Corbyn to be doing so badly


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Dugher talks dirty.
> 
> Michael Dugher: 'A remarkable achievement' for Jeremy Corbyn to be doing so badly



Anyone on reading that would be forgiven for not realizing that Dugher's career path treads the familiar path of senior officer in Labour Students - cushy union job - SPAD - lobbying - safe seat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Labour have been in decline since the early 2000s, culminating in losing the 2010 election. Then turning to a 'less hard and fast' right austerity agenda to desperately stay in power. And that failed to stop the decline too which is why we've had turmoil in Labour since and why Corbyn got elected leader twice because the alternatives were also on the right.



Party membership started declining around 2003 - I wonder why? - from the 2001 peak, sank from a 400,000+ to less than a half of that under Miliband. Even in "tribal" Labour wards in Lambeth, local branches went into suspension because they couldn't even raise a quorum at meetings, and constituency associations were left to the right of the party.  Loads of decent centre-left activists left the party because of Blair.  A good number of them have returned under Corbyn.  Perhaps Andrew Hertford 's local party wasn't dying, but loads were, throughout the country - even the NEC acknowledged that back in 2011.  Corbyn has at least revitalised grassroots local politics - something no amount of membership drives under Blair, Brown or Miliband managed, post-2003.  As for his constant banal references to "the far left", Corbyn is about as far left as Michael bloody Foot, measured on any rational political scale.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Farron has a fairly unique facial expression - _startled disappointment_.



I swear Farron is a Spitting Image puppet magically brought to life. He's the Ted of British politics.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

The bakers dozen labour safe seats selection -local councillor selected for Nottingham North-Graham Allen says you can trust him so he wont be nominating McDonnell.

Councillor and Unison organiser chosen to contest Nottingham North seat | LabourList

Mind you ,if you add the tory and ukips vote together the tory would win the seat on a 7.5 percent swing from Labour.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> The bakers dozen labour safe seats selection -local councillor selected for Nottingham North-Graham Allen says you can trust him so he wont be nominating McDonnell.
> 
> Councillor and Unison organiser chosen to contest Nottingham North seat | LabourList
> 
> Mind you ,if you add the tory and ukips vote together the tory would win the seat on a 7.5 percent swing from Labour.



He looks like Tom Watson's after picture.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

The only good thing that can come of this election is Labour to lose catastrophically and Corbyn remains leader, either without a leadership contest or by winning another leadership contest.  That would be good and presumably is plausible.  I can't believe that people who voted for Corbyn as leader really believed that he'd win an election in the short term, or even the medium term.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> The only good thing that can come of this election is Labour to lose catastrophically and Corbyn remains leader, either without a leadership contest or by winning another leadership contest.  That would be good and presumably is plausible.  I can't believe that people who voted for Corbyn as leader really believed that he'd win an election in the short term, or even the medium term.


Or the long term. Very hard to see a road back for Labour.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

Why would that be good? To illustrate that Labour need to move "back to the centre-ground"? So the LibDems can make a comeback?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Or the long term. Very hard to see a road back for Labour.


Well, the long term is that the entire political discourse changes in this country.  I'd assumed that's the game that he and his supporters are playing.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Why would that be good? To illustrate that Labour need to move "back to the centre-ground"? So the LibDems can make a comeback?


Holding the line.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Holding the line.


What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What's that supposed to mean?


As it, get it all out in the open, Conservatives are Conservatives, Labour are Labour, none of this New Labour, third way stuff.  If Corbyn goes he won't be replaced by another proper good candidate, it'll be back to the centre.  So don't be defeated by one election loss and change all your policies back to "third way", stick at what you're doing and believe in what you're actually doing.  If you're learning to ride a bike you don't give up when you fall off, you stick at it.  

I dunno.  I just don't really see any other option at the moment.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 26, 2017)

8115 said:


> Well, the long term is that the entire political discourse changes in this country.  I'd assumed that's the game that he and his supporters are playing.


I think the Labour Party are pretty much the last people to realise that the entire political discourse , especially between them and the working class had changed .


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 26, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> I think the Labour Party are pretty much the last people to realise that the entire political discourse , especially between them and the working class had changed .



Big men but out of shape.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 26, 2017)

Three other Labour selections tonight -Ellie Reeves selected in Lewisham west(she is sister of rachel reeves and married to john cryer chair of plp.

Emma Hardy in Hull beating Sam Tarry and David Prescott -she is prob the least corbynista on the shortlist.

And Steph Peacock ,Watsons ex ,in Dughers rock solid Barnsley seat.

Doesnt sound like very good news for Jezza.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 26, 2017)

What a shame young people can't be bothered to vote. Lazy kids + old gits = tory vermin government.



> Labour is solidly ahead of the Conservatives with voters under 40 years old, despite being more than 20 points behind in the polls overall, according to a significant new poll.
> 
> The mega-poll of nearly 13,000 voters by YouGov conducted over a two and a half week period found Jeremy Corbyn would be heading to Downing Street were the election decided by 18-40 year olds...
> 
> But Labour is well behind in the polls overall – by about 20 points – because of a significantly lower expected turnout among young voters and a huge generational divide.



Jeremy Corbyn would win the election if only people under-40 voted


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 27, 2017)

So Jeremy shit himself at the prospect of being in a debate with Tim Farron. Giving up a chance to get in front of a large TV audience and to get stuck into May with no comeback. Spineless cunt needs to fuck off back to the back benches where he belongs. His referendum performance was so bad people thought it was deliberate. Seem they were wrong, he is that slow of thought and devoid of energy. 

I remember when I used to think the left was where all the brightest and most energetic people were. There is more life in a fresh corpse than this shitfest we have been served up so far. Still at least Urban 75 can look forward with glee to all the seats Labour will loose.


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2017)

Corbyn is ruling out a SNP/Lib dem coalition. A true voting deal could see The Lib Dems defeat May in madienhead, for example. 

Jeremy Corbyn just ruled out any coalition with the SNP after the election


I sympathise even if the party under Corbyn wasn't in disarray, would be a big ask. And Farron announcing he'd go into coalition with the Tories (FFS( nearly killed the idea of such a coalition before it could be considered. 

But Corbyn turning down the SNP is bollocks. Labour v Tories in a straight up fight? They'll get killed. Labour/SNP/Lib dem coalition is the only workable alternatives?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

8115 said:


> As it, get it all out in the open, Conservatives are Conservatives, Labour are Labour, none of this New Labour, third way stuff.  If Corbyn goes he won't be replaced by another proper good candidate, it'll be back to the centre.  So don't be defeated by one election loss and change all your policies back to "third way", stick at what you're doing and believe in what you're actually doing.  If you're learning to ride a bike you don't give up when you fall off, you stick at it.


OK, I think I can see your argument now. But if you believe that a total collapse of the Labour vote will bring about what you want I think you're very much mistaken. If Labour only get 25% then either Corbyn will resign or someone will challenge him, and this time they'll probably win. 



Old Spark said:


> Three other Labour selections tonight -Ellie Reeves selected in Lewisham west(she is sister of rachel reeves and married to john cryer chair of plp.
> 
> Emma Hardy in Hull beating Sam Tarry and David Prescott -she is prob the least corbynista on the shortlist.
> 
> And Steph Peacock ,Watsons ex ,in Dughers rock solid Barnsley seat.


Great to see new talent, not linked to the old guard, coming through. Perfect example of why I won't vote Labour.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> Daft. Completely letting her off the hook.
> 
> (from the BBC)


Plus I think any chance for him to get in front if the camera and talk would be good for Labour.


----------



## bemused (Apr 27, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Plus I think any chance for him to get in front if the camera and talk would be good for Labour.



I think the only winner in a leaders debate without May would be Nicola Sturgeon - she'd wipe the floor with Farron and Corbyn. 

Sadly I think the problem with Labour is that since Blair they seem to have lost the ability to put great communicators in charge. Whatever you think of Blair at the moment it would be hard to argue he wouldn't be making May look silly week in week out.

The Tories have the same issue but it isn't a problem for them at the moment.


----------



## steveo87 (Apr 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Farron has a fairly unique facial expression - _startled disappointment_.


Between him and David Moyes, really.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Apr 27, 2017)

Farron always looks like he's just seen a puppy fall over.


----------



## agricola (Apr 27, 2017)

8den said:


> Corbyn is ruling out a SNP/Lib dem coalition. A true voting deal could see The Lib Dems defeat May in madienhead, for example.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn just ruled out any coalition with the SNP after the election
> 
> ...



Hard to see what else he could do at this stage; we all saw what the Tories did with the idea in 2015 and to sign up for that before the election would destroy the party in Scotland and guarantee nothing in return - signing up with the Lib Dems would make sense, and that is a stupid idea as well.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 27, 2017)

8den said:


> Corbyn is ruling out a SNP/Lib dem coalition. A true voting deal could see The Lib Dems defeat May in madienhead, for example.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn just ruled out any coalition with the SNP after the election
> 
> ...



Firstly, the lib dems themselves have ruled out a coalition with Labour. It would look pretty weird/weak for Labour now to say they're in favour of it.

As for saying right now that an SNP coalition would be a good idea, that would just tell people that it's 'safe' to vote SNP if you want to keep the tories out. I know we all want JC to be Mr Honest, but this is one area where it would kind of be stupid to be honest.

All these statements on potential coalitions are pre-election positioning to try and get the most votes. I think it would be naïve to think they mean much. The one thing we know about is the lib-dem's record - they'll have no trouble going into coalition with the Tories. Anything else is hot air and speculation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> All these statements on potential coalitions are pre-election positioning to try and get the most votes.


no, not 'pre-election positioning'. the election has been called. the campaign is underway. there is therefore no pre- about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Anything else is hot air and speculation.


the bread and butter of urban


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 27, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Firstly, the lib dems themselves have ruled out a coalition with Labour. It would look pretty weird/weak for Labour now to say they're in favour of it.
> 
> As for saying right now that an SNP coalition would be a good idea, that would just tell people that it's 'safe' to vote SNP if you want to keep the tories out. I know we all want JC to be Mr Honest, but this is one area where it would kind of be stupid to be honest.
> 
> All these statements on potential coalitions are pre-election positioning to try and get the most votes. I think it would be naïve to think they mean much. The one thing we know about is the lib-dem's record - they'll have no trouble going into coalition with the Tories. Anything else is hot air and speculation.



With the tories not really a factor in Scotland there's no reason for Labour not to run against the SNP. To do that Corbyn has to say 'no coalition' like Miliband did, but in reality if shaking hands with Sturgeon was gonna make him PM then he'd obviously do that. The SNP are probably closer to Corbyn's politics than Labour tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 27, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> With the tories not really a factor in Scotland there's no reason for Labour not to run against the SNP. To do that Corbyn has to say 'no coalition' like Miliband did, but in reality if shaking hands with Sturgeon was gonna make him PM then he'd obviously do that. The SNP are probably closer to Corbyn's politics than Labour tbh.


That's one of the may ironies for Corbyn, the only Parliamentary block in Britain close to his own project is a party that are bitter enemies with his own party - and don't even want to be in Britain. Admittedly though, it's not his _only_ problem.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> That's one of the may ironies for Corbyn, the only Parliamentary block in Britain close to his own project is a party that are bitter enemies with his own party - and don't even want to be in Britain. Admittedly though, it's not his _only_ problem.



Ironies upon ironies for Corbs. He wants to be in charge of the state and its military apparatus. Get your head round that one.


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Firstly, the lib dems themselves have ruled out a coalition with Labour. It would look pretty weird/weak for Labour now to say they're in favour of it.
> 
> As for saying right now that an SNP coalition would be a good idea, that would just tell people that it's 'safe' to vote SNP if you want to keep the tories out. I know we all want JC to be Mr Honest, but this is one area where it would kind of be stupid to be honest.
> 
> All these statements on potential coalitions are pre-election positioning to try and get the most votes. I think it would be naïve to think they mean much. The one thing we know about is the lib-dem's record - they'll have no trouble going into coalition with the Tories. Anything else is hot air and speculation.



I know, it was a long shot at the very start of the election, but it's the only tactic that should have worked. Unite everyone in a Grand 'anyone
 but the tories" And it's not Corbyn's fault,  Farron doomed it by talking about going into coalition with the Tories. But even the Lib dems know a good idea when they hear them

I cannot see Labour defeating the tories in a one and one contest, and thats the only thing stopping potentially the most disastrous Tory government since the last one.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Ironies upon ironies for Corbs. He wants to be in charge of the state and its military apparatus. Get your head round that one.


I'd rather him in charge of it than some warhawk Tory, which is any of them.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

8den said:


> I know, it was a long shot at the very start of the election, but it's the only tactic that should have worked. Unite everyone in a Grand 'anyone
> but the tories" And it's not Corbyn's fault,  Farron doomed it by talking about going into coalition with the Tories. But even the Lib dems know a good idea when they hear them
> 
> I cannot see Labour trying to defeat the tories in a one and one contest, and thats the only thing stopping potentially the most disastrous Tory government since the last one.


tbf, if we get a hung parliament this is still a possibility. Certainly the libdems are likely to appease the Tories, but I doubt they've ruled Labour coalition out entirely. It all depends on the result.

Libdems have abetter chance of winning here than Labour, even though I despise them for their treachery, so it makes more sense, in an 'oust the tories' mindset for me to choose them. Not really sure what to do.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

Even ignoring the stupidity of allying yourself with the LibDem scum, it would be extremely stupid for Labour to argue for some anti-Tory coalition. 
For a start the members wouldn't have it but it also undermines one of Labours main planks, that they've run on for ages, that they are the only real alternative to the Tories.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I'd rather him in charge of it than some warhawk Tory, which is any of them.



The point is he does not appear desperately fond of it.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> Sadly I think the problem with Labour is that since Blair they seem to have lost the ability to put great communicators in charge. Whatever you think of Blair at the moment it would be hard to argue he wouldn't be making May look silly week in week out.


Have you _seen_ Tony Blair recently?







He looks like a man who's constantly trying to explain away inconsistencies on his tax returns.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2017)

skeletor in a skinsuit these days. That's the nice lighting flattering photo the groan are running with because they love Tony lots. Other photos have him a lot more haggard. Sublimated guilt maybe


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2017)

It's also not 2015 when we faced the dire choice between Milliband and Cameroon. 

I could really do with 4 more years of centrist, vaguely right wing Labour government right now.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> The point is he does not appear desperately fond of it.


Corbyn all over. I think he got the shortest straw. I'd heard, from TUSC sources, that he didn't want the job and it would have been McDonnell, but John's health precluded that. COuld be completely wrong, though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

Bring back Blair and Clegg! (But I'm still on the left, really I am!)

EDIT: Two years ago, fucking goldfish.


----------



## Beermoth (Apr 27, 2017)

8den said:


> It's also not 2015 when we faced the dire choice between Milliband and Cameroon.
> 
> I could really do with 4 more years of centrist, vaguely right wing Labour government right now.



New Labour minus public spending? It would be shit.


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> tbf, if we get a hung parliament this is still a possibility. Certainly the libdems are likely to appease the Tories, but I doubt they've ruled Labour coalition out entirely. It all depends on the result.
> 
> Libdems have abetter chance of winning here than Labour, even though I despise them for their treachery, so it makes more sense, in an 'oust the tories' mindset for me to choose them. Not really sure what to do.



I think someone pointed out that if there was a really serious electoral alliance and say Labour didn't stand in Maidenhead, the Lib Dems could unseat May. Thats the level of tactical voting that I think is needed, but between Labour's disray, and Farran's willingness to go into government with the Conservatives, theres not enough time or trust to develop that kind of sold electoral pact.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> I think the only winner in a leaders debate without May would be Nicola Sturgeon - she'd wipe the floor with Farron and Corbyn.


In 2015 Sturgeon needed the large number of seats held by Scottish Labour, this time she is defending them and will largely be holding off Tory challenges. Completely different dynamic. Tories think there are 10 Scottish seats in play but Labour are only likely to challenge in a few, 3 to 6 and that is optimistic.
Farron will be after two Labour seats as his top hit list, Cambridge and Burnley, but  Lewes Majority: 1083 , Thornbury and Yate Majority: 1459 Kingston and Surbiton Majority: 2834 YeovilMajority: 5293 , St Ives Majority: 2469 Torbay Majority: 3286, Sutton and Cheam Majority: 3921 Bath
Majority: 3833, Colchester Majority: 5575 should be realistic targets from the Tories.


If your popularity is in the shitter what possible reason do you have for not taking the risk that you come across well on a debate. Look what it did for Clegg, what is the worst that could happen, Corbyn looks like an old confused granddad, the best, he hits the right notes and shores up some wavering Labour voters that he can take the fight tot he tories. How many seats can he save with a good performance that turns around some of the publics view of him.

You want to be up front and center of a political party you have to fucking fight for votes. Show your supporters you are up for a battle. Give the public something to fucking believe in. Jesus titty fucking Christ man grow a spine.


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> New Labour minus public spending? It would be shit.



Compared to the Utopia we currently reside in?


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 27, 2017)

Corbyn and Dugdale should go in two-footed on the SNP - especially on their pisspoor management of public services.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Corbyn all over. I think he got the shortest straw. I'd heard, from TUSC sources, that he didn't want the job and it would have been McDonnell, but John's health precluded that. COuld be completely wrong, though.


McDonnell didn't stand because he'd done it before and had had enough of losing badly.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> Farron will be after two Labour seats as his top hit list, Cambridge and Burnley.


Burnley voted more than 2-1 leave, bugger all chance of a libscum win.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 27, 2017)

A vote for Labour makes you a racist and a sexist, says Nick.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 27, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Corbyn and Dugdale should go in two-footed on the SNP - especially on their pisspoor management of public services.



Am not sure the Scots give a flying feck what Dugdale has to say about anything, and can't blame them tbh.

And Corbo's best leaving it all well alone imo, his predecessors destroyed Lab in Scot over decades, will take a long time to repair


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> A vote for Labour makes you a racist and a sexist, says Nick.




FFS. This piece of shit thinks nothing of trotting out the most appalling assertions, without evidence or even the merest call for it from whoever is filiming this. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but what a cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> FFS. This piece of shit thinks nothing of trotting out the most appalling assertions, without evidence or even the merest call for it from whoever is filiming this. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but what a cunt.


yeh, that's mikey mikey for you


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Am not sure the Scots give a flying feck what Dugdale has to say about anything, and can't blame them tbh.



Neither can I. Just today, she posted a tweet with this picture. The red circle was added later by another person who noticed just what Kezia was re-tweeting. Since then Dugdale has taken the image down, but FFS what a liability!


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Am not sure the Scots give a flying feck what Dugdale has to say about anything, and can't blame them tbh.
> 
> And Corbo's best leaving it all well alone imo, his predecessors destroyed Lab in Scot over decades, will take a long time to repair



Not sure about this tbh. Sturgeon gets far too easy a time for the yawning chasm between her amd her governments rhetoric and reality. Plenty feel the same, would be a tragedy if the repulsive ruth davidson were to be the beneficiary. Agreed that Dugdale hardly the best messenger, but Corbyn could be.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 27, 2017)




----------



## agricola (Apr 27, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> FFS. This piece of shit thinks nothing of trotting out the most appalling assertions, without evidence or even the merest call for it from whoever is filiming this. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but what a cunt.



Exactly.  We have had nearly two years of talk from the likes of him about Momentum deselecting MPs, and now its the election time the only person in Labour openly trying to get rid of a serving Labour MP is Peter Mandelson.


----------



## bemused (Apr 27, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Sturgeon gets far too easy a time for the yawning chasm between her amd her governments rhetoric and reality. Plenty feel the same, would be a tragedy if the repulsive ruth davidson were to be the beneficiary.



Sturgeon vs Davidson is the best double act in British politics at the moment, they have some great scraps.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Am not sure the Scots give a flying feck what Dugdale has to say about anything, and can't blame them tbh.
> 
> And Corbo's best leaving it all well alone imo, his predecessors destroyed Lab in Scot over decades, will take a long time to repair


Yes, the sensible strategy would be for Labour to pretty much forget Scotland this election. As you say it will take years to re-build (if such is possible at all), far better to pour resources into English/Welsh marginals.


----------



## oryx (Apr 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> Exactly.  We have had nearly two years of talk from the likes of him about Momentum deselecting MPs, and now its the election time the only person in Labour openly trying to get rid of a serving Labour MP is Peter Mandelson.



Cohen says: '...before he became leader the LP was a relatively civil place..'. Bollocks. I recently read 'The End Of The Party' by his fellow journo Andrew Rawnsley which showed this as being far from the case, with a personality war going on between Blair and Brown. Maybe he should have a read & remind himself that a LP with the right/'centrist' faction in the ascendant was not all the current right 'centrist' faction are cracking it up to be...


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 28, 2017)

Looks like the main unions and watson have stitched the selections up in so called safe seats (tbc on june 8) .As yet no sign of Jeremy fans getting selected apart from maybe NW Durham.Karie Murphy,Sam Tarry,Dave Prescott not mentioned or selected.Committee under strong pressure from Burnham not to slect Katy Clark ,jezzas political secretary ,in Leigh.

The torch will only pass from JC to JM with a rule change methinketh.

Updated: The winners, runners and riders for the vacancies in 13 Labour seats | LabourList


----------



## treelover (Apr 28, 2017)

oryx said:


> Cohen says: '...before he became leader the LP was a relatively civil place..'. Bollocks. I recently read 'The End Of The Party' by his fellow journo Andrew Rawnsley which showed this as being far from the case, with a personality war going on between Blair and Brown. Maybe he should have a read & remind himself that a LP with the right/'centrist' faction in the ascendant was not all the current right 'centrist' faction are cracking it up to be...



Cohen wrote a book himself which documented the nastiness and dirty dealings during the Blair years.


----------



## agricola (Apr 28, 2017)

treelover said:


> Cohen wrote a book himself which documented the nastiness and dirty dealings during the Blair years.



... carried out by most of the people who are doing it to Corbyn now.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 28, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> So Jeremy shit himself at the prospect of being in a debate with Tim Farron. Giving up a chance to get in front of a large TV audience and to get stuck into May with no comeback. Spineless cunt needs to fuck off back to the back benches where he belongs. His referendum performance was so bad people thought it was deliberate. Seem they were wrong, he is that slow of thought and devoid of energy.
> 
> I remember when I used to think the left was where all the brightest and most energetic people were. There is more life in a fresh corpse than this shitfest we have been served up so far. Still at least Urban 75 can look forward with glee to all the seats Labour will loose.



Nah, Milliband was faced with the same situation - a "debate" where Cameron didn't turn up - and it turned into all the other parties vs him. It would be the same with Corbyn or indeed any other Labour leader. He made the right decision even though it doesn't look like it at first glance.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 28, 2017)

scifisam said:


> Nah, Milliband was faced with the same situation - a "debate" where Cameron didn't turn up - and it turned into all the other parties vs him. It would be the same with Corbyn or indeed any other Labour leader. He made the right decision even though it doesn't look like it at first glance.



Agreed - in the same way that I don't think there was anything in it for May to do one, I don't think there's any advantage to Corbyn in doing one either.

Personally I don't think they add anything to the election - one-on-one interviews do, and the 'town hall' debates do, but half a dozen of them just slagging each other off like ferrets in a sack provides nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2017)

entertainment. It provides entertainment of a kind. The clegg/broon/cameron ones were a laugh a minute


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 28, 2017)

scifisam said:


> Nah, Milliband was faced with the same situation - a "debate" where Cameron didn't turn up - and it turned into all the other parties vs him. It would be the same with Corbyn or indeed any other Labour leader. He made the right decision even though it doesn't look like it at first glance.


It doesn't like it at any glance IMO, he's already getting shat on from all corners. What has he got to lose?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> It doesn't like it at any glance IMO, he's already getting shat on from all corners. What has he got to lose?



There's always a worse. You should know that...

Farron might well do well - ala Clegg - in TV debates with Corbyn. Corbyn has a very delicate, and very difficult, balancing act to manage over Brexit, where Farron doesn't - Corbyn simply doesn't need a potential banana skin, it's unlikely to do him much good even if he does well and could do lots of harm.


----------



## killer b (Apr 28, 2017)

Does anyone give a shit about Corbyn not doing the debate without May? He's right not to - it's pretty pointless - and in her absence it'll all be about digging into him. Fuck that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2017)

his ex press secretary seems optimistic about labours chances here:
Inside Corbyn’s Office | Jacobin


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does anyone give a shit about Corbyn not doing the debate without May? He's right not to - it's pretty pointless - and in her absence it'll all be about digging into him. Fuck that.


with her it would be all about digging into him


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 28, 2017)

I see the logic I guess. It's just he's damned whatever he does, or doesn't do.


----------



## chilango (Apr 28, 2017)

Nah. Corbyn (and Labour) need to take on, and take out, the Lib Dems, the Greens etc. if they want to be in a position to contest the Tories. May's absence would've provided a platform to do this.


----------



## killer b (Apr 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> with her it would be all about digging into him


Perhaps. He's good at that kind of thing though. That's why she won't do it.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> Nah. Corbyn (and Labour) need to take on, and take out, the Lib Dems, the Greens etc. if they want to be in a position to contest the Tories. May's absence would've provided a platform to do this.



The argument is good in theory, but it would rely on Labour having good, convincing communicators who can do the cut and thrust. If Corbyn has problems landing hits on May - who is awful at that stuff - he stands no chance against people like Sturgeon, Farron or Lucas.

Barry Gardiner is proving good at this stuff, Yvette Cooper can do it, but Kier Starmer is wooden, McDonnell can be baited into losing his rag, but the rest are just woeful.


----------



## chilango (Apr 28, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The argument is good in theory, but it would rely on Labour having good, convincing communicators who can do the cut and thrust. If Corbyn has problems landing hits on May - who is awful at that stuff - he stands no chance against people like Sturgeon, Farron or Lucas.
> 
> Barry Gardiner is proving good at this stuff, Yvette Cooper can do it, but Kier Starmer is wooden, McDonnell can be baited into losing his rag, but the rest are just woeful.



Corbyn should be eating Lucas and Farron for breakfast. They can't attack him "from the left". He can be Mr nice guy and neither can play the nasty guy role against him.


----------



## Old Spark (Apr 28, 2017)

Jo Platt selected for Leigh to replace Burnham.

Jo Platt selected for Leigh after strong Burnham backing | LabourList


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does anyone give a shit about Corbyn not doing the debate without May? He's right not to - it's pretty pointless - and in her absence it'll all be about digging into him. Fuck that.


I don't give a shit I just think it's a missed opportunity to bash Farron, and May.


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 28, 2017)

I think he should do them whatever, and use every opportunity to talk to camera unmediated.


----------



## Rimbaud (Apr 29, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> FFS. This piece of shit thinks nothing of trotting out the most appalling assertions, without evidence or even the merest call for it from whoever is filiming this. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but what a cunt.



I really fucking can't stand Nick Cohen and his faux "intrepid left critic of the left" shtick. It says a lot that he never, ever, talks about Corbyn's economic policies (the main attraction he has to his supporters) but is monomaniacally obsessed with foreign policy and his one trick pony idea of the left becoming anti-left through obsessive anti-imperialism. He does have a valid point in there, but he is incapable or recognising any nuance or seeing that the left is not represented in its entirety by the STWC. And why is Corbyn beyond the pale for being allegedly an IRA sympathiser, but all the Tories supportive of the UDF etc are not? His moral absolutism on this seems to disappear when it comes to his support for the Iraq war too, which today is basically indefensible.

It is just the smugness of him acting like he has higher principles than the rest of the left, when in reality he is just a bit set in his opinions and jingoistic.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 29, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Labour have been in decline since the early 2000s, culminating in losing the 2010 election. Then turning to a 'less hard and fast' right austerity agenda to desperately stay in power. And that failed to stop the decline too which is why we've had turmoil in Labour since and why Corbyn got elected leader twice because the alternatives were also on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the media/press don't help, but the problem is mainly to be laid on the party having abandoned its working class and its pursuing of the same neoliberal policies that haven't radically differed from the Tories or Lib Dems over the years. Labour's shift to the centre, and to the right was always going to result in this. And prior to Corbyn, it was as much invested in cuts as the Tories (not to say that Corbyn is some magic socialist either - try telling that to communities fucked over by Labour councils). An electable Labour party now will still only stop some of the death of public services, because it's simply not invested in protecting public services anymore without an element of private investment and involvement. Ironically, if/when the inevitable shift back to the right/progress of the party happens when Corbyn gets ousted, it'll be even less wedded to protecting publicly owned services.



Labour need to attract more than just the working class vote (if there still is such a thing). Even_ if_ working class support was the key to Labour being in government again, why have they twice chosen a leader whom the working class clearly don’t like?

As I said, there is still a vast anti tory centre-left electorate out there which if anything outnumbers tory voters. They’ve voted Labour before and they would do again. I’m yet to hear of another viable way of ousting the tories on here or anywhere else.

Labour were not as you say 'as much invested in cuts as the tories before Corbyn', I posted stats on here a couple of weeks ago which show that even under Blair and Brown the % of GDP spent on the NHS and healthcare had risen to average EU levels by 2009 but has now almost halved under the tories.

There’s little if no appetite for PFI anywhere in the Labour Party now. Even Owen Smith made clear his opposition to anything other than “a 100% publicly funded NHS” during his leadership campaign.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> It may not have been dying, but it was clearly in need of urgent care - not to repeat things that have already been said loads of times before, but they did lose two elections, and Scotland, most of the membership and were under increasing pressure across the North and in Wales.  It is hard to see how any of the other three 2015 candidates - or indeed anyone else in the PLP from those factions - would have reversed that trend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, I can’t take seriously the notion that Labour is _more_ electable under Corbyn.

As a lifelong unilateralist I agree with you about Trident, but even Corbyn now seems to realise that a policy of scrapping nukes would certainly make Labour unelectable.

I genuinely hope Labour do well this election by the way and I shall probably vote for them.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 29, 2017)

So you'll be voting Labour and supporting them in this election, then Andrew?

Good lad!

Wouldn't want to go slagging off Jezza left right and most certainly centre in the hopes that a crushing defeat can get people like Owen _"*PFI*zer-never 'eard of it"_ Smith on the front benches, would we?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? Go back and quote where I have said, suggested or intimated that. I'll save you time: you won't find a post of mine saying that because I never did. You made it up. In other words it's a lie.



You said that revolution is a way of changing government undemocratically (most recently in post 16655) and I repeatedly asked you if you thought it was a viable way of changing government here in the UK. Perhaps you would have saved yourself a lot of angst if you’d made clear from the start that it was not instead of hiding behind obscure Biblical proverbs about dog vomit and your usual personal abuse.


----------



## mikey mikey (Apr 29, 2017)

Lest we forget...


> As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizers funding of the Blairite right wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 29, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> I really fucking can't stand Nick Cohen and his faux "intrepid left critic of the left" shtick. It says a lot that he never, ever, talks about Corbyn's economic policies (the main attraction he has to his supporters) but is monomaniacally obsessed with foreign policy and his one trick pony idea of the left becoming anti-left through obsessive anti-imperialism. He does have a valid point in there, but he is incapable or recognising any nuance or seeing that the left is not represented in its entirety by the STWC. And why is Corbyn beyond the pale for being allegedly an IRA sympathiser, but all the Tories supportive of the UDF etc are not? His moral absolutism on this seems to disappear when it comes to his support for the Iraq war too, which today is basically indefensible.
> 
> It is just the smugness of him acting like he has higher principles than the rest of the left, when in reality he is just a bit set in his opinions and jingoistic.


Actually what offends me most is more fundamental and basic. 

I am living in a society that has collapsed. As someone with depression and anxiety I find this election and the likely dismal outcome utterly and increasingly terrifying. Now, perhaps I am naive, but I happen to think that Corbyn is a necessity because the alternative is that terrifying. Five more years of untrammelled misery at the hands of a noxious elite that are on record as laughing at the poor while they starve and suffer, is unthinkable. It is beyond unthinkable, in fact. It is positively suicidal.

Now, that may seem to some, as it does to tory voters, to be histrionic melodrama. That's fine, we are living in a desensitised age where simple community is nonsensical to that elite, and its supporters.

So to me, to hear some rat faced shrivel minded intellectual goon spew these vile accusations - vommitted without the slightest recourse to evidence - not just utterly repellant, but highly toxic. This is the discourse: never mind Corbyn, what chance does anyone have against that? What chance do we have to shape a better society against scum like that who happily resort to this kind of irresponsible shit?

Perhaps I'm just desperately naive. I'm well aware how nasty the right behaves, but seeing this shit in action is no less sickening. 

What a thoroughly unpleasant world I find myself in.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 29, 2017)

sorry for link but this could be a vote winner imo

Jeremy Corbyn would legalise cannabis for medicinal use


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You said that revolution is a way of changing government undemocratically (most recently in post 16655) and I repeatedly asked you if you thought it was a viable way of changing government here in the UK. Perhaps you would have saved yourself a lot of angst if you’d made clear from the start that it was not instead of hiding behind obscure Biblical proverbs about dog vomit and your usual personal abuse.


Yeh. You've been caught out in a lie, I asked you to quote me and you haven't. A simple 'I'm sorry and I won't do it again' will suffice as your apology. Just say that and let's move on.


----------



## Rimbaud (Apr 30, 2017)

The Labour Party's polling has started to improve recently, moving up from from the mid 20s to the low 30s. Incidentally, for all the bleating about Corbyn being a disaster, the Labour Party's polling isn't really much different right now to what it was pre-Corbyn. UKIP voters returning to the Tories seems to be the main reason for their huge lead at the moment, not Corbyn.

I wonder, if something happens to make May look foolish in the next month, and if Labour utilise their superior manpower to run a smart campaign, if some of Scotland returns to Labour, and if there is higher than usual turnout from Labour voters, it is conceivable that Corbyn could outperform Miliband, who got only 30％ of the vote share. In fact I'd say that this is quite likely. While this won't be enough to win the election because of the UKIP vote returning to the Tories, it would validate Corbyn's platform and be a crushing blow to the Blairites in the media and in the party.

e2a: In fact, if Corbyn can get 35％ of the vote share, totally within the realms of possibility based on current polling and assuming that Corbyn supporters are more motivated to get out and vote, that would be Labour's best result since 2001.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 30, 2017)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> skeletor in a skinsuit these days. That's the nice lighting flattering photo the groan are running with because they love Tony lots. Other photos have him a lot more haggard. Sublimated guilt maybe



Personally, I reckon that the convert Tony Blair has gone a bit _Opus Dei_, and taken to fasting, and wearing a hair shirt.


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> View attachment 105647 View attachment 105648
> 
> The Labour Party's polling has started to improve recently, moving up from from the mid 20s to the low 30s. Incidentally, for all the bleating about Corbyn being a disaster, the Labour Party's polling isn't really much different right now to what it was pre-Corbyn. UKIP voters returning to the Tories seems to be the main reason for their huge lead at the moment, not Corbyn.
> 
> ...



They are mobilising lots of people for canvassing, etc, but it is exam time for students who would normally make up a fair bit of this support, so will be a bit reduced.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I reckon that the convert Tony Blair has gone a bit _Opus Dei_, and taken to fasting, and wearing a hair shirt.



I find it very difficult to believe Tony Blair would prostrate himself to any being, apart from himself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2017)

agricola said:


> I find it very difficult to believe Tony Blair would prostrate himself to any being, apart from himself.



I'm sure, given his previous wrigglings, that Blair could convince himself he was prostrating before an avatar of Tony Blair.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I reckon that the convert Tony Blair has gone a bit _Opus Dei_, and taken to fasting, and wearing a hair shirt.


You jest of course, but they do have a track record of recruiting his type. And he even had one of them in his cabinet, if memory serves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> You jest of course, but they do have a track record of recruiting his type. And he even had one of them in his cabinet, if memory serves.



Ruth Kelly.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ruth Kelly.


Gesundheit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Gesundheit.



Wielen danke!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 30, 2017)

I don't think he converted I recon he was a secret catholic _the whole time_. Kept a priest in the wine cellar at No 10


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 30, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't think he converted I recon he was a secret catholic _the whole time_. Kept a priest in the wine cellar at No 10


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I reckon that the convert Tony Blair has gone a bit _Opus Dei_, and taken to fasting, and wearing a hair shirt.



Hoping his calling can provide the divine absolution he craves as he will never receive redemption for his crimes from man.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2017)

General election 2017: Tony Blair promises to 'get my hands dirty' – politics live

Labour is now offering a robust renters charter,(scroll down) if young people don't vote now(though many others are affected) and for Labour, then when will they?


----------



## Who PhD (May 1, 2017)

treelover said:


> General election 2017: Tony Blair promises to 'get my hands dirty' – politics live
> 
> Labour is now offering a robust renters charter,(scroll down) if young people don't vote now(though many others are affected) and for Labour, then when will they?


Oh NOW he gets his hands dirty.

Because they were so clean during the Iraq war.

FFS


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2017)

> Corbyn has been speaking in south London on the campaign trail about the renters’ rights policy announcement unveiled by the Labour party overnight.
> 
> Labour’s shadow secretary of state for housing, John Healey, who appeared along Corbyn this morning in Battersea, said his party would commit to new minimum standards to help renters “call time on bad landlords”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grandma Death (May 1, 2017)

Political polls and propaganda: the writing on the wall

Not sure if this has been posted. Pretty good read


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You've been caught out in a lie, I asked you to quote me and you haven't. A simple 'I'm sorry and I won't do it again' will suffice as your apology. Just say that and let's move on.



Your quote:



Pickman's model said:


> ...I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution*.*



From that, I asked you at least three times if you thought revolution was a viable way of changing government here in the UK before you finally accepted that it wasn’t. If you refuse to make yourself clear, how are others supposed to know what caveats you put on your own assertions?

So if not revolution, how do you propose we can save essential public services from tory oblivion?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Your quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice to see you admit you're a liar. On your way now


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Nice to see you admit you're a liar. On your way now



Where have I done that?

I'm not a liar, you however are a fraud. Can you answer the question or not?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Where have I done that?
> 
> I'm not a liar, you however are a fraud. Can you answer the question or not?


Which question?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Which question?



Now there are two questions:

1. Where did I lie?
2. How do you think we can get rid of the tories and save public services?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So people like Big Tom are wasting their time trying to shift public opinion?
> 
> Do you have a way of changing government which doesn’t involve democracy??


of changing government.

do you see that? OF CHANGING GOVERNMENT. it is a general question, not 'do you have a way of changing government _which is viable in the uk in the current political context_'.

so i answered the question asked and you haven't understood what's been going on since then you daft twat.

this correspondence is now closed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Now there are two questions:
> 
> 1. Where did I lie?


in posts _passim_ since 10 march





> 2. How do you think we can get rid of the tories and save public services?


why are you changing the question from one post to the next?

E2A: don't bother answering, can't be dealing with your lies and nonsense any more


----------



## Sprocket. (May 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this correspondence is now closed.



Oh no it isn't!


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2017)

John McDonnell speaking under an assad regime flag yesterday:

`


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2017)

They all look rather glum 


butchersapron said:


> John McDonnell speaking under an assad regime flag yesterday:
> 
> ` View attachment 105783


----------



## treelover (May 2, 2017)

Going through the motions, John should have stayed away, its a hostage to fortune.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 2, 2017)

CPGB-ML's participation in Mayday in London is a major reason why people don't go, no-one wants to march beside a giant Stalin banner (McDonnell's lucky that wasn't up there as well).


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

fucking hell, that is unsubtle


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> CPGB-ML's participation in Mayday in London is a major reason why people don't go, no-one wants to march beside a giant Stalin banner (McDonnell's lucky that wasn't up there as well).


It was around:


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2017)

treelover said:


> Going through the motions, John should have stayed away, its a hostage to fortune.


Yeh. Not he but it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 2, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> CPGB-ML's participation in Mayday in London is a major reason why people don't go, no-one wants to march beside a giant Stalin banner (McDonnell's lucky that wasn't up there as well).



I was looking at the May Day activities in the West Midlands yesterday and there is a weighty Stalinist presecne here as well if the speakers at the events are anythign to go by. 

Part of the problem is that once these things become hollowed out - i.e. once the Labour movement lost it's relevance to people - the presence of these types of crank becomes more visible


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> CPGB-ML's participation in Mayday in London is a major reason why people don't go, no-one wants to march beside a giant Stalin banner (McDonnell's lucky that wasn't up there as well).


No one wants to go because it's boring


----------



## Wilf (May 2, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> View attachment 105647 View attachment 105648
> 
> The Labour Party's polling has started to improve recently, moving up from from the mid 20s to the low 30s. Incidentally, for all the bleating about Corbyn being a disaster, the Labour Party's polling isn't really much different right now to what it was pre-Corbyn. UKIP voters returning to the Tories seems to be the main reason for their huge lead at the moment, not Corbyn.
> 
> ...


With regard to the last couple of days, I'll grant you there have been a couple of better polls, but that's just not the case in terms of the comparison.

From the 2015 Gen election to just before JC elected: Con leads were between 4% and 14%
Looking at the last 10 days i.e. since the election announced: Con leads were between 11% and 25%
Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia

No real point predicting elections, all the usual problems with polls etc. However I think you are reaching with this idea of Labour finding their way to 35%  But in a way it doesn't matter. The Tories are going to be well ahead of Labour and even further ahead in terms of seats.  And that's the way the discussion will go after the election, it will be portrayed as a wipeout, even if he does get something like the same % vote as Miliband (who of course resigned after his 31% showing and getting within 7% of the Tory %).  Yes, things may happen in the next few weeks, but there's no good reason to think they will.  Hope I'm wrong of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No one wants to go because it's boring


they should do facepainting, sword swallowing and have bands. Giant pictures of stalin, assad flags and politicians doing speeches? Thats not doing it right.

hog roast as well


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No one wants to go because it's boring



It's boring - and excluding - because it's been hollowed out and captured by Stalinist loons and other cobweb left acts. 

Given one of Coryn's ideas is to extend the number of bank holidays,you would have hoped for a more imaginative May Day this year instead of the usual bankrupt tropes.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> John McDonnell speaking under an assad regime flag yesterday:
> 
> ` View attachment 105783



McDonnell and Corbyn have frittered away their political capital on such daftness.


----------



## chilango (May 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> McDonnell and Corbyn have frittered away their political capital on such daftness.



No, they haven't.


----------



## Wilf (May 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> they should do facepainting, sword swallowing and have bands. Giant pictures of stalin, assad flags and politicians doing speeches? Thats not doing it right.
> 
> hog roast as well


----------



## Idris2002 (May 2, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I was looking at the May Day activities in the West Midlands yesterday and there is a weighty Stalinist presecne here as well if the speakers at the events are anythign to go by.
> 
> Part of the problem is that once these things become hollowed out - i.e. once the Labour movement lost it's relevance to people - the presence of these types of crank becomes more visible


I went down to the May Day thing on the Marktplatz here, and it was all points of the compass from CDU to PKK. But the emphasis seemed to be on a fun day out for families with kids. Or grandparents and grandchildren, more likely.


----------



## 74drew (May 2, 2017)

Keeps getting taken down but very good allround.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 2, 2017)

if you want to go Stalinist - at least give it a bit of _*oomph*_


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> if you want to go Stalinist - at least give it a bit of _*oomph*_


the korean means 'happy birthday pickman's model'


----------



## agricola (May 2, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> if you want to go Stalinist - at least give it a bit of _*oomph*_



Nothing says the irresistible march of the working class more than a forty foot high cut-out of a bloke blowing a horn stuck atop of a building.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2017)

> Corbyn may have won the party’s leadership handsomely twice over, but insiders say that the leader of the opposition’s office – or “Loto”, as it is known in party parlance – has never really lost a sense of siege. They would add that there is some justification for that. Matt Zarb-Cousin, who recently stepped down as Corbyn’s spokesman, told the US magazine Jacobin this week – just as the election campaign cranks into gear *– that Labour party staff habitually handed sensitive information to the press to destabilise the leadership.*
> 
> “There were endless leaks from Southside, which makes it incredibly difficult to function in a professional way,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would be able to under those conditions.”
> 
> General election 2017: John McDonnell accuses Tories of 'lies' on Labour spending plans – politics live



Appalling if correct.


----------



## mauvais (May 3, 2017)

Bloody Corbyn. What next, no warships for the RAF?


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2017)

of all the things to criticise that poster for, the technical difference between the army and the air force seems low on the list.

I liked this one myself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 3, 2017)

> S*n columnist Kelvin MacKenzie has caused outrage after telling a journalist “Jeremy Corbyn knifed to death by asylum seeker” would be his ideal newspaper headline.



Kelvin MacKenzie says ‘Corbyn knifed to death’ would be most joyful headline


----------



## mauvais (May 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> of all the things to criticise that poster for, the technical difference between the army and the air force seems low on the list.
> 
> I liked this one myself.


It's the best I've got. I think it's too confusingly and multifacetedly shit to form a coherent criticism. The bombshell bit almost inspires _Carry On_ style raised eyebrows but it's just not close enough.

This is the real menace of the Tories, I reckon.


----------



## rekil (May 3, 2017)

A campaign consisting of nothing but huge 'One Big Workers Bomb For Your Family' billboards is worth at least 20 points to Corbyn in the polls.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 3, 2017)

Pro both Corbyn and an alliance of progressives.


----------



## Who PhD (May 4, 2017)

So apparently Kelvin MacCunt actually did say that the fake news he'd like to see would be regarding an asylum seeker stabbing Corbyn to death.

What the actual fuck.

How have we sunk to this?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 4, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So apparently Kelvin MacCunt actually did say that the fake news he'd like to see would be regarding an asylum seeker stabbing Corbyn to death.
> 
> What the actual fuck.
> 
> How have we sunk to this?



Give it six months he'll be blubbing that he had a 'breakdown' and someone will be daft enough to let him make a documentary.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 4, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So apparently Kelvin MacCunt actually did say that the fake news he'd like to see would be regarding an asylum seeker stabbing Corbyn to death.
> 
> What the actual fuck.
> 
> How have we sunk to this?



Give it six months he'll be blubbing that he had a 'breakdown' and someone will be daft enough to let him make a documentary.


----------



## Who PhD (May 4, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Give it six months he'll be blubbing that he had a 'breakdown' and someone will be daft enough to let him make a documentary.


Doubtful. He's a remorseless belligerent bully who thrives in this sickness we call society. He's enjoyed that position for decades. He will always find someone somewhere to air his views and pay his way. 

At what point does this change?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 4, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So apparently Kelvin MacCunt actually did say that the fake news he'd like to see would be regarding an asylum seeker stabbing Corbyn to death.
> 
> What the actual fuck.
> 
> How have we sunk to this?


 
He is an arsewipe - but where is the outrage or the sanctions from his paymasters ?  Outside broadly partisan political outlets, I have seen it mentioned but reaction is a bit meh.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2017)

Doubt Labour will care, if it does anything it will help them.


----------



## Who PhD (May 4, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> He is an arsewipe - but where is the outrage or the sanctions from his paymasters ?  Outside broadly partisan political outlets, I have seen it mentioned but reaction is a bit meh.


Nowhere, they clearly share his views - people like him are their mouthpieces. He says what they (by which they'd like to infer society as a whole) believe.


----------



## The Pale King (May 4, 2017)

Hate-filled nihilism all the rage these days


----------



## Who PhD (May 4, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Hate-filled nihilism all the rage these days


So true


----------



## Mr Moose (May 4, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Hate-filled nihilism all the rage these days



Yes, but what about away from U75?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2017)

course if it had been the other way round, say a momentum bod saying that about TM, well he'd be tried under the Jo Cox act and thrown in chokey


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2017)

TBF I've thought and said worse about the likes of Mckenzie.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> in posts _passim_ since 10 marchwhy are you changing the question from one post to the next?
> 
> E2A: don't bother answering, can't be dealing with your lies and nonsense any more





Pickman's model said:


> of changing government.
> 
> do you see that? OF CHANGING GOVERNMENT. it is a general question, not 'do you have a way of changing government _which is viable in the uk in the current political context_'.
> 
> so i answered the question asked and you haven't understood what's been going on since then you daft twat. this correspondence is now closed.



Good grief! You keep on replying but never manage to actually say anything.

My question hasn't changed: How do we get rid of the tories and save public services?

Corbyn's leadership has failed, (and you’ve finally ruled out ‘undemocratic means’ or 'revolution' after a month or more of blather), so what other options are there? Most people don't want this tory dismantling of state funded education and healthcare, so why aren't they rallying behind Corbyn?

The only viable solution is that the Labour Party makes itself electable again by appealing to centre/left voters. They'll need to start that process on June 9th, because in a couple more years it may be too late. (And no, that doesn’t mean I want a return to Blair and PFI).


----------



## mikey mikey (May 4, 2017)




----------



## YouSir (May 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Good grief! You keep on replying but never manage to actually say anything.
> 
> My question hasn't changed: How do we get rid of the tories and save public services?
> 
> ...



Out of curiosity, what policies do you think the 'Centre/Left' desires?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Hate-filled nihilism all the rage these days



To be fair, it's so much more rewarding than joy-filled optimism.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 4, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Out of curiosity, what policies do you think the 'Centre/Left' desires?



A nice shiny brogue stamping on a human face. Forever.


----------



## stethoscope (May 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My question hasn't changed: How do we get rid of the tories and save public services?



You can't by voting for Labour that ousts a vaguely left leader and then shifts to the right. It's been said many times and the answer hasn't changed either.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My question hasn't changed: How do we get rid of the tories and save public services?


And that's it - get rid of the Tories. Red not blue, and signing up to Labour (or even worse the LibDems) forever in the name of lesser evilism.


----------



## kebabking (May 4, 2017)

If anyone is remotely interested, the clerks at my polling station - Worcestershire county council elections -  thought that turn-out was definitely higher than average.

Not referendum or GE levels, but higher than standard county/district council elections.

That was at 8.30pm, so a decent sample.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 4, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So apparently Kelvin MacCunt actually did say that the fake news he'd like to see would be regarding an asylum seeker stabbing Corbyn to death.
> 
> What the actual fuck.
> 
> How have we sunk to this?


According to Popbitch today, he's already been sacked anyway, a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Who PhD (May 4, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> According to Popbitch today, he's already been sacked anyway, a couple of weeks ago.


I don't know if he was sacked. Last i heard he was 'suspended'.

Either way it's not enough. If I had my way he'd be thrown off a fucking cliff into the channel.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 4, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I don't know if he was sacked. Last i heard he was 'suspended'.
> 
> Either way it's not enough. If I had my way he'd be thrown off a fucking cliff into the channel.


He wasn't sacked for that (it hadn't happened yet) - he was gone anyway, just sitting around the office running his internet business. Allegedly.


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> John McDonnell speaking under an assad regime flag yesterday:
> 
> ` View attachment 105783


the Kinder Gentler International

nice Labour are scum


----------



## mikey mikey (May 5, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> A nice shiny brogue stamping on a human face. Forever.



_None of us here are centre or centre left and nobody thinks what you think they believe and anyway nobody in Labour is really centre or centre left and you are parodying nothing but your own paranoia _[/standard moderate reponse to parody about moderates]


----------



## Mr Moose (May 5, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _None of us here are centre or centre left and nobody thinks what you think they believe and anyway nobody in Labour is really centre or centre left and you are parodying nothing but your own paranoia _[/standard moderate reponse to parody about moderates]



You wot?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 5, 2017)

Nothing. That message does not exist. Tony is not a Blairite and the term "moderates" is a slur that Corbynistabots throw at [fill in with current appropriate and acceptable appellation] Labour MPs.


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2017)

put a sock in it


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

inva said:


> the Kinder Gentler International
> 
> nice Labour are scum


Assad Regime flag?

Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Assad Regime flag?
> 
> Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?


Not when it's waved by a bunch of Stalinist shits, no.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Assad Regime flag?
> 
> Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?



The Union Flag doesn't represent me.

I'm happy for people to call it a "regime" flag.


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Assad Regime flag?
> 
> Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?


no, I don't think it might. what do you think it represents?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Assad Regime flag?
> 
> Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?


It's the flag of the regime that's killed tens of thousands of civilians via barrel bombing and airstrikes, that hung 10 000+ political opponents as the revolution gathered pace, that practices mass torture and rape on the 10s of thousand political opponents that it currently holds hostage in it's prisons, that starves towns and cities that oppose all the above - the regime that has threatened and acted on the slogan _Assad or the country burns. 
_
So no, i don't think it was there meaning anything but support for those actions and the wish for the principal designer of these policies to win by using them. To represent that approval and endorsement. Certainly not to _represent the people.
_


----------



## Raheem (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Assad Regime flag?
> 
> Don't you think that might represent the people in Syria, not solely the leader?



In the context of the civil war, it's apparently considered a partisan flag.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> The Union Flag doesn't represent me.
> 
> I'm happy for people to call it a "regime" flag.



isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?

Personally I hate flags and I hate nationalism, but I'm not going to infer from the presence of the Syrian flag that John McDonnell is pro-Assad, that's ridiculous!


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It's the flag of the regime that's killed tens of thousands of civilians via barrel bombing and airstrikes, that hung 10 000+ political opponents as the revolution gathered pace, that practices mass torture and rape on the 10s of thousand political opponents that it currently holds hostage in it's prisons, that starves towns and cities that oppose all the above - the regime that has threatened and acted on the slogan _Assad or the country burns.
> _
> So no, i don't think it was there meaning anything but support for those actions and the wish for the principal designer of these policies to win by using them. To represent that approval and endorsement. Certainly not to _represent the people._


I'm not defending the Assad regime. More to the point, I see no evidence that JM is either.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?
> 
> Personally I hate flags and I hate nationalism, but I'm not going to infer from the presence of the Syrian flag that John McDonnell is pro-Assad, that's ridiculous!


No, that's not what that flag means - it means that you support one side over another. As would carrying this flag:


----------



## Raheem (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?
> 
> Personally I hate flags and I hate nationalism, but I'm not going to infer from the presence of the Syrian flag that John McDonnell is pro-Assad, that's ridiculous!



I doubt he designed the backdrop anyway. It mainly shows that he's not too fussed about what he stands in front of, I think.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

inva said:


> no, I don't think it might. what do you think it represents?


What I think is irrelevant, it's what JMcD thinks that's pertinent.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's not what that flag means - it means that you support one side over another. As would carrying this flag:



I've no idea what that flag is


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?!



Which people?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I'm not defending the Assad regime. More to the point, I see no evidence that JM is either.


I'm telling you what that flag means and what is behind the flying of it as you seemed unaware. I'm not saying that you support the assad regime. It doesn't mean what you think - that's all.

JM knows what it means as well. That's probably why he made sure it was not in his tweet of the pictures of the speech. But he knew when he made that speech and he could have asked for its removal. The london-labour-union left is riddled with these assad regime supporting stalinists and red-brown and conspiracy types.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

Raheem said:


> In the context of the civil war, it's apparently considered a partisan flag.


I think it's more likely a short hand for showing solidarity with the people. I've seen nothing that makes me think McDonnell supports Assad. If someone has evidence to the contrary I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm not going to condemn the guy like this just because he's standing next to the Syrian flag, that's completely over the top


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I've no idea what that flag is


Then you've made my point.


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> isn't it just an easy way to assert solidarity with the people - just by showing the flag of that country?
> 
> Personally I hate flags and I hate nationalism, but I'm not going to infer from the presence of the Syrian flag that John McDonnell is pro-Assad, that's ridiculous!


so you think flying the regime flag was showing solidarity with the Syrians who are fighting the regime?


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm telling you what that flag means and what is behind the flying of it as you seemed unaware. I'm not saying that you support the assad regime. It doesn't mean what you think - that's all.
> 
> JM knows what it means as well. That's probably why he made sure it was not in his tweet of the pictures of the speech. But he knew when he made that speech and he could have asked for its removal. The london-labour-union left is riddled with these assad regime supporting stalinists and red-brown and conspiracy types.



You didn't say which flag that was. I've never seen that before. 

If you have evidence, beyond this supposition, that JmD supports Assad then I'm happy to look at it. Pointing to him as standing next to a flag and drawing an inferrence is not evidence. 



chilango said:


> Which people?



The Syrian people.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> You didn't say which flag that was. I've never seen that before.
> 
> If you have evidence, beyond this supposition, that JmD supports Assad then I'm happy to look at it. Pointing to him as standing next to a flag and drawing an inferrence is not evidence.
> 
> ...


It's the flag of the FSA - if you've never seen it before that would go some way to explaining why you don't realise what flying the regime flag means politically.

What supposition that JM supports the assad regime? I said that he was happy to speak in front it despite knowing what it stands for. As it goes, i think his position on assad is better than most of the labour-left leadership - corbyn in particular.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Then you've made my point.


How so? 



inva said:


> so you think flying the regime flag was showing solidarity with the Syrians who are fighting the regime?



No, I simply think that John is trying to show support for the victims of the civil war, particularly comrades he perhaps personally knows within trying to stay alive. I've seen nothing that compels me to think he supports Assad and I see no reason to join in a witch hunt. Nor do I particularly care to be labelled the bad guy for thinking better of someone than it appears others do.

If I'm wrong, then I'm happy to see the evidence. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be made the bad guy in this thread for making a perfectly reasonable statement.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> How so?



Because it's the flag of the FSA - if you've never seen it before that would go some way to explaining why you don't realise what flying the regime flag means politically.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

[QUOTE="Who PhD, post: 15049485, member: 73808]
The Syrian people.[/QUOTE]

What, all of them?


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It's the flag of the FSA - if you've never seen it before that would go some way to explaining why you don't realise what flying the regime flag means politically.
> 
> What supposition that JM supports the assad regime? I said that he was happy to speak in front it despite knowing what it stands for. As it goes, i think his position on assad is better than most of the labour-left leadership - corbyn in particular.


fair enough.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Anyway, I dunno what he was playing at speaking at that rally. Anybody who's spent any time amongst the left knows what iffy politics are proudly on display there.


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you don't stand under the flag of one side if you're trying to show support or sympathy for the victims of the war as a whole.


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Anyway, I dunno what he was playing at speaking at that rally. Anybody who's spent any time amongst the left knows what iffy politics are proudly on display there.


playing at being a radical


----------



## Mr Moose (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Anyway, I dunno what he was playing at speaking at that rally. Anybody who's spent any time amongst the left knows what iffy politics are proudly on display there.



Using up his political capital unwisely?


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Using up his political capital unwisely?



What political capital? With who?


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Anyway, I dunno what he was playing at speaking at that rally. Anybody who's spent any time amongst the left knows what iffy politics are proudly on display there.


i imagine he was invited.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> i imagine he was invited.



So?

I was invited to the House of Lords not so long ago.

I declined the invitation.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> So?
> 
> I was invited to the House of Lords not so long ago.
> 
> I declined the invitation.


So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.


It was the annual mayday commemoration/march in london. The flags are supposed to represent the history celebration and future commitment to worker solidarity. Whether JM had anything to do with the flags pledging commitment to the exact opposite that were behind him when he delivered his speech or not he could have and should have asked for their removal before he spoke.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So? So what? If he was invited it means that they want him to speak. So he did. He probably had nothing to do with the flag display too.



He didn't have to accept.

He didn't have to speak with the Syrian and CPGB-ML flags framing him.

He didn't have to even attend the rally.

He chose to.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It was the annual mayday commemoration/march in london. The flags are supposed to represent the history celebration and future commitment to worker solidarity. Whether JM had anything to do with the flags pledging commitment to the exact opposite that were behind him when he delivered his speech or not he could have and should have asked for their removal before he spoke.



It's entirely possible that the organisers didn't know or don't believe this interpretation of the position of the Syrian flag. Maybe they should have, but i'm not prepared to throw the man under the bus because he didn't speak out.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> He didn't have to accept.
> 
> He didn't have to speak with the Syrian and COGB-ML flags framing him.
> 
> He chose to.


Indeed.

And because he chose to that must mean he's dishonest?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> It's entirely possible that the organisers didn't know or don't believe this interpretation of the position of the Syrian flag. Maybe they should have, but i'm not prepared to throw the man under the bus because he didn't speak out.


Every single organiser  - and JM - knew exactly what that flag means and what it represents politically. And he chose to speak with it there. The purpose of it being there was to suggest a wider commitment on the part of what's left of the labor movement to what it represents. By allowing it to stand when he spoke JM helped further this agenda.

Who is talking of throwing him under the bus? Is that all that political criticism can be? Is that really it  - full agreement or war to the death?


----------



## happie chappie (May 5, 2017)

McDonnell's explanation (from about 2.16 in)

BBC Radio 4 - Today, 05/05/2017


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Every single organiser  - and JM - knew exactly what that flag means and what it represents politically. And he chose to speak with it there. The purpose of it being there was to suggest a wider commitment on the part of what's left of the labor movement to what it represents. By allowing it to stand when he spoke JM helped further this agenda.
> 
> Who is talking of throwing him under the bus? Is that all that political criticism can be? Is that really it  - full agreement or war to the death?


Of course not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Of course not.


Then why on earth suggest that this is what the people you're responding to are doing?


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Then why on earth suggest that this is what the people you're responding to are doing?


It seemed that some were baying for his blood.


----------



## bluescreen (May 5, 2017)

happie chappie said:


> McDonnell's explanation (from about 2.16 in)
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - Today, 05/05/2017


Or in writing here: John McDonnell claims he didn't see these massive flags
In brief, he says he didn't know they were there, was appalled to discover it, and would have demanded they be removed if he had known.


----------



## Who PhD (May 5, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Or in writing here: John McDonnell claims he didn't see these massive flags
> In brief, he says he didn't know they were there, was appalled to discover it, and would have demanded they be removed if he had known.


Seems reasonable enough


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

happie chappie said:


> McDonnell's explanation (from about 2.16 in)
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - Today, 05/05/2017



So Mayday is a celebration of "workers' contributions to the economy" is it McDonnell?

That's the most fucking offensive bit yet!


----------



## bluescreen (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Seems reasonable enough


He knows what those flags mean and he knows what it signifies if he's seen to be standing in front of them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Well that puts paid to the notion that they were there to represent solidarity with the syrian people doesn't it - when JM attacks the flag and what it stands for!

As if, he didn't know or see anyway. Those people holding them are there to be visible and they make damn sure they are.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 5, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Or in writing here: John McDonnell claims he didn't see these massive flags
> In brief, he says he didn't know they were there, was appalled to discover it, and would have demanded they be removed if he had known.


a veteran left labour man didn't see the flags or know about the cpgb-ml involvement and what they are like? Ehhhh...


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

Fair play to him for not giving it any guff about _the labour movement being a broad church with many traditions that we have to respect elected govt blah blah_


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Well that puts paid to the notion that they were there to represent solidarity with the syrian people doesn't it - when JM attacks the flag and what it stands for!
> 
> As if, he didn't know or see anyway. Those people holding them are there to be visible and they make damn sure they are.



...and those kind of freaks are there every year. With their hammers and sickles and Stalin portraits.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> ...and those kind of freaks are there every year. With their hammers and sickles and Stalin portraits.


Yes, he's seen them every year for 40 years. It's the regime flag that's the grit here.


----------



## J Ed (May 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> ...and those kind of freaks are there every year. With their hammers and sickles and Stalin portraits.



I think that the Stalin portraits are incredible, where else do you see them? Surely even the Stalinists realise how awful they look to everyone?


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, he's seen them every year for 40 years. It's the regime flag that's the grit here.



...but not a surprising or unanticipated one.


----------



## rekil (May 5, 2017)

Let's get a gigantic crowdfunded PD banner behind him next year then.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 5, 2017)

copliker said:


> Let's get a gigantic crowdfunded PD banner behind him next year then.



There is no next year comrade.


----------



## chilango (May 5, 2017)

Another question to ask is what did he, or the Labour Left in general have to gain by appearing at this rally?


----------



## rekil (May 5, 2017)

"Yes Nick Robinson, I spoke in front of a 100 foot high banner depicting Lenin riding a workers bomb and I liked it"


----------



## bimble (May 5, 2017)

They have a quite amazing video on youtube, with some rap, and explaining how Stalin was a feminist and all round good guy.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 5, 2017)

copliker said:


> "Yes Nick Robinson, I spoke in front of a 100 foot high banner depicting Lenin riding a workers bomb and I liked it"



And yet the idea that this may negatively affect my chances of become chancellor of a capitalist country just frankly never occurred. But then that's the media for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And because he chose to that must mean he's dishonest?


He's a politician. Dishonesty is in the jd.


----------



## treelover (May 6, 2017)

bimble said:


> They have a quite amazing video on youtube, with some rap, and explaining how Stalin was a feminist and all round good guy.
> View attachment 106025



Why is support for a mass murderer even allowed on left protests


----------



## Smoking kills (May 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> Why is support for a mass murderer even allowed on left protests


when we've got Churchill on our fivers?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 6, 2017)

copliker said:


> Let's get a gigantic crowdfunded PD banner behind him next year then.





Buckaroo said:


> There is no next year comrade.
> 
> View attachment 106026



Fair points.

So let's go with a comrade inside a giant inflatable workers' bomb costume following McD everywhere he goes between now and Red Button General Election Day.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 6, 2017)

Smoking kills said:


> when we've got Churchill on our fivers?



We can't choose who goes on the fiver sadly.


Stalins body count makes Churchill look like an amateur as well.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 6, 2017)

bimble said:


> They have a quite amazing video on youtube, with some rap, and explaining how Stalin was a feminist and all round good guy.
> View attachment 106025



Just plain creepy. Those blokes shouldn't be encouraging her to have such a narrow and incomplete world view.


----------



## andysays (May 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> Why is support for a mass murderer even allowed on left protests



Yeah, someone should do something, shouldn't they...


----------



## Libertad (May 6, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> We can't choose who goes on the fiver sadly.
> 
> 
> Stalins body count makes Churchill look like an amateur as well.



Then perhaps we should stick him on the fiver.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Then perhaps we should stick him on the fiver.



I for one would like to see his head floating behind a hammer and sickle on the new pound coin, it would certainly beat that bloody boring thistle on all of them at the moment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> There is no next year comrade.
> 
> View attachment 106026



Only "Year Zero".


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Then perhaps we should stick him on the fiver.


£20


----------



## mojo pixy (May 6, 2017)

The £50, because it's red


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The £50, because it's red


Pol Pot on the tenner then
Stalin on the twenty
Mao on the fifty


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2017)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I for one would like to see his head floating behind a hammer and sickle on the new pound coin, it would certainly beat that bloody boring thistle on all of them at the moment.


In years to come you'll be yearning for a thistle to eat. Won't call them bloody boring then, mark my words


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Stalins body count makes Churchill look like an amateur as well.


Churchill was doing it for the love of the pursuit, rather than the money.


----------



## RD2003 (May 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> Why is support for a mass murderer even allowed on left protests


Because such support is an integral part of the history of the left.


----------



## RD2003 (May 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Churchill was doing it for the love of the pursuit, rather than the money.


Who killed the most people is actually irrelevant. The attempt to establish 'official' communist rule cost the lives of millions, mostly in China and the territory of the former USSR. Establishing capitalism  as a global system cost even more, directly and indirectly, and as the impossibility of continuing down the road we're on unfolds as reality, we will see mass corpses as never before.


----------



## RD2003 (May 7, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Just plain creepy. Those blokes shouldn't be encouraging her to have such a narrow and incomplete world view.


Why not? Other blokes with other ideological hobbyhorses, in other situations, would do the same.

Why does everything seem somehow unreal these days?*


*Or perhaps it's just me.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> You can't by voting for Labour that ousts a vaguely left leader and then shifts to the right. It's been said many times and the answer hasn't changed either.



Replacing a vaguely left leader with someone like Corbyn clearly isn’t working either. That’s been said many times too.

So assuming you agree that a Labour GE win is the only way of stopping the tories and their demolition of essential services, how can it be made to happen? Surely attracting more voters would help!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Out of curiosity, what policies do you think the 'Centre/Left' desires?



Having gone over this on here so many times now, I don’t particularly want to repeat myself but Corbyn himself is the problem more than his policies. Are Labour’s policies going to be that much different now to 2015?


----------



## andysays (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Replacing a vaguely left leader with someone like Corbyn clearly isn’t working either. That’s been said many times too.
> 
> So assuming you agree that a Labour GE win is the only way of *stopping the tories and their demolition of essential services*, how can it be made to happen? Surely attracting more voters would help!



That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2017)

andysays said:


> That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.
> 
> I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.



Pretty much what I was about to post.

Wanting the Tories to lose and wanting Labour to win are not the same.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

andysays said:


> That's actually a massive and, for many of us posting here, an incorrect assumption. You've persistantly conflated "stopping the tories" with "stopping the demolition of essential services" as if the two are synonymous; they're not.
> 
> I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a Labour GE win which merely leads to it being a Labour rather than a Conservative government destroying and privatising essential public services, and their elected members actively profiteering from this, as they are currently doing at local level.



But funding of essential services like healthcare and education goes up under Labour governments and generally down under tory ones. That was even true under Blair and Brown. (Go back and look at the stats earlier in the thread if you like, I can't be bothered posting them a third time).

It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So assuming you agree that a Labour GE win is the only way of stopping the tories and their demolition of essential services, how can it be made to happen? Surely attracting more voters would help!


It isn't the only way of defending services - the fact that there is precious little else going on outside parliament doesn't in itself make voting Labour a viable option.  And anyway, Labour themselves don't exactly have good record in defending public services in office 1997-2010 - or in local government since then - do they?


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.


 Can I ask what you personally do to defend services/make a difference to people's lives?


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2017)

From the other thread...



chilango said:


> At least it's not the Tories shutting down the children's centres eh?
> 
> That's it?
> 
> That's all they've got?



Seriously.

Post after post.

Thread after thread.

None of the "vote Labour" exhortations are batting an eyelid at urging me to vote for the Party that is actually making real cuts in mycommunity. _Making a difference in people's lives_ right in front of me.

Labour are proper fucked if this is the best they can do.


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

*We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand*


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pol Pot on the tenner then
> Stalin on the twenty
> Mao on the fifty



Harold Shipman on the 50p piece.


----------



## andysays (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But funding of essential services like healthcare and education goes up under Labour governments and generally down under tory ones. *That was even true under Blair and Brown*. (Go back and look at the stats earlier in the thread if you like, I can't be bothered posting them a third time).
> 
> It may not bother you, but that makes a difference to millions of people's lives.



Much of it through the mechanism of PFI and similar, through which private interests (many of them connected to elected Labour members) will be raking in the profits for years if not decades to come. 

Your refusal to acknowledge that much of this increased funding for once-publicly-owned services goes not into the actual services but into private profit screwed out of them makes your endless repeating of this "funding goes up under Labour governments" mantra essentially meaningless.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Harold Shipman on the 50p piece.


Reginald Dyer on the £1


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour themselves don't exactly have good record in defending public services in office 1997-2010



But net funding as % of GDP went up between 1997-2009 and has been going down ever since. Which scenario do you prefer? Because they are the only two choices.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2017)

not to mention the debt load weighed onto the NHS...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

andysays said:


> Much of it through the mechanism of PFI and similar, through which private interests (many of them connected to elected Labour members) will be raking in the profits for years if not decades to come.
> 
> Your refusal to acknowledge that much of this increased funding for once-publicly-owned services goes not into the actual services but into private profit screwed out of them makes your endless repeating of this "funding goes up under Labour governments" mantra essentially meaningless.



Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.

Are people seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??


Do you remember what happened after David Blunket famously said something like 'read my lips, no selection by test or interview under a labour Government'?

Edit: and of course do you remember Labour's record on privatisation, pfi, royal mail...


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

In fact Andrew Hertford if you want to look for a bit of the Labour Party that isn't part of the Continuity Thatcher-Blair-Brown Army you have to go with *Corbyn*.  Even if you object to Corbyn personally, you have to go with his 'faction', whatever comes next from the Labour left/momentum.  Or to put it another way, _which bit of the Labour Party are you looking to deliver this defence of the NHS _etc?

Edit: I'm not looking to some imaginary Corbyn government to do all this stuff, it would be no more than least worst, but still trapped by the contradictions of trying to build social democracy within the logics of neo-liberalism - _*but it is the logic of your position.*_


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> From the other thread...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Went to a "working dinner" the other night to plan some anti-gentrification strategy, and heard some of this bollocks about how people MUST vote Labour, because...well, all the reasons liberals like Hertford trot out.  Some of the Inertia Momentum members and Labour-pumpers present got upset when I (calmly, for me) explained that even a committed social-democratic Labour government will adopt the "pragmatist" label and carry on with some of the Tory cuts - that they'll *NEED* to, to fund their other commitments; that their commitment to half a million new council homes in the next electoral cycle will see "Big Construction" come out hard on them, and will likely mean that no companies can be found to build those homes (as we know, one of the first acts of the Tories in '79 was to make councils divest themselves of Direct Labour forces, and put everything out for CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering).

We have precisely the same issue as you and hundreds of thousands of others - a Labour local authority *enthusiastically* following Tory _diktat_, while shedding crocodile tears about "having to" implement those cuts.  I attend council meetings, I read the paperwork which informs their decision-making, and I'm also aware that, in Lambeth at least, the Labour Councillors (59 out of 63) were overjoyed when the NEC handed down a decision forbidding local authorities from setting an unbalanced (i.e. "illegal") budget, as many had been worried that public sentiment might force them to.  They were more worried about the effect that taking part in an unlawful action might have on their political careers, than about the people they're supposed to represent!

Will I vote Labour, even with "no illusions"?  No, I won't.  I refuse to perpetuate this cycle of bad vs slightly less bad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Reginald Dyer on the £1


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Do you remember what happened after David Blunket famously said something like 'read my lips, no selection by test or interview under a labour Government'?
> 
> Edit: and of course do you remember Labour's record on privatisation, pfi, royal mail...
> 
> In fact Andrew Hertford if you want to look for a bit of the Labour Party that isn't part of the Continuity Thatcher-Blair-Brown Army you have to go with *Corbyn*. Even if you object to Corbyn personally, you have to go with his 'faction', whatever comes next from the Labour left/momentum. Or to put it another way, _which bit of the Labour Party are you looking to deliver this defence of the NHS _etc?



So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??

I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??
> 
> I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.


No I don't think that at all, that's my point.  But it's the logic of _your_ position - if you are looking for the least bad, most pro-public sector bit of the Labour Party, you have nowhere else to go than Corbyn.  Or to put it more directly, to you: who are *you* looking to?  Which bit of the party is going to delver this? Which bit is the least tainted, didn't support pfi etc.?


----------



## andysays (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Even Owen Smith ruled out private NHS funding in a future Labour government.
> 
> Are people seriously saying that a Labour government would continue towards things like grammar schools and the privatisation of public services like the tories??



We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.

When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services. 

And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you think that unless it's led by Corbyn or a Corbyn acolyte, a future Labour government would go ahead with bring back the grammar school system, privatise the NHS by the back door and continue to cut funding to essential services as much as the tories even though they've never done that before??
> 
> I don't "object to Corbyn personally" by the way, I've always been on his side, but the problem is that the electorate are not.


Where were you from 1997 to 2010?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

andysays said:


> We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.
> 
> When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services.
> 
> And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.


He's a well-known liar


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> He's a well-known liar



And fantasist.
Remember _"Kristallnacht"_?


----------



## Libertad (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> *We got a thousand points of light
> For the homeless man
> We got a kinder, gentler,
> Machine gun hand*



Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

andysays said:


> We have already seen actual Labour governments, at both national and local level, not just pursuing privatisation but actively profiteering from it.
> 
> When Mandelson made his infamous comment about how he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich", some of the Labour MPs and councillors seem to have taken that as a green light to become filthy rich themselves through the exploitation of formerly public services.
> 
> And you're not only ignoring this, you're exorting us to vote Labour under the pretence of saving those same public services they've contributed to screwing over. You're either totally deluded or totally dishonest, or possibly a bit of both.



It's delusion to believe that the NHS and other public services will still be here in their present form after another decade of tory government, just as it is to pretend that public services don't fair better under Labour.

How do you think we can save public services??


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's delusion to believe that the NHS and other public services will still be here in their present form after another decade of tory government, just as it is to pretend that public services don't fair better under Labour.
> 
> How do you think we can save public services??


Tell us about the path you have gone down to save public services.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> None of the "vote Labour" exhortations are batting an eyelid at urging me to vote for the Party that is actually making real cuts in my community. _Making a difference in people's lives_ right in front of me.


The role of Labour in local authorities is not great, though not entirely their own fault - the threat of imprisonment for setting 'illegal' budgets is real enough that it seems no-one will consider it now. But also I live in a borough run by a very right wing Labour set, and it's true they are unable to process the idea of solidarity in attempting to oppose the cuts. 

At the same time, we all know there's at least two parties within Labour struggling to get out, and people are suggesting you try to vote for the one that will roll back council cuts. This is problematic - in some areas the only way to 'show support' for Corbyn's program is to vote for someone who has repeatedly denounced Corbyn. It's a mess for sure, but in this curious phase of Labour's existence isn't it a bit simplistic to say 'Labour have screwed me over so I'll never vote for them'? It's the first time in my lifetime that there has been a mainstream party not committed to neo-liberalism - even if the ability of the left of the party to oppose it will obviously be very compromised.


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> The role of Labour in local authorities is not great, though not entirely their own fault - the threat of imprisonment for setting 'illegal' budgets is real enough that it seems no-one will consider it now. But also I live in a borough run by a very right wing Labour set, and it's true they are unable to process the idea of solidarity in attempting to oppose the cuts.
> 
> At the same time, we all know there's at least two parties within Labour struggling to get out, and people are suggesting you try to vote for the one that will roll back council cuts. This is problematic - in some areas the only way to 'show support' for Corbyn's program is to vote for someone who has repeatedly denounced Corbyn. It's a mess for sure, but in this curious phase of Labour's existence isn't it a bit simplistic to say 'Labour have screwed me over so I'll never vote for them'? It's the first time in my lifetime that there has been a mainstream party not committed to neo-liberalism - even if the ability of the left of the party to oppose it will obviously be very compromised.



You raise an interesting point.

If I were to overlook the Labour admins record of cuts, and believe that Corbyn's Labour would be an alternative, I probably won't be able to vote for Corbyn's Labour* but more likely for someone who in the unlikely event of them gaining the seat will line up to oust Corbyn (and the ideas he's tried to promote) immediately the opportunity presents itself.

*I don't know who the local candidate is yet.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> You raise an interesting point.
> 
> If I were to overlook the Labour admins record of cuts, and believe that Corbyn's Labour would be an alternative, I probably won't be able to vote for Corbyn's Labour* but more likely for someone who in the unlikely event of them gaining the seat will line up to oust Corbyn (and the ideas he's tried to promote) immediately the opportunity presents itself.
> 
> *I don't know who the local candidate is yet.


If Labour got an outright win then it's difficult to see Corbyn being ousted any time soon. But I admit that is unlikely. 

But we also know how much of the media and many, many people will view this election: not as a test of what people think of Labour's record in local authorities, but as a test of whether the UK public likes left wing politics. Your private narrative for voting the way you do (or not) doesn't have a very meaningful political presence unless you can create public discussion around it that can reach reasonable numbers of people. If that sounds like giving in to the media, well, perhaps, but we can't always choose the ground we're fighting on. This won't be an election where the record of Labour in local authorities is judged, except perhaps in the heads of a handful of people. What does that mean, politically?

Out of genuine interest, what would you have wanted Labour councils to do about having their budgets slashed by the Tory central government?


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

I've no objection to people voting Labour, as I've said on some thread or other I might even do it myself this time round.  Plenty of times why you _really, really_ shouldn't have voted Labour, but Corbyn's fast fading 80s tribute act probably isn't one of them.  But ignore the 5 yearly voting ritual, leave it as the trivial act that it is, an act that solidifies our _lack of_ power.  If you are against capital, privatisation, whatever, just get on and oppose them.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Tell us about the path you have gone down to save public services.



That's a cop out, you don't know my personal circumstances any more than I know yours.

I'm sure you want public services to thrive and expand as much as I do, so how can that be achieved in your opinion?


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's a cop out, you don't know my personal circumstances any more than I know yours.
> 
> I'm sure you want public services to thrive and expand as much as I do, so how can that be achieved in your opinion?


Don't know why it's a cop out asking you that question?  If you want public services - or any kind of political goal, asking you what you are doing to pursue that seems entirely reasonable. I'm assuming from your answer though, that you are _not_ doing anything actively to defend public services?  If that's the case you are, literally, reduced to putting an x on a paper every 5 years - and even then voting for a party that has actively _undermined_ those services over the last 20 years.

Fwiw my own politics don't reduce down to defending public services or the vision of 1945, I'd like to see deeper change.  But even within that there are major battles to be had that are part of/in parallel to 'defending public services' (jobs, working conditions, power in the workplace - as well as the service itself). What to do about it? Get involved. Even in these dark times there are plenty of ways of doing that.


----------



## bimble (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford In the case of Trump and Le Pen i've been banging on loudly about how everyone 'should' vote for the least worst option (to the annoyance of many on here), but tell me what would you do in my situation:
I live in a very safe Labour seat (Lambeth) and have along with some other locals been putting in loads of effort and time last the past few months to find out what chance there is of saving my local adventure playground from being sold by the council's 'regeneration team'  to developers for a block of private flats.
The councillors have ranged from 'I'm sorry there's nothing I can do' to patently dishonest and mendacious.
Do you see why voting labour here is not an option that makes any sense?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

bimble said:


> Andrew Hertford In the case of Trump and Le Pen i've been banging on loudly about how everyone 'should' vote for the least worst option (to the annoyance of many on here), but tell me what would you do in my situation:
> I live in a very safe Labour seat (Lambeth) and have along with some other locals been putting in loads of effort and time last the past few months to find out what chance there is of saving my local adventure playground from being sold by the council's 'regeneration team'  to developers for a block of private flats.
> The councillors have ranged from 'I'm sorry there's nothing I can do' to patently dishonest and mendacious.
> Do you see why voting labour here is not an option that makes any sense?



Yes I do see that, But do your Labour councillors want to get rid of your local playground and not replace it because they don't like public services? Or is it because they are short of funds?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Don't know why it's a cop out asking you that question?  If you want public services - or any kind of political goal, asking you what you are doing to pursue that seems entirely reasonable. I'm assuming from your answer though, that you are _not_ doing anything actively to defend public services?  If that's the case you are, literally, reduced to putting an x on a paper every 5 years - and even then voting for a party that has actively _undermined_ those services over the last 20 years.
> 
> Fwiw my own politics don't reduce down to defending public services or the vision of 1945, I'd like to see deeper change.  But even within that there are major battles to be had that are part of/in parallel to 'defending public services' (jobs, working conditions, power in the workplace - as well as the service itself). What to do about it? Get involved. Even in these dark times there are plenty of ways of doing that.



Get involved how exactly? Public services are at risk now and within a decade they may have been eroded to a bare minimum at best. That will happen while the tories are still in power no matter what you or I do to defend them.

As for what I've done to help essential services, your assumption is completely wrong.


----------



## bimble (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes I do see that, But do your Labour councillors want to get rid of your local playground and not replace it because they don't like public services? Or is it because they are short of funds?


Of course its not because they are evil and hate playgrounds. But in a safe labour seat what can I do to change the austerity policy?
There was a local councillor who was well liked, but she was disciplined and eventually left the party last year. If she stood as an independent and had a bit of publicity locally i think she could have done well.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

bimble said:


> Of course its not because they are evil and hate playgrounds. But in a safe labour seat what can I do to change the austerity policy?
> There was a local councillor who was well liked, but she was disciplined and eventually left the party last year. If she stood as an independent and had a bit of publicity locally i think she could have done well.



Quite, the Lambeth Labour councillor that strayed 'off message' and opposed cuts/sell-offs gets disciplined for doing so.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

bimble said:


> Of course its not because they are evil and hate playgrounds. But in a safe labour seat what can I do to change the austerity policy?
> There was a local councillor who was well liked, but she was disciplined and eventually left the party last year. If she stood as an independent and had a bit of publicity locally i think she could have done well.



Apologies, I see what you mean now. Unfortunately because of FPTP there isn't much you can do on June 8th. Me neither by the way.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Apologies, I see what you mean now. Unfortunately because of FPTP there isn't much you can do on June 8th. Me neither by the way.



That's not what bimble is saying, but I suspect you know that.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

bimble said:


> There was a local councillor who was well liked, but she was disciplined and eventually left the party last year. If she stood as an independent and had a bit of publicity locally i think she could have done well.



This bit @Andrew Hertford, when you have a minute.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> That's not what bimble is saying, and I suspect you know that.



Bimble is asking what he or she can do to help end austerity and I don't know to be honest. Austerity can only end once we've got rid of the tory government.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Bimble is asking what he or she can do to help end austerity and I don't know to be honest. Austerity will only end once we've got rid of the tory government.



You're deliberately avoiding to comment on the treatment of a Lambeth councillor by her own Labour council because she opposed cuts/sell-offs. I can see why though.


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As for what I've done to help essential services, your assumption is completely wrong.


 this is getting like pulling teeth: okay, you seem to be saying you've been involved in some kind of politics, some kind of campaign (is it secret?). What was it? What was the political logic?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> this is getting like pulling teeth: okay, you seem to be saying you've been involved in some kind of politics, some kind of campaign (is it secret?). What was it? What was the political logic?



OK. I don't see what relevance it has to the subject of stopping tory cuts, but my partner and I adopted a child who was in care 15 years ago who is still with us. We've probably saved our local authority's Children's Social Care, Child Mental Health Services and probably Police Services a huge amount of time and funding which has hopefully been used to benefit children elsewhere.

That's me, so what have you done?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> You're deliberately avoiding to comment on the treatment of a Lambeth councillor by her own Labour council because she opposed cuts/sell-offs. I can see why though.



Why wouldn't I oppose the disciplining of someone who opposed cuts?


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why wouldn't I oppose the disciplining of someone who opposed cuts?



Are you being deliberately obtuse here? You're arguing that only Labour can protect services and stop cuts, whilst we have Labour councils disciplining their own councillors for opposing those cuts/sell-offs, to the point where they leave the party.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2017)

not only this behaviour at local level- the PLP has essentially been on a hostile strike since JC got in, twice. These people are literally willing to give us 5 more years of tory bootheel because 'where else are you plebs going to go'. They'll get their wages regardless.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> The role of Labour in local authorities is not great, though not entirely their own fault - the threat of imprisonment for setting 'illegal' budgets is real enough that it seems no-one will consider it now. But also I live in a borough run by a very right wing Labour set, and it's true they are unable to process the idea of solidarity in attempting to oppose the cuts.
> 
> At the same time, we all know there's at least two parties within Labour struggling to get out, and people are suggesting you try to vote for the one that will roll back council cuts. This is problematic - in some areas the only way to 'show support' for Corbyn's program is to vote for someone who has repeatedly denounced Corbyn. It's a mess for sure, but in this curious phase of Labour's existence isn't it a bit simplistic to say 'Labour have screwed me over so I'll never vote for them'? It's the first time in my lifetime that there has been a mainstream party not committed to neo-liberalism - even if the ability of the left of the party to oppose it will obviously be very compromised.



According to new polls 30% of the electorate are now prepared to vote for a programme that is hard left according to the media, BBC, etc, thats not a bad starting position, though that 30% may include many who won't actually vote, young people, students, etc.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse here? You're arguing that only Labour can protect services and stop cuts, whilst we have Labour councils disciplining their own councillors for opposing those cuts/sell-offs, to the point where they leave the party.



Jeeeeeze mate!

I'm saying that only a Labour government can stop the tory erosion of public spending and services, which I assume is also in part responsible for the forced closures in Lambeth!


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> OK. I don't see what relevance it has to the subject of stopping tory cuts, but my partner and I adopted a child who was in care 15 years ago who is still with us. We've probably saved our local authority's Children's Social Care, Child Mental Health Services and probably Police Services a huge amount of time and funding which has hopefully been used to benefit children elsewhere.



Whilst adoption is of course a very laudable thing to do, we're talking about dealing with cuts, etc. on a structural level, not individual acts. How does that directly save and defend those public services?

Me? 6 months of direct and community on social housing issues - mostly fighting Labour councils that are actively engaged in private financing initiatives and frankly breaking promises on social housing residents rights to return to their homes after 'regeneration'.

(been involved since 1994 in all manner of stuff though - CJB, ANL, anti-capitalism, LGBT and women's actions, etc)


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Whilst adoption is of course a very laudable thing to do, we're talking about dealing with cuts, etc. on a structural level, not individual acts.



Are we? Oh, if you say so.



> Me? 6 months of direct and community on social housing issues - mostly fighting Labour councils that are actively engaged in private financing initiatives and frankly breaking promises on social housing residents rights to return to their homes after 'regeneration'.
> 
> (been involved since 1994 in all manner of stuff though - CJB, ANL, anti-capitalism, LGBT and women's actions, etc)



And these actions have reversed cuts or helped ease the pressure on essential services how?


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Are we? Oh, if you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> And these actions have stopped tory cuts or helped ease the pressure on essential services how?



They've directly supported and helped people on the end of cuts, sometimes slowed down the closure or winding down of services, and just occasionally, worked towards wider causes that have forced councils and politicians (Labour or Tory) into climbdowns or shift of policy.

Fucking hell


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> They've directly supported and helped people on the end of cuts, sometimes slowed down the closure or winding down of services, and just occasionally, worked towards wider causes that have forced councils and politicians into climbdowns - Labour or Tory.
> 
> Fucking hell



Very 'laudable', but it doesn't tackle the root cause, which is the national tory government. Only an electable Labour Party can do that.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Very 'laudable', but it doesn't tackle the root cause, which is the national tory government. Only an electable Labour Party can do that.



Not when its been a Labour government in power!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Not when its been a Labour government in power!



Good grief, talk about going round in circles. 

No it doesn't, look at the figures. Services even fared better during the last Labour government.


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Good grief, talk about going round in circles.
> 
> No it doesn't, look at the figures. Services even fared better during the last Labour government.



People lost their social housing, saw services cut and privatised, were on the receiving end of PFI in hospitals and schools that backfired badly, saw their civil liberties attacked under Labour. Regardless of whatever overall spending graph you might be able to find.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> People lost their social housing, saw services cut and privatised, use of PFI in hospitals and schools that have backfired badly, saw their civil liberties attacked under Labour. Regardless of whatever overall spending graph you might be able to find.



And far more are losing their rights and services now and far more will in the future while we still have a tory government.


----------



## Wilf (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> OK. I don't see what relevance it has to the subject of stopping tory cuts, but my partner and I adopted a child who was in care 15 years ago who is still with us. We've probably saved our local authority's Children's Social Care, Child Mental Health Services and probably Police Services a huge amount of time and funding which has hopefully been used to benefit children elsewhere.
> 
> That's me, so what have you done?


So, we get to it. Entirely laudable thing to do, adopting a child - genuinely (my partner used to be a foster carer, fwiw). But you gave this as your answer, when I asked about your _politics, about what you are doing to defend public services_.  I think we've finally got to it haven't we - you are not doing anything. Me - stuff on and off since 1979 or so, for the first 10 years in the Labour Party, then anarcho politics, more recently anti-cuts, local solidarity movement, stuff on sanctions.  But it's not a who can piss highest thing, I've said on here I've done nothing for the last year or more due to health issues.  It's about having some sense of a process, a politics, fuck it, if nothing else _a sense of connection_. I was asking if you did anything about the things you believe in, because if you'd been involved in say a campaign against NHS cuts, in some degree, in some way, an aspect of that would have been extra-parliamentary.  It wouldn't have been simply 'let's wait till the next election, err, that's it'.  But it seems that's precisely your political approach 'Corbyn is shit, let's hope somebody else comes along to vote for in 2022'.  From your perspective, how do you move things on, what do you do to make the changes you want?  Anything, anything at all???


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why wouldn't I oppose the disciplining of someone who opposed cuts?


When have you opposed such disciplining?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

treelover said:


> Why is support for a mass murderer even allowed on left protests


You're quite authoritarian aren't you. You despise socialists yet would like to dictate whose images can be displayed on lefty demos.


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Are we? Oh, if you say so.
> And these actions have reversed cuts or helped ease the pressure on essential services how?


Straight off the top of my head I can think of three "extra-parliamentary" campaigns I've been involved in that have changed/reversed/stopped government policies that the Labour Party couldn't or wouldn't.


----------



## Tankus (May 7, 2017)

Most of the social housing cleansing is taking place under labour councils


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Very 'laudable', but it doesn't tackle the root cause, which is the national tory government. Only an electable Labour Party can do that.


And by electable you mean red tories


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

Tankus said:


> Most of the social housing cleansing is taking place under labour councils


Yeh, including the heygate fiasco and the estate's replacement by yuppie flats, the demolition of the haggerston estate and its replacement by yuppie flats, the demolition of the colville estate and its replacement by yuppie flats...


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 7, 2017)

Tankus said:


> Most of the social housing cleansing is taking place under labour councils




The entire Labour establishment seems very complacent. Takes votes for granted, sells shit off and undermines it's own foundations.


All about the gravy train...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes I do see that, But do your Labour councillors want to get rid of your local playground and not replace it because they don't like public services? Or is it because they are short of funds?



Can of worms. One of the Councillors of that ward is on record stating "there's too much social housing round here".  Most of the users of that APG live in the social housing he dislikes.  Draw your own conclusion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Get involved how exactly? Public services are at risk now and within a decade they may have been eroded to a bare minimum at best. That will happen while the tories are still in power no matter what you or I do to defend them.
> 
> As for what I've done to help essential services, your assumption is completely wrong.



Here in Lambeth, welfare advice services are about 35% of what they were 10 years ago, over which period actual need for such services has doubled (in an area where need was already high). What people in this borough have done is form an unofficial supplementary service to help people with form-filling etc, in order to allow the retained advice workers room to use their time for the most desperate cases.  This started under Labour, the coalition and the Tories merely carried on what started with the onset of the Credit Crunch.  It's not about who is in power.  It's about what ideology informs their choices, and how economic and social realities constrain those choices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

bimble said:


> Of course its not because they are evil and hate playgrounds. But in a safe labour seat what can I do to change the austerity policy?
> There was a local councillor who was well liked, but she was disciplined and eventually left the party last year. If she stood as an independent and had a bit of publicity locally i think she could have done well.



Sadly, it looks like she may stand down next year, as the pressure of working in an environment of Labour hacks hating on her, is getting to her.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Bimble is asking what he or she can do to help end austerity and I don't know to be honest. Austerity can only end once we've got rid of the tory government.



No, austerity can only end once the idea that it's a necessary precondition of any economic policy is ended.  That goes as much for the Labour "moderates" who still sing the austerity song - people like Starmer, Cooper and Jarvis - as for the no-neck Tories.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> not only this behaviour at local level- the PLP has essentially been on a hostile strike since JC got in, twice. These people are literally willing to give us 5 more years of tory bootheel because 'where else are you plebs going to go'. They'll get their wages regardless.



And those PLP members are heartened - fucking heartened! - by the fact that local branches are shedding members in areas with Tory-ite Labour councils, because it means that the CLPs are more amenable to manipulation by them.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Bimble is asking what he or she can do to help end austerity and I don't know to be honest. Austerity can only end once we've got rid of the tory government.


You've missed out a 'how' from the first sentence: you do not know *how* to be honest


----------



## stethoscope (May 7, 2017)

John McDonnell faces Labour revolt as he suggests there is a 'lot to learn' from Karl Marx's Das Kapital



			
				Telegraph said:
			
		

> One shadow cabinet source told The Telegraph: “John McDonnell's decision to go on the TV and suggest we have a lot to learn from Karl Marx is obviously not very helpful at this stage of the campaign.”



That _must_ be the problem.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 8, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> The entire Labour establishment seems very complacent. Takes votes for granted, sells shit off and undermines it's own foundations.
> 
> 
> All about the gravy train...




As if by magic...

ANDY BURNHAM DISAPPOINTS WITH RICHARD LEESE AS DEPUTY GREATER MANCHESTER MAYOR - Salford Star - with attitude & love xxx


----------



## bimble (May 8, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sadly, it looks like she may stand down next year, as the pressure of working in an environment of Labour hacks hating on her, is getting to her.


I thought she'd already gone (after being suspended for 6 months and whipped as hard as possible) but you're right she does still appear as a councillor for Colhardbour ward on the Lambeth website.
What does it mean that she's listed there as a member of the party 'Independent Labour' (the other two just say Labour)?


----------



## inva (May 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> John McDonnell faces Labour revolt as he suggests there is a 'lot to learn' from Karl Marx's Das Kapital
> 
> 
> That _must_ be the problem.


learn how to appropriate that surplus value


----------



## bemused (May 8, 2017)

I'm not going to vote Labour and watched John McDonnell on Marr. I've got a soft spot for John and he seemed to be pretty pragmatic about Marx - although to be fair I've never read it. He wasn't going full Marxist.

If anyone has a recommended single numpty level book about Marx's thinking I'd like to read it.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> John McDonnell faces Labour revolt as he suggests there is a 'lot to learn' from Karl Marx's Das Kapital
> 
> 
> That _must_ be the problem.



He just promised to be a good social democrat and work with everyone.

He is a bit of an old Tankie though. I suspect if he had a cat it would be called 'Koshka'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

JM is the least tankie of that labour left old school. I wouldn't use it about him at all actually.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He is a bit of an old Tankie though. I suspect if he had a cat it would be called 'Koshka'.


Anyone who's read sven hassel will recall stalin the cat. I would expect any auld tankie to consider lenin or stalin as cat names. Rather than the unimaginative 'cat' in russian


----------



## Wilf (May 8, 2017)

chilango said:


> Straight off the top of my head I can think of three "extra-parliamentary" campaigns I've been involved in that have changed/reversed/stopped government policies that the Labour Party couldn't or wouldn't.


... and god knows what other policies would have been inflicted on us if resistance dried up.


----------



## Supine (May 8, 2017)

I've just accepted a FB invite for Jeremy's leaving drinks on June 9th at a pub in Westminster


----------



## chilango (May 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> ... and god knows what other policies would have been inflicted on us if resistance dried up.



Indeed, and let's not forget the myriad of ways in which people by-pass government completely to resolve issues through action.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Anyone who's read sven hassel will recall stalin the cat. I would expect any auld tankie to consider lenin or stalin as cat names. Rather than the unimaginative 'cat' in russian



It goes back to Lenin's cat whose name history does not recall and so is often referred to as 'cat'.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2017)

Supine said:


> I've just accepted a FB invite for Jeremy's leaving drinks on June 9th at a pub in Westminster


----------



## bimble (May 8, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Can of worms. One of the Councillors of that ward is on record stating "there's too much social housing round here".  Most of the users of that APG live in the social housing he dislikes.  Draw your own conclusion.


I really want to know who this was, have an idea but wouldn't be surprised if it was the other one. Please tell (PM if preferred)


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As if by magic...
> 
> ANDY BURNHAM DISAPPOINTS WITH RICHARD LEESE AS DEPUTY GREATER MANCHESTER MAYOR - Salford Star - with attitude & love xxx



Appointing Leese is bad news, and a poor harbinger of the future there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2017)

bimble said:


> I thought she'd already gone (after being suspended for 6 months and whipped as hard as possible) but you're right she does still appear as a councillor for Colhardbour ward on the Lambeth website.
> What does it mean that she's listed there as a member of the party 'Independent Labour' (the other two just say Labour)?



She lost the Labour whip, so has to emphasise that she stands outside of the local party machine, but still follows Labour values.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2017)

bimble said:


> I really want to know who this was, have an idea but wouldn't be surprised if it was the other one. Please tell (PM if preferred)



No need for a PM (though I did actually tell you who said it at the Cider Bar, as did Matt  ). It was Donatus Anyanwu.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2017)

this probably belongs here. Seymour!:
Back to the 1930s With Theresa May



> There are many parallels there with today’s situation. In particular, it is social democracy (in its neoliberal format) which has been thrown into crisis by the credit crunch and ensuing austerity politics. No systematic alternative to austerity was supported by the major political parties. New Labour’s growth-predicated governing agenda all but collapsed. So it is the Conservative Party which has been able to organize a governing coalition and shape the popular narrative as to the cause and cure of crisis.
> 
> With austerity measures carefully targeted at selected groups of demonized welfare recipients and public-sector workers, the Conservative government also protected homeowners and paid for middle-class tax cuts with reduced social spending. This capitalist crisis was also managed by employers in such a way as to avoid mass layoffs — the better to keep on trained staff in anticipation of renewed growth — with the preferred tactic being wage cuts and underemployment.


----------



## bimble (May 8, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No need for a PM (though I did actually tell you who said it at the Cider Bar, as did Matt  ). It was Donatus Anyanwu.


Oh yeah. That cider , good for the emoting less good for the memory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2017)

bimble said:


> Oh yeah. That cider , good for the emoting less good for the memory.



Tell me about it.  I can only partway remember my long perambulation home - highlights like bouncing off of someone's hedge, or playing "dodge the vomit" on Coldharbour.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 8, 2017)

I see that Desperate Danczuk is pretending to resign*, although he was de-selected basically I think. But his resignation letter is a chance to accuse Corbyn and Co of being Stalinists. So that's nice.


*Edit: Oh I see, he is resigning from Labour entirely. That's sad. Oh well.


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Jeeeeeze mate!
> 
> I'm saying that only a Labour government can stop the tory erosion of public spending and services, which I assume is also in part responsible for the forced closures in Lambeh!




As I'm one of people opposing the sell off of the adventure playground in Lambeth the picture is more complicated than a Labour Council dealing with cuts.

Lambeth Labour is controlled by the Progress wing of the Labour party. Going back to the days of Blair. As I'm sure ViolentPanda can explain they are hostile to traditional Council housing.

There view is that state provision is part of the post war Welfare State that leads to "dependency". That services should be offloaded to public/private partnerships and social enterprises. Local government should change from a provider to an enabler.

They see this as return of the Labour party to being about self help not asking for handouts. The "Co-op Council" they call it.

If this sounds like Cameron's Big Society it's about the same.

A Progess led Labour Party would still be pursuing "austerity" , which as ViolentPanda has pointed out is ideological choice.

So what I'm saying is that Lambeth Labour run Council would be pursuing this agenda whatever government is in power.

On the adventure playground we now know a charity with experience of running adventure playgrounds had approached the Council to run it. The Council turned them down. They see doing deals with developers as the way forward. Public/private partnerships.

Lambeth Labour Progress/ Blairites loathe Corbyn. There choice for leader was Liz Kendal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> As I'm one of people opposing the sell off of the adventure playground in Lambeth the picture is more complicated than a Labour Council dealing with cuts.
> 
> Lambeth Labour is controlled by the Progress wing of the Labour party. Going back to the days of Blair. As I'm sure ViolentPanda can explain they are hostile to traditional Council housing.
> 
> There view is that state provision is part of the post war Welfare State that leads to "dependency". That services should be offloaded to public/private partnerships and social enterprises. Local government should change from a provider to an enabler.



Try to explain to them that social housing has a reputation for fostering a dependency culture almost entirely due to 30 years of residualisation of social housing, and of an allocation system based on absolute priority need - i.e. you have to be pretty fucked up to qualify - and they just look at you blankly, like you've just spoken in an unknown tongue.  None of this stuff is exactly high-level information, but basically if it doesn't fit to their presuppositions and prejudices, it doesn't make their grade.



> They see this as return of the Labour party to being about self help not asking for handouts. The "Co-op Council" they call it.
> 
> If this sounds like Cameron's Big Society it's about the same.
> 
> ...



And indeed did, under Blair and Brown.



> On the adventure playground we now know a charity with experience of running adventure playgrounds had approached the Council to run it. The Council turned them down. They see doing deals with developers as the way forward. Public/private partnerships.



One might also, if one were a cynic, conclude that getting in with developers in hope of future mutually-beneficial arrangements was also a factor in favouring such PPP arrangements.



> Lambeth Labour Progress/ Blairites loathe Corbyn. There choice for leader was Liz Kendall.



Yep, all three CLPs that cover Lambeth - Liz fucking Kendall.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse here? You're arguing that only Labour can protect services and stop cuts, whilst we have Labour councils disciplining their own councillors for opposing those cuts/sell-offs, to the point where they leave the party.


Who else is protecting these services?

Expect more of this if you don't get off your arses and vote.
Fears of 'two-tier NHS' as GPs allow fee-paying patients to jump the queue


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Who else is protecting these services?
> 
> Expect more of this if you don't get off your arses and vote.
> Fears of 'two-tier NHS' as GPs allow fee-paying patients to jump the queue


_To quoque_

Literally.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Who else is protecting these services?
> 
> Expect more of this if you don't get off your arses and vote.
> Fears of 'two-tier NHS' as GPs allow fee-paying patients to jump the queue


You didn't notice then the huge numbers of PFI agreements under labour. Things which undermined the NHS for decades still to come. But the NHS safe in labour hands


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You didn't notice then the huge numbers of PFI agreements under labour. Things which undermined the NHS for decades still to come. But the NHS safe in labour hands


Complete straw man, topped off with a massive assumption about my position based on prejudice. You're a joke.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> _To quoque_
> 
> Literally.


How so?

Ironic really, considering that it's tu quoque to point that out while ignoring the point


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> How so?


Nope


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Nope


What do you think the tu quoque fallacy is?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Don't do this to yourself.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do this to yourself.



perhaps instead of inccorectly using tu quoque, why not just answer the question?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> perhaps instead of inccorectly using tu quoque, why not just answer the question?


You're used to TQ ending discussion aren't you? Other fallacies to hand. Oh well.

Just listen to and read posters and posts with a bit more care. You've made this.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> What do you think the tu quoque fallacy is?


This is really tedious. I'd suggest getting back on topic but not convinced that's a good idea either.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You're used to TQ ending discussion aren't you? Other fallacies to hand. Oh well.


Would you like to address the issue I raised? I've repeatedly asked you for alternatives and all you've done is behave like a 2 year old.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

Sue said:


> This is really tedious. I'd suggest getting back on topic but not convinced that's a good idea either.


Yes, it is. Unfortunately repeated attempts to return to the topic go nowhere either.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Sue said:


> This is really tedious. I'd suggest getting back on topic but not convinced that's a good idea either.


Vote labour - even if you can't vote labour.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Would you like to address the issue I raised? I've repeatedly asked you for alternatives and all you've done is behave like a 2 year old.





Sue said:


> This is really tedious. I'd suggest getting back on topic but not convinced that's a good idea either.


I'm a troll. Finished.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Vote labour - even if you can't vote labour.


Yep. There is no other option.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2017)

Is 'tu quoque' Latin for 'you cock'?


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Vote labour - even if you can't vote labour.


If Labour aren't standing on your ballot then obviously you can't vote for them, so there's no issue is there. Don't be dense. 

I don't imagine there are too many constituencies not fielding a candidate.

But you are still not answering my question. Is this how you imagine discourse works? You sneer at people's points then offer nothing of your own. No wonder people don't take you seriously


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm a troll. Finished.


If only


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Complete straw man, topped off with a massive assumption about my position based on prejudice. You're a joke.


You don't know what a straw man is. I'm not saying what you're arguing, I'm adding a new point.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> If Labour aren't standing on your ballot then obviously you can't vote for them, so there's no issue is there. Don't be dense.
> 
> I don't imagine there are too many constituencies not fielding a candidate.
> 
> But you are still not answering my question. Is this how you imagine discourse works? You sneer at people's points then offer nothing of your own. No wonder people don't take you seriously


7 people on here take me seriously - you LIAR.


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't know what a straw man is. I'm not saying what you're arguing, I'm adding a new point.


No, you were telling me what my point was. That's a straw man, arguing against a misrepresentation of my point.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> No, you were telling me what my point was. That's a straw man, arguing against a misrepresentation of my point.


No, I wasn't telling you what your point was


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, I wasn't telling you what your point was


Yes, you were. Either that or your using a very weird version of English.

"You didn't notice then the huge numbers of PFI agreements under labour. Things which undermined the NHS for decades still to come. But the NHS safe in labour hands "
That's you misrepresenting me. Again. I didn't say the NHS was safe in Labour's hands, nor have I made mention of PFI, which gives you no clue as to whether i've noticed it or not. That doesn't seem to stop you making repeated assumptions about my view. Don't dodge the fact you've been caught in a lie. I'm quoting you directly saying that you think I'm saying the NHS is safe in Labour's hands, that's a straw man right there.

Either that or your delusional


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> 7 people on here take me seriously - you LIAR.


ooh, caps lock! The ante's upped!


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> ooh, caps lock! The ante's upped!


Yes.

7


----------



## Who PhD (May 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Yes.
> 
> 7


Smashing. 

Would you like to return to the topic at hand and address what I've said? Or do you want to try and show off some more? Honestly you're behaving like a child


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Not really.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2017)

Vote labour. Been addressed.


----------



## kabbes (May 9, 2017)

This is embarrassing.

Who, you think you're being clever and catching butchers out with your irony, but he's operating at a whole ironic plane above you.

Take your supposed put down about caps lock.  In truth, butchers' political understanding and insight is amongst the most respected on this board.  When he says "at least seven (respect me) you LIAR" he's mocking your approach to the discussion.  So when you come back showing you've missed this mockery, you just play straight into it and 100 people reading the thread laugh as a consequence. Or, in my case, cringe.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Would you like to address the issue I raised? I've repeatedly asked you for alternatives and all you've done is behave like a 2 year old.


I'm beginning to see a pattern here...


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm beginning to see a pattern here...



I'm not surprised, I shouldn't have to ask an adult to stop behaving like a child and stick to the topic. But apparently if I want to try and have a conversation with you, that seems necessary and repeatedly so. All you're doing is trolling.


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This is embarrassing.
> 
> Who, you think you're being clever and catching butchers out with your irony, but he's operating at a whole ironic plane above you.
> 
> Take your supposed put down about caps lock.  In truth, butchers' political understanding and insight is amongst the most respected on this board.  When he says "at least seven (respect me) you LIAR" he's mocking your approach to the discussion.  So when you come back showing you've missed this mockery, you just play straight into it and 100 people reading the thread laugh as a consequence. Or, in my case, cringe.


Is that why he can't answer a straight question?

I'm not trying to be anything, I'm just having a conversation. It's sad and telling that you think otherwise, moreso that one should be proud they can mock others.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I'm not surprised, I shouldn't have to ask an adult to stop behaving like a child and stick to the topic. But apparently if I want to try and have a conversation with you, that seems necessary and repeatedly so. All you're doing is trolling.


No, the pattern is that when you desire to belittle someone you demand they stop behaving like a child: ageist.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2017)

In other news... Corbyn has said he won't resign after losing on June 8th. 
Jeremy Corbyn Says He Won't Quit Even If He Loses The General Election
I suspect he _believes_ he won't resign, but won't have much choice.


----------



## kabbes (May 9, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Is that why he can't answer a straight question?


I have found that if your mind is open to the possibility that your unspoken and unconsidered assumptions might be wrong, butchers gives very straight answers.  Furthermore, the questions themselves are rarely as straight as the asker thinks.

I have further observed that people who are _not _open to this possibility tend to have a bad time.


> I'm not trying to be anything, I'm just having a conversation.


That's not true though, is it?  You're not trying to have a conversation on this issue.  You're trying to lecture others and tell them why they're wrong.  But the people you are telling this to have given the issue a lot deeper thought than you have and as a result, your simple and direct statements are falling on rocky ground.

Start again and ask your questions in the spirit that the person you are asking might actually be _right_ in their approach and is worth learning from.  You might get a difference kind of response.



> It's sad and telling that you think otherwise, moreso that one should be proud they can mock others.


It's a mockery of the approach you are using, not the individual using the approach.  And that is a reasonable rhetoric.


----------



## bluescreen (May 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In other news... Corbyn has said he won't resign after losing on June 8th.
> Jeremy Corbyn Says He Won't Quit Even If He Loses The General Election
> I suspect he _believes_ he won't resign, but won't have much choice.


From that piece: 


> Corbyn told BuzzFeed News he felt he didn't get treated fairly by the media: "I’m not going to spend my whole life complaining about it. I know what I believe in, I know what I do. I never respond to personal abuse of me, because I’d rather get my policies across. By not responding it forces the other side to engage with the policy debate."
> 
> As a result, he said, he urges supporters to try reading nontraditional sources of information.
> 
> "I think it’s good that people go to all the alternative sites and check out what they want," he said. *"I’ve read The Canary quite a bit*, I’ve read yours, I do read a lot of them."


(my bold)
The media do indeed give him a hard time but he doesn't help himself.


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I have found that if your mind is open to the possibility that your unspoken and unconsidered assumptions might be wrong, butchers gives very straight answers.



That is implicit in the very question "give me an alternative", so really you're just not paying attention while busy defending someone who's behaviour is piss poor. Good luck with that, Butchersapron is blocked. I've given him ample opportunity to behave respectfully and engage in discussion. 



> That's not true though, is it?  You're not trying to have a conversation on this issue.



And comments like this, blind assertions, are the problem. If you can't see that, then there's nothing more to say. I think I've comported myself reasonably and shown respect to others. If that respect can't be reciprocated, then have a nice day


----------



## kabbes (May 9, 2017)

And so it goes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> That is implicit in the very question "give me an alternative", so really you're just not paying attention while busy defending someone who's behaviour is piss poor. Good luck with that, Butchersapron is blocked. I've given him ample opportunity to behave respectfully and engage in discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> And comments like this, blind assertions, are the problem. If you can't see that, then there's nothing more to say. I think I've comported myself reasonably and shown respect to others. If that respect can't be reciprocated, then have a nice day


I will batter down your chinese walls.


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> And so it goes.


So you're just a wind up merchant then: it's ok when you lecture me, but if I respond suddenly it's time to roll the eyes? Have some self respect at least!


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> So you're just a wind up merchant then: it's ok when you lecture me, but if I respond suddenly it's time to roll the eyes? Have some self respect at least!


Kabbes: the noted wind up merchant. The _geezer_.


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2017)

Corbo will be ten minutes away at the salubrious Salford Precinct shopping centre in a couple of hours. Perhaps he'll take part in the local tradition of ram-raiding the jewellers, or engage in a ceremonial overdose.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In other news... Corbyn has said he won't resign after losing on June 8th.
> Jeremy Corbyn Says He Won't Quit Even If He Loses The General Election
> I suspect he _believes_ he won't resign, but won't have much choice.


well there would have to be another leadership challenge to oust him if he refused to go right? wether he'd win a third after the GE loss I don't know but I don't think he'd be nailed on certain to lose it. Heels have been dug in .


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn promises to transform Britain as Labour launches election campaign – politics live

relaunch in Manchester.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Corbo will be ten minutes away at the salubrious Salford Precinct shopping centre in a couple of hours. Perhaps he'll take part in the local tradition of ram-raiding the jewellers, or engage in a ceremonial overdose.



A few years ago you would have been slaughtered for that.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> well there would have to be another leadership challenge to oust him if he refused to go right? wether he'd win a third after the GE loss I don't know but I don't think he'd be nailed on certain to lose it. Heels have been dug in .



Good. Then the moderates can have their fucking Jarvis or whoever and abstain on all the cuts. Long articles in the Graund about "hard choices" in between the section on where to get the best organic kale and the article on why Tuscany is no longer the ideal for the sequel to Eat, Pray Love.

Thank fuck I am not in the UK. What a pit of vipers.


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2017)

treelover said:


> A few years ago you would have been slaughtered for that.


Back in the good old days eh. Well, I walk past it every day. It's at least one of the circles of hell.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Good. Then the moderates can have their fucking Jarvis or whoever and abstain on all the cuts. Long articles in the Graund about "hard choices" in between the section on where to get the best organic kale and the article on why Tuscany is no longer the ideal for the sequel to Eat, Pray Love.
> 
> Thank fuck I am not in the UK. What a pit of vipers.


the guardian lost the plot over corbyn ages ago. I don't think they've ever got over their beloved lib dems getting mugged off by the tories and then sunk by the electorate.


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> the guardian lost the plot over corbyn ages ago. I don't think they've ever got over their beloved lib dems getting mugged off by the tories and then sunk by the electorate.


By mugged off I presume you mean willing partners in a let'sfuckthepoor gangbang.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> well there would have to be another leadership challenge to oust him if he refused to go right? wether he'd win a third after the GE loss I don't know but I don't think he'd be nailed on certain to lose it. Heels have been dug in .


Yeah, there's a possibility he might try and stay on and, like you say, the remaining MPs would have to actually trigger a contest.  He really is resilient and will no doubt be planning the succession, trying to get the odd rule change and all that. But I can't see him surviving the derision that's going to follow the defeat. There will be ex MPs ripping up their membership cards, defections to the piss yellows and the like.  The membership will also carry on falling.  I'd have thought he would be gone at least by the next conference.


----------



## nuffsaid (May 9, 2017)

Surely Labour will split if he doesn't leave after the GE. The PLP will feel galvanised for a leadership battle but Corbyn would still have the huge mandate from the membership. The PLP will feel they've given him a chance to prove himself at a GE and Corbyn will still want to control the path of the party going forward - 

I sense an immovable object being hit by an irresistible force, time to buy popcorn.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

Yeah! Cooper will save us! Her husband can dance! Jess Philips will swear and Hilary Benn can whip up support for the bombing of Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Iran!
Tom Watson can use his half a million Nazi money to go to Glastonbury every year!
Best of all, Tony will be smiling from above with auntie Mandy and Baron Sainsbury.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yeah! Cooper will save us! Her husband can dance! Jess Philips will swear and Hilary Benn can whip up support for the bombing of Syria/Yemen/Iraq/Iran!
> Tom Watson can use his half a million Nazi money to go to Glastonbury every year!
> Best of all, Tony will be smiling from above with auntie Mandy and Baron Sainsbury.


Why don't you go on a board where people are saying this stuff? Go back to the guardian boards and you can do this all day.

Bizarre.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Surely Labour will split if he doesn't leave after the GE. The PLP will feel galvanised for a leadership battle but Corbyn would still have the huge mandate from the membership. The PLP will feel they've given him a chance to prove himself at a GE and Corbyn will still want to control the path of the party going forward -
> 
> I sense an immovable object being hit by an irresistible force, time to buy popcorn.


That's my guess too, though whether it be a split or fragmentation in different directions will/would be interesting. 

In theory at least, the failure of the Corbyn thing could reinvigorate the extra parliamentary left.  However I personally don't see that happening either, it just trails off into inertia. Whole thing is a depressing fuck up, even for those of us who were never part of it.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you go on a board where people are saying this stuff? Go back to the guardian boards and you can do this all day.
> 
> Bizarre.


Why don't you simply place me on ignore? Then you can save yourself the time and effort of reading and responding.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2017)

Is this a negotiating ploy by corbyn? 

He'll go in return for a left winger on the ballot. I cant see how he can possibly stay on after the likely thumping labour are going to get on June 8th.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Why don't you simply place me on ignore? Then you can save yourself the time and effort of reading and responding.


Because i don't want to_ encourage intellectual immorality. _Plus i find it bizarre. What do you get from responding to people elsewhere _on here?_


----------



## nuffsaid (May 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> That's my guess too, though whether it be a split or fragmentation in different directions will/would be interesting.
> 
> In theory at least, the failure of the Corbyn thing could reinvigorate the extra parliamentary left.  However I personally don't see that happening either, it just trails off into inertia. Whole thing is a depressing fuck up, even for those of us who were never part of it.



Indeed. But a split to properly define a clearly left movement might not be a bad idea. The fight will be over who gets the 'Labour' brand, which I don't think should matter, but they obviously will. If Blair can rebrand then what's wrong with calling yourself Real Labour, or something, and just see how long the PLP stand up as themselves, they have no mandate.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Because i don't want to_ encourage intellectual immorality. _


You crusade to never leave an error unrefuted is admirable but I doubt that is your only reason for how you treat people that you don't agree with


butchersapron said:


> What do you get from responding to people elsewhere _on here?_


Eh?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> well there would have to be another leadership challenge to oust him if he refused to go right? wether he'd win a third after the GE loss I don't know but I don't think he'd be nailed on certain to lose it. Heels have been dug in .



We'll be posting on this thread in years to come in between giving each other advice on retirement homes and dodgy prostates.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Why don't you simply place me on ignore? Then you can save yourself the time and effort of reading and responding.


Why don't you fuck off, or at least say something that relates to what anyone else on this board is actually saying.  You come across like a fash troll, pretending to be lefty before revealing a crude anti semitism. Really, read your posts back. Are you proud of them?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Is this a negotiating ploy by corbyn?
> 
> He'll go in return for a left winger on the ballot. I cant see how he can possibly stay on after the likely thumping labour are going to get on June 8th.



The Corbyn 'machine' was saying that the local election vote did well in areas that Jeremy had campaigned in. The meaning was clear. No one can decide upon Jeremy until he has met every single last one of us. 

He's due round my house in 2027.


----------



## kabbes (May 9, 2017)

I'm getting a lot of begging letters from Labour.  One every few days.  Will I contribute £1? £2? £5? £10? £20?

What about now?

What about _now_?


----------



## Beermoth (May 9, 2017)

Maybe it would be a good thing if Labour split - in the long term anyway. It's literally just FPTP that's keeping them together at all at this stage.


----------



## chilango (May 9, 2017)

Let the dead bury their own dead.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

treelover said:


> Jeremy Corbyn promises to transform Britain as Labour launches election campaign – politics live
> 
> relaunch in Manchester.


And the re-relaunch in brum next week


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> Why don't you fuck off, or at least say something that relates to what anyone else on this board is actually saying.  You come across like a fash troll, pretending to be lefty before revealing a crude anti semitism. Really, read your posts back. Are you proud of them?



I what? Well I post on other forums and I have been using the name mikey mikey for over 13 years and not once have I posted anything anti-semitic or in sympathy with fascism. I invite anybody to quote anything I have posted that would suggest otherwise. This post above is a deliberate smear. So if that is what is on the menu, belboid, let say make up shit about you. Something like, I think you are a secret Islamophobe and mysoginist and racist and you are cruel to animals.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I what? Well I post on other forums and I have been using the name mikey mikey for over 13 years and not once have I posted anything anti-semitic or in sympathy with fascism. I invite anybody to quote anything I have posted that would suggest otherwise. This post above is a deliberate smear. So if that is what is on the menu, belboid, let say make up shit about you. Something like, I think you are a secret Islamophobe and mysoginist and racist and you are cruel to animals.


This *will* end well


----------



## Who PhD (May 9, 2017)

Clearly Corbyn is a terrible leader if he won't stop being leader!


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

Indeed until he can Jarvis or Cooper there will be no choice but to continue writing articles in the Tory Press, leak shit and take money from people who like to dress up as Nazis.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I what? Well I post on other forums and I have been using the name mikey mikey for over 13 years and not once have I posted anything anti-semitic or in sympathy with fascism. I invite anybody to quote anything I have posted that would suggest otherwise. This post above is a deliberate smear. So if that is what is on the menu, belboid, let say make up shit about you. Something like, I think you are a secret Islamophobe and mysoginist and racist and you are cruel to animals.


I haven't accused you of posting anything anti Semitic, I am pointing out how shit your posts are. The only other people I've seen who have been that bad have been fash pretending not to be. That is how shit your posts are. 

I note you haven't bothered trying to defend the actual contents of your drivel.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 9, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I'm getting a lot of begging letters from Labour.  One every few days.  Will I contribute £1? £2? £5? £10? £20?
> 
> What about now?
> 
> What about _now_?


Same as... what I do think is funny in my local elections last week , labour weren't even on the ballot paper


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> I note you haven't bothered trying to defend the actual contents of your drivel.



Then just ignore me. Easy. Now fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

Mikey's board now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

Which is the guardian comments - go home mikey. Go home.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Then just ignore me. Easy. Now fuck off.


And you still haven't. And it's clear why.


----------



## cantsin (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You crusade to never leave an error unrefuted is admirable but I doubt that is your only reason for how you treat people that you don't agree with
> 
> Eh?



it does seem like you're often expressing (understandable) frustration at / responding to the all pervasive anti Corbo clusterfuck elsewhere,  on here, despite the fact that it's largely not actually happening on here - which makes your posts feel a bit abstract / detached from the convos that are happening on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Then just ignore me. Easy. Now fuck off.


Easy tiger


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Mikey's board now.


Nope. belboid the bellend got there first.


belboid said:


> Why don't you fuck off,


Oh and ...


butchersapron said:


> go home mikey. Go home.


2@


----------



## rekil (May 9, 2017)

Mikey was among those trying to spam the board with Beeley/Bartlett shit which might count as boosting anti-semitism considering their views and political associates. But was this due to naivety or malice?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

cantsin said:


> it does seem like you're often expressing (understandable) frustration at / responding to the all pervasive anti Corbo clusterfuck elsewhere,  on here, despite the fact that it's largely not actually happening on here - which makes your posts feel a bit abstract / detached from the convos that are happening on here.



Thanks cantsin but I would like to point out the title of the thread.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

copliker said:


> Mikey was among those trying to spam the board with Beeley/Bartlett shit which might count as boosting anti-semitism considering their views and political associates. But was this due to naivety or malice?



Indeed, I think I may have been a secret Nazi and been completely unaware of it. Either that, or you are a paid shill of ISIL and you are unaware of it.

Who knows?


----------



## rekil (May 9, 2017)

Why do you post here at all. Rubbish.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Indeed, I think I may have been a secret Nazi and been completely unaware of it. Either that, or you are a paid shill of ISIL and you are unaware of it.
> 
> Who knows?


 you're in the basket  - you faked tim anderson's voice as your own.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 9, 2017)

copliker said:


> Why do you post here at all. Rubbish.



Why do you throw around accusations which are both unfounded and insulting? Is it because you're imitating a "moderate" member of the PLP? Or are you just a nasty piece of work?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

copliker said:


> Mikey was among those trying to spam the board with Beeley/Bartlett shit which might count as boosting anti-semitism considering their views and political associates. But was this due to naivety or malice?


Due to some uncertainty about the politics he was supposed to project.


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Fuck this serious bollocks, threads turned into a pile of shite.

My Urban Cabinet selection 

PM - Editor (who else?) 
Chancellor - Kabbes , a safe pair of hands in these turbulent fiscal times
Home Sec - Butchersapron, Argue ye not! 
Foreign Sec - Yuwipi Woman/JC 3 , the rest of the wolrd seems reasonably large place, despite what UKIP sez, so a job share seems appropriate 
Defence Sec - Likesfish, remember, they don't like it up 'em 
Education Sec - Sparklefish, the voice of experience needed. 
Health sec - Sassferato , a lapsed Tory, can he keep his finger off the privatisation button though? 
Culture , Media and Sport (AKA good times sec) - William of Walworth - I have a feeling Sport might be a bit neglected with this appointment, but breweries shall prosper!
Sec of State for Justice - Pickmans Model , a pedant's dream appointment 
Environment and Food Sec - Cheesypoof 
Welsh Sec - Bendeus, Rygbi passion at it's finest, the high's and lows of it all, laid bare to see.

The Speaker shall of course be Fridgemagnet and the opposition anybody that doesn't eat babies


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Fuck this serious bollocks, threads turned into a pile of shite.
> 
> My Urban Cabinet selection
> 
> ...


Oooh, missis, I've just lost me deposit!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Fuck this serious bollocks, threads turned into a pile of shite.
> 
> My Urban Cabinet selection
> 
> ...


Transport: Spymaster


----------



## Orang Utan (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Fuck this serious bollocks, threads turned into a pile of shite.
> 
> My Urban Cabinet selection
> 
> ...


Have you mistaken spanglechick for sparklefish?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you mistaken spanglechick for sparklefish?


Other way round surely


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Other way round surely


This was how Michael Gove got his first cabinet job.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 9, 2017)

Who gets Minister for Whydon'tyouputmeonignorethen, MikeySpikey or the other one?


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you mistaken spanglechick for sparklefish?




Ah yes sorry! , got confused in the flurry of phone calls making these appointments


----------



## bimble (May 9, 2017)

I don't trust cheeseypoof to do the food job , she's all fancy imported nonsense, that role should go an FEB expert such as Orang Utan.


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Spanglefish or Sparklechick


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

bimble said:


> I don't trust cheeseypoof to do the food job , she's all fancy imported nonsense, that role should go an FEB expert such as Orang Utan.


Badgers. Compared to Badgers ou is but a neophyte


----------



## Orang Utan (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Other way round surely


Hmm, i suppose it could be presented the other way round too


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Transport: Spymaster


Makes sense.


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Who gets Minister for Whydon'tyouputmeonignorethen, MikeySpikey or the other one?



Too many candidates to choose from. We may have to suffer yet another fucking election


----------



## Buckaroo (May 9, 2017)

bimble said:


> I don't trust cheeseypoof to do the food job , she's all fancy imported nonsense, that role should go an FEB expert such as Orang Utan.



Night of the long knives already


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Night of the long knives already



Dissent and a proposed reshuffle within 8 posts, Urban's governing style seems set


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

I have ordered a dozen guillotines


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2017)

So my missus met him today, shook his hand, gave him this glowing review: "was good excuse to stand outside for a bit"


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I have ordered a dozen guillotines



PFI funded I hope!


----------



## Buckaroo (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Dissent and a proposed reshuffle within 8 posts, Urban's governing style seems set



More than dissent, the whole fucking lot are gone in less than one hour. Job done


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> PFI funded I hope!


B&Q tbh


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> PFI funded I hope!


NHS and everything. The man's an enabler.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> The man's an enabler.



Not for long!


----------



## bimble (May 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I have ordered a dozen guillotines


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Think we need a ministry for Bone Him


----------



## Buckaroo (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Think we need a ministry for Bone Him


I think you need to keep your head down etc


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Scared of bimble seems a wrongun. 

 /looking over shoulder.......


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

bimble said:


> View attachment 106330


We aren't importing septick mega guillotines.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Fuck this serious bollocks, threads turned into a pile of shite.
> 
> My Urban Cabinet selection
> 
> ...


fucksake, I'd be crying for Blair back if that shower of shit was the government


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> fucksake, I'd be crying for Blair back if that shower of shit was the government



careful,  Bimble watches.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> fucksake, I'd be crying for Blair back if that shower of shit was the government


Yeh

But not for long


----------



## redsquirrel (May 9, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Surely Labour will split if he doesn't leave after the GE. The PLP will feel galvanised for a leadership battle but Corbyn would still have the huge mandate from the membership. The PLP will feel they've given him a chance to prove himself at a GE and Corbyn will still want to control the path of the party going forward -


I don't see a split, they'd be walking away with nothing. Despite the Indie bollocks if, as seems likely, Labour's share of the vote is lower than 2010 then either Corbyn will go or someone will challenge him and this time I think don't think he'd win. His opponents will be relatively stronger after the election so why leave then. He might stay on until the Autumn I suppose.

Of course if Labour do massively better than predicted, say 35% of the vote, then it's a different ball game but I can't see that happening.


----------



## Smangus (May 9, 2017)

Department of, *cough*,  "Internal Affairs" - Bimble, she will make sure we all display the "correct" attitude.


----------



## chilango (May 9, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't see split, they'd be walking away with nothing. Despite the Indie bollocks if, as seems likely, Labour's share of the vote is lower than 2010 then either Corbyn will go or someone will challenge him and this time I think don't think he'd win. He might stay on until the Autumn I suppose.
> 
> Of course if Labour do massively better than predicted, say 35% of the vote, then it's a different ball game but I can't see that happening.



I'm not sure Momentum et al have the stomach for s grinding war of attrition if that follows a catastrophic GE defeat.

The fresh faced enthusiasts that still remain will soon start to drop out and the Trots will move on to their next bandwagon.


----------



## bimble (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Department of, *cough*,  "Internal Affairs" - Bimble, she will make sure we all display the "correct" attitude.


you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 9, 2017)

chilango said:


> I'm not sure Momentum et al have the stomach for s grinding war of attrition if that follows a catastrophic GE defeat.
> 
> The fresh faced enthusiasts that still remain will soon start to drop out and the Trots will move on to their next bandwagon.


Yeah, that's my feeling. I think there's already been some dropping out over Labour's EU moves, a loss worse than 2010, and they won't have the stomach for a fight to keep Corbyn. More likely they'll rally around the next saviour instead.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Department of, *cough*,  "Internal Affairs" - Bimble, she will make sure we all display the "correct" attitude.


Ministry of Truth


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2017)

All this talk of staying on (or not) is daft.

At this point and probably ever, you'd have to be a right fucking numpty to say, 'well if you don't vote for me, I'll be off', not to mention it inherently humouring the idea of your own inevitable defeat. It bears no relation to what will actually happen.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2017)

belboid said:


> Ministry of Truth


Based at london's senate house


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> All this talk of staying on (or not) is daft.
> 
> At this point and probably ever, you'd have to be a right fucking numpty to say, 'well if you don't vote for me, I'll be off', not to mention it inherently humouring the idea of your own inevitable defeat. It bears no relation to what will actually happen.


30 yrs on the labour left must engender a certain stubborn old goatishness


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Then just ignore me. Easy. Now fuck off.



Don't you feel even slightly mortified that your posts present you as dumber than a Stormfront member?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't you feel even slightly mortified that your posts present you as dumber than a Stormfront member?



Another fucknut joining in on the pile-on. Usual suspects.


----------



## teqniq (May 10, 2017)

Rebel Labour MPs are plotting to form a breakaway group to force Jeremy Corbyn to resign, according to reports



> Labour could be split in two after the election with many as 100 MPs reportedly plotting to form their own breakaway group to force Jeremy Corbyn to resign.
> 
> MPs on the moderate and right-wing of the party are said to be in talks with potential donors about forming a new “progressives” grouping in Parliament after the expected rout by the Conservatives in the election on 8 June....



There's that 'moderate' word again.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 10, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Rebel Labour MPs are plotting to form a breakaway group to force Jeremy Corbyn to resign, according to reports
> 
> 
> 
> There's that 'moderate' word again.



TBH all of those words have a very familiar ring to them. In pretty much that order...


----------



## mikey mikey (May 10, 2017)

Shall we go back to calling them Blairites, or was that banned?

It so unfair calling them the word they named themselves. God knows they don't throw around nicknames like Corbynista or thug  or dog or cultist.

Oh..........wait.........


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Rebel Labour MPs are plotting to form a breakaway group to force Jeremy Corbyn to resign, according to reports
> 
> 
> 
> There's that 'moderate' word again.


And yet these are the MPs we should be voting for in order to support Corbyn?

I'm so confused.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> fucksake, I'd be crying for Blair back if that shower of shit was the government


A government of all the talents, shurely?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah, that's my feeling. I think there's already been some dropping out over Labour's EU moves, a loss worse than 2010, and they won't have the stomach for a fight to keep Corbyn. More likely they'll rally around the next saviour instead.


I find the sneering tone of yourself and a few others to the new Labour membership quite strange. A bunch of mostly young people are trying to make an attempt (probably doomed) to reverse their impoverishment and the increasing cruelty of our society. They may be wrong about the solutions and methods, but it is the biggest movement of people trying to do this in any kind of organised way in my lifetime. I don't think sneering is the right response.

A fair few people on here said that new Labour/Momentum members would never turn out on the doorstep and do actual work. Anecdotally I know from friends in London this turned out to be untrue - much of the canvassing in some areas of London right now is being done by new Corbynite members. So what are we sneering at now? People being wrong about the form their collective action should take?


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I find the sneering tone of yourself and a few others to the new Labour membership quite strange. A bunch of mostly young people are trying to make an attempt (probably doomed) to reverse their impoverishment and the increasing cruelty of our society. They may be wrong about the solutions and methods, but it is the biggest movement of people trying to do this in any kind of organised way in my lifetime. I don't think sneering is the right response.
> 
> A fair few people on here said that new Labour/Momentum members would never turn out on the doorstep and do actual work. Anecdotally I know from friends in London this turned out to be untrue - much of the canvassing in some areas of London right now is being done by new Corbynite members. So what are we sneering at now? People being wrong about the form their collective action should take?



Can't speak for anyone else, but no sneering on my part. I know (and like) a couple of young-ish Labour members who joined (afaik) during the "surge". I don't think either have the stomach for further protracted internal attrition. I wouldn't either.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Most the new membership i've encountered are actually old membership. Any activity is pretty much exactly the same as before they joined. Labour may have changed them, they haven't changed labour.

What's worse btw patrosnisation or open political criticisms?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Most the new membership i've encountered are actually old membership. Any activity is pretty much exactly the same as before they joined. Labour may have changed them, they haven't changed labour.
> 
> What's worse btw patrosnisation or open political criticisms?


Perhaps your area is different. There are certainly a lot of new people involved in parts of London - in the sense of actually going door to door.

It's not patronising - perhaps my point wasn't clear. I actually don't agree they are wrong to give it a try. Just trying to see the logic from redquirrel's side. Even if you think they are wrong, what is the most constructive attitude to that?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> And yet these are the MPs we should be voting for in order to support Corbyn?
> 
> I'm so confused.



Vote for them and they keep their seat. Don't vote for them and their "side" will remove Corbyn and they will be granted the next safe available seats.


----------



## Sue (May 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Vote for them and they keep their seat. Don't vote for them and their "side" will remove Corbyn and they will be granted the next safe available seats.


Or vote for them and their side will remove Corbyn.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

....and the ones I know (which may not be representative but there you go) are increasingly focussing their energies in other activity (one in their Union, the other in more single issue stuff. Both were discussing (reluctantly I think) tactical Lib Dem voting the other day. A third Corbyn enthusiast that I know is increasingly flirting between Labour and the Greens. I don't think they're an actual Labour member though.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I find the sneering tone of yourself and a few others to the new Labour membership quite strange. A bunch of mostly young people are trying to make an attempt (probably doomed) to reverse their impoverishment and the increasing cruelty of our society. They may be wrong about the solutions and methods, but it is the biggest movement of people trying to do this in any kind of organised way in my lifetime. I don't think sneering is the right response.
> 
> A fair few people on here said that new Labour/Momentum members would never turn out on the doorstep and do actual work. Anecdotally I know from friends in London this turned out to be untrue - much of the canvassing in some areas of London right now is being done by new Corbynite members. So what are we sneering at now? People being wrong about the form their collective action should take?


Like chilango, I'm not sneering, or at least didn't intend for it to come over like that, while I disagree with (re)joining Labour for all sorts of reason I can understand why some people did it.

I just genuinely don't think they have the stomach, or political knowledge/skills, to stop the PLP control of the party. Particularly after a bad loss.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> And yet these are the MPs we should be voting for in order to support Corbyn?
> 
> I'm so confused.


It's not confusing, it's just life. Sometimes it sucks. Have you never had to grit your teeth and do something unpleasant in order to get the outcome you want? Have you never had to pretend to like someone for the sake of a better job, in which they might be your boss? Complicated moral ground is normal - why demand that in politics it be simple?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Perhaps your area is different. There are certainly a lot of new people involved in parts of London - in the sense of actually going door to door.
> 
> It's not patronising - perhaps my point wasn't clear. I actually don't agree they are wrong to give it a try. Just trying to see the logic from redquirrel's side. Even if you think they are wrong, what is the most constructive attitude to that?


I'm in a key labour seat (bristol east)- both the lib-dems and tories think they have a chance - the lib-dems soley on remain voters anger. In my general non-election activity most new members i've met have been those who dropped out in the early 90s or after 83. The younger ones tend to be the kids of these people as well. I.e there is family tradition/commitment. We've not yet been canvassed for the GE but we were for the stupid mayor thing. It was old members on the knocker then and i think it was pretty clear they were directing things - it didn't matter if the new members were young or fresh or whatever, they were simply doing what generations of labour activists had done before.  I think it's healthy to be sceptical of that. 

There was some knobber on the hoey thread yesterday who thought he was above political criticism because he'd joined the lib-dems after being politically (formally i mean) inactive. It doesn't work that way for them and it shouldn't work that way for labour members.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 10, 2017)

_Look. Just get Corbyn out. Don't fucking argue. The Labout Party is a centerist party and if you don't like it we'll deliberately let the Tories in to fuck you up. And don't describe us as anything or use any names for us until we tellyou it's okay. _


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Like chilango, I'm not sneering, or at least didn't intend for it to come over like that, while I disagree with (re)joining Labour for all sorts of reason I can understand why some people did it.
> 
> I just genuinely don't think they have the stomach, or political knowledge/skills, to stop the PLP control of the party. Particularly after a bad loss.


You may be right, but if they do all leave the LP en masse isn't the most interesting question what could come out of that? If you are farsighted enough to see it all going down the shitter, perhaps you're the right person to be trying to set up successor forms of organising. That requires a bit more than denunciations.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> You may be right, but if they do all leave the LP en masse isn't the most interesting question what could come out of that? If you are farsighted enough to see it all going down the shitter, perhaps you're the right person to be trying to set up successor forms of organising. That requires a bit more than denunciations.


What happened last time?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> What happened last time?


When was the last time an entire generation of people were poorer than their parents, and predicted to be so for the foreseeable future?


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Vote for them and they keep their seat. Don't vote for them and their "side" will remove Corbyn and they will be granted the next safe available seats.





Brainaddict said:


> It's not confusing, it's just life. Sometimes it sucks. Have you never had to grit your teeth and do something unpleasant in order to get the outcome you want? Have you never had to pretend to like someone for the sake of a better job, in which they might be your boss? Complicated moral ground is normal - why demand that in politics it be simple?


No, this is pragmatically and practically just wrong.

These are Labour MPs that have made it plain that when (not if, be realistic) Labour lose the election, they will, as PLP members, act to remove Corbyn.

If they lose their seats, they will not be able to do this.  The PLP will not have replacement Blairites in those seats, they will just be short of Blairite members.  The weighting of the PLP will be less Blairite, more Corbyn as a result of the Blairite MPs getting the heave-ho.

If the outcome I want is for Corbyn and his "side" to entrench their power base in the Labour Party, the "grit my teeth and do something unpleasant" act is to vote _against_ the return of these anti-Corbyn MPs, not for them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> When was the last time an entire generation of people were poorer than their parents, and predicted to be so for the foreseeable future?


1983.

And that's nonsense btw - plenty of middle class with good degrees doing quite well. I think that you need to be a bit more attentive than 'an entire generation'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> When was the last time an entire generation of people were poorer than their parents, and predicted to be so for the foreseeable future?


The poor Duke of Westminster  how sad he will be poorer than his dad


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> plenty of middle class with good degrees doing quite well.


I'm not sure that isn't a simplification too far, to be honest.  The parents of those middle class kids view "doing quite well" as including being on your second home by the time you're 30, with a couple of bedrooms ready for those kids that will be on their way soon enough.  The fact that their upper-20s kids are still living with their parents instead causes much hand-wringing in the pages of The Times.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> 1983.
> 
> And that's nonsense btw - plenty of middle class with good degrees doing quite well. I think that you need to be a bit more attentive than 'an entire generation'.


Well you can pick at the language, and of course there are still plenty of young people who can get more parental help and inherit, but the point is the conditions are not the same as last time. I don't think most people in 1983 did expect to be poorer than their parents - except in areas being forcibly deindustrialised, which I suspect is what you're referring to, but that had its own dynamic to it (for instance the 'ambitious' might move to the big city to escape it).

As more of a class-struggle person than me I'm surprised you don't see a bit more potential in the conflict that has been set up between those with assets and those without. I interpret the Corbyn surge as the beginning of that - and definitely just the beginning.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Well you can pick at the language, and of course there are still plenty of young people who can get more parental help and inherit, but the point is the conditions are not the same as last time. I don't think most people in 1983 did expect to be poorer than their parents - except in areas being forcibly deindustrialised, which I suspect is what you're referring to, but that had its own dynamic to it (for instance the 'ambitious' might move to the big city to escape it).
> 
> As more of a class-struggle person than me I'm surprised you don't see a bit more potential in the conflict that has been set up between those with assets and those without. I interpret the Corbyn surge as the beginning of that - and definitely just the beginning.


Only the beginning  what were the student demos of 2010 then if not in response to young people seeing long-term debt foisted on them if they had the temerity to go to university?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> No, this is pragmatically and practically just wrong.
> 
> These are Labour MPs that have made it plain that when (not if, be realistic) Labour lose the election, they will, as PLP members, act to remove Corbyn.
> 
> ...


But the result of a load MPs losing their seats will likely be the return of Labour to the centre-right  - not enough of the rightists will be unseated to actually prevent their next moves in the wake of Corbyn's defeat. That's why many people have gone all-or-nothing with Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Well you can pick at the language, and of course there are still plenty of young people who can get more parental help and inherit, but the point is the conditions are not the same as last time. I don't think most people in 1983 did expect to be poorer than their parents - except in areas being forcibly deindustrialised, which I suspect is what you're referring to, but that had its own dynamic to it (for instance the ambitious might move to the big city to escape it).
> 
> As more of a class-struggle person than me I'm surprised you don't see a bit more potential in the conflict that has been set up between those with assets and those without. I interpret the Corbyn surge as the beginning of that - and definitely just the beginning.


I'm mentioning 1983 because it was the last time the labour party was in this position of a left challenge. The result of the lefts defeat - internal and external - was 10 years of infighting resulting in Tony Blair being elected leader. 

I think you're giving the labour party far too much centrality as a vehicle of class struggle. The idea of the new membership as a substitute proletariat fighting against an entrenched bourgeoisie is pretty daft. As is the idea that they will constitute a fighting army outside of the party. They didn't after 83 - they knuckled down and became local councilors and other such roles.

Did you join btw?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

Been ages since i have seen the dialectic on display as often as i have the last few days. Vote anti-corbyn to support corbyn. TINA.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm mentioning 1983 because it was the last time the labour party was in this position of a left challenge. The result of the lefts defeat - internal and external - was 10 years of infighting resulting in Tony Blair being elected leader.
> 
> I think you're giving the labour party far too much centrality as a vehicle of class struggle. The idea of the new membership as a substitute proletariat fighting against an entrenched bourgeoisie is pretty daft. As is the idea that they will constitute a fighting army outside of the party. They didn't after 83 - they knuckled down and became local councilors and other such roles.
> 
> Did you join btw?


No, but voted Corbyn through my union affiliation and have had some minor involvement in campaigning. I see the opportunity that others see but think this moment in the LP will be temporary, so the organisation itself is not where I'm going to put my energies. I guess we'll see what happens when the Corbyn surge passes. I'm a bit more optimistic that many people will try to continue the fight by other means.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 10, 2017)

_Don't vote Labour to support Jeremy Corbyn's GE campaign. _


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> When was the last time an entire generation of people were poorer than their parents, and predicted to be so for the foreseeable future?





> “Do you think we enjoy hearing about your brand-new million-dollar home when we can barely afford to eat Kraft Dinner sandwiches in our own grimy little shoe boxes and we're pushing thirty? A home you won in a genetic lottery, I might add, sheerly by dint of your having been born at the right time in history? You'd last about ten minutes if you were my age these days.”
> ― Douglas Coupland, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture 1991


----------



## bimble (May 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _Look. Just get Corbyn out. Don't fucking argue. The Labout Party is a centerist party and if you don't like it we'll deliberately let the Tories in to fuck you up. And don't describe us as anything or use any names for us until we tellyou it's okay. _


Who are you talking to?


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> You may be right, but if they do all leave the LP en masse isn't the most interesting question what could come out of that? If you are farsighted enough to see it all going down the shitter, perhaps you're the right person to be trying to set up successor forms of organising. That requires a bit more than denunciations.



FWIW I don't think they'll leave "en masse". They'll gradually drop out. Some, as I suggested above, into other forms of activity. Others may give up completely. I don't see a mass bloc emerging out ready and raring for a new formation.


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> But the result of a load MPs losing their seats will likely be the return of Labour to the centre-right  - not enough of the rightists will be unseated to actually prevent their next moves in the wake of Corbyn's defeat. That's why many people have gone all-or-nothing with Corbyn.


The result of voting for an MP that has explicitly said they will get rid of Corbyn after being elected... is that Corbyn will be got rid of after they are elected.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> You may be right, but if they do all leave the LP en masse isn't the most interesting question what could come out of that? If you are farsighted enough to see it all going down the shitter, perhaps you're the right person to be trying to set up successor forms of organising. That requires a bit more than denunciations.


I've not said people will leave en masse, just that they'll be demoralised. Nor have I denounced anyone for joining the Labour party, I've said why I think such an action is not something I agree with but I've always said that there are good people in the Labour Party. 

I have "denounced' the nonsense from Labour members that makes the party the end rather than the means to an end, but I don't apologise for that. Once you end up at that point you're part of the problem.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 10, 2017)

Looked from left to right and it was impossible to tell which was which...


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> Generation X quote


Let's not get into novelists. He was objectively wrong - on average people of that generation were richer than their parents and continue to be, at least in the UK.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 10, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Rebel Labour MPs are plotting to form a breakaway group to force Jeremy Corbyn to resign, according to reports
> 
> 
> 
> There's that 'moderate' word again.



They may wish to put their plans on hold until they see how many of them are left standing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

bimble said:


> Who are you talking to?


He's just talking


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I find the sneering tone of yourself and a few others to the new Labour membership quite strange. A bunch of mostly young people are trying to make an attempt (probably doomed) to reverse their impoverishment and the increasing cruelty of our society. They may be wrong about the solutions and methods, but it is the biggest movement of people trying to do this in any kind of organised way in my lifetime. I don't think sneering is the right response.
> 
> A fair few people on here said that new Labour/Momentum members would never turn out on the doorstep and do actual work. Anecdotally I know from friends in London this turned out to be untrue - much of the canvassing in some areas of London right now is being done by new Corbynite members. So what are we sneering at now? People being wrong about the form their collective action should take?


I take your point, but like Chilango I don't think there's been too much sneering. There's certainly been _criticism_ of the new membership, which has really been criticism of the old left members, returnees and others who have supposedly been leading the Corbyn thing.  My criticism has been that the party has neither made the internal reforms to allow the new members to get control nor done enough to engage with the voters, the working class, the places Labour has abandoned.  On that last point people like treelover have put me right in terms of the activity that is taking place in some areas. However, I'm still convinced there's been no coherent attempt to make the party into 'something else', whether you call it a social movement or not.  It's still a rule bound institution, it doesn't make common cause with struggles and it hasn't become inventive in terms of what it does on a day to day basis. 

Of course it was, to say the least, optimistic to think Labour or indeed/especially the Labour left would be able to transform itself into a different kind of structure, with different ideas.  For me it was only a kind of thought experiment as to what it would need to become.  Problem is, without any of that it is just another political party.  It doesn't address the way that politics itself has abandoned the working class, retreated into identity politics and has a shabby managerialist version of 'inclusion'. With it's public sector policies, Labour is, ironically, close to what many people think about the way health, transport and other services should run, but as an organisation it's as disconnected as any of them.

Bit of a derail that, but I think it does relate to the 'what happens next' question. If they can't find a way to change what the party *is* there's not much hope for the Corbynism without Corbyn.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Let's not get into novelists. He was objectively wrong - on average people of that generation were richer than their parents and continue to be, at least in the UK.



The point is more that chunks of that generation believed it to be true (and for many of us it has turned out that way). So today's generation aren't the first to feel that way.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> The point is more that chunks of that generation believed it to be true (and for many of us it has turned out that way). So today's generation aren't the first to feel that way.


Possible thread in that.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 10, 2017)

why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?


None that I can think of.  Probably should have come out with the line 'brexit is your doing, stop moaning, get on with it'. To be fair, there were no good choices, but he probably chose the wrong one.

Edit: I'm less sure how it affects the PLP. It certainly brings forward his own resignation and sets off unpredictable events in terms of threatened splits and the like. However the predominantly right wing PLP will also lose 50 (?) seats.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?


Yeh, it's daft


----------



## emanymton (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Most the new membership i've encountered are actually old membership. Any activity is pretty much exactly the same as before they joined. Labour may have changed them, they haven't changed labour.
> 
> What's worse btw patrosnisation or open political criticisms?


Same here. Localy their membership is made up of people from the existing Labour left and those that left the party sometime in the last 20 years who have now re-joined.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?



Two parts hubris, one part cunning plan.


----------



## emanymton (May 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> 1983.
> 
> And that's nonsense btw - plenty of middle class with good degrees doing quite well. I think that you need to be a bit more attentive than 'an entire generation'.


True. But something has changed hasn't it? The 'Bank of Mum and Dad' (horrible fucking name) is what? The 9th biggest mortgage lender now. On one hand this just exposes the wealth inequality in this country but on the other hand it is a cultural shift. In absolute terms they are doing well, certainly compared to me, but in relative terms?

I don't see any reason why this should result in shifts to the left though.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2017)

_The spirit of the fixed term parliaments act_ is an odd idea - it's only purpose was to stop the tories calling an election partway through the 2010 coalition if conditions became favourable. It has no other 'spirit'.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 10, 2017)

yeah probably true enough - but there was no sun-set clause on it so was _*sort of*_ being sold as a bit of on-going Parliamentary modernisation to avoid overly cynical cut & run manipulation of the Parliamentary timetable by incumbent parties I'd have said - didn't last long obvs


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2017)

Sold to whom?


----------



## hot air baboon (May 10, 2017)

We the people - and the MPs who trooped through the lobbies for it :

_When the Act was introduced in 2011, the coalition government justified it by arguing that “fixed-term parliaments will have a positive impact on our country’s political system; providing stability, discouraging short-termism, and preventing the manipulation of election dates for political advantage.” 

Has the Fixed-term Parliaments Act failed? - OxPol_


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2017)

_We the people _didn't give a shit. The MPs didn't either.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?



What's the point of an opposition that has no aspiration to govern?


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> What's the point of an opposition that has no aspiration to govern?



to oppose?


----------



## hot air baboon (May 10, 2017)

if JC had needed some ammunition to oppose May then that quote ( not attributed - Cameron ? ) would at least have been something to starkly point up the unseemly rush to the polls.

Andrew Gwynne was ofcourse in tv studios saying they wanted an election "to get the Tories out" before May called it - which presumably helped persuade her to call it


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> The result of voting for an MP that has explicitly said they will get rid of Corbyn after being elected... is that Corbyn will be got rid of after they are elected.


Not necessarily. They'll try, but might not succeed.  

Unlike any election for st least thirty years (probably more, I think I voted CP in 87), I would vote Labour in almost any seat in England or wales. Maybe green or Pc if they were the only challenge to the tories. But even in those seats where Labour have no chance, or the candidate is, say, Wes Streeting, I'd vote for them. Just because every vote is a vote for the Corbyn led Labour Party. Fewer votes would only help him if it got rid of a particular shitbag, AND he had enough votes for that not to matter. 

If Labour lose 50+ seats and a million votes, he's dead and gone, end of story. If you get that down to 10 and 200,000, then it's basically where we were anyway, so he (or another left MP) could just about carry on. A single gain and it's a whole different ball game again.


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2017)

emanymton said:


> True. But something has changed hasn't it? The 'Bank of Mum and Dad' (horrible fucking name) is what? The 9th biggest mortgage lender now. On one hand this just exposes the wealth inequality in this country but on the other hand it is a cultural shift. In absolute terms they are doing well, certainly compared to me, but in relative terms?
> 
> I don't see any reason why this should result in shifts to the left though.



plenty of graduates from last year still haven't go jobs and their parents are keeping them, also not signing on, partly because they, the parents, are aware of the brutality of the welfare system, etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Another fucknut joining in on the pile-on. Usual suspects.



Cunt off, you cock-faced conspira-nutter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A government of all the talents, shurely?



Precisely.

You pay ten talents of silver for a junior Ministerial position, ten talents of gold for a Cabinet position.


----------



## cantsin (May 10, 2017)

not probably for this thread, but managed to miss this piece of work, Brixton MP, part of the Progress mob down there, and of course up to her neck in dodgy regeneration / social cleaning schemes :

A Vote for Labour is a Vote for . . .

firmly added to the long list of Lab MP's who's demise I'd be raising a glass to on June 8, should the occasion arise


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> why on earth did Corbyn agree to this election - its a gift to the Tories & his PLP enemies, totally reneged on May's repeated assurances to the contratry & is against the spirit of the Fixed Terms Act  - was there any logic beyond not wanting to look frit to the electorate ?




He had no choice at all.


If the government says 'we're shit and it's election time' the opposition that doesn't say 'go on then fuck off' is admitting it's no opposition at all.


----------



## 1927 (May 10, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> What's the point of an opposition that has no aspiration to govern?


If you're playing a football match you want to win, doesn't mean you attack for 90 minutes. Sometimes you have to wait for the time to be right for you to have a better chance to score.


----------



## Supine (May 10, 2017)

1927 said:


> If you're playing a football match you want to win, doesn't mean you attack for 90 minutes. Sometimes you have to wait for the time to be right for you to have a better chance to score.



You can also loose by scoring own goals


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> plenty of graduates from last year still haven't go jobs and their parents are keeping them, also not signing on, partly because they, the parents, are aware of the brutality of the welfare system, etc.


And?


----------



## RD2003 (May 10, 2017)

I live in an area of mainly terraced housing, a mile and a half from a major city centre, where there's a large turnover of young 'professionals' who buy 'starter homes' and then move on after a few years. When they're so obviously recent graduates, there's no way they've got the money for deposits and so on. Which suggests that they're helped by their parents, and hence financially worse off than the parents, who would, back in the 1970s or '80's, likely have done all this under their own steam.

Speaking personally, I'm materially worse off than my own parents were in their middle-age. Which is fucking going some, even by today's standards, when you consider they were both unskilled manual workers...


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cunt off, you cock-faced conspira-nutter.



Fuck off you pathetic online internet "hard man".


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Fuck off you pathetic online internet "hard man".


feeble


----------



## alex_ (May 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> to oppose?



Which they've been doing very effectively by supporting the government.

Alex


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

alex_ said:


> Which they've been doing very effectively by supporting the government.
> 
> Alex



Jeremy Corbyn is denying Britain a decent opposition
Observer: Labour is not a functioning _opposition_, 

And yet


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2017)

alex_ said:


> Which they've been doing very effectively by supporting the government.
> 
> Alex



Well, quite.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

Let's not forget what a great job the moderates by abstaining on the welfare cuts, ey?


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Let's not forget what a great job the moderates by abstaining on the welfare cuts, ey?



God, you're boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Jeremy Corbyn is denying Britain a decent opposition
> Observer: Labour is not a functioning _opposition_,
> 
> And yet


So you're saying it's due to Corbyn that all schools are being forced to become academies.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Let's not forget what a great job the moderates by abstaining on the welfare cuts, ey?


Eh?


----------



## bemused (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So you're saying it's due to Corbyn that all schools are being forced to become academies.



It does seem a bit of a stretch.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 11, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> He had no choice at all.
> 
> 
> If the government says 'we're shit and it's election time' the opposition that doesn't say 'go on then fuck off' is admitting it's no opposition at all.



well I'm not convinced it is election time only 2 years after the previous one & why not act as an opposition by opposing an opportunistic cut & run effort based on a false narrative which is basically saying the Opposition is shit & a danger to the national interest so we want to bury them under some crushing electoral landslide ?


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 11, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> well I'm not convinced it is election time only 2 years after the previous one & why not act as an opposition by opposing an opportunistic cut & run effort based on a false narrative which is basically saying the Opposition is shit & a danger to the national interest so we want to bury them under some crushing electoral landslide ?




The whole point of an opposition is for them to say "we can do better" saying no to an election on the basis the government can crush us under a mound of evidence to the contrary just shows that your shit and you can't do better.

It is a classic case of fucked if they do, fucked if they don't.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 11, 2017)

they're fucked if they do & they _*might*_ be fucked if they don't - ofcourse the other argument they could have martialled is May self-serving & hypocritical dismissal of a second "Brexit" Scottish referendum as premature whilst wanting a "Brexit" election

ETA : if he actually _*wins*_ then I'll be happy to publically recant


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

Labour made the decision to vote for the election in the knowledge that they will lose it (and lose heavily).  Voting against it probably wasn't a good look, but was the best option.  One scenario is that brexit negotiations go badly and Labour do a bit better in 2020. The other and probably more likely scenario is that negotiations go badly but people back the Tories as some kind of crisis/wartime/nationalistic logic.  That means there's a good chance Labour do even worse in 2020.  Same time, set against _knowing_ they will do very badly in 2017, leaving the election till 2020 was probably the best way to go.

I'll admit, it was an almost impossible choice for Corbyn - and I may even have said something different myself at the time of the vote. But ultimately 2017 is a turkeys/Christmas thing.


----------



## Raheem (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour made the decision to vote for the election in the knowledge that they will lose it (and lose heavily).  Voting against it probably wasn't a good look, but was the best option.  One scenario is that brexit negotiations go badly and Labour do a bit better in 2020. The other and probably more likely scenario is that negotiations go badly but people back the Tories as some kind of crisis/wartime/nationalistic logic.  That means there's a good chance Labour do even worse in 2020.  Same time, set against _knowing_ they will do very badly in 2017, leaving the election till 2020 was probably the best way to go.
> 
> I'll admit, it was an almost impossible choice for Corbyn - and I may even have said something different myself at the time of the vote. But ultimately 2017 is a turkeys/Christmas thing.



The other side of it is what refusing an election would have done to the Tories. There would have been a slim chance, IMO, of them getting though the Brexit negotiations without the PCP descending into open warfare, because the Brexiteers would have been carrying big weapons - they would have been able to defeat government legislation pretty much at will (regardless of whether this would have applied to the actual exit bill) and vote against the government in a confidence motion if it came to that. It may be that the facade will fracture anyway, but this election helps May to make the risk more manageable.

I think there's a bottom line that the government wouldn't have wanted this election if it wasn't going to significantly benefit them, and anything the significantly benefits the government is likely to harm the main opposition party as a result.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> God, you're boring.



For not joining in on the Corbyn-bashing circle jerk? Well, gee.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> they're fucked if they do & they _*might*_ be fucked if they don't - ofcourse the other argument they could have martialled is May self-serving & hypocritical dismissal of a second "Brexit" Scottish referendum as premature whilst wanting a "Brexit" election
> 
> ETA : if he actually _*wins*_ then I'll be happy to publically recant


I have a soapbox you can borrow


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour made the decision to vote for the election in the knowledge that they will lose it (and lose heavily).  Voting against it probably wasn't a good look, but was the best option.  One scenario is that brexit negotiations go badly and Labour do a bit better in 2020. The other and probably more likely scenario is that negotiations go badly but people back the Tories as some kind of crisis/wartime/nationalistic logic.  That means there's a good chance Labour do even worse in 2020.  Same time, set against _knowing_ they will do very badly in 2017, leaving the election till 2020 was probably the best way to go.
> 
> I'll admit, it was an almost impossible choice for Corbyn - and I may even have said something different myself at the time of the vote. But ultimately 2017 is a turkeys/Christmas thing.


As long as there's christmas


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> For not joining in on the Corbyn-bashing circle jerk? Well, gee.



No. Wittering on about moderates.

By all means defend Corbyn from attack here. But at least know from which direction the attacks are coming.

Else you'll be blindsided every time.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> No. Wittering on about moderates.
> 
> By all means defend Corbyn from attack here. But at least know from which direction the attacks are coming.
> 
> Else you'll be blindsided every time.



Ironic that you may be defending him, but not voting for him whereas I don't think he has what it takes, but I'll be voting for him.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour made the decision to vote for the election in the knowledge that they will lose it (and lose heavily).  Voting against it probably wasn't a good look, but was the best option.  One scenario is that brexit negotiations go badly and Labour do a bit better in 2020. The other and probably more likely scenario is that negotiations go badly but people back the Tories as some kind of crisis/wartime/nationalistic logic.  That means there's a good chance Labour do even worse in 2020.  Same time, set against _knowing_ they will do very badly in 2017, leaving the election till 2020 was probably the best way to go.
> 
> I'll admit, it was an almost impossible choice for Corbyn - and I may even have said something different myself at the time of the vote. But ultimately 2017 is a turkeys/Christmas thing.



Once it was called, I don't see that he had a choice.


----------



## Reiabuzz (May 11, 2017)

1927 said:


> If you're playing a football match you want to win, doesn't mean you attack for 90 minutes. Sometimes you have to wait for the time to be right for you to have a better chance to score.



 

Yes, I'm sure Corbyn and Abbott are waiting like coiled pythons just waiting for their moment to snatch a 25 point lead back. In the meantime they're busying themselves claiming they're going to pay 250,000 new cops £30 a year and leaking their manifesto a week early. It's all part of the plan.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Jeremy Corbyn is denying Britain a decent opposition
> Observer: Labour is not a functioning _opposition_,
> 
> And yet



They'll have to work hard to keep that up when the Tories have a massive majority. Likely TM will be well 'fuck you'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Fuck off you pathetic online internet "hard man".



Not very original, is it?  

Still, you never have been, have you?  Too busy listening to the arguments raging in your head, to take in what others say, and so sure that you're always right.  There's a name for people like you:  Cockwombles.

Now jog on, you specious cock-drip.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> feeble



We say "weak" nowadays, Uncle Aleister.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Ironic that you may be defending him, but not voting for him whereas I don't think he has what it takes, but I'll be voting for him.



I'm like a black fly in your Chardonnay....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> God, you're boring.


 

Didn't the P & P forum have a fairly long thread on the various perfidies of the _soi-disant_ "moderates", including their abstaining activities?  I'm fairly sure I said some unpleasant things about my own MP on it, for his own oscillations.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> For not joining in on the Corbyn-bashing circle jerk? Well, gee.


Most people aren't doing that tho, are they? You are incapable of actually conducting a discussion or making an argument.  All you can do is mouth platitudes. Thank god you aren't going to go onto doorsteps or to phone banks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Yes, I'm sure Corbyn and Abbott are waiting like coiled pythons just waiting for their moment to snatch a 25 point lead back. In the meantime they're busying themselves claiming they're going to pay 250,000 new cops £30 a year and leaking their manifesto a week early. It's all part of the plan.



To be fair though, you support the Lib-Dems, so I'm not sure your political musings are worth dick, even taking into account Abbott's execrable arithmetic.

And "coiled pythons"?  Bit Freudian, that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

belboid said:


> Most people aren't doing that tho, are they? You are incapable of actually conducting a discussion or making an argument.  All you can do is mouth platitudes. Thank god you aren't going to go onto doorsteps or to phone banks.



Don't give him ideas, for fuck's sake!


----------



## Reiabuzz (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> And "coiled pythons"?  Bit Freudian, that.



Wow. This has to be the most depressing election in living memory. You're about to be completely and utterly wiped off the political map because of the bonkers, self deluded hubris of one man and the weird little group of mates he's scraped off the very bottom of the barrel  - but at least you've still got your sense of humour...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Wow. This has to be the most depressing election in living memory. You're about to be completely and utterly wiped off the political map because of the bonkers, self deluded hubris of one man and the weird little group of mates he's scraped off the very bottom of the barrel  - but at least you've still got your sense of humour...


You're giving mikey mikey too much credit


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Wow. This has to be the most depressing election in living memory. You're about to be completely and utterly wiped off the political map because of the bonkers, self deluded hubris of one man and the weird little group of mates he's scraped off the very bottom of the barrel  - but at least you've still got your sense of humour...


So says the supporter of the party on 10% that will be lucky to get ten seats.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Wow. This has to be the most depressing election in living memory. You're about to be completely and utterly wiped off the political map because of the bonkers, self deluded hubris of one man and the weird little group of mates he's scraped off the very bottom of the barrel  - but at least you've still got your sense of humour...



You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I'm a Corbynite - I'm not.

What I know is that all there are, are poor choices, and I'd rather a leap-of-faith after Corbyn, than to vote in a Tory or Tory/Lib-Dem coalition govt.  The Lib-Dems are a cancer on democracy, oscillating politically in any direction that allows them to grasp at the reins of power.  You support enabling cunts who voted for a lot of very bad legislation.

"How does that make you feel?" as Sigmund Freud might ask.


----------



## Reiabuzz (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I'm a Corbynite - I'm not.
> 
> What I know is that all there are, are poor choices, and I'd rather a leap-of-faith after Corbyn, than to vote in a Tory or Tory/Lib-Dem coalition govt.  The Lib-Dems are a cancer on democracy, oscillating politically in any direction that allows them to grasp at the reins of power.  You support enabling cunts who voted for a lot of very bad legislation.



I apologise - you do come across as someone who might support Jez. Who do you support then?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Wow. This has to be the most depressing election in living memory. You're about to be completely and utterly wiped off the political map because of the bonkers, self deluded hubris of one man and the weird little group of mates he's scraped off the very bottom of the barrel  - but at least you've still got your sense of humour...




sorry , can you remind me how the lib dems got on last time?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> Once it was called, I don't see that he had a choice.



because of the super majority voting against would have forced the Tories to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence....which would have been an interesting spectacle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> I apologise - you do come across as someone who might support Jez. Who do you support then?



Did you miss the bit of my post where I said that they're all poor choices?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> sorry , can you remind me how the lib dems got on last time?



They're likely to pick up some seats, especially those in the West Country that voted Tory last time but usually voted L-D.

That said, I don't reckon they'll gain more than 10 seats, personally, but this election is a bit madder than any previous one I can think of in the last 30 years, so I reckon it's all up in the air.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

ta


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> Once it was called, I don't see that he had a choice.


You might be right, I seem to recall Thatcher taunting Neil Kinnock that he was 'frit' about the coming election (87?) and that would have happened this time round too. Still, there's a chance Labour _might_ emerge from in an election in 2020 better than we know they will emerge from this one. Also, as Raheem said, an election now strengthens May within her own party.


----------



## 1927 (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour made the decision to vote for the election in the knowledge that they will lose it (and lose heavily).  Voting against it probably wasn't a good look, but was the best option.  One scenario is that brexit negotiations go badly and Labour do a bit better in 2020. The other and probably more likely scenario is that negotiations go badly but people back the Tories as some kind of crisis/wartime/nationalistic logic.  That means there's a good chance Labour do even worse in 2020.  Same time, set against _knowing_ they will do very badly in 2017, leaving the election till 2020 was probably the best way to go.
> 
> I'll admit, it was an almost impossible choice for Corbyn - and I may even have said something different myself at the time of the vote. But ultimately 2017 is a turkeys/Christmas thing.


There won't be a 2020 now tho will there? And if they lose heavily Corbyn isn't going to be able to hang around long enough for the next one!


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2017)

Plenty of Labour MPs eager for the defeat and the end of  Corbyn  would perhaps have backed the election call even if Corbyn had tried to block it...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> Plenty of Labour MPs eager for the defeat and the end of  Corbyn  would perhaps have backed the election call even if Corbyn had tried to block it...


I have a feeling those in nailed on safe seats would have backed it


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 11, 2017)




----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> We say "weak" nowadays, Uncle Aleister.



Who's "we" Is that like a royal we or do you have something like a gang? Or are you really just a jumped up butt-plug with aspirations of becoming a decent human being? Curl up and hibernate you twat.


----------



## Raheem (May 11, 2017)

I'm started to get the feeling the leak might have come from the leadership. They've given the impression of being sort of prepared in their response to it, whereas the Labour right seem caught off guard. Then Ian McKellen is on the TV declaring his support, now Chomsky it seems. To borrow and flip the Progress WWII analogy, has Corbyn planned this as his D-Day?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Who's "we" Is that like a royal we or do you have something like a gang?



"We" is "anyone under the age of 85", bestiality-boy.



> Or are you really just a jumped up butt-plug with aspirations of becoming a decent human being? Curl up and hibernate you twat.



Fantasising about anal pleasure again? How very...revealing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I'm started to get the feeling the leak might have come from the leadership. They've given the impression of being sort of prepared in their response to it, whereas the Labour right seem caught off guard. Then Ian McKellen is on the TV declaring his support, now Chomsky it seems. To borrow and flip the Progress WWII analogy, has Corbyn planned this as his D-Day?



It could be.
It may mean that even in defeat he secures a victory by showing the wider electorate what a busted flush the Labour "moderates" and their Progress fellow-travellers are.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> "We" is "anyone under the age of 85",


Far be it from me to come to the defense of Pickman, but the word he used, i.e. feeble is hardly archaic.




ViolentPanda said:


> Fantasising about anal pleasure again?



Perhaps I do and perhaps I don't. Certainly not with you, you'll be relieved to hear.



ViolentPanda said:


> bestiality-boy.



So unlikely an insult as to make one wonder...



ViolentPanda said:


> How very...revealing.



Indeed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 11, 2017)

Sarah Champion slays May and Clegg. Adam Boulton gets rekt: 

Watch this interview with Sarah Champion that shows Labour is a government-in-waiting


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

Guards to be reintroduced on commuter trains if Labour wins

This could be interesting, if he can get the southern rail passengers on board.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)




----------



## mikey mikey (May 11, 2017)

Before I get asked: Tom Pride.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>


it almost seems to good to be true


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

Labour's list is just getting a bit 'everything that people like':

"What about giving everybody one of those old nokkia phones that have made a come back?"
"Piers Morgan to be horsewhipped every Thursday"
"Erm, what about, ermm, Wagon Wheels?  Yeah, something about Wagon Wheels..."


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

Labour trying to win this election with _policies_ = trying to prove something with _facts_. Fucking doomed.


----------



## Raheem (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Labour's list is just getting a bit 'everything that people like':
> 
> "What about giving everybody one of those old nokkia phones that have made a come back?"
> "Piers Morgan to be horsewhipped every Thursday"
> "Erm, what about, ermm, Wagon Wheels?  Yeah, something about Wagon Wheels..."



Whereas the Tories is shaping up to be the opposite, seemingly just to take the piss.

"Bring back foxhunting."
"A pardon for Garry Glitter."
"Abolish Saturdays."


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

Even wor Polly likes the manifesto, spending 2/3 of her article saying so before business as normal is resumed and she says Corbyn should be taken out and shot:
Never mind who leaked it, this Labour manifesto is a cornucopia of delights | Polly Toynbee


----------



## bemused (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Even wor Polly likes the manifesto, spending 2/3 of her article saying so before business as normal is resumed and she says Corbyn should be taken out and shot:
> Never mind who leaked it, this Labour manifesto is a cornucopia of delights | Polly Toynbee



As much as I'm loathed to say it Richard Littlejohn had her pegged all those years ago.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> As much as I'm loathed to say it Richard Littlejohn had her pegged all those years ago.


I dread to google.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Before I get asked: Tom Pride.


My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.



Whassername? Miranda.


----------



## bemused (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I dread to google.



Him and Polly were discussing climate change on Question Time she poked him and he then asked if 'you thought about climate change whilst flying to her Italian villa.'


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2017)

I've been wondering for a while about what Corbyn's legacy as Labour leader might be, especially as it seems inevitable that they will lose the election and fairly certain that Corbyn and his leadership will get the blame (whether that's right or wrong is a seperate question)

One of the things we discussed was the possibility a while ago was the possibility of restoring party democracy to somewhere near what it was before the Blair years.I'm sure this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but maybe someone can remind me what have Corbyn and his supporters within the party hierarchy actually done to bring these changes about?

What is the process, how long does it take and how far along the road are they? As far as I know, very little progress (!) has been made, which leaves me wondering just what the point of the Corbyn leadership really was, except to have a totemic old left figurehead.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whassername? Miranda.


Tom Pride apparently


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

andysays said:


> which leaves me wondering just what the point of the Corbyn leadership really was, except to have a totemic old left figurehead.


Grand Old Duke of Islington - he marched them (the 500,000) up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

andysays said:


> I've been wondering for a while about what Corbyn's legacy as Labour leader might be.


 "Remember us." As simple an order as a king an allotment owning Labour Leader can give. "Remember why we died." For he did not wish tribute or song. No monuments, no poems of war and valour. His wish was simple: "Remember us," he said to me


----------



## The39thStep (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.


Una Stubbs


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> It could be.
> It may mean that even in defeat he secures a victory by showing the wider electorate what a busted flush the Labour "moderates" and their Progress fellow-travellers are.



TBH I'd have thought the Eagle vs Smith fracas last summer would have done that.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Even wor Polly likes the manifesto, spending 2/3 of her article saying so before business as normal is resumed and she says Corbyn should be taken out and shot:
> Never mind who leaked it, this Labour manifesto is a cornucopia of delights | Polly Toynbee


she predicts a Tory win. That means hope is not yet dead


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Grand Old Duke of Islington - he marched them (the 500,000) up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.



...and when they were left they were right and when they were right they were left and when they never met in the middle they went their separate ways...


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2017)

Well, this is an embarrassing email that I just received 5 minutes ago...


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well, this is an embarrassing email that I just received 5 minutes ago...
> 
> View attachment 106480



Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well, this is an embarrassing email that I just received 5 minutes ago...
> 
> View attachment 106480


I can see that working


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well, this is an embarrassing email that I just received 5 minutes ago...
> 
> View attachment 106480


I've just got one of them.. straight to the bin


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

I really am thinking no one wants to win this election


----------



## redsquirrel (May 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.


For once we're in furious agreement.


----------



## 1927 (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.


Helen Mirren gets all the best parts!


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.


Every time I do some toast I hope to see JC's half smile on it.


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Every time I do some toast I hope to see JC's half smile on it.


Vermont Novelty Toaster Corporation


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 11, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.



Comrade Corbyn will lead us to victory!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 11, 2017)




----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.



Big Suze out of Peep Show. Steve Coogan plays the husband.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> For once we're in furious agreement.



It doesn't help him. The election has given him a platform and he is coming across a bit better.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2017)

wrong thread , doh


----------



## William of Walworth (May 11, 2017)

Pickmans model said:
			
		

> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.





The39thStep said:


> Una Stubbs






			
				1927 said:
			
		

> Helen Mirren gets all the best parts!






			
				Downward Dog said:
			
		

> Big Suze out of Peep Show. Steve Coogan plays the husband.



Tracey Ullman ...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Guards to be reintroduced on commuter trains if Labour wins
> 
> This could be interesting, if he can get the southern rail passengers on board.



Can’t quite see Surrey and Sussex turning red this just yet.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2017)

hmm yeah , i guess 

although i do see a turn to yellow


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> So, we get to it. Entirely laudable thing to do, adopting a child - genuinely (my partner used to be a foster carer, fwiw). But you gave this as your answer, when I asked about your _politics, about what you are doing to defend public services_.  I think we've finally got to it haven't we - you are not doing anything. Me - stuff on and off since 1979 or so, for the first 10 years in the Labour Party, then anarcho politics, more recently anti-cuts, local solidarity movement, stuff on sanctions.  But it's not a who can piss highest thing, I've said on here I've done nothing for the last year or more due to health issues.  It's about having some sense of a process, a politics, fuck it, if nothing else _a sense of connection_. I was asking if you did anything about the things you believe in, because if you'd been involved in say a campaign against NHS cuts, in some degree, in some way, an aspect of that would have been extra-parliamentary.  It wouldn't have been simply 'let's wait till the next election, err, that's it'.  But it seems that's precisely your political approach 'Corbyn is shit, let's hope somebody else comes along to vote for in 2022'.  From your perspective, how do you move things on, what do you do to make the changes you want?  Anything, anything at all???




Nice rant, except it’s just a personal attack which says nothing about how to stop the tories and their ongoing unrelenting demolition of public services.

You say "it’s not about who can piss the highest" but that is precisely what you’re doing by demanding to know my political activities so you can compare them to your own. Are you trying to imply that my opinion on Corbyn is less valuable because I don’t have a chest full of activist campaign medals like you?

For what it’s worth, I too used to be involved with the Labour Party and I was active member of Friends of the Earth and CND, but that has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. Taking just one child out of the perpetual circle of abuse is in my opinion worth more than any amount of picketing, meetings, arguing, shouting or marching.




> Anarcho politics...





How many urgent operations has ‘anarcho politics’ prevented being cancelled? How many at risk children has it given the care they need?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> As I'm one of people opposing the sell off of the adventure playground in Lambeth the picture is more complicated than a Labour Council dealing with cuts.
> 
> Lambeth Labour is controlled by the Progress wing of the Labour party. Going back to the days of Blair. As I'm sure ViolentPanda can explain they are hostile to traditional Council housing.
> 
> ...



I appreciate what you and others have been saying about Lambeth, but I’m judging Labour by their performance in national government against the performance of the tories in national government. They are still the only two choices available and time is running out for too many essential public services.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2017)

The Daily Mirror isn't often much cop at all, but today theyre having a good albeit basic go at defending, sorta,  the draft manfesto's main proposals ...

How much would Jeremy Corbyn's draft Labour manifesto poposals cost? 10 key points under the microscope


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2017)

link doent work for me


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> From your perspective, how do you move things on, what do you do to make the changes you want?  Anything, anything at all???



If you want to try and move things on then keep doing what you're doing Wilf, but how long do you want us to wait for real change to happen? Someone mentioned at least 40 years earlier in the thread. It'll be too late for public services if the tories stay in government for most of the next decade, let alone the next four. And don't forget that real change can only happen once the electorate choose a government which will enact it. Also, for everyone trying to move things to the left, there are going to be just as many trying to move it to the right.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2017)

And I hadn't looked at the detail yet : plenty in the leaked draft (in yesterday's Mirror) that I liked a lot ..... but is it all just too bloody detailed and wordy?

Draft to final process should include some editing perhaps.  Not of policy but of too many WORDS ... the late Kaufman had a pithy sentence on that, back in the day ...

BUT!! I'm liking a lot of the the policies/proposals. Even if most voters end up preferring Brexit/May ..


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> link doent work for me




I've just edited it. The link in post #17782 should work now!


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2017)

same as , mostly tory round here but just chatting , people seem to be getting the message, hope its not too late


----------



## Rimbaud (May 12, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> same as , mostly tory round here but just chatting , people seem to be getting the message, hope its not too late



Not gonna get my hopes up too much, but I do think getting policies known about will boost Corbyn's vote quite a lot.

Polling average is up by around 6-7% over this last month, and I think he will he will get a boost of a few more points over the next week. He won't win but it may not be a total disaster.


----------



## Combustible (May 12, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.



It is, and it is interesting that the image he managed to project that allowed him to absolutely trounce his opponents, saintly honest Jeremy, not like other politicians, speaks truth to power but doesn't engage in personal attacks, was so utterly unconvincing to much of the wider electorate. There is no doubt that the media, many of his own party and others had a big role in making sure he was doomed but was it ever plausible that this sort of image would go down well with most people and he wouldn't just be seen as a bit of a shambles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2017)

agricola said:


> TBH I'd have thought the Eagle vs Smith fracas last summer would have done that.



Nothing wrong with the message being reinforced.


----------



## bimble (May 12, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Whatever you think of Jeremy as leader this idolisation of him is really fey, crap and cringey.


Those cotton bags are not alone. I had no idea but seems there's a thriving market for stuff with Corbyn's face on. 




Also available:


----------



## Smangus (May 12, 2017)

Hope he's got image rights. Mr Lefty capitalised lol.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 12, 2017)

He could have his face Thomas the Tank Engine style on a _Corbyne Harvester _pictured persuing Sir Topham Hatt and his Tory lickspittles across a field.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Hope he's got image rights. Mr Lefty capitalised lol.


and there was me thinking you were a small letterist


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> He could have his face Thomas the Tank Engine style on a _Corbyne Harvester _pictured persuing Sir Topham Hatt and his Tory lickspittles across a field.



That's definitely one to ask Jim'll Paint It to do.


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2017)

I like the lettrists...



> Today, Easter day of the Holy Year,
> Here, under the emblem of Notre-Dame of Paris,
> I accuse the universal Catholic Church of the lethal diversion of our living strength toward an empty heaven,
> I accuse the Catholic Church of swindling,
> ...


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

_Stupid people lurve Jeremy. They should marry him._


----------



## inva (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> _Stupid people lurve Jeremy like we do. They should marry him._


your ip address blatantly points to Hilary Benn's office. no other explanation


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

LOL


----------



## kabbes (May 12, 2017)

You are right about one thing, mikey mikey.  You really do deserve to go on ignore.  I find that my urban experience is much enriched by putting people on ignore when their posts are consistently excessively boring.

I was really hoping at some point you might say something _interesting_, but all you do is argue against people who aren't even here.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

Be my guest kabbes. It seems to me (and a couple of other folks I have had chats with on here) that there is a little group of "forum police" that engage in pile-ons when somebody posts stuff they don't agree with. It's not as if I am doing a Pickman and bugging you by quoting your posts. I'm just making a comment that you are free to read or not read. So have at it and leave me the fuck alone.


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2017)

kabbes said:


> You are right about one thing, mikey mikey.  You really do deserve to go on ignore.  I find that my urban experience is much enriched by putting people on ignore when their posts are consistently excessively boring.
> 
> I was really hoping at some point you might say something _interesting_, but all you do is argue against people who aren't even here.



Yeah. I think that's it for me.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

Missing you already.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.


Vanessa Redgrave!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> It's not as if I am doing a Pickman and bugging you by quoting your posts.


no, you like to sneak your little digs in like this, without tagging or quoting.


----------



## flypanam (May 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Also available:
> 
> View attachment 106506



Seems the tories still haven't got their heads round the idea of Ireland (ROI) as an independent state or is that manifesto pledge to bring Ireland back into the union?


----------



## cantsin (May 12, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> Not gonna get my hopes up too much, but I do think getting policies known about will boost Corbyn's vote quite a lot.
> 
> Polling average is up by around 6-7% over this last month, and I think he will he will get a boost of a few more points over the next week. He won't win but it may not be a total disaster.



Labours odds of winning halved in the last 24 hrs ( 25/1 to 12/1) .

Though Tory odds remain at a mad 1/40 approx


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Be my guest kabbes. It seems to me (and a couple of other folks I have had chats with on here) that there is a little group of "forum police" that engage in pile-ons when somebody posts stuff they don't agree with. It's not as if I am doing a Pickman and bugging you by quoting your posts. I'm just making a comment that you are free to read or not read. So have at it and leave me the fuck alone.



Oh noes, it's the monothought clique!!! 


Or, and I know this is a far out there suggestion, you really *ARE* as dull, insipid and boring as nasal hair.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

You are kinda proving my point, you know that right?


----------



## bimble (May 12, 2017)

Nasal hair can be characterful and sometimes funny.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

You both get a badge.


----------



## Wilf (May 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nice rant, except it’s just a personal attack which says nothing about how to stop the tories and their ongoing unrelenting demolition of public services.
> 
> You say "it’s not about who can piss the highest" but that is precisely what you’re doing by demanding to know my political activities so you can compare them to your own. Are you trying to imply that my opinion on Corbyn is less valuable because I don’t have a chest full of activist campaign medals like you?
> 
> ...


Not sure why you call it a rant. Mine might have been a shit post, who is to say, but it wasn't remotely _ranty_. We certainly ain't going to agree on anything, but still, a couple of points:

Above you say I'm making a 'personal attack' on you. That's not it at all. To be honest, if you are committed to public services you _might_ expect someone to be involved in some kind of campaigning, but that wasn't it. The key to what I was asking is below, in a discussion about whether the Labour Party was the only way forward Vs forms of extra parliamentary action I was asking about the *political logic* of what you had done:




> WILF - this is getting like pulling teeth: okay, you seem to be saying you've been involved in some kind of politics, some kind of campaign (is it secret?). What was it? What was the *political logic*?



In terms of what I might have done, I haven't had a lifetime of campaigning and commitment (though my 20s probably were a bit like that).  It's been bits and pieces. No campaign medals, I do a lot less than many others, inc. people on these boards.  Why I got into anything I've done was because YOU FECKIN' ASKED ME! (see below):



> AH - OK. I don't see what relevance it has to the subject of stopping tory cuts, but my partner and I adopted a child who was in care 15 years ago who is still with us. We've probably saved our local authority's Children's Social Care, Child Mental Health Services and probably Police Services a huge amount of time and funding which has hopefully been used to benefit children elsewhere.
> 
> *That's me, so what have you done*?



Again, adopting a child is great - and if anyone wants to see it in those terms it does save the public sector a large amount of money.  But that's not what we are discussing here - it's whether the Labour Party is the only vehicle for establishing decency, services and the rest; whether there's some version of the party that's going to spring into existence to do all that after Corbyn or whether there are other ways to oppose capital.  I think your politics are shit and that simply 'saying get rid of Corbyn' shows a poor understanding of neo-liberalism, class, interests and power.  But that's not a _personal_ attack.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2017)

Gotta love the love in p&p


----------



## teqniq (May 12, 2017)

Not this forum police shit again.


----------



## Smangus (May 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Nasal hair can be characterful and sometimes funny.



It makes me sneeze, how does mikey mikey compare to excess eyebrow hair?


----------



## Wilf (May 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Nasal hair can be characterful and sometimes funny.


Certainly when doing coke.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Not this forum police shit again.



Well I didn't call them, but someone must've, cos here they are throwing around "whacky" insults and telling people to stop posting. _Gittoff ma boards!_


----------



## Smangus (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Not this forum police shit again.



I prefer the term "Forum Fuzz", has a sort of pubic ring about it


----------



## teqniq (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey You aren't the first but what does post #17801 say and what does post 17811 portray?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (May 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My question was, if you were going to make a film about British politics, who would you get to play Theresa May.



Steve Buscemi


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> mikey mikey You aren't the first but what does post #17801 say and what does post 17811 portray?



Their meanings are plain. Don't be passive aggressive dressd up as reasonable: you are ignoring the insults from other members. You are not impartial.


----------



## teqniq (May 12, 2017)

No, I am bored.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

Funny way of showing it. Besides, I did not start this slanging match. So bore off and butt out.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Taking just one child out of the perpetual circle of abuse is in my opinion worth more than any amount of picketing, meetings, arguing, shouting or marching.


so in your opinion your action is worth more than votes for women
not to mention worth more than the institution of the age of consent
and worth more than legislation against children being sent into mills or mines
not to mention being worth more than ending slavery
what a curious moral calculus you have to weigh the one against the other


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> No, I am bored.


you are the chairman of the bored


----------



## teqniq (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey Get a grip. By bored I mean over the years there's been plenty of people who've come on here and who've started complaining about 'forum police' when they've come up against various posters with strongly held opinions who've called them out over stuff. It does not mean there is some kind of 'police'. It means I've seen it all before, and it's fucking boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> mikey mikey Get a grip. By bored I mean over the years there's been plenty of people who've come on here and who've started complaining about 'forum police' when they've come up against various posters with strongly held opinions who've called them out over stuff. It does not mean there is some kind of 'police'. It means I've seen it all before, and it's fucking boring.


indeed, it does not improve with repetition.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Nasal hair can be characterful and sometimes funny.


your best post this year


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

flypanam said:


> Seems the tories still haven't got their heads round the idea of Ireland (ROI) as an independent state or is that manifesto pledge to bring Ireland back into the union?


it is the other solution to the issue of the border in ireland post-brexit.


----------



## Smangus (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> mikey mikey Get a grip. By bored I mean over the years there's been plenty of people who've come on here and who've started complaining about 'forum police' when they've come up against various posters with strongly held opinions who've called them out over stuff. It does not mean there is some kind of 'police'. It means I've seen it all before, and it's fucking boring.



Boring as a monobrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Boring as a monobrow.


dull as ditchwater


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

teqniq said:


> mikey mikey there's been plenty of people who've come on here and who've started complaining about 'forum police' when they've come up against various posters with strongly held opinions who've called them out over stuff.



If that was what they were doing most of the time, I'd welcome the conversation, but have a look on this page. It's not what they're doing, now, is it.



teqniq said:


> mikey mikey  It does not mean there is some kind of 'police'.



Okay, let's not use that name: How about _coterie_, _bunch a chickens _who need to swoop in groups, _gang of trolls_, you name it? How about "bunch of fucknuts that hurl shitty comments one after another in an attempt to bury other people's comments under trash"?



teqniq said:


> mikey mikey  It means I've seen it all before, and it's fucking boring.



Well if the same thing keeps happening between a line of past posters and this flock of flamewariors, then perhaps you should be addressing the latter and not the poor guy/gal on the receiving end.

Or just maybe, you are one of those people that like to play the "c'mon knock it off" role, while actually putting the boot in with the rest of the bullies.

Are you that guy?


----------



## teqniq (May 12, 2017)

*Yawn*


----------



## agricola (May 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it is the other solution to the issue of the border in ireland post-brexit.



Its probably their preferred option.


----------



## emanymton (May 12, 2017)

Sometimes when the rest of the world tells you are wrong and you are a dick,  you are in fact in the right. Most of the time however, it just means you are wrong, and a dick.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Sometimes when the rest of the world tells you are wrong and you are a dick,  you are in fact in the right. Most of the time however, it just means you are wrong, and a dick.



Speaking from personal experience, or are you just joining in on the pile-on?

_Back on topic._​
ITV poll: 68% of 165,000 people vote #Corbyn4PM


----------



## emanymton (May 12, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Speaking from personal experience, or are you just joining in on the pile-on?
> 
> ITV poll: 68% of 165,000 people vote #Corbyn4PM


I'm just a pathetic bully who's pilling in.

Oh and I'd vote someone else, namely me. Let's be frank I probably have about as much chance as Corbyn.


----------



## Smangus (May 12, 2017)

We need a boring poll of the accuracy of boring political polls taken over the last boring 5 years, or something boring like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I'm just a pathetic bully who's pilling in.
> 
> Oh and I'd vote someone else, namely me. Let's be frank I probably have about as much chance as Corbyn.


tell you what, seeing the likes of mikey mikey and who phd here, most people would be up for pilling in. 5 - 10 - 15 e's - anything to prevent seeing their dull drivel.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 12, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I appreciate what you and others have been saying about Lambeth, but I’m judging Labour by their performance in national government against the performance of the tories in national government. They are still the only two choices available and time is running out for too many essential public services.



Sorry haven't had time to keep up properly with this thread.

Lambeth is relevant to national government. As I said Lambeth Labour leadership hate Corbyn and all he stands for. Things have moved on since last post. The leaked manifesto looks to me that it's dealing with issues that ordinary Labour voters want. ( From my reading of the Mirror).

Why Lambeth is relevant is that ,as I have explained, have alternative to Corbyn. That is Blairite middle ground.

This does nothing for the people in the estate near me.

Looking at the manifesto I don't see anything that should upset people.Except those on £80 000. True to form the London daily paper Evening Standard ( editor is Osborne) has run piece on why those on £80 000 are not "rich".

The Corbyn manifesto is hardly calling for the overthrow of Capitalism. It's imo mildly left of centre social democratic.


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2017)

kabbes said:


> You are right about one thing, mikey mikey.  You really do deserve to go on ignore.  I find that my urban experience is much enriched by putting people on ignore when their posts are consistently excessively boring.
> 
> I was really hoping at some point you might say something _interesting_, but all you do is argue against people who aren't even here.



He is the only person I have on ignore, somehow he is worse than the Clintonite wankers that have ruined the World politics subforum.


----------



## rutabowa (May 13, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Looking at the manifesto I don't see anything that should upset people.


I think it was a very neat idea to leak it so that the policies could make it into front page news relatively undiluted, without needing to be defended... because yes unless you're a total sociopath you can't really object to any of the aims!

So the only way to attack it is to say it's unrealistic and not fundable. Which hopefully makes people pause and think "WHY is it unrealistic for our society to have these aims? How much do I want this society to exist, and how much are we willing to contribute to create it?"

I think these are good questions to put in peoples' heads. People aren't stupid but we do get caught up in playing roles and taking sides, sometimes i reckon it is good to go back to basics to cut through this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You are kinda proving my point, you know that right?



What point? You have no point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> You both get a badge.



Wah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Gotta love the love in p&p



Fuck off, hippy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Not this forum police shit again.



Yep, this "forum police" shit.

Again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

Smangus said:


> It makes me sneeze, how does mikey mikey compare to excess eyebrow hair?



Are we talking Noel Gallagher-style mono-brow excess hair, or Denis Healy "Pampas grass"-style eyebrows?


----------



## Libertad (May 13, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are we talking Noel Gallagher-style mono-brow excess hair, or Denis Healy "Pampas grass"-style eyebrows?



Thread needs threading.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Thread needs threading.



ISWYDT!


----------



## Smangus (May 13, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are we talking Noel Gallagher-style mono-brow excess hair, or Denis Healy "Pampas grass"-style eyebrows?



Full on mono I reckon.


----------



## teqniq (May 13, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2017)

agricola said:


> Its probably their preferred option.



I was chatting to a friend who is originally from the north of Ireland. She said her friends there definitely think it's a possibility that joining up with the republic could be a serious option. Depends how Brexit negotiations go. The north voted remain.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 13, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I was chatting to a friend who is originally from the north of Ireland. She said her friends there definitely think it's a possibility that joining up with the republic could be a serious option. Depends how Brexit negotiations go. The north voted remain.


But are her friends Protestant friends or Catholic friends?


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> But are her friends Protestant friends or Catholic friends?



This is what she thought was a change. The Protestants may support this as well. Like London the  referendum on EU was not something they wanted.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 14, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


>



Problem is that 99% of the population can't vote for Corbyn.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 14, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Problem is that 99% of the population can't vote for Corbyn.



They can't vote directly for him, but that can vote indirectly for him by voting for somebody who is a parliamentary candidate for the party of which he is the leader. This is true even if the candidate in question is anti-Corbyn.


----------



## omnipeta (May 14, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They can't vote directly for him, but that can vote indirectly for him by voting for somebody who is a parliamentary candidate for the party of which he is the leader. This is true even if the candidate in question is anti-Corbyn.





redsquirrel said:


> Problem is that 99% of the population can't vote for Corbyn.



Hopefully after watching this link it might change a few people's minds? It should be shown on BBC


----------



## mikey mikey (May 15, 2017)

> It is unfortunate that the Guardian’s rejection both of Jeremy Corbyn as a viable leader and the party’s policies as “unlikely to win over Tory-leaning voters” (Editorial, 10 May) was published the day before the leaking of Labour’s draft manifesto. This contained a series of proposals on investing in public services, taxing the wealthiest and scrapping tuition fees that are not just viable but popular with millions of people.
> 
> Our concern as media educators, however, is that whole sections of the media are already committed to a narrative that paints Labour as unelectable and Corbyn as a barely credible candidate. This is not a new phenomenon. Academic surveys have shown how newspapers belittled him from the moment he won his first leadership election, while broadcast bulletins systematically gave more coverage to his opponents than to his supporters. Serious discussion of Labour’s proposed policies has been negligible – drowned out by memes focused on Labour’s apparent lack of opposition and Corbyn’s lack of leadership. We are not asking for eulogies of Corbyn, but for reporting that takes seriously the proposals contained in the manifesto and that doesn’t resort to a lazy stereotype of Corbyn as a “problem” to be solved.
> *Prof Des Freedman *_Goldsmiths, University of London_
> ...



Labour policies drowned out by Corbyn memes | Letters

Letter from 70 media academics asking for better coeverage and less bias.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry haven't had time to keep up properly with this thread.
> 
> Lambeth is relevant to national government. As I said Lambeth Labour leadership hate Corbyn and all he stands for. Things have moved on since last post. The leaked manifesto looks to me that it's dealing with issues that ordinary Labour voters want. ( From my reading of the Mirror).
> 
> ...



Your broadly right about the manifesto, so why are Labour still around 20% behind the polls?

It’s no good continually blaming the print media for its bias and by extension the electorate for being gullible, just as there’s no point in pretending that personality doesn’t matter to voters.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 16, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Not sure why you call it a rant. Mine might have been a shit post, who is to say, but it wasn't remotely _ranty_. We certainly ain't going to agree on anything, but still, a couple of points:
> 
> Above you say I'm making a 'personal attack' on you. That's not it at all. To be honest, if you are committed to public services you _might_ expect someone to be involved in some kind of campaigning, but that wasn't it. The key to what I was asking is below, in a discussion about whether the Labour Party was the only way forward Vs forms of extra parliamentary action I was asking about the *political logic* of what you had done:
> 
> ...



Then let’s forget all this ‘what did you do in the war’ stuff, a diversion which you started by demanding to know what I’ve done personally to help save public services.

You say my ‘politics are shit’, but I don’t even know what your politics are, although they’d clearly be shit if all they achieve is allow the tories to keep chipping away at our rights and services for another decade or more. My politics have always been similar to Corbyn’s, but I’m just trying to be pragmatic.

If you have an alternative vehicle for saving public services other than replacing the tories with a Labour government, then let’s hear it, because no one else on here has come up with anything else yet.



> I think your politics are shit and that simply 'saying get rid of Corbyn' shows a poor understanding of neo-liberalism, class, interests and power. But that's not a _personal_ attack.



That’s not a personal attack!??

Come on then oh wise one, educate me and all the ignorant masses about ‘neo liberalism’, ‘class’ and ‘power’….


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so in your opinion your action is worth more than votes for women
> not to mention worth more than the institution of the age of consent
> and worth more than legislation against children being sent into mills or mines
> not to mention being worth more than ending slavery
> what a curious moral calculus you have to weigh the one against the other



Laughable. But now you’ve brought it up, tell us what great advances in freedom, democracy and human rights have your ‘actions’ been instrumental in bringing about?

And what exactly are your ‘actions’, apart that is from spending half your life on here indulging in mutual masturbation with your mates and sneering at people who try to introduce an element of pragmatism?

Looking back through a selection of your innumerable posts on this thread (100+?), I haven’t seen one yet which actually addresses the subject of the Labour Party and Corbyn's leadership. My guess is you don’t give a shit. 

Will you even vote at this election?


----------



## Captain Christy (May 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> This is what she thought was a change. The Protestants may support this as well. Like London the  referendum on EU was not something they wanted.


The fundamentalists in the Democratic Unionist Party voted for Brexit. Give them a few years starved of EU grants and farm subsidies. Their "friends" in Westminster will throw them to the wolves. As for the Scots the very fact that they have to ask permission from Westminster  to have a referendum and they accept that situation tells its own story.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then let’s forget all this ‘what did you do in the war’ stuff,





Andrew Hertford said:


> Laughable. But now you’ve brought it up, tell us what great advances in freedom, democracy and human rights have your ‘actions’ been instrumental in bringing about?
> 
> And what exactly are your ‘actions’, apart that is from spending half your life on here indulging in mutual masturbation with your mates and sneering at people who try to introduce an element of pragmatism?
> 
> ...




How can you be trusted if you say one thing and with the next breath contradict yourself?


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Your broadly right about the manifesto, so why are Labour still around 20% behind the polls?
> 
> It’s no good continually blaming the print media for its bias and by extension the electorate for being gullible, just as there’s no point in pretending that personality doesn’t matter to voters.



Was I blaming the print media?

The Mirror and Independent have been doing more balanced coverage.

I brought up Evening Standard as I live in London and it's in my face at every street corner. London is poorly served by media. ES is now edited by Osborne.

Today it was even more obnoxious "Comrade Corbyn flies the Red Flag". There only argument against the manifesto is that redistributing wealth will, in ways that that are not explained, will affect the less well off. 

So what are you saying? That the Labour party should ditch policies like the Tobin tax for the City, increased Corporation tax on big business, support for SMEs?

Taking personalities out of it there is nothing extreme in this manifesto.

Or are you saying that it's not the manifesto but that Corbyn is "toxic". A different leader with same manifesto commitments would do better?

I do however think media has a role. It's a fact of life that in a Capitalist neo liberal society that a party which goes against the grain is going to have an uphill struggle to be taken seriously.


----------



## Who PhD (May 16, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Your broadly right about the manifesto, so why are Labour still around 20% behind the polls?
> 
> It’s no good continually blaming the print media for its bias and by extension the electorate for being gullible, just as there’s no point in pretending that personality doesn’t matter to voters.



because the media is biased and the only opinion you hear is that Corbyn is a terrorist


----------



## rubbershoes (May 16, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> because the media is biased and the only opinion you hear is that Corbyn is a terrorist




That's a very patronising view.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> That's a very patronising view.


it's a very shit view.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 17, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They can't vote directly for him, but that can vote indirectly for him by voting for somebody who is a parliamentary candidate for the party of which he is the leader. This is true even if the candidate in question is anti-Corbyn.


I think that's pretty naive. Anti-Corbyn MPs aren't going to stop attacking him even if, by some miracle, Labour won the election. You may be indirectly voting for Corbyn* but you are directly voting for a neoliberal supporting prick.

*And the fact that's it's become supporting _Corbyn_ just illustrates the weakness, it's about supporting an individual rather than a movement.

EDIT: And if you are going to argue to support Corbyn then why not argue for people to join the LP? That's a lot more direct and effective way to support him.


----------



## Raheem (May 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> *And the fact that's it's become supporting _Corbyn_ just illustrates the weakness, it's about supporting an individual rather than a movement.



This is a fair point, but it's only possible to support things that exist.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> because the media is biased



Well the BBC is now using Tory tweets for their headlines.


----------



## Who PhD (May 17, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> That's a very patronising view.


How so?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> However  badly Labour does some people here will never allow any blame to fall on Corbyn



However well Labour is doing right now, _almost all_ of the media will never allow fair and accurate reporting of it. Come to think of it, should such overage get published_ some people here _ will just say it's from _The Canary._


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> However well Labour is doing right now, _almost all_ of the media will never allow fair and accurate reporting of it. Come to think of it, should such overage get published_ some people here _ will just say it's from _The Canary._


When have you expected fair and accurate reporting in the media? You're living not in canary land but cloud-cuckoo land


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Media bias against Corbyn is simultaneously overstated, politics as usual and all Corbyn's own fault. [/political expert brick]


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Media bias against Corbyn is simultaneously overstated, politics as usual and all Corbyn's own fault. [/political expert brick]


When have you expected fair and accurate reporting on any subject? You're asking for something the media does not offer


----------



## rubbershoes (May 17, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> How so?



It implies that people who don't support Labour can't see through the media bullshit


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

> The centrist Labour MPs trying to defend their seats on a local-only platform are doing more than simply omitting Corbyn’s name from leaflets. A script seen by the BBC tells supporters: “Admit Jeremy Corbyn won’t win. Tell voters the country needs good independent-minded MPs.” What to say about Labour’s radical manifesto pledges is not in that script – but its authors will have to come up with something. Because if, as reported, some are planning to resign the whip and go independent, there is no moral basis for doing so if they campaigned on Labour’s manifesto.





> Those inside Labour who cannot stomach the decisive rejection of free-market economics and adventurist war should have the decency to campaign on the manifesto, which was democratically scrutinised and agreed.
> 
> They should be proud of Labour’s pledges to end the health cuts, make university tuition free, end the elderly care crisis and begin the move to a Nordic model of childcare. If they can’t be, they will feel happier elsewhere.



It’s now clear what Corbynism represents – so what does the centre do next? | Paul Mason


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> It’s now clear what Corbynism represents – so what does the centre do next? | Paul Mason


But what do you think?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>



Have you any points of your own to make?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 17, 2017)

interesting polling on who would be most popular as labour leader. Apparently its corbyn. 

Exclusive poll: Jeremy Corbyn is now a bigger vote-winner than Tony Blair


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you any points of your own to make?



None that would interest you.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> None that would interest you.


None that would interest anyone else either it seems


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> None that would interest anyone else either it seems



It doesn't seem like that at all. 
If my comments are so uninteresting to you, why ask for them?


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> ..If my comments are so uninteresting to you, why ask for them?



hope over experience?


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

Exclusive poll: Jeremy Corbyn is now a bigger vote-winner than Tony Blair

Though I suppose that wouldn't be too difficult really.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

kebabking said:


> hope over experience?



Is the only reason your partner agreed to have sex last night.


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Is the only reason your partner agreed to have sex last night.



christ you're a fucking twat.

you're on ignore (congratulations, you've reached the level of phil fucking dywer) - though i might take that off on election night...


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey Really scraping the barrel there.


----------



## emanymton (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> None that would interest you.


I think it's quite sweet that you only post stuff you think will interest Pickmans.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

teqniq said:


> mikey mikey Really scraping the barrel there.



Some people don't like a taste of their own medicine. Especially the ones that gang up on individuals in groups.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2017)

what this thread needs now is some mum-cussing to really raise the bar


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Some people don't like a taste of their own medicine. Especially the ones that gang up on individuals in groups.


Personal insults though? I think there might be something about it in the forum rules. I'm not going to report you but I wouldn't be surprised if someone does. As for this 'ganging up' bollocks, have a look at what you're saying maybe that has something to do with it?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

I never insulted anbody but kebabking. I get insulted regularly.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Back on topic.

More misinformation from the BBC.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

And misleading by omsission.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 17, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> what this thread needs now is some mum-cussing to really raise the bar



Let's all cool down with a nice song.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> More misinformation from the BBC.


And this is misinformation because...


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

because maths


----------



## Old Spark (May 17, 2017)

Big problem on tax is no bugger wants to pay any and a growing number avoid and evade.No solidarity comrade.

Corbyn should have promised small tax cut for standard rate payers as Trudeau.

Bribe the bastards.Tories seem so over confident they wont do the normal.And looks like May intends to sack spread sheet phil.


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I never insulted anbody but kebabking. I get insulted regularly.


Actually to be fair, yes you have but you say some stupid stuff that people get exasperated with, but if I was arsed to trawl around I would probably find that the first part of your statement is not entirely true. Anyway what I meant by 'scraping the barrel' is bringing someone's wife/parter into the equation.


----------



## Raheem (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> because maths



It's probably just that the graphic doesn't explain it very well. I would guess that the figures are for the average additional amounts someone in each of the two tax bands would pay, rather than two people who are exactly on each of the thresholds, which obviously wouldn't be right. The guy who's just had his melon nicked is probably explaining it.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 17, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Personal insults though? I think there might be something about it in the forum rules. I'm not going to report you but I wouldn't be surprised if someone does. As for this 'ganging up' bollocks, have a look at what you're saying maybe that has something to do with it?



Don't be wet. Like or not MM's posts he recieves plenty of insults and without question there is ganging up.

If you are happy with it and think he deserves it for his politics, fine, but don't start talking about reporting posts or you or whoever wishes to has got a hard day's work ahead catching up.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2017)

Given that Labour are not currently in the business of setting out a practical agenda for government, just trying offset meltdown, they shouldn't be so apologetic about increasing taxes on the rich. The renationalisation thing was quite good because they actually did it, went for broke and didn't go through some Miliband style evasions and half-plans for the public sector. Should do the same for taxes as well, a populist style 'while people are using foodbanks, _yes, we are going to take some back off the rich'_.  Won't play well with the beeb, guardian and all the usual wankers, but it might just resonate with the people that the election is supposed to be about, the voters.

Another populist trick would have been to pitch the £80k threshold at something just under what MPs get (76k from memory), ensuring any of their second jobs/bribes get taxed at a higher rate.  I'm sure there's some defensible logic about 80k in terms of yields and the numbers affected, but again, at this stage in the game that's not what it's about.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Actually to be fair, yes you have



I meant in the post in question. Otherwise I would have said "I have never insulted" instead of



mikey mikey said:


> I never insulted anbody but kebabking. I get insulted regularly.



But I am guessing you probably knew that and were just being deliberately misleading.


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

Mr Moose see post #17902


----------



## teqniq (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I meant in the post in question. Otherwise I would have said "I have never insulted" instead of
> 
> 
> 
> *But I am guessing you probably knew that and were just being deliberately misleading.*


nope.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's probably just that the graphic doesn't explain it very well. I would guess that the figures are for the average additional amounts someone in each of the two tax bands would pay, rather than two people who are exactly on each of the thresholds, which obviously wouldn't be right. The guy who's just had his melon nicked is probably explaining it.



Well this fine person spelt it out for you.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

teqniq said:


> nope.



Well your grammar is left wanting. See Pickman after school.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well your grammar is left wanting. See Pickman after school.


His grammar superb in comparison to your pisspoor politics


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Don't be wet. Like or not MM's posts he recieves plenty of insults and without question there is ganging up.
> 
> If you are happy with it and think he deserves it for his politics, fine, but don't start talking about reporting posts or you or whoever wishes to has got a hard day's work ahead catching up.


FYI a gang is a number of people working in concert. Nothing like that happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I think it's quite sweet that you only post stuff you think will interest Pickmans.


He doesn't and it doesn't


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Well this fine person spelt it out for you.


 Regardless of the beeb getting their sums wrong, when compared against current tax rates, Labour's planned increases are quite modest, timid even:

*Band Taxable income* *Tax rate*
Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
Basic rate £11,501 to £45,000 20%
Higher rate £45,001 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate over £150,000 45%


----------



## stuff_it (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> FYI a gang is a number of people working in concert. Nothing like that happening.


Certainly not inside the Labour Party


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)




----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Regardless of the beeb getting their sums wrong, when compared against current tax rates, Labour's planned increases are quite modest, timid even:
> 
> *Band Taxable income Tax rate*
> Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
> ...



i don't think thats the figures - its no change between nil and £80k, then it goes from current 40% to 45%, and then at the £150K point it goes to 50%.

if the only change is to come at £150k, why have they been talking about 'earners over £80K'?


----------



## Ranbay (May 17, 2017)

Anyone putting money on JC?

I stuck £20 on the other week at 20/1 he's now 8/1

so there.


----------



## Raheem (May 17, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i don't think thats the figures - its no change between nil and £80k, then it goes from current 40% to 45%, and then at the £150K point it goes to 50%.
> 
> if the only change is to come at £150k, why have they been talking about 'earners over £80K'?



The 45% rate is proposed to start at 80k and they will also bring in a 50% rate starting at 123K. I thinks Wilf's figures are for the bands as they are now.


----------



## Cid (May 17, 2017)

From 'funding Britain's future' (the costing bit supplementary to the manifesto):



> 25 Lowering the threshold for the 45p additional rate to £80k (Top 5%) and reintroducing the 50p rate on earnings above £123k.



Check your checking mikey mikey

e2a: the second thing you posted is right though.


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

Ranbay said:


> Anyone putting money on JC?
> 
> I stuck £20 on the other week at 20/1 he's now 8/1
> 
> so there.



I put £10 on about 3 months ago - can't remember what odds they were offering, but I think it was about the same as me sleeping with Jennifer Lopez.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>


You've cocked up the image


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I put £10 on about 3 months ago - can't remember what odds they were offering, but I think it was about the same as me sleeping with Jennifer Lopez.


Evens then


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've cocked up the image



meh


----------



## Cid (May 17, 2017)

Loss of £2150 at £123k... Lost of 10% from there to £150k... £2,200. Then it's a loss of 5% (on the additional rate currently 45% £150k+). Our £150k/an exec has lost 4350k, so another 18650 left to get to £23k. 18650x20 is 373000. Plus the 150k of course.

So to lose £23k you'd need to be on £523,000/year. Feeling the pinch.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 17, 2017)

This lad has form.



> After the BBC's economics editor Stephanie Flanders left for a £400,000-a-year job at that notorious leftwing hotbed, JP Morgan, she was replaced by its business editor Robert Peston. His position was taken by Kamal Ahmed from the rightwing Sunday Telegraph, a journalist damned by the Guardian's Nick Davies for spinning government propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war.



It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism | Owen Jones


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

Cid said:


> ...So to lose £23k you'd need to be on £523,000/year. Feeling the pinch.



#prayfor£523k


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Evens then



No, she had to be alive at the time for them to pay out..


----------



## kabbes (May 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Regardless of the beeb getting their sums wrong, when compared against current tax rates, Labour's planned increases are quite modest, timid even:
> 
> *Band Taxable income Tax rate*
> Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
> ...


This ignores the fact that there is a loss of the personal allowance between £100k and £123k, meaning that the effective tax rate between those figures is 60%.

(There is also a loss of £30k of the pension allowance between £150k and £180k, if memory serves, which is not easy to translate into tax rate equivalence because it depends what the individual is receiving as pension contributions, but potentially adds up to 45% of £30k to the tax charge).


----------



## Raheem (May 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This ignores the fact that there is a loss of the personal allowance between £100k and £123k, meaning that the effective tax rate between those figures is 60%.



it's actually just over 54%, but the personal allowance loss is graduated so someone only pays that when they hit 123k, after which the effective rate starts falling again because there is no more personal allowance to lose. Which, presumably, is why Labour have picked that as a new threshold.


----------



## chilango (May 17, 2017)

Get the top rate of income tax back into the 90s%.


----------



## kabbes (May 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> it's actually just over 54%, but the personal allowance loss is graduated so someone only pays that when they hit 123k, after which the effective rate starts falling again because there is no more personal allowance to lose. Which, presumably, is why Labour have picked that as a new threshold.


How do you calculate 54%?  It's definitely 60%.

You lose £1 in personal allowance for every £2 increase in salary.  So by gaining £2, you pay 40% in normal tax plus an extra 40% of 50% of the £2 due to loss of personal allowance.  The total is 40% + 0.5 x 40% = 60%.


----------



## Raheem (May 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> How do you calculate 54%?  It's definitely 60%.
> 
> You lose £1 in personal allowance for every £2 increase in salary.  So by gaining £2, you pay 40% in normal tax plus an extra 40% of 50% of the £2 due to loss of personal allowance.  The total is 40% + 0.5 x 40% = 60%.



Yeah, OK, I sat down and worked it out and you're right. The thing about it going down again at 123k is still right, though.


----------



## kabbes (May 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Yeah, OK, I sat down and worked it out and you're right. The thing about it going down again at 123k is still right, though.


Yes, it will effectively become:

*Band Taxable income Tax rate*
Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
Basic rate £11,501 to £45,000 20%
Higher rate £45,001 to £83,000 40%
Higherer rate £83,001 to £100,000 45%
Effective rate £100,001 to £123,000 67.5% (note effective 7.5% increase in this band)
Additional rate over £123,000 50%

Plus the pension thingy.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Get the top rate of income tax back into the 90s%.


Squeeze them till the pips squeak


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

kebabking said:


> No, she had to be alive at the time for them to pay out..


Ah. Got good odds on you shagging the corpse of j-lo tho


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah. Got good odds on you slagging the corpse of j-lo tho



It's not intention or ability that forced the odds up, it was opportunity.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2017)

kebabking said:


> It's not intention or ability that forced the odds up, it was opportunity.


Slagging should be shagging of course


----------



## redsquirrel (May 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Get the top rate of income tax back into the 90s%.


99%, as during the war


----------



## Supine (May 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> 99%, as during the war



Yeah, that really makes working worth it


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Get the top rate of income tax back into the 90s%.


Wilsons gov was in the mid 80% range  imagine trying that one in todays climate of shifted centre or whatever you want to call it. They'd be screaming about bolshevism from the rooftops at guardian towers


----------



## redsquirrel (May 17, 2017)

Supine said:


> Yeah, that really makes working worth it


So during the 50s and 60s (tax rate 97.5%) nobody bothered to work did they?


----------



## Supine (May 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So during the 50s and 60s (tax rate 97.5%) nobody bothered to work did they?



Survival in post war Briton as the country recovers. I don't hark back to the old days with a golden glow of rose tinted glasses. Give me 2017 any day of the week.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 17, 2017)

Yeah, LD fucks like you would. Never mind that inequality in 2017 is a great as that in Victoria times, that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer - assisted by pricks like you - that social mobility is statistically insignificant, that over the last 40 years most people, in real terms, have seen a decrease in their wages, that living standards are under attack. We can't possibly make the rich pay their way. Another great example why LDs are cunts.


----------



## Supine (May 17, 2017)

Haha, all my fault innit. You obviously don't know anything about me. Typical trump supporter. Sad!


----------



## binka (May 17, 2017)

Personally I'm a big believer in a flat tax, something in the region of 100% with a tax free allowance of about £45k


----------



## RD2003 (May 17, 2017)

Supine said:


> Survival in post war Briton as the country recovers. I don't hark back to the old days with a golden glow of rose tinted glasses. Give me 2017 any day of the week.


How old are you?


----------



## YouSir (May 17, 2017)

Supine said:


> Haha, all my fault innit. You obviously don't know anything about me. Typical trump supporter. Sad!



You a Lib Dem?


----------



## Supine (May 18, 2017)

YouSir said:


> You a Lib Dem?



No


----------



## stethoscope (May 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> No



You were a fortnight ago!


----------



## Supine (May 18, 2017)

If you read the thread rather than just look at the poll you'd see why. Local reason only. Bit of a derail, I was only reacting to the idea of a 99% tax rate.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Yeah, that really makes working worth it



It's not worth it at the moment tbh.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 18, 2017)




----------



## Sue (May 18, 2017)

Fucking hell. Blair's director of political operations and Jim Murphy's chief of staff among other things. Blatant.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 18, 2017)

He's still at it.


That is straight out of the CCHQ.


----------



## stethoscope (May 18, 2017)

McTernan's always been a cunt.


----------



## stethoscope (May 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> If you read the thread rather than just look at the poll you'd see why. Local reason only. Bit of a derail, I was only reacting to the idea of a 99% tax rate.



I'm going by what you have often written here which is that you seem to generally fall into a centrist economically liberal, socially liberal position. That there's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism as long as there's a safety net for the poorest?

That's essentially a Lib Dem one too.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Sue said:


> Fucking hell. Blair's director of political operations and Jim Murphy's chief of staff among other things. Blatant.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> You were a fortnight ago!


Yeh but a week's a long time in politics and a fortnight an eternity


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So during the 50s and 60s (tax rate 97.5%) nobody bothered to work did they?


I certainly didn't


----------



## Who PhD (May 18, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


>



Cunt


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Yeah, that really makes working worth it



Anybody complaining about the % of their top rate income tax is more than welcome to swap salaries with me. I can guarantee them it's something they'll never have to worry about again.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Cunt


(((mikey mikey)))


----------



## mikey mikey (May 18, 2017)

*takes a bow*


----------



## Supine (May 18, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I'm going by what you have often written here which is that you seem to generally fall into a centrist economically liberal, socially liberal position. That there's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism as long as there's a safety net for the poorest?
> 
> That's essentially a Lib Dem one too.



Fair play, that somes me up rather well 

Although until now I have always voted labour (apart from one green protest vote a couple of decades ago).


----------



## Supine (May 18, 2017)

Btw Stethoscope, do you maintain a file on everyone?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Supine said:


> Btw Stethoscope, do you maintain a file on everyone?


Yes, stethoscope even has a file on herself. I've seen her updating it.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 18, 2017)

_I have always voted Labour until now but Corbyn has lost my vote with these extreme policies that in no way resemble Labour policies that I hhad previously voted for. I will now vote summat else. Honest. Always Labour. Definitely._


----------



## stethoscope (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, stethoscope even has a file on herself. I've seen her updating it.



Never under estimate the importance of  intelligence gathering for the revolution, comrade


----------



## Libertad (May 18, 2017)

The List.


----------



## stethoscope (May 18, 2017)

Red post-its.


----------



## Cid (May 18, 2017)

Knitting...


----------



## newbie (May 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it will effectively become:
> 
> *Band Taxable income Tax rate*
> Personal Allowance Up to £11,500 0%
> ...


Your abilities with numbers are legendary so I'm sure you're right but I can't find mention of 83,000 anywhere in their manifesto or funding doc.  They say 80,000. 

No criticism, but as with almost all other snapshots, your figures don't take account of NI, which is 12% for income between £8,160 & £45,000 but only 2% above that.  I've always thought that utterly wrong and I'm slightly baffled why the LP manifesto not only doesn't take such an obvious opportunity to make a fairer arrangement but actually guarantees there will be no increase.  What is essentially a hypothecated tax for the NHS, pensions and other welfare state benefits ought not to be subsidised by the less well off, particularly given the greater opportunities higher rate taxpayers have to offset income tax against pension contributions. Either increasing NI above 45k or reducing the pension offset for high earners to the basic rate of tax would get broad public support, I'd have thought.


----------



## kabbes (May 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> Your abilities with numbers are legendary so I'm sure you're right but I can't find mention of 83,000 anywhere in their manifesto or funding doc.  They say 80,000.


no you're right -- 83k was just a brain fart because of 123k.  It happens!



> No criticism, but as with almost all other snapshots, your figures don't take account of NI, which is 12% for income between £8,160 & £45,000 but only 2% above that.  I've always thought that utterly wrong and I'm slightly baffled why the LP manifesto not only doesn't take such an obvious opportunity to make a fairer arrangement but actually guarantees there will be no increase.  What is essentially a hypothecated tax for the NHS, pensions and other welfare state benefits ought not to be subsidised by the less well off, particularly given the greater opportunities higher rate taxpayers have to offset income tax against pension contributions. Either increasing NI above 45k or reducing the pension offset for high earners to the basic rate of tax would get broad public support, I'd have thought.


Also completely fair, and it isn't like me to ignore NI, actually.  I was responding to a post about income tax and just forgot about it, which is no excuse.

So the total charge on income is proposed to be

0 - 8,160: 0%
8,161 - 11,500: 12%
11,501 - 45,000: 32%
45,001 - 80,000: 42%
80,001 - 100,000: 47%
100,001 - 123,000: 69.5%
123,001+ : 52%

The things that stand out on that list to me are that 32% is very high for 11,501 up to at least 30,000ish, 52% is low for the top end and 69.5% is a bizarre anomaly for the penultimate band.

Reducing the tax rebate on pensions for high earners was discussed a lot in the last few years.  I think the reduction in tax-free allowance for those earning over 150k to its end point of 10k for those earning over 180k (IIRC) was what they did instead, basically.


----------



## newbie (May 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> no you're right -- 83k was just a brain fart because of 123k.  It happens!
> 
> Also completely fair, and it isn't like me to ignore NI, actually.  I was responding to a post about income tax and just forgot about it, which is no excuse.
> 
> ...


thankyou.

While I have no problem with those on 100-123 grand paying almost 70% tax it seems a little unfair on them that people 'earning' even more pay only 52%. However, as a lot of MPs will fall into that area I guess chancellor McDonnell will have to tweak it a bit.


----------



## kabbes (May 18, 2017)

SInce that's Labour's proposal, it's also worth stating the current total charge on income and noting that it's not THAT different -- the proposal just pushes the top end up 5% and a bit more in the 100-150 band (up to 10%):

Churrent charges

0 - 8,160: 0%
8,161 - 11,500: 12%
11,501 - 45,000: 32%
45,001 - 100,000: 42%
100,001 - 123,000: 62%
123,001 - 150,000: 42%
150,001+ : 47%

The focus is always on the initial boundary -- "What about somebody earning £80k, hey?  HEY?"  -- but of course somebody on £80k won't pay ANY additional tax, because they will be charged an extra 5% on precisely nothing.  Somebody £90k will pay an extra 5% on £10k, which is only £500 -- hardly bank-breaking stuff.

Somebody on £100k will be paying an extra £1,000 (i.e. an extra 1% in total), somebody on £125k an extra £3,275 (i.e. an extra 2.6% in total) and somebody on £150k an extra £5,775 (i.e. an extra 3.9% in total).  Above £150,000, there will be a slow, asymptotic approach to the extra tax being worth 5% of total pay.  These are not dramatic increases, proportionally speaking.


----------



## 19force8 (May 19, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So during the 50s and 60s (tax rate 97.5%) nobody bothered to work did they?


From memory, top tax rate was 83% plus a surcharge of 15% for unearned income.

A curious side effect of this was a mate's dad who worked security "airside" at Speke airport once got to spend an evening chinwagging with the Stones as they waited to enter the country. There was a limit to how many days they could spend in the UK before they had to start paying tax.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> FYI a gang is a number of people working in concert. Nothing like that happening.



True, but "I'm being picked on by several independent individuals who all think I'm a cunt with shit politics" doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

Not gang. Let me correct myself: "bunch cowards that pile insults on one poster together then threaten to report when one of them gets flamed in return"


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Never under estimate the importance of  intelligence gathering for the revolution, comrade



(makes a note of stethoscope's views on intelligence-gathering)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2017)

Libertad said:


> The List.



The List is kept separate from The Files though, for internal security purposes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Not gang. Let me correct myself: "bunch cowards that pile insults on one poster together then threaten to report when one of them gets flamed in return"



So, how many people have threatened to report you, hmm? A whole bunch?


----------



## agricola (May 19, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> True, but "I'm being picked on by several independent individuals who all think I'm a cunt with shit politics" doesn't have the same ring to it.



Much less opportunity for coordinated, up-tempo dancing as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Not gang. Let me correct myself: "bunch cowards that pile insults on one poster together then threaten to report when one of them gets flamed in return"


yeh. you said you were going to correct yourself. but you haven't, you've continued vomiting bollocks.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

Fuck off VP and stop dereailing the thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Fuck off VP and stop dereailing the thread.



Fuck off yourself, you whiny goatcunt.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

But if I insult you back, your little friend will threaten to report me. Not a gang then.


----------



## 19force8 (May 19, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Personal insults though? I think there might be something about it in the forum rules.


Bloody hell! There are rules? Why did nobody tell me? 

*Reads rules...*

Well, Rule 8 outlaws "endless personal attacks," but no rule against personal insults as such. Can't think why not 



mikey mikey said:


> But if I insult you back, your little friend will threaten to report me. Not a gang then.





teqniq said:


> I'm not going to report you but I wouldn't be surprised if someone does.


More a suggestion than a threat. IMO.

Pull yourself together m m


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.

Meanwhile kebabking said that he has put me on ignore until election night. Just what resullt he's hoping for is anybody's guess  I wonder if his schadenfreude from my disappointement will be enough to ameliorate for him the next five years of Tory rule.

It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.


----------



## bi0boy (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.



If Corbyn losing means you stop posting, I'm all for it, although I don't hold out much hope.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> If Corbyn losing means you stop posting, I'm all for it, although I don't hold out much hope.


How about you:

1) Put me on ignore
2) STFU

That way you can hope for a Labour victory as much as you like.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Fuck off VP and stop dereailing the thread.





mikey mikey said:


> How about you:
> 
> 1) Put me on ignore
> 2) STFU
> ...





Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you said you were going to correct yourself. but you haven't, you've continued vomiting bollocks.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

More derailing from the "not a a gang" gang.

Back on topic...


----------



## Mr Moose (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.
> 
> Meanwhile kebabking said that he has put me on ignore until election night. Just what resullt he's hoping for is anybody's guess  I wonder if his schadenfreude from my disappointement will be enough to ameliorate for him the next five years of Tory rule.
> 
> It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.



It's unreasonable to assume that just because kebabking has been critical of Corbyn that he wants a Tory victory. I don't think there have been many big criticisms of Labour's manifesto, merely that it will never get a chance of being realised, because of a combination of the perception of JC and his leadership deficits.

I'd be very happy for Labour to do well, even if it means JC stays on. I think he has done ok in the campaign and hopefully he will have a protege to lead the party by 2022. Politics of all sorts carries on in the meantime.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> hopefully he will have a protégée to lead the party by 2022.


which woman do you think jc will propose as his successor?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.



Exactly. Your politics are completely one-dimensional and tedious. Shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.


pro-corbyn. not pro-working class. not socialist. simply 'pro-corbyn'. that's shit politics, mikey mikey.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

"Not pro-working class"? Really? Quote it.
"Not socialist" Really? Quote it.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Exactly. Your politics are completely one-dimensional and tedious. Shit.



What "dimension" do your posts have that mine lack?


----------



## Libertad (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> What "dimension" do your posts have that mine lack?



Depth.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 19, 2017)

There's a lot of you contributing to making this and various other threads very tedious, not just mikey mikey. He's been challenged, he doesn't want change his game - do you all have to go on and on and on and on about it?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> What "dimension" do your posts have that mine lack?



Quality. But admittedly you do win on quantity/frequency.

370/1061 (since November)  vs 6533/6051 (since 2002).


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 19, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> There's a lot of you contributing to making this and various other threads very tedious, not just mikey mikey. He's been challenged, he doesn't want change his game - do you all have to go on and on and on and on about it?



It's well worth having a row now than then to raise the level of debate.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> which woman do you think jc will propose as his successor?



Good point. Edited for neutrality.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> What "dimension" do your posts have that mine lack?


depth.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

Some deeply raised debaters here.

Moving on. On topic.

Danny DeVito endorses Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 19, 2017)

_I think ultimately what won people round, in the hegemonic war we were waging, was our refusal to engage in any kind of discussion. When I look back to those days of 2017 I am resolutely proud that we just spammed up everywhere with links to news items instead of getting into the detail._


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Some deeply raised debaters here.
> 
> Moving on. On topic.
> 
> Danny DeVito endorses Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister



So a year ago an open Boko Haram supporter said something positive about Corbyn? That's the story here?


----------



## rekil (May 19, 2017)

Got blocked by De Vito on twitter for reminding him of that a couple of weeks ago. Even touchier than Galloway when exposed.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 19, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So a year ago an open Boko Haram supporter said something positive about Corbyn? That's the story here?


Yes. The story is about everything you say it is and most likely other things which look bad for Labour under Jeremy.

Meanwhile, the endorsement that happened yesterday.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 19, 2017)

Well my opinion of Richard Burgon has risen


----------



## Raheem (May 19, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So a year ago an open Boko Haram supporter said something positive about Corbyn? That's the story here?





copliker said:


> Got blocked by De Vito on twitter for reminding him of that a couple of weeks ago. Even touchier than Galloway when exposed.



For the benefit of anyone else who is confused, this appears to be about something Danny De Vito did when he was acting in a sitcom. I can only guess as to why someone might remind him about it on Twitter.


----------



## NoXion (May 19, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's well worth having a row now than then to raise the level of debate.


 For fuck's sake. MM has shallow politics for sure, but you're deluding yourself if you really think the tedious needling of the past page or so constitutes an improvement. I'm sure it's possible to point out someone's political shortcomings in a way that doesn't get their backs up and block up otherwise interesting threads with pointless beef.
 And mikey mikey I recommend you either ignore them outright or just respond to them in nothing other than a matter-of-fact way. The fact they may have a point doesn't mean they can't be dicks about it.


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2017)

In the very unlikely event that Labour wins, Corbyn needs to appoint at least Novelist and JME to the cabinet.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2017)

Danny de Vito. Boko Haram. What?


----------



## YouSir (May 19, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Danny de Vito. Boko Haram. What?



It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (sitcom) storyline.


----------



## Raheem (May 19, 2017)

J Ed said:


> In the very unlikely event that Labour wins, Corbyn needs to appoint at least Novelist and JME to the cabinet.



Stormzy in charge of emergency flood response.


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Stormzy in charge of emergency flood response.



JME telling Emily Thornberry off for swearing


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> "Not pro-working class"? Really? Quote it.
> "Not socialist" Really? Quote it.


You're all cult of personality - as you declared, "my politics expressed here are pro-corbyn. That's it". There is nothing pro-working class or socialist about such personality focused politics. If you were indeed socialist you might have mentioned it.


----------



## Wilf (May 19, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Danny de Vito. Boko Haram. What?


To be honest, you could see how he was going to turn out in that film Twins.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, you could see how he was going to turn out in that film Twins.



Didn't see that but remember him from 'Taxi' when he was supporting the Khmer Rouge and 'Throw Momma from the train'. He was all Shining Path then.


----------



## Raheem (May 19, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Didn't see that but remember him from 'Taxi' when he was supporting the Khmer Rouge and 'Throw Momma from the train'. He was all Shining Path then.



It's funny how people move to the right as they get older.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're all cult of personality - as you declared, "my politics expressed here are pro-corbyn. That's it". There is nothing pro-working class or socialist about such personality focused politics. If you were indeed socialist you might have mentioned it.



Don't have to be part of a cult to support Corbyn. "Cultists": That is the Tory/Blairite mantra. Thanks Tom Watson, now fuck off.

I support Corbyn _because _he is pro-working class and a socialist and always has been. His personality is neither here nor there. Now piss off back to your library or start correcting somebody's grammar and/or Latin and for God's sake stop kidding yourself and your little mates about how "deep" your politics are. This is just a forum, folks.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I support Corbyn _because _he is pro-working class and a socialist


Yeh. But I was asking about your politics, not his.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 20, 2017)

Socialist and pro-working for the last 30 odd years. Which is shallow and shit, according to some. Well fuck that.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Socialist and pro-working for the last 30 odd years. Which is shallow and shit, according to some. Well fuck that.



That's good to know. What sort of stuff were you involved in pre-JC?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Socialist and pro-working for the last 30 odd years. Which is shallow and shit, according to some. Well fuck that.


Yeh? Doing what?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 20, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> That's good to know. What sort of stuff were you involved in pre-JC?



Well I started when I was a teenager, I raised money for the striking miners during the early eighties. We did concerts (i'ma violinist) of folk music to raise money and collected unwanted toys for the miners' kids at Xmas. Why? Is this a test?

Just recently I was on another forum that were all about "So what are you doing for Labour?" whenever I pointed out that the PLP were actively harming the party. They have all now either stopped canvassing, are chatting enthusiastically about the next coup post-GE or saying they'll vote LibDem. Apparently, they are more interested in being active in politics and not really bothered about socialism at all.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 20, 2017)

Thanks Mikey, it's not a test I just think it can be helpful to know where people are coming from. Have you always been in Labour or was it a Corbyn rejoin thing?

Personally I've never been a Labour supporter myself but have been involved in campaigns, demos, trade union stuff.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 20, 2017)

Uncle was fairly high up in the Transport and General Workers Union. Father was a Labour man: shipyards in Jarrow. Laid off while I was a kid (dole family for a few years) so we had to move South, where, in the heart of Tory country, I became politically aware at a young age. Lost interest in Blairite Labour and was happy Ed Milliband put the power to choose the Labour leader in the hands of the members. Whether he intended everything to follow, I doubt, but here we are. Cheers Fozzie. Thanks for showing an interest. My apologies for the snarkiness.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 20, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Danny de Vito. Boko Haram. What?





Raheem said:


> For the benefit of anyone else who is confused, this appears to be about something Danny De Vito did when he was acting in a sitcom. I can only guess as to why someone might remind him about it on Twitter.


2017, International Year of the Surreal.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 20, 2017)

Raheem said:


> For the benefit of anyone else who is confused, this appears to be about something Danny De Vito did when he was acting in a sitcom. I can only guess as to why someone might remind him about it on Twitter.


 c.f. Dead Cat


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 20, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Uncle was fairly high up in the Transport and General Workers Union. Father was a Labour man: shipyards in Jarrow. Laid off while I was a kid (dole family for a few years) so we had to move South, where, in the heart of Tory country, I became politically aware at a young age. Lost interest in Blairite Labour and was happy Ed Milliband put the power to choose the Labour leader in the hands of the members. Whether he intended everything to follow, I doubt, but here we are. Cheers Fozzie. Thanks for showing an interest. My apologies for the snarkiness.



All good, Mikey and apologies in return.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.



No, that's NOT "it".
Yes, you're "pro-Corbyn", but the politics behind your support are the worst sort of mealy-mouthed liberalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, that's NOT "it".
> Yes, you're "pro-Corbyn", but the politics behind your support are the worst sort of mealy-mouthed liberalism.


his politics worse than that, vp


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2017)

he's got them at sixes and fives


----------



## Bakunin (May 21, 2017)

newbie said:


> he's got them at sixes and fives
> View attachment 107317



With that in mind...

You do realise that a current SERVING Conservative politician was literally a MEMBER of the IRA, right? | EvolvePolitics.com


----------



## teqniq (May 22, 2017)




----------



## xenon (May 22, 2017)

Danny DeVito.  I mean some of you actually know what he thinks, you follow him on Twitter or something.  What the fuck is wrong with you.


----------



## xenon (May 22, 2017)

That's what's wrong with this site lately,  people reposting what some cunt said on Twitter. For fuck's sake have an opinion of your own use words stop reposting gifs. 

 Danny DeVito. Jesus. I thought he was dead.


----------



## Wilf (May 22, 2017)

Bakunin said:


> With that in mind...
> 
> You do realise that a current SERVING Conservative politician was literally a MEMBER of the IRA, right? | EvolvePolitics.com


When she went on the arms buying trip she probably proposed a PFI deal to pay for it.


----------



## diond (May 22, 2017)

xenon said:


> That's what's wrong with this site lately,  people reposting what some cunt said on Twitter. For fuck's sake have an opinion of your own use words stop reposting gifs.
> 
> Danny DeVito. Jesus. I thought he was dead.


He is. That's why we have Easter.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 22, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, that's NOT "it".
> Yes, you're "pro-Corbyn", but the politics behind your support are the worst sort of mealy-mouthed liberalism.



Can you quote me to back that up. or is it more a case of






?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Can you quote me to back that up. or is it more a case of
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2017)

Gary Younge in the graun today is more or less on the money 

Jeremy Corbyn has defied his critics to become Labour’s best hope of survival | Gary Younge


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> Gary Younge in the graun today is more or less on the money
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn has defied his critics to become Labour’s best hope of survival | Gary Younge


Easily their best writer.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Easily their best writer.


yeh. but look at the threadbare competition.


----------



## rekil (May 22, 2017)

Bakunin said:


> With that in mind...
> 
> You do realise that a current SERVING Conservative politician was literally a MEMBER of the IRA, right? | EvolvePolitics.com


This is another of those Canary type sites isn't it. I see they have the privately educated former singer of "The Australian Pink Floyd" writing articles that push the pro-Assad conspiraloon line on Syria. Gr8.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 22, 2017)

Tom Pride (@ThomasPride) on Twitter


----------



## kabbes (May 22, 2017)

Bakunin said:


> With that in mind...
> 
> You do realise that a current SERVING Conservative politician was literally a MEMBER of the IRA, right? | EvolvePolitics.com


Some local Tory councillor who now will no doubt get fired.  It's not exactly Watergate, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Some local Tory councillor who now will no doubt get fired.  It's not exactly Watergate, is it?


Plus it comes out every few years. It's old old old. Labour will/would probably be wary of opening that door as well given the probably past experience of some of its members - far more than the tories in all likelihood.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 22, 2017)

Would be, if it had been a Labour Councillor.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2017)

xenon said:


> That's what's wrong with this site lately,  people reposting what some cunt said on Twitter. For fuck's sake have an opinion of your own use words stop reposting gifs.
> 
> Danny DeVito. Jesus. I thought he was dead.


he was in arnies second funniest film, so I have some time for him


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2017)

Worth watching his performance at the Libertines gig. I bet his team wish he'd done these types of performances at PMQs for the last year, instead of his 'letter from Marjory in Southend' spiel.

Jeremy Corbyn went on stage ahead of The Libertines and The Coral


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2017)

Scarborough on a Monday, not bad.


----------



## Wilf (May 22, 2017)

treelover said:


> Scarborough on a Monday, not bad.


Looks like The Spa.  Not exactly out of the way, but it is right at the far end of the town and parking is really difficult. Pretty good turnout.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

How many non labour voters? Or non labour voters going to enthused by pics they won't see?


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> How many non labour voters? Or non labour voters going to enthused by pics they won't see?



Edit: And gone.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

YouSir said:


> What do you care?


Don't do this.


----------



## chilango (May 22, 2017)

If those photos contributed to creating the impression that Labour could yet win this, then they'd make a difference.

I'm not sure that they do.

Yet.


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do this.



Edit: You know what? Quite right, no point in it at all. Is what it is.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

YouSir said:


> I could say the same to you.


Why? What on earth has angered you so about my asking about the electoral impact of an event? I didn't ask you why whatever you said meant so much to you did i?


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Why? What on earth has angered you so about my asking about the electoral impact of an event? I didn't ask you why whatever you said meant so much to you did i?



Check my edit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Check my edit.


Still want to know.


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Still want to know.



Really, not a discussion worth having.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 22, 2017)

chilango said:


> If those photos contributed to creating the impression that Labour could yet win this, then they'd make a difference.
> 
> I'm not sure that they do.
> 
> Yet.



Perhaps not, but more and more are appearing, getting shared and the Tranmere rally made the Andrew Marr show. 

Theresa looks as strong and stable as a jelly. Given where it started from it couldn't be going much better for Corbo. 

His time is by no means up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Really, not a discussion worth having.



One where people can shut up  because they are not as emotionally invested as you fits that requirement.

You can leave it there now - if you like.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2017)

we had the sermon on the mount photos during his election to LP leader and the challenge. There is no doubt he can draw crowds, the point is can it translate into votes outside of that. I did like JTG  over on the polling thread talking of welsh people suddenly going 'what the fuck was I thinking, its the tories' (I paraphrase). Been trying to articulate that one all afternoon. Wales having a word with itself lol.

but yeah, its been nothing but a solid victory for the LP in the battle of manifestos. See how it goes, same as ever. If the polls edge that 8-10 pnt overall lead to something closer it might even be worth watching the allnighter. At least till I pass out anyway


----------



## Rob Ray (May 22, 2017)

Probly useful to motivate the troops though. And that seemingly spontaneous "whooa Jeremy Cooorbyn" at the Libertines gig the other day was genuinely pretty impressive, I don't remember that sort of star power from a Westminster politician of any stripe.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

Is that the troops who need motivating?  First time voters on their 30s?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2017)

YouSir said:


> What do you care?


Oh come on, it's a very relevant point. Labour does seem to have shored up it's base, and perhaps even taken some support from the LDs, Greens, etc. But whether it's making those all important swing voters switch to them from the Tories is a hugely important question - at the moment I don't think it really is.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 22, 2017)

I wasn't talking about the Libertines gig motivating troops, specifically, that was just (impressive) spectacle. Multiple rallies with big crowds are often good for making people feel part of a movement that's going places though.


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh come on, it's a very relevant point. Labour does seem to have shored up it's base, and perhaps even taken some support from the LDs, Greens, etc. But whether it's making those all important swing voters switch to them from the Tories is a hugely important question - at the moment I don't think it really is.



I'll edit that comment out too. I reacted in an unnecessary way, I recanted. It's not a thing worth pursuing unless there's a desperate need to start an argument with me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2017)

All good now.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 22, 2017)

I think it is possible that the Brexit effect is fading a little. What Labour has succeeded in doing is making this an election like any other, i.e. (mildly) communal solutions against private ones. With Brexit assured people are remembering why they hate the Tories. All that talk of UKIP or LibDems stealing Labour's seats has evaporated.

Maybe we will see the emergence of the 'shy' Labour supporter. 

I mean this is what I want to believe, but my doubts about Corbyn have not disappeared. But if he can keep the Tory majority down on a left(ish) manifesto and find a decent successor I'll be grateful to him.


----------



## The39thStep (May 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh come on, it's a very relevant point. Labour does seem to have shored up it's base, and perhaps even taken some support from the LDs, Greens, etc. But whether it's making those all important swing voters switch to them from the Tories is a hugely important question - at the moment I don't think it really is.


More importantly they can't woo back former Labour voters who switched to UKIP.


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I think it is possible that the Brexit effect is fading a little. What Labour has succeeded in doing is making this an election like any other, i.e. (mildly) communal solutions against private ones. With Brexit assured people are remembering why they hate the Tories. All that talk of UKIP or LibDems stealing Labour's seats has evaporated.
> 
> Maybe we will see the emergence of the 'shy' Labour supporter.
> 
> I mean this is what I want to believe, but my doubts about Corbyn have not disappeared. But if he can keep the Tory majority down on a left(ish) manifesto and find a decent successor I'll be grateful to him.


Brexit as a fact is no longer an issue except for some weird Liberal types who are still producing tactical voting spreadsheets for people who are too clever to worry about their nan's house


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> More importantly they can't woo back former Labour voters who switched to UKIP.


Saw some cross breaks the other day showing 43% of 2015 UKIP voters have gone Tory while 16% have switched to Labour. No idea about how many of these were 2010 Labour voters mind


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> More importantly they can't woo back former Labour voters who switched to UKIP.


While I've got suspicions that more ex-Labour UKIP voters are staying with UKIP than ex-Tory voters I'm not sure how much effect that will have on the number of seats that change hands. You could have a situation like Stoke where the Labour lead is eaten into but the seat remains Labour. 

It's certainly going to be interesting to see what the result is in those old Labour heartland seats like Stoke, Hartlepool etc


----------



## gawkrodger (May 23, 2017)

I was out in outside a local college - in a Labour marginal - today (returning a political favour more than anything else - I am not a Labour member!) leafletting with Labour register to vote leaflets (which were actually pretty good political leaflets).

I was slightly surprised at the response. Must have interacted with close to 100 people. Of that, about 75% were elligble to vote. Vast majority of these had already registered, with lots of the students stating they had done so in the past week. With the exception of one proper Harry Enfield Tory boy character, all were intending to vote Labour, many enthusiastically.

About a week ago, in the predict how your constituency will vote thread, I reckoned this marginal seat would go Tory. I'm now changing my mind - Heard nothing from the Tories, had three leaflets + a door knock from Labour. Labour are doing a lot of canvassing (interestingly, it seems Momentum in the area are actually heavily involved in this) and everyone I've spoken to is saying they've had no Tory doorknockers. The Labour social media presence for the consituency is shit, but then the Tory one is relying on the same really poor advert repeated.


----------



## free spirit (May 23, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> I wasn't talking about the Libertines gig motivating troops, specifically, that was just (impressive) spectacle. Multiple rallies with big crowds are often good for making people feel part of a movement that's going places though.


Yesterday evening in Leeds station there was a spontaneous outbreak of corbyn chanting that turned from half a dozen pissed students into an impromptu flash mob of several dozen chanting for corbyn.

Strange times, but I think it's fair to say that the lib dem hopes of swinging the student vote behind them over brexit haven't quite panned out - students haven't quite got memories that short that they forget about the £50k debt the lib dems have landed them with.


----------



## rutabowa (May 23, 2017)

As my parents keep telling me for months (and i see it's in papers now too) Michael Foot had big crowds turning up for rallies like Corbyn throughout the 1983 election campaign.


----------



## Smangus (May 23, 2017)

Corbyn
Brexit
Trump

 All bets are off in this election for me.


----------



## billy_bob (May 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> As my parents keep telling me for months (and i see it's in papers now too) Michael Foot had big crowds turning up for rallies like Corbyn throughout the 1983 election campaign.



I think the meejah keep saying this mainly because they hope the 'taint' of 1983 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But on the other hand I've heard a fair few Corbyn supporters being, I think, far too quick to dismiss it. There's a lot of the usual suspects and not a lot of anyone else at the rallies I've been at or near. On the third hand, that may say something about the type of person who loves a good rally and not much about voting intentions.  In short, nothing's a reliable indicator of anything any more.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Yesterday evening in Leeds station there was a spontaneous outbreak of corbyn chanting that turned from half a dozen pissed students into an impromptu flash mob of several dozen chanting for corbyn.
> .


ugh, beyond ugh


----------



## kabbes (May 23, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> As my parents keep telling me for months (and i see it's in papers now too) Michael Foot had big crowds turning up for rallies like Corbyn throughout the 1983 election campaign.


It's worth remembering that Foot was on course to win in 83 before Thatcher decided that going to war was her best route to victory.

Also, May is no Thatcher.


----------



## kebabking (May 23, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ugh, beyond ugh



don't you love a flash mob, all that energy and smiling? and jazz hands?

i thought that would be right up your street...


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ugh, beyond ugh


Students lead the way again


----------



## free spirit (May 23, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ugh, beyond ugh


what's up with you now?

I can't think of any other politician I can remember having their name spontaneously being chanted around Leeds city centre, but if it's a regular occurrence around your neck of the woods then I apologise for making you read my comment.

To be clear, it wasn't an organised flashmob AFAIK, just people who happened to be there joining in like they might with a football chant.


----------



## squirrelp (May 24, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> As my parents keep telling me for months (and i see it's in papers now too) Michael Foot had big crowds turning up for rallies like Corbyn throughout the 1983 election campaign.


We tried Thatcherism and it didn't work


----------



## Raheem (May 24, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I can't think of any other politician I can remember having their name spontaneously being chanted around Leeds city centre



I can definitely remember being in Leeds city centre when people were chanting Tony Blair's name. Not in a way he would have liked, mind you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 24, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> I was out in outside a local college - in a Labour marginal - today (returning a political favour more than anything else - I am not a Labour member!) leafletting with Labour register to vote leaflets (which were actually pretty good political leaflets).
> 
> I was slightly surprised at the response. Must have interacted with close to 100 people. Of that, about 75% were elligble to vote. Vast majority of these had already registered, with lots of the students stating they had done so in the past week. With the exception of one proper Harry Enfield Tory boy character, all were intending to vote Labour, many enthusiastically.
> 
> About a week ago, in the predict how your constituency will vote thread, I reckoned this marginal seat would go Tory. I'm now changing my mind - Heard nothing from the Tories, had three leaflets + a door knock from Labour. Labour are doing a lot of canvassing *(interestingly, it seems Momentum in the area are actually heavily involved in this)* and everyone I've spoken to is saying they've had no Tory doorknockers. The Labour social media presence for the consituency is shit, but then the Tory one is relying on the same really poor advert repeated.



Momentum (nationally, at least - locally it varies) generally are good at trying to mobilise people to campaign in various ways. I got endless amounts of stuff from them asking me to help register people to vote, and when I sent a text message back to one of them I got another in return (so it wasn't just an automated thing). They're organising phone banking (which you can do from your front room, according to the emails I've been getting - how modern, you don't even need to go and interact with someone else in the party), and I expect are providing boots on the ground in key areas for door knocking and leafleting too.

When we had our by-election here in Stoke in Feb, a large proportion of the people who came to help were young, new members. I think a great deal of some people's cynicism that they'd just sign up and never get involved except to tweet out something now and again was misplaced.


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I can definitely remember being in Leeds city centre when people were chanting Tony Blair's name. Not in a way he would have liked, mind you.


fair point, but even then I suspect only at political rallies.


----------



## Wilf (May 24, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's worth remembering that Foot was on course to win in 83 before Thatcher decided that going to war was her best route to victory.
> 
> Also, May is no Thatcher.


Not really. The Falklands certainly ensured the Tory victory - along with the size of the victory, but Labour's vote had been in freefall soon after Foot was elected.
UK Polling Report
The big complication in terms of judging who might have won without the war was the formation of the SDP.  The SDP/Lib Alliance were never going to form a government, but all 3 parties were roughly level at the time of the Falklands.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 24, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Was I blaming the print media?
> 
> The Mirror and Independent have been doing more balanced coverage.
> 
> ...



I’m saying that a leader with charisma would obviously stand a better chance of winning an election, although of course it's not just about that. Much as I support things like renationalisation and free university education, the public simply aren't going to buy those policies unless they come with a convincing and costing strategy and there isn't one in this manifesto.



> I do however think media has a role. It's a fact of life that in a Capitalist neo liberal society that a party which goes against the grain is going to have an uphill struggle to be taken seriously.



Yes it’s a fact of life, so Labour can either accept it or they can sit back and allow default tory demolition of public services for the next decade on principle. Are there any other choices?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How can you be trusted if you say one thing and with the next breath contradict yourself?



That’s good coming from someone who claimed that ‘undemocratic revolution’ was a way of changing government but then took five weeks to finally admit that you don't mean here in the UK.

It was another poster who kept demanding to know what 'actions' I've taken to help save public services, only it turned out that he/she had done fuck all themselves…. and then you come wading in with some stuff about the Suffragettes and the abolition of slavery! 

You make a lot of noise but rarely actually manage to say anything. Do you support Corbyn's leadership? Do you want Labour to win? Will you even be voting? Do you have _anything_ to say about Jeremy Corbyn? Anything at all??

My guess is that you’d prefer the tories stay in power than have a Labour Government.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That’s good coming from someone who claimed that ‘undemocratic revolution’ was a way of changing government but then took five weeks to finally admit that you don't mean here in the UK.
> 
> It was another poster who kept demanding to know what 'actions' I've taken to help save public services, only it turned out that he/she had done fuck all themselves…. and then you come wading in with some stuff about the Suffragettes and the abolition of slavery!
> 
> ...


Pls quote me saying "undemocratic revolution" or apologise. Sick of you making up things and attributing them to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My guess is that you’d prefer the tories stay in power than have a Labour Government.


Yeh, you do a lot of guessing even tho you're shit at it.


----------



## kabbes (May 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Much as I support things like renationalisation and free university education, the public simply aren't going to buy those policies unless they come with a convincing and costing strategy and there isn't one in this manifesto.


This doesn't appear to be true.  The policies are tremendously popular.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 24, 2017)

I hear he has today also refused to denounce Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan and the Maoist Red Guards as well . The evil fucker.


----------



## Wilf (May 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It was another poster who kept demanding to know what 'actions' I've taken to help save public services, only it turned out that he/she had done fuck all themselves…. and then you come wading in with some stuff about the Suffragettes and the abolition of slavery!
> 
> .


I think that was me.   In our exchanges we established clearly, explicitly, unambiguously that _*you*_ have done 'fuck all yourself' to save public services.  Or.. have I got that wrong?  Here's another chance - tell us...

I can't claim a heroic track record, but when you directly asked what I had done I said:



> Me - stuff on and off since 1979 or so, for the first 10 years in the Labour Party, then anarcho politics, more recently anti-cuts, local solidarity movement, stuff on sanctions


So, you've done zip, nada, nothing to defend these institutions you believe in - but you feel you've got the right to pretend _I've_ 'done fuck all'. You're a bullshitter and a hypocrite.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2017)

The sight of the apparent left criticising may for having too few coppers and squaddies on the payroll is a bit odd, i have to say.


----------



## Wilf (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> The sight of the apparent left criticising may for having too few coppers and squaddies on the payroll is a bit odd, i have to say.


"More (All) Coppers (Are Bastards) Please!"


----------



## RD2003 (May 25, 2017)

It isn't difficult to see why. It's a response to people's fears and insecurities in the context of any discernible alternative being more remote than ever.


----------



## xenon (May 25, 2017)

I'm not voting labour because  under Corbyn, they have no chance of winning... Is a thing.


----------



## xenon (May 25, 2017)

More remote than ever. Not like the good old days when you could vote for, erm.  Tony Blair?


----------



## Raheem (May 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> The sight of the apparent left criticising may for having too few coppers and squaddies on the payroll is a bit odd, i have to say.



I think it's more about trying to neutralise the potential total capture of the electorate with law and order rhetoric. It's always fair enough to point out hypocrisy. You don't have to be in favour of the Iraq war, for example, to wish they at least hadn't fucked it up so badly. Also, the context for police cuts is general austerity. It's not as if May represents some laudable philosophical shift in police policy.


----------



## xenon (May 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I think it's more about trying to neutralise the potential total capture of the electorate with law and order rhetoric. It's always fair enough to point out hypocrisy. You don't have to be in favour of the Iraq war, for example, to wish they at least hadn't fucked it up so badly. Also, the context for police cuts is general austerity. It's not as if May represents some laudable philosophical shift in police policy.



 Remember the warm welcome the Police  Federation  gave her when she was Home Secretary a couple years ago.


----------



## Raheem (May 25, 2017)

xenon said:


> Remember the warm welcome the Police  Federation  gave her when she was Home Secretary a couple years ago.



Exactly. Do I think the police are my friends? No. Am I willing to put that to one side and just enjoy Theresa May sitting on a stage looking a twat? More than willing.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I think it's more about trying to neutralise the potential total capture of the electorate with law and order rhetoric. It's always fair enough to point out hypocrisy. You don't have to be in favour of the Iraq war, for example, to wish they at least hadn't fucked it up so badly. Also, the context for police cuts is general austerity. It's not as if May represents some laudable philosophical shift in police policy.



Thatcher did give police pay rises. They also did well out of the miners strike with bags of lucrative over time pay. Police did well under Thatcher. Now they are getting it from Tories. I have little sympathy with them. She kept them inside to push through her restructuring of the economy.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m saying that a leader with charisma would obviously stand a better chance of winning an election, although of course it's not just about that. Much as I support things like renationalisation and free university education, the public simply aren't going to buy those policies unless they come with a convincing and costing strategy and there isn't one in this manifesto.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it’s a fact of life, so Labour can either accept it or they can sit back and allow default tory demolition of public services for the next decade on principle. Are there any other choices?



I talked to two ( older) Labour voters I know. They both think Corbyn is not the leader that the party needs. It comes down to them fearing a Tory government emboldened to further destroy the welfare state. They would put up with a new Blairite type it that's what if that what it takes to get rid of Tories. Not that they like New Labour.

The manifesto is costed. Except for nationalising water. It's taxing the rich and increasing corporation tax. I was listening to a political programme on radio 4 ( not known as radical) commentator said that the manifesto was not that radical. Not to be compared to the 83 "suicide note". It appears radical as it's opposing the neo liberal consensus. Reading the Evening Standard the line is that neo liberalism is a given with voters being asked to vote for the best economic managers.

There is a "centre" ground view that the electorate should come to it's senses and vote for socially liberal who are also economically neo liberal parties. That we should go back to a Cameronite Tory party with a loyal opposition Blairite party. This is view of ES. Alternating governments between the two. Somehow to soften the "extremes" in both parties. A "liberal" centre.

It's failed. Brexit showed that. As well as the recent crisis of capitalism that seems to be forgotten now.

Corbyn isn't imo a poor leader. Membership has increased. And these are not just the "usual subjects". My brother's 17 year old daughter joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn. His politics have given hope to the young generation. Whose future is bleak without radical change.

It's not just about Corbyn. It's about a section of the people in this country feeling they have an alternative.


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2017)

Tonight's YouGov poll. Take a look... 5 point gap now with two weeks to go....


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Tonight's YouGov poll. Take a look... 5 point gap now with two weeks to go....


Never know, the tories might catch up


----------



## Fingers (May 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Never know, the tories might catch up



Sadly for them, they seem to be ever increasingly weak on national security. Out door knocking tonight, it seemed to be a bit of an issue for them


----------



## Smangus (May 25, 2017)

Tortoise vs Hare ?


----------



## cantsin (May 26, 2017)

Corbo vs Brillo, 7pm tnite -  primetime on a Fri, after a week like this - I'm guessing we might be hearing 'HAMAS' , and 'IRA' quite a lot.....


----------



## Fingers (May 26, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Corbo vs Brillo, 7pm tnite -  primetime on a Fri, after a week like this - I'm guessing we might be hearing 'HAMAS' , and 'IRA' quite a lot.....



Labour need to hammer home the dismal Tory track record on National Security, selling arms to terrorist states and cutting the police to the bone.


----------



## teqniq (May 26, 2017)

I really hope they do, it's quite possibly one of the best cards they have wrt to national security.


----------



## cantsin (May 26, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Labour need to hammer home the dismal Tory track record on National Security, selling arms to terrorist states and cutting the police to the bone.



yep, plus reference hard his his 2003 speech : ""This will set off a spiral of conflict that will fuel the wars, conflict, terrorism and misery of future generations" etc , and relentless opposition to ISIS sponsors Saudia Arabia .


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Labour need to hammer home the dismal Tory track record on National Security, selling arms to terrorist states and cutting the police to the bone.


yes, yes ,no.  People remember identity cards and perceive Labour as the party of the surveillance and authoritarian state.

tbh I think he should play to his strengths: Dementia tax, tuition fees, taking food from the mouths of infants, _strong and stable_ leadership, railways...


----------



## Fez909 (May 26, 2017)

He just said "Strong against terrorism. Strong against the causes of terrorism"

Heh, channelling more than one well-known political meme there


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> He just said "Strong against terrorism. Strong against the causes of terrorism"
> 
> Heh, channelling more than one well-known political meme there



That was his most Blair-like speech - certainly I don't remember one of his that was as polished as well as that was, and as sensibly trailed beforehand.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

agricola said:


> That was his most Blair-like speech - certainly I don't remember one of his that was as polished as well as that was, and as sensibly trailed beforehand.


call me auld-fashion'd but i would like news to report what has happened, rather than a) telling me what will happen; b) telling me minute by minute that it is happening; and c) telling me that it's happened.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 26, 2017)

What we need is somebody that does not use Blair's tricks! So let's hope Corbyn loses and then we can get Keir or Dan as leader![/moderate}


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> call me auld-fashion'd but i would like news to report what has happened, rather than a) telling me what will happen; b) telling me minute by minute that it is happening; and c) telling me that it's happened.



So do I, and that is why I liked the way they did it with this - most of the speeches' best lines weren't advertised in advance.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2017)

An amazing couple of weeks for Corbyn and his campaign. Very exciting. The Tories have both been distracted by Brexit and been shit. Now on the ropes.

One would say there is still little chance of a Labour victory. If only recent events pointed at the possibility of some sort of fantastic upset.

The speech is a bold move, risky, because although people on the whole agree with the proposition about foreign policy there is a risk it can be spun into hatred of the UK and its armed forces and as some sort of appeasement. Expect three weeks of constant reference to Corbyn and the IRA. Hopefully few will be swayed by it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2017)

Given that Corbyn is a moderate social democrat, rather than an actual messiah or anything, I thought his speech was pretty good under the circumstances.

He came across as a sensible, decent person expressing some rational ideas about coping with the grotesquely fucked up circumstances that resulted in a bunch of little girls getting blown up the other day.

"Strong on terrorism, strong on the causes of terrorism" is likely to piss off the Blairites just as much as it does the Tories, and seems to be broadly accepted as the 'right approach' among people who might conceivably be persuaded to vote for Labour in June.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Given that Corbyn is a moderate social democrat, rather than an actual messiah or anything, I thought his speech was pretty good under the circumstances.
> 
> He came across as a sensible, decent person expressing some rational ideas about coping with the grotesquely fucked up circumstances that resulted in a bunch of little girls getting blown up the other day.
> 
> "Strong on terrorism, strong on the causes of terrorism" is likely to piss off the Blairites just as much as it does the Tories, and seems to be broadly accepted as the 'right approach' among people who might conceivably be persuaded to vote for Labour in June.


I've always thought Corbyn didn't have the right 'equipment' to be a successful party leader - isn't good at being shouty and cynical, not all that good at telling overt lies. However his personality might be just the thing for the current moment.  Even with the latest poll I still think the Cons will get an clear overall majority. However Corbyn is  the right person to say something definite but also reflective and serious after the events of the last few days.


----------



## cantsin (May 26, 2017)

newbie said:


> yes, yes ,no.  People remember identity cards and perceive Labour as the party of the surveillance and authoritarian state.
> 
> tbh I think he should play to his strengths: Dementia tax, tuition fees, taking food from the mouths of infants, _strong and stable_ leadership, railways...



agree that calling for more cops to protect us from longterm blowback from MId East adventurism is not arguable from the left....but no point hoping any Labour Leader, on any wing, could ever realistically take any other position - which of course begs the question, why any hope / enthusiasm for any left Lab leader


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2017)

cantsin said:


> agree that calling for more cops to protect us from longterm blowback from MId East adventurism is not arguable from the left....but no point hoping any Labour Leader, on any wing, could ever realistically any other position - which of course begs the question, why any hope / enthusiasm for any left Lab leader



Strictly speaking, he hasn't actually called for "more" cops.  10,000 police officers would only replace around half of the posts lost since 2010.


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> "Strong on terrorism, strong on the causes of terrorism" is likely to piss off the Blairites just as much as it does the Tories, and seems to be broadly accepted as the 'right approach' among people who might conceivably be persuaded to vote for Labour in June.



It has certainly woke the Maquis up - since he made the speech, we have had Harris, Rentoul and now Hodges himself (the latter apparently dressed in one of Corbyn's old suits) parading on the news channels.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

agricola said:


> Strictly speaking, he hasn't actually called for "more" cops.  10,000 police officers would only replace around half of the posts lost since 2010.


more than there are now


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I've always thought Corbyn didn't have the right 'equipment' to be a successful party leader - isn't good at being shouty and cynical, not all that good at telling overt lies. However his personality might be just the thing for the current moment.  Even with the latest poll I still think the Cons will get an clear overall majority. However Corbyn is  the right person to say something definite but also reflective and serious after the events of the last few days.


being as tm has gone to the country demanding an increased majority so she can cut the mustard with brussels, she may find herself holed beneath the waterline even if the tories win, if they win with a reduced share of the vote.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2017)

agricola said:


> It has certainly woke the Maquis up - since he made the speech, we have had Harris, Rentoul and now Hodges himself (the latter apparently dressed in one of Corbyn's old suits) parading on the news channels.



Yep. I've just been trying to wind Rentoul up about it.


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> more than there are now



I am not sure that it is guaranteed to be - at the moment the officers who joined when Thatcher boosted recruitment (by an extra thousand or two a year) in the late 80s are all coming up for retirement.   In five years the 10,000 extras could easily be swallowed up just replacing that lot.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> being as tm has gone to the country demanding an increased majority so she can cut the mustard with brussels, she may find herself holed beneath the waterline even if the tories win, if they win with a reduced share of the vote.


I'd have thought the Tories will still get a greater share than 2015, where they got 38%. But one point of comparison - admittedly a slightly contrived one, but still relevant to a 'brexit election' - is that in 2015 the Con + Ukip vote was 50% (38 + 12), whereas in the very latest poll and a couple of others that figure is down to 47%. And Labour are now well ahead of where they were 2 years ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'd have thought the Tories will still get a greater share than 2015, where they got 38%. But one point of comparison - admittedly a slightly contrived one, but still relevant to a 'brexit election' - is that in 2015 the Con + Ukip vote was 50% (38 + 12), whereas in the very latest poll and a couple of others that figure is down to 47%. And Labour are now well ahead of where they were 2 years ago.


it's a long auld time to the election and plenty of time for may to end up with shit on her face.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2017)

this is funny on the graun live stream:



erm... this was all the next 13 days was going to be anyway.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 26, 2017)

I suspect most people have already made up their minds about whether or not Corbyn is a 'terrorist sympathiser'. So not sure if harping on it for the next two weeks will have the intended effect.

I felt it was a risky speech for Corbyn to be making right now, but at the same time all you have to do is see the link between the invasion of Iraq and IS to think that he at least partially has a point. And I think most people do see that link.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Aren't Hezbollah on the frontline fighting Daesh anyway? Maybe he should big up his so called "links" with them eh?


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I suspect most people have already made up their minds about whether or not Corbyn is a 'terrorist sympathiser'. So not sure if harping on it for the next two weeks will have the intended effect.
> 
> I felt it was a risky speech for Corbyn to be making right now, but at the same time all you have to do is see the link between the invasion of Iraq and IS to think that he at least partially has a point. And I think most people do see that link.



The alternative is thesaurus one-upmanship looking for ever stronger synonyms for "condemn"....


----------



## Fez909 (May 26, 2017)

Seems like the speech hasn't gone that badly so far


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2017)

It was a great speech. Probably the best angle he could take.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 26, 2017)

Something weird is going on in the DM comments section:


----------



## Rob Ray (May 26, 2017)

Even the Mail's "furious backlash" attack piece is getting short shrift in the comments, must be one of the few times he's been on the right side of the frothers below that particular line...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 26, 2017)

I don't see how they missed the fact that Tony Blair's Iraq War is not exactly super popular with Tory voters.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

First 20 minutes of that Andrew Niell interview has been painful. But trident? The IRA? hardly top doorstep issues are they?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> First 20 minutes of that Andrew Niell interview has been painful. But trident? The IRA? hardly top doorstep issues are they?



Yep, time is on his side, it's old news. 

Corbyn does look foolish in retrospect though.


----------



## chilango (May 26, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Yep, time is on his side, it's old news.
> 
> Corbyn does look foolish in retrospect though.



Foolish? I suspect running for PM wasn't top of his mind when he was running about being a trendy lefty. I doubt many people care.

The real damage is 20 minutes wasted on this irrelevant nonsense when he could've been talking about policies and the Dementia Tax.


----------



## oryx (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> First 20 minutes of that Andrew Niell interview has been painful. But trident? The IRA? hardly top doorstep issues are they?


Saw it and that's exactly what I thought. Has May been on yet?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2017)

An interview based around Tory talking points. What he said or did with the IRA 30 years ago is of little relevance now, but I suspect they've 'focus grouped' this one and it's done well - the 'Alex Salmond pulling the strings' thing seemed equally preposterous at the last election but apparently had traction and got their vote out. They're not entirely stupid.


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2017)

oryx said:


> Saw it and that's exactly what I thought. Has May been on yet?


She was on Monday. Didn't do so well.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> An interview based around Tory talking points. What he said or did with the IRA 30 years ago is of little relevance now, but I suspect they've 'focus grouped' this one and it's done well - the 'Alex Salmond pulling the strings' thing seemed equally preposterous at the last election but apparently had traction and got their vote out. They're not entirely stupid.


if the result looks close there will be _Scottish tail wagging dog_ stories this time too.


----------



## shygirl (May 26, 2017)

chilango said:


> Foolish? I suspect running for PM wasn't top of his mind when he was running about being a trendy lefty. I doubt many people care.
> 
> The real damage is 20 minutes wasted on this irrelevant nonsense when he could've been talking about policies and the Dementia Tax.



Perhaps you're being tongue in cheek here, but if you're not, I'd just like to say JC has never been a trendy lefty.  Imo, he's always been a genuine campaigner for social and other justice, including his support for the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4.  Seen him on lots of demos, never once thought he was a trendy type of person .


----------



## cantsin (May 26, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Yep, time is on his side, it's old news.
> 
> Corbyn does look foolish in retrospect though.



how ?


----------



## cantsin (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> Foolish? I suspect running for PM wasn't top of his mind when he was running about being a trendy lefty. I doubt many people care.
> 
> The real damage is 20 minutes wasted on this irrelevant nonsense when he could've been talking about policies and the Dementia Tax.



"trendy lefty" is just plain wrong for Corbo, whatever you think of him - if nothing else, his commitment is unquestionable


----------



## RD2003 (May 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> "trendy lefty" is just plain wrong for Corbo, whatever you think of him - if nothing else, his commitment is unquestionable


Still kind of trendy, though, in a 1980 geography teacher kind of way.


----------



## cantsin (May 27, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Still kind of trendy, though, in a 1980 geography teacher kind of way.



mate, that look wasn't trendy in it's 70's Poly lecturer heyday, let alone in the mid 80's , as JC was slipping out the side door of Troops Out meetings as Red Action did the business / saved his arse from rampaging fash ( see BTF for details - certain members of this parish may be around to  lend their sartorial input here at some point ) .

RCP late 80's  : ' Trendy Lefties
Corbo + Co late 80's : not so much

( no need to point out the transitory nature of  the RCPs Politics vs Corbo's - for better or for worse - speaks for itself )


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 27, 2017)

So I just hit youtube for a video about Martin Carthy and got a Tory propaganda movie about Corybn the terrorist

What the fuck is going on here?

Some sort of heavy handed Tory media strategy?


----------



## Tankus (May 27, 2017)

It would be highly ironic if may ends up with the same majority or less ...I may be amused ...even though I think Corbyn is a ££££

"" What he said or did with the IRA 30 years ago is of little relevance now""

bombers then ...bombers now  ...utterly relevant


----------



## Fez909 (May 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> mate, that look wasn't trendy in it's 70's Poly lecturer heyday, let alone in the mid 80's , as JC was slipping out the side door of Troops Out meetings as Red Action did the business / saved his arse from rampaging fash ( see BTF for details - certain members of this parish may be around to  lend their sartorial input here at some point ) .
> 
> RCP late 80's  : ' Trendy Lefties
> Corbo + Co late 80's : not so much
> ...


Corbyn is a norm core icon


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)




----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Perhaps you're being tongue in cheek here, but if you're not, I'd just like to say JC has never been a trendy lefty.  Imo, he's always been a genuine campaigner for social and other justice, including his support for the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4.  Seen him on lots of demos, never once thought he was a trendy type of person .





cantsin said:


> "trendy lefty" is just plain wrong for Corbo, whatever you think of him - if nothing else, his commitment is unquestionable



Apologies - I seem to have used the term "trendy lefty" incorrectly! Wasn't intending to either question his commitment to causes nor comment on his dress sense. More about his adoption of a range of causes popular with radicals but unpopular elsewhere....


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Yeah, yeah. Trendy muesli loony leftie trotsky geography teacher_ ad Corbynem_. Fuck that noise.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So I just hit youtube for a video about Martin Carthy and got a Tory propaganda movie about Corybn the terrorist
> 
> What the fuck is going on here?
> 
> Some sort of heavy handed Tory media strategy?



Political ads on facebook and Youtube have been in use since the 2010 election.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Political ads on facebook and Youtube have been in use since the 2010 election.



Tories have also raised a lot of money for this election (I guess the wealthy are frightened of the alternatives available) so will be buying in a lot of shit like this.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> how ?



Because his support for the Republican cause was partisan for an elected representative, especially one who now wants to be the Prime Minister of the UK including Northern Ireland. It may be that he never thought he would be aiming to rule, but his party always wanted to.

You can take the view, quite reasonably, that these were his true opinions and maybe we need more conviction in politics, but this was an armed struggle and some people close to the conflict won't like or trust him as a consequence. 

I think Corbyn has been doing well, but his past will be an issue over the next three weeks. Without the baggage he could well have been ahead by now.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Yeah, yeah. Trendy muesli loony leftie trotsky geography teacher_ ad Corbynem_. Fuck that noise.



Yes. But now he wants to be statesman, champion of the Police for example. He is always going to be scrutinised, needs to be able to answer.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Because "trendy lefty" and "dress sense" are such a pertinent questions and such incisive scrutiny.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Because his support for the Republican cause was partisan for an elected representative, especially one who now wants to be the Prime Minister of the UK including Northern Ireland. It may be that he never thought he would be aiming to rule, but his party always wanted to.
> 
> You can take the view, quite reasonably, that these were his true opinions and maybe we need more conviction in politics, but this was an armed struggle and some people close to the conflict won't like or trust him as a consequence.
> 
> I think Corbyn has been doing well, but his past will be an issue over the next three weeks. Without the baggage he could well have been ahead by now.



I don't think the specifics of the baggage are an issue. It's old stuff. But I do think they illustrate something about Corbyn. That he was content to eke out a career on Labour's back benches whilst at the same time touring the lefty circuit of causes.

Y'know? being part of the Labour Party which when in government did the Iraq War whilst Corbyn did his Hamas/Hezbollah thing. (As an example)

There's something that rubs wrong there. Something about having your cake and eating it (though, in fairness what else are you supposed t do with cake?). Something he had in common with a lot of the left of the 80s imo.

I'm struggling to put my finger on it. In the case of many of his type I've encountered I could dismiss it as "hobbyism", but in the case of Corbyn he carved a career out it.

It's not that I don't think he's genuine. I think he probably is.

Im rambling, I know 

TL; DR All this baggage reminds me of why I never liked the 80s style Labour Left.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Meanwhile...
Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists



> Dozens of UK economists - including a former Bank of England adviser - have indicated they are publicly backing the policies of Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> 
> In a significant boost to Mr Corbyn's campaign, more than 40 economists have reportedly added their signatures to a letter in the Observer dismissing claims the Islington North MP is "extreme".
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Tankus said:


> It would be highly ironic if may ends up with the same majority or less ...I may be amused ...even though I think Corbyn is a ££££
> 
> "" What he said or did with the IRA 30 years ago is of little relevance now""
> 
> bombers then ...bombers now  ...utterly relevant


Right. No difference whatsoever between e.g. the Angry Brigade and AQ. No difference between the dambusters and AQ. No difference between soe and AQ. Not sure this bomber is a bomber is a bomber lark really works.


----------



## magneze (May 27, 2017)

Almost 2 years old. Cutting edge stuff there.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Right. No difference whatsoever between e.g. the Angry Brigade and AQ. No difference between the dambusters and AQ. No difference between soe and AQ. Not sure this bomber is a bomber is a bomber lark really works.


----------



## Libertad (May 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Meanwhile...
> Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists



Do you ever check the date of publication of these articles?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Do you ever check the date of publication of these articles?


Mikey mikey fails at even the most basick fact checking


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't think the specifics of the baggage are an issue. It's old stuff. But I do think they illustrate something about Corbyn. That he was content to eke out a career on Labour's back benches whilst at the same time touring the lefty circuit of causes.
> 
> Y'know? being part of the Labour Party which when in government did the Iraq War whilst Corbyn did his Hamas/Hezbollah thing. (As an example)
> 
> ...



The cult of Jeremy worries me in this respect. It can do nothing to dissuade Jeremy of his essential goodness and righteousness, even when the terrain is awkward and his views contradictory. 

But at the moment at least he has been spot on during the campaign and by heck it's working for them. The question is whether that 'hobbyist' past can still derail him.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Because "trendy lefty" and "dress sense" are such a pertinent questions and such incisive scrutiny.



I trust you'll be leaving Theresa's gaudy shoes, eye-wateringly expensive trousers and beliefs out of any debate then.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't think the specifics of the baggage are an issue. It's old stuff. But I do think they illustrate something about Corbyn. That he was content to eke out a career on Labour's back benches whilst at the same time touring the lefty circuit of causes.
> 
> Y'know? being part of the Labour Party which when in government did the Iraq War whilst Corbyn did his Hamas/Hezbollah thing. (As an example)
> 
> ...


Whatever you think of Corbyn's strategy of remaining inside the party, agitating from the left and pushing/waiting for the dial to swing back, you can't really say it's not has some success: we're a week and a half away from him leading the party into a general election.


----------



## 19force8 (May 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> I trust you'll be leaving Theresa's gaudy shoes, eye-wateringly expensive trousers and beliefs out of any debate then.


Those trousers cost barely a quarter the price of one of Cameron's or Osbourne's many suits. Yet somehow they weren't pilloried for their profligacy. Strange the double standards we take for granted.


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't think the specifics of the baggage are an issue. It's old stuff. But I do think they illustrate something about Corbyn. That he was content to eke out a career on Labour's back benches whilst at the same time touring the lefty circuit of causes.
> 
> Y'know? being part of the Labour Party which when in government did the Iraq War whilst Corbyn did his Hamas/Hezbollah thing. (As an example)
> 
> ...



that's benefit of hindsight isn't it?  It wasn't until the end of the 80s that we got the ability to bicker electronically about politics, and that wasn't in real time.  Before that there was one-to-many press and TV plus circulating mags, pamphlets etc. and people you knew.  Yet day by day for those of us on the left positions had to be taken, with incomplete information and debate that encompassed views far less diverse or knowledgeable than on here, now, today and with far, far less fact checking capability.

Just as now, day by day you'd have to take a position: do you or do you not support Troops Out or before that BWNIC? Do you welcome the 40-day rolling demonstrations which led to the overthrow of the Shah or endorse the British government sending him arms; do you support those organising as female, as gay, as black people to discuss liberation and oppose the specific oppressions they identify?  and so on, through miners, nukes, the Middle East, etc etc all the way through to foxes.

The cumulative effect of those personal standpoints can be judged for the collective consequences 30 years down the line. We can now get a handle on the outcome of the Troubles, the Iranian revolution and identity politics. With hindsight some positions stand the test of time but to those who merely read about it all as history, some may look foolishly naive and some entirely wrong.

For most of us our contribution was minor and can be rolled up into the collective outcome: for someone like Corbyn (who had more information and better contacts than most) a position he took on a specific issue at a particular time can be stripped of context and weaponised, yet at that time, that hour, that day, it appeared a logical response to the events.  And by and large insignificant leftists like me, with little ideological commitment to either parliamentary democracy or the LP felt he was one of the very few who articulated anything close to what we felt. (I've no idea how old you are, but if you weren't an adult through the 80s I can't begin to tell you how bleak it was being on the left back then).

He can be hung out to dry on what he said and did 30 years ago because he was an MP and prominent.  Some of it appears dilettante, some downright misguided, some merely leaving hostages to fortune. And I can well understand that may make us/him appear hobbyist because so much of it was futile. The same can, of course, be said for pretty much all the dissident politics of the 90s and naughties, though there were never really MPs who really stood with and articulated the standpoints of those involved in the way that Corbyn did for an earlier cohort of dissidents. So yes, he's a careerist LP hack who never resigned when those of us who never joined, and those who did resign thought he should have done (on issue after issue).  He, or rather what he represents, is the best hope for (what might be called) 'the left' in all those years and more.  Nothing that has come since the 80s left has created a longlasting impact.

TL; DR I get that but you had to be there


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

IFS to voters: you have a choice between the 'undeliverable' or 'unworkable'

There you go. Nuanced IFS tells us that we can't make billionaires and corporations pay tax. Don't shoot the Guardian messenger.


----------



## cantsin (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't think the specifics of the baggage are an issue. It's old stuff. But I do think they illustrate something about Corbyn. That he was content to eke out a career on Labour's back benches whilst at the same time touring the lefty circuit of causes.
> 
> Y'know? being part of the Labour Party which when in government did the Iraq War whilst Corbyn did his Hamas/Hezbollah thing. (As an example)
> 
> ...



Think you have a point here - on a personal / micro basis, along with couple of mates, ( who are more accepting / committed ) have been getting involved with the local LP, a lovely bunch tbf, but I know the score, and feel a bit bad sometimes about lack of real conviction on my part amongst all those committed members - it is a quasi-hobby for me, and partial,lazy  substitution for real activism / meaningful activity.

Scaled all the way up,  suspect Corbo knows the reality of LPs actual potential to be at centre of transformative change - doubt that his longstanding, continual engagement with the extra parliamentary left is a simple marriage of convenience


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

I hope people will indulge my ramblings...

I'm trying to disentangle how someone who 

Labour voters I know who have no axe to grind describe as "a complete twat" and an "utter bellend".
Represents the epitome of the defeated 80s Labour Left.
and faces continual character dismantling in the media from all sides
is at the helm of a pretty remarkable election turnaround.

It's become a fascinating election


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Those trousers cost barely a quarter the price of one of Cameron's or Osbourne's many suits. Yet somehow they weren't pilloried for their profligacy. Strange the double standards we take for granted.



I find this a poor argument. Sure women endure double standards, but she has been a key player in a Government of austerity and general unkindness. Her repulsive fashion taste, which is purely the exercise of spending money for cachet (no £100, £200 even £300 strides available?) sits very poorly with her crocodile tears for the 'just about managing'. Her £900 trousers set her apart from other women, so bollocks to her, her trousers and her nasty shoes.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Those trousers cost barely a quarter the price of one of Cameron's or Osbourne's many suits. Yet somehow they weren't pilloried for their profligacy. Strange the double standards we take for granted.


Evidence pls for £4k suits


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I hope people will indulge my ramblings...
> 
> I'm trying to disentangle how someone who
> 
> ...


The complete contrast between the sure-footedness of the campaign with the apparent shambles of the party in parliament has been the most interesting thing imo.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I hope people will indulge my ramblings...
> 
> I'm trying to disentangle how someone who
> 
> ...



What has been remarkable is how quickly no one gives a fuck about Brexit anymore. It is settled really, the EU won't negotiate on much, so it's all done. 

As a consequence it's back to domestic politics and the Tories have produced a stinker of an offer. Vote for a rabbit in the headlights for 'stability'. It's easy to forget with all the Westminster noise that most people dislike the Tories. It's game on.


----------



## binka (May 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> What has been remarkable is how quickly no one gives a fuck about Brexit anymore. It is settled really, the EU won't negotiate on much, so it's all done.


I have remain friends on facebook who for the last year have posted almost daily about brexit. People who I might have expected to be tempted by the lib dems - I completely misjudged them and they are now posting daily about supporting Corbyn instead


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

binka said:


> I have remain friends on facebook who for the last year have posted almost daily about brexit. People who I might have expected to be tempted by the lib dems - I completely misjudged them and they are now posting daily about supporting Corbyn instead



The same


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I hope people will indulge my ramblings...
> 
> I'm trying to disentangle how someone who
> 
> ...



I think people are slightly more willing to vote for substance over style than they are generally given credit for, provided they are given some intelligible substance to vote on.

But the remarkable thing, really, is the Tory turnaround in the wrong direction. I think it's actually testimony to Corbyn's shortcomings that Labour are not pummeling them already.


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

binka said:


> I have remain friends on facebook who for the last year have posted almost daily about brexit. People who I might have expected to be tempted by the lib dems - I completely misjudged them and they are now posting daily about supporting Corbyn instead



I expected this to be the Brexit election when it was called, but I think I may have had a misleading impression of how much of a motivation that would be for people. It's not that people are not bothered, but I think a lot of people are probably on or close to the fence with it, or just confused about it, and so easily distracted by issues where they can more easily have a clear opinion.


----------



## tim (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Evidence pls for £4k suits



Cameron bought bespoke not of the rack, so it's difficult to make price comparisons. However,


> . Cameron was known to have a taste for Savile Row tailor Richard James, whose suits can cost more than £3,100 ($3,900), during his first few years in office. Later, perhaps as austerity measures took hold in Britain, another tailor – named Geoffrey Golding – was pictured leaving 10 Downing Street. Golding's suits cost a slightly more reasonable £2,000 ($2,500) or so.



Theresa May's £995 leather trousers sparked debate, but David Cameron's suits cost far more

Not £4000, but substantially more than those trousers.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I hope people will indulge my ramblings...
> 
> I'm trying to disentangle how someone who
> 
> ...


I was wondering/rambline about this, on the Can Corbyn Win thread:



> I think the Tories will piss it, as in 50+ majority. Usual caveats - volatile polls and some minor shifts in the libdem vote will affect things in individual constituencies etc. Having said all that I haven't got a fucking clue as to what's going on in politics at the moment. About a year before the 2015 poll I had a hunch that Labour's apparent lead was soft and posted on here that I couldn't quite see what Miliband's pitch to the voters/narrative was going to be. By the time of the election itself I'd been persuaded by the polls that Labour were going to either squeak it or get to a hung parliament. When the Tories actually won, it was a surprise, but you could at least understand it. Ditto Brexit, like most other people I was surprised by the result, but it was very easy to see _why_ it happened (Trump also).
> 
> But the Corbyn thing has been difficult to get a grasp of in many ways. I was surprised by all the people turning up to his leadership rallies - and then by all the people who voted for him and joined the party (as in where were all these people before? Why did they decided to get involved now?). After that it all turned to shit, the right of the party tried to kill it, he had no impact > up to 20 points behind in the polls - back to something understandable.
> 
> Now we've got the Corbyn surge. Even if he doesn't win, massive shifts in the opinion polls, gaining about 15 points in the Con v Lab national battle. Was that simply about May looking shifty and Labour coming out with nationalisation plans? In some ways those are understandable reasons for the _beginning_ of a turnaround, but not the massive shifts we've seen in about 10 days. Corbyn remains as far behind as ever as a potential PM, but his party has gained more (polling) ground than at any time I can remember. Long post - short version: I'm clueless.



More concisely... I suspect the Labour surge is fragile. They haven't suddenly become a competent united party with a leader who is seen as a plausible PM.  Its as if Labour were so far behind and out of the game that they are now getting support as a _protest vote_ rather than as a potential government.  Labour's strength amongst the young is both interesting and important for the future but will be hit by registration/non voting by the same people.  I'm not sure if the shy tories thing from the last election is still in play as well.  Interesting as things are I'm _guessing_ the tories have something like a 12-15% 'natural' or underlying lead.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I was wondering/rambline about this, on the Can Corbyn Win thread:
> 
> 
> 
> More concisely... I suspect the Labour surge is fragile. They haven't suddenly become a competent united party with a leader who is seen as a plausible PM.  Its as if Labour were so far behind and out of the game that they are now getting support as a _protest vote_ rather than as a potential government.  Labour's strength amongst the young is both interesting and important for the future but will be hit by registration/non voting by the same people.  I'm not sure if the shy tories thing from the last election is still in play as well.  Interesting as things are I'm _guessing_ the tories have something like a 12-15% 'natural' or underlying lead.


Yeh. But when the tories start attacking pensioners, and they are attacking pensioners, they will receive fewer votes from that section of the electorate which is most likely to vote.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But when the tories start attacking pensioners, and they are attacking pensioners, they will receive fewer votes from that section of the electorate which is most likely to vote.


Yeah, that was the single most stupid thing they've done so far. Either outright stupidity or they felt they were so far ahead they could afford to piss off the 'grey vote'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, that was the single most stupid thing they've done so far. Either outright stupidity or they felt they were so far ahead they could afford to piss off the 'grey vote'.


Not to mention everything in the tory manifesto is negative, whereas so much of the labour one is positive. I think there's a lot if people shy to say they back corbyn. I think that the parliamentary arithmetic very much against labour: but it may be an election to use as a stepping stone. If the tories win with a fewer than 20 majority I think we'll be back to the polls before 2022.


----------



## tommers (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> I hope people will indulge my ramblings...
> 
> I'm trying to disentangle how someone who
> 
> ...



I think it's because he is genuine, consistent and the antithesis of everything that people hate about politicians. Maybe after years of smarmy twats on both sides making stupid decisions about war, the economy etc etc people are ready for something different?

Who knows. But just imagine how funny it will be if they win. Lots of humble pie being eaten by pretty much everybody involved with politics - from the PLP to the Tories to journalists. It'll be hilarious.


----------



## Bingo (May 27, 2017)

Having said that, do you think he might benefit from anti establishment protest votes from those who usually wouldn't bother?


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

Bingo said:


> Having said that, do you think he might benefit from anti establishment protest votes from those who usually wouldn't bother?



Yes. But I doubt  in enough numbers to matter.


----------



## Bingo (May 27, 2017)

But isn't that a lot of what helped with Trump and Brexit?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 27, 2017)

A vote share above 35% - and a tory majority of under 50 - would be a pretty decent result for corbyn. Be hard for the labour right to argue  - no no we need a "moderate" candidate doing photo ops (the ed stone) and mouthing soundbites (hell yeah - im tough enough!) would have won it. Wont stop them trying of course. 

They were  assuming that this election would see the humiliation of corbyn and his policies and they could smugly say "I told you so" and have the grown ups back in charge. Now they must be looking at the polls and gnashing their teeth as much as the tories. 

Maybe labour should adopt the slogan "Vote for us - and make Tony Blair Cry!"


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

Bingo said:


> But isn't that a lot of what helped with Trump and Brexit?



Yes.

But Labour IS the establishment in enough places to hobble this idea.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> A vote share above 35% - and a tory majority of under 50 - would be a pretty decent result for corbyn. Be hard for the labour right to argue  - no no we need a "moderate" candidate doing photo ops (the ed stone) and mouthing soundbites (hell yeah - im tough enough!) would have won it. Wont stop them trying of course.



Oh, indeed they will.  have read comments to the tune of: Dan/Keir/Yvette/Liz would be in the lead cos May is so bad. Most certainly there will be a call for Jeremy to resign as leader and for a "moderate" to take over "cos we'd av wun it".

If you mention this to a "don't-call-me-moderate", they may either claim you're getting your excuses in early, or deny there is anything resembling a Right within the Labour Party. Or both.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2017)

I confess, I like dozens of others on this forum have been sussed out. I am a member of Progress, I voted for Liz Kendall and I have a signed copy of Giddens' Third Way on my bedside table which sits next to my favourite mug, the 'controls on immigration' one from the 2015 election. My favourite political leaders at the moment are Trudeau and Macron, my main political issue is Brexit, and I think that wanting to withdraw from NATO is racist or something.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Wasn't talking about you or even folks on this forum, JEd. FFS put me on ignore and/or sod off.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

tommers said:


> I think it's because he is genuine, consistent and the antithesis of everything that people hate about politicians. Maybe after years of smarmy twats on both sides making stupid decisions about war, the economy etc etc people are ready for something different?
> 
> Who knows. But just imagine how funny it will be if they win. Lots of humble pie being eaten by pretty much everybody involved with politics - from the PLP to the Tories to journalists. It'll be hilarious.



I think anyone who thinks Corbyn is especially genuine and consistent would be in for a rapid disillusionment should he get elected. 

He certainly has some very fine values around solidarity, but he is also quite righteous. The system is way bigger than him though and he will eventually do things that are unpopular. Will he own them with honesty? 

But yes, it would be brilliant and immensely funny if he won, after Tories, Trump, Brexit, everything, plain hilarious.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

tim said:


> Cameron bought bespoke not of the rack, so it's difficult to make price comparisons. However,
> 
> 
> Theresa May's £995 leather trousers sparked debate, but David Cameron's suits cost far more
> ...



Cameron's suit was uniform for his job, to exude well fitting competence when representing party and country. Theresa's clothes are 'look how much these cost' labels. 

Nevertheless you don't need an excuse for attacking Dave for being a posh, smug bastard and you don't need to make one for May either.


----------



## oryx (May 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Cameron's suit was uniform for his job, to exude well fitting competence when representing party and country. .



but you can still get a decent one for less than £3k though.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

To be fair, I think the cocaine tripping on the front bench and the pig fucking ritual might have made talking about posh clothes a bit tame by comparison.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> The complete contrast between the sure-footedness of the campaign with the apparent shambles of the party in parliament has been the most interesting thing imo.



I think the Blairites have mostly shut up, while the Momentum kids who hate their guts get them re-elected, whereas in Parliament, they're continually able to stick the knife in.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> Yes.
> 
> But Labour IS the establishment in enough places to hobble this idea.



Sure is in Birkenhead, where 'Mad Frankie' Field has an invincible majority and the Tories don't have a hope.

Or Liverpool's Mayor Joe Anderson, who is widely characterised locally as being a byword for flagrant corruption, but who doesn't have to worry about the Tories exploiting the population's intense loathing of him and his crooked mates.

Wirral West on the other hands is being fiercely contested, and Labour aren't at all the establishment.


----------



## tim (May 27, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Cameron's suit was uniform for his job, to exude well fitting competence when representing party and country. Theresa's clothes are 'look how much these cost' labels.
> 
> Nevertheless you don't need an excuse for attacking Dave for being a posh, smug bastard and you don't need to make one for May either.




Misogynistic tosh!


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Blairites don't exist and the word has no meaning. Use the term "moderate". But not too often. That causes them to disappear too.

Maybe just call  them "non-Corbynistas". That would set them apart from the Cultist-Dog-Trots that still support the no-mark Geography teacher. [Blairite-in-Leftie-clothing]


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Blairites don't exist and the word has no meaning. Use the term "moderate". But not too often. That causes them to disappear too.
> 
> Maybe just call  them "non-Corbynistas". That would set them apart from the Cultist-Dog-Trots that still support the no-mark Geography teacher. [Blairite-in-Leftie-clothing]


On second thoughts perhaps you shouldn't post what you think after all.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 27, 2017)

tommers said:


> But just imagine how funny it will be if they win. Lots of humble pie being eaten by pretty much everybody involved with politics - from the PLP to the Tories to journalists. It'll be hilarious.



I don't expect any humble pie at all. What I expect is loads of sensible, sober establishment types lamenting how the country is fucked, going to the dogs, the people are confused after the Brexit vote, Theresa May made unfortunate errors etc. Just more mouthing off basically. Few if any will acknowledge openly that the result is a) what (the) people actually want and b) it's good for the country's future not to have a government of sales-types flogging everything off when we leave the EU.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 27, 2017)

tim said:


> Misogynistic tosh!



Using feminist arguments to defend privilege is no leap forward.

I must have missed it when May stuck up for Corbyn on account of being unfairly judged for his clothes.


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2017)

She's done it again Diane Abbott suffers new car crash interview trying to defend Jeremy Corbyn over IRA claims 
*"Diane Abbott suffers new car crash interview trying to defend Jeremy Corbyn over IRA claims"*


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Blairites don't exist and the word has no meaning. Use the term "moderate". But not too often. That causes them to disappear too.
> 
> Maybe just call  them "non-Corbynistas". That would set them apart from the Cultist-Dog-Trots that still support the no-mark Geography teacher. [Blairite-in-Leftie-clothing]



'Blairite in leftie clothing' works nicely to the tune of 'Angels with Dirty Faces' by Sham 69. Could be this election's 'Things Can Only Get Better'.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't expect any humble pie at all. What I expect is loads of sensible, sober establishment types lamenting how the country is fucked, going to the dogs, the people are confused after the Brexit vote, Theresa May made unfortunate errors etc. Just more mouthing off basically. Few if any will acknowledge openly that the result is a) what (the) people actually want and b) it's good for the country's future not to have a government of sales-types flogging everything off when we leave the EU.



It will be interpreted as a 'cry for help' from er, someone.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> 'Blairite in leftie clothing' works nicely to the tune of 'Angels with Dirty Faces' by Sham 69. Could be this election's 'Things Can Only Get Better'.



Only if it is sung by George Eaton







http://www.conservativehome.com/the...te-at-conhomes-conference-fringe-meeting.html


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2017)

Do you ever post anything not shit and not from 2015?


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2017)

Oddly enough, the freak just liked a post of mine from 2015, he must be combing ancient threads for material.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Oddly enough, the freak just liked a post of mine from 2015, he must be combing ancient threads for material.



I was asked to look at voting history and I did so.
I read a post of yours and was honest enough to press the like button despite your attitude towards me.
I still think you're an arsehole.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Oddly enough, the freak just liked a post of mine from 2015, he must be combing ancient threads for material.


Maybe he'll finally get where other posters are coming from after this really not motivated by spite bin trawl.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Do you ever post anything not shit and not from 2015?



The fact that he attended a CCHQ meeting on how to take down the Labour Leader and did so as political editor of the NS does not alarm you?

Oh, that was 18 months ago. Oh well.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Oddly enough, the freak just liked a post of mine from 2015, he must be combing ancient threads for material.


That's creepy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> The fact that he attended a CCHQ meeting on how to take down the Labour Leader and did so as political editor of the NS does not alarm you?
> 
> Oh, that was 18 months ago. Oh well.


The political editor of the New statesman attended an event at a tory party conference directly bearing on his job. Another smoking gun.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Having been asked to "get to know where we are coming from on Urban" I start reading past threads to get to do just that.

I even like posts that I well...like.

In response I get called a "creepy" and "freak".

Nice people, eh?


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> She's done it again Diane Abbott suffers new car crash interview trying to defend Jeremy Corbyn over IRA claims
> *"Diane Abbott suffers new car crash interview trying to defend Jeremy Corbyn over IRA claims"*


I don't care what Diane says about someone else, I care about what that someone else actually did. The best way to find that out is to talk to that someone else, and not deliberately choose someone in the hopes you'll get this kind of result. This is a shit show - not to excuse her performance, but really it's utterly irrelevant. She isn't responsible for who JC talks to or when.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

...And now Comrade George reports from the leftist frontline, muhahaha, MUHAHAHAHA! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Having been asked to "get to know where we are coming from on Urban" I start reading past threads to get to do just that.
> 
> I even like posts that I well...like.
> 
> ...


That was a private joke. killer b gets it.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Well as long as killer b feels okay about it...


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2017)

He's right though, were a bunch of nasty bastards here. He could be sharing his shit memes and ancient news stories somewhere they'd be more appreciated instead of facing this relentless hostility day after day.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's right though, were a bunch of nasty bastards here. He could be sharing his shit memes and ancient news stories somewhere they'd be more appreciated instead of facing this relentless hostility day after day.


Where tho?


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2017)

Anywhere, I don't really care.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's right though, were a bunch of nasty bastards here.



Don't include other people in this, you coward. Was just you and DlR that were being fucked up. Nobody else.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I don't care what Diane says about someone else, I care about what that someone else actually did. The best way to find that out is to talk to that someone else, and not deliberately choose someone in the hopes you'll get this kind of result. This is a shit show - not to excuse her performance, but really it's utterly irrelevant. She isn't responsible for who JC talks to or when.



Sorry, but that's just not true. He wants to lead this country's response to terrorism and she wants the most important role in that. They have made it, since the Manchester attack, a key election issue. Their record and their beliefs are up for scrutiny. 

The PM and the Government of the UK are that for all UK citizens including loyalists and victims of the IRA. We would rightly highlight any Tories with historic Loyalist sympathies who may not be even handed to Republicans. It's a classic mistake to assume that the concerns of others are unimportant just because the press is mischievous or because you fundamentally oppose the state.

The best thing for Labour is honesty and to propose the right anti-terror legislation and measures. What people mouthed off in the Eighties is a problem and they have to deal with it well.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Sorry, but that's just not true. He wants to lead this country's response to terrorism and she wants the most important role in that. They have made it, since the Manchester attack, a key election issue. Their record and their beliefs are up for scrutiny.
> 
> The PM and the Government of the UK are that for all UK citizens including loyalists and victims of the IRA. We would rightly highlight any Tories with historic Loyalist sympathies who may not be even handed to Republicans. It's a classic mistake to assume that the concerns of others are unimportant just because the press is mischievous or because you fundamentally oppose the state.
> 
> The best thing for Labour is honesty and to propose the right anti-terror legislation and measures. What people mouthed off in the Eighties is a problem and they have to deal with it well.


I'm not defending her inability to respond cogently. I'm saying that has no bearing on him and his ability to run the country.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

And now a shit and irrelevant post from me.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2017)

How did you do that danny la rouge ?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Don't include other people in this, you coward. Was just you and DlR that were being fucked up. Nobody else.


Oh, for Christ sake. Just go back and look at the post you liked.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> How did you do that danny la rouge ?


Powers.

Creeped out?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

My bad, dlr. I hope you can see where the ambiguity lay. 

So, just you being an awful prick, killerb.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

That article says fuck all anyway. The most serious accusation is an allegation:


> The shadow Home Secretary was also asked about her own comments in a 1988 interview in an Irish Republican journal, in which she *reportedly *said: “Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
> 
> Ms Abbott said the comment was made 34 years ago and that she had since “moved on”.



Isn't this a bit hysterical? No evidence to back up that allegation provided. Just more innuendo.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

No. And it isn't disrespectful to call her fat. Nothing can be construed as mysoginistic or racist no matter how personal or offensive. Abbot is always fair game. Those are the rules. [/everycuntintheworld]


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> No. And it isn't disrespectful to call her fat. Nothing can be construed as mysoginistic or racist no matter how personal or offensive. Abbot is always fair game. Those are the rules. [/everycuntintheworld]



It appears you are having a dialogue in your head, but only sharing bits of it.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> That article says fuck all anyway. The most serious accusation is an allegation:
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit hysterical? No evidence to back up that allegation provided. Just more innuendo.



She doesn't deny it, merely that she has a different hairstyle.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It appears you are having a dialogue in your head, but only sharing bits of it.


No, just making a comment about the general (not you and not here) level of discourse when Diane AAbbot gets mentioned.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It appears you are having a dialogue in your head, but only sharing bits of it.


Be glad we're not getting the whole of his internal discussions


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> My bad, dlr. I hope you can see where the ambiguity lay.


All knowledge is ambiguous. - Derrida.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> No. And it isn't disrespectful to call her fat. Nothing can be construed as mysoginistic or racist no matter how personal or offensive. Abbot is always fair game. Those are the rules. [/everycuntintheworld]


Hold on. Who here has commented on Abbot in any of those ways? 

She's a loose cannon, not very bright, and a PR disaster. That's my opinion. Is that OK?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

See above.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Unfortunately LabourEoin posted that, so it now it never happened because reasons.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> She doesn't deny it, merely that she has a different hairstyle.


No, she is quoted as saying she has "moved on".

This article really is vacuous. It tells me nothing. The interview isn't shared and the Independent were happy to support the Tories last time around. There's very little to see here AFAIC


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Hold on. Who here has commented on Abbot in any of those ways?
> 
> She's a loose cannon, not very bright, and a PR disaster. That's my opinion. Is that OK?


Those things may/may not be true, but I doubt she went into that interview prepared (perhaps naively) to be asked to justify allegations regarding something JC did thirty years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2017)

Wow, she sounds like great politician.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Should have gone for Kendall or Cooper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Unfortunately LabourEoin posted that, so it now it never happened because reasons.




No.

So now anyone with any sense will check out the claim, because Eoin is a crap source who's well-known for misinterpreting stuff in his rush to support his party.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

What claim? It's a vid ffs.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Here's another vid. Eoin posted it so it was prolly all special FX and stuff.


----------



## cantsin (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> No, just making a comment about the general (not you and not here) level of discourse when Diane AAbbot gets mentioned.



The discourse around Abbot is horrible,  on all sides, and I always thought she seemed like a decent, considered, likeable person when she was part of the punch n Judy show with Portillo /  Brillo   - but will admit I turn over when she's on the telly now, can't watch, + have never got to grips with idea of Corbynite front bencher who considers state education not good enough for her offspring - don't see what Corbo / Milne see in her tbh - liability


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Not on my top ten politicians list either, but the mysogyny is in full swing on the thread dedicated to her. Dind't take long.


----------



## NoXion (May 28, 2017)

What misogyny are you referring to exactly? Quote people.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Those things may/may not be true, but I doubt she went into that interview prepared (perhaps naively) to be asked to justify allegations regarding something JC did thirty years ago.


Awesome. Well, maybe she should have considered whether something in the news might come up.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Awesome. Well, maybe she should have considered whether something in the news might come up.


Or maybe you could stop being a prick


----------



## xenon (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Or maybe you could stop being a prick



Take the blinkers off. Danny's point is perfectly fair. Abbot is awful, pretending otherwise is self delusion.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

xenon said:


> Take the blinkers off. Danny's point is perfectly fair. Abbot is awful, pretending otherwise is self delusion.


thats not why i said that


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2017)

Aw Some, well, most of danny la rouge post's are spot on tbf.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 28, 2017)

lol


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> Aw Some, well, most of danny la rouge post's are spot on tbf.



I agree, up until just recently, they are ace.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Or maybe you could stop being a prick


Yeh it's never you, it's always someone else


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> Aw Some, well, most of danny la rouge post's are spot on tbf.


Shame then, that he has to resort to innuendo and bullying.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Shame then, that he has to resort to innuendo and bullying.



Do we have to do this, again?


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol


Yep, that won the Bishop's Finger over keyboard award.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> Do we have to do this, again?


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> Do we have to do this, again?


Of course not, but you're asking the wrong person


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Of course not, but you're asking the wrong person



True

*presses button*


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Of course not, but you're asking the wrong person





Pickman's model said:


> Yeh it's never you, it's always someone else


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Shame then, that he has to resort to innuendo and bullying.


Innuendo? I put my hand up. Matron. 

But I think the bullying accusation is a bit harsh.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Innuendo? I put my hand up. Matron.
> 
> But I think the bullying accusation is a bit harsh.


Then perhaps you'll agree with me that it would be better to stick to the topic and not this nonsense that these other slugs are keen to spew


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> I agree, up until just recently, they are ace.


I apologise for any drop in quality. For appraisal purposes, Would you care to highlight any posts that have dropped below the usual standard?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Then perhaps you'll agree with me that it would be better to stick to the topic and not this nonsense that these other slugs are keen to spew


Would you care to outline for us who the slugs are and what the nonsense is?


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Would you care to outline for us who the slugs are and what the nonsense is?


Perhaps not then. I tried.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Perhaps not then. I tried.


Yeh you're always trying


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Those things may/may not be true, but I doubt she went into that interview prepared (perhaps naively) to be asked to justify allegations regarding something JC did thirty years ago.


She was very obviously well prepared for it, as she knew exactly what the quote was and where it was from.  Her answer was her considered answer. And a rather poorly phrased one.  When John McDonnell had to do likewise, he answered plainly and directly, not obfuscating or talking nonsense about hairstyles.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

belboid said:


> She was very obviously well prepared for it, as she knew exactly what the quote was and where it was from.  Her answer was her considered answer. And a rather poorly phrased one.  When John McDonnell had to do likewise, he answered plainly and directly, not obfuscating or talking nonsense about hairstyles.


Yes it wasn't the best answer, but I'm not terribly bothered by it. The whole thing is just typical BBC attack dog bollocks.


----------



## Smangus (May 28, 2017)

Black or not
Female or not
Fat or not
all irrelevant.
She's a shit politician who makes up for competence by being arrogant and overly pompous. Can't fucking stand her.


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Black or not
> Female or not
> Fat or not
> all irrelevant.
> She's a shit politician who makes up for competence by being arrogant and overly pompous. Can't fucking stand her.



It's probably fair to say that while she is not a good politician, she would not get quite as negative a reaction as she does from many if she were white or a Tory or both.


----------



## Smangus (May 28, 2017)

Maybe, but I can think of a few politicians of all genders, parties and races that would fit the same criteria imo. Shit politicians should be exposed as such . Plus she's a complete fucking hypocrite as far as education goes.


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

belboid said:


> She was very obviously well prepared for it, as she knew exactly what the quote was and where it was from.  Her answer was her considered answer. And a rather poorly phrased one.  When John McDonnell had to do likewise, he answered plainly and directly, not obfuscating or talking nonsense about hairstyles.



I agree with this, it was obviously a rehearsed question but it did not come across that way. Isn't the Labour Party paying someone to come up with better responses than that?


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2017)

J Ed said:


> It's probably fair to say that while she is not a good politician, she would not get quite as negative a reaction as she does from many if she were white or a Tory or both.


Compare her to the _actual _Home Secretary and she seems remarkably competent and well informed.


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2017)

belboid said:


> Compare her to the _actual _Home Secretary and she seems remarkably competent and well informed.



Well exactly.  That interview this morning was a masterclass in making anyone who watched it think there is some form of massive conspiracy afoot.


----------



## cantsin (May 28, 2017)

belboid said:


> She was very obviously well prepared for it, as she knew exactly what the quote was and where it was from.  Her answer was her considered answer. And a rather poorly phrased one.  When John McDonnell had to do likewise, he answered plainly and directly, not obfuscating or talking nonsense about hairstyles.



bearing in mind the Tories will barely let May near the public / or anything else other than high profile, pre prepared set pieces, why aren't Lab just rotating Corbo / McDonnell / Gardiner for the big ones ?  ( On the other hand, pushing three white middle aged males in front of camera each time not practical either maybe, dunno. )


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 28, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I talked to two ( older) Labour voters I know. They both think Corbyn is not the leader that the party needs. It comes down to them fearing a Tory government emboldened to further destroy the welfare state. They would put up with a new Blairite type it that's what if that what it takes to get rid of Tories. Not that they like New Labour.
> 
> The manifesto is costed. Except for nationalising water. It's taxing the rich and increasing corporation tax. I was listening to a political programme on radio 4 ( not known as radical) commentator said that the manifesto was not that radical. Not to be compared to the 83 "suicide note". It appears radical as it's opposing the neo liberal consensus. Reading the Evening Standard the line is that neo liberalism is a given with voters being asked to vote for the best economic managers.
> 
> ...



Well I genuinely hope that you’re right, I’m wrong and that we’ll have a Labour government on June 9th. Nothing would restore my faith in my fellow Brits more than that!

I’m not sure you’re right about the manifesto being fully costed though, not only because the IFS have pointed out that it isn't regarding essential services, but because Corbyn himself said he didn’t know the full cost of his renationalisation programme. And... relying on increasing revenue through corporation tax and taxing the rich will also rely on the continued growth of the capitalist economy and that is by no means certain once we’ve left the EU.

Imo it would have made more sense to have committed solely to the desperately needed extra funding for the NHS, social services, education and housing at this election and then look at renationalisation in five years’ time.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I think that was me.	In our exchanges we established clearly, explicitly, unambiguously that *you* have done 'fuck all yourself' to save public services.  Or.. have I got that wrong?  Here's another chance - tell us...
> 
> I can't claim a heroic track record, but when you directly asked what I had done I said:
> 
> So, you've done zip, nada, nothing to defend these institutions you believe in - but you feel you've got the right to pretend _I've_ 'done fuck all'. You're a bullshitter and a hypocrite.



Jesus Christ!  If you really think that taking part in what you call “local solidarity movements” and “anarcho politics” (whatever the fuck that is) are worth more than adopting a child then you can just fuck right off.

To continue this pointless diversion of yours, you’ll need to describe what you've actually done; like for example how your actions have actually helped people or have actually contributed towards creating a fairer society.

Or better still forget about it, it’s irrelevant. The only way to save public services is through the election of a Labour government. Faffing around on the fringes of the left isn't going to save them, nor does it make your opinion more valuable than mine or anyone else’s.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pls quote me saying "undemocratic revolution" or apologise. Sick of you making up things and attributing them to me.



Yeh...


Pickman's model said:


> …I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution.



Now we’ve sorted that out, do you actually have anything to say about Corbyn’s leadership?

Will you be voting Labour on June 8th??


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeh...
> 
> 
> Now we’ve sorted that out, do you actually have anything to say about Corbyn’s leadership?
> ...


So you're conceding I never used the phrase you claimed

And I also never said, suggested, intimated or implied I was talking about revolution or military coups in the UK: more of your lies.

I think we're done here with this latest proof of your dishonesty.


----------



## rutabowa (May 28, 2017)

Andrew Hertford Pickman's model hope you don't mind but I have produced a deluxe printed edition of your exchanges on this thread as I believe them to be an important milestone in political/cultural debate of the 21st century, please forward me addresses to send advance copies to


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Andrew Hertford Pickman's model hope you don't mind but I have produced a deluxe printed edition of your exchanges on this thread as I believe them to be an important milestone in political/cultural debate of the 21st century, please forward me addresses to send advance copies to


Pile them high, pour petrol over them and ignite from a safe distance, as utterly devoid of anything more than the most ephemeral interest


----------



## bemused (May 29, 2017)

cantsin said:


> bearing in mind the Tories will barely let May near the public / or anything else other than high profile, pre prepared set pieces, why aren't Lab just rotating Corbo / McDonnell / Gardiner for the big ones ?  ( On the other hand, pushing three white middle aged males in front of camera each time not practical either maybe, dunno. )



I've no idea why they keep putting up Abbott and Thornberry, they are both equally charmless. The hairstyle line was very poorly thought out.


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

bemused said:


> I've no idea why they keep putting up Abbott and Thornberry, they are both equally charmless. The hairstyle line was very poorly thought out.



Regardless of how she comes across generally, Thornberry has been doing pretty well in interviews I think. Certainly moreso than anyone else in the Shad Cab other than McDonnell.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 29, 2017)

Today's distraction is that Corbyn allegedly laid a wreath for one of the PLO members involved in the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Corbyn sources deny and say he was there to honour those who died at the PLO headquarters in 1985 bombed by Israeli jets and he laid no wreath. The Telegraph article states it happened a year before he became leader.

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News


----------



## mikey mikey (May 29, 2017)

From the link above







Jennifer Gerber is also a key Progress figue



> The directors of Progress Ltd are: Richard Angell (executive director of Progress); J*ennifer Gerber* (former deputy executive director of Progress and former acting executive director of the organisation)*; Jon Mendelson* (former treasurer of Progress); Robert Philpot* (former executive director of Progress); and Stephen Twigg MP* (former chair of Progress and current honorary president). *unpaid



Progress | News and debate from the progressive community  |  About


----------



## Mr Moose (May 29, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> From the link above
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We know there is a shit stirring conspiracy of the highest order, but what will interest the wavering voter is whether there is any shit to stir.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 29, 2017)

It really goes to show that those at the top of Progress would rather see a Tory victory in this GE.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 30, 2017)

Horrible JC interview on Woman's Hour today, all the usual BBC tropes and I don't really know why I got so cross.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Horrible JC interview on Woman's Hour today, all the usual BBC tropes and I don't really know why I got so cross.


yeh. well, you won't believe what happened next.



Spoiler




Corbyn 'looks up figures on iPad' in car crash Woman's Hour interview


----------



## Mr Moose (May 30, 2017)

It would be hard to argue after Diane (Countdown) Abbott's recent performance that he wasn't warned that figures may be of some importance to his campaign.


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 30, 2017)

Labour are such incompetent twats. Thank god I have Plaid Cymru to vote for. The Scottish have SNP. The English have such a shit choice it's a wonder anyone bothers to turn up and vote at all.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well, you won't believe what happened next.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Classic 'squeezed middle' comment btl on that article. Pity those poor working class people who won't be able to afford school fees.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 30, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour are such incompetent twats. Thank god I have Plaid Cymru to vote for. The Scottish have SNP. The English have such a shit choice it's a wonder anyone bothers to turn up and vote at all.



If the Andrew Neil interviews are representative Sturgeon is miles ahead of the others in respect of grip on the detail and command of the issues. Corbyn clearly didn't understand his own economic policy and May was actually incapable of stringing a sentence together. By way of contrast Sturgeon was happy to go toe to toe with Neil on the facts, data and was capabale of explaining it coherently.


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 30, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If the Andrew Neil interviews are representative Sturgeon is miles ahead of the others in respect of grip on the detail and command of the issues. Corbyn clearly didn't understand his own economic policy and May was actually incapable of stringing a sentence together. By way of contrast Sturgeon was happy to go toe to toe with Neil on the facts, data and was capabale of explaining it coherently.



Would mae the best PM by a mile, something we've known for a while I think.


----------



## JimW (May 30, 2017)

Saw on Twitter he might be in Stroud tomorrow. I should wander about town hoping to get vox popped so i can say "Well, I've always voted Tory but with that extremist Teresa May in charge I will be looking for someone strong and stable like Corbyn."


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2017)

JimW said:


> Saw on Twitter he might be in Stroud tomorrow. I should wander about town hoping to get vox popped so i can say "Well, I've always voted Tory but with that extremist Teresa May in charge I will be looking for someone strong and stable like Corbyn."



Wear a suit and tell them you're a company director and BTL landlord who thought Cameron was great and would never have countenanced the Dementia Tax, and Labour is now the party of aspiration.


----------



## bemused (May 30, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It would be hard to argue after Diane (Countdown) Abbott's recent performance that he wasn't warned that figures may be of some importance to his campaign.



For the life of me I've no idea why they simply don't print out a briefing sheet and make sure it's in his hand when he sits down. I can't remember any election where tax and spending weren't brought up whenever a policy was spoken about.


----------



## hash tag (May 30, 2017)

Some may not bother with such things because they think they no it all?


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

JimW said:


> Saw on Twitter he might be in Stroud tomorrow. I should wander about town hoping to get vox popped so i can say "Well, I've always voted Tory but with that extremist Teresa May in charge I will be looking for someone strong and stable like Corbyn."


He's in Bristol tomorrow evening so Stroud certainly sounds possible


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Regardless of how she comes across generally, Thornberry has been doing pretty well in interviews I think. Certainly moreso than anyone else in the Shad Cab other than McDonnell.



Sarah Champion's had some cracking interviews recently. And of course Angela Rayner always does well. I think they both do better than Thornberry.


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

bemused said:


> For the life of me I've no idea why they simply don't print out a briefing sheet and make sure it's in his hand when he sits down. I can't remember any election where tax and spending weren't brought up whenever a policy was spoken about.



cos C21st is supposed to be paperless.   
which iswhy he was looking for it an ipad.

Ten years ago, it would have been bits of paper


----------



## hash tag (May 30, 2017)

It still can be paper! The jar of jam on the one show? Creepy or cynical politicking or genuinely nice gesture


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It still can be paper! The jar of jam on the one show? Creepy or cynical politicking or genuinely nice gesture



(d)Apt vacuous nonsense.   [didn't watch]


----------



## cantsin (May 30, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour are such incompetent twats. Thank god I have Plaid Cymru to vote for. The Scottish have SNP. The English have such a shit choice it's a wonder anyone bothers to turn up and vote at all.



lucky old you / the Scots eh, having such dynamic, transformative parties to vote for.

lulz.


----------



## bemused (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> cos C21st is supposed to be paperless.
> which iswhy he was looking for it an ipad.
> 
> Ten years ago, it would have been bits of paper



I use paperless everywhere, but when it is important I jot it down so I can hold on to it.


----------



## pennimania (May 30, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour are such incompetent twats. Thank god I have Plaid Cymru to vote for. The Scottish have SNP. The English have such a shit choice it's a wonder anyone bothers to turn up and vote at all.


You may well think that.

I would rather vote Tory than vote for Ian Blackford


----------



## JTG (May 30, 2017)

JimW said:


> Saw on Twitter he might be in Stroud tomorrow. I should wander about town hoping to get vox popped so i can say "Well, I've always voted Tory but with that extremist Teresa May in charge I will be looking for someone strong and stable like Corbyn."


Rally at the New Lawn Wednesday afternoon apparently. Also got one in Swindon and then Bristol in the evening


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

cantsin said:


> lucky old you / the Scots eh, having such dynamic, transformative parties to vote for.


Good to know that Plaid are great defenders of the NHS and definitely don't do any nudge, nudge, wink, wink deals with UKIP.


----------



## JimW (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Rally at the New Lawn Wednesday afternoon apparently. Also got one in Swindon and then Bristol in the evening


It'll be our biggest attendance of the season


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> It would be hard to argue after Diane (Countdown) Abbott's recent performance that he wasn't warned that figures may be of some importance to his campaign.



according to the attack dog in that interview he has 10,000 unanswered emails and a diary in chaos which might explain why they got lost.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> according to the attack dog in that interview he has 10,000 unanswered emails and a diary in chaos which might explain why they got lost.



It's not as important as the policy itself, but he just needs a simple briefing sheet or simply take an advisor in with him to pass him the info.

He could topple May by demonstrating he is better in a head to head, better in a negotiation.


----------



## 19force8 (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> according to the attack dog in that interview he has 10,000 unanswered emails and a diary in chaos which might explain why they got lost.


Hah!

I've got 6,321 *unopened* emails


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Hah!
> 
> I've got 6,321 *unopened* emails



Jeremy probably thinks Spam is a dodgy tinned meat.


----------



## Fingers (May 31, 2017)

Corbs is now going to take part in tonight's live debate


----------



## chilango (May 31, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Corbs is now going to take part in tonight's live debate



Do you think he planned this all along and has deliberately left May no time to sort out her response?


----------



## The39thStep (May 31, 2017)

The script has undoubtedly changed hadn't it. Three month/ two months ago rumours of a potential split or some Labour MPs joining progressive alliance . Corbin totally unelectable , talk of Unite ending their backing for him and the end of Labour prophesied. Now we are in a situation where Labours performance is likely to be better than Miliband's and if there is to be any challenge to Corbyn it's more likely to be a stalking horse than any real threat


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> The script has undoubtedly changed hadn't it. Three month/ two months ago rumours of a potential split or some Labour MPs joining progressive alliance . Corbin totally unelectable , talk of Unite ending their backing for him and the end of Labour prophesied. Now we are in a situation where Labours performance is likely to be better than Miliband's and if there is to be any challenge to Corbyn it's more likely to be a stalking horse than any real threat



He's starting to dangerously look like the smartest guy in the room.


----------



## mauvais (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Do you think he planned this all along and has deliberately left May no time to sort out her response?


It's a good play, but I suspect it's come about somewhat reactively, driven by the ever-growing target that is May's unwillingness to engage with the electorate.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2017)

Why is she so unwilling? That interview with Paxman she did the other night was a car crash.


----------



## 19force8 (May 31, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Why is she so unwilling? That interview with Paxman she did the other night was a car crash.


I'd pay to watch


----------



## JimW (May 31, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Corbs is now going to take part in tonight's live debate


Though that means he won't be in Stroud. If our Tory twat gets back in by two hundred voters not enthused at his stadium rally I hope Corbyn can sleep at night. Saved me a bus fare mind.


----------



## Fingers (May 31, 2017)

chilango said:


> Do you think he planned this all along and has deliberately left May no time to sort out her response?



Yes, without a doubt.


----------



## mauvais (May 31, 2017)

I think perhaps the more interesting question is how did they ever think they could get away with it? Both in terms of this election and - although it certainly gets muddier - putting her personality type/behaviours into actual leadership. Is it just that they thought it was a dead cert?

I do think it's a sizeable opportunity; not to win people over to Labour per se, but to discourage the casual Tory vote from the ballot - all those people who value what they think is clear leadership, democratic accountability, basic competency etc and who can see that they're literally not getting it from May.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

Tub of lard time?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I think perhaps the more interesting question is how did they ever think they could get away with it? Both in terms of this election and - although it certainly gets muddier - putting her personality type/behaviours into actual leadership. Is it just that they thought it was a dead cert?



I guess because her personal ratings were polling incredibly highly. Based on that it kind of makes sense.

Why that was is a bit baffling tbh.


----------



## Smangus (May 31, 2017)

Wonder if they have bottled it knowing how bad/difficult Brexit will be?

Main difference for me is the more people see of Corbyn the more they warm to him, the more they see of Dead Eyes the less they like of her. His deacades of experience in protests and meetings is now bearing fruit as he seems to be able to relate to people in a way she never will. Obviously far more comfortable at taking questions on the hoof and responding (childcare gaff aside) she looks terrified and wooden. Can't believe how bad she is at this stuff.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

JimW said:


> Though that means he won't be in Stroud. If our Tory twat gets back in by two hundred voters not enthused at his stadium rally I hope Corbyn can sleep at night. Saved me a bus fare mind.



For the many not the few !


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Perhaps he has been spurred on by the very favourable reviews he has had for the Paxo interview.

BTW has anyone bothered to watch the election wrap thing on BBC News?
Blind date. Last night/the other night; Rachel Johnson goes to dinner with Nigel Farage


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Angela Rudd is pretty stiff and wooden as well so hardly a star showing second up - going to be a good night for the telly. And with all the other 6 turning on the absent cunt-face.

Look at her face....running scared.


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I guess because her personal ratings were polling incredibly highly. Based on that it kind of makes sense.
> 
> Why that was is a bit baffling tbh.



Safe pair of hands and she came across as tough and uncompromising.  By sticking the country on a sort of war footing over Brexit they could paint her as the perfect leader to go into battle and stand-up for plucky Britain.  Make it all about Brexit and play on people's fears.  Its going to work just perhaps not as well as they anticipated.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> Angela Rudd is pretty stiff and wooden as well so hardly a star showing second up - going to be a good night for the telly. And with all the other 6 turning on the absent cunt-face.
> 
> Look at her face....running scared.



lime green not her colour


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> lime green not her colour


True, and it kind of clashed with her jacket, non?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> True, and it kind of clashed with her jacket, non?


you can't say non after 23 june 2016


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Perhaps he has been spurred on by the very favourable reviews he has had for the Paxo interview.


it's a planned ambush I reckon - although i think it wouldn't have happened had Labour not had such a remarkable campaign so far.

As it is, this is a sweet piece of judo: using one of the Tories' current main campaigning points - who do you want negotiating brexit, May or Corbyn - against them.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> Angela Rudd is pretty stiff and wooden as well so hardly a star showing second up - going to be a good night for the telly.





Pickman's model said:


> lime green not her colour



her dead eyes remind me of Cliff Richard - he didn't abuse kids of course whereas she wants to nick their school meals.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't say non after 23 june 2016



Ma faute


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Ma faute


nor can you pretend to be a british actor playing a spanish waiter


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> her dead eyes remind me of Cliff Richard - he didn't abuse kids of course whereas she wants to nick their school meals.


cliff richard and theresa may, a marriage made in hell


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Just heard a lifelong Tory cabbie on Lbc saying he's voting Labour as the Tories no longer stand up for the working man (re Uber obvioulsy) - it took a long time for him to realise the bleeding obvious but better late than never. Who knows could be a Trump / Brexit upset in the offing. I do hope so.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> nor can you pretend to be a british actor playing a spanish waiter



Que ?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> Que ?


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

They need to send Diane Abott off on holiday for the remainder of the campaign. Like now - tell her pack your bags , leave your phone behind and get in this cab to the airport. Don't let this poor lady down.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> They need to send Diane Abott off on holiday for the remainder of the campaign. Like now - tell her pack your bags , leave your phone behind and get in this cab to the airport. Don't let this poor lady down.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

An oldie (7 months ago) but she nails it.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

*FOR THE MANY AND NOT THE FEW *


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2017)

i aint sure about mans nose, cant stop looking at it


----------



## Buckaroo (May 31, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> i aint sure about mans nose, cant stop looking at it



What about his nose? Look at his ears, look into his eyes.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> What about his nose? Look at his ears, look into his eyes.



but not into the evil Gorgon May's eyes if you want to live...


----------



## Buckaroo (May 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> but not into the evil Gorgon May's eyes if you want to live...



Bow your head and look at her shoes...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 31, 2017)

Robert Peston on Facebook has been losing his shit for the past few days. His unravelling and slow descent into full blown propagandist had been hilarious. 

The best bit is is followers are having none of it and get often more likes on their comments than he does. 

Media journalists have shit the bed.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Robert Peston on Facebook has been losing his shit for the past few days. His unravelling and slow descent into full blown propagandist had been hilarious.
> 
> The best bit is is followers are having none of it and get often more likes on their comments than he does.
> 
> Media journalists have shit the bed.


All a bit reminiscent of Trump and Brexit, now you come to mention it.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Robert Peston on Facebook has been losing his shit for the past few days. His unravelling and slow descent into full blown propagandist had been hilarious.
> 
> The best bit is is followers are having none of it and get often more likes on their comments than he does.
> 
> Media journalists have shit the bed.



starting to worry about increased taxes , VAT on school fees , and property taxes on their several properties which they like to play liberal but not pay liberally !


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Amber Rudd royally booed on her way into the debate. Off with her head.


----------



## phillm (Jun 1, 2017)

Markets rock steady, pound steady , bookies odds unchanged which no doubt means the tories will win but we can still hope and *#daretodream*


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2017)

Can you stop posting that shit vid?


----------



## phillm (Jun 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Can you stop posting that shit vid?



a mate of mine did it - his heart is in the right place.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 1, 2017)

Oh dear, he's annoyed an American academic, his time must really be up:



Spoiler







_Or perhaps not._


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Oh dear, he's annoyed an American academic, his time must really be up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously a Women's  Equity Party supporter there a.k.a. a middle class fuckwit

EDIT: Notice this idiot also spews the class politics=identity politics beloved of some pricks on here.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Obviously a Women's  Equity Party support there a.k.a. a middle class fuckwit
> 
> EDIT: Notice this idiot also spews the class politics=identity politics beloved of some pricks on here.


Well now. My first assumption was that she was just a poor idiot yank who didn't know any better. But the plot thickens:



That's from her website. Could someone with that sort of record be as ignorant of UK politics as she appears? ("Corbyn bros" ffs).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Well now. My first assumption was that she was just a poor idiot yank who didn't know any better. But the plot thickens:
> 
> View attachment 108125
> 
> That's from her website. Could someone with that sort of record be as ignorant of UK politics as she appears? ("Corbyn bros" ffs).


given the rank ignorance of the realities of post-2008 catching up with us amongst the bourgeoisie and the vocal learned and earning sector of it payed to chat shit, yes she can.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Oh dear, he's annoyed an American academic, his time must really be up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if only she straightened the books on the shelf she wouldn't have such a lot of apparently unread books looking messy on top


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 108126
> if only she straightened the books on the shelf she wouldn't have such a lot of apparently unread books looking messy on top


I hate seeing that sort of thing - it's very bad for the spines of the books underneath.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I hate seeing that sort of thing - it's very bad for the spines of the books underneath.


i think people post that sort of image to make themselves look intellectual, but what it says to me is those paperbacks haven't been read, they're in no apparent order and the arrangement frankly appears the product of a disordered mind


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Oh dear, he's annoyed an American academic, his time must really be up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just sounds like one of those Adam Smith Institute arseholes that Nicky Campbellend likes to talk to on a sunday morning


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 1, 2017)

phillm said:


> They need to send Diane Abott off on holiday for the remainder of the campaign. Like now - tell her pack your bags , leave your phone behind and get in this cab to the airport. Don't let this poor lady down.



YOu seem to have a flippant attitude to that clip


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> YOu seem to have a flippant attitude to that clip


you're on the ball today


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 2, 2017)

Corbyn appearing increasingly affable and relaxed through the campaign in contrast to May.

The next week will be fevered with the press throwing a ton of accusations at him. Will it stick or has he done enough for the voters to disregard it? Flipping hope so. An astonishing campaign so far and I take my hat off to him. Jeremy Corbyn's time clearly was not up.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 2, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn appearing increasingly affable and relaxed through the campaign in contrast to May.
> 
> The next week will be fevered with the press throwing a ton of accusations at him. Will it stick or has he done enough for the voters to disregard it? Flipping hope so. An astonishing campaign so far and I take my hat off to him. Jeremy Corbyn's time clearly was not up.



We may need to change the thread title!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Fingers said:


> We may need to change the thread title!


No, let it stand as testiment to folly.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

The thread title was amusingly shit after about 30 pages. You can't change it now 600 pages in!


----------



## Raheem (Jun 2, 2017)

Whatever happens, his time will be up one day. Why quit when validation is assured?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Whatever happens, his time will be up one day. Why quit when validation is assured?



Won't be so clever when he turns out to be an immortal will you?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Won't be so clever when he turns out to be an immortal will you?



Or when the Labour party membership resoundingly back the stuffed corpse of Jeremy Corbyn for leader over whoever the Owen Smith of the day is.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Or when the Labour party membership resoundingly back the stuffed corpse of Jeremy Corbyn for leader over whoever the Owen Smith of the day is.


This last year would be particularly ironic if he goes on to be the kind of champion for Labour that history looks back on as being a charmed winner of elections -- the most electable leader Labour ever produced.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

i don't even like JC that much but this meltdown is fantastic.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

this is what I had through the door this morning


----------



## chilango (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> this is what I had through the door this morning



I literally just posted that on the other thread


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> I literally just posted that on the other thread



it's an 'interesting' strategy


----------



## Smangus (Jun 2, 2017)

All a bit of a touch of Corporal Jones about the Tory campaign at the moment....


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> I literally just posted that on the other thread


Even the red is comforting red, not shocking red.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 2, 2017)

Hallelujah. The Guardian has surrendered and is backing Corbyn!

The Guardian view on the election: it’s Labour


----------



## Raheem (Jun 2, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Won't be so clever when he turns out to be an immortal will you?



Even if he's immortal, no-one else is, so he will eventually run out of electorate.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 2, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Hallelujah. The Guardian has surrendered and is backing Corbyn!
> 
> The Guardian view on the election: it’s Labour


That's going to alienate their readers.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 3, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Hallelujah. The Guardian has surrendered and is backing Corbyn!
> 
> The Guardian view on the election: it’s Labour



Now all we need is for the revolutionaries to hold their noses and vote.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

Really? After how ever many months of you slagging him off - arguing that he was a terrible leader, insisting that he needed to be removed for the Labour party to go left - you're now going to have a go at people who won't vote Labour. FFS.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? After how ever many months of you slagging him off - arguing that he was a terrible leader, insisting that he needed to be removed for the Labour party to go left - you're now going to have a go at people who won't vote Labour. FFS.


There's certainly a few posters who were very vocal about a Corbyn being unelectable early in this thread who have now gone very quiet.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 3, 2017)

Labour ahead of Conservatives by three points in new unadjusted poll

New article, saying Labour are 3 points ahead in unadjusted poll.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 3, 2017)

I really don't know how much these polls are helping.

Maybe there's an argument to be made that it's generating momentum, but I just can't allow myself to pin any hopes to them. The most I'm willing to hope is that the Tories' gains are restrained and the idea that a properly left-wing platform is election poison is proven wrong.

Anything beyond that I'll just wait until Friday.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 3, 2017)

> *The defence secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, said in an interview published today that high earners will not face income tax rises* if Theresa May is returned to No 10. “You’ve seen our record. We’re not in the business of punishing people for getting on,” he said. “On the contrary, we want people to keep more of their earnings. The only way they can be sure their taxes won’t rise is to vote Conservative.”
> 
> *But during a campaign presser in West Yorkshire this morning, May refused to echo Fallon’s claims.* “Our plans on tax have been set up in the manifesto, we are a party that believe in low taxes … when people come to vote they know they have a choice between a party that has always believed in lower taxes and a Labour party whose manifesto we know will cost ordinary working people,” she said.



It's Maybot's Cabinet of Chaos!


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 3, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Hallelujah. The Guardian has surrendered and is backing Corbyn!
> 
> The Guardian view on the election: it’s Labour





Mr Moose said:


> Now all we need is for the revolutionaries to hold their noses and vote.



I think it's The Guardian holding down its nose and voting Labour. When a Corbynista confesses in one of its pages to have been made to feel ashamed of professing her political allegiance out loud, and words it in such a way as to force them to look inward... the editorial team has to bow to decency. But I wouldn't be so sure they are anything but reluctant in doing so. They show their reluctance in that very article.
I'm more inclined to a Stanley tweet that paraphrased Gramsci in Corbyn appreciation. I'll see if I can find it again.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 3, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> I think it's The Guardian holding down its nose and voting Labour. When a Corbynista confesses in one of its pages to have been made to feel ashamed of professing her political allegiance out loud, and words it in such a way as to force them to look inward... the editorial team has to bow to decency. But I wouldn't be so sure they are anything but reluctant in doing so. They show their reluctance in that very article.
> I'm more inclined to a Stanley tweet that paraphrased Gramsci in Corbyn appreciation. I'll see if I can find it again.


I think there is truth in what you say. The Guardian has likely taken this new position from necessity rather than having a Damascene conversion. But... let's take the victory and welcome it, however, whatever.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 3, 2017)

Found it!



Compared to this piece of pithy power, The Guardian's endorsement looks, frankly, pitiful. I'm sure those who, like me, have felt dismayed at words to the effect "For the sake of the poorest, anything but Corbyn" as per Toynbee, look at that endorsement and think "Too little too late!". I even begrudge them my feeling of gratefulness for it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 3, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> But... let's take the victory and welcome it, however, whatever.



Oh I do... begrudgingly, as I said, but I do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2017)

Tim Stanley misusing gramsci there. Yes, they can all die.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 3, 2017)

Rather let's have the satisfaction of seeing the troublemaker fall back into line. And let's not say 'too late'. This election is far from settled.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Tim Stanley misusing gramsci there. Yes, they can all die.



Arghh! I know and agree.  I was making a comparison between his praise of Corbyn and The Guardian's editorial.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? After how ever many months of you slagging him off - arguing that he was a terrible leader, insisting that he needed to be removed for the Labour party to go left - you're now going to have a go at people who won't vote Labour. FFS.



I'll be voting Labour, will you? Or are Labour and Corbyn the kind of people you "want to destroy"?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 3, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Rather let's have the satisfaction of seeing the troublemaker fall back into line.



Troublemaker? I have a lot of other, more apposite, words for The Guardian.



squirrelp said:


> And let's not say 'too late'. This election is far from settled.



My head says "Nay". My heart says "Yay". My head replies back with "Nay" again...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2017)

Banksy

banksy bribing Brizzle voters with a free print......


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Banksy
> 
> banksy bribing Brizzle voters with a free print......





> Simply send in a photo of your ballot paper from polling day showing you voted against the Conservative incumbent


Are you allowed to do that? I know you're allowed to reveal who you voted for (exit polls and the like) but photos of ballot papers and/or _asking _for photos of ballot papers...? 

To be fair, he/his team have probably done the homework.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2017)

I dont care TBH
 good for him


----------



## strung out (Jun 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> View attachment 108380


Bristol West has got a labour incumbent, but still, fair play. Although I'm in Bristol East and get nothing


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2017)

_Free beer for BNP DEMANDS banksy._


----------



## Edie (Jun 3, 2017)

I don't think you should be allowed to bribe voters. That can't be legal, surely.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2017)

_"Lawyer's note: this print is a souvenir piece of campaign material, it is in no way meant to influence the choices of the electorate, has no monetary value, is for amusement purposes only and is strictly not for re-sale. Terms and conditions to follow, postage not included."_


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? After how ever many months of you slagging him off - arguing that he was a terrible leader, insisting that he needed to be removed for the Labour party to go left - you're now going to have a go at people who won't vote Labour. FFS.



You are very touchy. I have conceded that he has run a really good campaign. I didn't think he could, even a month ago and I was wrong.

But I'm delighted he has made it work. I have no problem with what he is proposing within the limited sphere of social democratic party politics. 

I'm intrigued now as to whether people who support him will turn out. You can take it as a playful poke in the ribs or get huffy about it.


----------



## xenon (Jun 3, 2017)

strung out said:


> Bristol West has got a labour incumbent, but still, fair play. Although I'm in Bristol East and get nothing



Nothing for Bristol south either. Not that I want a Banksy myself. Bit odd though.


----------



## LDC (Jun 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> _Free beer for BNP DEMANDS banksy._



He can join all the anarchists and communists who are currently enthusiastically and loudly boasting about canvassing for Labour in Leeds.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 3, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> I really don't know how much these polls are helping.
> 
> Maybe there's an argument to be made that it's generating momentum, but I just can't allow myself to pin any hopes to them. The most I'm willing to hope is that the Tories' gains are restrained and the idea that a properly left-wing platform is election poison is proven wrong.
> 
> Anything beyond that I'll just wait until Friday.



I'm thinking/hoping it has a unique (to this election) effect in that it magnetises the "group belief" required for Corbyn to win. Too many people were turned off a)by his, erm, 'unique' leadership style and b)by the fact it was all a pipe dream that no-one would even consider in numbers.

I think the response to the manifesto release changed all that. Lots of people have been galvanised and having chats amongst themselves like it's half time in Escape to Victory. We can win this! There's a belief that's pre-dedicated on ZERO complacency on polling day efforts. I think it's a huge positive.

That said I'm not 'daring to dream' yet. But I'll do my bollocks if he does get something out of this.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 3, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> like it's half time in Escape to Victory.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2017)

The two Tories in my office both came out for Labour yesterday fwiw.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2017)

Edie said:


> I don't think you should be allowed to bribe voters. That can't be legal, surely.


It isn't legal, but then neither is spraypainting shit on the side of buildings you don't own iirc


----------



## Poi E (Jun 3, 2017)

Good history of JC here


----------



## Edie (Jun 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> It isn't legal, but then neither is spraypainting shit on the side of buildings you don't own iirc


Haha yeah fair point


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'll be voting Labour, will you? Or are Labour and Corbyn the kind of people you "want to destroy"?


Christ another one - Corbyn must go! You must vote Labour!

FTR I did vote Labour in the end but twats like you almost make me wish I hadn't. And I certainly don't see the Labour party as the solution. The liberal wankers, like you, in the party might have decided to keep their gobs shut for the moment but as soon as the election is over they'll be aiming to move the party right.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ another one - Corbyn must go! You must vote Labour!
> 
> FTR I did vote Labour in the end but twats like you almost make me wish I hadn't. And I certainly don't see the Labour party as the solution. The liberal wankers, like you, in the party might have decided to keep their gobs shut for the moment but as soon as the election is over they'll be aiming to move the party right.



Dennis McShane, the sort of corrupt MP that represents the very worst of not just Labour but political corruiption in general, is on social media at the moment busy wrecking and lying about how everyone is telling him that they won't vote Labour because of Corbyn.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Dennis McShane, the sort of corrupt MP that represents the very worst of not just Labour but political corruiption in general, is on social media at the moment busy wrecking and lying about how everyone is telling him that they won't vote Labour because of Corbyn.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So you're conceding I never used the phrase you claimed



Hilarious. Do you have your own personal version of English?

Around 100 posts on this thread and you still can’t say anything about Jeremy Corbyn.

I like Urban75, but what a shame that one of its most vocal and prolific contributors is a complete wanker. (Which you confirmed by your comments on the London Bridge attack thread today).


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ another one - Corbyn must go! You must vote Labour!
> 
> FTR I did vote Labour in the end but twats like you almost make me wish I hadn't. And I certainly don't see the Labour party as the solution. The liberal wankers, like you, in the party might have decided to keep their gobs shut for the moment but as soon as the election is over they'll be aiming to move the party right.



If Labour isn’t the solution then what is? And when will it arrive??


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 4, 2017)

The working class


----------



## cantsin (Jun 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If Labour isn’t the solution then what is? And when will it arrive??



depends what you see the 'problem' as


----------



## hash tag (Jun 6, 2017)

The problem is the tories.
I have voted Labour and fwiw, I think that Corbyn has come across as much better than many expected him to be in the last few weeks.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

He's come across pretty much as he always does hasn't he? Labour's strategy in the election has been excellent (on the whole), but Corbyn isn't really doing anything different as far as I can see.


----------



## JTG (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Banksy
> 
> banksy bribing Brizzle voters with a free print......


It's "Bristol"


----------



## JTG (Jun 6, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are you allowed to do that? I know you're allowed to reveal who you voted for (exit polls and the like) but photos of ballot papers and/or _asking _for photos of ballot papers...?
> 
> To be fair, he/his team have probably done the homework.


They hadn't. because he's a nob


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

JTG said:


> It's "Bristol"


 
me mrs is from there and that whats she calls it

*shrugs*


----------



## JTG (Jun 6, 2017)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

Shall I correct her ? I recently had a masterclass from her on why the pirate accent is not Bristolian. All sounds the same to me .


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)




----------



## JTG (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Shall I correct her ? I recently had a masterclass from her on why the pirate accent is not Bristolian. All sounds the same to me .


What part is she from?

Also, of course the pirate accent is Bristolian. All pirates are Bristolian. Up the Gas.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

*shrugs*  I know she seemed to spend her entire life in the dugout, whatever that is


----------



## JTG (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> *shrugs*  I know she seemed to spend her entire life in the dugout, whatever that is


Nightclub in Clifton strongly associated with the foundation of the Wild Bunch and thence Massive Attack.

It's just I've heard it argued that "Brizzle" is more correct for southsiders, though I'd dispute that. The northern (and therefore correct) way is to say "Bristle", "Brittle" or "Brisdawl". North Bristol has the numbers on its side


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

I will look into this .


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 6, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Rather let's have the satisfaction of seeing the troublemaker fall back into line. And let's not say 'too late'. This election is far from settled.



Read this and thought of this conversation. These people have the words I lacked the other day.

The Guardian’s sudden love for Corbyn is cynical self-interest – don’t fall for it  |  Sodium Haze | Read, Contribute, Comment, Organise



> One can imagine how marvellously cosy it was at the offices of The Guardian and The Observer during the Blair years: seen to be on the right side of history, with a revolving door into the corridors of power and on first name terms with New Labour apparatchiks including the grand poo-bah himself. Entrenched within the establishment, they were determined to defend their place in the Westminster bubble and fight for a return of the good ole Blair years.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn must have been a horrible cold shower for hacks at The Gruan. Here was a man who didn’t seek the favour of the mainstream press, who (shock horror!) didn’t have any mates in the lobbying business and who operated outside of the neoliberal consensus for which they were important gatekeepers. What on earth was to be done with a man who didn’t come crawling to their court looking to kiss the pinky ring? The solution was simple: destroy him and replace him with a proper establishment career politico. Trouble is, it hasn’t worked.





> The Guardian can shove its pretence of support for Corbyn up its collective anal channel.



A very satisfying read

I note other blogs and opinions all too keen to forgive and forget. I particularly shudder at the notion The Guardian has somehow come back to the fold (whichever fold that might be).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

JTG said:


> Nightclub in Clifton strongly associated with the foundation of the Wild Bunch and thence Massive Attack.
> 
> It's just I've heard it argued that "Brizzle" is more correct for southsiders, though I'd dispute that. The northern (and therefore correct) way is to say "Bristle", "Brittle" or "Brisdawl". North Bristol has the numbers on its side




Clarity

From Stoke bishop apparently. 

She is clear that brizzle  is correct

*shrugs*


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 7, 2017)

The Sun in full 'Labour ate my baby' mode today. They'd been saving pictures of Anjem Choudrey at a Corbyn speech for this moment. It's a 'so what' revelation, but a big banner headline.

The Express has 'vote May' to avoid 'disaster' which if nothing else suggests they consider Brexit more of a risk than they were letting on.

Corbyn team should go full attack on May in the last 24 hours and make her weakness the issue.


----------



## Whagwan (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Clarity
> 
> From Stoke bishop apparently.
> 
> ...



Stoke Bishop is about the poshest area of Bristol there is, I'd be very surprised to hear an accent on anyone from there.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 7, 2017)

is it now.....I was not aware of this BUT THE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW NOW FIT TOGETHER... etc......I think she moved to Montpellier at 18 from conversations last night

so confusing


----------



## Whagwan (Jun 7, 2017)

Does she have a trust fund?  Most who move to Montpelier from Stoke Bishop do!


----------



## JTG (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 7, 2017)

has nothing . Sadly, I can confirm that.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> has nothing . Sadly, I can confirm that.



Or so she tells you.


----------



## Cwmflame (Jun 9, 2017)

Apologies to all for my doubting Corbyn and the whole palaver with the leadership election last year.... I, like many, was wrong


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



So just what do you have to say for yourself now, eh?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 9, 2017)

fucking liberal


----------



## BigTom (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm going to try to say this only once, I imagine it's already been said.
If this is what can be achieved after two years of infighting and just a couple of months of unity, imagine if the MPs and others had got behind their party's members' decision and there'd be two years of unity to this point.

Will Corbyn be challenged now? I've really no idea. Probably will though, never forget what a bunch of wankers progress are.


----------



## Cwmflame (Jun 9, 2017)

I am in Owen Smith's constituency. I was schooled on this forum last year for asking what was wrong with his leadership challenge.

 Fast forward a few months....

My little sister (who is not young.... 30... Maybe young! ) told me this week she was voting for the first time, and for Corbyn. It's the first time I realized his appeal... It suddenly clicked, I had assumed everyone was despondent with him.

I realize this says more about the company I keep.....

My thought now is how the tories can equivocate their castigating of corbyn for IRA support and their formation of a  coalition with the DUP.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm going to try to say this only once, I imagine it's already been said.
> If this is what can be achieved after two years of infighting and just a couple of months of unity, imagine if the MPs and others had got behind their party's members' decision and there'd be two years of unity to this point.
> 
> Will Corbyn be challenged now? I've really no idea. Probably will though, never forget what a bunch of wankers progress are.


Liked for your first point, but the second is wrong.

Corbyn is untouchable now. Even the Blairites are coming out and congratulating him. It would be political suicide for them to not fall in behind him now.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 9, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Liked for your first point, but the second is wrong.
> 
> Corbyn is untouchable now. Even the Blairites are coming out and congratulating him. It would be political suicide for them to not fall in behind him now.



Cheers, I have read nothing but urban and some of the local newspaper, but tom Watson hasn't been featured so I've heard nothing much really. I guess all those increased majorities have rather sharpened the minds eh.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Cheers, I have read nothing but urban and some of the local newspaper, but tom Watson hasn't been featured so I've heard nothing much really. I guess all those increased majorities have rather sharpened the minds eh.






			
				From the Guardian feed said:
			
		

> Owen Smith, who stood against Corbyn for the Labour leadership – and held on to his Pontypridd seat comfortably – said: “He’s definitely got something. He beat me fair and square and he’s done very well in this election. He’s to be congratulated for that.”
> 
> And the former Welsh secretary Peter Hain said of Corbyn: “To his great credit he has energised the party.”


Here's Peter Hain 8 months ago:


----------



## mauvais (Jun 9, 2017)

Another couple of weeks and we'll have to bake this thread a cake.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Another couple of weeks and we'll have to bake this thread a cake.


"Mr Corbyn... hash tag thinks you're time is up."


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

Labour needs to change course to avert 'electoral oblivion' says Chuka Umunna as members blame Corbyn for Copeland defeat

Feeling red-faced? The Labour rebels eating their words after benefiting from Jeremy Corbyn's popularity



> Chuka Umunna, touted a possible challenger to Mr Corbyn, emphatically retained his seat in Streatham, obtaining 38,240 votes.
> 
> The former shadow business secretary secured victory ahead of Conservative candidate Kim Caddy who gained 11,927 votes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

From the same 'red faced' article above:



			
				Yvette Cooper said:
			
		

> I think we've all been working together in this election... that's why we've won support across the country.


There it is. A fucking admission that they (the Blairite cunts) have cost Labour. From their own, shit-filled mouths.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon. Carwyn Jones on BBC then, really struggling to praise Corbyn, despite the interviewer pushing him to do so.

Still, 6 months ago it might have been outright criticism instead of begrudging praise.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 9, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon. Carwyn Jones on BBC then, really struggling to praise Corbyn, despite the interviewer pushing him to do so.
> 
> Still, 6 months ago it might have been outright criticism instead of begrudging praise.



Seeing the headlines, there's no doubt this is a huge win for Corbyn/labour, even though they aren't going to be in govt. The rats can smell the win and don't want to taint it (politics before principles), I think you are right. For now, anyway.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 9, 2017)

*spots the thread "Jeremy Corbyn's time is up" through bleary no-sleep eyes*

*smiles*


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

Is Owen Jones the most slippery cunt in the Guardian?

Pro Corbyn when he was riding high in the leadership context
Anti Corbyn when the polls showed him struggling (the media, which he is part of, mostly responsible for this)
Now pro Corbyn again after it's shown Corbyn is popular

Jeremy Corbyn has caused a sensation – he would make a fine prime minister | Owen Jones

I can't stand that slimy cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Is Owen Jones the most slippery cunt in the Guardian?
> 
> Pro Corbyn when he was riding high in the leadership context
> Anti Corbyn when the polls showed him struggling (the media, which he is part of, mostly responsible for this)
> ...


Should be put to death by printing press


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Labour needs to change course to avert 'electoral oblivion' says Chuka Umunna as members blame Corbyn for Copeland defeat
> 
> Feeling red-faced? The Labour rebels eating their words after benefiting from Jeremy Corbyn's popularity


He's chucked his career in the toilet


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 9, 2017)

Could we look back through this thread and all posters who got it right get a special red rose next to their user name?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Could we look back through this thread and all posters who got it right get a special red rose next to their user name?


----------



## Poi E (Jun 9, 2017)

Time for Corbyn to sharpen some knives.


----------



## rekil (Jun 9, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Is Owen Jones the most slippery cunt in the Guardian?
> 
> Pro Corbyn when he was riding high in the leadership context
> Anti Corbyn when the polls showed him struggling (the media, which he is part of, mostly responsible for this)
> ...


Nodding along with Jess Phillips



Spoiler


----------



## Supine (Jun 9, 2017)

Oh god, I'm going to disagree with almost everyone on this thread. Probably better for me to sleep and eat before getting stuck in


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2017)

Omg


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2017)

Oh it's a spoof acct. As you were


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> Oh it's a spoof acct. As you were


Ah, shame. That would've been the icing on the cake


----------



## hash tag (Jun 10, 2017)

Well, he did better, much better than most people expected, a moral victory, but, he didn't actually win.
The bookies seem to think there will be another election soon, partly because of the lack of confidence in current set up and because of the hate over the DUP tie up. Corbyn could win in next year or so I reckon.


----------



## 19force8 (Jun 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> Oh it's a spoof acct. As you were


Like all good satire, close to the truth. 

On Radio 4's noon bulletin today Chris Leslie was pontificating about Labour's terrible result - Corbyn "missed an open goal"

Jeremy Corbyn: We are not far off, are we - BBC News

It's good to know this git would not commit to serving in a Shadow Cabinet.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 10, 2017)

Yeah I got it wrong. I have big problems with a lot of Corbyn's views and wasn't going to vote originally. It's not socialism. It's not anything close to it but it had a number of policies that would benefit me and plus I did think it was important to demonstrate to the tories what people think of them.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

It was John McTernan's comments that really got me. He's been a wanker for years towards Corbyn and left Labour and then came out all congratulatory for him as the results starting coming in. Combined with massaging his ego by his followers placing him on a higher pedestal than Rentoul and Hodges 

Scum.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jun 10, 2017)

Oh fkn hilarious Dear.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Oh fkn hilarious Dear.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 10, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon. Carwyn Jones on BBC then, really struggling to praise Corbyn, despite the interviewer pushing him to do so.
> 
> Still, 6 months ago it might have been outright criticism instead of begrudging praise.



Welsh Labour weren't even trying to win places like Cardiff North, they were running an entirely defensive campaign. It was new members who won those consttuences. Carwyn should be on his knees grovelling to Corbyn and his supporters for what they achieved in Wales.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 10, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Read this and thought of this conversation. These people have the words I lacked the other day.
> 
> The Guardian’s sudden love for Corbyn is cynical self-interest – don’t fall for it  |  Sodium Haze | Read, Contribute, Comment, Organise
> 
> ...


The guardian will probably have moved onto Ruth Davidson for their next great liberal hope in a day or two.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Hilarious. Do you have your own personal version of English?
> 
> Around 100 posts on this thread and you still can’t say anything about Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> I like Urban75, but what a shame that one of its most vocal and prolific contributors is a complete wanker. (Which you confirmed by your comments on the London Bridge attack thread today).


You had your chance and you blew it with your monomaniac fixation on precisely what I meant by an unremarkable post about undemocratic changes of government. For weeks you've kept on at me, pricking, on some sort of perverse crusade. Tell you what, if I'm such a fucking wanker do both of us a favour and put me on ignore.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The guardian will probably have moved onto Ruth Davidson for their next great liberal hope in a day or two.



^That^? Do you know, I'd not be shocked. I was shocked when they decided to carry Dolezal in their arms.The Guardian has taught me to expect everything from it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

Come in @mikey mikey, you must have something more to say - you were 20 memes per day leading upto the election


----------



## Libertad (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Come in @mikey mikey, you must have something more to say - you were 20 memes per day leading upto the election


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Come in @mikey mikey, you must have something more to say - you were 20 memes per day leading upto the election


mikey mikey has been decommissioned


----------



## J Ed (Jun 11, 2017)

Can we change the thread title?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2017)

i quite like that it reflects the hubris of the commenteriat and indeed may in thinking sh'e finished off iron corb


----------



## bimble (Jun 11, 2017)

_Q: Are you in this for the long term?_

Corbyn replies:  Look at me. I’ve got youth on my side.


(says the guardian just now reporting on him being interviewed not sure where).


----------



## mauvais (Jun 11, 2017)

Was just about to post that - great line.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 11, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn vows to oust Theresa May 'within a matter of days'


----------



## treelover (Jun 11, 2017)

Leslie


19force8 said:


> Like all good satire, close to the truth.
> 
> On Radio 4's noon bulletin today Chris Leslie was pontificating about Labour's terrible result - Corbyn "missed an open goal"
> 
> ...


 
Leslie was a key player in the genesis and implementation of New Labour's welfare reform agenda.

Good riddance.


----------



## agricola (Jun 11, 2017)

treelover said:


> Leslie
> 
> 
> Leslie was a key player in the genesis and implementation of New Labour's welfare reform agenda.
> ...



or "the former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie" as the Guardian invariably describe him


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 11, 2017)

treelover said:


> Leslie
> 
> 
> Leslie was a key player in the genesis and implementation of New Labour's welfare reform agenda.
> ...


This would be Chris Leslie who at the genesis of new Labour, say 1994, was a callow 22 year auld. Just when did he weasel his way into becoming a key player?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 11, 2017)

mikey mikey said:


> Oh fkn hilarious Dear.


Don't post when pissed mikey mikey


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> This would be Chris Leslie who at the genesis of new Labour, say 1994, was a callow 22 year auld. Just when did he weasel his way into becoming a key player?


treelover how was cl a key player? Could it be you're talking shit?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

This could have gone in a couple of threads, but here is the present shadow cabinet:
The Labour Party

I get the impression there won't be that much change when he finally reshuffles (aside from Diane Abbot who is still listed).  However I'd have thought they need some people who can perform in parliament, rip the piss out of the tories, people who are verbally quick on their feet.  Corbyn himself doesn't do that and even the ones who performed well in the campaign (Thornberry, Rayner) are not quite of that ilk. McDonnell is an attack dog, but not particularly sympathetic.  I'd have thought any 'reaching out' Corbyn does to the right has to be with a view to getting some effective pitbulls on his front bench, not 'healing the party'.  Of those who top the list of people to bring back - aaargh, Cooper - don't really fit the bill.  Who else?

Not a pitbull and is in fact an outright traitorous cunt, but I think putting Hilary Benn's unsmiling coupon up against Johnson as shadow foreign secretary would work.  There, I said it.  Ouch, ouch, OUCH! Don't hit me!


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2017)

fuck that, give Gardiner a promotion.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

Actually, even more than him being a cunt, Hilary Benn is ruled out after his Syria speech. That's never going to work.  

But still, if you look down the list of shadow cabinet members, apart from the question of 'who the fuck is that', it's not really a list of high profile, high performers.  Needs livening up from somewhere, beyond the half a dozen prominent names.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

Not a pitbull either, but Milliband could come back I reckon.

Wasn't overly critical of Corbyn. Not hated/quite likeable. Wouldn't be controversial.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Not a pitbull either, but Milliband could come back I reckon.
> 
> Wasn't overly critical of Corbyn. Not hated/quite likeable. Wouldn't be controversial.


If only to push the DM into more 'Red Ed's Red Dead Dad' headlines.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Not a pitbull either, but Milliband could come back I reckon.
> 
> Wasn't overly critical of Corbyn. Not hated/quite likeable. Wouldn't be controversial.


He's got the twitter bantz nailed these days as well


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 12, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Not a pitbull either, but Milliband could come back I reckon.
> 
> Wasn't overly critical of Corbyn. Not hated/quite likeable. Wouldn't be controversial.





Wilf said:


> If only to push the DM into more 'Red Ed's Red Dead Dad' headlines.


Possibly not as important as it once was, but could a Milliband return play into that 'Red fear'? Maybe just presents Labour's enemies with too easy a narrative to spin?

Honestly don't know, maybe it's not really an issue.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Possibly not as important as it once was, but could a Milliband return play into that 'Red fear'? Maybe just presents Labour's enemies with too easy a narrative to spin?
> 
> Honestly don't know, maybe it's not really an issue.


Not an issue. Milliband is basically Thatcher compared to Corbyn. He's a 'moderating' force, if anything.


----------



## oryx (Jun 12, 2017)

I think the whole point of Corbyn's style of politics is to get away from attack dog, public school bully type of politics.

But I agree that if he tweaks his cabinet, Gardner and Miliband would be good people to include.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Possibly not as important as it once was, but could a Milliband return play into that 'Red fear'? Maybe just presents Labour's enemies with too easy a narrative to spin?
> 
> Honestly don't know, maybe it's not really an issue.


His appointment should be announced at a breakfast meeting with bacon sarnies all round, holding a copy of Parliamentary Socialism - 'There you go DM, make the fuck what you can out of that, you shower of fash supporting cunts'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 12, 2017)

oryx said:


> I think the whole point of Corbyn's style of politics is to get away from attack dog, public school bully type of politics.
> 
> But I agree that if he tweaks his cabinet, Gardner and Miliband would be good people to include.


I think you're right, but maybe if not attack dogs then... defence dogs? They need to have a few people who can give as good as they get, otherwise you get drowned out in every debate/story.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

oryx said:


> I think the whole point of Corbyn's style of politics is to get away from attack dog, public school bully type of politics.
> 
> But I agree that if he tweaks his cabinet, Gardner and Miliband would be good people to include.


Yeah, but that's politics - he needs both. Himself as a kind of President of the party, campaigning and a bit of the old leading, with others doing some of the heavy lifting. Not necessarily full on pit bull, but humour, some good one liners.  Snidey with a smile.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2017)

shapps and gardiner on the daily bollotix. Shapps is a fucking bellend.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

It's what I loathe about conventional politics, it's part of the dishonesty, but they need to work on their media links as well.  The use of social media seems to have been really effective, but now is probably the time to think about a few links back to the print media, even the idea of the rebuttal system they used to have (Campbell?).  Certainly don't mean anything like Blair kneeling at the feet of Murdoch, just taking the moment and using the changed mood that's there to get a _bit_ better coverage.  The thought of that turns my stomach and if you go too far down that road you end up with Miliband's timidity, but there's probably a chance to improve things slightly.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> treelover how was cl a key player? Could it be you're talking shit?



Do one, it was 2005 when N/L began the welfare reform agenda in earnest, Leslie was a Christian Socialist who were very influential in the reforms.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2017)

Looks a bit like a revivalist meeting, was in Huddersfield as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 12, 2017)

treelover said:


> Do one, it was 2005 when N/L began the welfare reform agenda in earnest, Leslie was a Christian Socialist who were very influential in the reforms.


how strange his name never cropped up in any of the papers in connection with welfare reform that year.


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

What's Shami like in parliament?  She always seems to do pretty well on the politics programmes.

Personally, I really like the combo of Corbyn, McDonnell & Thornberry.
I think I remember not hating Tom Watson once, before he went full-on 5th columnist - maybe he can be useful now?
Diane Abbott depends on her health - I don't think that was a smokescreen, she was exceptionally sharp once upon a time.
I don't really have a clue who Jon Trickett is... or many of the others tbh 

What's Cat Smith like?  Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement & Youth Affairs suggests she might have been doing something right, maybe?  And getting a better male/female balance in senior positions would be a good aspiration to have.


----------



## oryx (Jun 12, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think you're right, but maybe if not attack dogs then... defence dogs? They need to have a few people who can give as good as they get, otherwise you get drowned out in every debate/story.


Yeah, they need to be firmer in defending their record. E.g. one of the reasons Labour lost in 2015 was their failure to defend their economic record. They should have been much more forthright in saying that it was a global financial crisis, Brown did well to keep us out of the euro,etc.

I agree they need to be loud and proud and to exploit open goals (have said before on here that they were missing open goals on rail chaos although putting renationalisation
 in their manifesto was a great idea and will have gained them votes). 

They need to avoid the sort of thing Theresa May did in her first speech as PM in the HOC, which has spectacularly backfired! 

Not rising to the bait and avoid the descent into Flashman style politics has done Corbyn's Labour a lot of good, I think. Maybe ordinary people identify with them more than they do with those who have been through the Oxford / Cambridge Union machine.

One of the things commonly said about political parties is that 'they're all the same'.
A much more radical manifesto and a more respectful style, one that is nevertheless passionate as well as measured and evidence-based, is hopefully proving that they are no longer all the same


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2017)

Corax said:


> What's Shami like in parliament?  She always seems to do pretty well on the politics programmes.


she's in the Lords, so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 12, 2017)

Dan Jarvis might fancy his chances, less vocal in his opposition than some, and his defence background could be used.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 12, 2017)

Tulip Siddiq seems quite good, she's been a critic of corbyn on some anti-semitism related stuff and she seems on the left of the party from what I can tell, also massively increased her majority this time.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 12, 2017)

Unifying the Labour party... What does this mean?
 It's one  thing for the Labour right to he happy about the result and for Corbyn to keep on eating into Mays lead, but surely the manifesto is kryptonite to many of them. I can't see how that can ever he reconciled... ???


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> she's in the Lords, so it doesn't really matter.


Oh, yeah... I guess that might be a factor


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 12, 2017)

Also maybe some of the new MPs could be brought into the front bench, like Jared O'Mara who is/was a disability campaigner.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 12, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> shapps and gardiner on the daily bollotix. Shapps is a fucking bellend.



He has several companies registered in the name of F.Bellend as it happens.


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

oryx said:


> Not rising to the bait and avoid the descent into Flashman style politics has done Corbyn's Labour a lot of good, I think. Maybe ordinary people identify with them more than they do with those who have been through the Oxford / Cambridge Union machine.


If he can carry on in the same vein as the Marr Show performance he'll pick up a lot more wavering voters.


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Unifying the Labour party... What does this mean?
> It's one  thing for the Labour right to he happy about the result and for Corbyn to keep on eating into Mays lead, but surely the manifesto is kryptonite to many of them. I can't see how that can ever he reconciled... ???


I'm not convinced the Labour right actually care that much about the policies, as long as they're electable ones.  They'll happily go with a more left-wing agenda if it works for their career agendas.  Opportunists.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

Corax said:


> If he can carry on in the same vein as the Marr Show performance he'll pick up a lot more wavering voters.



He's looking well confident (and a bit smug) isn't he?


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

If Cat Smith _*does*_ get a promotion then we'd need a new Youth Minister.  The obvious choice has to be JME.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 12, 2017)

Corax said:


> I'm not convinced the Labour right actually care that much about the policies, as long as they're electable ones.  They'll happily go with a more left-wing agenda if it works for their career agendas.  Opportunists.



The 'Labour right' seems to have come to mean all the PLP who voted no confidence in Corbyn as if they were one group but it covers a range of people. Some of them are proper committed right wingers - the Progress types - but a lot of them aren't and will probably fall into line. Personally I think 'cowards' as much as 'opportunists' but opportunists isn't wrong.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 12, 2017)

Corax said:


> I'm not convinced the Labour right actually care that much about the policies, as long as they're electable ones.  They'll happily go with a more left-wing agenda if it works for their career agendas.  Opportunists.


I find myself in the odd position of hoping that's the case, that they're opportunists, rather than follow Blair's logic of "I wouldn't want to win from the left, even if I could".


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2017)

Corax said:


> If Cat Smith _*does*_ get a promotion then we'd need a new Youth Minister.  The obvious choice has to be JME.


JME ennobled so he can be in the shadow cab?


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> JME ennobled so he can be in the shadow cab?


Well deserved.


----------



## mather (Jun 12, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> He's looking well confident (and a bit smug) isn't he?



I would too if I was in position.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

mather said:


> I would too if I was in position.


A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.


It's having the opp on the ropes and getting the digs in. Might as well. Also, reinforcing the idea that labour under corbyn is a party ready to govern


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> It's having the opp on the ropes and getting the digs in. Might as well.


'Here's a chip, look, it's really easy, just open your mouth and eat it.  And don't worry about getting greasy hands, you can always wipe them on Boris Johnson's hair'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.


I think I heard/read somewhere that they're probably not serious, but to keep up momentum and look like a proactive party they have to show that they _tried.
_
Not entirely sold on the logic, to be honest, but it's a theory.


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.


But in the absence of a deal with DUP (still not 100%) and May failing to get her QS through, Labour will get to try and form a government. The tories can then vote down his QS, and trigger another election... or choose not to. And I don't think they'd fancy their chances going to the country right now.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.


I don't fully understand it, but I think his plan is something along these lines:

TM puts a Queens Speech to Parliament
Labour make an amendment, that contains something to appeal to > 10 Tories/DUPs.
Amendment also includes a no confidence declaration in TM
Amendment passes
Everyone passes the Queens Speech and TM is gone.
JC then can form a minority govt as the next biggest party in the house.
If his QS fails, it's a new election, and JC wins

I don't see how he gets the amendment to pass, but I can see it's a plan. Of sorts


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

^ both plausible ideas.  I just think the queen's speech is going to be a safe, beige, tory set of proposals, which won't get voted down.  The dup and tories are close to being locked in with each other. Plenty of scope for it to fall apart, but I don't think the queen's speech will be the thing that does it.  In fact my bold guess is that the dup-tory thing won't fall apart at all, but that it will ultimately provoke other divisions that Labour can exploit.  Anyway... my thing about Corbyn shutting up about forming a govt is a distraction and goes away anyway when the queen's speech is passed.


----------



## mather (Jun 12, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.



I don't, he should ratchet up the pressure if anything. It is obvious that Theresa May is on borrowed time and the possibility of new elections is a very real one. Of course Corbyn can't form a coalition with the current set up of this new parliament but the opinion polls that have come out since the election now have Labour as the leading party with a six point lead over the Tories and the momentum of public opinion is also in their favor. Therefore Corbyn is demonstrating that he ready for government and it does a good job of contrasting his strengths with that of May's weakness and the instability that would inevitability result from a Tory-DUP deal.

Also, if new elections are held it is my hope that Labour win enough seats to form a government without the support of other parties as I can't stand the Lib Dems and the SNP and would prefer not to see them in government or any position of power.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 12, 2017)

mather said:


> I don't, he should ratchet up the pressure if anything. It is obvious that Theresa May is on borrowed time and the possibility of new elections is a very real one. Of course Corbyn can't form a coalition with the current set up of this new parliament but the opinion polls that have come out since the election now have Labour as the leading party with a six point lead over the Tories and the momentum of public opinion is also in their favor. Therefore Corbyn is demonstrating that he ready for government and it does a good job of contrasting his strengths with that of May's weakness and the instability that would inevitability result from a Tory-DUP deal.
> 
> Also, if new elections are held it is my hope that Labour win enough seats to form a government without the support of other parties as I can't stand the Lib Dems and the SNP and would prefer not to see them in government or any position of power.


Well, he's got to fuck them over at every opportunity and he's certainly got to say he's ready for another GE - in fact he has to push for one if it looks like the dup tory thing is going to collapse.  But he's not got to be too trigger happy or he looks like an opportunist, 'putting party before brexit talks' and all that.  I mean, to state the obvious, he should do what he wants, I'm not in Labour.  Just think he should wait, probably till the point when the tories start gunning for May all out (next Spring/Summer?).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 12, 2017)

labour need to keep their distance from actual government for a little while I think- lots more pus to come out of this wound that they best not handle directly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 12, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> labour need to keep their distance from actual government for a little while I think- lots more pus to come out of this wound that they best not handle directly


Yeh biological hazards


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 12, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> labour need to keep their distance from actual government for a little while I think- lots more pus to come out of this wound that they best not handle directly


Err, no. People keep saying this, but politics isn't a game. If the Tories fuck Brexit up (and they will), then we pay very real consequences, that may be extremely difficult to undo.

Even if the Tories get the Brexit they want, it's unlikely to be in our interests.

Labour need to get them out ASAP. They'll have a shield against any bad blowback in the same way that the Tories did after the 2008 crash. Except this time, the Tories definitely are to blame.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 13, 2017)

treelover said:


> Do one, it was 2005 when N/L began the welfare reform agenda in earnest, Leslie was a Christian Socialist who were very influential in the reforms.



Sorry, not having that 2005 malarkey.  Benefits Integrity Project was the first "earnest" attempt at welfare reform - enough to cause suicides - and that was '98/99.


----------



## mather (Jun 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, he's got to fuck them over at every opportunity and he's certainly got to say he's ready for another GE - in fact he has to push for one if it looks like the dup tory thing is going to collapse.  But he's not got to be too trigger happy or he looks like an opportunist, 'putting party before brexit talks' and all that.  I mean, to state the obvious, he should do what he wants, I'm not in Labour.  Just think he should wait, probably till the point when the tories start gunning for May all out (next Spring/Summer?).



Maybe but the sooner Labour get into power the better. For me it's not just abstract politics but an issue of whether my family will have more or less money to live on, housing etc... I have brothers who have special needs, this could mean the difference of whether they get services that they need or not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 13, 2017)

(((mather)))


----------



## The Fornicator (Jun 13, 2017)

Corbyn is responding to direct questions. What's he supposed to say it was all for a laugh.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 13, 2017)

The alternative Queen's Speech is a good idea. But Labour had a pretty good election campaign, it wasn't all Corbyn. They could certainly do more but what?


----------



## mather (Jun 13, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> (((mather)))



?


----------



## cantsin (Jun 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A small point, but I wish Corbyn would stfu about possibly becoming PM in a few days. The idea of an alternative queenie speech is good, but pretending he could lead an arrangement of 5 or so parties, that still doesn't hit the magic number, is daft.



true - imagine it's tactical, but still sounds bit daft / desperate


----------



## cantsin (Jun 13, 2017)

mather said:


> Maybe but the sooner Labour get into power the better. For me it's not just abstract politics but an issue of whether my family will have more or less money to live on, housing etc... I have brothers who have special needs, this could mean the difference of whether they get services that they need or not.



get in too soon, and it's just one long battle to  keep 170 opportunistic no marks on his own backbenches in line, hold together a struggling coalition,  with a v tricky Brexit sitch looming, possibly faltering economy, and every organ of the ruling class ready to stick the knife in, from every angle, at all times =  Very little space in which to help effect meaningful change of any sort, if that was even likely anyway, and all this against backdrop of very immediate / visceral hopes of a supporter base anxious for change .

Corbo's a cool cat, but the pressure would be ridiculous .


----------



## Libertad (Jun 13, 2017)

mather said:


> ?



Brackets, an Urban signification of hugs in support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2017)

treelover said:


> Do one, it was 2005 when N/L began the welfare reform agenda in earnest, Leslie was a Christian Socialist who were very influential in the reforms.


Er bollocks


----------



## inva (Jun 13, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Brackets, an Urban signification of hugs in support.


and on the rest of the internet too


----------



## Libertad (Jun 13, 2017)

inva said:


> and on the rest of the internet too



Well yes but we're here at the moment. Thanks for sharing though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2017)

inva said:


> and on the rest of the internet too


Except where it means _jew_.


----------



## inva (Jun 13, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Except where it means _jew_.


yes you're right, should have remembered that


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Well, he's got to fuck them over at every opportunity and he's certainly got to say he's ready for another GE - in fact he has to push for one if it looks like the dup tory thing is going to collapse.  But he's not got to be too trigger happy or he looks like an opportunist, 'putting party before brexit talks' and all that.  I mean, to state the obvious, he should do what he wants, I'm not in Labour.  Just think he should wait, probably till the point when the tories start gunning for May all out (next Spring/Summer?).



I think it's also short-termism to follow a 'if we push hard enough we could wrestle this off them' path right now. Is this the time to be left holding the baby? It's too soon to pull the '...mess we inherited' shit right back at them. The election might have done him the world of good but 'Corbyn can't lead/govern' is a very recent memory. If he comes to power (even if another GE gave him a majority as opposed to the implausible coalition he'd have to rely on right now) at a time of relative turmoil when the focus on Brexit negotiations, even if they go well (which seems unlikely), will make it very hard to get other things done, its a very high-risk gamble.

I sympathise very much with the point that every minute the tories are in power is more damage done to vulnerable people, and a Corbyn-led govt now might put a stop to a lot of that. But in the longer or even medium term, is it worth it if a just-managing left takes over, flaps about hopefully for a bit, then lets the Tories back in for more of the same? Or is it better to let the Tories do the flapping for another year or even two, provide some decent opposition (esp. now that there's a somewhat increased chance that it'll actually be taken seriously) and build support and experience, and then capitalise on the situation when the Tories have _finished _shitting the bed, rather than trying to doing so mid-shit?


----------



## Santino (Jun 13, 2017)

Perhaps Labour can trick people into supporting them.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 13, 2017)

I don't know if that's a response to my post or not. I'm not sure it would be tricking people. More a case of deciding whether the best way to help people in a burning building is to rush in there wearing a hat made firelighters, shouting 'we're on your side, folks!'


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> I don't know if that's a response to my post or not. I'm not sure it would be tricking people. More a case of deciding whether the best way to help people in a burning building is to rush in there wearing a hat made firelighters, shouting 'we're on your side, folks!'


But it's burning, to use your analogy, because of the Tories. Getting rid of them is like removing the fuel source from the fire.

We can be fine outside of the EU. I'm still happy to be leaving, and think it'll benefit us in the long run. It doesn't _have _to be a disaster. It will be with the Toreies and their war-alike approach to the negotiations.

I seriously can't believe people on here are advocating more time in power for the Tories. At their weakest point in years.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

Last UK governments

Con - 7 years and counting
Lab - 13 years
Con - 18 years
Lab - 5 years
Con - 4 years
Lab - 6 years
etc etc

No newly elected party has been in govt under 4 years since the war (haven't checked before that). If Labour get in now, with a majority, they've got 5 years minimum (due to the FTPA).

If Labour sit back and leave the Tories to fuck shit up, then we've got a fucked up country, at the least to look forward to. There is the possibility of them getting their shit together and lasting the full term. And being reelected. And then all this anger, and momentum of the youth, and those disatisfied with austerity and so on, wasted.

And what's the benefit? A damaged reputation for the Tories? It doesn't work like that. They fuck the country up time and time again, and people still vote for them.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I seriously can't believe people on here are advocating more time in power for the Tories. At their weakest point in years.



It's not my position, but I don't think the logic is all that wonky. The Tories are too weak to do anything much in government, but it will be a nightmare for them and it can only make them progressively weaker. If there was an election called tomorrow, it's not even totally certain that the Tories wouldn't win. Give them a short amount of time to demonstrate that they are hopeless and full of shit when it comes to Brexit, and Bob's yer uncle.

The reality in any event is that it's not something that can really be controlled. If there's a deal with the DUP, we are going to have to wait a bit for an election. If there's no deal then, assuming the Lib Dems don't save the day for the Tories, there will have to be one.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 13, 2017)

You may be right, Fez909 , I don't pretend to be certain about what would happen in any hypothetical scenario, especially after the last couple of years of political surprises.

I do think, though, that while putting 'Tories out' before all other considerations is always tempting, it potentially halts any process of self-reflection or renewal in the Labour Party. I've never been entirely convinced that Corbyn would be able to bring that about in a serious or long-lasting way. But it's good that the media and some of the PLP are taking a slightly different stance now, after the positive effect of the election campaign. But it still feels like, so far, what's happened is Corbyn has proved he's no less unpalatable than whatever else the LP might have had to offer, and that only in light of a Tory campaign set on self-destruct from the start. There's still a way to go to really get a larger, broader swathe of people behind his version of the party, and on a firm long-term basis.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's not my position, but I don't think the logic is all that wonky. The Tories are too weak to do anything much in government, but it will be a nightmare for them and it can only make them progressively weaker. If there was an election called tomorrow, it's not even totally certain that the Tories wouldn't win. Give them a short amount of time to demonstrate that they are hopeless and full of shit when it comes to Brexit, and Bob's yer uncle.
> 
> The reality in any event is that it's not something that can really be controlled. If there's a deal with the DUP, we are going to have to wait a bit for an election. If there's no deal then, assuming the Lib Dems don't save the day for the Tories, there will have to be one.


The logic isn't wonky if all you care about is Labour being secure in power. But that's not all I care about.


billy_bob said:


> You may be right, Fez909 , I don't pretend to be certain about what would happen in any hypothetical scenario, especially after the last couple of years of political surprises.
> 
> I do think, though, that while putting 'Tories out' before all other considerations is always tempting, it potentially halts any process of self-reflection or renewal in the Labour Party. I've never been entirely convinced that Corbyn would be able to bring that about in a serious or long-lasting way. But it's good that the media and some of the PLP are taking a slightly different stance now, after the positive effect of the election campaign. But it still feels like, so far, what's happened is Corbyn has proved he's no less unpalatable than whatever else the LP might have had to offer, and that only in light of a Tory campaign set on self-destruct from the start. There's still a way to go to really get a larger, broader swathe of people behind his version of the party, and on a firm long-term basis.


Again, this isn't just about the Labour party. They're just stepping stones. If Labour did manage to oust the Tories and gain a majority, then while they're implementing their policies, the entire political debate is shifting leftwards, including the Tories, and that gives space for more progressive groups to grow. Labour, even under Corbyn, are barely soft-left depsite what the papers are saying (I know you know this).

And I don't have much confidence that a post-Corbyn Labour will stay in this mode. There's no one obvious to take over from him even with his views, never mind more progressive views. He could be dead in 5 years, then what?

I'm no politico, either, so I'm not saying anything I'm 100% sure about. I'm happy to be 'proven' wrong, or talked round or whatever, but I just don't see the gain in letting the Tories fuck shit up for longer.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> The logic isn't wonky if all you care about is Labour being secure in power. But that's not all I care about.
> ...I just don't see the gain in letting the Tories fuck shit up for longer.



I think the thing is that having an election straight away might just result in them getting another five years.


----------



## killer b (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I'm no politico, either, so I'm not saying anything I'm 100% sure about. I'm happy to be 'proven' wrong, or talked round or whatever, but I just don't see the gain in letting the Tories fuck shit up for longer.


Most of the most well read, insightful and intelligent political minds in the world have just been proved 100% wrong about a huge swathe of things. I shouldn't worry about anyone proving anything to you for a while, unless it's via the ballot box.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I think the thing is that having an election straight away might just result in them getting another five years.



As it is they have five years now.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 13, 2017)

Libertad said:


> As it is they have five years now.



Do they fuck.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> If Labour did manage to oust the Tories and gain a majority, then while they're implementing their policies, the entire political debate is shifting leftwards, including the Tories, and that gives space for more progressive groups to grow.



Is it necessarily shifting leftwards, though? A very slim labour majority could mean a constantly embattled force that would struggle to implement even modestly further-left policies. And because of all the desertions etc. of the last two years PM Corbyn would be choosing between loyal, committed but in many cases very inexperienced politicians and experienced but potentially still treacherous ones for his front bench. Five ineffective years of failed initiatives and embarassing climbdowns wouldn't do anything for the Labour Party_ or_ a shift of the Overton window more generally. On the contrary, it could solidify a sense that the brief flirtation with this 'more left-wing' business had proven what its critics said all along: magic money tree, hopeless idealism, impractical, blah blah blah. Then when the Tories did get back in, they would do so on a far firmer base of right-shifted consensus.

Again, just a possible but not completely implausible scenario. I wouldn't be a political commentator these days for ... well, whatever the Guardian pays political commentators.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Do they fuck.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 13, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Except where it means _jew_.


Gosh! I had no idea of that one. In a positive or a derogatory way?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 13, 2017)

we're all going to a local (not party political) meeting about school funding cuts this eve, our family has become "engaged"!!!


----------



## NoXion (Jun 13, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Gosh! I had no idea of that one. In a positive or a derogatory way?



It's used by neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, so take a guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Gosh! I had no idea of that one. In a positive or a derogatory way?


Def derogatory, from alt-far-right. See also these types of idiots:

 
There was a pretty half-hearted attempt to 'reclaim' it last year.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 13, 2017)

Definitely bizarre. I will continue to use them as hugs I mean _why_ even did they get misappropriated in this way?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 13, 2017)

Just quick googled it. Makes one feel like an online novice. 


teqniq said:


> Definitely bizarre. I will continue to use them as hugs I mean _why_ even did they get misappropriated in this way?


Yeah... I think I'll stick to words though


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 13, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> we're all going to a local (not party political) meeting about school funding cuts this eve, our family has become "engaged"!!!



A movement is flourishing??? I keep seeing things and wondering. 
E2a: re subtopic of the moment. Whatever Corbyn decides to do (which, for the moment, I think, will be confining himself to shinning a light on tory fuckery and incompetence) he'll need such a movement to grow.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 13, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Just quick googled it. Makes one feel like an online novice.
> 
> Yeah... I think I'll stick to words though


Just googled too. How utterly fucking tiresome these sad sacks of shit are. Still I note it is only triple brackets so if you want to convey hugs use four or five and nobody's going to get the wrong idea.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Is it necessarily shifting leftwards, though?


It's already moving, without Labour being in power.

This wouldn't be news if May had a 50+ majority:

Tories may have to ease austerity plans, says Michael Gove

And the FT:


> Labour has been written off for dead many times in its history, from the 1930s to the 1950s and the 1980s. It has always eventually recovered its ground. But it has never done so under the leadership of the socialist left of the party — until now. For that reason alone, Jeremy Corbyn’s electoral surge is unprecedented in Labour history. Not for the first time, he has defied all expectations.
> 
> Mr Corbyn is that occasional figure in politics: a winner in defeat. In terms of seats, Labour trails the Conservatives by a margin that makes another election in the autumn much more probable than a minority government of the progressive left. He is still the leader of the opposition, not prime minister. But he has already changed British politics. Britain will not leave the EU without a deal. Austerity measures will be blocked. There will be no new grammar schools. Immigration targets will be consigned to the dustbin. The Conservatives may form a government but their manifesto has been shredded.


They're all 'left' shifts, when compared to what we've seen for the past 7 years. And beyond.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 13, 2017)

Posted this on the tm mays time is up but deserves to go here too

Jeremy Corbyn tells Theresa May: 'The Labour party can offer strong and stable government'


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I
> 
> They're all 'left' shifts, when compared to what we've seen for the past 7 years. And beyond.



Setting the bar high, then 

But seriously - yes, I know these things. I'm just cautious about how 'sticky' the change is. It certainly feels like he's/they've captured the moment, but I guess what I'm talking about (without much certainty about what I think's the best way forward myself) is the most effective way to cement that into a more lasting shift, rather than a flirtation that could lose it's shine rather quickly in the wrong conditions.


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 13, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Posted this on the tm mays time is up but deserves to go here too
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn tells Theresa May: 'The Labour party can offer strong and stable government'


because she's going to roll over and let him in?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 13, 2017)

Back to favourite (well, joint favourite, with BoJo) for next PM with the bookies


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 13, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> because she's going to roll over and let him in?


No but its going to be very funny watching her fight it


----------



## mather (Jun 13, 2017)

Well I am not really up on a lot of internet stuff like this so I had no idea that it meant hugging or even more bizarrely anything to do with Jews. I only post on this forum and my Twitter page so I have no idea what other people are doing on other forums and a lot of this stuff just goes over my head.


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 13, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> No but its going to be very funny watching her fight it


What's there to fight? She holds the whip hand. A minority labour government will surely crash and burn.

I wish it were otherwise and I like that Corbyn is going for it, that's the correct play, but still


----------



## bendeus (Jun 13, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> What's there to fight? She holds the whip hand. A minority labour government will surely crash and burn.
> 
> I wish it were otherwise and I like that Corbyn is going for it, that's the correct play, but still


The whip hand is all very well and good but it proves less useful when used for self flagellation.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> What's there to fight? She holds the whip hand. A minority labour government will surely crash and burn.
> 
> I wish it were otherwise and I like that Corbyn is going for it, that's the correct play, but still


That's why Corbyn's got the upper hand for now.

If he somehow ends up in a minority govt, the Tories either have to pass his laws or vote them down. If they vote them all down, then they'll be seen as wreckers/chaos brokers/whatever. There'll have to be another election, but they don't want that because they'll lose more seats. The electorate won't appreciate:

1) calling the unneccsary election just before Brexit talks 
2) failing to make the unneccesary election mean anything except more uncertainty 
3) fucking shit up even more by voting down all the minority govt's bills 
4) forcing yet another election to get over this impasse.

So there's a good chance Labour could end up with a majority.

A proper dilemma for them, it is


----------



## Raheem (Jun 13, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> That's why Corbyn's got the upper hand for now.
> 
> If he somehow ends up in a minority govt, the Tories either have to pass his laws or vote them down. If they vote them all down, then they'll be seen as wreckers/chaos brokers/whatever. There'll have to be another election, but they don't want that because they'll lose more seats. The electorate won't appreciate:
> 
> ...



Think this is sort of right, but to get there, either the government has to just resign (won't happen) or Labour MPs will have to vote no confidence. Unless they have an extremely clear reason for doing that, they will be seen as just a guilty of necessitating the election, surely?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Think this is sort of right, but to get there, either the government has to just resign (won't happen) or Labour MPs will have to vote no confidence. Unless they have an extremely clear reason for doing that, they will be seen as just a guilty of necessitating the election, surely?


Vote down/amend the Queens Speech and there you go.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 13, 2017)

Some nice digs in the speech by Corbyn


----------



## Smoking kills (Jun 14, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Some nice digs in the speech by Corbyn



Boring speech, and who thought the red rose/poppy was a good idea? I only watched all the way through to see if Watson flicked his tongue out to catch a passing moth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2017)

Smoking kills said:


> Boring speech, and who thought the red rose/poppy was a good idea? I only watched all the way through to see if Watson flicked his tongue out to catch a passing moth.


its the labour party symbol ya lackwit


----------



## 19force8 (Jun 14, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> its the labour party symbol ya lackwit


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2017)

> I’m not saying the manager has to go, but he may need a new star striker (Umunna as shadow chancellor instead of John McDonnell?), and the defence will need shoring up (Cooper at the Home Office?). And the style of play has to change. A party (like a football team) needs to be constantly evolving: what about the diamond formation next time?
> 
> Corbyn and Labour need to rethink their strategy to win next time | Stephen Moss



Stephen Moss arguing to let them all in, Cooper, Chuka, etc


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 14, 2017)

treelover said:


> Stephen Moss arguing to let them all in, Cooper, Chuka, etc






			
				Guardian Idiot said:
			
		

> Last year I even joined the party so I could vote for Owen Smith.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a tool.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 14, 2017)

Rumours that Smith back in the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Sec of State for NI

EDIT: Confirmed


----------



## Smoking kills (Jun 14, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> its the labour party symbol ya lackwit


You mean it's not just Lancashire? I can see a Daily Mail "Traitor Corbyn wears wrong flower!" meme if he steps out without a poppy in his buttonhole in the month running up to Armistice Day.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2017)

Smoking kills said:


> You mean it's not just Lancashire? I can see a Daily Mail "Traitor Corbyn wears wrong flower!" meme if he steps out without a poppy in his buttonhole in the month running up to Armistice Day.




Red rose for Lancashire, not poppy.

This is Poppy.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 14, 2017)




----------



## stethoscope (Jun 17, 2017)

@mikey mikey, where art thou, mikey?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> @mikey mikey, where art thou, mikey?



Disappointing, isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> @mikey mikey, where art thou, mikey?


Decommissioned


----------



## teqniq (Jun 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Disappointing, isn't it?


Is this a new interpretation of disappointing that I have been hitherto unfamiliar with?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 21, 2017)




----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> @mikey mikey, where art thou, mikey?


I think he's fucked off to...er... scotland.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I think he's fucked off to scotland.


as long as he's fucked off, that's the main thing


----------



## Wilf (Jun 22, 2017)

Can't remember when I've ever sat and listened to a debate on the queen's speech, but... strange times in which we live:



Amazing to see what a bit of confidence can do.  His jokes are pretty hopeless, but it's all very different from when he was, apparently, getting beaten up by may at pmqs.


----------



## killer b (Jun 23, 2017)

This is funny. Click through to read the thread


----------



## J Ed (Jun 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> This is funny. Click through to read the thread




Now that Lord Sainsbury has pulled out, who is going to back these losers? No one. Why would you? They have demonstrated just how incapable they are.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> This is funny. Click through to read the thread




what a beautiful thing...

will be v interesting to see who / if anyone steps up to fill Sainsbury's boots here- who could see Progress as a good bet within Labour for the forseeable....?


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2017)

Maybe Count Tesco or Baron Iceland will help.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 23, 2017)

meanwhile, Corbo fest getting warmed up last night :


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> Maybe Count Tesco or Baron Iceland will help.


Archduke Lidl


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Archduke Lidl


Il Principe d'Aldi


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 23, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Can't remember when I've ever sat and listened to a debate on the queen's speech, but... strange times in which we live:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing to see what a bit of confidence can do.  His jokes are pretty hopeless, but it's all very different from when he was, apparently, getting beaten up by may at pmqs.




excellent sour faced head shaking from may at 8.05. corbyn proper humiliating her.


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2017)

Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.

I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2017)

Have you seen what he is going to say ? Source please


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


I know plenty of people with modest incomes who're at Glastonbury this weekend. It's their holiday.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


And i know a bunch of people who are working there, some voluntarily, you divisive tool.

(e2a: who are also on modest/low incomes)


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2017)

The only pleasure currently allowed to socialists is endless showings of 'I, Daniel Blake'. Anything else is decadent, middle class and totally out of touch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


Are you now going to turn anti-corbyn? Impeccable timing? Labour party leader speaks for a bit at labour party members organised festival.

And why not wonder instead what this might for/says about the social coalition forming around corbyn and the potential it may embody rather than what one ex mp and one mp think about it?

FFS.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> The only pleasure currently allowed to socialists is endless showings of 'I, Daniel Blake'. Anything else is decadent, middle class and totally out of touch.


The future is daniel blake collapsing in a bathroom over and over. Forever.

I think i must have been the only person not to have liked that do-gooding superhero shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


You won't be listening, you hate socialists.


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I think i must have been the only person not to have liked that do-gooding superhero shit.


I haven't seen it, but I know loads of people who thought it was crap.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 24, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?



Why do you say things like this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Why do you say things like this?


Because he's really rather conservative and if only the tories left off doing nasty things to claimants and the disabled they could rely on his support


----------



## Old Spark (Jun 24, 2017)

Jeremy is good cop -calling for unity today ,praising Kyle yesterday.

Some of the troops may not have got the memo tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> The only pleasure currently allowed to socialists is endless showings of 'I, Daniel Blake'. Anything else is decadent, middle class and totally out of touch.



What about "Dispossession - The Great Social Housing Swindle"?  Is that _bourgeois_ deviationism?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> I haven't seen it, but I know loads of people who thought it was crap.



I'm waiting for the 3D version.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

Radiohead's rhythm section seem a bit keener on Corbyn than their Mick & Keith.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Radiohead's rhythm section seem a bit keener on Corbyn than their Mick & Keith.



I've supported Corbyn from the beginning, but I'm starting to find all this chanting/personality cult stuff a bit cringey.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that people are enthused about someone on the right side for once, but fuck me. Just vote for him in the election, don't turn him into a 'sleb/hero.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jun 25, 2017)

Did he come out with anything constructive, was it still all fluffy 'wouldn't it be lovely if we all did this', uncosted crap as usual?


----------



## inva (Jun 25, 2017)

MikeMcc said:


> Did he come out with anything constructive, was it still all fluffy 'wouldn't it be lovely if we all did this', uncosted crap as usual?


yeah imagine not detailing costings in a speech at... glastonbury


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 25, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I've supported Corbyn from the beginning, but I'm starting to find all this chanting/personality cult stuff a bit cringey.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's great that people are enthused about someone on the right side for once, but fuck me. Just vote for him in the election, don't turn him into a 'sleb/hero.



The Glastonbury crowd certainly have form when it comes to cringey chanting/personality cult stuff


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 25, 2017)

All gigs are basically chanty personality-cult affairs, the bigger the more so.


----------



## extra dry (Jun 25, 2017)

inva said:


> yeah imagine not detailing costings in a speech at... glastonbury


Yeah we want a point by point white paper style three or hour debate with a powerpoint.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend,


but is free to watch on the internet and tv and got coverage in all forms of media.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 25, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I've supported Corbyn from the beginning, but I'm starting to find all this chanting/personality cult stuff a bit cringey.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's great that people are enthused about someone on the right side for once, but fuck me. Just vote for him in the election, don't turn him into a 'sleb/hero.


i think it's great. singing in a social setting has many useful functions i'm sure. just think about the football, you can see the effects it has there. it's 'active', joyful support, rather than the passive suggestion of yours.
do not underestimate the power of communal singing.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?



You don't seem to be able to stand the thought that something or someone might actually be of value, you just can't wait to turn it to shit.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I've supported Corbyn from the beginning, but I'm starting to find all this chanting/personality cult stuff a bit cringey.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's great that people are enthused about someone on the right side for once, but fuck me. Just vote for him in the election, don't turn him into a 'sleb/hero.



so 'put your x by a name every 5 yrs , and leave it at that ' ?

Am personally hoping all this extra parliamentary enthusiasm translates into something more than just waiting for the next election tbh, and certainly something well beyond mad Corbo love, which I'm sure JC himself knows is intrinscally limiting / easily channelled into nothing and nowhere.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?



you're in good company here TL - this from one of the biggest cnuts on the internet today ( pure Graun bod as well, obvs) .

( that profile pic...it's like he's doing it all on purpose )


----------



## tommers (Jun 25, 2017)

cantsin said:


> you're in good company here TL - this from one of the biggest cnuts on the internet today ( pure Graun bod as well, obvs) .
> 
> ( that profile pic...it's like he's doing it all on purpose )



Edwina Currie also tweeted very similar. And numerous other right wing twats. It's pretty hilarious, the reaction.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2017)

Grasping at straws and seething with jealousy, the fascist press today slams Corbyn for "snubbing" yesterdays Armed Forces Day events by speaking to 100,000s at Glasters instead (not taking into account how many of those who serve may have been enjoying that occasion too)

Each and every former soldier, sailor or RAF servant who is now homeless, often with addiction and PTSD issues is a far greater snub. Fascists may fetishise militarism, but never give a meaningful hoot for the human suffering of the pawns/grunts/cannon fodder.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2017)

cantsin said:


> you're in good company here TL - this from one of the biggest cnuts on the internet today ( pure Graun bod as well, obvs) .
> 
> ( that profile pic...it's like he's doing it all on purpose )




They seriously think that no one to the left of about Ken Clarke should ever have a good time.


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2017)

discokermit said:


> i think it's great. singing in a social setting has many useful functions i'm sure. just think about the football, you can see the effects it has there. it's 'active', joyful support, rather than the passive suggestion of yours.
> do not underestimate the power of communal singing.


I think for a lot of people it's not much more than social singing: plus there's a great deal of pleasure to be had from the intrinsic ludicrousness of bellowing a football chant in praise of this genial old politician. Same with all the absolute boy stuff - loads of this is just happening because it's pretty funny.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2017)

tommers said:


> Edwina Currie also tweeted very similar. And numerous other right wing twats. It's pretty hilarious, the reaction.



this piece of work claims to be of the left...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2017)

Perhaps the Eavis clan will put out a statement regarding the minimum income required for attendants in future, and a political interrogation can take place at the gates so only worthy wealthy neo-liberals can be allowed to enjoy themselves


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 25, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Grasping at straws and seething with jealousy, the fascist press today slams Corbyn for "snubbing" yesterdays Armed Forces Day events by speaking to 100,000s at Glasters instead (not taking into account how many of those who serve may have been enjoying that occasion too)
> 
> Each and every former soldier, sailor or RAF servant who is now homeless, often with addiction and PTSD issues is a far greater snub. Fascists may fetishise militarism, but never give a meaningful hoot for the human suffering of the pawns/grunts/cannon fodder.



Honestly maybe he should have just gone just so that we could draw the comparison of May getting called a cunt to her face while Corbyn wouldn't be.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

Who PhD said:


>




I like how he baits right-wingers on TV etc but jesus christ have you read any of the things he has written? He wants Corbyn to do a Syriza and an Obama, total capitulation and imperialism from day one, justification of Corbynism purely on the instrumentalist basis that it would be good for the most parasitic factions of financial capital.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 25, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Am personally hoping all this extra parliamentary enthusiasm translates into something more than just waiting for the next election tbh, and certainly something well beyond mad Corbo love, which I'm sure JC himself knows is intrinscally limiting / easily channelled into nothing and nowhere.


Well Fez909 can answer for himself, but my problem with the focus on Corbyn is two fold (1) it's not really "extra parliamentary" is it? It's focused on someone in the Labour party being an alternate PM, how is that extra parliamentary? (2) it is focused on an individual rather than a movement, so when that individual goes/falls what happens?

Now it would be daft not to recognise that Corbyn has managed to enthuse people in a way they haven't for a long time, and there's positive stuff in that but to overlook the limitations/weaknesses of the current 'Corbyn movement' would be equally daft.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> Same with all the absolute boy stuff - loads of this is just happening because it's pretty funny.



I had to google that but it did raise a smile


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2017)

bit cheesy but I lolled


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bit cheesy but I lolled



Some on twitter were proper LOL


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2017)

oh jesus now I'm cracking up:



I'd like to remind everyone I was calling him c-byn since before the day was the day, feel me.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I like how he baits right-wingers on TV etc but jesus christ have you read any of the things he has written? He wants Corbyn to do a Syriza and an Obama, total capitulation and imperialism from day one, justification of Corbynism purely on the instrumentalist basis that it would be good for the most parasitic factions of financial capital.


Also suggested getting rid of Corbyn about a year ago


----------



## bemused (Jun 25, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Also suggested getting rid of Corbyn about a year ago



If he starts slipping in the polls, they'll start again. I see all the people who tried to remove him falling into line and simply think they are disingenuous.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> oh jesus now I'm cracking up:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind everyone I was calling him c-byn since before the day was the day, feel me.




you were ahead of the times!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> you were ahead of the times!


witness the strength of street knowledge


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

bemused said:


> If he starts slipping in the polls, they'll start again. I see all the people who tried to remove him falling into line and simply think they are disingenuous.



A few journos who have been slagging off Corbyn for 2 years, who stopped for a week and or two were very upset that not everyone was immediately taken in by it are back to slagging him off.


----------



## bemused (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> A few journos who have been slagging off Corbyn for 2 years, who stopped for a week and or two were very upset that not everyone was immediately taken in by it are back to slagging him off.



His own party are doing it as well. I have more respect for the MPs who carry on disagreeing with his approach than those who quit and are now trying to wangle their way back into his team.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 25, 2017)

bemused said:


> If he starts slipping in the polls, they'll start again. I see all the people who tried to remove him falling into line and simply think they are disingenuous.


Normally those who wanted him out were to the right of him, Mason is on the left of him.


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd like to remind everyone I was calling him c-byn since before the day was the day, feel me.


I think what we're seeing here, in the football chants, the memes and the personality cult stuff is this kind of pisstaking, on a huge scale. Done with fondness and approval, but very much tongue in cheek.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> witness the power of street knowledge



At the risk of over explaining the joke thing I think that the reason the whole 'the absolute boy', 'bag of cans', 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' thing works so well because in Corbyn's persona there is just this absence of aggressive masculinity that you see in most male politicians. Same with Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I like how he baits right-wingers on TV etc but jesus christ have you read any of the things he has written? He wants Corbyn to do a Syriza and an Obama, total capitulation and imperialism from day one, justification of Corbynism purely on the instrumentalist basis that it would be good for the most parasitic factions of financial capital.


I'm not really interested in what he thinks per se, i just like that he's telling Progress to fuck off.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

nm..


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think what we're seeing here, in the football chants, the memes and the personality cult stuff is this kind of pisstaking, on a huge scale. Done with fondness and approval, but very much tongue in cheek.


yes, there is a sense of that, 'he's a grumpy old socialist from london but by fuck does he annoy people I don't like. He's clearly a ledge.' Also what J Ed was saying, the joke is all the more amusing because he's the least gangster/hardman figure you can think of. But I always said he had swag lol


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> I'm not really interested in what he thinks per se, i just like that he's telling Progress to fuck off.



You should be interested, Corbyn could well be PM and Paul Mason is positioning himself to be influential with his government. It is good that he baits right-wingers on telly but I don't want a Corbyn government to adopt the sort of things that Paul Mason is talking about on foreign policy. I don't think that left-wingers should, as Mason apparently does, be trying to show that we are better at capitalism and imperialism than the current lot.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> You should be interested, Corbyn could well be PM and Paul Mason is positioning himself to be influential with his government. It is good that he baits right-wingers on telly but I don't want a Corbyn government to adopt the sort of things that Paul Mason is talking about on foreign policy. I don't think that left-wingers should, as Mason apparently does, be trying to show that we are better at capitalism and imperialism than the current lot.


I enjoy Mason, even if I don't always agree with his analysis, but I'm not sure I've noticed him make this argument. Sure, he's in favour of Trident for pragmatic reasons but 'better at capitalism and imperialism?' It doesn't chime with my experience of his writing and views. Could you point me to some links?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I enjoy Mason, even if I don't always agree with his analysis, but I'm not sure I've noticed him make this argument. Sure, he's in favour of Trident for pragmatic reasons but 'better at capitalism and imperialism?' It doesn't chime with my experience of his writing and views. Could you point me to some links?



lol I knew I was going to get asked for it, and I can't find it. There is an interview somewhere with Mason where he basically says that Corbyn needs to do what Syriza did and take this very pro-NATO foreign policy on the basis that it will be given more leverage by capital because the elite will be less frightened by a Corbyn government with a pro-NATO foreign policy.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 25, 2017)

I think some of the memes may stem from the photo of him taken just after he was elected, in a proper matching trackie set


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> lol I knew I was going to get asked for it, and I can't find it. There is an interview somewhere with Mason where he basically says that Corbyn needs to do what Syriza did and take this very pro-NATO foreign policy on the basis that it will be given more leverage by capital because the elite will be less frightened by a Corbyn government with a pro-NATO foreign policy.


That sounds plausibly like Mason. If so, it's a matter of tactics not principle. A left government isn't going to be able to fight on all fronts, etc. And effectively it's the foreign policy the Labour Party has at present - one I can see may be necessary to win power. If it's a matter of positioning rather than principle it doesn't necessarily mean Mason would be encouraging a Corbyn government to jump aboard the first middle eastern war the Americans decide to partake in.


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2017)

Not really sure you can say Mason is for Labour being 'better at imperialism' - yes he gives way too much ground, and is profoundly uninterested in confronting the bulk of state power, but he doesn't want any expansion of NATO powers or to indulge in overseas interventions


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


Read this thread on twitter when you get a chance. It explains why you're a massive whopper.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 26, 2017)

tommers said:


> Edwina Currie also tweeted very similar. And numerous other right wing twats. It's pretty hilarious, the reaction.



I would have thought that for the Tories, £243 to attend an event with a party leader is astoundingly cheap.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 26, 2017)

I mean I know these witterings shouldn't be taken too seriously, but for them to complain days after Theresa May went to a fundraiser at the the Savoy costing £5000 is quite somethinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-savoy_uk_59493a8ce4b07499199ed1a6?utm_hp_ref=uk


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?



Glastonbury was £60 even in the mid nineties. Gigs cost.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Glastonbury was £60 even in the mid nineties. Gigs cost.


Was it fuck. In 1995 a ticket cost £65


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 26, 2017)

The Rise of Jeremy Corbyn and the Death Throes of Neoliberalism

A light but US based perspective on the horror of the current political malaise and the politicians self preservation driven scrabble for purchase & legitimacy during the death throes of neoliberalism. and shit.


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Was it fuck. In 1995 a ticket cost £65


And £59 in 1994. So maybe not precise but more or less correct and possibly the correctest thing I've ever seen Mr Moose post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

maomao said:


> And £59 in 1994. So maybe not precise but more or less correct and possibly the correctest thing I've ever seen Mr Moose post.


he'll resume normal service after this monkey/typewriter incident.


----------



## inva (Jun 26, 2017)

J Ed said:


> You should be interested, Corbyn could well be PM and Paul Mason is positioning himself to be influential with his government. It is good that he baits right-wingers on telly but I don't want a Corbyn government to adopt the sort of things that Paul Mason is talking about on foreign policy. I don't think that left-wingers should, as Mason apparently does, be trying to show that we are better at capitalism and imperialism than the current lot.


isn't that the job the Labour Party is applying for?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 26, 2017)

Commentators seething with jealousy and rage that one of their own (tory red or blue) would just have been booed/bottled off stage, and they know it.

_Politics of envy_ lol


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Was it fuck. In 1995 a ticket cost £65



That's nice dear. 

Beautiful Days is £135 this year and I bet the Levellers have the flipping nerve to live in a house the sellouts


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2017)

Glastonbury was awash with the working class in the 1990s, but the lower ticket price had little to do with it - everyone jumped the fence instead of paying.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he'll resume normal service after this monkey/typewriter incident.



Is this yet another of your endless _ad hominids?_


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> Glastonbury was awash with the working class in the 1990s, but the lower ticket price had little to do with it - everyone jumped the fence instead of paying.



Not Pickman's. Paid by postal order and kept the stubs it seems.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 26, 2017)

£60 in 1995 is still only £105 in modern money. There's so much more infrastructure/personnel at modern festivals. Plus this is how musicians make their money now that nobody buys music.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

Crispy said:


> £60 in 1995 is still only £105 in modern money. There's so much more infrastructure/personnel at modern festivals. Plus this is how musicians make their money now that nobody buys music.



Interesting, feels like it would have been 'worth' more, but that just may indicate it felt a lot to me then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> That's nice dear.
> 
> Beautiful Days is £135 this year and I bet the Levellers have the flipping nerve to live in a house the sellouts


Calm down chuck it's only a bulletin board


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

Mr Moose said:


> Not Pickman's. Paid by postal order and kept the stubs it seems.


No, never been to glasto. I saved my money and just checked the fact, something you might like to do in future


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

Crispy said:


> £60 in 1995 is still only £105 in modern money. There's so much more infrastructure/personnel at modern festivals. Plus this is how musicians make their money now that nobody buys music.


Not to mention there are far fewer music venues than there were in '95 so fewer opportunities to see bands outside festies


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, never been to glasto. I saved my money and just checked the fact, something you might like to do in future



Post is not even incorrect so calm down with the pedantic triumphalism.


----------



## Nice one (Jun 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> Read this thread on twitter when you get a chance. It explains why you're a massive whopper.



read this thread on urban when you get the chance. It explains what the anarchists think of glastonbury


----------



## RD2003 (Jun 26, 2017)

I must confess to actually enjoying Jeremy's time in power so far. It's like Cool Brittania but without the burdens of an ethical foreign policy and looming wars, and no responsibility for anything.

One nation under a groove.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2017)

From the IPSOS MORI elction analysis



> *The middle classes swung to Labour, while working classes swung to the Conservatives – each party achieving record scores.*Although the Conservatives maintained a six-point lead among ABC1s, Labour increased its vote share among this group by 12 points since 2015.  Similarly, while Labour had a four-point lead among C2DEs, and increased its vote share among this group, this was eclipsed by the 12-point increase for the Conservatives.  *This is simultaneously Labour’s best score among ABC1s going back to 1979, and the Conservatives’ best score among C2DEs since then.*


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2017)

While I don't disagree Labour have significant work to do to appeal to the working class, I read somewhere about the C2DE share being skewed by pensioners being included in there (and it's a pretty crude way of defining class anyway).


----------



## belboid (Jun 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> While I don't disagree Labour have significant work to do to appeal to the working class, I read somewhere about the C2DE share being skewed by pensioners being included in there (and it's a pretty crude way of defining class anyway).


Yes, and every study of voters who actually work, showed an overwhelming backing of Labour.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 27, 2017)

Yep, it was only the elderly working classes that swung to the Conservatives. The myth that the working class has swung to the right as a bloc needs to be countered. There also needs to be some greater understanding of why these older voters have gone Tory in such extremely high numbers though - it seems so counterintuitive, these are the voters that have seen the damage done by right wing economics most clearly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> read this thread on urban when you get the chance. It explains what the anarchists think of glastonbury



"*the* anarchists"?  You're a bit long in the tooth to make the mistake of thinking you speak for "the anarchists".


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Yep, it was only the elderly working classes that swung to the Conservatives. The myth that the working class has swung to the right as a bloc needs to be countered. There also needs to be some greater understanding of why these older voters have gone Tory in such extremely high numbers though - it seems so counterintuitive, these are the voters that have seen the damage done by right wing economics most clearly.


Older w/c voters I spoke to ahead of the election were the most virulently against Corbyn - mostly for three reasons: They thought he was a useless leader, they thought he was a terrorist sympathiser, and they thought he was weak on defence. The Tory attack lines, essentially.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 27, 2017)

The IRA thing would have hit that demographic far more.  For the millennials its about as relevant as the Suez Crisis.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 27, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The IRA thing would have hit that demographic far more.  For the millennials its about as relevant as the Suez Crisis.


I even wonder if for the millenials it is a general positive.  After all, he was proved right -- talking and compromise was what ended the shooting, not further violence.  When the Tories and Tory papers put up all this stuff about how he talked to the IRA, I'm sure a lot of millenials thought, "good for him."


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> Older w/c voters I spoke to ahead of the election were the most virulently against Corbyn - mostly for three reasons: They thought he was a useless leader, they thought he was a terrorist sympathiser, and they thought he was weak on defence. The Tory attack lines, essentially.



I'm sure it is more complicated than this but it's hard not to think that a lot of why this is the case is because of more avid newspaper reading.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2017)

Those attack lines don't come from nowhere of course - if you read Ashcroft's focus group results, those are the things they threw up. The tory attack lines were specifically targeting those voters, thinking it would be enough I guess - while missing demographics which would have... _limited_ interest in getting involved with one of Ashcroft's focus groups.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I even wonder if for the millenials it is a general positive.  After all, he was proved right -- talking and compromise was what ended the shooting, not further violence.  When the Tories and Tory papers put up all this stuff about how he talked to the IRA, I'm sure a lot of millenials thought, "good for him."



Yes that's a good point.  I guess the millennials have lived with pretty much non-stop war all their life albeit further away.  Seeing someone who actually attempted to resolve conflict rather than perpetuate it may well have been a positive.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 27, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The IRA thing would have hit that demographic far more.  For the millennials its about as relevant as the Suez Crisis.


Same is true when he's accused of being a 'communist' or even a reviver of Militant. It has no power to scare young people, in fact probably seems rather quaint as an accusation.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2017)

The tories targeted those most likely to vote, and lets be honest - they were very successful. What caught everyone out was Labour actually succeeding in targeting - and getting out - those less likely to vote.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2017)

oh, and their vague stance on europe pretty much neutralising brexit and allowing them to focus on domestic policy.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2017)

Random question - and one that probably should have gone in the GE, but I'll post it in terms of Corbyn:

What does the increased Labour vote/increased vote amongst the young and first time voters represent?  There's a version of this with Corbyn as understated rockstar, Glastonbury, facebook phenomena.  There's a _kind of_ truth in there, almost a case of his previous shitness as a leader somehow putting him in the right place to capitalise as an honest dealer, all set against May's stupidity and evasive personality.  But I'd like to think there's something more there, a return to a kind of _economic voting_.  Young people in particular, voting on precarity, student debt and the like... extended into other groups of youngish and middle aged voters thinking and acting the same way.  Crucially that doesn't add up to Corbynism as a _working class politics_, it's almost that awful phrase, 'the squeezed (youngish) middle', students and others who got Labour up to 40%.  So it probably produces an ambiguous coalition for Labour to draw on. But if there is a sense of people cutting through the shit and thinking about neoliberalism and their own situation, that's a good thing (and not just for Labour, but also for more radical politics).

Have to say, I'm not sure about that line and even if it's true it might be nothing more profound than people thinking 'is my life any good; is there a political outfit out there who seem to be talking in the same terms; is it worth voting for them'.  Maybe it's also about putting it the other way round: _why were the tories and media unable to land a glove on Labour/Corbyn, in the election_?  Perhaps their ideological messages about 'there is no alternative, terrorist friendly corbyn, labour will spend, spend, spend' have worn thin.

edit: should read to the end of the thread, already being discussed last 2 pages.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2017)

Interview with Matt Zarb in Jacobin

Seeing off the Tories


----------



## inva (Jun 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Interview with Matt Zarb in Jacobin
> 
> Seeing off the Tories






			
				Zarb Cousin said:
			
		

> I think 1983 lives long in the memories of some, but 2017 will live longer. I have some sympathy for those who lived through Michael Foot’s defeat and thought the same would happen on June 8. But I think it shows a misreading of the situation. In 1997 New Labour had to adapt to the economic consensus of the day. In 2017, in post-financial crisis Britain, that economic consensus no longer exists. The Labour Party has to adapt again.


then we had to be Blairites, now we have to be Corbynists.
*shudders*


----------



## JTG (Jun 27, 2017)

Crispy said:


> £60 in 1995 is still only £105 in modern money. There's so much more infrastructure/personnel at modern festivals. Plus this is how musicians make their money now that nobody buys music.


Also greater H&S requirements - stewards/security etc have to be properly trained for example. Though that's kinda part of what you said I suppose.

Anyway, just got back. Can confirm yet again the existence of working class people at Glastonbury, despite whatever weird view people from left and right wish to project on to the festival


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2017)

I would say the Jacobin really needs to be careful with the sort of UK based people they're using in their gushing over Corbyn but then, it's basically the DSA house journal and of course entirely stuck within the democrats tractor beam - and once in there, these things are what pass as politics.


----------



## belboid (Jun 27, 2017)

The Corbyn's are a-coming


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 27, 2017)

belboid said:


> The Corbyn's are a-coming



Sorry, but that's scary, and frankly bonkers.


----------



## phillm (Jun 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> Read this thread on twitter when you get a chance. It explains why you're a massive whopper.



err you can volunteer and get a 'free' ticket , free food and a great festival with great people. I think around 80k people are in the category of workers there.


----------



## phillm (Jun 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think what we're seeing here, in the football chants, the memes and the personality cult stuff is this kind of pisstaking, on a huge scale. Done with fondness and approval, but very much tongue in cheek.



It's love , real true love.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 27, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, but that's scary, and frankly bonkers.


This made me wonder if the name had anything to do with French corvids and apparently it does ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 27, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes that's a good point.  I guess the millennials have lived with pretty much non-stop war all their life albeit further away.  Seeing someone who actually attempted to resolve conflict rather than perpetuate it may well have been a positive.





Brainaddict said:


> Same is true when he's accused of being a 'communist' or even a reviver of Militant. It has no power to scare young people, in fact probably seems rather quaint as an accusation.



I don't think this is about "millennials" - people who grew up with IRA bombs in London IME aren't impressed by smears about being "soft on terrorism" because they've grown up seeing the absurdities and failures of being "hard on terrorism". Similarly they will have grown up under Thatcher. That's a big chunk of Gen X.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, but that's scary, and frankly bonkers.



Why?

The most popular baby names regularly follow trends, of what's popular in culture and so on.

Are you scared that in 20 years time there will be an army of Corbyns trying to take your home away from you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 27, 2017)

On the terminology, a millennial is, aparently, a Gen Y-er. Gen X's cut off date was 1978/9, and Gen Y started in 1979/80. I can't remember what post-Gen Y's are called, but they're not millennials. I think some people lump Gen Y and the one after that into the millennials tag.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 27, 2017)

I have a slightly half baked theory that when people hit their 40s-50s they often become grumpy about the world and fearful of the various contemporary threats as they become more aware of their mortality. And then they clutch onto those issues for the rest of their lives. Hence my 85 year old father is easily provoked into ranting about the IRA, Thatcher, the bomb (it's great), while he's a bit detached from what's going on now and everything pre-about 1975 was a golden age, including the war, and conscription and lots of stuff which must have actually been hellish.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 27, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I have a slightly half baked theory that when people hit their 40s-50s they often become grumpy about the world and fearful of the various contemporary threats as they become more aware of their mortality. And then they clutch onto those issues for the rest of their lives. Hence my 85 year old father is easily provoked into ranting about the IRA, Thatcher, the bomb (it's great), while he's a bit detached from what's going on now and everything pre-about 1975 was a golden age, including the war, and conscription and lots of stuff which must have actually been hellish.



on behalf of the many of us who are living proof to the contrary, can assure you 'slightly half baked' is giving this little  theory  of yours a whole lot more credit than it deserves.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, but that's scary, and frankly bonkers.





> According to a survey by parenting forum ChannelMum.com, more than half of mums and dads said they would consider Corbyn as a name for their baby.


Suspect this is how those surveys are conducted:


----------



## Wilf (Jun 27, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Are you scared that in 20 years time there will be an army of Corbyns trying to take your home away from you?


 They'll have to take my magic money tree from my cold dead hand!


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

cantsin said:


> on behalf of the mnay of us who are living proof to the contrary, can assure you 'slightly half baked' is giving this little  theory  of yours a whole lot more credit than it deserves.


You're not grumpy about the world


----------



## Nylock (Jun 28, 2017)

cantsin said:


> on behalf of the mnay of us who are living proof to the contrary, can assure you 'slightly half baked' is giving this little  theory  of yours a whole lot more credit than it deserves.


That's generous of you. As a 40+ myself I'd be more inclined to call 'bullshit' on it


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I have a slightly half baked theory that when people hit their 40s-50s they often become grumpy about the world and fearful of the various contemporary threats as they become more aware of their mortality. And then they clutch onto those issues for the rest of their lives. Hence my 85 year old father is easily provoked into ranting about the IRA, Thatcher, the bomb (it's great), while he's a bit detached from what's going on now and everything pre-about 1975 was a golden age, including the war, and conscription and lots of stuff which must have actually been hellish.


Don't buy that at all, says a 50yo


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 28, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> Don't buy that at all, says a 50yo


It's too soon to say. Let's see what we are all ranting about in 30 years and what the Tory messaging is... Anyway plenty of people seem to make careers out of these sorts of generational generalisations so I don't see why I shouldn't have a stab.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> It's too soon to say. Let's see what we are all ranting about in 30 years and what the Tory messaging is... Anyway plenty of people seem to make careers out of these sorts of generational generalisations so I don't see why I shouldn't have a stab.



Day job, don't...etc


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 28, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I have a slightly half baked theory that when people hit their 40s-50s they often become grumpy about the world and fearful of the various contemporary threats as they become more aware of their mortality. And then they clutch onto those issues for the rest of their lives. Hence my 85 year old father is easily provoked into ranting about the IRA, Thatcher, the bomb (it's great), while he's a bit detached from what's going on now and everything pre-about 1975 was a golden age, including the war, and conscription and lots of stuff which must have actually been hellish.



What gets mistaken as getting more right wing the older you get (in general - present old and still kicking assorted anarchists excepted) is rather a greater concern with security. What security means is going to differ from person to person, and more generally it'll differ in trends between generations.

On a very basic level, for older generations today, got a home, got a family, near or post retirement, thinking about savings if there are any, running a car, "paid in all my life," remembering past governments, remembering past wars and conflicts, and so on -- all that creates a different set of priorities to someone today in their 20s, haven't got a house, haven't started a family yet, can't even begin to think about pensions and savings, work is probably quite precarious, etc. The difference between the two is "how can we protect our lot?" versus "how can we improve our lot?" And "how can we protect our lot?" versus "how can we improve our lot?" will produce different answers depending on the generation in which they grew up.

Obviously the above doesn't account for nuances of individual circumstances, so saying "but I do x" means bugger all.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that you get more right wing the older you get, but that you're more likely to put concerns about security first - and what security means will be different to someone younger. And currently, considering the past 40 odd years, the Tories offer a decent chance (in their minds) of protecting their lot, or rather Labour would threaten it. As people in their 20s and 30s today grow older, we'll have to see how that desire for security plays out. It doesn't necessarily follow that it'll mean a turn to the Tories, because it depends on what experiences they have of government working for them now. If Corbs comes good and the LP and the move left more generally manages to turn things around, then perhaps that'll mean fewer turning to the security of the Tories when they get older.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> You're not grumpy about the world



 fairdo's , but been that way since late teens and initial swappie shenanigans....contrary to Lazy's completely unbaked theory, actually mellowing slightly in middle age,  eg : willing to go along for the JC / Momentum ride despite not really holding out much hope for any tangible gains ( and strong suspicions that this is all just a useful, spectacular pressure release valve for the system right now) , due to some kind of vague  cosmic love for all the folk getting involved / passionate + hopeful.

(On the other hand, can feel like the most miserable git on face of the earth when endlessly,pointlessly snarking with *ALL THE BASTARDS *on soc media...am slowly getting on top of that tho. Or at least keep telling myself I am).


----------



## Fingers (Jun 28, 2017)

So Corbz is putting an amendment through for the Queens Speech calling for a ban on Emergency Services cuts. Crafty move, in the shadow of Grenfell, any Tory who votes against this will look like an utter cunt. Most won't care but I suspect a few will.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 28, 2017)

Fingers said:


> So Corbz is putting an amendment through for the Queens Speech calling for a ban on Emergency Services cuts. Crafty move, in the shadow of Grenfell, any Tory who votes against this will look like an utter cunt. Most won't care but I suspect a few will.



More importantly, if there is an election in a few months the labour candidate can, and should, hghlight their opponents voting record on this point. 

The social attitudes survey findings on austerity are clear. People have had enough 
British Social Attitudes 34

In fact it's arguable that a pro austerity pary can no longer win a UK election.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2017)

Actual amendment


> At end add ‘but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to end cuts to the police and the fire service; commend the response of the emergency services to the recent terrorist attacks and to the Grenfell Tower fire; call on the government to recruit more police officers and fire-fighters; and further call on the Government to end the public sector pay cap and give the emergency and public services a fair pay rise.’.





Smokeandsteam said:


> In fact it's arguable that a pro austerity pary can no longer win a UK election.


Hence Letwin's comments 


> I think sooner or later there will need to be some movement on the rate of increase of public sector pay because we are getting close to the point at which the huge increase in public sector pay compared to private sector pay which we inherited in 2010 is levelling out. And I have no doubt that at some point or other we will need to look at that.



Of course the Tories have no intention of actually moving from attacking public services but they've clearly realised they need to change their rhetoric at least.


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

> call on the government to recruit more police officers and fire-fighters; and further call on the Government to end the public sector pay cap and give the emergency and public services a fair pay rise.’.


why are ambulance (& other NHS) staff missing?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> why are ambulance (& other NHS) staff missing?


They're included in "end the public sector pay cap", no?


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> They're included in "end the public sector pay cap", no?


but not in the "recruit more" bit.  Including them in one clause highlights their exclusion from the other.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> but not in the "recruit more" bit.  Including them in one clause highlights their exclusion from the other.


True.

But this isn't really an attempt to give pay rises/recruit, anyway. It's an attempt to bring down the government.


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

cantsin said:


> fairdo's , but been that way since late teens and initial swappie shenanigans....contrary to Lazy's completely unbaked theory, actually mellowing slightly in middle age,  eg : willing to go along for the JC / Momentum ride despite not really holding out much hope for any tangible gains, due to some kind of vague  cosmic love for all the folk getting involved + passionate + hopeful.
> 
> (On the other hand, can feel like the most miserable git on face of the earth when endlessly,pointlessly snarking with ALL THE BASTARDS on soc media...am slowly getting on top of that tho. Or at least keep telling myself I am).


yes, though your personal mellowing may not have anything at all to do with your age, it's mirrored by lots of us grasping at straws.  There was quite a lot of _vague  cosmic love for all the folk getting involved + passionate + hopeful _at Glastonbury too.  

As well as all the chants (there were loads, including a big one at 1am on monday coming from the market, which was full of knackered people heaving all their stuff out) most randomly coalesced conversation turned to politics at some point (before as well as after JC's speech) which is very unusual.  Very little criticism from the left or other radical standpoints that I heard, which, for a mainstream politician, is even more unusual.

Best of luck with taming the snark


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> True.
> 
> But this isn't really an attempt to give pay rises/recruit, anyway. It's an attempt to bring down the government.


Sure. But I'm not sure ambulance workers will see it quite like that.  To me it doesn't seem fair to leave them out.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> Sure. But I'm not sure ambulance workers will see it quite like that.  To me it doesn't seem fair to leave them out.


It doesn't, but remember this is aimed at Tory MPs, not ambulance workers. Although I'm sure ambulance workers would love to see more recruitment, I bet they'd be happy with their pay caps being removed anyway, so I don't think this is going to lose Labour support among that group, as you seem to be suggesting.

In terms of actual need, and ridiculousness of policy, nurses should be top of the list for recruitment. There's a budget for temporary workers that it not allowed to be used to hire full time NHS staff, so although there's a nursing shortage, and funding cuts, trusts are forced to use more expensive agency nurses to fill the gaps. If this was sorted out, the NHS would save money and have more staff. It's a no-brainer, IMO, but you have to fight the battles you can win. And firefighters and police are the ones that the Tories have been getting shit over. 

If Theresa May had been getting hammered over the past month because we had a shortage of ambulance staff, then that's what would have been in this amendment.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> It doesn't, but remember this is aimed at Tory MPs, not ambulance workers.



According to the Telegraph it's a 'plot to tempt Tory MP's into sabotaging the Queen's Speech.'


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> If Theresa May had been getting hammered over the past month because we had a shortage of ambulance staff, then that's what would have been in this amendment.



that's fair enough, so long as you ignore the breached waiting time targets and official campaigns to deter us using ambulances / A & E because they're overstretched in normal operation.

whatever, you're right, it's just a parliamentary game.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> whatever, you're right, it's just a parliamentary game.


It is and it isn't.

As an opposition, there's only so much you can do. If Corbyn was the PM, I'm sure there would be more scope for funding the services across the board, not just in the areas that have been in the news recently. But he's not, so yeah, he's playing a game here. But either way it's good news - pass the amendment and the ban on public sector pay rises is scrapped, lose and the Tories get hammered yet again.

Would you rather he propose something that won't pass and waste this opportunity?


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> pass the amendment and the ban on public sector pay rises is scrapped


is it?  Is that the effect of the amendment passing?

I'm very doubtful adding the word '_paramedics_' to the clause would have any negative effect on votes.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 28, 2017)

Would the main effect of the amendment passing not be to bring down the government, which might make wording it strategically more than a game?


----------



## newbie (Jun 28, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> Would the main effect of the amendment passing not be to bring down the government, which might make wording it strategically more than a game?


"_The Queens Speech was passed with an amendment calling on the government not to be swine_".


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 28, 2017)

From a quick google, nobody seems precisely sure of what the constitutional significance would be.

Up until last May, the parliament website claimed that passing such an amendment would effectively be a vote of no confidence:


> This page was amended in May 2016 to remove the sentence “If the Queen’s Speech is amended, the Prime Minister must resign.”



Given Britain's unwritten constitution and the importance of conventions, it looks like a bit of a grey area, but it would be a big blow to her credibility even if she remained in office. Presumably, the labour leadership have deliberately played it this way because of the parliamentary arithmetic. Tories don't have to explicitly vote no confidence in the PM to support the amendment, making them more likely to do so, while also leaving them looking worse to the public if they vote it down.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> From a quick google, nobody seems precisely sure of what the constitutional significance would be.
> 
> Up until last May, the parliament website claimed that passing such an amendment would effectively be a vote of no confidence:
> 
> Given Britain's unwritten constitution and the importance of conventions, it looks like a bit of a grey area, but it would be a big blow to her credibility even if she remained in office. Presumably, the labour leadership have deliberately played it this way because of the parliamentary arithmetic. Tories don't have to explicitly vote no confidence in the PM to support the amendment, making them more likely to do so, while also leaving them looking worse to the public if they vote it down.


It does look like a perfectly crafted intervention. it's open to the charge of cynicism and the tories will certainly claim that but, well, fuck 'em.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It does look like a perfectly crafted intervention. it's open to the charge of cynicism and the tories will certainly claim that but, well, fuck 'em.



Innit. As cynical moves go it at least costs less than a billion quid.


----------



## bemused (Jun 28, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> More importantly, if there is an election in a few months the labour candidate can, and should, hghlight their opponents voting record on this point.
> 
> The social attitudes survey findings on austerity are clear. People have had enough
> British Social Attitudes 34
> ...



I don't think we'll see another election until after a few budgets and the Brexit stuff is done. I do agree that public spending will increase over the next few years because people are fed up.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Innit. As cynical moves go it at least costs less than a billion quid.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

The pay cap is now 'under review' - looks like the government had real concerns some Tory MPs would vote for the amendment.


----------



## JTG (Jun 28, 2017)

It now looks like Corbyn's calling the shots. Government retreating in the face of his demands


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

well, he _is_ prime minister after all.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

That fuck off massive bung she just chucked at the creationists is going to be a massive waste of money if she can't even keep her own MP's from shafting her.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

Creationists: 'give us a billion for.. stuff'
- yes, yes, of course. And would you want another one of those nice Renewable Heating Schemes?

Corbyn: 'what about the emergency services?'
- oh, yes, yes, indeed, very important people

Northern Tories: 'what about the northern powerhouse?'
- erm, yes, erm, I suppose so. I'll give the Magic Money Tree another shake

EU: 'can we have our £59 billion?
- I've been very clear that I'm willing to walk away without a deal, drone, drone..... [erm, yes]

MPs with cats: 'all we want is...'
- YES, OKAY, ANYTHING! YOU CAN HAVE ANYTHING YOU FUCKING WANT!

Vince Cable: 'the Libdems would like a fiver, that's okay isn't it?'
- NO, FUCK OFF


----------



## agricola (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> The pay cap is now 'under review' - looks like the government had real concerns some Tory MPs would vote for the amendment.



Obvious ploy is obvious.  They haven't committed to anything, just said they will wait to see what the independent* pay review bodies say.

* lol


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

Claire Short, about the residents of Montserrat: 'they'll be asking for golden elephants next'

Theresa May to Bank of England: could you melt down 200 gold bars, preferably before the Queen's Speech vote? I'm sending the Nellie and Dumbo moulds round by courier.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

agricola said:


> Obvious ploy is obvious.  They haven't committed to anything, just said they will wait to see what the independent* pay review bodies say.
> 
> * lol


Well yes. All this is theatre though, and the amendment got exactly what it was aiming for.


----------



## agricola (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Well yes. All this is theatre though, and the amendment got exactly what it was aiming for.



It is being spun thus, but it didn't.  The amendment called for more recruitment and an end to the pay cap, and all it got in return is a "review" of the pay cap.  It (the Maybot's response) should be given short shrift, especially as the pressure on recruitment is going to be really severe (in the Police at least) for the next three to five years.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> Well yes. All this is theatre though, and the amendment got exactly what it was aiming for.


... and it annoys various strands in the tory party even more - the anti-public sector/anti union strand, the ones who think May is an idiot. Pretty much everything she does isolates her even more. Expect to see 'big beast' cabinet members saying they support her on this, whilst giving a masterclass in body language to show they don't. Good.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

...now they're backpedalling on that. 

_nothing has changed. _


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> ...now they're backpedalling on that.
> 
> _nothing has changed. _


Alan Partridge must be looking on with despair.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> ...now they're backpedalling on that.
> 
> _nothing has changed. _



Revealing of the Tory schism now visibly opening up between those who do want to lift the cap and increase tax and spending - presumably to shoot Corbyn's fox and having noted the social attitudes survey - and those who would rather lose than abandon the project of rolling back the state and emiserating millions and who hope the Corbyn bubble is ephemeral.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

Theresa May, Dead or Alive? _The New Schrodinger's Cat_.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Theresa May, Dead or Alive? _The New Schrodinger's Cat_.



Well, now you're getting into the world of robotics and AI.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Well, now you're getting into the world of robotics and AI.


Robots don't eat chips with such ease and enjoyment.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 28, 2017)

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this since it's not about Corbs directly, but damn:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 28, 2017)

Labour lost the amendment.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

but in another way, they won it. it was lose/lose for the government on that one.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> but in another way, they won it. it was lose/lose for the government on that one.


How


----------



## teqniq (Jun 28, 2017)

and pretty much anything else they manage to squeeze through with this disgusting arrangement.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How



Back it and it confirms their weakness, oppose it and they are saying fuck you to public service workers after several very high public tragedies in which their work has been seen, rightly, as nothing short of heroic.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How


There was never any chance of the amendment passing. That's not what it was for - it was theatre, pure and simple. It's purpose was to demonstrate what a bunch of cunts the government are.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> There was never any chance of the amendment passing. That's not what it was for - it was theatre, pure and simple. It's purpose was to demonstrate what a bunch of cunts the government are.



Certainly in the long run it probably strengthens resolve against the Tories if they continue Tory-ing, rather than becoming fluffy and nice, even at the behest of strong Labour opposition. But that of course means in the meantime people still get shafted. Difficult to be pleased about it, at the same time as recognising it could hasten their downfall.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2017)

If the Labour amendment had passed, the government would most likely have fallen (I know the FTPA muddies things, but not that much) - so with a hard left Labour eyeballing you from the benches opposite, no Tory would vote down  a Tory queens speech. Once we're away from confidence votes, then there _will _be defeats inflicted on them.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2017)

I hope you're right


----------



## teqniq (Jun 28, 2017)

This is a new hard left which is welcome but a bit like soggy bit of toast when compared to what actual hard left might be.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I hope you're right



yes there will be defeats for the government - and stuff they will have to drop or heavily amend because they know they cant get it through. t
MY understanding is that the  DUP are only bound to vote for the government on the queens speech and the budget - (not sure about budget amendments) so may abstain, vote against or just not be present in the HofC when any other vote is taking place (i think they only attend 2 days a week). Backbench tory mps may rebel or abstain on certain measures.
The tories have already had to jettison most of their manifesto. Whats left is mostly brexit related stuff - i dont how much of that gets voted on in the commons  - but their are massive divisions over the issue within the tory party over that issue. 
Tory mps may threaten to rebel over aspects of the budget as well (as they did over working tax credits last year).


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 29, 2017)

They're also committed to supporting them in votes of confidence


----------



## chandlerp (Jun 29, 2017)

The clip of the government cheering the defeat of an amendment that would protect emergency services should be widely shared on all public platforms


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 29, 2017)

To echo one of Kaka Tim 's points, I also read that DUP MPs only attend the HoC two days a week --Tuesday and Wednesday I think? Whether they consistently continue to restrict themselves to that is another thing, but with the right timing, their absence will surely affect votes on some things and leave the Govt open to ambush.

Maybe the Tories will make damned sure only ever to hold big votes on DUP turning up days  ... or bribe/pressurise the DUP to show on other days.

Can they manage that? Don't know .... merely speculating ...


----------



## newbie (Jun 29, 2017)

teqniq said:


> what actual hard left might be.


unpopular?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2017)

There's noise that an amendment proposed by Stella Creasy - about abortion in NI - could cause trouble for the tories. And it's just been selected by the speaker as one to be voted on.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2017)

this is the amendment:


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2017)

(The speaker has also chosen an amendment from Umunna re the single market which is likely to cause some ructions on the labour benches too)


----------



## belboid (Jun 29, 2017)

May claims to have backed down re the abortion vote, no detail as yet, but the principle appears to have been accepted.

Another victory for Prime Minister Corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2017)

...which does leave the stage clear for Umunna's attack on Corbyn with no other distractions.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 29, 2017)

40 odd voted x....why did these three in particular get sacked?


----------



## belboid (Jun 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> 40 odd voted x....why did these three in particular get sacked?


they were the frontbenchers. Nothing to sack the others from


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> 40 odd voted x....why did these three in particular get sacked?



Shadow Cab collective reponsibility


----------



## phillm (Jun 29, 2017)

Off to the Gulag with Chuka and any other running dogs that want to follow his 'lead'.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 29, 2017)

Scum press headlines tomorrow would have been 'Corbyn loses his authority' in a parallel universe. Gives him chance to replace them with some big hitters and build bridges...


----------



## 03gills (Jun 29, 2017)

Nice to see Corbs swinging his massive hairy bollocks all over the place.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> 40 odd voted x....why did these three in particular get sacked?



I needed to check the basics on that -- here's the BBC link about it


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 29, 2017)

Zeichner, to be fair to him, resigned ahead of the vote. At least he's consistent.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 29, 2017)

Are they officially back at it again ? If so this the barrel being scraped .

Jeremy Corbyn 'would be dangerous' as Prime Minister, warns former Labour MP


----------



## Ptolemy (Jun 29, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Are they officially back at it again ? If so this the barrel being scraped .
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn 'would be dangerous' as Prime Minister, warns former Labour MP



I see that they're giving that seedy, odious little turd Danczuk his last breath of publicity before he sinks into the swamp of total and deserved irrelevance.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 29, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> I see that they're giving that seedy, odious little turd Danczuk his last breath of publicity before he sinks into the swamp of total and deserved irrelevance.



This


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> I see that they're giving that seedy, odious little turd Danczuk his last breath of publicity before he sinks into the swamp of total and deserved irrelevance.



He's just vile . Can they not even see being attacked by a loathsome , odious creature like that only enhances Corbyns credibility ? Obviously not .


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> I see that they're giving that seedy, odious little turd Danczuk his last breath of publicity before he sinks into the swamp of total and deserved irrelevance.


The only sitting MP to come fifth in his bid for re-election. The lowest vote for a sitting MP in modern times.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 30, 2017)

03gills said:


> Nice to see Corbs swinging his massive hairy bollocks all over the place.



Do you get the Scottish version of Newsnight?


----------



## Fingers (Jun 30, 2017)

belboid said:


> The only sitting MP to come fifth in his bid for re-election. The lowest vote for a sitting MP in modern times.



Is he the only sitting MP to ever have lost their deposit?


----------



## Fingers (Jun 30, 2017)




----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Is he the only sitting MP to ever have lost their deposit?


No, there are a few - usually when they have gone 'Independent'


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 30, 2017)

how does the speaker choose which amendments to vote on?


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

In this case, he chose the ones that would cause the most trouble I think.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

Is it just me or did Umunna collaborate directly with the Tories in order to deliver this latest knife between the shoulders ?

Chuka Umunna 'holds secret talks with Tory MPs plotting to force PM to accept soft Brexit'

Have I got that wrong ?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 30, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Is it just me or did Umunna collaborate directly with the Tories in order to deliver this latest knife between the shoulders ?
> 
> Chuka Umunna 'holds secret talks with Tory MPs plotting to force PM to accept soft Brexit'
> 
> Have I got that wrong ?



Don't think so. But reckon he's causing more problems for May than Corbyn. Hopefully there's a plan to let him carry on for a bit and then do him over.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

They seriously need to get rid of him . He and his cronies most likely cost them the election . Ones enough .


----------



## Fingers (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> In this case, he chose the ones that would cause the most trouble I think.



I sort of like him as speaker in a begrudging sort of way.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> I sort of like him as speaker in a begrudging sort of way.


He's certainly got the ORH DEH! bit down pat


----------



## Fingers (Jun 30, 2017)

Crispy said:


> He's certainly got the ORH DEH! bit down pat



I would quite like to see Dennis Skinner get a guest spot on the job


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 30, 2017)

Crispy said:


> He's certainly got the ORH DEH! bit down pat



The rousing way he pronounced "Eddddddddd Milliband" like a ring announcer was literally the only sliver of positive memories of poor old Ed's stewardship.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

I like him because in general the rest of the Tories hate him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> (The speaker has also chosen an amendment from Umunna re the single market which is likely to cause some ructions on the labour benches too)



Chuka, as always, grandstanding to make Chuka look statesman-like.  Pity he's such a self-obsessed, whiny arrogant shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> Off to the Gulag with Chuka and any other running dogs that want to follow his 'lead'.



If Corbyn shows the same sort of finesse he has recently, he'll merely rebuke Umunna like he's a particularly slow and inept schoolboy, raather than martyring him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 30, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Are they officially back at it again ? If so this the barrel being scraped .
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn 'would be dangerous' as Prime Minister, warns former Labour MP



Any media outlet giving Danczuk room to air his shithead views, is only ever going to be a barrel-scraping outfit.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 30, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Are they officially back at it again ? If so this the barrel being scraped .
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn 'would be dangerous' as Prime Minister, warns former Labour MP



That's all very well, but I think what the people really want to hear is what Rolf Harris thinks of Corbyn.


----------



## tim (Jun 30, 2017)

Religious persecution, all Quakers on the front bench purged!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

tim said:


> Religious persecution, all Quakers on the front bench purged!


Lest we forget, Richard Milhous Nixon was a quaker


----------



## bemused (Jun 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Scum press headlines tomorrow would have been 'Corbyn loses his authority' in a parallel universe. Gives him chance to replace them with some big hitters and build bridges...



This is one of the things that irritate me about how the media report all politics. Any sort of debate or discussion within any party is portrayed is a rift, war, leadership threat, etc. 

It would be nice if they reported the substance of their arguments rather than spinning it up as some sort of bitter war.


----------



## phillm (Jun 30, 2017)

He will defend the Revolution !


----------



## JimW (Jun 30, 2017)

None of the purged should take any flights over Mongolia just to be safe.


----------



## tim (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Lest we forget, Richard Milhous Nixon was a quaker



Yes, but from a renegade American faction. Anyway his grandparents were involved in the underground railroad.
President Hoover was another Friend.

David Starkey is an apostate


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Scum press headlines tomorrow would have been 'Corbyn loses his authority' in a parallel universe.



They did that anyway. A desperate diversion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> They did that anyway. A desperate diversion.


not on the website- whats the headline? in the politics section they're leading with may being browbeaten into dropping the pub/sec pay cap by '20 unnamed senior tory MP's' which could be a load of bollocks


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 30, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> not on the website- whats the headline? in the politics section they're leading with may being browbeaten into dropping the pub/sec pay cap by '20 unnamed senior tory MP's' which could be a load of bollocks



The big Mail headline was something about Labour disarray/division, though for some reason it's not shown on the BBC paper review bit today (I just saw the print version in the co-op). The express is running with a sub-heading of Labour chaos too, after some usual gushing about hard Brexit.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> I see that they're giving that seedy, odious little turd Danczuk his last breath of publicity before he sinks into the swamp of total and deserved irrelevance.


They've probably found one of the few people in all of existence whose support May wouldn't want.


----------



## 03gills (Jun 30, 2017)

I can't believe these pricks are still trying to use the EU as a stick to beat Corbyn with, especially now when the Tories are completely shafting themselves. Even Caroline Lucas took the bait on Twitter.

Fucking Gary Lineker talking about a new centrist party? Yeah split the anti-Tory vote once again why don't you ya silly twats. Jesus wept. It's a combination of Tories who want rid of Corbyn & middle class liberals who are too naive to realise they are being played.


----------



## phillm (Jun 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> He will defend the Revolution !



It's all going to end in tsars.......


----------



## tim (Jun 30, 2017)

03gills said:


> I can't believe these pricks are still trying to use the EU as a stick to beat Corbyn with, especially now when the Tories are completely shafting themselves. Even Caroline Lucas took the bait on Twitter.
> 
> Fucking Gary Lineker talking about a new centrist party? Yeah split the anti-Tory vote once again why don't you you silly twats. Jesus wept. It's a combination of Tories who want rid of Corbyn & middle class liberals who are too naive to realise they are being played.



And Tories who are terrified of the zeal and ineptitude of Fox and Davis


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

tim said:


> Religious persecution, all Quakers on the front bench purged!



They deserve a lot of porridge .


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Shadow Cab collective reponsibility



_‘Collective responsibility’_ – that much used excuse for purging dissent. Corbyn needs to remember that many of those who voted Labour last month were remain voters who rejected May’s hard Brexit.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

I wonder how many times front bench Mps have voted against their parties on whipped votes and retained their positions? Can't seem to find a handy list online, but I reckon it's a short one.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> I wonder how many times front bench Mps have voted against their parties on whipped votes and retained their positions? Can't seem to find a handy list online, but I reckon it's a short one.



Hard to think of any, especially ones where what they voted for went against the manifesto they all ran on (and did well with) less than a month ago. 

It is unprecedented, though that is largely because very few people have been that stupid in the past.


----------



## Supine (Jun 30, 2017)

agricola said:


> Hard to think of any, especially ones where what they voted for went against the manifesto they all ran on (and did well with) less than a month ago.
> 
> It is unprecedented, though that is largely because very few people have been that stupid in the past.



Although corbyn has a strong history of voting on his own terms so he can't really complain.


----------



## binka (Jun 30, 2017)

Supine said:


> Although corbyn has a strong history of voting on his own terms so he can't really complain.


But what you have to remember is Corbyn's the daddy now


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> _‘Collective responsibility’_ – that much used excuse for purging dissent. Corbyn needs to remember that many of those who voted Labour last month were remain voters who rejected May’s hard Brexit.



And who embraced Labour's manifesto. Corbyn's amendment was party policy as per that manifesto.

It's becoming very dull hearing people keep saying "be careful, once young people realise that Corbyn doesn't support the EU..." like young people have been walking around with their eyes and ears closed for the past few months? Patronising much?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> I wonder how many times front bench Mps have voted against their parties on whipped votes and retained their positions? Can't seem to find a handy list online, but I reckon it's a short one.



He let off 14 of his own shadow cabinet ministerial team with a 'stern letter' after they refused to vote for triggering A50 back in February.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

Supine said:


> Although corbyn has a strong history of voting on his own terms so he can't really complain.



Something I'm sure he's aware of. He was never on the front bench, though. And would have been sacked if he was.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> He let off 14 of his own shadow cabinet ministerial team with a 'stern letter' after they refused to vote for triggering A50 back in February.



And was roundly criticised for it.

One might suggest he's damned if he does...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> And was roundly criticised for it.
> 
> One might suggest he's damned if he does...



I merely suggest he shouldn't try and alienate the people who voted for him.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I merely suggest he shouldn't try and alienate the people who voted for him.



They voted for the Labour manifesto, of which he has stuck to so far, so...

And which "they" are you talking about? Only the ones who agree with you, I expect.


----------



## Supine (Jun 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's becoming very dull hearing people keep saying "be careful, once young people realise that Corbyn doesn't support the EU..



He shouldn't have lied about supporting remain on The Last Leg then.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 30, 2017)

There's little more boring than this argument.


----------



## bemused (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> _‘Collective responsibility’_ – that much used excuse for purging dissent. Corbyn needs to remember that many of those who voted Labour last month were remain voters who rejected May’s hard Brexit.



To fair, I don't think it is an excuse. A lot of this is how the press reports any debate within political parties as trench warfare. If you sit on a front bench and vote against your party's stated policies, you should expect to go. That isn't purging dissent it is a reasonable expectation of a leadership team member.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I merely suggest he shouldn't try and alienate the people who voted for him.


Anyone for whom this was a real sticking point voted lib dem in June. Guess there wasn't so many of them.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> They voted for the Labour manifesto, of which he has stuck to so far, so...
> 
> And which "they" are you talking about? Only the ones who agree with you, I expect.



Not sure what you mean, but the 'they' I was referring to were the 48% who voted remain and those who didn't want May's 'hard' brexit. Are you trying to say that few of them voted Labour last month?



Vintage Paw said:


> And was roundly criticised for it.



Indeed, particularly by the Express and the Telegraph.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's becoming very dull hearing people keep saying "be careful, once young people realise that Corbyn doesn't support the EU..." like young people have been walking around with their eyes and ears closed for the past few months? Patronising much?


_any day now, they're going to notice what they've voted for!_


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2017)

TBF Labours position on Brexit is (deliberately) confusing. The manifesto says 

"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first."* 

It would be easy to read that as supporting the Single Market and Customs Union....clearly not if voting for such gets you fired. Im still not sure exactly what they would want to do on that front

*the only mention of the Single Market and the Customs Union in the manifesto from what i can see


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> _‘Collective responsibility’_ – that much used excuse for purging dissent. Corbyn needs to remember that many of those who voted Labour last month were remain voters who rejected May’s hard Brexit.



one of the 4 MP's who voted against whip stood down before doing so and one I read a quote from fully admits she expected to be dismissed from her role on the front bench.


----------



## JTG (Jun 30, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Not sure what you mean, but the 'they' I was referring to were the 48% who voted remain and those who didn't want May's 'hard' brexit. Are you trying to say that few of them voted Labour last month?


I voted Remain and I voted Labour. Can't say I'm particularly arsed about this though. I'm getting tired of people going on about 'the 48%' as though they were one homogeneous group who all have the same set of priorities or the same reasons for voting as they did. Stop using my vote as a justification for your centrist agenda


----------



## 03gills (Jun 30, 2017)

Also worth noting that the UKIP vote collapsed by 10%, whilst the Labour vote share soared by almost exactly the same amount. You'd be surprised how at just how many Leave supporters & UKIP voters backed Labour at the GE. Not everybody who dislikes the EU is right wing. 

It doesn't fit you're typical middle class centrists' worldview though so that just gets awkwardly ignored. ''Nope, nothing to do with Corbyn, or Socialism or the working class or Council Housing it was all about the EU & this was the revenge of the remainers & lalalalalala not listening''.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> I voted Remain and I voted Labour. Can't say I'm particularly arsed about this though. I'm getting tired of people going on about 'the 48%' as though they were one homogeneous group who all have the same set of priorities or the same reasons for voting as they did. Stop using my vote as a justification for your centrist agenda



I'm not particularly arsed about this one episode either, sorry for mentioning it. I don't have a 'centrist agenda', unless being anti hard brexit and anti austerity is centrist.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

lol wot?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

03gills said:


> Also worth noting that the UKIP vote collapsed by 10%, whilst the Labour vote share soared by almost exactly the same amount. You'd be surprised how at just how many Leave supporters & UKIP voters backed Labour at the GE. It doesn't fit you're typical middle class centrists' worldview though so that just gets awkwardly ignored. ''Nope, nothing to do with Corbyn, or Socialism or the working class or Council Housing it was all about the EU & this was the revenge of the remainers & lalalalalala not listening''.
> 
> Not everybody who dislikes the EU is necessarily right wing.



Do you really think that Labour will stand any chance of winning the next election, whenever it is, without the support of anti hard brexit voters? I haven't been able to find any figures breaking down Labour's support last month when it comes to pro remain or pro leave. Do you know of any?

And what "typical middle class centrists' worldview" are you referring to?


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2017)

03gills said:


> Also worth noting that the UKIP vote collapsed by 10%, whilst the Labour vote share soared by almost exactly the same amount. You'd be surprised how at just how many Leave supporters & UKIP voters backed Labour at the GE. Not everybody who dislikes the EU is right wing.
> 
> It doesn't fit you're typical middle class centrists' worldview though so that just gets awkwardly ignored. ''Nope, nothing to do with Corbyn, or Socialism or the working class or Council Housing it was all about the EU & this was the revenge of the remainers & lalalalalala not listening''.


On the specific point, I don't believe the UKIP vote transferred much to Labour, having compiled and plotted the graph myself on the election results. The swing to Labour was almost totally independent of the previous UKIP support.

Labour & Leave voter here.


----------



## JTG (Jun 30, 2017)

The UKIP vote split many ways but there certainly was a portion of it that went back to Labour.

Assuming there are 'hard Brexit' & 'soft Brexit' voters assumes we're all voting primarily on one issue. We're not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2017)

Hertford before the election: _there is a section of the electorate that labour need to attract to win - and Corbyn cannot do that, in fact he pushes them away - that's why he has to go to save labour._

Hertford after the election: _there is a section of the really existing current  labour vote that labour need to attract to win - and Corbyn cannot do that, in fact he pushes them away - that's why he has to go to save labour._


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> The UKIP vote split many ways but there certainly was a portion of it that went back to Labour.
> 
> Assuming there are 'hard Brexit' & 'soft Brexit' voters assumes we're all voting primarily on one issue. We're not.



People vote on a number of different issues, but let's not pretend that brexit isn't currently one of the biggest issues concerning voters, and that it is likely to increase over the coming years.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Hertford before the election: _there is a section of the electorate that labour need to attract to win - and Corbyn cannot do that, in fact he pushes them away - that's why he has to go to save labour._
> 
> Hertford after the election: _there is a section of the really existing current  labour vote that labour need to attract to win - and Corbyn cannot do that, in fact he pushes them away - that's why he has to go to save labour._



Did you make that second quote up butch?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> On the specific point, I don't believe the UKIP vote transferred much to Labour, having compiled and plotted the graph myself on the election results. The swing to Labour was almost totally independent of the previous UKIP support.
> 
> Labour & Leave voter here.


You're as good a psephologist as you are a lawyer


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> The UKIP vote split many ways but there certainly was a portion of it that went back to Labour.
> 
> Assuming there are 'hard Brexit' & 'soft Brexit' voters assumes we're all voting primarily on one issue. We're not.


Thinking about it, I've just realised that age demographics may have countered the UKIP support return. I presume young people were less likely to vote UKIP, and more likely to come out and vote Labour for the first time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Thinking about it, I've just realised that age demographics may have countered the UKIP support return. I presume young people were less likely to vote UKIP, and more likely to come out and vote Labour for the first time.


I'm glad you've caught up with the start of june


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2017)

However I'd be pretty surprised if most of the UKIP support didn't in fact turn blue.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

If only someone had done some research to find out which way the votes went.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> If only someone had done some research to find out which way the votes went.


If you know of any research about how 2015 UKIP voters voted in the 2017 election I would be genuinely grateful if you could link it for me


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm glad you've caught up with the start of june



I doubt they have even got far as the end of Terry yet.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> If you know of any research about how 2015 UKIP voters voted in the 2017 election I would be genuinely grateful if you could link it for me


Ashcrofts poll has some detail:

How did this result happen? My post-vote survey - Lord Ashcroft Polls

This chart shows the movement between parties from 2015

 

Most of the UKIP vote did indeed go to the Tories - but nearly 20% went to Labour.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 30, 2017)

Tucker's view on the matter



> For two years we’ve heard how he can’t lead or unite his party, and that was exactly right when it was packed to the rafters with more cunts than a fucking bailiff convention.


The Purge: Election Year


----------



## JTG (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ashcrofts poll has some detail:
> 
> How did this result happen? My post-vote survey - Lord Ashcroft Polls
> 
> ...


I'd wager that most of that 20% were the ones UKIP took off Labour in the first place as well


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2017)

JTG said:


> I'd wager that most of that 20% were the ones UKIP took off Labour in the first place as well


Yep. Because the Labour brexit position neutralized brexit, and allowed them to concentrate on domestic policy.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ashcrofts poll has some detail:
> 
> Most of the UKIP vote did indeed go to the Tories - but nearly 20% went to Labour.


Thanks much appreciated


----------



## Fingers (Jul 1, 2017)

Wimbledon warns supporters against political chants and slogans amid fears of outbreak of Corbynism


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2017)

from henmans hill to murrays mound- TO C-BYNS CASTLE


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> _any day now, they're going to notice what they've voted for!_



Apparently any day now all the tory voters are going to realise what they've voted for as well.

Been waiting for that one for quite a while now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 1, 2017)

JTG said:


> I voted Remain and I voted Labour. Can't say I'm particularly arsed about this though. I'm getting tired of people going on about 'the 48%' as though they were one homogeneous group who all have the same set of priorities or the same reasons for voting as they did. Stop using my vote as a justification for your centrist agenda



This is me, too.

Voted remain, would vote remain again. On balance, would likely want us to remain in the single market (since I can't see the future and I'm pretty torn, I'm falling down on the side of "build left wing coalitions with the help of the networks we already have and don't fuck us over too much back home in the meantime" - might be wishful thinking but anything is right now). I let myself feel "all the emotions" about leaving the EU just like a lot of people who voted remain do, because I think it's quite natural, especially when everything is so absolutely fucked. But I voted Labour because of Corbyn and that manifesto. I joined Labour for the same reason. We've not had an opportunity like this in my lifetime (I'm 39), and I'm damned if I'm going to become some single issue bore in the face of a real fucking chance to push things to the left.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Yep. Because the Labour brexit position neutralized brexit, and allowed them to concentrate on domestic policy.



And this is exactly the point the 48% brigade refuse to see. Labour's approach has been entirely pragmatic in order to get into power. Cynical as it may be. They _have_ to get a portion of leave voters to vote for them if they hope to get a majority, and they simply are not going to do that by saying "fuck brexit, fuck the 52%."

If you want to get a leave voter and a remain voter to vote for you, you have to find common ground. That's what the manifesto did. Austerity fucks us all, the Tories fuck us all, selling off the NHS fucks us all. 

The Tories would have loved the election be all about Brexit, and everyone assumed it would be. If it had have been, the Tories would have got that blistering landslide they wanted. If Corbs had said "I'm going to fight against Brexit to the end" those 18% former ukip voters would have gone to the Tories instead. If Corbs hadn't shelved that issue and gone hard on making the election about everything but, that 12% of SNP votes may have stayed SNP as well. And since Corbyn was seen as a total drip up until the election, without this huge wave of enthusiasm built around his domestic policies there wouldn't have been all the first time voters either. The LD vote is the LD vote - it swings with the seasons - any of those who were going to vote tactically already did so knowing full well what was in the manifesto.


----------



## chilango (Jul 1, 2017)

Nobody I know voted in the GE about Brexit. In fact most explicitly wanted their vote NOT to be about Brexit, but about what sort of Britain they wanted. Brexit only came up as undermines the Tories "magic money tree" narrative. Several people saying that "if they can find the money for Brexit, they can find the money for hospitals/schools".


----------



## JTG (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm seeing a fair bit of this "the kids voted Remain, wait til they find out that Corbyn's a Brexiter!" type stuff from older folks. It's pretty insulting and patronising tbh. We just had a general election in which a great many young people were fully engaged and the Labour manifesto was examined. JC was on TV in debates and whatnot explicitly setting out the Labour position.

Assuming that they (and anyone else for that matter) _don't know what Jeremy Corbyn *really* thinks_ is wishful thinking on the part of them that want his support to drop. Young people (and the rest of us) are perfectly capable of assessing the whole package and making their minds up. What's not going to change their minds is having fingers wagged at them and people saying "oooh, you're so naive".


----------



## chilango (Jul 1, 2017)

...and, indeed,if the bubble wants to believe it's all about Remainers, well their loss as they'll be in for further shock results


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 1, 2017)

I know a few m/c Tory-leaning types for whom Brexit was definitely a major point - they hate it and voted Lib Dem on that basis. The complete fuckup of dealing with it was also a factor though; perhaps if they'd thought it could go ahead retaining all the positives and getting rid of the negatives as promised, maybe they would have voted Tory, but it was so obviously shit.

Personally Brexit is a serious issue but it's one of many and it's not like there was any serious choice anyway. I'm hardly going to vote Lib Dem. Climate change is an even more serious issue for me and my vote wasn't going to do anything there either. As said above it's patronising to suggest that people weren't aware of the Labour position, their options, and the limits of what is ever going to be achieved by voting in a general election.

ETA: having said that I do think Labour's Brexit position is pretty shoddy and disorganised and not being dealt with well. It won't hurt them in the short term but the effects may build up.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 2, 2017)

Anyway, the dear leader was in St Leonards today. Looks like he was doing a karoake of  Three times a lady


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2017)

biege and blue for non election. Dark and red with white for e-lection.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2017)

man from del monte suit when on holiday


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2017)

The problem he faces is...will people vote for him and his party? Or Maro Itoje?


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 2, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Wimbledon warns supporters against political chants and slogans amid fears of outbreak of Corbynism


No wonder there are warnings from the organisers. If Wimbledon falls to Corbyn May might as well resign immediately. Game, set and match



Vintage Paw said:


> And this is exactly the point the 48% brigade refuse to see. Labour's approach has been entirely pragmatic in order to get into power. Cynical as it may be. They _have_ to get a portion of leave voters to vote for them if they hope to get a majority, and they simply are not going to do that by saying "fuck brexit, fuck the 52%."


I don't see it as cynical, just playing a straight game. Corbyn has resolutely stuck with "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity" since his election. It's a powerful message, the establishment didn't like that and has done everything it could to try to take if off the airwaves. Why be distracted now? What's Brexit got to do with that?


----------



## JTG (Jul 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> man from del monte suit when on holiday


He's gone full Martin Bell


----------



## gosub (Jul 2, 2017)

Labour might have won election if I was leader, Owen Smith claims


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Labour might have won election if I was leader, Owen Smith claims


This is the Evening Standard fishing for a provocative headline. I don't see anything unreasonable in Smith's tone.


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2017)

yeah, what else could he say to that question? _ah, no - I would have had no chance._Total bullshit question, and bullshit clickbait story which appears to have done what it set out to do.


----------



## gosub (Jul 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> yeah, what else could he say to that question? _ah, no - I would have had no chance._Total bullshit question, and bullshit clickbait story which appears to have done what it set out to do.



"look I'm here in my capacity as Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and I'm here to voice my concerns about the worsening situation in Northern Ireland.."


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 2, 2017)

Yes we can't have our politicians getting carried away with answering questions directly. Corbyn can get away with such outrageous moves but this is for supremely advanced practitioners only


----------



## elbows (Jul 2, 2017)

> He is recording net positive personal ratings on a regular basis for the first time in his leadership, and Labour’s poll share of 45% is among the best the party has seen since the height of Tony Blair’s popularity



Ha ha.

Theresa May's ratings slump in wake of general election – poll


----------



## Mr Retro (Jul 3, 2017)

Interesting new shadow appointments today. I'm disappointed my local mp Stella Creasy voted in favour of bombing Syria as it will keep her out of Jeremy Corbyns plans. She seems very talented to me.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> yeah, what else could he say to that question? _ah, no - I would have had no chance._Total bullshit question, and bullshit clickbait story which appears to have done what it set out to do.


Dumbass question deserves a dumbass answer, If I'd won £80m on Euro Millions a few months back I could be lying on a beach watching the hot blonde from HR wearing a skimpy bikini and smiling as she brings our drinks back from the bar, I didn't which is probably why she looked at me like I came out from under a rock when I went to take a look at her PC this morning.
Perhaps Smith would have led Labour to a massive victory or a even more massive defeat without one of those magic sideways time machines not gonna know
Fact is after years  of the received wisdom that neoliberalism/austerity is the only acceptable policy, Labour ran on a left of centre platform with a leader who is himself  somewhat further to the left and whilst not winning a stunning victory massively upset the apple cart.
Bring it on says I,  Jezza has more chance of being PM than I have of scoring with the blonde but I'm cool with that.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Interesting new shadow appointments today. I'm disappointed my local mp Stella Creasy voted in favour of bombing Syria as it will keep her out of Jeremy Corbyns plans. She seems very talented to me.



She is very talented, but unfortunately it's very often a party for one where Stella is concerned.


----------



## JimW (Jul 3, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> Interesting new shadow appointments today. I'm disappointed my local mp Stella Creasy voted in favour of bombing Syria as it will keep her out of Jeremy Corbyns plans. She seems very talented to me.


See our MP David Drew is on now for rural affairs, he'd said he wasn't interested but he's old mates with Corbyn and no doubt felt a duty; wasn't going to stand for election even but local party hadn't got another candidate in place. We must be one of the most rural labour held seats too.


----------



## JTG (Jul 3, 2017)

JimW said:


> See our MP David Drew is on now for rural affairs, he'd said he wasn't interested but he's old mates with Corbyn and no doubt felt a duty; wasn't going to stand for election even but local party hadn't got another candidate in place. We must be one of the most rural labour held seats too.


Yeah it stands out on the map just in terms of sheer size, as does Canterbury


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2017)

Chris Williamson of Derby North is the new shadow Fire minister. He's going to relish that role. The FBU are going to like him. Good appointment considering Grenfell.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 3, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> She is very talented, but unfortunately it's very often a party for one where Stella is concerned.


She's a great MP and would have been a better deputy leader than Slug Watson imo, but I don't think a Corbyn front bench role would be best for her, I think an intellectual role like Cruddas on how to reach out to different communities and interests would be a better fit for her.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 3, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Chris Williamson of Derby North is the new shadow Fire minister. He's going to relish that role. The FBU are going to like him. Good appointment considering Grenfell.



Chris Williamson once threw David Miliband out of his office when he was chair of Derby council, back when Dave was a Big. Deal.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 3, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> She's a great MP and would have been a better deputy leader than Slug Watson imo, but I don't think a Corbyn front bench role would be best for her, I think an intellectual role like Cruddas on how to reach out to different communities and interests would be a better fit for her.




She lied through her teeth re:  alleged Corbynite thugs harassing her outside her home on the night of Syria bombing vote  ( turned out to candlelit vigil outside her empty constit office) , and has quietly opposed Corbyn throughout - ' front bench role' my arse ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> She is very talented, but unfortunately it's very often a party for one where Stella is concerned.



I have Labour party friend in Walthamstow ( anti Corbyn). She has worked with Stella Creasy on health issues. She is talented and a hard working MP. She is anti Corbyn. She also voted for Chukas amendment on single market. Which puts her out of possibility of shadow cabinet post. 

I wouldn't say she was a Blairiite but she is far from sympathetic to Corbyn. 

Now the PLP can't get rid of Corbyn those that oppose him are going to use issue like staying in single market as way to undermine what he is trying to do. The right of the party supporting staying in single market,so called soft brexit, is to stay in the neo liberal zone. Chukas wants to stay in single market and have immigration controls on EU citizens. So it's not that "progressive". 

I was for remain but what I don't want is a "soft brexit" that retains some of the worst aspects of EU.

Corbyn needs now to put forward more clearly a socialist brexit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> Chris Williamson once threw David Miliband out of his office when he was chair of Derby council, back when Dave was a Big. Deal.



I like him already.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 4, 2017)

> Jeremy Corbyn, at the moment. is in a much more powerful position within the party than he was six months ago. But the right will be digging relentlessly to undermine him again, starting now. Corbyn and his supporters need now to show a ruthless streak in purging their party structure of the Blairites, asserting membership control of policy and executive power, and of course introducing compulsory deselection and reselection of MPs. Otherwise, I predict this Corbyn phenomenon will be looked back on as a brief spark of hope, soon snuffed out.


Beware Bewildered Blairites - Craig Murray


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 4, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Corbyn needs now to put forward more clearly a socialist brexit.



In what way would that go beyond Labour's stated policy?

I'm voting Labour to negotiate a better Brexit


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> *Hertford after the election:* _there is a section of the really existing current  labour vote that labour need to attract to win - and Corbyn cannot do that, in fact he pushes them away -* that's why he has to go to save labour.*_



Kindly stop inventing quotes. Where exactly am I supposed to have said that??


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I like him already.



He's also an ex hunt sab.

But also a militant vegan, so swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I like him already.


I'm hoping it was one of those grabbed collar and back of the belt, size 9 up the arse, sprawling in the gutter throwing outs, .  It was probably a response to Miliband coming at him with a banana.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2017)

We've done bananas.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 4, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's also an ex hunt sab.
> 
> But also a militant vegan, so swings and roundabouts.



I suppose you'd prefer it if his opposition to animal abuse was more selective and hypocritical then?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> In what way would that go beyond Labour's stated policy?
> 
> I'm voting Labour to negotiate a better Brexit



The manifesto doesn't bind the Labour party to staying in the single market. Staying in the single market could limit a future Labour government in nationalising industries. Limit a Labour government room for manoeuvre. Rather than criticise Chuka personally ( Corbyn hasn't done this) Corbyn should explain this. Make it clear to people.

As this thread is about Corbyns time is up I see Chuka amendment as someone from the right of the party still accepting neo liberal globalisation as something that just has to be accepted. There is no other realistic alternative. His move has failed.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 4, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The manifesto doesn't bind the Labour party to staying in the single market. Staying in the single market could limit a future Labour government in nationalising industries. Limit a Labour government room for manoeuvre. Rather than criticise Chuka personally ( Corbyn hasn't done this) Corbyn should explain this. Make it clear to people.



The proposition is extremely dodgy, IMO. But, even if it weren't it would be extremely unpopular with LP members. He'd be preparing his own noose.


----------



## binka (Jul 4, 2017)

Saturday night at Cabbage a very enthusiastic 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' tonight at Radiohead a half hearted 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' Friday night at Richard Ashcroft no 'oh Jeremy Corbyn' whatsoever. Make of that what you will


----------



## mather (Jul 5, 2017)

Raheem said:


> He'd be preparing his own noose.



Who is, Chuka or Corbyn?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The manifesto doesn't bind the Labour party to staying in the single market. Staying in the single market could limit a future Labour government in nationalising industries. Limit a Labour government room for manoeuvre. Rather than criticise Chuka personally ( Corbyn hasn't done this) Corbyn should explain this. Make it clear to people.
> 
> As this thread is about Corbyns time is up I see Chuka amendment as someone from the right of the party still accepting neo liberal globalisation as something that just has to be accepted. There is no other realistic alternative. His move has failed.


Any future Labour government is going to have to accept that neo liberal globalisation is happening and no UK goverment can stop it, the UK is about 3.5% of the world's economy, we're an important player still, the challenge for any Labour government is having policies that make sure that the benefits of it (and there are many) are shared by everyone and the pain (also plenty to go round) is shared out evenly.
The current government isn't as malicious as some people paint it but it doesn't care about fairness it just believes that the market will sort it out and sod the consequences for those who don't get a voice.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Any future Labour government is going to have to accept that neo liberal globalisation is happening and no UK goverment can stop it



Can you tell the rest of us what neoliberalism is and why 'no UK government can stop it'?


----------



## Chz (Jul 5, 2017)

> The current government isn't as malicious as some people paint it



While, admittedly, some people paint it as somewhat more disastrous than the Khmer Rouge, I think they are in fact pretty bloody malicious.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Can you tell the rest of us what neoliberalism is and why 'no UK government can stop it'?


I think we all have different definitions of what it is but I will offer mine which you may accept or reject as you see fit.
neoliberalism I would say is the assumption that only capital matters, that social consequences don't  and that everything else that follows from that is acceptable. 
globalisation is the move away from events and trends  affecting peoples lives  on a local scale to events and trends on a global and international scale wit the corresponding lack of control over them.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Can you tell the rest of us what neoliberalism is and why 'no UK government can stop it'?


and my apologies for not including an answer to your 2nd question, A UK government can't stop it for the same reason you or I can't, it is just too small and insignificant to do so. We have reached the point in our history where our government can't dictate or ignore decisions made in Washington or Berlin or Beijing.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> and my apologies for not including an answer to your 2nd question, A UK government can't stop it for the same reason you or I can't, it is just too small and insignificant to do so. We have reached the point in our history where our government can't dictate or ignore decisions made in Washington or Berlin or Beijing.



Why not? There are countries in the world, much weaker and poorer than ours, which do not adhere to neoliberalism.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

Interesting article from William Davies in the LRB

LRB · William Davies · Reasons for Corbyn



> When the internet first became part of everyday life in the late 1990s, it was celebrated as a wondrous new publishing machine, an amalgam of printing press and broadcaster that would radically democratise the means of communication at virtually zero cost. As any blogger or YouTube star can confirm, this dream didn’t die altogether, but neither did it capture what would turn out to be a more distinctive characteristic of the emerging technology. Twenty years on, it has become clear that the internet is less significant as a means of publishing than a means of archiving. More and more of our behaviour is being captured and stored, from the trace we leave in online searches, the photos we share and ‘like’ on social media platforms to the vast archive of emails and tweets to which we contribute day after day. This massive quantity of information sits there, ready to be interpreted, if only something coherent can be extracted from the fog. It makes possible a new, panoramic way to assess people, now that evidence of their character can be retrieved from the past – a fact that hasn’t escaped consumer credit-rating firms or government border agencies.
> 
> YouTube, Spotify, Google Books and so on put decades’ worth, sometimes centuries’ worth, of ‘content’ at our fingertips. One effect of this is the compression of historical time. ‘Is it _really_ fifty years since _Sergeant Pepper_?’ you may ask. But the time lapse feels immaterial. The internet turns up a perpetual series of anniversaries, disparate moments from disparate epochs, and presents them all as equivalent and accessible in the here and now. ‘In 1981,’ the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher wrote in _Ghosts of My Life_ (2014), ‘the 1960s seemed much further away than they do today.’ Facebook extends this logic to people’s own personal history, informing them of what banal activity they were engaged in this time last year, or eight years ago. The archive isn’t merely available to us; it actively pursues us.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

I was just starting on that. I like Will Davies.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why not? There are countries in the world, much weaker and poorer than ours, which do not adhere to neoliberalism.


Sadly that argument would carry a lot more weight if their were countries richer and more powerful that didn't adhere to it either but there aren't.
I would like to see a fairer and richer society not a fairer but poorer one.
I'm in no way espousing or defending what i've defined, I oppose it totally but I'm a pragmatist, the current world order is what it


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

Chz said:


> While, admittedly, some people paint it as somewhat more disastrous than the Khmer Rouge, I think they are in fact pretty bloody malicious.


Fair point if the shit is falling on your head you don't probably don't care too much whether its deliberate or not


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Interesting article from William Davies in the LRB
> 
> LRB · William Davies · Reasons for Corbyn


I found this line interesting:  _The figures who succeed in today’s populist politics are the ones who don’t give a damn - _I think that's undoubtably true, and something that's been niggling me as various left-wing figure mockingly promote the idea of Jacob Rees-Mogg as the next tory leader (in much the same way as tories promoted Corbyn - that worked out well for them...) - I suspect he's much more dangerous than they think.


----------



## Supine (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why not? There are countries in the world, much weaker and poorer than ours, which do not adhere to neoliberalism.



Where?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 5, 2017)

Speaking of Jacob Rees- Mogg



/derail


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Sadly that argument would carry a lot more weight if their were countries richer and more powerful that didn't adhere to it either but there aren't.
> I would like to see a fairer and richer society not a fairer but poorer one.
> I'm in no way espousing or defending what i've defined, I oppose it totally but I'm a pragmatist, the current world order is what it



I don't agree. While I'm not saying that it is the model that we should be pursuing, the fact that Cuba is able to exist in 2017 despite being unthinkably weaker and poorer than the US shows that a country like Britain could start rolling back neoliberalism.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Speaking of Jacob Rees- Mogg
> 
> View attachment 110832
> 
> /derail


His wife is called Helena De Chair, of course.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> I found this line interesting:  _The figures who succeed in today’s populist politics are the ones who don’t give a damn - _I think that's undoubtably true, and something that's been niggling me as various left-wing figure mockingly promote the idea of Jacob Rees-Mogg as the next tory leader (in much the same way as tories promoted Corbyn - that worked out well for them...) - I suspect he's much more dangerous than they think.



I had the same sort of thought, although I think that the sort of toffish authenticity of Mogg wouldn't resonate in the same sort of way as the authenticity of politicians who are seen to go against middle-class civility politics.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

Go and have a dig through his instagram - he's very dry and witty on there. Almost likeable. I imagine he could thrive rather well.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> Go and have a dig through his instagram - he's very dry and witty on there. Almost likeable. I imagine he could thrive rather well.



He certainly won over the MP for Yardley...


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> He certainly won over the MP for Yardley...


how so? I missed that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2017)

interesting that bit about the NL project in its entirety being invalidated, everything kininock onwards, if corbyn was to get in. I'd considered various personal motivations but that 'the last 40 years of your political life and ideology are unraveling'. No wonder they aren't going away easily.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## Raheem (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> His wife is called Helena De Chair, of course.



She's a typical Tory wife. Just gets treated as part of the furniture.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Speaking of Jacob Rees- Mogg
> 
> View attachment 110832
> 
> ]


From wiki, every bit of it comedy gold. So far beyond satire that it goes round the block and taps you on the shoulder:

*Personal life[edit]*
In January 2007 Rees-Mogg married Helena de Chair, a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry. She is the daughter of Somerset de Chair and his fourth wife Lady Juliet Tadgell, the only child of the eighth Earl Fitzwilliam. The couple have five sons and a daughter.[55][2] Rees-Mogg's nephew is the athlete Lawrence Clarke.[56] They currently live at Gournay Court in West Harptree.[3]

Rees-Mogg, a Catholic, and de Chair, an Anglican, were married in an ecumenical marriage ceremony in Canterbury Cathedral. Part of the service included a Latin Tridentine Mass conducted by Dom Aidan Bellenger, the Abbot of Downside Abbey.[57] Rees-Mogg likes to attend the Tridentine Mass when available: "We're very lucky if we get it in Somerset once a month. The more you go the more you will find that it is a good thing to go to. You get some time to think and it's not all noisy – and there's no risk of guitars. I think Mass can be too noisy and guitars should be banned."[58


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

He's right about guitars at mass tbf. I'm with him on that.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's right about guitars at mass tbf. I'm with him on that.



Out of shot, he's about to land on a Fender acoustic.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 5, 2017)

It's strange the think that, in a few decades time, there will be an MP called Sexy Rees-Mogg.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> His wife is called Helena De Chair, of course.


Her name is Helena The Chair?? that's gotta be a wind up surely! if she was a typical Tory wife wouldn't it be Helena The Chaise Longe? 
He looks a bit like one of the entrants from the Monty Python Upperclass Twit of Year Contest to me but I am sure they will have no problems pushing him as a Man of The People


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Her name is Helena The Chair?? that's gotta be a wind up surely! if she was a typical Tory wife wouldn't it be Helena The Chaise Longe?
> He looks a bit like one of the entrants from the Monty Python Upperclass Twit of Year Contest to me but I am sure they will have no problems pushing him as a Man of The People



I think you'll find that's Helen of Chair. Which of course isn't funny at all.

Cheers - Louis Macthreepiecesuite


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

He isn't, and has no pretensions of being a 'man of the people'. That he has no interest in claiming to be so is part of his appeal - he is authentically what he is.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's right about guitars at mass tbf. I'm with him on that.



Why?


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why?


If you'd spent any time at all in catholic masses with an earnest guitar player leading the congregation in song, you wouldn't need to ask this question. Trust me, he's totally correct.  

The musical accompaniment to mass should be a choir, with an organ (if there's to be any accompaniment at all).


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you'll find that's Helen of Chair. Which of course isn't funny at all.
> 
> Nope you're wrong there definitely still funny


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

I've been to a few Catholic masses and a decent number of Anglican services and I like the hymns with guitars! Maybe you've just been to masses with awful guitar players.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> If you'd spent any time at all in catholic masses with an earnest guitar player leading the congregation in song, you wouldn't need to ask this question. Trust me, he's totally correct.
> 
> The musical accompaniment to mass should be a choir, with an organ (if there's to be any accompaniment at all).


However attachment to the trendentine usually means a really reactionary attitude to all social changes over the last 100+ years. So i think that prick deserves a guitar. And some maracas.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2017)

Latin don't work with guitar tbh


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I've been to a few Catholic masses and a decent number of Anglican services and I like the hymns with guitars! Maybe you've just been to masses with awful guitar players.


I once went to a songs of praise with Graham Kendrick himself performing. It was totally revolting.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

(((killer b)))


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)

I can sympathise tbh, I went to a service with guitars and a drum set at synagogue once and that's something expressly forbidden on a sabbath   they fucking butchered some old classics


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> However attachment to the trendentine usually means a really reactionary attitude to all social changes over the last 100+ years. So i think that prick deserves a guitar. And some maracas.


Usually? More like invariably.

And surely there must be some death metal groups that have tried latin as a gimmick?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> However attachment to the trendentine usually means a really reactionary attitude to all social changes over the last 100+ years. So i think that prick deserves a guitar. And some maracas.



Maybe needs to be hit around the head with one


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> He isn't, and has no pretensions of being a 'man of the people'. That he has no interest in claiming to be so is part of his appeal - he is authentically what he is.


Personally I'm not the best person to offer up suggestions for Conservative Leader, If the Second Coming of Jesus was to descend from the sky to lead them, they still wouldn't get my vote. Very few of the people I associate with voted Tory, some of the older folks at work did but to be honest most of them voted against dodgy lefties (a category in which many of them include me) or because they don't like people not speaking English in the streets.
The only person I have met who admits voting Tory that doesn't base it on prejudice is my older sister's FIL, i will ask him when I next see him who he thinks should lead the Tories into (hopefully) inglorious defeat.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I've been to a few Catholic masses and a decent number of Anglican services and I like the hymns with guitars! Maybe you've just been to masses with awful guitar players.



Lol. 

I once walked out of a synagogue service on Yom Kippur as it was almost all in English. 

Then again I've been to happy clappy church services with screens on the side with the lyrics like for karaoke. That was quite entertaining actually


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2017)

rees-mogg would have hanged Tyndale


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

I went to an anglican service a couple of years ago that was all singing. No prayers at all, it was just a jesusy rock concert with a sermon in the middle. Didn't work for me, but everyone else seemed to love it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> I went to an anglican service a couple of years ago that was all singing. No prayers at all, it was just a jesusy rock concert with a sermon in the middle. Didn't work for me, but everyone else seemed to love it.



Yeah that wouldn't work for me I am afraid though I do like singing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 5, 2017)

One of the cultural consequences of the rise of the new African immigrant community in Ireland has been the crossover of Gospel music from the churches of that community to the non-immigrant population.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> rees-mogg would have hanged Tyndale


To be honest, the new-fangled King James version can fuck right off.  It's vulgate or nothing for me.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2017)

Jacob-Rees Mogg wouldn't be first against the wall though. I'd make him listen to Kum By Yah on loop for 18 months and _then_ put him up against the wall, with the Singling Nun strumming away throughout.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)

I'd make him listen to Matt Redman on a continuous loop  DotCommunist


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2017)

What happened when Jacob Rees-Mogg's normal priest went away on an exchange programme:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2017)

things have moved on since kendrick. I know what KB says about the jesus concert bookending a (short) sermon but thats my experience of modern churches I've been to. They have midweek prayer and study groups for the in depth stuff. Its the future, garlic bread etc


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

The future can eat a bowl of dicks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2017)

Why Jeremy Corbyn is more like Jesus than Theresa May - Premier Christianity


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2017)

found this when looking for a pic of corbyn as jesus


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> things have moved on since kendrick. I know what KB says about the jesus concert bookending a (short) sermon but thats my experience of modern churches I've been to. They have midweek prayer and study groups for the in depth stuff. Its the future, garlic bread etc



Lol imo the more traditional the better imo. Some of the best services I have been to are when someone babbling in hebrew, lots of kids running round, where the rest of the congregation is using three different prayer books and don't even know what page they are on


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Alpha courses , is this all there is ? , touchy feely sessions with wine and ravioli and clean , clean empathy , all ending with a weekend away where they all go mad, and then losing your friends and thinking Greenbelt is a good idea. Frank Skinner crossover and a vicar _who cares with real tears in her eyes. _Jesus wept.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn is more like Jesus than Theresa May - Premier Christianity


This is not the stupidest thing I have ever read but it deserves a gold star for effort


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> This is not the stupidest thing I have ever read but it deserves a gold star for effort



I'd say he is better than Jesus because he's not claiming to be the Son of God. Though if he were and he could change water into wine then Glastonbury would surely have been his Annunciation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

phillm said:


> I'd say he is better than Jesus because he's not claiming to be the Son of God. Though if he were and he could change water into wine then Glastonbury would surely have been his Annunciation.


The annunciation was when Mary was told god was going to get her in the family way


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Why Jeremy Corbyn is more like Jesus than Theresa May - Premier Christianity


How come that's not a guardian piece?


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The annunciation was when Mary was told god was going to get her in the family way



If we can squeeze Diane Abbott into the half-nut-roast baked anaology we'll be cooking on gas.


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The annunciation was when Mary was told god was going to get her in the family way



Or Ben Panthera according to others 

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How come that's not a guardian piece?



a zero hours intern is working on it as we speak....


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 5, 2017)

It looks to me that this thread's time is up.


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It looks to me that this thread's time is up.



why have the Nazis been invoked ?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 5, 2017)

Wilf said:


> From wiki, every bit of it comedy gold. So far beyond satire that it goes round the block and taps you on the shoulder:
> 
> *Personal life[edit]*
> In January 2007 Rees-Mogg married Helena de Chair, a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry. She is the daughter of Somerset de Chair and his fourth wife Lady Juliet Tadgell, the only child of the eighth Earl Fitzwilliam. The couple have five sons and a daughter.[55][2] Rees-Mogg's nephew is the athlete Lawrence Clarke.[56] They currently live at Gournay Court in West Harptree.[3]




ha ha. reading that I realised that Rees Mogg's father in law once told me to "get orf his estate". He used to own St.Osyth Priory in essex where i grew up. Me and my band mates were wandering around it as a potential photo shoot when Somerset De Cher and his entourage come round the corner and he says "who on earth are _these_ people?" (it was the 80s and were all post punk dyed hair and guy liner) - and we were ushered out of the grounds amidst much red faced outrage.


----------



## phillm (Jul 5, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> ha ha. reading that I realised that Rees Mogg's father in law once told me to "get orf his estate". He used to own St.Osyth Priory in essex where i grew up. Me and my band mates were wandering around it as a potential photo shoot when Somerset De Cher and his entourage come round the corner and he says "who on earth are _these_ people?" (it was the 80s and were all post punk dyed hair and guy liner) - and we were ushered out of the grounds amidst much red faced outrage.



I'd like to de Stool on de Chairs ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 5, 2017)

I've never heard a guitar being played in church


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> I've never heard a guitar being played in church


Are you a tridentine purist too? I had no idea...


----------



## andysays (Jul 5, 2017)

Raheem said:


> She's a typical Tory wife. Just gets treated as part of the furniture.



I'm disappointed that the opportunity for punnage hasn't been further taken up here, so I'd like to table a proposal that appropriate examples be submitted forthwith...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 5, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Latin don't work with guitar tbh


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


>




Great stuff but Latin American ain't Latin, not guitar Latin anyway.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 5, 2017)

It was a meagre attempt at being humorous, pedant.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> It was a meagre attempt at being humorous, pedant.



Apologies, had a bit of flashback to catholic guitar stuff, Kumbaya and tambourines and that.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 5, 2017)

Now we all got religious.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Any future Labour government is going to have to accept that neo liberal globalisation is happening and no UK goverment can stop it, the UK is about 3.5% of the world's economy, we're an important player still, the challenge for any Labour government is having policies that make sure that the benefits of it (and there are many) are shared by everyone and the pain (also plenty to go round) is shared out evenly.
> The current government isn't as malicious as some people paint it but it doesn't care about fairness it just believes that the market will sort it out and sod the consequences for those who don't get a voice.



This is what Chuka would say. It was what the New Labour project was about. It's failed people. I was surprised at Corbyns success. It shows that a lot of people want something different. Im not against globalisation. It's the form it has taken. 

I listened to Corbyns speech at Glastonbury. He made it clear he is an internationist. 

I listened to radio programme where they asked people in the City what they thought of Corbyn led Labour party. They didn't want him in power. 

If a Corbyn led Labour party got into power they would have a hard time. 

Going back to what I posted a while back. The establishment want people to come to there senses and vote for "centre" politics that accepts no liberalism as the only game in town. Not "populists" like Corbyn.

It's no good just saying that neo liberal globalisation is just how things are. The crisis in neo liberal Capitalism is a fact. The mantra of neo liberalism is that state interference and handouts from welfare state are bad.When it came to crisis it was states that saved neo liberalism. Through state intervention and handouts for the financial sector. 

With the pain being bourne by the little people.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I think we all have different definitions of what it is but I will offer mine which you may accept or reject as you see fit.
> neoliberalism I would say is the assumption that only capital matters, that social consequences don't  and that everything else that follows from that is acceptable.
> globalisation is the move away from events and trends  affecting peoples lives  on a local scale to events and trends on a global and international scale wit the corresponding lack of control over them.



I don't agree with how you define globalisation. I have lived in London for many years. People who come here remark on how multicultural it is. My partner is from another EU country. I don't feel that aspect of globalisation means I lose control. It's what I live on a day to day basis in London. I've worked with and know people from many parts of the world in London.

What irritates me is being against neo liberal globalisation somehow means one is against a globalised world.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 5, 2017)

Neoliberals very upset about this



> At a meeting of the Wavertree Labour branch last night, nine out of 10 positions on the group’s executive committee went to members of Momentum - the campaign group loyal to the Labour leader.
> 
> And a member of the new branch leadership immediately demanded an apology from Wavertree MP Luciana Berger , who resigned from Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet last year in the wake of the EU referendum result.
> 
> ...



....and yet... (from 2004)

'Show trials' to axe MPs disloyal to Blair



> Labour's high command is planning "show trials" for its most disloyal MPs which could lead to their deselection before the next election unless they pledge loyalty to Tony Blair.


----------



## Beermoth (Jul 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Neoliberals very upset about this



Yeah, people are really losing their minds over this.

If the Corbyn thing has done nothing else it has shown how much these 'pragmatic moderate' types really loathe democracy and just want  shiny toothed right-wingers to rules over us until the end times.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> Yeah, people are really losing their minds over this.
> 
> If the Corbyn thing has done nothing else it has shown how much these 'pragmatic moderate' types really loathe democracy and just want  shiny toothed right-wingers to rules over us until the end times.



Don't think it's good to get into a habit of making everything about what people say on twitter, but look at the state of this






She is seriously comparing the CLP election and internal Labour politics to domestic abuse.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2017)

I'm for affirmative action and equality but Jess Phillips basically fulfills every negative stereotype dredged up by MRA activists about it.

Horrible, self centred and inept woman.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'm for affirmative action and equality but Jess Phillips basically fulfills every negative stereotype dredged up by MRA activists about it.
> 
> Horrible, self centred and inept woman.



I don't see what MRAs or 'affirmative action' have to do with anything, Phillips is just a right-winger who cloaks her politics in vague appeals to social liberalism against an imagined socially illiberal left.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 6, 2017)

What? Jess Phillips is a gobshite and her comment there is well out of order. That has nothing to do with affirmative action or equality though.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't see what MRAs or 'affirmative action' have to do with anything, Phillips is just a right-winger who cloaks her politics in vague appeals to social liberalism against an imagined socially illiberal left.




No what I'm trying to say is she's shit, but hides her shitness by accusing her critics of sexism and making every single thing she comments on about sexism. 

Jess  "is it cos I is a woman"  Phillips.

No Jess, its because your an absolute shit.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> He isn't, and has no pretensions of being a 'man of the people'. That he has no interest in claiming to be so is part of his appeal - he is authentically what he is.


Yes, he very much keeps it real. But he keeps it in an ormolu box with tassels on, perched on top of his copy of _The Lives of the Saints_.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2017)

Absolutely - I just think that might be less offputting to the public at large - if they came to actually focus on him - than those guffawing up their sleeves at him imagine.


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - I just think that might be less offputting to the public at large - if they came to actually focus on him - than those guffawing up their sleeves at him imagine.


People in Keynsham/Norton/Whitchurch village keep voting for him (OK, so do the villages surrounding them). Those areas aren't especially posh really, he's clearly not a massive turn off for a lot of people there


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - I just think that might be less offputting to the public at large - if they came to actually focus on him - than those guffawing up their sleeves at him imagine.


As someone who probably sees a bit more of him than you would do up there i think you're both overestimating him and underestimating how people not in his seat react to him - they have his number. And remember, that seat was basically gifted to him in 2010 by the boundary commission when they added 10 000 tories to the labour seat of wansdyke. He has no wider skills beyond a) playing super toff and b) allowing labour to come back and become a credible challenger in what should be a super safe tory seat


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2017)

But what would be the tune for the  "Oh jacob rees mogg" chant?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

JTG said:


> People in Keynsham/Norton/Whitchurch village keep voting for him (OK, so do the villages surrounding them). Those areas aren't especially posh really, he's clearly not a massive turn off for a lot of people there


If he stood in Kingswood - or somewhere more urban - i cannot see him winning. You go through that seat on the bus and they have fucking pubs and estates named after tory families. Worst part of Somerset for sure.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> As someone who probably sees a bit more of him than you would do up there i think you're both overestimating him and underestimating how people not in his seat react to him - they have his number. And remember, that seat was basically gifted to him in 2010 by the boundary commission when they added 10 000 tories to the labour seat of wansdyke. He has no wider skills beyond a) playing super toff and b) allowing labour to come back and become a credible challenger in what should be a super safe tory seat


I'm sure you're right - I'm just a bit nervous about writing people off because of how ludicrous they seem to me/my friends. It seemed insane to me that Boris Johnson might achieve any level of political success, but I've been proved totally wrong on that, for example.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> But what would be the tune for the  "Oh jacob rees mogg" chant?



Pachelbel's Canon.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 6, 2017)

"Jaaaaa -coooooob Reeeeeeees Mooooooog"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

Not sure he'd be so keen on lutheran swine.


----------



## JTG (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If he stood in Kingswood - or somewhere more urban - i cannot see him winning. You go through that seat on the bus and they have fucking pubs and estates named after tory families. Worst part of Somerset for sure.


Emersons Green would still weigh in hard on the blue side come what may


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Don't think it's good to get into a habit of making everything about what people say on twitter, but look at the state of this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure he'd be so keen on lutheran swine.


Yes, his wife's an Anglican, but undoubtedly High Church/no tambourines.  I bet they have cracking family bants about transubstantiation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh.
> <snip>


Do you know when she did this quiz?


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do you know when she did this quiz?


it was on 5 live apparently, sometime in 2015.

'I would sack Diane Abbott' says fiery Yardley MP Jess Phillips


----------



## J Ed (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh.



Presumably if it's Phillips doing the deselecting it's not like domestic violence because... well who knows. She _really _hates Abbot, doesn't she? Always desperate to talk about how much she hates her.


----------



## elbows (Jul 6, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Her name is Helena The Chair?? that's gotta be a wind up surely! if she was a typical Tory wife wouldn't it be Helena The Chaise Longe?
> He looks a bit like one of the entrants from the Monty Python Upperclass Twit of Year Contest to me but I am sure they will have no problems pushing him as a Man of The People



In terms of tv sketches this is what immediately came to my mind.


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> If he stood in Kingswood - or somewhere more urban - i cannot see him winning. You go through that seat on the bus and they have fucking pubs and estates named after tory families. Worst part of Somerset for sure.


I lived in Radstock once, just down from the Miners Welfare.  The biggest pub was the Waldegrave, named after the family that owned the pits. Those coal towns & villages were different from the rest of rural Somerset for sure but I'm not sure I'd blame the locals for the pub names. Dunno what it's like now, I get the impression it's changed over the years.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> it was on 5 live apparently, sometime in 2015.
> 
> 'I would sack Diane Abbott' says fiery Yardley MP Jess Phillips


Ta


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

newbie said:


> I lived in Radstock once, just down from the Miners Welfare.  The biggest pub was the Waldegrave, named after the family that owned the pits. Those coal towns & villages were different from the rest of rural Somerset for sure but I'm not sure I'd blame the locals for the pub names. Dunno what it's like now, I get the impression it's changed over the years.


Do you mean the waldergrave arms the big pub not in radstock? The one sort of near it but not at all in it? Radsock and places were why labour used to win wansdyke.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 6, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> But what would be the tune for the  "Oh jacob rees mogg" chant?



dunno but think you would be expected to chant in latin


----------



## newbie (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean the waldergrave arms the big pub not in radstock? The one sort of near it but not at all in it? Radsock and places were why labour used to win wansdyke.


I mean this one, which seems to have changed its name.  It was Labour when I lived there.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 6, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno but think you would be expected to chant in latin


Jacob Rees-Mogg sounds like a name that belongs on The Day Today or Brass Eye.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 6, 2017)

Jacob Rees-Mogg reminds me a little of Chris Eubank


----------



## JimW (Jul 6, 2017)

Watching him on Question Time just I get killer b's point, arsehole that he is he does come across as more straight-talking and genuine than most (even when he's being really disingenuous like talking about not taking an MPs' allowance while not mentioning the expenses he took)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Jacob Rees-Mogg reminds me a little of Chris Eubank


That's what the latter wants you to think. 6 points for a death.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2017)

JimW said:


> Watching him on Question Time just I get killer b's point, arsehole that he is he does come across as more straight-talking and genuine than most (even when he's being really disingenuous like talking about not taking an MPs' allowance while not mentioning the expenses he took)


Were not in a situation where the pretence of straight talking is enough. And if he is straight talking for real real, he mans nothing to 87% of the country,


----------



## JimW (Jul 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Were not in a situation where the pretence of straight talking is enough. And if he is straight talking for real real, he mans nothing to 87% of the country,


Hope you're right. He does seem at best suited to a debating club style that is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's what the latter wants you to think. 6 points for a death.


If Chris Eubank wanted me to think he embraced a hammed-up English posh gentleman as his persona, he succeeded... I don't see the problem there, is there one?


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno but think you would be expected to chant in latin



While wearing a metal cilice on your *right* leg....


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

Interesting Buzzfeed article on Labour's targeted advertising campaign over the recent election - using the exact same techniques everyone was getting so breathless about re: Cambridge Analytica / Trump. 

Here's How Labour Ran An Under-The-Radar Dark Ads Campaign During The General Election


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Interesting Buzzfeed article on Labour's targeted advertising campaign over the recent election - using the exact same techniques everyone was getting so breathless about re: Cambridge Analytica / Trump.
> 
> Here's How Labour Ran An Under-The-Radar Dark Ads Campaign During The General Election



meanwhile May's Instagramm account is spammed to fuck with hate - they really haven't a clue and none of the old levers of power work anymore.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2017)

Why do they not monitor these sites ? how incompetent are they if they cannot administer a fucking instagram account |?


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Why do they not monitor these sites ? how incompetent are they if they cannot administer a fucking instagram account |?



I'm surprised no one else has picked up on this yet. A sure sign of their epic incompetence when it comes to social - meanwhile the kids are down and dirty with Jeremy plotting world domination of Facesuck. Even Rees-Mogg would make a better stab than May's team at managing it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

I'm sure there's a lot of post-hoc shaping of the narrative here - the Tories did spend a lot on targeted adverts, and not doubt had a very sophisticated operation - had they done better it would be framed as a masterwork of the dark arts. 

My own converations with labour party campaigners in a marginal seat suggests the campaign certainly wasn't as sophisticated as the article suggests.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2017)

I think to a degree what has happened here is that no matter the deep pockets of the likes of Mercer, if an idea, movement, or the circumstances are right for social change then you can throw lots of money at facebook datasets and targeted ads and they are still not going to have wholly the desired effect because people want change, not more of the same and are subsequently unmoved by them. That's not to say they won't get it right next time round.


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I think to a degree what has happened here is that no matter the deep pockets of the likes of Mercer, if an idea, movement, or the circumstances are right for social change then you can throw lots of money at facebook datasets and targeted ads and they are still not going to have wholly the desired effect because people want change, not more of the same and are subsequently unmoved by them. That's not to say they won't get it right next time round.



_*
'Cause something is happening and you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?*_


----------



## newbie (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> My own converations with labour party campaigners in a marginal seat suggests the campaign certainly wasn't as sophisticated as the article suggests.


would locals necessarily have known about a centrally run, and rather hidden, advertising campaign?


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

newbie said:


> would locals necessarily have known about a centrally run, and rather hidden, advertising campaign?


The advertising campaign relied on the groundwork being carried out effectively.

I asked the guy running the local campaign whether there was any new whizz-bang canvassing tools they were using, and - there at least - they'd stopped using the Promote app mentioned in the article because it didn't work very well and not everyone had a compatible smartphone, and were back to using paper canvasing lists.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 7, 2017)

phillm said:


> I'm surprised no one else has picked up on this yet. A sure sign of their epic incompetence when it comes to social - meanwhile the kids are down and dirty with Jeremy plotting world domination of Facesuck. Even Rees-Mogg would make a better stab than May's team at managing it.


I would suggest that the average age of labour activists is lower than that of Tory ones (especially those making decisions about where to spend the advertising) and would be more likely to think of using Twitter or Facebook,  People with necessary technical skills in programming or data analysis can be hired but you kind of need to know you need to hire them.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

fwiw, I remember raising an eyebrow at similar stuff in that article about Cambridge Analytica Re: the seamless interface between canvassers and database. The idea that a volunteer base mostly consisting of hoary old campaigners could easily get to grips with such a system is a bit fanciful. I'm sure it will have worked okish in places, but for many places I suspect it will have been mostly abandoned in favour of tried and tested methods.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> fwiw, I remember raising an eyebrow at similar stuff in that article about Cambridge Analytica Re: the seamless interface between canvassers and database. The idea that a volunteer base mostly consisting of hoary old campaigners could easily get to grips with such a system is a bit fanciful. I'm sure it will have worked okish in places, but for many places I suspect it will have been mostly abandoned in favour of tried and tested methods.


A lot of this argument is mostly academic anyways, I suspect that the reason the bulk of my generation voted for Labour for the same reason I did, not because I was impressed by their mastery of whiz bang technology but because for the first time since I've had a vote I've been offered something other than a diluted version of the same kool aid that the alternative were offering.
This is the first election my older sister has ever voted and she's 29 for chrissake, first time she's thought it might make an actual difference.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make I guess - I'm sure the targeted ads have some value, but they weren't responsible for the huge gains we saw Labour make in the election, any more than they were responsible for Trump.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> This is the first election my older sister has ever voted and she's 29 for chrissake, first time she's thought it might make an actual difference.


(((BbL's sister)))


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

_your generation_ btw? Do we have someone under-30 posting on urban again?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> _your generation_ btw? Do we have someone under-30 posting on urban again?


Surely it can't be that rare?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm sure there's a lot of post-hoc shaping of the narrative here - the Tories did spend a lot on targeted adverts, and not doubt had a very sophisticated operation - had they done better it would be framed as a masterwork of the dark arts.
> 
> My own converations with labour party campaigners in a marginal seat suggests the campaign certainly wasn't as sophisticated as the article suggests.



In my consituency, the issue with the Tory adverts was not their reach - everyperson I know with social media in my area had them repeatedly popping every fecking day - it was that the adverts themselves were god-awful. Matters not how much you throw the adverts up, if they;re shite, and everyone is commentating to say they are shite (and possibly most importantly of all, no-one is sharing them), then you just look desperatly out of touch


----------



## phillm (Jul 7, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Surely it can't be that rare?


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Surely it can't be that rare?


I'd say so. Most of us have been here at least a decade...


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> In my consituency, the issue with the Tory adverts was not their reach - everyperson I know with social media in my area had them repeatedly popping every fecking day - it was that the adverts themselves were god-awful. Matters not how much you throw the adverts up, if they;re shite, and everyone is commentating to say they are shite (and possibly most importantly of all, no-one is sharing them), then you just look desperatly out of touch


The Tories got 42.3% of the vote - their campaigns worked very well. Best not to forget that.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'd say so. Most of us have been here at least a decade...


Wow I'm not used to being thought of has "New Blood", I'm 27, piggy in the middle between 2 sisters, the younger one voted for the first time as well this election too but she was away at Uni during 2015 
Remember Camerons speech about how unjust it is that people in their 20's and 30's are still living in their childhood bedrooms? well fuck you Dave I'm one of them and you never did anything about it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Wow I'm not used to being thought of has "New Blood", I'm 27, piggy in the middle between 2 sisters, the younger one voted for the first time as well this election too but she was away at Uni during 2015
> Remember Camerons speech about how unjust it is that people in their 20's and 30's are still living in their childhood bedrooms? well fuck you Dave I'm one of them and you never did anything about it!


how unjust it is that cameron's still living


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> fwiw, I remember raising an eyebrow at similar stuff in that article about Cambridge Analytica Re: the seamless interface between canvassers and database. The idea that a volunteer base mostly consisting of hoary old campaigners could easily get to grips with such a system is a bit fanciful. I'm sure it will have worked okish in places, but for many places I suspect it will have been mostly abandoned in favour of tried and tested methods.



AGreed - one of my friends joined labour and was helping his local CLP with canvassing in the election. It was all done on paper, he was talking about how simple it would be to make an app which would feed information back about who'd been canvassed, voting intention etc, with the thought that would help the CLP to cover all the area canvassing and on election day get out to door knock the maybes and give lifts to people who need them.
I reckon there's no way any of their canvassing information was getting fed back into a computerised database, my mate said it was all pen and paper and loads of data must have been getting lost or not entered.
This is a small constituency in a tory stronghold though so not going to be targetted at all - he did say they used some kind of app in marginal seats but it was expensive so not used widely, but that article seems to be about a labour owned prioprietary program which wouldn't be that (unless the expense wasn't licencing the software but paying for the adverts maybe).


----------



## newbie (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> The advertising campaign relied on the groundwork being carried out effectively.
> 
> I asked the guy running the local campaign whether there was any new whizz-bang canvassing tools they were using, and - there at least - they'd stopped using the Promote app mentioned in the article because it didn't work very well and not everyone had a compatible smartphone, and were back to using paper canvasing lists.


Oh right. The impression from the article was that Promote was used centrally by a 'digital team' and kept 'under the radar' rather than openly by local campaigners.  False facts it seems.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2017)

Lol

Corbyn supporters win control of Labour branch and demand Luciana Berger apology


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

gosh, is it wednesday again?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2017)

The two seats i spent time in in the election buildup were pretty much done by older members using trad get out there and talk to people and record what they say then follow it up methods. Both have increased labour votes.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

newbie said:


> Oh right. The impression from the article was that Promote was used centrally by a 'digital team' and kept 'under the radar' rather than openly by local campaigners.  False facts it seems.


I understand Promote is the name they've given to the digital campaigning system they have, which includes an app for doorstepping as well as all the back office stuff - I've no idea how much knowledge the doorsteppers would have about the back office. Probably not a lot.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> gosh, is it wednesday again?


Haha no as you know perfectly well. It just popped up on my Twitterfeed otherwise i wouldn't necessarily have seen it at all, even if it'd been posted on here. Anyway it made me smile because it sounds as if Ms. Berger has had to eat a bit of humble pie.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> fwiw, I remember raising an eyebrow at similar stuff in that article about Cambridge Analytica Re: the seamless interface between canvassers and database. The idea that a volunteer base mostly consisting of hoary old campaigners could easily get to grips with such a system is a bit fanciful. I'm sure it will have worked okish in places, but for many places I suspect it will have been mostly abandoned in favour of tried and tested methods.





BigTom said:


> AGreed - one of my friends joined labour and was helping his local CLP with canvassing in the election. It was all done on paper, he was talking about how simple it would be to make an app which would feed information back about who'd been canvassed, voting intention etc, with the thought that would help the CLP to cover all the area canvassing and on election day get out to door knock the maybes and give lifts to people who need them.
> I reckon there's no way any of their canvassing information was getting fed back into a computerised database, my mate said it was all pen and paper and loads of data must have been getting lost or not entered.
> This is a small constituency in a tory stronghold though so not going to be targetted at all - he did say they used some kind of app in marginal seats but it was expensive so not used widely, but that article seems to be about a labour owned prioprietary program which wouldn't be that (unless the expense wasn't licencing the software but paying for the adverts maybe).



Not using Campaign Creator then?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Not using Campaign Creator then?



They weren't using anything in the CLP he was helping at - it sounded exactly like what I saw my dad doing when I was growing up in the 80s/90s.


----------



## JTG (Jul 7, 2017)

I suspect that whether it was being done on paper, digitally or a mixture of the two, the strength of the campaign was still that they had plenty of people leafleting and door knocking. Making that contact and - perhaps - feeding data back one way or the other.

It's nice to think about whizzy digital apps and whatnot but you still need the numbers to put things into place on the ground


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

IMO there was something further going on - the Labour ground teams everywhere were pretty gloomy by 9.55 on election night. In Lancaster (where I was) they thought they were on the edge of losing - in the end they added 5000 to Cat Smith's majority. They got out the vote, but the big increase came from voters who'd had no meaningful contact with canvassers.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> IMO there was something further going on - the Labour ground teams everywhere were pretty gloomy by 9.55 on election night. In Lancaster (where I was) they thought they were on the edge of losing - in the end they added 5000 to Cat Smith's majority. They got out the vote, but the big increase came from voters who'd had no meaningful contact with canvassers.



What's perhaps interesting here is that the Tories obviously were not that optimistic about their chances in the 2015 election which was an election they used this social media advertising in pretty extensively.


----------



## JTG (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> IMO there was something further going on - the Labour ground teams everywhere were pretty gloomy by 9.55 on election night. In Lancaster (where I was) they thought they were on the edge of losing - in the end they added 5000 to Cat Smith's majority. They got out the vote, but the big increase came from voters who'd had no meaningful contact with canvassers.


...which must be pretty maddening for the strategists even if it benefited them (this time)


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2017)

JTG said:


> ...which must be pretty maddening for the strategists even if it benefited them (this time)


They have the same problem as the polling companies - a large (and growing) part of the population which is completely off the radar of traditional polling/electioneering methods.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> They have the same problem as the polling companies - a large (and growing) part of the population which is completely off the radar of traditional polling/electioneering methods.



In many ways I find this a morale boosting aspect of politics today. The technocrats have not managed to turn electoral politics into a science.


----------



## chilango (Jul 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> IMO there was something further going on - the Labour ground teams everywhere were pretty gloomy by 9.55 on election night. In Lancaster (where I was) they thought they were on the edge of losing - in the end they added 5000 to Cat Smith's majority. They got out the vote, but the big increase came from voters who'd had no meaningful contact with canvassers.



That's what I witnessed.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The two seats i spent time in in the election buildup were pretty much done by older members using trad get out there and talk to people and record what they say then follow it up methods. Both have increased labour votes.



My impression is that the methods used to identify and turn out support was pretty traditional; i.e. paper based responses to door knocking and more door knocking on the day. However I was really surprised about the number of young people (that's under 30 for me) who did both canvassing and getting the vote out on Election Day. This may be a bit untypical due to the large proportion of students in Brighton.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> IMO there was something further going on - the Labour ground teams everywhere were pretty gloomy by 9.55 on election night. In Lancaster (where I was) they thought they were on the edge of losing - in the end they added 5000 to Cat Smith's majority. They got out the vote, but the big increase came from voters who'd had no meaningful contact with canvassers.



In Brighton Kemptown they were saying that if they could get a 65%+ turnout they thought they'd take it, but there was a lot of nervousness. In the end turnout was 72.5% and Labour won with a near 10,000 majority.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fingers (Jul 8, 2017)

> My own converations with labour party campaigners in a marginal seat suggests the campaign certainly wasn't as sophisticated as the article suggests.





BigTom said:


> AGreed - one of my friends joined labour and was helping his local CLP with canvassing in the election. It was all done on paper, he was talking about how simple it would be to make an app which would feed information back about who'd been canvassed, voting intention etc, with the thought that would help the CLP to cover all the area canvassing and on election day get out to door knock the maybes and give lifts to people who need them.
> I reckon there's no way any of their canvassing information was getting fed back into a computerised database, my mate said it was all pen and paper and loads of data must have been getting lost or not entered.
> This is a small constituency in a tory stronghold though so not going to be targetted at all - he did say they used some kind of app in marginal seats but it was expensive so not used widely, but that article seems to be about a labour owned prioprietary program which wouldn't be that (unless the expense wasn't licencing the software but paying for the adverts maybe).



I spent three weeks out door knocking in Croydon Central and it was very paper based. Basically me with a clip board directing my team on which doors to knock on.  During the early campaign we were knocking on everyone's door, later in the  campaign it was just known Labour voters and the last few days we were just making sure we got the Labour vote out.

There were hundreds of us out on election day door knocking, some streets got three or four knocks during the day. A load of us retired to Ruskin House for the exit polls, the mood was really grim and tense until 10pm and it went a bit mental as we have far exceeded our expectations and got our candidate elected.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 8, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Wimbledon warns supporters against political chants and slogans amid fears of outbreak of Corbynism


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 9, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> My impression is that the methods used to identify and turn out support was pretty traditional; i.e. paper based responses to door knocking and more door knocking on the day. However I was really surprised about the number of young people (that's under 30 for me) who did both canvassing and getting the vote out on Election Day. This may be a bit untypical due to the large proportion of students in Brighton.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Traditionally there is campaign software that the information from door knocking is inputted to, which in turn helps you decide where to go next time. It's used by the people in the MPs office usually (in my experience), maybe the secretary has access too, idk (I can check). To the people doing the canvassing, all they generally see is the clipboards with the places to go and the bits to fill out. But that information comes from the central software gubbins, and the clipboards are handed back to the people who input it all again. That, along with general local knowledge from years of campaigns, decides where people focus their energies and what conclusions they draw.

The newer stuff driven by Momentum, with the app and all that, will likely be auxiliary to it in some key areas until it gets integrated more fully.


----------



## phillm (Jul 9, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Surely it can't be that rare?



You will literally find the word literally ,used literally for the correct meaning around here , like.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2017)

> His wife is called Helena De Chair, of course.



This poor mite faces the problem of all younger sons, not able to inherit the family lands. Will have to enter one of those awful 'professions' before finally getting one of those poor people's life peerages. Which would make him _Professor Lord Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher De Chair-Rees-Mogg_.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> This poor mite faces the problem of all younger sons, not able to inherit the family lands. Will have to enter one of those awful 'professions' before finally getting one of those poor people's life peerages. Which would make him _Professor Lord Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher De Chair-Rees-Mogg_.


Actually that's pretty proley compared to _Professor Alexander Theodore the Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton Callinicos_


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 10, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I can sympathise tbh, I went to a service with guitars and a drum set at synagogue once and that's something expressly forbidden on a sabbath   they fucking butchered some old classics



Last Christmas I had the misfortune of seeing a priest do a rap. At first I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, but then it  went on for like 10 minutes. A capella, too. Was pretty much the worst thing that's ever happened to me.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 10, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Last Christmas I had the misfortune of seeing a priest do a rap. At first I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, but then it  went on for like 10 minutes. A capella, too. Was pretty much the worst thing that's ever happened to me.



As first drafts of George Michael songs go, that's not bad.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 10, 2017)

.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 10, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The manifesto doesn't bind the Labour party to staying in the single market. Staying in the single market could limit a future Labour government in nationalising industries. Limit a Labour government room for manoeuvre. Rather than criticise Chuka personally ( Corbyn hasn't done this) Corbyn should explain this. Make it clear to people.
> 
> As this thread is about Corbyns time is up I see Chuka amendment as someone from the right of the party still accepting neo liberal globalisation as something that just has to be accepted. There is no other realistic alternative. His move has failed.



There is nothing in single market membership that stops members running state owned industries, in fact Britain is almost unique among EU states in the degree to which it has introduced privatisation.

This article about rail renationalisation from TSSA makes sense:

Are EU rules really a barrier to reuniting the railways under public control? - News

*European rules do not dictate that railways must be fully privatised. Nor is there a requirement for railway infrastructure to be in private ownership or a ban on train services being operated by a government-owned enterprise.*
_ 
The EU has been involved in railway policy since 1985 and since then several waves of EU law have indeed promoted and extended competition. But when John Major’s Conservative government decided to separate track and trains during privatisation 20 years ago, it went far beyond any EU rules.

As Rebuilding Rail shows, the UK – not the EU – has decided that the railways must be privately owned, that the running of passenger services and railway infrastructure must be completely divorced, and that trains must be leased from private companies.

What EU rules do require is that freight and international passenger services must be open to competition; railways must hold assets, budgets and accounts separate to those of the State; the manager of railway infrastructure must draw up separate accounts to the provider or providers of passenger services; and that certain ‘essential functions’ of infrastructure management must be independent of train operators.

In several other European countries, either all or a large proportion of passenger and freight services are under public ownership:_

·		 _In France, both the train operator SNCF and the infrastructure operator RFF are state-owned._
·		 _In Germany the state-owned operator Deutsche Bahn runs 90 per cent of passenger services._
·		 _In Italy, the state-owned railway company FS Holding owns both the national rail infrastructure manager RFI and train-operating company Trenitalia._
·		 _The Spanish railway is almost entirely in public ownership._
·		 _Even in Sweden, the first country in Europe to take steps towards privatisation, the state-owned rail operator SJ operates more than 80 per cent of all passenger services._

Yes, there’s the question of some operations being open to competition, but an argument that we have to leave the single market because it makes renationalisation difficult is a weak one.

I don’t know of any single market rules which rule out renationalisation of other industries, but perhaps you’re about to tell me that there are…?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> There is nothing in single market membership that stops members running state owned industries...
> _
> What EU rules do require is that freight and international passenger services must be open to competition; railways must hold assets, budgets and accounts separate to those of the State; the manager of railway infrastructure must draw up separate accounts to the provider or providers of passenger services; and that certain ‘essential functions’ of infrastructure management must be independent of train operators._



The real question is 'why the fuck is it any of their business what we do at all?'.


----------



## mather (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes, there’s the question of some operations being open to competition,



Which usually means privatisation through the back door, we have seen this trick being used in the NHS with disastrous results.

The sooner were out of the the single market, the better!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2017)

mather said:


> Which usually means privatisation through the back door, we have seen this trick being used in the NHS with disastrous results.
> 
> The sooner were out of the the single market, the better!


Take it you won't be bothering with this nonsense?



> “There’s never been a better time to open Bristol’s first openly left-wing and pro-EU bar,” says Harry Matuszewicz-Milne.


----------



## JTG (Jul 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Take it you won't be bothering with this nonsense?


Jesus I saw that just now. Horrific stuff


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> There is nothing in single market membership that stops members running state owned industries, in fact Britain is almost unique among EU states in the degree to which it has introduced privatisation.
> 
> This article about rail renationalisation from TSSA makes sense:
> 
> ...


 
its not about *laws* and *rules* its about interpretation of the ethos of open access across borders for commerce- and the general demonization of subsidies to industry as being unfair & contra to that ethos - it was brought up during the ref campaign that the railways could not be renationalised because of EU regulations - this is not the case - lies. It does however help if you are a liquid and robust country that can defend your chosen position - less so if you are one of the later EU entrants that have been ravaged by panic state owned sell offs by inexperienced/ corrupt weak and craven governments.


----------



## Geri (Jul 11, 2017)

Tell me about Marcus Papadopoulos and why Corbyn spent the evening with him.


----------



## rekil (Jul 11, 2017)

Geri said:


> Tell me about Marcus Papadopoulos and why Corbyn spent the evening with him.


Editor of Westminster bubble mag Politics First, RT/Sputnick/PressTV person and Assad propagandist. A sort of cross between Galloway and Mark Regev. They were celebrating the Srebrenica anniversary probably.*



Spoiler: Talking shit








*Based on him being a vicarious Serb nationalist loon.



Spoiler


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2017)




----------



## steveo87 (Jul 11, 2017)

He's a vegan and a karate expert. 

Corbyn wants to learn Karate.


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

copliker said:


> Editor of Westminster bubble mag Politics First, RT/Sputnick/PressTV person and Assad propagandist. A sort of cross between Galloway and Mark Regev. They were celebrating the Srebrenica anniversary probably.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They seem to have Mp's of all stripes in their 'mag'. No doubt Corbyn has many , many meetings with many many people and a few dodgy aquaintances will no doubt be used to smear him. DM and their ilk tried the 'terrorist friend' smear during the election but most folk aren't having it. 

Why there will be a referendum on Scotland’s independence

Cyber Britain in a post-Brexit world


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 11, 2017)

Whilst we're on the subject of politicians hanging out with dodgy types:


----------



## NoXion (Jul 11, 2017)

Yeah the whole "Corbyn's pals with terrierists!!!!!!11!!111!!" act is especially unconvincing coming from an establishment that rather soft-pedals its intimate relationship with such illustrious partners as the House of Saud.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Is Corbo hanging out with an Assad/Russia stooge not worth interrogating, regardless of the right wing attack lines?


----------



## rekil (Jul 11, 2017)

It was Papadopoulos who posted the pics of himself with Corbyn btw, not the DM, and he's posted more pics of them hanging out previously. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there's a shared interest in anti-imperialist guff.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is Corbo hanging out with an Assad/Russia stooge not worth interrogating, regardless of the right wing attack lines?



Indeed it is. Perhaps Geri could furnish us with more details about this meeting that she mentioned. Since I know no more than that it happened.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

I think what Geri posted is about all that's known. Papadopulous posted some pics of he and corbo having dinner on his twitter (you can scroll down his twitter feed to see loads of tweets supporting Assad & Russia).


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is Corbo hanging out with an Assad/Russia stooge not worth interrogating, regardless of the right wing attack lines?



There were a few articles rehashing a 2009 visit in October 2016 - this one omits to mention the date.

Jeremy Corbyn met Syrian leader Assad and slammed Israeli meddling in US politics | Europe Israel News

This one helpfully does.

Palestinian lobby group paid for Corbyn to meet Assad in Syria


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Dunno how relevant the Queen meeting Assad years ago is. Corbyn was hanging out with an Assad stooge _last night_, which is what Geri was curious about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2017)

its been known that he keeps questionable company. I recall getting annoyed that he'd attended some swappie thing. Post delta. Then there was mcdonnel at the mayday thing with the cpgb-ml, stalin head and assad flags. old habits die hard i spose.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Is Politics First anything more than a personal platform for this Papadopulous character btw? There's scant little info about it on the internet, and all roads seem to lead back to him...


----------



## Geri (Jul 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Indeed it is. Perhaps Geri could furnish us with more details about this meeting that she mentioned. Since I know no more than that it happened.


 
I know nothing about it or him, that's why I asked.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2017)

phillm said:


>



Corbyn looks like he's doing a spot of ventriloquism there. A bit like _bottle of beer_, must be quite hard to say _indefatigability_ without moving your lips.


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn looks like he's doing a spot of ventriloquism there. A bit like _bottle of beer_, must be quite hard to say _indefatigability_ without moving your lips.



He has a look that seems to suggest "I know I'm being played" - but he's not known to be a freebie-lover so he must have thought there was a point to his (Palestinian) sponsored visit.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jul 11, 2017)

Is there a kind of a point to this discussion?if so could someone explain it to me? As I understand 8 years ago, an unimportant backbencher was invited along on a trip by a group trying to push its side of the argument in one of the longest running and most intrangible disputes in human history at the time no-one gave a shit who Jeremy Corbyn was and the Syrian civil war wouldn't start for another 2 years so how relevant is this to anything today?


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

We aren't talking about that, so all good.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is Corbo hanging out with an Assad/Russia stooge not worth interrogating, regardless of the right wing attack lines?


Yep. In the sort of career Corbyn had before the leadership bid he spent his life hanging out with everyone from piss wet liberals to Stalinists and trots.  It sort of comes with the territory and because he was never going to be a minister he never had to make any real judgement calls about who he associated with.  But the fact that he's been hammered by the press, labour right and tories for all that doesn't make him immune from criticism.  Whilst Assad of 2009 wasn't the Assad of today, he was a deeply authoritarian leader even then. 

Corbyn's of that whole generation of Bennites who did the tour, appeared on platforms, signed this that and the other, met with various unpleasant leaders to express 'solidarity' in the face of western foreign policy.  Wasn't a politics I liked, but you could sort of accept it if it had been balanced out with some solid graft with grass roots organisations, putting the hours in away from the cameras.  I suspect that he has done a bit of that locally, but I doubt he was ever the one who turned up each week, did the catering, wrote the minutes - just as much as any MP.  It's not just the specifics of who he met, it's the style of politics he's embodied.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep. In the sort of career Corbyn had before the leadership bid he spent his life hanging out with everyone from piss wet liberals to Stalinists and trots.  It sort of comes with the territory and because he was never going to be a minister he never had to make any real judgement calls about who he associated with.  But the fact that he's been hammered by the press, labour right and tories for all that doesn't make him immune from criticism.  Whilst Assad of 2009 wasn't the Assad of today, he was a deeply authoritarian leader even then.
> 
> Corbyn's of that whole generation of Bennites who did the tour, appeared on platforms, signed this that and the other, met with various unpleasant leaders to express 'solidarity' in the face of western foreign policy.  Wasn't a politics I liked, but you could sort of accept it if it had been balanced out with some solid graft with grass roots organisations, putting the hours in away from the cameras.  I suspect that he has done a bit of that locally, but I doubt he was ever the one who turned up each week, did the catering, wrote the minutes - just as much as any MP.  It's not just the specifics of who he met, it's the style of politics he's embodied.


I'm not that interested in the historical stuff, and that isn't what's being queried here, not sure how it's got mixed in.

This is what's under discussion - have a look down his twitter for details of why it might be a bit problematic:


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Screenshot here:


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Is there a kind of a point to this discussion?if so could someone explain it to me? As I understand 8 years ago, an unimportant backbencher was invited along on a trip by a group trying to push its side of the argument in one of the longest running and most intrangible disputes in human history at the time no-one gave a shit who Jeremy Corbyn was and the Syrian civil war wouldn't start for another 2 years so how relevant is this to anything today?


As I've just said, meeting leaders and doing this kind of photo shoot came with the territory of being an MP. Might have been more valuable if he'd just gone out and stayed/engaged with the Palestinians for a month (maybe he did).  But, here's my tenuous connection: if he - and Corbynism/Momentum more generally - had done more to get some _direct engagement_ with working class communities, he'd be PM now.  Don't get me wrong, it was an astonishing result in the gen election, but he still hasn't finished the job.  Ultimately, he's a politician with some rather conventional politicians instincts and assumptions, even if he can deliver empathy and a degree of personal connection (as with the Grenfell victims).


----------



## Raheem (Jul 11, 2017)

Curious, I Googled "Corbyn Papadopoulos" and it seems JC has a 70 year-old mobile barber called Costas Papadopoulos.


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

Hmm Crocel News is sourced in this 'article'. 

Why the level of vitriol against Jeremy Corbyn?


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

...written by nobody of interest, last year.


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> ...written by nobody of interest, last year.



To those that know Crocel News is the notorious fakenews website of internet troll legend Jonathon Bishop. I came across it in 'my research' detailed elsewhere.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

Right. Probably best to keep that bollocks for the two Jonathan bishop threads which appear to be live. Most people don't give a shit about him.


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Right. Probably best to keep that bollocks for the two Jonathan bishop threads which appear to be live. Most people don't give a shit about him.



Point taken - I wish I hadn't gone there now.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

This piece in vice on the absolute boy / bag of cans / 7 nation army stuff is worth a read I reckon Are We Witnessing The Rise Of The Woke Lad?


----------



## phillm (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Screenshot here:
> View attachment 111144



The cunt Guido is now on the case.  From the comments his claque don't seem to give a shit and are prattling on about other assorted 'socialist' outrages.

Corbyn 'Spent Yesterday Evening' With Assad-Loving Genocide Denier - Guido Fawkes


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2017)

phillm said:


> The cunt Guido is now on the case.  From the comments his claque don't seem to give a shit and are prattling on about other assorted 'socialist' outrages.
> 
> Corbyn 'Spent Yesterday Evening' With Assad-Loving Genocide Denier - Guido Fawkes



Probably because 'Guido' has an audience which is actually quite keen on Assad, and is pretty up for a genocide of Muslims.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> This piece in vice on the absolute boy / bag of cans / 7 nation army stuff is worth a read I reckon Are We Witnessing The Rise Of The Woke Lad?


finally a phenomenon i witnessed before vice did an article on it


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2017)

Geri said:


> Tell me about Marcus Papadopoulos



He owns the launderette in Walford


----------



## chilango (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> This piece in vice on the absolute boy / bag of cans / 7 nation army stuff is worth a read I reckon Are We Witnessing The Rise Of The Woke Lad?



That entire post makes literally no sense to me


----------



## phillm (Jul 12, 2017)

chilango said:


> That entire post makes literally no sense to me



Possibly because we are old ...

The 'big bag of cans with the lads' flag at Glastonbury is a work of genius | JOE.co.uk

The gist seems to be young men (lads) are tradtionally associated with sexist, anti-social behaviour particuarly based around excessive drinking. And that we have assumed they are out of the political game because a)they don't care and b) they don't participate in the electoral process. The zeitgeist has changed probably due to their being excluded from the crumbs of an advanced capatalist society rather than any developed progressive bent. 

They have hope , their youth and second-nature mastery of social media and Jeremy's willingness to engage with them has provided an unlikely standard bearer around which and exchange and amplify the memes and tropes that are leading to his seemingly unstoppable popularity. And the old left could never engage with them in any meaningful way. We should embrace that.

Oh and something about a 'bag of cans' which I can only assume represents a warm welcoming , friendly familiarity one that May so conspiciously lacks.

He is the Absolute Boy....


----------



## rekil (Jul 12, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> He owns the launderette in Walford





Spoiler


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

I don't think it's quite that, but in that general area. 

in brief: _Jeremy Corbyn is the absolute boy_ = this year's _cheeky nandos_


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 12, 2017)

one thing's for sure: it's over now!


----------



## phillm (Jul 12, 2017)

Great,  he's just trolled May with a signed copy of the Labour Manifesto.

Jeremy Corbyn brilliantly trolls Theresa May with Labour manifesto


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think what Geri posted is about all that's known. Papadopulous posted some pics of he and corbo having dinner on his twitter (you can scroll down his twitter feed to see loads of tweets supporting Assad & Russia).



So what ??

Would you prefer Corbyn to announce that if he's elected hell be declaring war on Syria , Russia ..and ..for the hell of it..Iran too ?

Bashar Al Assad is the President of Syria . Corbyn can meet him as much as he wants . Why is this even remotely a problem ?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 12, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> So what ??
> 
> Would you prefer Corbyn to announce that if he's elected hell be declaring war on Syria , Russia ..and ..for the hell of it..Iran too ?


Me personally I would prefer some kind of middle ground between these 2 options.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Me personally I would prefer some kind of middle ground between these 2 options.



Such as a warm nod of approval for a US sponsored regime change invasion thingy ? More missiles aimed at Russia and Iran  ? Enlargement of the NATO budget, Trident upgrade ? that appears to be the middle ground between world war 3 and not world war 3 . Continued stoking it up as opposed to Armageddon . 

I think an entirely different tack might be a bit healthier . The present middle ground strikes me as bit end of worldy . Not a good course to be on . I'd much prefer corbyn to be on trips like that as opposed to taking the Saudi coin like the rest of them . 

The middle ground you speak of  is basically continued sabre rattling .sabre rattling won't end well . A uk leader who might be engaged with the path of deconfliction might do the world a bit of good . it wasn't too long back some of these lefties ...hilariously entitled " Anti war Movement"...were supporting the imperialist war on Libya . That didn't end well at all . I think it's good to see Corbyn on a different path .


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

Generally I want political leaders I support to reject all tyrants and tyrannical regimes, rather than choosing one tyrant or the other.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2017)

phillm said:


> Great,  he's just trolled May with a signed copy of the Labour Manifesto.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn brilliantly trolls Theresa May with Labour manifesto


That's not trolling.  It's good old-fashioned snark


----------



## phillm (Jul 12, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That's not trolling.  It's good old-fashioned snark



I've learnt something new. Cheers.

An imaginary animal (used typically with reference to a task or goal that is elusive or impossible to achieve)
_‘pinning down the middle classes is like the hunting of the snark’_


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Generally I want political leaders I support to reject all tyrants and tyrannical regimes, rather than choosing one tyrant or the other.



One mans tyrant etc.

What you want is corbyn to have the same opinions as you and your mates . Opinions that would lead to war if taken to their conclusion . Because that's what western/ Saudi regime change in Syria entails . Like it or not the average Syrian supports president Assad . He has a very large measure of popularity in Syria . Having dinner with wotsisname isn't any more controversial than having dinner with joe soap from Damascus .

I'd be a lot more dismayed to see him having dinner with Hillary Clinton or someone like that .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2017)

lets have this straight- assad is not a tyrant, there are no torture gulags, the barrel bombed deserved it, the white helmets are secret beards. The revolution, if there ever was one was a western backed attempted coup and even genuine elements are now dead or fled, its beards all the way down. Thats CR's view. Just so we can be clear about this monomaniacs position.

now, back to corbyn


----------



## phillm (Jul 12, 2017)

A Labour spokesman said: "Jeremy Corbyn had dinner with friends from Cypriots for Labour, during which they were joined briefly by Mr Papadopolous, who asked to be photographed with Jeremy. 

"Photographs of Jeremy with members of the public do not mean he endorses their views, as is the case on this occasion too."

Jeremy Corbyn pictured enjoying pizza with controversial pro-Assad campaigner who denied genocide in Srebrenica


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> One mans tyrant etc.
> 
> What you want is corbyn to have the same opinions as you and your mates . Opinions that would lead to war if taken to their conclusion . Because that's what western/ Saudi regime change in Syria entails . Like it or not the average Syrian supports president Assad . He has a very large measure of popularity in Syria . Having dinner with wotsisname isn't any more controversial than having dinner with joe soap from Damascus .
> 
> I'd be a lot more dismayed to see him having dinner with Hillary Clinton or someone like that .


I don't give a shit what you think.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> lets have this straight- assad is not a tyrant, there are no torture gulags, the barrel bombed deserved it, the white helmets are secret beards. The revolution, if there ever was one was a western backed attempted coup and even genuine elements are now dead or fled, its beards all the way down. Thats CR's view. Just so we can be clear about this monomaniacs position.
> 
> now, back to corbyn








Mug


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't give a shit what you think.



There's a happy coincidence


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2017)

see? Just to be clear, most of the people pushing this line are also bang into holocaust denials. Its a filthy swamp.

now back to corbyn


----------



## phillm (Jul 12, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Mug



It was a badly judged "mannequin challenge" according to the BBC.

White Helmets backlash after Mannequin Challenge video - BBC News


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2017)

Great example provided by the red-brown clown above - a filmed and publicly released video of and by white helmets doing the mannequin challenge is turned into...that. And what's more, he knows full well what it was. he just doesn't care.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> one thing's for sure: it's over now!


This is an interesting point: whatever this moment of youthful enthusiasm is, it is unlikely to be maintained in the same way - if it takes a couple of years for a new election, can the same thing happen, or something similar? Will it even matter so much if polls follow the trajectory they're currently on?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 12, 2017)

phillm said:


> It was a badly judged "mannequin challenge" according to the BBC.
> 
> White Helmets backlash after Mannequin Challenge video - BBC News





That's hilarious.

Some hilarious pics here too .

Double Life of White Helmets: Volunteers by Day, Terrorists by Night (Photos)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> This is an interesting point: whatever this moment of youthful enthusiasm is, it is unlikely to be maintained in the same way - if it takes a couple of years for a new election, can the same thing happen, or something similar? Will it even matter so much if polls follow the trajectory they're currently on?


I don't think it'll fade off, the bantz maybe but not the votes. Possible the lolcycle (I have no other way to describe it) will move on then come back around next election. At this point the winds behind him strongly enough it would seem that the tories would have to offer the moon on a stick and even then, they have credibility issues with the younger vote don't they


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

I'm hoping for a new tune, I'm heartily bored of Seven Nation Army now.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Generally I want political leaders I support to reject all tyrants and tyrannical regimes, rather than choosing one tyrant or the other.


There's a feeling of a witch hunt here though. We know Corbyn is a man of peace.

Doubtless people once said you couldn't talk to the terrorist Nelson Mandela. And they said you couldn't talk to Sinn Fein. They might have said, you can't talk to Tony Blair, or George Bush, or Theresa May. 

But the world is a messy place and if you want to create peace where discord exists you might have to talk to people.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

I don't care what you think either tbf.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

(although it's no surprise to see where you stand on the issue)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2017)

Somebody got out the wrong side of bed this morning.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

Re: Popodopulous, the official response (so they think he's a dodgy fucker even if CR and squirrelp think it's all A-OK.)


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Re: Popodopulous, the official response (so they think he's a dodgy fucker even if CR and squirrelp think it's all A-OK.)



I hope that this is true


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2017)

What can you do but take it at face value? His enemies claim he's lying and have the usual pretty tenuous evidence, but tbh they're mostly arseholes so fuck 'em.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> This piece in vice on the absolute boy / bag of cans / 7 nation army stuff is worth a read I reckon Are We Witnessing The Rise Of The Woke Lad?



That article's spot on, imo.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 12, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> There is nothing in single market membership that stops members running state owned industries, in fact Britain is almost unique among EU states in the degree to which it has introduced privatisation.
> 
> This article about rail renationalisation from TSSA makes sense:
> 
> ...



That article is from 2013. By Glenis Wilmott MEP. Who called for Corybn to go after referendum.

More recent one from Morning Star.



> What will happen to that commitment if we remain in the single market and therefore have to conform to the fourth railway package?





> The EU has clearly learned from Britain’s radical privatisation experience because this package, which is to be in place by 2020, includes opening up domestic passenger services to on-rail competition in all member states — exactly as we now have in Britain except it will be right across the EU.
> 
> Or what about Labour’s manifesto pledge to “Regain control of energy supply networks through the alteration of operator license conditions, and transition to a publicly owned, decentralised energy system,” and “Reverse the privatisation of Royal Mail at the earliest opportunity.”
> 
> According to Professor Danny Nicol of Westminster University: “Under article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition.”




The Labour right's single market rebellion

I was for Remain. But EU single market was neo liberal.

Here is RMT view on fourth railway package.

As EU imposes rail privatisation – RMT says "vote to Leave" - rmt


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Re: Popodopulous, the official response (so they think he's a dodgy fucker even if CR and squirrelp think it's all A-OK.)



1) Papadopolous
2) There is nothing in that response to say that Papadopolous is a 'dodgy fucker', whether that is true or not. It's just a disclaimer
3) I don't know whether Papadopolous is a 'dodgy fucker', what I know is that Corbyn is not
4) I have a friend who hustled a picture with Corbyn which made it look as if she'd had his ear politically whereas the truth was he was just walking past and she whipped out the cellphone at the crucial moment


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 12, 2017)

Corbyn is currently the most photographed-with man in Britain.

He has to set aside a good half an hour at the end of speaking events/rallies as people in the crowd line up to take pictures with him. He generally tries to give as much time as possible to speak to as many people as he can. 

I don't know the specifics of this photograph, but it seems rather weak to use photographs of two people together in a split second of time as proof of something greater without those specifics being known. I think this is true for pictures of anyone, not just Saint Corbs.


----------



## Geri (Jul 12, 2017)

He knows damn well who he is.


----------



## rekil (Jul 12, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I hope that this is true


I mentioned earlier that Papadopoulos posted at least one other pic of himself with Corbyn. This is one, can't remember the date. (e2a - google says 23rd October). He deleted it today. There's lots of stwc rally stuff and pics of himself hanging around westminster on his twitter and he was on RT with Milne at least once.





For a random bloke in the street, this creep sure knows how to schmooze the bubble.



Spoiler: Dr Marcus Papadopoulos chaired the launch of the Labour Party Friends of Cyprus


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 12, 2017)

Is there a picture of Corbyn hanging out with Tony Blair?


----------



## rekil (Jul 12, 2017)

Shut up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Is there a picture of Corbyn hanging out with Tony Blair?


here is Blair and corbyn






as you can see Corbyn is about to do the one-touch citizens arrest you spoke of, a bit like the vulcan nerve pinch only a bigger load of fictional bollocks than that.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 13, 2017)

Blair may be a war criminal, but who's ever going to vote for someone who wears a blue tie to a memorial service and possibly has dandruff?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> 1) Papadopolous
> 2) There is nothing in that response to say that Papadopolous is a 'dodgy fucker', whether that is true or not. It's just a disclaimer
> 3) I don't know whether Papadopolous is a 'dodgy fucker', what I know is that Corbyn is not
> 4) I have a friend who hustled a picture with Corbyn which made it look as if she'd had his ear politically whereas the truth was he was just walking past and she whipped out the cellphone at the crucial moment



Popadopoulous heinous crime is to deny that the series of massacres and war crimes directed at male civilians  and surrendered troops  ...and actual fighting between 2 opposing armies..around srebrinica that resulted in several thousands dead amounted to genocide . And to claim that the tag of genocide was added for purely political reasons . Which puts him right up there with assorted super villains such as Noam Chomsky , Tariq Ali and Efraim Zuroff who've all said exactly the same bloody thing  .

Popadaopulous is being portrayed in the Tory press as akin to a David Irving type figure . It's a manufactured controversy . In reality he's based in Westminster , interviewed on the BBC ,he's regularly in the company of MPs from all parties because he interviews them in his political magazine .

And then there's this .

Right-wing media link Corbyn to 'genocide denier', but somehow forget his firm had Tory MP on the board | EvolvePolitics.com


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 13, 2017)

Features repeatedly in that Labour party video ( he's a bloody vegan ). Doubt there'll be any accusations flying as regards who was in his company there .

And this the magazine he owns edits and writes for, which means all these mps featured also..completely uncontroversially..spend time in his company .

Politics First - UK Political Magazine



 This controversy is wholly manufactured and anyone giving legs to it is a mendacious twat .


----------



## phillm (Jul 13, 2017)

The right has begun to contemplate the prospect of a Corbyn victory and asks Lenin stylee 'what is to be done'. Firstly he rules out a coup and then suggests taking to the streets and then you won't beleive what happens next.....

How should conservatives respond to a Corbyn led Government?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2017)

James Bickerton's a right wanker.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Popadopoulous heinous crime is to deny that the series of massacres and war crimes directed at male civilians  and surrendered troops  ...and actual fighting between 2 opposing armies..around srebrinica that resulted in several thousands dead amounted to genocide . And to claim that the tag of genocide was added for purely political reasons . Which puts him right up there with assorted super villains such as Noam Chomsky , Tariq Ali and Efraim Zuroff who've all said exactly the same bloody thing  .
> 
> Popadaopulous is being portrayed in the Tory press as akin to a David Irving type figure . It's a manufactured controversy . In reality he's based in Westminster , interviewed on the BBC ,he's regularly in the company of MPs from all parties because he interviews them in his political magazine .
> 
> ...


If the loyalists had done anything similar to Srebrenica to the nationalist minority in NI - and they bloody would have, given the chance - you'd be the first to throw the g-word around with gay abandon.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> you'd be the first to throw the g-word around with gay abandon.



Unlikely as it goes.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2017)

phillm said:


> The right has begun to contemplate the prospect of a Corbyn victory and asks Lenin stylee 'what is to be done'. Firstly he rules out a coup and then suggests taking to the streets and then you won't beleive what happens next.....
> 
> How should conservatives respond to a Corbyn led Government?



Couldn't get past the bit where the useless twonk uses the discredited lie about Corbyn being on the Editorial Board of The Labour Briefing.

Skip to 07:35 for the start of the car crash.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Unlikely as it goes.


Ah, you saw what I did there.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2017)

This article on the incompetence of the official Labour campaign is an eye-opener. I knew some of it already, but there's a lot more there. Staggering really. 

What Could Have Been


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 13, 2017)

.....


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2017)

Naomi Klein interview of Corbyn

Video: Naomi Klein and Jeremy Corbyn Discuss How to Get the World We Want


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2017)

killer b said:


> This article on the incompetence of the official Labour campaign is an eye-opener. I knew some of it already, but there's a lot more there. Staggering really.
> 
> What Could Have Been


I wondered why the pudsey campaign was being run by the constituency officers. 

Those 2 full time organisers in Leeds NE could have made the difference in Pudsey and Morley. there were certainly enough activists out campaigning in Leeds for Labour, they just had far too many in places like Leeds West & Leeds NE where they really weren't needed.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 14, 2017)

This is fairly breathtaking if true:

Excl: Lab HQ DID deactivate JC team passes on election night – and more


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 14, 2017)

I read the private eye bit on that yesterday. They're usually on the money with their gossip. (And when it comes to 'senior labour sources', squawkbox is often right too)


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2017)

skwawkbox tho


----------



## Cid (Jul 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> This article on the incompetence of the official Labour campaign is an eye-opener. I knew some of it already, but there's a lot more there. Staggering really.
> 
> What Could Have Been



Gone to page not found... 

e2a: sent them an email.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2017)

Hmm they must've deleted it. I don't think there was anything obviously libellous...


----------



## newbie (Jul 14, 2017)

https://web.archive.org/web/2017071...17/07/corbyn-labour-campaign-momentum-may-dup

Wayback machine version	What Could Have Been




*What Could Have Been*


 Frederick Cotton 
 
*Corbyn’s Labour ran an impressive campaign — but key powerbrokers in the party prevented them from winning.*



Labour’s performance in June’s general election stunned many, not least Britain’s political pundits. In the weeks and months leading up to it they had confidently predicted a historic demise for the party, a chastening at the hands of the Tories which would leave Labour out of power for a generation. Instead, the campaign has taken Britain closer to a left-led government than any time in its history.

For many activists involved in the party, however, the campaign was bittersweet. Labour gained MPs and stripped the Tories of their majority but, were it not for costly mistakes by key players in the party, they could have been in government.

This may seem an odd thing to say. After all, isn’t it widely agreed that Labour had a good campaign? In reality, there was not one Labour campaign but three. The first, the one run directly out of the Leader’s Office; the second, run by the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracies and their regional sections; and the third, run by Momentum and its activists.

The first, of rallies and speeches, and the third, which utilized social media and mobilized new members, have been discussed widely. But the second, which was the “official” campaign, has hardly been commented upon. It will be the subject of this article, with an emphasis on the crucial battlegrounds in the north of England.

This analysis is necessary because Labour, by historic standards, got an average number of seats. And it was indeed an average — of two excellent campaigns, and one shockingly terrible one. If you want to know why the Labour Party is not in government today, and what it must fix if it wishes to be so, then these are problems that must be addressed.

Let us begin with the appalling efforts of the labor movement bureaucracy. With the honorable exception of those trade union officials associated with the communist tradition — Andrew Murray of Unite, Kevan Nelson of Unison, and others — the political officers of the major trade unions completely misjudged not only the situation on the ground, but their own membership.

The sole target of Unite in the northwest until election day was the defense of Bolton North East, the holdfast of septuagenarian Sir David Crausby, already sitting on a healthy majority. Sir David’s main claim to fame is to be one of the three Labour MPs to vote against the 2003 abolition of Section 28. This was a piece of legislation brought in under Margaret Thatcher that forbade any school receiving public funds from teaching “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” The membership were unenthusiastic.

The fabled GMB operation, previously admired among party moderates, collapsed into chaos. Whether because of the bitter secession of four of GMB’s federal regions from Political Director Lisa Johnson’s political strategy, or because of known disagreements in the top team around the candidate for Barnsley East, the result was utter confusion. In West Yorkshire, Johnson’s own stomping ground, the union was reduced to tailing Tom Miller’s Open Labour group, which had correctly identified Leeds North West as a winnable seat early in the campaign owing to its vast student population.


Yet it is the structures of the party that bear the most blame. As the directors of resources, Labour’s regional bureaucracies were shambolic. Fabian Hamilton, who already had a majority over seven thousand received not one but two organizers, while the next door marginal of Pudsey had none. The result is that Hamilton’s majority is now a staggering seventeen thousand, to no benefit of the wider aim of a Labour government, while the Labour Party lost Pudsey by 331 votes.

The Labour safe seat of Leigh, vacated by Mayor Andy Burnham, received a paid organizer and numerous personal visits from Mr Burnham. The seat had a 14,000 majority, it had been Labour since 1922. His hand-picked replacement Joanne Platt sits on a still very healthy 9,554 majority. Just up the road in Bolton West Julie Hilling, who was given no resources, lost by an excruciating 936 votes.

Even more dreadful were the actions of Barbara Keeley, MP for Worsley & Eccles South, who forbade local party officers and councilors from campaigning outside her constituency, despite having a 6,000 majority and being within half an hour’s drive of the key marginals of Bolton West, Weaver Vale, Warrington South, and Rossendale & Darwen. This proscription resulted in an extra 2,500 votes on Keeley’s majority. Labour lost Rossendale & Darwen by 3,200.

Perhaps most egregious was the treatment of Margaret Greenwood. After beating the reviled Conservative welfare minister Esther McVeigh in Wirral West in 2015 with a powerful insurgent campaign and a majority of 417, Greenwood was abandoned totally by the party machine in favor of directing all resource to Progress’s Alison McGovern in Wirral South. Progress is the private company set up after Tony Blair’s leadership campaign in 1994 to funnel funds and resources to suitable candidates. Labour Students, the last rotten borough of the ancien regime, was told to go nowhere else, while activists were diverted from across the country. Greenwood effectively had to fight another insurgent campaign, relying not upon the party, but upon networks of disability groups, anti-poverty campaigners and ordinary members. Despite a quixotic Green Party candidate this time, the team she put together managed to pull it off, to their tremendous credit.

In light of the compounded errors made during the campaign, we have to consider two options. The first, is that the “deep” Labour Party is staggeringly incompetent. There is some credibility to this thesis. After all, the consultancy firm the party hired to advise it on the election suggested it run with the slogan “For a Richer Britain” instead of the hugely successful “For the Many, Not the Few.”

The much-vaunted local knowledge of the party’s apparatchiks was also shown up. MPs who have been in their seats for twenty years and are always described as “constituency champions,” officers paid forty or fifty thousand pounds a year to work on building structures for campaigns who “work tremendously hard,” the vast database of contact creator bulked up at great expense by Experian’s Mosaic facility — none of them detected the largest shift in voting patterns since the war.

This reeks of the practice I have seen in the party for over a decade, where people assume we know who our voters are, where they are, and how they’ll turn out. Not only is this criminally unambitious — it also happens to be wrong, as the youth turnout in key seats in this election demonstrated. As one campaigner put it to me, “I have Voter ID that’s older than the canvassers I’m sending it out with.” As a result, we had safe seats spectacularly over-resourced, and marginal campaigns swiping materials from Manchester Gorton candidate Afzal Khan’s campaign whenever they visited the regional printers it shared an office with, because they themselves couldn’t afford posters.

Much of the criticism of centrist or moderate figures in the Labour Party after the election has been labeled triumphalist — but this misses the point. At a bare minimum, their incompetence cost the party enough seats to make the Tory-DUP deal viable. They share a large degree of the blame for Britain being ruled today by one of the most right-wing governments in its history.

The second option currently being discussed in Labour’s activist base, however, is darker. That is that the party structures deliberately and cynically had a policy of only defending those MPs who could be trusted to support a leadership challenge in the event of Corbyn’s defeat — a defeat that would be inevitable if they bunkered up far behind the frontline. This is not the view I subscribe to, but it is an indication of the distrust and contempt now felt towards these bodies by many in the movement.

Another election could come at any time, as Theresa May’s position within both Parliament and the Conservative Party degrades. To ensure we have a united party and an unparalleled campaign operation for the next election, these issues must be resolved.

Iain McNicol has served six years as general secretary, the longest reign since Larry Whitty in the 1980s, and more than the average tenure for a Labour general secretary in the postwar period. It would be fitting for this year’s conference, the first where Labour has gained seats since 1997, to be his swansong, and for a new general secretary to oversee a root-and-branch reform of the party’s structures for the new political age we have entered.

Unfortunately, this seems unlikely. With such little appetite to discuss these failings in the party, the chances of anyone taking responsibility for them is slim. In the absence of this leadership, party members must be ready to fight for the changes necessary to make sure the disastrous mistakes of this general election are not repeated. Next time, they will be fatal.

This piece was written under pseudonym to protect the author’s employment.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 15, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> This is fairly breathtaking if true:
> 
> Excl: Lab HQ DID deactivate JC team passes on election night – and more



Ha ha ha ha.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 15, 2017)

Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Tony Blair

*Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Tony Blair *



> “The Corbyn enthusiasm, especially amongst the young, is real, but I would hesitate before saying that all those who voted Labour voted to make him prime minister, or that they supported the body of the programme rather than its tone. I think they thought that the likelihood was that the Tories would be the government, but were determined to neuter the mandate.”





> Overall, he concludes, the UK “is deeply divided – between young and old, metropolitan and outside the cities, better off and worse off”.



...war criminals and non war criminals.

Cunt.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2017)

Lock him up


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 15, 2017)

Bet Corbyn and co are pleased as punch about this pricks intervention, only going to harden support for them.


----------



## newbie (Jul 15, 2017)

frontpage of his website reveals that he's nicked the Labour slogan



no links from Urban to hostile sites


----------



## tony.c (Jul 15, 2017)

I'm not sure that it is due to the Labour Right's incompetence that they were shoring up safe Labour seats. I think they genuinely believed that Corbyn's leadership was going to lose votes and there was going to be a Conservative landslide. They did the same in London, defending safe seats, and directing people to marginally held Labour seats where there were candidates who were critical of Corbyn. It is tempting to believe that Labour could have won more Conservative held seats if Labour HQ had been more ambitious in targetting those seats, but it wasn't certain that Corbyn was going to achieve the result he did. Even Momentum were sending people to marginal Labour seats, resulting for instance in over a thousand people in Tulip Siddiq's Hampstead & Kilburn constituency on polling day. Neighbouring CLPs were asked to send their people there after 7pm, but were then told that they weren't needed as there were too many there already.
There are rumours within Labour that following the expected Conservative landslide, Umuna was going to launch a new centrist party on June 9th, with public backing from Blair.


----------



## Cid (Jul 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> Hmm they must've deleted it. I don't think there was anything obviously libellous...



Got a reply:

"The author of the piece pulled it (hopefully temporarily) due to a concern about the accuracy of one passage. It was unusual for us since we normally don't ever take down posts, but we acceded to the request."


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 15, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> If the loyalists had done anything similar to Srebrenica to the nationalist minority in NI - and they bloody would have, given the chance - you'd be the first to throw the g-word around with gay abandon.



Bollocks . Stuff like that happened during 1798 . I've never considered that as genocide . Please take your sour faced Internet vendetta somewhere else . This is an interesting thread .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 15, 2017)

tony.c said:


> There are rumours within Labour that following the expected Conservative landslide, Umuna was going to launch a new centrist party on June 9th, with public backing from Blair.



There was definitely something coming from Blair . I don't believe he was bluffing when he started briefing the mass media about a return to political life . He was definitely preparing the ground for something . That was probably it .

Seems well fucked now though


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> There was definitely something coming from Blair . I don't believe he was bluffing when he started briefing the mass media about a return to political life . He was definitely preparing the ground for something . That was probably it .
> 
> Seems well fucked now though


They don't make small enough violins


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2017)

Blair seems to think there is a future in selling cold stale sick. EU position been running four years already


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2017)

This article could have gone in any number of threads but I think it is very good, sums up the way in which the abuse narrative is used to enforce deference.

The iron law of online abuse



> You could call it something like _Cohen’s Law_ – named, of course, for Nick Cohen, the seething thing in the middle pages of the _Observer – _or the Iron Law of Online Abuse. It goes something like this: _every single pundit or journalist who goes on a moral crusade against left-wing social-media crudery will have, very recently, done the exact same things they’re complaining against_. They will have used insults, personal attacks, expletives, epithets, or unpleasant sexual suggestions; they will have engaged in bullying or spiteful little squabbles; they will have indulged in some form of racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia; they will have encouraged political repression, violence, or censorship; they will have threatened to contact someone’s editor or boss or the police or otherwise have conspired to ruin their life. Chances are that they won’t have been very good at it, but they will have been mean; they will have used invective. This is always – always – true.
> 
> Nick Cohen gets the honours, firstly because he’s just awful, and secondly because he’s such a luminously dumb exemplar of this tendency: in column after column he condemns the vicious epithets suffered by MPs and public figures, grouching for civility and good, clean, open debate – but, when he’s not play-acting at high-mindedness, he compares socialists in solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution to sex tourists, flings antisemitic stereotypes at anti-Zionist Jews, and apostrophises Corbyn’s supporters as ‘fucking fools.’ This week, three young men with a podcast were monstered by the right-wing press, their names and faces revealed to an audience of frothing reactionaries, for posting a photo of Yvette Cooper MP in a first-class train carriage without her consent, and calling her a ‘bellend.’ (Cohen’s Law: the same publication, so primly outraged by the epithet that it had to render it as ‘bell**d,’ itself puts out material in which migrants are compared to rats) The publication of the photo had already been subjected to a comradely critique from within the left for its misogynistic overtones; the podcast account had apologised and taken it down. It was only afterwards that the reactionary press seized on the incident as part of its war of extermination against all left-wing thought, and moderate liberals happily joined in. If you don’t uncritically support a _Daily Mail_ smear campaign, they said, you’re an abuser. How did Cohen respond to all this? With a personal insult about the appearances of the three men, of course. The Law is never wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2017)

Sam Kriss is a damn good writer. I'd read anything of his any day of the week, even if I had zero interest in the topic.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2017)

> there are few better measures of a good writer than how well they rise to the challenge of magnificently crushing somebody else.


the problem is that an awful lot of people who indulge themselves with their invective are just not good writers, though they lack the self-awareness to realise, which makes a stream of the stuff really dull.


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2017)

those would be the writers who fail to rise to the challenge of magnificently crushing someone else.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> those would be the writers who fail to rise to the challenge of magnificently crushing someone else.


yes, and just repeat generic insults/putdowns/abuse whatever.  While I appreciate that decent people try hard to put their abuse in terms that aren't sexist, racist or equally out of order I do think online abuse should be done properly or not at all, with wit, panache and well chosen, personally targetted, words.

(and yes, I am well aware pickers is going to turn up at any moment to display his tail feathers)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2017)

J Ed said:


> This article could have gone in any number of threads but I think it is very good, sums up the way in which the abuse narrative is used to enforce deference.
> 
> The iron law of online abuse


UK 'reaching tipping point' on abuse of politicians

wagons circling


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2017)

It's surely mainly being utilised just to push through consent for greater controls on the internet?


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2017)

I mean... there's loads of reasons there's such a relentless focus on this shit atm, but that's got to be the main thing behind it all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> I mean... there's loads of reasons there's such a relentless focus on this shit atm, but that's got to be the main thing behind it all.


well yes, but the side effect of it being used to silence legit criticism is no good. I recall Owen Smith was on QT and someone was putting it on him about his work for pfizer he's straight away 'abuse abuse'. Infuriating.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 17, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> UK 'reaching tipping point' on abuse of politicians
> 
> wagons circling



Suddenly the Guardian is concerned with Diane Abbott getting abuse...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2017)

newbie said:


> yes, and just repeat generic insults/putdowns/abuse whatever.  While I appreciate that decent people try hard to put their abuse in terms that aren't sexist, racist or equally out of order I do think online abuse should be done properly or not at all, with wit, panache and well chosen, personally targetted, words.
> 
> (and yes, I am well aware pickers is going to turn up at any moment to display his tail feathers)



I think part of the argument Kriss is rightly making is that when it comes down to it people are often 'abusive' (i.e. rude or say swear words or engage in virtual shouting) because they are not in a position of authority and have little other outlet and are quite within their rights to be angry with the people responsible (to greater or lesser degree) for the shit we are in. Anger is not the preserve of the well read - which is exactly the point Kriss is making.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think part of the argument Kriss is rightly making is that when it comes down to it people are often 'abusive' (i.e. rude or say swear words or engage in virtual shouting) because they are not in a position of authority and have little other outlet and are quite within their rights to be angry with the people responsible (to greater or lesser degree) for the shit we are in. Anger is not the preserve of the well read - which is exactly the point Kriss is making.


fair enough, though crude and ugly anger isn't made more enlightening to read because it stems from a sense of hurt or grievance, however keenly felt. I meant well written rather than written by the well read. Creative barb and wit not insultathon. Just an impossible dream 

Was Gamergate directed at anyone _responsible_?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 18, 2017)

Gamergate was either a paranoid fantasy or merely an excuse for misogynistic shitheads to issue rape threats to women for daring to enter the treehouse. Crap comparison of yours.


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2017)

I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections


----------



## cantsin (Jul 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections



done


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections



When the alternative is Gloria de Piero, noted Progress member...


----------



## Fingers (Jul 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections



Also done


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Gamergate was either a paranoid fantasy or merely an excuse for misogynistic shitheads to issue rape threats to women for daring to enter the treehouse. Crap comparison of yours.


intended as a reminder that while anger or abuse may come from those who "_are quite within their rights to be angry with the people responsible (to greater or lesser degree) for the shit we are in_" it can also come from elsewhere, and be targetted at ordinary people trying to live their lives.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> intended as a reminder that while anger or abuse may come from those who "_are quite within their rights to be angry with the people responsible (to greater or lesser degree) for the shit we are in_" it can also come from elsewhere, and be targetted at ordinary people trying to live their lives.



If you don't see a difference then you're an even bigger idiot than I thought you were. I don't see any people on this forum thinking that rape threats are an appropriate response to austerity.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2017)

NoXion said:


> If you don't see a difference then you're an even bigger idiot than I thought you were. I don't see any people on this forum thinking that rape threats are an appropriate response to austerity.


 of course I see the difference. The point I think I'm trying to make is that not all online anger is about austerity, or about attacking those with responsibility, using Gamergate as what I think is a glaring example of that. I'm baffled that you would think I'm slurring anyone here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> of course I see the difference.


good.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> of course I see the difference. The point I think I'm trying to make is that not all online anger is about austerity, or about attacking those with responsibility, using Gamergate as what I think is a glaring example of that. I'm baffled that you would think I'm slurring anyone here.



It's not a point that needs making though, is it? It bears zero relation to what we are talking about, what Kriss was talking about, and in general what the commentariat and politicians are talking about at the moment.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's not a point that needs making though, is it? It bears zero relation to what we are talking about, what Kriss was talking about, and in general what the commentariat and politicians are talking about at the moment.


apparently not.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections


If I was a member, I would. 
Mind, I'm seriously considering rejoining. I'm just so bruised from before, I don't know whether I can go through all that again


----------



## cantsin (Jul 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> I trust we're all voting Chandwani & Hayes for the CAC elections



looking positive : 

Corbynista slate pulls ahead in battle for key conference committees | LabourList

+ this : 

Tom Watson paves way for Jeremy Corbyn to push Labour reforms 

things seem to be moving now


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> This article on the incompetence of the official Labour campaign is an eye-opener. I knew some of it already, but there's a lot more there. Staggering really.
> 
> What Could Have Been


Yer links buggered


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> Yer links buggered


It's been taken down. As you'd know if you'd just read the thread instead of cannucking...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's been taken down. As you'd know if you'd just read the thread instead of cannucking...


Gimme a break! Hardly 'cannucking' - just trying to get back into things after a lengthy sabbatical


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> Which usually means privatisation through the back door, we have seen this trick being used in the NHS with disastrous results.
> 
> The sooner were out of the the single market, the better!



Replacing it with what? Some kind of quasi membership like Norway and Switzerland, or just walk away and accept WTO tariffs?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> That article is from 2013. By Glenis Wilmott MEP. Who called for Corybn to go after referendum.
> 
> More recent one from Morning Star.
> 
> ...



But that’s just shooting the messenger because she wasn’t a Corbynite and then expecting me to accept the obsessively anti EU Morning Star’s opinion instead.

Labour would have to come up with a better argument than that against the single market if they’re to convince the millions who supported them in June because of the tory’s hard brexit position, I’m sure it wouldn’t escape those voters notice that the German, French, Italian and Spanish etc rail systems are all state owned and that there’s no evidence that they’re about to be privatised.

Just out of interest, why were you pro remain if you think that membership of the single market will scupper renationalisation?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 20, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> There's a feeling of a witch hunt here though. We know Corbyn is a man of peace.
> 
> Doubtless people once said you couldn't talk to the terrorist Nelson Mandela. And they said you couldn't talk to Sinn Fein. They might have said, you can't talk to Tony Blair, or George Bush, or Theresa May.
> 
> But the world is a messy place and if you want to create peace where discord exists you might have to talk to people.



Equating the ANC with the IRA in any way is spurious. Corbyn was right to support the actions of the ANC but not the IRA.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 20, 2017)

Wilf said:


> if he - and Corbynism/Momentum more generally - had done more to get some _direct engagement_ with working class communities, he'd be PM now.



That's a helluva big claim. What exactly could or should they have done?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's a helluva big claim. What exactly could or should they have done?



Summat like this maybe?


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Replacing it with what? Some kind of quasi membership like Norway and Switzerland, or just walk away and accept WTO tariffs?



I am opposed to the Swiss and Norwegian models, either we leave the EU or we don't. I am in favour of regular trading relationships with tariffs set according to bilateral negotiations and agreement and the economic needs of the time.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But that’s just shooting the messenger because she wasn’t a Corbynite and then expecting me to accept the obsessively anti EU Morning Star’s opinion instead.
> 
> Labour would have to come up with a better argument than that against the single market if they’re to convince the millions who supported them in June because of the tory’s hard brexit position, I’m sure it wouldn’t escape those voters notice that the German, French, Italian and Spanish etc rail systems are all state owned and that there’s no evidence that they’re about to be privatised.
> 
> Just out of interest, why were you pro remain if you think that membership of the single market will scupper renationalisation?



I also quoted RMT view. The Morning Star article quoted an academics view. 

I didn't like the way the referendum ended up about focusing on immigration. My view was to stay in and reform it. As Varoufakis argued. That didn't happen.

There is a lot of things wrong with EU. Particularly the way Greece has been treated.

The election. May wanted it to be about Brexit.I don't think it ended up that way. It ended up as anti austerity vote. Older people were pissed off with her move on care costs.

The link you used was quite old. The quotes I used were more recent. The rail package has been agreed since the link you posted up was written.


----------



## squirrelp (Jul 21, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Equating the ANC with the IRA in any way is spurious. Corbyn was right to support the actions of the ANC but not the IRA.


Where did he express support for the (terrorist) actions of the ANC? I don't believe you.


----------



## gosub (Jul 23, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn: Student debt write-off not a commitment - BBC News

 As he didn't win, I suppose its a storm in a teacup, but tution fee row back is what did for the liberals


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2017)

gosub said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: Student debt write-off not a commitment - BBC News
> 
> As he didn't win, I suppose its a storm in a teacup, but tution fee row back is what did for the liberals


the policy was to scrap future fees on getting in government...scrapping pre-existing debts was described as a "goal" IIRC - definitely not writ in stone


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

He's right, it wasn't.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

The question even being asked is the media performing the Tory attack lines for them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2017)

mcdonnel fielded the question earlier in the week and gave more or less exactly the same answer


killer b said:


> The question even being asked is the media performing the Tory attack lines for them.


its interesting the marr show. His line of questioning rounds up the tory talking points of the week, every week.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> mcdonnel fielded the question earlier in the week and gave more or less exactly the same answer
> 
> its interesting the marr show. His line of questioning rounds up the tory talking points of the week, every week.



Yes, and interrogates Labour far more on the specifics of Brexit than the actual party negotiating it.


----------



## tony.c (Jul 23, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> mcdonnel fielded the question earlier in the week and gave more or less exactly the same answer
> 
> its interesting the marr show. His line of questioning rounds up the tory talking points of the week, every week.


Marr asked Angela Rayner, Shadow Education Secretary, the same thing the week before that too.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2017)

Astonished by how many people there are, all middle-class and impervious to anyone telling them otherwise,  that have based their entire political outlook on the idea that Corbyn sabotaged the EU referendum somehow and single handedly lost it for Remain.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

I don't think there's that many tbh. Lots of people think he 'could have done more' (me, I thought he got the tone about right - if he was going to campaign to remain, anything else just wouldn't have been credible), but I think the vast majority of them have moved on now. As ever there's a few shouty dicks on twitter and in the comments pages of the liberal press but y'know. Fuck them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 23, 2017)

<Deleted. It's for the best>


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 23, 2017)

<Also deleted>


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

fucksake william.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 23, 2017)

I'm fine(ish) with the fact that Brexit will happen tbh.  I'm not a reverser of the vote advocate.

(ETA : I'll keep this one)


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> fucksake william.



Fair do's - I've deleted the offending posts now.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

It's the multicoloured postings I'm most irritated by tbh


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2017)

Not even sure where to start with the content. You're just screaming into the void.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2017)

I might have a bit of sympathy for remain diehards if they had at any point since the vote actually attempted to honestly engage with the reasons why they lost and then subsequently decided that in order to work towards a political outcome they might find satisfactory by attempting to convince others of their political position.

Instead only a tiny number of remainers have done either of those things. They are still stuck where they thought they were the night of the vote, at the end of history, still demanding that against all evidence to the contrary we are at the end of history and that anyone who acts otherwise is thick, backwards and racist.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think there's that many tbh. Lots of people think he 'could have done more' (me, I thought he got the tone about right - if he was going to campaign to remain, anything else just wouldn't have been credible), but I think the vast majority of them have moved on now. As ever there's a few shouty dicks on twitter and in the comments pages of the liberal press but y'know. Fuck them.


I think the size of the Libdem vote shows how few there are.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not even sure where to start with the content. You're just screaming into the void.




I've decided to delete that post. It was rubbish in whatever colour I wrote it in


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I might have a bit of sympathy for remain diehards if they had at any point since the vote actually attempted to honestly engage with the reasons why they lost and then subsequently decided that in order to work towards a political outcome they might find satisfactory by attempting to convince others of their political position.
> 
> Instead only a tiny number of remainers have done either of those things. They are still stuck where they thought they were the night of the vote, at the end of history, still demanding that against all evidence to the contrary we are at the end of history and that anyone who acts otherwise is thick, backwards and racist.



I'm certainly not in this category of Remain voter by the way. Above's a fair criticism of many of them, but my position's very different -- there's a fair few Remain voters who are a lot more realistic of why and how Brexit voting happened. No time for more today, but just saying.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2017)

Takes a lot of chutzpah to delete those posts and then claim that a post directly addressing them somehow doesn't apply to you.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I might have a bit of sympathy for remain diehards if they had at any point since the vote actually attempted to honestly engage with the reasons why they lost and then subsequently decided that in order to work towards a political outcome they might find satisfactory by attempting to convince others of their political position.
> 
> Instead only a tiny number of remainers have done either of those things. They are still stuck where they thought they were the night of the vote, at the end of history, still demanding that against all evidence to the contrary we are at the end of history and that anyone who acts otherwise is thick, backwards and racist.


Forgive what is going to be a slightly rambling answer: I agree with every word of that, but will come back to it... I didn't vote in the referendum. Couldn't vote for the neo-liberal EU and quite liked the fuck you that underpinned a lot of the Brexit vote. On the other hand I couldn't vote for a leave campaign that was defined by the nationalism of farage et al. Key thing for me was that there was no substantive _Lexit_ to vote _for_.

In terms of what you say, I'm as irritated as you by remainiac-ery - and it's got worse since the vote.  My _guess_ is that the UK is going to be worse off under Brexit, measured against conventional economic indicators, particularly as the Tories fuck up the negotiations. How much difference it makes to the working class, I don't think anybody can really say with certainty.  However relatively few remainers seem interested in that, it's just anger at their loss of liberal power.  So, yes, I agree with you about the remain/lets have the referendum again/aren't the working class awful crowd. However it's the other side of the equation that's just as problematic for me. There still isn't a Lexit - in or out of the Labour Party. And it's the absence of that that is shaping the current discussion. It's basically wailing remainery Vs Tory hard brexit and/or soft brexit. Even though Labour are in the strongest position they've been in for a decade, they/Corbyn haven't got a distinctive voice on brexit other than a defence one of not abandoning certain bits of social protection in the talks.


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I might have a bit of sympathy for remain diehards if they had at any point since the vote actually attempted to honestly engage with the reasons why they lost and then subsequently decided that in order to work towards a political outcome they might find satisfactory by attempting to convince others of their political position.
> 
> Instead only a tiny number of remainers have done either of those things. They are still stuck where they thought they were the night of the vote, at the end of history, still demanding that against all evidence to the contrary we are at the end of history and that anyone who acts otherwise is thick, backwards and racist.



It is amazing that they have been able to keep this up for as long as they have, to be honest.  Look at this row between them and Gardiner today for instance.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2017)

By the by, in terms of Corbyn's own future, the events of the last fortnight or so suggest he's never actually going to be PM.  That's a massive and overly bold claim to make after the last 2 months, but what I mean is that May's position has firmed up... slightly.  The papers were at it over the weekend, talking up David Davis as successor and there are plenty of chances for it all to fall apart. But overall the chances of May surviving till the end of Brexit negotiations have grown to, what, better than 50-50?  That means that even if she goes straight after that, Corbyn would be 70(ish) at the time of a snap election. Might well still fight it as leader, but if the new Tory leader pushes on to 2021/2022 it's odds on that he won't. 

As mentioned, there's every chance of things playing out differently.  But what I'm getting at is that at some point over the next 18 months, thoughts and manoeuvres will turn to the Labour succession as well.

Edit: suppose the logic of Corbyn's position is to stay for 2 years, answering 'I'm going nowhere', whilst he gets some changes to the party's structures.  Then and only then to start delivering his successor.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2017)

May's position hasn't firmed up in the slightest, she just hadn't had a disaster for a whole fortnight. Whoopey do.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 24, 2017)

has she actually said or done anything in the past fortnight?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 24, 2017)

The cycle of British electoral politics should favour Labour next time. The last time that the main opposition party didn't enjoy a swing relative to the government was in 1974 when Labour called another election within a year of forming a minority government and went on to increase their share of the vote. Generally the opposition improves its position relative to the government in terms of the share of the vote and the Tories only had a lead of less than one million votes last time...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> has she actually said or done anything in the past fortnight?



To give her due credit, not saying or doing anything really works for her. It's only when she doesn't stick to that that things go wrong.


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 24, 2017)

Boris is about a lot. 
It's a classic Tory tactic, send out the bafoon out to my a twat of himself, deflect away the fact the rest of the party is fucking falling apart.


----------



## gosub (Jul 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> May's position hasn't firmed up in the slightest, she just hadn't had a disaster for a whole fortnight. Whoopey do.


She made it to the holidays, so that's a couple of months chaos free..., most likely


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> May's position hasn't firmed up in the slightest, she just hadn't had a disaster for a whole fortnight. Whoopey do.


It's firmed up in the sense that she hasn't been challenged and as we go further into the negotiations that makes it less likely that she will be challenged till we actually leave. Also, it's subjective I'll admit, but the chatter in and around the party seems to have turned against those cabinet ministers who want to destabilise things.  She's in a piss weak position but more likely to survive the next 12 months than she was a month ago.  In one sense, that's all good for Labour, but it may well be a scenario where Corbyn's window for becoming PM starts to close.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Forgive what is going to be a slightly rambling answer: I agree with every word of that, but will come back to it... I didn't vote in the referendum. Couldn't vote for the neo-liberal EU and quite liked the fuck you that underpinned a lot of the Brexit vote. On the other hand I couldn't vote for a leave campaign that was defined by the nationalism of farage et al. Key thing for me was that there was no substantive _Lexit_ to vote _for_.
> 
> In terms of what you say, I'm as irritated as you by remainiac-ery - and it's got worse since the vote.  My _guess_ is that the UK is going to be worse off under Brexit, measured against conventional economic indicators, particularly as the Tories fuck up the negotiations. How much difference it makes to the working class, I don't think anybody can really say with certainty.  However relatively few remainers seem interested in that, it's just anger at their loss of liberal power.  So, yes, I agree with you about the remain/lets have the referendum again/aren't the working class awful crowd. However it's the other side of the equation that's just as problematic for me. There still isn't a Lexit - in or out of the Labour Party. And it's the absence of that that is shaping the current discussion. It's basically wailing remainery Vs Tory hard brexit and/or soft brexit. Even though Labour are in the strongest position they've been in for a decade, they/Corbyn haven't got a distinctive voice on brexit other than a defence one of not abandoning certain bits of social protection in the talks.



I don't know what Lexit platform you were expecting precisely. The rationale for leaving the EU from a left-wing perspective is the EU will increasingly become (more of) an impediment to the possibility of something even vaguely social-democratic. Its direction of travel is all in the way of further neoliberalism, as it always has been. We have dodged a bullet if they actually let us leave.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I don't know what Lexit platform you were expecting precisely. The rationale for leaving the EU from a left-wing perspective is the EU will increasingly become (more of) an impediment to the possibility of something even vaguely social-democratic. Its direction of travel is all in the way of further neoliberalism, as it always has been. We have dodged a bullet if they actually let us leave.


I agree that the EU is an impediment to that, but that wasn't my point. There should have been, at the very least, some sense of what a leftish government might do after Brexit. But more - and better - than that, some sense of class politics after Brexit, opposing neo-liberalism etc.  As it was we've got Labour having to deal with whether Keir Starmer's statements agree with Barry Gardiner's.  We need to move on from getting trapped in all that shite.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I agree that the EU is an impediment to that, but that wasn't my point. There should have been, at the very least, some sense of what a leftish government might do after Brexit. But more - and better - than that, some sense of class politics after Brexit, opposing neo-liberalism etc.  As it was we've got Labour having to deal with whether Keir Starmer's statements agree with Barry Gardiner's.  We need to move on from getting trapped in all that shite.



Sometimes you've just got to make a move, as standing still gets you run over by a truck.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I agree that the EU is an impediment to that, but that wasn't my point. There should have been, at the very least, some sense of what a leftish government might do after Brexit. But more - and better - than that, some sense of class politics after Brexit, opposing neo-liberalism etc.  As it was we've got Labour having to deal with whether Keir Starmer's statements agree with Barry Gardiner's.  We need to move on from getting trapped in all that shite.


Oddly enough - it could have been Corbyn who helped provide that left focus and make it more of demand based thing rather than  a vote followed by all elements of popular participation squeezed out   But then, this odd coalition that appeared in the last election and saved labour  might not have formed.


----------



## bemused (Jul 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It's firmed up in the sense that she hasn't been challenged and as we go further into the negotiations that makes it less likely that she will be challenged till we actually leave. Also, it's subjective I'll admit, but the chatter in and around the party seems to have turned against those cabinet ministers who want to destabilise things.  She's in a piss weak position but more likely to survive the next 12 months than she was a month ago.  In one sense, that's all good for Labour, but it may well be a scenario where Corbyn's window for becoming PM starts to close.



I can't see the Tories not make until at least the end of the Brexit process - who would want to be in charge of it? They also don't have a credible leadership candidate. I like Davis but he's too old and doesn't want it, Boris would be lunacy, and Micheal Gove looks too much like a demented TinTin. Amber Rudd is a possibility as in Justine Greening.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 24, 2017)

steveo87 said:


> Boris is about a lot.
> It's a classic Tory tactic, send out the bafoon out to my a twat of himself, deflect away the fact the rest of the party is fucking falling apart.



He's been out in NZ, talking bonds formed by war and playing a bit of the Prince Philip with the natives.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2017)

I agree that may is safe from a challenge for the moment - the question is weather she just throws in the towel and fucks off into the sunset rather than have to eat the shit sandwich of being a PM with no authority, who is a national laughing stock and has to take the hit for brexit. 
She would have to have astonishing levels of chutzpah to think she can salvage anything from her premiership - so i cant really see any reason why she would want to stick it out until the dirty work is done and the party decides its time to put her out of her misery.   
At least if she resigns now - she gives the rest of us a good laugh as the tories try and replace her from the pool of .. er ... talent  that is  Davies, Johnson, Hammond, Ledsome and Rees Moog.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 24, 2017)

Poi E said:


> He's been out in NZ, talking bonds formed by war and playing a bit of the Prince Philip with the natives.



"Bonds formed by war? Absolutely. Someone's got to profit, haven't they?"


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> Takes a lot of chutzpah to delete those posts and then claim that a post directly addressing them somehow doesn't apply to you.



Don't want to ge too argumentative about this -- I deleted those posts because they were the worst drunken bollocks I've posted in a good while here -- no defence 
Not claiming any credit for getting rid of them either, it just had to be done. Would you rather I'd left them there?

But. It's not ''chutzpah" to distance myself from what J Ed said of Remain people -- not all Remain people fall into that category, and my own (real!) views honestly are different. I completely see the sense of being pragmatic/realistic about Brexit. I also understand why the vote happened, little as I liked it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2017)

Just to add, I like  Wilf 's recent Brexit posts on the previous page (although I think he's overly pessimistic about Corbyn's chances).


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 24, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I don't know what Lexit platform you were expecting precisely. The rationale for leaving the EU from a left-wing perspective is the EU will increasingly become (more of) an impediment to the possibility of something even vaguely social-democratic. Its direction of travel is all in the way of further neoliberalism, as it always has been. We have dodged a bullet if they actually let us leave.



But social democracy's time has been up since the 70s, surely?

As things go I don't think Corbyn is much of that, either.

*just going round and round in circles*


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jul 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not even sure where to start with the content. You're just screaming into the void.



And the void looks back?


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Don't want to ge too argumentative about this -- I deleted those posts because they were the worst drunken bollocks I've posted in a good while here -- no defence
> Not claiming any credit for getting rid of them either, it just had to be done. Would you rather I'd left them there?
> 
> But. It's not ''chutzpah" to distance myself from what J Ed said of Remain people -- not all Remain people fall into that category, and my own (real!) views honestly are different. I completely see the sense of being pragmatic/realistic about Brexit. I also understand why the vote happened, little as I liked it.


Of course there's people who voted remain who have a nuanced understanding of the reasons they lost. J Ed wasn't talking about them - he was responding to posts you'd made which amply displayed that you also aren't in their number. I would rather you'd left them up, yeah. I prefer people to own their bullshit.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 25, 2017)

killer b : If you're determined to insist that those stupid drunken bullshit posts, deleted for very good reasons (mainly that they were full of shit),  in any way represented my real opinions, then what's the point in discussing stuff with you? 
You're  assuming the worst of my politics by the look of it, when in (sober) reality they're not at all far from yours, Wilf 's, 
even J Ed 's ... his post was a good one and was a fair criticism of plenty of Remain people, but it really didn't display anything about *my* real/actual opinions.
 I'm just as capable of a nuanced understanding as anyone else but if you don't want to agree there's not a lot I can do.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 25, 2017)

I'm seeing stuff on Twitter implying that the Dear Leader has become a backslider on the immigration question - that can't be for real, can it?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 25, 2017)

Sadly anything is possible in these times of populist politics!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I'm seeing stuff on Twitter implying that the Dear Leader has become a backslider on the immigration question - that can't be for real, can it?



Middle class people who don't understand specifics of what Corbyn said to blame here, Corbyn didn't say.anything he hasn't said over and over again before.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2017)

Fascinating though to see all of the people who, if not actively anti-immigration themselves were at least _very respectful_ of that position as being legitimate, suddenly transform themselves into open borders advocates. Umunna, who is a Eurofanatic, a couple of months ago said that Labour should consider dropping SM in return for not having to allow FOM. Now he has decided to say that Corbyn, who is repeating a position which is perfectly consistent with what he has said for years, is making Labour seem like UKIP because he is opposed to immigration in which workers are paid less than the minimum wage.

They really do think that we are stupid.


----------



## gosub (Jul 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Fascinating though to see all of the people who, if not actively anti-immigration themselves were at least _very respectful_ of that position as being legitimate, suddenly transform themselves into open borders advocates. Umunna, who is a Eurofanatic, a couple of months ago said that Labour should consider dropping SM in return for not having to allow FOM. Now he has decided to say that Corbyn, who is repeating a position which is perfectly consistent with what he has said for years is making Labour seem like UKIP.
> 
> They really do think that we are stupid.



But it is a bit like UKIP, they want the issue of EU 'dealt with' without worrying about tedious things like practical realities.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Middle class people who don't understand specifics of what Corbyn said to blame here, Corbyn didn't say.anything he hasn't said over and over again before.



They obviously feel they're getting a bit of traction with the 'he's changed his mind on tuition fees' line so they're looking for new angles on that line of attack.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They obviously feel they're getting a bit of traction with the 'he's changed his mind on tuition fees' line so they're looking for new angles on that line of attack.


yeah I think its the new idea, they've used everything else and nothing worked. Now its down to undermining the manifesto not as unworkable or unelectable but on 'he's bullshitting'.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah I think its the new idea, they've used everything else and nothing worked. Now its down to undermining the manifesto not as unworkable or unelectable but on 'he's bullshitting'.



Yeah, I think also related to the idea that Theresa May lost it over the Dementia Tax U-Turn (disregarding putting it in in the first place, pretending she hadn't done a u-turn, and being generally totally shit) so they think they can pin the same thing on him.

I'm sure they'll still criticise him for promising everything without worrying about affording it as well though.


----------



## gosub (Jul 25, 2017)

No its the same Eggs Benedict from the McDonald's Breakfast menu that Cameron tried to order,  only at least Cameron rang the 'restaurant' before it opened - to be told to fuck off.  Now we are there, and the clock is ticking for when they change to the lunch menu....Come up with a little cafe down the road than can accommodate, or change the fucking order.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I might have a bit of sympathy for remain diehards if they had at any point since the vote actually attempted to honestly engage with the reasons why they lost and then subsequently decided that in order to work towards a political outcome they might find satisfactory by attempting to convince others of their political position.
> 
> Instead only a tiny number of remainers have done either of those things. They are still stuck where they thought they were the night of the vote, at the end of history, still demanding that against all evidence to the contrary we are at the end of history and that anyone who acts otherwise is thick, backwards and racist.


I agree with every word you've said there - it's emblematic of how crap the Remain campaign was.
FWIW, I think the reasons why we lost was partly immigration - but only partially. 
The rest was an effing huge scream of anger from a large part of the British people that have simply been ignored for so, so long. The net effect of the past 30+ years is that they feel totally stripped of all wealth, prosperity, power and hope (rightly - they have). 
This vote was their reaction to that - the referendum was decided in the traditional Labour heartlands, not in Tunbridge Wells. 
The only problem is, Brexit will make life even worse for them.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2017)

In short 'to reclaim a collective sense of autonomy, sovereignty and control, by people who felt they'd been stripped of any say about anything - and cosmically shafted, into the bargain


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 25, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I agree with every word you've said there - it's emblematic of how crap the Remain campaign was.
> FWIW, I think the reasons why we lost was partly immigration - but only partially.
> The rest was an effing huge scream of anger from a large part of the British people that have simply been ignored for so, so long. The net effect of the past 30+ years is that they feel totally stripped of all wealth, prosperity, power and hope (rightly - they have).
> This vote was their reaction to that - the referendum was decided in the traditional Labour heartlands, not in Tunbridge Wells.
> The only problem is, Brexit will make life even worse for them.




I agree with most of this, but I do think the high Brexit vote in some Tory areas is worth remembering, it wasn't just about (some) traditional Labour areas on their own.

But I particularly agree about the Remain campaign being unbelievably crap (and complacent).

I never thought at any point that immigration was the only, or even major, factor in the Leave vote -- it was a part of it, but like you say, the more generalised feeling of being shat on was far far more important.

My difficulty with some Left-Brexit positions is not that they lack logic on their own, but more about how unlikely it seems in reality that the Left will gain much, if anything, from the shambolic way Brexit is being 'negotiated' by the Tories now. I think Wilf was suggesting this in one or two of his earlier posts previous page -- correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 25, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> In short 'to reclaim a collective sense of autonomy, sovereignty and control, by people who felt they'd been stripped of any say about anything - and cosmically shafted, into the bargain



The 'Take back control' slogan resonated quite a bit last year didn't it? Despite being a complete con given the people on the Leave side who were mostly promoting it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2017)

remember when lexit voters were being told they had gifted the country to the tories _ad aeternum_?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 25, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> remember when lexit advocates were being told they had gifted the country to the tories _ad aeternum_?



I was just being more generally sceptical about Lexit stuff really, not saying the above ... and no-one expected the election's outcome tbf ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> The 'Take back control' slogan resonated quite a bit last year didn't it? Despite being a complete con given the people on the Leave side who were mostly promoting it


Of course it was a con, as epic con job, by members of the ruling classes masquerading brilliantly as 'The People's Rebels' - but it worked, brilliantly. 
We need to work out how, and why


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Fascinating though to see all of the people who, if not actively anti-immigration themselves were at least _very respectful_ of that position as being legitimate, suddenly transform themselves into open borders advocates. Umunna, who is a Eurofanatic, a couple of months ago said that Labour should consider dropping SM in return for not having to allow FOM. Now he has decided to say that Corbyn, who is repeating a position which is perfectly consistent with what he has said for years, is making Labour seem like UKIP because he is opposed to immigration in which workers are paid less than the minimum wage.
> 
> They really do think that we are stupid.



This is in reference to the ns piece on sunday right?

I said it was old news then.


----------



## mather (Jul 25, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> The 'Take back control' slogan resonated quite a bit last year didn't it? Despite being a complete con given the people on the Leave side who were mostly promoting it



The thing is even though it was a con when the likes of Johnson and Gove used that slogan, it still resonated better with people than the messages coming from the Remain camp which were (to paraphrase) 'don't rock the boat/business as usual/support the status quo'. 

I'm also a bit cynical that the referendum campaign itself (both leave and remain) actually influenced people in their vote as much as some would suggest. Middle class liberals who support the EU were always going to vote for remain and working class people who have seen their lives get ever poorer and more insecure were always going to vote leave, the conditions and circumstances which led them to that view were a long time in the making. My views on EU membership formed about twenty years ago and have not changed since then, I didn't need Johnson and Gove to tell me things about the EU I didn't already know myself.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My _guess_ is that the UK is going to be worse off under Brexit, measured against conventional as the Tories fuck up the negotiations. How much difference it makes to the working class, I don't think anybody can really say with certainty.  However relatively few remainers seem interested in that, it's just anger at their loss of liberal power.


speaking for myself alone, I have absolutely zero power - 'liberal' or any other kind. 
However, like every other poor sod, I need to make a living. Brexit will hurt the economy very badly indeed - and the working class, yet again, will get hurt the m


eoin_k said:


> The cycle of British electoral politics should favour Labour next time. The last time that the main opposition party didn't enjoy a swing relative to the government was in 1974 when Labour called another election within a year of forming a minority government and went on to increase their share of the vote. Generally the opposition improves its position relative to the government in terms of the share of the vote and the Tories only had a lead of less than one million votes last time...


Ermm... 1983?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2017)

bemused said:


> . Amber Rudd is a possibility as in Justine Greening.


Both have a major handicap: their seats are under threat, big time, next time round


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 26, 2017)

mather said:


> The thing is even though it was a con when the likes of Johnson and Gove used that slogan, it still resonated better with people than the messages coming from the Remain camp which were (to paraphrase) 'don't rock the boat/business as usual/support the status quo'.
> 
> I'm also a bit cynical that the referendum campaign itself (both leave and remain) actually influenced people in their vote as much as some would suggest. Middle class liberals who support the EU were always going to vote for remain and working class people who have seen their lives get ever poorer and more insecure were always going to vote leave, the conditions and circumstances which led them to that view were a long time in the making. My views on EU membership formed about twenty years ago and have not changed since then, I didn't need Johnson and Gove to tell me things about the EU I didn't already know myself.



I get your points and think you're onto it when you say the campaign itself probably had a smaller effect than conventionally thought.

I think some of your second para may be over simplifying though -- plenty of working people voted remain for instance, and loads of (admittedly not so liberal!) middle class/better off people voted leave. I tend to think that age was a bigger factor than sometimes allowed for.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

Christ, I just stumbled across some dicks arguing about the Labour fees thing. It's so transparent, so fucking _boring_ - who do they imagine they're even talking to?


----------



## Nylock (Jul 27, 2017)

Other boring dicks who hope that this will be THE final nail in Jezza's coffin...?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> remember when lexit voters were being told they had gifted the country to the tories _ad aeternum_?


Who's in government?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2017)

And what happened in the only election since brexit?


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

a final, irrevocable consolidation of the _endless tory government_ sleaterkinney fears so much.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

The Tories got the most seats and formed a coalition government. butchersapron


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

I'm just being realistic, the Tories and dup will get in line for another 5 years...


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

I hate to be a pedant, but you know there isn't a coalition don't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> I hate to be a pedant, but you know there isn't a coalition don't you?


Give yourself a clap.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

I just think you should try to ground your _realism_ in some kind of actual reality is all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Tories got the most seats and formed a coalition government. butchersapron


Or more accurately, the Tory govt that you're suggesting brexit put in power forever lost their majority, were forced to do a crooked deal(not a coalition) with a set of bigots that has made them a laughing stock and promoted the understanding of them as principle free mercenaries whilst seriously undermining the public status of their leader and leaving them with no credible challengerss.

Meanwhile labour, who were supposed to be destroyed as an alternative partybof govt increased their vote and more are best placed to win the next election - which many believe is imminent following internal Tory chaos and external brexit chaos.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> I just think you should try to ground your _realism_ in some kind of actual reality is all.


I'll award you the Pickmans pedant pendant for today.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Or more accurately, the Tory govt that you're suggesting brexit put in power forever lost their majority, were forced to do a crooked deal(not a coalition) with a set of bigots that has made them a laughing stock and promoted the understanding of them as principle free mercenaries whilst seriously undermining the public status of their leader and leaving them with no credible challengerss.


The Tories being principle free will probably be expected by their supporters. May is finished, but she can step aside after brexit for someone more stable.


> Meanwhile labour, who were supposed to be destroyed as an alternative partybof govt increased their vote and more are best placed to win the next election - which many believe is imminent following internal Tory chaos and external brexit chaos.


He did very well, but I don't think it's imminent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2017)

The suggestion from DC was that the argument that post-brexit the tories would now win every election from here on in has been hit below the water hole. You defended the  idea that the tories forever was actually the case on the basis that the tories won the last election. This is a) ignoring the direction of travel, the dynamic set in play by the election and what it points to i.e exactly what you would need to take account of if you were being 'realistic' - otherwise you're simply dismissing a large part of the actual picture, of 'reality' and the possibilities that it opens - and b) forgetting the numerous historical occasions when the victorious party in general election has been inaccurately described as now being in power forever - and on every single occasion when this has wrong forecast was offered, the victorious party was in a nearly incomparably better position than the tories are in now. The usual prediction for govts of this sort is that they will fall and fall quickly - this is a prediction that _has _been proven correct multiple times.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

do you mean... ideology rather than realism informs sleaterkinney's posts?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm just being realistic, the Tories and dup will get in line for another 5 years...


My pure guess is that May will survive till somewhere towards the end of Brexit negotiations and that her successor _could_ limp on, even through to 2022, John Major style (though, they may just as likely, call an election straight after Brexit). I also don't take it as given that Labour would win an election called then or now - largely on the grounds that it's pointless predicting anything in these circumstances.  There _is_ a chance of this carrying on for the full 5 years - who knows, perhaps a 1/3 chance. But beyond being technically correct about that, you've got just about everything else wrong in the judgements you are making.

Edit: as just pointed out by butchers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'll award you the Pickmans pedant pendant for today.


Pickman's


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm just being realistic, the Tories and dup will get in line for another 5 years...


you're just a DUPe


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My pure guess is that May will survive till somewhere towards the end of Brexit negotiations and that her successor _could_ limp on, even through to 2022, John Major style (though, they may just as likely, call an election straight after Brexit). I also don't take it as given that Labour would win an election called then or now - largely on the grounds that it's pointless predicting anything in these circumstances.  There _is_ a chance of this carrying on for the full 5 years - who knows, perhaps a 1/3 chance. But beyond being technically correct about that, you've got just about everything else wrong in the judgements you are making.
> 
> Edit: as just pointed out by butchers


So on the one hand you say it's pointless predicting - then that I've got everything wrong. I think it's premature thinking that Labour will get back in and the Tories are finished.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2017)

DC said: 





> remember when lexit voters were being told they had gifted the country to the tories _ad aeternum_?


You clearly disagreed with him and said: 





> Who's in government?



2017 GE saw Labour/Corbyn making a very significant comeback. So, how would you characterise the Brexit vote? Did it strengthen the Tories or not?  BTW, I'll admit it, once the immediate dust had settled and the Tories got their leadership election out of the way, I thought they were in a very strong position - particularly with Labour so far behind in the polls.  But things turned out different didn't they?


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

Most of us thought the tories were on for at least a comfortable win: that was the_ realistic_ position, before the election, regardless of your ideological view. Happily, we were wrong, and now the realistic position is something different - that anyone would plough on with the same take now strikes me as a bit mad tbh.


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> Most of us thought the tories were on for at least a comfortable win: that was the_ realistic_ position, before the election, regardless of your ideological view. Happily, we were wrong, and now the realistic position is something different - that anyone would plough on with the same take now strikes me as a bit mad tbh.



To plough on with the same old tale is madness, but I do think Corbyn does have a bit of a problem with the polls as they now stand.  

For the Tories to be on 38-41% consistently - irrespective of the election result, the disasters that they have brought about and are bringing about, and the open chaos in the Cabinet - would suggest that there is a very large number of people who are dead set against Corbyn personally and are willing to put up with / believe / ignore almost anything in order to not vote for him.  Anecdotally as well most of the Tory voters I know are openly aghast at what May is doing, who have not one positive word to say about them on any issue you care to mention, have been financially affected by what she / the Coalition have done since 2010 and yet will vote Tory next time because of what they think Corbyn will do to the country.   I am not sure that Corbyn could do anything to win those people around.

Of course in the absence of any realistic replacement he is still the most likely Labour politician to get a decent result, but it will always be a massive task for him to actually win and form a stable Government.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> DC said:
> You clearly disagreed with him and said:
> 
> 2017 GE saw Labour/Corbyn making a very significant comeback. So, how would you characterise the Brexit vote? Did it strengthen the Tories or not?  BTW, I'll admit it, once the immediate dust had settled and the Tories got their leadership election out of the way, I thought they were in a very strong position - particularly with Labour so far behind in the polls.  But things turned out different didn't they?


Corbyn did do very well, but the Tories are in power and handling brexit. He also came up against an inept wooden leader - something they will remedy, because they won't go to the polls like this.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2017)

agricola said:


> say about them on any issue you care to mention, have been financially affected by what she / the Coalition have done since 2010 and yet will vote Tory next time because of what they think Corbyn will do to the country.   I am not sure that Corbyn could do anything to win those people around..


This is pretty consistent with my experience too.  Not just Tories, but Liberals too.  I was at a dinner with four friends all aged in the region of 60 - 85 last week -- one ex-Liberal councillor and the other three pretty died-in-the-wool Liberals (although one said he had voted for everyone in his time).  They were all paralyzed with fear of the 1970s, despite my pointing out some pretty obvious differences and the problems that neoliberalism had brought for the country in the last 30 years.  They'll never vote Corbyn.

I don't think that matters, though.  I wouldn't want some Blairite just in the hope that some ex-Liberals and Tories would vote for him.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This is pretty consistent with my experience too.  Not just Tories, but Liberals too.  I was at a dinner with four friends all aged in the region of 60 - 85 last week -- one ex-Liberal councillor and the other three pretty died-in-the-wool Liberals (although one said he had voted for everyone in his time).  They were all paralyzed with fear of the 1970s, despite my pointing out some pretty obvious differences and the problems that neoliberalism had brought for the country in the last 30 years.  They'll never vote Corbyn.


Obviously channelling their leader.



			
				lib dem cunt said:
			
		

> I suspect that at the heart of it is a lingering attachment to the negative views about Europe incubated in the 1970s. The far left has long viewed the EU as deeply inimical to its values: a capitalist project that good socialists should steer well clear of. Somehow, that view of the world has survived like a mammoth preserved in the Siberian permafrost. The Guardian_’_s economics editor, Larry Elliott, breathes new life into it; and, as it appears to be the stance of Corbyn, we must engage with it, however removed it might be from today’s reality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn did do very well, but the Tories are in power and handling brexit. He also came up against an inept wooden leader - something they will remedy, because they won't go to the polls like this.


Such a pity they seem set on going through brexit with her and the various stooges


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

agricola said:


> For the Tories to be on 38-41% consistently - irrespective of the election result, the disasters that they have brought about and are bringing about, and the open chaos in the Cabinet - would suggest that there is a very large number of people who are dead set against Corbyn personally and are willing to put up with / believe / ignore almost anything in order to not vote for him.  Anecdotally as well most of the Tory voters I know are openly aghast at what May is doing, who have not one positive word to say about them on any issue you care to mention, have been financially affected by what she / the Coalition have done since 2010 and yet will vote Tory next time because of what they think Corbyn will do to the country.   I am not sure that Corbyn could do anything to win those people around.


All this is may be true, but also bear in mind: the Labour vote will be just as immovable - more so IMO. They went to the polls with the same messages of radical red 1970s socialist wreckers ringing in their ears as your tory mates, and they voted for it. The best part of 13 million people voted for a radical socialist government (OK, not _that_ radical socialist by our standards, but give 'em time) and it seems to me there's very little likelihood of many of them voting scum next time round, whenever that happens.


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2017)

killer b said:


> All this is may be true, but also bear in mind: the Labour vote will be just as immovable - more so IMO. They went to the polls with the same messages of radical red 1970s socialist wreckers ringing in their ears as your tory mates, and they voted for it. The best part of 13 million people voted for a radical socialist government (OK, not _that_ radical socialist by our standards, but give 'em time) and it seems to me there's very little likelihood of many of them voting scum next time round, whenever that happens.



Perhaps "immovable" is not the right word there, at least to describe the Labour vote at the last election.  The vote that Corbyn got out voted for mostly rational reasons based on politics that is simple to understand - they had issues (lack of housing, lack of quality jobs, attacks on pay and conditions, student debt etc etc) that where becoming / had become serious issues for them, Corbyn proposed to deal with them and they believed him.   Given that no likely alternative Labour figure, and certainly no Lib Dem / Tory, is going to do what Corbyn did you're right to say that they are probably going to stay with him - but they are going to stay with him for reasons that can easily be understood.  

The Tory vote however does genuinely look immovable - despite almost nightly evidence that they are dangerously incompetent at best, the vote stays with them and it seems to be staying with them because of the notion they have of what Corbyn is.  Without challenging that notion effectively it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2017)

The tory vote is immovable if you mean unexandable. It certainly is at risk of stay at home itis. The corbyn vote relied on new or lapsed voters. Lots of space yet.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

I'm not sure I buy the idea of a Labour vote built on rational self interest and a Tory vote of spittle-flecked red-hatred tbh.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The tory vote is immovable if you mean unexandable. It certainly is at risk of stay at home itis. The corbyn vote relied on new or lapsed voters. Lots of space yet.


yeah, the tories have nowhere to pick up votes from. They're maxed out.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 27, 2017)

agricola said:


> Perhaps "immovable" is not the right word there, at least to describe the Labour vote at the last election.  The vote that Corbyn got out voted for mostly rational reasons based on politics that is simple to understand - they had issues (lack of housing, lack of quality jobs, attacks on pay and conditions, student debt etc etc) that where becoming / had become serious issues for them, Corbyn proposed to deal with them and they believed him.   Given that no likely alternative Labour figure, and certainly no Lib Dem / Tory, is going to do what Corbyn did you're right to say that they are probably going to stay with him - but they are going to stay with him for reasons that can easily be understood.
> 
> The Tory vote however does genuinely look immovable - despite almost nightly evidence that they are dangerously incompetent at best, the vote stays with them and it seems to be staying with them because of the notion they have of what Corbyn is.  Without challenging that notion effectively it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win.



That vote was in the teeth of sustained and unrelenting sabotage from within his own ranks . With many who were standing for election even telling voters they'd no chance of winning because of who their leader was . 
That massive treachery definitely cost them a lot of votes , it was bound to . The result has made it much easier for him to stamp his authority internally . The chief fifth columnist charge against him was that he was unelectable . Clearly that's no longer the case . So logically a more united party with a leader many now see as future pm material rather than a radical fringe laughing stock would stand a much better chance in another electoral contest .

Similarly the post election Tory meltdown and series of humiliations , the DUP deal etc has impacted very negatively on the Tory image . They did badly when they looked unassailable and now look even worse post election . They can definitely lose votes in that scenario . 

The election result itself has challenged the notions and conventional wisdoms . The ground has shifted politically . Central to that has been the myth of Corbyn and his policies being electorally toxic , out there, weird , fairytale stuff assuring a landslide to his opponents. No longer the case . That will make more people think about just how wise the wisdoms and their purveyors are . Look at stuff differently, believe change is possible . Add to that a much more assured and confident Corbin who's definitely growing into his role the longer he's in it and it may well be possible to turn people around .


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 27, 2017)

The Tories are screwed because they can only offer up more austerity to people who are sick of it, according to this . You can also definitely see the massive change in tack post election . The " unelectable fringe madman " shtick has been abandoned and replaced with " he's no different than us " .

Attacking Corbyn’s strengths isn’t going to save the Tories

Things can definitely be very different next time round I reckon . As I said earlier the political ground has shifted and with that the political wisdoms that rested on it .


----------



## bemused (Jul 27, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn did do very well, but the Tories are in power and handling brexit. He also came up against an inept wooden leader - something they will remedy, because they won't go to the polls like this.



I think the problem the tories have is they don't have many likable human beings who would be leader. 

Labour have the same issue, Corbyn was the only one of their leadership candidates who comes across as normal.

Unless they start moving some more relatable people to the front bench I can't see who could be a leader that would eat into Corbyn's vote.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> Unless they start moving some more relatable people to the front bench I can't see who could be a leader that would eat into Corbyn's vote.



Relatable compared to May is not such a big ask, though, and in any case they fucked up in many more ways this time round than just having a pisspoor leader. When it comes to not having such an all-round mare next time, they have a lot of scope (in the unlikely event that the Brexit process doesn't eat them alive).


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 27, 2017)

agricola said:


> Perhaps "immovable" is not the right word there, at least to describe the Labour vote at the last election.  The vote that Corbyn got out voted for mostly rational reasons based on politics that is simple to understand - they had issues (lack of housing, lack of quality jobs, attacks on pay and conditions, student debt etc etc) that where becoming / had become serious issues for them, Corbyn proposed to deal with them and they believed him.   Given that no likely alternative Labour figure, and certainly no Lib Dem / Tory, is going to do what Corbyn did you're right to say that they are probably going to stay with him - but they are going to stay with him for reasons that can easily be understood.
> 
> The Tory vote however does genuinely look immovable - despite almost nightly evidence that they are dangerously incompetent at best, the vote stays with them and it seems to be staying with them because of the notion they have of what Corbyn is.  Without challenging that notion effectively it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win.




This was an interesting statistic being discussed



In tune with what I've said above


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2017)

In tune with what you've repeated above yes


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jul 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> In tune with what you've repeated above yes



This must be you having a Socratic moment - you should be careful - given the apparent limitations applied that would not be recognisable as such.

This is all about claims to equality and the position of the excluded.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2017)

Write that again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?


Treelover's last post. As so often the case out not with a bang but a whimper


----------



## NoXion (Jul 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Treelover's last post. As so often the case out not with a bang but a whimper


 Why do you do this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Why do you do this?


Do what?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Do what?


 You've dug up a month old post for apparently no other purpose than to have a go at someone, especially since the post in question hardly went without valid criticism at the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2017)

NoXion said:


> You've dug up a month old post for apparently no other purpose than to have a go at someone, especially since the post in question hardly went without valid criticism at the time.


No one at the time pointed put he'd been absent for a month. Seems the valid criticism drove him away.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jul 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Write that again.



I don't need to - you got the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I don't need to - you got the point.


No I didn't. I don't think anyone did. Have a third run at it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> No I didn't. I don't think anyone did. Have a third run at it.


A third strike as it were


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I also quoted RMT view. The Morning Star article quoted an academics view.
> 
> I didn't like the way the referendum ended up about focusing on immigration. My view was to stay in and reform it. As Varoufakis argued. That didn't happen.
> 
> ...



My view is still to stay in and reform the EU.

As I said, the argument that EU membership and by extension the single market forbid state rail ownership is a nonstarter because the leading EU countries already have nationalised railways and have no plans to privatise them.

Why do you think Corbyn campaigned for remain if he thought was going to torpedo Labour’s plans for renationalisation? Why do Varoufakis and Syriza continue to support EU membership?

So far as anti EU arguments go, it’s as poor as any of UKIP’s.

Labour certainly shouldn’t pursue an anti single market policy if they want to hold on to their increased support back in June.

'Soft Brexit' policy won Labour votes in general election, says study

The Brexit election? The 2017 General Election in ten charts

_“(The chart) reveals a striking correlation between wanting to control immigration and voting Tory on one hand, and wanting access to the single market and voting Labour or Lib Dem on the other. For example, the Conservatives lead Labour by more than 40 percentage points amongst those most in support of full control of immigration, with Labour having a similar lead among those wanting complete access to the single market.”_


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 1, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Where did he express support for the (terrorist) actions of the ANC? I don't believe you.



I didn't say he supported 'terrorist' actions, that's the point, the ANC's strategy was far more sophisticated than just killing people, it was predominantly nonviolent and the number of ANC orchestrated deaths was remarkably low for a large population subjected to such a long period of extreme oppression.

By the way, Corbyn was famously arrested while supporting the pro ANC nonstop picket outside the SA embassy.


----------



## gosub (Aug 1, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My view is still to stay in and reform the EU.
> 
> As I said, the argument that EU membership and by extension the single market forbid state rail ownership is a nonstarter because the leading EU countries already have nationalised railways and have no plans to privatise them.
> 
> ...



So you want the country that has been overruled most at EUropean Council... where the party that won the leading the Commission didn't even bother fielding candidates in the UK..that doesn't have skin in the game on currency, nor  freedom of movement... to help shape the direction of the EU.  They are as glad to get rid as we should be to leave.

Labour is as all over the place on EU as Tories are, needs a coalition


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My view is still to stay in and reform the EU.
> 
> As I said, the argument that EU membership and by extension the single market forbid state rail ownership is a nonstarter because the leading EU countries already have nationalised railways and have no plans to privatise them.
> 
> ...



Ive already shown that EU , with evidence in previous posts, how single market is neo liberal. You just wont see it. 

Back to topic. You never supported Corbyn on this thread. 

The right of the Labour party are pushing to stay in single market. And they arent, as Ive said before, liberal on immigration. They want single market with immigration controls.


----------



## agricola (Aug 2, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The right of the Labour party are pushing to stay in single market. And they arent, as Ive said before, liberal on immigration. They want single market with immigration controls.



They don't - they just want the single market.  They only blather on about immigration because they think its what "normal people" want; had they won in 2015, or won the referendum based on Watson's line, I am 99% sure they would have dropped it soon afterwards on the basis that to establish controls would be illegal.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2017)

agricola said:


> They don't - they just want the single market.  They only blather on about immigration because they think its what "normal people" want; had they won in 2015, or won the referendum based on Watson's line, I am 99% sure they would have dropped it soon afterwards on the basis that to establish controls would be illegal.


Well, neoliberals in general aren't for proper freedom of movement anyway—you're free to move but within strict parameters which disenfranchise you and allow for pressure by employers and the state. They all want immigration controls, it's just a matter of what sort.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 4, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Ive already shown that EU , with evidence in previous posts, how single market is neo liberal. You just wont see it.



You’ve shown opinion, not evidence. The claim was that single market membership ruled out renationalisation and I’ve repeatedly shown you the gaping holes in that argument, none of which you have been able to address. So apparently it’s not me who ‘won’t see it’.



> Back to topic. You never supported Corbyn on this thread.



I argued that he wouldn’t win the election, was I wrong? But at least I actually supported Corbyn at the election, unlike as it turns out many of the usual hypocrites on here who were only too happy to throw personal abuse at anyone who dared criticise him, but then refused to even vote for him.

The core of my argument has always been that the election of a Labour government is the only way to save essential public services and that is still the case. As the University of Manchester survey shows, Labour will lose a lot of the support they won in June if they pursue a hard/anti single market brexit.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> So you want the country that has been overruled most at EUropean Council... where the party that won the leading the Commission didn't even bother fielding candidates in the UK..that doesn't have skin in the game on currency, nor  freedom of movement... to help shape the direction of the EU.  They are as glad to get rid as we should be to leave.
> 
> Labour is as all over the place on EU as Tories are, needs a coalition



European union is about far more than which political parties stand in individual states or who has or hasn’t adopted the Euro, it’s a concept which replaces centuries of war and isolationism with peace through shared values and cooperation.

Opting out after just a couple of generations is idiotic. The EU needs a chance to reform and evolve to reflect changing times, not be abandoned completely because of its flaws.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Aug 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> European union is about far more than which political parties stand in individual states or who has or hasn’t adopted the Euro, it’s a concept which replaces centuries of war and isolationism with peace through shared values and cooperation.
> 
> Opting out after just a couple of generations is idiotic. The EU needs a chance to reform and evolve to reflect changing times, not be abandoned completely because of its flaws.


I am totally going to steal this and use it on the Take Back Control wallies at work


----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I argued that he wouldn’t win the election, was I wrong?


Oh come on, this is highly disingenuous.  Your claims were that he would wipe out the party due to being *personally unelectable* and that somebody else out there in the party would do a better job of leading them in an election.  Well, he only had 2 years post Miliband and had to fight a party that had latched onto UKIP voters, and yet he still outpolled even Blair in his latter election and improved the party's MP count, whilst gaining during the process a personal approval rating higher than any other leader.  He had too much ground to make up, but that's nothing to do with his personal electability.  In fact, the very cult of personality that got him through the leadership election gave the Labour Party a boost.

So don't try to retcon your argument now to pretend that in some way you were right.  You were horribly, woefully wrong.


----------



## belboid (Aug 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You’ve shown opinion, not evidence. The claim was that single market membership ruled out renationalisation and I’ve repeatedly shown you the gaping holes in that argument, none of which you have been able to address. So apparently it’s not me who ‘won’t see it’.


How many companies have been nationalised within the EU? Not how many are nationalised, that's a different question. One the EUs sad defenders prefer to ignore.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> How many companies have been nationalised within the EU? Not how many are nationalised, that's a different question. One the EUs sad defenders prefer to ignore.



They might be ignoring the question, but are you maybe ignoring the answer?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> How many companies have been nationalised within the EU? Not how many are nationalised, that's a different question. One the EUs sad defenders prefer to ignore.



Well, it looks like France is about to nationalise that port but I don't think that's a very good example.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2017)

And on top of the many interlocking blocks on renationalisation or any other similar moves, the EU requires that any natioanalisations that manage to break through the various legal ambushes _have to be open to market competition - _ that is, they cannot be nationalisations in the proper understanding of the term.


----------



## belboid (Aug 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> They might be ignoring the question, but are you maybe ignoring the answer?


No


----------



## Raheem (Aug 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> No


 
So why do you ask the question?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> European union is about far more than which political parties stand in individual states or who has or hasn’t adopted the Euro, it’s a concept which replaces centuries of war and isolationism with peace through shared values and cooperation.



That'd be the centuries of war and isolationism during which the Hanseatic League was formed, alliances and mutual defence pacts were signed between many European states and buffer states, and where inter-European trade multiplied exponentially?  It wasn't all wars, and isolationism was a minority pursuit for a few nation-states, not a common occurrence.



> Opting out after just a couple of generations is idiotic. The EU needs a chance to reform and evolve to reflect changing times, not be abandoned completely because of its flaws



How many chances do you want to give it?  It's had decades to reform and/or revolve, but the _status quo_ appears more satisfying to the Eurocrats. What on earth induces you to believe that the leopard will change its' spots?


----------



## gosub (Aug 4, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> How many chances do you want to give it?  It's had decades to reform and/or revolve, but the _status quo_ appears more satisfying to the Eurocrats. What on earth induces you to believe that the leopard will change its' spots?



Oh no there is change, but the direction of change is unmoving, next round of reform is as inline with the Spinelli Group/ 5 Presidents report as if nothing has happened in EUrope over the last few years.  Or rather the changes are sold as the next great panecea -which would make them fucking psychic seeing as the proposals predate half the problems they allege it will fix.


A  return to the fold would make us the EU's gimp.
Gimp to an organisation that isn't fit for purpose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> Oh no there is change, but the direction of change is unmoving, next round of reform is as inline with the Spinelli Group/ 5 Presidents report as if nothing has happened in EUrope over the last few years.  Or rather the changes are sold as the next great panecea -which would make them fucking psychic seeing as the proposals predate half the problems they allege it will fix.
> 
> 
> A  return to the fold would make us the EU's gimp.
> Gimp to an organisation that isn't fit for purpose.


doesn't matter anyway, in eight years time we'll be longing for a return to the halcyon days of 2017, back before the big war that's on its way


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> And on top of the many interlocking blocks on renationalisation or any other similar moves, the EU requires that any natioanalisations that manage to break through the various legal ambushes _have to be open to market competition - _ that is, they cannot be nationalisations in the proper understanding of the term.



I agree. This is my reading of how the single market works. MPs like Chuka don't imo have a problem with this side of the single market. Though they don't make this clear to people.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 5, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I agree. This is my reading of how the single market works. MPs like Chuka don't imo have a problem with this side of the single market. Though they don't make this clear to people.


That looks like Game, Set and Match to Butchers to me.


----------



## Ptolemy (Aug 9, 2017)

Are there any Labour MPs more worthless than Graham Jones? Admittedly I'm not a fan of whataboutery on any issue, but instead of attacking the Tories, he takes a swipe at Corbyn instead. 

For bonus points, spot the big obvious mistake that you'd think even the most cretinous of people in his position would realize...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Are there any Labour MPs more worthless than Graham Jones? Admittedly I'm not a fan of whataboutery on any issue, but instead of attacking the Tories, he takes a swipe at Corbyn instead.
> 
> For bonus points, spot the big obvious mistake that you'd think even the most cretinous of people in his position would realize...



But he's had enough of political stupidity'.


----------



## Tom A (Aug 9, 2017)

killer b said:


> Re: Popodopulous, the official response (so they think he's a dodgy fucker even if CR and squirrelp think it's all A-OK.)


Last Saturday I was told by a friend I am involved in campaigns with that back in the late 70s he had his picture taken with a certain person who was then a prominent freedom fighter against colonialism but is now a notorious authoritarian strongman leader of a country. This was spread in some left publications at the time, however it's clear to me that he does not endorse the views and actions of the person he had the picture taken with.

(I am being deliberately vague to protect this friend's anonymity since this obviously could be weaponised by the right if they ever had a need to attack him, although for the record this friend is not a member of the Labour Party)


----------



## phillm (Aug 9, 2017)

Tom A said:


> Last Saturday I was told by a friend I am involved in campaigns with that back in the late 70s he had his picture taken with a certain person who was then a prominent freedom fighter against colonialism but is now a notorious authoritarian strongman leader of a country. This was spread in some left publications at the time, however it's clear to me that he does not endorse the views and actions of the person he had the picture taken with.
> 
> (I am being deliberately vague to protect this friend's anonymity since this obviously could be weaponised by the right if they ever had a need to attack him, although for the record this friend is not a member of the Labour Party)



I along with others went to see Robert Mugabe along with others in Manchester when they were here  for the Lancaster House talks. We cheered him and the ZANU(PF) leadership to the rafters. And I think I saw Jezza along with Gerry Adams et al at a Troops Out Demo in Kilburn which was down some side street absolutely surrounded by plod at around the same time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2017)

phillm said:


> I along with others went to see Robert Mugabe along with others in Manchester when they were here  for the Lancaster House talks. We cheered him and the ZANU(PF) leadership to the rafters. And I think I saw Jezza along with Gerry Adams et al at a Troops Out Demo in Kilburn which was down some side street absolutely surrounded by plod at around the same time.


quex road


----------



## phillm (Aug 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> quex road



I'm sure you're right. Were you there ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2017)

phillm said:


> I'm sure you're right. Were you there ?


was on a number of those marches, don't think i ever saw ga there but i never stuck round for the speeches. the cry went up "to the pub!"


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> How many companies have been nationalised within the EU? Not how many are nationalised, that's a different question. One the EUs sad defenders prefer to ignore.



Article 345 of the Lisbon Treaty: _“The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.”_

The 4th-railway-package makes competitive tendering mandatory, but from what I understand it would still be up to governments to award franchises and so a future Corbyn government could still award them to its own nationalised company if it wanted to. Is that not right?

Competitive tendering will apply to all member states whether they currently have privatised systems or not and I’ve found no suggestion that countries like France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden etc are preparing to end their long traditions of state run railways.

Corbyn campaigned to stay in the EU despite the inpending 4th package. He was right to oppose aspects of it, but presumably didn’t see it as a barrier to rail renationalisation.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Oh come on, this is highly disingenuous.  Your claims were that he would wipe out the party due to being *personally unelectable* and that somebody else out there in the party would do a better job of leading them in an election.  Well, he only had 2 years post Miliband and had to fight a party that had latched onto UKIP voters, and yet he still outpolled even Blair in his latter election and improved the party's MP count, whilst gaining during the process a personal approval rating higher than any other leader.  He had too much ground to make up, but that's nothing to do with his personal electability.  In fact, the very cult of personality that got him through the leadership election gave the Labour Party a boost.
> 
> So don't try to retcon your argument now to pretend that in some way you were right.  You were horribly, woefully wrong.



I’ve already admitted being wrong about the extent of Corbyn’s popularity and also the extent Labour’s defeat, as were most people, but it was still a defeat nonetheless and we are still no further forward, we still have this corrosive tory government, now probably until 2022. So as for being ‘horribly and woefully wrong’, I suggest you aim your fire at those who slagged off anyone who criticised him but then refused to even vote for him, preferring the delusion of ‘continuing to agitate for revolution’ instead.

To win the next election whenever it may come, Corbyn and McDonnel must do far more to retain the massive anti brexit vote they got in June as well as be more honest and coherent about policy costing, taking into account that brexit is going to mean less revenue after 2019.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2017)

i was just going through an auld memory stick when i found some footage of a 2001 news report about the hunt demo outside the labour party conference.

to my surprise i noticed the slogan behind tony blair - indeed, written in his own hand - bears some resemblance to a current labour party slogan


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 11, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> the massive anti brexit vote they got in June


Was there really a "massive anti-Brexit vote"?  If so, why didn't the Lib Dems, who were the only party actually campaigning as such, not do better?

My impression was that a lot of people seemed to think Brexit wasn't anything like the motivating factor behind votes that people thought it would be.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Was there really a "massive anti-Brexit vote"?  If so, why didn't the Lib Dems, who were the only party actually campaigning as such, not do better?
> 
> My impression was that a lot of people seemed to think Brexit wasn't anything like the motivating factor behind votes that people thought it would be.



Brexit was a massive issue at the election, despite the brexiters attempt to pretend that the issue is all done and dusted. Labour were seen as the _anti_-_hard_ brexit party.

The Brexit election? The 2017 General Election in ten charts

Few voted for the Lib Dems for various reasons including the usual one, which is that no one thinks they can ever actually win. A Lib Dem vote is perceived by most of the electorate as a wasted one unless it is purely tactical. Also, at this election, I don’t believe that even the most ardent Lib Demmer saw their leader (I’ve forgotten his name already) as PM material.


----------



## bemused (Aug 17, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> If so, why didn't the Lib Dems, who were the only party actually campaigning as such, not do better?



Because the LibDems campaign made Theresa May look like a populist titan. 

I give you plain speaking, the man of the people, TIm selling his vision:


----------



## Raheem (Aug 17, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Was there really a "massive anti-Brexit vote"?  If so, why didn't the Lib Dems, who were the only party actually campaigning as such, not do better?
> 
> My impression was that a lot of people seemed to think Brexit wasn't anything like the motivating factor behind votes that people thought it would be.



I think your impression is absolutely right, but that's an anti-Brexit vote in its own way. The electorate was supposed to voice its determination to see Brexit through at all costs. The Tories framed it as being all about the need to face down the opposition parties openly plotting to defy the will of the people. But the electorate wasn't arsed, on balance.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I think your impression is absolutely right, but that's an anti-Brexit vote in its own way. The electorate was supposed to voice its determination to see Brexit through at all costs. The Tories framed it as being all about the need to face down the opposition parties openly plotting to defy the will of the people. But the electorate wasn't arsed, on balance.



Personal impressions are all very well and mine differ from Lord Camomile’s, but did you see the British Election Study survey?

General election 2017: Brexit dominated voters' thoughts - BBC News

The Brexit election? The 2017 General Election in ten charts

_Newly released data from the British Election Study (BES) has shown that, in the minds of voters, the 2017 election was the 'Brexit election' - despite its absence on the campaign trail.

This can be seen in the data in many different ways, but nowhere more clearly perhaps than the answer to the question “as far as you’re concerned, what is the SINGLE MOST important issue facing the country at the present time?” which was asked to more than 30,000 BES respondents during the election campaign.

Chart 1 shows the words that were used most frequently in response to this question, the size of the word representing the number of times it was mentioned. *While understandably terrorism, immigration, the economy and the NHS all featured heavily, the dominant issue was Brexit*. More than one in three people mentioned Brexit or the EU, compared to fewer than one in 10 who mentioned the NHS and one in 20 who suggested the economy._

*Labour was seen as the best bet for those wanting to keep closer ties with our European neighbours*_. Not only did they win over a large number of remainers from the Conservatives, but also from the pro-EU Greens and Lib Dems. Nearly two thirds of 2015 Greens went to Labour as well as around of a quarter of Liberal Democrats. Overall more than half of all remain voters voted for Labour, compared to a quarter for the Conservatives and 15% for Lib Dems. _(My bolds).


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2017)




----------



## hash tag (Aug 24, 2017)

I am no fan of speculating on a new leader when the current one is quite safe and this is not brilliant.

Emily Thornberry tipped as next Labour leader


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am no fan of speculating on a new leader when the current one is quite safe and this is not brilliant.
> 
> Emily Thornberry tipped as next Labour leader


only acceptable if she uses 'Thorn in Your Side' as a campaign slogan and the eurythmics tune as her entrance music


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am no fan of speculating on a new leader when the current one is quite safe and this is not brilliant.
> 
> Emily Thornberry tipped as next Labour leader


why share it then? it's a total nothing of a story.


----------



## Bingo (Aug 24, 2017)

Fake headline no? They've just sat him there and pestered him with questions, then tried to cobble an article together with whatever they managed to get.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 24, 2017)

It is indeed really fucking tiresome.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 24, 2017)

I'm hoping there's a list somewhere of MPs who actually demonstrate a class analysis, and that they are having endless resources thrown at them to put them in the best position to stand when Jez stands down.

The main two who are making their voices heard at the moment are Chris Williamson and Laura Pidcock, but Laura in particular has got to get some years behind her yet, and I can imagine everything _and_ the kitchen sink being thrown at Chris if he decided to stand.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But the electorate wasn't arsed, on balance.


equally, the electorate's antennae were working well enough to sense that the tories were trying to completely stitch them up; "we need a strong majority to negotiate brexit...so here's our completely catch-all manifesto, now give us the sort of yuuuge parliamentary majority to emable us to do what the fuck we like on brexit and everything and anything else!"
Because that was, really, what their campaign platfrom boiled down to.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Few voted for the Lib Dems for various reasons including the usual one, which is that no one thinks they can ever actually win..


Ermmm, might it not also be the fact that, the last time they had enough MPs (and votes) to really make a difference, they rather badly let the side down?
They were - and are - an Austerity party; it simply _couldn't_ have happened without them.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

It seems Caroline Flint is going to vote for the EU withdrawal bill against a Labour three line whip. I don't think a detailed analysis is needed as to why:







However, I wonder if Jezza will suspend here?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm hoping there's a list somewhere of MPs who actually demonstrate a class analysis, and that they are having endless resources thrown at them to put them in the best position to stand when Jez stands down.
> 
> The main two who are making their voices heard at the moment are Chris Williamson and Laura Pidcock, but Laura in particular has got to get some years behind her yet, and I can imagine everything _and_ the kitchen sink being thrown at Chris if he decided to stand.


The theory must surely be deeper than it just being matter of getting the right MPs with the right politics into the right positions? Surely that class analysis you mention extends a bit beyond that?


----------



## JimW (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> It seems Caroline Flint is going to vote for the EU withdrawal bill against a Labour three line whip. I don't think a detailed analysis is needed as to why:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would have thought she'd feel comfortable enough with a 12 percent lead even with no UKIP candidate standing so Tories presumably getting maximum they would have done there, must be plenty a lot more vulnerable than that looks unless I'm reading it wrong.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

JimW said:


> Would have thought she'd feel comfortable enough with a 12 percent lead even with no UKIP candidate standing so Tories presumably getting maximum they would have done there, must be plenty a lot more vulnerable than that looks unless I'm reading it wrong.



That seat had a 69% vote leave. So I don't think she'd feel that safe voting against Brexit endlessly.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> That seat had a 69% vote leave. So I don't think she'd feel that safe voting against Brexit endlessly.


edit: ignore - wrong caroline.


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> However, I wonder if Jezza will suspend here?


Suspend her from what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2017)

strung out said:


> Suspend her from what?


I suspect he means "will Corbyn withdraw the party whip from her?".  That one would be a double-edged sword.  Withdraw the whip and she's free to say any old anti-Corbyn shit that she likes, and she would, what with being a full-on moderate/Maquis/Progress type.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> That seat had a 69% vote leave. So I don't think she'd feel that safe voting against Brexit endlessly.



Being in a leave constituency will make it more difficult for her CP to object, but she can't realistically be fearful about voting the same way as all the other Labour MPs on a three-line whip. She was vociferously pro-remain in the referendum and she's already been re-elected with a comfortable majority since then, as we can see above. It's about the fact that, if no-one pulls a Labour rebellion together, there's a strong risk of JC scoring a highly significant commons victory.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 12, 2017)

Momentum Plotting To 'Storm' Party Conference In 'Attack on Social Democracy', Says Labour MP | HuffPost UK

Terrible Momentum types planning to turn up to, sorry 'storm', the party conference. Awful.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Momentum Plotting To 'Storm' Party Conference In 'Attack on Social Democracy', Says Labour MP | HuffPost UK
> 
> Terrible Momentum types planning to turn up to, sorry 'storm', the party conference. Awful.



Talking of attacks on social democracy the Labour right around here did a fine job of organising to exclude left wing reps going to conference although I think there's still potential for a light shower.


----------



## bemused (Sep 12, 2017)

That article is a gem. 



> The meeting was also told anti-Semitism within the party had handed Theresa May power.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> That article is a gem.


Apparently cost Labour a string of North London seats. Doesn't say which ones mind


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2017)

Cosmopolitan ones i bet.


----------



## bemused (Sep 12, 2017)

JTG said:


> Apparently cost Labour a string of North London seats. Doesn't say which ones mind



The suggestion that if Corbyn was a bit nicer to the Jews would have swept him into power seems a bit lame.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 12, 2017)

> He was speaking at a gathering of *so-called* moderate MPs and activists in parliament


Is that usual for Huff Post? Just more of a qualifier than I've seen elsewhere. But they're a bit like the Indy these days, aren't they?


----------



## bemused (Sep 12, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Is that usual for Huff Post? Just more of a qualifier than I've seen elsewhere. But they're a bit like the Indy these days, aren't they?



Yeah, I read it and thought it was a bit passive aggressive.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2017)

Nine N London constituencies won by Tories:
Uxbridge & Ruislip South - 5,034
Rusilip, Northwood & Pinner - 13,980
Harrow East - 1,757
Hendon - 1,072
Finchley & Golders Green - 1,657
Chipping Barnet - 353
Chingford & Woodford Green - 2,438
Romford - 13,778
Hornchurch & Upminster - 17,723

Some small majorities in there for sure.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> Yeah, I read it and thought it was a bit passive aggressive.


Well, it's one of those where I'd arguably agree with the notion that their moderateness is only 'so-called', but just surprised to see it being used there.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2017)

Chipping Barnet looks tasty - Villiers is toast next time for sure.


----------



## bemused (Sep 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Chipping Barnet looks tasty - Villiers is toast next time for sure.



The last Tory campaign was so awful I wouldn't count on anything.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 12, 2017)

JTG said:


> Apparently cost Labour a string of North London seats. Doesn't say which ones mind



It really shows how they think. The function of anti-racism is winning minority votes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2017)

Knotted said:


> It really shows how they think. The function of anti-racism is winning minority votes.



As above, so below.  So many Labour councillors appear to operate on the same idea.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2017)

The opening paragraphs of this big article is heartwarming.



_At 10pm on Thursday 8 June, shadow chancellor John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn’s oldest and best political friend, was sitting with Conservative defence secretary Michael Fallon in the glare of the BBC studio lights, preparing for a long night ahead. The general election exit poll was meant to confirm that Theresa May’s gamble had paid off, and she had strengthened her majority. Instead, it suggested Labour was in touching distance of ousting her from Downing Street.

“I was on air when the exit poll was announced,” McDonnell recalled. “I get on all right with Michael, but he’s a tough character, he’s robust. When it came on, I did the usual bit, ‘This is just a poll.’ That’s the standard line for politicians to spout at the early stage of a marathon election night”. But as he glanced at the defence secretary, “the blood drained from his face,” McDonnell said. “When the cameras were off, he was gripping my arm, saying, ‘This can’t be right John, this can’t be right.’ And I was having to calm him down and say, ‘It’s only a poll Michael, don’t worry.’”_


The inside story of Labour’s election shock


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> The opening paragraphs of this big article is heartwarming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be a fly on the wall at tory HQ or wherever May was hiding from the public.


----------



## bemused (Sep 22, 2017)

Politics since the election since the election has been rather dull. Almost as if opposition parties don't want to disrupt too much just in case they end up holding the Brexit baby.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2017)

Parliament has been in recess. It's the same every year.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 22, 2017)

Apart from Ruislip, Hornchurch and Romford, a strong Labour campaign _could_ sweep all those London Tory incumbents out. Not just Villiers but Duncan-Smith and even possibly Boris Johnson  -- that would be a Portillo moment  

(All depending on the boundaries not being altered before the next GE, mind you  )


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 22, 2017)

Putney also has only a 1,554 majority. Toast for Justine Greening too?


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> (All depending on the boundaries not being altered before the next GE, mind you  )


No chance of that now.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 22, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Putney also has only a 1,554 majority. Toast for Justine Greening too?



Goldsmith's majority is wafer thin in Richmond Park as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2017)

7 nation army chants at the conference this morning. lol.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 24, 2017)

he was looking quite assured on the Marr pro this morning, despite Marrr lazily  and repeatedly invoking tropes about the winter of discontent/ massed strikes and shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> he was looking quite assured on the Marr pro this morning, despite Marrr lazily  and repeatedly invoking tropes about the winter of discontent/ massed strikes and shit.


I did like his thing about the 50% for strike ballots 'its hugely unfair,almost no MP's get 50% of the electorate. Except me cos I'm the absolute fuckin boy'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> 7 nation army chants at the conference this morning. lol.



and at the leeds match on saturday!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2017)

read something on Benn's diaries saying el corbo did not at the time of maastricht share Benn's particular take on europe. Not that it matters now, I just recall some right journo saying 'corbyns lukewarm remain speech was because of his bennite take' or similar.

anyway conference week. Raynor was making the procedural stuff look like the height of entertainment although she has got a few routine digs in on the tories which were funny. Best one of the conference so far was on the EU negotiations 'like dads army in the middle of an episode of Yes Minister'


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 26, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> read something on Benn's diaries saying el corbo did not at the time of maastricht share Benn's particular take on europe. Not that it matters now, I just recall some right journo saying 'corbyns lukewarm remain speech was because of his bennite take' or similar.


 
One of the causes that Benn consistently believed should trump the siren call of high office was Europe. Here he sometimes found himself out of step with his comrades on the left, including Corbyn. In 1992 he was passionately committed to a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, on the grounds that Parliament was abrogating the sovereignty of the people. Not only was the entire Labour shadow cabinet under John Smith opposed to such a view, so too was a group that included Corbyn, Dennis Skinner and Bernie Grant. ‘It disoriented me a bit,’ Benn writes, ‘because you don’t like to go against your own people.’ Still, Benn felt he had no choice but to press on, and was shot down in flames at a meeting of the PLP. 

From this: LRB · David Runciman · Short Cuts: Tony and Jeremy


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> One of the causes that Benn consistently believed should trump the siren call of high office was Europe. Here he sometimes found himself out of step with his comrades on the left, including Corbyn. In 1992 he was passionately committed to a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, on the grounds that Parliament was abrogating the sovereignty of the people. Not only was the entire Labour shadow cabinet under John Smith opposed to such a view, so too was a group that included Corbyn, Dennis Skinner and Bernie Grant. ‘It disoriented me a bit,’ Benn writes, ‘because you don’t like to go against your own people.’ Still, Benn felt he had no choice but to press on, and was shot down in flames at a meeting of the PLP.
> 
> From this: LRB · David Runciman · Short Cuts: Tony and Jeremy


nice one.



I may have read it there in the first place and forgot.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2017)

I see they didn't manage to keep Mad Ken Livingstone away from the press this morning.


----------



## bemused (Sep 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> I see they didn't manage to keep Mad Ken Livingstone away from the press this morning.



Did he mention Hitler?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2017)

presumably he doubled down on the chavez should have killed the rich venezualan oligarchs thing. e2a google says he denies saying it


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 26, 2017)

killer b said:


> I see they didn't manage to keep Mad Ken Livingstone away from the press this morning.


The old boy really does need putting out to pasture...


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2017)

He is out to pasture. But they have his mobile number and he's a fucking gobshite


----------



## Spandex (Sep 26, 2017)

Usually when Labour come to town the centre of Brighton fills up with smarmy young men & women with sharp suits and tidy hair, walking purposefully around glued to their iPhones. This year they're clearly outnumbered by union types (ill fitting suits) and public sector types (untidy hair) ambling around chatting to each other. It's really noticeable.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2017)

Spandex said:


> Usually when Labour come to town the centre of Brighton fills up with smarmy young men & women with sharp suits and tidy hair, walking purposefully around glued to their iPhones. This year they're clearly outnumbered by union types (ill fitting suits) and public sector types (untidy hair) ambling around chatting to each other. It's really noticeable.


Wasn't it the BNP who pioneered the ' ill fitting suit' style ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2017)

Dky Corbyn insists on using a recycled auld Blairite slogan


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Wasn't it the BNP who pioneered the ' ill fitting suit' style ?


No, it was demobbed servicemen at the end of the second world war through necessity rather than choice


----------



## SovietArmy (Sep 28, 2017)

I confused why Labour calling general elections in two years when I look at wikepedia pages telling 2022 be held general elections.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2017)

File under 'why Corbynism is going down the pan...'

Angela Rayner: Labour should move on from academies debate



> The Labour Party should “move on” from the debate over academies and focus on campaigning for greater controls over the way they are run, the shadow education secretary has said.
> 
> Speaking to Schools Week ahead of the Labour Party conference, Angela Rayner no longer wants to get “bogged down” in debates on the merits of certain types of school, and will instead pursue the government on the use of public money.
> 
> ...



Could have come from Hunt, Gove, Morgan or Greening. Just awful.


----------



## mather (Oct 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> File under 'why Corbynism is going down the pan...'
> 
> Angela Rayner: Labour should move on from academies debate
> 
> ...



For the positives of Corbynism, never be blind to it's limitations.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> read something on Benn's diaries saying el corbo did not at the time of maastricht share Benn's particular take on europe. Not that it matters now, I just recall some right journo saying 'corbyns lukewarm remain speech was because of his bennite take' or similar.
> 
> anyway conference week. Raynor was making the procedural stuff look like the height of entertainment although she has got a few routine digs in on the tories which were funny. Best one of the conference so far was on the EU negotiations 'like dads army in the middle of an episode of Yes Minister'



haven't looked for any more info on this, but bearing in mind Corbyn was openly opposed to EU since 74'  ( from a left Labour perspective) ', but Benn was in the early 70's still making the journey from aristo Wedgewood Benn / ex Cabinet Minister,  to Left Lab figure,  could Corbyn have been 'not sharing Benn's take on the EU ' in the same way he didn't support Blair etc's on GFA, ie : opposing from the left ?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 3, 2017)

I don't believe Corbyn was ever in favour of the EU. As an ex Union leader, he has always known that an influx of low skilled foreign workers would reduce the number of jobs available for British workers.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I don't believe Corbyn was ever in favour of the EU. As an ex Union leader, he has always known that an influx of low skilled foreign workers would reduce the number of jobs available for British workers.


he's never been a union leader, nor has that ever been his argument


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 3, 2017)

Wikipedia : "Corbyn began his career as a representative for various trade unions."

Corbyn has certainly been very close to the Unions for many years, even though some may not classify him as a leader. He certainly did not appear to be enthusiastic in his campaign for the remain vote.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 3, 2017)

mather said:


> For the positives of Corbynism, never be blind to it's limitations.



I obviously do not think much of the 'abolishing tuition fees is a preoccupation of the middle-class, it's much more important to focus on [means tested solution] at primary or secondary level' BUT continuing to be pledged to abolishing fees while coming to terms with the rampant commodification of secondary education would certainly fit that bill.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Wikipedia : "Corbyn began his career as a representative for various trade unions."
> 
> Corbyn has certainly been very close to the Unions for many years, even though some may not classify him as a leader. He certainly did not appear to be enthusiastic in his campaign for the remain vote.


Reps are not leaders. No one would classify him as a union leader.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> he's never been a union leader, nor has that ever been his argument


but apart from that...


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 3, 2017)

ETA can't be arsed to reply to the new fella


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I don't believe Corbyn was ever in favour of the EU. As an ex Union leader, he has always known that an influx of low skilled foreign workers would reduce the number of jobs available for British workers.



I need a dump and can't get down the stairs to the bog cos I've broke my foot. I want to know what Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, proposes to do about that.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 3, 2017)

He'll ask Theresa May in PMQs what _she's_ going to do about it.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 3, 2017)

SpineyNorman said:


> I need a dump and can't get down the stairs to the bog cos I've broke my foot. I want to know what Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, proposes to do about that.



Commodes for all, didn't you read the manifesto?


----------



## A380 (Oct 4, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Commodes for all, didn't you read the manifesto?


'Then Commodes come rally'


----------



## Poi E (Oct 4, 2017)

Jeremy has the sparkling wine on ice tonight.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Jeremy has the sparkling wine on ice tonight.


he doesn't drink but _is _middle class. Organic schloer maybe


----------



## Poi E (Oct 4, 2017)

Ah! Good man. We have one thing in common.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 5, 2017)

He does not drink... Wine.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 6, 2017)

NoXion said:


> He does not drink... Wine.



He drinks a tiny bit apparently


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> He drinks a tiny bit apparently


communion


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> He drinks a tiny bit apparently



Glass of wine with a meal, which is just part of the meal really.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 6, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> communion



Papist too eh

Disgusting


----------



## J Ed (Oct 6, 2017)

Bit much considering he's already a key part of the whole service


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Bit much considering he's already a key part of the whole service


leading by example, as did another JC very long ago 'this is my blood'

and then the pringle 'this is my body'


----------



## Poi E (Oct 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> and then the pringle 'this is my body'



The communion wafer of consumption

apol. to JR Saul.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 9, 2017)

The Tories are indeed in a mess, but Corbyn would be far worse for the economy than any Tory government, ever.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> The Tories are indeed in a mess, but Corbyn would be far worse for the economy than any Tory government, ever.



care to show your workings? (without saying "Venezuela")


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 9, 2017)

Hello Boris.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 9, 2017)

Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.

Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.

Under a socialist system, hardworking brother A is indirectly subsidising the lifestyle of lazy shit brother B.

 There are valid reasons why the Tories are the most popular political party.


----------



## Supine (Oct 9, 2017)

*** troll alert ***


----------



## JimW (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> ...
> 
> There are valid reasons why the Tories are the most popular political party.


Not sure making up bullshit stories about non-existent things like subsidised housing counts as valid by any usual definition, but if it keeps you off the streets.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...



Cool analogy bro. What happens when brother A cant get any building work because of a recession and has to work as a night cleaner on minimum wage? He cant pay for his mortgage, has his house repossessed and the stress causes him to develop serious depression. His wife cant take it anymore and leaves him. He then he ends up developing a serious alcohol abuse issue which results in him getting sacked and then ends up begging on the streets.
Does brother B walks past him and says "Dude - WTF? - its almost as if real life cant be reduced to simplistic platitudes about "hard work" in order to justify gross inequality"?


----------



## Santino (Oct 9, 2017)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 9, 2017)

"Not sure making up bullshit stories about non-existent things like subsidised housing counts as valid by any usual definition"

Just trying to keep it simple for you.

There are many scholarly articles that I could link to on why socialism doesn't work, but they'll probably go right over your head.

Why do you think UK voters have not supported such a system, come election time?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "Not sure making up bullshit stories about non-existent things like subsidised housing counts as valid by any usual definition"
> 
> Just trying to keep it simple for you.
> 
> ...



And there was me thinking that we've had a welfare state and NHS since 1945 precisely because of widespread public support for such socialist institutions and that the depredations visited on both are a key reason why Labour's fortunes have revived so markedly. Maybe us lazy people are in a majority.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> What happens when brother A cant get any building work because of a recession and has to work as a night cleaner on minimum wage?



Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.

Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.

Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.


Giggle

What if brother A is actually a brother and systemic biases means he’s unable to get another job solely due to the colour of his skin?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.


you can have all the work ethic you like, it doesn't guarantee you a job


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> And there was me thinking that we've had a welfare state and NHS since 1945



And you really think Corbyn is happy with what you term is a "welfare state"? if so, you are delusional.

Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "
> There are many scholarly articles that I could link to on why socialism doesn't work, but they'll probably go right over your head.


go on, link to a couple, i need a laugh


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.


That’s why we voted for it


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.



Of course. Hardworking bricklayers - or hardworking people in any line of work - never ever have problems finding well paid work and always have enough put by to cover themselves in case of misfortune. Even those who can barely pay for their hugely overinflated housing costs.
Me bad. Fuck the poor. Fuck the sick and disabled.  Sell the NHS. #roadtoserfdom


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> And there was me thinking that we've had a welfare state and NHS since 1945 precisely because of widespread public support for such socialist institutions and that the depredations visited on both are a key reason why Labour's fortunes have revived so markedly. Maybe us lazy people are in a majority.


nhs established 1948


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And you really think Corbyn is happy with what you term is a "welfare state"? if so, you are delusional.
> 
> Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.



Bringing back British rail, an increase of corporation tax to the European average and building some more council houses. Bring it on comrade.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> nhs established 1948



Thankyou mr picky. But "nhs" should be capitalised  if you want to start throwing pedant stones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Thankyou mr picky. But "nhs" should be capitalised  if you want to start throwing pedant stones.


do i have to point out again that i'm an anti-capitalist?


----------



## ffsear (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...



You been watching re runs of eastenders again ?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> do i have to point out again that i'm an anti-capitalist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry link to those articles about socialism, chuck.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 9, 2017)

Can you be lazy, feckless and workshy AND a socialist Larry ? That's the burning question for me


----------



## Nylock (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...





Happy Larry said:


> "Not sure making up bullshit stories about non-existent things like subsidised housing counts as valid by any usual definition"
> 
> Just trying to keep it simple for you.
> 
> ...





Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.





Happy Larry said:


> And you really think Corbyn is happy with what you term is a "welfare state"? if so, you are delusional.
> 
> Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.



Wow, you really haven't a clue. That one about the work ethic and being a prudent saver was a particular gem...

So where's the scholarly articles oh simplistic bullshitter?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 9, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Can you be *lazy, feckless and workshy* AND a socialist Larry ? That's the burning question for me


My bold. Isn't that what intellectually lazy dickwipes like him believe socialists to be anyway? Or maybe what he believes socialism leads to?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 9, 2017)

A380 said:


> 'Then Commodes come rally'


... and the last shite let us face.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.



I work because there are things that I need to do, and things that need doing by someone. I'd like to be paid more for doing the work I do but that's another question.

If someone else decides to do fuck all with their time, why do I care? I could do that too but I choose not to.

Also plenty of people who don't ''work'' actually do work. Full-time parents, for one. People that do voluntary work, for another.

The problem isn't people ''being too lazy to work'' the problem is envy. Fuck envy. Find something to do with your time that makes you happy, and let other people do the same. Nobody deserves to starve and live in the cold.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And you really think Corbyn is happy with what you term is a "welfare state"? if so, you are delusional.
> 
> Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.


And ? I'm quite happy to pay more tax if it makes society better , you know things like, giving the people  who work in services that look after and teach us a decent wage , crazy eh ?


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...



So if you get cancer you'll refuse NHS treatment and instead pay for it out of your own pocket? Don't wanna be one of those lazy socialists now would you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I work because there are things that I need to do, and things that need doing by someone. I'd like to be paid more for doing the work I do but that's another question.
> 
> If someone else decides to do fuck all with their time, why do I care? I could do that too but I choose not to.
> 
> ...


tory mps do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...



What is "subsidised housing"?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 9, 2017)

Not one like yet Happy Larry ? Perhaps you're in the wrong place


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Bringing back British rail, an increase of corporation tax to the European average building some more council houses. Bring it on comrade.



I always wondered what Ron Mael from Sparks did as a youth.  Now I know - he was a model for socialist realism artwork.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Nylock said:


> So where's the scholarly articles oh simplistic bullshitter?



They don't exist.  Expect links to newspaper articles by the likes of Roger Scrotum, Simon Heffer, Andrew Roberts, Daniel Hannan and a host of other mad-eyed screamers, possibly even some Yank neoconservative crap.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 9, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> They don't exist.  Expect links to newspaper articles by the likes of Roger Scrotum, Simon Heffer, Andrew Roberts, Daniel Hannan and a host of other mad-eyed screamers, possibly even some Yank neoconservative crap.



Cato institute and VonMises.org here we come!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry, about those scholarly articles you mentioned...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Cato institute and VonMises.org here we come!!



I don't think he's astute enough to have been able to take in the learned _dreck_ that they retail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry come on now, don't be shy


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Happy Larry, about those scholarly articles you mentioned...


Now now , they would only go over our heads


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Now now , they would only go over our heads


yeh. cos they'll be stuck to flying pigs


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.


you have a small penis.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 9, 2017)

maybe a diversion, but the idea of hardworking does open up that Weberian work ethic sink hole, which no one really wants to get involved with. As to  the need for hard work, that is another question entirely but it is an essential component of the capitalist model as it stands. and I am still lazy.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2017)

Hey Happy Larry who's this guy?


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

I wonder if Happy Larry would be willing to be monitored each and every second of his workday so that his employers could adjust his hourly rate based on his productivity. Why should people who work faster than him and use the toilets less often get paid the same as he does?

After all, only a lazy socialist would have it any other way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

NoXion said:


> I wonder if Happy Larry would be willing to be monitored each and every second of his workday so that his employers could adjust his hourly rate based on his productivity. Why should people who work faster than him and use the toilets less often get paid the same as he does?
> 
> After all, only a lazy socialist would have it any other way.


he's in management


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he's in management



Wouldn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he's in management



And what passes for his mind is in receivership.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.


This is the main argument that the Tories use against the idea of a welfare state, it's very popular but it's still fucking dumb.
Yes we all know there are some lazy dipshits who scrounge off the system, so what? In a nation of 70 million people it is utterly impossible to design a perfect system so you have take one of 2 viewpoints either
a) In order for everyone in genuine need to get the help they need you have to put up with the odd deadbeat who takes a free ride
b) In order to make sure that no-one gets something they shouldn't you have to set the rules so tight that genuine cases lose out.
Not only is a) more civilized than b) it works out cheaper in the long run anyway,  since it's the same stupid argument that says it's a good idea to drug test welfare recipients.
The belief seems to be that if you cut off their benefits, they'll have some kind of epiphany, go cold turkey and get a job, No they fucking won't, they'll just start stealing and it costs a lot more to lock people up.
There is a very small percentage of people on benefits who meet the stereotype that the Fail loves to push but they are vastly outnumbered by those in genuine need and helping the latter is worth the low cost of just ignoring the former.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 9, 2017)

Who'd have thunk it eh Happy Larry ?

More than half of Londoners in poverty are in working families


----------



## nardy (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Socialism favours the lazy at the expense of the hardworking.
> 
> Say there are two brothers, both bricklayers. Brother A works hard, has bought his own house, works long hours and pays loads of tax. Brother B is constantly losing his job due to him pissing it up and not attending work. He lives in subsidised housing and regularly claims unemployment benefits due to being a lazy shit and preferring to take lengthy breaks from work.
> 
> ...


Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.



parroted straight from the Sun...


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.



Can I borrow your crystal ball?


----------



## Fingers (Oct 9, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Can I borrow your crystal ball?



You don't need that, just borrow his copy of the Sun.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.



Don’t you have some hard work to be getting on with ? There are new arrivals at Dover waiting for their £25 grand handout. IN CASH


----------



## Fingers (Oct 9, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Don’t you have some hard work to be getting on with ? There are new arrivals at Dover waiting for their £25 grand handout. IN CASH



don't forget their free people carriers, free 50 foot plasma TV and free Orange Tuesday tickets.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 9, 2017)

Libertad said:


> And what passes for his mind is in receivership.



Liquidated, I think.


----------



## nardy (Oct 9, 2017)

See what I mean Happy Larry? Total waste of time.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 9, 2017)

If it's such a waste of time old bean, why bother coming here at all? Unless of course sneering and second-rate trollery is actually the best you can come up with.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 9, 2017)

coalotion of chaos happy shopper trollery


----------



## nardy (Oct 9, 2017)

teqniq said:


> If it's such a waste of time old bean, why bother coming here at all?


I like to read what lefties think, and why.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.


Yet another statement with zero evidence to support it, the Tories have run the economy for my entire working life and it doesn't strike me that they've done a good job, indeed they came to power on a promise of sorting out the Labour "mess" well here we are are 7 years later with Sweet FA in the way of any improvement. There are major economies in the world whose natural politics run to the right of ours that are more successful  than us such as the USA (though you could argue it's size and natural resources are more significant than any policy), the major EU powers like France and Germany tend to be more centrist (rather than left wing) and the Nordics are certainly more left leaning than the UK and it's right wing approach.   All of them seem to be doing fine to me, so the right is good for the economy and the left is bad isn't a valid argument, it's just recycled talking points. No-one is suggesting that the UK should become another Venezuela (other than the crackpots who run the Fail or the Torygraph) but being more like Denmark or Sweden seems cool to me.
I have no idea whether or not Old Reborn Labour is going to do a good job on running the economy but its glaring obvious that the Tory Party doesn't have a sodding clue, not only that they insist on trying the same shit over and over again, lets try something different.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 9, 2017)

The Tories have come to the end of the line because to have a hope of staying in power they will have to reverse everything they have been banging on about since Thatch. They talk of capping fuel prices rent controls & building council houses but Corbyn's Labour will do all that better if thats what voters want. The next GE will be the battle of the have houses & the have not houses I think because the provision of decent affordable housing for all will require house owners & buy to letters to take a big hit on the value of their assets.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.


Oh look, another cunt.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> See what I mean Happy Larry? Total waste of time.


Then, please, fuck off somewhere else. When you get there, fuck-off a bit further. Keep fucking off until you end up back here and then fuck off again


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.


Yeh just like they won this year


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry those articles if you please


----------



## agricola (Oct 9, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Firstly, brother A, due to his work ethic, will be a highly sought after employee, even during a recession, so will have no problem finding employment.
> 
> Secondly, being prudent and hard working, he will have put aside some funds to carry him through the tough times.
> 
> Brother A looks after himself whilst Brother B depends on a nanny state to look after him.



So we should all vote for a party who were all raised by actual nannies?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

agricola said:


> So we should all vote for a party who were all raised by actual nannies?



Not just raised, either.  Didn't Jacob Rees Mogg get his nanny to canvass for him, too?


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

nardy said:


> See what I mean Happy Larry? Total waste of time.



If you're not going to bother backing up your assertions that Corbyn will definitely fuck up the economy, then yes you are wasting your time.

Wasting your time being a Tory bullshitter, that is.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 9, 2017)

Still no sign of those scholarly articles that Happy Larry mentioned.

Could he possibly have been lying? Heaven forfend!


----------



## Ground Elder (Oct 10, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> they came to power on a promise of sorting out the Labour "mess" well here we are are 7 years later with Sweet FA in the way of any improvement


I don't think it's entirely fair to blame it on Sweet FA.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The Tories have come to the end of the line because to have a hope of staying in power they will have to reverse everything they have been banging on about since Thatch. They talk of capping fuel prices rent controls & building council houses but Corbyn's Labour will do all that better if thats what voters want. The next GE will be the battle of the have houses & the have not houses I think because the provision of decent affordable housing for all will require house owners & buy to letters to take a big hit on the value of their assets.



About the have houses and the have not houses thing.

The Tories have been relying on the support of the home owner demographic for quite a long time now, without doing anything to help people not on the market, and in fact making things worse for them not only by encouraging house prices to rise but by also squeezing wages, cutting services, and making them rack up enormous student debt. They basically ignored all the youth out of an assumption, based on the experience of their generation, that they would all get on the housing market sooner or later, without really thinking about how this would happen and putting up every obstacle towards it. Another reason they ignored it is because of a tired cliche that people become Tory as they get older - but this is of course not a natural law or inevitable, just a lazy cliche. And these lazy assumptions and oversights may well lead to their demise as a party unless they can successfully reinvent themselves soon.

Because suddenly, they're realising that they aren't just despised by a some students who will soon grow out of it as the baby boomers did, but by the vast majority of everyone under the age of 40. (and unlike baby boomer student radicals who were part of an elite, it is now about half of all school leavers who go to university.) Their membership has now plunged to less than a fifth of Labour's with an average age of 71 and rising. Soon Labour could be 6 or even 7 times larger than them, and much younger too. They are literally dying off, and as a symptom of this decaying membership they are stuck with a leader who is incompetent and literally a joke, but who they are unable to get rid of because the only viable alternatives - Boris, Rees-Mogg, Gove - are even worse. To survive, they have to fix the housing crisis, which in practise would mean repudiating their entire ideological identity and basically imitating the Labour Party. And they may not be able to change, because their memberships consists so much of real estate speculators and landlords, people who absolutely have to take a hit to solve the housing crisis, that they will never find the will to make the necessary steps they must to survive as a party.

They are very, very, very fucked, and despite looking fairly strong on the surface, based on fundementals like demographics, membership, and pool of talent, there is good reason to doubt their survival as a party over the next 20 years. A Labour landslide next election is basically inevitable, and I could totally see the Lib Dems riding on "centrist dad" type voters, right leaning Remainers, and former Tories to become the main opposition party/business party next to a Tory party that has spent much of its term manufacturing political crises through incompetence and misjudgement, causing great pain for none of the promised gain, selling out an entire generation, and, likely in this later stage, tearing itself apart through petty and ignoble infighting.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And you really think Corbyn is happy with what you term is a "welfare state"? if so, you are delusional.
> 
> Read the Labour manifesto. You will see that he is totally unhappy and wants increased taxation, nationalisation and all the other trappings of a true socialist system.


Ooh yes please!!!


----------



## NoXion (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> About the have houses and the have not houses thing.
> 
> The Tories have been relying on the support of the home owner demographic for quite a long time now, without doing anything to help people not on the market, and in fact making things worse for them not only by encouraging house prices to rise but by also squeezing wages, cutting services, and making them rack up enormous student debt. They basically ignored all the youth out of an assumption, based on the experience of their generation, that they would all get on the housing market sooner or later, without really thinking about how this would happen and putting up every obstacle towards it. Another reason they ignored it is because of a tired cliche that people become Tory as they get older - but this is of course not a natural law or inevitable, just a lazy cliche. And these lazy assumptions and oversights may well lead to their demise as a party unless they can successfully reinvent themselves soon.
> 
> ...



What about the really rich (esp. corporate) donors to the vermin? How long could they keep the Tory machine on life support?


----------



## agricola (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> They are very, very, very fucked, and despite looking fairly strong on the surface, based on fundementals like demographics, membership, and pool of talent, there is good reason to doubt their survival as a party over the next 20 years. A Labour landslide next election is basically inevitable, and I could totally see the Lib Dems riding on "centrist dad" type voters, right leaning Remainers, and former Tories to become the main opposition party/business party next to a Tory party that has spent much of its term manufacturing political crises through incompetence and misjudgement, causing great pain for none of the promised gain, selling out an entire generation, and, likely in this later stage, tearing itself apart through petty and ignoble infighting.



I'd love to agree with you, but by the time the next election comes around they will be nearly 190 years old as a recognizable political party and they have spent most of that time both being consistently wrong and consistently winning elections.  They aren't going to die off, they aren't going to be crushed by the youth (who will like all young people get more self-deluded as they age) and they will find a way to "fix" the housing crisis that results in them benefiting the most.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> (who will like all young people get more self-deluded as they age)


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I always wondered what Ron Mael from Sparks did as a youth.  Now I know - he was a model for socialist realism artwork.


Oh YES!!!! A Sparks reference on U75.
I can truly die a happy man


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

NoXion said:


> What about the really rich (esp. corporate) donors to the vermin? How long could they keep the Tory machine on life support?


Not that long, without votes. They need the votes, and they are haemorrhaging them.
The key point is, a majority of people under 59 voted Labour last time. If the Tories somehow spin this out for 4 years, that's a huge slice of their majority wiped out, and a big boost to Labour, purely courtesy of the grim reaper


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 10, 2017)

nardy said:


> Don't waste your time with this lot. Just console yourself with the thought that, even if Corbyn does win next time, he'll make such a major fuck of the economy (upon which all social services rely) that the Tories will win the following 5++ elections in a row.



You're spot on regarding Corbyn. However regarding wasting my time, I find more enjoyment in debating politics with those I disagree with than nodding heads with those with whom I agree. Obviously, unlike myself, many here obviously prefer the feeling of security that being in the company of the likeminded presumably gives them. 

Many of the posters here are typical socialists who probably have no idea what JFK was on about when he urged people to ask what they could do for their country rather than ask what their country can do for them.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 10, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> The key point is, a majority of people under 59 voted Labour last time. If the Tories somehow spin this out for 4 years, that's a huge slice of their majority wiped out, and a big boost to Labour, purely courtesy of the grim reaper



Not much logic there. As people get older and wiser, they tend to vote Tory, so although some Tories may die off over the next few years, many more will take their place.

Corbyn was very good during the last election in persuading the young and gullible to vote for him. His vague comments about student loans in the lead up to the last election brought him a shit load of votes, only for him to backtrack on what he'd said, after the votes were counted. No doubt he will use the same tactics before the next election. Everyone likes a free lunch. Many of those who vote for him are more interested in immediate reward for themselves rather than the long term stability of our economy.


----------



## belboid (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Not much logic there. As people get older and wiser, they tend to vote Tory, so although some Tories may die off over the next few years, many more will take their place.


Any evidence for this one? Although we are still waiting for the evidence you promised earlier, of course.

By the way, the fact that older people have voted Tory the last few elections is not evidence for your assertion.

btw, you're not actually 'debating politics', you're making a few sterotypical assertions and then buggering off.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> Any evidence for this one?



It's self evident. You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been around a long, long time but have still been the most popular political party at the last few elections.


----------



## belboid (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> It's self evident. You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been around a long, long time but have still been the most popular political party at the last few elections.


Oh dear, you really don't understand, do you?

It is not 'self evident' at all. It is just an assertion. Please provide some actual evidence.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> It's self evident. You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been around a long, long time but have still been the most popular political party at the last few elections.



So the evidence that people tend to get older, wiser and Torier is to do with the last three general elections? What about the period before that when not so many people were voting Tory? Were they all younger and sillier then? And why is it impossible that they can't be young and silly again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> It's self evident. You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been around a long, long time but have still been the most popular political party at the last few elections.


Those scholarly articles, they're a figment of your imagination aren't they


----------



## NoXion (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You're spot on regarding Corbyn.



How the fuck would you know? You've just uncritically swallowed whole his completely unsubstantiated assertion. Is that how shit works among Tory lickspittles?

No wonder the Tories are doing badly.



> However regarding wasting my time, I find more enjoyment in debating politics with those I disagree with than nodding heads with those with whom I agree. Obviously, unlike myself, many here obviously prefer the feeling of security that being in the company of the likeminded presumably gives them.



Which is why you've been banned already. Oh wait...



> Many of the posters here are typical socialists who probably have no idea what JFK was on about when he urged people to ask what they could do for their country rather than ask what their country can do for them.



It's rhetoric, being used as a quote by some knob who thinks he's being clever. It can mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean.

Back to facts. Where are those scholarly articles that you mentioned earlier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You're spot on regarding Corbyn. However regarding wasting my time, I find more enjoyment in debating politics with those I disagree with than nodding heads with those with whom I agree. Obviously, unlike myself, many here obviously prefer the feeling of security that being in the company of the likeminded presumably gives them.
> 
> Many of the posters here are typical socialists who probably have no idea what JFK was on about when he urged people to ask what they could do for their country rather than ask what their country can do for them.


He was talking to his fellow Americans, not addressing people in Canada, Mexico, or the UK. Perhaps you should read the speech. You might learn something.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 10, 2017)

NoXion said:


> How the fuck would you know? You've just uncritically swallowed whole his completely unsubstantiated assertion. Is that how shit works among Tory lickspittles?



A walking anachronism like Rees-Mogg could only gain traction in an echo chamber of a party stuffed to the gunwales with bleating reactionaries who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line without shitting themselves from the strain.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 10, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> Not that long, without votes. They need the votes, and they are haemorrhaging them.


Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.

This is their performance over the last 12 years. That is not haemorrhaging votes.
Year | % of vote | % of electorate
2005 32.4 19.9
2010 36.1 23.5
2015 36.8 24.4
2017 42.4 29.2

Neither does current polling (FWIW) show any haemorrhaging, a decline from the pre-election (probably overestimated) values they had, but the general picture is the Tories and Labour pretty much neck and neck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> This is their performance over the last 12 years. That is not haemorrhaging votes.
> Year | % of vote | % of electorate
> ...


the best way to judge them then would be to hang them all and let them really be neck and neck


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> I'd love to agree with you, but by the time the next election comes around they will be nearly 190 years old as a recognizable political party and they have spent most of that time both being consistently wrong and consistently winning elections.  They aren't going to die off, they aren't going to be crushed by the youth (who will like all young people get more self-deluded as they age) and they will find a way to "fix" the housing crisis that results in them benefiting the most.



190 years isn't that long, in the grand scheme of things. They aren't immortal, and the complacent belief that they are entitled to some kind of natural place in British politics may be what kills them. It is true that old people get more set in their ways and more conservative with a small c, but that doesn't equate to becoming Tories. It could well be the case that they become set in anti-Toryism. Hell, ecological apocolypse is possible in the next century, to paraphrase Zizek is it really easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the Tory Party?

It isn't inevitable that they will die - if they solve the housing crisis before the next election they can survive. But if we do not see any rent controls or council housing built this term, I predict that they will be a third of fourth party by the 2027 election.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

NoXion said:


> What about the really rich (esp. corporate) donors to the vermin? How long could they keep the Tory machine on life support?



So long as the Tories are the main party of business... but if their support drops too far, it is possible some wealthy donors could switch to the Lib Dems.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> This is their performance over the last 12 years. That is not haemorrhaging votes.
> Year | % of vote | % of electorate
> ...



How much of that 29％ of the electorate are pensioners though?

The average age of the Tory Party is 72. Their support amongst the under 35s is 27％. Their support amongst the under 45s is 33％. This is a worse generation gap than they have ever had.

The sheer size of the baby boomer generation, whose firm support was won largely through them profiting from home ownership, has served to conceal how fucked the Tories really are and they are only just starting to realise it now.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Not much logic there. As people get older and wiser, they tend to vote Tory, so although some Tories may die off over the next few years, many more will take their place.
> 
> Corbyn was very good during the last election in persuading the young and gullible to vote for him. His vague comments about student loans in the lead up to the last election brought him a shit load of votes, only for him to backtrack on what he'd said, after the votes were counted. No doubt he will use the same tactics before the next election. Everyone likes a free lunch. Many of those who vote for him are more interested in immediate reward for themselves rather than the long term stability of our economy.



That last sentence could describe the City and banking industries.

In your 'common sense' view if the world, is it acceptable that we live in a state that privatises profit and nationalises risk? State support and intervention to ameliorate the follies of big business but raw, unrestrained capitalism and all its consequences for those at the bottom?

Not expecting a reply btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2017)

Anyone here remember the Tory party?, They were quite a big thing until they died in 1997.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2017)

It's historical left parties dying isn't it, in this period, rather than right ones.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> How much of that 29％ of the electorate are pensioners though?
> 
> The average age of the Tory Party is 72.


If you mean the average of a member of the Tory party is 72 then killer b showed that that figure is pretty dubious here. 57 is a more likely number. 



Rimbaud said:


> Their support amongst the under 35s is 27％. Their support amongst the under 45s is 33％. This is a worse generation gap than they have ever had.


And yet they've increased both their share of the vote and the share of the electorate at the last three elections.



Rimbaud said:


> The sheer size of the baby boomer generation, whose firm support was won largely through them profiting from home ownership, has served to conceal how fucked the Tories really are and they are only just starting to realise it now.


And demographics where going to kill them off in the 00s, just as demographics where going to mean that the Republicans would never win another presidential election. Not only is this argument utterly ignorant of the past but it ignores that people change and respond to material conditions.


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> The average age of the Tory Party is 72.


This isn't true. Estimates vary (they don't publish figures) but most surveys put it at 57 (four years older than the average Labour member)


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone here remember the Tory party?, They were quite a big thing until they died in 1997.





butchersapron said:


> It's historical left parties dying isn't it, in this period, rather than right ones.



Aren't all the traditional parties dying? The left parties just have fewer life-support systems to prolong their demise.


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> Aren't all the traditional parties dying? The left parties just have fewer life-support systems to prolong their demise.



FPTP is a much stronger life support system than anything else, and I don't see much ideology-related difference in the way it sustains the big two in the UK. It can't be a coincidence that both cleaved to the centre in the millenial boom, and both have now been kidnapped by their fringes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> Aren't all the traditional parties dying? The left parties just have fewer life-support systems to prolong their demise.



Not really. I don't think so anyway. Maybe we need a list.

Anyone remember the two party system? Dealt a death blow in 2010.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 10, 2017)

Mm I don't see how the Tories are particularly fucked, when the older membership dies the next generation start to inherit, bringing their material interests into line with the Conservative coalition. Eventually that'll presumably reduce as an effect, as money continues to leech upwards, but it's not a sudden process of collapse. If things get particularly worrying they can start pushing the envelope on reducing inheritance tax (the single weirdest policy in their manifesto this year was threatening to rinse it, imo).


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 10, 2017)

And of course after the 'extinction' of the Tories in Scotland (which as danny la rouge has pointed out many times was always a silly mischaracterisation) they've now been 're-born'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> The average age of the Tory Party is 72.



There doesn't seem to be a reliable source for this. Nor does it seem mathematically likely. Modal age possibly.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 10, 2017)

The average age of 72 was stated on Have I Got News For You last Friday, by Alexander Armstrong as host.  That's how we know it's bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Oct 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There doesn't seem to be a reliable source for this. Nor does it seem mathematically likely. Modal age possibly.


"the rightwing Bow Group think-tank estimated the average age of a Conservative member is 72."
Subscribe to read


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2017)

NoXion said:


> What about the really rich (esp. corporate) donors to the vermin? How long could they keep the Tory machine on life support?



I reckon that even if donations don't increase, they'll be subject to the law of diminishing returns, as the Tories have to spend more and more on PR, eroding their "war chest" to the degree that it becomes near-worthless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> He was talking to his fellow Americans, not addressing people in Canada, Mexico, or the UK. Perhaps you should read the speech. You might learn something.



That'd be the speech he actually starts with "my fellow Americans", wouldn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2017)

That article here with no back up. They also think that in between july and now 68 year olds aged 4 years. (or, i suppose, that all the thrusting young members left).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A walking anachronism like Rees-Mogg could only gain traction in an echo chamber of a party stuffed to the gunwales with bleating reactionaries who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line without shitting themselves from the strain.



Or a party so saturated in the concept of post-modern irony that they'd think that Mogg was one of theirs.

So, the RCP basically.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be the speech he actually starts with "my fellow Americans", wouldn't it?



...


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Not really. I don't think so anyway. Maybe we need a list.
> 
> Anyone remember the two party system? Dealt a death blow in 2010.



Maybe worth it's own thread?

I dunno. Maybe my view is coloured by my time in Italy and the death of the parties there - which was at the very least accelerated by local factors.

But isn't the story at the moment the decline of the social democrats, christian democrats and the post-CP left? and the "rise of the populists"?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 10, 2017)

Common sense alone suggests that 72 is absurdly high, it would need a whacking number of politically active octo and nonagenarians. The average age in Britain as a whole is 40. Fullfact's done a useful rundown on it suggesting 57, based on work by Yougov, which sounds far more plausible.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> "the rightwing Bow Group think-tank estimated the average age of a Conservative member is 72."
> Subscribe to read



Yeah that's what I found when googling to double check.

If it is only late 50s, then I stand corrected, a party with an average age of 57 is a different beast to one with an average age of 72.

If true, that detail makes a difference to my argument, but I'm not convinced with the arguments that "people said that before but..." though. Just because the boy cried wolf doesn't mean the wolf never came. (There must be a name for this logical fallacy. )And I'm not saying it is inevitable, I'm saying it is heading that way if they don't fix the housing problem, or reinvent themselves some way, and at the moment they are lacking visionary and competent leadership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone here remember the Tory party?, They were quite a big thing until they died in 1997.



TBF, I thought that the Tory Party _per se_, in terms of holding onto a scrap of their original ideology, died some time in the '80s, under the weight of the Friedmanites.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

And anecdotally, my maternal grandparents are Tory Party members well into their mid 80s, and I recently found out that they were basically begged to stand for some unwinnable council seats because there are so few local members. (I live around Tyneside way, so perhaps on the extreme end of Tory shortage, but it does still give some indication of the problems they are facing.) And my grandparents are not in good enough health to be councillors, so they are just stood in some unwinnable seats to make up numbers. If you think that in England, Scotland and Wales, there are about 5,000 seats, and there are probably around 100,000 Tory members - you need 1 in 20 members to be willing to stand, and in regions of low density Toryism like Tyneside, Glasgow, Merseyside, South Yorkshire or South Wales, making up the numbers does become a problem. If the average age is really 72, I suspect the practise of standing people who aren't really capable of serving as councillors in unwinnable seats just to make up numbers may be more common than we realise. Now, I also heard 80％ of Tory MPs did not turn up for conference. Is this a symptom of the same problem, I wonder?


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2017)

People with no interest in being on councils stand in unwinnable seats for all parties, everywhere, and have done since forever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> there are probably around 100,000 Tory members


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2017)

The rise in party membership since 2013 is mostly driven by Labour - All estimates I've seen - from tory sources - suggest it's now under 100,000 for the tories. Some put it even lower.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 10, 2017)

Its also a bit suss when you don't publish data which you previously have done.  4 years is a very long time and if there membership had been growing you would surely expect them to be shouting about it.

Basically though, a party becoming less popular when they are in government is about as normal as it gets. People getting disillusioned with a party, walking away from membership but still voting for them is exactly what I would expect to see from a party who have been in power this long.


----------



## agricola (Oct 10, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its also a bit suss when you don't publish data which you previously have done.  4 years is a very long time and if there membership had been growing you would surely expect them to be shouting about it.
> 
> Basically though, a party becoming less popular when they are in government is about as normal as it gets. People getting disillusioned with a party, walking away from membership but still voting for them is exactly what I would expect to see from a party who have been in power this long.



You would expect some decline, but to not publish the data for four years?  Perhaps the way that Cameron ignored / sidelined the Tory membership after he became leader has resulted in a similar rate of decline in membership that Blair ignoring / sidelining the Labour membership did.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> You would expect some decline, but to not publish the data for four years?  Perhaps the way that Cameron ignored / sidelined the Tory membership after he became leader has resulted in a similar rate of decline in membership that Blair ignoring / sidelining the Labour membership did.



Yes, it is suspicious they are not publishing data.

On Cameron sidelining the rank and file I wonder how many members left during the UKIP flirtation.  Whilst they will be back voting tory (and may always have done at GE's) giving up your membership would be an obvious protest and having given it up why would you bother taking it back out again? Particularly given the mess they are in at the moment.

Only a period in the wilderness and a new energetic leader will probably get their numbers back up.  I don't think much of this says anything about voting intention though.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 117469



As of 2013... there is a reason they haven't released membership info since then. I heard it is estimated as about 100,000.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> This is their performance over the last 12 years. That is not haemorrhaging votes.
> Year | % of vote | % of electorate
> ...


Well, OK, but what about the age issue? 
To repeat: at the last election, the Tories more or less owned the 59-75 age group, but Labour got a majority of everyone younger than that - and absolutely thumped the Tories in the 40 and under category. 
Whichever way you look at it, a 39yo is probably going to be troubling the scorer for a good few years more than (say) a 69yo. So surely that's a hefty long-term problem for the Tories? 
(And no, I don't accept people will automatically switch to the Tories when they hit 50. Depends how badly the Tories shafted them before that)


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> As of 2013... there is a reason they haven't released membership info since then. I heard it is estimated as about 100,000.


That's what ConservativeHome said


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Not much logic there. As people get older and wiser, they tend to vote Tory, so although some Tories may die off over the next few years, many more will take their place.
> 
> Corbyn was very good during the last election in persuading the young and gullible to vote for him. His vague comments about student loans in the lead up to the last election brought him a shit load of votes, only for him to backtrack on what he'd said, after the votes were counted. No doubt he will use the same tactics before the next election. Everyone likes a free lunch. Many of those who vote for him are more interested in immediate reward for themselves rather than the long term stability of our economy.


Just one rather huge problem with your line of argument:Labour got a majority of every voter under the age of 59.
I mean, how much older?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> This is their performance over the last 12 years. That is not haemorrhaging votes.
> Year | % of vote | % of electorate
> ...


The other points I would add: between 2005-2015, the Labour 'brand' got thoroughly trashed, one way and another, and in 2017, I would argue that it's highly likely that the a UKIP collapse resulted in a wholesale transfer across to the Tories


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2017)

Goodwin posted a paper from 2013 that dealt with the aging tory thing the other day - they found a 0.38% shift to conservatives each year older a person gets, _and_ that people who 'come of age' under a tory admin are a more conservative (relatively)  than cohorts which come of age undor non-tory govts (I think butchersapron may have posted the findings of this paper before? It sounds familiar...) Which with an ageing population means the inbuilt advantage for the tories is only likely to get worse over time.

Here is relevant part of the conclusion...


----------



## killer b (Oct 10, 2017)

(NB, a number of apparently immutable electoral laws were trashed in the recent election, which might include this. But probably not)


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 10, 2017)

I read somewhere recently that 47 is now the age at which the phenomenon of switching to Tories as you age really kicks in, can't find a link though


----------



## Supine (Oct 10, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I read somewhere recently that 47 is now the age at which the phenomenon of switching to Tories as you age really kicks in, can't find a link though



I turned 47 last week and it definitely hasn't fucking happened to me


----------



## Raheem (Oct 10, 2017)

Supine said:


> I turned 47 last week and it definitely hasn't fucking happened to me



51 weeks to go, though. It'll probably start at a low level. Have you started worrying about the prospect of a female Doctor Who yet?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 10, 2017)

My Dad is 59 and my grandfather is 82 neither of them has voted Tory ever so its a bit like being at risk of dementia some get it and some don't, my mother toyed with it at the last election on the grounds that both she and May are women, my sister (also one) talked her out of it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 10, 2017)

Supine said:


> I turned 47 last week and it definitely hasn't fucking happened to me



I read somewhere it was 48 and am a bit worried about turning that age next year.  can you do a living will to request euthanasia if you start voting tory?


----------



## Poi E (Oct 10, 2017)

I've seen perfectly sane people vote Tory, and admit it.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 11, 2017)

Supine said:


> I turned 47 last week and it definitely hasn't fucking happened to me


It's a (very rough) average. I am 51 and likewise


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> No wonder the Tories are doing badly.



Yes, so badly that they've received more votes than any other party in the last three elections. Have 60 seats more than Labour and are currently running the country.

Labour would love to be doing just as badly.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be the speech he actually starts with "my fellow Americans", wouldn't it?



Absolutely. It's great advice no matter which country you live in. 

America is the worlds richest and most powerful country and is filled with people with a great work ethic and love of their country. The same can be said for other economic powerhouses like Japan and Germany. Unfortunately, Britain has far too many people with a massive sense of entitlement and little work ethic who constantly whinge that their country is not doing enough for them. Kennedy obviously despised such people, and rightly so.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Yes, so badly that they've received more votes than any other party in the last three elections. Have 60 seats more than Labour and are currently running the country.
> 
> Labour would love to be doing just as badly.



Theresa May called an early election because she shared the same delusion that you did, and the electorate rewarded her and her party with an even slimmer majority. Given the Tories are fucking up Brexit, I don't rate their chances next election.

Also, you're a dirty stinking fucking liar, no sign of those scholarly articles that you mentioned.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> no sign of those scholarly articles that you mentioned.



I'm not here to wipe your bum. If you Google "myths of socialism" your page will fill up with interesting and well informed articles setting out why socialism just doesn't work. If you are really interested (which you probably aren't as you're just being a troll) if you Google "the myth of Scandinavian Socialism" you will find a whole lot more interesting articles on that part of the world often referred to by socialists desperate to find somewhere where socialism may be argued to have worked.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'm not here to wipe your bum. If you Google "myths of socialism" your page will fill up with interesting and well informed articles setting out why socialism just doesn't work. If you are really interested (which you probably aren't as you're just being a troll) if you Google "the myth of Scandinavian Socialism" you will find a whole lot more interesting articles on that part of the world often referred to by socialists desperate to find somewhere where socialism may be argued to have worked.



You made the claim. It's *your* job to support your assertions, not mine. So until you produce those scholarly articles, I'm going to call you fucking lying little shit. Want me to stop?

Link the articles and I will.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Want me to stop?



You seem to mistake me for someone who gives a shit what you think.

If you want to continue being abusive, then that's your choice. I've pointed you in the right direction. If you don't want to do anything for yourself, then that fits right in with the type of person you obviously are.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You seem to mistake me for someone who gives a shit what you think.
> 
> If you want to continue being abusive, then that's your choice. I've pointed you in the right direction. If you don't want to do anything for yourself, then that fits right in with the type of person you obviously are.



So you're refusing to support your claims. Typical lying right wing sack of shit.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

nardy said:


> I like to read what lefties think, and why.



Yes. Me too. 

The "why" part is not often intelligently or eloquently explained here though. Many just seem enraged that an alternative viewpoint is held and find it challenging that one should be expressed on these pages, which they appear to feel should be devoted to their political opinions.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Yes. Me too.
> 
> The "why" part is not often intelligently or eloquently explained here though. Many just seem enraged that an alternative viewpoint is held and find it challenging that one should be expressed on these pages, which they appear to feel should be devoted to their political opinions.



Maybe you could try actually engaging rather than wheeling out tired old crap that's been addressed a thousand times before.

For example, you could provide a link to those articles that you mentioned.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 11, 2017)

On the (probably incorrect) assumption that you are really interested in intelligently formed arguments as to why socialism sounds great in theory but always fails in reality, I suggest you read "The Problem with Socialism" by Thomas Di Lorenzo, and particularly the following chapters :

*2*. Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster

*5*. Why “The Worst” Rise to the Top Under Socialism

*6*. The Socialist Roots of Fascism

*7*. The Myth of Successful Scandinavian Socialism

*8*. How Welfare Harms the Poor

*12*. Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> They don't exist.  Expect links to newspaper articles by the likes of Roger Scrotum, Simon Heffer, Andrew Roberts, Daniel Hannan and a host of other mad-eyed screamers, possibly even some Yank neoconservative crap.



I gather Urban still awaits even that sort of ‘evidence’ from our new playmates?

ETA - aha ... spoke too soon


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> On the (probably incorrect) assumption that you are really interested in intelligently formed arguments as to why socialism sounds great in theory but always fails in reality, I suggest you read "The Problem with Socialism" by Thomas Di Lorenzo, and particularly the following chapters :
> 
> *2*. Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster
> 
> ...


Lorenzo is as credible as David Irving. 

Actually, Irving did have Hint of rigour in his reputation once upon a time as strange as it seems - So maybe less credible than Irving.

Which is pretty shit tbh


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Nope, instead it's a list of chapters from a book written by a member of the Mises Institute.


----------



## chilango (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> On the (probably incorrect) assumption that you are really interested in intelligently formed arguments as to why socialism sounds great in theory but always fails in reality, I suggest you read "The Problem with Socialism" by Thomas Di Lorenzo, and particularly the following chapters :
> 
> *2*. Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster
> 
> ...



Your best source is some "neo-confederate" ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'm not here to wipe your bum.


Yeh. I'm not going to ask you to wipe my bum being as you clearly can't wipe your own. None of the searches you mention seems likely to turn up an article demonstrating socialism doesn't work, rather that in certain contexts what some people see as socialism hasn't achieved what other people see as success.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

Apparently mass market paperbacks count as scholarly articles now. I'm sure that between us we could dig out plenty of books that show how great socialism is and how much capitalism sucks big floppy donkey parts.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Nope, instead it's a list of chapters from a book written by a member of the Mises Institute.



Didn’t know that. What a sack of shit


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 11, 2017)

Interesting to see who is promoting that book online currently (besides our new chum)

Also interesting to see the common themes being promoted with it


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 11, 2017)

See also Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2017)

I also can't help but notice that Happy Larry didn't bother summarising Lorenzo's arguments. Maybe that's too much of a diversion for this thread, so I would be happy to start one since Larry here has clearly read the book and thus would be able to incorporate the book's arguments into his case.

You up for that Larry?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> On the (probably incorrect) assumption that you are really interested in intelligently formed arguments as to why socialism sounds great in theory but always fails in reality, I suggest you read "The Problem with Socialism" by Thomas Di Lorenzo, and particularly the following chapters :
> 
> *2*. Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster
> 
> ...


This book is so well esteemed that no research library in the country has a copy of it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 11, 2017)

Looking at di Lorenzo bio, he’s one of those right academic \ evilcorp PR crossover guys, like Fred Singer or one of those.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> Well, OK, but what about the age issue?
> To repeat: at the last election, the Tories more or less owned the 59-75 age group, but Labour got a majority of everyone younger than that - and absolutely thumped the Tories in the 40 and under category.
> Whichever way you look at it, a 39yo is probably going to be troubling the scorer for a good few years more than (say) a 69yo. So surely that's a hefty long-term problem for the Tories?
> (And no, I don't accept people will automatically switch to the Tories when they hit 50. Depends how badly the Tories shafted them before that)


Well 
(1) what killer b said, 

(2) 15 years ago people were then talking about how the Tories were going to die out, five years ago people were insisting that Republican presidents were a thing of the past, that the demographics would kill them, simply extrapolating from present data to some future point has shown itself to be daft, parties and people change based on the material conditions the Conservative party 10 years hence might look rather different than the one today. 

(3) there's a vast difference between having a long-term problem and 'haemorrhaging votes'/dying out. Would I be concerned about the ageing membership/voter base and declining number of members if I was at Tory central office? Of course I would but that's a whole different ball game to saying that they are dying. Long established parties, embedded in society, with a strong backing by capital are extremely tough and hard to kill off. In addition to which the UK has FPTP which provides further assistance to the big two. 

It's quite possible that the Tories will lose the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that. But the party is not going anywhere, they aren't going to be replaced as one of the big two (at Westminster) by the LibDems or anyone else anytime soon.



Streathamite said:


> The other points I would add: between 2005-2015, the Labour 'brand' got thoroughly trashed, one way and another, and in 2017, I would argue that it's highly likely that the a UKIP collapse resulted in a wholesale transfer across to the Tories


Yes, so? Doesn't that rather show that the ability of the big two to ride out temporary difficulties, their longevity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Looking at di Lorenzo bio, he’s one of those right academic \ evilcorp PR crossover guys, like Fred Singer or one of those.


as far as i can see, the only citing author says 'see dilorenzo2016 on this'. which isn't a ringing endorsement. 

this review off amazon doesn't make me want to buy the book


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

from american amazon



Spoiler










etc etc


----------



## Poi E (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry, you'd be much happier on the spiked-online comments pages.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 11, 2017)

Are we all done feeding this (somehow familiar) troll yet?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Yes, so badly that they've received more votes than any other party in the last three elections. Have 60 seats more than Labour and are currently running the country.
> 
> Labour would love to be doing just as badly.


With astonishing arrogance the tories called the election as they were sure of an absolute victory and a thorough trouncing of the labour party. "Labour to be in political wilderness for a generation" was the typical lines being brayed by the right-wing press and, I'm sure, shills like yourself down the pub. However this was not to be was it? The tories lost their majority and went from 331 seats to 318 which meant a deal had to be struck with the frothing DUP in order to maintain their (increasingly more slender) grip on power. The labour party meanwhile added 30 seats to their tally. Yes, not enough to win outright but of the seats the tories are still holding on to there is a significant amount that are now looking if not marginal then very 'wobbly'.

The wheels are spectacularly blowing off the clown-car that is the current tory administration. Labour may not be in power but they are definitely in the better position moving forward and deep down inside you know it too otherwise, why else this myopic bravado of yours?



Happy Larry said:


> Absolutely. It's great advice no matter which country you live in.
> 
> America is the worlds richest and most powerful country and is filled with people with a great work ethic and love of their country. The same can be said for other economic powerhouses like Japan and Germany. Unfortunately, *Britain has far too many people with a massive sense of entitlement and little work ethic who constantly whinge that their country is not doing enough for them*. Kennedy obviously despised such people, and rightly so.


My bold. ...and who would these people be then? Go on, be specific.



Happy Larry said:


> I'm not here to wipe your bum. If you Google "myths of socialism" your page will fill up with interesting and well informed articles setting out why socialism just doesn't work. If you are really interested (which you probably aren't as you're just being a troll) if you Google "the myth of Scandinavian Socialism" you will find a whole lot more interesting articles on that part of the world often referred to by socialists desperate to find somewhere where socialism may be argued to have worked.


That's not how it works. You come here and spout off a load of old guff about socialism and expect everyone else to trawl google on your behalf? Who's wiping whose arse here? 

You make an assertion from some pseudo-objective position but are ill-prepared to offer your own distilled view based on what you claim to be wider reading. Googling "myths of socialism" will result in a broad spectrum of material from critical pieces from extreme left and right as well as the full spectrum in between. In order to effectively debate the issue with you (if indeed debate is what you seek and are not shit stirring for the lols) it is essential to know where you are coming from in order to properly engage. Hence the calls for you to provide your evidence. No-one expects you to do the work for them, but then again no-one wants to be doing the work for you either.



Happy Larry said:


> You seem to mistake me for someone who gives a shit what you think.
> 
> If you want to continue being abusive, then that's your choice. I've pointed you in the right direction. If you don't want to do anything for yourself, then that fits right in with the type of person you obviously are.


...and what type of person would he be? Go on, be specific.



Happy Larry said:


> On the (probably incorrect) assumption that you are really interested in intelligently formed arguments as to why socialism sounds great in theory but always fails in reality, I suggest you read "The Problem with Socialism" by Thomas Di Lorenzo, and particularly the following chapters :
> 
> *2*. Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster
> 
> ...


Wow, out of the gate with Di Lorenzo -and a *chapter list* to boot. A real winner. 

No analysis, no nothing. It's almost like you're trolling but no, not you surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Yes, so badly that they've received more votes than any other party in the last three elections. Have 60 seats more than Labour and are currently running the country.
> 
> Labour would love to be doing just as badly.


your testicles are like raisins


----------



## Raheem (Oct 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> your testicles are like raisins



I was never any good at this sort of thing, but aren't you supposed to start with stuff like "Your eyes are like jewels"?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2017)

Is Jeremy Corbyn’s time up yet, then, or what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Is Jeremy Corbyn’s time up yet, then, or what?


apparently not. The bearded assasin was in Corby last month but I didn't go to see him because I had better things on


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't go to see him because I had better things on



I thought he had bought a new suit.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2017)

656 pages and STILL not up?  Pshaw.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Is Jeremy Corbyn’s time up yet, then, or what?



Must be, surely. I for one welcome our new electable overlords.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2017)

who coined the phrase 'centrist dad'. Whoever did deserves a pint for making me lol


----------



## killer b (Oct 11, 2017)

Matt Zarb-Cousins I think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Yes, so badly that they've received more votes than any other party in the last three elections. Have 60 seats more than Labour and are currently running the country.
> 
> Labour would love to be doing just as badly.


ruining the country. the conservative party are currently ruining the country.


----------



## agricola (Oct 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ruining the country. the conservative party are currently ruining the country.



It says everything about how terrible the Conservative Party are is that they have spent nearly two centuries trying to ruin the country - fighting against expanding the voting franchise, the Corn Laws, defending the pre-1907 House of Lords, appeasement, Suez, Thatcherism, privatization and now "austerity", and they haven't managed to do it yet.  I cannot think of any comparative record of repeated failure at achieving ones long-held aims, outside of the Scooby Doo universe.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> It says everything about how terrible the Conservative Party are is that they have spent nearly two centuries trying to ruin the country - fighting against expanding the voting franchise, the Corn Laws, defending the pre-1907 House of Lords, appeasement, Suez, Thatcherism, privatization and now "austerity", and they haven't managed to do it yet.  I cannot think of any comparative record of repeated failure at achieving ones long-held aims, outside of the Scooby Doo universe.


Ironic really considering that Mays Master Plan for a big majority was undone by the youth vote, she would have succeeded if not for a bunch of meddling kids


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 11, 2017)

If I ever find myself thinking about voting tory, at that point I'll have to reconsider my attitude to suicide.

EtA, too late really, but worth putting in writing.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 11, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> If I ever find myself thinking about voting tory, at that point I'll have to reconsider my attitude to suicide.



Yes, no doubt you will start to think of it as nothing more than an extreme form of workshyness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Absolutely. It's great advice no matter which country you live in.
> 
> America is the worlds richest and most powerful country and is filled with people with a great work ethic and love of their country. The same can be said for other economic powerhouses like Japan and Germany. Unfortunately, Britain has far too many people with a massive sense of entitlement and little work ethic who constantly whinge that their country is not doing enough for them. Kennedy obviously despised such people, and rightly so.



The US is like anywhere else: Throughout the country it has a mix of people in every state, hard workers, the indolent, the content-to-get-by etc, and the ratio of patriot to "don't give a fuck" is the same too.  Same with Germany (I've lived in both).  Japan is another story:  Japan's work ethic arises in part from social shaming of a degree that would be seen as gross bullying over here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'm not here to wipe your bum. If you Google "myths of socialism" your page will fill up with interesting and well informed articles setting out why socialism just doesn't work. If you are really interested (which you probably aren't as you're just being a troll) if you Google "the myth of Scandinavian Socialism" you will find a whole lot more interesting articles on that part of the world often referred to by socialists desperate to find somewhere where socialism may be argued to have worked.



If you google "myths of socialism", the first page of results holds *NO* links to scholarly articles, just to opinion pieces untested by peer review.

Same with googling "myths of Scandinavian socialism".  Loads of opinion, some pseudo-scholarly articles (footnoted), but nothing that's appeared in an academic journal and/or been peer reviewed.

So, in sum, you're a bullshitter who tried to blag a line about "scholarly articles" supporting your claim, but have been found out as full of brown smelly stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Nope, instead it's a list of chapters from a book written by a member of the Mises Institute.



As mentioned several pages ago.

Happy Larry probably isn't aware that the Mises Institute, thought it may sound very well-informed, what with being named after Ludwig von Mises, is actually a politically-partisan "think tank" of the ilk of the Adam Smith Institute - i.e. it doesn't necessarily follow the economic prescriptions of the person the institute is named after, but rather they appropriate credibility by riding on that person's coat-tails.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Lorenzo is as credible as David Irving.
> 
> Actually, Irving did have Hint of rigour in his reputation once upon a time as strange as it seems - So maybe less credible than Irving.
> 
> Which is pretty shit tbh



Lorenzo is a dauber writing with finger-paints, compared to Irving.  Lorenzo's work is of a similar cast to Murray and Herrnstein's work on "The Bell Curve".  It *looks* well-constructed, but when you look at the works it references, as well as those it *doesn't*, you soon get a keen sense of an author constructing a book to fit a preconceived hypothesis, rather than someone doing research, then constructing a book around the evidence their research garners them.

TLDR:  It's shit written for right-wingers, that reinforces their already-formed opinions.  It sucks walrus cock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I was never any good at this sort of thing, but aren't you supposed to start with stuff like "Your eyes are like jewels"?



Your eyes are like jewels...pieces of topaz the colour of piss?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 11, 2017)

The quality and informativeness of this thread's posts** and links++ has improved massively over the last few pages, I'm finding 

**with the exception of Happy Larry 's 

++Not one of them posted by Happy Larry 

**  : Entirely unsurprisingly  
and 
++ : Entirely unsurprisingly


----------



## Fingers (Oct 11, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> The quality and informativeness of this thread's posts** and links++ has improved massively over the last few pages, I'm finding
> 
> **with the exception of Happy Larry 's
> 
> ...



Ill equipped Tory gets eaten in a snakepit of socialism.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Not much logic there. As people get older and wiser, they tend to vote Tory, so although some Tories may die off over the next few years, many more will take their place.
> .


I am absolutely unconvinced that everyone, or even most people, gravitate to the Tories as they get older. Many do, agreed, but many don't (including myself), it's also affected by how strong and bitter your memories are, of being fucked over by capitalism and by the Tories, when younger. 
It's simply a lazy, facile assumption, for which the evidence - beyond the baby boomers generation - is sketchy, to put it mildly (and I think there is every chance that generation will prove a historical one off)


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Corbyn was very good during the last election in persuading the young and gullible to vote for him.


OK, I will reiterate:Labour had more voters under the age of FIFTY NINE voting for them than any other party got. 
59 is NOT young!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 11, 2017)

that socialist at 20/ tory at 40 one ( or variations thereof) - its a lazy trope that selfish twats churn out to justify their innate self evident selfish hateful twattery that they have been unable to mask any longer. it has also been attributed to everyone from jesus christ, through jack the ripper to cliff richard  or wheoever. 

i shall assault the next person i hear uttering it in my presence.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 11, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'm not here to wipe your bum. If you Google "myths of socialism" your page will fill up with interesting and well informed articles setting out why socialism just doesn't work. If you are really interested (which you probably aren't as you're just being a troll) if you Google "the myth of Scandinavian Socialism" you will find a whole lot more interesting articles on that part of the world often referred to by socialists desperate to find somewhere where socialism may be argued to have worked.


OK, let me educate you on the rules of debate. You make a broad, sweeping claim, and defend it by saying 'but there's LOADS of articles out there to support this!' - it's up to you to front up with those articles


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 12, 2017)

Nylock said:


> With astonishing arrogance the tories called the election as they were sure of an absolute victory and a thorough trouncing of the labour party.



Er, no. They were gullible enough to rely on the results of polls which showed that they would increase their number of seats.

You will find similar gullible people on these threads rattling on about the same polls (which probably also failed to predict Brexit and the Trump victory) that show the age demographic of those who voted for each party. These people, overly excited at these polls, have now gone ape by claiming that the Tories are now doomed as they have wrongly concluded that support for the Tories will die out. It's laughable but you always have to take into account from whence such wishful "thinking" comes. When "your lot" haven't been in power for some time, desperation obviously makes you cling to whatever "good news" comes your way.

The reasons that there was a swing towards Labour at the last election was purely because many UKIP and SNP voters returned to their natural home in the Labour Party. There would also have been a number of mainly working class voters who voted Tory after Cameron promised an EU referendum if elected. These latter voters, now that the referendum has been concluded have also returned to Labour. Apart from some youngsters who were gullibly taken in by Corbyns vague promise of handouts for their student loans, nothing much has changed.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 12, 2017)

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"


----------



## discokermit (Oct 12, 2017)

you fucking idiot.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 12, 2017)

Great contribution to the thread discokermit. Although I'm sure you're mentally exhausted now, so better lie down for a bit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"



Oddly, I thought that was the problem with capitalism.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 12, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Oddly, I thought that was the problem with capitalism.



The most successful of the worlds economies like the US, Germany and Japan are all capitalist, but have certainly not run out of money. In fact, people from all over the world have invested in their businesses.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> The most successful of the worlds economies like the US, Germany and Japan are all capitalist, but have certainly not run out of money. In fact, people from all over the world have invested in their businesses.



Capitalism is other people's money, though. Made rich on the backs of the workers.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".
> 
> Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :
> 
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"



Free higher education used to exist in this country, and still does in other parts of the world. We still have free healthcare, just about. The welfare state has been pared back despite the fact that, like free higher education, we could afford it in the past when the economy was smaller. The decision to cut those things was motivated by ideology, not economics.

Corbyn knows this, and so that's why he offered what he did, not because of anything Sanders said. You do know he's been a left Labour MP for years, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".
> 
> Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :
> 
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"


This would be the well-known baroness who pissed away the north sea oil revenue on tax breaks.


----------



## chilango (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"



Whose money is it anyway?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".
> 
> Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :
> 
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"



The pat phrases, unleavened by any form of critical thinking. Whose money? Your free market wet dream wouldn't function if the state didn't educate the people, maintain their health and vastly subsidise a shareholder owned rail system, bail out banks, etc, etc.

A very boring troll, or do you really believe this drivel?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> This would be the well-known baroness who pissed away the north sea oil revenue on tax breaks.



Thus turning a collective natural resource into other (wealthy obvs) people's money...


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 12, 2017)

The problem with Happy Larry is that you eventually run of patience.


----------



## ignatious (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".
> 
> Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :
> 
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"


if it's so excellent how come no library in the country has it?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 12, 2017)

because libraries are all run by commies obvs.

fake books!


----------



## Nylock (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Er, no. They were gullible enough to rely on the results of polls which showed that they would increase their number of seats.
> 
> You will find similar gullible people on these threads rattling on about the same polls (which probably also failed to predict Brexit and the Trump victory) that show the age demographic of those who voted for each party. These people, overly excited at these polls, have now gone ape by claiming that the Tories are now doomed as they have wrongly concluded that support for the Tories will die out. It's laughable but you always have to take into account from whence such wishful "thinking" comes. When "your lot" haven't been in power for some time, desperation obviously makes you cling to whatever "good news" comes your way.
> 
> The reasons that there was a swing towards Labour at the last election was purely because many UKIP and SNP voters returned to their natural home in the Labour Party. There would also have been a number of mainly working class voters who voted Tory after Cameron promised an EU referendum if elected. These latter voters, now that the referendum has been concluded have also returned to Labour. Apart from some youngsters who were gullibly taken in by Corbyns vague promise of handouts for their student loans, nothing much has changed.



*golf clap*

Desperate stuff. You failed the 'academic rigor' test and are now failing the 'hapless bullshit recycler' one. 

A poor effort at best.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> because libraries are all run by commies obvs.
> 
> fake books!


yeh. i suppose it's the same in ireland, france and belgium


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 12, 2017)

fucking librarians suppressing dangerous  and controversial academic works. have any of you read Fahrienheit 451 ? I bet you haven't- maybe you should read that and see what the futures looks like. etc

*moves in with squirrelp*


----------



## chilango (Oct 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if it's so excellent how come no library in the country has it?
> 
> View attachment 117633



Of course libraries aren't going to stock it. Libraries are all about enabling freeloaders to get access to books without paying for them. Some other poor tax-paying sap with no interest in books is subsidising the feckless's desire to read for free.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

chilango said:


> Of course libraries aren't going to stock it. Libraries are all about enabling freeloaders to get access to books without paying for them. Some other poor tax-paying sap with no interest in books is subsidising the feckless's desire to read for free.


from some of the reviews i have read, the author seems to have avoided libraries - doubtless for the reasons you state.


----------



## chilango (Oct 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> from some of the reviews i have read, the author seems to have avoided libraries - doubtless for the reasons you state.



A little ceramic piece with a message on my bookshelf at work...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

chilango said:


> A little ceramic piece with a message on my bookshelf at work...
> 
> View attachment 117640


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 12, 2017)

How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
and it's certainly a far superior  piece of literature to boot.


----------



## chilango (Oct 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 117643



"Know It All. Find It Fast."


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
> and it's certainly a far superior  piece of literature to boot.
> View attachment 117644


----------



## Nylock (Oct 12, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".


None of that stuff is 'free' you silly bugger. Sanders was advocating single payer (healthcare) and state supported (education) solutions precisely because the capitalist free-for all in these sectors is failing the population so hard*. Sanders gained the support of more than the younger generation but overall if you as a politician advocate solutions to those getting shafted the hardest then it's bloody obvious they are going to rally to your cause in high numbers.



Happy Larry said:


> Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :
> 
> "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"


(a) Your abject failure to understand your political enemy is comedy genius 
(b) The trouble with that Thatcher quote is that we are in a situation where capitalism has already run out of everyone else's money  
She came out with that 'classic' back in the days when her government were spunking off our north sea oil revenues with *no* discernable sense of forward planning whatsoever. Typical short-sighted Thatcherite bluster -good for a soundbite but fuck-all use for anything else.



Happy Larry said:


> The most successful of the worlds economies like the US, Germany and Japan are all capitalist, but have certainly not run out of money. In fact, people from all over the world have invested in their businesses.


....And you extend the fail out from politics to economics. The US has a debt to GDP of 106%, Japan (250%) and Germany (68.3%) whereas China (46%) the No.2** economic global powerhouse is a 'socialist'*** state so yeah, someone's running out of money...



*The actual detail of the policies was more nuanced than what you are presenting here but you either already knew that or didn't know because you are merely regurgitating what you have read without doing any actual follow-up of your own.
**Pegged to overtake the US in the next 10-15 years (sooner if the Donald keeps up his winning ways!).
***Not really, but "you lot" seem to think so...


----------



## agricola (Oct 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 117646



Its probably the only book in Aberystwyth Library, revered as the foundation stone of their unique culture.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 12, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
> and it's certainly a far superior  piece of literature to boot.
> View attachment 117644



Is spot looking for his bleedin' self in that picture? No wonder there's a shortage of engineers.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 12, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Is spot looking for his bleedin' self in that picture? No wonder there's a shortage of engineers.


OK no dissing Spot the Dog, some things are sacred even here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I am absolutely unconvinced that everyone, or even most people, gravitate to the Tories as they get older. Many do, agreed, but many don't (including myself), it's also affected by how strong and bitter your memories are, of being fucked over by capitalism and by the Tories, when younger.
> It's simply a lazy, facile assumption, for which the evidence - beyond the baby boomers generation - is sketchy, to put it mildly (and I think there is every chance that generation will prove a historical one off)



It's been shown to happen when small samples are used, but there's been no longitudinal research over a large cohort that's shown this supposed gravitation.  What's been shown, however, is that people become more *socially-conservative* as they age.  This isn't though reflected as a Tory vote, but rather as an impulse toward what they see as best for *them*, rather than their community.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's been shown to happen when small samples are used, but there's been no longitudinal research over a large cohort that's shown this supposed gravitation.


I think that's exactly what the report I posted about earlier does show.



killer b said:


> Goodwin posted a paper from 2013 that dealt with the aging tory thing the other day - they found a 0.38% shift to conservatives each year older a person gets, _and_ that people who 'come of age' under a tory admin are a more conservative (relatively)  than cohorts which come of age undor non-tory govts (I think butchersapron may have posted the findings of this paper before? It sounds familiar...) Which with an ageing population means the inbuilt advantage for the tories is only likely to get worse over time.
> 
> Here is relevant part of the conclusion...



the paper is here if you have some way of accessing it...


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2017)

Does anyone really think that because they and their friends haven't become more right wing it's not a thing? What about that whole anecdote / data thing that we're always going on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think that's exactly what the report I posted about earlier does show.
> 
> 
> 
> the paper is here if you have some way of accessing it...



The paper. 

The one i think you're referring to that i posted was Thatcher’s Children, Blair’s Babies, political socialisation and trickle-down value-change:
An age, period and cohort analysis. The findings being that the start point for age-based right-moving now appear significantly further to the right thabn those who grew up pre-79.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2017)

If I may be indulged in some evidence-free speculative hypothesising...

Surely the key to a statistical understanding of conservative drift is _how much people believe they personally have to lose_?  In particular, the following things come to mind:

One's job
One's career.  A career (in the minds of most) is a bigger thing to lose than just a job.
Personal physical assets -- one's home in particular
Other personal assets -- value of savings, for example, particularly pension
One's "family", by which I mostly mean the social structures that surrounds one's personal connections (blood family and otherwise)
I'm sure you can think of lots of others.

When you don't have much to lose in terms of the above list and similar, there is little consequence to being pure to one's ideals.  In particular, it is easier to be _radical_, in its strict sense of believing in the supremacy of rational thinking and ground-up social reform in line with this thinking.  If things aren't working, just tear them down and try something else.  Why not, after all?

When you have a lot to lose, however, you inevitably end up weighing up the risks and consequences of losing it against such ideals.  Even if you started out as naturally radical in nature, the cognitive dissonance of not wanting to suffer such consequences may well lead you down a path of _conservatism, _i.e. believing (or deciding to believe) in the supremacy of accumulated wisdom in the form of existing social institutions.  And then from conservatism to Conservatism, so to speak.

This could well explain how people become more socially conservative as they get older.  As they get older, they tend to have more to lose.  Certainly the historical case was that people tended to gradually accumulate a house, a family, a position of responsibility.

But this was never universally the case and is increasingly less so.  As society becomes more divided and the "have-nots" part of that divide become ever more numerous, it becomes more and more likely that even those at ages that previously had a lot to lose will now not have the same at stake.  If this trend is real (as seems likely) and if the above reasoning is correct, there will be less shift to conservatism and hence Conservatism as people get older.

As a post-script, it was the below post that got me musing on the above, and why I found the below such an interesting read.



Rimbaud said:


> About the have houses and the have not houses thing.
> 
> The Tories have been relying on the support of the home owner demographic for quite a long time now, without doing anything to help people not on the market, and in fact making things worse for them not only by encouraging house prices to rise but by also squeezing wages, cutting services, and making them rack up enormous student debt. They basically ignored all the youth out of an assumption, based on the experience of their generation, that they would all get on the housing market sooner or later, without really thinking about how this would happen and putting up every obstacle towards it. Another reason they ignored it is because of a tired cliche that people become Tory as they get older - but this is of course not a natural law or inevitable, just a lazy cliche. And these lazy assumptions and oversights may well lead to their demise as a party unless they can successfully reinvent themselves soon.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2017)

I reckon that's broadly correct. In which case, governments of the left creating a society of more secure housing, more secure jobs and the like are essentially creating the conditions that encourage the drift to the right...


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The one i think you're referring to that i posted was Thatcher’s Children, Blair’s Babies, political socialisation and trickle-down value-change:
> An age, period and cohort analysis. The findings being that the start point for age-based right-moving now appear significantly further to the right thabn those who grew up pre-79.


This paper (the first 12 pages at least) is interesting, and I will finish reading it.  It seems to me, however, that it is so far assuming that a more conservative youth has arisen because of a more conservative government rather than both actually being a consequence of the same more conservative parents.  It's the old question -- is the pervading culture driving the attitudes, or are the attitudes driving the culture?  

In particular, Thatcherism didn't appear from nowhere.  It came about after a systematic (and in many cases intentional) commodification of society and the self from the early 1970s onwards.  I would have thought that had a big part to play in the consumer-generation of the 1980s, as well as paving the way for the acceptability of Thatcher's policies.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 13, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Capitalism is other people's money, though. Made rich on the backs of the workers.



Nonsense. Try getting a bank to loan you money if you don't already have assets that they can use as collateral.



kabbes said:


> believing (or deciding to believe) in the supremacy of accumulated wisdom in the form of existing social institutions. And then from conservatism to Conservatism, so to speak.



It is the existing social institutions that have allowed the individual to create wealth, so it's no wonder that they support the Conservatives. If the system is not broke, why fix it? The allure of Socialism to those with few assets is obvious. It offers them a means to indirectly gain from the achievements of others. A morally indecent way of thinking, but understandably alluring to the less scrupulous amongst us.



kabbes said:


> As society becomes more divided and the "have-nots" part of that divide become ever more numerous



Over the past century or two, capitalism has been a massive success. There are less have-nots than ever before, with people from all over the world wanting to enjoy the benefits of living in the UK. When I was a kid, in the Northern town where I was born, only one family in our street owned a car. We felt "rich" because my Dad owned a delivery van. Now, when I go back, you can't get parking there. But you'll hear the usual whiners and moaners complaining how bad it is in the UK, meanwhile back at home they have an HD TV, a car and go on holiday to Spain etc.

The people who really need help are the genuinely needy and the struggling elderly people, who we are not giving enough aid to because far too much of the Welfare budget is being spent on those with a mentality of entitlement who take advantage of the system, both legally and illegally.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Try getting a bank to loan you money if you don't already have assets that they can use as collateral.
> 
> It is the existing social institutions that have allowed the individual to create wealth, so it's no wonder that they support the Conservatives. If the system is not broke, why fix it? The allure of Socialism to those with few assets is obvious. It offers them a means to indirectly gain from the achievements of others. A morally indecent way of thinking, but understandably alluring to the less scrupulous amongst us.



Banks getting rich with other people's money. With repossessions. That's morally indecent to me.

And the massive success of capitalism you speak of? Sure; if you're the bankers,the coportations, the elite. But not for the majority of people. The marginalised, the poor, the victims of rampant capitalism.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 13, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Banks getting rich with other people's money. With repossessions. That's morally indecent to me.



Maybe you would like to enlighten us on how banks profit from repossessions? Doesn't  excess funds from a sale go to the home owner? They usually either break-even or lose money when they repossess a property. They would surely prefer to keep charging the homeowner interest for many years, rather than this income stream be terminated.

I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Maybe you would like to enlighten us on how banks profit from repossessions? Doesn't  excess funds from a sale go to the home owner? They usually either break-even or lose money when they repossess a property. They would surely prefer to keep charging the homeowner interest for many years, rather than this income stream be terminated.
> 
> I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.



Ok, you're the expert on banks. They are actually doing the homeowner a favour? The banks are a necessary evil, is that correct.

As for your shares; is it important for you to flaunt your wealth even if it is just to illustrate your point?


----------



## Almor (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Try getting a bank to loan you money if you don't already have assets that they can use as collateral.


 
Try having assets inherited down the generations from the seizure of public land or resources and using those assets to manipulate less fortunate people into working for less than they are worth so that you can maintain a lifestyle that you couldn't personally support, and then telling everyone that wanting to control the fruits of their labour is socialist "spending other people's money"


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Over the past century or two, capitalism has been a massive success.


Well, there are at least three points there.

Firstly, even if we take your statement at face value, there is an inherent fallacy in thinking that a system’s historical success necessarily means it is fit for future purpose.  Capitalism is not the first economic system this country has had and it was successful under its other systems too, but they would not be successful today because times change.

Any system has limitations and inherent constraints.  Under certain circumstances, those constraints are not binding.  Under others, they are.  Capitalism is running up against some serious constraints right now that it looks particularly ill-equipped to deal with.  There are two embedded assumptions that are beginning to fail in particular.

Firstly, the whole basis of capitalism is that of the concept of return on capital.  Return on capital requirements are such that companies can’t just maintain steady profits, they need to show growth.  But growth runs out at both local and global levels — local because once you have expanded a market, dominated it and then cut costs there is nowhere left to go and global because once you have reached crisis point on your use of resources, further growth becomes extremely detrimental.  This is a crisis of late stage capitalism and we are starting to see it emerge all over the place.  Developed countries have been generating return increasingly by replacing capital with cheaper debt rather than genuine growth, but debt brings inherent volatility (eg in 2008) as well as having its own limits.

Secondly, capitalism is based on the idea of something approaching full employment.  However, this is under massive threat from automation.  Although Trump rose to power on the basis of promising he will return jobs in the US from offshoring, the truth is that about 87% of jobs lost in America in the last decade or so have not gone overseas, they have simply disappeared to robots.  The number of consultants I now interact with that are promising automation in the next ten years is frightening.  Anything that currently requires a human to make a judgement based on acquired knowledge is under threat.  It is not clear that jobs will be there to replace this wholesale loss of employment. And capitalism can not cope with wide scale unemployment; it just fundamentally breaks one of its underlying principles.

The next point is that capitalism is not just capitalism.  A socioeconomic system also has features owing to its social structures, which interact in complex ways with its economic ones.  I’m going to steal from what I wrote on this post a bit here and repeat some of the pertinent parts:




			
				me on above linked thread said:
			
		

> By the "nature of society", I mean a lot of things, including:
> 
> The activities and practices people engage in as part of society
> What the priorities and principles are of the society
> ...



Finally, your statement that “capitalism has been successful” really needs investigation.  What do you mean by “successful”?  All measures of mental well-being have shown incredibly alarming trends in the last 30 years.  A quarter of our teenage girls are clinically depressed.  Wider anxiety levels have reached epidemic proportions.  Suicide rates have been broadly increasing.  The population is not content, and it is their environment that has generated this.  This is true for the entire populations of developed countries too, not just the poorly off.  The social environment is mentally damaging the well off as well as the poor, and damaging us all in really worrying numbers and dangerous ways.

Note too that the gene pool is effectively identical to 50, 100, 200 year’s ago, it’s the environment that has changed.  You can’t just complain that people are whiners, because even if they are, it is their environment that has made them so.  We are collectively a product of our system, so if you don’t like the attitudes, it follows that you don’t like the system that generated them.

Personally, I can’t measure the success of a system purely in terms of material goods.  We’re generating more stuff but it’s not making us happy, so what’s the point?  In the end, it’s what it is doing to people’s overall well being that counts.  On that front at least, our current system of late stage consumer-capitalism is a spectacular failure.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 13, 2017)

Funny how the banks never seem to run out of other people's money.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Funny how the banks never seem to run out of other people's money.


Fractional reserves. They create money through debt. 

So if my bank has £Nm in deposits, it can lend N *8. In truth they lend way beyond this ratio. Quite a few of the major banks are so far beyond insolvency as to be another category altogether. Deutsche bank is going to be the next lehman brothers and with drag down a fair few other banks with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> It offers them a means to indirectly gain from the achievements of others. A morally indecent way of thinking, but understandably alluring to the less scrupulous amongst us.


if you think this then you shouldn't be using a computer, a pen or a pencil being as you wouldn't want to benefit from the achievements of others. nor should you wear clothes, save those you've made yourself from scratch, or live in a house other than that you've built solely on your own labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.


you seem quite happy benefiting from other people's achievements.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 13, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> ....As for your shares; is it important for you to flaunt your wealth even if it is just to illustrate your point?


Chances are that the share portfolio is a small one/part of the pension scheme -so yet more substance-free bluster/'red-baiting'. Not everyone with shares is 'wealthy' and I doubt if this pillock is either (if they even have any to begin with).


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.



Coining it from _other people's money_, you mean.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Maybe you would like to enlighten us on how banks profit from repossessions? Doesn't  excess funds from a sale go to the home owner? They usually either break-even or lose money when they repossess a property. They would surely prefer to keep charging the homeowner interest for many years, rather than this income stream be terminated.
> 
> I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.


You haven't been paying attention then. In many recent cases they have got rich by foreclosing on businesses and asset stripping them. And, you may recall, that until ten years ago they got rich by gambling* on fictitious real estate and thenrequired the state to bail them out (but not make them change their behaviour).


*All capitalism is just gambling,of course. As any sane economist would tell you, although not one like HL's Lorenzo, the slavery defending, paid shill for tobacco firms.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

belboid said:


> You haven't been paying attention then. In many recent cases they have got rich by foreclosing on businesses and asset stripping them. And, you may recall, that until ten years ago they got rich by gambling* on fictitious real estate and thenrequired the state to bail them out (but not make them change their behaviour).
> 
> 
> *All capitalism is just gambling,of course. As any sane economist would tell you, although not one like HL's Lorenzo, the slavery defending, paid shill for tobacco firms.


Banks make the vast majority of their profits repackaging debts owed to them and selling them on to other banks, who in turn package and sell. Foreclosures and stuff are just to keep things ticking over.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Fractional reserves. They create money through debt.
> 
> So if my bank has £Nm in deposits, it can lend N *8. In truth they lend way beyond this ratio. Quite a few of the major banks are so far beyond insolvency as to be another category altogether. Deutsche bank is going to be the next lehman brothers and with drag down a fair few other banks with it.



Do you have a link to a simple explanation as to how banks can lend out more money than they actually have?

Frankly an awful lot of this kind of shit seems to revolve around creating value out of absolutely nothing.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Do you have a link to a simple explanation as to how banks can lend out more money than they actually have?
> 
> Frankly an awful lot of this kind of shit seems to revolve around creating value out of absolutely nothing.


Since the end of the gold standard, all money is fictional - fiat money based purely on trust.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 13, 2017)

belboid said:


> Since the end of the gold standard, all money is fictional - fiat money based purely on trust.



I ain't one of those gold-loving idiots, but fiat money would seem by its very nature to encourage a whole load of bullshitting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

NoXion said:


> I ain't one of those gold-loving idiots, but fiat money would seem by its very nature to encourage a whole load of bullshitting.


when i was little my parents had, briefly, a fiat which was notorious for breaking down and has for many years been a family joke; fiat money seems the currency equivalent.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Do you have a link to a simple explanation as to how banks can lend out more money than they actually have?
> 
> Frankly an awful lot of this kind of shit seems to revolve around creating value out of absolutely nothing.


Fractional-reserve banking - Wikipedia


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 13, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Do you have a link to a simple explanation as to how banks can lend out more money than they actually have?
> 
> Frankly an awful lot of this kind of shit seems to revolve around creating value out of absolutely nothing.


Isn't this what the Chinese government have done? Create money to lend to developers to build cities? Presumably they can do that forever or is there a day of reckoning?


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

That's how global capitalism works. Banks hold x assets and lend twenty times those assets. Those loans and their repayments are then packaged into bundles and traded on the international markets between banks. Debts are rated according to risk of default. So a package of a-rated debts would pay less of a return and be less risky than a package of c or d rated debts. But due to the complex ways these debts are repackaged and resold, the a-rated packages are stuffed full of junk debts. 

In 2008, when the American sub prime (junk rated) mortgage market collapsed - banks stopped getting the regular payments from these debts and started to call in their markers. To everyone's astonishment the chain of debt was well above the amount of money that banks actually had. Hey presto the credit crunch.

The solution to it was to.... Er... Spend all our money bailing out the banks... So they could go ahead and do the same shit all over again.

And governments got the theoretical printing presses going and started producing a ton more money to give to banks to start lending... And guess what the banks did with that money?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> And governments got the theoretical printing presses going and started producing a ton more money to give to banks to start lending... And guess what the banks did with that money?


For the most part they bought government bonds with it so the government had the money to run the printing presses.
There are some people who really need to be stood up against a wall before the human race can advance any further.


----------



## Lorca (Oct 13, 2017)

[QUOTE="kabbes, post: 15273121, member: 35070"
Finally, your statement that “capitalism has been successful” really needs investigation.  What do you mean by “successful”?  All measures of mental well-being have shown incredibly alarming trends in the last 30 years.  A quarter of our teenage girls are clinically depressed.  Wider anxiety levels have reached epidemic proportions.  Suicide rates have been broadly increasing.  The population is not content, and it is their environment that has generated this.  This is true for the entire populations of developed countries too, not just the poorly off.  The social environment is mentally damaging the well off as well as the poor, and damaging us all in really worrying numbers and dangerous ways.

Note too that the gene pool is effectively identical to 50, 100, 200 year’s ago, it’s the environment that has changed.  You can’t just complain that people are whiners, because even if they are, it is their environment that has made them so.  We are collectively a product of our system, so if you don’t like the attitudes, it follows that you don’t like the system that generated them... We’re generating more stuff but it’s not making us happy, so what’s the point?  In the end, it’s what it is doing to people’s overall well being that counts.  On that front at least, our current system of late stage consumer-capitalism is a spectacular failure.[/QUOTE]

great post kabbes, thanks. I also think loneliness and social isolation are massive, massive issues in contemporary Britain as well, particularly among those who are no longer 'productive' as it were. I can't articulate it as well as you but I can't help feeling that whilst on the surface, everything is happy as larry, at least for some; underneath there are deep structural and environmental problems which technology won't resolve, and in fact as you point out, will even exacerbate.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> For the most part they bought government bonds with it so the government had the money to run the printing presses.
> There are some people who really need to be stood up against a wall before the human race can advance any further.


Essentially they have sat on the money and not lent it.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> That's how global capitalism works. Banks hold x assets and lend twenty times those assets. Those loans and their repayments are then packaged into bundles and traded on the international markets between banks. Debts are rated according to risk of default. So a package of a-rated debts would pay less of a return and be less risky than a package of c or d rated debts. But due to the complex ways these debts are repackaged and resold, the a-rated packages are stuffed full of junk debts.
> 
> In 2008, when the American sub prime (junk rated) mortgage market collapsed - banks stopped getting the regular payments from these debts and started to call in their markers. To everyone's astonishment the chain of debt was well above the amount of money that banks actually had. Hey presto the credit crunch.
> 
> ...


 
edit, this is for the financial explosion thread not red jez thread


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> edit, this is for the financial explosion thread not red jez thread


Surely only red jezza can lead us from here to a socialist utopia?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2017)

I am afraid I have lost most of my youthful confidence in achieving Socialism through the ballot box. I am in that position of choosing between a parliamentary sandwich made of human faeces and live maggots vs one made out of green hued runny stilton cheese that has been sitting at the back of the fridge, forgotton about since last Xmas day.

It is the stilton, but I will hold my nose


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

Crappy watered down, compromised liberal socialism is still greatly preferable to any revolutionary movement imo.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> The people who really need help are the genuinely needy and the struggling elderly people, who we are not giving enough aid to because far too much of the Welfare budget is being spent on those with a mentality of entitlement who take advantage of the system, both legally and illegally.



Not an unusual opinion, if you have been drinking the media Kool aid for decades.

Tell me, how much of the welfare budget is spent on the 'entitled' who don't need it? 

I bear witness to desperate poverty on a daily basis, getting worse all the time. People dying with empty bellies in one of the richest nations on earth. How dare they.

You utter bell end.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Essentially they have sat on the money and not lent it.


minus fees of course


----------



## Poi E (Oct 13, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Try getting a bank to loan you money if you don't already have assets that they can use as collateral.



Ever been offered a credit card?


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2017)

Who else remembers those love detective threads where he tried to explain fractional reserve banking for the ten millionth time? Vintage Urban, and the best thing is I still don't really get it


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

binka said:


> Who else remembers those love detective threads where he tried to explain fractional reserve banking for the ten millionth time? Vintage Urban, and the best thing is I still don't really get it


You have £10. This means that you can lend 20 other people a tenner based on your wealth.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's been shown to happen when small samples are used, but there's been no longitudinal research over a large cohort that's shown this supposed gravitation.  What's been shown, however, is that people become more *socially-conservative* as they age.  This isn't though reflected as a Tory vote, but rather as an impulse toward what they see as best for *them*, rather than their community.


Yes, that sounds much more believable to me (notwithstanding the fact that workers solidarity in - say - a close knit pit village is pretty much lifelong and instinctive - as I witnessed myself)


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> You have £10. This means that you can lend 20 other people a tenner based on your wealth.


excellent thanks


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

binka said:


> excellent thanks


Now tell us what happens when 4 of your debtors don't/can't pay and you have urgent bills to pay. A good answer will get you the Nobel prize for economics. In 2008 the answer was for us all to pay you £50 to fix you up, and carry on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Now tell us what happens when 4 of your debtors don't/can't pay and you have urgent bills to pay. A good answer will get you the Nobel prize for economics.


You borrow from someone else, chuck.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 13, 2017)

You make sure a goodly proportion of those 20 are local businesses and then get the local council to give you a bung under the threat of the local economy collapsing if they allow you to go under.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

Nylock said:


> You make sure a goodly proportion of those 20 are local businesses and then get the local council to give you a bung under the threat of the local economy collapsing if they allow you to go under.


Take a hammer to Idaho's and demand the contents of his capacious penny jar


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2017)

It's a 1p-50p pot in the shape of a giant special brew can that my mother got me for my 12th birthday  ... Many decades ago. I reckon there's about £70 in it.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2017)

Idaho said:


> Now tell us what happens when 4 of your debtors don't/can't pay and you have urgent bills to pay. A good answer will get you the Nobel prize for economics. In 2008 the answer was for us all to pay you £50 to fix you up, and carry on.


I think you've misunderstood my intentions here


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 14, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Made rich on the backs of the workers.



Utter bollocks! This is typical of the type of rhetoric used by socialists to make the uneducated, gullible or simply greedy somehow justify their desire to get their hands on what belongs to others.

If every British "worker" were to emigrate to some Socialist Utopia, UK businesses would be ecstatic as their profits would soar as they utilised cheaper skilled and unskilled labour from abroad, from those who would love to earn even a fraction of what British workers currently earn.

I am from a working class background myself but realise that our unskilled and semi skilled workers have been paid far more than the "international norm" for their labour. Our workers have been protected for decades from the "threat" of foreign workers being granted visas to work in the UK eager to enjoy rates of pay far lower than that demanded by the locals.

British workers have ridden on the backs of British industry for a couple of centuries now.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 14, 2017)

eatmorecheese said:


> I bear witness to desperate poverty on a daily basis, getting worse all the time. People dying with empty bellies in one of the richest nations on earth.



Me too. Without exception, they are dying as the end result of severe drug addiction, alcoholism, mental issues, lifestyle choices etc. Certainly not because capitalism has made us one of the richest nations on earth where those with a genuine desire to work have plenty of opportunities to prosper. There are millions of people all over the world who would love to live in the UK and enjoy what this country has to offer.


----------



## sptme (Oct 14, 2017)

Whether your making money off the backs of British workers or Foreign workers, you're still making money off the backs of workers, you twat.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 14, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Utter bollocks! This is typical of the type of rhetoric used by socialists to make the uneducated, gullible or simply greedy somehow justify their desire to get their hands on what belongs to others.
> 
> If every British "worker" were to emigrate to some Socialist Utopia, UK businesses would be ecstatic as their profits would soar as they utilised cheaper skilled and unskilled labour from abroad, from those who would love to earn even a fraction of what British workers currently earn.
> 
> ...



Your back will be straining with the loads placed upon it, when sentenced to many years of correctional labour.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 14, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> British workers have ridden on the backs of British industry for a couple of centuries now.



_Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased._


----------



## NoXion (Oct 14, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Utter bollocks! This is typical of the type of rhetoric used by socialists to make the uneducated, gullible or simply greedy somehow justify their desire to get their hands on what belongs to others.
> 
> If every British "worker" were to emigrate to some Socialist Utopia, UK businesses would be ecstatic as their profits would soar as they utilised cheaper skilled and unskilled labour from abroad, from those who would love to earn even a fraction of what British workers currently earn.



Businesses cut costs to increase their profit margins. Workers want, but do not always get, a larger wage packet so that can first pay essential bills and maybe get some nice stuff if there's anything left over.

Yet the workers are the greedy ones?



> I am from a working class background myself but realise that our unskilled and semi skilled workers have been paid far more than the "international norm" for their labour. Our workers have been protected for decades from the "threat" of foreign workers being granted visas to work in the UK eager to enjoy rates of pay far lower than that demanded by the locals.



So you'll be rushing to cut your pay by 90%? After all, only an uneducated, gullible, or simply greedy *socialist* would hold on to an excessively large wage which cuts into the profit margins of their bosses.



> British workers have ridden on the backs of British industry for a couple of centuries now.



Yeah how dare all those lazy shiftless British workers sit about getting paid to do nothing while the bosses break their backs working in all the shops, warehouses and factories.

Do you think that if you stick your tongue deep enough into the bosses' collective arseholes, that you'll somehow be rewarded for your loyalty?


----------



## Idaho (Oct 14, 2017)

And you'll all be pleased to hear that the libor rigging job that some key banks did to maximise profits is all settled. Slap on the wrist, a small fine (that they can pay with government QE money and count as a tax write off...) and back to work.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 14, 2017)

Poi E said:


> _Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased._



Don't forget everthing else that made the transaction possible: enclosure, enslavement, plunder, war, colonisation, gun-boat 'diplomacy', man-made famine, witch trials, opium pushing, small-pox infected blankets...


----------



## Poi E (Oct 14, 2017)

Ah, you mean commerce.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 14, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Me too. Without exception, they are dying as the end result of severe drug addiction, alcoholism, mental issues, lifestyle choices etc. Certainly not because capitalism has made us one of the richest nations on earth where those with a genuine desire to work have plenty of opportunities to prosper. There are millions of people all over the world who would love to live in the UK and enjoy what this country has to offer.



You appear to think that, systemically, all players have equal opportunities to thrive and that any negative consequences are solely down to 'choices', or just bad luck. Is relative poverty an alien concept to you?

Should we be telling nurses using food banks that they've made the wrong career choice, or because they have a 'vocation' they should shut the fuck up?

Do children make choices that affect their development and prospects, or do they play the hand they're dealt? 'Without exception', ffs.

I'll leave you with your semen encrusted copy of Hayek. I'd advise you to broaden your reading, too.

ETA: Apols, this is just a thread derail now. I'll stop.


----------



## tim (Oct 14, 2017)

I'm appalled by the dire quality of contemporary British British trolls. I suggest that the editor be sent of to Norway to recruit high quality foreign trolls


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2017)

if this boring cunt doesn't up his game I'm touching the stasi button


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Utter bollocks! This is typical of the type of rhetoric used by socialists to make the uneducated, gullible or simply greedy somehow justify their desire to get their hands on what belongs to others.
> 
> If every British "worker" were to emigrate to some Socialist Utopia, UK businesses would be ecstatic as their profits would soar as they utilised cheaper skilled and unskilled labour from abroad, from those who would love to earn even a fraction of what British workers currently earn.
> 
> ...



It's greed to point out the greed of banks, big business and the elite, is it?

What's your real agenda here, Colonel?


----------



## Supine (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> British workers have ridden on the backs of British industry for a couple of centuries now.



British workers are British industry you knobber.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Me too. Without exception, they are dying as the end result of severe drug addiction, alcoholism, mental issues, lifestyle choices etc. Certainly not because capitalism has made us one of the richest nations on earth where those with a genuine desire to work have plenty of opportunities to prosper. There are millions of people all over the world who would love to live in the UK and enjoy what this country has to offer.



Define "lifestyle choices".


----------



## kabbes (Oct 15, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Define "lifestyle choices".


For example, if you choose to be poor, of course.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> one of the richest nations on earth where those with a genuine desire to work have plenty of opportunities to prosper



''prosper'' on £8 per hour or less .. you utter shitmuppet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> if this boring cunt doesn't up his game I'm touching the stasi button



Surveillance, or the old "chained to a leaky radiator, standing in a puddle of radiator fluid and his own urine, with electrodes attached to his bollocks, and the connection to the power supply on a mercury tilt switch balanced on the top of his head"?

I vote for the latter.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 15, 2017)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Utter bollocks! This is typical of the type of rhetoric used by socialists to make the uneducated, gullible or simply greedy somehow justify their desire to get their hands on what belongs to others.
> 
> If every British "worker" were to emigrate to some Socialist Utopia, UK businesses would be ecstatic as their profits would soar as they utilised cheaper skilled and unskilled labour from abroad, from those who would love to earn even a fraction of what British workers currently earn.
> 
> ...


Looking at your times of posting youre looking more and more like a Tory MP who has just come back from the houses bar , a bit drunk and ever so excited


----------



## not a trot (Oct 15, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Me too. Without exception, they are dying as the end result of severe drug addiction, alcoholism, mental issues, lifestyle choices etc. Certainly not because capitalism has made us one of the richest nations on earth where those with a genuine desire to work have plenty of opportunities to prosper. There are millions of people all over the world who would love to live in the UK and enjoy what this country has to offer.



And there are millions of people who would love to give you a fucking good kicking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2017)

not a trot said:


> And there are millions of people who would love to give you a fucking good kicking.



Wouldn't waste boot leather on him.  Take him into a job centre and tell the claimants "this cunt reckons you're all..." and read out a list of the tropes Happy Larry has spewed out on Urban.  He wouldn't make it out the door.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

sptme said:


> Whether your making money off the backs of British workers or Foreign workers, you're still making money off the backs of workers



And, by your own perverted logic, the workers are making money off the backs of their employers....as they do get paid, don't they? Where would they be without those that employ people? It works both ways.

Why not just stop playing the victim and feeling sorry for yourself, pull your finger out, and do something for yourself instead of continually expecting others to provide for you?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Take him into a job centre and tell the claimants "this cunt reckons you're all..."



Lying seems to come easy to you, Panda. I can't say I'm surprised. I have never said that all claimants have invalid claims to welfare benefits, just that many people claim benefits, either legally or illegally, when they could quite easily get by without them, thus using up welfare funds that would be better spent on those genuinely in need.


----------



## JimW (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And, by your own perverted logic, the workers are making money off the backs of their employers....as they do get paid, don't they? Where would they be without those that employ people? It works both ways.
> 
> Why not just stop playing the victim and feeling sorry for yourself, pull your finger out, and do something for yourself instead of continually expecting others to provide for you?


Ha, another "realist" who doesn't even know how value is created or money works. I suppose you'd need your delusions to hold your opinions.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

JimW said:


> who doesn't even know how value is created or money works



My economics and accounting professors at Uni would be horrified at that bit of nonsense. Have you anything intelligent to add?

Creativity creates wealth. Capital and labour are usually other required elements.

*Creativity needed for a wealth-creation Economy*

Creativity needed for a wealth-creation economy

Creativity is rare. Capital is hard to obtain but essential. Labour is in over supply in most parts of the world and is extremely cheaper elsewhere, than here.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 16, 2017)

are you studying economics then? i call bullshit.

And value and wealth are not the same thing, even bourgeois political economists don't subscribe to such a nonsensical proposition...


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

dialectician said:


> are you studying economics then? i call bullshit.
> 
> And value and wealth are not the same thing



I studied economics many moons ago. And please go ahead and call "bullshit" all you like, if it makes you feel better.

Did anyone say wealth and value were the same thing?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Why not just stop playing the victim and feeling sorry for yourself, pull your finger out, and do something for yourself instead of continually expecting others to provide for you?



Who is playing the victim? There are real people posting here with real lives, concerns and experiences.

Do you seriously believe that you're going to receive anything but disdain when you come here with your shit eating grin and telling people to get on their bike?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Who is playing the victim?



Those who continually whine and moan that the country does not do enough for them.



krtek a houby said:


> Do you seriously believe that you're going to receive anything but disdain



Do you seriously come here to be liked? 

My views are usually in line with the party who received the most votes in the last election. Why would I worry about those sour faces who are angry because views other than their own are expressed here?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> My economics and accounting professors at Uni would be horrified at that bit of nonsense. Have you anything intelligent to add?



You cock  Pulling out the 'I studied economics' claim of authority. Like nobody who's been outed as clueless has ever resorted to that one before


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Those who continually whine and moan that the country does not do enough for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not everyone has your shares and privileged set up. And no,I don't come here to be liked. What's your excuse?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Not everyone has your shares and privileged set up.



And what shares and privileges does your imagination lead you to think I enjoy?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And what shares and privileges does your imagination lead you to think I enjoy?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I studied economics many moons ago. And please go ahead and call "bullshit" all you like, if it makes you feel better.
> 
> Did anyone say wealth and value were the same thing?



Ah, but you did with your response to Jim, as if wealth (and even money) are the same thing as value. Rookie error mate.

if u gna troll do it with style and grace.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

dialectician said:


> as if wealth (and even money) are the same thing as value.



That's all your imagination

Hint : Your use of the phrase "as if".

Responding to what "you hope had been meant" rather what was actually written is a classic rookie error.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Creativity creates wealth. Capital and labour are usually other required elements.



_Labour_ creates _value_. _Wealth_ is when someone appropriates said _value_ and keeps it for themselves. 'Creativity' is really just a notion people use as a pretext for appropriating value from labour.

Why are you posting here, Happy Larry? You're coming across like a child trying to annoy grown ups.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 16, 2017)

nvm seemed funny at the time.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> _Wealth_ is when someone appropriates said _value_ and keeps it for themselves.



Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.

No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.
> 
> No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.



There is little point in engaging with someone who is evidently an economic illiterate.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.
> 
> No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.



What about commodity production then professor?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2017)

How many days until this one posts their tax statement?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 16, 2017)

You note that he’s only responding to the one-liners and not engaging with any of the serious analysis.  There’s your tell-tale sign of a troll.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 16, 2017)

Libertad said:


> There is little point in engaging with someone who is evidently an economic illiterate.



Your honesty is refreshing, Libertad, but I am sure that many here have read the advice of the Desiderata.... "even to the dull and ignorant, they too have their story" .....and will continue to "engage" with you.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.
> 
> No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.



Land banking.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.
> 
> No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.



You're writing like a child, really. Do you have any analysis at all or is your cartoon finished now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Your honesty is refreshing, Libertad, but I am sure that many here have read the advice of the Desiderata.... "even to the dull and ignorant, they too have their story" .....and will continue to "engage" with you.


You never did post those journal articles, did you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Nonsense. Most wealthy people invest whatever they have in businesses or banks. The former employ people and the latter provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.
> 
> No doubt you prefer to imagine all wealthy people as sitting counting their money, Scrooge like, thus creating no value at all.


Banks are businesses too, chuck, and also employ people.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> ... the latter [banks] provide loans so that the less wealthy can buy houses and other assets.



Banks don't provide loans so as to make money themselves then? Lending is like a kind of social outreach, so that poorer people can buy houses &c. I see.

How's that going then, now that the average UK house price is 8-10x the average UK yearly wage? (40 years ago the differential was more like 3-4x the average yearly wage)

So is that helping the less wealthy to buy houses, or is it helping people who _already own houses_ to make even more from their property/-ies?

Is there a cartoon version of this you'd like to draw us?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 16, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Not everyone has your shares and privileged set up. And no,I don't come here to be liked. What's your excuse?


That transparent one-liner of his earlier in the thread was designed to elicit this sort of response...


Happy Larry said:


> And what shares and privileges does your imagination lead you to think I enjoy?


I believe he got that impression from the post below:


Happy Larry said:


> ...
> I have shares in several banks and they appear to make their profits from charging interest on loans and from service charges etc.


Of course, it was obvious red-baiting from you to stick that nugget in at the end of the post but if you're going to continue with the trolling, you may want to start keeping track of what you are saying.

On the other hand, that is probably part of your overall strategy to keep going here: drop commentary likely to get a response, then pull the old 'and where did you get that impression from?' stunt before clarifying your position with 'well, I merely stated that I had 'x', not how much of 'x' I possess -see that just shows your inherent prejudice against people like myself' and then proceeding to go on the 'defensive' in order to generate more responses. You're a fucking cliche in every respect from your 'working class northerner' origin story to your classic right-wing (but not far right) Tory talking points. Your predictability is matched only by your fatuity. Try. Fucking. Harder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Lying seems to come easy to you, Panda. I can't say I'm surprised.



Blah blah blah.  Feel better now?



> I have never said that all claimants have invalid claims to welfare benefits, just that many people claim benefits, either legally or illegally, when they could quite easily get by without them, thus using up welfare funds that would be better spent on those genuinely in need.



What you said implied that *most* claimants have invalid claims, or don't need them.  Your statements fly in the face of all welfare research done in the past decade, and fly in the face of the fact that there's been an unclaimed *surplus* most years for the last 15, that has run into *billions* per year.

You're a dogmatic fool with very little knowledge of the subject you're talking about.  If you're not a troll, you're a _Daily Mail_ reader.  I'm not sure which is worse, but both mark you as a cunt.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 16, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> How many days until this one posts their tax statement?


It's almost as so squeeky bum time has returned under a new name...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 16, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wouldn't waste boot leather on him.  Take him into a job centre and tell the claimants "this cunt reckons you're all..." and read out a list of the tropes Happy Larry has spewed out on Urban.  He wouldn't make it out the door.


I like that solution!


----------



## andysays (Oct 16, 2017)

I don't know about Jeremy Corbyn, but it appears that this thread's time is well and truely up

*unwatches thread*


----------



## Libertad (Oct 16, 2017)

andysays said:


> I don't know about Jeremy Corbyn, but it appears that this thread's time is well and truely up
> 
> *unwatches thread*



Bold move.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> What you said implied that *most* claimants have invalid claims



Lol! Implied? Really?

I have never even come close to implying that MOST claimants have invalid claims. Why not debate what I've actually said instead of being devious?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> now that the average UK house price is 8-10x the average UK yearly wage?



With the millions of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants that have entered the UK in recent decades, I'm surprised that the multiple is not higher. House prices have been forced up by increased demand from out of control immigration, whilst wage growth has been stunted by the increased supply of unskilled and semi skilled people.

The biggest losers have been British workers. Hypocritically, the left now whines about increasing income inequality, after supporting for years many of the policies that have led to this situation.

You couldn't buy it!

The UK needs immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. But we need to be more prudent who we let in.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 17, 2017)

i think you will find that the majority of immigrants live in rented accommodation.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 17, 2017)

Thus adding to the shortage of available housing and forcing up rents and house prices.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Thus adding to the shortage of available housing and forcing up rents and house prices.



No, Tory politics and economic ideology (also pursued by Labour) did that.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 17, 2017)

oh, so now it's blood and soil racism is it?

Why don't you complain about Brits adding to the available shortage of housing and forcing up rent prices?

I know why, you don't know how housing works.

You're probably one of those dimwits who thinks you own your property when you take out a morguage.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> With the millions of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants that have entered the UK in recent decades, I'm surprised that the multiple is not higher. House prices have been forced up by increased demand from out of control immigration, whilst wage growth has been stunted by the increased supply of unskilled and semi skilled people.
> 
> The biggest losers have been British workers. Hypocritically, the left now whines about increasing income inequality, after supporting for years many of the policies that have led to this situation.
> 
> ...



Yeah? Like who?

Highly skilled well off types? Millionaires? Property owners and donors to political parties? Absentee landlords?

I see you.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> The UK needs immigrants...



...to do the badly-paid work that you and your entitled kids think you're too good for. I understand. Don't raise wages, just import cheap labour.

That's bound to end well


----------



## NoXion (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Lol! Implied? Really?
> 
> I have never even come close to implying that MOST claimants have invalid claims. Why not debate what I've actually said instead of being devious?



You said "many":



Happy Larry said:


> Lying seems to come easy to you, Panda. I can't say I'm surprised. I have never said that all claimants have invalid claims to welfare benefits, just that many people claim benefits, either legally or illegally, when they could quite easily get by without them, thus using up welfare funds that would be better spent on those genuinely in need.



How many, then? And how do you know that?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 17, 2017)

The simple answer to the housing shortage is to build council housing on the scale of the 50s/60s/70s. Good quality well designed homes at affordable controlled rents. No precedent here. It has been done before under Tory governments as well as Labour. Change the planning laws & get building. It's perfectly doable. Don't pretend the money is not there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Thus adding to the shortage of available housing and forcing up rents and house prices.


Could you just admit these journal articles you were on about don't exist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Lol! Implied? Really?
> 
> I have never even come close to implying that MOST claimants have invalid claims. Why not debate what I've actually said instead of being devious?


Yeh I've asked about these journal articles but it was clearly a devious ploy by you as nothing's been forthcoming.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 17, 2017)

NoXion said:


> You said "many"



Correct. 

If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.

We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct.
> 
> If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.
> 
> We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.


Yawn. 1/10


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct.
> 
> If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.
> 
> We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.


yeh. these journal articles, chuck, where are they? if i had a pound for every time someone said 'there are loads of journal articles which prove socialism's cobblers' i'd have enough for a slap-up breakfast at a decent greasy spoon. if i paid out a pound each time such articles appeared i'd still have enough for that decent feb.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct.
> 
> If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.
> 
> We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.



Your anecdotes don't mean shit. There's billions in unclaimed benefits, so there's plenty of slack in the system.


----------



## chilango (Oct 17, 2017)

I think posters should refrain from replying to Happy Larry in their own time, and only do so during working hours. That way we can take some satisfaction from knowing that the resultant lack of productivity will "trickle up" and deprive him of some potential wealth.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct.
> 
> If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.
> 
> We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.


Again, be specific. Who are these 'takers' who can get by and yet claim benefits just "because they're entitled to them"? Define those who are "genuinely in need" if you can. What is your yardstick for measuring need by?

When you reply, try to include some actual analysis and no parroting of the usual tropes from the sun/mail/express et al there's a good fella.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> I think posters should refrain from replying to Happy Larry in their own time, and only do so during working hours. That way we can take some satisfaction from knowing that the resultant lack of productivity will "trickle up" and deprive him of some potential wealth.


The only trickling happening in Larry's house is the trickle of semen down his leg after he knocks another one out, sat straining at his flickering CRT screen with the curtains drawn.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2017)

anyway, can we please stop giving the freak his wank fodder?


----------



## teqniq (Oct 17, 2017)

To be fair I think people are enjoying taking the piss, and it is imo, rather entertaining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2017)

teqniq said:


> To be fair I think people are enjoying taking the piss, and it is imo, rather entertaining.


passes the time at work, aye


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2017)

personally I'm finding it grindingly tedious. Over on the financial crash thread its jumped the shark completely into denying reality to get a rise.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct.
> 
> If I had a pound for each time I've heard someone say they are going to claim benefits because "I'm entitled to them", I would be an even happier Larry.
> 
> We need a welfare system where the genuinely in need receive more, and those who are draining the system of funds merely because "they're entitled" get less, or preferably nothing at all, if they can get by without them.



Could you give some specific examples of people who are draining the system, but who could get by without benefits?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 17, 2017)

What's wrong with claiming something you're entitled to? Isn't that kind of the whole point?  Your entitlement (whatever it may be) is determined by legislation passed by Parliament, you can't just turn up at the Benefit Office and say can I have a carrier bag full of money please and get one no questions asked. During my own periods of unemployment I was made to jump through no end of  hoops to prove I was entitled to Jobseekers and I can put ticks in most of 'the do you belong to this privileged group?' boxes on the form, which may not to be so blatant has to be printed on the form but do exist at least implictly despite any denials to the contrary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you give some specific examples of people who are draining the system, but who could get by without benefits?


this lot for starters


----------



## inva (Oct 17, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> What's wrong with claiming something you're entitled to? Isn't that kind of the whole point?  Your entitlement (whatever it may be) is determined by legislation passed by Parliament, you can't just turn up at the Benefit Office and say can I have a carrier bag full of money please and get one no questions asked. During my own periods of unemployment I was made to jump through no end of  hoops to prove I was entitled to Jobseekers and I can put ticks in most of 'the do you belong to this privileged group?' boxes on the form, which may not to be so blatant has to be printed on the form but do exist at least implictly despite any denials to the contrary.


plus the government's criteria for 'entitlement' are total shit, so not being entitled by that measure doesn't mean people shouldn't be getting help.


----------



## gosub (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> And what shares and privileges does your imagination lead you to think I enjoy?


Fuck all.	If your'e UK based, you are a bored nightwatchman at best.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Lol! Implied? Really?
> 
> I have never even come close to implying that MOST claimants have invalid claims. Why not debate what I've actually said instead of being devious?



Fuck off, Squeaky.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Your anecdotes don't mean shit. There's billions in unclaimed benefits, so there's plenty of slack in the system.



These dog-fuckers don't allow fact to get in the way of a good anecdote.

Remember when "a bloke down the pub was saying he claims disability benefits, but I saw him playing footie for the pub team on Sunday!" was a standard anecdote for those rabbiting on about how loads of people were claiming when they didn't need to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> anyway, can we please stop giving the freak his wank fodder?



You've just double-reinforced his wank fodder by giving him the mental image of jizzing down his own leg.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you give some specific examples of people who are draining the system, but who could get by without benefits?



The Saxe-Coburg Gotha family of WIndsor.  Benefit cheats the lot of them, especially that jug-eared cunt who talks to his radishes.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 17, 2017)

Both of Andrews daughters look like the kind of girl that you would wake up  next to in the morning with a raging hangover and be seriously worried about whether you told them your real name the night before. 
Beatrice especially has more than a touch of the crazy stalker type look about her.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2017)

Crikey.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2017)

Think you've rather shat the bed there.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 17, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Both of Andrews daughters look like the kind of girl that you would wake up  next to in the morning with a raging hangover and be seriously worried about whether you told them your real name the night before.
> Beatrice especially has more than a touch of the crazy stalker type look about her.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 18, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> What's wrong with claiming something you're entitled to? Isn't that kind of the whole point?



No. In my opinion, benefits should only be claimed when you really need them. Thus leaving more funds available for those genuinely in need.

I have been putting money away "for a rainy day" since I was in my teens. This money was for my use if I should ever need it. I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.

If the Salvation Army were handing out free food to anyone who stood in the line, would you stand in line, as "you're entitled" to it as you have donated to them? I think most decent people would not as they feel that this aid is for those genuinely in need.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2017)

but you blew the lot on a trip to thailand


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 18, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.



Don't turn up to A&E, don't use the roads or trains, and never call the police. You are a strong, rugged individualist. 

Any chance of those academic, peer-reviewed links you promised?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 18, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No. In my opinion, benefits should only be claimed when you really need them. Thus leaving more funds available for those genuinely in need.
> 
> I have been putting money away "for a rainy day" since I was in my teens. This money was for my use if I should ever need it. I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.
> 
> If the Salvation Army were handing out free food to anyone who stood in the line, would you stand in line, as "you're entitled" to it as you have donated to them? I think most decent people would not as they feel that this aid is for those genuinely in need.


Really this is the best you can do?
Firstly despite what you think your opinion (or mine) on need doesn't count, the laws as made by Parliament do so, if the law says you are entitled to X then you are perfectly within your rights to claim X just as when you are working your responsibility to pay Y applies, the word for this is citizenship.
No I wouldn't stand in a line at the Salvation Army for a free lunch regardless of whether I donate to them, I wouldn't feel entitled (most folks wouldn't), this is a false analogy, An individuals  charitable behavour is not the same as their legal or social obligations.
If you have been putting money away well bully for you saving is a good habit and more people should do it but not everyone can.
Finally I am confident that most people claiming benefit do so out of need, I am a degree-educated middle-class boy from the nice side of town who's never had much problem finding work and I found it bad enough, God knows how people with a less fortunate start in life feel, I've certainly seen how they're treated.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 18, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I have been putting money away "for a rainy day" since I was in my teens. This money was for my use if I should ever need it. I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.



Congratulations on never having been presented with a destructive life event requiring you to spend it followed by another forcing you into penury.

Such as say, finding your role in industry has become obsolete when you hit your mid-40s and permanently having to downgrade your income (as entry into a new skilled career path is extremely difficult for even young people nowadays), but also finding that your old (impoverished) dad's bills are skyrocketing and your cousin needs bail and a lot of help because they're got themselves into trouble, and you have a mortgage and kids just hitting university age from when times were better and Jesus fuck where's that nest egg gone.

And that'd be _starting_ from a relatively decent position, no divorce, no acts of God, no crippling depression or painkiller addictions from an accident, no baggage from a shitty childhood, no youthful mistakes or chronic illnesses, no societal bigotry pushing you down, none of the thousands of different things that can happen to make picking yourself up damn near impossible without help.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Both of Andrews daughters look like the kind of girl that you would wake up  next to in the morning with a raging hangover and be seriously worried about whether you told them your real name the night before.
> Beatrice especially has more than a touch of the crazy stalker type look about her.


seriously though, back up a minute and re-think this post.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 18, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No. In my opinion, benefits should only be claimed when you really need them. Thus leaving more funds available for those genuinely in need.


Again, let's have the specifics here. You clearly hold a view as to who is in need so go on, share it with the rest of us...



Happy Larry said:


> I have been putting money away "for a rainy day" since I was in my teens. This money was for my use if I should ever need it. I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.


...Well, that's convenient as, being the diligent saver you are, you wouldn't be entitled to any government assistance as you likely have savings in excess of the threshold amount anyway. Let's hope for your sake you never get sucked into the system as the first thing to go will be that nest-egg of yours until you drop below the savings threshold.*



Happy Larry said:


> If the Salvation Army were handing out free food to anyone who stood in the line, would you stand in line, as "you're entitled" to it as you have donated to them? I think most decent people would not as they feel that this aid is for those genuinely in need.


Who are these 'most decent people' you refer to here in this false comparison of yours? Go on, be specific (hah, fat chance!).

*This is,of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are not being a massive bullshitter (which is the more likely option here, let's be honest).


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2017)

Anyway, ignoring the idiot....

Another win for the Corbmeister, as charges on UC hotlines are abolished. Universal Credit helpline charges scrapped


----------



## gosub (Oct 18, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No. In my opinion, benefits should only be claimed when you really need them. Thus leaving more funds available for those genuinely in need.
> 
> I have been putting money away "for a rainy day" since I was in my teens. This money was for my use if I should ever need it. I have never had the intention of relying on the government, as so many in the UK obviously do.



Good job theres been no financial crash then, other wise inflation would be significantly higher than the interest your savings are earning.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> seriously though, back up a minute and re-think this post.


Hmm perhaps not as funny as I thought it was when I typed it


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> Anyway, ignoring the idiot....
> 
> Another win for the Corbmeister, as charges on UC hotlines are abolished. Universal Credit helpline charges scrapped


I suspect it's more a result of a Govt that realises it's grip on power is fragile, if they had indeed won a 100+ majority this wouldn't be a story, either way charging people with nothing 55p a min to try and get something or to sort out the fact they have only got nothing due to an administrative error is utterly shameful and it's good that its gone.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2017)

The govt's fragile grip on power is what makes it possible for Corbyn to score any wins in parliament, of course. But they're still wins.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2017)

And why is their grip on power fragile....?


----------



## agricola (Oct 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> And why is their grip on power fragile....?



Corbs has some very real achievements, but in discussing the Government's fragile grip on power it is very difficult to look beyond the fact that they are absolutely rubbish at everything.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 18, 2017)

Does anyone know what Jeremy Corbyn's been up to recently?
Does he have a pod like Darth Vader, and he's only charged up to full power and let out when an election is called?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> And why is their grip on power fragile....?


Read and enjoy
Reality Check: How long will Theresa May's majority last?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 18, 2017)

8ball said:


> Does anyone know what Jeremy Corbyn's been up to recently?
> Does he have a pod like Darth Vader, and he's only charged up to full power and let out when an election is called?



He's been doing PMQs and things. You know, his job.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Read and enjoy
> Reality Check: How long will Theresa May's majority last?


Yes, I remember both John Major and Jim Callaghan. May's problems are far closer than the ones they faced tho, her complete failure will be unavoidable well before March 2019 and the end of the two year notice period


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He's been doing PMQs and things. You know, his job.


only the last few weeks - before that parliament was in recess, so he was touring tory marginals doing rallies.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 18, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He's been doing PMQs and things. You know, his job.



Ah, that's nice.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2017)

oh yeah, and there was the party conference too.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2017)

Of all the things you can critcise Corbo for right now, resting on his laurels isn't really one of them.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh yeah, and there was the party conference too.



Yes, I did see that one.  Hadn't really seen any mention from there til this morning's PMQ's.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> Yes, I remember both John Major and Jim Callaghan. May's problems are far closer than the ones they faced tho, her complete failure will be unavoidable well before March 2019 and the end of the two year notice period


Truly my heart bleeds for her


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 19, 2017)

I note he arrived in Bruxelles early today and got his public appearance in early enough to possibly steal some of Mayhems thunder. Commie Red Jez does seem to have started playing the nuances of the game better of late


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 19, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I note he arrived in Bruxelles early today and got his public appearance in early enough to possibly steal some of Mayhems thunder. Commie Red Jez does seem to have started playing the nuances of the game better of late


This makes a lot of sense from the point of view of Junckers and his buddies, there is a very real chance that they might find themselves negotiating with a Labour government at some point before March 2019 which will probably change the whole tone of negotiations. It would be foolish in the extreme not to get the views of the man who might be the British PM before too long.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 20, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> It would be foolish in the extreme not to get the views of the man who might be the British PM before too long.



I'd like to get Corbyn's views on why he feels that borrowing a huge amount of money will benefit the UK. Especially considering that such a policy was a disaster for Sweden, the country that some wrongly point to as a Socialist success :

"By the 1980s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jumpstart the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in economic chaos, with stock market and real estate bubbles that burst, and interest rates that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent."

Per Bylund, Swedish Economist

"Despite Sweden’s economic recovery after the mid-1990s, socialists might be surprised to learn that it is still poorer than Mississippi, the lowest-income state in the United States."

Yonathan Amselem : “How Modern Sweden Profits from the Success of Its Free-Market History”


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2017)

formerly of mises. And as per your edit, both of them.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 20, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> formerly of mises



So what?

Are the facts quoted incorrect in any way?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2017)

I haven't seen any facts quoted


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 20, 2017)

Byeee!

Have a great day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2017)

oh I always do. Hope yours is shit.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 20, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'd like to get Corbyn's views on why he feels that borrowing a huge amount of money will benefit the UK. Especially considering that such a policy was a disaster for Sweden, the country that some wrongly point to as a Socialist success :
> 
> "By the 1980s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jumpstart the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in economic chaos, with stock market and real estate bubbles that burst, and interest rates that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent."
> 
> ...



2016 figures:

Mississippi GDP: 107,680 million USD

Sweden GDP: 511,397 million USD

I bet that Sweden also gets better rankings on things like overall health, child poverty, social mobility, and so on.

Really, if your lies are going to be this transparent, why bother?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2017)

And those figures per capita:

Mississippi: 36,029 USD (2016)
Sweden: 51,600 USD (2016)

That’s more than 40% higher for Sweden.  If you’re going to troll with other people’s data, at least do a perfunctory check.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 20, 2017)

Thank the lord we didn't have a socialist government in the 1980s whose policies produced stock market and real estate bubbles eh.

A very brief look at the credit expansion is that it's not govt borrowing but private sector financial market credit that expanded in Sweden in the 80s, and that crashed and burnt along with everywhere else in Europe at the crash and recession at the end of the 80s/early 90s.

Borrowing money to spend on new social housing will reduce the rental (and presumably also purchase) costs of the housing market in general. It may burst the bubble created by Thatcher and successors housing policies but it certainly won't create one. Nor will spending money on energy or transport, both of which are currently way overpriced - again may burst a bubble but won't create one. All three of these have the potential to produce ongoing income for the govt. from which borrowing can be repaid (transport least likely of these, housing definitely can).


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Oct 20, 2017)

kabbes said:


> And those figures per capita:
> 
> Mississippi: 36,029 USD (2016)
> Sweden: 51,600 USD (2016)
> ...


I was going to have a bash at him with these figures but you've beat me to it, only 2 US states (excluding D.C which is a bit of a freak) have a higher per capita than Sweden, Delaware and Connecticut both left leaning (by American standards)  even the very impressive economy of California has a lower per capita than Sweden. 
The USA is not the largest of the First World economies because of the wonders of laissez fair capitalism but because it is simply the biggest free world country plus the fact that it didn't get bombed flat in World War 2 gave it a head start afterwards.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 20, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'd like to get Corbyn's views on why he feels that borrowing a huge amount of money will benefit the UK. Especially considering that such a policy was a disaster for Sweden, the country that some wrongly point to as a Socialist success :
> 
> "By the 1980s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jumpstart the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in economic chaos, with stock market and real estate bubbles that burst, and interest rates that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent."
> 
> ...


Your lamentable inability to fact-check is matched only by your overall stupidity. You remind me of a less spectacularly thick version of SqueakyBumTime but only marginally so.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2017)

Nylock said:


> Your lamentable inability to fact-check is matched only by your overall stupidity. You remind me of a less spectacularly thick version of SqueakyBumTime but only marginally so.



I thought it was Degsy/Cosmic/Trumped...


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 20, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I'd like to get Corbyn's views on why he feels that borrowing a huge amount of money will benefit the UK. Especially considering that such a policy was a disaster for Sweden, the country that some wrongly point to as a Socialist success :
> 
> "By the 1980s, Sweden’s collapse of economic growth and a government attempt to jumpstart the economy with a massive expansion of credit resulted in economic chaos, with stock market and real estate bubbles that burst, and interest rates that the Swedish central bank pushed up to 500 percent."
> 
> ...





I'm curious as to what you're gaining from doing this. I mean, I don't mind applauding a toddler's defecation, but at least get the turd in the potty, eh?


----------



## bemused (Oct 20, 2017)

Not really Corbyn but I'm sure this story of Ian Lavery receiving redundancy payments from his Union despite no evidence of him actually being made redundant and his union paying off his mortgage for him will be media fodder for a few days.

MP received £165,000 from trade union


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2017)

bemused said:


> Not really Corbyn but I'm sure this story of Ian Lavery receiving redundancy payments from his Union despite no evidence of him actually being made redundant and his union paying off his mortgage for him will be media fodder for a few days.
> 
> MP received £165,000 from trade union



They really should be, if that report is in any way accurate then he should be got rid of at once.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 20, 2017)

Are we still waiting for Happy Larry to put up some citations or other? I forget in among all the other things he's ignored or glossed over this thread so he could hit the reset button a day or so later and present himself as an authority on national borrowing strategies.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 20, 2017)

I think his problem is more and more people are ignoring him , I don't have it on ignore , but suggest.if you do bite just do it  , he doesn't seem to reply to me lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Both of Andrews daughters look like the kind of girl that you would wake up  next to in the morning with a raging hangover and be seriously worried about whether you told them your real name the night before.
> Beatrice especially has more than a touch of the crazy stalker type look about her.



Really?

Cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Think you've rather shat the bed there.



Shat the bed, rolled in the crap, and smeared it over the entire fucking bedroom.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Of all the things you can critcise Corbo for right now, resting on his laurels isn't really one of them.



The old bastard makes me feel knackered, just bloody watching how active he is!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I was going to have a bash at him with these figures but you've beat me to it, only 2 US states (excluding D.C which is a bit of a freak) have a higher per capita than Sweden, Delaware and Connecticut both left leaning (by American standards)  even the very impressive economy of California has a lower per capita than Sweden.
> The USA is not the largest of the First World economies because of the wonders of laissez fair capitalism but because it is simply the biggest free world country plus the fact that it didn't get bombed flat in World War 2 gave it a head start afterwards.



IIRC Delaware's income position is high partly due to the fact that so many US companies are incorporated there, with the concomitant effect of accruing lots of legal fees, incorporation fees and taxes.


----------



## Poi E (Oct 20, 2017)

Lots of blacks in Mississippi so you'd think it must be poorer than a place filled with blondes, right.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 20, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Lots of blacks in Mississippi so you'd think it must be poorer than a place filled with blondes, right.



Why?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 21, 2017)

agricola said:


> if that report is in any way accurate then he should be got rid of at once.



Correct. He should be booted out at once if the BBC report is spot on.

This would certainly not be the first time that a Trade Union has misused the funds entrusted to them.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 21, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Correct. He should be booted out at once if the BBC report is spot on.
> 
> This would certainly not be the first time that a Trade Union has misused the funds entrusted to them.



You are very boring


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 21, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Thank the lord we didn't have a socialist government in the 1980s whose policies produced stock market and real estate bubbles eh.



I am not sure the Lord had much to do with it. After Wilson/Callaghan, voters were so sick and tired of Socialist policies that they voted in Thatcher, who then increased her majority by 100 seats at the following election. Major took over making it more than a decade of Tory rule until Labour moved to the right in the form of New Labour and Tony Blair.

I doubt that many of those at the Glastonbury festival remember much of this.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 21, 2017)




----------



## Poi E (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Why?



Ask Happy Larry.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 21, 2017)

kabbes said:


> at least do a perfunctory check





Had to smile at that one. Whilst I quoted sources from a professor at Oklahoma State University who has written several scholarly works on economics and production theory and another who is a well known asset attorney in DC, who has also written numerous published articles on economics and politics, you have quoted as a source for your data....er.....sweet Fanny Adams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Had to smile at that one. Whilst I quoted sources from a professor at Oklahoma State University who has written several scholarly works on economics and production theory and another who is a well known asset attorney in DC, who has also written numerous published articles on economics and politics, you have quoted as a source for your data....er.....sweet Fanny Adams.


Yeh. Now, about those articles you promised...


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Had to smile at that one. Whilst I quoted sources from a professor at Oklahoma State University who has written several scholarly works on economics and production theory and another who is a well known asset attorney in DC, who has also written numerous published articles on economics and politics, you have quoted as a source for your data....er.....sweet Fanny Adams.


So you're standing by your assertion that Mississippi has a larger economy than Sweden? Any other new "facts" we should be aware of in your discourse - flat earth, cheese moon, that sort of thing? Buffoon.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 21, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Had to smile at that one. Whilst I quoted sources from a professor at Oklahoma State University who has written several scholarly works on economics and production theory and another who is a well known asset attorney in DC, who has also written numerous published articles on economics and politics, you have quoted as a source for your data....er.....sweet Fanny Adams.


Where do you think I got it from, you knob head?

GDP per capita (current US$) | Data

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Or do you somehow think the World Bank and US (government) Bureau of Economic Analysis respectively are not as good as unsourced opinions of your discredited academic?


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

Apparently Happy Larry seems to think that economists and lawyers would never dream of lying or misrepresenting the facts in order to advance their pet ideology.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 21, 2017)

Happy Larry doesn't think before uncritically regurgitating utter bollocks. Therein lies his problem. 


Plus obvs he's a trainee troll


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2017)

Why are people calling this freak a shit troll while replying again and again to his bait? He seems to be doing just fine.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Apparently Happy Larry seems to think that economists and lawyers would never dream of lying or misrepresenting the facts in order to advance their pet ideology.


Economists and lawyers don't need to lie. The unhindered continuance of their professions is enough. To suggest otherwise is sort of to say that there is a correct economics when it's economics itself that is the problem.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Why are people calling this freak a shit troll while replying again and again to his bait? He seems to be doing just fine.


Personally, it passes the time and allows me to fill in my trolling-101 bingo card


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> Why are people calling this freak a shit troll while replying again and again to his bait? He seems to be doing just fine.



I'm not calling him a shit troll. I'm calling him an idiot and a liar.



butchersapron said:


> Economists and lawyers don't need to lie. The unhindered continuance of their professions is enough. To suggest otherwise is sort of to say that there is a correct economics when it's economics itself that is the problem.



That doesn't make sense. Clearly economic activity happens, and therefore it can be studied. Just because establishment economists practice some kind of elaborate superstition in which they tell the wealthy and powerful what they think they want to hear, rather than describing what's actually going on, that somehow means that economics itself is the problem, rather than the way it is done?

 Or to put it another way by analogy, if we reject astrology as the bullshit it is, that doesn't make accurate astronomy any less true or useful. If astrology is equivalent to economics, then astronomy is equivalent to... ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

It makes total sense. Economics isn't what you think it is. It's not the study of economic activity. It's the _production _of the idea that there is a thing called the economy and that it can be studied and thus policies and behaviours supportive of it should be adopted and encouraged. Even saying _economic activity_ takes on these basic assumptions.

Is there a real true good non-bad evil?


----------



## campanula (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It makes total sense. Economics isn't what you think it is. It's not the study of economic activity. It's the _production _of the idea that there is a thing called the economy and that it can be studied and thus policies and behaviours supportive of it should be adopted and encouraged. Even saying _economic activity_ takes on these basic assumptions.



Indeed, a fairly direct continuation from consulting an astrology ephemeris, complete with rafts of pseudo-scientific bollocks-speak (trines, conjunctions, progressions, nodes). Magical thinking as a source of comfort and revenue...with the same spurious complexity which allows 'experts' to claim special arcane knowledge..._and even manipulate the outcomes _of this supposedly fixed, purposeful system of checks and balances (but always keeping the 'fate'card in hand for those unexplained catastrophes).


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It makes total sense. Economics isn't what you think it is. It's not the study of economic activity. It's the _production _of the idea that there is a thing called the economy and that it can be studied and thus policies and behaviours supportive of it should be adopted and encouraged. Even saying _economic activity_ takes on these basic assumptions.
> 
> Is there a real true good non-bad evil?



You've still lost me. Are you saying there is no such thing as economic activity? That it is impossible to describe the dynamics involved in the interactions between people and the instruments of money they create? 

Are Marxist economists also in on this... Whatever it is?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> You've still lost me. Are you saying there is no such thing as economic activity? That it is impossible to describe the dynamics involved in the interactions between people and the instruments of money they create?
> 
> Are Marxist economists also in on this... Whatever it is?


There is not and can never be any such thing as marxist economics. What was the full title of capital?

There's human productive activity. To assemble that under the title of economics is the trick. The wave of the wand. The malicious sorcery.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> There is not and can never be any such thing as marxist economics. What was the full title of capital?
> 
> There's human productive activity. To assemble that under the title of economics is the trick. The wave of the wand. The malicious sorcery.



So what is the study of human productive activity called?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

And exchanges of goods, services and value? How do we analyse those processes on a large scale? Just let people get on with it like magic?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> So what is the study of human productive activity called?


Thought? Does there need to be an accepted defined term with rules and all that?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

The answer btw was _Capital A Critique of Political Economy. _Not Capital A Proper Example of Political Economy.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Thought? Does there need to be an accepted defined term with rules and all that?



Humans producing value, with the surplus being appropriated by a ruling class, sounds hella economic to me. The fact that the notion recognises a significant social element doesn't detract from that as far as I can tell. It just makes it more... Complete? Comprehensive? Well-rounded? Something like that. Which to me seems to be a good thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

That's what the economists produced. People viewing things in terms of economics. If all you have is a hammer...


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's what the economists produced. People viewing things in terms of economics. If all you have is a hammer...



You can look at pretty much any issue from multiple angles. Economics is just one of them, others are available; social, environmental, physical...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> You can look at pretty much any issue from multiple angles. Economics is just one of them, others are available; social, environmental, physical...


You're assuming that it exists. I'm assuming that it  doesn't.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

But people make things, buy and sell things, and work for each other for payment of some kind. If we study that, what can we call the field of human activity we're studying?

I get that 'the economy' is a massive fallacy, but I don't see how economics as a field can just be deleted when it actually does describe things people do.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> But people make things, buys and sell things, and work for each other for payment of some kind. If we study that, what can we call the field of human activity we're studying?


Society? And come up with any word you want to descibe how society prodiuceds and reproduces itself - economics is not it. Economics is an ideology not a science. A religion - nothing else.

The idea that "people make things, buys and sell things" is not generally true is it?  Quite important for economics that it is true and that we think it's true isn't it?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

_I hate snow. That's not snow, it's frozen rain_.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

There are celestial objects and phenomena that can be studied using  _mathematics, physics, and chemistry_. Let's call that study astrology, Or maybe not because there's a whole load of discredited nonsense and assumptions contained within the actual historical practice of astrology. Oh no, let's call it _snow _then.

This stuff used to be utter bedrock left understanding.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> There are celestial objects and phenomena that can be studied using  _mathematics, physics, and chemistry_. Let's call that study *astrology*, Or maybe not because there's a whole load of discredited nonsense and assumptions contained within the actual historical practice of astrology. Oh no, let's call it _snow _then.
> 
> This stuff used to be utter bedrock left understanding.



What's your point though? Confusing astrology / astronomy (deliberately or was that a typo?) says what about economics?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> What's your point though? Confusing astrology / astronomy (deliberately or was that a typo?) says what about economics?


That economics doesn't exist aside from being an ideology that justifies capitalism and so to argue in its categories and on its assumptions is a pro-capitalist endeavor no matter how well intentioned. There is no pure true gold economics.

No it wasn't a typo it was quite deliberate and a response to your post.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.


Really? You've managed to miss 200 years of left-wing writing then.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.


Is this really happening? The utterly banal critique of economics has become conspiracism?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.


I'm probably the least well read person on this board and that claim even surprises me


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That economics doesn't exist aside from being an ideology that justifies capitalism and so to argue in its categories and on its assumptions is a pro-capitalist endeavor no matter how well intentioned.



And the collective interactions of human labour and trade don't get a name, so can't be studied or explained or talked about separately from purely social interactions that don't involve labour or trade.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> And the collective interactions of human labour and trade don't get a name, so can't be studied or explained or talked about separately from purely social interactions that don't involve labour or trade.


I know, let's call it astrology. Any reasons you can think of why that might not work?


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> And the collective interactions of human labour and trade don't get a name, so can't be studied or explained or talked about separately from purely social interactions that don't involve labour or trade.


You concede the capitalist categorisation of human behaviours if you take accept their division between the economic and the non-economic - it's a game on their terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2017)

JimW said:


> You concede the capitalist categorisation of human behaviours if you take accept their division between the economic and the non-economic - it's a game on their terms.


You can take over jim, i'm footballing.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You can take over jim, i'm footballing.


I would be too but the commentary won't load


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I know, let's call it astrology. Any reasons you can think of why that might not work?



Why do this? If you can't be arsed to engage why post at all?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

JimW said:


> You concede the capitalist categorisation of human behaviours if you take accept their division between the economic and the non-economic - it's a game on their terms.



But there is a distinction. The relation between me and the person who grows and squeezes the fruit whose juice I'm drinking is different from the relation between me and the person I'm drinking it with.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> But there is a distinction. The relation between me and the person who grows and squeezes the fruit whose juice I'm drinking is different from the relation between me and the person I'm drinking it with.


A set of social relations has been constructed that seeks to make that a hard and fast distinction but there's nothing natural or transhistorical about that. If becomes the lens you view things through you get harder to see other possibilities.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 21, 2017)

A related question to the discussion here that I've been wondering about for a while, what is it about late neoliberalism that makes it harder for people to see and understand what power is? It's not just the false consciousness stuff, is it?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.



What's objective, natural or scientific about it? Economics is subjective - ideologies and theories applied to validate that social relations of capitalism and market forces are somehow inherently a natural order. But they're not - and the more we believe that it is (and this is the problem now as economists are held up as being scientists and 'bearers' of some sort of 'authoritative truth' - see this with brexit arguments for e.g.), we become further wedded to only neoliberalism and variations of capitalism (whether free market, state capitalism, etc.) can ever exist and no alternative way is possible. That isn't 'conspiracy' surely? That's surely the whole point of being communist/socialist to challenge that whole 'accepted' order of society and power and means of production and want something different.


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2017)

J Ed said:


> A related question to the discussion here that I've been wondering about for a while, what is it about late neoliberalism that makes it harder for people to see and understand what power is? It's not just the false consciousness stuff, is it?



It can only be understood as a Star Trek parallel, with continual reboots slowly dragging the active elements away from whatever it was that worked / that people liked in the first place.  Corbyn is probably Michael Burnham in this anecdote.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> That's surely the whole point of being communist/socialist to challenge that whole 'accepted' order of society and power and means of production and want something different.



Yes, something different - an economics whose aim is to reduce and ultimately eliminate poverty and power relationships as opposed to entrench them and exploit them.

Is there no such thing as economics in socialism? Things still have to be produced, distributed, consumed and recycled. Labour is still done. Relationships will always exist that are based purely on supply and demand for value and labour. I can't produce everything I need, sometimes I need to exchange with others. I'm unclear on why calling this _economics_ is pandering to capital.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

JimW said:


> A set of social relations has been constructed that seeks to make that a hard and fast distinction but there's nothing natural or transhistorical about that. If becomes the lens you view things through you get harder to see other possibilities.



Why does the distinction have to be "hard and fast? Relationships are complicated enough to come in different degrees. My relationship with the local shopkeeper is primarily economic, but that's not to say that there's no social aspect to that relationship either. Conversely economic considerations are not the primary factor in my relationship with friends and family, but I can't ignore them completely. Same applies to groups of people.

As for natural and historical, humans have been producing and trading goods and services for far longer than capitalism has existed. This activity was and is socially based, but then so is medicine. So is each and every other human endeavour, because humans are fundamentally social animals.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Why does the distinction have to be "hard and fast? Relationships are complicated enough to come in different degrees. My relationship with the local shopkeeper is primarily economic, but that's not to say that there's no social aspect to that relationship either. Conversely economic considerations are not the primary factor in my relationship with friends and family, but I can't ignore them completely. Same applies to groups of people.
> 
> As for natural and historical, humans have been producing and trading goods and services for far longer than capitalism has existed. This activity was and is socially based, but then so is medicine. So is each and every other human endeavour, because humans are fundamentally social animals.


Well, that's the point, it is a complex set of social relationships but economics seeks to reduce that to a discrete sphere driven by a logic of its own. There's clearly been an attempt to raise it to a sort of science that looks at pseudo-natural laws that are assumed to operate almost like those of physics or something.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 21, 2017)

JimW said:


> There's clearly been an attempt to raise it to a sort of science that looks at pseudo-natural laws that are assumed to operate almost like those of physics or something.



I agree economics been given unnecessary importance in social policy, but saying it's treated too importantly is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist at all.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2017)

JimW said:


> Well, that's the point, it is a complex set of social relationships but economics seeks to reduce that to a discrete sphere driven by a logic of its own. There's clearly been an attempt to raise it to a sort of science that looks at pseudo-natural laws that are assumed to operate almost like those of physics or something.



But isn't this like saying that since pre-Copernican astronomy puts the Earth at the centre of the universe, therefore all astronomy seeks to do so?


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2017)

NoXion said:


> But isn't this like saying that since pre-Copernican astronomy puts the Earth at the centre of the universe, therefore all astronomy seeks to do so?


I don't think so - the separation of a particular set of activities into a sphere seen as economic is of course freighted in a lot more ways than observations of the natural world. 
Even within economics' own lights you can see the contest over for example the unwaged social labour of women in social reproduction or attempts to cost environmental impact that show the model always ignored even obvious social aspects. And rather than just seeking to fit all the things that are ignored into the wrong model we're better off considering things differently altogether.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've never heard anyone but conspiracists dismiss economics entirely as a field of study.


What you've not heard of a certain K. Marx? 

Some of this came up before in this thread BTW.

Anybody else think it's worth staring a whole new thread on this? Similar debates have come up a few times over the last few days and a dedicated thread would mean it's less likely to get sidetracked.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

One can be left wing without reading volumes of books. I've always been left wing because I have a sense of fairness. I don't know when I first heard the phrase "the fruits of the labour should go to those that labour" probably when I was very young & it certainly made logical sense to me.

Economics is just a social science I always thought? The study of production & comsumption etc but what do I know? I got chucked out of school aged 14.

There is no need for well read left wingers on here to belittle those of us who who are less well read & just take our left wing ideology from current events as they happen. I always see politics as the art of the possible. For example I am happy that the unequal society created by the last 38yrs of neoliberalism may begin to become more equal in the near future made possible by a much more left wing Labour government who I hope will build council housing on the scale of 1960s/70s at affordable controlled rents.

It's no good stamping one's feet because one cannot achieve one's dream of some sort of far left utopia. All I want is a society that is fair. Socialism that works for all. Thats how I see it without reading books.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Economics is just a social science I always thought? The study of production & comsumption etc but what do I know? I got chucked out of school aged 14..


Well this is just what someone us challenge. We consider it a religion, one who's purpose is to create and justify the exploitation of workers. Reforming the religion won't change that.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2017)

J Ed said:


> A related question to the discussion here that I've been wondering about for a while, what is it about late neoliberalism that makes it harder for people to see and understand what power is? It's not just the false consciousness stuff, is it?



Vague thought - neo-liberalism presents choice as power, ignoring who gets to set the choices. People see choice and perceive that as power, everyone has choices so everyone has power. idk.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Well this is just what someone us challenge. We consider it a religion, one who's purpose is to create and justify the exploitation of workers. Reforming the religion won't change that.


But is it not the form the economics takes that exploits workers? Could not left wing economic theory exist along with right wing economic theory?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> But is it not the form the economics takes that exploits workers? Could not left wing economic theory exist along with right wing economic theory?


Is it the form of Christianity that is wrong? This is still trying to reform the religion. Replacing the Pope with Luther. 

If you tear the whole corrupt edifice down, foundations and all, what's the point of rebuilding something with the same name? To use BA's example above, we specifically don't call chemistry alchemy, or astronomy astrology.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Is it the form of Christianity that is wrong? This is still trying to reform the religion. Replacing the Pope with Luther.
> 
> If you tear the whole corrupt edifice down, foundations and all, what's the point of rebuilding something with the same name? To use BA's example above, we specifically don't call chemistry alchemy, or astronomy astrology.


Yes, I see where you are coming from now but it does seem all terribly theoretical to me. To me politics is about the art of the possible. I see a good possibilty of a majority Labour government soon. I would hope it might start with the very possible like changing the attitude of the benefits system from "how can we stop your money?" to "how can we help you?". After that work could start on building council houses & gradually bringing utilities back into public ownership. I think all that is possible. I don't do difficult to understand political theory.

Thread title should be changed to Jeremy Corbyn's time has come.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2017)

OK but how is the _possible_ decided? 

Let's take a recent example from U75, the Brexit thread. Where some posters talked about how Brexit could (or in many cases _will_) be bad for the economy. By surrendering the ground to economics they are already limiting the range of _possibles_, to a narrower sphere. Likewise, with nationalisations, tax cuts/rises, by discussing whether these things are good or bad for the economy you are already playing capitals game.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

The possible in the case of the UK could be decided by the voters. Plenty want decent affordable housing & they might see Labour as a better bet for achieving that than the Tories & if the numbers can be made to add up within the constraints of our flawed system of democracy then we will have that Labour government.

If brexit destroys the Tories & gives us a Labour government then imo brexit will be good for the economy.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Is it the form of Christianity that is wrong? This is still trying to reform the religion. Replacing the Pope with Luther.
> 
> If you tear the whole corrupt edifice down, foundations and all, what's the point of rebuilding something with the same name? To use BA's example above, we specifically don't call chemistry alchemy, or astronomy astrology.



But I think this whole attitude confuses the map with the territory. Astrology, alchemy, and bourgeois economics have large areas marked "Here Be Dragons". But that doesn't change the fact that planets, substances, and human productive activity do actually exist in the material universe (unlike the Christian deity) and thus can be studied rigourously.


----------



## Supine (Oct 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> OK but how is the _possible_ decided?
> 
> Let's take a recent example from U75, the Brexit thread. Where some posters talked about how Brexit could (or in many cases _will_) be bad for the economy. By surrendering the ground to economics they are already limiting the range of _possibles_, to a narrower sphere. Likewise, with nationalisations, tax cuts/rises, by discussing whether these things are good or bad for the economy you are already playing capitals game.



It would be more interesting if people who want a different system, like you, would coherently describe how an alternate system would work


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What you've not heard of a certain K. Marx?



Well, I'm no expert on the man hut I have read volume 1 of _Capital_ twice (once years ago, once more recently) and never seen it as a critique of The Economy as an idea but of _a certain kind of_ economy.

He talks at length about labour and value; that's _The Economy_. In that book he is writing as as an economist. I'm not sure what the facetious  is for. Just point out where Marx denies that _The Economy_ is a thing.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 22, 2017)

Also, Hail Satan!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 22, 2017)

Borrow more to fix housing crisis - Javid

Not going to get into a discussion on whether economics Is a science ( it isn’t anyways ) but back to politics- Javid Is now calling for large scale  borrowing to take advantage of low rites

It’s a race to state socialism across the board now

/ lolz


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2017)

but but but....the_ nations credit card _is maxed out. etc.

also possibility of a second backdown on universal credit. Babylon shall fall.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

It's pretty inevitable that from now on the Tories will make desperate attempts to steal Labour's clothes.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 22, 2017)

Economics is a bit like weather. You wouldn't say there's no science to weather, but it's very much on the side of measuring outcomes rather than being able to understand the whole or god forbid manipulate it.

Although noone's going to get a Nobel prize for telling us to put our coats on.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 22, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Economics is a bit like weather. You wouldn't say there's no science to weather, but it's very much on the side of measuring outcomes rather than being able to understand the whole or god forbid manipulate it.
> 
> Although noone's going to get a Nobel prize for telling us to put our coats on.



If an economist tried to understand weather they would do so by seeing some rain outside their window and declaring "this is weather." Accurate, but also totally useless, particularly when they try to use this observation to predict future conditions.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 22, 2017)

It's also quite a lot like a cargo cult.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 22, 2017)

mauvais said:


> It's also quite a lot like a cargo cult.



That is _exactly _what it is.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 22, 2017)

.....Returns from googling cargo cult & asks if brexit is a cargo cult?

Or is brexit millenarianism? Until minutes ago I had heard of neither cargo cults or millenarianism.


----------



## agricola (Oct 22, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> .....Returns from googling cargo cult & asks if brexit is a cargo cult?
> 
> Or is brexit millenarianism? Until minutes ago I had heard of neither cargo cults or millenarianism.



if a shipload of hat ingredients washed up, could it be possible that there would be both cargo cults _and_ millinerianism?


----------



## tim (Oct 22, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Also, Hail Satan!


Yes, its page 666 and this time Jeremy's time really is up







The new Centre is on the march, or it will be as soon as Chukka's back from his private club, and Ken finishes his cigar.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Where do you think I got it from



If you don't quote your source then who knows? Probably your thumb. Hopefully you will learn from being called out on this.

You obviously know nothing about economics. You ridiculously quote GDP figures to refute a claim that :

"socialists might be surprised to learn that it (Sweden) is still poorer than Mississippi, the lowest-income state in the United States."

GDP is no indicator of whether people are "rich" or "poor". Hint : the clue is in the word "gross". People in Sweden pay far more tax on their income than the people of Mississippi and also pay far more for their living expenses. Hence, people can live to a higher standard in Mississippi, and are therefore "richer" in terms of their standard of living, than people in Sweden, even if their gross income is lower.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> People in Sweden pay far more tax on their income than the people of Mississippi and also pay far more for their living expenses.



This is quite possibly true. But it's undoubtedly also true if you replace Mississippi with Somalia, so it doesn't really mean anything.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

Moving on to Denmark. From an article in the Boston Globe in 2015 :

"Sweden’s world-beating growth rate dried up. In 1975, it had been the fourth-wealthiest nation on earth (as measured by GDP per capita); by 1993, it had dropped to 14th. By then, Swedes had begun to regard their experiment with socialism as, in Sanandaji’s phrase, “ a colossal failure”

Denmark has come to a similar conclusion. Its lavish subsidies are being rolled back amid sharp concerns about welfare abuse and an eroding work ethic. In the last general election, Danes replaced a left-leaning government with one tilted to the right."

Just as happened after the Wilson/Callaghan era when the Conservatives took over for almost a decade, any flirtation by the voters with Socialism is soon abandoned as voters return to their senses.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But it's undoubtedly also true if you replace Mississippi with Somalia, so it doesn't really mean anything.



What are you saying, Raheem? That the net income of people in Somalia may be comparable to those in Sweden or Mississippi? I think you will find that even though people in Somalia pay far less tax and living expenses than the other places mentioned, they still have far less disposable income.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> What are you saying, Raheem? That the net income of people in Somalia may be comparable to those in Sweden or Mississippi? I think you will find that even though people in Somalia pay far less tax and living expenses than the other places mentioned, they still have far less disposable income.



Yes. And this may also be the case for people in Mississippi compared to Sweden. You may assume this is not the case, but you have not offered any evidence.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

Raheem said:


> but you have not offered any evidence.



I have quoted Per Bylund (an award winning Swedish academic at Oklahoma State University) and Yonathan Amsalem, who have both written published articles on Scandanavian economics and politics.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> I have quoted Per Bylund (an award winning Swedish academic at Oklahoma State University) and Yonathan Amsalem, who have both written published articles on Scandanavian economics and politics.



But the evidence, such as we have, is that Mississippi is poorer than Sweden.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But the evidence, such as we have, is that Mississippi is poorer than Sweden.



What evidence may that be?

Mississipi is actually the cheapest place to live in the US :

"The best state to stretch your dollar furthest? That's right, you guessed it: Mississippi. 

Generally speaking, places with high incomes also have high prices. As The Tax Foundation explains, "A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer". "

Here's what $100 is really worth around the US


----------



## Raheem (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> What evidence may that be?



The per capita GDP figures. That's the standard way of measuring national wealth. Who knows what your quote is referring to, but using anything like disposable income or living costs would be dishonest for an economist, surely?

The difference in the GDP figures is pretty large as well, isn't it? Not easily ironed out, I would have thought.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 23, 2017)

(duplicate post)


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 23, 2017)

NoXion said:


> But I think this whole attitude confuses the map with the territory. Astrology, alchemy, and bourgeois economics have large areas marked "Here Be Dragons". But that doesn't change the fact that planets, substances, and human productive activity do actually exist in the material universe (unlike the Christian deity) and thus can be studied rigourously.



i think you will find that the christian deity needs to be destroyed.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

Raheem said:


> That's the standard way of measuring national wealth.



No it's not.

Gross national product (GNP) is a broad measure of a nation's total economic activity.

www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/.../gross-national-product-gnp-3176

"The difference in the GDP figures is pretty large as well, isn't it? 

If the figures quoted are correct, then I would agree with you. However, almost everything one buys in Sweden is more expensive, including most people's largest purchases like houses and cars. The top marginal tax rate is 56% so your buying power is severely affected.


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Gross national product (GNP) is a broad measure of a nation's total economic activity.
> 
> ...


That'd explain why Sweden scores almost three times better on the human development index as well. You clown.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

JimW said:


> hat'd explain why Sweden scores almost three times better on the human development index





It doesn't attempt to measure whether a nations citizens are rich or poor, grim Jim. It is merely a useful reference tool that factors in life expectancy, education and GROSS income per capita.

I note that Singapore ranks 5th (and rising) whilst the UK ranks 16th (and falling).

Sweden actually ranks below the USA. Maybe you missed that.


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> It doesn't attempt to measure whether a nations citizens are rich or poor, grim Jim. It is merely a useful reference tool that factors in life expectancy, education and GROSS income per capita.
> 
> I note that Singapore ranks 5th (and rising) whilst the UK ranks 16th (and falling).
> 
> Sweden actually ranks below the USA. Maybe you missed that.


Moved away from Mississippi now you realise you were completely wrong?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 23, 2017)

JimW said:


> Moved away from Mississippi now you realise you were completely wrong?



What on earth are you talking about? You seem to have missed the original point entirely, in your apparent haste to be contrary.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Mississippi was quoted by my references in the first place exactly because it has always been considered one of the most "backward" of US states. But even so, in terms of the standard of living there when based on disposable income only, it's citizens enjoy a higher economic standard of living, than do the citizens of Sweden. The deep south of the USA is often seen as a bit of a joke by other Americans, who sometimes think all the people there live lives similar to those depicted in the movie, Deliverance. The people there certainly don't seem nearly as well educated as those in the rest of the US, who in turn are also, in my opinion, behind most European countries.


----------



## JimW (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> What on earth are you talking about? You seem to have missed the original point entirely, in your apparent haste to be contrary.
> 
> You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Mississippi was quoted by my references in the first place exactly because it has always been considered one of the most "backward" of US states. But even so, in terms of the standard of living there when based on disposable income only, it's citizens enjoy a higher economic standard of living, than do the citizens of Sweden...


Except they don't, which was my point. You're the usual sort of raging ideologue who'll try to bend reality to fit your extreme politics.


----------



## tim (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> The top marginal tax rate is 56% so your buying power is severely affected.




((((Rich Swedes))))


----------



## NoXion (Oct 23, 2017)

dialectician said:


> i think you will find that the christian deity needs to be destroyed.



How do you destroy something that doesn't exist?

If you mean that the concept of the Christian deity needs to be destroyed, then I would agree, but I think that's a different question.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> What on earth are you talking about? You seem to have missed the original point entirely, in your apparent haste to be contrary.
> 
> You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Mississippi was quoted by my references in the first place exactly because it has always been considered one of the most "backward" of US states. But even so, in terms of the standard of living there when based on disposable income only, it's citizens enjoy a higher economic standard of living, than do the citizens of Sweden. The deep south of the USA is often seen as a bit of a joke by other Americans, who sometimes think all the people there live lives similar to those depicted in the movie, Deliverance. The people there certainly don't seem nearly as well educated as those in the rest of the US, who in turn are also, in my opinion, behind most European countries.



Disposable income in Mississippi doesn't count for shit when it's all been wiped out, along with all one's savings, due to the fucking insane cost of medical care in the United States, which can push anyone who isn't a millionaire into penury.

Whereas Swedes don't have to worry about such things thanks to their government funded healthcare system.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> If you don't quote your source then who knows? Probably your thumb. Hopefully you will learn from being called out on this.
> 
> You obviously know nothing about economics. You ridiculously quote GDP figures to refute a claim that :
> 
> ...


You either pay a lot of tax and pay zero for social/medical/educational services or you pay very little tax and have to pay for virtually all of those services out of your own pocket. You rail against the high tax regimes of Scandinavian countries and yet if you ask the average swede/finn/dane/norwegian in the street which system they would prefer to live under they would not choose the American one (except for the headbangers of course).


----------



## NoXion (Oct 23, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Disposable income in Mississippi doesn't count for shit when it's all been wiped out, along with all one's savings, due to the fucking insane cost of medical care in the United States, which can push anyone who isn't a millionaire into penury.
> 
> Whereas Swedes don't have to worry about such things thanks to their government funded healthcare system.



Further to this, the need for medical care can strike at any time no matter how careful one is, so blaming the victims will just mark you down as a complete cunt.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 23, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Further to this, the need for medical care can strike at any time no matter how careful one is, so blaming the victims will just mark you down as a complete cunt.


Or will at least, based on his postings up to now, remove any lingering doubts people may be having


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2017)

I see corbyn has spoken against Clive Lewis's remark

'Asked if the comments pointed to misogyny within the party, he said: "It points to a bad remark he made in particular circumstances.

"I'm leading a party which has more women MPs than all the others put together, and we have more all-women shortlists for selections coming up." '

still rolling out the misogyny accusations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> What on earth are you talking about? You seem to have missed the original point entirely, in your apparent haste to be contrary.
> 
> You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Mississippi was quoted by my references in the first place exactly because it has always been considered one of the most "backward" of US states. But even so, in terms of the standard of living there when based on disposable income only, it's citizens enjoy a higher economic standard of living, than do the citizens of Sweden. The deep south of the USA is often seen as a bit of a joke by other Americans, who sometimes think all the people there live lives similar to those depicted in the movie, Deliverance. The people there certainly don't seem nearly as well educated as those in the rest of the US, who in turn are also, in my opinion, behind most European countries.


now those articles about how socialism doesn't work...


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 23, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Well, I'm no expert on the man hut I have read volume 1 of _Capital_ twice (once years ago, once more recently) and never seen it as a critique of The Economy as an idea but of _a certain kind of_ economy.
> 
> He talks at length about labour and value; that's _The Economy_. In that book he is writing as as an economist. I'm not sure what the facetious  is for. Just point out where Marx denies that _The Economy_ is a thing.


The smiling was meant to be friendly not facetious, sorry if it came across that way.

But Marx very much means economics as a whole not a certain kind of economy, look at the full title BA gave a couple of pages ago.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 23, 2017)

Supine said:


> It would be more interesting if people who want a different system, like you, would coherently describe how an alternate system would work


1) Well nothings stopping you starting a new thread if you want that discussion. 
2) It's been had on U75 numerous times before.
3) It's not actually relevant to the point under discussion


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2017)

Supine said:


> It would be more interesting if people who want a different system, like you, would coherently describe how an alternate system would work


tell you what, when you can coherently describe how the current mess 'works' i'll have a bash at describing an alternative.


----------



## bemused (Oct 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, when you can coherently describe how the current mess 'works' i'll have a bash at describing an alternative.



1. People vote for someone they vaguely like, standing on a manifesto they've not read.
2. Someone gets elected.
3. Spends a few years pretending they are implementing their manifesto. 
4. Folks on the internet argue 
5. Repeat every few years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> 1. People vote for someone they vaguely like, standing on a manifesto they've not read.
> 2. Someone gets elected.
> 3. Spends a few years pretending they are implementing their manifesto.
> 4. Folks on the internet argue
> 5. Repeat every few years.


And you think that explains how things work now?  doesn't even describe it


----------



## bemused (Oct 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And you think that explains how things work now?  doesn't even describe it



That's how it works, you've just not drunk enough to realise it yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> That's how it works, you've just not drunk enough to realise it yet.


Yeh. Perhaps you could try this again when you haven't had the benefit of alcohol


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Oct 23, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Just as happened after the Wilson/Callaghan era when the Conservatives took over for almost a decade, any flirtation by the voters with Socialism is soon abandoned as voters return to their senses.



yeh yeh. i don't think the boston globe knows what socialism is.

Hint: its not progressive taxation or public ownership.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 24, 2017)

Nylock said:


> You either pay a lot of tax and pay zero for social/medical/educational services or you pay very little tax and have to pay for virtually all of those services out of your own pocket.



Er, except that you don't appear to realise that medical insurance is usually subsidised by the employer. In any case, I would rather pay less tax and be able to choose my preferred medical insurance company, as well as choose where I obtain treatment. 

I have nothing against the NHS except that so many people whinge about the quality of service provided. I believe that only the genuinely in need should have free access to government sponsored medical facilities. At present, millions of wealthy and middle income people, who could afford to pay for private medical insurance, are using the NHS. I would prefer that the money spent on the latter is spent on improving the service to those genuinely in need. Perhaps the solution is for those genuinely in need to apply for a card which entitles them to free medical services. The rest can pay their own way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Er, except that you don't appear to realise that medical insurance is usually subsidised by the employer. In any case, I would rather pay less tax and be able to choose my preferred medical insurance company, as well as choose where I obtain treatment.
> 
> I have nothing against the NHS except that so many people whinge about the quality of service provided. I believe that only the genuinely in need should have free access to government sponsored medical facilities. At present, millions of wealthy and middle income people, who could afford to pay for private medical insurance, are using the NHS. I would prefer that the money spent on the latter is spent on improving the service to those genuinely in need. Perhaps the solution is for those genuinely in need to apply for a card which entitles them to free medical services. The rest can pay their own way.



Wouldn't that just create a sort of two tier NHS? One for those who are struggling and one for those who can pay. In that case; I wonder who would come first? Those who can pay for expensive treatment or the average patient?


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Er, except that you don't appear to realise that medical insurance is usually subsidised by the employer. In any case, I would rather pay less tax and be able to choose my preferred medical insurance company, as well as choose where I obtain treatment.
> 
> I have nothing against the NHS except that so many people whinge about the quality of service provided. I believe that only the genuinely in need should have free access to government sponsored medical facilities. At present, millions of wealthy and middle income people, who could afford to pay for private medical insurance, are using the NHS. I would prefer that the money spent on the latter is spent on improving the service to those genuinely in need. Perhaps the solution is for those genuinely in need to apply for a card which entitles them to free medical services. The rest can pay their own way.


Perhaps the solution is you just fuck off and die?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 24, 2017)

It's interesting, albeit profoundly depressing, to see how close NHS privatisation has already come to the vision set out by Redwood and Letwin all those years ago.

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027171245-BritainsBiggestEnterprise1988.pdf


----------



## NoXion (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Er, except that you don't appear to realise that medical insurance is usually subsidised by the employer. In any case, I would rather pay less tax and be able to choose my preferred medical insurance company, as well as choose where I obtain treatment.



Why? Medical treatment isn't like shopping for a new pair of shoes. You want the most effective intervention and you want it as soon as possible.

The NHS is supposed to provide that, but insurance companies have every incentive to deny you the medical care that you *need*. Have you not heard of the horror stories from the US? People can and have died because their health insurance didn't pay out.

Fuck insurance.



> I have nothing against the NHS except that so many people whinge about the quality of service provided. I believe that only the genuinely in need should have free access to government sponsored medical facilities. At present, millions of wealthy and middle income people, who could afford to pay for private medical insurance, are using the NHS. I would prefer that the money spent on the latter is spent on improving the service to those genuinely in need. Perhaps the solution is for those genuinely in need to apply for a card which entitles them to free medical services. The rest can pay their own way.



Bollocks to that. If the NHS becomes something only poor people use then there is no incentive for anyone else to give a damn about it, and Tory governments can paint it as something only used by "irresponsible freeloaders", rather than the universal public service it should be.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 24, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Wouldn't that just create a sort of two tier NHS? One for those who are struggling and one for those who can pay.



No. Both can pay. Those who qualify for government assistance would merely present their NHS card. The rest would present the card given them by their medical insurer. Any persons not with the NHS or a medical insurer would have to pay by cash or with a credit card.

The NHS could provide a far better service if those who can afford to do so, took out medical insurance, thus freeing up the NHS to better care for the poor.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2017)

Would they take a cheque?


----------



## NoXion (Oct 24, 2017)

Oh yeah, and the bureaucracy needed to administer the pov card system would represent money and resources wasted on crap that doesn't treat patients.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No. Both can pay. Those who qualify for government assistance would merely present their NHS card. The rest would present the card given them by their medical insurer. Any persons not with the NHS or a medical insurer would have to pay by cash or with a credit card.
> 
> The NHS could provide a far better service if those who can afford to do so, took out medical insurance, thus freeing up the NHS to better care for the poor.


Is this another one of your market efficiencies where you introduce a convoluted mechanism for taking money that would drain an enormous proportion of resources from direct care just to satisfy your money fetish while in reality being a waste? One of the reasons US per capita health care spend is so high for such poor outcomes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No. Both can pay. Those who qualify for government assistance would merely present their NHS card. The rest would present the card given them by their medical insurer. Any persons not with the NHS or a medical insurer would have to pay by cash or with a credit card.
> 
> The NHS could provide a far better service if those who can afford to do so, took out medical insurance, thus freeing up the NHS to better care for the poor.


I call bullshit, chuck. You're likely some banned returning troll. But if you were to produce 'the articles that never were'...


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2017)

I hadn't realised quite how big a shit Guido is. Makes his going on at the likes of O'Mara for daft comments made as a student look more than a wee bit hypocritical

All That Is Solid ...: Guido Fawkes: Troll and Hypocrite


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2017)

everything you'd suspect of the cunt and a little on top. Pnochet apologist, arm the contras. And the rest.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2017)

The results of the annual Brassy-Super-Ultra-Brass Neck Awards are in and the winner is.... Stephen Kinnock!

Kinnock, January 2016
Stephen Kinnock says Jeremy Corbyn has got to go


> *Jeremy Corbyn needs to go so Labour can have a leader who can help negotiate the best deal for the country, according to Aberavon MP Stephen Kinnock.*
> 
> The Labour MP predicts that a general election will be held this year and *warned that there were issues of “accountability” and “capability” when it came to Mr Corbyn.*
> 
> ...



October 2017
Only a Labour no-confidence motion in the Tories can avert a Brexit disaster | Stephen Kinnock


> Do we have a vision? Yes... Can we present a united front? Absolutely. The shadow cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the membership are overwhelmingly in favour of securing a transition deal, and are realistic about the fact that compromise and creativity will be required in the negotiations.
> *Do we have a leader and a team around him who have the authority and credibility that are preconditions for success? Yes, without a shadow of doubt. Jeremy Corbyn has won two leadership elections and has shifted the political centre of gravity,* while Keir Starmer possesses the gravitas and forensic skills that make him the ideal chief negotiator. There can be no doubt that Michel Barnier sees David Davis as a lightweight, and that he is deeply irritated by all that swagger and bravado – just look at the body language at those press conferences. It is equally certain that this would not be his view if he were dealing with Starmer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The results of the annual Brassy-Super-Ultra-Brass Neck Awards are in and the winner is.... Stephen Kinnock!
> 
> Kinnock, January 2016
> Stephen Kinnock says Jeremy Corbyn has got to go
> ...


Tom Watson interview over the weekend where he was unashamed in his multidnuos positionism.

Funniest bit was him talking about how scary Len Mcklusky doesn't talk to him anymore. Thats what happns when people catch you wearing seven faces ya cunt.


----------



## bemused (Oct 24, 2017)

Is Steve offering to step up and crack out a deal?


----------



## Sue (Oct 24, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The results of the annual Brassy-Super-Ultra-Brass Neck Awards are in and the winner is.... Stephen Kinnock!
> 
> Kinnock, January 2016
> Stephen Kinnock says Jeremy Corbyn has got to go
> ...


I'd imagine there was some pretty stiff competition as well...


----------



## bemused (Oct 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Tom Watson interview over the weekend where he was unashamed in his multidnuos positionism.



I have noticed that all the people claiming Jez was driving the party off a cliff have taken a vow of silence now. Watson was the most mendacious of the bunch.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2017)

Not all of them, plenty still ready to take a dig when the opportunity arises (see the recent guido attack on Lewis).

That said, I've no problem with those who have got in line doing so. Point the guns in the right direction.


----------



## Smangus (Oct 24, 2017)

Umm, politicians in self serving, lying, venal cunts shocker....


----------



## Nylock (Oct 24, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Er, except that you don't appear to realise that medical insurance is usually subsidised by the employer. In any case, I would rather pay less tax and be able to choose my preferred medical insurance company, as well as choose where I obtain treatment.
> 
> I have nothing against the NHS except that so many people whinge about the quality of service provided. I believe that only the genuinely in need should have free access to government sponsored medical facilities. At present, millions of wealthy and middle income people, who could afford to pay for private medical insurance, are using the NHS. I would prefer that the money spent on the latter is spent on improving the service to those genuinely in need. Perhaps the solution is for those genuinely in need to apply for a card which entitles them to free medical services. The rest can pay their own way.


ho ho ho, so now you take your puerility firmly into the world of healthcare... This should be 'fun'... 

Still not defined your view on who counts as 'genuinely in need' there fella....


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 24, 2017)

I think Labour would be premature to try to bring down the government now. As alluded to in the article the Tories should be left to implode & be made to own the failure of brexit.


----------



## Mordi (Oct 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> I hadn't realised quite how big a shit Guido is. Makes his going on at the likes of O'Mara for daft comments made as a student look more than a wee bit hypocritical
> 
> All That Is Solid ...: Guido Fawkes: Troll and Hypocrite



Christ. Reading the comments on that where hisself threatens getting lawyers involved as he never worked with the BNP. But the rest is fine.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> I hadn't realised quite how big a shit Guido is. Makes his going on at the likes of O'Mara for daft comments made as a student look more than a wee bit hypocritical
> 
> All That Is Solid ...: Guido Fawkes: Troll and Hypocrite


Grauniad reverting to type and telling it as a story of the 'Momentum endorsed Jared O'Mara'.  He did come out with some grim stuff, it has to be said, but as you say he looks to have been about 20 when he did so. At one level, there can be no complaints when a politicians past bullshit catches up with them, but the guido and guardian stuff is pretty transparent.


----------



## oryx (Oct 25, 2017)

Funny how all these misogynists, homophobes and anti-Semites exposed over the last couple of years are mostly left-wing Labour MPs, isn't it?

I mean, no-one else ever does this type of thing, do they? Especially not Tories, right-wing Labour MPs and journalists, of course, oh no!


----------



## scifisam (Oct 25, 2017)

belboid said:


> I hadn't realised quite how big a shit Guido is. Makes his going on at the likes of O'Mara for daft comments made as a student look more than a wee bit hypocritical
> 
> All That Is Solid ...: Guido Fawkes: Troll and Hypocrite



Anyone naming themselves after Guy Fawkes is either uninformed (Fawkes was very much not anti-establishment and pro-freedom, like some people seem to think) or dodgy as fuck.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 25, 2017)

oryx said:


> Funny how all these misogynists, homophobes and anti-Semites exposed over the last couple of years are mostly left-wing Labour MPs, isn't it?
> 
> I mean, no-one else ever does this type of thing, do they? Especially not Tories, right-wing Labour MPs and journalists, of course, oh no!



Then again, tory racists and tory homophobes and tory misogyists wouldn't really be newsworthy as nobody expects better from them anyway. Plus they're all proud of their terrible opinions, having them splashed loud all over the tabloids would be more like a fucking party political broadcast than a pillory.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2017)

.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 25, 2017)

Wrong thread


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 25, 2017)

shit!!!


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 27, 2017)

JimW said:


> Is this another one of your market efficiencies



No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.

It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.



Here's some video of the state freeing up some of those resources, presumably to spend more money on those genuinely in need


----------



## JimW (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.


There's something particularly weak and contemptible about the sort of failure who spends their life worrying that someone else is getting something for nothing and then in their spare time goes on line to parrot the self-serving arguments of profiteers like a whipped lickspittle.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.



I have a friend who has been paralysed from the neck down since an accident when he was a teenager.  His care allowance has been severely reduced over the past year or so, which means that he relies on his 80 year old mother to help him.

Would you say that he's quite capable of caring for himself?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.


*Still *not defined your idea of who is genuinely in need. Could this be because you haven't a fucking clue?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 27, 2017)

Try





Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.


Life is far more complex than your partisan assertions proclaim, you dull cunt. Still, it's good you're here, it's time off for someone else I reckon.

You can't be after converts (on Urban? Lol) so assume you are either a poor troll or using this site as some form of wanking aid.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 27, 2017)

Nylock said:


> *Still *not defined your idea of who is genuinely in need



If you don't understand the words "genuinely in need", there are plenty of online  dictionaries that will hopefully assist you in doing so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2017)

JimW said:


> There's something particularly weak and contemptible about the sort of failure who spends their life worrying that someone else is getting something for nothing and then in their spare time goes on line to parrot the self-serving arguments of profiteers like a whipped lickspittle.


I read a report from a psychologist that claimed 70% of such people go on to use child pornography, or already are. It made an interesting case about the link between sociopathy and certain behaviours. Fascinating it was


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> If you don't understand the words "genuinely in need", there are plenty of online  dictionaries that will hopefully assist you in doing so.



Do you think my friend that I wrote about earlier is "genuinely in need"?


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 27, 2017)

"I read a report"

I am sure that we would all love a link to that fascinating article, Dottie.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 27, 2017)

It is posting in the afternoon now, instead of just stupid o'clock in the morning.

Wonder how long until it comes out with eugenics shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "I read a report"
> 
> I am sure that we would all love a link to that fascinating article, Dottie.




Sociopathy, child pornography and attitudinal progress


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 27, 2017)

Exactly as I suspected.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2017)

other than pissing about I wanted to see who would leap in asking for a link so they could refute the findings. And my weren't you swift. Interesting times.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 27, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> other than pissing about I wanted to see who would leap in asking for a link so they could refute the findings. And my weren't you swift. Interesting times.



Right wing sex case in "protesting too much" shocker.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 27, 2017)

As sex abuse seems to be a favourite subject here, I note that the UK newspaper with the highest circulation reported as follows yesterday :

"JEREMY CORBYN was accused of turning a “blind eye” to sexual abuse in Labour after a former shadow minister was denied a meeting.

Sources revealed that Sarah Champion was denied the chance for “urgent” talks with the labour leader this week to discuss new allegations."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused of 'ignoring sexual abuse' after former MP was denied a meeting



I doubt that this will end well for Corbyn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> As sex abuse seems to be a favourite subject here, I note that the UK newspaper with the highest circulation reported as follows yesterday :
> 
> "JEREMY CORBYN was accused of turning a “blind eye” to sexual abuse in Labour after a former shadow minister was denied a meeting.
> 
> ...


i see naming the journal articles you claimed demonstrated the paucity of socialism is a subject you'd rather not discuss.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 27, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Sociopathy, child pornography and attitudinal progress



I have just hit that link whilst waiting for security clearance on the yitzak Rabin border. No one laughed. Grrrrr


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I have just hit that link whilst waiting for security clearance on the yitzak Rabin border. No one laughed. Grrrrr


i did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "I read a report"
> 
> I am sure that we would all love a link to that fascinating article, Dottie.


i would love to see the articles you mentioned a week or two ago


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 27, 2017)

I'd like to see the twat answer the question I've asked twice.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 27, 2017)

I like the fact one of its links was from the sun , that publication of such truths , now that was telling....


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 27, 2017)

NoXion said:


> It is posting in the afternoon now, instead of just stupid o'clock in the morning.
> 
> Wonder how long until it comes out with eugenics shit.



It's shift must have changed


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The smiling was meant to be friendly not facetious, sorry if it came across that way.
> 
> But Marx very much means economics as a whole not a certain kind of economy, look at the full title BA gave a couple of pages ago.



On the other hand, _Critique _doesn't mean anything close to _it doesn't exist_, or _there should be no such thing called 'an economy'_. He goes into how Capital works, essentially how the economy works (admitting from the title onward that such a thing does exist). He writes about what it means for people, who he puts in _classes_ based on relationship to capital, and shows how things could be done differently to be better for more people.

At no point did I get from it that the economy is a fallacy, imaginary, or that it shouldn't exist. From the start he's talking about the collective effort of human labour and making it the base of the entire work. It's all very real and IMO the overall aim of the book is a _fair _economy, not _no _economy.

Also worth mentioning that the word itself comes from Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomía, “management of a househould, administration”), from οἶκος (oîkos, “house”) + νόμος (nómos, “law”). So there are some fairly universal human activities bound up in the concept of _an economy_.

EtA, and of course then, any _economy _is _political_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'd like to see the twat answer the question I've asked twice.


I've asked a dozen times so don't hold your breath


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 27, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> < my post >



I want to add that I'm aware the _Political Economy_ in the title of the book is what they used to call The Economy and was a thing that was at one point created on purpose. A system of organising labour so as to produce the greatest possible wealth at the lowest possible cost etc. But The Economy has come to mean more than that, it's become_ the name we give_ to all that collective work and then what happens to the value it produces. I still think Marx is arguing more than anything for a _better _economy, not none at all.

Anyway. I just wanted to clarify the _political economy _thing because that is a specific phrase with (especially in 1867) a specific meaning.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> As sex abuse seems to be a favourite subject here, I note that the UK newspaper with the highest circulation reported as follows yesterday :
> 
> "JEREMY CORBYN was accused of turning a “blind eye” to sexual abuse in Labour after a former shadow minister was denied a meeting.
> 
> ...


err, yup, because the Sun is known far and wide for it's objectivity, scrupulous avoidance of bias and monumentally high journalistic standards!
Twat.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 27, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> err, yup, because the Sun is known far and wide for it's objectivity, scrupulous avoidance of bias and monumentally high journalistic standards!
> Twat.



But it's got massive circulation figures, so therefore it *must* be true. Just like the Bible, right?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2017)

NoXion said:


> But it's got massive circulation figures, so therefore it *must* be true. Just like the Bible, right?


nice one


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> If you don't understand the words "genuinely in need", there are plenty of online  dictionaries that will hopefully assist you in doing so.



Definitions are relative, rather than absolute, hence people asking you for *your* definitions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "I read a report"
> 
> I am sure that we would all love a link to that fascinating article, Dottie.



"Dottie"?

Careful.  Your provenance is showing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2017)

NoXion said:


> But it's got massive circulation figures, so therefore it *must* be true. Just like the Bible, right?



Stephen King's "Salem's Lot" outsold the Bible.  That doesn't mean that there are vampires lurking in every big house.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 27, 2017)

I wonder if this is just Happy Larry's life generally, leaping in to sneer at people, getting shown up as a clueless blowhard on that topic, waiting half a day and then weighing in on whatever has come up next as though the previous embarrassing failure had never happened. Does he do it in supermarkets? Launderettes? Does he drag chefs out of kitchens to tell them the secrets of a good souflee and then produce nothing but a charred mess?

Maybe this is the secret as to why Larry's so happy, he simply tosses the memories of his inadequacies into the memory hole, leaving only a total confidence in his own infallibility.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> I wonder if this is just Happy Larry's life generally, leaping in to sneer at people, getting shown up as a clueless blowhard on that topic, waiting half a day and then weighing in on whatever has come up next as though the previous embarrassing failure had never happened. Does he do it in supermarkets? Launderettes? Does he drag chefs out of kitchens to tell them the secrets of a good souflee and then produce nothing but a charred mess?


No, return poster on a wind up


----------



## agricola (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> As sex abuse seems to be a favourite subject here, I note that the UK newspaper with the highest circulation reported as follows yesterday :
> 
> "JEREMY CORBYN was accused of turning a “blind eye” to sexual abuse in Labour after a former shadow minister was denied a meeting.
> 
> ...



"I doubt this will end well for Corbyn", on page 669 of a thread that started with "Jeremy Corbyn's time is up" nearly eighteen months ago.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> No grim Jim, it's having more money to spend on those genuinely in need, by spending less on those quite capable of caring for themselves.
> 
> It's not that complicated. Although, if you're one of the latter I expect that you will resent not getting something for nothing from the state.


I work in health care publishing, which means I am neck deep in the NHS every single day.
Plus, I am recovering from a recent hip replacement operation, on top of the broken arm, broken wrist and cracked ribs of the past 7 years. finally, I am a lifelong asthmatic. From an OK income family. If you had ever had your way, I would have died long ago.
Your ideas are a recipe for disaster. I have forgotten more about health care in the UK than you will ever know , and your proposals would lead to a return to the worst of the 19th century


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> If you don't understand the words "genuinely in need", there are plenty of online  dictionaries that will hopefully assist you in doing so.


pathetic. 'genuinely in need' has been the stock way every conservative government of my lifetime has crucified millions of working class people, by denying them the help they really did need.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 28, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> If you don't understand the words "genuinely in need", there are plenty of online  dictionaries that will hopefully assist you in doing so.


A swing and a miss. Try again. Who would *you *define as "genuinely in need"? You're the one pontificating hardest about this so therefore it should not be an insurmountable challenge for you to lay out *your *definition as to who constitutes this group.


----------



## Happy Larry (Oct 28, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> every conservative government of my lifetime has crucified millions of working class people



You must be totally mystified then as to why the Tories are the most popular political party and have retained their political control over the UK after several elections, and all this without the need to promise handouts if elected. You must also be mystified as to why millions of working class people have chosen to emigrate to the UK in recent years, and countless millions more would love do so, if they could. But then I am sure there are a lot of things that mystify you.

Let's look at the facts :


Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show that, between March to May 2017 and June to August 2017, the number of people in work increased, the number of unemployed people fell, and the number of people aged from 16 to 64 not working and not seeking or available to work (economically inactive) also fell.


There were 32.10 million people in work, 94,000 more than for March to May 2017 and 317,000 more than for a year earlier.


The employment rate (the proportion of people aged from 16 to 64 who were in work) was 75.1%, up from 74.5% for a year earlier.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork

Some crucifixion!

Of course, the whiners will claim, as they always do, that these figures have been doctored but, in reality, they are compiled as follows :

"The level and rate of UK unemployment measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) using a definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation. Unemployed people as those without a job who have been actively seeking work in the past 4 weeks and are available to start work in the next 2 weeks. It also includes those who are out of work but have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next 2 weeks."


----------



## JimW (Oct 28, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You must be totally mystified then as to why the Tories are the most popular political party and have retained their political control over the UK after several elections, and all this without the need to promise handouts if elected. You must also be mystified as to why millions of working class people have chosen to emigrate to the UK in recent years, and countless millions more would love do so, if they could. But then I am sure there are a lot of things that mystify you.
> 
> Let's look at the facts :
> 
> ...


Sums you up, takes figures like that at face value in the era of McJobs and zero-hours contracts. Is there no pig in a poke you don't rush out to lay down hard cash for?


----------



## Nylock (Oct 28, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You must be totally mystified then as to why the Tories are the most popular political party and have retained their political control over the UK after several elections, and all this without the need to promise handouts if elected. You must also be mystified as to why millions of working class people have chosen to emigrate to the UK in recent years, and countless millions more would love do so, if they could. But then I am sure there are a lot of things that mystify you.
> 
> Let's look at the facts :
> 
> ...


Neat sidestep there. Now back to answering the healthcare questions, there's a good fella.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 29, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> You must be totally mystified then as to why the Tories are the most popular political party and have retained their political control over the UK after several elections, and all this without the need to promise handouts if elected. You must also be mystified as to why millions of working class people have chosen to emigrate to the UK in recent years, and countless millions more would love do so, if they could. But then I am sure there are a lot of things that mystify you.
> 
> Let's look at the facts :
> 
> ...



It’s as if you are purposefully chucking out stuff that you know is patently -
and easily counter-able, why would you do that ?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 29, 2017)

Denial of Service - OWASP


----------



## petee (Nov 6, 2017)

the nyt says...


> Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power.


yikes!

Opinion | What If the Russian Revolution Had Never Happened?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 6, 2017)

To the American establishment (and the more frothy elements of the UK fruitcake right) he probably does come across as Lenin incarnate. To everyone else, he's a moderate social democrat.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2017)

The writer is british - he just said that for about £500. He doesn't need it.


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The writer is british - he just said that for about £500. He doesn't need it.


I hadn’t noticed it was Montefiore. He should be ashamed to call himself a historian.


----------



## Happy Larry (Nov 7, 2017)

"Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power."

They appear to have overlooked that his support for the IRA, lack of support for Remembrance Day and lack of respect for the Queen leads him to be perceived by many as the most anti-British as well.


----------



## Happy Larry (Nov 7, 2017)

petee said:


> Opinion | What If the Russian Revolution Had Never Happened?



Then Russia would almost certainly not have signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis in 1939.

They would also most likely have declared war on Germany earlier, instead of when Russia was invaded.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power."
> 
> They appear to have overlooked that his support for the IRA, lack of support for Remembrance Day and lack of respect for the Queen leads him to be perceived by many as the most anti-British as well.





Happy Larry said:


> Then Russia would almost certainly not have signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis in 1939.
> 
> They would also most likely have declared war on Germany earlier, instead of when Russia was invaded.


As if on cue a frothy element of the fruitcake right turns up... 

Spreading the scope of your ignorance to include alternative history now eh?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 7, 2017)

Communism caused Hitler.

A Cambridge education causes nonsense with a posh voice.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2017)

the guardians coverage of the anniversary in russia was predictably patronising. Subdued crowd of nostalgic oldies etc


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power."
> 
> They appear to have overlooked that his support for the IRA, lack of support for Remembrance Day and lack of respect for the Queen leads him to be perceived by many as the most anti-British as well.



Do you see him as "anti-British"? How do such things make anyone "anti-British"?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "They appear to have overlooked that his support for the IRA, lack of support for Remembrance Day and lack of respect for the Queen leads him to be perceived by many as the most anti-British as well.



Link to figures of all those 'many' who think he is anti-british please, just exactly how many of them are there ?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> anti-British



So a bloke who keeps an allotment and makes his own jam, is a manhole cover nerd, wears elbow-patched tweed jackets and does a neat line in understated sarcasm is _anti _british?

Fuck me your definition of british must be narrow.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Link to figures of all those 'many' who think he is anti-british please, just exactly how many of them are there ?


I imagine a fair few people of a certain age do think just that. Just no one under...at least fifty


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 7, 2017)

Simon Windbag Montefiore.

What do these people think Leninism is? They seem to think it can be used interchangeably with Marxism.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 7, 2017)

id just like a link tbh, as larry doesnt seem to have good form of backing up his 'facts'


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Simon Windbag Montefiore.
> 
> What do these people think Leninism is? They seem to think it can be used interchangeably with Marxism.


bollock face knows the difference, he was just banging out the words for more money and a writing credit.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 7, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Simon Windbag Montefiore.
> 
> What do these people think Leninism is? They seem to think it can be used interchangeably with Marxism.



And interchangeable with Marxism-Leninism, as developed after his death.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bollock face knows the difference, he was just banging out the words for more money and a writing credit.



Yeah, post-truth right there.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bollock face knows the difference, he was just banging out the words for more money and a writing credit.



He is shit with that stuff.  As shit as you'd expect a Tory to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

This larry chap reminds me of one of those ginger jihadis - so eager to prove themselves they blow themselves up or chop some poor sods head off - but with a hackneyed caricature of what being a conservative is rather than one of what islam is. What, i wonder, is he seeking to leave behind?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

You don't think he's actually sincere do you?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 7, 2017)

Hardly. Cheapo troll.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> You don't think he's actually sincere do you?


No idea, i don't actually read his posts - just can't help having to wade though other people replying to him (it's up to them but i wish they didn't) and building up a picture from the quotes.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

ha! same.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> "Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power."
> 
> They appear to have overlooked that his support for the IRA, lack of support for Remembrance Day and lack of respect for the Queen leads him to be perceived by many as the most anti-British as well.


This thread is not for you. 

*thread banhammer thumps down


----------



## scifisam (Nov 7, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Do you see him as "anti-British"? How do such things make anyone "anti-British"?



The remembrance day thing is bollocks anyway. He was far more involved than the other party leaders, just not in as self-aggrandising a way.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 7, 2017)

editor said:


> This thread is not for you.
> 
> *thread banhammer thumps down


this site isn't for him, I still reckon its squeaky bum time returned


----------



## Raheem (Nov 7, 2017)

scifisam said:


> The remembrance day thing is bollocks anyway. He was far more involved than the other party leaders, just not in as self-aggrandising a way.



One of the things he was criticised for was talking to veterans, wasn't it?


----------



## scifisam (Nov 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> One of the things he was criticised for was talking to veterans, wasn't it?



Yep. That bastard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

Happy Larry said:


> Then Russia would almost certainly not have signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis in 1939.
> 
> They would also most likely have declared war on Germany earlier, instead of when Russia was invaded.



Who would have guessed that you have no comprehension of history?  The non-aggression pact was based on the need for re-armament and skills training for the Soviet armies.  Deals brokered in the mid-thirties for German troops to train in the Soviet Union in exchange for fulfilling a training and technical advisory role were ongoing.  They wouldn't have declared war on Germany, and WOULD have signed the non-aggression pact simply because they would have been far more militarily-unprepared for war earlier than they were in 1941.  Read any German historian of the Hitler dictatorship.  Bracher is a good place to start, or Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction".  This is bread and butter stuff unless you're reading Andrew Roberts or A.N. Wilson for your history fix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Communism caused Hitler.
> 
> A Cambridge education causes nonsense with a posh voice.



There was me thinking that what caused Hitler preceded Marx by half a century.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This larry chap reminds me of one of those ginger jihadis - so eager to prove themselves they blow themselves up or chop some poor sods head off - but with a hackneyed caricature of what being a conservative is rather than one of what islam is. What, i wonder, is he seeking to leave behind?



A turd.  A glistening, stinky turd.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who would have guessed that you have no comprehension of history?  The non-aggression pact was based on the need for re-armament and skills training for the Soviet armies.  Deals brokered in the mid-thirties for German troops to train in the Soviet Union in exchange for fulfilling a training and technical advisory role were ongoing.  They wouldn't have declared war on Germany, and WOULD have signed the non-aggression pact simply because they would have been far more militarily-unprepared for war earlier than they were in 1941.  Read any German historian of the Hitler dictatorship.  Bracher is a good place to start, or Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction".  This is bread and butter stuff unless you're reading Andrew Roberts or A.N. Wilson for your history fix.


Thought German troops training in USSR before 1933.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Thought German troops training in USSR before 1933.



Not under official auspices.  Before then it was _sub rosa_/deniable.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

the freak has been cunted off the thread, surely it's time to stop replying to him?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 7, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who would have guessed that you have no comprehension of history?


Had the Russian revolution not happened and Russia maintained a constitutional monarchy post WWI they would have not experienced the largely insulating effect of the Soviet managed economy during the great depression and may have been hit as hard as Germany was. From that desperation the world may have ended up with a Russian style brand of Nazism allied with Hitler's Germany, a Russian revolution and civil war kicking-off shortly before the onset of WWII leaving them weakened and ripe for Nazi invasion under the pretence of 'restoring order', or a Czarist Russian military and state so weakened and rotten from the privations of the great depression that the Germans may not have stopped at the border when they invaded Poland in 1939 and carried on to Moscow largely unopposed. It would have likely allowed the western allies time to prepare for the inevitable but overall may have ended up with either a shortened WWII with a much more protracted cold war or the world of 'The man in the high castle'...

Total fantasy ofc but more likely than the alternative put forward by some...


----------



## agricola (Nov 7, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not under official auspices.  Before then it was _sub rosa_/deniable.



They were co-operating militarily (at least in technical / developmental terms) and with official sanction just after Rapallo - admittedly "secretly", though it seems that everyone knew about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2017)

Angela Eagle just popped up during PMQs to ask May a barbed question. The responding murmuring and jeering threatened to veer into the end bit of 'come on eileen' by dexy's midnight runners.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 15, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Angela Eagle


Who??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Who??



I think she's related to Angelina Ballerina.


----------



## steveo87 (Nov 15, 2017)

If it hasn't already, I think we've reached peak Godwin's Law.


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Who??


Aarghh!


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2017)

This year's Labour Party christmas card is pure snark. Good work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2017)

Victory in scotland lol


----------



## Poi E (Nov 18, 2017)

Time for tea as the new branch secretary is appointed.


----------



## gosub (Nov 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> This year's Labour Party christmas card is pure snark. Good work.




had to remind myself what the reference was


----------



## Slo-mo (Nov 18, 2017)

gosub said:


> had to remind myself what the reference was



Yeah it took me a good minute or two of thinking, and I'm way more into politics and current affairs than Joe Average on the street. I think most people have forgotten about that incident already. There are far far more important reasons to dislike Theresa May than badly stuck on letters.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2017)

It's a comic christmas card, not a political manifesto.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2017)

while reading about the inevitable victory of communism in scotland I see they are also annoyed with kieza dugdale for being on strictly come dancing instead of doing the day job. Its galloway on BB all over again


----------



## agricola (Nov 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's a comic christmas card, not a political manifesto.



its a shiny-covered piece of paper that contains meaningless pleasantries inside, so you can understand why the two might be confused


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 18, 2017)

I have a feeling that people who buy Labour Party Christmas cards are probably quite well up on their ephemeral political events.


----------



## Slo-mo (Nov 18, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have a feeling that people who buy Labour Party Christmas cards are probably quite well up on their ephemeral political events.



Fair point. This probably isn't aimed at 'Joe Average' anyway....


----------



## not a trot (Nov 18, 2017)

killer b said:


> This year's Labour Party christmas card is pure snark. Good work.




I'm gonna send a dozen of those to number 10. I won't bother with the stamps, so the old cow can pay the postage.


----------



## oryx (Nov 18, 2017)

not a trot said:


> I'm gonna send a dozen of those to number 10. I won't bother with the stamps, so the old cow can pay the postage.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 18, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> while reading about the inevitable victory of communism in scotland I see they are also annoyed with kieza dugdale for being on strictly come dancing instead of doing the day job. Its galloway on BB all over again


I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here. 

Even for her this seems like a fucking moronic idea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here.
> 
> Even for her this seems like a fucking moronic idea.




heh, nadine dorries was suspended for going on that show. I'd forgotten all about that.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 18, 2017)

Re: 'I'm a celebrity' Apparently the show may have to be cancelled as the showers have become infested with leeches. _Really?_ I thought, what sort?


----------



## not a trot (Nov 18, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> heh, nadine dorries was suspended for going on that show. I'd forgotten all about that.



She'd have been more at home on Pointless along with all the other tory cunts.


----------



## Sifta (Nov 18, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> heh, nadine dorries was suspended for going on that show. I'd forgotten all about that.



Only time I ever warmed to Eric Pickles was when I saw him saying he'd be organizing as many votes as possible to keep her in the jungle. Hope someone does the same for Dugdale


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

There's an hour-long documentary on BBC2 about the Labour election campaign tonight, looks like it might be fun - it has films of Stephen Kinnock as the exit poll comes in...

Labour - The Summer that Changed Everything - BBC Two


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> There's an hour-long documentary on BBC2 about the Labour election campaign tonight, looks like it might be fun - it has films of Stephen Kinnock as the exit poll comes in...
> 
> Labour - The Summer that Changed Everything - BBC Two


It's on right now, BBC2.

Little of interest yet...apart from Lucy Powell and Stephen Kinnock being d!cks (i've had a plate of chips in front of me to distract me, mind...)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2017)

Getting to the good bit now: Kinnock and Powell's faces as they realise Corbyn is doing well


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

It was worth watching just to see that exchange between Kinnock and his wife at the count.


----------



## oryx (Nov 20, 2017)

LOL at the idea of the Kinnocks being a 'dynasty'!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 20, 2017)

Kinnock just blamed his mum for his Dad falling in the sea in Brighton back in 83 

#low


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> It was worth watching just to see that exchange between Kinnock and his wife at the count.


that was literally the justification we needed to know everything from The Thick Of It is true. 'why are you talking to this people? what are you going to say? why now?'


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 21, 2017)

The best bit for me was right at the end when Kinnock is sitting alone by himself on the beach and saying, "this is a great opportunity for us to work together with the next generation. They need me and we need them."

"But do they think they need you...?"


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 21, 2017)

watched the first few minutes - not sure I can take much more cos  - fuck me - stephen kinnock is a prick. Alan Partridge reincarnated as an MP.


----------



## The Fornicator (Nov 21, 2017)

Well done Sarah Champion!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> watched the first few minutes - not sure I can take much more cos  - fuck me - stephen kinnock is a prick. Alan Partridge reincarnated as an MP.


theres a bit of him walking into the night with his dad after the count and clear as day he says 'there must have been enough mainstream policies in the manifesto' to his old man. Twat.


----------



## The Fornicator (Nov 21, 2017)

a career built on dad's approval, shaped by the wife.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2017)

and his vocal register dropped by two demographic categories when he was doorstepping


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> and his vocal register dropped by two demographic categories when he was doorstepping



That fucks me right off, when people go Plastic Prole.  Mind you, his fuckwad dad used to do it too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> That fucks me right off, when people go Plastic Prole.  Mind you, his fuckwad dad used to do it too.


rather an earnest middle class voice than a faker imo, if you _can _persuade me its your arguments not your accent thats going to do it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2017)

TBF to Kinnock (yeah, I know) I don't think it's fake per se - most people's accent varies depending on who they're talking to. It's unconscious most of the time.


----------



## Beermoth (Nov 21, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> The best bit for me was right at the end when Kinnock is sitting alone by himself on the beach and saying, "this is a great opportunity for us to work together with the next generation. They need me and we need them."
> 
> "But do they think they need you...?"



He didn't fall over on the beach, though. He's not a proper Kinnock until he does that.


----------



## Supine (Nov 21, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> He didn't fall over on the beach, though. He's not a proper Kinnock until he does that.



Still time.


----------



## gosub (Nov 21, 2017)

Supine said:


> Still time.


Should properly get in the sea.


----------



## steveo87 (Nov 21, 2017)

I think it's more telling when early on in the programme it says something along the lines of "Of all the Labour MPs we asked, only Stephen Kinnock agreed to be part of this programme". 
Which I guess is code for: "everyone else realised that doing this sort of thing inevitably means you come out of it looking like a wanker - apart Stephen Kinnock."

Also (I know I shouldn't have been but...) I was suprised how blatant he was with the whole subtext of 'Corbyn is going to lose the election, and I'm going to be the one who saves us next time round'. 
Kinnock, you are saying this ON CAMERA!! Unless you are dead certain that you are definitely going to be the next party leader - ie you're making the Leader's Speech at the Party Conference - then shut the fuck up.
He ultimately came across as a shit Mandelson, which is saying something.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 21, 2017)

steveo87 said:


> I think it's more telling when early on in the programme it says something along the lines of "Of all the Labour MPs we asked, only Stephen Kinnock agreed to be part of this programme".
> Which I guess is code for: "everyone else realised that doing this sort of thing inevitably means you come out of it looking like a wanker - apart Stephen Kinnock."
> 
> Also (I know I shouldn't have been but...) I was suprised how blatant he was with the whole subtext of 'Corbyn is going to lose the election, and I'm going to be the one who saves us next time round'.
> ...



I think I need to see this programme.


----------



## steveo87 (Nov 21, 2017)

Yeah, on the plus side, it's fucking joyous! 
Like others have, it's The Thick of It, just in real life.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2017)

How unexpected  - Kinnock's wife Helle Thorning-Schmidt is chief exec of Save The Children, where Brendan Cox used to work before he had to resign his post as Director of Policy & Advocacy for being a bit handsy. Cox's wife Jo began her political career working for Stephen's mum Glenys Kinnock in Brussels. 

Small world.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 22, 2017)

fucks sake - the programme going big on the "momentum = evil cult" wank.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> rather an earnest middle class voice than a faker imo, if you _can _persuade me its your arguments not your accent thats going to do it.



Absolutely.  Speaks of the contempt in which they must hold us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> TBF to Kinnock (yeah, I know) I don't think it's fake per se - most people's accent varies depending on who they're talking to. It's unconscious most of the time.



Take a listen to him being interviewed about policy a couple of months before the conference rant about Militant, then see how much prolier his accent is during the rant.  Given that both Mandelson and Blair reckon Kinnock was the original source of the whole "presentation, presentation, presentation" idea (which admittedly Mandelson took to far greater heights post-Kinnock), I wouldn't be surprised if he was following a bit of coaching.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> fucks sake - the programme going big on the "momentum = evil cult" wank.



They may be a *little bit* culty, but "evil"?  Fuck off!!!


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2017)

We were talking about Kinnock jr weren't we?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 22, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Take a listen to him being interviewed about policy a couple of months before the conference rant about Militant, then see how much prolier his accent is during the rant.  Given that both Mandelson and Blair reckon Kinnock was the original source of the whole "presentation, presentation, presentation" idea (which admittedly Mandelson took to far greater heights post-Kinnock), I wouldn't be surprised if he was following a bit of coaching.



He actually talked about policy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He actually talked about policy?



Hard to believe, but yes.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 22, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> They may be a *little bit* culty, but "evil"?  Fuck off!!!



"culty " :  how do you mean ? ( as a matter of interest, no great axe to grind )


----------



## Beermoth (Nov 22, 2017)

I watched the doc and I've been ruminating on it a bit. I think it says more about the BBC than Labour. They were obviously expecting Labour to lose and edited the campaign stuff to make it resemble an Apprentice task. No MP was asked about policy. I think the BBC are so immune to the idea of politics being more than a parliamentary parlour game that they're just baffled by something like Momemtum. The filmmakers don't seem intrigued by them at all or by any of what the members say or think.

(I really hate that BBC faux-neutral style. They're clearly more at home with the centrists)


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2017)

It wasn't unreasonable for a film maker in May to think that Labour was going to lose badly and plan a documentary around that story arc. Everyone thought that was going to happen, apart from Aaron Bastani and we thought he was mad.

What seems clear though is uncurious they were about anything outside the parameters of what they expected. So they didn't really pick up on the change of mood as the campaign went on - apart from the filming they did with the 4 MPs, all the other material from before the election was stock footage. They didn't bother even speaking to anyone from Momentum until after the election, and completely missed the real story.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> It wasn't unreasonable for a film maker in May to think that Labour was going to lose badly and plan a documentary around that story arc. Everyone thought that was going to happen, apart from Aaron Bastani and we thought he was mad


Not just him. I posted this last May Can Corbyn actually win this thing? I suppose you all though I was mad?


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2017)

Well, while the BBC might have been missing the change of mood towards the end of May, we hadn't - my own post from the same thread:


killer b said:


> I doubt they can win outright, but I can see a whole range of hung parliament options which didn't seem possible a couple of weeks ago...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 22, 2017)

It wasn't just the idea that Labour weren't going to win - and they didn't win - it was that, throughout, the BBC did everything possible to promote the idea that Corbyn was an utter joke and ruining the party's chances. From the start that was rubbish, and really obvious rubbish.


----------



## The Fornicator (Nov 22, 2017)

cantsin said:


> "culty " :  how do you mean ? ( as a matter of interest, no great axe to grind )


Not remotely culty; multi-generational often newly politically active - often on the back of the party manifesto, and and hugely enthusiastic. Labour - like all parties - were clueless at what to do with new activists before Momentum (you just tagged along and watched) 

Momentum have been fantastic at empowering and deploying new activists, in the many thousands.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 23, 2017)

At the end I think you can hear someone say 'get them Jeremy'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 23, 2017)

The main thing i took from that doc was how steven kinnock epitomised exactly why corbyn had to happen. The entitled arrogance, the self regard, the hubris - and his inability to understand how he was so wrong. All written in his face as he contemplatives the election results as if they were a freshly served plate of diarrhoea.

As said before - its Alan Partridge meets The Thick of It - but for real. Hes still pathetically groping at the end " i think i could play an important role acting as a bridge between the new and old generations within the labour party" . But its absolutely obvious that he is a talentless irrelevance who has nothing to offer and  never did.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 23, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Well done Sarah Champion!



" i needed to reach sun readers"  - yeah - cos the sun really needed her help in taking a sensitive issue and making it into a sensationalist, racist dog whistle. Shes a fuckwit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> At the end I think you can hear someone say 'get them Jeremy'



Allegedly a Tory heckled him with something like “you should be in a care home”, hence him getting a bit peeved.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 23, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Allegedly a Tory heckled him with something like “you should be in a care home”, hence him getting a bit peeved.



That sort of shit just plays into his hands because he's playing on home turf and the tory front bench know it from their reaction right at the last. If you're going to get your back benchers to act as attack dogs at least make sure they know where the weak spots are.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 23, 2017)

It was Andrew Griffiths, MP for Burton on Trent.  The coward did it crouched down behind the bench so the deputy speaker could not see him.  I commented on his Facebook page and got banned within minutes but he is taking a kicking on Twitter.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2017)

Griffith's wiki entry has some curious detail...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Griffith's wiki entry has some curious detail...
> 
> View attachment 121135


by curious detail you seem to mean barefaced lies.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2017)

I'm just not sure if they're his or some surealist wag's work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm just not sure if they're his or some surealist wag's work.


perhaps more mps could be encouraged to be amateur cavemen in advance of their journey to south georgia


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 23, 2017)

Wiki said:
			
		

> During his early adolescence, he spent some of his time being an amateur caveman in the Amazon Jungle where he learnt key skills such as crafting, dancing and face painting.



A quick run through MojoTranslate comes up with this:

''When I was 12 I went on holiday with my parents to Costa Rica where I was well-looked after by the childminding team and enjoyed a number of fun jungle-themed activities.''


----------



## The Fornicator (Nov 23, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> " i needed to reach sun readers"  - yeah - cos the sun really needed her help in taking a sensitive issue and making it into a sensationalist, racist dog whistle. Shes a fuckwit.


well, that went over your head at 30,000 feet.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 23, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> The main thing i took from that doc was how steven kinnock epitomised exactly why corbyn had to happen. The entitled arrogance, the self regard, the hubris - a*nd his inability to understand how he was so wrong. All written in his face as he contemplatives the election results as if they were a freshly served plate of diarrhoea.*



We caught up with this doc yesterday.

Apart from our thinking Kinnock (S) was confirmed as an utter fucking wanker in it, what seemed scarcely incomprehensible, however stupid he is, is his looking so pissed off at his own majority increasing (big-time) to 22,000.

That's not just stupid/twisted/fucked up, but for an MP, utterly bonkers.

Lucy Powell didn't look too delighted at hers going up to 31,000 either .... nor the Brentford MP whose majority went up from about 400 to over 12,000.

Crazy.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 23, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> well, that went over your head at 30,000 feet.



Not sure it did. She should have fucking known what would happen -- I agree with Kaka Tim on that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 23, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> well, that went over your head at 30,000 feet.



what went over my head?


----------



## bemused (Nov 24, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Apart from our thinking Kinnock (S) was confirmed as an utter fucking wanker in it, what seemed scarcely incomprehensible, however stupid he is, is his looking so pissed off at his own majority increasing (big-time) to 22,000.



The sad thing about Kinnock you just know by his attitude that he believes in his soul that if only he was in charge Labour would be power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2017)

cantsin said:


> "culty " :  how do you mean ? ( as a matter of interest, no great axe to grind )



I mean that the encouragement is to see J. Corbyn esq. as "The Great Leader", although part of this is, I expect, due to the influence of the AWL in the formation of Momentum, the AWL very definitely being a cult - the cult of The Great Poet Matgamna.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> The sad thing about Kinnock you just know by his attitude that he believes in his soul that if only he was in charge Labour would be power.



Like the rest of the Blairite tossrags, his sense of entitlement is VAST!!!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 24, 2017)

Why are Labour trying to ensure that they have more elected representatives in a parliamentary political system? Isn't that a bit strange?


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2017)

He's supposed to be some kind of big shot political journalist isn't he, Crick? That's actually laughable. Humiliating.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's supposed to be some kind of big shot political journalist isn't he, Crick? That's actually laughable. Humiliating.



Saw him at the Labour rally in Brum and thought about shouting abuse at him but resisted.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 24, 2017)

They don't actually think these things though, do they? This is a talking point to be used as leverage to turn discontented remainers off of Corbyn, not that it's going to work or anything but that surely has to be the intended purpose.


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 26, 2017)

When Anna Soubry puts her money when her mouth is, that'll be the time to talk her up as some kind of "resistance leader." But since she walks through the same lobby as the rest of her party, it means fuck all. The politics of mere talk; I wouldn't be surprised if Crick _did_ believe what he was saying - so much of it is hot air anyway inside that nasty incestuous circle of Parliament and the media.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 26, 2017)

'Rumour has it that Jeremy Corbyn has changed his mind about Brexit – just in time for Kezia Dugdale's jungle outburst'


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2017)

I know you want it to be true, but there's nothing real or new in that piece.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 26, 2017)

I was not aware i did say that. Thought it was an interesting read.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2017)

what's interesting in it? it's just wishful thinking.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 26, 2017)

I found a fair bit interesting and shared it. Apologies if it was below interesting standard.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 27, 2017)

This where your "rumours" are coming from? Pro-EU commentators for a click bait website?


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 27, 2017)

Polly Toynbee said exactly the same thing a few days ago. Perhaps there's something in it. Perhaps it's just that Matthew Norman read Toynbee's article.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2017)

There was a minor shift in Labour's position last week that a lot of people seem to have taken as a signal of a significant change in the underlying strategy - which it might be. One thing though is that none of the people writing about it - Toynbee or Norman, or any other lib/left columnist - have much more information to go on than the rest of us. The direct access they might have had previously to the leadership of the party is access to some backbench MPs, and instead of building new links with the current leadership, they've spent the last two years slagging them off. So all of this is fingers in the wind.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> This where your "rumours" are coming from? Pro-EU commentators for a click bait website?



no.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 27, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Why are Labour trying to ensure that they have more elected representatives in a parliamentary political system? Isn't that a bit strange?



Dear Michael, it may also be because Broxtowe is well up the list of target marginals - 8th most winnable in England, in fact:
Labour Target Seats 2022 - Election Polling

I do quite like Crick, when he's in 'scurrying mode', breathlessly jogging after some politician or other on Newsnight. However he's not that good on the _big picture_ is he.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 27, 2017)

Boos were heard in Glasgow...."But Corbyn told the crowd: "Congratulations to Harry and Meghan. I wish them well. I hope they have a great time and great fun together and having met Harry a couple of times I’m sure they are going to have a great deal of fun together."


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 28, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Not remotely culty; multi-generational often newly politically active - often on the back of the party manifesto, and and hugely enthusiastic. Labour - like all parties - were clueless at what to do with new activists before Momentum (you just tagged along and watched)
> 
> Momentum have been fantastic at empowering and deploying new activists, in the many thousands.


Not wishing to slate Momentum - but I think it's happening in the wider Labour Party, and movement. They are just better placed to ride that wave


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> How unexpected  - Kinnock's wife Helle Thorning-Schmidt is chief exec of Save The Children, where Brendan Cox used to work before he had to resign his post as Director of Policy & Advocacy for being a bit handsy. Cox's wife Jo began her political career working for Stephen's mum Glenys Kinnock in Brussels.
> 
> Small world.


Tangentially related to this, I was reading up about Tulip Siddiq last night (in response to this story on C4 news) - not only is she the niece of the prime minister of Bangladesh (and granddaughter of the first President of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman), but she also... worked at Save the Children.

Seems to be practically a creche for well connected socdem politicians.


----------



## agricola (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> Tangentially related to this, I was reading up about Tulip Siddiq last night (in response to this story on C4 news) - not only is she the niece of the prime minister of Bangladesh (and granddaughter of the first President of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman), but she also... worked at Save the Children.
> 
> Seems to be practically a creche for well connected socdem politicians.



What a bizarre story that Siddiq one is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2017)

I can't make head or tail of it. Why would that be a threat? or was it a smartarse comment about child labour (of the illegal in this country sort) gone wrong? fuck knows...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2017)

Gina Millers doing a bit of a through-the-looking-glass-people column in the opinion today. Not gone Full Mensch tho.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't make head or tail of it. Why would that be a threat? or was it a smartarse comment about child labour (of the illegal in this country sort) gone wrong? fuck knows...


 
Indeed- was the initial question about a barrister being banged up one that she should really answer? or could answer...


----------



## Mr Retro (Nov 29, 2017)

If Thornberry was labour leader they would be in power by spring


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Indeed- was the initial question about a barrister being banged up one that she should really answer? or could answer...


I think it's fine to ask a member of a ruling dynasty of one country what she's doing about political prisoners there if she's making noise about political prisoners elsewhere, yeah.


----------



## magneze (Nov 29, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> If Thornberry was labour leader they would be in power by spring


How so?


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> If Thornberry was labour leader they would be in power by spring


You know no-one gives a shit about PMQs beyond politics obsessives on twitter don't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Gina Millers doing a bit of a through-the-looking-glass-people column in the opinion today. Not gone Full Mensch tho.



Can you imagine what would happen if someone ever manifested the Full Mensch and the Full Neeson at the same time?   

"Scenes of total devastation..."


----------



## cantsin (Nov 29, 2017)

Mr Retro said:


> If Thornberry was labour leader they would be in power by spring



too posh, kids shipped out to selective schools, hubby's a Sir +  a buy to let landlord ....the Flag / twitter episode....not what the current Lab Party needs to win back more w/c voters you'd guess


----------



## scifisam (Nov 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't make head or tail of it. Why would that be a threat? or was it a smartarse comment about child labour (of the illegal in this country sort) gone wrong? fuck knows...



I don't understand how it's supposed to be a threat at all. Even if it was a smartarse comment it could only be interpreted as a threat if... Well, if you really wanted to, I guess. There's no logical reason for it to be considered a threat.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 30, 2017)

cantsin said:


> too posh, kids shipped out to selective schools, hubby's a Sir +  a buy to let landlord ....the Flag / twitter episode....not what the current Lab Party needs to win back more w/c voters you'd guess



But perfect for building and maintaining their current base wouldn't you say?


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2017)

I think they're pretty much maxed out on their current base.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2017)

Stephen Bush's latest column is worth reading btw (he normally is)

Even as the Tories stumble Labour is drifting, rather than marching, towards power


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think they're pretty much maxed out on their current base.



I agree. But moving beyond it risks the base falling apart over a number of issues and in partiuclar Brexit.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2017)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But perfect for building and maintaining their current base wouldn't you say?



quite the opposite, especially now she seems to be going so far down the Friends of Israel route ( having said that, anyone following this @Gazaboatconvoy suspension episode on Twitter can see there's deffo  still a problem with blatant anti semite sh*theads hanging around like a bad smell - props to HQ for suspending, needs booting out asap)


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush's latest column is worth reading btw (he normally is)
> 
> Even as the Tories stumble Labour is drifting, rather than marching, towards power



can't quite work out if that's a critique or not - but one thing missing after good opening para : ie : having to play to his own backbenches and to wider (largely soc media based ) supporter base / audience with different questions @ PMQ - is how important it is to start getting the feckin PLP to actually start reflecting that wider base, so he doesnt have to engage w two totally separate entities.

If the NEC election results go as predicted, and then there's no move at all towards MP reselection motions at next years conference etc, the danger of losing the current energy will grow significantly imo. Am hopeful Lansman etc just holding fire for now ( sensibly ), but once NEC balance is significantly shifted, time to crack on .


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2017)

cantsin said:


> can't quite work out if that's a critique or not


What do you mean?


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think they're pretty much maxed out on their current base.



numerically, not convinced - as Heseltine pointed out, Tory base dying off at rate of 2% p.a, and at the other end, suspect Lab ( electoral, if  not necessarily activist ) base growing by large percentage amount of schooleavers / students reaching voting age, as well as everyone else who's wages have just spent another year growing by 0 % while inflation carries on @ 2.9%


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> What do you mean?



Bush's piece


----------



## tim (Dec 1, 2017)

scifisam said:


> I don't understand how it's supposed to be a threat at all. Even if it was a smartarse comment it could only be interpreted as a threat if... Well, if you really wanted to, I guess. There's no logical reason for it to be considered a threat.



Its  an odd distraction from the more inter sting fact that Tulip Siddiq is   campaigning against abuses in  Iran, but refuses to comment on disapearances and murders by a regime that is led by her aunt


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 2, 2017)

Brexit Is Reopening Old Wounds In The Labour Party

Outwardly, this was a good week for Labour on Brexit. The government finally started handing over the fabled impact studies after being outwitted by the opposition’s canny use of an arcane parliamentary procedure. Then Labour went on the attack over the rumoured £50 billion Brexit divorce bill, backed by furious Tory MPs, accusing ministers of weakness and obfuscation.

But drill down under the surface, deep where resentments stemming from the 2016 referendum are strong, and things aren’t quite so rosy in the Labour party. There is profound and growing frustration from a group of backbenchers over the party's direction of travel and the lack of a clear vision of Britain’s future relationship with the EU.

And there are fears that if the shadow cabinet doesn’t step up soon and put some clear water between Labour and the Tories on Brexit, it will have a tough time winning back power in any general election.

BuzzFeed News has been speaking to MPs, party staff, and campaigners to explore the tensions within Labour over the biggest challenge facing the country. Asking about Labour’s policy on Brexit often garners the same half-joking response: “When you find out, will you tell me?”

It is notable that the MPs most critical of Corbyn’s approach are former shadow ministers who either resigned over his performance in the referendum campaign or refused to serve under him in the first place.

Allies of Corbyn have dismissed their concerns as nothing more than “frustration” and “mischief-making”. One staffer claimed that the “vast majority of the PLP" (parliamentary Labour party) was behind the leadership on Brexit and that criticism was limited to just “a handful of people at the most”.

But it is hard to deny there is real anger and disquiet out there, not just from MPs but members and voters at large, that Labour is failing to set out its own path on Brexit – leaving it to the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, and Tory rebels to provide real opposition in the House of Commons.

"In the real world, Brexit is a massive issue," said one former shadow minister. "But you won’t hear Corbyn talking about it, [shadow chancellor John] McDonnell doesn't mention it at PLP meetings, they don’t mention it in speeches – it just doesn’t fit their ideological narrative.

"They don’t talk about it because then you can’t blame the Tory neoliberal for the faltering economy; Brexit is self-inflicted austerity."

Another Labour source blamed a "small phalanx" of people in the leader’s office who are "hell-bent" on leaving the EU. "They have convinced themselves that you can’t do their particular brand of socialism in the EU, which is fundamentally untrue,” they said.

.......

Starmer and Corbyn were absent for the vote that caused such a row within the party on 20 November, when former shadow Scotland secretary Ian Murray used an obscure amendment to a cross-border trade resolution that he claimed would keep Britain in the customs union after Brexit.

The EU’s customs union allows countries to club together and apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union. It means that once goods have cleared customs in one country, they can be shipped to other EU nations without further tariffs being imposed.

The late-night debate saw numerous Labour and SNP MPs, plus Tory “Brexit mutineer” Anna Soubry, voice their backing for Murray’s amendment. But he wasn’t supported by his own front bench – so his plan was roundly defeated.

Labour backbenchers looked on in horror as Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary, and McDonnell – along with 16 other Labour MPs – joined the Tories to vote against it. Some 28 Labour MPs, including former frontbenchers Heidi Alexander, Chris Bryant, Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna, and Pat McFadden, backed the amendment.

The decision by the shadow cabinet to actively vote against Murray’s amendment, coupled with confusion over whether the vote was whipped, sparked fury on the back benches. "Barry Gardiner and John McDonnell went down the lobby with the Tories against the principle of the customs union,” one Labour MP told us.

“It’s ludicrous that our party leadership is averse to keeping the customs union on the table beyond transition.” Asked why they thought the party was averse to it, the MP said: "I suspect it’s because the leader and shadow chancellor are Brexiteers."


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> "In the real world, Brexit is a massive issue," said one former shadow minister. "But you won’t hear Corbyn talking about it, [shadow chancellor John] McDonnell doesn't mention it at PLP meetings, they don’t mention it in speeches – it just doesn’t fit their ideological narrative.


Of course there are no other ideological narratives to see here.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2017)

what do you think about this article? Looks like the usual arse from the usual arseholes to me. 

this:


hot air baboon said:


> he wasn’t supported by his own front bench – so his plan was roundly defeated.



isn't really supported by this:


hot air baboon said:


> Some 28 Labour MPs, including former frontbenchers Heidi Alexander, Chris Bryant, Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna, and Pat McFadden, backed the amendment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2017)

I always smile to hear senior politicos talk of the real world as code for 'the other fellow is out of touch'. 99% of the time its pot/ketle


hot air baboon said:


> But it is hard to deny there is real anger and disquiet out there, not just from MPs but members and voters at large,


and yet the article quotes only  these: unnamed and /or former and current members of the PLP. I mean I'm open to the idea that there may be quite a lot of members and voters who want a clearer stance but that article just asserts for those voices.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2017)

A custard union is all my constituents talk about. And they talk about it without agenda. Like before and that.


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Looks like the usual arse from the usual arseholes to me.



its more interesting when read in conjunction with Bush's analysis


_I count at least five schools of thought among MPs, three of which are represented in Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle. 

In light of this, the only unifying Brexit position is also the one that is the least dangerous to the Conservatives: silence._


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2017)

The front bench are not going to back motions by _serial rebels_ (lol) which will both tie their hands and give the tories a campaigning tool in brexity areas. The faux anguish on display from them - happily parroted as if it's some kind of insight by this vacuous journo - is risible.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> that was literally the justification we needed to know everything from The Thick Of It is true. 'why are you talking to this people? what are you going to say? why now?'


Just caught up on this. FFS Kinnock junior is just shit, even on his own terms he's utterly useless. I mean without his wife he'd have made a even bigger pratt of himself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Just caught up on this. FFS Kinnock junior is just shit, even on his own terms he's utterly useless. I mean without his wife he'd have made a even bigger pratt of himself.


I think it was the woman MP who was talking about momentum being cult like and-gasp- having its own literature.
I can't work out if thats disingenuous or genuinely thick. I mean how can you become an elected party member and be unaware that parties have internal tendencies and momentums just the newest left one, not a cult of trotsky or some shit?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

Lucy Powell (my current MP). Also the just general lack of knowledge about the numbers. This is you job, your life surely this stuff should be at your fingertips. For all that he's a cunt Kinnock Snr at least had some idea about that side.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2017)

All the outrage on the right ATM is completely tactical.


----------



## Sue (Dec 2, 2017)

I watched it too. They were so pissed off at the election results. And Kinnock was completely shit. No nepotism going on there at all.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Lucy Powell (my current MP). Also the just general lack of knowledge about the numbers. This is you job, your life surely this stuff should be at your fingertips. For all that he's a cunt Kinnock Snr at least had some idea about that side.


You in manc now RS?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

Yep. For the moment anyway.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2017)

Ah! lets hang out sometime.


----------



## Beermoth (Dec 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> All the outrage on the right ATM is completely tactical.



True. The Labour right are way more interested in controlling Labour (and the Labour left) than taking on the Tories or whatever. Which has largely always been the case. 

Roy Hattersley's gone full-on McCarthyite Labour faces subversion by Momentum and far left, says Roy Hattersley


----------



## teqniq (Dec 3, 2017)

They are so full of shit, these people and yet I see this morning that Labour now have an 8 point lead. 

Labour open up eight-point lead over Tories in new poll


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 3, 2017)

That's a big change, I wonder if Survation have altered their methodology.

EDIT: Actually not a great deal of change from their last poll (+/-1), and no change in methodology. Just seems that Survation give larger Labour leads than others.


> However, this was an online poll, and online there is nothing particularly unusual about Survation’s online method that might explain the difference. Survation use an online panel like all the other online polls, weight by very similar factors like age, gender, past vote, referendum vote and education, use self-reported likelihood to vote and exclude don’t knows. There are good reasons why their results are better for Labour than those from pollsters showing the most Tory results like Kantar and ICM (Kantar still use demographics in their turnout model, ICM reallocate don’t knows) but the gap compared to results from MORI and YouGov don’t have such an easy explanation.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2017)

teqniq said:


> They are so full of shit, these people and yet I see this morning that Labour now have an 8 point lead.
> 
> Labour open up eight-point lead over Tories in new poll



Was the polling done before or after his comments on Morgan Stanley?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 3, 2017)

Beermoth said:


> True. The Labour right are way more interested in controlling Labour (and the Labour left) than taking on the Tories or whatever. Which has largely always been the case.
> 
> Roy Hattersley's gone full-on McCarthyite Labour faces subversion by Momentum and far left, says Roy Hattersley



has been pulled off the homepage sharpish, as the 8 point poll lead makes it look even weaker than it had hours earlier...can only imagine what the desperate circulation / finance / 'plans for young reader engagement'  bods think when they see Roy bloody Hattersly wheeled out on a sunday spouting nonsense , only to smack face first into a serving of Survation goodness


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 3, 2017)

I don’t think polls reflect the general dislike there is now of the Tories. The feeling that they have got nothing further to offer & certainly have no ideas as to how to solve the problems in the UK’s divided society. I think people want change & provided Labour fight a halfway decent campaign at next GE then they have it.

Why? Because look at the results of last GE. The Tories were supposed to win by a landslide & yet they lost their majority. They started well ahead in the polls & yet in the polling booth plenty decided to vote Labour. So if at next GE Labour start with a small lead they may well win with a landslide.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don’t think polls reflect the general dislike there is now of the Tories. The feeling that they have got nothing further to offer & certainly have no ideas as to how to solve the problems in the UK’s divided society. I think people want change & provided Labour fight a halfway decent campaign at next GE then they have it.
> 
> Why? Because look at the results of last GE. The Tories were supposed to win by a landslide & yet they lost their majority. They started well ahead in the polls & yet in the polling booth plenty decided to vote Labour. So if at next GE Labour start with a small lead they may well win with a landslide.



Indeed, and of course the current Government are doing things like this:



> Jeremy Corbyn has accused the Home Office of putting the UK’s global reputation for higher education and research at risk by refusing visas to foreign academics married to British citizens.
> 
> Academics engaged in overseas research must frequently travel abroad to work. The Home Office, however, uses the time spent out of the country by foreign academics while they are working to deny their applications for settlement visas.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> Was the polling done before or after his comments on Morgan Stanley?


It’s almost like they _wanted_ to raise his poll numbers. Though I don’t actually grant them that level of self awareness.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> Was the polling done before or after his comments on Morgan Stanley?


Sorry I don't know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2017)

Egg custard or proletarian Birds?


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2017)

FiFi said:


> As a kindness to a wounded creature. You wouldn't let a horse or dog suffer like she (May) is!



Let me finish this jumper I'm knitting out of free range yogurt...


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

So the only fly in the ointment if, as it looks, we are heading for BINO/Brexit lite is that the potential casus belli between the soft left and the Corbynites has evaporated. Which means that he and his cronies are safe. And that Tory rule until 2027 is nailed on.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 8, 2017)

Why do you think Labour will lose the next GE Silas? Whatever brexit we get we will still have a Tory government that does nothing for the poor & increasingly the younger middle class by not facilitating affordable housing or any housing at all. However brexit ends up nobody is going to end up thankng the Tories by voting for them. At last GE Labour done better than expected & there is no reason they should not improve on that next time.


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Why do you think Labour will lose the next GE Silas?



 Because Corbyn has a low ceiling, as evidenced by the failure of Tory disarray to have much of an impact on the polls.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 8, 2017)

These will be polls that predicted the Tory landslide at last GE yes? I don’t think the extra voters that swung it for Labour were are or will be reachable by pollsters hence the inaccuracy of polling.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2017)

lol


----------



## hipipol (Dec 8, 2017)

I think Corbyn is a wily old fox on this...he is keeping his powder dry as he needs do little at the moment while the Tories continue to disgrace themselves, he has restricted himself to a few crucial remarks at PMQs. Sharp


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Dec 8, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> These will be polls that predicted the Tory landslide at last GE yes? I don’t think the extra voters that swung it for Labour were are or will be reachable by pollsters hence the inaccuracy of polling.


Telephone polls are increasingly losing any relevance, Most 18-35's who don't live with parents (ALL the ones I know) don't have a landline just a mobile, this is the most important demographic that voted Labour at the last election yet polls won't detect them.
As for those that do still live with their parents they get lost in the static, No-one polled the BemusedbyLife family home last time but they would have got a different answer depending on who answered, I only answer the phone if I'm the only one home and I actually hear it ring but I would have told them Labour, Mum would have said Tory but changed her mind after my big sister poured scorn on the idea (actually voted LibDem), Dad would have told them to sod off and whatever they were selling he wouldn't buy it.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Telephone polls are increasingly losing any relevance, Most 18-35's who don't live with parents (ALL the ones I know) don't have a landline just a mobile, this is the most important demographic that voted Labour at the last election yet polls won't detect them.
> As for those that do still live with their parents they get lost in the static, No-one polled the BemusedbyLife family home last time but they would have got a different answer depending on who answered, I only answer the phone if I'm the only one home and I actually hear it ring but I would have told them Labour, Mum would have said Tory but changed her mind after my big sister poured scorn on the idea (actually voted LibDem), Dad would have told them to sod off and whatever they were selling he wouldn't buy it.


how do they do gaming then - without broadband.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> how do they do gaming then - without broadband.


Having a landline doesn't mean you have a phone plugged into it.
Our phone broke about 6 months ago. Haven't missed it.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Dec 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> how do they do gaming then - without broadband.


Sorry I meant no landline phone not no physical landline, I don't know if everyone I know has broadband though I imagine so, I know for a fact both my sisters do and neither have a phone.


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Telephone polls are increasingly losing any relevance, Most 18-35's who don't live with parents (ALL the ones I know) don't have a landline just a mobile, this is the most important demographic that voted Labour at the last election yet polls won't detect them.
> As for those that do still live with their parents they get lost in the static, No-one polled the BemusedbyLife family home last time but they would have got a different answer depending on who answered, I only answer the phone if I'm the only one home and I actually hear it ring but I would have told them Labour, Mum would have said Tory but changed her mind after my big sister poured scorn on the idea (actually voted LibDem), Dad would have told them to sod off and whatever they were selling he wouldn't buy it.



A) Phone pollsters call mobiles.
B) Weighting. 

Polling certainly isn't an exact science, but they aren't utterly terrible at what they do, and some of the reasons people give for not trusting pollsters reveal a startling lack of knowledge about what they do.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Dec 8, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> A) Phone pollsters call mobiles.
> B) Weighting.
> 
> Polling certainly isn't an exact science, but they aren't utterly terrible at what they do, and some of the reasons people give for not trusting pollsters reveal a startling lack of knowledge about what they do.


I didn't know they called mobiles, but if that's the case I would wonder how they get a proper balance of people to call, with landlines you can look at a map and take at least a guess as to whether people living in a certain area are living on the breadline or rolling in cash not so with mobiles.


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I didn't know they called mobiles, but if that's the case I would wonder how they get a proper balance of people to call, with landlines you can look at a map and take at least a guess as to whether people living in a certain area are living on the breadline or rolling in cash not so with mobiles.



A) Weighting
B) Screening qualifiers 

This is pretty basic, you know.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I didn't know they called mobiles, but if that's the case I would wonder how they get a proper balance of people to call, with landlines you can look at a map and take at least a guess as to whether people living in a certain area are living on the breadline or rolling in cash not so with mobiles.


I've had repeated calls from MORI  from an Edinburgh number to my mobile, unlike the landline I can and have, set my phone up to block them


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> I've had repeated calls from MORI  from an Edinburgh number to my mobile, unlike the landline I can and have, set my phone up to block them



You can email MORI and ask them not to call you and they will respect that. I agree it's easier on a mobile.


----------



## xenon (Dec 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> how do they do gaming then - without broadband.



Does anyone under 80 answer the landline to unexpected calls? I don't even anser my mobile to unknown numbers.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2017)

xenon said:


> Does anyone under 80 answer the landline to unexpected calls? I don't even anser my mobile to unknown numbers.


I use landline to send and receive overseas calls, and it doesn't ring that often,  usually a wrong number


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> These will be polls that predicted the Tory landslide at last GE yes? I don’t think the extra voters that swung it for Labour were are or will be reachable by pollsters hence the inaccuracy of polling.



Local elections next year will be telling. If Labour can't get a bump they've reached peak Corbyn, if they do we'll start to get the May is going date mooted.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2017)

xenon said:


> Does anyone under 80 answer the landline to unexpected calls? I don't even anser my mobile to unknown numbers.



I don't answer unknown calls, I would but I've not had a recent car accident.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> I don't answer unknown calls, I would but I've not had a recent car accident.


we can arrange one for you.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> we can arrange one for you.



If I die in a tunnel crash tonight we'll all know you work for Prince Philip and MI5.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 8, 2017)

hipipol said:


> I think Corbyn is a wily old fox on this...he is keeping his powder dry as he needs do little at the moment while the Tories continue to disgrace themselves, he has restricted himself to a few crucial remarks at PMQs. Sharp



And the solidly remainer parties, SNP and lib dems, will now view Corbyn as their only hope even if he really isn't.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Dec 8, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> A) Weighting
> B) Screening qualifiers
> 
> This is pretty basic, you know.


I'm not disagreeing with you just curious how they could produce much of a valid weighting, Approaching people in the street you can tell whether someone is old or young, male or female, ethnic origins, whether or not they look prosperous, phoing up on landlines isn't as good but at least you can throw in a few other criteria. Mobiles they will have no pre-available data at all (Yes I know there are sources for finding some info but humour me and lets pretend that people take Data Protection seriously).
They are going to have to ring a LOT of mobiles to get a sufficient spread and the fact that I didn't know they did because no-one has told me and they've never called me implies they may not ring enough.


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the solidly remainer parties, SNP and lib dems, will now view Corbyn as their only hope even if he really isn't.



I'm not sure radio silence is a good plan to push Labour over the top. Given that I'm sure the Tories will be bringing at least their B game next election and not the D game May did last time.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> If I die in a tunnel crash tonight we'll all know you work for Prince Philip and MI5.


did work for Fayed for a while


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not sure radio silence is a good plan to push Labour over the top. Given that I'm sure the Tories will be bringing at least their B game next election and not the D game May did last time.



On current evidence the tories' B game is probably worse than their D game. And I'm sure Labour aren't going to stick to radio silence indefinitely, although it's not inconcievable that they could win an election even with no clear brexit policy.


----------



## Silas Loom (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you just curious how they could produce much of a valid weighting, Approaching people in the street you can tell whether someone is old or young, male or female, ethnic origins, whether or not they look prosperous, phoing up on landlines isn't as good but at least you can throw in a few other criteria. Mobiles they will have no pre-available data at all (Yes I know there are sources for finding some info but humour me and lets pretend that people take Data Protection seriously).
> They are going to have to ring a LOT of mobiles to get a sufficient spread and the fact that I didn't know they did because no-one has told me and they've never called me implies they may not ring enough.



They will ask age, income, gender, ethnicity, voting history etc as part of the questionnaire. It may be that if someone is outside of the sample frame, or they already have too many respondents from that category, they will abandon the call. 

And then, of course, they will weight. By all sorts of factors. 

There's sometimes a big delta between online pollsters and phone pollsters. That was the case for Brexit. Sometimes the delta is between the pollsters with panels and those who use a fresh survey population each time. And sometimes the differences between pollsters are all about weighting methodology. That was the case in 2015 and to a lesser extent in 2017. 2015 was also complicated by herding. 

Trends within individual pollsters - especially when the methodology remains constant - are key. That's where the findings that Labour hasn't benefited from Tory disarray tend to come from.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not sure radio silence is a good plan to push Labour over the top. Given that I'm sure the Tories will be bringing at least their B game next election and not the D game May did last time.


They have a B game?


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> They have a B game?



They name Lynton Crosby dictator for the year of the election, find a terribly nice posh person as leader and give Rupert the best blowjob he's had in a few years.


----------



## hipipol (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not sure radio silence is a good plan to push Labour over the top. Given that I'm sure the Tories will be bringing at least their B game next election and not the D game May did last time.


at the moment its best to just let the Tories tear themselves apart, he is smart enough to know that these weasels are very good at defending against external "enemies". However, so focused are they on attack that merely keeping quiet at the moment allows them to tear into each other. Not silent for ever, but just while they continue to unravel......


----------



## hipipol (Dec 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the solidly remainer parties, SNP and lib dems, will now view Corbyn as their only hope even if he really isn't.


He has always been a Bennite, personally, that fact that he mumbled his way thru some pathetic Remain charade make him little better than May


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 8, 2017)

hipipol said:


> He has always been a Bennite, personally, that fact that he mumbled his way thru some pathetic Remain charade make him little better than May



I'm not impressed by this sort of gamesmanship tbh. It reminds me too much of the blairite era. But realistically, it's his best option.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 8, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> A) Weighting
> B) Screening qualifiers
> 
> This is pretty basic, you know.



They can phone young people as much as they like, but the vast majority of them aren't going to answer. Even fewer will bother with the screening questions. Then your weighting will skew the results due to only having three respondents under 30.

Pollsters aren't stupid but they can't force people to take part either.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 8, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 8, 2017)

bemused said:


> Local elections next year will be telling. If Labour can't get a bump they've reached peak Corbyn, if they do we'll start to get the May is going date mooted.


Absolute nonsense. The people that turnout for local elections may not be the same as those you turnout for general. Look at the high turnout for Obama's elections compared with the midterms during his tenure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2017)

J Ed said:


>



this is better than pmq's or the rally speeches. He said jehovah neoliberalism!


----------



## J Ed (Dec 8, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> this is better than pmq's or the rally speeches. He said jehovah neoliberalism!



Yeah he quotes Sankara and Allende as well.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolute nonsense. The people that turnout for local elections may not be the same as those you turnout for general. Look at the high turnout for Obama's elections compared with the midterms during his tenure.



It's not completely irrelevant but yeah, there are differences that need to be taken into account. One huge difference obviously is that EU citizens can vote.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 8, 2017)

scifisam said:


> One huge difference obviously is that EU citizens can vote.



For now ....


----------



## scifisam (Dec 8, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> For now ....



Yes, but that won't have changed by next year's general elections.

Oh, and 16 year olds can vote too in Scotland. (So can Commonwealth citizens but I don't think they'd necessarily vote differently to British citizens in the same demographic).


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 8, 2017)

scifisam said:


> Yes, but that won't have changed by next year's general elections.



I know,  and as we all know (re EU citizens in the UK) that'll still be the case for a while yet too. Was just saying though .....


----------



## J Ed (Dec 9, 2017)

J Ed said:


>




Full text here Jeremy Corbyn speech at the United Nations’ Geneva headquarters


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2017)

Just read the full text. That's a genuinely radical speech -- big respect


----------



## Geri (Dec 9, 2017)

He's a fucking hypocrite.



> And while the UK government champions some human rights issues on others it is silent, if not complicit, in their violation.


 
So are you.


----------



## Slo-mo (Dec 9, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolute nonsense. The people that turnout for local elections may not be the same as those you turnout for general.


And they may not vote in the same way either. For example my local Labour council are awful and I'm definitely voting against them next May. But there is no way I'm voting for anyone but Corbyn at the next general.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2017)

Geri said:


> He's a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If that was aimed at me (admittedly It may not be?), I don't get your point


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2017)

A cold wind blows in from the north*:



> *What would it it take for Labour’s moderates to revolt? *
> 
> It is not too late to prevent Jeremy Corbyn and his team coming to power



* N1


----------



## binka (Dec 9, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> If that was aimed at me (admittedly It may not be?), I don't get your point


Come on William it's pretty clear Geri was calling Corbyn a hypocrite considering that was who she was quoting in her post


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2017)

agricola said:


> A cold wind blows in from the north*:
> 
> 
> 
> * N1


I'd been worrying that Nick was going soft, what with only mentioning JC in, like, paragraph 6 or something in some of his recent pieces - good to see that he's back on form now. Corbyn right in the fucking subhead, boom. Para 2, he's fucking Stalin again and also a Nazi. I am the only real leftie, Twitter fascists, kids today are Leninists, you're thick or evil if you support Labour.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2017)

This is the relatable content that we want dammit.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2017)

Cohen and the people he writes for are the most hermetically sealed bubble I've ever seen.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2017)

binka said:


> Come on William it's pretty clear Geri was calling Corbyn a hypocrite considering that was who she was quoting in her post




She also said 'So are you' though


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 9, 2017)

I don’t think many ordinary folk with busy lives read that sort of stuff though.


----------



## Geri (Dec 9, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> She also said 'So are you' though


 
Sorry, that was to Corbyn.


----------



## binka (Dec 9, 2017)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> So the only fly in the ointment if, as it looks, we are heading for BINO/Brexit lite is that the potential casus belli between the soft left and the Corbynites has evaporated. Which means that he and his cronies are safe. And that Tory rule until 2027 is nailed on.



Upsetting for a Blairite, such as yourself. 

As for "soft left", a vain attempt to re-brand the Progress stooges and their fellow-travellers, I'm afraid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2017)

bemused said:


> They name Lynton Crosby dictator for the year of the election, find a terribly nice posh person as leader and give Rupert the best blowjob he's had in a few years.



Crosby is out-of-favour after the Tory "we'll increase our majority massively" clusterfuck.  Be a shame if the reptilian Antipodean sock-fucker loses his aura of invincibility.  A real crying shame...


----------



## Sue (Dec 10, 2017)

Interesting to see if he's selected.

“I never expected to be going into public life,” he said. “I studied engineering, not law or politics, but I *think I can bring real-world experience into the Welsh assembly,* and I think the assembly needs that.

He's 23...

Carl Sargeant's son hopes to stand for Labour in father's former seat


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 10, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don’t think many ordinary folk with busy lives read that sort of stuff though.




Oh I know, but as someone who follows politics more than normal people do, I liked that speech when I read it.

Not really sure why Geri didn't -- genuinely interested as to why not? Cheers.


----------



## bemused (Dec 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolute nonsense. The people that turnout for local elections may not be the same as those you turnout for general. Look at the high turnout for Obama's elections compared with the midterms during his tenure.



I notice people claim this unless their party has great local election results. Last May wasn't good for Labour I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to do well this time around given their GE performance.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Be a shame if the reptilian Antipodean sock-fucker loses his aura of invincibility.  A real crying shame...



"Australian" will do


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 11, 2017)

scifisam said:


> They can phone young people as much as they like, but the vast majority of them aren't going to answer. Even fewer will bother with the screening questions. Then your weighting will skew the results due to only having three respondents under 30.
> 
> Pollsters aren't stupid but they can't force people to take part either.



I'm recently working part time at a call centre for a polling company. Young people are hard to get a hold of, but you keep going until they reach a certain quota - if they had 1000 respondents aged over 65 and 3 aged 18-30, we would have to prioritise by asking if there is anyone aged 18-30 in the house we can speak, and we would stop wasting time conducting interviews with people aged 65 or over. Or you'd stop calling landlines and call mobiles instead until you had a large enough sample of young people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2017)

Poi E said:


> "Australian" will do



I was trying to distinguish him from the many pleasant and kind Aussies I know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

Poi E said:


> "Australian" will do


"come and say 'g'day'"


----------



## Poi E (Dec 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was trying to distinguish him from the many pleasant and kind Aussies I know.



Ah! "Thundercunt" in the vernacular.


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> A cold wind blows in from the north*:
> 
> 
> 
> * N1



I don't think there is anyone who infuiriates me more than Nick Cohen. 

He is fucking obsessed with foreign policy. I have not once in any of his articles panning Corbyn seen any acknowledgement of the economic grievances which are behind his support. It's about housing, jobs, and wages, not Hamas for fuck's sake. I don't know what planet he lives on.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 11, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> I'm recently working part time at a call centre for a polling company. Young people are hard to get a hold of, but you keep going until they reach a certain quota - if they had 1000 respondents aged over 65 and 3 aged 18-30, we would have to prioritise by asking if there is anyone aged 18-30 in the house we can speak, and we would stop wasting time conducting interviews with people aged 65 or over. Or you'd stop calling landlines and call mobiles instead until you had a large enough sample of young people.



You're going to get a very self-selecting group of young people there then, even more so than with other groups.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> I'm recently working part time at a call centre for a polling company. Young people are hard to get a hold of, but you keep going until they reach a certain quota - if they had 1000 respondents aged over 65 and 3 aged 18-30, we would have to prioritise by asking if there is anyone aged 18-30 in the house we can speak, and we would stop wasting time conducting interviews with people aged 65 or over. Or you'd stop calling landlines and call mobiles instead until you had a large enough sample of young people.


when i worked in market research there was a time when the company was doing a hair products survey - and cold-calling. so the people working on that managed to reach quota of women pretty easily, but getting the men was rather more difficult. my colleagues were calling people and asking if there was a man in the house. this didn't go down so well with some people who were made quite nervous by the calls and reported the matter to the police. the upshot of this was that the company made it so all outward calls were anonymised


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> I don't think there is anyone who infuiriates me more than Nick Cohen.
> 
> He is fucking obsessed with foreign policy. I have not once in any of his articles panning Corbyn seen any acknowledgement of the economic grievances which are behind his support. It's about housing, jobs, and wages, not Hamas for fuck's sake. I don't know what planet he lives on.



I failed to get past the first three paragraphs. he's fucking delusional. everyone flocking behind the evil, Leninist corbyn and mc donald are gullible sheep who can't see the truth ...
Everyone else sees the corbyn labour party as a return to moderate social democracy - investment in public services and housing, reversing a few of the particularity shit privatisations, an end to austerity, abolishing student loans and some moderate wealth distribution.

As you say Cohen ignores the policies and why people like them and  sees ... fuck knows what he sees tbh - gulags in lincolnshire? hamas flags over buckingham palace? 

Who is he talking to? Who believes this frenzied guff. The tories dont - they are very aware of where labour are coming from and fear its appeal.
Was Nic deeply traumatised at some student trot meeting? Did he loose his true love to a militant recruiter at Marxism 88? Why do the observer keep him on the pay roll? - Maybe they should send him to a  therapist instead.

Also note they never allow reader comments on his pieces. Cant think why


----------



## Geri (Dec 11, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Oh I know, but as someone who follows politics more than normal people do, I liked that speech when I read it.
> 
> Not really sure why Geri didn't -- genuinely interested as to why not? Cheers.


 
I am at work today and then I cam going out, but I will try and reply when I have time, unless anyone else feels like doing it in the meantime.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2017)

Stephen Bush has a good piece on polling just up on the staggers

Do polls matter?


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 11, 2017)

scifisam said:


> You're going to get a very self-selecting group of young people there then, even more so than with other groups.



Yeah, it would tend to be people higher on agreeableness personality trait. It tends to be "nicer" people who go along with the survey rather than hang up the phone. Not sure to what extent this correlates with political views, and how/if this is weighted for.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 11, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Oh I know, but as someone who follows politics more than normal people do, I liked that speech when I read it.
> 
> Not really sure why Geri didn't -- genuinely interested as to why not? Cheers.


Sorry I should have quoted. I was actually referring to the Nick Cohen piece but it is of course equally true about the Corbyn piece. So you raise a valid point. The “leave voters are stupid” meme is of course mostly not true but vast amounts of people with good well paid job do not do much politics. They have other interests. 

One place you can hear simply a lack of knowledge in action is on brexit/immigration related radio phone in shows. People come out with completely wrong stuff that had they spent seconds on google they would have known was wrong. It’s not racism or predjudice necessarily it is simply lack of knowledge because they do not do any research.

Plenty of people seem genuinely puzzled. They cannot understand why brexit is so complicated. They voted leave so why have we not left? They don’t know because they watch box sets & sport on tv not politics. They don’t do politics so they blame dishonest politicians as normal because they voted to leave & we have not left.


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 11, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> I failed to get past the first three paragraphs. he's fucking delusional. everyone flocking behind the evil, Leninist corbyn and mc donald are gullible sheep who can't see the truth ...
> Everyone else sees the corbyn labour party as a return to moderate social democracy - investment in public services and housing, reversing a few of the particularity shit privatisations, an end to austerity, abolishing student loans and some moderate wealth distribution.
> 
> As you say Cohen ignores the policies and why people like them and  sees ... fuck knows what he sees tbh - gulags in lincolnshire? hamas flags over buckingham palace?
> ...



The thing is, there is a germ of a good idea beneath his whole schtick. I did peruse his "What's Left?" book (although I skim read it really so just going on my general impression here) and he seemed to have a point that the left circa-2003 was kind of directionless and just jumped on any bandwagon, and needed to get back to universal enlightenment ideals. The left should make common cause with leftists (including types of liberal)  in the arab world rather than supporting reactionaries out of a misguided and simplistic anti-imperialism.

BUT I feel he is too narrow minded and arrogant to get this point across. He was wrong to support the Iraq war, and he has no credibility left from his refusal to deal with that or reflect on it publicly. And post-2008 the left has moved on from the confused quagmire it was it. He is still stuck in 2003, but doesn't realise a large percentage of Momentum were still at school then and he is fighting some weird North London, middle aged media luvvy dinner party debate from 15 years ago and extrapolating this to the rest of the country. I have no idea why he is still given column inches, because he is really shit and irrelevant. 

And he is also wrong to believe that the thing he rails against is a sign of secret totalitarian impulses. At best it is naive, but not specifically western. Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo once claimed that China needs to be colonised to become a democratic country, and imo this is the same mentality as the naive anti-imperialists, who are more interested in contradicting the Daily Mail and their own nations right wing, just as Liu Xiaobo would be more concerned with contradicting the CCP. It is muddle headed thinking, but not a sign of totalitarianism. And there is an interesting discussion to be had about this dialectic (e.g. western leftist supporters of Assad, Putin etc, strongly pro-American Iranian liberals... there is a communication problem here which ought to be bridged) but Cohen is not truly interested in this as much as he is in his own ego and getting to condemn everyone else as impure.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush has a good piece on polling just up on the staggers
> 
> Do polls matter?


It's not a badly written bit of obviousness, but just as it is about to get interesting, it stops.  "There is interesting information," he tells us.  But then he doesn't bother telling us what this interesting information actually is...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2017)

annoying reminder that the next election is 5 years away in there.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> annoying reminder that the next election is 5 years away in there.


Less than 4.5 years now!


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 11, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Less than 4.5 years now!


Less than 4.5mnths.


----------



## bemused (Dec 11, 2017)

I'm sure this has been answered but I can't find it.

Why does Momentum tolerate Owen Jones?

It strikes me that any set back in the Corbyn project and Owen is going to revert to type and blame Corbyn for putting 'the left back'


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2017)

They let John McTernan join, so I guess they're pretty forgiving of lapses of fervour.


----------



## ayatollah (Dec 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm sure this has been answered but I can't find it.
> 
> Why does Momentum tolerate Owen Jones?
> 
> It strikes me that any set back in the Corbyn project and Owen is going to revert to type and blame Corbyn for putting 'the left back'


 
You are spot on about Owen Jones - an opportunist fake Leftie of the classic kind.  He rubbished Corbyn in the Guardian and his blog for 18 months during the worst of the anti Corbyn Long Coup shenanigans in 2016/2017, and essentially backed Progress and Pfizer's stooge, Owen Smith, in the 2016 Leadership contest. Owen Jones, incredibly, has a huge social media following , on the basis of one, very average, book, Chavs, (oh, and that boring one on UK elites)and being set up by the mass media as "da voice of Left Yoof", to be consulted whenever an unimpressive , cliché monger, with the visual image and manner of a lippy 15 year old,  was required to be the Left voice  on a panel discussion. He therefore had a significant role (dwarfed by the sabotage of the Labour PLP Right of course, and a much wider constant MSM Corbyn attack fest) in damaging Labour's 2017 Election starting point - 20 points behind.

Then Labour do amazingly well in the GE , and Owen Jones is shown to be totally incorrect about the appeal of Corbyn and the Left radical reformism of "Corbynism". So, like all true shameless opportunists , he declares delight in Labour's electoral success, climbs back on the Corbyn bandwagon, and sucks up to Momentum, and is now one of its key spokespersons . Along with the weird ex Trot, ex music teacher, ex Newsnight economic editor, and deeply confused Guardianista Left Liberal , Paul Mason. So why didn't Momentum tell Owen Jones to fuck off ? Because he will indeed stab Corbyn and momentum in the back again as soon as the Corbyn surge falters . Because "Momentum" is run buy a tightly knit junta without any genuine democratic validity. It is legally a wholly owned company of one, old  Labour Left Bennite backroom manoeuvrer ,Jon Lansman, who essentially personally decides all Momentum policy  via his entirely stitched up  national committee. Lansman deeply admires Owen Jones' huge social media following - so the fact that he is a guaranteed turncoat again in the future, and undoubtedly will be a writer for The Spectator and Daily Mail, "regretting his foolish Leftie yoof", in five years or so, matters not to the manipulative , short-termist mindset of Jon Lansman.

When the power of the global capitalist markets , and PLP sabotage, and a vitriolic Mass media campaign, crush a future Corbyn government like a rotten fruit , and the reduction of the 200,000 strong  Momentum (supporters and members) to a depoliticised canvassing force , rather than the basis of a real politically educated mass radical Left, proves that the top down political preferences of the old Labour Lefties and old stalinists like Murray and Milne, are a Mitterrand'ish or Syriza'ish , or even at worst a Salvadore Allende's Chile  type of political disaster for the Left - Owen Jones will renounce his Leftiness and effortlessly segue to the new National Government's coattails !


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2017)

A call to action!



> The thing is, there are lots of these people; they are perhaps a majority in the country. If you’ve managed to read this far without throwing the newspaper or your laptop across the room you are probably one. You needn’t be a Labour person. You might be of the centre-right and have come to the conclusion you shouldn’t really be sharing house space with Boris Johnson or the world view of Jacob Rees-Mogg. You may be a non-tribal, floating voter who understands that the fast-flowing currents of the 21st century require us to rethink and modernise our political structures: from the embarrassing flummery of Westminster, to the relationship between the centre and the peripheries, to a ludicrously inflexible voting system, to a collection of parties that no longer makes intellectual sense. You may see that Brexit only makes these changes more essential.
> 
> When you think about it, there will be a new party. Its lack is unsustainable. If you’re not sure whether it’s for you, here are the sort of people it should include: David Miliband, John Major, Ruth Davidson, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Yvette Cooper, Nick Clegg, Anna Soubry, George Osborne, Nicky Morgan, Ken Clarke, Peter Mandelson, Paddy Ashdown, Chuka Umunna, Jack McConnell, Alistair Darling, David Willetts, Dominic Grieve, Amber Rudd. If you look at this list, appreciate the connections, share the sensibility and the desire to pull our politics back from the edge, you’re in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Dec 12, 2017)

> When you think about it, there will be a new party. Its lack is unsustainable. If you’re not sure whether it’s for you, here are the sort of people it should include: David Miliband, John Major, Ruth Davidson, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Yvette Cooper, Nick Clegg, Anna Soubry, George Osborne, Nicky Morgan, Ken Clarke, Peter Mandelson, Paddy Ashdown, Chuka Umunna, Jack McConnell, Alistair Darling, David Willetts, Dominic Grieve, Amber Rudd. If you look at this list, appreciate the connections, share the sensibility and the desire to pull our politics back from the edge, you’re in.


I looked at that list and my lips peeled back from my teeth until my gums were bared and dry.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2017)

ayatollah said:


> Then Labour do amazingly well in the GE , and Owen Jones is shown to be totally incorrect about the appeal of Corbyn and the Left radical reformism of "Corbynism". So, like all true shameless opportunists , he declares delight in Labour's electoral success, climbs back on the Corbyn bandwagon, and sucks up to Momentum, and is now one of its key spokespersons .


you've got this the wrong way round - Jones was on-board from the start of the GE campaign, and really put in the hours. 

I don't think you can really blame anyone in Labour for blinking over Corbyn before the election tbf. Regardless of your position he was starting to look like a total disaster.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2017)

agricola said:


> A call to action!


I don't want to change the world, I'm not looking for new england, do you fancy a half arsed UK version of ciudadanos


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 12, 2017)

Recreating the Tory party as it was in May 2015 is not going to solve the housing crisis.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 12, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> I'm recently working part time at a call centre for a polling company. Young people are hard to get a hold of, but you keep going until they reach a certain quota - if they had 1000 respondents aged over 65 and 3 aged 18-30, we would have to prioritise by asking if there is anyone aged 18-30 in the house we can speak, and we would stop wasting time conducting interviews with people aged 65 or over. Or you'd stop calling landlines and call mobiles instead until you had a large enough sample of young people.





Pickman's model said:


> when i worked in market research there was a time when the company was doing a hair products survey - and cold-calling. so the people working on that managed to reach quota of women pretty easily, but getting the men was rather more difficult. my colleagues were calling people and asking if there was a man in the house. this didn't go down so well with some people who were made quite nervous by the calls and reported the matter to the police. the upshot of this was that the company made it so all outward calls were anonymised



"call centre"   "market research" , cant think where the diffwerence lies


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> "call centre"   "market research" , cant think where the diffwerence lies


When I was in market research I worked in a small room with six other people. We phoned out, but when I worked in a call centre (2 days!) people called us.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 12, 2017)

agricola said:


> A call to action!



Oh God, that'd be wonderful. A wide selection of unlikeables (plus a couple who'd tell the new party to fuck off) - it's like the B-Ark in Hitchhiker's Guide. None of them would get elected and their seats could be taken by better candidates. Awesome.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

scifisam said:


> Oh God, that'd be wonderful. A wide selection of unlikeables (plus a couple who'd tell the new party to fuck off) - it's like the B-Ark in Hitchhiker's Guide. None of them would get elected and their seats could be taken by better candidates. Awesome.



They can take my local MP Chris Leslie with them as well. He's a fucking bellend of a tory fifth columnist who would be mentioned in the same breath as Umunna if anyone gave enough of a shit about him to waste half a breath.


----------



## oryx (Dec 12, 2017)

agricola said:


> A call to action!



It seems impossible for these sort of articles to be written without the word 'sensible' being inserted somewhere.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2017)

agricola said:


> A call to action!


f-me, did I really read that? did he _really_ cite _those_ names? A living roll call of the 'time-is-come-and-gone' yesterday people with nothing new to say that's even slightly worth listening to, whose 57 varieties of neoliberalism are as responsible as anything or anyone else , for the complete collapse of the centre-right.
F-me, I'm grudgingly awed by the near-total disconnect from reality. Not least in that for a party to quadruple its' membershi[p in 2 short years is apparently a tell-tale symbol of imminent demise.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> the potential casus belli between the soft left and the Corbynites has evaporated. Which means that he and his cronies are safe.


Come off it. Corbyn is soft ;left, whilst those you call that are out-and-out right of centre. I wouldn't give tuppence for what they'd do for the working classes


----------



## ayatollah (Dec 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> you've got this the wrong way round - Jones was on-board from the start of the GE campaign, and really put in the hours.
> 
> I don't think you can really blame anyone in Labour for blinking over Corbyn before the election tbf. Regardless of your position he was starting to look like a total disaster.



 Don't rewrite history. Owen Jones fell out with Jeremy Corbyn very soon after the 2015 first Leadership campaign , when, he failed to be given what he thought was his due of a core place as political guru to Jeremy in his team. He was even then advocating  watering down even the mildly radical reformist Leftism of the Corbyn campaign , to suck up to the Labour Right and that fatal Labour Shibbolith of "Party Unity" at all costs. Jeremy wasn't interested in either his analysis or him as guru - so for 18 months Owen Jones spitefully denounced Corbyn in the Guardian and his blogs - helping to feed the "Jeremy is hopeless" narrative that buggered Labour in the opinion polls and led to the  disruptive waste of time of the "Chicken Coup"  and the subsequent Owen Smith Leadership bid. During this active sabotage period, of which Owen Jones was a "Left face" to add credibility , Labour fell from being close to the Tories in the polls, to 20 points BEHIND when the snap General Election was called. So yep, Owen Jones was active  in campaigning for Labour once the General Election had been called , but his personal egotism and pique at not being in Corbyn's inner circle, and crap "shift the Corbyn agenda rightwards to placate the PLP neoliberals " bollocks  throughout 2016 and early 2017 in the Guardian, media inteviews and his massively followed blogs, had done  very significant damage . Owen Jones was only fully back on board the Corbyn/Momentum bandwagon once the General Election result had pissed all over his totally wrong " steer Right to secure victory" strategy , and he wanted back on the bandwagon.

You can be a dedicated follower of the utter opportunist that is Owen Jones, Killer b, if you want, but don't pretend for a moment that the guy is any sort of sincere socialist , or that his 18 months of active denunciation of Corbyn and his Left agenda , feeding precisely the PLP Right , Tory, and mass media "Corbyn is a total disaster" meme that you too seem to have bought wholesale, a lie that his performance in the campaign showed to be utter bollocks, should ever be forgiven or forgotten.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2017)

Wow, these guys really do exist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> Come off it. Corbyn is soft ;left, whilst those you call that are out-and-out right of centre. I wouldn't give tuppence for what they'd do for the working classes


Silas won't be - or shouldn't be - showing his face round these parts since he lost a vote on his remaining. Thought you'd like to know, Streathamite


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> They can take my local MP Chris Leslie with them as well. He's a fucking bellend of a tory fifth columnist who would be mentioned in the same breath as Umunna if anyone gave enough of a shit about him to waste half a breath.



I think the Guardian invariably refer to him as "former Shadow Chancellor* Chris Leslie".  

* He held the post between May and September 2015, during a leadership election and when Parliament was in recess for two months.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Silas won't be - or shouldn't be - showing his face round these parts since he lost a vote on his remaining. Thought you'd like to know, Streathamite


ahhh...._interesting_


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 12, 2017)

ayatollah said:


> You can be a dedicated follower of the utter opportunist that is Owen Jones, Killer b, if you want,



You've really nailed him there.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You've really nailed him there.


I'm actually planning on launching a new centrist party on Twitter over Christmas.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2017)

He was just as hammering when an apparent opponent  appeared in the SWP. Now some CLP get this one thursday  a month


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm actually planning on launching a new centrist party on Twitter over Christmas.



What are you going to call it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2017)

WE OWN THIS


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm actually planning on launching a new centrist party on Twitter over Christmas.



It's the Common Sense thing to do.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> What are you going to call it?


Pragmitas.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> Pragmitas.



If I founded a party I'd call it Linda.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2017)

It's a portmanteau of 'pragmatic', for the kind of approach we'll take to politics, and 'dignitas', the clinic in switzerland where people who've outlived their usefulness go to be put to a merciful end. I'm hoping we'll get a lot of Chris Deerin's list signing up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's a portmanteau of 'pragmatic', for the kind of approach we'll take to politics, and 'dignitas', the clinic in switzerland where people who've outlived their usefulness go to be put to a merciful end. I'm hoping we'll get a lot of Chris Deerin's list signing up.


Not sure people go to Switzerland to end it all because they've outlived their usefulness.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2017)

ayatollah said:


> Don't rewrite history. Owen Jones fell out with Jeremy Corbyn very soon after the 2015 first Leadership campaign , when, he failed to be given what he thought was his due of a core place as political guru to Jeremy in his team. He was even then advocating  watering down even the mildly radical reformist Leftism of the Corbyn campaign , to suck up to the Labour Right and that fatal Labour Shibbolith of "Party Unity" at all costs. Jeremy wasn't interested in either his analysis or him as guru - so for 18 months Owen Jones spitefully denounced Corbyn in the Guardian and his blogs - helping to feed the "Jeremy is hopeless" narrative that buggered Labour in the opinion polls and led to the  disruptive waste of time of the "Chicken Coup"  and the subsequent Owen Smith Leadership bid. During this active sabotage period, of which Owen Jones was a "Left face" to add credibility , Labour fell from being close to the Tories in the polls, to 20 points BEHIND when the snap General Election was called. So yep, Owen Jones was active  in campaigning for Labour once the General Election had been called , but his personal egotism and pique at not being in Corbyn's inner circle, and crap "shift the Corbyn agenda rightwards to placate the PLP neoliberals " bollocks  throughout 2016 and early 2017 in the Guardian, media inteviews and his massively followed blogs, had done  very significant damage . Owen Jones was only fully back on board the Corbyn/Momentum bandwagon once the General Election result had pissed all over his totally wrong " steer Right to secure victory" strategy , and he wanted back on the bandwagon.
> 
> You can be a dedicated follower of the utter opportunist that is Owen Jones, Killer b, if you want, but don't pretend for a moment that the guy is any sort of sincere socialist , or that his 18 months of active denunciation of Corbyn and his Left agenda , feeding precisely the PLP Right , Tory, and mass media "Corbyn is a total disaster" meme that you too seem to have bought wholesale, a lie that his performance in the campaign showed to be utter bollocks, should ever be forgiven or forgotten.



OJ wobbled for sure. its on record - your timing's well out though, it wasn't anywhere near "18 months " , of denunciation, or anything approaching it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2017)

It was a fair bit for a fair time and very very serious though.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2017)

ayatollah said:


> You are spot on about Owen Jones - an opportunist fake Leftie of the classic kind.  He rubbished Corbyn in the Guardian and his blog for 18 months during the worst of the anti Corbyn Long Coup shenanigans in 2016/2017, and essentially backed Progress and Pfizer's stooge, Owen Smith, in the 2016 Leadership contest. Owen Jones, incredibly, has a huge social media following , on the basis of one, very average, book, Chavs, (oh, and that boring one on UK elites)and being set up by the mass media as "da voice of Left Yoof", to be consulted whenever an unimpressive , cliché monger, with the visual image and manner of a lippy 15 year old,  was required to be the Left voice  on a panel discussion. He therefore had a significant role (dwarfed by the sabotage of the Labour PLP Right of course, and a much wider constant MSM Corbyn attack fest) in damaging Labour's 2017 Election starting point - 20 points behind.
> 
> Then Labour do amazingly well in the GE , and Owen Jones is shown to be totally incorrect about the appeal of Corbyn and the Left radical reformism of "Corbynism". So, like all true shameless opportunists , he declares delight in Labour's electoral success, climbs back on the Corbyn bandwagon, and sucks up to Momentum, and is now one of its key spokespersons . Along with the weird ex Trot, ex music teacher, ex Newsnight economic editor, and deeply confused Guardianista Left Liberal , Paul Mason. So why didn't Momentum tell Owen Jones to fuck off ? Because he will indeed stab Corbyn and momentum in the back again as soon as the Corbyn surge falters . Because "Momentum" is run buy a tightly knit junta without any genuine democratic validity. It is legally a wholly owned company of one, old  Labour Left Bennite backroom manoeuvrer ,Jon Lansman, who essentially personally decides all Momentum policy  via his entirely stitched up  national committee. Lansman deeply admires Owen Jones' huge social media following - so the fact that he is a guaranteed turncoat again in the future, and undoubtedly will be a writer for The Spectator and Daily Mail, "regretting his foolish Leftie yoof", in five years or so, matters not to the manipulative , short-termist mindset of Jon Lansman.
> 
> When the power of the global capitalist markets , and PLP sabotage, and a vitriolic Mass media campaign, crush a future Corbyn government like a rotten fruit , and the reduction of the 200,000 strong  Momentum (supporters and members) to a depoliticised canvassing force , rather than the basis of a real politically educated mass radical Left, proves that the top down political preferences of the old Labour Lefties and old stalinists like Murray and Milne, are a Mitterrand'ish or Syriza'ish , or even at worst a Salvadore Allende's Chile  type of political disaster for the Left - Owen Jones will renounce his Leftiness and effortlessly segue to the new National Government's coattails !



nicely reguritated from Guido / 100 centrist whingers etc, but what are you up to politically at the moment ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2017)

give the man of check shirt his due, he did recant.

I'm not sure what to make of Tom Watson exhorting us to not fear the robots though. Who is he talking to here.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It was a fair bit for a fair time and very very serious though.



wasnt impressive, for sure, but 18months is bollocks.

Serious / straight question to you BA - I got a bit of a mauling from the Lib Com twitter bod a few months ago for suggesting that Momentum's plans to unseat pro HDV ers on Haringey Council pre May 2018 local elections might be the only thing that could stop the HDV in the forseeable, and therefore potentially materially affect the lives of 1000's of working class tenants in the near to mid term.

As this looks increasingly possible, can you see the value in this kind of radical ( though pretty broadbased ) electoralism, as a tactic, in this instance, in the here and now ?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2017)

cantsin said:


> wasnt impressive, for sure, but 18months is bollocks.
> 
> Serious / straight question to you BA - I got a bit of a mauling from the Lib Com twitter bod a few months ago for suggesting that Momentum's plans to unseat pro HDV ers on Haringey Council pre May 2018 local elections might be the only thing that could stop the HDV in the forseeable, and therefore potentially materially affect the lives of 1000's of working class tenants in the near to mid term.
> 
> As this looks increasingly possible, can you see the value in this kind of radical ( though pretty broadbased ) electoralism, as a tactic, in this instance, in the here and now ?


Can you sell it to me - and can you sell it necessarily happening through the labour party?


----------



## Rimbaud (Dec 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> When I was in market research I worked in a small room with six other people. We phoned out, but when I worked in a call centre (2 days!) people called us.



TBF most of what I've done so far is market research for gambling companies, which is really tough to keep people on the phones for... I've been sworn at and threatened on the phone quite a lot. Kinda shitty job. I only got put onto political polling the last two hours of my last shift, thank god. It is all cold calling, nobody calls us. Hopefully I'm not gonna be doing this for much longer though...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> TBF most of what I've done so far is market research for gambling companies, which is really tough to keep people on the phones for... I've been sworn at and threatened on the phone quite a lot. Kinda shitty job. I only got put onto political polling the last two hours of my last shift, thank god. It is all cold calling, nobody calls us. Hopefully I'm not gonna be doing this for much longer though...


Cold calling is shit, most of my mr time was customer satisfaction so I knew people had the product. They might hate it, they might be rude to me, but at least they'd answer the fucking questions, which made it bearable. Cold calling, they rarely wanted to do the interview


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Oh I know, but as someone who follows politics more than normal people do, I liked that speech when I read it.
> 
> Not really sure why Geri didn't -- genuinely interested as to why not? Cheers.


Have you seen thornberry telling people they need to put up assad?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not sure what to make of Tom Watson exhorting us to not fear the robots though. Who is he talking to here.


RMT? Lorry Drivers? Warehouse workers?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2017)

killer b said:


> Pragmitas.


My GP gave me a prescription for that, once.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 13, 2017)

Local councillor election here today, oddly a Wednesday and for such a staunch Tory area Labour look like they’re in with a decent chance, so much so that the local MP was stalking the high street on Saturday trying to drum up blue support, seeing as he’s Jeremy Hunt that suggests they are spooked.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2017)

This article is an interesting read for those who are finding PMQs a bit weird and rambling right now:

Corbyn v May and the battle to go viral


----------



## ayatollah (Dec 13, 2017)

cantsin said:


> OJ wobbled for sure. its on record - your timing's well out though, it wasn't anywhere near "18 months " , of denunciation, or anything approaching it


 Why don't you , and Killer B, just do a modicum of research before writing utter bollocks ?  Jones didn't "wobble" , he deliberately stuck a propaganda dagger repeatedly into Corbyn and his Left agenda's back ! It's all there on the internet for a few keystrokes FFS ! Owen Jones fell out with Jeremy Corbyn  as early as December 2015, soon after the surprise first leadership contest victory - when Corbyn ignored his crap advice to "steer Right policy-wise" to make nice with the neoliberal PLP Right, and didn't bring him into his inner team (he prefers old Stalinists like Milne and Murray). Richard Murphy of The Tax Justice Network , had the same snub (quite rightly , as he is just a liberal with deep Quaker beliefs). Both characters from then on rubbished Corbyn and his policies remorselessly, as much from personal pique as politics. As late as 1st March 2017 in the Guardian article "Jeremy Corbyn says he's staying. That's not good enough", Jones was still dissing Corbyn . In fact he only really recanted his rejection of Corbyn as a viable leader AFTER the surprise success of Labour with Corbyn's decidedly Leftish reformist Manifesto , despite having worked for Labour during the snap election. Owen formally apologised for his "mistake about Corbyn" in a mea culpa article in The Guardian on June 9th , AFTER Labour did so well, saying "Jeremy Corbyn would make a fine Prime Minister" !  So Owen Jones remained a damaging "Left"  critic of Corbyn AND his Left agenda for 18 months after the first Leadership election, much to the delight of all of Corbyn's PLP and Tory and press opponents , right up to 8th June. Deny this if you want, but that requires you ignore the facts, and are incapable of adding up his 18 months of solid betrayal.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2017)

It's like some mirror-world version of The Male Online.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 13, 2017)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Oh I know, but as someone who follows politics more than normal people do, I liked that speech when I read it.
> 
> Not really sure why @Geri didn't -- genuinely interested as to why not? Cheers.





butchersapron said:


> Have you seen thornberry telling people they need to put up assad?



No -- I'll have to have a look at that. Will do a search.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 13, 2017)

OJ has been pretty much onboard with JC from early days, given how he disagrees with the centre-right Labour wing. I even went to the trouble of skimming through his back articles in the Guardian archive of his stuff there in case I was going mad but apart from a few pieces saying "Corbyn should do this", overbalanced by posts promoting him and bashing his enemies in Labour, there's nothing.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2017)

He did call for him to go a few time tbf.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 13, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's like some mirror-world version of The Male Online.



Lots of mileage in this one. 'The sidebar of privilege' for a start.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2017)

bare jokes:
Wait, is Jeremy Corbyn… hot?


> This is something I've been low-key questioning for a while. For one, Jezza epitomises woke bae, he's a vegetarian, a pacifist, he makes jam and has an allotment. He's the guy you'd drink lager with in Wetherspoons whilst he softly whispers in your ear about his plans to return Labour to the left.
> He's the sort that would make you want to be a better person, turning off Made in Chelsea to open a PDF on self-sustainable farming communities in rural Wales, just so you can ask his opinion on them. You'd accompany him to endless nuclear weapon protests, even when only four people pressed attending on Facebook.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 28, 2017)

''unelectable'' but not _unerectable_, eh, eh

actually I wish I hadn't thought of that


----------



## scifisam (Dec 28, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> bare jokes:
> Wait, is Jeremy Corbyn… hot?



Compared to other major politicians at the moment the man is a sex god. When you're up against (fnar) Gove, Boris, Cameron, Trump, Farage, etc, you'd have to be pretty bad to be less sexy really, but he does have a sort of twinkly-eyed appeal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2017)

scifisam said:


> Compared to other major politicians at the moment the man is a sex god. When you're up against (fnar) Gove, Boris, Cameron, Trump, Farage, etc, you'd have to be pretty bad to be less sexy really, but he does have a sort of twinkly-eyed appeal.



where I grabbed that link from had a quote from the twitterbox 'attractive in an old sea dog way' which also cracked me up.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 28, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Local councillor election here today, oddly a Wednesday and for such a staunch Tory area Labour look like they’re in with a decent chance, so much so that the local MP was stalking the high street on Saturday trying to drum up blue support, seeing as he’s Jeremy Hunt that suggests they are spooked.


In south West Surrey??? 
I mean, HASLEMERE??? Fucking hell, if they're rattled there, anything is possible.
How did it go?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 28, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> How did it go?



looks like they elected a limp dem to the district and town councils (LD's didn't even stand last time in that ward) and it's their only councillor on waveney council so they consider this something of an achievement (new councillor's tweeter here.)

from a labour party perspective, they were struggling even to get paper candidates in council elections in bits of surrey not that long ago...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 28, 2017)

scifisam said:


> ...a sex god. When you're up against (fnar) Gove, Boris, Cameron, Trump, Farage, etc...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 28, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> In south West Surrey???
> I mean, HASLEMERE??? Fucking hell, if they're rattled there, anything is possible.
> How did it go?



Lib Dem. not Tory, but don’t really go for my enemy’s enemy shit.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 29, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Lib Dem. not Tory, but don’t really go for my enemy’s enemy shit.


no, not me either


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2017)

From that piece DotCommunist quoted above :



> He's the guy you'd drink lager with in Wetherspoons



'lager' my arse ... if the Corbster drank at all (and I don't think he does much) it'd have to be proper ale from an independent brewery ...


----------



## agricola (Dec 29, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> 'lager' my arse ... if the Corbster drank at all (and I don't think he does much) it'd have to be proper ale from an independent brewery ...



Independent in the sense that it would be home brew.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 2, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> From that piece DotCommunist quoted above :
> 
> 
> 
> 'lager' my arse ... if the Corbster drank at all (and I don't think he does much) it'd have to be proper ale from an independent brewery ...




Or some home made raspberry and nettle wine.


----------



## bemused (Jan 6, 2018)

Am I wondering if the Labour leadership ever get into a room and agree on a position prior to saying nonsense like this?

Emily Thornberry Says Labour Cannot Back Iran Protesters Because It's Unclear Who Has 'White Hats'


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 6, 2018)

bemused said:


> Am I wondering if the Labour leadership ever get into a room and agree on a position prior to saying nonsense like this?
> 
> Emily Thornberry Says Labour Cannot Back Iran Protesters Because It's Unclear Who Has 'White Hats'


Plenty of Labour target voters don’t really do foreign stuff while they are trying to pay their rent & most others will see the utter hypocrisy of this right wing handwringing over the Iranian anti government protests when the same right wingers back Israel over Palestinian ‘terrorists’. Nobody reads the tabloid press anymore. Jezza can rest easy on this one.


----------



## bemused (Jan 6, 2018)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Plenty of Labour target voters don’t really do foreign stuff while they are trying to pay their rent & most others will see the utter hypocrisy of this right wing handwringing over the Iranian anti government protests when the same right wingers back Israel over Palestinian ‘terrorists’. Nobody reads the tabloid press anymore. Jezza can rest easy on this one.



Be nice for a government in waiting to have an opinion, maybe that's just me.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 6, 2018)

I think the Tories are now so toxic that they have gone beyond trying to scare voters into not voting Labour. Nobody listens. Nobody worries about Labour turning the country into Venezuela anymore.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2018)

You're totally wrong there: roughly 40% of the country worry about Labour turning the country into Venezuela. That's why the Tory numbers aren't dipping. It's all they have left, but it's still very effective.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 7, 2018)

Labour’s previous problem was getting their target voters to actually vote. Their better than expected result at last GE was because more of their target voters voted. Imo Tory voter base is getting older & dying off so can’t vote. Plenty of potential Labour voter base is becoming old enough to vote so Labour vote share is naturally increasing while Tory vote share is naturally decreasing. Labour can win if they can get their voters out to vote. It does seem a bit like before ‘97 where the Tories just became toxic & Labour got the result at the next GE.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 7, 2018)

The share of the vote for the Conservative party has seen a successive increase at each of the last five GEs. In 2017 it was as high as it was 30 years ago. 

As for the dying off nonsense well that was the same claim as made twenty years ago.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 7, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> The share of the vote for the Conservative party has seen a successive increase at each of the last five GEs. In 2017 it was as high as it was 30 years ago.
> 
> As for the dying off nonsense well that was the same claim as made twenty years ago.


It seems to make sense, just like the demographic arguments made in the USA about the GOP never winning another election again - and look how that turned out.

The issue is that old people are being produced all the time, the same as young people. And old people are making up a bigger percentage of the population all the time. And they always vote.


----------



## Supine (Jan 7, 2018)

Relying on people dieing and not actual real life policies is a fool's game.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 7, 2018)

Before last GE Labour wipe out was being predicted. Tories called GE because they believed they could get 80+ majority to present more united front over brexit. I posted on this forum then that I did not think Labour would do that badly & that a hung parliament was possible & that is what happened. 

Why? Because the voter base for whom the Tories can serve no purpose at all is increasing as living standards for younger people becoming adults become worse. At some point in time the balance will tip. I don’t think it is true anymore that people change to Tory voters when they get older. The age of generation rent is increasing all the time. 

The only way forward for the Tories is to steal Labour’s clothes. Build council houses in large numbers. Introduce rent controls & bring in stronger employment law. They may flirt with it but it is not going to happen. Sooner or later there will be enough Labour voters for a Labour majority. The brexit chaos has probably brought that forward. Whatever the result of brexit & whenever the next GE is held I don’t think any of that will change.


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2018)

It's not just about young vs old voters, it's more that the Tories in the Thatcher era were able to offer enough youngish people something that resonated with them (owning their own home) that significant numbers voted for them. 

For those people's children, that offer is no longer realistic in most cases, so fewer young people are likely to vote Tory for that reason. Obviously there's other factors, but that's an important one.

As an aside, my elderly (still working beyond retirement age) barber was talking the other day about his grandkids chances of getting a home of their own and the need for a big council house building programme. Never heard him say anything along those lines in the 20 years he's been cutting my hair. Make of that what you will.


----------



## agricola (Jan 7, 2018)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Before last GE Labour wipe out was being predicted. Tories called GE because they believed they could get 80+ majority to present more united front over brexit. I posted on this forum then that I did not think Labour would do that badly & that a hung parliament was possible & that is what happened.
> 
> Why? Because the voter base for whom the Tories can serve no purpose at all is increasing as living standards for younger people becoming adults become worse. At some point in time the balance will tip. I don’t think it is true anymore that people change to Tory voters when they get older. The age of generation rent is increasing all the time.
> 
> The only way forward for the Tories is to steal Labour’s clothes. Build council houses in large numbers. Introduce rent controls & bring in stronger employment law. They may flirt with it but it is not going to happen. Sooner or later there will be enough Labour voters for a Labour majority. The brexit chaos has probably brought that forward. Whatever the result of brexit & whenever the next GE is held I don’t think any of that will change.



Its housing that is the big danger - they could easily suggest a policy of the state building thousands of starter / affordable family homes with a right-to-buy over 25/30 years and people would lap it up, and there isn't any real ideological reason why they wouldn't do it (especially if they contracted out the building to the likes of Redrow).


----------



## Mordi (Jan 7, 2018)

Supine said:


> Relying on people dieing and not actual real life policies is a fool's game.



I'd ask if the people dying can be party policy, but oddly enough the Tories seem to have nabbed that one already.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> Its housing that is the big danger - they could easily suggest a policy of the state building thousands of starter / affordable family homes with a right-to-buy over 25/30 years and people would lap it up, and there isn't any real ideological reason why they wouldn't do it (especially if they contracted out the building to the likes of Redrow).


Any form of taxpayer funded building of homes for rent with the intention of them being sold to tenants for discounted rate amounts to taxpayer subsidy of private house purchase & the transferring of public assets to private hands. It is also open to abuse by those seeking money making opportunities rather than just somewhere to live. I would have  thought this is how the housing crisis we have now has been created starting from a base in the 1980s?

So probably it could easily be pointed out to voters that history would simply repeat itself?


----------



## Almor (Jan 7, 2018)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Any form of taxpayer funded building of homes for rent with the intention of them being sold to tenants for discounted rate amounts to taxpayer subsidy of private house purchase & the transferring of public assets to private hands. It is also open to abuse by those seeking money making opportunities rather than just somewhere to live.


 
Sounds like a perfect Tory policy tbf


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 7, 2018)

Almor said:


> Sounds like a perfect Tory policy tbf


Yes & they already did it. Which caused the housing crisis we now have so they are unlikely to get away with doing the same again. A good Labour campaign would rubbish it.


----------



## agricola (Jan 7, 2018)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Any form of taxpayer funded building of homes for rent with the intention of them being sold to tenants for discounted rate amounts to taxpayer subsidy of private house purchase & the transferring of public assets to private hands. It is also open to abuse by those seeking money making opportunities rather than just somewhere to live. I would have  thought this is how the housing crisis we have now has been created starting from a base in the 1980s?
> 
> So probably it could easily be pointed out to voters that history would simply repeat itself?



The crisis came because they sold them all off and didn't build any replacement homes, but it was wildly popular at the time and would be again.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 7, 2018)

If the Tories had some plan to solve The Housing Crisis, or even one that looked like it would, then sure that could be very popular, but they're handicapped by being ideologically and venally opposed to anything that would actually help.

They've already tried assorted things like help to buy but everybody realises that they are nonsense and don't actually help anyone apart from those who already have a load of money. They are ideologically committed to having housing be organised and run by the private sector, and they and their supporters' business interests (and those of a proportion of their voting base too) are hugely tied into property increasing its value, not just retaining, and there isn't going to be a fix without property losing value. Actual meaningful house-building would do this so they won't support it, pretending that it will come about via the market somehow. (Which it may well, but in the form of a massive crash.)

This isn't just the Tories of course; there's a general pretence that paying off private sector developers is going to make them ruin their own business model.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 8, 2018)

agricola said:


> Its housing that is the big danger - they could easily suggest a policy of the state building thousands of starter / affordable family homes with a right-to-buy over 25/30 years and people would lap it up, and there isn't any real ideological reason why they wouldn't do it (especially if they contracted out the building to the likes of Redrow).



What? There's no real reason the Tories won't build lots of housing for social rent? Are you kidding? (If it's notfor social rent prices then it's completely and utterly pointless).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

scifisam said:


> What? There's no real reason the Tories won't build lots of housing for social rent? Are you kidding? (If it's notfor social rent prices then it's completely and utterly pointless).


there's no reason the tories couldn't adopt the policy.


----------



## yield (Jan 8, 2018)

The Tories built hundreds of thousands of homes under Harold Macmillan https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/10/how-macmillan-built-300000-houses-a-year.html


----------



## scifisam (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> there's no reason the tories couldn't adopt the policy.



Well, most of them are property developers and loads of their donors are. The last thing they want is a policy that would drive rents down. So yes, there is a reason. Unless you mean they could adopt the policy and never actually carry it out; even then, I think that'd scare some of their donors.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 8, 2018)

yield said:


> The Tories built hundreds of thousands of homes under Harold Macmillan https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/10/how-macmillan-built-300000-houses-a-year.html



Different time though innit. The Tories of that time had very little in common with current free market Tories.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> there's no reason the tories couldn't adopt the policy.



There's a big reason (now and for almost ever) why they *wouldn't* though ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> There's a big reason (now and for almost ever) why they *wouldn't* though ...


You noticed, I hope, May's adoption of Corbyn's industrial strategy in phrase if not in substance? How much more if the tories faced electoral oblivion?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2018)

Let's just say I have my doubts (for now) about any chance of May/the Tories moving anywhere  in those directions .....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2018)

Eddie Izzard fails to stop the glorious march of history lol

e2a I hadn't realised the NEC positions were new creations


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> Eddie Izzard fails to stop the glorious march of history lol
> 
> e2a I hadn't realised the NEC positions were new creations



Neither did I, but here's the results in detail ......


----------



## Voley (Jan 16, 2018)

I've been enjoying Corbyn & McDonnells stuff on Carrillion the last couple of days. Feels like ages since privatisation got properly debated in mainstream politics and I really hope this turns out to be the watershed moment they claim.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 16, 2018)

And today the nec voted to replace ann black ,independent leftist,with christine shawcroft ,corbyn supporter,as chair of the disputes committee -labours disciplinary body.

Both black and shawcroft have been elected to the nec for 20 odd years.But black voted the wrong way on the fee for registered supporters to get a vote in labour leadership elections.

Unite and gmb supported the change .

McNicol the gs will be the next target I guess,but gmb would go apeshit .


----------



## hash tag (Jan 16, 2018)

I was looking for suitable link to baldricks pop today and found this Top Labour figures fear Jeremy Corbyn is 'too old' to lead party into the next election

If it's not one thing


----------



## Fingers (Jan 18, 2018)

Met Laura Pidcock this evening. She is brilliant. Been to two Cities of London and Westminster selection hustings this week and they were both very pro Corbyn.


----------



## squirrelp (Jan 19, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They are ideologically committed to having housing be organised and run by the private sector, and they and their supporters' business interests (and those of a proportion of their voting base too) are hugely tied into property increasing its value, not just retaining, and there isn't going to be a fix without property losing value.


I think that's it really.

I don't actually think we have a housing crisis as such. Not in terms of lacking bedrooms. We have enough houses and bedrooms to house everyone easily. What we have is economic insanity.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2018)

agricola said:


> The crisis came because they sold them all off and didn't build any replacement homes, but it was wildly popular at the time and would be again.


I'd give ordinary people more credit than that, myself. They know what caused the disaster.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Before last GE Labour wipe out was being predicted. Tories called GE because they believed they could get 80+ majority to present more united front over brexit. I posted on this forum then that I did not think Labour would do that badly & that a hung parliament was possible & that is what happened.
> 
> Why? Because the voter base for whom the Tories can serve no purpose at all is increasing as living standards for younger people becoming adults become worse. At some point in time the balance will tip. I don’t think it is true anymore that people change to Tory voters when they get older. The age of generation rent is increasing all the time.
> 
> The only way forward for the Tories is to steal Labour’s clothes. Build council houses in large numbers. Introduce rent controls & bring in stronger employment law. They may flirt with it but it is not going to happen. Sooner or later there will be enough Labour voters for a Labour majority. The brexit chaos has probably brought that forward. Whatever the result of brexit & whenever the next GE is held I don’t think any of that will change.




Heidi Allen will run for leader at some point. She's the 'tory with a heart' and it'll be part of the plan to rebrand the tories in Labour's more sensible image. But I don't think it can happen while Brexit is still ongoing because there are too many internal tory shenanigans going on.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Fingers said:


> Met Laura Pidcock this evening. She is brilliant. Been to two Cities of London and Westminster selection hustings this week and they were both very pro Corbyn.



I wish we could speed up time for her and slow it down for Corbyn, because she's got a class analysis (something a lot of those who are feted by the left in Labour lack) and with less than a year in the job she's already proven she knows what she's talking about and is down-to-earth and personable with it. 

Rayner would be a boon for the 'moderates', as would Lewis and of course Starmer, and Thornberry too. It's understandable but depressing to see so many on the left saying Rayner or Thornberry would be excellent leaders. I mean, I'm sure they would be good in some ways but god it'd mean a step (or several) back from the vaguely social democrat place Corbyn's got us to. I do think, though, that enough support might still be there for Pidcock next but one, once she's got more experience under her belt.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Fingers said:


> Met Laura Pidcock this evening. She is brilliant. Been to two Cities of London and Westminster selection hustings this week and they were both very pro Corbyn.



Stoke South had their selection today. Mark McDonald, the guy backed by Momentum, won. He's an outsider to the area, which was a risky strategy considering how we played it in Stoke Central with Nuttall, but it paid off. 

The left seemed to have been split. A local woman was on the shortlist who has been a bit of a figure here in the past couple of years, being very vocal about supporting Corbyn, and she has decent local support. She's an opportunist, though, and blows with the wind. She voted for the council leader to be put in place, despite him being the head of the City Independents (a rag-tag bunch of ex-BNP, kippers, and assorted arseholes, weirdos and cunts) and despite being directed not to by Labour group. She was suspended from the group for that. It would have been a nightmare. Anyway, quite a few thought it she was going to be a shoe-in, but Mark did the business on the day, despite social media pictures of her standing next to McDonnell etc. A guy who works in Tom Watson's office was also on the shortlist and did pretty well according to the breakdown, but Mark won comfortably in the end.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Stoke South had their selection today. Mark McDonald, the guy backed by Momentum, won. He's an outsider to the area, which was a risky strategy considering how we played it in Stoke Central with Nuttall, but it paid off.
> 
> The left seemed to have been split. A local woman was on the shortlist who has been a bit of a figure here in the past couple of years, being very vocal about supporting Corbyn, and she has decent local support. She's an opportunist, though, and blows with the wind. She voted for the council leader to be put in place, despite him being the head of the City Independents (a rag-tag bunch of ex-BNP, kippers, and assorted arseholes, weirdos and cunts) and despite being directed not to by Labour group. She was suspended from the group for that. It would have been a nightmare. Anyway, quite a few thought it she was going to be a shoe-in, but Mark did the business on the day, despite social media pictures of her standing next to McDonnell etc. A guy who works in Tom Watson's office was also on the shortlist and did pretty well according to the breakdown, but Mark won comfortably in the end.



Ta for the update. All good.  Have a picture of me standing next to McDonnell ha ha


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Just don't go voting for the bnp kipper crowd and we'll be good


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I wish we could speed up time for her and slow it down for Corbyn, because she's got a class analysis (something a lot of those who are feted by the left in Labour lack) and with less than a year in the job she's already proven she knows what she's talking about and is down-to-earth and personable with it.
> 
> Rayner would be a boon for the 'moderates', as would Lewis and of course Starmer, and Thornberry too. It's understandable but depressing to see so many on the left saying Rayner or Thornberry would be excellent leaders. I mean, I'm sure they would be good in some ways but god it'd mean a step (or several) back from the vaguely social democrat place Corbyn's got us to. I do think, though, that enough support might still be there for Pidcock next but one, once she's got more experience under her belt.



Another vote for 'Pidcock but maybe not yet' here. Speaking for the North (as I am obviously entitled to do) it feels like Corbyn's got the middle-class 'real' left in the bag but has been more moderately successful with the potential working class Labour vote, in terms of both those who gave up on the party years ago and stopped voting or went to the far right, and those who've grudgingly stayed with it as it veered right and are now prey to the anti-Corbyn media. The latter may be more open to this 'vaguely social democrat' place and even a class analysis coming from someone like Pidcock than from a soft-spoken, bicycle-clip-wearing north London type like Corbyn. (I'm aware I'm reducing everyone to broad stereotypes here... just trying to keep it brief...)


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Heidi Allen will run for leader at some point. She's the 'tory with a heart' and it'll be part of the plan to rebrand the tories in Labour's more sensible image. But I don't think it can happen while Brexit is still ongoing because there are too many internal tory shenanigans going on.



The Tories won't do the leadership thing until after Brexit. They seem less worried now that Labour hasn't pulled away in the polls. The locals will be interesting.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I wish we could speed up time for her and slow it down for Corbyn, because she's got a class analysis (something a lot of those who are feted by the left in Labour lack) and with less than a year in the job she's already proven she knows what she's talking about and is down-to-earth and personable with it.
> 
> Rayner would be a boon for the 'moderates', as would Lewis and of course Starmer, and Thornberry too. It's understandable but depressing to see so many on the left saying Rayner or Thornberry would be excellent leaders. I mean, I'm sure they would be good in some ways but god it'd mean a step (or several) back from the vaguely social democrat place Corbyn's got us to. I do think, though, that enough support might still be there for Pidcock next but one, once she's got more experience under her belt.



Thornberry would be a disaster on many levels (  in terms of inevitable 'Luvvy' attacks, millionaire, buy to let landlord, ships kids off to selective schools, #whitevanmangate  etc etc ) , but think her recent outbursts on Israel may have fatally undermined her relationship with the core base.

Lewis less bad, by a long way, Rayner am hoping is a non starter ( just don't trust her politics ) , if Laura P gets time and space, cld be v strong .


----------



## agricola (Jan 22, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Thornberry would be a disaster on many levels (  in terms of inevitable 'Luvvy' attacks, millionaire, buy to let landlord, ships kids off to selective schools etc etc ) , but think her recent outbursts on Israel has fatally undermined her relationship with the base.
> 
> Lewis less bad, by a long way, Rayner am hoping is a non starter ( just don't trust her politics ) , if Laura P gets time and space, cld be the v strong .



I'd say Starmer ahead of anyone else - for all his faults he is probably the one person at the top of the party that each bit of it could convince themselves was acceptable (the centrists because he looks like one of them, the membership because he didn't run off as part of the coup).


----------



## cantsin (Jan 22, 2018)

agricola said:


> I'd say Starmer ahead of anyone else - for all his faults he is probably the one person at the top of the party that each bit of it could convince themselves was acceptable (the centrists because he looks like one of them, the membership because he didn't run off as part of the coup).



 Not sure a pro EU , post Blairite centrist technocrat is going to keep the base onside and engaged at all tbh - I'd be gone again, sharpish, if that was where the party was headed back to  (no biggy, admittedly)


----------



## mather (Jan 22, 2018)

agricola said:


> I'd say Starmer ahead of anyone else - for all his faults he is probably the one person at the top of the party that each bit of it could convince themselves was acceptable (the centrists because he looks like one of them, the membership because he didn't run off as part of the coup).



A bland pro-EU centrist and a well off lawyer to boot, that will get the working classes flocking back to Labour.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 22, 2018)

Surely for every centrist, blue labour voter wringing their hands at whether Corbyn's electable who would be very reassured by Starmer, there's a returnee or new member who'd piss off in disgust.


----------



## mather (Jan 22, 2018)

billy_bob said:


> Surely for every centrist, blue labour voter wringing their hands at whether Corbyn's electable who would be very reassured by Starmer, there's a returnee or new member who'd piss off in disgust.



The centrists and Blue Labour are two different factions within Labour and they are not the same either politically/ideologically speaking or in terms of their membership base.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 22, 2018)

mather said:


> The centrists and Blue Labour are two different factions within Labour and they are not the same either politically/ideologically speaking or in terms of their membership base.



I know, phrased badly. Maybe there's some internal reason why not that I don't know (I'm not a member) but I'd guess Starmer would be relatively reassuring to both of them. agricola has a point to the extent that he's got 'the look', sort of authoritative and blandly reassuring without being too easily pinned down to any significant opinions. But presumably it's at least partly in rejection of how much that has mattered in recent decades that Corbyn's where he is.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 22, 2018)

Blue Labour : Work . Family . Community	

Blue Labour 

I follow that Paul Embery / FBU, on twott -  impressive to some degree, but sinister undertones all the way imo.

No need to guess where they are on the trans debate, obvs


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

thornberry is the best speaker and performer - affable, human, witty. Clearly  very smart -  But "millionaire husband" and all that ... and just what are her politics? She'd have convince the membership that she was committed to corbynite politics.
Starmer - no chance. As pointed out - dull, technocratic centrist.
What's people's beef with Raynor politics wise?  Great back story to sell - working class teen mum grows up in poverty and comes good etc. Witty, seems passionate  but not sure she's sharp enough intellectually. Shes doing some q and a thing in leeds next month - I'll probably go along.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> thornberry is the best speaker and performer - affable, human, witty. Clearly  very smart -  But "millionaire husband" and all that ... and just what are her politics? She'd have convince the membership that she was committed to corbynite politics.



Except for 'smart', I couldn't agree less. I find her impossible to warm to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2018)

thornberry has class issues. As in she has views about the w/c.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2018)

She is fucking appalling on Syria and related issues as well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 23, 2018)

Let's not forget the white van/flag tweet as well, it's important to remember that as well as awful Thornberry is a moron.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

billy_bob said:


> Except for 'smart', I couldn't agree less. I find her impossible to warm to.



Its more how she comes accross to people generally. You and i and others on here clearly dont trust her - but a lot of people like her - and not just in the media.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2018)

...and i believe the housing she and husband were buying up on a BTL basis was social  housing.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Let's not forget the white van/flag tweet as well, it's important to remember that as well as awful Thornberry is a moron.



It was crass and sneery. But she is not a moran. A lot of leading politicians are very, very smart and very good communicators. I was in a meeting once with David Blunkett - and he was excellent at communicating his answers, listening to people and his eye for detail. I still think he is an utter cunt - but i could totally see how he got to where he was.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> ...and i believe the housing she and husband were buying up on a BTL basis was social  housing.



fucks sake. That in itself should rule her out then.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

Labour needs to poach Mehri Black from the SNP.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 23, 2018)

Thornberry comes across as smug and superior, that's pretty amusing when she's winding up some tory blowhard but so less the rest of the time.


----------



## JimW (Jan 23, 2018)

I'd heard her built up as different refreshing etc and have been pretty underwhelmed whenever I've seen her on telly.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Ha ha 

Jeremy Corbyn’s takeover is complete – and the Tories are terrified | The Spectator



> Those still laughing at all that have not been paying attention. Mr Corbyn was quite correct, in his party conference speech, to say that his proposals are mainstream. When pollsters ask, they find clear majority support for the renationalisation of water, electricity and gas. Even among Tory voters, a majority support rail nationalisation. What about the privatisation of other services? A good case against that is being made by the collapse of Carillion, which ran everything from school canteens to the security at military bases. Its insolvency will soon be used as prima facie evidence of private sector incompetence.





> In the general election, Corbyn increased his party’s share of the vote more than any other leader of any other postwar party. He is now entitled to remake the Labour party in his image, just as Tony Blair once did.





> At first, such talk delighted Conservatives. Now, it terrifies them — or ought to. For years, they have been dismissing Corbynism on the same logic as the Labour moderates: that it is the agenda of a bunch of obsessives with no national support. Blairites would argue that Britain is fundamentally a capitalist country — but this is untrue. It’s neither capitalist nor socialist, but a nation with plenty of support for both. Victory tends to go to the party that makes its case best.



They still find time to say that the bill for renationalising things would not be covered by revenue, etc etc, but anyways, ha ha.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour needs to poach Mehri Black from the SNP.



agree, or try an alliance and split off leftists within the SNP ( at Holyrood + Wesstminster) . Corbyn has been a princupled, lifelong supporter of Irish freedom / unity, I just can't see how he's happy to be on the Unionist side of the fence up there, regardless of how much Left Labour and Richard Leonard may / may not be able to help deliver near-mid term.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 23, 2018)

cantsin said:


> agree, or try an alliance and split off leftists within the SNP ( at Holyrood + Wesstminster) . Corbyn has been a princupled, lifelong supporter of Irish freedom / unity, I just can't see how he's happy to be on the Unionist side of the fence up there, regardless of how much Left Labour and Richard Leonard may / may not be able to help deliver near-mid term.



I don't think it's necessarily a contradiction to be supportive of the Union between England, Scotland and Wales and believe in a united Ireland.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

so - angela raynor? how does she measure up as a hero of socialism? 

(and do we need a separate thread "who should step into Jezza' sandals?" - or something)


----------



## oryx (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour needs to poach Mehri Black from the SNP.


Or Caroline Lucas from the Greens.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 23, 2018)

oryx said:


> Or Caroline Lucas from the Greens.



Principled on the environment, obviously, and on various social issues, but there doesn't seem to be any class analysis at the foundation of it, to go back to what some were talking about at the end of the previous page/top of this one. Which makes it ring pretty hollow for me.


----------



## The Pale King (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour needs to poach Mehri Black from the SNP.



Not sure about that. From reading her record column she seems to have drunk deep from the SNP well of tendentious politicking. Everything framed as Westminster v Holyrood. She comes across well personally, but I'm not keen on the direction of her politics.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

The Pale King said:


> Not sure about that. From reading her record column she seems to have drunk deep from the SNP well of tendentious politicking. Everything framed as Westminster v Holyrood. She comes across well personally, but I'm not keen on the direction of her politics.



A brief sojourn in at the momentum re-education camp in the fens should sort that out. Nothing like digging drainage ditches 14 hours a day to focus the mind on the efficacy of an internationalist class analysis.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> thornberry is the best speaker and performer - affable, human, witty. Clearly  very smart -  But "millionaire husband" and all that ... and just what are her politics? She'd have convince the membership that she was committed to corbynite politics.
> Starmer - no chance. As pointed out - dull, technocratic centrist.
> What's people's beef with Raynor politics wise?  Great back story to sell - working class teen mum grows up in poverty and comes good etc. Witty, seems passionate  but not sure she's sharp enough intellectually. Shes doing some q and a thing in leeds next month - I'll probably go along.



People take issue with Rayner for comments such as (I'm paraphrasing, I can't remember exactly what she said) not caring about PFI or academies in schools because the only thing that matters is outcomes. The gist of it being that she doesn't have an analysis of why these things do matter. She's got the backstory but she doesn't have the analysis.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> A brief sojourn in at the momentum re-education camp in the fens should sort that out. Nothing like digging drainage ditches 14 hours a day to focus the mind on the efficacy of an internationalist class analysis.



... for a bowl of rice a day, eh?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2018)

good to see newly emboldened NEC taking a pretty big step here, one that could materially effect the near-mid term lives of ordinary Haringey tenants over the next few years ; ( + props due to Momentum on this, if it comes off, in particular, but just for getting stuck in and getting the ball rolling).


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> People take issue with Rayner for comments such as (I'm paraphrasing, I can't remember exactly what she said) not caring about PFI or academies in schools because the only thing that matters is outcomes. The gist of it being that she doesn't have an analysis of why these things do matter. She's got the backstory but she doesn't have the analysis.



Still too much of that about, isn't there? People with their hearts in a better place than those of the people in their shoes ten years ago, for sure, but too often you don't see the depth of analysis of why we are where we are that would put right some of what's wrong, so there's a great risk we just default to the 'not as bad but not different in essence' setting the Labour's been on for so long.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

...(duplicate post)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2018)

billy_bob said:


> ... for a bowl of rice a day, eh?



typical counter-revolutionary smear. They get a pot noodle and a Gregg's pastie on  a sunday.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 23, 2018)

I think Clive Lewis could be the best option available - or the least awful, as a holding exercise until young Laura has earned her stripes, paid her dues etc.
Class analysis is just about there, ditto socialist instincts, and he's an excellent communicator who knows his media inside out


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2018)

hash tag do you still agree with the title of your OP?


----------



## bemused (Jan 23, 2018)

billy_bob said:


> Except for 'smart', I couldn't agree less. I find her impossible to warm to.



She's awful.


----------



## bemused (Jan 23, 2018)

I don't understand this story - Labour 'diversity' ticket deal criticised

Why would the Labour Party have differential pricing based on your race? I would suggest it isn't pricing that is keeping the folks away from the conference it's the content is unappealing to them. It's also mildly insulting to suggest the extra tenner is all it takes to sway them.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 24, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> hash tag do you still agree with the title of your OP?



My apologies; it was meant to be as much as a question as a statement. I do like the man, I like his politics. He did better than expected at the last election; can he improve on that.
I would guess that the tories have learnt a few lessons and it would appear that they are trying to address some of those lessons. Time will tell.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 24, 2018)

billy_bob said:


> Still too much of that about, isn't there? People with their hearts in a better place than those of the people in their shoes ten years ago, for sure, but too often you don't see the depth of analysis of why we are where we are that would put right some of what's wrong, so there's a great risk we just default to the 'not as bad but not different in essence' setting the Labour's been on for so long.



That's the big worry about what happens post-Corbyn I think. There are too many who look good on the tin but who would settle us into that comfortable and entirely unchallenging place, which is only a hop, skip and a jump away from sliding back to the 'moderates'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 25, 2018)

Never mind the current crop of gurning wankers - where's the mandatory reselection at?

I want to see Rayner begging her CLP to believe she has been fully re-educated and gets why privatisation is bad now.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> I don't understand this story - Labour 'diversity' ticket deal criticised
> 
> Why would the Labour Party have differential pricing based on your race? I would suggest it isn't pricing that is keeping the folks away from the conference it's the content is unappealing to them. It's also mildly insulting to suggest the extra tenner is all it takes to sway them.



It may or may not be insulting, but it's definitely amateurish. It's stuff like this that makes me think we'll end up getting a Corbyn government that ends up discrediting any type of politics vaguely worth having for the rest of my lifetime.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 16, 2018)

The press seem to be ramping up their anti-Corbyn articles this week, usual spurious stuff from the past. Is this a trend at the moment, is something going on that gives them a reason to go for him, is this being directed for a purpose? I know this sort of thing tends to happen in the ‘loyal media’ in the run-up to elections or if he’s been landing punches and needs putting down a bit, but not really aware of any specific reason now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

I did enjoy the story about Corbyn and the Czech spy. Like something from a Smiley novel. El Corb, beard back when it had colour, he's striding on the cold streets of prague. Drinking coffee with a tall dark eyed woman from the university/playing chess with an old man in the park/insert cliches here


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I did enjoy the story about Corbyn and the Czech spy. Like something from a Smiley novel. El Corb, beard back when it had colour, he's striding on the cold streets of prague. Drinking coffee with a tall dark eyed woman from the university/playing chess with an old man in the park/insert cliches here



Typical Corbyn, he even fucks up betraying his country. Secret agent "COB" met his handler over tea in the houses of Parliament. At least Straw and Rifkin arranged to meet their contacts in sleazy hotels in Victoria


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

there's a roll of film buried at his allotment, an old dead letter drop.  But its been there since 1991, moscow went dark.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> there's a roll of film buried at his allotment, an old dead letter drop.  But its been there since 1991, moscow went dark.



I think there's a fanfic to be written here.

Smiley takes JC into a dingy room in the Circus and tells him he's going to double him back into Moscow Centre to turn Karla.






_
He's just locking his bike up. He'll be here in a minute._


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2018)

Su


DotCommunist said:


> there's a roll of film buried at his allotment, an old dead letter drop.  But its been there since 1991, moscow went dark.



Snaps of Diana Abbot awarding the prize for the biggest marrow at the 1989 Islington El Salvador Solidarity Group fete.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

you wonder what happened don't you, to all that tradecraft. No need anymore for the anonymous grey men on cold war trains in eastern europe. No its all GCHQ hackers now. Getting out the large hadron collider to read someones instram feed from space. Read an article a while back suggesting that in the mid 90's a lot of americas no longer needed cold warriors went on to do industrial espionage roles. No longer to be on the (wrong) side of an existential struggle of ideologies, but to try and one-up a chip manufacturer by stealing its secrets for their rivals. Bribing the cleaner. O freedom with your ethically sourced McDonalds and easy-to-master phone user interfaces


----------



## oryx (Feb 16, 2018)

On a much more boring note I suspect it may be predictions of Labour doing very well in the local elections.

There was even talk of them taking Westminster Council.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 16, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> I think there's a fanfic to be written here.
> 
> Smiley takes JC into a dingy room in the Circus and tells him he's going to double him back into Moscow Centre to turn Karla.
> 
> ...



The Chris Williamson connection.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 16, 2018)

oryx said:


> On a much more boring note I suspect it may be predictions of Labour doing very well in the local elections.
> 
> There was even talk of them taking Westminster Council.



You'd think they'd realise that most people intending to vote have already made up their minds. I don't see a significant amount of people's positions being changed by this sort of thing.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 16, 2018)

Never mind local elections. Corbyn is unelectable. Corbyn has reached peak vote.  Unless the Tories self--destruct, they will balloon in the next best thing (not JRM) and sell the electorate the promised land.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 16, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Never mind local elections. Corbyn is unelectable. Corbyn has reached peak vote.  Unless the Tories self--destruct, they will balloon in the next best thing (not JRM) and sell the electorate the promised land.



What makes you think Corbyn is unelectable and has "peaked"?

If Labour gets rid of Corbyn in favour of some Tory-lite dickhead, at any point before he's actually lost an election, then they can forget about winning elections for a good long time.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 16, 2018)

The fact he's up against the worst, most incompetent Tory govt in living memory and still trails... Suggests problems


----------



## Hollis (Feb 16, 2018)

Btw... He has lost one election...


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Feb 16, 2018)

Apparently there is a difference between "lost" and "didn't win". I didn't "didn't win" the lottery, I "lost" the lottery.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

an election is nowhere near as clean as a lottery. You can not-play and still lose in real terms for starters. Also, last time I got a lottery ticket I didn't win but grabbed a random Paislyite to back up my claim and the commission still refused to pay out. Its one rule for them...


----------



## agricola (Feb 16, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> I think there's a fanfic to be written here.
> 
> Smiley takes JC into a dingy room in the Circus and tells him he's going to double him back into Moscow Centre to turn Karla.
> 
> ...



that almost looks like some bizarre Milne / Watson cosplay


----------



## Hollis (Feb 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> an election is nowhere near as clean as a lottery. You can not-play and still lose in real terms for starters. Also, last time I got a lottery ticket I didn't win but grabbed a random Paislyite to back up my claim and the commission still refused to pay out. Its one rule for them...



Whatever... Corbyn's a looser.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Whatever... Corbyn's a looser.


Its true, he was out on the heath with his loose just the other day, loosing people. Fuck-you cold 3 am it was, his mighty breath gouting out in big billows as he loosed at will.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 16, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> People take issue with Rayner for comments such as (I'm paraphrasing, I can't remember exactly what she said) not caring about PFI or academies in schools because the only thing that matters is outcomes. The gist of it being that she doesn't have an analysis of why these things do matter. She's got the backstory but she doesn't have the analysis.



Has also backed up Labour MPs' berniebro style allegations against the membership.

IMO the comments on academies are a worrying sign, surrender before a single shot has been fired.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 17, 2018)




----------



## Nylock (Feb 18, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Whatever... Corbyn's a looser.


Corbyn's a looser than what?


----------



## Fingers (Feb 18, 2018)

.


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Whatever... Corbyn's a looser.



What with a genuine lasso in a rodeo? He clearly has more hinterland. than he is given credit for.


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2018)

Perhaps he was a nooser working as a part- time hangman dispatching enemies of the people behind the Iron Curtain, which would explain those afternoon teas with Czech spooks


----------



## J Ed (Feb 18, 2018)

The Czech spy nonsense really is a new tipping point I think, the Telegraph and the Times have both run with stories which are far closer to the sort of 'Obama a gay prostitute' National Enquirer fodder or 'Airplane actually on moon' in the Daily Star than they are to anything approaching newspaper of record journalism.


----------



## agricola (Feb 18, 2018)

J Ed said:


> The Czech spy nonsense really is a new tipping point I think, the Telegraph and the Times have both run with stories which are far closer to the sort of 'Obama a gay prostitute' National Enquirer fodder or 'Airplane actually on moon' in the Daily Star than they are to anything approaching newspaper of record journalism.



Meanwhile the easily available fact that the Tories have, in eighteen months (edit:  sorry, its four years not 18 months), had nearly half a million off the wife of one of Putin's former ministers escapes any real comment.


----------



## Beermoth (Feb 18, 2018)

The Graun are joining in now

The worst view to take on Corbyn’s Czech connection is ‘who cares?’ | Matthew d’Ancona


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 18, 2018)

D'Ancunt. What a surprise.


----------



## elbows (Feb 18, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> The press seem to be ramping up their anti-Corbyn articles this week, usual spurious stuff from the past. Is this a trend at the moment, is something going on that gives them a reason to go for him, is this being directed for a purpose? I know this sort of thing tends to happen in the ‘loyal media’ in the run-up to elections or if he’s been landing punches and needs putting down a bit, but not really aware of any specific reason now.



I heard there was genuine concern when the NEC fell to Corbyns side. I dont remember where I heard this, but it does not surprise me that all sorts of interests will be getting twitchy about having various policies they thought they had seen the back of thrust back into the very mainstream with a chance of happening. Perhaps they convinced themselves that it would be a very temporary blip and the way his position has been cemented is getting to them.

It takes laughably little to get them reacting with this sort of shit, imagine the utter meltdown if something much more radical than Corbyns Labour was on the agenda. Its not hard to see why at times various freaks and fantasists come out of the woodwork and start wondering whether they can find enough mates with real power and influence to have a very english coup and rid blighty of the leftist peril. Long before such a stage is reached there are umpteen other layers of shit to be hurled around, everything even vaguely feasible will probably be tried.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 18, 2018)

Tony Greenstein kicked out, good

Labour Activist Tony Greenstein Expelled From Party Over Antisemitism


----------



## cantsin (Feb 18, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Tony Greenstein kicked out, good
> 
> Labour Activist Tony Greenstein Expelled From Party Over Antisemitism



TG's a weird dude, and this is all good politically expedient stuff I guess...but references to use of the word " Zio " etc ( by a proudly jewish bloke )  don't exactly fill me with confidence that this is all for the best. Dunno.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 18, 2018)

Been round the folk's place today and note The Express is keeping it classy as always. 'Corbyn and the Socialist Threat'. I hope that's what he calls the band he fronts when he steps down from being an MP.

 

With obligatory phone-in poll to tax idiots 50p for speaking their branes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2018)

Nice of them to use the shot of him looking like Simon Peter from a biblical epic.


----------



## campanula (Feb 19, 2018)

cantsin said:


> TG's a weird dude, and this is all good politically expedient stuff I guess...but references to use of the word " Zio " etc ( by a proudly jewish bloke )  don't exactly fill me with confidence that this is all for the best. Dunno.



Father issues, innit?  Clearly Greenstein senior was guilty of some parental pushiness which still stings Tones, 50 years on...plus he is a howling loon.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 19, 2018)

campanula said:


> Father issues, innit?  Clearly Greenstein senior was guilty of some parental pushiness which still stings Tones, 50 years on...plus he is a howling loon.


He's undeniably one of the green ink type of nut job. 

That said, if ever you need a reminder of just how appallingly the state of Israel behaves you've only to glance at some of his [very many] blogposts. I can well understand why he lost his rag with members of what was his own party who supported that state.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

Given Corbyn has admitted meeting some Czech are there any reports outlining what they chatted about?


----------



## donkyboy (Feb 19, 2018)

i'm still voting corb at general election


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> Given Corbyn has admitted meeting some Czech are there any reports outlining what they chatted about?


the spy gave him a note with a script more cryptic than the voynich manuscript. But El Corb deciphered it and met the old chess player at the park. 
'my father was cheka you know?'
'he grew fine vegetables nonetheless?'

*laughs* 'He did. Mate in two. But first you must have my father's amulet'

'You wily bastard, will I never beat you? what of this amulet nonsense'

'Should you take it you'll be gifted with a curse. You and your Labour Left will be defeated again and again. Ridicule shall be your meat and irrelevance your drink. Only when you are in the twilight of years will the powers of the amulet come to you and raise once more the spectre'

'I...I must take it'

*more wry laughter

'Old friend, I won't live to see you enjoy this amulet. But for me, at least once, don't bow deeply enough at the cenotaph during the war memorial services'

'yes. Yes. I shall remember'


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 19, 2018)

donkyboy said:


> i'm still voting corb at general election


Do you live in Islington then?


----------



## Cloo (Feb 19, 2018)

I can only presume the 'Corbyn the Spy' bollocks is to try to make enough of a case that he's a traitor and must step down (because the Right is that scared apparently), rather than any image damage. It's not going to change the mind of anyone who does support him and I think the Cold War is pretty meaningless to anyone under 40. Amusing the Express reminding its readers (average age: 83) about Communism.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> Do you live in Islington then?


It intrigues me that some people seem unaware that we don't have direct elections to the office of prime minister in this country.  We elect the constituency MP in our own constituency.

(It's ironic that someone like me, a serial-non voter and anarchist communist, has to point this out to enthusiasts for parliamentary democracy).


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

What's to stop Corbyn suing these fuckers?


----------



## elbows (Feb 19, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It intrigues me that some people seem unaware that we don't have direct elections to the office of prime minister in this country.  We elect the constituency MP in our own constituency.
> 
> (It's ironic that someone like me, a serial-non voter and anarchist communist, has to point this out to enthusiasts for parliamentary democracy).



But not being aware of this is only one of the reasons someone might say they are voting for Corbyn.

Regardless of the actual detail of the vote, people know much of what it means in practice, and many general election votes are cast on the basis of who people want to see as PM (and who they dont want to see as PM).

Therefore when I see a phrase like this that is incompatible with the technical reality of the vote, I may still see good sense in it and not assume ignorance.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> What's to stop Corbyn suing these fuckers?



I assume because they have evidence to support he spoke to this chap.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> I assume because they have evidence to support he spoke to this chap.



but not that he sold state secrets to him.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> but not that he sold state secrets to him.



I think they've skated around saying that haven't they? The fact is he met a spy enough times for there to be a record of it, Corbyn is better leaving it alone to become hamster cage lining that taking it to court where it'll be it the press for weeks.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> I think they've skated around saying that haven't they?



No


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> I think they've skated around saying that haven't they? The fact is he met a spy enough times for there to be a record of it, Corbyn is better leaving it alone to become hamster cage lining that taking it to court where it'll be it the press for weeks.


What - idiot - did he have to sell?


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> No




You sure this isn't an Al Murry parody account?


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What - idiot - did he have to sell?



I didn't say he sold anything, I said he'd met him.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> I didn't say he sold anything, I said he'd met him.


To do what? What is it that you think has been 'skated around'?


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> To do what? What is it that you think has been 'skated around'?



Clam your tits.

J Ed said this:



J Ed said:


> but not that he sold state secrets to him.



I didn't think the press had said that so I wrote this:



bemused said:


> I think they've skated around saying that haven't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> Clam your tits.
> 
> J Ed said this:
> 
> ...


So what what have they skated around?


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> So what what have they skated around?



Claiming he sold state secrets.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> Claiming he sold state secrets.



They haven't though, I showed you a tweet from a Tory MP saying explicitly that which has to be libellous.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> They haven't though, I showed you a tweet from a Tory MP saying explicitly that which has to be libellous.



Corbyn should sue him then.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> Claiming he sold state secrets.


I wonder why.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder why.



Because they don't have any evidence he did. If they did they'd print it.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2018)

Jeremy Corbyn threatens to sue Tory MP over 'Communist spies' tweet


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

They should sue the vermin anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

bemused said:


> Because they don't have any evidence he did. If they did they'd print it.


Are you just waking up or something?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> They should sue the vermin anyway.



Yeah I think I would.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Are you just waking up or something?



No, I've been up most of the day - you appear to have taken umbrage at something I didn't say.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 19, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 127860
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn threatens to sue Tory MP over 'Communist spies' tweet



The spy bloke really sounds like a reliable source to go to:

The ex-agent, now lives in Slovakian capital Bratislava, has also claimed to have personally organised the Live Aid concern in 1985, which he said was “funded by Czechoslovakia”.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2018)

Yeah if you read this Vice article he seems a bit confused:



> ...To top it all off, the spy appeared to claim credit for Live Aid. The newspaper asked Sarkocy if there was any one part of his work with Corbyn that stood out. He replied: "In the end we put on a concert in Wembley. That was financed by Czechoslovakia." The reporter asks "Do you mean Live Aid?" and gets the answer, "I did that."
> 
> Sarkocy also says the Wembley concert was about "Nelson Mandela" and was put on with the help of "the unions and peace movements". It seems likely that Sarkocy is confusing the 1985 Live Aid concert with the 1988 "Free Nelson Mandela" concert in Wembley. Mandela was still in an apartheid jail, and the massive solidarity concert for his birthday included performers ranging from Jerry Dammers performing "Free Nelson Mandela" to a set by George Michael. The idea that Czechoslovakian secret services were involved in this concert is no less ridiculous than the idea they were involved in Live Aid....


----------



## J Ed (Feb 19, 2018)

I really do think what I wrote on here a few days ago, this all marks a tipping point. This is worse than any smear that has come before, and the way in which so many of the _very serious people _have come out in support of what is such an obvious lie, and so many more of those who are ever so concerned about civility have remained silent on it, is also very significant.


----------



## agricola (Feb 19, 2018)

There has been a second person identified as being potentially influenced by cheques in Westminster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2018)

oryx said:


> On a much more boring note I suspect it may be predictions of Labour doing very well in the local elections.
> 
> There was even talk of them taking Westminster Council.



And Wandsworth.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2018)

Will Jeremy Corbyn’s time be up before the Tories’ downward spiral concludes?

And what will happen if they both coincide?

Come on, boffins!!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> What's to stop Corbyn suing these fuckers?


Streisand effect.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> I really do think what I wrote on here a few days ago, this all marks a tipping point. This is worse than any smear that has come before, and the way in which so many of the _very serious people _have come out in support of what is such an obvious lie, and so many more of those who are ever so concerned about civility have remained silent on it, is also very significant.


No one  has noticed though. I think you're looking in the wrong place.  Or at least parodying Paul Mason.

It's utterly nothing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2018)

elbows said:


> But not being aware of this is only one of the reasons someone might say they are voting for Corbyn.
> 
> Regardless of the actual detail of the vote, people know much of what it means in practice, and many general election votes are cast on the basis of who people want to see as PM (and who they dont want to see as PM).
> 
> Therefore when I see a phrase like this that is incompatible with the technical reality of the vote, I may still see good sense in it and not assume ignorance.


Half of all Prime Ministers in the last century came into office without being the leader of their party at the time of the general election.  The Prime Minister has changed 24 times since Herbert Asquith left office in 1916 (there were, however, only 19 different people). It changed 12 times without a general election.

Despite what people might mean by "I'm voting for Corbyn", they a) mostly aren't, and b) Prime Ministers are as often not decided by General Elections as are.


----------



## bemused (Feb 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> I really do think what I wrote on here a few days ago, this all marks a tipping point. This is worse than any smear that has come before, and the way in which so many of the _very serious people _have come out in support of what is such an obvious lie, and so many more of those who are ever so concerned about civility have remained silent on it, is also very significant.



They were saying he was best mates with the IRA just before the election - didn't seem to do him any harm.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 19, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> Do you live in Islington then?


It's not really even Islington - more Holloway, Archway, Crouch Hill, half of Finsbury Park, and most of Highbury (IIRC)


----------



## elbows (Feb 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Half of all Prime Ministers in the last century came into office without being the leader of their party at the time of the general election.  The Prime Minister has changed 24 times since Herbert Asquith left office in 1916 (there were, however, only 19 different people). It changed 12 times without a general election.
> 
> Despite what people might mean by "I'm voting for Corbyn", they a) mostly aren't, and b) Prime Ministers are as often not decided by General Elections as are.



I know, but none of those points really counter my vote perception point, people understand but are still often hugely influenced by who the big party leaders are. Even with recent examples to prove your point like May when Cameron went, or Brown and the amusing retirement timetable Blair was weak enough at that point to be forced into. 

Anyway, no matter, there are other ways you could further prove you are technically correct but in some senses we are talking at cross purposes so I wont persist.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 20, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Half of all Prime Ministers in the last century came into office without being the leader of their party at the time of the general election.  The Prime Minister has changed 24 times since Herbert Asquith left office in 1916 (there were, however, only 19 different people). It changed 12 times without a general election.
> 
> Despite what people might mean by "I'm voting for Corbyn", they a) mostly aren't, and b) Prime Ministers are as often not decided by General Elections as are.



Yes, but you're being pedantic really.

When people say they're voting Labour they generally mean they're voting for the broad ideals of the Labour Party, or for some specific policy. They aren't often voting solely because they agree with their local candidate's politics alone.

There may be some first time voters who don't realise they have to put a cross next to the name of their local candidate rather than next to the LP in general or Corbyn in particular. But anyone who's voted before knows the drill. Nevertheless, they'll generally say "I'm voting Labour" to mean the party and something that it stands for that is relevant to them.

Saying "I'm voting for Corbyn" is simply shorthand for saying they'll be supporting the Labour Party and its current trajectory. It means "I'm voting Labour under Corbyn."

It needs no pedantic discussions about how "_actually_ you're voting for your local candidate, and anyway a new leader might come in at some point after you've voted."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Pretty bloody relevant if your vote for 'corbs' is for an anti corbyn knobber..


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2018)

I know I'm pedantic. That's not news to me.  But there's a difference between "I'm voting Labour" and "I'm voting for Corbyn". The former is correct if you're voting for a Labour candidate. But while you may be intending support for Corbyn with your vote, that's more a hope than anything else. 

Take for example people who would say "I don't support Blair but my MP is Tony Benn, so he gets my personal vote". It's true that a vote for Benn counted as a vote for a Labour Premiership, meaning in historical fact, Blair. But had there been enough Bennites in the PLP, Blair could have been replaced, not by the electorate, but by the PLP. There is no mechanism tying the popular vote to the position of leadership of the party with the greatest number of seats. 

The attempted coup against Corbyn was stopped by the Labour Party membership. Had it been successful, there was nothing in parliamentary electoral custom or practice the coup would be contravening.

There is an odd Politics in this country. The media has borrowed the American presidential style of personality presentation, but we don't have the constitutional arrangements to go with it.   

Why I'm going on about this is that we have a Burkean "representative" democracy, not a mandated democracy. Once your MP is elected, they can do what they like, including change party.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 20, 2018)

There is a lot that is bad about the American political system, but the primary election system is one of the good things.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Why?


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 20, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Why?


Was that aimed at me?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Was that aimed at me?


Yes


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 20, 2018)

Because it allows every American a say in who their candidate is. If you live in Rhondda or Witney your vote in a UK general election is meaningless. But, under a British version of America's primary system, everyone would have a say, both in their party's candidate for MP and for PM.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Because it allows every American a say in who their candidate is. If you live in Rhondda or Witney your vote in a UK general election is meaningless. But, under a British version of America's primary system, everyone would have a say, both in their party's candidate for MP and for PM.



Why Rhonda and Witney? Witney's a particularly odd one to choose.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 20, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Why Rhonda and Witney? Witney's a particularly odd one to choose.


Sorry it's early. I was thinking of examples of very safe Labour and very safe Tory seats respectively. 

First two I could think ofsorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Because it allows every American a say in who their candidate is. If you live in Rhondda or Witney your vote in a UK general election is meaningless. But, under a British version of America's primary system, everyone would have a say, both in their party's candidate for MP and for PM.


So, basically because it's an analogue of the centre pushing apolitical AV system so recently and decisively rejected by the electorate but with the added bonus of people being against what the party claims to stand for being able to stand for them. Sounds a winner. No winner Tony Blair tried to introduce them into Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Because it allows every American a say in who their candidate is. If you live in Rhondda or Witney your vote in a UK general election is meaningless. But, under a British version of America's primary system, everyone would have a say, both in their party's candidate for MP and for PM.


So non Labour voters in Rhondda get a say in who stands for Labour? Why should they? And why is it a good thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

'their candidate'? Isn't there like other parties and stuff?


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 20, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> So non Labour voters in Rhondda get a say in who stands for Labour? Why should they? And why is it a good thing?


Not much time now, but basically there are two versions of the primary system, open and closed. One allows all voters to participate and the other just the voters of that particular party.

Both are used in different places in America and there are good and bad points about each.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Not much time now, but basically there are two versions of the primary system, open and closed. One allows all voters to participate and the other just the voters of that particular party.
> 
> Both are used in different places in America and there are good and bad points about each.


And?


----------



## elbows (Feb 20, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty bloody relevant if your vote for 'corbs' is for an anti corbyn knobber..



Its true that there are relevant issues that my point doesnt cover, that danny la rouges do. 

But all the same, if my local candidate falls over in the sea, does it make a sound?


----------



## chilango (Feb 20, 2018)

elbows said:


> But all the same, if my local candidate falls over in the sea, does it make a sound?


----------



## agricola (Feb 20, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty bloody relevant if your vote for 'corbs' is for an anti corbyn knobber..



In many ways yes, but at least those people who voted for Corbs in Streatham (for instance) got to see their vote put Umunna on the BBC at half four in the morning and laughed at for ever doubting his leader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2018)

chilango said:


>


he gets up and throws a strop cos his arse is wet


----------



## bemused (Feb 20, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Because it allows every American a say in who their candidate is. If you live in Rhondda or Witney your vote in a UK general election is meaningless. But, under a British version of America's primary system, everyone would have a say, both in their party's candidate for MP and for PM.



If you join the party you get a vote.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 21, 2018)

Labour to sweep London in local elections with best result for any party since 1968, new poll suggests — The Independent

Unelectable, I tell ya.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 21, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Labour to sweep London in local elections with best result for any party since 1968, new poll suggests — The Independent
> 
> Unelectable, I tell ya.



Yeah but there's still plenty of Tory voters. With Andy Burnham/Yvette Cooper/Owen Smith/Argh in charge they'd all vote Labour. Clearly.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2018)

Hence the smears, as has been already pointed out.


----------



## Voley (Feb 21, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Labour to sweep London in local elections with best result for any party since 1968, new poll suggests — The Independent
> 
> Unelectable, I tell ya.





> As a result, its forecast shows Labour is set to seize several Tory-held councils, including the flagship boroughs of Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster.



Westminster? Woah.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 21, 2018)

Voley said:


> Westminster? Woah.


I'd be amazed if they took Westminster. But we shall see.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 21, 2018)




----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2018)

That flaming tosspot Ben Bradley is so fucked. 

You need to read the letter from Corb's lawyers to Ben BRADLEY Tory MP


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 21, 2018)

editor said:


> That flaming tosspot Ben Bradley is so fucked.
> 
> You need to read the letter from Corb's lawyers to Ben BRADLEY Tory MP


Couldn't have happened to a nastier bloke.

Tory MP Ben Bradley said benefit claimants should be sterilised | Metro News


----------



## MrSki (Feb 21, 2018)

editor said:


> That flaming tosspot Ben Bradley is so fucked.
> 
> You need to read the letter from Corb's lawyers to Ben BRADLEY Tory MP


The cunt is fucked.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 21, 2018)

Of course it remains to be seen if *any* of this will ultimately translate into a Labour government. 

Even a watered down Corbynite government could do a lot of good in a relatively short period of time, but the next election is still years away and peolpe have short memories for things like this...


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2018)

MrSki said:


>



Andrew Neil to the other guy in the room (not the tory scum) who foolishly opens his mouth: 'I've got the government on the ropes and you've interrupted me...'
Quality.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Andrew Neil to the other guy in the room (not the tory scum) who foolishly opens his mouth: 'I've got the government on the ropes and you've interrupted me...'
> Quality.


Who is that twat who aimlessly pipes up? Talk about not knowing when to keep schtum!


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2018)

Dunno but he soon shut up.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2018)

Finally found him by reading the replies, Neil destroys him too apparently over Labour's Brexit stance: Andrew Gwynne, Labour front-bencher. Full youtube clip here


----------



## Crispy (Feb 21, 2018)

Voley said:


> Westminster? Woah.


They're definitely scared. All big planning application decisions have been delayed till after May as far as I can tell. Nobody dares do anything to cost votes.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 21, 2018)

on tweeter today


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 21, 2018)

Crispy said:


> All big planning application decisions have been delayed till after May as far as I can tell.



You're gonna have to clarify that remark.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 21, 2018)

Nine Bob Note said:


> You're gonna have to clarify that remark.


I work on large construction projects, many in Westminster. Recent planning applications we've made have had their decision date pushed back to after May, and it's become very hard to even get pre-app advice. Gossip says we're not the only ones.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 21, 2018)

That wasn't what I was getting at, but thanks for your industrial expertise


----------



## bemused (Feb 21, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Andrew Neil to the other guy in the room (not the tory scum) who foolishly opens his mouth: 'I've got the government on the ropes and you've interrupted me...'
> Quality.



No one likes a goal hanger.


----------



## bemused (Feb 21, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Finally found him by reading the replies, Neil destroys him too apparently over Labour's Brexit stance: Andrew Gwynne, Labour front-bencher. Full youtube clip here



Neil's twitter stream is good fun as well, he's the only interviewer I enjoy watching.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 21, 2018)

Nine Bob Note said:


> That wasn't what I was getting at, but thanks for your industrial expertise


Oh yeah I get it now >_<


----------



## Gromit (Feb 24, 2018)

editor said:


> That flaming tosspot Ben Bradley is so fucked.
> 
> You need to read the letter from Corb's lawyers to Ben BRADLEY Tory MP


Tory MP sorry for Corbyn Czech tweet

He's done the smart thing and followed Corbyn's reasonable demands. 

Katie Hopkins could have learnt from this or maybe it's Brad that has been shown the Katie Hopkins case by his lawyers before being told you can eat humble pie or you can do a Katie, your choice.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 24, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Tory MP sorry for Corbyn Czech tweet
> 
> He's done the smart thing and followed Corbyn's reasonable demands.



He's done what he's been fucking told I reckon. Smart doesn't enter into it with this dickhead, who is already on record saying stuff that would have got him fired from any normal job.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's done what he's been fucking told I reckon. Smart doesn't enter into it with this dickhead, who is already on record saying stuff that would have got him fired from any normal job.



full humiliating grovel here - Ben Bradley apologises unreservedly for Corbyn spy claims. hes has to tweet it out and ask his followers to share it. Plus hes had to donate a "significant sum" to a food bank in his own constituency.  Quality trolling from Jezza's legal team.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 25, 2018)

Voley said:


> Westminster? Woah.


Well we could be wrong. This opinion poll seems to suggest Westminster is at least a possibility. "Exactly how good it would be in terms of seats and councils gained depends on how the vote is distributed. The figures suggest a very different picture in inner and outer London. In inner London the poll suggests a swing of 13 points from Conservative to Labour – that would be enough for Labour to win the “flagship” Tory borough of Wandsworth (controlled by the Conservatives since 1978) and Westminster (controlled by the Conservatives since it was created in 1964). "
UK Polling Report


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> "significant sum" to a food bank in his own constituency



I hope he got stung nicely. I like the 'make an offer and we'll decide'. Thats blatantly so when you get the offer you say 'no, triple it'


----------



## Voley (Feb 25, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> full humiliating grovel here - Ben Bradley apologises unreservedly for Corbyn spy claims. hes has to tweet it out and ask his followers to share it. Plus hes had to donate a "significant sum" to a food bank in his own constituency.  Quality trolling from Jezza's legal team.



Bradley tweeted it late last night then immediately retweeted loads of other stuff to push it down the timeline. This hasn't been lost on everyone following it, needless to say. First time I've ever retweeted a Tory MP myself.

How much is 'significant' in legalese? I'd like to know how much this has hit him in the pocket.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2018)

Voley said:


> Bradley tweeted it late last night then immediately retweeted loads of other stuff to push it down the timeline. This hasn't been lost on everyone following it, needless to say. First time I've ever retweeted a Tory MP myself.
> 
> How much is 'significant' in legalese? I'd like to know how much this has hit him in the pocket.


dependant on what the other person has I think? IE enough to sting that individual. 30 quid for me. For a senior tory, ooooo lots


----------



## Voley (Feb 25, 2018)

Here's his grovel:


----------



## Fingers (Feb 25, 2018)




----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2018)

The Mail is saying an "estimated" figure of £35K


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 25, 2018)

A new model for redistributing wealth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2018)

obo pulling the 'well it WAS bollocks but heres a potted bit of labour left 70s-80s talk *taps nose* see
Corbyn, the spy and the cold war’s long shadow



> Sarkocy’s claims about Corbyn may not pass muster, being more farce than tragedy. But for many on the British left, history is repeating itself. It is hard to escape the shadow of the cold war past.


----------



## Voley (Feb 25, 2018)

A real charmer this feller.



> In a 2012 blogpost, Bradley said the country would soon be “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had too many children.



Splitting the damages between a food bank and a homeless charity is a good touch.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 25, 2018)

In a strange way this grovelling apology leaves me with even less respect for Bradley. 

If he'd stood up and said " tough shit you old commie you're not getting a penny"....well he would still have been a cunt in my eyes, but at least he wouldn't have been a *spineless* cunt


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2018)

He's only been an MP for about 8 months so chances are he won't have that sort of cash to hand. I do like the idea this might cause him serious short term financial problems - is wonga still going?

(I realise that a Tory MP will never struggle to get their hands on £35k at short notice on favourable terms)


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 25, 2018)

binka said:


> He's only been an MP for about 8 months so chances are he won't have that sort of cash to hand. I do like the idea this might cause him serious short term financial problems - is wonga still going?


It isn't clear from wiki if he comes from a wealthy background or not. It says his father was a policeman which could mean anything from a beat copper to a chief constable.


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2018)

Frosty atmosphere around the Bradley breakfast table this morning as the summer holiday is downgraded from 2 weeks in Sardinia to a wet weekend in Skegness


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 25, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> obo pulling the 'well it WAS bollocks but heres a potted bit of labour left 70s-80s talk *taps nose* see
> Corbyn, the spy and the cold war’s long shadow



Lucky the tories weren't associating with anyone dodgy back in the 80's eh?


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 25, 2018)

One thing that will long be speculated over is if Corbyn actually *would* have sued. Obviously if he is asked now, he will say "yes I would have", and he might well mean it. But even if he had sued and won it would have kept the focus on his past rather than the present for the duration of the court case.... and a less spineless right winger could have turned the whole thing into quite a spectacle, a reverse mclibel if you will, even if he ultimately lost.

This is clearly the best possible outcome for Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2018)

heh Progress comment on an appointment of Andrew Murray


> Richard Angell, director of the centrist Labour group Progress, said:
> “It is funny how the new establishment so quickly behave in a way that they so hated about the old establishment: a small cabal making all the decisions and dishing out well-paid jobs to their mates. You could not make it up.”



crying still, come back tone.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2018)

The smears campaign backfires completely. Lovely.



> Labour has moved ahead in the polls amid ongoing allegations about Jeremy Corbyn’s meetings with a former Czech spy in the 1980s.
> 
> A new YouGov survey put Labour up one point to 42 per cent, ahead of the Conservatives on 40 per cent, in the first poll since claims first emerged about the Labour leader’s contact with Jan Sarkocy, a Czechoslovakian agent posing as a diplomat.
> 
> ...



Labour moves ahead in polls after spy claims fail to damage support for Corbyn


----------



## hash tag (Feb 27, 2018)

Jeremy Corbyn made the most of the weather with a snowball fight on his balcony   child.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Jeremy Corbyn made the most of the weather with a snowball fight on his balcony   child.


Wrong thread


----------



## hash tag (Feb 27, 2018)

It's my thread, I can make the rules. I can post what I like. So there.

My thread is bigger than your thread.


----------



## JimW (Feb 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Jeremy Corbyn made the most of the weather with a snowball fight on his balcony   child.


He's doing one of those hand signs they used to teach you in the Czech secret services, for silent communication with comrades while under the eyes of the imperialists.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 27, 2018)

JimW said:


> He's doing one of those hand signs they used to teach you in the Czech secret services, for silent communication with comrades while under the eyes of the imperialists.



That’s playing by ‘Moscow Rules’ I believe.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 2, 2018)

Listed utilities should look to 'shift their businesses offshore' - Utility Week

Maquarie (This lot are _*proper*_ wankers) advising that UK Utilities should begin offshoring their business to keep it out of the grasping hands  of collectivisation Corbyn.

Wreckers.


----------



## agricola (Mar 2, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Listed utilities should look to 'shift their businesses offshore' - Utility Week
> 
> Maquarie (This lot are _*proper*_ wankers) advising that UK Utilities should begin offshoring their business to keep it out of the grasping hands  of collectivisation Corbyn.
> 
> Wreckers.



Helpful of them to do that now that they themselves are out of the UK Utilities scene.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 2, 2018)

the money is supplying advice for the transition


----------



## kabbes (Mar 2, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Listed utilities should look to 'shift their businesses offshore' - Utility Week
> 
> Maquarie (This lot are _*proper*_ wankers) advising that UK Utilities should begin offshoring their business to keep it out of the grasping hands  of collectivisation Corbyn.
> 
> Wreckers.


That’s going to cause the companies big problems if a law is passed to only allow onshore uk firms to provide utilities.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 13, 2018)

Another angle they're trying?

Corbyn comrade David Hopper bought secret portfolio of properties in Cuba


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Another angle they're trying?
> 
> Corbyn comrade David Hopper bought secret portfolio of properties in Cuba



Certainly but the article is three days old now and seems to have passed by unnoticed, particularly in the wake of the nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 14, 2018)

This thread fascinates me because it's got such an apparently shit title yet it's at 688 pages, also contradicting the title.

Anyway he seems to be doing ok at the moment.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 14, 2018)

8115 said:


> This thread fascinates me because it's got such an apparently shit title yet it's at 688 pages, also contradicting the title.
> 
> Anyway he seems to be doing ok at the moment.



They're trying their best to use his treacherous call for 'evidence' in the Russia chemical thing to convince us all that he's a terrible leader and should in fact be out front beating the drum for war while wearing a nuke on his head.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2018)

wow


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 14, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Jeremy Corbyn made the most of the weather with a snowball fight on his balcony   child.



Could the Scum not even be bothered to edit these photos to make it look like he was throwing snowballs at elderly war veterans?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2018)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Could the Scum not even be bothered to edit these photos to make it look like he was throwing snowballs at elderly war veterans?



Only if the elderly veterans weren't Chelsea Pensioners, cos most sane people would welcome the Red-Coated Perils getting a snowball in the chops, fucking street-begging old cunts!


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 15, 2018)

Question: what do we know about Corbyn's view on Putin, and what do we know about what he had to say about the Soviet Union by the time in was in its death throes?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 15, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Question: what do we know about Corbyn's view on Putin, and what do we know about what he had to say about the Soviet Union by the time in was in its death throes?


Is this on a bonus version of Independent Women? 


hash tag said:


> Jeremy Corbyn made the most of the weather with a snowball fight on his balcony   child.


Corbyn's "balcony child" is a fake scandal too far.


----------



## agricola (Mar 15, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Question: what do we know about Corbyn's view on Putin, and what do we know about what he had to say about the Soviet Union by the time in was in its death throes?



That isn't how we question Corbyn here.  

You would be better off asking how is it that a state which had survived civil war, famine, Hitler's invasion, the threat of global thermonuclear conflict and thirty years of Cold War with a superpower only entered its death throes after Corbyn became an MP.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Question: what do we know about Corbyn's view on Putin, and what do we know about what he had to say about the Soviet Union by the time in was in its death throes?




Interesting new post/poster 

What _exactly_ do you think on the matter yourself?


----------



## NoXion (Mar 15, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> Interesting new post/poster
> 
> What _exactly_ do you think on the matter yourself?



They joined in 2002, and have been posting on-and-off since then.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2018)

NoXion said:


> They joined in 2002, and have been posting on-and-off since then.




I've been on Urban75 since 2000-ish myself. And on this entire Corbyn thread since it started ... 

What's your point?


----------



## NoXion (Mar 15, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> I've been on Urban75 since 2000-ish myself. And on this entire Corbyn thread since it started ...
> 
> What's your point?



My point is that maybe you should check before jumping down someone's throat on suspicion of being a banned returner or whatever.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2018)

NoXion said:


> My point is that maybe you should check before jumping down someone's throat on suspicion of being a banned returner or whatever.




Maybe I should have been better off asking George & Bill what their point was. As long standing Urban contributors


----------



## steveo87 (Mar 16, 2018)

agricola said:


> That isn't how we question Corbyn here.
> 
> You would be better off asking how is it that a state which had survived civil war, famine, Hitler's invasion, the threat of global thermonuclear conflict and thirty years of Cold War with a superpower only entered its death throes after Corbyn became an MP.



Some where, in one of the broadsheets, an editor is writing a 3000 word opinion piece on Corbyn and the Russians, when all they really need is to cut and paste your post. 

Plus you'd get to sue them, so everyone wins!


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 16, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> Interesting new post/poster
> 
> What _exactly_ do you think on the matter yourself?





NoXion said:


> My point is that maybe you should check before jumping down someone's throat on suspicion of being a banned returner or whatever.



Yes – William, don't be so paranoid and defensive, and check your facts 

I'm not making a point, but obviously there is some background to my question. 

I have lots of friends in Ukraine, having lived there for two years, and yesterday I had to explain to one of them that this article by former US spook turned conspiracy theorist and dick pic enthusiast John Schindler was, in fact, a tissue of lies. 

The response was along the lines that, well, OK, maybe _this exact thing _isn't true, but Corbyn was an apologist for the Soviet Union then and is an apologist for Putin now, so _it may as well be true_. 

Of course, these claims came without any evidence attached – but they're frequently made and lots of people believe them. And, yes, there are _some_ one the left who have a blind spot for Soviet and Russian human rights abuses and imperial adventures, maybe sometimes because of a misplaced belief that those are 'friendly' regimes, but more often than not, I think, out of an understandable (if sometimes misapplied) desire to avoid being part of Atlanticist tub-thumping. 

As a Labour member and broad supporter of Corbyn, it would help me to have evidence to hand showing that while, yes, his primary target down the years in international affairs has been Western imperialism, he has also not been shy of criticising other states which colonise and oppress, of which contemporary Russia and the erstwhile USSR are clearly two.	

Googling for 'Corbyn on Russia' or 'Corbyn on the Soviet Union' only yields thousands of news stories and smear pieces from this year.


----------



## Ptolemy (Mar 16, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Question: what do we know about Corbyn's view on Putin, and what do we know about what he had to say about the Soviet Union by the time in was in its death throes?



Corbyn was one of only four MPs to support an Early Day Motion in December 1989 which praised the changes sweeping Eastern Europe.

Early day motion 210 - Workers' Democracy in Eastern Europe



> That this House welcomes the magnificent movements in Eastern Europe for full democratic control over what happens in society and recognises that this outburst of discontent and opposition in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, in particular, reflects deep anger against the corruption and mismanagement of the Stalinist bureaucracy; sees the movement leading in the direction of genuine socialism, not a return to capitalism; congratulates the workers of the Soviet Union [...] who are leading the struggle for better pay and conditions and for an end to one-party dictatorship [...] and considers that the only way forward for the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is on the basis of a return to the principles of genuine workers' democracy and socialism which formed the basis and inspiration for the October revolution.



So while the revolutions did not end up leading to democratic socialist societies as Corbyn hoped, it's clear he was opposed to the dictatorships in the USSR and Eastern Europe.

As for Putin, I don't know, but I doubt Corbyn is fond of him based on the above evidence.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 16, 2018)

At post #20639 (previous page) :




			
				George & Bill said:
			
		

> Yes – William, don't be so paranoid and defensive, and check your facts
> 
> I'm not making a point, but obviously there is some background to my question.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I think I owe you an apology on reflection (and NoXion  as well). It's just that I'd never seen the posting name George & Bill before and your first post rankled somewhat last night given its content. Sorry though.

I don't agree with you that Corbyn's a Soviet apologist/Russia apologist, but I'll have to get back to that when I have time. We're out of town for the day today.


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 16, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> At post #20639
> 
> Thanks. I think I owe you an apology on reflection (and NoXion  as well). It's just that I'd never seen the posting name George & Bill before and your first post rankled somewhat last night. Sorry.
> 
> May get back to the subject matter later, but we're out of town for the day today.



Absolutely no problem. It would have been better for me to have given some context in my initial question – but it was already late by the time I got to asking it, and I found myself struggling to formulate that context, which was why I ended up asking it in a rather bald form.


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 16, 2018)

Ptolemy said:


> Corbyn was one of only four MPs to support an Early Day Motion in December 1989 which praised the changes sweeping Eastern Europe.
> 
> Early day motion 210 - Workers' Democracy in Eastern Europe
> 
> ...



Thanks, this is great and the sort of thing I was hoping existed. My supposition would be the same about Putin, but would still be helpful to have something firmer.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 16, 2018)




----------



## George & Bill (Mar 16, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> I don't agree with you that Corbyn's a Soviet apologist/Russia apologist, but I'll have to get back to that when I have time. We're out of town for the day today.



Where did I say that? I said that this is something people frequently tell me and which I want to be able to refute, which is why I need information with which to refute it.


----------



## steveo87 (Mar 16, 2018)

mwgdrwg said:


> View attachment 130134


I bet that took the Graphics Guy long...


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 16, 2018)

steveo87 said:


> I bet that took the Graphics Guy long...



Nah, he propably has a folder called Propoganda Templates on his desktop.


----------



## steveo87 (Mar 16, 2018)

I'm fairly sure that's a Chairman Meow meme...


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 16, 2018)

It was either that or this one...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2018)

Someone made the point, can you imagine them showing a similar graphic of May against propaganda tropes of the Saudi regime when doing a segment on the bombing and famine in Yemen?

I get that all is fair in love and war, but it really is so tiresome to see the one-sided nature of it all being unquestioned by those who believe themselves to occupy the mythical neutral middle ground.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 16, 2018)

mwgdrwg said:


> View attachment 130134



ffs - that is outrageous.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 16, 2018)

We actually pay for propoganda. Beyond the ridiculous really.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2018)




----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2018)

why do they always leave Khrushchev out eh


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> why do they always leave Khrushchev out eh


He was blackballed by the cobblers union.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2018)

This EDM that's floating around feels to me like a sneaky, proxy no confidence thing a la what they did a while back. Slowly more of the usual suspects adding their names to it, no doubt after lots of hasty meetings being carried out as colleagues attempt to drum up support.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 17, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> why do they always leave Khrushchev out eh


He's the Kevin McKidd of Marxist Trainspotting.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 17, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> why do they always leave Khrushchev out eh



It's taken from Chinese Communist art.  Engels is missing and should come before Lenin, who is also missing.  Mao should be after Stalin, not before him.  Khrushchev was a revisionist traitor to socialism, reconstructing capitalism in the USSR and aiming to share the world with western imperialism, so...  They've included Putin the neoliberal authoritarian, lol.  Propagandists in this country are so shit.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 17, 2018)

Hang on, that's meant to be Corbyn at the end? I get that they want the picture to be unflattering but it should at least be recognisable.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Where did I say that? I said that this is something people frequently tell me and which I want to be able to refute, which is why I need information with which to refute it.



Point taken, OK. Another apology!


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 17, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Hang on, that's meant to be Corbyn at the end? I get that they want the picture to be unflattering but it should at least be recognisable.



The original.


----------



## Pwerus (Mar 17, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Someone made the point, can you imagine them showing a similar graphic of May against propaganda tropes of the Saudi regime when doing a segment on the bombing and famine in Yemen?
> 
> I get that all is fair in love and war, but it really is so tiresome to see the one-sided nature of it all being unquestioned by those who believe themselves to occupy the mythical neutral middle ground.


I consider the BBC biased on both grounds. "Hey, we literally called all Brexit voters (52% of the population) stupid and uneducated, but it's okay because we Photoshopped Jeremy Corbyn onto a Communist poster! We're so unbiased and impartial!"


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2018)

Pwerus said:


> I consider the BBC biased on both grounds. "Hey, we literally called all Brexit voters (52% of the population) stupid and uneducated, but it's okay because we Photoshopped Jeremy Corbyn onto a Communist poster! We're so unbiased and impartial!"



It's that mythical neutral ground thing. Theirs is the indisputably correct position, it's so self-evident it's the sensible way, it's absolutely neutral, the middle ground, the place where everyone should come together. They critique everyone but themselves.


----------



## Pwerus (Mar 17, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's that mythical neutral ground thing. Theirs is the indisputably correct position, it's so self-evident it's the sensible way, it's absolutely neutral, the middle ground, the place where everyone should come together. They critique everyone but themselves.


If you've ever heard of Fullfact.org, it's the news source that the BBC should always have been (in my opinion). It's too small to cover all the news stories, or to cover them immediately, but they go really far into their research to get solid evidence.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 17, 2018)

Pwerus said:


> If you've ever heard of Fullfact.org, it's the news source that the BBC should always have been (in my opinion). It's too small to cover all the news stories, or to cover them immediately, but they go really far into their research to get solid evidence.



I follow them on twitter but can't say I've spent much time looking at what they put out. I see a tweet or two pop up when question time's on. I'll keep an eye out. 

I've paid attention to the Channel 4 fact check thing in the past, but it's not immune from cherry picking, or rather not being as thorough so as to avoid ignoring certain aspects of a thing.


----------



## Pwerus (Mar 18, 2018)

Oh dear, #HatGate is actually trending on Twitter now...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 18, 2018)

To what extent will May profit politically and Corbyn be damaged politically by all this, do people think? 

Open question because I can't begin to hazard a guess (yet). 

I do tend to get (over?) paranoid sometimes about propaganda-based Tory revivals though


----------



## Wilf (Mar 18, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> To what extent will May profit politically and Corbyn be damaged politically by all this, do people think?
> 
> Open question because I can't begin to hazard a guess (yet).
> 
> I do tend to get (over?) paranoid sometimes about propaganda-based Tory revivals though


I think you are right, certainly about May getting short term benefit - Corbyn losing out over his more ambiguous position, possibly.  Of  course, longer term there can only be one winner if the UK gets into a diplomatic/economic/sabre rattling battle with Putin. I'm not suggesting it's going to get to tank manoeuvres on the Isle of Wight, but the UK/EU/Trump unity on this won't survive anything that really shakes the tree of the international order.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2018)

There's only been two polls since, yougov have a 4 point fall for labour, opinium has no movement - in the short term I think it's likely Labour will take a modest hit, but in the long term who knows, but I think it likely depends on how prominent 'security issues' are when the question is asked... Stephen Bush makes the point that the % in polls who think Corbyn is dealing well with the situation matches almost exactly the % who support him on security / foreign policy in general. 

That said, we all thought the Manchester bombing and London Bridge attack were going to torpedo Labour's election campaign. Personally I think in the end they probably did do enough to shift the dial away from Labour to keep Corbyn out of number 10, but as much by checking the momentum of the campaign as voters not trusting him on security.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 18, 2018)

This might have been better on the 'grauniad is going down the pan' thread, but it's Corbyn related:
Revealed: how an increasingly powerful Momentum is transforming Labour
It's a party within a party type story, y'know, a 'guardian investigation'. However they get their narratives in a twist by quoting Momentum voting _against_ a Corbyn supported candidate in a local selection - and go on to admit that Momentum are only getting 'their' candidates selected 1/3 of the time.

Fwiw, Momentum clearly _are_ an organised group within the party (obviously). They also do show signs of doing the things they should have been doing for 2 years - organising. But it's slightly embarrassing for the guardian when their 'investigation' only produced the thin fayre in this story. In fact it seems pretty lazy as a piece of journalism. Not one single expose, nothing that couldn't have been produced in an afternoon's googling. Hang on, that's exactly what it was!


----------



## agricola (Mar 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> That said, we all thought the Manchester bombing and London Bridge attack were going to torpedo Labour's election campaign. Personally I think in the end they probably did do enough to shift the dial away from Labour to keep Corbyn out of number 10, but as much by checking the momentum of the campaign as voters not trusting him on security.



Looking back there was probably no Labour fall thanks to the two terror attacks because they already had a coherent policy on domestic security; ie: more cops and more neighbourhood policing, and it contrasted well with the cuts to policing that were being offered up by the other side.  If people were put off by him it was probably more due to the lack of a coherent policy with regards to defence matters, which was best revealed by the stance on Trident that satisfied no-one and which was never really explained either way.

They do desperately need to come up with one and Corbyn needs to agree it, understand it and be attached to it rather than just going through the motions.  They also have to start highlighting what the other side have done since 2010, because it is scandalous and there is ample scope for them to do serious damage to the Tories with it.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2018)

Quite incredible exchange here between a super slippery John Sweeney and Alex Salmond.

Alex Salmond's Heated Exchange With BBC Journalist Over Corbyn Hat - LBC


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2018)

Hat-gate will go down in history as one of the more surreal moments of the past few years - up there with the battle of the thames.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2018)

To add fuel to the hat fire:



Not known for his support of the left, is old Jolyon.


----------



## bemused (Mar 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> They do desperately need to come up with one and Corbyn needs to agree it, understand it and be attached to it rather than just going through the motions.



I don't know, Corbyn has a magical power that means he does rather well without a policy.


----------



## bemused (Mar 19, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Hat-gate will go down in history as one of the more surreal moments of the past few years - up there with the battle of the thames.



It's comedy gold.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 19, 2018)

editor said:


> Quite incredible exchange here between a super slippery John Sweeney and Alex Salmond.
> 
> Alex Salmond's Heated Exchange With BBC Journalist Over Corbyn Hat - LBC



I bet it wasn't photoshopped will turn out to mean "we used Lightroom" or some other programme instead.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 19, 2018)

scifisam said:


> I bet it wasn't photoshopped will turn out to mean "we used Lightroom" or some other programme instead.


Yeah, it really isn't photoshopped and the shape of the hat outline is exactly the same. But there's clearly an attempt to deceive with their use of colouring, contrast etc. They knew exactly what they were doing.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 20, 2018)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 20, 2018)

The bbc's attempts trying to brazen this out are breathtaking.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 20, 2018)

This whole thing is an example of why we need the Humanities, and why the Humanities are always under attack.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 20, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> The bbc's attempts trying to brazen this out are breathtaking.


They are lying fucks end of.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 20, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> To add fuel to the hat fire:
> 
> 
> 
> Not known for his support of the left, is old Jolyon.




Lets see this document then pal. Public interest and all that.

e2a: He says he won't release it because to do so would compromise his correspondant's anonymity. But he will swear on a stack of bibles that what he says is true, ie that senior figures at the BBC are using imagery to systematically mislead the public and one of these admitted this to him in writing.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 21, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lets see this document then pal. Public interest and all that.
> 
> e2a: He says he won't release it because to do so would compromise his correspondant's anonymity. But he will swear on a stack of bibles that what he says is true, ie that senior figures at the BBC are using imagery to systematically mislead the public and one of these admitted this to him in writing.


The things people put in writing eh?

Perhaps Jolyon won't release the letter until he's completed the negotiations to represent him at tribunal when he gets sacked for whistleblowing.


----------



## Poi E (Mar 21, 2018)

Are people really surprised at this? Did anyone note the BBC indyref coverage?


----------



## bemused (Mar 21, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Are people really surprised at this? Did anyone note the BBC indyref coverage?



I've never seen any side of a political debate not claim the BBC are bias towards the other side.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 21, 2018)

Not sure if this is the right thread for this one, but I felt the need to share a little gem that will otherwise be overlooked.

First a word of explanation. I never thought I'd miss getting a letter written in green ink - bonkers, obsessive and completely rational by the writer's standards, they would always take more time than you could afford and induce a feeling that only death (or in my case retirement) would free you from their grip. However, they were also a break from the humdrum and a source of wonder. To fill this void in my life [] I follow bloggers. Indubitably the best, from my twisted point of view, is Tony Greenstein's and today's is a classic. A third of the way down Tony reproduces a three way correspondence between himself, Sally from "Labour against the witchunt" and Steve of the Skwawkbox blog. It starts at 5.45pm and at a quarter past midnight Steve tries to end it with "we're done," but as Tony says "you don't get to decide when something is done." You can sense Steve's horror as he realises there's no escape. Been there so often, pure schadenfreude!

Enjoy [or not]

Tony Greenstein's Blog: Labour Against the Witchhunt Lobby of NEC: Lansman sneaks in through the back door


----------



## NoXion (Mar 21, 2018)

bemused said:


> I've never seen any side of a political debate not claim the BBC are bias towards the other side.



So what? What substantiates a claim is the evidence supporting it, not the claim itself.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2018)

Presumably that's ex RESPECT bigwig Yvonne Ridley being openly anti-semitic there as well isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

looks like it.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

that is pretty indefensible if it is actually his account.

you don't spell Diego Rivera wrong if your wife is mexican tho? if you value your wellbeing and peace of mind anyway. ime


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

It's his account. The comment is still there on the racist artist's facebook page.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

ohhh.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

Maybe his time is up.... might start a thread about it


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> oh dear.




i dont get whats being alleged here - who posted the mural? what is corbyn being accused of here? that he allowed it on his page?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 23, 2018)

why did you put up that FB link ?

I have just trawled his page  - Grrrrrrr - yes, it ticks all the usual boxes. And he is an anarchist as well apparently


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i dont get whats being alleged here - who posted the mural? what is corbyn being accused of here? that he allowed it on his page?


Mural was painted by artist, council said they were going to remove it, looks like Corbyn is asking 'why?'. I mean it's pretty obvious why


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i dont get whats being alleged here - who posted the mural? what is corbyn being accused of here? that he allowed it on his page?


He commented supportively on a wildly anti-semitic artist's complaints of his wildly antisemitic mural being removed. Under a picture of the wildly antisemitic mural in question.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2018)

Is Corbyn a bit thick or am I giving him too much credit?


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

If nothing else, I'm amazed no-one has laundered his facebook for shit like this yet. He's been leader for three years.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 23, 2018)

If this is legit (and it certainly looks it) then he’s toast.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> If this is legit (and it certainly looks it) then he’s toast.


it is legit, and I bet he isn't.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> it is legit, and I bet he isn't.



Why not? Looks dodgy as fuck. 

I hope you’re right as I won’t be able to live through the Tory glee this would unleash.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 23, 2018)

Someone has posted Labour's response on that Twitter thread. It says the mural was anti-Semitic and Corbyn should not have defended it. But every fucking arsehole on that thread is saying "you won't get a response" and "he'll say his account was hacked" etc. The response is RIGHT THERE. Oh and accusing him outright of being a Nazi. They call themselves moderates, heh.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

I dunno, half the arseholes on that thread are attacking Berger and talking about 'so-called antisemitism'.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

I think it's probably reasonable to be critical of Corbo over this and his piss-weak defence tbh.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I dunno, half the arseholes on that thread are attacking Berger and talking about 'so-called antisemitism'.


I assumed it was a trick to draw out those responses... I am totally shocked it is actually him


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

I genuinely did not think he was anti semitic at all, and that post is so blatant that if it exists it is difficult to believe that there is not loads more really blatant stuff?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2018)

is that definitely corbyns comment?

if it is - well - yeah - i think that could finish him.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

yeah.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

the guardian have a story with his response if you need further clarification

Corbyn criticised after backing artist behind antisemitic mural


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2018)

jsut seen that orginal post is from october 2012 - which means it probably is i guess.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

'i guess.'


----------



## agricola (Mar 23, 2018)

This is exactly the same allegation that first got an airing in 2015 after he became leader.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 23, 2018)

It might not finish him but it's proper daft.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

it isn't really an _allegation_ is it? There's no doubt that he posted that supportive message of the racist mural. It's right there. That it's been raised before (and forgotten about) isn't really that relevant.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 23, 2018)

He's just sacked Owen Smith. It's all happening today!


----------



## agricola (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> it isn't really an _allegation_ is it? There's no doubt that he posted that supportive message of the racist mural. It's right there. That it's been raised before (and forgotten about) isn't really that relevant.



Saying he posted a message asking why the mural was going to be painted over and comparing it to the destruction of another mural wouldn't be an allegation, no.  

Saying that he posted "a supportive message of the racist mural" would be.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

lol whatever


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't know but if that was a message Corbyn himself posted then I'd expect him to spell Rockefeller right.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

HE DID POST IT HIMSELF AND HAS ADMITTED AS MUCH IN A STATEMENT RELEASED TODAY, WHICH IS REPORTED IN ALL NEWS OUTLETS.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 23, 2018)

Then his spelling is rubbish. Fuck him.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

Jesus Christ. It's not as if this particular _blind spot_ hasn't been abundantly clear for years. Just because it's been weaponised by his enemies doesn't make it not real.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> HE DID POST IT HIMSELF AND HAS ADMITTED AS MUCH IN A STATEMENT RELEASED TODAY, WHICH IS REPORTED IN ALL NEWS OUTLETS.



IT'S NOT BEEN ON RADIO 4 (which is the only news I've encountered the last day or two) SO THAT'S A BIT SLACK OF SAID ENEMIES.


----------



## billbond (Mar 23, 2018)

Corbyns just sacked that rodent man Owen Smith
A most disgusting MP of the highest order
Always sneering and looking down his nose, for me a horrible man
Wanted a Second referendum and going against policy
"Get on the back bench"  Well done Mr Corbyn



*Owen Smith*_MP
Just been sacked by @jeremycorbyn for my long held views on the damage #Brexit will do to the Good Friday Agreement & the economy of the entire U.K. Those views are shared by Labour members & supporters and I will continue to speak up for them, and in the interest of our country.


----------



## bemused (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> it is legit, and I bet he isn't.



Telfon Jeeza, I love it for the same reason I love how stuff slides off Trump; the screams of frustration from those trying to catch him out.

Let's be honest if any Tory MP has done this people would be labelling them Nazi this very minute.


----------



## bemused (Mar 23, 2018)

billbond said:


> Corbyns just sacked that rodent man Owen Smith



I never liked Smith since the very moment he threw Angela Eagle under the bus, he's the most disingenuous leadership candidate I can remember.


----------



## andysays (Mar 23, 2018)

Nice bit of hyperbole from Peter Hain...


> Labour peer Lord Hain, a former Northern Ireland secretary, *called the sacking a "Stalinist purge"* - and said Mr Smith was widely respected for his work on Northern Ireland.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think it's probably reasonable to be critical of Corbo over this and his piss-weak defence tbh.


fair to say he's had a habit of questionable company in the anti-imperialist left isn't it. No it won't sink him but its a shitty look.


----------



## agricola (Mar 23, 2018)

bemused said:


> Telfon Jeeza, I love it for the same reason I love how stuff slides off Trump; the screams of frustration from those trying to catch him out.
> 
> Let's be honest if any Tory MP has done this people would be labelling them Nazi this very minute.



TBH if any Tory MP had been caught posting on Facebook six years ago a message to a graffiti artist in which he mis-spelt the name of another artist and the bloke who commissioned the other artist then I'm sure the response would be confusion, rather than allegations of Nazism.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

he's issued another statement. 

_I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I wholeheartedly support its removal._


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

whoops sorry that's just a bit of it


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> whoops sorry that's just a bit of it


Well... it's better than before


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 23, 2018)

At least the spelling is right.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2018)

The mural thing is dire. The latest defence is I suppose the only plausible way in which it can be defended, but given how late it is being issued I don't think many are going to be very convinced by it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

It'll be enough.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 23, 2018)

bemused said:


> Let's be honest if any Tory MP has done this people would be labelling them Nazi this very minute.



He has been a little bit of a mini-Nazi by sacking a man for his opinion, counter-policy or not it's not the Labour way.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

The people most aerated about this today are the same people who were pretending they couldn't see the anti-soviet dogwhistling last week after all.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

Wookey said:


> He has been a little bit of a mini-Nazi by sacking a man for his opinion, counter-policy or not it's not the Labour way.


yes it is. He sacked Chris Williamson - one of his staunchest allies - a few weeks ago for freelance policymaking. That's how cabinets work, unless you're too weak to be able to do it without collapsing your leadership (like May now, or Corbyn in 2016)


----------



## agricola (Mar 23, 2018)

Wookey said:


> He has been a little bit of a mini-Nazi by sacking a man for his opinion, counter-policy or not it's not the Labour way.



I think its more that the opinion is daft rather than the opinion itself - as if the way to deal with a massive crisis caused by a referendum ran by David Cameron is to have another referendum, but run by Owen Smith and his ilk. 

It is even more inane than their _leave, but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union_ chatter.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2018)

agricola said:


> I think its more that the opinion is daft rather than the opinion itself - as if the way to deal with a massive crisis caused by a referendum ran by David Cameron is to have another referendum, but run by Owen Smith and his ilk.
> 
> It is even more inane than their _leave, but stay in the Single Market and Customs Union_ chatter.



It also seems to be being done in the lead up to the local elections, given the way in which Smith has been backed up by dead end remainer Labour MPs who have all apparently forgotten about cabinet collective responsibility makes me wonder whether this isn't a way of potentially depressing the turnout of the disaffected remain voters who might otherwise deliver significant results for Labour.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

Centrist bellend twitter celebrity twlldn wrote a piece about this in 2015 - I disagree with them most of the time, but you can't argue with this bit:






compare and contrast with Corbyn's statement...







The Socialism of fools. – Twll Dun – Medium


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 23, 2018)

Wookey said:


> He has been a little bit of a mini-Nazi by sacking a man for his opinion, counter-policy or not it's not the Labour way.



It is convention that when you take a position on the front benches you sign up to collective responsibility - that is you support the party line, you support official party policy, and you don't break from that line. If you wish to criticise party policy you do so from the back benches. Right or wrong, that's simply how it's done, and it's rather disingenuous to cherry pick whose sacking is acceptable on those terms and whose is not.


----------



## billbond (Mar 23, 2018)

Now go get  chukka  Jezza
His slowly getting rid of the ones holding the party back


----------



## scifisam (Mar 23, 2018)

I think he was fairly naive in some ways (hopefully he's less so now). He did need to learn more about anti-semitism but he's not a fucking Nazi. Minorities of various kinds would be safer under him than under someone like Owen Smith or the Tories or LibDems but he needs better advisors.

And if it were a Tory it'd be no big deal at all. People "hold Labour to a higher standard." That's understandable in some ways but it leads to fucking Tory bigots getting elected.

The artist in this is the sort of total bellend that could paint something like that and genuinely not realise it's extremely antisemitic. He probably just thinks that's what conspiratorial bankers are traditionally drawn to look like, not considering why they were originally drawn that way. Look through his Facebook feed - he's the type of well-intentioned but extremely superficial twat that we occasionally get on here. Vague anti-racist stuff, lots of anti-capitalist stuff, conspiraloon nonsense etc. But he's also SO confident in his beliefs that he loves that anti-Semitic picture of his rather than admitting he got it wrong. Wanker. I think I've met him in various different forms twenty times this year and I don't get out much.



killer b said:


> Centrist bellend twitter celebrity twlldn wrote a piece about this in 2015 - I disagree with them most of the time, but you can't argue with this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but this was in the specific context of murals in Tower Hamlets relating to Judaism, so it's not exactly out of the blue, is it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 23, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Minorities of various kinds would be safer under him than under someone like Owen Smith or the Tories or LibDems but he needs better advisors.



This is it, exactly.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't think he had any advisors in 2012.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 23, 2018)

scifisam said:


> I think he was fairly naive in some ways (hopefully he's less so now). He did need to learn more about anti-semitism but he's not a fucking Nazi. Minorities of various kinds would be safer under him than under someone like Owen Smith or the Tories or LibDems but he needs better advisors.
> 
> And if it were a Tory it'd be no big deal at all. People "hold Labour to a higher standard." That's understandable in some ways but it leads to fucking Tory bigots getting elected.
> 
> ...


I agree with lots of what you post here with regards to naivety and that. But we should absolutely hold Labour to account, because as we have seen time and time again any of these parties can do untold damage to working class people and communities. 


killer b said:


> I don't think he had any advisors in 2012.


He’d likely have benefited from some.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think he had any advisors in 2012.



No, I mean now. In 2012 he probably was just naive - more naive than he should have been in his position, but him actually being a Nazi who hates Jewish people? Please - and that level of naivety needs to be beaten out of him by good advisors.

Some of those twitter people have actually fallen for the "Putin-loving" tag too as if Putin is anything like a leftie 

HoratioCuthbert - yeah, we should hold them to account. But quite often people go too far. They criticise Labour loudly and repeatedly for things they let slide in other parties and, by doing so, help those other parties get elected. They let right-wing newspaper editors pull their strings by responding with anger to old news like this that's mysteriously resurfaced just before the local elections. It's a difficult trick to get right, criticising the people you do support while not enabling the people you don't support (waiting till after an election is a good start though), but a lot of these people don't even try. They don't give a shit if they help Tories get elected as long as they can say they stuck to their principles and held their own people to a high standard. Shame about the benefit cuts and all that of course.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

I haven't seen anyone calling him a nazi tbf


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 23, 2018)

scifisam said:


> No, I mean now. In 2012 he probably was just naive - more naive than he should have been in his position, but him actually being a Nazi who hates Jewish people? Please - and that level of naivety needs to be beaten out of him by good advisors.
> 
> Some of those twitter people have actually fallen for the "Putin-loving" tag too as if Putin is anything like a leftie


Hmmm, wonder if any of those might be Syrians....


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

And tbh I prefer to set my bar higher than 'well, he's not a nazi'. 

Like it or not there's a rich seam of antisemitism running through the left right now. If it wasn't being weaponised against Corbyn, we would have no problem with being able to call it out and to challenge it wherever we saw it. Instead, people - invested in a Corbyn leadership of Labour - circle the wagons, minimise and ignore it, trot out bullshit whataboutery. Fuck that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> And tbh I prefer to set my bar higher than 'well, he's not a nazi'.
> 
> Like it or not there's a rich seam of antisemitism running through the left right now. If it wasn't being weaponised against Corbyn, we would have no problem with being able to call it out and to challenge it wherever we saw it. Instead, people - invested in a Corbyn leadership of Labour - circle the wagons, minimise and ignore it, trot out bullshit whataboutery. Fuck that.


This is an issue with heroes as well though, isn’t it. It’s not the way.


----------



## bemused (Mar 23, 2018)

J Ed said:


> The mural thing is dire. The latest defence is I suppose the only plausible way in which it can be defended, but given how late it is being issued I don't think many are going to be very convinced by it.



It's an excuse, not a defence. He made a very specific comment that was entirely within the context of the art - the suggestion he didn't really look at the picture is rather lame. He'll be okay.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2018)

Anyone who did history in year 9 would have recognised that mural as anti-semitic


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 23, 2018)

Probably said a terrible thing


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

binka said:


> Anyone who did history in year 9 would have recognised that mural as anti-semitic


I don't think that's true. Antisemitic tropes are a fringe interest, most people don't really know or care about them.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's true. Antisemitic tropes are a fringe interest, most people don't really know or care about them.


I was thinking back to my year 9 history class about the Nazis and we definitely covered stuff like that


----------



## bemused (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's true. Antisemitic tropes are a fringe interest, most people don't really know or care about them.



I think Corbyn had a clear idea what it was.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

binka said:


> I was thinking back to my year 9 history class about the Nazis and we definitely covered stuff like that


Well I'm always having to argue with people who genuinely don't recognise them (including the mural in question, more than once). Maybe they didn't pay attention.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> Well I'm always having to argue with people who genuinely don't recognise them (including the mural in question, more than once). Maybe they didn't pay attention.


I think a lot of people wouldn't recognize them as anti-semitic tropes, but Corbyn surely should have


----------



## scifisam (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I haven't seen anyone calling him a nazi tbf



A selection from the twitter link you posted:


At what point do we get to call the Labour Party the National Socialist Party? 
Herr Corbyn
politicians repeat anti-Semitic canards that would not be out of place in Nazi Germany"
This thing is straight out of Nazi propaganda.
This smells of 1930's National Socialism
At what point do we get to call the Labour Party the National Socialist Party? Seriously, do we have to wait until Owen Jones & Momentum are picketing "Zionist" businesses? 
That politicians repeat anti-Semitic canards that would not be out of place in Nazi Germany 
Corbyn the Putin-Loving Nazi

From "moderates."

But yeah, obviously "not a Nazi" is not actually the standard. Funnily enough that's not my standard either.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 23, 2018)

I did history up until a-level and I don't remember them covering antisemitic tropes and stereotypes, but it was a while ago (early-mid 90s) and perhaps these things varied from exam board to exam board.

But that's neither here nor there. Yes, I would have expected Corbyn to recognise one.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

binka said:


> I think a lot of people wouldn't recognize them as anti-semitic tropes, but Corbyn surely should have


Of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't remember them covering antisemitic tropes and stereotypes,


I don't think any of them cover that socialism of fools thing tbf, and thats the trap. Starts with enemy of my enemy is my friend and then goes bad places. Or maybe not even that, a crude understanding of capitalism being the bad folks doing bad things leading to. Gods and monsters.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2018)

scifisam said:


> A selection from the twitter link you posted:
> 
> 
> At what point do we get to call the Labour Party the National Socialist Party?
> ...


not sure if those are moderates tbh - most of em read like potted responses from Guido fans.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> not sure if those are moderates tbh - most of em read like potted responses from Guido fans.



Lots of cross-fertilisation going on between those two groups though.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 23, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Lots of cross-fertilisation going on between those two groups though.


Absolutely, this stuff is no longer so fringe or indicative of a specific group.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 23, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think he had any advisors in 2012.



But had been a professional politician for more than 20 years. It’s sloppy is the kindest reading.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2018)

You're mistaken if you think I'm defending him here.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 24, 2018)

bemused said:


> I think Corbyn had a clear idea what it was.



Of course he did. He is genuinely unintelligent and rather unworldly but he has spent his entire adult life around a great variety of nutter groups. He must have been exposed to loads of this type of shit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 24, 2018)

killer b said:


> You're mistaken if you think I'm defending him here.



I’m not, you are mistaken if that’s what you thought I meant.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2018)

I wonder, in an alternate universe where Corbyn and those around him hadn't been subjected to a constant smear campaign with much of that entirely made up or exaggerated to the point where it no longer made any logical sense, would this be having more of an impact?


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2018)

Putting aside how such a universe could possibly exist, probably not.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 24, 2018)

Probably because hardly anyone believes Corbyn *personally* is an antisemite. Even if (as is becoming clear to more and more people daily) there's a problem with "international bankers - media controllers" style antisemitism right across the political left, is Corbyn himself guilty of holding such views? Probably not. But he is a conviction politician and therefore rather inept when it comes to political subtlety.

(I hope I left my rose-tinted glasses off for that. I lost them some time ago but maybe that's because they've fixed themselves in place and that's why I can't find them)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2018)

I think if he posted on here he would - in line with the generally accepted position that it doesn't matter if you don't personally think that you're being anti-semitic by long term hanging around with anti-semites and linking to anti-semitic things but that in doing so you objectively are being anti-semitic- at best be a target for sustained ongoing criticism on anti-racist grounds, and at worst, and i think far more likely given it's repetition, be banned. As so many before him.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 24, 2018)

Just done a very quick check of BBC, Guardian, Telegraph and this story doesn't seem to be making waves on those sites yet. To my surprise, Owen Smith's sacking appears to be being treated as more important.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 24, 2018)

Because it's simpler to paint Corbyn as a stalinist than as a racist. Perhaps (shock horror) the "Great British Public" have more of a problem with stalinism than with racism. The media certainly seem to.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2018)

Labour moderates looking to make more capital from the Smith sacking/Corbyn brexit position. Chuka and co. all joining in again.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Probably because hardly anyone believes Corbyn *personally* is an antisemite. Even if (as is becoming clear to more and more people daily) there's a problem with "international bankers - media controllers" style antisemitism right across the political left, is Corbyn himself guilty of holding such views? Probably not. But he is a conviction politician and therefore rather inept when it comes to political subtlety.
> 
> (I hope I left my rose-tinted glasses off for that. I lost them some time ago but maybe that's because they've fixed themselves in place and that's why I can't find them)



If I am entirely honest, the mural comments makes me think that he is at most generous best a lot more naive on this than I thought he was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Because it's simpler to paint Corbyn as a stalinist than as a racist. Perhaps (shock horror) the "Great British Public" have more of a problem with stalinism than with racism. The media certainly seem to.


Yeh. All the stalinists of my acquaintance believe in democratic centralism. Can the same be said of corbyn? I think not.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 24, 2018)

Im also surprised that more isn't being made of this - hes  bang to right's as being far too blind to pretty fucking blatant anti-semitism.

I also think its part of a another wave of co-ordinated attacks on corbyn. Owen Smith most have known that he would've been sacked and he is a cats paw for the anti-corbyn faction in the labour party. Their main attack on corbyn is now all about Brexit  - so i see this as part of that.
Then you have the czech spy bollocks, the snidey newsnight backdrop and this incident being dug up.
However, this and his clumsy response to the nerve gas attack do seem to show he's too close to conspriacy theory twats on the left  - giving them houseroom rather then purging them as fuckwits in urban 75 style.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. All the stalinists of my acquaintance believe in democratic centralism. Can the same be said of corbyn? I think not.



In the end a paint job is just a paint job.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Mar 24, 2018)

Is a mural containing Lenin, more or less offensive than an anti Semitic mural?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2018)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Is a mural containing Lenin, more or less offensive than an anti Semitic mural?


Always with the binaries. Might be as and contain lenin


----------



## Nice one (Mar 24, 2018)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Is a mural containing Lenin, more or less offensive than an anti Semitic mural?



depends if he's wearing a hat


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2018)

the hatless dome ones are the best ones


----------



## Voley (Mar 24, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> Just done a very quick check of BBC, Guardian, Telegraph and this story doesn't seem to be making waves on those sites yet. To my surprise, Owen Smith's sacking appears to be being treated as more important.


On the BBC lunchtime news today but only mentioned briefly in a wider 'Has Corbyn lost touch with Labour core voters?' type piece. Much more emphasis on Owen Smith.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 24, 2018)

Voley said:


> On the BBC lunchtime news today but only mentioned briefly in a wider 'Has Corbyn lost touch with Labour core voters?' type piece. Much more emphasis on Owen Smith.



It's probably partly because this was already gone over in 2015 in the mainstream media - they could still go for this again ofc (and it'd be better if they did, really, because it's more significant) but even journos need novelty.

I don't actually think Corbyn's all that bright in some ways. I think he's a hard-working plodder. There was an episode of Gogglebox he was on where they were watching University Challenge and I don't think he was faking not knowing some pretty easy questions. 

And look at his atrocious spelling of people's names in that Facebook post - he didn't check whether he'd got the names right and for an MP I'd expect fact-checking like that in a post that would be seen by the public. That's partly why I believe that he didn't really look at the picture or notice the anti-Semitic tropes in it. It's a failing of his, being too trusting of his allies and not checking things. Fortunately it's a failing that can be corrected over time, and can be helped by having good advisers (elected ones, preferably, ie other MPs), and he does seem to have got better. Easily trusting his allies is very likely to have been broken from him by now, that's for sure. 

In theory I'd love a politician who was brilliant and quick off the mark and didn't trust people too much, but we've had those (Blair especially) and they didn't use their brilliance for good. I don't want a complete moron either (like Trump) but maybe someone a bit more in the middle could be worth a try. There's nobody else who can do better and even if there were changing leaders constantly would be detrimental.


----------



## Corax (Mar 24, 2018)

From the twitter thread:


> A Corbyn spokesman said: “In 2012, Jeremy was responding to concerns about the removal of public art on the grounds of freedom of speech. However, the mural was offensive, used antisemitic imagery which has no place in our society, and it is right it was removed.”



Is this correct? If so, seems reasonable enough to me.

Sacking Owen was a very bad idea though, IMO.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2018)

Corax said:


> Sacking Owen was a very bad idea though, IMO.



What was Corbyn supposed to do? Bad idea because it'll fuel the Labour moderates?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2018)

The fucking Stalinist - putting Smith on the front bench after he challenged him for leadership, and then taking him off after repeatedly making public statements against the party line. It’s like “1984” etc etc.

Probably _will_ cause him a lot more issues than the mural though.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2018)

Corax said:


> From the twitter thread:
> 
> 
> Is this correct? If so, seems reasonable enough to me.
> ...


It would (maybe) be reasonable if it was a one off, rather than the latest in a series of occasions where corbo has _not noticed_ some blatant antisemitism  under his nose. 

I understand how it happens: he's been immersed in the Palestine liberation movement for decades, holding together a very disparate group of political movements - over the years he's made the choice to look the other way for the sake of political expediency and getting stuff done - at first no doubt with only minor infractions, but after 20 years of ignoring gradually worse and worse things, here he is _not noticing _The hook-nosed Jews counting their money on a mural one step down from the blood libel.

How he even find himself there, posting on the page of a mad racist artist? I'm willing to bet it's because his colleague in stop the war - the mad racist journalist Yvonne Ridley - posted an anti-Semitic comment on it so it popped up in his news feed. And he doesn't notice the racism from Yvonne anymore because he's been looking the other way so long, or the racism coded into the painting, so he posts some worthy bollocks about censorship and goes back to the allotment.

This is the generous reading of it, of course. It could just be that he doesn't notice the racists because he's a racist too.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2018)

From twenty twelve...

Brick Lane mural to be painted over

I didn't not realise that Luftur Rahman had previously noted the tropes perpetuated by the image and had it removed on that basis.... and Corbyn couldn't? Or did and still opposed the removal?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2018)

killer b said:


> I understand how it happens: he's been immersed in the Palestine liberation movement for decades, holding together a very disparate group of political movements - over the years he's made the choice to look the other way for the sake of political expediency and getting stuff done - at first no doubt with only minor infractions, but after 20 years of ignoring gradually worse and worse things, here he is _not noticing _The hook-nosed Jews counting their money on a mural one step down from the blood libel.


I was going to post something similar. He’s not even unusual in this - well obviously in the position he’s held, but turning a blind eye to antisemitism for some idea of “the sake of the movement” is very common. I’ve probably done it myself at some point. This can be true at the same time as saying that the attacks are politically motivated and that accusations of antisemitism are used against any critics of the Israeli government.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 24, 2018)

J Ed said:


> From twenty twelve...
> 
> Brick Lane mural to be painted over
> 
> I didn't not realise that Luftur Rahman had previously noted the tropes perpetuated by the image and had it removed on that basis.... and Corbyn couldn't? Or did and still opposed the removal?



Rahman had nothing to do with it.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Rahman had nothing to do with it.



https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...se-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106



> Mr Ockerman’s _Freedom for Humanity_ was criticised by Lutfur Rahman, the controversial Tower Hamlets mayor at the time.
> 
> He said he was concerned the work could be interpreted as offensive to Jews because “the images of the bankers perpetuate antisemitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political institutions”.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 24, 2018)

J Ed said:


> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...se-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106



Because Rahman just LOVES Jewish people. Anyone who defends that arsehole loses their credibility.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Because Rahman just LOVES Jewish people. Anyone who defends that arsehole loses their credibility.



I am aware that Rahman has that reputation, in fact I'm obviously leaning on it to make the point that if it's something that Rahman is at least savvy enough to pick up on then what's the thing that's stopping Corbyn from doing the same?


----------



## rekil (Mar 24, 2018)

I looked through that artist's twitter and who he follows. He's a walking cliche - a stoner libertarian into every conspiracy going. He was at that anarchapulcho thing ('anarcho'-capitalist/nu-age loon conference). Prepare to have your minds blown sheeple.



Spoiler: woah








And if you've been accused of anti-semitism and general loonery I'm not sure if appealing to David Icke and Luke Rudkowski for support helps your defence much.



Spoiler


----------



## kenny g (Mar 24, 2018)

I am pretty astonished that mural doesnt have any blood libel reference in it.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 24, 2018)

copliker said:


> I looked through that artist's twitter and who he follows. He's a walking cliche - a stoner libertarian into every conspiracy going. He was at that anarchapulcho thing ('anarcho'-capitalist/nu-age loon conference). Prepare to have your minds blown sheeple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, he's fucking awful. An all-purpose conspiraloon whose art is not very good. I think less of Corbyn for associating with him tbh but it doesn't totally surprise me.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 25, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> Just done a very quick check of BBC, Guardian, Telegraph and this story doesn't seem to be making waves on those sites yet. To my surprise, Owen Smith's sacking appears to be being treated as more important.



There was a bus coming and Smith was standing conveniently close by.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 25, 2018)

J Ed said:


> From twenty twelve...
> 
> Brick Lane mural to be painted over
> 
> I didn't not realise that Luftur Rahman had previously noted the tropes perpetuated by the image and had it removed on that basis.... and Corbyn couldn't? Or did and still opposed the removal?



It’s not a good idea for an MP to simply assume that a council is being officious. Understanding the issues is sort of the job of an MP or should be.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 25, 2018)

killer b said:


> It would (maybe) be reasonable if it was a one off, rather than the latest in a series of occasions where corbo has _not noticed_ some blatant antisemitism  under his nose.
> 
> I understand how it happens: he's been immersed in the Palestine liberation movement for decades, holding together a very disparate group of political movements - over the years he's made the choice to look the other way for the sake of political expediency and getting stuff done - at first no doubt with only minor infractions, but after 20 years of ignoring gradually worse and worse things, here he is _not noticing _The hook-nosed Jews counting their money on a mural one step down from the blood libel.
> 
> ...



Thing is though most of us here have been around long enough that one glance at the giant Illuminati pyramid dominating the scene would ring warning bells and prompt a closer look before writing anything — you'd have to not actually see the mural to avoid noticing it's bonkers almost immediately. 

Like many I've found myself arguing with hardline anti-Palestine types and having to ignore "supportive" comments from anti-semitic bellends to try and keep the argument on target before now, but I ain't proactively posting in their favour either.


----------



## killer b (Mar 25, 2018)

Well, as I said it's a generous reading. I do try to be generous. 

I kind of think it's necessary to be generous too, if you want to help people down from their entrenched positions. Yelling 'racist!' isn't getting anyone anywhere.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 25, 2018)

Sure, and I think the main issue with judging this kind of stuff is that unless you know Corbyn well, exactly where this comes from and where it goes is extremely difficult to say. Anti-semitism is nebulous, often unconsciously ingrained and so tied up symbolically with other nonsense it can be hard to extricate from just being in solidarity with Palestinian peoples.

And as others have said, there's often an element of ignoring acts of anti-semitism, being in itself _de facto _anti-semitism, which is perhaps not actively intended to be such but draws from long running elements of leftist anti-imperialism which are just fairly shitty politically.

But that said, the imagery in that mural is pretty blatant, and it is hard to believe any even vaguely experienced political player wouldn't recognise it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 25, 2018)

Another statement:


----------



## 03gills (Mar 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> Telfon Jeeza, I love it for the same reason I love how stuff slides off Trump; the screams of frustration from those trying to catch him out.


----------



## bemused (Mar 25, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> But that said, the imagery in that mural is pretty blatant, and it is hard to believe any even vaguely experienced political player wouldn't recognise it.



This is the key point, it wasn't a subtle piece of art criticising Judaism or Israel - it's a picture of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of people. The fact he looked at the picture and then through he'd comment on it is remarkable.


----------



## rioted (Mar 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> This is the key point, it wasn't a subtle piece of art criticising Judaism or Israel - it's a picture of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of people. The fact he looked at the picture and then through he'd comment on it is remarkable.


is it Jewish bankers? Or just bankers, some of whom are jewish?


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 25, 2018)

rioted said:


> is it Jewish bankers? Or just bankers, some of whom are jewish?



Yes when doing a table featuring a set of bankers playing monopoly below your all-seeing illuminati eye and man waving placard about the New World Order it really is important to make sure that they're only *mostly* Jewish, otherwise you'll just look foolish.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 26, 2018)

I can see why people wouldn't see this mural as being anti-semitic, I don't think the bankers are clearly Jewish stereotypes. But it clearly has conspiracy nut themes and that should ring alarm bells. The toxicity of conspiracy theorists and their overlap with anti-semitism should be part of any political education and my experience is that the Labour left are really lacking on this front apparently even including Corbyn himself. Very frustrating.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2018)

Knotted said:


> I can see why people wouldn't see this mural as being anti-semitic, I don't think the bankers are clearly Jewish stereotypes. But it clearly has conspiracy nut themes and that should ring alarm bells. The toxicity of conspiracy theorists and their overlap with anti-semitism should be part of any political education and my experience is that the Labour left are really lacking on this front apparently even including Corbyn himself. Very frustrating.



anyone who knows anything about anti-semtism would spot it immediately - its straight out of the same playbook deployed by the nazis and others before them.  Corbyn -as a life long socialist and anti-racist campaigner -  should have known this. Its pretty shocking that he looked at it and wrote the supportive message - rather than one that said - "that is a piece of vile anti-semitism - you should be ashamed of yourself"
Im pretty sure the image had been doing the rounds before the mural - it would be more credible if the stoner twat who painted it hadn't realised what it was.


----------



## rekil (Mar 26, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, he's fucking awful. An all-purpose conspiraloon whose art is not very good. I think less of Corbyn for associating with him tbh but it doesn't totally surprise me.


He's very bad at drawing.  



Spoiler: can you guess who the fuck this is meant to be yet









Kaka Tim said:


> anyone who knows anything about anti-semtism would spot it immediately - its straight out of the same playbook deployed by the nazis and others before them.  Corbyn -as a life long socialist and anti-racist campaigner -  should have known this. Its pretty shocking that he looked at it and wrote the supportive message - rather than one that said - "that is a piece of vile anti-semitism - you should be ashamed of yourself"
> Im pretty sure the image had been doing the rounds before the mural - it would be more credible if the stoner twat who painted it hadn't realised what it was.



The stoner twat knew exactly what it's meant to depict. He's a nearly 50 year old committed loon not a slightly mixed up adolescent.



Spoiler: Icke worshipper









Spoiler: Icke on the protocols


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Another statement:
> 
> View attachment 130910
> View attachment 130911



Is anyone concerned that rather than deal with his own failing on this one he’s simply reignited the issue for the whole party?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2018)

copliker said:


> He's very bad at drawing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fair dos. A committed cunt then.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2018)

Knotted said:


> I can see why people wouldn't see this mural as being anti-semitic,



How can you see that? What tropes are missing from it?

Do you think Corbyn looked at it and missed the subtlety of it as well?


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Is anyone concerned that rather than deal with his own failing on this one he’s simply reignited the issue for the whole party?


I think it is good to recognise that there is an issue in the party; it is better than pretending it doesn't exist.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

Taking it as read that Corbyn was a bit of a chump in his comments.

Clearly there’s a major PR push on this 2012 issue right now.

Given the timing I’d be very interested to see if there’s any targeting of messages aimed at getting activists to stay home in the run up to the local elections or similar stuff. 

I mean Cambridge Analytica might be in the spotlight right now, but they’re hardly the only people who do that sort of work.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Is anyone concerned that rather than deal with his own failing on this one he’s simply reignited the issue for the whole party?


He isn't reigniting it - it _is_ the issue. While plenty of people think he's a dyed in the wool antisemite himself, for most the problem is that he ignores, looks the other way or doesn't notice antisemitism. He can't answer the first lot except by resigning. The second, he can work to address - which is what he's attempting with that statement.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Taking it as read that Corbyn was a bit of a chump in his comments.
> 
> Clearly there’s a major PR push on this 2012 issue right now.


Yes there is, but at the same time - _so what?_ Would people fail to call out clear anti-semitism and repeatedly  being involved with dodgy anti-semites with any other person because it might damage them electorally or reputation wise ? Not for a second - or at least not without becoming complicit in that anti-semitism themselves. And of course, that's exactly what's happened with the by now standard response of _oh it's just an attack on Corbyn_ - well of course it is - and leaving the underlying issue alone. Until the next one, then the next one. Which isn't actually helping Corbyn or the labour left in any real sense anyway - not when it's them themselves leaving hostages to fortune dotted all over the place.

And this crap needs dealing with and dealing with seriously - _even if it's electorally damaging. _


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And of course, that's exactly what's happened with the by now standard response of _oh it's just an attack on Corbyn_


The _It's just another attack on Corbyn_ crew's reaction is the response those coordinating the attack were actually looking for.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

Sure, but the PR issue is also an important one.

The political use of that body of technique is arguably an important vector of rising anti Semitic/conspiraloonery.


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> He isn't reigniting it - it _is_ the issue. While plenty of people think he's a dyed in the wool antisemite himself, for most the problem is that he ignores, looks the other way or doesn't notice antisemitism. He can't answer the first lot except by resigning. The second, he can work to address - which is what he's attempting with that statement.



One of the things I like about Corbyn is he is unashamed of his positions. Where that bites in on the arse he in cases like this where, although most people don't believe he's sitting at home grinding his teeth about Jews, his inability to issue a straightforward apology makes it look rather bad.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> I think it is good to recognise that there is an issue in the party; it is better than pretending it doesn't exist.



The Party commissioned a report to do that and was in the process of moving on. I thought it had recognised the problem some while ago and had the measure of its size. It should have now been at the stage of having built bridges and inspiring confidence.

This mural issue has it back to square one. Corbyn doesn’t deserve a pat on the back for making it front page.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, but the PR issue is also an important one.


Which one though bernie? And whose one? For the one that is basically an attack on Corbyn and carried out by people who will use any means to do so then these people are falling into the trap (see killer b's post above). And i also think we shouldn't discount that the people behind exposing this stuff may actually not like anti-semitism - so two birds one stone. For the PR battle that Corbyn and labour have with the wider public - one that clearly reviles anti-semitism but votes on other issues - to establish themselves as enduringly credible defenders of their interests then they need to sort their house out and do it publicly seriously and in a convincing manner. There are signs the leadership may have started to get that in some small way - some of the newer hardcore corbyn types, the ones more visible on social media so likely to do something damaging-  not by a long chalk. Which is why this needs to be faced head on and now. 

I don't think this will damage Corbyn or Labour too much electorally - what it will and has damaged is the idea of labour as a principled socialist party full of decent types who only want to help their local communities - the type of people labour needs to secure it's long term future and what any socialist types who think this it's worth  fighting for as part of a broader parliamentary-extra parliamentary coalition that corbyn says is the long term aim need that party to be. And i think it's some of the people who got him elected as leader who may make that harder - if not impossible to do. Not without further and probably extended internal strife anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

And let's be honest - there are not just members saying oh it's just another attack, there are members defending the anti-semitic mural - arguing that it's not, it is in fact an accurate representation of both history and the current world. And again, these are the ones highly likely to be posting this on social media.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

and here!



rioted said:


> is it Jewish bankers? Or just bankers, some of whom are jewish?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> and here!


He's one of the anarchists-for-labour crowd  - exactly the sort i meant.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 26, 2018)

Most of the clips on in the paper seem to have missed out the NWO statement on the far LH side. Its was not exactly subtle this shitty piece of art, indeed the placement would also seem to have be antagonistic. But what do I know?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> It would (maybe) be reasonable if it was a one off, rather than the latest in a series of occasions where corbo has _not noticed_ some blatant antisemitism  under his nose.
> 
> I understand how it happens: he's been immersed in the Palestine liberation movement for decades, holding together a very disparate group of political movements - over the years he's made the choice to look the other way for the sake of political expediency and getting stuff done - at first no doubt with only minor infractions, but after 20 years of ignoring gradually worse and worse things, here he is _not noticing _The hook-nosed Jews counting their money on a mural one step down from the blood libel.
> 
> ...



If Corbyn was one of the 95 % that access Facebook via smartphone, didnt spend long on the actual photo, just responded to a " don't remove the political mural " post, it's feasible he wouldn't have noticed the realities of ( what would have been a pretty small ) image


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And let's be honest - there are not just members saying oh it's just another attack, there are members defending the anti-semitic mural - arguing that it's not, it is in fact an accurate representation of both history and the current world. And again, these are the ones highly likely to be posting this on social media.



I haven't seen a single defence of the mural, anywhere on soc media - I've seen seen likes of Richard Seymour pulling the artist and his conspira-bollocks to pieces - no defence of the piece


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

I've seen loads.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> I haven't seen a single defence of the mural, anywhere on soc media - I've seen seen likes of Richard Seymour pulling the artist and his conspira-bollocks to pieces - no defence of the piece


I've seen loads - i'm not even on facebook and i've seen loads on there via people showing me it in varying stages of disbelief/anger/laughter/told you so ness.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I've seen loads.



sorry, should have added ' from anyone sensible / with half a brain' etc


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The Party commissioned a report to do that and was in the process of moving on. I thought it had recognised the problem some while ago and had the measure of its size. It should have now been at the stage of having built bridges and inspiring confidence.


I think it is a more tricky and subtle issue to fix than your depiction suggests; it probably requires constant vigilance and openness to criticism to eventually evolve away from.

I dont want a political party I give my support to deal with issues by just "commissioning a report and moving on"! I want feel proud of them!!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> sorry, should have added ' from anyone sensible / with half a brain' etc


Surely the point is that its the de facto informal coalition corbyn is now in with the people who aren't sensible and have only half a brain - the mural painter, the various holocaust deniers and anti-semites he's been seen associating with - that is going to do the damage. Of course it's not going to be the sensible non racist ones.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

plenty of apparently sensible non-racist ones sucked into excusing that shite too, mind.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

maybe not mounting a full defence, but definitely minimising and excusing it, with lashings of whataboutery.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> plenty of apparently sensible non-racist ones sucked into excusing that shite too, mind.


I think many were before this resurfaced - under the rubric of oh it's just anti-corbyn attack stuff. Actually seeing this piece of shit mural seems to have woken some people up. Brilliantly enough.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think many were before this resurfaced - under the rubric of oh it's just anti-corbyn attack stuff. Actually seeing this piece of shit mural seems to have woken some people up. Brilliantly enough.


That is 100% true for me


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think many were before this resurfaced - under the rubric of oh it's just anti-corbyn attack stuff. Actually seeing this piece of shit mural seems to have woken some people up. Brilliantly enough.


yeah, fair point.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the point is that its the de facto informal coalition corbyn is now in with the people who aren't sensible and have only half a brain - the mural painter, the various holocaust deniers and anti-semites he's been seen associating with - that is going to do the damage. Of course it's not going to be the sensible non racist ones.



I can imagine the party leadership putting its house in order with respect to anti-semitism. They’ve still got a stake in what you might call more traditional forms of knowledge and culture. (Well, most of them)

I’m struggling to imagine eradicating it at the rank and file level while our culture sustains a massive conspiraloon milieu which is a significant platform for political propaganda targeted at a growing base of alienated subjects.

Which is kind of why I keep wanting to talk about that bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I can imagine the party leadership putting its house in order with respect to anti-semitism, but I’m struggling to imagine eradicating it at the rank and file level while our culture sustains a massive conspiraloon milieu which is a significant platoform for political propaganda. Which is kind of why I keep wanting to talk about that bit.


Incidentally, i read a piece in the new issue of Dissent the other day that i mean to pass onto you. It's a generally risible piece but one that introduces an interesting idea - what we are seeing is not the rise of conspiracy theories but _conspiracism: _"Conspiracism is not new, of course, but the conspiracism we see today does introduce something new—conspiracy without the theory." I think the article misses the target of this in its rush to defend expert and governmental legitimacy but think the idea can be prised away from that. A manner of viewing the world, a total perspective but one not based on specifics, no specific theories but "epistemic polarization".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Presumably that's ex RESPECT bigwig Yvonne Ridley being openly anti-semitic there as well isn't it?


yvonne ridley, late of military intelligence


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2018)

i wonder weather there is an element of crying wolf that may minimise the damage this will cause amongst the wider electorate?
Most people would register it as another attack on corbyn, on an issue on which he has been attacked before. They might register that he made a supportive comment about a mural that was anti-semetic. On that level i dont think it will make much difference to weather they vote labour or not. The majority of the population wouldn't get what was offensive about the mural without being told.
The damage will be the aggro this causes between people who support corbyn and are having to change their minds  (like many on here) and the denialists. The more i think about it the more i think it reflects very badly on him - it makes him seem a bit thick and to have no awareness about how the whole conspiracy theory sub-culture (which - as his response to the nerve gas attack demonstrated - he gives too much credence to)  is shot through with virulent antisemitism. Or worse - he doesn't care.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 26, 2018)

Yvonne believed MOSSAD were hunting her down for an assassination to make political capital out of her fame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yvonne believed MOSSAD were hunting her down for an assassination to make political capital out of her fame.


*taps watch*
*holds it to ear*
*taps watch*

they're taking their time about it


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yvonne believed MOSSAD were hunting her down for an assassination to make political capital out of her fame.


richard osman tells me that no matter the question, yvonne ridley is always a 'pointless' answer


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i wonder weather there is an element of crying wolf that may minimise the damage this will cause amongst the wider electorate?
> Most people would register it as another attack on corbyn, on an issue on which he has been attacked before. They might register that he made a supportive comment about a mural that was anti-semetic. On that level i dont think it will make much difference to weather they vote labour or not. The majority of the population wouldn't get what was offensive about the mural without being told.
> The damage will be the aggro this causes between people who support corbyn and are having to change their minds  (like many on here) and the denialists. The more i think about it the more i think it reflects very badly on him - it makes him seem a bit thick and to have no awareness about how the whole conspiracy theory sub-culture (which - as his response to the nerve gas attack demonstrated - he gives too much credence to)  is shot through with virulent antisemitism. Or worse - he doesn't care.



From a PR point of view, I’m fairly sure this is aimed at demotivating activists or potential activists ahead of the local elections, rather than at the general public. Hence my question above.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i wonder weather there is an element of crying wolf that may minimise the damage this will cause amongst the wider electorate?
> Most people would register it as another attack on corbyn, on an issue on which he has been attacked before. They might register that he made a supportive comment about a mural that was anti-semetic. On that level i dont think it will make much difference to weather they vote labour or not. The majority of the population wouldn't get what was offensive about the mural without being told.
> The damage will be the aggro this causes between people who support corbyn and are having to change their minds  (like many on here) and the denialists. The more i think about it the more i think it reflects very badly on him - it makes him seem a bit thick and to have no awareness about how the whole conspiracy theory sub-culture (which - as his response to the nerve gas attack demonstrated - he gives too much credence to)  is shot through with virulent antisemitism. Or worse - he doesn't care.


I never really saw myself as a "Corbyn supporter" anyway; what I support is a lot (not all) of his vision of the labour party's positions. So it doesn't really change a great deal for me;  I still agree with him on the things I agree with him on. The whole cult of personality thing was always a bit embarassing, so if this curbs that a bit then maybe it is a good thing.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

No doubt he has already changed the party for the better, but maybe its time they had a leader who is a bit more left wing.


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

There comes a time to stop poking a sore tooth:


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2018)




----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 26, 2018)

Who the fuck are JVL?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Who the fuck are JVL?


Jewish Voice for Labour • A network for Jewish members of the Labour Party.

why not try google yourself next time?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 131016


Schneider has turned that bit of hypocrisy from an easy _yes, corbyn has stuff to answer as do others, including those asking the questions_ into _corbyn has nothing to answer or deal with because some people asking questions do have stuff to answer.
_
The idiocy of the thing.


----------



## andysays (Mar 26, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Who the fuck are JVL?


Jewish Voice for Labour, apparently


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2018)

i see skwawkbox have as usual a well judged take on everything...


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Jewish Voice for Labour • A network for Jewish members of the Labour Party.
> 
> why not try google yourself next time?



I'd rather steal your surplus labour.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Schneider has turned that bit of hypocrisy from an easy _yes, corbyn has stuff to answer as do others, including those asking the questions_ into _corbyn has nothing to answer or deal with because some people asking questions do have stuff to answer.
> _
> The idiocy of the thing.


TBF to Schneider he has been critical of Corbyn elsewhere the last few days. Though of course, this is going to be the screenshot that's shared everywhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> I'd rather steal your surplus labour.


one day you'll need to find something out urgently, it'll be 3am and everyone else will be asleep, and you'll find your search skills have atrophied beyond repair.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> I think it is a more tricky and subtle issue to fix than your depiction suggests; it probably requires constant vigilance and openness to criticism to eventually evolve away from.
> 
> I dont want a political party I give my support to deal with issues by just "commissioning a report and moving on"! I want feel proud of them!!



Of course the report shouldn’t be flim flam, an excuse to do nothing in the future. But it’s reasonable to suggest it should have fully understood the problem, clearly indicated the way forward and inspired confidence that it would happen.

Otherwise it’s just a report and public cynicism grows further.


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> one day you'll need to find something out urgently, it'll be 3am and everyone else will be asleep, and you'll find your search skills have atrophied beyond repair.



Who are you kidding, you'll be up


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> TBF to Schneider he has been critical of Corbyn elsewhere the last few days. Though of course, this is going to be the screenshot that's shared everywhere.


Even more reason for him to do it right then!


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

I think this thread (quite a good one) is a better reflection of Schneider's position


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> Who are you kidding, you'll be up


yeh you're probably right, i'll watch the meltdown with amusement.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think this thread (quite a good one) is a better reflection of Schneider's position



Can't really disagree with anything he posted there. Pity that the above piece gave the loons and deniers something to share around though. They won't be sharing any of the later stuff you/he posted i bet.

edit: though many of the comments posted by others depressingly bear out the worst fears


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Schneider has turned that bit of hypocrisy from an easy _yes, corbyn has stuff to answer as do others, including those asking the questions_ into _corbyn has nothing to answer or deal with because some people asking questions do have stuff to answer.
> _
> The idiocy of the thing.


I broadly agree with comments on here to the effect that either/or a) he's been more that a little stupid not to see the message in the artwork b) if he was aware and chose to overlook it, it's really fucking stupid. This however does not imo detract from the hypocrisy of the producers of 'Today'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, i read a piece in the new issue of Dissent the other day that i mean to pass onto you. It's a generally risible piece but one that introduces an interesting idea - what we are seeing is not the rise of conspiracy theories but _conspiracism: _"Conspiracism is not new, of course, but the conspiracism we see today does introduce something new—conspiracy without the theory." I think the article misses the target of this in its rush to defend expert and governmental legitimacy but think the idea can be prised away from that. A manner of viewing the world, a total perspective but one not based on specifics, no specific theories but "epistemic polarization".



It was kind of an interesting idea but their perspective is a bit skewed with respect to causes and effects perhaps,



> The consequence of conspiracism is not simply distrust; it feeds the assumption that the government is staffed by those who are actively hostile to the common interest



The alienation arising from a justified perception that neither party is reliably acting in their interests is a major reason behind the growth of conspiracism. It’s therefore arguably an integral part of the territory of both Corbynism and Trumpism.

ETA bouncing train, apologies for edits.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It was kind of an interesting idea but their perspective is a bit skewed with respect to causes and effects perhaps,


Yes, that's what i thought was risible but the idea could have legs if prised away from and put on a proper casual and chronological footing rather than jumping in the middle of a ongoing process and assuming it's the start point.


----------



## RainbowTown (Mar 26, 2018)

This matter may well have far reaching effects for Corbyn and, more importantly, The Labour Party in general. Don't be surprised if further revelations start seeping out. What a mess, what dirty, unattractive, distasteful mess it all is.

And Corbyn and his dumb cohorts have only themselves to blame. Entirely.


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> This matter may well have far reaching effects for Corbyn and, more importantly, The Labour Party in general. Don't be surprised if further revelations start seeping out. What a mess, what dirty, unattractive, distasteful mess it all is.
> 
> And Corbyn and his dumb cohorts have only themselves to blame. Entirely.



I don't think will care in two weeks.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

I dunno, I think there's a chance it may be a watershed moment in it actually being tackled. As butch said upthread though, electorally insignificant.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the point is that its the de facto informal coalition corbyn is now in with the people who aren't sensible and have only half a brain - the mural painter, the various holocaust deniers and anti-semites he's been seen associating with - that is going to do the damage. Of course it's not going to be the sensible non racist ones.



The core of the Lab Party associated anti semitism comes predominantly from the Post Anonymous / Occupy / Anti NWO crew, as they've fallen in behind Corbyn online ( for a variety of reasons, up to and including his lifelong support for the Palestinian struggle) - 

But it's not reasonable to claim they're part of any coalition,'de facto' or otherwise - that implies a two way relationship,which doesn't exist. And whilst some of these gonzo's may swell online numbers to some degree, their numbers aren't that big, they're just amplified signifcantly by the usual suspects desperate to weaponise AS vs Corbyn / the left.


----------



## RainbowTown (Mar 26, 2018)

bemused said:


> I don't think will care in two weeks.



Maybe, maybe not. The only thing Corbyn can be grateful for at this time is that Theresa May is an even more inept leader than him. Crumbs of consolation. Not.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Schneider has turned that bit of hypocrisy from an easy _yes, corbyn has stuff to answer as do others, including those asking the questions_ into _corbyn has nothing to answer or deal with because some people asking questions do have stuff to answer.
> _
> The idiocy of the thing.



 Schneider is no Corbo fan ?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> This matter may well have far reaching effects for Corbyn and, more importantly, The Labour Party in general. Don't be surprised if further revelations start seeping out. What a mess, what dirty, unattractive, distasteful mess it all is.
> 
> And Corbyn and his dumb cohorts have only themselves to blame. Entirely.



the 'revelations' have been 'seeping out' since the day JC was elected leader, so zero surprises.
What form do you see these 'far reaching effects' taking , for the Party /  leadership ?


----------



## Combustible (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I understand how it happens: he's been immersed in the Palestine liberation movement for decades, holding together a very disparate group of political movements - over the years he's made the choice to look the other way for the sake of political expediency and getting stuff done - at first no doubt with only minor infractions, but after 20 years of ignoring gradually worse and worse things, here he is _not noticing _The hook-nosed Jews counting their money on a mural one step down from the blood libel.



I  wonder what the link is between the current issue of antisemitism on the 'left' and campaigning for Palestine. I'm sure it doesn't need saying here that criticism of Israel is not the same as being antisemitic, and also that many of Israel's supporters deliberately conflate the two. But it does remain a question over whether the antisemitism that has been tolerated within these movements is mainly because already existing antisemites are naturally drawn to Palestinian campaigns, or whether the frankly overwhelming emphasis on Palestine from some sections of the left (e.g. the SWP and allies) has helped push people towards an antisemitic conspiratorial outlook. Some claim that the overwhelming focus on Palestine itself is evidence of antisemitism, which I don't think is fair at all in many cases, many people are genuinely horrified by Israeli atrocities and there are lot's of reasons why some issues get more attention than others. But I can also see how such a focus on Israel can drive people to antisemitic conspiratorial world views, and also means that others turn a blind eye towards it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> The core of the Lab Party associated anti semitism comes predominantly from the Post Anonymous / Occupy / Anti NWO crew, as they've fallen in behind Corbyn online ( for a variety of reasons, up to and including his lifelong support for the Palestinian struggle) -
> 
> But it's not reasonable to claim they're part of any coalition,'de facto' or otherwise - that implies a two way relationship,which doesn't exist. And whilst some of these gonzo's may swell online numbers to some degree, their numbers aren't that big, they're just amplified signifcantly by the usual suspects desperate to weaponise AS vs Corbyn / the left.


The coalition may not be a formal one that he's looked for and has probably been largely imposed on him by another coalition of the idiotic between these loons and the tories and labour party opposition to corbyn (and by his own past history and political positions and activity) but it's one that he's now a central part of - each time they defend him and his mistakes on anti-semitic grounds without firmly cutting himself off from them and their rancid support - each time they make another anti-semitic speech, share another anti-semitic meme, ask why you can can question everything but the holocaust  - then it further cements both their support and the poisoned well that Corbyn's opponents - internal external - can draw from. That's what i meant by coalition. And just repeating that you're not anti-semitic does precisely nothing to remove yourself from that coalition.

And i think, without being a dick about, your experience of these types may be very diff from what i'm seeing up here - hundreds and hundreds of these people turning up repeatedly for beeley meetings, parading massive anti-semitic banners in the town centre in explicit support of corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Combustible said:


> I wonder what the link is between the current issue of antisemitism on the 'left' and campaigning for Palestine.


it's the main driver of it. Obviously I thought.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 26, 2018)

Heh.

They couldn't get him on the so-called IRA support, so now they go for the anti-Semitic smear.

Would he really have got such overwhelming support (from members, grassroots etc) if he was a bigot?


----------



## Combustible (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> it's the main driver of it. Obviously I thought.



I meant more is that mainly because it is drawing in existing antisemites/conspiraloons, or is it driving people towards these beliefs.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

A little from column A, a little from column B.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Heh.
> 
> They couldn't get him on the so-called IRA support, so now they go for the anti-Semitic smear.



The best way to avoid being 'got' on antisemitism is to not post supportive responses on a facebook page to a very obviously dodgy piece of artwork.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> The best way to not be 'got' on antisemitism is not to post supportive responses on a facebook page to a very obviously dodgy piece of artwork.



True but (I believe) he's perhaps not as clued-up on social media and "art" as he could be.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Heh.
> 
> They couldn't get him on the so-called IRA support, so now they go for the anti-Semitic smear.
> 
> Would he really have got such overwhelming support (from members, grassroots etc) if he was a bigot?



You're really asking whether British voters would overlook unpleasant bigotry on some issues to get someone in power who they think will enact the main bulk of their preferred programme?


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 26, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> You're really asking whether British voters would overlook unpleasant bigotry on some issues to get someone in power who they think will enact the main bulk of their preferred programme?



No, I just believe he's been naive and misinterpreted. I don't see him as a bigot.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The coalition may not be a formal one that he's looked for and has probably been largely imposed on him by another coalition of the idiotic between these loons and the tories and labour party opposition to corbyn (and by his own past history and political positions and activity) but it's one that he's now a central part of - each time they defend him and his mistakes on anti-semitic grounds without firmly cutting himself off from them and their rancid support - each time they make another anti-semitic speech, share another anti-semitic meme, ask why you can can question everything but the holocaust  - then it further cements both their support and the poisoned well that Corbyn's opponents - internal external - can draw from. That's what i meant by coalition. And just repeating that you're not anti-semitic does precisely nothing to remove yourself from that coalition.
> 
> And i think, without being a dick about, your experience of these types may be very diff from what i'm seeing up here - hundreds and hundreds of these people turning up repeatedly for beeley meetings, parading massive anti-semitic banners in the town centre in explicit support of corbyn.



true, I only see online stuff - and I did see that Bristol mural stuff as well IIRC ? ( what's Beeley btw ) 

and agreed, Corbyn needs to stand up and tell these w*nkers specifically what a waste if space they are and, where to go; 

something along the lines of Seymours thread here, but with a bit of vitriol thrown in for good measure :
:


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

I think it’s also important to distinguish between impact on voters and on activists / potential political allies.

I don’t think conspiraloons are firm supporters of socialism.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see most of them jump the other way in a crunch.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> true, I only see online stuff - and I did see that Bristol mural stuff as well IIRC ? ( what's Beeley btw )
> 
> and agreed, Corbyn needs to stand up and tell these w*nkers specifically what a waste if space they are and, where to go;
> 
> ...



Beeley


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> No, I just believe he's been naive and misinterpreted. I don't see him as a bigot.



I think it's a red herring to see bigotry solely as being something you are or aren't, it's a spectrum of behaviour and assumption we all fall into depending on our social upbringing and ongoing circles. 

I don't doubt that the root of Corbyn's approach to Judaism is a progressive one, that his wish would be for Israel and Palestine to find peace, that he has a lot of sympathy for/knowledge of the historic and current progressive wings of Judaism. That doesn't mean he hasn't potentially internalised a tacit acceptance of loonspud supporters' anti-semitic nonsense as being part and parcel of left/Palestine solidarity discourse.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> No, I just believe he's been naive and misinterpreted. I don't see him as a bigot.


And also, let's remember this poor man didn't even go to oxbridge, so he's not had the benefit of a full life experience.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 26, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I think it's a red herring to see bigotry solely as being something you are or aren't, it's a spectrum of behaviour and assumption we all fall into depending on our social upbringing and ongoing circles.
> 
> I don't doubt that the root of Corbyn's approach to Judaism is a progressive one, that his wish would be for Israel and Palestine to find peace, that he has a lot of sympathy for/knowledge of the historic and current progressive wings of Judaism. That doesn't mean he hasn't potentially internalised a tacit acceptance of loonspud supporters' anti-semitic nonsense as being part and parcel of left/Palestine solidarity discourse.



Tbh, I don't know the inner workings of his mind. He's always struck me as a decent, principled politician and if he does attract the fringe conspiraloons and anti-Semites, maybe he needs to be more vociferous in his condemnation of them.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> True but (I believe) he's perhaps not as clued-up on social media and "art" as he could be.



He's been in politics for 35 years though and he must be aware of the conspiracy/loon stuff that surrounds this stuff. Besides, exercising caution with anything he writes/has written on social media around this sort of thing surely isn't too difficult.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> He's been in politics for 35 years though and he must be aware of the conspiracy/loon stuff that surrounds this stuff. Besides, exercising caution with anything he writes/has written on social media around this sort of thing surely isn't too difficult.



Possibly. But he doesn't strike me as the most savvy when it comes to social media. I got the feeling that he was not really a fan of the whole thing and only had to get involved as his public profile grew and grew.


----------



## Supine (Mar 26, 2018)

The conservatives are caught with their pants down over the CA scandal and the best labour can do is shoot themselves in the foot with an antisemitic rocket launcher. Prepare for another ten years of conservative power


----------



## scifisam (Mar 26, 2018)

Supine said:


> The conservatives are caught with their pants down over the CA scandal and the best labour can do is shoot themselves in the foot with an antisemitic rocket launcher. Prepare for another ten years of conservative power



Well, it's been brought up again after six years (and after it had been gone over in 2015 as well). Not that that means it's OK or anything, but it does mean this isn't Labour/Corbyn doing something stupid _now_.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Supine said:


> The conservatives are caught with their pants down over the CA scandal and the best labour can do is shoot themselves in the foot with an antisemitic rocket launcher. Prepare for another ten years of conservative power


Tell us, what should the labour leadership be doing_ right now_?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Tell us, what should the labour leadership be doing_ right now_?



Interesting question. Seems like the vulnerability arises from the _combination_ of old school ‘anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism’ labour left veterans in public positions and a rush of new members and supporters some of whom are actual anti-semites.

Or at least indiscriminate consumers of conspiracy-milieu cultural material.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> indiscriminate consumers of conspiracy-milieu cultural material.


Mostly these, I think. Unthinking, unaware or uncaring (or in denial) about the roots of what they're sharing, rather than full-blooded racists. Although I'm not sure there's that much difference.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> He's been in politics for 35 years though and he must be aware of the conspiracy/loon stuff that surrounds this stuff. Besides, exercising caution with anything he writes/has written on social media around this sort of thing surely isn't too difficult.



Showing off maybe the problem. Namechecking Diego Rivera (and not even getting his name right), hey, aren't I cool kids? The least successful left wing venture into art since a middle-aged Paul Weller exhibited his etchings 'for the kids'.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Although I also think it's best to talk about actions and words being racist, rather than _people_ being racist.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> He's been in politics for 35 years though and he must be aware of the conspiracy/loon stuff that surrounds this stuff.



Of course he was. Anyone who has been involved in left politics has seen this sort of shit and instantly recognises the tropes/symbols etc.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Anyone who has been involved in left politics has seen this sort of shit and instantly recognises the tropes/symbols etc.


My parents have been active in the labour party for around 70 years, and I am fairly sure they would not recognise it as an antisemitic trope, so not "anyone". I just don't think it comes up in traditional local party politics? Post-internet tho everyone probably is more aware


----------



## Red Sky (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> true, I only see online stuff - and I did see that Bristol mural stuff as well IIRC ? ( what's Beeley btw )
> 
> and agreed, Corbyn needs to stand up and tell these w*nkers specifically what a waste if space they are and, where to go;
> 
> ...




So these tropes (Eyes in Pyramids, Bavarian Illuminati etc) can be used without being anti semitic?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Mar 26, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> But that said, the imagery in that mural is pretty blatant, and it is hard to believe any even vaguely experienced political player wouldn't recognise it.






Smokeandsteam said:


> Of course he was. Anyone who has been involved in left politics has seen this sort of shit and instantly recognises the tropes/symbols etc.


On top of that, this is not a one-off. Corbyn is a repeat offender in the literal sense. The only other political figure I can think of that would defend a Protocol of the Elders of Zion themed mural on the grounds of 'free speech', is Richard Edmonds.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> So these tropes (Eyes in Pyramids, Bavarian Illuminati etc) can be used without being anti semitic?


I don't think they probably can be used now, but did anyone accuse robert anton wilson of being anti semitic? or the experimental theatre companies that did 24 hour shows of his stuff in the 70s/80s?

that's kind of irrelevant to now tho anyway, I agree that those images are pretty much soiled forever by association.


----------



## Red Sky (Mar 26, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> I don't think they probably can be used now, but did anyone accuse robert anton wilson of being anti semitic? or the experimental theatre companies that did 24 hour shows of his stuff in the 70s/80s?



I think they probably did and of being a member of the Bavarian Illuminati himself. But that was the game he was playing.


----------



## rutabowa (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> I think they probably did and of being a member of the Bavarian Illuminati himself. But that was the game he was playing.


Didn't he pretty much invent the whole illuminati thing as a joke/fiction tho? And it just got taken seriously and got out of hand and then got mixed up with the old anti semitic conspiracies as time went on. That was my understanding.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> Didn't he pretty much invent the whole illuminati thing tho? And it just got out of hand.


Nope - been part of conspiracy guff since the reaction to the french revolution.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> So these tropes (Eyes in Pyramids, Bavarian Illuminati etc) can be used without being anti semitic?


They should be dropped just for being shit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> So these tropes (Eyes in Pyramids, Bavarian Illuminati etc) can be used without being anti semitic?



It's a conspiracy! Illooninazis everywhere m8.


----------



## Red Sky (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Nope - been part of conspiracy guff since the reaction to the french revolution.



Jon Ronson's interaction with David Icke as detailed in "Them" was quite illustrative of the difficulties of deciding whether or not conspiracy theories are anti Semitic.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

Conspiracy theories draw randomnly and irrationally on stuff to make a big stew of wrongness. It makes it hard to separate the ingredients and mostly isn't worth the effort. It's about shit stirring, chipping away at reason.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> Jon Ronson's interaction with David Icke as detailed in "Them" was quite illustrative of the difficulties of deciding whether or not conspiracy theories are anti Semitic.


I don't have much difficulty with it tbh.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> Jon Ronson's interaction with David Icke as detailed in "Them" was quite illustrative of the difficulties of deciding whether or not conspiracy theories are anti Semitic.



some are , some aren't I guess - Roswell / Chemtrails etc vs Illuminati / Bildeberg etc


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

New Statement! What's this, number 4 or 5?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

One step forward two back. The idea that it's only jewish people bothered for example, and def tying in a defence of his actions to palestine while saying it shouldn't be. There's obv an internal battle going on in his circles right now.


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

The first line is a nice dig.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

Seems quite Corbyn this one. It has that grating didatic manner he has, _As I told the Labour Party conference in 2016, antisemitism is an evil that led to one of the worst crimes of the 20th century_. Did it really? Had no one noticed until 2016? 

_I will never be anything other than a militant opponent of antisemitism _(unless in a moment of inattention I find myself endorsing it). Clunky.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 26, 2018)

Combustible said:


> I meant more is that mainly because it is drawing in existing antisemites/conspiraloons, or is it driving people towards these beliefs.



in my own experience of the conspiraloon community (if that isn't a contradiction in terms, which it is but never mind) Israel's behaviour generally is seen as_ The Natural conclusion of Giving Jews their Own Country. See? See how evil they are? Look what they do!_

It's exactly that blurring of anti-zionism and anti-semitism that the fuckers thrive on.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> in my own experience of the conspiraloon community (if that isn't a contradiction in terms, which it is but never mind) Israel's behaviour generally is seen as_ The Natural conclusion of Giving Jews their Own Country. See? See how evil they are? Look what they do!_
> 
> It's exactly that blurring of anti-zionism and anti-semitism that the fuckers hrive on.


What drove it before 1948?


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 26, 2018)

2018 is 70 years _after _1948.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> 2018 is 70 years _after _1948.


I wonder why it existed before 1948 though and why so many of the tropes actually ape the pre-1948 anti-semitism and make nothing but rhetorical passing reference to post 1948 stuff - or more likely seamlessly integrated. This mural we are here gathered to talk about for example.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 26, 2018)

I think I wasn't clear, I was speaking specifically to the _Israel _contribution to the narrative. Israel just gets pointed at to justify all those pre-existing conspiracy theories about jews.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I think I wasn't clear, I was speaking specifically to the _Israel _contribution to the narrative. Israel just gets pointed at to justify all those pre-existing conspiracy theories about jews.


Ok, got you.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 26, 2018)

What's 'good' about this IMO is that the whole subject of conspiranoid anti-semitism is getting a big public airing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 26, 2018)

Re him putting out more statements, I'm not sure what else he's meant to do when people keep putting out their own saying he has questions to answer - other than, you know, answer them.

There are short, medium, and long term responses. Statements are short term responses. Medium term would be stuff like taking immediate action on kicking out twats (which has been ongoing, and needs to continue). Long term would be stuff like putting in place structures that make no tolerance for racism, antisemitism, and other forms of bigotry par for the course, and political education (which imo is more effective when done at a local level by activists, but needs to be supported nationally as well).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Re him putting out more statements, I'm not sure what else he's meant to do when people keep putting out their own saying he has questions to answer - other than, you know, answer them.
> 
> There are short, medium, and long term responses. Statements are short term responses. Medium term would be stuff like taking immediate action on kicking out twats (which has been ongoing, and needs to continue). Long term would be stuff like putting in place structures that make no tolerance for racism, antisemitism, and other forms of bigotry par for the course, and political education (which imo is more effective when done at a local level by activists, but needs to be supported nationally as well).


The short term response shows i think a clear internal battle in his team as they are to put it mildly _developing_ - and i think this is because some new input has come in explaining just what modern anti-semitism is and how it operates, but there's also fightback within that text about this. Why this wider understanding wasn't present before - well there are many possibilities. The official PSC have fought as long and as hard as anyone to  expose and get rid of this shit so i wouldn't point the finger at them.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2018)

Heh.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> New Statement! What's this, number 4 or 5?
> 
> View attachment 131027



Apparently he would have needed to 'study' the mural to work out its political significance? This from a former president of AFA?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

BBC1 report just then by Laura Kuessenberg just turned me into an labour anti-semite. Fucking shameless.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2018)

I also wonder what the influence of  Islamacist types in and around  the Labour Party has contributed.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> I also wonder what the influence of  Islamacist types in and around  the Labour Party has contributed.


The RESPECT def allowed anti-semitism a front door into wider coalition or organisational politics in terms of formal representative stuff - but maybe that was a result of a wider existing culture where anti-semitism was accepted or not challenged. Lefties bending over backwards to Islamists not to appear racist def didn't help though. I suspect some people migrated or cycled from RESPECT into labour.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The RESPECT def allowed anti-semitism a front door into wider coalition or organisational politics in terms of formal representative stuff - but maybe that was a result of a wider existing culture where anti-semitism was accepted or not challenged. Lefties bending over backwards to Islamists not to appear racist def didn't help though. I suspect some people migrated or cycled from RESPECT into labour.



The fact we are talking about this at all is because of Yvonne Ridley, who stood as a candidate for Respect in Rotherham.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 26, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> anyone who knows anything about anti-semtism would spot it immediately - its straight out of the same playbook deployed by the nazis and others before them.  Corbyn -as a life long socialist and anti-racist campaigner -  should have known this. Its pretty shocking that he looked at it and wrote the supportive message - rather than one that said - "that is a piece of vile anti-semitism - you should be ashamed of yourself"
> Im pretty sure the image had been doing the rounds before the mural - it would be more credible if the stoner twat who painted it hadn't realised what it was.



I think you have to see the conspiracy theory tropes and know that they link to anti-semitism. If you know about this stuff you know about it. I'm disappointed but not too surprised Corbyn didn't see it. I don't think it's a matter of becoming blind to this sort of thing through over exposure, it's about not being part of a political culture that instinctively and actively opposes these kooks.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2018)

What was Chris Harmans slogan ? Something like 'with the Islamists sometimes , with the State never' ?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The RESPECT def allowed anti-semitism a front door into wider coalition or organisational politics in terms of formal representative stuff - but maybe that was a result of a wider existing culture where anti-semitism was accepted or not challenged. Lefties bending over backwards to Islamists not to appear racist def didn't help though. I suspect some people migrated or cycled from RESPECT into labour.


Yup the traditional and hard fought values of the the labour movement dispensed with in exchange either for votes or influence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

J Ed said:


> The fact we are talking about this at all is because of Yvonne Ridley, who stood as a candidate for Respect in Rotherham.


I keep forgetting that you weren't here in the immediate 2003 RESPECT days. Fair to say that she is _known _on here.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> What was Chris Harmans slogan ? Something like 'with the Islamists sometimes , with the State never' ?



I totally forgot about the fact that there were a handful of Trots who converted to Islam around this time.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 26, 2018)

Excellent piece:

Jeremy Corbyn is no anti-Semite, but he did screw up


----------



## RainbowTown (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> New Statement! What's this, number 4 or 5?
> 
> View attachment 131027



Obviously, a damage limitation missive (though understandable, given his and the Labour Party's abject failure to root it out in the first place). However, one quite bizarre and telling sentence/statement from this letter does stand out rather glaringly to me. Quote: "While the forms of antisemitism expressed on The Far Right of politics are easily detectable, such as holocaust denial, there needs to be a deeper understanding of what constitutes antisemitism in the labour movement."

Er, what?  Excuse me, why does there need to be a "deeper understanding of what constitutes antisemitism in the labour movement"?

It's pretty simple to anyone with half a brain.

 Those who hold such views are ideologically racist, pure and simple. No matter what party or what side of the political spectrum they align themselves too. There doesn't need to be any "deeper understanding" about it whatsoever. That hackneyed old fall back position of doing some token 'soul searching' and other dumb, empty gestures, fools no one.  Maybe if these cretins want some "deeper understanding"  then send them to visit Auschwitz/ Birkeneau on a day trip. That should enlighten them enough to a "deeper understanding". They can even view the Gas Chambers there if they want.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

I don't think that's true. I think a lot of antisemitic tropes are unthinkingly perpetuated by people who don't understand their significance. I don't think those people are beyond the pale, and I think using terms like 'ideologically racist, pure and simple' will just get their backs up, and push them away from recognising why this stuff is a problem.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2018)

J Ed said:


> I totally forgot about the fact that there were a handful of Trots who converted to Islam around this time.


Members of the 4th International chanting God is Great delerious on 'anti imperialism'. Whats worse is the segregated meetings at Labour and Respect meetings, the womens rights as shibolith, the wilful blind eye to the horrendous conservatism, the platforms with CAGE and MEND, the support of any crank standing on a Respect ticket etc. And then people wonder why the left lost the support of the working class?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Obviously, a damage limitation missive (though understandable, given his and the Labour Party's abject failure to root it out in the first place). However, one quite bizarre and telling sentence/statement from this letter does stand out rather glaringly to me. Quote: "While the forms of antisemitism expressed on The Far Right of politics are easily detectable, such as holocaust denial, there needs to be a deeper understanding of what constitutes antisemitism in the labour movement."
> 
> Er, what?  Excuse me, why does there need to be a "deeper understanding of what constitutes antisemitism in the labour movement"?
> 
> ...


That bit was actually a step forward and recognition that they and the leadership group don't understand modern anti-semitism and the forms it which it appears and so need to do some basic work on it. That's exactly what they need to do so that they can reach the position of identifying then fucking off all anti-semitism no matter how or where it appears.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

I'm not at all sure Corbyn is up to doing this btw.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not at all sure Corbyn is up to doing this btw.


the evidence thus far is... not encouraging.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not at all sure Corbyn is up to doing this btw.



I think his time might be up, but maybe that deserves a new thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> the evidence thus far is... not encouraging.


Gah, brought down by the...eternal enemy.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> I think his time might be up, but maybe that deserves a new thread.



As leader - not a chance.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not at all sure Corbyn is up to doing this btw.



The real work needs to be done in local parties, on social media and so on. He mostly just needs the sense to realise that he needs guidance from people who know better and do better on this, and that does appear to be dawning on him. I think.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Nope - been part of conspiracy guff since the reaction to the french revolution.



Given some of the groups allegedly involved, and their subsequent history (and secrecy), that might not be surprising.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Please. Tell us more about these secretive groups.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 26, 2018)

I for one can't wait. Preferably tell us using flowery language.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> As leader - not a chance.



You are probably right and I was writing in largely in jest, but he does look vulnerable today in a way he simply didn’t before the weekend and hasn't done since well before the election. 

His enemies have really identified his weakness and it is hard to see how Corbyn will ever shake this off. Beforehand his complicity in anti-Semitism (by responding poorly) was a widely held allegation. Now it has the feeling of a fact, even from his own statements.

That may matter for the ultimate results. A less than stellar local election result might make those close to him consider his succession more urgently.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Please. Tell us more about these secretive groups.



Nice try.


----------



## Red Sky (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I for one can't wait. Preferably tell us using flowery language.




Et in Arcadia Ego


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I for one can't wait. Preferably tell us using flowery language.



No. I would make a point of keeping it simple for you.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> The real work needs to be done in local parties, on social media and so on. He mostly just needs the sense to realise that he needs guidance from people who know better and do better on this, and that does appear to be dawning on him. I think.


I don't think local parties are resilient enough to do the real work by themselves - members need some definitive markers put down by the leadership. So far, while each statement has been an improvement on the last, they feel like they've been dragged from him - so they've mostly been ignored his more gobby defenders.


----------



## vanya (Mar 26, 2018)

All That Is Solid ...: Corbynism and Anti-Semitism



> What should be done then? The party is now institutionally anti-anti-semitic, but there remains a persistent and stubborn layer of members who either believe there is no issue, don't think it's worth talking about, or is entirely a weapon used against the leadership by the usual suspects. Clearly, there is much political education to be done. I don't mean every branch and CLP hosting its own diversity training or whatever, but rather a left declaration of war against anti-semitism specifically and the kind of thinking - conspiracy thinking - that incubates it and, in turn, finds a ready audience among large sections of Corbyn's online support. As a rule, the so-called alt-left media sites are dismal failures in this regard and, indeed, stoke the fires of click bait conspiranoia. This has to be opposed by materialist analysis, of understanding the world as it is so we can make the world what we want it to be. This takes a concerted effort at building an intellectual culture that encourages comrades to think critically for themselves, and treat with extreme prejudice any and all explanations that place social ills, however they're defined, at the feet of secret cabals working away in the shadows. Then, perhaps, the culture of carelessness can be overcome and "left" anti-semitism goes back to being what it should be: an oxymoron.


----------



## RainbowTown (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> That bit was actually a stop forward and recognition that they and the leadership group don't understand modern anti-semitism and the forms it which it appears and so need to do some basic work on it. That's exactly what they need to do so that they can reach the position of identifying then fucking off all anti-semitism no matter how or where it appears.



Sorry, but I disagree. Any and every politician should know what antisemitism is, modern or not. It's not rocket science, it's common sense which any decent, ordinary person can comprehend. It's racist, it's prejudice, it's a deliberate, intolerant hatred. Like all racism is. I simply cannot fathom that an experienced and seasoned politician like Corbyn and others (or any politician for that matter)  did not recognize such beliefs were being actively tolerated in their party. And worse still, not acted upon. Until now, of course, when they've been found out. After all, the scummy Far Right knuckle draggers have been called out on such things for years and years. Rightly so, too. So for me, there's no "deeper understanding" needed - and no amount of damage limitation or back peddling by the Labour leadership will alter that fact. Or should I say alter that excuse. Because that's what it's beginning to suspiciously sound like.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Sorry, but I disagree. Any and every politician should know what antisemitism is, modern or not. It's not rocket science, it's common sense which any decent, ordinary person can comprehend. It's racist, it's prejudice, it's a deliberate, intolerant hatred. Like all racism is. I simply cannot fathom that an experienced and seasoned politician like Corbyn and others (or any politician for that matter)  did not recognize such beliefs were being actively tolerated in their party. And worse still, not acted upon. Until now, of course, when they've been found out. After all, the scummy Far Right knuckle draggers have been called out on such things for years and years. Rightly so, too. So for me, there's no "deeper understanding" needed - and no amount of damage limitation or back peddling by the Labour leadership will alter that fact. Or should I say alter that excuse. Because that's what it's beginning to suspiciously sound like.


You're an idiot stuck in the 1930s then. Exactly what got corbyn in trouble. Catch up with the rest of us.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Although I also think it's best to talk about actions and words being racist, rather than _people_ being racist.


yes, being blind to racism _is_ racist behaviour - that could be acknowledged by the Corbyn camp


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think local parties are resilient enough to do the real work by themselves - members need some definitive markers put down by the leadership. So far, while each statement has been an improvement on the last, they feel like they've been dragged from him - so they've mostly been ignored his more gobby defenders.



Yes. But it can come from the people around him writing these statements. It'll be helpful to defuse the whole cult of personality stuff. 

I have to say  Ian Paisley Jnr condemning anti semitism at the rally is really a surreal new pinnacle of opportunistic bs.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

QUOTE="Orang Utan, post: 15494708, member: 3081"]yes, being blind to racism _is_ racist behaviour - that could be acknowledged by the Corbyn camp[/QUOTE]

No, that might be an unequal power dynamic - which is more complex.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 26, 2018)

vanya said:


> All That Is Solid ...: Corbynism and Anti-Semitism



The article's great; the comments underneath it show how much work needs to be done.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

Milne and Corbyn himself are the people most committed to this outdated anti-imperialism approach through which this stuff entered. That's what needs to change if support for CLP cleaning out is going to happen.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> The real work needs to be done in local parties, .



In what way do you see CLPs doing ' the real work' ? 

If someone turned up to our CLP meetings and tried to start spouting anti semitism, it would be ridiculous, it wouldn't last long. In some of the less sedate CLP's, I suspect they'd be lucky to leave in once piece.

A/S and the Left is predominantly an online problem, barring the odd f*ckwit and his mural.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> In what way do you see CLPs doing ' the real work' ?
> 
> If someone turned up to our CLP meetings and tried to start spouting anti semitism, it would be ridiculous, it wouldn't last long. In some of the less sedate CLP's, I suspect they'd be lucky to leave in once piece.
> 
> A/S and the Left is predominantly an online problem, barring the odd f*ckwit and his mural.


How are you planning to deal with it then?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> How are you planning to deal with it then?



I don't claim to have any easy answers ( or a particularly fully formed idea of the actual scale of the problem tbh), am just stating what I do know about the CLP I attend, and what i suspect to be the case re: the rest - they aren't spaces where A/S would ever be tolerated, as per any other form of racism.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2018)

My dad tells me of a long and tedious discussion of what counts as antisemitism, rich with whataboutery, denial and deflection at a recent CLP meeting here. It is absolutely something that needs tackling locally: and something that would be better tackled if the leadership make it clear what is and isn't acceptable.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 26, 2018)

cantsin said:


> I don't claim to have any easy answers ( or a particularly fully formed idea of the actual scale of the problem tbh), am just stating what I do know about the CLP I attend, and what i suspect to be the case re: the rest - they aren't spaces where A/S would ever be tolerated, as per any other form of racism.



Overt prejudice wouldn't be tolerated in my CLP either. Way too much woolly headed conspiracy bullshit is though  and it's that kind of thinking that allows the benefit of the doubt to be given on certain dubious tropes. Just because it is online doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged, and where else to start talking about this but in CLPs, on CLP social media.  I, we, need to be sharper and better about this. First of all is talking about this stuff, making it clear what is acceptable and what is not.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 26, 2018)

We are now in the position whereby the Board of Deputies are getting Norman Tebbit, Ian Paisley Jnr and Sammy Wilson onside to condemn racism and bigotry.......  And members of the Jewish Voices For Labour being condemned by non Jewish Tories as anti-semites because of their support for Corbyn. This is not an atmosphere where a serious discussion on anti-semitism, which is unquestionably needed, can take place and never will. It is almost as if the genuine concerns of members of Jewish community/people is being used by some people and weaponised against Labour/Corbyn.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> My dad tells me of a long and tedious discussion of what counts as antisemitism, rich with whataboutery, denial and deflection at a recent CLP meeting here. It is absolutely something that needs tackling locally: and something that would be better tackled if the leadership make it clear what is and isn't acceptable.



And that is the point - what is and what is not acceptable, according to whom, and in which particular time frame?


----------



## bemused (Mar 26, 2018)

Fedayn said:


> We are now in the position whereby the Board of Deputies are getting Norman Tebbit, Ian Paisley Jnr and Sammy Wilson onside to condemn racism and bigotry.......  And members of the Jewish Voices For Labour being condemned by non Jewish Tories as anti-semites because of their support for Corbyn. This is not an atmosphere where a serious discussion on anti-semitism, which is unquestionably needed, can take place and never will. It is almost as if the genuine concerns of members of Jewish community/people is being used by some people and weaponised against Labour/Corbyn.



To be fair no one could have foreseen a group of people turning up to counter protest an antisemitism demonstration would been poorly portrayed in the press.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Mar 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> How are you planning to deal with it then?



What are *YOU* doing about this alleged problem?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 26, 2018)

Fedayn said:


> We are now in the position whereby the Board of Deputies are getting Norman Tebbit, Ian Paisley Jnr and Sammy Wilson onside to condemn racism and bigotry.......  And members of the Jewish Voices For Labour being condemned by non Jewish Tories as anti-semites because of their support for Corbyn. This is not an atmosphere where a serious discussion on anti-semitism, which is unquestionably needed, can take place and never will. It is almost as if the genuine concerns of members of Jewish community/people is being used by some people and weaponised against Labour/Corbyn.



And this serious discussion will be lead by a bloke who apparently can’t recognise an anti-Semitic mural? This may take some time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 27, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> So these tropes (Eyes in Pyramids, Bavarian Illuminati etc) can be used without being anti semitic?



People use the ((( ))) parentheses here as a comforting hug symbol, I did too but recently I found out it's used in anti-Semitic circles. Sometimes, it's genuinely hard to tell what's "safe" and what's not.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 27, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> People use the ((( ))) parentheses here as a comforting hug symbol, I did too but recently I found out it's used in anti-Semitic circles. Sometimes, it's genuinely hard to tell what's "safe" and what's not.



It started being used (long after we were using it for hugs) on social media as a way for far right types to identify Jewish people in their messages without saying "this person is a Jew." When it became apparent this was happening, quite a few people started putting ((())) around their usernames on twitter and the like as a way to reclaim it or take the power away from it and away from neo-nazis. As with so many recent vile things, it grew out of the general miasma of far right shittitude that began to more widely manifest with gamergate but had been brewing in 4/8chan etc for some time.

Speaking of gamergate, one of the common images shared by that oozing pustule of rot was of Anita Sarkeesian, who was public enemy number one for much of it, and it was an antisemitic cartoon of her (she isn't Jewish as far as I know, but that's largely by-the-by). Here's the image. It's absolutely clear and obvious to us that it's antisemitic, but I remember at the time there were plenty of younger people who were encountering this kind of imagery for the first time and didn't understand. Clearly, we would expect someone like Corbyn and those in his team to recognise it, but we also need to realise there's no automatic recognition of this sort of thing, particularly amongst younger people, and as younger generations start to take the lead in political organising it's more important than ever to ensure they're taught this stuff.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

Beats & Pieces said:


> What are *YOU* doing about this alleged problem?



as a committed non LP member, not sure what Butchers is supposed to be doing about all this ?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> My dad tells me of a long and tedious discussion of what counts as antisemitism, rich with whataboutery, denial and deflection at a recent CLP meeting here. It is absolutely something that needs tackling locally: and something that would be better tackled if the leadership make it clear what is and isn't acceptable.



New rules / guidelines vs A/S were passed at 2017 conference. Policing online observance of these by people who may / may not be Party members is near impossible - we cld deffo manage a long + tedious discussion at CLP tho , we have some experts practitioners at hand.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And that is the point - what is and what is not acceptable, according to whom, and in which particular time frame?


I thought I'd made that clear: according to the Labour leadership. They need to set out some red lines, and explain why they're there.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> New rules / guidelines vs A/S were passed at 2017 conference.


No-one gives a shit about guidelines from conference - indeed, I'm given to understand much of the row was about how conference had got some detail wrong. This is especially true when the leader himself can be demonstrated to be so vague, and so many of the new members' loyalty is to Corbyn rather than the party as a whole.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

anyway. Seymour's new blog is good. 

Three points about antisemitism and the Left | Richard Seymour on Patreon


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2018)

Some good points raised here about how a lot of people - especially younger people - aren't aware of the antisemitic tropes that a lot of conspiracy theory stuff deals in. On urban i think there a lot more awareness and a lot of credit for that should go to Frogwomen (would like to tag her in this but cant work out how to do it) who alerted a lot of people to this stuff which i for one was not particularly aware of.

What she - and others (violent panda as well it think) did on here  is exactly the sort of awareness raising that should be going on across the labour party and the wider left.  

Cos Once you see the antisemitic stuff - you cant unsee it.

With regards to the mural, i've remembered where i first saw it - someone posted it on the comments on the  "Jeremy Corbyn for PM" face book page about a year ago. It took me all of 1 second to see what it was and I called it out and it was taken down. This is exactly what corbyn did not do - because he did not have the awareness (which in itself is quite shocking in  a life long anti-racism campaigner) .

Its not the labour party itself where this shit is coming from - its seeped into the wider left via CT bollocks and the tolerance/blind eye towards reactionary islamist groups within STWC and  pro-palastine campaigns.

Someone posted earlier in the thread that this row could actually be a good thing because it would highlight the damaging and toxic influence of CT stuff within the left in particularly with regards to antisemeitsim. I hope this could turn out to be the case.
Ive seen  plenty of people on my fb feed and on various comments pages who cant see how the mural is antisemitic - that is not because they are rabid bigots, its through ignorance, a belief that  any attack on Corbyn must be bollocks and a reluctance to give credence to accusations of antisemtism (unless its coming from the far right) because of deeprooted hostility to Israel. What they need to realise is that in itself makes_ them_ antisemitic.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> And this serious discussion will be lead by a bloke who apparently can’t recognise an anti-Semitic mural? This may take some time.


He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone. It’s rich that the black shirt supporting daily mail are leading the attacks on a man who was president of AFA the most militant anti fascist group of its time. Corbyn is no anti Semite


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> What they need to realise is that in itself makes_ them_ antisemitic.


I think that's a difficult conceptual jump for most people to make, especially when they imagine themselves lifelong champions of social justice and antiracism. Better to work on making them realise the _ideas_ are antisemitic.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Some good points raised here about how a lot of people - especially younger people - aren't aware of the antisemitic tropes that a lot of conspiracy theory stuff deals in. On urban i think there a lot more awareness and a lot of credit for that should go to Frogwomen (would like to tag her in this but cant work out how to do it) who alerted a lot of people to this stuff which i for one was not particularly aware of.
> 
> What she - and others (violent panda as well it think) did on here  is exactly the sort of awareness raising that should be going on across the labour party and the wider left.
> 
> ...


I dislike Israel - a state that basis itself on ethno nationalist lines- that does not mean I dislike Jews. There are plenty of Jews living in Israel that also dislike the way their state treats the Palestinian people. They are not anti Semitic either


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone. It’s rich that the black shirt supporting daily mail are leading the attacks on a man who was president of AFA the most militant anti fascist group of its time. Corbyn is no anti Semite


Actually this is a good point, perhaps he didn't. I had a hard time trying to explain to a friend on FB why the pic she had shared (the same one) was anti-semitic. To bolster my argument I went off and tried to find a larger one to show the points I was trying to make. After quite a lot of searching, found one not very good one that was larger and that was not of the complete mural and this is all on a full-sized desktop display, not a phone.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

the NWO tag on the LH side isn't ususally visible in most internetz pics either- that sorta gives us a clue as soon as you see it


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

I think the biggest lesson for Corbyn here is to take more care when he tweets or posts on social media. But yes, a 70 year old man with glasses peering at the mobile phone image would not be able to make out the offensive facial features of the characters. And the point is quite simple. Corbyn is no antisemite


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> the NWO tag on the LH side isn't ususally visible in most internetz pics either- that sorta gives us a clue as soon as you see it



True, I had to blow the pic right up to even see what it said in the original.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone. It’s rich that the black shirt supporting daily mail are leading the attacks on a man who was president of AFA the most militant anti fascist group of its time. Corbyn is no anti Semite



 i saw a small version of it on a fb feed a year ago - i clocked it for what it was within seconds. Corbyn didn't - he should have done. He himself admits that. Its highlighted a consistent blindness to this stuff within the left that needs to be tackled - and thats not done by making excuses.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i saw a small version of it on a fb feed a year ago - i clocked it for what it was within seconds.


yeah, same.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone...



That is the weakest of excuses.

1) Zoom

or

2) Don't comment on things you can't see.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> yeah, same.


And you have compromised eye sight and views it on a small mobile screen? I had to view it on my laptop to see what it was. That not an excuse that’s a fact


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think that's a difficult conceptual jump for most people to make, especially when they imagine themselves lifelong champions of social justice and antiracism. Better to work on making them realise the _ideas_ are antisemitic.



maybe - but maybe its the conceptual slap round the face they need them to wise up. Before the nice cop antisemitism-awareness comrade offers them a cup of tea and an opportunity to change their ways.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

mwgdrwg said:


> That is the weakest of excuses.
> 
> 1) Zoom
> 
> ...


I agree. Don’t comment on things you can’t see. And I’m sure Corbyn has learnt that lesson


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

The eye and the pyramid was enough to ring alarm bells for me but the detail is really difficult to see without enlarging it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone. It’s rich that the black shirt supporting daily mail are leading the attacks on a man who was president of AFA the most militant anti fascist group of its time. Corbyn is no anti Semite



An old picture of Corbyn taking part in a street action against the fash might be an interesting diversion. However, the fact is if this was this Boris Johnson or anyone else we’d have no doubt he saw it or that it doesn’t matter because he shouldn’t have blundered into it.

But it’s a moot point. The problem for Labour is that it is very hard to see the end of this for Corbyn. Putting aside all the extraneous factors and the bits that are fair or unfair, he looks inept and flawed. He endorsed an anti-Semitic mural and everyone knows so. 

How does he get out of this hole?


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> And you have compromised eye sight and views it on a small mobile screen? I had to view it on my laptop to see what it was. That not an excuse that’s a fact


I don't have compromised eyesight, or a history of _not noticing_ antisemitism going on under my nose.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't have compromised eyesight, or a history of _not noticing_ antisemitism going on under my nose.


And have you done as much in your life to fight racism? Thus is the MP who was photographed being arrested on anti apartheid demos, who has consistently spoken up against racism and social injustice. He made a mistake , has apologised and will lead the party in renewed efforts to challenge racism withi the party,


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> An old picture of Corbyn taking part in a street action against the fash might be an interesting diversion. However, the fact is if this was this Boris Johnson or anyone else we’d have no doubt he saw it or that it doesn’t matter because he shouldn’t have blundered into it.
> 
> But it’s a moot point. The problem for Labour is that it is very hard to see the end of this for Corbyn. Putting aside all the extraneous factors and the bits that are fair or unfair, he looks inept and flawed. He endorsed an anti-Semitic mural and everyone knows so.
> 
> How does he get out of this hole?


And who does that suit? If Corbyn goes because of this it would be the desired outcome for the blairittes, the Tories, the most regressive elements of our society. He is not a racist and I’m not referring to a few isolated actions against racism, im referring to a lifetime spent fighting fascism and racism


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> An old picture of Corbyn taking part in a street action against the fash might be an interesting diversion. However, the fact is if this was this Boris Johnson or anyone else we’d have no doubt he saw it or that it doesn’t matter because he shouldn’t have blundered into it.
> 
> But it’s a moot point. The problem for Labour is that it is very hard to see the end of this for Corbyn. Putting aside all the extraneous factors and the bits that are fair or unfair, he looks inept and flawed. He endorsed an anti-Semitic mural and everyone knows so.
> 
> How does he get out of this hole?



Well, Johnson has a long and colourful history when it comes to dubious views/comments. He's known for it. JC, less so.

I pity him and all those of us who believed he was the answer. He now has to satisfy and make ammends not only to those who had faith in him but also his longterm critics who must be delighted with how this has unfolded.

It appears he's toast and so is the credible alternative to the tory/blairish nightmare that's blighted the UK for decades. 

I really thought it was going to happen, a real Labour party in government.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, Johnson has a long and colourful history when it comes to dubious views/comments. He's known for it. JC, less so.
> 
> I pity him and all those of us who believed he was the answer. He now has to satisfy and make ammends not only to those who had faith in him but also his longterm critics who must be delighted with how this has unfolded.
> 
> ...


And are you happy about that turn of events? We had to fight and fight to get to a position where the left are in the leadership of the party. I for one won’t give up. It’s taken a life time to get to this position and I am not going to let the right wing detractors destroy our chance of power over this one issue, if I genuinely thought the part was majority racist, and Corbyn was an antisemite I would tear up my membership card, but I know that is not the case.


----------



## jusali (Mar 27, 2018)

Yep it's a sad old situation. Funny how the Tories seem to be teflon coated with all sorts of issues yet a simple retweet on some dubious imagery and Labour's finished?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

Oh this is definitely 100% smear territory but unfortunately he's given them an open goal. Another thing I am really sick of is the use of the term 'moderates' to describe anyone opposed to the current direction of the leadership. They are not, anything but.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

jusali said:


> Yep it's a sad old situation. Funny how the Tories seem to be teflon coated with all sorts of issues yet a simple retweet on some dubious imagery and Labour's finished?


I agree, and have you noticed that the MPs attacking Corbyn now are the same old faces that called for the 2nd leadership election, cry about trots trying to deselect then and use every opportunity to attack him? 
He’s not finished. This will make thebiart stringer


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Oh this is definitely 100% smear territory but unfortunately he's given them an open goal. Another thing I am really sick of is the use of the term 'moderates' to describe anyone opposed to the current direction of the leadership. They are not, anything but.


Absolutely. They are the right wing dregs that would rather see a Tory Government than a Corbyn led labour one


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> How does he get out of this hole?



Something like: A proper apology, recognising his own culpability & blind spots. Serious engagement with the Jewish community. Booting out all the actual antisemites, and launching a drive within the party to educate members about coded antisemitic tropes and the like.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Jonathan Freedland is obviously an arsehole, but I think his thread here sets out the kind of thing Corbyn would need to address fairly well.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> And are you happy about that turn of events? We had to fight and fight to get to a position where the left are in the leadership of the party. I for one won’t give up. It’s taken a life time to get to this position and I am not going to let the right wing detractors destroy our chance of power over this one issue, if I genuinely thought the part was majority racist, and Corbyn was an antisemite I would tear up my membership card, but I know that is not the case.



I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm happy about this turn of events. 

I was one of millions who was lucky enough to see him speak at Hyde Park 15 years ago. It was a breath of fresh air at the height of the Blairist tragedy. I was delighted when he took the Labour Party back to its roots. I still don't believe he's an anti-Semite, as I said earlier.

But I do think the damage to the party now is irreversible. I feel it will revert to the Tory lite model.

I truly hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Something like: A proper apology, recognising his own culpability & blind spots. Serious engagement with the Jewish community. Booting out all the actual antisemites, and launching a drive within the party to educate members about coded antisemitic tropes and the like.


I’m sure there will be a positive response to this situation, in the mean time it would be nice to beat the Tories in the next election to start dismantling the austerity agenda. Smashing Corbyn to bits for a massive error of judgement for wgichbhe is rightly mortified and apologetic will not further this cause


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

I think leaving this particular sore festering would be a barrier to that ambition.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm happy about this turn of events.
> 
> I was one of millions who was lucky enough to see him speak at Hyde Park 15 years ago. It was a breath of fresh air at the height of the Blairist tragedy. I was delighted when he took the Labour Party back to its roots. I still don't believe he's an anti-Semite, as I said earlier.
> 
> ...


Cool. It won’t be the end if we engage and turn the situation round


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Cool. It won’t be the end if we engage and turn the situation round



I hope you do. I can't vote in the UK anymore but if I was still there, I would. It would be an absolute shame, a disaster, if all the good work done in the last couple of years is undone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He didn’t see the mural, he saw a 2” pic on his mobile phone. It’s rich that the black shirt supporting daily mail are leading the attacks on a man who was president of AFA the most militant anti fascist group of its time. Corbyn is no anti Semite


Was he bollocks. When AFA moved into militancy and started to act on its real potential based on an accurate reading of the situation he buggered off sharpish. There are people posting on this very thread who more represent that militant tradition and they are very clearly giving Corbyn and his original excuses very short shrift.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Something like: A proper apology, recognising his own culpability & blind spots. Serious engagement with the Jewish community. Booting out all the actual antisemites, and launching a drive within the party to educate members about coded antisemitic tropes and the like.



Yes, but that should have already happened with the last report. What does he say next time some yet to be ventilated idiocy surfaces? 

I hear what people are saying about his enemies but they got to shoot him in the face for free yesterday. This may be fatally weakening if it erupts again close to the next election.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but that should have already happened with the last report. What does he say next time some yet to be ventilated idiocy surfaces?


If he's accepted that in the past he's done it wrong and accounts for it properly, that pretty much neutralises any further digging Guido does, doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> And you have compromised eye sight and views it on a small mobile screen? I had to view it on my laptop to see what it was. That not an excuse that’s a fact


Something Corbyn presumably was unable to do at any point before this week? I'm asking you as you seem very definite that he only saw it on a tony mobile phone.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Was he bollocks. When AFA moved into militancy and started to act on its real potential based on a accurate reading of the situation he buggered off sharpish. There are people posting on this very thread who more represent that militant tradition and they are very clearly giving Corbyn and his original excuses very short shrift.


I too was heavily involved in militant anti fascist activity at that time, a regular at Chappell market and shoulder to shoulder with those that went on to form redaction. And I’m know there were few other national politicians of note that would associate in any way with militant anti fascism, - others might have given some support to the ANL or other liberal groupings, but he WAS honorary president for a period which says a lot about him. There were many Labour Party members and CP , who supported a robust response to organised racism, and far more that didn’t. For a Labour politician his heart has always been on the right side


----------



## rekil (Mar 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> True, I had to blow the pic right up to even see what it said in the original.


I don't have fb. How does one go about finding a conspiraloon artist's page to post comments on to begin with.

e2a: _(innocent face)_


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> I too was heavily involved in militant anti fascist activity at that time, a regular at Chappell market and shoulder to shoulder with those that went on to form redaction. And I’m know there were few other national politicians of note that would associate in any way with militant anti fascism, - others might have given some support to the ANL or other liberal groupings, but he WAS honorary president for a period which says a lot about him. There were many Labour Party members and CP , who supported a robust response to organised racism, and far more that didn’t. For a Labour politician his heart has always been on the right side



"I remember Red Action used to go around attacking, erm, fascist supporters. When if in fact you saw one side attacking the other you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not in favour of one group going around attacking another, as it reduces yourself to their level.

Red Action, I mean, I could see their value in terms of stewarding meetings and defensive action. But I think there were some people in Red Action who got quiet a bit over excited and enjoyed a bit of action. They didn't seem that concerned or strong about any of the issues.

I remember once chairing a meeting on Kurdistan or Iran and the fascists came to try and break up the meeting. At various points Red Action came in the meeting, well, I couldn't tell the difference.

'We're Red Action' <said in a tough, working class sounding/goblin voice>.
'Yep, okay. They went that way <points>'. Just please don't come in hear, stay out. They were all like this <hits fist into palm>.'

It was quiet funny really. 'They went that way'."


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> *But I do think the damage to the party now is irreversible*. I feel it will revert to the Tory lite model.
> 
> I truly hope I'm wrong.



that's crazy - the socio economic factors that put Corbyn where he is ( and Sanders in the US ) remain as they are, with no hope of resolution in the forseeable ( with impending enviromental / AI challenges ahead,they're likely to get more pronounced ) - no one knows where all this ends up ( could end up with the focus shifting to the left of Corbyn and Labour ) , but the chances of 500 K new members converting to Neo-Blairism within a generation are virtually non existent, whatever online storm appears on the horizon next.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> "I remember Red Action used to go around attacking, erm, fascist supporters. When if in fact you saw one side attacking the other you couldn't tell the difference. I'm not in favour of one group going around attacking another, as it reduces yourself to their level.
> 
> Red Action, I mean, I could see their value in terms of stewarding meetings and defensive action. But I think there were some people in Red Action who got quiet a bit over excited and enjoyed a bit of action. They didn't seem that concerned or strong about any of the issues.
> 
> ...


I was only referring to redaction and their fellow travellers to illustrate that as a labour member at the time when I would be trying to look for support for anti fascist activities amongst fellow members, it was hard to find, but Corbyn was one of a handful that didn’t baulk at the idea of people putting up physical resistance to the Nazi scum that at that time were controlling the streets in a lot of working class areas.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> If he's accepted that in the past he's done it wrong and accounts for it properly, that pretty much neutralises any further digging Guido does, doesn't it?



No. It would require a fair public discourse and there isn’t one.

Moreover it appears this was sat on for some time. It’s therefore not clear he is able to neutralise.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> I don't have fb. How does one go about finding a conspiraloon artist's page to post comments on to begin with.


Actually i have kind of answered that question for myself, not that I was thinking of commenting (should have done this yesterday) go to his twitter page but in any event it doesn't get much better than this:


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> No. It would require a fair public discourse and there isn’t one.


They'll attack Corbyn whatever: this current argument is most damaging because of the internal conflict it's causing rather than the external - as I've said earlier in the thread, I don't think this in and of itself is  a significant issue for the vast majority of people in the country. But a divided Labour party openly fighting among themselves is electoral poison.


----------



## rekil (Mar 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Actually i have just answered that question for myself (should have done this yesterday) go to his twitter page but in any event it doesn't get much better than this:


No I've looked at all his twitter and instagram shit. I see that he also believes that skeletons with elongated skulls are evidence of aliens. I meant how did the loon's post come to Corbyn's attention.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> that's crazy - the socio economic factors that put Corbyn where he is ( and Sanders in the US ) remain as they are, with no hope of resolution in the forseeable ( with impending enviromental / AI challenges ahead,they're likely to get more pronounced ) - no one knows where all this ends up ( could end up with the focus shifting to the left of Corbyn and Labour ) , but the chances of 500 K new members converting to Neo-Blairism within a generation are virtually non existent, whatever online storm appears on the horizon next.



Let's hope so!


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> No I've looked at all his twitter and instagram shit. I see that he also believes that skeletons with elongated skulls are evidence of aliens. I meant how did the loon's post come to Corbyn's attention.


Oh sorry I believe it was in a FB post originally but where that actually is I have no idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> No I've looked at all his twitter and instagram shit. I see that he also believes that skeletons with elongated skulls are evidence of aliens. I meant how did the loon's post come to Corbyn's attention.


i have my own suspicions on that last point.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> No I've looked at all his twitter and instagram shit. I see that he also believes that skeletons with elongated skulls are evidence of aliens. I meant how did the loon's post come to Corbyn's attention.


Posts on public facebook pages pop up in your newsfeed when your facebook friends comment on them - Yvonne Ridley commented immediately before Corbyn, so I assume this is what brought it to his attention.


----------



## LDC (Mar 27, 2018)

This shit is the tip of the iceberg if you look outside the Labour party into the wider extra-parliamentary left. The Venn diagram of conspiracy theory nonsense, the mad remnants of anti-imperialist politics, and politically dodgy ideas are really quite widespread and have needed dealing with for a long time.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> I was only referring to redaction and their fellow travellers to illustrate that as a labour member at the time when I would be trying to look for support for anti fascist activities amongst fellow members, it was hard to find, but Corbyn was one of a handful that didn’t baulk at the idea of people putting up physical resistance to the Nazi scum that at that time were controlling the streets in a lot of working class areas.


The end of the day it’s the Labour Party we’re talking about, not a revolutionary movement unfortunately, and I’m saying that as Party members go he was better than most in terms of his attitude to anti fascism, and that there is no way he’s antisemitic which is what some contributors to  the debate on here seems to imply


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Posts on public facebook pages pop up in your newsfeed when your facebook friends comment on them - Yvonne Ridley commented immediately before Corbyn, so I assume this is what brought it to his attention.


yeh. 'by their friends shall ye know them': and former (?) military intelligence officer ridley no real friend to socialists even of the stunted parliamentary variety


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

He's still friends with ridley the anti-semite!! I though she was just sticking her nose in.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> He's still friends with ridley the anti-semite!! I though she was just sticking her nose in.


Not sure if he still is, but I bet in 2012 he was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Not sure if he still is, but I bet in 2012 he was.


she was bad news then


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> she was bad news then


Sure. But as we've established, Corbo didn't always notice that people were bad news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Sure. But as we've established, Corbo didn't always notice that people were bad news.


yeh. someone i used to know from the new communist party, he had corbo on speed dial.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I thought I'd made that clear: according to the Labour leadership. They need to set out some red lines, and explain why they're there.


do you really think it's possible to draw up hard and fast rules to govern the behaviour of members of a political party on this very specific, and very contentious political question? Members who campaign against the actions of the Zionist state, with its self-proclaimed Jewish identity and history of oppressing Palestinians and warring with neighbours? A party which includes those who identify the financial class as problematic.  In a context where organised pro-Israeli lobbies have weaponised accusations of anti-semitism, and where so-called 'community leaders' somehow seldom get mentioned in the criticism levelled at top down multi-culturalism.

Leaving aside that rules based politics is a ridiculous concept, this particular potato is far too hot for any sensible agreement on boundaries, surely?

Does simply asking these questions lay me open to accusations of being anti-semitic?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> He's still friends with ridley the anti-semite!! I though she was just sticking her nose in.


 
Some of her fellow travellers on FB have rather interesting opinion on the Corbs situation - zionazis ( new one to me)  being flung about. its a bit nuts


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> do you really think it's possible to draw up hard and fast rules to govern the behaviour of members of a political party on this very specific, and very contentious political question? Members who campaign against the actions of the Zionist state, with its self-proclaimed Jewish identity and history of oppressing Palestinians and warring with neighbours? A party which includes those who identify the financial class as problematic.  In a context where organised pro-Israeli lobbies have weaponised accusations of anti-semitism, and where so-called 'community leaders' somehow seldom get mentioned in the criticism levelled at top down multi-culturalism.
> 
> Leaving aside that rules based politics is a ridiculous concept, this particular potato is far too hot for any sensible agreement on boundaries, surely?
> 
> Does simply asking these questions lay me open to accusations of being anti-semitic?



The Labour party has a globally recognised definition of antisemitism, with clear examples of what sort of behaviour is not acceptable. For an organisation that wants to tackle the most challenging problems in government I really don't believe it's beyond their wit to point to a code of acceptable behaviour and kick anyone out who doesn't follow it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 27, 2018)

"the financial class" 

That might.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Some of her fellow travellers on FB have rather interesting opinion on the Corbs situation - zionazis ( new one to me)  being flung about. its a bit nuts


coming up with your own dodgy portmanteaus is always iffy ground. Reminds me of holohoax


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> The Labour party has a globally recognised definition of antisemitism, with clear examples of what sort of behaviour is not acceptable. For an organisation that wants to tackle the most challenging problems in government I really don't believe it's beyond their wit to point to a code of acceptable behaviour and kick anyone out who doesn't follow it.


and that code of behaviour covers discussion about a mural?  


StigoftheDig said:


> "the financial class"
> 
> That might.


if I'd said 'the ruling class'? 

the boundaries of what can be considered acceptable and what can't are so much more nuanced on this very specific area of politics tahn any other.  that's the point I was trying to make.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> do you really think it's possible to draw up hard and fast rules to govern the behaviour of members of a political party on this very specific, and very contentious political question? Members who campaign against the actions of the Zionist state, with its self-proclaimed Jewish identity and history of oppressing Palestinians and warring with neighbours? A party which includes those who identify the financial class as problematic.  In a context where organised pro-Israeli lobbies have weaponised accusations of anti-semitism, and where so-called 'community leaders' somehow seldom get mentioned in the criticism levelled at top down multi-culturalism.
> 
> Leaving aside that rules based politics is a ridiculous concept, this particular potato is far too hot for any sensible agreement on boundaries, surely?
> 
> Does simply asking these questions lay me open to accusations of being anti-semitic?


Well, it won't be easy. But he should probably have a crack at it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 27, 2018)

If you'd have said the "ruling class" and conflated it with Jews, as you have "the financial class" then yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> do you really think it's possible to draw up hard and fast rules to govern the behaviour of members of a political party on this very specific, and very contentious political question? Members who campaign against the actions of the Zionist state, with its self-proclaimed Jewish identity and history of oppressing Palestinians and warring with neighbours? A party which includes those who identify the financial class as problematic.  In a context where organised pro-Israeli lobbies have weaponised accusations of anti-semitism, and where so-called 'community leaders' somehow seldom get mentioned in the criticism levelled at top down multi-culturalism.



Hang on - the critiques of top-down-multi-culturalism as developed on here, by the IWCA/RA, by Kenan Malik, Asian Youth Movements, Adolph Reed  and loads of other people have always been crystal clear about the utterly central role that community leaders play in its imposition. Despite the different approaches it's one thing that they all share and grant great importance to. Bizarre claim.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Well, it won't be easy. But he should probably have a crack at it.


you really think rules based politics is a good idea, whether or not it's doable?


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> and that code of behaviour covers discussion about a mural?



I suspect we're going to end up talking about how to interpret nose size or if Jewish bankers really do rule the World. So here is the standard, fill your boots:

English (English) | European Forum on Antisemitism


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> you really think rules based politics is a good idea, whether or not it's doable?


Rule based organisations surely are.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> I suspect we're going to end up talking about how to interpret nose size or if Jewish bankers really do rule the World. So here is the standard, fill your boots:
> 
> English (English) | European Forum on Antisemitism


That is an appalling definition and has been subject to very critical discussion (academic and political) but was just steamrollered through regardless - by both the EU and this govt i beleive. It's shit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. someone i used to know from the new communist party, he had corbo on speed dial.



Corbyn’s own contacts could make for a very entertaining Michael McIntyre ‘send to all’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn’s own contacts could make for a very entertaining Michael McIntyre ‘send to all’.


amusing that is for those of us whose details aren't stored in his capacious phone


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> and that code of behaviour covers discussion about a mural?
> 
> if I'd said 'the ruling class'?
> 
> the boundaries of what can be considered acceptable and what can't are so much more nuanced on this very specific area of politics tahn any other.  that's the point I was trying to make.


Speaking of those that consider themselves the 'ruling class' it seems there is never nearly as much furore when they get dressed up in nazi uniforms at some fancy dress do. Why is that i wonder?


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> I suspect we're going to end up talking about how to interpret nose size or if Jewish bankers really do rule the World. So here is the standard, fill your boots:
> 
> English (English) | European Forum on Antisemitism


I hope not.  Nothing in there covers the mural case, nor Livingstone, nor most accusations of LP anti-semitism. That's the problem with proposing 'red lines'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Speaking of those that consider themselves the 'ruling class' it seems there is never nearly as much furore when they get dressed up in nazi uniforms at some fancy dress do. Why is that i wonder?








not a nazi uniform in sight.


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> I hope not.  Nothing in there covers the mural case, nor Livingstone, nor most accusations of LP anti-semitism. That's the problem with proposing 'red lines'.





> Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Rule based organisations surely are.


Corbyn and Livingstone both fail a notional 'don't be a dick' rule.  On this issue, how could you draw up rules that are much more specific than that?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> Corbyn and Livingstone both fail a notional 'don't be a dick' rule.  On this issue, how could you draw up rules that are much more specific than that?


No you're actually right. There are no possible membership rules that could ever be put in place to govern any organisations and no historical examples of them ever. That's why livingstone hasn't been suspended from the party. Another bizarre claim.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

The idea that because one single example may not be black and white then black and white no longer exist is beyond absurd.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 27, 2018)

How much of the problem is actually addressable as a party matter though?

Some of it seems to me to be much more about the wider conspiraloon milieu, about processes of cultural production beyond the reach of Labour Party discipline.

As it's an extremely accessible milieu to which those alienated by the neo-liberal consensus are naturally going to be drawn, there's a fairly reasonable chance anyone attracted to Labour by the 'Corbyn effect' could be a carrier for stuff like anti-Semitism.

I mean I get that there's disciplinary Labour can do to practice hygiene as it were, but realistically you're going to have a continuous stream of re-infection while there's any hope of electoral success.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> > Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.


'making' being the operative word.  Corbyn did not 'make'. Had he done so his breach of those guidelines would be clear.

Because it's not clear it's a political question as to whether or not what he did was a problem.

Can anyone draw up a rulebook which covers all possibilities on this very specific issue?  I don't think so.  'Bringing the LP into disrepute' or 'don't be a dick' is a sufficient redline, surely?


----------



## agricola (Mar 27, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> How much of the problem is actually addressable as a party matter though?
> 
> Some of it seems to me to be much more about the wider conspiraloon milieu, about processes of cultural production beyond the reach of Labour Party discipline.
> 
> ...



As a party matter it would probably be quite easy to deal with - have some system of recognizing it, then (assuming it isnt blatantly obvious what people are saying) educate the people doing it as to what it represents, then suspend / boot them it they keep doing it.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The idea that because one single example may not be black and white then black and white no longer exist is beyond absurd.


so you draw up a rule that covers the mural- leave aside Corbyns comment on it- just make a rule that makes it crystal clear that the actual mural, as an artwork, fails a test which another artwork about the workers supporting the rich could pass.


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> 'making' being the operative word.  Corbyn did not 'make'. Had he done so his breach of those guidelines would be clear.
> 
> Because it's not clear it's a political question as to whether or not what he did was a problem.
> 
> Can anyone draw up a rulebook which covers all possibilities on this very specific issue?  I don't think so.  'Bringing the LP into disrepute' or 'don't be a dick' is a sufficient redline, surely?



I guess art is subjective.

I look at a picture of old big nosed Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the  backs of people in front of pyramid with an eye on it and think 'hmmm that's pretty racist' (I assume someone will point out Jews are a race in a moment) and would choose not to support the chap who painted it.

Others think it looks like some old mates down the local community centre attending Friday afternoon boardgames.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> I guess art is subjective.
> 
> I look at a picture of old big nosed Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the  backs of people in front of pyramid with an eye on it and think 'hmmm that's pretty racist' (I assume someone will point out Jews are a race in a moment) and would choose not to support the chap who painted it.
> 
> Others think it looks like some old mates down the local community centre attending Friday afternoon boardgames.


yes I get that. Iit's the subjectivity that's not amenable to rules imo. 

I'm taking issue with the notion of the LP drawing up specific rules, not with whether or not this mural is anti-semitic or whether Corbyn should have commented on it.


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> I'm taking issue with the notion of the LP drawing up specific rules[..]



Do you think they shouldn't have any rules around acceptable behaviour in relation to race, religion and sex?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2018)

How tone deaf do you have to be not to clock that, if not 100% for what it is, but certainly as some form of weirdness. The table of backs.. That does not look like old boys playing at the pub, its tonally wrong for anything like a dogs-playing-cards whimsy.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> so you draw up a rule that covers the mural- leave aside Corbyns comment on it- just make a rule that makes it crystal clear that the actual mural, as an artwork, fails a test which another artwork about the workers supporting the rich could pass.


One of my rules on here is not to argue with you when you do stuff like this


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> I guess art is subjective.
> 
> I look at a picture of old big nosed Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the  backs of people in front of pyramid with an eye on it and think 'hmmm that's pretty racist' (I assume someone will point out Jews are a race in a moment) and would choose not to support the chap who painted it.
> 
> Others think it looks like some old mates down the local community centre attending Friday afternoon boardgames.


strange table


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

Art is usually about placement, or at least, it should be considered.

Where was this fucking awful daub located and why would that location be apt for an anti semitic piece ? has anything ever happened in that area that  could make this subject matter more significant ?

both the subject matter and the location may totes harmless and misconstrued obvs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Where was this fucking awful daub located


rahman had it took down so tower hamlets london, one presumes.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> Do you think they shouldn't have any rules around acceptable behaviour in relation to race, religion and sex?


they do, don't they.  Those rules were enough to get Livingstone. I see no purpose in more rules, which was the call.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

.


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> they do, don't they.  Those rules were enough to get Livingstone. I see no purpose in more rules, which was the call.



Ken Livingstone is still in the party, he's just suspended. Think about that for a little while.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> rahman had it took down so tower hamlets london, one presumes.


 
Yep brick lane - slap bang in the heart of what was diaspora central until (relatively) recently


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yep brick lane - slap bang in the heart of what was diaspora central until (relatively) recently


TBH, I can't think of any location or context where this mural would be acceptable. 

Not sure what point you're making here.


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> Ken Livingstone is still in the party, he's just suspended. Think about that for a little while.


more rules would change that?  Can you draw them up so it's clear what you're looking for?


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> more rules would change that?  Can you draw them up so it's clear what you're looking for?



You want me to draw up a rules that defines what discrimination against Jews looks like?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

andysays said:


> TBH, I can't think of any location or context where this mural would be acceptable.
> 
> Not sure what point you're making here.


 
 oh well.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> they do, don't they.  Those rules were enough to get Livingstone. I see no purpose in more rules, which was the call.


I don't think more rules are necessary tbh - the red lines I was talking of are conceptual: I think the leadership has to be clearer about what the problem is, and more vigorous in it's tackling of it. I don't necessarily think this requires more rules (although I'm no expert on what the rules are so maybe they could do with a tweak).


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> You want me to draw up a rules that defines what discrimination against Jews looks like?


It's not just about drawing up rules, it's also about having the political will to enforce them.

As has repeatedly been said, that will has been lacking and anti semitism has been tolerated or ignored when it has appeared convenient.


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> oh well.


I'm not having a pop, I'm trying to understand


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not a nazi uniform in sight.


Yeah absolutely fair enough, the only thing is that was a long time ago and whilst still inexcusable apologists could still make the claim that 'that was then this is now...' and perhaps derive some credibility for their position whereas the nazi fancy dress thing has occurred recently and on more than one occasion.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

Jewish east end Andy, whitechapel and brick lane was the jewish enclave of London for a century


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Yeah absolutely fair enough, the only thing is that was a long time ago and whilst still inexcusable apologists could still make the claim that 'that was then this is now...' and perhaps derive some credibility for their position whereas the nazi fancy dress thing has occurred recently and on more than one occasion.


yeh it was only filmed once.


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Jewish east end Andy, whitechapel and brick lane was the jewish enclave of London for a century


Yeah, I know that. Are you saying it would be OK or not so bad if it was somewhere that didn't have a history of Jewish community?

I'm not saying you are, but I 'm still puzzled what you ARE saying


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

No

its not about lessening offence but increasing impact


----------



## newbie (Mar 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think more rules are necessary tbh - the red lines I was talking of are conceptual: I think the leadership has to be clearer about what the problem is, and more vigorous in it's tackling of it. I don't necessarily think this requires more rules (although I'm no expert on what the rules are so maybe they could do with a tweak).


oh right. Well, Corbyn has dug himself a hole so getting out of it with a shred of dignity is going to require some clarity.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2018)

I agree. It isn't impossible though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

newbie said:


> oh right. Well, Corbyn has dug himself a hole so getting out of it with a shred of dignity is going to require some clarity.


a moment of clarity


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> a moment of clarity



Possible name for a new pressure group within Labour.


----------



## rekil (Mar 27, 2018)

How many versions of this piece of shit has this stoner fuckface done. 



Spoiler: moar joos


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not a nazi uniform in sight.



I am truly shocked by that cover. They wanted 70p for that.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

it could be a pivotal moment for Corbyn to fall on his sword and take the baggage with him to get some closure on this . But who next ? Thornberry is favourite atm. bloody hell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> How many versions of this piece of shit has this stoner fuckface done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's an elephant's eye. are the elephants the ones behind everything?


----------



## rekil (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> that's an elephant's eye. are the elephants the ones behind everything?


Wizened ol' joo eye. His way of conveying how long they've been at it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 27, 2018)




----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 27, 2018)

Some elephants there pictured conspiring earlier today.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2018)

I hesitate to say this because it no doubt paints me in a bad light, but I had no idea that the pyramid and eye thing was supposed to represent Jews.  I've only seen it on dollar bills.  I never read any of the conspiracy nonsense threads and I avoid it in real life too.  The people in those murals don't look Jewish to me either.  I wouldn't have known any of it was an antisemitic trope.  

Not that Corbyn gets off the hook if he is as naive as me -- I'm not a politician representing a community.  But I did want to note that none of this is as obvious as it might seem if you have to deal with this shit on a regular basis.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

new order in latin at the bottom, hence its links with international jewry etc. shite I know, but there you go


----------



## andysays (Mar 27, 2018)

I thought the eye and pyramid thing was originally an Illuminati symbol and had then been appropriated by anti Semites, loons and antisemitic loons to refer to the supposed worldwide Jewish banker conspiracy. Maybe there are elements that I've missed out of that summary.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> new order in latin at the bottom, hence its links with international jewry etc. shite I know, but there you go


I've honestly never heard of "new order" before.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 27, 2018)

I thought it was freemasons.  Eye of Providence - Wikipedia


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 27, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I've honestly never heard of "new order" before.


 
New World Order (conspiracy theory) - Wikipedia

all utter shite obvs

don't bother clicking unless you want to be mired in this awful stuff


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I've honestly never heard of "new order" before.



not in the context of  'what Joy Division  were named after, post IC' ?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> not in the context of  'what Joy Division  were named after, post IC' ?


Lol yes, I know this version.

If I have a point, it's that either I am spectacularly naive or there is the potential for a lot of other people also to have the symbolism involved in this mural completely whoosh over their head.

Of course, I now know better for next time.  And I hope Corbyn and others around him have a similar capacity to learn, if he genuinely was as clueless as me.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Mar 27, 2018)

The eye in the triangle is an ancient symbol of God/Divine vision (I think there is one in an ancient stained glass window in Lincoln Cathedral or York Minster) was appropriated by the Freemasons, (a branch is called York Rite) later esoteric versions of which linked it to the "Eye of Horus" and Egypt.  Right wing conspiracists demonised the various Freemasons - anti Catholic in some countries - from the 18th century on. The US founders included quite a few masons who were also Deists or Unitarians - religious positions quite close to liberal Judaism, I think it is suggested that the commissioner/designer of the dollar bill was referring to the promise of the American Revolution as a new model for the world.  The latin phrase is often translated as "New Order Of The Ages" and links to both the promise of the French and American Revolutions and the "General Reformation" of the earlier Rosicrucians, whose alchemical writings fed into early aristocratic freemasonry in England and France. Freemasons are now seen as either establishment or "mafia of the mediocre " but the roots of extreme right fear of them was in the role of Freemasons in promoting anti-clericalism, liberalism, republicanism and science as opposed to the monarchical and theocratic regimes of the 18th century. By the late 19th early 20th century there was already a vast paranoid literature linking all those hated by monarchists and religious reactionaries - liberals, masons, jews, socialists, anarchists, republicans, feminists, atheists - all seen as "satanic".


----------



## elbows (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> New World Order (conspiracy theory) - Wikipedia
> 
> all utter shite obvs
> 
> don't bother clicking unless you want to be mired in this awful stuff



Actually that article is quite useful for understanding the mainstream ways this term was used in the US by politicians during earlier parts of the 20th century. As opposed to George H W Bushs reboot of the term when giving a post-Soviet union speech, and the ways that 'filled the gap' left by the loss of cold-war paranoia, and gained new traction via some cultural & media phenomenon that were occurring (MTV, 24 hour news cycles, use of sound samples by Ministry, some vacuous 90s tv conspiratorial cultural trends eg X-Files, newsgoups and then finally later the web).


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2018)

The other thing is surely Corbyn was commenting after knowing the mural was being removed as controversial wasn't he? So you'd think he'd takr a look first just to check if maybe the "censors" had a point, whatever you might think at first blush, on tiny screen, blurry FB post etc ad nauseam..


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

This is a good quick read wiith some useful links :


Antisemitism as a “blindspot” for the Left

John-Paul Pagano wrote a piece for the Forward in late January about “How Anti-Semitism’s True Origin Makes It Invisible to the Left.” “Antisemitism differs from most forms of racism in that it purports to ‘punch up’ against a secret society of oppressors,” explained Pagano, “which has the side effect of making it easy to disguise as a politics of emancipation. If Jews have all this power, then punching up at Jews is a form of ‘speaking truth to power,’ a form of speech of which the Left is currently enamored. Yet it is precisely because antisemitism pretends to strike at power that the Left cannot see it, and is in many ways doomed to erase or even reproduce its central tropes


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

And the longer version:

Reflections on Left antisemitism


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> it could be a pivotal moment for Corbyn to fall on his sword and take the baggage with him to get some closure on this . But who next ? Thornberry is favourite atm. bloody hell.



Good choice. It’s hard to see how she might alienate anyone.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

JimW said:


> The other thing is surely Corbyn was commenting after knowing the mural was being removed as controversial wasn't he? So you'd think he'd takr a look first just to check if maybe the "censors" had a point, whatever you might think at first blush, on tiny screen, blurry FB post etc ad nauseam..



tho tbf, that could also have lead to a more reflexive ' don't ban the murals, remember Rivera ' response, meaning even less attention paid to the (possibly 2 inch) image


----------



## hash tag (Mar 27, 2018)

It's all happening in Wandsworth. Anything to get rid of the tories? Momentum plots new power grab: secret tapes reveal activists conspiring against moderate Labour chief


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It's all happening in Wandsworth. Anything to get rid of the tories? Momentum plots new power grab: secret tapes reveal activists conspiring against moderate Labour chief



Politics was a saintly game for gentlemen before Momentum pitched up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It's all happening in Wandsworth. Anything to get rid of the tories? Momentum plots new power grab: secret tapes reveal activists conspiring against moderate Labour chief


What do you suggest that the labour party does to get rid of the tories?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What do you suggest that the labour party does to get rid of the tories?


Vivisection


----------



## bemused (Mar 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It's all happening in Wandsworth. Anything to get rid of the tories? Momentum plots new power grab: secret tapes reveal activists conspiring against moderate Labour chief



You just know folks into the press are digging out their old loony left stories for a rehash.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

bemused said:


> You just know folks into the press are digging out their old loony left stories for a rehash.


Yeh no one uses tapes any more


----------



## cantsin (Mar 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What do you suggest that the labour party does to get rid of the tories?



have to get rid of the Nu Lab deadwood before having a chance of taking on the Tories


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 27, 2018)

I can't see any justification at all for using hidden recording devices in that situation, and those people should complain to IPSO (which won't get them very far because IPSO is a joke), but, well, there you go. . .


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Vivisection



Corbynectomy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbynectomy?


Vivisecting the tory party not removing corbyn


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Vivisecting the tory party not removing corbyn



Sorry jumping in and thought we were back on the other problem of the day. Worse attention to details than Jezza


----------



## Libertad (Mar 28, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Good choice. It’s hard to see how she might alienate anyone.


----------



## rekil (Mar 28, 2018)

Mural guy has decided that the best place to publish a defence against allegations of antisemitism is..._(drumroll)



Spoiler






_


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 28, 2018)

Also posted it on Reddit ...
It has the word "chemtrails" in it, so I think we can ignore the rest.



> These wicked banksters have indeed been playing a game of monopoly on the backs of the working class. My mural evolved into a dark vision of an apocalyptic reality fueled by their greed, filling our skies with coal, nuclear and *chemtrail *pollution. I pulled further visual inspiration from the U.S. Dollar bill, which holds sacred Freemason iconography, such as the "all seeing eye", accompanied by cryptic Latin inscriptions like “novus ordo seclorum” or “new order of the ages”. There are several other hidden symbols, which some may argue have Jewish influences, such as the star configuration that rises above the eagle crest forming a two-dimensional tetrahedron, considered by some as the star of David, I always wondered why?



https: //www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/87i60n/mear_one_the_artist_who_made_the_illuminati_mural/


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 28, 2018)

He is a fucking fool. His ramblings have no clarity or direction, a one stop shop of shite, bollocks and ill thought out contradictory toss. Poltroons like this don't really help the left in any way.


----------



## RainbowTown (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> You're an idiot stuck in the 1930s then. Exactly what got corbyn in trouble. Catch up with the rest of us.



Oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 28, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> He is a fucking fool. His ramblings have no clarity or direction, a one stop shop of shite, bollocks and ill thought out contradictory toss. Poltroons like this don't really help the left in any way.


Undoubtedly.  But is the charge of antisemitism correct?  He is denying using Jewish symbolism and stating that he was portraying actual historical figures rather than stereotypes.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 28, 2018)

I am pretty sure he is not a raging anti semite -  but he is an ignorant wanker for the NWO shite at the very least - which is symbiotic with the whole jewish conspiracy stuff

ETA, I don't think he is smart enough to pass subliminal messages in his output, he is no Charles Kraft that is for sure


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2018)

as long as you are happy to repeat it you are the duck quacking imo- I don't for a minute believe he hasn't had the 'you know this conspira-stuff you're into is antisemetic shite rght?' conversation.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 28, 2018)

He knows exactly what he's doing, that's why he's gone squinnying to that cunt Icke. 
If I had any doubts about ''Mear One'' and his attitudes, they're gone now.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2018)

Corbyn was always a surprising choice as the figurehead of some leftish electoral revival.

Says more about the the paucity of other candidates than Corbyn himself tbh.

That, and I still believe that neither Momentum nor any wider left were fully in control of the "surge". It was channeled through them rather than created by them imho.

Leaving an unprepared and unsuitable figurehead (and machine backing him) scrabbling around playing catch up.

Also meaning that the "qualities" of Corbyn are largely irrelevant. People aren't voting for him but as an expression of a desire for a hopeychangey shift to the left in British politics.

The more the media flesh out their Corbyn is a looney lefty narrative the more this cipher suits people's purposes as a vehicle for expressing a desire for change.

Much like UKIP in more ways than some might care to acknowledge.


----------



## rekil (Mar 28, 2018)

This gets better. The  'Dollar Vigilante' person that mural loon keeps @ing is Jeff Berwick, who was one of the people who orchestrated that Galt's Gulch swindle in Chile where they were all meant to live on lemons or something. He also set up that 'anarchapulcho' shitfest.

.


> Back in February I had my mind blown & soul recharged at Anarchapulco, the annual crypto-consciousness gathering founded by Jeff Berwick (aka The Dollar Vigilante).




Atlas Mugged: How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 28, 2018)

chilango said:


> Much like UKIP in more ways than some might care to acknowledge.



Albeit for a different consituency. 

In Corbyn's case the coalition is young, middle class, remain and also green/LD/cobweb left types.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

chilango said:


> Corbyn was always a surprising choice as the figurehead of some leftish electoral revival.
> 
> Says more about the the paucity of other candidates than Corbyn himself tbh.
> 
> ...



The question for a party seeking election is whether that suits enough people’s purposes. The answer seemed likely to be ‘no’ at first, but the pay off for many being that the Labour Party would be at least be transformed to a party of the left. 

Then following the election it seemed like it could be a ‘yes’ following Corbyn’s undeniable success in connecting.

Now that appears in doubt again. Corbyn will never shake off the doubts about anti-Semitism and as he is the personification of the movement it means it shares them too. Labour could do great on AS in all real and objective respects and then we’ll find in an inattentive moment in 1996 JC signed up for a boycott a Jewish bakery or something equally bizarre and it’s all in play again.

I think this problem is potentially much more serious to Labour’s chances than the other stuff Corbyn has had to deal with, so much so that it may prove insurmountable in terms of winning an election. But the party will continue to be reformed.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

chilango said:


> Corbyn was always a surprising choice as the figurehead of some leftish electoral revival.
> 
> Says more about the the paucity of other candidates than Corbyn himself tbh.
> 
> ...


Every time there was a leadership election the small grouping of left MPs would choose one from their fold to scrabble round trying to raise the minimum number of MPs nominations to enable them to make what was normally a hopeless challenge for the leadership. This was Corbyns turn, but no one - Corbyn included anticipated the massive shift in mood amongst the membership. Even with the shenanigans of the second vote and mass suspensions, and a 25 fold increase in supporters rates the right failed to hang on. So Corbyn was very much an unexpected victor. However I think that as the campaign cranked up, Corbyns lifetime experience of campaigning on social issues, and his consistent voting record on foreign policy issues helped considerably in getting the message out that labour was changing and that neoliberalism and it’s cruel ideology of austerity could be defeated. The unrelenting attacks from within the parliamentary party and from the establishment would have crushed a lesser man, so I for one feel this honourable guy is doing a prettty god job, and I can’t see abbot or macdonald faring much better in his position, so we have the leader that we will be fighting the next election with. For those that see no purpose in supporting reformist politicians or parties no leader would be any good in their eyes, as they would see no purpose  served in any democratic socialist party gaining power, but for those who would like to see a labour government based on a manifesto of change as offered at the last election, then it’s a case of get behind Corbyn, hold your nerve and push


----------



## nardy (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> macdonald


Who??


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> ...it’s a case of get behind Corbyn, hold your nerve and push



Which means get behind someone who indisputably does not recognise anti-Semitism. That's not a good basis from which to push on. It's a fatally flawed basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Every time there was a leadership election the small grouping of left MPs would choose one from their fold to scrabble round trying to raise the minimum number of MPs nominations to enable them to make what was normally a hopeless challenge for the leadership. This was Corbyns turn, but no one - Corbyn included anticipated the massive shift in mood amongst the membership. Even with the shenanigans of the second vote and mass suspensions, and a 25 fold increase in supporters rates the right failed to hang on. So Corbyn was very much an unexpected victor. However I think that as the campaign cranked up, Corbyns lifetime experience of campaigning on social issues, and his consistent voting record on foreign policy issues helped considerably in getting the message out that labour was changing and that neoliberalism and it’s cruel ideology of austerity could be defeated. The unrelenting attacks from within the parliamentary party and from the establishment would have crushed a lesser man, so I for one feel this honourable guy is doing a prettty god job, and I can’t see abbot or macdonald faring much better in his position, so we have the leader that we will be fighting the next election with. For those that see no purpose in supporting reformist politicians or parties no leader would be any good in their eyes, as they would see no purpose  served in any democratic socialist party gaining power, but for those who would like to see a labour government based on a manifesto of change as offered at the last election, then it’s a case of get behind Corbyn, hold your nerve and push


it would be nice to see labour standing on a left wing manifesto rather than an obamaite 'change' one. perhaps something similar to the 1983 manifesto...

btw labour aren't a democratic socialist party being as they're neither democratic nor socialist


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2018)

nardy said:


> Who??


auld macdonald. he has a farm, you know.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

nardy said:


> Who??



Ramsey. Getting on a bit but still on the team.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> I can't see any justification at all for using hidden recording devices in that situation, and those people should complain to IPSO (which won't get them very far because IPSO is a joke), but, well, there you go. . .



No, not least of all because the Standard could simply have asked them and they would probably have said something similar. It's not an Area 51 type secret that Momentum would like to change the Labour Party.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Which means get behind someone who indisputably does not recognise anti-Semitism. That's not a good basis from which to push on. It's a fatally flawed basis.


He made a massive error in not properly inspecting the image before commenting and giving it publicity. He has apologised and I don’t see an on-going theme of supporting antisematism


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He made a massive error in not properly inspecting the image before commenting and giving it publicity. He has apologised and I don’t see an on-going theme of supporting antisematism



That's the problem right there. Every time Corbyn's fans say they don't see it's like wriggling in quicksand - you are just getting in deeper.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> auld macdonald. he has a farm, you know.





Mr Moose said:


> That's the problem right there. Every time Corbyn's fans say they don't see it's like wriggling in quicksand - you are just getting in deeper.


Nonsense. There wasn’t a history of antisemetic issues with Corbyn. He stupidly commented on a bit of graffiti he was viewing on a phone screen. He has rightly apologised. Those that want to push this issue further before allowing for the party to take action to improve awareness of antisemitism are led by Tories, the unaccountable board of deputies, the daily mail etc etc. It’s all part of the establishment fight back against the progress Corbyn had made in both the party and amongst the electorate. 
There are serious racists out there and the attack on Corbyn does not serve to challenge them, it serves only to hamper the efforts to get an anti austerity labour government in power which would improve the prospects for working class people in Britain Be they black, Asian, white or Jewish. Pinning the label of racism onto Corbyn of all politicians is totally ridiculous


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Nonsense. There wasn’t a history of antisemetic issues with Corbyn. He stupidly commented on a bit of graffiti he was viewing on a phone screen. He has rightly apologised. Those that want to push this issue further before allowing for the party to take action to improve awareness of antisemitism are led by Tories, the unaccountable board of deputies, the daily mail etc etc. It’s all part of the establishment fight back against the progress Corbyn had made in both the party and amongst the electorate.
> There are serious racists out there and the attack on Corbyn does not serve to challenge them, it serves only to hamper the efforts to get an anti austerity labour government in power which would improve the prospects for working class people in Britain Be they black, Asian, white or Jewish. Pinning the label of racism onto Corbyn of all politicians is totally ridiculous



It's no good refusing to address the allegation that Macdonald has a farm. You're just burying your head in the sand!


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 28, 2018)

Scratch the surface and realpolitik always bubbles forth. 

Edit: Reminds me of that scene from Yes Prime Minister about pressing the button, except substituted for criticising the leadership.

 "When do you stand for your principles, when they abandon nuclear disarmament? When they accept remaining within Nato? When they quietly resume a stance of 'managed migration'? When the leader tries to wave away problems of bigotry in the ranks? 

"Well, when _do _you stand for them?"


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be nice to see labour standing on a left wing manifesto rather than an obamaite 'change' one. perhaps something similar to the 1983 manifesto...
> 
> btw labour aren't a democratic socialist party being as they're neither democratic nor socialist


Internal Democracy is improving and will continue to under Corbyn. As for being socialist, no at present it is merely moving towards a more traditional social democratic position, however the desire amongst many members including I suggest Corbyn and McDONNELL, and a few others amongst the parliamentary party is to continue the push towards a more socialist agenda. 
Revolutionary socialist it most certainly isn’t, but for the first time in decades the word Socialism is back in use and that is a good start


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He made a massive error in not properly inspecting the image before commenting and giving it publicity. He has apologised and I don’t see an on-going theme of supporting antisematism


If you can't see an on-going theme of not challenging AS (or at least enough of one that it can and will continue to be portrayed as such), and think if it hadn't been for this particular incident everything would be OK, then you clearly haven't grasped the seriousness of the issue.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Nonsense. There wasn’t a history of antisemetic issues with Corbyn. He stupidly commented on a bit of graffiti he was viewing on a phone screen. He has rightly apologised. Those that want to push this issue further before allowing for the party to take action to improve awareness of antisemitism are led by Tories, the unaccountable board of deputies, the daily mail etc etc. It’s all part of the establishment fight back against the progress Corbyn had made in both the party and amongst the electorate.
> There are serious racists out there and the attack on Corbyn does not serve to challenge them, it serves only to hamper the efforts to get an anti austerity labour government in power which would improve the prospects for working class people in Britain Be they black, Asian, white or Jewish. Pinning the label of racism onto Corbyn of all politicians is totally ridiculous



Yes, too right the Tories and the Mail are up to something. How galling is it that they can lecture the Labour Party about racism (of all ironies) and it can't land a punch back without making it worse. That's a leadership failure, built upon not dealing with an issue, exacerbated by the leader's achilles heel.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

andysays said:


> If you can't see an on-going theme of not challenging AS (or at least enough of one that it can and will continue to be portrayed as such), and think if it hadn't been for this particular incident everything would be OK, then you clearly haven't grasped the seriousness of the issue.


I don’t think there would be many out of our half a million members who don’t grasp the seriousness. This is the biggest threat to us securing a labour government next time round that we’ve faced. He is already leading on measures to tackle the issue within the party and I wonder what else you suggest he do?  What should happen in your eyes so we can learn, improve and move on to continue to challenge this horendous Tory Government


----------



## rekil (Mar 28, 2018)

PD have weighed in with their own sort of mural.



Spoiler


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, too right the Tories and the Mail are up to something. How galling is it that they can lecture the Labour Party about racism (of all ironies) and it can't land a punch back without making it worse. That's a leadership failure, built upon not dealing with an issue, exacerbated by the leader's achilles heel.





Mr Moose said:


> It's no good refusing to address the allegation that Macdonald has a farm. You're just burying your head in the sand!


I know my dyslexia   is hilarious. Always worth ridiculing someone for poor spelling and grammar. That’s why I prefer to engage with people face to face in the real world rather than on line. I also need new glasses so struggle to view the screen easily. Just as well I’m not on face book eh ?


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

It might be too subtle for me, but where is he ridiculing your dyslexia?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> I know my dyslexia   is hilarious. Always worth ridiculing someone for poor spelling and grammar. That’s why I prefer to engage with people face to face in the real world rather than on line. I also need new glasses so struggle to view the screen easily. Just as well I’m not on face book eh ?



When you quoted my post you also quoted Pickman's quip but didn't refer to it - so it was just a joke on that. I was unaware of your dyslexia and there was no attempt to ridicule. I thought as this board goes we were having one of its more civil exchanges.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Nonsense. There wasn’t a history of antisemetic issues with Corbyn. He stupidly commented on a bit of graffiti he was viewing on a phone screen. He has rightly apologised. Those that want to push this issue further before allowing for the party to take action to improve awareness of antisemitism are led by Tories, the unaccountable board of deputies, the daily mail etc etc. It’s all part of the establishment fight back against the progress Corbyn had made in both the party and amongst the electorate.



This thread is going round in circles but its simple:

1. We know that the charge of AS has been 'weaponised' to attack Corbyn and is being used by oppenents to attack his leadership. I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise on here. 

2. HOWEVER, because this is the case it does not automatically follow that there are not issues that need to be addressed about the failure to address AS or those amongst the fringe around JC who are AS. 

Just because point 1 is correct it does not automatically follow that point 2 can't also be correct. It's not one or the other - it's both. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time etc etc. 

Cobyn's supporters would be in stronger position starting from this point rather than engaging in furious 'whataboutery' around point 1 and using it to deny point 2.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2018)

Earlier a few posters in the Labour party all sadi that they hadnt come across an issue in their CLPs. Does anyone actually know of any cases of anti semitism or can name members/groups  who are? I remember that nutter from Momentum who was suspended and apparantly there are around 70 cases being or still to be investigated.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

One of my dad's mates is one of the 70, apparently over a 10-year old facebook post which he denies (of course) is antisemitic.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

My understanding is most of the 70 are members of Palestine liberation campaigners who've had their social media dug through, going back years. I have no doubt many of them will have cases to answer to.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> He made a massive error in not properly inspecting the image before commenting and giving it publicity. He has apologised and I don’t see an on-going theme of supporting antisematism


Unfortunately it just keeps rumbling on. A couple of years ago it was him having shared platforms, whilst supporting the Palestinians, with people who had said some unsavoury things. Then the perceived reluctance to ban Ken for life after he said some utterly stupid things...(I liked Ken, thought he was a good mayor, but he needs a permaban, even if to avoid distraction). Guilt by association, like the mural, but it won’t go away. He won’t be unequivocal in his denunciations of anti-semitism on the first attempt, even if the second try is reasonable and nuanced. Then he’s trying to be too clever with Russia. Even if one is a little nostalgic for the CCCP, Putin is not a fellow traveller in the socialist cause...or Casto..or Chavez..as a contrarian backbencher this would be fine. Unfortunately, cumulatively, it means he’s unlikely to lead a government.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Unfortunately, cumulatively, it means he’s unlikely to lead a government.


I don't know how anyone can make these kinds of calls. Have you not seen the last 3 years in politics?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't know how anyone can make these kinds of calls. Have you not seen the last 3 years in politics?


I’ll flag this post and we can revisit it in a coupe of years


----------



## Fingers (Mar 28, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Earlier a few posters in the Labour party all sadi that they hadnt come across an issue in their CLPs. Does anyone actually know of any cases of anti semitism or can name members/groups  who are? I remember that nutter from Momentum who was suspended and apparantly there are around 70 cases being or still to be investigated.



yeah a member of our CLP has been suspended for antisemitism yesterday... and she is Jewish


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I’ll flag this post and we can revisit it in a coupe of years


A few months ago I went through one of the election threads and liked all the posts where people predicted a massive majority for the tories or poo-pooed the idea of a hung parliament.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

Anyway. I'm not predicting a Corbyn led government or anything. But I do think this stuff is _electorally _insignificant - if he wins or loses it'll be for other reasons, mainly to do with the economy and how well people are doing (or perceive themselves to be doing).


----------



## elbows (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> But I do think this stuff is _electorally _insignificant - if he wins or loses it'll be for other reasons, mainly to do with the economy and how well people are doing (or perceive themselves to be doing).



Depends which election. It might be easy to see this stuff as not ending up electorally significant in a general election, but when it comes to things like energising various part of the tory base to come out and vote at the local elections, perhaps this stuff is a more significant part of the mix. The constant stream of stuff may also be seen as an attempt to gradually affect the momentum (no pun intended) of Corbyn and his competitors, rather than outright tarnish him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Nonsense. There wasn’t a history of antisemetic issues with Corbyn. He stupidly commented on a bit of graffiti he was viewing on a phone screen. He has rightly apologised. Those that want to push this issue further before allowing for the party to take action to improve awareness of antisemitism are led by Tories, the unaccountable board of deputies, the daily mail etc etc. It’s all part of the establishment fight back against the progress Corbyn had made in both the party and amongst the electorate.
> There are serious racists out there and the attack on Corbyn does not serve to challenge them, it serves only to hamper the efforts to get an anti austerity labour government in power which would improve the prospects for working class people in Britain Be they black, Asian, white or Jewish. Pinning the label of racism onto Corbyn of all politicians is totally ridiculous


i am not sure why you have quoted me here


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> A few months ago I went through one of the election threads and liked all the posts where people predicted a massive majority for the tories or poo-pooed the idea of a hung parliament.


ah, you've been in the like mines too.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> Depends which election. It might be easy to see this stuff as not ending up electorally significant in a general election, but when it comes to things like energising various part of the tory base to come out and vote at the local elections, perhaps this stuff is a more significant part of the mix. The constant stream of stuff may also be seen as an attempt to gradually affect the momentum (no pun intended) of Corbyn and his competitors, rather than outright tarnish him.


I think it'll have an effect in areas with a very high Jewish population - although tbh I think that damage was already done two years ago. I don't think it will have much purchase elsewhere though, and the activists I've spoken to are just cracking on.


----------



## elbows (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think it'll have an effect in areas with a very high Jewish population - although tbh I think that damage was already done two years ago. I don't think it will have much purchase elsewhere though, and the activists I've spoken to are just cracking on.



Yeah, and I should have been clearer why I started going on about the constant stream of stuff. Any one thing that is focussed on may have limited interest and have traction in some wards far more than others. But the cumulative effect is probably of more interest, especially since the tories often struggle to come up with policies that can be used to wage a positive election campaign.

Since there are issues of anti-semitism in Labour and elsewhere, it is a shame that these revelations and focus on this is being done within a narrow Corbyn-related context. Few in the media seem very interested in exploring the exact nature and historical reasons for particular flavours of anti-semitism popping up within Labour, and although the conspiracy-theory, paranoid strain of politics gets a bit more attention and analysis these days, its still rarely looked at properly by the mainstream media. Plus this century there has been a less than subtle change to the way the Israel-Palestine situation is reported, including very much the BBC. Chuck in the way that attention is limited due to the amount of global events unfolding, and we get places like Gaza getting only very fleeting moments in the spotlight, quickly followed by falling off the radar entirely. None of this is good when trying to keep important stuff from getting tarred by some of the dodgy stuff that inevitably lurks nearby when pushed to the fringes.

Can we salvage anything useful from the situation? What 20th century baggage are we actually going to manage to rid ourselves of this century? Its becoming clear that plenty of shit is being recycled and will live on in renewed form, perhaps Corbyn-related successes and failures are an opportunity to reflect on some of this in a manner that doesnt seem too remote from mainstream political narratives.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think it'll have an effect in areas with a very high Jewish population - although tbh I think that damage was already done two years ago. I don't think it will have much purchase elsewhere though, and the activists I've spoken to are just cracking on.


Anti-semitism should also be fought because it's the right thing to do, not just because of its electoral implications.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> Anti-semitism should also be fought because it's the right thing to do, not just because of its electoral implications.


Of course! I think my other posts on this thread have been explicit about that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> Of course! I think my other posts on this thread have been explicit about that.


I never doubted it (though I should have said that).


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

The discussions I've had elsewhere on this have been a bit depressing, must say. A week on and most of the people moved to talk about it in my networks are still seeing this purely as a tory / labour right attack, and quite a few are still denying the poster is even antisemitic.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 28, 2018)

No.2 in Surreal and Bleakly Ironic Sights This Issue Has Brought Us: Sajid Javid describing Momentum as neo-fascist in the House of Commons. I bet he wouldn't dare repeat that allegation anywhere else.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

What do people think of the latest letter from the JLC / BOD? There's a few things in there which I think would be a problem - mainly the external ombudsman - but I think on the whole it's about the shape of what needs to be done...


----------



## agricola (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> What do people think of the latest letter from the JLC / BOD? There's a few things in there which I think would be a problem - mainly the external ombudsman - but I think on the whole it's about the shape of what needs to be done...




The external ombudsman could concievably be a good idea, depending on who it comprises of, and if its remit was expanded so that it would deal with allegations of lower-level misconduct (of the kind that came out a few months back) it would be a vast improvement on the party investigating itself.  

The "_engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups_" one is nonsense however; I'd imagine very little engagement would take place.


----------



## killer b (Mar 28, 2018)

There's no way they should agree to an external ombudsman that answers to the BOD. And IMO no way they will agree.


----------



## agricola (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> There's no way they should agree to an external ombudsman that answers to the BOD. And IMO no way they will agree.



Perhaps, but the letter doesn't say "answers to", it says mutually agreed and reporting to both the LP and the BOD / JLC.  

If (though its a big if) they could come up with someone acceptable to both who was effective, honest, independent and dealt with investigations fairly and in a reasonable time-frame, then it would be much better than what happens now - surely if any idea has been confirmed as true these past thirty years its that institutions cannot be trusted to investigate themselves, or more exactly senior members of themselves, when they are accused of wrongdoing.  As an idea it is one that has merit.


----------



## belboid (Mar 28, 2018)

killer b said:


> What do people think of the latest letter from the JLC / BOD? There's a few things in there which I think would be a problem - mainly the external ombudsman - but I think on the whole it's about the shape of what needs to be done...



The whole idea of being in any way answerable to BOD or JLC is a bit laughable. Why are they the official bodies? Neither is exactly democratic. Imagine if Corbyn had proposed anything similar for the Muslim Council for Britain, or the Muslim Association of Britain. How do you stop someone using 'zionist' as an term of abuse? They're quite clear about saying 'zionism=nazism' is out (and fair enough), but would saying 'zionism=apartheid' be acceptable? And the IHRA definition of anti-semitism is shit.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 28, 2018)

Completely agree with above criticisms. The Labour Party cannot be answerable to the BoD, and there are some problems with the IHRC definition. Also, I think it's entirely acceptable to think some of the people at the march attended for quite cynical reasons. Twats being twats on Skwarkbox or whatever and Twitter doesn't make that not true.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2018)

Would The Canary count as the sensible left? Or as part of the labour - or more specifically, Corbyn - supporting milieu producing circulating and developing the sort of political environment in which anti-semitism can pass as just general left wing opinions? How about _suggesting _all this furore is _an Israeli false flag? _


----------



## elbows (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Would The Canary count as the sensible left? Or as part of the labour - or more specifically, Corbyn - supporting milieu producing circulating and developing the sort of political environment in which anti-semitism can pass as just general left wing opinions? How about _suggesting _all this furore is _an Israeli false flag? _



Reference to them reprinting the following article from January 2017 today, or something else?

REMINDER: Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn | The Canary


----------



## Joe Reilly (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> How about _suggesting _all this furore is _an Israeli false flag? _



'Excellent suggestion. Killing two birds with one stone. I'll instruct Tom to pass it on to Jeremy'

Yours
Max Mosley


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> Reference to them reprinting the following article from January 2017 today, or something else?
> 
> REMINDER: Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn | The Canary


Oops, forgot to put the link in - ta.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Would The Canary count as the sensible left? Or as part of the labour - or more specifically, Corbyn - supporting milieu producing circulating and developing the sort of political environment in which anti-semitism can pass as just general left wing opinions? How about _suggesting _all this furore is _an Israeli false flag? _


No, The Canary and Skwarkbox (sp?) clearly aren't "sensible" (by which I assume you mean reality-based) left. They clearly contribute to a milieu where stupidity is tolerated if it's _our_ stupidity. Suggesting this is a false flag is obviously conspiraloon shit.

You can think that yes, there's a problem with antisemitism and Corbyn was a fucking idiot for making those FB comments; but that it may have been raised again at this time by his opponents inside and outside the party to maximise damage before the local elections, after which there may be another coup. And you can think this and believe that of course dealing with antisemitism is more important than Labour Party local election results. Or you can think that this is a false flag funding by an Israeli conspiracy and deny any issues with antisemitism. The latter is a real problem, this stuff needs to be challenged on social media and IRL and ideally no-one in the party should be thinking that nonsense, although I'm under no illusions that some do.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2018)

I think labour/corbyn types moving the focus to this milieu rather than Corbyn is a move that would be very sensible for them and their declared aims. It's probably the only grounds on which they could effectively counter-attack - given that shouting it's all a plot hasn't done much of a job. Risky though.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think labour/corbyn types moving the focus to this milieu rather than Corbyn is a move that would be very sensible for them and their declared aims. It's probably the only grounds on which they could effectively counter-attack - given that shouting it's all a plot hasn't done much of a job. Risky though.



Isn't it mostly that milieu that have been shouting it's all a plot? Most of the 'reality based' Labour/Corbyn types have been saying there's a problem/some people are capitalizing on this for their own aims which is different.That said, it's this milieu that likely needs targeting  On that basis I think an all out counter attack is foolhardy. Accept fault, put house in order, then start pointing out the abject and obvious hypocrisy that has been on display from some inside and outside the party, for example, some of the Tory election leaflets that are circulating online. It's fucking stupid to be going after, say, David Lammy.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 28, 2018)

Corbyn announced today he's speaking with Formby to beef up how they deal with antisemitism within the party. Of course, it's the NEC and surrounding structures that deal with it already, and we've seen the NEC quick to suspend or kick out some people and not others over the past few years, and quite why it's dragged its feet over so many antisemitism cases I don't know. Now McNichol has gone and with this all going on now I hope there can be a renewed effort to refresh the whole thing - Corbyn working with them to draw up a more robust plan, and them not sitting on their arses taking their sweet time.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 28, 2018)

Also, someone (him? anyone!) desperately needs to get hold of all his social media accounts. There's no evidence he's active but ffs he's still a member of groups full of people denying there's a problem and worse. Fucking own goal.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 28, 2018)

I suspect the false flag suggestions are themselves false flags.


Plumdaff said:


> No, The Canary and Skwarkbox (sp?) clearly aren't "sensible" (by which I assume you mean reality-based) left. They clearly contribute to a milieu where stupidity is tolerated if it's _our_ stupidity. Suggesting this is a false flag is obviously conspiraloon shit.
> 
> You can think that yes, there's a problem with antisemitism and Corbyn was a fucking idiot for making those FB comments; but that it may have been raised again at this time by his opponents inside and outside the party to maximise damage before the local elections, after which there may be another coup. And you can think this and believe that of course dealing with antisemitism is more important than Labour Party local election results. Or you can think that this is a false flag funding by an Israeli conspiracy and deny any issues with antisemitism. The latter is a real problem, this stuff needs to be challenged on social media and IRL and ideally no-one in the party should be thinking that nonsense, although I'm under no illusions that some do.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 28, 2018)

kenny g said:


> I suspect the false flag suggestions are themselves false flags.



woah - like -  wheels within wheels man ....


----------



## cantsin (Mar 28, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Would The Canary count as the sensible left? Or as part of the labour - or more specifically, Corbyn - supporting milieu producing circulating and developing the sort of political environment in which anti-semitism can pass as just general left wing opinions? How about _suggesting _all this furore is _an Israeli false flag? _



Just flicked thru it. and can't see any reference to 'this furore ... (as) .._an Israeli false flag?'_

and whatever your thoughts on the Canary, I  think that whole episode, the eye watering facts of which haven't been contested by any parties cited asfaik, does need keeping in mind  - unless you're trying to argue that the rank anti semitism of the conspira- trash, some inside the LP, but mainly online adherents (that needs addressing), somehow diminishes the bad faith / intentions / actions of the Israeli embassy operatives, LFOI, Tory stooges and their activities as per the Canary article ( and elsewhere ) ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2018)

That article was clearly re-published today in order to suggest that there is nothing to see here in the ongoing row except for the Israeli state targeting Corbyn as per their rather shit reading of the contents of the al-jaz investigation. That this is what and who is really pulling the strings behind accusations and debate around the existence of anti-semitism in left coalition behind Corbyn.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 28, 2018)

So farewell then, Christine Shawcroft.



Here's the post in question (I think, happy to be corrected, but it's the one going around)



That's quite the site he's reposting.

This stuff needs to be dealt with right hard, right now. It's probably not spread outwith the political bubbles yet, but y'know...


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2018)

Christ. I have become embroiled in a bloody Facebook argument, where I have to defend the notion that believers in the existence of a New World Order have no place in a socialist organisation. A discussion where there are actual NWOs who are saying the anti Semitic mural isn’t anti Semitic. And I’m the one who’s bad for not saying ‘boo hiss, it’s all about attacking corbyn’ Actual conspiraloonery is being ignored. 

But, how can you actually define ‘conspiraloon’ sufficiently to effectively proscribe such shitheads?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2018)

Paul Stotts review , from last year, of The Left's Jewish Problem is worth a read imo
The Left's Jewish Problem: A Review


----------



## Corax (Mar 29, 2018)

If Corbyn can oust the tories then great. I doubt he can now though as, rightly or wrongly, the anti-Semitic mud will stick. In either case, I can't see him as the man to lead a government - so who next?


----------



## bemused (Mar 29, 2018)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So farewell then, Christine Shawcroft.



She's still on the NEC.

John McDonnell is running around TV and radio studios this morning claiming that because JC asked her to step down from a sub-committee it proves they are taking a hard line with the problem; at the same time dancing around any question asking if she should quit the NEC. It's a shambles.


----------



## not a trot (Mar 29, 2018)

bemused said:


> She's still on the NEC.
> 
> John McDonnell is running around TV and radio studios this morning claiming that because JC asked her to step down from a sub-committee it proves they are taking a hard line with the problem; at the same time dancing around any question asking if she should quit the NEC. *It's a shambles.*



Government in a shambles on just about everything and then we get all this crap from Corbyns party.

Oh well, we're off on hols for a few days so fuck 'em.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 29, 2018)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So farewell then, Christine Shawcroft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




what was the context of the post on FB- was it was FFS or whatever ?


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> what was the context of the post on FB- was it was FFS or whatever ?


he claims to have just wanted to get a conversations going, apparently. the defence of racists throughout the ages.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2018)

belboid said:


> Christ. I have become embroiled in a bloody Facebook argument, where I have to defend the notion that believers in the existence of a New World Order have no place in a socialist organisation. A discussion where there are actual NWOs who are saying the anti Semitic mural isn’t anti Semitic. And I’m the one who’s bad for not saying ‘boo hiss, it’s all about attacking corbyn’ Actual conspiraloonery is being ignored.
> 
> But, how can you actually define ‘conspiraloon’ sufficiently to effectively proscribe such shitheads?



I dunno about proscribing them from Labour, is 'bad epistemology' an offence under party rules?

but:

- A relatively indiscriminate approach to sourcing their beliefs.

- The idea that there's a coordinated single intention behind everything, so you can't simultaneously e.g. recognise that this is obviously an attack, that multiple actors may be participating in these attacks for entirely separate reasons, that some of it was probably accidental / incompetence and also that there actually is some anti-Semitism that makes those attacks credible and that needs sorting out pronto.


----------



## bemused (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> he claims to have just wanted to get a conversations going, apparently. the defence of racists throughout the ages.



It's up there with 'it's only a word'


----------



## JimW (Mar 29, 2018)

You wonder what conversation they envisage under that excuse. Likely not, "Jesus, this ridiculous hateful shit is still getting peddled all these years on."


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

They should have booted Shawcroft straight away, they deserve eddie izzard for being so thick.


----------



## Corax (Mar 29, 2018)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the post in question (I think, happy to be corrected, but it's the one going around)
> 
> View attachment 131281


Er... yeah. That's pretty indefensible.



killer b said:


> he claims to have just wanted to get a conversations going, apparently. the defence of racists throughout the ages.


What "conversation" did he want to get going exactly? One about if Shoah really happened?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2018)

belboid said:


> Christ. I have become embroiled in a bloody Facebook argument, where I have to defend the notion that believers in the existence of a New World Order have no place in a socialist organisation. A discussion where there are actual NWOs who are saying the anti Semitic mural isn’t anti Semitic. And I’m the one who’s bad for not saying ‘boo hiss, it’s all about attacking corbyn’ Actual conspiraloonery is being ignored.
> 
> But, how can you actually define ‘conspiraloon’ sufficiently to effectively proscribe such shitheads?



They have no place because it is irrational and socialism should be rational and at least most parts scientific.

Because their arguments are irrational and focus on one ethnic group they are also racist and that has no place.

Yes there are mischievous right wing people playing this up to the max and little fair hearing to be had, but they need to do a bit of light mental lifting and see that does not mean there is no  issue. If they can’t grapple with the first bit of complexity and run off to irrationality, then again, they have no place.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2018)

But most of all I’d leave them to it.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

I might have been looking in the wrong places before but seems to me like things are changing in a really positive way following the mural story. As if this time lots of people can see what the problem is and how it comes about via conspiracism.
Meanwhile though two thousand members of a 'we support Corbyn' facebook page have signed an open letter to JC that says the protest on Monday was the 'onslaught' of 'a very powerful special interest group' using its 'immense strength and history and influence' .. etc. 
Thousands of Jeremy Corbyn supporters endorse letter saying Jewish-organised antisemitism protest was the work of 'very powerful special interest group'


----------



## bemused (Mar 29, 2018)

Corax said:


> What "conversation" did he want to get going exactly? One about if Shoah really happened?



I remember years ago watching something about women in the BNP. During one of the segments, the interviewer asked 'do you believe in the holocaust?' the answer was 'yes, but I question the numbers'

Whenever I see anyone using holocaust denial to start a 'debate' I think of this BNP supporter.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> he claims to have just wanted to get a conversations going, apparently. the defence of racists throughout the ages.



Was that why he picketed a Holocaust Museum - yes, that's right a Holocaust Museum - in Washington last year? Wonder what conversation he wanted to get started then? 

I remember when the left used to smash 'pickets' like that off the streets.


----------



## bemused (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> They should have booted Shawcroft straight away, they deserve eddie izzard for being so thick.



But they haven't booted her, she's still on the NEC and therefore bizarrely still on the committee she resigned as chair of.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Was that why he picketed a Holocaust Museum - yes, that's right a Holocaust Museum - in Washington last year? Wonder what conversation he wanted to get started then?
> 
> I remember when the left used to smash 'pickets' like that off the streets.


I don't think someone who pickets the holocaust museum or posts holocaust denial memes on facebook to start conversations could meaningfully be thought of as 'on the left' tbf.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

bemused said:


> But they haven't booted her, she's still on the NEC and therefore bizarrely still on the committee she resigned as chair of.


yeah, they should have booted her from the NEC. they will do by the end of the day, why not get it over with first thing?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2018)

bemused said:


> She's still on the NEC.
> 
> John McDonnell is running around TV and radio studios this morning claiming that because JC asked her to step down from a sub-committee it proves they are taking a hard line with the problem; at the same time dancing around any question asking if she should quit the NEC. It's a shambles.



McDonnell's line was abysmal, it'll last about as long as the one Corbyn's office initally put about about the mural.

'She defended a vile anti semite but she can stay on the NEC. This surely proves that Labour is takng a hard line on AS'. Fucks sake.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> I might have been looking in the wrong places before but seems to me like things are changing in a really positive way following the mural story. As if this time lots of people can see what the problem is and how it comes about via conspiracism.
> Meanwhile though two thousand members of a 'we support Corbyn' facebook page have signed an open letter to JC that says the protest on Monday was the 'onslaught' of 'a very powerful special interest group' using its 'immense strength and history and influence' .. etc.
> Thousands of Jeremy Corbyn supporters endorse letter saying Jewish-organised antisemitism protest was the work of 'very powerful special interest group'



I’ve written my own.

Dear Jeremy 

Having argued for some time that anti-Semites were a fringe and peripheral problem in the Labour Party imagine my disappointment to find out that today everyone in the party appears to be one.

Did I miss a memo?

Yours sincerely 

Moose (Mr)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think someone who pickets the holocaust museum or posts holocaust denial memes on facebook to start conversations could meaningfully be thought of as 'on the left' tbf.



Shawcroft and presumably others in the JC diaspora clearly do see him as a comrade. 

He was recently selected by the CLP as a candidate in Peterborough. Can you imagine being 'on the left' and voting for scum like this as a sign of your progressive credentials.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> I’ve written my own.
> 
> Dear Jeremy
> 
> ...


p.s _Should we all be anti-semites now father?_


----------



## bemused (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> yeah, they should have booted her from the NEC. they will do by the end of the day, why not get it over with first thing?



I'd not be surprised if it drags on over the weekend.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Livingstone is toast now. He should have been a long time ago. I believe a sort of informal green light was taken for granted by the milieu producing this shit (at that point just on the fringes of the party but with very good and long-standing connections to a number of long standing labour MPs and people) after the failure to deal adequately with his nazi camp guard remark in 2005 (something many people now seen as sensible and non-racist defended very vigorously at the time) and that this milieu is now within the labour party - and not all of it on the fringes - and organically linked to the campaign for Corbyn to win the leadership election then to defend that victory - not due to any serious enduring commitment to socialist principles. Again, it's that milieu that is the problem here. The light that needs to be shined on them - at the very least - will dazzle and maybe hurt wider labour eyes, but it needs doing and doing well before the next general election. Who knows, might even win some electoral brownie points.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Was that why he picketed a Holocaust Museum - yes, that's right a Holocaust Museum - in Washington last year? Wonder what conversation he wanted to get started then?
> 
> I remember when the left used to smash 'pickets' like that off the streets.


Sush, it's just more fake anti-semitism.


----------



## Geri (Mar 29, 2018)

So glad they didn't accept my membership application now.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Sush, it's just more fake anti-semitism.



They key quote for those still thinking this just a Blairite plot to do Corbyn in:  

"Alan Bull’s offence is not having ever said he is a holocaust denier but that he distributed a Holocaust denial article for discussion. Since when are topics such as Holocaust denial ‘forbidden’ by the _‘Labour anti-Semitism’ _thought police?" Straight from the NF playbook.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Sush, it's just more fake anti-semitism.


Tony Greenstein, who was at labour hq  (with jackie walker) waving Brighton & Hove Momentum's banner demonstating against the 'witch hunt' on Monday. 

(Btw if anyone interested 25,000 israelis demonstrated last week against the deportations mentioned by him in there).


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Sush, it's just more fake anti-semitism.



Let's hope he gets expelled from Momentum too.


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2018)

Meanwhile over the channel....

French radical politicians booed at rally


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> Tony Greenstein, who was at labour hq  (with jackie walker) waving Brighton & Hove Momentum's banner demonstating against the 'witch hunt' on Monday.
> View attachment 131321
> (Btw if anyone interested 25,000 israelis demonstrated last week against the deportations mentioned by him in there).


That was a couple of weeks ago, before the latest AS allegations fwiw, not Monday.


----------



## lazythursday (Mar 29, 2018)

This is so depressing. I am arguing on another forum on this topic and pretty much 100% of my fellow Corbyn supporters are lost in it's all a Tory plot / but Corbyn is perfect and would never be anti-semitic / what about the Jews that say it's not anti-semitic? / I can't see anything wrong with the mural anyway territory.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

It's an eye opener isn't it? I thought it was just the total headbangers.


----------



## krink (Mar 29, 2018)

chilango said:


> Meanwhile over the channel....
> 
> French radical politicians booed at rally



"We've been fighting Islamist anti-Semitism for years," lepen added. nice.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> lazythursday said:
> 
> 
> > This is so depressing. I am arguing on another forum on this topic and pretty much 100% of my fellow Corbyn supporters are lost in it's all a Tory plot / but Corbyn is perfect and would never be anti-semitic / what about the Jews that say it's not anti-semitic? / I can't see anything wrong with the mural anyway territory.
> ...



No, having the same conversation with a close friend whom I've always looked upto and politically active/sound for many years, but on this.....


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

Urban 75 as the sensible left. How has it come to this?


----------



## lazythursday (Mar 29, 2018)

I can't even get the point across that their arguments, even if true(!) are bad politically. That they make them look like antisemites. They just can't see it.


----------



## Sue (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> Urban 75 as the sensible left. How has it come to this?


We obviously need to up our (collective) game .


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> This is so depressing. I am arguing on another forum on this topic and pretty much 100% of my fellow Corbyn supporters are lost in it's all a Tory plot / but Corbyn is perfect and would never be anti-semitic / what about the Jews that say it's not anti-semitic? / I can't see anything wrong with the mural anyway territory.


Haven't you heard? Corbyn's a bloody sellout! We're not even allowed to call anyone _Zio's_ now, or to scream _nazi loving witch_ into peoples faces. The dream is over


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's an eye opener isn't it? I thought it was just the total headbangers.


Not directed at you particularly killer b but why do you think that the eye opening that seems to be going on at the moment is happening now in the wake of this years-old mural story? 
I might be wrong but have a feeling that lots of people this week have been acknowledging that there is a problem in a way that they weren't before (which is great imo obvs).
Is it because it was Corbyn himself who 'mispoke' this time or because of the mural itself? Just really curious why this feels like a potential turning point.


----------



## 03gills (Mar 29, 2018)

It's possible to believe anti-Semitism is a problem within Labour whilst also acknowledging that nasty cunts are using it as a stick to beat Corbyn with. You can chew gum & walk at the same time.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

03gills said:


> It's possible to believe anti-Semitism is a problem within Labour whilst also acknowledging that nasty cunts are using it as a stick to beat Corbyn with. You can chew gum & walk at the same time.


Yes, of course. Just looks like more people are acknowledging exactly that now. Or maybe i've just not noticed so many people saying that until now.


----------



## lazythursday (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, of course. Just looks like more people are acknowledging exactly that now. Or maybe i've just not noticed so many people saying that until now.


Perhaps on here. To me it feels like a horrifying number of people are desperately minimising the first part of that and screaming loudly about the second.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> Not directed at you particularly killer b but why do you think that the eye opening that seems to be going on at the moment is happening now in the wake of this years-old mural story?
> I might be wrong but have a feeling that lots of people this week have been acknowledging that there is a problem in a way that they weren't before (which is great imo obvs).
> Is it because it was Corbyn himself who 'mispoke' this time or because of the mural itself? Just really curious why this feels like a potential turning point.



My own position on antisemitism in the left is unchanged tbh, and I'm fairly sure my post on the topic are pretty consistent. What's eye opening for me is seeing how widespread the ignorance and/or denial is - while there is more people admitting there's a problem, the kickback from the denialists seems much more widespread too.

Why this has blown up now when it didn't two years ago? I'm not totally sure.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2018)

Probably the big difference is how hegemonic within the party the left are now - more confident and prepared to flex their muscles.


----------



## 03gills (Mar 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> Why this has blown up now when it didn't two years ago? I'm not totally sure.



The aforementioned nasty cunts are probably partly responsible (to a certain extent) Parts of the establishment are clearly fucking terrified of JC & will jump on any perceived weakness. This is why it's important to not simply hand wave the problem of anti-Semitism away as smears. That only plays into the aforementioned nasty cunts hands. Dealing with the issue & taking the moral high ground are the best possible courses of action imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Taking the moral high ground would probably be one of the worst responses available. The opposite would be a bit more productive.


----------



## Sue (Mar 29, 2018)

I posted the link below (provided by someone up thread) to a friend of a friend who was doing that 'is it just me but I don't understand how it's anti-semitic' thing.'  

After reading the article, they're uncomfortable about people being persecuted for "thought crimes" as finding it anti-semitic is just an opinion. FFS.

Antisemitism as a “blindspot” for the Left


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

(btw the artist did an updated version to make clear his original intentions. It had all rothschilds and george soros. In brackets as we're surely past the point in needing to prove that he and his work is anti-semitic)


----------



## 03gills (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Taking the moral high ground would probably be one of the worst responses available. The opposite would be a bit more productive.



Sorry I didn't quite word that right. I mean take the moral high ground by actually dealing with the issue.


----------



## rekil (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> (btw the artist did an updated version to make clear his original intentions. It had all rothschilds and george soros. In brackets as we're surely past the point in needing to prove that he and his work is anti-semitic)


Nicky Oppenheimer on the right. Albert Pike, beardy at the back left.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 29, 2018)

Enough is Enough! – Jewdas

Interesting piece from Jewdas which attacks Jewish community leaders over this on essentially a class basis.

(I think for a more rounded take you would need to get into the "left wing" conspiraloon stuff, which this doesn't - but it was a bit of a breath of fresh air for me anyway).


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Enough is Enough! – Jewdas
> 
> Interesting piece from Jewdas which attacks Jewish community leaders over this on essentially a class basis.
> 
> (I think for a more rounded take you would need to get into the "left wing" conspiraloon stuff, which this doesn't - but it was a bit of a breath of fresh air for me anyway).


I am sure I read somewhere that around 2/3rd of Jewish people vote conservative with Labour around 15-20% . Its not a trend that started under Corby's  election  as leader, although recent events may make  a current survey even worse reading, Milliband is often cited as having to bear some responsibility.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Enough is Enough! – Jewdas
> 
> Interesting piece from Jewdas which attacks Jewish community leaders over this on essentially a class basis.
> 
> (I think for a more rounded take you would need to get into the "left wing" conspiraloon stuff, which this doesn't - but it was a bit of a breath of fresh air for me anyway).


Sounds a bit like _with the anti-semites sometimes but the CST and BOD never!
_
I've generally enjoyed their stuff before - that's shit though.  Who are they talking to? Just the people mentioned? Just the labour party?


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> I am sure I read somewhere that around 2/3rd of Jewish people vote conservative with Labour around 15-20% . Its not a trend that started under Corby's  election  as leader, although recent events may make  a current survey even worse reading, Milliband is often cited as having to bear some responsibility.



The numbers in here suggest (unsurpisingly) that people who identify as religious jews are more likely to vote conservative, non-religious mostly labour. But overall about equal lab/tory it says.

"The Conservative leaning grows from 21% among the secular to 29% of the somewhat secular, 38% of the somewhat religious and 45% of the religious. The Labour leaning moves in the opposite direction (42% for the secular to 24% for the religious)."
Political Leanings of Britain's Jews - British Religion in Numbers

Given that the orthodox population is increasing a lot (7 kids on average per family) this will probably have the expected effect in time, if they vote at all which i'm not sure.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> The numbers in here suggest (unsurpisingly) that people who identify as religious jews are more likely to vote conservative, non-religious mostly labour. But overall about equal lab/tory it says.
> 
> "The Conservative leaning grows from 21% among the secular to 29% of the somewhat secular, 38% of the somewhat religious and 45% of the religious. The Labour leaning moves in the opposite direction (42% for the secular to 24% for the religious)."
> Political Leanings of Britain's Jews - British Religion in Numbers
> ...


Thanks . 


> A Survation poll before the election found only 13 per cent of Jews were planning to vote Labour in 2017, but two years earlier, in 2015, just 14 per cent said they were backing Miliband's Labour before Corbyn’s ascent to the leadership.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

There's a connected question, obvs (which i don't know the answer to but have pondered a bit): Where now are the working class jews that used to live a generation or 2 ago in for instance East London? Did they all get their children into universities and move to the suburbs? But that's maybe not a topic for this thread.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Mar 29, 2018)

More on Mear One’s conspiracism and the people depicted in his - even worse! - 2016 version of the mural, here - A Note on “Mear One” And Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> Perhaps on here. To me it feels like a horrifying number of people are desperately minimising the first part of that and screaming loudly about the second.



There is a problem in grasping the extent though. It’s bad enough, sure, but is it ‘rotten to the core’ as many seem to be saying? Is it 5% anti-Semites ignored by the 20% who saw their posts and 50% who disbelieved either was at fault, or what? To what extent and in what way can people reasonably defend the left against the right making hay?

It is bad and it is also galling to be called bigots by the likes of the Mail and Ian Paisley junior.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> This is so depressing. I am arguing on another forum on this topic and pretty much 100% of my fellow Corbyn supporters are lost in it's all a Tory plot / but Corbyn is perfect and would never be anti-semitic / what about the Jews that say it's not anti-semitic? / I can't see anything wrong with the mural anyway territory.



It doesn't surprise me that much, my experience of Momentum etc from the start was that it was full of The Canary readers which as many of us know is an online publication which as founded by a former follower of David Icke and is very much informed on that sort of basis. I really do think that those websites are the ones who have circulated this ideology, providing a sort of 'political education' in anti-Semitism to a huge number of disaffected, atomised individuals who rightly distrust more mainstream sources but who have acted on that distrust by putting absolute trust in far less reliable sources.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

It dates back to before the internet was the vector, imo. I was given a david icke book in it must be around the year 2000, by a friend who wanted to share The Truth. I was totally impressed as i recall until the final reveal of the jew-lizards at the end. This stuff has been constant in my experience from the same sort of people for at least 20 years.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> It dates back to before the internet was the vector, imo. I was given a david icke book in it must be around the year 2000, by a friend who wanted to share the truth, this stuff has been constant in my experience from the same sort of people for at least 20 years.



No argument here, I'm not saying that Kerry Anne-Mendoza invented anti-Semitism  but her website and others like it have monetised it and injected it Info Wars-style into the Labour movement.

More 'responsible' people who have boosted The Canary, promoting Mendoza as a voice of the left on the BBC and so on, also should take some blame here.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

And skunk for the young 'uns and loneliness mediated through the internet for the older.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2018)

I do wonder how much of the rise of this sort of thinking is down to the nature in which we consume media, what we read and how we read it. It's a lot easier to read and process a short listicle TEN REASONS WHY THE MOSSAD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS than it is to read A Brief History of Neoliberalism and the way in which the former style of publication can be categorised, monetised and boosted means that that is what you are going to see and be exposed to. This leads to a real narrowing of horizons and possibility, and that is leading us I think to some dangerous outcomes.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And skunk for the young 'uns and loneliness mediated through the internet for the older.



Skunk is a good comparison, yeah.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

All of conspiracism is about easy answers, isn't it, a simple dastardly 'They' who are to blame for all your ills. And so its a perfect fit for the ur-conspiracy. But you all know this. And yes of course, the internet as delivery system has been a game changer.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

J Ed said:


> I do wonder how much of the rise of this sort of thinking is down to the nature in which we consume media, what we read and how we read it. It's a lot easier to read and process a short listicle TEN REASONS WHY THE MOSSAD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS than it is to read A Brief History of Neoliberalism and the way in which the former style of publication can be categorised, monetised and boosted means that that is what you are going to see and be exposed to. This leads to a real narrowing of horizons and possibility, and that is leading us I think to some dangerous outcomes.


That's a horrible way of viewing humans and their capacities that i hoped we had moved out from the 1970s though the work of Stuart hall and related people. It's the way advertisers look at us. We literally don't consume (a loaded term) media in that way. If, we've gone backward in the modern age in how and what we consume i'd like to hear - what's changed? Where have the critical faculties to decode encoded messages gone - and why?

I actually think there's just now a bigger screen/market for more people to say other people are consuming media wrong.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

One thing that's changed due to the nature of the medium through which we get our info, is our attention spans.  Average time spent 'reading' a thing online is 8 seconds i read somewhere, though it was probably a tweet.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

Humans may not have changed, but most people get their politics from different media these days. In Web 2.0 or whatever it's called now, most people get their politics on FB or Twitter, they aren't on forums or Newsgroups. Yes, there were crap politics in the 90s, and some people may lament the standard of discourse here, but it's much easier to present a coherent argument, and discuss something properly here than on FB. I learn stuff on here, I very rarely learn anything of substance on FB, the links on Twitter are better but the actual place is a shouty centrist hole.   I think FB and Twitter skew people towards the simplistic, the black and white, the easy link, the lazy tolerance of stupidity as long as it's on "our side". See today; loads of people on FB denying a problem with antisemitism because the media doesn't like Corbyn rather than pursuing any more complex analysis of the situation.

Are there better ways of talking about politics on social media?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> One thing that's changed due to the nature of the medium through which we get our info, is our attention spans.  Average time spent 'reading' a thing online is 8 seconds i read somewhere, though it was probably a tweet.


So by def i'm trapped by asking more. It's def true though. That's the sort of soft-facts we need.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> Humans may not have changed, but most people get their politics from different media these days. In Web 2.0 or whatever it's called now, most people get their politics on FB or Twitter, they aren't on forums or Newsgroups.


Not they don't.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> So by def i'm trapped by asking more. It's def true though. That's the sort of soft-facts we need.


I don't know what you mean about being trapped by asking more.
Do you think the internet is irrelevant to the topic currently in this thread for example?

You seriously ask:
 "If, we've gone backward in the modern age in how and what we consume i'd like to hear - *what's changed?* Where have the critical faculties to decode encoded messages gone - and why?"

So it looks like yes you think the medium is irrelevant, the internet's changed nothing according to you? That is .. surprising.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there better ways of talking about politics on social media?



All there is is human interaction - or the expanded idea of it - and it can't be done other than by not being a dick. Then being informed, then not being a dick.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Not they don't.



Where do you think they get it from then?


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> All there is is human interaction - or the expanded idea of it - and it can't be done other than by not being a dick. Then being informed, then not being a dick.



You don't think certain forms of social media encourage being a dick? You don't think we're more likely to be a dick online than we are to someone in person?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't know what you mean about being trapped by asking more.
> Do you think the internet is irrelevant to the topic currently in this thread for example?


I meant by asking for a source for your self-ref unsourced joke. 

Yes, i do.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> Where do you think they get it from then?


Politics? From their real lifes - from every single thing that they need to do to reproduce their life - work, school, health, leisure, housing  -each time their world coincides with this it is politics - not facebook. They might say something on facebook, bit fb doesn't drive them to do this.

'Get it from' is like it's a disgusting disease that other people get. Ugh.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I meant by asking for a source for your self-ref unsourced joke.
> 
> Yes, i do.



ok. here's some stuff on the 8 second attention span thing i mentioned.
Our 8 second attention span and the future of news media
Decreasing Attention Spans and Your Website, Social Media Strategy – Adweek
Psychological effects of Internet use - Wikipedia

There's a hundred similar, and books on the same.

I find your attitude just completely bizarre tbh.
You think the internet has basically changed nothing?

How long did JC spend looking at that image before posting his opinion, its a very internet situation i think.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Some things the Internet never changes.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Politics? From their real lifes - from every single thing that they need to do to reproduce their life - work, school, health, leisure, housing  -each time their world coincides with this it is politics - not facebook. They might say something on facebook, bit fb doesn't drive them to do this.
> 
> 'Get it from' is like it's a disgusting disease that other people get. Ugh.




You're trying super hard to find something objectionable in a rather innocuous turn of phrase there.

But it does reveal a misunderstanding, likely due to the vagueness of what I wrote. I should have said 'political discussion' or possibly 'political education' rather than politics, which of course is our life, our values, out material conditions, absolutely. I think a lot of people get most of their political discussion and education online. I don't think many schools and workplaces are full of political discussion or education at present, though of course they are full of _politics
_
So to rephrase, where do you think most people get their political discussion or education from at the moment?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> ok. here's some stuff on the 8 second attention span thing i mentioned.
> Our 8 second attention span and the future of news media
> Decreasing Attention Spans and Your Website, Social Media Strategy – Adweek
> 
> ...


This is utterly irrelevant to the question of a pre-existing anti-semitic milieu producing anti-semitic produce.


----------



## agricola (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Politics? From their real lifes - from every single thing that they need to do to reproduce their life - work, school, health, leisure, housing  -each time their world coincides with this it is politics - not facebook. They might say something on facebook, bit fb doesn't drive them to do this.
> 
> 'Get it from' is like it's a disgusting disease that other people get. Ugh.



You are right, but the idea that some people - mainly "the young" and the uneducated - get their opinions off the internet is almost an orthodoxy nowadays.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> This is utterly irrelevant to the question of a pre-existing anti-semitic milieu producing anti-semitic produce.



It was only a response to your post that said


butchersapron said:


> That's a horrible way of viewing humans and their capacities that i hoped we had moved out from the 1970s though the work of Stuart hall and related people. It's the way advertisers look at us. We literally don't consume (a loaded term) media in that way. *If, we've gone backward in the modern age in how and what we consume i'd like to hear - what's changed? Where have the critical faculties to decode encoded messages gone - and why?*
> 
> I actually think there's just now a bigger screen/market for more people to say other people are consuming media wrong.



Which was you denying that the internet as vector is in any way relevant to current antisemitism. Which i found bizarre, because my experience over the last say 10 years suggests most people who think the jews are at the bottom things discovered this truth online.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> You're trying super hard to find something objectionable in a rather innocuous turn of phrase there.
> 
> But it does reveal a misunderstanding, likely due to the vagueness of what I wrote. I should have said 'political discussion' or possibly 'political education' rather than politics, which I of course is our life, our values, out material conditions, absolutely. I think a lot of people get most of their political discussion and education online. I don't think many schools and workplaces are full of political discussion or education at present, though of course they are full of _politics_


It's not innocuous - it's about a model of politics that see w/c people as 'getting their politics' rather than constructing their own politics.  That's utterly central. If you just meant many people discuss politics or get their political news from facebook then fine. But the opposite suggestion has to be challenged - after all, it's only an updated version of the idea that the w/c gets fed what to think by the s*n.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It's not innocuous - it's about a model of politics that see w/c people as 'getting their politics' rather than constructing their own politics.  That's utterly central. If you just meant many people discuss politics or get their political news from facebook then fine. But the opposite suggestion has to be challenged - after all, it's only an updated version of the idea that the w/c gets fed what to tell by the s*n.



I've explained that I meant political discussion and news. And I think that it's a problem, as I think FB, Twitter etc are conducive to the kind of discussions and news that encourage conspiratorial thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> It was only a response to your post that said
> 
> 
> Which was you denying that the internet as vector is in any way relevant to current antisemitism. Which i found bizarre.


No it wasn't. That's the exact opposite of what i've argued on here over many years - that the internet has acted as loon detector, then amplifier and had put more people in contact with a broader range of people than before. Now does it in itself do this though?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> I've explained that I meant political discussion and news. And I think that it's a problem, as I think FB, Twitter etc are conducive to the kind of discussions and news that encourage conspiratorial thinking.


I'm sorry, i was writing my reply to you (and others) when you posted yours. I didn't mean to double demand or anything.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't. That's the exact opposite of what i've argued on here over many years - that the internet has acted as loon detector, then amplifier and had put more people in contact with a broader range of people than before. Now does it in itself do this though?



I haven't been here long enough to read your every post in context of your many years of work so what does this bit mean then?


butchersapron said:


> .. If, we've gone backward in the modern age in how and what we consume i'd like to hear - what's changed? Where have the critical faculties to decode encoded messages gone - and why?



I don't know about anyone else but the full on antisemites I've met over the last few years, and the halfarsed ones, have all got their info online far as i know, and have i think done so lazily through youtube suggestions and fb and such, not by expending any effort at all.  I don't really see what point you're trying to make tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> I haven't been here long enough to read your every post in context of your many years of work so what does this bit mean then?
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else but the full on antisemites i've met over the last few years have all got their info online far as i know, and have i think done so lazily through youtube suggestions and such, not by expending any effort at all.  I don't really see what point you're trying to make tbh.


So now you're talking about anti-semites rather than the general population?

I don't know what you're asking me.

You had a quite a point to make a minute ago.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2018)

oh well. I'm sure both of us had a point not long ago but its getting late.


----------



## JimW (Mar 29, 2018)

Historically been major political movements in places where only a minority could read so being able to plough through lengthy screeds clearly optional.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

JimW said:


> Historically been major political movements in places where only a minority could read so being able to plough through lengthy screeds clearly optional.


What if not internet user and want screeds?


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 29, 2018)

It'd be interesting - in many years time - for some historian to compare the political impact of the arrival of pretty much universal high-speed internet access (and the ability of almost anyone to publish) with the arrival of the printing press, which my fading memories of my history o level recall is high up on a list of "causes of the Reformation".


----------



## Corax (Mar 29, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> Are there better ways of talking about politics on social media?


I never really understand these criticisms of "social media".

I don't do FB because I object to the prevention of anonymity - I don't want future employers seeing me discussing my politics or calling Arsenal fans cunts - so I can't comment on that platform.

But my daily experience of twitter is forged entirely around the accounts I choose to follow. These tend to be

Spurs players/journalists
A few MPs like James Clevery, Luciana Berger, Matt Hancock, Corbyn, Sadiq and David Lammy
Some for the lols, like Donald Trump, Far Right Watch and Sun Apologies, and
People like Mike Stuchberry, MissDuffy, Johnny Two Hats, Ralf Little, supermathskid, The Daily Beast and Pilgrim Tucker who post interesting stuff, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

So my experience of twitter is formed entirely of those accounts, unless I choose to go ferreting down some trending topic or something.


----------



## JimW (Mar 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What if not internet user and want screeds?


Nothing against them, and if you look at samizdat or people gathering to hear something read they couldn't themselves always an appetite too, more against the idea there was one way of doing it the internet has spoiled.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 29, 2018)

Corax said:


> I never really understand these criticisms of "social media".



It's quite easy to manipulate social media. 

And conversely it's very hard to control it. 

With good and bad results - Arab Spring protestors getting round state censors vs man taking a gun to that pizza place in Washington. 

For commercial reasons the sites want you to spend as long as possible there, so they prize "engagement" above everything else, and people tend to engage with stuff that stirs strong emotions in them, most often anger. Their algorithms have also tended to push you to more of what you like a little bit of and there are lots of examples of people being taken to quite extreme stuff. 

I've seen it myself on YouTube - not quite social, maybe - where I went from taking an interest in buddhist meditation to being offered really strong Islamophobic stuff really quickly. (That sounds weird, but it's true, and the particular reason is Sam Harris, the famous aetheist - and by many accounts islamophobe - who wrote a book on meditation, which I listened to him giving a talk on.) 

The other day I watched a video from David Pakman, who's a very centre-left figure (I think he's a Bernie fan) on Jared Kushner giving a speech to a Jewish organisation and being humiliated, after his report the next video cued up was the speech itself, so I thought I'd take a look at that, and the next video after that was a hugely anti-Semitic film about Kushner with 4 million views and loads of comments about the Illuminati.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2018)

Is this what happened in the arab spring-? Social media manipulation?

You just mean use of technology don't you?


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 29, 2018)

Yeah, sorry, I don't mean manipulation in those cases, but that it was a form of communication that couldn't be controlled by fairly repressive governments.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 29, 2018)

There are lots of positives and lots of negative potentials, I think. 

Anonymity is good for activists, again, particularly in repressive states or where employers might act against them, but it's hard to argue that it doesn't also help enable some of the web's worst behaviour - threats, bullying...


----------



## kenny g (Mar 29, 2018)

I have re-started swimming as a hobby. Looked up a few how to you tubes on improved breastroke techniques. Suddenly got my suggestions splattered with "12 year old's swimming" "13 year old swimming" etc etc The way their algorithms work is to feed off obsessives/ perverts/ maniacs.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 29, 2018)




----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It's not innocuous - it's about a model of politics that see w/c people as 'getting their politics' rather than constructing their own politics.  That's utterly central. If you just meant many people discuss politics or get their political news from facebook then fine. But the opposite suggestion has to be challenged - after all, it's only an updated version of the idea that the w/c gets fed what to think by the s*n.



It's funny you mention constructing their own politics because some of the curious reactions to this internet age might be rather influenced by the spectacle of far more people expressing far more thoughts in the form of the typed word. Ooh ooh, unsafe feelings, these oiks havent even been scrubbed through grammar school and oxbridge before getting the privilege of written mass communication! 

Anyway it is late and I am not used to using the word milieu. And I'm certainly guilty of going on about narratives way too much. But I'm deeply unimpressed with the way the story of what is happening this century is being told. Take the financial crisis and the way a couple of aspects were zoomed in on to the exclusion of much else, leaving plenty of room for other shit 'explanations' to fester away from this narrow gaze. And sometimes I get pissed off that not enough things are being joined together, too many issues and events looked at in relative isolation. I suppose I might let out a doomed laugh at this point because hideous, sloppy dot joining is one of the things we get at the loons for and some of the dots are often anti-semitic. And on all the occasions over the years where I made fairly dismal attempts to join up issues of energy, global warming and economy, I never got a great sense that this was something that was resonating with many people. Obviously that might just be because I did a shit job of it, but regardless I remain concerned by the lack of attempts to get a bit more cohesion going between related domains. I know its difficult and stories that explain everything all rolled into one are usually well dodgy, and no we dont need any more Adam Curtis-like explanations, but I cant help feeling something is missing on some fundamentally important level.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2018)

Alternatively, that stuff I was just going on about isnt really the issue, most people broadly know the score, and the main issue is the lack of obvious opportunities to do something about it. Leading some to clutch at straws made of shit and human suffering, whether they realise it or not.


----------



## Corax (Mar 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It's not innocuous - it's about a model of politics that see w/c people as 'getting their politics' rather than constructing their own politics.  That's utterly central. If you just meant many people discuss politics or get their political news from facebook then fine. But the opposite suggestion has to be challenged - after all, it's only an updated version of the idea that the w/c gets fed what to think by the s*n.


I may have missed it, but I didn't see any previous link to this being a phenomenon isolated to the working class.


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> View attachment 131400


Am I reading too much into this or is it a little bit blood libel.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2018)

Corax said:


> I may have missed it, but I didn't see any previous link to this being a phenomenon isolated to the working class.


What phenomena?


----------



## Nice one (Mar 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Politics? From their real lifes - from every single thing that they need to do to reproduce their life - work, school, health, leisure, housing  -each time their world coincides with this it is politics - not facebook.



the wholesale adoption of identity politics by class struggle anarchsist groups?


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 30, 2018)

copliker said:


> Am I reading too much into this or is it a little bit blood libel.


It's a biblical reference so you can take it any way you want.

Exodus 22:29
Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 30, 2018)

copliker said:


> Am I reading too much into this or is it a little bit blood libel.



I hope not! It hadn't occured to me that it even might be! Have I fallen into a Corbyn social media trap!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds a bit like _with the anti-semites sometimes but the CST and BOD never!
> _
> I've generally enjoyed their stuff before - that's shit though.  Who are they talking to? Just the people mentioned? Just the labour party?



Fair enough - I said it was interesting, I didn’t say it was good. 

Has lead to this:


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Fair enough - I said it was interesting, I didn’t say it was good.
> 
> Has lead to this:



It _is _interesting in that they replicate the logic of the groups they try to reject - they essentially say, look we are the experts on anti-semitism, it's up to us to say what it is, when it operates and where. And like the groups they criticise they have their own agenda on which to paint this little picture of them as the natural defenders - for them supporting corbyn, for the others attacking corbyn. Same game with a minus placed where the others place a plus.

That posted above  is ridiculous of course and not the way to drain the swamp - and i doubt that was ever the intention of the complainants, this going some distance to justify a good part of the jewdas claims.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2018)

This has been all over twitter, and they (leave.eu) have not removed it just doubled down and defended it. properly disgusting.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Mar 30, 2018)

They're filth. 

And why are they still recruiting/asking for money on that tweet? They won the referendum didn't they? I reckon they're going to wait for UKIP to finally go phffft before relaunching a Farageist party of some sort.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2018)

elbows said:


> It's funny you mention constructing their own politics because some of the curious reactions to this internet age might be rather influenced by the spectacle of far more people expressing far more thoughts in the form of the typed word. Ooh ooh, unsafe feelings, these oiks havent even been scrubbed through grammar school and oxbridge before getting the privilege of written mass communication!
> 
> Anyway it is late and I am not used to using the word milieu. And I'm certainly guilty of going on about narratives way too much. But I'm deeply unimpressed with the way the story of what is happening this century is being told. Take the financial crisis and the way a couple of aspects were zoomed in on to the exclusion of much else, leaving plenty of room for other shit 'explanations' to fester away from this narrow gaze. And sometimes I get pissed off that not enough things are being joined together, too many issues and events looked at in relative isolation. I suppose I might let out a doomed laugh at this point because hideous, sloppy dot joining is one of the things we get at the loons for and some of the dots are often anti-semitic. And on all the occasions over the years where I made fairly dismal attempts to join up issues of energy, global warming and economy, I never got a great sense that this was something that was resonating with many people. Obviously that might just be because I did a shit job of it, but regardless I remain concerned by the lack of attempts to get a bit more cohesion going between related domains. I know its difficult and stories that explain everything all rolled into one are usually well dodgy, and no we dont need any more Adam Curtis-like explanations, but I cant help feeling something is missing on some fundamentally important level.



I think that butchers is using 'milieu' in the Colin Campbell sense described here:


> ... this environment Campbell explains is the cultic milieu. A fertile ground inhabited by a ‘society of seekers’ (127) who share a ‘basic principle of tolerance and eclecticism’ (Ibid), opposing the dominant societal culture and embracing a variety of deviant and heterodoxical approaches to life.
> 
> ‘Fragmentary tendencies present in the milieu because of the enormous diversity’ (123) of the seeker-ship and therefore cults thrive in abundance.  The non-‘exclusivist’ (121) nature of cults subsequently leads them to their demise. The ‘seekers do not…necessarily stop looking in other directions when one path is indicated as _the _path to the truth,’ (127) instead, a ‘displacement of goals’ occurs and variety of belief causes the collapse of cults.


 Campbell, Colin. The Cult, The Cultic Milieu and Secularization. A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, SCM Press London, 1972.

Original here, p12: The Cultic Milieu

One of the things that makes this different to 'the poors are given their politics by the internet' is the active politics-forming process implied by the 'society of seekers' bit, alienated individuals doing something that's fundamentally social and potentially political with a mass of 'stigmatized knowledge' being reproduced within the milieu.

This way of looking at it seems to work pretty well with Stuart Hall and subsequent notions see e.g. Encoding/decoding model of communication - Wikipedia

The thing that's different with the internet seems to me more in 'inhabited' bit of the milieu notion, more in the domain of Complex Network Analysis*: social and semantic networks that contain on the one hand a lot more potential variety than meatspace or paper networks, but on the other hand allow (and even algorithmically amplify) stronger clustering.

* see e.g. the stuff about scale free and small-world networks here: Exploring Complex Networks (PDF)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It _is _interesting in that they replicate the logic of the groups they try to reject - they essentially say, look we are the experts on anti-semitism, it's up to us to say what it is, when it operates and where. And like the groups they criticise they have their own agenda on which to paint this little picture of them as the natural defenders - for them supporting corbyn, for the others attacking corbyn. Same game with a minus placed where the others place a plus.
> 
> That posted above  is ridiculous of course and not the way to drain the swamp - and i doubt that was ever the intention of the complainants, this going some distance to justify a good part of the jewdas claims.



Yup, this I think is good on the Jewdas thing being too narrow (and the wider issue not just being about Corbyn and Labour)

In the spirit of Yanovsky and Feigenbaum: against the cranks, against the “community leadership”


----------



## bemused (Mar 30, 2018)

bimble said:


> This has been all over twitter, and they (leave.eu) have not removed it just doubled down and defended it. properly disgusting.
> 
> View attachment 131433



Who knew Arron Banks was a wanker .... oh wait .... everyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yup, this I think is good on the Jewdas thing being too narrow (and the wider issue not just being about Corbyn and Labour)
> 
> In the spirit of Yanovsky and Feigenbaum: against the cranks, against the “community leadership”


Yes - v good and exactly what i've been trying to get across about the milieu. This thing is not the property of labour - left or right - or any community leaders. It's a real opportunity for those of us who've spent too long butting heads with these goons to little or no avail so far.


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2018)

Just joining some dots here. One of Mearone's other murals ('Allegory of Complacency') bears a strong resemblance to the cover of Megadeth's 2009 album 'Endgame', even down to the sheeple's stitched heads, the result of some dastardly mind control surgery no doubt. The chemtrails seem a bit overkill. I don't know why the man on the left has three arms. If there had been any freaks in that cave, I'm sure Plato would've mentioned them. Mustaine is of course a considerably deranged conspiraloon. 

Mear One  » Allegory of Complacency



Spoiler


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> oh dear.




Luciana Berger is a shit-stirrer _par excellence_, and has been since her days on the NUS, where she attempted to use her authority to police supposed anti-Semitism at SOAS (in reality, the student union allowed the uni's Islamic Society to use a room free of charge, and the Union of Jewish Students branch at SOAS had a hissy fit), and got herself into a pile of shit because of it. frogwoman also followed the story at the time, and had several laughs about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> I dunno, half the arseholes on that thread are attacking Berger and talking about 'so-called antisemitism'.



To be fair, Berger is a twat with form for crying wolf about anti-Semitism. I have a problem with that, in that it makes it that much harder to get actual anti-Semitism taken seriously.


----------



## steveo87 (Mar 30, 2018)

kenny g said:


> I have re-started swimming as a hobby. Looked up a few how to you tubes on improved breastroke techniques. Suddenly got my suggestions splattered with "12 year old's swimming" "13 year old swimming" etc etc The way their algorithms work is to feed off obsessives/ perverts/ maniacs.


"...Your Honour."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2018)

Some polling of labour members:

On that second point, the first thing to notice is the major shift in the level of support Jeremy Corbyn has among Labour party members. Two years ago this was still a party divided on the leadership and unsure of his future. Now they are solidly behind him. 80% of Labour members think Corbyn is doing well as leader, just 19% badly. 74% of Labour members think that Jeremy Corbyn should lead the party into the next general, and 64% of members think it is likely that Jeremy Corbyn will become Prime Minister in the future.

This is a complete transformation of attitudes since 2016 – back then, Labour members were split on Corbyn’s performance, didn’t think he could ever win, most didn’t want him to fight the next election. Now, following Corbyn’s victory against Owen Smith and the party’s revivial at the election, Corbyn’s support in the party looks absolutely solid.

Looking briefly at two of the other recent decisions Jeremy Corbyn has made, his members also back him over both his handling of the Salisbury poisonings and his sacking of Owen Smith. 69% think that Corbyn has responded well to the poisonings, and by 50% to 37% they think sacking Smith was the right decision.

....

Now, moving on to the anti-semitism row that Labour have found themselves in.

19% of Labour members think that anti-semitism in the party is a serious and genuine problem that needs addressing. A further 47% of Labour members agree that there is a serious and genuine problem, but think that is has been exaggerated for political reasons. Finally, 30% think that there is not a serious problem of anti-semitism at all. Broadly speaking, two-thirds of members think there is a problem (though many of those think it is being exaggerated for political effect), just under a third think there is not.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2018)

Does anyone rememberthe Channel 4 documentary on Inside the Pro Israel Lobby? If that was to be screened now what would be the reaction?


----------



## agricola (Mar 31, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Does anyone rememberthe Channel 4 documentary on Inside the Pro Israel Lobby? If that was to be screened now what would be the reaction?



The Dispatches one with Peter Oborne?  Probably the same as it got then.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2018)

agricola said:


> The Dispatches one with Peter Oborne?  Probably the same as it got then.


Thats the one


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 31, 2018)

Yay, Eddie Izzard. Why’s it taken so long for her to go?


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Yay, Eddie Izzard. Why’s it taken so long for her to go?


I think she really screwed up just yesterday, posting on facebook how 'this whole row is only being stirred up to attack Jeremy as we all know', just when he was recording his happy passover video. Maybe that's why she had to go.


----------



## bemused (Mar 31, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Yay, Eddie Izzard. Why’s it taken so long for her to go?



Because they were hoping it would blow over.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 31, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think she really screwed up just yesterday, posting on facebook how 'this whole row is only being stirred up to attack Jeremy as we all know', just when he was recording his happy passover video. Maybe that's why she had to go.


Again, we get to the right result, just days too late. Unfortunately JC’s political judgement is terrible. I know it’s actually the (ex) general secretary who’s largely responsible for administrative procedures that appear to be too slow and cumbersome and determined not to dump lost causes (like Ken), but this has left the field open for the Daily Mail, of all periodicals, to make the anti-anti-Semitic running.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 31, 2018)

Open season on Labour tonight. Very hard to see how and when this blows over.


----------



## agricola (Mar 31, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Open season on Labour tonight. Very hard to see how and when this blows over.



Perhaps, though the revelations on the Guardian website currently (that someone who hasn't donated to Labour (aside from certain MPs) since Corbyn took office, and who went on record last year saying he'd fund a breakaway anti-Corbyn party, has quit Labour) might suggest that the storm is approaching its end.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 31, 2018)

Thing about Shawcroft, we have no way of knowing if Corbyn asked her to resign when this first happened, because he's not the sort of person who would write an open letter to her and publish it in the media saying "I think you should go." It'd be behind closed doors. If that's the case, then one of the things that makes him a decent person is one of the things that causes him more strife. Like I say, we have no way of knowing.

Now with this latest thing about Harman and some MP allegedly engaging in DV, it just feels like the most tawdry kind of bullshit to attempt to harness this stuff to discredit him. DV is a serious fucking issue, and it's not for this kind of pitchfork sectarian bullshit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 31, 2018)

Of course Trissy Hunt coming out and saying he's still a member but is now a floating voter (that's a membership-revoking offence) and really wishes we had a Macron over here, with plaintive cries for D Miliband or Sadiq Khan to found the new party that will save us all. They're all such fucking tone deaf and unintelligent arseholes.


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

EXPOSED!11!: People apparently say nasty things in unofficial Facebook groups and mods sometimes ignore them! AND MPs SOMETIMES LIKED THE GROUPS!!!1!!

Fucking hell the absolute state of this. Does anyone remember when the Times pretended to be an actual newspaper?


No it's not an April Fools, it really is their lead story - Exposed: Jeremy Corbyn’s hate factory


----------



## agricola (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> EXPOSED!11!: People apparently say nasty things in unofficial Facebook groups and mods sometimes ignore them! AND MPs SOMETIMES LIKED THE GROUPS!!!1!!
> 
> Fucking hell the absolute state of this. Does anyone remember when the Times pretended to be an actual newspaper?
> View attachment 131556
> ...



One wonders if the Patrick Haseldine mentioned in that text is the same as the Patrick Haseldine of the "South Africa did Lockerbie" fame.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> EXPOSED!11!: People apparently say nasty things in unofficial Facebook groups and mods sometimes ignore them! AND MPs SOMETIMES LIKED THE GROUPS!!!1!!
> 
> Fucking hell the absolute state of this. Does anyone remember when the Times pretended to be an actual newspaper?
> View attachment 131556
> ...



They're really fucking scared, aren't they.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 1, 2018)

The good news is, none of this seems to have moved the betting markets very much.

Tories still slight favourites to get most seats, but they have been for a while.


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 1, 2018)

Listening to the boxing last night.  Crowd seemed to  be doing the whole "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" chant. So this latest hoo ha doesn't seem to have effected that constituency much at least.


----------



## Libertad (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> Listening to the boxing last night.  Crowd seemed to  be doing the whole "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" chant. So this latest hoo ha doesn't seem to have effected that constituency much at least.



Unlikely. It will have been an event specific Seven Nation Army chant, like at the football, that is after all where the Corbyn chant originated.


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 1, 2018)

Libertad said:


> Unlikely. It will have been an event specific Seven Nation Army chant, like at the football, that is after all where the Corbyn chant originated.



"Ooh Antony Joshua" - maybe . It was pretty muffled.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 1, 2018)

I was listening too, but couldn't make out if they were singing for Corbyn or not. Talksport's signal is pretty crackly after dark anyway.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2018)

Pretty sure it was for Joshua, done it a his previous fights.


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 1, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> I was listening too, but couldn't make out if they were singing for Corbyn or not. Talksport's signal is pretty crackly after dark anyway.



The crackle's good. Makes it feel like you're listening to Louis vs Schmeling on the wireless.


----------



## Slo-mo (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> The crackle's good. Makes it feel like you're listening to Louis vs Schmeling on the wireless.


Farr vs Louis more like!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> EXPOSED!11!: People apparently say nasty things in unofficial Facebook groups and mods sometimes ignore them! AND MPs SOMETIMES LIKED THE GROUPS!!!1!!
> 
> Fucking hell the absolute state of this. Does anyone remember when the Times pretended to be an actual newspaper?
> View attachment 131556
> ...



It’s a shame pro-Corbyn Facebook groups aren’t well-regulated forums of polite discussions like the hate-free comments under newspaper articles, eh?


FWIW the target of this stuff isn’t just Corbyn but also the power of Facebook to influence or organise political discourse and action -something the big old right wing press don’t have under their control. It’s a fight to retain their influence as much as anything (a battle not just limited to the rw press). They’re losing this battle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> They're really fucking scared, aren't they.



'Shitting frisbees' is the technical political science term I believe.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> It’s a shame pro-Corbyn Facebook groups aren’t well-regulated forums of polite discussions like the hate-free comments under newspaper articles, eh?
> 
> 
> FWIW the target of this stuff isn’t just Corbyn but also the power of Facebook to influence or organise political discourse and action -something the big old right wing press don’t have under their control. It’s a fight to retain their influence as much as anything (a battle not just limited to the rw press). They’re losing this battle.



I don't think you're wrong there, but I think it may also be a concern that Corbyn (or maybe Momentum) did pretty well in the social media battle last time around relative to the Tories. despite the latter probably having more money to pay for the assistance of creepy PR/psyops orgs who promote themselves as having expertise in that area.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Dunno.  I can do being a cynical ostrich as well as anyone, but praise for Hitler and Holocaust denial are somewhat unambiguous.  We're not told whether those posters were flamed to smithereens then immediately expelled, if that's the case it will doubtless be revealed.  If not, if we have to take this report at face value, then it's very hard indeed to see this as just some sort of exaggerated political smear with marginal substance beyond politicians jockeying for advantage.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2018)

newbie said:


> Dunno.  I can do being a cynical ostrich as well as anyone, but praise for Hitler and Holocaust denial are somewhat unambiguous.  We're not told whether those posters were flamed to smithereens then immediately expelled, if that's the case it will doubtless be revealed.  If not, if we have to take this report at face value, then it's very hard indeed to see this as just some sort of exaggerated political smear with marginal substance beyond politicians jockeying for advantage.



As with the antisemitism stuff, I think it's both actual hate speech and politically motivated attacks based on accusations of same that range much more widely.

Such attacks obviously work a lot better having some actual conspiraloons / racists to point at, along with some Labour politicians party / officials being useless about them.

The Momentum surge is a bit of a two edged sword. On the one hand, lots of energetic and social-media aware new faces, but on the other a bunch of conspiraloon liabilities.

Not really surprising that a lot of people are trying to make the latter edge bite JC.


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 1, 2018)

Do these groups have islamophobic or racist posts too? I suspect on a vastly smaller scale, and with more likelihood of objections / being taken down. So while this story is a misleading piece of propaganda there's a worrying truth at the core of it.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> As with the antisemitism stuff, I think it's both actual hate speech and politically motivated attacks based on accusations of same that range much more widely.
> 
> Such attacks obviously work a lot better having some actual conspiraloons / racists to point at and some Labour politicians along with party officials being useless about them.


a couple of named, senior politicians mumbling excuses about not looking properly at something they endorsed is all a bit arguable and we can take sides based on our wider politics.  19% think Corbyn is doing badly and, handily, _19% of Labour members think that anti-semitism in the party is a serious and genuine problem that needs addressing_.  So it's dead easy to be cynical about how much of this has serious roots.  But these appear to be left labour ponds in which people can apparently get away with posts in praise of Hitler *  

Sure, I want the right in the Labour Party to continue to lose influence. I want a left, inside and outside, ready to take on the tories in the arguments and try to turn public opinion.  But not a left that swims in a pond like that.

* that may not be the case- this is the Sunday Times, I'd like to see responses from insiders of these groups before being wholly convinced the complete picture is available


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

newbie said:


> if we have to take this report at face value, then it's very hard indeed to see this as just some sort of exaggerated political smear with marginal substance beyond politicians jockeying for advantage.



Specifically on Facebook groups it absolutely is an exaggerated smear. I don't run anything as massive as the 65,000-strong Corbyn support group, but even so, on something an order of magnitude smaller I often struggle to keep up with a contentious thread - people simply post faster than I can delete, or at a time when I'm busy so maybe I miss it. On the biggest Corbyn group they were apparently fielding up to 16,000 posts a month.

And on any given thread there will be at least a couple of massive arseholes prone to making hateful comments for the sake of riling people up, or because they're active bigots. The idea that this phenomenon is specific to Corbyn, as opposed to simply standard on any mass-use form of communication (eg. the comments under Youtube videos, all Twitch live threads ever, Imgur comments, Reddit comments, etc etc) is laughable.

Hell Urban75 has a large, experienced mod and admin team who aren't shy with the thread lock and a fairly stable, large community of people who enforce a culture of making bigots feel unwelcome, but it still has its moments. If you took a few months to go through its back catalogue for dodgy comments you could find all sorts of quotes.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2018)

Plus the very real possibility of politically motivated trolling in such a group, who can also be reported as 'Corybn Supporters' because they're in a Corbyn supporter group.

But something like Urban's zero tolerance for loons/racists policy is pretty much what they need to be running in anything that can be associated with Labour, whether online or in meatspace.

I foresee implementation difficulties however ...


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

Afaik none of the pro-Corbyn groups are officially associated with anything, which is kind of the point when it comes to understanding the vagaries of political activism on social media. Any schmuck can set up a page and if the title and the first couple hundred posts hit the mark hey presto, 10,000 followers who you've never met, there for reasons unknown beyond possibly general sentiment and who have no incentive to behave themselves. And there's you, scrambling to find a couple of other people (who you've probably never met in real life but at least they're active on threads) to help you mod out the crazy a bit. Tough gig for a professional let alone an enthusiastic amateur sneaking it in on their phone at lunchtime - and that's assuming the group leader isn't also a total loonspud.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Hell Urban75 has a large, experienced mod and admin team who aren't shy with the thread lock and a fairly stable, large community of people who enforce a culture of making bigots feel unwelcome, but it still has its moments. If you took a few months to go through its back catalogue for dodgy comments you could find all sorts of quotes.


well, if 4 is large.

But could you find much serious  on here?  in order to make a point I used the term 'financial class' upthread and was immediate pounced upon and am probably now on various lists.  The point was not about big fish moderating racists away, but that the pond is filled with little fish who may be letting this stuff pass. Do the ordinary posters in your group leave it all to you?


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Plus the very real possibility of politically motivated trolling in such a group.


for years it's been a given that in any online group there are people pretending to be what they're not in order to cause trouble and disaffection, and these days we have to reckon there's at least some chance that there genuinely are paid agents of foreign powers posting.  That's not conspiraloonacy, is it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2018)

Wonder how easy it would be to play that sort of stuff back at the right? It's not like the Blairites/Tories lack for bigots and hateful shouty people online.

Do you actually need a bunch of old style media and pressure groups like the ones we've been talking about in this thread to pull it off?

ETA: or is the key difference that Labour activists might actually be concerned at having racist loons in their party (and hence be less active) whereas for Tories that’s just normal?


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

newbie said:


> could you find much serious on here?



Less than a week ago Laurie Penny was picking out examples of people calling for her death and painting Urban as a misogynist hate site, and as I say, that's running a relatively tight ship.



newbie said:


> Do the ordinary posters in your group leave it all to you?



Pretty much yeah, people will hit the report button once in a while but who reads argument threads other than the two or three people actually having the argument?


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

newbie said:


> these days we have to reckon there's at least some chance that there genuinely are paid agents of foreign powers posting. That's not conspiraloonacy, is it?



It's not conspiraloonacy, States will always try to manipulate things, but it is overblown imo. It's simply not very plausible for Russia to be hiring people to make shit comments on pro-Corbyn Facebook pages.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Less than a week ago Laurie Penny was picking out examples of people calling for her death and painting Urban as a misogynist hate site, and as I say, that's running a relatively tight ship.


fair enough, she has a point.


> Pretty much yeah, people will hit the report button once in a while but who reads argument threads other than the two or three people actually having the argument?


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> It's not conspiraloonacy, States will always try to manipulate things, but it is overblown imo. It's simply not very plausible for Russia to be hiring people to make shit comments on pro-Corbyn Facebook pages.


Do I move further up the lists by observing that Russia is less interested in neutralising anti Zionism than the Israeli state?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2018)

Jesus, stop whining ffs


----------



## bimble (Apr 1, 2018)

I'm not condoning the author of this _or his ideas about anything at all_ but here's some of what probably made up the raw material for the times article. It's about one facebook group which seems to have had a problem from the start because the people who were mods / founding members were not well placed to spot there being anything wrong.
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part1_FINAL.pdf
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part2_FINAL.pdf


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 1, 2018)

Some of that is really shocking bimble and really woke me up. I'd made assumptions about how bad the Facebook posts were and I had to revise those by about a factor of ten.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm not condoning the author of this _or his ideas about anything at all_ but here's some of what probably made up the raw material for the times article. It's about one facebook group which seems to have had a problem from the start because the people who were mods / founding members were not well placed to spot there being anything wrong.
> http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part1_FINAL.pdf
> http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part2_FINAL.pdf



I don't quite get where everyone is on this. Do people think Corbyn can ever sufficiently put this behind him (which includes taking the robust action necessary) to take the next step to no 10 or do people think as long as the members back him and the party is transformed, that will have to do?


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 1, 2018)

In all honesty I think while public sentiment towards anti-semitism is mostly to condemn it, that probably won't convert to significant lost votes in these circumstances. The logic of parliamentary politics is "which is the best option of the two at hand," which imposes a choice of Party 1: Not very good at dealing with anti-semitism, left-wing policies or Party 2: Infamous racist history and a known slate of xenophobic tossers who actively say so in Parliament, right wing policies. within a broader framework of "which slate of policies do I most agree with _overall_."

The only real stand that can be taken is to not vote at all. Which may happen to some degree, but we're not in a situation where the logic lends itself to that if you have faith in parliamentary democracy as an important player in shaping the future, as unlike in the Blair era there's a clear view that the outcomes of Labour economics and Tory economics are likely to be materially very different.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2018)

The Eddie Izzard thing is an April Fool right?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 1, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The Eddie Izzard thing is an April Fool right?



Nope, he was the first runner-up in the last NEC elections, so he gets the vacant place.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Afaik none of the pro-Corbyn groups are officially associated with anything, which is kind of the point when it comes to understanding the vagaries of political activism on social media. Any schmuck can set up a page and if the title and the first couple hundred posts hit the mark hey presto, 10,000 followers who you've never met, there for reasons unknown beyond possibly general sentiment and who have no incentive to behave themselves. And there's you, scrambling to find a couple of other people (who you've probably never met in real life but at least they're active on threads) to help you mod out the crazy a bit. Tough gig for a professional let alone an enthusiastic amateur sneaking it in on their phone at lunchtime - and that's assuming the group leader isn't also a total loonspud.



<Potentially derailing comparison with mod policy on a different type of site deleted>

What might some sort of collective responsibility for dealing with toxic gibberish look like in a socialist party? (assuming for the sake of argument that Labour were one)

How do you make it work in places like Facebook groups that you don't actually control but that still get associated with you closely enough that you're more or less obliged to be responsible for them?

Maybe they need something like this ... ?



> Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.
> 
> To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
> 
> ...



COMBAT LIBERALISM

Again, I forsee implementation issues. Probably the only way to deal with loonspud racists in practice though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 1, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> <Potentially derailing comparison with mod policy on a different type of site deleted>
> 
> What might some sort of collective responsibility for dealing with toxic gibberish look like in a socialist party? (assuming for the sake of argument that Labour were one)
> 
> ...



Yes, but enough of Jeremy and his faults.


----------



## billbond (Apr 1, 2018)




----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Luciana Berger is a shit-stirrer _par excellence_, and has been since her days on the NUS, where she attempted to use her authority to police supposed anti-Semitism at SOAS (in reality, the student union allowed the uni's Islamic Society to use a room free of charge, and the Union of Jewish Students branch at SOAS had a hissy fit), and got herself into a pile of shit because of it. frogwoman also followed the story at the time, and had several laughs about it.


Thanks for jogging my memory. I knew I'd followed her on twitter for a reason - I just couldn't remember if it was a *good* one or a *bad* one...


----------



## billbond (Apr 1, 2018)




----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Hell Urban75 has a large, experienced mod and admin team who aren't shy with the thread lock and a fairly stable, large community of people who enforce a culture of making bigots feel unwelcome, but it still has its moments. If you took a few months to go through its back catalogue for dodgy comments you could find all sorts of quotes.





Corax said:


> His lot killed Jesus, it's allowed.


Happy to help


----------



## vanya (Apr 1, 2018)

In these days of instant social media some people do tweet or retweet lazy anti Semitic tropes without necessarily realising they are doing it.

I confess I couldn't see anything wrong with the mural until it was pointed out to me.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 2, 2018)

Saint Corbyn has now deleted his personal facebook account:
Jeremy Corbyn deletes personal Facebook account as pressure mounts over antisemitism row


----------



## Supine (Apr 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Saint Corbyn has now deleted his personal facebook account:
> Jeremy Corbyn deletes personal Facebook account as pressure mounts over antisemitism row



Is that true? I thought it was an April fools yesterday!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 2, 2018)

Supine said:


> Is that true? I thought it was an April fools yesterday!


True, apparently, in that the claim is still there and also appears on the mirror site. And whilst I don't give a shit about his facebook page, in the context of this row, deleting it is quite a big thing.


----------



## chilango (Apr 2, 2018)

I wonder if any drop in the Labour vote from the GE I .The coming local elections will be painted as a response to this rather than Labour's record of implementing cuts and austerity?


----------



## Cloo (Apr 2, 2018)

Barnet will be an interesting case in point about all this (currently no majority after one Tory councillor deselected, IIRC). Labour will win regardless of some Jewish people probably switching their vote elsewhere, but most of the Jewish voters who would be most upset about this are the ones who vote Tory anyway, so I can't see it making an impact.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 2, 2018)

you get loons infesting all of the nets take away the filter that I might get a smack if I say this and all sorts of gibberish flows forth add your worse than Hitler if you suggest Israel isn't acting in Palestinians best interest   and the Rothschilds control everything wake up sheeple on the other  theres loads of room for mayhem.


----------



## bimble (Apr 2, 2018)

Just seems like a really stupid thing to do, if he's really deleted his facebook at this particular moment and with no explanation, like something you'd do in a huff as a teenager. Especially after explicitly saying he wouldn't, last week.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> True, apparently, in that the claim is still there and also appears on the mirror site. And whilst I don't give a shit about his facebook page, in the context of this row, deleting it is quite a big thing.


I don't really see it as that big a thing. In fact I'm surprised he didn't do it on becoming leader and just having an official one run by someone who knows what they're doing.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just seems like a really stupid thing to do, if he's really deleted his facebook at this particular moment and with no explanation, like something you'd do in a huff as a teenager. Especially after explicitly saying he wouldn't, last week.


That article says 'our account' so not his personal one


----------



## bimble (Apr 2, 2018)

binka said:


> That article says 'our account' so not his personal one


True. Still think its a pretty stupid moment to do this, with no explanation. As you say maybe he should've done it ages ago.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> True. Still think its a pretty stupid moment to do this, with no explanation. As you say maybe he should've done it ages ago.


Can't see any benefit to any high profile politician have a personal FB account, just asking for trouble


----------



## rekil (Apr 2, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Hell Urban75 has a large, experienced mod and admin team who aren't shy with the thread lock and a fairly stable, large community of people who enforce a culture of making bigots feel unwelcome, but it still has its moments. If you took a few months to go through its back catalogue for dodgy comments you could find all sorts of quotes.


This thread from a while back, a mish mash of anti-semitic tropes, scientific racism and anti-Irish weirdness which gets duly ripped apart by posters. Jewish Intellectualism 

The OP featured a link from a loon site which contains stories like this



and videos like this on its yt channel.


----------



## bimble (Apr 2, 2018)

I think this place is very unusual in the way people here don’t give conspiracists a chance.  Most of the internet (seems to me) you’re only ever two clicks away from full on holocaust denier level loons.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 2, 2018)

binka said:


> I don't really see it as that big a thing. In fact I'm surprised he didn't do it on becoming leader and just having an official one run by someone who knows what they're doing.


It's a big thing in a general sense as it looks like he's doing the same thing idiots/sexists/racists and the rest do, at the point they are caught out. As Bimble said above his timing is crass - it _adds to_ the story.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 2, 2018)

Chris Williamson defending out and out anti-Semite @SocialistVoice 



Depressing.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's a big thing in a general sense as it looks like he's doing the same thing idiots/sexists/racists and the rest do, at the point they are caught out. As Bimble said above his timing is crass - it _adds to_ the story.


I just don't see this being see as a big story by anyone, most will just see it as a sensible step. Even the mail in their main labour anti-semitism story only give it a passing mention at the very end


----------



## Wilf (Apr 2, 2018)

I've only skimmed the reports Bimble posted up, so I'm still not quite sure 'how bad' some of stuff he has fellow travelled with/sat on a facebook page with/not challenged/whatever. Equally, I'm not a fan of parliamentary politics or for that matter the 'rules' you have to play by in that game. Same time, whilst I'm also not an actual Corbyn fan, one of the things I've been mildly impressed with is that he hasn't gone into full on low risk politics + high and mighty 'leader mode', since he won the leadership. But this is part of the downside of that. I'm sure he's been told that it would be best to sort out his social media history and he's had plenty of warning about how these stories play out (all the linkages to 'terrorism' the press have tried to make for example). He must have known for what, 18 months that he was vulnerable over his apparent membership of these facebook groups.  At the very least he should have chosen a quiet moment to delete his personal account, wrapped up in perhaps some attempt to say he was relaunching the party's social media presence.  A mixture of naivety and principal? But maybe another reminder that if you want to play the parliamentary leader game, you can't actually do it as you would when a backbench rebel.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 2, 2018)

binka said:


> I just don't see this being see as a big story by anyone, most will just see it as a sensible step. Even the mail in their main labour anti-semitism story only give it a passing mention at the very end


Ignoring the substance of the issue and just focusing on it as an unfolding issue - something he/the party has to deal with: I don't think it reduces down to how long the story runs and with how many e-column inches, it's about the extent to which it emboldens the Labour right to kick the whole civil war off again.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Ignoring the substance of the issue and just focusing on it as an unfolding issue - something he/the party has to deal with: I don't think it reduces down to how long the story runs and with how many e-column inches, it's about the extent to which it emboldens the Labour right to kick the whole civil war off again.


I know what you're getting at but while stuff like the Chris Williamson tweet above is going on then Corbyn deleting his private Facebook is pretty irrelevant to keeping the story going


----------



## bimble (Apr 2, 2018)

Chris Williamson MP, what a mess, when proved totally wrong he had a chance to say oh I didn't know that instead goes for 'but he apologised give him a chance'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Chris Williamson MP, what a mess, when proved totally wrong he had a chance to say oh I didn't know that instead goes for 'but he apologised give him a chance'.



He's got the potential to be a great MP but he's far too deep into that conspiratorial left mindset. What a fucking twat.

And today, when Momentum have put out a good statement - he should take their fucking lead.


----------



## bimble (Apr 2, 2018)

that's really good.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 2, 2018)

Just what's needed, I think. I do like the bit about exploring partnerships with external organisations for training and awareness. No JLM instruction classes.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> Chris Williamson MP, what a mess, when proved totally wrong he had a chance to say oh I didn't know that instead goes for 'but he apologised give him a chance'.



And relies on meaningless tropes ‘for the many not the few’ ‘the Tories are evil’ as the justification for his apologia for anti semites


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 2, 2018)

Just had a conversation with a work colleague who I know is an old-fashioned lefty and quite active politically, he brought up this antisemitism row as evidence that to him Corbyn is being unfairly attacked by all and sundry. I tried to get him to see twhat the actual problem is, he claimed he has never seen any evidence of antisemitism in his experience of The Left. Literally never seen any. I left it at, _Well perhaps you haven't been looking_, because I like the guy and I have to work with him. But ffs


----------



## kenny g (Apr 2, 2018)

That momentum statement does the job. Antisemitism is a pernicious prejudice - the nile is not just a river in Africa.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 2, 2018)

What’s the vector for this antisemitism?

I can see an obvious one via the conspiraloon milieu that fucked Occupy. 

There’s another via some elements of Palestinian solidarity. 

Is there anything organic to Labour itself?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 2, 2018)

I understand the defensive attitude, the batten-down-the-hatches stance. It's perfectly understandable. Corbyn has been relentlessly attacked, every single member who supports him has been branded as this or that, and the distinctly lukewarm social democracy that represents the best chance at moving discourse leftwards has been undermined and attacked at every turn. So I understand the defensiveness. 

But it's not good enough. I don't know how you break through that mindset to make people realise that yes, the attacks happen towards the left and yes the right is scared and yes there are smears and outright lies in some instances, BUT none of that is an excuse for legitimising bigotry of _any_ kind and for absolute fuck's sake get your head out of your arse. 

The only thing that can be done is what's happening now: the leadership make it clear, Momentum make it clear, the 'leading voices' make it clear, and individual activists keep making the point in online and offline spaces even if there's pushback. It's not going to suddenly click with everyone all at once, it's a long fucking job and no, it isn't helped by the fact that there _are_ smear jobs and there _is_ constant undermining of Corbyn and the left more generally and it does feel like you're endlessly with your back against the wall flailing outwards at the undending barrage of shit they keep flinging. If the right of the party were actually intelligent I'd say this is the sort of situation they were engineering from the beginning. Certainly they want to demoralise as many activists as possible so they can slowly exert control again. I'm not sure that you can fashion a membership that is entirely free of this conspiranoid thinking, but you make it clear, every day, every time you encounter it, that not only is it counter-productive it's actually the antithesis of everything the left (as such as there is a 'left') is meant to be. 

It is fucking demoralising, but if you give up what's the point in any of it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 2, 2018)

As an attack line, I think the entire point is to make principled activists give up.


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> At the very least he should have chosen a quiet moment to delete his personal account, wrapped up in perhaps some attempt to say he was relaunching the party's social media presence.


I disagree.

If I was a politician, no matter how advised, I would refuse to do so. If there was anything that needed to be apologised for, I would (at least be ready to) do so. To delete it would be an act of dishonesty though.

I want to see that kind of behaviour in my representatives too.


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's got the potential to be a great MP but he's far too deep into that conspiratorial left mindset. What a fucking twat.
> 
> And today, when Momentum have put out a good statement - he should take their fucking lead.



I really rather like that statement.

I just haven't made my mind up about 'Momentum' at this point - I don't know enough to do so.


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There’s another via some elements of Palestinian solidarity.


Rather than just elements _within_ Palestinian Solidarity, I would imagine that some of it comes about by the reaction _to_ Palestinian Solidarity.

x - Free Palestine!
y - You're an anti-semite!
x - What? No I'm not.
y - Yes you are, this is the stuff you lot believe [see attached]
x - No I don't! (Although actually, some of that kinda makes some sense...)

And so on.

Pure speculation of course, but I can imagine myself as x and getting suckered down that road.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 2, 2018)

Corax said:


> I really rather like that statement.
> 
> I just haven't made my mind up about 'Momentum' at this point - I don't know enough to do so.



Momentum is a great idea in terms of mobilising and coordinating campaigning and holding training sessions - all of which it has done and continues to do. Its membership are almost as diverse as that of the LP in general ('almost' because you're not going to find Progress arseholes there, but neither is it the preserve of the farthest left alone), so you'll have some cranks, but you'll have a majority of regular LP members of all ages. The best way to think of it is as a base of operations for getting activists out. If you think of all the enthusiasm you see online from people who support the current direction of the LP, Momentum helps harness that in ways that your average CLP hasn't been able to do. I'm sure on a local case-by-case basis many branches of it are empty, don't do much, or are holding pens for the more annoying elements out there (frankly like some CLPs), but nationally its organisational ability is a boon for the party and the new ways successful campaigns have to operate these days.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 2, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What’s the vector for this antisemitism?
> 
> I can see an obvious one via the conspiraloon milieu that fucked Occupy.
> 
> ...



The nationalism inherent in social democracy.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 3, 2018)

Labour MPs are currently retweeting Guido Fawkes, in a massive self-own exercise. GF had a 'scoop' that Corbyn spent yesterday evening with Jewdas, the evil leftwing group (no mention that they are a Jewish group) that hates capitalism and criticises Israel. Further evidence that Corbyn is the actual worst.

In fact, Corbyn was invited to join the group - who are his constituents - for their seder, and reports from those there said it was a beautiful evening.

Cue Labour MPs jumping straight on the bandwagon (retweeting Guido for absolute fuck's sake), Luke Akhurst suggesting there are good jews and bad jews and Corbyn chose to spend time with the bad ones, Oakeshot on the news saying "you only have to see their name, Jewdas" ...

They've jumped the shark this time.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 3, 2018)

Short thread on the debacle:


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 3, 2018)

Knotted said:


> The nationalism inherent in social democracy.



How does that work then?


----------



## andysays (Apr 3, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Labour MPs are currently retweeting Guido Fawkes, in a massive self-own exercise. GF had a 'scoop' that Corbyn spent yesterday evening with Jewdas, the evil leftwing group (no mention that they are a Jewish group) that hates capitalism and criticises Israel. Further evidence that Corbyn is the actual worst.
> 
> In fact, Corbyn was invited to join the group - who are his constituents - for their seder, and reports from those there said it was a beautiful evening.
> 
> ...


This is now the lead story on the BBC website. 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, Corbyn might have done better to politely refuse the invitation. If he goes to dinner with the Chief Rabbi right now he'll be attacked for using the wrong fork to eat his smoked salmon.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 3, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Labour MPs are currently retweeting Guido Fawkes, in a massive self-own exercise. GF had a 'scoop' that Corbyn spent yesterday evening with Jewdas, the evil leftwing group (no mention that they are a Jewish group) that hates capitalism and criticises Israel. Further evidence that Corbyn is the actual worst.
> 
> In fact, Corbyn was invited to join the group - who are his constituents - for their seder, and reports from those there said it was a beautiful evening.
> 
> ...



The BBC paper review leads with the guido report, even though it doesn’t appear on the front of any of the papers they’re reviewing. They seem more keen than the right wing press in making this a big story, seems very questionable.


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

This is just ridiculous now. i feel embarassed and sick of people talking about jews to push their agendas. 
However nice of an evening they had though I don't think it was a wise choice on his part to spend Seder with the people who wrote that 'fuck you all' piece which was simply a direct attack on the mainstream jewish orgs of the uk. Even if you 100% agree with what they wrote.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 3, 2018)

andysays said:


> This is now the lead story on the BBC website.
> 
> Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, Corbyn might have done better to politely refuse the invitation. If he goes to dinner with the Chief Rabbi right now he'll be attacked for using the wrong fork to eat his smoked salmon.



Under the headline 'Corbyn attends left-wing Jewish event'. While I'm sure it is intended as a smear, I'm not sure it has very much scope for damage.

I half wonder whether this is not an attempt by the Lab leadership to deliberately re-focus media attention in a way that makes the entirety of the story look as transparently bizarre as attacking Corbyn over attending the Jewdas Seder.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 3, 2018)

It's the lead story on the Graun too.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 3, 2018)

Who the fuck is advising this guy?


----------



## bemused (Apr 3, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Who the fuck is advising this guy?



Ken Livingstone


----------



## steveo87 (Apr 3, 2018)

Just out of curiosity, why do people think no one's asked/demanded openly for Corbyn to resign, if he's such a raging anti-Semite?

Personally I think it's because there's credible (at least with grass roots) alternative. 
I think the right of the Party would much prefer Corbyn get a hammering in the GE, in a grand "We Told You So", then openly dismiss the apparent opinion that Corbyn is the best leader (in the most part) for the party, and that the current situation is just a smear campaign (which appears to be losing pace).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

"BBC accused of antisemitism after ranting about Corbyn's involvement with the wrong kind of jews"

-yeah, I didn't think so.


----------



## newbie (Apr 3, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Who the fuck is advising this guy?


people who want to cement their hold on the party?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Who the fuck is advising this guy?



Maybe he's deciding things for himself.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 3, 2018)

newbie said:


> people who want to cement their hold on the party?
> View attachment 131772



That figure is due to the number of people who have had their direct debits lapse in the past few months, media manipulation rather than fact.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

J Ed said:


> That figure is due to the number of people who have had their direct debits lapse in the past few months, media manipulation rather than fact.



Indeed, note the publication reporting it.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Apr 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe he's deciding things for himself.



You're probably right. But at some point, if he wants to be in Downing St, he's got to understand that's he's got to play the game. Going to events like this, not agreeing that Putin was behind the Salisbury attack etc is fucking stupid politically, at best. Somebody should be in his ear. May is there for the taking and he's doing this shit.


----------



## D'wards (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm sure it's been said before, but Corbyn's greatest strength and weakness is not giving a toss about public opinion or media pressure.
Fancy going to an event like this when he's in middle of the antisemitism shitstorm.
I think it will ultimately be his downfall though.
All he's done so far is lose an election, of which i suspect the gains he made were the result of a fashion amongst the young to vote - a group normally low in voting figures .
The nhs and police force is on its arse. 
London now has more murders than New York, minor crimes aren't being dealt with and healthcare is fucked . The Tories should be fish in a barrel


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2018)

Looks like he's seeing if it's possible without 'playing the game'.


----------



## andysays (Apr 3, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Under the headline 'Corbyn attends left-wing Jewish event'. While I'm sure it is intended as a smear, I'm not sure it has very much scope for damage.
> 
> I half wonder whether this is not an attempt by the Lab leadership to deliberately re-focus media attention in a way that makes the entirety of the story look as transparently bizarre as attacking Corbyn over attending the Jewdas Seder.


The damage is not just the direct stuff, it's also, perhaps more importantly, that all the coverage JC and the Labour party are getting ATM is this stuff, rather than attacking the Tories or pushing positive reasons to vote for them.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't think it was a wise choice on his part to spend Seder with the people who wrote that 'fuck you all' piece which was simply a direct attack on the mainstream jewish orgs of the uk. Even if you 100% agree with what they wrote.



Interestingly the Jewdas website has gone offline






While waiting to see if this is a temporary blip the article Bimble linked to is archived here

ETA: seems to have been knocked offline by the amount of traffic it's currently getting.



> This is about people of a certain age, class and political persuasion who have no idea how to function in a system where every political party isn’t pandering to their views exactly. It is about the threat that the possibility of nationalisation, rent caps and redistribution of wealth poses to the people whose ‘philanthropy’ funds our community. We have allowed our community to be dominated by middle- and upper- class people who are actively opposed to our material interests for way too long.
> 
> Enough is more than fucking enough.


----------



## Borp (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm probably biased by I think this was a good move by corbyn. Dealing with the issue but doing it on his terms. (That's where his popularity rests to start with) 
Ultimately this story is mostly just a media game anyway. 
Which is not to say anti semitism doesn't need calling out and dealing with.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

The establishment dislikes progressive religious groups in general. Religious folk of all stripes are supposed to exist in homogeneous voting blocs with predictable responses to known triggers and tame figureheads who can be bought simply and cheaply.

The press also dislike any situation where they have to think beyond their one-line summaries of what it is to be a muslim or a jew or a sikh. More than one jewish view on Palestine is just too much like hard work, there's clearly some deviancy there that needs stamping out.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 3, 2018)

killer b said:


> Looks like he's seeing if it's possible without 'playing the game'.



Seeing if what's possible?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 3, 2018)

D'wards said:


> i suspect the gains he made were the result of a fashion amongst the young to vote


this was recieved wisdom at the time but a look at the data afterwards has shown the whole 'youthquake' thing to be a convenient line to run with. Increased vote in all the age groups 60 and under


----------



## newbie (Apr 3, 2018)

J Ed said:


> That figure is due to the number of people who have had their direct debits lapse in the past few months, media manipulation rather than fact.


sure, but there's reasons why they let them lapse, just as there's reasons, including media manipulation, why others become more determined in their battle for ascendancy. Those that lapse, or pointedly resign, over anti-semitism are unlikely to have been the strongest Corbyn supporters.   As many people have said, the overall electoral impact of this is likely to be minor, despite the best efforts of the right, but a smallish percentage of Corbyn critics leaving might help tip the internal balance of power.  The question was _who advised him to attend the Jewdas thing?_, I'm suggesting that the advisers who said _no, no, go to a Friends of Israel event instead_ were told not to be so silly,


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Seeing if what's possible?


Everything I guess. The last few years have been regularly punctuated by people sagely opining 'he's fucked it this time! He needs to play the game better!', and each time they've been proved wrong.

Fuck knows if that's the case this time, but I can't help feeling a certain amount of admiration at the audacity of it all.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 3, 2018)

newbie said:


> sure, but there's reasons why they let them lapse, just as there's reasons, including media manipulation, why others become more determined in their battle for ascendancy. Those that lapse, or pointedly resign, over anti-semitism are unlikely to have been the strongest Corbyn supporters.   As many people have said, the overall electoral impact of this is likely to be minor, despite the best efforts of the right, but a smallish percentage of Corbyn critics leaving might help tip the internal balance of power.  The question was _who advised him to attend the Jewdas thing?_, I'm suggesting that the advisers who said _no, no, go to a Friends of Israel event instead_ were told not to be so silly,



Word is his office didn't know and he was just invited, so he went on his own time. Tbh I see no problem with it, so far all it's done is expose the real motivations of some on the Right for caring in the first place. Guido's article barely even referred to them as Jewish (preferring _Left Wing_) and the reaction I've seen so far seems to either be asking if there are 'Good' and 'Bad' Jews now. Or nodding heads from the commentariat saying there'll be a terrible reaction while struggling to point out who it's going to come from. Except for the usual list of Never Corbyn types of course, especially among the MPs, who're already getting stick for feeding off of Guido as if they're best mates.


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

Borp said:


> I'm probably biased by I think this was a good move by corbyn. Dealing with the issue but doing it on his terms. (That's where his popularity rests to start with)
> Ultimately this story is mostly just a media game anyway.
> Which is not to say anti semitism doesn't need calling out and dealing with.


Do you mean dealing with the issue by having dinner with the people who said the whole recent debacle (and the demonstration last week) was really nothing but a smear campaign ? I dunno.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> Do you mean dealing with the issue by having dinner with the people who said the whole recent debacle (and the demonstration last week) was really nothing but a smear campaign ? I dunno.



That's one way of putting it. I read their statement as saying a genuine problem was being used to smear Corbyn unduly. They've not said there was never a problem, quite the opposite.


----------



## Borp (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> Do you mean dealing with the issue by having dinner with the people who said the whole recent debacle (and the demonstration last week) was really nothing but a smear campaign ? I dunno.



From what I've read they've said it's a smear campaign AND anti semitism exists and needs dealing with. Also it wasn't just dinner.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2018)

I think there's going to be two sets of people delighted at this latest - 1) the right inside and out of labour who are using the issue to attack Corbyn and, more importantly to me me 2) anti-semites who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. Their anti-semitic worldview will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)_. I don't really care about 1) and don't imagine it having any wider damaging outcomes in its own terms but in recent days there had been signs of the acceptance of the need to isolate then remove the  2nd lot whilst undermining those sort of arguments above. I think giving them a boost of any sort - no matter how innocuous the actual thing he did was - is just bad tactics if you're serious about 2).


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

Borp said:


> From what I've read they've said it's a smear campaign AND anti semitism exists and needs dealing with. Also it wasn't just dinner.


I've not got any problem with him attending Seder with local jewish friends obvs, but there is no question that it'll piss off the big organisations that claim to speak for 'the jewish community', whom they (Jewdas) so publically trashed. That doesn't bother me personally but its not consistent with what JC said in his happy passover message about how he wants to rebuild relationships etc.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think there's going to be two sets of people delighted at this latest - 1) the right inside and out of labour who are using the issue to attack Corbyn and, more importantly to me me 2) anti-semites who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. Their anti-semitic worldview will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)_. I don't really care about 1) and don't imagine it having any wider damaging outcomes in its own terms but in recent days there had been signs of the acceptance of the need to isolate then remove the  2nd lot whilst undermining those sort of arguments above. I think giving them a boost of any sort - no matter how innocuous the actual thing he did was - is just bad tactics if you're serious about 2).



The alternative would have been to ignore an invitation from a Left Wing Jewish group in his own constituency because it might be seen as an endorsement to conspiracist anti-Semites. Is that much better? Granted, it would have denied the opportunity to have some digs to portions of the press and party but as a functional aspect of the work against anti-Semitism in the party it would have been a pretty dismal turn.

My view is that the process of dealing with the AS portion of the party is going to be a real and long term one which will predominantly be dictated by the culture members themselves choose to create. Having a disciplinary model in place is good but everyone on the Left has met those sort of people and how we react to them is what makes the real difference to how accepted they feel. Bemoaning the leader for creating bad 'optics' as he goes around visiting fairly innocuous functions is just playing to a group of talking heads who, for the most part, don't give a fuck about the issue either way unless it serves them (especially Guido).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2018)

YouSir said:


> The alternative would have been to ignore an invitation from a Left Wing Jewish group in his own constituency because it might be seen as an endorsement to conspiracist anti-Semites. Is that much better? Granted, it would have denied the opportunity to have some digs to portions of the press and party but as a functional aspect of the work against anti-Semitism in the party it would have been a pretty dismal turn.
> 
> My view is that the process of dealing with the AS portion of the party is going to be a real and long term one which will predominantly be dictated by the culture members themselves choose to create. Having a disciplinary model in place is good but everyone on the Left has met those sort of people and how we react to them is what makes the real difference to how accepted they feel. Bemoaning the leader for creating bad 'optics' as he goes around visiting fairly innocuous functions is just playing to a group of talking heads who, for the most part, don't give a fuck about the issue either way unless it serves them (especially Guido).


Yes, i think that alternative would have been much better in terms of clearing out the second group i mentioned - _at this particular point in time anyway_ - and i think the reasons behind that, behind an immediate priority, could very easily have been communicated to the jewdas group.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's one way of putting it. I read their statement as saying a genuine problem was being used to smear Corbyn unduly. They've not said there was never a problem, quite the opposite.



I notice that the term "anti-Semitic" seems to be totally conflated with criticism of Israel in the popular media.  Also that the word "extreme" is now linked to both.  To be a "mainstream jew" is to be uncritical of Israel. 

Just one small step to go before being critical of Israel is an extremist act.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The establishment dislikes progressive religious groups in general. Religious folk of all stripes are supposed to exist in homogeneous voting blocs with predictable responses to known triggers and tame figureheads who can be bought simply and cheaply.
> 
> The press also dislike any situation where they have to think beyond their one-line summaries of what it is to be a muslim or a jew or a sikh. More than one jewish view on Palestine is just too much like hard work, there's clearly some deviancy there that needs stamping out.



Indeed. I share Jewdas and the JSG's utter contempt for appalling, reactionary groups like the BoD and JLC. It disgusts me that these racist, pro-apartheid, pro-war crimes organisations are regarded by anybody as the spokespersons for jews rather that what really are: blind cheerleaders of a colonial settler state.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

8ball said:


> I notice that the term "anti-Semitic" seems to be totally conflated with criticism of Israel in the popular media.



This is deliberate of course. And it's why Jewish groups who oppose Israeli policies are so roughly treated by the media; a bunch of 'anti-jewish' jews makes the whole narrative look a lot like total bollocks. 

Look at how that Jewdas statement has been mangled in the retelling by the BBC et al this morning. To say nothing of the decision to draw attention to who was or wasn't present in a personal capacity at a religious observance. Boris Johnson could've spent last night sitting bollock naked in Trafalgar Square eating a baby panda's face and still Corbyn quietly doing something reasonable would be the latest national scandal.

Remember SCL? Those crypto-fascist psyops people Gove and Johnson and half the tory establishment are in bed with in some form or other? No, me neither.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

Reiabuzz said:


> Who the fuck is advising this guy?



no one with any real impact, it seems, feels like he's relying on his internal compass for navigation - and when that lead him to spend 4hrs ( reportedly) in prayer/ritual with what appear to be brave, compassionate, left wing jews in his own constituency, it was a stronger act than a 1000 cynical, braying,washed up shitehawks like Angela Smith / John Woodcock etc RTing fucking Guido.

JC has ( I suspect completely  inadvertently, just his usual ' I said i was going/I'm going ' approach ) muddied the narrative here, shown how ridiculous it is to be treating the Board of Deps / JLM / anyone else as sole voices for such a diverse community -  people like Dave Baddiel ( no Corbynite ) are resolutely supporting him here -  the intrinsic strength of Corbyn's core principles shining through ( going to stop now before i burst into a Cyndi Lauper song) .


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

BBC news reports getting worse. They've got some talking head on the radio repeating the line about Jewdas not giving a shit about antisemitism in Labour. Not even a pretence at balance.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 3, 2018)

killer b said:


> Everything I guess. The last few years have been regularly punctuated by people sagely opining 'he's fucked it this time! He needs to play the game better!', and each time they've been proved wrong.
> 
> Fuck knows if that's the case this time, but I can't help feeling a certain amount of admiration at the audacity of it all.



Audacity is one word for it, arrogance or incompetence are also possibly applicable.

He's always struck me as someone a) who lacks the capacity to think stuff through and just wings it and b) can't be bothered doing the detail. The Jewdas visit doesn't feel audacious, it feels stupid and pointlessly provocative. BA is spot on with both how this could have been handled and the wider signals it sends.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 3, 2018)

cantsin said:


> no one with any real impact, it seems, feels like he's relying on his internal compass for navigation - and when that lead him to spend 4hrs ( reportedly) in prayer/ritual with what appear to be brave, compassionate, left wing jews in his own constituency, it was a stronger act than a 1000 cynical, braying,washed up shitehawks like Angela Smith / John Woodcock etc RTing fucking Guido.
> 
> JC has ( I suspect completely  inadvertently, just his usual ' I said i was going/I'm going ' approach ) muddied the narrative here, shown how ridiculous it is to be treating the Board of Deps / JLM / anyone else as sole voices for such a diverse community -  people like Dave Baddiel ( no Corbynite ) are resolutely supporting him here -  Corbyn's core principles shining through ( going to stop now before i burst into a Cyndi Lauper song) .



If he does what he personally thinks is right he can easily and honestly deflect any criticism of it. This is not how politicians are supposed to behave and it really boils a lot of people's piss. How is the establishment supposed to control a man with actual integrity? He must be destroyed.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think there's going to be two sets of people delighted at this latest - 1) the right inside and out of labour who are using the issue to attack Corbyn and, more importantly to me me 2) anti-semites who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. Their anti-semitic worldview will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)_. I don't really care about 1) and don't imagine it having any wider damaging outcomes in its own terms but in recent days there had been signs of the acceptance of the need to isolate then remove the  2nd lot whilst undermining those sort of arguments above. I think giving them a boost of any sort - no matter how innocuous the actual thing he did was - is just bad tactics if you're serious about 2).



you'd have to be some weird new configuration of 'anti semite' if a hugely popular, grassroots supported (and mainstream reviled ) Labour leader sat praying with devout, left wing jews on passover somehow felt "emboldening" to you ??


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> If he does what he personally thinks is right he can easily and honestly deflect any criticism of it. This is not how politicians are supposed to behave and it really boils a lot of people's piss. How is the establishment supposed to control a man with actual integrity? He must be destroyed.



True, but he needs to continue to demonstrate integrity rather than just have it heaped on him. He’s been given way too much rope about his previous associations and it may yet damage Labour’s chances of making a difference. Many have assumed JC simply cannot be anti-Semitic, but the truth is he has sailed close to the wind.


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

cantsin said:


> you'd have to be some weird new configuration of 'anti semite' if a hugely popular, grassroots supported (and mainstream reviled ) Labour leader sat praying with devout, left wing jews on passover somehow felt "emboldening" to you ??


Do you not understand BA’s post ? - or if you understand but disagree can you explain how? 
(There wont have been ‘praying’ , but that’s irrelevant)


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Audacity is one word for it, arrogance or incompetence are also possibly applicable.
> 
> He's always struck me as someone a) who lacks the capacity to think stuff through and just wings it and b) can't be bothered doing the detail. The Jewdas visit doesn't feel audacious, it feels stupid and pointlessly provocative. BA is spot on with both how this could have been handled and the wider signals it sends.


Arrogance and incompetence are how many of corbyn's political moves and strategies have been dismissed. And yet, here we are, after three years of virulent internal and external attacks,  with him having achieved full spectrum dominance of the Labour party, and within sniffing distance of downing street. I don't think it's credible to suggest that Corbyn is incompetent anymore, and if he's arrogant I don't think it's totally without basis.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> Do you not understand BA’s post ? - or if you understand but disagree can you explain how?
> (There wont have been ‘praying’ , but that’s irrelevant)



ok, so he took part in  a 'blessing'/ ritual rather than prayer then ?
">2 April 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

Not sure how to engage with that but yeah ritual much closer than prayer. 
Ba’s post above: do you disagree or just don’t get what he was saying?


----------



## agricola (Apr 3, 2018)

killer b said:


> Arrogance and incompetence are how many of corbyn's political moves and strategies have been dismissed. And yet, here we are, after three years of virulent internal and external attacks,  with him having achieved full spectrum dominance of the Labour party, and within sniffing distance of downing street. I don't think it's credible to suggest that Corbyn is incompetent anymore, and if he's arrogant I don't think it's totally without basis.



TBF the question of his competence hasn't really been answered; all we have found out over the past three years is that his internal critics are incompetent.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> Do you not understand BA’s post ? - or if you understand but disagree can you explain how?
> (There wont have been ‘praying’ , but that’s irrelevant)



(responding in 2 parts here ) 

Butchers : 
"*anti-semites* who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. *Their anti-semitic worldview *will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)
_
my simple response to the above : I cannot for the life of me see how an actual anti semite , could see the leader of the LP taking part in long, respectful jewish rituals with Jews ( left wing, or otherwise, pro or anti Israel,) , on passover "emboldening", ( unless we're reverting back to more traditional " commies and jews in cahoots as usual' tropes, which we're really not , as we're in full  "COMMIES VS JEWS" mode, obvs)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> I've not got any problem with him attending Seder with local jewish friends obvs, but there is no question that it'll piss off the big organisations that claim to speak for 'the jewish community', whom they (Jewdas) so publically trashed. That doesn't bother me personally but its not consistent with what JC said in his happy passover message about how he wants to rebuild relationships etc.


Why have they publicly trashed them, though? Is it due to the way they support Israel? 

It _is_ a smear campaign, don't you think? How exactly do you rebuild relationships with people who have deliberately spread disinformation and lies about you in order to topple you from your position?


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

cantsin said:


> (responding in 2 parts here )
> 
> Butchers :
> "*anti-semites* who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. *Their anti-semitic worldview *will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)
> ...



See to me that just says that you don't understand it, as kind of shown by your use of the term 'an actual antisemite'. Its also quite a lot like 'but some of his best friends are jews'= obvs there's no problem.
I don't think this (JC attending seder with them) is important tbh, but it does look to me like BA's post being incomprehensible kind of illustrates what the wider problem is.
^ not meant as a personal thing against you or anyone here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> See to me that just says that you don't understand it, as kind of shown by your use of the term 'an actual antisemite'. Its also quite a lot like 'but some of his best friends are jews'= obvs there's no problem.
> I don't think this (JC attending seder with them) is important tbh, but it does look to me like BA's post being incomprehensible kind of illustrates what the wider problem is.
> ^ not meant as a personal thing against you or anyone here.


What is the 'wider problem'?


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is the 'wider problem'?


By wider problem i just meant basically the particular kinds of AS which were described in that very good statement from Momentum yesterday .


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> See to me that just says that you don't understand it, as kind of shown by your use of the term 'an actual antisemite'. Its also quite a lot like 'but some of his best friends are jews'= obvs there's no problem.
> I don't think this (JC attending seder with them) is important tbh, but it does look to me like BA's post being incomprehensible kind of illustrates what the wider problem is.
> ^ not meant as a personal thing against you or anyone here.



ok, just some added points re: above

- I fully accept the important point that someone ( partic around anti imperialist / pro Palestine left)  who considers themself anti Zionist, can actually be holding / disseminating what could easily, and accurately be interpreted as anti semitic views - discussion / debate /  "education" /etc / or  ass kicked out of Party need to follow.

But that doesn't involve JC giving these folk a "nod and wink " via what seemed a low key, long, involved evening on Passover- all completely unprovable, but it's just not how he rolls, it's not what he's about. 





"


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

Totally agree he didn't attend as a cunning ploy to embolden anyone dodgy!


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 3, 2018)

We are in fucking La La Land now
 

*



			angela smith
		
Click to expand...

*


> ‏Verified account @*angelasmithmp*





> Corbyn’s attendance at the Jewdas seber reads as a blatant dismissal of the case made for tackling anti-Semitism in Labour. #*EnoughisEnough *


https://twitter.com/hashtag/EnoughisEnough?src=hash

Tomorrow Corbyns admission that years ago he once didn't finish a beigel will have him on a par with Rudolf Hoess.....

Yours a half Jew....


----------



## cantsin (Apr 3, 2018)

Fedayn said:


> We are in fucking La La Land now
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if the CLPs havent had the chance to decide whether they want to be repped by the likes of Smith, Woodcock, Austin etc before the next election, it's all fucked....

Will always respect JC's conciliatory / inclusive instincts, but am sure there's many of us out there who can't pretend we can share political space with this lot much longer - if the majority of members (at local level) want to keep them, fairplay, that's our problem / offski,etc  but reselection, now more than ever, has to be addressed soon.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2018)

Fedayn said:


> We are in fucking La La Land now
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From her feed



> Anyone who seriously thinks there is a conspiracy to destabilise Jeremy Corbyn with false allegations of antisemitism is guilty of one of the oldest antisemitic tropes there is.



To criticise the critics of Corbyn is to fall for antisemitism.


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2018)

Whole thing is depressing every which way you look at it.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 3, 2018)

They have been very good on twitter today, full marks for grace and humour whilst under fire...


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2018)

Bernie Gunther said:


> How does that work then?



I've noticed that there's a resonance for ideas about "Zionist interference/influence" in British politics from some quarters in the Labour Party (online that is). The all powerful Israel lobby ticks the conspiracy, the fringe Palestine solidarity and the nationalist boxes all at once. If combined with anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiment it becomes what is imagined to be the authentic voice of the working class.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2018)

Borp said:


> I'm probably biased by I think this was a good move by corbyn. Dealing with the issue but doing it on his terms. (That's where his popularity rests to start with)
> Ultimately this story is mostly just a media game anyway.
> Which is not to say anti semitism doesn't need calling out and dealing with.



I don't think it was a particularly bad move or a particularly good move. But making it in a big story was a bad move. "You've got to do more to combat anti-semitism, but there are certain Jews whom you should ostracize". That's a really bad look.


----------



## Fingers (Apr 3, 2018)

> The Right: "Corbyn is an anti-semite who needs to do more to appeal to Jewish communities.
> 
> *Corbyn goes and visits left-wing Jewish communities"
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2018)

Some interesting stuff in the latest polling of Labour members - What we can learn from new polling of Labour members | LabourList

"*Supporters of Corbyn’s leadership* are likely to have joined the party more recently, belong to social grade C2DE (working class/non-working) and come from outside of London. You’d be forgiven for assuming the Labour leader is more popular amongst younger members or those who voted leave, but the differences in those respects are insignificant."

Which rather contradicts the 'he's only attracted the young middle-classes' line


----------



## YouSir (Apr 3, 2018)

belboid said:


> Some interesting stuff in the latest polling of Labour members - What we can learn from new polling of Labour members | LabourList
> 
> "*Supporters of Corbyn’s leadership* are likely to have joined the party more recently, belong to social grade C2DE (working class/non-working) and come from outside of London. You’d be forgiven for assuming the Labour leader is more popular amongst younger members or those who voted leave, but the differences in those respects are insignificant."
> 
> Which rather contradicts the 'he's only attracted the young middle-classes' line



That line never got off of the ground to start with, never saw anything to back it up beyond a myopic eye on the young middle classes who've always been around the Left. It's still a favourite trope though, up there with 'Snowflakes' and man hating Feminists so it won't be going anywhere.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 3, 2018)

Fingers said:


> (quote)



Not to mention that Corbyn has agreed to meet with mainstream jewish organisations like the BoD and the JLC but they refused to meet with him unless he agreed to a set of unreasonable preconditions. So Corbyn meets with other Jews (who he may have had prior arrangements with before this scandel became news) and gets denounced for meeting an unrepresentative group!

I can also imagine the headlines if he had not attended the event: “Corbyn refuses to meet with Jews!”


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2018)

Those headlines wouldn't have happened. In part because there's no way jewdas would have grassed him up to the press if he'd turned down their invitation.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 3, 2018)

This is worth a read.

Enough is Enough! – Jewdas


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Of course Trissy Hunt coming out and saying he's still a member but is now a floating voter (that's a membership-revoking offence) and really wishes we had a Macron over here, with plaintive cries for D Miliband or Sadiq Khan to found the new party that will save us all. They're all such fucking tone deaf and unintelligent arseholes.



Trissy-wissy is certainly a floater, just not the type he thinks he is, the little turd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Momentum is a great idea in terms of mobilising and coordinating campaigning and holding training sessions - all of which it has done and continues to do. Its membership are almost as diverse as that of the LP in general ('almost' because you're not going to find Progress arseholes there, but neither is it the preserve of the farthest left alone), so you'll have some cranks, but you'll have a majority of regular LP members of all ages. The best way to think of it is as a base of operations for getting activists out. If you think of all the enthusiasm you see online from people who support the current direction of the LP, Momentum helps harness that in ways that your average CLP hasn't been able to do. I'm sure on a local case-by-case basis many branches of it are empty, don't do much, or are holding pens for the more annoying elements out there (frankly like some CLPs), but nationally its organisational ability is a boon for the party and the new ways successful campaigns have to operate these days.



Heh heh. One Lambeth cllr standing down in May is listed in the register of interests on Lambeth's website as a member of both Momentum and Progress. The culprit? Jacko Hopkins!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2018)

teqniq said:


> This is worth a read.
> 
> Enough is Enough! – Jewdas



Thanks for this link. Yes definitely worth a read. On BBC radio this morning heard interviewer implying that Jewdas was out to lunch lefty organisation. This article ought to be more widely read. It's opposing anti semitism and criticising the so called in media " mainstream" Jewish groups who try to close down debate in Jewish community.

With all this issue of anti semitism in news now I was starting to wonder about my position on Palestinian. So went back to re read Tony Judt. I read his excellent history of post war Europe. Then read that his support of One state solution and vocal criticism of Israel government ,as a Jew, had got him into trouble. In the same way as described in the Jewdas article written now.

Went back and re read tonight this article from 2003. Tragically he died of illness a few years back. A great loss imo.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/10/23/israel-the-alternative/


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 3, 2018)

I enjoyed Jewdas' reaction to the fuss.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 3, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I enjoyed Jewdas' reaction to the fuss.



These guys are pretty hilarious. Best thing to come out of this shitstorm for me is finding out that they exist.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 3, 2018)

Shame they signed the open letter against the London Anarchist Bookfair


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I enjoyed Jewdas' reaction to the fuss.



That is how to write a press release.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 4, 2018)

YouSir said:


> That line never got off of the ground to start with, never saw anything to back it up beyond a myopic eye on the young middle classes who've always been around the Left. It's still a favourite trope though, up there with 'Snowflakes' and man hating Feminists so it won't be going anywhere.



The usual suspects still try to roll it out though, e.g. Owen Smith rattling on about 'normal' coffee during the last coup attempt.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 4, 2018)

Jeff Robinson said:


> These guys are pretty hilarious. Best thing to come out of this shitstorm for me is finding out that they exist.



I understand Butchers' point about some twats thinking this gives them free rein, but I think the opposite is possible as well: Jewdas' work on antisemitism is being highlighted today, and they and others are going to great lengths to reinforce the 'criticise Israel; don't be antisemitic' stuff. In fact I'd say one wholeheartedly positive thing to come out of this, that represents a way to help guide us through it, is by centering left wing Jewish voices who are ideally placed to combat the shit coming from both the right and the left.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 4, 2018)

imposs1904 said:


> That is how to write a press release.



It was a joy to watch Michael Crick read out parts of it verbatim on the news earlier.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 4, 2018)

Skripal is a distraction to some extent. There could be a Labour left-leaning government. That could establish a new baseline. If carried off with reasonable competence at least, which I expect it will. There is no particular reason why the inpcompetent Tories HAVE to set the agenda. We should. I'm not scared of Russian mischief in the slightest. I suppose my point is that I'm optimistic, whereas others can't really win.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I think there's going to be two sets of people delighted at this latest - 1) the right inside and out of labour who are using the issue to attack Corbyn and, more importantly to me me 2) anti-semites who think they're just anti-zinonist inside and around the labour left/leadership/Corbyn support groups. Their anti-semitic worldview will be be emboldened by what they will see and a nod-and-a- wink from Corbyn and they will have two of their main dishonesties focused on and bolstered - _look even jews think like me, how can i then be anti-semitic_ and _see this was always about Israel not jews (look at the the powerful jews disagreeing and attacking)_. I don't really care about 1) and don't imagine it having any wider damaging outcomes in its own terms but in recent days there had been signs of the acceptance of the need to isolate then remove the  2nd lot whilst undermining those sort of arguments above. I think giving them a boost of any sort - no matter how innocuous the actual thing he did was - is just bad tactics if you're serious about 2).



The 2) are going to be disappointed when they start reading up on Jewdas's previous positions. They're what Gilad Atzmon would call anti-Zionist Zionists. I'm even seeing a trickle of critical comments from this milieu.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2018)

Guardian's given them space to speak too.
Jeremy Corbyn celebrated Passover with us. It’s a simple good news story | Jewdas
I think this is good, and am happy if this whole story maybe helps to make people think before saying "The Jewish Community' like one homogenous lump that holds certain opinions etc.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2018)

Knotted said:


> The 2) are going to be disappointed when they start reading up on Jewdas's previous positions. They're what Gilad Atzmon would call anti-Zionist Zionists. I'm even seeing a trickle of critical comments from this milieu.


Gilad Atzmon? Fuck off. You may as well quote Icke.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> Gilad Atzmon? Fuck off. You may as well quote Icke.



But but he's a jew so he can't be... oh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm sorry I paid good money for some of his records before I realised what a prick he was.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> Gilad Atzmon? Fuck off. You may as well quote Icke.



I read it that Knotted was disagreeing with butchersapron saying that left antisemites who think they are anti Zionist would be emboldened by JC meeting; arguing that they wouldn't agree with Jewdas' politics (and I'd add the emerging agreement with them from many people on the left), adding they'd seen some critical comments from that angle. They were merely using Atzmon as an example of that strain of antisemitism not endorsing him.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 4, 2018)

Jeff Robinson said:


> These guys are pretty hilarious. Best thing to come out of this shitstorm for me is finding out that they exist.



On a tangent from them I discovered this Yiddish anarchist song, so I was pleased about that too:


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 4, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Shame they signed the open letter against the London Anarchist Bookfair



I for one wholeheartedly support these outspoken, irreverent people until they outspokenly irrevere something which I think is great for some reason.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2018)




----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> I read it that Knotted was disagreeing with butchersapron saying that left antisemites who think they are anti Zionist would be emboldened by JC meeting; arguing that they wouldn't agree with Jewdas' politics (and I'd add the emerging agreement with them from many people on the left), adding they'd seen some critical comments from that angle. They were merely using Atzmon as an example of that strain of antisemitism not endorsing him.


Atzmon is beyond the pale even for the kind of anti-semite (I think) butch is talking about. It really is like quoting Icke


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 131831



It's.... It's glorious.... I want it on a T Shirt....


----------



## teqniq (Apr 4, 2018)




----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2018)

Talking of t-shirts, I'm not sure where this should go, so I'll put it here:

How Weekly Wanker Became A Global Brand


----------



## cantsin (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 131831



Corbo s embittered opponents must just look at this stuff with their head in their hands...

..... winning


----------



## Voley (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 131831


I would have had that as a tagline but its too long, unfortunately.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 4, 2018)

Can I just take this opportunity to say fucking fuck the fucking Daily fucking Mail.


----------



## Humirax (Apr 4, 2018)




----------



## JimW (Apr 4, 2018)

Can't accuse them of being beetrootless cosmopolitans


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> Atzmon is beyond the pale even for the kind of anti-semite (I think) butch is talking about. It really is like quoting Icke



I think it's reasonable in some contexts to quote antisemites in a discussion about antisemitism, especially when a large part of the discussion has involved making very clear what constitues antisemitism - there are screenshots of antisemites using antisemitic terms on this thread, discussion of antisemitic terms etc  - but I agree that he's fucking vile.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> Atzmon is beyond the pale even for the kind of anti-semite (I think) butch is talking about. It really is like quoting Icke



It's a matter of knowing the enemy. That's all.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2018)

Just out of interest, i don't know who these people are that call themselves Socialist Fight, but they have no problem with Atzmon.
See wordy rant here:Anti-Marxist fulminations in ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’: A reply


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2018)

Socialist Fight (ie Gerry D) are so shite they were even kicked out of Labour Against the Witchunt (Tony G  run organisation) for being anti-semitic cunts. They say anti-semitism isn't racism because jews are too wealthy and too powerful.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just out of interest, i don't know who these people are that call themselves Socialist Fight, but they have no problem with Atsmon.
> See wordy rant here:Anti-Marxist fulminations in ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’: A reply


That piece has to Ian Donovan. The group contains Ger Downing - expelled from Labour for supporting ISIS (on the same basis as many of the left-wing anti-semites btw - anti-imperialist bullshit). It's where the rejected dregs end up and shouldn't be taken as representative of the wider left. They are central to LAW (people expelled from labout for anti-semitism mostly) - Greenstein etc - who have themselves split over the question of if the anti-semitic atzmon is anti-semitic.

edit: as b. already said above


----------



## Fingers (Apr 4, 2018)

Corbyn: "I'd like to meet with you"
Board of Deputies: "We don't want to meet you"

Jewdas: "We'd like to meet you"
Corbyn: "Great, I'm free"

Board of Deputies: "You are meeting the wrong Jews"
Corbyn: "Would you like to meet?"
Board of Deputies: "No"

Matt Thomas @Trickyjabs


----------



## andysays (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 131831


I really hope the beetroot was one that JC provided from his allotment.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2018)

But they are meeting.

And the BOD said 'we'd like to meet you' first didn't they - which was then opposed from the leadership as it entailed conditions the BOD wanted that they didn't then accept. Something like that.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 4, 2018)

Have they agreed to the conditions?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Have they agreed to the conditions?





> Writing to the JLC chair, Jonathan Goldstein, and BoD president, Jonathan Arkush, Corbyn said he accepted the organisations’ agenda for the meeting.
> 
> “I place no limitations on the points you would wish to raise and am happy for the agenda to cover the issues you’ve already outlined,” he wrote.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 4, 2018)

Hmmm not exactly then not at least from the way I read it when it was initially reported.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Hmmm not exactly then not at least from the way I read it when it was initially reported.


Surely saying that they now accept the agenda for discussion that they had previously rejected is doing just that? It doesn't mean agreeing to all the things the BOD etc proposed happen though - i.e an external body subject in part to them.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 4, 2018)

Like I said, not exactly. 

It sounded to me from the reportage I read that they were pretty much dictating terms that were preconditions that had to be met before they would agree to meet. I am guessing that they felt that they were speaking from the moral high ground or at the very least a position of strength in this instance but it was and is not a good look imo. Not that my opinion amounts to fuck all lol.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> Socialist Fight (ie Gerry D) are so shite they were even kicked out of Labour Against the Witchunt (Tony G  run organisation) for being anti-semitic cunts. They say anti-semitism isn't racism because jews are too wealthy and too powerful.


of all the people on 'the left' i've met, gerry downing is the foullest. and that's up against some quite stiff opposition, e.g. weyman bennett


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just out of interest, i don't know who these people are that call themselves Socialist Fight, but they have no problem with Atzmon.
> See wordy rant here:Anti-Marxist fulminations in ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’: A reply



From that article:

“Responsibility for this (holocaust denial) belongs to those who use the Holocaust to justify the Naqba, and with no-one else.”

No, responsibility for holocaust denial lies principly with holocaust deniers. Imagine if somebody said ‘responsibility for anti-Muslim bigotry belongs to radical islamists and no-one else”. Absurd.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2018)

If they love ISIS so much perhaps they should go and join them.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorry I paid good money for some of his records before I realised what a prick he was.



Never thought you cared much about the politics or morality of the artists in your record collection.
I mean, for a really long time Ruddy Yurtz was practically a Nazi.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 4, 2018)

That Jewdas site seems to have done very well out of all this, they're now celebrating having the same number of Twitter followers as the Board of Deputies, nearly seven times as many as they had when this all kicked off.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> Never thought you cared much about the politics or morality of the artists in your record collection.
> I mean, for a really long time Ruddy Yurtz was practically a Nazi.


You raise a fair point.  It is a bit of a movable feast.  Mostly I manage to keep the music and the musician completely separate.  More often than not I have no idea what an artist's personal views are.  But when I do, there's a sliding scale of tolerance.  But frankly Atzmon's music isn't important enough for me to have to work at ignoring his views.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 4, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> That Jewdas site seems to have done very well out of all this, they're now celebrating having the same number of Twitter followers as the Board of Deputies, nearly seven times as many as they had when this all kicked off.


Considering they seem to like winding people up, fighting fascists and good left wing memes, the Daily Mail et al have basically given them everything they could possibly want


----------



## Cloo (Apr 4, 2018)

I find it interesting that RW press have taken the line that Jewdas’ seder is ‘mocking’ or satire that insults Judaism. To me that betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of it, for non-orthodox Jews at least (and even for them it is still supposed to be a time of discussion and reflection). As I’ve been saying on social media today, many non-orthodox Jews have political seders – based on feminism, immigrant rights etc, and add objects to the seder plate concerning these. So I see it as totally legitimate that Jewdas have one in keeping with their anti-capitalist, anti-Israel stance if they so choose.

Also even if it’s not political, plenty of families (mine included) have jokes, criticism of source material and general silliness as part of their seder. That doesn’t mean its cynical or mocking, that’s how we celebrate the story of Exodus.


----------



## rekil (Apr 4, 2018)

belboid said:


> *Atzmon is beyond the pale* even for the kind of anti-semite (I think) butch is talking about. It really is like quoting Icke


_Hold my beer. _



Spoiler







e2a: Atzmon is also a regular sidekick of Beeley a literal nothing who nevertheless is one of the main sources for 'anti-imperialist' talking points on Syria.

 

That freak filled site celebrated its 100th radio show by having Icke on, so there's an example of the convergence of red-brown-conspiraloonism which Corbyn is himself enmeshed in.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 4, 2018)

i definitely think that corbyns enemies have massively overplayed their hand (again). the initial story caused a fair bit of pain for labour, but the likes of staines, the mail and john woodcock piling in to lecture him on meeting the wrong type of jew, plus shit like the newsnight backdrop farago just further cements the narrative of the establishment being out to get him. 
Which will unite waverers behind corbyn and leave a good many ordinary "non political" (as in not avid politics nerds) people shaking their heads and wandering why they hate him so much.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2018)

Cloo said:


> I find it interesting that RW press have taken the line that Jewdas’ seder is ‘mocking’ or satire that insults Judaism. To me that betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of it, for non-orthodox Jews at least (and even for them it is still supposed to be a time of discussion and reflection). As I’ve been saying on social media today, many non-orthodox Jews have political seders – based on feminism, immigrant rights etc, and add objects to the seder plate concerning these. So I see it as totally legitimate that Jewdas have one in keeping with their anti-capitalist, anti-Israel stance if they so choose.
> 
> Also even if it’s not political, plenty of families (mine included) have jokes, criticism of source material and general silliness as part of their seder. That doesn’t mean its cynical or mocking, that’s how we celebrate the story of Exodus.


Yep, far as I know it’s a central part of the whole thing to have debate of some kind at the table that night. The one i went to had someone happily arguing why the whole exodus story which we're supposed to be celebrating is a useful myth.


----------



## Whagwan (Apr 4, 2018)

Well they're definitel winning the meme game :


----------



## tommers (Apr 4, 2018)

I've been enjoying following them on twitter.  They seem like a lovely bunch.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2018)

Whagwan said:


> Well they're definitel winning the meme game :



Not sure what I think of this beetroot socialism, reminds me a bit too much of school dinners...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 4, 2018)

Shocked that I’ve not seen “the absolute goy” before.


----------



## rekil (Apr 4, 2018)

PD were all about the beetroot before it was trendy.



cde frogwoman


----------



## elbows (Apr 4, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> i definitely think that corbyns enemies have massively overplayed their hand (again). the initial story caused a fair bit of pain for labour, but the likes of staines, the mail and john woodcock piling in to lecture him on meeting the wrong type of jew, plus shit like the newsnight backdrop farago just further cements the narrative of the establishment being out to get him.
> Which will unite waverers behind corbyn and leave a good many ordinary "non political" (as in not avid politics nerds) people shaking their heads and wandering why they hate him so much.



Corbyn and his resilience against the overplayed hands of his political enemies has already reached such proportions that my imagination knowns almost no bounds when it comes to the grand finale.

Perhaps a near-General Election press photo opportunity with Corbyn on a beach. The right-wing press are happy vultures, they've had the ground underneath the beach fracked in order to increase the chances of Corbyn falling into a wave. And yes, its all going according to plan, especially as Owen Smith is somewhat distracting Corbyns attention by attempting to setup a beachhead using a small army of inflatable Izzards. Stephen Kinnock couldnt make it due to his pedalo suffering an unexpected loss of momentum, but apart from that the stage is set. The moment arrives, Corbyn slips, a million ultra-slow-mo captures of the scene begin. Only for Moses to get god to part the sea right where Corbyn falls. Tune in next week to find out what John McDonnell then does with a rather large sandcastle, constructed by many hands and immune to the machinations of the right-wing press.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 4, 2018)

Paul Staines must be kicking himself by now (with any amount of luck). This could not have blown up in his face more...



As a Jewdas Member – Thank You, Guido Fawkes



> ...This year we booked a church hall in Islington, and a friend invited a local Labour MP to join us. His name is Jeremy, but you can call him the next Prime Minister of the UK if you like....


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2018)

These jewdas guys have cleared up these last couple of days. A pleasure to watch.


----------



## Patteran (Apr 4, 2018)

The Second English Civil War - beetroots vs gammons.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 4, 2018)

Patteran said:


> The Second English Civil War - beetroots vs gammons.



I'm stealing that for twitter (unless you stole it from twitter).


----------



## Patteran (Apr 4, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm stealing that for twitter (unless you stole it from twitter).



I hadn't, but a quick search shows it's a popular/obvious gag, with this being the most elegant -


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2018)

I've learnt a whole lot from this thread that I never knew before  

I'm also less depressed about the whole business than I was a few days ago. I felt too ignorant/uninformed about it all to post anything then, anyway I still needed to read the whole  thread and all the links.

Sorry -- it's "not all about me" obvs   ... but I just wanted to thank the better informed on Urban for teaching me stuff.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 4, 2018)

William of Walworth said:


> I've learnt a whole lot from this thread that I never knew before
> 
> I'm also less depressed about the whole business than I was a few days ago. I felt too ignorant/uninformed about it all to post anything then, anyway I still needed to read the whole  thread and all the links.
> 
> Sorry -- it's "not all about me" obvs   ... but I just wanted to thank the better informed on Urban for teaching me stuff.



whole thing seems overwhelming at times, an incessant shitshow, with wrong un's coming from every direction- but watching the likes of Jewdas cut through it all, having a bloody field day, armed only with an m.o. that seems to amount to   'good, radical folk, telling it like they see it, keeping it respectful, + bowing to no one's agenda' has got to give everyone a bit of hope imo.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Apr 4, 2018)

hope... there's nowt worse.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 4, 2018)

sunnysidedown said:


> hope... there's nowt worse.



lol, it's what kills you, as they say


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Not sure what I think of this beetroot socialism, reminds me a bit too much of school dinners...



What the fuck kind of horrible school dinners were you fed, that beetroot socialism makes you think of them?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 5, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> What the fuck kind of horrible school dinners were you fed, that beetroot socialism makes you think of them?



You assume there was a choice involved.


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2018)

I fucking detest beetroot, and don't believe Israel has a right to exist. 

Fuck.

I think I am objectively an anti-semite.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 5, 2018)

belboid said:


> I fucking detest beetroot, and don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
> 
> Fuck.
> 
> I think I am objectively an anti-semite.



No. Work through 'Israel' as a construct, 'Semite / Semitic' as a construct, and even before you get to 'Beetroot' - work out 'historicism'.

Before you congratulate and kiss yourself.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 5, 2018)

Jacob Reece Mogg is now the bookies favourite for next PM. It's been Corbin and HIGNFY Bojo pretty much neck-and-neck since the election. My local MP is a cunt, so I shall write to the editor of the Beano to voice my displeasure.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 5, 2018)

Nine Bob Note said:


> My local MP is a cunt, so I shall write to the editor of the Beano to voice my displeasure.



Of all the MPs to choose from, imagine ending up with one who is a cunt. What are the odds?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2018)

Did anyone else think of that RATM song?

'Beets in the air in the land of hypocrisy'


----------



## JimW (Apr 5, 2018)

belboid said:


> I fucking detest beetroot, and don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
> 
> ...


Any comrade rejecting beetroot socialism must expect a correctional term in Borschtal.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 5, 2018)

JimW said:


> Any comrade rejecting beetroot socialism must expect a correctional term in Borschtal.


'
Materialism meets the Sky Fairy - ignoring history / histories /


----------



## magneze (Apr 5, 2018)

Beetroot & chocolate cake is really nice. No really.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2018)

I bought a beetroot and strawberry smoothie for the first time last week. It was lovely. They always say the revolutionary 'spark' will come from the unexpected.


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2018)

The people's piss is deepest red


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2018)

magneze said:


> Beetroot & chocolate cake is really nice. No really.


This is very true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 5, 2018)

momentum, the beet generation


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 5, 2018)

killer b said:


> These jewdas guys have cleared up these last couple of days. A pleasure to watch.


 
Yep but for those that are not following the ins and outs of this story i.e. pretty much the whole country, Corbyn will still be shorthand for an IRA supporting, anti semite vegetarian Czech spy who hates this proud nation etc


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yep but for those that are not following the ins and outs of this story i.e. pretty much the whole country, Corbyn will still be shorthand for an IRA supporting, anti semite vegetarian Czech spy who hates this proud nation etc



There's not really any further mileage for those attacking him in that though is there - anyone who thinks that will have thought that before. 'Pretty much the whole country' seems to me to be a massive exaggeration of who that is though.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 5, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yep but for those that are not following the ins and outs of this story i.e. pretty much the whole country, Corbyn will still be shorthand for an IRA supporting, anti semite vegetarian Czech spy who hates this proud nation etc



A couple of weeks ago at a rugby match (Cardiff Blues if you're interested) I was told, "I can't vote for Corbyn, he's an IRA sympathiser." 

I've previously been told that he "hates the army" - that was as a result of the "dancing at the Cenotaph" rubbish. 

Mud sticks with some people, and it's difficult to counter. Lots of people just aren't that interested in politics, and from headline skimming and repetition of a number of key lies will have a picture of Corbyn as a Britain-hating, terrorist lover.  

In the run-up to the last election it was when Labour policies started to hit the headlines that everyone realised how mainstream and popular Corbynism (if you want) actually is! 

Meanwhile, something is bubbling up about the Manchester Arena bomber's family having had support from UK security services while Theresa May was Home Secretary; and Boris Johnson is "being Boris", which would be fine if it meant someone was personally eccentric while delivering fantastic performance, but in this case "being Boris" means being psychotically ambitious and completely unprincipled and dishonest in support of that ambition.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 5, 2018)

I know my LITERALLY TWO PEOPLE is a tiny, completely anecdotal thing, but it just gets you down when you see what the British press is capable of.


----------



## elbows (Apr 5, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> I know my LITERALLY TWO PEOPLE is a tiny, completely anecdotal thing, but it just gets you down when you see what the British press is capable of.



Their influence on politics is depressing but it has its limits, especially when factoring in how much of it is just preaching to the converted, people who were always going to hate Corbyn and just need a few lazy hooks to hang their hate on.

For all the mud that sticks to Corbyn, the limited damage this has done to him electorally up to this point may actually be a good example of the exaggerated influence of the right-wing press.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Their influence on politics is depressing but it has its limits, especially when factoring in how much of it is just preaching to the converted, people who were always going to hate Corbyn and just need a few lazy hooks to hang their hate on.
> 
> For all the mud that sticks to Corbyn, the limited damage this has done to him electorally up to this point may actually be a good example of the exaggerated influence of the right-wing press.



I remember reading, from a link on here I think, of 'The Cringe' - it was a phrase used by Democratic Party workers in the US to describe the reflexive backing down or trying to deflect when attacked by the right wing press. I think it's a great description of where Labour ended up with the likes of Miliband at the top of the party, and what Corbyn has broken from. Whenever I see the 'surely this time he'll have to change' type of cries it looks like a call to head back down that road to me.


----------



## krink (Apr 5, 2018)

my own anecdotal observations at work are that almost nobody even noticed the anti-semitism thing. it just hasn't registered with the 40-odd working class people in my place. of the two proper corbynistas one hadn't heard of it and one mentioned it in passing as a distraction from the russian affair. incidentally, nobody reads the likes of the guardian at work, it's mostly the mirror and a few read the mail, maybe that is a factor.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 5, 2018)

The other slightly grim thing is that there is probably a fair few people out there who are not that bothered by a bit of antisemitism or racism.  Its all just liberal elite nonsense etc.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 5, 2018)




----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 5, 2018)

This, from Rachel Shabi in today's Guardian, is definitely worth a read

She really knows her stuff IMO -- she's written extensively and well -- not just in the Guardian -- about loads of relevant stuff. If you happen to be reading this forum RS, do feel free to chuck in a post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2018)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You assume there was a choice involved.



Nope. I used the question "...were you fed" to imply no choice. We old folk remember the days of "like it or lump it" that have returned under the Tories.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Did anyone else think of that RATM song?
> 
> 'Beets in the air in the land of hypocrisy'



Or the Ramones song "Beet on the Brat".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> ...and Boris Johnson is "being Boris", which would be fine if it meant someone was personally eccentric while delivering fantastic performance, but in this case "being Boris" means being psychotically ambitious and completely unprincipled and dishonest in support of that ambition.



You forgot "...and a typical Classics scholar, who thinks that dropping in a few lines from a dead philosopher in the original Ancient Greek" is a good cover for busking it through a career in politics.

Can you imagine THAT as a Prime Minister? He was well-known at City Hall when Mayor, for over-riding advice from his experts, and following his own - often wrong - opinions instead. I wouldn't trust him with a Browning Hi-Power, let alone a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 6, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> You forgot "...and a typical Classics scholar, who thinks that dropping in a few lines from a dead philosopher in the original Ancient Greek" is a good cover for busking it through a career in politics.


I remember seeing a quote attributed to Churchill, 'how would you like your haircut sir' asks the barber
'In silence!' replied winnie


Only its not churchill, its a 4th century greek joke. So he stole it or had it falsely attributed to him


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I remember seeing a quote attributed to Churchill, 'how would you like your haircut sir' asks the barber
> 'In silence!' replied winnie
> 
> 
> Only its not churchill, its a 4th century greek joke. So he stole it or had it falsely attributed to him



4th century -- BC or AD? 

I'd always attributed that one to Enoch Powell, who I've little doubt actually did say it. As well as Churchill or instead of? Who knows. I'd no idea he/they had lifted the line from dead Greeks though


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> You forgot "...and a typical Classics scholar, who thinks that dropping in a few lines from a dead philosopher in the original Ancient Greek" is a good cover for busking it through a career in politics.
> 
> Can you imagine THAT as a Prime Minister? He was well-known at City Hall when Mayor, for over-riding advice from his experts, and following his own - often wrong - opinions instead. I wouldn't trust him with a Browning Hi-Power, let alone a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines!



Boris' career always makes me think of the old football chant, "If the Nevilles can play for England so can I."


----------



## newbie (Apr 6, 2018)

elbows said:


> For all the mud that sticks to Corbyn, the limited damage this has done to him electorally up to this point may actually be a good example of the exaggerated influence of the right-wing press.


That can be argued both ways.  He's a few points behind a PM that no-one has a good word for and his party trails hers.  Blair spent the mid-90s 10% - 15% ahead of a similarly useless PM/party.  

In a parallel universe would Corbyn have got a landslide in 1997 without the rw press?  Would Blair, with their support, trail in the polls now?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 6, 2018)

newbie said:


> That can be argued both ways.  He's a few points behind a PM that no-one has a good word for and his party trails hers.  Blair spent the mid-90s 10% - 15% ahead of a similarly useless PM/party.
> 
> In a parallel universe would Corbyn have got a landslide in 1997 without the rw press?  Would Blair, with their support, trail in the polls now?


Who cares


----------



## newbie (Apr 6, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Who cares


about the influence of the press?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

any Bristol West members on here at all, who can shed some light on the debacle last night ? Smells like a lot of bullsh*t wafting about, but the motion vs Debbonaire sounded ill advised tbh.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2018)

Motion defeated 108 to 84 yesterday, but really not great is it. Reports saying the mp in question fled from the room saying she'll resign. Look at the state of (d) in the motion as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> Motion defeated 108 to 84 yesterday, but really not great is it. Reports saying the mp in question fled from the room saying she'll resign. Look at the state of (d) in the motion as well.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 6, 2018)

krink said:


> my own anecdotal observations at work are that almost nobody even noticed the anti-semitism thing. it just hasn't registered with the 40-odd working class people in my place. of the two proper corbynistas one hadn't heard of it and one mentioned it in passing as a distraction from the russian affair. incidentally, nobody reads the likes of the guardian at work, it's mostly the mirror and a few read the mail, maybe that is a factor.



My anec/obs from my local was that JC was described as variously, a lunatic/traitor/commie and horrible man. This from a wide demographic of punters, er, in a small local.

Oddly, not one had anything to say about anti-Semitism within the labour party. It just wasn't noticed. This would be harking back to just over a year ago when I still lived in the UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> Motion defeated 108 to 84 yesterday, but really not great is it. Reports saying the mp in question fled from the room saying she'll resign. Look at the state of (d) in the motion as well.


if only the other 649 would follow suit instanter


----------



## JimW (Apr 6, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I remember seeing a quote attributed to Churchill, 'how would you like your haircut sir' asks the barber
> 'In silence!' replied winnie
> 
> 
> Only its not churchill, its a 4th century greek joke. So he stole it or had it falsely attributed to him


Not really related but came across this old Greek joke involving a different trade (translated into Latin) when I was looking something else up the other day: Sutor, ne ultra crepidam - Wikipedia


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2018)

cantsin said:


> any Bristol West members on here at all, who can shed some light on the debacle last night ? Smells like a lot of bullsh*t wafting about, but the motion vs Debbonaire sounded ill advised tbh.


The motion was proposed by ex-swp types  - very shouty ones as well - from a hippy-liberal-cycle-repair-workshop slave-labour built ghetto and supported by a group of people who've traipsed from swp-->RESPECT-->lib-dems-->red trousers-->greens-->labour -->momentum with stops in palestine along the way. Debbonaire is of course odious and they had every right to bring this motion.

edit: and to clear this up for those reading about this  from clowns on twitter, this was simply censure and no deselection or any such crap.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The motion was proposed by ex-swp types  - very shouty ones as well - from a hippy-liberal-cycle-repair-workshop slave-labour built ghetto and supported by a group of people who've traipsed from swp-->RESPECT-->lib-dems-->red trousers-->greens-->labour -->momentum with stops in palestine along the way. Debbonaire is of course odious and they had every right to bring this motion.
> 
> edit: and to clear this up for those reading about this  from clowns on twitter, this was simply censure and no deselection or any such crap.



thanks, useful

( + that lot sound frickin' orrible tbf... as is Debbonaire )


----------



## Geri (Apr 6, 2018)

Well, I like her.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

Geri said:


> Well, I like her.



posh, anti Corbynite Remoaner - ideal / whats not to like ?


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

Not being that familiar with her I just looked her up. She's got a 37,000+ majority - that's amazing!


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Not being that familiar with her I just looked her up. She's got a 37,000+ majority - that's amazing!



unfortunately, think she interprets that as a personal mandate


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Not being that familiar with her I just looked her up. She's got a 37,000+ majority - that's amazing!


In a seat that was lib-dem until 2015 as well. Their electoral collapse started that ball rolling.

edit: and that _the greens_ had high hopes of taking in 2015.


----------



## Sue (Apr 6, 2018)

Malcolm Rifkind on the Today programme this morning said the government shouldn't share intelligence with Corbyn about the Skripal attack because he couldn't be trusted. Interesting he was so blatant about it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

Is that the Malcolm Rifkind who had to resign as an MP and as a member of a security committee because he was found trying to sell access to foreigners?


----------



## Sue (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Is that the Malcolm Rifkind who had to resign as an MP and as a member of a security committee because he was found trying to sell access to foreigners?


I was trying to remember what he'd resigned over. Couldn't remember if it was a sex thing or a money thing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 6, 2018)

cantsin said:


> unfortunately, think she interprets that as a personal mandate



That's a standard line for the 'moderates' isn't it - at council level as well as parliamentary.

Strangely I think Danczuk is so far the only one to test his immense personal popularity against an official Labour candidate.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Is that the Malcolm Rifkind who had to resign as an MP and as a member of a security committee because he was found trying to sell access to foreigners?



along with Jack Straw


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

Sue said:


> I was trying to remember what he'd resigned over. Couldn't remember if it was a sex thing or a money thing.



https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmstandards/472/472.pdf

Well, well... he was actually cleared by the HoC Committee on Standards, but it's pretty plain that he was selling his connections and influence for thousands of pounds a day, but this "error of judgement" was not a technical breach of the rules.


----------



## elbows (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Is that the Malcolm Rifkind who had to resign as an MP and as a member of a security committee because he was found trying to sell access to foreigners?



Almost. He stood down as chair of the Security and Intelligence committee but remained on the committee at the time. And then he didnt stand for reelection in 2015. Parliamentary standards committee cleared him and moaned at journalists, Ofcom took a different view and said the journalists presentation was fair and the investigation was into matters of significant public interest.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

In my opinion, it's fairly obvious that his Wikipedia page has been defensively edited.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmstandards/472/472.pdf
> 
> Well, well... he was actually cleared by the HoC Committee on Standards, but it's pretty plain that he was selling his connections and influence for thousands of pounds a day, but this "error of judgement" was not a technical breach of the rules.



As the odd unkind bod has pointed out to his son today on twitter, as he was gettng on with his usual anti Corbyn routine....( with the reasoning, " but you only got yr feckin job because of him " when Hugo appears not happy )


----------



## elbows (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> In my opinion, it's fairly obvious that his Wikipedia page has been defensively edited.



The initial section of his wikipedia entry is certainly lacking any reference to that chapter of his political career and has a certain respectful tone to it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

And the secton on the conflict of interest itself...


----------



## elbows (Apr 6, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> And the secton on the conflict of interest itself...



Didnt strike me as that unusual for a wikipedia page, they often end up with a rather dull and downplayed tone. For a mixture of reasons, including people with an interest in preserving the image of the subject editing the page, but also the sources wikipedia will accept as references to 'facts'.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 6, 2018)

It's entitled "cash for access" on Jack Straw's page for example... It's all subjective, I suppose, but it's odd that it doesn't even mention the main substance of the allegations, essentially "influence peddling".


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

Only one poll, but the latest Yougov seems to support the hypothesis of various people on the thread that this won't hit Labour electorally...


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

Although the durability of the Tory numbers is probably at least partly down to the constant drip of negative stories against Corbyn, thinking about it.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 7, 2018)

killer b said:


> Although the durability of the Tory numbers is probably at least partly down to the constant drip of negative stories against Corbyn, thinking about it.



Which could be offset come election time when media broadcast rules kick in and Labour get a fairer crack of the whip.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

Not sure about that, I don't think we can expect a similar increase in Labour support to the last election, even with a good campaign - I think the sides are fairly well entrenched - for now - and the next election will probably be won on turnout. 

(the kind of attacks we've seen recently are aimed as much at discouraging and sowing discord among the activist base as anything else I think, with turnout in mind).


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Which could be offset come election time when media broadcast rules kick in and Labour get a fairer crack of the whip.



I doubt it; there are a sizeable minority of the electorate who have made up their minds about Corbyn now, and who will give the Tories the benefit of the doubt on every occasion and no matter how absurd - as we saw after Grenfell, or as we will see with these stabbings in London.  

He is still the best chance Labour have of winning the next election, he just needs to keep his own vote, bring out more non-voters and hope that the sizeable minority referred to above continues to age.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> He is still the best chance Labour have of winning the next election


Do you think? I dunno, I reckon someone from the soft left, or even some Macron / Trudeau character somehow found themselves in control of the party they would probably win against the current incarnation of the tories: a decent portion of the 42% the tories have is a personal vote against Corbyn and the current within Labour that he represents IMO. 

But... there's no current route to power for the soft left, or a Macron or a Trudeau within the Labour party in an era of left wing hegemony. Even if Corbyn were disposed of, whoever the left put up would spank whoever they were up against. A crushing loss by the left in a general election is their only hope. And they fucked that one last year.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2018)

killer b said:


> Do you think? I dunno, I reckon someone from the soft left, or even some Macron / Trudeau character somehow found themselves in control of the party they would probably win against the current incarnation of the tories: a decent portion of the 42% the tories have is a personal vote against Corbyn and the current within Labour that he represents IMO.
> 
> But... there's no current route to power for the soft left, or a Macron or a Trudeau within the Labour party in an era of left wing hegemony. Even if Corbyn were disposed of, whoever the left put up would spank whoever they were up against. A crushing loss by the left in a general election is their only hope. And they fucked that one last year.



A hypothetical soft-left candidate might do better in electoral terms than Corbyn; the problems they'd have is that the UK as a whole has been down that road before, and more importantly that the last three years have exposed the fact that there isn't one in (or even around) the PLP.  

Also whatever ones opinion of Corbyn is, I think it is almost impossible not to recognize that he is far better at politics and the business of politics than his opponents (and his allies fwiw) within the party are.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 7, 2018)

Be interesting what happens in the local elections. It's not a nationwide poll so there are limitations on it, but no doubt something can be read into it. 

I think it's partly because I read so much of this through social media that I think of politics at the moment as being very febrile and brittle - probably more than it actually is. 

Just from personal observation it does seem to me that Labour has a very good get-out-the-vote operation (I think we were door-knocked three times on General Election day last year - are you voting? Are you voting? Have you voted?) with lots of enthusiastic young people (anecdotal from Cardiff Central, but I see similar reports from elsewhere), but will that work in a local election? 

Again, from social media there's quite a lot of campaigning for an "Anti-Brexit" vote, and if the turnout is low - as it traditionally is in local elections - then I can see that playing a role in areas (London in particular, maybe) where that's a big deal, so maybe Lib Dems and Greens picking up. 

There you go, that's my fairly pointless self-obsessed view of it! 

More broadly, I think this government is extraordinarilly bad and with proper scrutiny and fair reporting on Corbyn they'd be toast. . . 

I found myself wondering this morning about the 1945 General Election, which is sometimes regarded as a surprise result. I should check if they had opinion polls back then and, if so, what sort of picture they painted.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> A hypothetical soft-left candidate might do better in electoral terms than Corbyn; the problems they'd have is that the UK as a whole has been down that road before, and more importantly that the last three years have exposed the fact that there isn't one in (or even around) the PLP.
> 
> Also whatever ones opinion of Corbyn is, I think it is almost impossible not to recognize that he is far better at politics and the business of politics than his opponents (and his allies fwiw) within the party are.


Oh yeah, it would be catastrophic for the party in the long term, and the desperate weekly calls for David Miliband to return shows there's literally no-one capable of taking up the mantle... I guess I was just responding to your post that Corbyn is their best chance of winning the next election: outside of some very fanciful notions, there's no way anyone but Corbyn (or someone from the far left of the party) is going to be fighting the next election, so talking of best chances in the current context feels a bit moot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2018)

killer b said:


> Although the durability of the Tory numbers is probably at least partly down to the constant drip of negative stories against Corbyn, thinking about it.



That and a huge amount of letting tories off the hook.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That and a huge amount of letting tories off the hook.


the drip of negative stories about corbyn and the letting the tories off the hook are part of the same strategy


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 8, 2018)

I know people have problems with YouGov... 

It's not hard to see that there's a concerted organised campaign to nobble him though.


----------



## killer b (Apr 8, 2018)

I don't think anyone here has any problems with Yougov do they? Reckon we mainly find the complaints of fixes tiresome and embarassing...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2018)

The thing to note with that above poll is that this represents a 19% increase in those thinking he's a doing a bad job and 14% drop in those thinking he's doing well - at the same time as the party itself increased by 2%.


----------



## Supine (Apr 8, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> View attachment 132266
> 
> I know people have problems with YouGov...
> 
> It's not hard to see that there's a concerted organised campaign to nobble him though.



Or the poll is correct and people outside the corbyn bubble don't actually think he's very good.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2018)

Supine said:


> Or the poll is correct and people outside the corbyn bubble don't actually think he's very good.


Presumably, when the polls indicated a positive results for corbyn in december (when this poll was last carried out) you argued that people outside that bubble actually think he's very good? And when he had a long run of similarly positive results? Or do you think that would be a stupid and crude way of doing things?


----------



## bemused (Apr 8, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> It's not hard to see that there's a concerted organised campaign to nobble him though.



Because global market research companies like to nobble their research; it's so good for their business. Didn't YouGov also correctly call the 2017 election?

Sometimes polls say that folks don't like reading.


----------



## killer b (Apr 8, 2018)

I guess it must be possible to be entirely supportive of Corbyn and his leadership of the party *and* think that he's not handling the job so well at the moment. Fancy that.


----------



## killer b (Apr 8, 2018)

What do people think of the other poll that was out today, about antisemitism? I don't trust the numbers on that one...


----------



## bimble (Apr 8, 2018)

Breakdown of the numbers on a link at the bottom of this page. I don't think it tells us much about anything tbh. Very small online sample amongst whom 'don't know' seems to be winning.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 9, 2018)

It doesn't mean anything in the grander scale of things but this cheers the soul on a wet Monday


----------



## cantsin (Apr 9, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 132377
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean anything in the grander scale of things but this cheers the soul on a wet Monday



agreed, fairplay to Jewdas, gets a bit frickin tiring listening to Corbo  /  Lewis /  everyone on the Lab Left unquestioningly focusing on police cuts instead of root causes of urban poverty / alienation


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2018)

cantsin said:


> agreed, fairplay to Jewdas, gets a bit frickin tiring listening to Corbo  /  Lewis /  everyone on the Lab Left unquestioningly focusing on police cuts instead of root causes of urban poverty / alienation



Rayner made an attempt at the weekend to at least start to talk about things other than policing (although she did mention the police as a part of it). It seemed that the interviewer had absolutely no interest in it though.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm sure I saw someone say YouGov were a "Tory company"... apologies if I've misread or misremembered (I've tried a search and can't find it, but "YouGov and Tory" isn't exactly a rare combination). 

Perhaps I've been reading the name as YouGove! Maybe that's the real truth! 

I do believe there is a concerted campaign to smear and undermine Corbyn. I suppose it's naive of me not to remember that there was a concerted campaign to smear and undermine Neil Kinnock, Ed Milliband, Ramsey MacDonald... 

I also think it's probably true that he is a relatively easy target for the right wing press. He's easy to label as a "terrorist sympathiser" or pacifist or even as a communist. He's newly in charge of the party and there's a decent proportion of the parliamentary party who can't stand what he stands for and seem happy to join in the kicking via anonymous briefings to their mates in a press that even on the "left" is generally far more centrist that Corbyn is. 

I do think that Labour should/could be doing quite a lot better in the polls. This government is shite. The Lib Dems and UKIP collapsed at the last election. The Cons key project is Brexit and polling shows that very few people are very happy with what they're doing on that... 

What a lot of things I "think". But I can't point to any great knowledge or insight to support those thoughts. And, usefully, I have next to no idea what to do about them.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

cantsin said:


> agreed, fairplay to Jewdas, gets a bit frickin tiring listening to Corbo / Lewis / everyone on the Lab Left unquestioningly focusing on police cuts instead of root causes of urban poverty / alienation



Maybe that's the literal "party line"?


----------



## bemused (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> I do think that Labour should/could be doing quite a lot better in the polls. This government is shite. The Lib Dems and UKIP collapsed at the last election. The Cons key project is Brexit and polling shows that very few people are very happy with what they're doing on that...



It is amazing they don't have a decent lead over the Tories, given they seem to be playing the 'stay together for the kid's line' - Keir Starmer has been a bit shit.


----------



## killer b (Apr 9, 2018)

It isn't amazing at all. What's amazing is how often the dullards can repeat the banality that _Labour should be well ahead in the polls_.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

OK. I'm surprised the Tories aren't doing a lot worse. They're a shambles but they remain on about 40%. Mind you, so does Trump. 

I see your point though - an election is a long way away (in theory) and these things change at that time and not before. . .


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> I see your point though - an election is a long way away (in theory) and these things change at that time and not before. . .



That’s not true, or at least not always true. Look at the long run polling data before the 97 and 2010 elections.

Labour have got everything in their favour - green/LD support collapsed into labour, cobweb left united behind Corbyn, union support, UKIP collapse
(Tho this also benefits the Tories), May’s credibility shot by the election, DUP propping up the Tories, widening divisions in their ranks on Europe, remainers with nowhere else to go, working class voters with nowhere else to go, the austerity narrative dead in the water etc etc

What are the obstacles? A hostile media, some disgruntled third wayers. What else?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2018)

This is why: All That Is Solid ...: Why British Politics is Polarising


----------



## killer b (Apr 9, 2018)

Yeah, the polls haven't moved for the best part of a year. Regardless of which party has the wind beneath their sails, the dial hasn't twitched.

Surely by now people should have worked out there's forces at play that have changed the political landscape. I think that blog is pretty good if a bit long winded - the last par is a good enough explanation IMO.

_Politics is paralysed for the time being. Tory efforts at capturing the youth vote are doomed to fail because, even now, they aren't capable of affecting a proper concern for them. Likewise, while it is right for Labour to try and reach out to older voters this is not terribly fertile ground because, in the imagined community of this coalition, Jezza himself is anti-British and wants to remove the very things that keep Britain secure and safe. What we can look forward to then is no sudden movements in the polls for the foreseeable. Assuming the Tories limp on to 2022, even with the sex and harassment scandals, the Brexit shambles, and the fall out of the Paradise Papers, but assuming they don't do anything egregiously stupid on top, like the dementia tax, they will slowly diminish as Labour slowly rises. And this is because the social conditions producing this state of affairs aren't going anywhere. The abnormal is the new normal, so you'd better get used to it: polarisation is here to stay._


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

A few years ago we were assured that fragmentation was here to stay.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think that blog is pretty good if a bit long winded





He's a sociologist. When he has enough time, he always tries to get into the meat of whys and hows.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2018)

There's a follow-up piece here: All That Is Solid ...: The Economics of Polarisation


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 9, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is why: All That Is Solid ...: Why British Politics is Polarising



Erm yes. That’s correct. The polls show a polarised electorate.

This is neither unique in competitive politics or surprising given the more explicit offer of social democracy by labour compared to the flabby agenda of May. Even that agenda has been abandoned in favour of day to day survival. 

However, it does not explain why 40% plus of the electorate - including large number in the deindustrialised towns and zones outside the cities of the Midlands, north and Wales - aren’t coming to Corbyn


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 9, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> There's a follow-up piece here: All That Is Solid ...: The Economics of Polarisation



Ta. I’ll have a read of this now.


----------



## Cwmflame (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> I'm sure I saw someone say YouGov were a "Tory company"... apologies if I've misread or misremembered (I've tried a search and can't find it, but "YouGov and Tory" isn't exactly a rare combination).
> 
> Perhaps I've been reading the name as YouGove! Maybe that's the real truth!
> 
> ...



It is. It was founded by Nadhim Zahawi and Jeffrey Archer’s speech writer


----------



## JimW (Apr 9, 2018)

Corbyn's had more uptime than Novell Netware.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

Cwmflame said:


> It is. It was founded by Nadhim Zahawi and Jeffrey Archer’s speech writer


Is their money made by returning tory favourable poling results? I think being noted as a bent unreliable company might hurt their corporate profile.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 9, 2018)

Are we moving on to rationalising the Corbyn defeat already?​


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are we moving on to rationalising the Corbyn defeat already?​


Thinking about the results of the election?  Why yes, i think many people have. Join us.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

In favour of Corbyn I'd chuck in that polls are national (I think these are), and Corbyn has brought thousands upon thousands of very enthusiastic volunteers into the party who will be good at getting the vote out and he does seem to have energised local parties. 

I heard a podcast the other day that said one of the reasons Iain MacNicol had to be replaced was that his election strategy had been disastrous. In his defence, I suspect he would say he was running a defensive strategy with the consensus view being that Labour were going to get hammered. . . 

Then there'll be this Facebook post from a Mr Zinoviev...


----------



## killer b (Apr 9, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are we moving on to rationalising the Corbyn defeat already?​


how did your election predictions work out last year?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Is their money made by returning tory favourable poling results? I think being noted as a bent unreliable company might hurt their corporate profile.



The polls won’t be bent, but there’s likely to be an element of choosing what questions to ask that can then set/serve agendas when reported in the press. Not quite as bent as out-and-out push polling, and of course third parties can commission their polling for exactly this purpose (‘is Corbyn weak’, ‘who should replace Corbyn’ etc)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> The polls won’t be bent, but there’s likely to be an element of choosing what questions to ask that can then set/serve agendas when reported in the press. Not quite as bent as out-and-out push polling, and of course third parties can commission their polling for exactly this purpose (‘is Corbyn weak’, ‘who should replace Corbyn’ etc)


The politics VI questions are rock hard and never changing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

Being bent is a whole world of difference from being wrong.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2018)

YouGov originally had a reputation for giving the payer whatever result they wanted for a few years, but not really for the last decade.


----------



## killer b (Apr 9, 2018)

While YouGov lost their nerve at the last minute with their main poll last June, up until the last poll or two they were pretty close, and their experimental model almost exactly predicted the result of last year's election, right down to proper unexpected outliers like Canterbury. Voter Intention polls are just very difficult to weight correctly - They are not fucking bent. Conspiracy bollocks.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

I used to be on YouGov panels as it happens. 

I signed up at a few companies who pay for polling. I don't think I've ever qualified for one of their big proper weighted politics ones (I haven't used the site in a while) but they used to do quick, general political polls all the time - I'm not sure if they were ever published though beyond being tickers on the site. 

One of the pushes behind this new Centrist party - the Central Reservations? Armco? - is a decent chunk of the electorate who remain not sure about both the parties and the leaders. 

I'm constantly gobsmacked that May can retain popularity, but there you go. In reading about Trump's polling a figure keeps coming up in relation to American politics of a base of around 28 - 30% who will pretty much never abandon their party and its leader no matter what they do or say.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 9, 2018)

At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?



Spring seems to be the popular time of year to go all-in on Corbyn attacks.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?



A lot of that was solid Labour supporters thinking he would lose. In the end it was May who stumbled, who appeared as a cold automaton when put under pressure during the election. She lost that lead over him more than he gained it.

I think there will be less Tory complacency next time around, won’t be as easy a game for him.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 9, 2018)

Also, I reckon the timing of attacks on him about anti-semitism may have been a useful distraction from the spy poisoning thing, which he appeared a bit cautious/muddled over and might have been more damaging to him with the wider public - they already perceive him to be a pacifist, a wobbler and not the strong resolute leader needed in these times of hostility (however overplayed they may be). The antisemitism thing has less traction, majority of people won’t think it affects them, won’t feel personally at risk.


----------



## bemused (Apr 9, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> In the end it was May who stumbled, who appeared as a cold automaton when put under pressure during the election. She lost that lead over him more than he gained it.
> 
> I think there will be less Tory complacency next time around, won’t be as easy a game for him.



I do think May run a god awful campaign. If they pick anyone with half a personality the next election may be entertaining at least - I've given up hoping for informative; I'll put up with just good telly now.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 9, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> At times in the "Best Prime Minster" polling, May has had a lead on Corbyn of 39% That was in April last year. Was there anything significant going on in Jez World then? Was that when he burned down that orphanage and announced the 100% beer tax?


Was it “best prime minister” polling or “who’s doing the best job?” polling?


----------



## Cwmflame (Apr 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Is their money made by returning tory favourable poling results? I think being noted as a bent unreliable company might hurt their corporate profile.



I agree, was just answering the post I’d quoted.


----------



## agricola (Apr 9, 2018)

bemused said:


> I do think May run a god awful campaign. If they pick anyone with half a personality the next election may be entertaining at least - I've given up hoping for informative; I'll put up with just good telly now.



The campaign was awful, but there was no-one in the Tory Party that would have run that better than she did (which is not to complement how she ran it).  They had somehow looked at the past two years of Labour politics - where Corbyn had been under attack for 90% of the time but came good when an election came around - and took from that the idea that it would be good to have an election.


----------



## bemused (Apr 9, 2018)

agricola said:


> The campaign was awful, but there was no-one in the Tory Party that would have run that better than she did (which is not to complement how she ran it).  They had somehow looked at the past two years of Labour politics - where Corbyn had been under attack for 90% of the time but came good when an election came around - and took from that the idea that it would be good to have an election.



If they had someone faster on their feet on TV they would have done better. Elections aren't won by political nerds, they are won by folks watching the media and popping down the voting booth before work. I'm not entirely convinced Jeeza is going to run for the next election anyway, he'll be almost 70 poor guy deserves a break. 

Although I do hope he smashes the locals because I love seeing all those Labour MPs who don't like him really pissed off.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

bemused said:


> If they had someone faster on their feet on TV they would have done better. Elections aren't won by political nerds, they are won by folks watching the media and popping down the voting booth before work. I'm not entirely convinced Jeeza is going to run for the next election anyway, he'll be almost 70 poor guy deserves a break.
> 
> Although I do hope he smashes the locals because I love seeing all those Labour MPs who don't like him really pissed off.


That's exactly not what they're won on.


----------



## bemused (Apr 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly not what they're won on.



I think I'm becoming cynical in my old age


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2018)

bemused said:


> I think I'm becoming cynical in my old age


You're an idiot who donates money to all the parties. You just talk...shit. Why are you even in this conversation?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 10, 2018)

bemused said:


> It is amazing they don't have a decent lead over the Tories,


It really isn't. Firstly, the polls are fallible. 
Second, they are averaging around 42%. That, considering how far to the left of everything else in mainstream politics, is pretty damn good - poor old Foot ended up with 28%.
What IS surprising is how well the Tory vote is holding up, but there is a simple explanation for that, too. For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count. 
Where else are those voters going to go?


----------



## bemused (Apr 10, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count.
> Where else are those voters going to go?



Excellent point.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 10, 2018)

bemused said:


> Didn't YouGov also correctly call the 2017 election?


Nope:survation were the only ones who did that


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 10, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> Nope:survation were the only ones who did that



Yougov got it mostly right on a really huge sample they did on a new model, but they didn't have enough confidence in their results, and reverted back to their old model. Like, a couple of days before the election. Fwiw they got my constituency - long a Labour/SNP battleground - pretty much bang on. A Tory win...


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 10, 2018)

interesting, that bit about YouGov - I didn't know the situation about their different models.
Ta for that, the claw!


----------



## chilango (Apr 10, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> A few years ago we ensured that fragmentation was here to stay.



I think it is.

I don't think that and polarization are incompatible.

The swing behind Labour /Corbyn last GE isn't "loyal" or united but a temporary coalescence ime.

Post Corbyn and post Brexit things would likely shift again I reckon and that's when spaces open up for fragmentation to show up in the vote again.


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> interesting, that bit about YouGov - I didn't know the situation about their different models.
> Ta for that, the claw!


Their new model got almost everything right, including a load of very surprising results. It's going to be the only thing anyone watches next election.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 10, 2018)

killer b said:


> how did your election predictions work out last year?


They were correct, how were yours?


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2018)

You predicted the tories losing their majority and a humiliating lash up with the DUP? I hope you got a bet on that, it was 50/1 the day before the election.

I didn't predict anything this time, after getting it wrong for every other election back to 2010. The result we got was the highest point of the range I thought possible though. I think it's possible Labour might lose the next election too, but that isn't _rationalising_ it.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 10, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Was it “best prime minister” polling or “who’s doing the best job?” polling?



It was "Who would make the best Prime Minister."


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2018)

killer b said:


> Their new model got almost everything right, including a load of very surprising results. It's going to be the only thing anyone watches next election.


It'll be wrong by next election tho. Same as the model made for 2015 didn't work for 2017.


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2018)

belboid said:


> It'll be wrong by next election tho. Same as the model made for 2015 didn't work for 2017.


I dunno, the methodology described on their website sounds like it'll still work next time.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 10, 2018)

The old methodology basically meant pollster's were always fighting yesterday's battles.  They would apply adjustments to a new poll based on their estimates of why polls at the last election were not the same as the last election result.  As such, if the reasons for the difference between the polling and a true result shifted, their adjustments would become inappropriate.  Since those reasons are multifaceted, self-contradictory, chaotic and highly prone to drift, it was very hard to get the adjustments right.

YouGov's new methodology does not work in the same way.  It is more akin to pricing motor insurance.  They identify all the independent factors they can that help define voting intention (e.g. age, sex, income).  They then use current polling to calculate the effect of each of the independent factors.  Finally, they split the demographics in each area by the independent factors and apply their modelled factor effects to estimate the vote.

This doesn't rely on crude adjustments, because it is directly modelling the effects that cause the need to make such adjustments.  It's much more reliable.  The downside is that it needs a _lot_ of data to make it work.  Motor insurers, who use similar models, typically have millions of data points.  However, YouGov seem to be able to get reliable voting predictions based on "just" 50,000 data points.  But this is still a big increase from the old methods of asking more like 1000 people.

On the plus side, however, they can use every single person who will answer questions, because corrections for biases are built into the modelling methodology.  So they don't need to throw away data, like current methods need to.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 11, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> It really isn't. Firstly, the polls are fallible.
> Second, they are averaging around 42%. That, considering how far to the left of everything else in mainstream politics, is pretty damn good - poor old Foot ended up with 28%.
> What IS surprising is how well the Tory vote is holding up, but there is a simple explanation for that, too. For the first time In four decades, people who vote against Labour, rather than for the Tories have no viable, credible third alternative. UKIP and the libs are both collapsed on the floor, and the greens don't really count.
> Where else are those voters going to go?



I think the pro-Brexit vote is very important to how well the Tory vote is holding up. I believe that voters for whom getting outside of all EU institutions is of primary importance mostly would not trust Labour not to row back on its position. Those who voted for Labour last time and for Brexit may be less likely to hold the most rigid red lines on it. Other things are more important.


----------



## Duncan2 (Apr 11, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> I think the pro-Brexit vote is very important to how well the Tory vote is holding up. I believe that voters for whom getting outside of all EU institutions is of primary importance mostly would not trust Labour not to row back on its position. Those who voted for Labour last time and for Brexit may be less likely to hold the most rigid red lines on it. Other things are more important.


Indeed-the pro-Brexit vote is absolutely the only thing that is sustaining this excuse for a government.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2018)

I don't think that's true, there's loads of things sustaining them - one of which is clearly fear of a Corbyn government.


----------



## bemused (Apr 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's true, there's loads of things sustaining them - one of which is clearly fear of a Corbyn government.



I tend the think if the holdouts in the PLP decided to act as if a Labour government was a good thing the fear of the Corbyn government would lessen.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2018)

they kept a lid on it from June until a month ago... nothing changed.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The old methodology basically meant pollster's were always fighting yesterday's battles.  They would apply adjustments to a new poll based on their estimates of why polls at the last election were not the same as the last election result.  As such, if the reasons for the difference between the polling and a true result shifted, their adjustments would become inappropriate.  Since those reasons are multifaceted, self-contradictory, chaotic and highly prone to drift, it was very hard to get the adjustments right.
> 
> YouGov's new methodology does not work in the same way.  It is more akin to pricing motor insurance.  They identify all the independent factors they can that help define voting intention (e.g. age, sex, income).  They then use current polling to calculate the effect of each of the independent factors.  Finally, they split the demographics in each area by the independent factors and apply their modelled factor effects to estimate the vote.
> 
> ...


ah, now THAT is fascinating - I always knew there would - some day - be a real dividend from having a statistician in the house! 
But do YouGov only conduct Internet polls, or do they do telephone and face to face?


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2018)

Yougov are 100% online.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 11, 2018)

yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's true, there's loads of things sustaining them - one of which is clearly fear of a Corbyn government.


agreed. plus, the only thing that is stopping them from Dumping May is that she is being fingered to fully cop the blame when Brexit goes massively tits up. 
And, if a mole of mine is on the button, the 'stop Boris' campaign isn't quite ready yet.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?


I don't think so. They all struggle to reach non-voters and young people more.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 11, 2018)

ahhh...


----------



## kabbes (Apr 11, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> yes I thought so. won't that give their polls an anti - wrinkly bias?


If th bye got their new method right, it won’t matter, because data will only be used to parameterise the parts of the model it is relevant for, not as surrogate data for the parts it is not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2018)




----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 16, 2018)

Have to say I was quite surprised at the extent of anti-Corbyn comments over on the 'Corbyn's anti-war position' thread.

If he's poorly thought of on these boards surely his time is up....


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

erm you're posting on a 724 page thread full of anti-corbyn comments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2018)

word reaches me that the bbc have commissioned a drama based on jeremy corbyn's life


----------



## Supine (Apr 16, 2018)

And the old bugger is still in charge


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> erm you're posting on a 724 page thread full of anti-corbyn comments.



I posted on here way back when Corbyn was going for the leadership and all this thread was back then was pro - you turncoats.


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2018)

Oh, I don't think his time is up. It clearly isn't, whatever I think of his approach to Syria.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> Have to say I was quite surprised at the extent of anti-Corbyn comments over on the 'Corbyn's anti-war position' thread.
> 
> If he's poorly thought of on these boards surely his time is up....





killer b said:


> Oh, I don't think his time is up. It clearly isn't, whatever I think of his approach to Syria.


He's never been more secure. Most of the criticisms of his approach to foreign policy in that and this thread are coming from outside the party. People like me who have no say or effect on his position in the party.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 16, 2018)

But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.


they'll do that whatever because they don't like him, the red tories. there's a whiff of smoke even if his position's secure. because they're getting ready for the next time he seems vulnerable.


----------



## agricola (Apr 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> they'll do that whatever because they don't like him, the red tories. there's a whiff of smoke even if his position's secure. because they're getting ready for the next time he seems vulnerable.



how very 1915 of them


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 16, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> But if the perception within the party is that he is out of step with the broader public opinion then they'd start stoking the fires of discontent again....wouldn't they.


Is that the perception within the party? If so that perception is wrong, support for action against Syria varys with the the of action proposed and the wording of the question but there's a pretty solid block of the public that are opposed to action of any sort. 


> Looking at the situation overall, headline voting intention polls continue to show Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck on average. On Syria, differently worded questions produced results that vary from clear opposition to just slightly more opposition than support, but it’s clear the public did not whole-heartedly support military action in Syria.


While there's no breakdown of the vote by party support I'd be surprised it wasn't a very strong correlation between Lab voters and opposition to action.


----------



## nardy (Apr 16, 2018)

Surely what the _general public_ think of Corbyn is far more important than what Labour members and MPs think about the man, in terms of election victory (or otherwise)?


----------



## NoXion (Apr 16, 2018)

By two to one, the public oppose missile strikes on Syria - "Even though most Britons believe a chemical attack has been perpetrated, only 22% of Britons would support a cruise missile attack against the Syrian military"


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 17, 2018)

Anti-Semitism debate in the Commons, with Corbyn coming under fire from all sides. Heavily noted by observers that he did not stay to hear it all, though to be fair it would be truly shocking if he hadn't heard it all by now.

The social media aspect is very frustrating. I have not seen any analysis of the anti-Semitic tweets and posts that indicates how many are directly attributable to individuals who can therefore be identified as members or not and dealt with. Equally much of it must be impossible to trace to individuals but nevertheless a research company could have something to say about its origins. I don't know how well this was covered by Shami in her report though.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

NoXion said:


> By two to one, the public oppose missile strikes on Syria - "Even though most Britons believe a chemical attack has been perpetrated, only 22% of Britons would support a cruise missile attack against the Syrian military"



So does that mean most Britons are happy normalising chemical warfare?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> So does that mean most Britons are happy normalising chemical warfare?


I really doubt it means that.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2018)

I think a hesitance to go to war against one of the world's superpowers does not suggest happiness about the things that superpower gets up to.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think a hesitance to go to war against one of the world's superpowers does not suggest happiness about the things that superpower gets up to.



I didn't think Syria was a world superpower.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I really doubt it means that.



So I wonder why are they not supportive of strikes against a crime against humanity. Would that majority be ok with biological weapons being used, or a tactical nuke?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> So I wonder why are they not supportive of strikes against a crime against humanity.


Yes, it's a real mystery why people who prefer peaceful solutions wouldn't endorse the use of weapons as a solution.



> Would that majority be ok with biological weapons being used, or a tactical nuke?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest... no?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> I didn't think Syria was a world superpower.


I wonder why you're bothering with this line. You know what I meant.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I wonder why you're bothering with this line. You know what I meant.



Well yeah of course, I'm just bemused as to why the majority of people do believe there was a chemical attack but are happy not to punish it. There isn't really the risk of hitting Russian planes, unless they park them in the chemical weapons factories, none were hit so the US did the job (if a little limited). What's wrong with people. Russia doesn't want a war with the US and vice-versa. Assad shouldn't get away with it.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> Well yeah of course, I'm just bemused as to why the majority of people do believe there was a chemical attack but are happy not to punish it. There isn't really the risk of hitting Russian planes, unless they park them in the chemical weapons factories, none were hit so the US did the job (if a little limited). What's wrong with people. Russia doesn't want a war with the US and vice-versa. Assad shouldn't get away with it.


I don't know what it is you think is achieved by the isolated lobbing of a few missiles in the direction of Syria.  You think that "punishes" Assad?  In what way?  And how does this punishment help people avoid a chemical attack in the future?


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it's a real mystery why people who prefer peaceful solutions wouldn't endorse the use of weapons as a solution.



Assad couldn't give a toss about peaceful solutions. Delaying for peaceful solutions allows him to bomb more people, the longer a peaceful solution comes about the better for Assad. We shouldn't be playing into his hands. You can say 'all's well that ends well' at the end of the day but that will only be after 1000s more deaths and those lives could be saved if we impact Assad's ability to kill more of his people. His regime is the aggressor.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> Assad couldn't give a toss about peaceful solutions. Delaying for peaceful solutions allows him to bomb more people, the longer a peaceful solution comes about the better for Assad. We shouldn't be playing into his hands. You can say 'all's well that ends well' at the end of the day but that will only be after 1000s more deaths and those lives could be saved if we impact Assad's ability to kill more of his people. His regime is the aggressor.





kabbes said:


> I don't know what it is you think is achieved by the isolated lobbing of a few missiles in the direction of Syria.  You think that "punishes" Assad?  In what way?  And how does this punishment help people avoid a chemical attack in the future?


.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don't know what it is you think is achieved by the isolated lobbing of a few missiles in the direction of Syria.  You think that "punishes" Assad?  In what way?  And how does this punishment help people avoid a chemical attack in the future?



By degrading his ability to use chemical weapons........that's all the strike was about. To stop the war crimes of using chemical weapons!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> By degrading his ability to use chemical weapons........that's all the strike was about. To stop the war crimes of using chemical weapons!


A few missiles lobbed in the direction of some abandoned air bases doesn't degrade his ability to use chemical weapons.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 19, 2018)

If they were aimed accurately at currently active chemical weapons factories, though, then that would be a good thing right? potentially?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> If they were aimed accurately at currently active chemical weapons factories, though, then that would be a good thing right? potentially?


I'd want some damn good evidence that was what was happening and what was being done to prevent civilian casualties.

Given the lack of such evidence over the last 20 years of war, it's hardly surprising the British public are a bit skeptical of the use of military force in this kind of situation.


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2018)

kabbes said:


> A few missiles lobbed in the direction of some abandoned air bases doesn't degrade his ability to use chemical weapons.



Yes, but it indicates our resolve to lob missiles in the direction of some abandoned air bases.  Combine that with us retiring the aircraft that can lob those missiles, and no-one should be in any doubt of this nations willingness to lob missiles at abandoned air bases across the world in defence of human rights.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

kabbes said:


> A few missiles lobbed in the direction of some abandoned air bases doesn't degrade his ability to use chemical weapons.



Then you lob some more if anymore chemical weapon are used, and continually degrade and degrade until your left with Assad's house.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> Then you lob some more if anymore chemical weapon are used, and continually degrade and degrade until your left with Assad's house.


And this is how we’ve achieved 20 years of a peaceful Middle East with no problematic regimes at all.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2018)

nuffsaid said:


> By degrading his ability to use chemical weapons........that's all the strike was about. To stop the war crimes of using chemical weapons!


Yep, sure course it was.


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 19, 2018)

Getting off Corbyn topic, this should be in And next Syria, so I'll desist further launches.....for now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Apr 20, 2018)

Well at least you've left the thread in no doubt that if people keep spreading around words about Syria you'll retaliate with a brief but tremendously effective* tirade designed to degrade the conversation. 

*According to the nuffsaid Ministry of Threads


----------



## nuffsaid (Apr 20, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Well at least you've left the thread in no doubt that if people keep spreading around words about Syria you'll retaliate with a brief but tremendously effective* tirade designed to degrade the conversation.
> 
> *According to the nuffsaid Ministry of Threads


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2018)

Carwyn Jones standing down in November. 


> The first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, will stand down in the autumn.
> 
> He made the surprise announcement at the Welsh Labour party conference in Llandudno on Saturday.
> 
> Jones’s decision means Wales will have a new first minister at the start of December.


Surely going to be some internal politicking here.


----------



## agricola (Apr 21, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Carwyn Jones standing down in November.
> 
> Surely going to be some internal politicking here.



That, and he is rubbish.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2018)

Sorry, I meant there will be a lot of internal politics in selecting his replacement.

But yes the Sargent stuff, added his general anti-Corby stance must be large part of why he's leaving.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 21, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, I meant there will be a lot of internal politics in selecting his replacement.
> 
> But yes the Sargent stuff, added his general anti-Corby stance must be large part of why he's leaving.



What did the good folk of Corby ever do to Carwyn Jones?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2018)

NoXion said:


> What did the good folk of Corby ever do to Carwyn Jones?


Effing autocorrect.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 21, 2018)

More leftwing replacements _than Carwyn James_ to replace him, here in Wales?

There'll be some 

Leftwing *enough* ones though? 

Candidates will be selected from Welsh Assembly members, I suppose ...

So I fear a shortage


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 25, 2018)

Ladbrokes have shifted their odds on Labours target councils in the local elections. Poll to be published that doesnt make good reading for Labour.Tories now 1/25 on to hold Kensington and Chelsea .


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2018)

It's the new poll for QMU Politics department, out tomorrow (it's last poll had a huge lead for Labour in the capital, I expect we've seen some tightening since...)


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

Overall, Conservatives seem to be 5 points ahead of Labour. But Labour always does reasonably in London, although it remains to be seen how the current antisemitism row affects support...

UK Polling Report


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2018)

By 'overall', you mean 'a single poll a few weeks ago', I guess.


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

killer b said:


> By 'overall', you mean 'a single poll a few weeks ago', I guess.


The link says fieldwork done on 16 & 17 April for a poll published on 21 April...


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2018)

how does that one outlier translate into 'overall'?

overall, the polls are flat on around 40% each, as they have been for the best part of a year, with the only recent change being a slight tendency to tory leads from a slight tendency to Labour leads.


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

killer b said:


> how does that one outlier translate into 'overall'?
> 
> overall, the polls are flat on around 40% each, as they have been for the best part of a year, with the only recent change being a slight tendency to tory leads from a slight tendency to Labour leads.


Try “countrywide” if that’s easier to grasp...


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2018)

The page you linked to has a whole list of national polls - there has been five since the one with the 5-point tory lead, three of which were tied, one which had a 1 point tory lead, one with a 1 point labour lead. 

Do you know what an outlier is?


----------



## patman post (Apr 25, 2018)

killer b said:


> The page you linked to has a whole list of national polls - there has been five since the one with the 5-point tory lead, three of which were tied, one which had a 1 point tory lead, one with a 1 point labour lead.
> 
> Do you know what an outlier is?


As distinct from an out-and-out lier...?


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2018)

So, overall there isn't a 5-point tory lead in the polls, unless you're cherry-picking for partisan reasons. Glad we've cleared that up.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

The London poll discussed above is in - shows a 4-point tightening. Follow Philip Cowley on twitter for some in-depth analysis (or read the story in the Standard I guess).

Projected wins in Wandsworth and Wesminster now unlikely...


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

Cowley thinks this is actually a good poll for Labour - they're still on course for the best result of any party in the capital since 1971, but it dampens expectations of long-time blue councils turning red.


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 26, 2018)

Lib Dems collapsing, which suggests that any "anti-Brexit vote", which you might expect to have the biggest effect in London isn't happening? (Maybe... I mean, who fucking knows really?!)


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

The Lib Dem collapse happened shortly after the 2010 election and hasn't really shifted since then though, so I doubt we'll see any further losses (these are seats last fought in 2015). They have been doing well in council by-elections lately, but only in seats where Labour doesn't stand a chance - so I'd expect to see an increase in seats which isn't totally reflected by national polling.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2018)

But yeah. Labour are clearly doing enough to hold on to the majority of the anti-brexit vote, despite how it looks on #fbpe twitter


----------



## StigoftheDig (Apr 26, 2018)

I completely misread the Tweet as having Lib Dems down 11 from the last poll two months ago! Whoops, I am an idiot, carry on as you were. . .


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2018)

We can but hope.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2018)

StigoftheDig said:


> Lib Dems collapsing, which suggests that any "anti-Brexit vote", which you might expect to have the biggest effect in London isn't happening? (Maybe... I mean, who fucking knows really?!)



Few of the predictions where the brexit vote went seems to have been correct. Most of the people I know just want it over and done with the least amount of hassle.


----------



## Hollis (Apr 29, 2018)

Is there any way of actively promoting a "Jeremy Corbyn led Coalition of Chaos". I'm increasingly thinking this is my preferred option at the moment given I don't feel comfortable with any of them.


----------



## bemused (May 21, 2018)

When did David Lammy become such a bore?

I use to like Lammy, recently a lot of the stuff he comes out is just silly. For example, in the TImes he's droning on about how Meghan Markle marrying into the Royal Family is up there with Obama. Although I'm not quite sure why a prince marrying a beautiful TV star is analogous to a country electing its first black President.

The best bit was when he talks about his children being  inspired by seeing women that looks like them in a position of power and influence:



> For many, certainly for my mixed-race children, being able to recognise yourself as you are in a member of the royal family is hugely significant.



I think at this point Lammy is underestimating his own children who realise their father has sat in the seat of Government for almost 20 years and been a Minister in charge of a government department. 

Whilst I've no doubt Meghan Markle had to work hard to land a plum TV role, but, I think if you want an example of someone from a minority background of whose talent and hard work has made them successful I think Lammy himself is a far more relevant role model tbf.


----------



## hash tag (May 22, 2018)

There doesn't really seem to be many other places to put this about Emily T. Labour chair suspended for 'IS tweets'


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2018)

hash tag said:


> There doesn't really seem to be many other places to put this about Emily T. Labour chair suspended for 'IS tweets'


Ha, the man spends half his time tweeting about how Momentum are an evil 'outside' organisation trying to subvert the labour party. Wonder if one of his targets decided to rifle through his old tweets?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 22, 2018)

hash tag said:


> There doesn't really seem to be many other places to put this about Emily T. Labour chair suspended for 'IS tweets'



He's one of those terrible abusive Corbynistas I assume?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 22, 2018)

bemused said:


> Meghan Markle marrying into the Royal Family is up there with Obama


It's exactly the same.


----------



## gosub (May 22, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It's exactly the same.


I really don't think the public would have been ready for Harry marrying Barak

Though if he had they definitely should have invited Trump


----------



## danny la rouge (May 22, 2018)

gosub said:


> I really don't think the public would have been ready for Harry marrying Barak


I think you're wrong. Times have changed. Most people don't give a fuck.


----------



## andysays (May 22, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I think you're wrong. Times have changed. Most people don't give a fuck.



He'd have to divorce Michelle first though, unless you're suggesting 'most people' would approve of bigamy


----------



## danny la rouge (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> He'd have to divorce Michelle first though, unless you're suggesting 'most people' would approve of bigamy


This conversation took a turn I wasn't expecting. I tried to roll with it but now I'm out of my depth and I want out!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2018)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is going to talk about socialism at a festival which costs hundreds of pounds to attend, strange days indeed.
> 
> I wonder if Yvette and Ed will be listening?



Did you agree with anything he said?


----------



## gosub (Jun 9, 2018)

How to Deselect Your Labour MP


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 11, 2018)

Slight dip for Labour in recent polling and improvement for the Tories. It seems to have happened after the latest anti-Semitism furore quietened and the Tories, in the same period mildly exposed for their rampant Islamophobia, have gone up.

Seeing as the Tories are making a hash of everything else it seems odd to be gaining ground. Still, just a month of polls.

UK Polling Report


----------



## sealion (Jun 11, 2018)

This is on now.
BBC Radio 4 - The Long March of Corbyn's Labour, Episode 1


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 11, 2018)

nvm


----------



## sealion (Jun 11, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> nvm


There's a few half hour episodes, 8pm start. You can probably get tonights airing on i player.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 27, 2018)

@Labour Live


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2018)

hash tag said:


> @Labour Live



should have got that south african man to do the signing


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2018)

> Curborough (Lichfield) result: LAB: 60.4% (+27.2) CON: 33.0% (-8.4) LDEM: 6.6% (+6.6) No UKIP (-25.4) as prev. Labour GAIN from Conservative.




One council seat, Curbourough(Lichfield) but Labour got 60.4%, up 27.2


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2018)

Durham Miners this week. If he's canny he'll at least have a go at saying something that _looks_ definite about Brexit.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2018)

Jared O'Mara quits Labour.  Trying to play the sympathy card (after abusing various women) about poor little him. Not getting too much sympathy locally.

Jared O'Mara quits Labour, saying he was 'made to feel like a criminal'


----------



## Poi E (Jul 13, 2018)

Things get worse for Labour in Scotland

Labour slip backwards in Scotland as SNP set to regain seats lost in 2017 vote


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Jul 15, 2018)

Fingers said:


> It was Andrew Griffiths, MP for Burton on Trent.  The coward did it crouched down behind the bench so the deputy speaker could not see him.  I commented on his Facebook page and got banned within minutes but he is taking a kicking on Twitter.



This fucker has just resigned after being caught sending filthy texts to a couple of his constituents. 

He boasted about making someone dress as a pig and then having sex with them.

Sounds like a Cameronite to me...


----------



## Poi E (Jul 15, 2018)

Ah, the small business Member.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2018)

> *John McDonnell unveils major revival plan for local communities under Labour government ahead of Hastings visit*
> After years of austerity the Shadow Chancellor says he and Corbyn will return power to the local communities and "left-behind" towns who have suffered most
> 
> John McDonnell unveils plan to revive local communities under Labour government



Good stuff, i hope John goes for leader if JC packs it in


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2018)

> Mr McDonnell said: “When Labour goes into government, everyone goes into government.



He really knows how to get a message across.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 15, 2018)

It's bullshit. Nothing tangible about enhancing the powers of the Welsh or Scottish government and nothing to devolve powers to English regions.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 16, 2018)

So it turns out the staffers at Labour HQ were targetting the leadership teams facebook ads directly at Corbyn and team whilst running their own personal campaign independently:

Corbyn supporters attack Labour moderates for 'using targeted Facebook ads to trick him during general election'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2018)

that prick woodcock has resigned to become an independant.



> Woodcock says he is resigning primarily because Corbyn has not appointed an independent investigator to rule on his disciplinary case and because he thinks the process has been manipulated against him for factional purposes (ie, because he is a Corbyn critic.)



whats his disciplinary case about? - oh yeah - just checked the link - pervy text messages to former aide.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> that prick woodcock has resigned to become an independant.
> 
> 
> 
> whats his disciplinary case about?


According to the link in your post it's sexual harassment


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2018)

sexual harrasment

hodges apparently called c-byn a racist anti semite to his face as well


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2018)

What are the chances that he's got the guts so take the Hundreds and stand as an independent? 0.001%


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> sexual harrasment
> 
> hodges apparently called c-byn a racist anti semite to his face as well


a "fucking racist and anti-semite"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2018)

If I have this right its because labour won't take up wholesale that particular wording on anti semitism that manages to define criticism of the state of israel as anti-semitism.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2018)

I like this explanation more


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 18, 2018)

I don’t think mr woodcock understands what hard left actually means


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2018)




----------



## oryx (Jul 18, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> I don’t think mr woodcock understands what hard left actually means


Me neither, good riddance anyway!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> I don’t think mr woodcock understands what hard left actually means



What does it mean? In practice?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 18, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> If I have this right its because labour won't take up wholesale that particular wording on anti semitism that manages to define criticism of the state of israel as anti-semitism.



The definition is apparently used by a fair few public organisations. Is there evidence that it is actually used to shut down criticism?

On the one hand I wonder why on Earth Labour are risking this once again rising to the surface and why they don’t simply adopt the IHRA definition, but it does seem that everyone who wants it to adopt it reacts by calling anyone in Labour who disagrees antisemetic.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2018)

tories on the ropes, labour pulling ahead in the polls - and we get another load of shit flung at corbyn by the plp malcontents. its almost like its .... deliberate.


----------



## billbond (Jul 18, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> tories on the ropes, labour pulling ahead in the polls - and we get another load of shit flung at corbyn by the plp malcontents. its almost like its .... deliberate.



what polls are these ?
The same one who said he would win last time, Brexit would not happen ?
Or the ones who said Clinton would walk it
Amazed how so many people take any notice of these so called polls


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2018)

Between Jan 2017 and the election a single (published) UK opinion poll gave Labour a higher share vote than the Tories. I know it's difficult for you but try to be such an ignorant berk.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> tories on the ropes, labour pulling ahead in the polls - and we get another load of shit flung at corbyn by the plp malcontents. its almost like its .... deliberate.


There's definitely people jumping on it with an agenda, but it's also a response to an NEC ruling from yesterday, and there's many people involved who are genuinely bothered.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> Amazed how so many people take any notice of these so called polls



like theresa may did in 2017 when the polls were predicting a much increased tory majority?


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> like theresa may did in 2017 when the polls were predicting a much increased tory majority?


wasn't that billbond's point? 

(that said, for all the talk of inaccurate polls, they're still on average as accurate as they've ever been, which is _fairly_ accurate)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2018)

also - it does not matter if the polls are "accurate" - they have a political effect - a run of bad polls for the tories will put the shits up them - they certainly wont ignore them cos "polls are bollocks" especially as they pay for some of them.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> also - it does not matter if the polls are "accurate" - they have a political effect - a run of bad polls for the tories will put the shits up them - they certainly wont ignore them cos "polls are bollocks" especially as they pay for some of them.



Given the Civil War on Europe, a dead PM walking, mass Ministerial resignations, the sell out of leave voters, crime, cuts, austerity etc I'd imagine the Tories are delighted to be 7 points behind and will expect to be level pegging ir even ahead once they do May in.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> wasn't that billbond's point?



I read the 'he' in this as referring to Corbyn.



billbond said:


> The same one who said he would win last time



Maybe something got lost in translation


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> There's definitely people jumping on it with an agenda, but it's also a response to an NEC ruling from yesterday, and there's many people involved who are genuinely bothered.



Like, for example an lot of Jewish people. Labour doesn’t seem to be able to narrow this increasing divide.


----------



## billbond (Jul 18, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Like, for example an lot of Jewish people. Labour doesn’t seem to be able to narrow this increasing divide.


And working class


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2018)

What are they saying about the Labour antisemitism row in the terraces and working mens clubs of Mansfield? I have to say I don't think this is a substantial part of Labour's divide from the class.


----------



## billbond (Jul 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> What are they saying about the Labour antisemitism row in the terraces and working mens clubs of Mansfield? I have to say I don't think this is a substantial part of Labour's divide from the class.



Being Mansfield voted for Brexit i think they are used to being put down and ignored.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> Being Mansfield voted for Brexit i think they are used to being put down and ignored.



Spot on. But the cleavage occurred long before Brexit. I'd suggest it began in the mid 1960's, it was deliberately accelerated with Blair and chums and under Corbyn vague attempts to reconnect have missed the mark. His team have clearly decided the coalition of the cities, the middle class, the cobweb left and young voters can get the job done. It's a pity because some of the genuinely social democratic ideas emerging from McDonnell - a national investment bank, making the BoE set growth targets, public control and investment in services - do offer at least the beginning of a route away from the trajectory of the last 40 years.


----------



## JimW (Jul 18, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> making the b


..astards suffer for once?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

JimW said:


> ..astards suffer for once?



Finger slip - I was trembling with excitement at the very idea of a national investment bank


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2018)

yes, as long as it is somewhere in the North.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> And working class



Sure Labour lost some of its relied upon working class vote, but don’t overplay it. The world isn’t fundamentally different to what it was pre-Brexit. There will always be plonkers like you to cheer on the nationalists.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

treelover said:


> yes, as long as it is somewhere in the North.



Birmingham, so even better.


----------



## billbond (Jul 18, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Sure Labour lost some of its relied upon working class vote, but don’t overplay it. The world isn’t fundamentally different to what it was pre-Brexit. There will always be plonkers like you to cheer on the nationalists.


And plonkers like you who look down on the North like fanatics do.


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2018)

I was right to confront Jeremy Corbyn over Labour’s antisemitism | Margaret Hodge

Hodges explanation


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> And plonkers like you who look down on the North like fanatics do.



Right, so I look down on my wife. Nice.

The difference is, unlike you,I haven’t got a phoney solution to peddle.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Spot on. But the cleavage occurred long before Brexit. I'd suggest it began in the mid 1960's, it was deliberately accelerated with Blair and chums and under Corbyn vague attempts to reconnect have missed the mark. His team have clearly decided the coalition of the cities, the middle class, the cobweb left and young voters can get the job done. It's a pity because some of the genuinely social democratic ideas emerging from McDonnell - a national investment bank, making the BoE set growth targets, public control and investment in services - do offer at least the beginning of a route away from the trajectory of the last 40 years.



I am not sure they've decided not to target the working class, though there is definately a large part of the team around Corbyn that appears to have no idea how to engage with them and appears to have assumed that the gammon among them are forever lost.  

Of course that is perhaps the biggest indication of how far from reality some of the leadership support network are because they are probably the easiest group for Corbyn to go after - the only reason "immigration" is so much of a focus for them is because so many of them have actually experienced losing their jobs, actually have seen their kids have to rely on agency work and genuinely do see things becoming increasingly unaffordable - and (edit) they have been told migration is to blame, in most cases at least once a week for decades.  Many of them will also have seen friends and family go into the forces, experience what they have and then seen what happens to them during and after their service. 

Show them whose fault all that is, that its down to domestic policy (and in the case of the Coalition and Tories deliberate domestic policy) and that sizeable chunk of the electorate will vote Labour again.  The failure to do this, especially over the Coalition / Tory record on defence between 2010 and now, was unforgiveable prior to the last election and is doubly so now.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> Of course that is perhaps the biggest indication of how far from reality some of the leadership support network are because they are probably the easiest group for Corbyn to go after - the only reason "immigration" is so much of a focus for them is because so many of them have actually experienced losing their jobs, actually have seen their kids have to rely on agency work and genuinely do see things becoming increasingly unaffordable - and (edit) they have been told migration is to blame, in most cases at least once a week for decades.  Many of them will also have seen friends and family go into the forces, experience what they have and then seen what happens to them during and after their service.



I think this is largely correct.

And rather than meet and listen to them from this starting point the left often remotely criticises them for their privilege checking failure/racism/‘nostalgia’ for a period when they were portrayed at the salt of the earth instead of the scum of the earth/failure to act as the left expects etc etc


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2018)

belboid said:


> Jared O'Mara quits Labour.  Trying to play the sympathy card (after abusing various women) about poor little him. Not getting too much sympathy locally.
> 
> Jared O'Mara quits Labour, saying he was 'made to feel like a criminal'


Now the fucker is taking more time off. Won’t be bothering to attend parliament. No mention of not taking all his salary though. 

MP to cut back duties on health grounds


----------



## ska invita (Jul 18, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> tories on the ropes, labour pulling ahead in the polls - and we get another load of shit flung at corbyn by the plp malcontents. its almost like its .... deliberate.



Excuse the pedantry, but just to say that its a bit of a mischaracterisation to say Labour are pulling away in the polls....they've flat-lined on 40% for a time now. Its UKIP which has pulled away and eaten into Tory numbers.

Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power. I thought the whole new party thing was doomed and pointless so wouldn't happen, but I could imagine these psychopaths going through with it just to stop Corbyn.


----------



## billbond (Jul 18, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Excuse the pedantry, but just to say that its a bit of a mischaracterisation to say Labour are pulling away in the polls....they've flat-lined on 40% for a time now. Its UKIP which has pulled away and eaten into Tory numbers.
> 
> Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power. I thought the whole new party thing was doomed and pointless so wouldn't happen, but I could imagine these psychopaths going through with it just to stop Corbyn.



Good post
In ref to a new centrist party i have seen this mentioned all over the net.
Something new is needed thats for sure


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> Show them whose fault all that is, that its down to domestic policy (and in the case of the Coalition and Tories deliberate domestic policy) and that sizeable chunk of the electorate will vote Labour again. The failure to do this, especially over the Coalition / Tory record on defence between 2010 and now, was unforgiveable prior to the last election and is doubly so now.



I do remember Jeremy Corbyn being reported (think it was in the run up to the referendum not the general election) saying that the state of the NHS (and so on) is due to tory cuts, not immigration.

Snag is, most of the media didn't report it, and most of the media won't - it suits them and their paymasters to blame everything on the last labour government and / or immigrants.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I do remember Jeremy Corbyn being reported (think it was in the run up to the referendum not the general election) saying that the state of the NHS (and so on) is due to tory cuts, not immigration.
> 
> Snag is, most of the media didn't report it, and most of the media won't - it suits them and their paymasters to blame everything on the last labour government and / or immigrants.



I know the media won't, but that is no excuse for Labour to not mention it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> I know the media won't, but that is no excuse for Labour to not mention it.



From a Corbyn perspective, the whole communications machine needs purging with an iron broom (or at least a polite reminder that maybe they ought to be following agreed party policy not their own blairite agenda - see



Whagwan said:


> So it turns out the staffers at Labour HQ were targetting the leadership teams facebook ads directly at Corbyn and team whilst running their own personal campaign independently:
> 
> Corbyn supporters attack Labour moderates for 'using targeted Facebook ads to trick him during general election'


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power. I thought the whole new party thing was doomed and pointless so wouldn't happen, but I could imagine these psychopaths going through with it just to stop Corbyn.



There has been talk of this for ages, but it always encounters the problem that there is no centrist figurehead to rally around, nor is there a pool of talent among the MPs that would potentially join, nor is there a reason why normal people would go out of their way to support it with their time and effort, nor is there even a compelling reason why anyone would vote for them - they can't even make the daft claim that Macron did to be the change that is needed because they are the reason why change is needed.  Even UKIP had a more plausible reason to vote for it than the new centrism would.  

The nature of the centrist / "professional" political class requires a host organization which contains a name, a mythos, and actual people to donate their time going around knocking on doors and whatnot in order to facilitate their climb to the top.  Without that they are screwed, irrespective of how much money they are given and how many columnists line up to praise this breath of fresh air sweeping through Westminster.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> Something new is needed thats for sure


lol


agricola said:


> There has been talk of this for ages, but it always encounters the problem that there is no centrist figurehead to rally around, nor is there a pool of talent among the MPs that would potentially join, nor is there a reason why normal people would go out of their way to support it with their time and effort, nor is there even a compelling reason why anyone would vote for them - they can't even make the daft claim that Macron did to be the change that is needed because they are the reason why change is needed.  Even UKIP had a more plausible reason to vote for it than the new centrism would.
> 
> The nature of the centrist / "professional" political class requires a host organization which contains a name, a mythos, and actual people to donate their time going around knocking on doors and whatnot in order to facilitate their climb to the top.  Without that they are screwed, irrespective of how much money they are given and how many columnists line up to praise this breath of fresh air sweeping through Westminster.


I think the latest thinking is that if/when Chequers proposal gets voted down anything and everything is possible in the subsequent crisis... Whatever, will see soon enough.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2018)

I'm someone with _pretty good insight, _and I reckon there is no chance of a new centrist party before the year is out. Can I have his job if I'm right?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm someone with _pretty good insight, _and I reckon there is no chance of a new centrist party before the year is out. Can I have his job if I'm right?


of course anything can happen yet...he knew there was going to be a snap election and knew labour knew and were prepared for it so i hold his opinion to some value...uncharted waters ahead though.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2018)

Uncharted waters through which the good ship _new centrist party_ will not be sailing.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> the problem that there is no centrist figurehead to rally around



"Tony Blair says Brexit issue has tempted him to return to politics" (BBC interview a year or so back)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 18, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> "Tony Blair says Brexit issue has tempted him to return to politics" (BBC interview a year or so back)


Of course, whatever words follow the phrase "Tony Blair says" must, by definition, be untrue.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Uncharted waters through which the good ship _new centrist party_ will not be sailing.


i feel the same way you do, i cant imagine it, and it may prove to be hot air, but i think what it does point to is that theres going to be some mad scrambling and plotting for what happens next if the Brexit deal gets voted down in November/early December.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Right, so I look down on my wife. Nice.
> 
> The difference is, unlike you,I haven’t got a phoney solution to peddle.


Hang on your proposed solution was to ditch Corbyn and for, another person on the Labour left to be elected leader - somehow you never explained how this person was to get on the ballot considering the rules at the time.

So do you still want to see Corbyn gone? And replaced by who?



ska invita said:


> Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power.


On what basis is this person with _insight_ making this prediction?

Because it sounds like the re-heated nonsense based on a poor understanding of the UK parliamentary system that has been going around and around for the last three years. There simply isn't enough space for another centrist party in the UK, the LD vote dropped at the last election. Even Labour MPs have enough sense/self-interest to see that they got in (on increased majorities for many of them) on the back of the Labour Party, they aren't going to throw that away.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Excuse the pedantry, but just to say that its a bit of a mischaracterisation to say Labour are pulling away in the polls....they've flat-lined on 40% for a time now. Its UKIP which has pulled away and eaten into Tory numbers.
> 
> Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power. I thought the whole new party thing was doomed and pointless so wouldn't happen, but I could imagine these psychopaths going through with it just to stop Corbyn.



The SNP are going to field candidates in England? Probably do quite well.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Excuse the pedantry, but just to say that its a bit of a mischaracterisation to say Labour are pulling away in the polls....they've flat-lined on 40% for a time now. Its UKIP which has pulled away and eaten into Tory numbers.
> 
> Talking of splitting votes and deliberate sabotage I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power. I thought the whole new party thing was doomed and pointless so wouldn't happen, but I could imagine these psychopaths going through with it just to stop Corbyn.



A centrist party has been about to form imminently for years now. I wouldn't rule it out entirely as a a last ditch spoiler tactic, but agree with killer b it is unlikely that it is going to happen.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2018)

How's that last one going? It had lots of money behind it so surely must be good to go by now?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 19, 2018)

No chance of it happening. Any remaining Blairites are far more likely to jump ship and get some plum consultancy gig than potentially lose their seat for life by forming a new party. It's a non starter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on your proposed solution was to ditch Corbyn and for, another person on the Labour left to be elected leader - somehow you never explained how this person was to get on the ballot considering the rules at the time.
> 
> So do you still want to see Corbyn gone? And replaced by who?
> 
> ...



You can ditch the leader without necessarily ditching the politics. If it’s just him carrying it forward then it’s unlikely to be successful in the long term. And let’s face it, he has some baggage that is going to be hard to overcome. Who comes next is a very good question and I would hope Corbyn himself has an answer before his bubble bursts.

But don’t act like you expected 40% at the election at the point he was polling well below. You simply wanted to see the Labour Party rid of the soft left, which is fair enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> You can ditch the leader without necessarily ditching the politics. If it’s just him carrying it forward then it’s unlikely to be successful in the long term. And let’s face it, he has some baggage that is going to be hard to overcome. Who comes next is a very good question and I would hope Corbyn himself has an answer before his bubble bursts.
> 
> But don’t act like you expected 40% at the election at the point he was polling well below. You simply wanted to see the Labour Party rid of the soft left, which is fair enough.


To what baggage do you refer?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> You can ditch the leader without necessarily ditching the politics.


Not when anyone with light social democratic policies would not get elected leader as they would not get onto the ballot. Getting rid of Corbyn before the 2017 election would have resulted in the the party moving back to the policies it had under Miliband. Again you're just showing your ignorance of both the internal politics of the party and how the leadership process works.



Mr Moose said:


> You simply wanted to see the Labour Party rid of the soft left, which is fair enough.


Wrong again. Beyond a certain schadenfreude at seeing right wing pricks crying I'm disinterested in the internal politics of the LP. Not only have I never been a member of the LP, I consider the LP part of the problem rather than the solution.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Not when anyone with light social democratic policies would not get elected leader as they would not get onto the ballot. Getting rid of Corbyn before the 2017 election would have resulted in the the party moving back to the policies it had under Miliband. Again you're just showing your ignorance of both the internal politics of the party and how the leadership process works.
> 
> Wrong again. Beyond a certain schadenfreude at seeing right wing pricks crying I'm disinterested in the internal politics of the LP. Not only have I never been a member of the LP, I consider the LP part of the problem rather than the solution.



Er your second point is rather contradicted by the first.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> To what baggage do you refer?



Well, let’s start with a fondness for unfortunate murals. 

Do you think Corbyn doesn’t have baggage that could limit his electoral success as leader?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Well, let’s start with a fondness for unfortunate murals.
> 
> Do you think Corbyn doesn’t have baggage that could limit his electoral success as leader?


a fondness you say? tell me more

i only know of one mural issue and look forward to your telling us about the others.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

I don't think the antisemitism row is that electorally significant (although it may be significant internally) - but Corbyn does have plenty of baggage which _is_ significant - and I think that perhaps the antisemitism stuff does complement these: the Tory attacks of the past few years serve as a helpful guide: The IRA, Hamas, Trident, etc etc. While these things haven't been enough to totally torpedo the party, they are fairly significant IMO in keeping them from getting much above 40%.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Er your second point is rather contradicted by the first.


No it's not. I'm disinterested in electoral politics not uninterested.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> a fondness you say? tell me more
> 
> i only know of one mural issue and look forward to your telling us about the others.



He loves political murals, he made that clear.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think the antisemitism row is that electorally significant (although it may be significant internally) - but Corbyn does have plenty of baggage which _is_ significant - and I think that perhaps the antisemitism stuff does complement these: the Tory attacks of the past few years serve as a helpful guide: The IRA, Hamas, Trident, etc etc. While these things haven't been enough to totally torpedo the party, they are fairly significant IMO in keeping them from getting much above 40%.



The attacks on Ed Miliband appeared insignificant until support collapsed at an unfortunate time. There will be a good time for Jeremy to hand over and a bad one to stay beyond.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

The attacks on Corbyn have already been tested in a general election though, last summer. It would have collapsed then, if it was going to.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

As I say: I think the attacks have a dampening effect on how wide his support can go. But we've seen the limits of that dampening already.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 19, 2018)

The attacks are out there and have been digested by the readers - cannot see reiteration having much effect either way going forward. New smears needed. I am sure some hip young gunslingers are on the case.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The attacks on Ed Miliband appeared insignificant


tbf, they weren't. ITs just that corbyn's got such mental levels of flak it seems that way

Mail dug up his dad and pissed on the bloke iirc. Metaphorically speaking. Then there was the whole nudge wink 'north london cosmopolitan' shit


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

The most significant attack against Miliband was - ironically - that they would most likely have to rely on the Scottish Nationalists to form a government. 

I'm not sure that line would have quite the same resonance now.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 19, 2018)

The thing with smears is that they're much less effective if the person they're directed at just shrugs them off. So far they don't seem to be getting under Corbyn's skin in the way they obviously did with Miliband - as long as that stays the same I agree with killer b that there's not going to be much more mielage in them.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 19, 2018)

Besides the personal dislike of Corbyn, the big problem for Labour going beyond 40% is that a lot of those potential voters are going to have voted leave, and are not going be happy if Labour's position is to remain or some sort of 'Brexit in name only'. But there's also a large group of remainers who could potentially leave Labour if they think they are too Brexit. And this is also a big problem the anti-Corbyn factions run into, they claim Corbyn is unelectable and will lead to electoral disaster but many are pushing for a Brexit policy that would lead to exactly that. That's also why the idea that Labour should be doing better line doesn't make much sense, because to do better would basically require them to attract leave supporting Tory voters without losing the hardcore remainers.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 19, 2018)

Not so much a dog whistle as a screaming howl.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2018)

J Ed said:


> A centrist party has been about to form imminently for years now. I wouldn't rule it out entirely as a a last ditch spoiler tactic, but agree with killer b it is unlikely that it is going to happen.


I quite like the way we all ignore the libdem lice in all this. 'A centrist party too shit to be the centrist party'.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2018)

Whagwan said:


> Not so much a dog whistle as a screaming howl.



Peak Godwin's reached: '_Jeremy Corbyn, not so much worse than Hitler, but drawing after extra time and going into a penalty shootout_'.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

Does anyone know what he's replying to here? It looks bad, but with the tweet it's responding to deleted I can imagine some possible ways it might be just unfortunately worded...


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 19, 2018)

No, missed the initial tweet.  However several of the replies to Javid talk about the original poster having no references to Labour on their profile and maybe possible sock puppet.



People talking about libel but doesn't he get away with it by not explicitly connecting the two statements?  Not sure on the law here...


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 19, 2018)

Does the useless twat actually do anything but tweet all day?


----------



## bemused (Jul 19, 2018)

The real question here is who told Javid his twitter profile pictures was any good?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

This is the tween Javid was replying to by all accounts:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2018)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Does the useless twat actually do anything but tweet all day?


Him tweeting all day is preferable to him actually working


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Him tweeting all day is preferable to him actually working



He tried working and was adept at flogging the products that led to the financial collapse in 08.that ended well

So I can kinda see why he wants to keep work as a distant memory


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2018)

isn'


killer b said:


> This is the tween Javid was replying to by all accounts:



Isn't Holocaust Denial a crime in the U.K now?, the OT seems close to it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

it isn't as far as I'm aware, and it _is _ holocaust denial. 

I'm predicting a large charitable contribution and requests for his effusive apology to be retweeted in Javid's near future.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think the antisemitism row is that electorally significant (although it may be significant internally) - but Corbyn does have plenty of baggage which _is_ significant - and I think that perhaps the antisemitism stuff does complement these: the Tory attacks of the past few years serve as a helpful guide: The IRA, Hamas, Trident, etc etc. While these things haven't been enough to totally torpedo the party, they are fairly significant IMO in keeping them from getting much above 40%.



The thing is that all of that is eminently, and in the case of Trident easily, manageable.  That they haven't done so is profoundly annoying.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

I don't think it is.


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2018)

What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

treelover said:


> What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?


go for your life.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think it is.



Trident is - he could deal with the "_well he would never push the button_" by pointing out that our system doesn't require the PM to push the button at all.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

agricola said:


> Trident is - he could deal with the "_well he would never push the button_" by pointing out that our system doesn't require the PM to push the button at all.


I don't think these attacks are really permeable to logic.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think these attacks are really permeable to logic.



That one is - its based on people not knowing anything about it.  In fact even if he just told people what our deterrent was and how it worked then it would be a public service in and of itself.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

you're cute.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> you're cute.



There are people who actually think we could carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea though, and the fact that Corbyn wouldn't do this is a reason to not vote for him.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

Yep. Do you think your careful and detailed explanation of what the deterrent was and how it works would talk them round?


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

bless.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf, they weren't. ITs just that corbyn's got such mental levels of flak it seems that way
> 
> Mail dug up his dad and pissed on the bloke iirc. Metaphorically speaking. Then there was the whole nudge wink 'north london cosmopolitan' shit



No, what I meant was they appeared insignificant to many people on here. The idea that Miliband should be dropped was considered a Blairite plot, which in part it was. But he was also pretty useless.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> The attacks on Corbyn have already been tested in a general election though, last summer. It would have collapsed then, if it was going to.



Elections always used to mostly be the same - now they are all different. Corbyn had a very fair wind last time, an astonishingly inept PM and the collapse of UKIP. Next one will be different again.

I'm not saying that it needs urgent change with an election in the distance, but Labour and Corbyn himself would be fools not to be alive to the possibility.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

erm... you're listing the collapse of ukip as a plus for Corbyn?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> erm... you're listing the collapse of ukip as a plus for Corbyn?



Undoubtedly Labour got some votes back, yes. It was also one less thorn when campaigning.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2018)

Wow


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Undoubtedly Labour got some votes back, yes. It was also one less thorn when campaigning.


A fraction, and massively outnumbered by the UKIP vote that went to the Tories (by about 3-1). Even by your standards this is nonsense.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> A fraction, and massively outnumbered by the UKIP vote that went to the Tories (by about 3-1). Even by your standards this is nonsense.



I’m not denying the Tories got more. They reaped a nationalist bonanza from your precious Brexit. 

I am simply saying that Labour got more than it did before. Even you may be able to see that. It’s not difficult to grasp.

The point is, don’t make fatuous assumptions that Jezza will carry on with the same popularity. Today, he would do well, but he is pretty fatally flawed and someday that will play out. That’s not an attempt to undermine or plot a move to the centre. It’s just obvious.


----------



## Sue (Jul 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Him tweeting all day is preferable to him actually working


The canals of South Georgia await!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> but he is pretty fatally flawed and someday that will play out. That’s not an attempt to undermine or plot a move to the centre. It’s just obvious.



it was obvious right up to the last election as well. then what happened? 

labour with corbyn could definitely win the next election - and not even by increasing their vote share - just by the tories losing votes to ukip and others.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> I am simply saying that Labour got more than it did before. Even you may be able to see that. It’s not difficult to grasp.


No but it's a very silly argument because the absolute number of votes members get is irrelevant, it's the % that counts so UKIP taking votes from Tories and Labour in a 3-to-1 ratio typically benefits Labour.

You really don't have a scooby about electoral politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2018)

treelover said:


> What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?


I note you're not up for the reproaching or challenging


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 20, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> it was obvious right up to the last election as well. then what happened?
> 
> labour with corbyn could definitely win the next election - and not even by increasing their vote share - just by the tories losing votes to ukip and others.



Let’s hope so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 20, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> No but it's a very silly argument because the absolute number of votes members get is irrelevant, it's the % that counts so UKIP taking votes from Tories and Labour in a 3-to-1 ratio typically benefits Labour.
> 
> You really don't have a scooby about electoral politics.



It’s quite not as simple as that. When UKIP was at its peak, Labour did badly. 

Labour started the last election campaign on a very low ebb, but through Tory ineptitude and good campaigning took the debate from matters nationalist to social issues. A noisy UKIP shifts the debate to the right and into remain, nasty liberal elite, Thornberry flag territory.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s quite not as simple as that. When UKIP was at its peak, Labour did badly.


Coincidence not causation. The crashing of the UKIP vote has enormously helped the Tories (overall - there are a few locations where it probably has benefitted Labour more than Con but they are the rarities) if you don't understand this basic fact then you really don't have the first idea what you are talking about.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2018)

TBF it isn't a coincidence - UKIP did take a lot of votes off Labour over the years running up to the 2016 referendum - the assumption was in the run up to 2017 that these ex-Labour voters would now vote Tory - and a lot of them did, hence the loss of Mansfield and a lot of other Tory insurgency in the Labour heartlands. This realignment was also reflected in the recent local elections (I think there's one more round of locals before this effect is played out, assuming it carries on). 

It's bizarre to imagine this as any kind of bonus for Labour though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> TBF it isn't a coincidence - UKIP did take a lot of votes off Labour over the years running up to the 2016 referendum - the assumption was in the run up to 2017 that these ex-Labour voters would now vote Tory - and a lot of them did, hence the loss of Mansfield and a lot of other Tory insurgency in the Labour heartlands.


Yes I'd largely agree with the first part of this. I'm less certain of the second, IMO while there is evidence of supposed Lab->UKIP->Tory movement, it's not rock solid. 
In a number of NE constituencies the Tory+UKIP vote in 2017 and 2015 was pretty constant, e.g. Sunderland Central and Houghton and Sunderland South. Of course you could have people becoming non-voters or non-voters becoming voters so from analysis of the results alone it's difficult to be sure exactly what's happening but I think a hypothesis of churn within the UKIP+Tory vote (or more generally anti-Labour vote) has as much evidence as the Lab to Con via UKIP hypothesis.

Most probably you've got a combination of both, in different degrees in different constituencies.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2018)

Another example is Hartlepool, for ease I've just made anti-Labour = UKIP + Tory + LD + Referendum party

Year.   UKIP+Tory   Anti-Labour
2017	19120	 19866
2015	19308	 22262
2010	13440   19973
2005	  5314	16087
2004	  6237	16956
2001	  7935	 13652
1997	 11207   17455
1992	 18034	24894
1987	 17007	24054

There's a consistent anti-labour vote of ~14,000-24,000 but it moves around quite a lot, supporting the party that seems best placed to depose Labour. Tory in 2017, UKIP in 2015, LD in 2010


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 20, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Another example is Hartlepool, for ease I've just made anti-Labour = UKIP + Tory + LD + Referendum party
> 
> Year.   UKIP+Tory   Anti-Labour
> 2017	19120	 19866
> ...



Hartlepool does have its widely despised and venal leadership of the local Labour group - even by the normal loathsome standards of local government. This drives a lot of anti Labour sentiment in the town which would otherwise not exist.



Stephen and Christopher Akers-Belcher. Locally known as the SCABs.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 20, 2018)

Looks like someone is ready for an election Labour drawing up draft Queen's Speech in preparation for a snap general election win


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 26, 2018)

Labour under Corbyn an ‘existential threat’ to Jewish people? 

Jewish newspapers claim Corbyn poses 'existential threat'


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2018)

Ongoing smear campaign largely centered around Labour's new anti-semitism guidelines. It more properly belongs on the Labour and ant-semitism thread. Been going on now for at least the past couple of weeks. Surely you cannot have missed it? I thought about posting stuff related to it on that thread but tbh I am sick and tired of it. Elements of the Labour right would much rather they lose the next election than have Corbyn as PM. See the antics of Margaret Hodge, who is frankly imo a disgrace.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jul 26, 2018)

The Labour right may be capitalising on the situation but you are telling half a story. Last two weeks it’s mostly Jewish people I have heard calling Corbyn out on this stuff, and other lefties such as:


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2018)

If I am so are you. There is a detailed analysis of the new guidelines by a Jewish scholar that I read last week essentially rubiishing claims that the guidelines are flawed. I will see if I can find it when I've more time. The divide though is largely along left/right lines both within and without the Jewish community.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 26, 2018)

No idea what this row was about, but it seems the right in the PLP are losing it - or maybe that's what they want us to think 

Formal complaint lodged against Austin over Lavery verbal assault


----------



## bimble (Jul 26, 2018)

Don't know if this is what you meant teqniq but its a helpful analysis of what the differences actually are (between the 2 guidelines). The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts

At the same time though the endless repetition that the jews who are angry / scared are acting not in good faith, have a hidden agenda etc, is really boring now.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 26, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Ongoing smear campaign largely centered around Labour's new anti-semitism guidelines. It more properly belongs on the Labour and ant-semitism thread. Been going on now for at least the past couple of weeks. Surely you cannot have missed it? I thought about posting stuff related to it on that thread but tbh I am sick and tired of it. Elements of the Labour right would much rather they lose the next election than have Corbyn as PM. See the antics of Margaret Hodge, who is frankly imo a disgrace.



Not missed it, but this is a direct and hysterical attack on Corbyn that demands his head. So the question for this thread is can he put it behind him?


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2018)

Yeah, sure he can. Who's going to be convinced by this who isn't already? If anything the wagons will be circled even tighter.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2018)

this twitter thread makes some good points.


----------



## JimW (Jul 26, 2018)

Doesn't strike you as something that will have a massive impact among the wider electorate and even among those more interested looks like an over-played hand. Existential threat!


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 26, 2018)

They're literally saying he's worse than Hitler (well, _as bad as_). It's quite bizarre.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2018)

Yes it seems to have reached new levels of shrillness and hysteria pretty much as if they've realised that people have lost interest or are not buying into the narrative.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> this twitter thread makes some good points.




That front page looks a lot like desperation to me. Reminiscent of the hysterical anti-Corbyn stuff in the Sun pre-election last year. They wouldn't be going to such absurd lengths if they felt they were actually taking their readership with them on this.

And still nothing from these papers on May and the tories' failure to implement the IHRC definition in any form at all. Very mysterious.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2018)

I think they have taken their readerships with them tbf. The purpose of those front pages is to create noise elsewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think they have taken their readerships with them tbf. The purpose of those front pages is to create noise elsewhere.


To encourage others to make noise as well. 

Nothing has changed as far as i can tell and none of this will change anything electorally.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Jul 26, 2018)

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Stern-Testimony-11.07.17.pdf 

This is an interesting view, from the man who actually wrote the "working definition" that this row has focused on. 

It's quite long, but I won't try to summarise it for fear of being accused of (and of actually) taking things out of context, but I will say - I think fairly - that it supports the Labour view.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> They're literally saying he's worse than Hitler (well, _as bad as_). It's quite bizarre.


Point made well by (Jewish) FB friend here:

"There are days when you really need a sachertorte, but the Freedom Party of Austria really puts you off. There was that little trouble in Austria in the 30s and 40s, but despite that 26% of the electorate voted for the FPO in the last election and they hold six seats in government, the FPO is a party formed by former Nazis. The want to ban kosher meat, or at the very least compile a list of those who buy it. As if any Jew would want to give their name to a bunch of fascists. The FPO is what could be called an existential threat to Jewish life in Austrian. Perhaps it would be better if Austria signed up to the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance.
Except they have.
So, wandering round Europe, so far to Hungary, Poland, Croatia and Austria we find anti-Semites ruling or in strong cabinet positions and all of them signed up to the IHMA. 
We're not finished yet."


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 26, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> To encourage others to make noise as well.
> 
> Nothing has changed as far as i can tell and none of this will change anything electorally.



Being seen to be in dispute with a whole community (not that Labour is, but quite a lot of people are not listening) is the kind of thing that could contribute to a critical mass of difficulty. Particularly when every action works like a Jedi power in reverse making the opponent stronger.

Maybe it won’t affect the overall vote much, but in constituencies with a high Jewish vote it certainly will.

Possible grounds for a press complaint at the least, but then another action that fans the flames.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Maybe it won’t affect the overall vote much, but in constituencies with a high Jewish vote it certainly will.


What, today's headline will? I doubt it - the Jewish block vote for Labour bottomed out well before today.


----------



## 03gills (Jul 26, 2018)

Things centrist twitter have achieved: 

1: Turned half of the left against remain with #FBPE 

 2: Made the left colourblind to anti-Semitism within it's own ranks by using it as a political football. 

 3: Redeemed Corbyn in the eyes of gammon by continually calling him a 'hard brexiteer'.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Jul 26, 2018)

I was going to post a long comment on a particular bare-faced lie I saw in the Jewish Chronicle piece, and the irony of various papers, websites, and blogs whose stock in trade is dog-whistling racism at least making hay out of all of this, and even its effectiveness as a generalised smear and vote supressor rather than something that will cause mass defections to other parties... 

In the end though,I just find it so depressing that it is only going to get worse: 

He's an East German spy. No a Czech spy. A terrorist symathiser. A communist. A pacifist. He mocks our fallen by dancing at the Cenotaph. He's a security risk. And if not him then a colleague. Or a friend. Or someone he was at a meeting with. Or someone he once met.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 26, 2018)

03gills said:


> Things centrist twitter have achieved:
> 
> 1: Turned half of the left against remain with #FBPE
> 
> ...



Wake up sheeple


----------



## agricola (Jul 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> What, today's headline will? I doubt it - the Jewish block vote for Labour bottomed out well before today.



Pollard's articles during Ed "Son of a Marxist" Miliband's time certainly make for amusing reading nowadays.  Or at least more amusing than they were at the time.


----------



## killer b (Jul 26, 2018)

this is funny, mind.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2018)

Adam Wagner's thread here about the Labour/Jews clusterfuck is a good one (he's usually worth reading on the topic).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2018)

Haven't seen this posted yet, worth a read

Robin Blackburn: The Corbyn Project. New Left Review 111, May-June 2018.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2018)

cheers, i saw a ref to that somewhere the other day but hadn't got round to seeking it out...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2018)

Red bases in 72 (universities as a base for violent revolution). Fair to say he's not got a  good a track record. Something obv up  with NLR- late two issues in a row after 50 years of punctuality.


----------



## Cloo (Jul 29, 2018)

killer b said:


> Adam Wagner's thread here about the Labour/Jews clusterfuck is a good one (he's usually worth reading on the topic).



Yes, he goes to our synagogue - he's doing his best to create some kind of nuance in this whole sorry mess.

It does seem to me like now the RW press have grabbed hold of this, it would have been a no-win situation for Corbyn.

Had he, say, expelled anyone who was so much as suspected of antisemitism, it'd be 'Look how many antisemites were in the party, Labour is utterly discredited' from one side, and 'Look, he's not allowing criticism of Israel' on the other. I can't say Corbyn's dealt well with it, but I'm honestly not sure what dealing well with it would have looked like given the number of people willing to make something of it from one side or another. A lot of the damaging fallout related to it is not caused by 'Corbyn' but by his supporters being tone deaf (not necessarily antisemitic) in their eagerness to defend him from the Mail et al, it seems to me.

Either way, it still boils my piss for us to be thrown under the bus to discredit Labour, by people who have fuck all concern for the welfare of Jews.


----------



## Yogibear (Jul 29, 2018)

Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 29, 2018)

Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?


----------



## hot air baboon (Jul 29, 2018)

according to the Sky News Press Review last night ( yes, I know ) the main sticking point was that Seamus Milne's journalistic output could be deemed to fall foul of the IHRA code


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.


They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 29, 2018)

belboid said:


> They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.



Which examples are missing?


----------



## Yogibear (Jul 29, 2018)

8ball said:


> Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?



Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state. 

What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code. 

IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 29, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state.
> 
> What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code.
> 
> IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.



Yeah, I was just trying to get a grip on exactly what the row is over.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2018)

8ball said:


> Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?


there are four differences, that is one (Labour adds that there need to be anti-semitic intent behind the comparison), saying the desire for a jewish homeland is racist (argued about because of a lack of clarity about whether they are talking about A jewish homeland, or THE jewish homeland that was set up. And was a racist endeavour), saying Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home nation (that one is basically just reworded, and added context given). I've forgotten the fourth off the top of my head.

e2a: the fourth is - “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state.
> 
> What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code.
> 
> IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.


I think the additional examples were always there. Most have been adopted by the 31 signatories - including the Hungarian state which is busy being thoroughly, 'properly', anti-semitic. Which just shows you how pointless the code is.


----------



## Yogibear (Jul 29, 2018)

belboid said:


> They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.



IMO they should now refute all the examples and adopt the code only. It's not rocket science.


----------



## belboid (Jul 30, 2018)

This is a very good piece on the differences

The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

belboid said:


> there are four differences, that is one (Labour adds that there need to be anti-semitic intent behind the comparison), saying the desire for a jewish homeland is racist (argued about because of a lack of clarity about whether they are talking about A jewish homeland, or THE jewish homeland that was set up. And was a racist endeavour), saying Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home nation (that one is basically just reworded, and added context given). I've forgotten the fourth off the top of my head.
> 
> e2a: the fourth is - “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”



How about an English homeland?  We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.

There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.

Surely this is their homeland.


----------



## belboid (Jul 30, 2018)

8ball said:


> How about an English homeland?  We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.
> 
> There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.
> 
> Surely this is their homeland.


This is a goddamned proddy dog country. It's not even a proper homeland for left-footers


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

belboid said:


> This is a goddamned proddy dog country. It's not even a proper homeland for left-footers



Maybe I don't know enough about the history, but I'm definitely missing something.
I never got that "two state solution" shit either.  

Seems like a hiding to nothing to me.


----------



## Yogibear (Jul 30, 2018)

That is a very one sided piece which argues that the Labour Party should adopt Zionist additions to the Code. I've given my opinion on what should happen above, and I'll leave it there.


----------



## belboid (Jul 30, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> That is a very one sided piece which argues that the Labour Party should adopt Zionist additions to the Code. I've given my opinion on what should happen above, and I'll leave it there.


No it doesn't. It is saying all the salient points are already included without giving any ground to those trying to stifle criticism of Israel.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

belboid said:


> No it doesn't. It is saying all the salient points are already included without giving any ground to those trying to stifle criticism of Israel.



It kinda looks to me like you're both saying the same thing, or at least that you're agreed on principles, if not the piece.


----------



## agricola (Jul 30, 2018)

8ball said:


> How about an English homeland?  We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.
> 
> There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.
> 
> Surely this is their homeland.



"England for the English" is at least as daft as it is a racially loaded term though; if that is what "the English" want then they should really go back to Angeln.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

agricola said:


> "England for the English" is at least as daft as it is a racially loaded term though; if that is what "the English" want then they should really go back to Angeln.



I think that was my point.  Might have made it badly.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 30, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.



I’m wondering whether to resign, or just not renew under protest. It’s appaling that this has been going on so long. Just sign up to the code and move on. If some activists have to be dumped due to past indiscretions on Twitter, so be it. This is after the age it took to get rid of Ken. Even that wasn’t done by the Party. If the party currently stinks of anti-semitism, maybe it is. Even if, mainly, the guilt is by association.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I’m wondering whether to resign, or just not renew under protest. It’s appaling that this has been going on so long. Just sign up to the code and move on. If some activists have to be dumped due to past indiscretions on Twitter, so be it. This is after the age it took to get rid of Ken. Even that wasn’t done by the Party. If the party currently stinks of anti-semitism, maybe it is. Even if, mainly, the guilt is by association.



As belboid has pointed out the Labour party has signed up to the IHRA definition. This is beyond dispute.

Repeat belboid link 

Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project

The definition is separate from the examples. This is good article to read. After all the news made issues more clear to me.

Imo whatever Corbyn does won't be good enough.


----------



## classicdish (Jul 30, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> IMO they should now refute all the examples and adopt the code only. It's not rocket science.


The IHRA definition is as follows:



> Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.


Using this alone as a 'code of conduct' would be more-or-less useless.

The new NEC Code of Conduct includes _"a series of guidelines designed to help all those involved with the Party and its disciplinary processes understand what kind of behaviour is likely to be considered antisemitic, and – where a complaint is made – decide whether breach of Clause 2.I.8 has occurred."_ 

(Clause 2.I.8 is the 'basic conduct rule' referring to conduct _"which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party"_)

If the Labour Party Code of Conduct doesn't contain any guidelines the issue isn't going to magically disappear - it just means that the party would be faced with endless disciplinary hearings which would either end up setting 'de facto' rules or lead to a never-ending proxy war.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 30, 2018)

classicdish said:


> The IHRA definition is as follows:
> 
> 
> > Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities
> ...


I'm not convinced it's even any use as a definition. The reason it needs examples is because it's so bloody vague. There are plenty of better definitions. They could have chosen the simple dictionary definition:


> hostility to or prejudice against Jews


or Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein's more nuanced definition:


> a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions—social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence—which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.
> 
> from Antisemitism - Wikipedia


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 30, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Being seen to be in dispute with a whole community (not that Labour is, but quite a lot of people are not listening) is the kind of thing that could contribute to a critical mass of difficulty. Particularly when every action works like a Jedi power in reverse making the opponent stronger.
> 
> Maybe it won’t affect the overall vote much, but in constituencies with a high Jewish vote it certainly will.
> 
> Possible grounds for a press complaint at the least, but then another action that fans the flames.


If you recall, the "Jewish vote" was lost by Miliband according to the same papers - over recognition of Palestine.

In 2015 it went roughly 25% for Labour and 60% for the Tories. Virtually identical to the figures in 2017 - ie after the first round of "Corbyn is an anti semite."

So you're right it won't affect the overall vote, but it is distracting from what should be the main political news - the corrupt, mendacious shambles we have in place of a government.

Ho hum


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As belboid has pointed out the Labour party has signed up to the IHRA definition. This is beyond dispute.
> 
> Repeat belboid link
> 
> ...


Logic be damned. I don’t see, at this stage, with the damage that has been done, what Labour hopes to gain from not adopting the full list of examples. Corbyn will always have to work harder because he has shared platforms with some unsavoury characters (and TV channels). There was also the long dragged out saga about Ken...who really did say some stupid things..and it took far too long for him to disappear. 
Presenting a fair and nuanced opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the days of twitter is almost impossible. Unfortunately it’s one reason it appears to be intractable.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2018)

8ball said:


> Which examples are missing?



Ones which conflate the state of Israel with Jewish people in general.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

I think one key thing is the legal aspect Wagner raised in the twitter thread on the last page: Labour party members dealt with and censured under this new code will be labelled de facto racists: this does open them up to legal challenge which will only drag the whole thing out even longer. 

A friend of a friend is a long-time Palestine solidarity campaigner, and is one of the members who has been suspended for some time pending investigation, he says because of a facebook post almost a decade old (I haven't seen the post in question so I can't comment on whether he's got a case to answer or not). 

He's said he will go to the law should he be expelled over this, and I've no doubt he will. I've also no doubt that these kinds of considerations are behind the lengthy dragging out of what are likely to be borderline cases.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 30, 2018)

Flipping heck. No more growing veg for you JC. 

Barnet Council begins discussion about stripping Jeremy Corbyn of his allotment over Labour Party antisemitism


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 30, 2018)

What sort of crazy disc


killer b said:


> I think one key thing is the legal aspect Wagner raised in the twitter thread on the last page: Labour party members dealt with and censured under this new code will be labelled de facto racists: this does open them up to legal challenge which will only drag the whole thing out even longer.
> 
> A friend of a friend is a long-time Palestine solidarity campaigner, and is one of the members who has been suspended for some time pending investigation, he says because of a facebook post almost a decade old (I haven't seen the post in question so I can't comment on whether he's got a case to answer or not).
> 
> He's said he will go to the law should he be expelled over this, and I've no doubt he will. I've also no doubt that these kinds of considerations are behind the lengthy dragging out of what are likely to be borderline cases.


What sort of crazy disciplinary process means this can’t be dealt with in an afternoon? The party has been dragging these cases and allowing them to fester, to nobody’s advantage. 10 year old Facebook post...look at the context...anger against civilian deaths, for example, see if it’s been repeated..and move on. Some people, like the councillor in the news last week, the party is probably best shot of, but old social media posts could surely be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction quickly...for Leadership positions there is a higher standard, and the party should do better due diligence


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm not sure, but if it could truly be dealt with in an afternoon, it likely would have been. I think they've dealt with things badly, but there's also so much we just aren't party to.

Livingstone for eg had some of the heaviest lawyers in the country on it for him: more than anything else I imagine this is what dragged things out with him.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ones which conflate the state of Israel with Jewish people in general.



It feels like that to me (as someone who hasn't read into it in any depth).


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Flipping heck. No more growing veg for you JC.
> 
> Barnet Council begins discussion about stripping Jeremy Corbyn of his allotment over Labour Party antisemitism



This is pretty barking.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

Wouldn't it be best to read it in some kind of depth before saying what it feels like to you? Let's be honest, people firing off about what it feels like to them after not reading into it in any depth is half of the problem...


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> Wouldn't it be best to read it in some kind of depth before saying what it feels like to you? Let's be honest, people firing off about what it feels like to them after not reading into it in any depth is half of the problem...



Ok.  The points I looked at on a couple of links yesterday were pointing that way.  If you have a counter-example I’d be happy to hear it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

There's plenty of antisemites who also conflate the state of Israel with the Jewish people. So a list of examples of things that _could_ (not _do_) constitute antisemitism is bound to include some reference to the state of Israel.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> There's plenty of antisemites who also conflate the state of Israel with the Jewish people. So a list of examples of things that _could_ (not _do_) constitute antisemitism is bound to include some reference to the state of Israel.



So no counter-examples?  Just the statement that people who criticise Israel might also be anti-semitic?


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

Did you read this thread I posted the other day? He deals with the contentious definitions from post 18 onwards. I think he's about right too.



killer b said:


> Adam Wagner's thread here about the Labour/Jews clusterfuck is a good one (he's usually worth reading on the topic).


----------



## 8ball (Jul 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> Did you read this thread I posted the other day? He deals with the contentious definitions from post 18 onwards. I think he's about right too.



Hmm, ok.  So that would suggest that all the Labour party did was bring in a little brevity and clarity that might make disciplinary proceedings less of a legalistic mess of appeals.

Maybe they would have been better off just going with the IHRA thing and being done with it, but I suspect they were wary of any criticism of Israel being turned back on them as an example of anti-semitism.

The last example is pretty muddled, anyway.


----------



## agricola (Jul 30, 2018)

8ball said:


> Hmm, ok.  So that would suggest that all the Labour party did was bring in a little brevity and clarity that might make disciplinary proceedings less of a legalistic mess of appeals.



To be honest that is probably impossible; the volume of complaints / disciplinary issues is such that they need to bite the bullet and properly fund some form of internal organization that can actually do these investigations in a reasonable timeframe and to a legally acceptable standard (ie: not fixed one way or the other).


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

It's going to be a long summer, lads. 

https://t.co/FwyMZYsaMq

(That said, everything I've heard about Pete Willsman suggests that his ejection from any positions of authority and influence on the left can only be a good thing in the long run)


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2018)

Willsman made some incredibly sexist comments at one of the first big Momentum meetings here, i think a couple of other urbanites were there and may recall, 

on the radio, there was a comment that someone has been suspended for saying, 'Jews drink blood!'  'Jews drink blood:' Britain’s Labour Party suspends councillor for Facebook post

he is denying it.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 30, 2018)

treelover said:


> Willsman made some incredibly sexist comments at one of the first big Momentum meetings here, i think a couple of other urbanites were there and may recall,
> 
> on the radio, there was a comment that someone has been suspended for saying, 'Jews drink blood!'  'Jews drink blood:' Britain’s Labour Party suspends councillor for Facebook post
> 
> he is denying it.


"He removed the post and told the Jewish Chronicle that he had not posted it and that he lived in a shared house and has a computer that does not have passwords."

looks like he's not been doing his share of the washing up....I´m not sure such a lame excuse inspires confidence in his abilities as a councillor...I hope he treats his constituents' data with a little more respect.


----------



## classicdish (Jul 30, 2018)

treelover said:


> he is denying it.


The trouble is people have now been all over his social media and found previous shit he has posted as well.


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2018)

Ah, that councillor is over already, he's done for whatever. It's Willsman today, probably tomorrow and wednesday too, depending when they throw him under the bus. Then, who knows?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 30, 2018)

Fuck em


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.


Yet, he is still here!
Maybe liberals should fuck off to the washed up lib dems.
Antisemitism-Accept that Israel exists and will continue to do so.
The only Jewish state, in their original homeland, Arab Muslims should be integrated into surrounding Arab Muslim countries, and compensation paid.
End of!


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2018)

classicdish said:


> The trouble is people have now been all over his social media and found previous shit he has posted as well.




Where were these people in the past, are they new to the LP? I can't say i heard much of this in the past, only SWP defending Islamists who gave out flyers about Israel which were definitely A/S.


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> Where were these people in the past, are they new to the LP? I can't say i heard much of this in the past, only SWP defending Islamists who gave out flyers about Israel which were definitely A/S.


Yes, isn't remarkably strange how "anti-semites" have taken over the Labour party in the last couple of years, even though JC has been an MP for nearly 40 years!


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

Its really not a good look that JC was apparently sat there in silence whilst this Willsman said what he did at the NEC meeting.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> Where were these people in the past, are they new to the LP? I can't say i heard much of this in the past, only SWP defending Islamists who gave out flyers about Israel which were definitely A/S.


Some are longstanding labour members who're having the light shone on them for the first time, most are (I think) from the wider left who were pulled into the party by Corbyn. 

Seymour wrote this in March, nothing has really changed since then:

_Antisemitism may not be more prevalent on the Left, but there are specific types, articulations, which I would assert from experience are more likely to appear on, or in the peripheries of, the Left. For example, it may come in the form of a conspiracy theory about "the elite", or in the form of a certain kind of anti-Zionism.  August Bebel dubbed antisemitism of this kind the "socialism of fools", because it was offered as an ersatz, racist theory of class and political domination.

Beyond these types of overt antisemitism, there is a kind of tone deafness that is probably particular to the Left, and comes with a sense of brittle self-righteousness. Think of a long-standing anti-Zionist activist choosing a Jewish Voice for Labour meeting to defend the right to 'free speech' about the Holocaust. Think of a Jewish socialist ranting about "Zios". Think of an experienced socialist, rebutting claims of antisemitism by saying "I've never seen any". Think of a former mayor of London firing off about the Havaara agreement in the worst possible way, and pointedly not taking any criticism. Think of people gatecrashing a Jewish Labour Movement meeting to make a futile intervention against the 'Zionist lobby'. 

It's not that any of these people are antisemites, although some of them have become bunkered and cranky through years of political isolation. Rather, some people have cultivated a kind of gratuitous and performative political 'toughness', and defend this fragile 'toughness' as if it was the same thing as rigour and hard-headedness. And in a context in which we have not seen organised antisemitism of any significant scale for a long time, and in which those with democratic and internationalist objections to Zionism have often been stigmatised as antisemitic, it has been easy for some people to become dismissive of the whole issue. But that complacency was wrong then, and it is a liability now. _


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

I was shown some horrifying stuff on sunday - facebook posts from corbyn supporting labour groups saying the jews would have no reason to complain and could leave the country when JC wins the next election and then he turns on them to punish them for attempting to stop him - loads of stuff along those lines and picking up likes as well. Including one - depending on how you view it and what the unclear intention was - much respected ex-poster from here. Stuff from this last weekend not from a decade ago.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I was shown some horrifying stuff on sunday - facebook posts from corbyn supporting labour groups saying the jews would have no reason to complain and could leave the country when JC wins the next election and then he turns on them to punish them for attempting to stop him - loads of stuff along those lines and picking up likes as well. Including one - depending on how you view it and what the unclear intention was - much respected ex-poster from here. Stuff from this last weekend not from a decade ago.


Fucking hell.


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

Yep,i saw that stuff too. Also if labour lose the next election jews should watch out as there will be a backlash by the millions who voted for him etc. The skwawkbox link that it seemed to be based on has now been deleted.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep,i saw that stuff too. Also if labour lose the next election jews should watch out as there will be a backlash by the millions who voted for him etc. The skwawkbox link that it seemed to be based on has now been deleted.


Oh yes, that was the piece under discussion - here it is:

The Jewish ‘war against Corbyn’ risks bringing real antisemitism to Britain



> And what if Corbyn losses by a narrow margin? How will the millions who voted for him see the Jewish community and its three-year campaign to brand him toxic?
> 
> The ‘Jewish War Against Corbyn’ is not good Jewish communal politics. It’s playing with fire.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

Just to make clear this was a piece that the skwakbox endorsed in a tweet rather than being published by them.


----------



## Yossarian (Jul 31, 2018)

Brownglass said:


> End of!



I don't think that's going to be the end of the Middle East debate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Oh yes, that was the piece under discussion - here it is:
> 
> The Jewish ‘war against Corbyn’ risks bringing real antisemitism to Britain


Jesus.  Talk about toxic, this stuff is worthy of Der Sturmer.  "They've only got themselves to blame".

Who is Robert AH Cohen?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Jesus.  Talk about toxic, this stuff is worthy of Der Sturmer.  "They've only got themselves to blame".
> 
> Who is Robert AH Cohen?


Don't know but he's certainly Jewish - which they imagine gives them 100% cover for their actions. They knew damn well what that title would mean, it was almost a wink  - and the stuff i was shown made clear that the winkees understood that too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

...and of course, the skwakbox editor has now been reported to labour for anti-semitism. Round we go.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2018)

To what extent, in the urbs’ opinion, is the recent apparent upswing in antisemitism down to the fairly recent influx of “new” party members?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> There's plenty of antisemites who also conflate the state of Israel with the Jewish people. So a list of examples of things that _could_ (not _do_) constitute antisemitism is bound to include some reference to the state of Israel.



But the examples involving Israel do not actually amount to antisemitism, as evidenced by the fact many Jews share the view that Israel is a racist entity.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

8ball said:


> To what extent, in the urbs’ opinion, is the recent apparent upswing in antisemitism down to the fairly recent influx of “new” party members?



I know from Jewish friends that antisemitism from leftists, in particular Trotskyists, has been a problem since long before Corbyn's leadership. Perhaps recent events have just made it more likely that these people will be found out. 

There's a great deal of scrutiny of momentum and Labour, whereas ten or twenty years back 'SWP member chats shit' would not have made any newspapers, being about as shocking and unexpected as the news that a dog had sniffed another dog's arsehole.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But the examples involving Israel do not actually amount to antisemitism, as evidenced by the fact many Jews share the view that Israel is a racist entity.


the list of examples is things that _could_ be antisemitic, not things that _are_ antisemitic.


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But the examples involving Israel do not actually amount to antisemitism, as evidenced by the fact many Jews share the view that Israel is a racist entity.


The examples are a bit of a mess imo but what it says i think is that its antisemitic to say "that the existence of *a* State of Israel is a racist endeavor". 
So 'a', in principle, rather than that its antisemitic to call the state that actually exists racist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> the list of examples is things that _could_ be antisemitic, not things that _are_ antisemitic.



Anything _could_ be antisemitic though. 'It's raining' is antisemitic if you add 'because of those damn Jews' on the end.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

You need to clear the shit out of your eyes man.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anything _could_ be antisemitic though. 'It's raining' is antisemitic if you add 'because of those damn Jews' on the end.



Yeah, it’s a neat way of inserting whatever you like into a list of examples of antisemitism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> You need to clear the shit out of your eyes man.



Insightful as always, thanks for participating.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know from Jewish friends that antisemitism from leftists, in particular Trotskyists, has been a problem since long before Corbyn's leadership. Perhaps recent events have just made it more likely that these people will be found out.
> 
> There's a great deal of scrutiny of momentum and Labour, whereas ten or twenty years back 'SWP member chats shit' would not have made any newspapers, being about as shocking and unexpected as the news that a dog had sniffed another dog's arsehole.



at college 28 yrs ago, the tension between the UJS and the left /  SWP was open / occasionally hostile. The Perdition ( Perdition (play) - Wikipedia ) tension was still there, SWP had just published ' Israel - America's Watchdog in the Middle East', David Hirsh, WP crank and now, somehow, Kings College academic / virulent 'anti left a/s campaigner' , was alwaya getting thrown out of Marxism, etc .

Obvs, the situation in Palestine, + in Mid East generally has only intensified since, eg : back then there didnt seem to be young, UK Muslims in the orbit of Labour or the Left in the same way, with (righteous ) fire in their bellys re: mid east / Palestine.

There was the odd racist cranks about,( I remember one getting bounced off a West end Palestine march ) , but now soc media allows space for this lot to form alliances with Icke fans, and post occupy / Anon / NWO / anti Bildeberg  brigade etc etc ..... as soon as Corbo's long and principled support for the Palestinians became commonly known to this conspira-brigade , there's no doubt a vocal segment of them have been attracted to  supporting Labour, online, and no doubt some have joined up - if anyone encounters them at CLP meets, would be interested to hear.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Insightful as always, thanks for participating.


all this banal shit deserved. 



SpookyFrank said:


> Anything _could_ be antisemitic though. 'It's raining' is antisemitic if you add 'because of those damn Jews' on the end.


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yeah, it’s a neat way of inserting whatever you like into a list of examples of antisemitism.


can you be a bit more specific like say which of them do you think shouldn't be there ?  Here they all are btw: Working Definition of Antisemitism


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2018)

bimble said:


> can you be a bit more specific like say which of them do you think shouldn't be there ?  Here they all are btw: Working Definition of Antisemitism



Yeah, I was going to add that given that the IHRA makes specific reference to dependence on context, that I don’t have any particular issue with any of the examples given, where cited in good faith.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> all this banal shit deserved.



Deserved not one but two responses from you though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2018)

bimble said:


> can you be a bit more specific like say which of them do you think shouldn't be there ?  Here they all are btw: Working Definition of Antisemitism



The last two are problematic, they say you can't blame Jews in general for the actions of the Israeli state (entirely fair) and then that there are things you can't say about Israeli state policy without being prejudiced against Jews in general. 

I accept the points that the importance of context is explicitly mentioned, and that the 'Israel is racist' example refers to an Israeli state as a concept rather than the actual Israeli state which exists.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jul 31, 2018)

_Politics is no longer a contest of right against left but of right against far right. Israel has become more ethno-nationalist and less universalist; more Jewish and less Israeli. Mr Netanyahu, once regarded as a demagogue, often looks like a moderate next to many of his cabinet members._

Politics in Israel is increasingly nationalist

I'm not sure - by any objective yardstick - exactly what sort of positive press Israel is expecting to get from "the left". 

The schism goes back decades ofcourse - people like the rabid neo-con David Horowitz split with the campus new left movement back in the 60's over it


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The last two are problematic, they say you can't blame Jews in general for the actions of the Israeli state (entirely fair) and then that there are things you can't say about Israeli state policy without being prejudiced against Jews in general.
> 
> I accept the points that the importance of context is explicitly mentioned, and that the 'Israel is racist' example refers to an Israeli state as a concept rather than the actual Israeli state which exists.



I think you're right tbh. That's the one that sticks out for me too. Hopefully context would come into play here. As Godwin himself has said, '"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician..'


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2018)

I wonder how much influence Sheamus Milne has over Labour policy on A/S/reaction to all this


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> ..he is denying it.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 31, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 142712


Does anyone know what this pricks history in the Labour party is? Is he actaully a Corbyn supporter?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2018)

I think some of what we're seeing is the belatedly successful product of a prior siege. When the media centrists went after Corbyn a year or two ago, for so long and so ridiculously overtly, it was very easy for supporters to write them off en masse. Now that it's Jewish voices criticising Labour, I suspect many out there have blundered right into the same pattern, made easy by some recent events ('existential threat' etc) even though it's far, far more problematic.

It's a massive free gift - in the short term - for the original detractors, bad for pretty much everyone else, especially Jews who through the self same process - except with either legitimate criticism or no involvement at all - come to be defined as hostile. That problem was already enabled via the visible forms of representation on political issues like Palestine, but it feels like this has broadened it to the national discourse.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Does anyone know what this pricks history in the Labour party is? Is he actaully a Corbyn supporter?


I had a look through his facebook when it broke, he seems to be a pretty typical loudmouth leftish meme-sharer - very little content beyond the boilerplate. 

Dunno about his history in the party, but a google news search led me to an assault conviction in 2016


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2018)

mauvais said:


> I think some of what we're seeing is the belatedly successful product of a prior siege. When the media centrists went after Corbyn a year or two ago, for so long and so ridiculously overtly, it was very easy for supporters to write them off en masse. Now that it's Jewish voices criticising Labour, I suspect many out there have blundered right into the same pattern, made easy by some recent events ('existential threat' etc) even though it's far, far more problematic.
> 
> It's a massive free gift - in the short term - for the original detractors, bad for pretty much everyone else, especially Jews who through the self same process - except with either legitimate criticism or no involvement at all - come to be defined as hostile. That problem was already enabled via the visible forms of representation on political issues like Palestine, but it feels like this has broadened it to the national discourse.


This isn't new - there have been 'jewish voices' attacking corbyn for anti-semitism from before his election as party leader. The anti-semitism element is no way new - it was present from the very start or 'belated' as part and parcel of the 'original detractors' detractions.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

mauvais said:


> It's a massive free gift - in the short term - for the original detractors, bad for pretty much everyone else.


In the long term though, it's bringing things to a head and the cranks are being exposed and isolated (seems to me anyway - there's an awful lot of noise in every direction) - that should be a positive if they finally get their act together.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 31, 2018)

Totally unrelated to the current discussion - but interesting to note that today Corbyn has surpassed Brown's tenure as leader of the Labour Party - 1053 days.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2018)

Amazing that Willsman wasn't dealt with there and then, or at least that proceedings didn't begin then. Besides it just obviously being the right thing to do, how on earth did they imagine that it would just never get out?


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

It did get out at the time iirc, although in much vaguer terms. 

Seymour has just published this, which is good btw. 

Once more on Labour and antisemitism | Richard Seymour on Patreon


----------



## emanymton (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> I had a look through his facebook when it broke, he seems to be a pretty typical loudmouth leftish meme-sharer - very little content beyond the boilerplate.
> 
> Dunno about his history in the party, but a google news search led me to an assault conviction in 2016


Sounds a lovely bloke.


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I was shown some horrifying stuff on sunday - facebook posts from corbyn supporting labour groups saying the jews would have no reason to complain and could leave the country when JC wins the next election and then he turns on them to punish them for attempting to stop him - loads of stuff along those lines and picking up likes as well. Including one - depending on how you view it and what the unclear intention was - much respected ex-poster from here. Stuff from this last weekend not from a decade ago.


Horrifying I'm sure, what's your agenda?


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

8ball said:


> This is pretty barking.


Excuse the pun, Barking!


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

Brownglass said:


> Horrifying I'm sure, what's your agenda?


Been wondering that about you tbh.


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Sounds a lovely bloke.


_*Dunno about his history in the party, but a google news search led me to an assault conviction in 2016*_
notmyname, do we always believe these things?
Did you _*really* _see what you thought you saw?


----------



## Brownglass (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> Been wondering that about you tbh.


No, dislike London and the south of England very intensely.


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

Are you drunk Brownglass or just like this all the time. Please go away, your posts make no sense at all.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> In the long term though, it's bringing things to a head and the cranks are being exposed and isolated (seems to me anyway - there's an awful lot of noise in every direction) - that should be a positive if they finally get their act together.


Which cranks? The members and politicians? There's an endlessly replenishable supply of nutters at the council & local level, it'll never end, and these days it's all retrospectively searchable. They're fair game too since you can't argue their Tory or Kipper counterparts haven't had any scrutiny over the years, although the outcomes are usually different. It's only significant change to structure and process that will get the LP off the hook for this.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Jul 31, 2018)

Hmmm.  Chris Williamson responds to furore around Willsman’s comments by moving him to top of his list (from bottom in earlier tweet) of recommended candidates.....excusing himself by saying that they are in ballot paper order....


----------



## bimble (Jul 31, 2018)

I think todays award for Worst Idea has to go to this woman in the telegraph though: 
What the actual fuck.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

Wake up sheeple


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2018)

I think Keir Starmer may be making a move soon.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

lol


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> I think Keir Starmer may be making a move soon.



Because...?


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2018)

Willsman referring himself for 'equalities training' according to Sky News.


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Because...?




Coming to a head?


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2018)

But why Starmer? do you just feel it in your waters or something?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> I think Keir Starmer may be making a move soon.


Could you be _a bit_ more specific?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> Willsman referring himself for 'equalities training' according to Sky News.



So they’re getting him with Cultural Marxism. Bastards


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Because...?



He doesn’t want to miss his train


----------



## mauvais (Jul 31, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> He doesn’t want to miss his train


He could really do with an extra bedroom, even if it does mean losing the view of the park.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2018)

I feel a _Things Keir Starmer Might Be About To Do_ thread coming on. 

Sorry treelover.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> But why Starmer? do you just feel it in your waters or something?


 
Red Bull Owen Smith, isn't he?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> Willsman referring himself for 'equalities training' according to Sky News.


Like going to the Priory


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Like going to the Priory



Hope not 

Shocking footage shows care workers abusing brain damaged patient while gloating "You won't beat us b*****d"


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 31, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Like going to the Priory



Someone should write a PhD on this. Seriously.
It’s the British cobweb left under late capitalism perfectly captured - identity obsession, training in avoiding wrong think for trusted comrades who need their speak updated, bubble assumptions that their lazy anti semitism isn’t ‘a thing’ and is just a weaponised attack from the bubble enemy, the drift away from the concerns of the real world where the suggestion that maybe political activism is about trying to address/engage/discuss/care about the collapsing lives of the class they profess to represent magically becomes a mere fleeting half forgotten memory.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Someone should write a PhD on this. Seriously.
> It’s the British cobweb left under late capitalism perfectly captured - identity obsession, training in avoiding wrong think for trusted comrades who need their speak updated, bubble assumptions that their lazy anti semitism isn’t ‘a thing’ and is just a weaponised attack from the bubble enemy, the drift away from the concerns of the real world where the suggestion that maybe political activism is about trying to address/engage/discuss/care about the collapsing lives of the class they profess to represent magically becomes a mere fleeting half forgotten memory.



Sure, but what’s that got to do with the priory?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 31, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Sure, but what’s that got to do with the priory?



Therapy makes your politics better. No?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 31, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Therapy makes your politics better. No?



Priory not a great example of ‘therapy’, what with all the assaults on vulnerable patients 

Rehab clinic probe reveals claims over understaffing | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 31, 2018)

Meanwhile in Birmingham we had a protest today from social care workers who’ve been told that due to cuts their hours will be reduced to 14 per week (paid at the living wage or just above). The workers are already poor and trapped in the ‘in work benefits’ trap. Most of them have decided it’s better to just pack up and sink into benefits. They wondered why a labour council is doing this to them.


----------



## Smoking kills (Aug 1, 2018)

Radio 4, 0000, Item 1, Labour vs Jews, again.
Item 7, Home Office "misled" Court about unaccompanied children stranded in Calais who had a right to sanctuary, and family, in U.K.
(Some of them have "disappeared" since 2017.)
Corbyn might smell a bit "fucking racist" to some, but this Govt. fucking stinks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2018)

Corbyn apologises for hosting 2010 event

Corbyn hosted an event in 2010 at which a Holocaust survivor compared Israel to Nazism, held at the House of Commons on Holocaust Memorial Day.

He's the liability.


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn apologises for hosting 2010 event
> 
> Corbyn hosted an event in 2010 at which a Holocaust survivor compared Israel to Nazism, held at the House of Commons on Holocaust Memorial Day.
> 
> He's the liability.


If it was some ultra-left random saying this, it would perhaps be right for the reaction to be as it has been. But when it's a Jewish Holocaust survivor, I'm not sure the situation is quite so clear cut.

And despite the fact that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is supposed to be an example of what could be considered anti-semitism, the apparent agenda of those attacking Corbyn is that it should always be regarded in that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2018)

It wasn't the holocaust survivor who made the nazi comparison according to that link.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

?

"At the event, which happened on Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime."


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It wasn't the holocaust survivor who made the nazi comparison according to that link.


If I'm reading it right, which I may not be, the person who made the comparison was Hajo Meyer. Is that not right?


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

Yeah, I read it that way too, and he was a regular proponent of that message as a member of:

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)

EDIT: I see the point was also made by a Palestinian activist.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> EDIT: I see the point was also made by a Palestinian activist.


It was, but what was he doing speaking on holocaust memorial day in the house of commons?. Corbyn is facilitating this sort of politics.


----------



## JimW (Aug 1, 2018)

Have to agree, seems classic bubble bullshit politics not to be able to just memorialise the holocaust on the day set aside for that rather than have some whataboutery.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> ?
> 
> "At the event, which happened on Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime."





andysays said:


> If I'm reading it right, which I may not be, the person who made the comparison was Hajo Meyer. Is that not right?



The only quote in the article doing so wasn't from him. It was Haidar Eid.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

Yes, I see that, but it paraphrases him as doing so. 

He is on record as using the comparison too (though the link in this is broken):

Hajo Meyer - Wikiquote


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

Though I see now that there's no actual report of the event and it's based on what was said at other dates on the "tour". . . So, yes, I take your point. 

Jeremy Corbyn chaired antisemitic event comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in Parliament on Holocaust Memorial Day

This seems to explain how the story was started. I haven't seen the Times report because it's paywalled.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

But anyway, it seems that he's apologised and something was said at the actual event that he now wants to distance himself from. . . 

The CAA now openly says "Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite," and I've seen a couple of condemnatory quotes that say he is "minimising" the Holocaust.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 1, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> But anyway, it seems that he's apologised and something was said at the actual event that he now wants to distance himself from. . .
> 
> The CAA now openly says "Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite," and I've seen a couple of condemnatory quotes that say he is "minimising" the Holocaust.



I think Corbyns' real problem on this issue is not necessarily what he says - though his inability to open his mouth without whatabouting is tedious and self-defeating - its his inability to avoid people who do say things that are either openly anti-Semitic or sail close enough to the wind enough times that their meaning is clear.

he has - taking the charitable view - a very unfortunate blind eye when it comes to people or causes he has, or thinks he has, some common cause with, and i'm afraid that we're well past the stage where that blindness could be marked down to niavete - it is wilful, deliberate, knowing blindness that he uses to swim in that segment of the left that has become a byword for virulent anti-Semitism. it is, again to be charitable, a massive hole in his claimed integrity - the less charitable version is that he has some sympathy for those views but his inner 'niceness' would never let him elucidate them in that way.

he's either an anti-Semite, or he's happy to ignore anti-Semitic views if the person mouthing them supports him. not attractive...


----------



## 03gills (Aug 1, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I think Corbyns' real problem on this issue is not necessarily what he says - though his inability to open his mouth without whatabouting is tedious and self-defeating - its his inability to avoid people who do say things that are either openly anti-Semitic or sail close enough to the wind enough times that their meaning is clear.
> 
> he has - taking the charitable view - a very unfortunate blind eye when it comes to people or causes he has, or thinks he has, some common cause with, and i'm afraid that we're well past the stage where that blindness could be marked down to niavete - it is wilful, deliberate, knowing blindness that he uses to swim in that segment of the left that has become a byword for virulent anti-Semitism. it is, again to be charitable, a massive hole in his claimed integrity - the less charitable version is that he has some sympathy for those views but his inner 'niceness' would never let him elucidate them in that way.
> 
> he's either an anti-Semite, or he's happy to ignore anti-Semitic views if the person mouthing them supports him. not attractive...


 Personally what I think is unattractive is that some on this once enlightened hellsite are happy to go along with the ludicrous notion that a lifelong anti racism campaigner is in any way racist/tolerant of racism for the sake of partisan point scoring.


----------



## 03gills (Aug 1, 2018)

Cloo said:


> Yes, he goes to our synagogue - he's doing his best to create some kind of nuance in this whole sorry mess.
> 
> It does seem to me like now the RW press have grabbed hold of this, it would have been a no-win situation for Corbyn.
> 
> ...



You haven't just earned a like, you've earned yourself a fucking quote as well son.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2018)

03gills said:


> Personally what I think is unattractive is that some on this once enlightened hellsite are happy to go along with the ludicrous notion that a lifelong anti racism campaigner is in any way racist/tolerant of racism for the sake of partisan point scoring.


Is it only Corbyn that you mean here or is every other (formally accused or not) member/supporter also absolved by you?

edit: aren't you supposed to be on some _training _or something?


----------



## 03gills (Aug 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> edit: aren't you supposed to be on some _training _or something?



edit: what the fuck are you_ talking_ about?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2018)

Thanks for the answer. Sorry, i thought you were the ranting NEC nutter.


----------



## 03gills (Aug 1, 2018)

Also, can I say, using a (now deceased) holocaust survivor as a political battering ram in a partisan charge is dangerous cuntery of the highest order.

This whole debate is thoroughly fucked up on many, many levels.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 1, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I think Corbyns' real problem on this issue is not necessarily what he says - though his inability to open his mouth without whatabouting is tedious and self-defeating - its his inability to avoid people who do say things that are either openly anti-Semitic or sail close enough to the wind enough times that their meaning is clear.


I think it's partly a case of what he is/what he _represents_. When he was elected the press/Labour right banged on about his 'baggage' and this is certainly the most prominent suitcase. For all of his career up to the point of the leadership he was more a paid activist than straight politician. That allowed him to support all sorts of causes, never really get doorstepped about contradictions and details. But he's now unambiguously a 'politician' with all that implies.  I'm neither a fan of the old labour left way of doing politics or indeed the corbyn as leader project, fwiw, but the latter requires him to make some hard choices, establish a line and even go against his own principles at times. He's failed to do that - I think he's failed to do it around brexit as well, but that's another debate. And as a 'grown up leader' type feller, things come back and bite you on the arse if they aren't dealt with. That's where we are now, a history of not being bothered who he shared a platform with (literally and metaphorically) and a failure to just grasp the nettle.

A consequence of this is the other side of the equation.  Whilst there are plenty of genuine accusations of anti-Semitism being made against and within Labour, the agenda has also been taken over by more conservative Jewish groups and the Labour right. To be clear that's not a 'so it doesn't matter/it's all an anti-corbyn plot' point, rather it's something that his followed from his and the party's failure to deal with the issue.  It means Labour now will be bounced around and there's no easy way to get a strategy in place. It also leaves little space for any kind of genuine dialogue within the party of the left around Palestine and Israel, becoming just a daily fear of the next headline.


----------



## agricola (Aug 1, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I think it's partly a case of what he is/what he _represents_. When he was elected the press/Labour right banged on about his 'baggage' and this is certainly the most prominent suitcase. For all of his career up to the point of the leadership he was more a paid activist than straight politician. That allowed him to support all sorts of causes, never really get doorstepped about contradictions and details. But he's now unambiguously a 'politician' with all that implies.  I'm neither a fan of the old labour left way of doing politics or indeed the corbyn as leader project, fwiw, but the latter requires him to make some hard choices, establish a line and even go against his own principles at times. He's failed to do that - I think he's failed to do it around brexit as well, but that's another debate. And as a 'grown up leader' type feller, things come back and bite you on the arse if they aren't dealt with. That's where we are now, a history of not being bothered who he shared a platform with (literally and metaphorically) and a failure to just grasp the nettle.
> 
> A consequence of this is the other side of the equation.  Whilst there are plenty of genuine accusations of anti-Semitism being made against and within Labour, the agenda has also been taken over by more conservative Jewish groups and the Labour right. To be clear that's not a 'so it doesn't matter/it's all an anti-corbyn plot' point, rather it's something that his followed from his and the party's failure to deal with the issue.  It means Labour now will be bounced around and there's no easy way to get a strategy in place. It also leaves little space for any kind of genuine dialogue within the party of the left around Palestine and Israel, becoming just a daily fear of the next headline.



The problem is that he is probably incapable of doing the hard choices, enforce an agreed line and go against his own principles thing; if he was then deselection would have been brought in and the PLP opposition disposed of (which he will have to do if ever he wants to form a Government).  

I think he thinks that as long as he is right everyone will just realise it eventually and go along, the possiblity that they will wreck everything and everyone just in order to get rid of him is not something he can comprehend.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 1, 2018)

agricola said:


> The problem is that he is probably incapable of doing the hard choices, enforce an agreed line and go against his own principles thing; if he was then deselection would have been brought in and the PLP opposition disposed of (which he will have to do if ever he wants to form a Government).
> 
> I think he thinks that as long as he is right everyone will just realise it eventually and go along, the possiblity that they will wreck everything and everyone just in order to get rid of him is not something he can comprehend.


Yep, this definitely. I've posted similar stuff about before about him and Momentum never getting to the point of actually transforming the party in ways that it will need to deliver. He hasn't done the internal stuff as you say, nor has he really sought to develop a significant extra parliamentary presence in communities. He may well end up as PM, I have my doubts, but even if he does he's going to be hedged in by the failure to really transform the party.  Goes without saying that wouldn't have been without risks - multiple risks - but should have been a logical extension of winning the leadership.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

I thought Labour now had a massive membership, largely of younger, pro-Corbyn Momentum members "on the ground"? I saw someone say the other day that Labour had more members under 27 than any other party had members (or something similar).


----------



## belboid (Aug 1, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yep, this definitely. I've posted similar stuff about before about him and Momentum never getting to the point of actually transforming the party in ways that it will need to deliver. He hasn't done the internal stuff as you say, nor has he really sought to develop a significant extra parliamentary presence in communities. He may well end up as PM, I have my doubts, but even if he does he's going to be hedged in by the failure to really transform the party.  Goes without saying that wouldn't have been without risks - multiple risks - but should have been a logical extension of winning the leadership.


It takes time to change all the party structures. Especially when those changes are being blocked by some of the old guard who are still in post. This year should see some of he bigger changes coming through, but it will be a few more yet before all of them (most notably, deselection) can make it through.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 1, 2018)

belboid said:


> It takes time to change all the party structures. Especially when those changes are being blocked by some of the old guard who are still in post. This year should see some of he bigger changes coming through, but it will be a few more yet before all of them (most notably, deselection) can make it through.


Yeah, true and the 70s/80s show the Bennites struggled to pull off similar changes (though with a slightly different balance of forces).  I just feel, for want of a better word, he/they are losing _momentum_.

Edit: and to be fair, there's the fact that he never thought for one second that he was going to win. No plans in place.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2018)

> Mr Corbyn's statement was in response to the Times reporting that he hosted an event in 2010 at which a Holocaust survivor compared Israel to Nazism.
> 
> Hajo Meyer's House of Commons talk was entitled 'The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes'.


The title of the talk seems pretty apt for what's happening today. 

The concern being that there are virtually no holocaust survivors left to be able to give such speeches without being called an antisemite (or is he being called that as well now?).

The title of the talk should also give a clue as to why it was being given on holocaust memorial day.

This is proper through the looking glass stuff.


----------



## bimble (Aug 1, 2018)

His speech that day might have been something like this (same year). Nothing here that anyone reasonable could object to i think. 
An Ethical Tradition Betrayed | HuffPost


----------



## Yogibear (Aug 1, 2018)

I think Jeremy has been a wonderful Labour party leader and will be recognised for managing the transition to a state socialist agenda again. Something many people feared and others thought impossible. The one thing he hasn't managed is to expel the war criminal Blair and his cohorts. Personally I think that would be his crowning glory and something that will be remembered long in to the future...


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2018)

Speaking out against the slur of antisemitism

There was this Conference in 2016, (I don't think Corbyn was there)where many of the controversies around A/S were discussed, many of the individuals backing Corbyn on it were present, inc challenging the IHRA definitions of AS, etc.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yep, this definitely. I've posted similar stuff about before about him and Momentum never getting to the point of actually transforming the party in ways that it will need to deliver. He hasn't done the internal stuff as you say, nor has he really sought to develop a significant extra parliamentary presence in communities. He may well end up as PM, I have my doubts, but even if he does he's going to be hedged in by the failure to really transform the party.  Goes without saying that wouldn't have been without risks - multiple risks - but should have been a logical extension of winning the leadership.



McDonnell and Co are embarking on a national listening tour as we speak, left behind places, Grimsby, etc.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

Antisemitism row: Momentum drops Peter Willsman from NEC re-election list 

The "rant" fella has been dropped from NEC Momentum list. . . 

I saw some Tweets about McDonnell in Hastings and I believe he got a good crowd. . .


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2018)

treelover said:


> McDonnell and Co are embarking on a national listening tour as we speak, left behind places, Grimsby, etc.


_Here to hear_


----------



## bimble (Aug 1, 2018)

i'm sick of reading "The Jewish Community" every single time. What is this collective noun supposed to mean,  why not just jewish people if Jews is too difficult to say.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> i'm sick of reading "The Jewish Community" every single time. What is this collective noun supposed to mean,  why not just jewish people if Jews is too difficult to say.



It means self-appointed spokespersons and special interest groups.  Those Jewish voices that don't support Zionism seem curiously under-represented.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> i'm sick of reading "The Jewish Community" every single time. What is this collective noun supposed to mean,  why not just jewish people if Jews is too difficult to say.



By labelling a group of people a 'community' you provide opportunities for dodgy fuckers with dodgy agendas to put themselves forward as spokespersons for that community. If you're just talking about 'jewish people' it's much harder to sell the implication that all those people had a meeting down the Dog and Duck and nominated this one gobshite to tell everyone about the conclusion they came to.


----------



## bimble (Aug 1, 2018)

Even in that latest Guardian piece eg) "The national coordinating group of the pro-Jeremy Corbyn pressure group said that the activist’s remarks were “deeply insensitive and inappropriate” and had angered many in the Jewish community." ? 
I dunno i worry that its seen as somehow just more 'polite'. It certainly carries the implication that there's some homogenous group like we all know eachother and feel a certain way etc. Its rubbish, but the same 'othering' goes on for lots of perceived groups, i think the word community gets misused a lot by officialdom so it might just be a thing that annoys me.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> Antisemitism row: Momentum drops Peter Willsman from NEC re-election list
> 
> The "rant" fella has been dropped from NEC Momentum list. . .
> 
> I saw some Tweets about McDonnell in Hastings and I believe he got a good crowd. . .



Any links, i would like John to be PM, serious politician


----------



## Wilf (Aug 1, 2018)

treelover said:


> McDonnell and Co are embarking on a national listening tour as we speak, left behind places, Grimsby, etc.


Seem to remember Blair or even Kinnock did a 'Labour Listens' campaign.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 1, 2018)

treelover said:


> Any links, i would like John to be PM, serious politician



Only Twitter I'm afraid. 

Though I've just found this - a Town Meeting it's called here, so maybe I was wrong in assuming it was part of the same series of events. I saw attendance quoted at 175 people, which struck me as not bad for a local political event. 

Fighting Words


----------



## 8ball (Aug 1, 2018)

treelover said:


> Any links, i would like John to be PM, serious politician



A mate of mine is a Labour party activist and was way more excited about meeting him than Corbyn.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2018)

John is a great ally of disabled and sick people, though he is so busy these days, he can't do as much.

Yes, many of the the Corbynistas seem a bit more naive, frenetic, more anti-imperialist, less basic issue focused, etc, than the McDonnelites, as it were, behind the scenes his supporters are doing some impressive economic work.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> Only Twitter I'm afraid.
> 
> Though I've just found this - a Town Meeting it's called here, so maybe I was wrong in assuming it was part of the same series of events. I saw attendance quoted at 175 people, which struck me as not bad for a local political event.
> 
> Fighting Words






> In an address at Sussex Coast College Hastings Lara McNeil, of the Labour National Executive Committee, opened the discussion, giving a personal account of growing up in Hastings, studying at Parkwood 6th Form, and going on to study at medical school; Lara gave her own experience of the dangers of austerity, academies as a privately owned educational model and highlighted the £10M cut in social services announced by East Sussex County Council.
> 
> Next to speak was Peter Chowney – local parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party. Peter raised the complexity of addressing the needs of Hastings and Rye, which includes both urban and rural areas, citing local issues, such as gentrification, the need to protect and invest in our fishing industry, transport links, low pay, unemployment, skills gaps, intergenerational unemployment and pockets of extreme deprivation.



This is good stuff,very different from some of the Momentum meetings I attended awhile ago.


----------



## agricola (Aug 2, 2018)

I see tomorrows' focus will mostly be on John McDonnell.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 2, 2018)

Fucking hell man, this deep dive into stuff to tag McDonnell and Corbs over stuff other people have said and defining it against the IHRA code is

a) entirely going to fuck Labour if it carries on

b) proving that the IHRA definition is an equally fucked up way of defining anti-semitism


----------



## classicdish (Aug 2, 2018)

Balbi said:


> b) proving that the IHRA definition is an equally fucked up way of defining anti-semitism


Labour have already included the IHRA 'definition' (which is a very generalised statement) in their code of conduct. It's the translation of the 11 IHRA 'examples' into code of conduct guidelines that is (supposedly) being argued over: some people want them included as-is, word-for-word, whereas others have pointed out that if you did this some of them wouldn't make sense in the context of a code of conduct and it is instead better to include a more detailed discussion covering the same points.

It would maybe*** be helpful if there were more actual discussion of the details of this and less focus on the "drama".

The IHRA is one page (under 600 words).
Working Definition of Antisemitism
The Labour Code of Conduct is just over 3 pages (under 2000 words).
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/app/uploads/2018/07/ASdoc3.pdf

The Labour Code doesn't list IHRA examples 6,7,8 & 10 (nb they are not actually numbered in the IHRA document)


> 6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
> 
> 7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
> 
> ...


However...
IHRA example 6 is referred to in guideline 14


> It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.


IHRA example 7 is referred to in guideline 12


> The Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.


Re. IHRA example 8 ... guideline 13 includes this:





> It is not racist to assess the conduct of Israel – or indeed of any other particular state or government – against the requirements of international law or the standards of behaviour expected of democratic states


Re. IHRA example 10 ... guideline 16 states:





> Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent. Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party within Clause 2.I.8.



So the key points of divergence all seem to revolve around what is and isn't acceptable discourse regarding the State of Israel, a point discussed in Labour Code section 7, which concludes with _"In general terms, the expression of even contentious views in this area will not be treated as antisemitism unless accompanied by specific antisemitic content (such as the use of antisemitic tropes) or by other evidence of antisemitic intent."_

The IHRA document itself states _"Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."_ so the NEC would argue that their guidelines are in this spirit.

They can also point out that since the IHRA examples are introduced with the phrase: _"Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:"_ The Labour Code of Conduct on the other hand introduces it's '7 examples' with: _"The following are examples of conduct likely to be regarded as antisemitic."_

So there is a clear difference between "...could, taking into account the overall context..." (IHRA) and "...are likely to be..." (Labour Code). The Labour Code lists the 7 examples which are more straightforward and then in sections 11. to 16. addresses examples 6,7,8 & 10 with more discussion of 'overall context'.

So from one perspective the Labour Code has, on the face of it, done a reasonable job of turning the definition, preamble and examples in the IHRA document into a coherent Code of Conduct and the criticisms that it has missed bits out aren't very convincing.

IMO if someone wants to argue for rule changes they should make the argument directly and be specific about what they want, rather than just referencing IHRA. 

***On the other hand maybe the "drama" *is* the main point and the details of the Code of Conduct is the distraction? From this point of view the 'best' solution might either be whatever calms down the situation (both inside the party and with a wider public) or an outcome where one faction or another 'wins' the fight, either on policy specific to Israel or more generally re. party leadership and direction.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 2, 2018)

treelover said:


> This is good stuff,very different from some of the Momentum meetings I attended awhile ago.



in what sense 'different' ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2018)

Just looks like a bog standard boiler plate labour list that any aspiring party bigwig or MP would come out with. In any constituency at any point leading up to an election in labour's history. Or lib-dem.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2018)

classicdish said:


> ***On the other hand maybe the "drama" *is* the main point and the details of the Code of Conduct is the distraction?



There's no doubt in my mind that this is the case, although a contributory factor may be that certain parties have worked themselves into such a frenzy over antisemitism in Labour, not least thanks to blanket media coverage of every idiot remark by every nobody with a Labour party membership, that they genuinely think that Corbyn's failure to comply with demands for a minor alteration to an internal policy document is proof that he is an 'existential threat'.


----------



## Yogibear (Aug 2, 2018)

treelover said:


> Any links, i would like John to be PM, serious politician



I think he would be a progressive and determined Chancellor but I'm not sure he would be a good PM. I think Andy Burnham has what it would take, and has made the right moves recently. Both believe in the renationalisation of our railways as a start.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 2, 2018)

Yogibear said:


> I think he would be a progressive and determined Chancellor but I'm not sure he would be a good PM. I think Andy Burnham has what it would take, and has made the right moves recently. Both believe in the renationalisation of our railways as a start.



most people from the centre of the Tory Party leftwards believe in renationalising the Railways, i'm not convinced that that's the tick box that matters.

McDonnell is a far more capable administrator/executive than Corbyn, he's got a firm grasp of detail and policy, and while he's undoubtedly ideological he's also pragmatic - he'd be a far more capable PM than Corbyn, who seems far like a newspaper columnist than someone who can deal with the competing conflicts within government, the nitty-gritty of policy, and the compromise and collective responsibility that even PM's have to manage.

his one downside is that he has a reputation for being able to start a fight in an empty room - abrasive is one term, can't play well with others is another....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 2, 2018)

#wearecorbyn trending worldwide, UK-wide and London-wide... Tommy Robinson only trending in London. 

What's going on?


----------



## bimble (Aug 2, 2018)

weird hashtags, looks a lot like 2 personality cults.


----------



## agricola (Aug 2, 2018)

bimble said:


> weird hashtags, looks a lot like 2 personality cults.



Burnley 1-1 Aberdeen definately is


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> I thought Labour now had a massive membership, largely of younger, pro-Corbyn Momentum members "on the ground"? I saw someone say the other day that Labour had more members under 27 than any other party had members (or something similar).



In my area Brixton most people I know who joined or rejoined Labour party in Lambeth aren't young. This includes someone I know in  her seventies who is long standing member of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Corbyn has supported Palestinian rights for years.

So in my area where Labour party has been run by the Progress/ New Labour faction of the Labour party its not all young people. I'd say it was a lot of people who have been involved in community issues for years. But never felt welcome in Lambeth Labour party. Corbyn changed all that. 

There has been big increase in Lambeth Labour party membership and the ruling group hate it. 

Im involved in local community issues but not a member of the Labour party. 

The Labour Cllrs/ Chuka are totally hostile to Corbyn and new members. 

Personally I feel the anti semitism in Labour party is only way the right have found to have a go at him. Chuka had the chance to stand against Corbyn and he chickened out.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 2, 2018)

I can only speak about what I've seen, but in Cardiff at the last election there were large numbers of young looking members knocking on doors and getting the vote out - I think we were called on three times on election day. That may be for a million reasons, including Cardiff's very large student population, but I think the figures I quoted are correct(ish!).


----------



## bimble (Aug 3, 2018)

That 'WeAreCorbyn' event on twitter is worth a look. Hundreds of thousands of tweets many of them with pictures of him, its pretty weird imo. Has a sort of religious quality to it (all in eye of beholder obvs).


----------



## binka (Aug 3, 2018)

My dad and his mates have taken back control of the local party from Progress removing them from all their elected positions and even deselected a sitting councillor or two. Nothing to do with Momentum as far as I know - they all pre-date Momentum in the Labour Party by a good few decades


----------



## cantsin (Aug 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> That 'WeAreCorbyn' event on twitter is worth a look. Hundreds of thousands of tweets many of them with pictures of him, its pretty weird imo. Has a sort of religious quality to it (all in eye of beholder obvs).



yep, got a bit predictably daft at times.....

'yielding' .... ( tough one to replace tho tbf)


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 3, 2018)

KKK in play now!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

agricola said:


> Burnley 1-1 Aberdeen definately is


Did you see the Aberdeen goal though? That's their season peaked already. On week -1.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Did you see the Aberdeen goal though? That's their season peaked already. On week -1.



Scored by Lewis Ferguson, son of ex Hun Derek Ferguson and nephew of ex Hun captain Barry Ferguson. Hamilton Accies his club are currently in dispute with Aberdeen over his transfer fee. Aberdeen may be wishing his goal was a tap in rather than a his splendid strike as it will likely up his fee.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 3, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> KKK in play now!



?


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 3, 2018)

Someone has dug up a radio broadcast from 2015 that apparently features David Duke somewhat happy that Corbyn won the Labour party leadership on account of people waking up to "Zionist power" or something similar.  

It's in the Times so behind a paywall, but you can find it on Twitter or elsewhere no doubt.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 3, 2018)

Have a look at Dan Hodges twitter, on there...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2018)

Tomorrow we'll find out how Darth Vader, Lord Sauron and Cthulhu are all Corbyn Supporters.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 3, 2018)

Fedayn said:


> Have a look at Dan Hodges twitter, on there...



Shocker!


----------



## 03gills (Aug 3, 2018)

I'd pay good money to see centrist twitter having a meltdown over the #WeAreCorbyn hashtag. That's if I hadn't muted most of the cunts.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 3, 2018)




----------



## bimble (Aug 3, 2018)

He's written this! Might actually help to draw a line under all this hopefully.
I will root antisemites out of Labour – they do not speak for me | Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> He's written this! Might actually help to draw a line under all this hopefully.
> I will root antisemites out of Labour – they do not speak for me | Jeremy Corbyn


And you, have you anything to say?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

That's  well done if followed up. There is no way he can attack the idea of 'the jewish community' - but that he now seems to get that there is problem within the wider support is good - and that is both where the eggs lay and that people like him made safe.


----------



## bimble (Aug 3, 2018)

Think its really good that he's said what he's said. This bit below is a bit odd, i don't see why he felt it necessary to use the example of jews criticising the israeli state and the timing (Friday eve so any observant jews will not see it till sunday morning) but it makes me feel hopeful that this might calm down now, the last week has been kind of ridiculous.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

Calm down? Really?


----------



## bimble (Aug 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Calm down? Really?


Yes. Like maybe no more 'existential threat' headlines ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes. Like maybe no more 'existential threat' headlines ?


Yeah, that'll do it.

Why did this crap appear? That interest/reason hasn't gone.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2018)

Opposed interests calming down ffs. This is a part of the capitalist class claiming both the name of the future.


----------



## bimble (Aug 3, 2018)

I know. It can’t surely carry on like this though, if only cos the papers need to move on everyone is sick of it, the people who don’t see the problem by now are the problem and their minds won’t be changed by more of the same.

ETA I don’t know what your latest post means.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 4, 2018)

The fact that Corbyn didn't yell abuse at a Holocaust survivor definitely makes him antisemitic


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> He's written this! Might actually help to draw a line under all this hopefully.
> I will root antisemites out of Labour – they do not speak for me | Jeremy Corbyn


“Labour staff have seen examples of...crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers....and even one individual who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.”

I think it was JC defending the “crude stereotypes” and Ken “believing Hitler had been misunderstood”. He is about as introspective as Trump.

He is utterly failing at set the media agenda, and appears utterly to fail to see how the issue has become personalised around him. I can’t believe he will ever lead labour to any sort of victory. If he can’t even poll better than this Tory government he really does need to stand down and make way for a grown up. He may have some talent as a backbencher, but he’s hopeless as a leader. Sorry. He’s a failure.


----------



## magneze (Aug 4, 2018)

Nick Robinson just before 9 claimed that Corbyn himself compared what's happening in Gaza to the Holocaust. Anyone know if that's actually true?


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 4, 2018)

No Labour Party leader apart from Tony Blair has ever set the media agenda, and Blair did it by doing some sort of deal with Murdoch.

He's never going to get anything approaching a fair hearing - remember what they did to moderate Ed Milliband?

The distressing problem for Corbs is that there's a largeish section of his own party (in parliament, and its media arm) who are after him. I think he and McDonnel have expected it and may well have planned to accept it as a coup attempt and ignore it and ride it out. They may well have considered the mainstream media completely lost to them in any case and not worth bothering with. And they probably have plans to get rid of those MPs who won't accept him as leader - who might well fuck off of their own volition in any case.

Tactically, I think they're probably surprised by the ferocity and durability of this attack, hence the article in the Guardian.

But I think a lot of people can see this for the smear campaign it is - Dan Hodges, who writes for the Daily Mail for fuck's sake, with its disgusting dog-whistling anti-semitism around Ed Milliband's "unBritish" father, what a fucking hack: "I stand with Britain's Jews" indeed. EDIT: Not to say there is no anti-semitism in Labour, and particularly around areas where Corbyn has been involved in the past - and few other mainstream British politicians have, let alone party leaders - and he needs to make clear statements on that and the party need to make sure their rules are in good order. I think they're doing that.  

I saw some poll that showed that Corbyn (and Corbynism if you like) are pretty unpopular until election periods when laws kick in that allow some semblance of balance in some media coverage - hence the "shock" election result.

EDITED.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> No Labour Party leader apart from Tony Blair has ever set the media agenda, and Blair did it by doing some sort of deal with Murdoch.


How did Blair set "the media agenda"? (And what does that even mean?)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And you, have you anything to say?



Have you?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2018)

Yes i do. _Never mind the hatersz jez. The anarchists are behind you!_


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 4, 2018)

I haven't! I misphrased that. It wasn't a poll, it was an article about polling. 

I'm sorry to say that I can't find it now, but it seems plausible to me. Outside election periods, coverage of the Labour Party - and particularly Corbyn - in mainstream press and media is overwhelmingly negative. During election campaigns broadcast rules on impartiality kick in and Labour gets more of a chance to get their actual message across and become markedly more popular.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 4, 2018)

This isn't the actual article I saw, but I think it might be from the same research:

Broadcast impartiality rule has helped Labour to achieve biggest poll shift since 1945 

And a less academic take on the phenomenon:

Labour is surging in the polls – and it's all because the media is finally giving Jeremy Corbyn impartial coverage 

(Featuring a photo of Jeremy Corbyn drinking a cup of tea - how likeable is that?)


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 4, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> No Labour Party leader apart from Tony Blair has ever set the media agenda, and Blair did it by doing some sort of deal with Murdoch.
> 
> He's never going to get anything approaching a fair hearing
> ... They may well have considered the mainstream media completely lost to them in any case and not worth bothering with. And they probably have plans to get rid of those MPs who won't accept him as leader - who might well fuck off of their own volition in any case.
> ...


So it’s fake news, despicable journalists, the media really are the enemy of the people. 

You have to work with the tools of the trade.


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 4, 2018)

Yes, but if Corbyn continues to hold the views he holds he just won't get a fair hearing from a press that is essentially owned by oligarchs whose interests he threatens. He could change his views and the Labour Party's policies to suit them, and then he would get a fairer hearing.  



pseudonarcissus said:


> So it’s fake news, despicable journalists, the media really are the enemy of the people.



I never said any of those things. I very much support good, honest, press coverage that holds powerful people to account - and I would very much welcome it . 

I hate Trump, I hate this post-truth crap and I hate the undermining of facts that you don't like by shouting FAKE NEWS or SOROS or whatever at journalists, and the vast majority of it is coming from the far right. 

Most of what we're talking about here is "opinion journalism" and in that he's fucked in the vast majority of the press and also - despicably - in the public service broadcast media. 

But Corbyn is not a communist spy. Yet that was on the front page of the Sun. That is fake news by despicable journalists who are - in that instance - the enemies of any people who you think deserve truthful reporting. In fact, I'd probably argue that a whole load of the British print media operates directly against the interests of most of their readership.   

Corbyn and Momentum will use social media to produce their own stuff and to find friendlier voices there. And he has a chance of fair coverage and maybe even support in the Guardian, Independent, and Mirror of the mainstream, national press - he should try to work with what he can get there. 

Do you think Dan Hodges, for example, is going to give Jeremy Corbyn a fair hearing, on anti-Semitism or any other issue?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 4, 2018)

I agree with you, I’m just frustrated and disillusioned about the current political landscape. I’m a Labour “moderate” (you can insert “Blairite scum” there if you wish, but please qualify with “antebellum”  ) so the thought of defenestrating a large number of MPs (plus their media wing, and members) saddens me. 

“Dan Hodges”? I stop reading there. Same with “Owen Jones” .


----------



## MightyTibberton (Aug 4, 2018)

I'd say they're chucking themselves out really.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 4, 2018)

MightyTibberton said:


> I'd say they're chucking themselves out really.


Which, unfortunately, means the Tories are in power for the foreseeable future. 

I don’t know why I get so worked up. I emigrated in April to distance myself from Brexit and the thought of just adequate food.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Think its really good that he's said what he's said. This bit below is a bit odd, i don't see why he felt it necessary to use the example of jews criticising the israeli state and the timing (Friday eve so any observant jews will not see it till sunday morning) but it makes me feel hopeful that this might calm down now, the last week has been kind of ridiculous.
> View attachment 143031


It's obvious why he wrote it. He is absolutely right too. The 'self-hating' Jew insult is being thrown around with abandonment and arrogance, usually aimed at any Jewish person who dares criticise  Israel.


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2018)

I’m aware of that thanks. You’re missing my point. It doesn’t matter.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 4, 2018)

If you are aware of it why is it odd that he wrote it? A massive part of what's going on at the moment centres around that point. The idea that there is a right and wrong way to be Jewish, that any criticism of Israel marks someone as self hating. It's not new though is it. Look what happened to people like Finkelstein.


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2018)

You’re just missing my point about that sentence of his.  Can’t get into this now .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 4, 2018)

Timing then?  He should have waited until Monday to publish this?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2018)

Tom Harris resigns from Labour amid antisemitism row

It's not all bad for Corbyn. This egregious shithead has finally fucked off.


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2018)

Your aggressive tone really not necessary here Rutita1, or the lecturing on the problems of being an 'anti zionist' jew. All this from you who thought it was ridiculous for that utter liability Tony Greenstein to be expelled because look he has a 'yiddish name'.
I was just saying what i think of the thing Corbyn wrote. As to timing should have been months ago. In this febrile atmosphere would have been great if he could have published not on a friday night so that whatever Rabbis are most het up about it could at least not take further offence but not really important in the scheme of things. If you have an opinion on what Corbyn's written lets hear it but just sniping at me is a bit dull.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 4, 2018)

There isn't anything aggressive about my tone and no my having an opinion isn't lecturing either...you simply didn't want to explain yourself and now you have. Shame you couldn't do that without throwing your toys out of the pram because shock, horror how dare I question what you meant?


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2018)




----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2018)

Deleted as quotes messed up again.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> He's written this! Might actually help to draw a line under all this hopefully.
> I will root antisemites out of Labour – they do not speak for me | Jeremy Corbyn



Zionism is not apartheid



> In the 1970s some on the left mistakenly argued that “Zionism is racism”. That was wrong, but to assert that “anti-Zionism is racism” now is wrong too.



I read the article. The above sentence contained link to article above. Titled "Zionism is not apartheid". I don't know if Guardian put the link in or Corbyn.

I see the Zionism as enacting apartheid in Palestine. Which is a form of racism.

This sentence in article doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don't think Corbyn can win on this whatever he does.


----------



## bimble (Aug 5, 2018)

I kind of feel like there's not much more to say. Agree that sentence in Corbyn's thing is really strange. As if its 50 years since anyone has said zionism = racism?
I think one problem is that people aren't defining their terms at all when they say Zionism they might actually mean the actions of the Israeli state judiciary & military?


----------



## bimble (Aug 5, 2018)

Just stumbled upon the rest of that 'apology' from Damien Enticott who has now resigned. I know he's an outlier but he probably really believes what he says in the last sentence.


----------



## JimW (Aug 5, 2018)

I'm really sorry but it's their fault really. Twat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2018)

he's spelt hitler with two t's.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 5, 2018)

And "Isreal" the ignorant twonk


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 5, 2018)

Well he's got a case for not being anti-Semitic, in fact he can't even _spell_ anti-Semitic.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 5, 2018)

He was clearly thinking _anti-emetic_; he certainly isn't that.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 5, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 142995


..when 'wizard' is the least shit part of your identity.

Didnt Netenyahu say something along the lines of Hitler supported Zionism?

Honest to god, this shit is never ending. I don't think it looks good for Corbyn. Not because I agree with any of it, but because if enough mud sticks...

I've no idea what the numbers are in support of this obvious coup attempt compared to the numbers that support him, in terms of enough elevtoral support to get him into power. I hope it's enough. 

It's been going on for months now and it's depressing as fuck


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 6, 2018)




----------



## Poi E (Aug 6, 2018)

He still not been shot? Fucks' sake, send a memo to the gulag asking for haste.


----------



## oryx (Aug 6, 2018)

Labour drops flying pig and 'Fagin' posters

I'd never heard of this before and just searched - it's pretty awful. No big outcry about it, just like there was no big outcry about the 'Miliband's dad' thing.

ETA - IMHO it's way worse than the murals thing and clear evidence that any anti-Semitism in the party didn't start with Corbyn in charge.

The hypocrisy of the Labour right is breathtaking.


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 6, 2018)

I remember the Fagin poster well. Disgusting antisemitism.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 6, 2018)

Well this is interesting  a) this must reflect a concern amongst Corby and the social democrats that a split (even with Blairites) would be damaging b) this will disappoint his more frothing fans alternatively demanding a round of deselections/expulsions or painting their man as a ‘victim’ and c) it indicates that the internal row over AS has reached a stalemate without any political shift in direction and definitely without the suggestion JC has expressed AS views being heard in a court:

Labour ends action against Margaret Hodge in antisemitism row


----------



## cantsin (Aug 6, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well this is interesting  a) this must reflect a concern amongst Corby and the social democrats that a split (even with Blairites) would be damaging b) this will disappoint his more frothing fans alternatively demanding a round of deselections/expulsions or painting their man as a ‘victim’ and c) it indicates that the internal row over AS has reached a stalemate without any political shift in direction and definitely without the suggestion JC has expressed AS views being heard in a court:
> 
> Labour ends action against Margaret Hodge in antisemitism row



f*ck it, if it helps take some heat out of this ridiculous situation, all good - getting all enthused by (apparently pretty ad hoc) centralised party disciplinary machinery is  a mugs game anyway.

But if we have no prospect of Hodge/ Austin / Watson / + the rests's CLP's being able to reselect ( or otherwise ) their MP before the next election, this whole things a waste of time /effort.


----------



## Gerry1time (Aug 6, 2018)

As a reasonably impartial bystander, it is bizarre to see both of the two main political parties fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting each other.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

Hodge called Corbyn an anti Semitic racist to his face. 

Jewish Labour MP who called Corbyn an anti-Semite says she ‘was right’ to do so

She has not denied it.


----------



## oryx (Aug 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Hodge called Corbyn an anti Semitic racist to his face.
> 
> Jewish Labour MP who called Corbyn an anti-Semite says she ‘was right’ to do so
> 
> She has not denied it.



Wasn't it a 'fucking' anti-Semite? However passionately she felt about the issue in hand this abuse is unacceptable and IMHO she's been let off the hook.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

View of Palestinian Labour party member.



> I hope that the party will maintain its code of conduct. If replaced with a word-for-word copy of the IHRA document, then I, as a member, would be prevented from speaking about what happened to me and my family – our dispossession, forced removal and permanent ban from our home purely because we were Arab.
> 
> This was conducted by the new Israeli state; a state that was founded on discrimination towards Arab people on the basis of religion and ethnicity. If that's not a racist endeavour, I don't know what is. And I should have the freedom, as the victim of that racism, to say so.



From a Palestinian member of the Labour Party: We demand the right to speak about Israel's racism

From what I know of history of this regiohn I agree. Ive met a few Palestinians in London and I'd say this writers views are mainstream amongst Palestinians.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 7, 2018)




----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I don't think Corbyn can win on this whatever he does.



If he can cure "the Left" of this dependence on labelling a country that is carrying out terrible acts as being the same as some other country that carried out other terrible acts in the past, it would be an achievement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2018)

Gerry1time said:


> As a reasonably impartial bystander, it is bizarre to see both of the two main political parties fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting each other.


as a longterm observer of parliamentary politics it's absolutely the norm


----------



## Humirax (Aug 7, 2018)




----------



## ska invita (Aug 7, 2018)

The Farmhouse Coup 
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-centrists-meet-to-take-back-control-of-labour-from-corbyn/


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> The Farmhouse Coup
> https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-centrists-meet-to-take-back-control-of-labour-from-corbyn/



 indeed. Even if they could lever Corbyn out, which they can't, none of that lot would be within a million miles of being able to win a subsequent leadership election.


----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> indeed. Even if they could lever Corbyn out, which they can't, none of that lot would be within a million miles of being able to win a subsequent leadership election.



TBH the fact that they are talking about leaving after they've won an election shows what utter cretins they are; if Corbyn had a majority of anything between 1 and 50 they would wield the power that Rees-Mogg wields now and could veto anything or anyone they didn't like (and certainly Brexit).  

Instead it seems they'll form a new party, which would deprive Corbyn of his majority, which would almost certainly force an election (at which they've just deselected themselves from their safe seats), and Corbyn would come back with an effective majority.  It would be almost impossible to imagine people being that stupid, if only they hadn't already done something of similar daftness with all their Shadow Cabinet posts in 2016.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> TBH the fact that they are talking about leaving after they've won an election shows what utter cretins they are; if Corbyn had a majority of anything between 1 and 50 they would wield the power that Rees-Mogg wields now and could veto anything or anyone they didn't like (and certainly Brexit).
> 
> Instead it seems they'll form a new party, which would deprive Corbyn of his majority, which would almost certainly force an election (at which they've just deselected themselves from their safe seats), and Corbyn would come back with an effective majority.  It would be almost impossible to imagine people being that stupid, if only they hadn't already done something of similar daftness with all their Shadow Cabinet posts in 2016.


what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....


----------



## Combustible (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of it. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



There is also a fair chance that the next election will come about from a government collapse due to the Brexit deal (or lack of it). In which case their splitting of the vote and blocking Corbyn could bring about a hard/no deal Brexit. Which would be kind of funny in a way (as well as being massively shit obviously).


----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



I think even they realise that to do that wouldn't split the vote, they'd just lose to the "official" Labour candidate (assuming that the party didn't try to parachute its own in on top of the locals).  Who would do the canvassing, the knocking on doors etc?  The fact that they are all in safe Labour seats despite their politics shows how strong the party is in them already, never mind when they are up against ex-Labour MPs who are doing it because they fear Labour would win.

At least with winning an election they get to claim that _they_ have a mandate personally, but that what Corbyn was offering was a betrayal of everything decent etc etc etc.  That their action would probably result in another election isn't something that has dawned on them yet.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



Seems unlikely tbh - they might spoil Corbyn's chances but they'd lose their own seats. Don't see any of them going for that. Unless they think they can win on their own personal vote. Which they can't.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 7, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Seems unlikely tbh - they might spoil Corbyn's chances but they'd lose their own seats. Don't see any of them going for that. Unless they think they can win on their own personal vote. Which they can't.


i cant imagine it either...the link above talks about how they may "either form a separate Labour Party within parliament or a new party.” Not sure what that first option would look like exactly.


----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> i cant imagine it either...the link above talks about how they may "either form a separate Labour Party within parliament or a new party.” Not sure what that first option would look like exactly.



They could have done that in 2016 - since HM Leader of the Opposition is a Parliamentary post (as the person followed by the largest number of non-Government MPs in Parliament) rather than the leader of the biggest party outside Parliament (though they are almost always the same), they could have thrown Corbyn out because he didn't have the confidence of his MPs and had one of their own do it instead (assuming that they could have agreed on who that would be).  

Obviously their failure in 2016 to do that has meant that they couldn't do it now, and it would be almost impossible to do it after he'd just won an election, but it is a possibility.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> If he can cure "the Left" of this dependence on labelling a country that is carrying out terrible acts as being the same as some other country that carried out other terrible acts in the past, it would be an achievement.



If you mean equating Israel state with Nazis I have never thought that.

I do however see Israeli state founded on expulsion of Palestinians from there homes.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

I live in Lambeth a borough run by New Labour. Ive dealt with them for years as tenants rep and community issues. I don't think people understand.

They see Corbyn as an aberration. The centre ground is were its at. They see this as practical progressive politics. I think they really believe they represent the ordinary person. Who will return to centre ground.

My Cllrs work in things like IPPR.

They see Corbyn as temporary throwback. Once electorate see his politics aren't dealing with modern world they will once again support centre ground politics.

Problem I see is that they don't have a candidate to replace Corbyn. Chuka was but for whatever reason does not want to stand.

Nor am I clear what politics they have which will replace Corbyn once they have got rid of him.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 7, 2018)

Chuka was, but Chuka isn't a viable candidate any more. 

If any of that deeply dispiriting lot want to win a leadership contest, they'd have to expel a fuckload of the membership to do it. Which would be amusing as fuck, I suppose - MP's that believe social democracy works best if you don't have a mass membership


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2018)

Balbi said:


> they'd have to expel a fuckload of the membership to do it



didn't make a dent last time lol


----------



## J Ed (Aug 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



This is basically what happened in Spain with the formation of the Ciudadanos party, and it is what Bloomberg threatened to do in the US in the event of Sanders winning the Democrats' nomination.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Nor am I clear what politics they have which will replace Corbyn once they have got rid of him.



back to 'sensible' 'moderate' 'third way' probably


----------



## J Ed (Aug 7, 2018)

agricola said:


> I think even they realise that to do that wouldn't split the vote, they'd just lose to the "official" Labour candidate (assuming that the party didn't try to parachute its own in on top of the locals).  Who would do the canvassing, the knocking on doors etc?  The fact that they are all in safe Labour seats despite their politics shows how strong the party is in them already, never mind when they are up against ex-Labour MPs who are doing it because they fear Labour would win.
> 
> At least with winning an election they get to claim that _they_ have a mandate personally, but that what Corbyn was offering was a betrayal of everything decent etc etc etc.  That their action would probably result in another election isn't something that has dawned on them yet.



I think that is why in these talks we hear about the Lib Dems offering up their activists to this new 'centrist' party, but the question there for me is.. just how many of those people can there be? Surely not that many, and of those activists how many would object to being offered up to the most careerist end of the parties that they have fought against for years?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> back to 'sensible' 'moderate' 'third way' probably



As we see in Lambeth.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 7, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> back to 'sensible' 'moderate' 'third way' probably



Surface level Justin Trudeau style twitter politics of representation with George Osborne type economics whirling in the background.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

Balbi said:


> Chuka was, but Chuka isn't a viable candidate any more.
> 
> If any of that deeply dispiriting lot want to win a leadership contest, they'd have to expel a fuckload of the membership to do it. Which would be amusing as fuck, I suppose - MP's that believe social democracy works best if you don't have a mass membership



It doesn't stop him mouthing off.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-antisemitism-jews-chuka-umunna-1.467255

He withdrew from the leadership contest. Imo he should shut up now. He had his opportunity.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I live in Lambeth a borough run by New Labour. Ive dealt with them for years as tenants rep and community issues. I don't think people understand.
> 
> They see Corbyn as an aberration. The centre ground is were its at. They see this as practical progressive politics. I think they really believe they represent the ordinary person. Who will return to centre ground.
> 
> ...



I think the problem for this particular lot is that they've no way of winning a leadership election even without Corbyn and the members who voted for him. This isn't a unified anti-Corbyn PLP it's the progress lot. Their candidate finished well behind Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper let alone Corbyn, I can't see that would change.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 8, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



The article has a quote specifically talking about splitting *after* Corbyn wins the election though:

"A second source told the Express: “As things stand Labour could win the next election simply because the Tories have made such a mess over Brexit and look so incompetent. “If that happens we will break away and either form a separate Labour Party within parliament or a new party.”

As you say they don't expect to win, but this seems to suggest that they think they might not need to. Although it also suggests they haven't even considered really what the reaction would be to them pulling off such a stunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2018)

ska invita said:


> what ive heard is that theyre planning to leave and start a new party most likely _before_ another election exactly to split the vote and spoil a possible Corbyn win. They really cant stand the prospect of a Corbyn win. They dont expect to win, but stopping Corbyn would be some kind of victory for these .....



Nothing more or less than plotting to give the tories another five years in power. The people who would struggle, suffer and die as a result just collateral damage.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Nor am I clear what politics they have which will replace Corbyn once they have got rid of him.



They have no politics. They just want to be the ones presiding over the privatisation, social cleansing and eternal austerity that's already in progress.


----------



## greenfield (Aug 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nothing more or less than plotting to give the tories another five years in power. The people who would struggle, suffer and die as a result just collateral damage.



This. A thousand times this. If they go ahead with their plan they will reveal themselves as the parasitical infection on the Labour party they always were. It won't prevent the damage being done however.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 8, 2018)

greenfield said:


> This. A thousand times this. If they go ahead with their plan they will reveal themselves as the parasitical infection on the Labour party they always were. It won't prevent the damage being done however.


Even if they don't it's pretty illuminating the despair they're in..i always took it to be spineless pandering to the right...I didnt realise the level of hostility they felt to modest social democracy, even when there is a clear public support for it


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2018)

> Around 12 MPs were said to have met in a Sussex farmhouse to discuss policy and prepare to “step in” after the leadership’s “collapse”, sources said.



This was the NF and BNP 'strategy'. Bonkers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2018)

they all voted for that fucking welfare bill, and I know they damn well read it. Theres no good hearts deep down, bowing to realpolitik and balancing forces etc here


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Even if they don't it's pretty illuminating the despair they're in..i always took it to be spineless pandering to the right...I didnt realise the level of hostility they felt to modest social democracy, even when there is a clear public support for it



Politics is just a big circle-jerk of PPE graduates with no experience or understanding of normal human life. I suspect it's not Corbyn's politics the labour right hate him for, so much as the fact he's not from their milleu and he has some miraculous ability to communicate and engage with the vote-cattle, sorry, public.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Politics is just a big circle-jerk of PPE graduates with no experience or understanding of normal human life. I suspect it's not Corbyn's politics the labour right hate him for, so much as the fact he's not from their milleu and he has some miraculous ability to communicate and engage with the vote-cattle, sorry, public.



What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2018)

I spotted this factoid on the front page of a paper yesterday, and it turns out it's the salient point of everyone's story:

corbyn "£144 a night" - Google Search

Next week: "Labour coup in tatters after shock of £9.50 a day parking charge"


----------



## ska invita (Aug 8, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> they all voted for that fucking welfare bill, and I know they damn well read it. Theres no good hearts deep down, bowing to realpolitik and balancing forces etc here


i knew there were some out and out Tories, but I didnt realise how deep the rot was (n the sense of a distinction between lightweights/panderers and committed Tories) -  the overall rot was never in doubt


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If you mean equating Israel state with Nazis I have never thought that.
> 
> I do however see Israeli state founded on expulsion of Palestinians from there homes.


For my two-penneth.  It appears to be the core of the Anti-Semetism issue.  It's quite right to be abhorrent about the policies of the Israeli Govenment and State organisations in what is clearly an effort at purging Israel (and given recent measures passed in the Knesset recently, even Israeli Arabs! The problem comes with the rhetoric involved.  When talking about 'Trump-loving Jews' and similar statements, that crosses a line.  One problem that isn't reported enough though is that some of the individuals receiving the abuse are verging on apologists for the Israeli states actions.  Neither positions are helpful. Labour appears to be in a public relations crisis at the moment (launched by certain papers, to be sure), but they seem unwilling or ineffectual  to address it and it will be damaging to them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.



If, hypothetically, Corbyn had brought half a million new members into the labour party, would that count as evidence? How about achieving a massive increase in the Labour vote at a general election despite zero support from the establishment media?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


North London Poly is hardly Oxbridge. He clearly does communicate with people that the Blairites couldn't, which is why those extra million or two votes came as a surprise to many.


----------



## krink (Aug 8, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> they all voted for that fucking welfare bill, and I know they damn well read it. Theres no good hearts deep down, bowing to realpolitik and balancing forces etc here



this is something i like to remind the 3 mps in my city but now they've started saying they did so tactically so they could amend the bill or stop an amended bill or something? im not sure as i didn't pay it much attention as quite frankly, i wouldn't trust those three shits if they told me the sun was hot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2018)

krink said:


> this is something i like to remind the 3 mps in my city but now they've started saying they did so tactically so they could amend the bill or stop an amended bill or something? im not sure as i didn't pay it much attention as quite frankly, i wouldn't trust those three shits if they told me the sun was hot.



My memory of all those succesful amendments and the thousands of people they saved from poverty has inexplicably deserted me


----------



## agricola (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.



The bubble does not consist of white males from Islington, you know - it just mostly consists of them.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


His communication with the Jewish community is pretty lively.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> If, hypothetically, Corbyn had brought half a million new members into the labour party, would that count as evidence? How about achieving a massive increase in the Labour vote at a general election despite zero support from the establishment media?



Half a million new members is nothing to be sneered at. And there is no doubt that Corbyn has achieved something remarkable there. However, his personal ratings with the 'vote cattle' are less impressive. The latest poll (Ipsos Mori 20-24 July) indicates that Corbyn is less popular than May: 55% to 27% want him gone by the next election.

As for his background - he grew up in a manor house ,he went to a prep school before grammar school, he then went off to do some VSO work, became a union full timer and he's been an MP for 30 odd years. Not an Oxbridge PPE true, but also not from a 'different milieu' either.


----------



## agricola (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Half a million new members is nothing to be sneered at. And there is no doubt that Corbyn has achieved something remarkable there. However, his personal ratings with the 'vote cattle' are less impressive. The latest poll (Ipsos Mori 20-24 July) indicates that Corbyn is less popular than May: 55% to 27% want him gone by the next election.



Those leadership polls are meaningless though; when questioned people generally assess a political leader as strong if they are visibly in control of their party rather than using any other measure of leadership (such as actual performance, or the quality of their policies, or remaining steadfast when threatened) - hence why May's leadership ratings tumbled the moment the ERG threatened a revolt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Half a million new members is nothing to be sneered at. And there is no doubt that Corbyn has achieved something remarkable there. However, his personal ratings with the 'vote cattle' are less impressive. The latest poll (Ipsos Mori 20-24 July) indicates that Corbyn is less popular than May: 55% to 27% want him gone by the next election.
> 
> As for his background - he grew up in a manor house ,he went to a prep school before grammar school, he then went off to do some VSO work, became a union full timer and he's been an MP for 30 odd years. Not an Oxbridge PPE true, but also not from a 'different milieu' either.


35 years and a councillor for 9 before that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


precisely the same milieu?  the preponderance of people - men and women - on the front benches of the last labour administration, the nefandous coalition and the current conservative government who have precisely the same life experiences, most frequently private school followed by oxbridge and most likely ppe at oxbridge, from whence they graduated to working for their chosen party and were consequently selected for seats in parliament is rather different from corbyn's past. he hasn't a degree. he isn't in the networks of the oxbridge mafia. while he has been a public representative since 1974 he never sought aggrandisement and only put his name forwards for the leadership election following miliband's departure so the views of the campaign group could be aired. like him or loathe him, it doesn't matter a jot to me. but if you can't see the difference between corbyn's past and the experiences of hague, cameron, blair, may, gove, johnson, and a whole host of other members of the political class you've a problem.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> precisely the same milieu?  the preponderance of people - men and women - on the front benches of the last labour administration, the nefandous coalition and the current conservative government who have precisely the same life experiences, most frequently private school followed by oxbridge and most likely ppe at oxbridge, from whence they graduated to working for their chosen party and were consequently selected for seats in parliament is rather different from corbyn's past. he hasn't a degree. he isn't in the networks of the oxbridge mafia. while he has been a public representative since 1974 he never sought aggrandisement and only put his name forwards for the leadership election following miliband's departure so the views of the campaign group could be aired. like him or loathe him, it doesn't matter a jot to me. but if you can't see the difference between corbyn's past and the experiences of hague, cameron, blair, may, gove, johnson, and a whole host of other members of the political class you've a problem.



1. The post I responded to (#22199) didn't mention "the front benches of the last labour administration, the nefandous coalition and the current conservative government" it specifically stated 'politics' and 'the Labour right' and claimed Corbyn was an outsider to this 'politics' and this specific grouping. To me the poster was suggesting Corbyn had suddenly emerged and was not someone who has worked inside the same system for nearly 40 years.
2. The post by me that you responded to ended with this "not an Oxbridge PPE, true" to which you state indicates that I've got a 'problem' of not being able to differentiate between the strain of the political class that Corbyn belongs to and the political class represented by erm Oxbridge PPE types that I explicitly said he didn't belong to in the post you replied to and then you mention Hague, Cameron, Blair etc as proof. Bizarre.
3. I can't be arsed to look but I am sure the last Labour frontbench had loads of people on it that went to grammar schools and then went to work in politics before becoming MP's. I am sure members of the current Labour right also had a similar journey. This is the _same as Corbyn_.
4. The fact that Corbyn is from the Campaign Group and therefore has been an outsider to the previous prevailing currents within the PLP is irrelevant to any of these facts but helpful in having a dig at me for saying something that I didn't say for reasons I didn't mention.
5. 'Milieu' was in inverted commas. Because I didn't use the phrase.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 1. The post I responded to (#22199) didn't mention "the front benches of the last labour administration, the nefandous coalition and the current conservative government" it specifically stated 'politics' and 'the Labour right' and claimed Corbyn was an outsider to this 'politics' and this specific grouping. To me the poster was suggesting Corbyn had suddenly emerged and was not someone who has worked inside the same system for nearly 40 years.
> 2. The post by me that you responded to ended with this "not an Oxbridge PPE, true" to which you state indicates that I've got a 'problem' of not being able to differentiate between the strain of the political class that Corbyn belongs to and the political class represented by erm Oxbridge PPE types that I explicitly said he didn't belong to in the post you replied to and then you mention Hague, Cameron, Blair etc as proof. Bizarre.
> 3. I can't be arsed to look but I am sure the last Labour frontbench had loads of people on it that went to grammar schools and then went to work in politics before becoming MP's. I am sure members of the current Labour right also had a similar journey. This is the _same as Corbyn_.
> 4. The fact that Corbyn is from the Campaign Group and therefore has been an outsider to the previous prevailing currents within the PLP is irrelevant to any of these facts but helpful in having a dig at me for saying something that I didn't say for reasons I didn't mention.
> 5. 'Milieu' was in inverted commas. Because I didn't use the phrase.


None of which makes a jot of difference


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> None of which makes a jot of difference



Well it does because it demonstrates you didn’t read the thread properly before posting your comments


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


So when you say corby is from precisely the same 'milieu' you don't in fact mean he is from precisely the same 'milieu'. Why can't you say what you mean and stick to it instead of slithering about like an oiled-up snake?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well it does because it demonstrates you didn’t read the thread properly before posting your comments


Jesus Mary and Joseph  stop digging for fuck's sake


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> So when you say corby is from precisely the same 'milieu' you don't in fact mean he is from precisely the same 'milieu'. Why can't you say what you mean and stick to it instead of slithering about like an oiled-up snake?



I did say what I meant. I didn't realise I needed to add an explainer for those who can't be arsed to read the comment I was replying to


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Politics is just a big circle-jerk of PPE graduates with no experience or understanding of normal human life. I suspect it's not Corbyn's politics the labour right hate him for, so much as the fact he's not from their milleu and he has some miraculous ability to communicate and engage with the vote-cattle, sorry, public.





Smokeandsteam said:


> What are you on about? Corbyn and his team are from precisely the same 'mileu'. You also need to provide some facts to back up your assertion that he can communicate outside of the bubble.


so in your view the parliamentary labour party is the milieu (or 'milieu') of the labour right. there is no labour left milieu. or 'milieu'. yet this milieu (or 'milieu') is somehow not a subset of the wider political circle jerk of ppe graduates: peculiar.



Smokeandsteam said:


> Half a million new members is nothing to be sneered at. And there is no doubt that Corbyn has achieved something remarkable there. However, his personal ratings with the 'vote cattle' are less impressive. The latest poll (Ipsos Mori 20-24 July) indicates that Corbyn is less popular than May: 55% to 27% want him gone by the next election.
> 
> As for his background - he grew up in a manor house ,he went to a prep school before grammar school, he then went off to do some VSO work, became a union full timer and he's been an MP for 30 odd years. Not an Oxbridge PPE true, but also not from a 'different milieu' either.


so what you're saying here, rather strangely, is that corbyn is in the milieu (or 'milieu') that is the labour right. even if he doesn't have a ppe degree.



Smokeandsteam said:


> 1. The post I responded to (#22199) didn't mention "the front benches of the last labour administration, the nefandous coalition and the current conservative government" it specifically stated 'politics' and 'the Labour right' and claimed Corbyn was an outsider to this 'politics' and this specific grouping. To me the poster was suggesting Corbyn had suddenly emerged and was not someone who has worked inside the same system for nearly 40 years.


and you have a go at me for not reading the thread  reread SpookyFrank's post and point out to me, please, where he suggests or intimates that corbyn 'suddenly emerged'. go on, i dare you.





> 2. The post by me that you responded to ended with this "not an Oxbridge PPE, true" to which you state indicates that I've got a 'problem' of not being able to differentiate between the strain of the political class that Corbyn belongs to and the political class represented by erm Oxbridge PPE types that I explicitly said he didn't belong to in the post you replied to and then you mention Hague, Cameron, Blair etc as proof. Bizarre.


THE post? THE post? i responded in quick succession to TWO of your posts. in my FIRST response i pointed out that jc has been an mp for 35 (not 30 odd) years, and had 9 years as a councillor before that. i did not at that point (post 22212) raise any of the issues you put forward here. i think you're getting confused with post 22213, where i did. please could you read the thread more closely, so you don't make an arse of yourself like this again.





> 3. I can't be arsed to look but I am sure the last Labour frontbench had loads of people on it that went to grammar schools and then went to work in politics before becoming MP's. I am sure members of the current Labour right also had a similar journey. This is the _same as Corbyn_.


i can't be arsed to reply to this sort of 'i'll make it up as i go along' drivel.





> 4. The fact that Corbyn is from the Campaign Group and therefore has been an outsider to the previous prevailing currents within the PLP is irrelevant to any of these facts but helpful in having a dig at me for saying something that I didn't say for reasons I didn't mention.


but just a moment ago you were arguing that jc was in the same 'milieu'/milieu/current as the labour right. you're not very good at this, you know.


> 5. 'Milieu' was in inverted commas. Because I didn't use the phrase.


whatever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I did say what I meant. I didn't realise I needed to add an explainer for those who can't be arsed to read the comment I was replying to


if you meant what you said then you are full of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Did you have a nice holiday Pickman's model ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Did you have a nice holiday Pickman's model ?


yes, and that's one reason i'm in such a foul mood.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Did you have a nice holiday Pickman's model ?


here's one of my holiday snaps, of the tundra


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Phwoar. Did you do it by trains?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Phwoar. Did you do it by trains?


boat tbh. and i was hundreds of miles north of the trans-siberian.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2018)

I’ll have a last go:

1. SF “I suspect it's not Corbyn's politics the labour right hate him for, so much as the fact he's not from their milleu”

This is not correct. He is from exactly the same ‘mileu’. By upbringing and career he’s from precisely the same social environment. He represents a different current _within _that shared social environment.

2. You’ve piled in accusing me of failing to understand that Corbyn isn’t a PPE from Cambridge. I agree that he isn’t. That’s why I said he wasn’t before you accused me of having a massive problem for not understanding he wasn’t.

3. I’m not interested in Corbyn’s career choices and so on. It’s uttetly irrelevant to the question of if  he’s hated because he’s from a different social environment to the rest of the PLP.

The rest of your reply is you justifying the rest of your original rant on this by asking further questions about unrelated matters and agreeing with your own earlier points.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

Interesting that the historian here believes that Antisemitism is in the DNA of the Labour party and movements that predate the party; because of their creation to challenge the 'capitalist class' and how the history of Jewish people (through business/industry) in this country is unavoidably linked to that because of the championing workers'rights/critiquing capitalism. 

Starts at about 6:45 minutes.



I also wonder about him saying that it antisemitic to imagine Jewish people could be loyal to Israel  over the countries they live in. I have certainly experienced that sentimentality/loyality/blinkeredness, certainly not limited to Jewish people though. The idea of 'homeland' and such feelings are not uncommon with people/communities throughout the world who are living the migrant/immigrant experience, even among 2nd and 3rd generations.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 8, 2018)

That looks nice Pickman's model (the holiday snap)

i dont see any McDonalds though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’ll have a last go:
> 
> 1. SF “I suspect it's not Corbyn's politics the labour right hate him for, so much as the fact he's not from their milleu”
> 
> ...


at least i agree with the points i have previously made. you manage to differ with yours. you're all over the place.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I also wonder about him saying that it antisemitic to imagine Jewish people could be loyal to Israel  over the countries they live in. I have certainly experienced that sentimentality/loyality/blinkeredness, certainly not limited to Jewish people though. The idea of 'homeland' and such feelings are not uncommon with people/communities throughout the world who are living the migrant/immigrant experience, even among 2nd and 3rd generations.




i'm not going to watch that right now but .. you think all Jews in uk are living "a migrant / immigrant experience ?" Sod off.
We were allowed back in the mid 1600s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

redcogs said:


> That looks nice Pickman's model (the holiday snap)
> 
> i dont see any McDonalds though?


no mcd's. only one pizza place.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> i'm not going to watch that right now but .. you think all Jews in uk are living "a migrant / immigrant experience ?" Sod off.



Where did I write that? Where did I write ALL anyone?

You don't get a monopoly or to put words into my mouth. Got it?

It's like you think every post on this thread belongs to you.  Sod off yourself.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Where did I write that? Where did I write ALL anyone?
> 
> You don't get a monopoly or to put words into my mouth. Got it?
> 
> It's like you think every post on this thread belongs to you.  Sod off yourself.


ok. So its only SOME british jews you think are more loyal to Israel than the country they're living in. What does this loyalty look like, how does it manifest itself?

I don't "think i own this thread' that's totally in your head. You can't object to me replying to your post surely, am i supposed to just stay silent ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> ok. So its only SOME british jews you think are more loyal to Israel than the country they're living in. What does this loyalty look like, how does it manifest itself?



Read what I fucking wrote. 'Throughout the world' ,'Not limited to Jewish people/communities'  do those things mean anything to you?

Also watch vid before you loose your fucking shit. The historian raises interesting points that I had not considered, two of which I have commented on above.

Also, you've got a flaming nerve accusing me of having an aggressive tone, nearly all your posts seem to be written in cat scratching nails and dripping with sneery dismissiveness.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 I'm going to ignore the stuff about who has an agressive tone of voice because its too funny.

Are there any other people living in the uk apart from _some _jews who you think might be 'more loyal' to their "homeland" than the county in which they actually have lived all their lives ?

If so how does that manifest?


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 8, 2018)

I’m not saying all the Bolsheviks were Jews


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm going to ignore the stuff about who has an agressive tone of voice because its too funny.
> 
> Are there any other people living in the uk who you think might be 'more loyal' to their "homeland" than the county in which they actually have lived all their lives ? If so how does that manifest?


i have never felt any loyalty to the county of london


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m not saying all the Bolsheviks were Jews


good.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i have never felt any loyalty to the county of london



I’ve always felt a curious fondness for Sutton


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> good.



Glad you approve


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

I've always been really confused about whether or not London is a county. Or is it middlesex.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> I've always been really confused about whether or not London is a county. Or is it middlesex.


 Depends when you were born


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> I've always been really confused about whether or not London is a county. Or is it middlesex.


london was a county from 1889 to 1965, when it (and middlesex, which was an ancient county) ceased to exist as administrative units and were incorporated into greater london; the glc took on the administrative roles of the london county council and its middlesex equivalent.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Depends when you were born


a long long time ago. Does that make it more likely i'm from Middlesex?


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> london was a county from 1889 to 1965, when it (and middlesex, which was an ancient county) ceased to exist as administrative units and were incorporated into greater london; the glc took on the administrative roles of the london county council and its middlesex equivalent.


So.. what county am i in right now? Is greater london a county?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> So.. what county am i in right now? Or is it none?


i don't know, where are you?


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know, where are you?


se5, between brixton & camberwell.. definitely london.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> se5, between brixton & camberwell.. definitely london.


formerly surrey


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> formerly surrey


and now?

eta this whilst a pressing issue is not for here, sorry. I hope  Rutita1 will reply to the above question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> and now?


part of greater london, which for all intents and purposes is the successor body to the county of london, the county of middlesex and parts of essex, surrey etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

> I hope  Rutita1 will reply to the above question.



What the question that I already answered in the post you took offense to? If you hadn't spontaneously combusted and actually read the post properly you'd know that.

So no I won't be wasting my evening on you and your idiocy and stop tagging me like you've got anything interesting to say.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> What the question that I already answered in the post you took offense to?
> 
> No I won't be wasting my evening on you and your idiocy and stop tagging me like you've got anything interesting to say.



No, this one:


Are there any other people living in the uk apart from _some _jews who you think might be 'more loyal' to their "homeland" than the county in which they actually have lived all their lives ?

If so how does that manifest?

Just one example will do.

I'm only asking because a few minutes ago you decided to write : "
 "I also wonder about him saying that it antisemitic to imagine Jewish people could be loyal to Israel over the countries they live in."


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting that the historian here believes that Antisemitism is in the DNA of the Labour party and movements that predate the party; *because of their creation to challenge the 'capitalist class' and how the history of Jewish people (through business/industry) in this country is unavoidably linked to that because of the championing workers'rights/critiquing capitalism. *
> 
> Starts at about 6:45 minutes.



Hi. I've watched that bit it now.
Did you post it because you want to talk about it?
Or just cos you think its true that jews are to blame for the capitalist industrialisation of Britain.Which that man says they were _blamed for. _
You might want to read some history?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Hi. I've watched that bit it now.
> Did you post it because you want to talk about it?
> Or just cos you think its true that jews are to blame for the capitalist industrialisation of Britain.Which that man says they were _blamed for. _
> You might want to read some history?



Good grief. You clearly are a nasty piece of work. What a cuntish thing to accuse me of given I haven't written anything on this thread that would suggest I do think that.

If your head weren't so firmly up your own pompous, sneery arse you may have noticed that I also said I found what he said interesting because I hadn't come across his points about the pre-labour movements before and his ideas about it being in the DNA of the labour party.

One thing is for certain..whilst I did post that because I wanted to talk about it i'll not discuss anything with you. You are pathetic. You might want fuck off now. Seriously, never try that shit with me again.

I used to feel sorry for the way others would come at you, I think I get it now.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

righto.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 8, 2018)

MikeMcc said:


> For my two-penneth.  It appears to be the core of the Anti-Semetism issue.  It's quite right to be abhorrent about the policies of the Israeli Govenment and State organisations in what is clearly an effort at purging Israel (and given recent measures passed in the Knesset recently, even Israeli Arabs! The problem comes with the rhetoric involved.  When talking about 'Trump-loving Jews' and similar statements, that crosses a line.  One problem that isn't reported enough though is that some of the individuals receiving the abuse are verging on apologists for the Israeli states actions.  Neither positions are helpful. Labour appears to be in a public relations crisis at the moment (launched by certain papers, to be sure), but they seem unwilling or ineffectual  to address it and it will be damaging to them.



I don't see it as being about neither positions being helpful.

Its that people have opposing views on Israel.

An anecdote. I used to regularly chat to old Black Cab driver in London. Very old, Jewish working class East Ender. Nice guy. In his youth he had gone to Israel to work on Kibbutz. He didn't want to emigrate there but for him Israel was important. He was Labour voter. There always has been section of Labour party voters that was pro Israel. It was about pioneers coming to an empty land and building a socialist Israel. He genuinely believed that. Whilst not living there himself it was symbolically important for him.

The other section of Labour party see Palestinian expulsion from their homes as the issue.

I met people from middle East in London. Studying or learning English here.  For them the Palestinians are their bothers expelled from homes by the Jews. That is how they see it. And they aren't full on political activists. Palestine is issue also for British people of middle Eastern descent.

This isn't just about Corbyn. Its that for first time the Labour party has leader who has track record supporting Palestinians. That is important for many people.

If politicians/ certain media think getting rid of Corbyn will get rid of the issue of Palestine they are wrong.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

Rutita1 I know you don't like me but please try to calm down. I am really seriously interested in the subject that you posted about, for obvious reasons. If you don't want to discuss the subject of antisemitism why post about it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Rutita1 I know you don't like me but please try to calm down.



0/10. Like I said, pathetic.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2018)

What actually is your problem with me Rutita1 ? we have never met.
I asked you a simple question about what you have written here.
You refuse to answer and do loads of swearing and weird personal insult stuff. .
Seriously, if this was a conversation about any other 'minority' can you imagine treating a person from that demographIc in this way and it being fine with you? ( real question, please try to consider it as such)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 8, 2018)

@Angry_Voice :

BBC journalist on Boris Johnson: "Do you think there is a danger of over-reaction in this case?"

How many times did you hear BBC journalists ask questions like this when the lifelong anti-fascist @jeremycorbyn was being smeared as "an existential threat to the Jewish community"?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 9, 2018)

bimble said:


> What actually is your problem with me Rutita1 ? we have never met.
> I asked you a simple question about what you have written here.
> You refuse to answer and do loads of swearing and weird personal insult stuff. .
> Seriously, if this was a conversation about any other 'minority' can you imagine treating a person from that demographIc in this way and it being fine with you? ( real question, please try to consider it as such)


Typical Rutita. Posts unclear hard to decipher guff (I interpreted her posts in a similar way to you), and the abuses people and blames them for not being able to read or deliberately misreading her (whatever that means) when people question the shit she just posted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2018)

bimble said:


> What actually is your problem with me Rutita1 ? we have never met.
> I asked you a simple question about what you have written here.
> You refuse to answer and do loads of swearing and weird personal insult stuff. .
> Seriously, if this was a conversation about any other 'minority' can you imagine treating a person from that demographIc in this way and it being fine with you? ( real question, please try to consider it as such)


To be fair you're hardly a stranger to refusing to answer and doing weird insult stuff


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Typical Rutita. Posts unclear hard to decipher guff (I interpreted her posts in a similar way to you), and the abuses people and blames them for not being able to read or deliberately misreading her (whatever that means) when people question the shit she just posted.



Says the person who lost their shit and called me an entitled cunt because I had the audacity to tag them and ask them what they meant by a post recently. 

Didn't get you fill then so are trying to piggy back/get a tag team going now?

Good god you are a try hard.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 9, 2018)

Can't come soon enough imo.

Anti-Corbyn Labour MPs in peril as UK's biggest Trade Union 'backs Mandatory Reselection vote' at 2018 Labour Conference | Evolve Politics


----------



## redcogs (Aug 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no mcd's. only one pizza place.


my late uncle Bernard supported the USSR all his life.  When the "Fucker" Yeltzin came into office following the USSR's collapse he said that it wouldn't be long before McDonalds were "everywhere across Russia", a prospect that filled him in equal measure with anger and desperation..

i didn't share all my uncles views on Stalinist Russia's social system, but your lovely snap of the Tundra (was it Russia?) reminded me of Bernard and his words.  i just checked, and it turns out there are 645 branches of McDonalds in Russia today. Hardly a matter for rejoicing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2018)

redcogs said:


> my late uncle Bernard supported the USSR all his life.  When the "Fucker" Yeltzin came into office following the USSR's collapse he said that it wouldn't be long before McDonalds were "everywhere across Russia", a prospect that filled him in equal measure with anger and desperation..
> 
> i didn't share all my uncles views on Stalinist Russia's social system, but your lovely snap of the Tundra (was it Russia?) reminded me of Bernard and his words.  i just checked, and it turns out there are 645 branches of McDonalds in Russia today. Hardly a matter for rejoicing.


Yeh, it was taken near tiksi, which doesn't boast a mcd's I could find but did have a pizza joint. Didn't use it tho.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 9, 2018)

We have something to thank Johnson for, his Islamophobia postbox comments
have distracted the press from the antisemitism issues.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 9, 2018)

hash tag said:


> We have something to thank Johnson for, his Islamophobia postbox comments
> have distracted the press from the antisemitism issues.



Don't worry, no doubt they'll find some publicity hungry labour MP to accuse the tories of having an ingrained Islamophobia problem thereby paving the way for shouts of hypocrisy and back to Corbyn = Hitler again for whats left of the summer.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 9, 2018)

A little local difficulty in New Labour/ Progress Lambeth as one of their own apologizes for past FB post. Doesn't fit the narrative that its all the fault of Corbyn. 

Thanks to Tricky Skills for this info.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 9, 2018)

hash tag said:


> We have something to thank Johnson for, his Islamophobia postbox comments
> have distracted the press from the antisemitism issues.



Baroness Warsi ( a conservative) has been complaining about Islamaphobia in Tory party for some time. Heard her on radio talking about her political career and life. She thinks its issue that Tory party has ignored. She resigned over Tory parties lack of support for Palestinian rights. 

Recently said this.


> The peer said she had written to Theresa May about the issue and submitted a dossier of evidence but "absolutely nothing tangible" had happened in response.
> 
> The time for an internal investigation had passed, she said, and only a "forensic, wide-ranging and transparent inquiry" would now suffice.




Tory peer calls for Islamophobia inquiry

I doubt this will happen. I also doubt media will give it as much coverage as anti semitism.


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> A little local difficulty in New Labour/ Progress Lambeth as one of their own apologizes for past FB post. Doesn't fit the narrative that its all the fault of Corbyn.
> 
> Thanks to Tricky Skills for this info.




Just in case people missed it ,what he's apologised for is a sharing a video about how all the jews who worked in the twin towers got a text message telling them to not go to work that day, so israel probably did 911 etc. Which is a pretty classic example of the kind of thing that follows on from the idea that jews are 'more loyal' to their "homeland" / their secret shared interests than the countries they live in.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 10, 2018)

literally queuing up to pat his back on such a 'great apology' on twitter - would this have happened if he wasn't a Progress shill / committed anti Corbynite  ?

And how do you 'not recognise' anti semitic' content in a video like that exactly ?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 12, 2018)

Photos show Labour leader Corbyn at tribute event for Palestine 'martyrs' linked to Munich massacre | Daily Mail Online


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 12, 2018)

Labour party's biggest union backers aim to force Jeremy Corbyn into global definition of anti-Semitism


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2018)

gentlegreen said:


> Photos show Labour leader Corbyn at tribute event for Palestine 'martyrs' linked to Munich massacre | Daily Mail Online


Do you have any views on this 'news'?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 12, 2018)

Santino said:


> Do you have any views on this 'news'?


If he was genuinely supporting the Olympic terrorists, I would be hoping Labour found themselves a new leader before I'm obliged to choose who to vote for next time round.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2018)

gentlegreen said:


> Photos show Labour leader Corbyn at tribute event for Palestine 'martyrs' linked to Munich massacre | Daily Mail Online



Saw some facebook post saying the mail was talking bollocks and it was a memorial for kids killed in an air strike in morocco (i think) in the 80s - but cant find link. other media dont seem to have picked up the story so could well be the mail shit flinging (surely not etc ..)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2018)

Labour denies Jeremy Corbyn honoured Munich Massacre terrorists amid fresh claims


> Mr Corbyn has previously insisted he visited Tunisia in 2014, a year before becoming Labour leader, to commemorate the 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike in 1985 and "others killed by Mossad agents".
> 
> But the paper said its pictures show Mr Corbyn standing 15 yards from the monument to the air strike victims and in front of the graves of the Black September members.
> 
> ...


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 12, 2018)

At the end of day Corbyn has done some things in the past that with hindsight seem fucking dumb for a politician to do and he now probably regrets but he probably never imagined he had a shot at being PM ever
Also come the next election, I and a great many other people will vote for him because in my case I want something done about the NHS being on the verge of collapse, a massive housing crisis that is pricing out an entire generation and an education system that is starved of funds and on its knees and I think the Labour Party is more likely to do something about that than the Tories are.
There are other things in the Labour manifesto that I am not so keen on but my choices are limited here to them or the current shower of fuckwits so I accept that I take the good with the meh and the bad.
This anit-Semitic row is probably very important to some people but most people will go meh because there truly are more important issues to vote on.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 12, 2018)

The right wing media will relentlessly (and predictably) peddle falsehood and lies to undermine Jeremy. It will not stop because they assume their parasitic class and share holding interests are at stake.  my hope is that he can remain strong enough to ride the storm until the general election (early next spring?).  A double bonus would be Labour winning the election and taking proper measures to clip the wings of the wealthy - but that is another matter..

A lesser man would have buckled by now, and Corbyn's incredible inner strength really impresses.  'May the road rise with you' Jezza (in a secular sense)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 12, 2018)

What would it take to get rid of Corbyn?. A failure in a GE?


----------



## Supine (Aug 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> What would it take to get rid of Corbyn?. A failure in a GE?



Shouldn't be long to wait then


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2018)

wasn't that the plan last summer?


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2018)




----------



## Hollis (Aug 12, 2018)

Dunno if this has been posted before, but it's an interesting analysis/commentary:

Corbyn’s open secret – anyabike – Medium


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 13, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> What would it take to get rid of Corbyn?. A failure in a GE?



Well a prerequisite is going to be the ability to get a left wing candidate onto the slate to replace him. There's no point at which he'll stand down in response to another Mail scare story and let another 'moderate' take over.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Dunno if this has been posted before, but it's an interesting analysis/commentary:
> 
> Corbyn’s open secret – anyabike – Medium


delighted to see the google Columbos infest the rest of the internet as well as here.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2018)

The Liberal lefts embrace of vindictive conspiracism post brexit is hilarious.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> delighted to see the google Columbos infest the rest of the internet as well as here.


 
I was about to note the same thing- it’s a terrible bit of cyberspace kojakery


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2018)

Reasons to get rid of Corbyn: he stood over there, not there.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

I have measured the distance between the graves on google earth, and can only conclude it is a resigning matter.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> I have measured the distance between the graves on google earth, and can only conclude it is a resigning matter.


'Our reporter paced it out and he's got really short legs'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2018)

Wilf said:


> 'Our reporter paced it out and he's got really short legs'.


All that cosmopolitanism rootlessness. Wears them down.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 13, 2018)

Disgusting and desperate shit from the Mail, as usual. Where's their outrage over the UK government selling weapons to the Saudis that are then used to blow up kids? Of course they'd keep silent about that.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Dunno if this has been posted before, but it's an interesting analysis/commentary:
> 
> Corbyn’s open secret – anyabike – Medium



took two mins to confirm her inevitable Terf credentials...


----------



## Hollis (Aug 13, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Reasons to get rid of Corbyn: he stood over there, not there.



It's not quite as simple as that though is it? It's a newsworthy story in itself - whether or not a potential future PM laid a wreath for terrorists.  I read the article with initial scepticism, but there does seen to be a case to answer, particularly with regard to the original story.  Which it now appears he's trying to do, albeit not wholly convincingly when you take into account the Morning Star article.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 13, 2018)

Hate to say it, but if this is accurate he's got a big problem.


----------



## bimble (Aug 13, 2018)

Why would this thing if true be a big problem? The people who love magic grandpa won’t change their view of him, he was just going along with the ceremony to be polite to his hosts, he didn’t know, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2018)

after 'corbyn ruined christmas' all these other stories are a let down


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2018)

Jeremy Corbyn 'ruined Christmas' with purge threat, shadow minister says


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2018)

Raheem said:


> Hate to say it, but if this is accurate he's got a big problem.




Why?


----------



## Raheem (Aug 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Why would this thing if true be a big problem? The people who love magic grandpa won’t change their view of him, he was just going along with the ceremony to be polite to his hosts, he didn’t know, etc.


It's not them that really matters, though. What he's done is elevated the story from being a Daily Mail non-news rehash by commenting on it. He's also changed his story and he's doing a hazy memory routine which looks shady and invites further questions, and so the story will not even crescendo and then disappear.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Why would this thing if true be a big problem? The people who love magic grandpa won’t change their view of him, he was just going along with the ceremony to be polite to his hosts, he didn’t know, etc.


I hate corbyn, politically and personally. I don't buy any of it. But you really are an anus.


----------



## bimble (Aug 13, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I hate corbyn, politically and personally. I don't buy any of it. But you really are an anus.


Ouch.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2018)

Suspect it's a bit of a venn diagram: 'I was there mainly for that, some others may have been there for something different, we were all in the same place for something or other' (even if the Mail think he was in the _wrong_ place). It's a non-story for the backbencher of 2014, it's just about a story for the leader of 2018 who now has to play by the rules of the game.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2018)

incidentally, graunidad running with his 'I was there but not involved in ceremony' line, along with a picture of him holding a wreath. 
News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's UK edition | The Guardian


----------



## bellaozzydog (Aug 13, 2018)

killer b said:


>



Amazing bit of coverage of Kinnock being told to STFU by his much much smarter wife, WTF did she see in him


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

bellaozzydog said:


> Amazing bit of coverage of Kinnock being told to STFU by his much much smarter wife, WTF did she see in him


They're EU socdem royalty innit. They probably met interning in glenys kinnock's office in Brussels, like half of the rest of their milieu


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

(actually I think she was at save the children, like the other half)


----------



## Sue (Aug 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> They're EU socdem royalty innit. They probably met interning in glenys kinnock's office in Brussels, like half of the rest of their milieu



I thought they met at the College of Europe which is one of those type of things.

First came across it years ago when the son of my union's General Secretary was there. It all seemed a bit dodgy -- scholarships abounded (paid for by European governments or the EU or something) but the only people who seemed to know about it were people in that milieu.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

yeah, that's right. there's a whole circuit of schools, charities, thinktanks, NGOs, charities & politicians offices that breed these fucks, and they all rise through it. Just a parallel class system I guess.


----------



## agricola (Aug 13, 2018)

Wilf said:


> incidentally, graunidad running with his 'I was there but not involved in ceremony' line, along with a picture of him holding a wreath.
> News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's UK edition | The Guardian



The whole debate on this has been an increasingly depressing expose of how poor almost everyones' comprehension of recent history is.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

I'm slightly surprised about this - I thought everyone would have got bored of it by now. 

Boardmasters crowd nails colours to Labour mast with huge Jeremy Corbyn chant


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2018)

People are digging around what Corbyn did years ago.

As agricola says history is important.

Black September rang a bell. I've seen Speilbergs film on Mossad spending years going after the "terrorists". One of his better films.

If there is to be discussion on what terrorism is and why its always wrong fair enough. But this wreath laying news doesn't do that.

After years stuck in refugee camps perhaps "terrorism" was only way to get plight of Palestinians back on world agenda back then?


----------



## bimble (Aug 13, 2018)

Seriously ? From ‘fake news’ to maybe they had a point when they killed those athletes ?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Seriously ? From ‘fake news’ to maybe they had a point when they killed those athletes ?



Yes seriously. 

To add 

What I'm saying is look at situation Palestinians found themselves in at that time. 

Rather then knee jerk reaction look at the long term history.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2018)

One of Lambeth ex right wing Cllrs reigns over from Labour party over this. They so hate Corbyn. Good riddance. This is Cllr who ridiculed library campaigners in Lambeth. 



Thanks again to Tricky Skills keeping an eye on Lambeth Labour Twitter.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 13, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Yes seriously.



Surprised to find a pro-castration faction on here.


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As agricolaAfter years stuck in refugee camps perhaps "terrorism" was only way to get plight of Palestinians back on world agenda back then?


Not quite how they came about. All part of the war following Israel’s annexation of the West Bank in ‘67. They were quite a successful organisation for a few years. Up till around ‘72 in fact.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 13, 2018)

And Netanyahu has chimed in, there's no good way out of this for Corbyn, is there?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> And Netanyahu has chimed in, there's no good way out of this for Corbyn, is there?




What are you talking about? Netanyahu is rightly reviled as a war criminal in charge of a government implementing laws that resemble apartheid, if anything quite frankly this is good for Corbyn.


----------



## agricola (Aug 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Seriously ? From ‘fake news’ to maybe they had a point when they killed those athletes ?



Not really. 

Of the four Black September terrorists responsible for Munich that Corbyn is meant to have paid his respects to, three of them were killed by (edit) other Palestinians nineteen years after the event and the fourth was killed in circumstances that suggest there were other reasons for his death twenty years after the event.  I have no idea how much or whether they were involved in the Munich murders but nor can I see how we can just blindly label them as such.  There is a good thread on twitter here (apologies if people have seen it already):


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2018)

I dunno, Netanyahu slagging you off strikes me as almost as good at Trump slagging you off.


----------



## billbond (Aug 13, 2018)

He has 1 fan at least



*George Galloway*‏Verified account @georgegalloway Replying to @netanyahu
The most reviled ugly man in the world joins the kick- in at #Corbyn You join him if you want, I #StandUp4Corby


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2018)

billbond said:


> He has 1 fan at least
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is this supposed to imply exactly?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 13, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> And Netanyahu has chimed in, there's no good way out of this for Corbyn, is there?




Err...Netanyahu is hardly a respected, morally revered figure of 'influence'. He is hated. I imagine him chiming in will make some double down on the 'Israel is behind the plot to oust JC' theory that is circulating.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 13, 2018)

J Ed said:


> What are you talking about? Netanyahu is rightly reviled as a war criminal in charge of a government implementing laws that resemble apartheid, if anything quite frankly this is good for Corbyn.


Corbyn can't moderate his position now or it will look like he's giving in to Netanyahu.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn can't moderate his position now or it will look like he's giving in to Netanyahu.



Moderate his position on what?


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

Baffled to report that Sunny Hundal has written something insightful. Click through for the thread...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 14, 2018)

Urban synchronicity..


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> Baffled to report that Sunny Hundal has written something insightful. Click through for the thread...



I think he's confusing the labour party membership with wider society. There most def is _a base_ in the former. Not so much in the latter. There is widespread anti-tory feeling but that's not ness pro-labour except by default and it's most def not pro-corbyn as corbyn. And what there is, tends to be in the most electorally volatile lib-dem one year green next, ooh corbyn top end of the middle class seats.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

The use of 'base' is a bit confusing, agreed - I think his analysis for Labour's solid 40% is about right though - and it _is_ pro-labour pretty much by default.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> The use of 'base' is a bit confusing, agreed - I think his analysis for Labour's solid 40% is about right though - and it _is_ pro-labour pretty much by default.


I would put that about right for now as well. That said, this was Blair's logic. _They have nowhere else to go. _I'm not suggesting that corbyn and labour left are going to engage in the wider shift from formal historical principles that they/he did, but i do think there's a danger of wishing a default anti-tory position into something that i don't think it is.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> And Netanyahu has chimed in, there's no good way out of this for Corbyn, is there?




that was his best possible way out


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn can't moderate his position now or it will look like he's giving in to Netanyahu.


You know that no one gives a shit? It's all irrelevant.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Err...Netanyahu is hardly a respected, morally revered figure of 'influence'. He is hated. I imagine him chiming in will make some double down on the 'Israel is behind the plot to oust JC' theory that is circulating.



there's no such 'theory circulating', except for maybe amongst the fringe cranks, who no one give s a f*ck about, aprt from the people who have most to gain from highlighting their conspira-idiocy, and pushing it as somehow representative of any wider sentiment amongst Lab supporters / members.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> there's no such 'theory circulating', except for maybe amongst the fringe cranks, who no one give s a f*ck about, aprt from the people who have most to gain from their conspira-idiocy



There is i'm afraid. The latest i've seen is about some kind of ap that is attributing/reporting posts as anti-semitic, purported to be originating in Israel...not sure how it is supposed to work as it's batshit and I couldn't face reading all of the article.   Pretty sure the last time I saw it posted yesterday was linked to an article on the 'Electronicintifada'. Not 100% though will need to search.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> There is i'm afraid. The latest i've seen is about some kind of ap that is attributing/reporting posts as anti-semitic, purporting to be originating in Israel...not sure how it is supposed to work as it's batshit and I couldn't face reading all of the article.   Pretty sure the last time I saw it posted yesterday was linked to an article on the 'Electronicintifada'. Not 100% though.



'there's somekind of  app...electronicintida...not 100% though'

  thanks for sharing, but am sure we all have access to enough unsubstantiated bullshit around this subject to last a lifetime - links ?


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> there's no such 'theory circulating', except for maybe amongst the fringe cranks, who no one give s a f*ck about, aprt from the people who have most to gain from highlighting their conspira-idiocy, and pushing it as somehow representative of any wider sentiment amongst Lab supporters / members.


Not sure about that. I must know a lot of cranks.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> 'there's somekind of  app...electronicintida...not 100% though'
> 
> thanks for sharing, but am sure we all have access to enough unsubstantiated bullshit around this subject to last a lifetime - links ?



Is there a reason you are being so hostile?

The only thing I am not sure of is where I last saw the ap/article linked to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

No, I wasn't dreaming.

Israel running campaign against Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> there's no such 'theory circulating', except for maybe amongst the fringe cranks, who no one give s a f*ck about, aprt from the people who have most to gain from highlighting their conspira-idiocy, and pushing it as somehow representative of any wider sentiment amongst Lab supporters / members.


There really is mate. It's the same people over and over of course, but, as i keep arguing around this, they are not fringe people any more. They are active labour members and their way of looking at the world is both influential in momentum and in the people around corbyn - scum like Milne for example. I think they pose a real danger because of this - they're all going to run away when corbyn resigns (before or after or never being pm) because they are loyal to him not the wider labour movement.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Is there a reason you are being so hostile?
> 
> The only thing I am not sure of is where I last saw the ap/article linked to.



wasnt meant to come across as hostile to you, only to ...all this


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

They're _rootless_.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> wasnt meant to come across as hostile to you, only to ...all this



Fair enough. I found the link to EI anyway. See above.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No, I wasn't dreaming.
> 
> Israel running campaign against Jeremy Corbyn




even this, batshit though it is, doesn't in any way say what you claimed :

 'Israel is behind *the* plot to oust JC' theory that is circulating."

it says "  'Israel is behind *A * plot to oust JC' ."

big, big difference...


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> There really is mate. It's the same people over and over of course, but, as i keep arguing around this, they are not fringe people any more. They are active labour members and their way of looking at the world is both influential in momentum and in the people around corbyn - scum like Milne for example. I think they pose a real danger because of this - they're all going to run away when corbyn resigns (before or after or never being pm) because they are loyal to him not the wider labour movement.


I think a lot of previously relatively uninterested, 'unpolitical' members have ended up pushing the conspiracies too, as a result of the cranks being in positions of influence, and the wagon-circling because of the tenor and opportunism of the attacks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

I knew that would be that assadist goon winstanley before i even clicked on it. 

edit: the electronic intifada link that is


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think a lot of previously relatively uninterested, 'unpolitical' members have ended up pushing the conspiracies too, as a result of the cranks being in positions of influence, and the wagon-circling because of the tenor and opportunism of the attacks.


Yep, it's a bad dialectic (or infinity) and needs someone like McDonnell to break it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> even this, batshit though it is, doesn't in any way say what you claimed :
> 
> 'Israel is behind *the* plot to oust JC' theory that is circulating."
> 
> ...



Oh ffs come on...I summarised what I see as the implication of claims like this and others I have seen circulating. I pulled up that link because you questioned me mentioning the ap/Israel link/article as an example. You say you are not being hostile but I think you are now. Read around my post, i'm not the only who has noticed.

I won't respond anymore because I don't need prodding in the chest by you because you don't like what I can see happening.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, it's a bad dialectic (or infinity) and needs someone like McDonnell to break it.


There does seem to be increasing recognition of it as a problem, but I've struggled to get any sense out of anyone who's pushing this line that I've spoken to about it.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> they're all going to run away when corbyn resigns (before or after ... never being pm) because they are loyal to him not the wider labour movement.



I really hope he goes before never being PM. He’s too compromised to be viable, either as PM, or even as an honest broker in any peace negotiation...I don’t think anyone ever accused him of being invoked in the Good Friday agreement.

He might be a nice, principled bloke, but he has to work in the political world, with the media and their “fake news”.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2018)

Sheffield momentum FB is nearly all about this, you wouldn't think that a million people were using food banks, that many hundreds of disabled and sick people have taken their own lives, huge homeless crisis in the city, bad landlords.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, it's a bad dialectic (or infinity) and needs someone like McDonnell to break it.



There are rumours that John Mc is incandescent about the way this is all being handled, especially by Milne, etc.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh ffs come on...I summarised what I see as the implication of claims like this and others I have seen circulating. I pulled up that link because you questioned me mentioning the ap/Israel link/article as an example. You say you are not being hostile but I think you are now. Read around my post, i'm not the only who has noticed.
> 
> I won't respond anymore because I don't need prodding in the chest by you because you don't like what I can see happening.



ok, but would be good to see any links to anything, from anyone, who is quite obviously not a screaming crank, that backs up your claim that this theory is circulating, in any meaningful way  " Israel is behind *the *plot to oust JC' - which is quite obviously conspira-bollocks.

You can immediately resort to claiming 'hostility' - standard - or just provide any evidence at all to back this up, no biggy either way.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

treelover said:


> There are rumours that John Mc is incandescent about the way this is all being handled, especially by Milne, etc.



 coming exclusively from chief FT w*nker Seb Payne


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> ok, but would be good to see any links to anything, from anyone, who is quite obviously not a screaming crank, that backs up your claim that this theory is circulating, in any meaningful way  " Israel is behind *the *plot to oust JC' - which is quite obviously conspira-bollocks.
> 
> You can immediately resort to claiming 'hostility' - standard - or just provide any evidence at all to back this up, no biggy either way.



I accept your apology.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I accept your apology.



lolz, gracious of you


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> There really is mate. It's the same people over and over of course, but, as i keep arguing around this, they are not fringe people any more. They are active labour members and their way of looking at the world is both influential in momentum and in the people around corbyn - scum like Milne for example. I think they pose a real danger because of this - they're all going to run away when corbyn resigns (before or after or never being pm) because they are loyal to him not the wider labour movement.



prevailing mindset amongst Momentum seems to remain much as it has been : We have some cranks in our midsts, particularly on soc media;  we have a shitload of cynical weaponisation of the a/s coming from those cranks, by the Continuity Centrists /PLP, who are aided and abetted by the LFI , and ocassionally the Israeli embassy( Shai Massot etc) , we have the wider jewish community understandably upset / nervous by the noise being created around all this.... and we also have a proud Jewish, lifelong anti racist at the head of Momentum who we doubt is taking much shit from Seamus Milne / anyone else on this matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> prevailing mindset amongst Momentum seems to remain much as it has been : We have some cranks in our midsts, particularly on soc media;  we have a shitload of cynical weaponisation of the a/s coming from those cranks, by the Continuity Centrists /PLP, who are aided and abetted by the LFI , and ocassionally the Israeli embassy( Shai Massot etc) , we have the wider jewish continuity understandably upset / nervous by the noise being created around all this.... and we also have a proud Jewish, lifelong anti racist at the head of Momentum who we doubt is taking much shit from Seamus Milne / anyone else on this matter.


I reckon that's more to do with his private school oxbridge background. And no matter what he says or does Milne is still there. 

But seriously, i don't know how you can keep not seeing this. These people are there, they are active and they do have key roles. And they certainly are influencing some central players - look that that knob on the NEC last month, look at what shawcroft's default position was. That's the poison. That's what comes with low level acceptance of it as a price to pay. Which, i think, has been the reading a lot of people who should have known a whole lot better have put on it.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> ok, but would be good to see any links to anything, from anyone, who is quite obviously not a screaming crank, that backs up your claim that this theory is circulating, in any meaningful way  " Israel is behind *the *plot to oust JC' - which is quite obviously conspira-bollocks.
> 
> You can immediately resort to claiming 'hostility' - standard - or just provide any evidence at all to back this up, no biggy either way.



again, this kinda just follows a pattern...politely ( and maybe over firmly, i dunno ?) request links / evidence.... get accused of hostility...no links / no evidence....move on ....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 14, 2018)

More nuanced thread on Munich-gate here:


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Jeff Robinson said:


> More nuanced thread on Munich-gate here:




v good - and agree re: the conclusion ( and with Butchers etc )  : Corbyn's apparrent blindness on Syria / Russia is indicative of wider problems with his decades old, reflexive 'right side of history' anti imperialism.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 14, 2018)

Has anyone checked where corbyn was during the 72 olympics ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> again, this kinda just follows a pattern...politely ( and maybe over firmly, i dunno ?) request links / evidence.... get accused of hostility...no links / no evidence....move on ....



Yeah I can see a pattern too.

In response to me you wrote....



cantsin said:


> there's no such 'theory circulating', except for maybe amongst the fringe cranks, who no one give s a f*ck about, aprt from the people who have most to gain from highlighting their conspira-idiocy, and pushing it as somehow representative of any wider sentiment amongst Lab supporters / members.




Two other posters wrote...





> There really is mate. It's the same people over and over of course, but, as i keep arguing around this, they are not fringe people any more. They are active labour members and their way of looking at the world is both influential in momentum and in the people around corbyn - scum like Milne for example. I think they pose a real danger because of this - they're all going to run away when corbyn resigns (before or after or never being pm) because they are loyal to him not the wider labour movement.





> Not sure about that. I must know a lot of cranks.



The pattern I am seeing is that you are not being hostile in tone with either of them. You are not demanding links and implying there is some kind of pattern in your experience of them.


What do you want? A list of links to articles/blogs/comment etc that I have seen over the last few years that imply or directly push the theory of Israeli involvement through interest groups/the lobby in removing JC as leader of the LP? Have you really seen none of them/that circulating?


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

Leave me out of this ta.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 14, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Has anyone checked where corbyn was during the 72 olympics ?


Highbury Knitting Circle AGM. Anything to avoid having to stand for the Israeli anthem.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> Leave me out of this ta.



I'm not trying to include you. Ta.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah I can see a pattern too.
> 
> In response to me you wrote....
> 
> ...



amigo, life is short, we are all of us hurtling towards the abyss, so forgive me asking for the 4th and last time for ANY supporting evidence for your assertion below, that involved anyone but fringe cranks / nazis / conspiraloons / illuminati tin foil hatters - OFFER OPEN TO ALL, KILLER/BUTCHERS ETC :



cantsin said:


> ok, but would be good to see any links to anything, from anyone, who is quite obviously not a screaming crank, that backs up your claim that this theory is circulating, in any meaningful way
> *" Israel is behind the plot to oust JC'* - which is quite obviously conspira-bollocks.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

I know loads of labour party members and supporters, and there's a spread of conspiracist thinking in them - even fairly sensible ones - which I don't have evidence for because it involves conversations, things they share and talk about on social media, etc etc. You're just going to have to take my word on that (or not). 

I'm not very interested in providing any evidence for something rutita has said though, as mentioned above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> I know loads of labour party members and supporters, and there's a spread of conspiracist thinking in them - even fairly sensible ones - which I don't have evidence for because it involves conversations, things they share and talk about on social media, etc etc. You're just going to have to take my word on that (or not).
> 
> I'm not very interested in providing any evidence for something rutita has said though, as mentioned above.


to be fair, after the way people in the labour party went after corbyn you can understand why some labour party people would become conspiracist being as there have been conspiracies in their own party to depose the leader.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

killer b said:


> I know loads of labour party members and supporters, and there's a spread of conspiracist thinking in them - even fairly sensible ones - which I don't have evidence for because it involves conversations, things they share and talk about on social media, etc etc. You're just going to have to take my word on that (or not).
> 
> I'm not very interested in providing any evidence for something rutita has said though, as mentioned above.



dont doubt it, it's just the daftness of this idea that anyone even remotely sensible cld be putting fwd the idea that 'israel are behind THE plot to joust JC' - ( sorry, repeating myself ) - like some unified, absurd conspira-theory that explains everything


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> dont doubt it, it's just the daftness of this idea that anyone even remotely sensible cld be putting fwd the idea that 'israel are behind THE plot to joust JC' - ( sorry, repeating myself ) - like some unified, absurd conspira-theory that explains everything



You are moving the goalposts...nowhere did I suggest it was some kind of _*unified theory that explains everything*_. I have seen stuff dating back a couple of years at least on SM and heard stuff in conversations. People are reading and sharing. I do worry that SOME are open to these ideas which is why I wrote:



> Err...Netanyahu is hardly a respected, morally revered figure of 'influence'. He is hated. I imagine him chiming in *will make some double down on the 'Israel is behind the plot to oust JC' theory that is circulating.*



That tells you I have seen this idea circulating. It doesn't say I agree with it or that the people who are saying it aren't quacks or fringe conspiraloons. I don't know who everyone is and I sure as hell don't have a list to hand of the who's who of people YOU believe should trusted or not.

Here is a small list of the types of things I have seen posted/discussed/circulated in recent years that imply or suggest some kind of batshit plot. I got this list from easy searches you could have done yourself if you actually wanted to. If I have seen stuff like this others have too.

Disclaimer; before you blame me any further for simply observing a trend in this kind of thinking,  please note that I did not write a single one of these things but post them here because I am getting bored with your insinuations. Any anger induced by reading the following links should be sent directly to the people that wrote them. 

Margaret Hodge leads Israeli plot to overthrow Corbyn - Veterans Today | News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy

Unable to oust Corbyn, Israel's Labour allies shift strategy

The Israel Factor: Priti Patel and Emily Thornberry

The pro-Israeli Lobby’s War on Jeremy Corbyn  |  Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation

Labour councillor suggests Israeli secret service plotting to stop Jeremy Corbyn winning election

Israeli Diplomat Tried To Set Up Groups To Undermine 'Crazy' Corbyn


*George Galloway*

✔@georgegalloway


This is an #Israeli plot to overthrow @jeremycorbyn #Labour #Corbyn #AntiSemitism

7:35 PM - Jul 24, 2018


https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/morning-star-antisemitism-row-israels-crimes-1.465768

The Lobby

Harry's Place » The Zionist Jew plot to remove Corbyn


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You are moving the goalposts...nowhere did I suggest it was some kind of _*unified theory that explains everything*_. I have seen stuff dating back a couple of years at least on SM and heard stuff in conversations. People are reading and sharing. I do worry that SOME are open to these ideas which is why I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks ( finally ) , will have look - but there were no insinuations at all, it was  a straight up assertion that your were wrong ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> thanks ( finally ) , will have look - but there were no insinuations at all, it was  a straight up assertion that your were wrong ?



Finally? You what? You could have searched for them yourself...I have a life and things to do you know! 

No, i'm not wrong. There is a _theory_ circulating like I and others have said. No one has said it's unified or that quacks didn't start it. It is being seen and discussed in different ways and it isn't anything new. You were insinuating I was making it up and making more of what I actually said, yet didn't 'doubt' another poster though had drawn the same conclusion from their conversations.  But there we go.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Finally? You what? You could have searched for them yourself...I have a life and things to do you know!
> 
> No, i'm not wrong. There is a _theory_ circulating like I and others have said. No one has said it's unified or that quacks didn't start it. It is being seen and discussed in different ways and it isn't anything new. You were insinuating I was making it up and making more of what I actually said, yet didn't 'doubt' another poster though had drawn the same conclusion from their conversations.  But there we go.



searching for links to back up someone else's (wholly wrong, imo ) assertion would be weird, even in this day n age ....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> searching for links to back up someone else's (wholly wrong, imo ) assertion / theory, would be weird, even in this day n age ....



Oh good grief, just stop this bloody double speak dance double standard nonsense. I'm bored now. It's not unusual to do a quick search to see what people are posting/talking about.

Here is more of the very thing I have been talking about that you claim not to have noticed...

 

link to full twtter thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

I think we are back to the 'fake news' 'mistake line.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2018)

treelover said:


> There are rumours that John Mc is incandescent about the way this is all being handled, especially by Milne, etc.


are there? Link pls


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh good grief, just stop this bloody double speak dance double standard nonsense. I'm bored now. It's not unusual to do a quick search to see what people are posting/talking about.
> 
> Here is more of the very thing I have been talking about that you claim not to have noticed...
> 
> ...



i just don't think i could have made it any clearer what it was i was objecting to, and nothing you've linked to since has helped counter that (imo)....  namely,_ (deep breath )_ that :  '*'Israel is behind the plot to oust JC' *( ie : a deeply cranky, nakedly anti semitic conspira-theory) is not, in any way, * a"theory that is circulating " *amongst anyone with a shred of sense or credibility, in Lab circles, or elsewhere.

I know it's only U75, and it's an exhausted subject, but it's a big old issue, and so is hard to leave alone. 

But am sure you're as bored as I am going round in these circles, so will try to here.


----------



## belboid (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> i just don't think i could have made it any clearer what it was i was objecting to, and nothing you've linked to since has helped counter that (imo)....  namely,_ (deep breath )_ that :  '*'Israel is behind the plot to oust JC' *( ie : a deeply cranky, nakedly anti semitic conspira-theory) is not, in any way, * a"theory that is circulating " *amongst anyone with a shred of sense or credibility, in Lab circles, or elsewhere.


Plenty of assholes on the Labour Against the Witchhunt group prpound just such a theory.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

belboid said:


> Plenty of assholes on the Labour Against the Witchhunt group prpound just such a theory.



nnnnnngggggbbbbbbut......		  _ 

(have taken a vow)_


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

belboid said:


> Plenty of assholes on the Labour Against the Witchhunt group prpound just such a theory.



Are you sure cos catsin doesn't believe it, despite me wasting my time showing them today that this idea is being circulated and it's nothing new.

Perhaps they'll ask you for links or perhaps they'll simply take your word for it because they choose to.



> ....amongst anyone with a shred of sense or credibility, in Lab circles, or elsewhere.


This is a strange way of insisting something isn't happening. Unless you can produce a list of people with what you believe to be 'sense and credibility' that 1, everyone agrees with and 2, we care enough to cross reference. 

I don't understand why you think people would post this as a concern if it isn't.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

Tbf Labour against the witch hunt are _all_ cranks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

So is belboid


----------



## cantsin (Aug 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you sure cos catsin doesn't believe it, despite me wasting my time showing them today that this idea is being circulated and it's nothing new.
> 
> Perhaps they'll ask you for links or perhaps they'll simply take your word for it because they choose to.
> 
> ...



nnnnmmmnnngggggwwwttttt.........

 TONY GREENSTEIN FFS


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> nnnnmmmnnngggggwwwttttt.........
> 
> TONY GREENSTEIN FFS



Right. Now I see.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> So is belboid


sure, but he's _our_ crank.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2018)

He is.


----------



## belboid (Aug 14, 2018)

I go there so you fuckers don't have to!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2018)

There were 8 Munich Terrorists - NONE are buried at the Tunis Cemetery that Jeremy Corbyn visited | Evolve Politics

From this article none of those who actually took part in Munich killing of Israeli athletes were buried in Tunis


----------



## tommers (Aug 15, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> There were 8 Munich Terrorists - NONE are buried at the Tunis Cemetery that Jeremy Corbyn visited | Evolve Politics
> 
> From this article none of those who actually took part in Munich killing of Israeli athletes were buried in Tunis


Doesn't matter. This just continues until he goes. Remember when he was a Czech spy?

And its not just him. This will happen to anybody who is even slightly left wing or an obstruction to twats like Rees mogg and their hedge funds. Forever. Until we're back to working 6 day weeks with no holidays and no job security or sick pay.  All voted for by stupid pricks who are upset that somebody met with the IRA, despite the people they voted for also doing that. Cos heaven forbid somebody might raise the higher tax rate by five fucking percent. 

Happy Wednesday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

what about the man the zionists killed in lillehammer? where's he buried?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

tommers said:


> Doesn't matter. This just continues until he goes. Remember when he was a Czech spy?
> 
> And its not just him. This will happen to anybody who is even slightly left wing or an obstruction to twats like Rees mogg and their hedge funds. Forever. Until we're back to working 6 day weeks with no holidays and no job security or sick pay.  All voted for by stupid pricks who are upset that somebody met with the IRA, despite the people they voted for also doing that. Cos heaven forbid somebody might raise the higher tax rate by five fucking percent.
> 
> Happy Wednesday.


i'll say one thing for corbyn, his time management skills are awesome


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 15, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> There were 8 Munich Terrorists - NONE are buried at the Tunis Cemetery that Jeremy Corbyn visited | Evolve Politics
> 
> From this article none of those who actually took part in Munich killing of Israeli athletes were buried in Tunis



I think the argument is more that the people who gave them the orders are buried there. But tbh the entire idea of engaging with the higher levels of any organisation that falls into the freedom fighter/terrorist designation without having to meet people with blood on their hands (let alone stand near their graves, what's acceptable proximity I wonder, 20 feet? 40?) is farcical. If our own government had refused to do so then there would be no Good Friday Agreement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I think the argument is more that the people who gave them the orders are buried there. But tbh the entire idea of engaging with the higher levels of any organisation that falls into the freedom fighter/terrorist designation without having to meet people with blood on their hands (let alone stand near their graves, what's acceptable proximity I wonder, 20 feet? 40?) is farcical. If our own government had refused to do so then there would be no Good Friday Agreement.


not to mention that the zionist entity would be the palestine mandate, india would be british, ireland would be undivided etc etc ad nauseam.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 15, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> ... the entire idea of engaging with the higher levels of any organisation that falls into the freedom fighter/terrorist designation without having to meet people with blood on their hands (let alone stand near their graves, what's acceptable proximity I wonder, 20 feet? 40?) is farcical. If our own government had refused to do so then there would be no Good Friday Agreement.



The problem Corbyn has is that his record of 'talking to anyone in order to bring about peace' is laughably one-sided - he constantly goes on about having to talk to all sides and dialogue, but he's spent 30+ years talking to Palestinians about peace, but he doesn't talk to the Israelis, he's spent 30+ years talking to Irish Republicans about peace, but doesn't talk to Loyalists, he has lunch at the Argentine Embassy within a week of becoming Leader of the Labour party but 2 years later still doesn't talk to Falkland Islanders....

The people who did the work of bringing about peace, or some semblance of it, in NI - the SDLP, the various intermediaries, the people from the armed groups, people in the NI office, the Irish Government - all of whom talked, at length, to people they utterly opposed and in some cases posed them very real physical dangers,  they don't think that Corbyn and his ilk were part of the peace process, they consider them to be PSF's 'useful idiots'.

Corbyn isn't a peacemaker who is prepared to  talk to people he dislikes in order to bring about peace or dialogue, he's a man who is very choosey about the 'peace' he wishes to bring about.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2018)

we're in some kind of hideous loop where people post the same thing every three months for eternity aren't we?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 15, 2018)

I passed within a few feet of Churchill yesterday but didn’t lay a wreath. I am now personally responsible for the actions of the Black and Tans. Please accept my apologies for this.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 15, 2018)

kebabking said:


> The people who did the work of bringing about peace, or some semblance of it, in NI - the SDLP, the various intermediaries, the people from the armed groups, people in the NI office, the Irish Government - all of whom talked, at length, to people they utterly opposed and in some cases posed them very real physical dangers,  they don't think that Corbyn and his ilk were part of the peace process, they consider them to be PSF's 'useful idiots'.
> 
> .



edit : read half + ranted

but have seen this hearsay before, and never seen any sources, in particular re: any critique from the Repub. side,  of Corbyn's long standing support for the Republican cause, in the face of profound mainland hostility ..... sounds like same old Brit divide and rule attempts.... as for SDLP / NI Office / Irish Govt ? lolz


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 15, 2018)

kebabking said:


> The problem Corbyn has is that his record of 'talking to anyone in order to bring about peace' is laughably one-sided



Corbyn has far bigger problems than his tendency to fetishise anti-imperialist struggle tbh, but that wasn't the point I was making. It is possible to mount a solid critique of Corbyn's approach to international politics, but the furore over the last few days is nothing close, instead choosing to descend into yet another round of "so you talk to killers eh?? EH?!"* as though this isn't an actual requirement of being in power.

*Or in this case "so you stood near the gravestones of killers a few years back eh?? EHEH?!!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

kebabking said:


> The problem Corbyn has is that his record of 'talking to anyone in order to bring about peace' is laughably one-sided - he constantly goes on about having to talk to all sides and dialogue, but he's spent 30+ years talking to Palestinians about peace, but he doesn't talk to the Israelis, he's spent 30+ years talking to Irish Republicans about peace, but doesn't talk to Loyalists, he has lunch at the Argentine Embassy within a week of becoming Leader of the Labour party but 2 years later still doesn't talk to Falkland Islanders....
> 
> The people who did the work of bringing about peace, or some semblance of it, in NI - the SDLP, the various intermediaries, the people from the armed groups, people in the NI office, the Irish Government - all of whom talked, at length, to people they utterly opposed and in some cases posed them very real physical dangers,  they don't think that Corbyn and his ilk were part of the peace process, they consider them to be PSF's 'useful idiots'.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a peacemaker who is prepared to  talk to people he dislikes in order to bring about peace or dialogue, he's a man who is very choosey about the 'peace' he wishes to bring about.


when the british government hauled gerry adams out of long kesh and brought him to london in 1972 did they talk to the loyalists? why would they? why would they need to talk to the hired help? weren't the british government in constant contact with the uvf / uda anyway? same with corbyn, why would he need to talk to people the british state was actively directing?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 15, 2018)

I do wonder what kebabking thinks the Knesset would have said to sidelined leftie backbencher Corbyn if he'd offered to show up for a chat with Ariel Sharon/Benjamin Netanyahu about "sorting out this whole Palestine thing". After the call to the Foreign Office to ask who this bearded man in the jumper was, of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

times, 19/7/1972


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 15, 2018)

Whitelaw and his lot were  well used to sitting in provo’s parlours, sipping tea from the best china.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Whitelaw and his lot were  well used to sitting in provo’s parlours, sipping tea from the best china.


to be fair it was paul channon's cheyne walk apartment, but not only were they drinking the best tea from the best china, i wouldn't be surprised if they'd helped themselves to some of his scotch and brandy too


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 15, 2018)

There were plenty of meetings in the province as well - Channons was the biggie that we all remember. 

Edit


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm beginning to wonder if Novara media's vociferous defences in the media are really helping because they always seem to concede that he's at least partly guilty of whatever


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 15, 2018)

Yes, yes, we need a simple answer to something that isn't true and until we get it...well, we'll keep asking for it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2018)

Interesting how partisan the reaction to that Williamson appearance was: half of the comments are that it was a humiliating car crash, the other half that he held the line against biased and aggressive questioning. Nothing in between.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes, yes, we need a simple answer to something that isn't true and until we get it...well, we'll keep asking for it.



And then when the clarification comes "no terrorists are buried there", Labour (ie Corbyn) gets blamed for not being clear enough in the first place.

Damned if you do...


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 15, 2018)

killer b said:


> Interesting how partisan the reaction to that Williamson appearance was: half of the comments are that it was a humiliating car crash, the other half that he held the line against biased and aggressive questioning. Nothing in between.


On the basis of that clip I cannot see how any reasonable viewer could claim it was a car crash


----------



## belboid (Aug 15, 2018)

killer b said:


> Interesting how partisan the reaction to that Williamson appearance was: half of the comments are that it was a humiliating car crash, the other half that he held the line against biased and aggressive questioning. Nothing in between.


The centre has collapsed, there is no in between any more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> The centre has collapsed, there is no in between any more.


yeh even the inbetweeners franchise has collapsed.


----------



## belboid (Aug 15, 2018)

cantsin said:


> nnnnmmmnnngggggwwwttttt.........
> 
> TONY GREENSTEIN FFS


Just back on this.....

Not even most of the fw's in Labour Against the Witchhunt would go along with the idea that Israel is behind the plot to oust JC, even in there it is only a few of the gobshitiest idiots. But the problem is that the vast majority of otherwise relatively sane people who are involved, don't see that kind of argument as in any way anti-semitic. They will be defended to the hilt by many, and quietly tolerated by the rest. And the rest does include some people with, low level, positions, who are relatively respected, and certainly aren't just seen as cranks.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> On the basis of that clip I cannot see how any reasonable viewer could claim it was a car crash


I wouldn't know, I'm not going to watch a video hosted on 'B Heard Media'


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 15, 2018)

killer b said:


> I wouldn't know, I'm not going to watch a video hosted on 'B Heard Media'


why?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm prejudiced against things with shit names.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 15, 2018)

I thought Evan Davis acted like the worst sort of interviewer - asking Chris Williamson (who I'm no fan of) the same ridiculous question over and over again - Did Jeremy lay a wreath on the bad gravestones??? - which was a question he clearly couldn't answer because he wasn't fucking well there! But yes, the reactions on Twitter afterwards were utterly polarised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2018)

its what paxman used to get praised for and its essentially hammering a point disguised as a question imo. Andrew Neil does it as well, when he isn't doing his falsetto voiced incredulity at anything left of thatch


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> The centre has collapsed, there is no in between any more.


Which is exactly why you need someone like corbyn - a line drawer. I think he needs to up the polarisation a bit as well.

It's exactly why the brexit panic is happening as well.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I think the argument is more that the people who gave them the orders are buried there. But tbh the entire idea of engaging with the higher levels of any organisation that falls into the freedom fighter/terrorist designation without having to meet people with blood on their hands (let alone stand near their graves, what's acceptable proximity I wonder, 20 feet? 40?) is farcical. If our own government had refused to do so then there would be no Good Friday Agreement.



I get your point.

But take the case of this morning.

Listening to radio 4 news. Tory politician was being asked about Boris. He then said what Boris did was minor in comparison to Corbyn who laid wreath on graves of terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes.

They weren't buried there. That is a fact. Its this that I object to. 

Agree Good Friday agreement would not have happened without talking to terrorists. Its still sore point in Northern Ireland amongst some people. Understandably as this was a bitter conflict. People lost loved ones.

As far as I understand Corbyn view on Palestinian issue is a Two State solution. So unless people say he is lying he accepts Israel state but says Palestinians should have own viable state.

I really don't understand what the problem unless the argument is that he is being disenguous.


----------



## Humirax (Aug 16, 2018)

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to wade into the attempted smear on Corbyn, I feel it's worth considering the following . . . Netanyahu is an admirer of Menachem Begin, who was leader of the Irgun, a terrorist group that massacred many innocent people including other Jews. According to Netanyahu, Begin is a 'hero'. On the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun in 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu was present for a two-day celebration at Israel’s Menachem Begin Heritage Center. As Haaretz reported: The climax of the 60th anniversary observance was the unveiling of a large plaque near the King David, commemorating the bombing.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 16, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I really don't understand what the problem unless the argument is that he is being disenguous.



Yes, I think that is problem, and the way Corbyn's handled it has been cringeworthy... This isn't the first time he's handled the media badly on security questions, and it makes him come across as less 100% honest...Go back again to the Evening Star article.

It's what will prevent Labour expanding beyond their core vote.. you can bet this will all be brought back up at the next election..

Btw there's a good article in the Guardian today about this.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

Yet they remain 'expanded beyond their core vote' on around 40% in the polls. Still.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

This was all brought up at the last election. They got 40% then too.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 16, 2018)

Yes, but in summary, to get elected they're going to have to do better aren't they?


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

No , the Tories just have to do worse.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

Either way, I'm  not disputing that the next election is not yet won. Just the idea that Labour are going to struggle to appeal beyond their core because of this when  they're on 40%.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 16, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Yes, but in summary, to get elected they're going to have to do better aren't they?



Maybe (although as killer b points out they could win with that if the Tories do worse). It's not true to claim that's a core vote though seeing as they got less than that repeatedly before the last election. I think for any 'Corbyn out' argument to have any credibility that needs to be honestly addressed and I've seen no sign of it anywhere, whether that be here or by the 'moderates' in the press.

If all they're offering is a return to pre-Corbyn business as usual why will the results differ this time? Ie better than his rather than worse? When the background is those parties collapsing everywhere why would they buck the trend here? The sheer charisma of Chuka Ummuna?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 16, 2018)

Hollis said:


> Btw there's a good article in the Guardian today about this.



I don't believe you.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't believe you.


Presume he's talking about the Jonathan Freedland one. So you're right.


----------



## agricola (Aug 16, 2018)

Anyone been following the Victoria Derbyshire row on Twitter?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2018)

agricola said:


> Anyone been following the Victoria Derbyshire row on Twitter?


no. but i'm bored, do share.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

this is a bold move. 

Labour complains to regulator over coverage of cemetery visit


----------



## agricola (Aug 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no. but i'm bored, do share.



Basically on her show yesterday there were two guests to talk about how anti-semitism is making them leave the UK, specifically Labour antisemitism.  Victoria challenged them a bit and at one point said the two of them had just founded a Zionist Party in the UK, which they denied.  That point appears to have come from an article in the (edit) Jewish News which initially reported them as being behind the formation of a new UK Zionist Party, but which was later amended to report the formation of a new UK Zionist group.  There has been a subsequent and ongoing row on Twitter over the use of the world _party_ instead of _group_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2018)

agricola said:


> Basically on her show yesterday there were two guests to talk about how anti-semitism is making them leave the UK, specifically Labour antisemitism.  Victoria challenged them a bit and at one point said the two of them had just founded a Zionist Party in the UK, which they denied.  That point appears to have come from an article in the (edit) Jewish News which initially reported them as being behind the formation of a new UK Zionist Party, but which was later amended to report the formation of a new UK Zionist group.  There has been a subsequent and ongoing row on Twitter over the use of the world _party_ instead of _group_.


i was hoping for so much more


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> No , the Tories just have to do worse.



The resurgence of UKIP seems promising in this respect.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> this is a bold move.
> 
> Labour complains to regulator over coverage of cemetery visit



Well they may as well do this, what's the worst that could happen? Negative press coverage?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Well they may as well do this, what's the worst that could happen? Negative press coverage?


Which would happen anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2018)

J Ed said:


> The resurgence of UKIP seems promising in this respect.


It'll just be a fart not a resurgence, brexit's fucked them and anyone halfway palatable has departed


----------



## bimble (Aug 16, 2018)

Does the press complaints thing mean there'll be weeks / months more of everyone going on about the bloody wreath and who exactly did what wrt the olympics 46 years ago? Seems fucking ridiculous given the state of the people actually in power. And also won't change anything far as i can see, if they win Corbyn's supporters will cheer, if not then press complaints probably in on the conspiracy ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 16, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Well they may as well do this, what's the worst that could happen? Negative press coverage?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Does the press complaints thing mean there'll be weeks / months more of everyone going on about the bloody wreath and who exactly did what wrt the olympics 46 years ago? Seems fucking ridiculous given the state of the people actually in power. And also won't change anything far as i can see, if they win Corbyn's supporters will cheer, if not then press complaints probably in on the conspiracy ?



Nah we'll get back to Brexit it soon don't worry. It's August innit.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 16, 2018)

agricola said:


> Basically on her show yesterday there were two guests to talk about how anti-semitism is making them leave the UK, specifically Labour antisemitism.  Victoria challenged them a bit and at one point said the two of them had just founded a Zionist Party in the UK, which they denied.  That point appears to have come from an article in the (edit) Jewish News which initially reported them as being behind the formation of a new UK Zionist Party, but which was later amended to report the formation of a new UK Zionist group.  There has been a subsequent and ongoing row on Twitter over the use of the world _party_ instead of _group_.



wasnt this approx the 5th time they've claimed to be leaving the UK in 3 years ? Derbyshire gave the staunchest defence of Corbyn / Labs record on A/S I've seen to date, those 2 jokers didn't seem to have been expecting that


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2018)

I don't think I've ever witnessed such a volume of media-led attempts to discredit a politician since the days of Neil Kinnock. The stories keep on getting more and more desperate by the day.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 16, 2018)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 144216



Breath-taking cynicism.


----------



## billbond (Aug 16, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 144216



feel very sorry for the lady. Disgusting


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

I don't think she's actually being cynical fwiw. She probably believes it. She's just wrong and a bit mad. I'd imagine things like the holocaust happening to your family and community makes you susceptible to a bit of madness over stuff like this though.


----------



## bimble (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think she's actually being cynical fwiw. She probably believes it. She's just wrong and a bit mad. I'd imagine things like the holocaust happening to your family and community makes you susceptible to a bit of madness over stuff like this though.



Can confirm, most of my family is mad in this way (probably including me). It doesn’t make it right but important to try to understand where the hyperbole and paranoia is coming from, that it’s not all a cunning cynical plot.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

Yeah totally. There are cynics involved in this debate (although probably less than many people think) - but on the whole it isn't the Jewish people.


----------



## bimble (Aug 16, 2018)

The whole thing and reading the internet on this for the past year or two has definitely increased my own inherited madness/paranoia about the subject tbh and I don’t even know any Jews, the people who get together and talk about it and the first generation post war probably wind themselves up even more.


----------



## billbond (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> Yeah totally. There are cynics involved in this debate (although probably less than many people think) - but on the whole it isn't the Jewish people.



I know a few Jewish people from the market i sometimes work,  they are not happy i can tell you with all this stuff going on when i have spoke to them.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

insightful, as ever.


----------



## billbond (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> insightful, as ever.



oh yeah sorry no graphs, links, fake paper news, or a poll for "facts"
Cynical as ever
Talking  and meeting people is so last century now.


----------



## Supine (Aug 16, 2018)

billbond said:


> Talking  and meeting people is so last century now.



I guess you could join a Jewish forum if your that way inclined


----------



## bimble (Aug 16, 2018)

Supine said:


> I guess you could join a Jewish forum if your that way inclined


What ?


----------



## Supine (Aug 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> What ?



Talking and meeting people is so last century. Catch up at the back. Forums are the place to be.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 16, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think she's actually being cynical fwiw. She probably believes it. She's just wrong and a bit mad. I'd imagine things like the holocaust happening to your family and community makes you susceptible to a bit of madness over stuff like this though.



Yes I'm sure there's a level of generational trauma at work here that makes words like 'existential threat' burrow in deep and affect people on such a profound level that they start to disregard the evidence of their own senses.

Someone is being cynical here though, and that's putting it kindly. There are people in play here who know all too well that exploiting trauma can be very powerful way to get a message into someone's head in a way that bypasses rational thought. Quite apart from any wider consequences, it can be extremely harmful to the people you're targetting. Worse still when someone is in the public eye and loses their grip on reality in such a public way.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

I dunno, I think the _existential threat_ headline isn't a driver of the madness - it's an expression of it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 16, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 144216


Surely not real, _can't_ be. Can it?


----------



## Santino (Aug 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Which would happen anyway


Yes that's the joke


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Surely not real, _can't_ be. Can it?


Watch the video - she's making a less batshit point than it appears from the headline. 

Margaret Hodge: Labour investigation made me think about treatment of Jews in 1930s Germany


----------



## Balbi (Aug 16, 2018)

Who hasn't absolutely shit themselves at getting a letter informing them of a disciplinary, having shouted that their boss is a racist to his face though


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 17, 2018)

How is she still an MP? She literally covered up child abuse ffs


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> Watch the video - she's making a less batshit point than it appears from the headline.
> 
> Margaret Hodge: Labour investigation made me think about treatment of Jews in 1930s Germany


It's a little less batshit, but she does manage to say something or other and then draw tendrils of connection to the 30s:



> "We've got the growth of populism, whether it's Trump, whether it's Boris Johnson, and now whether it's the cult of Corbynism which allows these attitudes to emerge. *That's what scares me*.


 I think she's _right_ in some ways about Corbyn and populism. It isn't connected to Trump or Johnson, it's a middle class, shitty studenty populism. Fair enough, from a very different position I tend to agree with her that the veneration of Corbyn is deeply shit. But then she has to give it the 'that's what scares me' bit, in an interview where she has already spoken about packed suitcases. I can see that in this there is stuff that is very real in terms of her family, her psyche and the rest. But then she's also a politician who has had significant privilege over the years and doesn't like being challenged. All sorts of things in play here, but cynicism is certainly one of them.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think she's actually being cynical fwiw. She probably believes it. She's just wrong and a bit mad. I'd imagine things like the holocaust happening to your family and community makes you susceptible to a bit of madness over stuff like this though.



From what I have seen of Hodge over the years is that she is sane and intelligent.

She disagrees with Corbyn and what he stands for. That is what this is about.

Started reading this tonight by journalist David Hearst.



> Every argument in this debate is twisted, every fact distorted to serve the overwhelming narrative of collective victimhood. Meanwhile, among the same people who feel so outraged by Corbyn, there is total silence about what is happening in Israel. It is not even covered. They are not even asked questions about it. There are no press statements. It’s as if it's not happening.



What exactly about the state of Israel do you support, Margaret Hodge?

I don't think Hodge is a bit mad. She has used her outburst directed at Corbyn effectively. Far from being mad I think she knows exactly what she is doing.


----------



## nardy (Aug 17, 2018)

Let's get down to basics. It's not about truth or reality, it's about perception. Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour are viewed as poison by well north of 50%. If there were an election tomorrow, Labour would be buried. There won't be an election tomorrow, and things could change.

Thing is, Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour (or the Tories) won't change a lot before the next election. So Labour will get buried whichever way you slice it.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> Presume he's talking about the Jonathan Freedland one. So you're right.



I'd disagree . And if Labour under Corbyn are ever to become electable they need to pay attention to this stuff.

Corbyn has a real trust/ credibility problem, and not helped by the way he responds to media challenges.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2018)

nardy said:


> Let's get down to basics. It's not about truth or reality, it's about perception. Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour are viewed as poison by well north of 50%. If there were an election tomorrow, Labour would be buried. There won't be an election tomorrow, and things could change.
> 
> Thing is, Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour (or the Tories) won't change a lot before the next election. So Labour will get buried whichever way you slice it.



Are you posting this on a delay over a year ago?


----------



## Mr Smin (Aug 17, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Are you posting this on a delay over a year ago?


Dunno about those stats but on the wreath thing he looks terrible. He's playing semantics over involvement when he really should be able to own a debate about Israel/Palestine given he's been knee deep in it for decades.


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think she's actually being cynical fwiw. She probably believes it. She's just wrong and a bit mad. I'd imagine things like the holocaust happening to your family and community makes you susceptible to a bit of madness over stuff like this though.



That is true, and that comparison was probably the most explainable bit of the interview (however hugely wide of the mark it was).  There was a much higher level of self-delusion on display when she attacked "the rise of populism" - as if Blair didn't have his own theme tune, a largely client press and legions of people telling us all how fantastic he was at everything.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 17, 2018)

agricola said:


> That is true, and that comparison was probably the most explainable bit of the interview (however hugely wide of the mark it was).  There was a much higher level of self-delusion on display when she attacked "the rise of populism" - as if Blair didn't have his own theme tune, a largely client press and legions of people telling us all how fantastic he was at everything.



Or that she didn’t play to some divisive populism herself when a candidate in Barking.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 17, 2018)

It's all over for Corbyn; Jean Luc Picard has left the Labour Party.


----------



## rhod (Aug 17, 2018)




----------



## Whagwan (Aug 17, 2018)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 17, 2018)

nardy said:


> Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour are viewed as poison by well north of 50%. If there were an election tomorrow, Labour would be buried.



[citation needed]


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2018)

nardy said:


> Let's get down to basics. It's not about truth or reality, it's about perception. Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour are viewed as poison by well north of 50%. If there were an election tomorrow, Labour would be buried. There won't be an election tomorrow, and things could change.
> 
> Thing is, Corbyn/McDonnel/Labour (or the Tories) won't change a lot before the next election. So Labour will get buried whichever way you slice it.


in just the same way they were sliced and diced last year i suppose


----------



## tony.c (Aug 17, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Or that she didn’t play to some divisive populism herself when a candidate in Barking.


I don't remember Hodge doing anything to counter the NF when she was a councillor in Islington and they were very active there in the late 70s.

Even Alan Johnson, a fellow Blairite, criticised her for publicising the BNP in Barking:
Johnson attacks Hodge's policy | Metro News

And she tried to blame Corbyn for the Brexit vote.
www.eastlondonnews.co.uk/hodge-attacks-corbyn-poor-little-rich-girl/


----------



## billbond (Aug 17, 2018)

Mr Smin said:


> Dunno about those stats but on the wreath thing he looks terrible. He's playing semantics over involvement when he really should be able to own a debate about Israel/Palestine given he's been knee deep in it for decades.



The groovy gang on here will not like these comments
You will be asked for links/evidence
Must only be the Guardian thou


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2018)

Here's a link to an article from Stephen Bush about the recent Hodge Sky interview, expanding on the point I made above. Think he's about right. 

Everyone is getting very excited about something Margaret Hodge didn’t actually say


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2018)

(Hodge is still a cunt, mind)


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 17, 2018)

Cunts all over the place on the Corbyn/antisemitism stuff


----------



## billbond (Aug 18, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Cunts all over the place on the Corbyn/antisemitism stuff



Rightly so
Some may say cunts for those defending that stuff


----------



## bimble (Aug 18, 2018)

This morning's crop of cunts include.. former mp (and apparently still a councellor) jim sheridan, and this bloke who is just one of many people using that jc9 hashtag saying similarly offensive things. i should just stop looking really but can't. There's no doubt in my mind that all this has stirred up real antisemitism that people would not have felt moved to express before.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 18, 2018)

bimble said:


> This morning's crop of cunts include.. former mp (and apparently still a councellor) jim sheridan, and this bloke who is just one of many people using that jc9 hashtag saying similarly offensive things. i should just stop looking really but can't. There's no doubt in my mind that all this has stirred up real antisemitism that people would not have felt moved to express before.View attachment 144357
> 
> View attachment 144358



Fucking hell!


----------



## cantsin (Aug 18, 2018)

Mr Smin said:


> Dunno about those stats but on the wreath thing he looks terrible. He's playing semantics over involvement when he really should be able to own a debate about Israel/Palestine given he's been knee deep in it for decades.



not sure what you mean by " he really should be able to own a debate about Israel/Palestine " ? how could Corbyn "own' the debate, vs approx 600 MPs, the entire MSM etc, who are dictating the shape and flow of the narrative month to month ?

 eg : 100 % focus on JC at wreath laying ceremony for 53 dead PLO / and Hodges disgraceful, insulting, carry on  vs 0% focus on Israel's just passed,  openly racist Nation State laws...  in the last week alone.

for the previous 3-6 months : again, 100 % focus on a/s / Labour Party allegations, 0% on 150 Israeli-state murdered Palestinians, 15 of whom were children.

Seriously, how do you suggest Corbyn, or anyone else 'owns' this situation ?


----------



## agricola (Aug 18, 2018)

bimble said:


> This morning's crop of cunts include.. former mp (and apparently still a councellor) jim sheridan, and this bloke who is just one of many people using that jc9 hashtag saying similarly offensive things. i should just stop looking really but can't. There's no doubt in my mind that all this has stirred up real antisemitism that people would not have felt moved to express before.View attachment 144357
> 
> View attachment 144358



Sheridan's been suspended already, no word on the other clown.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> Must only be the Guardian thou



que' ?


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2018)

cantsin said:


> que' ?


He imagines himself to be posting on an entirely different forum to the one he's actually posting on.


----------



## tim (Aug 18, 2018)

billbond said:


> The groovy gang on here will not like these comments
> You will be asked for links/evidence
> Must only be the Guardian thou




Fuck off, we hate the Guardian even more that we hate you!


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2018)

bimble said:


> This morning's crop of cunts include.. former mp (and apparently still a councellor) jim sheridan, and this bloke who is just one of many people using that jc9 hashtag saying similarly offensive things. i should just stop looking really but can't. There's no doubt in my mind that all this has stirred up real antisemitism that people would not have felt moved to express before.View attachment 144357
> 
> View attachment 144358




Anyone know this guy, Courtney, he is not a clown, he is a scum bag, he should be expelled now.

nicholas courtney#JC9 (@haulingboy) on Twitter


----------



## bimble (Aug 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> Sheridan's been suspended already, no word on the other clown.


Yeah impressed that got done so quickly. The way he said "their" blairites was extra-good.  Other clown doesn't matter as they're not presumably an elected spokesperson apart from in their own head.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2018)

> membership of Labour is now over 800k and rising daily because they see the bullies attacking Corbyn. They recognise a person of integrity and decency, this is what they want from a politician now. Not a corrupt warmongering Blair lookalik



Is this correct, or a bit like the woman who at Stoke said that JC had won the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 18, 2018)

treelover said:


> Is this correct, or a bit like the woman who at Stoke said that JC had won the Nobel Peace Prize.



 if all you took away from that tues afternoon Stoke meeting, with 100's locked  out, was one ordinary lady getting something like that wrong, it sounds like your level of cynicism re: all this may be on a steep upward curb.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 18, 2018)

I’d give virtually no weight to some unknown twitter Corbyn fan coming out with shit like that, not like it’s unknown for people to masquerade as their opponents and spout offensive crap in order to discredit them. It’s high stakes for some people.

(That’s not denying there are plenty of genuine corbynite idiots out there).


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2018)

treelover said:


> Is this correct, or a bit like the woman who at Stoke said that JC had won the Nobel Peace Prize.


I believe this is sourced from a tweet I saw this morning, can't remember who by sorry. They added together the full membership numbers (around 550,000 I think they said) with the associate members via unions (another 250,000) = 800,000. I've no idea of the veracity of the two figures, but even if they're true I don't think it's very honest to add them together and call it the LP membership numbers.


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d give virtually no weight to some unknown twitter Corbyn fan coming out with shit like that.


But also this. Mainly this. And source your quotes please.


----------



## agricola (Aug 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> I believe this is sourced from a tweet I saw this morning, can't remember who by sorry. They added together the full membership numbers (around 550,000 I think they said) with the associate members via unions (another 250,000) = 800,000. I've no idea of the veracity of the two figures, but even if they're true I don't think it's very honest to add them together and call it the LP membership numbers.



Indeed, though they were at 542000 earlier this year and a lot of people seem to have joined over the summer.  I don't think its as many as 800,000 but I would not be surprised if its above 600,000 now.


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2018)

here - no idea of the reliability of the source, but this is where that figure is from I think:


----------



## cantsin (Aug 18, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d give virtually no weight to some unknown twitter Corbyn fan coming out with shit like that, not like it’s unknown for people to masquerade as their opponents and spout offensive crap in order to discredit them. It’s high stakes for some people.
> 
> (That’s not denying there are plenty of genuine corbynite idiots out there).



unfortunately that bloke seems like a genuine supporter - depressing, but we know there out there


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2018)

cantsin said:


> unfortunately that bloke seems like a genuine supporter - depressing, but we know there out there



Just look at the Momentum FB groups, they are full of dodgy stuff, not like this but not far enough off of it either.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 18, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Just look at the Momentum FB groups, they are full of dodgy stuff, not like this but not far enough off of it either.



don't use FB, but if you can be arsed, it'd be useful to have the worst shoved in front of us on here every now and again - I deffo lean too heavily towards the ' it's only the supercranks' line, and would be more than happy to confront this stuff amongst Mom members when i come accross it ( i just cant get involved in FB - it fucks my head up )


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Norman Finklelstein's done a phone interview with George Galloway, in which he says that antisemitism is 'next to non existant' in the uk, and that all of this is "a sordid filthy campaign of blackmail and extortion". He calls British jews "an alien body".. This of course received with adulation on swawkbox etc.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 19, 2018)

Blimey, I wondered where George had got to and thought he had be quiet recently.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

he's going on tour .


----------



## hash tag (Aug 19, 2018)

"St Georges" hall 

Would I pay to go and see them?


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 19, 2018)

hash tag said:


> "St Georges" hall
> 
> Would I pay to go and see them?



Saint George was from the Palestinian Entity so it's all good.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Norman Finklelstein's done a phone interview with George Galloway, in which he says that antisemitism is 'next to non existant' in the uk, and that all of this is "a sordid filthy campaign of blackmail and extortion". He calls British jews "an alien body".. This of course received with adulation on swawkbox etc.



I think Finkelstein has got this wrong. He's looking at a handful of surveys that just don't capture the problem. However he is saying that Jewish groups like the BOD are alien bodies to the Labour Party not that Jews are alien to the country.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

You're almost certainly right Knotted (can't face listening again). Sorry i got that wrong was not intentional, i was fed up by that point. But also yes, the BOD and such groups are not part of / anything much to do with the Labour party, but not sure 'alien body' was a good choice of words, given the context of what he's saying (its all a devious plot etc).


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2018)

Lucky you haven't got a record for making stuff about finkelstein isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d give virtually no weight to some unknown twitter Corbyn fan coming out with shit like that, not like it’s unknown for people to masquerade as their opponents and spout offensive crap in order to discredit them. It’s high stakes for some people.
> 
> (That’s not denying there are plenty of genuine corbynite idiots out there).


Could always check it out like. It's obv genuine.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2018)

Knotted said:


> I think Finkelstein has got this wrong. He's looking at a handful of surveys that just don't capture the problem. *However he is saying that Jewish groups like the BOD are alien bodies to the Labour Party not that Jews are alien to the country.*



Well that is miles away from what he is being accused of above.  Incredible, the stuff people attack this man with.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Listen to the interview if you have time. I think its abhorent.  Would be interested to hear if anyone thinks otherwise. 
(Me being an anus has already been established, don't think its the most interesting thing to take away from this tbh. )


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Here's a link to an article from Stephen Bush about the recent Hodge Sky interview, expanding on the point I made above. Think he's about right.
> 
> Everyone is getting very excited about something Margaret Hodge didn’t actually say



But by staying in the party she's complicit in her own suffering, is she not? And Bush is aiding her.

I mean, either that or she's just lying.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth if you can be arsed, please try to explain when or how you think she might be lying. Not wrong, but lying.  Is it that you think her whole recent behaviour has been a performance (pretending to see antisemitism where she secretly knows that there isn't any) ?


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

This hashtag from a couple of days ago hodgecomparisons - Twitter Search has done my head in, I don't know how many people that I like in real life find it hilariously funny or have joined in.
Similarly this headline, its maybe a sort of rorschach thing where I don't know if you see what I see, and if you don't you'll think i'm at best an idiot, most likely a liar. It's a very alienating time. None of which means i don't think hodge has behaved like a irresponsible thoughtless twit.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> But by staying in the party she's complicit in her own suffering, is she not? And Bush is aiding her.
> 
> I mean, either that or she's just lying.


I think we need to recognise that people's motivations are very complex. Sure, Hodge's disquiet about Jeremy Corbyn as an existential threat to the jews is certainly mixed up with her disquiet about Jeremy Corbyn as an existential threat to her strand of the Labour party. I don't think that makes her feelings any less real, or really something we should ridicule as with that hodgecomparisons thing. 

By accusing her of bad faith, you're accusing her of _playing the race card._ Are you really sure enough about this that you're up for that kind of tactic? What do the people mocking Hodge over this hoping to achieve, other than make themselves look insensitive at best, racist at worst? Even if she _has_ cynically rolled this out for factional political reasons, this is a fucking stupid way of challenging it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> But by staying in the party she's complicit in her own suffering, is she not?


and this though ffs. listen to yourself.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 19, 2018)

Birds of a feather


----------



## rekil (Aug 19, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Birds of a feather



Ugh.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Jesus.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

There's a few people on that lineup who I'm surprised would agree to be on that lineup.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Beautiful Days.

killer b its pathetic that i feel grateful to you, and to butchersapron as well (despite his v clearly expressed feelings about me personally obvs) but i do. What you're saying is rare out in the wilds of the internet. I spend too much time online but the situation right now seems properly fucked. There's several people saying 'you're either with anti austerity Corbyn or you're with child-killer Netanyahu which is it', actual polls like that. Many supporters of Corbyn seem to be digging deep into dodgy trenches. I don't know how it can get better.
What Beermoth said is totally normal, the idea that 1) if you're not happy just leave (the party or in a few more extreme cases the country) and 2) its all a lie, part of a Zionist and or anti-socialist plot.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think we need to recognise that people's motivations are very complex. Sure, Hodge's disquiet about Jeremy Corbyn as an existential threat to the jews is certainly mixed up with her disquiet about Jeremy Corbyn as an existential threat to her strand of the Labour party. I don't think that makes her feelings any less real, or really something we should ridicule as with that hodgecomparisons thing.


 
But why is the response 'we need to understand this' and not 'get help immediately'? Because she thinks she's working for an anti-semite and the Labour Party were out to get her a week ago. She's staying in the party _by choice_ and _choosing_ to go through emotional pain. She said this, not me.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> and this though ffs. listen to yourself.



I have. I've spent way too much time thinking about this. If she's in this much emotional pain why isn't someone intervening? Why this 'let's stand to one side and be conciliatory' stuff. I genuinely genuinely don't get it.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

jesus christ on a bike.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

'get help or fuck off you paranoid bitch'


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

[/QUOTE]What Beermoth said is totally normal, the idea that 1) if you're not happy just leave (the party or in a few more extreme cases the country) [/QUOTE]

She's jewish and she's willingly working with someone who she thinks is anti-semitic. No-one is forcing her. Why is she doing this?


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Why did you clip out question 2 that i've asked twice.
You think she's lying or you think she should leave if she feels uncomfortable, which is it ?


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> 'get help or fuck off you paranoid bitch'



She's working for someone who she thinks is anti-semitic. _She_ said this, not me. Do you think that's healthy or not?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> She's working for someone who she thinks is anti-semitic. _She_ said this, not me. Do you think that's healthy or not?


stop asking this stupid question. Jeremy Corbyn spent 10 years _working for_ a lying war criminal if you like. Was that healthy? (don't answer, it's a fucking stupid question too)


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Why did you clip out question 2 that i've asked twice.
> You think she's lying or you think she should leave which is it ?



She either needs help or she's lying. I can see no other option here. If she isn't , she's needlessly putting herself through a lot of emotional distress. I mean, is she not? She's jewish and she's working for some one who she has said is anti-semitic.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> stop asking this stupid question. Jeremy Corbyn spent 10 years _working for_ a lying war criminal if you like. Was that healthy? (don't answer, it's a fucking stupid question too)



It's not a fucking stupid question! She said Corbyn's Labour is out to get her! She fucking said it!


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Either 'Needs help' or 'lying'. That's the two options.
Do you feel that way about all the people who are members of labour party who feel and say that there is an antisemitism problem or just the Hodge?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> It's not a fucking stupid question! She said Corbyn's Labour is out to get her! She fucking said it!



She believes it and is trying to get him the sack.

Saying she is lying is playing into the idea that there is a cynical plot to oust him that includes actually lying about antisemitism within the Labour party.

According to the last couple pages of this thread you can call her 'mad' and/or a 'cunt' though.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

I think there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, and that Jeremy Corbyn has had trouble recognising it to a worrying degree. If I had more skin in the game, I might think, as Hodge does, that this blindness is over the line into the actual antisemitism. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take, even if on balance I think she's wrong.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Either 'Needs help' or 'lying'. That's the two options.
> Do you feel that way about all the people who are members of labour party who feel and say that there is an antisemitism problem or just the Hodge?



This is specific to Hodge.

I can literally see no other options here. Again, she's Jewish and she's working for someone she regards as an anti-semite. She could choose not to do that. So why is she? 

I genuinely genuinely genuinely don't understand.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

Someone you know who is jewish says to you: "I hate my boss, he's a fucking anti-semite. And he's causing me a lot of pain emotionally. But I have the means and wherewithal to leave the situation if I want"

do you go: "yes, that's terrible. Explain to me what's going on. Let me understand"

or: 'Fuck me, that's terrible. you should leave this situation immediately."


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

I'd probably say 'lets get the cunt'


----------



## cantsin (Aug 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> This hashtag from a couple of days ago hodgecomparisons - Twitter Search has done my head in, I don't know how many people that I like in real life find it hilariously funny or have joined in.
> Similarly this headline, its maybe a sort of rorschach thing where I don't know if you see what I see, and if you don't you'll think i'm at best an idiot, most likely a liar. It's a very alienating time. None of which means i don't think hodge has behaved like a irresponsible thoughtless twit.
> 
> View attachment 144483



#hodgecomparison was shit on every front : offensive, deeply unfunny, and an open own goal for mass deflection away from the shocking cynicism and stupidity  of Hodges' grotesque claim


----------



## cantsin (Aug 19, 2018)

copliker said:


> Ugh.
> 
> View attachment 144489



ffs


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

I have thought about this, honestly. I really genuinely can't see anything between a) she really has issues and really needs help for real and b) she has another agenda going on. I can't see any other logical conclusions to this.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> She's working for someone who she thinks is anti-semitic. _She_ said this, not me. Do you think that's healthy or not?



this is bollocks, fuck off


----------



## cantsin (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> Someone you know who is jewish says to you: "I hate my boss, he's a fucking anti-semite. And he's causing me a lot of pain emotionally. But I have the means and wherewithal to leave the situation if I want"
> 
> do you go: "yes, that's terrible. Explain to me what's going on. Let me understand"
> 
> or: 'Fuck me, that's terrible. you should leave this situation immediately."



is that your advice to anyone with a shit boss, walk meekly away ?


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

Do 


Rutita1 said:


> She believes it and is trying to get him the sack.
> 
> Saying she is lying is playing into the idea that there is a cynical plot to oust him that includes



I'm wary of that and it seems everyone else is too. Maybe I should drop it.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

cantsin said:


> is that your advice to anyone with a shit boss, walk meekly away ?



What would you do?


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> I'm wary of that and it seems everyone else is too. Maybe I should drop it.



Don't just drop it out of feeling a bit awkward please, look into it, think about it, the accusation of lying against someone (many people) who say they feel that they're experiencing racism.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2018)

I've already said I don't think Hodge is a bit mad.

The Labour party Hodge joined in 60s was pro Israel. If this short history of the British Labour party and Zionism is correct then traditionally the Labour party was largely pro Zionist from the early days.

So its not a surprise that Hodge is upset. With Corbyn the traditional support from leadership for Zionism has gone.


It backed Israel before Balfour: Corbyn stance is stark shift from early Labour



> Three months prior to the publication of the Balfour Declaration, the party issued the first draft of the War Aims Memorandum, its vision for the post-war world. Written by Arthur Henderson, the Labour leader, and Sydney Webb, the party’s intellectual driving force, it declared: “The British Labour Movement expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the country may form a free state, under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish People as desired to do so may return, and may work out their salvation.”
> 
> It was, as Dr. Ronnie Fraser, the director of Academic Friends of Israel, has shown, a critical turning point in the relationship between Labour and Britain’s Jews, igniting the party’s “enthusiasm for Zionism.”






> Labour proved itself a steadfast supporter of the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Its own annual conferences, and those of its allies in the trade union movement, repeatedly endorsed this principle during the 1930s. In May 1939, Labour opposed the Conservative government’s White Paper, which sought to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine and effectively reneged on the undertakings made by Arthur Balfour nearly 20 years before.



The problem I have with this is that Palestine wasn't an empty land. State of Israel was based on expulsion of Palestinians.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Adam Wagner's latest thread on this is worth reading in full btw.


----------



## binka (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> This is specific to Hodge.
> 
> I can literally see no other options here. Again, she's Jewish and she's working for someone she regards as an anti-semite. She could choose not to do that. So why is she?
> 
> I genuinely genuinely genuinely don't understand.


I think you're wrong here. She doesn't work for Corbyn. She's was first elected for Labour in the early 70s so she's been a member for 40+ years. She has every right to not be run out of the party by anti-Semites (as she and others would see it)

If I was a member of Labour for decades, and if I was Jewish, and I thought the leader of the party were an anti-semite I wouldn't just walk sway; I'd stay and fight to reclaim it


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

This is what is making me so sad Gramsci .
I know you a bit in real life, we've been working on the same local thing for a long time and met today, you're my neighbour and i hope my friend and ally, and i respect you massively for the voluntary work you do after a week of long hours hard graft. And yet on this it feels like we probably can't ever understand each other. It makes me feel really sad lonely and a bit scared.

You think she is an angry Zionist (and or Blairite) shouting antisemitism in order to get rid of Corbyn for her own political ends, or because she wants to crush the voices of those fighting for justice for Palestinians. 

I don't give a shit about her (and I think Israel is completely fucked up and currently run by racists, saying that because it needs to be said every time) but your opinion that the woman is lying / acting is the thing.
JC himself has said that there is a real problem, and that people who deny this do not speak for him. I just don't know, the divisions in our current situation in this country feel really painful and i wish i could see a way out of it all but can't. Sorry i didn't bring tea like i said i would today.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Adam Wagner's latest thread on this is worth reading in full btw.




Really thoughtful...shame about the repeating of untruths (wreath laying on terrorists graves!!!) and waving his hand over the atrocities committed by Israel as things he doesn't always agree with.


----------



## billbond (Aug 19, 2018)

Lots of misogyny and sexism on here towards this lady.
Dear oh dear
Double standards spring to mind.
This will run and run.
JC will address this problem im sure.


----------



## billbond (Aug 19, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Really thoughtful...shame about the repeating of untruths (wreath laying on terrorists graves!!!) and waving his hand over the atrocities committed by Israel as things he doesn't always agree with.



Another apologist
Must try harder.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 19, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Really thoughtful...shame about the repeating of untruths (wreath laying on terrorists graves!!!) and waving his hand over the atrocities committed by Israel as things he doesn't always agree with.



What’s untrue about it?


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2018)

Just fucking leave it. The graves wreath thing is no longer about whether its true or not its just a measure of what internet cul de sac you hang out in.

eta: the evidence is clear, far as i can tell, not that i think it matters much. If he'd just said oh, I didn't know, was just going along with it, sorry ye widows of the olympics 40 years ago, that was a mistake, it would have been fine. instead this shitshow.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 19, 2018)

binka said:


> I think you're wrong here. She doesn't work for Corbyn. She's was first elected for Labour in the early 70s so she's been a member for 40+ years. She has every right to not be run out of the party by anti-Semites (as she and others would see it)
> 
> If I was a member of Labour for decades, and if I was Jewish, and I thought the leader of the party were an anti-semite I wouldn't just walk sway; I'd stay and fight to reclaim it



Would you not want to see some evidence that he was an anti-semite first though? Because the world and his mum are falling over themselves to find that evidence and thus far, nothing but horse shit.


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

I understand - besides anything else - that sensitivities have been running high re: anti-semitism these last few months. But I just don't understand how Hodge, given what she said, could actually want to stay in the party. It reads as very extreme to me - to have something that's upsetting but pretty small beer (threat of suspension) triggering off something so horrendous to her. I don't get why you'd continue to put yourself in that situation. I mean, people were using the term 'batshit' a few pages ago. It's not just me.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

Why do you keep writing the same post?


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

Also, Hodge did cover up child abuse btw.

Not a nice woman. Wouldn't want her as yer granny

Timeline: Margaret Hodge row


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Why do you keep writing the same post?



Cos people keep handwaving it away possibly?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2018)

I can't decide if you're thick or taking the piss


----------



## binka (Aug 19, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would you not want to see some evidence that he was an anti-semite first though? Because the world and his mum are falling over themselves to find that evidence and thus far, nothing but horse shit.


The point I was making was that if Hodge thinks Corbyn is an anti-semite why does that mean she should leave the party she's been a member of for nearly five decades


----------



## binka (Aug 19, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> Also, Hodge did cover up child abuse btw.
> 
> Not a nice woman. Wouldn't want her as yer granny
> 
> Timeline: Margaret Hodge row


I don't think anyone here remotely likes Margaret Hodge


----------



## Beermoth (Aug 19, 2018)

.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> She's jewish and she's willingly working with someone who she thinks is anti-semitic. No-one is forcing her. Why is she doing this?



Pretty much like the socialist Jeremy Corbyn remained in the party of the anti socialist Tony Blair.  No one forced him. Why did he do that?

edit: ah, beaten to it by killer b 3 hours ago.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> I understand - besides anything else - that sensitivities have been running high re: anti-semitism these last few months. But I just don't understand how Hodge, given what she said, could actually want to stay in the party. It reads as very extreme to me - to have something that's upsetting but pretty small beer (threat of suspension) triggering off something so horrendous to her. I don't get why you'd continue to put yourself in that situation. I mean, people were using the term 'batshit' a few pages ago. It's not just me.


I don't like Hodge, she's just about the worst sort of Labour right winger. I also wouldn't go quite as far as killer b and the New Statesman article in terms of the suggestion we are misreading what she said. Personally, I think there's a clear strand of (anti-corbyn) politics as usual in her comments - undoubtedly combined with deepseated familial and communal trauma. There's something we all do going on here, the interweaving of the real, the genuine and the personal with something else. Crucially, that means she's not 'lying', she's just being a normal human being in a tight corner.

But as to her leaving the Labour Party _almost as a first step_ - that's wildly illogical. Surely if she thinks Corbyn is anti-semitic she should create a big stink for him, even more so if that aligns with her own political perspective? 6 months on and Corbyn is flinging wreaths on similar graves - or more seriously if the Party does nothing on anti-Semitism - that's the time to go. Anyway, whatever you think of her motives, she's acting like _any_ _normal dissenter_ in a political organisation would.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is what is making me so sad Gramsci .
> I know you a bit in real life, we've been working on the same local thing for a long time and met today, you're my neighbour and i hope my friend and ally, and i respect you massively for the voluntary work you do after a week of long hours hard graft. And yet on this it feels like we probably can't ever understand each other. It makes me feel really sad lonely and a bit scared. By
> 
> You think she is an angry Zionist (and or Blairite) shouting antisemitism in order to get rid of Corbyn for her own political ends, or because she wants to crush the voices of those fighting for justice for Palestinians.
> ...



I'm not saying she is lying or acting. Im also not saying she is a bit mad. Ive already posted that up.

Its also why I looked up history of Labour party and Israel. I can see that the Labour party she joined was traditionally pro Israel. This is what she wants a return to.


----------



## JimW (Aug 20, 2018)

Beermoth I think part of your problem is thinking Hodge and Corbyn are in a boss/subordinate relationship like some job when as binka's pointed out, he's just temporarily the leader of a movement she's been in the best part of her life.


----------



## bimble (Aug 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not saying she is lying or acting. Im also not saying she is a bit mad. Ive already posted that up.
> 
> Its also why I looked up history of Labour party and Israel. I can see that the Labour party she joined was traditionally pro Israel. This is what she wants a return to.



She might wish that the Labour Party & world in general still looked at Israel as they did 50+ years ago but she'd have to be properly mad if she reckoned her recent behaviour would somehow help make that happen.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 20, 2018)

treelover said:


> Is this correct, or a bit like the woman who at Stoke said that JC had won the Nobel Peace Prize.



maybe time to have a little think where you are with all this eh


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 20, 2018)

JimW said:


> Beermoth I think part of your problem is thinking Hodge and Corbyn are in a boss/subordinate relationship like some job when as binka's pointed out, he's just temporarily the leader of a movement she's been in the best part of her life.



It's also unlike other jobs in that you're supposed to act in the interests of the general public, not just yourself or your organisation.


----------



## killer b (Aug 20, 2018)

Erm that's bollocks, loads of jobs involve acting in the interests of the general public. 

Let's just drop the whole comparisons with a normal job thing altogether, however you try to squeeze it in it looks like rubbish.


----------



## bimble (Aug 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Adam Wagner's latest thread on this is worth reading in full btw.



This was good to read. Very much how I feel (personal stuff: two of my grandparents survived concentration camps, one never spoke of it the other told me in detail repeatedly as a small child). Have done a bit of reading over the years about intergenerational trauma and all that and it is a real thing. Have seen a few people trying to write about this the last couple of days but that thread does a very good job and without being defensive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Let's just drop the whole comparisons with a normal job thing altogether, however you try to squeeze it in it looks like rubbish.



No. It's relevant. It's relevant because the labour right are playing office intrigue at the expense of actual politics. And that's relevant because while they're doing it the tories are killing people.


----------



## killer b (Aug 20, 2018)

It's been interesting seeing the journalists immediately level accusations of antisemitism against anyone raising the subject of Margaret Hodge's daughter being a senior BBC journalist today btw - the intergenerational revolving door between politics and the media is so natural to them that the only reason they can imagine for anyone to object to it is racism.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's been interesting seeing the journalists immediately level accusations of antisemitism against anyone raising the subject of Margaret Hodge's daughter being a senior BBC journalist today btw - the intergenerational revolving door between politics and the media is so natural to them that the only reason they can imagine for anyone to object to it is racism.



Identity, when it is available to a person, is just a go to way of framing any defence or attack now. It has become particularly instinctive to politicians and journalists across the political spectrum.


----------



## alsoknownas (Aug 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Adam Wagner's latest thread on this is worth reading in full btw.



Certainly worth reading because it does a good job of voicing the underlying anxiety and dread that attacks (ideological and physical) have on members of jewish communities worldwide, in the historical shadow of the Holocaust.  But not, IMO, worthy of swallowing whole because it contains it's own base platform of bias and self-justification.

Calling today's Israel a 'safe haven' - a nation where many of it's own rightful citizens are not even allowed to set foot, and where many who remain are denied the basic rights of citizenship, is beyond wilful myopia - it's an act of deliberate exclusion; actually it's an act of racism.  There's nothing in that thread that indicates an acknowledgement of the sustained oppression taking place in the occupied territories (beyond a vague acknowledgement of 'complexities').

Corbyn has indeed *taken a side*, and it's the right side, even if sometimes it's put him in proximity to the 'wrong' people.  His platforming and rubbing shoulders (and wreaths) with men of violence does him no favours, but I find it most hypocritical that you can openly profess support for the murderous Israeli state with impunity in the same context.


----------



## killer b (Aug 20, 2018)

Nothing is worthy of swallowing whole. Everything is contextual, and subject to the writers, and our own biases. 

I disagree with Wagner about a lot of things, but he is always worth reading regardless - partly because he recognises this and makes some attempt to address it. I'm not that interested in calling out everything I disagree with in his posts though, as frankly it's fucking boring. Take away the good stuff.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just fucking leave it. The graves wreath thing is no longer about whether its true or not its just a measure of what internet cul de sac you hang out in.
> 
> eta: the evidence is clear, far as i can tell, not that i think it matters much. If he'd just said oh, I didn't know, was just going along with it, sorry ye widows of the olympics 40 years ago, that was a mistake, it would have been fine. instead this shitshow.



Just seen this. You what? 

Stop telling me/others what we can and can't talk about or think. 

Evidence? I imagine your evidence will indeed reveal which 'cul de sac' of the internet you hang out in.  Post it up.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> She might wish that the Labour Party & world in general still looked at Israel as they did 50+ years ago but she'd have to be properly mad if she reckoned her recent behaviour would somehow help make that happen.



If you read the whole article I posted up. Which was written by member of Progress, not a lefty out to discredit MPs like Hodge,Labour party support for State of Israel has been pretty consistent. Its ingrained into Labour party until recently.

This is a fact. 

I don't think Hodge is mad. She thinks getting rid of Corbyn will change party back to its roots as party that supported Zionism. Of a socialist secular variety of it. 

I read this by her. Haven't posted it up before as found it somewhat rambling and contradictory.

Take this:



> . There have always been those who see every Jew as a paid-up member of the Netanyahu fan club. People who fail to make the appropriate distinction between being a Jew, voicing support for Israel as a place for Jews to live safely and proclaiming support for the Government in Israel. People who now consider the term Zionist as a term of abuse. People who deny the holocaust and people who simply hate Jews. But something has changed in the last couple of years and anti-Semitism has gained a new, misplaced and dangerous legitimacy on the left.



Her saying Israel is a safe place for jews to live in neglects the historical fact that the Israel state was founded on expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs. There is imo no way to get around this as a historical fact.


Margaret Hodge  » Blog Archive   » Anti-Semitism is making me feel an outsider in the Labour Party


----------



## bimble (Aug 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Just seen this. You what?
> 
> Stop telling me/others what we can and can't talk about or think.
> 
> Evidence? I imagine your evidence will indeed reveal which 'cul de sac' of the internet you hang out in.  Post it up.



I think the whole wreath thing is ridiculous. If you’re interested have a look online about it it’s all there but what do you think JC was talking about when he said he was “present but not involved”?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think the whole wreath thing is ridiculous. If you’re interested have a look online about it it’s all there but what do you think JC was talking about when he said he was “present but not involved”?


No. You said you have evidence. It is indeed ridiculous but you have evidence? Post it up and stop telling others what they can and can't refer to on this thread. What cul de sac of the internet do you get your info from? Not that I actually want to know but you keep making these kind of loaded, sneery comments about others so why not put your own cards on the table?


----------



## kebabking (Aug 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> ...Her saying Israel is a safe place for jews to live in neglects the historical fact that the Israel state was founded on expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs. There is imo no way to get around this as a historical fact...



I don't see the relevance, whether or not Israel is a safe place for Jews to live isn't determined by who used to live there and why/how they left - you're trying to argue that Western Poland isn't a safe place for Poles to live because it was all in Germany 70-odd years ago.

It might be a historical fact, but it's not relevant to whether Israel is a safe place for Jews to live.


----------



## greenfield (Aug 20, 2018)

Hodge isn't mad. Neither is she inter-generationally traumatised by what happened in WW2. She's a grown up woman and she knows what she's doing ffs. She's using her identity as a Jew to try and get rid of Corbyn because he is a socialist and she's not. She knows she can't argue to get rid of him on the basis of his politics with the current Labour membership so she's trying a hatchet job on him and using her family background as political capital. She tried to provoke him by swearing at him and it didn't work, so she's trying this.

It's manipulative bullying. 

It's right wing manuvering masquerading a victim identity politics.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I don't see the relevance, whether or not Israel is a safe place for Jews to live isn't determined by who used to live there and why/how they left - you're trying to argue that Western Poland isn't a safe place for Poles to live because it was all in Germany 70-odd years ago.
> 
> It might be a historical fact, but it's not relevant to whether Israel is a safe place for Jews to live.



If I get my history right with the fall of Berlin Wall / Communism Poland and Germany came to agreement to recognise each others borders.

German–Polish Border Treaty (1990) - Wikipedia

Your comparison betweentween borders set post WW2 in Europe and what happened in Palestine aren't comparable.


----------



## greenfield (Aug 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> She might wish that the Labour Party & world in general still looked at Israel as they did 50+ years ago but she'd have to be properly mad if she reckoned her recent behaviour would somehow help make that happen.



Do you think that is what her 'recent behaviour' is about? Trying to make 'the world' or the Labour Party look more favourably on Israel?


----------



## kebabking (Aug 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> If I get my history right with the fall of Berlin Wall / Communism Poland and Germany came to agreement to recognise each others borders.
> 
> German–Polish Border Treaty (1990) - Wikipedia
> 
> Your comparison betweentween borders set post WW2 in Europe and what happened in Palestine aren't comparable.



I'm not arguing that they are comparable, I'm arguing that how, and when, Israel was formed and who lost out is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of her statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live.

What other statements about Israel do you think need to be prefaced with some note about how it came into being in order to complete their truthfullness - that it's hot in the summer? That they grow oranges? That there's some interesting Roman Archeology?

The experiences of the Palestinian population simply isn't relevant to the statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live - it would be relevant to a statement about whether it was a safe place for Palestinians to live, but that wasn't the statement she made...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I'm not arguing that they are comparable, I'm arguing that how, and when, Israel was formed and who lost out is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of her statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live.
> 
> What other statements about Israel do you think need to be prefaced with some note about how it came into being in order to complete their truthfullness - that it's hot in the summer? That they grow oranges? That there's some interesting Roman Archeology?
> 
> The experiences of the Palestinian population simply isn't relevant to the statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live - it would be relevant to a statement about whether it was a safe place for Palestinians to live, but that wasn't the statement she made...



So why post up what happened post world war two between Poland and Germany?

I have re read your original post and you are comparing what happened between Germany and Poland at end of WW2 with Israel.

You do agree that founding of Israel State at end of British Mandate was done by expelling the Palestinian Arabs is historical fact?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I'm not arguing that they are comparable, I'm arguing that how, and when, Israel was formed and who lost out is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of her statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live.
> 
> ..



I don't agree with this. History is important. Hodge herself in the article  I linked to starts the first section with her own personal history as a Jew.

Which I found interesting and made me understand where she was coming from.

Ive started watching YouTube lecture by Jewish historian Pappe on Israel. What comes across so far is he is saying the opposite of what you are saying. He is saying the how and when and who lost in the formation of Israel is important.


----------



## bimble (Aug 21, 2018)

greenfield said:


> Do you think that is what her 'recent behaviour' is about? Trying to make 'the world' or the Labour Party look more favourably on Israel?


No, I think that doesn’t make any sense, was just answering Gramsci who was saying that’s what he thinks it’s about.

I honestly don't get how anyone could look at her overblown hyperbolic behaviour and think its part of a pre-planned cynical effort to achieve a political goal (shift the party back to the right or make people like Israel or whatever).I mean if it is she's done a massive own goal hasn't she.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2018)

greenfield said:


> Hodge isn't mad. Neither is she inter-generationally traumatised by what happened in WW2. She's a grown up woman and she knows what she's doing ffs.


The idea that _grown up women who know what they're doing_ can't be motivated by traumatic events from the recent past is a strange one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 21, 2018)

greenfield said:


> Hodge isn't mad. Neither is she inter-generationally traumatised by what happened in WW2.



You're not in a position to make that statement. Trans generational trauma is a well documented phenomenon, not something we made up to let Margaret Hodge off the hook.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> No, I think that doesn’t make any sense, was just answering Gramsci who was saying that’s what he thinks it’s about.
> 
> I honestly don't get how anyone could look at her overblown hyperbolic behaviour and think its part of a pre-planned cynical effort to achieve a political goal (shift the party back to the right or make people like Israel or whatever).I mean if it is she's done a massive own goal hasn't she.


Being as she's played a part in shifting the party to the right before it would be foolish to think she might not do it again


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I honestly don't get how anyone could look at her overblown hyperbolic behaviour and think its part of a pre-planned cynical effort to achieve a political goal (shift the party back to the right or make people like Israel or whatever).I mean if it is she's done a massive own goal hasn't she.



Well overblown, hyperbolic, cynical and a massive own goal would be consistent with plenty of the Labour Right's behaviour since Corbyn got elected. Obviously that doesn't in itself mean that's what she's doing here but it's part of the background to all this stuff.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2018)

kebabking said:


> *The experiences of the Palestinian population simply isn't relevant to the statement that Israel is a safe place for Jews to live* - it would be relevant to a statement about whether it was a safe place for Palestinians to live, but that wasn't the statement she made...



In theory maybe. In practice though? 

I don't know anyone who given what we know about the Israeli state and it's methods in creating this so called 'safe place' separates the two ideas because it includes the widespread persecution and expulsion of Palestinian people fro m their homelands. To many, they are absolutely parts of same story.


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> The idea that _grown up women who know what they're doing_ can't be motivated by traumatic events from the recent past is a strange one.


Does this mean we are ALL influenced by traumatic events from our individual (or collective) pasts?


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

Sure. As I said, people have complex motivations. That includes us as well as Margaret Hodge


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> Sure. As I said, people have complex motivations. That includes us as well as Margaret Hodge


Please forgive me if I don't engage in psycho-babble at this time of the morning.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

Right. Why did you ask then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Please forgive me if I don't engage in psycho-babble at this time of the morning.


Don't know what you're doing on urban with that sort of attitude


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

I'm already loving this new guy


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm already loving this new guy


'new' might turn out to be more accurate...


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

No way


----------



## greenfield (Aug 22, 2018)

Poor Margaret Hodge! It must be collective trauma that makes her do this! She doesn't need to be called out on her politics. Certainly deselection would traumatise her even more

 She needs counselling. And anyone who says different needs to shut up a d stop being horrid!


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

you could argue with something that someone said rather than making up shit to wank on about.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 22, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Does this mean we are ALL influenced by traumatic events from our individual (or collective) pasts?



Yes and once you realise this human history and politics starts to make a lot more sense, as well as the behaviour of individuals.

 Many states and governments, Israel not least among them, deliberately manipulate the collective trauma of their people for political ends. This is one way that ethnic and sectarian conflicts can be prolonged on a generational timescale.

It's an established fact even in secondary school history lessons that the trauma of the first world war was a major factor in dragging the next generation into the second.


----------



## bimble (Aug 22, 2018)

I don't get how people can think its fine to openly laugh at the idea that jews (particularly European ones) might be a bit messed up because of what the nazis did to their families. Sod Hodge but if you don't see this you're missing out on a major bit of the whole story of why we are so 'oversensitive' about antisemitism, as well as why israel has turned out as fucked as it is, imo. Like frank says.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's an established fact even in secondary school history lessons that the trauma of the first world war was a major factor in dragging the next generation into the second.


er it's an established belief. if what you're saying is true the japanese must have been particularly traumatised, to get started so much earlier than everybody else, while the brazilians can hardly have been traumatised at all being how they joined the war so late.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> er it's an established belief. if what you're saying is true the japanese must have been particularly traumatised, to get started so much earlier than everybody else, while the brazilians can hardly have been traumatised at all being how they joined the war so late.



Hence the phrase _a factor._


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Hence the phrase _a factor._


i am taking issue not with your factor but with your fact. the fourth word in your first sentence.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 22, 2018)

Anybody know if Jeremy honestly believes if Britain is better off outside of the EU?


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

Stephen Bush's latest has a lot of interesting detail - I remain unconvinced of the likelihood of a split, but it's a useful peek into what the Labour right are saying to him at least.

Leaving Labour: why a party split is now inevitable


----------



## oryx (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush's latest has a lot of interesting detail - I remain unconvinced of the likelihood of a split, but it's a useful peek into what the Labour right are saying to him at least.
> 
> Leaving Labour: why a party split is now inevitable


Interesting article, thanks for the link. 

It's my view that some MPs are so out of step with the Labour Party leadership and membership that the only resolution to the situation is deselection.

ETA - I don't see a split as inevitable.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

I think if they manage to change the rules re: deselection in September (not sure if that's actually on the cards although there's been a lot of shouting about it lately) then the likelihood of a split increases markedly. Indeed, I suspect the reason there hasn't been any significant push for it in the past - as well as previously lacking the numbers) is because of this.


----------



## oryx (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think if they manage to change the rules re: deselection in September (not sure if that's actually on the cards although there's been a lot of shouting about it lately) then the likelihood of a split increases markedly. Indeed, I suspect the reason there hasn't been any significant push for it in the past - as well as previously lacking the numbers) is because of this.


Bush seems to think the deselection thing is going to happen - will be interesting to see what happens. 

I will have no sympathy for MPs who get deselected. But there will be a lot of nauseating outrage from the Labour right if it even passes, never mind gets activated. 

Then yes, a split does become far more likely.

Interesting what Bush said about Labour's right wing being discouraged by the history of the SDP yet encouraged by En Marche in France. 

I wonder if there is an appetite for a 'centrist' party. You do read and hear stuff about it. I tend to think that any party like that is doomed because of Brexit. 

Given the type of people likely to be running it they will be ardently pro-Remain. In their deluded little middle class bubble they think this will be hugely popular. It won't. People have become more entrenched since the referendum and moves to remain without addressing the issues behind the Leave vote will go down like a cup of cold sick with a lot of people.

So if the potential for a 'centrist' party wasn't limited already, it's limited even more by the Brexit situation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2018)

that bit from the lib dem was quite telling wasn't it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2018)

oryx said:


> I wonder if there is an appetite for a 'centrist' party. You do read and hear stuff about it. I tend to think that any party like that is doomed because of Brexit.


I think it polls reasonably well as an idea, but there's a difference between being asked whether you think something is a good idea by Yougov, and putting your cross in the box at a general election. Everyone knows this apart from the FBPE cultists, which is why there's no new centrist party.


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2018)

I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't there a change in LP rules around reselection, or maybe the threat of a change, around the time of the SDP break away?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush's latest has a lot of interesting detail - I remain unconvinced of the likelihood of a split, but it's a useful peek into what the Labour right are saying to him at least.
> 
> Leaving Labour: why a party split is now inevitable



“Our best case scenario,” one Labour MP sighs, “keeps getting worse. Two years ago, we were hoping to defeat Ann Black ( for an NEC seat) . Now we’re hoping that she might squeak on.”

amidst the gloom, just .... lolz


----------



## Duncan2 (Aug 22, 2018)

Alan Dershowitz took the opportunity of an outing on this evening's channel four news to mount a spirited attack on Jezza.Its a good job Matt Frei likes cutting his interviewees off mid-flow because Dershowitz looked like a man with plenty to say.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think if they manage to change the rules re: deselection in September (not sure if that's actually on the cards although there's been a lot of shouting about it lately) then the likelihood of a split increases markedly. Indeed, I suspect the reason there hasn't been any significant push for it in the past - as well as previously lacking the numbers) is because of this.



the last time and onIy time i saw any direct reference to the reselection / conference vote  issue from anyone presumably in the know , Lansman referred specifically to ' Trigger Ballot ++ ' being the option that will be debated / presented .


----------



## Hollis (Aug 22, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's an established fact even in secondary school history lessons that the trauma of the first world war was a major factor in dragging the next generation into the second.



I don't think there was much war enthusiasm in Britain, France or even Germany on the outbreak of WWII.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 23, 2018)

Corbyn mulls tech tax to fund journalism

Tax to fund indy media amongst other things ( ish) - not exactly a vote winner but hey ho


----------



## Humberto (Aug 23, 2018)

Yeah shit left wing politicians without their votes. 

Better someone with a cigarette paper from ever further right mainstream.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 23, 2018)

oryx said:


> Bush seems to think the deselection thing is going to happen - will be interesting to see what happens.
> 
> I will have no sympathy for MPs who get deselected. But there will be a lot of nauseating outrage from the Labour right if it even passes, never mind gets activated.
> 
> ...



I think it depends what they think they can achieve and what they'd regard as a success. Clearly they can't get within a million miles of being a genuine national party with a large block in parliament. They could potentially block a Corbyn government though or at least make it much harder to achieve even without getting near winning any seats. Is that worth it to them? 

I'd guess their most optimistic view is that a handful of them might retain their seats in the most pro-remain areas. I think they're wrong but maybe some of them think it's worth a go.


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't get how people can think its fine to openly laugh at the idea that jews (particularly European ones) might be a bit messed up because of what the nazis did to their families. Sod Hodge but if you don't see this you're missing out on a major bit of the whole story of why we are so 'oversensitive' about antisemitism, as well as why israel has turned out as fucked as it is, imo. Like frank says.


Armenians, Irish, native Americans (north), native Americans (south), West Africans, slavs (the origin of the word slave).
What's your point?
Are these people not special or important?


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes and once you realise this human history and politics starts to make a lot more sense, as well as the behaviour of individuals.
> 
> Many states and governments, Israel not least among them, deliberately manipulate the collective trauma of their people for political ends. This is one way that ethnic and sectarian conflicts can be prolonged on a generational timescale.
> 
> It's an established fact even in secondary school history lessons that the trauma of the first world war was a major factor in dragging the next generation into the second.


Latter point is simply not true, the 2nd world war was a development of the 1st, exacerbated by the wall street crash.
If you post up shit, I'll shoot it down.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Latter point is simply not true, the 2nd world war was a development of the 1st, exacerbated by the wall street crash.
> *If you post up shit, I'll shoot it down*.


 LOL 

That's a really silly thing to post given you haven't contradicted what he said at all. Compare;



> that the trauma of the first world war was a major factor in dragging the next generation into the second.





> the 2nd world war was a development of the 1st, exacerbated by the wall street crash.



Read like very much the same point to me with just the a different focus...


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> LOL
> 
> That's a really silly thing to post given you haven't contradicted what he said at all. Compare;
> 
> ...


You obviously have have never read/understood dialectics?
Another generation were not "dragged" into a 2nd World War!
It was utterly necessary!
So, when quantitative phenomena transform into qualitative phenomena.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2018)

Give it up francis. It worked with the vegetarian one, it won't work with this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> You obviously have have never read/understood dialectics?
> Another generation were not "dragged" into a 2nd World War!
> It was utterly necessary!
> So, when quantitative phenomena transform into qualitative phenomena.



Stop trying to be 'right' and think... There is more than one way of looking at and thinking about things. Perspective is everything...I dare say there were many in the population that felt dragged into another war while those in power saw it as necessary.  Both things can be true.


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Stop trying to be 'right' and think... There is more than one way of looking at and thinking about things. Perspective is everything...I dare say there were many in the population that felt dragged into another war while those in power saw it as necessary.  Both things can be true.


No they cannot, that is the problem with post-modern "anarchist" (see petit-bourgeois liberal) thinkers.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> No they cannot, that is the problem with post-modern "anarchist" (see petit-bourgeois liberal) thinkers.


You obviously have have never read/understood dialectics?


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Armenians, Irish, native Americans (north), native Americans (south), West Africans, slavs (the origin of the word slave).
> What's your point?
> Are these people not special or important?


I doubt members of any of those groups would be told to shut up if they wanted to talk about the present day effects of historical oppression on them and their communities. Rightly so.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2018)

belboid said:


> You obviously have have never read/understood dialectics?


It's francis lengel pretending to be a marxist after conning some people by pretending to be  vegan a month back. Don't bother.


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

belboid said:


> You obviously have have never read/understood dialectics?


So, you can re-quote, would like to give your analysis, or just look like a maggot?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2018)

Hi Francis.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> So, you can re-quote, would like to give your analysis, or just look like a maggot?


My analysis is, you're still full of shit, Francis.


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It's francis lengel pretending to be a marxist after conning some people by pretending to be  vegan a month back. Don't bother.


Eric Lengel


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> No they cannot, that is the problem with post-modern "anarchist" (see petit-bourgeois liberal) thinkers.


  

Okay then.

/yawn


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Okay then.
> 
> /yawn


Good analysis.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Good analysis.



Sis anal yo god.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> Eric Lengel


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Sis anal yo god.


sis/cis/cissy face


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2018)

Any last words before you're banned?


----------



## 4eyes (Aug 23, 2018)

Favelado said:


> Any last words before you're banned?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 23, 2018)

Favelado said:


> Any last words before you're banned?



Probably got a few emergency backup accounts to use, yet. He'll be back before you know it.


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2018)

4eyes said:


> sis/cis/cissy face



You fucking twat.


----------



## oryx (Aug 23, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think it depends what they think they can achieve and what they'd regard as a success. Clearly they can't get within a million miles of being a genuine national party with a large block in parliament. They could potentially block a Corbyn government though or at least make it much harder to achieve even without getting near winning any seats. Is that worth it to them?
> 
> I'd guess their most optimistic view is that a handful of them might retain their seats in the most pro-remain areas. I think they're wrong but maybe some of them think it's worth a go.



Good piece from Owen Jones pretty much saying what you're saying and that a 'centrist' party is a gift to the Tory right and nothing else. Also that the potential Labour splitters like Umunna are indeed deluded.



> But in a sense, that is hardly the point, because such a party will never assume power. The SDP was led by political giants known to millions of Britons, and yet it won a paltry 23 seats in 1983, merely helping to gift Thatcher a landslide. According to sources, Umunna believes the surge in his majority last year was down to his anti-Brexit stance; yet that hardly explains how uber-Brexiteer Kate Hoey’s majority dramatically increased in the neighbouring remain citadel of Vauxhall


A new centrist party is the far-right’s dream | Owen Jones


----------



## teqniq (Aug 23, 2018)

MSM whined couldn’t get a camera into Corbyn speech. They got one – and aren’t showing it. Here it is


----------



## bimble (Aug 24, 2018)

The latest mini-scandal is totally fine, just more smears, because he said Zionists obvs. So people who subscribe to a political view called zionism _"despite having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony._” That makes sense.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2018)

While I think that's the closest thing to a smoking gun they've yet come up with, I think everyone has pretty much switched off now so I doubt it'll land.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

Why would he engage in this pathetic smirking brinkmanship? He'll get cheered to the rafters for it by that lot BTW.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 24, 2018)

Jees, Johnson's islamaphobia is quickly forgotten, but this just won't die!
Jewish MP 'feels unwelcome' after Corbyn comments


----------



## Winot (Aug 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> The latest mini-scandal is totally fine, just more smears, because he said Zionists obvs. So people who subscribe to a political view called zionism _"despite having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony._” That makes sense.



Took me a while to realise your post was ironic, which probably means I’m a Zionist.


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> The latest mini-scandal is totally fine, just more smears, because he said Zionists obvs. So people who subscribe to a political view called zionism _"despite having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony._” That makes sense.


Is this something he's said recently, or is it something from the past?

(Not that being from the past makes any less unacceptable,  but if he's saying it now he's fucking stupid and loses any sympathy I might have had for being smeared and targeted for political reasons beyond the anti semitism issue)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> The latest mini-scandal is totally fine, just more smears, because he said Zionists obvs. So people who subscribe to a political view called zionism _"despite having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony._” That makes sense.


(((english xian zionists)))


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 24, 2018)

andysays said:


> Is this something he's said recently, or is it something from the past?
> 
> (Not that being from the past makes any less unacceptable,  but if he's saying it now he's fucking stupid and loses any sympathy I might have had for being smeared and targeted for political reasons beyond the anti semitism issue)



2013


----------



## andysays (Aug 24, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 2013


Thanks


----------



## bimble (Aug 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> (((english xian zionists)))


Yep, those people are not properly English either, clearly, no matter if they were born here or not. 
Or wait was that a joke I can't tell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep, those people are not properly English either, clearly, no matter if they were born here or not.
> Or wait was that a joke I can't tell.


you never can


----------



## Poi E (Aug 24, 2018)

Not these days. Not like the old days when someone would cue a joke with "'take my wife" or "how about these Pakis".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2018)

Terrific stuff from the New Statesman:



> If an employer made these comments about a Jewish employee, I expect the employee would have a strong case for harassment on grounds of race. If you doubt this, try reading the above excerpt and replacing “Zionists” with “blacks” and see whether you see racism.



Well yeah, you can turn a lot of things racist if your replace a word for something that's not a race with a word for something that is.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 24, 2018)

And this from the Graun. Never mind that you're pouring petrol on it eh? I wonder why that could be?

Corbyn 'English irony' video reignites antisemitism row


----------



## agricola (Aug 24, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Terrific stuff from the New Statesman:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yeah, you can turn a lot of things racist if your replace a word for something that's not a race with a word for something that is.



As a Welsh I don't get English irony either, but surely the most appropriate parallel with "Zionist" here is "Islamist", which is also a political movement based on religion and which is often used as a screen for racism. 

If Corbyn had used it in the same context you could certainly accuse him of at least sailing close to the wind, but of course you also have to acknowledge that the media (and many of those professing outrage at him) use "Islamist" in exactly that context all the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

Then the context of the loons he was talking to and with. Proper fucking loons.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 24, 2018)

I'll say it then: that was racist.

The stupid prick.


----------



## JimW (Aug 24, 2018)

Yep, really smacks of him having this distinction in his own mind but swimming in those waters so long he can't see where he's drifted off to any more.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 24, 2018)

JimW said:


> Yep, really smacks of him having this distinction in his own mind but swimming in those waters so long he can't see where he's drifted off to any more.


And fuck him, frankly.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2018)

trying to be positive for a minute, would be good to hear from those who attack Corbyn / Lab Left for their immersion in 'identity politics' , re: what they think of Corbyn actually addressing the idea of class based diversity issues re:  BBC / Media ? Bit of a first this in modern mainstream political era, obviously very much overdue, and if rolled out on a wider basis, could have some sizeable implications, on many fronts.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

I can't think of anyone attacking him/them for that.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I can't think of anyone attacking him/them for that.



JoR IIRC


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

I don't know what that means


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know what that means


Overground station in Glasgow. Jordanhill.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

Unless you mean Joe on here. OK, that's a very diff attack from one that's currently in the air. I think there's a lot of mileage in the idea that there is an ongoing labour party coalition based on top-down identity politics as a class politics and the remnant of the old statsist left.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 24, 2018)

"zionists don't understand english irony" - yeah - that did make me wince. And irony in the sense of what? "ironic" murals?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 24, 2018)

Here's Corbyn's statement on the matter, conveniently timed for sunset on a Friday


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

The problem was with identifying a group of people as anti-english ironically in front of a crowd of anti-semites.

Look, the talk that night, it was comedy. The people it appeared with? Fuck that.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2018)

This article was in Evening Standard today. Its pretty hard hitting as its making clear want this is about. Criticism of Zionism / Israel makes one anti Semitic.

Worse its saying anti Zionist Jews are "self hating". I've actually seen Jews being abused by Zionist myself. in this way.

Andrew Feldman: Dear Mr Corbyn, Jews won’t feel safe until you denounce anti-Zionism

No acknowledgement that founding of Israel was by expulsion of Palestinians in article.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

Are you in the labour party gramsci?

This is about two things surely - people using anti-semitism in the labour party to attack corbyn - and anti-semites in the labour party being used to attack corbyn.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Are you in the labour party gramsci?
> 
> This is about two things surely - people using anti-semitism in the labour party to attack corbyn and ant-semites in the labour party being used to attack corbyn.


And Corbyn being really shit at dealing with either. 

But that video. He knew exactly what he was saying and to whom.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> And Corbyn being really shit at dealing with either.
> 
> But that video. He knew exactly what he was saying and to whom.


Yep, i've always known, it's why i have been so hard on what existed of the labour left  - some dark dark corners that no one knew till, oddly, corbyn brought the light.


----------



## hot air baboon (Aug 24, 2018)

oryx said:


> Good piece from Owen Jones pretty much saying what you're saying and that a 'centrist' party is a gift to the Tory right and nothing else. Also that the potential Labour splitters like Umunna are indeed deluded.



creating a new party in the 'centre' can only make sense if it ideologically fractures the Tories aswell as Labour & it can totally co-opt / replace the LibDems. The SDP pretty much managed to do 2 but 1 was never on the agenda even with alot of the Tory 'wets' getting handbagged into bloody pulp


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The problem was with identifying a group of people as anti-english ironically in front of a crowd of anti-semites.
> 
> Look, the talk that night, it was comedy. The people it appeared with? Fuck that.



apols if already covered, but who was JC speaking to ( specifically) ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

cantsin said:


> apols if already covered, but who was JC speaking to ( specifically) ?


A load of 911, holocaust denial nutters


----------



## agricola (Aug 24, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This article was in Evening Standard today. Its pretty hard hitting as its making clear want this is about. Criticism of Zionism / Israel makes one anti Semitic.
> 
> Worse its saying anti Zionist Jews are "self hating". I've actually seen Jews being abused by Zionist myself. in this way.
> 
> ...



The only thing amusing about that article is how many Tory MPs expressed their total agreement with it, seemingly missing this bit:



> Quietly, discreetly and extremely reluctantly, they are making their contingency plans. And this would be a tragedy. It’s not just the contribution that the community has made to our nation. It’s also a signal to the world about the state of modern Britain — the Jewish people are the canary in the coalmine. Intolerance breeds intolerance. Closed societies are failing societies.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

It KEEPS happening. 

It's not him, so what is this longstanding culture he keeps accidentally doing this in?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> A load of 911, holocaust denial nutters



ok, went and had a look - Palestine Return Centre ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2018)

cantsin said:


> ok, went and had a look - Palestine Return Centre ?


What did you find on that night?


----------



## xarmian (Aug 24, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> And Corbyn being really shit at dealing with either.
> 
> But that video. He knew exactly what he was saying and to whom.


But do you know the context for what he said?

This is from Jamie Stern-Weiner, linked to by David Schneider as a different perspective to his own.

"Corbyn's joke was that the Palestinian Ambassador, a non-native, understood English irony better than his English critics. The premise of the joke was that the 'Zionists' who'd misunderstood him *were* English, not that they *weren't*."

I haven't seen anyone explain exactly what Hassassian was berated for but this is a short report of the speech in parliament from one of the 'Zionists' who attended.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2018)

umm, " that night" ?   it was tonight, 10  mins ago.... googled it, and the DM article said he was at a " Palestine Return Centre " meeting ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 24, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It KEEPS happening.
> 
> It's not him, so what is this longstanding culture he keeps accidentally doing this in?


And in his rebuttal he says he uses Zionist in the political sense. But it's the _rest_ of what he says that's enlightening. That they're not English and don't understand English ways, even the ones born here.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 24, 2018)

This and the mural together, paints a not very good picture.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 24, 2018)

J Ed said:


> This and the mural together, paints a not very good picture.



Well it was a particularly shit mural.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 24, 2018)

J Ed said:


> This and the mural together, paints a not very good picture.



I agree. Most of the claims of antisemitism I have found utterly unconvincing - especially the IHRA definition bollocks - but the mural and the 'zionist' comments are both indefensible.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

I'm not really sure if he's got bad judgement or bad politics (answer: it's both).  A lot of this stuff is what a professional activist without responsibility would come out with - exactly what he was pre-leadership. Oh, hang on no, it's not the stuff _anyone_ should come out with.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

So what now? Anyone think his time is up or do we observe the static polls and shrug it off until the next accusation emerges?


----------



## billbond (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> So what now? Anyone think his time is up or do we observe the static polls and shrug it off until the next accusation emerges?



His rabid nutcase followers will keep sweeping  this stuff under the carpet


----------



## cantsin (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> So what now? Anyone think his time is up or do we observe the static polls and shrug it off until the next accusation emerges?



Most questionable juncture yet, for sure


----------



## cantsin (Aug 25, 2018)

billbond said:


> His rabid nutcase followers will keep sweeping  this stuff under the carpet



Zzzzzzz


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Zzzzzzz


take the second and third words out and his right imo. I'm sympathetic to his economic stuff but surely Labour can have that without the baggage of 80s ant imperialism and more of a focus on the working class?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Most questionable juncture yet, for sure


Is this the most direct and personal bit of AS from Corbyn (as opposed to being on a platform with/not denouncing/laying wreaths type stuff)?


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 25, 2018)

cantsin said:


> ok, went and had a look - Palestine Return Centre ?



Stephen sizer on the panel 

Vicar investigated over Facebook post linking to '9/11: Israel did it' article


----------



## bimble (Aug 25, 2018)

That statement he put out is just a doubling down, a ‘euphemism’ ffs. Better to have said nothing.


----------



## billbond (Aug 25, 2018)

He has some support it seems, link keeps breaking
The headline anyway


*Jeremy Corbyn praised by Nick Griffin and former KKK leader after 'British Zionists don't understand English irony' comments*


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

xarmian said:


> But do you know the context for what he said?
> 
> This is from Jamie Stern-Weiner, linked to by David Schneider as a different perspective to his own.
> 
> ...


Except, like I say, he knew exactly what he was saying and how his audience would hear it.


----------



## bimble (Aug 25, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Stephen sizer on the panel
> 
> Vicar investigated over Facebook post linking to '9/11: Israel did it' article


After which JC stepped up to defend his friend:
Stephen Sizer: Jeremy Corbyn MP Challenges Accusations of Anti-Semitism


^ this bit of writing by JC is quite interesting for including his personal understanding of what the word zionism means.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

And who the audience was. Every freak going it seems


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

And no, the joke was that no matter how they pretended, they weren't proper English schneider. They remain, as the audience would agree, a foreign body. A parasite


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

This is not like him not getting a mural. This is him painting the mural with nutter mates cheering him on. And now today...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

The alternative to accepting that he knew what he was saying is that he's just so inept that he should keep his mouth shut at all times in case he accidentally praises racist murals or accidentally puts air quotes round "English" when referring to the nationality of strictly political Zionists.  

The fact is that his statist leanings leave him adopting the position that "my enemy's enemies are my friends", so the impulse is to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism when it crops up in critcism of the actions and policies of the Israeli state.  Its true that criticising the actions and policies of the Israeli state is not in itself anti-Semitic. It's also true that many supporters of the Israeli state want to draw that equivalence. But instead of challenging both that simplification and the antisemitism, he chose to turn a blind eye to the latter. With the effect that he's wallowed in it so long he can no longer see it.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

What should Corbin do at this point, because this isn't going away.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> What should Corbin do at this point, because this isn't going away.


There are a lot of codes, signs, symbolism and tropes in antisemitism that untrained eyes and ears will miss. (Like Jews not being proper English). Most untrained observers are mystified by the whole thing. I'm guessing that they'll be mystified by this latest gaffe too. So I don't think his polling will tumble or anything.

However, he has brought blinking into the light the nasty anti-Semitic current that the statist left has turned its simplistic "My enemy's enemies" blind eye to for decades. He can either decisively extract the Labour Party from that, or, flail around in it because  he's too mired in the non condemnation impulse to know what to do. My guess is he'll keep doing the latter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And no, the joke was that no matter how they pretended, they weren't proper English schneider. They remain, as the audience would agree, a foreign body. A parasite



He’s not saying ‘parasite’. It’s a mild (if such a thing can be) and thoughtless cricket test. He’s perhaps saying English people should believe in fair play. 

It’s always a mistake to nationalise, but it’s hardly Hitler. The problem is his previous with the mural, his associates and his taciturn self-righteousness which is no substitute for charm.


----------



## Grump (Aug 25, 2018)

A lot of the accusations against Corbyn have clearly been using anything that could be twisted into an 'anti Semitic'' jibe simply to attack him. But this speech is different, it is clearly and openly anti Semitic. His problem is he says what he thinks will get him a pat on the back from people he admires, such as the Palestinians, without thinking through the consequences. I still don't think he is truly anti Jewish, but he is too stupid to be the party leader.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> There are a lot of codes, signs, symbolism and tropes in antisemitism that untrained eyes and ears will miss. (Like Jews not being proper English). Most untrained observers are mystified by the whole thing. I'm guessing that they'll be mystified by this latest gaffe too. So I don't think his polling will tumble or anything.
> 
> However, he has brought blinking into the light the nasty anti-Semitic current that the statist left has turned its simplistic "My enemy's enemies" blind eye to for decades. He can either decisively extract the Labour Party from that, or, flail around in it because  he's too mired in the non condemnation impulse to know what to do. My guess is he'll keep doing the latter.


I'm certainly mystified, but then I've only just learned about it so I don't know the full bebop on the story. It doesn't sound like what he said was anti semitic. 

So how can he extract the labour party from that? Is it just as simple as accepting the entirety of the IHRA?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> He’s not saying ‘parasite’. It’s a mild (if such a thing can be) and thoughtless cricket test. He’s perhaps saying English people should believe in fair play.
> 
> It’s always a mistake to nationalise, but it’s hardly Hitler. The problem is his previous with the mural, his associates and his taciturn self-righteousness which is no substitute for charm.


Yes that's def what the audience he is playing to would have heard. Let me remind you .a bunch of 911 loons and holocaust deniers . Prime target for some sublety.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> A lot of the accusations against Corbyn have clearly been using anything that could be twisted into an 'anti Semitic'' jibe simply to attack him. But this speech is different, it is clearly and openly anti Semitic. His problem is he says what he thinks will get him a pat on the back from people he admires, such as the Palestinians, without thinking through the consequences. I still don't think he is truly anti Jewish, but he is too stupid to be the party leader.


I'm not sure I can agree with that. Call me naive but that analysis does seem a bit simplistic. I don't think he _stupid _and I'm  not convinced he says things just to get plaudits. How can you back this up?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> He’s not saying ‘parasite’. It’s a mild (if such a thing can be) and thoughtless cricket test. He’s perhaps saying English people should believe in fair play.
> 
> It’s always a mistake to nationalise, but it’s hardly Hitler. The problem is his previous with the mural, his associates and his taciturn self-righteousness which is no substitute for charm.


He's not saying parasite because he doesn't have to with this audience. That's the bloody point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

As for "hardly hitler", I never had you pegged for this sort of idiot. Never.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Maybe a thread for racist stuff that's hardly hitler would be timely. I mean. If its not a 12 year state led extermination drive it's barely worth mentioning.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> As for "hardly hitler", I never had you pegged for this sort of idiot. Never.



It’s not a helpful quality to fail to discern between clumsy offence and virulent racism. Working class people have fled in droves from socialism because of it.

But I take your point about the audience. If you are right that’s a bigger deal than anything that is said here.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s not a helpful quality to fail to discern between clumsy offence and virulent racism. Working class people have fled in droves from socialism because of it.


And it's been the moralising left now behind corbyn that has driven that, not anti racists enacting that this long running squalid association is finally brought to proper light.. And its that same guilty bloody handed left now both defending and demanding it's left alone. Its hardly hitler ffs. Its only a little bit racism. Fuck that.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe a thread for racist stuff that's hardly hitler would be timely. I mean. If its not a 12 year state led extermination drive it's barely worth mentioning.



FFS Butchers the whole point of having a forum is to reach a nuanced, informed opinion. If everything is either evil or not we can just plant our flags and be done with it.

So, presumably you would now favour Corbyn stepping down? That’s not yet been the majority view of this board/thread.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> So how can he extract the labour party from that?


What I mean is extract themselves from the "enemy's enemy" fallacy; stop refusing to condemn antisemitism from people he considers allies; stop the simplifications that cause him and the statist left these blind spots (Syria being another).

He _could_ do that. But he probably doesn't know how to anymore.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS Butchers the whole point of having a forum is to reach a nuanced, informed opinion. If everything is either evil or not we can just plant our flags and be done with it.
> 
> So, presumably you would now favour Corbyn stepping down? That’s not yet been the majority view of this board/thread.


Of course I wouldn't. Oh no its not been the view of the majority of the board. So what?

You dozy Labour cunts need waking up. This filth is now at the centre of your party. Do something about it. Right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> What I mean is extract themselves from the "enemy's enemy" fallacy; stop refusing to condemn antisemitism from people he considers allies; stop the simplifications that cause him and the statist left these blind spots (Syria being another).
> 
> He _could_ do that. But he probably doesn't know how to anymore.


This is what wider politics is to these types though. There is no other way of doing it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe a thread for racist stuff that's hardly hitler would be timely. I mean. If its not a 12 year state led extermination drive it's barely worth mentioning.



I’m not sure why you are going off on one to quite this level. During the last few pages people have discussed what was meant and gone as far as saying it paints a ‘worrying picture’. I’m not excusing it in the slightest, in fact I wonder how anyone immersed in left wing politics could use a cricket test. I’m merely saying on its own, isolated from the circumstance he might ride it out. But he has too much previous.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> This is what wider politics is to these types though. There is no other way of doing it.


Well, I think that's right. So I don't think Corbyn _can_ get Labour out of the mire. 

So if the Labour left wants to solve this they need to get rid of that mindset. And get rid of him. If they don't, the Labour right just needs to bide its time and wait for him to collapse under his own ineptitude, and the Party's theirs again for the foreseeable.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> What I mean is extract themselves from the "enemy's enemy" fallacy; stop refusing to condemn antisemitism from people he considers allies; stop the simplifications that cause him and the statist left these blind spots (Syria being another).
> 
> He _could_ do that. But he probably doesn't know how to anymore.


Weird how their Pro Palestinism didn't extend to Syria. 20 000 anti regime Palestinian activists locked up death notices being sent out en masse. Starvation and death from the sky didn't merit a mention  But when Israel is involved. Well it's up out the armchair every 5th Saturday 12 till 1 for 100% sure. Solidarity comrade.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Of course I wouldn't. Oh no its not been the view of the majority of the board. So what?
> 
> You dozy Labour cunts need waking up. This filth is now at the centre of your party. Do something about it. Right now.



How dare you claim I’m a Labour cunt. I’m my own sort of cunt thank you very much.

I believe you care what happens with Labour however illusory you consider electoral politics, so unpack why, given what you are saying, you wouldn’t want him to step down.

Liked as you made me lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> How dare you claim I’m a Labour cunt. I’m my own sort of cunt thank you very much.
> 
> I believe you care what happens with Labour however illusory you consider electoral politics, so unpack why, given what you are saying, you wouldn’t want him to step down.


Sounds like you want him to stand down not me. Why. For the want of something better would I? Am I lying when I say I don't?


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I think that's right. So I don't think Corbyn _can_ get Labour out of the mire.
> 
> So if the Labour left wants to solve this they need to get rid of that mindset. And get rid of him. If they don't, the Labour right just needs to bide its time and wait for him to collapse under his own ineptitude, and the Party's theirs again for the foreseeable.


Why is it necessary to get rid of him as well? Why is he key to this mindset? Surely anyone similarly left wing is going to have comparable views: pro palestine, etc. As long as that's the case they will always be targeted - regardless what they say. 

I just don't believe Corbyn is the catalyst. I haven't seen him say or do anything that I feel comfortable calling racist. I could well be wrong, certainly. But it seems to me that much of this is about the kind of people conspiracy theory genmerally takes root in, which is to say people at the bottom of society; socially isolated and marginalised. These are the people I see that buy into, for example, the White Helmets conspiracies or the 'jews did xyz' theories. People who want easier answers than exist who want someone to blame. Not necessarily violent hatemongers, but just ignorant - dangerously so. Yes they need challenging and if Corbyn is consciously contributing to this then yes, my god, that's a problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

People like poor desperate Chris Williamson. People who can afford tickets to beautiful days, they might be able to run museums or have well paying public service jobs .They might be professors. They might be psychically morally and intellectually up shit creek. Doesn't mean they're poor.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS Butchers the whole point of having a forum is to reach a nuanced, informed opinion. If everything is either evil or not we can just plant our flags and be done with it.
> 
> So, presumably you would now favour Corbyn stepping down? That’s not yet been the majority view of this board/thread.


As a non-Labour party member who's a member of an affiliated union, I voted for Corbyn in the last leadership election. I certainly won't be voting for him again.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds like you want him to stand down not me. Why. For the want of something better would I? Am I lying when I say I don't?



I never think you are less than forthright and interesting and generally any exchange with you is to my benefit. But fuck me you can be obtuse.

I’ve always been ambivalent to Corbyn, think he is flawed and the Labour Party can do better. Whatever the limited gains Labour would give I still would like it to succeed. So yes I’d prefer if he went. 

I’m not sure why, given your damning assessment of his racism, you don’t.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> I never think you are less than forthright and interesting and generally any exchange with you is to my benefit. But fuck me you can be obtuse.
> 
> I’ve always been ambivalent to Corbyn, think he is flawed and the Labour Party can do better. Whatever the limited gains Labour would give I still would like it to succeed. So yes I’d prefer if he went.
> 
> I’m not sure why, given your damning assessment of his racism, you don’t.


I don't think he's racist. And in strict electoral terms, if he is, this sort of racism is irrelevant. I think he's the spearhead of a lot of unexamined thinking that needs to be brought to light and that can be changed by doing so. The wider milieu - well, I have no such hope, having been butting heads with them for near three decades.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Why is it necessary to get rid of him as well? Why is he key to this mindset? Surely anyone similarly left wing is going to have comparable views: pro palestine, etc. As long as that's the case they will always be targeted - regardless what they say.
> 
> I just don't believe Corbyn is the catalyst. I haven't seen him say or do anything that I feel comfortable calling racist. I could well be wrong, certainly. But it seems to me that much of this is about the kind of people conspiracy theory genmerally takes root in, which is to say people at the bottom of society; socially isolated and marginalised. These are the people I see that buy into, for example, the White Helmets conspiracies or the 'jews did xyz' theories. People who want easier answers than exist who want someone to blame. Not necessarily violent hatemongers, but just ignorant - dangerously so. Yes they need challenging and if Corbyn is consciously contributing to this then yes, my god, that's a problem.



But this incident - its not about him being "pro-Palestine" - he's actually said something racist, in front of a anti-semitic/various other bigotry/conspiriloony audience.  He's mired in this sewer of "anti-imperialism" "my enemy of my enemy is my friend", glossing over quite horrendous views.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Why is it necessary to get rid of him as well? Why is he key to this mindset?


I didn't say he's the key to the mindset, and I don't think he is. But I don't think he can lead the Labour left out of the mire. He's up to his neck in it. 

I don't think he got into this mess by being racist. I think he got into this mess because he doesn't know how else to do politics. Like butchers said, if these people are so pro Palestinian, how did they get it so wrong on Syria? Their impulse isn't to be pro Palestinian, pro solidarity, pro justice. Their understanding of how geopolitics is done is to look for the blocs and see who is against Assad or whoever. Oh, so those are his enemies, that makes him my friend. I know he's done bad stuff but I have to keep quiet, or convince myself he hasn't, for the greater good. Because to undermine my enemy's enemy is to support my enemy.

That's also how Corbyn got himself into this mess on antisemitism. And neither he nor the statist left know how to get out because they don't know how else to do politics.

Corbyn _could_ reject this way of doing things. He _could_ make decisive and clear statements that he's done with this stuff. But just look at him. He's not able. It keeps happening. 

OK, the Labour right and others are using this against him. But why are they _able_ to? Because he doesn't know what to do.

So the Labour left want to keep the former New Labour crowd from getting back in? How do they do that? Stick with this accident prone idiot? Or ditch him?

The thing is, the whole statist left is in the same mess as him, so who is there to replace him?


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he's racist. And in strict electoral terms, if he is, this sort of racism is irrelevant. I think he's the spearhead of a lot of unexamined thinking that needs to be brought to light and that can be changed by doing so. The wider milieu - well, I have no such hope, having been butting heads with them for near three decades.



It’s a comfort blanket that it’s electorally irrelevant. It is until it reaches critical mass and then it’s everything.

It’s not an easy position this, that he is saying racist things to very racist people, but he’s not a racist. It’s true they can be dealt with easily enough when brought into the light, except at every airing someone else in Labour makes a fool of themselves about it. It is damaging and he continues to be at the epicentre of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s a comfort blanket that it’s electorally irrelevant. It is until it reaches critical mass and then it’s everything.
> 
> It’s not an easy position this, that he is saying racist things to very racist people, but he’s not a racist. It’s true they can be dealt with easily enough when brought into the light, except at every airing someone else in Labour makes a fool of themselves about it. It is damaging and he continues to be at the epicentre of it.


It has made no electoral impact - over the entirety of his leadership - including a general election.

Of course it's not an easy position, but it's one that i think people on the left have to take. Any other position is just party consumerism.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Go back to the lib-dems and greens you  folding bike twats.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It KEEPS happening.
> 
> It's not him, so what is this longstanding culture he keeps accidentally doing this in?



It's a culture of a large part of Palestine solidarity in the UK they are locked in a nationalist battle about who can influence the master USA (and its appendage UK). There's no belief in any concept of world revolution of working-class producers, or a working class people acting across cultural boundaries. It's an endless smokescreen lobbying competition with Israel and its lobbyists doing better than Palestinians. The material interests of the USA (and the material interests of the UK in parterning the USA) get increasingly sidelined and the lobbyists for Israel assume pride of place as the chief actors in the whole thing.
In this environment, conspiracists like Stephen Sizer can make hay. With enough of them, their attitude rubs off on others, and anything riling up Israel lobbyists, damaging their morale, becomes OK hence such pointless "jokes".



The39thStep said:


> take the second and third words out and his right imo. I'm sympathetic to his economic stuff but surely Labour can have that without the baggage of 80s ant imperialism and more of a focus on the working class?



80s anti imperialism has been dropped at the toss of a hat, being as Corbyn is a. committed to remaining in NATO b. keeping nuclear weapons.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't say he's the key to the mindset, and I don't think he is. But I don't think he can lead the Labour left out of the mire. He's up to his neck in it.
> 
> I don't think he got into this mess by being racist. I think he got into this mess because he doesn't know how else to do politics. Like butchers said, if these people are so pro Palestinian, how did they get it so wrong on Syria? Their impulse isn't to be pro Palestinian, pro solidarity, pro justice. Their understanding of how geopolitics is done is to look for the blocs and see who is against Assad or whoever. Oh, so those are his enemies, that makes him my friend. I know he's done bad stuff but I have to keep quiet, or convince myself he hasn't, for the greater good. Because to undermine my enemy's enemy is to support my enemy.
> 
> ...



Who else can lead Labour? Who else, now, would the membership accept? Anyone that's pro palestine is going to be similarly targeted (rightly or wrongly).

I'm sorry I don't know enough about Syria or Corbyn's position on it to understand what you mean when you ask why they got it so wrong on it. Does he buy into the Syrian terrorist conspiracy theories personally? I've only heard that come from others, perhaps he does.

I take your point that he could do something. If he can certainly he should. FWIW (notmuch) I've tweeted Chris Williamson a couple of times in respect of his disastrous public endorsement of Beeley. He hasnt responded, but then I'm just another anonymous tweeter so...perhaps that's the problem.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> But this incident - its not about him being "pro-Palestine" - he's actually said something racist, in front of a anti-semitic/various other bigotry/conspiriloony audience.  He's mired in this sewer of "anti-imperialism" "my enemy of my enemy is my friend", glossing over quite horrendous views.



I haven't followed everything he's said. I'll be honest. I've found the whole thing too depressing for words. Admittedly perhaps that's a bit self absorbed, but I feel that if he goes so do Labour's chances of ousting the Tories and that, imo, _cannot _happen. I say that simply because the abuse of the poorest/sick that we all know about, probably even more than me, _must stop. _Self indulgent mini-rant over.

I don't really understand what of the things he's said that I'm aware of that is racist. Not to say it isn't, but that I'm not getting it. I don't think I'm alone in this.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

That there cannot be such a thing as an English Zionist due to something in their nature that doesn't apply to others. Palestinians say. They are an undigestible foreign body.

There's not much to follow. It's there in front of you and you're replying to a debate about it.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2018)

sihhi said:


> It's a culture of a large part of Palestine solidarity in the UK they are locked in a nationalist battle about who can influence the master USA (and its appendage UK). There's no belief in any concept of world revolution of working-class producers, or a working class people acting across cultural boundaries. It's an endless smokescreen lobbying competition with Israel and its lobbyists doing better than Palestinians. The material interests of the USA (and the material interests of the UK in parterning the USA) get increasingly sidelined and the lobbyists for Israel assume pride of place as the chief actors in the whole thing.
> In this environment, conspiracists like Stephen Sizer can make hay. With enough of them, their attitude rubs off on others, and anything riling up Israel lobbyists, damaging their morale, becomes OK hence such pointless "jokes".
> 
> 
> ...


Cold War stuff.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> That there cannot be such a thing as an English Zionist due to something in their nature that doesn't apply to others. Palestinians say. They are an undigestible foreign body.
> 
> There's not much to follow. It's there in front of you and you're replying to a debate about it.


Sure, and all I'm asking is for something I don't understand to be clarified. Not unreasonable, I think


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Who else can lead Labour? Who else, now, would the membership accept? Anyone that's pro palestine is going to be similarly targeted (rightly or wrongly).


The first point is for Labour members to decide. The second point, you've missed entirely what I've been saying: that there are ways to be pro Palestinian without giving succour to antisemitism. Corbyn _could_ do that, even now, but won't.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> That there cannot be such a thing as an English Zionist due to something in their nature that doesn't apply to others. Palestinians say. They are an undigestible foreign body.
> 
> There's not much to follow. It's there in front of you and you're replying to a debate about it.


It's all in the video.

"_Manuel_ understands English irony".


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

The only way to be pro-palestinian is through hamas, through the syrian regimes  PFLP-GC cops and dungeons...this is the mindset


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The first point is for Labour members to decide. The second point, you've missed entirely what I've been saying: that there are ways to be pro Palestinian without giving succour to antisemitism. Corbyn _could_ do that, even now, but won't.


 In terms of the mindset of the left and day to day politics, that's the absolute core of this.  It also feels like a replay of some of the stuff that went on in Respect/stwc a decade or more ago (though actually in a _slightly_ less overt form).


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> In terms of the mindset of the left and day to day politics, that's the absolute core of this.  It also feels like a replay of some of the stuff that went on in Respect/stwc a decade or more ago (though actually in a _slightly_ less overt form).


Same people shaken through.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Same people shaken through.


… and of course as chair of stwc, Corbyn was well placed to hear the criticisms of the organisation, respect and others at the time over anti-Semitism. Didn't learn anything and still has the same reflexes when it comes to the Palestinian struggle.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It has made no electoral impact - over the entirety of his leadership - including a general election.
> 
> Of course it's not an easy position, but it's one that i think people on the left have to take. Any other position is just party consumerism.



I agree with your last para, but the first is pure opinion. There was an election that was possibly winnable and level pegging with the Tories right now is not so impressive that it couldn’t be improved.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Opinion? Labour were expected to be wiped out. That is not opinion. Anything else is rewriting of history  That result would not have happened under any of the other available leaders. That's opinion, near fact.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I haven't followed everything he's said. I'll be honest. I've found the whole thing too depressing for words. Admittedly perhaps that's a bit self absorbed, but I feel that if he goes so do Labour's chances of ousting the Tories and that, imo, _cannot _happen. I say that simply because the abuse of the poorest/sick that we all know about, probably even more than me, _must stop. _Self indulgent mini-rant over.
> 
> I don't really understand what of the things he's said that I'm aware of that is racist. Not to say it isn't, but that I'm not getting it. I don't think I'm alone in this.



I decided to try and find all he said at the Palestinian Return Centre. 

Found this on YouTube.



Its about ten minutes in all. Its theme is importance of history. At beginning he praises contribution of Jews to the British Labour movement in its early years. He distinguishes between Zionism and Jews in general. He speaks about Palestinian history. That for years Palestinian peoples history had been denigrated. That when he was growing up he was taught that Palestine was an empty land that the Zionists developed. This was historically wrong. He refers to Balfour agreement and British Imperialism.Its about two thirds at through he makes reference to speech by Palestinian politician. He is criticising the Zionists who were present when speech was made. He said that the speech was good overview of the Palestinian situation. So looks to me he was critical of Zionists not Jews in general.


----------



## bimble (Aug 25, 2018)

Gramsci if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
 That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gramsci if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
> Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
> That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem?



Have you watched the whole speech?

No where in press reports is it mentioned the beginning where he is praising contribution of Jewish people to early Labour movement.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gramsci if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
> Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
> That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem?



The full clip certainly provides some context... as he separately mentions Jewish issues before bringing in Zionism.  And then if he is using Zionism as a political term, then the whole 'not properly English' argument falters - or it least is reduced to the level of '.. the Marxists/liberals/Vegans don't undertand English irony..'


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

What?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2018)

Hollis said:


> The full clip certainly provides some context... as he separately mentions Jewish issues before bringing in Zionism.  And then if he is using Zionism as a political term, then the whole 'not properly English' argument falters - or it least is reduced to the level of '.. the Marxists/liberals/Vegans don't undertand English irony..'


Can you think of any examples of scene setting praise followed by something unbelievablely crass? You must have seen Alan partridge? Classical rhetoric? Enoch Powell?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

_The Jews: a grand bunch of lads. _


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> _The Jews: a grand bunch of lads. _


Whole thing has elements of Father Ted and Craggy Island'S Chinese population.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 25, 2018)

Regardless of what you think about the quality of the rhetoric...though i'd hazard it's fairly typical in its tone for a political rally/meeting;  the full clip does change the context of what he said -  if you accept/believe he was using 'Zionism' as a political term.


----------



## bimble (Aug 25, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Have you watched the whole speech?
> 
> No where in press reports is it mentioned the beginning where he is praising contribution of Jewish people to early Labour movement.


How is that at all relevant to what I asked you?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 25, 2018)

I see on Twittwr London Labour Youth members have now set up a safe space at their conference after some complained that Eddie Dempsey who had been asked to speak should have been no platformed for 'anti semitism'.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The alternative to accepting that he knew what he was saying is that he's just so inept that he should keep his mouth shut at all times in case he accidentally praises racist murals or accidentally puts air quotes round "English" when referring to the nationality of strictly political Zionists.
> 
> The fact is that his statist leanings leave him adopting the position that "my enemy's enemies are my friends", so the impulse is to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism when it crops up in critcism of the actions and policies of the Israeli state.  Its true that criticising the actions and policies of the Israeli state is not in itself anti-Semitic. It's also true that many supporters of the Israeli state want to draw that equivalence. But instead of challenging both that simplification and the antisemitism, he chose to turn a blind eye to the latter. With the effect that he's wallowed in it so long he can no longer see it.



I don't think Corbyn sees the world in terms of enemies nevermind my enemies enemy. It's more a flabby UN internationalism where each nation's regime has deserved rights.

My diagnosis is threefold.

1) He'll tag along non-judgementally with anyone supporting various lefty causes.

2) The gentrified Labour Party do not have a working class based understanding of anti-racism. His response to criticism was just political correctness - oops I shouldn't use "Zionist" as a pejorative. Missing the point completely, but it is part and parcel of Labour's response to accusations of anti-semitism. In my estimation Labourites tend to see racism as a problem when it is either really overt or effects them electorally (in which case anti-racism is mixed with and confused with currying favour with various communal leaders). Corbyn is at the end of the day a creature of the gentrified Labour Party.

3) Neither the above nor any other explanations explain the precise nature of his remarks. I can't avoid the conclusion that Corbyn has some suppressed anti-Jewish ideas.


----------



## Quote (Aug 25, 2018)

None of these people in the media or the Labour right give a shit about anti-semitism, it’s just being used to get Corbyn out and Labour back on their middle-of-the-road ‘slightly more worthy version of the Conservatives’ Blairite agenda.

Anti-semitism is just the one smear that stuck (of the millions used), now we’re going to hear it again and again either until these twats get what they want and Corbyn goes or they form their own hopeless, happy-clappy sandal-wearing centrist party, standing for nothing and no-one (except the continument of their own careers...)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

Quote said:


> None of these people in the media or the Labour right give a shit about anti-semitism


Nobody's saying they do.


----------



## bimble (Aug 25, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Nobody's saying they do.


Exactly. The daily mail ffs.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2018)

Some of the papers have identified one Richard Millett (edit: English, son of the founder of Milletts, has degree from SOAS in Middle Eastern politics) as being one of the group Corbyn was apparently referring to.  His blog is certainly an interesting read, especially the mention of a row with Wes Streeting (in person and online) at a meeting of Labour Friends of Palestine.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 25, 2018)

Millett's a nutcase Israel advocate, who has defended anti-semitism (christ killers) directed against anti-zionist Jews. That the individuals Corbyn directed his remarks towards are loonatics in their own right and most likely are ironically challenged is neither here nor there of course.


----------



## Grump (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I'm not sure I can agree with that. Call me naive but that analysis does seem a bit simplistic. I don't think he _stupid _and I'm  not convinced he says things just to get plaudits. How can you back this up?


Anybody aspiring to be the PM who thinks that making deliberately offensive remarks about Jews (and it was about Jews, not 'Zionists') is acceptable is an idiot. And Corbyn has a long history of only talking to people who agree with him or who he feels are an audience receptive to his views. It was clear in the last election campaign that he was only prepared to talk to audiences of party supporters who would cheer everything he said. It is has also been commented on many times that his supposed philosophy of talking to people involved in conflicts to help bring about reconciliation is one sided, he talks to Palestinians, the IRA, ETA and so on, but not yo those on the other side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> It is has also been commented on many times that his supposed philosophy of talking to people involved in conflicts to help bring about reconciliation is one sided, he talks to Palestinians, the IRA, ETA and so on, but not yo those on the other side.


Why do you think he should have spoken to the british, zionist entity or spanish governments?


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2018)

Knotted said:


> Millett's a nutcase Israel advocate, who has defended anti-semitism (christ killers) directed against anti-zionist Jews. That the individuals Corbyn directed his remarks towards are loonatics in their own right and most likely are ironically challenged is neither here nor there of course.



It does seem to have been an event and an audience that it was best to miss though.


----------



## Grump (Aug 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you think he should have spoken to the british, zionist entity or spanish governments?


If you claim you are speaking to organisations such as the PLO or the IRA in order to help create understanding between antagonists and build bridges then yes, I do think speaking to the other side might possibly be a good idea. After all, the Good Friday Agreement came about because the British government, the Irish Government, the IRA and the Unionists were all involved. I despise Tony Blair but he at least was prepared to talk to people he disagreed with, unlike Corbyn who appears only to want to perform in front of an audience he knows will pat him on the head.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> If you claim you are speaking to organisations such as the PLO or the IRA in order to help create understanding between antagonists and build bridges then yes, I do think speaking to the other side might possibly be a good idea. After all, the Good Friday Agreement came about because the British government, the Irish Government, the IRA and the Unionists were all involved. I despise Tony Blair but he at least was prepared to talk to people he disagreed with, unlike Corbyn who appears only to want to perform in front of an audience he knows will pat him on the head.


There were contacts between the government and the IRA for years, it's all documented. Did jc really need to talk to people who were already talking to the IRA? It's ludicrous.


----------



## Grump (Aug 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> There were contacts between the government and the IRA for years, it's all documented. Did jc really need to talk to people who were already talking to the IRA? It's ludicrous.


I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.


rather clueless to suggest I work outside my working hours. I don't know (and nor do you) what contact he's had with hmg, the ze government or the Spanish authorities.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.


Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 25, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.


Hello! You're alive!


----------



## Grump (Aug 25, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.


Interesting notion that in order to speak to someone with whom you disagree you have to pretend to be in HMG. I speak to people I disagree with all if the time and have never pretended to be in the cabinet.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 25, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.



So he was freewheeling it then - no idea what other was being said, and by whom to whom, through other channels, just blundering around like some deluded ego in a corderoy jacket thinking he brings peace by talking peace to people who humour him?

So he's either a moron with cat shit for brains trying to bring 'peace' by a method that has never worked ever, or he's a massively deluded ego who casts aside the collected experience of those who have negotiated/encouraged/cajoulled peace because he thinks is that his mighty powers of persuasion will work all by themselves - even when he only talks to one of the sides in the conflict?

Excellent, truly a great moral and intellectual giant of our age...


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

I have to ask: this comment about English zionists. I can certainly accept it could be made from a racist perspective. But does it have to be? Is it really the only way to analyse what he said? The atmosphere right now is so febrile I for one don't really know if it's even possible to analyse every statement that comes from the guy objectively. Not that we shouldn't try.

And if not Corbyn to lead, then who?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2018)

I've no problem with the fact he didn't bother doing tight lipped statesmanlike balance in his days as a backbencher (even if it's now coming back to haunt him having his every speech from the last 30 years analysed by the Daily Mail). It's what he actually said and his relationship to the wider 'milieu' already mentioned that's the issue.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2018)

kebabking said:


> So he was freewheeling it then - no idea what other was being said, and by whom to whom, through other channels, just blundering around like some deluded ego in a corderoy jacket thinking he brings peace by talking peace to people who humour him?
> 
> So he's either a moron with cat shit for brains trying to bring 'peace' by a method that has never worked ever, or he's a massively deluded ego who casts aside the collected experience of those who have negotiated/encouraged/cajoulled peace because he thinks is that his mighty powers of persuasion will work all by themselves - even when he only talks to one of the sides in the conflict?
> 
> Excellent, truly a great moral and intellectual giant of our age...



Or he could just be an MP, behaving in the way that most MPs of his (and this) generation behave.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2018)

Grump said:


> Interesting notion that in order to speak to someone with whom you disagree you have to pretend to be in HMG. I speak to people I disagree with all if the time and have never pretended to be in the cabinet.


It would be, if that's what had been said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2018)

agricola said:


> Or he could just be an MP, behaving in the way that most MPs of his (and this) generation behave.


But he has no moat the cleaning of which he could claim on expenses


----------



## yield (Aug 25, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> And if not Corbyn to lead, then who?


I don't believe in the parliamentary road to socialism.

A closet leftist like Lisa Nandy, who actually believes in it, would be best to lead the Labour party and she'd unite it too.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 25, 2018)

I'm not sure I believe in it either, but I do believe in ousting the Tories.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> How is that at all relevant to what I asked you?



What you asked was this.


> if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
> Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
> That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem



I think if he had said Zionists were a bunch of  wankers who didnt understand history he would still be accused of being anti semitic.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> Gramsci if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
> Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
> That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem?



It was clumsy and badly delivered but he was referring to their apparent difficulty as native English speakers in understanding "English irony" as used by a non-native speaker. He seems to be saying he doesn't believe their grasp of English is as poor as they were making out when they were "berating" Hassassian. He was also trying to compliment Hassassian who had spoken just before him.

The full video is timestamped on theJC and Millett's blog has a report of the meeting he was referring to but I don't know if the criticisms of Hassassian afterwards are reported anywhere.

The words he chose are blind to Jewish sensitivities and the history of persecution based on insider-outsider status. That blindness is something Corbyn is often guilty of and that's not acceptable. But he wasn't saying they weren't properly English, he was saying they were.


----------



## tim (Aug 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> But he has no moat the cleaning of which he could claim on expenses


He could have at least submitted a receipt for a Roundup Sprayer







He can be ruthless when it comes to weeds and bugs!


----------



## Knotted (Aug 26, 2018)

Everybody here will have seen this. When somebody picks up ideas from the political milieu they are absorbed in, they become full of it. They don't shut up about it and they double down when criticised. This is true of Corbyn as it is for anyone else, but not with this overt anti-semitism, which is very rare ie. there are only two examples of it. That speech was not an example of politicised racism but a goofy contrast of the good foreigner who makes an effort to understand our ways and the bad foreigner who doesn't. This is common garden bigotry that Corbyn surely knows should not normally be voiced in public, but nevertheless in part form his understanding of the world. I suspect he has had these views since childhood and hasn't exorcised them despite the countless anti-racist meetings he has attended.

I don't buy the millieu thesis. It's surely the other way round. He finds himself in this millieu because he is comfortable with it, not because he is blind to its excesses which he then absorbs drip by drip. He sees the excesses, probably thinks they go a bit too far but also probably thinks there is a kernel of truth to them.


----------



## agricola (Aug 26, 2018)

Knotted said:


> I don't buy the millieu thesis. It's surely the other way round. He finds himself in this millieu because he is comfortable with it, not because he is blind to its excesses which he then absorbs drip by drip. He sees the excesses, probably thinks they go a bit too far but also probably thinks there is a kernel of truth to them.



You could say that about most of the senior people involved in this though; for example the Labour right appear to have no issues dealing with a group of people who want to scare British Jews into leaving the UK for Israel and then scare them into voting Likud when they get there.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 26, 2018)

That's not news. Why even bother.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 26, 2018)

Israeli attorney files FOIA request to determine govt role in anti-Corbyn campaign


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 26, 2018)

xarmian said:


> It was clumsy and badly delivered but he was referring to their apparent difficulty as native English speakers in understanding "English irony" as used by a non-native speaker. He seems to be saying he doesn't believe their grasp of English is as poor as they were making out when they were "berating" Hassassian.
> 
> [...]he wasn't saying they weren't properly English, he was saying they were.


Why not just say they have no grasp of irony, then? Why qualify that? _English_ irony?  

If he didn't want to draw attention to their nationality, why bring it up?


----------



## bimble (Aug 26, 2018)

I can't check now but is it true that this was JC's preamble to the bit about those few specific zionists he was apparently talking about?
If so then tbh its worse than i thought. 

do you see it now- who is "them"?


eta. this is a thread explaining:
(you have to click to read the whole thing).


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> I can't check now but is it true that this was JC's preamble to the bit about those few specific zionists he was apparently talking about?
> If so then tbh its worse than i thought. View attachment 145096
> 
> do you see it now- who is "them"?
> ...



See what? It sounds like he'strying to say Zionism has caused a lot of problems for jewish people, or put theminto a difficult position. I don't see anything nefarious about that use of 'them', it's just common speech surely?


----------



## hot air baboon (Aug 26, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Israeli attorney files FOIA request to determine govt role in anti-Corbyn campaign



Jonathan Cook re the above

Is Israel's hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?


_One Labour activist, who did not wish to be named given the purges taking place inside the party, told MEE: "Corbyn is up against an unholy, ad hoc alliance of right-wing MPs in both the Labour and Tory parties, the Israeli government and its lobbyists, the British security services and the media.

"They have settled on anti-Semitism as the best weapon to use against him because it is such a taboo issue. It's like quicksand. The more he struggles against the claims, the more he gets sucked down into the mire."_


----------



## tim (Aug 26, 2018)

hot air baboon said:


> Jonathan Cook re the above
> 
> Is Israel's hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?
> 
> ...


Things are noving on from Anti-Semitism. He's now being seen aa the eminence grise behind the Warrington bombings
David Aaronovitch

@DAaronovitch

Finally, for a completely different reason, I've been going back over the 1993 Warrington bombing. There's a big possibility that it was carried out by far-left people associated with a group called Red Action. I offer no prizes for which Labour figure was close to Red Action.
12:13 pm · 26 Aug 2018


----------



## Riklet (Aug 26, 2018)

Any more specific peeps outa him and they should sue the smug warmongering cunt for libel and really take him to the cleaners.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 27, 2018)

tim said:


> Things are noving on from Anti-Semitism. He's now being seen aa the eminence grise behind the Warrington bombings
> David Aaronovitch
> 
> @DAaronovitch
> ...



“For a completely different reason...”. Because MI5 asked you to? First class cunt. Special Branch didn’t just infiltrate his dad’s party they went full on for the family too didn’t they.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 27, 2018)

I


thmble said:


> I can't check now but is it true that this was JC's preamble to the bit about those few specific zionists he was apparently talking about?
> If so then tbh its worse than i thought. View attachment 145096
> 
> do you see it now- who is "them"?
> ...




The "for example" is key. He is clearly talking about "Zionists" not all Jews, but it is also clearly a cultural criticism not a political criticism.

It's a weird position but there is a kernel of truth to it ie. the Zionist doctrine of the negation of the diaspora. But that doctrine has been quietly swept under the carpet, the true believers having emigrated to Israel long ago. The core point is that Zionism had made Jews so culturally alien that they can't understand irony. It's preposterous, but it also underscores certain additional expectations that Corbyn places on Jews (and probably others). If you are white, protestant and reactionary and anti-trade union, that does not make you un-English.

Note also that progressive and English are closely tied. This very typical of social democrats. Nationalism is inherent in their outlook, even with Corbyn.


----------



## Ole (Aug 27, 2018)

Everything is fucking fucked. I just feel so sorry for my people who need a working-class electoral force.

Pardon my outburst.


----------



## Ole (Aug 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he's racist. And in strict electoral terms, if he is, this sort of racism is irrelevant. I think he's the spearhead of a lot of unexamined thinking that needs to be brought to light and that can be changed by doing so. The wider milieu - well, I have no such hope, having been butting heads with them for near three decades.


I fear this is right...


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 27, 2018)

Good luck challenging it. All it's done, when I've tried, is generate more heartache


----------



## redcogs (Aug 27, 2018)

Keep the faith comrades.  i know its a bit trite to say it - but..  We have reason and truth and human decency batting for our side, the other fuckers have only lies  falsehoods and worse of all hatred.

Gotta be optimistic for better days?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2018)

"A big possibility" that red action carried out the warrington bombing? who says? based on what? And what was corbyn's relation with them? Was at the same demo of 20,000 people once?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 27, 2018)

Based on a Wikipediea edit, it would seem:


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 27, 2018)

Corbyn aside, Aaronovitch is an awful cunt


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 27, 2018)

redcogs said:


> Keep the faith comrades.  i know its a bit trite to say it - but..  We have reason and truth and human decency batting for our side, the other fuckers have only lies  falsehoods and worse of all hatred.
> 
> Gotta be optimistic for better days?


I hope see, because I don't see any of that. Instead it's just aggressive denial, shitposting and insta-blocking. There's no debate when the people you talk to just block you or smear you as being part of the right wing agenda.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 27, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> "A big possibility" that red action carried out the warrington bombing? who says? based on what? And what was corbyn's relation with them? Was at the same demo of 20,000 people once?


You won't get an answer. This is what's so shitty about social media. Scumbags who shitpost can do so without consequence. They can sit in their little thought yurts shitting out fact-free claims completely divorced from the kind of accountability you'd get in face to face conversation


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> You won't get an answer. This is what's so shitty about social media. Scumbags who shitpost can do so without consequence. They can sit in their little though yurts shitting out fact-free claims completely divorced from the kind of accountability you'd get in face to face conversation


Yurts?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2018)

urban thread here  - Warrington Bomb Linked to Red Action - BBC News


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2018)

having a quick perusal - it looks like dubious bbc doc  by attention seeking "undercover" journo donald macantyre. Ayotallah pretty comprehensively debunks it. The fact that the PIRA claimed responsibility for warrington is  pretty big hurdle to get over in the credibility stakes.
Relationship to Corbyn? about as strong as his link to the royal family or brinks matt bullion robbery - i.e. nill. Desperate shit stirring by aronavitch for which he should be hung out to dry.



> This programme is utter , politically illiterate, shite. Ex Red Action members can defend themselves , but , Jesus ! ... just how much (possibly libellous) shite it is may not be obvious to people who aren't aware of the political divisions within Republicanism during the armed struggle in Northern Ireland, including the 1990's period of the Warrington atrocity. For those not au fait with the Warrington bombings , two episodes; a bombing of gas storage units on 25th Feb. 1993, by a Provisional IRA active service unit - followed by shoot out with cops - two of three members of unit arrested - and eventually jailed. Second episode - 20 march 93 - bombs went off in litter bins in busy street killing two - noone apprehended - The IRA later claimed they gave a warning which was ignored.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 27, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Yurts?


that should be "thought yurts"


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> that should be "thought yurts"


Ah, right; not Mongolian fakers, then?


----------



## tim (Aug 27, 2018)

Ole said:


> Everything is fucking fucked. I just feel so sorry for my people who need a working-class electoral force.
> 
> Pardon my outburst.




Never trust anyone who uses the phrase "my people".


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

tim said:


> Never trust anyone who uses the phrase "my people".


Unless it’s Dilated Peoples. Worst comes to worst...


----------



## redcogs (Aug 27, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I hope see, because I don't see any of that. Instead it's just aggressive denial, shitposting and insta-blocking. There's no debate when the people you talk to just block you or smear you as being part of the right wing agenda.



Are you part of the right wing's agenda?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 27, 2018)

tim said:


> Never trust anyone who uses the phrase "my people".


It's English irony.


----------



## agricola (Aug 27, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It's English irony.



surely that would have been "my folk"?


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 27, 2018)

redcogs said:


> Are you part of the right wing's agenda?


Who can tell these days?

But, no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2018)

tim said:


> Never trust anyone who uses the phrase "my people".


I'll get my people to talk to your people to find an acceptable alternative


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 27, 2018)

Went down the shop yesterday to get my People. They'd run out so I had to have a Mirror instead.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 27, 2018)

agricola said:


> surely that would have been "my folk"?


One's folk won rice. One fewer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> One's folk won rice. One fewer.


One folk's wagering?


----------



## billbond (Aug 27, 2018)

Surprised this was shown on the beeb
Seems to be a bit of a backlash


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 27, 2018)

I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.


----------



## billbond (Aug 27, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.


She has won lots of awards and many say she is the cleverest comedian in the world
Did not think her impression was that good tbh. 
Her  female characters are better.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Why not just say they have no grasp of irony, then? Why qualify that? _English_ irony?
> 
> If he didn't want to draw attention to their nationality, why bring it up?


Why not read my post?

If he wanted to be prime minister, why didn't he go to Oxford and get good with words?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 28, 2018)

billbond said:


> She has won lots of awards and many say she is the cleverest comedian in the world
> Did not think her impression was that good tbh.
> Her  female characters are better.


Awards are no guarantee of quality.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 28, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Why not read my post?
> 
> If he wanted to be prime minister, why didn't he go to Oxford and get good with words?


I did read your post. I just disagree with your conclusions.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I did read your post. I just disagree with your conclusions.


I know that. But you ignored my argument and repeated your opinion so all I can do is refer you back to the post.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 28, 2018)

xarmian said:


> why didn't he go to Oxford and get good with words?



JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 28, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.


Toby Young managed to get in so it can't be that difficult.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 28, 2018)

xarmian said:


> I know that. But you ignored my argument and repeated your opinion so all I can do is refer you back to the post.


I didn't ignore your argument: I pointed out its flaw.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 28, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.



Oxford Brookes or McDonald's, shurely..?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 28, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.


And in any case, you don't need to go to Oxford or Cambridge to be "good at words".

It is of course _possible_ that Corbyn is such an inept Alan Partridge type that his intention was just to say: "Oh, wow, Manuel: your English is good for a foreigner. Not like these guys. Not that they're foreigners the way you are. Well, some of them were born here, but you know what I mean".

If that's what people think happened, then in some ways that's worse. He's even more incompetent and tactless than any of us realised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.


Don't talk rubbish. Until at least the 1980s Oxford made 2 e offers to at least some people who passed their entry procedure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Toby Young managed to get in so it can't be that difficult.



His dad sent a letter to the Dean pointing out that while Young was a cretin and an irredeemable shit, he was also rich.


----------



## rekil (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> And in any case, you don't need to go to Oxford or Cambridge to be "good at words".


I thought this JFK Harvard thing was a joke.



> The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard are several. I feel that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other university. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college, but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a "Harvard man" is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain.
> 
> April 23, 1935
> John F. Kennedy



4 real apparently. 

JFK's Very Revealing Harvard Application Essay - The Atlantic


----------



## cantsin (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.



wouldn't shout about it in public, but thought that was quite funny tbh


----------



## krink (Aug 28, 2018)

i don't even know who it is in that bbc video but it wasn't funny


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 28, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> JC got 2 Es at A Level so going to Oxford was unpossible.



I seem to recall that journalistic straw-weight Polly Toynbee still managed to get into Oxford with just the one A-Level and that was an E I think, having previously failed her 11+.  Having a famous journalist father was merely coincidental I'm sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I seem to recall that journalistic straw-weight Polly Toynbee still managed to get into Oxford with just the one A-Level and that was an E I think, having previously failed her 11+.  Having a famous journalist father was merely coincidental I'm sure.





i suppose things were like that in the 60s


----------



## billbond (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said: ↑
I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.

umm i wonder if she had done a Mp of a certain other party you would have a different opinion of her work.
Many thought it made a change from seeing all the far left shit "comedians" who are on tv nowdays.
Now they really are all shit to use your term.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2018)

billbond said:


> danny la rouge said: ↑
> I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.
> 
> umm i wonder if she had done a Mp of a certain other party you would have a different opinion of her work.
> ...


You speak for "Many"; useful.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 28, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't ignore your argument: I pointed out its flaw.


You didn't. You ignored what I said and repeated your interpretation. I can't write anything as good as this so I'll just post the link. "English irony"


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 28, 2018)




----------



## binka (Aug 28, 2018)

Which party conference is going to be the biggest disaster? Tough call imo


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Aug 28, 2018)

binka said:


> Which party conference is going to be the biggest disaster? Tough call imo



Will Simon Brodkin be placed under house-arrest beforehand?  I'm wondering if Sasha Baron Cohen will show up too


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 29, 2018)

billbond said:


> danny la rouge said: ↑
> I'm surprised any of her stuff is shown. It's all shit.
> 
> umm i wonder if she had done a Mp of a certain other party you would have a different opinion of her work.
> ...


I'm not a Labour or Corbyn supporter, so it's nothing to do with the clip. I've seen her do other people. I don't find any of it funny.  This isn't a political position.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 29, 2018)

xarmian said:


> You didn't


I did.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 29, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> And in any case, you don't need to go to Oxford or Cambridge to be "good at words".
> 
> It is of course _possible_ that Corbyn is such an inept Alan Partridge type that his intention was just to say: "Oh, wow, Manuel: your English is good for a foreigner. Not like these guys. Not that they're foreigners the way you are. Well, some of them were born here, but you know what I mean".
> 
> If that's what people think happened, then in some ways that's worse. He's even more incompetent and tactless than any of us realised.


xarmian ^


----------



## xarmian (Aug 30, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> xarmian ^


You're just finding new ways to be disingenuous. The article I linked by Richard Seymour covers it.

In other news, gammon is now an antisemitic slur and the ethnonationalist right are being given unchallenged platforms to attack the left in ways liberals approve of.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> The article I linked by Richard Seymour covers it.


Oh, the article you linked to covers it. There's no point in any other views then. I must be being disingenuous.

Jesus.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 30, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, the article you linked to covers it. There's no point in any other views then. I must be being disingenuous.
> 
> Jesus.


I don't seem to be able to say anything you won't misinterpret even though you've lived here a long time and probably all your life.

The Seymour article is better than anything I can write. You don't have to engage with it, honestly or otherwise, of course.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> You don't have to engage with it, honestly or otherwise, of course.


Stop this shit.


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> I don't seem to be able to say anything you won't misinterpret even though you've lived here a long time and probably all your life.
> 
> The Seymour article is better than anything I can write. You don't have to engage with it, honestly or otherwise, of course.


Why don't you just suggest that danny la rouge doesn't understand English irony...


----------



## xarmian (Aug 30, 2018)

andysays said:


> Why don't you just suggest that danny la rouge doesn't understand English irony...


That is what I was going for. Was it not clear?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> That is what I was going for. Was it not clear?


OK, that was funny I'll give you that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

Leaving aside this latest video, regardless of ones interpretation of it, there are three strands that some people seem to find it difficult to disentangle.

1. The disingenuous labelling of all criticism of the Israeli state, its actions and policies, as necessarily anti-Semitic.

2. The actual anti-semitism that exists on the left, often associated with Palestinian solidarity (which does not have to be anti-Semitic); the blind eye turned to it; the dodgy alliances thereby arrived at.

3. The use made of both of the above by anti Corbyn forces inside and outside of the Labour Party.

Corbyn and his team are at the very least accident-prone on dealing with this. They are especially inept at dealing with 1 and 3 because of 2. 

We've all seen 2. It does us no favours to keep saying "but 1" or "but 3". At some point, we on the broader left, and the Labour left and leadership in particular, need to deal with 2, and decisively.


----------



## killer b (Aug 30, 2018)

That Eddie Dempsey video people are sharing round like it's some incredible slam-dunk is dreadful. Embarrassing.


----------



## jusali (Aug 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> That Eddie Dempsey video people are sharing round like it's some incredible slam-dunk is dreadful. Embarrassing.


Saw that today, hardly a win for Dempsey was it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

Not seen it. Anyone want to summarise?


----------



## sealion (Aug 30, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Not seen it. Anyone want to summarise?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

I'll need to look at that later: I'm out and about today.


----------



## bimble (Aug 30, 2018)

That interview reminds me of this gem of a suggestion the other day.
Examine their records- if they're politically impure, you can ignore what they say about this subject and conclude they're lying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)

bimble said:


> That interview reminds me of this gem of a suggestion the other day.
> Examine their records- if they're politically impure, you can ignore what they say about this subject and conclude they're lying.
> View attachment 145519


perhaps you should reread the tweet.

he says nothing about lying. he says nothing about ignoring them.

he talks, rather, about not conceding to right-wing ultra-nationalists.

it's really rather different.

most people here would, i believe, agree with me that right-wing ultra-nationalists are indeed politically impure - or to put it another way, their politics are shit.

remedial english beckons, bimble.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

Because all of a sudden looking at someone's voting/political record is a bad way of understanding someone's political leanings?  or is it okay to do this to everyone else but not rabbis?


----------



## bimble (Aug 30, 2018)

He says that 'examining the records' of the 68 rabbis should have been the first response to their letter. To check if their concerns should be taken in good faith or dismissed as smears. Maybe you agree that was a good idea. I can't really engage with this at the mo though, will leave it to others with a better sense of irony.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)

bimble said:


> He says that 'examining the records' of the 68 rabbis should have been the first response to their letter. To check if their concerns should be taken in good faith or dismissed as smears. Maybe you agree that was a good idea. I can't really engage with this at the mo though, will leave it to others with a better sense of irony.


 this isn't about your actual agreement or otherwise with the tweet, it's with understanding what the bloody thing in fact says. maybe you don't think it would be a good idea to understand it before deciding whether to agree with it.


----------



## bimble (Aug 30, 2018)

Its really difficult this, it feels like we're just completely unable to understand each other. I don't need English classes thanks Pickmans model but will try to leave it alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)

bimble said:


> He says that 'examining the records' of the 68 rabbis should have been the first response to their letter. To check if their concerns should be taken in good faith or dismissed as smears. Maybe you agree that was a good idea. I can't really engage with this at the mo though, will leave it to others with a better sense of irony.


it's so hard to tell the difference between when you don't understand something and you make out people are saying something completely different from what they are, and when you're not understanding something _ironically_ and making out people are saying something completely different from what they are.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> That Eddie Dempsey video people are sharing round like it's some incredible slam-dunk is dreadful. Embarrassing.



Dont agree with ED on everything ( by a long stretch), but what do you find 'dreadful' / 'embarassing' here ?

On a separate note, that Sky interviewer seems to be turning into one of the more sensible news journos around at the moment, actually lets people speak / debate etc


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

bimble said:


> He says that 'examining the records' of the 68 rabbis should have been the first response to their letter. To check if their concerns should be taken in good faith or dismissed as smears. Maybe you agree that was a good idea. I can't really engage with this at the mo though, will leave it to others with a better sense of irony.



 

Ah, no time to engage but snuck an indirect smear in there of your own because you haven't been agreed with outright.  Just as long as you don't send me any more manipulative PMs, i suppose I should be happy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> View attachment 145528
> 
> Ah, no time to engage but snuck an indirect smear in there of your own because you haven't been agreed with outright.  Just as long as you don't send me any more manipulative PMs, i suppose I should be happy.


i'm pleased she keeps all her 'banter' with me public


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2018)

Frank Field jumps before he is pushed then. He's always been a monumental arsehole so I can't say I'm going to miss him. Although, he is standing as an indy so maybe he will still be about as his local support must be pretty stuanch. I don't know. Either way he's a prick.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 30, 2018)

Frank Field resigns over anti semitism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2018)

Frank Field criticises local Labour members after confidence vote

lol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 30, 2018)

Ponyutd said:


> Frank Field resigns over anti semitism.



Resigns over the fact he was about to be deselected more like.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 30, 2018)

Veteran MP Frank Field quits Labour whip

'Specialist in welfare issues'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

Frank Field resigns as Labour MP citing antisemitism and 'bullying'



> Mr Field's dramatic resignation comes just weeks after his own Birkenhead Constituency Party passed a no confidence motion in him after he was one of a handful of Labour MPs to help Theresa May avoid an embarrassing defeat over her Brexit plans.
> 
> He has often found himself at odds with some of his local Labour membership - not just for his long-held Eurosceptic beliefs, but also for writing columns in the S*n newspaper, which is reviled across Merseyside.



^^^^ What OJ is talking about.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 30, 2018)

Ponyutd said:


> Frank Field resigns over anti semitism.


Over his CLP trying to oust him you mean.


----------



## Ponyutd (Aug 30, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Resigns over the fact he was about to be deselected more like.


Quite.


----------



## oryx (Aug 30, 2018)

If it's true that Field has gone before he was deselected (as I think and as several people on here think) his ostensible reason for resigning the Labour whip is a pretty awful trivialisation of racism.


----------



## agricola (Aug 30, 2018)

oryx said:


> If it's true that Field has gone before he was deselected (as I think and as several people on here think) his ostensible reason for resigning the Labour whip is a pretty awful trivialisation of racism.



It is, though its probably a lot more palatable to him than "_I have done this so I can facilitate May and her notion of Brexit_" is.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 30, 2018)

jusali said:


> Saw that today, hardly a win for Dempsey was it?


Maybe not, but the pearl clutching on the part of his interlocutor is quite something.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 30, 2018)




----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 30, 2018)

agricola said:


> It is, though its probably a lot more palatable to him than "_I have done this so I can facilitate May and her notion of Brexit_" is.



Deluded and long past his use by date whatever the reason. Registering less than 1 on the political Richter scale.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 30, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 145549



Maybe Wes Streeting would like to fuck right off as well.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 30, 2018)

If they vote in deselection at the conference I foresee a fair bit of ship-jumping.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2018)

oryx said:


> If it's true that Field has gone before he was deselected (as I think and as several people on here think) his ostensible reason for resigning the Labour whip is a pretty awful trivialisation of racism.


If this was his reason for going he'd have been off months or even a couple of years ago, the lying auld goat


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> That Eddie Dempsey video people are sharing round like it's some incredible slam-dunk is dreadful. Embarrassing.


I persevered for 8 minutes.  Which is far longer than I wanted to.  Was still waiting for the good bit to come up.  No, they need to do much better than that.  That was just denying there was an issue.  There _is_ an issue.  Of course there's opportunism from Corbyn's opponents.  But if there wasn't a hook they could hang it on, it'd fall to the floor.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

> *Comparing Corbyn’s comments to Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ is offensive*
> The former chief rabbi’s claim is ridiculous. It takes a special kind of amnesia to forget how vile that speech was




Comparing Corbyn’s comments to Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ is offensive | Kehinde Andrews


----------



## oryx (Aug 30, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> If this was his reason for going he'd have been off months or even a couple of years ago, the lying auld goat



Yes, precisely what I thought - this whole shitshow has been going on for a couple of years.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 30, 2018)

teqniq said:


> If they vote in deselection at the conference I foresee a fair bit of ship-jumping.




Chris Williamson (MP) is himself in favour of mandatory reselection, and strongly so  -- I personally heard him say so at Beautiful Days Rebel Tent** 

***Far* too late for me to go back to some much earlier thread posts on this thread about this tent


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

Did you catch any of the fascists & conspiracy theorists they had on?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Leaving aside this latest video, regardless of ones interpretation of it, there are three strands that some people seem to find it difficult to disentangle.
> 
> 1. The disingenuous labelling of all criticism of the Israeli state, its actions and policies, as necessarily anti-Semitic.
> 
> ...


Well said. This is a debate where it should be easy for everyone on the left to see that 1-3 all exist and are happening at once, but very few can. The more you see of 2, the more you despair - things Corbyn ignored that were happening around him or, more importantly, things that seemed to have been hardwired into the left for years. Then in parallel the absurd claims about Powell parallels, existential threats, 'fear', it's all deeply shit. But most of all, it's embarrassing that the left can't manage the analysis, the self confidence, the basic common sense necessary to establish a position around 1-3 that allows some kind of progress.


----------



## hipipol (Aug 31, 2018)

I suspect Jezza  has spent too many years in ultra split-ist splinter groups trying to hold back the inherent  centrifugal forces to stand up and make ANY absolute statement - highly skilled, dissembling, mumble rap artiste not much cop as a leader shocker


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

He's been in the labour party for 60 years. Not ultra splitist splinter groups.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

hipipol said:


> I suspect Jezza  has spent too many years in ultra split-ist splinter groups trying to hold back the inherent  centrifugal forces to stand up and make ANY absolute statement - highly skilled, dissembling, mumble rap artiste not much cop as a leader shocker


I suddenly find my confidence in Corbyn as leader renewed.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

I asked something similar before, but a _labour leader_ what can he do about this? I don't see those on the right, Jewish or otherwise, being satisifed with anything he says. I also don't see how he can really stop people thinking stupid stuff given how deep rooted some of this appears to be. If he (as he'll get the blame) starts evicting members then that will be used against him. This whole thing seems so utterly fucked up to me that I see no way forward. Anything he does, says or has done/said will be fetched up against him.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Anything he does, says or has done/said will be fetched up against him.


 Of course. It's whether any of it sticks (electorally) that matters.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

Booting out the racist cranks should be a priority regardless of its electoral significance shouldn't it?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2018)




----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I asked something similar before, but a _labour leader_ what can he do about this? I don't see those on the right, Jewish or otherwise, being satisifed with anything he says. I also don't see how he can really stop people thinking stupid stuff given how deep rooted some of this appears to be. If he (as he'll get the blame) starts evicting members then that will be used against him. This whole thing seems so utterly fucked up to me that I see no way forward. Anything he does, says or has done/said will be fetched up against him.


He's got himself to the point where he doesn't have many places to turn.  For example, even though there are sensible, non-racist objections to some of the IHRA definition examples, the NEC can't discuss them without being seen as the anti-Semitic dinosaurs locking horns with the "progressive" PLP.  But let's be clear about this, _he_ has done this.  _He_ has presided over this state of affairs.

What he needs is a better story.  It's all about having a good story.  Even without media support, if he has a good story they'll run it. They'll still run the anti stuff.  But if his story is good, then people _will_ hear it.

Don't get me wrong.  He needs to do real things.  He needs to weed out the anti-semites.  He needs to do it publicly and decisively.  He needs to find a way of atoning for his past mistakes that leaves him with face, that re-establishes his decent man image. He needs to break ties.  He needs to re-mould thinking. And much more.

But he needs a good story.  So how can he build a story?  Well, as a pointer, look what Blair did with Clause 4.  He sold it as breaking with old Labour.  Renouncing socialism.  It wasn't what he sold it as, of course, but it was a symbol that the media understood and looked at as a good story.  It did the job.

Corbyn can't use adopting the IHRA definition, because it already looks like he's being forced into it.  He needs something that looks like his idea that he's having to fight the dinosaurs to get adopted.  He needs to find something credible, something that isn't too fuzzy with caveats, and something that isn't defensive but rather puts him in the role of the one taking positive action.  And it needs to be executed competently.

Personally I don't think he's up to the job.  But that's what he needs to do.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> Booting out the racist cranks should be a priority regardless of its electoral significance shouldn't it?


Do they know who they are in a solidly provable way?


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> He's got himself to the point where he doesn't have many places to turn.  For example, even though there are sensible, non-racist objections to some of the IHRA definition examples, the NEC can't discuss them without being seen as the anti-Semitic dinosaurs locking horns with the "progressive" PLP.  But let's be clear about this, *he has done this.  He has presided over this state of affairs*.
> 
> What he needs is a better story.  It's all about having a good story.  Even without media support, if he has a good story they'll run it. They'll still run the anti stuff.  But if his story is good, then people _will_ hear it.
> 
> ...



I accept what you're saying, but I'm struggling with this. I'm not seeing how he has done this, as you say. Certainly he is presiding over it. But is it really fair to lay out all at his feet?

Which isn't to say he can't or shouldn't do more

I find it very difficult to separate the truth from the hyperbole surrounding this, perpetrated/spun by his opponents


----------



## kebabking (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I asked something similar before, but a _labour leader_ what can he do about this? I don't see those on the right, Jewish or otherwise, being satisifed with anything he says. I also don't see how he can really stop people thinking stupid stuff given how deep rooted some of this appears to be. If he (as he'll get the blame) starts evicting members then that will be used against him. This whole thing seems so utterly fucked up to me that I see no way forward. Anything he does, says or has done/said will be fetched up against him.



Perhaps that's the price he now has to pay for having 30+ years of consequence-free swimming in sewers?

The easiest way to discern the 'truth' of this situation is to reverse it: if, after 40 years of being a Tory party member, MP, Home Secretary and PM, Theresa May was deep in the political mire over her support for crony capitalism, shit welfare 'reforms', and all the rest - and then declared that in fact she was a lifelong socialist in the hope that the bad headlines would stop - would anyone believe her, or indeed care, citing the fact that she'd been quite happy to go against pretty much every principle of socialism during her career?

I have no sympathy for Corbyn or his position - yes the anti-Semitism stuff is being used as a weapon against him by his political opponents, but that's only possible because he has, for the last 30+ years, been happily stocking up their armouries with this stuff thinking there would never be a reckoning for building a career out of skirting the conspiraloon/anti-Semitic/deeply unsavoury cesspits on the world.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I find it very difficult to separate the truth from the hyperbole surrounding this


A lot of people do.  

Have you been on Palestinian justice demonstrations and heard people chanting stuff that's made you feel uncomfortable?  Instead of just ignoring that, Labour has to say no, that isn't what we're about.

Have you heard people say "we are Hamas" even though they're Islamist cunts who murder trade unionists?  Labour has to say, "no we aren't".

Have you heard people slipping in and out of whether it's Jews, Zionists, or Israel they're criticising?  Labour needs to introduce clarity of language, and call out that slippery terminology.  

People like Jim Sheridan (who was in no way ambiguous) should be in no doubt that they'll be expelled.

These things are not anti Corbyn hyperbole.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> He needs to find something credible, something that isn't too fuzzy with caveats, and something that isn't defensive but rather puts him in the role of the one taking positive action.



Referendum on reintroduction of the death penalty.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 31, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Referendum on reintroduction of the death penalty.


No!!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Referendum on reintroduction of the death penalty.


As my final piece of free advice to the Labour Party, I'd suggest not that either.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

kebabking said:


> Perhaps that's the price he now has to pay for having 30+ years of consequence-free swimming in sewers?
> 
> The easiest way to discern the 'truth' of this situation is to reverse it: if, after 40 years of being a Tory party member, MP, Home Secretary and PM, Theresa May was deep in the political mire over her support for crony capitalism, shit welfare 'reforms', and all the rest - and then declared that in fact she was a lifelong socialist in the hope that the bad headlines would stop - would anyone believe her, or indeed care, citing the fact that she'd been quite happy to go against pretty much every principle of socialism during her career?
> 
> I have no sympathy for Corbyn or his position - yes the anti-Semitism stuff is being used as a weapon against him by his political opponents, but that's only possible because he has, for the last 30+ years, been happily stocking up their armouries with this stuff thinking there would never be a reckoning for building a career out of skirting the conspiraloon/anti-Semitic/deeply unsavoury cesspits on the world.


I don't know if that's true; has he swum in those sewers? Or is he associated with it because he has similar views - ie pro Palestine. I haven't seen anything that shows me he's more directly involved. Not saying he isn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

TopCat said:


> No!!!


how about ...on the reintroduction of the death penalty for the monarchy?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I don't know if that's true; has he swum in those sewers? Or is he associated with it because he has similar views - ie pro Palestine. I haven't seen anything that shows me he's more directly involved. Not saying he isn't.



...and you're not going to say very much if you don't actually  bother to look at the stuff that had been posted over and over and get a grip on the context.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 31, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> how about ...on the reintroduction of the death penalty for the monarchy?


Yes!!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I don't know if that's true; has he swum in those sewers? Or is he associated with it because he has similar views - ie pro Palestine. I haven't seen anything that shows me he's more directly involved. Not saying he isn't.


Do you not have any direct experience of the sorts of examples I've just posted?  Even if you don't, like butchers has said, there have been numerous posts on this thread explaining and discussing the context.  Even if all you want to allow is that Corbyn has been disastrous at dealing with it, you have to admit it's there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you not have any direct experience of the sorts of examples I've just posted?  Even if you don't, like butchers has said, there have been numerous posts on this thread explaining and discussing the context.  Even if all you want to allow is that Corbyn has been disastrous at dealing with it, you have to admit it's there.


we can explain it to tr, we cannot understand it for tr.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> A lot of people do.
> 
> *Have you been on Palestinian justice demonstrations *and heard people chanting stuff that's made you feel uncomfortable?  Instead of just ignoring that, Labour has to say no, that isn't what we're about.
> 
> ...



No. I don't live where things like that happen. So I don't have these experiences. I'm not saying they don't happen either; if you tell me that shit goes on then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I have to ask if it's reasonable to pin that on Corbyn?

Of course peoplke like that ought to be expelled. I have no problem with that


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> we can explain it to tr, we cannot understand it for tr.


I didn't ask you to


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I didn't ask you to


nor did i say you had.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you not have any direct experience of the sorts of examples I've just posted?  Even if you don't, like butchers has said, there have been numerous posts on this thread explaining and discussing the context.  Even if all you want to allow is that Corbyn has been disastrous at dealing with it, you have to admit it's there.



I don't have direct experience.

I don't think I have denied anything. I'm trying to ascertain how we can move forward from the point of view of getting the Tories out of office since labour are the only viable alternative presently IMO.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I don't have direct experience.
> 
> I don't think I have denied anything. I'm trying to ascertain how we can move forward from the point of view of getting the Tories out of office since labour are the only viable alternative presently IMO.


Well, I've given my opinion on how Corbyn and his team could extract themselves from this.  Not that I think they will.  I think what'll happen is that in his incompetent bungling he'll end up trashing the reputation of the Labour left and the "progressives" will regain the party helm.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I've given my opinion on how Corbyn and his team could extract themselves from this.  Not that I think they will.  I think what'll happen is that in his incompetent bungling he'll end up trashing the reputation of the Labour left and the "progressives" will regain the party helm.


I dont think this campain to paint anti zionism as anti semitism will resonate with the electorate. The MPs who are using it as a stick to beat the left with are all headed binwards.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I dont think this campain to paint anti zionism as anti semitism will resonate with the electorate.


I don't think any of it resonates with the electorate.  I think most people think they'd rather not delve into arcane and esoteric - and possibly ultimately unsavoury - tropes in order to better understand it.  That's really not the point, though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

And before anyone asks what the point is, then.  This is.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> He's got himself to the point where he doesn't have many places to turn.  For example, even though there are sensible, non-racist objections to some of the IHRA definition examples, the NEC can't discuss them without being seen as the anti-Semitic dinosaurs locking horns with the "progressive" PLP.  But let's be clear about this, _he_ has done this.  _He_ has presided over this state of affairs.
> 
> What he needs is a better story.  It's all about having a good story.  Even without media support, if he has a good story they'll run it. They'll still run the anti stuff.  But if his story is good, then people _will_ hear it.


This is the sort of thing that I would say. I feel like this is true of lots of things - the narratives around the EU & Brexit, Miliband before Corbyn, and plenty more besides. Certainly it would be politically expedient to be setting that agenda, to lead the story, and certainly the current meagre, passively reactive response is no use at all.

However, because it's the sort of thing I would say, I can also see many of the problems with it. Variously: the assertion that both the individual issues within Labour and the resultant political pit we find him in are both more something Corbyn's done or carelessly permitted to happen than they are something deliberately done _to_ him, the inadvertent goal of a return to spin and/or a model of singular leadership, the assumption that this issue _can _be resolved, the idea that this issue should be allowed to dominate the whole news agenda, and the idea that we do actually operate in some sort of 'narrative meritocracy' where the right message will succeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Leaving aside this latest video, regardless of ones interpretation of it, there are three strands that some people seem to find it difficult to disentangle.
> 
> 1. The disingenuous labelling of all criticism of the Israeli state, its actions and policies, as necessarily anti-Semitic.
> 
> ...


yeh but i fear the labour leadership will fuck up the tough decision and jump a way many people will find deplorable.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Aug 31, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I dont think this campain to paint anti zionism as anti semitism will resonate with the electorate. The MPs who are using it as a stick to beat the left with are all headed binwards.


Can someone ELI5 the whole "Labour is anti-semitic" thing; I haven't really been paying attention. Is it simply conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jews, or is there more to it than that?


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 31, 2018)

He needs to go on more about taking back collective ownership of railways etc, which is popular across much of the population, but use strong language such as ‘taking back control’ which will resonate well (and tread on the toes of kippers as a bonus). Point out how much we’ve lost, ceded control and ownership to the private sector, not just industry but public spaces, school fields sold off for housing etc. Set the agenda. It’s a message people will swallow. At the moment it just feels like Labour is sitting back and taking the blows, some of which are self-delivered. Just waiting for the wheels to completely fall off the Tory clown car isn’t good enough.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I've given my opinion on how Corbyn and his team could extract themselves from this.  Not that I think they will.  I think what'll happen is that in his incompetent bungling he'll end up trashing the reputation of the Labour left and the "progressives" will regain the party helm.


Will they? Obviously I hope not (presumabnly you mean the Labour right). I don't see Corbyn giving up power, he has, to my understanding, a lot of support. It seems unresolvable


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> He needs to go on more about taking back collective ownership of railways etc, which is popular across much of the population, but use strong language such as ‘taking back control’ which will resonate well (and tread on the toes of kippers as a bonus). Point out how much we’ve lost, ceded control and ownership to the private sector, not just industry but public spaces, school fields sold off for housing etc. Set the agenda. It’s a message people will swallow. At the moment it just feels like Labour is sitting back and taking the blows, some of which are self-delivered. Just waiting for the wheels to completely fall off the Tory clown car isn’t good enough.


They do go on about all that stuff all the time tbf. Among other things, part of the reason this stuff has been focused on so much is as a smokescreen and a way to keep their attention and efforts focused on something other than pushing eye-catching policies to the public.

And while it may look like they're doing nothing but sitting there and taking the blows, this staggers article suggests Corbyn has had a very busy summer campaigning in marginals.

Jeremy Corbyn’s two universes


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Will they? Obviously I hope not (presumabnly you mean the Labour right). I don't see Corbyn giving up power, he has, to my understanding, a lot of support. It seems unresolvable


Are you a Labour Party member?


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 31, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 145549



Anybody else notice that 'existential' seems to be the word of the week for the political class?


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you a Labour Party member?


FWIW I don't think the Labour right have a chance at re-taking the party in the short to medium term. They don't have the support within the party - the best they can hope for (if Corbo goes at some point) is someone on the soft left, although even there it's not clear who.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think the Labour right have a chance at re-taking the party in the short to medium term. They don't have the support within the party - the best they can hope for (if Corbo goes at some point) is *someone on the soft left*, although even there it's not clear who.



The surname Kinnock has a ring to it.

#(Labour)Party-Like-Its-1983.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> FWIW I don't think the Labour right have a chance at re-taking the party in the short to medium term. They don't have the support within the party - the best they can hope for (if Corbo goes at some point) is someone on the soft left, although even there it's not clear who.


You may be right about that. All I know is that the longer this goes on the fewer organised opponents the Labour right will have.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

mauvais said:


> This is the sort of thing that I would say.


You'll take that back!


----------



## Supine (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> And while it may look like they're doing nothing but sitting there and taking the blows, this staggers article suggests Corbyn has had a very busy summer campaigning in marginals.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn’s two universes



Interesting article but he really needs how to talk to the press. The vast majority of voters still make their decision based on who they see on the screen. 

On the anti semitism issue I don't think I've seen a single labour politician rubbish the idea of racism and immediately go into the reasons why the Israeli government deserve condemnation. Sitting on the fence won't win them voters on this issue.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

imposs1904 said:


> The surname Kinnock has a ring to it.
> 
> #(Labour)Party-Like-Its-1983.


he isn't on the soft left.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

and really? there is literally no chance of kinnock getting in. he'd make liz kendall look like a massive win.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Supine said:


> Interesting article but he really needs how to talk to the press. The vast majority of voters still make their decision based on who they see on the screen.
> 
> On the anti semitism issue I don't think I've seen a single labour politician rubbish the idea of racism and immediately go into the reasons why the Israeli government deserve condemnation. Sitting on the fence won't win them voters on this issue.


1) That's what you said and what led you to expect a labour wipeout last time

2)??


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> he isn't on the soft left.



And after he was elected in '83, neither was his Dad.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> and really? there is literally no chance of kinnock getting in. he'd make liz kendall look like a massive win.



I was joking, btw.


----------



## belboid (Aug 31, 2018)

Supine said:


> Interesting article but he really needs how to talk to the press. The vast majority of voters still make their decision based on who they see on the screen.


Which screen? Vast numbers will see nothing, or next to nothing, on the TV and get all their info from Facebook.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you a Labour Party member?


no


----------



## Supine (Aug 31, 2018)

belboid said:


> Which screen? Vast numbers will see nothing, or next to nothing, on the TV and get all their info from Facebook.



Yeah, not sure how that works with floating voters and the bubbles people surround themselves in on social media.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Supine said:


> Yeah, not sure how that works with floating voters and the bubbles people surround themselves in on social media.


You're not sure just how your entire point would work?


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

It's not like we have a very recent election campaign and general election result we can look to for ideas about how that works.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> no


No, nor am I. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what they end up doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Can someone ELI5 the whole "Labour is anti-semitic" thing; I haven't really been paying attention. Is it simply conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jews, or is there more to it than that?


Can anyone do this - i can't right now.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Can anyone do this - i can't right now.


sure I will. 

hey Buddy Bradley - yeah, there's more to it than that. 

In short: The Labour left has a load of conspiracy theorists and antisemites in it's ranks, which it's failed to deal with and is now biting it on it's arse, and Corbyn has made various (at best) _mistakes_ about things he says and people he's hung out with, which are being dragged out by his enemies over the summer recess. 

It is being used for factional purposes by people who want him out: but there are also a load of cranks who need booting, and who have had too free a time of it up til now.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Ta.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

It would be useful to have a primer for posting when that question comes up tbh. Seymour did a decent article for Jacobin in the spring which I was using up until the summer, but it's well out of date now...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> sure I will.
> 
> hey Buddy Bradley - yeah, there's more to it than that.
> 
> ...


I had assumed Buddy Bradley was just sarcastically taking the piss out of TopCat's post.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 31, 2018)

According to the standard , gape of Ilford is ready to jump over racism/ anti semitism. I have never heard of this one.


----------



## agricola (Aug 31, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> According to the standard , gape of Ilford is ready to jump over racism/ anti semitism. I have never heard of this one.



When you hear of him, you will wish to be back in the times when you had not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> According to the standard , gape of Ilford is ready to jump over racism/ anti semitism. I have never heard of this one.


Gapes? Chair of the foreign affairs select committee.

Got a link?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> According to the standard , gape of Ilford is ready to jump over racism/ anti semitism. I have never heard of this one.


I have. He was twinned with my CLP when i was in the party. We did some leafleting on the estate then took him to the pub - the estate's pub - he shat himself. Wanted out in 20 minutes and keys to the organisers door.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

Odd given how thick he was giving the big city east end accent when he turned up.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

I don't much agree with this bloke but, this one by one slinking off is a sign of defeat


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Gapes? Chair of the foreign affairs select committee.
> 
> Got a link?





On the train


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I don't much agree with this bloke but, this one by one slinking off is a sign of defeat


But what of the defeat of the others?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Gapes? Chair of the foreign affairs select committee.
> 
> Got a link?


Never heard of gapes before, can only conclude it's an effort to raise his woeful profile


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Never heard of gapes before, can only conclude it's an effort to raise his woeful profile


I forget how I heard of him. I think butchersapron probably told me who he was.


----------



## Toast Rider (Aug 31, 2018)

How successful was Labour under previous leaders at rooting out the dodgy people?


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

Shit, but so what?


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I don't much agree with this bloke but, this one by one slinking off is a sign of defeat





> The political problem with Field is he never outgrew the patricianism that is the true mark of the Tory. Readers may recall his _voluntary_ stint as "poverty tsar" for Dave's Coalition government. During his time chumming up with the Tories (and scabbing on the party), he advocated stripping young men of all social security support if they "refused" jobs, believing it would "build character".



I think this already happens


----------



## kebabking (Aug 31, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> How successful was Labour under previous leaders at rooting out the dodgy people?



I was a member from about 2005 to 2017, I was 'active' and knocked doors, went to meetings and did all the social stuff, but I wasn't a branch official. 

They always existed, but apart from a few loons trying to get selected as candidates every few years, the party simply wasn't their main focus - they would be members of the party in the same way that I'm a member of the RSPB, a bit part of who I am, but not something I get involved in week-to-week.

A much larger group of unsavouries were known Labour voters but not members, and you'd hear their twattery when you knocked on doors at election time, but you said 'thanks' and moved on - they weren't a large group within the electorate or the Labour vote, but they were evident.

Once Corbyn stood there were three effects - firstly people joining the party who were previously 'unsavoury Labour voters', people joining who we'd never even got down a Labour voters who voiced opinions that had 'deeply unsavoury' written all over them from the start, and those who were the 'oddballs' who were already Labour members, but not engaged ones, who became a lot more outspoken about views that they previously only muttered very occasionally.

From where I sat, it was heartbreakingly simple - they saw that Labour was now a place they could feel comfortable. Before Corbyn, the party didn't have to work very hard to keep them out, or get them out, because (broadly) Labour wasn't something they wanted to join. 

Other CLP's may have had different experiences...


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2018)

Can you expand on 'unsavoury'


----------



## teqniq (Aug 31, 2018)




----------



## Shechemite (Aug 31, 2018)

UNSAVOURY 

to expand further


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

Great idea for a thread.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 31, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I was a member from about 2005 to 2017, I was 'active' and knocked doors, went to meetings and did all the social stuff, but I wasn't a branch official.
> 
> They always existed, but apart from a few loons trying to get selected as candidates every few years, the party simply wasn't their main focus - they would be members of the party in the same way that I'm a member of the RSPB, a bit part of who I am, but not something I get involved in week-to-week.
> 
> ...


Mate, whilst we are handing out the savoury awards you were disturbing people’s evenings on a regular basis on behalf of basically red tories!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 31, 2018)

kebabking said:


> I was a member from about 2005 to 2017, I was 'active' and knocked doors, went to meetings and did all the social stuff, but I wasn't a branch official.
> 
> They always existed, but apart from a few loons trying to get selected as candidates every few years, the party simply wasn't their main focus - they would be members of the party in the same way that I'm a member of the RSPB, a bit part of who I am, but not something I get involved in week-to-week.
> 
> ...


What made you leave Labour?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 31, 2018)

Ah, more succinct people got in first haha


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 31, 2018)

TopCat said:


> What made you leave Labour?


Lack of salty crisps?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2018)

I hope Labour canvassers come round here. I'm going to say I won't be voting Labour because "I've got nothing against the Jews".


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 31, 2018)




----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2018)

Labour party canvassers have been coming around my neighborhood. One of my longstanding Labour Cllrs died and so election is happening to fill seat. This is Coldharbour ward covering Brixton area in London. The Council is Lambeth.

The main rivals are Greens who have taken seats off Labour at last Council elections. Lambeth is still controlled by New Labour.

Anti semitism is not an issue in my area. Ive been chatting to Labour voters and members I know. Some vote Green in Lambeth as they can't stomach New Labour. They vote Labour at national elections as Corbyn is in charge. They can't stomach New Labour as they close libraries and want to "regenerate" Council estates. Bread and butter issues.

They are lukewarm Corbyn supporters. As one Labour party member said they are old Labour. Between Corbyn and Blairites.

The view I've got is that whilst they sort of support Corbyn in lukewarm the way he is being attacked for anti semitism makes them feel he's been attacked unfairly.

As friend said ,who at last general election thought Corbyn would be disaster and now thinks he did well, thinks now the only reason he is being attacked now is because he supports Palestinians.

Supporting Palestinians isn't some far left thing. 

I've heard this from several people who are what I would call lukewarm supporters of Corbyn.

The anti Semitic allegations against him are annoying them now as old Labour supporters.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 31, 2018)

treelover said:


> Can you expand on 'unsavoury'



In this context it would mainly relate to 'the Israeli lobby', 'international finance' and all the other tropes - it wasn't particularly focused on Palestine, it would be brought out regarding pretty much any area of policy where the loon in question disagreed with Government/party policy. 

On Palestine it would be far less nuanced - 'Hitler had the right idea' wouldn't be unusual from a loon, 'fucking Jewish cunts' would be a fairly regular phrase heard from the more mainstream, but not the majority, if in the bar/pub after a branch/CLP meeting while anything Palestinian or wider ME thing was going on. 

That's broadly representative of four CLP's I've been involved with from North Yorkshire, through Worcestershire to Wiltshire/Hampshire.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> Did you catch any of the fascists & conspiracy theorists they had on?



Good question  and I was vaguely aware of some iffy conspiracist presence 

I was never going to either respect, or even check out, Vanessa Beeley 

I wanted to catch Rachel Shabi's contribution, but in the end she wasn't there  

Tatchell and Williamson were OK though.

Piers Corbyn is a nutjob on climate, and he was entertainingly destroyed by the Exeter meteorology expert (Richard Betts) 

Actual fascists though? Were there any at BD, really? 
We weren't around at that tent at the time, if so. 
But I'm most likely failing to recognise names ....


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2018)

kebabking said:


> In this context it would mainly relate to 'the Israeli lobby', 'international finance' and all the other tropes - it wasn't particularly focused on Palestine, it would be brought out regarding pretty much any area of policy where the loon in question disagreed with Government/party policy.
> 
> On Palestine it would be far less nuanced - 'Hitler had the right idea' wouldn't be unusual from a loon, 'fucking Jewish cunts' would be a fairly regular phrase heard from the more mainstream, but not the majority, if in the bar/pub after a branch/CLP meeting while anything Palestinian or wider ME thing was going on.
> 
> That's broadly representative of four CLP's I've been involved with from North Yorkshire, through Worcestershire to Wiltshire/Hampshire.



any comment like that in my branch, they would be out the door and out of the party.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2018)

I'm not sure if I would respect or check out any 'rebel' event that had Beeley speaking at any point in their programme tbf. I guess it must have been better than seeing any of the bands that were playing, mind.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure if I would respect or check out any 'rebel' event that had Beeley speaking at any point in their programme tbf. I guess it must have been better than seeing any of the bands that were playing, mind.


Gogol Bordello though!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 31, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure if I would respect or check out any 'rebel' event that had Beeley speaking at any point in their programme tbf. I guess it must have been better than seeing any of the bands that were playing, mind.



I was well fucked off with Beeley being there too. 

But other, better people were there too at different times. 
Glenn Jenkins once Exodus, now Leviticus, was the main Rebel Tent organiser. Make of that what you want.

As for (not so) Beautiful Bands, we've had much better lineups than this year, but we and friends are hardcores who go every year anyway. 

We're old like that   
Goodnight ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2018)

I see the Jacobin owner has bought Tribunes name and details and plans to re launch the labour left magazine. First I've heard of said publication, was it crap?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Labour party canvassers have been coming around my neighborhood. One of my longstanding Labour Cllrs died and so election is happening to fill seat. This is Coldharbour ward covering Brixton area in London. The Council is Lambeth.
> 
> The main rivals are Greens who have taken seats off Labour at last Council elections. Lambeth is still controlled by New Labour.
> 
> ...


So it's had zero electoral effect?

The main thing is palestine though for them and corbyn being attacked unfairly? Not the kicking people out of their homes and that? Fucking london...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I see the Jacobin owner has bought Tribunes name and details and plans to re launch the labour left magazine. First I've heard of said publication, was it crap?


It was good for a few years when nye was a lion in the 50s. Then mayve a few years in the 80s. Utter dross otherwise. I used to dread every other friday having to even skim read it. Made Freedom look like anarchist nutters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2018)

well i'll no doubt pick up/read online at some point. Although I assumed New Socialist was going into print at some point as the house mag of the labour left, but what do I know.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> So it's had zero electoral effect?
> 
> The main thing is palestine though for them and corbyn being attacked unfairly? Not the kicking people out of their homes and that? Fucking london...



I would say at local election level the Labour party anti semitism issue is having zero effect in my bit of London on Labour vote. It might be different in other parts of London.

At local level what is happening with housing, libraries and parks/ open spaces are the issues that concern people.

So I would not say Palestine is main issue its one issue among others.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 1, 2018)

killer b said:


> Shit, but so what?



Indeed, but this has exploded on Corbyn's watch. Some of that, it seems clear, falls on his shoulders. Some of it doesn't because this wasn't the crisis it is now, or is portrayed as now, under Blair, Brown, or Miliband - to the best of my knowledge.

Now obviuosly racist idiots on demos, at the local level, fringe left/hard left outliers - however you describe them - should be addressed. As should any instance of racism (by anyone anywhere). But as I said, it's very hard to tease fact from hyperbole and bias in all of this.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 1, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I forget how I heard of him. I think butchersapron probably told me who he was.



He's v noisy on twitter, + a  proper div


----------



## cantsin (Sep 1, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I hope Labour canvassers come round here. I'm going to say I won't be voting Labour because "I've got nothing against the Jews".



You sounds like Dan Hodges or JK Rowling or something there, impressive


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2018)

He's a stalinist goon and the only working class person in london.

edit: and a poster of course


----------



## cantsin (Sep 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> He's a stalinist goon and the only working class person in london.
> 
> edit: and a poster of course



D le R ? ( thought he was Scots)


----------



## Wilf (Sep 1, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 145671


"Disagreeable to smell, taste or look at" - my next tagline.


----------



## Mr Smin (Sep 1, 2018)

cantsin said:


> not sure what you mean by " he really should be able to own a debate about Israel/Palestine " ? how could Corbyn "own' the debate, vs approx 600 MPs, the entire MSM etc, who are dictating the shape and
> 
> Seriously, how do you suggest Corbyn, or anyone else 'owns' this situation ?



I think he should step up and say something more eloquent than, but basically along the lines of, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And give a good argument on behalf of Palestinians taking up arms.
I do mean a debate rather than the debate, specifically when being interviewed one on one by a journalist. I think trying to make any subtle argument in the commons chamber is a waste of time.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2018)

cantsin said:


> D le R ? ( thought he was Scots)


I'm a citizen of Hogwarts. Me and Jo, as I call her, are like this* [* does secret hand signal]. I'm mad for the Union and everything.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> it's very hard to tease fact from hyperbole and bias in all of this.


It isn't that hard tbf. Try to be aware of your own biases if you're struggling.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 2, 2018)

The media doesn't look for and report fact it looks for sensationalism.
i see he is all over the Guardian on line this morning. If the Guardian is like that, what's the rest like?
News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's UK edition | The Guardian


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

hash tag said:


> The media doesn't look for and report fact it looks for sensationalism.
> i see he is all over the Guardian on line this morning. If the Guardian is like that, what's the rest like?
> News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's UK edition | The Guardian


Why have you posted this?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you posted this?


I was going to post up the main article from there:
Labour faces shake-up that will make it easier to deselect MPs

The entirely predictable bit is that the guardian are rolling up the anti-Semitism row with demonising Labour left attempts to get reselection and indeed opposition to the whole Corbyn thing more generally. But on the issue itself they've got Hodge referring to his _hatred of the Jews_ (_All the leadership can think about is their internal Labour party and their hatred of Jews … Jeremy has allowed antisemitism and racism to run rife. He needs to renounce much of what he did_).

As suggested by others on this thread, to me the real issue is one of the 'left' more widely, an absolute blindness to Hamas and others that was present in the stwc and elsewhere. A deepseated cultural problem if you like, but a kind of personal/political immaturity where you don't have to think  of the consequences of sharing platforms, facebook pages and the rest with people who are actively anti-Semitic and, just as importantly, oppressive themselves. It's always difficult to make a break with a _culture_, but that's what Corbyn should have been doing. I don't really see that he gets that, which just leaves him putting out the same statements about opposing anti-Semitism and racism. And of course Hodge's accusation that he _actively_ hates the Jews ups the anti and keeps the whole thing in crisis management mode.

edit: technically, as a form of words at least, Hodge is right to say 'he needs to renounce much of what he did', though it should really be 'they'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

I fully agree, but have to point out _ante_. Unless that was done on purpose - which sort of fits actually.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I fully agree, but have to point out _ante_. Unless that was done on purpose - which sort of fits actually.


No  - but yes it does.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I was going to post up the main article from there:
> Labour faces shake-up that will make it easier to deselect MPs
> 
> The entirely predictable bit is that the guardian are rolling up the anti-Semitism row with demonising Labour left attempts to get reselection and indeed opposition to the whole Corbyn thing more generally. But on the issue itself they've got Hodge referring to his _hatred of the Jews_ (_All the leadership can think about is their internal Labour party and their hatred of Jews … Jeremy has allowed antisemitism and racism to run rife. He needs to renounce much of what he did_).
> ...


Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying here particularly with reference to the likes of Hamas, I get a sense that the wreckers within the right of the party and the attendant media support as ably portrayed by the Gruan et al have somewhat massively overcooked the goose. Maybe I'm viewing events through too narrow a lens on Twitter but I see many people who come across as perfectly sensible and not in the least bit anti-semitic who are totally sick and tired of the whole sordid charade. Corbyn hasn't done himself any favours with past associations etc it's true but this is not really about anti-semitism pre se; it is about threats to the established order even reality relatively mild ones such as are being put forward by the current Labour leadership.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

For you maybe, for me it's about those anti-semites hiding behind and within that.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2018)

Yes I accept that there is some truth in that yet they seem to be having a hard time producing really damaging credible evidence, that and I think as I have suggested they have overcooked things.

this reply to Hodge sums things things up for me:

Dear Margaret


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Don't click on the international news on that site:



> The Syrian refugees want to go home, because Syria is now at peace, and it is safe in most areas, and they could at least get free medical and free education in Syria, as well as work.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2018)

Hmmm. I think I might know one of the people responsible for that publication on FB. I might ask if it's him, in light of the reality that is a wildly inaccurate statement. I am guessing the author is an Assadist.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2018)

Reading elsewhere there are claims motions to Conference to allow members of the SWP to join Labour are being made, mischief making? can't find evidence, it would be a disaster, not just over Comrade Delta, but who they are and how they work.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I was going to post up the main article from there:
> Labour faces shake-up that will make it easier to deselect MPs
> 
> The entirely predictable bit is that the guardian are rolling up the anti-Semitism row with demonising Labour left attempts to get reselection and indeed opposition to the whole Corbyn thing more generally. But on the issue itself they've got Hodge referring to his _hatred of the Jews_ (_All the leadership can think about is their internal Labour party and their hatred of Jews … Jeremy has allowed antisemitism and racism to run rife. He needs to renounce much of what he did_).
> ...



its actually the Observer, Guardian is a bit less hostile!

as usual you get it, great post.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2018)

A bit less? You'd be hard-pressed to fit a ciggie paper between them.


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2018)

teqniq said:


> , I get a sense that the wreckers within the right of the party and the attendant media support as ably portrayed by the Gruan et al have somewhat massively overcooked the goose. Maybe I'm viewing events through too narrow a lens on Twitter but I see many people who come across as perfectly sensible and not in the least bit anti-semitic who are totally sick and tired of the whole sordid charade. Corbyn hasn't done himself any favours with past associations etc it's true but this is not really about anti-semitism pre se; it is about threats to the established order even reality relatively mild ones such as are being put forward by the current Labour leadership.



Yeah.

The only people I know in everyday life who are biting at this are those whose never vote Labour, nevermind Corbyn, and who jump on board any anti-Labour campaign.

Most people I talk to see an obvious smear campaign and are sick of it. If anything shoring up the Labour vote.

Leaving the very real issue of Corbyn et al's willingness to lie with dogs hangng as people recoil from the crude smears and obvious politico careering that we see daily in the news.

It's very wearying.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 2, 2018)

chilango said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The only people I know in everyday life who are biting at this are those whose never vote Labour, nevermind Corbyn, and who jump on board any anti-Labour campaign.
> 
> ...


It's true that there is hype, opportunism, and smear. But Corbyn has been crap on all fronts. He's crap at dealing with the smears; crap at refuting the equation of criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism; and crap at dealing with the actual antisemitism.

Take Jim Sheridan, former MP and current councillor. He said he no longer has "empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering" because of "what they and their Blairite plotters are doing to my party and the long suffering people of Britain". That was more than three weeks ago. He should have been expelled by now.

As for that matter should Frank Field. And Gapes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

chilango said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The only people I know in everyday life who are biting at this are those whose never vote Labour, nevermind Corbyn, and who jump on board any anti-Labour campaign.
> 
> ...


How does it weary you?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2018)

treelover said:


> Reading elsewhere there are claims motions to Conference to allow members of the SWP to join Labour are being made, mischief making? can't find evidence, it would be a disaster, not just over Comrade Delta, but who they are and how they work.


Perhaps this bit (from the observer link):


> One of the most contentious proposals, put forward by five local branches, would scrap a rule put in place when the party was fighting the hard-left Militant group in the 1980s. This makes it an expellable offence to “support a political organisation other than an official Labour group”.
> 
> Party insiders said that scrapping the rule would open Labour membership to people in hard-left political organisations such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty.


 I'd be interested to see precisely what the game is with this - allowing members of specific groups in? Allowing expelled people back - or just keeping up the flow of Corbyn supporting new members? A lot of this though sounds like stuff the Corbynites should have been doing a year ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

There ain't no flow. People like this have been in since the start - all 4000 of them.

Letting these people in is def not they should be doing or even having on their radar. I suspect it won't get past arrangements or whatever it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Would be  a big boost for the_ anarchists for labour_ faction though.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Would be  a big boost for the_ anarchists for labour_ faction though.


Shudder.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Sep 2, 2018)

chilango said:


> Most people I talk to see an obvious smear campaign and are sick of it. If anything shoring up the Labour vote.



This is my impression as well, very easy for Labour people to dismiss the whole debacle as a smear when the media have been so shrill in reporting about it. This probably does let Corbyn off the hook in some ways, as he has been absolutely awful in combating the actual antisemitism in the party. Hardly fills you with confidence in how he and his government would fair if they actually did get elected.


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> How does it weary you?



The monotonous drone of the smear campaign.

The grinding dispiriting reminders that the Left is fucked and full of people I want nothing to do with.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2018)

chilango said:


> The monotonous drone of the smear campaign.
> 
> The grinding dispiriting reminders that the Left is fucked and _full of people I want nothing to do with_.


Having spent a year trying, that resonates massively.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 2, 2018)

A number of my friends are on the ‘people vs the government, DWP and ATOS’ FB group. 

Is this also run by Mike Sivier. It promotes a lot of his articles, plus a lot of ‘anti-Zionist’ stuff. 

Today it’s been promoting this article from ‘redpress’, decrying the attempts to ‘ruin the careers’ of Atzmon and Chabloz


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 2, 2018)

Or rather that should be ‘redressonline’, who also happen to have Gilad Atzmon as one of their contributors


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> There ain't no flow. People like this have been in since the start - all 4000 of them.
> 
> Letting these people in is def not they should be doing or even having on their radar. I suspect it won't get past arrangements or whatever it is.


Oh, I agree, I was just wondering what was the intention of those CLPs putting these rule changes forward.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 2, 2018)

Atzmon can sell homself as a critic of Israel to the unwary. Chabloz is openly fascist. Defending her is directly courting an alliance with fascists.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 2, 2018)

Well quite


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 2, 2018)

Paul fucking Eisen


----------



## teqniq (Sep 2, 2018)

Yes, this popped up on Twitter earlier so I did a search and found this.

Exposing Anti-Semitism: Redress Information & Analysis


----------



## Knotted (Sep 2, 2018)

The problem with that sort of gotcha exercise is that it looks like a handful of instances of floating over the line. A very quick glance at that website shows it is systematically promoting an anti-semitic agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Knotted said:


> The problem with that sort of gotcha exercise is that it looks like a handful of instances of floating over the line. A very quick glance at that website shows it is systematically promoting an anti-semitic agenda.


To and for a non-existent milieu?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2018)

Open about their motivation, if nothing else.


Labour antisemitism row: Hodge claims Corbyn 'is the problem'


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

That's utterly unopen.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> That's utterly unopen.


In the sense that it's a complete falsehood, yes.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 2, 2018)

It's difficult to know what will come of it. Hodge says one thing, Gordon Brown another, Lord Sacks says he must repent and recant and so it goes on. It's certainly an issue for many people and it's not going to blow over very easily.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It's difficult to know what will come of it. Hodge says one thing, Gordon Brown another, Lord Sacks says he must repent and recant and so it goes on. It's certainly an issue for many people and it's not going to blow over very easily.


You started the eerily correct thread. You tell us.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2018)




----------



## hash tag (Sep 2, 2018)

I did but for sort of differing reasons. I reiterate I like him, I think he is reasoned and principled. Does he appreciate what a situation he is in and the effect his response to these things is having on the party.
Some have said its got so bad that there is talk of a new party. 
I don't think he will resolve this and I don't think he is capable of winning the next election.
If I was so sure, I would not have asked the question in the first place and I'm still not sure.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

It's all very simple. Corbyn is a fool who is happy to spout anti Semitic opinions, not because at heart he hates Jews, but because he relishes the applause such sentiments elicit from his audience. As leader of the party he cannot overhaul a Tory party that is in crisis and is widely seen as laughably incompetent. He is a burden on any aspiration to get rid of the tories and install a progressive government. It is only his arrogance and ego that keeps him from recognising that he must go if we aren't see a labour government .


----------



## Knotted (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> To and for a non-existent milieu?



Obviously it exists. I didn't realise it had gone this far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> It's all very simple. Corbyn is a fool who is happy to spout anti Semitic opinions, not because at heart he hates Jews, but because he relishes the applause such sentiments elicit from his audience. As leader of the party he cannot overhaul a Tory party that is in crisis and is widely seen as laughably incompetent. He is a burden on any aspiration to get rid of the tories and install a progressive government. It is only his arrogance and ego that keeps him from recognising that he must go if we aren't see a labour government .


If that's the case then doubtless you'll be able to point to anti-semitic statements from the past couple of years to end the humiliation of corbyn's critics forced to rely on remarks from five years ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> It's all very simple. Corbyn is a fool who is happy to spout anti Semitic opinions, not because at heart he hates Jews, but because he relishes the applause such sentiments elicit from his audience. As leader of the party he cannot overhaul a Tory party that is in crisis and is widely seen as laughably incompetent. He is a burden on any aspiration to get rid of the tories and install a progressive government. It is only his arrogance and ego that keeps him from recognising that he must go if we aren't see a labour government .


Oh the other thing is you won't a government as progressive as harold wilson's from any party represented in parliament now. Where do you expect this rare creature, this unusual government, to spring from?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I did but for sort of differing reasons. I reiterate I like him, I think he is reasoned and principled. Does he appreciate what a situation he is in and the effect his response to these things is having on the party.
> Some have said its got so bad that there is talk of a new party.
> I don't think he will resolve this and I don't think he is capable of winning the next election.
> If I was so sure, I would not have asked the question in the first place and I'm still not sure.


What?


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> If that's the case then doubtless you'll be able to point to anti-semitic statements from the past couple of years to end the humiliation of corbyn's critics forced to rely on remarks from five years ago


I think the fact he has reined in his racism over the last couple of years does not expunge the open anti Jewish opinions clearly expressed previously. I know it is hard for fanboys like you to understand but your crush on Corbyn means you are a supporter of a man who is a racist and a Jew hater.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2018)

He's got you there Pickman's.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> I think the fact he has reined in his racism over the last couple of years does not expunge the open anti Jewish opinions clearly expressed previously. I know it is hard for fanboys like you to understand but your crush on Corbyn means you are a supporter of a man who is a racist and a Jew hater.


All the posts you made, the ones establishing you as normal. Farts in the wind now.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Thanks again to the  dulwich forum for bill bond and philosophical.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> All the posts you made, the ones establishing you as normal. Farts in the wind now.


I would hate to be thought of as normal.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> I would hate to be thought of as normal.


Better to be this_ i'm 73 you know_ filth.

A life well lived.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Better to be this_ i'm 73 you know_ filth.
> 
> A life well lived.


Are you drunk, stoned or just unable to write a coherent sentence because you are as thick as pig shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

5/3


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> 5/3


Oh, I see, thick as pig shit it is.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 2, 2018)

Should Jeremy be meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah? Is there any way such a meeting could be productive? He says he doesn't approve of their ways and Hamas at least were democratically elected (if you believe the claims regarding the integrity fo the elections).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Should Jeremy be meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah? Is there any way such a meeting could be productive? He says he doesn't approve of their ways and Hamas at least were democratically elected (if you believe the claims regarding the integrity fo the elections).


What do you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> I think the fact he has reined in his racism over the last couple of years does not expunge the open anti Jewish opinions clearly expressed previously. I know it is hard for fanboys like you to understand but your crush on Corbyn means you are a supporter of a man who is a racist and a Jew hater.


I'm not in fact a Labour supporter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> I would hate to be thought of as normal.


Subnormal more your level


----------



## phillm (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Don't click on the international news on that site:



or this probably the most deranged thing I've ever read on the web.....barking mad

I see you, Tony Robinson


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 2, 2018)

there is a perspective out there that isnt towing some party line you know


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

But that ain't it.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What do you think?


I think I'd like to hear what other people say.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Subnormal more your level


You must have laboured hard and long to come up with such a cutting riposte.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I think I'd like to hear what other people say.


when they tell you, what do you think?

I'm going to revoke your licence in minute unless you get interesting.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Subnormal more your level


If it helps I believe 616.89 is where you will find information about your problems...


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> when they tell you, what do you think?
> 
> I'm going to revoke your licence in minute unless you get interesting.


I don't know what to think, I'm undecided. I don't know enough about what went on in those meetings. Is there a problem with asking what other people think now?


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2018)

The whole wide-eyed 'help me to understand!' act is a bit dull tbf. Posters have helped, but you carry on posting the same banal questions.


----------



## Supine (Sep 2, 2018)

phillm said:


> or this probably the most deranged thing I've ever read on the web.....barking mad
> 
> I see you, Tony Robinson



I see you is great. This one takes a bit of thinking about


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> You must have laboured hard and long to come up with such a cutting riposte.


Yeh you indicated the high level of your intellect by calling me a Corbyn fanboy just after I'd said he's less progressive than that well-known lefty Wilson. I've not said anything on this thread to give anyone the impression I'm a fanboy. You're quite happy to make allegations you can't support. The conjunction doesn't make you look an Einstein.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 2, 2018)

killer b said:


> The whole wide-eyed 'help me to understand!' act is a bit dull tbf. Posters have helped, but you carry on posting the same banal questions.



I didn't realise this was a popularity contest. I asked a simple question. Why does it have to be seen as some kind of threat? I genuinely do not know whether him meeting these people can or can't lead to something positive. That's all I'm trying to ascertain. It's not a trick question ffs


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> If it helps I believe 616.89 is where you will find information about your problems...


rather telling you think people who say you're below average are mentally ill


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

.


----------



## Grump (Sep 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> rather telling you think people who say you're below average are mentally ill


No, that's not why I said it, it is more a summation of the posts of yours I have read and basing  an opinion on 30 years of working in a related field...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> But that ain't it.



i dont know what it is tbh. muddled madness


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

Grump said:


> No, that's not why I said it, it is more a summation of the posts of yours I have read and basing  an opinion on 30 years of working in a related field...


Lol. If you've read my posts then you wouldn't have made the elementary error of calling me a Corbyn fanboy. I am not sure your professional opinion has the value you believe it does.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> rather telling you think people who say you're below average are mentally ill



He’s calling you an inflammed cunt actually. 

Out of date textbook though (ICD-9)


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> He’s calling you an inflammed cunt actually.
> 
> Out of date textbook though (ICD-9)


Yeh. Well I wouldn't take the word of someone who says with one breath jc's happy to spout racism and with the next bit he's reined it in. Someone like that might strike you, as he does me, as a bullshitter


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> It was good for a few years when nye was a lion in the 50s. Then mayve a few years in the 80s. Utter dross otherwise. I used to dread every other friday having to even skim read it. Made Freedom look like anarchist nutters.



The Phil Evans cartoons were good.


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 2, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> well i'll no doubt pick up/read online at some point. Although I assumed New Socialist was going into print at some point as the house mag of the labour left, but what do I know.



I'm ancient enough that I remember the old New Socialist.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 2, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I don't know what to think, I'm undecided. I don't know enough about what went on in those meetings....



Then start asking yourself not about the content of those meetings, but about the fact of them.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone grasps the wrong end of the stick occasionally - young people often join social groups that sound great, but when they meet them in the pub the groups turn out to be shit - but Corbyn seems to be _remarkably _unlucky with the number of entirely innocent sounding groups that he talks to/gets involved with that turn out to be nests of virulent anti-Semitics, Holocaust deniers, conspiraloons and Assad/Putin fan clubs.

He's either willfully - and repeatedly - blind, magnificently gullible, or enjoys dabbling in that sewer but is too personally nice to use the kind of words others involved might use, but kind of thinks along similar lines.

Personally, despite loathing him, I doubt that he's a out and out antisemite - I think he's just blind to it going on around him when those espousing it are his political fellow travellers, gullible in falling for any old shit that panders to his prejudices, and his spectacular ego tells him that his moral compass is set so purely that anyone who shares similar views must also be a paragon of absolute virtue.

It would not however take much to persuade that he's not just a gullible old fool, but a nasty piece of work...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 2, 2018)

unlikey to be an anti semite but some of his politics are trapped in the taught orthodoxy of past times and maybe should have died with Che it could be said. he probabaly sleeps  as well as May these days.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 2, 2018)

kebabking said:


> Then start asking yourself not about the content of those meetings, but about the fact of them.
> 
> Everyone makes mistakes, everyone grasps the wrong end of the stick occasionally - young people often join social groups that sound great, but when they meet them in the pub the groups turn out to be shit - but Corbyn seems to be _remarkably _unlucky with the number of entirely innocent sounding groups that he talks to/gets involved with that turn out to be nests of virulent anti-Semitics, Holocaust deniers, conspiraloons and Assad/Putin fan clubs.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, I appreciate a more forthcoming response, I'm just struggling to see the depth of what you are seeing in all honesty. I'm not making excuses for the guy. I'm just trying to be honest. You mention anti semitics, holocaust deniers etc. Clearly associating with such people is a problem. No question. But you make it sound as if he's meeting group after group of such people - and maybe he is, I'm only aware of meeting with Hamas/Hazbollah and the IRA. Now I'm not defending those groups, thoug I don't profess to be an expert on them by any means, however Hamas are the elected government so any effort toward peace must surely involve them, no? This is why i asked the question: is he genuoinely trying to effect peace in the region to one degree or another, especially given that he wasn't PM and just a backbencher.

Isn't this just the sort of grubby shit that comes with politics? After all we got the Good Friday agreement talking to the IRA.


----------



## xarmian (Sep 2, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I asked something similar before, but a _labour leader_ what can he do about this? I don't see those on the right, Jewish or otherwise, being satisifed with anything he says. I also don't see how he can really stop people thinking stupid stuff given how deep rooted some of this appears to be. If he (as he'll get the blame) starts evicting members then that will be used against him. This whole thing seems so utterly fucked up to me that I see no way forward. Anything he does, says or has done/said will be fetched up against him.


Momentum are asking people to challenge the cranks. People already do but they're often attacked for it and this should help.

They've also been very critical of people like Willsman and Shawcroft. It will help if Willsman has lost his seat on the NEC. Results tomorrow.

I think you're right that there is nothing Corbyn can do to stop it. He's there because Miliband couldn't stand up to it. His job is to take the heat while the Labour left consolidate power. It's not going to stop. Jeremy Gilbert wrote a really good analysis for Open Democracy about why antisemitism is the weapon of choice and how to deal with it politically. 

_"The role of critical intellectuals is not to denounce anti-capitalism because it structurally resembles antisemitism. It is to differentiate the one from the other and to help others to make the same differentiation. Our task is to unmask the fact that the fundamental purpose of antisemitism is always to cover up the truth of power relations, driving wedges between Jewish and non-Jewish communities who should be united in the assertion of their common collective interests.

In the end what this comes down to is a rather banal and predictable observation: but one that radicals will need to keep making no doubt for many years to come. It is that the best cure for antisemitism is not just re-education or disciplinary hearings. It is the positive raising of class consciousness. The more people are enabled to understand the extent to which disparities of wealth and power are what really shape political and social outcomes in the world, the more they are enabled to realise the extent to which they share material interests with millions of others around the world - irrespective of ethnicity or religion - the less susceptible they will be to antisemitism, conspiracy theory, or racism of any kind. This is the response that centrist liberalism cannot make, which is why its response to antisemitism can never be adequate to its task."_​


----------



## cantsin (Sep 2, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Momentum are asking people to challenge the cranks. People already do but they're often attacked for it and this should help.
> 
> They've also been very critical of people like Willsman and Shawcroft. It will help if Willsman has lost his seat on the NEC. Results tomorrow.
> 
> ...



v good to see Chelley Ryan etc standing up to the cranks...personally, voted for Willsman, but won't be too upset if he loses, and the level of f*ckwittery from his more ardent supporters since ( " LANSMANS A ZIO, W'E'RE LEAVING MOMENTUM" ) leaves me not sure i ( + we ) did the right thing anyway


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Ok, I appreciate a more forthcoming response, I'm just struggling to see the depth of what you are seeing in all honesty. I'm not making excuses for the guy. I'm just trying to be honest. You mention anti semitics, holocaust deniers etc. Clearly associating with such people is a problem. No question. But you make it sound as if he's meeting group after group of such people - and maybe he is, I'm only aware of meeting with Hamas/Hazbollah and the IRA. Now I'm not defending those groups, thoug I don't profess to be an expert on them by any means, however Hamas are the elected government so any effort toward peace must surely involve them, no? This is why i asked the question: is he genuoinely trying to effect peace in the region to one degree or another, especially given that he wasn't PM and just a backbencher.
> 
> Isn't this just the sort of grubby shit that comes with politics? After all we got the Good Friday agreement talking to the IRA.


You need to widen out from Corbyn's individual gaffes and blunders.  There is a wider milieu that he and his team have been very poor at addressing.  And responses from his supporters suggesting that there is no problem to address, that it's all smear with no substance, only exacerbate the perception that Labour is at best tone deaf on the issue.

A few months ago, Richard Seymour wrote a good piece in Jacobin.  It's been somewhat overtaken by events: there has since been a summer's worth of clusterfuck from the Corbyn leadership combined with the anti-semitic mire bubbling to the surface.  But a number of Seymour's observations still stand.

"Unfortunately, the way in which allegations of antisemitism have been used for party-political purposes, has tended to obscure the need to address it."

"However, this can’t be used to avoid a real problem."

I'm glad to see from xarmian's link above that "Momentum, as well as individuals with large followings, have in recent weeks mobilised the Left to combat anti-Jewish tropes and propaganda on the internet."  For too long these tropes and anti-semitic social media accounts have been tolerated and shared.  I've seen it myself - otherwise sensible people retweeting anti-semites uncritically, presumably not realising what they're doing.  One of the reasons I abandoned twitter is that it's festooned with this filth, and many people just don't seem to be able to distinguish.  So any push to challenge that is to be welcomed.  But Labour needs to be louder and more sure-footed on this.

An example I've returned to several times is Jim Sheridan.  Yes, he's suspended.  But surely the "investigation" into his Facebook post doesn't take more than three weeks.

In the Labour Party Rulebook, Chapter 2, it states:

"8. No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party."​
He should already be out.  His feet should not have touched the floor in the process.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 3, 2018)




----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> You need to widen out from Corbyn's individual gaffes and blunders. There is a wider milieu that he and his team have been very poor at addressing. And responses from his supporters suggesting that there is no problem to address, that it's all smear with no substance, only exacerbate the perception that Labour is at best tone deaf on the issue.
> 
> A few months ago, Richard Seymour wrote a good piece in Jacobin. It's been somewhat overtaken by events: there has since been a summer's worth of clusterfuck from the Corbyn leadership combined with the anti-semitic mire bubbling to the surface. But a number of Seymour's observations still stand.
> 
> ...


he was on the politics theory other podcast a few weeks ago, covering a lot of the same ground but bringing it up to date - defo worth a listen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> In the Labour Party Rulebook, Chapter 2, it states:
> 
> "8. No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party: these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party."​
> He should already be out.  His feet should not have touched the floor in the process.


i am surprised you do not question the peculiar silence of the nec, whose opinion in this matter appears central. maybe they could let their opinion be known: this might - depending on the opinion - deter other people. their silence may of course suggest they hold a different view on the behaviour.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i am surprised you do not question the peculiar silence of the nec, whose opinion in this matter appears central.


I do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I do.


ah - the nec are his team, i see.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> ... with Hamas/Hazbollah and the IRA...is he genuoinely trying to effect peace in the region to one degree or another...After all we got the Good Friday agreement talking to the IRA...



you don't, i assume, believe that the Oslo Agreement, or the ETA ceasefire, or the GFA came about through random conversations?

they all came about through complex, long-running and inter-connected conversations, sometimes face to face, sometimes through third, fourth and even fifth hand intermediaries - so when the SDLP spoke to SF (for example) about where they thought the armed struggle was going and what might entice them into purely non-violent politics, the SDLP were also talking to the Irish Government, the UK Government, Unionism (who were talking to Loyalists about the same things, as were others), and everyone was feeding the results of their consersations back to the other parties. this allows the 'choriographing' were some relatively minor thing is said/done that allows the other side to reciprocate, which in turn allows a slightly larger _confidence building measure_ to take place, which is then reciprocated and so on until you get to a point where sit-down negotiations can happen, because both sides know roughly what the other side _needs_, and what its prepared to offer in return.

Corbyn and his bedfellows, the Livingstones etc.. played no part in this hugely interconnected dialogue, at no stage did Corbyn_ et al_ have a discreet conversation with intermediaries who were talking to Loyalism, or the UK government, or the Irish Government about what SF were saying to him. he was just talking to them, appearing on joint platforms etc.. and denouncing the UK government.

Corbyn and his fellow travellers also played no role in the 1985/86 decision of SF/IRA to move to the joint political-military campaign - there were people outside republicanism who were involved, peripherally, but lefties from the UK in bad clothes weren't any of them.

interestingly, none of the preople involved in the conversations and choriography that occured prior to either of the PIRA ceasefires, and many of them were involved for at least a decade prior to those ceasefires - and there were lots: politicos from Nationalism, Unionism, the UK government, Irish Governmnt, Loyalism, the US, religious figures from both Catholicism and Prodestantism, people from civil society in NI - thinks that Corbyn and his ilk played any role, however informal and fleeting, in the dialogue. the charitible view is that they were PIRA/SF's _useful idiots_, the less charitible view - and not just from the UK/Loyalist/Unionist side, is that they were cheerleaders/fellow travellers.

all of the above applies equally to Corbyns' claims to be a peacemaker in the ME - its remarkable, isn't it, that in the flurry of mutual congratulation that followed the Oslo Treaty, not one of the sides thought to mention the low-key contribution of one J Corbyn Esq...?


----------



## cantsin (Sep 3, 2018)

kebabking said:


> you don't, i assume, believe that the Oslo Agreement, or the ETA ceasefire, or the GFA came about through random conversations?
> 
> they all came about through complex, long-running and inter-connected conversations, sometimes face to face, sometimes through third, fourth and even fifth hand intermediaries - so when the SDLP spoke to SF (for example) about where they thought the armed struggle was going and what might entice them into purely non-violent politics, the SDLP were also talking to the Irish Government, the UK Government, Unionism (who were talking to Loyalists about the same things, as were others), and everyone was feeding the results of their consersations back to the other parties. this allows the 'choriographing' were some relatively minor thing is said/done that allows the other side to reciprocate, which in turn allows a slightly larger _confidence building measure_ to take place, which is then reciprocated and so on until you get to a point where sit-down negotiations can happen, because both sides know roughly what the other side _needs_, and what its prepared to offer in return.
> 
> ...



what a load of old cobblers, no doubt from someone who was referring to SF as terrorists right up to the GFA ( maybe for long after ) - as for ( individual back bench, oppositionist / activist MP ) Corbo not getting a mention post Oslo Treaty - were you sober when you posted this ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

while corbyn may not have been acting as go-between between the 'ra and the thatcher, major or indeed blair governments, he was very much involved in organising meetings where sinn fein representatives spoke to labour party mps (not just corbyn) at westminster.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> while corbyn may not have been acting as go-between between the 'ra and the thatcher, major or indeed blair governments, he was very much involved in organising meetings where sinn fein representatives spoke to labour party mps (not just corbyn) at westminster.


And outreach to the wider world by SF was a key part of the process. Look at it this way: suppose SF/Westminster talks had failed. In that case Adams and company could point to their other external links (including JC), and claim their political strategy wasn't wholly dead.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 3, 2018)

Was going to comment something similar - SF used JC to keep comms open and try to get across the idea that this was not sone nihilistic campaign for the lolz. Not sure what good it did with the british public obviously.

Which brings up the bigger question as to is corbyn considered a useful idiot for those with an agenda to promote? 

He is certainly not a wily fox of a politician


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> And outreach to the wider world by SF was a key part of the process. Look at it this way: suppose SF/Westminster talks had failed. In that case Adams and company could point to their other external links (including JC), and claim their political strategy wasn't wholly dead.


it's strange the tory party's 1992 260 page document listing the claimed misdemeanours of the labour left didn't manage to find space for corbyn's racism.


----------



## belboid (Sep 3, 2018)

Clean sweep for the JC9, tho Izzard ran Willsman close - Full #JC9 slate elected to Labour's NEC | LabourList


----------



## greenfield (Sep 3, 2018)

Good.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

kebabking said:


> you don't, i assume, believe that the Oslo Agreement, or the ETA ceasefire, or the GFA came about through random conversations?
> 
> they all came about through complex, long-running and inter-connected conversations, sometimes face to face, sometimes through third, fourth and even fifth hand intermediaries - so when the SDLP spoke to SF (for example) about where they thought the armed struggle was going and what might entice them into purely non-violent politics, the SDLP were also talking to the Irish Government, the UK Government, Unionism (who were talking to Loyalists about the same things, as were others), and everyone was feeding the results of their consersations back to the other parties. this allows the 'choriographing' were some relatively minor thing is said/done that allows the other side to reciprocate, which in turn allows a slightly larger _confidence building measure_ to take place, which is then reciprocated and so on until you get to a point where sit-down negotiations can happen, because both sides know roughly what the other side _needs_, and what its prepared to offer in return.
> 
> ...



ok, so what do you think Corbyn was trying to do then? Surely he, at least, thought he was helping, no?


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Momentum are asking people to challenge the cranks. People already do but they're often attacked for it and this should help.
> 
> They've also been very critical of people like Willsman and Shawcroft. It will help if Willsman has lost his seat on the NEC. Results tomorrow.
> 
> ...


It's good that Momentum are trying to challenge this. But if Corbyn is as bad as people here say, then sooner or later they will find themselves against him surely. Or is he likely to change, perhaps it's a bit agist but I suspect he's too long in the tooth for that.

He has popular support, quite a lot. Mainly because of his broader politics. In truth I suspect that the antisemitism aspect counts for very little for many supporters. Rightly or wrongly. 

To that end it concerns me that getting rid of him, which may be justifiable, leaves Labour weakened. We have to get rid of the Tories, there's no other choice. Too many people are suffering right now.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> You need to widen out from Corbyn's individual gaffes and blunders.  There is a wider milieu that he and his team have been very poor at addressing.  And responses from his supporters suggesting that there is no problem to address, that it's all smear with no substance, only exacerbate the perception that Labour is at best tone deaf on the issue.
> 
> A few months ago, Richard Seymour wrote a good piece in Jacobin.  It's been somewhat overtaken by events: there has since been a summer's worth of clusterfuck from the Corbyn leadership combined with the anti-semitic mire bubbling to the surface.  But a number of Seymour's observations still stand.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

That article doesn't tell me what Jim Sheridan, about whom I know nothing, actually said.

My reason for posting was to find out just what Corbyn has done; how many people that he ought not be talking to he has met. It's been made out to be a lot. All I want is the evidence. Unfortunately this thread is almost 800 pages long!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> It's good that Momentum are trying to challenge this. But if Corbyn is as bad as people here say, then sooner or later they will find themselves against him surely. Or is he likely to change, perhaps it's a bit agist but I suspect he's too long in the tooth for that.
> 
> He has popular support, quite a lot. Mainly because of his broader politics. In truth I suspect that the antisemitism aspect counts for very little for many supporters. Rightly or wrongly.
> 
> To that end it concerns me that getting rid of him, which may be justifiable, leaves Labour weakened. We have to get rid of the Tories, there's no other choice. Too many people are suffering right now.


Yeh let's see a different quality of suffering from a Labour government


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> That article doesn't tell me what Jim Sheridan, about whom I know nothing, actually said.


It does. It quotes exactly what he says. 

I've also quoted it. As have others.

He was a Paisley MP for 15 years, and is currently a Cllr on Renfrewshire Council.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> To that end it concerns me that getting rid of him, which may be justifiable, leaves Labour weakened


I don't think anyone's predicting he'll be ousted. Nor, probably, will his poll ratings be affected.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 3, 2018)

Pushing Oslo as a success is nonsense. In a large part is led (as it was designed to do) into the current situation.

EDIT: That's not to excuse Corbyn, his naive anti-imperialism is both nasty and stupid but Oslo is at least as vicious and stupid.


----------



## Quote (Sep 3, 2018)

Adventures in Centrism:

The Waplington Files: a non-exhaustive list of centrist conspiracy theories


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> It does. It quotes exactly what he says.
> 
> I've also quoted it. As have others.
> 
> He was a Paisley MP for 15 years, and is currently a Cllr on Renfrewshire Council.


No, it doesn't. It simply says the comments have been taken down. 

Could you link me to them? 

I'm not defending him, I'm just interested in finding out what he actually said. I've never heard of the guy before.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> No, it doesn't. It simply says the comments have been taken down.
> 
> Could you link me to them?
> 
> I'm not defending him, I'm just interested in finding out what he actually said. I've never heard of the guy before.


The comments are quoted in the Daily Record link.




			
				Daily Record said:
			
		

> The 65-year-old, who represents the Houston, Crosslee, and Linwood ward, is now under investigation over the Facebook rant posted on Friday.
> 
> He wrote: "For all my adult life I have had the utmost respect and empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

the quote is

"For all my adult life I have had the utmost respect and empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering.

“No longer due to what they and their Blairite plotters are doing to my party and the long-suffering people of Britain who need a radical Labour government."


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The comments are quoted in the Daily Record link.


You mean this?



> He wrote: "For all my adult life I have had the utmost respect and empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering.
> 
> “No longer due to what they and their Blairite plotters are doing to my party and the long-suffering people of Britain who need a radical Labour government."


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

Jesus christ though. This cunt. A total liability. The sooner he's drummed out the better.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> You mean this?


Yes. The quote about no longer having empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering due to what they and their Blairite plotters are doing to his party and the long suffering people of Britain.


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2018)

Labour: Activist in anti-Semitism row elected to ruling body


> A Labour Party official who suggested Jewish "Trump fanatics" were behind accusations of anti-Semitism in Labour ranks has been re-elected to the party's ruling body. Peter Willsman was criticised when a recording of his remarks emerged in July, and the pro-Corbyn Momentum group withdrew its backing for him.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2018)

I think quite a few people voted for him before the story broke.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 3, 2018)

two sheds said:


> I think quite a few people voted for him before the story broke.


When did voting open?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 3, 2018)

Read this today.

As Palestinian Arab MPs in Israel, we salute Corbyn as a champion of peace and justice | Letter

 The view of Palestines in Israel on the Labour party / Corbyn anti semitism issue.


> Incredibly, instead of taking that government (Netanyahu government)  to task for its unadulterated racism, the British political class ignores the Palestinian historical plight, and attacks and abuses the British and European leader ( Corbyn) who vocally supports the Palestinian cause of peace and equality. With the Netanyahu government ramping up the racism, our struggle for survival is more precarious than ever.



Corbyn has for years supported Palestinians. I'm glad representatives of Palestinians in the State of Israel have written this letter.


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

Stephen Bush's piece (presumably written well in advance and the numbers stuck in this afternoon) is good. I think he's got it about right.

Pro-Corbyn candidates sweep the board in elections to Labour’s ruling NEC


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> When did voting open?



Not sure but as I recall I got the Momentum e-mail giving their preferred candidates and so I voted and the story about him broke the day after.


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> When did voting open?


Four days before the Willsman story broke. As Bush says, most people either vote as soon as they get the email - so before he was dropped from the slate - or just before the deadline. Izzard came within a couple of points of taking 9th place, so it did have a significant impact IMO - last year they were way off.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2018)

the Momentum e-mail was sent out 27th July


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2018)

That said, Willsman was already the least popular person on the slate, by a large margin. I know loads of Labour members who were already voting off-slate as far as he was concerned.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 3, 2018)

think it's interesting that Lansman / Mom leadership have now come out in support of 'open selection' ( mandatory reselection ) , just as it 's becomes v clear the ammount of motions being put before CLP's in support pre Conference ( as with our CLP ) , and likely mood at conf ( after previous noisees about ' trigger ballot ++ ' .

Add to that everyone ignoring Lanso / voting #JC9 anyway, it's clear folk aren't going to be lead blindly by Mom leadership .

( Our Mom group was split on NEC, some voted for PW , others didn't - 100 % for open selection, natch) .


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2018)

belboid said:


> Clean sweep for the JC9, tho Izzard ran Willsman close - Full #JC9 slate elected to Labour's NEC | LabourList


The nashing of Tom Watson's teeth is keeping me awake.


----------



## xarmian (Sep 3, 2018)

Willsman still a liability.

_Last week, when the poll closed, Willsman told HuffPost UK that his final message to members was: “Defend JC against all the appalling and unjust attacks and smears.”
_​Interesting comments from Lansman. Willsman made those comments before the ballot opened and they backed him anyway until the story broke. Important lesson for Momentum but they've made it harder to rein in some of the members.

_But Momentum’s original backing for Willsman as one of its ‘#JC9’ slate of candidates appears to have ensured a surge of support at the start of the NEC election, when many party members vote.

Critics claimed that his notoriety had also helped boost his name recognition, as some left-wingers rallied behind him in what they believed were unfair attacks on Jeremy Corbyn over the issue.

Momentum founder Jon Lansman - who came third in the NEC election - revealed on Sunday at a Jewish Labour Movement conference that he had himself voted for Willsman right at the beginning of the election.

“I was very unhappy with what Peter Willsman did on the NEC on that occasion and on a number of previous occasions in the way he spoke.

“However it had become a sufficiently frequent occurrence for most members of the NEC to almost put it out of our minds. Lots of people in this room voted down the lines of slates at the point we voted, as I did too, I confess.

“But we then took a decision to remove him from from the slate because of the understandable public concern after that tape.”
_​


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 3, 2018)

"They can falsify social media very easily. And some of these people in the Jewish community"

So he's basically saying Jews are dishonest. Am I reading that right?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> "They can falsify social media very easily. And some of these people in the Jewish community"
> 
> So he's basically saying Jews are dishonest. Am I reading that right?



Well I don't know, because you've taken it out of context and snipped the second sentence in half. What's the source of this?


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I don't know, because you've taken it out of context and snipped the second sentence in half. What's the source of this?


Peter Willsman: the Labour veteran behind latest antisemitism row


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Peter Willsman: the Labour veteran behind latest antisemitism row



Ok ta. Doesn't look great does it?


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ok ta. Doesn't look great does it?



Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I'm back and forth on this. On one hand one shoudln't generalise about any group of people, particularly in context of bad behaviour. On the other hand the people that are flagging this up include some utterly shitty people who are against leftwing politics.

I have no idea whether something, other than the obvious, is genuinely antisemitic or not. He could have been speaking casually, perhaps even ignorantly. That doesn't mean he is a racist. Of course people should aspire to be clearer with their words, but using terms like 'they' is just common parlance. It doesn't mean that he's a racist.

No one has ever sat down and explained to me what is or isn't racist. That never happened at school, for example. I say this because people, if they are anything like me (some are, i'm sure!) have to make sense of this as best they can and I think they are not best served by a heavy handed approach. This is, certainly IME, a learning process. 

That's not to say whether Willsman is or isn't a racist. I had never heard of the guy before and I do not feel comfortable passing judgement on someone I had never heard of - not unless it was abundantly clear. Some of the things people say are obviously racist. If he'd shouted "gas the jews" then, of course, it woudl be different.

None of this is helped by the omnipresent social media panopticon. This distorts everything; twitter reduces context to a few sentences while everything everyone says is marked recorded and filed away for later use, and presented without context. The Times' headline today calls this guy a racist. Is he? On the evidence I've seen, and to the best of my understanding, I would say no; while his words are problematic, I woudl like to hear his side of the story before labelling him that. If he is, then fuck him. BUt the Times does not speak for me.

I don't know any Jewish people. I have never spoken to any Jewish people about these issues. I am not comfortable looking at his statement and calling him an antisemite. I need more to go on. If that makes me a bad person or deserving of opprobrium then fuck it. This is the best I can do.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2018)

I do know Jewish people. Most of them, understandably, worry more about the far right than the soft left. None of them support the Israeli state or give a shit about the moral pronouncements of those who do, be they rabbis or anyone else.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

Willsman isn't a racist, he's just a massive dick.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

The problem with that outburst isn't that it's racist, but that he's proved himself to be blind - either through a conscious factional choice, or through moronic shit-eyed denial - to a real problem that as a member of the disputes committee he should be deeply familiar with. 

And just from a factional POV he's a total liability, a loudmouth fool with no idea when to shut the fuck up.


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2018)

Its all an absolute mess, this week another disabled person killed themselves, his benefit cut again, he left a note saying 'please help me', where where these NEC protesters then?, next month a crucial green paper comes out on social care, where are the left responses to that? i am sick of these telescopic philanthropists who obsess about it and nothing else , Israel/Palestine is an issue, and the key to more peace in the M.E, but do these people think most people in the U.K consider it the most salient, I don't.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 4, 2018)

Tbf are ability to influence Palestine is marginal at best its only the US that has any effective pull on israel


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2018)

> As members and supporters of Labour We will NOT be dictated to by the State of Israel or any of the lackies who work for them.



posted on FB by a local Momentum member, is this Anti-Semitic, the tropes are there?


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

treelover said:


> posted on FB by a local Momentum member, is this Anti-Semitic, the tropes are there?


two posts ago you were complaining it's a non-issue.


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2018)

A/S and Israel/Palestine are two seperate issues, aren't they?


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

Not completely, no. It's not really possible to talk about or campaign about one of those things without coming up against the other. As the last six months of debate within the labour party, the news at 10 and front pages of the national press should have amply demonstrated, if it wasn't already fairly obvious.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

treelover said:


> Its all an absolute mess, this week another disabled person killed themselves, his benefit cut again, he left a note saying 'please help me', where where these NEC protesters then?, next month a crucial green paper comes out on social care, where are the left responses to that? i am sick of these telescopic philanthropists who obsess about it and nothing else , Israel/Palestine is an issue, and the key to more peace in the M.E, but do these people think most people in the U.K consider it the most salient, I don't.


The tail is wagging the dog. 

Ive heard nothing from Momentum on social care. Novara rarely if at all talk about it.

Just a fucking hipster parade, meanwhile people are dying.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 4, 2018)

killer b said:


> The problem with that outburst isn't that it's racist, but that he's proved himself to be blind - either through a conscious factional choice, or through moronic shit-eyed denial - to a real problem that as a member of the disputes committee he should be deeply familiar with.
> 
> And just from a factional POV he's a total liability, a loudmouth fool with no idea when to shut the fuck up.


It reminds me of something Norman Finkelstein said about Livingstone's "Hitler obsession." About how different factional politics were in the 70's and how comparisons between Zionists and Nazis were viewed as a means of driving support for Israel out of the left. Not sure if this is how it was as I wasn't that involved at the time, although I did know Willsman a little around that time (same union) although I can't remember much about him.

I can't imagine what over 30 years as a leftist in the party of Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Mandelson would do to you, although "moronic shit-eyed denial" must be pretty close.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 4, 2018)

treelover said:


> A/S and Israel/Palestine are two seperate issues, aren't they?



they can be, but they _can _feed off each other in an unholy vortex, and one _can _lead to the other.

you're unlikely to find many raging Anti-Semites who couldn't give a shit about the Israel-Palestine issue, and if you attend a couple of pro-Palestine meetings/demo's you'll hear things said which are, at the very least, _off-colour.
_
the very cynical might point out that there are a good number of large scale displacements of people extant in the world today - Rohinja in Burma/Bangladesh, Aborigines in Australia, Armenians in Turkey, Germans from Czechoslovakia - and the only one that really penetrates the political psyche of places a long way from those displacements is the one that involves Jews. cynical perhaps, and probably a little unfair because we can see it on our TV screens, whereas the others are more hidden from us, but i do rather wonder if in 70 years the Rohinja will have been long forgotten because their oppressors fall into the 'who?' basket...


----------



## Cloo (Sep 4, 2018)

See, I don't feel in the least bit of threat from Labour, indeed I can't imagine any existential threat to Jews from any source currently existing in this country. Though I appreciate that I am a Jew who doesn't really see Israel as part of my identity; I haven't been there much and I have no close family there, though I have met some of them. But for a lot of other Jews it is part of their identity even if it's not their nationality and they feel attacks on, or even lack of support for it, as an attack on Jews and Jewishness. I think that isn't really justified, but I think that is the reason they feel threatened to some extent; they are scared of the thought of a British government that doesn't support Israel, which would feel alienating for them. Many of my parents generation, and some younger, remember, have grown up with the message of 'Keep your bags packed, you never know when you might be unwelcome, but thank God Israel is there for you'. I have no worries about 'needing Israel' but many hold on to that.

I saw an interesting point on Twitter the other day asking people to stop identifying Israel/Israelis with their government constantly, as it does seem people do that perhaps more than for other countries. We see a lot of 'Israel this', 'Israel that', which kind of implies Israel can't change, as long as it exists it will be 'this or that', but if we talked about its government we would at least suggest we are separating the government from the will and feelings of all Israelis (and by association, Jews), and open to a possibility of change (unlikely as it may seem). It was certainly true that my one experience of antisemitism, which was on these boards, came from someone assuming that I was a Zionist who supported settlements in Palestine on the grounds of 'I wasn't being anti semitic, I just thought you had relatives in Israel'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2018)

Imagine if we held other people personally responsible for the crimes of their governments. Who would there even be that you could still have a polite conversation with? Maybe Finnish people, but that would be about it.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

Is Labour's position still 'pause and fix' WRT universal credit?


----------



## belboid (Sep 4, 2018)

kebabking said:


> cynical perhaps, and probably a little unfair because we can see it on our TV screens, whereas the others are more hidden from us, but i do rather wonder if in 70 years the Rohinja will have been long forgotten because their oppressors fall into the 'who?' basket...


More to do with the fact that it has been ongoing for seventy years, and has been the single most important cause of destabilisation in probably the most strategically important part of the world during that time.


----------



## belboid (Sep 4, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Is Labour's position still 'pause and fix' WRT universal credit?


Until they (Labour) get to implement a new system, which isn't shit, yes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloo said:


> It was certainly true that my one experience of antisemitism, which was on these boards, came from someone assuming that I was a Zionist who supported settlements in Palestine on the grounds of 'I wasn't being anti semitic, I just thought you had relatives in Israel'


 Was that on here Cloo ? I ask because I have a memory of someone going at you and accusing your relatives of being 'settlers' ...I thought it was on FB tbh.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 4, 2018)

kebabking said:


> and the only one that really penetrates the political psyche of places a long way from those displacements is the one that involves Jews. cynical perhaps, and probably a little unfair because we can see it on our TV screens, whereas the others are more hidden from us, but i do rather wonder if in 70 years the Rohinja will have been long forgotten because their oppressors fall into the 'who?' basket...



There are a lot more reasons why a cause rightly or wrongly gets more attention than others. You could also say that apartheid got disproportionate attention compared to other injustices in the world at the time, but outside the far right most wouldn't have accepted that this was because of racism against white South Africans.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloo said:


> I saw an interesting point on Twitter the other day asking people to stop identifying Israel/Israelis with their government constantly, as it does seem people do that perhaps more than for other countries. We see a lot of 'Israel this', 'Israel that', which kind of implies Israel can't change, as long as it exists it will be 'this or that', but if we talked about its government we would at least suggest we are separating the government from the will and feelings of all Israelis (and by association, Jews), and open to a possibility of change (unlikely as it may seem). It was certainly true that my one experience of antisemitism, which was on these boards, came from someone assuming that I was a Zionist who supported settlements in Palestine on the grounds of 'I wasn't being anti semitic, I just thought you had relatives in Israel'


It also depends on whether you favour a two state outcome or a one state outcome. If the former you don't need to envision any change in Israel, whereas the latter kind of forces you to envision/hope for/foresee a radically different Israel, no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Imagine if we held other people personally responsible for the crimes of their governments. Who would there even be that you could still have a polite conversation with? Maybe Finnish people, but that would be about it.


perhaps you need to improve your knowledge of finnish history


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 4, 2018)

One can never Finnish learning about them


----------



## Cloo (Sep 4, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Was that on here Cloo ? I ask because I have a memory of someone going at you and accusing your relatives of being 'settlers' ...I thought it was on FB tbh.


Yeah, it was on here. Utterly moronic!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 4, 2018)

Full adoption of the IHRA and examples. If they were going to just end up doing it anyway, why not do so months ago?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 4, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Full adoption of the IHRA and examples. If they were going to just end up doing it anyway, why not do so months ago?


They had no choice at this point.  But it's hardly a PR coup.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 4, 2018)

Lets hope this issue is put to bed once and for all, but I doubt it.


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

The plot thickens


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 4, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Lets hope this issue is put to bed once and for all,



Why would we hope for it to be put to bed?


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

So much for the new NEC, looks like a shite time for freedom of speech from where I'm standing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 4, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Lets hope this issue is put to bed once and for all, but I doubt it.


Well, it's doubtful given that nothing has substantially changed.


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, it's doubtful given that nothing has substantially changed.


In what way?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 4, 2018)

Humirax said:


> In what way?


In the way that the issues at the root of this are still there.

The three strands I referred to in this post are unaffected. All that has happened is that Labour has been forced to adopt a definition of antisemitism complete with examples that are open to interpretations that close down debate and, frankly, justice.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Lets hope this issue is put to bed once and for all, but I doubt it.


Your doubt is well placed.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 4, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Lets hope this issue is put to bed once and for all, but I doubt it.


I doubt is as well. It's not going to be allowed to go away all the while that Corbyn is at the helm. I feel it incumbent upon me at this point to say my main interest in the Momentum project is seeing something somewhat more socialist-leaning happen in this country and if that means having Corbyn in charge for now I'm ok with that. For now. Tbh I am more concerned on their position wrt to the likes of Putin and Assad.


----------



## oryx (Sep 4, 2018)

Humirax said:


> So much for the new NEC, looks like a shite time for freedom of speech from where I'm standing.



AFAIK It's not the new NEC who decided this - the NEC members elected yesterday don't take their positions until the Labour Party conference later in the month.


----------



## oryx (Sep 4, 2018)

IMHO no-one in their right mind can imagine that this will be the end of it.


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

oryx said:


> AFAIK It's not the new NEC who decided this - the NEC members elected yesterday don't take their positions until the Labour Party conference later in the month.


So the new NEC  can change this? Isn't this something members should vote on? My understanding was that that was what was going to happen? Maybe it still is?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Humirax said:


> So much for the new NEC, looks like a shite time for freedom of speech from where I'm standing.


Yeh, but this is the Labour Party we're talking about, it sounds like all this is a surprise to you


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

The party rules seem weird to me


----------



## Humirax (Sep 4, 2018)

So technically, at the moment, a certain criticism of Israel can get you booted out of the party, unless the new NEC changes things? Or will there be a membership vote?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Yes


----------



## oryx (Sep 4, 2018)

Humirax said:


> So the new NEC  can change this? Isn't this something members should vote on? My understanding was that that was what was going to happen? Maybe it still is?



I don't know - I'm wondering the same.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> In the way that the issues at the root of this are still there.
> 
> The three strands I referred to in this post are unaffected. All that has happened is that Labour has been forced to adopt a definition of antisemitism complete with examples that are open to interpretations that close down debate and, frankly, justice.


It probably marks something close to the end of this particular media campaign, though it will go on a bit longer as various people say it’s not enough and that the fact it took this long means they’re antisemites. Obviously the attacks will move on to something else though and won’t stop.

I think it’s probably made a slight difference to perceptions of the real problem in that as well as those who don’t give a shit but want to attack Corbyn, and those who don’t give a shit but want to defend him, there will also be some people who say “you know there’s a problem I didn’t realise existed here, even if it’s been used for political reasons I’m going to pay attention”. Also labour people may be a bit more wary about who they promote - even if this is just for self serving PR reasons it might help in practice, as long as they’re able to distinguish who to avoid at all which is not guaranteed.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 4, 2018)

One of the problems was JC not standing up to Livingstone and Livingstone walked. There is the Willsman Issue still lurking in the background which I suspect will help keep this ticking over.


----------



## belboid (Sep 4, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Your doubt is well placed.
> View attachment 146073


LFI being somewhat short with the truth, horror!

Labour had already adopted the full definition, what was in question were the 11 examples - which most of the 31 adopting countries have't taken up either. Still, facts, eh?


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 4, 2018)

Corbyn's handling of all this has been a shambles. It shows he is not fit to run the labour party much less the country.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

Humirax said:


> So technically, at the moment, a certain criticism of Israel can get you booted out of the party, unless the new NEC changes things? Or will there be a membership vote?


The examples are explicitly just examples - the wording of the definition allows for context. However, hardly anyone seems to notice the context bit, so it's likely it will have a chilling effect on discussions around Israel & Palestine regardless. 

Fairly sure that you can see an immediate example of this chilling effect in the way when Netanyahu came out with a load of shit  that could have come straight out of Mein Kampf the other day, hardly anyone made that comparison despite it being totally appropriate in that case.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

anyway, fwiw.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)




----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 4, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> One can never Finnish learning about them



I for one know almost nothing about Finnish history .. so Suomi :shrug:


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2018)

Edit. Quote didn't work


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

Finnish history?

I didn't even start!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2018)

kebabking said:


> they can be, but they _can _feed off each other in an unholy vortex, and one _can _lead to the other.
> 
> you're unlikely to find many raging Anti-Semites who couldn't give a shit about the Israel-Palestine issue, and if you attend a couple of pro-Palestine meetings/demo's you'll hear things said which are, at the very least, _off-colour.
> _
> the very cynical might point out that there are a good number of large scale displacements of people extant in the world today - Rohinja in Burma/Bangladesh, Aborigines in Australia, Armenians in Turkey, Germans from Czechoslovakia - and the only one that really penetrates the political psyche of places a long way from those displacements is the one that involves Jews. cynical perhaps, and probably a little unfair because we can see it on our TV screens, whereas the others are more hidden from us, but i do rather wonder if in 70 years the Rohinja will have been long forgotten because their oppressors fall into the 'who?' basket...




I have met people from middle East in London who come here to learn English and study. One thing that unites them is that their Palestine brothers ( this is how they say it) are still suffering from losing their homes and land in 48. Its an ongoing issue for ordinary people from that part of the world. This isn't about the left in this country. Its what ordinary people I've met from that region say to me.


So from perspective of people from that region I've met and talked to its not going to be forgotten.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


>



Some curious stuff about the anti-corbyn protestors in that thread - claims that there's some proper far right people involved, including an ex Britain First top... the people unmasking them seem to be from that electronic intifada website though, who IIRC are pretty dodge themselves. 

Too many cunts huh.


----------



## Cloo (Sep 4, 2018)

I walked past the protest (which was very small) on my lunchbreak today. Very odd selection... some old git with a loud hailer and a poster about how Jews 'always use anti semitism', couldn't think of anything clever to say to him though. At any rate, he really wasn't helping anyone. I understand some ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists turned up later, which is also never much help to anybody.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 4, 2018)

killer b said:


> Some curious stuff about the anti-corbyn protestors in that thread - claims that there's some proper far right people involved, including an ex Britain First top... the people unmasking them seem to be from that electronic intifada website though, who IIRC are pretty dodge themselves.
> 
> Too many cunts huh.


what's wrong with electronic intifada?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloo said:


> I walked past the protest (which was very small) on my lunchbreak today. Very odd selection... some old git with a loud hailer and a poster about how Jews 'always use anti semitism', couldn't think of anything clever to say to him though. At any rate, he really wasn't helping anyone. I understand some ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists turned up later, which is also never much help to anybody.



I went by about half five. I also saw odd selection. But cameramen and media circus outnumbered them by big margin.


----------



## killer b (Sep 4, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> what's wrong with electronic intifada?


Last seen on this thread pushing a weird conspiracy theory (the author of that piece Asa Winstanley is also the person doing the majority of the scooby doo stuff on that twitter thread too).


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

IHRA definition adopted by NEC:
Labour adopts IHRA antisemitism definition in full


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2018)

killer b said:


> Some curious stuff about the anti-corbyn protestors in that thread - claims that there's some proper far right people involved, including an ex Britain First top... the people unmasking them seem to be from that electronic intifada website though, who IIRC are pretty dodge themselves.
> 
> Too many cunts huh.


Chap with load-hailer calling Williamson a fascist appears to be one of the participants in the BBC2 (2 part) reality doc. "We are British Jews" (part 1 was b'cast this evening).


----------



## Cloo (Sep 5, 2018)

Oh, I didn't know about that prog. Will be interested to watch (and interested to see whether they show anyone from a community like ours, which is one most non-Jewish people really don't know about).


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

Cloo said:


> Oh, I didn't know about that prog. Will be interested to watch (and interested to see whether they show anyone from a community like ours, which is one most non-Jewish people really don't know about).


I started a thread on it here We Are British Jews - BBC2


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Chap with load-hailer calling Williamson a fascist appears to be one of the participants in the BBC2 (2 part) reality doc. "We are British Jews" (part 1 was b'cast this evening).
> 
> View attachment 146100


Reality doc? Aren't all documentaries supposed to be reality?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Reality doc? Aren't all documentaries supposed to be reality?


Poor choice of descriptor on my part; should have said 'reality' TV programme.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Reality doc? Aren't all documentaries supposed to be reality?


The format of "reality" documentaries is less reality and more artifice, but it's a recognised format now so we're whispering in a wind storm on that one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 5, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Chap with load-hailer calling Williamson a fascist appears to be one of the participants in the BBC2 (2 part) reality doc. "We are British Jews" (part 1 was b'cast this evening).



'Balance' init


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Balance' init


Which leads to the kind of exchange you get on Radio 4's Today programme: artificial, superficial polarisation masquerading as debate. Nobody learns anything, and the listener can't hear.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

But we should be saying this on the dedicated thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 5, 2018)

BBC _still_ letting anyone but JC himself chime in on air... Let everyone on Earth have their say first, I suppose that is a kind of balance.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 5, 2018)

I have to say I'm worn down completely by all this (i'm not even a Labour member). 

As has been said we (they) aren't even discussing issues like the abuse of the poor and the sick. It doesn't even register


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 5, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Chap with load-hailer calling Williamson a fascist appears to be one of the participants in the BBC2 (2 part) reality doc. "We are British Jews" (part 1 was b'cast this evening).
> 
> View attachment 146100


I wasn't even sure he was serious, he's so angry it sounded almost fake!

Who can tell these days. I can't conceive of the mentality trequired to pick up a loud hailer and shout at people in the street


----------



## brogdale (Sep 5, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> I wasn't even sure he was serious, he's so angry it sounded almost fake!
> 
> Who can tell these days. I can't conceive of the mentality trequired to pick up a loud hailer and shout at people in the street


Assuming it was him, having seen the attitudes he expressed in the BBC "We are British Jews" (Ep.1)...the behaviour fits.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Assuming it was him, having seen the attitudes he expressed in the BBC "We are British Jews" (Ep.1)...the behaviour fits.


Is it supposed to be Damon? It's too fleeting a glimpse for me to judge.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 5, 2018)

Labour anti-Semitism 'caveats' criticised

"Labour Against Anti-Semitism said adding the statement appeared "to be about protecting the freedom of racists to present vile views".

A spokesman said: "There can be no caveats, no conditions and no compromises with racism."


----------



## hash tag (Sep 5, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> BBC _still_ letting anyone but JC himself chime in on air... Let everyone on Earth have their say first, I suppose that is a kind of balance.



Are they asking him, is he offering or is he declining? He has been very quiet these last few months.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 5, 2018)

Either that or nobody's broadcasting what he says. I'm assuming that as leader of HM opposition he _hasn't_ for over a year been blanking the media including the UK's primary broadcaster, but I may be wrong.


----------



## killer b (Sep 5, 2018)

One of the main media gripes is how hard it is to get an interview / comments directly from Corbyn. Of course they'd report what he said if he said something about this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2018)

he's been out on the road most of the summer going to places the media heads drive through at speed on their way to better places. Then less than a few weeks ago was the media lecture proposing pravdabook instead of facebook Since then its been IHRA gate

also, twitter box showed me this which I will share:




click for whole thread etc.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 5, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Is it supposed to be Damon? It's too fleeting a glimpse for me to judge.



Yep.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 5, 2018)

killer b said:


> One of the main media gripes is how hard it is to get an interview / comments directly from Corbyn. Of course they'd report what he said if he said something about this.



Why would he bother doing an interview that's guaranteed to be a hatchet job?


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why would he bother doing an interview that's guaranteed to be a hatchet job?



Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. So therefore always one to be accused of navel gazing.
Stitched up on all sides.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 5, 2018)

killer b said:


> One of the main media gripes is how hard it is to get an interview / comments directly from Corbyn. Of course they'd report what he said if he said something about this.



Because the press and TV news are so trustworthy normally that I'd believe their explanation. It's his fault, of course.


----------



## killer b (Sep 5, 2018)

Come on, any of those fuckers would give their eye teeth to do a Paxman on the guy - of course he swerves them where possible. 

Also, do you really think any news org could refuse to run an interview or comment from Corbyn without it getting out? 

He's not brilliant at speaking off the cuff under pressure, I think even his most ardent fan must be able to see that. So he avoids it. May does the same, for the same reason.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 5, 2018)

I do agree to an extent, but I think it's not just searching out 'anything' he says, it's whether he says the right kind of thing. It could just as well be that he isn't saying what is required so rather than reporting what he does say, they report nothing at all (or get someone in to say what is required _about_ him, which they seem happy enough with)

I'm certainly no ardent fan but it all appears quite transparent; and of course if someone equally or more left takes over from him they'll get the same treatment.


----------



## Santino (Sep 5, 2018)

How much coverage did he get travelling on trains in the North the other day?


----------



## killer b (Sep 5, 2018)

Santino said:


> How much coverage did he get travelling on trains in the North the other day?


It led the lunchtime news on ITV at least, dunno about anything else.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 5, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. So therefore always one to be accused of navel gazing.
> Stitched up on all sides.



Yes, but he’s still made a right balls up of this one.


----------



## Peter Chadwick (Sep 5, 2018)

killer b said:


> One of the main media gripes is how hard it is to get an interview / comments directly from Corbyn. Of course they'd report what he said if he said something about this.


I think the media usually refer to Labour sources , giving the Labour/ Momentum  spin on things to give some balance to the anti-Corbyn or anti-anti semites criticism. Corbyn himself doesn't seem to give interviews or comments unless its to the media he seems to trust like the Guardian.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 5, 2018)

I very much doubt his inner circle trusts the Guardian, and if they do more fool them.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 5, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but he’s still made a right balls up of this one.


Not convinced he did. 

What's been demanded of him over the last couple of years is that he abandons any commitment to solidarity with the Palestinians and follow every post war Labour leader in unwavering support for Israel. Every time he has blocked, sidestepped or ducked the issue, the ante has gone up. Even now faced by an almost unprecedented media 'consensus' and with his own MPs screaming at him in the house he still won't surrender that last inch of ground.

On a subliminal level it may be this that's making people* think there's a chance he might just deliver some real improvement to the lives of the working class.

* by "people" I don't just mean his supporters, but also his opponents whose rage would then be understandable.

His refusal to ditch every principle except personal aggrandisement is still the best recruiting tool the party has.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 5, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I very much doubt his inner circle trusts the Guardian, and if they do more fool them.



His Director of Communications certainly has a passing familiarity with the paper.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 6, 2018)

Interesting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 6, 2018)

The people who gave Kuenssberg the job know exactly what she's about. They'd rather have a loyal Tory than someone competent and that's what they've got.


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 6, 2018)




----------



## hash tag (Sep 6, 2018)

If you want any sort of proof that this anti semitism thing won't die very easily you should listen to "Thought For The Day" on Radio 4 this morning.
Unfortunately, I was still half asleep when it came on and can't tell you who it was and I can't find links to it. There were some very pointed remarks
in it about "leaders" of British politics


----------



## TopCat (Sep 6, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The people who gave Kuenssberg the job know exactly what she's about. They'd rather have a loyal Tory than someone competent and that's what they've got.


She is hardly a loyal Tory given the way she steamed into May over Dementia tax during last election campaign.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 6, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Not convinced he did.
> 
> What's been demanded of him over the last couple of years is that he abandons any commitment to solidarity with the Palestinians and follow every post war Labour leader in unwavering support for Israel. Every time he has blocked, sidestepped or ducked the issue, the ante has gone up. Even now faced by an almost unprecedented media 'consensus' and with his own MPs screaming at him in the house he still won't surrender that last inch of ground.
> 
> ...



It was an utter balls up. They took a positive move (adoption of a strong code) and allowed it to be undermined by tinkering with it for no real purpose and with no wider support for doing so.

If the IHRA code has led to free speech being curtailed, where are the examples of this happening? And if there were doubts then consult. One obvious principle of any anti-racist strategy is surely to listen to the people it sets out to protect, however varied those voices are.

But it’s only one of a constellation of issues not well controlled, Jeremy’s previous, cases of AS not yet dealt with and Jeremy’s failure to convince that he is a lion on antisemitism. And it’s questionable whether this particular commitment to Palestinian issues is doing much good for anyone. It’s not allowing space to promote those concerns, too much diversion.

It’s very frustrating for these solvable problems to be amplified out of proportion to suit the agenda of enemies, but the leadership has been zero on this and Labour is stalling in the polls. Solvable problems they are, but maybe only now with a new leader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> It was an utter balls up. They took a positive move (adoption of a strong code) and allowed it to be undermined by tinkering with it for no real purpose and with no wider support for doing so.




strong code? you're having a laugh. have you read it? do you know how it compares to uk equalities legislation?

do you recall margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend, saying recently that the ihra code could be tinkered with? you don't know what you're blathering on about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2018)

survations last one had them four points ahead of the cons. They've swung up and down that much but been roughly neck and neck since the election iirc, so theres no stall here. And still we get this 'why arent they xxx points ahead?' stuff because apparently nobody remembers that time when scotland went to the SNP


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 6, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> If the IHRA code has led to free speech being curtailed, where are the examples of this happening?



Off the top of my head, Barnett council are trying to outlaw BDS using the IHRA definition.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 6, 2018)

BDS is the target alright.


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 6, 2018)

Also events which describe Israel as 'apartheid' in universities have been targetted using the IHRA defs.



> In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

Whagwan said:


> Also events which describe Israel as 'apartheid' in universities have been targetted using the IHRA defs.


What was the response to/result of the example you mention?


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> What was the response to/result of the example you mention?


At my local university, a Friends of Palestine event for Israel Apartheid Week was cancelled by the uni for this reason. 

I don't think there can be any doubt this kind of chilling is happening tbh. Risk averse or jobsworth administrators, faced with pressure or a not-very-in-depth knowledge of the guidelines have cancelled events citing the guidelines, and are likely to do so more now.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> strong code? you're having a laugh. have you read it? do you know how it compares to uk equalities legislation?
> 
> do you recall margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend, saying recently that the ihra code could be tinkered with? you don't know what you're blathering on about.



The Labour Party said numerous times it sought to adopt a ‘strong code’. If it didn’t think it was it could have consulted on how to strengthen it. But the opportunity was there to do just that. Instead it tinkered.

Try to keep up.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 6, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The Labour Party said numerous times it sought to adopt a ‘strong code’. If it didn’t think it was it could have consulted on how to strengthen it. But the opportunity was there to do just that. Instead it tinkered.
> 
> Try to keep up.


patronising bollocks


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The Labour Party said numerous times it sought to adopt a ‘strong code’. If it didn’t think it was it could have consulted on how to strengthen it. But the opportunity was there to do just that. Instead it tinkered.
> 
> Try to keep up.


so you haven't read it, nor do you know how strong it is in comparison to uk equalities legislation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The Labour Party said numerous times it sought to adopt a ‘strong code’. If it didn’t think it was it could have consulted on how to strengthen it. But the opportunity was there to do just that. Instead it tinkered.
> 
> Try to keep up.


the evening standard of 6 november last reported

Top writers accuse Corbyn's Labour of 'widespread' anti-semitism

do keep up


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2018)

hash tag said:


> If you want any sort of proof that this anti semitism thing won't die very easily you should listen to "Thought For The Day" on Radio 4 this morning.
> Unfortunately, I was still half asleep when it came on and can't tell you who it was and I can't find links to it. There were some very pointed remarks
> in it about "leaders" of British politics


Yes because Though for the Day truly captures the zeitgeist of Britain, it's all people talk about.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 6, 2018)

Here you go. Rabbi Mirvis.....
Thought for the Day - Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis - @bbcradio4 BBC Radio 4 - Thought for the Day, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis


----------



## Santino (Sep 6, 2018)

Bring back Lionel Blue.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 6, 2018)

Santino said:


> Bring back Lionel Blue.



He was never the chief rabbi sadly


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2018)

killer b said:


> At my local university, a Friends of Palestine event for Israel Apartheid Week was cancelled by the uni for this reason.
> 
> I don't think there can be any doubt this kind of chilling is happening tbh. Risk averse or jobsworth administrators, faced with pressure or a not-very-in-depth knowledge of the guidelines have cancelled events citing the guidelines, and are likely to do so more now.



The day after NEC decision I heard Margaret Hodge and Shami Chakrabarti being interviewed on Radio 4 in morning. Chakrabarti was asked about criticising Israel/ anti semitism issue and she evaded the question. Hodge said the NEC decision was just the start. So anyone who thinks this is end of it is unfortunately wrong.

I felt that after listening to this that now NEC has agreed the examples as well as definition push now will be to define any criticism of Israel as anti Semitic.

Im not criticising NEC just saying that this is what Hodge wants in practice.

Went to read this top QC opinion from Matrix chambers after that radio interview.


Counsel's opinion on the IHRA definition - Free Speech on Israel

Commissioned by PSC and other groups. Specifically related to Universities.

The section related to your post is point 22.


	A number of examples of conduct which have been criticised as antisemitic have been suggested in various publications. These include:


> Describing Israel as a state enacting policies of apartheid.
> Describing Israel as a state practising settler colonialism.
> Describing the establishment of the State of Israel and the actions associated with its establishment, as illegal or illegitimate.
> Campaigning for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel, Israeli companies or international companies complicit in violation of Palestinian human rights (unless the campaigner was also calling for similar actions against other states).
> ...



Reading his whole opinion Im really disturbed by this. He quotes case law. As you point out it's easier for jobsworth to not allow meeting. I have a lot of sympathy for them. The fact that case law is quoted means that unless one is prepared to argue case in front of legal institutions this IHRA plus examples will have chilling effect. Which is exactly what Hodge wants.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The day after NEC decision I heard Margaret Hodge and Shami Chakrabarti being interviewed on Radio 4 in morning. Chakrabarti was asked about criticising Israel/ anti semitism issue and she evaded the question. Hodge said the NEC decision was just the start. So anyone who thinks this is end of it is unfortunately wrong.
> 
> I felt that after listening to this that now NEC has agreed the examples as well as definition push now will be to define any criticism of Israel as anti Semitic.
> 
> ...


This is margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2018)

Whagwan said:


> Off the top of my head, Barnett council are trying to outlaw BDS using the IHRA definition.



Barnet Tory Council: Outlaw BDS, Make BDSM compulsory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2018)

Santino said:


> Bring back Lionel Blue.



Not sure that Auntie would employ Lionel nowadays, what with him being left-liberal and unafraid of pointing out acts of hypocrisy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> This is margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend?



Yep, the same person who almost lost her constituency to the BNP because she couldn't be arsed to bother being a halfway-decent constituency MP. Fortunately for her, loads of Labour and non-Labour canvassers from all over the effing country canvassed her constituency to fuck, and stopped Old One Eye's shitcunts getting a foot in the door - well, more of a foot than having a handful of cllrs there, anyway.

Margaret Hodge, what a rank cunt, and she's only got ranker with age.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2018)

Hodge ended up with a majority of 8000 in 2005, I'm sure it wouldn't have been that high without the groundwork the canvassers put in, but it's a bit of a stretch to say she almost lost Barking.


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2018)

I see from the BBC website that Blair has been dissing Corbyn again (on phone so can't link)


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2018)

andysays said:


> I see from the BBC website that Blair has been dissing Corbyn again (on phone so can't link)


Also on phone, but link here:

Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates' Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2018)

of course theres a radio prog called 'the long march of corbyns labour'

see what they've done there eh


----------



## Peter Chadwick (Sep 7, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Also on phone, but link here:
> 
> Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates' Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back'


Blair should stay out of this. Yes Corbyn is incompetent. But Blair is yesterday's man and is hated by many on the left.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 7, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Also on phone, but link here:
> 
> Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates' Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back'


Amazing how Corbyn's mild social-democracy has become "fringe". Like those crazy radicals Eden, MacMillian, Heath, etc


----------



## Santino (Sep 7, 2018)

Peter Chadwick said:


> Blair should stay out of this. Yes Corbyn is incompetent. But Blair is yesterday's man and is hated by many on the left.


Hello Peter


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Also on phone, but link here:


Show off


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Amazing how Corbyn's mild social-democracy has become "fringe". Like those crazy radicals Eden, MacMillian, Heath, etc


Precisely. Corbyn is proposing far less public ownership than the Post War Consensus Tory governments presided over. Does this mean we have to call Ted Heath "Red" Heath?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2018)

Peter Chadwick said:


> Blair should stay out of this. Yes Corbyn is incompetent. But Blair is yesterday's man and is hated by many on the left.


There's a lot of people elsewhere who dislike him too


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2018)

I see Joan Ryan is taking the loss of confidence well. lol.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2018)

Heard Blair this morning, " Corbyn is an existential threat to Labour".


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Heard Blair this morning, " Corbyn is an existential threat to Labour".


tbh i'm astonished labour have recovered any ground after the sewage that was the labour government from 1997-2010.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 7, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Precisely. Corbyn is proposing far less public ownership than the Post War Consensus Tory governments presided over. Does this mean we have to call Ted Heath "Red" Heath?



I've just been reading an essay by Stuart Holland on the Alternative Economic Strategy and the debate within Wilson's cabinet (remember - awful 'sell out' Labour Government etc) and the NEC. At the heart of the strategy was the PRINCIPLE of an economy, in part, managed by the state. Labour would take a controlling interest in a large player in each of the strategically key industries in Britain. This would allow the state to directly intervene in the market via planning agreements, to resist job losses from imports, to locate jobs in areas of high unemployment and to strategically direct the economy and investment (via a National Enterprise Board).	 

At the time this was watered down, creating a massive battle within Labour, but the point here is to demonstrate how far we've come when Corbyn's extremely limited programme is unfairly labelled as 'radical' or 'left wing'. It's nothing of the sort.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 7, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Amazing how Corbyn's mild social-democracy has become "fringe". Like those crazy radicals Eden, MacMillian, Heath, etc



It's not 'amazing' but anyone who wants to understand the last 60 years could do worse than look at the economic plans of the respective parties to understand how radically neo liberalism has become embedded since Heath etc. The IPPR report this week indicates that it is beginning to run out of road at last but we face a long way back to even limited social democracy.


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2018)

Interesting twitter thread here from a decent polling dude regarding the enduring strength of tribal loyalty as a factor in Labour's polling / vote share


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 7, 2018)

Was Blair challenged in this interview when he said that corbyn is an "existential threat" to the labour party? Like -  by stating the obvious facts like the biggest increase in vote share since 1945 and huge increase in membership?


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 7, 2018)

On the BBC? As if.


----------



## belboid (Sep 7, 2018)

Joan Ryan (no, me neither) whinging about losing a vote of no confidence - blaming it all on trots, communists and stalinists.  
Labour 'moderate' MP loses vote of no confidence from local members


----------



## gosub (Sep 7, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Was Blair challenged in this interview when he said that corbyn is an "existential threat" to the labour party? Like -  by stating the obvious facts like the biggest increase in vote share since 1945 and huge increase in membership?



Radio 6 news  just reported it as "it may not be possible for 'moderates' to take back control of Labour .  On his watch there were illegal wars and a culture of intimidation of just about everyone including the media, illegal waars and the usurping of parliamentary democracy in favour of his sofa.  That's 'moderate is it Tony? How very Newspeak. 

Haven't you got better things to do, like counting your money and getting that pipeline built.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2018)

belboid said:


> Joan Ryan (no, me neither) whinging about losing a vote of no confidence - blaming it all on trots, communists and stalinists.
> Labour 'moderate' MP loses vote of no confidence from local members


And she'd self identify as a social *democrat*.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> On the BBC? As if.


if adolf hitler appeared on today
they'd clear the questions with bormann in advance


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 7, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It's not 'amazing' but anyone who wants to understand the last 60 years could do worse than look at the economic plans of the respective parties to understand how radically neo liberalism has become embedded since Heath etc. The IPPR report this week indicates that it is beginning to run out of road at last but we face a long way back to even limited social democracy.


No you're right, amazing was the wrong word, stupid would be more accurate.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 7, 2018)

these deluded fools think that they are the sole reason why a seat is held or lost.a handful of personalities aside, this is madness. I have never heard of you Joan and most of your voters have no idea about what you personally stand for I would warrant 

The fucking  arrogance is astounding


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Amazing how Corbyn's mild social-democracy has become "fringe". Like those crazy radicals Eden, MacMillian, Heath, etc


Corbyn hasn't just become fringe, he has been a fringe part of Labour for all of his life, as has the anti-Semitism stuff that's happened recently.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 7, 2018)

Oh my

Her Wikipedia is pretty telling, fucking hell

Bye bye Joan


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2018)

belboid said:


> Joan Ryan (no, me neither) whinging about losing a vote of no confidence - blaming it all on trots, communists and stalinists.
> Labour 'moderate' MP loses vote of no confidence from local members


Well Iranian state tv were live tweeting it..


----------



## bellaozzydog (Sep 7, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> I see Joan Ryan is taking the loss of confidence well. lol.



My favourite twitter of the day


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 7, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Oh my
> 
> Her Wikipedia is pretty telling, fucking hell
> 
> Bye bye Joan



Jesus. Corrupt as fuck.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well Iranian state tv were live tweeting it..



Iranian TV station banned in UK shows footage of Labour vote

Yes,appalling ,and shows many of the cranks who were outside the party, etc, are now inside it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 7, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn hasn't just become fringe, he has been a fringe part of Labour for all of his life, as has the anti-Semitism stuff that's happened recently.


The policies that Labour to the last election were not fringe. They were very, very mild social democracy well to the right of every government pre-Thatcher. Indeed even if all manifesto promises were implemented then you would still have considerably less of a welfare state than existed under Thatcher.

Moreover, these "fringe" policies are widely popular both in the Labour Party and society in general.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if adolf hitler appeared on today
> they'd clear the questions with bormann in advance



If he'd been interviewed by them in the 1930s they'd have cleared the questions with Bormann in advance too. Consistently sycophantic, at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> If he'd been interviewed by them in the 1930s they'd have cleared the questions with Bormann in advance too. Consistently sycophantic, at least.


bormann not hitler's secretary in the 30s, but the principle's true.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 7, 2018)

EtA..
never mind.
now we're onto moar nazi comparisons, it just creeps up doesn't it?

ooh that corbyn.


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if adolf hitler appeared on today
> they'd clear the questions with bormann in advance


I thought it was 'they'd send a limousine anyway'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2018)

andysays said:


> I thought it was 'they'd send a limousine anyway'


it was


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well Iranian state tv were live tweeting it..


Press TV didn't have a film crew there, it was a members only meeting. Some prick of a LP member was sending it on to them. Slightly different (though still pretty shit)


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it was


Glad we've cleared that up


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 7, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> these deluded fools think that they are the sole reason why a seat is held or lost.a handful of personalities aside, this is madness. I have never heard of you Joan and most of your voters have no idea about what you personally stand for I would warrant
> 
> The fucking  arrogance is astounding



Our local MP was on FB trashing Corbyn days after the last GE. All the comments were locals stating clearly that they hated him and had only voted Labour because of Corbyn. If he thinks it's his magnetic personality getting him elected he's clearly never met himself.

e2a: Man's just had a vote of no confidence against him passed by a margin of 80%


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> Was Blair challenged in this interview when he said that corbyn is an "existential threat" to the labour party? Like -  by stating the obvious facts like the biggest increase in vote share since 1945 and huge increase in membership?



It was more a radio piece where he went on about his views than an interview.

Full podcast here

Excerpts were on radio this morning.

I haven't listened to whole podcast yet. Though Blair is always interesting to listen to.

I think he goes further from the excerpts on radio. In his view the scenario of Brexit plus future Labour government under Corbyn is existential threat to this nation. Which must be resisted by right thinking moderate people if Corbyn gets into power. He didn't outline how.

I think in Blair's view democracy should revolve around a centre ground consensus. Anything outside of it is illegitimate.

Wherever one might think of Corbyn the reason Blair / Hodge / Chuka and the rest of them want Corbyn out is so they can go back to what Blair calls the "progressive politics" he holds.


----------



## oryx (Sep 7, 2018)

Can't believe Blair's hypocrisy in his comments on anti-Semitism when he says he can't imagine it happening between the time he joined the Labour Party and now (in other words 'it would never have happened on my watch').

It was his own former spin doctor who in 2005 came up with the idea of a poster showing Jewish Tory leader Michael Howard as a flying pig/Fagin caricature.

Campbell fires off four-letter blast at BBC

Campbell 'behind pig poster'


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn hasn't just become fringe, he has been a fringe part of Labour for all of his life, as has the anti-Semitism stuff that's happened recently.


Have you just woken up from 4 year slumber. How can he be fringe if he leads and leads because of the largest ever membership growth ever? I hate corbyn, i hate what he represents. To post what you did is so far from true that it must be idiocy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Have you just woken up from 4 year slumber. How can he be fringe if he leads and leads because of the largest ever membership growth ever? I hate corbyn, i hate what he represents. To post what you did is so far from true that it must be idiocy.


He was a fringe candidate and got elected largely because 1) there no other good candidates, 2) people from the fringe joined up and voted for him.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2018)

And the large increase in the Labour vote? All people from the fringe too I suppose?

BA's right. This is false, ignorant, ahistorical nonsense.

Most people in Britain want to go much further to the left economically than Labour proposed in 2017. Large majorities support renationalisation of national services.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 8, 2018)

I see chuka is piping up again and getting a receptive audience at BBC news (main article this morning on the web version), accusing Corbyn of “driving centre-left MPs out of the party” (!)



> In a speech to the Blairite campaign group Progress on Saturday, the former frontbencher is expected to say MPs are being targeted for standing up for zero tolerance of racism.
> 
> He will say: "My message to our leadership: it is within your power to stop this, so call off the dogs and get on with what my constituency, one of the most diverse communities in the nation, demands we do - without equivocation, fight this Tory Brexit.
> "That is where all our efforts should be."
> Mr Umunna will tell the BAME Voices for Progress conference that the Brexit debate has normalised hatred and that black and minority ethnic voters have "paid the price".



Let’s all go back to the ‘centre left’ non-racism of Ed’s immigration mugs and people being forcibly bundled onto planes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2018)

'One of the most diverse constituencies in the nation' 

OK, well done you, but what's your point? Where were you when Ed Milliband was barracked into telling the Eastern European communities in this country that permitting their existence here was a mistake? Where were you on this anti-semitism that was apparently festering away for decades before it became the _cause celebre_ for blue labour, a cabal you coincidentally happen to be a figurehead for? What about immigration prisons, invented on the watch of your party?

In a strong field of cynical, unprincipled, careerist twats Umunna continues to forge ahead. In some ways I worry more about him than I do about the likes of Boris Johnson.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Have you just woken up from 4 year slumber. How can he be fringe if he leads and leads because of the largest ever membership growth ever? I hate corbyn, i hate what he represents. To post what you did is so far from true that it must be idiocy.


Hate? Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Hate? Really?


Yep. Same with Benn but more.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2018)

But why exactly? Genuinely curious btw.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 8, 2018)

Wouldn't ''despise his politics" be a better way of putting it than "hating" him, or is that me being wimpishly liberal?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> Wouldn't ''despise his politics" be a better way of putting it than "hating" him, or is that me being wimpishly liberal?





teqniq said:


> But why exactly? Genuinely curious btw.



I hate _him_, his pathetic pretence of let's all just be reasonable bollocks - it grates like thatchers soft voice. I also hate his _politics _- not the soft domestic resulutionary socialism - that has an honourable tradition - but the red in tooth and claw disgusting anti-imperialism.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2018)

Yeah well I too see his _reasonableness_ as a major potential problem when coming up against the likes of Putin and Assad. That coupled with an anti-imperialism stance could turn out to be disastrous wrt to foreign policy. I wouldn't go so far as hate though, I'm prepared to cut him some slack in the hopes of getting something resembling a fairer deal for the majority of us here in the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Yeah well I too see his _reasonableness_ as a major potential problem when coming up against the likes of Putin and Assad. That coupled with an anti-imperialism stance could turn out to be disastrous wrt to foreign policy. I wouldn't go so far as hate though, I'm prepared to cut him some slack in the hopes of getting something resembling a fairer deal for the majority of us here in the UK.


I'm not. I'm also not prepared to allow people like this slumbserome beast sleater to just basically lie and pretend it's neutral _description _when they describe someone who has decisively won two internal elections, massively boosted the membership and put in an amazing series of external election performances as _fringe_.

If you're going to hate, hate accurately.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Yeah well I too see his _reasonableness_ as a major potential problem when coming up against the likes of Putin and Assad. That coupled with an anti-imperialism stance could turn out to be disastrous wrt to foreign policy. I wouldn't go so far as hate though, I'm prepared to cut him some slack in the hopes of getting something resembling a fairer deal for the majority of us here in the UK.


There is no going up _against_ them - reasonably or otherwise - he is one of them. That's what the anti-imperialist left is.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2018)

Haha fair enough but what honestly at this moment in time is a realistic alternative? Not much as far as I can see, and we are desperately in need of one.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2018)

teqniq said:


> Haha fair enough but what honestly at this moment in time is a realistic alternative? Not much as far as I can see, and we are desperately in need of one.


Don't start down that give me an answer to all the problems please. I'm not a trot. I can hate corbyn and his politics while recognising both the potential for labour electoral victory and one being led by him being better than a tory victory or one led by some labour non-entity. The latter being a utopian likelihood that the liberals on here cling to like a piss stained blanket in fear of possibly getting a clean one. None of this means i have to defend the prat or shut down my criticisms.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2018)

I am not expecting you to come up with answers it's just a bit of idle speculation on my part and I am genuinely interested in your criticisms, I think to some extent we share the same misgivings.


----------



## chilango (Sep 8, 2018)

I'm with Butchers on this one. Even as a kid I couldn't stand the "trendy lefty" Labour left that Corbyn was part of. 

Corbyn himself? I don't buy this friendly Grandad image. He's been around too long up to his eyeballs in nasty fucks.

So, whilst I personally wouldn't use the word "hate". I'd certainly say I couldn't stand the bloke or his politics.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> He was a fringe candidate and got elected largely because 1) there no other good candidates, 2) people from the fringe joined up and voted for him.


In some ways he _was_ the fringe candidate - in the context of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Given how modest his policies are, that says a lot about them and the whole defeatist neoliberalism they have been signed up to for a couple of decades. Like Butchers, I don't like his politics or the way it has diverted the energies of many on the left, but describing him as fringe is meaningless. The levels of support he got in the leadership elections and the near miss in 2017 show that his policies and approach are anything but fringe.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2018)

chilango said:


> I'm with Butchers on this one. Even as a kid I couldn't stand the "trendy lefty" Labour left that Corbyn was part of.
> 
> Corbyn himself? I don't buy this friendly Grandad image. He's been around too long up to his eyeballs in nasty fucks.
> 
> So, whilst I personally wouldn't use the word "hate". I'd certainly say I couldn't stand the bloke or his politics.


Yup. Don't see why I have to defend him or his kind: they're not my allies.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 8, 2018)

I think one of the most freeing things in my political life was realising that I didn't have to defend gobshites just because they were "fellow travellers".

(Though that said, it's equally important to remember we're all human, and go after what is said and done with context in mind, rather than overuse the political boxes we'd like to impose on people.)


----------



## TopCat (Sep 8, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Same with Benn but more.


Benn for me was just an embarrassing aristo who devalued socialism every time he opened his gob. Often wondered if he was a plant.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I hate _him_, his pathetic pretence of let's all just be reasonable bollocks - it grates like thatchers soft voice. I also hate his _politics _- not the soft domestic resulutionary socialism - that has an honourable tradition - but the red in tooth and claw disgusting anti-imperialism.


Can tell I’ve been away a while when I need to ask for help with a butchersapron post!

So, here goes...presumably most on the libertarian left would subscribe to anti-imperialist reflexes, so what aspects of Corbyn’s anti-imperialism is it that most repels you?
Genuinely interested...obvs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Can tell I’ve been away a while when I need to ask for help with a butchersapron post!
> 
> So, here goes...presumably most on the libertarian left would subscribe to anti-imperialist reflexes, so what aspects of Corbyn’s anti-imperialism is it that most repels you?
> Genuinely interested...obvs.


Anti-Imperialism 2.0: Selective Sympathies, Dubious Friends


----------



## Geri (Sep 8, 2018)

The ‘Anti-Imperialism’ of Idiots

This left exhibits deeply authoritarian tendencies, one that places states themselves at the centre of political analysis. Solidarity is therefore extended to states (seen as the main actor in a struggle for liberation) rather than oppressed or underprivileged groups in any given society, no matter that state’s tyranny. Blind to the social war occurring within Syria itself, the Syrian people (where they exist) are viewed as mere pawns in a geo-political chess game. They repeat the mantra ‘Assad is the legitimate ruler of a sovereign country’. Assad – who inherited a dictatorship from his father and has never held, let alone won, a free and fair election. Assad – whose ‘Syrian Arab Army’ can only regain the territory it lost with the backing of a hotchpotch of foreign mercenaries and supported by foreign bombs, and who are fighting, by and large, Syrian-born rebels and civilians. How many would consider their own elected government legitimate if it began carrying out mass rape campaigns against dissidents? It’s only the complete dehumanization of Syrians that makes such a position even possible. It’s a racism that sees Syrians as incapable of achieving, let alone deserving, anything better than one of the most brutal dictatorships of our time.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2018)

Thanks both; very useful.

I thought this passage from the Al-Shami piece was well put:

This left exhibits deeply authoritarian tendencies, one that places states themselves at the centre of political analysis. Solidarity is therefore extended to states (seen as the main actor in a struggle for liberation) rather than oppressed or underprivileged groups in any given society, no matter that state’s tyranny. ​So it’s selective anti-imperialism that’s the issue with Corbyn, then?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Thanks both; very useful.
> 
> I thought this passage from the Al-Shami piece was well put:
> 
> This left exhibits deeply authoritarian tendencies, one that places states themselves at the centre of political analysis. Solidarity is therefore extended to states (seen as the main actor in a struggle for liberation) rather than oppressed or underprivileged groups in any given society, no matter that state’s tyranny.​So it’s selective anti-imperialism that’s the issue with Corbyn, then?


I think I've labelled it in this thread before as _statist foreign policy_: "the statist left".  The above sentence describes it perfectly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2018)

killer b said:


> Hodge ended up with a majority of 8000 in 2005, I'm sure it wouldn't have been that high without the groundwork the canvassers put in, but it's a bit of a stretch to say she almost lost Barking.



2010, at which time the BNP had 12 cllrs there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'One of the most diverse constituencies in the nation'
> 
> OK, well done you, but what's your point? Where were you when Ed Milliband was barracked into telling the Eastern European communities in this country that permitting their existence here was a mistake? Where were you on this anti-semitism that was apparently festering away for decades before it became the _cause celebre_ for blue labour, a cabal you coincidentally happen to be a figurehead for? What about immigration prisons, invented on the watch of your party?
> 
> In a strong field of cynical, unprincipled, careerist twats Umunna continues to forge ahead. In some ways I worry more about him than I do about the likes of Boris Johnson.



One of the most diverse communities in this country, whose decision - BAME and white alike - to spontaneously celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher in Windrush Sq, was denounced by the so-in-touch Tory toerag Labour Centrist fuck.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> If you're going to hate, hate accurately.


This sentence encapsulates why I love you, butchers.


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Same with Benn but more.



What about McDonnell?


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> 2010, at which time the BNP had 12 cllrs there.


The majority was 16000 in 2010. Hodge was never anywhere close to losing the constituency. Which isn't to say there was never a problem with the BNP in the area - but it shouldn't be overstated.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

imposs1904 said:


> What about McDonnell?


Same. But with added i don't get why people love him - even the Wise brothers rate him. I can see it with Corbyn - for a lot of the liberal left he's an fairground mirror that reflects back in an idealised manner. There's not that with JM though. I do recognise that he is a better and wider thinker than Corbyn though.I'd have a pint with him. Not Corbyn,


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Can tell I’ve been away a while when I need to ask for help with a butchersapron post!
> 
> So, here goes...presumably most on the libertarian left would subscribe to anti-imperialist reflexes, so what aspects of Corbyn’s anti-imperialism is it that most repels you?
> Genuinely interested...obvs.


Thanks to Danny and Geri for the links that put it better than i could.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Same. But with added i don't get why people love him - even the Wise brothers rate him. I can see it with Corbyn - for a lot of the liberal left he's an fairground mirror that reflects back in an idealised manner. There's not that with JM though. I do recognise that he is a better and wider thinker than Corbyn though.I'd have a pint with him. Not Corbyn,


Why shouldn't people love him?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2018)

killer b said:


> The majority was 16000 in 2010. Hodge was never anywhere close to losing the constituency. Which isn't to say there was never a problem with the BNP in the area - but it shouldn't be overstated.



She got a thumping majority because campaigners - anti-fascists, Trots, the bloody lot - from all over the UK converged on her bloody constituency and canvassed it into the ground for a month or more preceding the election.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 9, 2018)

Here’s another good blog in line with al-Shami’s excellent blog (though it does focus on Cockburn there’s a wider point in terms of the framing of the civil war).

Left-Wing Orientalism: The Curious Case of Patrick Cockburn


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> She got a thumping majority because campaigners - anti-fascists, Trots, the bloody lot - from all over the UK converged on her bloody constituency and canvassed it into the ground for a month or more preceding the election.


Door knocking in the month before the election might have shifted things by a point or two, but you know it can't do more than that. It's great that the BNP were routed in Barking, but it's claiming Hodge nearly lost the seat just isn't true, and misses as much of the picture as the blairites lauding Hodge as some sort of mighty antifascist warrior herself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2018)

killer b said:


> Door knocking in the month before the election might have shifted things by a point or two, but you know it can't do more than that. It's great that the BNP were routed in Barking, but it's claiming Hodge nearly lost the seat just isn't true, and misses as much of the picture as the blairites lauding Hodge as some sort of mighty antifascist warrior herself.


So you didn't notice the turnout in 2005 was 50% and in 2010 more than 10% higher. Disappointing.


----------



## killer b (Sep 9, 2018)

I did, but it's not really relevant to the point I was making, which was that Hodge was never in danger of losing, and that more forces were in play than a (no doubt vigorous and effective) doorstep campaign by antifascist campaigners.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 9, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> Here’s another ggoal in line with al-Shami’s excellent blog (though it does focus on Cockburn there’s a wider point in terms of the framing of the civil war).
> 
> Left-Wing Orientalism: The Curious Case of Patrick Cockburn



The theory that the regime was attempting to alienate the Sunni majority as part of a tactic to sectarianise the conflict is just plain silly. Yes they released jihadis to rhetorically marginalise the opposition and to set up a third front but no they didn't engineer the Muslim Brotherhood or the various soft Islamists who were dominant in the opposition from the start. That's not to diminish the heroism or the egalitarian goals of the demonstrations or even of some of the combatants, just to acknowledge the problems that were there.

Listening to supporters of Syrian armed opposition (or at least those who write in English) is like listening to flakier parts of the Labour left. Just swap Assad for Zionists (decoded:Alawites for Jews). Same conspiratorial make up.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-speak-at-momentums-corbyn-festival-0rr8m7wqb

(Pay walled but you get the gist from the first paragraphs)


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

And our Ash being oh so radical


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-speak-at-momentums-corbyn-festival-0rr8m7wqb
> 
> (Pay walled but you get the gist from the first paragraphs)


No, it leads to a 404


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> No, it leads to a 404



That’s no good is it. 

Here’s the text from what I can get on the site...


*Warsaw ghetto vandal to speak at Momentum’s Corbyn festival*
Andrew Gilligan and Anna Gizowska


September 9 2018, 12:01am, The Sunday Times







Anti-Israel activist Ewa Jasiewicz caused outrage with her ‘desecration’ of the former Warsaw ghetto
Share

A woman who spray-painted graffiti “tainted with anti-semitism” on one of the last surviving walls of the Warsaw ghetto will speak at a Momentum event alongside the Labour Party conference this month.

Ewa Jasiewicz, a British anti-Israel activist, caused outrage with her “desecration” of the site, where an estimated 92,000 Jews died and 300,000 more were held before being transported to death camps.

Jasiewicz will speak from the platform at Momentum’s politics and arts festival, The World Transformed, which will take place in parallel with Labour’s conference in Liverpool. Other speakers will include Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor.





Graffiti sprayed on the wall at the ghetto in 2010
The ghetto was almost razed by the Germans in 1943, but in 2010 Jasiewicz and another activist, Yonatan Shapira, sprayed the words “Liberate all…


Labour Party
UK politics
History


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

Had a lot of time for Ewa In the past. I found her to be a principled person who would act on those principles even if it cost her. That old stunt is of course shit. Why it's being dragged up now is probably even shitter.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

Oh look, it's Gilligan again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2018)

Oh, ewa, she's alright, known her for years


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 146545 And our Ash being oh so radical



The way she got called out and her defence about countering racism ‘all her life’ was revealing.



It’s antisemitic and wrong tarnish a section of the ghetto wall with pro-Palestine graffiti, and to hold a Palestinian flag near the wall with ‘BDS’ on it. The statements in that context are highly offensive and wrong regardless of who put it there.

I loathe Gilligan deeply but the ‘free Palestine’ graffiti in this context is abhorrent. Had it been dubbed on a synagogue it would be investigated as a hate crime.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

Would it? 

But anyway, Gilligan has the response he was paid to get.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

I'm more disappointed ewa has ended up in that union/labour lib left/anti-imperialist nexus than some stunt from near a decade ago (fill in your 2010 context here).


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 9, 2018)

I guess it comes down to the laws of each country. For example, here’s a hate crime attack on a synagogue in Chicago which used similar language in its graffiti - Chicago synagogues hit by hate crime spree

Given the focus, Gilligan does what a Gilligan does, which is wrong but people should be concerned about the politics of a person who does antisemtic graffiti. Now, is Ewa an antisemite? I am not sure. But given the invitation it does make sense to an extent (the Gilligan article). Has she ever apologised? If she hasn’t then I understand the pain many Jewish people have expressed online.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

She's not an anti-semite no. Nor does this stupid stunt from 2010 ( again, gaps for context here) make her one. She's someone with a long term commitment to decent politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> I guess it comes down to the laws of each country. For example, here’s a hate crime attack on a synagogue in Chicago which used similar language in its graffiti - Chicago synagogues hit by hate crime spree
> 
> Given the focus, Gilligan does what a Gilligan does, which is wrong but people should be concerned about the politics of a person who does antisemtic graffiti. Now, is Ewa an antisemite? I am not sure. But given the invitation it does make sense to an extent (the Gilligan article). Has she ever apologised? If she hasn’t then I understand the pain many Jewish people have expressed online.


That's not really that similar. In fact, i would say there is a disingenuous false equivalence being employed here. 

edit: 2009 and 2010 really working today btw


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I'm more disappointed ewa has ended up in that union/labour lib left/anti-imperialist nexus than some stunt from near a decade ago (fill in your 2010 context here).


To be fair to her she does a mind-boggling array of stuff, some bits more radical than others. Last spotted helping organise a UVW picket line.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 146545 And our Ash being oh so radical



might be 'oh so radical' to you, but makes total sense ?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

cantsin said:


> might be 'oh so radical' to you, but makes total sense ?



No it’s doesn’t


----------



## cantsin (Sep 9, 2018)

ok, but


MadeInBedlam said:


> No it’s doesn’t



which bit/s are you struggling with ?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

cantsin said:


> ok, but
> 
> 
> which bit/s are you struggling with ?



Er, her writing desecrated in quotation marks, and claiming it’s not antiSemitic to use the site of the murder of Jews to link to the crimes of Israel. 

How does it make sense to you?


----------



## cantsin (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Er, her writing desecrated in quotation marks, and claiming it’s not antiSemitic to use the site of the murder of Jews to link to the crimes of Israel.
> 
> How does it make sense to you?



everything I've read about Ewa JasiewiczI supports Sarkar's angle here, ie : she sounds like more of an anti facsist than a 1000 x cynical f*cking w*nkers  ( inevitably ) trying desperately to keep the  a/s dustcloud kicked up


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Er, her writing desecrated in quotation marks, and claiming it’s not antiSemitic to use the site of the murder of Jews to link to the crimes of Israel.
> 
> How does it make sense to you?


Desecration does have a specific religious and political meaning though - with a series of associated implications. Does desecration ever appear in the Gilligan piece though? I can't see how it could - except by the same disingenuous process as above.

edit: I've only came across this ash person once before when she was imperiously stupid on the nicky campbell show.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 9, 2018)

cantsin said:


> everything I've read about Ewa JasiewiczI supports Sarkar's angle here, ie : she sounds like more of an anti facsist than a 1000 x cynical f*cking w*nkers  ( inevitably ) trying desperately to keep the  a/s dustcloud kicked up



So nothing about the actual graffiti then


----------



## belboid (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So nothing about the actual graffiti then


If it is true that the wall was regularly used as a (political) graffiti wall by many others already, then there is a clear rationalisation for EJ to do so. Probably not the most tactically astute act, but not the anti-semitic vileness that shithead Gilligan claims.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So nothing about the actual graffiti then



Yeah, this :


----------



## sihhi (Sep 9, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Would it?
> 
> But anyway, Gilligan has the response he was paid to get.



Graffiti on a synagogue in 2014 during the air assault on Gaza in Brighton was investigated along those lines with forensics called (no one was caught)

Link Graffiti daubed on Hove synagogue


----------



## xarmian (Sep 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So nothing about the actual graffiti then


Richard Seymour tweet thread 

"1.) In 2010, a delegation of Israeli leftists went to Poland and spray-painted one of the remaining walls from the Warsaw Ghetto with pro-Palestine graffiti. The party was led by ex-IDF pilot Yonatan Shapira, whose family was butchered after being incarcerated in the Ghetto.

2.) The rationale given by Shapira. IDF objector sprays 'Free Gaza' graffiti on Warsaw Ghetto wall

_Shapira went on to call the Israeli public indifferent and said "we will do everything to wake it up, even spray graffiti on an abandoned ghetto wall."

During last week's protest, Shapira said, "Most of my family came from Poland and many of my relatives were killed in the death camps during the Holocaust. When I walk in what was left from the Warsaw Ghetto, I cant stop thinking about the people of Gaza who are not only locked in an open air prison but are also being bombarded by fighter jets, attack helicopters and drones, flown by people whom I used to serve with before my refusal in 2003."

He continued, "I am also thinking about the delegations of young Israelis that are coming to see the history of our people but also are subjected to militaristic and nationalistic brainwashing on a daily basis. Maybe if they see what we wrote here today they will remember that oppression is oppression, occupation is occupation and crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity, whether they have been committed here in Warsaw or in Gaza."_

3.) I personally think this is one of the worst possible ways to protest the injustices against Palestine.

4) As Jewdas have pointed out, regardless of intentions, it makes it seem as if Jews as such, rather than the Israeli state, have to answer for the crimes against Palestinians.

5) But it’s not surprising that, repeatedly, Jewish people — from Holocaust survivors to their descendants — have reached for this historical experience, their experience, in trying to describe what has happened to Palestinians.

6) The reporting of this protest, and of journalist Ewa Jasiewicz’s participation in it, calls it desecration, as it were tantamount to swastikas daubed in Jewish graveyards.

7) In so doing, the reporting compares the descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors, to Nazis. Jewish men and women, to antisemites. That’s a disgrace."​The Jewdas tweet in 4)
"Writing graffiti about Gaza by the Warsaw ghetto (even if not on the actual ghetto wall) is a dodgy thing to do as it implies that people should blame the suffering of Gazans on Jews rather than nationalist ideology. Please don't do this kind of thing."​


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> The way she got called out and her defence about countering racism ‘all her life’ was revealing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be one if the many thousands of incidents investigated for an hour or two and then dropped by the mps.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2018)

Just trying to catch up on this latest thing.  Can't read the Times piece in full, but piecing things together from what's been linked to here.  On the whole, I don't think I'd take any lectures from Andrew Gilligan on past errors of judgement.  He worked for Press TV for two years.



xarmian said:


> [Jewdas] "Writing graffiti about Gaza by the Warsaw ghetto (even if not on the actual ghetto wall) is a dodgy thing to do as it implies that people should blame the suffering of Gazans on Jews rather than nationalist ideology. Please don't do this kind of thing."


Completely agree with this point, and with Seymour's point 4 (which is a variation on, though not exact replication of, this point).  I'm disappointed to learn Ewa was involved.  I have a lot of respect for her (although this isn't the first time I've questioned her judgement).

Seymour's point 5 is also important.  Ghettos and walls are an obvious symbolic parallel, both for the Gaza blockade and the West Bank Apartheid Wall.  And people from Jewish backgrounds, and others, who wish to make comments in favour of justice often reach for those parallels. They are valid, so long as they don't do what Jewdas correctly exhort us not to do: create any implication that Jews in general are to blame for the situation in Gaza or the West Bank. 

The whole cycle of blaming and/or punishing entire populations for this thing or that is one of the things we should be fighting against.

Never heard of Ash Sarkar.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Sep 10, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Never heard of Ash Sarkar.



Lucky you.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 10, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Lucky you.



zzzz


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Oh look, it's Gilligan again.



he'll have his own new home off south georgia


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Richard Seymour tweet thread
> 
> "1.) In 2010, a delegation of Israeli leftists went to Poland and spray-painted one of the remaining walls from the Warsaw Ghetto with pro-Palestine graffiti. The party was led by ex-IDF pilot Yonatan Shapira, whose family was butchered after being incarcerated in the Ghetto.
> 
> ...



Also, from their own words in 2010, this was a deliberate, offensive act: Liberate all ghettos


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> Also, from their own words in 2010, this was a deliberate, offensive act: Liberate all ghettos


the word 'offensive' isn't one they used. so, not from their own words in 2010.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the word 'offensive' isn't one they used. so, not from their own words in 2010.



I meant they were knowingly being provocative and offensive. This was a targeted act of antisemitic graffiti and just a distortion of the Holocaust by attempting to link it the vile and illegal practices of the Israeli government. The comparison between Gaza and the Warsaw ghetto is antisemitic and ahisotric. They knew all of this but went ahead with their stunt to cause maximum offence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> I meant they were knowingly being provocative and offensive. This was a targeted act of antisemitic graffiti and just a distortion of the Holocaust by attempting to link it the vile and illegal practices of the Israeli government. The comparison between Gaza and the Warsaw ghetto is antisemitic and ahisotric. They knew all of this but went ahead with their stunt to cause maximum offence.


2010 wants its frothing back. nice of you to feel so outraged on behalf of world jewry and that but calm down dear, it's only a wall. i mean it's not like they'd corralled a load of people and chopped the amount of food down let into the inhabitants.

what causes me offence is what happens in palestine on a daily basis. a few words on a cenotaph or a wall is nothing in comparison to the very real brutality meted out on a daily basis by the zionist entity.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2018)

Nobody is saying that. You can be outraged at the daily injustices against Palestinians living under occupation and feel anger that a sight of great historical trauma for Jewish people was targeted this way.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 10, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> Nobody is saying that. You can be outraged at the daily injustices against Palestinians living under occupation and feel anger that a sight of great historical trauma for Jewish people was targeted this way.


Do you feel outraged at the daily injustices againt the Palestinian peoples?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> Nobody is saying that. You can be outraged at the daily injustices against Palestinians living under occupation and feel anger that a sight of great historical trauma for Jewish people was targeted this way.


i have i suspect a rather closer familial connection to the ghetto than you do but i am in no way troubled or disturbed by the graffiti: i am much more concerned about the need for people to say such things. the site the right place for that sight. they could of course have painted walls of some of the longer lasting ghettos in europe. they could have painted the wall of clifford's tower in york, scene of the largest pogrom in british history. but for all that it's a bit late, after eight years, to start frothing so.


----------



## xarmian (Sep 10, 2018)

There's a Pole who lives in the Warsaw ghetto on Richard Seymour's thread with some details on the geography.

_"As many know I live in Warsaw’s former Jewish ghetto+have done for over 25yrs. I live 800m from where the graffiti The Times alleges was made on a Ghetto monument. Sorry but its BS to smear Labour. The wall painted is in ul Walicow on a pre war ruined house not the ghetto wall"_​Maps and pictures in the link.

The Times is running another hit on Jasciewicz tomorrow.

McDonnell published some plans that have been ignored in the middle of all this. Is this the right place to post them? McDonnell: Labour will give power to workers through ‘ownership funds’


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2018)

I see Rosie Duffield has been censured for attending a demonstration against antisemitism.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> I see Rosie Duffield has been censured for attending a demonstration against antisemitism.


You _see _that someone you've never heard of and just want to use has been - as you totally inaccurately claim -  _censured_. Lay out what's actually happened here unity-monger.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> You _see _that someone you've never heard of and just want to use has been - as you totally inaccurately claim - has been censured.


Ok, there's going to be a vote to censure her.


butchersapron said:


> Lay out what's actually happened here unity-monger.



As the letter says:

"We have observed the words and conduct of our Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, and we are dissatisfied at her decision to involve herself with groups and organisations that are campaigning to damage our Party, as well as impede its efforts to ensure the right to criticise crimes committed by the state of Israel.

“We are particularly concerned that Rosie chose to show her support for these parties at a demonstration organised to groundlessly accuse the Party of systematic antisemitism.

“She compounded this conduct by carelessly appearing to threaten the leader at a meeting of an organisation which, though affiliated with the Labour Party, does not at all times share its priorities."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2018)

OMFG a motion by members of the party!!!!! That may be voted on!!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2018)

Have you ever actually been in any sort of party or organisation? How do you imagine that they work?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Have you ever actually been in any sort of party or organisation? How do you imagine that they work?


I haven't got a problem with them voting on a motion, it's the motion itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2018)

The motion expresses an opinion that you don't agree with (neither do I) and you chose to use it as an example of what? Ongoing anti-semitism? The lefts anti unity agenda?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2018)

How many other motions have you seen and commented on recently then sleater? Is the number two by any chance?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The motion expresses an opinion that you don't agree with (neither do I) and you chose to use it as an example of what? Ongoing anti-semitism? The lefts anti unity agenda?


In this case both onngoing anti-semitism and also the cult around corbyn, both of which are problems.


----------



## killer b (Sep 10, 2018)

It just means there's a couple of nutters in the Canterbury CLP, like in every CLP in the country. The motion has been withdrawn after pressure from the rest of the local members btw.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2018)

“what people said to us was: Labour used to be working class, it used to be a pie and a pint – it’s now a protesting student. It used to be someone playing the bingo; now it’s someone going on a demo,” 

Labour has shifted focus from bingo to quinoa, say swing voters

Of course voters used to say the same about new labour and Blair. But the point here is after three years of Corbyn leadership the party remains disconnected culturally and politically from the class it purports to represent. A move to support ‘the people’s vote’ on the EU would represent a further significant nail in the coffin.


----------



## chilango (Sep 11, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “what people said to us was: Labour used to be working class, it used to be a pie and a pint – it’s now a protesting student. It used to be someone playing the bingo; now it’s someone going on a demo,”
> 
> Labour has shifted focus from bingo to quinoa, say swing voters
> 
> Of course voters used to say the same about new labour and Blair. But the point here is after three years of Corbyn leadership the party remains disconnected culturally and politically from the class it purports to represent. A move to support ‘the people’s vote’ on the EU would represent a further significant nail in the coffin.



Some horrible class caricaturing there.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 11, 2018)

This is an interesting post from Jewdas:


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 11, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> This is an interesting post from Jewdas:



yes thoughful words as usual from Geoffry Jewdas:

At a site of such indescribable trauma, this action was at best insensitive and crass. At worst, it risks being interpreted as a suggestion that Jews, rather than Israel, are to blame for what’s happening in Gaza. It also suggests that as long as the occupation of Palestine continues, the millions of Jews in the diaspora whose ancestors perished there should not be allowed the space to mourn that history, no matter how minimal their connections to the Israeli state.

However, our hurt and anger at this action is not there to be manipulated by yet another right wing attack on the Labour party, nor as part of what is becoming a vicious personal attack on a female activist. Pointing out when the actions of fellow activists are hurtful and may even be perceived as anti-Semitic does not mean we are labelling them anti-Semites and calling for their exclusion from our movements. We need to cultivate a culture in which ‘calling out’ means what it should – asking people to consider their actions, rethink their methods and consider how things are perceived and felt by others. Rosh Hashanah, when we consider our actions as individuals and collectives, is the perfect time to do this. 

...

In the Warsaw ghetto, a number of left-Zionists, socialists and Bundists worked to keep a record of what was happening to them, burying letters, diaries, newspapers and other documents in the ground as it became clear they would not survive. They saw this archive as a message to future generations, in their own words ‘to hurl a stone under history’s wheel’ and prevent such atrocities from happening again.

We *should* fight to liberate all ghettos in memory of their sacrifice. The lessons of the Holocaust must be learned and galvanized against forces of nationalism, racism and persecution today, including that of the state of Israel. All we ask is that these points are made with sensitivity and respect, and not in the form of slogans written on a wall where tens of thousands of our ancestors were shot, burned and suffocated to death. 


​


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

chilango said:


> Some horrible class caricaturing there.


Yeah - there's no doubt that Labour have some issues connecting with their traditional base, but I don't think the people saying Labour have problems connecting with their traditional base in this focus group are actually Labour's traditional base themselves. Do any working class people think being working class has anything to do with bingo and pies? 

'quinoa' is a blanket dismissal of liberal middle class people by conservative middle class people isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> This is an interesting post from Jewdas:


grand. can you show us an interesting post from you?


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 11, 2018)

chilango said:


> Some horrible class caricaturing there.


_A typical comment from one participant in Crewe was “I think they’re trying to appeal to literally anyone now”._
Bit of an odd statement there, i would have thought appealing to as many people as possible would be a sound strategy for a political party


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

On the whole that article is relatively positive for Labour's current strategy tbh. How strange they focus on quinoa.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Sep 11, 2018)

You can get Quinoa in Aldi and Lidl now, it’s mainstream.....


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2018)

MickiQ said:


> _A typical comment from one participant in Crewe was “I think they’re trying to appeal to literally anyone now”._
> Bit of an odd statement there, i would have thought appealing to as many people as possible would be a sound strategy for a political party


Other than in the most banal sense, no.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

These charts paint a more mixed and interesting picture. The tory chart is horrendous though - why isn't that the story?


----------



## rekil (Sep 11, 2018)

Labour should adopt PD's 'mandatory monster bingo' policy then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> These charts paint a more mixed and interesting picture. The tory chart is horrendous though - why isn't that the story?



huge story here, yet the labour party's always the one presented as being 'unbritish'.


----------



## JimW (Sep 11, 2018)

Can Corbyn clickety-click with the class?


----------



## binka (Sep 11, 2018)

I wonder how many people who consider themselves middle class are actually working class


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 146649
> huge story here, yet the labour party's always the one presented as being 'unbritish'.


It isn't that huge, it's focus group results in two very specific areas - (maybe) useful for gauging the views of people in those areas, but I don't know if you can really extrapolate it much beyond that.

Either way, I think it looks like overall a reasonably positive picture for Labour with that, and a really shit one for the tories.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

binka said:


> I wonder how many people who consider themselves middle class are actually working class


shitloads.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 11, 2018)

If New Labour had been characterised as quinoa in a focus group it would have been viewed positively as representing middle class aspirational politics etc, but of course because it's Corbyn it's a disaster. 

Suspect the average working class millennial is more likely to sometimes eat quinoa than play bingo, but polling companies prefer cultural class signifiers to be fixed somewhere around 1962.


----------



## binka (Sep 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> shitloads.


Yeah I thought so. I've had someone tell me they can't be working class because they work in an office


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2018)

binka said:


> I wonder how many people who consider themselves middle class are actually working class


And vice versa?


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> And vice versa?


Not as many as people think, I suspect. It isn't just office workers that think office workers can't be working class.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2018)

I have in mind the business owner who insists he is still working class because he e.g. likes to eat pie and mash at 5pm or some equally irrelevant cultural signifier.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I have in mind the business owner who insists he is still working class because he e.g. likes to eat pie and mash at 5pm or some equally irrelevant cultural signifier.


fair enough - yes, plenty of those too.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 11, 2018)

Too many people in general who think Class is something they "are" by virtue of parentage, birth or aspiration, rather than something they do / a role they fill in society.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Too many people in general who think Class is something they "are" by virtue of parentage, birth or aspiration, rather than something they do / a role they fill in society.


Totally, and this cultural understanding of class with it's borders diligently policed is a massive barrier to building class solidarity IMO


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2018)

When the BBC did their Class season a few years back they featured a bloke ( looked and sounded classical w/c) who argued that he couldn't be w/c because he'd _been on an aeroplane._


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> Totally, and this cultural understanding of class with it's borders diligently policed is a massive barrier to building class solidarity IMO


Yup, handily.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> Totally, and this cultural understanding of class with it's borders diligently policed is a massive barrier to building class solidarity IMO


And it's not just the media / right that does this - I've often seen posters here / left twitterers sneer that such-and-such issue is not of concern to the working class, when actually they mean a narrow conception of working class as unemployed / manual labourer. Whatever you think of Paul Mason, I've found his whole concept of the new rising networked working class useful in helping to rethink what the working class is today.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

I've done that myself a few times, must say - while it's a pretty crude analogy, it's also true that many of the priorities of the metropolitan left are pretty alienating to wide swathes of the wider working class. 

So I dunno. it's all very difficult.


----------



## rekil (Sep 11, 2018)

JimW said:


> Can Corbyn clickety-click with the class?


Nakba! - 48. There should probably be a lefty bingo caller thread.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> I've done that myself a few times, must say - while it's a pretty crude analogy, it's also true that many of the priorities of the metropolitan left are pretty alienating to wide swathes of the wider working class.
> 
> So I dunno. it's all very difficult.



Plenty of people who would probably qualify as the "metropolitan left" are working class (including culturally), and not all of them live in a metropolis. Tbh I think the term is pretty useless, it seems to serve a similar sort of function to "ultra left" - ie. "people whose political perspectives I find annoyingly inflexible/judgmental" except applied to liberal social values.

The main meaning it tries to go for is as a signifier of the stretched cultural spectrum Britain's experiencing, framed by deriding effete city liberals against common sense folk. But that spectrum is way more complex than a simple Big City/Rest of Britain divide, to the point where I think it's actively misleading (and frequently comes from an insultingly condescending position - eg. banking scion and MEP Nigel Farage pretending he's standing up for traditional rural working class values of little England racism).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2018)

Theisticle said:


> I guess it comes down to the laws of each country. For example, here’s a hate crime attack on a synagogue in Chicago which used similar language in its graffiti - Chicago synagogues hit by hate crime spree
> 
> Given the focus, Gilligan does what a Gilligan does, which is wrong but people should be concerned about the politics of a person who does antisemtic graffiti. Now, is Ewa an antisemite? I am not sure. But given the invitation it does make sense to an extent (the Gilligan article). Has she ever apologised? If she hasn’t then I understand the pain many Jewish people have expressed online.



Most of the people expressing pain have only ever experienced a ghetto as a tourist attraction. Their pain, while real to them, is spurious. It's like the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people who lived through the death camps claiming to be "holocaust survivors". It's the appropriation of real suffering to wear as a badge.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 11, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> In this case both onngoing anti-semitism and also the cult around corbyn, both of which are problems.


There really is, honestly, no cult around Corbyn. He's just the front man, and can - and will - be exchanged for a better one, should the time come.

There is, however, a renewed vitality, dynamism and sense of mission about Labour that is little short of remarkable


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 11, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Had a lot of time for Ewa In the past. I found her to be a principled person who would act on those principles even if it cost her.


agreed entirely. I rate her


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 11, 2018)

binka said:


> I wonder how many people who consider themselves middle class are actually working class


pretty much all, if you go by a purely economic determinist definition of class


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Plenty of people who would probably qualify as the "metropolitan left" are working class (including culturally), and not all of them live in a metropolis. Tbh I think the term is pretty useless, it seems to serve a similar sort of function to "ultra left" - ie. "people whose political perspectives I find annoyingly inflexible/judgmental" except applied to liberal social values.


I know there's plenty of working class people who qualify as part of the metropolitan left - perhaps read that post in context with the other posts I've made in this thread today. TBH I probably qualify myself.  

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone, but it's impossible to ignore that the dominant strand of the left in the UK right now does struggle to get any kind of hearing among a large section of the working class. I'm interested in discussing that, not having another row about terminology.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 11, 2018)

Sure I wasn't accusing you of dismissing people, more thinking through what it is about the term that discomforts me. I guess it's that we quite often reach for sort of broad sweeps to help structure an idea of what's happening in politics, which can sometimes get in the way of the more difficult reality.

In this case for example, I think there's elements of the UK left (specifically drawing from the activism of the New Left) which actually have achieved gains among the working class as a whole but by not means across all of it (eg. the remarkable shifts over social issues such as certain women's rights, LGBT recognition, the withdrawal of corporal/capital punishment as a concept etc).

What we're seeing now in those spheres is a complex phenomenon of certain left ideals becoming Establishment concepts, at least in writ, which have been adopted by perhaps a majority of the public but with a very substantial fractured minority not following suit (I say fractured, because some people may accept women's rights but not LGBT, or be an out and proud gay misogynist, etc) and even acting as "rebels" against the new norm. Then on top of that you have the phenomenon of continued leading edge "wokeness" on concepts like decolonisation, which as ever are characterised by some very clever, useful thinking and some ludicrous nonsense, both of which are projected by reactionaries as being outright mad because they go even further than the already suspicious Establishment liberalism (often deliberately conflated with "metropolitan leftism" etc by chancers looking to capitalise on resentment against primarily urbanised elites).

That's before you get into the economic aspect, the half-finished collapse of the neoliberal consensus, the questions posed by both current and future trends in migration, the continued numerical decline of unions and organised left groups (with the notable exception of left Labour/Momentum) etc etc.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 11, 2018)

The issue is that the left has been visibly at the forefront of winning and leading battles around gender, LGBT, racism (not saying there isn’t a lot further to go or that it’s a bad thing obviously) while failing to win or being seen to be effectively leading the battle for economic justice, and indeed the centre left seems to have given up at least some of that fight altogether while the further left has simply been incompetent.

Of course that’s because the former battles are winnable as they don’t challenge the prevailing economic system in the way that economic justice must do.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 11, 2018)

Yeah there's a lot to that, the ability of capitalism to co-opt social cultural change (the pink pound etc) is in part what made it a fight the left could win even when in economic terms it had been blasted off the map.

Meanwhile for economic actors who were also social reactionaries (your Labour-Ukip drifters, for example) it really would feel for quite a large number of people like the left had abandoned its post protecting their economic interests to fuck off on a doolally quest to play back-up band to degenerates (including in some cases people who are outright economic elites), because the very obvious decline in economic fighting force the left had been organising coincides with the rise of focus on progressive social values.

On the flip side of that though, one thing I think is likely with the resurgence of membership in Labour is the hope that the left can finally provide economic muscle will be drawing people regardless of wokeness, in the same way as socially conservative/reactionary people will join effective trade unions. Distrust and anger against the left tends to dissipate if it's doing the "core job". The best way to silence critics is to win, etc.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Sep 11, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> The issue is that the left has been visibly at the forefront of winning and leading battles around gender, LGBT,


With the greatest respect, I don’t think “the left” can claim to be the impetus for advancement of LGB rights, it’s been the centre, together with some of the “liberal metropolitan elite” or whatever terminology you prefer.
Cameron pushed for gay marriage, perhaps cynically, and Blair introduced civil partnerships. The “historical left” really didn’t care. Trans rights are interesting as they are exposing faultlines between the trans-accepting folk and the TERFs and both groups probably see themselves as “left”.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2018)

I think it does the left a massive disservice to attribute the advancement of LGB rights to Blair and Cameron, they jumped onto bandwagons which had already been rolling for the best part of three decades. With Freedom Press (just because I've been researching it recently) I can point you to articles strongly pushing for gay rights from the 1950s onwards (and sympathies going back to Edward Carpenter with his gay free love commune just outside Sheffield in the 19th century).


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 12, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> With the greatest respect, I don’t think “the left” can claim to be the impetus for advancement of LGB rights, it’s been the centre, together with some of the “liberal metropolitan elite” or whatever terminology you prefer.
> Cameron pushed for gay marriage, perhaps cynically, and Blair introduced civil partnerships. The “historical left” really didn’t care. Trans rights are interesting as they are exposing faultlines between the trans-accepting folk and the TERFs and both groups probably see themselves as “left”.


Surely back in the 80s gay rights was part and parcel of the menace of the ''loony left" and all good centrists wanted nothing to do with such nonsense? Unless I've missed the bit in the Limehouse Declaration about lesbians?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> With the greatest respect, I don’t think “the left” can claim to be the impetus for advancement of LGB rights, it’s been the centre, together with some of the “liberal metropolitan elite” or whatever terminology you prefer.
> Cameron pushed for gay marriage, perhaps cynically, and Blair introduced civil partnerships. The “historical left” really didn’t care. Trans rights are interesting as they are exposing faultlines between the trans-accepting folk and the TERFs and both groups probably see themselves as “left”.



dunno.

i'll certainly agree that it isn't quite as simple as left / right on equalities issues.

the (old) liberal party was probably more pro-equalities than the labour party in the 60s.

and there have been some voices on the right wing / libertarian front who have argued that the state shouldn't police consenting sexual activity.

but it was labour governments that legislated to (partly) decriminalise homosexuality, and also to introduce the race relations act and equal pay act in the 60s, then expand race / sex discrimination laws in the 70s.

not all the trade union movement was entirely behind this - some bus workers (for example) were hostile towards continued employment / recruitment of women conductors after the end of the war in 1945 and towards the employment of ethnic minority workers in the 60s.  and london dockers (union members) marched in support of enoch powell.

but i think it's fair to say that the 1980s wave of 'equal opportunities' - womens rights, LGB rights (not so sure that the T was mentioned often then) and anti racism - was very much part of the 'loony left' thing - with politicians like ken livingstone being pilloried in the press over it, the labour leadership giving the general impression that they wished minorities would just shut up, and ultimately the tories bringing 'section 28' to try and silence the gay rights end of it.

the mainstream of the labour party didn't commit to improving gay rights until the 1985 conference - while probably not the whole story, this was with block vote support from the NUM after the lesbians + gays support the miners campaign during the strike.   

the blair government did - in the face of tory opposition - do a lot to remove laws discriminating against LGB people, equalising the age of consent, equalising sex crimes (a lot of things were either illegal or were considered a much more serious offence if between two men than if between man and woman), removing the ban on serving in the military, and the fudge that was civil partnerships - itself opposed at  the time by the tories, but a political fudge to get something on the statute books rather than have hysterical opposition to 'marriage'.  

i find it hard to give hamface that much credit for his sudden conversion to the cause of gay marriage (i'm not convinced that he actually believes in anything or would know a principle if he fell over one), and even less to those tories who tried then to argue that the labour party was homophobic for not having introduced gay marriage...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2018)

pseudonarcissus said:


> With the greatest respect, I don’t think “the left” can claim to be the impetus for advancement of LGB rights, it’s been the centre, together with some of the “liberal metropolitan elite” or whatever terminology you prefer.
> Cameron pushed for gay marriage, perhaps cynically, and Blair introduced civil partnerships. The “historical left” really didn’t care. Trans rights are interesting as they are exposing faultlines between the trans-accepting folk and the TERFs and both groups probably see themselves as “left”.



Im sorry - but you are exactly wrong. The ground work, the campaigning and the struggle that led to the popular opinion shifting was done by LGBT people and supporters on the left - and they were vilified for it. Ken Livingstone and the GLC were regularly lambasted by the press for supporting  things like gay switchboard. The miners accepting support from  gay and lesbian groups during the strike was seized on by the tabloids as further proof of their extremism/evil. The NUM showed their appreciation by leading the gay pride match in 1985  (have you not seen the film "pride"?) overturning years of indifference - and outright hostility - from the wider labour movement and the rightwing of the PLP.  
The likes of cameron and blair didn't go near gay rights until the battle to win over hearts and minds was already done . The advancement of LGBT rights is something that "the loony left" can be justifiably proud of.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Sep 12, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> Unless I've missed the bit in the Limehouse Declaration about lesbians?





Puddy_Tat said:


> but it was labour governments that legislated to (partly) decriminalise homosexuality, and also to introduce the race relations act and equal pay act in the 60s.


I see the link there, a wooly liberal.
I feel I'd have been waiting for a long time for the Boilermakers to take up gay rights. (google really isn't helpful with GMB (some sort of daytime TV programme) or GMBATU searches....but that's what the B stands for  )
I would class Ken as part of the "metropolitan left" rather than the "working class". I hate these terms. And yes, most of the Tories were horrible.
In '85, as a closeted gay man working in a job where I'd have been fired if suspected as gay, I'm not sure I would have been much of an advocate....fortunately times have changed. I'm not wishing to criticize the heroes of the left and centre who fought.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 12, 2018)

I’d just like to be clear that my post above was not to exclude the late but welcome role played by some in the centre, the right and liberal arenas for LGBT and other rights - I was simply focusing on the role of the left since that was the main point of recent posts that I was responding to. 

Although I second and third killer b, lazythursday et al


----------



## xarmian (Sep 12, 2018)

This is a good conversation. I regret to interrupt it with this not good development.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 12, 2018)

Not sure Bastano need to tweet / get involved in this, but the attempts to stir up hysteria around it  / involve OB are laughable


----------



## TopCat (Sep 12, 2018)

Prob one of her staff did it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Prob one of her staff did it.


It could be anyone with Westminster access. (If it's the MP's own staff they were stupid to handwrite it).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 12, 2018)

It could have been a bomb they left


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 12, 2018)

'Call off the gloating cat burglars!!!'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> It could have been a bomb they left


As soon as they got home that thought struck them and they were filled with remorse for not considering it earlier


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Call off the gloating cat burglars!!!'


Call off the lock-picking lefties


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Prob one of her staff did it.


She did it in a bid to gain sympathy


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2018)

I'm still sorting this out in my mind. It was found on her desk. The staff then phoned the police. But did they phone  the cops before or after staging the photo at the door on the Westminster carpet with the card and the tiny train?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm still sorting this out in my mind. It was found on her desk. The staff then phoned the police. But did they phone  the cops before or after staging the photo at the door on the Westminster carpet with the card and the tiny train?


1) the mp and / or staff members put the card on desk and took a picture of it
2) they thought about it and put it in an envelope as tho it had been pushed under the door and took a picture of it
3) they thought again and wrote another card and started the process again
4) the researcher arrived back with a thomas the tank engine toy
5) five cards later they had it all right and phoned the police


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 1) the mp and / or staff members put the card on desk and took a picture of it
> 2) they thought about it and put it in an envelope as tho it had been pushed under the door and took a picture of it
> 3) they thought again and wrote another card and started the process again
> 4) the researcher arrived back with a thomas the tank engine toy
> 5) five cards later they had it all right and phoned the police


It does seem to be something like that.

"Shit, the photo doesn't seem threatening enough. Say Thomas and the card were left in a locked room."

"The photo has already gone out"

"Can you say the burglars took the pic on your iPhone?"


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

I think that the photos outside the offices were taken by whoever delivered the cards/train, rather than the recipients, and then forwarded to Bastani. IIRC he posted a similar thing a few months ago with a different MP, can't remember who.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

ah yes, woodcock.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think that the photos outside the offices were taken by whoever delivered the cards/train, rather than the recipients, and then forwarded to Bastani. IIRC he posted a similar thing a few months ago with a different MP, can't remember who.


Ah, I see.  I hadn't picked up that what he was saying was, in invisible parenthesis, "and this is what my reliable source sent me".

(One of the very many things I hate about Twitter is the disjointed way that these things break, with minimal explanation, and requiring you to sort through a Tweeter's timeline in order to furnish the context that explains their gnomic shorthand.  If you don't want to hang on Bastini's every word, and frankly I don't, then a lone Tweet requires explanation).


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

Everything about this story and every single person weighing in from every side is fucking pathetic tbh. What a shower.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2018)

traingate is already taken so this one will require a new name. choogate or something. Politics 2018


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2018)

Clearly a false flag op from Umunma.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 12, 2018)

What's the significance of the toy train in all this?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2018)

All _opposition _are free to leave.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

Libertad said:


> What's the significance of the toy train in all this?


nothing. there's nothing significant about this lame prank at all.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 12, 2018)

Libertad said:


> What's the significance of the toy train in all this?


“ deselection express “

Shldnt laugh, but the Corbo train photos are too funny ( there’s a better one I can’t find ) - he looks so srs


----------



## Libertad (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> nothing. there's nothing significant about this lame prank at all.





cantsin said:


> “ deselection express “
> 
> Shldnt laugh, but the Corbo train photos are too funny ( there’s a better one I can’t find ) - he looks so srs




It's all clear now. These people inhabit a totally different world to the likes of me.
Wankers the lot of them.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

yeah, it's risible.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> yeah, it's risible.



people making daft interweb jokez based on stuff they're deeply + rightly frustrated by = 'risible' ? might be a bit overstating it tbf


----------



## billbond (Sep 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> She did it in a bid to gain sympathy



Evidence ?
would have been funnier with a balloon


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

billbond said:


> Evidence ?


ascribe pls another motivation for her


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

cantsin said:


> people making daft interweb jokez based on stuff they're deeply + rightly frustrated by = 'risible' ? might be a bit overstating it tbf


I think it perfectly expresses the contempt I feel for this particular tone-deaf schoolboy self own. More for Bastani than whoever it was who actually did the prank, mind.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think it perfectly expresses the contempt I feel for this particular tone-deaf schoolboy self own. More for Bastani than whoever it was who actually did the prank, mind.



agree, not AB's finest hour ( and was personally referring to the 'deselection express' thing on Twitter previously )


----------



## rekil (Sep 12, 2018)

More can-do and less can-ary.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> The issue is that the left has been visibly at the forefront of winning and leading battles around gender, LGBT, racism (not saying there isn’t a lot further to go or that it’s a bad thing obviously) while failing to win or being seen to be effectively leading the battle for economic justice, and indeed the centre left seems to have given up at least some of that fight altogether while the further left has simply been incompetent.
> 
> Of course that’s because the former battles are winnable as they don’t challenge the prevailing economic system in the way that economic justice must do.



a disabled/sick person is killing themselves nearly every week, doesn't seem much urgency on that.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2018)

"]The issue is that the left has been visibly at the forefront of winning and leading battles around gender, LGBT, racism (not saying there isn’t a lot further to go or that it’s a bad thing obviously) while failing to win or being seen to be effectively leading the battle for economic justice, and indeed the centre left seems to have given up at least some of that fight altogether while the further left has simply been incompetent."

Of course that’s because the former battles are winnable as they don’t challenge the prevailing economic system in the way that economic justice must do.[/QUOTE]


There was a very prescient article in Red Pepper, yes, RP, about this a number of years ago, how these would become much easier gains in the future, and that many of the winners would become the oppressors in other economic ways.




> Yeah there's a lot to that, the ability of capitalism to co-opt social cultural change (the pink pound etc) is in part what made it a fight the left could win even when in economic terms it had been blasted off the map.



That is partly why the SWP focus on such things, easier straightforward wins, popular support, lots of publicity, for minimum risk, their two fronts, UAF/SUTR are hosting a major european anti-racism/fascism, Conference soon, its may be needed, but i wish it wasn't them doing it.


----------



## Tom A (Sep 12, 2018)

treelover said:


> a disabled/sick person is killing themselves nearly every week, doesn't seem much urgency on that.


Nor is there much urgency regarding the thousands of people sleeping rough in Britain's towns and cities, and the many problems surrounding that, many of which are disabled/sick themselves, falling afoul of the benefit system.

On another note, there are times when I longed for the days when the worst Corbyn could do in the eyes of the media was walk past some empty train seats.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 12, 2018)

Antisemitism in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia


Anti-Semitism Brushed Under The Carpet By An Anti-Semitic Media:

There will be no endless front pages, op-eds, cartoons, "debates" and columns about Tony Blair being paid millions by an institutionally anti-semitic country, or the government selling them weapons for Islamic extremism and butchery.

These links to anti semitism are much stronger and more objective than what someone said about a mural, or dancing around a dozen definitions of zionism etc.

But the story of Blair and May's clear links to rancid anti semitism will not run for an hour in the news cycle, let alone month upon month. Anti-semitism is no use to the establishment media unless it's useful for we-know-what.

As such, their cynical and insincere exploitation of victims for political end is deeply anti-semitic.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> traingate is already taken so this one will require a new name. choogate or something. Politics 2018



Thomas the Tankie Engine


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2018)

Corbyn being blamed on Twitter atm for Ian Bone having a pop at Rees-Mogg today. Will something so demonstrably untrue stick? Things are so nuts these days I wouldn't be totally surprised tbh.

ETA:


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2018)

> The principal harasser of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s family and children outside his home yesterday was Ian Bone of an organisation called Class War. He has considerable links to Corbyn’s Labour Party.



Right...


----------



## agricola (Sep 12, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Antisemitism in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Anti-Semitism Brushed Under The Carpet By An Anti-Semitic Media:
> ...



It really does my head in when people have a go at the Saudis for being anti-semitic, anti-women, for committing war crimes or for executing political prisoners - it never has any effect and the likes of Blair will continue to rake it in.  If people are going to criticize Saudi then surely its going to be much more effective to point out how many witches they have executed over the past twenty years.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 12, 2018)

agricola said:


> It really does my head in when people have a go at the Saudis for being anti-semitic, anti-women, for committing war crimes or for executing political prisoners - it never has any effect and the likes of Blair will continue to rake it in.  If people are going to criticize Saudi then surely its going to be much more effective to point out how many witches they have executed over the past twenty years.



Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I doubt standing up for Pagans (you are right that we should) would have a different effect.

If they don't mind Islamic extremism, hatred of Jews and mysoginy I doubt that sympathy for alleged pagans will tip the balance.


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Right...


Quite looking forward to seeing how my mate Ricky reacts when I inform him that his anarchism makes him a 'Corbyn cultist' tbh.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Right...




He was a founder of left unity, bad form this, not with his kids.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2018)

treelover said:


> He was a founder of left unity, bad form this, not with his kids.


I think you may be confusing a few kinds words about andrew burgin with being a 'founder of left unity'. What on earth would that have to do with anything if it was correct anyway? Are they some role model we need to emulate?


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2018)

He was, he was very enthusiastic about it as well, the media will find someway to link it to the Corbynistas who moved from them to the LP.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 12, 2018)

Ian Bone really has become a caricature of himself, I mean fuck the Moggs but what a silly stunt.


----------



## agricola (Sep 12, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I doubt standing up for Pagans (you are right that we should) would have a different effect.
> 
> If they don't mind Islamic extremism, hatred of Jews and mysoginy I doubt that sympathy for alleged pagans will tip the balance.



I was being entirely serious; lots of regimes are anti-semitic, commit war crimes, kill opponents or hate women (or some mixture of the same).  I can't think of another state that kills people for acts of witchcraft, so it should be highlighted.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

What's the problem? Looks to me like Bone has achieved pretty much what he hoped to achieve. I don't think he gives much of a shit if it fucks things up for Corbyn.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2018)

Unless Bone has gone soft in his old age I can't imagine him having much more time for Corbyn than he does for Rees Mogg.

Class War has traditionally been as hard on Labour as the Tories, hasn't it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 12, 2018)

chilango said:


> Unless Bone has gone soft in his old age I can't imagine him having much more time for Corbyn than he does for Rees Mogg.
> 
> Class War has traditionally been as hard on Labour as the Tories, hasn't it?


I haven't seen any recent updates to this banner
 
 but I'd be surprised if the message has changed.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

I saw one earlier calling Corbyn a cunt.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 12, 2018)

Oh yeah he will be loving this being used to beat Corbyn, I just don’t see what this achieves for Ian other than another 15 seconds of media exposure, and if that’s what he wants, why?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2018)

He enjoys annoying Tories, liberals and social democrats alike and always has, it's not complicated.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> He enjoys annoying Tories, liberals and social democrats alike and always has, it's not complicated.



...and probably acheived all of that in one go with this stunt.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

Well, anyone watching that video to see the children being cruelly abused by Bone will also hear an argument about domestic servants and low wages.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2018)

Also anyone taking more than about a minute to think about it would have to start wondering why, if these children were risking being traumatised because of the bad old man saying he disliked daddy, Mogg brought both them and nanny outdoors and then left them there for the duration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

billbond said:


> Evidence ?
> would have been funnier with a balloon



Well, the other explanation is that some left-wing ninja managed to infiltrate a fairly secure building to leave the fucking thing there.

Although, people seem to be missing the point that Thomas the Tank Engine's grin is fucking scary!


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

It certainly showed how deeply weird and inhuman the Mogg household is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

Voley said:


> Corbyn being blamed on Twitter atm for Ian Bone having a pop at Rees-Mogg today. Will something so demonstrably untrue stick? Things are so nuts these days I wouldn't be totally surprised tbh.
> 
> ETA:




Yep, Dorries is such a fuckwit that she thinks that Class War are "Corbyn cultists". How she manages to put one foot in front of the other is a constant surprise to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

Voley said:


> Quite looking forward to seeing how my mate Ricky reacts when I inform him that his anarchism makes him a 'Corbyn cultist' tbh.



Start calling him Ricardo Corbynista.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

Dorries doesn't think Class War are Corbyn Cultists. She's just saying it because lots of people don't care enough to know there's a difference, in the hope that some shit will stick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Ian Bone really has become a caricature of himself, I mean fuck the Moggs but what a silly stunt.



The "stunt" is the point.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> It certainly showed how deeply weird and inhuman the Mogg household is.



Quite. Bone was obviously being a twat but Mogg knew what he was doing keeping his kids there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> Dorries doesn't think Class War are Corbyn Cultists. She's just saying it because lots of people don't care enough to know there's a difference, in the hope that some shit will stick.



And that's where the stupidity lies - even someone mostly apolitical will think "Class War? Corbyn? Is she pulling my pisser?".


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

I don't know about that, mostly apolitical people don't even know what class war is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Oh yeah he will be loving this being used to beat Corbyn, I just don’t see what this achieves for Ian other than another 15 seconds of media exposure, and if that’s what he wants, why?



Because it draws attention to the nauseating difference between how the governors and the governed live.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2018)

chilango said:


> Unless Bone has gone soft in his old age I can't imagine him having much more time for Corbyn than he does for Rees Mogg.
> 
> Class War has traditionally been as hard on Labour as the Tories, hasn't it?



Bone was a very enthusiastic founder member of Left Unity, was at the founding meeting, in a pub, a few people including Andrew Murray.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2018)

He wasn't a "founder member", he was at the founding conference. Not the same thing.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2018)

treelover said:


> Bone was a very enthusiastic founder member of Left Unity, was at the founding meeting, in a pub, a few people including Andrew Murray.



You're really over-reaching here.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> And that's where the stupidity lies - even someone mostly apolitical will think "Class War? Corbyn? Is she pulling my pisser?".



hmm

i have a nasty feeling that people considered 'mostly apolitical' round these parts would be seen as quite well informed among the general public.  

a lot of people out there will just believe whatever the sun / metro etc tell them.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> a lot of people out there will just believe whatever the sun / metro etc tell them.


I don't think this is true either tbf. Even people who read the sun mostly don't take it very seriously.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Ian Bone really has become a caricature of himself, I mean fuck the Moggs but what a silly stunt.



hardly new territory for ian bone


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2018)

Kaka Tim said:


> hardly new territory for ian bone


it would barely register as news normally.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 12, 2018)

IB has spent decades using red top tactics to make a point - not sure why this is headline worthy now


----------



## Balbi (Sep 12, 2018)

The train thing is funny, as are the cards. But not as funny as calling the cops about it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Thomas the Tankie Engine



Thomas the Dank Engine


----------



## Balbi (Sep 12, 2018)

Menacing.



One Twitter head has pointed out that Ryan's card refers to an upcoming Cyprus holiday _which she hadn't made public_ - implying that somehow the Trots, Stalinists & Commies have somehow found out, when actually it probably means it's some staffer within the party having a fucking laugh at them. Or, you know, her previous involvement as an envoy to Cyprus and a member of Labour Friends Of Cyprus


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Oh yeah he will be loving this being used to beat Corbyn, I just don’t see what this achieves for Ian other than another 15 seconds of media exposure, and if that’s what he wants, why?


There are none so blind as those that will not see


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 12, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, Dorries is such a fuckwit that she thinks that Class War are "Corbyn cultists". How she manages to put one foot in front of the other is a constant surprise to me.



Plenty of people are ignorant enough to believe it.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> Dorries doesn't think Class War are Corbyn Cultists. She's just saying it because lots of people don't care enough to know there's a difference, in the hope that some shit will stick.


ermm... Nadine Dorries being a complete moron is usually the most likely explanation for her actions!


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2018)

It isn't.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 13, 2018)

Can’t Bone sue for defamation if he’s being called a Corbyn cultist? It’s clearly untrue. Would be a chuckle to make some of the accusers grovel and apologise.


----------



## Almor (Sep 13, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Also anyone taking more than about a minute to think about it would have to start wondering why, if these children were risking being traumatised because of the bad old man saying he disliked daddy, Mogg brought both them and nanny outdoors and then left them there for the duration.


 
Presumably the full video isn't hard to find but what I've seen shared starts with bone directing comments to children about their parent outside their home which is a bit off with kids that young


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2018)

Almor said:


> Presumably the full video isn't hard to find but what I've seen shared starts with bone directing comments to children about their parent outside their home which is a bit off with kids that young


How auld should they be to have comments directed to them about their parents? What says the almor almanack of etiquette?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks to Danny and Geri for the links that put it better than i could.


Leila has just done another short piece that builds on the above:

Indefensible: Idlib and the left



> It is hard to understand how devastating bombing campaigns carried out by the Syrian state and Russia on densely populated residential areas, which have killed hundreds of thousands, can be ignored by anyone who claims to be ‘anti-war’. It seems Syrian lives are only meaningful if they’re destroyed by western bombs.



Can't say i've seen much, no, not much, _not anything _by the STWC about the coming firestorm in idlib.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2018)

Dogsauce said:


> Can’t Bone sue for defamation if he’s being called a Corbyn cultist? It’s clearly untrue. Would be a chuckle to make some of the accusers grovel and apologise.


What financial loss has he suffered as a consequence?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What financial loss has he suffered as a consequence?


yeh that's the only metric when someone's defamed


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What financial loss has he suffered as a consequence?



there is no requirement for it to have caused a financial loss

A brief guide to the tort of defamation | Blake Morgan


----------



## Poi E (Sep 13, 2018)

Ah, the common law prohibition on free speech.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> What's the problem? Looks to me like Bone has achieved pretty much what he hoped to achieve. I don't think he gives much of a shit if it fucks things up for Corbyn.


What Ian wanted to achieve and what will actually help the working class right now mightn't be the same thing. THis was never going ot play well in the mass media


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 13, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because it draws attention to the nauseating difference between how the governors and the governed live.


How does it do that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> What Ian wanted to achieve and what will actually help the working class right now mightn't be the same thing. THis was never going ot play well in the mass media


jesus mary and joseph 

catch yourself on, ffs

do you think the mass media exists to propagate anarchist ideas or capitalist ideas?


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> Well, anyone watching that video to see the children being cruelly abused by Bone will also hear an argument about domestic servants and low wages.


Are you sure?

Perhaps it's more likely they'll see a sweary old man and his mates confroting a man and in front of his kids and consider that while rejecting the more substantive point.


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 13, 2018)

killer b said:


> Dorries doesn't think Class War are Corbyn Cultists. She's just saying it because lots of people don't care enough to know there's a difference, in the hope that some shit will stick.


I doubt she's that smart. I think it quite likely she lumps them in as corbynistas


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2018)

Toast Rider said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Perhaps it's more likely they'll see a sweary old man and his mates confroting a man and in front of his kids and consider that while rejecting the more substantive point.


say what you like about ian but he's never before been accused of confrottage.


----------



## chilango (Sep 13, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What financial loss has he suffered as a consequence?



Damage to brand reputation.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 13, 2018)

chilango said:


> Damage to brand reputation.


He can have £1 for that


----------



## Toast Rider (Sep 13, 2018)

Free Nelson Mannanny Crook
25 years in captivity...


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2018)

Another day, another ill-advised comment re anti semitism, this time from leader of PCS (See BBC for details)


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Sep 14, 2018)

andysays said:


> Another day, another ill-advised comment re anti semitism, this time from leader of PCS (See BBC for details)



Proper daft that. 

Not wanting to sound like a blind Corbyn cultist but how the beeb are leading with the above story (however daft) yet have chosen not to cover the EU Tory group's backing of that fascist Orban is ridiculous.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 14, 2018)

Sad but not surprising to see student left style conspiracy theory is where the trade union bureaucracy has collapsed to.


----------



## chilango (Sep 14, 2018)

At this point who is the audience (s) that this narrative is being at?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 14, 2018)

andysays said:


> Another day, another ill-advised comment re anti semitism, this time from leader of PCS (See BBC for details)



What bollocks from Serwotka there

(Thought there should a link to be this BBC story).

I'm PCS. Mark Serwotka has in union-specific terms been pretty good generally (IMO).

But he should never have come out with this shit. PCS, being a Civil Service union, isn't even Labour Party affiliated  ... not that that's particularly relevant, just saying though.


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2018)

Hope for major social security ‘brutality’ campaign after ‘breakthrough’ Labour meeting








This is is great, John McDonnell helped co-ordinate it, 5 shadow ministers in attendance.

But is that the Canary editor/owner next to him?

btw, some real hero's in that picture, dedicated activists like John McArdle, Black Triangle Campaign


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2018)

> Another theme was the need to hold Conservative politicians such as Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling to account for the decisions they made within DWP in 2010 that many believe led to the deaths of claimants of out-of-work disability benefits.



Lets hope Corbyn now makes a keynote speech on this.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2018)

Corbyn blames jews for 2008 crash:


I've got to get out, but the only event nearby is a model railway show.

Well maybe he didn't, but it seems he is to blame for Pollard being a wanker:


Model railways it is then.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2018)

Fuck Pollard. I've no love for Corbyn or the LP but that clip excellent stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Corbyn blames jews for 2008 crash:
> 
> 
> I've got to get out, but the only event nearby is a model railway show.
> ...



Back to Corbyn as font of all the evils of the world. After all he has form ruining Xmas and you don't get lower than that


----------



## Sue (Sep 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Corbyn blames jews for 2008 crash:
> 
> 
> I've got to get out, but the only event nearby is a model railway show.
> ...




What? Is this Stephen Pollard (no idea who he is) equating criticism of bankers/austerity by Corbyn with criticism of Jewish people? Is that not kind of anti-semitic or am I missing something? 

(Not a fan of Corbyn but wtf.)


----------



## Poi E (Sep 16, 2018)




----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> What? Is this Stephen Pollard (no idea who he is) equating criticism of bankers/austerity by Corbyn with criticism of Jewish people? Is that not kind of anti-semitic or am I missing something?
> 
> (Not a fan of Corbyn but wtf.)


The only conceivable defence against Pollard's nonsense would be for Corbyn to say 'the investment banks - made up of cunts people from all ethnicities, religions and backgrounds - destroyed people's lives'.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 16, 2018)

Any criticism of the wealthy and powerful
can be twisted into anti-Semitism if you're shameless enough.


----------



## rekil (Sep 16, 2018)

Play it backwards and it says 'All MPs of the party that was in government at the time are free of any responsibility. Rothschilds Rothschilds Rothschilds'.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 16, 2018)

We can laugh but there's a deadly serious point here. Don't post on Twitter.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 18, 2018)

The Antisemitism Controversy


----------



## gosub (Sep 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> What? Is this Stephen Pollard (no idea who he is) equating criticism of bankers/austerity by Corbyn with criticism of Jewish people? Is that not kind of anti-semitic or am I missing something?
> 
> (Not a fan of Corbyn but wtf.)



Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, so probably not. Though almost a tacit admission of a throw enough shit and see what sticks approach.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 18, 2018)

Pollard is a right wing cunt, I’m no fan of Corbyn and think he is ill advised by the clique around him, and I think McClusky and Serwotka have added fuel to the fire but make no mistake Pollard is building a head of steam to paint critics of bankers as anti semites, not the first time someone has done that.


----------



## xarmian (Sep 18, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Pollard is a right wing cunt, I’m no fan of Corbyn and think he is ill advised by the clique around him, and I think McClusky and Serwotka have added fuel to the fire but make no mistake Pollard is building a head of steam to paint critics of bankers as anti semites, not the first time someone has done that.


From the Jeremy Gilbert article I posted before.

_"This is a crucial point to take on, because there can be little doubt as to what the next stage of the right-wing attempt to weaponise antisemitism and claim the mantle of cosmopolitanism will be. A couple of weeks ago, I remarked to my partner that I thought the next stage would see the right-wing attempting to claim that any criticism of finance capital in general - any reference to ‘parasites’ or ‘greedy bankers’ - should be characterised as implicitly anti-Semitic. It is certainly true that anti-Semites have often tried to win support by eliding mistrust of financiers, speculators and rentiers with hatred of Jews. This doesn’t mean we should deny the fact that financiers, speculators and rentiers deliberately exert influence when they can, to maximise their own interests at the expense of others. Quite the opposite: it means that we should stress very strongly that the problem with capitalists is their complicity with capitalism, and not their religious or ethnic identity."_​


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 18, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Corbyn blames jews for 2008 crash:
> 
> 
> I've got to get out, but the only event nearby is a model railway show.
> ...



Christ, even by his low standards, Pollard really has made an arse of himself there


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 19, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> Pollard is a right wing cunt, I’m no fan of Corbyn and think he is ill advised by the clique around him, and I think McClusky and Serwotka have added fuel to the fire but make no mistake Pollard is building a head of steam to paint critics of bankers as anti semites, not the first time someone has done that.


Absolutely right. The end game is where every and any anti capitalism comment is smeared as antisemitic


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2018)

There's a real danger here of the arguments sailing rather close to Israel provokes/explains anti-semitism by its behaviour. Anyone who ploughed through the dossiers of anti-semitism collected and published recently would know that they contain almost wholly utterly classic examples of historical anti-semitic conspiracism - stuff that existed well before Israel did and is almost entirely divorced from political criticism or engagement with the wider issue of Israel  beyond using it as cover to mug well meaning lefties and liberals. Israel is not the issue for these people and never was. _Jews are. _To allow, or even to help, move this to being about Israel is not needed or, i think useful in dealing with types. And it's these types that need dealing with to stop this incessant feed of stories.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2018)

so 3 years of unending sh*itstorm from every conceivable angle, but 500K members, Momentum approaching 50K, NEC rout again ( adding 3 more Momentum backed candidates, confirming 5 already on it..and Willsman) , everyone finally geared up for #Open Selection's chances approaching conference....NEC meets yesterday, and it seems a ridiculous '30% of CLP Trigger ballot' is being backed instead of Open Sel ( ie : no sitting Lab  MP will face an open selection process, ever :


Lansman had floated this shite back in spring, Mom finally came out in favour Open Sel last week, but then Lansman again seemed to wobble back to Trigger last week
McDonnell opposed Open Sel last week
Rebecca Long Bailey did too 
Corbo + rest of front bench = silent
90 % of Mom branches online = silent
len Mcluskey ( previous backer ) = silent


Along with the proposed ammended leadership ballot quota ( 5% of unions / CLps on top of 10% PLP ) ,this cld get v depressing, final NEC meet to 'decide' on sat pre conf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2018)

cantsin said:


> so 3 years of unending sh*itstorm from every conceivable angle, but 500K members, Momentum approaching 50K, NEC rout again ( adding 3 more Momentum backed candidates, confirming 5 already on it..and Willsman) , everyone finally geared up for #Open Selection's chances approaching conference....NEC meets yesterday, and it seems a ridiculous '30% of CLP Trigger ballot' is being backed instead of Open Sel ( ie : no sitting Lab  MP will face an open selection process, ever :
> 
> 
> Lansman had floated this shite back in spring, Mom finally came out in favour Open Sel last week, but then Lansman again seemed to wobble back to Trigger last week
> ...


So does open sel get voted on at conference or is it only whats put forward by the NEC that gets voted on? In all honesty I know sod all abut how internal party structures work, except in vague terms. As my head had it the conference would be voting on matters to do with open selection and second reff/peoples vote/whatever its called this week in save me barnier land


----------



## Libertad (Sep 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> So does open sel get voted on at conference or is it only whats put forward by the NEC that gets voted on? In all honesty I know sod all abut how internal party structures work, except in vague terms. As my head had it the conference would be voting on matters to do with open selection and second reff/peoples vote/whatever its called this week in save me barnier land



It's down to the Conference Arrangements Committee.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> So does open sel get voted on at conference or is it only whats put forward by the NEC that gets voted on? In all honesty I know sod all abut how internal party structures work, except in vague terms. As my head had it the conference would be voting on matters to do with open selection and second reff/peoples vote/whatever its called this week in save me barnier land



sound v unlikely that open selection will go b4 conf, in fact this shitty trigger ++ may only get minutes allotted, along with the leadership bollocks ( all of it under the Democracy Review - and because it all falls under rule changes category, no composite motions van be strung together to keep various / relatively close factions happy).


right wing union leaders / crappy Thornberry style 'Corbynites' of convenience ( sounds like a Scandi folk duo) , John McDonnell getting giddy on the whiff of the dream of possible power... heady combo it seems


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2018)

Libertad said:


> It's down to the Conference Arrangements Committee.



apparently not ( will try and find reference)

edit : or not any longer, they allowed 'it' ( not sure specifically if 'it' was whole Democ Review motion or not ) to go fwd, now in NEC hands :


----------



## Libertad (Sep 19, 2018)

Here's a link to a few short pieces around open selection. WARNING Link leads to LabourList. 

News | LabourList


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2018)

ta both


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2018)

Libertad said:


> Here's a link to a few short pieces around open selection. WARNING Link leads to LabourList.
> 
> News | LabourList



useful, ta


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 19, 2018)

Great precis of the back-stabbing and self sabotag eby the Labour right leading us to now...

Thread by @RJSHutton: "The Labour Party conference will probably be written up as a cross between a Nuremberg Rally, and a weekend at Stalin's Dacha. It always is. […]"


----------



## cantsin (Sep 19, 2018)

this is shaping up to be a right mess tbh - potentially the whole of the floor, VS  Corbyn, McDonnel and the shad cab on the most pressing issue of the conf ( internally speaking )

 like of Skwankbox now questioning @OpenSelecction's 'loyalty' to Corbyn, w/o a hint of irony, playing up to the the 'Corbo-Cult'  bobbins perfectly


----------



## hash tag (Sep 22, 2018)

He is under investigation by the watchdog committee over 9 Undeclared trips abroad...Jeremy Corbyn's allies drawing up emergency plans amid fears he may be suspended over 'undeclared trips'


----------



## cantsin (Sep 23, 2018)

hash tag said:


> He is under investigation by the watchdog committee over 9 Undeclared trips abroad...Jeremy Corbyn's allies drawing up emergency plans amid fears he may be suspended over 'undeclared trips'



timewasting w*nk


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 24, 2018)

Interesting clash of priorities at the Labour Conference between CLPs and Trade Unions:
CLP priorities ballot results:  Housing 297,032 Schools System 233,883 Justice for the Windrush generation 212,612 Palestine 188,019 Brexit 149,172 The NHS 121,487 Welfare System 89,861 Climate Change and Fracking 72,890 Local Government Funding 68,473 Social Care 64,569

Trade Union and Affiliate priorities ballot results : Brexit 1,878,501 An Economy for the Many 1,848,812 Government Contracts 1,845,256 In-Work Poverty 1,845,084 Housing 39,479 The NHS 35,445 Justice for the Windrush generation 29,622 Social Care 9,642 Schools System 7,697


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 24, 2018)

Has he been arrested and tried for war crimes yet? Not that we know that he has committed any, but he might have or may do in the future so it's better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Interesting clash of priorities at the Labour Conference between CLPs and Trade Unions:
> CLP priorities ballot results:  Housing 297,032 Schools System 233,883 Justice for the Windrush generation 212,612 Palestine 188,019 Brexit 149,172 The NHS 121,487 Welfare System 89,861 Climate Change and Fracking 72,890 Local Government Funding 68,473 Social Care 64,569
> 
> Trade Union and Affiliate priorities ballot results : Brexit 1,878,501 An Economy for the Many 1,848,812 Government Contracts 1,845,256 In-Work Poverty 1,845,084 Housing 39,479 The NHS 35,445 Justice for the Windrush generation 29,622 Social Care 9,642 Schools System 7,697





Says everything, and what I expected, Palestine, more than the NHS.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> Says everything, and what I expected, Palestine, more than the NHS.


Not as much need for constituency parties to put in motions on the NHS when there is pretty much unanimous agreement on labours NHS policy. There is significant disagreement over Palestine, however. It’s been in the news a bit lately. So making sure that even in these IHRA times, that BDS is on the agenda against the apartheid state is highly relevant and important.


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2018)

They are not just debates though, they get publicised and discussed in the media(a bit) so, raising awareness, having social care, which affects millions at the bottom not a good look.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> They are not just debates though, they get publicised and discussed in the media(a bit) so, raising awareness, having social care, which affects millions at the bottom not a good look.


A bit of air time versus a policy that could actually make a difference. And it wouldn't even get airtime if there wasn't a row.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> Says everything, and what I expected, Palestine, more than the NHS.





treelover said:


> Says everything, and what I expected, Palestine, more than the NHS.


Does it say everything that housing and schools are higher up the list than Palestine in both sections (Palestine doesn't feature at all in the TU section)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> They are not just debates though, they get publicised and discussed in the media(a bit) so, raising awareness, having social care, which affects millions at the bottom not a good look.


So by the same token Premier league matches are not just matches because they get publicised and discussed a bit in the media


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Does it say everything that housing and schools are higher up the list than Palestine in both sections (Palestine doesn't feature at all in the TU section)?



No, i was referring to the membership, anyway you have no time for the LP, so not sure why you are defensive about them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> No, i was referring to the membership, anyway you have no time for the LP, so not sure why you are defensive about them.


You by contrast have lots of time for the Labour Party, one of your favourite topics of discussion. Or at least one of your pet hobby horses


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2018)

treelover said:


> No, i was referring to the membership, anyway you have no time for the LP, so not sure why you are defensive about them.


I'm not defensive about them at all. You were saying it was significant that Palestine was higher up the list than the NHS, I was noting that housing and education were above Palestine. In other words, you can't claim that the figures represent the neglect of domestic working class issues.


----------



## gosub (Sep 25, 2018)

Its fucked up.  Our age pyramid is fucked, people working in social care  can earn 20% more stacking supermarket shelves (though this is not reflected in the bills) and if you do it yourself you will be on below minimum wage, whilst the number of kids caring for parents is soaring...


----------



## andysays (Sep 25, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'm not defensive about them at all. You were saying it was significant that Palestine was higher up the list than the NHS, I was noting that housing and education were above Palestine. In other words, you can't claim that the figures represent the neglect of domestic working class issues.


treelover isn't saying anything about domestic working class issues in general, and his posting record suggests that he's not much interested in them.

He's simply complaining, yet again,  that the priorities of the Labour movement, whether measured by motions at LP conference or attendance on demonstrations, don't match his own personal priorities.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 25, 2018)

gosub said:


> Its fucked up.  Our age pyramid is fucked, people working in social care  can earn 20% more stacking supermarket shelves (though this is not reflected in the bills) and if you do it yourself you will be on below minimum wage, whilst the number of kids caring for parents is soaring...


I was very surprised that social care and in work poverty wasnt higher in the CLP section


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

andysays said:


> treelover isn't saying anything about domestic working class issues in general, and his posting record suggests that he's not much interested in them.
> 
> He's simply complaining, yet again,  that the priorities of the Labour movement, whether measured by motions at LP conference or attendance on demonstrations, don't match his own personal priorities.



Absolutely fucking bizarre, i have spent my political life fighting on working class and basic issues, where do you get this from? If anything I have been criticised for it, because i have little interest in identity politics which frequently dominates these boards, even if some deny it,.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> Absolutely fucking bizarre, i have spent my political life fighting on working class and basic issues, where do you get this from?


from every post you make.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> Absolutely fucking bizarre, i have spent my political life fighting on working class and basic issues, where do you get this from?


it's a constant refrain, as belboid says


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 25, 2018)

What does the hashtag #GTTO stand for?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2018)

'get the tories out' most likely


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 25, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'get the tories out' most likely



Cheers, Google didn't help and my brain kept submitting Grenfell Tower for GT.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'get the tories out' most likely


'get the truth out', innit?   I've seen it posts about various 'unreported' stories that have little to do with the UK


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

Whagwan said:


> Cheers, Google didn't help and my brain kept submitting Grenfell Tower for GT.


gt is - or certainly was - the met police control room for public order events.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2018)

belboid said:


> 'get the truth out', innit?   I've seen it posts about various 'unreported' stories that have little to do with the UK



oh possibly, I've seen it in usernames that also had #JC4PM as well so made the assumption


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

belboid said:


> from every post you make.



It is not a hobby horse, i have lost friends as a direct consequence of the welfare reforms, is the anti-racism, trans activism, etc, on here, a  'hobby horse', disgusting comments.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> It is not a hobby horse, i have lost friends as a direct consequence of the welfare reforms, is the anti-racism, trans activism, etc, on here, a  'hobby horse', disgusting comments.


Where did I say 'hobby horse'? Please don't put words into my mouth. 

If you are incapable of campaigning on the issues that matter to you without insulting people who campaign on other issues, maybe you should stfu, because all you do is irritate every other campaigner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

belboid said:


> Where did I say 'hobby horse'? Please don't put words into my mouth.
> 
> If you are incapable of campaigning on the issues that matter to you without insulting people who campaign on other issues, maybe you should stfu, because all you do is irritate every other campaigner.


Not only is he incapable of campaigning he is incapable of persuading


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

again you know fuck all, LP policy on social care is about to change.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2018)

Stephen Bush wrote a good piece today  about Labour's lacklustre welfare policies - he reckons because Debbie Abrams didn't ask for any money to plan something worthwhile, there was nothing extra allocated in the (theoretical) budget - so Abrams' replacement Lillian Greenwood now has her hands tied as she's no cash to work with, unless McDonnell finds a few billion down the back of the sofa or something


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> again you know fuck all, LP policy on social care is about to change.


How does this tie in to any of your previous comments? They're just a bunch on non sequiturs


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

killer b said:


> Stephen Bush wrote a good piece today  about Labour's lacklustre welfare policies - he reckons because Debbie Abrams didn't ask for any money to plan something worthwhile, there was nothing extra allocated in the (theoretical) budget - so Abrams' replacement Lillian Greenwood now has her hands tied as she's no cash to work with, unless McDonnell finds a few billion down the back of the sofa or something



NS is pay walled now, C and P?


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2018)

just open the article in an incognito window if you're over your weekly allocation.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 25, 2018)

Tbh a link would be handy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> It is not a hobby horse, i have lost friends as a direct consequence of the welfare reforms, is the anti-racism, trans activism, etc, on here, a  'hobby horse', disgusting comments.


I'm sure you've lost friends for all manner of reasons, the greater surprise would be if you've kept any


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Tbh a link would be handy.


Oh yeah.

Why is Labour’s welfare policy such a mess?


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm sure you've lost friends for all manner of reasons, the greater surprise would be if you've kept any



You disgust me, I clearly meant they have taken their own lives as a direct consequence of the benefit reforms, I have reported you, first time ever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> You disgust me, I clearly meant they have taken their own lives as a direct consequence of the benefit reforms, I have reported you, first time ever.


I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2018)

I am sure you are a caring empathetic individual irl, but for some reason, on here you can come across as a sociopath.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2018)

treelover said:


> I am sure you are a caring empathetic individual irl, but for some reason, on here you can come across as a sociopath.


I thought you'd be the last person to accuse others of mental illness like it was bad. I see I was wrong.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 26, 2018)

treelover said:


> I am sure you are a caring empathetic individual irl, but for some reason, on here you can come across as a sociopath.



Belboid is hardly a sociopath


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

this piece by Alex Wickham (formerly of Guido) about Labour's Brexit Strategy for conference is interesting - and pretty much correct I think. Here's The Real Brexit Strategy Behind Jeremy Corbyn's Big Conference Speech


----------



## Poi E (Sep 26, 2018)

free car parking. that's a winner.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

It's been unarguably a successful conference. Lots of policy coverage, and then lots of secondary coverage about how popular the policy is with the public. They'll be very happy.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 26, 2018)

Surprised how easy a ride they seem to have got from the media. Even the Telegraph’s daily anti-semitism article seems weak and half-arsed this morning, like they can barely be bothered anymore. No big rows or divisions to dominate the news.

The Blairite gobshites seem to have kept quiet, wonder what they’re up to? What ‘look at us’ bomb are they waiting to drop just at the end? Or has the hinting at a second ref kept them onboard?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2018)

Poi E said:


> free car parking. that's a winner.


straight out of the capitalists' playbook


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2018)

Free parking what, everywhere? Because that'd be regressive as fuck.


----------



## belboid (Sep 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Free parking what, everywhere? Because that'd be regressive as fuck.


Would it be? Okay, maybe not quite everywhere, but in most places it would be sound.  I suspect the policy is just a re-announcement of the age old policy on free hospital parking, but there's nowt wrong with free parking in town centres (revitalises them as shopping has been driven out to out of town malls - with free parking - and the internet - with, uhh, free parking), or at other 'key' areas.

As a way of controlling who/how many people can drive and park places, there must be a more equitable way of doing so than crude money.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2018)

perhaps investing in better public transport might be a better notion.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2018)

belboid said:


> As a way of controlling who/how many people can drive and park places, there must be a more equitable way of doing so than crude money.



Money already controls who can afford to buy and run a car in the first place. Any free parking initiative (besides obvious stuff like free staff parking at hospitals) takes money out of the pot that parking fees go into for the benefit of people with enough wealth to have a private car, a category that increasingly excludes young working class people. Take from everyone, give only to some: that's regressive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps investing in better public transport might be a better notion.



Here we have a workplace parking levy. Any business operating in the city with >10 employees has to pay into a pot that gets spent on public transport, at a rate which increases with the number of staff you've got driving into work every day.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 26, 2018)

Environmental concerns did rank pretty low on the list of priorities for conference attendees, IIRC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Environmental concerns did rank pretty low on the list of priorities for conference attendees, IIRC.


at least they're recycling an auld blairite slogan


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 26, 2018)

Yo tessa

Jezza has made you an offer today

It’s a trap. He doesn’t want to help you. Be careful


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 26, 2018)

Good speech today and overall well played.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 26, 2018)

This is the best cover they can come up with ? Fuckibg hell - they are uneasy


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2018)

That sort of stuff makes me want to vote for him. Almost.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

Their new video is brilliant.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 26, 2018)

lots of work gone into this conference and PR


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 26, 2018)

chilango said:


> That sort of stuff makes me want to vote for him. Almost.



Yep. Been internetless all day and wound up hearing Jezza's speech on LBC. Sounded a bit dull and platitudinous. Then they had Lord Sir David Blunkett on whinging about the hard left takeover etc and suddenly found myself becoming uber-Corbynista briefly.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Their new video is brilliant.




Yeah, but. I watch the video think "ooh, thats ok" but then look out of the door and see how Labour are running my town and all that optimism vanishes in an instant


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

going in on the speech now, it sounds like a highschool awards ceremony so far.

_Well done Kirklees!_


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> Their new video is brilliant.



No fan of Labour but that is good (Julie Hesmondhalgh too). You're right the conference has gone well. Be interesting to see how the Tories do in response.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

I'm sure we can all admire a well crafted piece of political theatre without having to state our own positions first. Labour have slammed it this week. The only thing the Tories will be able to manage is _that was a bit better than last year. _It's almost impossible to imagine it going worse, mind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 26, 2018)

I don't think anyone expects anything from the Tory conference apart from lots of factional infighting and backstabbing. Maybe the promise of a tax cut or something.


----------



## belboid (Sep 26, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's almost impossible to imagine it going worse, mind.


oh ye of little imagination


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2018)

That was the first line of a joke. The punchline was going to be when I wordlessly quote it with a facepalm smiley this time next week, but you've ruined it.


----------



## belboid (Sep 26, 2018)

Pah, everyone will have forgotten in a week. Especially in the wake of the triple resignations on monday


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 26, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think anyone expects anything from the Tory conference apart from lots of factional infighting and backstabbing. Maybe the promise of a tax cut or something.



Lots of grim photo ops of ‘party unity’ until they stab each other the nasty fuckers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2018)

lets hope power stance is still in this year


----------



## JimW (Sep 26, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> lets hope power stance is still in this year


Reckon they should mix it up a bit, go knock knees this time


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> Lots of grim photo ops of ‘party unity’ until they stab each other the nasty fuckers.


While they're stabbing each other surely (hopefully)..?


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 26, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> lets hope power stance is still in this year



Death to all butt Labour


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2018)

JimW said:


> Reckon they should mix it up a bit, go knock knees this time


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Here we have a workplace parking levy. Any business operating in the city with >10 employees has to pay into a pot that gets spent on public transport, at a rate which increases with the number of staff you've got driving into work every day.


That's a terrific idea! What town is that?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> at least they're recycling an auld blairite slogan


True. Having said that, Blair nicked it from a bloke who was more or less a full on revolutionary socialist about a century before the term was actually coined (evidence: The Mask of Anarchy) so at last the phrase has found a deserving home!


----------



## kebabking (Sep 27, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> That's a terrific idea! What town is that?



It's Nottingham.


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 28, 2018)

Degsy's back in Labour

Derek Hatton is back in the Labour Party - 33 years after he was kicked out


----------



## cantsin (Sep 28, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> Degsy's back in Labour
> 
> Derek Hatton is back in the Labour Party - 33 years after he was kicked out



Hope i look as well as Deggsy at 70 ( unlikely, as I don't now )


----------



## Wilf (Sep 28, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> Degsy's back in Labour
> 
> Derek Hatton is back in the Labour Party - 33 years after he was kicked out


Seems like we've gone back to the Blair years - rich property developers joining the party.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Seems like we've gone back to the Blair years - rich property developers joining the party.


Really?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2018)

Two souls of Corbynism: notes on #Lab18 | Richard Seymour on Patreon


----------



## Badgers (Sep 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Seems like we've gone back to the Blair years - rich property developers joining the party.


Nonsense


----------



## sealion (Sep 28, 2018)

Badgers said:


> Nonsense


What seperates him from other shitbag property developers?


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2018)

Beermoth said:


> Degsy's back in Labour
> 
> Derek Hatton is back in the Labour Party - 33 years after he was kicked out


He looks good for 70


----------



## Wilf (Sep 28, 2018)

sealion said:


> What seperates him from other shitbag property developers?


Well, it was an attempted joke - I don'tactually  think Corbyn's Labour Party is likely to see an influx of the very rich, property developers etc. But Hatton is undoubtedly a property developer.


----------



## sealion (Sep 28, 2018)

friedaweed said:


> He looks good for 70


We all would if we had has lifestyle and millions!


----------



## sealion (Sep 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Well, it was an attempted joke - I don'tactually  think Corbyn's Labour Party is likely to see an influx of the very rich, property developers etc. But Hatton is undoubtedly a property developer.


A dodgy one at that.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 28, 2018)

sealion said:


> We all would if we had has lifestyle and millions!


Your theory didn't work out too well for these guys mate.


----------



## sealion (Sep 28, 2018)

friedaweed said:


> Your theory didn't work out too well for these guys mate.


Brenda and Murdoch have nearly 20 years on him and will never die the cunts  i actually think Brenda is kept in a freezer and wheeled out on request! I'll give you the Donald one


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 28, 2018)

Brenda looks much healhier than most 90+ plus old women, but let's face it she is probably going to get the very best healthcare going and probably doesn't worry about the need to turn the heating down to save gas.
Beside  long lived women and short lived men run in the family, It wouldn't surprise me if Chucky shuffled off without ever sitting on the throne.
Sheer bile probably keeps the other two going.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 29, 2018)

Not sure where to post this but it's the warning of what a lot of people have been thinking about Corbynism: 

I think the question is whether there is enough of a social movement to push beyond a moment of mild social democracy. Questionable at the moment I'd say, but not so much because of any mistakes that Momentum or whoever might be making, but because it will take years to build up the lost capacity for sustained collective action by any route you choose to take.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2018)

Who is he and why should i give a shit about what he says?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2018)

Labour should shut down BP and shell. OK.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 29, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Who is he and why should i give a shit about what he says?


I know you know but for anyone who doesn't he was a member of the Greens and manager at People & Planet:
Green party's Adam Ramsay: 'We can replace the Lib Dems as the third party'

Now head of Open Democracy.


----------



## Dragnet (Sep 29, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> Not sure where to post this but it's the warning of what a lot of people have been thinking about Corbynism:



I've seen this video floating about a bit; my main problem with it is that he doesn't mention the working class at all. The current system should be overthrown - by who? To be replaced with what?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 29, 2018)

sealion said:


> A dodgy one at that.


Yep. Significant property empire in Cyprus which apparently lead to buyers of flats losing money in the  2008 crash. Also, from my limited research , has a significant media company with his son. Prosecuted for defrauding Liverpool council as well (though found not guilty on the judge's direction).


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 29, 2018)

Dragnet said:


> I've seen this video floating about a bit; my main problem with it is that he doesn't mention the working class at all. The current system should be overthrown - by who? To be replaced with what?


I don't expect anyone to like him more for his background, but being one of the poshest lefties around (son of a baronet or something) he's in a bit of a bind. If he talks about the working class claiming more power he'll have everyone reminding him he isn't of it. If he doesn't mention it he's ignoring it. It annoys me too that this is the type of person who ends up editing openDemocracy, but that doesn't mean he can't make good points, and for what it's worth 'Democratic socialism' seems to be what he wants: Adam Ramsay: If we want economic justice we need a democratic revolution


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2018)

'ends up'? Is that really how it works? I bet he's rambling on about a constitution in that link. Who is he and why should i listen to him?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 1, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> Not sure where to post this but it's the warning of what a lot of people have been thinking about Corbynism:
> 
> I think the question is whether there is enough of a social movement to push beyond a moment of mild social democracy. Questionable at the moment I'd say, but not so much because of any mistakes that Momentum or whoever might be making, but because it will take years to build up the lost capacity for sustained collective action by any route you choose to take.




really good , lots of truth in it .... in 10 yrs time Momentum / Left Lab may well be seen as the dynamic (and relatively young) force which helped absorb the entrenched, instinctive opposition building towards the stagnating system, with added groovy oppositionist sub cultural sheen and the odd snappy meme to help upkeep of the spectacle.

But then unless capitalism has answers to the housing / jobs /wealth inequality AI / climate change etc issues that lie at the heart of all this , those organsing in the spaces in and around Momentum, are going to see though the co option / recuperation v quickly .


----------



## Poi E (Oct 1, 2018)

"The radical left from across England coming together...". At least someone in Labour knows the Union is dead.


----------



## Riklet (Oct 1, 2018)

Ancient regime. Too much Foucoult in bed, Adam Ramsay! What the fuck does this even mean in 2018 Britain.

All very well talking about intellectual heavy lifting - but if those are just nice shiny ideas for nice shiny lefty people, that seems even worse to me than ever.

How can Labour get any further in being truly radical until it drops there 'here we have some nice ideas, now support us' way of doing politics and democracy. Where were the people at the bottom of the heap, previously who were represented by the unions and now arent? And when were they being involved in transforming things on a local level? I wasnt there to be fair so genuinely unsure.

I like the program set by Labour and some of their shiny bright ideas. But with the direction moving away from the centre and the right gaining power and doing more of the 'heavy lifting' it's very naive of them to be using this 'when we're in power' chat. And even more naive is not preparing a radical plan for how to respond against the attacks from all sides. _Who_ is going to defend a new labour government and _where_ will this conflict take place? Cos it's gonna need more than shiny toys in in shiny places washed down with daily Novara media.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> I don't expect anyone to like him more for his background, but being one of the poshest lefties around (son of a baronet or something) he's in a bit of a bind. If he talks about the working class claiming more power he'll have everyone reminding him he isn't of it. If he doesn't mention it he's ignoring it. It annoys me too that this is the type of person who ends up editing openDemocracy, but that doesn't mean he can't make good points, and for what it's worth 'Democratic socialism' seems to be what he wants: Adam Ramsay: If we want economic justice we need a democratic revolution


the city of london police do not date back to roman times. schoolboy error. otherwise they'd be the auldest police in europe, and not the parisian force which would be a mere stripling having only been founded in the seventeenth century. when you get the obvious things wrong the other things can be less relied upon. his corporate governance of the city of london, for example, doesn't quite agree with the city of london's own website:The City's government - City of London. the 86% of the land bit outside the british isles includes a vast chunk of almost entirely unpopulated antarctica, which at 1,709,000 sq km is 98% of the overseas territories he's on about. and no one - NO ONE - launders money through antarctica.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2018)

Riklet said:


> Ancient regime. Too much Foucoult in bed, Adam Ramsay! What the fuck does this even mean in 2018 Britain.
> 
> All very well talking about intellectual heavy lifting - but if those are just nice shiny ideas for nice shiny lefty people, that seems even worse to me than ever.
> 
> ...


those things are only dropped in to give the impression of authority

he's saying nothing new.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 2, 2018)

Pop over to the Alba forum if you want to catch the full details [courtesy of Celyn ] of the latest blow up in Scottish Labour.

Spoiler - it involves Iain McNichol, Jenny Formby & Kezia Dugdale [spit], a libel case of Hopkinsesque stupidity and a sense of entitlement larger than the Duke of Buccleuch's estates.

Kezia Dugdale Resignation


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2018)

Thing is Labour _are_ involved in "transforming things on a local level". 

Very much so.

...for the worse.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 2, 2018)

They dropped the IPSO complaint re the wreath laying, although it isn’t clear yet why


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 2, 2018)

Anyone have any idea what their position is on mental health legislation (there’s currently a review of the mental health act, and I’ve not seen anything by the Labour Party on this)

Their 2017 disability manifesto states they would ‘implement the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities’ 

The UNCRPD in practice would mean the scrapping of the Mental Health Act and an end to detention and forced treatment. 

Curious then that labour haven’t stated their position on the MHA, given that it’s currently being reviewed


----------



## two sheds (Oct 3, 2018)

*And now, Corbyn's even been slanting the antisemitism claims against Labour in the press  *

*Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour party | Letter*

*



			Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour party
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Ken Loach, Brian Eno, Des Freedman, Justin Schlosberg and 21 others write about a recent report by the Media Reform Coalition*
> 
> *We have long had serious concerns about the lack of due impartiality and accuracy in the reporting of allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party. The recent report by the Media Reform Coalition examining coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct on antisemitism shows that we are right to be concerned.*
> 
> ...



*Funny I didn't see that as lead article splashed across the Guardian front page as the other antisemitism stories have been. I may have missed it of course, but I didn't see it anywhere on the Guardian website - I saw it referred to from elsewhere.  *


----------



## teqniq (Oct 3, 2018)

Yeah i saw it the other day either linked from fb or twitter.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 3, 2018)

It's a conspiracy!


----------



## two sheds (Oct 3, 2018)

That's a theory!


----------



## greenfield (Oct 4, 2018)

Here's a story...

The other day I wentas an audience member to a Radio 4 comedy show the other day, 'Tez Talks' with comedian Tez Ilyas. Unfortunately it turned out to be unfunny shit, like so much of Radio 4s output.

Anyway, there was an audience participation segment. We'd been asked to write an answer to the question 'what would you send back in time and why'. The answers would have been known to the producers beforehand. A guy from the audience was asked to read his. He said he would send back Jeremy Corbyn to Israel 2 thousand years ago - for his anti-Semitism.

I shouted out that was bollocks. The thing that got me was that the guys answer was then incorporated into the show. Like haha Jeremy the antisemite. I walked out and loads of people left during the interval. I also made a complaint. They wouldn't broadcast that shit surely?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 4, 2018)

The joke would be on the audience member, as Jeremy would (possibly) havecthe joy of watching the destruction of the Temple


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2018)

That seem pretty standard for radio 4 tbh - plenty of people making corbyn/antisemitism jokes on the news quiz and suchlike. The tories are heartless bastards, Labour are a pit of antisemites seems to be the line.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 4, 2018)

greenfield said:


> He said he would send back Jeremy Corbyn to Israel 2 thousand years ago - for his anti-Semitism.
> 
> I shouted out that was bollocks./snip



Especial bollocks because there was no such country as _Israel_ 2000 years ago


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 4, 2018)

There was 132-135AD mind


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 4, 2018)

Speaking of which, what did the Hasmoneans call their territory?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 4, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Speaking of which, what did the Hasmoneans call their territory?


Probably Their Manor given they has money


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Money already controls who can afford to buy and run a car in the first place. Any free parking initiative (besides obvious stuff like free staff parking at hospitals) takes money out of the pot that parking fees go into for the benefit of people with enough wealth to have a private car, a category that increasingly excludes young working class people. Take from everyone, give only to some: that's regressive.



Free parking for everybody at hospitals makes sense too, though. An awful lot of people who can't afford a car of their own nonetheless need one when going to hospital for an appt (and most hospitals oblige you to leave in a car after operations and after giving birth), plus charging people to go and see their ill or dying loved ones is pretty insulting.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 4, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Speaking of which, what did the Hasmoneans call their territory?



Maybe _Judea_ .. but only because I've never heard it ever called _Hashmonea_. Plus _Judea _was used by the Romans and it's not their name.

So many possibilities for a name for the new nation in 1948 and they chose _Israel._ Make the place as much a symbol as an actual country, IMO that's been half the trouble all along.

Sorry Jezza, cluttering up your leaving thread with irrelevant opinions


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 4, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Maybe _Judea_ .. but only because I've never heard it ever called _Hashmonea_. Plus _Judea _was used by the Romans and it's not their name.
> 
> So many possibilities for a name for the new nation in 1948 and they chose _Israel._ Make the place as much a symbol as an actual country, IMO that's been half the trouble all along.
> 
> Sorry Jezza, cluttering up your leaving thread with irrelevant opinions



Hasmoneans were before the Romans. And before the Hasmoneans it was (officially) part of the Syrian region.

G-d I’m dull


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 4, 2018)

I meant Rome took the name _Judea _from somewhere, they didn't invent it themselves. So probably some Hasmoneans .. who probably didn't call themselves _Hasmoneans_. Maccabees maybe?

IMO this is way less dull than Corbyn


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 4, 2018)

Judea is the anglicisation of the latinisation of Judah. 

The Maccabeans revolt was more or less in the region of Judah/Judea, and the Persians called the area ‘Medinat Yehud’ (Jewish Province). 

However the Hasmonean kingdom included Samaria and Gallillee (as well as bit of the lands to the south, and to the east of the Jordan). Also the Hasmonean kings  weren’t of the tribe of Judah (like the previous kings were).


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 4, 2018)

Well, Maccabees founded the dynasty didn't they? Simon the Maccabee (how's that for Anglicized?) so it's possible people might have had reasons to associate themselves with the name, in that place and time. People still do, מכבי resonates even now, half the football teams in Israel are _Macabi _something.


----------



## krink (Oct 5, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Speaking of which, what did the Hasmoneans call their territory?


Really thought this was the first line of a joke


----------



## yield (Oct 5, 2018)

Thought it was all about the Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes? Though that may have been later?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 5, 2018)

yield said:


> Thought it was all about the Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes? Though that may have been later?



A Sadducee walked into a bar... because he wrapped his tefillin over his eyes!

(Ancient Pharisee joke)


----------



## teqniq (Oct 7, 2018)

Which leads me on to something else which has mystified me somewhat. During the Labour party conference a motion was passed to ban arms sales to Israel. It was only reported in overseas publications. The one in the link, Haaretz and The Times of Israel being the top three when doing a Google search. I would have thought what with all the antisemitism furore that the usual suspects would have been all over this, instead not a word. Why is that? (genuine question btw)


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 7, 2018)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 149062
> View attachment 149063
> 
> Which leads me on to something else which has mystified me somewhat. During the Labour party conference a motion was passed to ban arms sales to Israel. It was only reported in overseas publications. The one in the link, Haaretz and The Times of Israel being the top three when doing a Google search. I would have thought what with all the antisemitism furore that the usual suspects would have been all over this, instead not a word. Why is that? (genuine question btw)



Because British arms sales to Israel are relatively small amounts of low tech stuff like ammunition and are therefore inconsequential and easily substituted. There is a lot more commercial activity in the other direction - a subject upon which Labour is conspicuously silent. eg Elbit Systems supply and manage the vastly expensive aviation component of the RAF's new privatised flying training system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Because British arms sales to Israel are relatively small amounts of low tech stuff like ammunition and are therefore inconsequential and easily substituted. There is a lot more commercial activity in the other direction - a subject upon which Labour is conspicuously silent. eg Elbit Systems supply and manage the vastly expensive aviation component of the RAF's new privatised flying training system.


At an all time high according to the guardian British arms exports to Israel reach record level


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Because British arms sales to Israel are relatively small amounts of low tech stuff like ammunition and are therefore inconsequential and easily substituted. There is a lot more commercial activity in the other direction - a subject upon which Labour is conspicuously silent. eg Elbit Systems supply and manage the vastly expensive aviation component of the RAF's new privatised flying training system.


Wonder why you're making out it's tiny

EXCLUSIVE: UK sells $445m of arms to Israel, including sniper rifles


----------



## teqniq (Oct 7, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Because British arms sales to Israel are relatively small amounts of low tech stuff like ammunition and are therefore inconsequential and easily substituted. There is a lot more commercial activity in the other direction - a subject upon which Labour is conspicuously silent. eg Elbit Systems supply and manage the vastly expensive aviation component of the RAF's new privatised flying training system.


Yeah I'm aware of the collaboration with Elbit systems more so the the equally vastly expensive drone program which has yet to prove itself, the training thing you mention is a new one to me.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 7, 2018)

teqniq said:


> During the Labour party conference a motion was passed to ban arms sales to Israel. It was only reported in overseas publications. The one in the link, Haaretz and The Times of Israel being the top three when doing a Google search. I would have thought what with all the antisemitism furore that the usual suspects would have been all over this, instead not a word. Why is that? (genuine question btw)



Maybe because one thing they don't want getting lots of attention is what those guns actually get used for. Bashing Labour for institutional anti-semitism is fairly consequence-free, bashing them for banning arms sales requires showing that those sales aren't being used for ill.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 7, 2018)

I've been surprised at how successful they have been - with the London-based media - separating out 'antisemitism' from Israeli State policies, inc. the ongoing violence concerning both the WB and Gaza. If I didn't know better I could think that was Israel influencing UK national politics by underminging a party leader.


----------



## treelover (Oct 7, 2018)

Young mum battered and left needing stitches - 'for being a Labour supporter'











Not sure where to put this, woman attacked after LP brexit meeting in Wakefield, very worrying if connected

Time for the RMT stewarding?

btw, will she recover from that ok? (physically)


----------



## yield (Oct 10, 2018)

Ultra-rich shift assets as fear of Labour government mounts
05/10/18 (www.ft. com/content/a1b456d4-c72c-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9 paywalled use outline.com)


> London’s ultra-wealthy are moving assets out of the UK and some are preparing to leave the country as concerns over a leftwing Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn intensify among the super-rich.
> 
> Multimillionaires are setting up offshore investment accounts or shifting the location of UK-registered trusts holding their wealth to outside the country, in anticipation of higher tax rates and potential capital controls should Labour seize power.
> 
> Some are looking to relocate to countries viewed as more welcoming to the super-rich, with Switzerland, Monaco, Portugal and the US at the top of many wealthy individuals’ lists, according to bankers and other advisers.





> Concerns among the wealthy that Mr Corbyn could become prime minister have intensified recently as government’s plans for an orderly Brexit appear shakier — increasing fears that a general election could take place in which Labour triumphs.
> 
> The UK’s super-rich are more scared of Labour than Brexit itself, said advisers. The party promised in its 2017 election manifesto to consider a so-called wealth tax.
> 
> “Most people are much more worried about Corbyn than Brexit — by a factor of 10,” said Michael Maslinski of the wealth management consultancy Maslinski & Co, who is also a partner at Stonehage Fleming, an investment firm working for several rich families.





> Iain Tait, a director at London & Capital, the wealth management firm, said dozens of his clients have already taken firm steps to protect their assets from a potential Labour government.
> 
> “We have had some UK families ask us to set up offshore investment accounts,” he added.
> 
> “They want to make sure their investment accounts are Channel Islands-based or Switzerland-based so their money would not be subject to capital controls. It is activity we have seen from . . . clients in direct response to the threat of a Corbyn-led government.”





> Several wealth managers, who declined to be identified, said clients were re-registering UK trusts outside the country in anticipation of Labour winning the next election.
> 
> Grant Thornton, the accounting firm, said some of its clients had sought advice on emigrating or moving their assets offshore should Mr Corbyn become prime minister.
> 
> Monaco, Guernsey and Jersey are some of the locations being considered by wealthy individuals as places to move themselves or their assets.





> However, some individuals are moving money out of trusts in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man over fears that, under a Labour government, the crown dependencies could lose their low tax advantages.
> 
> The super-rich are also diversifying their assets across different locations, such as Switzerland, Luxembourg and Singapore, amid fears that Labour would impose capital controls.
> 
> Labour said in last year’s manifesto that it planned to increase income tax for people earning above £80,000 — about 5 per cent of the UK population.





> John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said: “Society will not tolerate the rich refusing to shoulder their fair share of responsibilities. We will take all the necessary action to make sure they do.”
> 
> A poll of nearly 200 wealthy UK residents published last month found that a change of government was the biggest financial concern for 42 per cent of respondents.
> 
> Saunderson House, the wealth manager that conducted the survey, said: “Fears over change of government largely relate to the prospect of a radically changed tax landscape under a Corbyn-led Labour government.”





> Several advisers were unwilling to speak publicly due to the political nature of the situation.
> 
> The head of wealth planning at one large City of London firm said: “The conversation has heated up since [last month’s Labour party conference in] Liverpool. One client pushed the button [on leaving the country] this morning.”
> 
> The head of an investment firm working on behalf of several wealthy families said: “The big risk is that today the world’s ultra-wealthy are incredibly mobile and that shouldn’t be underestimated. If Corbyn brought in capital controls, you’d find a lot more people leaving.”


tldr. Corbyn worse than Brexit. Capital flight & capital strike if people vote wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2018)

treelover said:


> Young mum battered and left needing stitches - 'for being a Labour supporter'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jesus mary and joseph 

time for the rmt stewarding? *it helps if you read the fucking article you link to* you plonker.

she'd stopped for a drink somewhere after attending a meeting: how would your rmt stewarding have worked, would you have had them escort everyone home?

and will she recover (physically)? yes.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 10, 2018)

yield said:


> Ultra-rich shift assets as fear of Labour government mounts
> 05/10/18 (www.ft. com/content/a1b456d4-c72c-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9 paywalled use outline.com)
> 
> tldr. Corbyn worse than Brexit. Capital flight & capital strike if people vote wrong.




Well the tories made a retrospective law on the bedroom tax, so they've set a precedent that should clearly be followed  .


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

One of the great unspoken problems in this country is almost all the most able people are sucked into the City - you have to think there are more first class people in one sub-division of one bank than in the entirety of the Tory Parliamentary party. Seriously, what London banker would get out of bed for £77,000 a quarter never mind a year. £77,000 barely buys you an experienced code monkey.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> One of the great unspoken problems in this country is almost all the most able people are sucked into the City - you have to think there are more first class people in one sub-division of one bank than in the entirety of the Tory Parliamentary party. Seriously, what London banker would get out of bed for £77,000 a quarter never mind a year. £77,000 barely buys you an experienced code monkey.


Oh, fuck off.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

Oh fuck off back to kids tv.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> ... first class people ...



What are these?


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

People with Firsts. Do you need more help?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2018)

First class degrees, is it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> Oh fuck off back to kids tv.


Nobody cares.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

Is that a quote from Melania - bit obtuse for this crowd.

Just don't threaten me with a sonic screwdriver. Not sure I can take it..


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> One of the great unspoken problems in this country is almost all the most able people are sucked into the City - you have to think there are more first class people in one sub-division of one bank than in the entirety of the Tory Parliamentary party. Seriously, what London banker would get out of bed for £77,000 a quarter never mind a year. £77,000 barely buys you an experienced code monkey.



I shall just leave this here 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/freder...-professionals-at-stock-picking/#50588a1d621a


----------



## Poi E (Oct 10, 2018)

I've worked in financial services in the city. There are a lot of scared people who should be doing other jobs that would make them happy. Then there are the sociopaths running things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> Is that a quote from Melania - bit obtuse for this crowd.
> 
> Just don't threaten me with a sonic screwdriver. Not sure I can take it..


Hurry up and pull the mask off and get yourself banned. The middle bit is boring.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

Another cliche! You're on a roll.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Hurry up and pull the mask off and get yourself banned. The middle bit is boring.


Oh I get it now. I will be .. EXTERMINATED, EXTERMINATED!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> You're on a troll.


C4U


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 10, 2018)

Anyway.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 10, 2018)

_First class people_ though


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2018)

Chris Williamson under a deselection threat then. For the good imo. Right twitter thinks this is a tremendous 'self own' for the deselecters, who in turn seem to be saying 'no, thats what democracy is about'


mojo pixy said:


> _First class people_ though


oddly reminded of the business card scene in american psycho for some reason.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> Chris Williamson under a deselection threat then. For the good imo. Right twitter thinks this is a tremendous 'self own' for the deselecters, who in turn seem to be saying 'no, thats what democracy is about'


It's Unite playing silly bollocks because he called them out at Conference. The struggle between Momentum and TUs continues ..


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 10, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> oddly reminded of the business card scene in american psycho for some reason.


Oddly insubstantial and cowardly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> One of the great unspoken problems in this country is almost all the most able people are sucked into the City - you have to think there are more first class people in one sub-division of one bank than in the entirety of the Tory Parliamentary party. Seriously, what London banker would get out of bed for £77,000 a quarter never mind a year. £77,000 barely buys you an experienced code monkey.


the people in the city are not the most able
if they were there would be no bust 
they are as able, i regret, as you


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> _First class people_ though


yeh more money than sense


----------



## Poi E (Oct 10, 2018)

"Royalty?"
"All the best people."


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2018)

Poi E said:


> "Royalty?"
> "All the best people."


and among the best of them are george vi, victoria, william iv, diana and charles i: the only good royal is a dead royal


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 10, 2018)

I quite liked the lemur king in Madagascar


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 10, 2018)

Prince of Persia was shit though


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 10, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Prince of Persia was shit though


I quite liked it but there was more than one scene that was there for no other purpose than showing  off Miss Atherton's figure


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 10, 2018)

yield said:


> Ultra-rich shift assets as fear of Labour government mounts
> 05/10/18 (www.ft. com/content/a1b456d4-c72c-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9 paywalled use outline.com)
> 
> tldr. Corbyn worse than Brexit. Capital flight & capital strike if people vote wrong.



Articles like that are really just a platform for the slippery offshoring specialists that are quoted to ramp up fear amongst wealthy ft-reading potential clients then offer them a solution. I wouldn’t expect much honesty in what they’re saying, it’s just a pitch for business.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> One of the great unspoken problems in this country is almost all the most able people are sucked into the City - you have to think there are more first class people in one sub-division of one bank than in the entirety of the Tory Parliamentary party. Seriously, what London banker would get out of bed for £77,000 a quarter never mind a year. £77,000 barely buys you an experienced code monkey.


Silly cunt.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 11, 2018)

Cunt yourself. Next.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 11, 2018)

Ooooh.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2018)

interesting stuff from Chakraborty on the new Lab Left , anti HDV Haringey Council - some early causes for concern showing tbh :

How would Corbynism work in government? Here’s a clue | Aditya Chakrabortty


----------



## teqniq (Oct 11, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2018)

teqniq said:


>


Welcome to Haringey


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2018)

I have hated haringey council for many many years, they've always been shit. They were shit during the poll tax and they're shit now


----------



## killer b (Oct 11, 2018)

I think it's fairly predictable rather than concerning - I could tell you similar tales from my own flagship corbynite council. The reality of council funding means that even left wing councils feel compelled to carry out all sorts of shit decisions to 'balance the books'.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> I think it's fairly predictable rather than concerning - I could tell you similar tales from my own flagship corbynite council. The reality of council funding means that even left wing councils feel compelled to carry out all sorts of shit decisions to 'balance the books'.



which council is that ? ( thought Haringey was the only Corbynite council for now /  until next may ?)


----------



## killer b (Oct 11, 2018)

Preston. There's quite a few where the left is the controlling strand - Salford for one.


----------



## Supine (Oct 11, 2018)

cantsin said:


> which council is that ? ( thought Haringey was the only Corbynite council for now /  until next may ?)



Islington?


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 11, 2018)

I've only seen two pieces by Aditya Chakraborty, plus that embarrassing performance on Newsnight earlier this week - really awful stuff; another nepotism job at the Guardian, 3rd rate rubbish.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I have hated haringey council for many many years, they've always been shit. They were shit during the poll tax and they're shit now



there's degrees of shitness, and a council that was on the verge of selling off £2.4bn worth of public assets to private profiteers, many of whom individual councillors had close relationships with, is very different from one that was elected largely on a platform to halt that sell off, and so far, has at the very least, done just that.

Where it goes from there is another question, and can understand the reservations of committed revolutionaries everywhere re : the future. (But would still like any feedback from those revos as to what their stratgegy was for stopping HDV, outside of the 'vote Momentum / Left Labour' option they've been so disdainful of).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2018)

cantsin said:


> there's degrees of shitness, and a council that was on the verge of selling off £2.4bn worth of public assets to private profiteers, many of whom individual councillors had close relationships with, is very different from one that was elected largely on a platform to halt that sell off, and so far, has at the very least, done just that.
> 
> Where it goes from there is another question, and can understand the reservations of committed revolutionaries everywhere re : the future. (But would still like any feedback from those revos as to what their stratgegy was for stopping HDV, outside of the 'vote Momentum / Left Labour' option they've been so disdainful of).


tbh the difference in shitness is between shit you step in and shit you pass by


----------



## cantsin (Oct 11, 2018)

The Fornicator said:


> I've only seen two pieces by Aditya Chakraborty, plus that embarrassing performance on Newsnight earlier this week - really awful stuff; another nepotism job at the Guardian, 3rd rate rubbish.



Probz shouldn't bother asking, but what are you actually on about here ?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Probz shouldn't bother asking, but what are you actually on about here ?


I like that sentence, esp. the first half of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I like that sentence, esp. the first half of it.


The first half I like. I like the first half. A lovely phrase for the sentence. That's what I said when I saw it. I said ‘A lovely phrase for the sentence.’ I've got nothing against the first phrase. The trouble is — the second half of the sentence.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 11, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> The first half I like. I like the first half. A lovely phrase for the sentence. That's what I said when I saw it. I said ‘A lovely phrase for the sentence.’ I've got nothing against the first phrase. The trouble is — the second half of the sentence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2018)

There are two types of people in this world: people who don’t explain other people's gags and who shall therefore  be suffered to live.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 11, 2018)

Hey, I was just pleased with myself for getting it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 12, 2018)

imposs1904 said:


> Hey, I was just pleased with myself for getting it.


I went with a subtle 'like'. In fact I do that when I get the joke and sometimes when I don't. I've had a reasonable hit rate so far.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2018)

I dunno who is managing their media productions but this demonstrates a certain flair that I imagine the tories could only dream of. Now if only that would translate into votes...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 27, 2018)

That is beyond shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Probz shouldn't bother asking, but what are you actually on about here ?


don't ask questions you won't like the answers to


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> That is beyond shit.



Heh, I thought it was rather good but i guess that's rather obvious. Still any opinion on this is going to be subjective.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 27, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> That is beyond shit.



how / in what way ? 

simple msg,  based on irrefutable budgetary data, delivered kinda how you 'd expect ( +  with less sense of class antagonism than it might have been , eg ; the more snarky Momentum one from the summer / all the posh folk sat in their garden etc)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 27, 2018)

I wouldn't call it shit - not in the context of political ads anyway, let alone "things the Labour party has done on social media".


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> how / in what way ?
> 
> simple msg,  based on irrefutable budgetary data, delivered kinda how you 'd expect ( +  with less sense of class antagonism than it might have been , eg ; the more snarky Momentum one from the summer / all the posh folk sat in their garden etc)



The voiceovered dub is so badly out of whack with the actual shot it’s laughable. Plus the ‘comedy Tory’ character and school level humour out of what should be a bang to rights anti govt message. Why? To appeal to da yoof? Yeah, cos that’s really who they need to win over.


----------



## rekil (Oct 27, 2018)

teqniq said:


> I dunno who is managing their media productions


Americans probably. "fire department"


----------



## cantsin (Oct 27, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> The voiceovered dub is so badly out of whack with the actual shot it’s laughable. .



you on the old dial - up again champ ?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 27, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> The voiceovered dub is so badly out of whack with the actual shot it’s laughable. Plus the ‘comedy Tory’ character and school level humour out of what should be a bang to rights anti govt message. Why? To appeal to da yoof? Yeah, cos that’s really who they need to win over.



Yes the dub was strange. How about the content - choice of what items to concentrate on, and the comparative figures they give?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> Americans probably. "fire department"



 (at them not you)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 27, 2018)

As with the majority of video users I didn’t have the sound on.


----------



## rekil (Oct 27, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> (at them not you)


I suspect Bastani's pitch went straight in the bin.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 27, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Yes the dub was strange. How about the content - choice of what items to concentrate on, and the comparative figures they give?



Well, if they weren’t delivered in a sub Harry Enfield style sketch they may have registered more tbh.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 27, 2018)

That's the trouble with young people today: style over substance


----------



## heebyjeeby (Oct 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the city of london police do not date back to roman times. schoolboy error. otherwise they'd be the auldest police in europe, and not the parisian force which would be a mere stripling having only been founded in the seventeenth century. when you get the obvious things wrong the other things can be less relied upon. his corporate governance of the city of london, for example, doesn't quite agree with the city of london's own website:The City's government - City of London. the 86% of the land bit outside the british isles includes a vast chunk of almost entirely unpopulated antarctica, which at 1,709,000 sq km is 98% of the overseas territories he's on about. and no one - NO ONE - launders money through antarctica.


he is almost right

The watch of the City of London goes back to Roman times..it provides  guards for the Guildhall and city magistrates courts


----------



## lucillemara (Oct 29, 2018)

is class collaborationist social democracy revival with more cops and borders the best we can do as we approach climate apocalypse and the worst humanitarian crisis in history?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 29, 2018)

No more drugs for you..


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2018)

heebyjeeby said:


> he is almost right
> 
> The watch of the City of London goes back to Roman times..it provides  guards for the Guildhall and city magistrates courts


What did they do in the decades when London was abandoned?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What did they do in the decades when London was abandoned?



sit in the canteen chomping doughnuts i guess


----------



## heebyjeeby (Oct 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What did they do in the decades when London was abandoned?


Good question.
Ill ask my brother. He was employed by the in the 90's when he was at doing music at Guildhall.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2018)

heebyjeeby said:


> Good question.
> Ill ask my brother. He was employed by the in the 90's when he was at doing music at Guildhall.


Perhaps he might have a look at the city of london police website which notes the colp were founded in 1839. While policing has been variously organised throughout London's populated history it's er bollocks to say there's a genealogy going seamlessly back to Roman times.


----------



## heebyjeeby (Oct 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps he might have a look at the city of london police website which notes the colp were founded in 1839. While policing has been variously organised throughout London's populated history it's er bollocks to say there's a genealogy going seamlessly back to Roman times.


Im sure you are correct. Im no expert


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 29, 2018)

lucillemara said:


> is class collaborationist social democracy revival with more cops and borders the best we can do as we approach climate apocalypse and the worst humanitarian crisis in history?



I'd argue that is wildly optimistic.


----------



## lucillemara (Oct 29, 2018)

you are right but I don't see how strengthening militant state power in the name of social democracy can be anything but a disaster in this climate


----------



## lucillemara (Oct 29, 2018)

kinder gentler police state


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

lucillemara said:


> is class collaborationist social democracy revival with more cops and borders the best we can do as we approach climate apocalypse and the worst humanitarian crisis in history?



No, what we need now is rhetorical questions and lots of them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What did they do in the decades when London was abandoned?



The seventies weren't that bad.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, what we need now is rhetorical questions and lots of them.


What do we want?
Rhetorical questions!
When do we want them?


----------



## billbond (Oct 30, 2018)

oh dear

Drug supply councillor 'must resign'


----------



## teqniq (Oct 30, 2018)

I'll see your drug supply councillor and raise you 

Councillor suspended over Liverpool slur



> He said abortion clinics in Liverpool were a form of "crime prevention", and joked that he had "bought two of the staff" from the city's slavery museum.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 6, 2018)

I'll raise you with an MP! Osamor referred to standards watchdog
I seem to remember a fuss a while back about family members being employed by MP's in order to get tax free expenses.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 6, 2018)

The idea that any MP would act shocked about someone's relative taking cocaine to a festival is a bit mind-boggling tbh, given the river of it flowing through Westminster.

Cocaine in the Commons: Parliament embarrassed by drug revelation


----------



## Poi E (Nov 6, 2018)

Well, it's more the laundromats in the City of London that are the bother.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 6, 2018)

teqniq said:


> I'll see your drug supply councillor and raise you
> 
> Councillor suspended over Liverpool slur



"A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Frost "was being investigated centrally".

painful


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2018)

Corbyn has not been clear on Europe. He did vote leave a long time ago and appears to a certain extent to be sitting on the fence. From what I recall, many labour mp's are not very clear either with one or two be non committal, saying they want a vote on the deal. In quotes: Corbyn on the EU referendum


----------



## two sheds (Nov 12, 2018)

I saw him saying he was against being in Europe because it would prevent renationalization of services. 

Not sure that's true, though. I'd thought national governments often just ignored bits of European law they didn't like.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> He did vote leave a long time ago


He only had the opportunity at the same time as everyone else. Unless he had registered for a postal vote.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 12, 2018)

Corbyn proves himself to be the most progressive by becoming the first male politician whose policies get ignored while everyone obsesses over how he is dressed!

not me but some other board


----------



## agricola (Nov 12, 2018)

Is it true that he went to the Rememberance service dressed as Zhukov during the Victory Parade of 1945, and his white horse ate all the wreathes?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2018)

likesfish said:


> Corbyn proves himself to be the most progressive by becoming the first male politician whose policies get ignored while everyone obsesses over how he is dressed!
> 
> not me but some other board



It is said that clothes maketh the man


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It is said that clothes maketh the man



As far as the media is concerned though it now appears the anorak is on another Foot.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 14, 2018)

I heard a snippet of Rebecca L-B on R4 this morning. She said labour did not want to stop Brexit but instead wanted everything to fall apart, so that they could force an election and take over the Brexit negotiations 
Quite how she thinks this will be achieved before March is anyone's guess. In any event, who in their right mind would want to do this


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 14, 2018)

That's an _interesting_ spin on her comments.

(I heard her interview on the Today programme and she wasn't very good but the above is not an accurate summary of her comments)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 14, 2018)

Was that the one where they repeatedly asked her “can Brexit be stopped?” like it was fucking clever rather than being an obvious attempt at an anti Corbyn gotcha that had nothing to do with the issue?

The whole segment was a bit dumb to be honest - loads of MPs saying “well we haven’t read it yet have we”.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 14, 2018)

That's the one I heard FridgeMagnet


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 14, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> That's the one I heard FridgeMagnet


She was pretty party line but honestly that interview was embarrassing. They all think they’re feckin Paxman and also that he was any use anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 14, 2018)

Agree with all that.


----------



## Supine (Nov 14, 2018)

Thought I'd check labour tweets on this evenings political shenanigans. 

Nothing from jez, labour or labour press team


----------



## brogdale (Dec 5, 2018)

Interesting lack of trade on this thread!

I, for one, was pleased to see him go for the Tories' psychopathic class-war at PMQs today; good choice of topic.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Interesting lack of trade on this thread!
> 
> I, for one, was pleased to see him go for the Tories' psychopathic class-war at PMQs today; good choice of topic.



agreed, Nick Robinson etc sneering  cos they can't see outside of their endless Brexit circular clusterfuck / snoozefest, Corbyn bang in the middle of it all actually addressing stuff that matters


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 5, 2018)

cantsin said:


> agreed, Nick Robinson etc sneering  cos they can't see outside of their endless Brexit circular clusterfuck / snoozefest, Corbyn bang in the middle of it all actually addressing stuff that matters


It’s driving me nuts at the moment, as well as all the people on twitter convinced that it’s the most important thing this millennium. Yes it’s a significant political issue but the reasons why it’s significant are all affected by other issues as well and those are consistently ignored - the only “debates” proposed are about Brexit. Not that debates will be anything more than bollocks anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2018)

yield said:


> Ultra-rich shift assets as fear of Labour government mounts
> 05/10/18 (www.ft. com/content/a1b456d4-c72c-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9 paywalled use outline.com)
> 
> 
> ...



TBF, most of those cunts won't be paying much tax anyway, so it's no loss them off-shoring their valuta.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What did they do in the decades when London was abandoned?



Cold storage.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 8, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It’s driving me nuts at the moment, as well as all the people on twitter convinced that it’s the most important thing this millennium. Yes it’s a significant political issue but the reasons why it’s significant are all affected by other issues as well and those are consistently ignored - the only “debates” proposed are about Brexit. Not that debates will be anything more than bollocks anyway.


This. And “the poorest will be worst off” just added every so often as an afterthought, threat, or some half arsed attempt at looking like their arguments have substance. 
I don’t have faith in Labour but just hearing anybody attempt to think and talk outside of that bubble is welcome at the moment. Like a double spiced rum and coke after a long day


----------



## hash tag (Dec 9, 2018)

I haven't heard anything awful lot from jc over brexit but, all credit, all labour Mps appear to be singing from the same song sheet these days.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2018)

ska invita said:


> I heard some gossip this week from someone with pretty good insight saying that there is a high chance of a new centrist party forming before the year is out, with the primary objective of splitting the Labour vote to keep Corbyn out of power.


two weeks left on this one. the suspense is killing me.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 9, 2018)

killer b said:


> two weeks left on this one. the suspense is killing me.


i guess turns out to be unnecessary as brexit isnt happening probably


----------



## hash tag (Dec 9, 2018)

Is brexit the nightmare before Christmas?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 9, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Is brexit the nightmare before Christmas?


i think i heard that after the first vote there is a window for a second vote and the second vote will be before NYE? Thats pretty good xmas entertainment


----------



## ska invita (Dec 9, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I haven't heard anything awful lot from jc over brexit but, all credit, all labour Mps appear to be singing from the same song sheet these days.


Corbyn fallen into line


----------



## Supine (Dec 9, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Is brexit the nightmare before Christmas?



Before, during and after. Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 11, 2018)

It is obvious that no one has any confidence in our government. Should JC have gone for the vote of no confidence?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 11, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It is obvious that no one has any confidence in our government. Should JC have gone for the vote of no confidence?



No, it would fail. It would be of no worth to labour at this time. The liberals and SNP are just pushing and are more intent on causing minor mischief than causing a change of government. IMO of course, oh and Len McCluskey.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 11, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It is obvious that no one has any confidence in our government. Should JC have gone for the vote of no confidence?



May's own party will rally around her as will the DUP, this will give her the numbers needed to survive any vote and not only that it will strengthen and embolden the tories even more.  Unless there is a tragic food poisoning incident at the tories Christmas party there is no point in going for a vote of no confidence.

ETA: May would probably get a few votes from Labour as well anyway.  Kate Hoey straight up.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 11, 2018)

And Caroline Flint!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2018)

mcdonnels twitter response was along the lines that 'the SNP knows we'd lose and firm up the government avoiding a general election which they fear because we are breathing down thier necks and will win seats' which was suitably bullish


----------



## hash tag (Dec 11, 2018)

"tragic food poisoning incident at Tory Christmas do"

That would be a shame, especially may might have to miss it.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 11, 2018)

I liked the original: 



Teaboy said:


> Unless there is a tragic food poisoning incident at the tories Christmas party there is no point in going


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> No, it would fail. It would be of no worth to labour at this time. The liberals and SNP are just pushing and are more intent on causing minor mischief than causing a change of government. IMO of course, oh and Len McCluskey.


it isn't 'minor mischief', they're trying to push Labour into supporting a second referendum - which following the logic of conference means a failed VONC first. Some of them (Soubry & Sturgeon at least) have been explicit this is their aim.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 11, 2018)

killer b said:


> it isn't 'minor mischief', they're trying to push Labour into supporting a second referendum - which following the logic of conference means a failed VONC first. Some of them (Soubry & Sturgeon at least) have been explicit this is their aim.



Not going to happen though!


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2018)

No. And I'm not sure a second referendum has the numbers either.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 11, 2018)

I don't want to go down this route here, but it would take some debating about what a second referendum should be for 

Or, even if we should ever have a referendum at all, ever.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2018)

clowns all day whinging that Corbyn needed to call no conf vote, with zero chance of winning it...

Corbyn, as per, says nothing, waits it out, and lets the oppo's circular firing squad totter back in to action ....

update : cycles into Parliament today, probably whistling, doing his no hands thing, offering Chuka a cheery good morning, as Tory no conf vote is confirmed .


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

Tory no confidence vote doesn't get him any closer to govt.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

It could do though. There's a number of possible outcomes to this that could see the Government losing a confidence vote in the near future which wouldn't have happened if they'd won one yesterday.


----------



## strung out (Dec 12, 2018)

Given that at least 50+ Tory MPs will be voting that they have no confidence in May as leader of the government, couldn't Corbyn justifiably argue that a motion of no confidence in the government is justified given that Lab, SNP, LDs and the Tory 50+ would bring the government down?

I doubt that enough of the Tory 50+ rebels would actually support a motion of no confidence, but couldn't Corbyn make considerable capital out of the fact that a sizeable chunk of Tory MPs dont support Teresa May while seemingly backing her government?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 12, 2018)

I personally think Corbyn is too shrewd to make any waves at this point. He will just keep nudging and raising awareness. Sit back and wait for the Tories to fail and fall upon themselves like a shoal of piranha.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> It could do though. There's a number of possible outcomes to this that could see the Government losing a confidence vote in the near future which wouldn't have happened if they'd won one yesterday.


Either May comes out stronger or a different leader will get in.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

I don't think May is _coming out stronger_ from this. She'll most likely come out as leader again IMO, but no chance stronger. Have you seen this shitshow?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

There can't be another leadership challenge for a year and the ERG will have failed.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Tory no confidence vote doesn't get him any closer to govt.



and Lab calling for an easily defeatable No Conf vote, that would have united the Tories, would have ?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> There can't be another leadership challenge for a year and the ERG will have failed.


They'll have failed to replace May, and reduced their possible methods for stopping her deal going through. There are other ways - like voting for a parliamentary VONC. Unlikely perhaps, but they are rats, and trapped ones too. Likewise the DUP might now see there no other option to stop the backstop than a VONC.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> They'll have failed to replace May, and reduced their possible methods for stopping her deal going through. There are other ways - like voting for a parliamentary VONC. Unlikely perhaps, but they are rats, and trapped ones too. Likewise the DUP might now see there no other option to stop the backstop than a VONC.


though only Labour could really gain from that, so yeah, unlikely i think
not impossible though


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

cantsin said:


> and Lab calling for an easily defeatable No Conf vote, that would have united the Tories, would have ?


Why would it be easily defeated?. All they need to do is pull in a few Tories. But that would mean having a better plan themselves...


----------



## Wilf (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why would it be easily defeated?. All they need to do is pull in a few Tories. .


I think the answer's in the question. And it would have to be 'a _good_ few' given the dup are still lining up with the tories on a vonc.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why would it be easily defeated?. All they need to do is pull in a few Tories. But that would mean having a better plan themselves...


Which tories might have voted with Labour yesterday?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> Which tories might have voted with Labour yesterday?


There is a lot of dissatisfaction with Mays plan and the way she ran from parliament. Would the ERG accept her deal or bring down the govt?. Labour are still behind in the polls.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Well the ERG defo wouldn't have brought down the government yesterday. If they don't win tonight they've got one less lever.

Labour aren't behind in the polls, they've led or on evens in most of the polls this month.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

Voting intention | YouGov


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

oh look.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Actually they haven't updated that in a bit have they? Either way, they aren't behind in the polls, unless you're only going with yougov.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

More to the point, with the govt in a mess they should be miles ahead.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

Pointless talking about the polls, they are all basically within the margin of error, and have failed to get it right time & time again.

 

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> More to the point, with the govt in a mess they should be miles ahead.


They aren't behind in the polls then. Gotcha.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> They aren't behind in the polls then. Gotcha.


They were in the ones I looked at. Gotcha.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> They aren't behind in the polls then. Gotcha.



On average, in all the polls concluded during Nov & so far in Dec, they are behind.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

You're counting Yougov four times to get that average though, and the others only once or twice. I don't think that works.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Actually, only Yougov have shown a tory lead in the last month - and even with them the direction of travel is pretty clear.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

It doesn't matter, they are all within the margin of error.

What does matter, is that Labour should be well ahead, in view of the clusterfuck that's going on, but they are not, which is why Corbyn doesn't actually want an election.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Corbyn doesn't actually want an election.


erm what.


----------



## co-op (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> What does matter, is that Labour should be well ahead, in view of the clusterfuck that's going on, but they are not, which is why Corbyn doesn't actually want an election.



Corbyn voted for an election and whipped his MPs to vote for one in May 2017 when they were on 25% and the tories were on 42%. Labour also have a ton of money thanks to their huge membership. What on earth makes you think he'd fear another election now?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

I'm laughing here. what the actual fuck.


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It doesn't matter, they are all within the margin of error.
> 
> What does matter, is that Labour should be well ahead, in view of the clusterfuck that's going on, but they are not, which is why Corbyn doesn't actually want an election.


lol


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

(a) He's not convinced he'll win, and if he didn't, that would be the end of his leadership, (b) he wants out of the EU, but doesn't want to be at the helm should it go wrong, (c) he would be happier to see May (or whoever) take us out of the EU, and pick-up the pieces afterwards.

At the end of the day, Labour should be at least 10-20% ahead in the polls ATM, it's worrying they are not.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

I'm not sure I've ever seen such an egregious misreading of a situation.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 12, 2018)

I have yet to see this..."Corbyn explodes"
Jeremy Corbyn explodes at 'unacceptable' Theresa May over Brexit in furious PMQs


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure I've ever seen such an egregious misreading of a situation.



At this time period into the coalition government, Labour was regularly polling up to 10-15% ahead of the Tories, and that wasn't anywhere near the total clusterfuck that this government is in ATM, so they should be polling even better.

I have no idea why they are not, I doubt they do, but despite all the bluster, I don't believe they want to risk an election ATM.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

In the graveyard of bad takes, there's a gold-plated mausoleum for this one.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It doesn't matter, they are all within the margin of error.
> 
> What does matter, is that Labour should be well ahead, in view of the clusterfuck that's going on, but they are not, which is why Corbyn doesn't actually want an election.


If he doesn't fancy one now he never will!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> In the graveyard of bad takes, there's a gold-plated mausoleum for this one.



They were polling higher straight after the last GE, than they are now, which is totally illogical under the current circumstances, they must be seriously worried.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Pointless talking about the polls, they are all basically within the margin of error, and have failed to get it right time & time again.


I agree.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

I can't really take you very seriously anymore sorry.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> They were polling higher straight after the last GE, than they are now, which is totally illogical under the current circumstances, they must be seriously worried.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 155354


what was going on at the beginning of 2012?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> I can't really take you very seriously anymore sorry.



Well, if you can't see this government is a total fucking mess, and therefore Labour should be well ahead in the polls, well beyond any margin of error, I can't take you seriously.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> what was going on at the beginning of 2012?


UKIP?


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> what was going on at the beginning of 2012?



Everyone assumed the Olympics was going to be shit.


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Well, if you can't see this government is a total fucking mess, and therefore Labour should be well ahead in the polls, well beyond any margin of error, I can't take you seriously.


It's one thing to say Labour would hope to be significantly ahead in the polls ATM, of course they would, but that doesn't mean that they are, contrary to all appearances, actually seeking to avoid a GE, if only because as things stand, now might be their best opportunity for the next few years of actually forcing and possibly winning one.

It may not be a great chance, but it's the best one they have and are likely to have.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> what was going on at the beginning of 2012?


Cash for access, and banks still in bail-out.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Well, if you can't see this government is a total fucking mess, and therefore Labour should be well ahead in the polls, well beyond any margin of error, I can't take you seriously.


The government is a mess, I can see that. It doesn't necessarily follow that Labour should be well ahead though. There's a load of well-discussed realignments of the electorate which explain why there's not much shifting the polls. Which, as you said, have also _failed to get it right time and time again_.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> I don't think May is _coming out stronger_ from this. She'll most likely come out as leader again IMO, but no chance stronger. Have you seen this shitshow?


I've got to the point now where any time I see anything about Brexit or Teresa May on the noows this song slips into my head...




It's all my arse


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

4 weeks after the last GE...

 

And, yet, Labour is polling even lower now.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Please, just stop it. What are you even trying to prove?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Seriously though cupid_stunt - the flat polls and the reason for them being flat has been an ongoing topic of discussion here for the last year - discussions which you've been a part of. Why are you starting with this 'Labour should be 20 points ahead' bullshit now?


----------



## Combustible (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> what was going on at the beginning of 2012?



Cameron rejected the EU fiscal compact. Seems likely that went a long way in convincing him to promise the referendum.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> Seriously though cupid_stunt - the flat polls and the reason for them being flat has been an ongoing topic of discussion here for the last year -* discussions which you've been a part of*.



BIB - no, I haven't.

Can you link to that thread?



> Why are you starting with this 'Labour should be 20 points ahead' bullshit now?



I said 10-20%, I would expect at least 10% in view of the clusterfuck that's going down.

Perhaps you can explain why you wouldn't expect the same?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> More to the point, with the govt in a mess they should be miles ahead.



according to... who / what ?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 12, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> More to the point, with the govt in a mess they should be miles ahead.


Yeah, like all the other European centre-left parties, right?


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2018)

cantsin said:


> according to... who / what ?



Logic?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> BIB - no, I haven't.
> 
> Can you link to that thread?
> 
> ...


Well, it's mostly this thread - it's become a bizarre ritual. Once every month or so someone - usually sleaterkinney or supine, but there's a rotating cast of regulars and the occasional blow-in - will demand to know why Corbyn isn't 10-20 points ahead in the polls. Everyone rolls their eyes, sometimes there's some discussion about why, although tbh we're mostly pretty bored of it after the 15th go round. I think the pages from april here probably have the most complete discussion. Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

a quick search shows there's this thread which has some discussion on the topic, and of course the  political polling thread has quite a bit: embarrassingly, the last page or so is mostly you telling me how polls can't be trusted because they're often wrong beyond the margin of error, complete with wikipedia screenshots.

FWIW I think the polls are probably about right, and aren't shifting for various reasons: a polarised electorate, the absolute shitshow that is modern politics nationally and internationally, the constant stream of attacks from the press, Corbyn's own marmite nature (this is partly to do with the constant stream of attacks from the press, but it isn't just). The one thing that actually has had any significant and lasting impact on the polls IMO is his response to Salisbury, which he fucked up badly.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 12, 2018)

It is strange though.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> ...and of course the  political polling thread has quite a bit: embarrassingly, the last page or so is mostly you telling me how polls can't be trusted because they're often wrong beyond the margin of error, complete with wikipedia screenshots.





That screenshot I posted showed the Tories on a maximum lead of 13%, average well under 10%, they ended-up with a lead of 2.5%, a difference of somewhere around 5-6% between the average polling & final result, well outside the margin of error.

That somewhat reinforces what I am saying on this thread, here & now, Labour should be polling well above the margin of error to have any chance, yet they are basically tied, despite this government being in a worst mess than any other in my lifetime, it makes no sense, especially considering the polling companies have changed their methodology in an attempt to counter the basis they had towards the Tories in the run-up to the last election.

If Labour was polling 13% & ended-up with a 2.5% lead, that would be a good result, but they are polling nothing like that.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Ah, I won't bother next time.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> That screenshot I posted showed the Tories on a maximum lead of 13%, average well under 10%, they ended-up with a lead of 2.5%, a difference of somewhere around 5-6% between the average polling & final result, well outside the margin of error.
> 
> That somewhat reinforces what I am saying on this thread, here & now, Labour should be polling well above the margin of error to have any chance, yet they are basically tied, despite this government being in a worst mess than any other in my lifetime, it makes no sense, especially considering the polling companies have changed their methodology in an attempt to counter the basis they had towards the Tories in the run-up to the last election.
> 
> If Labour was polling 13% & ended-up with a 2.5% lead, that would be a good result, but they are polling nothing like that.



That is to misread the polling, though.  

The issue with the polls and with the 2017 GE is that the Tories were able to portray themselves as the party of Brexit; in 2017 that cleaned up the problem UKIP posed, putting 5-8% back onto their vote, and now it is keeping people who do not like this deal in the Tory camp (given that the ERG represents "No Deal" but is a Tory faction, rather than a UKIP one).  Until Brexit is resolved one way or the other, its likely they will keep that share of the vote and there will be no collapse in their vote.

Labour's vote on the other hand is more anti-Tory than anti-Brexit; until sufficient Tory voters are embittered (because of a Brexit that is too hard or too soft) they will not pick up votes from them, and will not have a major bump in the polls.  The important thing however is that having 38-41% of the vote being relatively stable is a very strong position; _any_ collapse in the Tory vote results in a victory.


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> Once every month or so someone - usually sleaterkinney or supine, but there's a rotating cast of regulars and the occasional blow-in - will demand to know why Corbyn isn't 10-20 points ahead in the polls



Not something I ever remember demanding, but hey don't let the details weigh you down.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Supine said:


> Logic?


But sweetheart, here you are just a page ago wondering why they aren't miles ahead?


----------



## Supine (Dec 12, 2018)

killer b said:


> But sweetheart, here you are just a page ago wondering why they aren't miles ahead?



Your disingenuous at best. Think I'll just pop you on ignore and move on.


----------



## rubbershoes (Dec 12, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> That screenshot I posted showed the Tories on a maximum lead of 13%, average well under 10%, they ended-up with a lead of 2.5%, a difference of somewhere around 5-6% between the average polling & final result, well outside the margin of error.
> 
> That somewhat reinforces what I am saying on this thread, here & now, Labour should be polling well above the margin of error to have any chance, yet they are basically tied, despite this government being in a worst mess than any other in my lifetime, it makes no sense, especially considering the polling companies have changed their methodology in an attempt to counter the basis they had towards the Tories in the run-up to the last election.
> 
> If Labour was polling 13% & ended-up with a 2.5% lead, that would be a good result, but they are polling nothing like that.




he's going to call you naive soon


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2018)

Oh no


----------



## cantsin (Dec 13, 2018)

Supine said:


> Logic?



an opposition / and leader that is considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence, has been attacked from every angle imaginable across every inch of the media, and by a majority of his own PLP, from the moment he was elected in 2015 : there are no precedents to work with here, but judged by any 'logic' I can think of, being within constant touching distance of the govt at all times in the polls, is  a pretty decent position to be in


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2018)

Good points all. Unfortunately none of it is going to change before the next election.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Good points all. Unfortunately none of it is going to change before the next election.


Probably another 4 years, which makes current polls moot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Good points all. Unfortunately none of it is going to change before the next election.



Regardless of the context this is a foolish statement to make in the present circumstances.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Regardless of the context this is a foolish statement to make in the present circumstances.


You think there'll be a GE any time soon then?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You think there'll be a GE any time soon then?



Only if Putin wants one!


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You think there'll be a GE any time soon then?



Its an interesting question which I was pondering last night.  If the hard brexit erg types of the tory party see their chance of a 'proper' brexit disappearing (which it is) what options do they have open to them?

One of the few (if only) option is to join Labour in a vote of no confidence, bring the government down and hope to install one of their own (probably Johnson) as leader of the tories and win the subsequent election.

Its quite a risk and to say the least but I guess it depends how much they care for their brexit dream.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Its an interesting question which I was pondering last night.  If the hard brexit erg types of the tory party see their chance of a 'proper' brexit disappearing (which it is) what options do they have open to them?
> 
> One of the few (if only) option is to join Labour in a vote of no confidence, bring the government down and hope to install one of their own (probably Johnson) as leader of the tories and win the subsequent election.
> 
> Its quite a risk and to say the least but I guess it depends how much they care for their brexit dream.


It's more than risky. Turkeys voting for xmas.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You think there'll be a GE any time soon then?



February


----------



## cantsin (Dec 13, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Good points all. Unfortunately none of it is going to change before the next election.



if you know what's going to happen next week, in political terms, let alone over the next 4 yrs, I bow to your greater wisdom and foresight. as no one else anywhere has a clue, or is even pretending to.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> February


On what basis?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> February



Is this your fantasy or is it based on an analysis of thinking in the Tory Party about how a February election could benefit them? If it's the latter please share.


----------



## Supine (Dec 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> On what basis?



Not much else happens in Feb so why not!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2018)

“We’ve had enough of this government lark. Let’s call a general election”


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Regardless of the context this is a foolish statement to make in the present circumstances.



Why's that? You think Corbyn will go before the next election? Or he's not going to be considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence, or that the media and PLP attacks will stop?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2018)

cantsin said:


> an opposition / and leader that is considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence, has been attacked from every angle imaginable across every inch of the media, and by a majority of his own PLP, from the moment he was elected in 2015 : there are no precedents to work with here, but judged by any 'logic' I can think of, being within constant touching distance of the govt at all times in the polls, is  a pretty decent position to be in


he's only considered left-wing because things have moved to far to the right. auld 'red' jim callaghan was more left-wing than jezza, for example on taxes - what was the top rate of tax in the uk in the 70s?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> he's only considered left-wing because things have moved to far to the right. auld 'red' jim callaghan was more left-wing that jezza, for example on taxes - what was the top rate of tax in the uk in the 70s?



Correct, jezza is as right to old Jimbo as Blair was to thatcher.
Thatcher by the way brought the top tax rate down from 83% to 60% when the Tories got elected in 79.
She cranked VAT up though, screwing the poor like they always have.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2018)

I'm not going to rehash the 'polls' thing, except to touch on their relative _stability,_ as the brexit shambles has mutated into an omnishambles. that lack of movement is interesting and we'll have to see what happens to the polls after the events of the last fortnight. But in terms of what might happen if there is an election, Labour might have a note of caution over what happened in the last local elections (about the same share  of the vote as the cons in 2018 iirc - and something similar in 2016). I don't think the  polls give much indication that the Tories would win a GE if one was called now, though they must be astonished they are still neck and neck, but neither do they indicate Labour would win.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> “We’ve had enough of this government lark. Let’s call a general election”


I completely agree with you substance but hypothetically the ERG could vote with Labour on a VoNC, provoking May to resign and then have someone more sympathetic to their politics appointed leader and PM and then have a VoC (backed by the DUP) in the new government, avoiding any GE. But it is not a realistic scenario.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'm not going to rehash the 'polls' thing, except to touch on their relative _stability,_ as the brexit shambles has mutated into an omnishambles. that lack of movement is interesting and we'll have to see what happens to the polls after the events of the last fortnight. But in terms of what might happen if there is an election, Labour might have a note of caution over what happened in the last local elections (about the same share  of the vote as the cons in 2018 iirc - and something similar in 2016). I don't think the  polls give much indication that the Tories would win a GE if one was called now, though they must be astonished they are still neck and neck, but neither do they indicate Labour would win.


A general election victory isn't nailed on for anyone, sure - but I think this year's local election results traced the re-alignment of the electorate that we saw most markedly in last year's GE - the usual rules about mid-term local elections don't really stand anymore, at least for now.

Labour only need to move the dial an inch to be forming a minority government, and I think they're confident they can do that. In fact, they probably find the prospect of a minority government with the SNP holding the balance of power quite attractive right now, as the fallout from any watering-down of brexit can be blamed on whatever deal they have to strike for the SNP's confidence.

Either way: whatever the risks, they want an election.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> he's only considered left-wing because things have moved to far to the right. auld 'red' jim callaghan was more left-wing than jezza, for example on taxes - what was the top rate of tax in the uk in the 70s?



fair point re: domestic policy, but the attacks on Corbyn  are just often related to what is seen as his  'leftwing foreign policy' and non interventionism, from Ireland to Palestine to Syria - not sure big Jim C was exactly regarded as particularly 'leftwing' in this area, or suffered constant attacks from an incessantly hostile media / PLP because of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2018)

cantsin said:


> fair point re: domestic policy, but the attacks on Corbyn  are just often related to what is seen as his  'leftwing foreign policy' and non interventionism, from Ireland to Palestine to Syria - not sure big Jim C was exactly regarded as particularly 'leftwing' in this area, or suffered constant attacks from an incessantly hostile media / PLP because of it.


The problem with Corbyn on those fronts for me is he's a fellow traveller and not someone whose interventions or support or even interest really gets anywhere. He's in the same carriage and not driving the train


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Or he's not going to be considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence?



This is a regular line I hear - and not just from SWSS members flogging their paper in town. It’s revealing  because as others have said economically Corbyn and McDonnell are a long way short of the ambition of previous labour oppositions in respect of intervention and state activity in the economy. There is good reason for this and, frankly given the last 40 years, McDonnell has done a pretty good job to even get social democracy back in the game.

On internationalism Corbyn is definitely the most overt labour leader in history signed up to the ‘anti imperialism of fools’ that seeks alliances based on crude anti Americanism, and the first since Foot to properly emerge from the middle class new left movement of the 60’s.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is a regular line I hear - and not just from SWSS members flogging their paper in town. It’s revealing  because as others have said economically Corbyn and McDonnell are a long way short of the ambition of previous labour oppositions in respect of intervention and state activity in the economy. There is good reason for this and, frankly given the last 40 years, McDonnell has done a pretty good job to even get social democracy back in the game.



Indeed, because the country is a lot more right wing now than it used to be. If he does what he's saying he'll do then he'll be moving it much further leftwards than anyone else since WW2 and introduction of the Post-War Social Contract. And whether or not he is more left wing, I'd say he's "considered" a lot more left wing as cantsin said.



> On internationalism Corbyn is definitely the most overt labour leader in history signed up to the ‘anti imperialism of fools’ that seeks alliances based on crude anti Americanism, and the first since Foot to properly emerge from the middle class new left movement of the 60’s.



Which alliances do you mean? I've seen similar remarks about Chomsky for (for example) criticizing America more than Russia for bombing of Syria but I think Chomsky would say that (a) he's giving some balance because everyone criticizes their opponents' actions but gives allies a free pass and (b) he's not actually in favour of *anyone* bombing Syria because the history of the west's bombing people has been almost universally counterproductive, and we should instead cut off the flow of arms.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2018)

cantsin said:


> if you know what's going to happen next week, in political terms, let alone over the next 4 yrs, I bow to your greater wisdom and foresight. as no one else anywhere has a clue, or is even pretending to.



Well indeed, but on those terms you could criticize any of the posts in this thread that makes a prediction. I should have said "unless something major changes" but I'd have thought that was obvious.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Regardless of the context this is a foolish statement to make in the present circumstances.



Why's that again? You think Corbyn will go before the next election? Or he's not going to be considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence, or that the media and PLP attacks will stop?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, because the country is a lot more right wing now than it used to be. If he does what he's saying he'll do then he'll be moving it much further leftwards than anyone else since WW2 and introduction of the Post-War Social Contract. And whether or not he is more left wing, I'd say he's "considered" a lot more left wing as cantsin said.
> 
> 
> 
> Which alliances do you mean? I've seen similar remarks about Chomsky for (for example) criticizing America more than Russia for bombing of Syria but I think Chomsky would say that (a) he's giving some balance because everyone criticizes their opponents' actions but gives allies a free pass and (b) he's not actually in favour of *anyone* bombing Syria because the history of the west's bombing people has been almost universally counterproductive, and we should instead cut off the flow of arms.



I think on point one that's not the way to think of it. A better way is to present the manifesto is as a break of a 40 year period of neo-liberalism ideas and economics that all parties and senior representatives of the political class helped to construct a narrative of inevitability around. That is far more significant than the welcome but limited programme of social democracy proposed.

On the second point I am suggesting a wider point than specific alliance which can best described as a tendency to endorse dubious ideas/groups/states/regimes under the guise of 'solidarity'. It's not actually anti-imperialism in any meaningful sense of the word.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think on point one that's not the way to think of it. A better way is to present the manifesto is as a break of a 40 year period of neo-liberalism ideas and economics that all parties and senior representatives of the political class helped to construct a narrative of inevitability around. That is far more significant than the welcome but limited programme of social democracy proposed.



Apart from the last sentence I'd agree. And yes it's a limited programme of social democracy being proposed, but even that limited programme is going to make a large difference to the conditions people live in. That's the *most* significant point. 



> On the second point I am suggesting a wider point than specific alliance which can best described as a tendency to endorse dubious ideas/groups/states/regimes under the guise of 'solidarity'. It's not actually anti-imperialism in any meaningful sense of the word.



I think I've seen him in the past saying that he's talking to dubious groups because you need to talk to your enemies, not just demonize them as tends to be done in the west. I can't see him agreeing with their repressive actions - he just believes that talking to them is a better way of trying to have them change. But yes he may well be deluded in this.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2018)

https://twitter.com/antiracismday/status/1074031867458977793?s=21


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2018)

Maybe he misses the wreath?


----------



## Poi E (Dec 16, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> I personally think Corbyn is too shrewd to make any waves at this point.



You mean he displays the political opportunism of his opponents, and won't actually formulate policy?


----------



## agricola (Dec 16, 2018)

Poi E said:


> You mean he displays the political opportunism of his opponents, and won't actually formulate policy?



Not really; in fact there is a lot more thought behind his policy than the Peoples Vote crowd are displaying (not least the fact that he recognizes that this Government shouldn't be left in charge of a half-eaten chip bap, never mind a referendum that will be far more bitterly fought than the last one was).


----------



## hash tag (Dec 16, 2018)

Emily Thornberry has certainly hit the news with her black widow speech today


----------



## hash tag (Dec 17, 2018)

He's done it, he's finally tabled a no confidence motion. Not sure what good it will do.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2018)

hash tag said:


> He's done it, he's finally tabled a no confidence motion. Not sure what good it will do.


None whatsoever wrt to May, but politically astute...especially if she prevents the debate. Even worse 'optics' as they say there days.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 17, 2018)

I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck. Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 17, 2018)

Suggestion on radio news is that government have responded along the lines of 'if you want to propose a proper VoNC in the government then go for it, otherwise sod off'

All fairly silly really - the numbers for a proper VoNC aren't there at the moment, and as I see it, would only be there if the DUP seriously fell out with the tories, which hasn't happened yet.  

And then questionable unless a few rabid tory leavers / remainers would vote with labour (as I can see a few 'labour' MPs voting with government rather than risking a Corbyn led government.)

Pretty much a win - win for JC's opponents (both inside the labour party and otherwise) - raise expectations of a VoNC, then criticise Corbyn if he didn't go for it, and criticise him if he did and lost...


----------



## agricola (Dec 17, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck. Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt.



Her position as PM could be challenged tomorrow; all it would require is for a sufficient number of Tory MPs to not vote with the Government until she is removed and they would have no other option than to replace her as PM.  

As for Tory unity on this issue; well yes, though I hope that should finally make the #FBPE types realise that the Tory Remainers - Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Johnson minor etc - are Tories long before they are Remainers.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 17, 2018)

Could but won't. Why would they? What's in it for Tory MPs to bring down a Tory government at the worst possible moment? Labour's not pulling for hard Brexit, it's not calling for a peepholes vote and most importantly, it's Labour. Under Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Supine (Dec 17, 2018)

For once I think jez had made the right decision. The no confidence in the government can only potentially work if her deal gets voted down. It does labor no harm to do a no confidence in TM at the moment even if it goes nowhere.


----------



## agricola (Dec 17, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Could but won't. Why would they? What's in it for Tory MPs to bring down a Tory government at the worst possible moment? Labour's not pulling for hard Brexit, it's not calling for a peepholes vote and most importantly, it's Labour. Under Jeremy Corbyn.



Tory MPs will never vote to bring down a Tory government though, either directly through a vote of no confidence or indirectly by agreeing something that directly contradicts party policy.  FFS they even voted, by a majority of 81, that Chamberlain was the right man to lead the nation after Narvik.

It is perhaps important that Corbyn's internal enemies understand this.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2018)

Corbyns internal enemies don't want a VONC, they want a second referendum - the VONC is just a route they want closed down so they can bump him into supporting the people's vote bollocks. So they can lose that too.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 17, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck.* Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt*.



nah


----------



## andysays (Dec 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> Corbyns internal enemies don't want a VONC, they want a second referendum - the VONC is just a route they want closed down so they can bump him into supporting the people's vote bollocks. So they can lose that too.


Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2018)

I think they imagine if they win a vote for a second referendum in parliament, then this government will have to give them one? I'm not sure exactly how they imagine it'll work tbh. Every imaginable outcome seems to involve believing several impossible things for it to work.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 18, 2018)

andysays said:


> Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.
> 
> Or am I missing something?


Not sure, but if it was an amendment to the withdrawal bill, would it not then be the law?

The other side of it is that, at some point, May (or whoever) will have to do something she has sworn blind she will never do. That much is certain.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2018)

andysays said:


> Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.
> 
> Or am I missing something?



Nope. 

Although there is the small matter of knowing what position labour would adopt on a second ref. Oh, and what question they think should be on the ballot paper in the event of one.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2018)

agricola said:


> Tory MPs will never vote to bring down a Tory government though, either directly through a vote of no confidence or indirectly by agreeing something that directly contradicts party policy.  FFS they even voted, by a majority of 81, that Chamberlain was the right man to lead the nation after Narvik.
> 
> It is perhaps important that Corbyn's internal enemies understand this.



What about if they could stop Brexit and stop Corbyn at the same time? 

May's toast. They'll have no loyalty to a failure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> What about if they could stop Brexit and stop Corbyn at the same time?
> 
> May's toast. They'll have no loyalty to a failure.


no future in england's dreaming


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

Sounds like Jez has just gifted the vermin in a manner reminiscent of Brown's bigoted woman moment.

#StupidWoman


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like Jez has just gifted the vermin in a manner reminiscent of Brown's bigoted woman moment.
> 
> #StupidWoman


do tell more, not everyone follows jc slavishly


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> do tell more, not everyone follows jc slavishly


apols about the loathsome source:



& screenshot:


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

ah cleverly done


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ah cleverly done


Jez has fucked up here, no mistaking. They're all over him like a rash...the news agenda has been turned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Jez has fucked up here, no mistaking. They're all over him like a rash...the news agenda has been turned.


to be honest she is remarkably intellectually challenged, as her miserable record shows. you say oh noes he's made a vast mistake, i suspect an awful lot of people will agree with him, and many will say how restrained he's been. after three years or thereabouts of jeremy corbyn is the devil incarnate a great number of people will yawn at another jeremy corbyn's a cunt story. tbh this does him a favour in that his pisspoor politics not being scrutinised and - as i say - what he says will strike a chord with many people.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> to be honest she is remarkably intellectually challenged, as her miserable record shows. you say oh noes he's made a vast mistake, i suspect an awful lot of people will agree with him, and many will say how restrained he's been. after three years or thereabouts of jeremy corbyn is the devil incarnate a great number of people will yawn at another jeremy corbyn's a cunt story. tbh this does him a favour in that his pisspoor politics not being scrutinised and - as i say - what he says will strike a chord with many people.


Not all convinced by any of that tbh.
I think the vermin will make him pay for this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Not all convinced by any of that tbh.
> I think the vermin will make him pay for this.


tory voters hate him anyway. some labour voters might look more kindly on him for this. the labour right have always thought he's a wanker. i don't see how this is going to work out so badly for him as you suggest.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tory voters hate him anyway. some labour voters might look more kindly on him for this. the labour right have always thought he's a wanker. i don't see how this is going to work out so badly for him as you suggest.


Maybe not (in the medium/longer term), but for the moment he's gifted the vermin with the means to distract the news agenda from their catastrophic failings..and they will; they're desperate.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

nah, it's nothing. He'll deny it, people who hate him will screech for a day or two and post boring lipreader analyses, people who support him will ignore it or post boring lipreader analyses for the other side. no-one else will give much of a fuck.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> nah, it's nothing. He'll deny it, people who hate him will screech for a day or two and post boring lipreader analyses, people who support him will ignore it or post boring lipreader analyses for the other side. no-one else will give much of a fuck.


Maybe, to the extent that we're not in a GE like Brown's 'bigoted woman', but he's certainly given the vermin a seasonal gift here; the media are already going for it.

Can't imagine Labour women will be very impressed tbh


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2018)

I think you'll find he said "stupid human"


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

It was a fucking dumb thing to do.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, to the extent that we're not in a GE like Brown's 'bigoted woman', but he's certainly given the vermin a seasonal gift here; the media are already going for it.
> 
> Can't imagine Labour women will be very impressed tbh
> 
> View attachment 156071


Dissing a voter is one thing, dissing the PM is part of the job. I think the country will agree with him.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Dissing a voter is one thing, dissing the PM is part of the job. I think the country will agree with him.


Leaders' polling would suggest otherwise.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 19, 2018)

Nowt wrong with stating facts


----------



## ruffneck23 (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Leaders' polling would suggest otherwise.


yeh but you know how accurate the polls tend to be these days...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

brogdale said:


> Leaders' polling would suggest otherwise.


only one poll matters and atm it's scheduled for 2022


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nowt wrong with stating facts


For us, no. But for the Leader of HMLO to play the (wo)man not the ball so carelessly is a gift to the oppo. Jez's kinder/gentler bollocks always was a hostage to fortune.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> atm it's scheduled for 2022



God that's depressing.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

I don't actually believe it happened tbh, and don't care if it did. It's Christmas next week and they're desperate to do anything to distract for the next two days, but tbh I doubt anything was going to happen anyway.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 19, 2018)

The daft thing is to be surprised, as he appeared to be, by May's forceful and piss-taking rebuttal of his criticisms. She simply took the piss out of the 'no confidence' vote shenanigans.

That he let it rile him is absurd. He simply needed to take aim at any number of open goals or smile back at her. But his performance wasn't good overall and suggests poor preparation.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

This will make it all the more embarrassing when he does eventually apologise for this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2018)

He's always had that arsey side to his temper.

What the past few weeks have shown, with the courting of the DUP and the will he, won't he no confidence vote is how useless a leader he is.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

I can guarantee it was a lot less offensive than I would be shouting, not mumbling, if I was only that far away from the scum.


----------



## Weller (Dec 19, 2018)

The stupid woman remark is what Ive been hearing from tory voters and brexiteers pretty much everyone else for a while now anyway when May is on tv or mentioned 
Its going to be hard them in the real world bashing him for that when they have been saying it and much worse for weeks now so perhaps its just made him look more human and actually saying what everyone is thinking anyway even her own party


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

I can't believe I just watched a video of this. 

Could be woman, could be people. Unless someone has some magical device that can see into his soul, everyone can just believe what they want. No-one will apologise.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 19, 2018)

Mr Moose said:


> The daft thing is to be surprised, as he appeared to be, by May's forceful and piss-taking rebuttal of his criticisms. She simply took the piss out of the 'no confidence' vote shenanigans.



Innit. He had the Queen of the U-Turn accuse him of indecision, and then requesting he vote on the deal, a week after she pulled it herself. It's somewhat disheartening to watch.


----------



## Ptolemy (Dec 19, 2018)

Hardly as offensive to human decency as May's policies are towards millions of people in this country.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

I have never seen so much overcooked 
Gammon in one place.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Dec 19, 2018)

TBF, calling her an incompetent fucking cunt would be considered unparliamentary language


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2018)

Last pmq of the year, with all the shit that's going on, and _this_ is the headline on the BBC front page.

 @ well pretty much everyone involved.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

I recall some report saying you can call members what you like apart from bastard and liar. Any experts here on parliamentary etiquette available for confirmation?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 19, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> I recall some report saying you can call members what you like apart from bastard and liar. Any experts here on parliamentary etiquette available for confirmation?



Dunno, but if I was Jez I'd have called her a silly cunt, and there'd be no ambiguity about it either.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> He's always had that arsey side to his temper.
> 
> What the past few weeks have shown, with the courting of the DUP and the will he, won't he no confidence vote is how useless a leader he is.



Yes. Everyone goes on about how 'nice' and 'decent' he is, but he always comes over as a pissy old twat when I see him on the tele.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

Ptolemy said:


> Hardly as offensive to human decency as May's policies are towards millions of people in this country.



I've seen this line over and again today. In identity politics are the normal rules relaxed if the 'victim' has politics we don't like?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I've seen this line over and again today. In identity politics are the normal rules relaxed if the 'victim' has politics we don't like?


the millions of victims or theresa may victim?


----------



## Whagwan (Dec 19, 2018)

Ptolemy said:


> Hardly as offensive to human decency as May's policies are towards millions of people in this country.



How about as offensive to women as restoring the whip to two MPs under investigation for sex offences?


----------



## Ptolemy (Dec 19, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I've seen this line over and again today. In identity politics are the normal rules relaxed if the 'victim' has politics we don't like?



No, it just highlights what vacuous theatre a lot of political discourse is - a mild insult is howled about by the party faithful while millions of children go to bed hungry each night as a result of that premier's economic policy. For me, material conditions in society trump the petty drama stoked by the handwringing columnists.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I can't believe I just watched a video of this.
> 
> Could be woman, could be people. Unless someone has some magical device that can see into his soul, everyone can just believe what they want. No-one will apologise.


If he did say it - and it looks like he did - he should apologise for the gendered bit and then go straight onto the attack about the stupidity (universal credit, record at the home office and, oh, what's that other one - oh, yes, brexit).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> If he did say it - and it looks like he did - he should apologise for the gendered bit and then go straight onto the attack about the stupidity (universal credit, record at the home office and, oh, what's that other one - oh, yes, brexit).



He's denying it.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2018)

Yes I think he should apologise and then demand an apology for a list of May's policies starting with the ones that have made so many people homeless and destitute.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He's denying it.


FFS! Another tactical victory.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

He was rattled by May, and clearly muttering a response to her, and her alone, to claim otherwise is not creditable. 

Trouble is he's between a rock & a hard place, (1) deny it & make excuses, or (2) apologise & move on - personally I think he should have gone for option 2, but he's chosen otherwise.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> If he did say it - and it looks like he did - he should apologise for the gendered bit and then go straight onto the attack about the stupidity (universal credit, record at the home office and, oh, what's that other one - oh, yes, brexit).


Why apologise for the gendered bit? She is a woman? I think I must've missed a meeting about the pc way to insult someone.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Why apologise for the gendered bit? She is a woman? I think I must've missed a meeting about the pc way to insult someone.



Clearly you have.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

The current edition of Private Eye sums it up.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Clearly you have.



He should have said Stupid Christian!


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Why apologise for the gendered bit? She is a woman? I think I must've missed a meeting about the pc way to insult someone.


Don't worry, it's running again after Christmas Winterval.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2018)

Stupid person?
Seriously, Stupid ----- what else goes there?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

cunt.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Fairly sure that would fall foul of parliamentary standards too, mind.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Stupid person?
> Seriously, Stupid ----- what else goes there?



Moron, halfwit, gimp, cretin, fucktard...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 19, 2018)

So it's ok to call her stupid, but not to call her a woman?

Don't understand.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Maybe politicians should start doing that hand over the mouth thing that footballers do when they're cunting someone off.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So it's ok to call her stupid, but not to call her a woman?
> 
> Don't understand.


Fwiw, I have no problem with 'foolish man', 'stupid woman' and the like most of the time. It's just what it is, an attempt to insult someone tied to a factual/descriptive use of gender.  But context/intent is everything.  For example, in the hands of some misogynist, 'silly woman' takes on a different meaning.  In the May/Corbyn case, I'd put it no stronger than it's a usage best avoided, if nothing else because it creates micro stories like this.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


>



Do non-Irish people get this one?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> Do non-Irish people get this one?


I don't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> Do non-Irish people get this one?


Yes: I do


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2018)

I agree that it was a very ill-judged thing to say, but it speaks volumes about the abysmal place we are currently in that the media have leapt on it as if this were August silly season.


----------



## pesh (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> Do non-Irish people get this one?


it went semi viral at the time


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, I have no problem with 'foolish man', 'stupid woman' and the like most of the time. It's just what it is, an attempt to insult someone tied to a factual/descriptive use of gender.  But context/intent is everything.  For example, in the hands of some misogynist, 'silly woman' takes on a different meaning.  In the May/Corbyn case, I'd put it no stronger than it's a usage best avoided, if nothing else because it creates micro stories like this.


Or, maybe I'm thinking something is illustrated in terms of intent, depending on context:

'Silly woman' - erm, okay, it's fair enough to specify gender, as a normal use of language
'Silly old woman' - why would you need to mention age? It's a no from me.
'Silly black woman' - Fuck off!

Anyway, I digress from Corbyn's latest tactical success...


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Why apologise for the gendered bit? She is a woman? I think I must've missed a meeting about the pc way to insult someone.


You're having a laugh! 

Say it on here to a couple of women and see how you get on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You're having a laugh!
> 
> Say it on here to a couple of women and see how you get on.


You were very vocal about captain mainwaring's "you stupid boy" when last we spoke


----------



## rekil (Dec 19, 2018)

There's an amusing typo on Gogarty's discogs entry. The last thing his mid life crisis needs.

His Sweet Surprise - His Sweet Surprise


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, I have no problem with 'foolish man', 'stupid woman' and the like most of the time. It's just what it is, an attempt to insult someone tied to a factual/descriptive use of gender.  But context/intent is everything.  For example, in the hands of some misogynist, 'silly woman' takes on a different meaning.  In the May/Corbyn case, I'd put it no stronger than it's a usage best avoided, if nothing else because it creates micro stories like this.


That makes sense.
Would be quite funny if he made a statement "I'm sorry I called her a woman" and left it at that. Maybe with a little mutter for good measure.


Or not that funny .God I'm sick of all this


----------



## jusali (Dec 19, 2018)

Distraction tactics by the Tory party.
Funny they get up in arms over this but hardly anything comes of their own (Johnson) racist statements.
I've seen better debating in a Primary School playground............


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

Talking of distractions I presume there will now be a by-election here??

MP convicted of speeding driver lie


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Only if she's jailed for more than a year.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You're having a laugh!
> 
> Say it on here to a couple of women and see how you get on.


On here woman would be replaced by an expletive. Woman is the polite form of the insult. I guess should've mumbled Stupid right honourable member for Maidenhead.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Only if she's jailed for more than a year.



I suspect given her job and the severity of the charge that will be case. Sentencing tariff is 4-36 months.


----------



## andysays (Dec 19, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I suspect given her job and the severity of the charge that will be case. Sentencing tariff is 4-36 months.



How long did the Lid-Dem MP who was done for similar get?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Chris Huhne got 8 months on a similar charge, although he pleaded guilty. 

Labour have said she should resign anyway, so I guess they're up for a by-election.


----------



## andysays (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Chris Huhne got 8 months on a similar charge, although he pleaded guilty.
> 
> Labour have said she should resign anyway, so I guess they're up for a by-election.


Thanks, I couldn't remember his name


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Labour have said she should resign anyway, so I guess they're up for a by-election.



Yes. Just seen that. 

Leave voting area.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Would be quite funny if he made a statement "I'm sorry I called her a woman" and left it at that. Maybe with a little mutter for good measure.



''I apologise wholeheartedly for calling the prime minister a woman when she is clearly a gyndroid''


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Talking of distractions I presume there will now be a by-election here??
> 
> MP convicted of speeding driver lie



Stupid people.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## Ax^ (Dec 19, 2018)

Good that nothing important is going on

Corbyn should of come out and said he muttered what a load of ballocks and moved on

Anyhoos


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 19, 2018)

The Archbishop is arguing Corbyn didn't say 'woman' and thus innocent _and also _engaging in Whataboutery. Impressive.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 19, 2018)

Bloody difficult woman to give a shit tbh.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 19, 2018)

pesh said:


>


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Chris Huhne got 8 months on a similar charge, although he pleaded guilty.
> 
> Labour have said she should resign anyway, so I guess they're up for a by-election.



To be fair they'd be absolutely slated if they didn't say she should resign, I don't think it means they're confident.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

The stupid fucker just made it worse 

All he had to do was to apologise for a momentary lapse and it would have been forgotten by xmas. Now he's blatantly lied to the house and that'll be far more damaging.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Chris Huhne got 8 months on a similar charge, although he pleaded guilty.



And, he resigned as an MP.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The stupid fucker just made it worse
> 
> All he had to do was to apologise for a momentary lapse and it would have been forgotten by xmas. Now he's blatantly lied to the house and that'll be far more damaging.



If he had claimed to have said 'stupid idiots' towards all the Tories, that could be almost believable, but, 'stupid people' is just not a natural insult in a heated exchange.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, he resigned as an MP.


Yes. Before the trial, because he was planning on pleading guilty. 

In theory he could have remained an MP though, had he chosen to.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> If he had claimed to have said 'stupid idiots' towards all the Tories, that could be almost believable, but, 'stupid people' is just not a natural insult in a heated exchange.


It's not a natural insult at all and anyone who isn't kidding themselves can also see exactly what he said in the videos.


----------



## tommers (Dec 19, 2018)

We're all going to die.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

I'm loving this new stupid woman truther movement


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, he resigned as an MP.



Onasanya went not guilty, created false addresses and so on, which is all worse than Hune. Plus she's a solicitor by trade (dunno what Hune is/was?).

So well north of a year I reckon.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Onasanya went not guilty, created false addresses and so on, which is all worse than Hune. Plus she's a solicitor by trade (dunno what Hune is/was?).
> 
> So well north of a year I reckon.



Its mad, all just over a speeding ticket.  This country is so fucked about driving stuff that you can get done for drink driving and still captain the national team and marry a royal.  A simple speeding ticket ffs!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Its mad, all just over a speeding ticket.  This country is so fucked about driving stuff that you can get done for drink driving and still captain the national team and marry a royal.  A simple speeding ticket ffs!



I love how indignant people get about them.

"The police make THOUSANDS from this speed camera?!?!!!!"

You tried not speeding you dozy fuckheads?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Its mad, all just over a speeding ticket.  This country is so fucked about driving stuff that you can get done for drink driving and still captain the national team and marry a royal.  A simple speeding ticket ffs!



tbf it's her that's bonkers. 41 in a 30, that's 3 points. Could have pushed her over 12 and led to a 3 month ban. Instead she's gonna go to jail and lose her position as an MP and also be defrocked as a solicitor, presumably something she's trained quite a long time to achieve.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 19, 2018)

Fuck her. The arrogance of these people is astounding. If they are willing to openly lie their face off over an SP30, then they are capable of much more


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf it's her that's bonkers. 41 in a 30, that's 3 points. Could have pushed her over 12 and led to a 3 month ban. Instead she's gonna go to jail and lose her position as an MP and also be defrocked as a solicitor, presumably something she's trained quite a long time to achieve.


When she got the NIP she named the driver as someone who wasn't even in the country at the time. She should lose her job just on the basis of being an utter fuckwit.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf it's her that's bonkers. 41 in a 30, that's 3 points. Could have pushed her over 12 and led to a 3 month ban. Instead she's gonna go to jail and lose her position as an MP and also be defrocked as a solicitor, presumably something she's trained quite a long time to achieve.



That's what I mean.  Its mad that she's got herself into this mess over a simple speeding ticket when driving offences are treated so blithely in this country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Apparently Dr pepper want her in their next ad, using their slogan 'what's the worst that can happen?'


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> When she got the NIP she named the driver as someone who wasn't even in the country at the time. She should lose her job just on the basis of being an utter fuckwit.



She should've given 'em your name, like I do.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, I have no problem with 'foolish man', 'stupid woman' and the like most of the time. It's just what it is, an attempt to insult someone tied to a factual/descriptive use of gender.  But context/intent is everything.  For example, in the hands of some misogynist, 'silly woman' takes on a different meaning.  In the May/Corbyn case, I'd put it no stronger than it's a usage best avoided, if nothing else because it creates micro stories like this.


Double standard.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Double standard.



Don't you get Christmas off or something?  You poor sod.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Double standard.



 Fuck off, Gromit.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Double standard.


Fuck off you silly little man.


----------



## agricola (Dec 19, 2018)

Artaxerxes said:


> I love how indignant people get about them.
> 
> "The police make THOUSANDS from.thud speed camera?!?!!!!"
> 
> You tried not speeding you dozy fuckheads?



It is a shame Bow Street Magistrates has gone, because many moons ago they used to have all the process / driving offences trials set for the same day every week.  There would be trial after trial, all of people who were insistent that they were not the sort of people who got taken to Court and so as a result any evidence to the contrary - CCTV, photos, drink drive test results, Doctor's statements etc - was wrong.  It was as if someone had gone out and nicked a Daily Mail comments section.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> Fuck her. The arrogance of these people is astounding. If they are willing to openly lie their face off over an SP30, then they are capable of much more


Interesting that this post generates quite a bit of support but the suggestion that Corbyn has today put himself in a very similar boat, gets dismissed by some with a wave of the hand ... 'nothing to see here'!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Interesting that this post generated quite a bit of support but the suggestion that Corbyn has today put himself in a very similar boat, gets dismissed by some with a wave of the hand ... 'nothing to see here'!



I’m piss wet through & not read the latest, what’s he done/said?


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The stupid fucker just made it worse
> 
> All he had to do was to apologise for a momentary lapse and it would have been forgotten by xmas. Now he's blatantly lied to the house and that'll be far more damaging.



I dunno, I've just seen it and it looks like 'people' to me.  Then again it doesn't matter now as this is the most important thing to happen in the world ever.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)

Ah, another witch hunt


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I dunno, I've just seen it and it looks like 'people' to me.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ah, another witch hunt



Its that time of the week again when we all get to become overnight experts on something.  This time its lip reading.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ah, another witch hunt



 misogyny 

It's a _magick practitioner hunt _now_._


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


>



It honestly does to me.  Maybe you're better at lip reading than me?  Either that or in this Christmas week you're less sheets to the wind.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

It really could be either, to my inexperienced eyes. There are professional lip readers weighing in on twitter for both sides of the argument though, so take your pick of whichever one confirms your biases.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> It honestly does to me.





Yeah, righto! 

The other leg's got bells on.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)

Deffo “stupid people” - it’s not hard ffs!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)

Witch hunt....witch hunt....tra la la la la


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2018)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Deffo “stupid people” - it’s not hard ffs!



At a stretch it could be "stipend purple", but it looks a long way from "stupid woman".


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

When responding to someone that is both 'stupid', and happens to be a 'woman', it's perfectly logical & traditional to mutter 'stupid people'. 

Corbyn is innocent.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

I reckon it's ''stupid woman'' but I'm failing to give a shit. She is a woman. She is stupid. It's an accurate and well-deserved epithet.
Corbyn is a twat for lying, he should have doubled down. It's 2018, dubious denials are _so _last century.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When responding to the Tory Party



ffy


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When responding to someone that is both 'stupid', and happens to be a 'woman', it's perfectly logical & traditional to mutter 'stupid people'.
> 
> Corbyn is innocent.



I figured he was responding to the jeering twats opposite.  He also looks about a bit.
But "stupid woman" would have been mild, considering.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> I figured he was responding to the jeering twats opposite.  He also looks about a bit.
> But "stupid woman" would have been mild, considering.



I refer you to my previous post...



cupid_stunt said:


> If he had claimed to have said 'stupid idiots' towards all the Tories, that could be almost believable, but, 'stupid people' is just not a natural insult in a heated exchange.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When responding to someone that is both 'stupid', and happens to be a 'woman', it's perfectly logical & traditional to mutter 'stupid people'.
> 
> Corbyn is innocent.



He even scanned when saying it.

I don't give much of a fuck, I don't vote.  I'm just saying what I see (whats mr chips doing now etc), then again I'm not planning to be sober until January 2nd, so I may not be the most reliable witness.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I refer you to my previous post...



Yeah, it's bollocks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2018)

I swear this is the most massive load of fucking rubbish yet, and you can’t even just blame the Tories for it even if they started it - the BBC and Guardian and a million chortling cunts on twitter have been talking about nothing else all afternoon.

I thought the constant obsession with Brexit minutiae was bad but at least that’s real.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

One thing, though, the whole 'stupid woman' incident has flushed out the Corbyn cultists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She should've given 'em your name, like I do.



"My name's Cunty".

Yeah, like they're gonna buy that!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I swear this is the most massive load of fucking rubbish yet, and you can’t even just blame the Tories for it even if they started it - the BBC and Guardian and a million chortling cunts on twitter have been talking about nothing else all afternoon.
> 
> I thought the constant obsession with Brexit minutiae was bad but at least that’s real.


Nonsense. If this was the other way round and some tory knobjob had mouthed this stuff, these here boards would be outraged ... OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2018)




----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When responding to someone that is both 'stupid', and happens to be a 'woman', it's perfectly logical & traditional to mutter 'stupid people'.
> 
> Corbyn is innocent.


Corbyn has never had much time for the panto of the house. He tried to stop it to no avail when he first took over the opposition.

So yeah he is calling May stupid but also the entire house for responding. Everyone but him who is above the childish boo yah behaviour.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 156105


Doesn't work. The last word here is clearly not "this" and whatever Corbyn said wasn't in a non-English language.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, righto!
> 
> The other leg's got bells on.




As a lipreader, it does look more like "people" than "woman". The opening syllable of the second word is plosive, as is the second.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> As a lipreader, it does look more like "people" than "woman". The opening syllable of the second word is plosive, as is the second.


Of course it is!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> "My name's Cunty".
> 
> Yeah, like they're gonna buy that!


You may mock but the points are stacking up


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 19, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> As a lipreader, it does look more like "people" than "woman". The opening syllable of the second word is plosive, as is the second.



As a man who has had many conversations in very noisy nightclubs I can confirm its definitely not "_piss off you ugly loser"._


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

Yep, not _I'm going to fucking kill you _either.

Though it should be.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Fuck off you silly little man.


Can't refute my statement so resort to childish name calling. 
Why don't you join some under tens message board? You seem to be around that level.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:
			
		

> As a man who has had many conversations in very noisy nightclubs I can confirm its definitely not "_piss off you ugly loser"._


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Doesn't matter after brexit, be able to call everybody anything you want and no come backs. You cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it is!



I'm not a fan of Corbyn's piss-weak social democratic politics, any more than I'm a fan of May's Toryism. I've got no skin in the game. The second word could have been "fuckpig", but I think that "people" is more likely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You may mock but the pints are stacking up


Ffy


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

Gromit said:


> Can't refute my statement so resort to childish name calling.
> Why don't you join some under tens message board? You seem to be around that level.


I used to have a tens machine for back pain. Yes, a slow trickle electric shock, but slightly numbing. Reminds me of reading your posts.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

It's basically obvious that if he was referring to May he wouldn't mouth Stupid Woman, he'd just say Cunt. And he'd be right.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 19, 2018)

Really, really don’t give a shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Doesn't matter after brexit, be able to call everybody anything you want and no come backs. You cunts.



Who you calling a cunt, you cunt?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who you calling a cunt, you cunt?


Only those cunts - not _those_ cunts. And Gromit.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. If this was the other way round and some tory knobjob had mouthed this stuff, these here boards would be outraged ... OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!


Tory minister David Mundell was caught on camera last year calling Yvette Cooper a stupid bitch, and as far as I can tell no-one here gave much of a shit.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Anyways this is modern politics.

Is your own house in a mess? Divided.

Attack the opposition with accusations in the hopes of splitting them.
Racism
Sexism
Marxism

Anything with an ism chuck it in. In the hopes people stop noticing your shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

planetgeli said:


> Really, really don’t give a shit.


Neither would anyone else if he'd just said sorry. By going back in and telling blatant porkies he's amplified this a thousandfold.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Only those cunts - not _those_ cunts. And Gromit.



Gromit? What a fucking cunt that cunt is.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Tory minister David Mundell was caught on camera last year calling Yvette Cooper a stupid bitch, and as far as I can tell no-one here gave much of a shit.



Tories behaving like boorish, misogynistic dinosaurs is hardly news is it?


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Neither would anyone else if he'd just said sorry. By going back in and telling blatant porkies he's amplified this a thousandfold.


David Cameron didn't say sorry for killing thousands in an unjustified war and you think Corbyn will say sorry for telling it as it is?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2018)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ah, another witch hunt



Could easily be a bitch hunt tbf.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Tory minister David Mundell was caught on camera last year calling Yvette Cooper a stupid bitch, and as far as I can tell no-one here gave much of a shit.


That's because nobody knew who the fuck Mundell was or gave a fuck who Cooper was. Here you have the leader of the oppo punting a misogynist insult at the Prime Minister, then lying about it. That ratchets up the stakes a bit.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That's because nobody knew who the fuck Mundell was or gave a fuck who Cooper was. Here you have the leader of the oppo punting a misogynist insult at the Prime Minister, then lying about it. That ratchets up the stakes a bit.


bring those goalposts back.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> bring those goalposts back.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

I seriously disagree that _stupid woman_ is in itself a misogynistic expression. Using a gendered insult like bitch or cow, yes definitely. But _woman _isn't an insult. I get that it would all have been better if he'd visibly muttered _stupid fuckwit_ or something else gender neutral, but I think this is where I realise I'm getting old


----------



## Supine (Dec 19, 2018)

Should have said stupid racist treasonous control freak and not mentioned gender.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


>


how about that time David Cameron told Angela Eagle to 'calm down dear' then? Distinct lack of outrage here as far as I can tell.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I seriously disagree that _stupid woman_ is in itself a misogynistic expression. Using a gendered insult like bitch or cow, yes definitely. But _woman _isn't an insult.



I refer the honourable member to the comment I made earlier



Spymaster said:


> Say it on here to a couple of women and see how you get on.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

Well yeah. But Urban75 is special.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Saying stupid woman or man is sexist if the meaning is that the person is stupid because they are of that sex.

But that's not the only possible meaning.
The other usage is "that person is stupid, which person?, Not that one but the other one, I could refer to them by name or description but as out of the two that just spoke one was a woman and one was a man I think you'll know who I mean if I just use the most obvious separator."

But people love to play the sorely put upon victim and always go for the interpretation that allows them that whilst denying the possibility of the other more regular usage. 

It's all irrelevant as far as Corbyn. He said people.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Well yeah. But Urban75 is special.


Special needs.


----------



## Santino (Dec 19, 2018)

Fuck off Gromit


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> how about that time David Cameron told Angela Eagle to 'calm down dear' then? Distinct lack of outrage here as far as I can tell.


I can't remember that but there've been a lot of references to it today on radio phone-ins from desperate Corbinistas. He should have been slaughtered for it. But if you could free your head from Jezza's ringpiece just for long enough to allow some blood to your brain, you'd realise that whatever anyone else has said or done, and whether or not equal outrage was caused, isn't the point. Your buddy has fucked up. If he'd owned it honestly it would have gone away but he's made it worse by bullshitting.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

Santino said:


> Fuck off Gromit


PooPooHead.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I can't remember that but there've been a lot of references to it today on radio phone-ins from desperate Corbinistas. He should have been slaughtered for it. But if you could free your head from Jezza's ringpiece just for long enough to allow some blood to your brain, you'd realise that whatever anyone else has said or done, and whether or not equal outrage was caused, isn't the point. Your buddy has fucked up. If he'd owned it honestly it would have gone away but he's made it worse by bullshitting.


Mate, I was just replying to your post where you claimed we'd be outraged if this was done by a tory with two examples where it was and no-one cared. I'm not interested in making comparisons - that was you.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Mate, I was just replying to your post where you claimed we'd be outraged if this was done by a tory with two examples where it was and no-one cared. I'm not interested in making comparisons - that was you.


Fair enough but you're comparing apples with go carts. The two currently most famous politicians in the land during PMQs at a time when the commons are arguably under more scrutiny than at any other since the war, versus comments that barely registered at the time because few were aware of.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

That's bollocks though - the calm down dear incident was in the news. Cameron _was_ roasted for it. Just not here.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

As mentioned above and elsewhere though, nobody cares when some tory comes out with toxic shite because it's expected of them. When someone considered more or less right on does it, then there's a storm.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> That's bollocks though - the calm down dear incident was in the news. Cameron _was_ roasted for it. Just not here.


Ok, I'll take your word for it because I can't remember but if the tories were in opposition right now and Boris said that to Prime Minister Diane Abbot   , it would have a thread of its own on here!

Deny that and I'll be reaching for the Jimmy Hill pics again


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, I'll take your word for it because I can't remember but if the tories were in opposition right now and Boris said that to Prime Minister Diane Abbot    , it would have a thread of its own on here!
> 
> Deny that and I'll be reaching for the Jimmy Hill pics again


Diane Abbott more likely to be pm than bj leader of the tories


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> That's bollocks though - the calm down dear incident was in the news. Cameron _was_ roasted for it. Just not here.



I admit I haven't read the whole thread, it's old & 10 pages long...



> *David Cameron has accused socialists of lacking a sense of humour in the wake of the row over his "calm down, dear" comment to a female Labour MP.*



David Cameron: socialists have no sense of humour

And, post 17 from you...


killer b said:


> what an awful shit that david cameron is. each day brings a new way for me to hate him - it's like the prime minister of the country is a 14 year old playground bully.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

So I was right. It got its own 10 page thread!


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

You have much more honed searching skills than me.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> You have much more honed searching skills than me.



It wasn't difficult TBH - I just put 'Cameron calm down dear' in search & up it popped.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I used to have a tens machine for back pain. Yes, a slow trickle electric shock, but slightly numbing. Reminds me of reading your posts.



Everyone I know who's had one of those tried sticking the electrodes across their knee or  elbow while saying "I wonder whether ...".


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It wasn't difficult TBH - I just put 'Cameron calm down dear' in search & up it popped.


I did that too and got fuck all!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It wasn't difficult TBH - I just put 'Cameron calm down dear' in search & up it popped.


Have you calmed down now?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you calmed down now?



Having knock one out, yes.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It wasn't difficult TBH - I just put 'Cameron calm down dear' in search & up it popped.


I searched "calm down dear", got 700 results, and thought fuck it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 19, 2018)

All the "stupid woman" types here merely outing themselves as secret Allo Allo fans.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I searched "calm down dear", got 700 results, and thought fuck it.



I tried that first, but then went with 'Cameron calm down dear', because I couldn't believe it hadn't been discussed on here, 30 results, top of page 2 of those results - Search Results for Query: Cameron calm down dear | urban75 forums


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

Corbyn’s inexperience of sitting on the front benches and either grinning like an idiot or looking at his shoes, as they do.  Rather than letting his mouth display what he is thinking. It’s like having an inexperienced work colleague nodding to what the manager is saying in a disciplinary. Horses for courses, he may have increased the membership, but his game needs work.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

Having said that, Corbyn could well have said stupid woman, but he hasn’t fucked a pig’s head!


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

Nor has he seen through government policies that have seen thousands of people neglected, displaced, hospitalised, or dead.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

Just saw it in slow motion on a main screen. 

Fucking hell Jezza!


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

...why d'you have to lie?


----------



## rekil (Dec 19, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> Corbyn’s inexperience of sitting on the front benches and either grinning like an idiot or looking at his shoes, as they do.  Rather than letting his mouth display what he is thinking. It’s like having an inexperienced work colleague nodding to what the manager is saying in a disciplinary. Horses for courses, he may have increased the membership, but his game needs work.


At this time of year it'd make sense to get Roy Hudd in to coach some panto banter into them.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2018)

Sadly Barry Chuckle has chuckled off stage right!


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

_Stupid muppet._

He should have said he'd said that. Have a look, it totally works.

Too late now, he's stage managed himself the twat.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> Having said that, Corbyn could well have said stupid woman, but he hasn’t fucked a pig’s head!



Neither did Cameron.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Just saw it in slow motion on a main screen.
> 
> Fucking hell Jezza!



He lied. He clearly said 'stupid woman'. Now we have a Labour MP heading jailwards for lying about who was driving her car. Can we believe anything a Labour MP says?


----------



## agricola (Dec 19, 2018)

Well at least we have had an afternoon of people on twitter expressing their disgust at Corbyn, then objecting to other people digging through their tweets to find where they've said exactly the same thing.  

Obviously Piers Morgan was one of the first set of people.


----------



## chilango (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Neither did Cameron.



How do you know?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

_reader, I was that pig._


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> How do you know?



At some point you have to consider the source - unattributed story from Isabel Oakeshott and Lord Ashcroft?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2018)

Everyone involved in propagating this should be set on fire.


----------



## chilango (Dec 19, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Everyone involved in propagating this should be set on fire.



What? 

That David Cameron put a "private part of his anatomy" into a dead pig's mouth as part of an initiation ceremony for the Piers Gaveston Society?

Or that Jeremy Corbyn muttered "stupid woman" under his breath whilst Theresa May was playing panto in Parliament?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Neither did Cameron.



Cameron answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Miss Piggy".


----------



## chilango (Dec 19, 2018)

Tony Wilson said:
			
		

> When you have to choose between the truth and the legend, choose the legend.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Wherever you sit on this, this is the most magnificent self-own by Bastani


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> How do you know?



Even the Eye, no admirer of Cameron, concedes hat it was not true. In fact, Urban seems to be the only place still perpetuating the myth.

Even if it were true, in the grading of Cameron's obscenities, it would be near the bottom of the list.

I would buy a ticket to watch the cunt hanged, drawn and quartered.  (I realise that most of you would be too lily-livered to go, but I would report back.)

I realised to my horror the other day, that an eviscerated person bothers me less than an eviscerated animal.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> Wherever you sit on this, this is the most magnificent self-own by Bastani




Evelyn Glennie is adamant that it was 'stupid woman'. So incidentally is Mrs Sas, who doesn't have a political bone in her body.

Oh, and the professional lipreader on the ITV News tonight also said 'stupid woman'.

She is a stupid woman, in more ways than one. Had Corbyn admitted what he had done, apologised and moved on, it would be forgotten by tomorrow. He chose to lie instead.


----------



## chilango (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even the Eye, no admirer of Cameron, concedes hat it was not true. In fact, Urban seems to be the only place still perpetuating the myth.
> 
> Even if it were true, in the grading of Cameron's obscenities, it would be near the bottom of the list.
> 
> ...



To be honest what's important about "piggate" is not whether he actually did it, but that people believed he is the type of person who could done it.

Just as in this case the shit might stick because it's easy to believe Corbyn is the type of person could've said "stupid woman" even if in this particular incident he might have said "stupid people"


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Evelyn Glennie is adamant that it was 'stupid woman'. So incidentally is Mrs Sas, who doesn't have a political bone in her body.
> 
> Oh, and the professional lipreader on the ITV News tonight also said 'stupid woman'.
> 
> She is a stupid woman, in more ways than one. Had Corbyn admitted what he had done, apologised and moved on, it would be forgotten by tomorrow. He chose to lie instead.


I'm not very interested in that argument, I was posting it so everyone could laugh at Aaron Bastani - read the link he's given as evidence of the lipreader's credentials.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm not very interested in that argument, I was posting it so everyone could laugh at Aaron Bastani - read the link he's given as evidence of the lipreader's credentials.



That's funny as fuck. 



> However, the CPS launched a review of her role and told Newsnight that "the Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to rely on Jessica Rees as a prosecution witness in current or future cases."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | CPS drops So Solid expert witness


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I'm not very interested in that argument, I was posting it so everyone could laugh at Aaron Bastani - read the link he's given as evidence of the lipreader's credentials.



Genuine LOL! Shot himself in both feet I think.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> To be honest what's important about "piggate" is not whether he actually did it, but that people believed he is the type of person who could done it.
> 
> Just as in this case the shit might stick because it's easy to believe Corbyn is the type of person could've said "stupid woman" even if in this particular incident he might have said "stupid people"


I think this is the wrong way round. What's remarkable here is not so much that he called her a stupid woman but that he blatantly lied about it. If this had been a bog standard tory acting the dick, as was said by someone upthread, it wouldn't really have surprised anyone. But Corbyn's image is supposedly one of an honest man who's better than that. In one fell swoop he's consigned his Mr Integrity image to the bin and shown he's just as much of a bullshitter as any of the others of any party, and worse than some, with barefaced piss taking.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 19, 2018)

it looks to me like he said stupid woman, (I have a deaf friend I will ask her should I see her soon), he probably shouldn't have done. Having done so he should have apologised and not denied it, That said in the great scheme of things it probably doesn't matter, The people who hate him will not hate him any more strongly, those who think he's the 2nd coming will deny it till they're blue in the face.
Most of the population will not give a flying fuck one way or the other.This is even more feeble than the anti-Semitism jag, if you're trying to discredit someone rather than the policies they espouse you need to find something that people can identify with, so far they haven't. People in politics seem to get wound up over minor slights that the general population will largely shrug off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> He lied. He clearly said 'stupid woman'. Now we have a Labour MP heading jailwards for lying about who was driving her car. Can we believe anything a Labour MP says?


Could we ever?


----------



## Gromit (Dec 19, 2018)

What adds to the evidence of stupid people over woman is his eye movements.

He looks to his left and right whilst saying it. Not straight across at May.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> When you have to choose between the truth and the legend...


I believe TW wasn't the first to say this. Although whoever it was can't really complain, can they?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Could we ever?



Fair point. It would have to be extended to all MPs really.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 19, 2018)

According to the rules of their game the Tories probably scored a point there. No one really cares though do they. Corbyn v May at PMQ is a bald men/comb scenario anyway.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 19, 2018)

One thing I do for a living is coach elocution, pronunciation and public speaking. This is something I've decided I can have a ''professional opinion'' about and in that opinion he said _woman_. Or _muppet_. Well tbh unless he has a northern accent, not _muppet_. And definitely not _people._

His pants are well on fire.


----------



## Voley (Dec 19, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Or _muppet_


I prefer 'muppet.' Preferably said Ray Winstone 'You fackin muppet' style. I can see Jezza saying that tbf.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 19, 2018)

Jezza and May both look like they're just waiting for the end at this point to be honest. I feel like a lot of opportunities that existed for Corbyn's Labour have really passed them by in the last few months.


----------



## Supine (Dec 19, 2018)

If he had said Muppet I'd have a lot of respect for him


----------



## oryx (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Had Corbyn admitted what he had done, apologised and moved on, it would be forgotten by tomorrow.



No, it wouldn't. He'd be branded a misogynist and there would be more outrage about that.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> One thing I do for a living is coach elocution, pronunciation and public speaking. This is something I've decided I can have a ''professional opinion'' about and in that opinion he said _woman_. Or _muppet_. Well tbh unless he has a northern accent, not _muppet_. And definitely not _people._
> 
> His pants are well on fire.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2018)

Stopped any discussion about his refusal to back a vote of no confidence anyway.  phew.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2018)

A cunning ruse.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 19, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jezza and May both look like they're just waiting for the end at this point to be honest. I feel like a lot of opportunities that existed for Corbyn's Labour have really passed them by in the last few months.



if only they had a blairite in power...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even the Eye, no admirer of Cameron, concedes hat it was not true. In fact, Urban seems to be the only place still perpetuating the myth.
> 
> Even if it were true, in the grading of Cameron's obscenities, it would be near the bottom of the list.
> 
> ...



Private Eye conceded that there was no hard evidence for Oakeshott's claim, only hearsay from various peers of Cameron, not that the claim was false.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2018)

Obviously  the revolting Gooner is terrified of a resurgent Man U. 

He clearly muttered ‘Solskjær’


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2018)

MickiQ said:


> .This is even more feeble than the anti-Semitism jag.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Nor has he seen through government policies that have seen thousands of people neglected, displaced, hospitalised, or dead.



But isn’t going to scrap UC, and makes the bullshit claims that labour will ‘incorporate CRPD into UK law’


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jezza and May both look like they're just waiting for the end at this point to be honest. I feel like a lot of opportunities that existed for Corbyn's Labour have really passed them by in the last few months.


Really, in what way? Imo only an insane person would have tried to get Labour in power before Brexit happens, particularly when it is a party just as divided as the Tory party. Stopping Brexit would destroy Labour electorally for twenty years. Getting a good deal isn't possible. So the opportunity is to critique the specific deal at every opportunity, which is what they have done.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 20, 2018)

She's not a stupid Woman.

She's a fucking stupid Woman.

Also a piss flap, cocking, useless wank stain of a PM.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 20, 2018)

oryx said:


> No, it wouldn't. He'd be branded a misogynist and there would be more outrage about that.


Only within a small bubble that consists of Parliament, a few commentators and some newspaper editors that would try and flog it to death, no-one else cares, it will have zero impact positive or negative on the Labour vote.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 20, 2018)

''Yes I called you a stupid woman, _fucking what of it_?''


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Ax^ said:


> if only they had a blairite in power...



Not my point at all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> Really, in what way? Imo only an insane person would have tried to get Labour in power before Brexit happens, particularly when it is a party just as divided as the Tory party. Stopping Brexit would destroy Labour electorally for twenty years. Getting a good deal isn't possible. So the opportunity is to critique the specific deal at every opportunity, which is what they have done.



I wasn't suggesting Labour should stop Brexit. I'm not particularly keen on the theory that it's good strategy to bide your time while this govt destroys us either though. 

It just seems like to me, there's very little chance of an election now, and that May is likely to be removed by a vote of confidence. Once that has happened I can't see Corbyn forming a govt. 

He's at his weakest when he's engaging in all the Parliamentary theatre and he's strongest when he's mobilising people outside Parliament to support him.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I wasn't suggesting Labour should stop Brexit. I'm not particularly keen on the theory that it's good strategy to bide your time while this govt destroys us either though.
> 
> It just seems like to me, there's very little chance of an election now, and that May is likely to be removed by a vote of confidence. Once that has happened I can't see Corbyn forming a govt.
> 
> He's at his weakest when he's engaging in all the Parliamentary theatre and he's strongest when he's mobilising people outside Parliament to support him.


Not sure what you think he should be doing then. I assume the strategy is to wait for Brexit, wait for the economic impacts to really bite, at which point both remainers and brexiteers are likely to be angry with the Tories, then try and go for the proper no confidence votes and so on. Not sure May is relevant to any wider strategy tbh. She's always been a placeholder.

Edit: Do you think he should have tried to get in to negotiate a better deal on Brexit? The EU sees itself as a club with membership benefits, so it needs to be make sure that those leaving are seen to have dis-benefits. There was never going to be a 'good deal'. Not negotiated by Labour or anyone.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 20, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I think this is the wrong way round. What's remarkable here is not so much that he called her a stupid woman but that he blatantly lied about it. If this had been a bog standard tory acting the dick, as was said by someone upthread, it wouldn't really have surprised anyone. But Corbyn's image is supposedly one of an honest man who's better than that. In one fell swoop he's consigned his Mr Integrity image to the bin and shown he's just as much of a bullshitter as any of the others of any party, and worse than some, with barefaced piss taking.



except that there seems to have been just as many 'pro lip readers' saying he deffo said ' people', and if you look at the slowed down footage, it v much looks like he's pursing his lips .... so you can either accept their view / and Corbyn's lifelong record of not saying shit like that, or not, but pretending there's any open and shut case here that somehow changes what Cotbyn is / isn't, or how he'll be viewed going fwd, is just silly Daily Maily type bollocks


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2018)

Out of character for JC to have said this. I don't believe he called that cunt that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 20, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> He lied. He clearly said 'stupid woman'. Now we have a Labour MP heading jailwards for lying about who was driving her car. Can we believe anything a Labour MP says?



Tories famously above reproach in the veracity depaetment of course.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 20, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tories famously above reproach in the veracity depaetment of course.



See post #24155.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> Not sure what you think he should be doing then. I assume the strategy is to wait for Brexit, wait for the economic impacts to really bite, at which point both remainers and brexiteers are likely to be angry with the Tories, then try and go for the proper no confidence votes and so on. Not sure May is relevant to any wider strategy tbh. She's always been a placeholder.
> 
> Edit: Do you think he should have tried to get in to negotiate a better deal on Brexit? The EU sees itself as a club with membership benefits, so it needs to be make sure that those leaving are seen to have dis-benefits. There was never going to be a 'good deal'. Not negotiated by Labour or anyone.



I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business. 

I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.


----------



## andysays (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.
> 
> I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.


Until recently, the strategy DID  appear to be that: force a VoNC, then fight an election on the basis that Labour could renegotiate a better deal than May had got.

Not sure how realistic that is now, if it ever was...


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.
> 
> I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.


The left of the party very much has been focussing on getting rid of right wing Labour MPs, but it takes time. That's one reason Corbyn has been in no hurry to have another election. The longer he waits, the less right wing Labour MPs he'll have to put up with in parliament.

The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him. 

As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 20, 2018)

cantsin said:


> except that there seems to have been just as many 'pro lip readers' saying he deffo said ' people', and if you look at the slowed down footage, it v much looks like he's pursing his lips .... so you can either accept their view / and Corbyn's lifelong record of not saying shit like that, or not, but pretending there's any open and shut case here that somehow changes what Cotbyn is / isn't, or how he'll be viewed going fwd, is just silly Daily Maily type bollocks


Nonsense.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

andysays said:


> Until recently, the strategy DID  appear to be that: force a VoNC, then fight an election on the basis that Labour could renegotiate a better deal than May had got.
> 
> Not sure how realistic that is now, if it ever was...



For it to be realistic it needed to be combined with building a movement for an election and a Corbyn govt, and a campaign to transform the Labour Party. On it's own, as you say...


----------



## cantsin (Dec 20, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.



no / all commonsense truths / factz


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> The left of the party very much has been focussing on getting rid of right wing Labour MPs, but it takes time. That's one reason Corbyn has been in no hurry to have another election. The longer he waits, the less right wing Labour MPs he'll have to put up with in parliament.
> 
> The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him.
> 
> As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).



I'm sorry for not expressing myself in more considered terms, but that is complete and utter bollocks. 

It doesn't take time to get rid of right wing MP's who won't support the leadership. If automatic re-selection had been brought in two years ago it would be done already. I am tired of hearing excuses from the Labour left. It's all "we know what we're doing", "we have to be patient", "Jezza's playing the long game." The labour left had a historic opportunity to do something positive here and they haven't just not done it, they've shat the fucking bed and now they're acting like it's someone elses fault. 

We should be completely clear about this: If Corbyn is biding his time then he's an idiot because he's giving the Labour right more time to remove him _and remove him they will, _and he's a charlatan because he pretends to care about the horrific immiseration of the working class taking place under this Tory govt but in fact he's _waiting _to do something about it. 

Honestly, what kind of idiot could look at this rapidly shifting political landscape and think "I'll just wait patiently, soon conditions will be optimal for victory!"


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

The left tried to push automatic reselection through at conference this year, and were still unsuccessful. The idea that they might have been able to do it two years ago, before they had such a grip on the party is fanciful to say the least. 

You don't seem very clued up on internal Labour politics SpackleFrog - perhaps you should avoid dismissing other people's posts on the topic as bollocks with that in mind.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him.
> 
> As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).



You are talking gibberish. For at least 5 reasons:

1. There has been no_ attempt_ by Labour to set out, campaign for, argue for and build confidence in a set of ideas post exit. Or to counterpose those ideas to the ideas of the competing wings of the Tory Party. If you think a future tied to the EU single market is really the summit of aspirations, or if you think the flaccid 6 tests of Starmer forms the basis of anything, then we might as well pack up now.
2. The idea that 'economic pain' is inevitable post Brexit has been debated at length on here recently. Your throw away assertion just isn't good enough. I don't accept it  in any case but at the very least you need to offer up some evidence (preferably not supplied by captains of industry).
3. If we accept your point as true however what sort of 'socialist' knowingly sits back and waits for the 'pain' on the basis that it might be electorally advantageous? Either you are wrong - or he's a twat - on that basis. 
4. There is a perfectly plausible set of arguments for a left no deal and exist on WTO terms. I cam summarise them if you want but I would advise you to read this and have a think: Costas Lapavitsas: Socialism starts at home
5. If Corbyn had set out a radical set of ideas, had campaigned for them, had mobilised popular support for them, had got Momentum out arguing for it across the country etc then a) he would be miles ahead in the polls by now at the very least and b) given the civil war in the Tory party would be in a much stronger position to win a no confidence vote.

The failure to do the above will haunt Corbyn and the social democrat let much longer than calling May a stupid women.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> The left tried to push automatic reselection through at conference this year, and were still unsuccessful. The idea that they might have been able to do it two years ago, before they had such a grip on the party is fanciful to say the least.
> 
> You don't seem very clued up on internal Labour politics SpackleFrog - perhaps you should avoid dismissing other people's posts on the topic as bollocks with that in mind.



I think I'm clued up enough ta.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think I'm clued up enough ta.


but you seem to think the left have some sort of total grip of the reins of power in the Labour Party, and have done for two years. This is - to coin a term - complete and utter bollocks.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 2. The idea that 'economic pain' is inevitable post Brexit has been debated at length on here recently. Your throw away assertion just isn't good enough. I don't accept it  in any case but at the very least you need to offer up some evidence (preferably not supplied by captains of industry).


Is this okay?

Jacob Rees-Mogg Says It Could Take 50 Years To Reap The Benefits Of Brexit


Smokeandsteam said:


> 5. If Corbyn had set out a radical set of ideas, had campaigned for them, had mobilised popular support for them, had got Momentum out arguing for it across the country etc then a) he would be miles ahead in the polls by now at the very least and b) given the civil war in the Tory party would be in a much stronger position to win a no confidence vote.
> The failure to do the above will haunt Corbyn and the social democrat let much longer than calling May a stupid women.


No chance of that happening for so many reasons, the main one being is it wouldnt have achieved what you dream it wouldve - the opposite in fact.  Its not going to haunt anyone, it was an impossibility.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> but you seem to think the left have some sort of total grip of the reins of power in the Labour Party, and have done for two years. This is - to coin a term - complete and utter bollocks.



Given that you seem to be clued up (and I agree with your position) to what extent do you attribute the total pish that is Labour's position on Brexit to the ongoing internal power struggle?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Is this okay?
> 
> Jacob Rees-Mogg Says It Could Take 50 Years To Reap The Benefits Of Brexit



What? Is it 'okay' that a left analysis should take Rees Mogg's dribble as the starting point to map out ideas and arguments? It's not really is it?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What? Is it 'okay' that a left analysis should take Rees Mogg's dribble as the starting point to map out ideas and arguments? It's not really is it?


eh? you asked about someones economic forecast. Theres one from one of the most adrent supporters of brexit.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given that you seem to be clued up (and I agree with your position) to what extent do you attribute the total pish that is Labour's position on Brexit to the ongoing internal power struggle?


Labour's position on brexit's only real purpose is to hold together a very fragile electoral coalition of supporters and members from across the spectrum of very strong remain to very strong leave. They judge - I think probably correctly - that any attempt in the last year to shift significantly on this in one direction or the other would have seen this coalition collapse.

If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.

While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

ska invita said:


> eh? you asked about someones economic forecast. Theres one from one of the most adrent supporters of brexit.



I asked 'Brain Addict' to evidence his argument that 'economic pain is inevitable' post Brexit not from the representatives of the ruling class/m,embers of it. Can you see why there is a massive issue with supposed socialists quoting guff from twats like Rees Mogg, Blair etc? Can you see how this is narrowing the debate? How this boxes us all in to debating it on their terms?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> but you seem to think the left have some sort of total grip of the reins of power in the Labour Party, and have done for two years. This is - to coin a term - complete and utter bollocks.



You didn't coin a term you just nicked mine! 

I don't at all think the left have any sort of grip on the reigns of power. Obviously bringing automatic reselection for example would have required a massive struggle.

Problem is though, what the Labour left have tried to do is to avoid any kind of struggle. It's been 3 and a half years of constant retreats, compromises and hesitations - all wrapped up in the language of "we're biding our time and playing the long game". 

What has been the result of that? Corbyn is now in a weaker position that at any time since he was first elected leader _in spite of how well Labour did in the GE last year. _


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

Why do you think Corbyn is in a weak position? With whom?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Labour's position on brexit's only real purpose is to hold together a very fragile electoral coalition of supporters and members from across the spectrum of very strong remain to very strong leave. They judge - I think probably correctly - that any attempt in the last year to shift significantly on this in one direction or the other would have seen this coalition collapse.
> 
> If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.
> 
> While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.



I agree that Labour's Brexit 'position' is designed to hold everything together and nothing more. But there is no coalition to hold together. You say this is worth doing because the party will split but how does it now avoid a split?

I disagree that they would have been fucked electorally - especially since the snap GE and the state of May's govt ever since. But it's sort of irrelevant unless there's going to be an election any time soon. I don't want to say an election is impossible but we will have to pull our finger out pretty sharpish.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

[QUOTE="killer b, post: 15854621, member: 2066"If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.

While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.[/QUOTE]

I think that's probably right in terms of the thinking and dynamics within the party but for the reasons I won't bore you with again its a massive error of judgement and missed opportunity. It's left the two administrative wings of the ruling class free reign to own the debate.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Why do you think Corbyn is in a weak position? With whom?



In his party. He'll be under constant pressure to call a VoNC when May's deal fails. He looks like an idiot if he doesn't and if he does and it passes he'll look an even bigger idiot when he can't form a govt.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

There has been a significant struggle going on within the party btw, no-one is biding their time or playing the long game.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> In his party. He'll be under constant pressure to call a VoNC when May's deal fails. He looks like an idiot if he doesn't and if he does and it passes he'll look an even bigger idiot when he can't form a govt.


How so? There is no way Labour can make a majority in this parliament. Tory plus DUP numbers prevent that. So the VoNC wouldn't be called under the illusion that Labour could form a govt, and nor would it need to be. It would be called to bring this govt down and force an election.

I think it's hard to judge exactly how things will play out once May's deal has been voted down. I suspect that a lot more things will suddenly seem possible.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I asked 'Brain Addict' to evidence his argument that 'economic pain is inevitable' post Brexit not from the representatives of the ruling class/m,embers of it. Can you see why there is a massive issue with supposed socialists quoting guff from twats like Rees Mogg, Blair etc? Can you see how this is narrowing the debate? How this boxes us all in to debating it on their terms?


ah I misunderstood...you're asking for a positive economic forecast for a socialist brexit that doesnt exist?
Okay, let me get a pen and a fag packet....

IF a Lexit was ever on the agenda this might be a conversation worth having. It never was. People who said I cant support a Brexit led by the extreme right were told to vote for it anyway - It'll all be worth it. Not economically, not in the short term, not in the mid term necesasarily, but in the long run. Thats a fair argument.
Everything else is just wishful thinking alternate realities. Ive got lots of those too.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

ska invita said:


> ah I misunderstood...you're asking for a positive economic forecast for a socialist brexit that doesnt exist?



No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain


All that needs to be argued is that leaving the single market _like this_ causes economic pain and brings no progressive benefit. That's the argument against leaving the EU _like this_. You may want to leave in a very different way, in which case you could set out its benefits, but you have to admit that your alternative brexit isn't going to happen so it's not really directly relevant when considering the pros and cons of the various brexits that can happen. 

Staying in the EU isn't an answer to many problems other than to say that leaving the EU in this nationalist, xenophobic manner just makes all those problems worse. How to tackle transforming Britain (and the wider world) into a better place is a whole separate argument once you've judged that the first step _isn't_ a rightwing brexit.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain


Okay i misunderstood a second time. Thats fair enough.  Apologies


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> There has been a significant struggle going on within the party btw, no-one is biding their time or playing the long game.



I'm not saying anyone is biding their time or playing the long game but that seems to be what you're saying?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2018)

_All that needs to be argued is that remaining in the single market like this causes economic pain and brings no progressive benefit. That's the argument against remaining in the EU like this. You may want to remain in a very different way, in which case you could set out its benefits, but you have to admit that your alternative remain isn't going to happen so it's not really directly relevant when considering the pros and cons of the various remains that can happen._

Weak as crap. And the same argument used by centralists since the word dot. _Oh well it would be great to vote for socialist party but they aren't going to get into power so vote for New Labour instead_. If you're going to argue this crap at least have the honesty to admit you're no more a socialist than Toybee - this is exactly the same argument she used in favour of a vote for Cooper.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

ska invita said:


> IF a Lexit was ever on the agenda this might be a conversation worth having. It never was.



You're right, it's never been on the agenda in the mainstream. Whose fault is that?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How so? There is no way Labour can make a majority in this parliament. Tory plus DUP numbers prevent that. So the VoNC wouldn't be called under the illusion that Labour could form a govt, and nor would it need to be. It would be called to bring this govt down and force an election.
> 
> I think it's hard to judge exactly how things will play out once May's deal has been voted down. I suspect that a lot more things will suddenly seem possible.



I think a VoNC would pass regardless of what DUP do. But why would a VoNC mean an election?


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not saying anyone is biding their time or playing the long game but that seems to be what you're saying?


Party brexit policy is different from the battle for internal control.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> _All that needs to be argued is that remaining in the single market like this causes economic pain and brings no progressive benefit. That's the argument against remaining in the EU like this. You may want to remain in a very different way, in which case you could set out its benefits, but you have to admit that your alternative remain isn't going to happen so it's not really directly relevant when considering the pros and cons of the various remains that can happen._
> 
> Weak as crap. And the same argument used by centralists since the word dot. Oh well it would be great to vote for socialist party but they aren't going to get into power so vote for New Labour instead. If you're going to argue this crap at least have the honesty to admit you're no more a socialist than Toybee - this is exactly the same argument she used in favour of a vote for Cooper.


This is a tory-led nationalist, xenophobic brexit that is likely to bring economic pain and regressive, not progressive measures - just see the latest immigration plans. That's argument enough against brexit. You want to build a socialist future? So do I. You don't do it by supporting this.

What is weak as crap is to in any way want any of the current brexit plans to do anything other than crash and burn, leading to a cancellation of the whole thing. To wilfully want things to get worse with no plan whatsoever for how that might be of any longer-term benefit. That's weak.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think a VoNC would pass regardless of what DUP do.


How?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> How?



I think there are plenty of Tories who would like a new govt to be formed at a suitable time.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

there are zero tories who would vote through a no confidence motion in the government right now. zero.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a tory-led nationalist, xenophobic brexit that is likely to bring economic pain and regressive, not progressive measures - just see the latest immigration plans. That's argument enough against brexit. You want to build a socialist future? So do I. You don't do it by supporting this.



What is your strategy for a Socialist future though? At what point will we be strong enough to break with neoliberalism and put forward a Socialist plan? Because I'm concerned that if the left is not breaking with neoliberalism then it's very unlikely that anything will ever be led by anyone but racist Tories -whether they are pro or anti EU.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> _All that needs to be argued is that remaining in the single market like this causes economic pain and brings no progressive benefit. That's the argument against remaining in the EU like this. You may want to remain in a very different way, in which case you could set out its benefits, but you have to admit that your alternative remain isn't going to happen so it's not really directly relevant when considering the pros and cons of the various remains that can happen._
> 
> Weak as crap. And the same argument used by centralists since the word dot. _Oh well it would be great to vote for socialist party but they aren't going to get into power so vote for New Labour instead_. If you're going to argue this crap at least have the honesty to admit you're no more a socialist than Toybee - this is exactly the same argument she used in favour of a vote for Cooper.



It's this miserable lack of ambition, allied to a smug head patting superiority, that gives us Tory Governments. People work out Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same arse. Corbyn and McDonnell had a chance to dismantle the state of affairs post the referendum result but bottled/blew it.

ETA - not by you, but the poster you replied to.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> there are zero tories who would vote through a no confidence motion in the government right now. zero.



Maybe not quite zero, but close enough, sure. But it won't happen now, because May delayed the vote. 

How about in early February when Brexit is just a month away?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> What is your strategy for a Socialist future though? At what point will we be strong enough to break with neoliberalism and put forward a Socialist plan? Because I'm concerned that if the left is not breaking with neoliberalism then it's very unlikely that anything will ever be led by anyone but racist Tories -whether they are pro or anti EU.


That's a different discussion though. The faulty logic 'something needs to be done; this is something; so this must be done' is all I see from those wanting the UK to leave the EU on terms dictated by the nationalist right.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a different discussion though. The faulty logic 'something needs to be done; this is something; so this must be done' is all I see from those wanting the UK to leave the EU on terms dictated by the nationalist right.



I don't think it's a different discussion. You may not like the 'something' proposed and hey I'm not trying to claim this is an ideal situation, but you can't pose 'nothing' in response.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Maybe not quite zero, but close enough, sure. But it won't happen now, because May delayed the vote.
> 
> How about in early February when Brexit is just a month away?


Still zero. 

If government policy switches to explicitly no deal, then perhaps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think it's a different discussion. You may not like the 'something' proposed and hey I'm not trying to claim this is an ideal situation, but you can't pose 'nothing' in response.


I can if the 'something' is worse than 'nothing', which in the case of brexit I absolutely think it is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Still zero.
> 
> If government policy switches to explicitly no deal, then perhaps.



Well, we'll see won't we?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can if the 'something' is worse than 'nothing', which in the case of brexit I absolutely think it is.



I don't think you can advocate doing nothing in Tory Britain in 2018 and still claim to want a Socialist transformation.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well, we'll see won't we?


£10 to the server fund if any Tory MP votes for a VONC against the government, outside of a no-deal brexit scenario.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think you can advocate doing nothing in Tory Britain in 2018 and still claim to want a Socialist transformation.


I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm simply at this point advocating not doing a particular thing.

In terms of Corbyn and Labour, it's not enough to claim that somehow, magically, you can do a brexit that brings benefits. That's just hot air. You need to set out clearly what it is you intend to do to solve various problems, increase the tax take by taxing the rich, building programs, education, health, benefits, nationalisations, etc etc etc. And a brexit would need to support doing those things. That would be a 'lexit'. But they don't even want to make those arguments, and they wouldn't be that easy to make, tbh: what is it exactly in their wishlist that the EU would block?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> £10 to the server fund if any Tory MP votes for a VONC against the government, outside of a no-deal brexit scenario.



Is that bet? I'm not taking bets unless the £10 goes to me!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm simply at this point advocating not doing a particular thing.



Yeah alright I know you're not advocating a Brexit of any kind. But what are you advocating? When they cancel Brexit shit is gonna get pretty wild. The future holds more turbulence and upheaval, not less.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 20, 2018)

I just heard a rumour that Ivan Lewis has resigned. Because of past allegations or because of Corbyns attitude to anti semitism?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a different discussion though. The faulty logic 'something needs to be done; this is something; so this must be done' is all I see from those wanting the UK to leave the EU on terms dictated by the nationalist right.



Even the dogs on the street could see that whilst a pandoras box of grievances propelled the referendum result at base there was a simple message - change.

And what has been the response? From the right a civil war about how to protect its interests going forward and from much of the the left an abysmal clinging to the single market and neo-liberal economic structures that have helped to drive the rebellion in the first place.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 20, 2018)

Yahoo is now part of Oath


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I just heard a rumour that Ivan Lewis has resigned. Because of past allegations or because of Corbyns attitude to anti semitism?


He has resigned from the party because of antisemitism, while suspended and under investigation for being a massive creep. He also claims the delay in the investigation into him being a massive creep (already ongoing for 12 months) is politically motivated.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a tory-led nationalist, xenophobic brexit that is likely to bring economic pain and regressive, not progressive measures - just see the latest immigration plans. That's argument enough against brexit. You want to build a socialist future? So do I. You don't do it by supporting this.


Nobody has posted in support of "a tory-led nationalist, xenophobic brexit".


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 20, 2018)

It is what we're getting though. With some neoliberalism chucked in for the zeitgeist.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It is what we're getting though. With some neoliberalism chucked in for the zeitgeist.



Nah, we're getting Remain.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> £10 to the server fund if any Tory MP votes for a VONC against the government, outside of a no-deal brexit scenario.



I think there is a scenario where things start looking like no Brexit at all and that may spur the ERG into action with the hope of toppling May and getting one of their own at the helm and win the subsequent election.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I think there is a scenario where things start looking like no Brexit at all and that may spur the ERG into action with the hope of toppling May and getting one of their own at the helm and win the subsequent election.



No chance. They don't have the numbers; they're irrelevant now.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 20, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> No chance. They don't have the numbers; they're irrelevant now.



20 - 30 of them voting against their own government would be enough in a vonc.

I don't think it's going to happen but it is a potential scenario, I think.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 20, 2018)

killer b said:


> Still zero.
> 
> If government policy switches to explicitly no deal, then perhaps.



I doubt they'll go to a _deliberate _no deal stance - that's been May's strategy for the lest two years: kick the decision point down the road til people are faced with two really unappealing choices. She'll be talking about negotiation until 10.59, and the arch remainer tories will stick with her because she'll present them with something they want to see - only when the last minute has gone will she go for 'no deal', at which point it will be too late to do anything about it, and the remained can either have a Tory no deal government or a Labour no deal government - and they'll go for a Tory no deal government...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> 20 - 30 of them voting against their own government would be enough in a vonc.
> 
> I don't think it's going to happen but it is a potential scenario, I think.



I think it could easily happen and as you say it wouldn't need many but I suspect it'll come from the Remain wing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It is what we're getting though. With some neoliberalism chucked in for the zeitgeist.


Even if that is true, the responsibility of those policies lie with the government/the political class (or more accurately with capital) not with those that voted leave.

If a vote for leave was a vote for "a tory-led nationalist, xenophobic brexit" then a vote for Remain must have been a vote for anti-trade union laws. But of course neither is true, people voted for both for many different (sometimes contradictory) reasons. I know comrades that voted Remain, I know they weren't voting for neo-liberalism, they felt that Remain was the best option. I disagree with much of their reasoning but I absolutely don't doubt their intentions and they are not responsible for the actions of the EU, anymore than those people that voted Labour in 2010 were supporting austerity or those that voted Labour in 2005 were backing the Iraq war.

Governments use the argument that because people have voted for them they have a mandate for their policies, that because they got voted in they have a mandate for privatisation, PFI, attacks on the welfare state etc. But not only is that utter rubbish (we know strong majorities oppose the privatisation of public services) it actually reduces the strength of support that exists for class politics.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 20, 2018)

I agree, but I wasn't casting aspersions on voters. I'm simply finding it hard to understand why someone who may have voted leave for reasons beyond those put forward by the official ''leave'' campaign would still, knowing how it's all going, still argue that Brexit** was in any way a good idea. The only argument for it as far as I'm concerned is ''it's what people voted for'' and while valid, that's the thinnest argument there is for supporting what's actually happening (as opposed to eg what we might want to happen instead and what we perhaps voted for, or with in mind).

**note, not ''leaving the EU'' but ''Brexit'', the tory branded version of same.

EtA, sorry, off-topic, wrong thread etc. I'm not demanding any explanation just washing my head.


----------



## Supine (Dec 20, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I just heard a rumour that Ivan Lewis has resigned. Because of past allegations or because of Corbyns attitude to anti semitism?



His resignation letter doesn't hold back the punches


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I asked 'Brain Addict' to evidence his argument that 'economic pain is inevitable' post Brexit not from the representatives of the ruling class/m,embers of it. Can you see why there is a massive issue with supposed socialists quoting guff from twats like Rees Mogg, Blair etc? Can you see how this is narrowing the debate? How this boxes us all in to debating it on their terms?


I can't really prove a speculative scenario of course but it's more about reading the political dynamics. To put it more plainly, the EU _wants _the UK to have a miserable Brexit, and they are bigger than us. It's really that simple. This isn't even an argument for or against Brexit, or for or against Lexit. It's just about who has the power and what they want to do with it.

As for some of the other ideas, okay try to build a socialist future with a bunch of Blairite MPs if you want, but there's a reason Corbyn is playing a longer game and that's because you can't.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

This whole socialist Brexit thing is a lovely idea and might have happened in some distant future but, to repeat myself, there is no party capable of putting together a socialist government at the moment. You might as well say that Brexit would be better if we had a government of unicorns. As for a grassroots movement for a socialist Brexit, sure, in theory possible, but kind of hard to sell with a parliamentary party who would openly sabotage any such thing.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 20, 2018)

So you mean the parliamentary road to socialism is out? Blimey.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2018)

Brainaddict said:


> I can't really prove a speculative scenario of course but it's more about reading the political dynamics. To put it more plainly, the EU _wants _the UK to have a miserable Brexit, and they are bigger than us. It's really that simple. This isn't even an argument for or against Brexit, or for or against Lexit. It's just about who has the power and what they want to do with it.
> 
> As for some of the other ideas, okay try to build a socialist future with a bunch of Blairite MPs if you want, but there's a reason Corbyn is playing a longer game and that's because you can't.



'Playing the long game' won't achieve anything.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I agree, but I wasn't casting aspersions on voters.


Sorry I didn't mean to imply you have, I think you've been clear in outlining your disagreement with a leave vote while not simply dismissing those that did vote leave. But other's have made such an argument.



Brainaddict said:


> This whole socialist Brexit thing is a lovely idea and might have happened in some distant future but, to repeat myself, there is no party capable of putting together a socialist government at the moment. You might as well say that Brexit would be better if we had a government of unicorns.


Has anyone, on U75 or further afield, actually argued that the UK leaving the EU will result in a socialist Britain? I've not seen argue anything as silly as that. Some people have argued that Leave would help get a social democratic Labour government into power, others of us have argued that it opens opportunities for labour but no one's arguing that there will be a socialist government in the UK.



Brainaddict said:


> As for a grassroots movement for a socialist Brexit, sure, in theory possible, but kind of hard to sell with a parliamentary party who would openly sabotage any such thing.


This, or a similar argument has come up a few times now - that leaving the EU would be a good thing under the right conditions but the time isn't right, that the working class is too weak at this moment. And of course there is a certain amount of truth in it, are the present conditions the ones that you'd pick ideally for this fight, almost certainly not - _but that goes for every fight!_

During the recent ballot for industrial action by the UCU there were those that argued that it wasn't the right time, that the start of term was a terrible time to have a ballot. And they were completely correct, the timing of the ballot was crap (and was part of why we didn't get the turnout) but what's the alternative, _that we accept the attack on conditions this time, but we'll really fight back next year!_ We've been saying that for years and the timing will not be any better next year.

Whether it's a workplace dispute like that or leaving the EU if we wait around for the _right_ time we'll be waiting forever, there's always going to be a better time/conditions for a dispute, that's the nature of the fight. And we should not lose sight of the fact that many of our greatest victories came from dispute's that started under less than ideal conditions.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 20, 2018)

Poi E said:


> So you mean the parliamentary road to socialism is out? Blimey.


This is a thread about Corbyn, and we were discussing what he is or is not capable of doing. Delivering a socialist Brexit comes under 'not', was my point.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 21, 2018)

Poi E said:


> So you mean the parliamentary road to socialism is out? Blimey.



Looking at current voters and voting trends coupled with the establishments livid determination never to treat a socialist like a serious human being.

Yes.

If we'd had a few more socialists coming out for Leave I might have given it a punt, instead we had "I'm not a racist" Farage, "look at the wogs" Johnson and Libertarian wunderkind Michael fucking Gove.

Realising I had to be on the Remian, status quo side with Cameron was still pretty depressing mind,


----------



## mauvais (Dec 21, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I just heard a rumour that Ivan Lewis has resigned. Because of past allegations or because of Corbyns attitude to anti semitism?


He's our MP and unfortunately remains so. Useless. I suspect he really didn't want to go through his disciplinary and have to answer his sexual harassment accusers. The antisemitism topic is relevant - our area is strongly orthodox Jewish - but the timing is _interesting_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2018)

my deaf brother says its people, and he has no dog i the fight, politics is just weather to him. So case closed.



this bloke. For real.




I struggle to believe he didn't know who GA was


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2018)

It's baffling - but then the other possibility, that he knowingly retweeted support for an unquestionably virulent anti-semite just in time for the politics lobby to have nothing else to write about for two weeks seem fantastical too.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 21, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's baffling - but then the other possibility, that he knowingly retweeted support for an unquestionably virulent anti-semite just in time for the politics lobby to have nothing else to write about for two weeks seem fantastical too.



he's jumped the shark this time


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2018)

mate, he jumped the shark ages ago.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 21, 2018)

killer b said:


> It's baffling - but then the other possibility, that he knowingly retweeted support for an unquestionably virulent anti-semite just in time for the politics lobby to have nothing else to write about for two weeks seem fantastical too.



It's not his first offence though is it? And it's simply not credible that, given his deep 'interest' in antisemitism, he didn't know who GA was.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2018)

I agree it's not credible - but in which case what was he hoping to achieve?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 21, 2018)

killer b said:


> I agree it's not credible - but in which case what was he hoping to achieve?



Jew baiting?


----------



## Poi E (Dec 22, 2018)

Labour happy to work with the DUP, says McDonnell. Gordon Brown offered to advise them. They are fucked


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Labour happy to work with the DUP, says McDonnell. Gordon Brown offered to advise them. They are fucked




I suppose labour want to prove it’s not just antisemitism they are ok with, but anti-catholic bigotry too.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 22, 2018)

They are a broad church.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 22, 2018)

mauvais said:


> He's our MP and unfortunately remains so. Useless. I suspect he really didn't want to go through his disciplinary and have to answer his sexual harassment accusers. The antisemitism topic is relevant - our area is strongly orthodox Jewish - but the timing is _interesting_.


He is a sex pest red Tory c7nt.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> He is a sex pest red Tory c7nt.



Yeah I’m hesitant to start applauding Lewis over his resignation. 

That labour has a massive ‘problem’ with is beyond doubt though


----------



## TopCat (Dec 22, 2018)

Is?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2018)

Yeah it’s not like one of their high profile MPs signed and promoted a petition in defence of Gilad fucking Atzmon is it?

(After bigging up Vannesa Beeley)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 22, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Labour happy to work with the DUP, says McDonnell. Gordon Brown offered to advise them. They are fucked


----------



## paolo (Dec 22, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


>



Oh my giddy aunt.

UK politics had gone from unusually unstable to completely surreal.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 23, 2018)

paolo said:


> Oh my giddy aunt.
> 
> UK politics had gone from unusually unstable to completely surreal.



The DUP don't even matter any more. It's not just a completely unprincipled concession, it's unnecessary.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 23, 2018)

Right, so Labour have sorted themselves, made their position clear, made a powerful intervention... the DUP.
At least in the Summer you get a _proper_ silly season.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2018)

Poi E said:


> Labour happy to work with the DUP, says McDonnell. Gordon Brown offered to advise them. They are fucked




Is the precise text of this up free from paywalls - not one to go along with just a clickbait twitter summary


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Is the precise text of this up free from paywalls - not one to go along with just a clickbait twitter summary



John McDonnell, the softly spoken “street orator” and avowed Marxist intent on colonising the centre ground, is running late. Stephen Kinnock, a persistent Corbyn critic working with the Tories for a softer Brexit, emerges first from his office. A few minutes later comes Ivan Lewis, who resigned from the party the next day in protest at the Labour leader’s failure to address antisemitism.

Mr McDonnell, 67, was once seen as the menace behind Jeremy Corbyn’s grandfatherly charm. In recent months, however, he has emerged as the figure to whom Labour moderates turn for reason. The shadow chancellor is doing his damndest to hold Labour’s dysfunctional family together.

How much did his long spell running a small children’s home with his first wife prepare him for what he does today?

“The one thing you try and have when you’re looking after children is empathy,” he says.

“I think that’s the most valuable lesson, empathy as much as possible. But, at the same time, with children you have to set parameters as well. What I try and do is empathise as much as possible but also set a few parameters.”

He says that he has been talking to all sides of his party, which represents some of the most pro-Leave and pro-Remain seats in the country. Some Labour MPs believe the leadership is dragging its feet over a no confidence vote in the government because it is committed to considering another Brexit referendum if it fails to trigger a general election.

Mr McDonnell denies that. He has “always urged people to be savvy” about a no confidence vote, he says.

Will Labour table one in January if, as expected, MPs vote down Theresa May’s Brexit proposals? He cautions against making predictions, saying: “It depends on those unique circumstances and, of course, it depends on the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).”

If the party does move on to examine other options, including another referendum, he suggests that Labour members hoping for a say will be disappointed. Asked if the rank and file would decide the party’s stance on another Brexit vote, he replies: “I can’t see it, but anything can happen. At the moment, it’ll be the usual consultations that will decide it.”

These discussions will take place within the shadow cabinet and among Labour MPs, he says.

He smiles at the mention of the DUP, the kingmakers in a hung parliament because of their confidence and supply agreement with the Conservatives. As a supporter of a united Ireland Mr McDonnell is far from a natural bedfellow for the staunch Unionists.

However, he says that the two of them could have a fruitful relationship if Labour were in government. “This is a funny thing, I know — despite our differences around the issue around united Ireland and matters related to that, I’ve always had a good relationship with them,” he says.

He has always been able to talk to DUP MPs, he says, because “it’s always been on the basis of this is where we stand on a number of issues. Remember, they have a very large working-class community that they represent.”

“I can see a joint working programme,” he adds. “I can see them voting for policies that we’d advocate when we get into government.”

These would include “social investment, tackling the social security crisis that they’ve got in Northern Ireland, building the homes that they need, making sure their schools are properly funded and the NHS properly funded”.

Before any of this, Labour first has to win a general election and the next one is not due until 2022. Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, is working with the party on its preparations for government.

Also involved, perhaps more surprisingly, are figures from the New Labour era. Mr Corbyn, 69, was famously a thorn in the side of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments, voting against them 500 times.

Nevertheless, those prepared to help the party include Labour’s last prime minister, says Mr McDonnell. Eleven years ago, Mr McDonnell was the only Labour MP to try to halt Mr Brown’s coronation as party leader and prime minister, although he couldn’t muster enough support from colleagues to make it into a contest.

“Gordon Brown and others have always said that whatever assistance we need is open to us.” He even says he wants to build on Mr Brown’s legacy.

One of the issues the shadow chancellor says that the party is keen to address is “how can we make sure that we’re tackling the problems of child poverty, which Gordon Brown went so far on, but we think we’ve got to set a target of eliminating it”.

A Treasury under Mr McDonnell would be given a mandate to look at inequality and climate change. And, despite the criticism the party would face, he is unafraid to talk of Soviet-style five-year plans.

His Treasury would begin a spending review in the first year, he says. “The spending reviews at the moment are three-year programmes. We’re looking for a five-year programme. The idea behind that is to start setting targets around each element of expenditure as well,” he says.

He is also preparing for an emergency budget within two months of getting into power. Labour has told the Office for Budget Responsibility to cut the time it takes to prepare for a budget from ten to eight weeks to “have the budget as soon as we possibly can”.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2018)

(part 2)

With Labour setting out its stall, Mr McDonnell is asking for input into the appointment of the next Bank of England governor, even though he is still shadow chancellor. Although Mark Carney is not due to leave until January 2020, replacing him will be a long process.

An independent report for Labour on financial services includes “a significantly new role for the Bank of England for a strategic investment board, so the idea is to make sure whoever goes into that role recognises the key role that they’ll play in direct investment”, he says.

Labour accused the government of stealing a number of its policies in October’s budget. Mr McDonnell says that the party should be flattered and denies that it is a sign that he and Mr Corbyn are not radical enough.

“Yes, they steal [policies] but they’re really so useless they can’t implement them effectively,” he says. “They do it in a half-hearted way. They’re not really committed, so it’s just seen as tokenism, really.”

He adds: “It means we’re winning the arguments. It commonsense socialism. We’re all socialists now.”

Perhaps with one notable exception, he concedes, although he then claims: “Theresa May wants to be a socialist.”

He adds that he had recently handed some Tory MPs in the Commons chamber “an application to join the Labour Party. I suggested that some of them might want to look at it.”

It is the Corbyn-led Labour party that occupies the centre ground, he says. “I think we’re identifying the issues that need to be addressed. We’re identifying the solutions that people generally accept are the right solutions and we’re dominating in terms of the intellectual debate.

“However you judge it, if you’ve got a majority of opinion, obviously you are demonstrating you’re right the way across to be the centre. Of course you have to. You have to capitalise the centre if you’re going to get into government. That’s what we’ve done, we’ve expanded our base.”

That leaves an obvious question. How do you translate that into votes? The answer, he says, is in “more effective communication of those ideas using whatever mechanisms we possibly can, using whatever media we can”.

One of the fears of many centrist Labour MPs is that they will be deselected by their local parties and replaced by Corbynites. Mr McDonnell says he thinks that deselections will continue to be very rare. However, he appears to suggest that it is up to MPs to make sure it does not happen to them.

“It’s not difficult to maintain a good relationship with your constituency party,” he says.

“It really isn’t, because even where there’s difficult differences, there’s an understanding that there will be difficult differences. As long as you represent the party effectively and as long as you do the work on the ground, it’s very rare to deselect someone.”

He does believe that the party needs to do more to improve its relationship with the Jewish community after months of accusations of antisemitism.

Mr Lewis, who is Jewish, accused the Labour leadership of delaying an investigation into sexual harassment claims against him for political reasons but also told Mr Corbyn: “All too often you have been unwilling to condemn those whose hatred of Israel becomes Jew hatred.”

Mr McDonnell says that the party’s relationship with the Jewish community is one “we work at all the time”.

He says that Labour is also working hard to “make sure this society isn’t divided because of the Brexit issue. I’m really worried about that.”

Some have accused Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell of being dangerous radicals. Instead, he insists, they are boring. He reveals that the last Christmas present he received from his party leader was the tie of his beloved Liverpool Football Club.

The last gift he gave Mr Corbyn, who makes jam from his own fruit, was a book on the history of allotments.

“I think it was either for his birthday or Christmas,” he laughs. “Are we stereotypical or what? We’re boring, aren’t we? Well, he loved it.”

He adds: “Then I got him another book, it was the history of the railway system, because they’re his two loves.”

When he is not preparing for a socialist government, Mr McDonnell is learning to play the trombone and in particular _When the Saints go Marching In_, with its references to the Book of Revelation.

He admits that, as tunes go, “it’s the simplest and easiest one. I haven’t had much time to practise.”

He hopes that soon all the hard work will pay off, and instead of Labour backbenchers filing out of his office, it will be some of the most important players in world finance.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 23, 2018)

"commonsense socialism." That's what liberalism calls itself now.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 24, 2018)

It’s ok, the scabs still support corbyn


----------



## 8ball (Dec 24, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 156580 It’s ok, the scabs still support corbyn



Not sure whether the point of that post went over your head.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Not sure whether the point of that post went over your head.



It didn’t


----------



## 8ball (Dec 24, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It didn’t



Well, that’s nice.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, that’s nice.



Tis the season


----------



## 8ball (Dec 24, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Tis the season



I get your point to be fair.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 24, 2018)

**Game changer**


----------



## Poi E (Dec 24, 2018)

How wonderfully English to develop death ray vision in one's allotment shed. Bravo!


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2018)

I thought this article on corbyns brexit strategy is good: makes some attempt to explore what they're actually trying to achieve... everyone else seems to stop at either 'he's useless' or 'he's treading water waiting for something to change'

Parliamentary vs public process: a defence of Corbyn’s strategy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Out of character for JC to have said this. I don't believe he called that cunt that.



TBF, he should have called her a cunt, and set up a Derek & Clive-like dialogue at the despatch box.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.
> 
> I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.



Corbyn doesn't have the power to remove MPs. That's the purview of constituency parties. All Corbyn has the power to do, is to withdraw the whip, and to do so would mean having even less influence over their actions than currently. If they defy the whip, they make themselves look bad. If they're unwhipped, they can run roughshod.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 25, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Corbyn doesn't have the power to remove MPs. That's the purview of constituency parties. All Corbyn has the power to do, is to withdraw the whip, and to do so would mean having even less influence over their actions than currently. If they defy the whip, they make themselves look bad. If they're unwhipped, they can run roughshod.



I disagree actually. Remember the Syria vote when he didn't whip? Hillary Benn did that awful speech about the international brigades. Had he withdrawn the whip, those pro-bombing MP's could have been replaced in the snap election with pro-Corbyn candidates. 

The answers often seem to be "oh well if he did x then the right wing would be even worse" but I can't help thinking not doing anything gives then free reign to undermine him without consequences.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2018)

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/thornberry-corbyn-hasnt-tackled-antisemitism-because-he-was-upset-by-claims/


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2018)

Fucking pathetic


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2018)

I just searched Emily Thornberry on Duckduckgo and the first entry was enlightening:

*Emily Thornberry at Amazon - Emily Thornberry, Low Prices *


----------



## cantsin (Dec 27, 2018)

Thornberry's a liability, always will be


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Thornberry's a liability, always will be



Revealing quote mind.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2018)

Yes she clearly thinks she's best suited to replace him.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2018)

two sheds said:


> Yes she clearly thinks she's best suited to replace him.



I wouldn’t credit her as being clever enough to pretend to be that stupid


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2018)

or stupid enough to pretend to be that clever?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2018)

two sheds said:


> or stupid enough to pretend to be that clever?



More likely that one


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 3, 2019)

'Labour First' are seeking donations to hire another member of staff to organise against momentum.

this is going well...


----------



## Poi E (Jan 4, 2019)

Oddly fascist symbol.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 9, 2019)

"Labour are antisemitic" - Rachel Riley.
"dumfounding...." George Galloway
Countdown's Rachel Riley tells George Galloway to 'f*** off' in antisemitism row
Even with all the Brexit mess going on, it still doesn't go away


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2019)

I don't think anyone really cares about a fight between Galloway and Riley other than twitter politics weirdos though (and precious few of them).


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think anyone really cares about a fight between Galloway and Riley other than twitter politics weirdos though (and precious few of them).



Because what Galloway is up to isn’t reflective of the attempt by conspiracist alt-Left types to exploit austerity and mass misery?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

It is my friends, my community who are being furiously targeted by the likes of Galloway, the Canary et all. 

People who are desperate and dying. They are an easy target for scum to peddle their red-brown scummery to


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2019)

I've no idea what Galloway is up to and don't have much interest, just like everyone else. I'm sure it's awful though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what Galloway is up to and don't have much interest, just like everyone else. I'm sure it's awful though.


he's not as funny as he used to be


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2019)

once he retired that 'two cheeks of the same arse' gag he has lacked for original material


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what Galloway is up to and don't have much interest.



Then you should. You should take an interest in the people he’s looking for support from (ie those most hardest hit by austerity), you should take an interest in the politics that he and his fellow travelers are pushing to disabled people/those reliant on DWP, you should take an interest in how pervasive this shite is within disability politics.


----------



## chilango (Jan 9, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Then you should. You should take an interest in the people he’s looking for support from (ie those most hardest hit by austerity), you should take an interest in the politics that he and his fellow travelers are pushing to disabled people/those reliant on DWP, you should take an interest in how pervasive this shite is within disability politics.



What sort of stuff is he pushing?


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2019)

How pervasive is it? And how significant a voice is Galloway in it all? I am concerned about The Canary and similar as they definitely have influence (see the relevant thread) but Galloway strikes me as a pretty marginal figure now. And I'm not sure why paying attention to a shitty twitter spat between him and Rachel Riley would aid combating any crap he is responsible for.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

1) antisemitism 
2) ‘complaints about anti-semitism is just a plot to stop labour/complaining about antisemtism means you don’t care about poor and disabled people’
3) shilling for putin and the Chinese CP


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> How pervasive is it? And how significant a voice is Galloway in it all? I am concerned about The Canary and similar as they definitely have influence (see the relevant thread) but Galloway strikes me as a pretty marginal figure now. And I'm not sure why paying attention to a shitty twitter spat between him and Rachel Riley would aid combating any crap he is responsible for.



Exactly. He is marginal. So he’s seeking a new constituency. Lots of scum have made the anti-Austerity movement as a place to make themselves relevant again.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> How pervasive is it? And how significant a voice is Galloway in it all? I am concerned about The Canary and similar as they definitely have influence (see the relevant thread) but Galloway strikes me as a pretty marginal figure now. And I'm not sure why paying attention to a shitty twitter spat between him and Rachel Riley would aid combating any crap he is responsible for.



What is his row with Riley about again?


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2019)

Does he have purchase though, or is he just yelling into the void?


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What is his row with Riley about again?


I haven't read it. I don't have much interest in either of them. Like everyone else.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does he have purchase though, or is he just yelling into the void?



Purchase with desperate people. Yes.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 9, 2019)

Its one of the many reasons that _anybody_ exploiting conspiraloonery to promote themselves is the worst kind of scum. A lot of that stuff appeals overwhelmingly to mentally ill people so conspiraloons selling their books and artwork are mostly fleecing vulnerable people, and probably knowingly to an extent .. though when you believe you actually have The Truth then stuff you do could be argued to be diminished responsibility of some kind.

tl;dr, Galloway is still a wanker.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Lots of scum have made the anti-Austerity movement as a place to make themselves relevant again.



Typo?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Lots of scum have made the anti-Austerity movement as a place to make themselves relevant again.



Did the scum make the anti austerity movement?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2019)

No. And you know that’s not what I meant. 

They’ve made a space (an increasingly large space) for themselves within it.

Scum like Sivier, Topple, Nelson, Galloway (hell, even former urbanite freethepeeps/Roy Bard) have targeted the welfare/disability movement.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2019)

The return of popular support for basic social democratic politics continues to increase. These sorts of results further indicate the shift away from the constructed 'common sense' neo-liberal ideas that have been dominant for 40 years.  




*Matthew Goodwin*‏Verified account @GoodwinMJ

Corbynomics is more popular than you think

Net support:

Cap rent at inflation +64
Raise income tax for top 5% +49
Workers on company boards +49
Rail owned/run by state +40
Utilities owned/run by state: +36 
No military interventions +25 
Free tuition: +22 

YouGov Nov 2018


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No. And you know that’s not what I meant.
> 
> They’ve made a space (an increasingly large space) for themselves within it.
> 
> Scum like Sivier, Topple, Nelson, Galloway (hell, even former urbanite freethepeeps/Roy Bard) have targeted the welfare/disability movement.



I didn't know - I asked because I'm not sure what you mean.

Have they made a home for themselves in the anti cuts movement? Or are they just a fixture of 'the left' which has always had its fair share of loons?

Are we talking about anti semetic scum or something else possibly with a link to anti semetism?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2019)

Jesus H. Christ.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2019)

JK is such a zoomer.  I'm no fan of Corbyn, his personality, his position, or his potential.  Not even a little bit.  But just knowing JK is so wound up about him kind of makes me wish I liked him more.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2019)

Yeah, I'm not 100% a fan but I still think under present circumstances he's offering a chance of something better than the current shitshow. But Rowling, well the fact that she likes a Cohen article and actually thinks it's worth posting up the link to it speaks volumes.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 13, 2019)

She's wrong about Trumpelstiltskin not only has Trumpism survived contact with Reality, but Reality is curled up in a corner sobbing uncontrollably


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2019)

Corbyn spends a lot of time on his allotment, Trump spends a lot of time on his golf course.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Jesus H. Christ.
> 
> View attachment 158591


Why drag Kenny Dalglish into this?


----------



## NoXion (Jan 14, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> JK is such a zoomer.  I'm no fan of Corbyn, his personality, his position, or his potential.  Not even a little bit.  But just knowing JK is so wound up about him kind of makes me wish I liked him more.



Zoomer? JK is way too old. Being born in 1965 makes her one of the early Gen Xers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Zoomer? JK is way too old. Being born in 1965 makes her one of the early Gen Xers.


Is “zoomer” also a generation? In common usage round these parts it means something like “frothing-mouthed, angry spouter of incoherent unreason”. (See also Frances Barber, Dan Hodges, etc).


----------



## NoXion (Jan 14, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Is “zoomer” also a generation? In common usage round these parts it means something like “frothing-mouthed, angry spouter of incoherent unreason”. (See also Frances Barber, Dan Hodges, etc).



Until now the only definition of "Zoomer" I was aware of was another label for Generation Z. So called because that generation was born into the fast-paced modern world and has known nothing else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Until now the only definition of "Zoomer" I was aware of was another label for Generation Z. So called because that generation was born into the fast-paced modern world and has known nothing else.


This passed me by. In the fast-paced modern world.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 14, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Zoomer? JK is way too old. Being born in 1965 makes her one of the early Gen Xers.



Zoomer is Scots slang for mad person.

“Rocket” fulfils the same function.

Its nothing to fo with “ Generation Z”.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 14, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No. And you know that’s not what I meant.
> 
> They’ve made a space (an increasingly large space) for themselves within it.
> 
> Scum like Sivier, Topple, Nelson, Galloway (hell, even former urbanite freethepeeps/Roy Bard) have targeted the welfare/disability movement.



sounds like a lot of / all the accusations against Sivier are turning out to be bollocks :

Zelo Street: Anti-Semitism Smear - Labour Member VINDICATED


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

cantsin said:


> sounds like a lot of / all the accusations against Sivier are turning out to be bollocks :
> 
> Zelo Street: Anti-Semitism Smear - Labour Member VINDICATED



Yeah if you say so fella


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

Of course it’s not just antisemitism which ues tolerated in the Labour Party...



“One of the cases, which involved the party’s former group leader on South Lanarkshire council, has dragged on for nearly twelve months.

A party source told this newspaper that a key problem is that disciplinary matters are dealt with at a UK level and there is a sizeable backlog.

MSP Anas Sarwar alleged last year that a councillor, in a telephone conversation during the Scottish Labour leadership contest, told him he could not support him because the country was not ready for a “brown, Muslim P**i”.

Sarwar did not initially disclose the individual's identity, but later named him to party bosses as senior South Lanarkshire councillor David McLachlan.

The councillor, who was suspended, said at the time: “I categorically deny these deeply hurtful allegations. I’m stunned and dismayed at the claims that I would say such things and I will defend myself robustly in the party’s investigation and in any actions that follow.”

However, nearly a year after the allegations surfaced, Labour has not reached a conclusion on the case.

Weeks after the McLachlan controversy, Dumfries and Galloway councillor Jim Dempster was revealed to have made an Islamophobic comment about the then Transport Minister Humza Yousaf.

He told transport officials at a meeting that "no-one would have seen [Yousaf] under his burka".

Dempster apologised and was suspended, but his disciplinary case also remains on the desk of the UK party ten months later.”


Labour attacked over 'shameful' delays in resolving racism allegation cases


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah if you say so fella


compelling retort


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> compelling retort



What is there to retort? A breathless attempt at defending Sivier, which is framed as ‘a lot of/all allegations against Sivier turning out to be bollocks’


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What is there to retort? A breathless attempt at defending Sivier, which is framed as ‘a lot of/all allegations against Sivier turning out to be bollocks’


The article linked to shows clearly how Sivier was attacked unfairly as an anti-semite, and how the allegations against him were unfounded. False accusations like those provide cover for the miniscule number of actual anti-semites in the party. The only person I see being 'breathless' here is you, I'm afraid.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> compelling retort



impressive stuff innit- see also the responses to Shaun Lawson's excellent work vs the weaponisers


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

The weaponisers.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

Sivier is awful and fuck him actually.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

More weaponising


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

Being a gobby prat is annoying, but it isn't holocaust denial. So, no, don't 'fuck him.'  Who benefits from him being fucked? It's not the labour left, it's not anyone seriously concerned over anti-semitism. Making martyrs is not good politics. Nor is leaving people to be strung out because you find them annoying.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

The holocaust denial allegations re Sivier 

1) were challenged long ago by the ‘weaponisers’ themselves. 

2) aren’t the only allegations against him (but they are the ones being used by Sivier and others to assert how ‘unfairly’ he’s been treated)


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

Oh and Shaun fucking Lawson


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The holocaust denial allegations re Sivier
> 
> 1) were challenged long ago by the ‘weaponisers’ themselves.
> 
> 2) aren’t the only allegations against him (but they are the ones being used by Sivier and others to assert how ‘unfairly’ he’s been treated)


Could you be a little vaguer please?  And point out how this is connected to...anything.

Cos otherwise you're just shouting at clouds.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> Could you be a little vaguer please?  And point out how this is connected to...anything.
> 
> Cos otherwise you're just shouting at clouds.



Er the ‘Holocaust denial’ allegation is what he got an apology for and what he’s crowing about. You might want to read about the stuff you’re talking about first.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Er the ‘Holocaust denial’ allegation is what he got an apology for and what he’s crowing about. You might want to read about the stuff you’re talking about first.


I've read about the unjust anti-semitism allegations, and I've heard him ranting, somewhat irritatingly. But unless you can come out with something specific about why he is a scumbag, I think I'll have hard time taking your complaints seriously.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

Plenty of stuff in that 'still extant' CAA article that the times based their story on - they just went in too hard and called him a holocaust denier.
_
When it was pointed out to Mr Sivier on Twitter that he had linked to Mr Atzmon’s work, and that Atzmon had re-posted his writing, Mr Silvier shrugged his shoulders, saying he was “…not all that bothered”.
_
The left would absolutely benefit from Sivier being persona non grata, same as it's benefited from the likes of Greenstein and Walker being sidelined. No-one needs these liabilities taking up bandwidth.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

“We shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush as the racists we refuse to shun” is a pretty pathetic attitude. 

If you don’t want ‘the labour left’ to be thought of as tolerant of racism, then, er, don’t be tolerant of racists.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> I've read about the unjust anti-semitism allegations, and I've heard him ranting, somewhat irritatingly. But unless you can come out with something specific about why he is a scumbag, I think I'll have hard time taking your complaints seriously.



Compelling retort.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> Plenty of stuff in that 'still extant' CAA article that the times based their story on - they just went in too hard and called him a holocaust denier.
> _
> When it was pointed out to Mr Sivier on Twitter that he had linked to Mr Atzmon’s work, and that Atzmon had re-posted his writing, Mr Silvier shrugged his shoulders, saying he was “…not all that bothered”.
> _
> The left would absolutely benefit from Sivier being persona non grata, same as it's benefited from the likes of Greenstein and Walker being sidelined. No-one needs these liabilities taking up bandwidth.


Most of that stuff is shit too tho. The 'quote' from Walker isn't what she said, and the link to RedressOnline was pointing out where an image originated. Yes, he is wrong about Atzmon (tho not quit as wrong as the CAA imply) and that certainly needs challenging. But that is how to deal with such comments, address them seriously and show why he is wrong. Kicking him out of the LP for that would do next to nothing.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Compelling retort.


you're the one making claims, so it is up to you to justify them. You aren't doing.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> you're the one making claims, so it is up to you to justify them. You aren't doing.





cantsin said:


> sounds like a lot of / all the accusations against Sivier are turning out to be bollocks :
> 
> Zelo Street: Anti-Semitism Smear - Labour Member VINDICATED



My claims?


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My claims?


you were the first to mention Sivier on here, which is what led (I presume) to cantsin's response.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

You’re asking me why I think a zero tolerance approach to politicos with racist (or ‘only a little bit racist’) politics should be nowhere near people who live at the bottom of society?

Oh and fuck the labour left. The Labour Party is utterly dishonest when it comes to disabled people


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You’re asking me why I think a zero tolerance approach to politicos with racist (or ‘only a little bit racist’) politics should be nowhere near people who live at the bottom of society?
> 
> Oh and fuck the labour left. The Labour Party is utterly dishonest when it comes to disabled people


You haven't established your first point. You've just copied some right-wing guff. And then completely non-sequitured into disability politics. I'm just asking you to be coherent.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> You haven't established your first point. You've just copied some right-wing guff. And then completely non-sequitured into disability politics. I'm just asking you to be coherent.



Which right wing guff would this be?

And er you may want to read the post you linked to, and the conversation preceding it. 

The people I’ve mentioned are explicitly targeting disabled people affected by welfare sanctions/cuts and NHS cuts.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which right wing guff would this be?
> 
> And er you may want to read the post you linked to, and the conversation preceding it.
> 
> The people I’ve mentioned are explicitly targeting disabled people affected by welfare sanctions/cuts and NHS cuts.


I have, that's why I'm saying you're incoherent. Your rationale for calling Sivier a racist is taken from CAA, his appearance in the thread comes from nowhere. you have also failed to establish how he targets people affected by cuts. Does he go round there house and shout at them? Has he destroyed disability campaigning groups? He mostly just writes an over-excitable blog from what I see. 

As for the conversation that preceded that post, I don't think that did you any favours either.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2019)

politically targeting you mug. 

It didn’t do me any favours. Oh fucking noes.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

Time for jez to step up or step off now. If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Time for jez to step up or step off now. If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.


Which Tory MPs do you think are ever likely to vote for a Labour government?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Time for jez to step up or step off now. If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.



How do you propose this happens?  He can't magic up extra votes in Parliament.  Labour don't have the numbers and the DUP and the tory backbenchers will not bring down a tory goverment.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.


Pure fantasy. Tories would have to vote themselves out of power.


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> Which Tory MPs do you think are ever likely to vote for a Labour government?


They wouldn't be voting for a Labour govt, they'd be voting to bring down the current May govt


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

andysays said:


> They wouldn't be voting for a Labour govt, they'd be voting to bring down the current May govt


ok, which ones?


----------



## agricola (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Time for jez to step up or step off now. If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.



Really its a bit odd that you post this when the government has just lost its most important piece of work by 230 votes.  It would be like going back in time to the world cup final and barking at Lloris because he had let that goal in at 4-2.


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2019)

Watching on BBC2, Ash Sarkar has hardly been asked anything by Neil


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 15, 2019)

andysays said:


> They wouldn't be voting for a Labour govt, they'd be voting to bring down the current May govt



And in doing so risk a Corbyn government.  They're not going to do this, never ever.  I'll be amazed if even one tory votes against the government in a vonc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Time for jez to step up or step off now. If you can't beat the conservatives at the moment it's probably time to redouble the allotment commitments.


What exactly do you want him to do? You have never once answered this question despite being asked it repeatedly. Tell us what you think he should do.


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> ok, which ones?


Let me check their Twitter feeds and get back to you


----------



## mauvais (Jan 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> And in doing so risk a Corbyn government.  They're not going to do this, never ever.  I'll be amazed if even one tory votes against the government in a vonc.


They're the worst gamblers in the world, there's every chance the stupid bastards will roll those dice.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They're the worst gamblers in the world, there's every chance the stupid bastards will roll those dice.



OK, we'll see.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What exactly do you want him to do? You have never once answered this question despite being asked it repeatedly. Tell us what you think he should do.



I'd have positioned a pro euro policy and tried successfully or not to win over leavers for the last two years. It may not have been successful but it'd be a principled decision that would have come up trumps tonight.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They're the worst gamblers in the world, there's every chance the stupid bastards will roll those dice.


I will be amazed if they do tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> I'd have positioned a pro euro policy and tried successfully or not to win over leavers for the last two years. It may not have been successful but it'd be a principled decision that would have come up trumps tonight.


I'll ask again, what would you have done and what should he do tonight? This is just fucking paste not politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They're the worst gamblers in the world, there's every chance the stupid bastards will roll those dice.


They don't gamble at all. That's why they are the most successful political party in the history of the world.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 15, 2019)

.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> I'd have positioned a pro euro policy and tried successfully or not to win over leavers for the last two years. It may not have been successful but it'd be a principled decision that would have come up trumps tonight.



Batshit


----------



## mauvais (Jan 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They don't gamble at all.


It's still gambling even if the gambler doesn't think they're gambling.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Batshit


What he should have done right, is support all the things that i believe in and led the tories in the polls then won a general election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> It's still gambling even if the gambler doesn't think they're gambling.


Not if you don't gamble.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They don't gamble at all. That's why they are the most successful political party in the history of the world.



I mean... David Cameron called a referendum he was certain to win.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> I mean... David Cameron called a referendum he was certain to win.


They don't gamble on no-confidence votes.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Batshit



Isn't it all at the moment


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Isn't it all at the moment


So you agree that your post was batshit and argue that it's a sensible policy (if that pathetic wish-list can even count as a policy) for Corbyn to follow.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Isn't it all at the moment



Absolutely, but your post in particular.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 15, 2019)

They gamble Euro refs and general elections but not VONCs?

If you were a Tory MP, what _would_ you do now? Other than the usual. Can't get rid of May with an internal vote for nearly a year, she apparently won't quit of her own accord, and there's probably no more mileage in Maydeal so what is she for? It was fucked before and 230 is a lot of nails in that coffin.

'Not turn up' is one possibility. Try to win a GE with a new Brexit proposal is another, if unlikely. A sound basis in numbers doesn't seem to have troubled many of them of late.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Absolutely, but your post in particular.



You think a pro euro position is batshit when the majority of Labour voters agree and the last result was close? Ooookkayyyyyy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They gamble Euro refs and general elections but not VONCs?
> 
> If you were a Tory MP, what _would_ you do now? Other than the usual. Can't get rid of May with an internal vote for nearly a year, she apparently won't quit of her own accord, and there's probably no more mileage in Maydeal so what is she for? It was fucked before and 230 is a lot of nails in that coffin.
> 
> 'Not turn up' is one possibility. Try to win a GE with a new Brexit proposal is another, if unlikely. A sound basis in numbers doesn't seem to have troubled many of them of late.


I'd vote for may. As they just about all will.

Of course they may take small gambles on minor things - but not on being in power.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> If you were a Tory MP, what _would_ you do now?


Any tory MP no confidencing the govt tomorrow would not be standing as a tory MP in the ensuing election, or any other election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> You think a pro euro position is batshit when the majority of Labour voters agree and the last result was close? Ooookkayyyyyy.


Say how this would be carried out politically. Put some meat on these rather crappy bones.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 15, 2019)

They will vote to back the government, absolutely. I doubt a single Tory MP won't vote against the VoNC motion.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Say how this would be carried out politically. Put some meat on these rather crappy bones.



I can only say how it would have played out as a strategy for the last two years tbh. I have NO idea what's going on now. Labour aren't positioned to do anything but wait for the tories to tear themselves apart. Now that's happened they hopefully have a cunning plan on how to benefit from it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> I can only say how it would have played out as a strategy for the last two years tbh.


no you can't.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 15, 2019)

Ken Clarke and a small smattering of others might.

I do think she'll limp on but wouldn't rule out losing, we're increasingly off the map here.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> *I can only say how it would have played out as a strategy for the last two years tbh.*



That's a very bold claim...unless of course you mean that you can only speculate about how you would have liked it to turn out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2019)

You would have to have a significant number of Tories who’ve become so consumed with internal politics, and so self assured about their ability to win elections no matter what, that they didn’t think the latter was a potential issue at all. Possible at this stage - both have been observed - but not anywhere near likely IMO, particularly after the last result.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> I can only say how it would have played out as a strategy for the last two years tbh. I have NO idea what's going on now. Labour aren't positioned to do anything but wait for the tories to tear themselves apart. Now that's happened they hopefully have a cunning plan on how to benefit from it.


What fucking strategy  - what is this strategy of yours you would have put in place that Corbyn failed to follow? And you think that you can say how this strategy that you can't outline would have worked? You are a proper say-nothing fantasist. 

_Corbyn should just shut up and win a general election ffs._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> Ken Clarke and a small smattering of others might.
> 
> I do think she'll limp on but wouldn't rule out losing, we're increasingly off the map here.


Why would he, this all going perfectly for him and his type.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's a very bold claim...unless of course you mean that you can only speculate about how you would have liked it to turn out.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Would have / could have - my bad


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Would have / could have - my bad


Well go on and say what is was and how it _would _have played out.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Would have / could have - my bad



So now perhaps you'd like to explain how what you wanted to happen could have happened; you give some detail on your preferred strategy and how it could have been implemented?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2019)

This, really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Stupid nazi.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

If the alternative is No Deal and still leave, I could see a couple of tories supporting the VONC. Soubry plus a couple of others. 

But May will say she won’t allow no deal, so they’ll fold (as she has already, I see). Even tho she is totally incapable of negotiating anything else. 

She’ll ultimately have to go with a 2nd referendum now, I think.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> She’ll ultimately have to go with a 2nd referendum now, I think.


This is what's going to happen. 

2nd ref > remain > waste of the last 2 years.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is what's going to happen.
> 
> 2nd ref > remain > waste of the last 2 years.


More likely 2nd > mays shit deal > another two years of shit, imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> More likely 2nd > mays shit deal > another two years of shit, imo


Just two more years? You're optimistic


----------



## Patteran (Jan 15, 2019)

Am I missing something? I cant see the point of a No Confidence motion that can't be won. Was the voting intention of the DUP genuinely unclear until the moment they declared for the government? Is it a step on a path to a second referendum? 'We tried the best option of  general election, were denied, so now, with heavy hearts, we aim for a least worst option'. Is there an element of 'this what we do' adherence to parliamentary procedure?


----------



## Duncan2 (Jan 15, 2019)

I expect David Cameron will be on the six o clock news tomorrow telling us what should happen now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2019)

Patteran said:


> Am I missing something? I cant see the point of a No Confidence motion that can't be won. Was the voting intention of the DUP genuinely unclear until the moment they declared for the government? Is it a step on a path to a second referendum? 'We tried the best option of  general election, were denied, so now, with heavy hearts, we aim for a least worst option'. Is there an element of 'this what we do' adherence to parliamentary procedure?


The point of no confidence motions is they can be lost


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2019)

Duncan2 said:


> I expect David Cameron will be on the six o clock news tomorrow telling us what should happen now.


And so he should if he tops himself on air


----------



## ChrisD (Jan 15, 2019)

but since the ERG have said (to Laura K at least) that they will be supporting May and the DUP votes have been bought I don't see how the Govt will lose tomorrow....


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2019)

ChrisD said:


> but since the ERG have said (to Laura K at least) that they will be supporting May and the DUP votes have been bought I don't see how the Govt will lose tomorrow....



An opening for Labour to support another referendum?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 15, 2019)

tories dont allow others to shit in their bed- thats always been the case


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> An opening for Labour to support another referendum?


What's your strategy?


----------



## Patteran (Jan 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The point of no confidence motions is they can be lost



Right. Can - but most likely won't be. They don't have the numbers. So it makes them look weak, her look stronger, & adds another day of pointless procedural braying to wind everybody up even further. 

(Unless JC has a joker up his sleeve worth seven votes...)


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2019)

Patteran said:


> They don't have the numbers. So it makes them look weak, her look stronger, & adds another day of pointless procedural braying to wind everybody up even further.


Yes.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 15, 2019)

Ah, but that’s still a clever strategy, because if they embolden May then the Tory party remains on fire.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 15, 2019)

Patteran said:


> They don't have the numbers. So it makes them look weak, her look stronger, & adds another day of pointless procedural braying to wind everybody up even further.



Yep, could do real damage to project Corbyn imo (sadly).

If he can't get traction in the house now, when can he? Do labour people, beyond the nutters, want to wait this parliament out with him as such an ineffective parliamentary leader? I think a pivot to Lammy will be on the cards.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2019)

Guardian: "even though he did this thing that we've been insisting he needs to do and won't work, he still won't do the other thing that really really won't work"

Jeremy Corbyn offers little hope for people's vote campaigners


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I think a pivot to Lammy will be on the cards.


lol


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

This happens every time some cunt puts in a vaguely spirited performance in parliament doesn't it? Suddenly they're the next leader. until everyone remembers they're fucking shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Yep, could do real damage to project Corbyn imo (sadly).
> 
> If he can't get traction in the house now, when can he? Do labour people, beyond the nutters, want to wait this parliament out with him as such an ineffective parliamentary leader? I think a pivot to Lammy will be on the cards.


Traction in the house if neither here nor there - it's traction outside, in winnable and defensible seats. The house is irrelevant here.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> This happens every time some cunt puts in a vaguely spirited performance in parliament doesn't it? Suddenly they're the next leader. until everyone remembers they're fucking shit.


Would be entertaining having him face humphries in the morning after his performance on celebrity mastermind though.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> This happens every time some cunt puts in a vaguely spirited performance in parliament doesn't it? Suddenly they're the next leader. until everyone remembers they're fucking shit.



I developed a soft spot for him at a recent do with Carol Cadwalldr and Peter Jukes on Brexit/Mueller etc - he's very personable in the flesh IMO.

I did mean to have a look at why he was out of favour (on here) aside from the usual sneers at all politicians, but CBA in the end...


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2019)

They're all personable in the flesh, more or less. Being personable is their job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2019)

Looking like a human is their trade. Their skin.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2019)

As I understand it, this VoNC is a must. The govt has just suffered a massive loss in a parliamentary vote, it would actually be weird if the opposition _didn't _table one. Doesn't mean they expect to win, it's just_ what you do_ at this stage in proceedings. They may keep doing it, and it's certainly their prerogative (yeah, word of the day), every time a vote is lost over the next few weeks. Eventually one may even pass, who knows?

Panto season. Rah


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> As I understand it, this VoNC is a must. The govt has just suffered a massive loss in a parliamentary vote, it would actually be weird if the opposition _didn't _table one. Doesn't mean they expect to win, it's just_ what you do_ at this stage in proceedings. They may keep doing it, and it's certainly their prerogative (yeah, word of the day), every time a vote is lost over the next few weeks. Eventually one may even pass, who knows?
> 
> Panto season. Rah


I think that's right and not doing it would inevitably pose questions about Corbyn bottling it or similar. But Labour's bigger passivity over the last 2 years has not been taking any of this out on the road, whether it be big meetings like Corbyn had when elected or, better, in communities. That's not to suggest there was an easy sell for Labour, the Party was split and it's voters are split. But they should have been doing that _regardless_ of Brexit. The whole Brexit vote was about people feeling abandoned/ignored by politicians, capital, globalisation. What better way to combat that than to engage? I'm not part of Lab or the Corbyn thing, but that should have been _their_ logic. Instead, they've wanted to play it as a game of parliamentary ambushes, media briefings and the rest. Again showing that Labour - even Corbyn Labour - are part of the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

I think that's all correct and down here a result of the new members not having a fucking clue how to relate to working class areas. What could have been done? Forums and public meetings in every area of the city. As a first step.Why brexit is shit or great, whatever the meeting, make it public. Labour lost the art of public meeting years ago - in this age of new public politics it better get it sorted.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think that's right and not doing it would inevitably pose questions about Corbyn bottling it or similar. But Labour's bigger passivity over the last 2 years has not been taking any of this out on the road, whether it be big meetings like Corbyn had when elected or, better, in communities. That's not to suggest there was an easy sell for Labour, the Party was split and it's voters are split. But they should have been doing that _regardless_ of Brexit. The whole Brexit vote was about people feeling abandoned/ignored by politicians, capital, globalisation. What better way to combat that than to engage? I'm not part of Lab or the Corbyn thing, but that should have been _their_ logic. Instead, they've wanted to play it as a game of parliamentary ambushes, media briefings and the rest. Again showing that Labour - even Corbyn Labour - are part of the problem.


was talking to a labour party person last week who said corbyn and McD have been up and down the country recently, it just doesn't get reported
not sure how to double check that


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> was talking to a labour party person last week who said corbyn and McD have been up and down the country recently, it just doesn't get reported


blimey someone interested in that image being true.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 16, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> Ken Clarke and a small smattering of others might.


Ken Clarke voted for the deal so it would be an odd move


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2019)

My couple of Labour friends have largely dropped out of Party activity since the election, drifting towards the centre and being consumed by  people's vote shit.

In a seat that Labour won spectacularly with one of the biggest swings in the election we've had one, just one, bland and vague Party newsletter through the door.

They've not bothered to build a thing on the surge of interest and support they got round here. Nothing.

Meanwhile, as they run the Council, they've carried on cutting and gentrifying and the like.

Fucking idiots.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2019)

chilango said:


> My couple of Labour friends have largely dropped out of Party activity since the election, drifting towards the centre and being consumed by  people's vote shit.
> 
> In a seat that Labour win specularly with one of the biggest swings in the election we've had one, just one, bland and vague Party newsletter through the door.
> 
> ...



All of which, combined with a probable fixation on Brexit and a "Peoples Vote" were an election to happen imminently, makes me suspect that Labour will slip back from it's last showing.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jan 16, 2019)

Labour in my area have continued to canvass nearly every weekend since the GE largely because they gained the seat from the torys and know it's vulnerable.  They have concentrated on the most vulnerable wards.   Perhaps your ward is less vulnerable?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

Canvassing. Fuck me this really is a new age of politics


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2019)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Labour in my area have continued to canvass nearly every weekend since the GE largely because they gained the seat from the torys and know it's vulnerable.  They have concentrated on the most vulnerable wards.   Perhaps your ward is less vulnerable?



Less vulnerable? 

It's a Green held ward that they've been desperate to retake for years.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> was talking to a labour party person last week who said corbyn and McD have been up and down the country recently, it just doesn't get reported
> not sure how to double check that


I know from my area of the midlands Corbyn has done at least half a dozen weekend meetings in cities and small towns, sometimes two a day. If that's typical he will have covered most of the country in 2018. It certainly gets reported in the local press [there is so little local news these days] and attended by large enthusiastic audiences.

The problem, as always with Labour, is there's nothing to do other than elections so all that enthusiasm drifts away.

And yes I know there's plenty to do, but being reluctant to speak ill of the dead I won't bore you with my accounts of ward meetings.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

**wrong thread**


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2019)

19force8 said:


> I know from my area of the midlands Corbyn has done at least half a dozen weekend meetings in cities and small towns, sometimes two a day. If that's typical he will have covered most of the country in 2018. It certainly gets reported in the local press [there is so little local news these days] and attended by large enthusiastic audiences.
> 
> The problem, as always with Labour, is there's nothing to do other than elections so all that enthusiasm drifts away.
> 
> And yes I know there's plenty to do, but being reluctant to speak ill of the dead I won't bore you with my accounts of ward meetings.


Really (on the first underlined bit)? I'm interested, what kind of numbers and have these been brexit only meetings?

But the second underlined bit is really the problem (as you imply). It's not even that the work isn't being done, it's more that Labour has a mindset that can't conceive of doing other things, organising other things, being something else.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> , it's more that Labour has a mindset that can't conceive of doing other things, organising other things, being something else.



Oh it can and does. It's not like they've been sat on their fat arses waiting for next election.

They've been perfectly able to shut down Children's Centres, sell off public swimming pools to property developers and waste millions on vanity projects...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

Close libraries, oaps homes, lighting


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Really (on the first underlined bit)? I'm interested, what kind of numbers and have these been brexit only meetings?
> 
> But the second underlined bit is really the problem (as you imply). It's not even that the work isn't being done, it's more that Labour has a mindset that can't conceive of doing other things, organising other things, being something else.


In the hundreds, 200+ in my town which happens to be Tory held at every level. No, they weren't Brexit meetings they were about what a Labour govt would mean for working people. Brexit was covered, but not as "the most important issue in the UK today."

As to activity, even the local TUSC group with barely ten members does more in the town than my ward with over 70 members.

They're not horrible people, some are school governors, charity volunteers, or active in unions and local campaigns, but all as individuals - none of this is linked to the party, let alone discussed or decided on in meetings.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2019)

19force8 said:


> In the hundreds, 200+ in my town which happens to be Tory held at every level. No, they weren't Brexit meetings they were about what a Labour govt would mean for working people. Brexit was covered, but not as "the most important issue in the UK today."
> 
> As to activity, even the local TUSC group with barely ten members does more in the town than my ward with over 70 members.
> 
> They're not horrible people, some are school governors, charity volunteers, or active in unions and local campaigns, but all as individuals - none of this is linked to the party, let alone discussed or decided on in meetings.


Cheers.


----------



## Southlondon (Jan 16, 2019)

19force8 said:


> I know from my area of the midlands Corbyn has done at least half a dozen weekend meetings in cities and small towns, sometimes two a day. If that's typical he will have covered most of the country in 2018. It certainly gets reported in the local press [there is so little local news these days] and attended by large enthusiastic audiences.
> 
> The problem, as always with Labour, is there's nothing to do other than elections so all that enthusiasm drifts away.
> 
> And yes I know there's plenty to do, but being reluctant to speak ill of the dead I won't bore you with my accounts of ward meetings.


Many Labour Party members are involved in other groups and campaigns away from the party, and have interests and involvement in other stuff eg Palestinian campaigns, local friends groups, union activities, anti racist work, community groups etc. It’s not just about knocking on doors to canvass voters. I was on the last anti tommy Robinson march, and there were lots of other labour members there as well


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> The *whole* Brexit vote was about people feeling abandoned/ignored by politicians, capital, globalisation.



It wasn’t though was it? Some of it, maybe, but not wholly.

It feels to me like wishful thinking to see this as a revolutionary forces at work. Those I know that voted out were anything but ignored or marginalised - the friend’s dad with a buy-to-let empire, my uncle with his generous public sector pension etc. Plenty more like that, age more an indicator than class. Most Tory voters went for out, labour voted in. A mixture of stuff driving the vote, some marginalisation but also a lot of reactionary shit too, those who don’t want their taxes going on the undeserving poor or Spanish motorways. Corbyn is never going to appeal to their interests.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> It wasn’t though was it? Some of it, maybe, but not wholly.
> 
> It feels to me like wishful thinking to see this as a revolutionary forces at work. Those I know that voted out were anything but ignored or marginalised - the friend’s dad with a buy-to-let empire, my uncle with his generous public sector pension etc. Plenty more like that, age more an indicator than class. Most Tory voters went for out, labour voted in. A mixture of stuff driving the vote, some marginalisation but also a lot of reactionary shit too, those who don’t want their taxes going on the undeserving poor or Spanish motorways. Corbyn is never going to appeal to their interests.


Well, I agree that the motivations to vote leave were complex. But I'm not suggesting Labour should seek to organise amongst buy to let bods and the rest. I'm not even suggesting they should organise around leave voters/voting. More that they should organise in communities and start to think about the conditions that _lead to_ brexit.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> The whole Brexit vote was about people feeling abandoned/ignored by politicians, capital, globalisation.



I don't know, I seem to remember quite a lot about immigration, taking back control of our borders, and Sovereignty. And I don't mean arron banks and nigel farage, I mean the local Brexit campaigners I met in person  during the run up to the ref. in Kingswood, Bath, Bristol and Keynsham.

The reason I voted Remain was _exactly_ because of the messages and tone I was hearing from the Leave campaigners I met / talked to / argued with. The _Evil Superstate_ stuff was sellotaped on IME, what came across stronger was that it was an evil foreign superstate.

But let's keep rewriting it till it all makes sense. Why not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't know, I seem to remember quite a lot about immigration, taking back control of our borders, and Sovereignty


Sure, but how can you be sure none of that was about not trusting politicians/political institutions?


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

Margaret Beckett as having a pop at May for being 'discourteous.'

I suppose it would live things up if Theresa did call him a fucking anti-semite.


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think that's right and not doing it would inevitably pose questions about Corbyn bottling it or similar. But Labour's bigger passivity over the last 2 years has not been taking any of this out on the road, whether it be big meetings like Corbyn had when elected or, better, in communities. That's not to suggest there was an easy sell for Labour, the Party was split and it's voters are split. But they should have been doing that _regardless_ of Brexit. The whole Brexit vote was about people feeling abandoned/ignored by politicians, capital, globalisation. What better way to combat that than to engage? I'm not part of Lab or the Corbyn thing, but that should have been _their_ logic. Instead, they've wanted to play it as a game of parliamentary ambushes, media briefings and the rest. Again showing that Labour - even Corbyn Labour - are part of the problem.




Corbyn and especially McDonnell did exactly this throughout the summer, but it was overshadowed by the antisemitism accusations, media storm.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 16, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Sure, but how can you be sure none of that was about not trusting politicians/political institutions?



European ones, sure. But not British ones, because by doing brexit we are by definition giving more power to sovereign British political institutions. Clearly they are more trustworthy.

That was approximately what I heard through the whole campaign, and it's bollocks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> European ones, sure. But not British ones, because by doing brexit we are by definition giving more power to sovereign British political institutions. Clearly they are more trustworthy.
> 
> That was approximately what I heard through the whole campaign, and it's bollocks.


Nobody has claimed that the dissatisfaction was never expressed via reactionary outlets.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 16, 2019)

chilango said:


> My couple of Labour friends have largely dropped out of Party activity since the election, drifting towards the centre and being consumed by  people's vote shit.
> 
> In a seat that Labour won spectacularly with one of the biggest swings in the election we've had one, just one, bland and vague Party newsletter through the door.
> 
> ...



Same story in Croydon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

Corbyn should def concentrate on remain voters in conservative seats where they weigh the tory vote and fickle green lib-dem types. The path to victory.


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

19force8 said:


> I know from my area of the midlands Corbyn has done at least half a dozen weekend meetings in cities and small towns, sometimes two a day. If that's typical he will have covered most of the country in 2018. It certainly gets reported in the local press [there is so little local news these days] and attended by large enthusiastic audiences.
> 
> The problem, as always with Labour, is there's nothing to do other than elections so all that enthusiasm drifts away.
> 
> And yes I know there's plenty to do, but being reluctant to speak ill of the dead I won't bore you with my accounts of ward meetings.


Our ward (admittedly an unusually large one) carries out a fair bit of activity. Supporting RMT picket lines last week, street stalls at least once a month, door knocking weekly (sometimes on particular issues, sometimes to find out what issues people think are important). Plus all the stuff people do as individuals (but still recognisably Labour Party individuals)


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 16, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Nobody has claimed that the dissatisfaction was never expressed via reactionary outlets.



True, but then trying to pass it off as a progressive move is just a lie. It's reactionary in every sense of the word. It's a _my enemy's enemy is my friend _scenario if ever there was one.


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

Desperation alert!

May has had to go for the _IRA supporter_ jibe, she must be a bit scared about some of her support peeling away.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> True, but then trying to pass it off as a progressive move is just a lie. It's reactionary in every sense of the word. It's a _my enemy's enemy is my friend _scenario if ever there was one.


What are we actually discussing here? The discussion broadened out too far from the specifics and I’ve lost the place.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> Margaret Beckett as having a pop at May for being 'discourteous.'
> 
> I suppose it would live things up if Theresa did call him a fucking anti-semite.



Are we confusing Margarets Beckett and Hodge perchance?


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Are we confusing Margarets Beckett and Hodge perchance?


No, no, absolutely not.



Okay, maybe...


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2019)

'Rebel' Soubry fully and categorically back on side.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2019)

There has never been any doubt Soubry would support the government in a confidence motion: she takes every opportunity to tell people she will. She's always been onside.


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2019)

We know that, but the remaniacs, the rallies, etc, maybe they thought something else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> We know that, but the remaniacs, the rallies, etc, maybe they thought something else.


Well that's non-labour types with their own self-limiting monomania. There is not going to be labour right-split with scum like her. Never has been. That's just been the guardian and those types trying to scare the horses.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> We know that, but the remaniacs, the rallies, etc, maybe they thought something else.


It's really easy to check what Soubry says about how she'd vote in a VONC, she tells a journalist on a national broadcaster at least once a week. If the remainiac types are claiming she's support one, then they're lying.


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's really easy to check what Soubry says about how she'd vote in a VONC, she tells a journalist on a national broadcaster at least once a week. If the remainiac types are claiming she's support one, then they're lying.


uhh, they're not actually.  She (and NIck Boles) have both said they'd resign and vote against the government of no deal became policy.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> uhh, they're not actually.  She (and NIck Boles) have both said they'd resign and vote against the government of no deal became policy.


She said she'd vote against the government in a VONC? I missed that.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2019)

when?


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2019)

December - Mr Boles  said: “If at any point between now and 29 March the government were to announce that ‘no deal’ Brexit had become its policy, I would immediately resign the Conservative whip and vote in any way necessary to stop it from happening.” Ms Soubry  replied to his remark, posted on Twitter, and said: “You and many other sensible responsible One Nation Tories Well said.”


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> when?



She strongly hinted at that on the BBC this lunchtime.

At least that was my interpretation of what she said, and I've no horse in this race.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 16, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> What are we actually discussing here? The discussion broadened out too far from the specifics and I’ve lost the place.



Ah, true. There are at least four brexit-rated threads and I keep forgetting which one I'm reading.

No big deal, we pretty much all know each other's views by now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2019)

Woodcock abstaining on VoNC the cunt.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 16, 2019)

From BBC: 
Former Labour MP John Woodcock, who now sits as an independent, criticises the government but says Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are "simply not fit to hold high office".

"With a heavy heart," he explains, "I cannot support the no confidence motion."

Many Labour MPs are wrestling with their consciences, he suggests, "wanting desperately a Labour government, but knowing that the leader of their party is as unfit to lead the country as he was when they voted against him in the no confidence motion those years ago."


----------



## agricola (Jan 16, 2019)

hash tag said:


> From BBC:
> Former Labour MP John Woodcock, who now sits as an independent, criticises the government but says Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are "simply not fit to hold high office".
> 
> "With a heavy heart," he explains, "I cannot support the no confidence motion."
> ...



Poor John, forever doomed to miss the woods on account of a large group of trees.  He (and they) could have got rid of Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition in 2016, and they could prevent him ever being PM if he did win an election, but unfortunately the Independent member for Barrow and Furness is not very good at politics.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 16, 2019)

Fuck me, 19 votes, just 19


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 16, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Fuck me, 19 votes, just 19


Jeremy must be breathing a huge sigh of relief


----------



## hash tag (Jan 16, 2019)

Probably, sadly. Would he want to be the one who takes us out of Europe?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jan 16, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Fuck me, 19 votes, just 19



Or, in percentage terms - 52% to 48%


----------



## hash tag (Jan 16, 2019)

Extracts from Tom Watson speech Brexit: May's government defeats no-confidence motion by 325 to 306 votes – Politics live


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2019)

Corbyn’s decision not to talk to May - unless ‘no deal’ is ruled out - is stupid. Either May rejects his/the LP negotiating strategy and is back in a hole or the LP strategy effectively becomes the strategy.

Plus who rules out options _before _going into a negotiation?


----------



## agricola (Jan 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Corbyn’s decision not to talk to May - unless ‘no deal’ is ruled out - is stupid. Either May rejects his/the LP negotiating strategy and is back in a hole or the LP strategy effectively becomes the strategy.
> 
> Plus who rules out options _before _going into a negotiation?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2019)

agricola said:


>



Fair point, and I will rephrase:

nobody with a brain or the slightest levels of political competence, rules options open to them out _before _going into negotiations


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Corbyn’s decision not to talk to May - unless ‘no deal’ is ruled out - is stupid. Either May rejects his/the LP negotiating strategy and is back in a hole or the LP strategy effectively becomes the strategy.
> 
> Plus who rules out options _before _going into a negotiation?



You can rule out stupid ones of no consequence, particularly when it is utterly obvious to the EU we don’t want it to happen.

Parliament is against a no deal, EU citizens worry about their status, businesses on hold. Suddenly every amateur is a negotiation expert. The right thing to do is give some assurance.

May won’t do this because she has no intention of considering options other than her deal, tweaked slightly. As it is unpopular only leverage over Parliament can get it over the line which is shitty. Corbyn is right not to be played.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 16, 2019)

Also, they all want her to rule out No Deal because it'll alienate the ''worst'' elements of the tory party.

Which is why she won't do it. They're her spine, without the right wing the tory party is meaningless. Like Labour is without the unions.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2019)

Precisely. It’s a clunking attempt to further the rift within the Tory ranks.

VONC is dead as a tactic so the options for Corbyn are narrowing too. This is a tactical error because it moves labour closer to a 2nd red call which will shatter the Corby coalition


----------



## Raheem (Jan 17, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, they all want her to rule out No Deal because it'll alienate the ''worst'' elements of the tory party.
> 
> Which is why she won't do it. They're her spine, without the right wing the tory party is meaningless. Like Labour is without the unions.


Second para is right, but Corbyn is asking her to rule out no deal purely because he rightly doesn't want to be drawn into a process that is set up to fail just so that he can share the blame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2019)

agricola said:


>


A little bit isis there


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 17, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, they all want her to rule out No Deal because it'll alienate the ''worst'' elements of the tory party.
> 
> Which is why she won't do it. They're her spine, without the right wing the tory party is meaningless. Like Labour is without the unions.


Except this morning we learn Hammond has been contacting "business leaders" telling them no deal will be off the table.


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Except this morning we learn Hammond has been contacting "business leaders" telling them no deal will be off the table.



Are we sure it wasn't the other way round?


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 17, 2019)

chilango said:


> Are we sure it wasn't the other way round?


Sorry, I was trying to get around the paywall. Will this do?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Except this morning we learn Hammond has been contacting "business leaders" telling them no deal will be off the table.



God damn me and my fail prognostiation. No wait, I said May, and this is Hammond.

But seriously, she's given it to him so she can disown it later, no doubt.

EtA, that article / leaked call says 'MPs will reject No Deal', not that it's off the table. So yeah.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 17, 2019)

Also, a bit of "interpretation" on my part I'm afraid.

No deal could still be "on the table" even though it will never happen because MPs.

BTW I've been trying to find that little poem about corruption and what MPs will do free of charge. Ogden Nash maybe?


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Sorry, I was trying to get around the paywall. Will this do?




Sadly I can't read the full transcript.

But my point was a tongue in cheek one regarding the pressure that large sections of capital are going to be putting on the Tories to make sure "no deal" doesn't happen.

That pressure from their bosses may be impossible for the Tories to ignore....

...of course some sections of capital might actually welcome the opportunity that a "no deal" will bring them.

I don't know enough about about them to say for sure where the balance of forces lies.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 17, 2019)

chilango said:


> Sadly I can't read the full transcript.
> 
> But my point was a tongue in cheek one regarding the pressure that large sections of capital are going to be putting on the Tories to make sure "no deal" doesn't happen.
> 
> ...


I got the point and was looking to see if he was responding to comments from them or just offered it up before they told him.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 17, 2019)

may is holding onto "no deal" cos its the only card she can play. She wants to keep pushing her deal as the only alternative in the hope that when it gets close to march 29th parliament will be blackmailed into supporting it. And this is why corbyn is pushing for it to be taken off the table.

Cant see Mays tactic working - but im am certain she will stick to it - she is as stubborn as she is deluded. I guess the question is how long those in her own party who are utterly opposed to no deal will stick with it.

Its utterly shabby politics and has nothing to do with resolving the utter clusterfuck and everything to do with her own survival.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 17, 2019)

Ouch











Extrapolating these trends, I estimate that Jeremy Corbyn's Time Will Be Up around June 2020.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 17, 2019)

the whole political system is in meltdown and parliament is now a pressure cooker of competing factions and all discipline has broken down.
What they need to do is for all mps to come together in government of national pile on where all the different factions have a massive full on pagga  in the national interest -

Rees mogg putting up his fists queensbury rules style whilst his butler holds his coat, john mc donald headbutting chuka umuana, anna sourbry twatting boris johnson with a chair, corbyn death staring tories from the roof beams, the DUP marching up and down with flutes and lambegs, the lib dems giving out leaflets, the speaker taking on ledsom with the mace, may jerking back and forwards whilst gibbering, gove hiding under a chair...


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Ouch
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is pretty much entirely down to Labour's brexit position I reckon. If they can get to the other side of that without being blamed for whatever bullshit goes down - which is what the position is mostly aimed at doing - then it'll pick up again.


----------



## Voley (Jan 17, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> the whole political system is in meltdown and parliament is now a pressure cooker of competing factions and all discipline has broken down.
> What they need to do is for all mps to come together in government of national pile on where all the different factions have a massive full on pagga  in the national interest -
> 
> Rees mogg putting up his fists queensbury rules style whilst his butler holds his coat, john mc donald headbutting chuka umuana, anna sourbry twatting boris johnson with a chair, corbyn death staring tories from the roof beams, the DUP marching up and down with flutes and lambegs, the lib dems giving out leaflets, the speaker taking on ledsom with the mace, may jerking back and forwards whilst gibbering, gove hiding under a chair...


We can delegate this task to just one man, surely;


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2019)

Eric Joyce cracks his knuckles


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2019)

What were his figures before the 2017 election? If they were worse and labour did as well as they did then this simply doesn't matter. He was regularly in negative ratings 2016-17. In fact, starting from his high point of the 2017 election as that chart does give a false impression of that 60%+ as the norm when it isn't - the level it's at around now seems to  be perfectly normal.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, they all want her to rule out No Deal because it'll alienate the ''worst'' elements of the tory party.
> 
> Which is why she won't do it. They're her spine, without the right wing the tory party is meaningless. Like Labour is without the unions.



If she loses her own right wing then she's got no choice but to try and get labour's support. At which point labour have her over a barrel, or would do if Corbyn could count on the support of his own MPs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Ouch
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Corbyn still miles ahead of May, you notice.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 17, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Corbyn still miles ahead of May, you notice.


Indeed, but only until June 2020, at current trends.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Indeed, but only until June 2020, at current trends.



Current trends unlikely to continue as they are, what with one thing and another.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2019)

In 2017 labour voters and those  aged 18-24. The general figure is likely to be different.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 17, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Current trends unlikely to continue as they are, what with one thing and another.


Well of course. I thought this was semi-serious lighthearted thread?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 17, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> In 2017 labour voters and those  aged 18-24. The general figure is likely to be different.



And 18-24 year olds won’t desert him at elections. Should they turn up that is


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 17, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> may is holding onto "no deal" cos its the only card she can play. She wants to keep pushing her deal as the only alternative in the hope that when it gets close to march 29th parliament will be blackmailed into supporting it. And this is why corbyn is pushing for it to be taken off the table.



Yet if they wanted the threat of no deal to be taken seriously by MPs (and by the EU negotiators too) they might have done a better job of it, by for example not awarding a contract to a shipping company with no ferries, or competently carrying out a lorry parking exercise. The hopeless pricks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2019)

No deal doesn't have to be executed efficiently to be a real threat. In fact, incompetence might make it even more potent. The thing with no Dean is that no one needs to argue for it, to support it, for it to happen. That's why it's different from Syria and their empty threats to leave the euro. For all their technocratic intelligence and exit door blocking they left a really outcome written into article 50.


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2019)

May won't be fighting the next election (unless she calls another snap asap, which is, er, unlikely).

So the new leader will have an impact one way or another.

Much might depend on when the next election is an whether it's fought on Brexit or not.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 17, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> the whole political system is in meltdown and parliament is now a pressure cooker of competing factions and all discipline has broken down.
> What they need to do is for all mps to come together in government of national pile on where all the different factions have a massive full on pagga  in the national interest -



How about the lot are put against a wall and shot and we start again instead?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is pretty much entirely down to Labour's brexit position I reckon. If they can get to the other side of that without being blamed for whatever bullshit goes down - which is what the position is mostly aimed at doing - then it'll pick up again.



Wouldn't the support be going to the Greens/LD's etc if it was Brexit related?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How about the lot are put against a wall and shot and we start again instead?



well - if my proposal fails to resolve the crises i think all other options should remain on the table.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 17, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> well - if my proposal fails to resolve the crises i think all other options should remain on the table.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Wouldn't the support be going to the Greens/LD's etc if it was Brexit related?


it's leader approval ratings, not voting intention.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> it's leader approval ratings, not voting intention.



So why is May's going up if it's Brexit related?


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> So why is May's going up if it's Brexit related?


On chart 1, probably because some of the Labour vote in 2017 were pro-brexit. It isn't going up outside the MOE for the 18-24 group - the movement on the tory line is just noise.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> On chart 1, probably because some of the Labour vote in 2017 were pro-brexit. It isn't going up outside the MOE for the 18-24 group - the movement on the tory line is just noise.


I agree about much of this being noise, that all of these polls are conflating party loyalties, brexit and specific leader approvals etc. Same time, it's fair to say Corbyn hasn't done a great deal to raise his profile, show that he has a distinctive agenda and the like. Impossible to have a real sense of where politics will be in 12 months, after the next election etc. Same time, I've not heard many people saying things like 'did you hear what Corbyn said on brexit... really showed May up... made a lot of sense'.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I agree about much of this being noise, that all of these polls are conflating party loyalties, brexit and specific leader approvals etc. Same time, it's fair to say Corbyn hasn't done a great deal to raise his profile, show that he has a distinctive agenda and the like. Impossible to have a real sense of where politics will be in 12 months, after the next election etc. Same time, I've not heard many people saying things like 'did you hear what Corbyn said on brexit... really showed May up... made a lot of sense'.


Labour have regular distinctive policy announcements, Corbyn travels the country non-stop to try and raise his profile. It's difficult to imagine what more he could be doing tbf.

The people who are quoted in the pub as talking sense on brexit are those who are advocating strongly for remain or leave IME. That's why he's not one of them.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2019)

Corbyn's game of standing back had been fine up until now. To win an election though he needs to be seen as a leader. Not turning up for talks with may didn't help that, so another opportunity lost.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2019)

Supine said:


> Corbyn's game of standing back had been fine up until now. To win an election though he needs to be seen as a leader. Not turning up for talks with may didn't help that, so another opportunity lost.


I def think that aside from just simply winning a general election and being prime minister corbyn would be well served by jumping into transparent tory traps.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2019)

there's a good line in this pretty good piece this morning from Tom Hamilton, an ex Tom Watson aide (he hates Corbyn fwiw)

_If you want to know what a party’s biggest weakness is, look at what its opponents say about it; and if you want to know what a party should avoid doing, look at what its opponents want it to do. For months now, the Conservatives have been repeating the claim that Labour wants a second referendum – even though this is categorically untrue. That helps to explain why Corbyn has been so reluctant to back a so-called People’s Vote._


----------



## agricola (Jan 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is pretty much entirely down to Labour's brexit position I reckon. If they can get to the other side of that without being blamed for whatever bullshit goes down - which is what the position is mostly aimed at doing - then it'll pick up again.



TBF that graph should really include the pre-Election polling as well - I am sure he was consistently worse than May before it was called and then his ratings spiked once a (slightly) fairer media landscale emerged.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 17, 2019)

Pointing out the obvious but the graphs don't fit their headings. Chips 10%, curry 40%. What were the other options and have they changed?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2019)

29th March falls bang in the middle of Lent this year. 50% is given up.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

Thread by @LabourAgainstAS: "Yesterday we RT’d a tweet by one of our activists highlighting the inconvenient truth of @UKLabour MPs like @paulasherriff who sign commemor […]" #LabourAntisemitism


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Thread by @LabourAgainstAS: "Yesterday we RT’d a tweet by one of our activists highlighting the inconvenient truth of @UKLabour MPs like @paulasherriff who sign commemor […]" #LabourAntisemitism


Who could blame her?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

People who aren’t apologists for racism


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> People who aren’t apologists for racism


lol.

LAS are a miniscule grouplet, who like to troll people. They haven't provided anything to say PS supports any kind of anti-semitism, other than blocking them. Can you? Or are you just trolling too?

PS is, btw, a parliamentary member of the Antisemitism Policy Trust (chaired by renowned antisemite John Mann), so they're not even right when they say she has done nothing other than that one tweet.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> the miniscule number of actual anti-semites in the party.





belboid said:


> lol.
> 
> LAS are a miniscule grouplet, who like to troll people. They haven't provided anything to say PS supports any kind of anti-semitism, other than blocking them. Can you? Or are you just trolling too?
> 
> PS is, btw, a parliamentary member of the Antisemitism Policy Trust (chaired by renowned antisemite John Mann), so they're not even right when they say she has done nothing other than that one tweet.



Do you honestly believe this approach is effective at 

1) improving the PR over Labour antisemtism 

2) tackling antisemitsm (in and outside the Labour Party)


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you honestly believe this approach is effective at
> 
> 1) improving the PR over Labour antisemtism
> 
> 2) tackling antisemitsm (in and outside the Labour Party)


No I don’t think LAAS’s approach is effective. 

Now, do you have ANY evidence as to Paula Sheriffs supposed antisemitism? If so, post away. If not, why are you blindly repeating right wing toss?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I def think that aside from just simply winning a general election and being prime minister corbyn would be well served by jumping into transparent tory traps.



If only Corbyn had gone along to those talks last week which as it transpires this week were a complete waste of fucking time. 

If the Lib Dems have taught us anything it's that collaborating with the Tories is key to electoral success.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> No I don’t think LAAS’s approach is effective.
> 
> Now, do you have ANY evidence as to Paula Sheriffs supposed antisemitism? If so, post away. If not, why are you blindly repeating right wing toss?



Eh? Neither I nor those tweets from LAAS (‘right wing toss’) accussed PS of antisemtism. 

Has PS said anything about Williamson?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you honestly believe this approach is effective at
> 
> 1) improving the PR over Labour antisemtism
> 
> 2) tackling antisemitsm (in and outside the Labour Party)



Do you think the approach (minimising scope of AS in labour, seeking to defend/deflect from examples of AS conduct, looking for reasons not to take seriously those who raise complaints about AS) is helping to achieve either of these two aims belboid ?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Eh? Neither I nor those tweets from LAAS (‘right wing toss’) accussed PS of antisemtism.
> 
> Has PS said anything about Williamson?


of course it does. Why else would they attack her? They are attacking her, aren't they? What were the 'inconvenient truths' you want highlighting? what has PS done to make her worthy of this attack?

Basic questions you should have an answer to.



MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think the approach (minimising scope of AS in labour, seeking to defend/deflect from examples of AS conduct, looking for reasons not to take seriously those who raise complaints about AS) is helping to achieve either of these two aims belboid ?


When you have shown why PS is facing such criticisms, why she is meant to be anti-semitic, then I may answer you. I'll be waiting.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> of course it does. Why else would they attack her? They are attacking her, aren't they? What were the 'inconvenient truths' you want highlighting? what has PS done to make her worthy of this attack?
> 
> Basic questions you should have an answer to.
> 
> ...



Er they explicitly ‘attacked her’ (odd choice of words that) over her *inaction*. What has she done over, for example, Williamson’s repeated support for racists?

You’re happy to read meaning into the statements and motives of Jews who oppose anti-Jewish racism. What meaning do you ascribe to Williamson’s *repeated* support for antisemites? (Other than ‘genuine mistake guv’/unfair attacks by right-wing trolls).


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Er they explicitly ‘attacked her’ (odd choice of words that) over her *inaction*. What has she done over, for example, Williamson’s repeated support for racists?
> 
> You’re happy to read meaning into the statements and motives of Jews who oppose anti-Jewish racism. What meaning do you ascribe to Williamson’s *repeated* support for antisemites? (Other than ‘genuine mistake guv’/unfair attacks by right-wing trolls).


It's not an odd choice.  They made the deliberate choice to target her.  Why? Why her? Umpteen people haven't said anything about Williamson, why single her out? I genuinely have no idea.

Why are you repeating the tweets of an obscure sect, unless you are a supporter of their methodology? 

And fuck off with your smear tactics.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's not an odd choice.  They made the deliberate choice to target her.  Why? Why her? Umpteen people haven't said anything about Williamson, why single her out? I genuinely have no idea.
> 
> Why are you repeating the tweets of an obscure sect, unless you are a supporter of their methodology?
> 
> And fuck off with your smear tactics.



Er they were commenting on labour MPs who signed the HET commemoration (including Sherrif). They then commented on the fact that she blocked them afterwards.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

“Smear tactics”


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's not an odd choice.  They made the deliberate choice to target her.  Why? Why her? Umpteen people haven't said anything about Williamson, why single her out? I genuinely have no idea.
> 
> Why are you repeating the tweets of an obscure sect, unless you are a supporter of their methodology?
> 
> And fuck off with your smear tactics.



Maybe because I’m not keen on racism (including anti-Jewish racism). But obviously there must be some other motive for me to do that. 

And you talk about ‘smear tactics’.


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

Blocking people who attack you on twitter is fine, it's a total non-story about fuck all.


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

I mean, come on. I've no problem  recognising there's a big problem with antisemitism on the left and a big problem with people on the left recognising it, but this kind of bollocks just muddies the water and makes it easier for the racists to claim it's all smears.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

And the hypocrisy of publcising your attendance at an HET event whilst supporting antisemites and/or not publicly challenging those who do? Is that also a non-story?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe because I’m not keen on racism (including anti-Jewish racism). But obviously there must be some other motive for me to do that.
> 
> And you talk about ‘smear tactics’.


Because you, like they, are trying it imply something without saying it. And you know you both are.

Why did they single out Sheriff? It is untrue to say she has said/done nothing about AS other than sign that motion, so why have they?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And the hypocrisy of publcising your attendance at an HET event whilst supporting antisemites and/or not publicly challenging those who do? Is that also a non-story?


Point out where this _support _was.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I mean, come on. I've no problem  recognising there's a big problem with antisemitism on the left and a big problem with people on the left recognising it, but this kind of bollocks just muddies the water and makes it easier for the racists to claim it's all smears.



Whatever ones take on the significance of the blocking (anyone can block whoever they like), given the the support for antisemites (and/or the failure to condemn those support antisemites), blocking those who raise this is unlikely to receive a positive response.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> Point out where this _support _was.



Williamson’s support for Nelson, Atzmon and Wilkes? You want me to ‘point this out’

Sheriff wasn’t ‘singled out’. Where did you get this idea from?


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And the hypocrisy of publcising your attendance at an HET event whilst supporting antisemites and/or not publicly challenging those who do? Is that also a non-story?


I've no idea what action this MP takes on Antisemitism, but just because she doesn't shriek about it on twitter doesn't mean anything. Why would anyone bother with that shit?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what action this MP takes on Antisemitism, but just because she doesn't shriek about it on twitter doesn't mean anything. Why would anyone bother with that shit?



She doesn’t need to ‘shriek about it on twitter ‘ (although she is happy use twitter to demonstrate she’s not ok with the Holocaust, and it’s a curious idea that social media isn’t part of public discourse); the Labour Party is welcome to use other means to tackle antisemtism and supporters of antisemites.

What has the Labour Party done about Williamson?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Williamson’s support for Nelson, Atzmon and Wilkes? You want me to ‘point this out’
> 
> Sheriff wasn’t ‘singled out’. Where did you get this idea from?


the one link you considered important enough to post.  Okay, so it was YOU singling her out.  But that's still not really a better look, is it?  Repeating false claims never is.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> the one link you considered important enough to post.  Okay, so it was YOU singling her out.  But that's still not really a better look, is it?  Repeating false claims never is.



Because it came up and it’s relevant to a thread about Corbyn. Do you want me to post up everything I come across about antisemitism and the Labour Party?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Because it came up and it’s relevant to a thread about Corbyn. Do you want me to post up everything I come across about antisemitism and the Labour Party?


Why did you think this particular tweet was important?

See, this is how witch-hunts work. The drip drip of insinuation. Fuck all real evidence, so it is guilty by association, or, in this case, by non-dissociation. It's pretty shoddy stuff. I mean, a quick search of your posts indicates you have never said anything in support of Palestinian rights, should I take that to mean you don't think they should have any? Or that you are completely oblivious to their cause?

(I dont think either thing, by the way)


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> Why did you think this particular tweet was important?
> 
> See, this is how witch-hunts work. The drip drip of insinuation. Fuck all real evidence, so it is guilty by association, or, in this case, by non-dissociation. It's pretty shoddy stuff. I mean, a quick search of your posts indicates you have never said anything in support of Palestinian rights, should I take that to mean you don't think they should have any? Or that you are completely oblivious to their cause?
> 
> (I dont think either thing, by the way)



Interesting equivalence you’re making there: alleging inaction by a parliamentary politician over racism in a political party, and alleging that those who complain about antisemtism are uninterested in the rights of Palestinians. 

I’m a Jew in Britain. I am not responsible for the criminal acts of the State of Israel. 

Senior members of the Labour Party  have a responsibility to challenge racism within said Party.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Interesting equivalence you’re making there: alleging inaction by a parliamentary politician over racism in a political party, and alleging that those who complain about antisemtism are uninterested in the rights of Palestinians.


That wasn't my complaint. Please don't deliberately misrepresent me.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> That wasn't my complaint. Please don't deliberately misrepresent me.



Oh for fucks sake I don’t believe you’re this thick. 

You drew an equivalence (both examples of ‘witch hunts). They aren’t equivalent. 

This isn’t the first time  you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said (see your response to my comments about Sivier etc targeting disabled people/those reliant on the DWP).


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

Of course there *are* problems with liberal anti-racism, just as the faux anti-racism of communalists (Jewish or otherwise) is repulsive. 

Attacking those who campaign against racism (whilst seeking to minimise racism) isn’t a good look.


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She doesn’t need to ‘shriek about it on twitter ‘ (although she is happy use twitter to demonstrate she’s not ok with the Holocaust, and it’s a curious idea that social media isn’t part of public discourse); the Labour Party is welcome to use other means to tackle antisemtism and supporters of antisemites.
> 
> What has the Labour Party done about Williamson?


social media is totally part of the discourse, but the discourse on antisemitism in Labour on twitter right now is totally poisonous: tweeting disapproval about the holocaust is one thing. Tweeting attacks against members of your own party is quite another, and it's totally understandable that someone might choose not to engage in that way on twitter. You know what happens when you do.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> social media is totally part of the discourse, but the discourse on antisemitism in Labour on twitter right now is totally poisonous: tweeting disapproval about the holocaust is one thing. Tweeting attacks against members of your own party is quite another, and it's totally understandable that someone might choose not to engage in that way on twitter. You know what happens when you do.



There are other methods of publically challenging those who support racists. 

This isn’t going to go away. The Labour/Left approach to AS in Labour/the left has failed to either oppose AS, give Jews convince that antisemtism is being dealt with, or indeed improve Labours PR on this (not that the third issue should matter). 

The ball is in the Labour Party’s court.


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Labour/Left approach to AS in Labour/the left has failed to either oppose AS, give Jews convince that antisemtism is being dealt with, or indeed improve Labours PR on this (not that the third issue should matter).


I more or less agree with this. I don't think organising twitter pile-on on members who haven't been sufficiently performative in their disapproval and then crying foul when they choose not to engage with the pile-on is a very effective way of moving things on though.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I more or less agree with this. I don't think organising twitter pile-on on members who haven't been sufficiently performative in their disapproval and then crying foul when they choose not to engage with the pile-on is a very effective way of moving things on though.



That’s not what happened is it?


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> That’s not what happened is it?


what happened then?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> what happened then?



1) the LAAS comments (about Sheriff) I shared weren’t regarding simply a member of the LP, but an MP (and as such a senior figure within that party)

2) they didn’t organise a pile on


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

Unless you mean a ‘pile-on’ about someone other than Sherrif? (Genuinely not sure who you mean as the object of this apparent organised pile on)


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 1) the LAAS comments I shared weren’t regarding simply a member of the LP, but an MP (and as such a senior figure within that party)
> 
> 2) they didn’t organise a pile on


They might not have organised it - someone did though, and they joined in. Difficult to tell exactly what happened 'cause she's blocked and/or deleted a lot, but her mentions are still a hot mess of people yelling at her about antisemitism, ever since she posted that pic of herself signing the holocaust book of commitment the other day.

I'd be blocking and deleting anyone who tweeted those huge screenshot tweets of stuff random Labour members said in 2014 at me too.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 22, 2019)

Other than twitter is a hellsite (which politicians nevertheless are happy to use when it suits), i don’t know (genuinely) know what you want LAAS to be doing differently. 

Complaints are made to Labour about antisemtism. Labour has failed to deal with these. 

What *should* anti-racists be doing about racism in the Labour Party?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2019)

Fuck knows. I'm just not very interested in seeing every minor trial by twitter skip fire posted up here.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Other than twitter is a hellsite (which politicians nevertheless are happy to use when it suits), i don’t know (genuinely) know what you want LAAS to be doing differently.
> 
> Complaints are made to Labour about antisemtism. Labour has failed to deal with these.
> 
> What *should* anti-racists be doing about racism in the Labour Party?




Labours internal disciplinary machinery is well known to be dealing with a mass of AS related complaints, all of it involving trawling through endless online bollocks, all of it needing corroboration, substantive proof, interpretation etc etc so as to avoid legal backlash and the like. None of it's moving quick enough for anyone, Labs internal bureaucracy rarely does,  but no one has easy solutions.

Meanwhile that ( non jewish ) piece of work from LAAS Euan Phillips is devoting his time to demanding the Beeb take ...... Michael Rosen....... off R4 for "anti semitism " - f*ck him.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2019)

on a related note : v good to see Momentum HQ swerving the bureaucracy to confront blatant AS cranks directly now ( in a virtual sense - this stuff barely exists IRL )  - we hear there's a lot more of this to come ....


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Meanwhile that ( non jewish ) piece of work from LAAS Euan Phillips is devoting his time to demanding the Beeb take ...... Michael Rosen....... off R4 for "anti semitism " - f*ck him.



At least make your rants accurate


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> At least make your rants accurate



feel free to enlighten us here


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2019)

Which isn’t what you claimed/ranted is it?


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Other than twitter is a hellsite (which politicians nevertheless are happy to use when it suits), i don’t know (genuinely) know what you want LAAS to be doing differently.
> 
> Complaints are made to Labour about antisemtism. Labour has failed to deal with these.
> 
> What *should* anti-racists be doing about racism in the Labour Party?


Choose your targets. Don't throw accusations around wildly, especially when they don't even concern the person you are talking/writing to. Isolate the tiny number of actual anti-semites from those who are just being dumb, so that the bigots _can _be isolated. 

Bother with your MP. Why would any other MP be arsed with someone random writing to them with ranting complaints and demands for action if they aren't either a party member or their constituent? Who gives a fuck what some twitter login (who may or not be real or russian, or jewish, who can tell?) Unless there is an actual connection.

As cantsin has pointed out, there are over a thousand cases being dealt with by a tiny team. Many of those facing charges have lawyered up, and so the cases proceed at a very slow pace, which is incredibly frustrating for everyone, accused, accusers and the party as a whole. But that was always part of the point for those who are plotting. Labour could spend all its cash and staff piling through those cases, but that would not only divert resources away from more important issues, it would also leave a door open to legal challenges and even more time and money wasted. 

A large number of the complaints - most, imo - are either complete bollocks (like the woman accused for replacing the DWP logo with Arbeit Mach Frei) or about minor cases of daftness (like someone posting a Rothschild banker meme once). Those have no need to be referred and should be dealt with at a purely local level. For those who like to post such bollocks more regularly, they should be given training and education (not by those cunts at JLM though) into what is and isn't acceptable.  Repeated behaviour thereafter should lead to suspension/expulsion.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which isn’t what you claimed/ranted is it?


What do you think it means?  'No platform' is fairly clear. #antisemitism is fairly clear. Michael Rosen is pretty unmistakable.

So what else does he mean?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which isn’t what you claimed/ranted is it?



no idea what you mean here, genuinely

(edit : starting not to particularly care when it comes to yr interventions tbh, eg : dull little cryptic responses, with us expected to tease out some meaning.... zzzzzz ...

so,  whatever....)


----------



## two sheds (Jan 23, 2019)

belboid said:


> Choose your targets. Don't throw accusations around wildly, especially when they don't even concern the person you are talking/writing to. Isolate the tiny number of actual anti-semites from those who are just being dumb, so that the bigots _can _be isolated.
> 
> Bother with your MP. Why would any other MP be arsed with someone random writing to them with ranting complaints and demands for action if they aren't either a party member or their constituent? Who gives a fuck what some twitter login (who may or not be real or russian, or jewish, who can tell?) Unless there is an actual connection.
> 
> ...



Indeed. Strange how the previous regime was able to expel large numbers of Corbyn supporters at the drop of a hat though before the leadership vote. No due process that I'm aware of.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2019)

Being denied membership isn't the same as being expelled. Very different, in fact.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 23, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Being denied membership isn't the same as being expelled. Very different, in fact.



There were expulsions, too, largely as I recall for being members of another party.

URGENT – Rule Change to end the purging of socialists



> We know there were 618 "auto-exclusions" during the 2016 leadership campaign alone. This level of exclusions is high compared to any previous period of the Party's history, including under right-wing leaderships. A number of those excluded were active Labour Party members, expressing their left-wing ideas, under Blair and Brown, and yet were not excluded then.
> Those "auto-excluded" receive no notice of charges, no hearing, and no right of appeal, but only a letter from the Compliance Unit saying that they are out.
> The current procedures allow for the exclusion without notice of charges, hearing, or right of appeal of anyone whom the Labour head office authorities do not like, and thus threaten all independent-minded members of the Party.
> The purpose of this rule change is to end the exclusion of left wing Labour Party supporters, so that all Labour supporters that abide by Labour's rules, are entitled to join the Party.



Eta: there was a campaign to change these rules at the party conference, so perhaps they did and everyone has to have a hearing now.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2019)

Yet another case that proves Labour is riddled with anti-semites

MP Richard Burgon in court for Sun 'Nazi images' libel case


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 24, 2019)

I've lifted this from the IWCA facebook page. The chart is from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights with 90% of European Jews surveyed stating that they feel anti-semitism has increased and asked if they had experienced it who did they perceive it where was it coming from  :


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

More centrist plotting

How Labour could improve its offer on mental health | LabourList

“Keeley’s response to the act is broadly representative of Labour’s approach to mental health services and treatment of late. It aligns with the core message of investing in the NHS so that patients can get access the treatment they need, and staff can deliver it at a quality expected. It focuses on material changes, and shies away from rights-based approaches to tackling injustice and delivering greater equality. Most worryingly, in this regard it is silent on one of the key promises in Labour’s 2017 manifesto: to fully implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UN CRPD) into law.

The promise of a future Labour government to incorporate UN CRPD into law contained such promise in one single sentence. Sadly, since then, successive shadow ministers for disability and mental health have failed to elaborate on what this might entail. Unless the Labour Party aligns its calls for material changes with rights-based approaches to equality and injustice and listens more broadly to the calls of service users, the title of its disability manifesto ‘Nothing about you without you’ will begin to ring hollow.“


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

I see Williamson (who knows full well about Scott Nelson’s racism) has (yet again) boosted Nelson’s profile


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which isn’t what you claimed/ranted is it?


Any chance of you explaining what you meant by this? And what you believe Philips actually meant?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

Given that Phillips described Rosen as an ‘antisemitism denier’ (interestingly omitted from cantsins rant), wht do you need me to explain it?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

But Rosen is Jewish. And never before has any Jewish person/person with a Jewish background had a problematic attitude to antisemitism. 

IDPol eh?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Given that Phillips described Rosen as an ‘antisemitism denier’ (interestingly omitted from cantsins rant), wht do you need me to explain it?


What does that have to do with your comment yesterday? It doesn't change the fact that Philips is calling for a ban on Rosen, does it? So cantsin's (brief  and calmly made) point was entirely well founded. 

What do you think Philips was doing other than calling Rosen to be banned from the BBC, over antisemitism?


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> rants





MadeInBedlam said:


> rant





MadeInBedlam said:


> rant


this is a bit rich.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is a bit rich.


we should get MadeInBedlam a link to a thesaurus


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> we should get MadeInBedlam a link to a thesaurus



Christmas shopping can never been done soon enough


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Christmas shopping can never been done soon enough


Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!



Will come in handy for the next broadside


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Will come in handy for the next broadside


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 24, 2019)

A smorgasbord of vituperative delights.

Who says January is shit


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

Anti-Semitism row former MP reinstated

‘Misguided. Overeaction. Attempts to undermine the leadership. Always thought the Jews were a great bunch’


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> What do you think it means?  'No platform' is fairly clear. #antisemitism is fairly clear. Michael Rosen is pretty unmistakable.
> 
> So what else does he mean?


Still waiting, MadeInBedlam


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> Still waiting, MadeInBedlam



For what?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For what?
> 
> View attachment 160055


That wasn't a response, that was you avoiding explaining your nonsensical comment, amidst your usual 'rants'


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> That wasn't a response, that was you avoiding explaining your nonsensical comment, amidst your usual 'rants'



Sure


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Sure


What did/do you think Philips meant then? It shouldn't take you long to explain.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

I’ve already said what I think his allegation was (curiously cantsin chose to omit that from his calm post). 

I don’t think no platforming is warranted in Rosen’s case, but forgive me if I don’t join in with the defence of wealthy Trot luvvies


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

And as we’re here, any thoughts on Sheridan, or on Yvonne Ridley speaking at (of all things) a Holocaust Memorial event?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ve already said what I think his allegation was (curiously cantsin chose to omit that from his calm post).
> 
> I don’t think no platforming is warranted in Rosen’s case, but forgive me if I don’t join in with the defence of wealthy Trot luvvies


so now you *do *agree that he was calling for no platform for Rosen over anti-semitism. Something you denied before.  Good of you to change your mind.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And as we’re here, any thoughts on Sheridan, or on Yvonne Ridley speaking at (of all things) a Holocaust Memorial event?


Does anyone on the planet give a fuck about Yvonne Ridley?

But, no, I have no interest in dancing with a useful fool like you.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> so now you *do *agree that he was calling for no platform for Rosen over anti-semitism. Something you denied before.  Good of you to change your mind.



Remind me where I denied this?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And as we’re here, any thoughts on Sheridan, or on Yvonne Ridley speaking at (of all things) a Holocaust Memorial event?






belboid said:


> Does anyone on the planet give a fuck about Yvonne Ridley?.



Quite


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Remind me where I denied this?


here


MadeInBedlam said:


> At least make your rants accurate


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> here



Pathetic.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

What was inaccurate about his post? You're doing very badly here.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> What was inaccurate about his post? You're doing very badly here.



Says the chap who doesn’t ‘give a fuck’ about labour MPs speaking at (and not challenging) racists at a HMD event?

As explained (many posts ago), the inaccuracy was choosing to omit Phillips actual allegation.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)




----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

Phillips didn’t call for Rosen to be no platformed for antisemtism did he belboid?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Phillips didn’t call for Rosen to be no platformed for antisemtism did he belboid?


Yes.

Fuck me, you're confused.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> What was inaccurate about his post? You're doing very badly here.


It is a shame how BrexShit, the tories and a biased media have made people totally unopen to facts or reasonable discussion isn't it?

This anti Corbyn rhetoric goes on and on and on. Whilst other politicians massive failings and endless proven lies go unaswered.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2019)

Aye, Viktor Orban gets feted around the world, but the biggest anti-semites are some oddjobs in the Labour Party. It's tragic.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> Aye, Viktor Orban gets feted around the world, but the biggest anti-semites are some oddjobs in the Labour Party. It's tragic.


Bongo Bongo land = just a bit of fun

Caring about Palestinians = War crime


----------



## teqniq (Jan 26, 2019)

And the numerous pic of tories in nazi uniforms whilst the calls for them to institute an enquiry into Islamophobia within their party still go unanswered.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Anti-Semitism row former MP reinstated
> 
> ‘Misguided. Overeaction. Attempts to undermine the leadership. Always thought the Jews were a great bunch’


Ex-MP Jim Sheridan has Labour party suspension lifted following anti-semitism probe

Completely toothless. 

“The Jews. Great bunch of lads”.

Ffs


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2019)

“my accusers were misguided and overreacted to what was intended to highlight my personal frustration and criticism of those intent on undermining our leadership in Scotland and the UK.”

It’s the complainants fault. Obvs. 

And who ‘gives a fuck’ about MPs and Councillors sharing a platform (to commemorate the Holocaust no less) with Yvonne fucking Ridley


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 27, 2019)

Alan ‘cry antisemtism/harp back to the Holocaust to curry favour/Rothschild Zionists’ Myers now Vice-Chair of his CLP it seems


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 29, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> More centrist plotting
> 
> How Labour could improve its offer on mental health | LabourList
> 
> ...



And now this nonsense:

Tracy Brabin: It’s time to make hospital grounds smoke-free

Pulled apart here:

Thread by @Sectioned_: "MP @TracyBrabin is speaking in Parliament on her proposal to make it illegal to smoke on NHS premises. I wonder if she's taken time to speak […]" #mentalhealth #smokefree


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2019)

Not easy to see what Corbyn will have ended up with after his 'talks' with May regarding the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

I suppose, if May is compelled to actually include something about 'workers' rights', he'll be able to point to that...but _if_ she does do that it'll be a measure of how she's desperate to draw substantial PLP support for her agreement.

If she runs the clock down sufficiently to scare sections of the PLP into supporting her to avert 'No-Deal', Corbyn will then face the prospect of either splitting the party or dirtying his hands by joining the tory Brexit.

Not looking so clever for Corbyn atm.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not easy to see what Corbyn will have ended up with after his 'talks' with May regarding the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
> 
> I suppose, if May is compelled to actually include something about 'workers' rights', he'll be able to point to that...but _if_ she does do that it'll be a measure of how she's desperate to draw substantial PLP support for her agreement.
> 
> ...



So what would you do? Refuse to talk to her?

Labour is subject to the tensions between a middle class activist base and growing metropolitan support that want a 2nd referendum and its old heartlands where its support is weakening but where it expects the Party to respect the mandate of the referendum.

The main failure isn't to talk or not to May it's a collective failure to outline a compelling way forward on the EU single market which is directly counterposed to the ruling class spat over Brexit and to get out of parliament and build popular support for it. The increasing bind on Corbyn is the chickens coming home to roost. Labour faces two shit options because it has failed to develop one of its own. Starmer's lame approach of not having an approach was always likely to end here.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> So what would you do? Refuse to talk to her?
> 
> Labour is subject to the tensions between a middle class activist base and growing metropolitan support that want a 2nd referendum and its old heartlands where its support is weakening but where it expects the Party to respect the mandate of the referendum.
> 
> The main failure isn't to talk or not to May it's a collective failure to outline a compelling way forward on the EU single market which is directly counterposed to the ruling class spat over Brexit and to get out of parliament and build popular support for it. The increasing bind on Corbyn is the chickens coming home to roost. Labour faces two shit options because it has failed to develop one of its own. Starmer's lame approach of not having an approach was always likely to end here.


Me?
Thankfully I'm not someone who presumes to govern their fellow man...so let's not get involved in such fanciful speculation, eh?

Largely agree with the rest of what you say; I'm increasingly thinking that their 'strategy' doesn't got far beyond letting the tories fuck up and then riding the (post-Brexit) wave of anti-tory blame. Other than not actually committing to anything substantial and keeping their hands clean, I can't see anything coherent.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Me?
> Thankfully I'm not someone who presumes to govern their fellow man...so let's not get involved in such fanciful speculation, eh?
> 
> Largely agree with the rest of what you say; I'm increasingly thinking that their 'strategy' doesn't got far beyond letting the tories fuck up and then riding the (post-Brexit) wave of anti-tory blame. Other than not actually committing to anything substantial and keeping their hands clean, I can't see anything coherent.



You've summed up the totality of the Starmer plan. Is was and is a shit one. For all of their rhetoric the labour left have bet the house on a Blairite strategy.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not easy to see what Corbyn will have ended up with after his 'talks' with May regarding the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
> 
> I suppose, if May is compelled to actually include something about 'workers' rights', he'll be able to point to that...but _if_ she does do that it'll be a measure of how she's desperate to draw substantial PLP support for her agreement.
> 
> ...


 Agree with this and Smokeandsteam 's:


> So what would you do? Refuse to talk to her?
> 
> Labour is subject to the tensions between a middle class activist base and growing metropolitan support that want a 2nd referendum and its old heartlands where its support is weakening but where it expects the Party to respect the mandate of the referendum.
> 
> The main failure isn't to talk or not to May it's a collective failure to outline a compelling way forward on the EU single market which is directly counterposed to the ruling class spat over Brexit and to get out of parliament and build popular support for it. The increasing bind on Corbyn is the chickens coming home to roost. Labour faces two shit options because it has failed to develop one of its own. Starmer's lame approach of not having an approach was always likely to end here.


 A few months ago I was arguing on here that sticking to the 6 tests and not much more was a hopeless approach (against some on here). What were voters to make of that? That Labour had nothing to say, weren't willing to be involved. Now Labour's 'let May fuck it up' cunning plan has run out of road, he's finally come to the point of offering Labour support in exchange for workers rights and single market. After last night, he's chosen to do that at the moment of May's (relative and temporary) strength. If you want to play this largely as a parliamentary game, devoid of any kind of class politics, he's played in badly.

But then all of this is a consequence of what Labour is. It's exactly the class base of the membership vs many of the voters. But it's also a social democratic approach that can only see the party as _representatives_ of the working class (and not that, 'working people'). Hasn't sought to involve/mobilise/organise, because he can't conceive of that. And that's the point way beyond Brexit.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2019)

Milne as well; can you imagine her rictus grin!


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Milne as well; can you imagine her rictus grin!
> 
> View attachment 160388



Always good to take witnesses with you to a disciplinary.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 31, 2019)

Obvs game over now...

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...SUgat_LCtBa8P-3YtaOF92MnQ6sK37BTNEuHqvbAlTQ68


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2019)

_Uri Geller says he will use 'telepathic powers' to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM - "I have no problem in saying he is an antisemite."_

Uri Geller had some very odd good long term friendships with some serious german nazis after the war.  

And i don't mean his mate michael jackson's anti-semitic lyrics.


----------



## billbond (Feb 1, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> _Uri Geller says he will use 'telepathic powers' to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM - "I have no problem in saying he is an antisemite."_
> 
> Uri Geller had some very odd good long term friendships with some serious german nazis after the war.
> 
> And i don't mean his mate michael jackson's anti-semitic lyrics.



Born a year after the war ended, yeah that will be true then


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2019)

You do understand that not all nazis were killed during the war and so it was possible for them to go on and become friends with people born a year after the war ended right?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 1, 2019)

billbond said:


> Born a year after the war ended, yeah that will be true then



I know.  All German Nazi's were killed in the war and there has not been any since.  Its a quirk of history.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 1, 2019)

I thought most surviving Nazis became employees of the CIA or FBI in their fight against world communism.
As well as becoming friends of  Uri Geller, allegedly, I have just read!


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 1, 2019)

Uri Geller is still alive.

You really _do_ learn something new everyday.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 1, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Uri Geller is still alive.
> 
> You really _do_ learn something new everyday.



So is James Randi, happily.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2019)

> Stoop, Romans, stoop,
> And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood
> Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords.
> Then walk we forth, even to the marketplace,
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 160744
> View attachment 160745


That is possibly the most knackered looking prime minister I've ever seen.


----------



## maomao (Feb 2, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> That is possibly the most knackered looking prime minister I've ever seen.


Hopefully her every waking moment is torment and what little sleep she can get is plagued by constant nightmares.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> That is possibly the most knackered looking prime minister I've ever seen.


Past her sell-by


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> That is possibly the most knackered looking prime minister I've ever seen.


_“Don’t you think she looks tired?”_


----------



## two sheds (Feb 3, 2019)

She's got a picture in her attic that stays young while she decays in front of our eyes.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Feb 3, 2019)

two sheds said:


> She's got a picture in her attic that stays young while she decays in front of our eyes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2019)

maomao said:


> Hopefully her every waking moment is torment and what little sleep she can get is plagued by constant nightmares.


 This reminds me a bit of when Thatcher was getting close to death and she'd got dementia and kept forgetting Denis was dead so she had to go through the torment of being reminded and grieving once again on a daily basis. I came to the conclusion that if it was as painful as that then the longer she lived the better. Then she only went and fucking died


----------



## MrSki (Feb 3, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Uri Geller is still alive.
> 
> You really _do_ learn something new everyday.


He is but no longer lives in Sonning where the PM does but there is still a statue.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 3, 2019)

Dunno whether this is pouring petrol on the fire/wishful thinking....

Rebel Labour MPs set to quit party and form centre group


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2019)

6 wankers getting their mates in the press to print a story for them. If they do leave they won't have seats to come back to after the next GE.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 3, 2019)

Jumping before deselection isn’t mentioned in the article. Odd.


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Jumping before deselection isn’t mentioned in the article. Odd.



None of them were going to be deselected, and they know it.  If it hasn't been brought in after three and a bit years of bitterness, attacks on the leadership and (worse) many of the membership as well *and* co-operation with the enemy from that lot then it never will be.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2019)

There hasn't been an opportunity to deselect yet. But looking at the closeness of the recent streatham vote for all member meetings I'd say umuna is safe anyway.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> 6 wankers getting their mates in the press to print a story for them. If they do leave they won't have seats to come back to after the next GE.



Its from Toby Helm of the Observer, pours toxicity out every week.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2019)

agricola said:


> None of them were going to be deselected, and they know it.  If it hasn't been brought in after three and a bit years of bitterness, attacks on the leadership and (worse) many of the membership as well *and* co-operation with the enemy from that lot then it never will be.


there are definitely (early) moves to deselect Angela Smith. And she knows it.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2019)

Hope so, not usually a fan of deselection maneuvering by the unreconstructed left, but in her case will make an exception.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 3, 2019)

JC is not practical Jess Phillips: ‘I thought I was quite posh – I’ve realised I’m basically a scullery maid’


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 3, 2019)

I don't get why the Graun liberal set is banging on about her olives comment as though it's some sort of brilliantly on the nose ad lib. You'd have thought they'd be a bit more shy about that sort of thing since Owen Smith's cappuccino moment.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 3, 2019)




----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 3, 2019)

MrSki said:


>



Is he her leg masseuse?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2019)

He's moved from bending spoons to reanimating corpses


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 4, 2019)

Thread by @l_attfield: "Late last year me and a fellow Jewish member met with Jenny Formby to discuss AS. I’ve always been very cynical about the leaderships abilit […]"


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2019)

Any chance you could tell us something about the content of your links? Who they're by, why we should read them, what you think of them etc?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Any chance you could tell us something about the content of your links? Who they're by, why we should read them, what you think of them etc?



Yes


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2019)

shit or bust time  : if Momentum / Corbyn Left do this on the first council they get elected to, after all effort that went into getting rid of Kober, Goldberg and co, it's a l8rs from me, and I'd guess many others :


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> there are definitely (early) moves to deselect Angela Smith. And she knows it.


hmm, this is probably why her website makes no mentions at all, on it's front page, of whuch party she was elected to represent.


----------



## andysays (Feb 8, 2019)

Luciana Berger facing no confidence vote from local party (BBC)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

Important analysis from the IWCA on labour’s putitive surrender to neo liberal economic nostrums. If Labour go into the election promising no capital controls, for a customs union and continued EU single market orthodoxy then voters will have a choice or two versions of neoliberalism. Even social democracy recognises that the state must have some element of control over capital flows. Anyway, the article is pasted below:


The endgame of neo-liberalism is globalisation or democracy – and John McDonnell is not on the side of democracy. The consequence is that ‘if liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’

The City of London’s hedge funds and investment managers heaved sighs of relief in late January as Red John McDonnell, former Marxist firebrand and Labour’s putative Chancellor in waiting, assured the investment class via the Financial Times that “capital controls would not happen under a Labour government. We don’t see any necessity for them … I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.” Grown men were reportedly seen weeping in the environs of Liverpool Street, while Canary Wharf wine bars put out urgent SOS’s for fresh jeroboams of the finest Krug (Subscribe to read | Financial Times).

McDonnell’s interview with the FT comes as he and his staff conduct a series of meetings with influential figures in the City to assuage any fears finance capital may have should Labour come to power. If this sounds familiar, it’s because New Labour did the same thing prior to 1997.

Capital controls are limits placed on the amount of money and financial assets that can move in or out of a country. Free movement of capital seems such a feature of life that it may seem strange that McDonnell should feel the need to make any reassurance at all. But there is nothing pre-ordained about it, and it is a relatively recent phenomenon in its current form. During the post-war period up until the early seventies the main capitalist economies ran regimes of capital controls and fixed exchange rates pegged to the dollar (itself tied to gold), known as the Bretton Woods system. Necessary to stabilise and rebuild international capitalism after 1945, this formally came to an end when Richard Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971, bringing in our regime of floating currencies and the freedom of capital to flow across national borders without hindrance.

This was the start of the neo-liberal era, and freedom for capital is its defining feature. One of the many profound effects of this has been to increase the incidence of financial crises: the relationship between capital mobility and financial fragility is one of the few dependable laws of economic history. The FT noted in its article that ‘some left-wing thinkers have started to talk about the benefits of bringing back such measures [capital controls]’, which is not the full story: the IMF began making the case for them on a ‘prudential’ basis as far back as 2012. McDonnell, it seems, shows greater faith in neo-liberalism than the IMF does.

There is a hypothesis in economics called the ‘impossibility trilemma’, whereby it is impossible for a state to have all three of fixed exchange rates, free movement of capital and monetary policy independence: one must be sacrificed. In ending the Bretton Woods system the US and UK swapped fixed exchange rates for capital liberalisation. Currency unions like the Eurozone sacrificed sovereign monetary policy for capital liberalisation: Eurozone monetary policy is essentially conducted on the terms of the hegemon (Germany), and the periphery has to suck it up. However, Hélène Rey of the London Business School argues that global financial flows are now such that the economic trilemma is in reality a dilemma, where ‘independent monetary policies are possible if and only if the capital account is managed’ (www.nber.org/papers/w21162.pdf).

But more fundamentally, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik points to a political trilemma, where it is impossible to have all three of global economic integration, democracy, and national sovereignty. If one unequivocally chooses global economic integration, then either the nation state or democracy must be sacrificed. This, whether consciously or not, is the true endgame of neo-liberalism.

In an economically integrated world, capital can only be tempered and democracy only effectively administered at the supra-national level, where in Rodrik’s words ‘we align the scope of (democratic) politics with the scope of global markets’. But as Rodrik himself acknowledges ‘this is something that cannot realistically be done at a global scale’, and even if it could there is no democratic mandate for such global federalism, or even European federalism. 

So in the final analysis Rodrik’s trilemma is also a dilemma: one can have untrammelled economic globalisation or effective democracy, not both. And McDonnell’s remarks indicate that, in this battle, he is yet to take the side of democracy.

Might this be simple pragmatism on the bold McDonnell’s part, of picking your fights carefully and not showing your hand? Perhaps, if his stance on this wasn’t entirely of a piece with Labour’s other suite of proposed economic solutions, all of which fit comfortably within neo-liberalism: universal basic income, shareholder capitalism, and Labour’s declared preference for ‘retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union’, meaning its four cross-border freedoms for capital, labour, goods and services (McDonnell came out in favour of a second referendum before Christmas).

Like the Blairites a generation ago, globalisation is accepted as inevitable and irresistible. The difference is that a generation ago globalisation wasn’t showing any cracks. Do we put this down to a lack of intellectual nous, a shortfall in political courage? Or more prosaically, does Labour’s declared lack of interest in laying a glove on capital reflect the interests of their urban liberal constituency, who prioritise global economic integration above democracy or national sovereignty?

It is safe to say that this ordering of priorities is not shared universally, not least by the working class. The consequences of adopting it have been bluntly summed up by former Bush II speechwriter David Frum: ‘If liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’.

Where the barbarians of the populist right have positioned themselves as the guardians of national sovereignty, the liberal left has responded not by aligning themselves with democracy but by doubling down on global economic integration, or ‘no borders’. This is what it means to be a ‘socialist’ now, this is the hill the left has chosen to die on.

Should the left continue on this trajectory then further disaster, and further alienation from the class, is assured. But this catastrophic failure of analysis and strategy also throws the alternative into sharp relief. Standing on the ground of democracy, and aligning with working class priorities and instincts, may yet hold the prospect of renewal, of negating the populist right, and of bringing the class in from the cold.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Luciana Berger facing no confidence vote from local party (BBC)



John McDonnell claiming this is to clear up concerns that Berger may be looking to quit for a breakaway party. It would be nice if he was correct as going after someone for merely exposing antisemitism or criticising the beloved leader isn't good nor will it play well. Anyone with an inside track?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 8, 2019)

Won't play well? The membership loathe Berger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Won't play well? The membership loathe Berger.


when she's driving into parliament she thinks the shouts from passers-by are 'we love luciana' whereas if she were to wind down her window she'd know it was 'we loathe luciana'


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Important analysis from the IWCA on labour’s putitive surrender to neo liberal economic nostrums. If Labour go into the election promising no capital controls, for a customs union and continued EU single market orthodoxy then voters will have a choice or two versions of neoliberalism. Even social democracy recognises that the state must have some element of control over capital flows. Anyway, the article is pasted below:
> 
> 
> The endgame of neo-liberalism is globalisation or democracy – and John McDonnell is not on the side of democracy. The consequence is that ‘if liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’
> ...



phew, thank the lord there is a ex-party pledging to defend our borders!  That's what the working class need, stronger borders.  Shame they offer no other solutions.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 8, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> John McDonnell claiming this is to clear up concerns that Berger may be looking to quit for a breakaway party. It would be nice if he was correct as going after someone for merely exposing antisemitism or criticising the beloved leader isn't good nor will it play well. Anyone with an inside track?



McDonnell made a bit of a mess of it this morning - he was asked about the VONC in LB and said he knew very little about it 'only what i've seen on social media last night'. he said it was about this 'new party' which he thought LB hadn't been vocal enough about not being interested in, and that if she just made a simple statement that she wasn't going anywhere it would all just go away. Humphries (for it is he) then read out a tweet from the bloke organising the VONC (i think, one of my children was protesting loudly about my choice of radio station at this point) which as all zionist this and zionist that. McDonnell was all 'thats bad' and then returned to being sure it was all about this breakaway party idea - despite, of course, only having skimmed the issue on social media last night...

same old, same old. move along now, nothing to see here.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Won't play well? The membership loathe Berger.



More widely.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> phew, thank the lord there is a ex-party pledging to defend our borders!  That's what the working class need, stronger borders.  Shame they offer no other solutions.



Any concern that ‘red’ John M seems to be positioning labour firmly in the camp of neo liberal economics belboid?

While you are having a think can you point me to the bit where there is a pledge to defend borders from the iwca?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when she's driving into parliament she thinks the shouts from passers-by are 'we love luciana' whereas if she were to wind down her window she'd know it was 'we loathe luciana'



Some are shouting much worse things and that’s a problem.

If she doesn’t like the merest tiny whiff of socialism simply let her walk.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Any concern that ‘red’ John M seems to be positioning labour firmly in the camp of neo liberal economics belboid?


I think it is wrong to say that, the article doesn't show it - not least because it misrepresents the labour policy re both a second referendum and on the 'four freedoms' Now, Labours policies on those issues may be hard to implement, but that is no excuse to misrepresent them.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 8, 2019)

kebabking said:


> McDonnell made a bit of a mess of it this morning - he was asked about the VONC in LB and said he knew very little about it 'only what i've seen on social media last night'. he said it was about this 'new party' which he thought LB hadn't been vocal enough about not being interested in, and that if she just made a simple statement that she wasn't going anywhere it would all just go away. Humphries (for it is he) then read out a tweet from the bloke organising the VONC (i think, one of my children was protesting loudly about my choice of radio station at this point) which as all zionist this and zionist that. McDonnell was all 'thats bad' and then returned to being sure it was all about this breakaway party idea - despite, of course, only having skimmed the issue on social media last night...
> 
> same old, same old. move along now, nothing to see here.



thought J McDonn handled it v well tbh : plainly, emphatically against anti semitism, but clearly supporting the right of local party members to democratically Vonc their MP on the grounds of lack of Party loyalty etc.

And as this is approx the 6th vonc in 6 months, and the first against a Jewish MP, I'd love to know how the weaponisers decide this one is different from the previous 5, when, as per below, it's so obviously driven by the same factors :


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> phew, thank the lord there is a ex-party pledging to defend our borders!  That's what the working class need, stronger borders.  Shame they offer no other solutions.


Yes, the rump IWCA accelerates through 20th Century socialism in one country and third period Stalinism (complete with attacks on the rest of the left as facilitators of fascism - physicians, heal thyselves) towards the heady uplands of Colbertism and 17th Century Mercantilism..... As you say, no alternatives offered, other than tailing Putinbot Nazbols.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> phew, thank the lord there is a ex-party pledging to defend our borders!  That's what the working class need, stronger borders.  Shame they offer no other solutions.



Though there are not any real plans to ‘defend’ our borders from capital, just a slightly different set of masters, like Trump, to bend over for. Leave opinion formers have held protectionism up as an illusion, something you can have now we are leaving, (but over our dead bodies).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Yes, the rump IWCA accelerates through 20th Century socialism in one country and third period Stalinism (complete with attacks on the rest of the left as facilitators of fascism - physicians, heal thyselves) towards the heady uplands of Colbertism and 17th Century Mercantilism..... As you say, no alternatives offered, other than tailing Putinbot Nazbols.



Wow, third period Stalinists. Props for dusting that one off.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2019)

it's ok to offer criticism without proposing an alternative isn't it?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Wow, third period Stalinists. Props for dusting that one off.


Sadly, it's an accurate description.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 8, 2019)

cantsin said:


> thought J McDonn handled it v well tbh : plainly, emphatically against anti semitism, but clearly supporting the right of local party members to democratically Vonc their MP on the grounds of lack of Party loyalty etc.
> 
> And as this is approx the 6th vonc in 6 months, and the first against a Jewish MP, I'd love to know how the weaponisers decide this one is different from the previous 5, when, as per below, it's so obviously driven by the same factors :




if a Jewish Tory MP who had criticised their party for the way it dealt with anti-semitism had a constituancy VONC tabled against them by someone who went on about Zionists in their tweets, do you belive that JMcD would ever in a month of sundays believe that it was ever about anything other than anti-semitism?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> I think it is wrong to say that, the article doesn't show it - not least because it misrepresents the labour policy re both a second referendum and on the 'four freedoms' Now, Labours policies on those issues may be hard to implement, but that is no excuse to misrepresent them.



Labour is ruling out capital controls, it is for a customs union arrangement and therefore the adoption of the rules of the EU single market (unless you believe that Labour will negotiate access without the rules) - this isn't hard stuff to understand.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> it's ok to offer criticism without proposing an alternative isn't it?


If you are a political party, it's a bit pointless.  You need to propose an alternative.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Sadly, it's an accurate description.



Well it's more accurate than your analysis of the article.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2019)

I don't think you could really consider the IWCA a political party tbf. Either way there's plenty in there that's worth thinking about, as usual.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Labour is ruling out capital controls, it is for a customs union arrangement and therefore the adoption of the rules of the EU single market (unless you believe that Labour will negotiate access without the rules) - this isn't hard stuff to understand.


When did it rule out capital controls? It hasn't.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> When did it rule out capital controls? It hasn't.



John McDonnell “In each of the various discussions I have had, because it keeps coming up in the media, I get asked what happens with capital controls,” he told the Financial Times. “I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.”


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think you could really consider the IWCA a political party tbf. Either way there's plenty in there that's worth thinking about, as usual.


No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> one can have untrammelled economic globalisation or effective democracy, not both.


The promise of the former is prosperity... Of which it has failed for the working class of post industrial nations. What's the promise of the latter?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

kebabking said:


> if a Jewish Tory MP who had criticised their party for the way it dealt with anti-semitism had a constituancy VONC tabled against them by someone who went on about Zionists in their tweets, do you belive that JMcD would ever in a month of sundays believe that it was ever about anything other than anti-semitism?



The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther 

But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> John McDonnell “In each of the various discussions I have had, because it keeps coming up in the media, I get asked what happens with capital controls,” he told the Financial Times. “I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.”


Fair play, it contradicts what he has said before. CC's aren't even banned by the EU, Ireland and Greece have had them for years. 

What border controls do you want?


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.


So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.



Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?



You can set your watch by him.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161288
> 
> The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther
> 
> But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite



Oh wait...


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?


Because they never answer those criticisms.  And the reasonable points have been raised before, by people who do bother.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 8, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161288
> 
> The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther
> 
> But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite



He probably is.

Its one thing for a vote to be called and another for it to succeed.  I'm not a Labour member or indeed voter but I do wonder how in a supposedly democratic party you stop these things from happening because you have suspicions about a person.

Should Berger lose does anyone actually think it will be about her _crusading_ stance against antisemitism?

Actually edit the above.  I've seen your follow up, he certainly is.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

‘Crusading’?


----------



## love detective (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.



Given the quote from Mcdonnell ruling out capital controls appeared in the second paragraph (with link to relevant FT piece) and belboid after giving his considered opinion on the piece still maintained that Labour had not ruled out imposing capital controls, I think it's fair to say he didn't even read it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.


A very brief history of recent neo-liberalism. Hardly worth commenting upon.
Pointing out how globalism can undermine democracy, again, hardly news.
Then it misrepresents Labour policy - commented upon.
Then it quotes a far right figure supporting strong borders, and saying we have to do the same or we'll have fascism. Commented upon.

And, pedantically, Labour hasn't ruled out CC's, they have been included in all the 'gaming' strategies Labour has looked at for if there is a run on the pound etc following a Labour win. McDonnell's comment doesn't really change that (although, I agree, he shouldn't have made it)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> A very brief history of recent neo-liberalism. Hardly worth commenting upon.
> Pointing out how globalism can undermine democracy, again, hardly news.
> Then it misrepresents Labour policy - commented upon.
> Then it quotes a far right figure supporting strong borders, and saying we have to do the same or we'll have fascism. Commented upon.
> ...


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 161299


Yes, well done, that is the quote already posted and that I am responding to.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

love detective said:


> Given the quote from Mcdonnell ruling out capital controls appeared in the second paragraph (with link to relevant FT piece) and belboid after giving his considered opinion on the piece still maintained that Labour had not ruled out imposing capital controls, I think it's fair to say he didn't even read it.



 That would appear to be the case because every single word he's written is factually incorrect

Hello, by the way, hope your are keeping well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Yes, well done, that is the quote already posted and that I am responding to.


so what you're saying is mcdonnell is a serial liar


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> And, pedantically, Labour hasn't ruled out CC's, they have been included in all the 'gaming' strategies Labour has looked at for if there is a run on the pound etc following a Labour win. McDonnell's comment doesn't really change that (although, I agree, he shouldn't have made it)



Nurse!!!


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That would appear to be the case because every single word he's written is factually incorrect
> 
> Hello, by the way, hope your are keeping well.


Bullshit - it misrepresents Labour policy. If you want to argue that Labour policy is impractical and will, in effect, mean what is written, then say so and argue your point.

The points re borders are there and obvious. What border controls (on capital and people) do you/the authors want?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Nurse!!!


Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.



He's the shadow Chancellor. He controls Labour's economic policy. The quote could not be more emphatic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Bullshit - it misrepresents Labour policy. If you want to argue that Labour policy is impractical and will, in effect, mean what is written, then say so and argue your point.
> 
> The points re borders are there and obvious. What border controls (on capital and people) do you/the authors want?



Well except it doesn't. Labour's policy is full friction-less access to the common market. Therefore it is for continued sign up to the single market rules. The guff about reform is just that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.


there are two references to capital controls on labour's website, both on the policy forum. if they were planning to introduce capital controls perhaps they would mention it somewhere on their website other than a discussion page


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He's the shadow Chancellor. He controls Labour's economic policy. The quote could not be more emphatic.


Labour policy is made by conference.  Tho JM is, obviously, a very influential figure within that. And, yes, he is backtracking on previous statements about capital controls, so we'll have to push him to hold him to his earlier thoughts.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> He probably is.
> 
> Its one thing for a vote to be called and another for it to succeed.  I'm not a Labour member or indeed voter but I do wonder how in a supposedly democratic party you stop these things from happening because you have suspicions about a person.
> 
> ...



What would it be about though without it relating to the antisemitism issue? If it’s about the Leader and her lack of support for him it’s about the response to antisemitism, which she feels is inadequate (unless those proposing the motion have some other evidence).

If it’s about a breakaway party and about opposition to party policy why not say that?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well except it doesn't. Labour's policy is full friction-less access to the common market. Therefore it is for continued sign up to the single market rules. The guff about reform is just that.


Well, you have just made more of an attempt at constructing an argument than that article did, well done. And, yes, as I said before, getting an agreement that wont be 'the' single market will be a bastard.  But THAT is Labours policy, so you shouldn't misrepresent it. 

Now, tell me about these border controls you want?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Well, you have just made more of an attempt at constructing an argument than that article did, well done. And, yes, as I said before, getting an agreement that wont be 'the' single market will be a bastard.  But THAT is Labours policy, so you shouldn't misrepresent it.
> 
> Now, tell me about these border controls you want?



It will be, as well you know, impossible. It's a joke of a position. And one that prepares the ground for a collapse of any social democratic project.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Labour policy is made by conference.  Tho JM is, obviously, a very influential figure within that. And, yes, he is backtracking on previous statements about capital controls, so we'll have to push him to hold him to his earlier thoughts.



The rich say they fear Labour. It’s Brexit they should be worried about | Polly Toynbee
guardian 9/10/18


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 8, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What would it be about though without it relating to the antisemitism issue? If it’s about the Leader and her lack of support for him it’s about the response to antisemitism, which she feels is inadequate (unless those proposing the motion have some other evidence).
> 
> If it’s about a breakaway party and about opposition to party policy why not say that?



The Labour MP's that are facing these challenges are Blairites, the right wing of the labour party.  As the party membership has changed to be more aligned with Corbyn they are targeting MP's that have done (and still are) everything in their power to oppose him.  That and her politics are utter shite.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It will be, as well you know, impossible. It's a joke of a position.


I know no such thing. Make your argument, not just a statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Labour policy is made by conference.  Tho JM is, obviously, a very influential figure within that. And, yes, he is backtracking on previous statements about capital controls, so we'll have to push him to hold him to his earlier thoughts.


soz do you have in mind the comments in labour briefing in october 2012, reported thus in the express in 2017?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> soz do you have in mind the comments in labour briefing in october 2012, reported thus in the express in 2017?
> View attachment 161303


he made loads of such comments before he was shadow chancellor.  This piece is about their 'war-gaming' from just over a year ago, which is more relevant
The return of capital controls - MoneyWeek


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> I know no such thing. Make your argument, not just a statement.



My argument is that access to the EU common market requires the adoption of neo-liberal orthodoxy. Attempts to step outside of it are punished - see Greece and now Italy - in the severest terms by the ECB, IMF and EU. Attempts to negotiate a derogation are pointless as the entire project is based upon the orthodoxy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> he made loads of such comments before he was shadow chancellor.  This piece is about their 'war-gaming' from just over a year ago, which is more relevant
> The return of capital controls - MoneyWeek


that ^ from 9/12/17. this v from 16/11/17

McDonnell says big business sees Labour as government in waiting


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> that ^ from 9/12/17. this v from 16/11/17
> View attachment 161305
> McDonnell says big business sees Labour as government in waiting


The circled bit is just bollocks though, isn't it? While I can see why he has to say there won't be a run on the pound, it's also true Labour has been preparing for one. A tad contradictory.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> The Labour MP's that are facing these challenges are Blairites, the right wing of the labour party.  As the party membership has changed to be more aligned with Corbyn they are targeting MP's that have done (and still are) everything in their power to oppose him.  That and her politics are utter shite.



Yes, but then say that and evidence it. Don’t just write a pitiful motion that she doesn’t like Jeremy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> he made loads of such comments before he was shadow chancellor.  This piece is about their 'war-gaming' from just over a year ago, which is more relevant
> The return of capital controls - MoneyWeek


i can't find anything about the labour party war-gaming capital controls. there's this from 26/9/17



pls show some actual evidence that they war-gamed capital controls, because it's just not been reported.


----------



## zahir (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:
			
		

> The endgame of neo-liberalism is globalisation or democracy – and John McDonnell is not on the side of democracy. The consequence is that ‘if liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’


Should I take it from this that the IWCA want more border controls?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My argument is that access to the EU common market requires the adoption of neo-liberal orthodoxy. Attempts to step outside of it are punished - see Greece and now Italy - in the severest terms by the ECB, IMF and EU. Attempts to negotiate a derogation are pointless as the entire project is based upon the orthodoxy.


I largely agree. But we are in a different position to Greece & Italy, because we are (supposedly) leaving. 'Remain and reform' wouldn't work, but leaving has opened up many cracks in the edifice that _could _be exploited.

The question _should _be - Their plan probably won't work what do Labour do if/when the EU refuses to make any concessions? The article simply assumes complete capitulation (or that Labour don't really want to leave and are just stringing us along). This is where we need the alternative strategy - a strategy, not just a critique. One that will play on the existing tensions within the EU and use them to threaten their hegemony. 

Still waiting to hear what border controls you want.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> I largely agree. But we are in a different position to Greece & Italy, because we are (supposedly) leaving. 'Remain and reform' wouldn't work, but leaving has opened up many cracks in the edifice that _could _be exploited.
> 
> The question _should _be - Their plan probably won't work what do Labour do if/when the EU refuses to make any concessions? The article simply assumes complete capitulation (or that Labour don't really want to leave and are just stringing us along). This is where we need the alternative strategy - a strategy, not just a critique. One that will play on the existing tensions within the EU and use them to threaten their hegemony.
> 
> Still waiting to hear what border controls you want.



On both issues the starting point - in my opinion - is Polanyi's concept of the double movement. On this reading the countermovement is a response to the neo-liberal commodification of labour, land and money, while the actual movement is contingent on several locally determined factors. The common arguments of both sides in the debate mirrors the double movement. The leave campaign emphasised protectionist ideas while associating 'freedom of movement' to a deterioration in public services and the slow motion collapse of the labour market. On the other hand, the remain campaign aligned itself with international organisations such as the IMF and the OECD, and argued that voting to leave the EU would damage the economy. This is where the left needs to start from.


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> it's ok to offer criticism without proposing an alternative isn't it?



Indeed.

No point giving answers until you've figured out what the question is.


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2019)

zahir said:


> Should I take it from this that the IWCA want more border controls?



I'm taking from not that the IWCA want border controls (I don't know if they do or not tbf) but that there is there is an audience within the class for the arguments being made by the populist right about the benefits of border controls. Therefore we need to engage with this audience and address these concerns. Not just cede the platform to the right on this.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On both issues the starting point - in my opinion - is Polanyi's concept of the double movement. On this reading the countermovement is a response to the neo-liberal commodification of labour, land and money, while the actual movement is contingent on several locally determined factors. The common arguments of both sides in the debate mirrors the double movement. The leave campaign emphasised protectionist ideas while associating 'freedom of movement' to a deterioration in public services and the slow motion collapse of the labour market. On the other hand, the remain campaign aligned itself with international organisations such as the IMF and the OECD, and argued that voting to leave the EU would damage the economy. This is where the left needs to start from.


And the practical consequences of this are....the article seems to come down on the side of protectionism


----------



## hash tag (Feb 8, 2019)

Slipping in the current climate is not good Jeremy Corbyn slides in approval ratings in spite of Tory schisms


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Slipping in the current climate is not good Jeremy Corbyn slides in approval ratings in spite of Tory schisms


Thanks for the link to a  two month old up to date poll. In line with all your other contributions.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> And the practical consequences of this are....the article seems to come down on the side of protectionism



It doesn't. Read it again.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 8, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but then say that and evidence it. Don’t just write a pitiful motion that she doesn’t like Jeremy.



Well the guy who has proposed it appears to be a cunt.  Anyway, its been withdrawn now.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

chilango said:


> Indeed.
> 
> No point giving answers until you've figured out what the question is.


The article is about the terms upon which the UK is to leave the EU. That is the question, we may not have come up with it, but it is the one being faced, and the one the article is on about.

But by only dealing with one side of the argument - that any form of customs union requires an acceptance of the 'four freedoms' and is, thus, neo-liberal - it implies that there is another that avoids being neo-liberal.  But what it actually says - in the opening paragraph - is about the need to 'defend borders'. It immediately equates capitalist globalisation with border controls, and nothing else. Hardly surprising various people have read it as them supporting those very controls. It's a protectionist view, that ignores _any _kind of internationalism.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It doesn't. Read it again.


See previous post


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Well the guy who has proposed it appears to be a cunt.  Anyway, its been withdrawn now.



And Watson has written to Formby requesting the CLP is suspended.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> See previous post



The article flags the wider political context and the likely dead ends of mindless 'no borders' arguments. There is no protectionist call.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Slipping in the current climate is not good Jeremy Corbyn slides in approval ratings in spite of Tory schisms


Why didn't you go with
Labour slumps in polls as Tories open biggest lead since general election which has the advantage of being six days auld as opposed to more than six weeks past its use-by


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The article flags the wider political context and the likely dead ends of mindless 'no borders' arguments. There is no protectionist call.


No, as I said, there is no explicit call for _anything_. It's all implication. Why else is the point about 'defending borders' put right up front? 

If X is bad, there must be a Y that is good. So what is it? There's only one possible Y mentioned.  Or, if Y doesn't exist, maybe X is the best there is.

Casual critiques may be more or less interesting, but they're not worth much without any indication of a better alternative, and they're certainly not 'important'


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Why didn't you go with
> Labour slumps in polls as Tories open biggest lead since general election which has the advantage of being six days auld as opposed to more than six weeks past its use-by



Or this one Corbyn's satisfaction ratings slump to lowest ever level | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Why didn't you go with
> Labour slumps in polls as Tories open biggest lead since general election which has the advantage of being six days auld as opposed to more than six weeks past its use-by



There is something quite underwhelming in the statistic that only 25% of those polled think Jezza is ‘decisive’ down from 31%.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Has it all gone downhill since Dianne called it ‘neck and neck’ in the face of bully girls Fiona and Isabel on QT. She was of course quite correct on that occasion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> There is something quite underwhelming in the statistic that only 25% of those polled think Jezza is ‘decisive’ down from 31%.


There is only one poll that matters and no one yet knows when it will be held


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> There is only one poll that matters and no one yet knows when it will be held



Yep. Unless Theresa does already.


----------



## billbond (Feb 8, 2019)

Voters FURIOUS At How Much Corbyn And Abbott Have Claimed In Expenses


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2019)

What kind of website has a Union Jack favicon? The kind I’m not going to click links to, that’s what.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2019)

billbond said:


> Voters FURIOUS At How Much Corbyn And Abbott Have Claimed In Expenses



What you mean is you hope voters will be furious. 

JC is the leader of the opposition. JRM is a nobody. Of course JC will spend more. I’d be surprised if you can find something that isn’t justified but if you do boo fucking hoo.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 8, 2019)

FURIOUS i tell ya


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 8, 2019)

Nazis stand with Wavertree CLP


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 9, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> What kind of website has a Union Jack favicon? The kind I’m not going to click links to, that’s what.


The basic thrust of the argument is that they've managed to find a toff back bench tory mp who doesn't claim as much in expenses as corbyn and a couple of others. Hold the fucking front page.

Is billbond a bit simple?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 9, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is billbond a bit simple?


Yes.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 9, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is billbond a bit simple?



Probably just as well I don't moderate Urban or write its rules, because if I was king of the forums, I'd immediately permaban billbond for being a thick-as-pigshit dimbulb 
(And to be honest I think his Toryism is irrelevant to that *in itself*!)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 10, 2019)

sorry about the link to the mail - this book sounds like a political bombshell - im not sure corbyn will survive ....

How Jeremy Corbyn's 'joyless' approach to life drove wife away before affair with Diane Abbott | Daily Mail Online


probably the most shocking revelation - 


> (ex-wife) Chapman also found holidays with Corbyn a chore: in one case riding pillion on Corbyn’s bumpy bike in Eastern Europe, shunning proper beds and interesting restaurants in favour of ‘a small tent and cooking tins of beans on a single ring Calor gas stove’.



and then there's 



> ‘He would sit on the floor in his greasy, unwashed army surplus store jacket, oblivious to his wife’s irritation



and then there's ...  oh . .hang on ... that's about it.

Well certainly lives up to the mail describing it as a "devastating expose". His ex-wife of over 40 years ago reveals that they split up because they didn't seem to share the same interests !!!


----------



## oryx (Feb 10, 2019)

> ‘They rarely went out together. Dinner invitations were refused. Chapman spent lonely evenings in their small flat with Mango the dog and Harold Wilson the cat as her only companions while Corbyn met political cronies’.



 desperate stuff.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 10, 2019)

oryx said:


> desperate stuff.



"political activist associated with other political activists (sorry - "cronies")"  fuck me. hold the front page.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 10, 2019)

I dunno guys, I don't think I've ever heard of a man's ex-wife talking about how lacklustre their former partner was. Completely unprecedented and sure to absolutely torpedo Corbyn's career.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

These guys seem nice


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

No one gives a fuck about corbyns romantic history. Infantilising shite.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No one gives a fuck about corbyns romantic history. Infantilising shite.



I am, only to the extent that he does seem able to pull the ladies. Maybe he’s big on the sense of humour thing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> "political activist associated with other political activists (sorry - "cronies")"  fuck me. hold the front page.



A ‘joyless fanatic’ according to the Daily Mail. Thankfully we have a Prime Minister who simply exudes joy.


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161431 View attachment 161432
> 
> These guys seem nice


Who are they?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Who are they?



Samantha Bentley is a (self declared) Labour member, and visceral antisemitic racist


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Samantha Bentley is a (self declared) Labour member, and visceral antisemitic racist


So, nobody. You don’t even know if she actually is a Labour Party member. You really are a sad sack.

Talking of which - what’s this shit?



MadeInBedlam said:


> Nazis stand with Wavertree CLP


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

belboid said:


> So, nobody. You don’t even know if she actually is a Labour Party member. You really are a sad sack.
> 
> Talking of which - what’s this shit?



You struggle to see the Nazi-esque rhetoric? 

Sad sack eh


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You struggle to see the Nazi-esque rhetoric?
> 
> Sad sack eh


Wow. You really don’t have a clue. Go and have a lie down.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

belboid said:


> Wow. You really don’t have a clue. Go and have a lie down.



You really are quite loathesome aren’t you. Nothing but a bitter old (ex?) trot.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

belboid said:


> So, nobody. You don’t even know if she actually is a Labour Party member. You really are a sad sack.
> 
> Talking of which - what’s this shit?



More on the not-at-all antisemitic standing with Wavertree lot 

Thread by @TomNwainwright: " everyone of you on this hashtag is a joke For example a quick lucky dip: And another: not to menti […]" #Istandwithwavertree #tinkerbell32112 #logansteven #annettescambler


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)




----------



## agricola (Feb 10, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I am, only to the extent that he does seem able to pull the ladies. Maybe he’s big on the sense of humour thing.



I'd be amazed if Tesco's own brand beans don't take advantage of this heaven-sent opportunity.


----------



## Beermoth (Feb 10, 2019)

There's gonna be Dangerous Hero t-shirts now, isn't there? I'm still surprised there weren't any 'I'm a threat to National Security' t-shirts.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> I'd be amazed if Tesco's own brand beans don't take advantage of this heaven-sent opportunity.



Jeremy, preparing a meal, smart, shirt open an extra button, candlelight, some make out music playing...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 10, 2019)

'I took no pleasure in medieval towns' could be a smiths lyric


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I took no pleasure in medieval towns' could be a smiths lyric



_But a quick shunt behind the statue of a 13th Earl really opened my eyes oh woah woah oh woah..._


----------



## NoXion (Feb 10, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161466 View attachment 161463 View attachment 161464 View attachment 161465



What have those gobshites got to do with Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour party?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 10, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I took no pleasure in medieval towns' could be a smiths lyric


Panic on the streets of the Hanse, Bruges, Leuven, Magdeburg.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 10, 2019)

Beermoth said:


> There's gonna be Dangerous Hero t-shirts now, isn't there?


Danger Mouse memes probably. With Tom Watson as Penfold and Ken Clarke as Greenback.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 10, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I took no pleasure in medieval towns' could be a smiths lyric


It was a line Morrissey deleted from cemetery gates


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2019)

oryx said:


> desperate stuff.



Corbyn had a cat called Harold Wilson? I fucking knew it. Trotskyist, my arse.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Corbyn had a cat called Harold Wilson? I fucking knew it. Trotskyist, my arse.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 10, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Corbyn had a cat called Harold Wilson? I fucking knew it. Trotskyist, my arse.



I had a cat called Parsley, though I'm not a Herbalist!


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> I had a cat called Parsley, though I'm not a Herbalist!



I have a dog called Martov. But will only respond if I call him Marty. Bastard political deviationist.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2019)

Bit disappointing, he could have at least embraced it, e.g. Chairman Miaow and Lion Trotsky.

Edit: oh wait a dog, err, Barkunin.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 10, 2019)

My cat's called Lucy Eldine Gonzalez Parsons. That trumps Corbyn's Harold Wilson and Iposs1904's menshevik hound, methinks.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2019)

‘Koshka’ for a cat surely? The Daily Mail would be satisfied with nothing less.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 10, 2019)

Chair of the Wavertree CLP (Alex Scott-Samuel)

(‘Richie Allen show’ is David Ickes platform)


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam : we all have twitter and facebook. If we wanted to see endless screenshots of people saying 'rothschild' 5 years ago, we can go there, where they've almost completely replaced any other leftwing political discussions.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> MadeInBedlam : we all have twitter and facebook. If we wanted to see endless screenshots of people saying 'rothschild' 5 years ago, we can go there, where they've almost completely replaced any other leftwing political discussions.



You’re not fussed that that the chair of of a Constituency Labour Party - the same CLP that attacked a Jewish MP for daring the challenge antisemitism - is an antisemitic racist?

And like you say, the antisemtism within the Labour Party is getting considerable attention.

Perhaps challenging racism would be a better way of dealing with this, rather than the endless ‘yeah so what’/‘it’s smears’/‘it’s only a fringe’ etc responses?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Yesterday, whilst belboid was sending me abuse for challenging antisemitism, I was worrying myself sick over my relatives in Manchester, and ringing round to make sure they were ok after a Jewish cemetery was smashed up 

But Jewish graves being vanadalsied is lols to some on here.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

I don't think I've ever said 'so what', or that it's just smears, or it's only a fringe. 

I just prefer discussion here to go beyond the same tedious screenshot gotcha stuff that makes it so impossible elsewhere.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

‘Tedious gotcha stuff’


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

(I'm also not sure saying 'rothschild' once in 2013 is really definitive evidence of someone being an antisemitic racist. is that all they found?)


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> (I'm also not sure saying 'rothschild' once in 2013 is really definitive evidence of someone being an antisemitic racist. is that all they found?)



What was an academic who happens to have the surname Rothschild got to do with usary (Apart from being a Jew that is)?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

What’s antisemitic about David icke eh?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Solidarity brother


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Fuck this I’m off to the CMHT to attempt (in vain) to get MH care from a service that has been decimated by Tory austerity. 

The shit show of ‘the left’ has pretty much guaranteed that the Tories will win the next election. 

Cheers.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Scott-Samuel is also an anti-vaxxer. 

But you know, smears.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Scott-Samuel is also an anti-vaxxer.
> 
> But you know, smears.


I read that on twitter too. I also read someone else who'd listened to the show (I haven't and won't be doing) saying he isn't, but that he said people are entitled not to vaccinate. 

So yes, it literally is a smear.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> I read that on twitter too. I also read someone else who'd listened to the show (I haven't and won't be doing) saying he isn't, but that he said people are entitled not to vaccinate.
> 
> So yes, it literally is a smear.



I haven’t listened to the show but it is literally a smear.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Going on a David icke platform to defend the right to not have children vaccinated. Perfectly normal


----------



## mauvais (Feb 11, 2019)

Your screenshot stuff is not OK, IMO.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Your screenshot stuff is not OK, IMO.



Because?


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

To reiterate: I'm sympathetic to your view that Labour has a significant problem with antisemitism and is not doing enough to sort it out. I'm objecting to the way you choose to discuss it here, by posting screenshots being shared on other social media which show incomplete and decontextualised social media posts, often from half a decade ago, or made by people who may not even be in the party.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> To reiterate: I'm sympathetic to your view that Labour has a significant problem with antisemitism and is not doing enough to sort it out. I'm objecting to the way you choose to discuss it here, by posting screenshots being shared on other social media which show incomplete and decontextualised social media posts, often from half a decade ago, or made by people who may not even be in the party.



Scott-Samuel (from half a decade ago) is in the Labour Party. He is the chair of the same CLP who is attacking a Jewish MP. He also appears on a DAVID ICKE platform. 

Christ.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

in general, not just the most recent splurge.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

‘Half a decade ago’ was referring to whi else then?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Because?


It's cross-thread, it's personal, it can be shared in a context-free fashion outside this site, it's immutable and it's weird. And secondary to that, you've included my post in it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Going on a David icke platform to defend the right to not have children vaccinated. Perfectly normal


Going on a david icke platform at all is fucking weird imo


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Ah. So you mean the ‘graves being vandalised LOLS’ screenshot?


mauvais said:


> It's cross-thread, it's personal, it can be shared in a context-free fashion outside this site, it's immutable and it's weird. And secondary to that, you've included my post in it.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ah. So you mean the ‘graves being vandalised LOLS’ screenshot?


Yes, sorry, I see it was ambiguous.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Yes, sorry, I see it was ambiguous.



I’ll edit out your name. I currently trying to find my local hospital after my CPN refused to support me to be admitted voluntarily. I’ll be sectioned soon. Great.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 11, 2019)

My name's not on there so not required. I'm just suggesting that it's an approach that's not going to go down very well. There is reason to it: we have had posters that have shared this kind of stuff on Twitter etc attempting to make U75 and its posters look bad.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> My name's not on there so not required. I'm just suggesting that it's an approach that's not going to go down very well. There is reason to it: we have had posters that have shared this kind of stuff on Twitter etc attempting to make U75 and its posters look bad.



I have no intention of sharing to twitter, but I couldn’t give a damn about people who laugh at the stuff I screenshotted ‘looking bad’. 

But yes, it doesnt look good


----------



## andysays (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I currently trying to find my local hospital after my CPN refused to support me to be admitted voluntarily. I’ll be sectioned soon. Great.


I hope you get the help you feel you need, but I don't think it's a great idea to bring your current mental health issues into this thread in the way you're doing.

It also appears to me as an outsider that your intense focus on the issue of antisemitism within the LP and the wider left might well be contributing to your current state and you might be better off easing off on it, even if only temporarily.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2019)

Labour has looked into 673 cases of alleged antisemitism, figures show

Eta



> Formby said the party had previously been of the view that disciplinary statistics should remain confidential because of how they could be “misinterpreted or misused for other purposes by the party’s political rivals”.
> 
> However, she said that because of the “importance of rebuilding trust with Jewish communities” she had pushed NEC officers to agree to the release of the data.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

andysays said:


> I hope you get the help you feel you need, but I don't think it's a great idea to bring your current mental health issues into this thread in the way you're doing.
> 
> It also appears to me as an outsider that your intense focus on the issue of antisemitism within the LP and the wider left might well be contributing to your current state and you might be better off easing off on it, even if only temporarily.



I ‘brought it in’ to explain why I might not be able to edit the post immediately. 

My focus on the issue is due to AS (as well as loads of other shite - including Ickean poison) has a lot of currency within MH activism


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

There isn’t really a way of avoiding all manner of hatred and conspiracism if you are politically active and have MH problems.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Labour has looked into 673 cases of alleged antisemitism, figures show
> 
> Eta



Clearly, absolutely nothing is being done.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2019)

Look after yourself MadeInBedlam Hope things work out, and you get the support you need.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> There isn’t really a way of avoiding all manner of hatred and conspiracism if you are politically active and have MH problems.



And to be clear - it’s not just antisemtism: antivaxxers, Yaxley-Lennon supporters, Scientologists, ‘transgender conspiracy’ types. All manner of scum. 

None of this scumbags should be afforded any tolerance. And now it comes to light that a memenbr of the ‘socialist HEALTH association’ is appearing on a David Icke platform.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2019)

From above: "The data also indicates a large number of complaints – more than 400 in total – about non-Labour members."

Interesting that they'd been reported to Labour as (presumably) supposed Labour members?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Clearly, absolutely nothing is being done.


They got rid of gerry downing, which can't be bad


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Clearly, absolutely nothing is being done.



Do you think many outside of Labour Left/pro labour left have the same take as you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think many outside of Labour Left/pro labour left have the same take as you?


Not if they read the mail


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Not if they read the mail



Or pretty much any other newspaper


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> From above: "The data also indicates a large number of complaints – more than 400 in total – about non-Labour members."
> 
> Interesting that they'd been reported to Labour as (presumably) supposed Labour members?


Yes, that indicates quite clearly that this is just a trawl of groups that say they're Corbyn supporters, a fishing exercise going back years. Most of those that have gone forward seem to be either one or two dodgy (conspiraloon linking) posts, or just being an excessively argumentative twat (ie, the reason I stay off twitter). 300 people, under 30%, suspended or investigated for going further than that. That's less than 1/2 a member per constituency. Were they an organised grouping, 300 would be fair number, but they're disparate individuals. Good riddance to them, but I don't see that as Labour being riddled with anti-semitism. Certainly not as compared to any other organisation of similar size.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Going on a david icke platform at all is fucking weird imo


From about 18 mins in:


Corbyn is the reason they're in Labour and they will be around until he's gone.


----------



## Supine (Feb 11, 2019)

Looks like Corbyn has pissed of Starmer by "forgetting" to include a paragraph about supporting a second ref in his letter to May 

Corbyn’s team say he FORGOT to threaten a People’s Vote in letter to May


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> From about 18 mins in:
> 
> 
> Corbyn is the reason they're in Labour and they will be around until he's gone.




Quite. And those who make noise about antisemites ‘only’ being corbyn suporters not (apparently) LP members kind of misses the point. 

Racists are atttacted to the corbyn project.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite. And those who make noise about antisemites ‘only’ being corbyn suporters not (apparently) LP members kind of misses the point.
> 
> Racists are atttacted to the corbyn project.



Why specifically corbyn? You're right that some racists are attracted to him. And he's come out in support of the Palestinians and there's a danger of anti-Israeli government invective spilling over into antisemitic abuse. But why not the tories, too? There are anti-semites there - not just corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn is the reason they're in Labour and they will be around until he's gone.


Is this true? I know (of) a few people who are under investigation and they've been members for decades.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Why specifically corbyn? You're right that some racists are attracted to him. And he's come out in support of the Palestinians and there's a danger of anti-Israeli government invective spilling over into antisemitic abuse. But why not the tories, too? There are anti-semites there - not just corbyn.


Because he's the leader of the party and has mixed with this kind of people for a long time and they have followed him into Labour.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Why specifically corbyn? You're right that some racists are attracted to him. And he's come out in support of the Palestinians and there's a danger of anti-Israeli government invective spilling over into antisemitic abuse. But why not the tories, too? There are anti-semites there - not just corbyn.



What’s the title of this thread again?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Is this true? I know (of) a few people who are under investigation and they've been members for decades.


I can't argue on specific people, but I do think he has attracted them in.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I can't argue on specific people, but I do think he has attracted them in.


Your post was about Dr Alex Scott-Samuel - he's been a member for 40 years. 

This isn't a Corbyn thing, it's been there all along.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Your post was about Dr Alex Scott-Samuel - he's been a member for 40 years.
> 
> This isn't a Corbyn thing, it's been there all along.



Has David duke? Or the (apparently) non-members on the batshit ‘corbyn is our saviour’ FB groups?


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

I don't believe David Duke is eligible for membership.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Your post was about Dr Alex Scott-Samuel - he's been a member for 40 years.
> 
> This isn't a Corbyn thing, it's been there all along.


Why is it coming out now?.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't believe David Duke is eligible for membership.



No but he does(?) support JC. 

The LP has become(?) a party that is attractive to virulent racists.


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why is it coming out now?.


until very recently, everyone didn't have an instantly searchable database of every stupid thing they said in the last 10 years.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 11, 2019)

Labours problem is that the loons think they've finally been given the nod to go public - they think (rightly or wrongly) that Corbyn is one of them, and that he thinks is what they think, but that he is constrained by 'politics', whilst they are his attack dogs.

That goes equally for the old timers who've had to keep their heads down under previous labour leaders, and new entrants.

I don't think Labour will shift them - being loons they don't hear things they don't like, so Corbyn can tell them to fuck off till he's blue in the face, but they'll never believe anything other than that he might be _saying _that but what he means is 'keep the faith, we believe the same thing'.

Loons being loons they'll latch on to anything, but Corbyn hasn't helped himself with the people he's associated himself with, the dabbling in conspiraloonery he's done - if you lie with dogs for long enough, you'll pick up fleas.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> until very recently, everyone didn't have an instantly searchable database of every stupid thing they said in the last 10 years.



Or because he is the chair of a CLP which put forward a VONC against a Jew, for ‘undermining’ corbyn over antisemtism. A VONC proposed by an antisemite that is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Or because he is the chair of a CLP which put forward a VONC against a Jew, for ‘undermining’ corbyn over antisemtism. A VONC proposed by an antisemite that is.


Vonckers everywhere you look


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Vonckers everywhere you look



Makhno said something similar didn’t he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Makhno said something similar didn’t he?


I believe so


----------



## killer b (Feb 11, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Labours problem is that the loons think they've finally been given the nod to go public - they think (rightly or wrongly) that Corbyn is one of them, and that he thinks is what they think, but that he is constrained by 'politics', whilst they are his attack dogs.
> 
> That goes equally for the old timers who've had to keep their heads down under previous labour leaders, and new entrants.
> 
> ...


I agree with this more or less, apart from the first bit - the cranks have always been vocal - hence why so many of the offending tweets etc unearthed are from before 2015.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Joking aside, over 100 years of authoritarian ‘socialism’, and we’re still having to justify challenging racism and holding political parties to account.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 11, 2019)

When has Labour not been racist? When have the Tories not been even more racist for that matter? Same old shite. Fuck the lot of 'em. Mind you, Corbyn is probably less racist than your average Tory MP or backbench Labour MP but that doesn't sell papers or fit the current agenda.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> When has Labour not been racist? When have the Tories not been even more racist for that matter? Same old shite. Fuck the lot of 'em. Mind you, Corbyn is probably less racist than your average Tory MP or backbench Labour MP but that doesn't sell papers or fit the current agenda.



Are we allowed to challenge racism because of the, you know, principle of doing so? Why are socialists/anarchists worrying over how the media is spinning it or which party is more racist?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

It’s a given that the tories, the dail mail and so on will use whatever they can to prop up the conservative government. 

Why should we allow our campaigning (or whatever) to be influenced by them?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s the title of this thread again?



Indeed, we are allowed to talk about related things though. How would you say compare the dangers of antisemitism from Labour and the "far left" with that from the Tories and the "far right"?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, we are allowed to talk about related things though. How would you say compare the dangers of antisemitism from Labour and the "far left" with that from the Tories and the "far right"?



I don’t anticipate the far right getting into power anytime soon, and I don’t spend much time around the far right


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Are we allowed to challenge racism because of the, you know, principle of doing so? Why are socialists/anarchists worrying over how the media is spinning it or which party is more racist?


Who's worried? I don't give a fuck about the Labour Party to be honest. It's interesting to watch the hypocritical bullshit from various  sides, mind.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

I don’t find it interesting, I find it horrifying


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

The idea that Jews are as concerned as they at what’s happening is down to anything other than genuine concern also fucks me right off. Frankly.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 11, 2019)

You've lost me there.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> You've lost me there.



How so?


----------



## tim (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Or because he is the chair of a CLP which put forward a VONC against a Jew, for ‘undermining’ corbyn over antisemtism. A VONC proposed by an antisemite that is.



I do have a problem, from a non-Jewish perspective with someone, such as Scott-Samuel who is a Jew being so casally dismissed as an anti-Semite. Certainly "Jewish Voice for Labour" a Corbynite group of which he is a member see the situation as being a little more complex. Luciana Berger and Wavertree – some background and updates

As to the proposed vote itself, it was a motion of no confidence against an MP to the right of the party who is and always has been unpopular within sections of her local who see her as a Blairite who was parachuted in and who, on antisemitism and other issues, is seen as being hypercritical of the current leadership.

My assumption is that they want to get rid of her because they don't like her, not because she's Jewish.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Casually dismissed?


----------



## tim (Feb 11, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Casually dismissed?




What proof do you have that Scott-Samuel is an anti-Semite?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

Have you even read the last few pages of the thread tim ?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 11, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> From about 18 mins in:
> 
> 
> Corbyn is the reason they're in Labour and they will be around until he's gone.




tim


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

tim said:


> What proof do you have that Scott-Samuel is an anti-Semite?



What has some academic got to do with ‘usury’ tim (Apart from having a Jewish name that is)


----------



## tim (Feb 12, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What has some academic got to do with ‘usury’ tim (Apart from having a Jewish name that is)



Ah that's quite conclusive proof, he does come out with the old Rothschild schtick, doesn't he?


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 12, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How so?


Er... as in, I didn't understand you


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Er... as in, I didn't understand you



Sure. Which bit didn’t you understand?


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 12, 2019)

The bit directly above where I said "you've lost me". I'm not sure what you were on about there.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> The bit directly above where I said "you've lost me". I'm not sure what you were on about there.



The claim that Jewish concern/anger over labour AS is the result of Israeli/Tory/MSM/whatever propoganda


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 12, 2019)

Ok. Got you. So where did I say that then? Or was that comment directed at someone else?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Ok. Got you. So where did I say that then? Or was that comment directed at someone else?



It wasn’t ‘directed’ at anyone. Does it need to be?


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 12, 2019)

Oh, okay. It's just that it followed on my post. Forget it.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Fair enough


----------



## ska invita (Feb 12, 2019)

Looks like brexit is slowly eating away at Corbyns support eh. I guess theres still a way to go but it's not looking good. The more he has to come off the fence the nearer he is to impaling himself on the spikes below.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Looks like brexit is slowly eating away at Corbyns support eh. I guess theres still a way to go but it's not looking good. The more he has to come off the fence the nearer he is to impaling himself on the spikes below.


The spikes are on the fence. He is impaled. But the points inside him are preventing him bleeding out. When he removes himself from them then you'll see his innards empty.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2019)

Come on folks, I think we can stretch this metaphor a bit further.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The spikes are on the fence. He is impaled. But the points inside him are preventing him bleeding out. When he removes himself from them then you'll see his innards empty.


i think you might be right





Not an option that though for Corbyn

His only hope is that May really swan dives on to a thousand pikes lined up in a grid at the bottom of a 50 meter pit*..that might still come to pass


*for Danny


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

tim said:


> Ah that's quite conclusive proof, he does come out with the old Rothschild schtick, doesn't he?



Murkiness at Liverpool Uni

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...rothschild-conspracies-on-david-icke-1.479941


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Going on a david icke platform at all is fucking weird imo



Even weirder still is being a repeat guest. 

A reminder - this guy is the chair for of the Socialist *Health* Association (as well as the CLP backed by Jenny Formby).


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 12, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161665
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That’s just too fucking weird. Lawd knows I’m not a revolutionary, but doesn’t anyone have any basic left wing politics these days?


----------



## killer b (Feb 12, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s just too fucking weird. Lawd knows I’m not a revolutionary, but doesn’t anyone have any basic left wing politics these days?


Is it _these days_? Scott Samuel has been deeply involved in Labour politics for almost half a century. He was on a Labour NEC health subcommittee for most of the 80s, worked as an advisor to shadow ministers during the Thatcher years, is (or was...) very influential in campaigns to keep the NHS public.

Maybe something has gone terribly wrong in the last decade that's poisoned the minds of the likes of Scott Samuel... I don't think so though. I think this stuff was always bubbling along under the surface, but as it only came out in drunken arguments in the pub after meetings it was easier to forget the details, to brush it under the carpet. Less  so now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2019)

killer b said:


> Is it _these days_? Scott Samuel has been deeply involved in Labour politics for almost half a century. He was on a Labour NEC health subcommittee for most of the 80s, worked as an advisor to shadow ministers during the Thatcher years, is (or was...) very influential in campaigns to keep the NHS public.
> 
> Maybe something has gone terribly wrong in the last decade that's poisoned the minds of the likes of Scott Samuel... I don't think so though. I think this stuff was always bubbling along under the surface, but as it only came out in drunken arguments in the pub after meetings it was easier to forget the details, to brush it under the carpet. Less  so now.


Yeh but that's Labour where any actual left wing politics are entirely there by chance


----------



## killer b (Feb 12, 2019)

plenty of similar middle-aged cranks dotted throughout the socialist left tbh. You know loads of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2019)

killer b said:


> plenty of similar middle-aged cranks dotted throughout the socialist left tbh. You know loads of them.


Not irl I can assure you


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2019)

Tbf labour have always been shit


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Vonckers everywhere you look



Is he one of those EU nose in the trough bureaucrats? Up yours Delors.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Not irl I can assure you


There is a lot of it about. I had to advise my dad about the meaning behind some of the "money as debt" stuff that was getting into politics, and the subtext behind blaming things on "globalists". Fair's fair, he taught me lots of useful stuff when I was younger like "fuck the Tories".


----------



## killer b (Feb 12, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Tbf labour have always been shit



Cranks have been an essential part of the machinery for _all_ political organisations, left right and centre, since forever. Because they're prepared to do the work - these are voluntary organisations at ground level, and it's difficult to get enough people to reliably carry out all the necessary tasks - their unsavoury habits and weird views are elided and overlooked far more than they should be.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There is a lot of it about. I had to advise my dad about the meaning behind some of the "money as debt" stuff that was getting into politics, and the subtext behind blaming things on "globalists". Fair's fair, he taught me lots of useful stuff when I was younger like "fuck the Tories".


People on here, especially those of us here since Jazzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and 9/11 nutjobs, are rather better versed in the ways of the conspiraloon, and the deeper meaning behind the bullshit they come out with. But it's not always obvious. Attacks on finance capital are obviously not necessarily anti-semitic. Even if you single out finance as opposed to manufacturing capital, it's not anti-semitic by itself. Of course actual anti-semites take that rather further, say it is the whole problem, and look who controls it. But Step A doesn't lead necessarily to Step F.

Even the people who post one (or even two!) Rothschild memes probably aren't being even subconsciously anti-semitic, they have just 'found out' what appears to be a quite shocking fact about the extent that one rich family has had substantial influence over European politics (which it has, although to nothing like the extent that the conspiraloons think it has). It's reposted as an example of how a tiny strata in society rip people off. Very often, the supposed facts are bullshit, but they're hardly the only bullshit facts frequently spread by people you wish would take ten fucking seconds to check it out (see also all those pictures of an empty House of Commons during supposedly important debates, or any of 100 bombed out cities meant to be Syria, or Gaza). 

Simply shouting 'anti-semite' or 'nazi' at such people is utterly befuddled. Their reaction, and the reaction of most of their friends and facebook followers will be to dismiss the accusations, and to defend their friend. It's, surely, far wiser to point out why their post is simply wrong, how these ideas have fed into generations of anti-semitic tropes, so that even if you don't mean it in any kind of anti-semitic way, you can understand why people might well read it that way.

If you want to pick a banking family as an exemplar of everything that's wrong with finance capital, pick one that's not bloody jewish. Don't use the vile phrase 'Zionist lobby.' Don't think that David Icke is a valid source. It may seem ridiculous that we have to argue such things, but surely the people we want to be drawing people into politics are those that don't have our longstanding experience of political practises and bullshit.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> People on here, especially those of us here since Jazzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and 9/11 nutjobs, are rather better versed in the ways of the conspiraloon, and the deeper meaning behind the bullshit they come out with. But it's not always obvious. Attacks on finance capital are obviously not necessarily anti-semitic. Even if you single out finance as opposed to manufacturing capital, it's not anti-semitic by itself. Of course actual anti-semites take that rather further, say it is the whole problem, and look who controls it. But Step A doesn't lead necessarily to Step F.
> 
> Even the people who post one (or even two!) Rothschild memes probably aren't being even subconsciously anti-semitic, they have just 'found out' what appears to be a quite shocking fact about the extent that one rich family has had substantial influence over European politics (which it has, although to nothing like the extent that the conspiraloons think it has). It's reposted as an example of how a tiny strata in society rip people off. Very often, the supposed facts are bullshit, but they're hardly the only bullshit facts frequently spread by people you wish would take ten fucking seconds to check it out (see also all those pictures of an empty House of Commons during supposedly important debates, or any of 100 bombed out cities meant to be Syria, or Gaza).
> 
> ...



And yet the opposite has happened in the case of Scott-Samuel. The attention to his ‘Rothschilds’ stuff has led to increased scrutiny of his other conduct and associations, and Liverpool Uni have now distanced themselves from him.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And yet the opposite has happened in the case of Scott-Samuel. The attention to his ‘Rothschilds’ stuff has led to increased scrutiny of his other conduct and associations, and Liverpool Uni have now distanced themselves from him.


How is that 'the opposite'? His conspiraloonery has been brought to light, and he is being held to account for it. Good. If he'd been posting that shite in Labour Party forums, he'd have been reported long before now, so he very probably wasn't doing. The university clearly had no clue either. I guess (not having any further actual evidence to go on) that most people thought he was a respected health academic.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

“It's, surely, far wiser to point out why their post is simply wrong, how these ideas have fed into generations of anti-semitic tropes, so that even if you don't mean it in any kind of anti-semitic way, you can understand why people might well read it that way.”

Publically cslling Scott-Samuel a racist is what led to attention to his position at SHA and to the fact that his involvement with the Richie Allen show is more than a one-off appearance. 

I doubt that attempts to explain his racism to him would have achieved more then a massive waste of time.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> “It's, surely, far wiser to point out why their post is simply wrong, how these ideas have fed into generations of anti-semitic tropes, so that even if you don't mean it in any kind of anti-semitic way, you can understand why people might well read it that way.”
> 
> Publically cslling Scott-Samuel a racist is what led to attention to his position at SHA and to the fact that his involvement with the Richie Allen show is more than a one-off appearance.
> 
> I doubt that attempts to explain his racism to him would have achieved more then a massive waste of time.


Posting up his appearances exposed his position, not shouting 'racist.' I have absolutely no problem with a Richie Allen regular being told to fuck off. As per the rest of my post, I have no reason to believe his conspiraloonery was more widely known until now. He might well not have been convinced of the error of his ways, but it would have definitely screwed his chances of being elected secretary.

I hadn't, prior to the above post, said anything about Scott-Samuels, by the way. What I objected to (and what led to you claiming I had been 'sending you abuse') was you shouting 'nazi' at a random elderly bloke for one shit tweet.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 161348 Nazis stand with Wavertree CLP



This belboid? What makes you think he’s elderly? How is it relevant?


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2019)

He's called Albert, of course he's elderly.

I apologise if you thought I was rude the other day, but, ffs, _nazi_?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

‘On the payroll of foreign states’

‘Using antisemtism to subvert democracy.’

But he’s called Albert.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2019)

FWIW Scott-samuel was reported to liverpool labour in 2016, and the complainant was told he was overreacting and that Scott samuel was 'naive, but a nice guy'. They totally knew what a crank he was. That's classic crank excusing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2019)

This particular instance is quite instructive though. McDonnell’s first instincts were to defend the local party, not to ask a few deeper questions about the motivations for a VONC against a pregnant Jewish MP. 

Watson’s first instincts were to smell BS and defend the MP for which he gets the usual abuse. JC’s first impulse, to say nothing about the issue or the leadership divide. 

There may be leadership, but it is apparently lacking, no reminding members of their moral compass, no reassurance or charm towards the MP or other waverers. How long can that go on without damaging Labour’s electoral chances?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> This particular instance is quite instructive though. McDonnell’s first instincts were to defend the local party, not to ask a few deeper questions about the motivations for a VONC against a pregnant Jewish MP.
> 
> Watson’s first instincts were to smell BS and defend the MP for which he gets the usual abuse. JC’s first impulse, to say nothing about the issue or the leadership divide.
> 
> There may be leadership, but it is apparently lacking, no reminding members of their moral compass, no reassurance or charm towards the MP or other waverers. How long can that go on without damaging Labour’s electoral chances?


Why do you see a Jewish MP as not part of the local party, and why do you suggest - against the actual evidence - that the CLP is unanimous against her?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you see a Jewish MP as not part of the local party, and why do you suggest - against the actual evidence - that the CLP is unanimous against her?



You are being pedantic. There are clearly elements of the local party set against her. I didn’t suggest your first point, nor unanimity.

Do you have an opinion on the behaviour of McDonnell, Watson and Corbyn on this issue to share?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You are being pedantic. There are clearly elements of the local party set against her. I didn’t suggest your first point, nor unanimity.
> 
> Do you have an opinion on the behaviour of McDonnell, Watson and Corbyn on this issue to share?


Now it's elements against her, before it was the local party 

A view on their behaviour? Yes, yes I do.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

Where is corbyn anyway? You never see him these days


----------



## tommers (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Where is corbyn anyway? You never see him these days


He has to make those hourly reports to Czech intelligence. Keeps him busy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Now it's elements against her, before it was the local party
> 
> A view on their behaviour? Yes, yes I do.



Well, if it’s at the level of your current contribution it may be wise to keep it to yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Well, if it’s at the level of your current contribution it may be wise to keep it to yourself.


perhaps you could engage brain before posting. i didn't put hand to keyboard to the extent you perhaps expected being as i didn't have a keyboard to hand, and wasn't minded to spend the final two minutes of a bus journey typing for five minutes on a phone's touch screen. once again you think you know fucking everything but instead know fuck all.

as i've made clear in posts over the last four years i believe the labour party leadership have as much to offer as their predecessors in office, ie fuck all. for someone who has spent so many years in the labour party, corbyn seems to have very little idea of how to actually manage a party despite having observed leaders from harold wilson to ed miliband and the different means they employed to rally the ranks. as a result the labour party in both its parliamentary and constituency levels is riven with dissent, with people who believe corbyn has much to offer at odds with people who believe he is satan incarnate. within the troika you mention above, there is similar dissent - watson on the one hand and corbyn and mcdonnell on the other have little bar their party affiliation in common. i don't know why you believe people who are pregnant and people who are jewish should get special treatment from votes of no confidence. i think that as long as such activity in clps is consonant with the labour party rules (https://theclarionmag.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LabourRuleBook2018.pdf) clps should just be left to get on with it. but tbh i wouldn't be a member of such a nefandous party as the labour party, nor could i in good conscience advise anyone else to participate in their activities.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could engage brain before posting. i didn't put hand to keyboard to the extent you perhaps expected being as i didn't have a keyboard to hand, and wasn't minded to spend the final two minutes of a bus journey typing for five minutes on a phone's touch screen. once again you think you know fucking everything but instead know fuck all.
> 
> as i've made clear in posts over the last four years i believe the labour party leadership have as much to offer as their predecessors in office, ie fuck all. for someone who has spent so many years in the labour party, corbyn seems to have very little idea of how to actually manage a party despite having observed leaders from harold wilson to ed miliband and the different means they employed to rally the ranks. as a result the labour party in both its parliamentary and constituency levels is riven with dissent, with people who believe corbyn has much to offer at odds with people who believe he is satan incarnate. within the troika you mention above, there is similar dissent - watson on the one hand and corbyn and mcdonnell on the other have little bar their party affiliation in common. i don't know why you believe people who are pregnant and people who are jewish should get special treatment from votes of no confidence. i think that as long as such activity in clps is consonant with the labour party rules (https://theclarionmag.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LabourRuleBook2018.pdf) clps should just be left to get on with it. but tbh i wouldn't be a member of such a nefandous party as the labour party, nor could i in good conscience advise anyone else to participate in their activities.



Thank’s that’s more helpful than your daft misreading of what I wrote about McDonnell backing the CLP.

Without question the rules should apply evenly, but trying to pursue any heavily pregnant woman around issues of work discipline (which is the ballpark) requires sensitivity and fairness. That she is also Jewish, given the current state of affairs in the party, should at least require the Party to consider who has a dog in the fight. As you indicate, it doesn’t suggest a competent party machine and it doesn’t look to the outside a fair one.

So yes, the leadership end up looking a mess and in particular McDonnell using the occasion to call out her loyalty.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2019)

Interesting bit from Jenny Formby's reply to a PLP letter:

"Finally, I am pleased that our improved procedures allow me to be able to correct an account of a submission made at yesterday’s PLP meeting regarding a dossier submitted with 200 examples. The 200 examples do not relate to 200 separate individuals. They relate to 111 individuals reported of whom only 20 were members"

I wonder who might have sent that dossier in?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> Interesting bit from Jenny Formby's reply to a PLP letter:
> 
> "Finally, I am pleased that our improved procedures allow me to be able to correct an account of a submission made at yesterday’s PLP meeting regarding a dossier submitted with 200 examples. The 200 examples do not relate to 200 separate individuals. They relate to 111 individuals reported of whom only 20 were members"
> 
> I wonder who might have sent that dossier in?


Hodge said she sent in 200. That they don't refer to Labour party members on the whole says much about her and her motivations.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Hodge said she sent in 200. That they don't refer to Labour party members on the whole says much about her and her motivations.



Was she meant to track down and identify the individuals first prior to sending her complaint to the party?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2019)

It says something that she assumed they were Labour members, and perhaps that Labour is the only organization she can think of that would act on a complaint.

Eta assuming that those 200 she reported weren't all Labour members, which isn't really clear.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Hodge said she sent in 200. That they don't refer to Labour party members on the whole says much about her and her motivations.


backbenchers don't have the means of checking if someone is a labour party member tbf.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

Or so we’re told


----------



## TopCat (Feb 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> backbenchers don't have the means of checking if someone is a labour party member tbf.


So she just reports all and any anti semitism to the LP and shouts about it? Some right wing cunt makes an anti Semitic remark and she throws at the door of the LP?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

TopCat said:


> So she just reports all and any anti semitism to the LP and shouts about it? Some right wing cunt makes an anti Semitic remark and she throws at the door of the LP?



Why are you asking urban?


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> backbenchers don't have the means of checking if someone is a labour party member tbf.



The expulsions / suspensions / rejections around the time of the two leadership elections would suggest that they (CLPs if not MPs) must have some means of doing it; IIRC some people were punished for backing other parties on twitter.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2019)

TopCat said:


> So she just reports all and any anti semitism to the LP and shouts about it? Some right wing cunt makes an anti Semitic remark and she throws at the door of the LP?


Well, I haven't seen this particular dossier, but I assume it's mostly abuse from twitter accounts called things like 'JC4PM GTTO Dave' and facebook accounts with labour roses in their profile pics. If you include the actual neo-nazis you could get well over 200 in half an hour.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2019)

agricola said:


> The expulsions / suspensions / rejections around the time of the two leadership elections would suggest that they (CLPs if not MPs) must have some means of doing it; IIRC some people were punished for backing other parties on twitter.


CLPs have access to local membership lists.

edit: this was done the other way round too - new members had their social media checked for compliance as they came in.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 13, 2019)

Todays' vile Labour anti semite, wishing for horrible stuff to happens to Bergers baby, and obviously being RT''d by Rachel Riley , Pickens etc etc.

( they all been told repeatedly that the fruitcake responsible has 'Truther' in his bio, RT's Trump all over the shop, and lives in Australia... )


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Todays' vile Labour anti semite, wishing for horrible stuff to happens to Bergers baby, and obviously being RT''d by Rachel Riley , Pickens etc etc.
> 
> ( they all been told repeatedly that the fruitcake responsible has 'Truther' in his bio, RT's Trump all over the shop, and lives in Australia... )




What’s your point?


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s your point?


see how annoying it is?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

In any case, that was yesterday’s corbynysta racist weirdo. 

Today ‘labour left voice’ have been sharing photoshopped tweets purporting to show Riley promting islamophobia, and some other dickhead has been drawing up lists of MPs who follow Jews on twitter.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> see how annoying it is?



Fuck off


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

cantsin said:


> ( they all been told repeatedly that the fruitcake responsible has 'Truther' in his bio, RT's Trump all over the shop, and lives in Australia... )




Are they ‘weaponising’ or simply overreacting?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> In any case, that was yesterday’s corbynysta racist weirdo.
> 
> Today ‘labour left voice’ have been sharing photoshopped tweets purporting to show Riley promting islamophobia, and some other dickhead has been drawing up lists of MPs who follow Jews on twitter.



that fruitcake had nothing to do with 'Corbynism' : Trumpite, Truther, Vaxxer, Islamaphobe


----------



## andysays (Feb 13, 2019)

You know, I'm beginning to think the 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up' thread's time is up.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Are they ‘weaponising’ or simply overreacting?



cantsin ?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> cantsin ?



deliberately misrepresenting by the looks of it


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 13, 2019)

cantsin said:


> deliberately misrepresenting by the looks of it



The ‘jew baby-killer’ tweet made several references to labour. Picken then used the hashtag #labourantisemtism, and has gone on to point out that even if the charming chap involved isn’t a labour member, his psychopathic statement can hardly be dissociated from antisemtism in the Labour Party.

I wonder what was concerning her more - the threat of violence or ensuring that Labour Party members didn’t feel unfairly got at?

Many of those involved in campaigning around this have stated their concern that there will be physical violence against Jews. Do you believe them?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The ‘jew baby-killer’ tweet made several references to labour. Picken then used the hashtag #labourantisemtism, and has gone on to point out that even if the charming chap involved isn’t a labour member, his psychopathic statement can hardly be dissociated from antisemtism in the Labour Party.
> 
> I wonder what was concerning her more - the threat of violence or ensuring that Labour Party members didn’t feel unfairly got at?
> 
> Many of those involved in campaigning around this have stated their concern that there will be physical violence against Jews. Do you believe them?



depends who you're referring to here - eg : I don't believe a word that comes from Euan Phillips, Pickens, Gnasher ....but there may be other campaigners that do feel threatened, especially when you have the likes of Riley / Oberman amplifying utter nonsense from online fruitcakes sat 10 000 miles away, who have nothing to do with the Labour Party, or Lab movement, and deliberately rolling it into the Lab / AS narrative - end result I'd guess could be heightened fear amongst some of the jewish community, and I 'd suspect also rising scepticism amongst the many who see through it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The ‘jew baby-killer’ tweet made several references to labour. Picken then used the hashtag #labourantisemtism, and has gone on to point out that even if the charming chap involved isn’t a labour member, his psychopathic statement can hardly be dissociated from antisemtism in the Labour Party.



Of course it can, and clearly needs to be by anyone who's serious about this. He's in Australia for heaven's sake and has nothing to do with the Labour party.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 18, 2019)

7 chairs and a stool on stage for this 10.00 event, live at the Guardian Several Labour MPs set to quit the party – Politics Live


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2019)

hash tag said:


> 7 chairs and a stool on stage for this 10.00 event, live at the Guardian Several Labour MPs set to quit the party – Politics Live


More stool than that.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 18, 2019)

Live here


----------



## teqniq (Feb 18, 2019)

Don't let the door hit your arses on your way out etc...


----------



## Libertad (Feb 18, 2019)

- @ChukaUmunna
- @MikeGapes 
- @lucianaberger 
- @anncoffey_mp 
- @ChrisLeslieMP 
- @gavinshuker 
- @angelasmithmp

They were all likely to be deselected by their CLPs so fuck em.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 18, 2019)

Regardless, it really doesn't help things!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Regardless, it really doesn't help things!


It's exactly what you've been calling for since you started this thread in 2016.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 18, 2019)

Libertad said:


> - @ChukaUmunna
> - @MikeGapes
> - @lucianaberger
> - @anncoffey_mp
> ...



Disclaimer: Not my circus, not my monkeys.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 18, 2019)

Nor mine actually.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 18, 2019)

Well, that's Jeremy done for.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that's Jeremy done for.


yeh he'll die laughing


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Live here



i'd really rather not


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 18, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Live here




All wanking on about their parentage and backgrounds .. not a word about their actual politics (except ''refusing to enable a hard tory brexit'' obvs, whatever tf that even means)

It all came across as _I joined Labour when I was young and idealistic, and now I'm no longer idealistic and I don't want the party to still be, either_

tl;dr self-serving pricks.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

They pretty much say _we used to be working class now due to sponsored mobility we are not and we are like you. So give us power.

_


----------



## Cloo (Feb 18, 2019)

Re the anti-Semitism, I do wonder what people consider Corbyn's response should have been? I mean, it's been crap (this is not a thing where his 'not-dignifying-with-an-answer technique works), but it seems an unwinnable battle. Was he supposed to resign for not managing it? Remove everyone from the Labour party accused of anti semitism (which would doubtless result in removal of people who have merely criticised Israel). I can't see any response that would be considered acceptable.

As ever, I maintain that the focus on Labour anti-Semitism, which is a thing, don't get me wrong, is disproportionate to the existential threat Labour poses to Jews (none, imo) and has more to do with opposition to socialism than anyone actually giving a shit about the well-being of Jews


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 18, 2019)

Cloo said:


> Re the anti-Semitism, I do wonder what people consider Corbyn's response should have been? I mean, it's been crap (this is not a thing where his 'not-dignifying-with-an-answer technique works), but it seems an unwinnable battle. Was he supposed to resign for not managing it? Remove everyone from the Labour party accused of anti semitism (which would doubtless result in removal of people who have merely criticised Israel). I can't see any response that would be considered acceptable.
> 
> As ever, I maintain that the focus on Labour anti-Semitism, which is a thing, don't get me wrong, is disproportionate to the existential threat Labour poses to Jews (none, imo) and has more to do with opposition to socialism than anyone actually giving a shit about the well-being of Jews



I think a lot of it comes down to lack of leadership skills. At some point he has to have worked the difficult MPs to get them onside, increase their confidence in his determination to sort the problem out, make them feel important (even though these six are really not). Instead, he lets things slide, like last week when Watson and McDonnell were arguing in public. No comment from him. That may be very, very difficult given the hostility to him, the weaponising by the media etc, but that's the territory. He has to own it.

The other is communication. He can't seem to work his audience unless he is hectoring it from a mike with things they want to hear. He has had opportunities to passionately appeal to the Jewish community through various media and face to face, but doesn't seem to be able to. No updates on the issue, just seems uncomfortable on it, avoids it. He'd be better off talking about it everyday. When accused by May of antisemitism during PMQs he just looks awkward. He should have given her a roasting and declared his utter passion to eradicate it. 

So not a leader and lacks the ability to charm opponents. I don't see that he can beat this right now and he's an absolute sitting duck to any further revelations. Given it seems that a small but significant proportion of Labour's supporters would support him even if he was found to have tortured a cat this is quite a liability.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

You're a nutter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You're a nutter.



Because?


----------



## ska invita (Feb 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> not a word about their actual politics
> .............
> self-serving pricks.


Self-centrism


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I think a lot of it comes down to lack of leadership skills. At some point he has to have worked the difficult MPs to get them onside, increase their confidence in his determination to sort the problem out, make them feel important (even though these six are really not).


That simply isn't true. Look at the make-up of the first Corbyn Shadow Cabinet (where Berger was a minister), there was a clear attempt to work with these pricks (those that would agree to serve in the SC, Umunna of course ruled himself out of working in a Corbyn cabinet). What did it get the Labour left, an attempted coup against someone who had walked an election a year previously.

These people are in hock to Neo-liberalism, they have made it clear that they will do everything possible to block even the very small moves the LP has made. And now when they've found that they are have no purchase in the party and that Labour members despise them they have decided to throw their toys, and egos, out of the pram.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

Libertad said:


> - @ChukaUmunna
> - @MikeGapes
> - @lucianaberger
> - @anncoffey_mp
> ...



Very probably, but so many people saying that stuff in public is a sign of really deep divisions. If he faces challenges like this now, he's in serious shit if Labour win. 
However, even the shite Tory government and pathetic PM in number 10 at the moment can beat him hands down so there's fat chance of getting rid of the conservatives until he's dumped.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Very probably, but so many people saying that stuff in public is a sign of really deep divisions. If he faces challenges like this now, he's in serious shit if Labour win.
> However, even the shite Tory government and pathetic PM in number 10 at the moment can beat him hands down so there's fat chance of getting rid of the conservatives until he's dumped.



Thank you for your customary incoherence.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Very probably, but so many people saying that stuff in public is a sign of really deep divisions. If he faces challenges like this now, he's in serious shit if Labour win.
> However, even the shite Tory government and pathetic PM in number 10 at the moment can beat him hands down so there's fat chance of getting rid of the conservatives until he's dumped.


Yes, don't want austerity as implemented by the blue team, it must be implemented by the red team.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> These people are in hock to Neo-liberalism, they have made it clear that they will do everything possible to block even the very small move's the LP has made. And now when they've found that they are have no purchase in the party and that Labour members despise them they have decided to throw their toys, and egos, out of the pram.


One of the things that were instructive  yesterday was the mentions Harold Wilson got during the press conference. They were saying “we are the inheritors of the Labour tradition, not Corbyn”.  But any serious analysis would make a nonsense of that: Corbyn isn’t proposing a programme anywhere close to Wilson.  And the new group wouldn’t want us to think _they_ are, which is why it was the older nonentities in the middle of the baton relay who made the Wilson references (already introduced as “from different generations” by Luciana Berger), rather than the “stars” who opened and closed proceedings.

They were trying to signal that they’re  a “natural home” for Labour members, to make it easier for foot soldiers to jump ship, because they know without a grassroots party they’ll get nowhere. But the neoliberal tendency in the PLP knows that too, which is why they’re sticking with Labour, whatever their feelings on Corbyn.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> That simply isn't true. Look at the make-up of the first Corbyn Shadow Cabinet (where Berger was a minister), there was a clear attempt to work with these pricks (those that would agree to serve in the SC, Umunna of course ruled himself out of working in a Corbyn cabinet). What did it get the Labour left, an attempted coup against someone who had walked an election a year previously.
> 
> These people are in hock to Neo-liberalism, they have made it clear that they will do everything possible to block even the very small moves the LP has made. And now when they've found that they are have no purchase in the party and that Labour members despise them they have decided to throw their toys, and egos, out of the pram.



Your analysis is spot on and I agree 100%. But it’s not the only factor. 

Loathsome as these seven are, Berger is unquestionably the victim of antisemitism both from within and without of the party. This board recognises the dodgy, conspiraloon, elements in Labour easily enough.

We find that Corbyn hasn’t spoken to her in 14 months. Effectively, he is her boss, he heads the organisation she belongs to. Imagine a tribunal where a boss admits they didn’t speak to a victim of racism for that amount of time _because it’s clear she doesn’t like me.
_
Labour is probably doing some decent work to change, but it won’t reach beyond the party until it displays public passion on antisemitism. If it does that it can neutralise some of the political attacks. But Corbyn, in history and demeanour is a weakness here. These seven are nothing in the scheme of things, but another bombshell now, real or contrived, damaging.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> But Corbyn, in history and demeanour is a weakness here.


Agreed.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

Libertad said:


> Thank you for your customary incoherence.



Thank your for your customary unwillingness to see reality.
May is PM and the Tories are going to stay in power until that soft dick is booted out.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Thank your for your customary unwillingness to see reality.
> May is PM and the Tories are going to stay in power until that soft dick is booted out.



Unfortunately I am on closer terms with reality than I would wish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> May is PM and the Tories are going to stay in power until that soft dick is booted out.


she may be booted out sooner than you think


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> she may be booted out sooner than you think



That would be nice but the esteemed leader of the Labour party won't have much to do with it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> That would be nice but the esteemed leader of the Labour party won't have much to do with it


and you know this because...


----------



## hash tag (Feb 19, 2019)

I thought she had announced she was going in the summer, after she had delivered brexit.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 19, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I thought she had announced she was going in the summer, after she had delivered brexit.



If it arrives late do we get a free order next time?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 19, 2019)

You would want that?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 19, 2019)

More the principle


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I thought she had announced she was going in the summer, after she had delivered brexit.


she couldn't deliver an underarm ball


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2019)

Where is she btw? Seems to have gone to ground.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 19, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I thought she had announced she was going in the summer, after she had delivered brexit.



Has she?  Maybe I missed that but I thought she'd just promised not to lead the tories into the next election.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Where is she btw? Seems to have gone to ground.



She's locked herself in a cupboard somewhere and is sat watching a clock go round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Where is she btw? Seems to have gone to ground.


don't know what she's up to today but tomorrow she should be in brussels - a long way to go to evade pmq's


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> don't know what she's up to today but tomorrow she should be in brussels - a long way to go to evade pmq's



You’d have thought she be looking forward to PMQs and the chance to bait Jeremy for his misfortunes.


----------



## chilango (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Where is she btw? Seems to have gone to ground.



She was hiding in a private school near her house the other day so I'm reliably told.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You’d have thought she be looking forward to PMQs and the chance to bait Jeremy for his misfortunes.


she's one or two misfortunes of her own to be taking care of atm


----------



## chilango (Feb 19, 2019)

chilango said:


> She was hiding in a private school near her house the other day so I'm reliably told.


...although her security team wasn't in its regular position outside her house according to another source of mine.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and you know this because...



... he's a dick.

This isn't a question of supporting any given shade of red, it's a matter of getting a Labour leader capable of dumping the Tories, and that silly bastard isn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> ... he's a dick.
> 
> This isn't a question of supporting any given shade of red, it's a matter of getting a Labour leader capable of dumping the Tories, and that silly bastard isn't.


You're nothing but a windbag. There's no thought behind your posts, just facile farts


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You're nothing but a windbag. There's no thought behind your posts, just facile farts



That's roughly my opinion of our less than esteemed Labour leader.
May is utter shit both in her political bents and her pathetic lack of ability as a PM, but she has Mr J beaten hands down, and that's pathetic when you consider how useless she is.
She's handing Labour an easy victory, but the tosser leader of the opposition is throwing it away.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> she may be booted out sooner than you think



Wha?  I missed this...


----------



## cantsin (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> However, even the shite Tory government and pathetic PM in number 10 at the moment can beat him hands down so there's fat chance of getting rid of the conservatives until he's dumped.



' can beat him hands down' , even though they cldnt even win a majority vs Corbyn ? Lab in 2017, despite 2yrs of incessant attacks from every corner of the media, from his own PLP. from the rest of the HoC, from every business leader, etc etc ?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

cantsin said:


> ' can beat him hands down' , even though they cldnt even win a majority vs Corbyn ? Lab in 2017, despite 2yrs of incessant attacks from every corner of the media, from his own PLP. from the rest of the HoC, from every business leader, etc etc ?


We need a third way!


----------



## cantsin (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> That's roughly my opinion of our less than esteemed Labour leader.
> May is utter shit both in her political bents and her pathetic lack of ability as a PM, but she has Mr J beaten hands down, and that's pathetic when you consider how useless she is.
> She's handing Labour an easy victory, but the tosser leader of the opposition is throwing it away.




all this chucking ephitets around at Corbyn from behind your keyboard is v impressive, well done 

(mug)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 19, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> She's locked herself in a cupboard somewhere and is sat watching a clock go round.



First sensible thing she's done in years if so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2019)

Thing is though is this state of affairs survivable? It’s fine honing the party down to those MPs who may do a little good, but it’s becoming a clusterfuck.


----------



## rioted (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> ...but the tosser leader of the opposition is throwing it away.


Fascinated to know who you think might be a good alternative.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Let's all give a massive _Welcome Back_ to the famously NON-anti-Jewish DEEEEEEEERECK HATTON!

Surely Steptoe was pissed when he agreed to this one?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 20, 2019)

People don't seem to want to acknowledge that the real difference, and what boxes us in, is the false impression of democracy and freedom we are presented with. That this is what freedom is. It's a sweetened, dumbed-down/infantilised narrative that is a necessity for an unequal society. An arrangement that deprives the majority and causes so much harm. I hate conspiracism, I hate anti-semitism. I would rather years of austerity before billionaires swipe up the last remnants than get behind cunts like that. But it needs to be fought for, not abandoned. So while I despise the one I feel very conflicted that a return to careerist drones/centrists and so forth is the only solution and possibility.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 20, 2019)

rioted said:


> Fascinated to know who you think might be a good alternative.



Bloody good question, but there are maggots crawling around in rotting tree bark that must be able to do a better job than him.
If the Labour party can't find someone better, it's in a serious mess and doomed to the opposition benches until they do.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> all this chucking ephitets around at Corbyn from behind your keyboard is v impressive, well done
> 
> (mug)



I love adjectives, so thank you (Even though I know you were being a sarcastic twat )


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Humberto said:


> People don't seem to want to acknowledge that the real difference, and what boxes us in, is the false impression of democracy and freedom we are presented with.


We need a command economy led by that famous social democrat, Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> ' can beat him hands down' , even though they cldnt even win a majority vs Corbyn ? Lab in 2017, despite 2yrs of incessant attacks from every corner of the media, from his own PLP. from the rest of the HoC, from every business leader, etc etc ?



May is a useless sod, and the Tories are crap in general - They're throwing away every advantage but Labour just can't manage to gain any support. The last election should have seen that bloody useless set of tory wankers on the dole, but Labour fluffed it, leaving them with a majority.
A decent Labour leader would have been sitting in No 10 today, but that tosser - no hope.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> We need a command economy led by the famous social democrat, Jeremy Corbyn.


 
I don't think so. Centrist careerist drones it is then.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Humberto said:


> I don't think so. Centrist careerist drones it is then.


Death by a thousand cuts, or six of the best. Just leave your principles by the door on your way in/out.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 20, 2019)

Good one


----------



## NoXion (Feb 20, 2019)

Humberto said:


> People don't seem to want to acknowledge that the real difference, and what boxes us in, is the false impression of democracy and freedom we are presented with. That this is what freedom is. It's a sweetened, dumbed-down/infantilised narrative that is a necessity for an unequal society. An arrangement that deprives the majority and causes so much harm. I hate conspiracism, I hate anti-semitism. I would rather years of austerity before billionaires swipe up the last remnants than get behind cunts like that. But it needs to be fought for, not abandoned. So while I despise the one I feel very conflicted that a return to careerist drones/centrists and so forth is the only solution and possibility.



Careerist drones and centrist scum are a big part of the reason why we're in this mess in the first place.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2019)

Humberto said:


> I don't think so. Centrist careerist drones it is then.



I agree we don’t want to go there, but the members would still choose any new leader. Unlikely they will shoe-in a complete Blairite. It’s not yet clear though who could both be free of the anti-semitism furore and carry on the decent work.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Let's all give a massive _Welcome Back_ to the famously NON-anti-Jewish DEEEEEEEERECK HATTON!
> 
> Surely Steptoe was pissed when he agreed to this one?



Galloway busy filling in his form I expect.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I agree we don’t want to go there, but the members would still choose any new leader. Unlikely they will shoe-in a complete Blairite. It’s not yet clear though who could both be free of the anti-semitism furore and carry on the decent work.



Laura Pidcock / Clive Lewis next up possibly  - Laura far too young inexperienced on paper, and Lewis prone to the wobbles, but after 2022 , they might be a decent proposition


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Laura Pidcock / Clive Lewis next up possibly  - Laura far too young inexperienced on paper, and Lewis prone to the wobbles, but after 2022 , they might be a decent proposition



Pidcock seems solid, but Lewis? Really?

Pidcock and Tom Pidcock preferred.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Pidcock seems solid, but Lewis? Really?
> 
> Pidcock and Tom Pidcock preferred.



Lewis - has the 'ostensibly a normal human being' factor which can go a long way, + will keep some centrists on board etc...who do you mean by Tom Pidcock ( assuming typo ) ?


----------



## killer b (Feb 20, 2019)

Diane Abbott would be fun. Imagine how that would go down.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> Diane Abbott would be fun. Imagine how that would go down.



Or up.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2019)

Abbots impact would be hard to quantify


----------



## killer b (Feb 20, 2019)

I just want to see the heads explode.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Lewis - has the 'ostensibly a normal human being' factor which can go a long way, + will keep some centrists on board etc...who do you mean by Tom Pidcock ( assuming typo ) ?



World U23 Cyclocross Champ and general superstar on two wheels.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> I just want to see the heads explode.



Don’t we all


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> World U23 Cyclocross Champ and general superstar on two wheels.



lolz, that's all i got on searches


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> Diane Abbott would be fun. Imagine how that would go down.



agree fully, but just cannot get past the kid @  private school thing - naked hypocrisy is a tough one to bat away- it would be  endless, unceasing pain  on that front


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Galloway busy filling in his form I expect.



I meant this as a joke btw.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> naked hypocrisy is a tough one to bat away- it would be  endless, unceasing pain  on that front



Ah UK politics. Never had any naked hypocrisy there before.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 20, 2019)

George Galloway is threatening to rejoin Labour.

If he's a member then I'll no longer be willing to support them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 20, 2019)

_And if you're not careful, I'll bloody join again. Then you'll be sorry._


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> George Galloway is threatening to rejoin Labour.
> 
> If he's a member then I'll no longer be willing to support them.



it can't / won't happen ( though the cranks are deffo circling around this particular wagon post Degsy )


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2019)

its already been stated that he's stood against labour to recently to be allowed back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> George Galloway is threatening to rejoin Labour.
> 
> If he's a member then I'll no longer be willing to support them.


tbh it doesn't matter to me whether he's a member or not, i wouldn't be willing to support them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it doesn't matter to me whether he's a member or not, i wouldn't be willing to support them.



It's a tough old choice but ostensibly the Labour party is a more palatable alternative than it has been before and holds potential for putting through leftist policy. 

In reality it doesn't matter for shit because I live in a very safe conservative area so my vote is irrelevant on all levels.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 20, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> its already been stated that he's stood against labour to recently to be allowed back.



yet they will accept defecting tory councillors (can't remember the last time an MP crossed the floor to labour, but think one did during the blair years)

without wishing to argue the merits or otherwise of george galloway, it seems a double standard that someone who might once have posted on farcebook that they were voting (even tactically) for another party gets refused membership, but a previously opposition councillor is welcomed...


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it doesn't matter to me whether he's a member or not, i wouldn't be willing to support them.



" wouldn't be " cos of .... ? 

or just " am not, cos I'm not ... _" ?_


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

cantsin said:


> " wouldn't be " cos of .... ?
> 
> or just " am not, cos I'm not ... _" ?_


because they're the labour party


----------



## cantsin (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> because they're the labour party



fairs

( though still a very different version of it, for now, at any rate)


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2019)

Manchester and Haringey labour councils sticking to business as usual mind


----------



## hot air baboon (Feb 20, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> yet they will accept defecting tory councillors (can't remember the last time an MP crossed the floor to labour, but think one did during the blair years)



Sean Woodward did - the one with the heiress wife & butler


----------



## hash tag (Feb 24, 2019)

The paper is not the best of reads today. One article of many Corbyn told: change course before it’s too late for Labour


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 24, 2019)

That's it then. He can't survive some unfavourable articles in the Guardian.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's it then. He can't survive some unfavourable articles in the Guardian.



I don’t think the point is if can survive guardian articles is it. It’s if he can survive a serious fragmenting of the LP hinterland that the story suggests. 

Despite the puerile urging of some of his fanclub that all non believers clear off the blunt reality is that a top down social democrat project requires a coalition which encompasses people like Khan etc.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 25, 2019)

What is it people demand of Corbyn over antisemitism that he isn’t doing? Is it actions or just being more vocal in denouncing it? It’s not like he’s in charge of the internet or anything, what realistically should he be doing to satisfy his critics?


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 25, 2019)

Agree with the above post. Living a long way from that London it is difficult to see this as the issue it is made out to be by the mainstream media. There was even criticism of Corbyn for his comments about Venezuela which has little relevance to my life or most other Brits I would guess.

I deleted the Guardian app. Either that or smash my iPad against the wall.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 25, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> Agree with the above post. Living a long way from that London it is difficult to see this as the issue it is made out to be by the mainstream media. There was even criticism of Corbyn for his comments about Venezuela which has little relevance to my life or most other Brits I would guess.



Tbh this isn’t about affecting public opinion which is unlikely to see this as a priority . The amplification of this in the media is more about causing chaos and division in the party, shutting out other issues so other messages are not heard. It’s doing this very effectively.
(Not that there aren’t genuine reasons for the concern - though much is down to ignorance rather than malice, and people sharing stuff without paying attention)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> What is it people demand of Corbyn over antisemitism that he isn’t doing? Is it actions or just being more vocal in denouncing it? It’s not like he’s in charge of the internet or anything, what realistically should he be doing to satisfy his critics?


Blood. They want blood.


----------



## bemused (Feb 25, 2019)

I'm warming to Tom Watson. It is a bit depressing to me that given the Tory party has turned into what I'd imagine a Cheltenham amateur dramatics production of Game of Thrones would look like - that Labour isn't creaming them in the polls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2019)

bemused said:


> I'm warming to Tom Watson. It is a bit depressing to me that given the Tory party has turned into what I'd imagine a Cheltenham amateur dramatics production of Game of Thrones would look like - that Labour isn't creaming them in the polls.


((((bemused))))


----------



## bemused (Feb 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ((((bemused))))



What can I say he reminds me of Droopy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2019)

bemused said:


> What can I say he reminds me of Droopy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> What is it people demand of Corbyn over antisemitism that he isn’t doing? Is it actions or just being more vocal in denouncing it? It’s not like he’s in charge of the internet or anything, what realistically should he be doing to satisfy his critics?


One of his problems is his personal accident-proneness.  Let's be charitable and say that he does not notice the anti-semitic tropes that have migrated into criticism of the Israeli state's actions and policies, but if you take as examples the mural and the "English irony" remarks, it shows his understanding of the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and even anti-capitalism, is at very best unnuanced.  This is a problem because it means his judgement is undermined and his word that he is on top of the problem is attenuated.

I don't see any reason to change my answer from this previous time I answered the question:

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 25, 2019)

the anti-semitism thing is a bruise that Corbyn's enemies will keep punching. They know that attacking him on policy will get them nowhere - witness how pathetic the chuka mob looked when they laid out their vague policy ideas - it was clear they are very reluctant to publicly go too far rightwards. So they will keep weaponising anti-semitism because that is where he is vulnerable -  and difficult to argue against without seeming to condone it. It wont have any direct effect on the wider public - but it is hugely damaging and disruptive internally.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> the anti-semitism thing is a bruise that Corbyn's enemies will keep punching. They know that attacking him on policy will get them nowhere - witness how pathetic the chuka mob looked when they laid out their vague policy ideas - it was clear they are very reluctant to publicly go too far rightwards. So they will keep weaponising anti-semitism because that is where he is vulnerable -  and difficult to argue against without seeming to condone it. It wont have any direct effect on the wider public - but it is hugely damaging and disruptive internally.


However, they're able to attack him on it because its there and he is dealing with it so unconvincingly.  Because of gaffes like the mural, "English irony" and others.  OK, they're punching a bruise, but if we keep seeming to say that the bruise was _caused_ by the later punching, we only compound the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> the anti-semitism thing is a bruise that Corbyn's enemies will keep punching. They know that attacking him on policy will get them nowhere - witness how pathetic the chuka mob looked when they laid out their vague policy ideas - it was clear they are very reluctant to publicly go too far rightwards. So they will keep weaponising anti-semitism because that is where he is vulnerable -  and difficult to argue against without seeming to condone it. It wont have any direct effect on the wider public - but it is hugely damaging and disruptive internally.


I agree that it will have little to no direct electoral impact. Where it will hurt is in the divided party narrative - something proven time and time again to be electoral poison. They wouldn't be able to keep jabbing at this rapidly closing eye though if there were nothing to see. We must all now know there are anti-semities in the party and anti-semites who joined specifically to support Corbyn and we all surely know that many of the shouty-crack intolerant abusive trot left that was have laughed at for decades on here have now joined the party and for the exact same reasons. And neither group are known for keeping quiet or making sensible political moves. 

And i think these two groups are closer than many people realise, there has been a crossover since the days of RESPECT and the blind-eye turning and elder-appeal that went on then has proven to be very fertile ground.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> One of his problems is his personal accident-proneness.  Let's be charitable and say that he does not notice the anti-semitic tropes that have migrated into criticism of the Israeli state's actions and policies, but if you take as examples the mural and the "English irony" remarks, it shows his understanding of the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and even anti-capitalism, is at very best unnuanced.



To develop a more nuanced position/understanding would mean a fundamental shift in Corbyn's reductive approach to politics which essentially divides the world into goodies and baddies. The more I see of him the more I see that he essentially possesses childlike politics with binary positions on complex issues - like this one.

As I keep saying however this really isn't about him. Either someone needs to sit him down and explain to him that this 'accident proneness' risks derailing the wider project, the restoration of top down social democracy and a step away from neo-liberal orthodoxy, or he needs to be replaced.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2019)

Following on from last point in my post above...for example, George Galloway had anti-semitic conspiracy theorist Beeley on his show a few days ago. Direct link there.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 25, 2019)

should have been clearer - the issue is definitely there - the fact that much of the attacks on corbyn are from people who actually dont give a flying fuck about fighting anti-semestism does not mean it isn't so. But - now we have corbyn and his supporters (unsurprisingly) in paranoid bunker mode. difficult to resolve this - especially with someone like corbyn who has been stuck in this narrow mindset for about 40 years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> should have been clearer - the issue is definitely there - the fact that much of the attacks on corbyn are from people who actually dont give a flying fuck about fighting anti-semestism does not mean it isn't so. But - now we have corbyn and his supporters (unsurprisingly) in paranoid bunker mode. difficult to resolve this - especially with someone like corbyn who has been stuck in this narrow mindset for about 40 years.


i don't believe there's anyone in the labour party who opposes semesters


----------



## JimW (Feb 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't believe there's anyone in the labour party who opposes semesters


Shifting the terms of debate.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2019)

JimW said:


> Shifting the terms of debate.


This is all pretty academic, though.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 25, 2019)

I think there _may_ be a wider impact, or possibly two.

The first is an impact _on _the media, in that while the political editors may not neccessarily be quite so atuned to some of the tropes, the nudges, the sinks etc.. as some on here, they probably are _much more _atuned to them than the average random voter in the street. The 'drip drip' of _unfortunate gaffes _that danny la rouge talks about may have a cumulative effect on how they see Corbyn, and therefore how they report him, consciously or otherwise - I'm reminded is something that weepiper mentioned on one of the celebrity sex pest threads when John Leslie was outed on a TV program, she said that it was no news in Edinburgh, where his behaviour was well known and he was widely, and uncontroversially, refered to as 'celebrity rapist John Leslie'. Corbyn may become, without anyone really thinking about it, 'Jeremy a-bit-dodgy-on-the-Jews Corbyn...

The thing that suggests (to me) that it _might _permeate into the electorate was a very short conversation with Mrs K in the last week - she is unpolitical, she has moral/political principles that would be centre-left, but she isn't interested in 'politics' and probably wouldn't recognise Theresa May if she knocked on the door - anyway, we happed to hear a radio news bulletin in the car and it was Corbyn talking about Brexit, and her response was 'thats that bloke who doesn't like the Jews, isn't it?'.

She probably watches the news about once a week, doesn't read the papers and doesn't do political forums or facebook groups. Yet this idea about Corbyn has reached even her...

Annecdote, not proper research, obviously.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 25, 2019)

Lansman saying that the major problem is with conspiracy theorists who've joined the party since 2015. 

Labour has widespread problem with antisemitism – Momentum founder



> He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the party was not institutionally antisemitic, and instead attributed the problem to “conspiracy theorists” who had joined the party since 2015.
> 
> “The party trebled in size,” said Lansman, who is Jewish. “Amongst those are members attracted towards conspiracy theories.” He added: “The Tory party is a smaller party and an elderly party and the role of social media in fomenting and spreading some of the poison is therefore more of a problem in the Labour party.”


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 25, 2019)

He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.


----------



## bemused (Feb 25, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.



They need a left-wing Farage to suck up 90% of the halfwits.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 25, 2019)

bemused said:


> They need a left-wing Farage to suck up 90% of the halfwits.



Doesn't Galloway rather fit that description?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 25, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.



Lansmans' pretty much ' from Labour HQ' , and he's telling it like it is : too many conpira loons , based almost exclusively on soc media, without ( as Chilango points out elsewhere ) any class analysis, many of them overly focused on Palestine, and as David Graeber describes it, full of the type of arrogant white western lefty anti imperialism that says the enemies' enemy is a friend, and the 100 s of 1000 s dead / 4 m migrant Syrians are collateral damage / White Helmets a jihadist sham etc . 


This lot are v hard to budge on soc media, and a core of them have gone v anti Momentum... None of this is helped by the constant, nakedly cynical weaponisation of AS by the usual suspects, + supporters, which just feeds perfectly into crank narrative.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 25, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Lansmans' pretty much ' from Labour HQ' / ...



As much as JL might like it to be, Momentum isn't Labour HQ (yet)


----------



## hash tag (Feb 25, 2019)

I see he has just done a turn over second vote
Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I see he has just done a turn over second vote
> Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.


Pair of fucking cretins.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 25, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.


He's right about CTers and antisemitism, but it also feels like a replaying of some of the stop the war coalition battles. Then it was SWP members giving conservative Muslims a pass, whether it be about antisemitism or things like segregated meetings. It's a kind of political and personal immaturity, an unwillingness to address something to keep people on side regardless of the shite you know they hold with. And of course Corbyn comes from that whole milieu. That doesn't mean he's anti-Semitic, it's that he's got poor reflexes. I'm not even sure this can be reduced to 'poor judgement', it's more the habits of a lifetime. Liking the 'mural' might have been a genuine mistake, but it feels to me like the sort of thing many 'lefts' would have been doing in the 80s and 90s had facebook been around then.


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.


No it doesn't


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

Please discuss as to why not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> Please discuss as to why not.


Let's see you state your case first


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

As in post 25055. You appear to disagree but have not as yet given any reason for your disagreement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> As in post 25055. You appear to disagree but have not as yet given any reason for your disagreement.


Because your claim is obvious nonsense. Politics must be about the art of the possible? Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.


There's no argument here just a claim. Why no argument?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

Oh dear


----------



## chilango (Feb 26, 2019)

If only Thatcher etc had stuck to the "possible".


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Because your claim is obvious nonsense. Politics must be about the art of the possible? Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc


Indeed & in the UK no party or coalition of parties can achieve much without an overall majority in parliament. Corbyn presumably sees his current course of action as the best way to win a majority at next GE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> Indeed


I am glad you concede the point


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

The bit I was conceding was this





Pickman's model said:


> Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc


& so I am thinking that the seemingly impossible things to fight for now could be stronger employment law & affordable social housing as a start. I doubt any of that will happen outside of a majority left leaning Labour government so Corbyn’s current course of action is all about the art of the possible ie the return of a majority Labour government at next GE.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2019)

Damn, why didn't other politicians ever think of that sort of thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> The bit I was conceding was this& so I am thinking that the seemingly impossible things to fight for now could be stronger employment law & affordable social housing as a start. I doubt any of that will happen outside of a majority left leaning Labour government so Corbyn’s current course of action is all about the art of the possible ie the return of a majority Labour government at next GE.


yes, the point, you were conceding the point.


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, the point, you were conceding the point.


I’m glad you finally concede my point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2019)

BobDavis said:


> I’m glad you finally concede my point.


if you think that's what's going on when the post so clearly says something else then there's nothing for it but to send you to remedial english posthaste


----------



## cantsin (Feb 26, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I see he has just done a turn over second vote
> Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.



No U Turn involved, it's Party policy as passed at Conf2018 .... lots of of us not mad keen, to say the least, but there's only so long the majority of Party members could be ignored on this I guess


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 26, 2019)

Its a shot to nothing anyway as he knows there is little chance of it passing the Commons.  Like the vote of no confidence I guess.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 26, 2019)

It's an easy hit considering his past statements on them but he still walked right into it, Labour are questioning the decision to ban Hezbollah.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's an easy hit considering his past statements on them but he still walked right into it, Labour are questioning the decision to ban Hezbollah.



Yeah and now some bastards are going to *weaponise* this


----------



## bemused (Feb 26, 2019)

To be fair this line in the Labour statement does ring true:



> The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2019)

Labour's statement on this seems reasonable doesn't it? Is any of this not true? 

_The Home Office has previously ruled that there was not sufficient evidence that the political wing of Hezbollah fell foul of proscription criteria, a position confirmed by ministers in the House of Commons last year. Ministers have not yet provided any clear evidence to suggest this has changed.

It has also rightly been the view of the Foreign Office for many years that proscribing the political wing of Hezbollah, which is part of the democratically elected Lebanese government, would make it difficult to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Lebanon, or to work with the government on humanitarian issues, including those facing Syrian refugees, in parts of the country controlled by Hezbollah.

Decisions on the proscription of organisations as terror groups are supposed to be made on the advice of civil servants based on clear evidence that those organisations fall foul of the proscription criteria set out in legislation. The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.

We support the government in its decision to proscribe the groups Jamaat Nusrat al Islam Wall Muslimin and Ansaroul Islam._


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2019)

They can't decide policy on the middle east by 'can the tabloids twist this to make us look bad on terrorism/antisemitism/whatever'.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2019)

Was the reluctance to proscribe the ‘political wing’ of HB based on its perceived separateness from its ‘military wing’? IE was the military wing proscribed based on evidence and the political wing not proscribed as its seen as different to the militia?


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2019)

I dunno. Labour say it was because it's part of the Lebanese government and proscribing it would make it difficult to maintain dialogue with the Lebanese government, and that no new evidence has been produced to support this change in policy. I'm no expert, but that _seems_ a reasonable objection.


----------



## agricola (Feb 26, 2019)

It is sort of a worrying development (not so much this specifically, but rather the implications of the Commons just nodding this through) given the recent change to s 12 of the Terrorism Act that now states:
_
(1A) A person commits an offence if the person—

		   (a) expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and

		   (b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.”_

... for which the maximum sentence is ten years.


----------



## belboid (Feb 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Was the reluctance to proscribe the ‘political wing’ of HB based on its perceived separateness from its ‘military wing’? IE was the military wing proscribed based on evidence and the political wing not proscribed as its seen as different to the militia?


I don't know, was it?

Those making the changes are the ones who need to justify them.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2019)

killer b said:


> I dunno. Labour say it was because it's part of the Lebanese government and proscribing it would make it difficult to maintain dialogue with the Lebanese government, and that no new evidence has been produced to support this change in policy. I'm no expert, but that _seems_ a reasonable objection.



Javid seems to be arguing that there isn’t the political and military wings are one and the same. I know very little about this tbh.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> Those making the changes are the ones who need to justify them.



Yes?


----------



## belboid (Feb 26, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes?


Yes


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2019)

belboid said:


> Those making the changes are the ones who need to justify them.



This is banal. Who has said the govt don’t need to justify the change?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 27, 2019)

At the end of the day nobody in mainstream parliamentary politics gets anywhere unless they are acceptable to the upper echelons which presumably Corbyn is. He wouldn't have survived without it. So get ready for your establishment hugging, aristocracy and system belonging Corbyn to do the business: or not. The system functions. Corbyn won't change that.

Now, if he is preferred by the electorate he will not show up for you. He will obey the rules. And being given the post that they bestow, will fall when they say so. When it is his 'turn'; when the balance shifts in his favour, he will have to obey the rules.

So when his time is up (he's been there since the 1980s) he might have gained some concessions, or more likely slowed a torrent. Which _is _something. His power will be limited. He will get dogged and bogged down in the Houses, and perhaps reluctantly (though I doubt it), be a custodian of the office that is allowed to be appointed to him for 'change'. Then eventually the Tories will have their turn to backlash. Constrained and employed as they all are.

Now don't get me wrong, 'parliamentary democracy' isn't a total disaster in terms of appointing (always disappointing) people to undertake the designs of conservatism. It cannot control every facet and current that is working against it. But it will try eventually to co-opt it. They will even treat you nicely/kindly at times to much jubilation and elation, but the only aim is to further their own agenda to, yes, subjugate you and temporarily give you a small rebate of what they take from you. Of what is or should be yours. For this you have to bend your knee, celebrate them and give it all back next time around.

And when that second act follows you will be subject to the lust and gratification of the rulers, of those who rule you and gull you with hope.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

I think *Corbyn's time might actually now be up* as leader. Unless the Labour Party splits and he can continue to lead a somewhat smaller party. His allies are getting picked off, he's caved on the second ref. Seems to be done. 

Anyone else see an end in sight? (although of course and end can also be a beginning yada yada)


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 28, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think *Corbyn's time might actually now be up* as leader. Unless the Labour Party splits and he can continue to lead a somewhat smaller party. His allies are getting picked off, he's caved on the second ref. Seems to be done.
> 
> Anyone else see an end in sight? (although of course and end can also be a beginning yada yada)



Things are looking particularly sticky for sure.  Brexit has been a virtually impossible situation for both leaders of the main parties to navigate.  Whichever way you lean there will be substantial faction of your party kicking off.  Throw into that all the other concerted attacks and he looks as vulnerable now as he's done since the election.

I'm not sure "caved" is the right word for the 2nd ref thing though.  He has mentioned on numerous occasions that the Labour Party is democratic, the path was laid out for him and despite trying to find another way he's had to follow the path in the end.  Its just a calculation though to appease the factions in Labour that want it knowing it probably won't get through parliament.

May is essentially a remain supporter who is leader of party that mostly wants to leave and Corbyn is a leave leader of a party that mostly wants to remain.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Things are looking particularly sticky for sure.  Brexit has been a virtually impossible situation for both leaders of the main parties to navigate.  Whichever way you lean there will be substantial faction of your party kicking off.  Throw into that all the other concerted attacks and he looks as vulnerable now as he's done since the election.
> 
> I'm not sure "caved" is the right word for the 2nd ref thing though.  He has mentioned on numerous occasions that the Labour Party is democratic, the path was laid out for him and despite trying to find another way he's had to follow the path in the end.  Its just a calculation though to appease the factions in Labour that want it knowing it probably won't get through parliament.
> 
> May is essentially a remain supporter who is leader of party that mostly wants to leave and Corbyn is a leave leader of a party that mostly wants to remain.



Most of the Tory party would like to Remain.

I'm not sure if I buy the calculation - that might be how he sees it but it isn't how anyone else will see it.

E2A: Just realised you're probably talking about the memberships. Fair point.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 28, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Things are looking particularly sticky for sure.  Brexit has been a virtually impossible situation for both leaders of the main parties to navigate.  Whichever way you lean there will be substantial faction of your party kicking off.  Throw into that all the other concerted attacks and he looks as vulnerable now as he's done since the election.
> 
> I'm not sure "caved" is the right word for the 2nd ref thing though.  He has mentioned on numerous occasions that the Labour Party is democratic, the path was laid out for him and despite trying to find another way he's had to follow the path in the end.  Its just a calculation though to appease the factions in Labour that want it knowing it probably won't get through parliament.
> 
> May is essentially a remain supporter who is leader of party that mostly wants to leave and Corbyn is a leave leader of a party that mostly wants to remain.





SpackleFrog said:


> Most of the Tory party would like to Remain.
> 
> I'm not sure if I buy the calculation - that might be how he sees it but it isn't how anyone else will see it.


This shows the flaws in British politics


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 28, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Most of the Tory party would like to Remain.
> 
> I'm not sure if I buy the calculation - that might be how he sees it but it isn't how anyone else will see it.
> 
> E2A: Just realised you're probably talking about the memberships. Fair point.



No, I was talking about the political parties.  Most of the tory MP's might be remain in their heart but think the result of the referendum should be respected and are resigned to leave.  Remember most of them keep voting for May's plan, its the relatively small amount of Europhiles who are ganging up with the ERG types and the opposition benches that keep sinking May.

Corbyn's aides have been briefing journo's in that is how they see the second ref.  We've been here before, remember the whole majority for nothing conversations.  There isn't a majority in the house so it won't get through without something drastically changing.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 28, 2019)

Badgers said:


> This shows the flaws in British politics



British politics has more flaws than a central European industrial techno club.



Joke works better when not written down.


----------



## tommers (Feb 28, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think *Corbyn's time might actually now be up* as leader. Unless the Labour Party splits and he can continue to lead a somewhat smaller party. His allies are getting picked off, he's caved on the second ref. Seems to be done.
> 
> Anyone else see an end in sight? (although of course and end can also be a beginning yada yada)



Yeah I think they will finally get what they want.  The grinder has done its job.  Chuka and his cronies will come back into the fold and we can all get back to two parties who both want to cut welfare and continue austerity, whilst both reassuring themselves about just how awful it all is.  "It's just so awful isn't it?  All these difficult decisions.  And me a socialist too".

He's done well to last this long to be fair to him.

The Czech intelligence agencies will be upset.  Another source of info gone.   I worry about them, they are the real victims.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2019)

tommers said:


> ...The Czech intelligence agencies will be upset.  Another source of info gone.   I worry about them, they are the real victims.



I pity the career prospects of any Warsaw Pact Intelligence Officer who wrote up his 'take' on UK military policy based on the musings of one J Corbyn esq...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2019)

Badgers said:


> This shows the flaws in British politics


#brokenbritain


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 28, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think *Corbyn's time might actually now be up* as leader. Unless the Labour Party splits and he can continue to lead a somewhat smaller party. His allies are getting picked off, he's caved on the second ref. Seems to be done.
> 
> Anyone else see an end in sight? (although of course and end can also be a beginning yada yada)



It looks like it might be, but then again I thought he was doomed after the vote of no confidence. He's a fighter, that no one can deny. But despite Corbyn supporters gaining power over much the machinery of the party the main stumbling block to progressive change remains the largely reactionary and corrupt neo-Blairites of the PLP. Short of mass deselection of these wankers there's little hope of reviving the leftwing social democratic tradition in British politics.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

His time isn't up, don't be ridiculous. For all the drama of the last couple of weeks his position is totally safe, and his political tendency is in control of almost all parts of the party.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> His time isn't up, don't be ridiculous. For all the drama of the last couple of weeks his position is totally safe, and his political tendency is in control of almost all parts of the party.



Really? 

I have to say, I'm not sure I buy it. But then he's managed to hang in there for a while now.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Doesn’t look like there is any likelihood of a leadership challenge


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

How is his end going to come about? There's no challenger, and no real prospect of a challenger winning even if there was one. The only way he's going is if he walks, and that is just not happening.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

So what then? More infighting, resignations etc?


----------



## agricola (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> How is his end going to come about? There's no challenger, and no real prospect of a challenger winning even if there was one. The only way he's going is if he walks, and that is just not happening.



There is absolutely no challenger - largely because the opposition have not spent any effort trying to develop one - but he could easily just wake up one morning and think (not unreasonably) that he is too old for all this.  

It cannot be healthy to work at a place where most of your peers openly profess to hate you and where everything you do is spun to put you in the most negative light, often by people who are themselves absolutely awful human beings.  I admire the way he has stuck it out these past few years, but everyone has their limit.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So what then? More infighting, resignations etc?



This is it. killer b is right, Corbyn is rock solid and controls all areas of the party bar the PLP. Even the failure to build a commanding lead over the worst government in memory does not imperil this. 

A better question is how can that be the case whilst at the same time the ideas he was elected to progress are being pushed back and not forward and in some cases have become discredited.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> How is his end going to come about? There's no challenger, and no real prospect of a challenger winning even if there was one. The only way he's going is if he walks, and that is just not happening.



You are probably right. But there'll be a GE this year and if he doesn't win - and I'm not sure how he can at this stage but that's maybe me getting too wrapped up in the media - then he's gone.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is it. killer b is right, Corbyn is rock solid and controls all areas of the party bar the PLP. Even the failure to build a commanding lead over the worst government in memory does not imperil this.



You say this and I'd be inclined to agree but how representative are we?  It seems to me that a surprisingly large amount of people out there think that May is doing a pretty decent job and should just be allowed to get on with it.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is it. killer b is right, Corbyn is rock solid and controls all areas of the party bar the PLP. Even the failure to build a commanding lead over the worst government in memory does not imperil this.
> 
> A better question is how can that be the case whilst at the same time the ideas he was elected to progress are being pushed back and not forward and in some cases have become discredited.



The renationalisation and anti-austerity positions are popular though (aren’t they?)


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> It seems to me that a surprisingly large amount of people out there think that May is doing a pretty decent job and should just be allowed to get on with it.



Really?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You are probably right. But there'll be a GE this year and if he doesn't win - and I'm not sure how he can at this stage but that's maybe me getting too wrapped up in the media - then he's gone.



Not being entirely au fait with the process here, but how would this work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Really?


what's the really for, that it really seems to Teaboy that lots of people think tm's doing a surprisingly good job?


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

May's numbers are pretty shit tbh - but the failure of the Labour party to build a lead against her isn't really a failure on corbyn's part, more a symptom of the political moment. 

Note that even with a shiny new centrist party for disillusioned centrist tories to move to, their numbers have stayed rock solid. There was no political benefit for Labour to tack right, as there's no centrists left behind the tories.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the really for, that it really seems to Teaboy that lots of people think tm's doing a surprisingly good job?



Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes.


yes, that's what he said, it really seems to him that a surprisingly large number of people think theresa may's doing a good job.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, that's what he said, it really seems to him that a surprisingly large number of people think theresa may's doing a good job.



Glad to have gotten to the bottom of this then


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 28, 2019)

To be fair I'd be surprised if more than about half a dozen people thought she was doing a good job.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> May's numbers are pretty shit tbh - but the failure of the Labour party to build a lead against her isn't really a failure on corbyn's part, more a symptom of the political moment.
> 
> Note that even with a shiny new centrist party for disillusioned centrist tories to move to, their numbers have stayed rock solid. There was no political benefit for Labour to tack right, as there's no centrists left behind the tories.



May's numbers are shite. But the idea that the LP failure isn't anything Corbyn could do much about is bending the stick miles too far. There was/is a political space finally for a return to a limited form of social democracy and his task was to build a coalition beyond the core support for it. He hasn't done that and if anything is increasingly retreating to the core base rather than the hinterland around it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The renationalisation and anti-austerity positions are popular though (aren’t they?)



Yes, but that vote is in the bag.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> To be fair I'd be surprised if more than about half a dozen people thought she was doing a good job.


that is to me a surprisingly large number of people to think that


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, but that vote is in the bag.


it isn't at all - lots of solid tory voters support renationalisation and anti-austerity policies.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> it isn't at all - lots of solid tory voters support renationalisation and anti-austerity policies.



If you think the answer is doubling down on this then you’d be wrong.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If you think the answer is doubling down on this then you’d be wrong.


The answer to what? I just meant that the pro-nationalisation votes aren't in the bag, because lots of people vote for reasons other than policy. The tories are rock solid on 40% - that isn't moving, even though many of those voters say they want policies which would only be implemented by a soc-dem government. 

That solid 40% is the barrier against Labour forming a majority government in the near future IMO, much more than any eye-catching policy announcements (although there have been plenty of those, mind) or them somehow getting on top of the antisemitism.


----------



## agricola (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> The answer to what? I just meant that the pro-nationalisation votes aren't in the bag, because lots of people vote for reasons other than policy. The tories are rock solid on 40% - that isn't moving, even though many of those voters say they want policies which would only be implemented by a soc-dem government.
> 
> That solid 40% is the barrier against Labour forming a majority government in the near future IMO, much more than any eye-catching policy announcements (although there have been plenty of those, mind) or them somehow getting on top of the antisemitism.



Not sure that 40% is solid Tory, rather than being Brexit-related (or possibly anyone-but-Corbyn).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> The answer to what? I just meant that the pro-nationalisation votes aren't in the bag, because lots of people vote for reasons other than policy. The tories are rock solid on 40% - that isn't moving, even though many of those voters say they want policies which would only be implemented by a soc-dem government.
> 
> That solid 40% is the barrier against Labour forming a majority government in the near future IMO, much more than any eye-catching policy announcements (although there have been plenty of those, mind) or them somehow getting on top of the antisemitism.



There was a period after the election where it looked like Labour was also rock solid at 40%. There are a number of reasons - TINGE, AS and Brexit - that tell us why that has frayed. But, and this is my point, Corbyn has done nothing to reach out into those sections of the electorate who - as you say yourself - support key tenets of social democracy but do not intend to vote labour. You can't get around this...


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

I disagree he's done nothing to reach out to them is all - one of the whole points of the ambiguity over brexit was to try to appeal to those people. What might they have done differently?


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

agricola said:


> Not sure that 40% is solid Tory, rather than being Brexit-related (or possibly anyone-but-Corbyn).


I don't know if it's something that will hold past brexit, true. But for now it's rock solid.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Really?



Yes, given everything that's going on.  Outside our own bubbles she seemingly has a decent level of support considering.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> it isn't at all - lots of solid tory voters support renationalisation and anti-austerity policies.



In what sense do they support these policies if they vote against them?


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> In what sense do they support these policies if they vote against them?


they say they support them to polling companies.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Not being entirely au fait with the process here, but how would this work?



I mean I don't know, I guess I just think that if he loses and Tories win a majority there would be calls for him to go and by that point the membership that have kept him in power would be so disillusioned and exhausted that they won't then be able to secure his re-election as leader if challenged. Added to which he might want to go on his own terms then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> they say they support them to polling companies.



Yes but they're clearly lying.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes but they're clearly lying.


I think it's a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, but that vote is in the bag.



Far from it.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2019)

The key question is whether Corbyn, and Labour, can restart the *ahem* momentum they built at the last GE around their manifesto.

Brexit has really, really, derailed this.

I'm not sure if it can reignited.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

chilango said:


> The key question is whether Corbyn, and Labour, can restart the *ahem* momentum they built at the last GE around their manifesto.
> 
> Brexit has really, really, derailed this.
> 
> I'm not sure if it can reignited.



I'm not sure Brexit was the problem really - didn't seem an issue in 2017. Think it's more the result of constant attacks from the PLP, combined with the anti-semitism stuff.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> May's numbers are pretty shit tbh - but the failure of the Labour party to build a lead against her isn't really a failure on corbyn's part, more a symptom of the political moment.
> 
> Note that even with a shiny new centrist party for disillusioned centrist tories to move to, their numbers have stayed rock solid. There was no political benefit for Labour to tack right, as there's no centrists left behind the tories.



Yes, at this moment. Once Brexit is concluded then it all changes again. 

But for now, the only way is down from 40% and if something doesn’t change Labour will be in no position to exploit the opportunity when it arises.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

Statement doing the rounds for Momentum.

Quite liked this bit:

"Part of the difficulty is that when speaking out about the injustices of the Israel-Palestine conflict, progressive and radical activists have faced allegations of antisemitism when they have either not been antisemitic or when they did not intend to be antisemitic and took care to ensure they were not using antisemitic tropes or rhetoric. At the same time, we acknowledge that we face real currents of unchallenged and somewhat normalised anti-Jewish oppression in our movements and society at large including at times alongside criticism of Israel."

Shame CW couldn't manage something more along these lines really.

E2A: forgot the link Corbynites launch open letter apologising for Labour antisemitism - LabourList


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

Momentum got Michael Walker from Novara to do this on-point short on anti-semitic conspiracies too.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2019)

I don't know why the Left need to go on about Palestine & Israel so much anyway.

Yes it's a shit situation.

But it's one of many. Many.

The apparent focus, and it's been one for decades, leaves them wide open for accusations, smears, infiltration and the last as if perspective.

All of which are front and centre right now.


----------



## greenfield (Feb 28, 2019)

I agree that many on the Left are obsessed with Israel/Palestine. I know the AWL is unpopular - and for good reason, their M.O. had always been to be as insulting as possible and then bleat about 'Unity' but their take on this has been shown to be correct.

The PLP were groping around for a stick to beat Corbyn with and they've found it in AS. This is failure of the Left ecosystem, both within and outside the Labour party.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 28, 2019)

chilango said:


> The key question is whether Corbyn, and Labour, can restart the *ahem* momentum they built at the last GE around their manifesto.
> 
> Brexit has really, really, derailed this.
> 
> I'm not sure if it can reignited.



Depends if they can get the boots on the ground again, that made a big difference last time, and Corbyn was a good motivator for this. Round my way they had lots of willing volunteers flyering at rail stations about nationalisation, or outside the school gates with targeted stuff about local effects of cuts on education. I think this was very effective, and the tories simply don’t have the numbers to match this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

greenfield said:


> I agree that many on the Left are obsessed with Israel/Palestine. I know the AWL is unpopular - and for good reason, their M.O. had always been to be as insulting as possible and then bleat about 'Unity' but their take on this has been shown to be correct.
> 
> The PLP were groping around for a stick to beat Corbyn with and they've found it in AS. This is failure of the Left ecosystem, both within and outside the Labour party.



Are you sure they're correct? They have an article this week claiming that "The Corbyn surge was an anti-semitic purge"; as in the hundreds of thousands of people who joined the Labour party to support Corbyn _represented _an anti-Semitic purge of the party. 

I think you're completely right that the PLP have found a stick to beat Corbyn with in the failings of the left on anti-semitism. I'm just not sure that the AWL are particularly on the money in any of this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2019)

chilango said:


> I don't know why the Left need to go on about Palestine & Israel so much anyway.
> 
> Yes it's a shit situation.
> 
> ...



I think trendies like issues that are far away they can moralise about and organise boycotts of fruit. It's one of those issues where you can get away with not talking about class at all.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Depends if they can get the boots on the ground again, that made a big difference last time, and Corbyn was a good motivator for this. Round my way they had lots of willing volunteers flyering at rail stations about nationalisation, or outside the school gates with targeted stuff about local effects of cuts on education. I think this was very effective, and the tories simply don’t have the numbers to match this.


I dunno how much difference boots on the ground did make tbh - it was impressive, but the vote went up in places where they did no campaigning too. In Preston (where I am) it went up around 5% with no work at all. In Lancaster (just to the north) they carpet bombed it with flyers and doorknockers - they had hundreds out on the streets on polling day - and it went up... around 5%.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2019)

Fair play to Burgon on this Labour pledges legal aid for inquests into state-related deaths


----------



## greenfield (Mar 1, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you sure they're correct? They have an article this week claiming that "The Corbyn surge was an anti-semitic purge"; as in the hundreds of thousands of people who joined the Labour party to support Corbyn _represented _an anti-Semitic purge of the party.
> 
> I think you're completely right that the PLP have found a stick to beat Corbyn with in the failings of the left on anti-semitism. I'm just not sure that the AWL are particularly on the money in any of this.



I'm not in AWL (I was, a long time ago). I think that article is written by Martin Smith It's certainly got his slightly idiosyncratic use of language and syntax.

ETA: The article as a whole is pretty good I think, if you can wade through AWL-isms like "kitch left" and also read it knowing that they're fighting for insider status with the leader's office. Because Corbyn and McDonnell used to write for socialist organiser they were sure they'd be involved but they've been left on the outside by people with Tankie politics like Seamus Milne and they're seething.

I still think AWL were right to say there was anti-Semitism on the Left at a time when no one was prepared to talk about it. I remember the StWC, and the fucked up politics as the SWP got chewed up chasing the big time. I also remember the obsession with Israel and everyone wearing black and white interfada scarves.

The sentence you highlighted only makes sense with the rest of the article. The anti-Semitic 'purge' they are talking about is a necessary and inevitable consequence of people joining Labour who were educated in that millieu and before.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 1, 2019)

greenfield said:


> I'm not in AWL (I was, a long time ago). I think that article is written by Martin Smith It's certainly got his slightly idiosyncratic use of language and syntax.
> 
> ETA: The article as a whole is pretty good I think, if you can wade through AWL-isms like "kitch left" and also read it knowing that they're fighting for insider status with the leader's office. Because Corbyn and McDonnell used to write for socialist organiser they were sure they'd be involved but they've been left on the outside by people with Tankie politics like Seamus Milne and they're seething.
> 
> ...



I think it was an OTT article. I do take your point on that period though, I'm in the SP now and before that I can remember finding it really weird - cut my teeth in Stop the War and was totally bemused by all the pro-Hezbollah chants etc. Have often been accused of being an agent of the Israeli state for refusing to chant "From the river to the sea" and such. But I don't think the AWL have a monopoly on realising that or that their comments on this stuff are particularly measured. Some of the points in that article are correct of course, I just think they see a need to over dramatise which is unfortunate - mirror image of the SWP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2019)

The main thing I've noticed about the AWL is how fucking obnoxious all their members are without exception. It's like they have an antisocial wanker test and you need to score at least 90 percent to join.


----------



## greenfield (Mar 1, 2019)

I definitely remember that. I was on the NUS NEC and I got bullied by other student officers and also bullied relentlessly by the AWL. I developed mental health issues and that was also taken the piss out of by the then student organiser. It was a horrible time.
On paper their version of democraticd centralismc is more democratic than other left groups, but the internal regime is really bitter. They take pride in being as rude as possible.


----------



## LDC (Mar 1, 2019)

chilango said:


> I don't know why the Left need to go on about Palestine & Israel so much anyway.
> 
> Yes it's a shit situation.
> 
> ...



Halle-fucking-lujah, exactly. Some of the left does have an obsession with it, and this totally breeds all sorts of dodgy politics.


----------



## Patteran (Mar 1, 2019)

chilango said:


> I don't know why the Left need to go on about Palestine & Israel so much anyway.
> 
> Yes it's a shit situation.
> 
> ...



It's a madness. They have been instrumentalised, no doubt, but the truth is the anti-semitism accusations have cut through, & need addressing, need sorting. Just belt up about Palestine for five minutes. Libraries, schools, leisure centres closing all over & the RCG are in town again shouting at Barclays Bank & demanding Saturday shoppers 'Defend Palestine & Fight Imperialism!' Online, that monomaniacal electronic intifada crowd keep typing 'Palestine Lives!' & 'Israel funded' at every defecting Labour MP, doing nothing material for Palestine, but feeding the right wing narrative. Mcr Momentum could do some proper political work around this. Come to Prestwich & set up an open meeting, talk to people who are feeling targeted rightly or wrongly. Do _something_.

The new membership, the wider left, were supposed to turn Corbyn (plus Abbott & McDonnell) into Corbynism - a wider movement that would protect a vulnerable left leadership from the PLP/media/vested class interests & turn that rare, brief burst of invigorating energy into something tangible, something potentially transformative. Turn the vertical horizontal. Instead, Corbynism & Corbynists seem to have sunk Corbyn. All these members & money could have been running Momentum-branded foodbanks, creches, rights shops, football teams, what have you - instead, to quote an EP Thompson piece that butchersapron posted recently, too many seem keen 'to perform _imaginary_ revolutionary psycho-dramas in which each outbids the other in adopting ferocious verbal postures.' I guess this was always the most likely outcome within the context & confines of the Labour party, but it's still pretty depressing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2019)

Bang on the money.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2019)

Got a link to the EP Thompson piece please Patteran


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Got a link to the EP Thompson piece please Patteran


It's from The Poverty of Theory


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2019)

Ta


----------



## Wilf (Mar 1, 2019)

Patteran said:


> It's a madness. They have been instrumentalised, no doubt, but the truth is the anti-semitism accusations have cut through, & need addressing, need sorting. Just belt up about Palestine for five minutes. Libraries, schools, leisure centres closing all over & the RCG are in town again shouting at Barclays Bank & demanding Saturday shoppers 'Defend Palestine & Fight Imperialism!' Online, that monomaniacal electronic intifada crowd keep typing 'Palestine Lives!' & 'Israel funded' at every defecting Labour MP, doing nothing material for Palestine, but feeding the right wing narrative. Mcr Momentum could do some proper political work around this. Come to Prestwich & set up an open meeting, talk to people who are feeling targeted rightly or wrongly. Do _something_.
> 
> The new membership, the wider left, were supposed to turn Corbyn (plus Abbott & McDonnell) into Corbynism - a wider movement that would protect a vulnerable left leadership from the PLP/media/vested class interests & turn that rare, brief burst of invigorating energy into something tangible, something potentially transformative. Turn the vertical horizontal. Instead, Corbynism & Corbynists seem to have sunk Corbyn. All these members & money could have been running Momentum-branded foodbanks, creches, rights shops, football teams, what have you - instead, to quote an EP Thompson piece that butchersapron posted recently, too many seem keen 'to perform _imaginary_ revolutionary psycho-dramas in which each outbids the other in adopting ferocious verbal postures.' I guess this was always the most likely outcome within the context & confines of the Labour party, but it's still pretty depressing.


 You put it better, but that's been exactly my take on the failure of Corbyn(ism), particularly the underlined. At one level what you suggest would require them to acquire some new instincts, to become less labourist, less procedural, less bound by the organisation of the party, less social democratic even. But then it also seems so obvious, so much an obvious way of building a movement, a new set of relationships, a way of exceeding the limits of the Labour left from Benn onwards. It's also the most obvious concrete response to the Brexit vote and the reasons for it. Labour would still need to respond to Brexit at the Parliamentary level, but the approach you suggest would transform what and who Labour were responding to/for.


----------



## greenfield (Mar 1, 2019)

Bang on point


----------



## greenfield (Mar 1, 2019)

I remember in StWC when I complained about what was going on - in particular the capitulation to homophobia - I was screamed at as "racist". It was very sad really. I think the SWP thought they could use Galloway, the Tankies and Islamists but they ended up warping their own politics and submissively defending the indefensible


----------



## Wilf (Mar 1, 2019)

greenfield said:


> I remember in StWC when I complained about what was going on - in particular the capitulation to homophobia - I was screamed at as "racist". It was very sad really. I think the SWP thought they could use Galloway, the Tankies and Islamists but they ended up warping their own politics and submissively defending the indefensible


Bang on too.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2019)

...and you know what, many of the _remnant _of the chest prodders we had to fight at that time are now in labour via momentum. Doing much the same thing.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 1, 2019)

And in a context of (even more) utter despair, misery and fear. Fucking vultures


----------



## cantsin (Mar 1, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> ...and you know what, many of the _remnant _of the chest prodders we had to fight at that time are now in labour via momentum. Doing much the same thing.



If yr taking about that Galloway ish , pro terf , socially conservative etc element , have seen none of it in Mom- can you point to any examples / links ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2019)

cantsin said:


> If yr taking about that Galloway ish , pro terf , socially conservative etc element , have seen none of it in Mom- can you point to any examples / links ?


Less strict on the jew hating.

terf is not even in the fucking game. The socially Conservative part melted away.

The ex-swp, the SP.

You keep asking for stuff over and over - from the start of this beeley stuff and keep saying that you've not seen it. Then it's shown and you say that they need to deal with it, then more happens, then over and over you ask for more evidence etc. You are part of the problem now. You need to wake up.


----------



## miktheword (Mar 1, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think trendies like issues that are far away they can moralise about and organise boycotts of fruit. It's one of those issues where you can get away with not talking about class at all.



I reckon It's also because Lefties can get away with not endangering their own health and safety...you can wear a sandinista scarf all day long and allow all to know about it with no bother; in the working class post industrial area of west London I lived, your politics on Ireland were known and you'd have to defend yourself sometimes against someone who'd grabbed a kitchen knife at a party due to his brother being involved in a nail bomb attack in the 6 counties. A mate with similar politics on Ireland, in Liverpool, owned a bar, knew that every year he'd have to call on  serious scouse doormen help whilst the annual Orange parade went past his business on Lord Street, Southport.
Reminds me of my brief foray into student politics and getting ejected after a vote at a university AGM for intimidating a meeting for daring to suggest that those two undercovers who drove into a funeral of Republicans killed by Stoner at a previous funeral, deserved to die. I had to say to the meeting, if you support mandela, Allende, che etc, then you must support  Irish liberation. The revolutionary left abstained from the vote to eject me.
Was obviously too close to home for our erstwhile lefties to support, how would they explain that at work or deal with the threat to their health?
It probably wasn't a  pre-planned tactic of RA to send potential new recruits to the north of Ireland, but it was certainly effective in sorting the wheat from the chaff    the litmus test.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2019)

None of the above has anything at all to with modern uk politics. The idea - - true  they through fear of the real life w/c become supporters of the Palestinians as  a surrogate  w/c as the real one ain't good enough and they are scared of them.

To make clear -this stuff though


----------



## cantsin (Mar 2, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Less strict on the jew hating.
> 
> terf is not even in the fucking game. The socially Conservative part melted away.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

> Tory / Centrist / Anarcho / whatever the fuck anti Lab Left alliance ultras



Alliance?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 2, 2019)

Patteran said:


> It's a madness. They have been instrumentalised, no doubt, but the truth is the anti-semitism accusations have cut through, & need addressing, need sorting. Just belt up about Palestine for five minutes. Libraries, schools, leisure centres closing all over & the RCG are in town again shouting at Barclays Bank & demanding Saturday shoppers 'Defend Palestine & Fight Imperialism!' Online, that monomaniacal electronic intifada crowd keep typing 'Palestine Lives!' & 'Israel funded' at every defecting Labour MP, doing nothing material for Palestine, but feeding the right wing narrative. Mcr Momentum could do some proper political work around this. Come to Prestwich & set up an open meeting, talk to people who are feeling targeted rightly or wrongly. Do _something_.
> 
> The new membership, the wider left, were supposed to turn Corbyn (plus Abbott & McDonnell) into Corbynism - a wider movement that would protect a vulnerable left leadership from the PLP/media/vested class interests & turn that rare, brief burst of invigorating energy into something tangible, something potentially transformative. Turn the vertical horizontal. Instead, Corbynism & Corbynists seem to have sunk Corbyn. All these members & money could have been running Momentum-branded foodbanks, creches, rights shops, football teams, what have you - instead, to quote an EP Thompson piece that butchersapron posted recently, too many seem keen 'to perform _imaginary_ revolutionary psycho-dramas in which each outbids the other in adopting ferocious verbal postures.' I guess this was always the most likely outcome within the context & confines of the Labour party, but it's still pretty depressing.



All perfectly sensible /insightful stuff ( though not particularly accurate IRl terms - eg : have literally never heard of a local Momentum branch doing any public facing Palestinian campaigning -  just lots of targettrd campaigning for Lab candidates / MPs in marginal seats etc ) but quick question : what do you  do, week to week, yr to yr, in political terms ?

Fair play if IWCA style /community activism involving " foodbanks, creches, rights shops, football teams, what have you" is yr bag , but it wasn't what Momentum was supposed to be about , and no one ever pretended it was.

Building ' a movement' outside of  the narrow confines of the parliamentary dumpster fire ,  in workplaces / communities / the streets, should have been a main focus for Momentum  ... but can't see that happening for  now, with hnhngs as a they are.

but also can't see anyone else getting near to helping build such ' a movement ' at the moment,  despite lots of talk, and a fertile political landscape : so not sure this is just about Momentum / Corbynista shortcomings ( of which there are many, no doubt )


----------



## cantsin (Mar 2, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Alliance?



Fucking feels like it recently


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 2, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think trendies like issues that are far away they can moralise about and organise boycotts of fruit. It's one of those issues where you can get away with not talking about class at all.


Its shit that it’s like that because many of us (working class people) get involved because, though we may be shit at *talking* confidently about class politics ourselves, we recognise a shared struggle with Palestinians, and realise that what is happening to them could happen anywhere. And yeah, we don’t have many avenues locally to express stuff like this- at least not ones that are led by people we can trust. What’s even more annoying is that seasoned activists- and it’s happened to me on here just for supporting trans folks- write us off as middle class just for putting a word wrong. If class politics is fucked in this country, many here are a part of that by relying of daft stereotypes of the WC as well. So threads like this piss me off cause they think by saying oh Palestine is hardly important will instantly win WC people over. Nah, we don’t all think how you think we do.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Mar 2, 2019)

.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 2, 2019)

That’s all probably badly worded, please pick it apart if so as it will help me


----------



## cantsin (Mar 2, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Halle-fucking-lujah, exactly. Some of the left does have an obsession with it, and this totally breeds all sorts of dodgy politics.



“ why are ( some of ) the left obsessed with South Africa .../ Nicaragua ... / the miners .../ poll tax ... / fascists .... etc etc “ 

forever 

always something eh


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2019)

cantsin said:


> “ why are the left obsessed with South Africa ... or Nicaragua ... or the miners .... or the poll tax ... or fascists .... etc etc , forever “ ..
> 
> always something eh


There's (obviously) nothing wrong with supporting the Palestinians - and people can spend as long on it as they want. But I think the issue being discussed here is how it becomes a _currency_ among the left, a touchstone, a red line. If you treat it in that way, as well as becoming an alternative to getting involved in your own community, it becomes an 'easy issue', with pre-programmed responses.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Mar 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> There's (obviously) nothing wrong with supporting the Palestinians - and people can spend as long on it as they want. But I think the issue being discussed here is how it becomes a _currency_ among the left, a touchstone, a red line. If you treat it in that way, as well as becoming an alternative to getting involved in your own community, it becomes an 'easy issue', with pre-programmed responses.


And also, because this has been happening for such a long time, it’s how those in the community express opposition to govt/state/etc. Particularly people my age and younger, we have never known any other way.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Fucking feels like it recently



Makes you wonder who’s pulling the strings


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2019)

What happens now then?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What happens now then?



As in the latest Watson/Formby emails?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2019)

The party now has you you don't have the party. Exactly as predicted. Edit: cantsin


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

Or generally


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> As in the latest Watson/Formby emails?


As in now I'm an enemy in this world.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

Carry on as before I guess


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Carry on as before I guess


I'm not interested in the serial trots, the green and lib dem voters though. I actually don't want to be an enemy of long term comrades like cantsin. I don't want to be denounced as an enemy of the party and want them to see what membership is doing to them.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

Sure, and without wanting to sound glib, my experience is that no amount of patient explanation/acts of solidarity/exasperation or whatever can get anyone to see that they’re being used by those who couldn’t give a fuck about them. It’s exhautsing. I’m exhausted.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 2, 2019)

It’s been a long old bloody week or two, + late fri / over the yard arm posting not always advisable  

accept lots of essential truth in much of Lab Left / Mom  critique on here, and that it comes from a good place ( horrible phrase ), especially compared to the madness of Twotter etc  - will STFU  for a bit


----------



## ska invita (Mar 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> You put it better, but that's been exactly my take on the failure of Corbyn(ism), particularly the underlined. At one level what you suggest would require them to acquire some new instincts, to become less labourist, less procedural, less bound by the organisation of the party, less social democratic even. But then it also seems so obvious, so much an obvious way of building a movement, a new set of relationships, a way of exceeding the limits of the Labour left from Benn onwards. It's also the most obvious concrete response to the Brexit vote and the reasons for it. Labour would still need to respond to Brexit at the Parliamentary level, but the approach you suggest would transform what and who Labour were responding to/for.


I think people are being a little unrealistic about capacity and also glossing over what has been happening the last couple of years.
I'm not a member of the LP, nor  that familiar with the structure, but I do hear a few bits and pieces, so my take is based on that sketchy hearsay. Interested if others have anything to add.

First off there have been hard won fights at the higher levels, PLP and branch. Right wingers in the party have their backs increasingly to the wall and many feel their days are numbered. That didn't happen with no effort, and there is more to be done. TINGE don't recognise the party and don't feel welcome in it, proof of change.

The process of democratising the party is ongoing...

New members are massively put off at what they find at their local CLPs. There's often a massive us v them culture clash amongst party members new and old. Not only are meetings often boring but also fractious. It would take a lot to resolve that culture. Old guard are massively resistant to change, or doing _anything_. 

CLP Political Education Officers are one angle where work is beginning to happen, an attempt to inject politics into local groups where politics went out the window over recent decades. It's early days but I'm aware of some early steps and good things in the pipeline. Momentum playing a role.

I've heard of a spate of new socialist social clubs opening in the Midlands and North particularly, linked to but independent of the LP. 

Okay, that's all I've got.

Another factor is the black hole of brexit which is sucking the life out of party politics on several levels. That should change drastically by the end of the year. 

Corbyn and a corbynist party does best during an election campaign and as has been said it will be a test to see what energy exists come that time. And to go back quickly to capacity, people are squeezed for free time and resources like never before. I've got a long list of things I'd like to see too, embedded in communities, but it's not going to happen without more culture and personnel change at the local level ...  It's going to take time.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2019)

Point missing post. In fact, making it all about internal labour party stuff. Exactly what's being criticised. None of the things patteran mentioned need party say so. Not fucking one of them. And that was the point. Football fans will do more this weekend to make what should happen happen than momentum.


----------



## LDC (Mar 2, 2019)

Wilf said:


> There's (obviously) nothing wrong with supporting the Palestinians...



And also what does supporting 'the palestinians' mean (even ignoring the fact that much of this support means nothing in reality)? What bit of the struggle are people supporting? There's a huge tendency among some of the left to just flatten complex struggles out into one indistinguishable simple mass, often taking the side of the most public face and ignoring the tendency closest to their own politics.

One of the problems with this 'support' is exactly what's happened here. It's a de-politicised and de-contextualized vague support that can leave people open to all sorts of dodgy political ideas that come along that seem to fit the simplistic views held.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I think people are being a little unrealistic about capacity and also glossing over what has been happening the last couple of years.
> I'm not a member of the LP, nor  that familiar with the structure, but I do hear a few bits and pieces, so my take is based on that sketchy hearsay. Interested if others have anything to add.
> 
> First off there have been hard won fights at the higher levels, PLP and branch. Right wingers in the party have their backs increasingly to the wall and many feel their days are numbered. That didn't happen with no effort, and there is more to be done. TINGE don't recognise the party and don't feel welcome in it, proof of change.
> ...


I'd sort of accept a fair bit of this, but then disagree with exactly the same points, along the lines of Butcher's reply to you. Yes, certainly, there's a lot of effort goes into just 'being a party' and battles aplenty in terms of the right, established practices and the rest. I'd also note that the rise in Corbyn friendly membership didn't automatically translate into a majority of active members in every constituency - people who saw joining (or becoming supporters) as something not much more than clicktivism. But then why was that the case? Why wasn't there, ahem, _momentum_, things to get involved in, things that didn't have to be approved by layers of bureaucracy? Even more so, why wasn't there a mindset that extra-party community organising could/should happen? Why didn't people take those risks or even have those instincts?  The Labour Party and unions have loads of buildings for a kick off. In some ways, I think it's because the Bennites and trots who have become the new left activists just don't believe in that and so leave themselves locked into the processes you describe.  

The Labour Party of Miliband and the rest did little to connect to working class life and certainly wasn't rooted in it. That seems to be still the case under Corbyn, even (and perhaps especially) after the Brexit vote. At one level, the last thing I want see is politicians 'reconnecting with voters', but surely that's what a left of centre party should be seeking to do. Reconnecting isn't just about speeches and policies.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 2, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And also what does supporting 'the palestinians' mean (even ignoring the fact that much of this support means nothing in reality)? What bit of the struggle are people supporting? There's a huge tendency among some of the left to just flatten complex struggles out into one indistinguishable simple mass, often taking the side of the most public face and ignoring the tendency closest to their own politics.
> 
> One of the problems with this 'support' is exactly what's happened here. It's a de-politicised and de-contextualized vague support that can leave people open to all sorts of dodgy political ideas that come along that seem to fit the simplistic views held.


Yeah, I'm reminded of Kenan Malik's criticisms of top-down state multiculturalism - as a conservative process that sees minority cultures as fixed entities and borders, where everyone believes the same and has the same values.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2019)

One of the old StWC crowd 

Labour faces new row over efforts to curb antisemitism



> In March, party staff recommended a member be suspended after being accused of denying that a notorious mural in east London was antisemitic and writing tweets linking Isis to Israel. In response, Murray called for an investigation without a suspension.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> One of the old StWC crowd
> 
> Labour faces new row over efforts to curb antisemitism


One of the auld communist party of britain crowd


----------



## greenfield (Mar 3, 2019)

.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 4, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'd sort of accept a fair bit of this, but then disagree with exactly the same points, along the lines of Butcher's reply to you. Yes, certainly, there's a lot of effort goes into just 'being a party' and battles aplenty in terms of the right, established practices and the rest. I'd also note that the rise in Corbyn friendly membership didn't automatically translate into a majority of active members in every constituency - people who saw joining (or becoming supporters) as something not much more than clicktivism. But then why was that the case? Why wasn't there, ahem, _momentum_, things to get involved in, things that didn't have to be approved by layers of bureaucracy? Even more so, why wasn't there a mindset that extra-party community organising could/should happen? Why didn't people take those risks or even have those instincts?  The Labour Party and unions have loads of buildings for a kick off. In some ways, I think it's because the Bennites and trots who have become the new left activists just don't believe in that and so leave themselves locked into the processes you describe.
> 
> The Labour Party of Miliband and the rest did little to connect to working class life and certainly wasn't rooted in it. That seems to be still the case under Corbyn, even (and perhaps especially) after the Brexit vote. At one level, the last thing I want see is politicians 'reconnecting with voters', but surely that's what a left of centre party should be seeking to do. Reconnecting isn't just about speeches and policies.


I haven't got any deep disagreement with that, I think my point in posting on this subject at all is to try and get a realistic picture of where we are now, and contrast that with what we'd like to see. You're probably right that on the whole, across the strata there is little ideological belief or inclination in the kind of grassroots activity that Patteran set out. But that doesnt mean it cant be nurtured.

I dont know how to measure if people had or have the instinct for extra-party community organising or not, but anecdotally some people did start going along on at the local level ready for any thing and many didnt hang around for long after getting a taste of what the local party level had to offer.
I was told a story by a woman who struggled to even put an open-to-the public film screening on at her CLP. Another wanting to nominate someone for Political Education Officer but the bemused old guard there saying a PEO "wasn't necessary". Suggests theres a lot of serious stagnation out there.

Id expect the LP/Momentum does have resources, the struggle is to activate them. A part of the barrier is existing LP members, who have been sat on their arses for however many years and happy to keep going through the tedious motions. Again anecdotally, many CLP regulars are 50 years and above, and lots don't want or like change.

Definitely more could come from the centre of the party to kick local levels into action.
As I said, Momentum is about to push for and help create political education activities at a local level - I think thats an important step. But its undeniable that this is against a backdrop of a party overall somewhat still at war with itself, and not in a position of unity or shared vision. And at central level its surely nonstop energy sapping firefighting.

I know from my own experience of endless meetings, a single old guard person or two in a group can have a massive impact in stopping and blocking activity, and it can take a long time and perseverance to change cultures and get those blockers out of the way. I dont think its impossible to bring in a culture of grassroots activity within the LP, but it will take continued strategic time and effort, and being clear about what is stopping it on all levels.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 4, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I haven't got any deep disagreement with that, I think my point in posting on this subject at all is to try and get a realistic picture of where we are now, and contrast that with what we'd like to see. You're probably right that on the whole, across the strata there is little ideological belief or inclination in the kind of grassroots activity that Patteran set out. But that doesnt mean it cant be nurtured.
> 
> I dont know how to measure if people had or have the instinct for extra-party community organising or not, but anecdotally some people did start going along on at the local level ready for any thing and many didnt hang around for long after getting a taste of what the local party level had to offer.
> I was told a story by a woman who struggled to even put an open-to-the public film screening on at her CLP. Another wanting to nominate someone for Political Education Officer but the bemused old guard there saying a PEO "wasn't necessary". Suggests theres a lot of serious stagnation out there.
> ...



Meant to reply to Wilf on this and forgot. In Yorkshire we (Socialist Party) did a mapping exercise of Momentum meetings when it was first launched - seems ages ago now but initially they got hundreds of people at each local meeting. Positive development obviously but we were thinking we might have to start doing work inside Momentum if not the LP itself, which we would have done if necessary but I wasn't personally looking forward to it. 

In the event, on average it took about 3 meetings in each town and city we looked at for meetings to drop from huge numbers to a handful. I breathed a sigh of relief, possibly selfishly.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2019)

This hints of growing desperation. Of course poverty and climate change are more important but they can’t be addressed without addressing the economic systems and constitutional systems that exist and which produce them. The fact that Corbyn seems to be retreating into a student politics comfort bunker on this stuff is both abysmal and concerning

Poverty and climate more important than Brexit, says Corbyn


----------



## two sheds (Mar 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This hints of growing desperation. Of course poverty and climate change are more important but they can’t be addressed without addressing the economic systems and constitutional systems that exist and which produce them. The fact that Corbyn seems to be retreating into a student politics comfort bunker on this stuff is both abysmal and concerning
> 
> Poverty and climate more important than Brexit, says Corbyn



They can be alleviated though by an (updated) return to policies we had during the Post War Social Contract. Major investments in renewables and infrastructure, reverse austerity by quantitative easing, rent control and pulling in the huge taxes that are being evaded and the like. Which isn't far from Corbyn's policies. 

Getting rid of the tories would be a start. You make it sound like revolutionary socialism/anarchism has simple solutions to our problems, which is sort of retreating into a student politics comfort bunker.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2019)

How will this return to the post war social contract be brought about when the conditions that brought about that post-war social contract do not exist anymore?

And we should be clear that a return to the post-war social contract is not what Labour is proposing, their policies fall a long, long way short of that. For example all the Labour Party are united in councils not setting illegal budgets, so how does the LP intend to stop councils being the agents of austerity? The LP has not challenged the idea of an independent BoE, so if (when) it's policies start to interfere with capital how does it intend to deal with the BoE?


----------



## chilango (Mar 9, 2019)

Spoke to a couple of mates in the Labour Party the other. One has gone from voting for Corbyn to inactiviy, not have been to a meeting or anything in months. Another is now arguing for the need for a new, centrist leader.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This hints of growing desperation. Of course poverty and climate change are more important but they can’t be addressed without addressing the economic systems and constitutional systems that exist and which produce them. The fact that Corbyn seems to be retreating into a student politics comfort bunker on this stuff is both abysmal and concerning
> 
> Poverty and climate more important than Brexit, says Corbyn



Did you read the article or just the headline? You know thats the Guardian right?

Corbyn made probably the best political points he's made in a while (low bar I know).

Try this and have a think next time eh? 

Redirect Notice


----------



## teqniq (Mar 9, 2019)

Peter Oborne deconstructs, to put it politely a new book on Corbyn. 

Jeremy Corbyn and the truth about Tom Bower's book


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2019)

Bower did a hatchet job on Branson(not hard) didn't seem to have much impact on the globally popular businessman and philanthropist.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2019)

> Wadsworth snapped at her that not only was she ‘working hand-in-hand’ with the right-wing media by speaking to the journalist, but she was also a Jew”.




According to Oborne the video doesn't indicate this, what a fake news writer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Peter Oborne deconstructs, to put it politely a new book on Corbyn.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn and the truth about Tom Bower's book


Read that earlier today - he really lays into it as an actively unethical piece of trash and this is _Oborne_ we’re taking about here, not what you’d call a Corbynite. Have a feeling this book might not go very far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> According to Oborne the video doesn't indicate this, what a fake news writer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> Bower did a hatchet job on Branson(not hard) didn't seem to have much impact on the globally popular businessman and philanthropist.


And that's relevant how?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 9, 2019)

Oborne on Corbyn seems more complicated than you might think - doesn't support his political outlook but often seems favourable towards both the man and what he represents.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 9, 2019)

I haven't read it but this is meant to be good
Not the Chilcot Report by Peter Oborne
Definitely agree with the premise


----------



## agricola (Mar 9, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Oborne on Corbyn seems more complicated than you might think - doesn't support his political outlook but often seems favourable towards both the man and what he represents.



What he represents certainly - Corbyn (or a return to mass public involvement in politics) and Trump (or demagoguery) represent the two outcomes that Oborne thought would happen when the political class started to lose power (in his book _The Triumph of the Political Class_, which reads as being even more spot on now than it was at the time).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 10, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did you read the article or just the headline? You know thats the Guardian right?
> 
> Corbyn made probably the best political points he's made in a while (low bar I know).
> 
> ...



I read the article. That you think Jeremy made ‘the best political points he’s made in while’ makes my point. 

Collapsing into communicating with the base


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 10, 2019)

That Peter Oborne evisceration of the cheap trash (that Tom Bower "wrote"), includes a positive reference, near the end, to Stephen Bush's similar take-apart of this book

Highly informative stuff in both articles, IMO


----------



## two sheds (Mar 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> How will this return to the post war social contract be brought about when the conditions that brought about that post-war social contract do not exist anymore?



The PWSC was set up to fight poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. We’d choose different terms but I’d say those conditions are the main problems we face now. The world conditions are very different, but there again in 1945 the country was pretty well destroyed and had huge debts. I don’t think many people would have expected 30 years of general improvements for people from both Labour and Tory governments while also repaying the debts.



> And we should be clear that a return to the post-war social contract is not what Labour is proposing, their policies fall a long, long way short of that.



Possibly, although I think Corbyn’s said he’d tackle each of the things the PWSC brought: fairer social security and unemployment benefits, increase funding for NHS, bring back free education, increase council house building and aim for full employment through nationalization again. It took 30 years of the PWSC to achieve what it did and we’ve had 30 years of neoliberalism since then. So it’s not going to be solved in a single term.



> For example all the Labour Party are united in councils not setting illegal budgets, so how does the LP intend to stop councils being the agents of austerity?



Austerity is being forced on councils by budget cuts from the tory government. Increase the council budgets and there wouldn’t be the same destructive urge to force austerity on us. I'm not sure I understand the practical benefits of setting an illegal budget. If a council *did* set an one, wouldn’t the Secretary of State just override them and set a tory budget anyway?



> The LP has not challenged the idea of an independent BoE, so if (when) it's policies start to interfere with capital how does it intend to deal with the BoE?



Not sure - what would the BoE do if Labour did increase spending on infrastructure as per PWSC?

Yes I’d like Corbyn to be a lot more socialist, but what he’s suggesting (rent controls, full employment, improved funding for NHS, more council housing and the like) would alleviate a lot of the suffering people now experience.

One thing I find difficult on urban is that the revolutionary socialists tend to portray themselves as hard-headed, practical people while democratic socialists are woolly headed liberals. I'd imagine that I'd largely agree with the sort of society you'd like to see. The question is how we go about it. 

You might not think Corbyn’s offering much, but what’s your alternative? Labour can at least give a fair planning of how they’ll implement their ideas, with say a 20% chance of getting voted in. In practical terms, over the next ten years say, how and when will revolutionary socialists/anarchists offer anything better, with what realistic percentage for success?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2019)

What was the material basis for this post-war social contract? (And you know it wasn't a real contract right, just some top-down short hand).

A growth rate across all capitalist countries for 25 years far far in advance of what has been the norm since the mid-late 70s - what was a years normal growth then would be seen as a total shock outlier today. A growth based largely in productive investment and tight national capital controls and wider state-directed financial management and planning. Place this also wider context of massive post-war reconstruction and a planned development and modernisation of capitalist relations in previously non or largely pre-capitalist countries. There was space for capital to move into and take labour-power with it in this period.

This situation started dying/was killed in the early 70s through a combination of internal things (workers demanding more in direct wages and the social wage, what the bosses called _profit squeeze _and competition from the newly capitalised/modernised and now more efficient and productive economies mentioned above) and external things (oil shock). The previous growth rates were now simply no longer possible (and have not been since - for a longer period now than those post-war years) and capital moved from productive investment into financial speculation chased out both by workers and searching for those high profits they now came to rely on. The removal of nearly all barriers to capital mobility followed - and we are where we are now as a result. 

Those 25 years now look like the aberration not the norm - in fact, there has never in the history of capitalism been anything like it. To say _make capitalism great again _we would need to rewind the film of history back quite a bit if we were to get those conditions put back in place. A bloody long way actually, at least to 1871. The capitalism that produced that period is gone, the conditions that allowed (or better, pushed/forced) capital to have to put that on the table have gone - light capital controls or a few more hospital beds are not going to bring back competition between strong european states and rising new ones, nor two global conflicts. 

Say we could do capitalism better than we currently do, that we could change emphasis or direct money elsewhere by all means, plaster it on the posters etc but to tie it into this stuff about the post-war social contract is to take a mirage for reality and to demand both that others do so too and that if they don't then they are the mirage. New labour-power = new capitalism, and it's new capitalism we need to be looking to analyse/attack/confront.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> The PWSC was set up to fight poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. We’d choose different terms but I’d say those conditions are the main problems we face now. The world conditions are very different, but there again in 1945 the country was pretty well destroyed and had huge debts. I don’t think many people would have expected 30 years of general improvements for people from both Labour and Tory governments while also repaying the debts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's nothing wrong with idleness, more idleness in the world would be no bad thing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I read the article. That you think Jeremy made ‘the best political points he’s made in while’ makes my point.
> 
> Collapsing into communicating with the base



You think a mainstream political leader saying that climate change is a class issue isn't one of the best things any mainstream political leader has said in a while? 

He's not saying Brexit isn't important, he's saying things like poverty and climate change are more important. Let's not forget if it wasn't for austerity and poverty it's very unlikely the referendum result would have been to leave. 

Corbyn isn't playing to his base (do you honestly think I'm his base by the way?) he's talking about issues that matter to the vast majority of people and climate change is significant given the school strikes here and in many other countries that are taking place. It's very possible there will be a GE soon - Corbyn can't win that GE by talking about Brexit, he has to engage with issues like poverty, the NHS, austerity, jobs - the bread and butter stuff that is for most people still more important than Brexit. 

If anyone was playing to their base it was the Guardian. Oh look Corbyn is talking about issues that are important to people HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE BREXIT DISASTER.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> The PWSC was set up to fight poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. We’d choose different terms but I’d say those conditions are the main problems we face now. The world conditions are very different, but there again in 1945 the country was pretty well destroyed and had huge debts. I don’t think many people would have expected 30 years of general improvements for people from both Labour and Tory governments while also repaying the debts.


 No offence but that doesn't remotely answer the question I asked. There has been "poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness" for decades, both prior to and after the PWSC so clearly the presence of these cannot be the determining factor in the _setting up_ (by who BTW?) of the PWSC? I'd ask what you think the material conditions that led to the PWSC were but butchers has pretty much already supplied the answer.



two sheds said:


> Possibly, although I think Corbyn’s said he’d tackle each of the things the PWSC brought: fairer social security and unemployment benefits, increase funding for NHS, bring back free education, increase council house building and aim for full employment through nationalization again. It took 30 years of the PWSC to achieve what it did and we’ve had 30 years of neoliberalism since then. So it’s not going to be solved in a single term.
> ...
> Not sure - what would the BoE do if Labour did increase spending on infrastructure as per PWSC?


We currently have "full employment. And the 2017 Labour Party manifesto did not argue for nationalisation but for "state involvement". You cannot see the conflict that would arise between an independent BoE and a Labour government intent on re-introducing some of the basis for the PWSC? How do you think the BoE would react to the nationalisation (without payment) of industries, to the legalisation of secondary picketing or closed shops?



two sheds said:


> Austerity is being forced on councils by budget cuts from the tory government. Increase the council budgets and there wouldn’t be the same destructive urge to force austerity on us. I'm not sure I understand the practical benefits of setting an illegal budget. If a council *did* set an one, wouldn’t the Secretary of State just override them and set a tory budget anyway?


If we accept for the moment, as your post implicitly suggests, the distinction between austerity and the wider pre-2008 neo-liberalism, austerity was not started by the Tory party (or LDs). Austerity originated with the Labour Party, and it was Labour Party policy till 2015. Labour councils are currently implementing cuts and attacking workers. What are striking workers in Birmingham currently being attached by a Labour council to do? All you seem to have is vote Labour in a GE (the same position you had two years ago). I find it genuinely amazing that someone who counts themselves part of the labour movement is so unaware of the past triumphs of the movement. You can't see any lessons from Poplar?

Which exemplifies the points Wilf (and others) have been making on this thread for a number of years that Corbyn and co, for all their differences with New Labour, have not (cannot) broken outside the party. So you end up arguing for the same position that Kinnock took.



two sheds said:


> You might not think Corbyn’s offering much, but what’s your alternative? Labour can at least give a fair planning of how they’ll implement their ideas, with say a 20% chance of getting voted in. In practical terms, over the next ten years say, how and when will revolutionary socialists/anarchists offer anything better, with what realistic percentage for success?


This is as weak as your comments on the PWSC. I don't have to offer an alternative to point out that your argument for a return to the PWSC, rests on a significant misunderstanding of such.

Ultimately for all claims about the change Corbyn has made in the LP, when it gets down to brass tacks the argument made for the LP is the same made since it's start - _at least we're not the Tories_.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Austerity is being forced on councils by budget cuts from the tory government. Increase the council budgets and there wouldn’t be the same destructive urge to force austerity on us. I'm not sure I understand the practical benefits of setting an illegal budget. If a council *did* set an one, wouldn’t the Secretary of State just override them and set a tory budget anyway?



broadly speaking, yes - central government can impose its own commissioners to run a council that is financially fucked (as they have done at tory northamptonshire county council - bbc story here)

labour councils / councillors have in the past stood up to tory government austerity - some councillors in poplar ended up in the clink in 1921, clay cross district council refused to implement tory rent rises in 1972 and then of course there was the whole rate-capping thing in the 80s.

the argument from party HQ has usually been against this - it would give the tories and their friends in the press ammunition to run stories about 'irresponsible' labour councils 'spending money they don't have', and ultimately it probably ends up with the councils being picked off one at a time, councillors being disqualified from office (and used to end up with them being personally 'surcharged' and often ending up bankrupt - this isn't law any more) and the cuts being made anyway.

if of course national party policy was to say 'sod off, we're not doing the tory government's dirty work for them' and all councils / councillors stood together, then the outcome might be a bit more interesting (although what's more likely is that a lot of the career minded blairite types that infest a lot of 'labour' councils would leave the party and sit as independent / limp dem / tinge group / tory councillors)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Austerity is being forced on councils by budget cuts from the tory government. Increase the council budgets and there wouldn’t be the same destructive urge to force austerity on us. I'm not sure I understand the practical benefits of setting an illegal budget. If a council *did* set an one, wouldn’t the Secretary of State just override them and set a tory budget anyway?



You don't actually have to do anything illegal to start with. You could just use the reserves. 

My Labour council in Sheffield increases reserves year on year at the same time as closing services like libraries, childrens centres and adult social care. It has something like £200 million in reserves, which is more than most - but if you combine all Labour councils they have reserves that are larger than the GDP of at least ten EU countries. 

If Labour councils were to make clear to people that they would use reserves to protect services, and then launch a campaign to get more money off the Tories, they'd get a pretty good reaction I think. And McDonnell could then pledge that an incoming Labour govt would restore their funding and replenish their reserves. 

Even if the council did break the law though and run an illegal budget - what are the Tories gonna do? In a city like mine there are no Tory councillors or MP's. Is this govt honestly strong enough to come to Sheffield and take over the running of the city? It would be a political nightmare for them. 

In Northamptonshire the county council went bust, despite carrying out cuts, and the Tories sent commissioners in.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 10, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What was the material basis for this post-war social contract? (And you know it wasn't a real contract right, just some top-down short hand).
> 
> A growth rate across all capitalist countries for 25 years far far in advance of what has been the norm since the mid-late 70s - what was a years normal growth then would be seen as a total shock outlier today. A growth based largely in productive investment and tight national capital controls and wider state-directed financial management and planning. Place this also wider context of massive post-war reconstruction and a planned development and modernisation of capitalist relations in previously non or largely pre-capitalist countries. There was space for capital to move into and take labour-power with it in this period.
> 
> ...



Ta, will need to go off and study that.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 10, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> In Northamptonshire the county council went bust, despite carrying out cuts, and the Tories sent commissioners in.


They went bust _because_ of the cuts, did they not? Cut the rates to please Tory voters and then couldn't increase them rapidly enough again because there's a national cap on annual tax rises.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 10, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They went bust _because_ of the cuts, did they not? Cut the rates to please Tory voters and then couldn't increase them rapidly enough again because there's a national cap on annual tax rises.



In a sense yes, but what I meant was that you can carry out all the cuts you like, councils still have legal obligations to provide some services so they will go bust eventually and commissioners will be sent in - so cutting services won't stop commissioners in the end.


----------



## chilango (Mar 11, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> In a sense yes, but what I meant was that you can carry out all the cuts you like, councils still have legal obligations to provide some services so they will go bust eventually and commissioners will be sent in - so cutting services won't stop commissioners in the end.



Although what we're seeing now is outsourced services operated on a cost-cutting brief also failing. Senior bosses of these parasites shrugging their shoulders, throwing in the towel and walking away from contracts taken off councils.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> Although what we're seeing now is outsourced services operated on a cost-cutting brief also failing. Senior bosses of these parasites shrugging their shoulders, throwing in the towel and walking away from contracts taken off councils.


Yep and meaning after the strip mining of any assets by these parasite, councils end up running a hollowed service doing the bare minimum


----------



## cantsin (Mar 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I read the article. That you think Jeremy made ‘the best political points he’s made in while’ makes my point.
> 
> Collapsing into communicating with the base



read the piece - have literally no idea what you mean here ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> Although what we're seeing now is outsourced services operated on a cost-cutting brief also failing. Senior bosses of these parasites shrugging their shoulders, throwing in the towel and walking away from contracts taken off councils.



Sadly this even includes some revenue generating services like recycling which if they were in house would put money back into council budgets.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 11, 2019)

cantsin said:


> read the piece - have literally no idea what you mean here ?



Firstly, the speech was preaching to the converted. Those opposed to austerity and climate change are unlikely to be Tory. So it won't echo anywhere outside of the base. Secondly, the idea that the political and economic structures that an elected government have to work in - to attempt to tackle poverty and green issues - are some sort of diversion and can be effectively decoupled from the issues is both stupid and disingenuous. 

Reeling off a list of things that are bad makes some on the left feel better/righteous but that's all it achieves.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Firstly, the speech was preaching to the converted.


in a speech to scottish labour? well i never


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Firstly, the speech was preaching to the converted. Those opposed to austerity and climate change are unlikely to be Tory. So it won't echo anywhere outside of the base. Secondly, the idea that the political and economic structures that an elected government have to work in - to attempt to tackle poverty and green issues - are some sort of diversion and can be effectively decoupled from the issues is both stupid and disingenuous.
> 
> Reeling off a list of things that are bad makes some on the left feel better/righteous but that's all it achieves.



I thought the point was to dissuade the currently converted from thinking that Brexit is a reason to go Remainey or Brexity to the extent that brings them into conflict with the Great Leap Corbward.

And to be fair that’s completely appropriate.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 11, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> the Great Leap Corbward.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 15, 2019)

I think this would be a good moment for a recap.

So far Mr Corbyn has seen off David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg. As this article reports, he will soon be seeing Vince Cable off too.

That just leaves Theresa May for the full set. Mirror Politics on Twitter


----------



## two sheds (Mar 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What was the material basis for this post-war social contract? (And you know it wasn't a real contract right, just some top-down short hand).



Of course, and VP pointed out a while ago the name in the UK was generally ‘compact’. ‘Contract’ seems a fair short hand for what it turned out to be for 30 years, though.



> A growth rate across all capitalist countries for 25 years far far in advance of what has been the norm since the mid-late 70s - what was a years normal growth then would be seen as a total shock outlier today. A growth based largely in productive investment and tight national capital controls and wider state-directed financial management and planning. Place this also wider context of massive post-war reconstruction and a planned development and modernisation of capitalist relations in previously non or largely pre-capitalist countries. There was space for capital to move into and take labour-power with it in this period.
> 
> This situation started dying/was killed in the early 70s through a combination of internal things (workers demanding more in direct wages and the social wage, what the bosses called _profit squeeze _and competition from the newly capitalised/modernised and now more efficient and productive economies mentioned above) and external things (oil shock). The previous growth rates were now simply no longer possible (and have not been since - for a longer period now than those post-war years) and capital moved from productive investment into financial speculation chased out both by workers and searching for those high profits they now came to rely on. The removal of nearly all barriers to capital mobility followed - and we are where we are now as a result.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure you can describe the welfare state, NHS, free education, millions of council houses, public ownership of utilities, thirty years of low rents and full employment, and repayment of huge national debt as a ‘mirage’. Last time I brought up the PWSC on urban as a major achievement I was quite curtly instructed (by you as I recall  ) that it was forced on capital by the working class.

Where did you get the figures for growth? I can’t see it in the graph of GDP in Gross Domestic Product: chained volume measures: Seasonally adjusted £m - Office for National Statistics or in this: 

 

Similarly, productivity increased as almost a straight line until 2008, it’s just that since 1985 it’s all gone to the rich and not fed through to increase median wages. 

As I understand it, the mini “Barber boom” after Anthony Barber’s 1972 budget fuelled inflation because it _wasn’t_ linked to anything of actual value, and inflation peaked at 25% in 1975 which was why we had the increased wage demands. As you say the oil shocks fed in too, and high energy prices are why the next round of infrastructure investment should include renewables to make us less reliant on fossil fuel imports. 

Those high growth rates have to be to some extent a  result of the extended programme of full employment and investment in infrastructure and things with actual value to people. What we really need is a control experiment to test it, shame it doesn’t look like we’re going to get one.

As you say, conditions for capital were good in the 1800s, but they weren’t that good at the start of the PWSC, either. We weren’t the workshop of the world any more. The US had overtaken Britain as the largest economy in the 1890s and the Empire was on its way out. WW1 had ended Britain’s world dominance, and we’d had the depression of the 1920s. Britain’s world trade had dropped by half in the 1930s, and exports dropped again after WW2. Hardly promising conditions for a 30-year stable economy.

Why 1871 by the way? Capitalism all the way up to WW2 was boom and bust with a nice big pool of unemployed workers to keep wages low and with little or no social security safety net. Yes in the 1800s there had been large investments in shipbuilding, water/sewage/telephone utilities, all of which helped with exports where we had an empire to export to. But that’s a good reason for investing in utilities and improving the infrastructure again. We need a reconstruction after 30 years of neoliberalism pretty much like we needed a post-war reconstruction. Productive investment and greater state-directed financial management and planning is exactly what I’d like to see.

How am I forcing anyone to do anything? I’m just expressing my opinion. And where have I said I want to make capitalism great again? I’m looking to alleviate some of the harm it brings to peoples’ lives. I keep hearing that there’s no money around. There’s shitloads of money around, it’s just funneled to the top. And yes we need tight national capital controls – I read somewhere that bearer bonds were the major cause of capital flight and tax evasion. So yes we need to address capital mobility and the huge distortions that have come from criminals buying into the UK property market, LLPs and the like. And we need rent controls which Corbyn has also promised (I’ve seen wide public support for pretty well halving rents).

A £500 billion infrastructure investment is going to give more than just a few hospital beds. What else should a government do other than alleviate poverty, invest in the country and workforce, and improve healthcare and travel and essential utility infrastructure? It’s better than pissing all the money up the wall in tax breaks for the rich and greedy as the government does at the moment.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 19, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I’m not sure you can describe the welfare state, NHS, free education, millions of council houses, public ownership of utilities, thirty years of low rents and full employment, and repayment of huge national debt as a ‘mirage’..


The PWSC isn't the mirage, the mirage is believing that the PWSC can be repeated now when the conditions that brought about the PWSC no longer exist.

EDIT: Or to be more accurate to the mirage is to connect the sort of social democracy you are arguing for to a renewed PWSC.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 19, 2019)

Badgers said:


> I think this would be a good moment for a recap.
> 
> So far Mr Corbyn has seen off David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg. As this article reports, he will soon be seeing Vince Cable off too.
> 
> That just leaves Theresa May for the full set. Mirror Politics on Twitter



The last and greatest achievement will be when his 'time is up' thread reaches 1,000 pages and his time is still not up.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> The PWSC isn't the mirage, the mirage is believing that the PWSC can be repeated now when the conditions that brought about the PWSC no longer exist.



Yes fair enough.

Pretty much like the mirage that conditions are going to improve for british people without voting out the tories and investing in people and infrastructure, then.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 19, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Yes fair enough.
> 
> Pretty much like the mirage that conditions are going to improve for british people without voting out the tories and investing in people and infrastructure, then.


Oh come on. I point out your misunderstanding of what butchers was saying and that's the best you can come up.

You've argued for a return to the PWSC, fine. But don't pretend that criticism of your understanding of what the PWSC was and how it was brought about is support for the Tories. And don't pretend that this is some great new dawn for the Labour Party when you are making exactly the same arguments that Madelson and Blair did - _we're better than the Tories.
_
EDIT: Incidentally this also contradicts your claims about the PWSC. If we take the 25 years from 45 to 70 then the Tories were in power for as long as Labour were. So is it the Tories that are the problem or something more fundamental ?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 19, 2019)

Who is the real Kebab King, eh kebabking ?

Jeremy Corbyn admits he love kebab shops despite being vegetarian


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 19, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is the real Kebab King, eh kebabking ?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn admits he love kebab shops despite being vegetarian



Probably the only thing Corbyn as in common with ordinary people!


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2019)

Fast food shops are under lots of scrutiny now


----------



## two sheds (Mar 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh come on. I point out your misunderstanding of what butchers was saying and that's the best you can come up.



No, I acknowledged the misunderstanding. I'm pointing out that you don't have a solution for the problem either. The contempt I see on here for democratic socialism suggests an arrogance that you have a simple solution to improving conditions for people that is being missed. It's just as much a mirage to suggest that a revolution (which of course I'd love to see given certain fairly major conditions) is going to do anything better. 

Or am I wrong? I've laid out some ideas that I think would improve conditions with an estimate (say 1 in 5 chance) of Corbyn carrying it out. I don't know how successful it would be, but what else should you do than invest in infrastructure and people? Where are your detailed plans for getting the tories out and improving peoples' economic conditons, with percentage chances of success? The question is so outrageous for urban that I've never seen it asked and certainly never seen it answered. Give it a go. 



> You've argued for a return to the PWSC, fine. But don't pretend that criticism of your understanding of what the PWSC was and how it was brought about is support for the Tories. And don't pretend that this is some great new dawn for the Labour Party when you are making exactly the same arguments that Madelson and Blair did - _we're better than the Tories._



Where did I say that it's just a matter of "we're better than the tories"? Where did I pretend this is some great new dawn for the Labour Party? Stop inventing stuff. I hate trying to discuss things on here because of the insults and the contemptuous straw men that are invented. I don't know whether Corbyn's policies will work, I just don't see a better chance of success. And where did Mandelson and Blair suggest a £500 billion quantitative easing by the way, plus the other policies Corbyn has suggested? A clue: they didn't. 

I don't think I've actually suggested that criticism of some small return to the PWSC is support for the tories. If you're leaving the tories in power carrying out their policies with no plan to get rid of them, though, then I could just as well say _you are the Tories . _See I can do insults, too. It doesn't actually get us further.   



> EDIT: Incidentally this also contradicts your claims about the PWSC. If we take the 25 years from 45 to 70 then the Tories were in power for as long as Labour were. So is it the Tories that are the problem or something more fundamental ?



Where's the contradiction? Both tory and labour governments carried on with the PWSC. Since 79 we've had neoliberalism under both tory and labour governments. The problem is the rampant capitalism for the rich with resulting austerity for the poor. How else do we address that than getting rid of the tories? And of course getting new labour into power would be no different.

I don't particularly like what's been happening in the Labour party over the last couple of years. It's the PWSC-style policies that I support.


----------



## Sue (Mar 19, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is the real Kebab King, eh kebabking ?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn admits he love kebab shops despite being vegetarian


Think most of Green Lanes (Turkish area with loads of restaurants and kebab shops) is in his constituency so guess he kind of has to say that. (And tbf who doesn't love a falafel wrap.)


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 19, 2019)

two sheds said:


> It's just as much a mirage to suggest that a revolution (which of course I'd love to see given certain fairly major conditions) is going to do anything better.



Sometimes I feel like there should be a bell or something for when people who should really know better offer up this crap as an argument. As though anyone on any thread on Urban has ever remotely suggested shouting *REVOLUTION COMRADES* is the best/only alternative to election-chasing. If you're going to argue about the efficacy of direct action and extra-parliamentary mass politics at least argue on its active merits rather than falling back on sub-Daily Mail sneering that your opponent is Citizen Smith.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2019)

I saw the corbyn kebab thing, framed in terms of _brexit is on and the wankers at a kebab gig, he's not even a meat eater!_

not as funny  as the time he was found to be at the Allotment Society AGM mid coup attempt tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2019)

two sheds said:


> No, I acknowledged the misunderstanding. I'm pointing out that you don't have a solution for the problem either. The contempt I see on here for democratic socialism suggests an arrogance that you have a simple solution to improving conditions for people that is being missed. It's just as much a mirage to suggest that a revolution (which of course I'd love to see given certain fairly major conditions) is going to do anything better.


any revolution you care to examine will have done some things well, others frankly poorly. you don't have a revolution so everything's done better: that isn't going to happen from the get-go, it'll take some time to right things. but there's vast quantities of human labour which go into doing things which if they aren't actually actively destructive of the planet then are wasteful useless toil. but the major reason for a revolution isn't that everything would miraculously get better but that we'd no longer have today's fat pigs lording it over everyone, that people would be able to work together in ways that simply aren't possible now. the problem now with democratic socialism is its absence. i'd love to see some democratic socialism but it's just not available.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2019)

I've lost count of the amount of posts over the years on  here outlining, often small but often concrete, ways in which people can improve stuff with "extra-parliamentary" action.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> exactly the same arguments that Madelson and Blair did - _we're better than the Tories._



not to be confused with the brown / milliband offer which was "we are marginally less shit than the tories"


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 19, 2019)

two sheds said:


> No, I acknowledged the misunderstanding. I'm pointing out that you don't have a solution for the problem either. The contempt I see on here for democratic socialism suggests an arrogance that you have a simple solution to improving conditions for people that is being missed. It's just as much a mirage to suggest that a revolution (which of course I'd love to see given certain fairly major conditions) is going to do anything better.


No one's mentioned revolution. It's a bit bloody rich for you to talk about straw men and keep on coming back to this false dichotomy.



two sheds said:


> Or am I wrong? I've laid out some ideas that I think would improve conditions with an estimate (say 1 in 5 chance) of Corbyn carrying it out. I don't know how successful it would be, but what else should you do than invest in infrastructure and people? Where are your detailed plans for getting the tories out and improving peoples' economic conditons, with percentage chances of success? The question is so outrageous for urban that I've never seen it asked and certainly never seen it answered. Give it a go.


None of that addresses the question I raised about your claims about the PWSC. You made a claim about the PWSC, one that in my view is completely fallacious I'm asking you to defend it (or recognise that it was wrong). I don't support the Labour Party, I do think it's part of the problem but that's entirely irrelevant to your claim that the LP can resurrect the PWSC. You can be an LP supporter and still think your claim is false. 



two sheds said:


> Where did I say that it's just a matter of "we're better than the tories"?


 Seriously! You''ve just said that it is a mirage to believe that any improvements for the British people without voting out the Tories, while at the same time admitting that Labour councils are attacking people. I've not invented anything, I've taken your claims to their logical end.



two sheds said:


> Where's the contradiction? Both tory and labour governments carried on with the PWSC. Since 79 we've had neoliberalism under both tory and labour governments.


You don't understand how its contradictory to argue that no improvements are possible without voting out the Tories and at the same time arguing that the PWSC, which happened partly under the Tories, is contradictory?

The claims you make in one post aren't distinct from the claims you make in a separate post, there's a chain of logic here (well there should be).


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 19, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is the real Kebab King, eh kebabking ?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn admits he love kebab shops despite being vegetarian



I'm vegetarian and pretty close to vegan. I go to the local one on average about twice a week. Fine establishment.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 20, 2019)

I hear rumours he has walked out of a brexit meeting as ex labour independents are there.
what does this prove, who does this help?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2019)

Yes let's work with snivelling shits like Umunna, Soubrey and co that have been attacking people for 10+ years.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I hear rumours he has walked out of a brexit meeting as ex labour independents are there.
> what does this prove, who does this help?


He's always been fussy about who he meets with.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 20, 2019)

That's the point everyone should be working with everyone not against everyone. That will get us thrown out of Europe


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2019)

What utter fucking guff. 

My politics are directly and totally opposed to Umunna, Soubry, May, Cable and the like. How the hell can I work with these slime when their aims are directly opposed to mine. This is like the crap about how u_nions need to work with rather than against employers, _Fuck that shit. 

Tactically this, if true, is a bad move from Corbyn. But it's probably just increased the likelihood of me voting Labour by about 100%.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 20, 2019)

Throws tantrum and walks out at one of the most important meeting/issues this century. There are times when a politician has to work with their arch enemy/opposition and this is one of them. No way to do business at the best of times.
still we know who we can rely on during a national crisis.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 20, 2019)

Giving the fucking Independent Group a sit in and listen on Corbyn, someone they've tried to ankle-break since he got elected, talking about potential strategies over Brexit would be absolutely dreadful tbh.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Throws tantrum and walks out at one of the most important meeting/issues this century. There are times when a politician has to work with their arch enemy/opposition and this is one of them. No way to do business at the best of times.
> still we know who we can rely on during a national crisis.



Bro, wind your neck in. The most important meeting/issues this century went as follows.

 
So May's basically told them what's what again.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 20, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Giving the fucking Independent Group a sit in and listen on Corbyn, someone they've tried to ankle-break since he got elected, talking about potential strategies over Brexit would be absolutely dreadful tbh.


Why should people who stabbed their party in the back - the party they owe their entire careers to - expect that party's leader to even acknowledge their existence?

And what do people think would have come out of this meeting? Some magic beans that solve the crisis by necromancy and soothsaying?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Why should people who stabbed their party in the back - the party they owe their entire careers to - expect that party's leader to even acknowledge their existence?
> 
> And what do people think would have come out of this meeting? Some magic beans that solve the crisis by necromancy and soothsaying?


But, but, but Idris think about the national interest! Don't you care about the national interest?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 20, 2019)

Splitters!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 20, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> But, but, but Idris think about the national interest! Don't you care about the national interest?


I play for the other team, remember?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What utter fucking guff.
> 
> My politics are directly and totally opposed to Umunna, Soubry, May, Cable and the like. How the hell can I work with these slime when their aims are directly opposed to mine. This is like the crap about how u_nions need to work with rather than against employers, _Fuck that shit.
> 
> Tactically this, if true, is a bad move from Corbyn. But it's probably just increased the likelihood of me voting Labour by about 100%.



You are right about the Tinge, but that’s not a good analogy. Work is what we do with half our lives and unions should use their influence to make it better. As long as the bottom line is they will take action when required.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I play for the other team, remember?



Ah, a satanist?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Throws tantrum and walks out at one of the most important meeting/issues this century. There are times when a politician has to work with their arch enemy/opposition and this is one of them. No way to do business at the best of times.
> still we know who we can rely on during a national crisis.


Umunna isn't arch anything. Archery target at best.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 20, 2019)

May has absolutely no intention of constructively engaging with any other parties at all, any more than she ever has. If anything, inviting the Tingers provided Labour with a good excuse to exit, given how entirely irrelevant they are to the process anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You are right about the Tinge, but that’s not a good analogy. Work is what we do with half our lives and unions should use their influence to make it better. As long as the bottom line is they will take action when required.


Sorry I'm unclear are you arguing that unions should _work with_ employers?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 20, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Why should people who stabbed their party in the back - the party they owe their entire careers to - expect that party's leader to even acknowledge their existence?


Are we talking about the independent group, or Mr Corbyn’s career prior to becoming leader?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 20, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Are we talking about the independent group, or Mr Corbyn’s career prior to becoming leader?


His career opposing labour policies like the iraq war, you mean?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 20, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry I'm unclear are you arguing that unions should _work with_ employers?



Define what you mean by they should not if it’s unclear. I’m simply talking about how organisations work.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Define what you mean by they should not if it’s unclear. I’m simply talking about how organisations work.


I don't think unions should work with employers at all, not if they are doing what they are supposed to be for and standing up for their members. By definition it is in the interest of employers to increase the exploitation of labour and it's in the interests of labour (and so should be in the interests of unions) to oppose that exploitation.


----------



## Patteran (Mar 20, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Why should people who stabbed their party in the back - the party they owe their entire careers to - expect that party's leader to even acknowledge their existence?
> 
> And what do people think would have come out of this meeting? Some magic beans that solve the crisis by necromancy and soothsaying?



And presumably if he'd stayed, the inevitable, irreconcilable differences between Labour & TIG would have been highlighted as proof of his callousness towards the national interest instead. Either action would have been instrumentalised & then contrasted with May's speech - at least this way round, there's a degree of control - plus an opportunity to annoy Chuka. The game's rigged - I wonder if to some degree Corbyn's long-term immersion, investment & apparent faith in the potential & correctness of proper parliamentary procedure, makes him vulnerable to this kind of trap.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

The TIG isn't actually a party yet is it? Hardly fits in a meeting of party leaders.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> No offence but that doesn't remotely answer the question I asked.



Your question should have been clearer then . Or are you not interested in the conditions people people live under?



> There has been "poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness" for decades, both prior to and after the PWSC so clearly the presence of these cannot be the determining factor in the _setting up_ (by who BTW?) of the PWSC?



What? The PWSC address those five things quite successfully for 30 years. You seem to suggest that the PWSC contract made no difference to peoples' lives. That's a gross distortion. Of course it didn't eliminate them, nobody is suggesting it did. Set up by the Attlee government in 1945 under pressure from the working class as butchers has pointed out? 



> We currently have "full employment.



You think casual work with no pension and sick pay, along with zero hours contracts and taking people off benefits to fiddle the figures equate to full employment with pension and sick pay? I've seen you make good political points but I'll remind you of this when you tell people they're falling for tory propaganda.



> And the 2017 Labour Party manifesto did not argue for nationalisation but for "state involvement". You cannot see the conflict that would arise between an independent BoE and a Labour government intent on re-introducing some of the basis for the PWSC? How do you think the BoE would react to the nationalisation (without payment) of industries, to the legalisation of secondary picketing or closed shops?



The BoE seems quite happy with quantitative easing - £375 billion of it since 2008. I don't know, though, what *would* it do about legislation of secondary picketing and closed shops?



> Labour councils are currently implementing cuts and attacking workers. What are striking workers in Birmingham currently being attached by a Labour council to do?



Yes I hate to see that. But again the cuts are being forced on them by the government. Where does the money come from? If they set an illegal budget the government will just take over the running of the council. That's not going to help improve conditions for peoples' lives.



> All you seem to have is vote Labour in a GE (the same position you had two years ago). I find it genuinely amazing that someone who counts themselves part of the labour movement is so unaware of the past triumphs of the movement. You can't see any lessons from Poplar?



No, I'm not saying "just vote Labour". I have great respect for the work people are doing in resisting austerity. It's not "either/or" it's "both/and". I hate seeing Labour councils impose austerity but as you say, "conditions have changed"  . I can understand why Labour counciles don't set illegal budgets. It needs money for investment, where does that come from? It can't come from the rates or business rates because those are set. It can't come from building new houses because the government won't allow that. Set an illegal budget and the government will take over administration. There's no benefit in that to people. 



> This is as weak as your comments on the PWSC. I don't have to offer an alternative to point out that your argument for a return to the PWSC, rests on a significant misunderstanding of such.



Well yes I recall Dr. Johnson saying that you don’t need to be a shoe repairer to know that your boots don’t fit. But if you’ve got someone standing watching the shoe repairer saying You don’t want to do it that way that’s never going to fit, then it’s fair to ask how *they* would do it.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Sometimes I feel like there should be a bell or something for when people who should really know better offer up this crap as an argument. As though anyone on any thread on Urban has ever remotely suggested shouting *REVOLUTION COMRADES* is the best/only alternative to election-chasing. If you're going to argue about the efficacy of direct action and extra-parliamentary mass politics at least argue on its active merits rather than falling back on sub-Daily Mail sneering that your opponent is Citizen Smith.



Yep and there should be a bell for when people who should know better offer up nothing but contempt for democratic socialism. It would be ringing all the fucking time. 

I have no problem with revolutionary socialism and anarchism - from what I've seen they're how you'd want to set up a society. It's the arrogant, contemptuous sneering from some revolutionary socialists that  I have a problem with. But carry on, it's a great look for the left.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> any revolution you care to examine will have done some things well, others frankly poorly. you don't have a revolution so everything's done better: that isn't going to happen from the get-go, it'll take some time to right things. but there's vast quantities of human labour which go into doing things which if they aren't actually actively destructive of the planet then are wasteful useless toil. but the major reason for a revolution isn't that everything would miraculously get better but that we'd no longer have today's fat pigs lording it over everyone, that people would be able to work together in ways that simply aren't possible now.



Yes can't argue with any of that. I'd love to see a Labour government come in with a large windfall tax on all the profiteering that's been done at the expense of the rest of us since 1979. I remember the tories doing it years ago so there's good precedent. 

One of my reservations about a revolution though is how you stop the regime from becoming just as bad as the same old fat pigs. What if it's the Swappies who take over for example? 



> the problem now with democratic socialism is its absence. i'd love to see some democratic socialism but it's just not available.



Although renationalization and expansion of co-operatives and other things now in the manifesto would go some (small) way. I don't really think Corbyn could do it because of the baggage he's got that's been pointed out on here, but it's those policies that persuaded me to vote Labour. That and improved workers' rights and rent controls would go some way to improve conditions people are living under. I think that's worth a try while people who want to organize for a revolution do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Although renationalization and expansion of co-operatives and other things now in the manifesto would go some (small) way. I don't really think Corbyn could do it because of the baggage he's got that's been pointed out on here, but it's those policies that persuaded me to vote Labour. That and improved workers' rights and rent controls would go some way to improve conditions people are living under. I think that's worth a try while people who want to organize for a revolution do that.


nationalisation / renationalisation isn't in and of itself socialist. i compare corbyn with the labour governments of the past and he comes up wanting. where are redistributive tax policies? - corbyn doesn't propose any real shift in the tax rates, nothing there like the washed out pink socialism of harold wilson and 'red' james callaghan. our houses of parliament have never been so filled with incompetents, charlatans, mountebanks and straight up frauds as they are today, and no good can come from such people.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Your question should have been clearer then . Or are you not interested in the conditions people people live under?
> What? The PWSC address those five things quite successfully for 30 years. You seem to suggest that the PWSC contract made no difference to peoples' lives. That's a gross distortion. Of course it didn't eliminate them, nobody is suggesting it did. Set up by the Attlee government in 1945 under pressure from the working class as butchers has pointed out?


Oh for goodness sake I've not made any such suggestion. This is absolute cobblers, I've not made any argument that the PWSC was not a good thing. You're arguing against imaginary opinions.

I'm arguing that the PWSC arose out a certain set of material conditions and I was trying to get you to identify those conditions, to say _why_ you think the PWSC came about at that period in time (it certainly wasn't just because there was poverty). Because IMO those material conditions no longer exist and thus trying to turn the clock back to 1945 is not possible. That doesn't mean mild social democratic reforms aren't possible but like butchersapron I see the 25 years post WWII as an outlier, and so the development of capitalism over the next 25 years is not going to, in fact _cannot,_ see the type of systematic changes that we saw from 45-70.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't actually have to do anything illegal to start with. You could just use the reserves.






> My Labour council in Sheffield increases reserves year on year at the same time as closing services like libraries, childrens centres and adult social care. It has something like £200 million in reserves, which is more than most - but if you combine all Labour councils they have reserves that are larger than the GDP of at least ten EU countries.
> 
> If Labour councils were to make clear to people that they would use reserves to protect services, and then launch a campaign to get more money off the Tories, they'd get a pretty good reaction I think. And McDonnell could then pledge that an incoming Labour govt would restore their funding and replenish their reserves.



My first reaction to this was that yes it's a good solution but thinking about it I'm not so sure. I think the tories would love it. Once the reserves are gone, they'd have to start selling assets and renting them out from the people they'd sold them to, which would cut into budgets even more. There'd be some proper service cuts then I think.



> Even if the council did break the law though and run an illegal budget - what are the Tories gonna do? In a city like mine there are no Tory councillors or MP's. Is this govt honestly strong enough to come to Sheffield and take over the running of the city? It would be a political nightmare for them.



Yep but the Mail and the Sun and the rest of them would be running news stories all the time on how irresponsible Labour councils are and how they're frittering away all their taxpayers hard earned money. That the government's had to step in to take back control and all the cuts would be made necessary by their wasteful Labour councillors.



> In Northamptonshire the county council went bust, despite carrying out cuts, and the Tories sent commissioners in.



That was a tory council though. I don't think the government would be as sympathetic to labour controlled areas. As it is the tory controlled councils get more money than labour ones, I think they'd love to choke off services even more to dissuade people from voting labour.

I hate to see it, too, but I can see why Labour councils feel they have to make the cuts. While we've got a tory government they make the rules and they've got us by the balls.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 21, 2019)

Yeah that's the thing which depresses me about this era of politics in a nutshell. 

That The Left is expected to enthusiastically coalesce around this new dawn of staying in NATO, keeping nukes, 10,000 new cops, managed migration, (paid for) nationalisation of some utilities, tax plans which put less pressure on the top rate than Thatcher etc. In living memory that would have been close to a red Tory position.

Our collective horizons are now so short that anything more ambitious is now sneered at as pie in the sky, and I don't think there could be any greater indictment of Parliamentary politics than this being being the case 95 years on from the first Labour government.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

Sorry Rob Ray is that to anyone in particular or just a general comment (either way I agree)


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 21, 2019)

Was replying to Pickman's but people posted in between


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Was replying to Pickman's but people posted in between


the bastards


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> nationalisation / renationalisation isn't in and of itself socialist. i compare corbyn with the labour governments of the past and he comes up wanting. where are redistributive tax policies? - corbyn doesn't propose any real shift in the tax rates, nothing there like the washed out pink socialism of harold wilson and 'red' james callaghan.



I know, but we're much further to the right now than we were during wilson and callaghan years. He's proposing a much further move to the left than they did since there's all the tory/new labour years to reverse. He has said he'll increase rates to 50% and 75% for the top earners. 



> our houses of parliament have never been so filled with incompetents, charlatans, mountebanks and straight up frauds as they are today, and no good can come from such people.



Yes another good point that I can't really argue with  . 

I'll swear I remember some new young Labour women MPs giving really good interviews after the election we could do with a couple of them taking over. Or perhaps I'm thinking of Mhairi Black we could put in a transfer request


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 21, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I know, but we're much further to the right now than we were during wilson and callaghan years. He's proposing a much further move to the left than they did since there's all the tory/new labour years to reverse. He has said he'll increase rates to 50% and 75% for the top earners.


Look up the top earner tax rate through the 50s and 60s - it was around 90%. That’s Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson.  So Corbyn’s tax policies are “less left wing” than 4 Tory PMs. In 1970, Heath reduced it to 75%.  So Corbyn is “as left wing as Heath”.  In 1974 it was put back up to 83% under Wilson II. 

If you want to compare Corbynism with Butskellism, you’re going to find many measures that put Corbyn to the right of Butskellism. And the question you’ve got to ask yourself is _why?  Why _is Corbyn now portrayed as “way out radical”, when Churchill of all people precided over a 90% top rate of income tax?  And that’s  what butchersapron and redsquirrel  have been trying to explain.


----------



## grit (Mar 21, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah that's the thing which depresses me about this era of politics in a nutshell.
> 
> That The Left is expected to enthusiastically coalesce around this new dawn of staying in NATO, keeping nukes, 10,000 new cops, managed migration, (paid for) nationalisation of some utilities, tax plans which put less pressure on the top rate than Thatcher etc. In living memory that would have been close to a red Tory position.
> 
> Our collective horizons are now so short that anything more ambitious is now sneered at as pie in the sky, and I don't think there could be any greater indictment of Parliamentary politics than this being being the case 95 years on from the first Labour government.



Don't know if it was a fabricated quote. But I remember my father telling me years ago that when Thatcher was interviewed and asked what she considered her greatest achievement. Her response was apparently "new labour"


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 21, 2019)

Look at this fucking idiot:


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 21, 2019)

grit said:


> Don't know if it was a fabricated quote. But I remember my father telling me years ago that when Thatcher was interviewed and asked what she considered her greatest achievement. Her response was apparently "new labour"



‘’Tony Blair’’ actually.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 21, 2019)

grit said:


> Don't know if it was a fabricated quote. But I remember my father telling me years ago that when Thatcher was interviewed and asked what she considered her greatest achievement. Her response was apparently "new labour"


She must have been running through the last of her marbles at this point, though, surely?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Look at this fucking idiot:



It’s been illuminating, if predictable, how many FBPE types seem to spend half or more of their time blaming Corbyn for Brexit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> She must have been running through the last of her marbles at this point, though, surely?



https:// con   servativ  ehom e.bl ogs.com   /centre right/2 008/04  /m aking-his tory.ht   ml


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 165182
> https:// con   servativ  ehom e.bl ogs.com   /centre right/2 008/04  /m aking-his tory.ht   ml



The conniving bastard.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't think unions should work with employers at all, not if they are doing what they are supposed to be for and standing up for their members. By definition it is in the interest of employers to increase the exploitation of labour and it's in the interests of labour (and so should be in the interests of unions) to oppose that exploitation.



So not on health and safety or training and development or even company/organisational strategy?


----------



## grit (Mar 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> She must have been running through the last of her marbles at this point, though, surely?



Dunno, but frankly its ringing true these days.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2019)

grit said:


> Don't know if it was a fabricated quote. But I remember my father telling me years ago that when Thatcher was interviewed and asked what she considered her greatest achievement. Her response was apparently "new labour"




avepx

2 points·3 years ago·edited 3 years ago

It seems to be from one Conor Burns, later MP for Bournemouth West - Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement: New Labour :

"Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner for me. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, 'Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds'."

That was April 2008 (the post, that is): it took a mere half a decade after that for the quote to go viral among our media, such is the sentinel-like attentiveness of Her Majesty's press.

I've no reason to imagine Mr Burns would misreport the words of The Leaderene, so I assume they are a fair representation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

ska invita said:


> avepx
> 
> 2 points·3 years ago·edited 3 years ago
> 
> ...



post 25286


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> post 25286


fuck post 25286


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

ska invita said:


> fuck post 25286


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 21, 2019)

ska invita said:


> fuck post 25286


I’ve only got one fuck post.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Look up the top earner tax rate through the 50s and 60s - it was around 90%. That’s Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson.  So Corbyn’s tax policies are “less left wing” than 4 Tory PMs. In 1970, Heath reduced it to 75%.  So Corbyn is “as left wing as Heath”.  In 1974 it was put back up to 83% under Wilson II.



Yes indeed - and unearned income was taxed at 98%. But I'd say that _increasing_ tax to 75% is more left wing than _reducing_ it to 75% :  . As I'm repeatedly being told: "conditions have changed". If Corbyn said he was going to increase tax to 90% there'd be zero percent chance of him getting elected.



> If you want to compare Corbynism with Butskellism, you’re going to find many measures that put Corbyn to the right of Butskellism. And the question you’ve got to ask yourself is _why?  Why _is Corbyn now portrayed as “way out radical”, when Churchill of all people precided over a 90% top rate of income tax?  And that’s  what butchersapron and redsquirrel  have been trying to explain.



Discussions of how left wing he is are a bit meaningless, though. I think he's about as left wing (probably more so) as would be allowed to win an election. What _has_ meaning are what chance is what effect his policies would make on peoples' lives. Ending austerity and introducing rent controls (depending at what level of course) would on their own make things a lot easier for a lot of people. 

I'm not trying to get back to the great days of capitalism and I'm not saying we'll get the same benefits as the PWSC. To be honest I think we're fucked anyway with the environmental problems that are coming, but I do however think the policy is worth trying in the meantime. 

The recent conversation between you and me was along the lines of: 
you: "I think people are wasting their time trying to get labour elected"
me: "yes fair enough but that's up to them and shouldn't be dissuaded from that"
you: "yes I wouldn't try to dissuade them". 

Jobsagoodun, agreed, end of that conversation. 

That's not what I'm hearing though. It seems the discussion is that it's no use anybody trying to get labour elected because they're crap anyway and conditions have changed so it won't work. Well yes I despair at a lot of Labour MPs but conditions weren't that fucking great after WW2 either and I think the policies should at least be given a go. 

Again - what else should a government be doing other than investing in infrastructure and people?  And I think it's perfectly valid to ask if we don't do that, what alternative is being proposed?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> So not on health and safety or training and development or even company/organisational strategy?


Definitely not on company/organisational strategy, that's a route for having unions become part of the management. Besides if management want me (as a branch committee member) to help develop strategy they should be paying me a managers salary, I'm not donating even more of my time to them.

On health and safety the aim of the union should be ensure the employer provides the best OHS possible the workers. That might include sitting on H&S committees but it doesn't mean working with management (again doing for free the job the employer should be paying someone to do).


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

two sheds said:


> <snipped>


No offence but you've missed the key of the point that danny, myself and others are trying to get at - _why?_


danny la rouge said:


> *And the question you’ve got to ask yourself is why?*  Why is Corbyn now portrayed as “way out radical”, when Churchill of all people precided over a 90% top rate of income tax?


(my emphasis)
Yes many of us are skeptical of, or even hostile to, the LP. But that's by the by. You started this hare about a return to policies from the post-war consensus, we're asking you to think about how and why that post-war consensus was brought about. And from that question think about what that means in the current political climate.

What might social democracy look like in the 2020s? If the material conditions that existed in 1945 don't exist today what does that tell us about modern capitalism? Are there other periods that provide a better parallel with today, and if so what how can they inform our understanding and politics?

EDIT:And specifically we are trying place these questions on the basis of the material conditions, the interaction of labour and capital, rather than on the actions of the Labour Party.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> No offence but you've missed the key of the point that danny, myself and others are trying to get at - _why?_
> (my emphasis)
> Yes many of us are skeptical of, or even hostile to, the LP. But that's by the by. You started this hare about a return to policies from the post-war consensus, we're asking you to think about how and why that post-war consensus was brought about. And from that question think about what that means in the current political climate.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Definitely not on company/organisational strategy, that's a route for having unions become part of the management. Besides if management want me (as a branch committee member) to help develop strategy they should be paying me a managers salary, I'm not donating even more of my time to them.
> 
> On health and safety the aim of the union should be ensure the employer provides the best OHS possible the workers. That might include sitting on H&S committees but it doesn't mean working with management (again doing for free the job the employer should be paying someone to do).



People work for money and their need for it is diametrically opposed to their bosses desire to restrict it. 

Aside from this, people work to create and develop their potential or should do. It’s mind numbingly infantilising for your opinion, your views on what can be done to make things better, to be ignored. That’s how things have been for most of capitalism and it cements class division, a grammar/secondary modern view. They do this, we do that.

Maybe for a revolutionary that brings everything into sharper focus, but I’ve certainly worked in places where people wouldn’t do stuff because it might not be their place to do so. It didn’t appear to make them any more resistant. Every job a McJob. 

And it’s particularly unhelpful in public services when many of the staff are doing their best with passion, but others are not motivated to help the public.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 21, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I think he's about as left wing (probably more so) as would be allowed to win an election.



Well yes, that's essentially the problem isn't it. Politicians can only take advantage of and work within the known status quo of what's "respectable economics" and "common sense" (and most of the time not even then — all Corbyn's promises presuppose him actually being elected which is far from certain). So how does that status quo change? If it's not through the actions of politicians, where does momentum come from?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> People work for money and their need for it is diametrically opposed to their bosses desire to restrict it.
> 
> Aside from this, people work to create and develop their potential or should do. It’s mind numbingly infantilising for your opinion, your views on what can be done to make things better, to be ignored. That’s how things have been for most of capitalism and it cements class division, a grammar/secondary modern view. They do this, we do that.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but what relevance does that have to do with unions working with management? Should their be greater workplace democracy, absolutely! But how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy? It does the opposite.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy?



Funnily enough bosses absolutely _love_ works councils, which are now widespread as mandatory bodies across Europe. People who actually care about grassroots worker power less so.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Funnily enough bosses absolutely _love_ works councils, which are now widespread as mandatory bodies across Europe. People who actually care about grassroots worker power less so.


Exactly.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm sorry but what relevance does that have to do with unions working with management? Should their be greater workplace democracy, absolutely! But how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy? It does the opposite.



I haven’t argued they should be ‘instruments’. Maybe you need to be more precise when you say things like ‘work with’.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 21, 2019)

That's what happens when unions work with management, they become part of the management (see the link RR posted above). 

In fact there is an analogy to Labour councils here, by engaging in the framework that is designed by and for capital you end up attacking workers/implementing cuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> That's what happens when unions work with management, they become part of the management (see the link RR posted above).
> 
> In fact there is an analogy to Labour councils here, by engaging in the framework that is designed by and for capital you end up attacking workers/implementing cuts.


No, a lot of labour councillors have no compunction about being anti-working class, if they did Haringey, hackney, Camden, Islington etc etc wouldn't have pursued non-payment of poll tax with such vigour


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

No I'm done with this hare. Like I say I've learned a lot from butchers and pickers and dannyers and peoples but I'm not interested in who's more left wing than whom, nor in political posturing or point scoring.

I was assuming the discussion would take a practical turn, like how capital would react to a Corbyn led government - a run on the pound for example and what that would mean and how it could be addressed. And starting off by looking at the conditions at the end of WW2 and how they compare to now and what that means. I'm only really interested in politics as to what effects it has on peoples' lives.

I wouldn't have thought of just deleting the other person's side of the discussion as unimportant though, so I have learned something: 



redsquirrel said:


> <snip>


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 22, 2019)

If you're not interested in the discussion anymore fine. But don't pretend that the questions being asked of you aren't practical. They are, the asking of these questions informs our politics.

EDIT: If you are going to link your politics to a return to the post-war consensus, you can't argue that it's impractical or political posturing for people to interrogate that link.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Well yes but I've been discussing those points ever since my reply to butchers: graph of GDP growth, effect of bearer bonds, flight of capital overseas where it's not taxed and the like. Every point has just been ignored. 

I find this sort of political discussion quite stressful with the accusations of wanting a return to the glorious age of capitalism and people who should know better and the don't pretends.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.



Yes fair topic, see my reply to redsquirrel though. I'll perhaps come back to it in a week


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.



How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK? 

You could waste 5 years trying I suppose or you could move much more quickly a) have a planned approach to capital controls; b) repurpose and relocate the Bank of England and c) set up a National Investment Bank and design it so that it becomes a bank of choice and a key tool to oversee economic planning and investment. Ironically McDonnell has floated all of this but now seems to be creeping away from a in particular.

The 'transitional' demand of 'nationalising the commanding heights' is frankly for the birds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK?


expropriation would be my choice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> expropriation would be my choice



Fair quite happy with that. 



Smokeandsteam said:


> How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK?
> 
> You could waste 5 years trying I suppose or you could move much more quickly a) have a planned approach to capital controls; b) repurpose and relocate the Bank of England and c) set up a National Investment Bank and design it so that it becomes a bank of choice and a key tool to oversee economic planning and investment. Ironically McDonnell has floated all of this but now seems to be creeping away from a in particular.
> 
> The 'transitional' demand of 'nationalising the commanding heights' is frankly for the birds.



You take control of everything that you can take control of, and communications key in this day and age to stop transfers of capital overseas. This would be necessary for capital controls to actually work IMO. I don't see how you do anything to the Bank of England without democratic control of it. As for your people's bank, sure, take the banks into public ownership and there's your people's bank.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Sorry about before I was feeling somewhat delicate because I was on the rum last night 

I'm not sure you *can* just nationalize the banks. Do that to an American bank and we'd be Cuba Mk II. I thought one of their most profitable scams was the fractional reserve. As I understand it they are the only organizations that can create money. I'll swear that was what Richard Murphy said needs tackling in the Joy of Tax (which is a really good read but I never actually finished). I think it would be possible to take that and the resulting profits into the BoE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> As I understand it they are the only organizations that can create money.


have you never heard of governments, who for many centuries have been creating money?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Yes fair point, although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

How is money created?

Would make more sense for the BoE to create it and lend it to the private banks at interest for them to lend on.


----------



## belboid (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Do that to an American bank and we'd be Cuba Mk II.


Obama nationalised more banks than Lenin


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Yes fair point, although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.



Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules. 

Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> Obama nationalised more banks than Lenin



Didn't know that. They were _their _banks though, so the point still stands.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Well yes but I've been discussing those points ever since my reply to butchers: graph of GDP growth, effect of bearer bonds, flight of capital overseas where it's not taxed and the like. Every point has just been ignored.


I'm sorry but this absolutely not true, they haven't been ignored at all. Myself, danny la rouge, Pickman's model and Rob Ray have tried to discuss these points with you and in your previous post you said that you weren't interested in such a discussion. Which is fine. But then don't say people are ignoring your points.



two sheds said:


> Sorry about before I was feeling somewhat delicate because I was on the rum last night


EDIT:Sorry I posted my post before I saw your this post. But this discussion about nationalisation (and it's limitations) are part of what we were trying to bring to the thread.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 22, 2019)

Two sheds, in a previous post in my reply to my asking you who you thought "set up" the post war social contract you replied



two sheds said:


> Set up by the Attlee government in 1945 under pressure from the working class as butchers has pointed out?


Which I think encapsulates some of your confusion here. Firstly, you seen to be confusing the welfare state with the post war consensus, they are not the same thing, although the former is a product of the latter.

(I've got a meeting now so will have to expand on this later)

EDIT: Second, what is typically called the post-war social contact or post war consensus was multi-national circumstance, spanning across the West (under a series of names), coming out of the common material conditions that faced capital across those countries. Hence why we see a similar set of policies being enacted across the UK, Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc (in many cases by centre-right governments). As such it certainly wasn't set up by the Attlee government. But to say it was not _set up_ at all is not really correct, rather (as has been mentioned previously) it arose the particular interaction of capital and labour at that period in term. Labour exploiting the material conditions to force capital to develop in a particular manner.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Didn't know that. They were _their _banks though, so the point still stands.



The banks we have here are not our banks. That's the point - we should take possession of them.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> have you never heard of governments, who for many centuries have been creating money?



"It is actually illegal for the Bank of England and other equivalent EU central banks to lend directly to the governments that own them, but this has been got round by quantitative easing. " from Richard Murphy's The Joy of Tax.

Murphy fell out with Corbyn but seems to have made up. To Jeremy Corbyn, an apology


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> "It is actually illegal for the Bank of England and other equivalent EU central banks to lend directly to the governments that own them, but this has been got round by quantitative easing. " from Richard Murphy's The Joy of Tax.
> 
> Murphy fell out with Corbyn but seems to have made up. To Jeremy Corbyn, an apology


i am glad you have heard of governments.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> The banks we have here are not our banks. That's the point - we should take possession of them.



Yes I'd like to see that but I can't see it happening and would be a legal minefield wouldn't it? Having the BoE make the loans would need simpler legislation and take a lot of their profit from them, although I'm not sure how much that might put up bank charges. Also not sure what Corbyn's idea of a Peoples' Bank would do.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i am glad you have heard of governments.



?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> ?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

Nope, give me a clue


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 22, 2019)

Governments? I remember those.

They used to run countries before the banks and supra-nationals took charge!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Yes I'd like to see that but I can't see it happening and would be a legal minefield wouldn't it? Having the BoE make the loans would need simpler legislation and take a lot of their profit from them, although I'm not sure how much that might put up bank charges. Also not sure what Corbyn's idea of a Peoples' Bank would do.



I am beginning to suspect you are not discussing in good faith.




SpackleFrog said:


> Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules.
> 
> Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

My statement was talking about nationalizing banks which I think might bring legal problems with claims by the banks. Yours was replying to my suggestion that BoE might take over giving loans which I don't think would bring such legal problems because it's not going nearly as far as nationalizing the banks.

Don't understand why this shows bad faith.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2019)

two sheds said:


> My statement was talking about nationalizing banks which I think might bring legal problems with claims by the banks. Yours was replying to my suggestion that BoE might take over giving loans which I don't think would bring such legal problems because it's not going nearly as far as nationalizing the banks.
> 
> Don't understand why this shows bad faith.



I made it clear I was talking about expropriating banks and that rules would need to be broken which I'm fine with. You responded to me saying it would be a legal minefield.

Perhaps it's not bad faith, perhaps you didn't understand what I said?


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.


Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist.  The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great  scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is.  OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck. 
What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and  there is no conceivable way it can afford this.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 22, 2019)

The post of mine you replied to: 



> Yes fair point [governments have created money], although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.



I was talking about the BoE printing money which they could quite easily do if we were out of the EU. The BoE site I linked to said the alternative to the banks printing money would be for the BoE to do it. Didn't mention nationalizing banks.

to which you replied:



SpackleFrog said:


> Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules.
> 
> Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.



Not clear that you're talking about nationalizing banks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist.  The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
> If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great  scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is.  OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck.
> What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
> In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
> If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and  there is no conceivable way it can afford this.


The UK has no natural resources?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist.  The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
> If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great  scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is.  OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck.
> What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
> In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
> If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and  there is no conceivable way it can afford this.


Pls link to some evidence the UK has no natural resources


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The UK has no natural resources?


Very little, we grow about half our own food and still have a fair reserve of oil but that's about it, We still have a fair manufacturing sector but much of that is 
heavily integrated with the rest of the world especially Europe and we have to buy in stuff. We don't have reserves of iron or copper or rare earths that are needed by high tech industries or ever older style ones so we either buy this stuff in or stop using it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do.



_Credit _(Pres. indic. 3rd pers. sing.)
_He/she believes_ (eg. that the funds are there)

Apropos of fuck all really


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Very little, we grow about half our own food and still have a fair reserve of oil but that's about it, We still have a fair manufacturing sector but much of that is
> heavily integrated with the rest of the world especially Europe and we have to buy in stuff. We don't have reserves of iron or copper or rare earths that are needed by high tech industries or ever older style ones so we either buy this stuff in or stop using it.


Woah there, what makes you say no reserves of copper or iron ore, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Woah there, what makes you say no reserves of copper or iron ore, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you


We have physical reserves but we don't mine them much because it's cheaper to import them from where they can be mined more cheaply, that won't change no matter what regime sits in Westminster, if we do decide to opt out of the world banking system and go it alone then we could start digging it out except how would we finance it since other nations probably won't lend us the money and ours is worthless. It's a bit like Venezuela which sits on top of massive reserves of oil but can't afford to extract the damn stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> We have physical reserves but we don't mine them much because it's cheaper to import them from where they can be mined more cheaply, that won't change no matter what regime sits in Westminster, if we do decide to opt out of the world banking system and go it alone then we could start digging it out except how would we finance it since other nations probably won't lend us the money and ours is worthless. It's a bit like Venezuela which sits on top of massive reserves of oil but can't afford to extract the damn stuff.


And we'd have to import the miners


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And we'd have to import the miners


Nah that's one reason you want a Tory government doing it, they'd just force people on Workfare to do it. 
On a more serious note the Govt does need to set up some kind of national bank that invests in technology and developing new industries even if they're not profitable in the short/medium term. Brown for all his failings knew that and was all for the Govt being willing to underwrite loans to companies willing to invest in new business. Cameron and Osborne with their obsession on the market knows best did incalcuable damage when they came in.
I can't remember the details now but there was a Sheffield company that had secured public funding to build a press to make reactor casings, the only one of its kind outside Japan. Osborne just pulled the plug on it and told them to go to the banks. The banks wouldn't lend money on such a high risk project and it never got built. That is the kind of thing we need but  that won't get done with the current obsession with "Let The Market Decide"


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> I can't remember the details now but there was a Sheffield company that had secured public funding to build a press to make reactor casings, the only one of its kind outside Japan. Osborne just pulled the plug on it and told them to go to the banks. The banks wouldn't lend money on such a high risk project and it never got built. That is the kind of thing we need but  that won't get done with the current obsession with "Let The Market Decide"



It was Forgemasters, the money £80m, was promised by Mandelson, but stopped by the coalition in 2010.
Obviously Osborne was responsible but got their lackeys, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable to announce it.
Forgemasters tried in 2011 to self finance the project but the Fukushima disaster curtailed confidence in the nuclear power industry.
Forgemasters are more stable than the Lib-Dems.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Governments? I remember those.
> 
> They used to run countries before the banks and supra-nationals took charge!


I know this is a throw away comment but I think it's worth using as a jumping off point because it ties together number of the points under discussion.

There is sometimes an idea that during the post-war consensus you have the state being dominant over capital, while since the 70s the reverse has increasingly implied, indeed in this model it is often the withering of the state that has allowed neo-liberalism to occur. So under both the post-war consensus and under neo-liberalism you have the state vs capital, but in both cases this is false. In fact both arrangements required a partnership of the state and capital, and rather than a withering away of the state what we see is an increasing alignment, even synthesis, of capital with the state. Under the post-war consensus the state was integral in developing the skilled workforce required by capital at the time. Under neo-liberalism the state is still crucial to capital, see belboid's example of the bail out of the banks under Obama. That exploitation of labour is not in spite of the state but via the state. 

The post-war consensus if not an ideal was at least a model for social-democracy, but that is no longer possible (at least IMO and no one has argued otherwise). Likewise, the Scandinavian countries were typically invoked as models by social-democrats, but they have not been isolated from neo-liberalism either. If the state is not an escape route and you are intent on limiting yourself to working through it, by insisting on _legality_ (so no illegal council budgets, no exportation of banks) as some on this thread are, where do you go? I don't see anywhere else than remaining the managers of cuts to public services, to attacks on workers, etc.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 23, 2019)

This is something I have, on occasion considered to be a distinct possibility.

‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’


----------



## treelover (Mar 23, 2019)

Just about to post that, very concerning, any substance to it.


----------



## alsoknownas (Mar 23, 2019)

teqniq said:


> This is something I have, on occasion considered to be a distinct possibility.
> 
> ‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’


Basically 'A Very British Coup' stuff?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 23, 2019)

Shouldn’t really come as a surprise. It is kind of the basis of one of the most well known political comedies in the UK....


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 23, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I know this is a throw away comment but I think it's worth using as a jumping off point because it ties together number of the points under discussion.
> 
> There is sometimes an idea that during the post-war consensus you have the state being dominant over capital, while since the 70s the reverse has increasingly implied, indeed in this model it is often the withering of the state that has allowed neo-liberalism to occur. So under both the post-war consensus and under neo-liberalism you have the state vs capital, but in both cases this is false. In fact both arrangements required a partnership of the state and capital, and rather than a withering away of the state what we see is an increasing alignment, even synthesis, of capital with the state. Under the post-war consensus the state was integral in developing the skilled workforce required by capital at the time. Under neo-liberalism the state is still crucial to capital, see belboid's example of the bail out of the banks under Obama. That exploitation of labour is not in spite of the state but via the state.
> 
> The post-war consensus if not an ideal was at least a model for social-democracy, but that is no longer possible (at least IMO and no one has argued otherwise). Likewise, the Scandinavian countries were typically invoked as models by social-democrats, but they have not been isolated from neo-liberalism either. If the state is not an escape route and you are intent on limiting yourself to working through it, by insisting on _legality_ (so no illegal council budgets, no exportation of banks) as some on this thread are, where do you go? I don't see anywhere else than remaining the managers of cuts to public services, to attacks on workers, etc.



Yes, it was a throwaway comment but I welcome you illuminating some salient points regarding the intertwined world of State and Capital.
I touched on a few of the issues raised in your response while studying my History & Politics degree especially around Capital. I agree that both it and the State apparatus work hand in glove using the workforce as little more than consuming tools.

Sorry for the short reply, I was intending to write a lengthy response all day but I have not had the time.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 24, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Yes, it was a throwaway comment but I welcome you illuminating some salient points regarding the intertwined world of State and Capital.


Sorry if I sounded sarky I wasn't meaning to be. Just that your post helped crystallised my thoughts.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry if I sounded sarky I wasn't meaning to be. Just that your post helped crystallised my thoughts.



No worries, it’s good and proper that any thoughts and ideas get put into the mix. It makes it interesting and educational.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 25, 2019)

Apologies for above, I hadn't intended for it to escalate that much. You're doubtless right.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2019)

A facebook friend has discovered this masterpiece. I dont know where it comes from. Or who the women with the enormous knockers is. But I felt urban would appreciate it. I really hope its some sort of commemorative plate so i can buy it.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 26, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> A facebook friend has discovered this masterpiece. I dont know where it comes from. Or who the women with the enormous knockers is. But I felt urban would appreciate it. I really hope its some sort of commemorative plate so i can buy it.



A younger Diane Abbott?

ETA thought you said knickers.

Is it the nude brexit debate woman?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2019)

I think the strategically placed rose over bazooker women's nipple is a nice touch. keeps the whole thing tasteful.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2019)

This is pretty wild / throws up a lot of questions

Gerry Adams looks v handsome


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 26, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think the strategically placed rose over bazooker women's nipple is a nice touch. keeps the whole thing tasteful.



Stops it getting blocked on Tumblr


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

Labour launches innovative Breast Cancer Screening policy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 27, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> A facebook friend has discovered this masterpiece. I dont know where it comes from. Or who the women with the enormous knockers is. But I felt urban would appreciate it. I really hope its some sort of commemorative plate so i can buy it.


WTF is that? So many questions.

Why does Martin McGuinness have a Star of David?

Why are there six individuals depicted, but only one name given? 

Who is the woman given so much prominence? Why is she enveloping Corbyn’s neck in her bosom?

The details such as watch and underwear seams on the unknown woman seem to lend an air of truth to the depiction. What is the message? (I wrote massage by accident and nearly left it).

The Hammer and Sickle, Labour Rose logo, Irish tricolour, and Star of David are prominently featured. What is the connection? Given the publicity Labour has had over anti-semitism, are we to assume different relations between Corbyn and each formal symbol? If so, how?  

Furthermore, why did reverse image search not turn up anything?

We need answers.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

yes  - it is a boatload of fuck knows.

One suggestion  on facebook is that bazooker women is vice president of Sinn Fein Michelle O'Neil. Although why she is so prominent and the nature of her connection to Corbyn (i.e none whatsoever) is utterly mystifying.






Im assuming she didn't live model for the particularly striking pose depicted in the painting- so i guess the artist must have been working from a photograph - but i cant find it on the internet despite a lot of research.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 27, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> i guess the artist must have been working from a photograph - but i cant find it on the internet despite a lot of research.


You’ve been doing “extensive research” to find nude photos of Michelle O’Neill?  I am lost for words.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You’ve been doing “extensive research” to find nude photos of Michelle O’Neill?  I am lost for words.



I merely seek the truth in the public interest


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I merely seek the truth in the public interest


yeh right


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2019)

might it be jess phillips?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

seriously though - whoever painted this is seriously deranged. Obsessive anti-republicanism an d hatred of corbyn combined with rampant misogyny (looks the these WHORES! LOOK AT THEM! With their huge breasts!) with a side order of implied racism and anti-semitism. 
Ive narrowed it down to about a dozen likely suspects -


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2019)

I smell the dirty hands of Dan Hodges.

(You know what i mean - that wasn't a confession).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> might it be jess phillips?



Dunno - has she done any other paintings? We could compare use of pigment and brush stokes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dunno - has she done any other paintings? We could compare use of pigment and brush stokes.


no, might it be jess phillips in the picture?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> no, might it be jess phillips in the picture?



Oh I see - how silly of me. 

but she said she was going to stab corbyn in the front.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> Oh I see - how silly of me.
> 
> but she said she was going to stab corbyn in the front.


i think she's playing judith to auld corbo's holofernes


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2019)

jess phillips beheading corbyn: an artist's impression


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 3, 2019)

Brenda's boyfriends are up to no good:
Army probing 'Corbyn target practice' film


----------



## brogdale (Apr 3, 2019)

According to 'our boys'...yes...


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> According to 'our boys'...yes...




Not shocking at all mr Oborne, fully expect such japes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 3, 2019)

Of course its paras.


----------



## SE25 (Apr 3, 2019)

support are troopz


----------



## brogdale (Apr 3, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Of course its paras.


Thomas Mair Commando


----------



## Supine (Apr 3, 2019)

So JC is now king maker and he's told the cons he's too busy to meet maybot this morning. Hope they are putting together a good plan!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 3, 2019)

hope he pockets all the pens and the posh biscuits. and nicks her bog roll.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 3, 2019)

so is he still a terrorist threat to the security of the nation or is that temporarily suspended for the duration of the sit down


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 3, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> so is he still a terrorist threat to the security of the nation or is that temporarily suspended for the duration of the sit down



a statesman-like, terrorist loving, marxist nation-wrecker  with whom we can do business.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> According to 'our boys'...yes...



The armed forces practising executing the leader of the opposition.  Not at all fascistic, no.


----------



## Poi E (Apr 3, 2019)

Oh, no. Not at all.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The armed forces practising executing the leader of the opposition.  Not at all fascistic, no.


Twatter informed me that this gave Sky the opportunity to discuss the extent to which Corbyn is a risk to national security.
All OK, then?


----------



## Poi E (Apr 3, 2019)

Ahh, so he should be shot. Got it. Thanks, Rupert.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Oh, no. Not at all.


they had the opportunity to hang him upside down and they fluffed it


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Twatter informed me that this gave Sky the opportunity to discuss the extent to which Corbyn is a risk to national security.
> All OK, then?


No.  Worse.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2019)

"This falls below the standards we expect from our armed forces. On this occasion, regrettably, they appear to have been shooting at a white bloke."


----------



## brogdale (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No.  Worse.


Of course; only surprise is that they didn't wait to bring the video to light on June 16th.


----------



## Bingo (Apr 3, 2019)

Disturbing that this story gets released on this particular day. It's paired up with the May-Corbyn meeting story as a double whammy on the BBC headlines etc. 

Wonder how long they've been holding onto it.


----------



## not a trot (Apr 3, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Of course its paras.



And Spurs fans.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The armed forces practising executing the leader of the opposition.  Not at all fascistic, no.


   Para got to Para. .
 Well if those muppets are the firing squad hope he brings a book could take a while.
 Apart from the sheer stupidity of putting this on social media. The shooting isnt that good either.


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2019)

Wonder who snitched?


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 3, 2019)

treelover said:


> Wonder who snitched?



 It will have been shared to someone who didn't find it funny. So who knows?
Let the which hunt begin whoever is in the video, whoever filmed it and anyone who shared it. No it's not a witch hunt when you deserve what's coming to you.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 3, 2019)

treelover said:


> Wonder who snitched?



The bullied one.


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2019)

Bingo said:


> Disturbing that this story gets released on this particular day. It's paired up with the May-Corbyn meeting story as a double whammy on the BBC headlines etc.
> 
> Wonder how long they've been holding onto it.


Someone posted it on twitter this morning as amazing banter, it was picked up by Ash Sarkar from Novara, then the media - I don't think it's been held on to at all, unless the guy who posted it is some kind of plant.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 3, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Para got to Para. .
> Well if those muppets are the firing squad hope he brings a book could take a while.
> Apart from the sheer stupidity of putting this on social media. The shooting isnt that good either.


Do you think the Paras will ever get disbanded like their Canadian counterparts were?


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 3, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Do you think the Paras will ever get disbanded like their Canadian counterparts were?



  Unless they commit a horrendous war crime in the future I doubt it.  Paras haven't dropped since suez and don't do anything other units can't do. It's a nice option to have, though looking at air borne operations would any PM have the bottle to launch an airborne operation? As if it goes wrong everyone dies.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The armed forces practising executing the leader of the opposition.  Not at all fascistic, no.



Fascism-and-militarism-and-the-military-somehow having-something-in-common shocker!!!


----------



## LDC (Apr 3, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Do you think the Paras will ever get disbanded like their Canadian counterparts were?



No. The French also disbanded a regiment of paratroopers over a OAS related possible coup in 1961.

1st Foreign Parachute Regiment - Wikipedia


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Paras haven't dropped since suez


16 of them dropped at warrenpoint in '79


----------



## Poi E (Apr 3, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> As if it goes wrong everyone dies.


----------



## gosub (Apr 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> According to 'our boys'...yes...




Thats disgraceful.   They are supposed to be professionals.  

The grouping is appalling.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 3, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> hope he pockets all the pens and the posh biscuits. and nicks her bog roll.



Definitely don’t flush.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The armed forces practising executing the leader of the opposition.  Not at all fascistic, no.



Have you ever experienced a group of paras?

I find their pack mentality quite sinister without chucking politics into the mix

Individually they, like society are a mixed bunch. But they aren’t very smart and are easily influenced especially once in hierarchical groups


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 3, 2019)

gosub said:


> Thats disgraceful.   They are supposed to be professionals.
> 
> The grouping is appalling.



Paras, at least they actually hit the thing they were aiming for which is a rarity.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 3, 2019)

Jeremy seems to have done well getting to this position.
The Tories are apoplectic which can only be a good thing unless it’s a proper Admiral Ackbar moment


----------



## gosub (Apr 3, 2019)

Agreement at last!


Bourbon biscuits off the table.


----------



## agricola (Apr 3, 2019)

bellaozzydog said:


> Jeremy seems to have done well getting to this position.
> The Tories are apoplectic which can only be a good thing unless it’s a proper Admiral Ackbar moment



A reminder (if any were needed) that Ackbar did lead the fleet that blew up the second Death Star, killed the Emperor and liberated the galaxy.  It isn't as if Corbyn has come out of lightspeed too close to the system, thinking surprise was wiser than...


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 3, 2019)

Matthew Parris regularly refers to May as the Death Star of British politics, so crack on Corbs!


----------



## agricola (Apr 3, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Matthew Parris regularly refers to May as the Death Star of British politics, so crack on Corbs!



the Exhaust Port of British Politics, surely?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2019)

bellaozzydog said:


> Have you ever experienced a group of paras?


Not to my knowledge. Although I’ve known plenty of individual members of the armed forces, including relations.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 3, 2019)

agricola said:


> A reminder (if any were needed) that Ackbar did lead the fleet that blew up the second Death Star, killed the Emperor and liberated the galaxy.  It isn't as if Corbyn has come out of lightspeed too close to the system, thinking surprise was wiser than...


Son, have you ever kissed a girl?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2019)

The fucking army apologists on these boards cheering on the military practising shooting Corbyn is fucking sickening, to be honest.

To be clear, I’m not a supporter of parliamentary democracy, but I'm much less a supporter of the military taking anything to do with government into their own hands, let alone by means of redemptive violence, even symbolic. 

This is the actual armed forces actually practicing shooting the leader of the opposition. I think he’s a twat. But anyone who thinks the military making light of taking him out is anything other than deeply troubling is a bigger twat.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 3, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> To be clear, I’m not a supporter of parliamentary democracy



i skim-read that as 'paramilitary democracy'

maybe i should clean my glasses, or go to bed...


----------



## likesfish (Apr 3, 2019)

its a half a dozen fuckwitted paras who are going to be in the shit for their spectacularly unfunny bit of bantz.
 nobody's sticking up for these fuckwits but paras tend to be compared even to other  infantry squaddies a bit dim


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2019)

Has to be seen in the context of this kind of thing
Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation. At MI6, which I once led, he wouldn't clear the security vetting
A Corbyn-led government would be disastrous for our security services
MI5’s anti-Corbyn campaign and the slandering of Michael Foot | Socialist Equality Party


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 4, 2019)

This 'few rotten eggs' argument is weak as fuck. Same folk saying such shit would be foaming at the mouth if it were May on that target and/ those doing the practice were brown skinned or described as ''left wingers'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The fucking army apologists on these boards cheering on the military practising shooting Corbyn is fucking sickening, to be honest.


if politicians have to be shot then it would be surely better to have it done by latter-day sans-culottes or red guards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2019)

agricola said:


> the Exhaust Port of British Politics, surely?


the Flat Tire i think you'll find


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This 'few rotten eggs' argument is weak as fuck. Same folk saying such shit would be foaming at the mouth if it were May on that target and/ those doing the practice were brown skinned or described as ''left wingers'.


  No they wouldn't. Using anyone's picture who isn't an enemy would get the same response "Ha Ha you fuckwit your in the shit what made you think doing this and putting it on social media was acceptable?"
  While his talking to sein fein has made him hated by the armed forces.No one is condoning it. Pointing out poor marksmanship and drills is insulting the soldiers in a way that would hurt. Call them fascist stormtroopers they would probably embrace it. Point out they shoot like stormtroopers on the other hand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> While his talking to sein fein has made him hated by the armed forces.


god only knows what they made of people who made actual deals with sinn fein then


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Has to be seen in the context of this kind of thing
> Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation. At MI6, which I once led, he wouldn't clear the security vetting
> A Corbyn-led government would be disastrous for our security services
> MI5’s anti-Corbyn campaign and the slandering of Michael Foot | Socialist Equality Party


I think having  Corbyn on the target is of a different order than May because the heads of the security forces have already signalled that in their opinion he is an existential danger to the nation. The target practice isnt play acting bantz in this context, its not an empty threat, its complicitly sanctioned and supported at the highest levels. The Tories have roundly added to that the last couple of days, in their outrage that he's met with May.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> god only knows what they made of people who made actual deals with sinn fein then


Funny thing is that's completely different.



ska invita said:


> I think having  Corbyn on the target is of a different order than May because the heads of the security forces have already signalled that in their opinion he is an existential danger to the nation. The target practice isnt play acting bantz in this context, its not an empty threat, its complicitly sanctioned and supported at the highest levels. The Tories have roundly added to that the last couple of days, in their outrage that he's met with May.



 The armed forces don't do politics very well. Paras being fuckwits is not going to be sanctioned by anyone.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 4, 2019)

No it isn't in anyway sanctioned or condoned fuckwits have shown up the army so will be punished.

 British army doesn't do coups or right wing fantasy's although the EDL and others put some effort into recruiting squaddies majority see right through them and for the minority there's punishment if caught.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2019)

I said COMPLICITLY sanctioned, not directly sanctioned

The Corbyn-is-a-direct-threat culture comes from the top, this lot are just following the lead given them


----------



## pug (Apr 4, 2019)

I wonder where they got such a big glossy poster of him from considering they were in Afghanistan.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I said COMPLICITLY sanctioned, not directly sanctioned
> 
> The Corbyn-is-a-direct-threat culture comes from the top, this lot are just following the lead given them



Stupid proles just think they’re told to think eh comrade?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2019)

pug said:


> I wonder where they got such a big glossy poster of him from considering they were in Afghanistan.


Some sort of printer and internet connection maybe?


----------



## pug (Apr 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Some sort of printer and internet connection maybe?



I don't know, to me it looks like a large format dye sub print requiring a pretty high res image and the services of a professional printer, I'm sure there would be some companies in Kabul that are equipped to print it but they'd need the high res file.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I said COMPLICITLY sanctioned, not directly sanctioned
> 
> The Corbyn-is-a-direct-threat culture comes from the top, this lot are just following the lead given them


  Think the media have stirred the hatred of Corbyn rather than any comment from the leadership.


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 4, 2019)

ska invita said:


> he is an *existential *danger to the nation.



One more use of this word and I'm gonna burn Urban to the ground. Y'know, like an *existential *threat. 

Fuck's sake. Stop it now.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 4, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Call them fascist stormtroopers they would probably embrace it.



That's kind of the point (and the problem).



dylanredefined said:


> Point out they shoot like stormtroopers on the other hand.



What does Brenda pay you for then?


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> That's kind of the point (and the problem).
> 
> 
> 
> What does Brenda pay you for then?


 Putting stuff on helicopters now


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 4, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Putting stuff on helicopters now


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 4, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Think the media have stirred the hatred of Corbyn rather than any comment from the leadership.



You what? What utter nonsense the Tory party have been hard at it!

Here is just one simple example from yesterday...


----------



## binka (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You what? What utter nonsense the Tory party have been hard at it!
> 
> Here is just one simple example from yesterday...



By that logic you can't be a Christian and antisemite either?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You what? What utter nonsense the Tory party have been hard at it!
> 
> Here is just one simple example from yesterday...




What a surprise to see Rutita1 taking the Winstanley line


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 4, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What a surprise to see Rutita1 taking the Winstanley line




I am not taking a fucking line...listen to the vid, it's a good example of the 'Tory party' doing exactly what dylanredefined said they don't do...I don't know who that person is who owns the twitter account. I don't drown my life in twitter like you do.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not taking a fucking line...listen to the vid, it's a good example of the 'Tory party' doing exactly what dylanredefined said they don't do...I don't know who that person is who owns the twitter account. I don't drown my life in twitter like you do.



I’ve watched the vid. Can you show me where she encouraged soldiers to shoot posters of Corbs?

The ‘fucking line’ is that of claiming that associating the labour leadership with AS leads to soldiers wanting to shoot Corbyn. Which is what you’re arguing here


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I  don't know who that person is who owns the twitter account. I don't drown my life in twitter like you do.



Why do you think it’s a good thing to be ignorant of politics?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 4, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ve watched the vid. Can you show me where she encouraged soldiers to shoot posters of Corbs?
> 
> The ‘fucking line’ is that of claiming that associating the labour leadership with AS leads to soldiers wanting to shoot Corbyn. Which is what you’re arguing here



No fuck off. Go back and read the interaction and stop making it up as per fucking usual.



> The Corbyn-is-a-direct-threat culture comes from the top, this lot are just following the lead given them


 This is what I am agreeing with and what dylanredefined said isn't happening. The vid is an example of one of them doing just that, it's happening daily, it's not just the media who are on the 'Corbyn as a national threat' propaganda game.

Now off you fuck with your poised to strike, pouncy, argumentative hobby horsing. I've no time for your nonsense.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No fuck off. Go back and read the interaction and stop making it up as per fucking usual.
> 
> This is what I am agreeing with and what dylanredefined said isn't happening. The vid is an example of one of them doing just that, it's happening daily, it's not just the media who are on the 'Corbyn as a national threat' propaganda game.
> 
> Now off you fuck with your poised to strike, pouncy, argumentative hobby horsing. You are no one I give a fuck about.



Speaking of making stuff up, you never did cite a single ‘self hating jew’ comment that you claimed JW ‘received a fuck-ton’ of.

And now here you are sharing a tweet (even though you don’t drown yourself in twitter) - which seeks to belittle claims of AS - as ‘evidence’ of Tories claiming corbyn is national threat.

Christ you’re thick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And now here you are sharing a tweet (even though you don’t drown yourself in twitter) - which seeks to belittle claims of AS - as ‘evidence’ of Tories claiming corbyn is national threat.


The clip is clear evidence of a tory claiming that Corbyn is a national threat, no? That's exactly how this tory wants her phrase 'Marxist anti-Semite' to come across. And there have been tons of examples of this in the last couple of days from tory MPs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 4, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The clip is clear evidence of a tory claiming that Corbyn is a national threat, no? That's exactly how this tory wants her phrase 'Marxist anti-Semite' to come across. And there have been tons of examples of this in the last couple of days from tory MPs.




Of course it is and of course there have been but Sssshhhh don't get in the way of his fun!



> What is a greater risk to the UK, asks Conservative Dr Caroline Johnson - "a no-deal Brexit, versus the risk of letting down the country and ushering in a Marxist, anti-Semite-led government?"


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2019)

pug said:


> I don't know, to me it looks like a large format dye sub print requiring a pretty high res image and the services of a professional printer, I'm sure there would be some companies in Kabul that are equipped to print it but they'd need the high res file.


Looks like the sort of crap a well-resourced army that likes having meetings and pointing at sticks with things could produce. What other options are there? That someone, on the orders of the british state snuck into kabul to find an appropriate printer with the high res file. Or they had pre-prepared pictures of this quality of corbyn shipped in?


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 4, 2019)

pug said:


> I don't know, to me it looks like a large format dye sub print requiring a pretty high res image and the services of a professional printer, I'm sure there would be some companies in Kabul that are equipped to print it but they'd need the high res file.


  Map making printer could probably do it. Oops another cap badge is in the shit. Unless someone acquired a poster and brought it out. Which raises all sorts of questions.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why do you think it’s a good thing to be ignorant of politics?



Spending a lot of time on twitter is not a defence against ignorance.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 4, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Spending a lot of time on twitter is not a defence against ignorance.



Quite


----------



## pug (Apr 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Looks like the sort of crap a well-resourced army that likes having meetings and pointing at sticks with things could produce. What other options are there? That someone, on the orders of the british state snuck into kabul to find an appropriate printer with the high read file. Or they had pre-prepared pictures of this quality of corbyn shipped in?



I've no Idea, I doubt there's much more to it than squaddies pissing about.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2019)

pug said:


> I've no Idea, I doubt there's much more to it than squaddies pissing about.


You suggested otherwise. Is that it?


----------



## pug (Apr 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You suggested otherwise. Is that it?



The only thing I intended to suggest was that more than a small amount of effort had been put in as opposed to cutting his picture out of a copy of the sun or something.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 4, 2019)

you could probably walk into the office and print whatever you like I doubt unless its giant goat porn posters anybody would object.
 although thats probably going to change now


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2019)

pug said:


> The only thing I intended to suggest was that more than a small amount of effort had been put in as opposed to cutting his picture out of a copy of the sun or something.


Nothing about who and how the material appeared? OK. It's ok to say that you think, based on print knowledge, that there was something else going on? Ok you did def not mean any of that. No prob.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2019)

likesfish said:


> you could probably walk into the office and print whatever you like I doubt unless its giant goat porn posters anybody would object.
> although thats probably going to change now



I'm always so grateful you're here to explain what you can and can't get away with in the army.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You what? What utter nonsense the Tory party have been hard at it!
> 
> Here is just one simple example from yesterday...



 I meant the Army leadership.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> I meant the Army leadership.




Ah you imagine them Labour or Green voters then? 

Come off it, the armed forces is notoriously Conservative in culture, especially the top.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Ah you imagine them Labour or Green voters then?
> 
> Come off it, the armed forces is notoriously Conservative in culture, especially the top.


 While true tories aren't actually in charge and its a small c rather than whatever the Tories latest plan is. The view on Brexit is more fuck knows what will happen rather than this is going to be awesome .


----------



## gosub (Apr 5, 2019)

likesfish said:


> No it isn't in anyway sanctioned or condoned fuckwits have shown up the army so will be punished.
> 
> British army doesn't do coups or right wing fantasy's although the EDL and others put some effort into recruiting squaddies majority see right through them and for the minority there's punishment if caught.



Actually that's not quite true of my lifetime.   But going back a bit.  

But valid of now.


----------



## A380 (Apr 5, 2019)




----------



## NoXion (Apr 5, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why do you think it’s a good thing to be ignorant of politics?



Twitter ain't politics you fucking plum.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> While true tories aren't actually in charge and its a small c rather than whatever the Tories latest plan is. The view on Brexit is more fuck knows what will happen rather than this is going to be awesome .



Eh? Could you wave your hand in the air and be any more dismissive please? 

So now according to you...the 'Tories aren't actually in charge' so we needn't consider the fact that they actually are still in government and that their anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric has been and continues to be spouted daily. Also, you want to conveniently gloss over the fact that the armed forces are traditionally Conservative institutions and that those at the top are notoriously CUNTSERVATIVE in their views and culture. Right.


----------



## gosub (Apr 5, 2019)

A380 said:


> View attachment 166693



Well I suppose that makes more sense than standing twenty foot in front of him


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Twitter ain't politics you fucking plum.



No one said it was. You fucking plum. 

My comment was a response to ‘I don’t know who Winstanley is because blah blah twitter blah blah’


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

A380 said:


> View attachment 166693


Misplaced apostrophes I can live with. But a comma instead of an apostrophe? That’s shocking.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Misplaced apostrophes I can live with. But a comma instead of an apostrophe? That’s shocking.



Military Intelligence?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Misplaced apostrophes I can live with. But a comma instead of an apostrophe? That’s shocking.



I actually squirmed a bit.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 5, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No one said it was. You fucking plum.
> 
> My comment was a response to ‘I don’t know who Winstanley is because blah blah twitter blah blah’



You obviously spend far too much fucking time on Twitter and were just piqued that someone had the audacity to point that out. Not everyone shares your hobbies, and that's OK.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

NoXion said:


> You obviously spend far too much fucking time on Twitter and were just piqued that someone had the audacity to point that out. Not everyone shares your hobbies, and that's OK.



Erm ok


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

Piqued


----------



## Libertad (Apr 5, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Piqued



too early?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

Libertad said:


> too early?



Obviously. And that’s OK.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

NoXion said:


> You obviously spend far too much fucking time on Twitter and were just piqued that someone had the audacity to point that out. Not everyone shares your hobbies, and that's OK.



TBF it would be bad enough if it was just this constant posting of twitter dribble and insisting that it's the be all and end all of everyfuckingthing and that everyone should know about it/be reading it/care but it's not. It's the being logged in here seemingly everyfuckingday and jumping all over a handful of posters that he seems to think are easy targets and that he can bully into silence.

It's the blatant, jaw dropping hypocrisy of him being someone who last year attacked people here on the regular accusing them  of 'identity politics' and being thick yet here he is pretty much daily posting on only 2 subjects that he cares about whilst smugly and aggressively sitting guard on those threads ready to pounce with yet another misreading of what people actually post, demands that others have the conversations he thinks are important, that others think like he does because that's the only way etc,  without a shred of self-awareness.

It's also the dumbfoundingly disappointing reality that because he's managed to endear himself to the small handful of posters he's decided are 'important or sound' around here he is rarely challenged for the continuous, snidey, dishonest, hypocritical shit. 

He's one of a few people I routinely choose not to engage with because it's pointless; I do however sometimes let my guard down and forget that I don't actually give a shit about what he thinks.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> TBF it would be bad enough if it was just this constant posting of twitter dribble and insisting that it's the be all and end all of everyfuckingthing and that everyone should know about it/be reading it/care but it's not. It's the being logged in here seemingly everyfuckingday and jumping all over a handful of posters that he seems to think are easy targets and that he can bully into silence.
> 
> It's the blatant, jaw dropping hypocrisy of him being someone who last year attacked people here on the regular accusing them  of 'identity politics' and being thick yet here he is pretty much daily posting on only 2 subjects that he cares about whilst smugly and aggressively sitting guard on those threads ready to pounce with yet another misreading of what people actually post, demands that others have the conversations he thinks are important, that others think like he does because that's the only way etc,  without a shred of self-awareness.
> 
> ...



And that’s ok


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? Could you wave your hand in the air and be any more dismissive please?
> 
> So now according to you...the 'Tories aren't actually in charge' so we needn't consider the fact that they actually are still in government and that their anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric has been and continues to be spouted daily. Also, you want to conveniently gloss over the fact that the armed forces are traditionally Conservative institutions and that those at the top are notoriously CUNTSERVATIVE in their views and culture. Right.


 I could try, find anyone in the Army with any responsibility condoning this.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ... so we needn't consider the fact that they actually are still in government and that their anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric has been and continues to be spouted daily.


Anti Corbyn rhetoric from the ... conservative party!


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Anti Corbyn rhetoric from the ... conservative party!


You missed out national threat from the quote. They didn't call Blair a national threat


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> I could try, find anyone in the Army with any responsibility condoning this.


We've had the ex head of secret services and key military figures all push the line that Corbyn is a threat. A quick Google should pull up some choice quotes. No one is saying it's openly condoned, but it's clearly related to the attitudes of the higher ups, including ruling class tories


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

ska invita said:


> You missed out national threat from the quote. They didn't call Blair a national threat


But of course they would have, had they had the ammunition. Perhaps if Blair had cosied up to Russia the way Steptoe did over Salisbury he might have achieved similar epithets.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

I’m sure Corbyn is just gutted to be seen as a threat to the British state. Just gutted


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But of course they would have, had they had the ammunition. Perhaps if Blair had cosied up to Russia the way Steptoe did over Salisbury he might have achieved similar epithets.


So youre saying he deserves it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

ska invita said:


> So youre saying he deserves it.


I couldn't give a toss about him but I'd fully expect his political opponents to make use of all the ammo he supplies them. If this was a tory bellend and the boot was on the other foot, there would be resounding cheers from the Urban faithful!!!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a toss about him but I'd fully expect his political opponents to make use of all the ammo he supplies them. If this was a tory bellend and the boot was on the other foot, there would be resounding cheers from the Urban faithful!!!


Well no actually. It's not like it would mean that the army was full of hardcore socialists despising the capitalist ruling class and using Tories as target practice. It would mean that there were people even further right than we thought who thought May was a traitor to the white race or something. And I expect that lot exists, too.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well no actually. It's not like it would mean that the army was full of hardcore socialists despising the capitalist ruling class and using Tories as target practice. It would mean that there were people even further right than we thought who thought May was a traitor to the white race or something. And I expect that lot exists, too.


Two different things. Elements of the army using Steptoe imagery for target practice - silly. The tory party weighing in with the "national threat" schtick - unsurprising and to be expected.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Two different things. Elements of the army using Steptoe imagery for target practice - silly. The tory party weighing in with the "national threat" schtick - unsurprising and to be expected.


"doesn't really matter then" basically


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

Can hatred towards politicians within the army ever be socialist?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "doesn't really matter then" basically


Which one?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "doesn't really matter then" basically


Apparently not; can't recall one minister or May commenting at all.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Which one?


All possible aspects are either silly or unsurprising apparently.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All possible aspects are either silly or unsurprising apparently.


Well done.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "doesn't really matter then" basically


I mean it's not like a labour MP was recently killed by a White Nationalist or anything, nor that plots to kill another have been discovered.... let's ignore wider context and pretend everything is A okay... Let's ignore the rise in these things happening here in the UK and elsewhere in the world in part driven by populist, dog whistle right wing rhetoric and  pretend above all else that the culture of the military--arm of the state hates everyone equally, always has done . 

..


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

There are some dickheads in the army. Whodathunkit?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Tell the Dunblane Dickhead to stop needling me, and I will stop responding.
> 
> The 'left wing entitled' effluvium coming from his direction is quite nauseating.
> 
> Yes. You are right. This isn't the thread.



This is the correct thread.

Sass, it’s a bit rich for you to say I’m needling you when it was you who resurrected the issue. I’d drawn a line under it.

I know you’ll find it hard to get your head around, but you are completely barking up the wrong tree in your imagination of what it is I disapprove of in what those paras were doing. It is not some wet, liberal refusal to recognise the realities of what infantry do, but the opposite. I’m well aware of their role in the apparatus of the state. And in a supposed democracy, that is not to interfere with the running of the state by redemptive violence. Even symbolic redemptive violence. In fantasising about taking out the leader of the opposition, they politicised the armed forces.  And we know where that leads, don’t we? We both know what the name is for people who applaud that, don’t we? It’s a term that you like to fling around without justification, and yet here you are, one of the very few people on these boards actually to accurately deserve the term.

And please note, I do not support Corbyn, his party, his person, his character, his abilities, or his inept soft centre social democratic managerialist programme for tinkering with capitalism. There’s much about him and his performance to disapprove of.

But the military interfering in British political life, even symbolically? - that is something I put squarely on the side of the demons. That is something that repulses and disgusts me. That is something I will always oppose.

And, no, it isn’t something I’d think of as trivial.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the correct thread.
> 
> Sass, it’s a bit rich for you to say I’m needling you when it was you who resurrected the issue. I’d drawn a line under it.
> 
> ...



Forgive me if I disagree with you. Of course, I disagree from a position of knowledge of the forces. Nothing more amusing that the witless beating their gums about things they know nothing about.

The matter is trivial. Your faux outrage is just that.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Forgive me if I disagree with you. Of course, I disagree from a position of knowledge of the forces. Nothing more amusing that the witless beating their gums about things they know nothing about.
> 
> The matter is trivial. Your faux outrage is just that.




Convenient


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 166746
> 
> Convenient


Apologism..


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Forgive me if I disagree with you. Of course, I disagree from a position of knowledge of the forces. Nothing more amusing that the witless beating their gums about things they know nothing about.
> 
> The matter is trivial. Your faux outrage is just that.


You’re a literal fascist.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You’re a literal fascist.



Your posts advocating violence:

It’s the politicians who need to be inoculated. With lead.

You'd shoot Bono three times, of course.

Bolkiah was knighted by the Queen. He should be neck shot.

Can you even spell 'hypocrite'?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> It’s the politicians who need to be inoculated. With lead.


But not, and this is fundamental, by the standing army.  If you can’t understand the difference, then it’s probably because you haven’t understood the role of the state.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the correct thread.
> 
> Sass, it’s a bit rich for you to say I’m needling you when it was you who resurrected the issue. I’d drawn a line under it.
> 
> ...


This is a handful of fuckwits who don't even have the nouse not to film themselves being morons. They are not "The Military".


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is a handful of fuckwits who don't even have the nouse not to film themselves being morons. They are not "The Military".


No? They were perhaps civilians in a gun club? I hadn’t realised. That’s different then. In that case it’s just a bad taste prank.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No? They were perhaps civilians in a gun club? I hadn’t realised. That’s different then. In that case it’s just a bad taste prank.


You’re posting as if the entire army had just requisitioned Steptoe targets and this was the new training program. It’s not. It’s a small set of cunts who are probably about to lose their bollocks.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You’re posting as if the entire army had just requisitioned Steptoe targets and this was the new training program. It’s not. It’s a small set of cunts who are probably about to lose their bollocks.



I would like to have been a fly on the wall when they went to see the CO.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But not, and this is fundamental, by the standing army.  If you can’t understand the difference, then it’s probably because you haven’t understood the role of the state.



I understand that you have made posts advocating violence against named individuals. Hypocrisy? Just a tad.


----------



## rekil (Apr 5, 2019)

I don't know who I hate more. Corbyn or people who think 'Steptoe' is an amusing soubriquet.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

copliker said:


> I don't know who I hate more. Corbyn or people who think 'Steptoe' is an amusing soubriquet.


Me, me, make it me!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

copliker said:


> I don't know who I hate more. Corbyn or people who think 'Steptoe' is an amusing soubriquet.



Old Steptoe had nous by the bucketful, unlike Corbyn.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 5, 2019)

It is amazing how little changes over time.

 WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer, 
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here." 
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, 
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: 
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ; 
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, 
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play. 

I went into a theatre as sober as could be, 
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; 
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, 
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! 
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, 
O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide. 

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap. 
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. 
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, 
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, 
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; 
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, 
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; 
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind," 
But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, 
O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: 
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. 
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. 
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot; 
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; 
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!


----------



## rekil (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Me, me, make it me!


So Corbyn it is. This neediness musn't be enabled.


----------



## Supine (Apr 5, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Can hatred towards politicians within the army ever be socialist?



Not sure. I'll go check wikipedia to find out.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> I understand that you have made posts advocating violence against named individuals. Hypocrisy? Just a tad.


You have _utterly_ missed the point.  My concern is not the prank, but who was doing it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You’re posting as if the entire army had just requisitioned Steptoe targets and this was the new training program. It’s not. It’s a small set of cunts who are probably about to lose their bollocks.


No, you’re misunderstanding what I’ve written.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No, you’re misunderstanding what I’ve written.


My apologies. Can you explain it in simpler terms because I've just reread your post a couple more times and it seems to me that you are tarring the entire military with the actions of the chaps in the video.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> My apologies. Can you explain it in simpler terms because I've just reread your post a couple more times and it seems to me that you are tarring the entire military with the actions of the chaps in the video.


My point is that _they_ are.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> My point is that they are.


Then we disagree.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Then we disagree.


You _don’t_ think they tarred the entire military?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You _don’t_ think they tarred the entire military?


Insofar as I don't believe that the entire military (or even a sizeable part of it) would behave in a similar way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Insofar as I don't believe that the entire military (or even a sizeable part of it) would behave in a similar way.


OK, but you agree their actions have brought the military into disrepute. And that this is not just because it was a tasteless prank, but because of their occupation, and the occupation of the person on the target?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, but you agree their actions have brought the military into disrepute.


No. It's certainly brought_ them_ into disrepute and perhaps even their regiment, but they are no more representative of all the military than Trump is of all Americans.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2019)

'Bringing X into disrepute' is a charge that usually exists for the benefit of X. Externally, it's not necessarily a genuine thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. It's certainly brought_ them_ into disrepute and perhaps even their regiment, but they are no more representative of all the military than Trump is of all Americans.


Do you think their behaviour was more serious because of who they were than if they been, say, gamekeepers on a stag weekend?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

Over in Brazil right now, a rewriting of history - literally as it involves rewriting history books for schools - is under way, reframing the military dicatatorship as not a military dictatorship at all, but as, essentially, the saving of the state from the enemy within (read: socialism).

That is always how the military likes to think of their coups and the murders they commit. In Bolsonaro, they now have a president in Brazil willing to legitimise that way of thinking and the idea that violence against the left is a justified violence to protect the state.

We get a bit complacent in the UK, I think. Nothing like that could happen here, surely. Yet there was a military plot in the 70s against Wilson and his really very mildly social democratic govt. A new Corbyn-led govt emerging from a post-brexit chaos could easily produce new plots. The recent rhetoric from the tories ought to be seen in that light. So should the fact that these soldiers thought this was even close to an appropriate thing to do.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you think their behaviour was more serious because of who they were than if they been, say, gamekeepers on a stag weekend?


It gives people with anti-military agendas an opportunity to hyperbolize. So in that respect, yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It gives people with anti-military agendas an opportunity to hyperbolize. So in that respect, yes.


Do you recognise that the tories have been pushing the idea that Corbyn represents a threat to national security? Do you also recognise that armies invariably organise coups in the name of national security, and even 'saving democracy'? To do that, armies need not only generals to do the plotting, but footsoldiers to do the work on the street. It's not hyperbole to see this in that context - at a minimum it is normalising for those soldiers the idea that Corbyn is the enemy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It gives people with anti-military agendas an opportunity to hyperbolize. So in that respect, yes.


There are countries not very far away where some of us may have been on holiday, where there have been military coups.  If this had happened there (“this” being serving members of the armed forces fantasising about taking out the leader of the opposition), you may have seen it in a different light.  I wonder why you don’t see it like that here?  Your regret is that it gives people a license to overreact, rather than that it is an entirely inappropriate thing for serving  members of the armed forces to do, given their position.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> There are countries not very far away where some of us may have been on holiday, where there have been military coups.  If this had happened there (“this” being serving members of the armed forces fantasising about taking out the leader of the opposition), you may have seen it in a different light.  I wonder why you don’t see it like that here?  Your regret is that it gives people a license to overreact, rather than that it is an entirely inappropriate thing for serving  members of the armed forces to do, given their position.


Could never happen here. Because, um. Well, we've got such a stable government, for starters. And the EU would throw us out...


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 5, 2019)

anyway it has happened here.

a long time ago, sure, but the guy who led our most famous military dictatorship still has his statue outside the so-called mother of parliaments.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> anyway it has happened here.
> 
> a long time ago, sure, but the guy who led our most famous military dictatorship still has his statue outside the so-called mother of parliaments.



It was just some lads having a laugh apparently.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 5, 2019)

Senior military have been issuing ominous warnings for some time now. Just a few bad apples I’m sure. 

British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

> Do you recognise that the tories have been pushing the idea that Corbyn represents a threat to national security? Do you also recognise that armies invariably organise coups in the name of national security, and even 'saving democracy'? To do that, armies need not only generals to do the plotting, but footsoldiers to do the work on the street. It's not hyperbole to see this in that context - at a minimum it is normalising for those soldiers the idea that Corbyn is the enemy.





danny la rouge said:


> There are countries not very far away where some of us may have been on holiday, where there have been military coups.  If this had happened there (“this” being serving members of the armed forces fantasising about taking out the leader of the opposition), you may have seen it in a different light.  I wonder why you don’t see it like that here?  Your regret is that it gives people a license to overreact, rather than that it is an entirely inappropriate thing for serving  members of the armed forces to do, given their position.


Yes, pretty much. Sorry chaps but I cannot see this event as a harbinger of a coup d'état.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2019)

Could I say here that I see Corbyn more of a Stilgoe than a Steptoe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, pretty much. Sorry chaps but I cannot see this event as a harbinger of a coup d'état.


Such things as military coups require what historians call retrospectively necessary preconditions. Otherwise plots won't get too far. The plot against Wilson didn't get very far as it happened, although Wilson himself was concerned about the idea, and was labelled paranoid for being concerned. Turns out he was right to have been paranoid.

A climate within the army that sees Corbyn as a potential threat to national security would be a necessary precondition for an attempted coup. A country in political chaos, perhaps following something like a brexit, with the government collapsing and being replaced by Corbyn, perhaps with a wafer-thin majority, and with now-opposition tories shrieking that he is a Marxist and worse than Chávez, would see certain other necessary precondition boxes getting ticked. An army with whole regiments of fuckwits who think it's a lark to shoot at images of Corbyn might be another.

As it happens, I suspect that one necessary precondition probably wouldn't arise. Like Wilson, Corbyn just wouldn't actually be very left wing in the end. It doesn't take much, though. We're not talking communist revolution here, merely mild threats to the interests of the capitalist and propertied classes.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 5, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> It was just some lads having a laugh apparently.



there was that one chap who had his head laughed right off. we need more of that kind of humour in politics today.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> there was that one chap who had his head laughed right off. we need more of that kind of humour in politics today.



More sinister is the idea that Theresa May and JRM are new age puritans and jesuits sent to purge the land in preparation for the second coming!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A climate within the army that sees Corbyn as a potential threat to national security would be a necessary precondition for an attempted coup. A country in political chaos, perhaps following something like a brexit, with the government collapsing and being replaced by Corbyn, perhaps with a wafer-thin majority, and with now-opposition tories shrieking that he is a Marxist and worse than Chávez, would see certain other necessary precondition boxes getting ticked. An army with whole regiments of fuckwits who think it's a lark to shoot at images of Corbyn might be another.


It's FOUR dickheads, ffs! 5 if you include the cameraman. 

If the picture was of Thatcher back in the day you lot would have been urging them to get the rifles and flamethrowers out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If the picture was of Thatcher back in the day you lot would have been urging them to get the rifles and flamethrowers out.


That wouldn't have happened, though, would it? And danny is right to call sas out on his hypocrisy over this. Sas has screamed 'traitor' at people for far less. 

If your 'you lot' includes me, then no, I wouldn't, even though it would never have happened anyway, although context is everything. A mutiny against a leader sending you into war is an entirely different thing, for instance. Such mutinies played a crucial role in bringing World War 1 to an end.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 5, 2019)

It would have been a massive thing to have happened with Thatcher regardless of how much many here hated her. It would have caused a whole heap of furore.

This 'just anti-military' arguement is interesting, by that logic it's just 'pro military' peeps insisting it's not significant then?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That wouldn't have happened, though, would it? And danny is right to call sas out on his hypocrisy over this. Sas has screamed 'traitor' at people for far less.
> 
> If your 'you lot' includes me, then no, I wouldn't, even though it would never have happened anyway, although context is everything. A mutiny against a leader sending you into war is an entirely different thing, for instance. Such mutinies played a crucial role in bringing World War 1 to an end.


I don't know what Danny and Sas have got going on but it seems to be something from another thread and Sas can fight his own battles. I still think you're both massively over egging this pudding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know what Danny and Sas have got going on but it seems to be something from another thread and Sas can fight his own battles. I still think you're both massively over egging this pudding.


The tory anti-corbyn 'national security' frothing is a more concerning aspect. In most respects, it's laughable, but if Corbyn does come to power and it continues, it could become much less of a joke.


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2019)

The other evening I was speaking to someone who is going to switch their vote from Labour to Conservative next election.

With a completely straight face their justification was that Corbyn would be disaster at international negotiation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 6, 2019)

chilango said:


> The other evening I was speaking to someone who is going to switch their vote from Labour to Conservative next election.


Longterm Labour voter, or just in 2017?


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Senior military have been issuing ominous warnings for some time now. Just a few bad apples I’m sure.
> 
> British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general



I think Corbyn could, oddly enough be ‘good’ for the military. Labour’s last manifesto commited 2% of GDP and an increase in forces wages.

While he may _try_ to get rid of Trident (and probably fail) and stop commissioning big ticket items like aircraft carriers, he certainly likes the state to spend. I could imagine a lot of money being spent on rapid reaction forces, fast coastal water vessels, defensive infrastructure etc. It could be painted as less aggressive and good for jobs. And as the bar for foreign intervention and adventure should be higher fewer personnel may die, which has to be a win. Better paid and alive.

These four dickheads could be National Action types and a credible threat. They could also be just having a laugh with a bit of handy Labour election material sent out in 2017 to engage the forces. They may have been shooting at Piers Morgan or Bono yesterday. The Army seems concerned enough to find out.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The tory anti-corbyn 'national security' frothing is a more concerning aspect. In most respects, it's laughable, but if Corbyn does come to power and it continues, it could become much less of a joke.



It would, though one of the advantages he would have is that Tory (and New Labour) defence policy has been so awful for so many years that it wouldn't take a lot to visibly improve on it.  Even something as relatively minor as dealing with the rip-off that is defence housing would save billions and put him in the good books of every service person who has ever had to live in one.  

If a Corbyn-led Labour government ever had a proper go at reforming the MoD there would be loads of chat about coups, but the likelyhood of one would decrease the more effective the reform was.  At a relatively early point in the process they wouldn't be able to find anyone to actually carry the thing out.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know what Danny and Sas have got going on but it seems to be something from another thread and Sas can fight his own battles. I still think you're both massively over egging this pudding.


It’s the same argument, but it was going on on the bandwidth thread, so I brought it here instead.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's FOUR dickheads, ffs! 5 if you include the cameraman.
> 
> If the picture was of Thatcher back in the day you lot would have been urging them to get the rifles and flamethrowers out.


Five dickheads who are soldiers. Not bankers on a team building weekend. Not gamekeepers on a stag.

The question is, did they do this because there is a culture in the forces that would approve of it? Sas literally said he approved of it.

You say that had it been Thatcher, I’d have cheered. But that’s to miss two points: first, that it wouldn’t have been. And secondly, that I wouldn’t have cheered. I might have done had it been some other group, but for all I opposed Thatcher, I wouldn’t have preferred a military coup.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Five dickheads who are soldiers. Not bankers on a team building weekend. Not gamekeepers on a stag.
> 
> The question is, did they do this because there is a culture in the forces that would approve of it?


I certainly don't think that you can draw the conclusion from that video that there is.


> Sas literally said he approved of it.


Take that up with him. You've heard from other soldiers here, serving and ex, who don't.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But not, and this is fundamental, by the standing army.  If you can’t understand the difference, then it’s probably because you haven’t understood the role of the state.



I think Sasaferrato has already demonstrated conclusively that he doesn't understand the role of the state, or even what it actually is. Just a group of people living in a particular geographical area, or something similar.

I wonder if this is because he spent so much of his life working as its lackey, or if the role as lackey was the result of the misunderstanding.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> They could also be just having a laugh with a bit of handy Labour election material sent out in 2017 to engage the forces. They may have been shooting at Piers Morgan or Bono yesterday. The Army seems concerned enough to find out.


This is exactly what I think has happened.


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Longterm Labour voter, or just in 2017?



Floater


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I certainly don't think that you can draw the conclusion from that video that there is.


I’m not doing. I’m saying they raise the question. 

The parallel I might draw is with all the racist cops who turned out to be “one bad apple”.  



> Take that up with him. You've heard from other soldiers here, serving and ex, who don't.


I did take it up with him. He wasn’t very impressed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

chilango said:


> Floater


He only asked!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I did take it up with him. He wasn’t very impressed.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 6, 2019)

The idea of Tory officers leading a mutiny in the British Army against the government of the day is simply preposterous. This sort of thing hasn't happened since the twentieth century.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2019)

How many rifles do you need again?


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 6, 2019)

Could you arrange, say, two hundred tons, including ammunition, Major.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> The idea of Tory officers leading a mutiny in the British Army against the government of the day is simply preposterous. This sort of thing hasn't happened since the twentieth century.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Senior military have been issuing ominous warnings for some time now. Just a few bad apples I’m sure.
> 
> British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general




Unfriendly fire: would a Corbyn government lead to a military revolt?


> Last September, only a week after Corbyn’s overwhelming election as leader, the Sunday Times quoted “a senior serving general”, who warned that “feelings are running very high within the armed forces” about the possibility of a Corbyn government. “You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security,” the officer went on. “You would see … generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over … Trident, pulling out of Nato and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces … There would be mass resignations at all levels … which would effectively be a mutiny.” If Corbyn proved as militarily radical a premier as promised, “the army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.”
> 
> On the Arrse website, contributors were typically blunt about what they thought the general meant. “This senior officer is talking about a coup,” wrote one. “Whats[sic] wrong with a Coup if the Generals are loyal to the Crown?” asked another. “Let her decide who runs the country?”
> 
> For anyone alarmed by all this, the official military response was not completely reassuring. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) merely described the general’s remarks as “not helpful”. The MoD “ruled out a leak inquiry”, the Independent reported, “on the grounds that it would be impossible to identify the culprit” – even though the Sunday Times had described the officer as “having served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s”.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

This came unto my radar in the last week or so...No idea about this particular site and can't see it published anywhere else other than other blogs but I do think it adds to the points made here about climate/context and how the anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric permeates...

‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’

I remember meeting a few high ranking CS in the DoH through some work/shadowing exchange thing and during a discussion about their attitudes towards the work and what happens when a new government is elected in they insisted they knew their job was to adapt and work with the elected party/government for the good of the 'nation'. Hmmm.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

Does anyone have full access to this?

Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside


----------



## gosub (Apr 6, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such things as military coups require what historians call retrospectively necessary preconditions. Otherwise plots won't get too far. The plot against Wilson didn't get very far as it happened, although Wilson himself was concerned about the idea, and was labelled paranoid for being concerned. Turns out he was right to have been paranoid.
> 
> A climate within the army that sees Corbyn as a potential threat to national security would be a necessary precondition for an attempted coup. A country in political chaos, perhaps following something like a brexit, with the government collapsing and being replaced by Corbyn, perhaps with a wafer-thin majority, and with now-opposition tories shrieking that he is a Marxist and worse than Chávez, would see certain other necessary precondition boxes getting ticked. An army with whole regiments of fuckwits who think it's a lark to shoot at images of Corbyn might be another.
> 
> As it happens, I suspect that one necessary precondition probably wouldn't arise. Like Wilson, Corbyn just wouldn't actually be very left wing in the end. It doesn't take much, though. We're not talking communist revolution here, merely mild threats to the interests of the capitalist and propertied classes.



It got further than is acknowledged.  My old man had his orders and rail warrant to get there.  He lost the rail warrant and there was a bit of a brew haha about it.  Mind you knowing my Dad and  the place he was supposed to take over would have been worse than Peterloo.

But ALL the party leaders of the time were compromised one way or another, and the country was going down the tubes, we ended up going cap in hand to the IMF...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This came unto my radar in the last week or so...No idea about this particular site and can't see it published anywhere else other than other blogs but I do think it adds to the points made here about climate/context and how the anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric permeates...
> 
> ‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’
> 
> I remember meeting a few high ranking CS in the DoH through some work/shadowing exchange thing and during a discussion about their attitudes towards the work and what happens when a new government is elected in they insisted they knew their job was to adapt and work with the elected party/government for the good of the 'nation'. Hmmm.


No idea about tribune?

Posted numerous times already - opens up questions about cheering on the US secret state for daft liberal doesn't it? Or maybe not given the madness some of them have decided on as regards Corbyn.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No idea about this particular site


It’s Tribune.

Tribune (magazine) - Wikipedia


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 6, 2019)

Squaddies: ve vill return ze vaterland zu ein rule of blood und iron, jawohl!

Prime minister Corbyn: 'aven't you bleeding 'erberts cleaned up this NAAFI yet?

I'm here all week, try the veal.

An anti-Corbyn coup is more likely to involve the spooks and the peelers, IMO.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 6, 2019)

The paras were dicks but the image is horrific and some poor int corp officer is Using cartoons and small words in the big font to explain the concept why soldiers in uniform shooting at photos of opposition MPS is terrible probably given up and just going for don't put stupid shit on the net.
 As nobody does bad propaganda ideas for preschoolers


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This came unto my radar in the last week or so...No idea about this particular site and can't see it published anywhere else other than other blogs but I do think it adds to the points made here about climate/context and how the anti-corbyn/national threat rhetoric permeates...
> 
> ‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’
> 
> I remember meeting a few high ranking CS in the DoH through some work/shadowing exchange thing and during a discussion about their attitudes towards the work and what happens when a new government is elected in they insisted they knew their job was to adapt and work with the elected party/government for the good of the 'nation'. Hmmm.



Isn’t this just the plot of ‘Yes Minister’?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Isn’t this just the plot of ‘Yes Minister’?


Yes, but I’ve alwsys thought that was basically true.

In local government, it’s certainly what the officials do. I’ve seen documents re-presented with a new title when a new administration comes in.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, but I’ve alwsys thought that was basically true.
> 
> In local government, it’s certainly what the officials do. I’ve seen documents re-presented with a new title when a new administration comes in.



And that’s what I mean. It’s not a phenomena unique to a possible Corbyn Government.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> And that’s what I mean. It’s not a phenomena unique to a possible Corbyn Government.




Which other possible 'governments' has it arisen as a potential issue for?


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Which other possible 'governments' has it arisen as a potential issue for?



Don't think they liked the dangerously left-wing Harold Wilson much did they?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Don't think they liked the dangerously left-wing Harold Wilson much did they?



No they didn't. So it appears it's an issue for 'left wing' governments then not just _any_ as your post implied. That says a lot about the general perspective and culture of 'state employees' to me.


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No they didn't. So it appears it's an issue for 'left wing' governments then not just _any_ as your post implied.



What post of mine implied? What are you on about?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> What post of mine implied? What are you on about?





> It’s not a phenomena unique to a possible Corbyn Government.



This one.


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This one.



Sure that's my post then?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 6, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Sure that's my post then?


OOOps 

Fuck, sorry.  

I mixed you up with Mr Moose  as I asked him a question and you answered!


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 6, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Which other possible 'governments' has it arisen as a potential issue for?



The article talks about a generalised inertia and resistance of the establishment. That wouldn’t be a new phenomena and Governments of either hue have experienced it.

Yes, we would expect the establishment to resist radical things a Corbyn Government proposed, but then they’d have to propose some radical things.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is amazing how little changes over time.
> 
> WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
> The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here."
> ...



Not as salient as it was truly was once, though the number of homeless servicemen testify it is still there.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 6, 2019)

Hesiltine was quoted as saying the civil servants were masters of giving him vital paperwork that filled the entire day he only caught on when he took a break and came back to discover  exactly same amount of paperwork.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 6, 2019)

A Daily Express Journalist Accidentally Revealed How He Was Ordered To "Put The Boot Into Corbyn"

Hardly news but still


----------



## brogdale (Apr 6, 2019)

With headlines like this in the Telegraph, be hard to deny that Corbyn's team have played this bit well...so far.


----------



## killer b (Apr 6, 2019)

Badgers said:


> A Daily Express Journalist Accidentally Revealed How He Was Ordered To "Put The Boot Into Corbyn"
> 
> Hardly news but still


It really isn't news, the article is from 2017


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is exactly what I think has happened.



You always think you know what happened. But you don't. Cos you're never there. You're just certain you always know how it all must have gone down. 




Spymaster said:


> You've heard from other soldiers here, serving and ex



Have we? 

Who posting on this thread is current or ex forces? I'm not aware of anyone, save from the fantastist who thinks the Rough Ramblers club is some sort of proxy for the SAS.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 7, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Have we?
> 
> Who posting on this thread is current or ex forces? I'm not aware of anyone, save from the fantastist who thinks the Rough Ramblers club is some sort of proxy for the SAS.


You’d know if you weren’t a cretin.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 7, 2019)

killer b said:


> It really isn't news, the article is from 2017


How things have changed eh?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You’d know if you weren’t a cretin.



If you weren't a cretin you'd realise that just because someone on a bulletin board _says _they used to a sqauddie, it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 7, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who posting on this thread is current or ex forces? I'm not aware of anyone, save from the fantastist who thinks the Rough Ramblers club is some sort of proxy for the SAS.



And some of us are just lurking having a right auld chuckle


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 7, 2019)

Did I ever tell you lads about my time in 'nam?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Did I ever tell you lads about my time in 'nam?



Did you see some shit?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 7, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did you see some shit?


Let's just say I can never listen to the Doors again.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Let's just say I can never listen to the Doors again.



The _HORROR..._


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 7, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> The _HORROR..._


Do you think my methods are unsound?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Do you think my methods are unsound?



Sometimes you go too far. You're the first one to admit it.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 10, 2019)

Two soldiers in Corbyn target practice furore 'come from Northern Ireland' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Looks like two of the paras who had it in for him were some of Norn Iron's finest. No great shock there.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 10, 2019)

LOL! Reactionary Tory faction leader Tom Watson cries about "mafioso style politics" after his rightwing allies are liquidated: 

'Completely anti-democratic': Tom Watson slams 'hard-left takeover' of Sandwell Council

Let the glorious purge continue!


----------



## cantsin (Apr 11, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> LOL! Reactionary Tory faction leader Tom Watson cries about "mafioso style politics" after his rightwing allies are liquidated:
> 
> 'Completely anti-democratic': Tom Watson slams 'hard-left takeover' of Sandwell Council
> 
> Let the glorious purge continue!



great to see....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 11, 2019)

cantsin said:


> great to see....



Yup. Sandwell is a major Labour rotten borough. I am pretty sure that Labour holds all 70 odd council seats in one of the poorest areas of Britain.

'Most deprived' towns and cities named

The litmus test for new Councillors is simple, are they up to delivering material improvements for the citizens of Sandwell.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2019)

I wish Corbyn was an actual communist on the cusp of power so that parasitic spivs like this would have their entire stolen wealth expropriated: https://twitter.com/lord_sugar/status/


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 12, 2019)

He’s now threatened to fuck off if Corbyn is Prime Minister. Should have given Labour a few more votes with that promise.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 12, 2019)

I think he's threatened it before. Like anyone actually gives a fuck apart from the Fail and Scum who will doubtless have hysterical vapours over it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 12, 2019)

he's just a pantomime wanker at this point.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 12, 2019)

Sugar always looks like he's been kicked in his piles and been presented with a turd on a plate by way of apology.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 13, 2019)

claiming Branson was great for the Railways isn't going to ring true with anyone who regularly used the bearded ones services


----------



## Supine (Apr 13, 2019)

likesfish said:


> claiming Branson was great for the Railways isn't going to ring true with anyone who regularly used the bearded ones services



Who said that?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 13, 2019)

Supine said:


> Who said that?



The oligarch spiv Lord Sugar.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 13, 2019)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2019)

Combustible said:


> View attachment 167567


Worthy of the great McGonagall himself.


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 13, 2019)

Combustible said:


> View attachment 167567



Dismal, awful, grating like his jokes, but a ray of light at the end when he promises to fuck off.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 13, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Worthy of the great McGonagall himself.



Nope.  It's an insult to McGonagall.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> Yet another case that proves Labour is riddled with anti-semites
> 
> MP Richard Burgon in court for Sun 'Nazi images' libel case


Not aged well, has it?

Richard Burgon: Labour MP 'regrets' making Zionism remark

It's pretty bad that he can hang around on the front bench after being found out about this.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 16, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not aged well, has it?
> 
> Richard Burgon: Labour MP 'regrets' making Zionism remark
> 
> It's pretty bad that he can hang around on the front bench after being found out about this.



The report itself is part of paid-for hit job according to that wanker from Novara


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 16, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not aged well, has it?
> 
> Richard Burgon: Labour MP 'regrets' making Zionism remark
> 
> It's pretty bad that he can hang around on the front bench after being found out about this.



erm - wtf has the sun's libelous smear on burgon  - (he won the case btw)  got to do with the "zionist" remark?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> erm - wtf has the sun's libelous smear on burgon  - (he won the case btw)  got to do with the "zionist" remark?



Whatever. Utilising nazi imagery (in this case for art) isn’t in itself racist. No shit.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2019)

belboid said:
			
		

> Yet another case that proves Labour is riddled with anti-semites
> 
> MP Richard Burgon in court for Sun 'Nazi images' libel case





sleaterkinney said:


> Not aged well, has it?
> 
> Richard Burgon: Labour MP 'regrets' making Zionism remark
> 
> It's pretty bad that he can hang around on the front bench after being found out about this.



That Sky story link is pretty bad, no arguments.

However, I think it should be made clearer (now**) that  Burgon won that case against The Sun.
(ETA : Not defending what the band did I should emphasise -- well dodgy)
The article in belboid 's earlier post was from late January, but here's the verdict (early February).

**Apologies  if this has already been clarified on earlier pages back in February, but ( sleaterkinney ) quoting the earlier post, *now*, and on its own, leaves the libel case story stripped of its context and conclusion IMO.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Whatever. Utilising nazi imagery (in this case for art) isn’t in itself racist. No shit.



they weren't "utilising nazi imagery" - a doom metal band who are mates with burgon  used gothic script in their art  work (see "every metal band ever" - and the daily telegraph type face for that matter)  and did a pastiche of a black sabbath album cover. It was a extremely tenuous bit of shit stirring by _the sun_ which they thought they could get away with - but burgon successfully sued them. it has zero connection with his "zionist" remark.


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> That Sky story link is pretty bad, no arguments.


The sky story misses out the line before what they've quoted, where he said 'the enemies of palestine aren't the jews', which changes the context somewhat IMO.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2019)

OK, thanks -- is the full version including that line available elsewhere then?


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> OK, thanks -- is the full version including that line available elsewhere then?


dunno if there's a full version of the speech anywhere, but there's a clip here which has the line (and then Burgon denying saying it to brillo - He should probably resign for that tbh).


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> dunno if there's a full version of the speech anywhere, but there's a clip here which has the line (*and then Burgon denying saying it to brillo - He should probably resign for that tbh*).



Yes, that's pretty shit . Thanks for link.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> they weren't "utilising nazi imagery" - a doom metal band who are mates with burgon  used gothic script in their art  work (see "every metal band ever" - and the daily telegraph type face for that matter)  and did a pastiche of a black sabbath album cover. It was a extremely tenuous bit of shit stirring by _the sun_ which they thought they could get away with - but burgon successfully sued them. it has zero connection with his "zionist" remark.



Sure, what's your point?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Sure, what's your point?



you said they were "utilising nazi imagery" - i was pointing out that was bollocks


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 16, 2019)

given his tinfoil hat-ness, i did chuckle at this bit


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> you said they were "utilising nazi imagery" - i was pointing out that was bollocks



right you are


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> erm - wtf has the sun's libelous smear on burgon  - (he won the case btw)  got to do with the "zionist" remark?



Nothing, I just brought it up as there was previous, unfounded in that instance accusations.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Nothing, I just brought it up as there was previous, *unfounded in that instance* accusations.



Not that you emphasised that in your earlier post, or even made it in any way clear ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 16, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Not that you emphasised that in your earlier post, or even made it in any way clear ...


I quoted a post which said "Yet another case which proves Labour is riddled with anti-semites".

I said it hadn't aged well because although he got off on that he was caught lying about this.

I would have thought it was obvious that the heavy metal thing was stupid .


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 17, 2019)

well, even being a fan of heavy metal is enough to bring doubts and aspersions down on your character so ''using dodgy metal imagery'' as a kind of smear is no surprise now or ever. Even when it's obviously a parody of something else.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2019)

Polling 6% for the euros, farage's new crew in the lead with 27%. they must be gutted.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 17, 2019)

^ yeah - we may have already seen "peak tinge".


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2019)

oh. I didn't mean to post that here, it was supposed to be on the TIG thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2019)

killer b said:


> Polling 6% for the euros, farage's new crew in the lead with 27%. they must be gutted.



if it said something more positive than 'chuk' i'm sure they'd have a higher %


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 18, 2019)

Chukka chukka .... There's a song in there somewhere.


----------



## Supine (Apr 18, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> Chukka chukka .... There's a song in there somewhere.



Chukka can't, Chukka can't. I'm gonna rock you Chukka can't.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2019)

Wrong thread for it, but I'm finding the refusal of the chuks and greens to play ball with the libdem lice to stand joint candidates rather amusing. It's the sort of election where they probably _should_ do that - single issue referendum within a vote type thing, may well be electing MEPs for less than a year, breaking the mould etc. But I'm happy to see all three of them remain in their threadbare, shit filled waist high trenches.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2019)

Want a giggle? This 'ConHome' piece by Halfon should cheer up your day...


----------



## yield (Apr 25, 2019)

"neo-Communist tentacles"


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 25, 2019)

yield said:


> "neo-Communist tentacles"



Crap spin off from the Ozrics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2019)

Halfon, or semi to his mates


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 30, 2019)

FFS not again. Is there any mitigation for this? The excuse given seems beyond feeble. 

Is this intellectual his incompetence? This endorsing without, we are asked to believe, taking in the contents?

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...c-book-as-brilliant-and-a-great-tome-1.483597


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 30, 2019)

How many researchers do you reckon are on this project of sifting through everything JC has done or said over his political career in the hope they can build more of a case against him?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS not again. Is there any mitigation for this? The excuse given seems beyond feeble.
> 
> Is this intellectual his incompetence? This endorsing without, we are asked to believe, taking in the contents?
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn described century-old antisemitic book as 'brilliant' and 'a great tome'


Have you any idea of what hobson's book means on the left? Why it's part of the conversation? Of course you don't. The contents? Don't make me laugh. I used to think you were alright as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

Nutjob


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2019)

Anti-capitalism is anti-semitism has already been declared by McDonagh.

We're heading towards anti-imperialism is anti-semitism now


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Anti-capitalism is anti-semitism has already been declared by McDonagh.
> 
> We're heading towards anti-imperialism is anti-semitism now


 er...have you missed the last decade?


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS not again. Is there any mitigation for this? The excuse given seems beyond feeble.
> 
> Is this intellectual his incompetence? This endorsing without, we are asked to believe, taking in the contents?
> 
> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...c-book-as-brilliant-and-a-great-tome-1.483597




I would say this is quite significant, especially as Corbyn made no qualifying remarks in his foreward.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2019)

treelover said:


> I would say this is quite significant, especially as Corbyn made no qualifying remarks in his foreward.


It's utterly meaningless. A book you've never read with no public impact.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2019)

I mean how the media and his enemies will pick up and run with it.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> er...have you missed the last decade?



I live in New Zealand butch, so sort of.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2019)

Finklestein's gone from 'Churchill was a White Supremacist but let's give him a pass' to 'Every bit of Hobson's work is irrelevant apart from the jew hating' in two months.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 1, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Have you any idea of what hobson's book means on the left? Why it's part of the conversation? Of course you don't. The contents? Don't make me laugh. I used to think you were alright as well.



I’d be interested in your actual thoughts on this, are the claims wrong or out of context for example?

Your approval I don’t need.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 1, 2019)

Feet of clay


----------



## teqniq (May 1, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I’d be interested in your actual thoughts on this, are the claims wrong or out of context for example?
> 
> Your approval I don’t need.


I quite liked the three-legged trousers part of your reply that you edited out.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 1, 2019)

teqniq said:


> I quite liked the three-legged trousers part of your reply that you edited out.



It wasn’t that amusing when I thought about it. I looked at all the diversionary possibilities and thought twice


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2019)

I've done some googling and the book is described as hugely influential on social sciences and to be found in university and public libraries. As to the antisemitism it is reported to contains I imagine its the usual crass ruling class jew hating that runs through the time* but I might be way off beam. I remember the first time I read an Alduos Huxley essay, the man was absolutely vile, just nasty racist shit therein. I was just posting about this the other day, I think people just forget or don't know how steeped antisemitism the 'great and the good' were back then. Its like there has been a deliberate forgetting.

here is the corbyn's foreword being described in the guardian in 2015:


> Again, we’ll have to see, he could sweep all before him. Some people have made Chauncey Gardiner jokes – as in the film, Being There – about Corbyn’s innocence. Again, that’s a bit unfair. At his Nottingham rally someone thrust into my hand a copy of JA Hobson’s influential classic, Imperialism (1902) whose 2011 edition contains Jeremy’s own perfectly decent introductory essay. Its analysis will impress many. Others will shake their heads.


This book is now going to be rebranded as completely unacceptable, in order to own corbyn for five minutes. At least thats how it looks to me.

* I hate talking about something I haven't read, can't do it with confidence.

***  I could be accusing the author very unfairly,  by the huxley example for instance.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 1, 2019)

The text of Hobson's book is on archive.org, if anyone's interested.


----------



## eoin_k (May 1, 2019)

It looks like the main offending passage in this particular work is on page 64:
Imperialism: A Study : John Atkinson Hobson ,  ( : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I'd say it's more complicated than 'ruling class jew hating' since Hobson's views related to his anti-jingoism, and working-class militants weren't immune from the pervaisive anti-Jewish sentiments of the time either. No doubt, his work reflected and contributed to antisemitism on the left in ways that ought to be confronted critically today. But that doesn't mean responsibility for doing so lies with the writer of the 'Foreword' to any new edition of his work. Imagine if we put all forms of prejudice on an equal footing and held the contributors to every re-issue up to the same standards. Despite the antisemitic tropes adopted by Hobson, reducing his perspective down to a conspiracy theory also tends towards a position that anti-capitalism is inherently antisemitic, given his influence on later analysis of capitalist crisis and imperialism.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> It looks like the main offending passage in this particular work is on page 64:
> Imperialism: A Study : John Atkinson Hobson ,  ( : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
> I'd say it's more complicated than 'ruling class jew hating' since Hobson's views related to his anti-jingoism, and working-class militants weren't immune from the pervaisive anti-Jewish sentiments of the time either. No doubt, his work reflected and contributed to antisemitism on the left in ways that ought to be confronted critically today. But that doesn't mean responsibility for doing so lies with the writer of the 'Foreword' to any new edition of his work. Imagine if we put all forms of prejudice on an equal footing and held the contributors to every re-issue up to the same standards. Despite the antisemitic tropes adopted by Hobson, reducing his perspective down to a conspiracy theory also tends towards a position that anti-capitalism is inherently antisemitic, given his influence on later analysis of capitalist crisis and imperialism.


Hobson never called himself a socialist of any kind, did he? And an actual class angle is missing from the bits I skim-read this morning.

If he had previous for anti-semitism, that would indicate that he was identifying a certain ethnoreligious group with the "financiers" who were getting the UK and its economy into the murky waters of imperialism. Which wouldn't even need a conspiracy theory to function as anti-semitic propaganda.

The idea that Corbyn is praising other aspects of Hobson's book so as to secretly spread that sort of propaganda is risible, though. Someone needs to take his detractors aside on this one and tell them the story of the boy who cried wolf. . .


----------



## eoin_k (May 1, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Hobson never called himself a socialist of any kind, did he? And an actual class angle is missing from the bits I skim-read this morning.
> 
> If he had previous for anti-semitism, that would indicate that he was identifying a certain ethnoreligious group with the "financiers" who were getting the UK and its economy into the murky waters of imperialism. Which wouldn't even need a conspiracy theory to function as anti-semitic propaganda.
> 
> The idea that Corbyn is endorsing Hobson so as to secretly spread that sort of propaganda is risible, though. Someone needs to take his detractors aside on this one and tell them the story of the boy who cried wolf. . .



I wasn't trying to suggest he was a socialist or anti-capitalist by associating him with the left, but as well as his influence on Lenin he's in a conversation with  Fabians and members of the Social Democratic Federation. You can also read material with a similar vein of antisemitism running through it in the SDF paper _Justice _from this period thanks to H. M. Hyndman. The antisemitic passage in the book is plain to see, but how central it is to his argument and Corbyn's reading of it might be another matter.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2019)

Someone's edited J.A Hobson's wiki page and Imperialism's wiki page to add sections on anti-semitism, following Finkelstein's article.

Meanwhile it's not hard to find such left wing antisemites like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and others praising Hobson's work - including an entire BBC documentary presented by Tristram Hunt on Hobson's great ideas.

I mean, sure, if we're going to discount Hobson's work on imperialism because he's an anti-semite then we're going to have to chuck out pretty much every text - unless we're only going after the ones Corbyn has specifically written a foreword for. David Aaronovitch challenged someone to see if Brown or others had written a forward for a similarly racist or anti-semitic author - yeah, turns out Adam Smith was a massive fucking racist too.


----------



## treelover (May 2, 2019)

Hunt has actually called for a more nuanced response


----------



## Shechemite (May 2, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> How many researchers do you reckon are on this project of sifting through everything JC has done or said over his political career in the hope they can build more of a case against him?



More to the point, who is funding them?


----------



## Humberto (May 2, 2019)

I hope if they get in, which it looks like they will at some point, they will take a long-term approach. If more stable livelihoods and communities means taxing a small percent who's hobby is to horde it all for their own self-aggrandisement and shit-headedness, then I am all for it. Tinkering at the edges will never be enough to stop the Tory hordes. The game is rigged by them.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 2, 2019)

Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”

So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.

But maybe saying Churchill was OK because he wasn't on a mission to specifically brutalise Finklestein's own parents (while being willing to murder wholesale "lesser races" that "breed like rabbits") isn't close enough. Perhaps we should only go with well-known political philosophers who indulge in a dash of anti-semitism. Like Edmund Burke, who wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France that:



> They [leaders of previous revolutions] were not like Jew brokers  contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent  circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on  by their degenerate councils.



What does Danny have to say about Burke?



> Every Conservative has to read Edmund Burke, and, in particular, the Reflections on the French Revolution, a timeless and brilliant statement of Conservative ideas.


source

This is not to say that Churchill and Burke *shouldn't* be (critically!) read necessarily, but if you're going to be starting this "no praise for the work of historic figures with problematic aspects or you're also a scumbag" line then fuck me you're going to end up with a pretty short list of pre-millennium Great Minds of History you can call on, near-enough none who will be heroes of the right.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.

Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”
> 
> So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.
> 
> ...



This aligns really neatly with the fucking Change UK's claim that it....



> aims to pursue evidence-led policies, rather than those led by ideology



Basically, burn all the texts and just let big data rule the future - it's Fukuyama redux, history is over because it's irrelevent.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.
> 
> Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.



Part of the point of this straw-clutching is to tie the party up in knots and keep it fighting itself, thus reducing the ability to put other messages across or provide effective opposition. That’s how it damages things. Keeps other stuff off the agenda.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Part of the point of this straw-clutching is to tie the party up in knots and keep it fighting itself, thus reducing the ability to put other messages across or provide effective opposition. That’s how it damages things. Keeps other stuff off the agenda.



Aye, but how effective is this going to be - local election canvassers, I bet, won't have had questions about the foreword to Hobson's 'Imperialism' on the doorstep. And the Euro's is going to be all Brexit, all the time.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 2, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”
> 
> So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.
> 
> ...



You make good points. There is a problem brought out by your comparison though, which is that Corbyn doesn’t acknowledge the antisemitism and not for the first time. 

I imagine people who observe or write forensic detail here would have. But you are correct, it’s a pointless line of attack, perspective required including from me.


----------



## LDC (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Aye, but how effective is this going to be - local election canvassers, I bet, won't have had questions about the foreword to Hobson's 'Imperialism' on the doorstep.



What doorsteps are you thinking of where they get questions like that?!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.
> 
> Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.




Labours and Corbyns numbers have been falling since the election. 

The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.


----------



## ska invita (May 2, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> .
> 
> The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.


What has he "done" that they're blind to?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Labours and Corbyns numbers have been falling since the election.
> 
> The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.


That and labour being ahead in the polls. Which, by your metrics, means a great job is being done and he needs to stay.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2019)

ska invita said:


> What has he "done" that they're blind to?


There's a list of stuff, the mural, inviting Raed Salah to the commons, the treatment of jewish mps in his own party..


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 2, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's a list of stuff, the mural, *inviting Raed Salah to the commons*, the treatment of jewish mps in his own party..




Does this mean equate to TC and the government agree with and support all  that is said and done by the Israeli state then?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2019)

Ah yes, whataboutery.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 2, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ah yes, whataboutery.



Is it though?  I am trying to understand why what's right for TC and the gov isn't for JC and the labour party... Equality in the way you judge these relationships and connections, plus why they happen is fair isn't it?


----------



## Shechemite (May 2, 2019)

Jeremy Corbyn has the moral courage of Theresa May. 

Great line that.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2019)

It's absolutely right to hold politicians on our own side to higher standards than those of our enemies. That's the whole fucking point isn't it? That we have higher standards?


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> This aligns really neatly with the fucking Change UK's claim that it....
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, burn all the texts and just let big data rule the future - it's Fukuyama redux, history is over because it's irrelevent.


Why the assumption that texts and history aren't part of the evidence? Is history not evidence based in itself?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 2, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Why the assumption that texts and history aren't part of the evidence? Is history not evidence based in itself?



Not to them fuckers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's absolutely right to hold politicians on our own side to higher standards than those of our enemies. That's the whole fucking point isn't it? *That we have higher standards?*



Hopefully this means not using McCarthy-like tactics too?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's absolutely right to hold politicians on our own side to higher standards than those of our enemies. That's the whole fucking point isn't it? That we have higher standards?


in the same way our police are the best in the world and we don't have a political police like they do in those nasty foreign places


----------



## Poi E (May 2, 2019)

Free Julian Assange


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not to them fuckers.


I believe this is what they call circular reasoning.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 2, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I believe this is what they call circular reasoning.



That's how they get you.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Why the assumption that texts and history aren't part of the evidence? Is history not evidence based in itself?



Ah yes but these texts promote ideologies and Change UK are _*beyond*_ ideology


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Ah yes but these texts promote ideologies and Change UK are _*beyond*_ ideology


Also chuk beyond parody


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 3, 2019)

This is another good article by Larry Elliott over at The Guardian. It’s a good explainer of social democracy and what it does - “save capitalism from itself” - through the type of programme McDonnell and Labour have advanced. It also explore the consequences of an ongoing bifurcation that has occurred between state intervention and the economy under neo-liberal orthodoxy

The demise of the middle classes is toxifying British politics  | Larry Elliott


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That and labour being ahead in the polls. Which, by your metrics, means a great job is being done and he needs to stay.


This has aged well, hasn't it?.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 3, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> This has aged well, hasn't it?.



Well, Labour are clearly ahead in the polls and the Tories are in meltdown soooooo...yes?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> This has aged well, hasn't it?.


In what sense?

And if the polls have changed that is is the point of highlighting your chosen metric. Did you wash your mouth out after the 2017 election? When other polls and results appeared? When Corbyn and labour were doing great (which they still are).  No you did not. And you did because you have no understanding of the dynamics of politics - instead seeing a seconds snap shot as true forever, and because you choose a snapshot at the worst time for your enemy as what is to be true forever. This is just juvenile. It's not politics.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2019)

> I’ve left the Labour Party after nearly 45 years of service at Branch, Constituency and NEC levels,partly because of it’s continued duplicity on Brexit, partly because of it’s antisemitism, but also because its leadership is complete shit.



Tony Robinson resigns
from Labour, CHUK?


----------



## TopCat (May 3, 2019)

Horrible cunt he is.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> In what sense?
> 
> And if the polls have changed that is is the point of highlighting your chosen metric. Did you wash your mouth out after the 2017 election? When other polls and results appeared? When Corbyn and labour were doing great (which they still are).  No you did not. And you did because you have no understanding of the dynamics of politics - instead seeing a seconds snap shot as true forever, and because you choose a snapshot at the worst time for your enemy as what is to be true forever. This is just juvenile. It's not politics.


Corbyn and Labour are not doing great, they're losing seats at a time when the Tories are in crisis.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 3, 2019)

treelover said:


> Tony Robinson resigns
> from Labour, CHUK?



Sounds like a cunning plan!


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn and Labour are not doing great, they're losing seats at a time when the Tories are in crisis.


They are doing good, better than their main opponents. But, more to the point - they were doing terribly well before - somehow this didn't translate into the reverse of your argument. You of course have also idea of the british council seats cycle and why it matters. You have no idea what any of the things happening here mean.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 3, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is another good article by Larry Elliott over at The Guardian. It’s a good explainer of social democracy and what it does - “save capitalism from itself” - through the type of programme McDonnell and Labour have advanced. It also explore the consequences of an ongoing bifurcation that has occurred between state intervention and the economy under neo-liberal orthodoxy
> 
> The demise of the middle classes is toxifying British politics  | Larry Elliott


With a title like that it could have gone either way but glad to see that it is generally about increasing inequality and the mechanisms by which that is happening.

Still have some problems with it though:

1. he draws parallels to politics which aren't justified and seem to come more from liberal assumptions about what the politics of a healthy society look like and illusions about what previous parties did, as well as a political compass type understanding of opinion. "It has also hollowed out the middle of politics" - what does this mean? That people are less likely to support those who increasingly obvious have fucked them over? Is this bad or unreasonable?

2. I don't really like the phrase "hollowing out" even if the process it describes is true. It suggests that there's been a reduction right in the middle, more poor people but also more rich people, rather than the real result, which is more poor people and richer rich people.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They are doing good, better than their main opponents. But, more to the point - they were doing terribly well before - somehow this didn't translate into the reverse of your argument. You of course have also idea of the british council seats cycle and why it matters. You have no idea what any of the things happening here mean.


I would say that the turmoil over brexit means this isn't a normal british council seats cycle and they should be picking up seats not losing them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that the turmoil over brexit means this isn't a normal british council seats cycle and they should be picking up seats not losing them.


You would would you? Why would you? And what did you say when they were expected to lose seats and massively outperformed all predictions?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 3, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> With a title like that it could have gone either way but glad to see that it is generally about increasing inequality and the mechanisms by which that is happening.
> 
> Still have some problems with it though:
> 
> ...



I didn’t post it to start a discussion about social democracy per se. It was more to locate Corbyn/McDonnell’s economic plan on a political continuum.

I also don’t like the concept of a squeezed middle. It’s more a case of a downward pressure on the key measures of economic ‘middle class’ status - wages, education, disposable income etc. Plus the near total collapse of upward movement from the WC to the MC through education and due to meritocracy.

The real value of the article is a) an excellent illustration of what social democracy does and why it was one allowed, and even valued, by capital, b) to illustrate how far we’ve travelled away from the idea of state action to mediate the excess of capitalism and c) to suggest the extent of where labourist social democracy could (usefully) take us back to


----------



## bellaozzydog (May 3, 2019)

When will Jess Philips just fuck off




That is all


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2019)

treelover said:


> Tony Robinson resigns
> from Labour, CHUK?


Who gives a fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that the turmoil over brexit means this isn't a normal british council seats cycle and they should be picking up seats not losing them.


And what will you say when the labour vote holds up and the brexit party wins the euros? You have nowhere left to go.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And what will you say when the labour vote holds up and the brexit party wins the euros? You have nowhere left to go.


Why do you think it is going to hold up given what's happened?.


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2019)

treelover said:


> Tony Robinson resigns
> from Labour, CHUK?


I guess all Labour Party members will stand shoulder to sboddr with this millionaire.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why do you think it is going to hold up given what's happened?.


I asked you whether you had been consistent in your views and if you intend to be consistent in the future. It appears not in both cases,


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't argue that it would. I asked you whether you had been consistent in your views and if you intend to be consistent in the future. It appears not in both cases,


So you're just asking me what I would do if something hypothetically happened in the future?. Let me look into my crystal ball. 
I've been consistent in my opposition to Corbyn and the party is being punished for his lack of leadership on Brexit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> So you're just asking me what I would do if something hypothetically happened in the future?. Let me look into my crystal ball.
> I've been consistent in my opposition to Corbyn and the party is being punished for his lack of leadership on Brexit.


You've been utterly inconsistent in that you have argued that bad polls and election results show how shit he is and why he needs to go whilst keeping zip when there are good polls and election results. You are utterly hoist by your own petard.

As i said yesterday, this is juvenile snapshot stuff with no understanding of the wider socio-political dynamics in general and as regards this country specifically. In this consistency lies your idiocy.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 4, 2019)

treelover said:


> Tony Robinson resigns
> from Labour, CHUK?


If he's against parties with completely shit leaderships then he's not joining anyone


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2019)

Robinson hasn't been funny since he played Nottingham in Maid Marian and her Merry Men. No loss


----------



## Balbi (May 4, 2019)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Robinson hasn't been funny since he played Nottingham in Maid Marian and her Merry Men. No loss


He was funny haha but for nigh on 30 years has been funny peculiar


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

Just looking back at where Lab/Con polling fortunes stood when Corbyn assumed the Leadership:
 Labour were on  *30.4%*
 & the vermin on *39.0%*

...and where they are now:
Labour are on	 *31.1%*
& the vermin on *25.2%
*
Discuss.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Just look ing back at where Lab/Con polling fortunes stood when Corbyn assumed the Leadership:
> Labour were on  *30.4%*
> & the vermin on *39.0%*
> 
> ...


3 1/2 years on and Labour are no closer to achieving a parliamentary majority if there were to be an election tomorrow. 
I'm not sure the collapse in the Tory vote is thanks to Jeremy. 
We are still no closer to resolution of the antisemitism issue. 
The party is increasingly hostile to diversity of opinion and abusive towards those with a Blairite tendency, and Labour lost several MPs to a splitter party.
If the LibDems got their shit together I think Jeremy would be in a precarious position.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> 3 1/2 years on and Labour are no closer to achieving a parliamentary majority if there were to be an election tomorrow.
> I'm not sure the collapse in the Tory vote is thanks to Jeremy.
> We are still no closer to resolution of the antisemitism issue.
> The party is increasingly hostile to diversity of opinion and abusive towards those with a Blairite tendency, and Labour lost several MPs to a splitter party.
> If the LibDems got their shit together I think Jeremy would be in a precarious position.


"We"?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> "We"?


sorry, I forgot, I am a former member now.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> sorry, I forgot, I am a former member now.


Do you still vote Lab?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> The party is increasingly hostile to diversity of opinion and abusive towards those with a Blairite tendency, and Labour lost several MPs to a splitter party.


Boo fucking hoo



pseudonarcissus said:


> If the LibDems got their shit together I think Jeremy would be in a precarious position.


Yeah, after getting the biggest jump in popular vote for ages + huge support from membership base Corbyn's would be in definite trouble.


----------



## Wilf (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> 3 1/2 years on and Labour are no closer to achieving a parliamentary majority if there were to be an election tomorrow.
> I'm not sure the collapse in the Tory vote is thanks to Jeremy.
> We are still no closer to resolution of the antisemitism issue.
> The party is increasingly hostile to diversity of opinion and abusive towards those with a Blairite tendency, and Labour lost several MPs to a splitter party.
> If the LibDems got their shit together I think Jeremy would be in a precarious position.


First 2 sentences - yep. Maybe 3rd as well.
4th - GOOD!
5th - Doubt it.


----------



## Supine (May 19, 2019)

Labour received a big bump when corbyn took over and it has been consistently dropping ever since. More so in the last few weeks. 

At a time when the opposition couldn't get any worse this hasn't been a great performance. IMHO of course.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> Labour received a big bump when corbyn took over and it has been consistently dropping ever since. More so in the last few weeks.


Absolute fucking rot. brogdale posted the plot of the polls just up above so it is not like you even have to look far to check this out. 

There was a little bounce after the 1st leadership election, another around spring 2016 but then a general trend down until the 2017 GE when it shot up. There's then been another downward trend since.


----------



## killer b (May 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> Labour received a big bump when corbyn took over and it has been consistently dropping ever since. More so in the last few weeks.


That isn't true though is it?


----------



## Supine (May 19, 2019)

My bad i didn't look at the dates properly. Even worse for corbyn then!


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Do you still vote Lab?


I emigrated, I’ve no skin in the game any more.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolute fucking rot. brogdale posted the plot of the polls just up above so it is not like you even have to look far to check this out


Brogdale posted that Jeremny arrived with 30.4% and is now at 31.1%. 31% is unlikely to lead to a working parliamentary majority


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Boo fucking hoo


I just think that is limiting support to 30%.
We will see. Maybe some sort of LibLab Pact or Concordat will emerge. I don’t see Jeremy managing to win over the 10-15% of the electorate required to have a working majority to even think about passing the more interesting bits of his manisfesto


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Brogdale posted that Jeremny arrived with 30.4% and is now at 31.1%. 31% is unlikely to lead to a working parliamentary majority


That rather depends upon other variables; notably what % the principle opposition parties gain.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That rather depends upon other variables; notably what % the principle opposition parties gain.


Agreed, 30% isn’t much of a mandate for radical change though, is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Brogdale posted that Jeremny arrived with 30.4% and is now at 31.1%. 31% is unlikely to lead to a working parliamentary majority


Let's see what the actual results show


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Let's see what the actual results show


I fear, up against Boris, we won’t like the outcome.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Agreed, 30% isn’t much of a mandate for radical change though, is it?


You think Corbyn ought to have a blairite manifesto in reserve for if he wins, but doesn't get above 30% of the popular vote?


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I fear, up against Boris, we won’t like the outcome.


Johnson.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> You think Corbyn ought to have a blairite manifesto in reserve for if he wins, but doesn't get above 30% of the popular vote?


Well, as long as he doesn’t follow Trump into any wars...  
I can’t see he will end up with the sort of majority to force radical change through against opposition in the Lords. That’s assuming he manages to win a majority. At only 31% against the current Tory party, that’s a big IF.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I fear, up against Boris, we won’t like the outcome.


Blast Boris who may yet not be part of the event


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I just think that is limiting support to 30%.
> We will see. Maybe some sort of LibLab Pact or Concordat will emerge. I don’t see Jeremy managing to win over the 10-15% of the electorate required to have a working majority to even think about passing the more interesting bits of his manisfesto


Support for the unpopular privatisations of New Labour? Or the Iraq War? Or perhaps he should increase the attacks on the disabled? 
Lets be clear what you are arguing for is for the already weak social democracy of the current LP to be watered down even further. For it to do even less about inequality, about exploitation, etc.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2019)

Someone on twitter makes this point about Labour's changing vote base:



Not seen that before...I assume it's not made up.

Before using it as the basis for discussing why Labour will inevitably end up being the remain opposition to a 'No-Deal' fundamentalist vermin leader, probably worth considering that the period 2010-2017 saw quite a bit of Lab -> UKIP churn and that Lab had 4 million more voters in 2017.

Still, quite an interesting point?


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Just looking back at where Lab/Con polling fortunes stood when Corbyn assumed the Leadership:
> Labour were on  *30.4%*
> & the vermin on *39.0%*
> 
> ...



Needs frequent posting on Guardian CIF


----------



## dweller (May 20, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Someone on twitter makes this point about Labour's changing vote base:
> 
> View attachment 171532
> 
> ...



Can't find this tweet at all on Ian Warren's timeline. 
Also couldn't find that statistic floating about anywhere else.
Ian Warren (@election_data) on Twitter


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2019)

dweller said:


> Can't find this tweet at all on Ian Warren's timeline.
> Also couldn't find that statistic floating about anywhere else.
> Ian Warren (@election_data) on Twitter


Yeah, sorry about that; I’ll try to dig around for the 2010 data/estimate, but there’s recently been stuff on the 2017 about because of Farage’s claim of 5 million:

How many Labour supporters voted Leave?


----------



## ska invita (May 20, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I emigrated, I’ve no skin in the game any more.


Doesn't matter where you live wether you give support to a party or not, no? Political platforms are international. All humans have skin


----------



## ska invita (May 20, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Just looking back at where Lab/Con polling fortunes stood when Corbyn assumed the Leadership:
> Labour were on  *30.4%*
> & the vermin on *39.0%*
> 
> ...


Re Discuss: any collapse in a Tory vote is massively skewed by the brexit process, which will one day be at least somewhat 'done'. Previous recent Labour leads over Tories massively helped by a large Ukip vote which went back to the Tories post referendum but pre-shitshow.

Possible the Labour vote will bounce back some too but hard to predict a Labour lead at that point


----------



## cantsin (May 20, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> sorry, I forgot, I am a former member now.



much missed am sure


----------



## brogdale (May 20, 2019)

dweller said:


> Can't find this tweet at all on Ian Warren's timeline.
> Also couldn't find that statistic floating about anywhere else.
> Ian Warren (@election_data) on Twitter


Looks like he's put up some even more fine-grained analysis now:



e2a tweet here


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Looks like he's put up some even more fine-grained analysis now:
> 
> e2a tweet here


Hmmm, interesting stuff. But I can't see how he has put this data together. And considering we know that people misremember their past voting behaviour I think some of the uncertainties on those values need to be pretty large.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

so... of voters who moved away from Labour in the first 5 years post 2005, Leavers were 53%, and in the next 5 years were 59% but over the combined 10 years they contrived to be 61%?  How does that work?


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> so... of voters who moved away from Labour in the first 5 years post 2005, Leavers were 53%, and in the next 5 years were 59% but over the combined 10 years they contrived to be 61%?  How does that work?


It doesn't; there's something adrift with that 3rd row, clearly.
Don't think I'll be posting any more from this chap until he's clearer about his sources.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It doesn't; there's something adrift with that 3rd row, clearly.
> Don't think I'll be posting any more from this chap until he's clearer about his sources.


It's a typo if you compare that line with the lower charts - it should be 2015 - 2017


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2019)

(Ian Warren is a trustworthy source fwiw. He's good on this.)


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It doesn't; there's something adrift with that 3rd row, clearly.
> Don't think I'll be posting any more from this chap until he's clearer about his sources.


Scanning the twitter thread (not something I do often) people seem to take him seriously, but he hasn't come back on requests for sources or absolute numbers.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2019)

It's worth bearing in mind that looking at 2015 UKIP -> 2017 Con voters (a much shorter timeframe than above), you have Ashcroft predicating  57% while YouGov predict 45%. That's not to imply Warren is untrustworthy or that his intention is good but it does indicate the sort of uncertainties that need to considered here.


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2019)

Yep, but Warren's point is that when the inevitable 'No-Deal' vrs Bremain denouement arrives...Corbyn's pivot to remain will play well with his loyal 'core' and newer voters. He'll obviously struggle to regain any of those voters who've already deserted Labour, but the gamble will (presumably) be how much of the remainiac LimpDemery he can hoover up.

I suppose the old '2 horse race' card will be played big with Johnson's nut-job Brextemism set against Corbyn's saviour of the nation mode.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 24, 2019)

If you wait by the allotment long enough, the bodies of your enemies will, erm, float by.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 24, 2019)

Corbyn 2 - Tories 0


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2019)

> *Corbynism is now in crisis: the only way forward is to oppose Brexit *
> 
> Corbynism is now in crisis: the only way forward is to oppose Brexit | Paul Mason




Mason calling for sacking of Milne, Karie Murphy, and other advisers, for a second Ref and support 'remain and reform', it is a confused article in many ways, he is basically saying that Labour should finally make a decision to re-orient to what he sees as the new coalition, university, professionals, the urban middle class, etc,  and away from the old de-industrialised areas, but he then says they can win back the latter with what seem authoritarian measures, on anti-social behaviour, crime , drugs, keeping Trident, which may alienate some of the former.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 27, 2019)

also on the guardian website today

This isn't about Brexit. Backing remain now would wreck Labour | Gloria De Piero


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2019)

Mason's all over the shop.


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2019)

I agree, met him at The World Transformed a few years ago, he was quite unpleasant and tbh, a bit hyper.


----------



## greenfield (May 27, 2019)

That sounds like he was on the marching powder


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2019)

Mason’s argument is _precisely _the argument and approach adopted by the French left. Abandon the deindustrialised towns and cities - too difficult, too racist, too many problems, too much despair, too many long memories of being let down by those who professed to lead them. They’ve got nowhere else to go politically anyway. Instead focus on the students, on ethnic minorities, on the progressive middle class, on those working in the knowledge economy in the cities. A new coalition to beat the right. Socialism without the working class.

How did that pan out?

Last night the fascist front national narrowly beat the discredited neo-liberal Macron’s party. The socialists got 8%.

Mason needs to be put in a dark room for a long long life down


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Mason's all over the shop.



He’s much worse than that. He’s dangerous.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2019)

Does anyone take him seriously now? He's been a laughing stock for a couple of years at least.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does anyone take him seriously now? He's been a laughing stock for a couple of years at least.



Well the Guardian obviously do because they published it.

Clearly, also, he’s seen as a useful idiot by right wing MPs intent on using Remain and Labour’s position as a Trojan horse against Corbyn and McDonnell.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 27, 2019)

I can't hold a mental image of Mason and Duncan Bannatyne at the same time, like Dickie Davies and Des Lyman, or Michaels Aspel and Parkinson.


----------



## belboid (May 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Does anyone take him seriously now? He's been a laughing stock for a couple of years at least.


Only on here. His books still sell well, as do his speaking tours. Totally appealing to the AEIP lot


----------



## Duncan2 (May 27, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> also on the guardian website today
> 
> This isn't about Brexit. Backing remain now would wreck Labour | Gloria De Piero


She's right but I do wish people wouldn't say wreaked havoc-its wrought.


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2019)

I wonder what is going to happen in Peterborough?


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 27, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Mason’s argument is _precisely _the argument and approach adopted by the French left. Abandon the deindustrialised towns and cities - too difficult, too racist, too many problems, too much despair, too many long memories of being let down by those who professed to lead them. They’ve got nowhere else to go politically anyway. Instead focus on the students, on ethnic minorities, on the progressive middle class, on those working in the knowledge economy in the cities. A new coalition to beat the right. Socialism without the working class.
> 
> How did that pan out?
> 
> ...



It's just Labour policy 1997-2015 again.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 27, 2019)

belboid said:


> Totally appealing to the AEIP lot


AEIP?


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2019)

Another Europe is Possible, Chessum and co.


----------



## manji (May 27, 2019)

Does anyone realise Corbyn has called for another referendum?


----------



## magneze (May 27, 2019)

Has he though?

The wording is subtle. Not sure there's much change tbh.


----------



## Supine (May 27, 2019)

manji said:


> Does anyone realise Corbyn has called for another referendum?



He won't be winning any awards for communication skills that's for sure.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 27, 2019)

treelover said:


> I wonder what is going to happen in Peterborough?


Nothing


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2019)

magneze said:


> Has he though?
> 
> The wording is subtle. Not sure there's much change tbh.


Trouble is, he's so hemmed in by his own position, that of the members and MPs and most of all the dilemma of deciding who Labour's base is, that he's doing nothing at all.  Viewed as a short/medium term political scenario, the tories are in a much better position than Labour. Johnson/raab or similar shitlump that wins the tory leadership will have clarity and a mission - do Brexit, restore trust, win the electorate back from farage. That it will probably end in no deal tears is a different matter. What have Labour got, do they know who they are?   Feels to me like the whole Corbyn/Momentum thing has run it's course.  These are not the times for worthy mutterings about bringing the country back together.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> I wonder what is going to happen in Peterborough?



Hard to imagine anything but more of the same. Labour under pressure from both sides. Enough to let in the BP. Not enough time for a Tory revival. Little chance of a Green or LD win, but will take Labour votes. 

Headlines write themselves, Watson apoplectic, Corbyn down the allotment.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 28, 2019)

Have you looked at the constituency?
Both the LDs and Grns lost their deposits at the last two GEs.
The vote for leaving the EU was 62.1%, however, UKIP took 16% of the vote (7,500 votes) in 2015, less than half of the Labour vote.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Trouble is, he's so hemmed in by his own position, that of the members and MPs and most of all the dilemma of deciding who Labour's base is, that he's doing nothing at all.  Viewed as a short/medium term political scenario, the tories are in a much better position than Labour. Johnson/raab or similar shitlump that wins the tory leadership will have clarity and a mission - do Brexit, restore trust, win the electorate back from farage. That it will probably end in no deal tears is a different matter. What have Labour got, do they know who they are?   Feels to me like the whole Corbyn/Momentum thing has run it's course.  These are not the times for worthy mutterings about bringing the country back together.



But that’s Brexit, an utter distraction for Labour, without obvious favourable resolution.

But we saw at the last election that Labour’s message can cut across and quite quickly. Brexit is preventing that by sucking up all the oxygen. 

That itself should be a target. The electorate is frankly a bit hysterical about Brexit. That hysteria needs puncturing. A disinterested third person from overseas could look at the UK’s ‘crisis’, our foodbanks and say ‘get over yourselves’.

A move on campaign could be something like, 

_Will Brexit mean I can see my GP more quickly? Who knows, but without Labour you won’t.

Will Brexit repair run down schools? No Labour will.

Will Brexit protect jobs? No Labour will.
_
This won’t convince nationalists and those most hawkish on either side, but it’s important ground setting for the inevitable disappointment of one side of the argument or maybe both. Maybe an attack on the politics of Brexit, Leave and Remain props up an argument for a compromise exit. But in any event it positions Labour ready to win the war in the long term.

Labour has no reason to treat Brexit with kid gloves, nor for that matter Remain. What has the referendum given us so far? Swivel eyed Remain loons shouting at Swivel eyed Brexit ones. Nationalism, the revival of the Lib Dem’s. What’s not to hate?


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 28, 2019)

Are there many "doveish" Remainers or Brexiters? _I'd quite like us to stay if they removed a few of the more nefarious neolib policies _or _I'd quite like us to leave as long as we basically have most of the same trading advantages but none of the responsibility
_
Everyone I've spoken to about it wants what they voted for to happen and soon.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Are there many "doveish" Remainers or Brexiters? _I'd quite like us to stay if they removed a few of the more nefarious neolib policies _or _I'd quite like us to leave as long as we basically have most of the same trading advantages but none of the responsibility
> _
> Everyone I've spoken to about it wants what they voted for to happen and soon.



So what (for Labour) to do?


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> But that’s Brexit, an utter distraction for Labour, without obvious favourable resolution.
> 
> But we saw at the last election that Labour’s message can cut across and quite quickly. Brexit is preventing that by sucking up all the oxygen.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I'd simply call brexit a 'distraction'. At one level it certainly is - Cameron didn't need to call it, but here we are several years on, still _distracted_. But equally, brexit has been a litmus test thing, exposing the nature of/flaws in Labour's coalition of working class voters, urban professionals and the rest. Maybe it's too easy a parallel, but pretty much the same thing Trump did in America, exposing the uneasy coalition(s) that make up the democrats.

I do though agree about the italicised bit... kind of. At a pragmatic, even cynical level, it would have been a way to say _something_ over the last 3 years. Problem is, the statements you use are can only hold for a while. In the end, Labour has to be _something_. My take is that the Corbyn/momentum thing has much less focus now even than when he was elected leader.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 28, 2019)

There is a fascinating  debate now breaking out on the labour left with brexit the proxy issue for a battle royale over the entire trajectory and future  of the party 

In one sense the position of Mason and others is merely the continuation of the Blair/Mandelsohn strategy that chased liberal middle class votes and assumed the working class in the post industrial areas ‘had nowhere else to go’. There is one important difference of course. Blair pursued this line to ensure new Labour could be seen as the most competent group to manage the affairs of neo-liberal economics. 

In the case of Corbyn and his supporters the approach is to introduce ‘socialism’ without the support of the areas presumably where they think their politics will be most transformative. 

Both camps within this group are beginning to recognise the value in each other position, for obviously different reasons.  

Corbyn will probably face a third leadership challenge this summer, but far more significantly will have to try to hold together two warring camps within his diaspora. On one hand there will be those like Tribune’s author that recognise a need to engage with and win over post industrial working class areas and to keep the working class in the collation. On the other hand a growing militant demand by Mason and others for a clean break with the prices and for labour to throw its lot in, France style, with the middle class, students and cosmopolitan working class of the south and big cities. 

If the latter camp win out the space opened up for populist politics becomes chasm like. The right are clearly better placed to fill this gap but the space also exists for pro working class politics of the left.


Hold the Line


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> But that’s Brexit, an utter distraction for Labour, without obvious favourable resolution.
> 
> But we saw at the last election that Labour’s message can cut across and quite quickly. Brexit is preventing that by sucking up all the oxygen.
> 
> ...



The emails i received from the party for the EU elections all went on about the BP being a far right party, etc.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure I'd simply call brexit a 'distraction'. At one level it certainly is - Cameron didn't need to call it, but here we are several years on, still _distracted_. But equally, brexit has been a litmus test thing, exposing the nature of/flaws in Labour's coalition of working class voters, urban professionals and the rest. Maybe it's too easy a parallel, but pretty much the same thing Trump did in America, exposing the uneasy coalition(s) that make up the democrats.
> 
> I do though agree about the italicised bit... kind of. At a pragmatic, even cynical level, it would have been a way to say _something_ over the last 3 years. Problem is, the statements you use are can only hold for a while. In the end, Labour has to be _something_. My take is that the Corbyn/momentum thing has much less focus now even than when he was elected leader.



LEFT2030

There is a new 'internationalist' faction, with Mason, Chessum, Zoe Williams, etc, starting, not sure how popular it will be in many labour areas.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> The emails i received from the party for the EU elections all went on about the BP being a far right party, etc.



The BP will love that. Just fits in with the ‘they are calling you racists for expressing a view’ card.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 28, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure I'd simply call brexit a 'distraction'. At one level it certainly is - Cameron didn't need to call it, but here we are several years on, still _distracted_. But equally, brexit has been a litmus test thing, exposing the nature of/flaws in Labour's coalition of working class voters, urban professionals and the rest. Maybe it's too easy a parallel, but pretty much the same thing Trump did in America, exposing the uneasy coalition(s) that make up the democrats.
> 
> I do though agree about the italicised bit... kind of. At a pragmatic, even cynical level, it would have been a way to say _something_ over the last 3 years. Problem is, the statements you use are can only hold for a while. In the end, Labour has to be _something_. My take is that the Corbyn/momentum thing has much less focus now even than when he was elected leader.



Yes. I’m not convinced that the culture war has replaced class as the key dialectic determinant but you are correct that the fault line within Corbynism is being stretched and tested on a new scale now. America and the democrats is a partially accurate comparison but I think the parallels with France and the left there are more precise 

The sense that the working class was part of the project in the first place is dubious. A part of it - clearly defined by geography, economic factors and other factors was - with other sections reluctant or antagonistic or already lost due to Blair and new labour.

We are now, I think, about to see this played out on a decisive scale.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is a fascinating  debate now breaking out on the labour left with brexit the proxy issue for a battle royale over the entire trajectory and future  of the party
> 
> In one sense the position of Mason and others is merely the continuation of the Blair/Mandelsohn strategy that chased liberal middle class votes and assumed the working class in the post industrial areas ‘had nowhere else to go’. There is one important difference of course. Blair pursued this line to ensure new Labour could be seen as the most competent group to manage the affairs of neo-liberal economics.
> 
> ...




Where are these 'debates' happening? seems quite often to be very selective.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> Where are these 'debates' happening? seems quite often to be very selective.



All over social media. 

Read the comments on the article I’ve just posted and also on Mason’s guardian piece


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

It is the beginning of a debate then, will the branches and clp's be discussing it?

its an interesting article though.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

> *Labour voters want to come home, but the party must prove it will resist Brexit *
> 
> While Corbyn trots out the same line and tries to give the impression something radical has shifted, patience is running out
> 
> ...



Actually, you are right, it does seem a concerted challenge.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> LEFT2030
> 
> There is a new 'internationalist' faction, with Mason, Chessum, Zoe Williams, etc, starting, not sure how popular it will be in many labour areas.



That looks horrendous. Like Change UK for former revolutionaries.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

Lisa Nandy (@lisanandy) on Twitter

Think i will stick with the Lisa Nandy faction


----------



## Ted Striker (May 28, 2019)

Alistair Campbell has been expelled from the party (assumedly for backing Lib Dems)


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Alistair Campbell has been expelled from the party (assumedly for backing Lib Dems)



There's something to cheer you up!

Ultimately the problem with the Labour left is that they just aren't willing to split the Labour Party, but this is at least pleasant to hear.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 28, 2019)

Lol


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2019)

Margaret Hodge seems to have gotten away with the same thing.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 28, 2019)

Wasn't Mason calling for stronger immigration controls in order to hold onto the Labour heartlands only a month or so ago?

Our problem is two groups in the population unwilling to compromise but unable, numerically, to push through what they want. The centrist Remainers can now blame Corbyn for any second referendum defeat rather than examinating their failing politics at any level.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 28, 2019)

treelover said:


> Actually, you are right, it does seem a concerted challenge.


Telling which 'labour voters' who want to 'come home' Hinsliff & co identify


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Margaret Hodge seems to have gotten away with the same thing.


margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend?


----------



## oryx (May 28, 2019)

Campbell: 'I am and always will be Labour. I voted Lib Dem...'



Presumably someone of his political experience knows that openly supporting another party will get you expelled. Usual suspects defending him.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2019)

oryx said:


> Campbell: 'I am and always will be Labour. I voted Lib Dem...'
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably someone of his political experience knows that openly supporting another party will get you expelled. Usual suspects defending him.


i am simply surprised he was a member, i thought he was a hired hand


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i am simply surprised he was a member, i thought he was a hired hand


The same. I can understand why they haven't what with the whole antisemitism thing they don't want her outside the tent pissing in which she would undoubtedly do but still....


----------



## Sprocket. (May 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i am simply surprised he was a member, i thought he was a hired hand



Like Rasputin.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Like Rasputin.


the lover of the russian queen?


----------



## Sprocket. (May 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the lover of the russian queen?




Oh, those Russians!


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2019)

Across social media plenty of calls for starmer, and for Corbyn to go, then you read the rest of their posts, "morlocks, let the towns decay, low information voters, thicko's' some bordering on eugenics, lots seem to be LP members as well.

Like Smoke says, something is brewing, a new bifurcation, and may not be very nice.

Oh, and its very interesting and galling to see plenty who marched against Iraq war, defending/eulogising the master spinner, Campell.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2019)

labour right horrors backing cambell was to be expected but I am a little suprised by the wider media, shouldn't be I suppose, but Alistair Cambell? He completely mugged them all off with the 45 minutes bullshit and here they are, tonguing his ringpiece to own the labour left.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2019)

I've come to the conclusion that they actually like being mugged off, so it's no surprise they still love him.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 29, 2019)

Kicking out Campbell for voting lib dem is a bit like locking up Al Capone for tax evasion (although to be fair voting lib dem is arguably worse!).


----------



## planetgeli (May 29, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> labour right horrors backing cambell was to be expected but I am a little suprised by the wider media, shouldn't be I suppose, but Alistair Cambell? He completely muged them all off with the 45 minutes bullshit and here they are, tonguing his ringpiece to own the labor left.



My enemy’s enemy etc.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 29, 2019)

I think for a lot of people, including mates whose politics I used to respect, the only political question has become your stance on Brexit. I've got friends on social media defending Campbell who wouldn't have pissed on him, or the fucking Lib Dems, were he on fire a few years back.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

The flip to hard remain has begun...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

Also want to point out welsh lab have my email cos of my union


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

Looking forward to Arm John McDonnell's Ted Talk - a critical defence of the IMF


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> I think for a lot of people, including mates whose politics I used to respect, the only political question has become your stance on Brexit. I've got friends on social media defending Campbell who wouldn't have pissed on him, or the fucking Lib Dems, were he on fire a few years back.


It's our very own culture war that we're taking back control of.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The flip to hard remain has begun...



He's calculated that he'll lose his seat in the next Assembly elections if he doesn't pivot, and also that he'll continue the long Welsh Labour tradition of assuming the Valleys aren't going anywhere.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2019)

New vid from labour voices, and its Michelle(Tory voter on QT) Dorell, LV seem to get it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> New vid from labour voices, and its Michelle(Tory voter on QT) Dorell, LV seem to get it.




Good video in which she appears to walk down the longest alleyway in the UK.


----------



## Almor (Jun 7, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Good video in which she appears to walk down the longest alleyway in the UK.


 
It's alleygorical init


----------



## TopCat (Jun 7, 2019)

Good result for Labour.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 10, 2019)

What the fuck.

Mike Pompeo Threatens To Intervene In British Democracy To Stop Corbyn Becoming Prime Minister



> US Secretary for State Mike Pompeo has come under fire after a recording emerged of him saying he’d intervene to stop Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. In the recording first reported by the Washington Post, Pompeo suggests he won’t wait for Corbyn to be elected, rather he’ll attempt to stop it from being possible.
> 
> The off the record meeting was from when The Secretary for State met Jewish leaders to discuss Donald Trump’s proposed Peace Deal between Palestine and Israel....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 10, 2019)

I find it shocking and unbelievable that the US would try to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. That's the kind of thing those evil Russians and Chinese do isn't it?


----------



## andysays (Jun 10, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I find it shocking and unbelievable that the US would try to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. That's the kind of thing those evil Russians and Chinese do isn't it?



I'd like to say I find it shocking and unbelievable that the US Secretary of State would say such a thing publicly, but it probably isn't...


----------



## teqniq (Jun 10, 2019)

Irony is dead, again.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 10, 2019)

Not surprised they have previous.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 10, 2019)

Guardian editorial: "maybe a US-backed coup is what we need to save us from populism"


----------



## brogdale (Jun 10, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I find it shocking and unbelievable that the US would try to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. That's the kind of thing those evil Russians and Chinese do isn't it?


The premise upon which this reported convo is based does, though, offer a genuinely disturbing insight into the ignorance upon which Trumpian foreign 'policy's based. Just read the words and let that sink in...



Islington in Autumn 2019 cast as Nürnberg 1935.


----------



## belboid (Jun 13, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Blue Labour : Work . Family . Community
> 
> Blue Labour
> 
> ...


The FBU have just sacked the red-brown shithead


----------



## cantsin (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> The FBU have just sacked the red-brown shithead



was surprised at that, and must be honest, cldn't see how speaking at Leave event could justify that

but then for me, him posting this kind of crap, RT'd from a random rightwinger last week,  just looks like straight up up racist tinged alarmism - he's a proper wrong un', and the direction of his future political trajectory looks nailed on - good riddance .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 14, 2019)

Used to have mixed views on him, but his graduation into Spiked orbit, nah fuck off


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

As I understand it PE isn't an employee of the FBU, he's an employee of the Fire Service and as such the FBU can't 'sack' him. I suspect he's been booted off the NEC of which he is an elected member.

Does anyone know exactly what he's been accused of? _Specifically. _Surely supporting Leave isn't an offence in the FBU? If so most of their regional committee in the West Midlands will also be suspended.

I presume PE can appeal - and if his 'crime' is vocal opposition to the EU then he certainly should.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> but then for me, him posting this kind of crap, RT'd from a random rightwinger last week,  just looks like straight up up racist tinged alarmism - he's a proper wrong un', and the direction of his future political trajectory looks nailed on - good riddance .



How is posting a video of a tear up between a bunch of black schoolkids and a bunch of black and white drinkers 'racist tinged'??


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As I understand it PE isn't an employee of the FBU, he's an employee of the Fire Service and as such the FBU can't 'sack' him. I suspect he's been booted off the NEC of which he is an elected member.
> 
> Does anyone know exactly what he's been accused of? _Specifically. _Surely supporting Leave isn't an offence in the FBU? If so most of their regional committee in the West Midlands will also be suspended.
> 
> I presume PE can appeal - and if his 'crime' is vocal opposition to the EU then he certainly should.


Removed from the exec and barred from office for two years - for bringing the FBU into disrepute.   And it's not for supporting leave per se, but for supporting the far right-wing_ Leave Means Leave_.  Like supporting the Brexit Party, that is a step too far.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As I understand it PE isn't an employee of the FBU, he's an employee of the Fire Service and as such the FBU can't 'sack' him. I suspect he's been booted off the NEC of which he is an elected member.
> 
> Does anyone know exactly what he's been accused of? _Specifically. _Surely supporting Leave isn't an offence in the FBU? If so most of their regional committee in the West Midlands will also be suspended.
> 
> I presume PE can appeal - and if his 'crime' is vocal opposition to the EU then he certainly should.



I think it will be some catch all term that is used, like bringing the union into disrepute, but also that it will be argued that he brought the union into disrepute by very publicly attending a rally of UKIP/DUP types. It is probably fair enough an elected leader of the union shouldn't be doing that, most unions have policies about associating with far right.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think it will be some catch all term that is used, like bringing the union into disrepute, but also that it will be argued that he brought the union into disrepute by very publicly attending a rally of UKIP/DUP types. It is probably fair enough an elected leader of the union shouldn't be doing that, most unions have policies about associating with far right.



Is this the Leave Means Leave Campaign that Kelvin Hopkins and other labour MPs and types are supporters of (according to the LML website)? 

I could understand the suspension if he was on a fascist platform but unless I’m missing something he spoke at a meeting of a group that has cross party support (albeit dominated by BP figures).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> And it's not for supporting leave per se.



I heard about this last night from members of the FBU here in Brum. Let’s put it this way, if supporting leave is now a crime punishable by expulsion by the FBU, they are going to run short of stewards very quickly.

ETA: my understanding of the FBU policy on Brexit is that it’s not got one because it recognised its membership was split on the issue but that is accepted the result...

FBU statement on the EU referendum result


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this the Leave Means Leave Campaign that Kelvin Hopkins and other labour MPs and types are supporters of (according to the LML website)?
> 
> I could understand the suspension if he was on a fascist platform but unless I’m missing something he spoke at a meeting of a group that has cross party support (albeit dominated by BP figures).


I can't seen any reference to any supporters on their website.  I _can _see their opening  line




			
				Leave Means Leave said:
			
		

> The scale of betrayal in this sad story has descended to further depths. Theresa May and the Conservatives would now rather deal with a Marxist than honour their promise to take Britain out of the European Union.


https://www.leavemeansleave.eu/


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this the Leave Means Leave Campaign that Kelvin Hopkins and other labour MPs and types are supporters of (according to the LML website)?
> 
> I could understand the suspension if he was on a fascist platform but unless I’m missing something he spoke at a meeting of a group that has cross party support (albeit dominated by BP figures).



It’s a ‘legitimate’ organisation in that respect and so it’s hard to see how he could be disciplined. It’s also like a who’s who of who might like to take workers rights backwards which underlines the murk into which getting evangelical about leaving the EU gets you.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s also like a who’s who of who might like to take workers rights backwards which underlines the murk into which getting evangelical about leaving the EU gets you.



The issue here is the FBU decision to boot a senior steward off their executive. The issue of how, why and the political consequences of the left and trade union movement performing a volte face on the question of the EU - thereby leaving the field open for these types - is a different debate.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> I can't seen any reference to any supporters on their website.  I _can _see their opening  line
> 
> 
> https://www.leavemeansleave.eu/



I note your quote ends right before this line "Leave Means Leave is a cross-party campaign lobbying group and is neither a political party nor a members association".

The notion that speaking at one of their meetings is a disciplinary offence is frankly pathetic


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I note your quote ends right before this line "Leave Means Leave is a cross-party campaign lobbying group and is neither a political party nor a members association".
> 
> The notion that speaking at one of their meetings is a disciplinary offence is frankly pathetic


Because I don't see any evidence it is. Anyone can say they are 'cross-party' but it doesn't mean anything if you can't actually _show _it. There is no list of supporters on their website, so I don't know where you got Hopkins is a supporter. All there is is right-wing guff.

I _suspect_, that this event was the final straw that did for the reactionary twat (Embery) rather than the be all and end all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> Because I don't see any evidence it is. Anyone can say they are 'cross-party' but it doesn't mean anything if you can't actually _show _it. There is no list of supporters on their website, so I don't know where you got Hopkins (that right-wing shit) is a supporter. All there is is right-wing guff.
> 
> I _suspect_, that this event was the final straw that did for the reactionary twat rather than the be all and end all.



Hopkins is named as a supporter on their Wiki page and his own plus in numerous articles. Google it. 

So, are you now claiming that speaking at this meeting was only one of his offences? What are the others?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What are the others?


Union official told to ‘cease’ social media after ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ tweet


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hopkins is named as a supporter on their Wiki page and his own plus in numerous articles. Google it.
> 
> So, are you now claiming that speaking at this meeting was only one of his offences? What are the others?


So, not on the Leave Means Leave site, you could have said that in the first place   Funny how the page of LML 'supporters' has now been removed from their website.

As I said, I merely suspect that it was just the latest outrage from the Blue Labourite Embery. He was told off in April for his use of anti-semitic tropes (his reply was he didn't give a fuck), and his general use of social media to insult lefties he disagreed with.  He's a prominent transphobe (going against the policy of the FBU) and is, as has been mentioned, a Red-Brown Assad apologist. 

Fuck him.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> So, not on the Leave Means Leave site, you could have said that in the first place   Funny how the page of LML 'supporters' has now been removed from their website.
> 
> As I said, I merely suspect that it was just the latest outrage from the Blue Labourite Embery. He was told off in April for his use of anti-semitic tropes (his reply was he didn't give a fuck), and his general use of social media to insult lefties he disagreed with.  He's a prominent transphobe (going against the policy of the FBU) and is, as has been mentioned, a Red-Brown Assad apologist.
> 
> Fuck him.



Yes, I noted that page was down when I did my google search as well. Hmmm.

As for the rest of the rap sheet - the 'anti-semetic trope' issue as I remember it was a spat between him and Novara media posho Ash Sarkar. He used a phrase - rootless cosmopolitans - that he was pulled up about which neither he or millions of others knew the association of. I am unaware of an trans phobia or Assad apologist stuff - got any links? But other's in the labour movement have been guilty of all of these 'crimes' without sanction.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 14, 2019)

Surely the FBU just had enough of the pool of piss he's taken to swimming in on twitter etc. Perfectly consistent to back leave without palling around with the headbangers


----------



## cantsin (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How is posting a video of a tear up between a bunch of black schoolkids and a bunch of black and white drinkers 'racist tinged'??



" Just a bunch of schoolkids attacking a group of adults outside a bar in south London " 

you can smell it, i know you can... if you want to go on pretending otherwise, fill yr boots, no skin off my nose, just glad he's gone from the FBU one way or another, dodgy cnut


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Surely the FBU just had enough of the pool of piss he's taken to swimming in on twitter etc. Perfectly consistent to back leave without palling around with the headbangers



Maybe they have, but given he's posting in a personal capacity it's got fuck all to do with them.

Amazed to see supposed lefts on here supporting the FBU on this. The history of this type of censorious witch-hunting in the movement has got a long and disgusting past. And almost always against the left of the union. In my own union (TGWU - Unite) communist party members were banned from holding office and expelled for thought crimes in the 1950's. Another predecessor union now in Unite obsessively witch-hunted members of the Militant in the 80's. Unison has a long track record of targeting activists for their politics etc etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> " Just a bunch of schoolkids attacking a group of adults outside a bar in south London "
> 
> you can smell it, i know you can... if you want to go on pretending otherwise, fill yr boots, no skin off my nose, just glad he's gone from the FBU one way or another, dodgy cnut



Fucking hell, U75 has gone all salem witch trials


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He used a phrase - rootless cosmopolitans - that he was pulled up about which neither he or millions of others knew the association of.


lol right.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Maybe they have, but given he's posting in a personal capacity it's got fuck all to do with them.
> 
> Amazed to see supposed lefts on here supporting the FBU on this. The history of this type of censorious witch-hunting in the movement has got a long and disgusting past. And almost always against the left of the union. In my own union (TGWU - Unite) communist party members were banned from holding office and expelled for thought crimes in the 1950's. Another predecessor union now in Unite obsessively witch-hunted members of the Militant in the 80's. Unison has a long track record of targeting activists etc etc.


Fair point although I think there is a qualitative difference between being witchunted for being on left/associated with a revolutionary socialist group v being the token trade unionist in a dodgy right wing social media bubble


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2019)

I guess you could be unaware of the antisemitic roots of a phrase exclusively used by far right scum, but it's still a phrase exclusively used by far right scum anyway.


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As for the rest of the rap sheet - the 'anti-semetic trop' issue as I remember it was a spat between him and Novara media posho Ash Sarkar. He used a phrase that he was pulled up about which neither he or millions of others I'd guess knew the association of.


Oh well, if it was in a spat with an asian woman, that's alright then!  Although, actually, it was Mike Harding he was arguing with. So, oops! And rather than apologise for a poor choice of words, he doubled down on it. And got well praised from his co-thinkers, Blue Labour guru Glassman.  Well done on copying his shit excuse though. 

As for Assadism... he tweets irregularly in support of the 'there's no proof Assad did it' line. Not a hardnosed Red-Browner, but still one nevertheless.


----------



## andysays (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, I noted that page was down when I did my google search as well. Hmmm.
> 
> As for the rest of the rap sheet - the 'anti-semetic trope' issue as I remember it was a spat between him and Novara media posho Ash Sarkar. He used a phrase - rootless cosmopolitans - that he was pulled up about which neither he or millions of others knew the association of. I am unaware of an trans phobia or Assad apologist stuff - got any links? But other's in the labour movement have been guilty of all of these 'crimes' without sanction.


I know nothing about this guy and don't care that much, TBH , but the idea that anyone using the phrase "rootless cosmopolitans" can be defended by saying he didn't know its associations is frankly ridiculous.

It also makes me concerned about anyone who would attempt to use that defence on his behalf


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> Oh well, if it was in a spat with an asian woman, that's alright then!  Although, actually, it was Mike Harding he was arguing with. So, oops! And rather than apologise for a poor choice of words, he doubled down on it. And got well praised from his co-thinkers, Blue Labour guru Glassman.  Well done on copying his shit excuse though.
> 
> As for Assadism... he tweets irregularly in support of the 'there's no proof Assad did it' line. Not a hardnosed Red-Browner, but still one nevertheless.



Wow. What a charge sheet. Thank fuck the FBU expelled him.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair point although I think there is a qualitative difference between being witchunted for being on left/associated with a revolutionary socialist group v being the token trade unionist in a dodgy right wing social media bubble



The principle is the same - the leadership use their power to expel politics and ideas they don't like. 

 I don't care much for the politics of Embery, the CP or the Militant but this type of witch-hunting always says more about those doing it than those on the receiving end. `


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> I know nothing about this guy and don't care that much, TBH , but the idea that anyone using the phrase "rootless cosmopolitans" can be defended by saying he didn't know its associations is frankly ridiculous.
> 
> It also makes me concerned about anyone who would attempt to use that defence on his behalf



Are you suggesting its commonly known that 'rootless cosmopolitans' is a phrase associated with the anti-cosmopolitan policy of Stalin that disproportionately impacted Jews and had sinister AS overtones?


----------



## andysays (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Are you suggesting its commonly known that 'rootless cosmopolitans' is a phrase associated with the anti-cosmopolitan policy of Stalin that disproportionately impacted Jews and had sinister AS overtones?


No, it's a very uncommon phrase, most people probably  have never heard it, wouldn't know what it meant and wouldn't use it.

But this guy apparently *has* used it, and you're here defending him for using it...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> lol right.



At various times in my life I've been active in trade union politics, anti fascist work and community organisation.. I had never heard the phrase and knew nothing about its connotations before the spat between him and Mike Harding/Ash Sarkar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Are you suggesting its commonly known that 'rootless cosmopolitans' is a phrase associated with the anti-cosmopolitan policy of Stalin that disproportionately impacted Jews and had sinister AS overtones?


not commonly known, perhaps, but commonly within the political currents you claim to move in.


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Wow. What a charge sheet. Thank fuck the FBU expelled him.


you asked for the extras. I realise you agree with him on most of these things, being a fellow Blue Labourite, so there you are.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> you asked for the extras. I realise you agree with him on most of these things, being a fellow Blue Labourite, so there you are.


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> At various times in my life I've been active in trade union politics, anti fascist work and community organisation.. I had never heard the phrase and knew nothing about its connotations before the spat between him and Mike Harding/Ash Sarkar.


why are you desperate to bring Sarkar into it?  Is it just cos you are embarrassed to admit another mistake? Or is that evil brown woman secretly behind _everything_??


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


>


you are though, sunshine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> At various times in my life I've been active in trade union politics, anti fascist work and community organisation.. I had never heard the phrase and knew nothing about its connotations before the spat between him and Mike Harding/Ash Sarkar.



from a 1994 review by the runnymede trust on anti-semitism https://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/AVeryLightSleeper-1994.PDF


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> why are you desperate to bring Sarkar into it?  Is it just cos you are embarrassed to admit another mistake? Or is that evil brown woman secretly behind _everything_??


shurely 'yet another mistake', you've missed his claim there's a 'fatal murder' a week in brum elsewhere


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> you are though, sunshine.



Last month you accused me of being a supporter of third period Stalinism.

Get your baseless smears straight _sunshine _


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> why are you desperate to bring Sarkar into it?  Is it just cos you are embarrassed to admit another mistake? Or is that evil brown woman secretly behind _everything_??



I am happy to accept the row was between PE and Mike Harding and that the row with Ash Sarkar came after that spat . Happy now?


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Last month you accused me of being a supporter of third period Stalinism.
> 
> Get your baseless smears straight _sunshine _


Singing from the same hymn sheet.   Third period Stalinism was reactionary,  nationally based, 'communism.' They hold a deeply conservative view of the working-class, and believe the class echoes such conservatism. They use radical language to support reactionary measures.  Not _quite_ to the same extent as the RCP/Spiked lot, but not very far off at all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> Singing from the same hymn sheet.   Third period Stalinism was reactionary,  nationally based, 'communism.' They hold a deeply conservative view of the working-class, and believe the class echoes such conservatism. They use radical language to support reactionary measures.  Not _quite_ to the same extent as the RCP/Spiked lot, but not very far off at all.



Blue labour, RCP, third period stalinism - bluster and piss. Welcome back to form bellend


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jun 14, 2019)

Rachel Riley is properly unleashing on Corbyn on twitter.

I am actually starting to question her mental health.


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Blue labour, RCP, third period stalinism - bluster and piss. Welcome back to form bellend


Three types of reactionary.  Hardly surprising they have various similarities, is it?  The Spiked lot are actually quite proud of their Blue Labour connections, so they can see it even if you are wilfully blind.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Are you suggesting its commonly known that 'rootless cosmopolitans' is a phrase associated with the anti-cosmopolitan policy of Stalin that disproportionately impacted Jews and had sinister AS overtones?


In the general populace maybe not, within the left-wing/trade union political bubble absolutely. And anyone on the Labour fringes would know this as it has cropped up in the anti-Semitism stuff.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 14, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> In the general populace maybe not, within the left-wing/trade union political bubble absolutely. And anyone on the Labour fringes would know this as it has cropped up in the anti-Semitism stuff.


There is absolutely no doubt that anyone using the phrase would have known what it meant, or at least have some idea of where it came from and its associations. It's hardly one that you'd just invent out of nowhere.


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2019)

> After the Conservatives shut down hundreds of libraries, youth and community centres, we will create a new Public Right to Space and allow communities to take over neglected buildings so they can run activities in them. Our new Community Innovation Fund, paid for by dormant assets, will help fund those activities. The example of Every One Every Day in Barking and Dagenham offers a model for just how powerful this can be in reconnecting local communities and unlocking their creativity.
> 
> How Labour will put civil society at the heart of rebuilding Britain - LabourList





Labour really are developing some great policies/ideas, even if they aren't being discussed much because of Brexit, and whether they will ever have the chance to implement them.



> We will move away from contracting out services and increase grant funding so smaller local charities that are often more agile and accountable can play a bigger role. We will future-proof services against privatisation by a future Conservative government by giving service users new rights to control how those services are run. And we will open up public sector and other platforms to community organisations. This will cut costs for community-led services and stop private corporations pricing them out of the market.




though isn't this technically privatisation?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 14, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There is absolutely no doubt that anyone using the phrase would have known what it meant, or at least have some idea of where it came from and its associations. It's hardly one that you'd just invent out of nowhere.


I could accept somebody might have heard it and subsequently used it without being aware of its implications/associations, although would probably reflect quite badly on the people they are listening to and taking their politics from


----------



## agricola (Jun 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> though isn't this technically privatisation?



Probably twice - first when they fund it by selling "dormant assets", and then when they give whatever results to the charitable orgs that result.  

You could make the argument that they were trying to foster localism / community run things like what has emerged in North East Wales over recent times (Saith Seren and the football club in Wrexham, or the railway in Llangollen etc) or things that would support the growth and survival of small businesses (attempts to revitalize abandoned high streets, or railway arches being used again), but it isn't clear that is what they want to do and it could just as easily be the old Cameron idea of getting charities to do things.  I'd much rather they did the former tbh, as it would cost less, waste less and be run far more competently.


----------



## Patteran (Jun 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As I understand it PE isn't an employee of the FBU, he's an employee of the Fire Service and as such the FBU can't 'sack' him. I suspect he's been booted off the NEC of which he is an elected member.
> 
> Does anyone know exactly what he's been accused of? _Specifically. _Surely supporting Leave isn't an offence in the FBU? If so most of their regional committee in the West Midlands will also be suspended.
> 
> I presume PE can appeal - and if his 'crime' is vocal opposition to the EU then he certainly should.



As far as I know, it was for speaking at the Leave Means Leave Westminster rally earlier this year. The event was supported by UKIP & Tommy Robinson as well as Farage, & Embery is consequently accused of sharing a platform with the far right. He argues it was literally a different platform - a different stage at the same event. I dunno - I can see PE's logic of engaging Leave voters, swerving the false divide, but Leave Means Leave is hardly a grass-roots community group, & plenty of the audience were certainly far-right adjacent or straight-up employees/employers at Disaster Vulture Capitalism Inc.

ETA - from his own twitter


----------



## andysays (Jun 19, 2019)

The Shadow Cabinet are discussing changing policy over another referendum
Brexit: Labour MPs urge Corbyn not to go 'full Remain'


> More than 25 Labour MPs have written to Jeremy Corbyn to urge him not to go "full Remain" as the party reviews its stance on another Brexit referendum. They warn another referendum would be "toxic" and empower the "populist right" in many Labour heartlands.





> They call on the leadership to abandon their pursuit of a "perfect deal" and to back an agreement by 31 October. Mr Corbyn told colleagues on Wednesday afternoon it was "right to demand any deal is put to a public vote". Speaking at a shadow cabinet meeting, Mr Corbyn said he would be listening to colleagues and consulting with trade unions before officially setting out Labour's position next week.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 29, 2019)

As reported on BBC this morning; unnamed sources in the Tory rag...


----------



## teqniq (Jun 29, 2019)

Is that the sound of clutching at straws I hear?


----------



## hash tag (Jun 29, 2019)

A cycnical attempt at sowing the seeds?


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2019)

hash tag said:


> A cycnical attempt at sowing the seeds?



No, that is waiting for "_what happens on Corbyn's allotment_" expose next week.  The only thing we know so far is that he buys Waitrose jam and passes it off as his own.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 29, 2019)

As someone pointed out on Twitter, Trump is older than Corbyn and Murdoch is substantially older than both.

e2a this is from January 2018

No, Jeremy Corbyn is not too old to be prime minister – here's why


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 29, 2019)

‘Unamed sources’ of this sort = A right bunch of shits.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 29, 2019)




----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 29, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> ‘Unamed sources’ of this sort = A right bunch of shits.



Might not be a source at all. This is classic US-style campaigning, trying to cast doubt on someone’s health, remember wobbly Hilary Clinton?  Sowing seeds about someone’s capability to do the job, while their man is clearly a pisshead who loses his rag after a late-night bender.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2019)

They can't even come up with original smears 

The Tories do spend a lot of time trying to imitate the US right it has to be said, given that they have no ideas of their own.


----------



## agricola (Jun 29, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Might not be a source at all. This is classic US-style campaigning, trying to cast doubt on someone’s health, remember wobbly Hilary Clinton?  Sowing seeds about someone’s capability to do the job, while their man is clearly a pisshead who loses his rag after a late-night bender.



Wobbly Hilary only worked because the Clinton campaign surrogates spent a couple of hours touring every news studio in the US claiming that what people were about to see in a video didn't actually happen; of all the daftness of that campaign it was certainly in the top 10. If they'd just said that she was ill with pneumonia but wanted to show her respects to the 9/11 victims it would never have been a problem. 

This on the other hand is crazy talk, especially given how Boris has been interviewing recently.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 29, 2019)

agricola said:


> Wobbly Hilary only worked because the Clinton campaign surrogates spent a couple of hours touring every news studio in the US claiming that what people were about to see in a video didn't actually happen; of all the daftness of that campaign it was certainly in the top 10. If they'd just said that she was ill with pneumonia but wanted to show her respects to the 9/11 victims it would never have been a problem.
> 
> This on the other hand is crazy talk, especially given how Boris has been interviewing recently.



I reckon Corbyn lasts longer than Johnson. Due to the number of apparently unintended progeny Johnson has it is pretty obvious he is unable to last the course and withdraw at the appropriate moment. All bluster and no control rather than the careful tilling of the keen gardener.


----------



## Gaia (Jun 30, 2019)

teqniq said:


> As someone pointed out on Twitter, Trump is older than Corbyn and Murdoch is substantially older than both.
> 
> e2a this is from January 2018
> 
> No, Jeremy Corbyn is not too old to be prime minister – here's why


Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.

His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats. 

Like Trump, Corbyn only superficially cares about the state of the country, he cares more about his ‘legacy’ and how he’s perceived. If Jez cared about the country, he’d have been screaming for Remain; he’d have been marching the length and breadth of the country wearing a EU flag T-shirt, he’d have vigorously challenged Vote Leave and Leave.EU, on their lies and propaganda, but he didn’t. He is on record as saying that he believes that migrants are responsible for the current economic crisis, they are responsible for low wages and rising homelessness. He believes that EU workers are stealing jobs from U.K. workers. I don’t want a xenophobe as PM.

What this country needs is a forward-thinking, progressive globalist as PM, Jeremy Corbyn is nationalistic and insular, just like Boris and, also just like Boris, he’s also incredibly racist. 

It is extremely telling that he has been completely silent on the fact that his party is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over anti-Semitism (and has done precisely fuck all to address the issue, quite the opposite he’s allowed the main offenders back into the party (yes, I know Chris ‘Nosferatu’ Williamson (veganism: not even once) has been suspended again - but for how long…? I’ll give it less than a week)) but as soon as a paper publishes a story that paints him in a less than favourable light, he’s demanding a full civil service enquiry. He is an egotist, there’s no other way to describe him and, for as long as he remains Labour Leader, the party is heading the same way as the Tories: extinction. 

Thing is, he’s so paranoid someone might challenge him, that he’s taking steps to ensure that doesn’t happen, by ensuring that all future election candidates are 100% loyal. 

Corbynistas can’t understand why I loathe him; apparently being disabled and on benefits means that I should automatically be screaming “Jezza for PM!”

He needs to go - now, before the damage done to Labour becomes irreparable. Thing is, his refusal to back a People’s Vote likely means it’s alreal too late. 

*Boris isn’t the British Trump, Jeremy Corbyn is.* 
.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2019)

Gaia said:


> *Boris isn’t the British Trump, Jeremy Corbyn is.*
> .


That's patently bollocks.


----------



## Weller (Jun 30, 2019)

Gaia said:


> I loathe him; apparently being disabled and on benefits means that I should automatically be screaming “Jezza for PM!”
> *Boris isn’t the British Trump, Jeremy Corbyn is.*
> .


clearly you should vote conservative considering as a disabled person on benefits they will continue to improve things for you  

It must be the heat


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2019)

editor said:


> That's patently bollocks.



Especially when the argument is "he can't win".


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2019)

Gaia said:


> He is on record as saying that he believes that migrants are responsible for the current economic crisis, they are responsible for low wages and rising homelessness. He believes that EU workers are stealing jobs from U.K. workers.



source please?

he made the opposite point at some of the meetings he addressed (and was largely not reported on) during the run up to the brexit referendum, making the point that it's the tories not immigrants.

he's on record as repeating this since, first example (independent) that came up here.


----------



## binka (Jun 30, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.
> 
> His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> 
> ...


I'm not reading all that can someone summarise?


----------



## Weller (Jun 30, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm not reading all that can someone summarise?


Corbyn is our Donald Trump a racist who hates migrants , cares more about his celebrity and turning us into another Venezuela than his allotment , Jam or the people really 
Boris is the best bloke if you are disabled and on benefits

Oh and Jezzas  planning to distribute Donald Trump lets make America great again hats to his Corbynistas


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jun 30, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm not reading all that can someone summarise?


The country’s going to hell in a hand cart whichever way you vote, or if you don’t vote


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm not reading all that can someone summarise?


_
hate Corbyn love Miliband (D)_


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jun 30, 2019)

Is Jeremy being missed at Glastonbury this year?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.
> 
> His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> 
> ...


No, if you're right he needs to stay until the damage to the Labour Party is irreparable


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No, if you're right he needs to stay until the damage to the Labour Party is irreparable



he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> source please?
> 
> he made the opposite point at some of the meetings he addressed (and was largely not reported on) during the run up to the brexit referendum, making the point that it's the tories not immigrants.
> 
> he's on record as repeating this since, first example (independent) that came up here.


Don't feed the troll


----------



## teqniq (Jun 30, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm not reading all that can someone summarise?


Someone already has


editor said:


> That's patently bollocks.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.
> 
> His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> 
> ...



You have patently been in the sun too much this weekend. Have a lie down in a darkened room, put a wet towel over your head


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela.



awww but the beaches tho.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.
> 
> His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> 
> ...



Do you work for The Times or The Graun?


----------



## xarmian (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> He is on record as saying that he believes that migrants are responsible for the current economic crisis, they are responsible for low wages and rising homelessness. He believes that EU workers are stealing jobs from U.K. workers. I don’t want a xenophobe as PM.



UK cannot and must not close borders to EU workers, says Corbyn

_He blamed unscrupulous employers and government spending cuts for the impact of immigration on the public. “It’s not migrants that undercut wages, but unscrupulous employers that do so. Migrant workers are often the victims of some of the worst exploitation,” he said.

He called for the government to re-establish the migrant impact fund, which helps local authorities to cope with the costs of immigration, and to close a loophole in the EU’s posted workers’ directive, which he said allowed firms to bring in staff from other EU states and pay them below the going rate. “We cannot and should not want to close the borders,” he said.
_​The posted workers directive was finally amended last year. Stricter Rules Adopted in Amendment to Posted Workers Directive. I'm surprised I haven't seen any Remain+Reform people use it to argue that reform is possible under enough pressure. Especially within Labour. If they get forced into backing Remain with no plan B they're going to need these arguments. It'll be a straight fight between no deal and revoke with Labour taking the blame for both outcomes.


----------



## andysays (Jul 1, 2019)

xarmian said:


> UK cannot and must not close borders to EU workers, says Corbyn
> 
> _He blamed unscrupulous employers and government spending cuts for the impact of immigration on the public. “It’s not migrants that undercut wages, but unscrupulous employers that do so. Migrant workers are often the victims of some of the worst exploitation,” he said.
> 
> ...


TBF, 'unscrupulous employers and government spending cuts' is _almost_ the same as 'migrants and EU workers stealing jobs from UK workers', if you change most of the words for different ones...


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> Well as he’s proven himself completely unfit to be PM, this is all rather moot. Jezza will turn this country into the European Venezuela. He is wholly unfit to lead Labour, never mind the country.
> 
> His response to that Times piece was extremely telling, and only goes to prove how egocentric and arrogant he is. He is the far-Left Trump, I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> 
> ...


Can you back any of this up, that seems like a ridiculous assertion. I don't see the similarity at all


----------



## elbows (Jul 1, 2019)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 175688


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 1, 2019)

elbows said:


> View attachment 175967



Oh god it's going to be Gove.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 1, 2019)

Gaia said:


> I'm astonished his fan club aren’t all wearing MBGA hats.
> .



Such things already exist


----------



## not a trot (Jul 1, 2019)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Such things already exist



One for the dartboard.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 2, 2019)

..


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 8, 2019)

This is truly awful stuff from Labour.

To summarise:

1. Labour will campaign for remain if a Tory deal comes before Parliament.
2. If it doesn’t and BJ calls an election labour will campaign to leave.
3. If labour win it will put its own deal to a public vote and might campaign to remain on that basis. But it’s also possible it could campaign _against its own deal._

Bar the two camps around Corbyn, which can be characterised as the unions and his advisers v McDonnell/Abbot/the plotters/liberals this lash up changes nothing. Leavers will still perceive labour as remainers and vice versa.

Tactically, it leaves labour in the event of a snap general election in a three way fight with the LDs and Greens to defend its 2017 seats and over the who gets the vote of the 48% of remain voters clustered in seats in holds already.

Barmy.

Unions agree Labour should back remain in referendum on Tory deal


----------



## Supine (Jul 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is truly awful stuff from Labour.
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> ...



It really couldn't be more of a muddled mess if they tried. Campaigning to complete their own type of brexit in a GE will destroy them. I'm pretty sure the majority of the country are fed up with brexit so to campaign on starting again is just crazy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 8, 2019)

Imagine going pure remain just as Johnson gets in. Fucked it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 8, 2019)

Given that the aim here is to win an election, not a composite motion debate at its conference it’s truly, deeply and genuinely barmy


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is truly awful stuff from Labour.
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> ...



It is a failure of explanation more than anything else.  A second referendum without a General Election, with the current Government in power during it, really is a daft idea that could only ever have been proposed by people who proved that they were fine with the Tories being in charge between 2010-2015.  Labour could also easily have just said that if they'd won in 2017, we would have had some sort of utopian Brexit that everyone could have gotten behind, but because of the last two years being wasted this is no longer possible.

Instead we have this, which is rubbish.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given that the aim here is to win an election, not a composite motion debate at its conference it’s truly, deeply and genuinely barmy


Why, the alternative is battling the Tories/Brexit Party for leave votes. They need to come out for Remain now.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 8, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> They need to come out for Remain now.



Or Leave. But _something_ ffs, be _for_ _something_. This mealy-mouthed, reactive shite is really too much.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 8, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Or Leave. But _something_ ffs, be _for_ _something_. This mealy-mouthed, reactive shite is really too much.



Precisely. Coming out for remain, in my firm opinion, would be a slow motion car crash which would drive the final stake through labour in working class areas. But _it’s still better than this steaming pile of shite_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Or Leave. But _something_ ffs, be _for_ _something_. This mealy-mouthed, reactive shite is really too much.


Yeh this umming and erring is so undignified


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Precisely. Coming out for remain, in my firm opinion, would be a slow motion car crash which would drive the final stake through labour in working class areas. But _it’s still better than this steaming pile of shite_



It would certainly be the end for a section of the working class that in any case left a while ago or had a foot out of the door. On the other hand, the diverse working classes that voted Remain will be happy. 

For the many who don’t care that much and can remember when they gave nary a shit about Europe there may be a temporary disconnect and then no more damage or rather no more than the disconnect that there was before. Deeds not words or phoney democracy bridges that gap.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> To summarise:
> 
> 1. Labour will campaign for remain if a Tory deal comes before Parliament.
> 2. If it doesn’t and BJ calls an election labour will campaign to leave.
> 3. If labour win it will put its own deal to a public vote and might campaign to remain on that basis. But it’s also possible it could campaign _against its own deal._


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

When people are arguing Labour _need_ to come out for X, is this need based on electoral considerations, political considerations or what?

Electorally to form a government, particularly a majority government, Labour (and the Tories) are going to _need_ to get votes from both those that voted leave and those that supported remain. The party needs to keep their seats with a strong Leave vote. It also needs, or at least strongly wants, to keep MPs in those seats voting on the party line.

Is this attempt to straddle the divide good, no of course it isn't, it is a confused mess. But is it worse than pushing some MPs towards breaking the party line and voting for a deal, is it worse than losing some votes/seats in their heartlands and in marginal constituencies. To re-use killer b's line - there are no good alternatives.  The LP is a coalition, with a number of competing electoral and political _needs. T_here is no unambiguous _need_ for the LP to come out for remain, rather there is _want_ of that from some people. (Coming out for leaving the EU on a social democratic basis was lost as an option a long time ago with the need to keep members on board).


----------



## xarmian (Jul 9, 2019)

They're trying to stop no-deal being a referendum option. There has to be a deal for anything else to go on the ballot. After that they can do as they did in 1975 and 2016 and let party members campaign as they choose.

If they back revoke too early the second referendum will be the government and most of the print media demanding no-deal while revokers get distracted by trying to bury the left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Precisely. Coming out for remain, in my firm opinion, would be a slow motion car crash which would drive the final stake through labour in working class areas. But _it’s still better than this steaming pile of shite_


Bring it on, say I, so we never hear talk of reclaiming the shitty Labour Party ever again


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Bring it on, say I, so we never hear talk of reclaiming the shitty Labour Party ever again


Tbh some sort of democratic accelerationism is pretty much the only good possible outcome


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> When people are arguing Labour _need_ to come out for X, is this need based on electoral considerations, political considerations or what?


Both, they look confused and indecisive about an important issue.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

If you want Labour to offer a second referendum, then you've got it. What more do you want from them? Short of offering revoke with no referendum (which even the bollocks to brexit party aren't proposing), I don't know how Labour's policy could be any better for you.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

The Lib Dems are offering a referendum on remain vs. no deal. Labour are offering a referendum on remain vs. whatever soft brexit deal they can negotiate. Which would you prefer to be voting in?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Both, they look confused and indecisive about an important issue.


So outline these electoral/political considerations.
Because your political objectives, and so "needs", are not the objectives of the LP.

You want a progressive liberal party and if the political objective of the LP was to become that then yes it would _need_ to embrace the type of pro-EU Watson crap that you favour. But your political objective is not supported by large chunks of the party, the majority of LP members are supportive of Corbyn and want some type of social democratic party, as so there are very different "needs" to meet those political objectives.

On the electoral front I'll repeat my question (that no one who has advocated a full remain position has answered) how do they get a majority with full remain? How do they keep seats like Ashfield, Bolsover? Which seats are they going to gain?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> If you want Labour to offer a second referendum, then you've got it. What more do you want from them?


Well this is the point isn't it. What most people seem to _want_ is for the LP to be a different party. Which is fine, but then not lets talk crap about _needs._


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> On the electoral front I'll repeat my question (that no one who has advocated a full remain position has answered) how do they get a majority with full remain? How do they keep seats like Ashfield, Bolsover? Which seats are they going to gain?



It's much worse than that.

A GE campaign with a policy of remain effectively rules out any realistic prospect of the votes Labour lost under Blair and Miliband coming back. Possibly for ever. As you say it puts into play labour held seats which are leave and it means labour are reduced to fighting it out with the liberals and greens for the share of the vote in seats that already hold and piled votes up in the 2017 GE.

The only hope would be a GE fought on domestic issues where voter set aside Brexit when voting. But there are two differences between now and 2017. First, Labour previously campaigned to leave and now it will campaign to remain and secondly, all polling tells us Brexit has become much more polarising since 2017.

Leaving the entire leave vote open to Johnson and Farage is an open goal that they are unlikely to miss.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 9, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> When people are arguing Labour _need_ to come out for X, is this need based on electoral considerations, political considerations or what?



Reckon its just personal preference for the outcome.  _Labour / Corbyn should just do what I want to happen then everything will be fine._


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Reckon its just personal preference for the outcome.  _Labour / Corbyn should just do what I want to happen then everything will be fine._


Well exactly.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Reckon its just personal preference for the outcome.  _Labour / Corbyn should just do what I want to happen then everything will be fine._


Labour have done what they want to happen though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It's much worse than that.
> 
> A GE campaign with a policy of remain effectively rules out any realistic prospect of the votes Labour lost under Blair and Miliband coming back. Possibly for ever. As you say it puts into play labour held seats which are leave and it means labour are reduced to fighting it out with the liberals and greens for the share of the vote in seats that already hold and piled votes up in the 2017 GE.
> 
> ...


A full swing to remain (and by extension a wholly liberal party) will be a total seperation of link between labour and its primary historical constituency. Not overnight but irriversible.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> If you want Labour to offer a second referendum, then you've got it. What more do you want from them? Short of offering revoke with no referendum (which even the bollocks to brexit party aren't proposing), I don't know how Labour's policy could be any better for you.


As soon as you mention the second ref the next question is what are you going to campaign for?.

It has to be remain, because if it was leave why would you bother with a second ref at all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> A full swing to remain (and by extension a wholly liberal party) will be a total seperation of link between labour and its primary historical constituency. Not overnight but irriversible.


as opposed to the partial separation we have  now


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It would certainly be the end for a section of the working class that in any case left a while ago or had a foot out of the door. On the other hand, the diverse working classes that voted Remain will be happy.
> 
> For the many who don’t care that much and can remember when they gave nary a shit about Europe there may be a temporary disconnect and then no more damage or rather no more than the disconnect that there was before. Deeds not words or phoney democracy bridges that gap.



There is so much wrong with this, but I will limit my reply to one point.

Go and look at France to see where you demand we go. Look at the left polling less than 10%. Look at the re-branded fascists fighting it out with a shabby neo-liberal for power. Look at the streets burning. Look at the dangerous forces on the rise among the peripheral.

This is _directly _where your politics of writing off for good 'a section of the working class' (your crude code for white poor people living in areas ravaged by capitalism). The 'diverse working class' (your crude code for people living mainly in cities with higher levels of social and cultural capital) as you put it will vote Labour, Green, Liberal, SNP, Plaid or whoever best represents their interests at any given point in time. They will not support genuinely re-distributive politics unless they think it preserves or restores their position. Their support is always contingent.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> If you want Labour to offer a second referendum, then you've got it. What more do you want from them? Short of offering revoke with no referendum (which even the bollocks to brexit party aren't proposing), I don't know how Labour's policy could be any better for you.



Is this aimed at us all?


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> As soon as you mention the second ref the next question is what are you going to campaign for?.
> 
> It has to be remain, because if it was leave why would you bother with a second ref at all?


If Labour go into the next election promising a second referendum, what's the option for leave? May's deal? No deal? Can't you see a problem with either of those being on the ballot? In which case, any new government would have to negotiate a new deal of some sort to go on the ballot - you reckon they should do that while their own policy is to campaign against it in a confirmatory referendum? 

And you think Labour are confused.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this aimed at us all?


no, it's aimed at people on the thread who want Labour to offer a second referendum.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> If Labour go into the next election promising a second referendum, what's the option for leave? May's deal? No deal? Can't you see a problem with either of those being on the ballot? In which case, any new government would have to negotiate a new deal of some sort to go on the ballot - you reckon they should do that while their own policy is to campaign against it in a confirmatory referendum?
> 
> And you think Labour are confused.


May's deal is dead, a new Labour negotiated deal is fantasy, put no deal on it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

Like I said -_ the LP needs to embrace liberalism_


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> May's deal is dead, a new Labour negotiated deal is fantasy, put no deal on it.


Loving all this pragmatic centrist politics, must say.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> as opposed to the partial separation we have  now


Well yeah it's a longstanding work in progress... Wouldn't see any even slight way back from this point though


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> Loving all this pragmatic centrist politics, must say.


The LP exists to win elections - apart from on this issue.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2019)

Corbyn seems to have just about backed a 2nd ref according to reports (against a tory no deal, but not necessarily if it came to a gen election).


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

Corbyn says Labour will back Remain in new Brexit referendum amid Tory anger over bid to block no-deal - follow live


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn seems to have just about backed a 2nd ref according to reports (against a tory no deal, but not necessarily if it came to a gen election).


Labour to back Remain in call for new EU referendum


“In a letter to members, the party leader said: "*Whoever becomes the new prime minister* should have the confidence to put their deal, or no deal, back to the people in a public vote.

"In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either no deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs."”

Does he include himself in that? (Bolded).


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour to back Remain in call for new EU referendum
> 
> 
> “In a letter to members, the party leader said: "*Whoever becomes the new prime minister* should have the confidence to put their deal, or no deal, back to the people in a public vote.
> ...


Don't know and there even seems to be some ambiguity as to whether he/Lab would simply back remain in a ref that came about - as opposed to actually calling for one. For example, the Guardian's wording:



> Jeremy Corbyn has sought to draw a line under Labour’s Brexit travails by announcing a “settled” policy of backing remain in any referendum called on a Conservative deal.


 No doubt journos will unpick the words over the next few hours and the implication of supporting remain in a ref indicates actually supporting that there should be a ref. Same time, even when Corbyn finally falls off the fence he still lands in a muddy patch.


----------



## andysays (Jul 9, 2019)

There's little to no prospect in the immediate future of Corbyn being able to call another referendum himself. Even his urging the new PM to call one is essentially pointless, except perhaps as an attempt to placate those of his MPs and members who back Remain, but with all the problems of alienating Leave voters already discussed.

Corbyn and Labour's only chance seems to be to hope that the new PM fucks things completely and they can somehow benefit in the GE which may follow, and that's a pretty forlorn hope TBH.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is so much wrong with this, but I will limit my reply to one point.
> 
> Go and look at France to see where you demand we go. Look at the left polling less than 10%. Look at the re-branded fascists fighting it out with a shabby neo-liberal for power. Look at the streets burning. Look at the dangerous forces on the rise among the peripheral.
> 
> This is _directly _where your politics of writing off for good 'a section of the working class' (your crude code for white poor people living in areas ravaged by capitalism). The 'diverse working class' (your crude code for people living mainly in cities with higher levels of social and cultural capital) as you put it will vote Labour, Green, Liberal, SNP, Plaid or whoever best represents their interests at any given point in time. They will not support genuinely re-distributive politics unless they think it preserves or restores their position. Their support is always contingent.



I think you should keep your crude codes to yourself frankly. You are demonstrating aptly who is writing off who. There are plenty of diverse wc people living on the edge, with little social support or capital who have no wish for Brexit. You need to reconsider your narrative of the Brexit demographics. There are also plenty of people who are against Brexit who genuinely want to redistribute.

You make the mistake of assuming as delivering Brexit is important to you it is important enough to provoke a descent towards rebranded facism. France has not required a frustrated Brexit to deliver its election results. They reflect its own history and conditions. The BP is not going to become the next FN.

Brexit is a source of frustration for many, but it offers nothing of itself. It will blow out eventually even if killed off. Even in Labour’s heartlands those massively angry about Brexit are outnumbered by those against or who barely care. The anger at social conditions will persist and it’s up to Labour to make the passionate case for redistribution in or out. Offering a Brexit that they don’t really believe in appears to solve nothing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You make the mistake of assuming as delivering Brexit is important to you it is important enough to provoke a descent towards rebranded facism. France has not required a frustrated Brexit to deliver its election results. They reflect its own history and conditions. The BP is not going to become the next FN.


We've already had the two most electorally successful hard right parties in UK history in the last ~20 years. The BP has already had some considerable success despite being only months old. It won't get many, if any, seats at Westminster and it might collapse as the BNP/UKIP have. But the voters who have voted for national populist parties won't disappear and all the evidence suggests that the number of voters moving towards national populism is growing. 



Mr Moose said:


> Even in Labour’s heartlands those massively angry about Brexit are outnumbered by those against or who barely care.


What evidence is this claim made on? In many of these heartlands you are looking 60+% of those that voted wanting to leave the EU. Ashfield and Bolsover saw the election of eurosceptic independents because voters defected from the LP.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 9, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> We've already had the two most electorally successful hard right parties in UK history in the last ~20 years. The BP has already had some considerable success despite being only months old. It won't get many, if any, seats at Westminster and it might collapse as the BNP/UKIP have. But the voters who have voted for national populist parties won't disappear and all the evidence suggests that the number of voters moving towards national populism is growing.
> 
> What evidence is this claim made on? In many of these heartlands you are looking 60+% of those that voted wanting to leave the EU. Ashfield and Bolsover saw the election of eurosceptic independents because voters defected from the LP.



60% (of the 70% who voted) may have voted to leave, but those who are massively angry or angry enough to vote BP are nowhere near a majority in those areas. Who turns out to vote and how they vote at a GE is up for grabs. The voters there are not all massive nationalists and certainly not natural Tories. Labour can still win there, the messages it had success with in 2017 are still relevant. 

Brexit could be dying a death by then or completed, the results from other low turnout elections are not entirely predictive.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

That doesn't address the points that either myself or Smokeandsteam have raised. 

No one is arguing that a national populist party is going to win many (any) seats in a GE, but numerous studies have shown that massive majorities of people reject ethnic nationalism there _are_ strong majorities for all kinds of civic or cultural nationalistic positions. The national populist vote is a minority but it is both growing and hardening and even having political effects.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2019)

An aside: even as the tories risk mini splits and MP resignations with a no deal brexit, there's a scenario where Corbyn only has another 12 months as leader. Essentially, Johnson wins, manages to get some kind of brexit and calls an election in the Spring. For Corbyn to remain as leader, Labour would have to at least stop the Tories getting a working majority. Hard to predict anything at the moment, but I'm just not sure what message Labour would bring to a Gen Election. If they did lose and he resigns, there'd be a question for the Labour left and those who rejoined: so, what did that achieve? I don't mean that argumentatively, just a genuine question. What has changed, what alliances were built, how was working class politics advanced?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 9, 2019)

Various M'Lords resigning from Labour over anti-Semitism:

Three Labour peers, including former general secretary, resign whip as antisemitism row escalates - live news


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Labour previously campaigned to leave


Did they?

The official line was remain, Corbyn came out for remain (softly), and the vast majority of MPs campaigned for remain.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Corbyn says Labour will back Remain in new Brexit referendum amid Tory anger over bid to block no-deal - follow live



He's just getting dragged and dragged and dragged. It's depressing to see. 

I think this was the plan ever since the ridiculous conference motion. It passed, because it prioritised a general election over a 2nd vote. Then as soon as the VoNC failed, after the ChUK's, Greens, SNP and Liberals demanded he call it, every Labour Remainer has declared an election impossible and demanded a second referendum. 

They probably won't even get it. It's playing straight into the Tories hands.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 9, 2019)

It’s ludicrous, I feel like I’m watching role play performed by sixth-form politics students.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> Did they?
> 
> The official line was remain, Corbyn came out for remain (softly), and the vast majority of MPs campaigned for remain.



In the 2017 GE labour campaigned to leave and to ‘respect the result’. This remained their position until last night. Try to keep up eh?

ETA oh, and Jeremy demanded article 50 be triggered within hours of the referendum.

Picture getting clearer now ya tube?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In the 2017 GE labour campaigned to leave and to ‘respect the result’. This remained their position until last night. Try to keep up eh?
> 
> ETA oh, and Jeremy demanded article 50 be triggered within hours of the referendum.
> 
> Picture getting clearer now ya tube?


Wow , you’re a condescending fuck aren’t you ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Wow , you’re a condescending fuck aren’t you ?



What’s it got to do with you pal?

He took a post where I was clearly talking about the 2017 GE and the next one and pretended I was talking about labour’s dynamic ‘remain’ stance during the referendum. Let’s debate but let’s stop the game playing


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What’s it got to do with you pal?
> 
> He took a post where I was clearly talking about the 2017 GE and the next one and pretended I was talking about labour’s dynamic ‘remain’ stance during the referendum. Let’s debate but let’s stop the game playing


Well for starters you’re not my pal, this is an open forum so I’d guess everything has to do with anyone observing , finally if you’re trying to have a decent debate it’s probably best not to be a cunt about it. :—)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2019)

Ashfield (70% leave vote) was a Labour heartland it's now one of their most marginal seats. The LP lost 20 council seats at this years LE. Now it is perfectly possible that Labour may hold it next time around. Especially if both the BP and Tories compete - you could have the same type of result as in the Peterborough by-election. But to claim that there aren't large number of people that are angry at the LP, that there is not a voter base that may be receptive to the national populist message of the BP is total crap.
File:AshfieldGraph.svg - Wikipedia

This is one seat but there are others that are similar, the Labour majority in Bolsover has been cut from the traditional ~20,000+ it once was to just over 5,000. I'd actually be surprised if it fell (if it did fall Labour would most likely be having a terrible night) but again there is a growing national populist voter base here.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> He's just getting dragged and dragged and dragged. It's depressing to see.
> 
> I think this was the plan ever since the ridiculous conference motion. It passed, because it prioritised a general election over a 2nd vote. Then as soon as the VoNC failed, after the ChUK's, Greens, SNP and Liberals demanded he call it, every Labour Remainer has declared an election impossible and demanded a second referendum.
> 
> They probably won't even get it. It's playing straight into the Tories hands.


Unfortunately I agree , I thought he was trying to be shrewd and let the Tories destroy themselves which I think is entirely possible, but with brexit he has left it too late and that in the end will destroy labour too , and I really hate to think it , I had such hopes for him


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Well for starters you’re not my pal, this is an open forum so I’d guess everything has to do with anyone observing , finally if you’re trying to have a decent debate it’s probably best not to be a cunt about it. :—)



Yup, I’m definitely no pal of yours pal. 

As for ‘decent debate’ a starting point is to engage with what people write rather than attempts to twist what they’ve said as was the case with the post I reacted to and you waded into


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

Calm down dear , and it was you who called me pal 

Anyway have a hug from me to you


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Calm down dear , and it was you who called me pal
> 
> Anyway have a hug from me to you



You’re a charmer  

Anyway, I’ve calmed down now. As long as I don’t think about Labour’s absolute cesspit of a policy on Brexit I’m fine.....


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As long as I don’t think about Labour’s absolute cesspit of a policy on Brexit I’m fine.....



and this we agree on, sorry if i was cunty, bad timing


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> and this we agree on, sorry if i was cunty, bad timing



Ditto. I was sat on a packed sweaty bus in gridlocked Birmingham.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 9, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> and this we agree on, sorry if i was cunty, bad timing





Smokeandsteam said:


> Ditto. I was sat on a packed sweaty bus in gridlocked Birmingham.



I've had a rough day and needed to see some love. This was a nice moment.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In the 2017 GE labour campaigned to leave and to ‘respect the result’. This remained their position until last night. Try to keep up eh?
> 
> ETA oh, and Jeremy demanded article 50 be triggered within hours of the referendum.
> 
> Picture getting clearer now ya tube?


I'm not sure I'd call promising to respect the vote "campaigning for leave" but fair play on your other points, ya 'tube'.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 9, 2019)

The result of the referendum was ‘leave’. Labour called for it to be enacted immediately and campaigned to respect the result in the GE. It remained its policy until yesterday. 

I’m struggling to understand why you are struggling


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2019)

The 2017 manifesto did clearly and strongly reject leaving on a No Deal basis as well. So it is still in keeping with the long-standing policy to say remain if that is the only alternative.

But not to say you'd definitely recommend a vote for your own, negotiated and agreed, version of Brexit is just barking.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The result of the referendum was ‘leave’. Labour called for it to be enacted immediately and campaigned to respect the result in the GE. It remained its policy until yesterday.
> 
> I’m struggling to understand why you are struggling


The first result for "what is campaigning?":


> Campaigning is about creating a change. You might call it influencing, voice, advocacy or campaigning, but all these activities are about creating change.


Labour weren't trying to change anything by 'respecting the vote'. Brexit is/was the existing direction. They were going along with the status quo.

I'm sure you can pick holes in that definition, but it's roughly what I would think campaigning means, too.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 9, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The result of the referendum was ‘leave’. Labour called for it to be enacted immediately (...)



They didn’t. I see this one quoted a lot, mainly by anti-Corbyn ‘centrists’, but he clarified his words shortly after the statement, confirming that he was not calling for immediate triggering of Article 50.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

Has Corbyn changed his mind on Article 50?


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2019)

If it stops the LibDem revival I'm all for it.


----------



## Supine (Jul 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> If it stops the LibDem revival I'm all for it.



Do you think it will? I was thinking it'll continue with this policy.


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2019)

Supine said:


> Do you think it will? I was thinking it'll continue with this policy.



I've no idea.

I'm trying to find a positive!


----------



## Supine (Jul 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> I've no idea.
> 
> I'm trying to find a positive!



Increasingly difficult in this day and age


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> If it stops the LibDem revival I'm all for it.


Sadly it won't. A lot of the boost to the yellow filth is coming from liberal Tories, hence all the council seats.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Ashfield (70% leave vote) was a Labour heartland it's now one of their most marginal seats. The LP lost 20 council seats at this years LE. Now it is perfectly possible that Labour may hold it next time around. Especially if both the BP and Tories compete - you could have the same type of result as in the Peterborough by-election. But to claim that there aren't large number of people that are angry at the LP, that there is not a voter base that may be receptive to the national populist message of the BP is total crap.
> File:AshfieldGraph.svg - Wikipedia


Well. in Ashfield in 2015 the Tories and UKIP were both on 10k, in 2017 UKIP had gone down to 1k and the Tories had gone up to 20k, Labour only had a 1k increase, despite being for brexit, what makes you think these are labour voters?. The lib dems were neck and neck with labour in 2010, where have those votes gone?


----------



## hash tag (Jul 10, 2019)

I see three peers, Triesman, Darzi and Turnberg have now resigned over anti semitism and there is even a programme on about it tonight BBC One - Panorama, Is Labour Anti-Semitic?
In the meantime, someone who said Erdogan was a goat lover, calls women letter boxes and calls people piccaninnies and likens them to watermelons. He was even called a racist in
parliament yet he remains in the running to be our next PM...
Something is well twisted here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well. in Ashfield in 2015 the Tories and UKIP were both on 10k, in 2017 UKIP had gone down to 1k and the Tories had gone up to 20k, Labour only had a 1k increase, despite being for brexit, what makes you think these are labour voters?. The lib dems were neck and neck with labour in 2010, where have those votes gone?


The great ballot box in the sky


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well. in Ashfield in 2015 the Tories and UKIP were both on 10k, in 2017 UKIP had gone down to 1k and the Tories had gone up to 20k, Laabour only had a 1k increase, what makes you think these are labour voters?. The lib dems were neck and neck with labour in 2010, where have those votes gone?


When did you stop hitting your wife? 
You are asking me to answer questions about claims I've never made. Clearly much of the 2015 UKIP vote moved to the Tories in 2017. That does not invalidate my point that "there [are a] large number of people that are angry at the LP, [and] that there is a voter base that may be receptive to the national populist message of the BP".


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> When did you stop hitting your wife?
> You are asking me to answer questions about claims I've never made. Clearly much of the 2015 UKIP vote moved to the Tories in 2017. That does not invalidate my point that "there [are a] large number of people that are angry at the LP, [and] that there is a voter base that may be receptive to the national populist message of the BP".


Nice little retort to drop in.
You pointed out that it's a marginal and I pointed out where the brexit vote actually went and where there were other votes to be had.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Nice little retort to drop in.
> You pointed out that it's a marginal and I pointed out where the brexit vote actually went and where there were other votes to be had.



You are right that UKIP and the BP have and will act as significant collection point of transmission for life long labour voters and communities on the move politically away from the 100 year plus link between them and Labour. In the current moment some will vote BP, some Tory. But that isn't the most important of consequences. All of the evidence suggests that once these votes cross the rubicon they don't come back. Second, these voters are politically 'up for grabs' as their loyalty to non-labour parties is weak. It's the territory where pro working class politics should be operating but isn't.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 10, 2019)

Country is split 50:50 more or less on brexit most of what leave promised were lies and now being replaced with England prevails fuck foreigners as they cant actually deliver anything and its dawning on most people its a self inflicted injury but at least we will be free! ( which is always going to play well with the English who dont bother to think very hard).

Working class politics are on life support if they exsist at all I think the last hurrah was respect and that disappeared by Georges arse along with a copy of the koran


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> When did you stop hitting your wife?
> You are asking me to answer questions about claims I've never made. Clearly much of the 2015 UKIP vote moved to the Tories in 2017. That does not invalidate my point that "there [are a] large number of people that are angry at the LP, [and] that there is a voter base that may be receptive to the national populist message of the BP".



At some point Brexit as the sole focus of political delivery is going to run out of steam. All electoral politics has a shelf life.

One day it may seem very whiffy indeed. It takes tremendous energy to maintain the public’s interest in something that doesn’t put food on the table, money in their pockets or provide better services. When it does none of that or it continues to provide political paralysis what happens then?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> At some point Brexit as the sole focus of political delivery is going to run out of steam. All electoral politics has a shelf life.
> 
> One day it may seem very whiffy indeed. It takes tremendous energy to maintain the public’s interest in something that doesn’t put food on the table, money in their pockets or provide better services. When it does none of that or it continues to provide political paralysis what happens then?


That makes the mistake that national populist politics are being driven solely or even mainly by the issue of the UK leaving the EU. That clearly is not true.


----------



## Smangus (Jul 10, 2019)

Labours fucked now , even if he isn't one Corbyn just comes across like a ditherer and people won't vote for that.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You are right that UKIP and the BP have and will act as significant collection point of transmission for life long labour voters and communities on the move politically away from the 100 year plus link between them and Labour. In the current moment some will vote BP, some Tory. But that isn't the most important of consequences. All of the evidence suggests that once these votes cross the rubicon they don't come back. Second, these voters are politically 'up for grabs' as their loyalty to non-labour parties is weak. It's the territory where pro working class politics should be operating but isn't.



Sort of agree except about these votes never coming back. 

One of the most fascinating things I've seen in recent years is how Golden Dawn supporters switched to Syriza a while back in Greece. Sanders voters switching to Trump too. We're living through a fluid period.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sort of agree except about these votes never coming back.
> 
> One of the most fascinating things I've seen in recent years is how Golden Dawn supporters switched to Syriza a while back in Greece. Sanders voters switching to Trump too. We're living through a fluid period.



Um, yeah, that what the point I was making. Once slipped free of its labourist moorings this group can go anywhere. All of the evidence is that is does not return 'home'. See Labour in Scotland.

And rust belt states in the US


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Um, yeah, that what the point I was making. Once slipped free of its labourist moorings this group can go anywhere. All of the evidence is that is does not return 'home'. See Labour in Scotland.
> 
> And rust belt states in the US



No, I'm disagreeing. A lot of 2015 UKIP voters came back to Labour in 2017.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, I'm disagreeing. A lot of 2015 UKIP voters came back to Labour in 2017.



You’ll need to evidence that claim. In the 2017 GE former UKIP voters went;

30% didn’t vote
43% went Tory
12% voted labour

Even if you strip out those who didn’t vote labour before 2015 there was no return to labour.

Why did so many voters switch parties between 2015 and 2017?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> That makes the mistake that national populist politics are being driven solely or even mainly by the issue of the UK leaving the EU. That clearly is not true.



No, that’s precisely the mistake I’m not making. It’s what you are doing by insisting the referendum must be honoured to keep the Labour heartlands onside.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You’ll need to evidence that claim. In the 2017 GE former UKIP voters went;
> 
> 30% didn’t vote
> 43% went Tory
> ...



12% of the 2015 UKIP vote is nearly half a million people, though.  It was probably enough to tip some seats Labour's way.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> 12% of the 2015 UKIP vote is nearly half a million people, though.  It was probably enough to tip some seats Labour's way.



Aye. More importantly it came in Northern constituencies where people had shifted to UKIP in large numbers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> No, that’s precisely the mistake I’m not making. It’s what you are doing by insisting the referendum must be honoured to keep the Labour heartlands onside.


For God's sake read what people are posting. I have not once "insisted the referendum be honoured". Pointing out the consequences of a course of action is not an argument for or against that action. 

This is basic fucking stuff.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> For God's sake read what people are posting. I have not once "insisted the referendum be honoured". Pointing out the consequences of a course of action is not an argument for or against that action.
> 
> This is basic fucking stuff.



You’ve consistently made the case. C’mon you are not a mere dispassionate observer.


----------



## A380 (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Sadly it won't. A lot of the boost to the yellow filth is coming from liberal Tories, hence all the council seats.


Yeah, but business before pleasure.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 10, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You’ve consistently made the case. C’mon you are not a mere dispassionate observer.


Where? This is a straight up lie. 
Unlike you I can separate my personal political desires from the political objectives of the LP. FFS I'm opposed to the LP.

This is the same fucking nonsense that creates support for the UK immigration policies from criticism of the EUs immigration policies, or that creates racism from the acknowledgement that capital is using migration.

Pointing out that most marginal seats (key to either party becoming a government - especially a majority government) tend to have majorities that voted for leave, and thus that moving to a hardcore remain position both puts Lab-Con marginals in danger and makes it harder to win key Con-Lab marginals is not advocating that "the result of the referendum be honoured".


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> 12% of the 2015 UKIP vote is nearly half a million people, though.  It was probably enough to tip some seats Labour's way.



Yes, but my point was that labour voters who left didn’t come back. The hard evidence is 88% of them didn’t. If there is other evidence to contradict the evidence I’ve shared I’d be happy to see it


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, but my point was that labour voters who left didn’t come back.* The hard evidence is 88% of them didn’t. If there is other evidence to contradict the evidence I’ve shared I’d be happy to see it*



Not really; the figures you posted were all former UKIP voters from 2015, not just former Labour voters who voted UKIP in 2015. 

Without knowing what % of UKIP's 2015 vote was ex-Labour its difficult to say how many of them came back in 2017; indeed, it may well be that the split of ex-2015 UKIP voters in 2017 is a fairly accurate picture of where the UKIP vote in 2015 actually came from (in which case, 2017 may have seen most of the ex-Labour vote come back, just as most of the ex-Tory vote went there).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Not really; the figures you posted were all former UKIP voters from 2015, not just former Labour voters who voted UKIP in 2015.
> 
> Without knowing what % of UKIP's 2015 vote was ex-Labour its difficult to say how many of them came back in 2017; indeed, it may well be that the split of ex-2015 UKIP voters in 2017 is a fairly accurate picture of where the UKIP vote in 2015 actually came from (in which case, 2017 may have seen most of the ex-Labour vote come back, just as most of the ex-Tory vote went there).



That is, of course, possible. That’s why I’m asking if there is any other research that indicates that this was the case. But a critical point is this: labour lost millions of votes from 2006-2015. These votes were in the heartlands and the north, wales and Midlands specifically (plus of course Scotland but that’s a different story). The evidence by constituency is that they gained votes in 2017 but disproportionately outside of most of their headlands (bar the cities) and even lost further votes in some working class towns and coastal areas that were leave seats. I’d suggest these seats had a lot of ex-labour UKIP types. Put simply, there is no evidence that suggests there were significant numbers of ex-labour UKIP voters returning to labour that I have seen. The only data we have is 12% of UKIP voters in 2015 switched to labour


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That is, of course, possible. That’s why I’m asking if there is any other research that indicates that this was the case. But a critical point is this: labour lost millions of votes from 2006-2015. These votes were in the heartlands and the north, wales and Midlands specifically (plus of course Scotland but that’s a different story). The evidence by constituency is that they gained votes in 2017 but disproportionately outside of most of their headlands (bar the cities) and even lost further votes in some working class towns and coastal areas that were leave seats. I’d suggest these seats had a lot of ex-labour UKIP types. Put simply, there is no evidence that suggests there were significant numbers of ex-labour UKIP voters returning to labour that I have seen. The only data we have is 12% of UKIP voters in 2015 switched to labour



If that is the argument though, you need to include the did not votes (in 2015) to the mix.  Labour got 35% (of the DNV 2015 / Remain 2016) and 12% (of DNV 2015 / Leave 2016) of those.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Where? This is a straight up lie.
> Unlike you I can separate my personal political desires from the political objectives of the LP. FFS I'm opposed to the LP.
> 
> This is the same fucking nonsense that creates support for the UK immigration policies from criticism of the EUs immigration policies, or that creates racism from the acknowledgement that capital is using migration.
> ...



What a wriggle. Say what you mean then. If you don’t support Brexit say so. If you do, say that. Don’t give yourself fucking graces that you and only you come to some impartial opinion, freely offered without agenda for the benefit of a Party you despise.

You say ‘trust the working class’, which means, in this narrow view of what the working class is, that Brexit should be delivered. You therefore support Brexit. That’s just how you come to it, like we all come to our opinions through various routes through various tickets we hold.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 11, 2019)

Fuck me you're a tedious one. Can you really not just read what he's actually posted?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What a wriggle. Say what you mean then. If you don’t support Brexit say so. If you do, say that. Don’t give yourself fucking graces that you and only you come to some impartial opinion, freely offered without agenda for the benefit of a Party you despise.
> 
> You say ‘trust the working class’, which means, in this narrow view of what the working class is, that Brexit should be delivered. You therefore support Brexit. That’s just how you come to it, like we all come to our opinions through various routes through various tickets we hold.


I'm not sure whether your problem is your comprehension, your understanding or both but this is yet more twaddle.

Do I personally want to see the UK leave the EU - yes. I'm a communist and believe the UK leaving the EU damages capital, the EU and the UK state. Does that mean I define the working class as those that voted to leave the EU, absolutely not.

I have never done so, in fact I have repeatedly emphasised that the working class is full of contradictions and oppositions. I have repeatedly stressed that their are people that I consider comrades that voted remain, because (again as I have said numerous times) the real divide is not between those that voted leave and those that voted remain but between those that recognise that the working class itself is the only agent really capable of bringing about gains and those that see some body - be that the LP, the state, the EU, the Bolsheviks, the CNT or anybody else - as the agent to protect and/or deliver gains for the working class.

----

With regard to the LP I have enough self-awareness to recognise that my political aims and objectives differ from the political objectives of the LP, and in fact are often in opposition to the LP. That does not mean I can't also see that an LP going fully behind remain in the way that the liberal left want has both electoral, and more importantly,  political ramifications.

Electorally the position is simple - yes the LP might lose more votes to the LDs/Grns/etc but those votes are in seats that they can afford to lose votes in, for example there are only two Lab->LD marginals in the entire country (and Sheffield Hallam was probably gone ages ago anyway). In contrast, while those the voted leave make up a smaller proportion of Labour's vote, they are distributed such that they are crucial in many of the key marginals that Labour needs to keep/win to form a (majority) government (and I've not see you or anyone else contest, or even address this issue). 
Now, I am not arguing that going full remain will not mean a Labour government, in fact if I had to guess the result of a GE in the next few months I predict a Labour (minority) government. But when 15 of the top 10 Lab->Con and Con->Lab marginals are places where there was a majority for leave (in some cases a very large majority) it is head in the fucking sand bullshit to not recognise that pushing a pro-EU line has electoral dangers.

Politically, the ramifications are even more important. The LP has always been a coalition of different interests, and the tensions between those that have an interest (i.e. social or class) based politics and those that have a views (i.e. progressive) based politics are not new. Over the last 30+ years the balance in the LP has moved towards the progressive politics side, and as it has done so the support for the LP in it's old heartlands has dropped. 
Despite this some remnants of this class based politics still exist, hence why even in 2010 it was able to count on the bedrock of its support and maintain a 29% vote share and 258 seats (in comparison parties that have embraced the progressive route, e.g. the PS and SDP, are scraping 20% vote shares or less). To move to a pro-EU position is to push the LP even further down the path of progressive politics. And while I will shed few tears over the LP, I recognise that the removal of class based politics from the LP will open up even more space for national populism to grow.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 11, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not sure whether your problem is your comprehension, your understanding or both but this is yet more twaddle.
> 
> Do I personally want to see the UK leave the EU - yes. I'm a communist and believe the UK leaving the EU damages capital, the EU and the UK state. Does that mean I define the working class as those that voted to leave the EU, absolutely not.
> 
> ...



A good post and very clear. 

I have a problem with the determinism of your position sometimes. A few months ago Labour’s ambiguity seemed like a shoo-in. Now it’s an albatross. Politics is febrile to say the least. Very hard to say A will certainly lead to B.

I have been happy for a compromise to be found. I cannot see how, in the present time, the UK can simply carry on in the EU without being in continual political crisis. However I cannot now see how Labour can deliver it.

The failure to deliver Brexit has polarised with the effect that no-deal is threatened by the Tory Leadership candidates. This has had an equal opposite reaction for Remainers that Brexit on these terms must be ruled out. Remain has gathered ground. A lot of it.

Labour could have supported the compromise that was May’s deal. But of course it can’t enable a Tory Brexit under any circumstances other than through a humiliating Tory climbdown to Labour’s terms. But it also can’t deliver Brexit itself, because its members don’t really believe in compromise and neither do a lot of its voters. You can’t risk a spectacular collapse of those voters whatever the state of those seats. 

I don’t believe it should be full on Remain at this point. But even if it has to I wouldn’t bet against many Labour voters, who voted Leave still voting Labour, their scepticism about Johnson and Trump and the point of Brexit at all coming to the fore.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 11, 2019)

My position hasn't changed since 2016 - a leave vote would do the most damage to them (capital, the ruling class, business, political class, whatever). Fully understand those who backed remain because, on balance, they considered that wasn't a price worth paying for damage it could do to others. Almost abstained for that reason before going out to vote about 9pm. No hopes of lexit, I just wanted to fuck shit up. Still understand if people think the latter outweighs the former. But the former is still true.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I have a problem with the determinism of your position sometimes.


What determinism? You whole post illustrates my point, the politics in it is "Remain" vs "Leave", Labour vs Tory. The working class are not present.



Mr Moose said:


> Remain has gathered ground. A lot of it.


Has it? in what way? Not in the general populace it hasn't. Polling shows that a large number of people think they were right to want to leave the EU and would still vote to leave the EU, there's been some swing towards support for remaining in the EU (mostly from people who did not vote in the referendum coming out for remaining) but there remains considerable support for leaving the EU. Now remain has gathered considerable ground in the institutions of capital, like the LP, where now not even a remain and reform position is enough, it is outright pro-EUism.



Mr Moose said:


> I don’t believe it should be full on Remain at this point.


Then what do you think this current position is? Have you actually read the report or killer b's posts? How could it be more in favour of remaining in the EU bar committing them to revoking A50 outright?



Mr Moose said:


> But even if it has to I wouldn’t bet against many Labour voters, who voted Leave still voting Labour, their scepticism about Johnson and Trump and the point of Brexit at all coming to the fore.


This is the head in sand nonsense I talked about. It ignores the evidence of the LEs, it ignores the evidence of past results. 

Of course many, indeed most, long term Labour voters that support leave will vote Labour again. But some won't, some will abstain, some may decide to vote for a different party and there doesn't need to be that many that don't vote Labour for some seats to fall. Moreover, if Labour want to get a majority_,_ they probably need to gain voters in some of those Tory held marginals, voters that may have voted Leave in 2016.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Has it? in what way?


In the aftermath of the referendum, there was a large majority in the polls for honouring the referendum result, even among people who voted remain. This is no longer the case, so in that sense remain has 'made up ground'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 11, 2019)

It has also made up ground in the militancy of its position. 40% backed Labour in 2017 with its compromise, but nevertheless Leave position. That seems quite beyond it now with that same position (which it has been forced to modify).


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> In the aftermath of the referendum, there was a large majority in the polls for honouring the referendum result, even among people who voted remain. This is no longer the case, so in that sense remain has 'made up ground'.


Yes, fair point. But that's sort of return to the status quo ante.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes, fair point. But that's sort of return to the status quo ante.


perhaps, although the militancy of the partisan positions Mr Moose mentions does feel different.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 11, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What determinism? You whole post illustrates my point, the politics in it is "Remain" vs "Leave", Labour vs Tory. The working class are not present.
> 
> Has it? in what way? Not in the general populace it hasn't. Polling shows that a large number of people think they were right to want to leave the EU and would still vote to leave the EU, there's been some swing towards support for remaining in the EU (mostly from people who did not vote in the referendum coming out for remaining) but there remains considerable support for leaving the EU. Now remain has gathered considerable ground in the institutions of capital, like the LP, where now not even a remain and reform position is enough, it is outright pro-EUism.
> 
> ...



I wrote, ‘I don’t believe it should’ which is me, not the Labour Party, but nevertheless Labour has not eliminated the possibility that it could negotiate a Brexit deal. Fanciful and it probably couldn’t even back its own deal, but it is still there.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 11, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> A few months ago Labour’s ambiguity seemed like a shoo-in. Now it’s an albatross.



Sorry to butt in but I'm sure I said extensively at the time that the ambiguity strategy was very very bad.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 11, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry to butt in but I'm sure I said extensively at the time that the ambiguity strategy was very very bad.



Well done you.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2019)

Still reasonably popualar with some audiences.

Durham Miners Gala

even the families out for the day on the bank are listening!


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2019)

treelover said:


> Still reasonably popualar with some audiences.
> 
> Durham Miners Gala
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 19, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2019)

Does that also not that say under a 1/3 of the members are w/c then?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Does that also not that say under a 1/3 of the members are w/c then?


I don't think you can extrapolate that from this data - it's weighted to the general population, not the make up of the Labour Party.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2019)

(that said, I wouldn't be surprised if it is 1/3)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think you can extrapolate that from this data - it's weighted to the general population, not the make up of the Labour Party.


Can't really see a poll which counts under a 1/3 of the population as w/c is going to be any sort of rabbit from the hat for those who now be boosting this.

But anyway on here we have 2/3 of the under a 1/3 membership thinking Corbyn is doing well or fairly well.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Can't really see a poll which counts under a 1/3 of the population as w/c is going to be any sort of rabbit from the hat for those who now be boosting this.


I guess that's true, but I'm not sure where YouGov would get a breakdown of the class of Labour members to weigh their polling? You can be sure Labour won't be handing that out


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2019)

(I don't think that poll says anything very interesting in any direction either fwiw)


----------



## oryx (Jul 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> I guess that's true, but I'm not sure where YouGov would get a breakdown of the class of Labour members to weigh their polling? You can be sure Labour won't be handing that out


I think they would get it from the questions asked in the poll about income and the type of job of the 'main income earner'. A crude measure (AB, C1, C2, DE) which doesn't take into account social capital, inherited wealth etc. etc. but usual in market research.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> I think they would get it from the questions asked in the poll about income and the type of job of the 'main income earner'. A crude measure (AB, C1, C2, DE) which doesn't take into account social capital, inherited wealth etc. etc. but usual in market research.


I know how that works, but I don't think you could then use that information to say '30% of the Labour membership is C2DE' in a way which doesn't have a substantial margin of error.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2019)

In as much as it does anything, that table confirms Labour's dilemma(s) as to its positioning around brexit.


----------



## Supine (Jul 19, 2019)

Wilf said:


> In as much as it does anything, that table confirms Labour's dilemma(s) as to its positioning around brexit.



1172 voted remain. 151 voted leave. Clearly the poll shows it should be a remain party


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> 1172 voted remain. 151 voted leave. Clearly the poll shows it should be a remain party


No need to worry about voters.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> 1172 voted remain. 151 voted leave. Clearly the poll shows it should be a remain party


The poll confirms some of the social and geographical splits within the party and also that Corbyn himself may be out of step with the membership. But so what? Labour's positioning should be about the voters to have any value as a strategy. I'll grant, there's no easy way out of this now for Labour or Corbyn, particularly at this point in the game. But 'Labour should be a remain party' doesn't solve things.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2019)

I think any expectation that Labour is going to get a clear majority is a bit misguided right now.

Both the major parties have significant splits and/or rival parties competing with them for their 'natural' constituencies.

We're going to look more like Italy while that goes on, so it kind of makes sense to try to keep your base as solid as you can, rather than chase floaters via some sort of triangulation.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> 1172 voted remain. 151 voted leave. Clearly the poll shows it should be a remain party



It's fascinating that the same people who were cheerleaders for Blair and Brown now believe that the Labour Party should do what its members want.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> No need to worry about voters.



You say this as if there is some option available that can meet the demands of the voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You say this as if there is some option available that can meet the demands of the voters.


Recognising their existence and importance would be a good start. Then identifying which ones are maybe more important in the longer term role of the party (if it is to have one that is) would be sensible too.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 19, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's fascinating that the same people who were cheerleaders for Blair and Brown now believe that the Labour Party should do what its members want.


Like supporting Corbyn as leader.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Recognising their existence and importance would be a good start. Then identifying which ones are maybe more important in the longer term role of the party (if it is to have one that is) would be sensible too.



It sounds like you think who is most important is obvious, but diverse groups of working class people voted Remain. 

But in any case, Labour cannot at this time of polarisation give the Leave voting minority of its vote (or potential vote) what it wants. It could not possibly deliver it because it would fall apart trying.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

The two motions that are going to be voted on for Conference from Sheffield CLP are For a Socialist Green New Deal, defend free movement/migrants/close detention centres

both have funding streams, backing from organisations, Another Europe is Possible, etc, it is beginning to be a new form of left machine politics,I imagine these will be two national motions across the UK CLP's etc..

just went through Sheff town centre, tramlines is on, huge amount of homeless people, I would say one very 50 metres on the main drags, no motion for them


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


>





plenty of ostensibly working class in the LP, if you mean teachers, social workers, academics, but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions if the older members.


----------



## Supine (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> plenty of ostensibly working class in the LP, if you mean teachers, social workers, academics, but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions if the older members.



 the wrong type of working class?


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

Not sure what you mean?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> plenty of ostensibly working class in the LP, if you mean teachers, social workers, academics, but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions if the older members.



Er, those jobs don't count as C2DE, which is how they're measuring working class for the poll.


----------



## oryx (Jul 20, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Er, those jobs don't count as C2DE, which is how they're measuring working class for the poll.



Exactly. I can't see how they would be described as working class except in a purely Marxist sense of not owning the means of production.

(If I've got that wrong I have no doubt whatsoever that someone will be along soon to correct my interpretation of Marx ).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> plenty of ostensibly working class in the LP, if you mean teachers, social workers, academics, but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions if the older members.


You know nothing of what you talk about if you think most academics are comfortably off. Most members of academic staff are on fixed term contracts with no job security.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 20, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It sounds like you think who is most important is obvious, but diverse groups of working class people voted Remain.
> 
> But in any case, Labour cannot at this time of polarisation give the Leave voting minority of its vote (or potential vote) what it wants. It could not possibly deliver it because it would fall apart trying.



Read: If Corbyn won't back remain the PLP should split.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You know nothing of what you talk about if you think most academics are comfortably off. Most members of academic staff are on fixed term contracts with no job security.



Teaching not exactly awash with cash these days either.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You know nothing of what you talk about if you think most academics are comfortably off. Most members of academic staff are on fixed term contracts with no job security.



as usual, sniping, didn't you get the bit about "but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions *if the older members*."

i was going to add, the younger millenials while maybe waiting on inheritances, etc, probably don't have much.

all of which reflects the motions going to Conference.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

belboid said:


> The FBU have just sacked the red-brown shithead



Huge backlash against sacking of Brexiteer trade unionist Paul Embery

Not everyone agrees with you


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> Huge backlash against sacking of Brexiteer trade unionist Paul Embery
> 
> Not everyone agrees with you


It quotes two organisations - London FBU, of which Embery was secretary, and Trade Unionists Against The EU, who's national organizer is... Paul Embery. It's not that surprising Paul Embery disagrees with the disciplining of Paul Embery tbh. I'd go so far as to suggest that the quote from the anonymous TUAEU spokesperson was in all likelihood Paul Embery.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2019)

Fair enough, but Belboid doesn't seem to get there are new cleavages growing on the left, lots of trots have joined the LP and creating SWP style bandwagon politics.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> Fair enough, but Belboid doesn't seem to get there are new cleavages growing on the left, lots of trots have joined the LP and creating SWP style bandwagon politics.


Yeah that's fair. But I also think Embery is on a political journey to a shit destination


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> plenty of ostensibly working class in the LP, if you mean teachers, social workers, academics, but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions if the older members.



things have changed a bit from the Bradbury  history man era for all those profession you have named


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> Fair enough, but Belboid doesn't seem to get there are new cleavages growing on the left, lots of trots have joined the LP and creating SWP style bandwagon politics.


lol. They aren’t particularly new ‘cleavages’ just a slightly different mixture of Stalinism and blue labourism.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 20, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Read: If Corbyn won't back remain the PLP should split.



Not my point at all. I’m not for throwing toys out of the pram. I’m talking about the voters. As much as people continually want to make a big case out of traditional Labour seats, those leave voters are outnumbered hugely, if voting Labour can only be hopeful of a BRINO at best and therefore may not jump ship anyway if it gets further Remainey.

A harder Leave position would be hopeless for Labour. It would disaffect swathes of its support and couldn’t possibly be delivered because the PLP would sabotage it. Sadly the chances of compromise are a bit done for.

The fact you read it like you do just says more about how you and some others do your politics. People who don’t agree with you are _up to something._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> as usual, sniping, didn't you get the bit about "but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions *if the older members*."
> 
> i was going to add, the younger millenials while maybe waiting on inheritances, etc, probably don't have much.
> 
> all of which reflects the motions going to Conference.


Yeh I read that. I don't know why you think that makes any difference. I do read your posts you know.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> as usual, sniping, didn't you get the bit about "but they are mostly comfortably off, mortgages paid, public sector pensions *if the older members*."
> 
> i was going to add, the younger millenials while maybe waiting on inheritances, etc, probably don't have much.
> 
> all of which reflects the motions going to Conference.



Doesn't matter how old they are, they still don't count as C2DE. That's who the article was about. You do understand that, don't you?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Not my point at all. I’m not for throwing toys out of the pram. I’m talking about the voters. As much as people continually want to make a big case out of traditional Labour seats, those leave voters are outnumbered hugely, if voting Labour can only be hopeful of a BRINO at best and therefore may not jump ship anyway if it gets further Remainey.
> 
> A harder Leave position would be hopeless for Labour. It would disaffect swathes of its support and couldn’t possibly be delivered because the PLP would sabotage it. Sadly the chances of compromise are a bit done for.
> 
> The fact you read it like you do just says more about how you and some others do your politics. People who don’t agree with you are _up to something._



I thought you were talking about the members? What evidence is there that a 'harder' leave position causes a problem with voters?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 21, 2019)

Has this been posted?


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2019)

Package on CH4 news, from Ashfield, ex miners and their wives at the welfare club, may consider voting for Johnson, and may be a marginal at next election, while the former L/P M/P's agent is standing as the Tory candidate for the Constituency!

through the fucking looking glass.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2019)

Ashfield is a marginal, no _may be_ in it. In 2010 it was a Labour / Lib Dem marginal (200 votes in it) - so non-Labour voting isn't a new thing there.


----------



## campanula (Jul 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Package on CH4 news, from Ashfield, ex miners and their wives at the welfare club, may consider voting for Johnson, and may be a marginal at next election, while the former L/P M/P's agent is standing as the Tory candidate for the Constituency!
> 
> through the fucking looking glass.



Yep, I saw that...and the complete absence of a dissenting voice (from the obvious anti-Labour position) was a pretty clear pointer to an underlying agenda...particularly in an area with a long history and a diverse political base. But yeah, get those wc identifiers in early (miners, bingo, workingmens clubs) then the killer reveal - WOW, ex-Labourites support Tories. Pffft, lazy reporting with huge bias.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2019)

Yes, i did think that, i'm sure Ashfield now has it fair share of middle class commuters, etc.


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2019)

It was a Tory seat (briefly) back in the seventies. Disillusionment with Labour is nothing new, inherently.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 23, 2019)

hmm.   Nottinghamshire.   Miners.   UDM country...


----------



## mauvais (Jul 23, 2019)

What, in the 70s?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 24, 2019)

Some of those mining constituencies up north also include large rural areas that are quite Tory, so not always as clearly red as expected. 

Once spent several hours trying to hitchhike from the M1 Barnsley junction and a lot of that time was spent being ignored by cunts in Volvos (as was the Tory car of choice back in those days), horseboxes etc.  Bit of an eye opener for me.


----------



## not a trot (Jul 24, 2019)

mauvais said:


> What, in the 70s?



Gary Glitter was all the rage.

Wish this thunder and lightning would fuck off as it's frightening the dog and I want to go back to kip.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Some of those mining constituencies up north also include large rural areas that are quite Tory, so not always as clearly red as expected.



The last batch of posts on this thread are priceless. Ex mining constituencies voting Tory is a process that’s been 40 years in the making.

Here is the recipe:

1. Close the mines, destroy communities, carefully and ruthlessly destroy all collective organisations of the community.
2. Add drugs and other markers of social despair.
3. Stir for 15 years and allow to rest.
4. Elect a labour Government that does fuck all to assist these areas.
5. Add this mix for over a decade.
6. At this point the mix is likely to be peripheralised and angry.
7. Once the mix responds by voting to leave the EU condemn the lot of it as racist and backward.
8. Continue to ignore it’s grievances and, as a finishing garnish, allow your leading cultural commentators to wonder if the mix shouldn’t be put in the bin and a new recipe of students, ethnic minorities and possessors of cultural capital in the cities might make a nicer project. 


Now how about we stop slagging these people off or mischaracterising them further as all UDM members, middle class wankers or hunting types eh?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2019)

belboid said:


> It was a Tory seat (briefly) back in the seventies. Disillusionment with Labour is nothing new, inherently.



Wasn’t it David Marquand’s seat with massibe labour majorities in the 1970’s?

Edit: Belboid is right. I’ve just checked It went Tory for 16 months before the 1979 GE (presume a by-election). But it had huge labour majorities through the 1970’s


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The last batch of posts on this thread are priceless. Ex mining constituencies voting Tory is a process that’s been 40 years in the making.
> 
> Here is the recipe:
> 
> ...



Bit simplified and hardly explains why anyone would vote Tory now. It was the Tories that closed the mines, the EU and Labour that provided at least some regeneration. 

Things were different pre and post the crash. The structural precariousness of people’s lives became evident post crash, which the Tories then hugely exacerbated. It’s certainly Labour’s fault for squandering the chance to build houses and a more equal society, to encourage the forces of the market, but it did more than just neglect.

Since then we’ve had relentless campaigns about people on benefits, immigration and asylum and how the Labour Party is for ‘them’ and not for ordinary folk. That core vote has absorbed these messages or ignored them in proportions we will find out. My hunch is they will be fairly loyal to Labour whatever Brexit policy it takes.

Who is arguing to put the traditional vote in the bin? This is a madly simplified reading of the Brexit dilemma facing Labour. A traditional vote wanting something Labour cannot deliver that it does not believe in and which it’s core support can’t really articulate why it needs so badly.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Bit simplified and hardly explains why anyone would vote Tory now. It was the Tories that closed the mines, the EU and Labour that provided at least some regeneration.
> 
> Things were different pre and post the crash. The structural precariousness of people’s lives became evident post crash, which the Tories then hugely exacerbated. It’s certainly Labour’s fault for squandering the chance to build houses and a more equal society, to encourage the forces of the market, but it did more than just neglect.
> 
> ...



Read the first line of my post. This is a _process _and a long run one of cultural and economic detachment between labour and its old heartland areas. 

As for arguments about binning these people - see Paul Mason.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is a _process _and a long run one of cultural and economic detachment between labour and its old heartland areas.


Absolutely. The decline of Labour in seats like Ashfield, and the rise of national populism both go back much further than 2008.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Absolutely. The decline of Labour in seats like Ashfield, and the rise of national populism both go back much further than 2008.



Labour took nearly 50% of the vote in 2005. But there was apathy, with only 57% voting.

Where was national populism being expressed pre-crash? Everyday now is a post crash day.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Yes, rather backing up Smokeandsteam's point that this was a decades long process.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Where was national populism being expressed pre-crash?


The BNP had swathes of council seats and a few MEPs in the early 00s.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Electorally, in every single euro election from 99 onwards.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Where was national populism being expressed pre-crash? Everyday now is a post crash day.


Just seen this edit. What KB said, at it's high point (before the crash) the BNP was the most electorally successful hard-right party the UK had had. UKIP was highly successful in the 2004 EU elections. Going abroad Le Pen made the final round of the French Presidential election in 2002, after a long slog through the 80s/90s.

EDIT: Also add in London Mayoral elections


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> The BNP had swathes of council seats and a few MEPs in the early 00s.



That’s always been so back to the NF in the late seventies. We may as well just agree that there have always been racists. National populism is a bit different.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Electorally, in every single euro election from 99 onwards.



And yet in the 2010 General Election Europe barely made the top 10 of issues voters gave a hoot about.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s always been so back to the NF in the late seventies. We may as well just agree that there have always been racists. National populism is a bit different.


Is it, how many council seats did the NF have? How many councillors did the NF have elected? How many MEPs did the NF have?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s always been so back to the NF in the late seventies. We may as well just agree that there have always been racists. National populism is a bit different.


No it's not - they never had anyone elected anywhere ever.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s always been so back to the NF in the late seventies. We may as well just agree that there have always been racists. National populism is a bit different.


The BNP of the 00s was a different beast to the NF though - they worked very hard on softening their hard right edges to make themselves more electorally attractive: it worked, and is obviously a precursor to the sort of national populism we're seeing today.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not - they never had anyone elected anywhere ever.


Damn, you were too fast


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> And yet in the 2010 General Election Europe barely made the top 10 of issues voters gave a hoot about.


When given a chance to show utter disaffection with the status quo in a clear protest vote they did so time and time again  - maybe you think the breixt referendum wasn't a win for leave, and for those disaffected then? Maybe there simply isn't an ongoing crisis of legitimacy wirth challenges to the status quo in many forms taking place across europe right now. Maybe it was all a bad dream.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> The BNP of the 00s was a different beast to the NF though - they worked very hard on softening their hard right edges to make themselves more electorally attractive: it worked, and is obviously a precursor to the sort of national populism we're seeing today.


_The labour party your grandparents voted for_ - a clever slogan that perfectly fits the national-welfarism of what i will also call national populists for now is centred on.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not - they never had anyone elected anywhere ever.



They got a lot of votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> They got a lot of votes.


So you are now saying that support for national-populism extended right back into the 70s then? And their vote at it's absolute height was half that of the BNP. So this meaningful vote you point to to (at a time when they were pretty much openly fascist) was _doubled (_and given much more geographic/cultural depth - was normalised for a time_) _by a group more in the modern national-populist mould, but that doubling of the vote and the winning of elections was meaningless? Didn't show anything about the direction of travel and the motor?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> When given a chance to show utter disaffection with the status quo in a clear protest vote they did so time and time again  - maybe you think the breixt referendum wasn't a win for leave, and for those disaffected then? Maybe there simply isn't an ongoing crisis of legitimacy wirth challenges to the status quo in many forms taking place across europe right now. Maybe it was all a bad dream.



I think it’s a simplistic reading that is quite beneath you. How did the dissaffected vote in Scotland, Liverpool or Inner London? How did the disaffected vote if they were not white? How did the disaffected match their sentiment with huge swathes of comfortably off Middle England who wish for little more than to shrink the state further?

You can consider there is a crisis of legitimacy and come to the conclusion it shouldn’t be conferred on Farage, JRM and Boris.

But in any case, for the Labour Party, Brexit as a way of engaging with that vote is quite dead. It must argue for redistribution, within or without and hope the message sticks.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

In the 1994 EU elections the NF took 12,469 votes (compared to 150,000 for UKIP), in 1999 the BNP took 102,647 (UKIP ~700,000). 
The NF did not have the same electoral success as the BNP (let alone UKIP).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I think it’s a simplistic reading that is quite beneath you. How did the dissaffected vote in Scotland, Liverpool or Inner London? How did the disaffected vote if they were not white? How did the disaffected match their sentiment with huge swathes of comfortably off Middle England who wish for little more than to shrink the state further?
> 
> You can consider there is a crisis of legitimacy and come to the conclusion it shouldn’t be conferred on Farage, JRM and Boris.
> 
> But in any case, for the Labour Party, Brexit as a way of engaging with that vote is quite dead. It must argue for redistribution, within or without and hope the message sticks.


Wtf?

What on earth do you think i've said here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> In the 1994 EU elections the NF took 12,469 votes (compared to 150,000 for UKIP), in 1999 the BNP took 102,647 (UKIP ~700,000).
> The NF did not have the same electoral success as the BNP (let alone UKIP).


And in 2009 they took a million. No signs here though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So you are now saying that support for national-populism extended right back into the 70s then? And their vote at it's absolute height was half that of the BNP. So this meaningful vote you point to to (at a time when they were pretty much openly fascist) was _doubled (_and given much more geographic/cultural depth - was normalised for a time_) _by a group more in the modern national-populist mould, but that doubling of the vote and the winning of elections was meaningless? Didn't show anything about the direction of travel and the motor?



I agree with what has been said about how the message changed. The UK shuns Hitlerites. Elements of the right have been popular with a section of the working class for a long time, but it needed legitimising to mainstream it. Europe as a Trojan Horse for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> They got a lot of votes.


I think it's quite beneath you to suggest that disaffection must be expressed through support for the national front.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Elements of the right have been popular with a section of the working class for a long time, but it needed legitimising to mainstream it. Europe as a Trojan Horse for that.


But you just argued that Europe was not an issue people cared about pre-2010, so how was the BNP (and in your view the NF) using it as a Trojan horse? No offence but you are all over the shop here.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> But you just argued that Europe was not an issue people cared about pre-2010, so how was the BNP (and in your view the NF) using it as a Trojan horse? No offence but you are all over the shop here.



Ok, let’s agree populism rose. I would argue it was only an expression of what was there, expressed previously through ‘no dogs, no Irish’, mainstream cultural racism etc. Hardcore racism waxed and waned but wasn’t going to make big progress. 

A softened message did make more progress as did, post Lawrence, equalities and anti racism. Populism, like through UKIP became a way to express much of that ‘I don’t recognise the place’ ‘it’s all gone too far’ sentiment with a least some legitimacy.

What I’m arguing is, if you can all stop playing tag team for a moment, is without the crash it would likely have remained fringe.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's quite beneath you to suggest that disaffection must be expressed through support for the national front.



Well as you are fully aware I did not.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf?
> 
> What on earth do you think i've said here?



You’ve said, unequivocally, that Leave was a win for _the_ disaffected. That box ticked, all else flows from it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You’ve said, unequivocally, that Leave was a win for _the_ disaffected. That box ticked, all else flows from it.


I said that those disaffected with the staus quo and who has been showing that in a long running series of euro-protest votes (allied with things like withdrawal shown in falling turnout figures  if we're insisting on looking at this solely electorally),_ voted leave_. And that this being mirrored in whole heap of different ways across europe and the US (and i might have added globally). the election results are there to see. I think you need to read a bit more carefully.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Ok, let’s agree populism rose. I would argue it was only an expression of what was there, expressed previously through ‘no dogs, no Irish’, mainstream cultural racism etc. Hardcore racism waxed and waned but wasn’t going to make big progress.
> 
> A softened message did make more progress as did, post Lawrence, equalities and anti racism. Populism, like through UKIP became a way to express much of that ‘I don’t recognise the place’ ‘it’s all gone too far’ sentiment with a least some legitimacy.
> 
> What I’m arguing is, if you can all stop playing tag team for a moment, is without the crash it would likely have remained fringe.


I'm not sure what you are now trying to argue as the above contradicts your earlier claims, as well as being somewhat self-contradictory. 

But the last paragraph, well what do you mean by fringe? Is a million people fringe? Is the FN getting to the 2nd round of the presidential election fringe? And of course that is looking solely at voters, many others if not willing to vote national populist held/hold ideas that are sympathetic to national populism. 

The further attacks upon labour post-GFC certainly provided favourable conditions for the further growth of national populism but it is a mistake to see either the GFC as something necessary for the rise of national populism or to see 'austerity' as something fundamentally different from what had taken place in the 30 years previously.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 25, 2019)

John Rentoul lol

Opinion: All Corbyn had to do was be gracious to Theresa May, but he couldn’t manage it



> a graceless assault on May’s record on child and pensioner poverty, violent crime, NHS waiting times, school class sizes, homelessness and food banks.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 28, 2019)

S☼I said:


> John Rentoul lol
> 
> Opinion: All Corbyn had to do was be gracious to Theresa May, but he couldn’t manage it



To be fair, John Rentoul is a suppurating boil on Satan's anus, and Satan having to live with that discomfort makes me feel sympathy for him.


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2019)

Corbyn's in depth interview on Sky News went quite well, imo.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 29, 2019)

Can he beat Boris?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 29, 2019)

S☼I said:


> John Rentoul lol
> 
> Opinion: All Corbyn had to do was be gracious to Theresa May, but he couldn’t manage it



Fucking hell. Boo hoo.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 30, 2019)

Excellent piece by Paul O'Connell - a law lecturer at SOAS and NOT a stalinist - on the political straightjacket, and eventual defeat, that 'Remain and Reform' places on the transformative project envisaged by Corbyn and Labour: 

Remain and Regret


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 30, 2019)

*Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party by Alastair Campbell*





l

Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party | Alastair Campbell

Bye bye then, off you fuck.


----------



## Bingo (Jul 30, 2019)

Britain loves a war criminal! Britain loves a war criminal


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent piece by Paul O'Connell - a law lecturer at SOAS and NOT a stalinist - on the political straightjacket, and eventual defeat, that 'Remain and Reform' places on the transformative project envisaged by Corbyn and Labour:
> 
> Remain and Regret


That's interesting but he doesn't cite any evidence to back up his position. 



> These treaties, and the myriad directives and regulations made under them, are virtually impossible to reform



Why?

And what evidence is there to support the claim against Varoufakis? (Not saying he isn't inept, I would just like some evidence)?

In the end, 48% of people voted Remain, what are labour supposed to do? They are caught between two opposed ideas with no reconciliation offered on either side. Either way Labour loses


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party by Alastair Campbell*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Long, nauseating interview with him in the BBC this morning. Basically he thinks Boris Johnson is Corbyn's fault, because of reasons.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent piece by Paul O'Connell - a law lecturer at SOAS and NOT a stalinist - on the political straightjacket, and eventual defeat, that 'Remain and Reform' places on the transformative project envisaged by Corbyn and Labour:
> 
> Remain and Regret



Except that Leave enforces the same neoliberal straitjacket, simply this time enshrined in capitulation to the US. 

If there is sufficient force to make a difference it will make a difference whatever the arrangements are.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 30, 2019)

Rivendelboy 

To answer:

1.The Treaties are impossible to reform for three reasons. First, it requires the buy in of all member countries, second, it requires the buy in of the EU, IMF and ECB and finally contained within the Treaties is the nexus of rules that facilitates the operation of the single market project. No deviation from these are possible (again unless you had all 27 countries under socialist leadership and demanding it).
2. The article poses a simple argument. That a unique space and opportunity for the transformative project of the type that Labour says it is committed to undertake in office was made more possible by the Brexit vote and that Labour could and should thought through and set out how it could maximise the opportunity and build support for it. It did not because Corbyn and pals viewed Brexit instead as a 'distraction' and handed the political management of the issue over to a Blairite (Starmer) and tried to straddle both sides of the debate. Given that neither sides position was fluid and not static and as positions on both sides have hardened Labour has been pushed by its middle class base to remain. Too little too late for the militant remainers, too far for brexit voters in its old heartlands and _critically towards a continued membership of the EU which will, via its treaties and modus operandi will eventually defeat any radical policy platform Labour may attempt to enact. _


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Except that Leave enforces the same neoliberal straitjacket, simply this time enshrined in capitulation to the US.
> 
> If there is sufficient force to make a difference it will make a difference whatever the arrangements are.



Two sentences. Both wrong.

1. Leave could mean that under a Tory Government. This Government however can be voted out of office and replaced with a Labour one - and before Brexit too. However, Labour is now committed to using such a set of events to take us back into the political economy of the EU.  
2. Nonsense. As well you know. Within EU structures any national government - like Greece - that attempts to step beyond the economic project is hammered


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Rivendelboy
> 
> To answer:
> 
> ...



Thanks for responding

1. Yes that makes sense.
2. Are you referring to the claims about laws prohibiting nationalisation etc?


----------



## binka (Jul 30, 2019)

Is it too much to want Campbell to join the Lib Dems?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2019)

binka said:


> Is it too much to want Campbell to join the Lib Dems?


no


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Long, nauseating interview with him in the BBC this morning. Basically he thinks Boris Johnson is Corbyn's fault, because of reasons.


Ironic really, given that they’re both his fault.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Two sentences. Both wrong.
> 
> 1. Leave could mean that under a Tory Government. This Government however can be voted out of office and replaced with a Labour one - and before Brexit too. However, Labour is now committed to using such a set of events to take us back into the political economy of the EU.
> 2. Nonsense. As well you know. Within EU structures any national government - like Greece - that attempts to step beyond the economic project is hammered



You keep on ploughing this narrow furrow. In the less than likely event of a Labour Govt having even the barest majority, the chances of it sneaking any transformation _that it could not do now_, are vanishingly small. Where is it you think our economic arrangements will be? Labour would insist on a customs union. If the Tories have taken us out on WTO rules that has its own restrictions. Bespoke trade deals bring them too. It’s a global system. If we simply thumb our nose to it capital will scarper, there won’t be a pot to piss in and a weak Labour Government would fall. 

Much much more likely is we get Brexit and we get the whole US deal. 

Within the EU there is politics. A powerful nation like the UK could oppose, gain concessions in return for agreement to others, build alliances within it. And it could still use its autonomy as a national Government to tax, spend, build and create. With sufficient political will the UK could oppose the EU, create trouble. It’s no less fanciful than the UK standing alone, socialist in one country.

The alternative, to take a Norway style distance from the EU still appeals, but the Brexit Party’s rise has for now put paid to compromise of this order, not that it ever had a Parliamentary majority.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Ironic really, given that they’re both his fault.



He doesn't strike me as a man overburdened with awareness of his own failings.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 30, 2019)

binka said:


> Is it too much to want Campbell to join the Lib Dems?


Are they planning to drive a man to suicide?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Are they planning to drive a man to suicide?


Depends - has that  man working on racist chemical attacks and looking for stronger grounds on which to invade Iraq? A hawk they call them, wells.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> You keep on ploughing this narrow furrow. In the less than likely event of a Labour Govt having even the barest majority, the chances of it sneaking any transformation _that it could not do now_, are vanishingly small. Where is it you think our economic arrangements will be? Labour would insist on a customs union. If the Tories have taken us out on WTO rules that has its own restrictions. Bespoke trade deals bring them too. It’s a global system. If we simply thumb our nose to it capital will scarper, there won’t be a pot to piss in and a weak Labour Government would fall.
> 
> Much much more likely is we get Brexit and we get the whole US deal.
> 
> ...



And you keep pretending a) that we are starting from here and not from the referendum result and the momentum labour possessed following the 2017 GE and b) that this is a static process.

And you continue to refuse to engage with the point made by O’Connell which is that whilst the projects success might be ‘vanishingly small’ at present it become impossible in the EU straightjacket for the reasons he outlines and the treaties preventing capital controls, a full programme of nationalisation, state aid and workers rights


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And you keep pretending a) that we are starting from here and not from the referendum result and the momentum labour possessed following the 2017 GE and b) that this is a static process.
> 
> And you continue to refuse to engage with the point made by O’Connell which is that whilst the projects success might be ‘vanishingly small’ at present it become impossible in the EU straightjacket for the reasons he outlines and the treaties preventing capital controls, a full programme of nationalisation, state aid and workers rights



I honestly despair when you talk of a ‘full programme of nationalisation’. To build a few council homes would be a revolution.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I honestly despair when you talk of a ‘full programme of nationalisation’. To build a few council homes would be a revolution.


'Despair'? That sounds awfully like 'be realistic; demand the possible'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> 'Despair'? That sounds awfully like 'be realistic; demand the possible'.



How about start winning? Deliver something and let the demands grow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> How about start winning? Deliver something and let the demands grow.


Check the election results.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I honestly despair when you talk of a ‘full programme of nationalisation’. To build a few council homes would be a revolution.



How would you describe Labour’s plans to renationalise rail and the utilities?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> How about start winning? Deliver something and let the demands grow.


The LP?
That last sentence looks uncannily like someone challenged you to sum up the last 25 years of the party's history in 7 words.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 30, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> How about start winning? Deliver something and let the demands grow.


So you've gone from 'the LP needs to remove Corbyn to move left' to liberal lesser evilism.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 30, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party by Alastair Campbell*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haven't read the piece and neither will I, but I didn't think he had a choice, having been expelled


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 30, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How would you describe Labour’s plans to renationalise rail and the utilities?



Franchised services are easy to take back. The railways would be a good start and popular. The utilities would, I believe, be much more expensive.

People desperately need insulation from the cost of those utilities. If that can be done by stiff regulation then spending billions compensating shareholders may be down the wish list compared to housing, public services, benefits and wages.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 31, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Haven't read the piece and neither will I, but I didn't think he had a choice, having been expelled



He’s explaining why he’s not going to appeal his expulsion. Kinda like when a drunkard gets booted from a club by security and tries to save face by saying ‘I was going to leave this shithole anyway’.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 31, 2019)

Lol


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 31, 2019)

If Jeremy can't beat Boris, which Labour MP can?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> If Jeremy can't beat Boris, which Labour MP can?


 Tara?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 31, 2019)

Skinner


----------



## Libertad (Jul 31, 2019)

I'll play, Starmer.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 31, 2019)

Liz Kendall


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 31, 2019)

Stephen Kinnock


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 31, 2019)

Al Murray the pub landlord


----------



## strung out (Jul 31, 2019)

Chuka Umunna


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 31, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> If Jeremy can't beat Boris, which Labour MP can?



Maybe none of them but there are certainly a few who would go about with more energy and competence: eg McDonnell.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

The second that McDonnell or anyone from that wing of the party is elected leader the exact same stuff that's thrown at Corbyn would be slung at them - and with the exact same motivation.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Jul 31, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Maybe none of them but there are certainly a few who would go about with more energy and competence: eg McDonnell.


I was told that he wasn't well enough to be lead (assuming he'd ever be peoplular, he did try before). Having recovered from heart problems or something.

No idea if true.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 31, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> The second that McDonnell or anyone from that wing of the party is elected leader the exact same stuff that's thrown at Corbyn would be slung at them - and with the exact same motivation.



Yes, that’s true, but the timbre could be different and they may have more charisma in defending themselves. You yourself criticise Corbyn for his associations, things that have undermined him. It’s not just the Tory press that create Jezza’s popularity.

But who that person from that wing of the party may be, I don’t know. Hopefully Jeremy does by now.

Who does he think is his heir?


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2019)

I have been surprised how a number of soft left/blairite trpes on social media have warmed to Mcdonnell's economic ideas, which are fizzing,if not the man himself. 

of course, BA is right though about if he did become leader, which i wish he would.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Check the election results.


I keep forgetting all these elections Corbyn won.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I keep forgetting all these elections Corbyn won.


If you think the election results didn't show something, don't indicate something then why on earth point to them, draw attention to them. Labour with Corbyn  - maybe because of Corbyn - did astonishingly well. This is pathetic youtube level commentary from you. I thought Corbyn would be an electoral disaster - i posted about it often enough. I was wrong and have tried to then integrate this into a wider analysis. You though, you have nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I keep forgetting all these elections Corbyn won.


You do don't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> If you think the election results didn't show something, don't indicate something then why on earth point to them, draw attention to them. Labour with Corbyn  - maybe because of Corbyn - did astonishingly well. This is pathetic youtube level commentary from you. I thought Corbyn would be an electoral disaster - i posted about it often enough. I was wrong and have tried to then integrate this into a wider analysis. You though, you have nothing.


I was wrong also, he did better than I thought he would, but it hasn't changed my mind on the effectiveness of his leadership and as time has gone on it's been reinforced with the way he's dealt with AS and Brexit. 
I don't think he would be able to repeat those results now.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 31, 2019)

Although any left leader of the Labour party would get the same shit thrown at them, I can see quite a big advantage in them swapping out leaders just before the next election. The reason is that it took them time to really thoroughly smear Corbyn, most of what they tried initially didn't stick. Eventually they settled on anti-Semitism and it has worked to the point that people tell you on twitter with conviction that Corbyn is a hardened anti-Semite. I think it would take them a while to get to that point with a new leader.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Although any left leader of the Labour party would get the same shit thrown at them, I can see quite a big advantage in them swapping out leaders just before the next election. The reason is that it took them time to really thoroughly smear Corbyn, most of what they tried initially didn't stick. Eventually they settled on anti-Semitism and it has worked to the point that people tell you on twitter with conviction that Corbyn is a hardened anti-Semite. I think it would take them a while to get to that point with a new leader.


People on twitter who say that corbyhn is a hardened anti-semite were never going to vote for labour anyway. They are people opposed to him and the movement he represents. Stop worrying about them and twitter.

Who is this reserve leader then? Madness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Although any left leader of the Labour party would get the same shit thrown at them, I can see quite a big advantage in them swapping out leaders just before the next election. The reason is that it took them time to really thoroughly smear Corbyn, most of what they tried initially didn't stick. Eventually they settled on anti-Semitism and it has worked to the point that people tell you on twitter with conviction that Corbyn is a hardened anti-Semite. I think it would take them a while to get to that point with a new leader.


Who is them? How would it happen? Who can do this?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 31, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> If you think the election results didn't show something, don't indicate something then why on earth point to them, draw attention to them. Labour with Corbyn  - maybe because of Corbyn - did astonishingly well. This is pathetic youtube level commentary from you. I thought Corbyn would be an electoral disaster - i posted about it often enough. I was wrong and have tried to then integrate this into a wider analysis. You though, you have nothing.



Well most of us were wrong and for a time afterwards it did seem as if he could ride that wave. It isn’t unreasonable to have concerns it might be petering out though. 

Moreover in retrospect Corbyn looked good on occasion, but May looked really, really bad as did the Lib Dems. There is a worry that next time will be harder and the ground has shifted.

Lots of football managers get the heave-ho not because they have suddenly become bad coaches, but simply because the faith in them or the energy in their project has run out. I’m not sure it’s that different running a Party. You have to please a big audience that is only a few games away from turning on you and when it happens there often isn’t much that can be done. Not fair, but that’s people.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2019)

So what happened didn't. Or, you don't think it would again based on your being wrong the first time.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2019)




----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2019)

Corbyn is crashing Our 2015-2019 survey data. His ratings are now at the lowest point on record among every age group Source: Clarke, Goodwin & Whiteley

From Goodwin, not sure how to insert screen shot

methodology being criticised in the comments, though by Corbyn acolytes


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2019)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is crashing Our 2015-2019 survey data. His ratings are now at the lowest point on record among every age group Source: Clarke, Goodwin & Whiteley
> 
> From Goodwin, not sure how to insert screen shot
> 
> methodology being criticised in the comments, though by Corbyn acolytes


perhaps you could offer a link so people can see the comments and judge whether the corbyn acolytes' misgivings about the methodology are noteworthy


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2019)

I did try, here goes


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 1, 2019)

Tbf he was looking a dead man walking pre May's GE but that campaign and post period resulted in popularity boost. Would be interesting to see what would happen in a new election period.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 2, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So what happened didn't. Or, you don't think it would again based on your being wrong the first time.



Such a petty post. You’ve admitted you were wrong too and have form for it like with Ed Miliband’s campaign that you considered a certain winner if the wheels stayed on.

Do you think Corbyn will win? Do you think he has the best chance for Labour and/or the Labour left? Against Johnson?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 2, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbf he was looking a dead man walking pre May's GE but that campaign and post period resulted in popularity boost. Would be interesting to see what would happen in a new election period.



Given the tories/DUP majority is now one you won’t have long to wait to find out


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 2, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Such a petty post. You’ve admitted you were wrong too and have form for it like with Ed Miliband’s campaign that you considered a certain winner if the wheels stayed on.
> 
> Do you think Corbyn will win? Do you think he has the best chance for Labour and/or the Labour left? Against Johnson?


I don't get the 'against johnson' bit, as if he is formidable. Look at his net popularity (negative) going in. Brexit and its fault lines makes everything volatile, so fuck knows what will happen. Removed from equation, johnson is a liability and a great opponent to have


----------



## Wilf (Aug 2, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Do you think Corbyn will win? Do you think he has the best chance for Labour and/or the Labour left? Against Johnson?


 FWIW, I think Labour are 'stuck'. Not so much stuck with Corbyn, though they almost certainly are, but more they are stuck with a tentative welfareist approach. An 'approach' rather than a politics that engages in a significant way with the working class. But they are stuck in other ways too. On Brexit they still haven't managed to get an assertive line and will be stuck with formulations that don't resonate with anyone (perhaps for good reasons, holding the party together, but still a messy compromise). They _are_ stuck with Corbyn in the sense that he certainly won't resign as leader before the next gen election, whenever that might be. I'm not suggesting anyone else has a better chance, they almost certainly don't, but it does mean they are stuck with Corbyn. Things are pretty much fixed on the Labour side. It's now up to Johnson to create the context in which the next election will take place. How much he fucks up will determine whether Labour have a shot of winning.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 2, 2019)

Apparently Labour lost more than the Tories in that by election yesterday, the location of which I can't recall


----------



## Dom Traynor (Aug 3, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Apparently Labour lost more than the Tories in that by election yesterday, the location of which I can't recall



Thanks for this quality post


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Apparently Labour lost more than the Tories in that by election yesterday, the location of which I can't recall



It was a situation where the best thing a labour supporter could do to hurt the tories would be to vote lib dem so the labour vote share tells us nothing useful.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 3, 2019)

Dom Traynor said:


> Thanks for this quality post


Were you confused by the sheer number of by elections as to be uncertain which one I meant?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 3, 2019)

I defiantly thing that Boris Johnson and his "no deal" cabinet from mordor will be a major motivator for people to vote "anyone but tory" come a GE - meaning a lot of tactical voting. 
He will recapture a lot of the vote share from the brexit party, but they will lose a bunch of  seats to the lib dems and the brexit party vote may well be enough to split the anti-labour vote in labour/tory marginals. 
Labour could end up the biggest party on a vote share in the low 30s. 
2nd referendum will be the SNP and/or lib dems price for a confidence and supply arrangement.


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Such a petty post. You’ve admitted you were wrong too and have form for it like with Ed Miliband’s campaign that you considered a certain winner if the wheels stayed on.
> 
> Do you think Corbyn will win? Do you think he has the best chance for Labour and/or the Labour left? Against Johnson?


We all get shit wrong all the time. Its fine, goes with the territory - but it does seem a bit odd to be more or less word for word repeating the things you were wrong about two years ago, given what's happened since.

(This isn't an issue just for you mind, half the british left seems to have looped back to spring 2017)


----------



## binka (Aug 3, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I defiantly thing that Boris Johnson and his "no deal" cabinet from mordor will be a major motivator for people to vote "anyone but tory" come a GE - meaning a lot of tactical voting.
> He will recapture a lot of the vote share from the brexit party, but they will lose a bunch of  seats to the lib dems and the brexit party vote may well be enough to split the anti-labour vote in labour/tory marginals.
> Labour could end up the biggest party on a vote share in the low 30s.
> 2nd referendum will be the SNP and/or lib dems price for a confidence and supply arrangement.


Well I think it could work well for labour, in a tory / labour marginal who are all the lib dems and greens going to vote for? They've already made it clear Brexit is the most important issue in the history of the UK so they'll vote labour to stop tory even with no agreement between lab/lib/green


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2019)

I'd recommend anyone thinking the lib dems are going to win a bunch of seats from the Tories have a look at their target seats for 2022: without some sort of massive political movement of the like weve never seen before, they arent going to pick up any more than a handful - once you get above the top 10 targets they're looking at overturning majorities in the tens of thousands.


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2019)

Do you think Labour will not get elected, KB?


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 3, 2019)

killer b said:


> We all get shit wrong all the time. Its fine, goes with the territory - but it does seem a bit odd to be more or less word for word repeating the things you were wrong about two years ago, given what's happened since.
> 
> (This isn't an issue just for you mind, half the british left seems to have looped back to spring 2017)



Well, it’s a simple question, do you think Corbyn can win and has the best chance of electoral success? Do you think nothing has changed for him since or that Johnson’s election changes nothing?


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't get the 'against johnson' bit, as if he is formidable. Look at his net popularity (negative) going in. Brexit and its fault lines makes everything volatile, so fuck knows what will happen. Removed from equation, johnson is a liability and a great opponent to have



I think Johnson is clearly flawed in a way that will undoubtedly play out with the electorate at some point.

But he is also charismatic and at this point the embodiment of for many of their Brexit dream. So I don’t know that it will play out this time and fear that he can make Corbyn look a bit pedestrian when they go head to head. 

Corbyn is mediocre in debate, isn’t sharp or witty, doesn’t have the tools, gets a bit screechy.


----------



## binka (Aug 3, 2019)

killer b said:


> once you get above the top 10 targets they're looking at overturning majorities in the tens of thousands.


That's wrong according to this:
Liberal Democrat Target Seats 2022 - Election Polling
That says there are 20 constituencies where they have to overturn a sub10k majority, most of which are held by Tories and all bar one have been lib dem in the very recent past


----------



## cantsin (Aug 3, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I think Johnson is clearly flawed in a way that will undoubtedly play out with the electorate at some point.
> 
> But he is also charismatic and at this point the embodiment of for many of their Brexit dream. So I don’t know that it will play out this time and fear that he can make Corbyn look a bit pedestrian when they go head to head.
> 
> Corbyn is mediocre in debate, isn’t sharp or witty, doesn’t have the tools, gets a bit screechy.



Straight outta the Janet + John guide to current party politics , thnx 4 sharing


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2019)

binka said:


> That's wrong according to this:
> Liberal Democrat Target Seats 2022 - Election Polling
> That says there are 20 constituencies where they have to overturn a sub10k majority, most of which are held by Tories and all bar one have been lib dem in the very recent past


20 then. Either way, theres not that many winnable seats: where are the votes coming from? The lib dem strategy seems to be mostly about picking up liberal leaning Tories, but is johnson really much more difficult to vote for for those people than Theresa May in full 'crush the saboteurs' mode?


----------



## binka (Aug 3, 2019)

killer b said:


> 20 then. Either way, theres not that many winnable seats: where are the votes coming from? The lib dem strategy seems to be mostly about picking up liberal leaning Tories, but is johnson really much more difficult to vote for for those people than Theresa May in full 'crush the saboteurs' mode?


Well 20 is double the amount you originally said so that's quite a margin of error

I suppose we won't know until the election but I don't find it hard to imagine a significant swing from Tory to Lib Dem in key marginals - enough for them to double or even treble their seats


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2019)

Still trying to work out who is saying it is not looking good for Labour.


----------



## Supine (Aug 3, 2019)

treelover said:


> Still trying to work out who is saying it is not looking good for Labour.



I'm thinking it


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 3, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Straight outta the Janet + John guide to current party politics , thnx 4 sharing



Feel free to provide your analysis or say what’s wrong with that or be a twat. Your choice.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 3, 2019)

killer b said:


> 20 then. Either way, theres not that many winnable seats: where are the votes coming from? The lib dem strategy seems to be mostly about picking up liberal leaning Tories, but is johnson really much more difficult to vote for for those people than Theresa May in full 'crush the saboteurs' mode?


The LD's lost 49 seats at the 2015 election, about half to the Tories, a dozen to Labour and the rest to the SNP, it's not impossible to imagine they could win most of them back. I suspect the ones gone to the SNP have gone if not forever at least for the foreseeable future. But if they win all the ones they lost to Tories/Lab they might very well end up with pushing 50 seats.
Personally I don't think they will do that well, I don't think voters have forgiven them for going into Coalition with Cameron even with their shiny new Leader(ess)
I reckon they will come out of the next election with around 25-30 seats. 
It will be interesting to see what they do with Chucka, will they move him to a safeish seat or expect him to fight his current one which he isn't likely to keep.


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

binka said:


> I don't find it hard to imagine a significant swing from Tory to Lib Dem in key marginals - enough for them to double or even treble their seats


Sure - I also don't find it hard to imagine that Brecon & Radnorshire was the high point of the tory to lib dem swing, and in a general election the gains will be much more modest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> The LD's lost 49 seats at the 2015 election, about half to the Tories, a dozen to Labour and the rest to the SNP, it's not impossible to imagine they could win most of them back. I suspect the ones gone to the SNP have gone if not forever at least for the foreseeable future. But if they win all the ones they lost to Tories/Lab they might very well end up with pushing 50 seats.
> Personally I don't think they will do that well, I don't think voters have forgiven them for going into Coalition with Cameron even with their shiny new Leader(ess)
> I reckon they will come out of the next election with around 25-30 seats.
> It will be interesting to see what they do with Chucka, will they move him to a safeish seat or expect him to fight his current one which he isn't likely to keep.


i can't imagine parachuting him into another constituency would be very popular


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2019)

Bit surpised to see boris get a marginally better approval rating than JC in Scotland. 

My Scotland poll: Yes to independence takes the lead - Lord Ashcroft Polls


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Well, it’s a simple question, do you think Corbyn can win and has the best chance of electoral success? Do you think nothing has changed for him since or that Johnson’s election changes nothing?


I think Corbyn's Labour could win a general election, yeah (or at least end up in government). But I think there's too many things in flux atm to be able to be confident about anything. 

As far as Johnson's election is concerned, the Labour leadership wanted to be up against him, of all the candidates for the Tory leadership, so if anything has changed as a result of his election, it's that whatever strategy they've been working on with that result in mind can now be brought into play.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Feel free to provide your analysis or say what’s wrong with that or be a twat. Your choice.



- ffs,  living standards are decreasing in parts of the West for the first time in capitalism's history, the housing crisis in the UK look near unsolvable, the worlds' burning and you're on here spewing sub Hadley Freeman b*ollocks about Corbyn's perceived debating chops, as if that's a real driver behind anything


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2019)

cantsin said:


> - ffs,  living standards are decreasing in parts of the West for the first time in capitalism's history


i'm sure there's been a decline in living standards before, for example in the 1930s


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure there's been a decline in living standards before, for example in the 1930s



sorry, excluding interwar period ( and even then , not sure it constituted a generational decline, which is what i was hurriedly referring to, as running out door for sprog who';s managed to get wrong work day, again )


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think there's too many things in flux atm to be able to be confident about anything.


regarding this, Matthew Goodwin's mailout this morning is an excellent run-down of the various currents in play.

Boris Wins Big ... Right?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2019)

cantsin said:


> sorry, excluding interwar period ( and even then , not sure it constituted a generation ? )


not a generation perhaps but it scarred to fuck loads of people - my mum who wasn't even born in the 1930s imbibed a horror at the poverty of the period from her mother.

but don't let's get bogged down in this when your point about mr moose's arsery is the real matter at hand


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> regarding this, Matthew Goodwin's mailout this morning is an excellent run-down of the various currents in play.
> 
> Boris Wins Big ... Right?!


"his path cut short by Labour turning up the volume on economic populism. - this better be the plan, because all the other stuff rests on that rather than being just another ingredient in the mix.


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't imagine parachuting him into another constituency would be very popular


What about dropping out of a plane with no parachute?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2019)

andysays said:


> Dropping out of a plane with no parachute?


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> "his path cut short by Labour turning up the volume on economic populism. - this better be the plan, because all the other stuff rests on that rather than being just another ingredient in the mix.


I agree - but I also think that's what they're planning.


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

(EG, this from big john today - plenty of scope for attack here John McDonnell questions chancellor's suitability for office)


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> (EG, this from big john today - plenty of scope for attack here John McDonnell questions chancellor's suitability for office)




really good to see this - won't make  the same kind of impact as Rachel Rilley + co finding a twitter crank with 6 followers saying something stupid / objectionable, but it's where it has to go


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2019)

I try not to concern myself very much with the activities of Rachel riley, and recommend you do the same.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> The LD's lost 49 seats at the 2015 election, about half to the Tories, a dozen to Labour and the rest to the SNP, it's not impossible to imagine they could win most of them back. I suspect the ones gone to the SNP have gone if not forever at least for the foreseeable future. But if they win all the ones they lost to Tories/Lab they might very well end up with pushing 50 seats.
> Personally I don't think they will do that well, I don't think voters have forgiven them for going into Coalition with Cameron even with their shiny new Leader(ess)
> I reckon they will come out of the next election with around 25-30 seats.
> It will be interesting to see what they do with Chucka, will they move him to a safeish seat or expect him to fight his current one which he isn't likely to keep.



Not a lot of safe lib dem seats to choose from. They could run him in a traditionally lib dem area like north devon but devon folk are not well disposed towards blow-in Londoners.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2019)

Last local elected was a tory in 87.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 5, 2019)

There is an obvious seat which no doubt Chuckie has his eyes on though its not strictly speaking available or safe.  Twickenham.

Lib dems would be mad to let him anywhere near it.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not a lot of safe lib dem seats to choose from. They could run him in a traditionally lib dem area like north devon but devon folk are not well disposed towards blow-in Londoners.



jeez, never considered this .... he might cut a swathe through this place tbh - v much expecting another swing back to Lib Dems, and as BA points out, no issues re: blow in's re : MPs - too many of us around here anyway, and the posher #FBPE brigade in Braunton etc might swoon for Chuka ( us Ilfracombites will be having none of it, obvs )


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 5, 2019)

cantsin said:


> sorry, excluding interwar period ( and even then , not sure it constituted a generational decline, which is what i was hurriedly referring to, as running out door for sprog who';s managed to get wrong work day, again )



Living standards have been declining since the mid 1980's at least tbf.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> regarding this, Matthew Goodwin's mailout this morning is an excellent run-down of the various currents in play.
> 
> Boris Wins Big ... Right?!



Very good, ta for sharing. 




butchersapron said:


> "his path cut short by Labour turning up the volume on economic populism. - this better be the plan, because all the other stuff rests on that rather than being just another ingredient in the mix.



Lets hope so or we'll have Johnson's smug face burned into our retinas forever.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 5, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> There is an obvious seat which no doubt Chuckie has his eyes on though its not strictly speaking available or safe.  Twickenham.
> 
> Lib dems would be mad to let him anywhere near it.


Will be available at next election, Cable is standing down. I'd say it is probably Umunna's best chance in London.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> regarding this, Matthew Goodwin's mailout this morning is an excellent run-down of the various currents in play.
> 
> Boris Wins Big ... Right?!



How do you get on his list,  simple email?


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure there's been a decline in living standards before, for example in the 1930s



Yes, but there was a much more robust response then, at least on the streets, Wal Hannington and the Unemployed Workers Movement, nearest thing now is Unite Community,


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> not a generation perhaps but it scarred to fuck loads of people - my mum who wasn't even born in the 1930s imbibed a horror at the poverty of the period from her mother.
> 
> but don't let's get bogged down in this when your point about mr moose's arsery is the real matter at hand



You would frequently hear elderly people talking about the workhouse in hushed tones, yet seems to be have largely gone from public memory nnow.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> regarding this, Matthew Goodwin's mailout this morning is an excellent run-down of the various currents in play.
> 
> Boris Wins Big ... Right?!



There is a decent case for Labour seeing if Goodwin would be an adviser maybe just for the election.

oh dear, just read his bio, 
Matthew J. Goodwin


----------



## killer b (Aug 6, 2019)

treelover said:


> How do you get on his list,  simple email?


There's a 'subscribe' link at the top of the page (although I havent actually recieved it for some months, he linked to it on twitter yesterday)


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 6, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think Corbyn's Labour could win a general election, yeah (or at least end up in government). But I think there's too many things in flux atm to be able to be confident about anything.
> 
> As far as Johnson's election is concerned, the Labour leadership wanted to be up against him, of all the candidates for the Tory leadership, so if anything has changed as a result of his election, it's that whatever strategy they've been working on with that result in mind can now be brought into play.



Fair enough, but doesn’t quite answer the best chance point. However as time goes by it may be irrelevant and it’s all behind Captain Corbo once more.


----------



## killer b (Aug 6, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Fair enough, but doesn’t quite answer the best chance point.


I didn't answer that because I don't really know what you mean.


----------



## flypanam (Aug 6, 2019)

McDonnell has done good going toBelfast and meeting the Harland and Wolff workers. While the dup and Alexander Boris have done fuck all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 6, 2019)

McDonnell said “The Prime Minister must intervene to save the jobs, skills and infrastructure that we will need to preserve our shipbuilding capacity.

“With the right *intervention – including the option of the yard being taken into public ownership *– we know Harland and Wolff would be in a position to win available contracts, both naval and commercial, *and diversify into new product*s that would give the shipyard a long term, stable and profitable future.”

I’ve bolded the key bits here, where McDonnell sets out a more strategic approach moving beyond Tory/New Labour place bound regeneration projects which often exclude the laid off workers. Good to see and more of this stuff is very important


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 7, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> McDonnell said “The Prime Minister must intervene to save the jobs, skills and infrastructure that we will need to preserve our shipbuilding capacity.
> 
> “With the right *intervention – including the option of the yard being taken into public ownership *– we know Harland and Wolff would be in a position to win available contracts, both naval and commercial, *and diversify into new product*s that would give the shipyard a long term, stable and profitable future.”
> 
> I’ve bolded the key bits here, where McDonnell sets out a more strategic approach moving beyond Tory/New Labour place bound regeneration projects which often exclude the laid off workers. Good to see and more of this stuff is very important



H&W haven't built a warship for 50 years and there are no available naval contracts. Type 26 is built in Govan/Scotstoun, Type 31e will be Govan and Dreadnought is Barrow. That takes us out to about 2040...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 7, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> H&W haven't built a warship for 50 years and there are no available naval contracts. Type 26 is built in Govan/Scotstoun, Type 31e will be Govan and Dreadnought is Barrow. That takes us out to about 2040...



I’ve highlighted the important points from McDonnell’s statement. The choice is simple 

1. allow the skills, experience and jobs to die and possibly expand the Titanic ‘visitor experience’ to expand creating another 20 or 30 part time jobs for curators and administrators. Pay benefits for unemployment or in work poverty to the redundant workers. 

2. Take the yard into public ownership, protect the skills and jobs and offer apprenticeships in them so others can develop the skills too. Ensure the yard can compete for further orders both public and commercial. Draw up a strategic diversification plan. 

The good news for you is that it looks like both visions will be on offer at the next election


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 7, 2019)

Although a looming threat to a genuinely radical break with the policy prescriptions of the past is this: Labour’s best tactic to beat Boris Johnson? A popular front | Paul Mason

Lots of prattle today about a Labour/SNP ‘deal’ where Labour offers Scotland a further referendum in return for a confidence and supply agreement in the event of a hung parliament.

The latter makes practical sense in the event that these events unfold. The former would be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of a transformative project


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’ve highlighted the important points from McDonnell’s statement. The choice is simple
> 
> 1. allow the skills, experience and jobs to die and possibly expand the Titanic ‘visitor experience’ to expand creating another 20 or 30 part time jobs for curators and administrators. Pay benefits for unemployment or in work poverty to the redundant workers.
> 
> ...



I'm just pointing out that talking about naval contracts that don't, won't and can't exist is unhelpful as itshows a complete lack of grasp of the relevant details.


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> McDonnell said “The Prime Minister must intervene to save the jobs, skills and infrastructure that we will need to preserve our shipbuilding capacity.
> 
> “With the right *intervention – including the option of the yard being taken into public ownership *– we know Harland and Wolff would be in a position to win available contracts, both naval and commercial, *and diversify into new product*s that would give the shipyard a long term, stable and profitable future.”
> 
> I’ve bolded the key bits here, where McDonnell sets out a more strategic approach moving beyond Tory/New Labour place bound regeneration projects which often exclude the laid off workers. Good to see and more of this stuff is very important



did his visit get any media coverage?, they are all over his comments about Scottish independence.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 8, 2019)

treelover said:


> did his visit get any media coverage?, they are all over his comments about Scottish independence.



None. And this is part of the problem. The important stuff is being overlooked by the media - for reasons we all know - but also even via by supporters on social media etc who are more focussed on the endless psychodrama


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2019)

or peripheral issues/pet causes


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 8, 2019)

Oops?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 8, 2019)

This guy has the worst idea of what matters, and what people care about, ever. Complete nonsense on both points.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2019)

Out of boredom I started rewatching Mock the Week and ended up stopping because Hugh Dennis is fucking obsessed with making digs about Corbyn. If the topic is grapes, or bricks, or a Tory scandal, he sneaks in a jibe about Corbyn - he will often literally stop people who are criticising Tories by criticising Corbyn instead by bringing up something completely irrelevant. I miss the days when he made unfunny jokes about Showaddy Waddy all the time.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 8, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Out of boredom I started rewatching Mock the Week and ended up stopping because Hugh Dennis is fucking obsessed with making digs about Corbyn. If the topic is grapes, or bricks, or a Tory scandal, he sneaks in a jibe about Corbyn - he will often literally stop people who are criticising Tories by criticising Corbyn instead by bringing up something completely irrelevant. I miss the days when he made unfunny jokes about Showaddy Waddy all the time.



Got to admire that man's ability to steal a living, years of unfunny mediocrity and he's still soldiering on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2019)

Tbh everybody who has ever appeared on mock the week should be put up and shot


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Got to admire that man's ability to steal a living, years of unfunny mediocrity and he's still soldiering on.



He's occasionally funny, but that's an absolute bare minimum to be expected from a comedian with a team of writers. The others on Mock the Week are sometimes very good but I find myself just waiting for the inevitable anti-Corbyn "joke." Usually something to do with Corbyn having an allotment because obvs having an allotment is a terrible thing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2019)

I'd start with the unfunny potato


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 8, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Got to admire that man's ability to steal a living, years of unfunny mediocrity and he's still soldiering on.


As long as there's an aging royal, he's got a career mildly sounding like him while saying something faintly offensive.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbh everybody who has ever appeared on mock the week should be put up and shot



One of the semi-regulars, Zoe Lyons, earned my everlasting respect when she did a set at Pride about 15 years ago. My daughter, aged about six, was there with me as usual, dressed in a dragon costume because that was what she wanted to wear at the time, and she heckled Zoe Lyons like mad. Nothing awful, just the comments of a small girl, and we literally couldn't get out, it was so packed. My daughter is autistic, and she wasn't being mean or anything, and you can't be stern with a child in a group of people at a Pride comedy gig - imagine telling your child to stop talking while surrounded by hordes of judgmental non-parents who you can't escape from - so I had few options. (It was in an area that was supposed to be family-friendly but in those days not that many young kids went to Pride, especially to stuff after the march).

All my friends gradually edged away. 

And Zoe Lyons was brilliant, worked every comment into the set, and was very, very funny. Comedians learn to deal with hecklers but I doubt many of them learn how to deal with small child hecklers dressed as a dragon, so she definitely improvised a lot of it. I've never seen her be unfunny since then, either.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> As long as there's an aging royal, he's got a career mildly sounding like him while saying something faintly offensive.



Those sections are handy though because you can go to the loo without bothering to press live pause.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2019)

scifisam said:


> One of the semi-regulars, Zoe Lyons, earned my everlasting respect when she did a set at Pride about 15 years ago. My daughter, aged about six, was there with me as usual, dressed in a dragon costume because that was what she wanted to wear at the time, and she heckled Zoe Lyons like mad. Nothing awful, just the comments of a small girl, and we literally couldn't get out, it was so packed. My daughter is autistic, and she wasn't being mean or anything, and you can't be stern with a child in a group of people at a Pride comedy gig - imagine telling your child to stop talking while surrounded by hordes of judgmental non-parents who you can't escape from - so I had few options. (It was in an area that was supposed to be family-friendly but in those days not that many young kids went to Pride, especially to stuff after the march).
> 
> All my friends gradually edged away.
> 
> And Zoe Lyons was brilliant, worked every comment into the set, and was very, very funny. Comedians learn to deal with hecklers but I doubt many of them learn how to deal with small child hecklers dressed as a dragon, so she definitely improvised a lot of it. I've never seen her be unfunny since then, either.


Fair play, there probably are many exceptions. I just really hate mock the week


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair play, there probably are many exceptions. I just really hate mock the week



Probably a good idea these days. The older comedians are mostly too rich to be credible and some of the younger ones were born rich.


----------



## binka (Aug 8, 2019)

Mock the week is shit, 8 out of 10 cats was always better - at least until they got rid of Sean Lock from it; now they only have him doing the countdown version which is only any good for the first 15 minutes.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 8, 2019)

MTW. I am probably the only one on here who's never seen it. Nothing I've heard about it has made me want to. Is it as bad as HIGNFY (which I've never watched either, tbh)?
I don't do telly much because (reasons). I know, I know, _weirdo.
/_OT


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> MTW. I am probably the only one on here who's never seen it. Nothing I've heard about it has made me want to. Is it as bad as HIGNFY (which I've never watched either, tbh)?
> I don't do telly much because (reasons). I know, I know, _weirdo.
> /_OT


Okay, as you are going to watch neither: both programmes are the summit of human endeavour. If it was HIGNIFY or a cure for cancer, I'd carry on stoking up Ian Hislop's bank balance every time.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 9, 2019)

binka said:


> Mock the week is shit, 8 out of 10 cats was always better - at least until they got rid of Sean Lock from it; now they only have him doing the countdown version which is only any good for the first 15 minutes.



I just can't stand Jimmy Carr. I've tried a few episodes of their countdown version and he's OK on that but I can't shake off my memories of his really homophobic stuff back in the day, and he just sets off my creep antennae. He's always seemed like he was reading out what someone else has written.

Bluscreen - HIGNFY was great about twenty years ago. You missed out then. You're not now.

TBF all these shows are suffering because it's so hard to parody real life right now. Imagine a round in 2014 or so about "things a presidential candidates wouldn't say" and most of them have probably, for real, been said by Trump.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Okay, as you are going to watch neither: both programmes are the summit of human endeavour. If it was HIGNIFY or a cure for cancer, I'd carry on stoking up Ian Hislop's bank balance every time.


Private Eye still performs a useful social function I reckon (as my name goes on The List).


----------



## scifisam (Aug 9, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> Private Eye still performs a useful social function I reckon (as my name goes on The List).



It does. It's not the voice of truth any more than any other publication, but it tries much harder than the rest of semi-mainstream media. And it's still pretty funny.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 9, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This guy has the worst idea of what matters, and what people care about, ever. Complete nonsense on both points.


how so?


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 9, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Those sections are handy though because you can go to the loo without bothering to press live pause.


He's been dining out on prince philip/charles (no difference) for decades! It's all he does!


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2019)

ttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/aug/19/brexit-latest-news-jeremy-corbyn-speech-labour-could-be-officially-neutral-in-any-second-referendum-campaign-john-mcdonnell-suggests-live-news

'A phoney outsider': Corbyn attacks Johnson as he sets out election pitch

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-speech-corby-today/

Very good pre election speech by Corbyn in Corby today.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2019)

26253 posts on, back to the issue in post 1: if Labour failed to win a GE in 2022 I think it's a fair assumption that Corbyn would have resigned at that point (if he was still leader by then anyway). But what happens if they lose of even fail to get enough seats to get some kind of coalition to oust Johnson in a GE this year (my guess as to what will happen, but that's by the by)?  Anything like another 2017 near miss and I'm thinking he'd carry on, at least for a year or so, though going way before the _next_ GE (potentially 2024).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2019)

Wilf said:


> 26253 posts on,


and more than 1150 days later


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 19, 2019)

Wilf said:


> 26253 posts on, back to the issue in post 1: if Labour failed to win a GE in 2022 I think it's a fair assumption that Corbyn would have resigned at that point (if he was still leader by then anyway). But what happens if they lose of even fail to get enough seats to get some kind of coalition to oust Johnson in a GE this year (my guess as to what will happen, but that's by the by)?  Anything like another 2017 near miss and I'm thinking he'd carry on, at least for a year or so, though going way before the _next_ GE (potentially 2024).



If he lost a GE this year I think he'd stay on exactly as long as it took to ensure his chosen successor would secure a PLP nomination. The membership vote for such a candidate would be a shoo in.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2019)

Laura Pidcock, who is great, is being touted as possible future leader.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2019)

treelover said:


> Laura Pidcock, who is great, is being touted as possible future leader.


Who by?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> Who by?


only treelover


----------



## Rivendelboy (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> Who by?


You doubt the notion? If so, why?


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2019)

I'm just interested who treelover had heard touting Pidcock as a future Labour leader.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 21, 2019)

I did a search and found this:

The rapid rise of Laura Pidcock – the Labour MP tipped as a possible successor to Corbyn


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2019)

I read that article - there's a similar piece available about every young Labour MP to the left of Tony Blair, and some to the right.


----------



## belboid (Aug 21, 2019)

She's got the shortest odds of the outsiders to replace Corbyn.  Popular, but still way too early to be considered for leader


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> I read that article - there's a similar piece available about every young Labour MP to the left of Tony Blair, and some to the right.


I’d never knowingly heard of her until a few posts ago. I doubt I’ll hear of her again.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> I read that article - there's a similar piece available about every young Labour MP to the left of Tony Blair, and some to the right.



Pidcock is undoubtedly grassroots favourite to replace Watson, ASAfuckingP, but also to succeed JC longer term - Dep Leader is deffo realistic imo, and pretty hopeful she can grow into a future leader ( also hope that a refresh of the PLP post Sept / Oct throw up lots more Laura P's - we desperately need them, and soon )


----------



## cantsin (Aug 21, 2019)

belboid said:


> She's got the shortest odds of the outsiders to replace Corbyn.  Popular, but s*till way too early to be considered for leader*



agreed, but 2022 might, just, not be though


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Pidcock is undoubtedly grassroots favourite to replace Watson, ASAfuckingP, but also to succeed JC longer term - Dep Leader is deffo realistic imo, and pretty hopeful she can grow into a future leader ( also hope that a refresh of the PLP post Sept / Oct throw up lots more Laura P's - we desperately need them, and soon )


I too have seen the campaign on twitter to get people to vote for Pidcock in a poll on the Skwawkbox website about who should be deputy leader, but I don't know if you can really draw that many conclusions about what_ the grassroots_ want from this (and how would she replace Watson anyway? He'd need to resign or she challenge him afaik, and neither of these things seem very likely right now). 

For the record I've nothing against her - she's a solid media performer and a decent orator and seems to have ok politics - but I think a lot of the breathlessness about her atm is just nonsense. It's just people on twitter with #JC4PM in their handles shouting for the most part.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> Who by?



Is Laura Pidcock being groomed to become next Labour leader?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Aug 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is Laura Pidcock being groomed to become next Labour leader?



the evening chronic. that fountain of all shite.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> I too have seen the campaign on twitter to get people to vote for Pidcock in a poll on the Skwawkbox website about who should be deputy leader, but I don't know if you can really draw that many conclusions about what_ the grassroots_ want from this (and how would she replace Watson anyway? He'd need to resign or she challenge him afaik, and neither of these things seem very likely right now).
> 
> For the record I've nothing against her - she's a solid media performer and a decent orator and seems to have ok politics - but I think a lot of the breathlessness about her atm is just nonsense. It's just people on twitter with #JC4PM in their handles shouting for the most part.



I try to ignore Skwak / didn’t see that, and it’s a bit of a shame tbh, cld do without any crank shade tainting her upwards trajectory.

The point about LP at the moment is that, *IF* the Corbynite wing are going to pick the next leader,   she’s essentially the only viable replacement for TW or JC :

Almost guaranteed to be a woman, so :

- LP is solidly backed by the Corbyn wing
- Is working class ( huge plus on many fronts) , articulate, sharp, likeable
- A v late convert to remain, and not showily so
- Rebecca LB is wobbly, Clive Lewis style, and everyone knows it
- Dianne Abbot just isnt in the running, for many reasons
- Ange Rayner, like RLB, not fully Corbynite ( though stock is rising of late )
- Thornberry : no chance

so...current 20/1 = v good value imo.


----------



## greenfield (Aug 21, 2019)

Why no chance for Thornberry?


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2019)

> Rebecca LB is wobbly, Clive Lewis style, and everyone knows it



please expand?


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2019)

There is defintely something about Laura, i also really think she could break through with the labour leavers, etc


----------



## oryx (Aug 21, 2019)

Good article by Aditya Chakrabortty on the similar treatment of Corbyn and Miliband by the media.

If you can’t abide Jeremy Corbyn, learn from the moral of Ed Miliband | Aditya Chakrabortty


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> There is defintely something about Laura, i also really think she could break through with the labour leavers, etc


She is nowhere near old enough for such a responsible job...
Anybody who wasn't even born when the miners' strike was happening shouldn't be anywhere near real power.

Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> She is nowhere near old enough for such a responsible job...
> Anybody who wasn't even born when the miners' strike was happening shouldn't be anywhere near real power.
> 
> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?



The miners strike is rapidly disappearing into the collective memory black-hole, whether you like it or not. The group that were alive at the time, but might not remember it, goes into the 40-year-olds.

And your second point is just plain offensive


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> She is nowhere near old enough for such a responsible job...
> Anybody who wasn't even born when the miners' strike was happening shouldn't be anywhere near real power.
> 
> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?



Just quoting this again, because the second part doesn't show on the thread? wtf?

Edit: No it does now.


----------



## Humberto (Aug 22, 2019)

There does seem to be a swell of opinion that Corbyn doesn't lead the Labour Party correctly. Or effectively.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The miners strike is rapidly disappearing into the collective memory black-hole, whether you like it or not. The group that were alive at the time, but might not remember it, goes into the 40-year-olds.
> 
> And your second point is just plain offensive



Offensive to who?
The point about the miners strike was just an example. Nobody knows shit until they're at least 40. Probably 50 in actual fact. And nobody who was, before becoming an MP, a 'mental health support worker' or a functionary of an anti-racism campaign, however worthwhile such jobs, would be any match for Putin, Trump or whatever that bloke who runs China is called. Or any other international (or domestic for that matter) political bruiser.
It's just how it is.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Offensive to who?
> The point about the miners strike was just an example. Nobody knows shit until they're at least 40. Probably 50 in actual fact. And anybody who was, before becoming an MP, a 'mental health support worker' or a functionary of an anti-racism capaign, however worthwhile, would be any match for Putin, Trump or whatever that bloke who runs China is called. Or any other international (or domestic for that matter) political bruiser.
> It's just how it is.



Maybe don't put the quote marks round mental health support worker, for a fucking start.


----------



## Humberto (Aug 22, 2019)

Personally I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and let him get on with it since he isn't advocating being harsh on benefit scroungers/ asylum seekers/ law and order, but is proposing actual policy alternatives, has swelled the party membership, and delivered more than anyone predicted in the last General Election. Aside from that, my personal opinion is he is genuinely a man of the people, and has principles, _despite _the massive hostility of the establishment and all the disadvantages they face.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Maybe don't put the quote marks round mental health support worker, for a fucking start.


Why? Are you one?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Why? Are you one?



No, but I work with enough people in similar roles to know that it is an extraordinarily difficult job - a job that doesn't need your snarky little "".


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> No, but I work with enough people in similar roles to know that it is an extraordinarily difficult job - a job that doesn't need your snarky little "".


Ok, sorry for being 'snarky.' But tell me how it qualifies you for the world stage.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?



I couldn't think of any better professional training for dealing with those two.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> I couldn't think of any better professional training for dealing with those two.


Fair point


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

greenfield said:


> Why no chance for Thornberry?



Where to begin ....

LFI / Kids at selective school miles away / hubby wealthy landlord / haughty /  white van man - gate etc


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

treelover said:


> please expand?



Good Shad cab member , but shes  never been core like LP - lots of examples, but her sneery, irritable dismissal of even the idea of Open Selection pre Conf 2018 highlighted how removed she was from the wider picture - grassroots democracy / potential transformation of PLP wasn’t even on her radar. 

 and we needed likes of her and Lewis on board - 11 months later, + if trigger ballot process does finally get going in sept, it’s going to be v messy: GE imminent, and every predictable w*nker squwawking ‘ we shld be fighting the Tories / this is suicide ‘ etc ... all as we predicted


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The miners strike is rapidly disappearing into the collective memory black-hole, whether you like it or not. The group that were alive at the time, but might not remember it, goes into the 40-year-olds.
> 
> And your second point is just plain offensive


To be fair his first point's offensive to, while I thought you might know of the Orgreave truth and justice campaign: trade unionists and orgreave truth & justice campaign I would be surprised if in Yorkshire, for example, as much has been forgotten as you suggest.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Ok, sorry for being 'snarky.' But tell me how it qualifies you for the world stage.



Ffs , how does Trumps 45 yrs of turning equivalent of inherited $10bn into $5b and noncing women ‘ qualify him for the world stage ‘ ? What are you on about ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 22, 2019)

I would have thought doing a real job at sharp end of social care would be a much better grounding then eg working for a think tank, being an aide, and doing some non job in the media for a bit


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?


Yes.  

There’s an age restriction on being Potus (35), but it’s arbitrary. Maturity isn’t a universally uniform process. Indeed Trump has not yet attained it. 

I don’t know why the playing fields of Eton are seen as the ideal growing conditions, whereas care work is not.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t know why the playing fields of Eton are seen as the ideal growing conditions, whereas care work is not.


I do.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I do.


Yes, I knew I’d worded that clumsily. I should have said: “I do not value the playing fields of Eton over care work as a life experience that will teach you anything I’d value in a person”.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 22, 2019)

It's ok, I understood it perfectly.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The miners strike is rapidly disappearing into the collective memory black-hole, whether you like it or not. The group that were alive at the time, but might not remember it, goes into the 40-year-olds.



It's hard for me to comprehend the mindset of people who come out with this sort of stuff.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 22, 2019)

Helen Mort wasn't even born then, but writes about the miners' strike.
Division Street by Helen Mort – review


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes.
> 
> There’s an age restriction on being Potus (35), but it’s arbitrary. Maturity isn’t a universally uniform process. Indeed Trump has not yet attained it.
> 
> I don’t know why the playing fields of Eton are seen as the ideal growing conditions, whereas care work is not.


The playing fields of Eton are not seen as ideal growing conditions by me. I doubt if Johnson, at 55 or whatever he is, is fit to face down the likes of Putin either. Or if Corbyn is for that matter.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Ffs , how does Trumps 45 yrs of turning equivalent of inherited $10bn into $5b and noncing women ‘ qualify him for the world stage ‘ ? What are you on about ?


Never said it does. But I know who would win between this type of bastard and a still youthful and well-meaning social work type.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> The playing fields of Eton are not seen as ideal growing conditions by me. I doubt if Johnson, at 55 or whatever he is, is fit to face down the likes of Putin either. Or if Corbyn is for that matter.


i'd pay good money to see johnson hunted through the _taiga_ or tundra of siberia by vladimir putin


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> The playing fields of Eton are not seen as ideal growing conditions by me. I doubt if Johnson, at 55 or whatever he is, is fit to face down the likes of Putin either. Or if Corbyn is for that matter.


if putin didn't get him





the bears would


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

I seem to remember the first New Labour government's 'ethical foreign policy' hit the skids after Robin Cook's first meeting with Cheney, and Cook was a cut above nearly everybody Labour has to offer today whatever you may think of his politics.

5-6 years later we had Iraq.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I seem to remember the first New Labour government's 'ethical foreign policy' hit the skids after Robin Cook's first meeting with Cheney, and Cook was a cut above nearly everybody Labour has to offer today whatever you may think of his politics.
> 
> 5-6 years later we had Iraq.


robin cook's first meeting with cheney? 

before iraq, before 9/11, we had kosovo, and i think we all recall whose bombing precipitated the massacres


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> The playing fields of Eton are not seen as ideal growing conditions by me. I doubt if Johnson, at 55 or whatever he is, is fit to face down the likes of Putin either. Or if Corbyn is for that matter.


OK, but what people are basically saying is don’t disparage care workers. 

I agree about both Corbyn and Johnson being unimpressive though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I seem to remember the first New Labour government's 'ethical foreign policy' hit the skids after Robin Cook's first meeting with Cheney, and Cook was a cut above nearly everybody Labour has to offer today whatever you may think of his politics.
> 
> 5-6 years later we had Iraq.


february 2001: before blair meets bush us and uk planes bomb iraq BBC News | UK POLITICS | Blair set to meet Bush


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd pay good money to see johnson hunted through the _taiga_ or tundra of siberia by vladimir putin



That'd be a very short hunt, unless you see somewhere Johnson could hide himself in that terrain - to make it a more entertaining spectacle, I'd give Johnson a six-hour head start but not tell him Putin would be hunting him from a helicopter.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, but what people are basically saying is don’t disparage care workers.
> 
> I agree about both Corbyn and Johnson being unimpressive though.






I don't disparage care workers. I'm a part-time, unpaid, carer myself. But I wouldn't feel too great going into a meeting with Putin or Xi Jinping even if I'd also had the experience of being an MP for all of... 2-3 years.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> before iraq, before 9/11, we had kosovo, and i think we all recall whose bombing precipitated the massacres


Wasn't the bombing of Yugoslavia part of the 'ethical foreign policy'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Wasn't the bombing of Yugoslavia part of the 'ethical foreign policy'?


yup


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> But I wouldn't feel too great going into a meeting with Putin or Xi Jinping even if I'd also had the experience of being an MP for all of... 2-3 years.


Prime ministers with considerably more time in parliament than 2-3 years have been going into such meetings and achieving fuck all for years already. I can't see how Pidcock - or indeed you - would do any worse.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I don't disparage care workers. I'm a part-time, unpaid, carer myself. But I wouldn't feel too great going into a meeting with Putin or Xi Jinping even if I'd also had the experience of being an MP for all of... 2-3 years.


I'm not defending Laura Puddock.  I'd never knowingly heard of her until yesterday, and know next to nothing about her. 

It's the inverted commas around "mental health support worker", and the attitude that such a role is unworthy preparation for statespersonship.  I disagree.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Prime ministers with considerably more time in parliament than 2-3 years have been going into such meetings and achieving fuck all for years already. I can't see how Pidcock - or indeed you - would do any worse.


Fair point. But I still get the feeling that a callow 32 year-old facing down bitter cynics with grandiosity issues and a mission to transform the present reality no matter what the cost, with a ruthless state machine and the support of vastly wealthy private interests behind them, would come off worse and end up doing the opposite of what they intended


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm not defending Laura Puddock.  I'd never knowingly heard of her until yesterday, and know next to nothing about her.
> 
> It's the inverted commas around "mental health support worker", and the attitude that such a role is unworthy preparation for statespersonship.  I disagree.


Lots of other people would no doubt disagree as well...


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2019)

I don't think Pidcock has _grandiosity issues_, whatever those are. But what has any British statesperson done for the last few decades when dealing with one of the great powers, other than say 'how high'? You overestimate british influence on the international stage - a problem many people struggle with tbf.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2019)

Is _grandiosity issues_ when you think that Britain is still a great global power with influence, and that it matters at all who goes into meetings with the leaders of China, Russia or the United States, perhaps?


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think Pidcock has _grandiosity issues_, whatever those are. But what has any British statesperson done for the last few decades when dealing with one of the great powers, other than say 'how high'? You overestimate british influence on the international stage - a problem many people struggle with tbf.


I said the likes of Trump and Putin etc do, not Pidcock, who may well be of the opposite temperament, although this might not have been clear in my post. 

And I don't think Britain has much influence at all. Any PM does, however, have to deal with such world leaders, and if you lead a government with intentions of being different than the rest then you at least need somebody with an experience of life that prepares you for the thoroughgoing slapping they will try and give you even if they do it with a smile on their faces.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?


Yeah, absolutely, she needs to have done PPE at Oxford, worked as an intern for Price Waterhouse, earned a few quid in the City and then moved into politics. Then she'd be 'ready'.

FFS, can't you see this is exactly the kind of shit that keeps politics as an elite activity for a certain class? I'm not even into Westminster politics, but I'm still offended by this shit.


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I said the likes of Trump and Putin etc do, not Pidcock, who may well be of the opposite temperament, although this might not have been clear in my post.
> 
> And I don't think Britain has much influence at all. Any PM does, however, have to deal with such world leaders, and if you lead a government with intentions of being different than the rest then you at least need somebody with an experience of life that prepares you for the thoroughgoing slapping they will try and give you even if they do it with a smile on their faces.


What mystical powers do you think Trump or Putin have?  Do you think Pidcock would run home crying? Plus, sitting in parliament for another ten years doesn't really give 'life experience' does it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm not defending Laura Puddock.  I'd never knowingly heard of her until yesterday, and know next to nothing about her.
> 
> It's the inverted commas around "mental health support worker", and the attitude that such a role is unworthy preparation for statespersonship.  I disagree.


yeh i'd have thought it a grand training for dealing with grandiose personalities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> She is nowhere near old enough for such a responsible job...
> Anybody who wasn't even born when the miners' strike was happening shouldn't be anywhere near real power.
> 
> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?


in years to come no doubt people in their 20s or 30s - both men and women - will have to face down the likes of trump and putin, unless you think the care workers who have to endure their poor behaviour will be middle-aged or auld.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 22, 2019)

Being able to placate mentalists sounds great training for a politician.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

Back on Corbyn's successor, there's an obvious issue about when it happens (as to who gets the job). I think that starts with Johnson's current negotiations with Macron, Merkel etc. It's pretty clear they aren't going to give in on the backstop - but equally Johnson's own survival is dependent on getting out on or about the 31st October. I can see him pretty much giving in on the backstop, maybe getting some reconfiguration that adds up to just about the same thing but is something he can try to sell first of all to his own party. If he manages that he has a _chance _of getting it through parliament assisted by a few Labour/ex Labour MPs. He then wins an election by a bigger margin that May did in 2017 and Corbyn comes under severe pressure to resign. He'll hang on a few months and try to influence who gets the job, but ultimately Labour has a new leader by the Spring or so.

Every bit of that is speculative and there's a chance the scenario gets derailed at every point. Same time it's, well, as a scenario. Probably the key point in my thinking is that Johnson is genuinely scared of no deal and will seek to avoid it - which leads to a possible route through Brexit. Conversely, no deal chaos would be one of the few scnarios that leads to Corby as PM.

Edit: less verbose version - Johnson blinks first - but then tries to persuade his party that he hasn't. His success in doing that determines whether he stays in power till something like 2023/4.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> She is nowhere near old enough for such a responsible job...
> Anybody who wasn't even born when the miners' strike was happening shouldn't be anywhere near real power.
> 
> Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?


History is full of young people who no-one expected much of but whose names are still remembered centuries after their deaths.
She might turn out to be a washout, she might go down as the greatest Prime Minister in history. Only one way to find out. But I don't see how BoJo or Corby are more qualified other than being older.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 22, 2019)

BoJo is a self-serving cunt who isn't ideologically committed to Brexit 
If thinks blinking and asking for an extension will do him less harm than leaving without a deal, h will ask for an extension.
Conversely if he thinks the reverse is true he won't hesitate to leave


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> BoJo is a self-serving cunt who isn't ideologically committed to Brexit
> If thinks blinking and asking for an extension will do him less harm than leaving without a deal, h will ask for an extension.
> Conversely if he thinks the reverse is true he won't hesitate to leave


i think he's made his position sufficiently clear that if he acts as you suggest he would lose his knackers before you could shout out 'donald where's me troosers'


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, absolutely, she needs to have done PPE at Oxford, worked as an intern for Price Waterhouse, earned a few quid in the City and then moved into politics. Then she'd be 'ready'.
> 
> FFS, can't you see this is exactly the kind of shit that keeps politics as an elite activity for a certain class? I'm not even into Westminster politics, but I'm still offended by this shit.



None of this has anything remotely to do with what I said.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> What mystical powers do you think Trump or Putin have?  Do you think Pidcock would run home crying? Plus, sitting in parliament for another ten years doesn't really give 'life experience' does it?


They don't have mystical powers. But they are old cynics with more powerful interests behind them than the likes of Pidcock will ever have.

Cynics with power will always win.

Sitting in Parliament might not, but an extra ten years of life in general should.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> History is full of young people who no-one expected much of but whose names are still remembered centuries after their deaths.
> She might turn out to be a washout, she might go down as the greatest Prime Minister in history. Only one way to find out. But I don't see how BoJo or Corby are more qualified other than being older.


I merely expressed the opinion that she was too young for the job. i didn't express a preference for anybody else.


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Sitting in Parliament might not, but an extra ten years of life in general should.


doesn't seem to have done you much good


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> BoJo is a self-serving cunt who isn't ideologically committed to Brexit
> If thinks blinking and asking for an extension will do him less harm than leaving without a deal, h will ask for an extension.
> Conversely if he thinks the reverse is true he won't hesitate to leave


All that's true, but as Pickman's model has just said, he's given himself very little wriggle room. In my witterings above I was suggesting there's a path to leaving the EU and a general election for Johnson, but it's a fragile thread he would have to follow with a high chance of failure at almost every step. The EU won't 'betray Ireland' or the Single Market, but Johnson can't betray everything he said thus far about getting rid of the back stop and leaving on the 31st. If there is any outcome other than no deal, it will be about Johnson managing the extent to which he's betrayed his own tory leadership project/principles/blustering statements.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> doesn't seem to have done you much good


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> None of this has anything remotely to do with what I said.


You highlighted her previous work experience:



> can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?



Anyway, can anybody seriously imagine an 'Eton educated, Spectator journalist' being equipped to sort out universal credit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> You highlighted her previous work experience:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, can anybody seriously imagine an 'Eton educated, Spectator journalist' being equipped to sort out universal credit?


i wouldn't trust them to sort out a universal remote control


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> View attachment 181771


if only you had a twentieth of the great oscar's wit and wisdom


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> You highlighted her previous work experience:



I did, but you, oddly, started going on about Eton and the city etc as if I'd expressed a preference for those who've been there before entering  politics. 

As for her work experience...Like others, I'd never heard of her before this thread, but Wikipedia tells me that at in the mere decade since leaving university, she has worked in mental health and for Show Racism the Red Card. The latter in particular is hardly going to put you in touch with a wide range of people and, as with all who manage to get paid for doing the politics they believe in, is bound to cultivate a fatal sense of self-righteousness (this is not a comment on the cause itself). 

Sounds like a young lefty bubble person to me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 22, 2019)

What about if somebody was older, say 45, but had done factory work for 20 years before becoming an MP, would they be suitable to be PM and deal with the big dogs like Trump, Putin and the Chinese bloke whatshisface


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I did, but you, oddly, started going on about Eton and the city etc as if I'd expressed a preference for those who've been there before entering  politics.
> 
> As for her work experience...Like others, I'd never heard of her before this thread, but Wikipedia tells me that at in the mere decade since leaving university, she has worked in mental health and for Show Racism the Red Card. The latter in particular is hardly going to put you in touch with a wide range of people and, as with all who manage to get paid for doing the politics they believe in, is bound to cultivate a fatal sense of self-righteousness (this is not a comment on the cause itself).
> 
> Sounds like a young lefty bubble person to me.


Well, yeah, she probably is, but with a bit of added real world experience in mental health. I'm not Labour, I'm not into Parliamentary politics. But this is all about you highlighting that a 'mental health support worker' isn't PM material.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What about if somebody was older, say 45, but had done factory work for 20 years before becoming an MP, would they be suitable to be PM and deal with the big dogs like Trump, Putin and the Chinese bloke whatshisface


i don't think anyone without a range of equipment like taser, nightstick etc is really in a position to adequately deal with trump.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I did, but you, oddly, started going on about Eton and the city etc as if I'd expressed a preference for those who've been there before entering  politics.
> 
> As for her work experience...Like others, I'd never heard of her before this thread, but Wikipedia tells me that at in the mere decade since leaving university, she has worked in mental health and for Show Racism the Red Card. The latter in particular is hardly going to put you in touch with a wide range of people and, as with all who manage to get paid for doing the politics they believe in, is bound to cultivate a fatal sense of self-righteousness (this is not a comment on the cause itself).
> 
> Sounds like a young lefty bubble person to me.


have you ever worked for srtrc?


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, yeah, she probably is, but with a bit of added real world experience in mental health. I'm not Labour, I'm not into Parliamentary politics. But this is all about you highlighting that a 'mental health support worker' isn't PM material.


It isn't-it's simply my opinion that a mental health worker who is only 32 isn't PM material.

How long was she in mental health work anyway? As I noted above, only ten years previously she was still a student and she's also had one other job.

Don't know why this argument is going on at such length-it isn't as if it's actually going to happen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Don't know why this argument is going on at such length-it isn't as if it's actually going to happen.


i see you've only wandered among us for a couple of years, when you've been here a bit longer you'll start to understand why we discuss the things we discuss at length.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What about if somebody was older, say 45, but had done factory work for 20 years before becoming an MP, would they be suitable to be PM and deal with the big dogs like Trump, Putin and the Chinese bloke whatshisface


Not necessarily.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> It isn't-it's simply my opinion that a mental health worker who is only 32 isn't PM material.
> 
> How long was she in mental health work anyway? As I noted above, only ten years previously she was still a student and she's also had one other job.
> 
> Don't know why this argument is going on at such length-it isn't as if it's actually going to happen.


Well then, what's your answer to Proper Tidy?


Proper Tidy said:


> What about if somebody was older, say 45, but had done factory work for 20 years before becoming an MP, would they be suitable to be PM and deal with the big dogs like Trump, Putin and the Chinese bloke whatshisface


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well then, what's your answer to Proper Tidy?


See above.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Not necessarily.


[post crossed]

So then, no factory workers, no mental health support workers. You see where this is going?


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> [post crossed]
> 
> So then, no factory workers, no mental health support workers. You see where this is going?


I haven't said no mental health workers and no factory workers.

Perhaps the best bet would be somebody off U75.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> [post crossed]
> 
> So then, no factory workers, no mental health support workers. You see where this is going?


i wonder what RD2003 would say to a solicitor, barrister or indeed david cameron, who never did a day's work prior to becoming an mp, nor did he do one after.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I haven't said no mental health workers and no factory workers.
> 
> Perhaps the best bet would be somebody off U75.


you've only been with us a couple of years so i don't know you've had sufficient experience.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I haven't said no mental health workers and no factory workers.
> 
> Perhaps the best bet would be somebody off U75.





Pickman's model said:


> i wonder what RD2003 would say to a solicitor, barrister or indeed david cameron, who never did a day's work prior to becoming an mp, nor did he do one after.


Beaten to it, I was just hunting out a picture of Cameron!


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder what RD2003 would say to a solicitor, barrister or indeed david cameron, who never did a day's work prior to becoming an mp, nor did he do one after.


For the last time, I hope-I never said that anybody else from another field of work or none would necessarily be any better.


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> [post crossed]
> 
> So then, no factory workers, no mental health support workers. You see where this is going?


Only people who have been born and brought up as part of the ruling elite are suitable to be PM, though we'll allow a few of the others to be MPs as long as they don't expect to change things or wield any real power


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> For the last time, I hope-I never said that anybody else from another field of work or none would necessarily be any better.


Of course John Major is the exception that proves the rule, a man who ran away from the circus to become an accountant. And what a glorious age the mid-90s were - the garden gnome industry was booming.  No posh cunt from Eton would have had the guts to introduce the cones hotline.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 22, 2019)

Thing is we're all taking the piss but this view is entrenched - people who do ordinary jobs wouldn't be up to it, people who intern in the city or do PR for a firm who's MD lives next door or work for the party, whichever party that is, are.

I remember saying Prince Harry was thick to my other half years ago and she said he can't be that thick he went to eton


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 22, 2019)

Also it's lies and slander that David Cameron never had a proper job, he was head of comms for carlton, a job he got with no previous experience of PR or broadcasting but defo on merit and not cos of his girlfriend's mum


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> It isn't-it's simply my opinion that a mental health worker who is only 32 isn't PM material.
> 
> How long was she in mental health work anyway? As I noted above, only ten years previously she was still a student and she's also had one other job.
> 
> *Don't know why this argument is going on at such length-it isn't as if it's actually going to happen*.



we've had every plonker under the sun telling us x / y and z isn't going to happen , for decades, and suddenly over the last 5 years,  it does happen ...so you'll have to forgive us for treating your particular lazer-beam insights on these matters with a degree of scepticism here.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is we're all taking the piss but this view is entrenched - people who do ordinary jobs wouldn't be up to it, people who intern in the city or do PR for a firm who's MD lives next door or work for the party, whichever party that is, are.
> 
> I remember saying Prince Harry was thick to my other half years ago and she said he can't be that thick he went to eton


A point about a 32 year old mental health worker being unsuited to be PM really shouldn't have turned into an argument about ordinary people versus Eton toffs and their fitness to govern.

Maybe it would have been easier if I'd just said that a 32 year-old mental health worker* is hardly PM material although a 58 year-old mental health worker might be. 


*Although she is more accurately a professional politico (and has been ever since becoming a SRTRC employee), who was for a relatively short time a mental health worker.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> A point about a 32 year old mental health worker being unsuited to be PM really shouldn't have turned into an argument about ordinary people versus Eton toffs and their fitness to govern.
> 
> Maybe it would have been easier if I'd just said that a 32 year-old mental health worker* is hardly PM material although a 58 year-old mental health worker might be.
> 
> ...


I think what people would rather you had said was that you had no faith in her ability. And left the “mental health worker” remark out of it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I think what people would rather you had said was that you had no faith in her ability. And left the “mental health worker” remark out of it.


Exactly.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I think what people would rather you had said was that you had no faith in her ability. And left the “mental health worker” remark out of it.


I'm of the opinion that her young age is the main factor. As with you, this is the first time I'd heard of her. MHW I originally put in quotes because that is what a look on Wikipedia tells me she was for a period of her as yet short working life. When somebody chose to take offence at that, I played up to it, although I do admit that I doubt if there are that many mental health professionals and the like, particularly of that age, who wouldn't have their throats ripped out, metaphorically speaking, by the likes of ruthless old bastards like Trump or Putin and their stop-at-nothing entourages.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 22, 2019)

I think it's three things: whether you realize it or not you definitely trust her less because she's a woman. Second of all, because she's 32. So we're assuming "country for old men" already. And then the fact she is a "mental health worker" just sows it up. Probably only took the job cos she couldn't get anything better right?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I'm of the opinion that her young age is the main factor. As with you, this is the first time I'd heard of her. MHW I originally put in quotes because that is what a look on Wikipedia tells me she was for a period of her as yet short working life. When somebody chose to take offence at that, I played up to it, although I do admit that I doubt if there are that many mental health professionals and the like, particularly of that age, who wouldn't have their throats ripped out, metaphorically speaking, by the likes of ruthless old bastards like Trump or Putin and their stop-at-nothing entourages.



do you feel at all self conscious about publically, loudly passing judgement about politician who you admit you know one thing about - her age ?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> I'm of the opinion that her young age is the main factor. As with you, this is the first time I'd heard of her. MHW I originally put in quotes because that is what a look on Wikipedia tells me she was for a period of her as yet short working life. When somebody chose to take offence at that, I played up to it, although I do admit that I doubt if there are that many mental health professionals and the like, particularly of that age, who wouldn't have their throats ripped out, metaphorically speaking, by the likes of ruthless old bastards like Trump or Putin and their stop-at-nothing entourages.


British prime ministers take their own entourages and, in the bigger scheme of things, have ripped the throats out of plenty of poorer countries over the last few centuries. What goes around etc.

There's actually a way of looking at this where I agree with you, not over the specifics of her being young and a MH worker, but agree all the same. If you are going to do neo-liberal business and trade obsessed politics, having been to Oxford, studied economics and the like, gives you advantages when it comes to … _doing neo liberal business and trade obsessed politic_s. Doesn't mean you are any good at it, but gives you a readymade induction in the rules of the game. It's your game. But what if you want a _different game_ (and again, I'm not actually a fan of party/Westminster politics, but let's run with it)? There are numerous other aspects of the job that other class backgrounds/experiences, every bit as much as other politics, would make a difference to. And that's not just saying working class politicians would be better on health, benefits and social care, it's that you bring a different perspective, politics - interest even - to 'politics', all of it, *including macro-economics and international relations*. Having said all that, I don't think Parliaments transform capitalism into something else, so working class politicians face all the contradictions of old. But as Proper Tidy said, it's about guarding against assumptions that some people are born to rule (and in saying all that I've gone beyond having a beef at you ).


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> do you feel at all self conscious about publically, loudly passing judgement about politician who you admit you know one thing about - her age ?


Last time I listened, my posts on here were making no sound at all.
I know what Wikipedia tells me about her and only that. Like other posters, and, I suspect, the public in general, I'd never heard of her before this thread, which may be another factor in why she will probably never be standing for PM.
Doesn't everybody who posts on the internet pass public judgement on all manner of people and other matters?
What is it about this particular politician that apparently makes you think she should face no scrutiny or judgement? Comes with the job, doesn't it?
I'm sure she's a very nice person.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Flavour said:


> I think it's three things: whether you realize it or not you definitely trust her less because she's a woman. Second of all, because she's 32. So we're assuming "country for old men" already. And then the fact she is a "mental health worker" just sows it up. Probably only took the job cos she couldn't get anything better right?


Hey great, amateur psychoanalysis.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

Edit: quoted wrong post.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Last time I listened, my posts on here were making no sound at all.
> I know what Wikipedia tells me about her and only that. Like other posters, and, I suspect, the public in general, I'd never heard of her before this thread, which may be another factor in why she will probably never be standing for PM.
> Doesn't everybody who posts on the internet pass public judgement on all manner of people and other matters?
> What is it about this particular politician that apparently makes you think she should face no scrutiny or judgement? Comes with the job, doesn't it?



it's a thread about the leader of the LP, and a discussion within it of possible successors - and you think mouthing off all over the shop about someone you know zilch about is somehow useful / constructive ? You just seem desperate for attention, whilst contributing sweet f.a. all of any use to anyone.

Anyway, sh*t derail, will leave you to it


----------



## Funky_monks (Aug 22, 2019)

All this is very interesting.

I had an idea a couple of years ago that Corbyn might well persist, making it his mission to change the party and at the same time taking the flak that anyone slightly left of centre is bound to get from the entire of the media, to be replaced before the next election with someone vibrant and young who has much less of a past to misrepresent and not as much time to do it in.

I like Long-Bailey, but I admit its probably because I'm from Salford and therefore biased....


----------



## Serge Forward (Aug 22, 2019)

Liked not for Long-Bailey but because I was also "born in Hope"


----------



## Funky_monks (Aug 22, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Liked not for Long-Bailey but because I was also "born in Hope"



Every member of my family for at least three generations was also "born in hope", my daughter is the first to break with that (Cheltenham)....


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> it's a thread about the leader of the LP, and a discussion within it of possible successors


In deed, and the post above with all the mumbo-jumbo of “working class politicians” is deviation...we need an LP led by a privately educated, middle class politician like Tony Blair...or JC!


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd pay good money to see johnson hunted through the _taiga_ or tundra of siberia by vladimir putin



i am curently in the Taiga, well virtually, Metro Exodus, photo realistic though


----------



## binka (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> What is it about this particular politician that apparently makes you think she should face no scrutiny or judgement? Comes with the job, doesn't it?


Don't be stupid you know perfectly well no one has a problem with criticism of any politician. Criticising her for being a former mental health support worker smacks of the same sort of snobbery of the Tories in parliament who used to take the piss out of John Prescott for being a ship's steward _what's someone like that doing here!?_

Fwiw I don't know an awful lot about her but I do know I'd rather a mental health support worker was running the country than a PPE Oxbridge graduate


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 22, 2019)

binka said:


> Don't be stupid you know perfectly well no one has a problem with criticism of any politician. Criticising her for being a former mental health support worker smacks of the same sort of snobbery of the Tories in parliament who used to take the piss out of John Prescott for being a ship's steward _what's someone like that doing here!?_
> 
> Fwiw I don't know an awful lot about her but I do know I'd rather a mental health support worker was running the country than a PPE Oxbridge graduate


As I said before (amazing how many times you have to repeat yourself on here), I never remotely hinted that Oxbridge PPE graduates are better than MHWs.

I never mentioned Oxbridge PPE graduates, city types, former Eton pupils, barristers or fucking solicitors.

Hope this is is clear enough. Alternatively, you could read what people actually say instead of accusing them of saying what you wanted them to have said.


----------



## binka (Aug 22, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> Alternatively, you could read what people actually say instead of accusing them of saying what you wanted them to have said.


I did, what you said was 

"Can anybody seriously imagine a 32 year-old 'mental health support worker' having to face down the likes of Trump or Putin?"

Which is what got everyone's backs up, because you're saying a MHSW can't possibly be good enough for the job. 

Anyway let's just leave it there it's boring and everyone's repeating themselves. I just wanted to point out it's not a new attitude and Prescott was getting the same shit even when he was DPM


----------



## Serge Forward (Aug 23, 2019)

Funky_monks said:


> Every member of my family for at least three generations was also "born in hope", my daughter is the first to break with that (Cheltenham)....


And no longer called Hope, just Salford Royal now. My sons were born in Whitechapel so I guess that makes them both cockneys. They're the quaint southerners when they visit their family... but anyway, back to Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 3, 2019)

Steady on, Nick


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 5, 2019)

hmmm- straws in the wind and all that - but ive noticed a definite dialing down of the anti-corbyn guff on CIF ("he wants brexit! hes a secret no dealer") . 
Also I know things like PMQs have limited impact outside the bubble - but they do have an impact on the media hacks - and how they shape the news narrative. 
"Corbyn the statesman who saved the country from no deal"  is now a potentially more viable narrative than "corbyn the terrorist loving, anti semitic incompetent". 
Nick robinsons tweet above being an example of the direction of travel.
I actually think that much of the commitariat and the political establishment are genuinely and increasingly  disgusted with johnson - (and rees mogg's) - antics .


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 5, 2019)

I was thinking today about how all the right wing rags etc. blaming Corbyn for stopping brexit might actually win him back some support from people that had moved to supporting LDs/Greens on the basis of him not doing enough. Suddenly he has a victory. 

Plus they might overplay it with all this chicken shit and make him the plucky underdog again.

Last polling I saw showed a rise in their vote, people moving in their direction for a GE perhaps. If Johnson truly fucks this up worse then May did in 2017 I’m probably never going to stop laughing.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 6, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I actually think that much of the commitariat and the political establishment are genuinely and increasingly  disgusted with johnson - (and rees mogg's) - antics .


I think this is where BJ running the Bannon/Trump playbook comes just a little unstuck...the 'liberal' end of the media will inevitably hate what BJ does, but Trump by comparison wouldn't blink and would in turn attack those parts of the media as lackeys....that's not something I can imagine BJ ever doing full throttle. The Tories can rely for the most part on support from the rightwing papers, and they can still bypass the mainstream media online as best they can, but I don't expect they will launch a full assault on 'fake news' and media bias a la Trump.

Then again its not as if the BBC are ever that scathing in their political reporting...and its only really the BBC they might be concerned about.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 6, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I think this is where BJ running the Bannon/Trump playbook comes just a little unstuck...the 'liberal' end of the media will inevitably hate what BJ does, but Trump by comparison wouldn't blink and would in turn attack those parts of the media as lackeys....that's not something I can imagine BJ ever doing full throttle. The Tories can rely for the most part on support from the rightwing papers, and they can still bypass the mainstream media online as best they can, but I don't expect they will launch a full assault on 'fake news' and media bias a la Trump.
> 
> Then again its not as if the BBC are ever that scathing in their political reporting...and its only really the BBC they might be concerned about.



I guess its about how the narrative is shaped - many middle class tory voters want the moral cover of "moderate conservatism" (i.e. cameron) and a sense of competence - they like the status quo. they will likely be repelled by johnson, rees mogg and cummings -  with their divisiveness, contempt, appeal to reactionary brexitism, monstering of nice sensible torys like hammond and clarke and - perhaps most importantly - their amateurism and incompetence.  they want to reassured - not revolutionaised.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I guess its about how the narrative is shaped - many middle class tory voters want the moral cover of "moderate conservatism" (i.e. cameron) and a sense of competence - they like the status quo. they will likely be repelled by johnson, rees mogg and cummings -  with their divisiveness, contempt, appeal to reactionary brexitism, monstering of nice sensible torys like hammond and clarke and - perhaps most importantly - their amateurism and incompetence.  they want to reassured - not revolutionaised.


People keep saying this but poling shows strong support for withdrawing the whip, keeping no deal as an option, proroguing parliament amongst Tory and Leave voters. The idea that these moves are unpopular across society is not true.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 6, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> People keep saying this but poling shows strong support for withdrawing the whip, keeping no deal as an option, proroguing parliament amongst Tory and Leave voters. The idea that these moves are unpopular across society is not true.



dunno all round. i dont trust the polling to show us much insight because i think most people dont really know what is going on other than "what a shit show our politicians are" -but  i think their is potential for the shit show blame to fall squarely on johnsons shoulders and his honeymoon is rapidly going into reverse. 

I guess im thinking of remainser or brexit agnostics who would normally vote tory - his aggresive pursuit of the kipper faction is likely to alientate many of them.


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2019)

Stephen Bush in the Staggers morning mailout has some interesting things to say:

_Tough times for Johnson? It depends on where you look. Don't forget that the places that really matter as far as elections are concerned, in no particular order, are the six and ten o'clock news, the brief newsbreaks on music radio, Facebook and the BBC's homepage. 

On the six and the ten, and on music radio, the personally damaging story about his brother is leading - but on the BBC homepage, a picture of Boris Johnson, the Downing Street lectern, a big picture of the police and his pledge to take us out of the EU come what may got top billing. And the most widely travelling political story on Facebook looks to be Jacob Rees-Mogg's slouching, a story with the potential to reinforce the perceptions of a weird-and-posh party that David Cameron worked so hard to erase.

So it's mixed. But the important thing about all of those stories is they show an executive using (sometimes to self-destructive effect) the powers that come with the premiership outside of election time. While there is a fierce row about Johnson's politicization of the police, Downing Street will judge, rightly in my view, that they gain more from the photograph than they lose from the circumstances of it. 

Elsewhere, Robert Jenrick is announcing a cash bounty for 100 marginal constituencies and with the full might of Whitehall's press officers, social media channels and advertising budget behind him. Elections between the government and the opposition parties are by definition asymmetrical but that the opposition is increasingly united in believing the best way forward is a long two month period in which the benefits of incumbency can be used in full means that the Conservative party still retains the ability to do well where it matters even when the news in the bubble turns against it._


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> dunno all round. i dont trust the polling to show us much insight because i think most people dont really know what is going on other than "what a shit show our politicians are" -but  i think their is potential for the shit show blame to fall squarely on johnsons shoulders and his honeymoon is rapidly going into reverse.


The blame will fall along individuals existing support - Labour, LibDems etc will blame Johnson, Tories and Leave voters will blame the 'Rebel Alliance'.



Kaka Tim said:


> I guess im thinking of remainser or brexit agnostics who would normally vote tory - his aggresive pursuit of the kipper faction is likely to alientate many of them.


Sure some of that vote will leave (and some has already left) but there is also the potential to attract Leave voters in seats like Bolsover, Ashfield, etc


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 6, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Sure some of that vote will leave (and some has already left) but there is also the potential to attract Leave voters in seats like Bolsover, Ashfield, etc



I agree. But johnsons dismal performance may seriously undermine that - and fucking rees mogg?!?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 6, 2019)

killer b said:


> _Elsewhere, Robert Jenrick is announcing a cash bounty for 100 marginal constituencies and with the full might of Whitehall's press officers, social media channels and advertising budget behind him. Elections between the government and the opposition parties are by definition asymmetrical but that the opposition is increasingly united in believing the best way forward is a long two month period in which the benefits of incumbency can be used in full means that the Conservative party still retains the ability to do well where it matters even when the news in the bubble turns against it._


Cheers for that KB, I think it's pretty accurate.

Kaka Tim I'm not claiming that the Tories are going to obtain some huge majority but this insistence in the Westminster bubble and U75 that the last few days have been a disaster for Johnson and the Tories is based on a particular view of politics.

EDIT: I mean we had two years of parliament/Tories insisting Cobyn's performance was 'dismal' only for Labour to get a increase in their vote. We've had 4+ years of people criticising Trump performance. but his vote is still holding up. These things are absolutely seen though peoples existing political spectacles.


----------



## killer b (Sep 6, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Cheers for that KB, I think it's pretty accurate.
> .


ha, I also posted it on the wrong thread.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 6, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Cheers for that KB, I think it's pretty accurate.
> 
> Kaka Tim I'm not claiming that the Tories are going to obtain some huge majority but this insistence in the Westminster bubble and U75 that the last few days have been a disaster for Johnson and the Tories is based on a particular view of politics.
> 
> EDIT: I mean we had two years of parliament/Tories insisting Cobyn's performance was 'dismal' only for Labour to get a increase in their vote. We've had 4+ years of people criticising Trump performance. but his vote is still holding up. These things are absolutely seen though peoples existing political spectacles.



i dont disagree - right now reading politics is like trying to see faces and trees in a jackson pollock painting. I think the narrative of johnson being  a disaster taking hold is plausible - but im not claiming it is definite. 
But it does help me get up and face the world in the morning.

#itsthehopethatkillsyou


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2019)

Seems odd


redsquirrel said:


> Cheers for that KB, I think it's pretty accurate.
> 
> Kaka Tim I'm not claiming that the Tories are going to obtain some huge majority but this insistence in the Westminster bubble and U75 that the last few days have been a disaster for Johnson and the Tories is based on a particular view of politics.
> 
> EDIT: I mean we had two years of parliament/Tories insisting Cobyn's performance was 'dismal' only for Labour to get a increase in their vote. We've had 4+ years of people criticising Trump performance. but his vote is still holding up. These things are absolutely seen though peoples existing political spectacles.



It's a bit odd to read so many people in the media and some on here who think that most tory and leave voters or any admixture thereof are ignorant, selfish greedy, racist drooling semi-fascists seeming to now think that a set of policies and proposed actions that they themselves believe are exemplars of ignorant, selfish greedy, racist drooling semi-fascist thinking is going to break them from support for that ignorant, selfish greedy, racist drooling semi-fascist politics.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 8, 2019)

The tory party is imploding, tearing itself to bits but the labour party is not exactly tearing them the torys shreds or gaining any ground on them from what i can see.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2019)

hash tag said:


> The tory party is imploding, tearing itself to bits but the labour party is not exactly tearing them the torys shreds or gaining any ground on them from what i can see.


And people like yourself and your obsessive focus on labour being shit, being split, wanting genocide etc has played no role in this whatsoever.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2019)

Unions and workers rights is a bad thing?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 11, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And people like yourself and your obsessive focus on labour being shit, being split, wanting genocide etc has played no role in this whatsoever.



It's not always easy, but in my home and circles, I am the biggest defender of JC than anyone I know apart from a distant uncle,  I'll have you know.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 11, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Unions and workers rights is a bad thing?


Surprised you've not heard of the Daily Mail before. Wait til you find out what they said about the Blackshirts


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2019)

Cool. The 70s. Does that mean we all get space hoppers and Kung Fuey crisps?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 11, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Cool. The 70s. Does that mean we all get space hoppers and Kung Fuey crisps?



With every membership


----------



## Poi E (Sep 11, 2019)

The 1970s. Wasn't that when social mobility went out of fashion?


----------



## chilango (Sep 11, 2019)

Daft.

Tory voters are always going in about how much better things used to be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> Daft.
> 
> Tory voters are always going in about how much better things used to be.




1976 was Britian's best ever year according to new study


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2019)

of course back in the 1970s even mirror journalists could spell 'britain'.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2019)

The power of the constructed narrative of the 70's is fascinating. There is absolutely no doubt that those, like my dad, who lived it often remember it wrongly and it's wholly due to this constructed narrative. The creation of a 'crisis', using the cyclical slowdown of the economic model of the previous 25 years, sparking popular fears of a return to the poverty of the years before and after the second world war was and is for that generation still imagined as real. I do wonder what it means for those aged under 40 though. They've never lived through a period where unions were held to enjoy too much power for example.


----------



## chilango (Sep 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The power of the constructed narrative of the 70's is fascinating. There is absolutely no doubt that those, like my dad, who lived it often remember it wrongly and it's wholly due to this constructed narrative. The creation of a 'crisis', using the cyclical slowdown of the economic model of the previous 25 years, sparking popular fears of a return to the poverty of the years before and after the second world war was and is for that generation still imagined as real. I do wonder what it means for those aged under 40 though. They've never lived through a period where unions were held to enjoy too much power for example.



Quite.

In a row the other my Mum was going on about "the Unions" being to blame for all kinds of ills.

My exasperated response was that it was 50 bloody years ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The power of the constructed narrative of the 70's is fascinating. There is absolutely no doubt that those, like my dad, who lived it often remember it wrongly and it's wholly due to this constructed narrative. The creation of a 'crisis', using the cyclical slowdown of the economic model of the previous 25 years, sparking popular fears of a return to the poverty of the years before and after the second world war was and is for that generation still imagined as real. I do wonder what it means for those aged under 40 though. They've never lived through a period where unions were held to enjoy too much power for example.


except for the 1980s

and it's a theme to which the tories periodically return


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> In a row the other my Mum was going on about "the Unions" being to blame for all kinds of ills.
> 
> My exasperated response was that it was 50 bloody years ago.



Around 96% of employers in Britain experienced zero strike action in the 1970's. Heath and Wilson legislated against the unions and the social contract was being disassembled throughout a period when job losses were increasing. None of this you'd know from reading popular histories of the period. 

The Thatcher histories on TV this year have all emphasised her leadership against the prevailing crises of the period without asking first if they were actually real or constructed.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 11, 2019)

My mum and dad had a massive row once about the 1970s which involved my dad repeatedly shouting 'how many dead bodies did you see on the street then eh'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> except for the 1980s
> 
> and it's a theme to which the tories periodically return



But with diminishing returns as you move down the generations? I don't know and would be interested to hear what others think


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But with diminishing returns as you move down the generations? I don't know and would be interested to hear what others think


i think it's very hard for anyone below the age of say 45 to remember large scale industrial action of the level of wapping or the miners strike, great industrial conflicts. so while people born in 1979 would have lived through the period in which union power was curbed, they would be unlikely to recall those struggles or the passage of the laws. in some ways the nearest in (fairly) recent years has been the student protests of 2010


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2019)

Trump is going to stop the flow of information to Putin by cutting Corbyn out of the loop:


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2019)




----------



## scifisam (Sep 16, 2019)

agricola said:


> Trump is going to stop the flow of information to Putin by cutting Corbyn out of the loop:




One of the best lines from that is:



> When Corbyn was asked about the Novichok poisoning in Salisbury in March last year, he said 'the evidence points towards Russia'.
> 
> This prompted speculation Corbyn was reluctant to pin the blame directly on Russia.



No. That means he was saying it was Russia but he can't actually say that outright because it would create a diplomatic incident.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2019)

would it?


----------



## Riklet (Sep 17, 2019)

Surely the diplomatic incident is not nasty mean words but a Russian hit squad bringing in several vials of nerve agent and then attempting to assassinate a former spy, leading to 2 near deaths, then abandoning one of the weapons in public (leading to a future death) and then brazenly lying about it.

Its this kind of political caution which doesnt make Corbyn look good.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> One of the best lines from that is:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That means he was saying it was Russia but he can't actually say that outright because it would create a diplomatic incident.


I don't think it would. I think he just doesn't want to say it because of 1) years of conspiracy thought on his own part and 2) lots of his more vocal labour member supporters being russia freaks. Time after time with regards to russian enabled chemical attacks by the regime in syria  he refuses to say who he feels is guilty and says it's for the UN. Knowing full well that russia has (until a few months ago anyway) vetoed investigations being able to name the guilty. And when they do come back with their findings, suggesting as far as possible - under their then remit - that the regime did it/them, we don't hear another word. Until they do it again and he starts the whole charade all over again. He talks repeatedly of fair process but never ever deals with the findings of that process. It's just lefty sounding rhetoric stuck in the cold war.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 17, 2019)

Yeah I've said it before in one way or another but this is one major thing that really bothers me about foriegn policy under a prospective Labout government with Corbyn at the head. Foriegn policy you say? Aren't there enough domestic ills to deal with that they may have the solution for? All well and good but enabling war criminals the likes of Putin, the Iranians and and last but not least, Assad is something I am not prepared to buy into. I took Emilly Thornberry to task over some completely ill-informed bollox wrt to things in Syria a couple of years ago on Twitter, not that I expected a reply and I got trolled by a bunch of rabid Assadists for my pains.


----------



## Mation (Sep 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Around 96% of employers in Britain experienced zero strike action in the 1970's. Heath and Wilson legislated against the unions and the social contract was being disassembled throughout a period when job losses were increasing. None of this you'd know from reading popular histories of the period.
> 
> The Thatcher histories on TV this year have all emphasised her leadership against the prevailing crises of the period without asking first if they were actually real or constructed.


This might be of interest, if you haven't read it already:


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 17, 2019)

Mation said:
			
		

> This might be of interest, if you haven't read it already



I'd like to read that 
Andy Beckett's book on the 70s was also pretty informative


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 17, 2019)

I’d recommend this:

Reassessing 1970s Britain - Research, The University of York

The book has a series of essays by those influential in generating and disseminating new ideas in the 1970s to reflect on key texts and arguments in which they were closely involved during that decade. These are then debated with historians.

Stuart Holland’s essay on Labour’s Alternative Economic Strategy is particularly interesting in terms of how Labour was pushed, and pushed itself, to the right in terms of its thinking and policy formulation on state intervention and management of the economy. A timely story. It’s also brilliantly revealing of how being opposed to the EU was once an integral position of a left that had ambition to build a politics it recognised were incompatible with the European Project that was busy cutting jobs and rolling back the state 

The essays on the construction of declinist narratives are also well worth reading.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2019)

'Liked' for the historical interest of reading a book of that kind (if I ever manage to get around to it  )
I might be remain-minded in general, but I _try_ to be fairminded -- especially about historical perspective.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2019)

No official party position for an 'in/out' European referendum?
Corbyn going right back to 1975.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Motions for Labour conference are out if anyone fancies a quick, light, read

https://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CAC-doc.pdf


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

brogdale said:


> No official party position for an 'in/out' European referendum?
> Corbyn going right back to 1975.



Not quite. The policy as of yesterday is to negotiate a deal first. Under Labour's formulation, they would go off to the EU and ask for a deal that the EU know will be up against remain in a Referendum. In those circumstances it would be barmy for the EU to offer up anything remotely enticing given it'll be up against their preferred option.

On the surface Labour now looks centrist on this, given the massive LD error, but the policy is bollocks. And it'll increasingly be exposed as bollocks once it leaves the Labour bubble to face reality.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Not quite. The policy as of yesterday is to negotiate a deal first. Under Labour's formulation, they would go off to the EU and ask for a deal that the EU know will be up against remain in a Referendum. In those circumstances it would be barmy for the EU to offer up anything remotely enticing given it'll be up against their preferred option.
> 
> On the surface Labour now looks centrist on this, given the massive LD error, but the policy is bollocks. And it'll increasingly be exposed as bollocks once it leaves the Labour bubble to face reality.


Most of Labour's position has already been negotiated with them.

"a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections"

Of course the question remains of what a 'new' customs union actually means, and there should be a No Deal option in any referendum, imo, but it's wrong to say that te work still has to be done, it overwhelmingly already has been.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

belboid said:


> Most of Labour's position has already been negotiated with them.
> 
> "a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections"
> 
> Of course the question remains of what a 'new' customs union actually means, and there should be a No Deal option in any referendum, imo, but it's wrong to say that te work still has to be done, it overwhelmingly already has been.



To suggest that a new customs union is a trifling detail is well wide of the mark. It is the defining point of the remain argument - that there would be economic doom outside of it. But of course, things that Labour want to do in office are prevented by the rules of the union. I suggest that as night follows day Labour's deal will be the current rules v remain. A Hobson's Choice.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> To suggest that a new customs union is a trifling detail is well wide of the mark. It is the defining point of the remain argument - that there would be economic doom outside of it. But of course, things that Labour want to do in office are prevented by the rules of the union. I suggest that as night follows day Labour's deal will be the current rules v remain. A Hobson's Choice.


I didn't suggest a new customs union was a 'trifling thing', why you have to make so many things up is beyond me.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

belboid said:


> I didn't suggest a new customs union was a 'trifling thing', why you have to make so many things up is beyond me.



No, you said the work was 'overwhelmingly already done'. Which is wrong.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No, you said the work was 'overwhelmingly already done'. Which is wrong.


So you agree you were wrong, that's a start.

Now please expand upon what you are actually now saying is wrong.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

belboid said:


> So you agree you were wrong, that's a start.
> 
> Now please expand upon what you are actually now saying is wrong.



You stated "but it's wrong to say that te work still has to be done, it overwhelmingly already has been".

That's not accurate. In fact it's a nonsense. 

Once the work does begin it is inevitable that the EU will give Labour either nothing or next to nothing as their interests lie in British people rejecting the deal in a referendum. Everyone, including Labour, know this. 

Given the growing body of academic work on working class leaver motivations Labour, under their 'policy', far from moving closer to large swathes of the class it professes to speak for is moving further away and continuing a long process of political alienation between the party and the class.

Hope that is easy enough for you to understand.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You stated "but it's wrong to say that te work still has to be done, it overwhelmingly already has been".
> 
> That's not accurate. In fact it's a nonsense.
> 
> ...


Of course, drivel is always easy to understand.

You tried the 'growing body of academic work;' argument yesterday, but couldn't answer at all on why your latest evidence was so thoroughly flawed (poor methodology and inconsistency within its reporting, for two). You also ignore its conclusion that Corbyn was actually reversing that alienation (it was at the end, so maybe you didn't get that far).

And, still, all you can do is repeat your claim, rather than evidence it.  Maybe you're right, but you have to shot it not just say it. Come on, give us more than bluster for once.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

belboid said:


> You tried the 'growing body of academic work;' argument yesterday, but couldn't answer at all on why your latest evidence was so thoroughly flawed (poor methodology and inconsistency within its reporting, for two). You also ignore its conclusion that Corbyn was actually reversing that alienation (it was at the end, so maybe you didn't get that far).
> 
> And, still, all you can do is repeat your claim, rather than evidence it.  Maybe you're right, but you have to shot it not just say it. Come on, give us more than bluster for once.



In terms of your first point: the journal article I linked to yesterday is situated in a much wider and growing body of work - cited in the report - examining working class leaver motivations. What is the pattern? That neolberalism and working class political alienation are the dominant factors. That race was a factor but not the dominant factor. That the grievances that propelled the vote are not being addressed. That attitudes are hardening.

Now let's turn to your second point. There is _some _evidence  it is true that Corbyn and Labour were beginning to engage with this. But Corbyn started from a position of a 'People's Brexit' and has been pushed and pushed to a new position of a second referendum with remain or an inevitably shit deal as the options on the paper. How, do you think that plays out in these communities? The answer, in case you are still struggling, is disastrously.

Finally, let's enquire further into your claim that the Labour deal is basically done bar agreeing a new customs union. There are two scenarios:

1. Labour will sign up lock, stock and barrel to a May style deal and present this as the best achievable. Given that Labour has rejected May's deal three times this could prove problematic.
2. Labour negotiate a deal of their own - with the EU knowing whatever they agree to will be up against remain in a a referendum.

In neither scenario does your clam - that a deal is basically done - appear remotely sane.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 18, 2019)

belboid said:


> Of course, drivel is always easy to understand.



Talking of which in the last week you've claimed:

1. Labour has an iron grip on the Parliamentary game playing 
2. That there is no threat to Corbyn from the processes unleashed by Labour right wingers, Tory remainers, Swinsone etc 
3. Labour's EU deal is basically done. 

To be fair to you that's not drivel. It's delusional gibberish.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Talking of which in the last week you've claimed:
> 
> 1. Labour has an iron grip on the Parliamentary game playing
> 2. That there is no threat to Corbyn from the processes unleashed by Labour right wingers, Tory remainers, Swinsone etc
> ...


1 and 2 are fictions of your own making. The fact that you have to keep making this nonsense up shows how you are incapable of actually defending your argument, yet alone developing it. All you can do is copy and paste, repeat a bit louder, then make things up.  Which you have done again.  Slightly better than completely ignoring criticisms, I suppose.  But not much.


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2019)

teqniq said:


> *Yeah I've said it before in one way or another but this is one major thing that really bothers me about foriegn policy under a prospective Labout government with Corbyn at the head. Foriegn policy you say? Aren't there enough domestic ills to deal with that they may have the solution for? *All well and good but enabling war criminals the likes of Putin, the Iranians and and last but not least, Assad is something I am not prepared to buy into. I took Emilly Thornberry to task over some completely ill-informed bollox wrt to things in Syria a couple of years ago on Twitter, not that I expected a reply and I got trolled by a bunch of rabid Assadists for my pains.



My local CLP frequently pushes aside motion on local basic issues to allow for the SWP style emergency motions on global issues that frankly we can little about.


----------



## agricola (Sep 19, 2019)

Luke Akehurst with a valiant attempt to boost onion sales:

Why the hard left has abolished Labour Students | Coffee House


----------



## Sue (Sep 19, 2019)

Akehurst's wife has just been deselected as a Labour councillor in Oxford. It was Momentum wot done it, according to her.

Deputy leader of Oxford City Council 'deselected' by her own party


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 19, 2019)

Sue said:


> Akehurst's wife has just been deselected as a Labour councillor in Oxford. It was Momentum wot done it, according to her.
> 
> Deputy leader of Oxford City Council 'deselected' by her own party


Also at the end of the piece it says new boundaries hence new selections so it's bollocks isn't it


----------



## Sue (Sep 19, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Also at the end of the piece it says new boundaries hence new selections so it's bollocks isn't it



Tbf though, there'll still be two wards covering Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys with two councillors each. The person replacing her isn't currently a councillor so it's not like Smith has lost out to an existing, neighbouring councillor or whatever.

(Haven't seen the final boundaries but what was being proposed before didn't look massively different to how it is in those wards at the moment.)

ETA Just had a look at the final boundaries. The main difference as far as BBL ward is concerned looks to be that the car plant is now within the ward boundary. So while geographically the ward is much bigger, it doesn't look to encompass many more people. Northfield Brook ward next door (which covers much of Greater Leys and some of Blackbird Leys) looks to be unchanged.

Ex-SU chief will stand for Labour


----------



## treelover (Sep 19, 2019)

> Deputy party leader Tom Watson slammed the deselection as 'nihilism, pure and simple'.



must have a lot of time on his hands to complain about a single councillor.


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 19, 2019)

Well he hasn't submitted a Deputies report to the NEC since March to free himself up for it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 21, 2019)

FFS, with the clusterfuck of the Tories in government over the last few years, Labour should be polling well ahead of them, not basically neck & neck with the bloody LibDems.

And, now their bloody conference has descended into chaos, it's beyond a fucking joke. 

Corbyn, a leaver, who accidentally became the 'leader' of a remain party, can't even lead his own party, there's no hope whatsoever of him beating the Tories in the GE, what a mess.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 21, 2019)

Apart from the Watson debacle, I gather the locals are going to stand a candidate against Harman if she becomes speaker and Thornberry says she will vote remain, against Corbyns wishes.
The party should be showing a united front of they are going to get anywhere.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Apart from the Watson debacle, I gather the locals are going to stand a candidate against Harman if she becomes speaker and Thornberry says she will vote remain, against Corbyns wishes.
> The party should be showing a united front of they are going to get anywhere.


So they should, but the problem is they haven't got one.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> So they should, but the problem is they haven't got one.



And they never will have with the current crop of opportunist shits that dominate the PLP. The wreckers must be kicked to the curb like the filth they are ASAP.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 22, 2019)




----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 22, 2019)

Watson is scum. There’s no getting around it. But to launch a manoeuvre against him, a device, a month before a GE is abysmal politics. It’d be embarrassing in student politics. That the clunking manoeuvre, inevitably, failed will only embolden the Blarities. They’ll step up work to continue to use brexit as the mechanism to drive the cleavage between Corbyn and large sections of the middle class sections of the membership.

For them it’s a double win. They get to pursue a descent towards a popular front of tories, liberals and nationalists to defend the status quo and damage corbyn in the process.

Equally inevitable. The moment corbyn gave ground to the remainers the dominos began to fall. The policy is a _disaster _electorally. Never authoritarian enough for militant remain. Every inch given emboldens them to demand an extra mile. Distancing the party further from the majority of the working class. 

I sense now he’ll be pushed to abandon an election - which given the polls will have a powerful echo - in favour of a referendum. I also sense the ‘National Government’ lash up, led by anyone by Corbyn, has new agency.

A slow motion car crash for the entire corbyn project


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Watson is scum. There’s no getting around it. But to launch a manoeuvre against him, a device, a month before a GE is abysmal politics. It’d be embarrassing in student politics. That the clunking manoeuvre, inevitably, failed will only embolden the Blarities. They’ll step up work to continue to use brexit as the mechanism to drive the cleavage between Corbyn and large sections of the middle class sections of the membership.
> 
> For them it’s a double win. They get to pursue a descent towards a popular front of tories, liberals and nationalists to defend the status quo and damage corbyn in the process.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure the current policy of offering compromise couldn’t be used to advantage by a leader with any political capital. Corbyn has none, so it won’t get off the ground, yet Remainers would have bitten his arm off for it two years ago.

Arguing for Leave is fanciful, because in any case Labour cannot for anything but a soft exit and argue rationally for jobs. I know lots of you disagree, but that’s the way the wider world and most prospective Labour voters would see it.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Watson is scum. There’s no getting around it.


I don't follow Lab internal politics that closely, but what is the rap sheet against Watson exactly?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Wolveryeti said:


> I don't follow Lab internal politics that closely, but what is the rap sheet against Watson exactly?


Putting all political positions aside, he's a scheming dark arts cunt, old labour right backroom type


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 22, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m not sure the current policy of offering compromise couldn’t be used to advantage by a leader with any political capital. Corbyn has none, so it won’t get off the ground, yet Remainers would have bitten his arm off for it two years ago.
> 
> Arguing for Leave is fanciful, because in any case Labour cannot for anything but a soft exit and argue rationally for jobs. I know lots of you disagree, but that’s the way the wider world and most prospective Labour voters would see it.



This isn’t about Brexit per se. In fact, in this context, Brexit is merely the Trojan horse for an unending attack on corbyn. Last year the demand was a second referendum. This has been conceded. Now the attack is about the policy that the attack was about last year.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Watson is scum. There’s no getting around it. But to launch a manoeuvre against him, a device, a month before a GE is abysmal politics. It’d be embarrassing in student politics. That the clunking manoeuvre, inevitably, failed will only embolden the Blarities. They’ll step up work to continue to use brexit as the mechanism to drive the cleavage between Corbyn and large sections of the middle class sections of the membership.
> 
> For them it’s a double win. They get to pursue a descent towards a popular front of tories, liberals and nationalists to defend the status quo and damage corbyn in the process.
> 
> ...


Would have been far less of a disaster if they'd actually succeeded in abolishing his position tbf. Launching it then fucking it off is the worst of both worlds.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Would have been far less of a disaster if they'd actually succeeded in abolishing his position tbf. Launching it then fucking it off is the worst of both worlds.



The timing was/is piss poor.

But yes, having pressed the button to back off is fatal. An absolute cluster-fuck that will energise the PLP, Watson and their plan to enter government without an election and without Corbyn


----------



## agricola (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The timing was/is piss poor.
> 
> But yes, having pressed the button to back off is fatal. An absolute cluster-fuck that will energise the PLP, Watson and their plan to enter government without an election and without Corbyn



That does sort of assume the PLP have the ability to do anything though.  For all the ups and downs of the past four years the one constant has been the absolute uselessness of the anti-Corbyn bits of that lot, forever showing its outrage at the leader but being outwitted by him at every turn like something off _Wacky Races_. 

I mean they could, easily, have done in 2016 what they were threatening to do when it looked like Watson was going to get the hoof - ie: have no confidence in Corbyn as leader of the opposition and put someone else up instead, leaving Corbyn as leader of the LP from the backbenches but then dealing with him afterwards.  They had the numbers to do it, and they must have known what the membership would do if he was on the ballot - but instead we had the farce of Smith vs Eagle, how to put up a folding table and ultimately double humiliation.  They are that bad that IMHO there is a profoundly compelling argument that the 2017 GE performance was at least as much down to them having nothing at all to do with it, as it was about the manifesto, Corbyn, May or anything else.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Sep 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Putting all political positions aside, he's a scheming dark arts cunt, old labour right backroom type


Yeah but what precisely has he done apart from playing a prominent (if not always loyal) role in the Blair/Brown governments?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Wolveryeti said:


> Yeah but what precisely has he done apart from playing a prominent (if not always loyal) role in the Blair/Brown governments?


There's loads of stuff but like you I don't follow particularly closely. Mostly boils down to manouvering onto what was effectively the left slate when Corbyn was elected by appearing sympathetic to labour left + support of McCluskey/Unite (which meant loads of people voted for him because he was a recommended vote) before fucking off McCluskey sharpish and attacking labour left - supposed to be the string puller behind the various PLP challenges to Corbyn and the leadership challenge in 2016, was key in Coyne campaign against McCluskey for Unite which had a lot of murkiness (although McCluskey hardly pure as snow), and uses prominence of deputy role to consistently make statements or announcements etc that are politically inconvenient for labour leadership/labour left. 

Haven't articulated this very well and mainly cba cos I'm not really invested in all this stuff but essentially he's the unofficial leader of the internal opposition I suppose

Edit: this all mostly comes down to the factions and divisions within labour. He was never particularly loyal to blair/brown and isn't to labour left because he is from a different tradition, the old labour right, which is represented by labour first within the labour party (new labour around Progress, left around CLPD and nowadays Momentum)


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2019)

The timing of the move against watson seems to egregiously bad that I can only assume that there's something going on we're not party to that made it seem necessary. 

It's easy for us as armchair strategists to come up with things that labour definitely should and shouldn't be doing, when only a tiny part the balances of power in play are visible to us - so many times over the past few years things that have seemed disastrous ideas have turned out to be politically very shrewd in review, or at least the less-worst option. 

That said, Andrew Fisher's very public resignation this morning makes me think its possible the wheels are coming off. Maybe they are this time... or not.


----------



## agricola (Sep 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> There's loads of stuff but like you I don't follow particularly closely. Mostly boils down to manouvering onto what was effectively the left slate when Corbyn was elected by appearing sympathetic to labour left + support of McCluskey/Unite (which meant loads of people voted for him because he was a recommended vote) before fucking off McCluskey sharpish and attacking labour left - supposed to be the string puller behind the various PLP challenges to Corbyn and the leadership challenge in 2016, was key in Coyne campaign against McCluskey for Unite which had a lot of murkiness (although McCluskey hardly pure as snow), and uses prominence of deputy role to consistently make statements or announcements etc that are politically inconvenient for labour leadership/labour left.
> 
> Haven't articulated this very well and mainly cba cos I'm not really invested in all this stuff but essentially he's the unofficial leader of the internal opposition I suppose
> 
> Edit: this all mostly comes down to the factions and divisions within labour. He was never particularly loyal to blair/brown and isn't to labour left because he is from a different tradition, the old labour right, which is represented by labour first within the labour party (new labour around Progress, left around CLPD and nowadays Momentum)



Plus his remarkable ability to be wrong and yet escape the consequences - in addition to his role in Brown becoming PM, see for instance his (immediately pre-referendum) demand that freedom of movement would have to change, or him calling for an in-out referendum itself in 2013, or of course his anti-immigrant leaflets when he first got elected.  Even his role in exposing phone hacking had the possibly intentional effect of restricting the damage to one paper, and for the least serious of the offences, rather than all the ones who had actually broken the law (and came years after the practice was exposed).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> The timing of the move against watson seems to egregiously bad that I can only assume that there's something going on we're not party to that made it seem necessary.
> 
> It's easy for us as armchair strategists to come up with things that labour definitely should and shouldn't be doing, when only a tiny part the balances of power in play are visible to us - so many times over the past few years things that have seemed disastrous ideas have turned out to be politically very shrewd in review, or at least the less-worst option.
> 
> That said, Andrew Fisher's very public resignation this morning makes me think its possible the wheels are coming off. Maybe they are this time... or not.


Fisher said Corbyns team lacked professionalism, competence and human decency. Apparently Corbyn was going to quit, making Watson the leader so the far left moved to protect their position - Corbyn knew what they were up to but presumably got cold feet to stop a split in the party.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Apparently Corbyn was going to quit,


Apparently according to whom?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Fisher said Corbyns team lacked professionalism, competence and human decency. Apparently Corbyn was going to quit, making Watson the leader so the far left moved to protect their position - Corbyn knew what they were up to but presumably got cold feet to stop a split in the party.


Where are you getting this from? Genuine q, as they say.


----------



## oryx (Sep 22, 2019)

Was wondering exactly the same...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2019)

Sounds like its from Shipman's unsourced times article but I'm not bothering to get around the paywall to check


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Sounds like bollocks


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2019)

Absolute bollocks. If the timing of the move against Watson is bad, the timing of such a resignation would be certifiable


----------



## brogdale (Sep 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Absolute bollocks. If the timing of the move against Watson is bad, the timing of such a resignation would be certifiable


Agreed, but I'd imagine that the Lansman move was connected with the line of succession.


----------



## not a trot (Sep 22, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Fisher said Corbyns team lacked professionalism, competence and human decency. Apparently Corbyn was going to quit, making Watson the leader so the far left moved to protect their position - Corbyn knew what they were up to but presumably got cold feet *to stop a split in the party.*



Is that old joke still doing the rounds ?


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Agreed, but I'd imagine that the Lansman move was connected with the line of succession.


I think that's probably true. More likely hedging for an election defeat than anything else though: there isn't much time left before the launch of the campaign proper to get stuff like this in line.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think that's probably true. More likely hedging for an election defeat than anything else though: there isn't much time left before the launch of the campaign proper to get stuff like this in line.


Yeah this sounds far more plausible. I think probably to do with succession in longer run, although have heard (purely speculative) theory that having watson holding a prominent voice as deputy leader threatens leadership's wish to remain neutral on leave/remain pending a labour deal and a referendum


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Agreed, but I'd imagine that the Lansman move was connected with the line of succession.


I suspect that's the case, though it's a staggeringly stupid thing to do if you think you've still got any chance of getting enough seats in the election to even lead a coalition. I tend to think Labour _will_ be destroyed in the election, but there was enough flux in the polls till a few days ago to make this a supremely stupid thing to do, particularly at the start of the conference.  I thought Labour were going to be squeezed between Johnson's 'leave at all costs' and the Libs remain, something made even more likely with the emerging convoluted policy Labour are coming up with (even more so if they have a leader who won't commit to _anything_). I don't see any way back from this, there certainly won't be another 'miracle of 2017'.  Even if Johnson loses in the courts, is forced to bring parliament back, loses more votes he's still pursuing ... 'something'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

I dunno, I still think in an actual election campaign, free to campaign beyond the formally defined parameters of REMAIN! LEAVE! there is reasonable scope for labour to close that gap. Dunno whether enough but I'd put money on it getting better results than polling now would suggest. Then again I don't think labour's brexit position is the car crash it's often made out to be, I dunno what position labour could take which wouldn't either completely rule out it entering govt now or kill it long term or both


----------



## brogdale (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I suspect that's the case, though it's a staggeringly stupid thing to do if you think you've still got any chance of getting enough seats in the election to even lead a coalition. I tend to think Labour _will_ be destroyed in the election, but there was enough flux in the polls till a few days ago to make this a supremely stupid thing to do, particularly at the start of the conference.  I thought Labour were going to be squeezed between Johnson's 'leave at all costs' and the Libs remain, something made even more likely with the emerging convoluted policy Labour are coming up with (even more so if they have a leader who won't commit to _anything_). I don't see any way back from this, there certainly won't be another 'miracle of 2017'.  Even if Johnson loses in the courts, is forced to bring parliament back, loses more votes he's still pursuing ... 'something'.


So, so much depends on what exactly happens on 31/10, though. We know that any GE has to fall beyond 'B-day' and who knows what the battleground(s) will be like then?


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This isn’t about Brexit per se. In fact, in this context, Brexit is merely the Trojan horse for an unending attack on corbyn. Last year the demand was a second referendum. This has been conceded. Now the attack is about the policy that the attack was about last year.



I don’t disagree and it’s a shame Watson survived, but the problem with Corbyn’s leadership is much wider than this. And even if it wasn’t in the end, so what? You can either win or you can’t.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> a staggeringly stupid thing to do


I think saying stuff like this is a bit silly: they're acting on info we just dont know about. They might in the end have miscalculated and fuck right up - but staggeringly stupid just ignores all the other things that everyone thought staggeringly stupid that turned out to be bang on.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> So, so much depends on what exactly happens on 31/10, though. We know that any GE has to fall beyond 'B-day' and who knows what the battleground(s) will be like then?





Proper Tidy said:


> I dunno, I still think in an actual election campaign, free to campaign beyond the formally defined parameters of REMAIN! LEAVE! there is reasonable scope for labour to close that gap. Dunno whether enough but I'd put money on it getting better results than polling now would suggest. Then again I don't think labour's brexit position is the car crash it's often made out to be, I dunno what position labour could take which wouldn't either completely rule out it entering govt now or kill it long term or both


Even though I'm far from being a Labour or Corbyn fan, there's a fair amount of despair as to where we are at rather than 'analysis' in what I'm posting. What get's me ultimately is the failure to move beyond social democracy - not that I expected Labour to shift left, just that they might have moved out of the game of just 'representing' in parliament. That they haven't created anything to speak of in the community, that they haven't organised, leaves all those new members and money going to waste. It's all that that drives my Meldrewism , that they are reduced down to these inner party manoeuvres, along with the Parliamentary manoeuvres over the last couple of weeks. And, ironically, all this has got in the way with some useful policies that appeal to voters at a material level. I do actually think Labour are fucked, but yeah, should wait and see.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Even though I'm far from being a Labour or Corbyn fan, there's a fair amount of despair as to where we are at rather than 'analysis' in what I'm posting. What get's me ultimately is the failure to move beyond social democracy - not that I expected Labour to shift left, just that they might have moved out of the game of just 'representing' in parliament. That they haven't created anything to speak of in the community, that they haven't organised, leaves all those new members and money going to waste. It's all that that drives my Meldrewism , that they are reduced down to these inner party manoeuvres, along with the Parliamentary manoeuvres over the last couple of weeks. And, ironically, all this has got in the way with some useful policies that appeal to voters at a material level. I do actually think Labour are fucked, but yeah, should wait and see.


Agree with all of that wilf


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 22, 2019)

I think if Wilf or anyone else expected anything more from the LP than a version of updated  social democracy then they were always going to be disappointed. This type of top-down approach is hard wired into their DNA. This is as true for Corbyn and co as much as for anyone else. The mass membership, demos, strikes are off-stage events that support or evidence the need for their work in the HoC. How else can you explain the squander of 1/2 million members surging into the Party demanding ‘change’? They’ve done absolutely nothing with these potential activists, except use them to ‘support the leadership’ and its endless battle with “the right” of the party.

What’s depressing is that even the top-down social democratic project is beginning to crumble through retreats, internal tensions and most pressingly of all brexit. Today’s review of the eve of conference state of the party indicates that the title of this thread might finally be underway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Yeah. Inevitable. Still, back in '15/'16 I thought might be more that would come materially from those now forgotten calls for a social movement of which parliamentary engagement via the labour party would be only one part. I know the excuses - that the internal war has stagnated the process and stunted development - and I never expected it to be something actually radical or genuinely transformative but even with that it's still a really shit outcome a few years later.

On other hand, I never minded the shit or bust approach because the bust bit is probably more attractive. Labour going tits up from perspective of even modest social change and a more assertive break between it and the left/those seeking change has its advantages.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

Just got round to reading that Times piece. Some mad stuff in there, it's like somebody's shit blog full of predictions based on hope and fuck all else. This bit made me laugh.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

so, just a quiet day @ Lab Conf 2019 :

 •Interest free loans on electric cars
 •4-day week 
•Green new deal
•Abolish detention centres
 •Abolish private school system / seize property + assets  (  )
 •Compulsory purchase of empty houses & link rents to local incomes


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 22, 2019)

so they don't want to get elected then


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 22, 2019)

remove charitable status for private schools would be a start


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

Why now? Bye anyway. Racist outburst man. 


crojoe said:


> so they don't want to get elected then


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Sep 22, 2019)

If (when) labour lose the next election it’s time for starmer to take over.

Starmer for PM 2024.

After five years of BoZo hell.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 22, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> If (when) labour lose the next election it’s time for starmer to take over.
> 
> Starmer for PM 2024.



Yes. You can see, across Europe, the success of Starmer’s brand of politics wherever it’s put to the electorate


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. You can see, across Europe, the success of Starmer’s brand of politics wherever it’s put to the electorate



Added to the fact that uber technocrat Starmers’ had one of the more successful charisma bypass operations in recent political history, it’s win / win all the way


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> remove charitable status for private schools would be a start



Erm, yep, that’s the plan


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Sep 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Added to the fact that uber technocrat Starmers’ had one of the more successful charisma bypass operations in recent political history, it’s win / win all the way


Cos Jeremy is doing so well!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

Why not molsley? A fresh face.


----------



## agricola (Sep 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Why not molsley? A fresh face.



He'd certainly fit in the milieu.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah. Inevitable. Still, back in '15/'16 I thought might be more that would come materially from those now forgotten calls for a social movement of which parliamentary engagement via the labour party would be only one part. I know the excuses - that the internal war has stagnated the process and stunted development - and I never expected it to be something actually radical or genuinely transformative but even with that it's still a really shit outcome a few years later.
> 
> *On other hand, I never minded the shit or bust approach because the bust bit is probably more attractive. Labour going tits up from perspective of even modest social change and a more assertive break between it and the left/those seeking change has its advantages*.



Which element would that be?, looking at the voting numbers on Friday to be chosen for debate from CLP's, Social Security was at the bottom, Poverty two thirds down, the affilialate vote, unions etc, was even worse than the CLP's

CLP's did vote in huge numbers to discuss immigration issues though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

treelover said:


> Which element would that be?, looking at the voting numbers on Friday to be chosen for debate from CLP's, Social Security was at the bottom, Poverty two thirds down, the affilialate vote, unions etc, was even worse than the CLP's
> 
> CLP's did vote in huge numbers to discuss immigration issues though.



What element of what sorry?

I think it's worth bearing in mind that Corbyn winning in 2015, tens of thousands joining, and birth of Momentum had a lot to do with welfare bill and labour's abstention. It's been squandered but it's not fair to characterise those attracted to labour as solely focussed on 'niche' issues or whatever


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think if Wilf or anyone else expected anything more from the LP than a version of updated  social democracy then they were always going to be disappointed. This type of top-down approach is hard wired into their DNA. This is as true for Corbyn and co as much as for anyone else. The mass membership, demos, strikes are off-stage events that support or evidence the need for their work in the HoC. How else can you explain the squander of 1/2 million members surging into the Party demanding ‘change’? They’ve done absolutely nothing with these potential activists, except use them to ‘support the leadership’ and its endless battle with “the right” of the party.
> 
> What’s depressing is that even the top-down social democratic project is beginning to crumble through retreats, internal tensions and most pressingly of all brexit. Today’s review of the eve of conference state of the party indicates that the title of this thread might finally be underway.


Yeah, for me it wasn't so much an expectation that they would do anything different but rather that in the middle of austerity there just couldn't be another dull, pointless, top down rehash - the only thing they _could _do would be something different. Corbyn arrived as leader in the middle of austerity, at a point where the fucking churches were more involved in communities than the left were. Surely they couldn't do the same old schtick again? But here we are. To be fair to Corbyn he never promised anything new and his supposedly old time revivalist leadership meetings were somewhere around the position Neil Kinnock would have taken early 80s. What's most depressing is their view that this is how you combat neo-liberalism - and they, very much, include momentum.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2019)

treelover said:


> Which element would that be?, looking at the voting numbers on Friday to be chosen for debate from CLP's, Social Security was at the bottom, Poverty two thirds down, the affilialate vote, unions etc, was even worse than the CLP's
> 
> CLP's did vote in huge numbers to discuss immigration issues though.






Proper Tidy said:


> What element of what sorry?
> 
> I think it's worth bearing in mind that Corbyn winning in 2015, tens of thousands joining, and birth of Momentum had a lot to do with welfare bill and labour's abstention. It's been squandered but it's not fair to characterise those attracted to labour as solely focussed on 'niche' issues or whatever



But the votes indicate CLP interests, etc, the affialtes MP's, unions, etc, were even worse imo.

Yes, but a lot of people have now left Momentum, i have as a saw it turning into an SWP style outfit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

treelover said:


> But the votes indicate CLP interests, etc, the affialtes MP's, unions, etc, were even worse imo.
> 
> Yes, but a lot of people have now left Momentum, i have as a saw it turning into an SWP style outfit.


Probably, I dunno. My point was about the waste of a huge influx and the complete failure to build anything resembling a social movement despite that being the stated aim

Edit - and that the positive might be a clean break from labour (both in terms of the people who were motivated to join and its historic constituency) which may open up space for something else. But then we've been here before so it's probably pissing in the wind.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2019)

lots of those have now left labour, certainly Momentum.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, for me it wasn't so much an expectation that they would do anything different but rather that in the middle of austerity there just couldn't be another dull, pointless, top down rehash - the only thing they _could _do would be something different. Corbyn arrived as leader in the middle of austerity, at a point where the fucking churches were more involved in communities than the left were. Surely they couldn't do the same old schtick again? But here we are. To be fair to Corbyn he never promised anything new and his supposedly old time revivalist leadership meetings were somewhere around the position Neil Kinnock would have taken early 80s. What's most depressing is their view that this is how you combat neo-liberalism - and they, very much, include momentum.


And we told them that they're be boring the arse off use two or three years later with internal party stuff. Hurrah.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, for me it wasn't so much an expectation that they would do anything different but rather that in the middle of austerity there just couldn't be another dull, pointless, top down rehash - the only thing they _could _do would be something different. Corbyn arrived as leader in the middle of austerity, at a point where the fucking churches were more involved in communities than the left were. Surely they couldn't do the same old schtick again? But here we are. To be fair to Corbyn he never promised anything new and his supposedly old time revivalist leadership meetings were somewhere around the position Neil Kinnock would have taken early 80s. What's most depressing is their view that this is how you combat neo-liberalism - and they, very much, include momentum.



Momentum’s failure to build a wider social
Movement is undeniable , but does the fact absolutely no f*cker on the extra parliamentary left has achieved anything notable at all over last 4 yrs bit suggest this shortcoming / problem  is not restricted to Momentum ? 

Meanwhile, we could have an incoming Lab govt committed to abolishing 500 yr old elitist education system by end of the yr,  what did you do today ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Momentum’s failure to build a wider social
> Movement is undeniable , but does the fact absolutely no f*cker on the extra parliamentary left has achieved anything notable at all over last 4 yrs bit suggest this shortcoming / problem  is not restricted to Momentum ?
> 
> Meanwhile, we could have an incoming Lab govt committed to abolishing 500 yr old elitist education system by end of the yr,  what did you do today ?


I ate a burger, went to the swings for a bit and did two shits


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2019)

I knew it'd be my fault. That you end up boring me about internal  labour party elections. Fuck off.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Momentum’s failure to build a wider social
> Movement is undeniable , but does the fact absolutely no f*cker on the extra parliamentary left has achieved anything notable at all over last 4 yrs bit suggest this shortcoming / problem  is not restricted to Momentum ?
> 
> Meanwhile, we could have an incoming Lab govt committed to abolishing 500 yr old elitist education system by end of the yr,  what did you do today ?


Never mind _could_, we _have _had labour councils implementing austerity for the best part of a decade.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Never mind _could_, we _have _had labour councils implementing austerity for the best part of a decade.



Have said it b4 , will say it again, we’re waging low level f*cking war vs these c*nts


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I ate a burger, went to the swings for a bit and did two shits



Fairs


----------



## cantsin (Sep 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I knew it'd be my fault. That you end up boring me about internal  labour party elections. Fuck off.


 
It is all deffo yr fault basically , but not quite sure how u deduced that from the above ?


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 23, 2019)

Mation said:


> This might be of interest, if you haven't read it already:




I enjoyed his books. Shame he's such a dull, centrist fud on Twitter.


----------



## Mation (Sep 23, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> I enjoyed his books. Shame he's such a dull, centrist fud on Twitter.


I'll tell him  Well, perhaps not all of that


----------



## Rivendelboy (Sep 23, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I ate a burger, went to the swings for a bit and did two shits


On the swings?


----------



## treelover (Sep 23, 2019)

McDonnells speech to Conference is superb, uplifting, inspiring, humane,


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 23, 2019)

I am lolling here- this is going to provoke a DM fury.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 23, 2019)

32 hour working week is good


----------



## treelover (Sep 23, 2019)

I really think it is on a Atlee level, whether they get a chance to implement it is another thing.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 23, 2019)

its shit or bust for McDonnel now.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> McDonnells speech to Conference is superb, uplifting, inspiring, humane,



It is.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 24, 2019)

treelover said:


> McDonnells speech to Conference is superb, uplifting, inspiring, humane,



I just watched the footage of him at the Novara event. He comes across as a really lovely bloke, down to earth with a good sense of humour:


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2019)

Wow, Sue Hayman at conference just said they will abolish benefit sanctions, the bedroom tax, food poverty, hope they get in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2019)

treelover said:


> Wow, Sue Hayman at conference just said they will abolish benefit sanctions, the bedroom tax, food poverty, hope they get in.


have you been following the other news from the supreme court today?


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2019)

Of course, it is incredible news, but please tell me what bearing it has on these Conference announcements.


----------



## Marty1 (Sep 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> 32 hour working week is good



Sounds good, but probably political clickbait.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Sep 25, 2019)

Full Jeremy Corbyn speech

Video: Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘greatest ever speech’ in full


----------



## hash tag (Sep 25, 2019)

I hear he is about to be interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme for the first time in a while


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2019)

treelover said:


> Of course, it is incredible news, but please tell me what bearing it has on these Conference announcements.


the probability of those announcements being translated into legislation. Have you not seen me say Boris Johnson may be the only man in the land who can deliver a Corbyn government?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I knew it'd be my fault. That you end up boring me about internal  labour party elections. Fuck off.



With certain posters, it's ALWAYS going to be your fault.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 29, 2019)

Corbyn critic Margaret Hodge to face reselection battle after local party vote


----------



## teqniq (Sep 29, 2019)

Watson muddying the waters.

Tom Watson accuses 'hard-left faction' over Margaret Hodge reselection effort


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Watson muddying the waters.
> 
> Tom Watson accuses 'hard-left faction' over Margaret Hodge reselection effort


This would be Margaret Hodge, well known as the paedos' friend while leader of islington council


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> This would be Margaret Hodge, well known as the paedos' friend while leader of islington council


Yep , and Twitter is doing a good job of reminding people of it


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 29, 2019)

If anyone’s time is up surely it’s Margaret.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2019)

Tom Watson also has form befriending paedos


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Tom Watson also has form befriending paedos



John Mann's role in all that is something that has somehow escaped notice.


----------



## andysays (Sep 29, 2019)

Margaret Hodge: Labour MP 'disappointed' over reselection contest


> "At a vital time for the country, with a general election looming, we should be focusing our efforts on holding Boris Johnson and the Tories to account," she said.


Am I the only one to find this a little ironic, given that her priority in recent years seems to have been attacking Corbyn rather than the Tories?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 29, 2019)

Most MPs seem to wrongly assume that its their job and as such is theirs for life. 

Whilst I’d be the first to campaign around job security and against precarity I think in the case of MPs Margaret and others have overlooked the democratic origins of the role. 

The Chartists campaigned for annual parliaments where MPs would be held to regular democratic account. They also wanted the ability to recall MPs who went native and against the class interest. 

Anything that moves us back towards those inviolable principles (for MPs - and trade union bosses I’d argue) of the movement would surely be supported by Margaret and others who constantly claim they want ‘their Labour Party’ back?


----------



## oryx (Sep 29, 2019)

andysays said:


> Margaret Hodge: Labour MP 'disappointed' over reselection contest
> 
> Am I the only one to find this a little ironic, given that her priority in recent years seems to have been attacking Corbyn rather than the Tories?


No, you're most definitely not! 

Including referring to Corbyn as a 'fucking anti-semite' IIRC.


----------



## campanula (Sep 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> This would be Margaret Hodge, well known as the paedos' friend while leader of islington council



Puffed by Harman too. Along with bloody Dromey, surely these doddering liberals are an utter irrelevance - purge the fuckers.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 29, 2019)

andysays said:


> Am I the only one to find this a little ironic, given that her priority in recent years seems to have been attacking Corbyn rather than the Tories?



see also last weekend and Tom Watson calling for party unity and so on.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 29, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I hear he is about to be interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme for the first time in a while


I heard that. It wasn't a terrible interview but it was pretty hostile. Anyone who reflexively says "oh but they treat everyone like that" should listen to the absurdly chummy interview with Farage just a few minutes after that.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 30, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Watson muddying the waters.
> 
> Tom Watson accuses 'hard-left faction' over Margaret Hodge reselection effort


I was wondering why there was so little furore over this until I saw that it was the right in Barking that launched and supported the trigger ballot. 

Finally recognising her for the liability she is or is it someone with ambitions taking advantage of her weakness?


----------



## Poi E (Sep 30, 2019)

Tenacious fucker, Corbyn.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 30, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Tom Watson also has form befriending paedos


It is thought that much of his work outing child rapists was a blinder, designed to shield high up culprits.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 30, 2019)

campanula said:


> Puffed by Harman too. Along with bloody Dromey, surely these doddering liberals are an utter irrelevance - purge the fuckers.


A marriage made in hell that one.


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It is thought that much of his work outing child rapists was a blinder, designed to shield high up culprits.


thought by who?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 30, 2019)

killer b said:


> thought by who?


Me, other survivors I know.


----------



## killer b (Sep 30, 2019)

What are those thoughts based on though? Watson's misstep over westminster paedo rings could have ended his career, and I wouldn't be surprised if - once his usefulness in destabilising Corbyn has come to an end - if it still comes back to bite him. The idea he did that as some sort of cover for his nonce friends seems a bit of a stretch to me.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 2, 2019)

I just got a call from a private number on my phone, I usually don't bother answering but I did this time and it was Meg Hillier, my old labour mp! She was just calling for a chat, I never done any labour party stuff at all but I was a £3 member/union member for a while a couple of years ago but I think it expired, well she said it had expired anyway. Apparently the word in parliament is there prob won't be an election till next year now... we had a good talk, about how i thought labour was doing etc, but it turned out my new postcode means she isn't my MP any more so Dianne Abbott should be calling me.

Was a pretty surreal evening really. this is all 100% true.

Made me feel like doing some vote knocking this time round.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2019)

rutabowa said:


> I just got a call from a private number on my phone, I usually don't bother answering but I did this time and it was Meg Hillier, my old labour mp! She was just calling for a chat, I never done any labour party stuff at all but I was a £3 member/union member for a while a couple of years ago but I think it expired, well she said it had expired anyway. Apparently the word in parliament is there prob won't be an election till next year now... we had a good talk, about how i thought labour was doing etc, but it turned out my new postcode means she isn't my MP any more so Dianne Abbott should be calling me.
> 
> Was a pretty surreal evening really. this is all 100% true.
> 
> Made me feel like doing some vote knocking this time round.


If Corbyn rang, twenty minutes in you still wouldn't have a clue if he wanted you door knocking or not.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2019)

Wilf said:


> If Corbyn rang, twenty minutes in you still wouldn't have a clue if he wanted you door knocking or not.


Fucking hell wilf.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 3, 2019)

The thought of my MP phoning me has just sent a shiver down my spine.  The last thing I need is to have to listen to a Grandpa Simpson style 45 minute rambling anecdote about Brexit.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2019)

Wilf said:


> If Corbyn rang, twenty minutes in you still wouldn't have a clue if he wanted you door knocking or not.



...but he'd have probably said something anti-Semitic!

Amirite?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 3, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> The thought of my MP phoning me has just sent a shiver down my spine.



Coming up to the 2015 GP, I had mine pop his head over my garden fence.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 3, 2019)

I got to say it genuinely made me feel pretty good that my MP actually personally phoned me and talked for quite a while, well mainly listened to me actually... like at least she asked how I was rather than doing a load of ranting like you see them do all over the news, that everyone is sick of. It also made me think "fair play being working on the phones at 8pm rather than down the parliament bar"


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 3, 2019)

thats what Nigel Farage does well on his radio show: he gives people the feeling they are being listened to..... and not in a patronising "I hear what you're saying" way, but in a way that feels a bit more between equals. i mean it is bullshit of course, but if it was actually genuine it would be a good way forward.


----------



## killer b (Oct 8, 2019)

Skwawkbox have published (then quickly deleted) Andrew Fisher's full resignation letter in a totally insane attempt to defend Karie Murphy from some internal bollocks. It doesn't make joyful reading tbh - archived here:

Exclusive: senior Labour insiders accuse McDonnell of trying to take control of Corbyn


----------



## cyril_smear (Oct 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Tom Watson also has form befriending paedos


Which paedos


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> Skwawkbox have published (then quickly deleted) Andrew Fisher's full resignation letter in a totally insane attempt to defend Karie Murphy from some internal bollocks. It doesn't make joyful reading tbh - archived here:
> 
> Exclusive: senior Labour insiders accuse McDonnell of trying to take control of Corbyn


Christ


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> Which paedos


You've not followed the news about 'nick' / carl beech I see


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 8, 2019)

Newcastle United piles on the pressure 

Club statement - Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> Newcastle United piles on the pressure
> 
> Club statement - Jeremy Corbyn


Hahaha. God Mike Ashley is a knob.

On this topic, I thought his comments on football club ownership/governance were some of the more interesting stuff he's come out with for a while


----------



## Wilf (Oct 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hahaha. God Mike Ashley is a knob.
> 
> On this topic, I thought his comments on football club ownership/governance were some of the more interesting stuff he's come out with for a while


A case of being attacked by a dead sheep - a deeply unpleasant dead sheep, certainly - but an ovine cadaver nonetheless.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2019)

Thought that Starmer looked particularly smug on C4 News this evening and kept on saying how "he" had to sort out this and that.
Eyeing up the new office already?


----------



## drewish (Oct 19, 2019)

O Jeremy Corbyn, where did it all go wrong -


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

rutabowa said:


> I just got a call from a private number on my phone, I usually don't bother answering but I did this time and it was Meg Hillier, my old labour mp! She was just calling for a chat, I never done any labour party stuff at all but I was a £3 member/union member for a while a couple of years ago but I think it expired, well she said it had expired anyway. Apparently the word in parliament is there prob won't be an election till next year now... we had a good talk, about how i thought labour was doing etc, but it turned out my new postcode means she isn't my MP any more so Dianne Abbott should be calling me.
> 
> Was a pretty surreal evening really. this is all 100% true.
> 
> Made me feel like doing some vote knocking this time round.



Diane tried to call but she got the number wrong.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Diane tried to call but she got the number wrong.


Do you not agree that repeated attacks on Diane Abbot for her supposed innumeracy are in fact motivated by misogyny and racism?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Do you not agree that repeated attacks on Diane Abbot for her supposed innumeracy are in fact motivated by misogyny and racism?



Some of them undoubtedly are. My jibe wasn't. Her innumeracy (or general buffoonery) doesn't really bother me as much as her hypocrisy.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Some of them undoubtedly are. My jibe wasn't. Her innumeracy (or general buffoonery) doesn't really bother me as much as her hypocrisy.


Then perhaps stick to criticising that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Then perhaps stick to criticising that.



Wouldn't have really worked in the context of that joke, though.

'Diane tried to call but she's a massive hypocrite.'


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Diane tried to call but she got the number wrong.



This sh*t wasn’t funny the first 10k times every other racist half wit on twitter made the same joke ... but 2 + yrs later, you crack on pal, impressive as always


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

cantsin said:


> This sh*t wasn’t funny the first 10k times every other racist half wit on twitter made the same joke ... but 2 + yrs later, you crack on pal, impressive as always



Yeah, because race can be the only motivation to have a dig at a grammar school, oxbridge, career politician who purports to be on the left but sends her son to private school (after criticising others for doing so).


----------



## agricola (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yeah, because race can be the only motivation to have a dig at a grammar school, oxbridge, career politician who purports to be on the left but sends her son to private school (after criticising others for doing so).



Kind of an odd critique to make then, that she got the number wrong.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

agricola said:


> Kind of an odd critique to make then, that she got the number wrong.



It was a joke, not a critique. And you're conflating motive with means.  I'm not poking fun at her because of her innumeracy, but it's too easy a gift to spurn!


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2019)

This racist trope is too easy not to use!


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> This racist trope is too easy not to use!



There's nothing inherently racist about it.

You know who else wore shoes? Hitler!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Oh, come on folks. Just because racists and misogynists make use of the number fuck up incident doesn’t mean it is necessary racist to make fun of it. If that had been Boris you’d all have been all over it. Yes Abbott gets a lot of racist and misogynist flak, and that should be called out, but don’t make the error of then lumping all the flak a politician gets as having the same motivation.  That’s just daft.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Yeah, it's bollocks. I'd defend her from criticism that was racist in content or motivated by racism. But I'm not going to refrain from mocking her simply because racists also mock her. She deserves to be mocked.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, come on folks. Just because racists and misogynists make use of the number fuck up incident doesn’t mean it is necessary racist to make fun of it. If that had been Boris you’d all have been all over it. Yes Abbott gets a lot of racist and misogynist flak, and that should be called out, but don’t make the error of then lumping all the flak a politician gets as having the same motivation.  That’s just daft.


Remember all those posts about Jess Phillips saying she knocked on 25,000 doors in six weeks? No?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Remember all those posts about Jess Phillips saying she knocked on 25,000 doors in six weeks? No?


Jess Phillips gets a lot of misogynist flak on social media. But that’s not going to stop me from picking up on her media fuck ups if I want to.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Remember all those posts about Jess Phillips saying she knocked on 25,000 doors in six weeks? No?



Slightly different from the Shadow Home Secretary providing costings for a new policy, don't you think?

Anyway, nobody had denied that Abbot attracts a lot of criticism for the wrong reasons.

My point really is that that not all criticism of her is for those reasons; some of it is legitimate.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, come on folks. Just because racists and misogynists make use of the number fuck up incident doesn’t mean it is necessary racist to make fun of it. If that had been Boris you’d all have been all over it. Yes Abbott gets a lot of racist and misogynist flak, and that should be called out, but don’t make the error of then lumping all the flak a politician gets as having the same motivation.  That’s just daft.



Depends what the nature of the flak is. Politicians get facts and figures wrong every now and then - why do you suppose that Abbott’s error has stuck in the popular imagination more than others? Could it perhaps have something to do with long-standing racist and misogynist cultural representations of black women as being stupid/having low IQs and whatnot?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Depends what the nature of the flak is. Politicians get facts and figures wrong every now and then - why do you suppose that Abbott’s error has stuck in the popular imagination more than others? Could it perhaps have something to do with long-standing racist and misogynist cultural representations of black women as being stupid/having low IQs and whatnot?



There may be some truth in that.  But, I don't remember an instance of so senior a politician getting something so basic so wrong (by orders of magnitude), so publicly and so cringe-makingly.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> There may be some truth in that.  But, I don't remember an instance of so senior a politician getting something so basic so wrong (by orders of magnitude), so publicly and so cringe-makingly.



How about Trump and Johnson like every fucking time they open their mouths?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Depends what the nature of the flak is. Politicians get facts and figures wrong every now and then - why do you suppose that Abbott’s error has stuck in the popular imagination more than others? Could it perhaps have something to do with long-standing racist and misogynist cultural representations of black women as being stupid/having low IQs and whatnot?


I don’t subscribe to IQ as a measure of anything other than ability to do IQ tests. And that’s not an aside, that’s an important point, and for all sorts of reasons relevant to the notions you raise.  So we’ll get that on the table first.

But “Oxbridge graduate who can be a bit of a buffoon” is not a racist trope. You all know Athos didn’t have a racist motivation.  So stop pretending you thought he did. Simple as that really.


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How about Trump and Johnson like every fucking time they open their mouths?



'cos nobody picks up on that?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How about Trump and Johnson like every fucking time they open their mouths?



Oh, I thought you meant those that get a free ride. Trump and Johnson are rightly ridiculed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How about Trump and Johnson like every fucking time they open their mouths?


Who both gets loads of flak (some clever, some crap) over countless actions.

I'm with Danny. Yes Abbott gets a lot of misogynistic and racist crap thrown her way, I'll even agree that Athos's joke was pretty weak but that should not stop people taking the piss out of wanker politicians.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'll even agree that Athos's joke was pretty weak...


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Some of them undoubtedly are. My jibe wasn't. Her innumeracy (or general buffoonery) doesn't really bother me as much as her hypocrisy.


one (i'm not aware of others) instance of misremembering is hardly innumeracy. This is gaslighting


----------



## maomao (Oct 19, 2019)

My mum accused me of racism for criticising Abbot the other day (for featuring on a website that I was citing as an example of negative ID politics). I'll happily defend her from racists but I'll also happily attack her for being an over privileged hypocrite.


----------



## ignatious (Oct 19, 2019)

chilango said:


> 'cos nobody picks up on that?


 One’s the British PM and the other is the US president. How do you rate Diane Abbott’s chances of reaching the same heights?

If Athos had said Trump or Johnson, would the joke have had the same impact? If not, why not? Do you think the racist tropes mentioned by Jeff Robinson have an influence in that?

It beggars belief that people can’t see where the discomfort comes from here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> one (i'm not aware of others) instance of misremembering is hardly innumeracy. This is gaslighting



It's not the misremebering so much as the apparent inability to do very simple mental arithmetic. But, as I've already said, that's not what my issue with her is; it's just an easy thing to poke fun at her for (similar, say, to how I'd criticise Boris for being a womaniser).


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

It really isn't. Equating of a (shit) joke directed at a political figure on a medium sized bulletin board with psychological abuse is silly (at best) (at the gaslighting comment above)



ignatious said:


> One’s the British PM and the other is the US president. How do you rate Diane Abbott’s chances of reaching the same heights?


She's the Shadow Home Sec for pete's sake. She's been an MP for 30+ years, and held numerous shadow cabinet positions, she's deeply embedded in the political establishment. She probably won't make PM but Unmunna was cited as a potential PM (if by breathless commentators rather than those with any sense), are we not allowed to slag of that prick? What about Jo Swinson, Ruth Davidson? Of course they are systematically discriminated against because of their race/sex/gender but that does not mean that they should not be slagged off.  


Obama got a load of racist shit thrown his way that does not mean that he should get a free pass on giving talks to a load of bankers in return for hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## Supine (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> There may be some truth in that.  But, I don't remember an instance of so senior a politician getting something so basic so wrong (by orders of magnitude), so publicly and so cringe-makingly.



wasn’t it a diabetes attack that took her off piste? Not really fair to judge if that was the case.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

ignatious said:


> One’s the British PM and the other is the US president. How do you rate Diane Abbott’s chances of reaching the same heights?
> 
> If Athos had said Trump or Johnson, would the joke have had the same impact? If not, why not? Do you think the racist tropes mentioned by Jeff Robinson have an influence in that?
> 
> It beggars belief that people can’t see where the discomfort comes from here.



Of course people can see where it comes from, an identity politics perversion of an otherwise noble position i.e. anti racism.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> wasn’t it a diabetes attack that took her off piste? Not really fair to judge if that was the case.



I don't know. Though I'm not predisposed to believing politicians excuses.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Remember all those posts about Jess Phillips saying she knocked on 25,000 doors in six weeks? No?



Had to laugh at Ian Bone / Lisa McKenzie getting all giddy about w/c hero Jess Phillips recently - frothing anti ID Pol wannabe  class warriors losing their marbles nowadays, end up on same side as racists / centrists / whatever as long as they can bash Lab left, while doing / achieving f.a themselves. as per


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Had to laugh at Ian Bone / Lisa McKenzie getting all giddy about w/c hero Jess Phillips recently - frothing anti ID Pol wannabe  class warriors losing their marbles nowadays, end up on same side as racists / centrists / whatever as long as they can bash Lab left, while doing / achieving f.a themselves. as per


FFS are you seriously claiming that IB and LM are "on same side as racists / centrists"?

Absolutely pathetic. Frankly you could not find a better example than the above of why those of us that cautioned joining the LP were right - you end up aligning with shite like Phillips against Class War.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Who both gets loads of flak (some clever, some crap) over countless actions.
> 
> I'm with Danny. Yes Abbott gets a lot of misogynistic and racist crap thrown her way, I'll even agree that Athos's joke was pretty weak but that should not stop people taking the piss out of wanker politicians.



I didn’t say Trump and Johnson are not mocked I was responding to Athos’ risible claim that he couldn’t remember the last time a senior politician had said something so cringy. In response, he qualified the statement by adding ‘and getting a free ride’. 

And nobody has said that Abbott shouldn’t be taken the piss of for anything, merely that taking the piss out of her for something that was the basis for a racist and misogynist harassment campaign and that has clear and obvious links to broader racist and misogynist tropes about black women is perhaps not the best way to go.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> FFS are you seriously claiming that IB and LM are "on same side as racists / centrists"?
> 
> Absolutely pathetic. Frankly you could not find a better example than the above of why those of us that cautioned joining the LP were right - you end up aligning with shite like Phillips against Class War.



You’ve lost me - it was LM / IB siding with Phillips vs Corbyn / Lab Left ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

cantsin said:


> You’ve lost me - it was LM / IB siding with Phillips vs Corbyn / Lab Left ?


I don't follow twitter so I don't know the specific incident you are talking about but regardless the general point stands if you are putting Class War activists in the same box as racists/centrists then your politics have gone to shot.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2019)

Presume he's talking about this - McKenzie et al have put themselves in that box tbf



killer b said:


> Not sure where else to put this. Incredible stuff. The brain worms seem to be infecting everyone.


----------



## binka (Oct 19, 2019)

I'm sure not everyone who makes that joke about Abbott fucking up the numbers is a racist, but enough racists do make that joke that I wouldn't want to be associated with it myself


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I didn’t say Trump and Johnson are not mocked I was responding to Athos’ risible claim that he couldn’t remember the last time a senior politician had said something so cringy. In response, he qualified the statement by adding ‘and getting a free ride’.
> 
> And nobody has said that Abbott shouldn’t be taken the piss of for anything, merely that taking the piss out of her for something that was the basis for a racist and misogynist harassment campaign and that has clear and obvious links to broader racist and misogynist tropes about black women is perhaps not the best way to go.



Racists also use her hypocrisy to attack her.  Should we let that ride?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't follow twitter so I don't know the specific incident you are talking about but regardless the general point stands if you are putting Class War activists in the same box as racists/centrists then your politics have gone to shot.




the state of this : LM joining in / cosying up with the grossly dishonest bollocks  spouted by Phillips etc that  any critique  of zombie blairites is always due to ... misogyny/ anti semitism / homophobia etc etc - embarrassing stuff for LM, but no real surprise any moe


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Racists also use her hypocrisy to attack her.  Should we let that ride?



C’mon Athos, surely you can figure out for yourself why that’s a shit argument?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> Presume he's talking about this - McKenzie et al have put themselves in that box tbf


Ta. 
I'm not going to defend those tweets, they are frankly embarrassing and both IB and LM deserve some flack for them but that does not justify this crap "end up on same side as racists / centrists / whatever as long as they can bash Lab left, while doing / achieving f.a themselves. as per". Whatever your criticisms of them both IB and LM have done plenty.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> C’mon Athos, surely you can figure out for yourself why that’s a shit argument?



Can you spell it out?


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't know. Though I'm not predisposed to believing politicians excuses.


Depends what we're talking about. I'm more likely to believe her explanation that a few examples of confusion were down to undiagnosed diabetes than her excuses for sending her son to private school, for instance


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Can you spell it out?



There are no significant racist tropes associating black people with hypocrisy, but there are with low intelligence/illiteracy/innumeracy.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Ta.
> I'm not going to defend those tweets, they are frankly embarrassing and both IB and LM deserve some flack for them but that does not justify this crap "end up on same side as racists / centrists / whatever as long as they can bash Lab left, while doing / achieving f.a themselves. as per". Whatever your criticisms of them both IB and LM have done plenty.


McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> There are no significant racist tropes associating black people with hypocrisy, but there are with low intelligence/illiteracy/innumeracy.


Ok, so where does that leave us in instances where black people display, say, innumeracy? Can we as non-racists criticise it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

andysays said:


> Depends what we're talking about. I'm more likely to believe her explanation that a few examples of confusion were down to undiagnosed diabetes than her excuses for sending her son to private school, for instance


She didn't claim it was undiagnosed.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm sure not everyone who makes that joke about Abbott fucking up the numbers is a racist, but enough racists do make that joke that I wouldn't want to be associated with it myself



Egg fecking xactly , shldnt even need to be said tbh


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

binka said:


> I'm sure not everyone who makes that joke about Abbott fucking up the numbers is a racist, but enough racists do make that joke that I wouldn't want to be associated with it myself



That's fine. I'm in the group of people who make that joke that aren't racist, and you're in the group who wouldn't want to be associated with it. There's no argument there.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.


I'll take your word for it. Like I said I don't really follow twitter (and the above nonsense reinforces my belief that that is probably a good thing). I think all the LM stuff I've come across has been longer pieces.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Ok, so where does that leave us in instances where black people display, say, innumeracy? Can we criticise it?



It’s a pretty cuntish thing to make fun of whoever makes the error tbh - it’s elitist and ableist shite - the cuntishness is especially compounded when it’s a black woman.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It’s a pretty cuntish thing to criticise whoever makes the error tbh, the cuntishness is especially compounded when it’s a black woman.



Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?



Would it be okay to mock the physical disability of a career politician to expose their hypocrisy? And wtf has her supposed innumeracy got to do with her hypocrisy?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Would it be okay to mock the physical disability of a career politician to expose their hypocrisy? And wtf has her supposed innumeracy got to do with her hypocrisy?



No.  Disability and innumeracy aren't analogous, though. And the mistakes she made were pretty fundamental to her role as Shadow Home Sec announcing a new policy.  I'm amazed at the idea she should get a free ride.

They're is no direct link beyond the fact that her buffoonery is just a convenient stick to poke her with, and she deserves poking because of her hypocrisy.

Now would answer my question, please?

Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.



Agreed - and, complicating it all a bit more ( for me anyway )  , there seems to be a degree of professional resentment on her part, feeling shut out of what she sees as m/c lefty politico media merrygoround , despite being an interesting ( no doubt ) articulate lefty academic herself .... I dunno , I always liked her + Bone, just don’t know where they’re headed politically - and the Phillips love in was an embarrassment


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.



I like Lisa a lot. But everyone calls things wrong on occasion. Phillips isn’t even WC. She’s developed her ultra-brummie persona to disguise her very comfortable upbringing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

cba


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2019)

Santino said:


> Do you not agree that repeated attacks on Diane Abbot for her supposed innumeracy are in fact motivated by misogyny and racism?



An Amnesty International report found that in the 2017 election campaign, Abbott was the subject of almost half of all abusive tweets about female MPs on Twitter, receiving ten times more abuse than any other MP.[109]

She studied History at Cambridge btw. Not maths.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> It's not the misremebering so much as the apparent inability to do very simple mental arithmetic. But, as I've already said, that's not what my issue with her is; it's just an easy thing to poke fun at her for (similar, say, to how I'd criticise Boris for being a womaniser).


If she has a record of doing this often then that would be a problem, but being caught in the moment misremembering one detail seems more an indictment of our 24/7 biased (she was interviewed by Nick ferrari) media than her incompetence. Whatever else her faults may be.


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?


Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2019)

Interesting comparison actually...a woman's intellect (ability to do mental arithmetic) Vs a man being a 'womaniser'.

Not Boris' intellect, his buffoonery, his faux pas, his racism, his hypocrasy...nope... His interest in and ability to pull women.

Long live the Patriarchy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.



on this point...

_Graduating with top marks, Abbott applied to Cambridge University, and was accepted, despite the doubts of her teachers. “My school didn’t send people to Oxford and Cambridge a lot,” she told the Times. “They were sort of proud of me, but only sort of.” Her history teacher had tried to dissuade Abbott from applying, claiming it would give her ambitions outside her social station, and make her a dissatisfied canteen worker in later life. Nevertheless, Abbott took her place at Newnham College, Cambridge, where she majored in history.

Diane Abbott | Encyclopedia.com_


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.



By background, no. But she's she's indistinguishable from  one now.  A career politician who privately educates her kid.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.


She is an Oxbridge educated privy councillor who sends her kids to private school. She is right there in the heart of the establishment by any reasonable measure.

Using racist or misogynist abuse to attack her is reprehensible. But that’s not what Athos did. That others have done it is not a reasonable criticism of Athos.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'll take your word for it. Like I said I don't really follow twitter (and the above nonsense reinforces my belief that that is probably a good thing).


I'm sure it is a good thing: while this is hardly a new revelation, I think the way twitter effects peoples politics is pretty negative: theres a whole self reinforcing ecosystem of rugged proletarians, blue labour types and spiked! related pseudoacademics on there that Mackenzie seems to be partially embroiled in who spend a lot of their time rolling their eyes at the more ludicrous end of left wing politics (also a large self reinforcing ecosystem on there, so easy to find regular examples of).

It's a coarse and basic way of doing politics which often seems to coincide with a drift to coarser and more basic politics overall - cf people like Paul Embury, the way many radical feminists have found themselves in the orbit of the radical right over trans rights etc etc.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> FFS are you seriously claiming that IB and LM are "on same side as racists / centrists"?
> 
> Absolutely pathetic. Frankly you could not find a better example than the above of why those of us that cautioned joining the LP were right - you end up aligning with shite like Phillips against Class War.


Who is aligning with Jess Philips? Have you watched that old guy Martin on Red and Black TV? A member of class war who does nothing but call everyone else stupid. Bone and MacKenzie are ridiculous in what they come out with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Who is aligning with Jess Philips? Have you watched that old guy Martin on Red and Black TV? A member of class war who does nothing but call everyone else stupid. Bone and MacKenzie are ridiculous in what they come out with.


er martin does more in one of his videos than you've done in your life.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> She is an Oxbridge educated privy councillor who sends her kids to private school. She is right there in the heart of the establishment by any reasonable measure.
> 
> Using racist or misogynist abuse to attack her is reprehensible. But that’s not what Athos did. That others have done it is not a reasonable criticism of Athos.


She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.

Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?

I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.
> 
> Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?
> 
> I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.



She explicitly criticised Blair and Harman for sending their kids to private schools.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Who is aligning with Jess Philips? Have you watched that old guy Martin on Red and Black TV? A member of class war who does nothing but call everyone else stupid. Bone and MacKenzie are ridiculous in what they come out with.


No I've not watched Red and Black TV. And I think that sometimes Class War, Bone and MacKenzie get things wrong (as we all do) but I also recognise that they are hard working members of the labour movement and when all is said and done consider them comrades.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting comparison actually...a woman's intellect (ability to do mental arithmetic) Vs a man being a 'womaniser'.
> 
> Not Boris' intellect, his buffoonery, his faux pas, his racism, his hypocrasy...nope... His interest in and ability to pull women.
> 
> Long live the Patriarchy.



I deliberately chose to compare the criticism of Abbot to a criticism of Boris that has not also been levelled at her.  I'm sorry that was too subtle for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.
> 
> Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?
> 
> I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.


Of all the ridiculous things you've posted on here under your many now banned identities , the idea that sending kids to private school is somehow a necessity (which means labour should be arguing that for ever more private schools) is right up there with the stupidest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.
> 
> Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?
> 
> I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.


why should her constituents, of whatever hue, feel about her work on their behalf if after many years as their mp the hackney schools still aren't good enough for her offspring?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm sure it is a good thing: while this is hardly a new revelation, I think the way twitter effects peoples politics is pretty negative: theres a whole self reinforcing ecosystem of rugged proletarians, blue labour types and spiked! related pseudoacademics on there that Mackenzie seems to be partially embroiled in who spend a lot of their time rolling their eyes at the more ludicrous end of left wing politics (also a large self reinforcing ecosystem on there, so easy to find regular examples of).
> 
> It's a coarse and basic way of doing politics which often seems to coincide with a drift to coarser and more basic politics overall - cf people like Paul Embury, the way many radical feminists have found themselves in the orbit of the radical right over trans rights etc etc.



I agree with a lot of that Killer b. I recognise some of my own antics on here in some of what you write.

However, I think the first thing to be pointed out about some of the stuff Lisa and others come out with is often a frustrated angry response to performative leftist hobbyists who are miles away from the backgrounds, workplaces and areas we inhabit. There are important issues here about class, leadership and the legitimacy of much of what passes for ‘left’ politics. Too much of it starts from a refusal to accept the class as it is, and to start from there, and instead appears to be lecturing, dismissive or even offensively counterproductive. Brexit is a classic case in point

The second point I’d make is that much of what is attacked needs to be attacked because of its political (or lack of political) content.

The third point I’d make is that lumping Lisa in with the Spiked loons is very wide of the mark. Even where they intersect on an issue it’s motivation is _always_ for different motives and reasons.

The final point I’d make is about Diane Abbot. I’d imagine her life must have been a constant struggle against racism, misogyny and users of social and cultural capital always denied to people like her and us. This stuff defines your responses and lives with you constantly. We should acknowledge and understand that. But, regardless of that it doesn’t confer a free pass on your politics and decisions you make.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 19, 2019)

Sending your kids to fee paying schools is fucking nothing like owning a smart phone, fucks sake


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> By background, no. But she's she's indistinguishable from  one now.  A career politician who privately educates her kid.


You're kidding me surely. By having got an Oxford education, Abbott, a black woman from an unprivileged background, is indistinguishable from the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg?

You're having a massive laugh. Well I am at least, at your interpretation of the effect education has in terms of class, race and gender.

BTW I would criticise her for the son's school thing. Not a stance I agree with.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> No.  Disability and innumeracy aren't analogous, though. And the mistakes she made were pretty fundamental to her role as Shadow Home Sec announcing a new policy.  I'm amazed at the idea she should get a free ride.
> 
> They're is no direct link beyond the fact that her buffoonery is just a convenient stick to poke her with, and she deserves poking because of her hypocrisy.
> 
> ...


Because shes not innumerate. She can count. She just fucked up one time


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I like Lisa a lot. But everyone calls things wrong on occasion. Phillips isn’t even WC. She’s developed her ultra-brummie persona to disguise her very comfortable upbringing.


What do you mean by comfortable upbringing?


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> She explicitly criticised Blair and Harman for sending their kids to private schools.


Fair enough then.



Proper Tidy said:


> Sending your kids to fee paying schools is fucking nothing like owning a smart phone, fucks sake


It is using the things of capitalism while living in a capitalist society. I think it possible to criticise both capitalism while needing to use it to survive.

Though it appears that wasnt specificially what she did


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> What do you mean by comfortable upbringing?



I mean she had a comfortable upbringing.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I mean she had a comfortable upbringing.


Do you think a comfortable upbringing means one can't be working class?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> You're kidding me surely. By having got an Oxford education, Abbott, a black woman from an unprivileged background, is indistinguishable from the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg?
> 
> You're having a massive laugh. Well I am at least, at your interpretation of the effect education has in terms of class, race and gender.
> 
> BTW I would criticise her for the son's school thing. Not a stance I agree with.



Far enough, maybe 'indistinguishable' was a bit of hyperbole, but, like it or not, she's very much a part of the same establishment elite as those others, now.  And that's not just a product of he education, but of her conscious - sometimes hypocritical - choices e.g. to privately educate.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Do you think a comfortable upbringing means one can't be working class?



No. It’s about social, cultural and economic capital. 

Jess has plenty of 1 and 2 and enough of 3


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Do you think a comfortable upbringing means one can't be working class?


Her ma was deputy chief exec of the nhs confederation, so doesn't strike me as a hornyhanded daughter of toil


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No. It’s about social, cultural and economic capital.
> 
> Jess has plenty of 1 and 2 and enough of 3


Sure, she does now. But in terms of her upbringing it seemed to imply that bring raised in a comfortable environment meant one couldn't be working class.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Sure, she does now. But in terms of her upbringing it seemed to imply that bring raised in a comfortable environment meant one couldn't be working class.



Her parents own a company (for which she worked); literally, the definition of capitalists.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Sure, she does now. But in terms of her upbringing it seemed to imply that bring raised in a comfortable environment meant one couldn't be working class.



Her upbringing was amongst professionals. She went to Grammer School and then university. She then worked for the business her parents had set up before becoming ‘a business development’ manager for a local council and then MP.

Classically middle class.

She did love to hang around the rougher end of the market I’ve heard. A classic middle class vicarious thrill seeker. And she never tires of telling us about her experiences of Sandwell and the poverty she observed before going home.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 19, 2019)

Don't bother with Rivendelboy. Butchers latest post reminded me that it's just the latest incarnation of a many times banned fool


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Her upbringing was amongst professionals. She went to Grammer School and then university. She then worked for the business her parents had set up before becoming ‘a business development’ manager for a council and then MP.
> 
> Classically middle class.
> 
> She did love to hang around the rougher end of the market I’ve heard. A vicarious thrill


Right, that's what I was asking for when you said comfortable upbringing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't bother with Rivendelboy. Butchers latest post reminded me that it's just the latest incarnation of a many times banned fool


Awesome bowels


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2019)

What she does is sort of an authentocrat thing (great examples in here)  - then idiots like the above can come to their defence on the basis that somehow the working class is homogeneous and has no internal differences. Like the above. It also helps pull the wool over the eyes of those who should know much much better. Getting conned by an accent basically.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting comparison actually...a woman's intellect (ability to do mental arithmetic) Vs a man being a 'womaniser'.
> 
> Not Boris' intellect, his buffoonery, his faux pas, his racism, his hypocrasy...nope... His interest in and ability to pull women.
> 
> Long live the Patriarchy.



While many of the attacks against Abbott are racist and sexist it’s not unreasonable to laugh at her maths. She wants to hold one of the major offices of state and make decisions that affect millions of people. She ought to be good at communicating with people. Giving her a free pass could be considered sexist if the normal response to car crash political interviews is to poke fun.

While the criticisms of Abbott and Johnson are different they go to two fundamentals of public office, character and competency or at least they would if these were qualities regularly displayed by MPs.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What she does is sort of an authentocrat thing (great examples in here)  - then idiots like the above can come to their defence on the basis that somehow the working class is homogeneous and has no internal differences . Like the above. It also helps pull the wool over the eyes of those who should know much much better. Getting conned by an accent basically.



spot on. I’ve never met anyone who speaks like her. And I’ve lived here all my life.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Happy to be proven wrong.


No need. Your post was arrant nonsense in itself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> Happy to be proven wrong.


You must be permanently over the moon then


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> an authentocrat thing


Thanks for that, it’s a well written examination. Well worth the read.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No need. Your post was arrant nonsense in itself.


why?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> why?


Its all round awesomeness.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> While many of the attacks against Abbott are racist and sexist it’s not unreasonable to laugh at her maths. She wants to hold one of the major offices of state and make decisions that affect millions of people. She ought to be good at communicating with people. Giving her a free pass could be considered sexist if the normal response to car crash political interviews is to poke fun.
> 
> While the criticisms of Abbott and Johnson are different they go to two fundamentals of public office, character and competency or at least they would if these were qualities regularly displayed by MPs.


What if her maths on that day were the product of illness?


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Its all round awesomeness.


So you don't know?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> What if her maths on that day were the product of illness?



Go off sick?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> So you don't know?


he's taking the piss out of you


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Go off sick?


I guess, but I bet she'd get the same criticism, "not up to the job" etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> he's taking the piss out of you


In my younger and more vulnerable years I’d have been annoyed he didn’t notice. But he did.


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> In my younger and more vulnerable years I’d have been annoyed he didn’t notice. But he did.


another bully, well done


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> another bully, well done


That’s rich.


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2019)

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> another bully, well done


you've surely heard the saying 'bully for you'? well, this is what it means: there is a bully for you


----------



## Rivendelboy (Oct 19, 2019)

chilango said:


> This is why we can't have nice things.


we were having a perfectly pleasant conversation but sad old class warrior wannabes don't want that to happen. Would you like to continue?


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2019)

Rivendelboy said:


> we were having a perfectly pleasant conversation but sad old class warrior wannabes don't want that to happen. Would you like to continue?



No.

I want it stop.

I want all of it to stop.


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> She is an Oxbridge educated privy councillor who sends her kids to private school. She is right there in the heart of the establishment by any reasonable measure.
> 
> Using racist or misogynist abuse to attack her is reprehensible. But that’s not what Athos did. That others have done it is not a reasonable criticism of Athos.


I haven't said athos did that and I'm struggling to see how you draw that conclusion. I'm arguing that Abbot is not a typical Oxbridge graduate. 

Also, what I replied to athos (which he's responded to).

Can't see how you can perceive Abbot as being at the 'heart of the establishment'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> I haven't said athos did that and I'm struggling to see how you draw that conclusion.


That’s how this detour started. I thought we were still on it. But fair enough.



> Can't see how you can perceive Abbot as being at the 'heart of the establishment'.


She’s literally a privy councillor.


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s how this detour started. I thought we were still on it. But fair enough.
> 
> 
> She’s literally a privy councillor.


I know, I know...but her background (along with other female, BAME and non-privileged MPs) does make her different from the likes of Johnson, Cameron etc. etc. As long as we have roles like privy councillor et al, it is only right that people from non-privileged backgrounds should gain access to these roles - I am aware you're not necessarily arguing for that not to be the case.

Depends what you call the establishment, though. Probably merits a thread. Which I'm not planning to start .


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> As long as we have roles like privy councillor et al, it is only right that people from non-privileged backgrounds should gain access to these roles.


I remain to be convinced that the mere fact of Diane Abbott being a privy councillor in itself makes anything at all better for women or PoC who are in low paid jobs.  That’s what I’d argue.


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I remain to be convinced that the mere fact of Diane Abbott being a privy councillor in itself makes anything at all better for women or PoC who are in low paid jobs.



It doesn't, unless you count the aspiration/role model aspect. And the issue of aspiration in itself is, like the establishment, probably something for another thread/debate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2019)

oryx said:


> It doesn't, unless you count the aspiration/role model aspect. And the issue of aspiration in itself is, like the establishment, probably something for another thread/debate.


You’ve raised two interesting topics that you don’t want to start a thread on.  Not that I blame you.


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You’ve raised two interesting topics that you don’t want to start a thread on.  Not that I blame you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I remain to be convinced that the mere fact of Diane Abbott being a privy councillor in itself makes anything at all better for women or PoC who are in low paid jobs.  That’s what I’d argue.


she's not done much for education in hackney in 22 years as mp for hackney north and stoke newington


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You’ve raised two interesting topics that you don’t want to start a thread on.  Not that I blame you.



I think they'd be good threads oryx


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2019)

chilango said:


> I think they'd be good threads oryx


seconded oryx


----------



## oryx (Oct 19, 2019)

Maybe tonight when I get back from my mate's birthday do slightly pissed and in the mood.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2019)

Do people who are born outside of the establishment never become members of that establishment through things like attending the establishments universities and other privilege producers/transmitters and then spending the rest of their life in the heart of the establishments political institutions and playing a prominent role in it's ideological/culture arm? Is sponsored mobility not a thing and is its intention not to draw working class people into defence of the establishment - just by existing, as an example of the system working or more overtly in open ideological support of elite dominance and privilege.

Or is that all seen as a bit untrendy 70s sociology now?


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2019)

Ken Clarke is an example.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2019)

FT reading our thread?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> FT reading our thread?
> 
> View attachment 187847


Not so shabby a prediction, thus far.

btw, just checked and 2/3 of those LP MPs who voted for a 2nd reading of Johnson's WAB happened to vote for (arch-remainer) Owen Smith in the 2016 Leadership election.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 23, 2019)

I don't really understand this.  The bill would have to still go through its readings by which time in will likely be amended to a point that the government could no longer accept it.  No?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I don't really understand this.  The bill would have to still go through its readings by which time in will likely be amended to a point that the government could no longer accept it.  No?


That assumes that Johnson has a principled approach to Brexit.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That assumes that Johnson has a principled approach to Brexit.



I don't think Johnson has a principled approach to anything beyond the self, if you can call that a principle. 

I'm still not sure what you're getting at.  Are you suggesting its all just a ruse for a no deal / drop out?  Otherwise how can he get the bill passed for Brexit to happen without it going through the various stages?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I don't think Johnson has a principled approach to anything beyond the self, if you can call that a principle.
> 
> I'm still not sure what you're getting at.  Are you suggesting its all just a ruse for a no deal / drop out?  Otherwise how can he get the bill passed for Brexit to happen without it going through the various stages?


He can't, but he'll take whatever outcome because it will be *Brexit*


----------



## andysays (Oct 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> He can't, but he'll take whatever outcome because it will be *Brexit*


But if significant amendments are made to the bill as it progresses, it will no longer be the deal agreed with the EU, so I can't see how that's going to fly...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2019)

andysays said:


> But if significant amendments are made to the bill as it progresses, it will no longer be the deal agreed with the EU, so I can't see how that's going to fly...


Depends what the amendments are; if Barnier is confronted with amendments that ---> a softer Brexit with more integration, he'd recommend to the 27 pdq


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2019)

Amount of people say it should be Starmer as leader is incredible, but wouldn't he have been just business as usual.


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Amount of people say it should be Starmer as leader is incredible, but wouldn't he have been just business as usual.



He'd be a terrible leader, but I am not sure he would be a bad alternate PM.


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2019)

Do you think he may be next leader or will it be one of Corbyns chosen.
Many in LP say it must be a woman, Long Bailey?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 23, 2019)

Labour won't change leader. There's been a few goes already and they didn't work then.

It's a massively stupid idea at this point and would mean they'd be pretty much guaranteed to lose any election, too, but that wouldn't stop certain people trying. It does make it even less likely though.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Amount of people say it should be Starmer as leader is incredible, but wouldn't he have been just business as usual.


If people think Corbyn is lacking in 'leadership' then Labour will be fucked with Starmer. He is a decent politician but no leader.


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2019)

Sam Tarry is one to watch in future, i think he came form the student protests, not even MP yet though, longlisted


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Do you think he may be next leader or will it be one of Corbyns chosen.
> Many in LP say it must be a woman, Long Bailey?



She would give an immediate poll bounce.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 23, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Labour won't change leader. There's been a few goes already and they didn't work then.
> 
> It's a massively stupid idea at this point and would mean they'd be pretty much guaranteed to lose any election, too, but that wouldn't stop certain people trying. It does make it even less likely though.



I underestimated how well Corbyn would do last time, or maybe how badly May would do. But it is very hard to see him as successful this time, let alone winning. 

It may be too late to do it now, but politics can be very superficial. A new leader could offer a massive boost to Labour’s fortunes.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Sam Tarry is one to watch in future, i think he came form the student protests, not even MP yet though, longlisted


He's PPC for Ilford South (Mike Gapes seat), seen it earlier


----------



## Sue (Oct 23, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> She would give an immediate poll bounce.


Why do you think that? Does anyone even know who she is? (I just looked her up because I didn’t.)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 23, 2019)

Sue said:


> Why do you think that? Does anyone even know who she is? (I just looked her up because I didn’t.)



Good question. 

She’s appears competent, a bit technocratic and dull to me.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Sue said:


> Why do you think that? Does anyone even know who she is? (I just looked her up because I didn’t.)



I thought she was Jeremy’s own rising star. He has had her deputise for him in the HoC and she does lots of media. 

If it was known within the Party that she was not a good potential leader, for reasons of character and ability, then fine or if there is clearly someone better. But if Labour loses the GE, which must take place soonish, then the leadership question will re-emerge anyway. 

She does appear at the moment, to have a number of positives for different voters, female, Northern, loyal to JC and younger. So yes, Labour could get a bounce.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

Easy game this


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I thought she was Jeremy’s own rising star. He has had her deputise for him in the HoC and she does lots of media.
> 
> If it was known within the Party that she was not a good potential leader, for reasons of character and ability, then fine or if there is clearly someone better. But if Labour loses the GE, which must take place soonish, then the leadership question will re-emerge anyway.
> 
> She does appear at the moment, to have a number of positives for different voters, female, Northern, loyal to JC and younger. So yes, Labour could get a bounce.


If you look at a bouncy ball bouncing you'll notice it tends to fall as often as it rises


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> If you look at a bouncy ball bouncing you'll notice it tends to fall as often as it rises



It’s Parliamentary politics. Disappointment is the only guarantee.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good question.
> She’s appears competent, a bit technocratic and dull to me.


agree. Laura Pidcock - Wikipedia seems good, but only 32 and not long an MP.
Please god not Emily Thornbury

ETA: found this Which female MP could succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader?
wasn't conscious of Angela Rayner - Wikipedia before tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

ska invita said:


> agree. Laura Pidcock - Wikipedia seems good, but only 32 and not long an MP.
> Please god not Emily Thornbury



It’s hard to see how ET would win. Even the Labour Party isn’t that committed to self harm.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

ska invita said:


> agree. Laura Pidcock - Wikipedia seems good, but only 32 and not long an MP.
> Please god not Emily Thornbury
> 
> ETA: found this Which female MP could succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader?
> wasn't conscious of Angela Rayner - Wikipedia before tbh


Gotta say that Pidcock's recent media appearances/interviews have seemed far from convincing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say that Pidcock's recent media appearances/interviews have seemed far from convincing.



Yes agreed. On the plus side she is quite formidable and the first Johnson attempt to patronise her would be dealt with devastatingly.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say that Pidcock's recent media appearances/interviews have seemed far from convincing.


Missed that... Anything embarrassing in particular?


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2019)

I'll have Andy Mcdonald as my fantasy labour leader.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 24, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good question.
> 
> She’s appears competent, a bit technocratic and dull to me.



RLB is a bit dull, and not left enough for the grassroots (was brutally dismissive of Open Selection last year ) - next leader will deffo be a woman, and Laura Pidcock is miles out in front of RLB with members, but need JC to hang around long enough for her to get (probably shadow ) frontbench experience etc to work out whether she's even viable - straight after next GE would be much too early for LP, as 2020 would be for AOC in US


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'll have Andy Mcdonald as my fantasy labour leader.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Missed that... Anything embarrassing in particular?


Nothing 'car-crash' outstanding, just that she's come across in a couple i've seen as a tad dis-jointed, easily deflected and defensive. I know media training can help with such matters, but certainly wasn't left with the feeling that i was watching leadership material. But just a personal view & I know others have spoken warmly of her speeches at the Gala etc.


----------



## chilango (Oct 24, 2019)

I think we should have that Steph McGovern off the telly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'll have Andy Mcdonald as my fantasy labour leader.


i suggested a fantasy shadow cabinet to newspapers some time ago, as a political alternative to fantasy football, but sadly no one took me up on it


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'll have Andy Mcdonald as my fantasy labour leader.



Do you think he is a good enough media performer?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i suggested a fantasy shadow cabinet to newspapers some time ago, as a political alternative to fantasy football, but sadly no one took me up on it



What’s your proposed scoring system?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

This all a bit tragic and tawdry  isn't it? The labour wheel is going to turn regardless of whether you put your shoulder to it. Why do this? Why not, knowing this, use the opp to attack labour for it's councils austerity impositions, it's lack of fightback on this etc?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> This all a bit tragic and tawdry  isn't it? The labour wheel is going to turn regardless of whether you put your shoulder to it. Why do this? Why not, knowing this, use the opp to attack labour for it's councils austerity impositions, it's lack of fightback on this etc?



Because we are just chatting on the internet.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i suggested a fantasy shadow cabinet to newspapers some time ago, as a political alternative to fantasy football, but sadly no one took me up on it



sounds like a winner, but maybe expand it to just fantasy league politics, globally ( who's going to win what / where / when , who's getting sacked, win points for having finance ministers in yr team who's countries GDP is going to rise healthily next year (though less points if totalilatarian state capiltalism is driving force, eg : China - though their GDP is stalling anyway I think ) . win ( or lose ? ) points if your defence ministers country  is involved in a war ( points rise / or fall with death toll ? Bit macabre possibly ) ... endless permutations.

We ( its we now ) could add AI / 5G and Tik Tok into the picture ( to help drive / promote platform ) and go on Deagon's Den with it ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What’s your proposed scoring system?


establishing a political equivalent of opta, working from that model


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> establishing a political equivalent of opta, working from that model


Will 'assist' points count if the pass is to the opposition?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Will 'assist' points count if the pass is to the opposition?


being as it was a fantasy shadow cabinet thing, all passes to the opposition are good

passes to the government of the day are of course bad


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> being as it was a fantasy shadow cabinet thing, all passes to the opposition are good
> 
> passes to the government of the day are of course bad



What if someone is in my team one week and they lose the whip?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> being as it was a fantasy shadow cabinet thing, all passes to the opposition are good
> 
> passes to the government of the day are of course bad


Now wishing I hadn't picked mad Frankie Field up front.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What if someone is in my team one week and they lose the whip?


you lose points.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Do we all need at least one speaker in our team?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Do we all need at least one speaker in our team?


it would help, as politicians who never speak will never earn you points.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it would help, as politicians who never speak will never earn you points.



Does the quality of what they say matter for the game? Most of them talk utter bollocks after all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Does the quality of what they say matter for the game? Most of them talk utter bollocks after all.


the more meaningless the speech the more points you gain


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the more meaningless the speech the more points you gain



A sycophantic intervention at PMQs = an assist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> A sycophantic intervention at PMQs = an assist.


just so


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Because we are just chatting on the internet.


You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them. 

I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them.
> 
> I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.


yeh endless teasing


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them.
> 
> I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.



As a Labour Party voter I’ve got sufficient stake to chat about it on a message forum, not that not being one precludes anyone from having a view.

It’s a bit disingenuous to say I argue for neoliberal politics like I work for the Adam Smith institute or something. I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house. There is always going to be a debate about what can be done within the system, within a Worldwide system.

I would love it if Corbyn won. Absolutely love it. The genuinely positive things Labour could do from its programme. The faces of all those Tory boys and free market women who commentate on the paper reviews. The slapped arse look on the face of all the centrists. 

But, at this moment, I regretfully doubt this fantasy will come to pass. I don’t say that to right wing people, I say that here


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house.


*klaxon*

analogy fail.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> This all a bit tragic and tawdry  isn't it? The labour wheel is going to turn regardless of whether you put your shoulder to it. Why do this? Why not, knowing this, use the opp to attack labour for it's councils austerity impositions, it's lack of fightback on this etc?



just fyi, look at the likes of Beth Redmond / Manc Mom / us / others : will always attack Labour gentrifying councils on soc media ( I know that's not same as IRL, but Beth and crew would deffo do so at council meetings etc I'd guess - certainly vocal this week vs Manc Council ) 
- none of us feel any alignment / connection to zombie blairite councils, and are pissed off with how slow the progress has been in gettng rid of them


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> *klaxon*
> 
> analogy fail.



Yeah maybe. Squirrel argues that if you say anything like Labour must not tank the economy it means you must want austerity to continue. There are other redistributive ways one must hope. 

But I accept that there is (until the glorious day) an economy that has real impacts. We cannot but rely on it, even revolutionaries. And yes of course the way that economy operates is also going to be in direct opposition to socialist aims.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...



agreed...and it's getting slower tbh, Haringey seems a long time ago


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...



So why did you reject criticisms of Ed? What was the difference?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

cantsin said:


> agreed...and it's getting slower tbh, Haringey seems a long time ago


You wouldn't have swallowed that line  from a labour member 5 years ago, that they oppose them _but_...would you? You'd likely argue that this is what labour is set up to do and so it's no surprise. Given that nothing has changed then i can't see why i should swallow it today.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> So why did you reject criticisms of Ed? What was the difference?


I didn't, i forgot about him.

About 'ed'.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 24, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You wouldn't have swallowed that line  from a labour member 5 years ago, that they oppose them _but_...would you? You'd likely argue that this is what labour is set up to do and so it's no surprise. Given that nothing has changed then i can't see why i should swallow it today.



not expecting you to / not sure how much I do to be brutally honest


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s a bit disingenuous to say I argue for neoliberal politics like I work for the Adam Smith institute or something. I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house. There is always going to be a debate about what can be done within the system, within a Worldwide system.


You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)


> Nationalisation came out of hard times and war. There is not the money to renationalise what has been sold off and why do that? Unless you change the law and seize assets it would be bumper pay out day for the shareholders.
> 
> I haven't read this yet, but I believe it may be more about state owned alternatives, which would be great. Build new energy companies for example, to provide better, greener deals and build assets for the people. I would say a swift 'fuck you' to any privatised offering I could for the same or subsidised cost.


You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs 





Mr Moose said:


> . Better to ensure people have the means to live and let them get on with living creative lives rather than create a state controlled nightmare.


Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party. 

Like Toynbee you seem to think that whatever political actions you take, whatever political views you hold is irrelevant because still in your heart of hearts you want Corbyn to win. You are not even honest with yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)
> 
> You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
> Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.
> ...


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)
> 
> You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
> Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.
> ...



What a bizarre person you are, trawling through the archives to find stuff to use out of context.

My point about nationalisation was not that it is wrong, I like it, but that giving out a massive payday to shareholders should not be Labour’s immediate priority.

The other response was in response to your fatuous suggestion that a nationalisation where workers build aircraft wings and then dismantle them would be laudable. That makes you one weird anarchist if your dream is state regulated drudgery without even the satisfaction of creation. I can only imagine you have very little experience of any creative or skilled work. You have no concept of its satisfaction. 

Stop this infantile point scoring.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Stop this infantile point scoring.



What will we do with our time, then?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What a bizarre person you are, trawling through the archives to find stuff to use out of context.
> 
> My point about nationalisation was not that it is wrong, I like it, but that giving out a massive payday to shareholders should not be Labour’s immediate priority.
> 
> The other response was in response to your fatuous suggestion that a nationalisation where workers build aircraft wings and then dismantle them would be laudable. That makes you one weird anarchist if your dream is state regulated drudgery without even the satisfaction of creation. I can only imagine you have very little experience of any creative or skilled work. You have no concept of its satisfaction.


Nothing out of context, it's all in the context of your incoherent "there is no alternative' politics.

You don't even understand how mainstream the idea of governments keeping workers in employment is. Never mind that British Steel is to close we don't want the government to intervene and stop the satisfaction of creation that it's ex-employees might have -we want to f_ree up the peoples creativity_ - the language and ideology of the New Labour cunt.

_Oh Lord give me the mildest of social democracies only not yet!_


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Nothing out of context, it's all in the context of your incoherent "there is no alternative' politics.
> 
> You don't even understand how mainstream the idea of governments keeping workers in employment is. Never mind that British Steel is to close we don't want the government to intervene and stop the satisfaction of creation that it's ex-employees might have -we want to f_ree up the peoples creativity_ - the language and ideology of the New Labour cunt.
> 
> _Oh Lord give me the mildest of social democracies only not yet!_



No one is saying put people out of their jobs. Who wouldn’t want to support British Steel? You are Mr Strawman.

This is a pointless argument. If I have given the impression that everything needs a business case to support it, I don’t. I agree the logic of the market can’t be sovereign, must be resisted. You can believe that or not. As you seem to prefer to have your piss endlessly boiled so you can be self-righteous, I expect you won’t.

However, your idea of deliberately putting people to pointless work is patronising, repressive and defeatist. There is important stuff to build and to repair. If we are in the position to make highly specialist things to simply break up then let’s plan the things we need.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)
> 
> You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
> Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.
> ...


I've gone back and read those links and think you're misrepresenting Mr Moose.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 25, 2019)

Coming from a LD defender liberal wanker like you I think that says everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Coming from a LD defender liberal wanker like you I think that says everything.


Not even the LibDems deserve a supporter like teuchter


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've gone back and read those links and think you're misrepresenting Mr Moose.


I don't believe you.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 25, 2019)

Presuming the EU a) will 'allow' an extension until 31/1/20 b) they will want an iron commitment to a GE to take place within the extension timeframe and c) Johnson has already named a date then this is desperate evasion stuff from Labour. They'd be better sticking to the 'it's too cold and dark' to have an election in December line imho. It's also pathetic but at least it is true to say it is likely to be cold and dark in the winter.   

*Labour calls for 'explicit commitment' on no deal before election*
Here’s *Diane Abbott *again, this time speaking to the BBC’s Today programme. She said that Labour “was definitely up for an election”, but that they would need “an explicit commitment” to rule out a no-deal Brexit – which could include legislation in parliament – if it were to back an election.




BBC Radio 4 Today

✔@BBCr4today

"The Labour Party is definitely up for an election." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But it depends on what kind of delay the EU offers and on an "explicit commitment" to rule out a no-deal Brexit says shadow home sec @HackneyAbbott #r4today https://bbc.in/32Msrqv


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 25, 2019)

I think one of the Tory tactics is to throw out stuff like this election proposal to wrongfoot Labour, make them look chaotic or indecisive, as that’s more electorally damaging than any policy issue. Remember it was the tories hopelessly divided and polling in the teens just a few months ago, they’ve somehow turned this round. Labour needs to be more prepared and have a game plan for any likely government moves, it’s not like this was unpredictable.


----------



## MrSki (Oct 25, 2019)

At least when the election is called then the BBC will have to be a bit more careful in its bias.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2019)

I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.



Unfortunately so.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 29, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.



Wasn't much of a show trial then?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2019)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Wasn't much of a show trial then?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Have they actually managed to get of anyone this way?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Have they actually managed to get of anyone this way?


As Louis has pointed out already, this perhaps indicates the inappropriateness of calling them show trials pal


----------



## scifisam (Oct 29, 2019)

The BBC just said that Jeremy Corbyn "changed his mind about a snap general election." But he didn't. He always said he'd vote for one once no deal Brexit was off the table. They consistently show their bias in so many little ways.


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Have they actually managed to get of anyone this way?



several fled revolutionary justice and sought refuge in Mexico the Lib Dems, I hear


----------



## Supine (Oct 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The BBC just said that Jeremy Corbyn "changed his mind about a snap general election." But he didn't. He always said he'd vote for one once no deal Brexit was off the table. They consistently show their bias in so many little ways.



Nothing changed overnight but he decided ‘brexit was off the table’ for some reason. He only did so because of political pressure. Another example of unclear labour messaging. Milne should be sent off to pastures new - he really isn’t up to the job.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> Nothing changed overnight but he decided ‘brexit was off the table’ for some reason. He only did so because of political pressure. Another example of unclear labour messaging. Milne should be sent off to pastures new - he really isn’t up to the job.


Is this a joke?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> Nothing changed overnight but he decided ‘brexit was off the table’ for some reason. He only did so because of political pressure. Another example of unclear labour messaging. Milne should be sent off to pastures new - he really isn’t up to the job.



But that's just not true. He said many, many times that he would vote for a general election once a no-deal Brexit before any potential election was ruled out, not Brexit overall. What changed overnight was the extension to leaving.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But that's just not true. He said many, many times that he would vote for a general election once a no-deal Brexit before any potential election was ruled out, not Brexit overall. What changed overnight was the extension to leaving.


I don't understand how the extension rules out no-deal Brexit?


----------



## andysays (Oct 29, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> I don't understand how the extension rules out no-deal Brexit?


It doesn't rule it out in the future, just the immediate threat of exit on Thursday.


----------



## Supine (Oct 29, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> I don't understand how the extension rules out no-deal Brexit?



It doesn’t. Until next year anyway.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 29, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> I don't understand how the extension rules out no-deal Brexit?



I never said it did. "He said many, many times that he would vote for a general election once a no-deal Brexit before any potential election was ruled out." Note the timeline.


----------



## Supine (Oct 29, 2019)

December 13th then


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> December 13th then


There'll be some sore heads.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The BBC just said that Jeremy Corbyn "changed his mind about a snap general election." But he didn't. He always said he'd vote for one once no deal Brexit was off the table. They consistently show their bias in so many little ways.



That's poor, he's been desperate for one. Some of the PLP, less so recently, but I don't think Corbyn's commitment to it has ever been in doubt. The story should be he got his long term stated aim, no deal off the table and an election.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Supine said:


> December 13th then


Friday!


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Friday!


Yeah, I reckon Supine's talking about the day after.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Wasn't much of a show trial then?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Don't worry Mr Kamenev, all charges have been dropped and you go away without a stain on your character. In fact we'd like to continue in your rather well paid job. And we're really, really sorry.


----------



## Sue (Oct 30, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> As Louis has pointed out already, this perhaps indicates the inappropriateness of calling them show trials pal


Need to up their show trials game obvs.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2019)

Sue said:


> Need to up their show trials game obvs.


Labour seem to be operating these trials without inquisitions, witchfinder generals and ducking stools - and the heretics and witches have access to very good PR and national newspapers. Labour isn't working.


----------



## Sue (Oct 30, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Labour seem to be operating these trials without inquisitions, witchfinder generals and ducking stools - and the heretics and witches have access to very good PR and national newspapers. Labour isn't working.


I reckon we could up the standard at a stroke by co-opting a few regular P&P posters.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 30, 2019)

What were these Twiter rumours last night that there were going to be resignations from the Labour (Shadow) front bench over Corbyn's backing the General Election? 

I couldn't find any confirmation of any such stories in mainstream news, but perhaps I'm out of date now?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> What were these Twiter rumours last night that there were going to be resignations from the Labour (Shadow) front bench over Corbyn's backing the General Election?
> 
> I couldn't find any confirmation of any such stories in mainstream news, but perhaps I'm out of date now?


It was mostly people laughing at a news story from a week ago where a journo claimed only 8 labour MPs were prepared to vote for an election. No new rumours as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 30, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> What were these Twiter rumours last night that there were going to be resignations from the Labour (Shadow) front bench over Corbyn's backing the General Election?
> 
> I couldn't find any confirmation of any such stories in mainstream news, but perhaps I'm out of date now?



The Labour position is that there was absolute unanimity in the Shadow Cabinet. No doubt someone may have been upset, but no evidence of it emerging and not so upset as to flounce.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2019)

Denis MacShane: Jeremy Corbyn, you can help Labour to win. Just step down now

This was published this morning. Yeah that would be a great move.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Denis MacShane: Jeremy Corbyn, you can help Labour to win. Just step down now
> 
> This was published this morning. Yeah that would be a great move.


has he been released from his tag yet? The one he had to wear after being let out of Belmarsh?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Denis MacShane: Jeremy Corbyn, you can help Labour to win. Just step down now
> 
> This was published this morning. Yeah that would be a great move.


Ah, Denis McShane, the bullying, thieving former MP, who had to be ejected from the European Parliament for hanging around trying to pick up consultancies. Poor feller, sound as if it was like seeking work at the dock gates. 

Oh, yes and the MP for Rotherham who didn't even raise the issue of grooming. Twat.

Oh and his wiki page he claims he was a 'political prisoner':


> In the 2014 book _Prison Diaries_ he claimed to hold the status of "politician prisoner".



So, basically, an all round hero.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

tbf, he's got better at this; not the tit slap this time.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

This is pretty much the best thing that Corbyn could have hoped for on Day 1/2? of the campaign; should yield a significant groundswell of support.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 31, 2019)

Finally a press endorsement for Jezza...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 31, 2019)

Fuck you and your 'hive-mind' brogdale


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fuck you and your 'hive-mind' brogdale


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> tbf, he's got better at this; not the tit slap this time.
> 
> View attachment 188697


What the fuck is he doing? Arm wrestling or sexing (preparatory stages)?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> What the fuck is he doing? Arm wrestling or sexing (preparatory stages)?


Being the _true party of the people _through the medium of mime.


----------



## JimW (Oct 31, 2019)

Wilf said:


> What the fuck is he doing? Arm wrestling or sexing (preparatory stages)?


Homage to Spinal Tap's Smell The Glove


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2019)

JimW said:


> Homage to Spinal Tap's Smell The Glove


To be fair, his personal ratings do go up to 11%


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Finally a press endorsement for Jezza...
> 
> View attachment 188700


The really funny thing about this is Trump almost certainly thinks he's doing BoZo a favour


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 4, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

what is it?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 4, 2019)

Something posted by Turning Point UK. I’d suggest breaking the link, don’t give those cunts any attention.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 4, 2019)

killer b said:


> what is it?



I watched it so you don't have to.

Corbyn is a Hezbollah, Hamas and IRA sympathiser.  He's a leaver and a remainer, a no 2nd referendumer and a 2nd referendumer, and the Labour party are racist.

Basically it's every article from the dreadful and ultimately counter-productive smear campaign from 2017 in a handy few minute clip.  Total crock of shit.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 4, 2019)

Marty1 why have you posted that shite, and without comment?

Turning Point USA - Wikipedia killer b

Section on the UK version in there with some unsurprising names


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 4, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Marty1 why have you posted that shite, and without comment?
> 
> Turning Point USA - Wikipedia killer b
> 
> Section on the UK version in there with some unsurprising names


These are the degenerates with adult baby fetishes knocking about in nappies


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2019)

I know who turning point are, I was wondering what essential content the vid contained that meant our new friend thought we needed to see it. Zapp seems to have got to the bottom of that though...


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 4, 2019)

Is there a reason Marty1 is linking to far right websites


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> WANKY VIDEO


Apart from the issue of the source of that video, have you reflected on its claim about Corbyn changing his mind on the EU over a generation or more? That mendacious cunt johnson changed his mind in the time it took a spinning coin to fall back onto his hand to decide which article he published, setting out his 'principled' position.


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 5, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Marty1 why have you posted that shite, and without comment?
> 
> Turning Point USA - Wikipedia killer b
> 
> Section on the UK version in there with some unsurprising names



Watched it and thought wtf, looks like this GE is going to get dirty.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Watched it and thought wtf, looks like this GE is going to get dirty.



...and you just wanted to help it along in that direction...


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 5, 2019)

Jeremy Corbyn’s got plenty of time left if that’s the best they can do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Watched it and thought wtf, looks like this GE is going to get dirty.


I recommend persil for a dirty election


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2019)

Marty1 said:


>



Pack that shit in


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Marty1

Please, please, please don’t post videos without comment. All you need to do is say a few words about what’s in it, why we should watch it, and whether you approve or disapprove of its contents.

I’m bored of the number of times I have to say this. People I say it to tend to get all riled up, but it’s quite simple: it’s courteous just to add a few words of your own. So just do it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Marty1
> 
> Please, please, please don’t post videos without comment. All you need to do is say a few words about what’s in it, why we should watch it, and whether you approve or disapprove of its contents.
> 
> I’m bored of the number of times I have to say this. People I say it to tend to get all riled up, but it’s quite simple: it’s courteous just to add a few words of your own. So just do it.



And, it's in the rules...


> *Content-free posts are not permitted.* Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users.
> Terms of Service and Rules | urban75 forums


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Marty1
> 
> Please, please, please don’t post videos without comment. All you need to do is say a few words about what’s in it, why we should watch it, and whether you approve or disapprove of its contents.
> 
> I’m bored of the number of times I have to say this. People I say it to tend to get all riled up, but it’s quite simple: it’s courteous just to add a few words of your own. So just do it.



Fair enough


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

Marty1 said:


>




The point in that vid for me is not who posted it, or why they posted it, more it shows how Corbyn is seen by many, including me.
He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud - People see that and it's very likely to damage the Labour party and hand brexit to the tories.
He should have been dumped ages ago but, unless there's a big upset in the weeks up to the election, he's out if (probably when) the Labour party get hammered in the polls.
He's worse than Johnson, not because he's a bigger cunt (that would be hard to manage), but because he's a bloody idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The point in that vid for me is not who posted it, or why they posted it, more it shows how Corbyn is seen by many, including me.
> He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud - People see that and it's very likely to damage the Labour party and hand brexit to the tories.
> He should have been dumped ages ago but, unless there's a big upset in the weeks up to the election, he's out if (probably when) the Labour party get hammered in the polls.
> He's worse than Johnson, not because he's a bigger cunt (that would be hard to manage), but because he's a bloody idiot.


have you ever considered playing a different song, or at least a variation on this theme which doesn't make you appear a blithering idiot?


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The point in that vid for me is not who posted it, or why they posted it, more it shows how Corbyn is seen by many, including me.
> He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud - People see that and it's very likely to damage the Labour party and hand brexit to the tories.
> He should have been dumped ages ago but, unless there's a big upset in the weeks up to the election, he's out if (probably when) the Labour party get hammered in the polls.
> He's worse than Johnson, not because he's a bigger cunt (that would be hard to manage), but because he's a bloody idiot.


Maybe you should put some thought into how you've come to have the same view of Corbyn as the makers of a far right propaganda video.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud



Hopefully you will take a leaf out of his book on this one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud


Can you provide examples (that aren’t taken from an alt right video I’m not going to watch)?

I’m no fan of Corbyn. But my criticism is mainly that he isn’t left enough not that he’s too left.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2019)

I suspect you are more likely to get an encore from gimps outloud.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The point in that vid for me is not who posted it, or why they posted it, more it shows how Corbyn is seen by many, including me.
> He's an idiot that won't stand up to his own thoughts and say them outloud - People see that and it's very likely to damage the Labour party and hand brexit to the tories.
> He should have been dumped ages ago but, unless there's a big upset in the weeks up to the election, he's out if (probably when) the Labour party get hammered in the polls.
> He's worse than Johnson, not because he's a bigger cunt (that would be hard to manage), but because he's a bloody idiot.



Any thoughts yet on who should replace him?

Given the time you've been mulling this over I am ready to be impressed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Any thoughts yet on who should replace him?
> 
> Given the time you've been mulling this over I am ready to be impressed.


i'm already impressed by the way he expects his repetition to be effective where his argument is lacking.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm already impressed by the way he expects his repetition to be effective where his argument is lacking.



I am expecting Don Troooomp not only to name the man/woman who can reverse these matters and also to set out his arguments in detail as to why.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm already impressed by the way he expects his repetition to be effective where his argument is lacking.


I'm impressed that he thinks 'I agree with the teen nazis' is an actual argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I am expecting Don Troooomp not only to name the man/woman who can reverse these matters and also to set out his arguments in detail as to why.


perhaps you're asking too much of poor don, who is a man with much to be modest about


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 5, 2019)

It strikes me as a pretty pointless argument to say _Corbyn must go_ given the current state of play.  Clearly he is going to be the leader at the election and after that he'll either have a good election and be in No 10 or he will not be in No 10 and is unlikely to remain Labour leader.  Its not easy to see many (if any) scenarios where he doesn't get the keys to No 10 and stays on as leader.

I don't think another hung parliament with tories the largest party will cut it.  My thoughts anyway.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you're asking too much of poor don, who is a man with much to be modest about



The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Given the stakes its right that having identified the problem that Don has required a further period of time to identify the solution. 

Come on Don Troooomp - who should replace useless Corbyn, why and on what programme?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 5, 2019)

The main reason to have wanted Corbyn to go is that he hasn’t seemed likely to win an election. With the polls narrowing and Labour rising the argument isn’t one for now. It’s all get behind Captain Corbo.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> With the polls narrowing ...


The average of the 10 polls after the commons voted for a GE is 11%, the average of the 10 polls before gave them 12%, so not much narrowing there.

I've read a couple of articles saying the Tories will be worried if they get anything under an average of 10% in the polls, as because of where votes could fall, they may not get a majority, basically squeaky bum time.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The main reason to have wanted Corbyn to go is that he hasn’t seemed likely to win an election. With the polls narrowing and Labour rising the argument isn’t one for now. It’s all get behind Captain Corbo.



As Cupid says polls ain't narrowing  But getting being Mr Corbyn is probably the sensible idea what with him being leader and it being an election and all. Mind you Labour spent the last one plotting how to be rid of him and he managed to defy expectations so it could be a thing


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> He's worse than Johnson, not because he's a bigger cunt (that would be hard to manage), but because he's a bloody idiot.


All a bit rich coming from Urban's own village idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> All a bit rich coming from Urban's own village idiot.


there is no village with a dafter idiot


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Maybe you should put some thought into how you've come to have the same view of Corbyn as the makers of a far right propaganda video.



The far right are a bunch of twats, but they have Corbyn summed up well. Just because they're 100% wrong in their politics doesn't mean they can't be right about him, even if their motives are shit.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The far right are a bunch of twats, but they have Corbyn summed up well. Just because they're 100% wrong in their politics doesn't mean they can't be right about him, even if their motives are shit.


I think you are failing to understand at least one of the concepts of 'politics' and '100%'


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp There's plenty wrong with Corbynism, but none of the criticisms from you and the far right tossers you think along with are worth a tuppeny fart. Anyway, haven't you got some planes to point at instead of trotting out your ill informed shite on here?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The far right are a bunch of twats, but they have Corbyn summed up well. Just because they're 100% wrong in their politics doesn't mean they can't be right about him, even if their motives are shit.


Their politics are bad but their political attacks which are intrinsically linked to their politics are good don trooooomp aged 43


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

What's wrong with Corbyn?

He refuses to answer questions when he knows his answers will be unpopular - not just in that video, but all the time

He's deeply unpopular with the electorate, so is an albatros around Labour's neck

He has no hope in this world of outperforming Johnson in front of a TV audience, either in parliament or anywhere else.

Like Micheal Foot, he looks a mess, and that's lousy publicity, something that's hurting everything.

He gets outmaneuvered by Johnson on everything, even the NHS where the tories have a terrible record, but he just doesn't have the force of personality or anything else to show up what the fucking twat PM is up to.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Their politics are bad but their political attacks which are intrinsically linked to their politics are good don trooooomp aged 43



The tories are a fucking disaster, and another five years will be a bastard for Britain, so that's all the more reason Corbyn should have resigned when Johnson took office. 
Yes, there's no question the PM is an utter cunt of the worst sort, but you don't send a rabbit to hunt a fox, you get someone with a hunter's mind and a fucking shotgun.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> What's wrong with Corbyn?


He’s accused of reading Marx but hasn’t.



> He refuses to answer questions when he knows his answers will be unpopular - not just in that video, but all the time


You mean like a politician?



> He's deeply unpopular with the electorate, so is an albatros around Labour's neck


This is mainly the result of a hostile press.



> He has no hope in this world of outperforming Johnson in front of a TV audience, either in parliament or anywhere else.


Perception wise that’s probably right. I can’t understand the appeal of Johnson, but people seem to like the bumbling posh dick routine.



> Like Micheal Foot, he looks a mess, and that's lousy publicity, something that's hurting everything.


This is ageist bullshit.  Boris is a mess but that’s apparently adorable.



> He gets outmaneuvered by Johnson on everything, even the NHS where the tories have a terrible record, but he just doesn't have the force of personality or anything else to show up what the fucking twat PM is up to.


I don’t think much of his ability either, but then I don’t think much of Johnson’s.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2019)

Many of Corbyn's supposed weaknesses are also his strengths.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Perception wise that’s probably right. I can’t understand the appeal of Johnson, but people seem to like the bumbling posh dick routine.


I don't think so. Corbyn usually does well in TV debates: Johnson usually doesn't.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The tories are a fucking disaster, and another five years will be a bastard for Britain, so that's all the more reason Corbyn should have resigned when Johnson took office.
> Yes, there's no question the PM is an utter cunt of the worst sort, but you don't send a rabbit to hunt a fox, you get someone with a hunter's mind and a fucking shotgun.


Have you a digital spy account you can use


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

Anyway, he's there, looking stupid and dithering his way to what looks likely to be a massive election defeat, then he'll get kicked out.
Pity it's probably going to mean brexit and a general fuck up, but that's what the far left are supporting with that guy.

The choice was between an attempt at a far left run for government that was always going to fail, or a more sensible and electable mid left socialist government, but the far left of the party made a massive error in assuming Corbyn was popular when it was really May that was so unpopular.
Basically, Corbyn is a fuck up that's going to cost Labour and the UK a lot.

Yes, I'm not a Marxist or militant, but it's a lot better to have a Labour government in power that will get rid of all the shit the tories have done to the welfare state, than Corbyn as leader of a weak, ineffective opposition that has to sit wanking and moaning while they watch the conservatives do whatever the fuck they fancy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think so. Corbyn usually does well in TV debates: Johnson usually doesn't.


I’ll never know. I’d rather fish pens out of a plugged-in toaster with wet hands.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think so. Corbyn usually does well in TV debates: Johnson usually doesn't.



Yes, that's why his poll numbers are so high low


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> it's a lot better to have a Labour government in power that will get rid of all the shit the tories have done to the welfare state


Like Blair did?

Oh wait...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I’ll never know. I’d rather fish pens out of a plugged-in toaster with wet hands.



Has dessiato nicked your login?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> a more sensible and electable mid left socialist government



What would a 'mid left socialist government' look like; i.e. what would its policies be?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, that's why his poll numbers are so high low


I'm not sure poll numbers are just a record of how well a politician does in TV debates tbh.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure poll numbers are just a record of how well a politician does in TV debates tbh.


especially in TV debates that haven't happened yet.

Most papers (even the Metro) said he often 'won' PMQ's as well


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, that's why his poll numbers are so high low


are these the same polls that predicted the destruction of the labour party at may's hands last time ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What would a 'mid left socialist government' look like; i.e. what would its policies be?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Navy suits and white shirts, no ties


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What would a 'mid left socialist government' look like; i.e. what would its policies be?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Chaos with Ed Miliband


----------



## xenon (Nov 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> Chaos with Ed Miliband



Apologetic continuation of austerity with Owen Smith. The people's favourite.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> It strikes me as a pretty pointless argument to say _Corbyn must go_ given the current state of play.  Clearly he is going to be the leader at the election and after that he'll either have a good election and be in No 10 or he will not be in No 10 and is unlikely to remain Labour leader.  Its not easy to see many (if any) scenarios where he doesn't get the keys to No 10 and stays on as leader.
> 
> I don't think another hung parliament with tories the largest party will cut it.  My thoughts anyway.


Yes, though I think it depends on the parliamentary arithmetic. Solid tory majority and he's gone asap; wafer thin tory majority there may be yet more potential for brexit related faffing about and he stays a bit (provided Labour's don't drop too many seats). I'm not even thinking about a Labour majority, but if there's any kind of 'everyone but the tories and dup' shindig he should be PM, though the liberals will no doubt attempt some kind of absurd wet fart power play to derail him.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think so. Corbyn usually does well in TV debates: Johnson usually doesn't.



Somewhat. He does well in the same way Hillary Clinton - whatever you think about her - did. They answer questions in a way that assumes their audience is intelligent. Trump followed Clinton around like he was trying to sniff her bum and rambled on like an idiot and he won the election.

Corbyn doesn't need to work hard to persuade people who'd already like the way he can appear in a debate. Debates are about intelligence and good sparring skills. Nobody who likes Boris likes intelligence.  

But unlike Trump, Boris does like big words and uses them quite well sometimes, so in a debate he could well come across as an upper-class twit. Esp if Corbyn holds back from that.


----------



## rekil (Nov 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Navy suits and white shirts, no ties


_Hard Choices_ tattooed on knuckles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, that's why his poll numbers are so high low


Every time you post you seem to shed intelligence


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

copliker said:


> _Hard Choices_ tattooed on knuckles.


Surely by the law of averages they should get a hard decision right soon


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2019)

copliker said:


> _Hard Choices_ tattooed on knuckles.


Borstal spots from the PR companies they've worked for.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm not a Marxist or militant


But you can operate a time machine.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But you can operate a time machine.


When he's told to.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> When he's told to.


I've spent my whole political life arguing against the crude model of media production and simple public reception. But, this idiot really tests me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But you can operate a time machine.


He couldn't operate a fruit machine


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Every time you post you seem to shed intelligence


But you don't mean in the same way that say, a light sheds light?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> But you don't mean in the same way that say, a light sheds light?


No indeed, like trees shed leaves. Only yer man's nous ain't coming back


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> But you can operate a time machine.



Olny one that can see the fucking obvious future


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Olny one that can see the fucking obvious future


Ok, what will be election outcome. Eg tory majority of x


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Olny one that can see the fucking obvious future


I was referring to your finger on the pulse references like “militant”.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Corbyn doesn't need to work hard to persuade people who'd already like the way he can appear in a debate. Debates are about intelligence and good sparring skills. Nobody who likes Boris likes intelligence.
> 
> But unlike Trump, Boris does like big words and uses them quite well sometimes, so in a debate he could well come across as an upper-class twit. Esp if Corbyn holds back from that.



Debates are about getting your point of view over to the electorate, and not a lot more. That means a holistic approach to the session, only part of which is winning a debate. Trump did on on bumbling populist stupidity, Johnson does it with posh sounding, 'but I'm really one of you' populism, but Corbyn never really managed to convince anyone except people with similar thoughts to his own. He's preaching to the converted, not bringing lost sheep home.
You may like his politics so see him as some sort of god but, like Michael Foot, he's bloody useless at what he's supposed to be doing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You may like his politics so see him as some sort of god


Where is this coming from? Can you argue with things people say here rather than making up positions for us?


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

40% at the last general election. Never managed to convince anyone in his life.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Debates are about getting your point of view over to the electorate, and not a lot more. That means a holistic approach to the session, only part of which is winning a debate. Trump did on on bumbling populist stupidity, Johnson does it with posh sounding, 'but I'm really one of you' populism, but Corbyn never really managed to convince anyone except people with similar thoughts to his own. He's preaching to the converted, not bringing lost sheep home.
> You may like his politics so see him as some sort of god but, like Michael Foot, he's bloody useless at what he's supposed to be doing.


No fan, but this is piss poor fella.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You may like his politics so see him as some sort of god


Just out of interest, who are the Corbyn worshippers round here?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I was referring to your finger on the pulse references like “militant”.



I'm old - live with it. 
That set of idiots have long gone but there's a new lot out there pushing extremism, and they're very bad news. They smashed the Labour party of years ago, and the modern left are being used by the 'daily mail' types of today as heralds of a dystopian future, painting a picture of a bunch of crackpot communists running an extremist party that will destroy Britain.

The truth is unimportant, but the image is so, the more the hard left push, the lesser the chance of a socialist government.
Enjoy the likely new Boris Johnson government and all it brings, because the left of the party are too entrenched in their own opinions to see they're working for him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

brogdale said:


> No fan, but this is piss poor fella.


Aw he's trying his hardest


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm old - live with it.
> That set of idiots have long gone but there's a new lot out there pushing extremism, and they're very bad news. They smashed the Labour party of years ago, and the modern left are being used by the 'daily mail' types of today as heralds of a dystopian future, painting a picture of a bunch of crackpot communists running an extremist party that will destroy Britain.
> 
> The truth is unimportant, but the image is so, the more the hard left push, the lesser the chance of a socialist government.
> Enjoy the likely new Boris Johnson government and all it brings, because the left of the party are too entrenched in their own opinions to see they're working for him.


Er Tony Blair smashed the Labour Party of years ago


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> 40% at the last general election. Never managed to convince anyone in his life.



That wasn't Corbyn being good, it was May being crap. Johnson isn't May and, pity that it is he isn't as shit as her, Corbyn doesn't seem to realise he hasn't got a hope against the PM.
Unless something big happens to expose Johnson before the election, Labour will lose massively, and it will be Corbyn's fault for not stepping down when it was obvious he should have done.
He'll be forced out after the election, but that's way too late.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2019)

this is awful, this is all awful, please stop everyone


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

fair point.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> They smashed the Labour party of years ago, and the modern left are being used by the 'daily mail' types of today as heralds of a dystopian future, painting a picture of a bunch of crackpot communists running an extremist party that will destroy Britain.
> 
> The truth is unimportant, but the image is so, the more the hard left push, the lesser the chance of a socialist government.
> Enjoy the likely new Boris Johnson government and all it brings, because the left of the party are too entrenched in their own opinions to see they're working for him.



what do you mean by the ‘old labour day party?’
Atlee? Wilson? Callaghan?

If so, how did these leaders differ from Corbyn? My own assessment is that on foreign policy they didn’t possess Corbyn’s ‘anti/imperialism of fools’ but were well to the left of him in terms of the economy and state involvement in its management. They appointed union leaders _to the cabinet, _something that Corbyn couldn’t dream of doing. They managed the economy with the agreement and via negotiation with unions.

Its worth looking at the last 40 years through a wider lens at time. Especially when trying to locate where and who Corbyn is.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Er Tony Blair smashed the Labour Party of years ago



Blair was a cash hungry tory bastard that realised he could do better pretending to be a socialist, and he did very well. However, the left of the party smashed Labour's chances of an election win for many years before he got the big job. That shit gave us Thatcher - big fucking win there. 
Well done, the far left, and future congratulations for a new Johnson government.

It's probably too late to stop Johnson now, but Labour is going to have to find a new leader the moment this election is over so there's opportunity in the commons to show up the new tory government for what they are, and plan for the next election.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm old - live with it.


That wasn’t my point. 


> the more the hard left push, the lesser the chance of a socialist government.


We could do with your definitions of “hard left” and “socialist government”.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 5, 2019)

Can you lot please stop encouraging the thick cunt?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

The romanticising of the labour party of the past is always fucking tedious whichever direction it comes from. They were always cunts, that's just the way it is.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 5, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The romanticising of the labour party of the past is always fucking tedious whichever direction it comes from. They were always cunts, that's just the way it is.



Agreed. But who’s been doing that?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agreed. But who’s been doing that?







Don Troooomp said:


> They smashed the Labour party of years ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Blair was a cash hungry tory bastard that realised he could do better pretending to be a socialist, and he did very well. However, the left of the party smashed Labour's chances of an election win for many years before he got the big job. That shit gave us Thatcher - big fucking win there.
> Well done, the far left, and future congratulations for a new Johnson government.
> 
> It's probably too late to stop Johnson now, but Labour is going to have to find a new leader the moment this election is over so there's opportunity in the commons to show up the new tory government for what they are, and plan for the next election.


I didn't know Red Jim Callaghan was so left wing


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> That wasn’t my point.
> We could do with your definitions of “hard left” and “socialist government”.


You know what, i reckon we could live without them.

In terms of futhering a convo when it's not worth with though, i agree.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> Chaos with Ed Miliband


That's not set in stone


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2019)

Those saying this is going nowhere are right. You can’t teach a misosophist.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 5, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> this is awful, this is all awful, please stop everyone



I'l start a thread after the election results are in, so it's back to Trump and what a twat he is for now.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Just out of interest, who are the Corbyn worshippers round here?


Oh, there's a few of us. I, for example, named my non-existent children after things the Dear Leader likes. In fact as I was saying to our Hamas, Marrow and M62 Coach Bomb the other day...


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You can’t teach a misosophist


 I've learnt a new word


----------



## Supine (Nov 6, 2019)

Ground Elder said:


> I've learnt a new word



I’m now aware a word exists. I haven’t bothered to google the meaning


----------



## Badgers (Nov 6, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Just out of interest, who are the Corbyn worshippers round here?


Aye


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'l start a thread after the election results are in, so it's back to Trump and what a twat he is for now.



So no chance of you answering my question about what your prefered 'mid left socialist government' would do/promise to do? Go on give it a try.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So no chance of you answering my question about what your prefered 'mid left socialist government' would do/promise to do? Go on give it a try.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


He couldn't answer a call of nature


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 6, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The average of the 10 polls after the commons voted for a GE is 11%, the average of the 10 polls before gave them 12%, so not much narrowing there.
> 
> I've read a couple of articles saying the Tories will be worried if they get anything under an average of 10% in the polls, as because of where votes could fall, they may not get a majority, basically squeaky bum time.



The most recent polls are narrowing and the Tory campaign is off to a car crash. The Tories should be worried, because if they simply pile up votes in Chipping Torybury they will not get  an overall majority. And then the friendless bastards will be out.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 6, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> The most recent polls are narrowing ...



Based on the polls since the GE was called, they are not, it's just some polling companies tend to show a lower lead than others, the lowest recently is the ICM one showing a 7% lead, but that is up 1% on their last poll. ComRes came up with 8%, that's 4% up on their last one. Survation is unchanged on 8%. ORB is also on 8%, but their last poll was ages ago and had Labour ahead. The other 4 polling companies all have them on between 11 & 16%. 

A month ago there were polls showing them as low as 3, 4, 5 & 6%

Generally speaking they are all over the place, as usual, but no sign of any narrowing just yet, but it's early days. 

Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia


----------



## hash tag (Nov 7, 2019)

Ian Austin, really Labour voters should back Johnson - ex Labour MP


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 7, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Ian Austin, really Labour voters should back Johnson - ex Labour MP


It shows the true colours of these “Brownites”. Vote Boris. Ffs.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 7, 2019)

At least TW went quietly and diplomatically.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2019)

hash tag said:


> At least TW went quietly and diplomatically.


Nothing became him in his political life like the leaving of it


----------



## GarveyLives (Nov 7, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Ian Austin, really Labour voters should back Johnson - ex Labour MP



Is this the individual being referred to?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 7, 2019)




----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> misosophist.



Actually knew that one.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 8, 2019)

hash tag said:


> At least TW went quietly and diplomatically.



suggestions he is taking a knighthood as part of his ‘quiet and diplomatic’ departure


----------



## cantsin (Nov 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> suggestions he is taking a knighthood as part of his ‘quiet and diplomatic’ departure



If him / and / or Austin get gongs etc, am going to struggle a bit, srsly.... need to research coping mechanisms, focus on the wider picture etc


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2019)

cantsin said:


> If him / and / or Austin get gongs etc, am going to struggle a bit, srsly.... need to research coping mechanisms, focus on the wider picture etc


vote in Corbo and he'll abolish it all anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> suggestions he is taking a knighthood as part of his ‘quiet and diplomatic’ departure


God. Sir Tom Watson drinking cans of cider at Glasto. What a fucking world.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> vote in Corbo and he'll abolish it all anyway.



I wish ( aka : bob hope / no hope )


----------



## cantsin (Nov 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> God. Sir Tom Watson drinking cans of cider at Glasto. What a fucking world.



all over Instagram with that sh*t eating grin ..... " you must check out this amazing new band, Idles... "


----------



## gosub (Nov 10, 2019)

Outrage as Corbyn accused of failing to bow in respect to war dead at Remembrance ceremony

I reality he did, new speaker didn't and if they were after a Michael Foot moment it was Boris that was the scruffy fucker


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2019)

gosub said:


> Outrage as Corbyn accused of failing to bow in respect to war dead at Remembrance ceremony
> 
> I reality he did, new speaker didn't and if they were after a Michael Foot moment it was Boris that was the scruffy fucker



didn't the PM put his wreath upside-down as well?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2019)

gosub said:


> if they were after a Michael Foot moment


its an annual event for them now. I think the first one was the insufficient bow and then there was a jacket deemed not respectful enough.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> its an annual event for them now. I think the first one was the insufficient bow and then there was a jacket deemed not respectful enough.



I thought the first one was not singing the national anthem?

edit:  also wasn't there one about him pinching Veteran's food as well?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> I thought the first one was not singing the national anthem?
> 
> edit:  also wasn't there one about him pinching Veteran's food as well?


I remember the sandwich thieving one, must have missed the national anthem scandal but google says 2015 so first it is


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2019)

He needs to take a leaf out of the dignified dog at Tranmere yesterday, For shame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2019)

gosub said:


> Outrage as Corbyn accused of failing to bow in respect to war dead at Remembrance ceremony
> 
> I reality he did, new speaker didn't and if they were after a Michael Foot moment it was Boris that was the scruffy fucker


When did bowing become a thing? It sounds most unbritish, the sort of thing only an oriental potentate might enforce, a byzantine emperor or mongol khan


----------



## a_chap (Nov 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> When did bowing become a thing? It sounds most unbritish, the sort of thing only an oriental potentate might enforce, a byzantine emperor or mongol khan



That's why Saint Theresa passed the law requiring all PMs to curtsy (curtsey? Bugger why doesn't any spelling look right?)


----------



## LDC (Nov 10, 2019)

a_chap said:


> That's why Saint Theresa passed the law requiring all PMs to curtsy (curtsey? Bugger why doesn't any spelling look right?)
> 
> View attachment 189594



It's quite disrespectful to give Captain Bird's Eye and his wife such prominent positions at Remembrance Day too I think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2019)

a_chap said:


> That's why Saint Theresa passed the law requiring all PMs to curtsy (curtsey? Bugger why doesn't any spelling look right?)
> 
> View attachment 189594


She bowed and she scraped
Sure her manners were polite


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's quite disrespectful to give Captain Bird's Eye and his wife such prominent positions at Remembrance Day too I think.


That's for the fallen in the Cod War.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 10, 2019)

JimW said:


> That's for the fallen in the Cod War.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 10, 2019)

My personal favourite was when some hack said his battered old raleigh racer was a 'chairman mao bike'


----------



## tommers (Nov 10, 2019)

gosub said:


> Outrage as Corbyn accused of failing to bow in respect to war dead at Remembrance ceremony
> 
> I reality he did, new speaker didn't and if they were after a Michael Foot moment it was Boris that was the scruffy fucker


Obviously told not to by his paymasters in Moldovan intelligence.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 10, 2019)

gosub said:


> Outrage as Corbyn accused of failing to bow in respect to war dead at Remembrance ceremony
> 
> I reality he did, new speaker didn't and if they were after a Michael Foot moment it was Boris that was the scruffy fucker



The video makes it look like someone standing and bowing his head respectfully for a relatively long time, so presumably anyone criticising him hasn't watched the video.

That link also talks about the women at the ceremony as if they were at a fashion show.


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 10, 2019)

Grimsby up for grabs?

Many of the locals don’t want Corbyn govt.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 10, 2019)

Ground Elder said:


> I've learnt a new word



I've learnt Danny got a dictionary for his birthday.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2019)

cantsin said:


> If him / and / or Austin get gongs etc, am going to struggle a bit, srsly.... need to research coping mechanisms, focus on the wider picture etc


Be positive, regard gongs as targets.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 10, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> I've learnt Danny got a dictionary for his birthday.


My birthday is in February. But if you want to get me something for Christmas, my “friends” made a huge dent in my booze cabinet last night. More supplies needed.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 10, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> My birthday is in February. But if you want to get me something for Christmas, my “friends” made a huge dent in my booze cabinet last night. More supplies needed.



I'll send you a six-pack of O'Doul's from America but you'll have to pay postage.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 11, 2019)

If ever there was an indication of how things are going even the grime community have begun to flake away:

Grime4Corbyn artists step back from new campaign for Labour

I prefer drill anyway


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Grimsby up for grabs?
> 
> Many of the locals don’t want Corbyn govt.



You do know that vox pops are totally worthless, yes? They just find the people who think the thing they want to report on and show those interviews.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2019)

They seem to be featuring an awful lot of labour leavers who cite brexit as the reason for voting BP/Tories

creating the narrative?

A friend of mine in Rotherham, canvassing with Sarah Champion, says he is not hearing Brexit much on the doorstep.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 11, 2019)

I heard most of this in the morning before I went to work.

Emily Thornberry can't recall Jeremy Corbyn ever backing foreign intervention

I was choking on my breakfast.

She was putting the Labour party case that ordinary soldiers should be paid more and should have decent housing.

The response was that Corbyn doesn't support our soldiers because he has never supported them getting sent abroad to be killed. He also doesn't appear to want to start a nuclear war either. Clearly makes him unfit for office. Also questions his patriotism- which makes him unfit for office as well. 

(Reminds me of an old ex soldier I knew who told me we should never have gone into Iraq as it wasn't anything to do with defending this country. )

So making sure ordinary privates have decent housing counts for nothing if your not going to send them off fighting.


----------



## agricola (Nov 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I heard most of this in the morning before I went to work.
> 
> Emily Thornberry can't recall Jeremy Corbyn ever backing foreign intervention
> 
> ...



I hope Labour move on from this "decent housing for service personnel" argument, to a rather better argument about the massive scam that is defence housing.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 14, 2019)




----------



## Badgers (Nov 15, 2019)

Minister who heckled Corbyn suspended over tweets

I am going to miss his contribution to the faith


----------



## Badgers (Nov 19, 2019)

Look at what Corbyn has done to this country 

allanjenkins21 (@allanjenkins21) on Twitter (has now deleted it)


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend?



Also a friend of the apartheid regime, according to this Saffa site:

Open Secrets: Unaccountable: Dame Margaret Hodge MP – a very British apartheid profiteer

" Hodge has clothed herself in the claim that she has dedicated her life to fighting racism – that her very “being” was anti-racist, as she said in March 2019. The facts suggest otherwise."

And damning facts they are too.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 20, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Also a friend of the apartheid regime, according to this Saffa site:
> 
> Open Secrets: Unaccountable: Dame Margaret Hodge MP – a very British apartheid profiteer
> 
> ...


Fucking hell. Amazing stuff. I never liked Hodge obviously but what an absolute bastard she is. Letter to dad and donations to charity my arse


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2019)

I just read that, quite damning.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2019)

Not a good week for Corbyn haters seeking to profit from apartheid. Rachel Riley ridiculously using an image of Corbyn opposing racism to call him a racist.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Not a good week for Corbyn haters seeking to profit from apartheid. Rachel Riley ridiculously using an image of Corbyn opposing racism to call him a racist.



That is quite the statement of a sick, obsessed mind


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

Was this in response to her mate Hodges being outed for long lasting and profitable links to apartheid South Africa?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Was this in response to her mate Hodges being outed for long lasting and profitable links to apartheid South Africa?



Her reselection


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2019)

Rachel Riley defends 'disgraceful' photoshopped Jeremy Corbyn T-shirt


> Defending her choice to don the photoshopped message, she tweeted on Thursday morning: “Without feeding individual ignorant trolls, this is why I have no qualms using this photo to highlight Corbyn’s racism.”
> 
> She then shared a stream of articles accusing the Labour Party, and its leader, of “institutional racism”.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

I see she's pretending that she was making a point about a split in the anti-apartheid movement in the 80s, that she has either just googled or that one of her backers hastily provided her with. Very very dangerous ground on which to unequivocally call someone a racist. She clearly knows nothing about the times or the movement(s).

Technically Corbyn was protesting the ban on demonstrations around South Africa House in that pic, _not apartheid itself_ - so he may well have been racist i suppose.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 21, 2019)

I think she's actually gone a bit insane. I mean I disagree with her whole stance, and her citing Daily Express rumour-mongering and ignoring his voting record and very long history of anti racist activism, that's pretty low and calling everyone who disagrees with her "ignorant trolls" is woke cconspiracy theorist talk. But using that particular picture with that slogan is just bizarre. It's not like there are no other pictures of him around.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Not a good week for Corbyn haters seeking to profit from apartheid. Rachel Riley ridiculously using an image of Corbyn opposing racism to call him a racist.



What a vile woman.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

There is zero chance of Rachel Riley losing her job over her campaign against antisemitism in Labour, no matter how deranged it gets.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> There is zero chance of Rachel Riley losing her job over her campaign against antisemitism in Labour, no matter how deranged it gets.


Wonder why that is


----------



## strung out (Nov 21, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Wonder why that is


Zionist conspiracy?


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

Badgers said:


> Wonder why that is


It wouldn't look great would it?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 21, 2019)

The main thing I'm amazed at is that somebody spent time and paid money to have a t-shirt done for a tweet


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 21, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The main thing I'm amazed at is that somebody spent time and paid money to have a t-shirt done for a tweet



TBF, you can print any image from a bog standard ink-jet printer onto a transfer & iron it on to a cheap t-shirt for just a few quid.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 21, 2019)

She’s an idiot. Clearly on a mission to be the Woke Katie Hopkins.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2019)

the daily mail really is an awful newspaper
from their coverage of the launch of the labour manifesto

Jeremy Corbyn unveils manifesto splurging billions on nationalisation | Daily Mail Online
you can call franklin roosevelt many things but post-war is certainly not one of them


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

The Evening Standard - a newspaper edited by a former Conservative chancellor of the exchequer and owned by a billionaire Russian oligarch - published an interview with Corbyn this afternoon where there was a passage about antisemitism where Corbyn apparently bellowed 'there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party!'

This entire passage has now been removed, and the following note was included at the bottom







The difference between bellowing _there is no antisemitism in the party_ and not bellowing _there is no antisemitism in the party_ is a fairly significant one. I wonder how such a mistake could have been made?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 21, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> TBF, you can print any image from a bog standard ink-jet printer onto a transfer & iron it on to a cheap t-shirt for just a few quid.


But even then, would you bother, I wouldn't


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Also a friend of the apartheid regime, according to this Saffa site:
> 
> Open Secrets: Unaccountable: Dame Margaret Hodge MP – a very British apartheid profiteer
> 
> ...


 

Ralph is brown dead and stemcor is a zombie outfit these days. the owners were careful enough to register it offshore. Hodge is a fucking hypocrite of the highest order.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the daily mail really is an awful newspaper
> from their coverage of the launch of the labour manifesto
> View attachment 190550
> Jeremy Corbyn unveils manifesto splurging billions on nationalisation | Daily Mail Online
> you can call franklin roosevelt many things but post-war is certainly not one of them




  Depends which war I suppose


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> But even then, would you bother, I wouldn't


depends what you want to do I guess. She's managed to kick up and annoying and boring stink about antisemitism - and no doubt has received a large number of angry antisemitic tweets which can now be shared as evidence of how antisemitic Labour is - on the day Labour released their manifesto. Seems a solid investment if disrupting Labour's election campaign is your aim.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> depends what you want to do I guess. She's managed to kick up and annoying and boring stink about antisemitism - and no doubt has received a large number of angry antisemitic tweets which can now be shared as evidence of how antisemitic Labour is - on the day Labour released their manifesto. Seems a solid investment if disrupting Labour's election campaign is your aim.



True. A good way of distracting people. Well done, Rachel.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

The libel in the Evening Standard interview is in the print edition btw.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> depends what you want to do I guess. She's managed to kick up and annoying and boring stink about antisemitism - and no doubt has received a large number of angry antisemitic tweets which can now be shared as evidence of how antisemitic Labour is - on the day Labour released their manifesto. Seems a solid investment if disrupting Labour's election campaign is your aim.



have never seen such substantial and widespread push back vs the Riley / Oberman / Gnasher / Phillips etc crew, from such a diverse spread - deffo not sure Riley's done her cause any favours mid - long term, but doesnt feel like in the near term either - saw zero AS in the responses, just lots of disgust, lots of it from BAME / BLM quarters


----------



## scifisam (Nov 21, 2019)

cantsin said:


> have never seen such substantial and widespread push back vs the Riley / Oberman / Gnasher / Phillips etc crew, from such a diverse spread - deffo not sure Riley's done her cause any favours mid - long term, but doesnt feel like in the near term either - saw zero AS in the responses, just lots of disgust, lots of it from BAME / BLM quarters



Yeah, but she's put the anti-semitism claim back out there in the forefont, and added racism claims. They're really fucking weird racism claims but it means people are talking about Corbyn's supposed racism rather than Johnson's well-attested racism.

Riley did that by using an image of Corbyn protesting against racism. It's a very good way to weaponise his own anti-racist protests to turn it around and paint him as a racist. Like, "you think this picture makes you look good? We'll make it look bad."


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 21, 2019)

It’s just bizarrely dishonest, and they’re fully aware they’re talking bollocks. I don’t get it really, unless it’s some sort of trolling or attempt to distract/divert effort.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> There is zero chance of Rachel Riley losing her job over her campaign against antisemitism in Labour, no matter how deranged it gets.


Totally anecdotal but I've seen a lot of chat about this today outside of the usual hardcore political circles, so I suspect she has pushed it too far and it'll permanently damage her. Not necessarily booted off current gigs but who knows.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 21, 2019)

Then she gets to play the victim, silenced for speaking the truth, like every other right-wing ringpiece in the last few decades. Boring when they do this, I wonder if it still has much traction (the worshippers of St Tommy suggest it does)


----------



## mauvais (Nov 21, 2019)

I perhaps naively feel like it requires an extra ingredient to really be successful in that respect - a Hopkins nuclear icebreaker level of narcissism and self-assurance. You don't automatically get there by having cluelessly shit politics and pontificating about stuff.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 21, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Totally anecdotal but I've seen a lot of chat about this today outside of the usual hardcore political circles, so I suspect she has pushed it too far and it'll permanently damage her. Not necessarily booted off current gigs but who knows.



I wouldn't support her being kicked off Countdown - she didn't wear it on the show, and I'm not that comfortable with people being kicked off shows for political views where politics isn't part of it. She doesn't have any control over who wins and probably knows nothing about the contestants.

Even though I am genuinely not going to watch Countdown for a while, not just because of the specific views (she's had them for a while) but because she does actually seem unhinged and it's not like this has just started. 

The Metro article sums it up with this quote:

"Reflecting on this troubling piece of history, award winning black feminist and LGBTQ activist Chardine Taylor Stone called Ms Riley’s post ‘the most arrogant racist shit I have seen in a while’. 

She added: ‘A blue eyed blonde haired woman literally erasing black struggle to centre themselves as the victim of racism. ‘You do not treat apartheid as joke to make a statement. I don’t care who is holding the placard or what statement she thinks she is making here.’"

It's disappointing that a nice lower-middle-class girl from Southend has decided to be the next Katie Hopkins.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2019)

Flattening anti Black racism, Anti Apartheid history whilst promoting 'Whiteness' and anti-semitism to the top of the hierarchy of suffering isn't something any nice 'anyone' does. She isn't an anti racist. Her tactics aren't new either, we've seen numerous examples of this kind of shit over recent years in line with the rise of the far right. She needs to get in the fucking bin.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2019)

If she worked for a lot of companies in a public facing role she would be fired on the spot. That or offered leave to deal with her mental health issues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2019)

Badgers said:


> If she worked for a lot of companies in a public facing role she would be fired on the spot. That or offered leave to deal with her mental health issues.


The next season of countdown will come from television centre in grytviken


----------



## mauvais (Nov 21, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I wouldn't support her being kicked off Countdown - she didn't wear it on the show, and I'm not that comfortable with people being kicked off shows for political views where politics isn't part of it. She doesn't have any control over who wins and probably knows nothing about the contestants.


I don't particularly care for tangible comeuppance, who gives a shit, it's just cult of celebrity, but I would like to see this kind of bollocks aired and called out for what it is, not on personal terms but because it serves as a practical political education for everyone who stumbles upon it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2019)

She is using her 'celebrity' platform to promote this shit. She is the one bringing it into the workplace. Her tweet wearing the t-shirt mentioned work as the leaders debate was taking place at ITV studios.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 21, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> She is using her 'celebrity' platform to promote this shit. She is the one bringing it into the workplace. Her tweet wearing the t-shirt mentioned work as the leaders debate was taking place at ITV studios.


I'm not 100% sure and it's absolutely nerdy irrelevance anyway but I think the debate thing took place at Dock10 which isn't even ITV, just a studio used by anyone. So it's anyone's workplace.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The next season of countdown will come from television centre in grytviken



Bit harsh on poor, blameless Susie Dent?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Bit harsh on poor, blameless Susie Dent?


Yes. But to make meringues you have to break eggs


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I'm not 100% sure and it's absolutely nerdy irrelevance anyway but I think the debate thing took place at Dock10 which isn't even ITV, just a studio used by anyone. So it's anyone's workplace.



Perhaps you should tell RR that?

She claims it as her own...



Her twitter page has pics of her at work on countdown too, it's her leverage at being relevant...


----------



## mauvais (Nov 21, 2019)

Countdown is filmed there but it's just contract hire. Ah I'm even boring myself with this one.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

There won't be any repercussions for her professionally over this, so it doesn't really matter. I mean... I'm sure no-one is delighted at the countdown office  that she's out there smearing shit on the walls every day, but the consequences for them if they took any kind of action - monstering in the tabloid press, pickets of their studios, a boycott of their shows, you name it - would be so severe that they just won't touch it. They're all just praying Labour loses in December and Corbyn resigns, and all this will vanish like it never existed.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 21, 2019)

Maybe it's all a sinister plot by the Dark Lord Carol Voldermort, her obsession with blood purity and getting back on the numbers game on Countdown.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 21, 2019)

Buckaroo said:


> Lord Carol Voldermort


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2019)

An excellent manifesto launch. Loads to like in it and has really set the agenda for the next few weeks. 

I still have doubts about Corbyn’s personal electability, but fair dos he’s been on great form and the ball is in play. I have a feeling the Tories won’t quite get an overall majority and another round awaits.

I thought the election debate tone, hasn’t politics been so nasty, you two apologise, was unfair on Corbyn. None of that is on him.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 22, 2019)

Seeing all the shit flying around about the lib dems and their deeper "sympathies" with the tories this election should be
much easier than I suspect it will be


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Seeing all the shit flying around about the lib dems and their deeper "sympathies" with the tories this election should be
> much easier than I suspect it will be


Easier? For who? Why? And why does that makes you sad?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 22, 2019)

It should make it easier for people to vote labour but I suspect it wont.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2019)

Bad news for Corbyn, the Muppets and Michael Caine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 22, 2019)

ToryFibs has created a list of Labour's manifesto policies...


----------



## Libertad (Nov 22, 2019)

^^^ Repeal the Lobbying Act and Vehicle Scrappage get listed twice.

This is why you can't trust Labour.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 22, 2019)

Badgers said:


> If she worked for a lot of companies in a public facing role she would be fired on the spot. That or offered leave to deal with her mental health issues.



And I'd disagree with the firing for someone in that job too.

I'd say she should be be given training on why using that picture is so fucking awful,


Mr Moose said:


> Bad news for Corbyn, the Muppets and Michael Caine.




His Twitter feed is amazing. So many lies repeated.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Nov 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> An excellent manifesto launch. Loads to like in it and has really set the agenda for the next few weeks.
> 
> I still have doubts about Corbyn’s personal electability, but fair dos he’s been on great form and the ball is in play. I have a feeling the Tories won’t quite get an overall majority and another round awaits.
> 
> I thought the election debate tone, hasn’t politics been so nasty, you two apologise, was unfair on Corbyn. None of that is on him.



The manifesto all about setting the agenda for the leadership election to come..pie in the sky stuff rather than a serous attempt to get into Downing Street.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2019)

Rachel Riley and her T shirt are back in the news - the original photographer's turned up.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 24, 2019)

Fair play to the photographer for fighting this, but the hundreds of Twitter comments about it just disappoint me a bit, all that time and effort wasted being cross about someone that doesn’t really matter being a dick. Couldn’t there be a more productive use of time if you want to campaign for Labour? If thousands of hours have been wasted on Twitter and other platforms performing the act of being cross about this then surely she’s winning for her side no matter what the outcome?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2019)

Yeah, but what was the opportunity cost, realistically? Nothing outside the bubble, quite likely. So nothing is gained _or_ lost.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 25, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Yeah, but what was the opportunity cost, realistically? Nothing outside the bubble, quite likely. So nothing is gained _or_ lost.


Yeah, I didn’t hear anything about it til I logged on here tbf, but I have been steadfastly avoiding noise.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 25, 2019)

There's that in terms of it being irrelevant, but I mean more what the people getting cross about it would have productively done with that time and effort instead - probably nothing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2019)

mauvais said:


> There's that in terms of it being irrelevant, but I mean more what the people getting cross about it would have productively done with that time and effort instead - probably nothing.


TBH if you're the kind of person who would spend your time on social shreiking about Rachel Riley's t-shirt it's probably a net positive for Labour that you aren't out on the doorstep.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 25, 2019)

killer b said:


> TBH if you're the kind of person who would spend your time on social shreiking about Rachel Riley's t-shirt it's probably a net positive for Labour that you aren't out on the doorstep.


Allegedly quite a few Labour canvassers in the north are arguing with the voters they meet, not ideal


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Allegedly quite a few Labour canvassers in the north are arguing with the voters they meet, not ideal!



Williams has this report from one person, who's probably a bit of a wanker. Labour canvassers are trying to change people's minds on the doorstep, of course. Those conversations aren't always going to go perfectly.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 25, 2019)

killer b said:


> Williams has this report from one person, who's probably a bit of a wanker. Labour canvassers are trying to change people's minds on the doorstep, of course. Those conversations aren't always going to go perfectly.


It's not the only such report I've seen, but I agree it's anecdotal rather than necessarily useful. They are heavily recruiting for canvassers though which I don't personally recall from previous elections, and it wouldn't be surprising if some of that went badly.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2019)

I went out canvassing in Bolton West a few weeks ago - there was about a hundred out, mostly new to canvassing. It's inevitable some of the green canvassers might fuck up a bit, but I also think the people who're complaining of the arguing are likely just experiencing the cognitive dissonance of trying to justify to themselves a vote for the tories, and anybody trying to talk them round will be dismissed as arguing with them. 

The numbers turning up in some places have caught them on the hop (it's mostly from the momentum campaign map thing rather than _heavy recruitment_ IME) - Momentum have been running training sessions but there's only so much roleplay can achieve.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2019)

Also worth noting that the Labour right time-servers mostly see canvassing as a data collection exercise for the election day GOTV operation, and their noses are a bit put out by the young activists suddenly appearing in their constituencies with different ideas. Williams' contacts in Manchester Labour come exclusively from the Labour right time servers, so you should read her tweets about any Labour stuff with this in mind. 

Before we'd even left the meet point in Bolton the other week I'd heard some local members rolling their eyes and moaning about _the fucking students. _Those'll be the guys passing this stuff on to her I'd imagine.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2019)

Not entirely a safe occupation, canvassing for Labour, it seems. If you're 70+ anyway.



This is a different person but also today:

Labour supporter, 72, left in hospital after being attacked on doorstep while campaigning


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2019)

That's fucking horrible. Scum


----------



## treelover (Nov 26, 2019)

killer b said:


> Also worth noting that the Labour right time-servers mostly see canvassing as a data collection exercise for the election day GOTV operation, and their noses are a bit put out by the young activists suddenly appearing in their constituencies with different ideas. Williams' contacts in Manchester Labour come exclusively from the Labour right time servers, so you should read her tweets about any Labour stuff with this in mind.
> 
> Before we'd even left the meet point in Bolton the other week *I'd heard some local members rolling their eyes and moaning about *_*the fucking students.* _Those'll be the guys passing this stuff on to her I'd imagine.



On the doorstep, Labour faces the question: who do you speak for?

Seem a mixed bunch.


----------



## treelover (Nov 26, 2019)

> To put a finer point on it, how does Corbyn win in North East Derbyshire? This is the patchwork of mining towns and villages whose politics have long run as red as blood – until 2017, when it elected its first Tory since the 1930s. *Lee Rowley’s aunt used to be Arthur Scargill’s secretary, *yet the MP for North East Derbyshire now co-chairs a Conservative thinktank funded, housed and operated by the Institute of Economic Affairs, those old favourites of Margaret Thatcher. Try that on for historical irony.
> 
> On the doorstep, Labour faces the question: who do you speak for?



incredible really


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2019)

treelover said:


> incredible really


why?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 26, 2019)

i think he means incredible that they went tory in 2017


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2019)




----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2019)

Quite a good video


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Quite a good video




That’s actually the best side of Corbyn I’ve seen, relaxed with good humour, a far cry from all the shouty stuff at Houses of Parliament.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

I like this one myself: 

particularly the ending.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I like this one myself:
> 
> particularly the end.



I like the fella. How the fuck anyone can want to vote for a total cunt like Johnson is beyond me.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

Yep me too he comes across as actually human unlike most of them.

Mind you 98% of voters won't see that - will only day in day out see the rabid sun, mail, sunday mail, telegraph and express headlines/articles.

I also don't really understand the 'weak leader' accusation. Can't imagine many other people turning the party round from Blairite to turn it over to the members in the face of almost universal hostility from the PLP and media, and even getting some revolutionary socialists and anarchists to actually vote labour. 

Nor the 'flip-flopping' accusations. He campaigned for staying in but when the referendum voted to come out he decided to respect that and has since recommended leaving.

Nor the 'sitting on the fence' accusations. Ok, well it's either LibDems with lets Remain and ignore everyone who voted to Leave, or it's Tories with lets leave with No Deal and turn the NHS over to the Americans. Come on, then, which is it to be? No sitting on the fence now. ....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 10, 2019)

editor said:


> How the fuck anyone can want to vote for a total cunt like Johnson is beyond me.



a cunts' cunt


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 10, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Yep me too he comes across as actually human unlike most of them.
> 
> Mind you 98% of voters won't see that - will only day in day out see the rabid sun, mail, sunday mail, telegraph and express headlines/articles.
> 
> ...



Remind me what Labours position on Brexit is please.

Didn’t Corbyn say he would have a second referendum and he would remain neutral?


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2019)

End of thread in sight?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Remind me what Labours position on Brexit is please.
> 
> Didn’t Corbyn say he would have a second referendum and he would remain neutral?



Consistently (as I recall) would negotiate for a better deal than Johnson: stay within Customs Union so no problem with NI or existing imports/exports or selling NHS (etc) off to the US, keep European environmental regulations and (such as they are) labour regulations. Seems reasonable to me. 

Then yes a second referendum either leaving on those conditions or remaining. Much more specific, so better choice than the first referendum don't you think?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 10, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Remind me what Labours position on Brexit is please.
> 
> Didn’t Corbyn say he would have a second referendum and he would remain neutral?



Fair enough.

I couldn't give a shit either.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I couldn't give a shit either.



Did you vote Leave or Remain, or none of the above?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2019)

two sheds said:


> Did you vote Leave or Remain, or none of the above?


If people voted and how they voted, that doesn't have to mean they give a shit, though. We didn't ask to be asked this question. That's one of the biggest idiocies of all of this - it was a really very small minority of people in the country who ever really thought about leaving/staying in the EU before the referendum was announced. It was way down on most people's list of issues when polls asked that kind of thing.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 11, 2019)

True enough, but choosing either of the two extremes (remain-and-ignore-leave-vote/effectively no-deal leave) we're presented with still have important effects one way or the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2019)

treelover said:


> End of thread in sight?


Yes, it's clear he will go on forever


----------



## oryx (Dec 12, 2019)

Not looking forward to the almost inevitable resignation tomorrow.


----------



## kazza007 (Dec 12, 2019)

Who will replace


----------



## binka (Dec 12, 2019)

kazza007 said:


> Who will replace


Depends who's left!


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 12, 2019)

Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.

As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.

Corbyn was the biggest mistake since Foot - Get rid now!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 12, 2019)

Not tonight you bellend


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...


Oh fuck off you dull right wing pub bore cunt


----------



## oryx (Dec 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...


You mean the so-called moderates of 'Tough On Immigration' mug fame?


----------



## Chilli.s (Dec 12, 2019)

I like corby and I like the far left ideals, but Troooomp does have a point, some people do despise that with a hatred that's almost biblical.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 12, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Not tonight you bellend


Contender for post of the year


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...


I hope you drown face down in your own piss


----------



## oryx (Dec 12, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I hope you drown face down in your own piss


 and


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 12, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> I like corby and I like the far left ideals, but Troooomp does have a point, some people do despise that with a hatred that's almost biblical.



It’d be the same whoever they put up, I’ve seen enough elections and how they’re covered.

2017 there was some success fighting back with Facebook, lots of shared posts etc. This time they shut that off in favour of paid content. Grass roots stuff just couldn’t compete anymore. Opportunity has passed.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh fuck off you dull right wing pub bore cunt



Yes, ignore the fucking obvious and keep the fucking tories in power for even more years. As I predicted, Corbyn is about as popular as Foot so has to go - The first words out of his mouth should be, and hopefully will be, "I resign". Corbyn has left Britain with what looks like an 80+ seat tory majority so Johnson can do what the fuck he likes.
Thank you and fuck off, Corbyn.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...


Can I take this opportunity to conclude with my comrades and announce that you are a total cockwomble? 

We like socialism around our way  It looks after the many and not the few.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, ignore the fucking obvious and keep the fucking tories in power for even more years. As I predicted, Corbyn is about as popular as Foot so has to go - The first words out of his mouth should be, and hopefully will be, "I resign". Corbyn has left Britain with what looks like an 80+ seat tory majority so Johnson can do what the fuck he likes.
> Thank you and fuck off, Corbyn.


The British mainstream media hold more responsibility for that than Corbyn. Can I direct you towards reading some Chomsky so you can become more informed on what is currently happening with western democracy and the role of the media then you can get back to us with something less faux-edgy and more informed? 

In the mean time we'll keep everyone who gets fucked over by Boris alive through our socialist politics and actions.

What do you do, spunk off into your sock?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 12, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> ..We like socialism around our way  It looks after the many and not the few.



Only if you can get people to vote for it.

Labour _policies _were overwhelmingly popular on the doorstep, in every constituency that Labour needed to win - and they even got majority approval in constituencies with 20k Tory majorities - but Corbyn was really, _really _toxic on the doorstep.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Only if you can get people to vote for it.
> 
> Labour _policies _were overwhelmingly popular on the doorstep, in every constituency that Labour needed to win - and they even got majority approval in constituencies with 20k Tory majorities - but Corbyn was really, _really _toxic on the doorstep.


Maybe it's time we broke away from the rest of you fuckers then.

Northwestindependencereferendumnow#


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

Anyone with those policies is going to get a monstering in the media though. _Anyone
_
We need a left-wing media. I'll give Bastani that.

P.S Plus we clearly need to build the non parliamentary movement lots of people on here have spoken about. Fucking hell, people are going to need it.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

Yeah because Milliband did so well. 

It wasn't Corbyn being bad, it was Johnson being bad in a way that some people seem to like. They like him being a fucking arrogant idiot. They really love seeing him lying and fucking around. They LIKE that he treats women badly and is racist. They particularly like that both of them managed to make themselves seem anti-establishment despite being thoroughly establishment, because they're very rich but also not generally liked by rich or clever people. 

Him hiding from reporters was not an accident - it was the exact same thing Trump did. They even both have stupid hair. He copied Trump play by play.

No Labour leader would have won and we're kidding ourselves if we think there's a strategy that would have meant one could have. The people have chosen a psychopath, and they knew it when they made that choice. When the people choose a racist, sexist, psychotic idiot who literally says that kids of single parents are worthless, Labour never had a single chance to begin with.

The world is completely and utterly fucked.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Only if you can get people to vote for it.
> 
> Labour _policies _were overwhelmingly popular on the doorstep, in every constituency that Labour needed to win - and they even got majority approval in constituencies with 20k Tory majorities - but Corbyn was really, _really _toxic on the doorstep.


Big Len's blaming the remainers


----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Maybe it's time we broke away from the rest of you fuckers then.
> 
> Northwestindependencereferendumnow#



He looks to have been as popular in the North West as he was everywhere else. You need to redirect your anger....


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...



Fuck off. Forever.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Big Len's blaming the remainers



Politicians in 'blaming everyone but themselves' shock. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Only if you can get people to vote for it.
> 
> Labour _policies _were overwhelmingly popular on the doorstep, in every constituency that Labour needed to win - and they even got majority approval in constituencies with 20k Tory majorities - but Corbyn was really, _really _toxic on the doorstep.



Well this is true but without getting into crank territory, there is a manufactured factor which will apply to any labour leader putting forward anything outside of the narrow field of 'acceptable' politics. 

Carwyn Jones of all people has just made the point on telly that Corbyn was more toxic at start of '17 campaign but that dissipated throughout campaign and was negligible by last week - and I would note labour led the polls for a good long stretch after the GE. That toxicity came back to fore and hasn't dissipated to same degree in this campaign - although Jones view was it was dissipating as campaign continued and polls closing would support that although exit poll doesn't, but then corbyn not only factor and where labour look like struggling indicates brexit the bigger issue - and the aggressiveness and organisation of anti corbyn attacks this time round (imo) were greater.

Policy can be as popular as it likes but any politician putting forward policy like it is going to be fucking monistered, it's churlish to pretend otherwise. Somebody with less baggage might see less shit stick I suppose but fundamentally anybody advancing policy that poses any threat to capital as it is will face the same treatment, so give up on the challenge or what


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Big Len's blaming the remainers


He's right


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> The British mainstream media hold more responsibility for that than Corbyn.



It is true the media were generally well against Corbyn but, if he didn't do it, they couldn't report it.
He's rubbish and it's his inept crap has let Johnson in.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> but, if he didn't do it, they couldn't report it.



lol


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> He looks to have been as popular in the North West as he was everywhere else. You need to redirect your anger....


I can't believe you think I'm angry whilst Labour are 4-1 up and I've still got 3/4's of a packet of milk chocolate digestives left  Are you mad man? I've not even kicked off my slippers yet


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Not tonight you bellend


This. _Very _much this.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> I can't believe you think I'm angry whilst Labour are 4-1 up and I've still got 3/4's of a packet of milk chocolate digestives left  Are you mad man? I've not even kicked off my slippers yet



That's 200 majority territory 

Can we stop it now?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It is true the media were generally well against Corbyn but, if he didn't do it, they couldn't report it.
> He's rubbish and it's his inept crap has let Johnson in.


Do you not think that the media have reported on stuff that they have suggested Corbyn has done that he really didn't do? Do you really think he is the sort of Dr NO that the right wing media have spun? Really?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

oryx said:


> Not looking forward to the almost inevitable resignation tomorrow.


Suppose we'll find out when he's going when we hear from him later. I posted something a couple of weeks ago along the lines of:
Small tory majority - he can hang on a matter of weeks to game the system of his successor
Big tory majority - tomorrow/this weekend at the latest.

Now we finally know when 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Can I take this opportunity to conclude with my comrades and announce that you are a total cockwomble?
> 
> We like socialism around our way  It looks after the many and not the few.



I declare you and your comrades to be a set of silly fuckers without a clue. yes, socialism beats capitalism, but it's fuck all use if it can't get elected. That means a soft, mild socialism that can stop the tories, not hard left that has shit all chance of doing anything but wimper on against a tory twat with an 86 seat majority.
You have to take a step into the real world, not the pretend version where marxist bollocks works and is electable. 
Labour must dump Corbyn, shift to the right with sensible policies that can and will stop the conservative party, then elect a sensible leader that can take Labour to victory and dump the fucking tories.
People first, not idealism.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> That's 200 majority territory
> 
> Can we stop it now?



I've pushed a sock over my heal and I'm considering making my cracked heals grate again


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I declare you and your comrades to be a set of silly fuckers without a clue. yes, socialism beats capitalism, but it's fuck all use if it can't get elected. That means a soft, mild socialism that can stop the tories, not hard left that has shit all chance of doing anything but wimper on against a tory twat with an 86 seat majority.
> You have to take a step into the real world, not the pretend version where marxist bollocks works and is electable.
> Labour must dump Corbyn, shift to the right with sensible policies that can and will stop the conservative party, then elect a sensible leader that can take Labour to victory and dump the fucking tories.
> People first, not idealism.


Will you be our leader then Don? You and Tom?


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Suppose we'll find out when he's going when we hear from him later. I posted something a couple of weeks ago along the lines of:
> Small tory majority - he can hang on a matter of weeks to game the system of his successor
> Big tory majority - tomorrow/this weekend at the latest.
> 
> Now we finally know when 'Jeremy Corbyn's time is up'.



Yeah, likely tomorrow. 

Just hoping that a new leader will carry on his legacy of real socialism and not 'Tough on Immigration' mugs type old/neo New Labour shite.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I declare you and your comrades to be a set of silly fuckers without a clue. yes, socialism beats capitalism, but it's fuck all use if it can't get elected. That means a soft, mild socialism that can stop the tories, not hard left that has shit all chance of doing anything but wimper on against a tory twat with an 86 seat majority.
> You have to take a step into the real world, not the pretend version where marxist bollocks works and is electable.
> Labour must dump Corbyn, shift to the right with sensible policies that can and will stop the conservative party, then elect a sensible leader that can take Labour to victory and dump the fucking tories.
> People first, not idealism.


Fuck off big time with your 'sensible'.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Do you not think that the media have reported on stuff that they have suggested Corbyn has done that he really didn't do? Do you really think he is the sort of Dr NO that the right wing media have spun? Really?



The press hate Corbyn for many reasons, but mainly because it makes money when they wipe his nose in shit, even if he didn't do it. Papers sell advertising, and that means pushing stories that sell papers or clicks - The more views, the more the advertisers pay.
Pro Corbyn is a minority so there's less cash in it - Making Corbyn look like a silly twat, something that's very easy to do, means more advertising money.

Of course the papers are unfair, but why help them out by keeping a useless fucker as leader?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Fuck all this. We're 4-1 up  lets get behind the team


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I declare you and your comrades to be a set of silly fuckers without a clue. yes, socialism beats capitalism, but it's fuck all use if it can't get elected. That means a soft, mild socialism that can stop the tories, not hard left that has shit all chance of doing anything but wimper on against a tory twat with an 86 seat majority.
> You have to take a step into the real world, not the pretend version where marxist bollocks works and is electable.
> Labour must dump Corbyn, shift to the right with sensible policies that can and will stop the conservative party, then elect a sensible leader that can take Labour to victory and dump the fucking tories.
> People first, not idealism.



That failed, didn't you notice?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The press hate Corbyn for many reasons, but mainly because it makes money when they wipe his nose in shit, even if he didn't do it. Papers sell advertising, and that means pushing stories that sell papers or clicks - The more views, the more the advertisers pay.
> Pro Corbyn is a minority so there's less cash in it - Making Corbyn look like a silly twat, something that's very easy to do, means more advertising money.
> 
> Of course the papers are unfair, but why help them out by keeping a useless fucker as leader?


Oh so I know let's replace him with a corrupt arsewipe that will bend over to their capitalist prowess. Are you free Don? Can we grease your hole for you?


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The press hate Corbyn for many reasons, but mainly because it makes money when they wipe his nose in shit, even if he didn't do it. Papers sell advertising, and that means pushing stories that sell papers or clicks - The more views, the more the advertisers pay.
> Pro Corbyn is a minority so there's less cash in it - Making Corbyn look like a silly twat, something that's very easy to do, means more advertising money.
> 
> Of course the papers are unfair, but why help them out by keeping a useless fucker as leader?



You’ve taken a lot of criticism on here, I suspect from those who just didn’t want to hear inconvenient truths, but I think after this election result that perhaps your brutal analysis suggests you may have been ahead of the curve.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

oryx said:


> Fuck off big time with your 'sensible'.



Labour just got a large fuck off because they aren't sensible. 
If you have a toothache, you fuck off to a dentist, not moan on about how unfair pain is. Anyway, this is a bit moot because Corbyn will be penning his resignation speech as I type this, or at least by the time I'm told how wrong I am.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> The British mainstream media hold more responsibility for that than Corbyn. Can I direct you towards reading some Chomsky so you can become more informed on what is currently happening with western democracy and the role of the media then you can get back to us with something less faux-edgy and more informed?
> 
> In the mean time we'll keep everyone who gets fucked over by Boris alive through our socialist politics and actions.
> 
> What do you do, spunk off into your sock?


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

I rarely post on P&P but Donald Trooooomp, would you please just fuck off, you crowing fuckwit. As well as having to stomach the result I also have to deal with your hubristic wankathon based on a total misreading of why it happened. Honestly, just fuck off.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Labour just got a large fuck off because they aren't sensible.
> If you have a toothache, you fuck off to a dentist, not moan on about how unfair pain is. Anyway, this is a bit moot because Corbyn will be penning his resignation speech as I type this, or at least by the time I'm told how wrong I am.



Define 'sensible'.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Labour just got a large fuck off because they aren't sensible.
> If you have a toothache, you fuck off to a dentist, not moan on about how unfair pain is. Anyway, this is a bit moot because Corbyn will be penning his resignation speech as I type this, or at least by the time I'm told how wrong I am.


Nothing to do with the billionaires and the mainstream press and a coordinated campaign of social media lies against Corbyn then?


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

Democracy dies and the Trooompster nudges his semi.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 13, 2019)

The Corbyn experiment has failed. All we get to show for it is another five years _at least_ of the tories annihilating public services. Some of us warned that this is what would happen when he won the leadership in 2015. I've never been more gutted to have been proved right.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

I wonder how all the young idealists will respond to this defeat, the scale of it, and the nature of it, w/c voting en masse for Tories in some areas, etc


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The Corbyn experiment has failed. All we get to show for it is another five years _at least_ of the tories annihilating public services. Some of us warned that this is what would happen when he won the leadership in 2015. I've never been more gutted to have been proved right.


Yes, if only we'd voted for Aaargh and that speccy bloke from Pontypridd this would never have happened


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Labour just got a large fuck off because they aren't sensible.
> If you have a toothache, you fuck off to a dentist, not moan on about how unfair pain is. Anyway, this is a bit moot because Corbyn will be penning his resignation speech as I type this, or at least by the time I'm told how wrong I am.


How's your resignation speech coming along. I mean let's face it your desire for that is based upon some element of unpopularity status for Jeremy which has yet to play out beyond the exit poll which is an unfounded prediction thus far but you are clearly an unpopular voice here in this realm so what will your swan song gonna sound like?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> Yes, if only we'd voted for Aaargh and that speccy bloke from Pontypridd this would never have happened


Yeah and Miliband's forces of cautious, don't frighten the horses pseudo-socialism did so well also.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> That failed, didn't you notice?



If you mean Blair the corrupt - that doesn't mean sensible government failed, it just means a currupt cunt did.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> If you mean Blair the corrupt - that doesn't mean sensible government failed, it just means a currupt cunt did.



Nope, Milliband. Failed so badly you even forgot he fought an election.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> How's your resignation speech coming along. I mean let's face it your desire for that is based upon some element of unpopularity status for Jeremy which has yet to play out beyond the exit poll which is an unfounded prediction thus far but you are clearly an unpopular voice here in this realm so what will your swan song gonna sound like?



The difference being I want a labour government and support Labour, not want an idiotic attempt at government that does the tories a favour. I still wonder if Corbyn will get a brown paper bag stuffed with tenners and a high 5 from Johnson.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Corbyn is fucked - and deservedly so.
> 
> As I've been saying for some time, Corbyn and his supporters have utterly fucked the Labour party, Britain's chance of remaining within the EU, and has condemned everyone to years of tory government that will do fuck knows what to the NHS, social services in general, and generally fuck up the country.
> I keep being told how wrong I am, even what a cunt I am for speaking my mind, but I was right all along - Fuck Corbyn, dump the daft left of the party, then get on with making Labour electable so the party can form a moderate, electable labour government that can repair the damage of the last load of tory governments did, and whatever this set of bastards do.
> ...



I hate you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yeah because Milliband did so well.
> 
> It wasn't Corbyn being bad, it was Johnson being bad in a way that some people seem to like. They like him being a fucking arrogant idiot. They really love seeing him lying and fucking around. They LIKE that he treats women badly and is racist. They particularly like that both of them managed to make themselves seem anti-establishment despite being thoroughly establishment, because they're very rich but also not generally liked by rich or clever people.
> 
> ...


Yep. We're in a very ugly place right now.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> Nothing to do with the billionaires and the mainstream press and a coordinated campaign of social media lies against Corbyn then?



Yes, as I said, cash. The difference is, Corbyn made it easy for them.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> Yes, if only we'd voted for Aaargh and that speccy bloke from Pontypridd this would never have happened



If we'd gone full people's vote and centrist we could have contested with the Lib Dems for lowest seats.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

oryx said:


> Define 'sensible'.



<taps fingers>


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, as I said, cash. The difference is, Corbyn made it easy for them.


Aaargh and the speccy bloke would have made it harder by pushing policies that 'their' masters wouldn't have been threatened by. They'd still have lost because they'd have represented the square root of fuck all. Who do you suggest would have done differently and with which policies that would have differentiated them from the tories?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. We're in a very ugly place right now.



It even looks like Bolsover could be lost. This is looking like a repeat of Thatcher, but with an unpredictable ultra right liar instead of just an ultra right liar.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> I hate you



I don't hate you, but I hate my accuracy. No matter what posters here think of me, I'm still correct. 
Johnson is clearly an utter cunt, and one that any good Labour Leader should have exposed and smashed, but a wet wimp like Corbyn could never manage.


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I don't hate you, but I hate my accuracy. No matter what posters here think of me, I'm still correct.
> Johnson is clearly an utter cunt, and one that any good Labour Leader should have exposed and smashed, but a wet wimp like Corbyn could never manage.


Again, how could rippling collossii such as Aaargh, speccy bloke or the handsome Millipede have approached things differently?


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> Again, how could rippling collossii such as Aaargh, speccy bloke or the handsome Millipede have approached things differently?



Don't expect an answer anytime soon.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> Again, how could rippling collossii such as Aaargh, speccy bloke or the handsome Millipede have approached things differently?



_They wouldn't have been Corbyn_ 

There'd have been nothing for the sun and the mail and the express and the telegraph and the times and the metro to have criticized them for.


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

oryx said:


> Don't expect an answer anytime soon.


No. I'd hate to spoil his moment of triumph.


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> _They wouldn't have been Corbyn_
> 
> There'd have been nothing for the sun and the mail and the express and the telegraph and the times and the metro to have criticized them for.


That's right. A strong, photogenic Labour leader attempting to reintroduce mild social democracy wouldn't have attracted a scintilla of the opprobrium that the limp and ineffective Corbyn did. Oh no.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I don't hate you, but I hate my accuracy. No matter what posters here think of me, I'm still correct.
> Johnson is clearly an utter cunt, and one that any good Labour Leader should have exposed and smashed, but a wet wimp like Corbyn could never manage.



I'm right! I'm right! We're all fucked but I'm right! Hahaha!

That's what you're doing right now, except for the being right bit (pretty much everyone here thought a Tory win was likely so you're not alone there). Even if you were right, if you weren't a complete and utter fucking arsehole, you'd not be doing a victory dance over people's futile hopes that maybe things might not be too bad.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> _They wouldn't have been Corbyn_
> 
> There'd have been nothing for the sun and the mail and the express and the telegraph and the times and the metro to have criticized them for.


Yes there would. And if there wasn't, they'd make it up.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I don't hate you, but I hate my accuracy. No matter what posters here think of me, I'm still correct.
> Johnson is clearly an utter cunt, and one that any good Labour Leader should have exposed and smashed, but a wet wimp like Corbyn could never manage.



Corbyn's more of a winner than his detractors could ever hope to be. Unfortunately, it's entirely because of people like you, Don, that the Tories won. All to willing to buy into the bullshit propaganda against Corbyn.

Hang your head in shame, fella.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> That's right. A strong, photogenic Labour leader attempting to reintroduce mild social democracy wouldn't have attracted a scintilla of the opprobrium that the limp and ineffective Corbyn did. Oh no.



As long as they avoided bacon sandwiches.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I don't hate you, but I hate my accuracy. No matter what posters here think of me, I'm still correct.
> Johnson is clearly an utter cunt, and one that any good Labour Leader should have exposed and smashed, but a wet wimp like Corbyn could never manage.


So the almighty heft of a rabid right wing press and the millions paid into a disinformation campaign through social media played no part in you deciding Corbyn was a 'wimp.'
You stupid, naive twat. You're just another manipulated sucker.


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> As long as they avoided bacon sandwiches.


They have sandwich vetting teams to deal with that kind of potential pratfall these days. Cheese and pickle being the only safe option.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The difference being I want a labour government and support Labour, not want an idiotic attempt at government that does the tories a favour. I still wonder if Corbyn will get a brown paper bag stuffed with tenners and a high 5 from Johnson.


Yes but you've not answered my question though. You seem even more unpopular here than Jeremy so when will you resign?


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> So the almighty heft of a rabid right wing press and the millions paid into a disinformation campaign through social media played no part in you deciding Corbyn was a 'wimp.'
> You stupid, naive twat. You're just another manipulated sucker.



Yeah, all of that, and someone who shies away from any scrutiny of their views.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

bendeus said:


> They have sandwich vetting teams to deal with that kind of potential pratfall these days. Cheese and pickle being the only safe option.



Just cheese is by far the safer option.

Ive had trouble with pickle before leaving stains.


----------



## bendeus (Dec 13, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Just cheese is by far the safer option.
> 
> Ive had trouble with pickle before leaving stains.


This is why commas can be important


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

staines is a wanker though


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Yes but you've not answered my question though. You seem even more unpopular here than Jeremy so when will you resign?



What are the chances that Don Trooooomp is actually John McDonnell?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> What are the chances that Don Trooooomp is actually John McDonnell?



As great a chance as you being Brad Pitt.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> As great a chance as you being Brad Pitt.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> You stupid, naive twat. You're just another manipulated sucker.



Me and a growing number of Labour MPs. 
This is hardly a shock, but Catherine Mckinnell is saying exactly what I am right now. A mate that's there at the moment reports she's blaming her minus 10 point swing on Corbyn.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Yes but you've not answered my question though. You seem even more unpopular here than Jeremy so when will you resign?



I have no intention of doing so as, much as I'm unpopular with you, I'm still right and very pro-Labour.
Pro-Labour means doing whatever is required to dump the tories, not help them along as Corbyn is doing. History is going to show Corbyn as another Foot, a useless bugger with no hope of ever seeing the keys to number 10, and a great little helper for a far right tory bastard.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> So the almighty heft of a rabid right wing press and the millions paid into a disinformation campaign through social media played no part in you deciding Corbyn was a 'wimp.'



Yes it did, but not for the reasons you assume. The press would find it extremely hard work to attack a good leader with popular, sensible policies, but Corbyn made life easy for them, their only tough choices being which negative stories to print before they ran out of pages.
Remind me what Corbyn's stand on Brexit, the biggest single issue in this election, was.
Wimp out and pray just doesn't work, and his excuse of being a great statesman just made him look even wimpier.
He's a cheap hack's wet dream for Labour leader, and that means they were right to attack him, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> As great a chance as you being Brad Pitt.



I'm Brad Pitt


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes it did, but not for the reasons you assume. The press would find it extremely hard work to attack a good leader with popular, sensible policies, but Corbyn made life easy for them, their only tough choices being which negative stories to print before they ran out of pages.
> Remind me what Corbyn's stand on Brexit, the biggest single issue in this election, was.
> Wimp out and pray just doesn't work, and his excuse of being a great statesman just made him look even wimpier.
> He's a cheap hack's wet dream for Labour leader, and that means they were right to attack him, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
> Ironic, isn't it?


You seem to be mistaking the election for a Brexit referendum. His policies on multiple issues were sound as fuck but he had no chance against a well funded right wing press and people like you.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Yes it did, but not for the reasons you assume. The press would find it extremely hard work to attack a good leader with popular, sensible policies, but Corbyn made life easy for them, their only tough choices being which negative stories to print before they ran out of pages.
> Remind me what Corbyn's stand on Brexit, the biggest single issue in this election, was.
> Wimp out and pray just doesn't work, and his excuse of being a great statesman just made him look even wimpier.
> He's a cheap hack's wet dream for Labour leader, and that means they were right to attack him, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
> Ironic, isn't it?


You still haven't said what you think defines 'sensible'!


----------



## JimW (Dec 13, 2019)

As if it wasn't bad enough already have to suffer clueless pricks thinking they're Nostradamus


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 13, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I voted for Corbyn. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the past few months and was virtually absent on the eu debate. This has possibly cost a lot of remain votes. His time is up. He should go. Give the party time to elect a leader and sort themselves out before the next election.



Called it, tbf.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 13, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> What are the chances that Don Trooooomp is actually John McDonnell?



You're a plant as well


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Called it, tbf.


Bollocks did he. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in now with Starmer or Burnham pushing for harder benefit cuts and tougher immigration rules? Or even pushing full remain? They'd have lost badly in 17 and maybot would be sitting pretty. Now's the time to hold tight against the whole thing getting dragged to the right. Corbyn's time is up now but the OP is still as wrong as it ever was. The Labour Party leadership is in the hands of its members now which wouldn't be true if the last four years hadn't happened.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 13, 2019)

(I was joking. The prediction was made years ago etc)


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> I wonder how all the young idealists will respond to this defeat, the scale of it, and the nature of it, w/c voting en masse for Tories in some areas, etc


Danker memes/taking a gap year for a decade/cracking on with their accountancy diploma and putting all this idealism behind them


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> I wonder how all the young idealists will respond to this defeat, the scale of it, and the nature of it, w/c voting en masse for Tories in some areas, etc


Badly


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> You seem to be mistaking the election for a Brexit referendum. His policies on multiple issues were sound as fuck but he had no chance against a well funded right wing press and people like you.



Don't forget the voters.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

I blame Corbyn for the above and the fucker can't even resign properly


----------



## Supine (Dec 13, 2019)

He lasted 905 pages on urban so fair play. He needs to go soon though.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2019)

What a dreadful night. The only consolation that I can see is that my ward is still labour.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 13, 2019)

He can’t even quit properly, him and his lot need to go.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

oryx said:


> You still haven't said what you think defines 'sensible'!



Electable.
Anything else is a waste of time because unelectable is just winging from the sidelines.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I blame Corbyn for the above and the fucker can't even resign properly


I bet your social life off the boards consists solely of lusting silently after the barmaid in the red lion and eavesdropping on other people's conversations in the pub, on the bus, without any genuine intercourse save your exchanges when ordering a pint of scotch bitter or similar.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Now we see the worst resignation in political history.
It's "I'll resign" ... errr ... sooner or later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Electable.
> Anything else is a waste of time because unelectable is just winging from the sidelines.


Let's see you put your money where your mouth is and stand as an mp in the next election to show everyone how it's done


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Now we see the worst resignation in political history.
> It's "I'll resign" ... errr ... sooner or later.


The worst resignation in political history is yours from these boards


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> without any genuine intercourse



Here's some intercourse - Fuck off


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Here's some intercourse - Fuck off


Touched a nerve I see


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

This has it summed up, and says exactly what I've been told I'm a thick cunt for daring to utter; Corbyn is a total tosser and the best thing for Tory cuntism since Foot.


LINK THINGY




> Shortly before 2.30am, Jeremy Corbyn arrived, smiling and waving to his supporters, at his Islington count. No one appeared to have told him that Labour was suffering its worst result at a general election since 1935 and was predicted to win fewer than 200 seats.
> 
> An hour later, once the declaration had been made, the severity of the defeat still hadn’t sunk in as the Labour leader began his acceptance speech. It was a disappointing night, he said. A setback, nothing more. If his manifesto had had a flaw, it was that it had been too good for the country. It had been the country’s fault that Labour had not won the election. The people had allowed themselves to be manipulated by the mainstream media into being distracted by Brexit.
> 
> However, even though he took no responsibility for Labour’s defeat, Corbyn did concede that he wouldn’t lead the party into another glorious general election. He would stand down, but in his own time. Only after he had been able to engineer a suitable replacement who would build on his magnificent legacy and lead Labour to an even more crushing humiliation.



Wake the fuck up and dump the fucker rapid style.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Touched a nerve I see



Not really - You're just a pointless troll trying to get me thread banned. That in mind, fuck off and put a paper bag over your head, then stand in a corner pretending not to be an obvious idiot.


----------



## JimW (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> This has it summed up, and says exactly what I've been told I'm a thick cunt for daring to utter; Corbyn is a total tosser and the best thing for Tory cuntism since Foot.
> 
> 
> LINK THINGY
> ...


You ridiculous prick, even in defeat that manifesto did more good than anything your sorry shower of warmed-over Blairites would ever bring. They'd have lost harder to a harder right pitch from the government.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

Labour held middle class remainy seats like chester, gower, cardiff north, and lost huge swathes of working class leave areas. Ynys Mon ffs. This was about labour's support for a second referendum and that was down to liberal dickheads, any other reading has no basis in reality. Hearing the wankers, MPs and on here, who caused this give chapter and verse on how this was a rejection of the hints of economic radicalism and how their failed shitty politics would have succeeded is too fucking much. Bellends.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Not really - You're just a pointless troll trying to get me thread banned. That in mind, fuck off and put a paper bag over your head, then stand in a corner pretending not to be an obvious idiot.


You're the obvious idiot here, Don. I'm not at all interested in getting you banned, you'll do that job without any assistance from me. You think that Corbyn's defeat would have been eg starter's victory or umunna's victory or hodge's victory. The causes of the Labour defeat / the tory victory are not so simple as to be found only within the Labour Party. But you don't do serious analysis, you just spout shit and hope that by endless repetition to batter into submission. You don't want a Labour victory, you want tory lite


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

What JimW and Proper Tidy posts said times a million.

And now we've got Jess Philips as the saviour of the LP because she'd be good a PMQs. Yep that's what's politics is about


----------



## rubbershoes (Dec 13, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What JimW and Proper Tidy posts said times a million.
> 
> And now we've got Jess Philips as the saviour of the LP because she'd be good a PMQs. Yep that's what's politics is about



If you're not elected, however worthwhile your policies are, you're not doing anything


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

JimW said:


> your sorry shower of warmed-over Blairites



I'm not a fan of corrupt bastards so Blair isn't on my Christmas card list. Call me a cunt all day, but don't insult me by claiming I like anything to do with that murdering cunt. Yes, murdering. He took cash for lives when he started a dodgy war using dodgy reports.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

rubbershoes said:


> If you're not elected, however worthwhile your policies are, you're not doing anything


Bring back Blair! Vote Macron!
If you are elected with politics that attack workers - "you" are attacking workers.


----------



## JimW (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm not a fan of corrupt bastards so Blair isn't on my Christmas card list. Call me a cunt all day, but don't insult me by claiming I like anything to do with that murdering cunt. Yes, murdering. He took cash for lives when he started a dodgy war using dodgy reports.


Well, you're here beating the drum for his spiritual successors, so have a think on.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The causes of the Labour defeat / the tory victory are not so simple as to be found only within the Labour Party.



Foot's supporters made that lame excuse as well.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

JimW said:


> Well, you're here beating the drum for his spiritual successors, so have a think on.



No, I'm not.
I want to see an honest Labour party that can win elections AND look after those in need, not a corrupt cunt in it for the cash.
The very idea of another Blair is enough to make me vomit.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No, I'm not.
> I want to see an honest Labour party that can win elections AND look after those in need, not a corrupt cunt in it for the cash.
> The very idea of another Blair is enough to make me vomit.



So who do you think would've done better then? You're happy to bore on about how shit Corbyn is and gloat about how right you have been all along (you're not right by the way) yet you don't offer up anything else. So come on then big man, who in the labour party would've or could've done better?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Foot's supporters made that lame excuse as well.


In any human interaction involving more than one person the chain of actions and reactions cannot be attributed solely to one actor. And if you weren't a blinkered right wing pub bore cunt you'd recognise that in an instant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No, I'm not.
> I want to see an honest Labour party that can win elections AND look after those in need, not a corrupt cunt in it for the cash.
> The very idea of another Blair is enough to make me vomit.


That's what you've been proposing for months, a latter-day blair. Bit late to claim you find the notion emetic now


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2019)

I laughed my tits off when he gotbanned from the Trump thread but I think it's the wrong way round. I think we should ban him from posting on any other thread. And change the title to 'what stupid shit has Troooomp posted today.


----------



## rubbershoes (Dec 13, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Bring back Blair! Vote Macron!
> If you are elected with politics that attack workers - "you" are attacking workers.



So how do you think the election went?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

maomao said:


> I laughed my tits off when he goy banned from the Trump thread but I think it's the wrong way round. I think we should ban him from posting on any other thread. And change the title to 'what stupid shit has Troooomp posted today.


Didn’t realise he got banned from his signature thread. That’s brilliant.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Didn’t realise he got banned from his signature thread. That’s brilliant.


It is. Proper belly laugh moment. Unfortunately it's encouraged him to post on other threads.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

rubbershoes said:


> So how do you think the election went?


How is that a response to my argument? 
You are arguing for a politics that attacks workers. I'm not only not interested in that I am actively opposed to it.


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2019)

Presumably the success of the Lib Dems and the various moderate centrist candidates shows what Labour should've done?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

chilango said:


> Presumably the success of the Lib Dems and the various moderate centrist candidates shows what Labour should've done?


I genuinely heard welsh labour types on BBC wales coverage last night say defeats were due to not taking a more ardent remain position. These people are clowns.


----------



## Chz (Dec 13, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What JimW and Proper Tidy posts said times a million.
> 
> And now we've got Jess Philips as the saviour of the LP because she'd be good a PMQs. Yep that's what's politics is about


Gods, I hope not. I mean, she's great for a sound bite and all... But then Boris did well out of being entertaining on News For You.
But then the reason I wasn't calling for JC's head myself was the realisation that the talent puddle in the Labour party is empty and there really wasn't anyone else. The fact is that Corbyn, like him or not (I'm not, but I don't have a weird, fetish-like hatred of him like some do), was the best choice to lead the party into the election.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I genuinely heard welsh labour types on BBC wales coverage last night say defeats were due to not taking a more ardent remain position. These people are clowns.


It’s like watching that war computer not learning from tic tac toe. LEARN DAMN IT LEARN


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 13, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So who do you think would've done better then? You're happy to bore on about how shit Corbyn is and gloat about how right you have been all along (you're not right by the way) yet you don't offer up anything else. So come on then big man, who in the labour party would've or could've done better?



McDonnell would have done a more articulate and energetic job of selling the manifesto.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> McDonnell would have done a more articulate and energetic job of selling the manifesto.



Definitely agree with that. I've wanted him as leader for the past couple of years at least. I can't say it would've ended up much differently though.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> McDonnell would have done a more articulate and energetic job of selling the manifesto.



Another of last night's tragedies, I suspect, is that McDonnell won't remain as Shadow Chancellor.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> McDonnell would have done a more articulate and energetic job of selling the manifesto.


Anyone they put up will get the full monstering. Even if they said McDonnell was articulate - that's like Chris Rock's line about Colin Powell: "he speaks so well - that's what you say about a retarded person".


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> That's what you've been proposing for months, a latter-day blair. Bit late to claim you find the notion emetic now



No.
I have never mentioned a return to a tory like Blair, and you can fuck off for suggesting it.
I would love to see an honest Labour leader with electable policies so the tories can get the hammering they so richly deserve.

What's better, an unelectable Labour party that can do nothing, or a moderate, electable party that can keep the tories out and do something useful?

That's where the Corbyn lot are going wrong, they're putting idealism before realism, and that makes them idiots. Labour got absolutely spanked, but some here refuse to even look at the causes they don't want to think about because it doesn't suit their political viewpoint.
There's a fucking massive elephant shitting on your carpet, but you're refusing to look at it, blaming the smell on whatever you can think of that isn't an elephant.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> electable policies


Sorry, I might have missed this, but can you name some?


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

Lord Camomile said:


> Sorry, I might have missed this, but can you name some?



Being a racist appeals to the northern working class. So they should try that.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

chilango said:


> Presumably the success of the Lib Dems and the various moderate centrist candidates shows what Labour should've done?



You neglect to consider the LibDems had a leader as popular as a moderate socialist willing to open his fat gob on here is.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

Fucking hell, Twitter is toxic this morning. Of course there would have been a landslide with Jess Phillips and some nice centrist politics. Especially if we'd kicked everyone who campaigned out of the party. FFS.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Being a racist appeals to the northern working class. So they should try that.



Fuck racism, really fuck it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Big brains club here. That prat quoting that prat. Perfect.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No.
> I have never mentioned a return to a tory like Blair, and you can fuck off for suggesting it.
> I would love to see an honest Labour leader with electable policies so the tories can get the hammering they so richly deserve.
> 
> ...



What leader would do better? What policies more appealing? Put some substance in your posts or just fuck off because you're saying nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

maomao said:


> I laughed my tits off when he gotbanned from the Trump thread but I think it's the wrong way round. I think we should ban him from posting on any other thread. And change the title to 'what stupid shit has Troooomp posted today.


He was? That's hilarious. Let's all decamp there.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Argh! Wrong thread!


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Being a racist appeals to the northern working class. So they should try that.


Fuck off dickhead.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Fuck off dickhead.



I’ve been told the northern working class were upset at being ignored and left behind. Someone comes along and says vote for me and I will try and make things better. 

They respond by voting Tory. 

When their children have died, they can console themselves with not hearing any foreign voices in the street.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

Some straight up sociopathy on here now.

I condemn you to death! Why? Your “reasoning”


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I’ve been told the northern working class were upset at being ignored and left behind. Someone comes along and says vote for me and I will try and make things better.
> 
> They respond by voting Tory.
> 
> When their children have died, they can console themselves with not hearing any foreign voices in the street.



FFS no one needs this spite.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> When their children have died, they can console themselves with not hearing any foreign voices in the street.



You fucking cunt.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS no one needs this spite.



Its just facts, people will die under the tories. 

I was told the northern working class voted brexit because they wanted change and to protest. But then when they had a choice for change they voted for more of the same and racism.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Its just facts, people will die under the tories.
> 
> I was told the northern working class voted brexit because they wanted change and to protest. But then when they had a choice for change they voted for more of the same and racism.



People like you are the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> FFS no one needs this spite.


This is nothing - you should have heard this posters moderate voice the day after the referendum. 

I can feel a _sensible _liberal pogrom coming.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> People like you are the problem.



Yes its the one that voted for Corbyn that are the problem. Not the ones that voted for Johnson. 

Keep making excuses.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Its just facts, people will die under the tories.
> 
> I was told the northern working class voted brexit because they wanted change and to protest. But then when they had a choice for change they voted for more of the same and racism.


Yup the northern working class leave areas are full of racism probably similar to the Confederate States actually  where as the south remaining areas are havens of fully integrated communities where racism is unheard of.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Yup the northern working class leave areas are full of racism probably similar to the Confederate States actually  where as the south remaining areas are havens of fully integrated communities where racism is unheard of.



Do they vote Tory? People that vote tory vote for racism.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Yes its the one that voted for Corbyn that are the problem. Not the ones that voted for Johnson.
> 
> Keep making excuses.



People like you are the problem


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No.
> I have never mentioned a return to a tory like Blair, and you can fuck off for suggesting it.
> I would love to see an honest Labour leader with electable policies so the tories can get the hammering they so richly deserve.
> 
> ...


You've said Labour should ditch socialism to be electable, arriving where Kinnock and hodge were 30 years ago. Your project is an opportunistic lying project ending in a new Blair. Have you not followed the last 30+ years? There are none so blind as those who will not see


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Being a racist appeals to the northern working class.



Yes of course, it’s a prerequisite.

Meanwhile,

Ruth Smeeth's painful attack on Corbyn for making Labour 'the racist party'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You've said Labour should ditch socialism to be electable, arriving where Kinnock and hodge were 30 years ago. Your project is an opportunistic lying project ending in a new Blair. Have you not followed the last 30+ years? There are none so blind as those who will not see



People like Don Troooomp are the problem


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> .
> 
> 
> When their children have died, they can console themselves with not hearing any foreign voices in the street.


Most of the racist shits I've come across up here in the north have been visiting wankers from down south and mostly from London.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Try real policies like removing business managers from the NHS and putting people in there with Yorkshire/Scottish generosity.
The Tories see NHS success as getting rid of as much as they can to private suppliers, Labour see success as how much cash they can throw at it.
I would see success as treating as many people as possible with as little waste as possible, something no fucker ever seems to think about.
I've been taking a look at how both groups treat the service, neither actually considering people, just political ideals.
Why do hospitals have fucking big wasted areas in reception? Yes they look pretty, but they cost a fortune that could be diverted to medical needs. Why do hospitals have big, fancy signs? They need direction signs so you can find wards and other places, but only a business needs advertising style signs, hospitals do not.
Business need expensive logos, hospitals can use standard fonts on a white background, but they waste money on pointless shit anyway.

I'd offer 10% of whatever saving they make (first year cost saving or one off payment in the case if an item) to every whistleblower or member of the public that reported waste. That'd leave wasteful managers fucked as in sacked for stupidity with the waste to be paid back out of their own pockets, and employees with extra cash in their pockets, all saving money that can be diverted to what hospitals are for, looking after people.

The same goes for councils and every other public service. 
Look at this

 

A job center is there to get people back into work, not waste piles of cash on custom consoles when a simple and cheap tablet set into a far cheaper stand would do the same job. The expensive printer at every position could be replaced with a pencil and  postit notes.

Services that work as well as possible at the absolute minimum cost so as many people can be helped as possible. 

What possible argument can be brought up against providing services at minimum cost and best efficiency, and punishing incompetent managers while you're at it?

Massive improvements to public services but a lot less cost as waste is consigned to history.
So it doesn't look as pretty, but someone needing life saving medical care  is less likely to be interested in a nice reception  area if their life is saved as a direct result of dumping waste.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> People like Don Troooomp are the problem



I didn't fuck up the election in epic fucking style, but the left did so helped that twat Johnson in.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Its just facts, people will die under the tories.



People always die. The trick is to remember that people dying is a bad thing, because people are worth something. We hate tories because they don't believe people are worth anything. Proclaiming the worthlessness of large chunks of society does not feel like a very anti-tory thing to do.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

I work in the NHS. I have a Windows 7 computer, staff regularly get chest infections because the building is so damp, there's a hole in the roof, and the phones have been down twice this month because rats ate through the cables and there's no money to fix the basement properly. 

Excess waste in the public sector. You fucking twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Try real policies like removing business managers from the NHS and putting people in there with Yorkshire/Scottish generosity.
> The Tories see NHS success as getting rid of as much as they can to private suppliers, Labour see success as how much cash they can throw at it.
> I would see success as treating as many people as possible with as little waste as possible, something no fucker ever seems to think about.
> I've been taking a look at how both groups treat the service, neither actually considering people, just political ideals.
> ...


So, a loon too.

As if _waste _hasn't been one of the rubrics under which successive labour and tory and lib-dem govts have run down and underfunded the NHS and other vital social services.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Try real policies like removing business managers from the NHS and putting people in there with Yorkshire/Scottish generosity.
> The Tories see NHS success as getting rid of as much as they can to private suppliers, Labour see success as how much cash they can throw at it.
> I would see success as treating as many people as possible with as little waste as possible, something no fucker ever seems to think about.
> I've been taking a look at how both groups treat the service, neither actually considering people, just political ideals.
> ...



So bland signs and tablets is your manifesto. Wow! What an offer to the public you make! I'm sure Labour will gain all those seats back in a landslide five years down the line.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Why do hospitals have fucking big wasted areas in reception? Yes they look pretty, but they cost a fortune that could be diverted to medical needs. Why do hospitals have big, fancy signs? They need direction signs so you can find wards and other places, but only a business needs advertising style signs, hospitals do not.
> Business need expensive logos, hospitals can use standard fonts on a white background, but they waste money on pointless shit anyway.



I have no idea what hospital(s) you have been in, but ours have none of that. 

Main reception is fairly small, with a small shop & small coffee-shop, both paying rent. No fancy signs & a standard font, white on blue logo.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I didn't fuck up the election in epic fucking style, but the left did so helped that twat Johnson in.


Your ignorance and lack of self-awareness show in everything you post about politics. Please stop wasting everyone's time. There must be something you are good at. Go and do that.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Oh my what a fancy flashy sign! Such waste! Make it black and white and the working class will come flocking back!


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Oh my what a fancy flashy sign! Such waste! Make it black and white and the working class will come flocking back!


Are you high?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Do they vote Tory? People that vote tory vote for racism.


Which begs the question why the Tories have black and asian MPs voted in by these racist voters?


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2019)

maomao said:


> I laughed my tits off when he gotbanned from the Trump thread but I think it's the wrong way round. I think we should ban him from posting on any other thread. And change the title to 'what stupid shit has Troooomp posted today.


As long as he's kept busy being a shrieking maniac on here the less chance there is of him doing any damage amongst the general population.


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2019)

'Signs are too big' ffs


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Are you high?



I wish!


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

P. S. I've worked in the NHS since 1998. Even under New Labour, in mental health managers had to find 'cost savings' every year. Every year since 1998.

You monstrous fucking twat.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Which begs the question why the Tories have black and asian MPs voted in by these racist voters?



why are you even replying to him? He’s come on here displaying _every _single middle class liberal prejudice that has caused this. They are the dead weight around our necks. I’m done with these fucking clowns


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Imagine going into a crowded underfunded under resourced hospital in desperate need of repair and maintenance and coming out thinking as a result _why doesn't  that prat cobyn respond to my emails about smaller back and white signs with less words on them? I must have sent hundreds now._


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

Interesting from Sky News (Australia).

The ‘corbynista middle class, pseudo radical agitators’ have been devastated with the collapse of the ‘red wall’.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Which begs the question why the Tories have black and asian MPs voted in by these racist voters?



Black and Asian MPs cant be racist? If you say so.

Racists can’t vote for racist Tory MPs because they are black and asian. Again. If you say so.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> why are you even replying to him? He’s come on here displaying _every _single middle class liberal prejudice that has caused this. They are the dead weight around our necks. I’m done with these fucking clowns



The thick northern racists voted for the Tories because I think they are thick racists?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Interesting from Sky News (Australia).
> 
> The ‘corbynista middle class, pseudo radical agitators’ have been devastated with the collapse of the ‘red wall’.



What's interesting about it?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> The thick northern racists voted for the Tories because I think they are thick racists?



People like you. You are the problem


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> I work in the NHS. I have a Windows 7 computer, staff regularly get chest infections because the building is so damp, there's a hole in the roof, and the phones have been down twice this month because rats ate through the cables and there's no money to fix the basement properly.
> 
> Excess waste in the public sector. You fucking twat.


I couldn’t do  care planning all this week due to multiple issues with our 3 desktops from the 90’s and the WiFi has been down for three weeks. They built a new hospital up here but cut corners to save money so now for example  the water in shower rooms has been going into bedrooms due to no slope in the flooring, there were plug fittings with no wires in them, leaks in many places and now people doing repairs have been told to not tell anyone what they are reparing  I suspect there will be issues in the new council run care home we are due to move into next year- we could have flying roof tiles in high winds  like the new school did a couple of years ago, that was fun.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

S☼I said:


> What's interesting about it?



Dissects why many including the working class turned their backs on Labour in such volume.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> The thick northern racists voted for the Tories because I think they are thick racists?


Think I'll leave you so you can find someone else to talk to pal. Someone who understands you.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> P. S. I've worked in the NHS since 1998. Even under New Labour, in mental health managers had to find 'cost savings' every year. Every year since 1998.
> 
> You monstrous fucking twat.



I hate the way they've always called them "efficiency savings" ignoring the fact that they've made the 'savings' by actually cutting the services. Increasing efficiency means maintaining service levels (to patients, and staff pay/conditions) - cutting costs is something different.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I hate the way they've always called them "efficiency savings" ignoring the fact that they've made the 'savings' by actually cutting the services. Increasing efficiency means maintaining service levels (to patients, and staff pay/conditions) - cutting costs is something different.


I think there was a time when public sector system redesign could in some cases  make savings and maintain service levels, outcomes and patient satisfaction .However increasingly cuts are just cuts with no real third sector to take up the casualties.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 13, 2019)

I remember one of the attack lines against Corbyn in the early days was that he would only increase the vote in the heartlands where it would stack up uselessly. Oh the irony.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Try real policies like removing business managers from the NHS and putting people in there with Yorkshire/Scottish generosity.
> The Tories see NHS success as getting rid of as much as they can to private suppliers, Labour see success as how much cash they can throw at it.
> I would see success as treating as many people as possible with as little waste as possible, something no fucker ever seems to think about.
> I've been taking a look at how both groups treat the service, neither actually considering people, just political ideals.
> ...



are you Richard Branson?


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

two sheds said:


> I hate the way they've always called them "efficiency savings" ignoring the fact that they've made the 'savings' by actually cutting the services. Increasing efficiency means maintaining service levels (to patients, and staff pay/conditions) - cutting costs is something different.



I felt bitter anger about the attempt to say that the child sleeping on the floor was fake news. I sometimes had to make patients sleep on the sofa on inpatient mental health wards in the early 2000s. Thousands of mental health patients have had to sleep on chairs in emergency departments for years because of lack of beds. So efficient though.

Oh the anger is coming now. People were shown the state of the NHS and just like our PM they don't want to look.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Imagine going into a crowded underfunded under resourced hospital in desperate need of repair and maintenance and coming out thinking as a result _why doesn't  that prat cobyn respond to my emails about smaller back and white signs with less words on them? I must have sent hundreds now._



 I'd also ignore reality if I was desperate to find excuses for the fucking obvious. Yes, the NHS logo is simple, but the waste on logo designs for hospitals is bloody stupid.

Link 1

Link 2

Millions flushed down the big when all they needed to do was draw a square and bung 3 letters inside using a standard font, something any kid with a cheap Android phone could have managed for a tenner and a bag of sweets. Then make the standard for printing black and white with blue and white using standard cutting vinyl blues on signs, but all changed only when stocks run out or signs need replacing due to age or damage, never to replace what they have in stock.  That also means far cheaper mono printing and cheaper cut vinyl signs. Old tech that comes in at a lot less cost but lasts just as long.
As for glossy brochures, not needed.

Back to hospital design and massive waste. This looks pretty, but the choice between pretty and heart surgery?

Queen Elizabeth University & Royal Hospital for Children | IBI Group


 

Million spent on looking nice when the NHS can't provide free dental treatment and essential medicines - Fucking mad


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> I felt bitter anger about the attempt to say that the child sleeping on the floor was fake news



They could sleep on the expensive floors in the above pictures, a real privilege for them .. or the cash could have been spent on care staff and beds.
Neither major party is even bothering, just privatising or slinging cash at a problem that could be relieved with a bit of common sense.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

NHS hospitals have to fucking shit holes, poorly designed and not fit for purpose because that's all we should ever aspire to. Make do. Sit on a waiting list. Endure. 

I'm sat here in tears about the next few years and this fucker wants to deny kids a new hospital on the basis of being sensible.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 13, 2019)

Centrist, moderate, progressive, liberal, progressive, ChangeUK, Independent Group irrelevances need to shut the fuck up and fuck off.

It was them throwing their toys out the pram over the 2016 Referendum result that really stopped Labour from formulating any kind of workable policy about Brexit, which is the single biggest thing to fuck Labour yesterday. That entire approach to politics was decisively rejected yesterday. They were all but wiped out and good fucking riddance to them. To look at them and decide ‘yes, that’s just what the Labour party needs‘ is insanity.

Many of the policies Labour put forward remain popular, but Corbyn and co fucked it themselves too. Putting aside their Brexit debacle, the brutally negative Tory election campaign and the incessant media onslaught against them, Corbyn and Labour still made some serious fuck ups.

Corbyn himself failed to shine this election. Put him in front of a sympathetic crowd to deliver a prepared speech and he can storm it, but put him with a hostile interviewer (that’d be all of them) or a Question Time audience and he isn’t a quick thinker, sharp, incisive or good at details. He can get flustered and defensive. While his supporters may forgive him all that, the rest of the electorate won’t. It goes beyond just lacking polish, which would probably be forgiven if he was better when put on the spot. Being all over the place over Brexit and then all over the place over anti-Semitism reinforced this into an image as a ditherer.

Then there was their manifesto. It was too big and unfocussed and gave no clear message about what it was all about. The cost was always going to be thrown at them, so they’d carefully costed it all so that even the Financial Times got behind it, if not the neo-liberal IFS who were never going to support any kind of big spending plan. Then they remembered the WASPI women and threw that in uncosted and undermined all the work they’d done on showing how their plans were affordable.

Things like the 4-day week and life-long learning fund aren't well understood proposals and will take time and clarity to get across to people, but they didn’t have time or space to debate this along with everything else they’d thrown in. They should have concentrated on a smaller number of clear proposals and tied it up with a simple message about rebuilding Britain after years of austerity or something. The core message they went with was ‘Save the NHS’, which is of course an important one, but it left the rest of their manifesto unnoticed and largely undiscussed. And even with that simple message they overplayed their hand. By making the narrative ‘the Tories want to sell the NHS to the US – we must stop them’ it failed to make the impact it could, as people recognise that the issue is far more complex than that and it allowed the Tories to quite truthfully say ‘no we won’t’.

And all that's before even thinking about Corbyn's top-down approach to politics. 

I’ve no idea who Corbyn should be replaced with, but if it’s some kind of Keir ‘Haircut’ Starmer centrist shitehawk then Labour will remain fucked for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> P. S. I've worked in the NHS since 1998. Even under New Labour, in mental health managers had to find 'cost savings' every year. Every year since 1998.



Patient care is what the NHS is about so cost savings can only come from dumping waste, never from care budgets. This needs a hammer and no mercy to waste and the way the system creates a stupid 'business' culture in a system that isn't about business. Once that's sorted and business managers sacked, much more funding can go in because it will go where it's needed, not some idiotic and expensive space that would be fine in a corporate headquarters but is pointless in a hospital.
Also, only people with medical experience should be in charge of medical care, not tory bean counters.


----------



## JimW (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'd also ignore reality if I was desperate to find excuses for the fucking obvious. Yes, the NHS logo is simple, but the waste on logo designs for hospitals is bloody stupid.
> 
> Link 1
> 
> ...


You're banging on about a symptom not a cause, which will be the sort of corporate style management that goes for logo designs rather than having an in-house team dedicated to making attractive facilities fit for purpose.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> I felt bitter anger about the attempt to say that the child sleeping on the floor was fake news. I sometimes had to make patients sleep on the sofa on inpatient mental health wards in the early 2000s. Thousands of mental health patients have had to sleep on chairs in emergency departments for years because of lack of beds. So efficient though.
> 
> Oh the anger is coming now. People were shown the state of the NHS and just like our PM they don't want to look.


Obv not got the same insight as you but when daughter born after a concerning birth mum and baby kept in for five days - 3 days on ward so I had to go home 6-6 leaving other half (not in good state) on communal ward as no men allowed at night, then last two nights we got a room where I slept on chair, then couple of years later I got knocked off cycling and kept in for two days with head injury - no beds so kept in a&e, which obv deprives them of emergency bed. Staff great of course, brilliant both times, but very clear everything is always over capacity. Similar when I needed emergency surgery a few years back, went in with septicemia but while there they identified sepsis - but was in for days on a/b and morphine drips waiting for surgery for an op that took 25 minutes. It's really not scare mongering is it, health service is fucked, it can't cope despite best efforts of those working in it


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 13, 2019)

Go back to your allotments and prepare for winter hoeing


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> The thick northern racists voted for the Tories because I think they are thick racists?



my brother in law, an ex miner from Northumberland voted for the brexit party as _Labour had turned remain_

my current neighbour, an ex miner from Durham who voted leave saying he’s wanted out of the EU decades ago said he wasn’t going to vote Labour this time as he felt Corbyn _was like an overgrown student_ and he didn’t trust his brexit stance.

I will tell them both they are thick racists next time I see them.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> my brother in law, an ex miner from Northumberland voted for the brexit party as _Labour had turned remain_
> 
> my current neighbour, an ex miner from Durham who voted leave saying he’s wanted out of the EU decades ago said he wasn’t going to vote Labour this time as he felt Corbyn _was like an overgrown student_ and he didn’t trust his brexit stance.
> 
> I will tell them both they are thick racists next time I see them.



Yes. Tell them they are thick racists. A few questions about why they want to leave the EU should reveal that to be the case. 

These ex-miners must be rich and healthy to prioritise leaving the EU over what the tories will do to the poorest in society. Or maybe they are thick racists.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 13, 2019)

You know what’s more depressing than the result? This fucking thread.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)

Am I a thick racist for voting Leave?

Jesus, haven't we already done this fatuousness to fucking _death_?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> said he wasn’t going to vote Labour this time as he felt Corbyn _was like an overgrown student_



I lost count of the number of times I have been told this. Mostly by lifetime labour supporting ex-miners.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Yes. Tell them they are thick racists. A few questions about why they want to leave the EU should reveal that to be the case.
> 
> These ex-miners must be rich and healthy to prioritise leaving the EU over what the tories will do to the poorest in society. Or maybe they are thick racists.



edit. Can’t be arsed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You know what’s more depressing than the result? This fucking thread.


Most people aren't like this violent moderate pogromist though. Or the handful of others i encountered first thing this morning on turning the computer on. They just shout loudest and their content is so stupid that it stands out. I don't think anyone decent on here would line up with them surely?


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Most people aren't like this violent moderate pogromist though. Or the handful of others i encountered first thing this morning on turning the computer on. They just shout loudest and their content is so stupid that it stands out. I don't think anyone decent on here would line up with them surely?


It's a fucking bloodbath out there man. I'm turning it all off for a few days.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> In an ideal world a cunt like you would normally get his teeth knocked out.



Violence is the answer of course. After all they have blood on their hands of the people that will suffer over the next five years. Why?

Oh because of the EU and student politics.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 13, 2019)

Haven’t we been over this like a million times before?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Haven’t we been over this like a million times before?



you remember all those stories about left behind Japanese sldiers on tiny, nameless islands in the Pacific still fighting WWII well into their 80's? they are what this fucksponge looks like...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

I'm in a few whatsapp groups - one people I used to work with, one is a union group, one is my family - and the fucking shit in it today, it's the voters who are wrong, turkeys voting for christmas, they will all lose their jobs and die waiting for essential healthcare haha, all that shit. These are all people who regard themselves as leftwingers. Fucks sake.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm in a few whatsapp groups - one people I used to work with, one is a union group, one is my family - and the fucking shit in it today, it's the voters who are wrong, turkeys voting for christmas, they will all lose their jobs and die waiting for essential healthcare haha, all that shit. These are all people who regard themselves as leftwingers. Fucks sake.


I'm finding this hard work, but it's difficult - people are gutted today and you can perhaps understand a visceral reaction in the first instance. This kind of thing has been common throughout the campaign though, which I find less forgivable.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

I find it hard work reading all these excuses for the racist dumb northerners that voted for the tories.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

this guy needs to fuck off tho.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2019)

Ok, so assuming Corbyn goes, who replaces him? Nobody exactly jumps out at me.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> this guy needs to fuck off tho.



Hating the truth now they all went and voted tory so you can’t pretend it was a protest against austerity.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

nah.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I find it hard work reading all these excuses for the racist dumb northerners that voted for the tories.



Just stop this nonsense.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Just stop this nonsense.



Why? Can we not call people out for voting Tory now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Not worth engaging with - after the referendum he ended up claiming that all tube/train/transport staff were racist because the RMT backed leave. Just let him fade away into the background.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Not worth engaging with - after the referendum he ended up claiming that all tube/train/transport staff were racist because the RMT backed leave. Just let him fade away into the background.



No racists in the RMT obviously. I must have not met them. Just like no racists in the north voting Tory having voted labour for ages.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Not worth engaging with - after the referendum he ended up claiming that all tube/train/transport staff were racist because the RMT backed leave. Just let him fade away into the background.



He's a fucking eejit, I think I'll pop him on my ignore list of one, I suggest others to the same.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Why? Can we not call people out for voting Tory now.



neither of the two people i mentioned voted Tory. One voted BP the other didn’t bother going out (he’s 64 and has had 2 heart attacks in the last 5 years and is not in the best of shape)

there was not a large increase in Tory votes in Blyth Valley from what they got in 2017. It was around 1500. The LDs and greens combined got 4 or 5 times that.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, so assuming Corbyn goes, who replaces him? Nobody exactly jumps out at me.


David Miliband's doing his king across the water act, but who knows if he wants to give up the bright lights of Gotham for the drizzle of the disintegrating U.K.

Please not Keir Starmer, wood at the dispatch box with plenty skeletons from his CPS days.

Angela Rayner or Long-Bailey may go for it, and would certainly have a chance with the current membership, although I'm seeing a lotta Blairites, centrists and remainers joining Labour, so depends if it's just a few Twitterati, or if the numbers really shift.

Dawn Butler's been impressive in some interviews.

It's gonna be Barry Gardiner, isn't it?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, so assuming Corbyn goes, who replaces him? Nobody exactly jumps out at me.



Rebecca Long-Bailey is a name that leaps out - i don't know her every politics, but she's very much associated with the kind of economic policies that were very popular on the doorstep, she's a reasonably competant media performer, and she doesn't have questionable friendships with Irish Republicans, anti-semites and people from Hamas.

there are doubtless others.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Dawn Butler's been impressive in some interviews.



if they go for Dawn Butler - and _i've_ never seen her be impressive in an interview - they'll be pining for the popularity ratings of Corbyn by 2021...


----------



## Azrael (Dec 13, 2019)

She's also ... variable in interviews, to put it kindly. The nickname exists for a reason. 

Rayner and Butler are both more polished before the cameras, and much as I wish it didn't, that matters.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> neither of the two people i mentioned voted Tory. One voted BP the other didn’t bother going out (he’s 64 and has had 2 heart attacks in the last 5 years and is not in the best of shape)
> 
> there was not a large increase in Tory votes in Blyth Valley from what they got in 2017. It was around 1500. The LDs and greens combined got 4 or 5 times that.



Oh Farage. That’s ok then.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> if they go for Dawn Butler - and _i've_ never seen her be impressive in an interview - they'll be pining for the popularity ratings of Corbyn by 2021...


Unless she's his past associations, I doubt it, but I've not seen any chatter about her running, so odds are it'll remain safely hypothetical.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 13, 2019)

Azrael said:


> David Miliband's doing his king across the water act, but who knows if he wants to give up the bright lights of Gotham for the drizzle of the disintegrating U.K.
> 
> Please not Keir Starmer, wood at the dispatch box with plenty skeletons from his CPS days.
> 
> ...



betting wise, Starmer fave, then RLB, but Jess Phillips has shot into 3rd fave now - 

obvs, if Party membership stays as is, it would have to be RLB  of those three (Rayner next )  - but as you say, if a big influx of centrists, and exit / energy lost amongst Left, cld v much change.

( am also assuming it almost HAS  to be a woman, so charisma bypassed Starmer @ 2-1 fave is terrible value imo.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

It needs to be a woman from a northern English leave voting seat, so Long-Bailey or Raynor. For all the centrist Twitterati will go on about flooding the party with new members, there aren't really that many of them, and in WhatsApp groups I'm sensing a determination from the _leftist wreckers_ who have just spent weeks campaigning only to be blamed for the defeat by these people that the next leader must not come from the right.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Oh Farage. That’s ok then.



no it’s not ok. But for very different reasons than you think. And your inability to even attempt to understand those reasons mean that you will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You know what’s more depressing than the result? This fucking thread.



No. The result’s a billion times worse in every conceivable way.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 13, 2019)

cantsin said:


> betting wise, Starmer fave, then RLB, but Jess Phillips has shot into 3rd fave now -
> 
> obvs, if Party membership stays as is, it would have to be RLB  of those three (Rayner next )  - but as you say, if a big influx of centrists, and exit / energy lost amongst Left, cld v much change.
> 
> ( am also assuming it almost HAS  to be a woman, so charisma bypassed Starmer @ 2-1 fave is terrible value imo.


I'm also assuming Labour will want to go for a female leader, which would at least spare us the bizarre Starmer fixation. Jess Phillips, well, she may play well in the seats Lab needs to regain, the Corbynites won't be happy, but hard to see which leader outside the heirs apparent they'd be OK with.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> no it’s not ok. But for very different reasons than you think. And your inability to even attempt to understand those reasons mean that you will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.



No. Its you that made the mistake. They voted for a racist. Its on them.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> No. Its you that made the mistake. They voted for a racist. Its on them.



_the wheels on the bus go round and round..._

there’s nothing quite like a nice simple tune is there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> _the wheels on the bus go round and round..._
> 
> there’s nothing quite like a nice simple tune is there.


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 13, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Rebecca Long-Bailey is a name that leaps out - i don't know her every politics, but she's very much associated with the kind of economic policies that were very popular on the doorstep, she's a reasonably competant media performer, and she doesn't have questionable friendships with Irish Republicans, anti-semites and people from Hamas.
> 
> there are doubtless others.



She may not, but anyone even close to Corbyn is set for a Corbyn-style monstering by proxy. It may not be a good idea for him to endorse right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> She may not, but anyone even close to Corbyn is set for a Corbyn-style monstering by proxy. It may not be a good idea for him to endorse right now.


She has a Mark E Smith endorsement - so that could go either way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> She may not, but anyone even close to Corbyn is set for a Corbyn-style monstering by proxy. It may not be a good idea for him to endorse right now.


Anyone who takes over as Labour leader will be monstered, I thought you'd realised that by now


----------



## teuchter (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> my brother in law, an ex miner from Northumberland voted for the brexit party as _Labour had turned remain_
> 
> my current neighbour, an ex miner from Durham who voted leave saying he’s wanted out of the EU decades ago said he wasn’t going to vote Labour this time as he felt Corbyn _was like an overgrown student_ and he didn’t trust his brexit stance.
> 
> I will tell them both they are thick racists next time I see them.



Is the 'overgrown student' thing code for too far left, or something else?


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It's wicked to mock the afflicted



yet another post. Get ever closer to being the number 1.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

Rayner said the other day in the youth debate that she would vote leave in a Labour negotiated second referendum. I thought at the time it was an odd thing to say, but it looks to me like prepping for a tilt at the leadership after last night. Anyway, I reckon she'd be hard to beat.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> _the wheels on the bus go round and round..._
> 
> there’s nothing quite like a nice simple tune is there.



Im sure the racists have their complicated reasons not shared by everyone else.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> She has a Mark E Smith endorsement - so that could go either way.


Really? Got a link?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Really? Got a link?


One of his last interviews, asked what politicians he liked, said none but (paraphrase)_ that girl up in salford. _I'll try find the interview.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Rayner said the other day in the youth debate that she would vote leave in a Labour negotiated second referendum. I thought at the time it was an odd thing to say, but it looks to me like prepping for a tilt at the leadership after last night. Anyway, I reckon she'd be hard to beat.



Given some of the roaches crawling out to get their name mentioned she's the best bet so far.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> One of his last interviews, asked what politicians he liked, said none but (paraphrase)_ that girl up in salford. _I'll try find the interview.


Mark E Smith – the final interview: 'I can clear a pub when I want to'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> Mark E Smith – the final interview: 'I can clear a pub when I want to'


Ta


----------



## Smangus (Dec 13, 2019)

Well that was shit, still I have a much more relevant race to think about this Sunday, should be a right laugh 

The 10th London Pantomime Horse Race | Home : The London Pantomime Horse Race


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Well that was shit, still I have a much more relevant race to think about this Sunday, should be a right laugh
> 
> The 10th London Pantomime Horse Race | Home : The London Pantomime Horse Race


It's an annual race of joy


----------



## seeformiles (Dec 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> Mark E Smith – the final interview: 'I can clear a pub when I want to'



He got Ed Sheeran’s number all right


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 13, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Is the 'overgrown student' thing code for too far left, or something else?



Probably, and attends protests rather than condemning them, is naively idealistic - not like us proper grown ups who agree that, while it's all very sad that people are suffering, have mortgages, cars and kids to pay for now.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Anyone who takes over as Labour leader will be monstered, I thought you'd realised that by now



Yes of course. But you don’t stick up your hand to invite it over. And there will be some monsterings worse than others.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 13, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Given some of the roaches crawling out to get their name mentioned she's the best bet so far.



I’d put money on her. I’ve met her a couple of times at GMB conference & she’s an all round good egg


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

belboid said:


> Mark E Smith – the final interview: 'I can clear a pub when I want to'


Cheers belboid, and BA


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> Probably, and attends protests rather than condemning them, is naively idealistic - not like us proper grown ups who agree that, while it's all very sad that people are suffering, have mortgages, cars and kids to pay for now.


Given the history of the two people mentioned it's highly likely they've seen and participated in some of the high-points of class struggle in this country and so may just mean the sort of well meaning naive outsider who tried to help in those conflicts but just couldn't. I think that's a fair enough view to hold if you were formed in a period when higher education was a limited elite prospect not open to you. It's just shorthand.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

The story of labour's loss today won't be the story in six months anyway, right now it's all bring pinned on corbyn, momentum, left takeover, the desertion of the centre ground blah. That can't hold as it's contradicted by the actual events. I mean I'm sure it will hold in some quarters because there are loads of dickheads but it won't be the only view. I don't think a corbyn endorsement will be the poisoned chalice it's being cast as and I don't think a phillips or starmer has a hope in hell without some drastic reshaping of the membership, which imo is unlikely. The next leader will be from the left of labour, although will probably pursue a line to right of corbyn


----------



## IC3D (Dec 13, 2019)

At least Jewish people can feel safe the countries not being run by xenophobes today.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Given the history of the two people mentioned it's highly likely they've seen and participated in some of the high-points of class struggle in this country and so may just mean the sort of well meaning naive outsider who tried to help in those conflicts but just couldn't. I think that's a fair enough view to hold if you were formed in a period when higher education was a limited elite prospect not open to you. It's just shorthand.



Fair enough in that context.  What I described is definitely a thing when I've ventured outside my social media home turf.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 13, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The story of labour's loss today won't be the story in six months anyway, right now it's all bring pinned on corbyn, momentum, left takeover, the desertion of the centre ground blah. That can't hold as it's contradicted by the actual events. I mean I'm sure it will hold in some quarters because there are loads of dickheads but it won't be the only view. I don't think a corbyn endorsement will be the poisoned chalice it's being cast as and I don't think a phillips or starmer has a hope in hell without some drastic reshaping of the membership, which imo is unlikely. The next leader will be from the left of labour, although will probably pursue a line to right of corbyn



Yeah agreed. I think actually what's been seen with Corbyn, although this might seem ridiculous to some, is how difficult it really is to make smears stick. I mean they've undoubtedly damaged him but the sheer volume and degree of ridiculousness they've had to resort to to have that impact has been something to behold. 'He/she is connected to Corbyn in some way' really isn't going to have much of an impact IMO.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

Momentum's not going anywhere.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Momentum's not going anywhere.
> 
> View attachment 192892


Why the facepalm?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)




----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)

emanymton said:


> Why the facepalm?


Momentum implies movement


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Momentum's not going anywhere.
> 
> View attachment 192892


A shocking lack of ambition


----------



## bimble (Dec 13, 2019)

IC3D said:


> At least Jewish people can feel safe the countries not being run by xenophobes today.


 please give it a rest with that shit joke.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

emanymton said:


> Why the facepalm?


More about syntax than anything else...momentum is generally associated with going somewhere.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 13, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Momentum implies movement


Ah ok. Wasn't thinking that literally.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Momentum's not going anywhere.
> 
> View attachment 192892


Why the facepalm. Yes I am slow.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> More about syntax than anything else...momentum is generally associated with going somewhere.


Or just going.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

emanymton said:


> Ah ok. Wasn't thinking that literally.


Haha me neither


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

We had a bus company in the 90’s called  “Inverness Traction”


/derail


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Or just going.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 13, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> We had a bus company in the 90’s called  “Inverness Traction”
> 
> 
> /*derail*



A rail replacement service?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192895


Schoolboy error


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> A rail replacement service?


BOOM


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192895


What does lisa think happened on those mass canvasing sessions? 

Fucking weird. Half of the internet is screaming that the canvassers were sent to the wrong places, the other half are screaming that they weren't wanted anyway.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> What does lisa think happened on those mass canvasing sessions?
> 
> Fucking weird. Half of the internet is screaming that the canvassers were sent to the wrong places, the other half are screaming that they weren't wanted anyway.


Not what was intended, I think.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Given the history of the two people mentioned it's highly likely they've seen and participated in some of the high-points of class struggle in this country and so may just mean the sort of well meaning naive outsider who tried to help in those conflicts but just couldn't. I think that's a fair enough view to hold if you were formed in a period when higher education was a limited elite prospect not open to you. It's just shorthand.


Was there a naivety in what was offered in the Labour Manifesto then?


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not what was intended, I think.


I think it probably did more or less nothing tbh. But people wanted to help. They were _desperate_ to help. There's clearly... _discussions_ to be had about how best to channel this kind of energy, and even more about how to keep things going on during non-election periods, but I was stood in a room with a few hundred of these guys last night as the exit poll came in, and frankly it seems mean spirited to be laying into them for - at worst - wasting a few weeks of their time on a doomed campaign.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

Thing is, had the campaign not been doomed and Labour had managed to hang on, the momentum canvassers would be the absolute heroes of the piece today. Likelihood is they'd have achieved more or less nothing then too.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

I'm not sure Lisa has earnt the right to that. The essex hecklers have. I remember her being pretty gung-ho herself on bussing picketers to poor doors.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think it probably did more or less nothing tbh. But people wanted to help. They were _desperate_ to help. There's clearly... _discussions_ to be had about how best to channel this kind of energy, and even more about how to keep things going on during non-election periods, but I was stood in a room with a few hundred of these guys last night as the exit poll came in, and frankly it seems mean spirited to be laying into them for - at worst - wasting a few weeks of their time on a doomed campaign.


Fair points.
FWIW my eldest was involved, so I'm under no illusions about the integrity of their intent etc.
I happen to think Lisa raises (or amplifies) and important view or reflection on the wisdom of shipping in masses of generally highly educated youngsters into such constituencies.
Those familiar with CLPs will know that in many cases there is a membership bias to the wealthier middle class wards and activists often work in the lower membership, more economically deprived wards. Momentum sometimes appeared to be this, writ large with the added dimension of the age-based remain/leave issues.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

In Thurrock, when I lived there, people complained about canvassers not coming to their door. 

Also the Labour party there is pretty active, and the candidate is a local who served as a councillor for 26 years, while the Tory candidate is an outsider who was brought in just to campaign in 2010 and still doesn't live there. I'm not sure Thurrock was really over-run with canvassers brought in from outside. I've no doubt it happened in some places but I doubt it for that place.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Just to make clear, the people Lisa is replying to approvingly are in no way labour supporters.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

The leadership is a poisoned chalice at the moment. I'd rather someone like Starmer took it on for a while, taking all the shit so that someone decent can become leader in a couple of years' time.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Rayner saidother day in the youth debate that she would vote leave in a Labour negotiated second referendum. I thought at the time it was an odd thing to say, but it looks to me like prepping for a tilt at the leadership after last night. Anyway, I reckon she'd be hard to beat.



Didn't Long-Bailey say something similar a few weeks back? Not sure it was just leadership bidding.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> I’ve been told the northern working class were upset at being ignored and left behind. Someone comes along and says vote for me and I will try and make things better.
> 
> They respond by voting Tory.
> 
> When their children have died, they can console themselves with not hearing any foreign voices in the street.


Have you got any public works we can set this cunt on with Pickman's model?


----------



## Knotted (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> More about syntax than anything else...momentum is generally associated with going somewhere.



To be fair there is no distinction between momentum and inertia in physics.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The leadership is a poisoned chalice at the moment. I'd rather someone like Starmer took it on for a while, taking all the shit so that someone decent can become leader in a couple of years' time.


My old Mum thinks Starmer is "lovely". I'm worried that he represents the son I never became tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

Knotted said:


> To be fair there is no distinction between momentum and inertia in physics.


Know nothing about Physics, if that helps.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So bland signs and tablets is your manifesto. Wow! What an offer to the public you make! I'm sure Labour will gain all those seats back in a landslide five years down the line.


If he's got skills wallets too I'm in.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The leadership is a poisoned chalice at the moment. I'd rather someone like Starmer took it on for a while, taking all the shit so that someone decent can become leader in a couple of years' time.



I doubt Starmer will be popular with the membership after forcing the U-turn on brexit that seems to have cost Labour any chance they might have had.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I doubt Starmer will be popular with the membership after forcing the U-turn on brexit that seems to have cost Labour any chance they might have had.


The membership don't seem to have opposed that at all though. The voters in those seats they lost or were heavily damaged in won't be happy for sure.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'd also ignore reality if I was desperate to find excuses for the fucking obvious. Yes, the NHS logo is simple, but the waste on logo designs for hospitals is bloody stupid.
> 
> Link 1
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192895



She was telling people not to vote at all a minute ago.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> The membership don't seem to have opposed that at all though.



No, but that won't stop them throwing Starmer under the bus.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> She was telling people not to vote at all a minute ago.


Yeah, but I think it wrong to ignore the point she's amplifying, tbh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> The thick northern racists voted for the Tories because I think they are thick racists?


And of course your weird regional stereotypes have nothing in common with racism.

Please go and do something more productive with your time than spreading your bigotry across these boards. I suggest playing chicken on the M25.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

S☼I said:


> What's interesting about it?


Nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, but that won't stop them throwing Starmer under the bus.


He won't get near the bus if you're right that the membership opposed his role in forcing the effective pro-remain position on the party. But they didn't.


----------



## donkyboy (Dec 13, 2019)

nationalisation plans were great policies that are needed. What a pity we will never see the likes of the railways back in state control.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> my brother in law, an ex miner from Northumberland voted for the brexit party as _Labour had turned remain_
> 
> my current neighbour, an ex miner from Durham who voted leave saying he’s wanted out of the EU decades ago said he wasn’t going to vote Labour this time as he felt Corbyn _was like an overgrown student_ and he didn’t trust his brexit stance.
> 
> I will tell them both they are thick racists next time I see them.


Similar anecdotes here. Work colleague who lives in Bolsover (or bowser as it should be pronounced) voted tory because Labour had 'gone remain' but says he will go back to voting Labour after Brexit and hopes corbyn or another left is leader.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192895


This, certainly. And that's the core of the liberal left's problem, can't distinguish between working in/with working class communities to organise themselves Vs an army of largely middle class activists 'descending on' an area. It doesn't mobilise a community, it makes things worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Similar anecdotes here. Work colleague who lives in Bolsover (or bowser as it should be pronounced) voted tory because Labour had 'gone remain' but says he will go back to voting Labour after Brexit and hopes corbyn or another left is leader.


Both these posts then are about tactical short term things rather than ideological commitment. A tactical thing that labour got on the wrong end of. They didn't need to.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

The Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, but were happy to campaign on an 'honouring the referendum' ticket in 2017, as brexit was perceived as a done deal. What changed between 2017 and 2019 is that - due to the campaigning by centrist remainers for the most part - it no longer felt like it was, and there was every possibility of overturning the result in one way or another. The change of policy didn't just come from within the PLP, but from the membership too. While it was one of the things that torpedoed any chance of winning this election, if it hadn't have done then the party would have split last year, in a far more substantial way than what happened - and even if they hadn't, the remain vote disappearing to the Lib Dems could have caused a similar catastrophic loss of seats.

They were trapped by Brexit. There was no way out.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but I think it wrong to ignore the point she's amplifying, tbh.


I think she's right about mass canvassers going into communities, whilst taking on board butcher's point about consistency. But I think it's wrong to discuss this as a campaign issue only - Corbynism needed to 'reconnect' with working class communities and actually organise - to move beyond 'representing', to start thinking about becoming a movement. I've banged on about that for ages, though there was never a realistic chance Corbyn/Momentum would do it. But at the same time, it was just about the only to avoid becoming a slightly more left wing than Ed Miliband failure, which is what has happened.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

oh! the reason I started to type that and then meandered off was to say that while the membership does lean to remain, now that brexit is again to all intents and purposes a done deal, they are likely to take a keen look at where the seats have all gone and elect someone who they think might appeal to those areas. Starmer has no chance IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, but were happy to campaign on an 'honouring the referendum' ticket in 2017, as brexit was perceived as a done deal. What changed between 2017 and 2019 is that - due to the campaigning by centrist remainers for the most part - it no longer felt like it was, and there was every possibility of overturning the result in one way or another. The change of policy didn't just come from within the PLP, but from the membership too. While it was one of the things that torpedoed any chance of winning this election, if it hadn't have done then the party would have split last year, in a far more substantial way than what happened - and even if they hadn't, the remain vote disappearing to the Lib Dems could have caused a similar catastrophic loss of seats.
> 
> They were trapped by Brexit. There was no way out.



Well, they chose the wrong side if they had to pick one. They now have the flighty footlose non-committed individual consumer voter having far more weight than the trad century long family committed voter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Have you got any public works we can set this cunt on with Pickman's model?


Ballast for a light railway on west falkland.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I think she's right about mass canvassers going into communities, whilst taking on board butcher's point about consistency. But I think it's wrong to discuss this as a campaign issue only - Corbynism needed to 'reconnect' with working class communities and actually organise - to move beyond 'representing', to start thinking about becoming a movement. I've banged on about that for ages, though there was never a realistic chance Corbyn/Momentum would do it. But at the same time, it was just about the only to avoid becoming a slightly more left wing than Ed Miliband failure, which is what has happened.


I think it's a fair point to make over long term stuff that directly effects communities. But people expect canvassers and carpetbaggers in elections, not local projects etc. This has been part of the debate since about the early 2000s on the left that many here took part in (UKLN refugees welcome here glasgow etc).


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, but were happy to campaign on an 'honouring the referendum' ticket in 2017, as brexit was perceived as a done deal. What changed between 2017 and 2019 is that - due to the campaigning by centrist remainers for the most part - it no longer felt like it was, and there was every possibility of overturning the result in one way or another. The change of policy didn't just come from within the PLP, but from the membership too. While it was one of the things that torpedoed any chance of winning this election, if it hadn't have done then the party would have split last year, in a far more substantial way than what happened - and even if they hadn't, the remain vote disappearing to the Lib Dems could have caused a similar catastrophic loss of seats.
> 
> They were trapped by Brexit. There was no way out.


I don't disagree with any of that, save that there might have been scope to develop an _*active  *_policy along the lines of 'brino + workers rights' and the rest, certainly over the last 18 months. But I think the deeper issue is that Labour are now unable to take working class voters with them in almost any direction. Trapped by Brexit, absolutely, but it was a ready made cage they've been constructing themselves for years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Well, they chose the wrong side if they had to pick one. They now have the flighty footlose non-committed individual consumer voter having far more weight than the trad century long family committed voter.


No, that's a misjudgement, I think. There are big areas of Labour support, such as in London, that were solidly anti-brexit for various reasons, often little to do with being pro-European. This is a very divided country at the moment. 

As for 'century long', be careful with that, given how many people (and whole communities) in the UK don't trace their ancestry here back that long. Doesn't make them somehow less worthy. And such people are in many cases exactly the ones who feel under siege right now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, but were happy to campaign on an 'honouring the referendum' ticket in 2017, as brexit was perceived as a done deal. What changed between 2017 and 2019 is that - due to the campaigning by centrist remainers for the most part - it no longer felt like it was, and there was every possibility of overturning the result in one way or another. The change of policy didn't just come from within the PLP, but from the membership too. While it was one of the things that torpedoed any chance of winning this election, if it hadn't have done then the party would have split last year, in a far more substantial way than what happened - and even if they hadn't, the remain vote disappearing to the Lib Dems could have caused a similar catastrophic loss of seats.
> 
> They were trapped by Brexit. There was no way out.


I'm sure you are right that would have been significant internal fall out if labour hadn't of compromised to remain, not sure it would have had same electoral impact during GE and am absolutely certain that the longer term effects would have been lesser. Hope the tory swing in w/c areas is a tactical thing which won't be repeated but once people cross the rubicon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

red & green said:


> Chuka -


Missing presumed unelectable


----------



## Knotted (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Well, they chose the wrong side if they had to pick one. They now have the flighty footlose non-committed individual consumer voter having far more weight than the trad century long family committed voter.



That's why they chose the wrong side. They assumed the trad voter would stick with them regardless. Cynically that's not a bad gamble even if it didn't play off. I don't think it was strategic foolishness at play, more a failure to reconnect with the core over the last four and a half years (and before of course). They should have been much more sensitive to this, but they were never about becoming an organically working class movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Knotted said:


> That's why they chose the wrong side. They assumed the trad voter would stick with them regardless. Cynically that's not a bad gamble even if it didn't play off. I don't think it was strategic foolishness at play, more a failure to reconnect with the core over the last four and a half years (and before of course). They should have been much more sensitive to this, but they were never about becoming an organically working class movement.


They knew from 2005 on it wouldn't work. That it hadn't worked. Yet some voice said let's do it again because i_ know who is really important - it's people like me who run the party at the top and centre. And we don't like the liberal battering that we're getting. _2017 where there was a clear split in the vote made that pretty obvious to all with eyes. Yet, because of who runs the party and how it happened again.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Know nothing about Physics, if that helps.



Dialectics, comrade, dialectics


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 13, 2019)

Not the most important thing but is mckenzie still quite pally with jess phillips


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Similar anecdotes here. Work colleague who lives in Bolsover (or bowser as it should be pronounced) voted tory because Labour had 'gone remain' but says he will go back to voting Labour after Brexit and hopes corbyn or another left is leader.



Fair enough, but what about the next five years of misery and in some cases, disabled, etc, death.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

This is a repudiation of Corbynism. Labour needs to ditch the politics of the sect | Jonathan Freedland

freedman has a rant


----------



## MrSki (Dec 13, 2019)

A letter from his three sons.







Whatever your opinions on the election it sums him up pretty well.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 13, 2019)

MrSki said:


> A letter from his three sons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whereas Johnson is so personally dislikeable that most of his family turned against him. 

His Dad Stanley was on the Channel Four coverage and seemed to have got really drunk, and became painful to watch at one point.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 13, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Whereas Johnson is so personally dislikeable that most of his family turned against him.
> 
> His Dad Stanley was on the Channel Four coverage and seemed to have got really drunk, and became painful to watch at one point.


Yeah I saw a clip about a fighter pilot wearing a burka that didn't seem to go down too well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2019)

His sons call him 'Jeremy'? I had a friend who did that with his parents. It's weird.

But yes, the things that manifesto stood for are only going to become ever more necessary in the years to come. But we lose five years we can ill afford to lose.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> His sons call him 'Jeremy'? I had a friend who did that with his parents. It's weird.


Well I expect that in the circles they move, everyone else does so they just join in. My sister's kids call her & her hubby by their names.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

MrSki said:


> A letter from his three sons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes if I was in Corbyn's position I'd have chucked it in and told everyone in the country to go fuck themselves with a pineapple within six months.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> His sons call him 'Jeremy'? I had a friend who did that with his parents. It's weird.


I call my mum and dad by their names. It's fine actually.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Dec 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> His sons call him 'Jeremy'? I had a friend who did that with his parents. It's weird.
> 
> But yes, the things that manifesto stood for are only going to become ever more necessary in the years to come. But we lose five years we can ill afford to lose.



My mum and my uncle called their parents by their names, so I called my Grandad and step-Gran *their first names*, too (my mum's mum died way before I was born, so my step-gran wasn't their mum in any case).
Not saying it's not weird (I found it weird that other kids my own age did it), but *whatever*.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2019)

I only call my dad 'dad' because I so often forget his actual name.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 13, 2019)

Labour needs to come down to Earth and show a bit of humility. The best thing they can do to get off to a good start is accept Brexit. Take a look for once at the denigration working class people receive if they aren't doing as they're told, propping up Labour and then being ignored. Ask why accepting the result got the Tories their majority and undermined Labour. A national desire to hold down clarity on the future?

The development of an effective opposition relies on studying the outlying boundaries of who Labour can get back onside: those that have deserted them, and also do what New Labour did insofar as getting a swathe of middle-class families in deeply held Conservative territory to support them. A big task. Can they marry their appeal to these seemingly antipodean targets, whilst still offering something worthwhile that the remaining base can get enthused about i.e a left-wing opposition?


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 13, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> And of course your weird regional stereotypes have nothing in common with racism.
> 
> Please go and do something more productive with your time than spreading your bigotry across these boards. I suggest playing chicken on the M25.



Regional. Its just the location of the working class that voted tory. None in London.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Regional. Its just the location of the working class that voted tory. None in London.


No working class tories in London? Really? We didn't all vote tory up here either but who cares?

Tosser.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> Fair enough, but what about the next five years of misery and in some cases, disabled, etc, death.


I'm not justifying it, there can be no justification for voting tory and I'll be giving him shit for it for ever. But if you don't understand why it happened you can't stop it happening again.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 13, 2019)

Who is this big cunt then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

That was a great post sunnyside down - up to you to take it down of course.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Labour membership is overwhelmingly remain, but were happy to campaign on an 'honouring the referendum' ticket in 2017, as brexit was perceived as a done deal. What changed between 2017 and 2019 is that - due to the campaigning by centrist remainers for the most part - it no longer felt like it was, and there was every possibility of overturning the result in one way or another. The change of policy didn't just come from within the PLP, but from the membership too. While it was one of the things that torpedoed any chance of winning this election, if it hadn't have done then the party would have split last year, in a far more substantial way than what happened - and even if they hadn't, the remain vote disappearing to the Lib Dems could have caused a similar catastrophic loss of seats.
> 
> They were trapped by Brexit. There was no way out.


That’s an interesting contribution . What I don’t understand in all this rush of belief by Labour remainers that the referendum result could be overturned is the lack of any risk assessment of how that would be interpreted by Labour voters in leave areas. The signs in the North East were already there with sizeable UKIP votes and generally the trend of Tories eating into the Labour vote in the midlands and north generally were there in the last election . 
I’m not sure I buy the split issue either to be honest . Any split would have meant breakaway remain candidates losing badly in leave areas even if they had a pact with the Lib Dens which would have been a step too far for even some Labour remain supporters .Equally  I’m not sure how a breakaway remain party would have done in competing against official Labour candidates in remain areas .


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 13, 2019)

editor said:


> You seem to be mistaking the election for a Brexit referendum.



Given the reason to call the election was Brexit, the main trust of the election campaign was Brexit, and large numbers of traditional Labour voters (even in Bolsover) voted Tory so they could have Brexit, I feel you may be mistaken.
Much as the EU needs a sorting out, I still feel the UK is better off inside, but the electorate have made it very clear Brexit must happen so, given  an elected politician's job is to represent the people, Brexit has to go ahead unopposed.
I'm not happy but the only other option is revolution and suspension of democracy, something I find objectionable.


----------



## a_chap (Dec 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I only call my dad 'dad' because I so often forget his actual name.



I call my wife "wife" for the same reason...

#dementia #atSuchAnEarlyAgeToo #thoughtsAndPrayers


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Given the reason to call the election was Brexit, the main trust of the election campaign was Brexit, and large numbers of traditional Labour voters (even in Bolsover) voted Tory so they could have Brexit, I feel you may be mistaken.
> Much as the EU needs a sorting out, I still feel the UK is better off inside, but the electorate have made it very clear Brexit must happen so, given  an elected politician's job is to represent the people, Brexit has to go ahead unopposed.
> I'm not happy but the only other option is revolution and suspension of democracy, something I find objectionable.



Absolutely bang on - this election might as well have been classed as a second referendum as for the majority Brexit was the overriding issue.

It’s perfectly understandable for those living in high remain areas (London and parts of the South) to think otherwise in their echo chamber bubbles, but this result should be a hard dose of reality.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2019)

I don't know why I'm watching Have I Got News For You but Jon Richardson just blamed the next five years of Tory attacks on the country's most vulnerable people on Corbyn. What a steaming shit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I don't know why I'm watching Have I Got News For You but Jon Richardson just blamed the next five years of Tory attacks on the country's most vulnerable people on Corbyn. What a steaming shit


I think it was a mistake to let w/c kids into uni and the BBC. It breeds more of them types and _they look like us._


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 13, 2019)

Haha!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Given the reason to call the election was Brexit, the main trust of the election campaign was Brexit, and large numbers of traditional Labour voters (even in Bolsover) voted Tory so they could have Brexit, I feel you may be mistaken.
> Much as the EU needs a sorting out, I still feel the UK is better off inside, but the electorate have made it very clear Brexit must happen so, given  an elected politician's job is to represent the people, Brexit has to go ahead unopposed.
> I'm not happy but the only other option is revolution and suspension of democracy, something I find objectionable.


That's not the only other option


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Regional. Its just the location of the working class that voted tory. None in London.


How did UKIP? do in Romford in recent years? or is Romford too far north for you?


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> How did UKIP? do in Romford in recent years? or is Romford too far north for you?



Im not supposed to talk about Romford after I offended someone for calling it “hideously white”, which was the phrase I think I used.

I think Romford has always been Tory as its full of racists.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I don't know why I'm watching Have I Got News For You but Jon Richardson just blamed the next five years of Tory attacks on the country's most vulnerable people on Corbyn. What a steaming shit


Yet it was Corbyn who decided to turn his and Labours back on its core voters.  It might have been a different story if labour had backed leave.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Yet it was Corbyn who decided to turn his and Labours back on its core voters.  It might have been a different story if labour had backed leave.


Oh don't talk such ignorant arrant tosh

Where were you when the bnp vote was being attributed to Labour taking their traditional supporters for granted? This turning their back on core voters trope has been going on more than 10 years, you can't blame it all on Corbyn


----------



## IC3D (Dec 14, 2019)

Labour should have backed leave. Corbyn is leave, it's the only thing I think he hasn't been real about his entire career. 
If remainers went to the libdems it would have been a lab/lib coalition.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Labour should have backed leave. Corbyn is leave, it's the only thing I think he hasn't been real about his entire career.
> If remainers went to the libdems it would have been a lab/lib coalition.



What happened to representing the members who are overwhelmingly remain.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> What happened to representing the members who are overwhelmingly remain.


What happened to representing the ones out of London that voted Tory to get Brexit


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

IC3D said:


> What happened to representing the ones out of London that voted Tory to get Brexit



Fuck them. Unless you think the labour party should represent racists just because they are working class. 

But if you do, then obviously they should go down that path and give up on London instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fuck them. Unless you think the labour party should represent racists just because they are working class.
> 
> But if you do, then obviously they should go down that path and give up on London instead.


What does _fuck them_ mean?


----------



## IC3D (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fuck them. Unless you think the labour party should represent racists just because they are working class.
> 
> But if you do, then obviously they should go down that path and give up on London instead.


Then the members of labour no longer represent the working class and it's no longer fit for purpose and JC is a racist.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What does _fuck them_ mean?



Labour offered everyone a chance at this election to make their lives better. Some people chose not to take it.

Fuck them means ignore those that don’t share the beliefs of the members of the labour party.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Then the members of labour no longer represent the working class and it's no longer fit for purpose and JC is a racist.



Plenty of non- racist working class people. The ones that didn’t vote tory.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Plenty of non- racist working class people. The ones that didn’t vote tory.


This isn't very productive analysis and why Labour fucked up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Plenty of non- racist working class people. The ones that didn’t vote tory.


Indicate - in any way that you may be able to - which are the non-racist parties that it may be acceptable to vote for.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Indicate - in any way that you may be able to - which are the non-racist parties that it may be acceptable to vote for.



Out of the two main parties, Labour were the ones that would have tried to make these people’s lives better and luckily are also the party with the least number of racists out of those two.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Out of the two main parties, Labour were the ones that would have tried to make these people’s lives better and luckily are also the party with the least number of racists out of those two.


So they are a racist party. Just the least racist. So you voted for a racist party. And anyone who didn't do so is a racist.

OK.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

IC3D said:


> This isn't very productive analysis and why Labour fucked up.



Labour didn’t fuck up as much as those that should have voted for them did.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So they are a racist party. Just the least racist. So you voted for a racist party.



Is the leader a racist, I don’t think so, is the candidate a racist, I don’t think so.

I’m happy with my vote. If they are happy with theirs then good for them. They will live with their conscience and so will I.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Is the leader a racist, I don’t think so, is the candidate a racist, I don’t think so.
> 
> I’m happy with my vote. If they are happy with theirs then good for them. They will live with their conscience and so will I.


Thank you once more dulich hamlet forum for this. Forever grateful.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Thank you once more dulich hamlet forum for this. Forever grateful.



Because there aren’t loads of people like you that go to Dulwich Hamlet.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Is the leader a racist, I don’t think so, is the candidate a racist, I don’t think so.
> 
> I’m happy with my vote. If they are happy with theirs then good for them. They will live with their conscience and so will I.


So you're happy to be  be racist, just not as racist as the person next to you. _Solidarity_. How long have you voted labour?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 14, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Absolutely bang on - this election might as well have been classed as a second referendum as for the majority Brexit was the overriding issue.
> 
> It’s perfectly understandable for those living in high remain areas (London and parts of the South) to think otherwise in their echo chamber bubbles, but this result should be a hard dose of reality.



tbf, if this was a ‘second referendum’ then a greater number of votes went to remain/second ref parties, by a million or so. Just happened that the ‘remain’ vote was split. 

A shame other issues couldn’t get any daylight, but Tories played their tactics well in shutting down Labour with anti-semitism dead cats and similar, aided by a few ex-labour ringpieces whose words were given far more attention than they deserved (I didn’t see much focus on Tory dissidents, generally of higher status than Gapes etc.)


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So you're happy to be  be racist, just not as racist as the person next to you. _Solidarity_. How long have you voted labour?



You think I should find a political party that has never had a racist be a member? I’m sure you have stayed as pure. 

I have voted labour since I was 18.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> You think I should find a political party that has never had a racist be a member? I’m sure you have stayed as pure.
> 
> I have voted labour since I was 18.


Then you have just done yourself. 

You're what now btw? 12, 13?


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Then you have just done yourself.
> 
> You're what now btw? 12, 13?



Whatever. If you are in a position to not be affected by the next five years of the Tories. Good for you. If you will be affected, then good luck.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Whatever. If you are in a position to not be affected by the next five years of the Tories. Good for you. If you will be affected, then good luck.


Fuck off, prick.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Fucking bullshit rightwing solidarity. _Aye, good luck for the attack i brought on you. Bye._


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 14, 2019)

It's time for realism.

People voted in droves for Brexit, the main point of this abismal election.
Labour, especially Corbyn and his silly pals, fucked up in epic style by either working for party and politics rather than people, or directly working again the obvious wishes of the people.
Labour is now looking even more foolish because Corbyn is dithering about leaving and those amazingly stupid demos in London.

Labour must now openly support the government in getting the best possible Brexit deal, dump that bloody idiot of a leader, then set about rebuilding with electable policies for the next election. 
Dumping the tories under Johnson shouldn't be that hard as people are very likely to suss the cunt out pretty quickly, but to get rid means a strong Labour party under a strong leader, one the press can't find a million faults a day with, and one that isn't a marxist wanker without a fucking clue.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 14, 2019)

Brexit was about racism for more than a few, but was about wanting rid of what they saw as European for the majority.  Being anti EU doesn't mean they're racist, just pissed off with what they saw as over-control of their lives by people they never had the opportunity to vote for. As I believe I mentioned some time ago, EU officials hardly helped the cause by sticking their fat beaks into UK politics and making thinly disguised threats since the referendum result. Frankly, that started putting me off the EU but I came to the conclusion the ideal was far too valuable and change was possible, so I backed remain.
However, I have to accept I'm now in a minority, democracy dictating the government must be supported as far as Brexit goes because it's that or opposition MPs sitting in the chamber yapping like silly little lapdogs tied to a chair, ignored because their barking means shit all.

It's now time to rebuild the Labour party and get ready to win the next election.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 14, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I don't know why I'm watching Have I Got News For You but Jon Richardson just blamed the next five years of Tory attacks on the country's most vulnerable people on Corbyn. What a steaming shit



I didn't see the program, but letting the fucking tories in was definetely down to Corbyn - that much is as obvious now as it was some months ago when I first started saying it. However, I was simply dismissed as a cunt, as I still am because the far left don't want to see the truth, rather blaming anything but Corbyn and the far left for the almighty fucking cock up we now know as the worst general election result since fuck knows when.

It's time for an honest Labour party, one that works for the people, not for its own idealism and policies for the few. Frankly, the Labour left is as bad as the Tory right in so much as they're only interested in themselves and only offer a fuck off to anyone that doesn't agree with them.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 14, 2019)

Once Corbyn is dumped and a new leader, a press friendly one is found, policies have to be sorted out, but all must be sensible (Electable), and all must be very well thought out.

Free education for all - Nice start, but with no shit about abolishing private schools

Free NHS, including dentistry and prescriptions - Absolutely, but with no shit about abolishing private hospitals
Improving NHS efficiency, dumping tory business managers, and running hospitals as places for sick people  rather than businesses - Yes please. As for private industry within the healthcare system - No, it's health care not a fucking business opportunity. Anything that can be outsourced can be done internally at a cheaper price.

Housing is an expensive mess.
Heavy taxes on all non-UK residents owning property in the UK, even heavier if more than one property.
Repossession of abandoned properties if the owners can't be contacted or they leave it in disrepair after warnings. These can be sold off and cash diverted to homeless shelters or whatever else is needed.
A building program as I described a few weeks ago. Cheap houses/rents will naff up greedy estate agents and force prices down, but provide a lot of work for builders, thus can be sold as business friendly.
Building cheap single room housing (with bathroom) for young couples or single people, probably for rent as council homes. Small is cheap to heat and easy to clean.
Homeless shelters in the style of pod hotels. Cheap but can help a lot of people. These can also be used to identify heath issues these people may be suffering from, and even provide free training so they have a better chance of finding work. A real address and email service can be provided at almost no cost, that giving these people a solid address to give to potential employers. 

Roads - Massive tax breaks for EV manufacturers. This has to be backed up with renewable energy generation, and all sold to the country as promoting business opportunities and saving people's money, as well as being green.
Business gets scared when left wing Labour governments get elected, so sell the policy as business friendly and invite car and energy companies to the table. The tories aren't even close on this one so they'll be forced to copy, and it'll be obvious they're desperate.
It can also be promoted as forward thinking because North Sea oil is all but finished in not many years, so Labour can outflank the tories on that as well.

Everything should be built around helping people, never just for political ideals, and everything sold as business friendly and at minimal cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Dec 14, 2019)

Free parking for EVs and EV only spaces as sales increase, and zero road tax for EV motorcycles for X number of years.
Eventually, EV only roads in towns and cities.

Space provided free for green energy charging points.


----------



## maomao (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Im not supposed to talk about Romford after I offended someone for calling it “hideously white”, which was the phrase I think I used.


You fill your boots mate. I've had you on ignore for years.


----------



## bimble (Dec 14, 2019)

Who do you think you’re writing all this for you boring twat.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 14, 2019)

They'll never be a press friendly Labour leader you dick head. How fucking clueless are you?


----------



## a_chap (Dec 14, 2019)

You know when a thread's irredeemably gone off the rails when a Don Trooooooomp post starts with: 



Don Troooomp said:


> It's time for realism.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 14, 2019)

Time for some game theory


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Time for some game theory



By game theory do you mean thread bans? 
*Crosses fingers*


----------



## JimW (Dec 14, 2019)

I reckon Don Troomp and B.I.G can lead us out of this with their stellar analysis.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 14, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> They'll never be a press friendly Labour leader you dick head. How fucking clueless are you?


John Smith? Tony Blair?


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> They'll never be a press friendly Labour leader you dick head. How fucking clueless are you?



There can be, if you abandon any sense even of mild social democracy and go cap doffing to the Murdoch press, but seriously, with the country and the world in the state it's in, what would be the fucking point?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 14, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> That’s an interesting contribution . What I don’t understand in all this rush of belief by Labour remainers that the referendum result could be overturned is the lack of any risk assessment of how that would be interpreted by Labour voters in leave areas. The signs in the North East were already there with sizeable UKIP votes and generally the trend of Tories eating into the Labour vote in the midlands and north generally were there in the last election .
> I’m not sure I buy the split issue either to be honest . Any split would have meant breakaway remain candidates losing badly in leave areas even if they had a pact with the Lib Dens which would have been a step too far for even some Labour remain supporters .Equally  I’m not sure how a breakaway remain party would have done in competing against official Labour candidates in remain areas .



I didn't read that as saying that a break away would have done well or made sense politically but that the internal tensions within the labour party would've made a split inevitable. Politics isn't all rational analysis and objective risk assessment is it?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> John Smith? Tony Blair?


Jess Phillips


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 14, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I didn't read that as saying that a break away would have done well or made sense politically but that the internal tensions within the labour party would've made a split inevitable. Politics isn't all rational analysis and objective risk assessment is it?


No you are right and the whole back the  second referendum position is proof of that although I wonder what was in McDonnell's head at the time or his motive. I am interested in who would have been likely to split though,throw the first stone and  what forces they would have thought they could bring with them.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Jess Phillips



Ramsey McDonald.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 14, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> No you are right and the whole back the  second referendum position is proof of that although I wonder what was in McDonnell's head at the time or his motive. I am interested in who would have been likely to split though,throw the first stone and  what forces they would have thought they could bring with them.



Yes. I don't know, I'm not at all familiar with internal LP politics but killer b is, so I found his contribution very enlightening. My own political insight is about as enlightening as a great big dark grey cloud at the moment. It's like watching a film and not being able to work out who is who and can someone explain the plot please?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2019)

Keir Hardie


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2019)

The first stone _was_ thrown when the various TIG MPs left - that was the point at which the policy changed, and the change in policy was a direct response to that - and while in the end TIG turned out to be a stillborn minor split, weve no idea how many would have gone had the policy not changed, or the kind of pressure the leadership was under.

The leadership - and Corbyn in particular - were very aware of the problems this could cause, so we can only assume that the assessment they made was that the threat from not doing it was more severe. Who knows, maybe it was? As I say, they were fucked one way or another whichever way they jumped.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

No,  we just know they're fucked (relatively) in the one way they chose to jump. We don't know what would have happened had they gone the other way.


----------



## a_chap (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> As I say, they were fucked one way or another whichever way they jumped.



I tend to agree.

To quote Joshua from the film War Games: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play".


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> No,  we just know they're fucked (relatively) in the one way they chose to jump. We don't know what would have happened had they gone the other way.


Well, the way they were dragged kicking and screaming more accurately. We can only speculate what might have happened had they maintained their previous policy, but we can see the direction it was going in and I'm pretty sure it would have involved either a loss of a substantial number of MPs and vast swathes of the activist base, or a successful leadership challenge and a change of policy anyway.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 14, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> John Smith? Tony Blair?



Obviously but they both had policies favourable to the people who own the country.



Plumdaff said:


> There can be, if you abandon any sense even of mild social democracy and go cap doffing to the Murdoch press, but seriously, with the country and the world in the state it's in, what would be the fucking point?



This


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> Well, the way they were dragged kicking and screaming more accurately. We can only speculate what might have happened had they maintained their previous policy, but we can see the direction it was going in and I'm pretty sure it would have involved either a loss of a substantial number of MPs and vast swathes of the activist base, or a successful leadership challenge and a change of policy anyway.



So now, we have an activist base who hate hate the positions the leadership are going to take + oh yeah a dead leader, loads of safe seats gone and a reliance on people who will happily vote for other parties if the fancy takes them. Over anything, not something that they see as utterly central to this country being a democracy. There's losing and there's losing to set yourself up to lose even bigger. They simply took the wrong choice because of who runs the party and who has always ran the party. McDonnell couldn't wait to be dragged in to this mess btw - the saviour. The brains.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> The first stone _was_ thrown when the various TIG MPs left - that was the point at which the policy changed, and the change in policy was a direct response to that - and while in the end TIG turned out to be a stillborn minor split, weve no idea how many would have gone had the policy not changed, or the kind of pressure the leadership was under.
> 
> The leadership - and Corbyn in particular - were very aware of the problems this could cause, so we can only assume that the assessment they made was that the threat from not doing it was more severe. Who knows, maybe it was? As I say, they were fucked one way or another whichever way they jumped.


Weren't all the TIG MPs in remain areas though ? That still leaves the question as to what was the strategy for shoring up the leave areas unanswered. Surely it cant just have been that the referendum result wasnt important and that we'll buy them off with economic policies . Even if it was the majority of those policies came very late in the day, too late.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Keir Hardie


Only in retrospect to be fair.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Sometimes a party you like and support and spent a lot of time and effort on supporting choses wrong. The reasons for that and either addressing them or not is what's next.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

The old commitment that_ it's just jeremy_ is not going to work anymore. It's not going to work with any new leader, so how far brexit was an animating issue is going to become clear very soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Weren't all the TIG MPs in remain areas though ? That still leaves the question as to what was the strategy for shoring up the leave areas unanswered. Surely it cant just have been that the referendum result wasnt important and that we'll buy them off with economic policies . Even if it was the majority of those policies came very late in the day, too late.


_Economics _for the w/c - _politics _for the m/c.


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2019)

a_chap said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> To quote Joshua from the film War Games: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play".


To be fair, they kinda tried to do that..


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh don't talk such ignorant arrant tosh
> 
> Where were you when the bnp vote was being attributed to Labour taking their traditional supporters for granted? This turning their back on core voters trope has been going on more than 10 years, you can't blame it all on Corbyn


Maybe not then but this was about Brexit and Corbyn was definitely in charge this time round.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

B.I.G said:


> Fuck them. Unless you think the labour party should represent racists just because they are working class.
> 
> But if you do, then obviously they should go down that path and give up on London instead.


You keep going on about Tory voters being racist and blaming it on northerners while the Tory heartland is in the south so it's the southerners who are most likely to be racist by your logic.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> You keep going on about Tory voters being racist and blaming it on northerners while the Tory heartland is in the south so it's the southerners who are most likely to be racist by your logic.


Thee is no logic. And btw it's w/c northerners. Those m/c ones who voted tory etc are off the hook.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 14, 2019)

I know of someone who is racist and voted tory. So it’s all ginger haired people who voted tory that are to blame.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> _Economics _for the w/c - _politics _for the m/c.



Thanks for that insight butchersapron that really clarifies things in a cutting through the big murky cloud kind of way.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 14, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> No you are right and the whole back the  second referendum position is proof of that although I wonder what was in McDonnell's head at the time or his motive.



Maybe I am being too charitable to him, but I got the impression he saw that they were inevitably going to be pushed towards a second referendum (or Corbyn would be forced out). If you know you will be forced to change position eventually, you might as well do it before too much damage is done to Labour and the Corbyn coalition.

The people who really fucked it were those who turned  stopping Brexit from a fringe position to a mainstream one. Would these 'centrists' have been so  deluded had one of their own been leader?


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Sometimes a party you like and support and spent a lot of time and effort on supporting choses wrong. The reasons for that and either addressing them or not is what's next.


I knew it was a big risk, but thought it might be possible the - substantial - non-Brexit offer Labour had might break through. It's possible that if the electorate had trusted corbyn to be able to deliver them it might have done. Of course, one of the reasons he wasnt trusted to deliver is because of his vacilations on brexit...

I'm not saying they made the right decision. Just that maybe there wasn't a right decision.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Combustible said:


> Maybe I am being too charitable to him, but I got the impression he saw that they were inevitably going to be pushed towards a second referendum (or Corbyn would be forced out). If you know you will be forced to change position eventually, you might as well do it before too much damage is done to Labour and the Corbyn coalition.
> 
> The people who really fucked it were those who turned  stopping Brexit from a fringe position to a mainstream one. Would these 'centrists' have been so  deluded had one of their own been leader?


They were being pushed by their own brains and assumptions. You don't have  to do what the guardian tells you to do. What is the point of the party otherwise?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I knew it was a big risk, but thought it might be possible the - substantial - non-Brexit offer Labour had might break through. It's possible that if the electorate had trusted corbyn to be able to deliver them it might have done. Of course, one of the reasons he wasnt trusted to deliver is because of his vacilations on brexit...
> 
> I'm not saying they made the right decision. Just that maybe there wasn't a right decision.


In that case we can only say that the one they made didn't pay off. I think they made that decision for classic top down labour party reasons and positions. same old same old. Small group of posh people. Nothing changed that much really.

None of this is to do down the effort time and hopes people like you invested in the project. Its been my position from the start.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They were being pushed by their own brains and assumptions. You don't have  to do what the guardian tells you to do. What is the point of the party otherwise?



The problem is when a large part of your base within the party is pushing you and feel strongly enough to support a leadership challenge against you. Also given Corbyn's claim to give more power to the membership, it gets more untenable when remain positions keep getting pushed through at party conference


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Combustible said:


> The problem is when a large part of your base within the party is pushing you and feel strongly enough to support a leadership challenge against you. Also given Corbyn's claim to give more power to the membership, it gets more untenable when remain positions keep getting pushed through at party conference


Yes, that's undeniable. That's where i recognise they were trapped. This time it's not like the membershiop vs nuclear bombs and nye telling off conference though. It's both sides actually wanting the same thing but the leadership knowing it might harm them outside. That's where political leadership comes in. Corbyn should have used his political capital to deal with it - if he/they saw the dangers that is. I'm not sure they did. McDonnell, the big brain certainly didn't. Len Mcluskey (not an endorsement) was screaming at them for months to no avail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Maybe not then but this was about Brexit and Corbyn was definitely in charge this time round.


So what did Labour actually do, in local government and as representatives of these formerly Labour constituencies, to reconnect with these communities between 2005 and 2019?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

If they were going to do the _this is what the membership wants_ they should have gone hard remain.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm not saying they made the right decision. Just that maybe there wasn't a right decision.



There is no point rehearsing again our respective view on this. But let me ask you this. In your view what should Labour’s position on Brexit be going forwards. I’m asking here on the basis that it’s irrelevant in parliamentary terms but relevant in terms of the rebuilding job. I accept that this is contingent on who the next leader is. But given the trade negotiations a coherent policy, and way of explaining it, remains important


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I knew it was a big risk, but thought it might be possible the - substantial - non-Brexit offer Labour had might break through. It's possible that if the electorate had trusted corbyn to be able to deliver them it might have done. Of course, one of the reasons he wasnt trusted to deliver is because of his vacilations on brexit...
> 
> I'm not saying they made the right decision. J*ust that mayb*e *there wasn't a right decision*.



spot on -


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Oh god, what if they turn into a _rejoin _party. They been half lib-demmed already.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

If we accept - which  i don't  - that there wasn't a right decision to take, only different wrong ones, why did they take _this _wrong one?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is no point rehearsing again our respective view on this. But let me ask you this. In your view what should Labour’s position on Brexit be going forwards. I’m asking here on the basis that it’s irrelevant in parliamentary terms but relevant in terms of the rebuilding job. I accept that this is contingent on who the next leader is. But given the trade negotiations a coherent policy, and way of explaining it, remains important


Important point.
Sounds like that's worthy of its own thread?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> If we accept - which  i don't  - that there wasn't a right decision to take, only different wrong ones, why did they take _this _wrong one?



understandable / desperate attempt to keep together what was (is ? ) essentially, a coalition


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> understandable / desperate attempt to keep together what was (is ? ) after all, a coalition


That's just saying there was no right choice again. Now you know the outcome of that choice are you still so sure? What's the point of this coalition if this is what it brings? Clearly people were aware of this before and chose to placate one side of it. Why?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> understandable / desperate attempt to keep together what was (is ? ) essentially, a coalition



not sure I understand how the 2nd ref position was an attempted coalition building approach? Detaching the scum working class (as Paul Mason openly characterises them) living in smashed places and opting for the shifting remain alliance doesn’t appear coalition building?


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

My thing is that they just went overboard with the offer, thinsg like nationalisation while quite popular, last took a war and a depression to embed in, John Mc, who i adore, seemed to lose it a bit.

This Labour meltdown has been building for decades | Aditya Chakrabortty

Here is Aditya's take, its quite robust.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

> clear the decks, here’s my confession. I never foresaw the scale of this wipeout – and what it spells for our already failing economy, fractured society and battered democracy frankly scares me. Yet the reporting I’ve done – both in this election and before – made malmost sure Labour was going to lose, and in precisely those areas that are all over the front pages. What were called its heartlands, at least until Thursday night. The Bolsovers, the Bishop Aucklands. The un-metropolitan, unfashionable, never-kissed-a-Tory land that would, as the old saw goes, elect a donkey if it wore a red rosette.
> 
> And I can say with certainty that this week’s meltdown is the culmination of trends that stretch back decades. They were Corbyn’s poisoned inheritance, not his creation – but any leader who wants to win back those seats will have to deal with them better than he managed.



We need a Labour, what next? thread, lots of members read this here.


----------



## tommers (Dec 14, 2019)

Removed. 

Already done.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> We need Labour, what next? thread, lots of members read this here.


PLP gotta make their minds up quick, for a start.
If the WAB comes up next week, their voting reaction will be used by the right to characterise the framing of the next GE.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 14, 2019)

killer b said:


> I knew it was a big risk, but thought it might be possible the - substantial - non-Brexit offer Labour had might break through. It's possible that if the electorate had trusted corbyn to be able to deliver them it might have done. Of course, one of the reasons he wasnt trusted to deliver is because of his vacilations on brexit...
> 
> I'm not saying they made the right decision. Just that maybe there wasn't a right decision.


I admire your honesty here killer and the fact that you've chosen to talk through your view of the process of decision making that led  to the decision in effect  that potential TIG repercussions were more important than the northern and midlands working class leavers .You're correct in that it wasn't the right decision however if the cards could be played again are you sure they couldnt have been played differently for a better outcome?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> PLP gotta make their minds up quick, for a start.
> If the WAB comes up next week, their voting reaction will be used by the right to characterise the framing of the next GE.



They also need to think how they communicate it. Clearly Corbyn needs to be kept away from it given his impending departure. 

Surely, if nothing else and given PV is now routed, the line has to indicate the party has got the message?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That's just saying there was no right choice again. Now you know the outcome of that choice are you still so sure? What's the point of this coalition if this is what it brings? Clearly people were aware of this before and chose to placate one side of it. Why?



out CLP has been 60-70 % pro Leave throughout ( 2-3 relevant votes ) , but in in no way using that to interact with our Leave constituency on any wider / official basis  ( though we do on the doorsteps - " we're leave , some of us Remain, but Corbo's always been leave, so ... " etc ) 

going fwd, it's gloves off, for sure


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> They also need to think how they communicate it. Clearly Corbyn needs to be kept away from it given his impending departure.
> 
> Surely, if nothing else and given PV is now routed, the line has to indicate the party has got the message?


I really am gobsmacked that Corbyn didn't just stand down on Friday am.
His lingering presence merely complicates everything.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> not sure I understand how the 2nd ref position was an attempted coalition building approach? Detaching the scum working class (as Paul Mason openly characterises them) living in smashed places and opting for the shifting remain alliance doesn’t appear coalition building?



agreed, total f*ck up accepting 2nd ref really ...but the Parliamentary dead lock alone seemed to push inexorably towards that, and unfortunately, we are still playing the Parli game here


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

> In the 2017 election I wrote that a party that grew out of social institutions needed to turn itself into a social institution in precisely those areas it historically took for granted. That remains the key task: providing advice to those whose benefits are being slashed, legal support to tenants under the cosh from their landlords, haggling with the utilities to provide cheaper and better deals. Add to that: teaching political and economic literacy to voters, not just activists, and consulting constituents on what issues Labour should be battling on



this is what Wilf, BA, myself and lots of others have been saying


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I really am gobsmacked that Corbyn didn't just stand down on Friday am.
> His lingering presence merely complicates everything.


Who would stand up as interim leader being as there is AFAIK no deputy atm?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I really am gobsmacked that Corbyn didn't just stand down on Friday am.
> His lingering presence merely complicates everything.



He probably should have handed over to McDonnell and let him manage the leader/deputy elections. But given he hasn’t he can’t surely be who the LP put forward to lead the debate on the Bill which I understand Johnson will bring forward need week


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> If we accept - which  i don't  - that there wasn't a right decision to take


So - in simple terms - what would have been the right one to take? All I can see was a multitude of bad options. They were snookered from the start, no?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Who would stand up as interim leader being as there is AFAIK no deputy atm?



McDonnell


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> out CLP has been 60-70 % pro Leave throughout ( 2-3 relevant votes ) , but in in no way using that to interact with our Leave constituency on any wider / official basis  ( though we do on the doorsteps - " we're leave , some of us Remain, but Corbo's always been leave, so ... " etc )
> 
> going fwd, it's gloves off, for sure



Gloves off, attacking the Tories, good, but what about the councils, jailing people for non council tax payments, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> this is what Wilf, BA, myself and lots of others have been saying


Have you ever noticed how Labour councils often act more harshly against eg Council tax defaulters than tory ones? I don't think Labour could have operated as you suggest, their local activities often run counter to the national message they try to promote


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> agreed, total f*ck up accepting 2nd ref really ...but the Parliamentary dead lock alone seemed to push inexorably towards that, and unfortunately, we are still playing the Parli game here



The obsession with the Parliamentary process and the euro elections were the key factors agreed.

But I still don’t accept their explanation that it was a ‘compromise’ or coalition attempt. It plainly wasn’t


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He probably should have handed over to McDonnell and let him manage the leader/deputy elections. But given he hasn’t he can’t surely be who the LP put forward to lead the debate on the Bill which I understand Johnson will bring forward need week


I'm just trying to imagine the complete shitshow they're just going to make of this.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

exactly, our leader Julie Dore, is horrendous


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> McDonnell


I suspect he'd pass


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I suspect he'd pass



Maybe. But given he will also be going he’d be a broker for their attempt to maintain corbynism without Corbyn


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

bloke who did 120 hours on the door step and his thoughts.
seems a bit the world transformed approach, wwc racist, etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I'm just trying to imagine the complete shitshow they're just going to make of this.



I’m sure Keir Starmer is turning his massive strategic brain, and embedded working class instincts, towards this as we type


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m sure Keir Starmer is turning his massive strategic brain, and embedded working class instincts, towards this as we type


They're almost certainly so embedded within the WhatsAp bloodbath and internecine leader politicking that they've not even clocked that they'll be faced with their most important voting decision of this coming Parliament on Friday.


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 14, 2019)

If they were to come out pro brexit wouldn't that have meant backing a tory style brexit? Would they have had much sway over how brexit was achieved and the aftermath? Or was there a point where they could have had influence and a point where that was no longer possible?

If they'd come out hard remain I would think they would have lost these same seats. Maybe more.  It would be an out and out betrayal of the referendum. 
If  they'd come out hard brexit the remainers would perhaps vote more for libdems? We'll never know as you say. The libdems increased their vote by 13% in my safe labour ward.

From where I stand as someone who would accept brexit if I was getting a more socialist government a labour negotiated brexit deal and an informed referendum seemed like the least worst path out of the brexit clusterfuck.

Also re top down, I dont pay too much attention but I thought the membership got a fair amount of say on policy at conference.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

This isn't really adding anything, it's coulda woulda shoulda and I'm just moaning - but if the left (not just labour but including labour) had maintained its increasing criticism of the EU building from mid 00s and maintained that position, campaigned on that position, from '15 regardless of the right fighting its own battle on superficially the same issue but with different causes and motivations and consequences, then the shape of leave, the shape of brexit, and labour's fortunes could have been very different. This fuck up goes back years


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> This isn't really adding anything, it's coulda woulda shoulda and I'm just moaning - but if the left (not just labour but including labour) had maintained its increasing criticism of the EU building from mid 00s and maintained that position, campaigned on that position, from '15 regardless of the right fighting its own battle on superficially the same issue but with different causes and motivations and consequences, then the shape of leave, the shape of brexit, and labour's fortunes could have been very different. This fuck up goes back years


It does indeed.
But now...next week?
Vote against the WAB?
Abstain?

WTF


----------



## flypanam (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> This isn't really adding anything, it's coulda woulda shoulda and I'm just moaning - but if the left (not just labour but including labour) had maintained its increasing criticism of the EU building from mid 00s and maintained that position, campaigned on that position, from '15 regardless of the right fighting its own battle on superficially the same issue but with different causes and motivations and consequences, then the shape of leave, the shape of brexit, and labour's fortunes could have been very different. This fuck up goes back years


Yup and not as if the evidence of the nature of the eu wasn't laid bare after the referendums in Ireland (Nice, Lisbon) and the bailouts after 2008.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> They're almost certainly so embedded within the WhatsAp bloodbath and internecine leader politicking that they've not even clocked that they'll be faced with their most important voting decision of this coming Parliament on Friday.



That would not surprise me in the slightest tbh


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

And as always I'm blaming dickhead liberals. Dunno what can be done about that re: labour, it's infested with them, momentum is infested with them


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

There's layers in wrong in this...but its hard not to concede the inherent central tenet of this arsehole's sentiment...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So - in simple terms - what would have been the right one to take? All I can see was a multitude of bad options. They were snookered from the start, no?


What's the point of saying support leave to someone who thinks leave voters should be disenfranchised somehow?


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> So what did Labour actually do, in local government and as representatives of these formerly Labour constituencies, to reconnect with these communities between 2005 and 2019?


No Idea. When you see news reports from BBC Look North going round the constituencies where Labour lost talking to people who have voted Labour all their lives then time and time again the 2 main reasons for switching to the Tories are:-
1 Brexit
2 Dislike for Corbyn. So how anyone can say this isn't Corbyn's fault I don't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> No Idea. When you see news reports from BBC Look North going round the constituencies where Labour lost talking to people who have voted Labour all their lives then time and time again the 2 main reasons for switching to the Tories are:-
> 1 Brexit
> 2 Dislike for Corbyn. So how anyone can say this isn't Corbyn's fault I don't know.


And we're supposed to accept in this instance the bbc isn't following the bias it displayed throughout the election campaign because...


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And we're supposed to accept in this instance the bbc isn't following the bias it displayed throughout the election campaign because...


In fairness those were overwhelmingly the reasons given by people phoning LBC all day yesterday too and pretty much every other news outlet. It's pointless denying that JC was a major factor in the loss.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I really am gobsmacked that Corbyn didn't just stand down on Friday am.
> His lingering presence merely complicates everything.



If Labour had a Deputy Leader atm I'm sure he would have, but they don't. Someone would have to be elected by the NEC.

eta. In my limited experience canvassing dislike of Corbyn and Brexit couldn't be separated. When you asked people why they didn't like Corbyn you very rarely got any mention of Marxism or AS or whatever, although I'm sure that played a part - nearly always it was that you couldn't trust him because of the shift on Brexit. That matches with the idea that people didn't like him but voted for the policies in 2017, but Labour lost them in 2019.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And we're supposed to accept in this instance the bbc isn't following the bias it displayed throughout the election campaign because...



sorry Pickman's model - but if you speak to anyone who was canvassing for Labour anywhere in the Midlands and the North (and i use those because a) those are the areas where i know lots of people who have been canvassing for Labour, and b) those are the areas that were lost), Corbyn was problem on a huge proportion of doorsteps. no amount of blaming the media, or brexit, can get away from that - in some streets in those areas he was equal to brexit as a problem, in others he far outstripped it. he was electoral poison, and wishing it away won't help.


----------



## andysays (Dec 14, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Go back to your allotments and prepare for winter hoeing



You don't hoe in the winter, you buffoon, hoeing is to remove weeds which wouldn't be growing until the spring.

Winter is traditionally when you do winter digging, though I hope Corbyn has modernised his practises and is now operating a no-dig allotment, in which case he'll be spreading compost rather than digging.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> If Labour had a Deputy Leader atm I'm sure he would have, but they don't. Someone would have to be elected by the NEC.


Should have appointed an interim Deputy on Nov 6th when Watson flounced...for exactly this (all too foreseeable) scenario, tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In fairness those were overwhelmingly the reasons given by people phoning LBC all day yesterday too and pretty much every other news outlet. It's pointless denying that JC was a major factor in the loss.


I'm not denying that. But after all the shite that's been written about him, if you'd been Labour leader and had the same written about you, even you would have become something of a liability.  But imo blaming him is blaming the symptom for the cause, and no one's going to say well it all started with Foot and Kinnock in the 80s then there was a bit of rolling back under John Smith but Blair, brown, Miliband they were all london based and only came up the North for our votes, they never invested in us like they did the londoners. You're always only going to get a superficial soundbite via media snippets and never a fully considered argument which would be cut off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> sorry Pickman's model - but if you speak to anyone who was canvassing for Labour anywhere in the Midlands and the North (and i use those because a) those are the areas where i know lots of people who have been canvassing for Labour, and b) those are the areas that were lost), Corbyn was problem on a huge proportion of doorsteps. no amount of blaming the media, or brexit, can get away from that - in some streets in those areas he was equal to brexit as a problem, in others he far outstripped it. he was electoral poison, and wishing it away won't help.


I'm not wishing it away. I'm saying something a bit different. By the time you get round to canvassing and you're finding this out it's indicative to me of taking these people for granted and not really engaging with them in between elections.


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's pointless denying that JC was a major factor in the loss.



Yep.

On the one hand dithering on signpost issues, and on the other too extreme for some people’s tastes.

Where does Labour go now? Back to centrism? A more moderated version of what Corbyn set out?


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Should have appointed an interim Deputy on Nov 6th when Watson flounced...for exactly this (all too foreseeable) scenario, tbh.



Chukka flounced. Watson gave up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

paolo said:


> Yep.
> 
> On the one hand dithering on signpost issues, and on the other too extreme for some people’s tastes.
> 
> Where does Labour go now? Back to centrism? A more moderated version of what Corbyn set out?


Er perhaps they'd be better actually engaging with people


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not wishing it away. I'm saying something a bit different. By the time you get round to canvassing and you're finding this out it's indicative to me of taking these people for granted and not really engaging with them in between elections.



he was poison the day he was elected. the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that in 2017 Labour was a 'respect the referendum' party, and voters thought that if they voted Labour, Corbyn would wander off to his allotment fairly quickly. by 2019, when the electorate still didn't like him, Labour had become a 'we know you had a referendum, but you're too thick to make big decisions' party, and it had become clear that if you voted Labour, you'd get Corbyn for the full term.

add that together and you get the number of lost seats.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> he was poison the day he was elected. the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that in 2017 Labour was a 'respect the referendum' party, and voters thought that if they voted Labour, Corbyn would wander off to his allotment fairly quickly. by 2019, when the electorate still didn't like him, Labour had become a 'we know you had a referendum, but you're too thick to make big decisions' party, and it had become clear that if you voted Labour, you'd get Corbyn for the full term.
> 
> add that together and you get the number of lost seats.


I didn't closely follow the debate at the conference which installed the policy towards a renegotiation and referendum so perhaps as (as I understand) you're a Labour party member you could illuminate how it came to be and who was pushing for it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 14, 2019)

I thought that this long after the result, people would have started to accept reality, that being Corbyn was a major problem.

I don't blame him over the Brexit, he was fucked, as a leaver in charge of a remain party, he was between a rock & a hard place.

I don't think he's anti-semitic, but he failed to get to grip with the anti-semitism in the party soon enough, too little, too late.

No point blaming the media coverage, he was hammered by that in 2017, yet did well.

Trouble is, people have witnessed his total lack of leadership over the last two & half years, and that combined with the confused message over Brexit is what caused this problem.

Of course, the fact that he came across as a retiring sweet-shop owner, giving his last stock away for free to any passing kids didn't help.

Free broadband everyone? It'll only cost £230m a year! Oops, we left a zero off that figure, so suddenly it became over £2bn in their little grey book of costings.

After that was published, oh fuck, Johnson was asked about the Waspi women on the telly, next morning suddenly another £58bn became available to look after them, not in their costed figures.

Johnson is a cunt, but he didn't win this election, Corbyn & Labour lost it, they are to blame.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

Corbyn was a problem as spy and kebab say, obviously can't deny that, polling shows people disincentivised to vote labour due to (in this order) corbyn, brexit position, and policy a distant third (policy being broadly popular). 

Hard to distinguish between factors behind that, and some of that is that corbyn a london MP, perceived rightly or wrongly as somebody not of a more traditional w/c labour background, a professional campaigner, bit studenty & shouty - but pickman's model right, also can't be disentangled from public treatment of corbyn, it's blind to ignore the gross unfairness of that against other politicians. The dissipation of that during '17 campaign, that often when prompted those citing corbyn then cited brexit, and the very obvious one that labour got battered in leave leaning seats but held some notable marginal remain leaning seats clearly indicates that the key issue here was brexit position and perception that ignoring the result. The only key change from '17 to '19 was the second referendum.

My view is that doubts over leadership could be overcome, brexit position couldn't.

Also the popular policy was because of corbyn, and that's key - so there is a conflict between stating corbyn toxic while policy popular. Everything points to brexit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2019)

Can we start calling the Labour leadership election yet? I'm saying Angela Rayner.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 14, 2019)

Speaking to a colleague yesterday; we was utterly convinced that Corbyn/labour are very antisemitic Which is why he did not vote for them.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can we start calling the Labour leadership election yet? I'm saying Angela Rayner.


Theres a long thread, started by DOn Trooomp who you probably have on ignore so cant see
Who will be the next Labour leader?


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

The problem with the problem being Corbyn was at what point could he have stepped down to allow a baggage free left successor step up?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Theres a long thread, started by DOn Trooomp who you probably have on ignore so cant see
> Who will be the next Labour leader?



Ah great so now I'm gonna have to unignore him just to get at the thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah great so now I'm gonna have to unignore him just to get at the thread?


Don't bother


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message. 

I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah great so now I'm gonna have to unignore him just to get at the thread?


Bookmark the 2nd post maybe?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 14, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Theres a long thread, started by DOn Trooomp who you probably have on ignore so cant see
> Who will be the next Labour leader?


Is that melt Don Troooomp banned from the thread yet?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Corbyn was a problem as spy and kebab say, obviously can't deny that, polling shows people disincentivised to vote labour due to (in this order) corbyn, brexit position, and policy a distant third (policy being broadly popular).
> 
> Hard to distinguish between factors behind that, and some of that is that corbyn a london MP, perceived rightly or wrongly as somebody not of a more traditional w/c labour background, a professional campaigner, bit studenty & shouty - but pickman's model right, also can't be disentangled from public treatment of corbyn, it's blind to ignore the gross unfairness of that against other politicians. The dissipation of that during '17 campaign, that often when prompted those citing corbyn then cited brexit, and the very obvious one that labour got battered in leave leaning seats but held some notable marginal remain leaning seats clearly indicates that the key issue here was brexit position and perception that ignoring the result. The only key change from '17 to '19 was the second referendum.
> 
> My view is that doubts over leadership could be overcome, brexit position couldn't


Corbyn knew he was done for as 2019 rolled on, shot to bits as he was from all sides, and was supposedly ready to stand aside. Rumours abounded. The fuck up was they couldn't find a good moment to do it. I guess events got in the way and they kept deferring it - hard to go into a new leadership campaign with everything else going on around Brexit, and the worry that the project/direction might swing in a different direction. But they shouldve, and this is the price.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I thought that this long after the result, people would have started to accept reality, that being Corbyn was a major problem.
> 
> I don't blame him over the Brexit, he was fucked, as a leaver in charge of a remain party, he was between a rock & a hard place.
> 
> ...


Back in the day the Labour Party had a rapid rebuttal unit. They could really have done with it this time, they could and should have responded more decisively to anti-semitism stuff, but two other things is to have prepared more adequately for an election of choice, and to have limited themselves to a few headline policies so it wasn't there's an app for that all the fucking time


----------



## andysays (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 192895


I couple of people I work with went to help canvas in Thurrock, as well as locally around here. I don't know how typical they are, but they are both long time council manual workers and seasoned union activists rather than naive young students or whatever is being suggested.

TBF, it sounds like they struggled to make much progress against the overwhelming wish to just get Brexit done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> I couple of people I work with went to help canvas in Thurrock, as well as locally around here. I don't know how typical they are, but they are both long time council manual workers and seasoned union activists rather than naive young students or whatever is being suggested.
> 
> TBF, it sounds like they struggled to make much progress against the overwhelming wish to just get Brexit done.


The doing of Brexit will never be done, it will be with us forever


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> he was poison the day he was elected. the difference between 2017 and 2019 was that in 2017 Labour was a 'respect the referendum' party, and voters thought that if they voted Labour, Corbyn would wander off to his allotment fairly quickly. by 2019, when the electorate still didn't like him, Labour had become a 'we know you had a referendum, but you're too thick to make big decisions' party, and it had become clear that if you voted Labour, you'd get Corbyn for the full term.
> 
> add that together and you get the number of lost seats.



That’s the “it was all about Brexit” perspective.

Is it that simple?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Corbyn knew he was done for as 2019 rolled on, shot to bits as he was from all sides, and was supposedly ready to stand aside. Rumours abounded. The fuck up was they couldn't find a good moment to do it. I guess events got in the way and they kept deferring it - hard to go into a new leadership campaign with everything else going on around Brexit, and the worry that the project/direction might swing in a different direction. But they shouldve, and this is the price.



Or not promised a second referendum. Not either/or I suppose but saying bin corbyn as solution in isolation, as many are (not aimed at you), wouldn't have addressed that


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> I couple of people I work with went to help canvas in Thurrock, as well as locally around here. I don't know how typical they are, but they are both long time council manual workers and seasoned union activists rather than naive young students or whatever is being suggested.
> 
> TBF, it sounds like they struggled to make much progress against the overwhelming wish to just get Brexit done.


Lisa M just deals in charicatures and stereotypes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> The problem with the problem being Corbyn was at what point could he have stepped down to allow a baggage free left successor step up?



An arrogant egotist stepping down? The naked man kept believing his 'advisers' on the quality of his garments.


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message.
> 
> I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.



The Economist - take it as you will - did a write up saying the centre is dead.

maybe free article...

Jeremy Corbyn’s crushing defeat


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> An arrogant egotist stepping down? The naked man kept believing his 'advisers' on the quality of his garments.



Enjoy the next the days Sass as I don't imagine you're going to enjoy what's coming over the next few years....


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 14, 2019)

Next leader? Jess Phillips.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> Enjoy the next the days Sass as I don't imagine you're going to enjoy what's coming over the next few years....


I rather think he is.

He's a violent extreme right-wing sociopath not a cuddly old santa.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2019)

paolo said:


> That’s the “it was all about Brexit” perspective.
> 
> Is it that simple?



no, its not - but the feeling (fact?) that Labour simply wasn't listening to them over brexit (it had stopped being about brexit in 2016 and had become about democratic legitimacy), and Corbyn with all his _baggage_ was more than enough. 

respecting referenda and having a leader that a sizable proportion of your potential electorate don't think is a traitor is not the whole path to power, but they are pretty good starting points.


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> An arrogant egotist stepping down? The naked man kept believing his 'advisers' on the quality of his garments.



I had a lot of time for him, but it started to get ugly.

Mark Steel - Mark fucking Steel - got abuse for not being on message.


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I rather think he is.
> 
> He's a violent extreme right-wing sociopath not a cuddly old santa.



He lives in Scotland right?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

If you can call it living.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> He lives in Scotland right?


Santa lives in Korvatunturi  btw not scotland. I don't think your mail has been reaching him.


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> He lives in Scotland right?



Mark Steel or Sass?


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I rather think he is.
> 
> He's a violent extreme right-wing sociopath not a cuddly old santa.



Sadly, this is how I fear Santa would be in the world today.


----------



## paolo (Dec 14, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Sadly, this is how I fear Santa would be in the world today.



it’s not a good Christmas....still, we’re not the royal family.

Always chance to own up.

has anyone here been to Pizza Express in...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> Enjoy the next the days Sass as I don't imagine you're going to enjoy what's coming over the next few years....



From a personal point of view, I'm pretty much bulletproof. 

We're retired, so no jobs to lose, more than sufficient income (we are actually saving money), we live in a pleasant enough place with good air quality. All in all, fine. 

I would point out that between us we made just short of 100 years of tax and NI contributions. What we have, we worked for.

Changes no doubt will be coming, they have to. I'm not naive, but do hope that the promises of increased spending on housing and the NHS are honoured. Housing is the biggest crisis at the moment. If Johnson delivers, particularly in the North, Labour will be fucked again at the next election. If he doesn't, well, that will depend on who is elected as the next labour leader. I see that the deranged McDonnell has stood down, a pity he hadn't done so before scaring the shit out of so many voters.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> He lives in Scotland right?



Me? Yes I live in Scotland. We have our own problems up here as well as the national ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Me? Yes I live in Scotland. We have our own problems up here as well as the national ones.


Can i have a new sign for our hospital please. Really small and black and white, NOT COLOUR. I have been a good boy.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 14, 2019)

paolo said:


> That’s the “it was all about Brexit” perspective.
> 
> Is it that simple?



No, it wasn't. A daft manifesto, antisemitism, people's dislike of Corbyn, the idiocy of Abbot... etc. Many factors.

They should have taken a lesson from the humiliation of Foot, they didn't. Britain isn't a country of extremes (there are the professional malcontents, which like all empty vessels, create a noise level above their size), the current Labour elite despise Blair, yet Blair won elections. Blair won by moving into the centre ground, Corbyn and his allies had too much hubris to do so. The loss of the seats in the heartlands shocked even me... it really shows what a fucking shower Corbyn and allies are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, it wasn't. A daft manifesto, antisemitism, people's dislike of Corbyn, the idiocy of Abbot... etc. Many factors.
> 
> They should have taken a lesson from the humiliation of Foot, they didn't. Britain isn't a country of extremes (there are the professional malcontents, which like all empty vessels, create a noise level above their size), the current Labour elite despise Blair, yet Blair won elections. Blair won by moving into the centre ground, Corbyn and his allies to much hubris to do so. The loss of the seats in the heartlands shocked even me... it really shows what a fucking shower Corbyn and allies are.


Blair is an extremist

Do you honestly not recall how he precipitated massacres in Kosovo? How he was happy to starve children in Iraq?


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not wishing it away. I'm saying something a bit different. By the time you get round to canvassing and you're finding this out it's indicative to me of taking these people for granted and not really engaging with them in between elections.


And whose fault is that?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would point out that between us we made just short of 100 years of tax and NI contributions.



Imagine having a mind that sees this as a notable quality. Put it on the headstone. Son, father, grandfather, taxpayer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> And whose fault is that?


If you remember what I posted up thread you already know the answer to that


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Blair is an extremist
> 
> Do you honestly not recall how he precipitated massacres in Kosovo? How he was happy to starve children in Iraq?


He has the blood of a million dead across iraq and syria. He won elections to do that. The nice chap.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Imagine having a mind that sees this as a notable quality. Put it on the headstone. Son, father, grandfather, taxpayer.


Son, father, grandfather, taxpayer. Cunt.


----------



## xenon (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message.
> 
> I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.



Yep very much so. The airwaves are repleat with people calling Corbyn a Marxist still, lefty sect captured the real Labour party, extreme leftwing manifesto. I take the points raised in reply to my question about this on the other thread, that the party has been largely purged of Blairites, that aspect is dead etc. The zombies are on the march though.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message.
> 
> I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.



Definitely. I've never thought he was a great leader but I think given the situation in the Labour party it was him or nothing as far as an even vaguely left wing Labour party went. And there's no way an 'electable' centrist would have come within a million miles of winning a general election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> Yep very much so. The airwaves are repleat with people calling Corbyn a Marxist still, lefty sect captured the real Labour party, extreme leftwing manifesto. I take the points raised in reply to my question about this on the other thread, that the party has been largely purged of Blairites, that aspect is dead etc. The zombies are on the march though.


do you think purging the party of blairites shuts them up?


----------



## xenon (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think purging the party of blairites shuts them up?



Evidently not. But is the LP going to pay them heed. I guess we'll see in the next couple of years.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Imagine having a mind that sees this as a notable quality. Put it on the headstone. Son, father, grandfather, taxpayer.


I wonder if this epitaph would be in chronological order.


butchersapron said:


> Son, father, grandfather, taxpayer. Cunt.


I suspect this epitaph would not.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

These are two blogs worth reading from the chair of Isle of Wight CLP

Why we lost

Why we didn't win


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> These are two blogs worth reading from the chair of Isle of Wight CLP
> 
> Why we lost
> 
> Why we didn't win


Two good thoughtful pieces. Ta.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> If you remember what I posted up thread you already know the answer to that


You claim it isn't corbyn's fault so who was it that was manipulating him like a Muppet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> You claim it isn't corbyn's fault so who was it that was manipulating him like a Muppet?


Go back and read because there's no point your posting shit like this which shows you haven't read what I've said


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 14, 2019)

Jack Straw hits out at momentum calling them a cult.



> Jack Straw told LBC he was concerned how members of the Labour Party were defending the unpopular leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
> 
> The Labour veteran criticised campaign group Momentum and the Unite union boss Len McCluskey for their support of Mr Corbyn.



Former Home Secretary Jack Straw hits out at "cult" takeover of Labour - LBC


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Jack Straw hits out at momentum calling them a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> Former Home Secretary Jack Straw hits out at "cult" takeover of Labour - LBC


He's on the ball as ever


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Go back and read because there's no point your posting shit like this which shows you haven't read what I've said


Which post? There's so much arse kissing on here it's difficult to know which one you're referring to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Which post? There's so much arse kissing on here it's difficult to know which one you're referring to.


it'd be a start if you read posts you reply to so you don't look like a stupid muppet


----------



## Sue (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> *From a personal point of view, I'm pretty much bulletproof. *
> 
> We're retired, so no jobs to lose, more than sufficient income (we are actually saving money), we live in a pleasant enough place with good air quality. All in all, fine.
> 
> ...


And those who aren't as 'bulletproof' as you are? Fuck 'em?


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> From a personal point of view, I'm pretty much bulletproof.
> 
> We're retired, so no jobs to lose, more than sufficient income (we are actually saving money), we live in a pleasant enough place with good air quality. All in all, fine.
> 
> ...



pray your health keeps up... or get private health insurance with your remaining money

even if you can feel secure in the fact that it won't effect you both

you be sharing squaid wards with the unfortunate who will lose everything

at least you can find comfort in the biggest win for you beloved tory party


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message.
> 
> I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.[/QUOTE
> 
> in one of the debates, the tory accused him of supporting terrorism, he didn't counter it, the personal stragey of not making it personal was, imo, a failure, Johnson and Co were/are, deeply flawed, but ruthless, he should have taken the gloves off. Sorry to hear John is leaving the shadow cabinet.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And we're supposed to accept in this instance the bbc isn't following the bias it displayed throughout the election campaign because...



Vox Pops...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 14, 2019)

Sue said:


> Fuck 'em?



brief but accurate summary of tory policy...


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Corbyn knew he was done for as 2019 rolled on, shot to bits as he was from all sides, and was supposedly ready to stand aside. Rumours abounded. The fuck up was they couldn't find a good moment to do it. I guess events got in the way and they kept deferring it - hard to go into a new leadership campaign with everything else going on around Brexit, and the worry that the project/direction might swing in a different direction. But they shouldve, and this is the price.



indeed,


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> Yep very much so. The airwaves are repleat with people calling Corbyn a Marxist still, lefty sect captured the real Labour party, extreme leftwing manifesto. I take the points raised in reply to my question about this on the other thread, that the party has been largely purged of Blairites, that aspect is dead etc. The zombies are on the march though.



Tbf John Mc has called himself one.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Tbf John Mc has called himself one.


So has Michael Gove.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Sue said:


> And those who aren't as 'bulletproof' as you are? Fuck 'em?


It's one thing wearing the bulletproof vest, but quite another to be arming the fucker with the gun.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> These are two blogs worth reading from the chair of Isle of Wight CLP
> 
> Why we lost
> 
> Why we didn't win





Applause.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> It's one thing wearing the bulletproof vest, but quite another to be arming the fucker with the gun.


You weren't here during his violent frenzy of urging the Israeli army to kill people on the Gaza Flotilla.  If you were, you would know just how serious he is about arming the oppressor. Don't for a second believe any tears this sociopath cries for public consumption.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Jack Straw hits out at momentum calling them a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> Former Home Secretary Jack Straw hits out at "cult" takeover of Labour - LBC



Wasn't straw caught in a sting or something, disgraced, they are all coming back.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Wasn't straw caught in a sting or something, disgraced, they are all coming back.


Many many things, including letting Pinochet go. That said, a few comments to old contacts after a general election isn't 'coming back'. He and they are gone.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> From a personal point of view, I'm pretty much bulletproof.
> 
> We're retired, so no jobs to lose, more than sufficient income (we are actually saving money), we live in a pleasant enough place with good air quality. All in all, fine.
> 
> ...



Yeah those last nine years where all they did was deliberately excerbate the housing crisis so they and their mates could profit from it, that was just a blip. Investment starts now. We're all gonna have houses coming out our arses this time next year I bet.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 14, 2019)

It's so dumb and also unfortunately what a lot of people seem to think.

There is no "bulletproof" if you live in a society, particularly not if that's based on assuming the party you just voted for is going to suddenly reverse all its position on two main issue (NHS, housing) that it's spent the last ten years making worse. But regardless there is no "bulletproof" - you can never assume you are safe if the situation for everyone else goes to shit. And good thing too.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 14, 2019)

I'm sure we'll soon have announcements of huge investments in NHS and housing to make things better for people - perhaps even as many as 200,000 starter homes


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You weren't here during his violent frenzy of urging the Israeli army to kill people on the Gaza Flotilla.



Mashallah, Kev Ovendon was unharmed.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it'd be a start if you read posts you reply to so you don't look like a stupid muppet



These are the only posts I can find where we have interacted in the last few pages.



Pickman's model said:


> So what did Labour actually do, in local government and as representatives of these formerly Labour constituencies, to reconnect with these communities between 2005 and 2019?





Pickman's model said:


> Go back and read because there's no point your posting shit like this which shows you haven't read what I've said





Pickman's model said:


> I'm not wishing it away. I'm saying something a bit different. By the time you get round to canvassing and you're finding this out it's indicative to me of taking these people for granted and not really engaging with them in between elections.



So stupid Muppet where did you answer my question about who was to blame for labour losing?

You mention about labour failing to engage with the electorate. Again whose fault is that?

As a leader you're supposed to be in charge and lead not follow like a sheep. There is only one person to blame and that's Corbyn.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2019)




----------



## friedaweed (Dec 14, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> There is only one person to blame and that's Corbyn.



I'm sorry chuck but I must point you in this direction...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufactur...=books&sprefix=chomsky+,stripbooks,188&sr=1-1


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> These are the only posts I can find where we have interacted in the last few pages.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Pickman's model said:


> Oh don't talk such ignorant arrant tosh
> 
> Where were you when the bnp vote was being attributed to Labour taking their traditional supporters for granted? This turning their back on core voters trope has been going on more than 10 years, you can't blame it all on Corbyn


you can't if you want if you want to show you've actually thought about your analysis anyway. People talked about the lack of engagement with traditional Labour voters under Blair, brown, Miliband and Corbyn and it's neither fair nor reasonable to blame it all on Corbyn when in blair's constituency he, Blair, lost 1/3 of the Labour vote between 1997 and 2005: the issue long predates Corbyn, and by the time he was leader the effects were chronic on many constituencies. So yeh as I've said in post after post Corbyn bears a portion of the blame, but not all of it


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> I'm sorry chuck but I must point you in this direction...
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2F1KBKNPHC73F&keywords=chomsky+manufacturing+consent&qid=1576363004&s=books&sprefix=chomsky+,stripbooks,188&sr=1-1


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> There's no doubt he needed to be steelier, more decisive, less bloody nice. AS was a fuck up and dismissed for far too long and by the time it wasn't it was being cynically weaponised. Generally the campaign this time wasn't focused, there was way too much policy with no clear message.
> 
> I'm a little suspicious of the rush to make it all on Corbyn because it feels like many of the people keenest to demonise Corbyn are keenest to get back to the kind of "centre-left", "sensible", Rejoin EU, non-class politics that I think will consign Labour to ever greater oblivion. And I'm not assuming anyone here is doing that, but there's plenty of people generally doing precisely that.


There's no denying Corbyn was unpopular, I'd go as far as _very _unpopular, with the voters. We know that because they've said so, pretty much since he was elected. We also know all the reasons that exacerbated this, the media, the open civil war in the party, AS and all the rest. These should almost be incontestable fixed points in the discussion now. We also know that discontent with a party/leader/policy stance/'brand' bleed into each other. Corbyn was unpopular but it isn't Corbyn that took us to the horrors of the next 5/10 years. It's actually the horrors of the last 40 years.

I'm not exactly going out on a limb here suggesting the scale of the defeat was about brexit. A party that hummed and aahed for 3 or 4 years about their brexit policy and only managed to resolve that by deciding to not have a position at all in the end. Astonishing. But shite as that all was, it's about that longer separation between Labour and working class voters, cynically assuming they'd have nowhere to go in the Blair era through to making council cuts during austerity. It wasn't that Labour failed to take advantage of the growing contempt voters had for political systems, leading to brexit, they somehow moved themselves to the point where they became its target. And to put the tin hat on it, at the very point the parliamentary game over brexit became ludicrous on stilts (esp after the election of johnson), Starmer and the rest preferred to keep plotting with Bercow etc. Just at the very point people in the country were outraged with the stasis, labour put down a few more stasis amendments. I suspect the games of the last 2 months or so probably lost labour a further 20 seats. And here we are.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 15, 2019)

These links in Plumdaff 's post on the previous page of this thread .....



Plumdaff said:


> These are two blogs worth reading from the chair of Isle of Wight CLP
> 
> Why we lost
> 
> Why we didn't win



... are links to two excellent and thoughtful articles by someone on the IoW who *really* knows his shit, I think.
They've both got as good insights into Labour's massive failure as almost anything else I've read so far </election anorak  >


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> People talked about the lack of engagement with traditional Labour voters under Blair, brown, Miliband and Corbyn and it's neither fair nor reasonable to blame it all on Corbyn when in blair's constituency he, Blair, lost 1/3 of the Labour vote between 1997 and 2005



Blair still got nearly 59% the last time he stood in Sedgefield though. I mean, it was down from the peak, but still very fucking safe seat


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

Len McCluskey has summed things up fairly clearly.



> In an excoriating attack on the party’s Brexit stance – said to have been advocated primarily by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and pushed by the expected leadership contenders Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer – McCluskey said this had been the immediate cause of lifelong Labour voters’ alienation from the party.
> 
> He said Labour’s base had begun to drift in the Blair and Brown periods and this had speeded up with a “collapse into the arms of the People’s Vote campaign”. An “incontinent rush of policies” and the failure to apologise for antisemitism in the party were also to blame, he said.



Boris Johnson pledges to prioritise NHS after election victory


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> There's no denying Corbyn was unpopular, I'd go as far as _very _unpopular, with the voters. We know that because they've said so, pretty much since he was elected. We also know all the reasons that exacerbated this, the media, the open civil war in the party, AS and all the rest. These should almost be incontestable fixed points in the discussion now. We also know that discontent with a party/leader/policy stance/'brand' bleed into each other. Corbyn was unpopular but it isn't Corbyn that took us to the horrors of the next 5/10 years. It's actually the horrors of the last 40 years.
> 
> I'm not exactly going out on a limb here suggesting the scale of the defeat was about brexit. A party that hummed and aahed for 3 or 4 years about their brexit policy and only managed to resolve that by deciding to not have a position at all in the end. Astonishing. But shite as that all was, it's about that longer separation between Labour and working class voters, cynically assuming they'd have nowhere to go in the Blair era through to making council cuts during austerity. It wasn't that Labour failed to take advantage of the growing contempt voters had for political systems, leading to brexit, they somehow moved themselves to the point where they became its target. And to put the tin hat on it, at the very point the parliamentary game over brexit became ludicrous on stilts (esp after the election of johnson), Starmer and the rest preferred to keep plotting with Bercow etc. Just at the very point people in the country were outraged with the stasis, labour put down a few more stasis amendments. I suspect the games of the last 2 months or so probably lost labour a further 20 seats. And here we are.



Good post. However, Brexit the reason, yes, but it’s still not clear what Labour could have done, especially in those last two months. Its ratings had collapsed after the EU elections. The Lib Dems were at its heels. Facilitate Boris’s deal? Unthinkable. An impossible sell to its members and the majority of its voters. Brexit was so good for the right of the Tory Party you really wonder in what form they will present a similar choice next time? My deal with the US or dither and delay?

Over the last year Labour could only concentrate on the things that could change its fortunes within its gift. The voters have said what they were.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2019)

Men make their own history, but they do not
 make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> Men make their own history, but they do not
> make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.


I hope marx if writing today would say men and women or people


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I hope marx if writing today would say men and women or people


He, in fact, did in the original  German - he used Die Menschen.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't if you want if you want to show you've actually thought about your analysis anyway. People talked about the lack of engagement with traditional Labour voters under Blair, brown, Miliband and Corbyn and it's neither fair nor reasonable to blame it all on Corbyn when in blair's constituency he, Blair, lost 1/3 of the Labour vote between 1997 and 2005: the issue long predates Corbyn, and by the time he was leader the effects were chronic on many constituencies. So yeh as I've said in post after post Corbyn bears a portion of the blame, but not all of it


And who has failed to connect with the electorate? Whose job is it to do this? Just because the disconnect started years ago doesn't mean that Corbyn or his predecessors had to let it continue. You'd think they might have learned that lesson by now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> And who has failed to connect with the electorate? Whose job is it to do this? Just because the disconnect started years ago doesn't mean that Corbyn or his predecessors had to let it continue. You'd think they might have learned that lesson by now.


What switch do you think that they should or could have pulled to reverse that disconnect - and why didn't they?


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It's wicked to mock the afflicted


So it's the media's fault that in several interviews Corbyn couldn't bring himself to say sorry for the AS in the party?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> He, in fact, did in the original  German - he used Die Menschen.


_I'll take your brains to another.._.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> So it's the media's fault that in several interviews Corbyn couldn't bring himself to say sorry for the AS in the party?



What do you think would've happened next if he had?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> So it's the media's fault that in several interviews Corbyn couldn't bring himself to say sorry for the AS in the party?


Apart from saying sorry for the AS in the party in several interviews you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> And who has failed to connect with the electorate? Whose job is it to do this? Just because the disconnect started years ago doesn't mean that Corbyn or his predecessors had to let it continue. You'd think they might have learned that lesson by now.


It can be explained to you but it can't be understood for you


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What switch do you think that they should or could have pulled to reverse that disconnect - and why didn't they?


No idea but if as Pickman's said that it's been going on for years then they have had plenty of time to reconnect. Do labour not care ?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> No idea but if as Pickman's said that it's been going on for years then they have had plenty of time to reconnect. Do labour not care ?


Oh i see, you're one of those sort of posters. That's the end of that then.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> What do you think would've happened next if he had?


Just take one question at a time. He should have said sorry then said what he was doing about rather than the other way round as he was trying to do.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i see, you're one of those sort of posters. That's the end of that then.


What sort of poster is that then?
Generally if something is going wrong you at least try to sort it out. You don't just carry on in the blind hope it will sort itself out.

So much for 'for the many not the few' they don't even seem to be for their own voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> What sort of poster is that then?
> Generally if something is going wrong you at least try to sort it out. You don't just carry on in the blind hope it will sort itself out.
> 
> So much for 'for the many not the few' they don't even seem to be for their own voters.


What switch do you think that they should or could have pulled to reverse that disconnect - and why didn't they?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 15, 2019)

They should've done something... What should they have done?... I don't know but they should've done it... Err...


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What switch do you think that they should or could have pulled to reverse that disconnect - and why didn't they?



On the brexit issue, Corbyn may have argued against moving from a leave/respect the referendum position to a remain in all but name position in shadow cabinet, and raised an eyebrow when Starmer or Thornberry were making up policy on the hoof and dragging Labour to Remain, but he never argued against it in public - he never told conference that Labour were the party of the people, and the decisions, not the party of remain (and with perhaps an unspoken 'and if you don't like that, fuck off to the Lib Dems'), he never sacked Starmer or Thornberry, and if he was aware of how offensive the 'drag to remain' was to Labour Leave voters he either decided that that they'd stick with Labour because they had nowhere else to go - remind you of anyone? - or that he preferred to throw his hat in with the very vocal, and more otherwise Corbynite, remainy membership because they were always more enthusiastic about him and his programme than the Labour leave voters.

Corbyn had almost absolute moral/political authority within Labour after the 2017 GE but he very deliberately chose not to use it to force the party to accept the leave result because he preferred being popular with the membership to being popular with his electorate.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Good post. However, Brexit the reason, yes, but it’s still not clear what Labour could have done, especially in those last two months. Its ratings had collapsed after the EU elections. The Lib Dems were at its heels. Facilitate Boris’s deal? Unthinkable. An impossible sell to its members and the majority of its voters. Brexit was so good for the right of the Tory Party you really wonder in what form they will present a similar choice next time? My deal with the US or dither and delay?
> 
> Over the last year Labour could only concentrate on the things that could change its fortunes within its gift. The voters have said what they were.


I do agree there was no easy win or easy line on brexit. But equally there should have been only one conceivable line to take - leave. The people had voted for that... err, that's it. Everything thereafter should have been about creating a vision of a pro-worker brexit, along with all the other issues that will be lost in johnson's nightmare version. But broken record as I am, I think it goes beyond and way further back than labour's line(s) on brexit. It was that after the blair years and more the party lost it's communication channels to the working class. The party became less and less working class itself, right through to and including the momentum years, and didn't live and work where its voters do. In the end, whatever the brexit line, the real issue was that it lost trust, lost plausibility and lost the ability to take working class voters with it.  And if I'm right on that, it's not an easy fix.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

Yep, Corbyn showed no signs of any leadership since the 2015 GE.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yep, Corbyn showed no signs of any leadership since the 2015 GE.



I _think _is was one of the blogs posted here from the Isle of White CLP that described Corbyn acting much more like an Honourary Chairman of a worthy charity than as the Leader of a political party. Seems a fair description...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I _think _is was one of the blogs posted here from the Isle of White CLP that described Corbyn acting much more like an Honourary Chairman of a worthy charity than as the Leader of a political party. Seems a fair description...



He was a puppet on a string, operated by the likes of John Mcdonnell, who has at least admitted the defeat was down to him.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> He was a puppet on a string, operated by the likes of John Mcdonnell, who has at least admitted the defeat was down to him.



Nah, Corbyn isn't an intellectual colossus, but he wasn't being played by anyone - he simply preferred to be above it all and let the Byzantine power structures within Labour fight it out between them. To say he was being played lets him off the hook - he made choices, and avoided making choices. They are both his responsibility and his problem.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I _think _is was one of the blogs posted here from the Isle of White CLP that described Corbyn acting much more like an Honourary Chairman of a worthy charity than as the Leader of a political party. Seems a fair description...


I've often thought he would have been better suited to the role of party president/chair. I have no problem saying Corbyn was a poor leader in his dealing with the press, pmqs,, doing the dark arts of politics. Particularly unsuited to our populist times, even more so on brexit. It's just frustrating when commentators and the right of the party want to go with Corbyn's failure as a reason to ignore the twisting in the wind over brexit as well as the long term disengagement of the party from large areas of the country.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What switch do you think that they should or could have pulled to reverse that disconnect - and why didn't they?


Try doing what they claimed to be doing and 'listening' to their voters for a start.

As to why? - arrogance / stupidity?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Nah, Corbyn isn't an intellectual colossus, but he wasn't being played by anyone - he simply preferred to be above it all and let the Byzantine power structures within Labour fight it out between them. To say he was being played lets him off the hook - he made choices, and avoided making choices. They are both his responsibility and his problem.


I'm aware of the irony of me as an anarchist making points about 'leadership' but here goes ... you could imagine some future political psychology seminar where they compared one of Corbyn's statements on Labour's brexit position with that of Johnson:

'We'll be looking at that at the NEC meeting in 3 weeks... a second referendum remains a possibility, but for now... but let me repeat, as Kier Starmer said...'
Vs
'LET'S GET BREXIT DONE'.

No contest, particularly in these times. But if Corbyn was sat in that seminar I doubt that he'd get it, even now.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Just take one question at a time. He should have said sorry then said what he was doing about rather than the other way round as he was trying to do.



I wasn't asking what you think should've done.

I was asking what you think would've happened after he had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'm aware of the irony of me as an anarchist making points about 'leadership' but here goes ... you could imagine some future political psychology seminar where they compared one of Corbyn's statements on Labour's brexit position with that of Johnson:
> 
> 'We'll be looking at that at the NEC meeting in 3 weeks... a second referendum remains a possibility, but for now... but let me repeat, as Kier Starmer said...'
> Vs
> ...


It's always surprised me that Corbyn doesn't seem to have learned anything about how Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, brown or Miliband controlled the Labour Party. Surely most people have views on how their managers (in a broad sense) manage things, and how they'd do it better.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Nah, Corbyn isn't an intellectual colossus, but he wasn't being played by anyone - he simply preferred to be above it all and let the Byzantine power structures within Labour fight it out between them. To say he was being played lets him off the hook - he made choices, and avoided making choices. They are both his responsibility and his problem.


My impression - and it is only that - was he was more into internal party democracy and particularly letting conference decide
?


----------



## Libertad (Dec 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> _I'll take your brains to another.._.
> 
> Sharp as fuck there @brogdale


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> My impression - and it is only that - was he was more into internal party democracy and particularly letting conference decide
> ?



In which case you have party leadership through yougov or X factor - you could save a fortune on salaries and structures, just have a weekly online vote and the party then sends out a system generated press release saying what the membership is saying this week...

The democracy within the party still exists even when the leader tells them they are wrong - they can sack him and find someone who will do their bidding, or he can walk away saying he won't do X just because they want him to.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> My impression - and it is only that - was he was more into internal party democracy and particularly letting conference decide
> ?



He had strong principles about democracy within the party, but the strong Remain slant of much of the membership ran into direct conflict with his personal Euro-scepticism.  I think there were a bunch of internal conflicts of principle of this kind, but this was the one that did the most damage, by leading to paralysis at some points, some incoherent stances, and some even more incoherent public statements.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2019)

Id much rather have a leader that respected the members than the drawbridge up vanguardism of Blair. The Labour party needs more democracy, not less, and if that means learning some lessons along the way so be it.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Id much rather have a leader that respected the members than the drawbridge up vanguardism of Blair. The Labour party needs more democracy, not less, and if that means learning some lessons along the way so be it.



I guess the lesson would be that you need a more flexible leader.  Say what you like about the Tories, but I can't see how they could have found anyone with more moral flexibility than Johnson.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

I'll keep saying there was no easy line that Labour could take that squared all the circles. But still, if you'd wanted to come up with what would be the most damaging and most likely to lose swathes of voters, it would be exactly the line labour had from just about the point they started drifting away from their 2017 election stance. The evolving line was dreadful and expressed with more and more uncertainty - along with a straight refusal to answer straight questions. And then you factor in the bigger failure to create an outward looking lexit policy that could have been taken to the very areas of the country where labour has lost seats.

Everyone's a critic and none of the paths they could have taken were risk free. Taking labour remain voters with them with them would have been hard if they'd gone lexit - though again, this was the only conceivable path to take after the referendum had settled the issue in 2016. It was telling that Labour could barely get a poll lead amid May's own clusterfucky attempt to get her deal through. During that time you could almost feel the voters waiting for 'something else' to come along. It was there in the shape of the brexit party in the euro elections and then with johnson in the last couple of months. Again, you could feel it in the air, a vile politician, but one with something to say. Get Brexit done. Erm, yeah, actually. Brexit had always been the issue that symbolised a wide range of grieveances and feelings of being shat upon (and yeah, for some, immigration). But knowing this, Labour managed to somehow refuse to respond to that beyond having 6 tests, statements by Keir Starmer, along with a bit of huffing and puffing about prorogation. Oh dear.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'll keep saying there was no easy line that Labour could take that squared all the circles. But still, if you'd wanted to come up with what would be the most damaging and most likely to lose swathes of voters, it would be exactly the line labour had from just about the point they started drifting away from their 2017 election stance. The evolving line was dreadful and expressed with more and more uncertainty - along with a straight refusal to answer straight questions. And then you factor in the bigger failure to create an outward looking lexit policy that could have been taken to the very areas of the country where labour has lost seats.
> 
> Everyone's a critic and none of the paths they could have taken were risk free. Taking labour remain voters with them with them would have been hard if they'd gone lexit - though again, this was the only conceivable path to take after the referendum had settled the issue in 2016. It was telling that Labour could barely get a poll lead amid May's own clusterfucky attempt to get her deal through. During that time you could almost feel the voters waiting for 'something else' to come along. It was there in the shape of the brexit party in the euro elections and then with johnson in the last couple of months. Again, you could feel it in the air, a vile politician, but one with something to say. Get Brexit done. Erm, yeah, actually. Brexit had always been the issue that symbolised a wide range of grieveances and feelings of being shat upon (and yeah, for some, immigration). But knowing this, Labour managed to somehow refuse to respond to that beyond having 6 tests, statements by Keir Starmer, along with a bit of huffing and puffing about prorogation. Oh dear.



Liked for the first paragraph.  It was never clear that the 2016 referendum had 'settled the issue'.  Always hard to tell where things would have gone on the basis of different decisions.  Would have been interesting to see the media response to any suggestions of a non hard-right Brexit.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Liked for the first paragraph.  It was never clear that the 2016 referendum had 'settled the issue'.  Always hard to tell where things would have gone on the basis of different decisions.  Would have been interesting to see the media response to any suggestions of a non hard-right Brexit.


I thought the referendum was  a pointless distraction by cameron and I didn't actually vote leave (didn't vote, fwiw). I also thought Cameron should have spelled out what was to happen if there was a leave vote i.e. whether there should be a 2nd ref purely on the deal (not a rerun of in/out). But having said that, the fact of whether we were to leave _was _settled in 2016. When Parliament said the people will decided this - and they do - that's it with regards to remain vs leave. It really is that simple and politicians of all parties who sought to complicate that were treating the voters with contempt (except perhaps the SNP - if you are a separate country and you vote to remain, that's a different matter/mandate).


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

It’s good Boris is going to “get Brexit done” and that will be the end of it, then.

It really is that simple.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I also thought Cameron should have spelled out what was to happen if there was a leave vote



But, he was so far up his own arsehole, and busy managing 'project fear', he never expected leave winning, hence no plan for it.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> It’s good Boris is going to “get Brexit done” and that will be the end of it, then.
> 
> It really is that simple.


Well yeah, his version is going to be fucking awful. But even more damaging, him in power for 5/10 years will be catastrophic. All shit. But it doesn't get away from the fact that 2 years of half baked noncommital weasel words from Labour have got us to here. How can a party seek to thrive by offering nothing but ambiguity about something that had been voted upon by the people?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well yeah, his version is going to be fucking awful. But even more damaging, him in power for 5/10 years will be catastrophic. All shit. But it doesn't get away from the fact that 2 years of half baked noncommital weasel words from Labour have got us to here. How can a party seek to thrive by offering nothing but ambiguity about something that had been voted upon by the people?



Can’t argue with any of that.

I was on a knife edge in 2016 too, but I *did* think in the case of a vote to leave, there was either a clear exit plan or likely second vote on a deal.  I was also voting on the understanding at the time that we would leave with a deal which retained the customs union.

In the end I spoilt my vote.  Voting to remain would have consolidated Osborne and Cameron’s power massively.

It’s easy to lose track of how much has changed since that vote.

A mate of mine who voted Leave is extremely angry about how he was misled, and I know a few others who projected whatever grievances they had at the time into that vote and now feel totally disillusioned (though have not become remainers).

Also, support for Leave since the referendum has generally flopped about as much as support for the EU in surveys has flopped about for the last 30 years.

Calling a 2% leaning on a particular day as a decisive forever decision has worked very well for the Tories, though.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Sorry Wilf - added a big chunk onto that so feel free to withdraw your ‘like’ if it rankles.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I thought the referendum was  a pointless distraction by cameron and I didn't actually vote leave (didn't vote, fwiw). I also thought Cameron should have spelled out what was to happen if there was a leave vote i.e. whether there should be a 2nd ref purely on the deal (not a rerun of in/out). But having said that, the fact of whether we were to leave _was _settled in 2016. When Parliament said the people will decided this - and they do - that's it with regards to remain vs leave. It really is that simple and politicians of all parties who sought to complicate that were treating the voters with contempt (except perhaps the SNP - if you are a separate country and you vote to remain, that's a different matter/mandate).


2016 couldn't settle anything 'cause the Platonic ideal of a Brexit offered is impossible. Losers' consent was never going to be forthcoming to a victory won with lies buttressed by electoral lawbreaking.

A campaign that looked beyond scraping a majority at any costs would've kept it honest and proposed a viable Brexit. But that's not Cummings, and now Vote Leave 2.0, having learned nothing, have repeated the same trick, they're gonna whip up even more resentment.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Sorry Wilf - added a big chunk onto that so feel free to withdraw your ‘like’ if it rankles.


I'll leave it.   I agree that people projected stuff onto both sides of the 2016 vote - and that it's all a fucking mess. Equally, that being out of the EU helps johnson do whatever the fuck he wants. It's just that a referendum result is a different entity and has to be respected - in terms of political honesty and in terms of not pissing off those who voted in it. As labour have discovered.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> It's just that a referendum result is a different entity and has to be respected - in terms of political honesty and in terms of not pissing off those who voted in it. As labour have discovered.



I think you need political honesty as a starting condition for your vote, not just in terms of following through on it.  And following through on it also means not changing the deal after the
vote.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Azrael said:


> 2016 couldn't settle anything 'cause the Platonic ideal of a Brexit offered is impossible. Losers' consent was never going to be forthcoming to a victory won with lies buttressed by electoral lawbreaking.
> 
> A campaign that looked beyond scraping a majority at any costs would've kept it honest and proposed a viable Brexit. But that's not Cummings, and now Vote Leave 2.0, having learned nothing, have repeated the same trick, they're gonna whip up even more resentment.


I might agree with individual bits of that post, but ultimately thinking 2016 can be disentangled is a further example of losers claiming the right to pretend they didn't lose. And it isn't a popular line to take as we've just seen last week.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Can’t argue with any of that.
> 
> I was on a knife edge in 2016 too, but I *did* think in the case of a vote to leave, there was either a clear exit plan or likely second vote on a deal.  I was also voting on the understanding at the time that we would leave with a deal which retained the customs union.
> 
> ...


I firmly supported E.U. secession until I saw who would be running the leave campaign, then switched immediately to remain when I knew that it'd be used as a proxy for Bannonism. Nothing that's happened since has made me reconsider that decision. 

If secession's to have any hope in the long term, the current attempt needs to be reversed as rapidly as possible. Any Brexit associated with Johnson and his cronies will be tainted and despised by a majority of younger voters.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I might agree with individual bits of that post, but ultimately thinking 2016 can be disentangled is a further example of losers claiming the right to pretend they didn't lose. And it isn't a popular line to take as we've just seen last week.



I guess we need to get past the inevitable betrayal of everything that leave voters think Brexit will bring them, and maybe there will be an opening for some kind of sane conversation.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Azrael said:


> If secession's to have any hope in the long term, the current attempt needs to be reversed as rapidly as possible. Any Brexit associated with Johnson and his cronies will be tainted and despised by a majority of younger voters.



The secession you have in mind is already lost.  It’s going to be a much longer game now.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I might agree with individual bits of that post, but ultimately thinking 2016 can be disentangled is a further example of losers claiming the right to pretend they didn't lose. And it isn't a popular line to take as we've just seen last week.


Hardly: not only did pro-referendum parties take a bigger share of the popular vote than the original Leave mandate, polling of ex-Labour voters has dissatisfaction with Corbyn personally way above Brexit.

I doubt many would put it so bluntly, but thanks to the Facebook propaganda and avalanche of lies, many Remain voters don't believe they lost fairly, and they're right, they didn't.

Once remain supporters get over their shock, they'll be hungry for a rejoin party to swing behind, and once the 2016 mandate's been discharged, Leave's lost the one argument it had left. Cummings is gonna become the poster boy for winning the battle and losing the war.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> The secession you have in mind is already lost.  It’s going to be a much longer game now.


I favour the Norway option and have for years, but that's by-the-by: the task now's to stop Brexit as a concept being irrevocably tainted by association with nativist populism.

Already, in the space of a few years, I've watched a flinty supranational organisation designed to stop Germany and France from annihilating one another become loved by millions in Britain. God knows what affection it'll be held in after a few years of the country lashed to Johnson's clown car. The further it's allowed to go before the inevitable rejoining, the lower the odds of England ever getting out again.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Hardly: not only did pro-referendum parties take a bigger share of the popular vote than the original Leave mandate, polling of ex-Labour voters has dissatisfaction with Corbyn personally way above Brexit.
> 
> I doubt many would put it so bluntly, but thanks to the Facebook propaganda and avalanche of lies, many Remain voters don't believe they lost fairly, and they're right, they didn't.
> 
> Once remain supporters get over their shock, they'll be hungry for a rejoin party to swing behind, and once the 2016 mandate's been discharged, Leave's lost the one argument it had left. Cummings is gonna become the poster boy for winning the battle and losing the war.


I'm not sure about your first para really, Labour's lack of position meant you could hardly count their voters as simply remain.

But on the wider point, yeah, it's a world of lies, a world of bluster,, a world where every resource is deployed by the worst people. But - and this is where I feel odd, an anarchist seeming to defend the principles of representative democracy and plebiscites - there was a vote and a decision. There's no VAR, there's no 'aha, but they played dirty!'  There was a formal result. That's it.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure about your first para really, Labour's lack of position meant you could hardly count their voters as simply remain.
> 
> But on the wider point, yeah, it's a world of lies, a world of bluster,, a world where every resource is deployed by the worst people. But - and this is where I feel odd, an anarchist seeming to defend the principles of representative democracy and plebiscites - there was a vote and a decision. There's no VAR, there's no 'aha, but they played dirty!'  There was a formal result. That's it.


Lawless votes should be voided, since without rules, democracy descends to mobocracy. Kenya voided her election after Cambridge Analytica's antics were exposed. Swiss courts did likewise when they ruled that voters had been misinformed, and let no one accuse Switzerland of being undemocratic! The technicality of the 2016 vote being "advisory" may prevent that, but it doesn't prevent its political worth being challenged.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Azrael said:


> Lawless votes should be voided, since without rules, democracy descends to mobocracy. Kenya voided her election after Cambridge Analytica's antics were exposed. Swiss courts did likewise when they ruled that voters had been misinformed, and let no one accuse Switzerland of being undemocratic! The technicality of the 2016 vote being "advisory" may prevent that, but it doesn't prevent its political worth being challenged.



It’s this idea that you can have a whirlwind of lies but then you have to be honest on the result of such corruption that is odd.

That said, the public seem to have largely bought it.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> I wasn't asking what you think should've done.
> 
> I was asking what you think would've happened after he had.


It might have made him look like he actually cared about the AS rather than looking like he was brushing the issue under the carpet.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> It might have made him look like he actually cared about the AS rather than looking like he was brushing the issue under the carpet.


There was never going to be a right answer on that one (due to both the reality of AS, and the cynical exploitation of the issue by some).


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> It’s this idea that you can have a whirlwind of lies but then you have to be honest on the result of such corruption that is odd.
> 
> That said, the public seem to have largely bought it.


Might be odd but what do you suggest should follow from that? Who decides? Should there be a commission to do a stewards inquiry? 

Just about the only common sense justification I can think of for a second ref would have been consistent evidence in polls that people had changed their mind i.e. 2/3+ majorities for remain. Even that would be a bit dodgy, essentially parliament making a judgement call as to when buyers remorse had become permanent. but as it was there was no real shift in the polls back to remain. And the crucial thing is that, without such evidence of a shift in opinion, all you are left with are elites and/or losers deciding that foul play was enough to overturn the result.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> It might have made him look like he actually cared about the AS rather than looking like he was brushing the issue under the carpet.



By that stage everyone had made their mind up. My concern with AS is that I’d rather my family aren’t murdered. Being sorry about it is irrelevant. 

And an antisemite apologising for antisemitism would just have been weird.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Might be odd but what do you suggest should follow from that? Who decides? Should there be a commission to do a stewards inquiry?
> 
> Just about the only common sense justification I can think of for a second ref would have been consistent evidence in polls that people had changed their mind i.e. 2/3+ majorities for remain. Even that would be a bit dodgy, essentially parliament making a judgement call as to when buyers remorse had become permanent. but as it was there was no real shift in the polls back to remain. And the crucial thing is that, without such evidence of a shift in opinion, all you are left with are elites and/or losers deciding that foul play was enough to overturn the result.



And why not a 3rd referendum etc.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Might be odd but what do you suggest should follow from that?



From rigid adherence to a rapidly developing fantasy? We’ll see what follows.  Maybe you’re right that it was too late from the start.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And why not a 3rd referendum etc.



Some say we just had a second referendum.  The third is coming in five years time, if not sooner.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 15, 2019)

Brexit is done and dusted and it will be a long time before rejoining comes up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Brexit is done and dusted and it will be a long time before rejoining comes up.


If there's one thing brexit isn't, it's done and dusted. There are children born this very day who will attain their majority before brexit will be done and dusted.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

Given the direction of travel of the EU - towards a fuller federalised structure it’s inconceivable to see Britain rejoining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given the direction of travel of the EU - towards a fuller federalised structure it’s inconceivable to see Britain rejoining.


We'll see. What seems inconceivable now may seem the acme of good sense somewhere down the line.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> We'll see. What seems inconceivable now may seem the acme of good sense somewhere down the line.


After the war, maybe.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> After the war, maybe.



I do wonder sometimes whether the Buttskill consensus and what followed was a trauma response following a major war, and that we’re on a brief spell of inter-war rebound now.

Edit:  I suppose calling nearly 4 decades “brief” is stretching things a little.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> I do wonder sometimes whether the Buttskill consensus and what followed was a trauma response following a major war, and that we’re on a brief spell of inter-war rebound now.
> 
> Edit:  I suppose calling nearly 4 decades “brief” is stretching things a little.


Zhou Enlai: too soon to tell.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Zhou Enlai: too soon to tell.



I needed a chuckle.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Zhou Enlai: too soon to tell.


Apocryphal, but a good point anyway.


----------



## WouldBe (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> If there's one thing brexit isn't, it's done and dusted. There are children born this very day who will attain their majority before brexit will be done and dusted.


I very much doubt that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> I very much doubt that.


I'll see you in the Albert on 15 Dec 2037 for you to buy me a pint of synthahol bitter


----------



## Anju (Dec 15, 2019)

This article changed my view of Corbyn away from him being able to be a decent PM, despite an apparently large number of people taking a weird dislike for him. It was as if whatever annoyed them was reflected in their view of him. 

Here he actually states that he believes the manifesto and movement behind it will prove to be historically important. Can't see how he gets to that conclusion. Plenty of good ideas in there but nothing new or different. It's  just what the labour party should have in their manifesto. It makes him seem either arrogant, stupid or delusional. The whole article makes me think fuck, he was never going to win. 

We won the argument, but I regret we didn’t convert that into a majority for change | Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Anju said:


> This article changed my view of Corbyn away from him being able to be a decent PM, despite an apparently large number of people taking a weird dislike for him. It was as if whatever annoyed them was reflected in their view of him.
> 
> Here he actually states that he believes the manifesto and movement behind it will prove to be historically important. Can't see how he gets to that conclusion. Plenty of good ideas in there but nothing new or different. It's  just what the labour party should have in their manifesto. It makes him seem either arrogant, stupid or delusional. The whole article makes me think fuck, he was never going to win.
> 
> We won the argument, but I regret we didn’t convert that into a majority for change | Jeremy Corbyn



I think it's fair to call it historically important tbh, I don't think anybody on here pre 2015 would have thought labour in modern context capable of going to two general elections on the manifestos it has. Not sure whether that was a good thing or not on balance, because I don't see anything of any weight developing outside of labour for a long time now, but there we are


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 16, 2019)

I'd hate to see what losing the argument looks like.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

Not sure this tells us much, I mean if you're not happy about their brexit & possibly other policies, surely it would be easier just to go with the leadership answer, as the leadership is in charge of policy?


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2019)

I think people's choices are too complex to be easily summarised in a bar chart, but people's objections re: the leadership went way beyond Brexit - mostly wrapped up in national security and identity issues IME. But that's also always been there, he's been poison on the doorstep since day one with large sections of the electorate. BUT it has hardened since 2017: I think Salisbury was the point at which it was likely irreversible.


----------



## gosub (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not sure this tells us much, I mean if you're not happy about their brexit & possibly other policies, surely it would be easier just to go with the leadership answer, as the leadership is in charge of policy?




There was me thinking it was that the nation shared Jon Ashworth's 'rather odd sense of humour'


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 16, 2019)

I’m surprised by how many people were seriously thinking Labour could actually win what was billed as the General Brexit Election. using fptp to break a referendum deadlock.

I expected maybe a Tory majority of 20, but all the build up and hype by the Lib Dem’s and liberal media made me think it could be a hung parliament (you couldn’t go for a piss without seeing swinsons face). What surprised me when I saw that long blue line flash up on the screen for the exit poll, was where was the yellow line?

I thought once they had that posh nympho Hugh Grant on board they would turn up on the night. what a plonker I am.

still Corbyn. I was never a fan but I’ve got more respect for him now. He didnt give in to the remain shift in the party even though it fucked any point he tried to make about brexit afterwards.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> He didnt give in to the remain shift in the party...



Err, he did.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, he did.



he ended up putting a people’s vote option out before they had formed any clear vision of what a labour exit could look like, so he was compromised into being seen by many as pro remain. So I suppose he did in the end yes. My respect has diminished somewhat.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> I think people's choices are too complex to be easily summarised in a bar chart, but people's objections re: the leadership went way beyond Brexit - mostly wrapped up in national security and identity issues IME. But that's also always been there, he's been poison on the doorstep since day one with large sections of the electorate. BUT it has hardened since 2017: I think Salisbury was the point at which it was likely irreversible.


Yes, there comes a point when you have to accept people saying they don't like Corbyn means they really don't like him. And I think it should the case that you can accept his unpopularity without ignoring the probably bigger issues of Labour's uber-drift over brexit, which in turn got in the way of labour getting policy messages across. When you factor in the shadow cabinet resignations and the aaaaaargh rebellion, it's been an entirely disfunctional party for 3/4 years. And all these disatisfactions tend to bleed into one another, if you get a dirty hotel room you are more likely to mark the hotel's breakfasts down on twatadviser. 

Corbyn's almost an anti-Jess Phillips in terms of the way she comes across. I suspect she's rather calculating but does a good job of sounding sincere and normal. Corbyn on the other hand is _relatively _sincere and usually tries to answer questions (as someone was saying on here a day or two ago) without johnson like bluster. But ironically he comes across as quite dull and lacking passion.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 16, 2019)

Can’t quote small bits of massive posts because IPad. But.

Corbyn did give in to the remainers in the membership. A massive mistake, not concentrating on the electorate, for a party into winning votes. (Sunnysidedown)

Corbyn didn’t come across as lacking passion (Wilf) He came across as lacking charisma with his student shoutyness.

He was pretty shit at playing the game he was trying to win.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 16, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Can’t quote small bits of massive posts because IPad. But.
> 
> Corbyn did give in to the remainers in the membership. A massive mistake, not concentrating on the electorate, for a party into winning votes. (Sunnysidedown)
> 
> ...



I see McDonnell as the one who left him out to dry. I put that down to his having to compromise. But thinking about it, that compromising nature of his was his weakness all along. 

aye he was hopeless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Can’t quote small bits of massive posts because IPad. But.
> 
> Corbyn did give in to the remainers in the membership. A massive mistake, not concentrating on the electorate, for a party into winning votes. (Sunnysidedown)
> 
> ...


He gave it his all but this week we have to say goodbye to Jeremy


----------



## gosub (Dec 31, 2019)

Jeremy Corbyn ridiculed after claiming to be the 'resistance to Boris Johnson'

Sounds about right :more interested in being an irritant to others change than being the credible force of change


----------



## Supine (Dec 31, 2019)

gosub said:


> Jeremy Corbyn ridiculed after claiming to be the 'resistance to Boris Johnson'
> 
> Sounds about right :more interested in being an irritant to others change than being the credible force of change



He can't go soon enough. It's just embarrassing.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 31, 2019)

Supine said:


> He can't go soon enough. It's just embarrassing.


embarrassing? what are you embarrassed about?
Im embarrassed by our government. Im embarrassed by the rigged and biased nature of the election.
Labour have got 5 years of utter insignificance ahead of them - barely any point in them turning up to parliament. What is your rush to usher in someone new during christmas holidays? The process for next leader is happening and it will conclude by February. What difference does it make to anyone but cunts whether Corbyn is officially leader or not till then?


----------



## Supine (Dec 31, 2019)

Because his messaging is so poor. He should take a back seat while the selection process goes on. Better still he should have stood down and let the deputy act as caretaker. Oh yeah, they couldn’t even organise themselves to have a deputy. It’s just weak.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2019)

The rigged nature of the election?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2019)

Supine said:


> Because his messaging is so poor. He should take a back seat while the selection process goes on. Better still he should have stood down and let the deputy act as caretaker. Oh yeah, they couldn’t even organise themselves to have a deputy. It’s just weak.


Aren't you an actual libdem though


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 31, 2019)

The Lab MPs - current and recently departed- are publicly coming across as a bunch of backbiting bandwagon jumping carpetbaggers. How much good will it do to their treasured organisation as this it regurgitated for the next few months ? Fuck them all


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 31, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Can’t quote small bits of massive posts because IPad. But.
> 
> Corbyn did give in to the remainers in the membership. A massive mistake, not concentrating on the electorate, for a party into winning votes. (Sunnysidedown)
> 
> ...



Wasn’t he really a Brexiteer at heart also?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 31, 2019)

Supine said:


> Because his messaging is so poor. He should take a back seat while the selection process goes on. Better still he should have stood down and let the deputy act as caretaker. Oh yeah, they couldn’t even organise themselves to have a deputy. It’s just weak.



If only we had a good leader all could be right with the world.
How I yearn for a good leader to fall in step behind and take me to the promised land.
I never want to grow up with equals and take responsibility for our lives in this world.

Now Supine I know that I am abusing and misusing what you said to make a point, but I am sick to my back teeth with the contemporary focus on leadership at home and elsewhere.
It limits politics to almost nothing and diminishes us to about the same degree.

Happy New Year - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2019)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If only we had a good leader all could be right with the world.
> How I yearn for a good leader to fall in step behind and take me to the promised land.
> I never want to grow up with equals and take responsibility for our lives in this world.



that a poem from somewhere?


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2019)

but Corbyn's Brexit and de wankers Brexit and very different beasts.
  he wasn't well-liked outside of labour circles


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 31, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> that a poem from somewhere?



Reminds me  bit of this eugene debs quote

"I would not be a Moses to lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you into it, someone else could lead you out of it."


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2019)

So basically we are where we were 20 odd years ago. But everything is even worse.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 31, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> that a poem from somewhere?



Only out of my head and my exasperation; but thanks for what I'm taking as compliment, intended or not.

Happy New Year - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2019)

Just felt poetic. No sarcasm intended.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 31, 2019)

Supine said:


> He can't go soon enough. It's just embarrassing.



Can Owen Jones go with him?

The Tories plan an assault on progressive Britain. The left must be prepared | Owen Jones



Spoiler


----------



## krink (Dec 31, 2019)

can you?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2019)

Shite flight.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 31, 2019)

No need to bother with the troll cunt. Though I'm amazed Marty1 is still on Urban seeing as almost everyone on here correctly sees him for right wing arse wipe he is.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 1, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The rigged nature of the election?


yeah rigged is wrong...i got carried away...i mean the institutional biases that run strong through the system etc


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Can Owen Jones go with him?
> 
> The Tories plan an assault on progressive Britain. The left must be prepared | Owen Jones



Why? That's a perfectly reasonable article IMO


----------



## belboid (Jan 2, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Why? That's a perfectly reasonable article IMO


Ignore him, marty1 is a dumb far right troll


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

belboid said:


> Ignore him, marty1 is a dumb far right troll



I do know that about Martidiot1, but I guess in general I don't really understand why Owen Jones is so widely disliked. Including by lefts on here!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 2, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I do know that about Martidiot1, but I guess in general I don't really understand why Owen Jones is so widely disliked. Including by lefts on here!


Spends more time talking for and about working class people than to them. Never had a real job. Metro (small l) liberal


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Spends more time talking for and about working class people than to them. Never had a real job. Metro (small l) liberal



There are _*far*_ worse posey-lefties around than him IMO, but I'll leave the OJ thing alone for now. 

In any case, I never got round to reading the Urban Owen Jones thread -- maybe I should


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 9, 2020)

Back squarely in his comfort zone:

 

For which I can't really blame him tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Back squarely in his comfort zone:
> 
> 
> 
> For which I can't really blame him tbh.



i met bernie grant once, during the poll tax when he was one of the mps who vowed never to pay that iniquitous charge. details of my encounter are to be found in chapter 7 of my autobiography, 'brushes with greatness'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i met bernie grant once, during the poll tax when he was one of the mps who vowed never to pay that iniquitous charge. details of my encounter are to be found in chapter 7 of my autobiography, 'brushes with greatness'



I hope Bernie appreciated his brush with greatness.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I hope Bernie appreciated his brush with greatness.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I hope Bernie appreciated his brush with greatness.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Spookily...in Chap. 7 IMMSMR


----------



## not a trot (Mar 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i met bernie grant once, during the poll tax when he was one of the mps who vowed never to pay that iniquitous charge. details of my encounter are to be found in chapter 7 of my autobiography,* 'brushes with greatness*'



Are you a painter and decorator ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

not a trot said:


> Are you a painter and decorator ?


 

no, the brushes being my occasional brief meetings with people like mps norman tebbit, bernie grant, dennis skinner, or musicians like glen matlock, lee dorrian and charlie harper out of the uk subs


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> no, the brushes being my occasional brief meetings with people like mps norman tebbit, bernie grant, dennis skinner, or musicians like glen matlock, lee dorrian and charlie harper out of the uk subs


Jesus...wall-to-wall slebs...getting like the Mail's side-bar of shame in here, now!


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

not a trot said:


> Are you a painter and decorator ?



A chimney sweep, grubby work.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 9, 2020)

Bernie Grant? Hmm... I was on an old Tottenham Claimants Union action back in the 80s. Grant set the police onto a load of claimants. No love from me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> Bernie Grant? Hmm... I was on an old Tottenham Claimants Union action back in the 80s. Grant set the police onto a load of claimants. No love from me.


When I met him I asked if he'd ever pay the poll tax, he said now but paid it anyway some months later. The only honest politician I've met was dennis skinner.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 9, 2020)

good to see this spirited defence of comrade Corbyn from comrade Burgon, standing up
to the vermin media and this scumbag dogshit hack. The cancerous press may have succeeded in infecting the minds of the electorate with insanely backward racist, nationalist, ideology, but they will never succeed in getting the true principled socialists in Labour to surrender to their reactionary garbage. Long live Corbyn, Mcdonnell and all their comrades!


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 10, 2020)

But his spirit lives on (at SOAS, naturally)

** Last month, the TV chef drew criticism when he apparently suggested in an interview with the Italian broadcaster Radio Radio that Jewish victims of the Holocaust could not “afford bribes” unlike survivors who fled the Nazis.

“There was not only the Holocaust. There were many genocides in the world but if you notice it we are led to pay attention only to what has struck the Jews and not all the Jews, because the rich ones have sold themselves also the brothers, sisters, families, neighbours who could not afford bribes or closeness to power and also went to die for this cause, for the state of Israel,” he said in Italian. **









						UJS: Chef to speak at student event has ‘history of antisemitic language’
					

Jewish students criticised the organisers of a talk with controversial Italian chef and TV personality




					jewishnews.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 10, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> But his spirit lives on (at SOAS, naturally)
> 
> ** Last month, the TV chef drew criticism when he apparently suggested in an interview with the Italian broadcaster Radio Radio that Jewish victims of the Holocaust could not “afford bribes” unlike survivors who fled the Nazis.
> 
> ...



Bit unfair to link that to corbyn directly although it comes from same place of palestinian fetishism so must now denigrate and reduce historical jewish suffering that infests parts of labour/left. Anyway this is the grimmest bit:



Basically if you are jewish and didn't die in the holocaust then you sold your family down the river instead of taking your medicine. The horrible cunt.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 25, 2020)

Last PMQs from comrade Corbyn. He put up a good fight, but ultimately the forces of reaction - both its right and liberal variety - were too strong. On top of that, there was the deeply backward, ignorant, servile, boot-licking electorate who were so indoctrinated with toxic nationalist garbage that the enabled the solidification of the Johnson regime.

Long live great comrade Corbyn! Fuck ignorant racist shithole Britain!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Last PMQs from comrade Corbyn. He put up a good fight, but ultimately the forces of reaction - both its right and liberal variety - were too strong. On top of that, there was the deeply backward, ignorant, servile, boot-licking electorate who were so indoctrinated with toxic nationalist garbage that the enabled the solidification of the Johnson regime.
> 
> Long live great comrade Corbyn! Fuck ignorant racist shithole Britain!



Yeh the racist cunt electorate, 71.5% of which didn't vote tory


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 25, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Last PMQs from comrade Corbyn. He put up a good fight, but ultimately the forces of reaction - both its right and liberal variety - were too strong. On top of that, there was the deeply backward, ignorant, servile, boot-licking electorate who were so indoctrinated with toxic nationalist garbage that the enabled the solidification of the Johnson regime.
> 
> Long live great comrade Corbyn! Fuck ignorant racist shithole Britain!



Mate I needed to read that. Your posts are a blessed bit of light relief in these troubled times.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2020)

He’ll always have Glastonbury...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He’ll always have Glastonbury...



I was there (G2017), but that seems for ever ago now!!


----------



## Fruitloop (Mar 26, 2020)

Compared to the time we all got together at Strawberry fair, that's pretty damn recent.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He’ll always have Glastonbury...



That, and the fact that he, and more importantly the forces that propelled him to the leadership, have irreversibly changed UK Parliamentary politics for the foreseeable future


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2020)

cantsin said:


> That, and the fact that he, and more importantly the forces that propelled him to the leadership, have irreversibly changed UK Parliamentary politics for the foreseeable future



In what way have they done that?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 26, 2020)

Fruitloop said:


> Compared to the time we all got together at Strawberry fair, that's pretty damn recent.


He spoke at Trafalgar square to support us against the Criminal Justice Act in 94 , now that does seem forever ago , but he got my vote then


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 26, 2020)

Even if it is true that "he, and more importantly the forces that propelled him to the leadership, have irreversibly changed UK Parliamentary politics", that statement absolutely illustrated the problem - *parliamentary* politics.

This is labourism playing out in front of peoples eyes, from a tool to advance working class interests to changing parliamentary politics. You really could not have a better example of what those of us that support class based politics have been warning about for the last 5 years.


----------



## agricola (Mar 26, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not sure this tells us much, I mean if you're not happy about their brexit & possibly other policies, surely it would be easier just to go with the leadership answer, as the leadership is in charge of policy?




A better answer there would be "What I heard about the leadership" rather than "the leadership"; lets face it for most people thats why they said that.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Even if it is true that "he, and more importantly the forces that propelled him to the leadership, have irreversibly changed UK Parliamentary politics", that statement absolutely illustrated the problem - *parliamentary* politics.
> 
> This is labourism playing out in front of peoples eyes, from a tool to advance working class interests to changing parliamentary politics. You really could not have a better example of what those of us that support class based politics have been warning about for the last 5 years.



That's true. And its an important point to discuss and for reflection by those active on the left.

But, I do not understand what irreversible changes Corbyn made to Parliamentary politics.

I now force myself to endure to endue TyskySour after it was referenced on here. Listening to their interviews with those who worked alongside Corbyn a uniform point they make is that post 2017 they felt Corbyn became captured by and defined by Parliamentary politics and this was fatally damaging to the attempt to present Corbynism as insurgency. So, as far as they are concerned, it was Parliamentary politics that irreversibly changed Corbyn and not the other way around.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2020)

cantsin said:


> That, and the fact that he, and more importantly the forces that propelled him to the leadership, have irreversibly changed UK Parliamentary politics for the foreseeable future


so an irreversible change which isn't permanent. there's an obvious problem with that.


----------



## Cerv (Mar 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He’ll always have Glastonbury...


not this year he won’t


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 26, 2020)

Cerv said:


> not this year he won’t



Perhaps this could be reprised?









						Labour festival hailed a success by Corbyn's party despite ridicule
					

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell says the event shows Labour ‘on the march’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 26, 2020)

That "Labour Festival" was nothing like festivals as I know them! So sod that   
I'll hang out for the proper ones returning next year (or if *very* optimistic   , this Autumn   )

TBF to Glastonbury, which I always am ,  well prior to Corbyn going there, there's always been *plenty* of extra-Parliamentary politics and campaigning and activism being promoted/discussed in various corners of a city the size of Bath (for a week).
As well as your usual music/bands/raves/cider/partying/hedonism. Especially the hedonism


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 26, 2020)

The points redsquirrel and smokeandsteam make are all bang on, there are lots of lessons to be learnt from the mistakes and failure of corbynism, many of which should have been known before they were made tbf.

Having said that, the sense of a leftwing from below insurgency up to and around 2017 shouldn't be diminished or mocked imo, the scale of the rush into labour, how oh jeremy corbyn went viral, glastonbury too but it was a lot wider than that, at football, out in town on a weekend. I mean it was pissed up a wall but it tells us something about the potential that's there. The right phenomenon in the wrong framework or something


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

agricola said:


> A better answer there would be "What I heard about the leadership" rather than "the leadership"; lets face it for most people thats why they said that.



Are most people less capable of thinking independently than urban posters then?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

What labour are doing right now (as opposition) is far more important than their internal left/right struggles 2015-2019 imo


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> The points redsquirrel and smokeandsteam make are all bang on, there are lots of lessons to be learnt from the mistakes and failure of corbynism, many of which should have been known before they were made tbf.



The only lesson I've learnt is that any there is virtually zero of hope of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future. The cancer of British nationalism is so deeply embedded in such a huge segment of the population that we're basically fucked. People will always chose Queen and Country over class solidarity.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The only lesson I've learnt is that any there is virtually zero of hope of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future. The cancer of British nationalism is so deeply embedded in such a huge segment of the population that we're basically fucked. People will always chose Queen and Country over class solidarity.



Have you heard of a man called trotsky


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2020)

You (still?) consider yourself a class-based socialist then Jeff Robinson ?

What percentage of the populaces needs to freed from the "the cancer of British nationalism" for a transition to socialism occur IYO?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You (still?) consider yourself a class-based socialist then Jeff Robinson ?
> 
> What percentage of the populaces needs to freed from the "the cancer of British nationalism" for a transition to socialism occur IYO?



the majority.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> the majority.


The majority of the Russian working class was nationalist in 1919, the majority of working classes of the US, UK, Europe, etc held nationalistic and racist ideas in 1945 and yet they managed to change the world.

You talk about class solidarity but from what from what you've posted recently I see an absence of class in your politics. Class based socialism places the working class as the revolutionary class not because of the views it holds but because, simultaneously, the interests of the working class are served by the abolition of class and its unique position enables it to attack capital like no other social group.

By insisting that change is impossible until the working class has achieved the "correct" views you at best limit and hinder the ability of the working class to change society, at worst you reject the working class as a revolutionary force altogether.




			
				Ellen Meiksins Wood. “The Retreat from Class: A New ‘True’ Socialism” said:
			
		

> This is not to say that the condition of the working class directly determines that its members will have socialism as their immediate class objective. It does, however, mean that they can uniquely advance the cause of socialism (though not completely achieve it) even without conceiving socialism as their class objective, by pursuing their material class interests, because these interests are by nature essentially opposed to capitalist class exploitation and to a class-dominated organization of production.
> ....
> Furthermore, since the working class itself creates capital, and since the organization of production and appropriation places the collective labourer at the heart of the whole capitalist structure, the working class has a unique capacity to destroy capital.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The only lesson I've learnt is that any there is virtually zero of hope of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future. The cancer of British nationalism is so deeply embedded in such a huge segment of the population that we're basically fucked. People will always chose Queen and Country over class solidarity.



This is essentially the same middle class analysis of the working class as the one blue labour argue for.

The only difference is they embrace it and you write embarrassing posts about it.

Your type of outsider characterisation of the class - with its familiar tropes about the working class being racist, royalist, whatever - always misses the deeply heterogeneous nature of ordinary people and our communities.

As red squirrel has also shown it also completely misunderstands class and it’s dynamics.

EP Thompson once reminded us that working class consciousness isn’t a mechanical product of a set of ideas or values. It is the product of a response to the development of capitalism. The working class though disparate, through its own _experience_ becomes class conscious, and thus can became, in Marx’s sense, a class for itself.


----------



## agricola (Mar 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is essentially the same middle class analysis of the working class as the one blue labour argue for.
> 
> The only difference is they embrace it and you write embarrassing posts about it.
> 
> ...



TBF they didn't really embrace it - didn't they all leave politics and go off to be teachers / BBC employees and whatnot?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The only lesson I've learnt is that any there is virtually zero of hope of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future. The cancer of British nationalism is so deeply embedded in such a huge segment of the population that we're basically fucked. People will always chose Queen and Country over class solidarity.


From where I'm sitting you've learned nothing


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 27, 2020)

If he took up DJing he could be the coolest in the world.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> That "Labour Festival" was nothing like festivals as I know them! So sod that
> I'll hang out for the proper ones returning next year (or if *very* optimistic   , this Autumn   )
> 
> TBF to Glastonbury, which I always am , well prior to Corbyn going there, there's always been *plenty* of extra-Parliamentary politics and campaigning and activism being promoted/discussed in various corners of a city the size of Bath (for a week).
> As well as your usual music/bands/raves/cider/partying/hedonism. Especially the hedonism


'a hinterland of anarchism' as one frequent but now  sadly departed poster on here once described it


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> The majority of the Russian working class was nationalist in 1919, the majority of working classes of the US, UK, Europe, etc held nationalistic and racist ideas in 1945 and yet they managed to change the world.
> 
> You talk about class solidarity but from what from what you've posted recently I see an absence of class in your politics, Class based socialism places the working class as the revolutionary class not because of the views it holds but because, simultaneously, the interests of the working class are served by the abolition of class and its unique position enables it to attack capital like no other social group.
> 
> By insisting that change is impossible until the working class has achieved the "correct" views you at best limit and hinder the ability of the working class to change society, at worst you reject the working class as a revolutionary force altogether.



I didn’t say change wasn’t possible, but progressive transformation, still less socialism, isn’t whilst large numbers are so ideologically wedded to the status quo, as they are in the UK. Sure there is fairly widespread support for some left-leaning policies like renationalisation of the railway etc., but as the landslide victory for the Boris Regime shows us, these things are all secondary to a cancerous racist, nationalist ideology. You're in deep denial if you don't think (a) that viciously reactionary ideas are very widespread in UK society and (b) that whilst these reactionary ideas maintain a grip, they an impenetrable barrier to any progressive transformation.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> EP Thompson once reminded us that working class consciousness isn’t a mechanical product of a set of ideas or values. It is the product of a response to the development of capitalism. The working class though disparate, through its own _experience_ becomes class conscious, and thus can became, in Marx’s sense, a class for itself.



And when this class consciousness manifests in a huge surge of support for the Tories, you think the deep pessimism I express about the possibilities for socialist transformation for the foreseeable future is unjustified because...?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

Great Supreme Comrade Corbyn reflecting on how absolutely right he was all along. Some brilliant insights from comrade Corbyn here about how right comrade Corbyn was. And I agree. So that makes three of us! 









						Coronavirus: Jeremy Corbyn says he was proved 'right' on public spending
					

The government now realises it has to invest in the state, the outgoing Labour leader tells the BBC.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Great Supreme Comrade Corbyn reflecting on how absolutely right he was all along. Some brilliant insights from comrade Corbyn here about how right comrade Corbyn was. And I agree. So that makes three of us!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Winning the moral argument again?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And when this class consciousness manifests in a huge surge of support for the Tories, you think the deep pessimism I express about the possibilities for socialist transformation for the foreseeable future is unjustified because...?



because lived experience (with social being producing social consciousness) is neither linear, fixed or immutable. Again, as Thompson said stopping the engine of human experience to examine the processes renders them meaningless. The parts are always moving always producing steam and always changing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> because lived experience (with social being producing social consciousness) is neither linear, fixed or immutable. Again, as Thompson said stopping the engine of human experience to examine the processes renders them meaningless. The parts are always moving always producing steam and always changing.



I agree with that, but, to extend the metaphor, it feels pretty clear that the locomotive is presently heading down the wrong tracks.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree with that, but, to extend the metaphor, it feels pretty clear that the locomotive is presently heading down the wrong tracks.



And yet after the 2017 GE you’d have argued the opposite....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 27, 2020)

.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I didn’t say change wasn’t possible, but progressive transformation, still less socialism, isn’t whilst large numbers are so ideologically wedded to the status quo, as they are in the UK. Sure there is fairly widespread support for some left-leaning policies like renationalisation of the railway etc., but as the landslide victory for the Boris Regime shows us, these things are all secondary to a cancerous racist, nationalist ideology. You're in deep denial if you don't think (a) that viciously reactionary ideas are very widespread in UK society and (b) that whilst these reactionary ideas maintain a grip, they an impenetrable barrier to any progressive transformation.



Tbh jeff if this is even just a dramatic over egging of what you think then I dunno how you get up and yet dressed every day, how you ever leave the house (I mean obviously you don't at the moment tbf). It's just relentlessly grim isn't it, seeing your neighbours and everybody around you and, well, everybody as this immovable fixed reactionary lump incapable of anything positive or of acting in their own self interest. I'd just stop washing and lie on my sofa eating wotsits forever


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'd just stop washing and lie on my sofa eating wotsits forever


tbf that's more or less the plan for the forseeable.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 27, 2020)

killer b said:


> tbf that's more or less the plan for the forseeable.



Its what I'm doing now tbh, that's why it occurred to me. Gonna have some toast and peanut butter now, whisky has given me the hunger


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I didn’t say change wasn’t possible, but progressive transformation, still less socialism, isn’t whilst large numbers are so ideologically wedded to the status quo, as they are in the UK.


And yet "progressive transformation" has occurred and does occurs all the time despite large numbers of the working class thinking "wrongly".


Jeff Robinson said:


> You're in deep denial if you don't think (a) that viciously reactionary ideas are very widespread in UK society and (b) that whilst these reactionary ideas maintain a grip, they an impenetrable barrier to any progressive transformation.


I accept that there are reactionary ideas in UK society, just like any society, but the second part I utterly reject. If that was true then the Russian revolution would not have been possible, the advances obtained by the working class over the 20th century would not have been possible. I'm going to have to break out the Glaberman quote again



			
				Marty Glaberman said:
			
		

> It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 28, 2020)

"The bourgeoisie, in truth, is bound to fear the stupidity of the masses so long as they remain conservative, and the insight of the masses as soon as they become revolutionary."


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Mar 28, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Great Supreme Comrade Corbyn reflecting on how absolutely right he was all along. Some brilliant insights from comrade Corbyn here about how right comrade Corbyn was. And I agree. So that makes three of us!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure whether you are being ironic or not, but as someone who has always had reservations about Corbyn (over his dropping anti—EU policy, not being ruthless enough with critics including BDBJ, being stuck in 1970s timewarp etc) I thought this interview was bang on. Policies that were denounced a few months ago as unfeasible are now being implemented. Of course it is being done in a Tory way but the precedent is there: people’s lived experience the state can intervene constructively can potentially, only potentially, create political space for a Leftist variant. Of course, such is not certain: though if Labour members are so stupid as to elect that hypocritical right wing shit Starmer such a variant will be off the table in the near future. All still to play for....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> And yet "progressive transformation" has occurred and does occurs all the time despite large numbers of the working class thinking "wrongly".
> I accept that there are reactionary ideas in UK society, just like any society, but the second part I utterly reject. If that was true then the Russian revolution would not have been possible, the advances obtained by the working class over the 20th century would not have been possible. I'm going to have to break out the Glaberman quote again



I don’t know what census data there is on the attitudes of Russian workers in 1917, but if they had largely voted for rightwing Russian nationalist parties in the Soviets then there would have been no Revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I don’t know what census data there is on the attitudes of Russian workers in 1917, but if they had largely voted for rightwing Russian nationalist parties in the Soviets then there would have been no Revolution.


It was amusing seeing you parade your ignorance but it's really dull now


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I don’t know what census data there is on the attitudes of Russian workers in 1917, but if they had largely voted for rightwing Russian nationalist parties in the Soviets then there would have been no Revolution.


This might have been meant as an amusing aside but in it shows how far you've gone from any class analysis. The "reactionary-ness" of people is determined by their electoral politics. What's ironic is that you are falling the same path as the former Euro-communists you often (rightly) criticise, the replacement of the working class as the revolutionary agent with an electoral coalition of labour voters.

The Russian revolution is a perfect example of how limited parliamentary politics is, it should teach you the opposite of what you are suggesting. The revolution occurred precisely because the workers were outpacing their representatives.
EDIT: BTW You do know what the make-up of the Duma was in the run-up to the revolution?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> This might have been meant as an amusing aside but in it shows how far you've gone from any class analysis. The "reactionary-ness" of people is determined by their electoral politics. What's ironic is that you are falling the same path as the former Euro-communists you often (rightly) criticise, the replacement of the working class as the revolutionary agent with an electoral coalition of labour voters.
> 
> The Russian revolution is a perfect example of how limited parliamentary politics is, it should teach you the opposite of what you are suggesting. The revolution occurred precisely because the workers were outpacing their representatives.



The October Revolution was precipitated by the Bolsheviks winning majorities in the Moscow, Petrograd and other Soviets. They stood against war and for working class internationalism. Winning the working classes to these ideas and breaking with reactionary Russian pro-war chauvinism was a necessary prerequisite for transformation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2020)

Jesus. Proper Tidy's joke was bang on. Leninism without socialism.

You just pissing about here or do you seriously believe the above?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Mar 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> This might have been meant as an amusing aside but in it shows how far you've gone from any class analysis. The "reactionary-ness" of people is determined by their electoral politics. What's ironic is that you are falling the same path as the former Euro-communists you often (rightly) criticise, the replacement of the working class as the revolutionary agent with an electoral coalition of labour voters.
> 
> The Russian revolution is a perfect example of how limited parliamentary politics is, it should teach you the opposite of what you are suggesting. The revolution occurred precisely because the workers were outpacing their representatives.
> EDIT: BTW You do know what the make-up of the Duma was in the run-up to the revolution?


The franchise for Duma was restricted so would tell us nothing


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Mar 28, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The October Revolution was precipitated by the Bolsheviks winning majorities in the Moscow, Petrograd and other Soviets. They stood against war and for working class internationalism. Winning the working classes to these ideas and breaking with reactionary Russian pro-war chauvinism was a necessary prerequisite for transformation.


Interesting you leave out the SRs: my favourite group was the Left Social Revolutionaries who actually provided much of the personnel for storming the Winter Palace.

speaking of Russia, things would have turnedout far better if socialism had been based on the villages (Mirs) as discussed in Marx correspondence with Vera Zasulich...Trotsky was right in 1904 ‘Our Political Tasks when he criticised Leninism for being Jacobin...


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> The franchise for Duma was restricted so would tell us nothing


Well exactly


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 28, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> Not sure whether you are being ironic or not, but as someone who has always had reservations about Corbyn (over his dropping anti—EU policy, not being ruthless enough with critics including BDBJ, being stuck in 1970s timewarp etc) I thought this interview was bang on. Policies that were denounced a few months ago as unfeasible are now being implemented. Of course it is being done in a Tory way but the precedent is there: people’s lived experience the state can intervene constructively can potentially, only potentially, create political space for a Leftist variant. Of course, such is not certain: though if Labour members are so stupid as to elect that hypocritical right wing shit Starmer such a variant will be off the table in the near future. All still to play for....



I agree with all of this post   but I might be a bit less pessimistic than you about Starmer, or rather his imminent reign.
I'm no fan of his at all, and "hypocritical right wing shit" he definitely is , but I think his scope for moving the LP and Labour policy much further to the right will maybe?? have a few more obstacles than assumed.

Time will tell etc., but what Corbyn says in his interview about constructive state intervention, more investment, etc. isn't something Starmer will find that easy to overturn IMO, especially not after the current pandemic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 28, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Time will tell etc., but what Corbyn says in his interview about constructive state intervention, more investment, etc. isn't something Starmer will find that easy to overturn IMO, especially not after the current pandemic.



As with the Tories new found keenness for infrastructure spending in ‘the red wall’ areas and their interventionist agenda its the political ideas driving the intent and purpose of it that counts.

If Waitrose comes out with a radical distributive agenda and uses these types of levers to reduce inequality, promote greater worker involvement in the management of work etc then I’ll be delighted.

If however, and no matter how faux radical the rhetoric that accompanies it is, it’s about corporate welfare and a breathing space for capital then he can go and fuck homself.

Anyone care to predict which model the good knight will come forth with....


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 28, 2020)

I'm not going to disagree with that at all, but all I was wondering (above) was whether his future scope for manoeuvre might be more constrained, politically, than we think right now.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 28, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm not going to disagree with that at all, but all I was wondering (above) was whether his future scope for manoeuvre might be more constrained, politically, than we think right now.



He’ll definitely be under pressure from those who swelled into the party under Corbyn. The key questions I suppose are over what and how effective is it. Will it be endless internal psychodrama or serious political analysis ground in the lessons of 2019?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He’ll definitely be under pressure from those who swelled into the party under Corbyn. The key questions I suppose are over what and how effective is it. Will it be endless internal psychodrama or *serious political analysis ground in the lessons of 2019?*



That (bolded), to an extent at least, would be my guess. Only a guess though. 
(I'm not a Labour member, just a TU person, but I do follow what goes on)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Jesus. Proper Tidy's joke was bang on. Leninism without socialism.
> 
> You just pissing about here or do you seriously believe the above?



You’re the one who brought up the Russian Revolution. Without wanting to get into the weeds I was merely pointing out that the struggle against Great Russian chauvinism and other forms of nationalism was critical to the success of the revolution.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 29, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You’re the one who brought up the Russian Revolution. Without wanting to get into the weeds I was merely pointing out that the struggle against Great Russian chauvinism and other forms of nationalism was critical to the success of the revolution.


But that's *not* _merely_ what you were claiming. 

In your insistence that a majority of the populace need to throw off reactionary ideas (via voting Labour) before any transformative change is possible you've ended up arguing a ludicrously vanguardist position that "breaking with reactionary Russian pro-war chauvinism was a necessary prerequisite for transformation" and that this breaking occurred because of the election of the Bolsheviks and other left parties. You've displaced the revolutionary activity of the working class onto political parties. What's particularly silly is that because you have to make parties, or at least their electoral coalitions, the revolutionary agent you're having to draw a parallel between the Bolsheviks and other revolutionary left parties in Russia 1917 with the mildly social democratic Labour Party (and Greens/PC/`SNP?) of 2020.

The transformative power of the working class always exists because of the conflict between the interests of labour and those of capital, and the capacity the working class has to change society. That power is not dependant on either membership of (or voting for) particular parties or on some "rejection" of nationalism* or other views. The challenge  workers makee to sexism, nationalism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry etc is not down to any other party it is due to the class struggle we engage in, a struggle that we shape and that in turn shapes us. That's true in the English Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, the miners strike, the inter-war period and it's true today.    

*Whatever you seem to think this means. You seem to think it is analogous to voting for the "correct" party.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 29, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Smokeandsteam said:
> 
> 
> > He’ll definitely be under pressure from those who swelled into the party under Corbyn. The key questions I suppose are over what and how effective is it. Will it be endless internal psychodrama or *serious political analysis ground in the lessons of 2019?*
> ...


What I'm seeing is the other side of the what Smokeandsteam describes - the pressure on those who joined under Corbyn to take the first steps on the road to triangulation. Significant numbers buying into the idea we were too radical. Seen it before and it was depressing enough then, but at least there was the excuse of the SDP stealing votes. This time the SDP are inside the party.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 29, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> In your insistence that a majority of the populace need to throw off reactionary ideas (via voting Labour) before any transformative change is possible you've ended up arguing a ludicrously vanguardist position that "breaking with reactionary Russian pro-war chauvinism was a necessary prerequisite for transformation" and that this breaking occurred because of the election of the Bolsheviks and other left parties. You've displaced the revolutionary activity of the working class onto political parties. What's particularly silly is that because you have to make parties, or at least their electoral coalitions, the revolutionary agent you're having to draw a parallel between the Bolsheviks and other revolutionary left parties in Russia 1917 with the mildly social democratic Labour Party (and Greens/PC/`SNP?) of 2020.
> 
> The transformative power of the working class always exists because of the conflict between the interests of labour and those of capital, and the capacity the working class has to change society...


We don't even have to talk about the Russian Revolution* to see this in practice. The dockers who smashed the Industrial Relations Act in '72 were the same ones that struck and marched for Powell in '68.

* Don't get me wrong, I like talking about the Russian Revolution - it's fun. But I find all it does for most Labour Party members is convince them I'm just a crypto-communist.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 29, 2020)

19force8 said:


> We don't even have to talk about the Russian Revolution* to see this in practice. The dockers who smashed the Industrial Relations Act in '72 were the same ones that struck and marched for Powell in '68.


Oh absolutely, it is relevant to all struggles. The miners strike would be another example sexism, racism and homophobia challenged by the class through the struggle not because of any party.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> the struggle against Great Russian chauvinism



From a Corbyn fan boy, should we regard this as (English) irony?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 2, 2020)

2 days now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)




----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)




----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2020)

Kind of difficult to come up with how one feels about Corbyn; just as you start to think critical thoughts up pops someone like Neil Coyle to put the boot in and you begin to warm to the old Gooner again.

I suppose that if you judge someone by who their enemies are, Corbyn is a decent sort.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)

agricola said:


> Kind of difficult to come up with how one feels about Corbyn; just as you start to think critical thoughts up pops someone like Neil Coyle to put the boot in and you begin to warm to the old Gooner again.
> 
> I suppose that if you judge someone by who their enemies are, Corbyn is a decent sort.



Certainly every utterance of centrist hacks like James O’Brian, Iain Dunt and Alex Andreou increases my support for Corbyn one million fold. Similarly for every opinion piece I see penned by an earnest leftie ruminating on  ‘the errors and limits of Corbynism’ and asking how ‘to regain the trust’ of people who ‘feel abandoned by Labour under Corbyn’ and other such shite.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 4, 2020)

I'll just remember him sitting on that train floor with that disappointed supply teacher manner about him, and the fact he had walked past empty chairs to get there. I can understand why people agree with his politics, but he was never any sort of leader.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'll just remember him sitting on that train floor with that disappointed supply teacher manner about him, and the fact he had walked past empty chairs to get there. I can understand why people agree with his politics, but he was never any sort of leader.



Fake news.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

guys, he's gone now. I don't think we need to wheel out dull arguments from 2016 all over again do we?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> guys, he's gone now. I don't think we need to wheel out dull arguments from 2016 all over again do we?


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> guys, he's gone now. I don't think we need to wheel out dull arguments from 2016 all over again do we?


have you not met the left before?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 4, 2020)

belboid said:


> have you not met the left before?


Now that's unfair.



Spoiler



Sleater-Kinney is in no way left.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> guys, he's gone now. I don't think we need to wheel out dull arguments from 2016 all over again do we?


He is gone and his anointed successor shown the door as well, but that lot will always be around the fringes of the left and you have to watch out for them. Hopefully his supporters will slink back to whatever bonkers sect they were part of before.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

which 'lot' will always be around the fringes of the left?


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> He is gone and his anointed successor shown the door as well, but that lot will always be around the fringes of the left and you have to watch out for them. Hopefully his supporters will slink back to whatever bonkers sect they were part of before.



you sound like a right prick

eta  a more apt term of abuse


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 4, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> you sound like a right cunt


I’m a happier cunt today.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

Happiness isn't for cunts, sorry - you guys are only allowed to be smug.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I’m a happier cunt today.



That's a bit sad...unless you really think that Labour moving right is a good thing...which is a bit sad.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. you don't need to have any illusions in Labour to not want them to move right..just a bit of compassion and empathy.


----------



## Big Bertha (Apr 4, 2020)

Thank god he’s gone


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 4, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's a bit sad...unless you really think that Labour moving right is a good thing...which is a bit sad.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. you don't need to have any illusions in Labour to not want them to move right..just a bit of compassion and empathy.


I want Labour to get into power and change things, I don't think that's going to happen if they are a far left party.


----------



## Marty1 (Apr 4, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Fake news.




Hmmm.., very interesting and a lesson to us all regarding fake news and how it can be used to smear.


----------



## tommers (Apr 10, 2020)

Donated his £10k staying at home allowance to the NHS. 

(Obviously ordered to by his Hamas handlers.)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 10, 2020)

tommers said:


> Donated his £10k staying at home allowance to the NHS.
> 
> (Obviously ordered to by his Hamas handlers.)



Source?


----------



## tommers (Apr 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Source?



Yeah, paying closer attention i think it's bollocks.

Soz.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2020)

Seemingly worked well?

From the Antisemitism report.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 206432
> 
> Seemingly worked well?
> 
> From the Antisemitism report.



I’ve always hated the right and centre of the Labour Party, but even I’m pretty flabbergasted about how cancerously this report shows they behaved. Despite there being principled, decent people in the party like Corbyn, McDonnell and co, whilst it’s infested with vermin wreckers and scabs it’s just fucked.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’ve always hated the right and centre of the Labour Party, but even I’m pretty flabbergasted about how cancerously this report shows they behaved. Despite there being principled, decent people in the party like Corbyn, McDonnell and co, whilst it’s infested with vermin wreckers and scabs it’s just fucked.


But 'wreckers' acting consistent with the purpose of the party, intent on ensuring that the left party of capital remained just that?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> But 'wreckers' acting consistent with the purpose of the party, intent on ensuring that the left party of capital remained just that?



Yes, it seems so. Fuck the lot of them (the Bourgeois Parties)


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> But 'wreckers' acting consistent with the purpose of the party, intent on ensuring that the left party of capital remained just that?


Looks more like they want to keep it as the centrist party of capital tbf


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2020)

The Novara piece makes for damning reading: ‘It’s going to be a long night’ – How Members of Labour’s Senior Management Team Campaigned to Lose | Novara Media

In fact I know a Labour insider who told me a year or so ago that parts of the party had deliberately sabotaged the 2017 election, by for instance refusing to fund campaigns in marginals. I admit it sounded far-fetched when he told me and I wasn't sure if it was true. It sounded a bit too nuts that key parts of Labour would literally prefer a Tory government to Corbyn. Turns out it was true.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> key parts of Labour would literally prefer a Tory government to Corbyn. Turns out it was true.











						Tony Blair: I would struggle to vote Labour in a general election
					

Tony Blair has admitted he will struggle to vote Labour at the forthcoming general election but warned the Tories they risk losing to Jeremy Corbyn by standing on a no-deal manifesto.




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Tony Blair: I would struggle to vote Labour in a general election
> 
> 
> Tony Blair has admitted he will struggle to vote Labour at the forthcoming general election but warned the Tories they risk losing to Jeremy Corbyn by standing on a no-deal manifesto.
> ...


ha, yeah. 

_It's so shocking to finally see what they were saying openly all along!_


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2020)

He wasnt the only either was he? Felt like loads of them were at it

Though there were also Tories begging not to vote Boris. Mirroring ex leaders John Major got a bit of coverage saying so


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> ha, yeah.
> 
> _It's so shocking to finally see what they were saying openly all along!_


Well, I expect TB to be a cunt, that's as certain as the sun rising. A bit more strange that the paid machinery of the Labour Party, who are literally paid to help them win elections, were in fact determined to lose.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Well, I expect TB to be a cunt, that's as certain as the sun rising. A bit more strange that the paid machinery of the Labour Party, who are literally paid to help them win elections, were in fact determined to lose.


Sure, I wasn't being totally serious. That said, while there's some eyebrow raising stuff in there, but really it's only colouring in a picture that was already sketched out in some detail.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sure, I wasn't being totally serious. That said, while there's some eyebrow raising stuff in there, but really it's only colouring in a picture that was already sketched out in some detail.


But someone from the artist's studio is now in charge.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 13, 2020)

Would it be worth having a separate thread to summarise/discuss the key findings of this report? Finding it hard to follow stuff on here as it's across a couple of thread.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 13, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Well, I expect TB to be a cunt, that's as certain as the sun rising. A bit more strange that the paid machinery of the Labour Party, who are literally paid to help them win elections, were in fact determined to lose.



David Osland put it nicely when he said that the Labour right accused momentum of being a party within a party while all the while being an HQ inside an HQ’.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 13, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Would it be worth having a separate thread to summarise/discuss the key findings of this report? Finding it hard to follow stuff on here as it's across a couple of thread.


I was thinking the same thing myself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 13, 2020)

teqniq said:


> I was thinking the same thing myself.



Cheeky ask I know, but could you or someone else do it? I seriously don't have the brain space today for the inevitable snark that'll come if I start it.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 13, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Cheeky ask I know, but could you or someone else do it? I seriously don't have the brain space today for the inevitable snark that'll come if I start it.



I've done it.


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sure, I wasn't being totally serious. That said, while there's some eyebrow raising stuff in there, but really it's only colouring in a picture that was already sketched out in some detail.



Aye, it was there in outline but I must admit the fanaticism and almost apolitical vacuity of the labour right still shocked me a bit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 14, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’ve always hated the right and centre of the Labour Party, but even I’m pretty flabbergasted about how cancerously this report shows they behaved. Despite there being principled, decent people in the party like Corbyn, McDonnell and co, whilst it’s infested with vermin wreckers and scabs it’s just fucked.





Jeff Robinson said:


> Yes, it seems so. Fuck the lot of them (the Bourgeois Parties)


No offence mate but how does the above work in line with what posting two pages back.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 14, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> No offence mate but how does the above work in line with what posting two pages back.



Dialectics comrade.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 14, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> In fact I know a Labour insider who told me a year or so ago that parts of the party had deliberately sabotaged the 2017 election, by for instance refusing to fund campaigns in marginals



I got the impression (from where I'm sitting) that the party was working on damage limitation / trying to hang on to seats already held, rather than putting effort in to seats it could have gained.

I did think that was because they had misread the whole picture (which to be fair, so had theresa may)

what a bunch of cunts.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 21, 2020)

Gave this a watch
*John McDonnell on the LabourLeaks and Coronacrisis*

Not that interesting really, nothing too juicy in there. However John McDonnell talks a fair amount about the leaked report - the interesting bit for me was that he said they (Corbyn and crew) all along wanted to horizontalise the party, ignite and empower the local groups, and increase membership education, and he holds his hands up for not pushing hard enough on that but he does pin blame on Labour HQ for actively blocking those initiatives, slowing down appointments and generally throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity.

Imagining alternate realities is a fools game really, but I think its fair to say had the core organs of the party not been actively fighting against Corbyn, never mind what they might might privately have thought of him, the project could've looked very different, and many of the key criticisms made from the left of Corbyn and his tenure may not have arisen.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 21, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Gave this a watch
> *John McDonnell on the LabourLeaks and Coronacrisis*
> 
> John McDonnell talks a fair amount about the leaked report, nothing too juicy in there... but the interesting bit for me was that he said they (Corbyn and crew) all along wanted to horizontalise the party, ignite and empower the local groups, and increase membership education, and he holds his hands up for not pushing hard enough on that but he does pin blame on Labour HQ for actively blocking those initiatives, slowing down appointments and generally throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity.
> ...



Be interesting to see what that would have looked like... would still have been through the politics and labourism of that errrr milieu. And while I've no doubt there is lots of truth in the obstacles and immense resistance they faced, everything was funnelled through the labour party, even labour branded mini-festivals ffs. Would they have had more success if they'd tried to work to build stuff beyond labour that could have moved it from the outside (or reduced its relevance but would be silly to expect longstanding left labourites to buy into that)


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 21, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Gave this a watch
> *John McDonnell on the LabourLeaks and Coronacrisis*
> 
> Not that interesting really, nothing too juicy in there. However John McDonnell talks a fair amount about the leaked report - the interesting bit for me was that he said they (Corbyn and crew) all along wanted to horizontalise the party, ignite and empower the local groups, and increase membership education, and he holds his hands up for not pushing hard enough on that but he does pin blame on Labour HQ for actively blocking those initiatives, slowing down appointments and generally throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity.
> ...



The core of the Labour Party membership was for remain, to the extent as he says himself that 60 MPs would have resigned and fought under a new party. Yes Labour officials plus a fair proportion of Labour MPs did evertthing they could to sabotage Corbyn.Thats what the project had to deal with. project . Lets imagine an alternative reality of a  Labour Party united behind Corbyn campaigning for a second referendum in the election. Any better?


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2020)

In the alternate reality of a party united behind Corbyn, they wouldnt have been campaigning for a second referendum though.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> In the alternate reality of a party united behind Corbyn, they wouldnt have been campaigning for a second referendum though.


Yes youve got a point  there


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 22, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Imagining alternate realities is a fools game really, but I think its fair to say had the core organs of the party not been actively fighting against Corbyn, never mind what they might might privately have thought of him, the project could've looked very different, and many of the key criticisms made from the left of Corbyn and his tenure may not have arisen.


I've not had a chance to view the video and see exactly what McDonnell is saying but the above is a sort of naive tautology - if the Labour Party was not the Labour Party then the Labour Party might have been different. Of course there was going to be a contest between the liberal and social democratic strands, not do they represent competing political ideologies, but the past history of the LP shows there has always been this fight. Surely the key for anyone putting the LP forward as the tool to bring about change should have recognised this fact from the start and accounted for it in their strategy.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 22, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I've not had a chance to view the video and see exactly what McDonnell is saying but the above is a sort of naive tautology - if the Labour Party was not the Labour Party then the Labour Party might have been different. Of course there was going to be a contest between the liberal and social democratic strands, not do they represent competing political ideologies, but the past history of the LP shows there has always been this fight. Surely the key for anyone putting the LP forward as the tool to bring about change should have recognised this fact from the start and accounted for it in their strategy.



Quite. And yet McDonnell’s analysis can be briefly summarised as:

1. Get an organised left to pressure the liberal wing to absorb the demands of the social democratic wing.
2. Develop ideas and a narrative for a post Coronavirus world and then back to 1

There was some awful dissembling from McDonnell on Brexit where he pretended he wasn’t a key mover in shifting the position from respecting the referendum to the PV position. When pressed he claimed the shift was to prevent an SDP style breakaway by around 50-70 MPs.

He admitted that the leadership has become a degenerated bureaucracy under Corbyn due to pressure from the liberal wing and had failed to democratise the Party. But, as you say, the failure to anticipate this inevitability and prepare for it is absolutely baffling.

In conclusion: Groundhog Day


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 22, 2020)

Why are we still talking about this? I thought we'd already got to the bottom of it: Corbyn and McDonnell were great, perfect, flawless, but ultimately forsaken and betrayed by the reactionaries and scabs of the electorate. Case closed!


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 22, 2020)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 22, 2020)




----------



## teqniq (Apr 22, 2020)

Asking the questions Starmer should be asking


----------



## magneze (Apr 22, 2020)

Celebrity gossip isn't really the same during lockdown is it.  🤔


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 22, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Asking the questions Starmer should be asking



Starmer did ask Raab about that during PMQs.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Starmer did ask Raab about that during PMQs.



Waitrose did very well as PMQs. Asking simple questions - that demand a simple answer that he knew the Tories didn’t want to answer - exposed Raab’s dissembling. I’ve no doubt he’ll continue to be very good at PMQs.

So credit where it’s due. The problem of course is that no-one pays much attention to PMQs.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

Formby gone. Must be something else to it as surrendering leadership of the bureaucracy looks like a complete capitulation of the labour left


----------



## Shechemite (May 4, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Formby gone. Must be something else to it



The leaked report/leaking of said report? The apparent incoming legal costs of this?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The leaked report/leaking of said report? The apparent incoming legal costs of this?



Yeah was my first thought, perhaps clear trail back to formby so went under duress. Who knows though.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2020)

Am I imagining it or wasn't there a rumour of some health issues a while back?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Am I imagining it or wasn't there a rumour of some health issues a while back?



Yeah she was having treatment for breast cancer but think she got all clear or something


----------



## Pickman's model (May 4, 2020)

i had never heard of her before


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Am I imagining it or wasn't there a rumour of some health issues a while back?


she is recovering from cancer, hence her short hair cut. 

Most likely KS wants her replaced and she is happy to go. The shite from the leaked report wont help, but it is fuck all to do with her, so she cant be taking a fall for it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

As an aside, I had a brief crossing of paths with formby years ago, I'm in unite now but wasn't at the time, she was unite officer for the food sector, somehow I got put in touch with her for something this local network I was in was trying to look into for some usdaw members at a supermarket who were getting nowhere with their own union. She was really helpful when she could have just ignored me.

Mind you I just wikid her and had no idea she was so posh. Posh schools.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 4, 2020)

belboid said:


> she is recovering from cancer, hence her short hair cut.
> 
> Most likely KS wants her replaced and she is happy to go. The shite from the leaked report wont help, but it is fuck all to do with her, so she cant be taking a fall for it.


I'm glad she's recovering, it must have been a nightmare job even in good health, but she has to take a lot of the responsibility for the screwed up process of dealing with the antisemitism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I'm glad she's recovering, it must have been a nightmare job even in good health, but she has to take a lot of the responsibility for the screwed up process of dealing with the antisemitism.



Didn't she ramp up the investigations and compliance (and expulsions) for antisemitism when she took over?


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I'm glad she's recovering, it must have been a nightmare job even in good health, but she has to take a lot of the responsibility for the screwed up process of dealing with the antisemitism.


uhh, the leaked report shows fairly unequivocally that is was the previous GS (Iain McNicol) who screwed up the process and she was playing catch up ever since she came in.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2020)

Wherever the bulk of the blame lies, anyone left connected to the Corbyn leadership will be crucified by the EHRC report when it lands, so deciding to go now rather than slugging it out until then and then going anyway is probably a wise move.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 4, 2020)

belboid said:


> uhh, the leaked report shows fairly unequivocally that is was the previous GS (Iain McNicol) who screwed up the process and she was playing catch up ever since she came in.


Didn't she commission the report?


----------



## steveseagull (May 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Didn't she commission the report?




Yeah but it does not really matter unless you are into conspiracy theories where all those emails and messages documenting sabotage, bullying and racism were made up.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (May 7, 2020)

Jeremy Corbyn demands government open talks with coronavirus
					

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to open talks with the coronavirus in order to seek a resolution to the current crisis.




					newsthump.com


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2020)

wow that's some biting finger on the pulse satire right there.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2020)

maybe they can make the joke about letting diane abbot count the number dead next. so fresh. it's a real tonic.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (May 7, 2020)

Cheers ears!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 18, 2020)

Jeremy Corbyn’s time might be up but Momentum  seems to be proliferating with a new groupings and slates. Can someone - killer b, others - explain to me the politics, ideas and differences between Forward Momentum and Momentum Renewal?

Both slates seem to be demanding grassroots campaigns, more membership and lay control and so on. Both seem to agree on the shortcomings of the Corbyn project as well as it’s strengths.

What’s the score?


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2020)

I dunno, I'm not really paying attention. My crew seem to favour renewal fwiw, but I don't know much about their differences beyond that.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2020)

Lansman has stood down (as long as we promise to keep him in the NEC) and his supporters recognise a need to adapt or die - particularly after Forward Momentum came along.  So they want to change, but stay in charge.  There are some ‘splits’ between the two based on which useless sects are involved.  

who will still own the company I’m not sure.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 18, 2020)

belboid said:


> Lansman has stood down (as long as we promise to keep him in the NEC) and his supporters recognise a need to adapt or die - particularly after Forward Momentum came along.  So they want to change, but stay in charge.  There are some ‘splits’ between the two based on which useless sects are involved.
> 
> who will still own the company I’m not sure.



So Renewal as the current leadership of Momentum and Forward are the insurgents? Which sects are backing which group Belboid? Is forward momentum an AWL front?


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> So Renewal as the current leadership of Momentum and Forward are the insurgents? Which sects are backing which group Belboid? Is forward momentum an AWL front?


It isn’t, but they are involved so the CPGB and Socialist Appeal think it is (iyswim), as well as the LAW lot.  Both remaining members of Action will be in with renewal.  

quite a few of the MR signatories are decent people, not at all aligned with any of the factions.  I’m not sure if they’re naive (unity unity!) or part of a specific move. Swuawkbox thinks it’s all about the EU, but I wouldn’t trust them on it.  the forward lot certainly aren’t all another Europe is possible types.  

McDonnell helped set up forward but us being very friendly with renewal, unite the left n all that. There might be some organised Scots in forward but I don’t know who’s who up there.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 18, 2020)

permission to feel confused?


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> permission to feel confused?


it's just politics. it's like this all the way down.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 1, 2020)

Still raging against the (government) machine.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 5, 2020)

Pretty much bang on the money imo.









						The killing of Jeremy Corbyn
					

The former Labour leader was the victim of a carefully planned and brutally executed political assassination




					www.middleeasteye.net


----------



## oryx (Jun 6, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Pretty much bang on the money imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a supporter of Corbyn's leadershp I can't agree with every statement in that article - but it's excellent. 



> But this episode should concern all of us who believe in means as well as ends. The simple question that any MP of whatever political shade should ask themselves is what they would do, how they would feel, if the same tactics were used against them. They would scream foul. They would be right.
> 
> 
> This kind of mob politics threatens democracy itself because without truthful and honest public discourse, dark forces make their presence felt.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 6, 2020)

I am still sad and angry he is not our PM


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 7, 2020)

Badgers said:


> I am still sad and angry he is not our PM



innet and the fucking centrist cunts that have landed us with the Boris regime and a shit neolib milquetoast opposition.


----------



## rekil (Jun 8, 2020)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> More on Mear One’s conspiracism and the people depicted in his - even worse! - 2016 version of the mural, here - A Note on “Mear One” And Jeremy Corbyn


Ice Cube, who is a long term idiot, done a Corbyn the other day. 



Spoiler


----------



## kenny g (Jun 9, 2020)

Would be an interesting duet with the cube and the corb.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 9, 2020)

kenny g said:


> Would be an interesting duet with the cube and the corb.



Featuring such hits as ‘fund the police’ and ‘straight outa Shropshire’.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2020)

rekil said:


> Ice Cube, who is a long term idiot, done a Corbyn the other day.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



Posting anti-semitic shit again today.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2020)

See! I _kne_w it was Corbyn's fault! Again. 









						Priti Patel calls Jeremy Corbyn's politics 'racist' in House of Commons
					

Attack comes after Labour MPs accused the home secretary of ‘gaslighting’ Bame people by talking of her own experiences of discrimination




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 15, 2020)

editor said:


> See! I _kne_w it was Corbyn's fault! Again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



have you seen what Corbyn and his wanker mates like Williamson have been up to? FFS give the ‘poor persecuted allotment wanker’ shtick a rest.

This board has far too many fucking hippy wankers


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> have you seen what Corbyn and his wanker mates like Williamson have been up to? FFS give the ‘poor persecuted allotment wanker’ shtick a rest.
> 
> This board has far too many fucking hippy wankers


Sorry, who are you calling "fucking hippy wankers" in your little foul mouthed tantrum here?


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 15, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Posting anti-semitic shit again today.



the anti-imperialists have gone full ‘Jews started slavery’ over the last week.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 15, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> the anti-imperialists have gone full ‘Jews started slavery’ over the last week.
> 
> View attachment 217839View attachment 217840View attachment 217841View attachment 217842



But let’s not be foul mouthed about it


----------



## two sheds (Jun 15, 2020)

How is Corbyn involved in this most recent stuff you've linked to?


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 15, 2020)

How has the crap that Corbyn has been spouting/defending helped the resurgence of of a particular kind of ‘punching up’ antisemitism of Jews hate Blacks/Jews hate Palestinians/Jews are loyal to Israel?


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 15, 2020)

Has the crucified gardener commented on this poor sod How hero cop's family lost everything after nearly dying in Salisbury Poisoning


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> How is Corbyn involved in this most recent stuff you've linked to?



Also, and perhaps more to the point, how has _anyone posting here on this thread now_, got anything to do with what you posted above?? .

(What MadeInBedlam said up there) :


> This board has far too many fucking hippy wankers


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 16, 2020)

The ‘Patriotic Alternative’ Yorkshire tea lot will be getting all excited


----------



## two sheds (Jun 16, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How has the crap that Corbyn has been spouting/defending helped the resurgence of of a particular kind of ‘punching up’ antisemitism of Jews hate Blacks/Jews hate Palestinians/Jews are loyal to Israel?



Well he's responsible for the things he's said and done but I don't think he's responsible for, for example, the anti-racism protestors in Paris you linked to above, or to Barking Mad/ge Hodge whoever that is.

I think it needs to be put in perspective, too. Corbyn is someone who will never get near power. Johnson is much more of a racist and anti-semite and he's Prime Minister. Yougov surveys showed that Labour party members were less racist and anti-semitic than tory party members. And they became less racist and anti-semitic after Corbyn became leader.

Patel's comment which editor criticized was hypocritical in the extreme to accuse Corbyn of being racist coming from the racist party she comes from with the racist and anti-semitic leader she has.

Corbyn has a long history of anti-racist action. He talked to terrorists because he said you need to talk to them to reach a resolution of the issues. He took on Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. Much of that has been distorted and whipped up by the right wing press, who are quite happy for tories to talk to the terrorists we do huge amounts of business with.

As I understand it, yes Corbyn can be criticized for his early association with actual anti-semites that crossed over from his anti-Israel stance, and for some of his insensitive comments. If you look back at some of the language on the left criticizing Israel, though, including on urban, you'll come up with statements about Zionism that would now be seen as anti-semitic but weren't considered that at the time. He's also been called anti-semitic by people who define virtually any criticism of Israel as being anti-semitic.


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2020)

Interesting twitter thread here summarising a report Labour Together have commissioned into the 2019 election loss - looks about right to me, will be interested to read the full report...


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2020)

(Labour Together list these MPs as those involved with the group fwiw - Jon Cruddas, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Shabana Mahmood, Jim McMahon, Bridget Phillipson, Wes Streeting, Marsha de Cordova, Alex Norris, Thangam Debbonaire, Darren Jones, Holly Lynch, James Frith, David Lammy and Jack Dromey_)


----------



## Badgers (Jun 19, 2020)

Associated Newspapers pay substantial libel damages to Palestinian Return Centre – 5Pillars
					

The owners of the The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline have paid substantial libel damages, plus costs, to the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) and its Chairman Majed Al-Zeer after it falsely accused them of being “known to blame the Jews for the Holocaust.” Action was taken against Associated...




					5pillarsuk.com


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 19, 2020)

Was reading about that Labour Together report. Nothing new in there really, what don't we know?  but it sheds a bit of light on the internal toxic conflicts compounded the bad election campaign.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 19, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Was reading about that Labour Together report. Nothing new in there really, what don't we know?  but it sheds a bit of light on the internal toxic conflicts compounded the bad election campaign.


I'm starting to read the full report   -- it's pretty long!
Labour Together Election Review 2019

Yes, a lot of obvious points, but the thing does have the merit (IMO) of being very clearly written.

But I've only got as far as the end of Chapter Two for now ....


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 1, 2020)

Conservative advert funders 7 months after the smoke has cleared...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2020)

I see Miliband was involved in the Labour Together report.

He is another leader who got a hammering. His criticism of the Israel government of the time got him a lot of unfair criticism. He had the temerity to criticise Isreali military actions against Palestinians. His father being a Marxist was brought up.

Cameron didnt get any of this.

Imo any Labour party leader who is slightly left of centre is going to going to get a lot of stick by those who in their own interests dont want change.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Did my bit to help JC during 2017, campaigning in marginals, etc. 

Unfortunately, however, post-2017 it became clear that the man is both a shithouse and a rat. 

It’s incredible that he has any credibility left.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 3, 2020)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Welcome to Urban, Alex. What’s your take on Iain Macleod?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Did my bit to help JC during 2017, campaigning in marginals, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, post-2017 it became clear that the man is both a shithouse and a rat.
> 
> It’s incredible that he has any credibility left.



Looks like some of Cummings' trollbots have mutated a sort of quasi-sentience and gone feral.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looks like some of Cummings' trollbots have mutated a sort of quasi-sentience and gone feral.


And now they’re testing their eyesight.


----------



## andysays (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Did my bit to help JC during 2017, campaigning in marginals, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, post-2017 it became clear that the man is both a shithouse and a rat.
> 
> It’s incredible that he has any credibility left.


Credibility is certainly important,  but I don't think you can claim a great deal of it Alex106...


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Welcome to Urban, Alex.


Thanks very much. 

Read a few threads in this forum and there are some good posters, so I thought I’d throw my two-cents in. 


danny la rouge said:


> What’s your take on Iain Macleod?


The dead Tory rat? 


SpookyFrank said:


> Looks like some of Cummings' trollbots have mutated a sort of quasi-sentience and gone feral.


There’s a compliment in there somewhere, maybe. 

Anyway, I’m not a right winger. But even if I was, it would not make what I said untrue.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

andysays said:


> Credibility is certainly important,  but I don't think you can claim a great deal of it Alex106...



Along with Len, JC blocked Open Selection.

This protected the Blairites, and ultimately led to his downfall.

There are other things I can list if you’d like. 

The man is a complete rat.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Along with Len, JC blocked Open Selection.


thats a fair point  
what else was on your list?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Did my bit to help JC during 2017, campaigning in marginals, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, post-2017 it became clear that the man is both a shithouse and a rat.
> 
> It’s incredible that he has any credibility left.


How did labour benefit from your assistance?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> The dead Tory rat?


Yes, him.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

ska invita said:


> thats a fair point
> what else was on your list?



The filthy truth is that JC’s radicalism on an issue is inversely proportional to his ability to personally affect it. 

Even before he became Labour leader, there were signs of this. For example, he said he would not pay the poll tax. But when it came to the crunch, he folded like a wet lettuce. His response to the Islington abuse scandal was also lacklustre, considering that he was a local MP. And then there’s the fact that he’s generally taken the full gravy-train wage, unlike Dave Nellist et al. 

And as leader he has been completely exposed. List below (if anyone needs evidence on any particular point, please ask).


Failed to campaign for ‘Leave’ in the EU referendum, despite a career of Euroscepticism. Campaigned instead for a vote to ‘Remain’ in the anti-working class EU.


Claimed to be a democrat, but — by 2019 — was not respecting the largest democratic mandate in British political history: the 2016 Brexit vote.


Allowed Marc Wadsworth to be thrown under the bus after Marc went to a Labour meeting where he was one of the few black people in the room — then got expelled for racism!


Endorsed the nonsensical IHRA definition of antisemitism and was generally complicit in witch-hunts: allowed Ken Livingstone to be thrown under the bus for stating historic fact. Also threw Chris Williamson, Pete Willsman and Jackie Walker under the bus.


"Punished" Iain McNichol for witch-hunting and disenfranchising large numbers of left-wing Labour members by putting him in the House of Lords!


Refused to withdraw the whip from sociopathic Labour MPs who did not back Thornberry's Saudi motion in 2016.


Joined warmongers re the Skripal affair, saying: "the evidence points towards Russia on this". Also expressed "support [for] any reasonable action ... against Russia".


Joined forces with Len — "[w]e have to temper the aspirations of the workforce with the realities of the market" — McCluskey in September 2018 to block Open Selection, thereby protecting anti-working class Blairite MPs from member-led democracy.


Was not prepared to fight on the class issue of "no-cuts" council budgets, choosing instead to hide behind the law. But had no problem with Labour potentially getting "ahead" of the law on the identity politics issue of transwomen standing on all-women shortlists.


Claimed to be an anti-austerity socialist, yet did not lift a finger as Labour councils obediently implemented Tory cuts which forced working class people to die — in spite of the fact that the combined spending power of his Labour councils was greater than the GDP of nine EU countries and the state budgets of sixteen others.


Did not lift a finger when Birmingham's Labour council tried to use Tory anti-trade union laws against its low-paid refuse workers.


Selected and kept super-hawk Nia Griffith as shadow defence secretary.


Did not oppose nuclear power or Trident.


Did not whip Labour MPs to vote against an environmentally-destructive third Heathrow runway.


Said virtually nothing in defence of Julian Assange.


Tried to put Tom Watson in the House of Lords.


Did not vote for Alex Salmond’s 2016 ‘Tony Blair is a war criminal’ motion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2020)

Ah.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> How did labour benefit from your assistance?



I campaigned my ass off in a North West marginal that Labour won from the Tories in 2017. 

I took two weeks of work and went everyday on the knocker, stalls, etc. 

Not that: 1) I need to prove anything to you; and 2) it has any bearing on the question of JC being a rat.


----------



## killer b (Jul 3, 2020)

tell us what you think about Syria alex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> I campaigned my ass off in a North West marginal that Labour won from the Tories in 2017.
> 
> I took two weeks of work and went everyday on the knocker, stalls, etc.
> 
> Not that: 1) I need to prove anything to you; and 2) it has any bearing on the question of JC being a rat.


And now you see your idol has feet of clay. Well cry me a river.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, him.



Don’t know much about him. He was a rat by the looks of it, like every other Tory.  



Pickman's model said:


> And now you see your idol has feet of clay. Well cry me a river.



Never an “idol”. 

Don’t have any illusions about him now, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> The filthy truth is that JC’s radicalism on an issue is inversely proportional to his ability to personally affect it.
> 
> Even before he became Labour leader, there were signs of this. For example, he said he would not pay the poll tax. But when it came to the crunch, he folded like a wet lettuce. His response to the Islington abuse scandal was also lacklustre, considering that he was a local MP. And then there’s the fact that he’s generally taken the full gravy-train wage, unlike Dave Nellist et al.
> 
> ...


You missed out that his tax policies were to the right of 'red' Jim Callaghan


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

killer b said:


> tell us what you think about Syria alex.



Western powers should stop arming and supporting extremist forces.

Syrian socialists should be supported where possible. It should be they who remove Assad and his gang.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> You missed out that his tax policies were to the right of 'red' Jim Callaghan



2017 manifesto was not perfect, but was an improvement. Which is why I supported it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> 2017 manifesto was not perfect, but was an improvement. Which is why I supported it.


What, an improvement on the 1979 manifesto?


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> What, an improvement on the 1979 manifesto?



An improvement over the ConDems and Miliband/Balls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> An improvement over the ConDems and Miliband/Balls.


You set the bar low I see


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> You set the bar low I see



Beggars can’t be choosers.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Along with Len, JC blocked Open Selection.
> 
> This protected the Blairites, and ultimately led to his downfall.
> 
> ...



He was basically an ossified old fossil, he has entrenched positions and can't think on his feet or change to take account of new data. Not ideal in a leader. He's charismatic enough to hold a crowd but not enough to win over the unconvinced, his attempts to go around the established media also failed utterly (Shameless Milne, basically a crap Cummings?). I also think he's a decent bloke trying to do the right things but just not good at dealing with modernity, everything is seen through a 1970s lens for him.

He's also very protective of his comrades even unto death no matter how shit or virulently racist or anti-Semitic they are.

Still better than Boris mind.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Throwing antisemites under the bus. Not enough support for sex pests.

See, those are actually things I don’t think he went far _enough_ on.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> no matter how shit or virulently racist or anti-Semitic they are.





danny la rouge said:


> Throwing antisemites under the bus. Not enough support for sex pests.



Who are the people you are referring to?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Who are the people you are referring to?


The antisemites and sex pests you mentioned in your post.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> The filthy truth is that JC’s radicalism on an issue is inversely proportional to his ability to personally affect it.
> 
> Even before he became Labour leader, there were signs of this. For example, he said he would not pay the poll tax. But when it came to the crunch, he folded like a wet lettuce. His response to the Islington abuse scandal was also lacklustre, considering that he was a local MP. And then there’s the fact that he’s generally taken the full gravy-train wage, unlike Dave Nellist et al.
> 
> ...


some of those i agree with
some i think youve got wrong
some i think he had no option
some are just limits of party politics in action and standard


2018 onwards he was increasingly weakened over time...that said I think he should've come out fighting harder against the right within Labour when he had the momentum to do so...too often conciliatory...that may not have made a difference electorally in the end, but it might have left the party in a better shape now...


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> The antisemites and sex pests you mentioned in your post.



Livingstone is a tit, but he’s not AS. Neither are Williamson, Wadsworth, or Walker.

I don’t know who the “sex pest” you refer to is.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 3, 2020)

Corbyn would have been in a better position without the chicken coup, he came out very strongly for implementing leave once the vote was in and won but was increasingly hamstrung by the bumbling attempts to just pretend the ref didn't happen.


----------



## killer b (Jul 3, 2020)

Well I'm certainly glad to be revving up this argument again. Its just like the old days (2018)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Livingstone is a tit


Agreed.


> but he’s not AS.


Maybe not, but he trolls the border.



> Neither are Williamson, Wadsworth, or Walker.


Oh, they are. And many others besides. 



> I don’t know who the “sex pest” you refer to is.


Assange and Salmond. Creepy weirdos.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Just to save time, I think this: Identity politics and anti-Semitism on the left


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, they are.



You got any evidence to back that up? 



danny la rouge said:


> Creepy weirdos.



Even if true, it does not mean they’re rapists.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Just to save time, I think this: Identity politics and anti-Semitism on the left


I’ll read that later and get back to you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> You got any evidence to back that up?


Only, you know, their words and actions.



> Even if true, it does not mean they’re rapists.


What "support" do you think Assange deserved from Corbyn?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> What "support" do you think Assange deserved from Corbyn?


a scaffold. i cannot understand the support among some elements of the left for the nefandous assage, who numbers among his circle the vile farage and trump.








						Trump-Russia inquiry is told Nigel Farage may have given Julian Assange data
					

Private investigator tells House panel Farage gave thumb drive to Assange, who officials view as a conduit for the Russian government




					www.theguardian.com
				











						Trump, Assange, Bannon, Farage… bound together in an unholy alliance | Carole Cadwalladr
					

The WikiLeaks founder’s astonishing admission should prompt MPs finally to start asking questions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

Jezza was not perfect, nobody is. 

Compared to anyone current calling themselves 'politicians' he was and is a giant of a human being.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Jezza was not perfect, nobody is.
> 
> Compared to anyone current calling themselves 'politicians' he was and is a giant of a human being.


“At least he’s not Boris”.

I’d be asking for another review, if that was said about me. 😉


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

What has the person on ignore posted above?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> What has the person on ignore posted above?


Was it the deep pan pizza? ☹️


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Jezza was not perfect, nobody is.
> 
> Compared to anyone current calling themselves 'politicians' he was and is a giant of a human being.


You can only say that because he never wielded any actual power.


----------



## JimW (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Throwing antisemites under the bus. Not enough support for sex pests.
> ...


I do have a problem with it -- there can be quite a big gap between the wheels so with that and high clearance several have survived.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You can only say that because he never wielded any actual power.


yeh mps have no power. the leader of the opposition hasn't any power. right.

if the leader of the labour party has, as you say, no power then why was there such a reign of wrath against him in the press?


----------



## agricola (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh mps have no power. the leader of the opposition hasn't any power. right.
> 
> if the leader of the labour party has, as you say, *no power then why was there such a reign of wrath against him in the press*?



I think a lot of it was what he was rather than what he did, or what he intended to do.  These people that dominate the media, politics, commentary on society etc clearly think they are both better than and separate to the rest of us so to be threatened by, to use Stephen Bush's description, "_an Englishman of a kind most people are familiar with .... anyone who has been on a walking holiday, to a lower league football ground or to an allotment has met someone a great deal like Corbyn_" absolutely enraged them. It was as if simply by existing as leader he presented an intolerable threat to their order of things, where you have to come from a very small set of people and ascribe to their views in order to become someone of prominence.

I hope this isn't a ludicrous parallel to draw but the over-reaction to him seemed to me very similar to how the medieval church reacted to people saying they were a bit bent, with the same blend of hysteria and malice (but obviously without the wood and oil).


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You can only say that because he never wielded any actual power.


He has had a much bigger positive impact on people than Cameron, May and Johnson combined.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

Good thread for who to ignore this


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> He has had a much bigger positive impact on people than Cameron, May and Johnson combined.


being as he didn't kill a single person for a start as opposed to the tens of thousands killed by that malign trinity


----------



## LDC (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Good thread for who to ignore this



I know. They join this morning, I've put them on ignore within 12 hours. What a winner.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Only, you know, their words and actions.
> 
> What "support" do you think Assange deserved from Corbyn?


Skimmed through the link you provided. It didn’t contain a single shread of evidence demonstrating that Williamson et al. are antisemites.


Pickman's model said:


> a scaffold. i cannot understand the support among some elements of the left for the nefandous assage, who numbers among his circle the vile farage and trump.


So, Assange is a member of the alt-right, therefore the US empire and its lackeys should be able to censor his legitimate journalism by throwing him in prison?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh mps have no power. the leader of the opposition hasn't any power. right.
> 
> if the leader of the labour party has, as you say, no power then why was there such a reign of wrath against him in the press?


Yes but obviously theres a difference between power in opposition and power in government.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Yes but obviously theres a difference between power in opposition and power in government.


but the former has power just as the latter does, even if it does differ in sort or scale. not to mention that the labour party has very real and demonstrable power people's lives through local government.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> So, Assange is a member of the alt-right, therefore the US empire and its lackeys should be able to censor his legitimate journalism by throwing him in prison?


perhaps you could point me to this legitimate journalism. i don't think i've ever seen anything written by assange.


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could point me to this legitimate journalism. i don't think i've ever seen anything written by assange.


Editors do journalism without necessarily writing anything.  And it’s okay to say we should defend what journalism - sometimes pretty important journalism - wiki leaks did carry out, and that Assange should be defended on that basis without defending his personal behaviour or politics.  Both of which strongly appear to be shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

belboid said:


> Editors do journalism without necessarily writing anything.  And it’s okay to say we should defend what journalism - sometimes pretty important journalism - wiki leaks did carry out, and that Assange should be defended on that basis without defending his personal behaviour or politics.  Both of which strongly appear to be shit.


what has he edited then? did he edit the clinton correspondence or the manning documents?


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> what has he edited then?


wikileaks


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

belboid said:


> wikileaks


i think what you're working towards is he published stuff on the wikileaks site, he didn't actually edit it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i think what you're working towards is he published stuff on the wikileaks site, he didn't actually edit it.


He was editor in chief.  Which means he got to decide what went up, what stories were pursued, and what details were included or omitted. Are you confusing editor with sub-editor?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

belboid said:


> He was editor in chief.  Which means he got to decide what went up, what stories were pursued, and what details were included or omitted. Are you confusing editor with sub-editor?


ah, so the timing of the publication of the clinton correspondence was down to him.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could point me to this legitimate journalism. i don't think i've ever seen anything written by assange.



He wrote a detailed introduction to the book _The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire_, which reviews public-interest documents his organisation leaked.

I can provide links to some articles he’s written if you really want me to.

Or maybe you’re just being completely disingenuous, posturing as a woke left, when in fact you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> He wrote a detailed introduction to the book _The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire_, which reviews public-interest documents his organisation leaked.
> 
> I can provide links to some articles he’s written if you really want me to.
> 
> Or maybe you’re just being completely disingenuous, posturing as a woke left, when in fact you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire?


lots of people write introductions to books without being journalists.

i'm not being a vulgar apologist for the us empire or posturing as a woke left, i'm pointing out he has done some very curious favours for some very curious people. obviously you're welcome to defend who you want. but it's strange to find someone who affects to be on the left defending a man who did so much to help donald trump to the white house.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Skimmed through the link you provided. It didn’t contain a single shread of evidence demonstrating that Williamson et al. are antisemites.


I didn’t claim it did. I said the evidence was in their words and actions.

The link is a piece on the wider issue of antisemitism on the “left”, and Corbyn’s ineffectual response to it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

Good to be rid of that Cunt Cuntula


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> ah, so the timing of the publication of the clinton correspondence was down to him.


He had stopped being editor by then and was director, or some such title.  He probably still did decide on just when they went up tho, in collusion with others.


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Good to be rid of that Cunt Cuntula


Who did he turn out to be?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 3, 2020)

belboid said:


> Who did he turn out to be?


Who cares


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 3, 2020)

belboid said:


> Who did he turn out to be?


He hasn’t gone anywhere, and he wasn’t a returner. Badgers has just put him on ignore.  The final straw seemed to have been a semantic disagreement over the meaning of the word power in a certain context.


----------



## belboid (Jul 3, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> He hasn’t gone anywhere, and he wasn’t a returner. Badgers has just put him on ignore.  The final straw seemed to have been a semantic disagreement over the meaning of the word power in a certain context.


Classic Urban


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Did my bit to help JC during 2017, campaigning in marginals, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, however, post-2017 it became clear that the man is both a shithouse and a rat.
> 
> It’s incredible that he has any credibility left.



Welcome Alex. Are you a member of the Labour Party? If so, who would you have wanted to replace Corbyn?


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> lots of people write introductions to books without being journalists.



Mainstream press article : What’s new about WikiLeaks?.

List of awards, many of which are for journalism:





Pickman's model said:


> it's strange to find someone who affects to be on the left defending a man who did so much to help donald trump to the white house.



Nobody did more to help Trump into the White House than Hilary Clinton.


Smokeandsteam said:


> Welcome Alex. Are you a member of the Labour Party? If so, who would you have wanted to replace Corbyn?


I’m an SP member. I’m also a ‘nominal’ LP member (I haven’t been an active one since early 2018, when it was becoming clear that JC was not serious).

The _least bad_ to replace JC would have been Richard Burgon, imo. But that’s not saying much.

The entire PLP is a joke. And in any case, the LP is a sideshow. The unions are the real frontline. The LP or any other trade union-based party can never go any further left than the trade unions who pay the bills.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Mainstream press article : What’s new about WikiLeaks?.
> 
> List of awards, many of which are for journalism:
> 
> ...



Ah. I was in the Militant in the early 90’s. At the time there was a residual influence in a number of unions and from the Poll Tax campaign.

One of the problems for the SP and other leftist groups now is that Corbynism sucked energy, resources and culture into the unsuccessful battle for control of the Labour Party.

Anyone, stick around. You’ll soon work out what’s what on here.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh mps have no power. the leader of the opposition hasn't any power. right.
> 
> if the leader of the labour party has, as you say, no power then why was there such a reign of wrath against him in the press?



weakness invites aggression


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 3, 2020)

He is a bit odd


----------



## two sheds (Jul 3, 2020)

I know, who has an allotment these days?


----------



## agricola (Jul 4, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I know, who has an allotment these days?



I thought it had been decided to refer to it as the communist plot?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 4, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> He is a bit odd


Who?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 4, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Who?


You’ve got too many people on ignore.  You’re not getting the flow of the conversation here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> You’ve got too many people on ignore.  You’re not getting the flow of the conversation here.


Yeh but saying someone here is a bit odd doesn't really narrow things down


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 4, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but saying someone here is a bit odd doesn't really narrow things down


It does. Most of us are _really fucking_ odd. Only a handful are _a bit_.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not being a vulgar apologist for the us empire or posturing as a woke left



You fancy yourself an anarchist.



Yet you hope for Assange’s execution.



So I was spot on.

You posture as a trendy left, but in fact you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire and its lackeys — hoping that US/UK state power will kill a dissident journalist.


----------



## Sue (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> You posture as a trendy left, but in fact you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire and its lackeys — hoping that US/UK state power will kill a dissident journalist.


You're just so bloody trendy, Pickman's model.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

He’s vulgar is what he is


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2020)

I don't think I've ever seen him apologize though.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

It’s just part of the trend


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2020)

Fedoras are for ponces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> You fancy yourself an anarchist.
> 
> View attachment 221063
> 
> ...


You just fancy yourself. Out of the two of us, only one can possibly be described as a trendy lefty and it's the one of us in the socialist party. The one of us who had illusions in the labour party after the poll tax, after Iraq, after Kosovo, after labour councils have turned housing estates into yuppie flats. And an incompetent trendy lefty at that without the nous to successfully use the quote function. As for being a vulgar apologist for the us empire, the 'evidence' you adduce is hardly persuasive. Neither the us nor UK is going to execute assange, unlike the many journalists they've murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan very few of whose shoes assange is worthy to lick.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 6, 2020)

Anarchy in the quote function.


----------



## andysays (Jul 6, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I know, who has an allotment these days?


Me (And quite a few other urbs).

Not that that disproves the suggestion that it's odd


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 6, 2020)

I think with hindsight Jeremy corbyn did ok... I'm glad he had his time anyway. I am sure he is fairly relieved not to be in power right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> I think with hindsight Jeremy corbyn did ok... I'm glad he had his time anyway. I am sure he is fairly relieved not to be in power right now.


He had to work with what he had which sadly included a great load of right wing shits


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> And an incompetent trendy lefty at that without the nous to successfully use the quote function. As for being a vulgar apologist for the us empire, the 'evidence' you adduce is hardly persuasive. Neither the us nor UK is going to execute assange



It’s a real possibility that he may die in prison. If this transpires, then he will have effectively been executed. That you don’t have the nous to understand this speaks more to incompetence than my quote function etiquette.    

As for the LP, I put my heart into it in 2017. I’m proud to have do so. Sneer all like, but JC — imperfect though he is — was almost elected that year, and if he’d squeezed over the line there would probably have been a few mild reforms which would have given a lot of desperate people a bit more breathing space.

Not that you care about such trivialities. You’re too busy striking radical poses as a self described component of the “anarchist movement”, all while you cheer-on the most reactionary elements of US state power as it attempts to crush a dissident journalist.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2020)

_Sheridan, Assange, Galloway, Martin “Comrade Delta” Smith, Salmond. Support them all or you’re a US/UK state lackey._

Fuck off.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 6, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> _Sheridan, ... _Fuck off.



Accused (falsely) of swinging... you know, consenting adults and all that.

Maybe you should fuck off?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> _Sheridan, Assange, Galloway, Martin “Comrade Delta” Smith, Salmond. Support them all or you’re a US/UK state lackey._
> 
> Fuck off.



Innit, Christ almighty!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 6, 2020)

Well looks like Dexter's got a new mate

PS nice to see you around more again stethoscope


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> You posture as a trendy left, but in fact you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire and its lackeys — hoping that US/UK state power will kill a dissident journalist.



Dissident journalist. Only not a journalist and not a dissident. Other than that though, your characterisation of Assange is spot on.


----------



## maomao (Jul 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Dissident journalist. Only not a journalist and not a dissident. Other than that though, your characterisation of Assange is spot on.


Dissident rapist doesn't sound as good.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Dissident journalist. Only not a journalist and not a dissident. Other than that though, your characterisation of Assange is spot on.



List of awards, many of which are for journalism:



And he’s arbitrarily detained, according to the UN. He is a dissident.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> It’s a real possibility that he may die in prison. If this transpires, then he will have effectively been executed. That you don’t have the nous to understand this speaks more to incompetence than my quote function etiquette.
> 
> As for the LP, I put my heart into it in 2017. I’m proud to have do so. Sneer all like, but JC — imperfect though he is — was almost elected that year, and if he’d squeezed over the line there would probably have been a few mild reforms which would have given a lot of desperate people a bit more breathing space.
> 
> Not that you care about such trivialities. You’re too busy striking radical poses as a self described component of the “anarchist movement”, all while you cheer-on the most reactionary elements of US state power as it attempts to crush a dissident journalist.


I have never described myself as a component of any movement.

I honestly don't care about Julian Assange. I don't think he's worthy of the support and adulation many on the left offer him. Anyone who is associated with the likes of Trump and Farage will only tangentially and coincidentally share the interests of ordinary people, and that only briefly. You don't address these rather peculiar associations of his. If I had been cheering on the most reactionary elements of us state power those cheers would pale to insignificance beside assange's very real efforts to install a fascist in the white house

I rather think the people who voted labour in 2017 would have expected rather more than the mere possibility of a few mild reforms (to what?) which might have offered a breathing space (how long?) to a lot of desperate people had a labour government been elected. I certainly would have expected something that lasted longer than mere months.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> And he’s arbitrarily detained, according to the UN. He is a dissident.



The prick arbitrarily detained himself for seven years so clearly he enjoys it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> List of awards, many of which are for journalism:
> 
> View attachment 221123
> 
> And he’s arbitrarily detained, according to the UN. He is a dissident.


being a dissident isn't necessarily a good thing, like all those Saudi dissidents who turned out to have quite peculiar views. Or Alexander Dugin, the Soviet dissident.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2020)

_you can bring your fucking dinner _


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

The anti-imperialists love dissidents, as can be seen in China, Cuba, Iran etc


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

What did greenfingers do with that 20 grand he got from the IRI?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> being a dissident isn't necessarily a good thing, like all those Saudi dissidents who turned out to have quite peculiar views. Or Alexander Dugin, the Soviet dissident.



Or the MEK, or Falun Gong


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Accused (falsely) of swinging... you know, consenting adults and all that.
> 
> Maybe you should fuck off?


Yeah, he’s a charmer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Accused (falsely) of swinging... you know, consenting adults and all that.
> 
> Maybe you should fuck off?


and the televised promise to name names given after the poll tax riot? i suppose that was consenting adults and all.


----------



## Smangus (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> List of awards, many of which are for journalism:
> 
> View attachment 221123
> 
> And he’s arbitrarily detained, according to the UN. He is a dissident.



He's a self serving tosser who detained himself, taking other gullible peoples money in the process, wake up u knobber


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh mps have no power. the leader of the opposition hasn't any power. right.
> 
> if the leader of the labour party has, as you say, no power then why was there such a reign of wrath against him in the press?



To stop him from becoming PM of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> To stop him from becoming PM of course.


so much of it emerged from his own party, which you might imagine desired to win an election.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> so much of it emerged from his own party, which you might imagine desired to win an election.



Indeed. Fighting like ferrets in a sack doesn't endear any party to the electorate.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

Maybe he and his politics just weren’t that popular?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2020)

Tbf neither were the Stop Brexit/people’s vote weirdos. Hell in a handcart


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed. Fighting like ferrets in a sack doesn't endear any party to the electorate.



Lucky the tories are such paragons of unity eh?


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I have never described myself as a component of any movement.



Yes you have.





Pickman's model said:


> You don't address these rather peculiar associations of his.



Becuase they are irrelevant.



Pickman's model said:


> If I had been cheering on the most reactionary elements of us state power those cheers would pale to insignificance beside assange's very real efforts to install a fascist in the white house



Trump is virtually identical to Clinton. 



Pickman's model said:


> I rather think the people who voted labour in 2017 would have expected rather more than the mere possibility of a few mild reforms (to what?) which might have offered a breathing space (how long?) to a lot of desperate people had a labour government been elected. I certainly would have expected something that lasted longer than mere months.



True, but that is the reality of reformism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Yes you have.
> 
> View attachment 221736
> 
> ...


Use the quote function like everyone else. But I don't believe it says I am a component of the anarchist movement. Which the is what you claimed, something like a self-described component of the @ movement


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Trump is virtually identical to Clinton.


Clinton is a shit. But she is not a fascist or radical rightist


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Becuase they are irrelevant.


no, they aren't. Or rather if they are you're saying my opinion is irrelevant. And if that's the case I don't know why you're bothering coming back to this after leaving it for some days.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Use the quote function like everyone else. But I don't believe it says I am a component of the anarchist movement. Which the is what you claimed, something like a self-described component of the @ movement



You wrote (my emphasis): “in the anarchist movement *we* welcome diverse viewpoints.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> You wrote (my emphasis): “in the anarchist movement *we* welcome diverse viewpoints.”


I know what it says. But you said I described myself as a component. I don't.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Clinton is a shit. But she is not a fascist or radical rightist



If Trump is a fascist/far-right, then so is Clinton.

Their politics are virtually identical.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I know what it says. But you said I described myself as a component. I don't.



Your use of the word “we” means just that. You were describing yourself as being part of — a component of — the “anarchist movement”. 

Deny it all you like. 

But it’s there in back and white.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Your use of the word “we” means just that. You were describing yourself as being part of — a component of — the “anarchist movement”.
> 
> Deny it all you like.
> 
> But it’s there in back and white.


you didn't say I described myself as an anarchist.

You said I described myself as a component of the @ movement. I have never described myself as a component of the @ movement. It is not a phrase I have ever used.


----------



## andysays (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> It’s a real possibility that he may die in prison. If this transpires, then he will have effectively been executed...



Not only is this complete and utter bollocks, it's a fucking insult to all those unjustly imprisoned and actually executed by numerous states around the world.

Earlier in the thread I commented that credibility was important and that you hadn't yet earned it here. With this garbage you've completely destroyed any chance you might have had to actually earn any credibility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> If Trump is a fascist/far-right, then so is Clinton.
> 
> Their politics are virtually identical.


are they?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 11, 2020)

No


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> If Trump is a fascist/far-right, then so is Clinton.
> 
> Their politics are virtually identical.



Clinton at least gave the impression that he gave a shit. Wouldn't trust him all the same.

Still, there's no "if" about Trump's fascism.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Clinton at least gave the impression that he gave a shit. Wouldn't trust him all the same.
> 
> Still, there's no "if" about Trump's fascism.



Oh, right. Hilary. Same sentiment. Anyways, she lost. Get over it.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

andysays said:


> Not only is this complete and utter bollocks, it's a fucking insult to all those unjustly imprisoned and actually executed by numerous states around the world.



From a _Lancet_ letter signed by more than 60 clinicians:

we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose. ... Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death.​
Might be “utter bollocks” to you, but that’s only because you’re a vulgar apologist for the US empire and British state oppression.



andysays said:


> Earlier in the thread I commented that credibility was important and that you hadn't yet earned it here. With this garbage you've completely destroyed any chance you might have had to actually earn any credibility.



I don’t have to “earn” anything from you. 



Pickman's model said:


> are they?



Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Yes.


Do tell me more


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

On second thoughts Alex106 don't

At least not until you've compared eg the Wikipedia articles on the political positions of djt and hrc.

But being as you're quite happy to invent how people describe themselves I have no great confidence in your ability to identify differences and commonalities between the duo. So much easier just to say they think the same. Pisspoor.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Do tell me more



Hilary - “I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater Girl” - Clinton.

“Super-predators”.

And so on.

Virtually identical to Trump.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Hilary - “I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater Girl” - Clinton.
> 
> “Super-predators”.
> 
> ...


yeh Abby Martin is a really reliable source

9/11 truther and Russia today, a top backstory of honesty there - no wonder you're an uncritical assange fanboy. You've the critical faculties of a lobotomized slug.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh Abby Martin is a really reliable source
> 
> 9/11 truther and Russia today, a top backstory of honesty there - no wonder you're an uncritical assange fanboy. You've the critical faculties of a lobotomized slug.



Rich coming from a Clintonite. 

Everything Martin said in that clip is backed by plenty of evidence.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Hilary - “I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater Girl” - Clinton.
> 
> “Super-predators”.
> 
> ...




It is an understandable mistake, but when talking about Trump "Goldwater Girl" has an entirely different and much messier meaning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Rich coming from a Clintonite.
> 
> Everything Martin said in that clip is backed by plenty of evidence.


this would be the Clinton I've described above as a shit. Perhaps you call people you support shits. I don't. 

Let's see you detail this evidence.


----------



## Alex106 (Jul 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the Clinton I've described above as a shit. Perhaps you call people you support shits. I don't.
> 
> Let's see you detail this evidence.



Plenty of evidence is detailed in the video. 

If there’s any point you think Martin is wrong on in that clip let me know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Plenty of evidence is detailed in the video.
> 
> If there’s any point you think Martin is wrong on in that clip let me know.


I've asked you to tell me more. You hide behind a video whose quality I frankly doubt. I asked you to detail this supporting evidence you mentioned in 28015. You evade the question. I've pointed you to information detailing the differences in their politics but you'd rather use a video of dubious quality from a former Putin propagandist than present any reputable sources to sustain your position. You are a worthy successor to the touts nally and sheridan


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2020)




----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2020)

Badgers said:


>




Of course this didn't start with Corbs, nor has it stopped since he stepped down - there is a great example in today's MoS for example, in which Dan Hodges writes about how Labour hates the white working class without ever giving an example of how they are (as opposed to "the liberal left") doing it.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2020)

I don't think anyone's had the sheer spittle-flecked abuse that Corbyn had though.


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I don't think anyone's had the sheer spittle-flecked abuse that Corbyn had though.


Michael Foot may have come a close second


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2020)

Our county is an open sewer of lies, hatred and corruption.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Our county is an open sewer of lies, hatred and corruption.



I think they all are - the country too.

I did think of "will the last person to leave the country please turn out the lights" which deserves a dishonourable mention too.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Our county is an open sewer of lies, hatred and corruption.



Tories still 10 points ahead in the polls too. We’re truly fucked. So many reactionary and gullible cunts.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 20, 2020)

Silly cunts indeed https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/court-rules-against-panorama-challenge-1.501755


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Tories still 10 points ahead in the polls too. We’re truly fucked. So many reactionary and gullible cunts.


I think it's narrowed to about 6


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> I think it's narrowed to about 6



Any half decent leader would be narrowing the gap to about six points against this mess of a government!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Any half decent leader would be narrowing the gap to about six points against this mess of a government!


yes, agreed. but the Tories have that huge press advantage


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2020)

Pretty sure any other leader would be 20 points ahead against this useless Tory government.


----------



## petee (Jul 21, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> Trump is virtually identical to Clinton.



ta-daaaaaa!!!!


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 21, 2020)

Looks like Labour AS whistleblowers will get an apology shortly.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

strung out said:


> Pretty sure any other leader would be 20 points ahead against this useless Tory government.


I doubt that very much indeed.
Theree has NEVER been any point in Brithsh ElectoraL history, since opinion polling began, when ANY labour leader enjoyed that sort of advantage, or anything like it.
Not even Blair, or Smith after Black Monday (or, for that matter, Macmillan, staright after his Secretary for Waqr  had to admit tellling eberyone porkies about him, the topless model and the soviet naval attache).
There's simply too many diehard Tories, and people for whom Labour are spawn of Satan.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

Alex106 said:


> If Trump is a fascist/far-right, then so is Clinton.
> 
> Their politics are virtually identical.


A) She's not a racist
B) she's a corporate shill, but she's fit to hold office
C) huge difference in competence


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2020)

not to mention encouraging white supremacists. Unless that doesn't matter to Alex106 .


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> I doubt that very much indeed.
> Theree has NEVER been any point in Brithsh ElectoraL history, since opinion polling began, when ANY labour leader enjoyed that sort of advantage, or anything like it.
> Not even Blair, or Smith after Black Monday (or, for that matter, Macmillan, staright after his Secretary for Waqr  had to admit tellling eberyone porkies about him, the topless model and the soviet naval attache).
> There's simply too many diehard Tories, and people for whom Labour are spawn of Satan.


mate, you really need to work out how to read the room.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> mate, you really need to work out how to read the room.


Please explain this somewhat gnomic comment. 
I'm simply going by the data - the facts. 
To the best of my knowledge, a 20 point lead has never, ever happened. What is wrong with pointing that out, or suggesting that, consequentrly, it might just possibly be a tad unrealistic benchmark?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Please explain this somewhat gnomic comment.
> I'm simply going by the data - the facts.
> To the best of my knowledge, a 20 point lead has never, ever happened. What is wrong with pointing that out, or suggesting that, consequentrly, it might just possibly be a tad unrealistic benchmark?


Throughout Corbyn's time as leader, centrist dicks would claim that with any other leader in charge labour would be 20 points ahead. So now, here we are with a different leader in charge, not 20 points ahead, and people are posting the same sarcastically to make the point that maybe that 20 point lead wasn't so easy after all.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Please explain this somewhat gnomic comment.
> I'm simply going by the data - the facts.
> To the best of my knowledge, a 20 point lead has never, ever happened. What is wrong with pointing that out, or suggesting that, consequentrly, it might just possibly be a tad unrealistic benchmark?


A - he’s taking the Mickey out of all the comments from previous years about how Corbyn should have been etc etc

B - the tories did spend virtually all of 93-7 on under 30% and Blair did lead by that much briefly around late 94/5


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> Throughout Corbyn's time as leader, centrist dicks would claim that with any other leader in charge labour would be 20 points ahead. So now, here we are with a different leader in charge, not 20 points ahead, and people are posting the same sarcastically to make the point that maybe that 20 point lead wasn't so easy after all.


Ahhhh riiiight....I didn't see that SO  was being sarcastic ( in my defence, met him once, didn't strike me as the sarky type, but I should have seen that. Then again. I tend to have avoided the sort of blairite online hangouts where I suppose they would say that. They depress me too much).


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2020)

it happened on this very thread, multiple times.


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2020)

Earliest reference I can find is trevhagl saying it on the Ed Milliband should resign thread in 2014 



trevhagl said:


> hopefully this will stir em into action..... the tories are the most hated govt i can ever remember - Labour should be 20 points ahead


----------



## Wilf (Jul 21, 2020)

Liverpool should be 20 points ahead of citeh, not just a measly 15.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2020)

Any other leader, they would have been


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2020)

strung out said:


> Earliest reference I can find is trevhagl saying it on the Ed Milliband should resign thread in 2014


Maybe not the soothsayer any of us thought we wanted, but definitely the sage we all need


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 22, 2020)

killer b said:


> it happened on this very thread, multiple times.


again, apologies - not kept up with this thread


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 22, 2020)

yeah yeah Zionist mouthpiece etc but this is pretty humiliating for your lot https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/corbyn-milne-and-formby-attempt-to-stop-labour-apology-1.501779


----------



## rasputin (Jul 22, 2020)

Today's Labour Party apology

_The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to the former members of staff who contributed to a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party in July 2019.

Before the broadcast of the programme, the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these Whistleblowers. 

We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff. We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the Party. 

We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication.  We have agreed to pay them damages.

Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party. Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years. It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief and distress for many in the Jewish community, as well as members of staff.

If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community, we must demonstrate a change of leadership. That means being open, transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers. We are determined to deliver that change._


----------



## two sheds (Jul 22, 2020)

Will look forward to seeing the treatment of whistleblowers blowing the whistle on any new abuses within the Labour party.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 22, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Will look forward to seeing the treatment of whistleblowers blowing the whistle on any new abuses within the Labour party.



Racially abusing black labour members and helping to tank the Party's vote in elections have essentially been held to be perfectly acceptable conduct under Starmer.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jul 22, 2020)

rasputin said:


> Today's Labour Party apology
> 
> _The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to the former members of staff who contributed to a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party in July 2019.
> 
> ...


Sad capitulation, but to be expected from Starmer.


----------



## oryx (Jul 22, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Will look forward to seeing the treatment of whistleblowers blowing the whistle on any new abuses within the Labour party.


Yeah, will be interesting to see how the awful abuse of Diane Abbott et al in the leaked report is dealt with.

The main problem Labour faces is factionalism. 

I had little confidence that Starmer would do anything to attempt to resolve this. I now have even less.


----------



## strung out (Jul 22, 2020)

Anyone know if there might be any truth to these rumours?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> a scaffold. i cannot understand the support among some elements of the left for the nefandous assage, who numbers among his circle the vile farage and trump.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did'nt Wikileaks also do leaks about Trump though? And can we really trust the bourgeois media and their agenda? Btw, was unable to read the graun article about farage and assange as you need to register to read the article in full, but what I could read said farage MAY have given assange a thumb drive and MAY have done X, Y and Z. Not really anything to go on is it?

It's also worth bearing in mind that we probably can't trust the authenticity of statements from Assange at the moment because he is no doubt being interrogated by the state.

I would agree that a strong link with the likes of Farage and Trump is very problematic, but I still respect Assange for the initial work of WikiLeaks in revealing US war crimes etc.

To be honest though, I probably don't know much about wikileaks in more recent times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Did'nt Wikileaks also do leaks about Trump though? And can we really trust the bourgeois media and their agenda? Btw, was unable to read the graun article about farage and assange as you need to register to read the article in full, but what I could read said farage MAY have given assange a thumb drive and MAY have done X, Y and Z. Not really anything to go on is it?
> 
> It's also worth bearing in mind that we probably can't trust the authenticity of statements from Assange at the moment because he is no doubt being interrogated by the state.
> 
> ...


You don't need to register with the guardian

We already knew a great deal about us war crimes

I said nothing about a usb stick. I said farage and trump were numbered among his circle. And so they are. So don't get all hoity-toity because you rubbish a claim I haven't made.


----------



## rasputin (Jul 22, 2020)

strung out said:


> Anyone know if there might be any truth to these rumours?




There are multiple reports this morning, but they all originate from the same tweet that you quote. Personally I don't buy it.  I think someone is putting this story out there to provoke a reaction - either the pro-Corbyn camp wanting to warn off Starmer, or the pro-Starmer camp to find out whether they could get away with it.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2020)

Corbyn's statement today:


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Jul 22, 2020)

Corbyn's statement is interesting for three reasons:  

It shows him to be uncompromising and principled, 
These same attributes are what makes him unwilling to grasp the realities of successful politics and ultimately why he was unsuitable as a Labour leader (notwithstanding all the false shit he had to put up with from the press and the right of the LP)
His final comment is spot on and Starmer would do well to heed it if he is to build some unity.  
(as you can tell, I'm not a supporter of Corbyn, but I do think that the personalised vendettas against him did severe damage to the future of the UK)


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> don't get all hoity-toity because you rubbish a claim I haven't made.


Lol! You need to chill the fuck out mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Lol! You need to chill the fuck out mate.


yeh it's never your fault that your posts are pisspoor, it's other people's for pointing it out. you need to catch yourself on.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

@ Pickman's Model - Yes, I am able to read the rest of the article after all, however it shows no actual evidence of a strong connection between Farage and Assange and certainly not Trump. In the top Guardian article you posted (bourgeois madia), it states that US intelligence people have suspected this- US intelligence cannot be trusted, and you can't go on things they merely say MIGHT have happened.

Do you have any actual proof that, as you put it, Assange is 'in Trumps' circle?'

Also you didn't answer my question regarding if WikiLeaks has done leaks exposing Trump.

And I was in no way 'hoity toity' as you put it at all.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 22, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Will look forward to seeing the treatment of whistleblowers blowing the whistle on any new abuses within the Labour party.



Am sure any and all allegations will be taken care of in the correct manner. Keir-less whispers only, of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> @ Pickman's Model - Yes, I am able to read the rest of the article after all, however it shows no actual evidence of a strong connection between Farage and Assange and certainly not Trump. In the top Guardian article you posted (bourgeois madia), it states that US intelligence people have suspected this- US intelligence cannot be trusted, and you can't go on things they merely say MIGHT have happened.
> 
> Do you have any actual proof that, as you put it, Assange is 'in Trumps' circle?'
> 
> ...


jesus mary and joseph 

i never said that assange is in trump's circle. i said that assange numbers farage and trump in his circle.

i don't think i need to answer any questions until you understand my post. and that, it seems, may take quite some time.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> jesus mary and joseph
> 
> i never said that assange is in trump's circle. i said that assange numbers farage and trump in his circle.


It's basically the same thing


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think i need to answer any questions until you understand my post. and that, it seems, may take quite some time.


Yeah, your post is so 'sophisticated' and amazing that it couldn't possibly be understood by a pleb like me. Fucking hell, such pathetic arrogance.

I did suspect, as you have demonstrated such arrogance and clearly enjoy arguing and insulting people so much, that this would be a waste of time. Which it clearly is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> It's basically the same thing











						Trump, Assange, Bannon, Farage… bound together in an unholy alliance | Carole Cadwalladr
					

The WikiLeaks founder’s astonishing admission should prompt MPs finally to start asking questions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 22, 2020)

strung out said:


> Anyone know if there might be any truth to these rumours?




Corbyn's response to the settlement:


*Jeremy Corbyn* has described Labour’s decision to settle the Panorama antisemitism libel case as “disappointing”. In a statement he said:



> Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence, and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an NEC inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme.
> The decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing, and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour party in recent years.
> To give our members the answers and justice they deserve, the inquiry led by Martin Forde must now fully address the evidence the internal report uncovered of racism, sexism, factionalism and obstruction of Labour’s 2017 general election campaign.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Yeah, your post is so 'sophisticated' and amazing that it couldn't possibly be understood by a pleb like me. Fucking hell, such pathetic arrogance.


i said nothing about sophistication. so stop suggesting i did.

i neither said, suggested, implied or in any way proposed that your lack of comprehension was in any way due to being a pleb or anything like that. so you can stop that nonsense right now, too.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i said nothing about sophistication. so stop suggesting i did.
> 
> i neither said, suggested, implied or in any way proposed that your lack of comprehension was in any way due to being a pleb or anything like that. so you can stop that nonsense right now, too.


You implied it. You are an arrogant and condescending person and I'm not going to waste anymore time with you at the moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You implied it. You are an arrogant and condescending person and I'm not going to waste anymore time with you at the moment.


i didn't imply anything of the sort. you're saying that i made out that it's cos you're a thick pleb. by no means. i suggested you're not the sharpest tool in the box without bringing class into it. and i've wasted quite enough time on you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I did suspect, as you have demonstrated such arrogance and clearly enjoy arguing and insulting people so much, that this would be a waste of time. Which it clearly is.


ah - the crafty edit, such a mark of the wrong un 

what's a waste of time is trying to engage with someone who seems to have great difficulty understanding simple posts and who makes out i've said things i haven't.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 22, 2020)

Imagine suggesting that the leader of a political party acts politically. The nerve!


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Imagine suggesting that the leader of a political party acts politically. The nerve!




Quite something for Kuenssberg, a BBC journalist after all, making a political not a journalistic point.  

Or maybe not.  She should STFU and get on with her day job or move to the Telegraph.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 22, 2020)

Struwwelpeter said:


> Quite something for Kuenssberg, a BBC journalist after all, making a political not a journalistic point.
> 
> Or maybe not.  She should STFU and get on with her day job or move to the Telegraph.



kurnssberg should be put up against a fucking wall sans blindfold. She’s not a journalist, at best a Tory party stenographer at worst a fully involved propagandist

how did we get into this position


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 22, 2020)

Because of cunts like you. Angry internet man


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i suggested you're not the sharpest tool in the box


You are the one posting unsubstantiated drivel from the bourgeois media and then being unable to answer questions about such posts.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 22, 2020)

Assange is first of all a right libertarian. I mean forget everything else for now. For that alone, fuck him.

Quite why we still have to squabble over the greasy creep is beyond me


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Assange is first of all a right libertarian.


I was unaware of this. I assumed that he was on the left in some way, which still doesn't excuse the arrogant, condescending attitude. Still hope he is not done for exposing US war crimes though, as that would set a bad prescendent, such work is worthy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I was unaware of this. I assumed that he was on the left in some way. Still hope he is not done for exposing US war crimes though, as that would set a bad prescendent, such work is worthy.


I hope he’s not done for that. But running away from rape charges saying he feared extradition to the US, but running _to_ the UK (which _has_ extradition treaties with the US) is not, shall we say, entirely believable.

He should have answered the rape charges in Sweden at the time. Not made the big self defeating meal he chose to make of it over many years. The slimeball.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> I hope he’s not done for that. But running away from rape charges saying he feared extradition to the US, but running _to_ the UK (which _has_ extradition treaties with the US) is not, shall we say, entirely believable.
> 
> He should have answered the rape charges in Sweden at the time. Not made the big self defeating meal he chose to make of it over many years. The slimeball.


You are probably correct.

However, I had always been suscpiscious of that considering what Assange had done. As paranoid as it may be, I have always been suscpiscious that that was a trap by the US.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You are probably correct.
> 
> However, I had always been suscpiscious of that considering what Assange had done. As paranoid as it may be, I have always been suscpiscious that that was a trap by the US.


I think what many people have trouble with is that given that the US state is Bad, they assume that people the US state have in their sights are therefore Good.  This does not follow.  It does not follow that because Assange’s organisation put information in the public domain that he therefore did not have a case to answer in Sweden. This does not follow.  People can do Good Things then turn around and do Bad Things.

People, eh? The complex buggers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You are the one posting unsubstantiated drivel from the bourgeois media and then being unable to answer questions about such posts.


please point to any unsubstantiated claims I have made


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I was unaware of this. I assumed that he was on the left in some way, which still doesn't excuse the arrogant, condescending attitude. Still hope he is not done for exposing US war crimes though, as that would set a bad prescendent, such work is worthy.


That precedent of course already set by the punishment of Chelsea Manning


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> I think what many people have trouble with is that given that the US state is Bad, they assume that people the US state have in their sights are therefore Good.  This does not follow.  It does not follow that because Assange’s organisation put information in the public domain that he therefore did not have a case to answer in Sweden. This does not follow.  People can do Good Things then turn around and do Bad Things.
> 
> People, eh? The complex buggers.


Yes that is probably very true. I have always very much respected the left-wing journalist, author and film maker John Pilger. I consider his work quite brilliant. Pilger is ofcourse close to Assange and has interviewed him for his documentary The War You Don't See, which had a powerful effect on me.

 I guess I didn't want to think that someone so close to Pilger was so problematic. I've been taking a closer look at Pilger lately and have discovered some things I'm not comfortable with- he seems to romantize Ho Chi Minh for example, a totalitarian murderer in practice. Pilger has also, alledgedly described the Khymer Rouge's politics as being closer to anarchism than socialism -  ofcourse an outrageous and bizarre claim (their politics was nationalism ofcourse). And now I can see he is close to a right-libertarian who may well be a rapist. 

I think Pilger's work is worth attention, but at the same time he (and Assange) are clearly not what I thought they were and ofcourse I can't now understand really why Pilger is so close to such a person, who may well have these far-right connections. It's a shame because I think Pilger's work is important, you can watch any documentary or read any of his books to know that.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> please point to any unsubstantiated claims I have made


It would appear that you didn't. However the tone/attitude of your replies were unnecessary and unhelpful. I was merely asking questions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> It would appear that you didn't. However the tone/attitude of your replies were unnecessary and unhelpful. I was merely asking questions.


No you weren't.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> No you weren't.


Yes. Initially, I was.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Did'nt Wikileaks also do leaks about Trump though? And can we really trust the bourgeois media and their agenda? Btw, was unable to read the graun article about farage and assange as you need to register to read the article in full, but what I could read said farage MAY have given assange a thumb drive and MAY have done X, Y and Z. Not really anything to go on is it?
> 
> It's also worth bearing in mind that we probably can't trust the authenticity of statements from Assange at the moment because he is no doubt being interrogated by the state.
> 
> ...


This was my initial post. I was just asking questions and made it clear that I didn't know much about wikileaks more recently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Did'nt Wikileaks also do leaks about Trump though? And can we really trust the bourgeois media and their agenda? Btw, was unable to read the graun article about farage and assange as you need to register to read the article in full, but what I could read said farage MAY have given assange a thumb drive and MAY have done X, Y and Z. Not really anything to go on is it?
> 
> It's also worth bearing in mind that we probably can't trust the authenticity of statements from Assange at the moment because he is no doubt being interrogated by the state.
> 
> ...


This isn't merely asking questions. There's some 'loonery there about statements from ja ATM. Is anyone bar you saying he's being interrogated by 'the state'? Do you honestly believe what you claim here?

No one can trust trust the bourgeois media. But if there's one bourgeois paper who'll be as kind to ja as they can it's the guardian.

And of course merely asking questions is never only asking questions. The questions don't come out of a void, after all


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 23, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Because of cunts like you. Angry internet man


I tend to disregard most of your posts, I will probably continue in the same vein for some time to come 

angry internet cunt calls another angry internet cunt an angry internet cunt, groundbreaking stuff, we should have this government toppled in no time


----------



## co-op (Jul 23, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Yes. Initially, I was.



It's generally best to stick Pickman's Model on ignore, he very rarely says anything that's worth reading and it's always outweighed by the petty trollery and general pointless bullshit.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 23, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> I tend to disregard most of your posts, I will probably continue in the same vein for some time to come
> 
> angry internet cunt calls another angry internet cunt an angry internet cunt, groundbreaking stuff, we should have this government toppled in no time



Wonderful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> I tend to disregard most of your posts, I will probably continue in the same vein for some time to come
> 
> angry internet cunt calls another angry internet cunt an angry internet cunt, groundbreaking stuff, we should have this government toppled in no time


And you would too if only this was on a thread about the current administration


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 23, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I've been taking a closer look at Pilger lately and have discovered some things I'm not comfortable with


I used to value his work, too. But unfortunately I started to notice things going wrong. He was quite badly out of whack on Syria, for example. I think in short it’s best not to value heroes, but to value ideas. That way you don’t get let down.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jul 23, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> I hope he’s not done for that. But running away from rape charges saying he feared extradition to the US, but running _to_ the UK (which _has_ extradition treaties with the US) is not, shall we say, entirely believable.
> 
> He should have answered the rape charges in Sweden at the time. Not made the big self defeating meal he chose to make of it over many years. The slimeball.



Hang on though, he did answer the original charges in Sweden and the case was closed. Then it was reopened and Assange smelled a rat and refused to go to Sweden. He offered to be interviewed in the UK by the Swedish prosecutors, that offer was declined. Doesn't make him a lovable chappie but I don't think he should be smeared for something he didn't do.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 23, 2020)

AnnaKarpik said:


> Hang on though, he did answer the original charges in Sweden and the case was closed. Then it was reopened and Assange smelled a rat and refused to go to Sweden. He offered to be interviewed in the UK by the Swedish prosecutors, that offer was declined. Doesn't make him a lovable chappie but I don't think he should be smeared for something he didn't do.


I think you’re getting things out of chronological order. Over the years he was in self imposed incarceration he and wikileaks did a bit of a job on the facts.

There’s a very long thread on Assange, though, and I’ve no wish to repeat it here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 23, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> I used to value his work, too. But unfortunately I started to notice things going wrong. He was quite badly out of whack on Syria, for example. I think in short it’s best not to value heroes, but to value ideas. That way you don’t get let down.


Yes it is a real pity that Pilger's politics have ended up where they are, he's been too quick to jump on the 'anti-imperialist' bandwagon and for some time. At his best his journalism did have some excellent content and even later on he was still capable of producing some good stuff, now I can't even be bothered with him.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 23, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> And you would too if only this was on a thread about the current administration



absolutely, you are entirely correct, I concur


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> This isn't merely asking questions. There's some 'loonery there about statements from ja ATM. Is anyone bar you saying he's being interrogated by 'the state'? Do you honestly believe what you claim here?
> 
> No one can trust trust the bourgeois media. But if there's one bourgeois paper who'll be as kind to ja as they can it's the guardian.
> 
> And of course merely asking questions is never only asking questions. The questions don't come out of a void, after all


This report from a UN expert on torture states that Assange shows all the signs of going through torture: OHCHR | UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange’s life may be at risk

It's the sort of thing I was refering to but only just found. Whatever we think of Assange, surely he is innocent until proven guilty and surely torture is wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> This report from the UN expert on torture states that Assange is shows all the signs of going through torture: OHCHR | UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange’s life may be at risk
> 
> It's the sort of thing I was refering to but only just found. Whatever we think of Assange, surely he is innocent until proven guilty and surely torture is wrong.


I see nothing there to support your assertion about interrogation. Perhaps you have another source for that


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

The report clearly states that Assange showed all the signs of having been psychologically tortured when he was visited in May, don't see how you could have missed that if you've read it properly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> The report clearly states that Assange showed all the signs of having been psychologically tortured when he was visited in May, don't see how you could have missed that if you've read it properly.


you don't know what interrogation means, do you


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Well this is a waste of time


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

As usual


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Well this is a waste of time


It's a fucking huge waste of time if you don't understand the words you use. What your link says in simple terms is he's been in solitary and has been prevented from preparing a defence by obstacles being put in the way of legal visits

This is not interrogation

You should get a dictionary


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

More unneccesary arrogance and condescention. Lovely.

I get that he's not being interrogated, but that still doesn't mean he's being treated right ( Per the OHCHR, "prolonged solitary confinement amounts to torture").

The real issue here though is about whether journalists should be allowed to be imprisoned for publishing leaked war crimes etc- an important issue that you don't seem to give a toss about. The way assange is being treated is potentially how our comrades could be treated- and you seem not to give a shit, which is bizarre.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> That precedent of course already set by the punishment of Chelsea Manning


This is incorrect because Manning was done for whistleblowing. What Assange did was publishing evidence from whistleblowers, theres a difference. Assange didn't have access to the documents to leak. Assange is being incarcerated merely for journalism - an dangerous precedent would be set.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> This is incorrect because Manning was done for whistleblowing. What Assange did was publishing evidence from whistleblowers


you're a promising young pedant.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> It's generally best to stick Pickman's Model on ignore, he very rarely says anything that's worth reading and it's always outweighed by the petty trollery and general pointless bullshit.


This is drivel.


----------



## co-op (Jul 24, 2020)

TopCat said:


> This is drivel.



Fair play for sticking up for your chum, but in objective reality Pickman's Model is one of the posters on the site who the highest number of people have put on Ignore, which should tell you something. 

The poster currently wasting their time on replying to him is new, he may not know this.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> Fair play for sticking up for your chum, but in objective reality Pickman's Model is one of the posters on the site who the highest number of people have put on Ignore, which should tell you something.
> 
> The poster currently wasting their time on replying to him is new, he may not know this.


Is that sort of figure publicly accessible of this site?


----------



## co-op (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Is that sort of figure publicly accessible of this site?



I remember a thread about it but I don't know how to do it


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> I remember a thread about it but I don't know how to do it


I see; so what was said was just your own impression, then?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Do your stance is that cm was not exposing us war crimes


Eh? You'll have to make what you are trying to say clearer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Do your stance is that cm was not exposing us war crimes


Manning was ofcourse exposing US war crimes but there was a difference in how (as I explained above). Assange was publishing leaks and was not in the military doing the actual leaking.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 24, 2020)

Reading the last few pages I surmise Jeremy Corbyn has been replaced by Julian Assange?


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 24, 2020)

I was going to ask if you’ve ever seen them both at the same time and the same place, but then decided against opening up that can of worms


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Manning was ofcourse exposing US war crimes but there was a difference in how (as I explained above). Assange was publishing leaks and was not in the military doing the actual leaking.


Now you have conceded the point let's move on


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Now you have conceded the point let's move on


I have not conceded any point


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Now you have conceded the point let's move on


Indeed; because there are surely current matters more obviously pertinent to the thread title such as all those LP members that voted for the 'electable' Der Starmer seemingly prepared to forget just how ruthless and vindictive the right of the left party of capital can be. Corbyn will not be left alone now until he is politically hung, drawn and quartered as a warning to any future challenger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I have not conceded any point


So when you said Manning exposed war crimes you did not in fact mean Manning exposed war crimes. Right.

I see no point in continuing this discussion as you've so clearly come unarmed to a battle of wits


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Indeed; because there are surely current matters more obviously pertinent to the thread title such as all those LP members that voted for the 'electable' Der Starmer seemingly prepared to forget just how ruthless and vindictive the right of the left party of capital can be. Corbyn will not be left alone now until he is politically hung, drawn and quartered as a warning to any future challenger.


I don't think they'll be satisfied even then.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> So when you said Manning exposed war crimes you did not in fact mean Manning exposed war crimes. Right.
> 
> I see no point in continuing this discussion as you've so clearly come unarmed to a battle of wits


This is truly absurd, but I do understand that I appear to be derailing the thread somewhat.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't think they'll be satisfied even then.


The quarters taken to the 4 'nations' for display?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> This is truly absurd, but I do understand that I appear to be derailing the thread somewhat.


although it is based on was posted on it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> This is truly absurd, but I do understand that I appear to be derailing the thread somewhat.


Yes, yes you are


----------



## co-op (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I see; so what was said was just your own impression, then?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 24, 2020)

Corbyn ought to be careful, knocking about with dodgy characters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


>


So 13 years of posting and you've not got to grips with the search function yet


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The quarters taken to the 4 'nations' for display?



who gets which quarter or will there be some rotation system?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 24, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> who gets which quarter or will there be some rotation system?



Around the country in a leftward motion.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


>


----------



## co-op (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


>



It's based on an actual thread where this was discussed, I saw it. I said this. That's not "just my personal impression".



			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-many-posters-have-me-on-ignore.364124/
		


I've not read the whole thing but I recall PM being either the - and certainly _one_ of the - most ignored posters.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Reading the last few pages I surmise Jeremy Corbyn has been replaced by Julian Assange?



If he has, does it mean that his (and this threads) time, finally, “is up”?


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> View attachment 223453
> Corbyn ought to be careful, knocking about with dodgy characters.


Who is that and why is she relevant? (looks vaguely familiar TBF, but only vaguely)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> It's based on an actual thread where this was discussed, I saw it. I said this. That's not "just my personal impression".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're not ignoring me when you're talking about me. As you have done on threads across the boards. This peculiar fascination does you no credit.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 24, 2020)

andysays said:


> Who is that and why is she relevant? (looks vaguely familiar TBF, but only vaguely)



Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy. Long-Bailey retweeted it saying how good she was and handed Der Sturmer the excuse he was looking for to sack her. 

In a gift-wrapped box. With pretty bows. And rose petals. With a card saying 'please sack me, I'm a weapons grade fuckwit'...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy. Long-Bailey retweeted it saying how good she was and handed Der Sturmer the excuse he was looking for to sack her.
> 
> In a gift-wrapped box. With pretty bows. And rose petals. With a card saying 'please sack me, I'm a weapons grade fuckwit'...




Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.

I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy. Long-Bailey retweeted it saying how good she was and handed Der Sturmer the excuse he was looking for to sack her.
> 
> In a gift-wrapped box. With pretty bows. And rose petals. With a card saying 'please sack me, I'm a weapons grade fuckwit'...


Christ, what a pile of shite.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy. Long-Bailey retweeted it saying how good she was and handed Der Sturmer the excuse he was looking for to sack her.
> 
> In a gift-wrapped box. With pretty bows. And rose petals. With a card saying 'please sack me, I'm a weapons grade fuckwit'...


Oh, *her*...

...I remember now.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.


Insert "in too deep" joke here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.


optics should be seen only in pubs.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> Fair play for sticking up for your chum, but in objective reality Pickman's Model is one of the posters on the site who the highest number of people have put on Ignore, which should tell you something.
> 
> The poster currently wasting their time on replying to him is new, he may not know this.


I'm defending him against drivel accusations. Like yours.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.



I know that lots of journalists are talking about it and saying that senior Labour people are actively discussing it - the yes/no point seems to be around the publication of the EHRC report, with a couple claiming that some of the recommendations in the report will be stake-through-the-heart, garlic-in-the-mouth fatal for Corbyn.

Whether that's true - any of it - I've no idea.

There is a great deal of personal hostility to Corbyn and his coterie, real, deep, visceral loathing so I wouldn't be surprised if some would like him gone - if the EHRC report makes grim reading then the racism stick would be just too delicious to ignore as a way of getting rid. The fact that it would send his supporters packing, or to the outer reaches of foaming loonville only adds to the taste.

I'm not convinced that Corbyn is an anti-Semite - though my view is nuanced - but I can see how deliciously ironic it would be for him to chucked out for racist behaviour, so I can see the appeal...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.


If anything, it suggests that the membership shake-out of leftists has not perhaps been as thorough as some on the right would have hoped for.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> If anything, it suggests that the membership shake-out of leftists has not perhaps been as thorough as some on the right would have hoped for.



they won’t stop until the party has been entirely cleansed of hope. Enlightened technocracy is the only dish they want on the menu.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2020)

You stopped sending them money Jeff?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 24, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You stopped sending them money Jeff?



yep. Cancelled the standing order the day Starmer was elected.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> If anything, it suggests that the membership shake-out of leftists has not perhaps been as thorough as some on the right would have hoped for.



I think that understates how necessary many believe that a very public repudiation of _The Corbyn Years _is - certainly a discrete undermining of the left membership is necessary to ensure the centre and right win any fight, but the public, political act needs to be as public, and as brutal as possible. 

Think of a public execution, with body quarters sent off to various cross roads throughout the land. Nothing subtle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I think that understates how necessary many believe that a very public repudiation of _The Corbyn Years _is - certainly a discrete undermining of the left membership is necessary to ensure the centre and right win any fight, but the public, political act needs to be as public, and as brutal as possible.
> 
> Think of a public execution, with body quarters sent off to various cross roads throughout the land. Nothing subtle.


do you mean discreet rather than discrete? the meanings are rather different.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

TopCat said:


> I'm defending him against drivel accusations. Like yours.


i am surprised and gratified that co-op took time off his transphobic work elsewhere to post a stream of thin piss here. he doesn't do it for just any auld poster, you know


----------



## MrSki (Jul 24, 2020)

Still the crowdfunder is going well. Some donors might be taking the piss though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Phillip Collins is urging Waitrose to remove the whip from Corbyn and then expel him. His clause 4 moment etc.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is Blairite wank fantasy and how much of this is being seriously weighed up. I’m not sure how the optics of a civil war plays out in their minds. But I can imagine some musing about the positive columns it would generate. And of course, it distracts from the failure of the new leader to offer a compelling or coherent vision for the post Covid economy.



I think we need to hear both sides of the story.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 24, 2020)

although we might not hear it on RT Labour calls for review of Russian news agency RT


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 24, 2020)

It’s heartwarming to see that through all the turmoil of 2020, the Labour Party is more intent on attacking itself than the most useless government in  Europe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It’s heartwarming to see that through all the turmoil of 2020, the Labour Party is more intent on attacking itself than the most useless government in  Europe.


why should they stop now what they've been doing for most of the past 35-40 years?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It’s heartwarming to see that through all the turmoil of 2020, the Labour Party is more intent on attacking itself than the most useless government in  European history.


oh and c4u


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> why should they stop now what they've been doing for most of the past 35-40 years?


It’s no longer policy, it’s become habitual.


----------



## co-op (Jul 24, 2020)

TopCat said:


> I'm defending him against drivel accusations. Like yours.



Bully for you.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy.


The article was nothing like that. She mentioned Israel once with a bullshit example of systemic racism being a global problem that was in no way related to Corbyn.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 24, 2020)

leaking that ‘report’ perhaps not wise Labour was warned antisemitism report was deliberately misleading, leak reveals


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It’s heartwarming to see that through all the turmoil of 2020, the Labour Party is more intent on attacking itself than the most useless government in  Europe.



Isn’t that because, to all intents and purposes, it largely accepts the analysis and response of the most useless government in Europe


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> leaking that ‘report’ perhaps not wise Labour was warned antisemitism report was deliberately misleading, leak reveals


and this was a report commissioned under the former dpp, the current leader of the party, someone who has - i hear - a legal background


----------



## campanula (Jul 24, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Still the crowdfunder is going well. Some donors might be taking the piss though.



I sent a tenner. I was chucked out of the LP (twice) and I despair of parliamentary politics.
 I don't read dense works of political theory and can be easily stomped on for having some less than acceptable views. I don't really enjoy the viciously combative positioning on the P&P subforum...or the toxic spite which seems to dominate all political discourse. I think JC is a career politician who has maintained a flawed but sincere, egalitarian and fundamentally  honest commitment to social justice...who at least has an awareness of what representational politics should mean, and yep, I truly liked the idea of a more collegiate, democratic form of politics... whereas Starmer is just another neo-liberal establishment arse-licker who has nothing whatsoever to say to my class ( I am just another unit of production to be exploited  by rentiers, parasites, managerial scum and authoritarian defenders of property).
In my whole life, I have never felt represented by a single politician. The initial groundswell of support, back in 2016,  demonstrated an appetite for change... and JC's mildly left (and deeply personal) position resonated for an awful lot of politically homeless people like myself. And clearly, this cannot ever be allowed.  'The many' must be kept in our place and fed 'grown up politics' as delivered by the vast majority of Westminster, privately educated fucking suits.
Shit on them. And Burn it down.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 24, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Maxine Peake, late of the Ill-advised article involving conspiraloon shit - a kind of 'Jeremy is great, isn't it a pity that Israel owns the world and made him lose' type exposé of idiocy. Long-Bailey retweeted it saying how good she was and handed Der Sturmer the excuse he was looking for to sack her.
> 
> In a gift-wrapped box. With pretty bows. And rose petals. With a card saying 'please sack me, I'm a weapons grade fuckwit'...



You appear to have distilled your rapier like political analysis over a hot wet, a pasty and a three day old copy of the sun in the NAAFI


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> and this was a report commissioned under the former dpp, the current leader of the party, someone who has - i hear - a legal background


A man incapable of being political.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 24, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> leaking that ‘report’ perhaps not wise Labour was warned antisemitism report was deliberately misleading, leak reveals


Say it ain't so!



> “I also object further on the grounds that large sections of the report have been compiled using email searches which were not authorised for the authors to undertake including improper searches of my email account.
> 
> “The report also includes confidential private WhatsApp and other messages – a clear and unacceptable breach of confidence. Further, these messages are presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture,”


----------



## TopCat (Jul 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> Bully for you.


An even worse retort.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 24, 2020)

> “The report also includes confidential private WhatsApp and other messages – a clear and unacceptable breach of confidence. Further, these messages are presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture,”



I don't doubt it but the evidence is still damning, and this excuse is exactly the excuse used by eg. Jackie Walker.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 24, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It’s heartwarming to see that through all the turmoil of 2020, the Labour Party is more intent on attacking itself...



It's a legitimate target tbf.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 24, 2020)

This thing will drag on with the leaked report and the EHRC report and I’m sick of it, loads of money wasted on payouts and in court, what a disaster letting that lot into power in Labour, a complete shit show.


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 24, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> This is truly absurd, but I do understand that I appear to be derailing the thread somewhat.


No, please keep it up

I realised after the last general election that a major part of my disappointment was that this thread was unlikely to reach a thousand pages.

But now I can see the light at the end of the tunnel - only 2,400 more pointless back and forths with PM to go


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 25, 2020)

19force8 said:


> No, please keep it up
> 
> I realised after the last general election that a major part of my disappointment was that this thread was unlikely to reach a thousand pages.
> 
> But now I can see the light at the end of the tunnel - only 2,400 more pointless back and forths with PM to go


Well tough titties mate because myself and Pickmans have put any differences or misunderstandings aside and have started over.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 25, 2020)

Maybe JC could MC?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

'time is up'


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)




----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

Jeremy Corbyn timeshares are up.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)




----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe JC could MC? View attachment 223555



Did Corbyn really say 'Thank you Wiley' after that antisemitic barrage?


----------



## pesh (Jul 25, 2020)

not according to the date on the tweet, no.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Did Corbyn really say 'Thank you Wiley' after that antisemitic barrage?


If you look at the date that tweet was last November


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

Ah the date given in 2-point text that's clear to everyone at a glance.

So adding that tweet right at the bottom, suggesting that Corbyn posted after Wiley and so approved of everything Wiley said, was actually a bit dishonest wasn't it MadeInBedlam ?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2020)

It shows the deficit of 'politics' as it is now being played out on social media networks where critical analysis has sadly been replaced by a hundred screengrabbed tweets and facebook posts, where any attempt of discourse, regardless of what it is (we've seen it with trans stuff, now BLM) just gets reduced to this, and where nuanced views are so often increasingly misrepresented, the pile-on's start and then people block each other. And for any doubt, I'm not talking about actual views here (which I may fundamentally disagree with/oppose/criticise), but the method.

Why I stand outside of the whole fucking shit show.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

stethoscope said:


> It shows the deficit of 'politics' as it is now being played out on social media networks where critical analysis has sadly been replaced by a hundred screengrabbed tweets and facebook posts, where any attempt of discourse, regardless of what it is (we've seen it with trans stuff, now BLM) just gets reduced to this, and where nuanced views are so often increasingly misrepresented, the pile-on's start and then people block each other. And for any doubt, I'm not talking about actual views here (which I may fundamentally disagree with/oppose/criticise), but the method.
> 
> Why I stand outside of the whole fucking shit show.


Good on ya


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2020)

Sooner we abandon twitter, facebook for anything other than occasionally keeping in touch with mates or promoting an event happening the fucking better.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

stethoscope said:


> Sooner we abandon twitter, facebook for anything other than occasionally keeping in touch with mates or promoting an event happening the fucking better.


Yes. Let's.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

I'm not saying you're dishonest MadeInBedlam, but the person who compiled it certainly was. It shows how some people will distort what Corbyn says to paint him as antisemitic.

It's a bit like quoting a last year's post on an urban thread about Wiley saying "I like Wiley" after that pile of shite to suggest the poster is antisemitic, too. Particularly making it look as if Corbyn was saying 'Thank you Wiley' in reply to the tweet saying 'Corbyn was right'. That's just fucking nasty. Where did it come from?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2020)

God, I'm so disappointed in politics, in urban, in everything, and everyone.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

Nah, I think it's the exception on urban - people get pulled up on it and will often apologize. Not like the sewer that it twitter and facebook and the like. Problem is (and I've done it too many times myself) it's too easy to quickly c&p something you think is saying one thing but actually is saying something else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe JC could MC? View attachment 223555


Maybe you could order those chronologically


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I'm not saying you're dishonest MadeInBedlam, but the person who compiled it certainly was. It shows how some people will distort what Corbyn says to paint him as antisemitic.
> 
> It's a bit like quoting a last year's post on an urban thread about Wiley saying "I like Wiley" after that pile of shite to suggest the poster is antisemitic, too. Particularly making it look as if Corbyn was saying 'Thank you Wiley' in reply to the tweet saying 'Corbyn was right'. That's just fucking nasty. Where did it come from?


It's not just that one, other tweets in the rh column are not in date order


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe you could order those chronologically


Even doing that ties Corbyn to an antisemitic rant rather than to whatever he was responding to at the time. 

Eta ah ok hadn't seen that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Even doing that ties Corbyn to an antisemitic rant rather than to whatever he was responding to at the time.
> 
> Eta ah ok hadn't seen that.


The master criminal always makes one fatal error and mib's was not removing the dates


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I'm not saying you're dishonest MadeInBedlam, but the person who compiled it certainly was. It shows how some people will distort what Corbyn says to paint him as antisemitic.
> 
> It's a bit like quoting a last year's post on an urban thread about Wiley saying "I like Wiley" after that pile of shite to suggest the poster is antisemitic, too. Particularly making it look as if Corbyn was saying 'Thank you Wiley' in reply to the tweet saying 'Corbyn was right'. That's just fucking nasty. Where did it come from?



I am saying he's dishonest, and also that he thinks we're all idiots. I wish I could say I was surprised or disappointed.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Nah, I think it's the exception on urban - people get pulled up on it and will often apologize. Not like the sewer that it twitter and facebook and the like. Problem is (and I've done it too many times myself) it's too easy to quickly c&p something you think is saying one thing but actually is saying something else.



Nah, urban went down this sewer a few years back, just constant regurgitating and reposting of whatever was on twitter or facebook, no proper discussion or context, just wall to wall of shit. People on here I thought highly off just blindly regurgitating shit about trans people for example (whilst playing the 'just trying to find my way through it all' zero game whilst actively engaging in it), or about any of the many 'cultural wars' that now seem to be taking place. People in so deep they've lost the perspective, and the divisiveness that's happened as a result.

We need to engage in finding and making meaningful, actual world, connections with people again outside of this shit which is turning everyone into cunts.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

#corbynout


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2020)

Made me giggle...


----------



## NoXion (Jul 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe JC could MC? View attachment 223555



Do you really think sharing this kind of shit helps at all?


----------



## andysays (Jul 25, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Do you really think sharing this kind of shit helps at all?


It has appeared to me for some time that MadeInBedlam isn't really interested in "helping" with regard to the whole Corbyn/anti semitism debacle, rather he's more inclined to throw any shit at the wall, whatever its origin and and without any consideration of its accuracy, and shout "look at this!".

I understand it's an issue he has strong feelings about, but not sure that's really any excuse/justification


----------



## oryx (Jul 25, 2020)

The antics of the Labour right (and others) in continuing to smear Corbyn even now he's returned to the back benches are just vindictive and pathetic.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Imagine if Labour's move to the left had been led by someone who wasn't such a miserable cunt as Corbyn. He managed to make Gordon Brown seem jovial while having not one ounce of the intellect of Michael Foot.

Years of an effectively unopposed Tory party and then Starmer, that's his legacy.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine if Labour's move to the left had been led by someone who wasn't such a miserable cunt as Corbyn. He managed to make Gordon Brown seem jovial while having not one ounce of the intellect of Michael Foot.
> 
> Years of an effectively unopposed Tory party and then Starmer, that's his legacy.



Can't find the whole clip but this last bit shows what a miserable cunt he really is. You can tell why there's such visceral hatred of him right here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine if Labour's move to the left had been led by someone who wasn't such a miserable cunt as Corbyn. He managed to make Gordon Brown seem jovial while having not one ounce of the intellect of Michael Foot.
> 
> Years of an effectively unopposed Tory party and then Starmer, that's his legacy.


To be fair at least JC never tried to defend the wretch Dominic Cummings. You by contrast...

So you will appreciate why I treat your opinion on this matter with the respect it merits.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Can't find the whole clip but this last bit shows what a miserable cunt he really is. You can tell why there's such visceral hatred of him right here



Any fool can cheer their own troops.

Can you imagine him debating a Tory like this, instead of his typical angry dad mode:


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> To be fair at least JC never tried to defend the wretch Dominic Cummings. You by contrast...
> 
> So you will appreciate why I treat your opinion on this matter with the respect it merits.



I did no such thing, but if it matters to you so much, instead of stalking me around the forums with it disrupting other threads, when not start a new thread (permission to do a call-out thread), or use PMs?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Everything Corbyn espoused as Leader he set back by at least twenty years. A total failure.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

What a monster he is


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> is typical angry dad mode:


you've never seen him speak for more than ten seconds, have you? Even for you this is rather silly


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> you've never seen him speak for more than ten seconds, have you? Even for you this is rather silly



I've never seen him engage in cogent debate with a Tory in the manner of Michael Foot, but then he doesn't have the intellect to do that. The result is just grumpy ranting, meaning any decent arguments he may have totally fail to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I've never seen him engage in cogent debate with a Tory in the manner of Michael Foot, but then he doesn't have the intellect to do that. The result is just grumpy ranting, meaning any decent arguments he may have totally fail to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded.


you could just have said 'no'  But you seem to think being loquacious equals being intelligent.  It doesn't.   

And you'd have been slagging of Michael Foot in exactly the same way as your are Corbyn if we were actually back in the eighties.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine if Labour's move to the left had been led by someone who wasn't such a miserable cunt as Corbyn. He managed to make Gordon Brown seem jovial while having not one ounce of the intellect of Michael Foot.
> 
> Years of an effectively unopposed Tory party and then Starmer, that's his legacy.



He energised thousands of people to vote for Labour in the previous election.  He was screwed by the right, both within and without the party. Yeah, he wasn't media savvy and didn't act sooner on wrong uns, but fuck that shit about his demeanor.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The result is just grumpy ranting...



Did you plagiarise this from a review of your own posts on urban?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I've never seen him engage in cogent debate with a Tory in the manner of Michael Foot, but then he doesn't have the intellect to do that. The result is just grumpy ranting, meaning any decent arguments he may have totally fail to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded.


This not seeing him debate with a Tory, wouldn't have anything to do with Johnson's craven refusal to debate with him during the election I suppose. You lay the blame for Johnson's no show on Corbyn. Pisspoor.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> He energised thousands of people to vote for Labour in the previous election.  He was screwed by the right, both within and without the party. Yeah, he wasn't media savvy and didn't act sooner on wrong uns, but fuck that shit about his demeanor.



He energised thousands of people to vote for Labour, but that's because the country was ripe for a left-wing government. Any half-decent leader on a similar platform could have energised thousands more, including those necessary to win an election.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> This not seeing him debate with a Tory, wouldn't have anything to do with Johnson's craven refusal to debate with him I suppose. You lay the blame for Johnson's no show on Corbyn. Pisspoor.



No, I mean any debate, from PMQs with May and Johnson, through to slightly right-wing questions from BBC journalists. Useless.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

HE should have been more of a lad like everyone's mate Johnson: regular racist quips, arrange a beating down the phone, knock up your employees, what a bundle of fun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I mean any debate, from PMQs with May and Johnson, through to slightly right-wing questions from BBC journalists. Useless.


PMQs isn't a debate. It is as the q suggests questions. And politicians of any stripe don't debate with journos


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> He energised thousands of people to vote for Labour, but that's because the country was ripe for a left-wing government. Any half-decent leader on a similar platform could have energised thousands more, including those necessary to win an election.



Interesting how ripe the country was post-Milliband. But not during.

Something and/or someone revitalised the damaged party.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

It amuses me that this anti-Corbyn stuff is so ground into some people that they can't let it go even several months after Corbyn ceased to be Labour leader.


----------



## Southlondon (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Any fool can cheer their own troops.
> 
> Can you imagine him debating a Tory like this, instead of his typical angry dad mode:



Considering he was facing a relentless attack from not just Tories and their billionaire newspaper owning supports etc, but the detractors from the right wing of the Labour Party who refused to give up control, I think he did pretty well. My criticism of corbyn was that he was not ruthless enough at cleansing the party of the incumbent right wingers like they are in the process of doing now. 
£250k has been raised in less than 24 hours for his defence team from many thousands of small Donors on a go fund me page. anyone who is as disgusted as I am about the way he is being persecuted by the rightwingers  using spurious allegations of antisemitism to silence criticism of Zionism, could show solidarity by donating or publicising. The man is still under Attack and I believe we should show solidarity with him


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

JimW said:


> HE should have been more of a lad like everyone's mate Johnson: regular racist quips, arrange a beating down the phone, knock up your employees, what a bundle of fun.



Michael Foot managed to own Tories in debates, and win arguments with right-wing journslits  without being any of those things. 🤷


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

Just think, we could be luxuriating in the sunlit uplands of a Liz Kendall-led nation by now if only Corbyn had fucked off.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> It amuses me that this anti-Corbyn stuff is so ground into some people that they can't let it go even several months after Corbyn ceased to be Labour leader.



This thread was top of the pile, perhaps it should have been closed, or marked "positive comments only".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Michael Foot managed to own Tories in debates, and win arguments with right-wing journslits  without being any of those things. 🤷



How did that pan out, electorally?


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I mean any debate, from PMQs with May and Johnson, through to slightly right-wing questions from BBC journalists. Useless.


he was seen as having regularly beaten May, and barely faced Johnson as he (Johnson) hid away. 

But you carry on repeating the line of the right-wing labourites who worked tirelessly to ensure his defeat.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Michael Foot managed to own Tories in debates, and win arguments with right-wing journslits  without being any of those things. 🤷


And got similar beastings to Corbyn and failed by your lights against a hated Tory prime minister.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> How did that pan out, electorally?



I wouldn't exactly compare a post-Falklands Thatcher to a Brexitised Theresa May. If Foot had stood in 2017 he'd have romped home.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 25, 2020)

On the other hand Starmer cracks me up. Proper laugh out loud funny. Hilarious guy. He's got my vote. One of the lads.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> This thread was top of the pile, perhaps it should have been closed, or marked "positive comments only".



Just stuff with some actual content would be a start. This isn't exactly the Jeremy Corbyn fan club, as you might have noticed if you'd read a few posts before you started carpet-bombing the place with dreary one-note whingeing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> On the other hand Starmer cracks me up. Proper laugh out loud funny. Hilarious guy. He's got my vote. One of the lads.



Just last week I saw him blink.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If Foot had stood in 2017 he'd have romped home.


there aren't enough smilies in the world to express the hilarious stupidity of this comment


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I wouldn't exactly compare a post-Falklands Thatcher to a Brexitised Theresa May. If Foot had stood in 2017 he'd have romped home.


I can't quite put my finger on why but terms like "romped home" in a political context  always makes me think of fist clenched, bright red Tories failing to maintain even the will to appear human.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> On the other hand Starmer cracks me up. Proper laugh out loud funny. Hilarious guy. He's got my vote. One of the lads.



Yet another post hopelessly conflating not being a grumpy cunt who can't constructively debate with people whose views he opposes, with some other thing entirely. You'd don't have to be "one of the lads" to be an effective politician. 

e2a: Starmer isn't relevant as he's not a left-wing Labour leader.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just stuff with some actual content would be a start. This isn't exactly the Jeremy Corbyn fan club, as you might have noticed if you'd read a few posts before you started carpet-bombing the place with dreary one-note whingeing.



I was asking for content - any clips of him doing a Micahel Foot and actually trying to convince people who opposed him? Or is it just ranting for his base?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I wouldn't exactly compare a post-Falklands Thatcher to a Brexitised Theresa May. If Foot had stood in 2017 he'd have romped home.


Would that be the same Michael Foot who wore donkey jackets and was in the pay of the KGB? He always got a reasonable response from Labour’s right wing and all the media barons.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yet another post hopelessly conflating not being a grumpy cunt who can't constructively debate with people whose views he opposes, with some other thing entirely. You'd don't have to be "one of the lads" to be an effective politician.


You're right but no need to be a grumpy cunt about it. Lets have some examples of this overwhelming grumpiness but also the electorates dislike of grumpiness in general and Corbyn's in particular.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Would that be the same Michael Foot who wore donkey jackets and was in the pay of the KGB? He always got a reasonable response from Labour’s right wing and all the media barons.



I'm sure he would have adapted to the times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I wouldn't exactly compare a post-Falklands Thatcher to a Brexitised Theresa May. If Foot had stood in 2017 he'd have romped home.


If foot had stood in '17 he'd have banged his head on the coffin lid.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I was asking for content


no you weren't, you were making a statement. Stop making things up.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> no you weren't, you were making a statement. Stop making things up.



Go on then, here's your opportunity to post a clip of him debating a Tory successfully through convincing argumentation, rather than by getting all cross.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Go on then, here's your opportunity to post a clip of him debating a Tory successfully through convincing argumentation, rather than by getting all cross.


It was his ability to to talk about things people wanted to hear that played a big part in the surprisingly large Labour vote his first GE outing, not sure why you're persisting with this line. It's not about gotchas with Tories in a Mrs Merton heated debate.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Ah the date given in 2-point text that's clear to everyone at a glance.
> 
> So adding that tweet right at the bottom, suggesting that Corbyn posted after Wiley and so approved of everything Wiley said, was actually a bit dishonest wasn't it MadeInBedlam ?


The man Made in bedlam is a duplicitous cunt to be fair.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 25, 2020)

JimW said:


> It was his ability to to talk about things people wanted to hear


Would amend that to 'things people wanted to *happen*' but yes


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 25, 2020)

JimW said:


> It was his ability to to talk about things people wanted to hear that played a big part in the surprisingly large Labour vote his first GE outing, not sure why you're persisting with this line. It's not about gotchas with Tories in a Mrs Merton heated debate.


No, it's all about debates that need to be slowly explained to us plebs who can't even be trusted to choose the "winner" and need to get the score from coked up journos.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

JimW said:


> It was his ability to to talk about things people wanted to hear that played a big part in the surprisingly large Labour vote his first GE outing, not sure why you're persisting with this line. It's not about gotchas with Tories in a Mrs Merton heated debate.



To win a majority he obviously needed to be able to advance his arguments to people who were to some extent unconvinced by "the things [some] people wanted to hear". He showed no willingness or ability to do that whatsoever. Repeatedly trotting out the same angry bullet points was only going to take him so far.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine if Labour's move to the left had been led by someone who wasn't such a miserable cunt as Corbyn. He managed to make Gordon Brown seem jovial while having not one ounce of the intellect of Michael Foot.
> 
> Years of an effectively unopposed Tory party and then Starmer, that's his legacy.


What a bag of shite.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> To win a majority he obviously needed to be able to advance his arguments to people who were to some extent unconvinced by "the things [some] people wanted to hear". He showed no willingness or ability to do that whatsoever. Repeatedly trotting out the same angry bullet points was only going to take him so far.


But that's exactly what happened with the polling surge. Find your line on this pretty odd.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I did no such thing, but if it matters to you so much, instead of stalking me around the forums with it disrupting other threads, when not start a new thread (permission to do a call-out thread), or use PMs?


Why not just go fuck yourself?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

JimW said:


> But that's exactly what happened with the polling surge. Find your line on this pretty odd.



The surge was never enough. It's easy to win over people who will readily support any left-wing leader, but to win over the additional people sufficient to actually win an election, you need to be able to convince them to move out of their comfort zone. Putting forward cogent arguments is always a good start.

But no, let's just blame the press and right-wingers in the Labour party. Eliminating both of those would have surely ensured his victory.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 25, 2020)

TopCat said:


> Why not just go fuck yourself?


Even he is not that desperate.


----------



## JimW (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The surge was never enough. It's easy to win over people who will readily support any left-wing leader, but to win over the additional people sufficient to actually win an election, you need to be able to convince them to move out of their comfort zone. Putting forward cogent arguments is always a good start.
> 
> But no, let's just blame the press and right-wingers in the Labour party. Eliminating both of those would have surely ensured his victory.


Again, the polling showed he had wide agreement if you asked policy by policy, so he had won a lot of those arguments. That's what turned out not to be enough.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Go on then, here's your opportunity to post a clip of him debating a Tory successfully through convincing argumentation, rather than by getting all cross.


Why have you written that in response to my post?  Even Jeremy Corbyn would have the basic decency to admit when they had got something wrong, so why cant you?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> Even Jeremy Corbyn would have the basic decency to admit when they had got something wrong, so why cant you?



He would? News to me.

Anyway he has got things wrong over critical national political issues, and apparently I'm wrong over whether or not I wanted people to reply to me posting clips of him debating people. Not really much equivalence there.



JimW said:


> Again, the polling showed he had wide agreement if you asked policy by policy, so he had won a lot of those arguments. That's what turned out not to be enough.



Is this some kind of doublespeak? He failed to convince enough people to vote for him.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is this some kind of doublespeak? He failed to convince enough people to vote for him.



He convinced more people than previous Labour leaders (including two versions of Blair) did.  

His main problem was not that he couldn't convince people, its that he never came close to managing to neutralise / deal with his opponents (which harmed him in 2017 and 2019 and would have crippled any administration of his even if he had won).


----------



## oryx (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> *right-wingers in the Labour party*. Eliminating both of those would have surely ensured his victory.



You are probably unintentionally correct about this, given the shenanigans exposed in the recent leaked report.


----------



## co-op (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The surge was never enough. It's easy to win over people who will readily support any left-wing leader, but to win over the additional people sufficient to actually win an election, you need to be able to convince them to move out of their comfort zone.



The surge wasn't enough but it was absolutely huge - 3.5 million extra votes, Labour's largest ever vote in England, up over 40% in just 2 years, unprecedented in the post war era. He must have been persuading some people over and above the easy wins.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

agricola said:


> He convinced more people than previous Labour leaders (including two versions of Blair) did.



As I said, unlike those times, the country was ripe for a left-wing government - almost anyone could have won those voters over, it took someone like Corbyn to fail to win enough for a majority.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

The writing was on the wall in his 3 minute walk of shame in 2015. That video was grade A miserable cunt, hard to imagine any other left-wing politician doing that:  The question Jeremy Corbyn answers in total silence for three excruciating minutes


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> He would? News to me.


everything is news to you



> Anyway he has got things wrong over critical national political issues, and apparently I'm wrong over whether or not I wanted people to reply to me posting clips of him debating people. Not really much equivalence there.


You haven't actually mentioned any of these 'crucial policy issues' - you've just said he's a grump/angry old man.   Can you not even remember what you post?


platinumsage said:


> The writing was on the wall in his 3 minute walk of shame in 2015. That video was grade A miserable cunt, hard to imagine any other left-wing politician doing that:  The question Jeremy Corbyn answers in total silence for three excruciating minutes


and this is an example of that.  No policy, just 'miserable cunt.'    I think we can safely assume all your posts are going to be on this level, completely ignorable.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> everything is news to you
> 
> 
> You haven't actually mentioned any of these 'crucial policy issues' - you've just said he's a grump/angry old man.   Can you not even remember what you post?
> ...



That's exactly my point though, it wasn't about policy failures, it was about his personal failings in being unable to cogently advocate for those policies to enough people to win the elections. But sure, blame those nasty right-wingers.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> That's exactly my point though, it wasn't about policy failures, it was about his personal failings in being unable to cogently advocate for those policies to enough people to win the elections. But sure, blame those nasty right-wingers.


Your point keeps changing. YOU talked about him getting crucial policy issues wrong. Are you just trolling cos you’re bored or are you actually that much of a brain dead fuckwit?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 25, 2020)

FFS this is a pretty astute obeservation imo:


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> That's exactly my point though, it wasn't about policy failures, it was about his personal failings in being unable to cogently advocate for those policies to enough people to win the elections. But sure, blame those nasty right-wingers.


But it was, in fact, partly because of Brexit, partly because of baseless accusations of widespread anti-semitism in Labour, and, yes, partly, maybe even largely, because of a relentless campaign by the party’s right-wing against Corbyn and the left. Ever since Attlee’s government Labour’s right have always acted as if they would rather have a Tory government than a left-wing one. They really would. Truly despicable, nasty hypocrites.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> Your point keeps changing. YOU talked about him getting crucial policy issues wrong. Are you just trolling cos you’re bored or are you actually that much of a brain dead fuckwit?



No, I didn't. I was responding to your sidetrack about whether I posted something or not and your assertion that unlike me, "Corbyn would have the basic decency to admit when they had got something wrong".

I said "He has got things wrong over critical national political issues..." i.e. that he didn't apologise for.

This has nothing to do with my point about why he failed to win an election and the role of polices vs his abilities. If you address my one single point rather than divert to whether I posted a particular thing or not, you might not get yourself so confused.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> But it was, in fact, partly because of Brexit, partly because of baseless accusations of widespread anti-semitism in Labour, and, yes, partly, maybe even largely, because of a relentless campaign by the party’s right-wing against Corbyn and the left. Ever since Attlee’s government Labour’s right have always acted as if they would rather have a Tory government than a left-wing one. They really would. Truly despicable, nasty hypocrites.



And someone who wasn't a miserable and useless politician would have dealt with at least two of those quite easily.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> And someone who wasn't a miserable and useless politician would have dealt with at least two of those quite easily.


Well, nothing is going to convince you, so I’ll stop talking to you at this point and go and do something else.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I didn't. I was responding to your sidetrack about whether I posted something or not and your assertion that unlike me, "Corbyn would have the basic decency to admit when they had got something wrong".
> 
> I said "He has got things wrong over critical national political issues..." i.e. that he didn't apologise for.
> 
> This has nothing to do with my point about why he failed to win an election and the role of polices vs his abilities. If you address my one single point rather than divert to whether I posted a particular thing or not, you might not get yourself so confused.


Okay ‘brain dead fuckwit’ it clearly is.  You dishonest and stupid little boy.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

Is there no one on the left who can conceive of a left-wing Labour leader who might have won an election over the last five years, or were the devious right-wingers always going to be too much for anybody?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 25, 2020)

Corbyn was the best hope in the last five years, but as has already been observed he was far too nice and nowhere near ruthless enough.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is there no one on the left who can conceive of a left-wing Labour leader who might have won an election over the last five years, or were the devious right-wingers always going to be too much for anybody?


Fuck off


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> Fuck off



Dont you have some more anti-semitic tropes to deny?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2020)

belboid said:


> Fuck off



943 pages, was it worth it: Jeremy Corbyn's time is up - post 2


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Dont you have some more anti-semitic tropes to deny?


Your mask is slipping more and more you brain dead fuckwit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As I said, unlike those times, the country was ripe for a left-wing government - almost anyone could have won those voters over, it took someone like Corbyn to fail to win enough for a majority.



It took a biased press, a relentless campaign against him and the inner turmoil of the party to keep him out of government.

As for his alleged grumpiness, what did you want? Santa Claus?


----------



## campanula (Jul 25, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is there no one on the left who can conceive of a left-wing Labour leader who might have won an election


Erm...where were these left wing leaders. Not within the Labour Party. Or are you really thinking what a shame Liz Kendall, Angela Eagle, Tom Watson, Owen Smith, Chuka Fucking Umunna didn't defeat Corbyn? I mean, really. Seriously. Corbyn was put forward almost as a joke - a sort of token nod to the left wing LP membership...and from the minute it appeared that there actually was an overwhelming appetite for a properly left wing challenge, the whinging started...with not one single LP member offering a serious challenge to the hated status quo.   The same class of people who had zero interest in any sort of redistributive politics. The same class who owned property, had never faced poverty, insecurity, prejudice.   The class of people who see politics as a career opportunity, not a public service. So yep, amazingly, when someone offers up* concrete policies* -the only mode of attack was personal, scurrilous, spiteful, malicious denigrations of character and imaginary thought crimes. And kill me dead,  I find I don't give much of a fuck about some pearl-clutching offended middle class twat with a media platform.


----------



## campanula (Jul 25, 2020)

But what really breaks me up is, for a very short period of time, I felt that there was a chance to actually break the painfully hierarchical obsession with leadership. The idea of some absolute ruler, a king, god, emperor figure, who cannot be challenged, can never be wrong, must always and ever embody the entire hopes of a heterogenous and diverse country...or at least, that small minority which has power. Obviously, a project doomed to fail and a simplistic concept of democracy. Nope, I didn't want a 'character' or a celebrity.  And, in truth, the slightly cultish 'O Jeremy Corbyn'  lionisation was as disturbing to me as the celebrity status of Trump and Johnson.
And true, Corbyn has neither the aptitude nor the ruthlessness to become this sort of figure...which I sorta hoped would lead to an evolving dialogue with many voices. A politics which was based on policies, not Twitter statements or journalistic fictions. A politics which was really based on fair principles (because ordinary people had a representative voice and even a chance to be part of a politics which was not totally dictated by top-down thinking,  Not brass neck and an ability to lie and not give a shit.  (yes, naive, I know...)...but  Corbyn's core principles - to defend the underdog - was a powerful invitation for people like me to feel that the parliamentary system was not irredeemably fucked up (I was wrong).


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 26, 2020)

The reality is that people like platinumsage want the status quo, they're invested in keeping electoral politics as it is, despite dressing up their criticisms in a hundred different ways. Whatever person gets wheeled out 'for the left' for Labour, it'll never be 'right' for them and the opposition will go into overdrive. Labour for me personally are a dead end, but some of the 'reasons' being trotted out these last few pages are just pathetic - regardless of any criticisms/deficits of Corbyn and the Corbyn project, it clearly energised both old and new voters in a way not seen in Labour politics for years, and offered a glimpse of something different. As an observer, this clearly did set in all manner of panic amongst the right, the media, and establishment, and down to parts of the Labour party itself. And the opposition machine swung into full motion to derail everything it could. To try and dismiss this just makes people look silly, especially when it comes from whining Labour 'supporters' from the centre and right.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 26, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is there no one on the left who can conceive of a left-wing Labour leader who might have won an election over the last five years, or were the devious right-wingers always going to be too much for anybody?



No. I can’t think of one. Can you?

Corbyn had myriad shortcomings. Most of which have been debated on here. McDonnell would probably have made a better fist of it in communication and policy terms, but who else are you thinking about?

I’d also suggest you might want to think about the institutional, cultural and historical realities that would confront any genuine social democratic project In Britain. The idea that Labour electing this mysterious figure could simply overcome these is fanciful.

40 years of a social democratic post war project that was eventually overwhelmed and then reconstructed as an absolute failure, a dark period never to be returned to. The Thatcherite ‘sick man of Europe’ spectre that still weighs in discourse. Layered upon that 40 years of neo-liberalism that destroyed social institutions and collective resources. A project of the self.  Then a disoriented left turn away from privileging class as a category of experience, analysis and unity. Finally, there is the not inconsiderable balance of forces in the PLP and a professional middle class hostile to any deep redistributive project from day one. Oh, and let’s not forget Brexit.

That’s the starting point. So yes, Corbyn was massively flawed. But you’d need to explain how your mysterious leader would have navigated all of the above. So over to you....


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2020)

'Scuse the fail link....but yeah, blackmail.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 26, 2020)

teqniq said:


> 'Scuse the fail link....but yeah, blackmail.




What are they threatening? Could you tell us as I don't want to click that link to find out.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2020)

I'm sure they could agree on a suitable form of words to the effect that they actually had no valid claim


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2020)

Threshers_Flail said:


> What are they threatening? Could you tell us as I don't want to click that link to find out.


Haha nor did I, but the gist of it is, I believe that the people who are pursuing damages claims concerning the leaked Labour report are prepared to drop their claims if Corbyn is expelled. One can only hope the whole sordid unpleasantness blows up in their faces.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2020)

ah expelled, twats 

Eta: of course it being a mail article is likely to be a load of bollocks but if true you'd hope that would be approaching abuse of process.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 26, 2020)

stethoscope said:


> The reality is that people like platinumsage want the status quo, they're invested in keeping electoral politics as it is, despite dressing up their criticisms in a hundred different ways. Whatever person gets wheeled out 'for the left' for Labour, it'll never be 'right' for them and the opposition will go into overdrive. Labour for me personally are a dead end, but some of the 'reasons' being trotted out these last few pages are just pathetic - regardless of any criticisms/deficits of Corbyn and the Corbyn project, it clearly energised both old and new voters in a way not seen in Labour politics for years, and offered a glimpse of something different. As an observer, this clearly did set in all manner of panic amongst the right, the media, and establishment, and down to parts of the Labour party itself. And the opposition machine swung into full motion to derail everything it could. To try and dismiss this just makes people look silly, especially when it comes from whining Labour 'supporters' from the centre and right.



you give the daft twat way too much credit, he is just churning out opinions given to him


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Haha nor did I, but the gist of it is, I believe that the people who are pursuing damages claims concerning the leaked Labour report are prepared to drop their claims if Corbyn is expelled. One can only hope the whole sordid unpleasantness blows up in their faces.


For anyone curious and, like me reluctant to visit the fail site more on the story from Zelo St.









						Let’s Play Labour Blackmail!
					

The whole premise of the legendary Monty Python sketch titled simply  “ Blackmail ” is that it’s all a bit furtive - “ Blackmail, behind the...




					zelo-street.blogspot.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No. I can’t think of one. Can you?
> 
> Corbyn had myriad shortcomings. Most of which have been debated on here. McDonnell would probably have made a better fist of it in communication and policy terms, but who else are you thinking about?
> 
> ...


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 28, 2020)

Just had my gofundme Corbyn donation returned 

just put it back in and doubled it, used my own name this time rather than a comedy blue tick name


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2020)

Tony Blair made too many contributions has he?


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 28, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Tony Blair made too many contributions has he?



Him and rachel Riley have deep pockets


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> Him and rachel Riley have deep pockets


And as many people who've gone to the pub with them have found out, short arms

It is tb's proud boast that he never bought a drink while pm. But that's because he's tight as a gnat's arse


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 29, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> He should have answered the rape charges in Sweden at the time. Not made the big self defeating meal he chose to make of it over many years. The slimeball.


You should read this «A murderous system is being created before our very eyes» According to Nils Melzer of the UN, Assange did infact try coming forward regarding the 'accusations' although I believe I'm correct in saying that the accusations came solely from the Police and NOT either of the relevent women. Reading this I'm not surprised that the charges were dropped.

Just had to post this link I'm afraid, as what you posted about Assange does not seem at all accurate.

I too dislike his politics but that does not mean he should just be condemned without good reason, particularly when it could effect others being potentially condemned in a similar way and when it affects people's freedoms generally.


----------



## oryx (Jul 29, 2020)

I come on this thread to read about Corbyn, or at least something related to him, not Assange.

Isn't there a separate thread on Assange?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 29, 2020)

oryx said:


> I come on this thread to read about Corbyn, or at least something related to him, not Assange.
> 
> Isn't there a separate thread on Assange?


No such thread appears when I search for it unforunately. In any case I am merely responding to inaccurate things others have already posted about Assange.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 29, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> No such thread appears when I search for it unforunately. In any case I am merely responding to inaccurate things others have already posted about Assange.


There are several. This is the longest: Ecuador would like Julian Assange out of their embassy by the sounds of it.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 29, 2020)

campanula said:


> But what really breaks me up is, for a very short period of time, I felt that there was a chance to actually break the painfully hierarchical obsession with leadership. The idea of some absolute ruler, a king, god, emperor figure, who cannot be challenged, can never be wrong, must always and ever embody the entire hopes of a heterogenous and diverse country...or at least, that small minority which has power. Obviously, a project doomed to fail and a simplistic concept of democracy. Nope, I didn't want a 'character' or a celebrity.  And, in truth, the slightly cultish 'O Jeremy Corbyn'  lionisation was as disturbing to me as the celebrity status of Trump and Johnson.
> And true, Corbyn has neither the aptitude nor the ruthlessness to become this sort of figure...which I sorta hoped would lead to an evolving dialogue with many voices. A politics which was based on policies, not Twitter statements or journalistic fictions. A politics which was really based on fair principles (because ordinary people had a representative voice and even a chance to be part of a politics which was not totally dictated by top-down thinking,  Not brass neck and an ability to lie and not give a shit.  (yes, naive, I know...)...but  Corbyn's core principles - to defend the underdog - was a powerful invitation for people like me to feel that the parliamentary system was not irredeemably fucked up (I was wrong).


Nail on head


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 29, 2020)

I had an idea. New party, john McDonnell as leader, zero tolerance on anti semitism from the kick off. BOSH


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 29, 2020)

Somehow get AOC involved too.


----------



## 19force8 (Aug 7, 2020)

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

That they didn't nick the furniture too:









						I saw from the inside how Labour staff worked to prevent a Labour government
					

The work of senior Labour staffers to stop Labour winning is only just starting to come out.




					www.opendemocracy.net
				






> When I’d started previous jobs I’d arrive to some kind of handover notes. But when Corbyn and McDonnell walked in on day one, the small team that had joined after working on Corbyn’s leadership campaign turned up to find that someone had prepared for our arrival in a more unconventional way: many of the computers had gone missing and the offices weren’t properly set up.
> 
> “The few computers that were in the office were the oldest ones possible and they kept crashing all the time”, a former senior adviser to Jeremy Corbyn tells me. “The situation was so dire that one time after a day on the road with Jeremy I came back to find that a new colleague had taken my screen because he didn't have one.”
> 
> The situation in John McDonnell’s offices was even worse. “When we took up the offices they were completely gutted of their contents. There were only half pulled out staples in the walls and bits of blue tack. The desks were without chairs let alone computers and I had to work off my own mobile and laptop”, my former colleague James Mills, who was John McDonnell’s Head of Communications, remembers all too well.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2020)

19force8 said:


> I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
> 
> That they didn't nick the furniture too:
> 
> ...


Read that and thought of the words I'd read yesterday in my 1989 Vintage books (US) edition of C.L.R. James' _The Black Jacobins;




			The rich are only defeated when running for their lives. Inexperienced in revolution, the bourgeoisie had not purged the ministerial offices, where the royalist bureaucrats still sat plotting for the restoration of the royal power.
		
Click to expand...


_


----------



## rasputin (Aug 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Read that and thought of the words I'd read yesterday in my 1989 Vintage books (US) edition of C.L.R. James' _The Black Jacobins;
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 225434_





19force8 said:


> I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
> 
> That they didn't nick the furniture too:
> 
> ...



In that article we find this:

"The number of extra votes in marginal seats that Labour needed in 2017 to give Corbyn a chance of being prime minister was an agonising 2,227. "

That statement, I'm afraid, is bollocks. I've seen this 2,227 number a number of times, and it refers to the number of votes that would have been needed to win sufficient additional seats to make the number of non-Tory seats in the House of Commons equal to the number of Tory seats.

So far, so accurate. But no way would it have resulted in a Corbyn-led government. It assumes that every non-Tory party in the House of Commons would have been happy to join a Corbyn-led coalition government. That's not remotely realistic, given the attitude of several of those parties, notably the Lib Dems, at the time, as well as the sizeable anti-Corbyn faction in the PLP.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2020)

rasputin said:


> In that article we find this:
> 
> "The number of extra votes in marginal seats that Labour needed in 2017 to give Corbyn a chance of being prime minister was an agonising 2,227. "
> 
> ...


Yes, pretty thorough take-down here:
The 2017 general election: not that close after all - UK in a changing Europe

And we now know that even if Corbyn had secured some more seats, his opponents within the PLP & party bureaucracy would have done all they could to scupper any possible coalition with other parties.


----------



## agricola (Aug 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yes, pretty thorough take-down here:
> The 2017 general election: not that close after all - UK in a changing Europe
> 
> And we now know that even if Corbyn had secured some more seats, his opponents within the PLP & party bureaucracy would have done all they could to scupper any possible coalition with other parties.



Indeed.  To be PM, Corbyn would have had to get an absolute landslide - in fact, if Labour had come out of 2017 in a position to form a government then him not leading it would have been a condition of forming it.


----------



## Cerv (Aug 7, 2020)

rasputin said:


> In that article we find this:
> 
> "The number of extra votes in marginal seats that Labour needed in 2017 to give Corbyn a chance of being prime minister was an agonising 2,227. "
> 
> ...





> With seven more seats going to Mr Corbyn, a coalition of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and one independent MP in the House of Commons would have held 321 seats — enough to block Theresa May and for Mr Corbyn to enter No 10.


that "one independent" is Sylvia Hermon. Theresa May would be more likely to have voted for Corbyn as PM.

unless you have a time machine, then knowing after an election which were the few seats to have the smallest vote differences isn't useful.
the argument between Labour HQ staff and the Leadership office about where to target resources at, I'm willing to be didn't come down to exactly those constituencies. dubious to say you'd definitely have won those and not been offset by others lost if you'd have your way.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2020)

What an awful man he is


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

Badgers said:


> What an awful man he is




He's better off out of it. The level of flak he got, just imagine if he'd actually become prime minister. So many people who would've burned the whole country to ash rather than let a reasonable man with sensible policies be in charge.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> So many people who would've burned the whole country to ash


this is what actually happened tbf


----------



## ska invita (Aug 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's better off out of it. The level of flak he got, just imagine if he'd actually become prime minister. So many people who would've burned the whole country to ash rather than let a reasonable man with sensible policies be in charge.


If Corbyn had Johnsons record he'd be
The Butcher of the Care Homes
The Covid Communist, bankrupting Great Britain
SARS Stalinist: Highest Death Rate In The World
Silent on Jewish Covid Deaths


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2020)

The Daily Mail were ahead of the curve on all this Jewish issue:


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

ska invita said:


> If Corbyn had Johnsons record he'd be
> The Butcher of the Care Homes
> The Covid Communist, bankrupting Great Britain
> SARS Stalinist: Highest Death Rate In The World
> Silent on Jewish Covid Deaths


and had Corbyn written, as Johnson has, that Hitler won at Stalingrad his ignorance would have been constantly repeated in the press


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 11, 2020)

It looks like we have to wait for the Tories to implode thanks to the toxic chalice they helped create in 2016 and are starting to sup on ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

gentlegreen said:


> It looks like we have to wait for the Tories to implode thanks to the toxic chalice they helped create in 2016 and are starting to sup on ...


I bet people said much the same round the time of Suez, round the time of profumo, round the time of the three day week, the Thatcher recession of the early 1980s, the poll tax, back to basics etc ad nauseam


----------



## agricola (Aug 11, 2020)

gentlegreen said:


> It looks like we have to wait for the Tories to implode thanks to the toxic chalice they helped create in 2016 and are starting to sup on ...



They aren't going to implode; like Trump's mob they are all bound together now and know they'll have to back him or they will be going to prison (or worse).


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2020)

agricola said:


> or they will be going to prison


this is fantasy. there isn't a world where any of these dudes are ever going to go to prison. who's going to send them?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 11, 2020)

gentlegreen said:


> It looks like we have to wait for the Tories to implode thanks to the toxic chalice they helped create in 2016 and are starting to sup on ...



Things that might fuck em

The economy tanking hard in 2021/2022 with mass unemployment

Brexit fallout multiplying the above

Scottish independence; they'll refuse a referendum creating a possible Catalan situation on their hands.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

killer b said:


> this is what actually happened tbf



More from venality and incompetence than sheer malice though, for all the difference that makes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

killer b said:


> this is fantasy. there isn't a world where any of these dudes are ever going to go to prison. who's going to send them?



Pickman's model and his people's sentencing tribunals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

killer b said:


> this is fantasy. there isn't a world where any of these dudes are ever going to go to prison. who's going to send them?


No one will ever send them to prison

But to the south atlantic? That's quite a different proposition


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2020)

Badgers said:


> The Daily Mail were ahead of the curve on all this Jewish issue:



Yep, and the same newspaper ran a headline in August 1934 - I kid you not - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Yep, and the same newspaper ran a headline in August 1934 - I kid you not - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"


the story Badgers quotes seems very much in that tradition


----------



## Lurdan (Aug 11, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Yep, and the same newspaper ran a headline in August 1934 - I kid you not - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"



Never entirely convinced this is all that much of a gotcha.

Here's the article by Rothermere which appeared in both the Daily Mirror and it's Sunday sister paper the Pictorial in January 1934. Unlike the Mail article this one helpfully provided the BUF's contact addresses.







The Mail are a pack of cunts and so are the Mirror but they haven't been as successful as they have for as long as they have without adapting to changed circumstances. In the Mirror's case this meant relaunching as a tabloid aimed at a working class audience. Cecil King, Rothermere's nephew, took over control of the Mirror.



> "Our best hope," King later wrote in his memoirs, "was to appeal to young, working-class men and women... If this was the aim, the politics had to be made to match. In the depression of the thirties, there was no future in preaching right-wing politics to young people who were in the lowest income bracket."


quoted in Revealed: the fascist past of the Daily Mirror - Chris Horrie.

Of course later on the Mirror got taken over by a lovely socialist tycoon, Robert Maxwell, who established his own delightful dynasty...

#cuntsallofthem

edited to fix link


----------



## T.H.R (Aug 11, 2020)

Wow, it's so interesting reading that article. For many reasons, not least the part where he says once it was the Germans accusing our concentration camps of barbarity and how ridiculous it was that way around too.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 13, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Things that might fuck em
> 
> The economy tanking hard in 2021/2022 with mass unemployment
> 
> ...



Completely screwing up the response to Coronavirus effectively killing thousands has barely hurt them. No unforced errors will hurt them unless there is an opposition doing their job.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2020)

and media, Daily Mail et all will forget all these inconvenient problems when it comes to election time


----------



## two sheds (Sep 30, 2020)

Corbyn's Legal Fund apparently forming a Limited Company instead of a trust, which makes sense I presume if it loses case to limit liability.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2020)

I know that those posts about the Daily Mail etc. are old now, but I think casting the Daily Mirror as 'just as bad' as the Mail lets the Daily Mail off the hook too much  -- Mail, both then and now, has its _very own_ level of disgustingness IMO


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 1, 2020)

I see that the dozy twat can't count. How difficult is it to count to six? He wouldn't even have had to take his shoes off.


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2020)

it's outrageous, he should resig... oh.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> it's outrageous, he should resig... oh.



Yes, too late now.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 29, 2020)

Blimey, pushed out of the party altogether! 😱


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2020)

hash tag said:


> Blimey, pushed out of the party altogether! 😱


Suspended pending investigation, technically.


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Suspended pending investigation, technically.


While they figure out what rule he is actually supposed to have broken


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)




----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 29, 2020)

Twilight’s last gleaming.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2020)

So, is it the case that Corbyn hasn't been suspended yet, but Starmer has said he has been suspended, so the NEC are being asked to suspend him even though they are not being given a reason to? And this has come about because of a report criticising Labour for not following it's own procedures in disciplinary cases?

A reasonable summary? I don't know.


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

Raheem said:


> So, is it the case that Corbyn hasn't been suspended yet, but Starmer has said he has been suspended, so the NEC are being asked to suspend him even though they are not being given a reason to? And this has come about because of a report criticising Labour for not following it's own procedures in disciplinary cases?
> 
> A reasonable summary? I don't know.


The main thing to remember is that the rules don't apply to the right, ever


----------



## two sheds (Oct 29, 2020)

So Starmer's breaking Labour's rules by interfering with anti-semitism case procedures, similar to what Corbyn is accused of? 

Doesn't that make him an anti-semite?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 29, 2020)

I’m sure he is guilty and the leadership know he’s guilty. Think it’s just a matter of time in finding the right crime that he’s guilty of tbh .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> I’m sure he is guilty and the leadership know he’s guilty. Think it’s just a matter of time in finding the right crime that he’s guilty of tbh .



Ah yes, guilty of existing. They'll get there eventually.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

The Sun adding their bit 









						Jeremy Corbyn suspended by Labour after shameless response to anti-Semitism report
					

JEREMY Corbyn has been suspended by Labour after his shameless response to a damning report which found the party broke the law over anti-Semitism. This morning under-fire Mr Corbyn refused to apol…




					www.thesun.co.uk


----------



## teqniq (Oct 29, 2020)

Do you have to link to the Scum?


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Sun adding their bit
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why the fuck are you linking to them?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 29, 2020)

break the link bedlam  and maybe don't quote it


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

Corbyn loses another vote


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 29, 2020)

still not as bad as linking to the scum


----------



## two sheds (Oct 29, 2020)

Bloody hell the tories thought it was the right decision  

who'd have thought that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Corbyn loses another vote View attachment 236513


Meaningless. How many of the 70% of those 4,000 respondents who offered an opinion will have the first idea either what was in the report or what he said in response?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 29, 2020)

Scraping the bottom of the barrel now


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

Given how this has been reported, I would wager that more than half of people interviewed will think that Corbyn broke the party procedures in order to stop cases of anti-Semitism from being heard.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Corbyn loses another vote View attachment 236513



That cheese sandwich you just ate. Enough salad in it or not?

Fuck off with your visceral opinion polls.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Meaningless. How many of the 70% of those 4,000 respondents who offered an opinion will have the first idea either what was in the report or what he said in response?



oh for gods sake you just don’t get how viscerally unattractive your politics are.

70% of leavers (more than Remainers incidentally) agreeing he should be suspended ia significant. I thought it was leavers who were the racists?


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

Starmer has dug himself a hole here. Corbyn let the socialism genie out of the bottle and it is not willingly going to go back in.

If anyone needs removing from the party by bad faith actors, they know Starmer is weak and will cave in and accept anything the party is accused of.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given how this has been reported, I would wager that more than half of people interviewed will think that Corbyn broke the party procedures in order to stop cases of anti-Semitism from being heard.



Quite possibly. They probably had made their mind up about Corbyn prior to reading anything today


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> oh for gods sake you just don’t get how viscerally unattractive your politics are.
> 
> 70% of leavers (more than Remainers incidentally) agreeing he should be suspended ia significant. I thought it was leavers who were the racists?


This report was released this morning. The first BBC report on it, which I reproduced on the other thread in full, gave the distinct impression that the report had found Corbyn guilty of breaking party rules in order to stymie anti-semitism moves against members. You now produce a snap poll in which more than 70% of respondents offer an opinion. How many of those 70% will have the first idea what the actual issues are about something that only broke in the news this morning, and about which the first reports on the BBC website were disgracefully misleading?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite possibly. They probably had made their mind up about Corbyn prior to reading anything today


So you agree that your poll is meaningless?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This report was released this morning. The first BBC report on it, which I reproduced on the other thread in full, gave the distinct impression that the report had found Corbyn guilty of breaking party rules in order to stymie anti-semitism moves against members. You now produce a snap poll in which more than 70% of respondents offer an opinion. How many of those 70% will have the first idea what the actual issues are about something that only broke in the news this morning, and about which the first reports on the BBC website were disgracefully misleading?



No you’re right. Those with less education and critical faculty than you have an issue with Corbyn because of the media told them to.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you agree that your poll is meaningless?



meaningless?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No you’re right. Those with less education and critical faculty than you have an issue with Corbyn because of the media told them to.


Have a little think. Do you think anything like 70% of the population will have an informed opinion about this piece of breaking news? Of course not. I wouldn't if I hadn't been skiving from work a bit this morning.

Also, does it matter that the BBC misreports breaking news like this? Yes, I think it rather does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> meaningless?


Yes. Meaningless.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 70% of leavers (more than Remainers incidentally) agreeing he should be suspended ia significant. I thought it was leavers who were the racists?





MadeInBedlam said:


> No you’re right. Those with less education and critical faculty than you have an issue with Corbyn because of the media told them to.



What exactly are you saying? Can you spell it out please.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2020)

I wonder if they do secret nonsense polling just to test their methodologies.

"Jacob Rees-Mogg has had his sandwiches confiscated by a National Express employee in the course of a journey from Chester to Barnsley. In your opinion..."


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 29, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I wonder if they do secret nonsense polling just to test their methodologies.
> 
> "Jacob Rees-Mogg has had his sandwiches confiscated by a National Express employee in the course of a journey from Chester to Barnsley. In your opinion..."


The long-legged prick was probably stretching out over two seats as well, the arsehole


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2020)

If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 29, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> The long-legged prick was probably stretching out over two seats as well, the arsehole



I agree which makes it 100% and unanimous


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> The long-legged prick was probably stretching out over two seats as well, the arsehole


I forgot to include the options but, yes, that would be one.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 29, 2020)

Three out of three


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.



Dramatically overstated.

they have a different culture you know


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but by not committing suicide gave starmer no choice.


Cfy


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

Maybe he could have described the report as hysterically overstated? Histrionic? 

Lacking the British stiff upper lip


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.



He has not contradicted the report has he? There were political motivations involved on top of legitimate concerns. Wall to wall attacks and slander of him over years, come on now... Starmer is a fucking coward and would fold under an inch of the same pressure that was levelled at Corbyn personally rather than the 'party' and it's shortcomings.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.


Yeah. The bastard actually gave his own honest opinion. Gave Starmer no choice.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

The Campaign Against Antisemitism has predictably issued Starmer with a list of people they want expelling.  

Dianne Abbott,
Rebecca Long-Bailey, 
Tahir Ali, 
Mike Amesbury, 
Apsana Begum, 
Richard Burgon, 
Barry Gardiner, 
Kate Hollern, 
Afzal Khan, 
*Angela Rayner*, 
Steve Reed, 
Lloyd Russell-Moyle, B
Barry Sheerman, 
Zarah Sultana 
& others.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> He has not contradicted the report has he? There were political motivations involved on top of legitimate concerns. Wall to wall attacks and slander of him over years, come on now... Starmer is a fucking coward and would fold under a inch of the same pressure that was levelled at Corbyn personally rather than the 'party' and it's shortcomings.


Exactly. He hasn't contradicted the report. The BBC initially reported in such a manner as to strongly suggest that he had. Starmer came out and spoke as if he had as well. 

And is anybody on this thread going to claim that the anti-Semitism row wasn't exploited by poltical opponents of Corbyn within and outside labour and large parts of the press (Guardian, looking at you). It's laughable to claim that this part of what he said isn't true.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> The Campaign Against Antisemitism has predictably issued Starmer with a list of people they want expelling.
> 
> Dianne Abbott,
> Rebecca Long-Bailey,
> ...



As demanded by the board of deputies no doubt. 👍


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Three out of three


Actually, I would have ticked "This is fine if they were corned beef".


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.




He did. You have either not read the report or you have read the Guardian/BBC's version of it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 29, 2020)

This is a rather interesting section of the EHRC report, given what Corbyn appears to have been suspended for.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Corbyn loses another vote View attachment 236513




Yeah cos 'All Britons' were asked.  ( see the YouGOV tweet breakdown for reference)


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

Enjoy your shitty landlords' party Sir Keir. Keep those abstentions coming and hope people don't notice your fucking awful politics


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> View attachment 236514
> This is a rather interesting section of the EHRC report, given what Corbyn appears to have been suspended for.




If only Labour had a decent lawyer with hindsight who could have read the report and seen this coming.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he’d just accepted the report it would be fine but going on about political motivations gave starmer no choice.


Really? What do you think would have happened without Starmer's decisive action?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

Could have been Russian interference too


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Really? What do you think would have happened without Starmer's decisive action?



things would have taken longer


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Really? What do you think would have happened without Starmer's decisive action?


Starmer wasn't obliged to say anything more today than that he and his party take the report very seriously and will be acting on its recommendations, stressing that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the labour party. Just that, nothing more. He appears to have panicked.


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Starmer wasn't obliged to say anything more today than that he and his party take the report very seriously and will be acting on its recommendations, stressing that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the labour party. Just that, nothing more. He appears to have panicked.


It is the most eye poppingly DUMB move, it really is. And that's from a man who already has a series of incredibly dumb decisions behind him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

JTG said:


> It is the most eye poppingly DUMB move, it really is. And that's from a man who already has a series of incredibly dumb decisions behind him.


Yep. No idea how good a lawyer he was, but he's a shit politician.


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. No idea how good a lawyer he was, but he's a shit politician.


tbh the Labour right generally appear to be high on their own supply and believing their own publicity. The ones with a history of losing elections before JC but who absolutely believe in their own genius for being massive winners. Tey're really not as clever as they think they are


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. No idea how good a lawyer he was, but he's a shit politician.


tbh the Labour right generally appear to be high on their own supply and believing their own publicity. The ones with a history of losing elections before JC but who absolutely believe in their own genius for being massive winners. Tey're really not as clever as they think they are


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Meaningless. How many of the 70% of those 4,000 respondents who offered an opinion will have the first idea either what was in the report or what he said in response?



Yes, only ‘experts’ who have the time to read long reports should be asked for their opinion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, only ‘experts’ who have the time to read long reports should be asked for their opinion.


No, snap polls on breaking news are meaningless.

If they'd just asked 'do you like Jeremy Corbyn', they'd have got about the same numbers.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, snap polls on breaking news are meaningless.



Thats a different point. Do you think ‘hot takes’ on Twitter are also meaningless?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Thats a different point. Do you think ‘hot takes’ on Twitter are also meaningless?


I have no idea what that is. And it's not a different point at all.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 29, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> He has not contradicted the report has he? There were political motivations involved on top of legitimate concerns. Wall to wall attacks and slander of him over years, come on now... Starmer is a fucking coward and would fold under an inch of the same pressure that was levelled at Corbyn personally rather than the 'party' and it's shortcomings.



Starmer was desperately trying to equivocate and do nothing about Corbyn today. Corbyn had to do one of two things today....maintain a dignified silence, or make a dignified statement thanking the commission for its efforts and saying he would study the report ....but no...he has to go on Facebook to say he’s the most wronged politician since Donald fucking Trump....wronged by the media and wronged by dark forces.

its about the “optics” today. Jeremy is terrible at politics. I had though he was quite a nice man with his heart in the right place....I’m not so sure...he’s almost as narcissistic as Johnson.


----------



## JTG (Oct 29, 2020)

lol


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. He hasn't contradicted the report. The BBC initially reported in such a manner as to strongly suggest that he had. Starmer came out and spoke as if he had as well.
> 
> And is anybody on this thread going to claim that the anti-Semitism row wasn't exploited by poltical opponents of Corbyn within and outside labour and large parts of the press (Guardian, looking at you). It's laughable to claim that this part of what he said isn't true.


That’s not the point though, the only thing to do today was draw a line under it and accept it with no buts or maybes.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no idea what that is. And it's not a different point at all.



What they are is instant reactions from various members of the commentariat on breaking news that others like/retweet and comment on.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s not the point though, the only thing to do today was draw a line under it and accept it with no buts or maybes.


Why the fuck should he accept a flawed report which adds nothing new and demonstrates quite clearly how the investigating body is biased in the extreme and whose underlying assumptions are more than dubious?


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 29, 2020)

Do people really think Starmer wouldn't have done this regardless of what Corbyn said? You can argue the toss about whether it was the best/wisest course of action to say what he said but honestly, is anyone going to seriously argue there has been no exaggeration of the issues for factional and political gain and that it's just to suspend someone from a political party merely for stating that, even if they accept the report in its entirety?  A report, to reiterate, which explicitly protects the right to comment on the extent of AS within the party.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> its about the “optics” today. Jeremy is terrible at politics.


i hear that but you cant be suspended because of "optics"


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 29, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What they are is instant reactions from various members of the commentariat on breaking news that others like/retweet and comment on.



I think you've reached my peak couldn't give a shit with that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> I think you've reached my peak couldn't give a shit with that.


I was just typing a reply, but yours is better.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Starmer was desperately trying to equivocate and do nothing about Corbyn today. Corbyn had to do one of two things today....maintain a dignified silence, or make a dignified statement thanking the commission for its efforts and saying he would study the report ....but no...he has to go on Facebook to say he’s the most wronged politician since Donald fucking Trump....wronged by the media and wronged by dark forces.
> 
> its about the “optics” today. Jeremy is terrible at politics. I had though he was quite a nice man with his heart in the right place....I’m not so sure...he’s almost as narcissistic as Johnson.




So terrible at politics he continues to be reelected as a local MP  for how long now?... and has personally weathered the most vitriolic,  clearly personal, absurd and disturbing smear campaign i've seen in my lifetime...HE HAS BEEN WRONGED and has every right to speak out about that given the 'dignified silence' he maintained over the last years of daily vicious nonsense. He didn't contradict the report... sod you if you hate the idea of him so much you can't admit that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s not the point though, the only thing to do today was draw a line under it and accept it with no buts or maybes.




Do you accept absolute bullshit... no ifs, no buts, no maybes?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Do you accept absolute bullshit... no ifs not buts?


Of course he doesn't. But others should have today, even when they didn't actually contradict the findings of the very same report that they are being told they should have accepted, no ifs/buts or something.

FFS bed time.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 29, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> So terrible at politics he continues to be reelected as a local MP  for how long now?... and has personally weathered the most vitriolic,  clearly personal, absurd and disturbing smear campaign i've seen in my lifetime...HE HAS BEEN WRONGED and has every right to speak out about that given the 'dignified silence' he maintained over the last years of daily vicious nonsense. He didn't contradict the report... sod you if you hate the idea of him so much you can't admit that.


I’d win Islington North if you pinned a red rosette on me! 
He may well have been wronged, I’m not disputing that. Today was not the day to be on Facebook making ill-considered comments. Say something conciliatory or shut up, until next week at least.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

So had Corbyn stayed quiet, the bad faith actors would have harassed Starmer until an inch of his life until he sacked him.

Then when he was sacked the bad faith actors would have produced their next set of demands (as they did today, even demanding that the Deputy Leader is sacked)

Starmer is no leader, he is weak. Really, really weak. Corbyn gave a well deserved fuck you and spent the day doing TV interviews calling the bullshit out.

The current form of the Labour Party along with a vast part of the PLP really needs flushing down the sewer for eternity.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I’d win Islington North if you pinned a red rosette on me!
> He may well have been wronged, I’m not disputing that. Today was not the day to be on Facebook making ill-considered comments. Say something conciliatory or shut up, until next week at least.



You mean meekly give in to the inevitable abuse and smearing from bad faith actor's, the establishment media  and the PLP which contains some of the worst people in the country.

You clearly do not know him well.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

Oh and Islington North. You really think that the place is not going to be swarming with campaigning socialists  in the weeks leading up to a general election if he stands as an independent?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I’d win Islington North if you pinned a red rosette on me!


 Just like that, you'd be and have achieved as much as he has both locally and for international political campaigns. Okay, right, silly me. Who does he think he is!


> ]
> He may well have been wronged, I’m not disputing that. Today was not the day to be on Facebook making ill-considered comments. Say something conciliatory or shut up, until next week at least.


 So you agree he has been wronged but would have preferred him to delay his legitimate response until you were ready to hear/read/see it (ie never) even though he didn't actually do anything wrong in that response. Right, got it.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

The centrist mindset kills my brain cells. I suspect many of them would vote for Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders was running.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Oh and Islington North. You really think that the place is not going to be swarming with campaigning socialists  in the weeks leading up to a general election if he stands as an independent?


He has a strong personal vote. He'd win, probably easily.


----------



## cyril_smear (Oct 29, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He has a strong personal vote. He'd win, probably easily.


that'll keep him in a salary then, phew.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> that'll keep him in a salary then, phew.


wow

Ridiculous thing to say.

You know the expenses scandal. The time all the mps got done cos they thought they could get away with taking loads of free money? Look up Corbyn's record for expenses through that time.

It's a good test imo - how did MPs act when they thought nobody was looking? The majority failed miserably. Most of the rest merely failed quite badly. Only a tiny handful of MPs emerged from that scandal totally unscathed. Corbyn was one of them.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 29, 2020)

that is sort of the aim of working and doing a job


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

It's also the reply to the idea that anyone standing in Islington North with a red rosette would win. Not if they were standing against Jeremy Corbyn, they wouldn't.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 30, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> So you agree he has been wronged but would have preferred him to delay his legitimate response until you were ready to hear/read/see it (ie never) even though he didn't actually do anything wrong in that response. Right, got it.


I assume he had a fair hearing at what is a quasi-judicial panel. Or are the the inequality tribunal acting inequitably? 
He and Formby failed tô deal with the problem when they were in charge.  Blaming dark forces or bad faith actors for the failure to deal with, what was admittedly a long term and horribly complicated problem, is trying to avoid any responsibility. A feature of his political career, maybe.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I’d win Islington North if you pinned a red rosette on me!
> He may well have been wronged, I’m not disputing that. Today was not the day to be on Facebook making ill-considered comments. Say something conciliatory or shut up, until next week at least.


hes a brilliant tireless local MP - possibly the best in the UK - and most everyone in the ward knows it
if he gets booted out the party, does that trigger a by-election? if so i expect him to stand as an independent and win by a mile - theres no one they could stick a red rosette on who would beat him, not even you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> if he gets booted out the party, does that trigger a by-election?


No, it doesn't. There is no rule that says he has to quit.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 30, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, it doesn't. There is no rule that says he has to quit.


I really hope the “suspension” is only temporary. Although I didn‘t vote for him to be leader, or think he was an effective leader of the opposition, i think it’s good to hãve interesting, contrarian, characters in the party. I’d never advocate for a bland homogeneous lump of Blairites, even if most folk here would think that was my natural political home.
Let’s hope he comes back in the tent to piss out. I don’t wish perpetual Tory rule on you all.


----------



## steveseagull (Oct 30, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> He and Formby failed tô deal with the problem when they were in charge.



You have clearly not read the report have you?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 30, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> You have clearly not read the report have you?


Not yet


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I assume he had a fair hearing at what is a quasi-judicial panel. Or are the the inequality tribunal acting inequitably?
> He and Formby failed tô deal with the problem when they were in charge.  Blaming dark forces or bad faith actors for the failure to deal with, what was admittedly a long term and horribly complicated problem, is trying to avoid any responsibility. A feature of his political career, maybe.



 Have you read the report or even parts of it that directly address the assumptions you are making? What do you know about the report and references to when Fornby took over that role? 

' I assume he had a fair hearing'? When.?..today?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> that'll keep him in a salary then, phew.



Cos he really is all about he salary isn't he.?...The worst kind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

tbh I wouldn't blame him for quitting and triggering a by-election. Embarrass the fuck out of the Labour Party. Dare the fuckers to put someone up against him only to be humiliated. (I don't think he will, but he could if he wanted.)

Starmer has not thought this through, has he? Useless, panicky twat.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Let’s hope he comes back in the tent to piss out. I don’t wish perpetual Tory rule on you all.



Serious question...Are you pissed?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Starmer has not thought this through, has he? Useless, panicky twat.



I'm not sure Starmer has done this in a panic exactly. Think he has a list of names and people monitoring for anything that can give him an excuse to come down like a ton of bricks. So, it's opportunistic and he might not have woken up knowing today was Corbyn's day. But it's part of a thought-out strategy in some sense, and it's not caused him any problems to far. Maybe this will be different but only time will tell.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 30, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you read the report or even parts of it that directly address the assumptions you are making? What do you know about the report and references to when Fornby took over that role?
> 
> ' I assume he had a fair hearing'? When.?..today?



The Party is responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act (2010) relating to:


political interference in antisemitism complaints
failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints
harassment
The Labour Party made a commitment to zero tolerance for antisemitism. Our investigation has highlighted multiple areas where its approach and leadership to tackling antisemitism was insufficient. This is inexcusable and appeared to be a result of a lack of willingness to tackle antisemitism rather than an inability to do so.

As the leader of the party at the time, and given the extent of the failings we found in the political interference within the leader of the opposition’s office, Jeremy Corbyn is ultimately accountable and responsible for what happened at that time,


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I'm not sure Starmer has done this in a panic exactly. Think he has a list of names and people monitoring for anything that can give him an excuse to come down like a ton of bricks. So, it's opportunistic and he might not have woken up knowing today was Corbyn's day. But it's part of a thought-out strategy in some sense, and it's not caused him any problems to far. Maybe this will be different but only time will tell.


I suspect the suspension is a direct response to Corbyn’s Facebook post. It’s not really Starmer’s nature to be intemperate.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Sure sure. Sacking shadow ministers for breaking a one line whip on votes of conscience is 'temperate' for example. He's only temperate when going up against the tories, he's been swinging every other day for his own benches.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> .





Footnote 7: Accepted list of legitimate criticisms in full:

a) the temperature of the air conditioning at tel aviv airport;

_list ends_


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.


What is this in reference to? What exceptionalism ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

(FWIW I reckon Corbyn should absolutely take more responsibility for the antisemitism the party under him failed to do very much about - but the idea that this suspension isn't part of a strategy is a fucking joke)


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

WRT who made the decision, LOTO has been at pains to point the finger at David Evans who 'consulted' SKS before pulling the trigger.

There was no panel, he was suspended pending an investigation. NEC last night were apparently asking under what rule he had been suspended and Evans refused to tell them. Because they don't know yet.

I read JC's full statement that triggered this. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

This is a coup, nothing less


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> I read JC's full statement that triggered this. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.



Not even monumentally stupid timing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> WRT who made the decision, LOTO has been at pains to point the finger at David Evans who 'consulted' SKS before pulling the trigger.
> 
> There was no panel, he was suspended pending an investigation. NEC last night were apparently asking under what rule he had been suspended and Evans refused to tell them. Because they don't know yet.
> 
> ...


Usually a coup is against the existing leadership


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not even monumentally stupid timing?


Not really no. When is he supposed to do a statement expressing solidarity with Jewish people and condemning AS? Next week?


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Usually a coup is against the existing leadership


They failed when they tried that


----------



## kebabking (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG how is it a coup?

Corbyn isn't leader, he's not King-over-the-water, he's not a prospective leader, he's a busted flush that the juggernaut of politics has left, fairly or otherwise, as mangled roadkill. He's in the same position as Theresa May in the Tories - the odd spicy comment, a few looking fondly at what once was and comparing it favourably to what is, but still mangled roadkill that won't rise again.

It's not a coup, it's an exorcism.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

kebabking said:


> JTG how is it a coup?
> 
> Corbyn isn't leader, he's not King-over-the-water, he's not a prospective leader, he's a busted flush that the juggernaut of politics has left, fairly or otherwise, as mangled roadkill. He's in the same position as Theresa May in the Tories - the odd spicy comment, a few looking fondly at what once was and comparing it favourably to what is, but still mangled roadkill that won't rise again.
> 
> It's not a coup, it's an exorcism.


Whatever it is, it's forward to 2010 again


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Usually a coup is against the existing leadership


A purge is a more accurate term

We can only hope the Great Director of Prosecution leads the show trial himself, _personally_


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

And in terms of the description, it's ensuring hegemony over all the workings of the party incl the NEC. Bit deeper than just the leader


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Not really no. When is he supposed to do a statement expressing solidarity with Jewish people and condemning AS? Next week?



When is he supposed to do a statement that in part says anti-Semitism in the party has been exaggerated? Erm, yes, next week would have been better for sure.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When is he supposed to do a statement that in part says anti-Semitism in the party has been exaggerated? Erm, yes, next week would have been better for sure.


He's entitled to the view, as per the EHRC report.

Have they worked out what rule he's been suspended under yet do you know?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Have they worked out what rule he's been suspended under yet do you know?


not this one


Plumdaff said:


> This is a rather interesting section of the EHRC report, given what Corbyn appears to have been suspended for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cant see Corbyn getting kicked out tbh...and then what happens?
Though if they do kick him out anyway, then all hell breaks loose IMO


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> And in terms of the description, it's ensuring hegemony over all the workings of the party incl the NEC. Bit deeper than just the leader


was anyone expecting anything else? It was Corbyn's failure to do this effectively as leader that is - at least partly - responsible for this shitshow.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> not this one
> 
> 
> I cant see Corbyn getting kicked out tbh...and then what happens?


Perhaps a top lawyer could tell us. Is there one close to the action do we know?


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> was anyone expecting anything else? It was Corbyn's failure to do this effectively as leader that is - at least partly - responsible for this shitshow.


Absolutely. Number one lesson - no mercy ever. Destroy the fuckers before they destroy you.

Everything they ever accused the left of doing - purges, control of the party over winning elections - is what they wanted themselves


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He has a strong personal vote. He'd win, probably easily.


He was apparently doing his regular shift at the foodbank yesterday, even after the suspension. That's why he would win by a country mile


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Perhaps a top lawyer could tell us. Is there one close to the action do we know?


someone with a forensic eye for having read the first 10 articles


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> was anyone expecting anything else?


well there was some talk of Sir SUV being the unity candidate


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 30, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When is he supposed to do a statement that in part says anti-Semitism in the party has been exaggerated? Erm, yes, next week would have been better for sure.



That’s what I don’t get. The tactics from Corbyn’s camp. The first rule in a ruck is not to get taken out early and to make yourself as hard to hit as possible


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> well there was some talk of Sir SUV being the unity candidate


They were all lying.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Absolutely. Number one lesson - no mercy ever. Destroy the fuckers before they destroy you.
> 
> Everything they ever accused the left of doing - purges, control of the party over winning elections - is what they wanted themselves


That works in the other direction though - the left are letting themselves be walked backwards out of the party with unforced error after unforced error. They don't have to step into every pit full of spikes Starmer digs in front of them. 

Corbyn knew - or should have knew - that they would come for him yesterday if they could, and he gave them the excuse. Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?



As I’ve just written I cannot understand the thinking by Corbyn and allies. In a battle with PMC types like Starmer you have to force them off their terrain - procedure, the ‘law’, process, arcane and insider rules - where they are comfortable game players. If they still want the row have it on your terms and at a time and manner of your choosing. On that basis you’d have to conclude it was the latter. Starmer must be pissing himself at how easy the opportunity was


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> He's entitled to the view, as per the EHRC report.
> 
> Have they worked out what rule he's been suspended under yet do you know?


And you don’t think saying AS in Labour is “dramatically overstated for political reasons” on the day of the report is problematic?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 30, 2020)

Do you not think it has been true?


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> That works in the other direction though - the left are letting themselves be walked backwards out of the party with unforced error after unforced error. They don't have to step into every pit full of spikes Starmer digs in front of them.
> 
> Corbyn knew - or should have knew - that they would come for him yesterday if they could, and he gave them the excuse. Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?


Tend to agree. He's a stubborn man who has maintained his position over time by being that way. It has a limit but there it is, he found himself leading the party because it was his turn to stand when the opportunity opened up but it never made him infallible.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Tend to agree. He's a stubborn man who has maintained his position over time by being that way. It has a limit but there it is, he found himself leading the party because it was his turn to stand when the opportunity opened up but it never made him infallible.


sure, but it also limits my sympathy. It's possible the forces against him were too much in the end for any left leader of the party to withstand, but I can't help looking at stuff like this and wondering at the opportunity squandered.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> sure, but it also limits my sympathy. It's possible the forces against him were too much in the end for any left leader of the party to withstand, but I can't help looking at stuff like this and wondering at the opportunity squandered.


Fair enough, not quite there myself but it's reasonable. Whispers that LOTO approved the statement after SKS told JC what he was going to say the night before. But then again he pulled the same stunt on RLB so even if true it strikes me as being unnecessarily credulous


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Whispers that LOTO approved the statement after SKS told JC what he was going to say the night before.


yeah, I don't believe that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> sure, but it also limits my sympathy. It's possible the forces against him were too much in the end for any left leader of the party to withstand, but I can't help looking at stuff like this and wondering at the opportunity squandered.


The greater problem of course being a pinkish leader of a largely pale blue parliamentary party


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> yeah, I don't believe that.


No idea tbh but we're talking about a guy who gave a six figure sum to Sam Matthews, the man responsible for the EHRC's unchecked complaints inbox so I wouldn't be remotely surprised that he's that obvious because he knows there won't be any consequences


----------



## bellaozzydog (Oct 30, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I assume he had a fair hearing at what is a quasi-judicial panel. Or are the the inequality tribunal acting inequitably?
> He and Formby failed tô deal with the problem when they were in charge.  Blaming dark forces or bad faith actors for the failure to deal with, what was admittedly a long term and horribly complicated problem, is trying to avoid any responsibility. A feature of his political career, maybe.


Have you read the report


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> sure, but it also limits my sympathy. It's possible the forces against him were too much in the end for any left leader of the party to withstand, but I can't help looking at stuff like this and wondering at the opportunity squandered.


Yep, and some of the unforced errors (besides this one) were massive. His inability to sat the right thing at the right time (and his ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time - see the russian poisoning case) made him very easy to attack. Milne was always shit at the comms job and tbh I think for pragmatic reasons he should have hired a proper Machiavellian type for that job to help him keep his gob shut, rather than one of his mates.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 30, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Do you not think it has been true?


Not the time or the place, it looks like he is trying to minimise the report.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> He's entitled to the view, as per the EHRC report.
> 
> Have they worked out what rule he's been suspended under yet do you know?



Yeah, he's totally entitled to do anything, but politically I think it was an extraordinarily dumb thing to do. But I'd say that's one of his failings, an inability to keep his mouth shut (or say the right thing) at the right time. His supporters will love it, his enemies will be gleeful, and for many other people it smacks of at best insensitivity, at worst, well anti-Semitism.

I have no idea of the rules of the Labour party tbh, nor could I care less.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Corbyn knew - or should have knew - that they would come for him yesterday if they could, and he gave them the excuse. Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?



I think Corbyn still believes against all logic and evidence that if he just says things he believes are fair and accurate then somehow everything will work out fine. So file that under 'stupidity' I suppose.

I'm not saying it's what happened, but I know I definitely wouldn't put it past Starmer to agree to Corbyn's statement and then throw him under the bus for saying it anyway. That seems to be pretty much exactly what happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey, at least according to her version of events.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?


Maybe he read the report and thought it was now allowed


Brainaddict said:


> . His inability to sat the right thing at the right time (and his ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time - see the russian poisoning case) made him very easy to attack.


He wanted to see the evidence, which he wasn't privy to, so fair enough. Pretty minor slip up, consider what the Tories say and do and get away with day after day after day. 
Impossible to be squeaky clean, more important is how you deal with it. No easy answer there, but turning the other cheek and crossing fingers has it's limits.


Anyway, not really worth rehashing this.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think Corbyn still believes against all logic and evidence that if he just says things he believes are fair and accurate then somehow everything will work out fine. So file that under 'stupidity' I suppose.
> 
> I'm not saying it's what happened, but I know I definitely wouldn't put it past Starmer to agree to Corbyn's statement and then throw him under the bus for saying it anyway. That seems to be pretty much exactly what happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey, at least according to her version of events.


Absolutely this
Starmer took swift and decisive action but also had nothing to do with it because that would be improper.
Give me honest and stupid over slippery any day tbh


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Maybe he read the report and thought it was now allowed


so, stupidity then.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Usually a coup is against the existing leadership


New times, new paradigms - welcome to Neoincompetentism


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think Corbyn still believes against all logic and evidence that if he just says things he believes are fair and accurate then somehow everything will work out fine. So file that under 'stupidity' I suppose.
> 
> I'm not saying it's what happened, but I know I definitely wouldn't put it past Starmer to agree to Corbyn's statement and then throw him under the bus for saying it anyway. That seems to be pretty much exactly what happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey, at least according to her version of events.


Schooling the left on purging.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

The fucking report says it okay to say that you think the claims were exaggerated so it’s hardly surprising Corbyn thought it would be okay.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

David Renton on the report (from a legalistic perspective)









						The EHRC report: a missed chance
					

By David Renton Many of us had hoped that with the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report, Labour’s antisemitism crisis would reach a natural end. That has not happened, b…




					labourhub.org.uk


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Schooling the left on purging.


It is an object lesson in the type of action Corbyn should probably have taken against his internal enemies, yeah.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think Corbyn still believes against all logic and evidence that if he just says things he believes are fair and accurate then somehow everything will work out fine. So file that under 'stupidity' I suppose.


Yeah, this is a big problem for him. Or was. He's a busted flush now, even as a leader of the left wing resistance.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> The fucking report says it okay to say that you think the claims were exaggerated so it’s hardly surprising Corbyn thought it would be okay.



Another strong possibility is that Corbyn knowingly pushed the self destruct button because he's sick of all this shit. I wouldn't begrudge him that tbh.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> The fucking report says it okay to say that you think the claims were exaggerated so it’s hardly surprising Corbyn thought it would be okay.



He didn't need to engage more than 2 braincells to imagine what the response might be to him saying that on the day the report came out did he though?

And yes, that's terrible and nasty, but parliamentary politics and the media aren't fair, that shouldn't be news to him ffs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Schooling the left on purging.



Starmer is up to his fucking elbows in sewage. He probably thinks he's played all this really well but he's already fucked his moral-compass, laura-norder credentials with anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Another strong possibility is that Corbyn knowlingly pushed the self destruct button because he's sick off all this shit. I wouldn't begrudge him that tbh.



Yeah, crossed my mind too. It's either that, incredible stupidity, or stunning naivety I think.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Another strong possibility is that Corbyn knowlingly pushed the self destruct button because he's sick off all this shit. I wouldn't begrudge him that tbh.


He's given strong "don't give a fuck any more" vibes the last six months tbh and good for him in all honesty


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> David Renton on the report (from a legalistic perspective)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These paragraphs are very good, and are worth giving serious thought to outside the context of the report. 

_First, I wanted to see something which would explain to those people in and around the left who have kept silent in response to the increasing use of antisemitic language that such a response is destructive, and an explanation of why they need to speak out.

Second, I hoped that the document would explain to people on the Labour right that their behaviour during the crisis had also contributed to it. That the Labour Party had been overwhelmed with a huge number of complaints, with a purpose of producing press stories that Labour was tottering under such a weight of complaints that the party must be institutionally racist. And that this dynamic of factional complaint proved destructive when it came to challenging actual prejudice.

Third, I wanted it to explain to the Labour left that we too had factionalised our response to the complaints, holding our hands over our mouths and keeping silent even in response to behaviour which had clearly crossed the line._


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I cant see Corbyn getting kicked out tbh...and then what happens?
> Though if they do kick him out anyway, then all hell breaks loose IMO


It's pretty unprecedented to suspend an ex Leader, no one's actually reading and soberly discussing the report, and you can say Corbyn is partly responsible (although Starmer is now in charge and gets to decide how he reacts, and could have said merely Jeremy is entitled to his view, I'm focusing on the report and how to move forward). They've decided to detonate the nuclear option, how do they back down? If we know anything about Corbyn it's that he's stubborn often to his detriment, so what are they going to do? They have to try to expel him. It's a cluster fuck and was entirely avoidable by those now in charge. So they want to do this.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not the time or the place, it looks like he is trying to minimise the report.



Yes possibly, although if he comes out with the statement next week or next month he'll be accused of dragging up the whole argument again and the whole twitterstorm will start up again and Smarmer will suspend him from the party because of that ...


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> It's pretty unprecedented to suspend an ex Leader, no one's actually reading and soberly discussing the report


When people need to look at the report is when disciplinary actions come up.
On that front the report looks good to me (from what I've heard), fair even. Impartial body to make the rulings is open to abuse, depending who sits on it


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 30, 2020)

Took me an hour to read and catch up with the many (often insightful) comments on this thread and done it in company time as well. This does hearken back to the 80's, the Labour Party showing again its ability to fight bitterly over things that the vast majority of the population don't care that much about. Neither the current leader or the previous one have impressed me much with this. Starmer is clearly too concerned with what the Westminster bubble and the chattering classes think of his leadership. He may think he is doing the principled thing but is showing a frankly disturbing lack of backbone in dealing with external influence
Corbs still doing his Don Quixote impression. No matter how unjustly he feels he has been treated, he really should have maintained a dignified silence for the good of the LP. The last thing it needs now is another civil war and I don't doubt it's going to get one. As for standing down, he would be foolish to do so, the resulting hoo-hah will be nasty and will not look good for either him, the Labour Party or the political left if he loses which he probably will.
The one thing the last election taught us is there really isn't such a thing as a personal vote even for a popular local MP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> The one thing the last election taught us is there really isn't such a thing as a personal vote even for a popular local MP.


Yes there is

It may be defeated

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Starmer is up to his fucking elbows in sewage. He probably thinks he's played all this really well but he's already fucked his moral-compass, laura-norder credentials with anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.


Quite possibly, but with the Labour right's agenda of never again letting the socialists anywhere near power in the party, all this tramping down of the dirt is quite logical and obvious, no?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Starmer is up to his fucking elbows in sewage. He probably thinks he's played all this really well but he's already fucked his moral-compass, laura-norder credentials with anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.


Good. The sooner PASOKification comes the better.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Good. The sooner PASOKification comes the better.


This is the line now


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes there is
> 
> It may be defeated
> 
> But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist


Fair point there is some,  hell even Chris Leslie (the slimiest of slimy) got nearly 1500 votes, Corbs will undoubtly do a lot better but to take 15000-16000 (more than half)  votes off an official Labour candidate, possible but most unlikely.
He isn't going to get any Tory/Libdem votes not that there a lot in Islington to begin with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Took me an hour to read and catch up with the many (often insightful) comments on this thread and done it in company time as well. This does hearken back to the 80's, the Labour Party showing again its ability to fight bitterly over things that the vast majority of the population don't care that much about. Neither the current leader or the previous one have impressed me much with this. Starmer is clearly too concerned with what the Westminster bubble and the chattering classes think of his leadership. He may think he is doing the principled thing but is showing a frankly disturbing lack of backbone in dealing with external influence
> Corbs still doing his Don Quixote impression. No matter how unjustly he feels he has been treated, he really should have maintained a dignified silence for the good of the LP. The last thing it needs now is another civil war and I don't doubt it's going to get one. As for standing down, he would be foolish to do so, the resulting hoo-hah will be nasty and will not look good for either him, the Labour Party or the political left if he loses which he probably will.
> The one thing the last election taught us is there really isn't such a thing as a personal vote even for a popular local MP.


Your last point is not true. Said personal vote may not trump every issue, but it would very certainly trump the internal politics of the Labour party.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> This is the line now


From hell's heart I stab at thee.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> That works in the other direction though - the left are letting themselves be walked backwards out of the party with unforced error after unforced error. They don't have to step into every pit full of spikes Starmer digs in front of them.
> 
> Corbyn knew - or should have knew - that they would come for him yesterday if they could, and he gave them the excuse. Was it a provocation, or just stupidity?



I don't see the problem here to be honest. Corbyn is and usually has been in the past a fairly harmless backbencher, he wouldn't have been a figure round which the Labour left can rally, he isn't going to pose another leadership threat. But now he's a rallying point. I'm more astonished by the stupidity of Starmer tbh.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> This is the line now


Whose?


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Fair point there is some,  hell even Chris Leslie (the slimiest of slimy) got nearly 1500 votes, Corbs will undoubtly do a lot better but to take 15000-16000 (more than half)  votes off an official Labour candidate, possible but most unlikely.
> He isn't going to get any Tory/Libdem votes not that there a lot in Islington to begin with.


Dave Nellist came within 1500 votes of winning when he stood as independent (after being kicked out of labour) in 1992 and Corbyn is more popular than him, I reckon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I don't see the problem here to be honest. Corbyn is and usually has been in the past a fairly harmless backbencher, he wouldn't have been a figure round which the Labour left can rally, he isn't going to pose another leadership threat. But now he's a rallying point. I'm more astonished by the stupidity of Starmer tbh.


The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Fair point there is some,  hell even Chris Leslie (the slimiest of slimy) got nearly 1500 votes, Corbs will undoubtly do a lot better but to take 15000-16000 (more than half)  votes off an official Labour candidate, possible but most unlikely.
> He isn't going to get any Tory/Libdem votes not that there a lot in Islington to begin with.


You have that the wrong way around. The problem would be how many of Corbyn's votes the official candidate would get. Not many is the answer.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 30, 2020)

The Labour Party may not have previously suspended an ex-leader but they certainly expelled a current one who was even PM at the time.

But at least when they expelled Ramsay MacDonald it was over acquiescence to vicious cuts to the working class in a time of crisis. 

One thing MickiQ said was right. A large number of people do not care about this matter. It doesn't make them anti-semitic. It just makes them more concerned with paying their bills and having a job to do so. Rightly or wrongly they may buy into parliamentary politics as a way to achieve this but for those people their voice is now gone, or at least about to explode spectacularly in an internecine war they haven't picked and have no say in.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Personal vote can count for something in fairly specific circumstances - Ken Livingstone is probably the more pertinent example here tbh


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Personal vote can count for something in fairly specific circumstances - Ken Livingstone is probably the more pertinent example here tbh


Yes and that was London wide. Much easier to do it in one mp constituency.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I don't see the problem here to be honest. Corbyn is and usually has been in the past a fairly harmless backbencher, he wouldn't have been a figure round which the Labour left can rally, he isn't going to pose another leadership threat. But now he's a rallying point. I'm more astonished by the stupidity of Starmer tbh.


Don't you think if left Labourites rally around Corbyn now they might be walking into a trap? The question of whether Corbyn is anti-semitic is not relevant to Starmer et al. The question is whether they can paint the whole of the labour left as anti-semitic so that enough people believe it that they lose all moral authority.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

Thinking about it although it is move against the left, I don't think it's a strategic move. It's Starmer/his mates on the NEC trying to build up a good reputation with the media (and to a much lesser degree the Jewish community) by declaring as finally and totally as they can that the Corbyn era is over. Which is actual boundless stupidity.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Whose?


Mine


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Personal vote can count for something in fairly specific circumstances - Ken Livingstone is probably the more pertinent example here tbh


Yes, Livingstone is the obvious example. I may mention Blaenau Gwent in 2005 and the by-election in 2006 as well


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Good. The sooner PASOKification comes the better.


This isn't happening this time IMO. This will impact on the activist base, but I reckon technocratic centrism is coming back in style with electorates.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This isn't happening this time IMO. This will impact on the activist base, but I reckon technocratic centrism is coming back in style with electorates.


Also, the right have seen the Tories win successive elections without an effective activist 'ground-war'. I suspect they see their campaigning being based upon a combination of centrally controlled SM output and winning over some of the billionaire press.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This isn't happening this time IMO. This will impact on the activist base, but I reckon technocratic centrism is coming back in style with electorates.


overstated i think...people just dont want incompetence in handling covid
lets see how technocratic centrism responds to economic collapse in 2021 onwards


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> overstated i think...people just dont want incompetence in handling covid
> lets see how technocratic centrism responds to economic collapse in 2021


I doubt it's going to be a sustained revival. But I also doubt pasofikation is happening to the Labour Party in the immediate future.


----------



## strung out (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This isn't happening this time IMO. This will impact on the activist base, but I reckon technocratic centrism is coming back in style with electorates.


This may be true, but I'm not sure the electorate could ever vote to install a man with as high pitched a voice as Starmer as Prime Minister.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

Without PR there will never be a major split form Labour, 1 or 2 'maverick' MP's maybe but probably not even that. And without the MP's any other split would just be a ragtag collection of a bit of the left.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Without PR there will never be a major split form Labour, 1 or 2 'maverick' MP's maybe but probably not even that. And without the MP's any other split would just be a ragtag collection of a bit of the left.


This is why Labour will never support PR because the minute it arrives they will fall to pieces like that man in Buffy who turned out to be made of worms or something


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

strung out said:


> This may be true, but I'm not sure the electorate could ever vote to install a man with as high pitched a voice as Starmer as Prime Minister.


It's a very silly voice tbf


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> This is why Labour will never support PR because the minute it arrives they will fall to pieces like that man in Buffy who turned out to be made of worms or something


if only they were as potent as Norman Pfister


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> if only they were as potent as Norman Pfister


Incredible work, thank you!

Anyway, Sir Kieth Starmalot has a silly high pitched voice and is made of worms and that is my final word on the matter


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Don't you think if left Labourites rally around Corbyn now they might be walking into a trap? The question of whether Corbyn is anti-semitic is not relevant to Starmer et al. The question is whether they can paint the whole of the labour left as anti-semitic so that enough people believe it that they lose all moral authority.



I'm not sure how it will pan out. The Labour right/media/JLM aren't mobilised on this like they were. And it's a dispute about the extent of anti-Semitism in the LP not whether it exists or whether it's a problem. So it's really a micro question. They aren't on firm ground here at all.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Incredible work, thank you!
> 
> Anyway, Sir Kieth Starmalot has a silly high pitched voice and is made of worms and that is my final word on the matter


good line to take 



Knotted said:


> I'm not sure how it will pan out. The Labour right/media/JLM aren't mobilised on this like they were. And it's a dispute about the extent of anti-Semitism in the LP not whether it exists or whether it's a problem. So it's really a micro question. They aren't on firm ground here at all.


giving it a go








						Why the Guardian is going down the pan!
					

The author is a theoretical physicist specialising in quantum gravity. I would have expected him to at least understand the assumptions better and why they were wrong.  This is the thing most people even those with little grasp of maths would have said. "Well it might".




					www.urban75.net


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

This paragraph in Stephen Bush's mailout is pretty on point - and highlights why Labour were always keen to avoid an independent overseer in the first place...

_It highlights the political difficulty that the move towards an independent process will have: on the one hand, Keir Starmer needs to demonstrate that change has happened, that his actions match his words and that his promise of 'new leadership' is not just a slogan. On the other hand, the biggest single promise of 'new leadership' is in giving away power and handing the complaints process to an independent overseer.  The Campaign Against Antisemitism has already announced that it is submitting complaints against 14 sitting Labour MPs and you would expect that when the new process is in place other organisations will do the same. What happens if an independent process concludes that on the balance of probabilities, some of the 14 MPs should be expelled and some should not? What if the ones to be expelled don't 'seem' to most observers to be the most egregious offenders? _


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This paragraph in Stephen Bush's mailout is pretty on point - and highlights why Labour were always keen to avoid an independent overseer in the first place...
> 
> _It highlights the political difficulty that the move towards an independent process will have: on the one hand, Keir Starmer needs to demonstrate that change has happened, that his actions match his words and that his promise of 'new leadership' is not just a slogan. On the other hand, the biggest single promise of 'new leadership' is in giving away power and handing the complaints process to an independent overseer.  The Campaign Against Antisemitism has already announced that it is submitting complaints against 14 sitting Labour MPs and you would expect that when the new process is in place other organisations will do the same. What happens if an independent process concludes that on the balance of probabilities, some of the 14 MPs should be expelled and some should not? What if the ones to be expelled don't 'seem' to most observers to be the most egregious offenders? _


Get the courts on it -  like brexit. Judicial technocracy in action/saving the constitution.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I'm not sure how it will pan out. The Labour right/media/JLM aren't mobilised on this like they were. And it's a dispute about the extent of anti-Semitism in the LP not whether it exists or whether it's a problem. So it's really a micro question. They aren't on firm ground here at all.


The majority of people are only fuzzily paying attention. The details don't matter much when you're smearing. Just a constant association in the press between 'left wing of Labour' and 'anti-semitism' - and you can bet the right wing press will still mobilise to help with that smearing. You think most voters will probe into the details, or will know it was a debate about extent of problem rather than existence of problem?

Corbyn walked into a trap because he's an idiot on PR, and people would be idiots to follow him.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Get the courts on it -  like brexit. Judicial technocracy in action/saving the constitution.


you may have to expand.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> you may have to expand.


The supreme courts interference in politics last year may well prove to be the model for this technocratic independent intavenshen into parties policies/actions. A universal set of _neutral _political  laws - like the eu has on 'state aid' for example - that can be enforced.


----------



## Athos (Oct 30, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Get the courts on it -  like brexit. Judicial technocracy in action/saving the constitution.



A( unwritten) constitution the contents of which only they know, no less.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> The majority of people are only fuzzily paying attention. The details don't matter much when you're smearing. Just a constant association in the press between 'left wing of Labour' and 'anti-semitism' - and you can bet the right wing press will still mobilise to help with that smearing. You think most voters will probe into the details, or will know it was a debate about extent of problem rather than existence of problem?
> 
> Corbyn walked into a trap because he's an idiot on PR, and people would be idiots to follow him.



It's not the majority of people that matter, it's Labour Party members. There will be swathe of members who supported Corbyn's leadership but backed Starmer in January, and if Corbyn is expelled it will be a very explicit stitch up. The left of the party will get a hearing and sympathy from the centre of the party's membership. I think this is terrible politicking from the current leadership.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> The supreme courts interference in politics last year may well prove to be the model for this technocratic independent intavenshen into parties policies/actions. A universal set of _neutral _political  laws - like the eu has on 'state aid' for example - that can be enforced.


Ah, ok. Yeah I agree - although I don't expect to see any other party adopting this kind of procedure except under a duress - a duress which is unlikely to emerge. So it's just Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Ah, ok. Yeah I agree - although I don't expect to see any other party adopting this kind of procedure except under a duress - a duress which is unlikely to emerge. So it's just Labour.


Which is pretty horrifying.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Which is pretty horrifying.


Also agreed.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

Knotted said:


> It's not the majority of people that matter, it's Labour Party members. There will be swathe of members who supported Corbyn's leadership but backed Starmer in January, and if Corbyn is expelled it will be a very explicit stitch up. The left of the party will get a hearing and sympathy from the centre of the party's membership. I think this is terrible politicking from the current leadership.


You might be right with you're last sentence, but it doesn't look likely that Corbyn will be expelled. It's not even clear that they'll be able to come up with a valid complaint against him. He'll be allowed back as quietly as can be managed. It will harm Starmer's image in the eyes of a lot of Labour members, which may or may not cause him problems in the future.


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This isn't happening this time IMO. This will impact on the activist base, but I reckon technocratic centrism is coming back in style with electorates.



I don't think so - I think among millenials and younger (under 40s) there is a very strong and persistent demand for real change. 

At the very least, something has to be done about housing affordability, and Corbyn attracting overwhelming support from this age group in large part because he was the first candidate to actually address renters rather than homeowners.

Starmer's Labour is taking their votes for granted and seems to be focusing on the interests of elderly, possibly retired, Brexit voting home owners in the "red wall" areas. IMO this is a generational thing. I'm not convinced that younger voters from Blyth are any more likely to vote Tory - Blyth and parts of Durham swung Tory because the younger generation have moved out, they are renting somewhere in Newcastle or elsewhere in the country where there are actually jobs (and they have to move to urban areas because car ownership may be out of reach for many), and they overwhelmingly voted Labour. Retired homeowners just don't understand how hard it is to get by these days as they are not economically active, and so they didn't understand the draw of Corbynism. 

Focusing your political platform on winning votes from the retired or soon to be retired (which means protecting rising house prices) at the expense of the working population isn't a great long term strategy. 

In 2010 they were ignoring people in their 20s. Now they are ignoring people under the age of 40. While people do tend to drift towards Conservative as they get more established and onto the property market, it doesn't look like people of that age group are actually going to get established in sufficient numbers as previous generations did, and I think we are close to reaching a generational tipping point where the voting power of those who benefited from rising house prices (people born 1980 and earlier, generally speaking) starts to be outnumbered by those born after 1980 who've had a shittier hand.

In the last election, Corbyn's Labour won amongst the under 50s and by a landslide amongst the under 40s, and the generational divide has never been so stark. A return to the politics of Blair which focused on appealing to the "aspirational" home owning middle class is abandoning the interests of voters who will soon be the vast majority of the economically active population in favour of elderly homeowners who are one foot in the grave.

The right wing of the party is wrong to assume that they can take for granted the votes of the younger generation. The Labour right are afraid to take on the interests of landlords and afraid to have a negative impact on house prices, which means they are not capable of delivering the policies needed to address the housing crisis, and purging the left of Labour is a signal that the Labour Party will not take the necessary action. 

For this reason, I predict the PASOKification of the Labour Party (or perhaps, the "Scottish Labourisation" of the Labour Party) by the end of the 2020s. I can't predict exactly what form it will take or how, but I'm quite sure that they are swimming against the tide here.

There's also a good chance that Plaid Cymru will absorb a lot of Corbyn's support in Wales and Welsh independence will be a big thing by 2030.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> This paragraph in Stephen Bush's mailout is pretty on point - and highlights why Labour were always keen to avoid an independent overseer in the first place...
> 
> _It highlights the political difficulty that the move towards an independent process will have: on the one hand, Keir Starmer needs to demonstrate that change has happened, that his actions match his words and that his promise of 'new leadership' is not just a slogan. On the other hand, the biggest single promise of 'new leadership' is in giving away power and handing the complaints process to an independent overseer.  The Campaign Against Antisemitism has already announced that it is submitting complaints against 14 sitting Labour MPs and you would expect that when the new process is in place other organisations will do the same. What happens if an independent process concludes that on the balance of probabilities, some of the 14 MPs should be expelled and some should not? What if the ones to be expelled don't 'seem' to most observers to be the most egregious offenders? _



This is what I am wondering. If Starmer genuinely implements the EHRC's recommendations then he won't have any control whatsoever over disciplinary matters (though he will still have the ability to withdraw the whip from MP's). I'm guessing the plan is to just oversea everything behind the scenes or just simply ignore the EHRC and his legal obligations.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> You might be right with you're last sentence, but it doesn't look likely that Corbyn will be expelled. It's not even clear that they'll be able to come up with a valid complaint against him. He'll be allowed back as quietly as can be managed. It will harm Starmer's image in the eyes of a lot of Labour members, which may or may not cause him problems in the future.



And if that happens it will make him look ludicrous of course. In the eyes of everyone.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Rimbaud said:


> In the last election Corbyn's Labour won amongst the under 50s


they didn't - but this is already ancient history. the tectonic plates have moved significantly in the last 6 months.

edit: oh, you mean the 18-50 bracket - I guess they did. but they lost heavily in the 40-50 bracket.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> You might be right with you're last sentence, but it doesn't look likely that Corbyn will be expelled. It's not even clear that they'll be able to come up with a valid complaint against him. He'll be allowed back as quietly as can be managed. It will harm Starmer's image in the eyes of a lot of Labour members, which may or may not cause him problems in the future.


So he's fucked if he expels and fucked if he doesn't. Shot by both sides. Well done


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

Rimbaud said:


> There's also a good chance that Plaid Cymru will absorb a lot of Corbyn's support in Wales and Welsh independence will be a big thing by 2030.


Welsh Indy support up around 35% lately. Welsh elections next May


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> but they lost heavily in the 40-50 bracket.


35/41 according to YouGov


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> 35/41 according to YouGov


that's pretty heavy in my book.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> So he's fucked if he expels and fucked if he doesn't. Shot by both sides. Well done


Don't think he's fucked, exactly. Just some people will think he's a dick.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> that's pretty heavy in my book.


I couldn't work out whether I agreed or not tbf so I only posted the data!


----------



## Rimbaud (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> they didn't - but this is already ancient history. the tectonic plates have moved significantly in the last 6 months.
> 
> edit: oh, you mean the 18-50 bracket - I guess they did. but they lost heavily in the 40-50 bracket.



My mistake - I was thinking about the 40-50 bracket not the 18-50, but I was thinking of the 2017 election, not the 2019 election.

I'm not sure about tectonic plates shifting. The underlying material interests remain the seem even if the right have won the propaganda war against Corbyn in particular. The pandemic so far seems to have made the disparity between those with property and those without even worse. I've had to move back in with my parents because I couldn't make ends meet with the additional costs of heating and electricity from remote working, and house shares where bedrooms all have desk space are hard to come up - and I'm in a much better position than others who have been made redundant and reduced to food banks. 

And yet, house prices have continued to rise, fuelled by people who already have homes moving to larger homes - while incomes are falling. I missed the pay rise and bonus I was banking on this year while many more are out of work completely.

The contradictions that gave rise to Corbynism still exist and are intensifying, and if the Labour Party under Starmer refuses to give expression to them, then a split is inevitable. This isn't the 2000s or early 2010s when struggling millennial renters were electorally insignificant. We're a significant part of the work force now and will only become more so, and Labour can't win without the tenant vote which went overwhelmingly to Corbyn. If a new party emerged which gave tenants an alternative to Labour, then I feel quite sure that they would go PASOK within 2 electoral cycles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

Rimbaud said:


> My mistake - I was thinking about the 40-50 bracket not the 18-50, but I was thinking of the 2017 election, not the 2019 election.
> 
> I'm not sure about tectonic plates shifting. The underlying material interests remain the seem even if the right have won the propaganda war against Corbyn in particular. The pandemic so far seems to have made the disparity between those with property and those without even worse. I've had to move back in with my parents because I couldn't make ends meet with the additional costs of heating and electricity from remote working, and house shares where bedrooms all have desk space are hard to come up - and I'm in a much better position than others who have been made redundant and reduced to food banks.
> 
> ...


tbh labour are simply taking the pro-corbyn vote for granted. and the sheer opportunism of the current leadership will, i suspect, not endear them to anyone.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Don't think he's fucked, exactly. Just some people will think he's a dick.



They do already.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh labour are simply taking the pro-corbyn vote for granted. and the sheer opportunism of the current leadership will, i suspect, not endear them to anyone.


Mandelson's "they have nowhere to go" all over again


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

They do have nowhere to go. Is anyone really imagining a viable party of the left emerging from this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

JTG said:


> Mandelson's "they have nowhere to go" all over again


yeh but they can stay at home and then let's see how the labour party get on


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> They do have nowhere to go. Is anyone really imagining a viable party of the left emerging from this?



Greens, LD’s, Nationalists. The Corbyn coalition always contained promiscuous voter groups.

However in respect of the potential emergence of a credible left party you are spot on. It’s not and won’t be happening


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> You might be right with you're last sentence, but it doesn't look likely that Corbyn will be expelled. It's not even clear that they'll be able to come up with a valid complaint against him. He'll be allowed back as quietly as can be managed. It will harm Starmer's image in the eyes of a lot of Labour members, which may or may not cause him problems in the future.



I doubt it has escaped Starmer's notice that Johnson has done very well out of being in a party with hardly any members.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Greens, LD’s, Nationalists. The Corbyn coalition always contained promiscuous voter groups.


No-one's moving to the lib dems from Starmer's Labour - I know a few Lib Dems who've cancelled their membership and intend on getting involved in Labour now in fact. The LDs will be bouncing along at just above sweet fuckall now until the next time Labour get into government. 

I think the push-factor of Johnson's tories will keep Labour support among the left leaning fairly solid. Some will go Green, some Plaid (Scotland seems pretty much maxed out), but it won't be significant come the polls because they aren't really competitive and the tories are horrific. Maybe if Sunak takes over that'll change things (have you seen his numbers?? fucking hell) - I'll need to review things if/when that happens...


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but they can stay at home and then let's see how the labour party get on


In which case the Tories will win even more decisively than I currently expect them to do.  Our current electoral system only records who people voted for not why. No-one knows what proportion of people who voted for Labour did so because they were anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour (and vice versa) . Starmer is probably betting it's high. He is also trying I think to tap into the spirit of Tony Blair and is willing to sacrifice votes on the left of the party in the belief there are a greater number to be picked up on the right. I'm not so sure that will work,  the centre has taken a pounding in recent years. Also love him or hate him, Blair had charisma, Starmer doesn't. I think the Blair Factor only works for Tony Blair himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> In which case the Tories will win even more decisively than I currently expect them to do.


yeh well that's the way it will be then


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> In which case the Tories will win even more decisively than I currently expect them to do.  Our current electoral system only records who people voted for not why. No-one knows what proportion of people who voted for Labour did so because they were anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour (and vice versa) . Starmer is probably betting it's high. He is also trying I think to tap into the spirit of Tony Blair and is willing to sacrifice votes on the left of the party in the belief there are a greater number to be picked up on the right. I'm not so sure that will work,  the centre has taken a pounding in recent years. Also love him or hate him, Blair had charisma, Starmer doesn't. I think the Blair Factor only works for Tony Blair himself.


Think it's probably just an article of faith for Starmer that you win elections by pitching to the right. He was a Blairite sleeper agent all along.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

It's always been totally transparent what Starmer's angle was. Sleeper agent my arse.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2020)

Amid all the Covid and the government's willingness to let extra thousands die, this feels like another kick in the teeth. Not because I think there's a parliamentary road, but because the its even the final kick for those who thought there might be some kind of social democratic decency (I didn't fall for that either, but its still fucking depressing).  But starmer is a fixed point in this, his actions were entirely predictable. This is about the failure of Corbyn and those around him:
1. Failure of the imagination, failure to think you might need community roots for what you are trying to achieve.
2. Ultimate grand old duke of York, had 600,000 following them up the hill. They haven't so much followed him down the hill as wandered off, got lost, thought oh, fuck it. What. A Fucking. Waste. 
3. Spectacular failure on Brexit. Not so much a failure of position, more a failure to have a position. 'I can only repeat, till the next meeting of the NEC our position is....'. All that time that Theresa may was weak, lost opportunities to go for a loud version of the only possible line, 'RESPECT THE LEAVE VOTE, MAXIMISE WORKERS RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'. Might never have won that in a vote, but it was something real, something to take to the voters. Instead... GET BREXIT DONE... and here we are.
4. Failure to get a grip of the party, as others have said. 
Edit: and of course a failure to stomp on both direct AS and also the lazy or casual AS that infects aspects of the left.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's always been totally transparent what Starmer's angle was. Sleeper agent my arse.


Not to everyone, I don't think, or he wouldn't be Labour leader now.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Not to everyone, I don't think, or he wouldn't be Labour leader now.


He won because he's a centrist, not in spite of it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> They do have nowhere to go. Is anyone really imagining a viable party of the left emerging from this?



I can't see a viable party of the left emerging but Labour are going to lose millions of younger voters to none of the above. Enough to cause them problems in making any electoral headway.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> I can't see a viable party of the left emerging but Labour are going to lose millions of younger voters to none of the above. Enough to cause them problems in making any electoral headway.


Not totally convinced; I know trans-Atlantic comparisons really cross-over very well...but...if the early US turnout figures are an accurate barometer, it looks as though the opposition might be able to front up any old shite next time and still garner support (from the young inc.) just on the basis of being 'not Johnson'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> They do have nowhere to go. Is anyone really imagining a viable party of the left emerging from this?


Not for one second. And if there was, Crobyn wouldn't have any part of it.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> I can't see a viable party of the left emerging but Labour are going to lose millions of younger voters to none of the above. Enough to cause them problems in making any electoral headway.


I'll believe that when I see it. Currently it's not showing up in the polls.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Not totally convinced; I know trans-Atlantic comparisons really cross-over very well...but...if the early US turnout figures are an accurate barometer, it looks as though the opposition might be able to front up any old shite next time and still garner support (from the young inc.) just on the basis of being 'not Johnson'.



Johnson isn't going to be leading the Tories into the next election though, is he?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> Johnson isn't going to be leading the Tories into the next election though, is he?


That may well turn out to be the case, though whoever it is will be leading the Covid/Brexit catastrophe party.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> Johnson isn't going to be leading the Tories into the next election though, is he?


No, I don't think he is. I get a feeling that he won't be PM for much longer. The back benches and lucrative employment opportunities are calling.

Covid really took the bounce out of him.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, I don't think he is. I get a feeling that he won't be PM for much longer. The back benches and lucrative employment opportunities are calling.
> 
> Covid really took the bounce out of him.


I'm certain he likes the idea of being PM more than the reality. Having said that, from what you can see he's recovered from covid pretty well, though of course you don't know the deeper effects. I'd actually be surprised if he doesn't lead them into 2025, just on the grounds that PM's rarely give up till they have to.  Hard to tell with him though, there's no mission in play, no 'Johnsonian' project, it's all about his self image, power and self interest.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

The only people predicting an early bath for Johnson are absolute tools, so I'm going to assume he's still going to be leader come the next election, unless 'events'.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

brogdale said:


> That may well turn out to be the case, though whoever it is will be leading the Covid/Brexit catastrophe party.



The Tory base don't think covid is a catastrophe, or at least they think no one else would have done better. I think it's very likely he'll carry the can for the chaos of Brexit, although it's pretty possible they base will think that goes OK too. I think if a year or so out from an election it's still ropey he'll be dumped unceremoniously, that's what the Tories do. It's not a case of Johnson deciding to resign.  And the Tories are very good at spreading the idea that a change of leadership means they're not responsible for what went before. Look at what this government have done with May.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

Think Johnson originally planned to get through the transition period and then declare his work here done. Now, he's probably torn between having a crack at not going down in history as the most twattish prime minister ever and cutting his losses. Think he'll do the second, though.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> The only people predicting an early bath for Johnson are absolute tools, so I'm going to assume he's still going to be leader come the next election, unless 'events'.


Got my 2021 custom title early then.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> The Tory base don't think covid is a catastrophe, or at least they think no one else would have done better. I think it's very likely he'll carry the can for the chaos of Brexit, although it's pretty possible they base will think that goes OK too. I think if a year or so out from an election it's still ropey he'll be dumped unceremoniously, that's what the Tories do. It's not a case of Johnson deciding to resign.  And the Tories are very good at spreading the idea that a change of leadership means they're not responsible for what went before. Look at what this government have done with May.


I suspect the economic cost of Covid will be used as cover for the economic cost of Brexit. Also in some ways the last couple of years show how difficult it is for a party to boot out a sitting PM. Theresa May became that liability in 2017 and it took them 2 years to prise her out.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> The only people predicting an early bath for Johnson are absolute tools, so I'm going to assume he's still going to be leader come the next election, unless 'events'.


Naah, I've seen plenty of sensible people who aren't totally uninformed say so too.  Like Paul Mason.

Oh, hang on....


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

Wilf said:


> I suspect the economic cost of Covid will be used as cover for the economic cost of Brexit. Also in some ways the last couple of years show how difficult it is for a party to boot out a sitting PM. Theresa May became that liability in 2017 and it took them 2 years to prise her out.



Those years were quite a nadir for party unity though, weren't they, I can only think of the Major years although the latter weren't as bad? I also wonder if the fixed term parliament act allows a lame duck PM to hand on in a way that wasn't possible before?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> The only people predicting an early bath for Johnson are absolute tools, so I'm going to assume he's still going to be leader come the next election, unless 'events'.



I think 'events' of some description are sufficiently likely as to render your prediction meaningless.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

like I said.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> like I said.



Or will do, unless circumstances intervene.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> The Tory base don't think covid is a catastrophe, or at least they think no one else would have done better. I think it's very likely he'll carry the can for the chaos of Brexit, although it's pretty possible they base will think that goes OK too. I think if a year or so out from an election it's still ropey he'll be dumped unceremoniously, that's what the Tories do. It's not a case of Johnson deciding to resign.  And the Tories are very good at spreading the idea that a change of leadership means they're not responsible for what went before. Look at what this government have done with May.


Yeah, but I thought we were talking about the "._..but Labour are going to lose millions of younger voters to none of the above._" bit?

Sure the tory core will convince themselves that Covid went well, they be happy with their 'blue' passport and that the party will dump Johnson when it suits them, but I think the salient point here is that Starmer is betting against all of the kids going off into the electoral wilderness just because he's skewered Corbyn. 

By then things are likely to be so bad for the kids that they'll vote for Starmer as they are for Biden.

maybe.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or will do, unless circumstances intervene.


There could always be events to knock literally any prediction off course. Mine is that Johnson won't bow out early because of long covid or because he's bored of it all or because the palimony payments are too much for him to afford on prime ministers wages or whatever other bullshit Westminster gossip is being passed around this week. I'm fairly confident about that. I'm not confident that more material reasons for his removal won't present themselves is all.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2020)

so sick of guessing the near future instead of making


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2020)

ska invita said:


> so sick of guessing the near future instead of making


...other people do it by not finishing sentences?


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 30, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but I thought we were talking about the "._..but Labour are going to lose millions of younger voters to none of the above._" bit?
> 
> Sure the tory core will convince themselves that Covid went well, they be happy with their 'blue' passport and that the party will dump Johnson when it suits them, but I think the salient point here is that Starmer is betting against all of the kids going off into the electoral wilderness just because he's skewered Corbyn.
> 
> ...



Sorry I was distracted by "events" 

I don't honestly see the Tories in 2024 as being Trump in 2020. I was thinking of it more like 2015 where, if Starmer continues in the current vein, if you want Tories, you might as well vote for the proper ones. Of course, it's possible that everyone will be so sick of them by then that it's a hold your nose, Macron kind of vote. Even then, it's a very weak kind of support, and I was specificially thinking about the millions of voters New Labour lost over the years - just thinking it might be possible to lose voter share on 2019 and 2017 even before an election if you have nothing to offer them. 

Perhaps.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> Sorry I was distracted by "events"
> 
> I don't honestly see the Tories in 2024 as being Trump in 2020. I was thinking of it more like 2015 where, if Starmer continues in the current vein, if you want Tories, you might as well vote for the proper ones. Of course, it's possible that everyone will be so sick of them by then that it's a hold your nose, Macron kind of vote. Even then, it's a very weak kind of support, and I was specificially thinking about the millions of voters New Labour lost over the years - just thinking it might be possible to lose voter share on 2019 and 2017 even before an election if you have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Perhaps.


I expect Starmer's hoping to harvest more of the 'culturally Labour'/1 time tory voters than he loses by being New New Labour


----------



## Humberto (Oct 30, 2020)

I think Johnson's popularity can only go down when reality comes-a-calling ever more insistently over the next year or so. Could quickly become embattled e.g. seen as massively incompetent. He'll retain a cadre of Tory ultra-Brexiters for sure, but if the calls come for him to resign he will. The guy can't think on his feet. Don't see how he would endure a protracted party rebellion or media hounding. The next year or so will provide (I reckon) plenty of scope for crises, controversies and ammunition for his opponents.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 30, 2020)

I thought that because Labour's vote collapsed in Scotland that means they have no chance of winning if they just go back to pre-Corbyn ways?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> I thought that because Labour's vote collapsed in Scotland that means they have no chance of winning if they just go back to pre-Corbyn ways?


Depends how far back they go


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Depends how far back they go


Tony Blair? Lots of people saying they want to bring back Tony Blair-style. (not me, I won't be voting most probably).


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> I thought that because Labour's vote collapsed in Scotland that means they have no chance of winning if they just go back to pre-Corbyn ways?


I think its only twice in the last fifty years (probably more than that now) that Scotland was essential in delivering a Labour government.  Although as one of them was Feb '74 we probably wouldn't have had the October '74 election either.  But who knows?  may be then we wouldn't have got Thatcher and Labour would have won in '79 and we'd now be living in a socialist paradise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> Tony Blair? Lots of people saying they want to bring back Tony Blair-style. (not me, I won't be voting most probably).


Much further back than that


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> I think its only twice in the last fifty years (probably more than that now) that Scotland was essential in delivering a Labour government.  Although as one of them was Feb '74 we probably wouldn't have had the October '74 election either.  But who knows?  may be then we wouldn't have got Thatcher and Labour would have won in '79 and we'd now be living in a socialist paradise.


Oh really, I thought it was a big deal. It looks like a big deal when you see the coloured in maps.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2020)

Other leaders called Keir are available.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Much further back than that


So retro


----------



## two sheds (Oct 30, 2020)

Battle of Bannockburn | History, Casualties, & Facts ?


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> Oh really, I thought it was a big deal. It looks like a big deal when you see the coloured in maps.


It was only after the eighties that Labour really became so dominant.  The tories would regularly be on 20+ seats from there earlier than that. And thereafter, either Labour were out of office or there majority was so big it didn't matter.  I think 2005 was the other time, tho I'd have to go check.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 30, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Other leaders called Kier are available.



ITFY


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2020)

Ian Lavery claiming some MP's _are _thinking of quitting Labour:








						Corbyn-supporting MPs discussed quitting Labour, Ian Lavery says
					

Exclusive: ex-party chair says fear of Starmer ‘purge’ may lead to MPs sitting as independents




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Ian Lavery claiming some MP's _are _thinking of quitting Labour:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rats swimming toward a sinking ship

You'd think the fate of the tinge would stop this sort of nonsense


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 2, 2020)

Internationalist socialist solidarity forever! Down with the revisionist Starmer clique!


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2020)

Great news for left wing politics outside Labour, TUSC have relaunched! Their latest act is to... welcome Chris Williamson onto their steering committee. 

Useful to know where all the cranks are going to head I guess. 









						Ex-MP Chris Williamson joins TUSC - Socialist Party
					

TUSC's steering committee welcomed five new members who are on the NECs of trade unions, and former Labour MP Chris Williamson.




					www.socialistparty.org.uk


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 12, 2020)

Just when the Workers Party (GB) were soaring in the polls too.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2020)

killer b said:


> Great news for left wing politics outside Labour, TUSC have relaunched! Their latest act is to... welcome Chris Williamson onto their steering committee.
> 
> Useful to know where all the cranks are going to head I guess.
> 
> ...


Looking forward to seeing the composition of the TUSC FOI grouping.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2020)

I’m trying to work out which of the sad fuckers must be more desperate.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2020)

Currently no.1 on the iTunes UK hip hop and rap chart. An ode to comrade Corbyn!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2020)

Looks like Corbyn has been told what he has to do before the investigation finds that his suspension will be ended:


----------



## ska invita (Nov 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Looks like Corbyn has been told what he has to do before the investigation finds that his suspension will be ended:
> 
> View attachment 239228


....which dodges the issue that  "The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media." Which it was. Is the new discipline just to never talk of it again? Especially the bit about "inside the party" needs bringing up again for sure.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

ska invita said:


> ....which dodges the issue that  "The scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media." Which it was. Is the new discipline just to never talk of it again?


those guys are the boss now, so yeah.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 17, 2020)

Is there an inquiry into this lot still to come? Sorry i dont know their names or follow that closely. The Whatsapp message leaked inquiry thing bunch IYNWIM?


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

There was some talk of there being an investigation into that report and how it came to be leaked, but the chances of it finding anything of any use to the left in the party is pretty much zero I'd imagine. Most of the people on that whatsapp thing are no longer working for the party, and in some cases have been paid substantial sums in damages, which makes it pretty difficult for there to be anything critical of them to emerge from any investigation.


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

Presumably we are now all to forget that anti Semitism was weaponised by Corbyn's enemies to undermine him, and never speak of the issue again.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

I don't think anything good can come from trying to mobilise within the Labour Party anymore, so there's probably not much point in digging in on it. Do your political work elsewhere, but make sure to exclude the cranks who helped fuck it all up for for the left in Labour.


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

It's not a question of whether it's worth being a member, it's whether there is any point in voting for them.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 17, 2020)

MP of the year


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

rummo said:


> It's not a question of whether it's worth being a member, it's whether there is any point in voting for them.


Up to you innit. But bear in mind that the party is now controlled by people who looked at Boris Johnson and decided five years of that was preferable to a Corbyn led Labour government.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

Totally agree, but there again is it preferable to another few years of a batshit tory government?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 17, 2020)

Most of us don't live in swing seats so it makes little difference other than sending vague smoke signals into the ether


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Totally agree, but there again is it preferable to another few years of a batshit tory government?


Well. On current numbers Labour would need a swing harder than they got in the 1997 landslide, so chances are you're getting that next time anyway.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

Yep, you too.


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Totally agree, but there again is it preferable to another few years of a batshit tory government?




That is how the right get away with it and keep control of the party.

They are happy enough to abstain or vote for someone else when the left are in ascendancy, because it's not too much of a concern for them if the Tories win, but it's not so easy for the left.

But there comes a point when it's just not worth it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yep, you too.


Not when The North secedes.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

rummo said:


> That is how the right get away with it and keep control of the party.
> 
> They are happy enough to abstain or vote for someone else when the left are in ascendancy, because it's not too much of a concern for them if the Tories win, but it's not so easy for the left.
> 
> But there comes a point when it's just not worth it.



True, but on the other hand that's how the tories keep control of the country.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Not when The North secedes.



Cornwall too then


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Up to you innit. But bear in mind that the party is now controlled by people who looked at Boris Johnson and decided five years of that was preferable to a Corbyn led Labour government.




Yep. Johnson, a no deal Brexit, and a much increased chance of the break up of the UK was  better than a Corbyn government for the people now in control of the Labour party.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

Yep, agree with all of that. Not sure whether I'll vote next time, but tory government in charge of Brexit and NHS sell-off and the like will be part of the equation.

I quite like the idea of break up of the UK though. Scotland, Wales, the North and Cornwall if we all want to go our own way along with unified Ireland would be favoured result.


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yep, agree with all of that. Not sure whether I'll vote next time, but tory government in charge of Brexit and NHS sell-off and the like will be part of the equation.
> 
> I quite like the idea of break up of the UK though. Scotland, Wales, the North and Cornwall if we all want to go our own way along with unified Ireland would be favoured result.



You can forget Wales, Cornwall and the North, just not feasible, but Scotland will probably leave (a bad thing) and Ireland will probably be reunited eventually (a good thing).


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

I don't want to forget Wales, Cornwall and the North


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yep, agree with all of that. Not sure whether I'll vote next time, but tory government in charge of Brexit and NHS sell-off and the like will be part of the equation.
> 
> I quite like the idea of break up of the UK though. Scotland, Wales, the North and Cornwall if we all want to go our own way along with unified Ireland would be favoured result.


a greater united ireland, with scotland, wales, the north and cornwall all governed from dublin might just work.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

".... it might just work Carruthers"


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I don't want to forget Wales, Cornwall and the North


i bet you don't remember deira and wihtwara


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i bet you don't remember deira and wihtwara


Elmet prevails!


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> a greater united ireland, with scotland, wales, the north and cornwall all governed from dublin might just work.


I just hope Cornwall annexes my part of West Devon.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i bet you don't remember deira and wihtwara



:compulsory Sas joke:

I do remember Greater Cornwall incorporating Bristol though


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I just hope Cornwall annexes my part of West Devon.


prince charles, the duke of cornwall, will summon the fyrd for just this purpose


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

Isn't Cornwall solid tory though? I wouldn't want to be trapped with those fuckers.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> a greater united ireland, with scotland, wales, the north and cornwall all governed from dublin might just work.



Been(ish) done before of course...


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Isn't Cornwall solid tory though? I wouldn't want to be trapped with those fuckers.



True - Truro and Falmouth where I am was almost close though.

ad there's a strong Lib Dem component


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Isn't Cornwall solid tory though? I wouldn't want to be trapped with those fuckers.


Both Falmouth & Truro and Camborne & Redruth constituencies are close enough to be conceivably Labour in a good year. The old Falmouth & Camborne seat was held by Candy Atherton for Labour between 97 & 05 before being lost to the Lib Dems


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Most of us don't live in swing seats so it makes little difference other than sending vague smoke signals into the ether


I'm in swingy Bristol NW - until '17 it had gone with the winning party for the previous 40 years. Won by Labour the past two elections so not a bellwether any more but still only a majority of c5,000. Darren Jones was surprised to win in '17 - he's on the right of the party, though manages not to be too openly offensive to the left, he just ignores them. Had huge support in canvassing and GOTV from the Momentum left in Bristol to win and then hold his seat despite it being clear that there's no love lost on either side of the equation. The CLP is some way to the left of him, passed the Corbyn motion last week and plenty in the CLP would happily ditch him if they could. For his part he has actively courted anti-Brexit Tories & Lib Dem voters, sends out mail with zero Labour branding at all and is probably better thought of in the more well heeled parts of the constituency than in the trad Labour estates that were more Brexity.

So, having happily delivered his leaflets, knocked on doors and voted for him in order to try and secure a Corbyn government, I can't see myself doing the same on any of those scores next time and the same probably goes for a lot of other people in the area. If that means he loses to a Tory, well, that's not something that moves me tbh


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

I know it’s largely meaningless but I actually feel sorry for Corbyn. This is brutal humiliation (apologise for pointing out that this was weaponised to harm you and apologise to those who have knowingly smeared you and your record of anti-racism for good).

But, Corbyn is a prisoner of the dead zone that is the Labour Party and he’s a prisoner of his own relativist politics. To those of you - for whom night is day - and who want to keep fighting within in it to recover an imagined socialist past the message to you is clear - if they can do it to him they’ll certainly be able to do it to you.


----------



## rummo (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I know it’s largely meaningless but I actually feel sorry for Corbyn. This is brutal humiliation (apologise for pointing out that this was weaponised to harm you and apologise to those who have knowingly smeared you and your record of anti-racism for good).
> 
> But, Corbyn is a prisoner of the dead zone that is the Labour Party and he’s a prisoner of his own relativist politics. To those of you - for whom night is day - and who want to keep fighting within in it to recover an imagined socialist past the message to you is clear - if they can do it to him they’ll certainly be able to do it to you.




I wouldn't disagree, but that isn't a new staement, it's what he said on the day he was suspended. So it's not like he's come under renewed pressure to capitulate.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

rummo said:


> I wouldn't disagree, but that isn't a new staement, it's what he said on the day he was suspended. So it's not like he's come under renewed pressure to capitulate.


Didn’t his statement on the day the report came out say AS in Labour was exaggerated?. This one says the opposite.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Didn’t his statement on the day the report came out say AS in Labour was exaggerated?. This one says the opposite.



Exactly. As the commentariat are now gleefully pointing out


----------



## ska invita (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I know it’s largely meaningless but I actually feel sorry for Corbyn. This is brutal humiliation (apologise for pointing out that this was weaponised to harm you and apologise to those who have knowingly smeared you and your record of anti-racism for good).
> 
> But, Corbyn is a prisoner of the dead zone that is the Labour Party and he’s a prisoner of his own relativist politics. To those of you - for whom night is day - and who want to keep fighting within in it to recover an imagined socialist past the message to you is clear - if they can do it to him they’ll certainly be able to do it to you.


theres always someone trying to do it to you tbf


sleaterkinney said:


> Didn’t his statement on the day the report came out say AS in Labour was exaggerated?. This one says the opposite.


this one doesnt mention the exaggeration/weaponisation at all


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Exactly. As the commentariat are now gleefully pointing out


There’s no glee, he should have kept his trap shut that day and accepted the report and moved on rather than have a dig about the media and conspiracies. 
Should have been a day for the whole party to move on, now the left has that to gripe about.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There’s no glee, he should have kept his trap shut that day and accepted the report and moved on rather than have a dig about the media and conspiracies.
> Should have been a day for the whole party to move on, now the left has that to gripe about.


Which CLP are you in slearer?


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

Talk of the party "moving on" is purely for public show. We're already seeing left electees to the NEC being pursued for similar stuff and EHRC recommendations being set aside for the benefit of the current ruling clique. The party doesn't 'move on' because the party is contested ground and all factions know this well enough


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Which CLP are you in slearer?


Is that a prerequisite batcher?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is that a prerequisite batcher?


Well, you often talk of voting of effects that votes have on in your area. In the UK EU referendum where did you vote? You get where i'm going with this so won't answer. Always a trail.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you often talk of voting of effects that votes have on in your area.


What does that even mean?


butchersapron said:


> In the UK EU referendum where did you vote? You get where i'm going with this so won't answer. Always a trail.


I voted at the local school, i have no idea where you're going, some more of your usual crypto bollocks i presume.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What does that even mean?
> I voted at the local school, i have no idea where you're going, some more of your usual crypto bollocks i presume.


Uh huh. So you voted in the UK then? Trail in mind of course...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Uh huh. So you voted in the UK then? Trail in mind of course...


I live in the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I live in the UK.


Well done.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Well done.


Thanks. Should people have an opinion on politicians and their actions, or is just limited to members of their parties?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Thanks. Should people have an opinion on politicians and their actions, or is just limited to members of their parties?


Depends on how they present themselves. Wouldn't you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

How did/have you done that btw. Ah.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Depends on how they present themselves.


It depends.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It depends.


It's _changeable _shall we say?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> It's _changeable _shall we say?


I can change my mind and opinion. i don't view that as a weakness, the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I can change my mind, i don't view that as a weakness, the opposite.


Your mind may change - it hasn't - more factual stuff that you've used to bolster your shitty mind hasn't either. It's all there on record.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Your mind may change - it hasn't - more factual stuff that you've used to bolster your shitty mind hasn't either. It's all there on record.


Are you saying that my hunches are right?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 17, 2020)

On record in the files.


----------



## oryx (Nov 17, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Is there an inquiry into this lot still to come? Sorry i dont know their names or follow that closely. The Whatsapp message leaked inquiry thing bunch IYNWIM?



The Forde Inquiry:





__





						The Forde Inquiry - The Forde Inquiry
					

The Forde Inquiry Panel has been appointed by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to undertake an independent investigation into the circumstances and…




					www.fordeinquiry.org


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 17, 2020)

Looks like he’s back in.


----------



## oryx (Nov 17, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Looks like he’s back in.


Just heard that confirmed on R4.


----------



## tommers (Nov 17, 2020)

Wings clipped. Allowed to limp on so that nobody rebels.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 17, 2020)

Good stuff

Should never have happened in the first place and doubt Starmer will get over it.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 17, 2020)




----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 17, 2020)

Good.
Do we need to start a new Jeremy Corbyn’s Time Is Up, V2 thread?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Good.
> Do we need to start a new Jeremy Corbyn’s Time Is Up, V2 thread?



Why? He might be ‘back in’ but to what ends? To rattle around on the backbenches for another 25 years until Labour flirts with social democracy again and then backs off once it gets a bit rich for their blood?

Not only is his time up but surely even his most starry eyed fan must recognise that the game is too when it comes to the socialist Labour project??


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Why? He might be ‘back in’ but to what ends? To rattle around on the backbenches for another 25 years until Labour flirts with social democracy again and then backs off once it gets a bit rich for their blood?
> 
> Not only is his time up but surely even his most starry eyed fan must recognise that the game is too when it comes to the socialist Labour project??


Sorry, I should have put a grinning emoji on, I was far from being serious.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Sorry, I should have put a grinning emoji on, I was far from being serious.



I know pal. Comment wasn’t directed at you, you’ve got more sense.....pity about others!


----------



## Leighsw2 (Nov 17, 2020)

Tend to agree that the game for socialist Labour is probably up, though you have to enjoy this moment as centrist heads explode, especially when they find out the Right had a 3-2 majority on the NEC sub-committee that let him off.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

teqniq said:


>



This is what happens when the leader plumps for the support of the scum on the right of the PLP - they've briefed against and sawn off three Labour leaders in the last decade and they'll do the same to Starmer if he doesn't give them everything they want


----------



## Smangus (Nov 17, 2020)

realpolitik.......


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Why? He might be ‘back in’ but to what ends? To rattle around on the backbenches for another 25 years until Labour flirts with a tepid watered down version of vaguely pink social democracy again and then backs off once it gets a bit rich for their blood?


c4u



> Not only is his time up but surely even his most starry eyed fan must recognise that the game is too when it comes to the socialist Labour project??


socialist labour's dead and gone
it's with clem attlee in the grave


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

Anyway

View attachment AbFupPp_1viyrHpV.mp4


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

Leighsw2 said:


> Tend to agree that the game for socialist Labour is probably up, though you have to enjoy this moment as centrist heads explode, especially when they find out the Right had a 3-2 majority on the NEC sub-committee that let him off.


It's not just the centrists, I've seen soft-lefts having meltdowns over on Twitter


----------



## Leighsw2 (Nov 17, 2020)

JTG said:


> It's not just the centrists, I've seen soft-lefts having meltdowns over on Twitter


My definition of 'centrist' is very broad.....


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

Leighsw2 said:


> My definition of 'centrist' is very broad.....


Fair enough. Soft left just means pretending you want all the socialist things but caving in to the right every time and consistently punching left


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Why? He might be ‘back in’ but to what ends? To rattle around on the backbenches for another 25 years until Labour flirts with social democracy again and then backs off once it gets a bit rich for their blood?
> 
> Not only is his time up but surely even his most starry eyed fan must recognise that the game is too when it comes to the socialist Labour project??


Gone from leader to prisoner in the space of a few months


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Gone from leader to prisoner in the space of a few months


tbf this isn't an unfamiliar journey for socialists


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Gone from leader to prisoner in the space of a few months


From hero to zero


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> tbf this isn't an unfamiliar journey for socialists


Yeh he's not Bukharin the trend


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> tbf this isn't an unfamiliar journey for socialists


That's zinoviev of that


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> tbf this isn't an unfamiliar journey for socialists


I dunno tbh has there been a left movement in the Labour Party that on one hand scaled such heights but whose bubble popped so quickly ? Where’s the legacy ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> From hero to zero



You are half right


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You are half right


Yeh I don't think he's ever been a hero either


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh I don't think he's ever been a hero either


But he was tbh however momentarily and however flimsy it all was he was a hero for thousands . Albeit flawed full of 1980s anti imperialism and other isms he was popular with a cross generational left . There was a feeling that despite what ever our gut instinct said about the Labour Party that it was actually possible. However it was a movement with very little traction in the W/class and with nothing from below aside from ‘ I want to believe’ . A totally unstable and unsustainable coalition that’s just dissipated into thin air. Ok he may have temporarily moved the Overton window in terms of what is aspirational but where’s the beef to back it up?


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> I dunno tbh has there been a left movement in the Labour Party that on one hand scaled such heights but whose bubble popped so quickly ? Where’s the legacy ?


Probably not. There isn't a legacy, as least in the Labour Party. It was a strange fluke that he ended up leading it, and there was never the sound and experienced base of support there to make it sustainable. 

I guess beyond the party, who knows? It's too early to say. If there's one thing we can thank Starmer for, it's making it clear Labour isn't the vehicle for radical change it briefly appeared it might have been. The material conditions that made Corbyn happen aren't going away - something will be along soon enough, and you can be sure lessons will be taken from the past five years. Possibly not the right ones, but...


----------



## Funky_monks (Nov 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh I don't think he's ever been a hero either


Depends on your definition of "hero", I guess. Whilst I may be considerably further to the left than him/the LP/etc. For a brief moment, I did have a slight glimmer of a hope that turkeys might not actually vote for christmas, and that alone in the current climate is reasonably heroic.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 17, 2020)

If nothing else it's oddly impressive how quickly Starmer has pissed off every faction in the Labour Party. The unity candidate, indeed.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2020)

I mean, he appointed the most right wing candidate possible for the General Secretary position and now the Labour right are briefing that Evans should resign. It's hilarious


----------



## Raheem (Nov 17, 2020)

JTG said:


> I mean, he appointed the most right wing candidate possible for the General Secretary position and now the Labour right are briefing that Evans should resign. It's hilarious


Got to be a masquerade, surely?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 17, 2020)

rummo said:


> Yep. Johnson, a no deal Brexit, and a much increased chance of the break up of the UK was  better than a Corbyn government for the people now in control of the Labour party.



The UK breaking up is necessary.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Probably not. There isn't a legacy, as least in the Labour Party. It was a strange fluke that he ended up leading it, and there was never the sound and experienced base of support there to make it sustainable.
> 
> I guess beyond the party, who knows? It's too early to say. If there's one thing we can thank Starmer for, it's making it clear Labour isn't the vehicle for radical change it briefly appeared it might have been. The material conditions that made Corbyn happen aren't going away - something will be along soon enough, and you can be sure lessons will be taken from the past five years. Possibly not the right ones, but...


I think anything that Labour left people are involved with - grassroots stuff like National Food Service and tenants unions etc - is very clearly going to be outside the party. The right are ideologically opposed to actually doing stuff, the centre don't have the first idea how to do it and as a result Labour funds and resources will never be directed to those activities in any meaningful way


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> The UK breaking up is necessary.





Necessary for what?


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

teqniq said:


>



Update: apparently it's Hodge who is threatening to go. That's Margaret Hodge who said social housing should be reserved for white people when the BNP were on the rise in Barking and has since tried to claim all the credit for the work of anti-racist activists who mobilised to keep them out of office there

Also: has a long standing grudge against Corbyn from her time at Islington council and the child abuse scandal there


----------



## ska invita (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Necessary for what?


...freeing British people from the yoke of the Tories
The break up of the union looks to me to be driven by repeated nails hammered into the unions coffin by the Tories. I'm not against the Union - if there's a break up I'd hope in the fullness of time a federal Union re-emerges at some point - but I am against a Union run from London by Tories for London Tories and their kin


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Update: apparently it's Hodge who is threatening to go. That's Margaret Hodge who said social housing should be reserved for white people when the BNP were on the rise in Barking and has since tried to claim all the credit for the work of anti-racist activists who mobilised to keep them out of office there
> 
> Also: has a long standing grudge against Corbyn from her time at Islington council and the child abuse scandal there




I read somewhere that the lingering dislike stems from her treatment of The Woodland Folk.





__





						Chopped down: The Woodcraft Folk
					

They were founded as a socialist alternative to the Scouts. Now The Woodcraft Folk's state subsidy has been axed by a Labour government, a move that may kill the organisation, reports Terry Kirby




					www.independent.co.uk
				




Why Hodge is not a public pariah after her handling of the Islington Child Abuse Scandal is an enduring mystery.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> I read somewhere that the lingering dislike stems from her treatment of The Woodland Folk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have a feeling the enmity pre-dates that - back to when she was running Islington and Corbyn was the local MP.

Yeah, that story reminded me - she was Children's Minister ffs, with her record.

Just another example of having the right politics to ensure all this stuff goes down the memory hole


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

ska invita said:


> ...freeing British people from the yoke of the Tories
> The break up of the union looks to me to be driven by repeated nails hammered into the unions coffin by the Tories. I'm not against the Union - if there's a break up I'd hope in the fullness of time a federal Union re-emerges at some point - but I am against a Union run from London by Tories for London Tories and their kin




Breaking the UK into its constituent parts will not reduce the influence of the Tories.

That argument  is straight out of the ''something must be done, this is something, then that is what we must do'' drawer.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Breaking the UK into its constituent parts will not reduce the influence of the Tories.
> 
> That argument  is straight out of the ''something must be done, this is something, then that is what we must do'' drawer.


Politics will realign on independence anyway. You're seeing a re-emergence of Scottish Tories now anyway in their old Borders and north-eastern strongholds. Once the SNP have achieved their primary objective you'll see them realign/split/whatever eventually.

There will always be a right wing party (and centre/centre left parties for people who want to be right wing but not called cunts for it)


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Have a feeling the enmity pre-dates that - back to when she was running Islington and Corbyn was the local MP.
> 
> Yeah, that story reminded me - she was Children's Minister ffs, with her record.
> 
> Just another example of having the right politics to ensure all this stuff goes down the memory hole


Just been reminded - Islington under Hodge wanted to build over a Jewish cemetery but was prevented from doing so by a campaign led by... guess who


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Breaking the UK into its constituent parts will not reduce the influence of the Tories.
> 
> That argument  is straight out of the ''something must be done, this is something, then that is what we must do'' drawer.



It might not reduce their influence in England. 

Here in Wales the population has never, in a 100 years, voted for a Tory government, yet because Wales has 40 MPs and England 533 Wales is normally landed with one anyway. So even though we'd no doubt end up with Tories/Abolish the Assembly/UKIP types in an independent Senedd it would certainly reduce their influence here.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Politics will realign on independence anyway. You're seeing a re-emergence of Scottish Tories now anyway in their old Borders and north-eastern strongholds. Once the SNP have achieved their primary objective you'll see them realign/split/whatever eventually.
> 
> There will always be a right wing party (and centre/centre left parties for people who want to be right wing but not called cunts for it)




If politics in Scotland realign to the positions they were in before the emergence of the SNP it will mean an increase of Tory influence.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Just been reminded - Islington under Hodge wanted to build over a Jewish cemetery but was prevented from doing so by a campaign led by... guess who


The discord between the two of them appears to have been years in the making. Hodge always struck me as vindictive and cunning. Positioning herself to appear worthy of selection but forever making sure she is like Teflon.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Necessary for what?



A 32 county socialist Ireland.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> A 32 county socialist Ireland.




The direction of travel certainly seems to be in favour of Irish reunification.

Not sure about the socialist bit though. That's more of a stretch.

Northern Ireland's position within the UK though is materially different to that of Scotland and Wales.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> The direction of travel certainly seems to be in favour of Irish reunification.
> 
> Not sure about the socialist bit though. That's more of a stretch.
> 
> Northern Ireland's position within the UK though is materially different to that of Scotland and Wales.



The occupation of the 6 counties is indeed materially different.

It is no longer a question of if, but rather, when said occupation ends.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 18, 2020)

Keir Starmer denies Jeremy Corbyn Labour whip despite end of suspension
					

Decision means former leader will not sit as Labour MP and is likely to reignite party row




					www.theguardian.com
				




Refused the whip to appease yesterday's noise and despite his obviously worked out grovelling apology.

Have some pride in yourself man. Stand down or go fully independent.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> A 32 county socialist Ireland.


Just checking, you men  the ireland that's the most right wing country in western europe? That ireland?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

Why would the reunification of Ireland be something to wish for?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

Progressive stuff Government will breach European and Irish law by sealing mother and baby home records, says DPC


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 18, 2020)

Whip not restored to Corbyn.

And so on it goes.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

End to end stuff!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why would the reunification of Ireland be something to wish for?



Because partition is a British construct, forced on Ireland. 

It's time.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 18, 2020)

Christ, didn't occur to me that Starmer has announced this an hour before PMQs. Did he have to do it now? Seems very poor timing if not.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

Or allowed to return to sit as a LABOUR MP!
Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

the man to unify the party


----------



## not a trot (Nov 18, 2020)

Apart from being a permanent distraction, what exactly has Corbyn achieved from his political career ? Maybe it is time to fuck off to his allotment.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 18, 2020)

God if Starmer has done this to hang on to Margaret Hodge he really is a fucking idiot


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

Time for his supporters in the PLP to piss or get off the pot.

Anyone heard from celebrity Starmer supporter Ricky  'socialist my arse' Tomlinson recently?


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Or allowed to return to sit as a MP!
> Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer



where is that headline coming from?
The only fuss i can see is about him not getting whipped anymore (which i don't know why that matters).


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

not a trot said:


> Apart from being a permanent distraction, what exactly has Corbyn achieved from his political career ? Maybe it is time to fuck off to his allotment.


He increased the party membership for a while.
But he was never going to be allowed to remove years of derision.
But Labour has been embarrassed by anyone left of centre since the sixties. Remember Barbara Castle forwarded ‘_In Place of Strife’ _in 1969 to curb the power of Trade Unions. An idea brought to the fore and implemented by Thatcher a decade later. Labour, putting the boot into workers while smiling and reaping votes.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Keir Starmer is completely out of his depth and this is the fault of the Labour Party for choosing the less qualified man over three far more qualified and experienced women


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> where is that headline coming from?
> The only fuss i can see is about him not getting whipped anymore (which i don't know why that matters).


First page BBC News website.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why would the reunification of Ireland be something to wish for?


I'm sure you'll get a full answer to that in Ireland


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

not a trot said:


> Apart from being a permanent distraction, what exactly has Corbyn achieved from his political career ? Maybe it is time to fuck off to his allotment.




Certainly not as much as multi millionaire Blair. He achieved enormous wealth. A lot of dead bodies too right enough , but hey most of them were foreigners so they don't really matter.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 18, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Or allowed to return to sit as a MP!
> Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer Jeremy Corbyn will not return as Labour MP, says Sir Keir Starmer





Sprocket. said:


> First page BBC News website.


Isn't that just he can't sit as a _Labour_ MP? He can still sit as an Independent MP.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

Labour, promising since 1910.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

Lord Camomile said:


> Isn't that just he can't sit as a _Labour_ MP? He can still sit as an Independent MP.


Sorry will edit for clarification.

ETA: Though I thought that was obvious.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Lord Camomile said:


> Isn't that just he can't sit as a _Labour_ MP? He can still sit as an Independent MP.


Of course he can sit as an MP, that won't change unless the electorate of Islington North decide otherwise, he stands down himself or he's removed by going to jail


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 18, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> A 32 county socialist Ireland.



Why would you care?  You've chosen to live in a seriously capitalist country.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 18, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> God if Starmer has done this to hang on to Margaret Hodge he really is a fucking idiot



Is there a good summary of the Case Against Hodge that doesn't have the shadow of the loon upon it?


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Keir Starmer is completely out of his depth and this is the fault of the Labour Party for choosing the less qualified man over three far more qualified and experienced women


But then again we're talking about an organisation that took itself to court in 2016 in order to try and keep its own leader off the ballot for the leadership so what do we expect really


----------



## Petcha (Nov 18, 2020)

not a trot said:


> Apart from being a permanent distraction, what exactly has Corbyn achieved from his political career ? Maybe it is time to fuck off to his allotment.



His biggest achievement was gifting a massive majority to the worst candidate for PM in history. And we have a few more of years of it to come yet.

Cheers Jezza. Now fuck off.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Petcha said:


> His biggest achievement was gifting a massive majority to the worst candidate for PM in history. And we have a few more of years of it to come yet.
> 
> Cheers Jezza. Now fuck off.


Oh to live in such a simple world


----------



## Petcha (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Oh to live in such a simple world



Don't you live in New Zealand?


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Petcha said:


> Don't you live in New Zealand?


lol


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

He has fucked off tbf. It's the other guys who keep kicking the corpse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2020)

Petcha said:


> His biggest achievement was gifting a massive majority to the worst candidate for PM in history. And we have a few more of years of it to come yet.
> 
> Cheers Jezza. Now fuck off.


still, at least there is now an accomplished, forensic 6-d chess player in charge who can unite the party. Hows that going?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 18, 2020)

Lord Camomile said:


> Christ, didn't occur to me that Starmer has announced this an hour before PMQs. Did he have to do it now? Seems very poor timing if not.



Almost as if he was more concerned with purging than with doing his actual fucking job.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> End to end stuff!



This is moving into some VAR shit


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

DotCommunist said:


> still, at least there is now an accomplished, forensic 6-d chess player in charge who can unite the party. Hows that going?


It's good to see what the adult in the room they've been demanding all this time looks like.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

ska invita said:


> This is moving into some VAR shit


I’m stuffing a Pukka pie in my pocket and going home then.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

DotCommunist said:


> still, at least there is now an accomplished, forensic 6-d chess player in charge who can unite the party. Hows that going?


Pointlessly throwing his forensic weight around by not restoring the whip because that's a thing the Leader can do and membership isn't in his remit. This to appease the right wing racist element of the PLP who are annoyed that the Leader can't break the recommendations of the EHRC report by throwing people out of the Party for their response to the EHRC report

In the meantime, there's a massive great report on Islamophobia in the the Party published by its own members that he hasn't paid much more than lip service to yet, probably because he doesn't want to piss off the right wing racist element - which he has done anyway by failing to throw out Corbyn. In other news, more than one LGBT member of Rosie Duffield's staff has quit in recent months because she's a massive TERF & homophobe but she still somehow escapes censure and people who praise anti-semites continue to sit in his shadow cabinet.

It's going _really well_


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

Petcha said:


> His biggest achievement was gifting a massive majority to the worst candidate for PM in history. And we have a few more of years of it to come yet.
> 
> Cheers Jezza. Now fuck off.




Not sure that Brexit made his task any easier.

Or the outright hostility, which bordered on the demented, from the Blair/Mandleson/Chukka/Berger mob and their acolytes within the Labour Party machine.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Not sure that Brexit made his task any easier.


Remember those poll leads in 2018 that disappeared, never to return, after the Shadow Brexit Secretary took it upon himself to declare Labour 'the Party of Remain' at Conference without any consultation with the leadership? 

Anyway, what happened to that guy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

DotCommunist said:


> still, at least there is now an accomplished, forensic 6-d chess player in charge who can unite the party. Hows that going?


6-d? half a shilling?

ks is a shilling short of a pound if he thinks his decisive leadership is going to lead to installation in number 10


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> 6-d? half a shilling?


Wouldn't give you thruppence for him tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> He has fucked off tbf. It's the other guys who keep kicking the corpse.



Not really though, his first reaction to the EHRC was to clumsily reignite the problem even when ostensibly accepting it. If his opponents were looking for ways to kick him he spared them the bother of looking too hard for a way.

It does feel unfair that he cannot simply say what he thinks, defend himself and speak freely but this is politics and every reiteration of this row leads his supporters on social media to repeat their claims of invention and conspiracy, often in pretty nasty ways. 

Corbyn never appears to try to influence that debate. It wouldn’t hurt him to say, that as much as he disagrees with her, constantly abusing Rachel Riley and others is wrong. But he doesn’t and so he remains a conduit until he shuts off the possibility, either by the right actions or keeping his head down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Wouldn't give you thruppence for him tbh


tempting to pelt him with thruppences (thruppi?) tho

i'll have a look through my auld coins


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Not really though, his first reaction to the EHRC was to clumsily reignite the problem even when ostensibly accepting it. If his opponents were looking for ways to kick him he spared them the bother of looking too hard for a way.
> 
> It does feel unfair that he cannot simply say what he thinks, defend himself and speak freely but this is politics every reiteration of this row leads his supporters on social media to repeat their claims of invention and conspiracy, often in pretty nasty ways.
> 
> Corbyn never appears to try to influence that debate. It wouldn’t hurt him to say, that as much as he disagrees with her, constantly abusing Rachel Riley and others is wrong. But he doesn’t and so he remains a conduit until he shuts off the possibility, either by the right actions or keeping his head down.


Abusing Rachel Riley is absolutely fine though, she's awful


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Abusing Rachel Riley is absolutely fine though, she's awful


it's not fine, it's really boring.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> it's not fine, it's really boring.


It's not


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> tempting to pelt him with thruppences (thruppi?) tho
> 
> i'll have a look through my auld coins


I have some farthings and old ship ha’pennies.
Plus two great catapults.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Abusing Rachel Riley is absolutely fine though, she's awful



She is awful, dreadful, but she was also broadly correct about antisemitism, so abusing her for that reason is deplorable.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> She is awful, dreadful, but she was also broadly correct about antisemitism, so abusing her for that reason is deplorable.


Well now you're qualifying it


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> It's not


It's literally the dullest thing on the internet. there's nothing more tedious. Apart from replying to Donald Trumps tweets and then screenshotting it for your mates' approval perhaps.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's literally the dullest thing on the internet. there's nothing more tedious. Apart from replying to Donald Trumps tweets and then screenshotting it for your mates' approval perhaps.


Well that's, like, your opinion man


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Well now you're qualifying it



Yeah, but you can say you have a reason. Every right wing sad sack has a reason for abusing David Lammy or Sadiq Khan, but you look at the sheer tonnage and ferocity of it and you think, no this isn’t acceptable and infer the reasons why. And people do the same with pro-Jezza abuse.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah, but you can say you have a reason. Every right wing sad sack has a reason for abusing David Lammy or Sadiq Khan, but you look at the sheer tonnage and ferocity of it and you think, no this isn’t acceptable and infer the reasons why. And people do the same with pro-Jezza abuse.


I'm not bothered enough tbh. She's a dick, she gets called out for being a dick. Struggling to care really


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Is there a good summary of the Case Against Hodge that doesn't have the shadow of the loon upon it?



Depends on which variety of loon you wish to avoid. 

There's loads in the Private Eye archives about Hodge at Islington Council and her long-standing enmity with Corbyn but here's a summary from the Independent about what she got up to there With a past like hers, Margaret Hodge might show a bit more humility

 Here's her being criticised by Corbynite loon, Alan Johnson, over comments she made about housing in Barking (report from the BBC) BBC NEWS | Politics | Hodge attacked for 'BNP language'

And here's a report from a South African non profit which lists its donors over "lifelong anti-racist" Hodge's long term profiteering under the apartheid regime there | Unaccountable 00001: Dame Margaret Hodge MP – a very British apartheid profiteer

There's more but I'm ending my lunch break.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah, but you can say you have a reason. Every right wing sad sack has a reason for abusing David Lammy or Sadiq Khan, but you look at the sheer tonnage and ferocity of it and you think, no this isn’t acceptable and infer the reasons why. And people do the same with pro-Jezza abuse.


What's the alternative? Don't say anything even when she's being out of order and what she says has consequences for the likes of Corbyn specifically or, say, the cause of Palestinians generally?

Riley doesn't have to say the things she says, and I don't think the comparison to Lammy or Khan is at all valid. She is a leading voice seeking to equate all kinds of anti-Zionism, and pretty much any criticism of Israel, as anti-Semitic. That needs calling out, no?


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the alternative? Don't say anything


yes


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Plumdaff said:


> And here's a report from a South African non profit which lists its donors over "lifelong anti-racist" Hodge's long term profiteering under the apartheid regime there | Unaccountable 00001: Dame Margaret Hodge MP – a very British apartheid profiteer


Had forgotten about the South African stuff, thanks for the reminder


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's literally the dullest thing on the internet. there's nothing more tedious. Apart from replying to Donald Trumps tweets and then screenshotting it for your mates' approval perhaps.



My new favourite is to retweet Trump/Johnson/Starmer/Celebz/other enemies of the narrating class and paste the ‘This claim is disputed’ warning that Twitter was using with Trump. A guaranteed 15 ‘likes’ from other gimps who do the same. A preserve of the FBPE crowd and the left that only exists online


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> She is awful, dreadful, but she was also broadly correct about antisemitism, so abusing her for that reason is deplorable.



She's a horrible individual.




			https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/11/21/08/rachelrailtcobyntshort191119a.jpg
		


She's also mind numbingly dull. Another enduring mystery is how someone with no personality can become a TV personality.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

Some say she’s just there to make up the numbers


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> yes


Even when her 'side' in this question has basically just won? I respectfully disagree. I'd love to be able to say that the likes of Rachel Riley, or the person who is trying to get the barrister expelled for criticising the Jewish Labour Movement, were irrelevant. But they're not.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Yep. There is nothing of value to be gained from shouting at dickheads on twitter. What do you imagine it could achieve?


----------



## tommers (Nov 18, 2020)

Fucking Labour, man. What an absolute bunch of fucking melts.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 18, 2020)

Was there something about Shami Chakrabarti bringing a court case over Corbyns suspension? I wonder if thats still on then


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My new favourite is to retweet Trump/Johnson/Starmer/Celebz/other enemies of the narrating class and paste the ‘This claim is disputed’ warning that Twitter was using with Trump. A guaranteed 15 ‘likes’ from other gimps who do the same. A preserve of the FBPE crowd and the left that only exists online


what's your Twitter ?


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Was there something about Shami Chakrabarti bringing a court case over Corbyns suspension? I wonder if thats still on then



Hopefully not by Guiliani.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even when her 'side' in this question has basically just won? I respectfully disagree. I'd love to be able to say that the likes of Rachel Riley, or the person who is trying to get the barrister expelled for criticising the Jewish Labour Movement, were irrelevant. But they're not.



The antisemitism/Zionism debate is a very difficult one to have at the best of times. On social media, in the middle of an antisemitism crisis, almost impossible. And shouting won’t win anything, just gives people like Riley a larger platform. But in any case, some sort of win against her personally which comes with a load abuse and conspiracy thrown in isn’t really a win for us at all.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

Yep, Riley is awful and hasn’t helped anything at all but the people who made her name trend on Twitter for hours the other day with tweets about Zionism because she went on family fortunes on the telly I’m not sure what they’ve achieved either.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Riley is awful and hasn’t helped anything at all


Looks to me like she's been very successful in achieving her aims tbh


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

I just meant she hasn't helped anything that matters to me.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Oh yeah got you. FWIW I think one of the keys to her success has been the way she's leveraged people shouting at her on twitter to increase her profile & build support & sympathy. Shouting at her on twitter isn't just pointless, it's actively helping her.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> The antisemitism/Zionism debate is a very difficult one to have at the best of times. On social media, in the middle of an antisemitism crisis, almost impossible. And shouting won’t win anything, just gives people like Riley a larger platform. But in any case, some sort of win against her personally which comes with a load abuse and conspiracy thrown in isn’t really a win for us at all.



'in the middle of an antisemitism crisis,'


Which of course is a real crisis, not at all a manufactured or inflated construction. As I recall the crisis started in October 2014 when Ed Milliband made a half hearted attempt to whip Labour MPs into supporting a motion demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state. Such was the furore surrounding this event that  Maureen Lipman, who is an actor/tress, and therefore a very important person, said she would no longer support Labour, which came as a great surprise to everyone as until then no one had any idea that she had ever supported Labour.

And it's been one long crisis ever since then.


----------



## oryx (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'in the middle of an antisemitism crisis,'
> 
> 
> Which of course is a real crisis, not at all a manufactured or inflated construction. As I recall the crisis started in October 2014 when Ed Milliband made a half hearted attempt to whip Labour MPs into supporting a motion demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state. Such was the furore surrounding this event that  Maureen Lipman, who is an actor/tress, and therefore a very important person, said she would no longer support Labour, which came as a great surprise to everyone as until then no one had any idea that she had ever supported Labour.
> ...


That's interesting, rummo - didn't realise it went back as far as that. Going to Google that when I have finished catching up with all the fast moving Corbyn news!


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

I can think of one really good way the Labour left could have avoided having antisemitism in their ranks cynically exploited by factional enemies.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I can think of one really good way the Labour left could have avoided having antisemitism in their ranks cynically exploited by factional enemies.




The beauty of using anti Semitism as a weapon it is that there may be only a miniscule amount of anti Semitism present, or even no anti Semitism at all, it doesn't matter, the tactic still works.

As for instance in this case. I mean no one, least of all Mirwich, actually believes Solley is anti Semitic. It's utterly shameless behaviour, but that's where we are.


*Antisemitism: The dividing line*
Stephen Solley is a retired QC and former chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee. He is Jewish, a Labour Party member and a critic of Israel. On 28 January he received a campaign email from Miriam Mirwitch, chair of Young Labour, the party's youth section, and a candidate for the London Assembly.

"I know what it's like to face antisemitism every day," Mirwitch wrote, identifying herself as a national committee member of the Jewish Labour Movement.  "I've had to fight antisemitism both inside and outside the Labour Party," she said.



> 'If they really want to expel the Jewish former Chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, so be it'
> _- Stephen Solley, retired QC_


Solley recalls: "I got this just a week after Holocaust Remembrance Day. I thought this was the most offensive thing. She lives in modern north-west London. It's absurd. Of course she doesn't face antisemitism every day. It's just whipping up anxiety. I was really upset by it." He replied to Mirwitch with a short, simple email. "The Jewish Labour Movement is, in my opinion, a force for ill and something of a con in that it is destructive of socialism. It is a pro Israel, anti Palestine group. It becomes imperative to vote against you."

Twenty-three minutes later, Mirwitch wrote to Solley's former chambers, accusing him of antisemitism. She also wrote to the Bar Standards Board. Both rejected her accusations. But three days after sending the email, Solley received notification from the Labour Party that he was under investigation for antisemitism, an investigation that appears to be ongoing.

Solley is aware that by speaking out he may have contravened the party's demand that he "keep all information and correspondence relating to this investigation private." His response? "I don’t give a damn. If they really want to expel the Jewish former chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, so be it."









						'The wrong sort of Jew': How Labour pursued complaints against elderly Jewish opponents of Israel
					

Labour's investigations into antisemitism raise questions about the nature and definition of what the party is attempting to root out




					www.middleeasteye.net


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'in the middle of an antisemitism crisis,'
> 
> 
> Which of course is a real crisis, not at all a manufactured or inflated construction. As I recall the crisis started in October 2014 when Ed Milliband made a half hearted attempt to whip Labour MPs into supporting a motion demanding the recognition of a Palestinian state. Such was the furore surrounding this event that  Maureen Lipman, who is an actor/tress, and therefore a very important person, said she would no longer support Labour, which came as a great surprise to everyone as until then no one had any idea that she had ever supported Labour.
> ...


It was milibands condemnation of the (latest, as it was then) Israeli invasion of Gaza.  But otherwise, yup.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> The beauty of using anti Semitism as a weapon it is that there may be only a miniscule amount of anti Semitism present, or even no anti Semitism at all, it doesn't matter, the tactic still works.


Nah. This complaint only has the legs it has because of the antisemitism that _is_ there.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I can think of one really good way the Labour left could have avoided having antisemitism in their ranks cynically exploited by factional enemies.


Yup, should simply have called for the expulsion of all Labour Friends of Apartheid members. Kill the enemy.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Nah. This complaint only has the legs it has because of the antisemitism that _is_ there.



Not if there's "zero tolerance" for antisemitism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Nah. This complaint only has the legs it has because of the antisemitism that _is_ there.


That doesn't quite make sense of your post, though. Surely your question was intended to be 'what should the non-anti-semitic members of the labour left have done?' Otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

But this was a gotcha campaign from certain quarters (Maureen Lipman mentioned above is one - it was clear the intention there was to shut down criticism of Israel). Whatever they did (and it's not like they did nothing - hell, Corbyn was criticised in part for doing _too much_), they were going to be attacked. Not sure I see easy solutions to that.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

belboid said:


> It was milibands condemnation of the (latest, as it was then) Israeli invasion of Gaza.  But otherwise, yup.


Meanwhile that Blair era attack posters featuring Michael Howard as a Fagin-esque hypnotist and Howard & Oliver Letwin as pigs went into the ol' memory hole. Never happened mate, dunno what you're talking about


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't quite make sense of your post, though. Surely your question was intended to be 'what should the non-anti-semitic members of the labour left have done?' Otherwise it doesn't really make sense.


I didn't ask a question though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I didn't ask a question though.


Ok. your 'really good way', then. Your proposal.

For starters, do you agree that the intention from certain quarters is to use this as a way to shut down criticism of Israel?


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. your 'really good way', then. Your proposal.


oh yeah that - it's to boot out the antisemites. if you've already done that, then frivolous stuff like that Mirwitch complaint can be shrugged off, and it isn't being made in an environment where there's a wide perception of the left not dealing with antisemites.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Nah. This complaint only has the legs it has because of the antisemitism that _is_ there.




'If people combatting antisemitism in the Labour Party are not combatting antisemitism in the Tory Party then they're not combatting antisemitism. They're combatting the Labour Party. '  

Michael Rosen.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh yeah that - it's to boot out the antisemites. if you've already done that, then frivolous stuff like that Mirwitch complaint can be shrugged off, and it isn't being made in an environment where there's a wide perception of the left not dealing with antisemites.


Aah, bless.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I can think of one really good way the Labour left could have avoided having antisemitism in their ranks cynically exploited by factional enemies.



Why is that different from all the antisemitism (and islamophobia and homophobia and racism) demonstrated within the tory party over the years?


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh yeah that - it's to boot out the antisemites. if you've already done that, then frivolous stuff like that Mirwitch complaint can be shrugged off, and it isn't being made in an environment where there's a wide perception of the left not dealing with antisemites.



Referring to this, or any, complaint as frivolous is in itself grounds for a complaint, and leaves you exposed to being pilloried and smeared as an anti Semite.

That's where we are.

And it has happened by design, not by accident.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Why is that different from all the antisemitism (and islamophobia and homophobia and racism) demonstrated within the tory party over the years?


And with Corbyn, you sometimes saw a strange pincer movement - combining accusations of anti-Semitism with anti-Semitic 'North London fellow-traveller' tropes within the same speech often. Priti Patel did that more than once. With Milliband of course, it was just the anti-Semitic North London tropes that featured.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Referring to this, or any, complaint as frivolous is in itself grounds for a complaint, and leaves you exposed to being pilloried and smeared as an anti Semite.
> 
> That's where we are.
> 
> And it has happened by design, not by accident.


Sure it did, but it wasn't inevitable that it end like this. There were actions that Labour could have taken under Corbyn that could have avoided the situation the party currently finds themselves in.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh yeah that - it's to boot out the antisemites. if you've already done that, then frivolous stuff like that Mirwitch complaint can be shrugged off, and it isn't being made in an environment where there's a wide perception of the left not dealing with antisemites.


lol

Who was it that wasn't booting out the anti-semites?


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sure it did, but it wasn't inevitable that it end like this. There were actions that Labour could have taken under Corbyn that could have avoided the situation the party currently finds themselves in.


lol.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

It was inevitable then was it? Nothing could have been done. Once this line of attack had been decided on, they were powerless to defend themselves. Gotcha.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

You are aware of who was overseeing the complaints process for the first couple of years of the Corbyn leadership? And the disparity in their performance over AS compared to the latter half? And the reasons why?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Probably not. There isn't a legacy, as least in the Labour Party. It was a strange fluke that he ended up leading it, and there was never the sound and experienced base of support there to make it sustainable.
> 
> I guess beyond the party, who knows? It's too early to say. If there's one thing we can thank Starmer for, it's making it clear Labour isn't the vehicle for radical change it briefly appeared it might have been. The material conditions that made Corbyn happen aren't going away - something will be along soon enough, and you can be sure lessons will be taken from the past five years. Possibly not the right ones, but...


Agree with all of that, though I'm not sure the material conditions will _necessarily _produce something good. 

I just feel compelled to do my usual line that Corbynism failed because it never _became _something else, something active, something that breached the administrative walls of the being a 'party'. More than that, it could never even _imagine _that different type of politics. And so it stayed what it was, a flabby reanimated social democracy allied to the top down manoeuvreings of Momentum.  Didn't transform the party, didn't even take control of the party - even with *400000 new recruits*  .  What a fucking waste!  Labour remained in absolute perfect shape to fuck up Brexit and duly delivered on that. At the very point that Johnson was bellowing GET BREXIT DONE and connecting to northern voters, Labour's approach was, well, who knows, I've forgotten, nobody even remembers. Labour could barely pull ahead of Theresa May at the point she was the most beleaguered Prime Minister in living memory.  What shit politics and instincts Corbyn and his followers had. And look what their failure has left us with.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> You are aware of who was overseeing the complaints process for the first couple of years of the Corbyn leadership? And the disparity in their performance over AS compared to the latter half? And the reasons why?


I am. I don't think that means there was nothing that could have been done differently and better though, sorry.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I am. I don't think that means there was nothing that could have been done differently and better though, sorry.


Oh right. Cheers then.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

They could have expelled a couple of loons straight away.  But they weren’t the point, nor were they the target of those scrawling through old Facebook posts.  Those people were looking for anyone who had been furiously critical of Israel (particularly during the previously mentioned Gaza invasion).  They were having a go at people making obvious jokes.   All of that would have continued even if a couple of Rothschild arses were kicked out.   It’s woefully naive to pretend anything else.  

of course they should have been kicked out, but doing so without tackling head on the racism of those pro-Israel politicians and trying to triangulate an acceptable position was totally doomed to failure.   They would never give up (and, from their POV, why should they?)

A policy of expelling LFI members would have at least brought everything out nice and neatly.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2020)

The revisionist Starmerite clique seem to be upping its purge of leftists 



> In the latest attack on party democracy, several members of Bristol West CLP – including its chair and co-secretary – have been suspended from the party for considering a motion opposing Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension.



And 



> Members in nearby Kingswood CLP reported this week that the regional director had intervened to block them from donating £3,000 of the constituency party’s money to important local causes including food banks, a local refugee charity and tenants’ rights organisation Acorn.





> With apologies to Bertolt Brecht, it seems the Labour leadership really would like to dissolve its party membership and elect another.











						Labour’s Bristol West Suspensions Are an Attack on Party Democracy
					

The suspension of the chair and co-secretary of Bristol West CLP over a motion supporting Jeremy Corbyn is a calculated attack on Labour members' rights and party democracy.




					tribunemag.co.uk


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

belboid said:


> They could have expelled a couple of loons straight away.  But they weren’t the point, nor were they the target of those scrawling through old Facebook posts.  Those people were looking for anyone who had been furiously critical of Israel (particularly during the previously mentioned Gaza invasion).  They were having a go at people making obvious jokes.   All of that would have continued even if a couple of Rothschild arses were kicked out.   It’s woefully naive to pretend anything else.
> 
> of course they should have been kicked out, but doing so without tackling head on the racism of those pro-Israel politicians and trying to triangulate an acceptable position was totally doomed to failure.   They would never give up (and, from their POV, why should they?)
> 
> A policy of expelling LFI members would have at least brought everything out nice and neatly.


One of the EHRC criticisms of Corbyn is that he intervened to expedite the expulsion of Livingstone. But obviously there are _things _that the leadership could have done better and not been criticised for anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The revisionist Starmerite clique seem to be upping its purge of leftists
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the reactionary revisionist starmer clique and their claque


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sure it did, but it wasn't inevitable that it end like this. There were actions that Labour could have taken under Corbyn that could have avoided the situation the party currently finds themselves in.




Such as?

Oh yeah, get rid of the anti Semites.

Such as Stephen Solley.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 18, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The revisionist Starmerite clique seem to be upping its purge of leftists



Good. Maybe that will incentivise them into actually doing something useful with their leftism. If they're any good that is.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

So here we are then, in the best of all possible worlds.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Good. Maybe that will incentivise them into actually doing something useful with their leftism. If they're any good that is.


Quite a few of the Bristol West members affected have been doing outstanding work already


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> So here we are then, in the best of all possible worlds.


rummo makes a valid point, though. You say 'kick out the antisemites'. But different people disagree as to who they are. 

To be fair to the EHRC report, I thought it did a decent job of defining AS and the permissible scope of any action against members, specifically permitting the right to criticise Israel and the right to disagree as to the extent of AS in the Labour party. But Starmer and others are not following that - hence the actions against Corbyn - and they were never going to.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> So here we are then, in the best of all possible worlds.


You are still being very vague about what could actually be achieved.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

belboid said:


> You are still being very vague about what could actually be achieved.


Stuff. And things.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

nothing. there's nothing that could have been done better. it's all the fault of Labour Friends of Israel.


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> nothing. there's nothing that could have been done better. it's all the fault of Labour Friends of Israel.


Stop whining about other people and tell us what your proposal would have been then, we’re all agog.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

belboid said:


> Stop whining about other people and tell us what your proposal would have been then, we’re all agog.


i fear his solution will not live up to the anticipation it has excited.


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i fear his solution will not live up to the anticipation it has excited.


Won't be the first time I've been led up the garden path by a leftist promising all the answers


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

Perhaps, if the LP had elected a Jewish leader things may have turned out differently?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2020)

In terms of the 'here we are' point, the show has been shitted and the car has crashed. Is there any point in the left trying to keep alive the vision of those mass Corbyn rallies from 2015? Can they grab hold of the 400k who Corbyn marched up to the top of the hill?  Just another push, another battle for candidate selection or whatever bit of admin comes next. Is anybody really up for another jog round the law of diminished returns?

We'll be emerging from covid, next Spring, Summer, who knows. The next wave  of permanent austerity, the gig economy, crises in the care sector, mental health... Is there a chance that Corbyn's former troops will throw themselves into those battles?  Of course some already are, but the parliamentary road to warmed up social democracy has been a 5 year black hole for those energies.  Everything is shit at the moment, but throwing your energies into Sir Keir's army of sensible nothingness... why bother?


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

Wilf said:


> In terms of the 'here we are' point, the show has been shitted and the car has crashed. Is there any point in the left trying to keep alive the vision of those mass Corbyn rallies from 2015? Can they grab hold of the 400k who Corbyn marched up to the top of the hill?  Just another push, another battle for candidate selection or whatever bit of admin comes next. Is anybody really up for another jog round the law of diminished returns?
> 
> We'll be emerging from covid, next Spring, Summer, who knows. The next wave  of permanent austerity, the gig economy, crises in the care sector, mental health... Is there a chance that Corbyn's former troops will throw themselves into those battles?  Of course some already are, but the parliamentary road to warmed up social democracy has been a 5 year black hole for those energies.  Everything is shit at the moment, but throwing your energies into Sir Keir's army of sensible nothingness... why bother?


Yeah but you know... onwards 
xx


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Perhaps, if the LP had elected a Jewish leader things may have turned out differently?
> 
> View attachment 239434


'_Red Ed's Dead Dad_'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

Wilf said:


> In terms of the 'here we are' point, the show has been shitted and the car has crashed. Is there any point in the left trying to keep alive the vision of those mass Corbyn rallies from 2015? Can they grab hold of the 400k who Corbyn marched up to the top of the hill?  Just another push, another battle for candidate selection or whatever bit of admin comes next. Is anybody really up for another jog round the law of diminished returns?
> 
> We'll be emerging from covid, next Spring, Summer, who knows. The next wave  of permanent austerity, the gig economy, crises in the care sector, mental health... Is there a chance that Corbyn's former troops will throw themselves into those battles?  Of course some already are, but the parliamentary road to warmed up social democracy has been a 5 year black hole for those energies.  Everything is shit at the moment, but throwing your energies into Sir Keir's army of sensible nothingness... why bother?


sir keir's pot of warmed up thatcher-lite vomit


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

Wilf said:


> '_Red Ed's Dead Dad_'


The “east European refugee from nazism” father of the bacon scoffing “north London geek” elected to serve the interests of “the north London metropolitan elite”?


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The “east European refugee from nazism” father of the bacon scoffing “north London geek” elected to serve the interests of “the north London metropolitan elite”?


Were any of these people 'rootless cosmopolitans'?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> sir keir's pot of warmed up thatcher-lite vomit


Labour's USP: 'Forensic thatcher-lite-vomit'. Unfortunately, even the most skilled mountebank failed to sell this.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Were any of these people 'rootless cosmopolitans'?


Worse..."cultural Marxists" as well.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Were any of these people 'rootless cosmopolitans'?


'Wave after wave, breaching our borders, bringing with them words, ideas and offering to fight in the RAF...'


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Worse..."cultural Marxists" as well.




I think there was even mention of having a house with two kitchens.

I mean, what sort of a person lives in a house with two kitchens?

Oh right, gotcha.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

Incidentally, someone mentioned (can't find it now) the wreath laying accusation by the Daily Mail. I've never been able to quite work out whether that demonstrated antisemitism as accused.









						FactCheck: Jeremy Corbyn and the wreath row
					

The controversy centres on one question: did Jeremy Corbyn lay a wreath on the graves of individuals linked to the Black September terror group?




					www.channel4.com


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

You know how JC's statement today says "To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither "exaggerated" nor "overstated"", either that word _concerns_ is doing a lot of work in that sentence or did they get to him since his statement last week.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> You know how JC's statement today says "To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither "exaggerated" nor "overstated"", either that word _concerns_ is doing a lot of work in that sentence or did they get to him since his statement last week.


Confessions obtained under physical or psychological torture should not be relied upon as factual evidence.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 18, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The revisionist Starmerite clique seem to be upping its purge of leftists
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Carry on like that and Labour will end up like one of the fake parties that East Germany used to create a thin veneer of pluralism to cover one-party rule.

And we know how that worked out in the end.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> You know how JC's statement today says "To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither "exaggerated" nor "overstated"", either that word _concerns_ is doing a lot of work in that sentence or did they get to him since his statement last week.


Both, I suspect. And he still hasn't got the whip back.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

If he's not got the whip and is effectively standing as an independent, doesn't that mean he'll have to be expelled from Labour because he's a member of another party?


----------



## oryx (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> If he's not got the whip and is effectively standing as an independent, doesn't that mean he'll have to be expelled from Labour because he's a member of another party?


I would say no as being an independent doesn't mean you are a member of another party.

Didn't Johnson withdraw the whip from Clarke, Soames etc. over Brexit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

The suspension would have been ended anyway, I suspect, because they had no case. He hadn't broken any rule to justify it. They were directly going against the EHRC recommendations by suspending him in the first place. 

My reading of his statement today is that it was aimed more at getting the whip back and having all this put behind him (Ha!). Clearly it has failed so far. Starmer wants to look hard. The Hard Centre.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The suspension would have been ended anyway, I suspect, because they had no case. He hadn't broken any rule to justify it. They were directly going against the EHRC recommendations by suspending him in the first place.
> 
> My reading of his statement today is that it was aimed more at getting the whip back and having all this put behind him (Ha!). Clearly it has failed so far. Starmer wants to look hard. The Hard Centre.


starmer's just looking like a whiny little shit


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

JTG said:


> Won't be the first time I've been led up the garden path by a leftist promising all the answers



I'm not promising any answers! It's ok to say 'this could have been done better' without offering a fully formed alternative political programme. 

I appreciate that there were institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process that was in place when Corbyn became leader, but I don't accept they were insurmountable. More resources could have been given to sorting it out, and if complaints were held up for factional reasons the people responsible for holding things up could have been held responsible for it - and before anyone mentions the EHRC recommendations about political interference, _the EHRC inquiry wasn't an inevitable result of this_. If the political interference into the complaints process had been done correctly and in a timely fashion, and they'd got on top of it, there would have been no inquiry.

I think that they probably underestimated how much of a defining issue this would become until it was too late to effectively get a handle on it - I underestimated it myself - but there should have been more action taken on it because it was the right thing to do, not because of the damage it could cause the leadership. There is a rich seam of antisemitism that runs through the left, and rather than leaping defensively to whataboutery or denial when it comes up, we should be working on challenging, educating or excluding those who indulge in it (my own experience of challenging and educating is that it's fairly difficult, have to say - mostly because of the denial).


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Carry on like that and Labour will end up like one of the fake parties that East Germany used to create a thin veneer of pluralism to cover one-party rule.
> 
> And we know how that worked out in the end.



ain’t no party like a bloc party.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> You know how JC's statement today says "To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither "exaggerated" nor "overstated"", either that word _concerns_ is doing a lot of work in that sentence or did they get to him since his statement last week.




'You know how JC's statement today'

If I've got this right that statement was made by Corbyn to the Labour Party on 29th October.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> starmer's just looking like a whiny little shit


I'd say that, worse than that, he's looking like someone with zero political nous.


killer b said:


> I'm not promising any answers! It's ok to say 'this could have been done better' without offering a fully formed alternative political programme.
> 
> I appreciate that there were institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process that was in place when Corbyn became leader, but I don't accept they were insurmountable. More resources could have been given to sorting it out, and if complaints were held up for factional reasons the people responsible for holding things up could have been held responsible for it - and before anyone mentions the EHRC recommendations about political interference, _the EHRC inquiry wasn't an inevitable result of this_. If the political interference into the complaints process had been done correctly and in a timely fashion, and they'd got on top of it, there would have been no inquiry.
> 
> I think that they probably underestimated how much of a defining issue this would become until it was too late to effectively get a handle on it - I underestimated it myself - but there should have been more action taken on it because it was the right thing to do, not because of the damage it could cause the leadership. There is a rich seam of antisemitism that runs through the left, and rather than leaping defensively to whataboutery or denial when it comes up, we should be working on challenging, educating or excluding those who indulge in it (my own experience of challenging and educating is that it's fairly difficult, have to say - mostly because of the denial).


With hindsight, of course, the leaked _"The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019" _showed that the left were no where near ruthless enough in purging the right that sabotaged exploiting the institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process.

Nor did the left realise the effectiveness of their opponents to amplify and project the antisemitism that did/does exist with in the party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I'd say that, worse than that, he's looking like someone with zero political nous.
> 
> With hindsight, of course, the leaked _"The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019" _showed that the left were no where near ruthless enough in purging the right that sabotaged the institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process.
> 
> Nor did the left realise the effectiveness of their opponents to amplify and project the antisemitism that did/does exist with in the party.


ok, a whiny little shit with all the political nous of a lobotomised earthworm


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'You know how JC's statement today'
> 
> If I've got this right that statement was made by Corbyn to the Labour Party on 29th October.


it was yesterday, not today. eta oh i see what you mean, he said this and the thing about 'the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party', on the same day.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'm not promising any answers! It's ok to say 'this could have been done better' without offering a fully formed alternative political programme.
> 
> I appreciate that there were institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process that was in place when Corbyn became leader, but I don't accept they were insurmountable. More resources could have been given to sorting it out, and if complaints were held up for factional reasons the people responsible for holding things up could have been held responsible for it - and before anyone mentions the EHRC recommendations about political interference, _the EHRC inquiry wasn't an inevitable result of this_. If the political interference into the complaints process had been done correctly and in a timely fashion, and they'd got on top of it, there would have been no inquiry.
> 
> I think that they probably underestimated how much of a defining issue this would become until it was too late to effectively get a handle on it - I underestimated it myself - but there should have been more action taken on it because it was the right thing to do, not because of the damage it could cause the leadership. There is a rich seam of antisemitism that runs through the left, and rather than leaping defensively to whataboutery or denial when it comes up, we should be working on challenging, educating or excluding those who indulge in it (my own experience of challenging and educating is that it's fairly difficult, have to say - mostly because of the denial).



I largely agree, but again the tory party has done none of the chasing out of antisemites and islamophobes and homophobes. How have they got away with it when Labour hasn't? 

The Yougov surveys showed that there is less antisemitism and racism within the Labour party than the tory party, and less antisemitism after Corbyn took over. Which does suggest that any antisemitism was blown up out of proportion. The Daily Mail and the Express and their like were looking for anything to throw at Corbyn. 

Yes there was antisemitism among the left (the far left particularly?) and no antisemitism should be tolerated. But I don't think it's whataboutery to ask why did Labour come in for such intense and sustained criticism when the tories didn't?


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> it was yesterday, not today. eta oh i see what you mean, he said this and the thing about it being exaggerated by their enemies on the same day.






Read the statement

'On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report, and I also made a statement to the party to clear up any confusion about what I had meant, as follows: ..............'


----------



## agricola (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> With hindsight, of course, the leaked _"The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019" _showed that the left were no where near ruthless enough in purging the right that sabotaged the institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process.



TBF "no where near ruthless enough" does give a perhaps misleading impression that they did something, rather than nothing.  Was anyone of prominence actually dealt with for anything - not just AS, but all the other scandals (I am thinking of Woodcock, Danczuk, Hopkins etc)?


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> Read the statement
> 
> 'On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report, and I also made a statement to the party to clear up any confusion about what I had meant, as follows: ..............'


yep edited. All perfectly clear now.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I largely agree, but again the tory party has done none of the chasing out of antisemites and islamophobes and homophobes. How have they got away with it when Labour hasn't?


The thumb is on the scale, we know that. The Tories have a number of inbuilt advantages in this regard - their friends own all the media, and their voters and members don't care very much about bigotry.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> With hindsight, of course, the leaked _"The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019" _showed that the left were no where near ruthless enough in purging the right that sabotaged exploiting the institutional - and factional - barriers to reforming the complaints process.


Agreed - a _broad church_ was always a fantasy


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Nor did the left realise the effectiveness of their opponents to amplify and project the antisemitism that did/does exist with in the party.


Oh, and I know this isn't what you're doing here, but the whole 'there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - as there is throughout society' schtick that Corbyn does is IMO a form of denial, a shrugging off of responsibility: it ignores that there's a fairly specific flavour of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is quite different from the more widely indulged antisemitism.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Oh, and I know this isn't what you're doing here, but the whole 'there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - as there is throughout society' schtick that Corbyn does is IMO a form of denial, a shrugging off of responsibility: it ignores that there's a fairly specific flavour of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is quite different from the more widely indulged antisemitism.


Indeed not.
I've always felt it is not only possible, but also very important, to be able to simultaneously hold the two notions of actually existing left-wing antisemitism and the right's actually existing political exploitation of that fact.
The right's effective, orchestrated exploitation of LP antisemitism in the face of left populism is as real as the problem it identified.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Oh, and I know this isn't what you're doing here, but the whole 'there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - as there is throughout society' schtick that Corbyn does is IMO a form of denial, a shrugging off of responsibility: it ignores that there's a fairly specific flavour of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which is quite different from the more widely indulged antisemitism.


Yes. The antisemitism that's probably standard in the tory party is the same kind as is casually offered round like polite nibbles at dinner parties out here in the home counties, it is a lazy pretty apolitical sort of bigotry and a completely different flavour to the kind i've been around socially most of my life, they are not the same thing.
The 'as there is throughout society' and look at the tories stuff feels like an absolute cop out or just plain ignorance every time i hear it. And I'm pretty sure that a couple of years back I'd not have felt stupidly grateful for someone on the internet stating this thing which seems to me a totally obvious fact but here we are.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yes. The antisemitism that's probably standard in the tory party is the same kind as is casually offered round like polite nibbles at dinner parties out here in the home counties, it is a lazy pretty apolitical sort of bigotry and a completely different flavour to the kind i've been around socially most of my life, they are not the same thing.
> The 'as there is throughout society' and look at the tories stuff feels like an absolute cop out or just plain ignorance every time i hear it. And I'm pretty sure that a couple of years back I'd not have felt stupidly grateful for someone on the internet stating this thing which seems to me a totally obvious fact but here we are.


Tory antisemitism not so bad, then?


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Tory antisemitism not so bad, then?


Just standard. Do you expect them to not be racist?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

Labour and far left antisemitism is generally tied to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians? 

When that leeches over into criticism of the Jews then it's clearly antisemitic. But criticism of Israel is also treated by some as antisemitic on its own. That also confuses the matter.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Just standard. Do you expect them to not be racist?


So, there's 'standard' antisemitism and 'non-standard' antisemitism, then?
The latter being qualitatively different to the former?
Interesting.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

We aren't ever going to campaign for or vote for the tories though. It's not that it's qualitatively better or worse, it's just a totally different context.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> So, there's 'standard' antisemitism and 'non-standard' antisemitism, then?
> The latter being qualitatively different to the former?
> Interesting.


I expect a fairly large segment of english people to be the boring automatic unthinking kind of general racists with a side order of antisemitism that just comes with it, like a garnish. Thats what i mean by standard, standard issue basic no frills bigotry, like the daily mail, or the completely ordinary woman i met recently who called jews 'a sharp elbowed people', that.  If you think the problem 'on the left' is that same thing just sprinkled at random through the population, then idk really how to assist.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yes. The antisemitism that's probably standard in the tory party is the same kind as is casually offered round like polite nibbles at dinner parties out here in the home counties, it is a lazy pretty apolitical sort of bigotry and a completely different flavour to the kind i've been around socially most of my life, they are not the same thing.
> The 'as there is throughout society' and look at the tories stuff feels like an absolute cop out or just plain ignorance every time i hear it. And I'm pretty sure that a couple of years back I'd not have felt stupidly grateful for someone on the internet stating this thing which seems to me a totally obvious fact but here we are.


Well, a number of Tories have been promoting hardcore anti Semitic conspiracy theories from the far right ("cultural Marxism") recently, and the PM wrote a book with a hook nosed sex pervert chiselling Jew.

But it is also a cop out - if you're in Labour, what the Tories do isn't the point, you need to deal with what you can in your own sphere. It may need pointing out that it extends further than Labour but that's not what someone in Labour should be emphasising in this context.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> I expect a fairly large segment of english people to be the boring automatic unthinking kind of general racists with a side order of antisemitism that just comes with it, like a garnish. Thats what i mean by standard, standard issue basic no frills bigotry, like the daily mail, or the completely ordinary woman i met recently who called jews 'a sharp elbowed people', that.  If you think the problem 'on the left' is that same thing just sprinkled at random through the population, then idk really how to assist.


This is a fair point. And it's a fair criticism of Corbyn to say that he doesn't take it point fully on board. He's ended up being defensive about this subject, sadly. Understandably, but sadly.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

Yep, look at the tories they're worse is just a shit argument, i don't even know what the point is of saying it. 
i just saw this, a non-huge list but maybe they published early.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

It's not a tiny list tbf. One sixth of the parliamentary party are prepared to openly disagree with the leader and criticise him severely.

But it's the Socialist Campaign Group. All of them. It's the people Starmer is purposely setting himself against.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

that's just the members of the Socialist Campaign Group I think - doubt any non-SCG MP would sign up for a letter under their heading would they?


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

Yep i see, maybe they didn't ask anyone outside the org to sign it.
What are the actual consequences of him not being given a whip?  (i don't get the whole whip thing)


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Very little practically at this point, but when it comes to selection time ahead of the next General Election if the whip isn't restored then someone else will stand for the Labour Party in Islington North.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

Almost all of the replies to that socialist campaign group statement on the twitter are people saying come on all you lot resign the whip in protest, do something. That would be interesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Very little practically at this point, but when it comes to selection time ahead of the next General Election if the whip isn't restored then someone else will stand for the Labour Party in Islington North.


And lose. 

Not a good look.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Almost all of the replies to that socialist campaign group statement on the twitter are people saying come on all you lot resign the whip in protest do something.


all dickheads with no idea tbh


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Don't read the comments on news stories, don't read the replies to politicians on twitter is a reasonable rule of thumb


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yep, look at the tories they're worse is just a shit argument, i don't even know what the point is of saying it.


 
Is it though? Surely it’s a fair statement to gain some perspective. If levels of antisemitism in the Labour party are lower than in the Tory party and lower than in society at large, then why particularly focus on the Labour party? What is qualitatively different, exactly?

As I say my understanding is that it has stemmed from protesting against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. What is the antisemitism that has spilled out of that, and why is it more dangerous to Jewish people than the more prevalent antisemitism in society?

It’s fair for someone within Labour to say they should be less tolerant of antisemitism in the party, that’s correct. But why should someone _outside _the Labour party be less tolerant of antisemitism than in the tory party or in society more generally? Why pick on the Labour party when they’re not even in power, nor likely to be, rather than the tories who actually have the power to put their antisemitism into practice?

There’s also the point that antisemitism in the Labour party under Corbyn dropped. So why focus on Corbyn aside from his own particular failings, rather than focusing on the people who were responsible for rooting it out before Corbyn took responsibility from them and gave it to Jenny Formby?

I'm interested, and I'll happily change my opinion if convinced.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds can you remember where you saw the thing you're talking about where you say it declined when he became leader ? i'd be interested in a link to that.
Fwiw I don't think JC is an antisemite just a bit of a silly old man, too steeped in his little righteous world to be able to learn anything.
I can only speak for myself about the rest of it but the answer to this bit 





two sheds said:


> why should someone _outside _the Labour party be less tolerant of antisemitism than in the tory party or in society more generally? Why pick on the Labour party when they’re not even in power, nor likely to be, rather than the tories who actually have the power to put their antisemitism into practice?


is because i don't expect anything else at all from the tories (or from that boring racist woman down  in the village) but i do want better from people - inside & outside the labour party - who are supposed to be interested in making the world a bit less shit than it is.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> two sheds can you remember where you saw the thing you're talking about where you say it declined when he became leader ? i'd be interested in a link to that.
> Fwiw I don't think JC is an antisemite just a bit of a silly old man, too steeped in his little righteous world to be able to learn anything.
> I can only speak for myself about the rest of it but the answer to this bit is because i don't expect anything else at all from the tories (or from that boring racist woman down  in the village) but i do want better from people - inside & outside the labour party - who are supposed to be interested in making the world a bit less shit than it is.




'If people combatting antisemitism in the Labour Party are not combatting antisemitism in the Tory Party then they're not combatting antisemitism. They're combatting the Labour Party.'

Michael Rosen


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> two sheds can you remember where you saw the thing you're talking about where you say it declined when he became leader ? i'd be interested in a link to that.
> Fwiw I don't think JC is an antisemite just a bit of a silly old man, too steeped in his little righteous world to be able to learn anything.
> I can only speak for myself about the rest of it but the answer to this bit is because i don't expect anything else at all from the tories (or from that boring racist woman down  in the village) but i do want better from people - inside & outside the labour party - who are supposed to be interested in making the world a bit less shit than it is.





_Fig. 5.  Adapted from CAA/YouGov (2015) and CAA (2017). Survey questions were identical in 2016 and 2017; the 2015 survey used slightly different wording._



> And according to metrics[23] used by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)—a group which has been highly critical of Labour—the prevalence of anti-Jewish prejudices appears to have declined across the political spectrum during Corbyn’s time as leader.











						Smoke Without Fire: The Myth of a ‘Labour Antisemitism Crisis’
					

Note: This article by Jamie Stern-Weiner and Alan Maddison features in an eBook on the ‘Labour antisemitism’ controversy edited by…




					www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> _Fig. 5.  Adapted from CAA/YouGov (2015) and CAA (2017). Survey questions were identical in 2016 and 2017; the 2015 survey used slightly different wording_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That data is for party voters not party members.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'If people combatting antisemitism in the Labour Party are not combatting antisemitism in the Tory Party then they're not combatting antisemitism. They're combatting the Labour Party.'
> 
> Michael Rosen


we heard you first time


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here



I quoted that "select group of Jews" because they referred to the YouGov survey that I saw originally. I couldn't find the survey itself.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> That data is for party voters not party members.



That's true, fair play. So antisemitism among Labour voters declined while Corbyn was in power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here


Authors, barristers, labour party members?

Believe it or not there are not many Margaret Hodge fans on here.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here


It's not just here, as i'm sure you know, the 'As A Jew i stand with jeremy and against the murder of palestinian children' posts are always massively popular.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Fuck Margaret Hodge, but fuck Jewish Voice for Labour too. And I like Michael Rosen but he's got some serious blinkers on over this stuff.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> fuck Jewish Voice for Labour too.



Why? The graph shape is pretty much as I remember it from the YouGov survey.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Fuck Margaret Hodge, but fuck Jewish Voice for Labour too. And I like Michael Rosen but he's got some serious blinkers on over this stuff.


Ok. Let's say 'fuck off' to everyone who disagrees with you. But why should we take any more notice of you than Michael Rosen? And all those Jewish members of Jewish Voice for Labour who you don't like?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> That's true, fair play. So antisemitism among Labour voters declined while Corbyn was in power.


Well a set of socially conservative anti-Semitic views declined. None of those views questioned are really around the fault lines of left-wing antisemitism (though "too much power in the media" is heading in that direction).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here



Honestly this interests me.

What/which Jewish people do you quote or agree with?

I think most that read this thread are being careful not to fall foul of offending Jewish Urbanites, and obviously know, don't suggest/imagine that 'all Jewish people' think or feel the same.

We are also witnessing these conversations going on amongst Jewish people in this country and internationally.

At the same time, you talk about stuff being 'notable' and you aren't giving any examples of what people are doing wrong or which Jewish people are being quoted that you yourself view as a 'select few'.

It's at the point where you need to shit or get off the pot. Tell people who and what they are doing wrong in your opinion.

The 'wrong kind of Jew' argument was obviously borne from the fact that many Jewish people don't feel their voices/opinions are being counted. they've been told they aren't Jewish enough. loyal enough,  shouldn't disagree or criticise X, Y Z. Are they allowed to talk about that? Doesn't that present a problem/problems if they feel they're aren't 'allowed' to be the diverse people they are?

It's similar to the 'not black enough' position.  The idea of a _monolith, only one way to be and think..._and if you don't think, believe, BE a certain way you are less than or irrelevant.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Well a set of socially conservative anti-Semitic views declined. None of those views questioned are really around the fault lines of left-wing antisemitism (though "too much power in the media" is heading in that direction).


Plus "Connection with Israel makes them less loyal" What other questions would have been useful?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Honestly this interests me.
> 
> What/which Jewish people do you quote or agree with?
> 
> ...



JVL are so unheard that their (tiny) organisation keeps on turning up on newsnight


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Plus "Connection with Israel makes them less loyal" What other questions would have been useful?


The 'loyal' thing is an appeal to British nationalism, it's a clumsy fumbling for the dual loyalty thing, it does not address 'zionism' at all, so is the wrong question if you want to deepen understanding of what we're talking about. Do you see that much?

I keep looking at that graph you posted and feeling a bit depressed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Plus "Connection with Israel makes them less loyal" What other questions would have been useful?


Yes to some extent that one goes in a similar direction. Depends what you are trying to find out. But the decline of a certain set of anti-semitic views does not mean that other, different, anti-semitic views have become less/more prevalent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

A survey of the general population isn't going to capture this, whatever the question. We're talking about a small number of people really as a percentage of everyone when considering the activist Labour left, and a subset of that number who hold anti-Semitic views.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Ok. Let's say 'fuck off' to everyone who disagrees with you. But why should we take any more notice of you than Michael Rosen? And all those Jewish members of Jewish Voice for Labour who you don't like?


I haven't told anyone I disagree with to fuck off here. You don't have to take any notice of me tbh, but I'd prefer if you based your view on the many carefully  considered posts I've made on this topic rather than the single swearword in that one. Up to you though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> JVL are so unheard that their (tiny) organisation keeps on turning up on newsnight



I don't watch newsnight...and frankly this trite response isn't something we can build a meaningful conversation from. EVERYONE is claiming to be silenced and they're all getting interviews and use SM and here we are talking about them 

I asked you to share who you think people should be listening to. You don't want to do that. So fine. I'll keep my questions to myself.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2020)

Okey doke


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> The 'loyal' thing is an appeal to British nationalism, it's a clumsy fumbling for the dual loyalty thing, it does not address 'zionism' at all, so is the wrong question if you want to deepen understanding of what we're talking about. Do you see that much?



Yes true, but still shows that Labour voters were less antisemitic in that respect, and that proportion dropped under Corbyn. 

I'm not sure how you'd phrase a question on zionism to show antisemitism rather than antizionism though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yes true, but still shows that Labour voters were less antisemitic in that respect, and that proportion dropped under Corbyn.
> 
> I'm not sure how you'd phrase a question on zionism to show antisemitism rather than antizionism though.


I think the question in that survey on the Holocaust is closest in that regard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Okey doke





Spoiler: Okay Ned


----------



## ska invita (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I like Michael Rosen but he's got some serious blinkers on over this stuff.


Which are the cases that he's seriously blinkered about?
Perhaps Im seriously blinkered too - what have I missed?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the question in that survey on the Holocaust is closest in that regard.



Which has (to me) a surprisingly high Labour response: 15% and 8% - I'd have seen that as more a far right concern, linked to holocaust denial.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Labour and far left antisemitism is generally tied to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
> 
> When that leeches over into criticism of the Jews then it's clearly antisemitic. But criticism of Israel is also treated by some as antisemitic on its own. That also confuses the matter.





two sheds said:


> Plus "Connection with Israel makes them less loyal" What other questions would have been useful?





I struggle with the whole question of loyalty to any state, so frankly couldn't give a toss if a Jewish person has dual loyalty, ditto an Irish person or anyone with dual nationality, a timeshare in Toremolinos  or whatever.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> I struggle with the whole question of loyalty to any state, so frankly couldn't give a toss if a Jewish person has dual loyalty, ditto an Irish person or anyone with dual nationality, a timeshare in Toremolinos  or whatever.


Yes tend to agree - that wouldn't be shown up in that survey as antisemitic though: wouldn't make them "less loyal".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Which has (to me) a surprisingly high Labour response: 15% and 8% - I'd have seen that as more a far right concern, linked to holocaust denial.


you can also interpret it as using the Holocaust for some form of special pleading, and that can be linked to special pleading on behalf of Israel because of the Holocaust. Doesn't have to involve denial that the Holocaust happened.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Which are the cases that he's seriously blinkered about?
> Perhaps Im seriously blinkered too - what have I missed?


Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.



Chomsky too?

_



			“The way charges of anti-Semitism are being used in Britain to undermine the Corbyn-led Labour Party is not only a disgrace, but also –to put it simply – an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust,”
		
Click to expand...

_


> Chomsky told independent journalist Matt Kennard in an e-mailed statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.


When you make serious allegations like this it would be nice if you could be bothered to substantiate them


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.



What made you wince?


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you can also interpret it as using the Holocaust for some form of special pleading, and that can be linked to special pleading on behalf of Israel because of the Holocaust. Doesn't have to involve denial that the Holocaust happened.


What 'special pleading' do you think is going on 'on behalf of israel because of the holocaust' ?? Also, what?  Please expand.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.


Can't we just have one specific example? Just one?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

Funny old thing, the LP...it would seem that someone regarded as too antisemitic to be part of the PLP, is OK to be a member.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Can't we just have one specific example? Just one?


You'd have thought one example would stay in kb's mind of all the posts he's read


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sorry, I don't have any specific examples, but I've read a lot of his posts about Labour antisemitism over the last few years and often wince. He hasn't posted much about it recently though and I'm not going to go back through his facebook posts to check.



So you often winced, but can't recall or find any detail. Yeah.

And he hasn't been so active recently, possibly as a result of having been extremely ill and still in recovery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> What 'special pleading' do you think is going on 'on behalf of israel because of the holocaust' ?? Also, what?  Please expand.


I don't. I was saying that that question is the one that, imo, would most closely capture left Labour anti-Semitism.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> We aren't ever going to campaign for or vote for the tories though. It's not that it's qualitatively better or worse, it's just a totally different context.


Well obviously antisemitism examined in different political parties will be different in context, but surely words or deeds that contravene the IHMC's working definition of antisemitism (& guidelines/examples) are antisemitism?
Whether or not "we" might vote or campaign for any political party shouldn't really influence whether or not we identify and condemn antisemitism, should it?


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

well, just for you guys I'm scrolling back through months and months of Michael Rosen's facebook posts. Thanks for that.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> I expect a fairly large segment of english people to be the boring automatic unthinking kind of general racists with a side order of antisemitism that just comes with it, like a garnish. Thats what i mean by standard, standard issue basic no frills bigotry, like the daily mail, or the completely ordinary woman i met recently who called jews 'a sharp elbowed people', that.  If you think the problem 'on the left' is that same thing just sprinkled at random through the population, then idk really how to assist.


So, for you, it doesn't matter whether or not some specific words or action are antisemitic, (according to the IHMC's definition), it's those emanating from 'the left' that are qualitatively worse in some way? Have I read that right?


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> And he hasn't been so active recently, possibly as a result of having been extremely ill and still in recovery.


he's been very active recently, he just hasn't been posting about Labour antisemitism.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> So, for you, it doesn't matter whether or not some specific words or action are antisemitic, (according to the IHMC's definition), it's those emanating from 'the left' that are qualitatively worse in some way? Have I read that right?


It's when friends or expected friends do it that i get sad and scared, not when the daily mail or tory MPs do. if thats 'emanating from the left = qualitatively worse in some way" then yes, that, you've read it right.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> It's when friends or expected friends do it that i get sad and scared, not when the daily mail or tory MPs do. if thats 'emanating from the left = qualitatively worse in some way" then yes, that, you've read it right.


OK, I get how a Jewish socialist might well experience a particular pain of betrayal if fellow socialists were to behave in an antisemitic way, but when you said,


> standard issue basic no frills bigotry, like the daily mail, or the completely ordinary woman i met recently who called jews 'a sharp elbowed people', that. _If you think the problem 'on the left' is that same thing just sprinkled at random through the population,_ then idk really how to assist.


I got the impression that your view of 'left' antisemitism didn't just derive from a such a personal perspective but was based on the antisemitism emanating from the left being objectively different in form than 'the standard' form that you exemplified.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> he's been very active recently, he just hasn't been posting about Labour antisemitism.





My impression is that his twitter feed is nowhere near as busy as it was, and now is mostly retweets, which is entirely understandable in the circumstances.

I could never understand how he was able to do everything he used to do.

Made Stakhanov look like Bertie Woster.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

He still writes a lot on facebook. I'm only into august.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> So, for you, it doesn't matter whether or not some specific words or action are antisemitic, (according to the IHMC's definition), it's those emanating from 'the left' that are qualitatively worse in some way? Have I read that right?




The other issue of course is that the IHRA definition is 'problematic'. Though  to suggest such a thing is now in itself  probably a disciplinary matter for party members.









						Stephen Sedley · Defining Anti-Semitism · LRB 3 May 2017
					






					www.lrb.co.uk


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> The other issue of course is that the IHRA definition is 'problematic'. Though  to suggest such a thing is now in itself  probably a disciplinary matter for party members.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's obviously very debatable in itself, but AFAIA the LP democratically decided to adopt the entire thing, so I'm not sure that is particularly an issue in this discussion.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> OK, I get how a Jewish socialist might well experience a particular pain of betrayal if fellow socialists were to behave in an antisemitic way, but when you said,
> 
> I got the impression that your view of 'left' antisemitism didn't just derive from a such a personal perspective but was based on the antisemitism emanating from the left being objectively different in form than 'the standard' form that you exemplified.


It is different. If you have no grasp of this at all  - of left antisemitism as a phenomenon discrete from the bog standard, even after the last several years of this convo being everywhere,  i'm a bit at a loss as to how you can be interested enough in this topic to keep popping up here asking me bizarre questions. 
But also never mind, the old man is back on the back benches and its late so i'm out for today.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2020)

Oh wow, the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Is it 2017 again? Are we stuck in some kind of endless loop?


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> That's obviously very debatable in itself, but AFAIA the LP democratically decided to adopt the entire thing, so I'm not sure that is particularly an issue in this discussion.




But the fact that the LP accepted the definition and it's now verbotten to question it is instructive in itself about the whole context. It's a constant push in one direction.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> It is different. If you have no grasp of this at all  - of left antisemitism as a phenomenon discrete from the bog standard, even after the last several years of this convo being everywhere,  i'm a bit at a loss as to how you can be interested enough in this topic to keep popping up here asking me bizarre questions.
> But also never mind, the old man is back on the back benches and its late so i'm out for today.


OK, sorry if my questions have caused upset; they really were only meant to be contributions to the discussion on this thread about Corbyn and his suspension etc.
I don't profess to have any particular knowledge of antisemitism on the 'left' and was genuinely hoping that you'd express what you felt it meant.
On the specifics of this issue of LP antisemitism, at the very start of the 'Findings' section of the Executive Summary of the ECHR report, it says that the most serious unlawful acts included "..._using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears."_
To me that sounds very much like the 'sharp elbowed' trope that you identified as "standard" antisemitism; that's what i was getting at.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Oh wow, the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Is it 2017 again? Are we stuck in some kind of endless loop?




No it's not a loop, it's a one way street.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> But the fact that the LP accepted the definition and it's now verbotten to question it is instructive in itself about the whole context. It's a constant push in one direction.


To me that seems like an issue for LP members?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

Although it applies to everyone so not just an issue for LP members.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Although it applies to everyone so not just an issue for LP members.


Maybe, but as an institution they've formally decided to adopt it.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> To me that seems like an issue for LP members?




What about voters?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, but as an institution they've formally decided to adopt it.



True, but if someone criticizes Israel for treatment of Palestinians without criticizing (for example) China for similar actions then they'll be labelled as antisemitic using that definition.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

rummo said:


> What about voters?


They can vote, or not, for who they like?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> True, but if someone criticizes Israel for treatment of Palestinians without criticizing (for example) China for similar actions then they'll be labelled as antisemitic using that definition.


Maybe (?)...but this thread is about the LP and specifically Corbyn.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 18, 2020)

True, true, but the rules apply to them too 

we now seem to be going round in circles here 

I think it was worth noting that they are problematic


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> True, true, but the rules apply to them too
> 
> we now seem to be going round in circles here
> 
> I think it was worth noting that they are problematic


Yep, you or I might think, say some of the IHMC guidelines/examples threaten free speech about Israeli policy etc. but the LP (under Corbyn) decided to adopt the lot so, 'problematic' or not, that's the bar against which the party has chosen to be judged.


----------



## rummo (Nov 18, 2020)

The relevance of that definition of anti semitism is that its purpose is to conflate anti semitism with criticism of Israel. So it's about weaponising the subject of anti semitism.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 18, 2020)

It's governments that are setting us against one another rather than racism just springing out of some seemingly never ending sewage-flow. The ruling-class profits from war and from controlling resources. The public facing representatives of this class specialise in fucking everything up for us on their master's behalf. They are fucking filth. They poison every discourse, take money and power for nothing in return and act like they are of irreproachable principle and dignity. I mean, everyone doesn't _want_ to walk into disaster, but the ruling class can't do anything for us.

So, not to be too 'angry man shouts at cloud', they none of them would seem to be capable of organising a pissup in a brewery, and they then blame everyone but themselves, us. That's just my opinion from the sidelines. Most of them (i.e. parliamentarians) haven't got their heart in the right place to begin with. The newspapers and TV news networks have gone down hill at the same time as social media sharp men are filling the void. We, the non-Tories, should bury Labour and move on. Whatever that means in practice, I don't know. I guess these PLP timeserving careerists can come to us if they ever come up with something. Are they even on 'our side'? Can't see it myself.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 18, 2020)

This is a brilliant strategy.

‘Starmer wants the left out’
‘How do we stop him’
‘All resign the whip’

It’s very hard to see how the right of the Party always come out on top when faced with such disciplined savvy ‘left’ thinkers like this..









						Starmer, Corbyn and the Labour whip: this is a war against the left
					

Withholding the whip from Corbyn is unjustifiable. The left must unite and fight back against Starmer's war on the left, argues Chris Nineham




					www.counterfire.org


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is a brilliant strategy.
> 
> ‘Starmer wants the left out’
> ‘How do we stop him’
> ...



Crikey, it doesn’t appear, that even now there is any consideration whatsoever that Corbyn may not be the right hill to die on. ‘Corbyn can only be defended...’. How about Corbyn tries to work this problem out for himself rather than everyone resign for him? 

There are two ways forward. Dig in and claim Corbyn was blameless, which inevitably leads to some denial of the problem with his base, or be contrite about the EHRC report and work positively which requires Corbyn at a minimum not to add to the problem by appearing to argue. Better still he becomes an exemplar, something he yet could do.

But at the moment it’s all about Corbyn again with no consideration that righteous anger on his behalf will get badly directed by some. ‘Corbyn has a record of fighting racism...second to none’ it says. Is that it? Is that unarguable? In the face of the report that’s all there is to say?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 21, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Crikey, it doesn’t appear, that even now there is any consideration whatsoever that Corbyn may not be the right hill to die on. ‘Corbyn can only be defended...’. How about Corbyn tries to work this problem out for himself rather than everyone resign for him?
> 
> There are two ways forward. Dig in and claim Corbyn was blameless, which inevitably leads to some denial of the problem with his base, or be contrite about the EHRC report and work positively which requires Corbyn at a minimum not to add to the problem by appearing to argue. Better still he becomes an exemplar, something he yet could do.
> 
> But at the moment it’s all about Corbyn again with no consideration that righteous anger on his behalf will get badly directed by some. ‘Corbyn has a record of fighting racism...second to none’ it says. Is that it? Is that unarguable? In the face of the report that’s all there is to say?


If you read the report you'll see that it actually has very little to say about the extent of anti semitism in the party, primarily in my view because its prevalence is vanishingly small. But the attack on Corbyn is symbolic of a rightwards lurch in policy, an attempt at stifling discussion and debate and an attack on the left in general. If you are a Labour member who still thinks it is worth staying in the party then Corbyn is the hill to die on, at the moment anyway, cos a lot of party members who may not be Corbynite think he has been unfairly treated and may rally round. Last chance saloon.


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.


Still vaguely wonder what this post was about, seeing as there wasn't any context for it that might have explained what group of people are being described here, never mind it is a mystery.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

bimble said:


> Fwiw I don't think JC is an antisemite just a bit of a silly old man, too steeped in his little righteous world to be able to learn anything.


Sad to see you type that


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Sad to see you type that


sorry to disappoint you badgers.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

bimble said:


> sorry to disappoint you badgers.


That is okay. After all you are just a silly old person.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> That is okay. After all you are just a silly old person.



I think you'll find that's me you're talking about now


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

After 5 years and the total destruction of his political programme, you'd have thought if he was a man given to reflection and flexibility he might have stopped the 'as there is throughout society..' equivocation on antisemitism by now.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find that's me you're talking about now


No problem. I will leave you and the others to debate Corbyn on policy and then play him at chess. Let me know how it goes.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

bimble said:


> sorry to disappoint you badgers.



Hardly true though. Among other things he inspired people to swing Labour leftwards, greatly increase labour party membership, get bloody close to getting rid of the tories in 2017 despite uniform hatred from the media and the right of the party working against him.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Hardly true though. Among other things he inspired people to swing Labour leftwards, greatly increase labour party membership, get bloody close to getting rid of the tories in 2017 despite uniform hatred from the media and the right of the party working against him.


Silly old fool wasting his time on such things.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> After 5 years and the total destruction of his political programme, you'd have thought if he was a man given to reflection and flexibility he might have stopped the 'as there is throughout society..' equivocation on antisemitism by now.



Yeh whatever he does he's going to be criticized for it though. If he'd just said nothing after the EHRC report we'd be on "silly weak old man, if he believed that he'd fought antisemitism in the party then why not stand up for himself and say so? No spine".


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Sure he'd be criticised whatever his response was. But his response wasn't ever going to be anything but what it was, because he's not able to be reflective or flexible on this, as evidenced by everything he's done or said on the topic for 5 years.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

I'm starting to find the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' brigade depressing but also fascinating. It seems to be leftism as tribalism, and defending your tribe at all costs, with a bit of Richard Seymour macho posturing (We must not look weak!) thrown in. I suppose they would say it's about solidarity, but when someone has been in a leadership position I don't think solidarity is the only way you need to relate to them. You also need to be strategic, and I cannot see any strategically good reason for Corbyn and his stance on anti-semitism to be the hill that you die on. Finding it all quite weird.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm starting to find the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' brigade depressing but also fascinating. It seems to be leftism as tribalism, and defending your tribe at all costs, with a bit of Richard Seymour macho posturing (We must not look weak!) thrown in. I suppose they would say it's about solidarity, but when someone has been in a leadership position I don't think solidarity is the only way you need to relate to them. You also need to be strategic, and I cannot see any strategically good reason for Corbyn and his stance on anti-semitism to be the hill that you die on. Finding it all quite weird.


Usually find Seymour's analysis useful and he's written some very good stuff on left antisemitism, but his latest blog on this is terrible.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm starting to find the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' brigade depressing but also fascinating. It seems to be leftism as tribalism, and defending your tribe at all costs, with a bit of Richard Seymour macho posturing (We must not look weak!) thrown in. I suppose they would say it's about solidarity, but when someone has been in a leadership position I don't think solidarity is the only way you need to relate to them. You also need to be strategic, and I cannot see any strategically good reason for Corbyn and his stance on anti-semitism to be the hill that you die on. Finding it all quite weird.



About as weird as attack him at all costs nomatter what he's done. Hardly a hill to die on, he's not leader of the party any more, not even got the whip. If people think he's been unfairly attacked then they're going to defend him.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm starting to find the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' brigade depressing but also fascinating


What is the better option/opposition then? 

Hate to hear that a decent socialist depresses you. Back to Blair or cheer on Starmer? Maybe vote Tory next time eh?


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> Usually find Seymour's analysis useful and he's written some very good stuff on left antisemitism, but his latest blog on this is terrible.


On twitter at least he has a bit of an obsession with what looks 'strong' or looks 'weak', without even reflecting on who is doing the looking and which audiences matter.

As an aside, it is to Momentum's credit that one of my friends who has the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' attitude is annoyed at most Momentum people (led by TWT crowd I believe) just wanting to move on and get on with building a left wing political culture.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Whats depressing isn't the _decent socialist_ bit, its the _ignore inconvenient racism_ bit


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> On twitter at least he has a bit of an obsession with what looks 'strong' or looks 'weak', without even reflecting on who is doing the looking and which audiences matter.
> 
> As an aside, it is to Momentum's credit that one of my friends who has the 'defend Corbyn at all costs' attitude is annoyed at most Momentum people (led by TWT crowd I believe) just wanting to move on and get on with building a left wing political culture.


'Move on' has been a Brexit fraud slogan so turn it in.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> Whats depressing isn't the _decent socialist_ bit, its the _ignore inconvenient racism_ bit


Nonsense


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2020)

The inability to reflect or learn, on this subject (which is the criticism of JC that's so disappointed badgers) is just a normal human failing like how we are all inclined to think the best of ourselves and our friends and to gloss over uncomfortable bits where we might have shortcomings.
A bit like how there are so many opinions here but not a soul has any idea as to what group of people were being described as manipulative, dishonest and thinking they deserve special treatment, in that post that everyone ignored. weird.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

bimble said:


> The inability to reflect or learn, on this subject (which is the criticism of JC that's so disappointed badgers) is just a normal human failing like how we are all inclined to think the best of ourselves and our friends and to gloss over uncomfortable bits where we might have shortcomings.
> A bit like how there are so many opinions here but not a soul has any idea as to what group of people were being described as manipulative, dishonest and thinking they're special, in that post that everyone ignored. weird.


TLDR silly old man


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> What is the better option/opposition then?
> 
> Hate to hear that a decent socialist depresses you. Back to Blair or cheer on Starmer? Maybe vote Tory next time eh?


What are the long term goals of a left wing movement in this country? Whatever they are, I don't think Corbyn has much to do with them any more. He was a pin that held together a certain coalition of people for a time. He's not important in himself. The fact that he's being attacked by the Labour right is part of a significant trend its true, but you've got to pick your battles. Making the success of the Labour left dependent on defending Corbyn - who has shown repeatedly that he cannot reflect on anti-semitism very well, or position himself to look good even when his lifelong mission is at stake - is setting yourself up to fail. Pick some battles you can win.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2020)

My battle is socialism and a fairer society. Let me know on that yeah?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> What is the better option/opposition then?
> 
> Hate to hear that a decent socialist depresses you. Back to Blair or cheer on Starmer? Maybe vote Tory next time eh?


He'll be a drop in the golden shower


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> 'Move on' has been a Brexit fraud slogan so turn it in.


Brainaddict think we live in a dictatorship so you can despise his opinion on matters political safe in the knowledge he's posting from a position of abject stupidity


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> What are the long term goals of a left wing movement in this country? Whatever they are, I don't think Corbyn has much to do with them any more. He was a pin that held together a certain coalition of people for a time. He's not important in himself. The fact that he's being attacked by the Labour right is part of a significant trend its true, but you've got to pick your battles. Making the success of the Labour left dependent on defending Corbyn - who has shown repeatedly that he cannot reflect on anti-semitism very well, or position himself to look good even when his lifelong mission is at stake - is setting yourself up to fail. Pick some battles you can win.



So when tories attack the labour party and by extension labour voters as antisemitic what should people do? I'd say yes there was some antisemitism but it was exaggerated and exploted.

Let's extend it a bit. It was the left of the party that was accused of antisemitism, so that's clearly going to be revolutionary socialists. If right wingers start attacking revolutionary socialists (or anarchists or whatever political hue you ascribe to) as antisemitic what would you do? Agree and say lets move on?

Or try to dissuade them? Strange antisemitic hill to die on.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Nonsense


Mate, I've spent substantial portions of the last few years campaigning for a Corbyn government. I've knocked on hundreds of doors, I've attended meeting, rallies and conferences, I've raised thousands of pounds for campaign funds. I've even stood for election.

I'm pretty fucked off that all that work was for nothing. I'm also pretty fucked off that one of the reasons it was for nothing is still being ignored and excused by the former leadership, by left labour members and by the wider left. If we can't look at the last 5 years dispassionately and work out what went wrong and what can be done better in future, what hope is there? What _point _is there?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Where does that dispassionate view start though? What is wrong with the opinion that yes there was antisemitism within the party which Corbyn did not handle (but largely because his efforts were hamstrung by people within the party actively working against him). That Corbyn isn't himself antisemitic - he's explained but given a proper apology for statements that were insensitive. 

That's what I think happened. Yes we move on but to me that's the position to move on from.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> is still being ignored and excused by the former leadership, by left labour members and by the wider left.


Is it being ignored and excused? I dont see that. I saw a genuine and proportional attempt to deal with it actively subverted by Labour HQ, the media and malicious actors

The "strong" response would be to do a Starmer - a disastrous approach as we shall see play out


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 21, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Where does that dispassionate view start though? What is wrong with the opinion that yes there was antisemitism within the party which Corbyn did not handle (but largely because his efforts were hamstrung by people within the party actively working against him). That Corbyn isn't himself antisemitic - he's explained but given a proper apology for statements that were insensitive.
> 
> That's what I think happened. Yes we move on but to me that's the position to move on from.


Surely it's better to pretend that Labour has been infiltrated on a massive scale by anti-semites, has become institutionally antisemitic and racist in general, was led by a Jew-baiter and that anyone who says different is either racist themselves, insensitive, ignorant or covering things up. Then let's purge the party of as many left wingers as we can, whilst retaining a few loyalists so that we can still be a broad church. Oh, and then let's ignore any Jewish Labour voices who dissent as well. Job done.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Yep I'm with that - case closed really I'm off to cut some branches with my new nanoblade toy


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Surely it's better to pretend that Labour has been infiltrated on a massive scale by anti-semites, has become institutionally antisemitic and racist in general, was led by a Jew-baiter and that anyone who says different is either racist themselves, insensitive, ignorant or covering things up. Then let's purge the party of as many left wingers as we can, whilst retaining a few loyalists so that we can still be a broad church. Oh, and then let's ignore any Jewish Labour voices who dissent as well. Job done.


Y'see, this is bullshit. No-one here is asking for anything like this.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 21, 2020)

.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> Y'see, this is bullshit. No-one here is asking for anything like this.


No. No one here is. But the Labour right have always been up for this.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 21, 2020)

Badgers said:


> What is the better option/opposition then?


A proper critique of Corbyn, Corbynism, left Labourism, parliamentarism as a way of achieving socialism in any meaningful sense, and finally, looking at the merits of non-reformist anti-parliamentary and pro-revolutionary alternatives?


----------



## NoXion (Nov 21, 2020)

I see that the politically-motivated weaponisation of anti-Semitism within the Labour party has gone well. Thank goodness we have competent adults like Kier Starmer in charge now.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> A proper critique of Corbyn, Corbynism, left Labourism, parliamentarism as a way of achieving socialism in any meaningful sense, and finally, looking at the merits of non-reformist anti-parliamentary and pro-revolutionary alternatives?



Agreed, although should also include what Corbyn/Labour could have done if they'd achieved power in 2017 (i.e. how/whether they'd have improved conditions for most people), along with the reasons they didn't and why the last election was so disastrous.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Surely it's better to pretend that Labour has been infiltrated on a massive scale by anti-semites, has become institutionally antisemitic and racist in general, was led by a Jew-baiter and that anyone who says different is either racist themselves, insensitive, ignorant or covering things up. Then let's purge the party of as many left wingers as we can, whilst retaining a few loyalists so that we can still be a broad church. Oh, and then let's ignore any Jewish Labour voices who dissent as well. Job done.


I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They don't. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.

At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

Also, some of your friends did like, brush up against the pig to get a little frisson of excitement. You'll have to deal with that too.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.
> 
> At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.


I quite see your point. Thing is though, the right wing won't leave it at that and will continue to attack the left on these spurious grounds. Corbyn and co made the mistake initially of agreeing there was a problem. Tactical decision now impossible to rectify.


----------



## rummo (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They don't. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.
> 
> At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.


----------



## rummo (Nov 21, 2020)

'At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere.'


Which might be a worthwhile approach if you had control of the public discourse, and could dictate who discusses what and when.

But you don't.

Worse than that, your enemies have control of the public discourse.

And they won't let this drop for now and return to discuss the issue at a time of your chosing.

They'll push. You'll retreat. Then they'll push a bit further. So you retreat a bit further. And so on.

They're not interested in the truth, or fairness or justice. All they want is total victory and control. They're vicious and ruthless and unscrupulous.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I think if the right wing media cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth debating it with them. If the right of the labour party cared about anti-semitism, it would be worth arguing definitions with them. They don't. They pulled the classic political trick on you: accused you of fucking a pig. Now you feel you have to go around denying it, saying 'I didn't fuck a pig', which leads people to say why is there mud on your flies (look at this minor instance of actual anti-semitism). And then you think you should explain how the mud got there, or deny that the mud exists. And how does that look? When you're accused of fucking a pig in bad faith, move on to the issues that you want to talk about. The more you say 'I didn't fuck a pig' the more people hear about you fucking pigs.
> 
> At some point the issue of what actual anti-semitism is and how it can be dealt with does have to be discussed. But it cannot possibly be discussed in this atmosphere. So move on. Come back to it later when it's possible to have a rational discussion. Stop standing there with mud on your flies saying 'I didn't fuck a pig'. It won't build socialism.



Nope, doesn't work. Accusation is then proved - "see they don't deny it". Come back to it later and it'll be "why are you bringing that up again - you'd have denied it first time round if it wasn't true".

So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.

As it is we're already admitting that we've fucked the pig a little bit but the extent is being exaggerated  .


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> If you read the report you'll see that it actually has very little to say about the extent of anti semitism in the party, primarily in my view because its prevalence is vanishingly small. But the attack on Corbyn is symbolic of a rightwards lurch in policy, an attempt at stifling discussion and debate and an attack on the left in general. If you are a Labour member who still thinks it is worth staying in the party then Corbyn is the hill to die on, at the moment anyway, cos a lot of party members who may not be Corbynite think he has been unfairly treated and may rally round. Last chance saloon.



The problem can't truthfully be described as 'vanishingly small'. I get where this comes from. Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low. Labour members were never about to organise a pogrom. But the response of a proportion of members and supporters to criticisms of those few racist individuals and more especially of Corbyn's dubious previous associations and choices was to double down and attack those who raised the concerns. The justification for the attacks on Berger, Smeeth etc was that they were 'obviously plotting'. The problem is, whether that is right or wrong, it's very hard to accuse victims of racism of such a thing without colluding in the abuse. You certainly need to deal with the racism first. It may not have been the intention of hundreds of individuals screaming at them on social media to be racist. But then that's what right wing people who shout hysterically at Sadiq Khan say. Racist? Not at all. I simply disagree with Sadiq's transport policies and I have every right to call him a 'cunt' in a twitter thread full of comments about his religion as I do so.

It's deeply frurstrating that there are sides of the story that have failed to get a proper airing, like the conduct of those dealing with complaints before 2018. But frankly you are delusional if you think this is moment that Corbyn can win that argument and be vindicated. His only hope of redemption from his part in this is to acknowledge that his response had been lacking (and you know it was lacking, because had his supporters been abusing black people on social media in exactly the same way it would have probably looked much clearer to all concerned). It's up to him how he does that, by reaching out to those enemies of his that got abused, by going on a 'personal journey' for TV, or by eating kangaroo bollocks on IACGMOOH. Anyway he does it has to be by humanising himself and building bridges. Fighting within the Party or going to court - I meanwhat possible good outcome is there for him when he never called those haters off? Starmer is largely irrelevant to this. As much as he may well be trying to defeat the left he won't need to make much effort if people keep picking at this sore. Get behind learning from the EHRC and win the fight for better policies down the line.


----------



## rummo (Nov 21, 2020)

'Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low.'

###

So if someone says a Corbyn government would pose an existential threat to British Jews, do you assume that they are acting in good faith, and how do you respond to them?


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 21, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Nope, doesn't work. Accusation is then proved - "see they don't deny it". Come back to it later and it'll be "why are you bringing that up again - you'd have denied it first time round if it wasn't true".
> 
> So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.
> 
> As it is we're already admitting that we've fucked the pig a little bit but the extent is being exaggerated  .


Why are you being accused of pig-fucking when there's only evidence of pig frottage? Because your policies are more popular than theirs. Condemn the frottage, then talk about your policies. I'm not even in the Labour Party but I'm doing my best to help you here. We're about to go into the biggest recession of our lifetimes. You can spend that time defending Corbyn against accusations of anti-semitism if you wish but what do you think you'll get from it? Suddenly the media will give you a badge saying 'cleared of anti-semitism'?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Course not but if you can show that their accusations are overblown then you have a chance of reaching people who will look at the evidence. If you ignore them then they only hear the one side of the argument so they'll believe it. And it's not just Corbyn that's attacked it's the whole of the labour left by association.

I'm really happy to move on - lets finish with the accusations and defences and start with this post from Serge, then.



Serge Forward said:


> A proper critique of Corbyn, Corbynism, left Labourism, parliamentarism as a way of achieving socialism in any meaningful sense, and finally, looking at the merits of non-reformist anti-parliamentary and pro-revolutionary alternatives?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2020)

Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 21, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary


counterpoint: that is a fucking awful, embarrassing article

Who would have thought the fashion industry could have vapid centrists in it though. Blows the mind.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary



I dont think this is opinion of the fashion industry.

Its opinion of Paul Richards founder of the Progress magazine. Progress -the Blairite side of the Labour party.





__





						Paul Richards | Biteback Publishing
					






					www.bitebackpublishing.com


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Paul Richards founder of the Progress magazine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah. Cheeky fucker


----------



## ska invita (Nov 21, 2020)

Interesting to see the depths the Labour party machine are willing to sink in their propaganda war


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

Can we _please _stop responding to these allegations of antisemitism it just makes us look defensive and like we don't care about actual antisemitism in the party






sorry


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Interesting to see the depths the Labour party machine are willing to sink in their propaganda war


I'm not sure the Labour Party machine are responsible for that tbf - he's a jobbing writer (quite a shit one), not party staff. He probably just pitched the article at Glamour on the off-chance.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure the Labour Party machine are responsible for that tbf - he's a jobbing writer (quite a shit one), not party staff. He probably just pitched the article at Glamour on the off-chance.


I don't see a distinction either way. Hes clearly part of it


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

'clearly part of' what? The Labour Party want this to go away, they aren't sending out writers to stir it up in the fashion press.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> The Labour Party want this to go away


In the sense of wanting to entirely clobber Corbyn as personally being an anti-semite so much that it can't be recovered from?

I don't think this is somehow sponsored by Keith though, it's just one of the boys doing his thing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2020)

Jeremy Corbyn is a bizarre choice for a magazine called ‘Glamour’. Seems likely someone associated with the magazine simply hates him.

Next week, ‘Botox or not?’ by Ken Clarke.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Jeremy Corbyn is a bizarre choice for a magazine called ‘Glamour’. Seems likely someone associated with the magazine simply hates him.
> 
> Next week, ‘Botox or not?’ by Ken Clarke.


they have an entire politics section - fairly bland liberal centrist articles from the ones I've looked through. hardly teen vogue









						Politics news and features
					

Everything Glamour UK knows about Politics, including the latest news, features and images.




					www.glamourmagazine.co.uk


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

It's not a bizarre idea to have politics in a fashion magazine is it? No-one would think it weird if it was Esquire or suchlike.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> they have an entire politics section - fairly bland liberal centrist articles from the ones I've looked through. hardly teen vogue
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I shouldn’t judge a magazine by its cover. I thank you for your research.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 21, 2020)

two sheds said:


> So what would you do if you were accused of fucking a pig? Just pretend there was no accusation? Then you'd look really shifty.



I mean that is pretty much what Cameron did when he was accused of actually fucking a pig, and he got away with it. Johnson is on record and in print spouting racist and anti-semitic drviel and he gets away with. Perhaps being a staunch ally of capital provides some kind of magic forcefield against media scrutiny for some reason.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2020)

Johnson's racist writing is hardly a journalistic secret - it's been widely publicised across the media for the whole of his political life.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2020)

that's clearly what corbyn needs to do - start talking about bumboys and piccaninnies with watermelon smiles with  jews  controlling the media and being able to fiddle elections. _Then _he'll be seen as anti-racist


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 21, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Teen Vogue.


Kim Kelly is rather a good writer









						Kim Kelly
					

Kim Kelly is a freelance journalist and organizer based in Philadelphia. Her work on labor, class, politics, and culture has appeared in the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Baffler, and Esquire, among other publications, and she is the author of FIGHT LIKE HELL, a forthcoming book of...




					www.teenvogue.com


----------



## two sheds (Nov 22, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> Kim Kelly is rather a good writer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was hoping to learn what blusher corbyn wears but .. 

you're right, interesting article titles there


----------



## bimble (Nov 22, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.



Good morning. Still nobody has a clue what group of people were being described here ?

(yes i think I will keep doing this, not to annoy Rutita, its the total ignoring of it by everyone else that's the point.)


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2020)

I'm interested, just a bit out of puff on it all tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'Probably the numbers of Labour members or supporters who actually dislike Jewish people is pretty low.'
> 
> ###
> 
> So if someone says a Corbyn government would pose an existential threat to British Jews, do you assume that they are acting in good faith, and how do you respond to them?



It doesn’t matter if those individuals are acting in good faith or not. The concern about Labour member/supporter behaviour was corroding support and confidence in the Leader. You simply have to try everything to demonstrate it’s not true. Saying repeatedly that Jeremy is the greatest anti-racist of all time doesn’t really cut it and that was often the best defence put forward.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 22, 2020)

Indeed. Throw the accusation as often as it's been thrown and people will believe it nomatter what actually happened. Bugger all you can do in defence really apart from examining the accusations one by one and admitting the ones that are true and pointing out the ones that aren't.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Indeed. Throw the accusation as often as it's been thrown and people will believe it nomatter what actually happened. Bugger all you can do in defence really apart from examining the accusations one by one and admitting the ones that are true and pointing out the ones that aren't.



There was always a lot more than that which could be done and could be done now. Even now Corbyn and other Labour leaders could offer personal apologies to their enemies, could offer to meet with them as well as giving an angry warning off to followers on social media who overstep the line. Invite Jewish leaders to a conference or further exploration of antisemitism and Israel, even be very honest about the disquiet within Labour around the treatment of Palestinian people. High risk, maybe, but actually becomes more difficult to criticise Labour if it is seen to be making every possible effort.


----------



## bimble (Nov 22, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'm interested, just a bit out of puff on it all tbh


I know, its exhausting. Thanks though cos i thought maybe the post was invisible.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 22, 2020)

I wasn't sure what Rutita meant - the post was following on from a discussion on Starmer's expulsion of Corbyn so I assumed something to do with that.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> There was always a lot more than that which could be done and could be done now. Even now Corbyn and other Labour leaders could offer personal apologies to their enemies, could offer to meet with them as well as giving an angry warning off to followers on social media who overstep the line. Invite Jewish leaders to a conference or further exploration of antisemitism and Israel, even be very honest about the disquiet within Labour around the treatment of Palestinian people. High risk, maybe, but actually becomes more difficult to criticise Labour if it is seen to be making every possible effort.


So Corbyn offers to meet and talk with Margaret Hodge. She tells him to get stuffed. He then invites Jewish leaders, by which you mean right wing pro-Israeli leaders, to explain his disquiet about Palestine. They tell him to get stuffed. Mission accomplished.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2020)

bimble said:


> Good morning. Still nobody has a clue what group of people were being described here ?
> 
> (yes i think I will keep doing this, not to annoy Rutita, its the total ignoring of it by everyone else that's the point.)


Perhaps the lack of 'clue' you project onto others might explain the lack of response to the post that you're highlighting?
If you think the post is worthy of further discussion it might help if you were more explicit about what you find concerning about the term used.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 22, 2020)

bimble said:


> I know, its exhausting. Thanks though cos i thought maybe the post was invisible.


I’ve not been following the thread. (Because I’ve better things to do than waste brain space on the former leader of a party I didn’t trust to bring about socialism under his inept leadership). But I looked back to see the context of the post.  It appears to be a bit of a non sequitur.  I haven’t read the antisemitism report, so it could relate to something in that, I suppose.


----------



## bimble (Nov 22, 2020)

maybe everyone was just nonplussed by the post, ok.
To repeat, it said


Rutita1 said:


> 'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.



The context was feeling impassionedly defensive of jeremy corbyn and his reaction to the ehrc report.

But what it is is a description of _a group of people_ as

Expecting to be treated like they are special or deserve special treatment ('exceptionalism')
dishonesty & manipulativeness.
So I've been asking, what group of people are being described in that little outburst.

It's not the right of the labour party (in what way would they be claiming 'exceptionalism' ?)
It's not the authors of the ehrc. Is it Bulgarians? Fishermen? Is it perhaps . . Zionists?

The point for me is not actually what she meant its that what was _said _went totally ignored, it was just passed over maybe a bit awkwardly idk.
Whereas on this website usually if someone ventures to describe a whole load of people from whatever demographic as sharing a bunch of shitty characteristics people do not just ignore it because they're on the same team.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> So Corbyn offers to meet and talk with Margaret Hodge. She tells him to get stuffed. He then invites Jewish leaders, by which you mean right wing pro-Israeli leaders, to explain his disquiet about Palestine. They tell him to get stuffed. Mission accomplished.



Yes, because he hadn’t faced up to the extent of the problem. I’m not saying there isn’t risk or that it wouldn’t need careful bridge building, but if it was done well enough his enemies would eventually look unreasonable. That’s if a way back is what he wants.

Tough as this is, the current approach, to take on the leadership, has zero chance of long term success. Zero. Even if he, quite plausibly, wins that the loss of the whip was unlawful or a wrong decision under a JR, then what? He’s simply a peripheral figure with a milestone around his neck. In the eyes of most people, the man who never accepted his failings and worse and continual impediment to Labour.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 22, 2020)

bimble said:


> But what it is is a description of _a group of people_ as
> 
> Expecting to be treated like they are special or deserve special treatment ('exceptionalism')
> dishonesty & manipulativeness.
> So I've been asking, what group of people are being described in that little outburst.


And it’s a fair question.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, because he hadn’t faced up to the extent of the problem. I’m not saying there isn’t risk or that it wouldn’t need careful bridge building, but if it was done well enough his enemies would eventually look unreasonable. That’s if a way back is what he wants.
> 
> Tough as this is, the current approach, to take on the leadership, has zero chance of long term success. Zero. Even if he, quite plausibly, wins that the loss of the whip was unlawful or a wrong decision under a JR, then what? He’s simply a peripheral figure with a milestone around his neck. In the eyes of most people, the man who never accepted his failings and worse and continual impediment to Labour.


The extent of the problem is the important bit. Very many people in the Labour Party do not accept that there is a significant problem of anti-semitism in the party, and that does include those awkward people in Jewish Voice for Labour. Whether they are correct or not, that is their opinion. That being the case there is no way that they feel a need to apologise or any of that, and to go along with the victimisation of Corbyn they would feel to be complicit in that campaign. An attack on Corbyn is seen as an attack on them. Acceptance of the stitch-up EHRC report would similarly hypocritical. So we are stuck with the impasse of two sides of a manufactured conflict unwilling to give an inch.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> And it’s a fair question.


And could be addressed quite straightforwardly by the poster, I'd imagine?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 22, 2020)

bimble said:


> Whereas on this website usually if someone ventures to describe a whole load of people from whatever demographic as sharing a bunch of shitty characteristics people do not just ignore it because they're on the same team.



FWIW, its been happening about trans people on here for years, with posters scrolling on by too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2020)

brogdale said:


> And could be addressed quite straightforwardly by the poster, I'd imagine?


Yes


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 22, 2020)

stethoscope said:


> FWIW, its been happening about trans people on here for years, with posters scrolling on by too.


Sorry.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> The extent of the problem is the important bit. Very many people in the Labour Party do not accept that there is a significant problem of anti-semitism in the party, and that does include those awkward people in Jewish Voice for Labour. Whether they are correct or not, that is their opinion. That being the case there is no way that they feel a need to apologise or any of that, and to go along with the victimisation of Corbyn they would feel to be complicit in that campaign. An attack on Corbyn is seen as an attack on them. Acceptance of the stitch-up EHRC report would similarly hypocritical. So we are stuck with the impasse of two sides of a manufactured conflict unwilling to give an inch.



Corbyn has every right to walk away from this as a private citizen feeling he has done his bit. If he wants to carry on as a high profile politician he has not done nearly enough to address the behaviour in his name and anyone who wants to die on that hill with him takes on that baggage.

Time and again we see the way forward from conflict is truth and reconciliation. If Paisley and McGuinness can manage it then Corbyn and a chosen enemy can and there could be benefits for Corbyn. It’s the only way that I can see any positives for him emerging.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn has every right to walk away from this as a private citizen feeling he has done his bit. If he wants to carry on as a high profile politician he has not done nearly enough to address the behaviour in his name and anyone who wants to die on that hill with him takes on that baggage.
> 
> Time and again we see the way forward from conflict is truth and reconciliation. If Paisley and McGuinness can manage it then Corbyn and a chosen enemy can and there could be benefits for Corbyn. It’s the only way that I can see any positives for him emerging.


Has Corbyn mustered a paramilitary organisation like paisley or McGuinness?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Has Corbyn mustered a paramilitary organisation like paisley or McGuinness?



Look at the bloke and you tell me.

Has he been involved in a long running political conflict? Yes.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn has every right to walk away from this as a private citizen feeling he has done his bit. If he wants to carry on as a high profile politician he has not done nearly enough to address the behaviour in his name and anyone who wants to die on that hill with him takes on that baggage.
> 
> Time and again we see the way forward from conflict is truth and reconciliation. If Paisley and McGuinness can manage it then Corbyn and a chosen enemy can and there could be benefits for Corbyn. It’s the only way that I can see any positives for him emerging.


Hmmmmnn. Truth and reconciliation. Give over. Labour's right wing are interested in neither. Never have been since Corbyn became leader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Look at the bloke and you tell me.
> 
> Has he been involved in a long running political conflict? Yes.


You compared Corbyn in the LP to paisley with his history of flirting and more than flirting with paramilitaries and mm and his history in the official and provisional iras. So you tell me


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn has every right to walk away from this as a private citizen feeling he has done his bit. If he wants to carry on as a high profile politician he has not done nearly enough to address the behaviour in his name and anyone who wants to die on that hill with him takes on that baggage.
> 
> Time and again we see the way forward from conflict is truth and reconciliation. If Paisley and McGuinness can manage it then Corbyn and a chosen enemy can and there could be benefits for Corbyn. It’s the only way that I can see any positives for him emerging.


why should anyone try for 'reconciliation' with a piece of human shit like Hodge? She should be burnt alive, chopped into pieces and fed to Wes Streeting.


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2020)

It is difficult to imagine a reconciliation being possible right now, this is true


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Look at the bloke and you tell me.
> 
> Has he been involved in a long running political conflict? Yes.


Right, only the people you don't like need to be truthful and reconcile


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Nov 22, 2020)

belboid said:


> why should anyone try for 'reconciliation' with a piece of human shit like Hodge? She should be burnt alive, chopped into pieces and fed to Wes Streeting.


Streeting did work at McDonald's once, so fair point.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Right, only the people you don't like need to be truthful and reconcile



He can do it or not. Nothing to do with me. I’m just saying there’s no hope in him achieving rehabilitation by simply fighting with the current Labour Party leadership. What do you think happens if he does?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

belboid said:


> why should anyone try for 'reconciliation' with a piece of human shit like Hodge? She should be burnt alive, chopped into pieces and fed to Wes Streeting.



Or you can carry on that talk. How’s that working for everyone right now? What’s the Red Wall view of left wing people who conduct themselves like that? 

Your intemperance suggests why Corbyn is a nightmare for Labour going forward. Brings all the boys to the yard.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

killer b said:


> It is difficult to imagine a reconciliation being possible right now, this is true



It rarely is in truth. But publicly attempting it does help people put down their cudgels and start again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> He can do it or not. Nothing to do with me. I’m just saying there’s no hope in him achieving rehabilitation by simply fighting with the current Labour Party leadership. What do you think happens if he does?


Seems to me the clpl are fighting with him


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2020)

[


Mr Moose said:


> Or you can carry on that talk. How’s that working for everyone right now? What’s the Red Wall view of left wing people who conduct themselves like that?
> 
> Your intemperance suggests why Corbyn is a nightmare for Labour going forward. Brings all the boys to the yard.


Starmer is the nightmare for Labour going forward. Suspending Corbyn for a statement in which he exercised rights to free speech and freedom of opinion that the EHRC report explicitly protected was a divisive thing to do, and a foolish one as it was never going to stick legally. Withholding the whip is also a deeply divisive thing to do and Starmer can't hide behind process when doing that - it's his gift.

It's stupid to pretend this is about anti-Semitism any more. It's a power struggle within Labour and Starmer is determined to confront Corbyn, Momentum and the Socialist Campaign Group. It's his Militant expulsion/Clause 4 moment. It was absolutely within his power to handle this differently, even after Corbyn's initial statement. He chose not to. You need to ask why he did that.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2020)

How do you see it panning out?


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It rarely is in truth. But publicly attempting it does help people put down their cudgels and start again.


You are woefully naive if you think the Labour right are or would ever be interested in putting down cudgels and uniting with the left.  They never ever have, they constantly work to undermine and oppose it. Scum like Margaret 'rights for whites' Hodge should have been kicked out years ago, but it's never the right that gets kicked out, for some reason.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How do you see it panning out?


No idea. Corbyn rowed back significantly on his initial statement and still had the whip withheld from him. That was a moment when the situation could have been defused. Starmer chose instead to light another fuse.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

belboid said:


> You are woefully naive if you think the Labour right are or would ever be interested in putting down cudgels and uniting with the left.  They never ever have, they constantly work to undermine and oppose it. Scum like Margaret 'rights for whites' Hodge should have been kicked out years ago, but it's never the right that gets kicked out, for some reason.



I’m only talking about the specific issue of antisemitism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m only talking about the specific issue of antisemitism.


Why do you think Margaret Hodge, for example, has zeroed in on the specific issue of antisemitism? 

Follow-up question: 

Do you think Margaret Hodge's definition of antisemitism includes or excludes the right to criticise Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Seems to me the clpl are fighting with him



I think it’s possible they left him in the shit knowingly when the EHRC report was published. You’d have thought they would have reached out to him before then to try to agree a press strategy. 

It would certainly be open to Starmer to take a different view to reinstating the whip, but then he’d have spent this week defending that action to all comers. Looks like he thought fuck that for a game of soldiers. Whether that’s simply the outcome he wanted or not, the balls in Jeremy’s court to think his way through it. I would suggest going to court on a wave of outrage will simply stir more shit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you think Margaret Hodge, for example, has zeroed in on the specific issue of antisemitism?
> 
> Follow-up question:
> 
> Do you think Margaret Hodge's definition of antisemitism includes or excludes the right to criticise Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians?



Look it’s quite clear that many people pushing Corbyn about antisemitism don’t give a single shit about any other form of racism or oppression. 

That doesn’t mean supporters get to abuse them with no consequence.


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> What’s the Red Wall view of left wing people who conduct themselves like that?


The red wall just voted for Boris Johnson, they clearly don't give a shit how people conduct themselves. No-one does really so fair enough


----------



## two sheds (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I would suggest going to court on a wave of outrage will simply stir more shit.



He's not the one bringing the court case though if you're talking about the John Ware one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It would certainly be open to Starmer to take a different view to reinstating the whip, but then he’d have spent this week defending that action to all comers. Looks like he thought fuck that for a game of soldiers.


I don't read it like that at all. At first, on the day Corbyn was suspended, it looked to me that Starmer had panicked. But these later actions cannot be put down to panic or any sort of short-term consideration about the flak he'll get for a few days. A week defending the action, with Corbyn's second statement to work with, followed by the issue dying down, would have been a very good result if he'd wanted the issue to die down. So clearly, he doesn't want the issue to die down.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't read it like that at all. At first, on the day Corbyn was suspended, it looked to me that Starmer had panicked. But these later actions cannot be put down to panic or any sort of short-term consideration about the flak he'll get for a few days. A week defending the action, with Corbyn's second statement to work with, followed by the issue dying down, would have been a very good result if he'd wanted the issue to die down. So clearly, he doesn't want the issue to die down.


Of course it's a purge; all of the opponents of democratic socialism have shown no compunction with weaponising the issue of (really existing) antisemitism within the LP to undermine or destabilise the left of the party.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 22, 2020)

killer b said:


> The red wall just voted for Boris Johnson, they clearly don't give a shit how people conduct themselves. No-one does really so fair enough



There’s a general buzz about the left being a bit hateful at times, like after the Brexit vote. It’s not unnoticed on here or elsewhere. But you are right it’s selective and I’m not accusing anyone here of more than hyperbole.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2020)

Also seems to be an overlap between Remainers in the LP and being vocal about AS (John Mann the only labour leaver I can think of who was vocal about AS)


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2020)

I’m happy to accept that what’s his face, the former deputy leader, hacking bloke, wasn’t necessarily acting out of pure anti-racist concern


----------



## cantsin (Nov 22, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m happy to accept that what’s his face, the former deputy leader, hacking bloke, wasn’t necessarily acting out of pure anti-racist concern



fair play ... and what about John Mann ?









						Parliamentary Anti-Gypsyism meeting collapses after ‘offensive’ booklet emerges
					






					www.travellerstimes.org.uk


----------



## ska invita (Nov 22, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How do you see it panning out?


 A ten-to-fifteen year generational fight within the party which the left will eventually win, with Starmer losing the next election


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2020)

cantsin said:


> fair play ... and what about John Mann ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about him? His comment about the GRT community (I imagine he’s said/done much worse else as well) is repulsive. I got the sense he did actually care about AS and those it affected, however inconsistent his anti-racist stance is


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 22, 2020)

the mark of the man 🤜 🤛


----------



## JudithB (Nov 23, 2020)

JTG said:


> Pointlessly throwing his forensic weight around by not restoring the whip because that's a thing the Leader can do and membership isn't in his remit. This to appease the right wing racist element of the PLP who are annoyed that the Leader can't break the recommendations of the EHRC report by throwing people out of the Party for their response to the EHRC report
> 
> In the meantime, there's a massive great report on Islamophobia in the the Party published by its own members that he hasn't paid much more than lip service to yet, probably because he doesn't want to piss off the right wing racist element - which he has done anyway by failing to throw out Corbyn. In other news, more than one LGBT member of Rosie Duffield's staff has quit in recent months because she's a massive TERF & homophobe but she still somehow escapes censure and people who praise anti-semites continue to sit in his shadow cabinet.
> 
> It's going _really well_


Can you point me to what Rosie Duffield has said that is transphobic?


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2020)

JudithB said:


> Can you point me to what Rosie Duffield has said that is transphobic?


blimey, back and immediately asking about trans issues?  I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Maybe you could ask either of the two women who resigned from her office because of her views.  Or don't those women count?


----------



## JudithB (Nov 23, 2020)

belboid said:


> blimey, back and immediately asking about trans issues?  I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
> 
> Maybe you could ask either of the two women who resigned from her office because of her views.  Or don't those women count?


LOL  - it really is the big issue of the time for women. Or does that not count?

Can you point me to what she said that was transphobic?


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2020)

I could,  but you have read all the articles and tweets already, so what would be the point?  You're nothing but a shallow bigot who uses feminist terminology to hate on trans people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2020)

JudithB said:


> LOL  - it really is the big issue of the time for women. Or does that not count?
> 
> Can you point me to what she said that was transphobic?


So you don't give a shit about forced sterilisations in the USA or China, they are as nothing in comparison to a trans woman possibly showing up in a ladies loo


----------



## hash tag (Nov 24, 2020)

JC is going nice and quietly I see Labour Party: Corbyn backers walk out of meeting in suspension row


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 24, 2020)

JudithB said:


> LOL  - it really is the big issue of the time for women. Or does that not count?


Of course it is!

Far outweighing minor inconveniences such as the virtual disappearance of women's shelters in the UK and the attacks on reproductive rights current in Europe and coming down the pipeline in the USA.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2020)

James Butler has written a long piece in the latest LRB which is well worth a read - a fairly clear-sighted look at the failings (and successes) of the Corbyn project. Make some time for it. 









						James Butler · Failed Vocation: The Corbyn Project · LRB 3 December 2020
					

It is an intellectual vice on the left to think that because the world is best understood in terms of the operation of...




					www.lrb.co.uk


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 26, 2020)

bimble said:


> So I've been asking, what group of people are being described



People with Yiddish surnames?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

bimble said:


> maybe everyone was just nonplussed by the post, ok.
> To repeat, it said
> 
> 
> ...



If you want my attention best to tag me. I don't have a great deal of time to read Urban of late so don't see a lot of what's posted.

Read my post in the context of the ones before. I was referring to what is being expected of Corbyn and the Labour left. That he/they are being held to far greater expectations than I think are humanly possible. That no matter what he says or does, along with anyone who supports him it will never be enough. That those who don't support him and want rid of his 'socialism', know better, know him better. That given what we have seen in terms of the attack campaign against him and the left of the party, they/he's not allowed to 'feel' wronged and express that because if they do it's seen as more evidence of their guilt.

I honestly don't know how that man walks out of his front door each day. A quarter of what has gone on would have broken the best of us.

So no, I wasn't referring to 'Jewish people' or 'Zionists' specifically like your post is implying because as you well know many of those involved aren't Jewish and certainly don't seem interested in listening to the views of all Jewish people either.

The continued attack on the Labour left hasn't just been about experiences of antisemitism within the Labour party.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> People with Yiddish surnames?



Oh you can imagine my utter shock that you would be here with your over sized wooden spoon can't you?


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2020)

ok


Rutita1 said:


> 'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.


All those words are what came to mind to describe 'those who want rid of corbyn'. got it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

bimble said:


> ok
> 
> All those words are what came to mind to describe 'those who want rid of corbyn'. got it.



Yes, Corbyn, those that support him, socialism, what the Labour left stands for as I have said above. That's what I said.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> So terrible at politics he continues to be reelected as a local MP  for how long now?... and has personally weathered the most vitriolic,  clearly personal, absurd and disturbing smear campaign i've seen in my lifetime...HE HAS BEEN WRONGED and has every right to speak out about that given the 'dignified silence' he maintained over the last years of daily vicious nonsense. He didn't contradict the report... sod you if you hate the idea of him so much you can't admit that.



This is the post Rutita1 posted immediately before the one in question. It's solely about Corbyn.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2020)

I'm not in the mood for a fight with Rutita1 or anyone else but if you can't see why I made a thing about questioning that particular little outburst, and are happy with the explanation that its anti corbyn people who expect 'exceptionalism' I just find that depressing tbh.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> This is the post Rutita1 posted immediately before the one in question. It's solely about Corbyn.


So what? I was responding to a post about him. That doesn't mean I see what's been happening as solely about him.   Even if the media discussion has tried to reduce it to only being about him as if he's some wizard that once we're shot of things will magically be okay again.
Cult of Corbyn
Corbynism
Corbynites
etc.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes, Corbyn, those that support him, socialism, what the Labour left stands for as I have said above. That's what I said.


Indeed, that's why I posted it - it seemed to clarify.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

bimble said:


> I'm not in the mood for a fight with Rutita1 or anyone else but if you can't see why I made a thing about questioning that particular little outburst, and are happy with the explanation that its anti corbyn people who expect 'exceptionalism' I just find that depressing tbh.



If you aren't in the mood for a fight stop referring to my post as a 'little outburst' it fucking condescending and positions you as an authority on what I can and can't post. You aren't.

You asked for an explanation and now you have one. I can see that you had already decided what you thought I meant, not much I can do about that.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2020)

You can post whatever you like. Me too. Great isn’t it.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 26, 2020)

Hope maybe for recovery from corbynism?









						Jeremy Corbyn supporter spared jail after sending antisemitic abuse and threats to Labour MPs
					

The magistrate said that some of the language sent was so vile he would not repeat it in court.




					news.sky.com
				




“I see you are now seeking the assistance of a psychiatrist and dealing with issues you say were a feature of your life then."


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2020)

killer b said:


> James Butler has written a long piece in the latest LRB which is well worth a read - a fairly clear-sighted look at the failings (and successes) of the Corbyn project. Make some time for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bits that were of particular interest to me:

1.


> Though Corbyn apparently bridled at McDonnell’s often repeated suggestion that he stood for the leadership simply because it was ‘his turn’, his first words to one confidant after squeezing onto the ballot were: ‘You better make fucking sure I don’t get elected.’ Perhaps the surprise rush of popular support made him warm to the role. But the ambivalence never went away, and with it came intransigence, obstinacy and an aversion to making decisions, especially difficult decisions involving confrontation – which means nearly all leadership decisions.


Corbyn was incredibly strong in taking flack, but he lacked proactive muscle - he was too passive - this quote gives that some context
----------
2.


> Milne dismissed those concerned with Brexit as engaged in an unserious ‘culture war’.



Woops. Massive error there.
----
This bit is crucial
3.


> In the wake of Labour’s defeat a year ago, some fantasised – with the benefit of hindsight – about what might have been if Corbyn had handed over the reins after 2017. Yet there were few plausible successors on the party’s left.
> ...
> Corbyn recognised the problem, as did younger MPs on the left such as Lewis. The obvious solution was to reform the party machinery to enable an infusion of new parliamentary candidates. It might seem odd that a leadership which had just defied all predictions and enjoyed an electoral surge should devote itself to party reform.
> ...
> ...


This is probably the moment the project failed
Corbyn shouldnt have run in 2019, originally he wasn't even expected to run having won the leadership, and the failure to create a successor, or more importantly the structure to create successors leaves us where we are now. In an SUV driven car crash.

-------------


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

bimble said:


> I'm not in the mood for a fight with Rutita1 or anyone else but if you can't see why I made a thing about questioning that particular little outburst, and are happy with the explanation that its anti corbyn people who expect 'exceptionalism' I just find that depressing tbh.



I can see why you questioned it. I can see what Rutita1 meant by her post - Corbyn is being held to a different standard to anybody else. The main reason the right of the party have jumped on him is because he moved the party leftwards. Many people defending Corbyn are I believe defending that movement of the party leftwards.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, that's why I posted it - it seemed to clarify.



Fair enough.

I feel it's a dynamic that runs right the way through the contempt  that the 'Right' in general has towards the Left. There is a do as I say and not as I do or differently approach. The arrogance that we don't know our own minds, that we should know our place, not try and challenge or change things, and when the real damage done is highlighted, it's a case of well you only have yourselves to blame, do better, be exceptional, superfuckinghuman.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Bits that were of particular interest to me:
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...



Interesting, ta. 

Although it was Brexit that fucked the party vote, it was a mistake adding more and more policies towards the election. Although I think they were actually good ideas it looked like the party was just promising stuff with no chance of carrying it out.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I can see what Rutita1 meant by her post - Corbyn is being held to a different standard to anybody else.


Nice save! Thats what she meant by the exceptionalism bit. very good.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

I don't think she's an anti-semite, no.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Interesting, ta.
> 
> Although it was Brexit that fucked the party vote, it was a mistake adding more and more policies towards the election. Although I think they were actually good ideas it looked like the party was just promising stuff with no chance of carrying it out.


have you read the piece? he argues it was all done by then anyway, the desperate conveyor belt of policies was just flailing


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

killer b said:


> have you read the piece? he argues it was all done by then anyway, the desperate conveyor belt of policies was just flailing



yes I read it, not sure why my post contradicts that though.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2020)

well, because if they were already done by then the policy conveyor belt wasn't a mistake, because there wasn't anything they could do to turn it around.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

fair play, but brexit was surely what fucked the vote as I said, and the conveyor belt didn't help on top of that. 

Would have open selection have made much difference to the election result? I'd have thought it would have been presented in the media as a Stalin-type takeover of the party. It would admittedly have made a lot of difference to Corbyn getting through the policies he wanted to.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Would have open selection have made much difference to the election result?


that was a different prong of the project really - democratising the party was a long-term goal rather than an election-focused one


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

killer b said:


> that was a different prong of the project really - democratising the party was a long-term goal rather than an election-focused one



and hopefully would have led to MPs who more closely reflected the concerns of their constituents/voters.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Would have open selection have made much difference to the election result? I'd have thought it would have been presented in the media as a Stalin-type takeover of the party. It would admittedly have made a lot of difference to Corbyn getting through the policies he wanted to.


Only if you think moving the party further to the left would result in success.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 26, 2020)

True enough - dice stacked against them but the basic policies themselves were actually popular weren't they? Full employment, invest in NHS, take rail and bus back into public ownership, build council houses, ...


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2020)

My local Council - Lambeth - has been run on Stalinist lines by the Progress wing of the party for years.

Other than local press the way the right functions at grass roots level is not a media concern.

If anything Corbyn was not ruthless enough.

My popular local Cllr was hounded out by the Progress wing of the party when she started to break with New Labour and reflect the concerns of her constituents.

Rather than promote the right wing policies of the Progress run Council.

Still going on now.

Looking at my local Labour Cllrs twitter and they love Starmer.

I do think for some of them Corbyn was a wake up call. Unless they change their consituents may start to desert them or not vote at all. So some moves recently to support anti gentrification campaigns. Which Progress would not normally support. There mantra being mixed and sustainable communities made by Council working in partnership with inward investors/developers rather than against them.

I do think there might be some cracks in the right of the party.

Others simply want to erase Corbyn and what he represented from Labour party. Which in my area was wanting Cllrs who reflected concerns of the voters. Not even that hard left. Just Cllrs who support Council housing, libraries  etc. Public services rather than the market. Also Cllrs who listen to local people. 

Corbyn led party did not lose any seats in last election in my area. Something the Progress led Labour group in Lambeth choose to brush under the carpet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

oh. 









						EHRC board member under scrutiny over social media use
					

Alasdair Henderson liked post describing words misogynist and homophobe as ‘highly ideological propaganda terms’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



absolute f*cking joke, all of this


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

I don't think this new development has any bearing on the content of the report FWIW, but it's also not at all unexpected. It's the inevitable result of a politics where everything someone has done on the internet is recorded forever and searchable by people who want to damage you.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A man who stood for the Whig Party is a reactionary young buffoon? I am shocked









						Alasdair Henderson - Bethnal Green and Bow - Whig Party
					

The Whigs are the oldest and newest political party in Britain. Everyone’s a little bit Whiggish. Originally founded in 1678, the Whigs had a profound influence in creating the democratic, free and diverse United Kingdom we live in today. I first heard about the Whigs in school history lessons...



					whigs.uk


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't think this new development has any bearing on the content of the report FWIW, but it's also not at all unexpected. It's the inevitable result of a politics where everything someone has done on the internet is recorded forever and searchable by people who want to damage you.



the politics of of the man who heads up the body that makes the report, has no bearing on the content (+ politics) of the report ? How ?


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

Because the report's findings are broadly correct. I expect there's a broad range of political view among the board members of the EHRC (which Alasdair Henderson doesn't 'head up') - one of them being a right-wing git isn't at all surprising.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

He did lead this investigation, which (according to various discrimination lawyers) skipped over half the law on harassment.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

lol ok. I guess there was no problem then. Thank god they've unmasked this fiend.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> lol ok. I guess there was no problem then. Thank god they've unmasked this fiend.


Stop being a knob, pointing out the whole process is fundamentally flawed and won’t achieve its proclaimed outcomes for umpteen reasons is quite reasonable.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

belboid said:


> Stop being a knob, pointing out the whole process is fundamentally flawed and won’t achieve its proclaimed outcomes for umpteen reasons is quite reasonable.


we weren't talking about whether the whole process is fundamentally flawed though, we were talking about whether this guy being a bit of tory buffoon has a bearing on the content of the report. 

I'm not very interested in debating the fundamental flaws of the process though, so please don't tell me all about it.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

Did his opinions have a bearing on the outcome? Of course they did.  The EHRC is a fundamentally political body whether you like it or not.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

Sure, but the report is still broadly correct in it's findings, whether you like it or not, and whether this guy is a bellend or not.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

Fine.  And it makes a couple of potentially sound suggestions at resolution.  

That doesn’t mean we should simply take it all at face value or not criticise it at all. It’s definition of harassment IS debatable, so whether the leader (a Mr Corbyn) is therefore responsible for the words of Ken Livingstone is also highly debatable. That they thought an inquiry into labour was necessary but not one into the tories over islamophobia is a point worth making.

otherwise, as Angela Rayner threatened the other day, we will be seeing thousands more expulsions.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't think this new development has any bearing on the content of the report FWIW, but it's also not at all unexpected. It's the inevitable result of a politics where everything someone has done on the internet is recorded forever and searchable by people who want to damage you.



Like the Labour members who made antisemitic posts? You disagree with everything they've done being recorded forever and searched by people who want to damage them? 



> A board member of the government’s equality watchdog has ‘liked’ or retweeted social media posts criticising Black Lives Matters protesters and describing the words misogynist and homophobe as “highly ideological propaganda terms” in the latest controversy to beset the EHRC, the Guardian can reveal.
> 
> Alasdair Henderson, who led the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry into Labour party antisemitism this year, also liked a tweet decrying “offence-taking zealots” who accused Roger Scruton of antisemitism, Islamophobia and homophobia, and one by Douglas Murray, who once called for Muslim immigration to Europe to be banned.
> 
> The EHRC report he led, published last month, stated: “The Labour party failed to investigate antisemitism complaints based on likes, retweets and shares on social media.”



He seems to be quite selective as to who's  antisemitic though, surely not a political decision


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

cantsin said:


> absolute f*cking joke, all of this



I went and had a look at Nadia Whittome's twitter, and she gave a different account of the meeting to this. Who should I believe, her or this random dude?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I went and had a look at Nadia Whittome's twitter, and she gave a different account of the meeting to this. Who should I believe, her or this random dude?


The non MP. I haven’t followed the event but always the person who isn’t an MP.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Like the Labour members who made antisemitic posts? You disagree with everything they've done being recorded forever and searched by people who want to damage them?


Whether I disagree with it or not is neither here nor there - though I've regularly said I think it's a fairly poisonous way to conduct politics. But this is the world we're in. I don't know what the answer is.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

Whittome wrote this article for Labour List which seems fairly on point fwiw. 









						Labour antisemitism must be confronted – with nuance, clarity and empathy – LabourList
					

The recent publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation reconfirmed what many of us have been arguing for some time: that antisemitism is…




					labourlist.org


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I went and had a look at Nadia Whittome's twitter, and she gave a different account of the meeting to this. Who should I believe, her or this random dude?


She doesn’t really give an account though, just says the bloke was made to feel unwelcome.  Whittome is generally pretty sound but seems to be being very conservative in her response


----------



## two sheds (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Whether I disagree with it or not is neither here nor there - though I've regularly said I think it's a fairly poisonous way to conduct politics. But this is the world we're in. I don't know what the answer is.



Although you said the EHRC report was broadly correct - surely that's not right if the stories were right about the anti-corbyn faction actively obstructing the investigations before Corbyn appointed Formby. That would make a large part of the responsibility theirs wouldn't it, yet their evidence seems to have been accepted in the report uncritically? 

And it does seem a strange decision to censure Corbyn for speeding up the Livingstone inquiry as interfering with the investigation process? (Isn't that what happened?)


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Although you said the EHRC report was broadly correct - surely that's not right if the stories were right about the anti-corbyn faction actively obstructing the investigations before Corbyn appointed Formby. That would make a large part of the responsibility theirs wouldn't it, yet their evidence seems to have been accepted in the report uncritically?
> 
> And it does seem a strange decision to censure Corbyn for speeding up the Livingstone inquiry as interfering with the investigation process? (Isn't that what happened?)


I'm not very interested in arguing about this stuff sorry.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Whittome wrote this article for Labour List which seems fairly on point fwiw.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought she was alright too. Turns out she's 'a sleeper'.  (what is that like a spy? Probabky mossad.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

She’s the Manchurian candidate for the AWL


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

bimble said:


> what is that like a spy? Probabky mossad.


I hate Mendoza, but you shouldn't do this. You can't take literally every allegation of hidden motives or suchlike as antisemitism. Save it for the actual dodgy stuff.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

That Anmar Kazmi is the real deal left-wing anti-fascista! Got a red triangle in his Twitter and everything


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

I suspect bimble was finding amusement in KAM’s comment


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

I was only taking the piss. Out of ‘sleeper’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2020)

bimble said:


> I was only taking the piss. Out of ‘sleeper’.


leeer


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

The loon stuff isn’t literal anyway - the use of words like ‘sleeper’ are intended to trigger a psychological reaction


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The loon stuff isn’t literal anyway - the use of words like ‘sleeper’ are intended to trigger a psychological reaction


yeh, to railroad you into an anticipated response.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> leeer



He went loon as well


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

Sleeper as in sleeper cell just looks very silly, and weirdly self important at the same time.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I suspect bimble was finding amusement in KAM’s comment


Perhaps, but I see this kind of stuff too much - red roar types with their collections of screenshots with actual undeniable antisemitism and borderline stuff padded out with vague allegations of dodginess being evidence of antisemitism. It might not have been her intention to link these two things, but that's what it does.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

Aye. I get that killer b . And i shouldn’t do lame jokes about this of all subjects if I don’t want to be misunderstood.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

I think it’s perfectly fine to laugh at arseholes


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I think it’s perfectly fine to laugh at arseholes


Probably better if i leave the Mossad jokes to other people tho.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

May not be Mossad, merely an AWL Zionist


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

I just had a look at the devastating screenshots, and have warmed further to Whittome.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> James Butler has written a long piece in the latest LRB which is well worth a read - a fairly clear-sighted look at the failings (and successes) of the Corbyn project. Make some time for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally made the time, and yeah...it's done what any reasonable review should..left me looking forward to when the books go to paperback and getting them.

The reviewer's distillation of the demise of the project covers (for us on here) fairly familiar themes, but I thought it was interesting to pinpoint with such accuracy _The day the music died.

_


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> lol ok. I guess there was no problem then. Thank god they've unmasked this fiend.



kinda pointless, nitty little response this


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

it's all pointless. we keep having the same argument over and over and then when we come back to it everyone's back in the same fucking trench. forgive me for expressing frustration occasionally.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I went and had a look at Nadia Whittome's twitter, and she gave a different account of the meeting to this. Who should I believe, her or this random dude?



will guess yr going to go with the AWL backed MP ( who had won local nomination via pretty dodgy means by all accounts ) , who's falling in behind the Starmerite line on Notts East that is based around the idea of :

a grown man

feeling unsafe

on a Zoom call

in his own kitchen,

cos others disagreed with him re: Corbyn's suspension / the right to debate it

and therefore the branch chair being suspended etc


so fill yr boots champ, no bad cld possibly come from this new ' feeling unsafe ( REMOTELY ) due to subject being discussed '  precedent being established


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2020)

I guess you're going to go with the conspiracy theorist & hustler Kerry Anne Mendoza then, 'champ'. Great stuff.


----------



## splonkydoo (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> Because the report's findings are broadly correct. I expect there's a broad range of political view among the board members of the EHRC (which Alasdair Henderson doesn't 'head up') - one of them being a right-wing git isn't at all surprising.




Well this would be fucking hilarious if it's true

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A left wing newspaper in the UK is trying to stir up opposition against a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) based on him ‘liking’ a Tweet by me. Wait till they find out that the Cameron government tried to persuade me to be on the EHRC myself.</p>&mdash; Douglas Murray (@DouglasKMurray) <a href="">November 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I guess you're going to go with the conspiracy theorist & hustler Kerry Anne Mendoza then, 'champ'. Great stuff.



unfortunately, she's right some of the time - and there' no conspiracy here, it's all in plain sight, as is so often the case


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I guess you're going to go with the conspiracy theorist & hustler Kerry Anne Mendoza then, 'champ'. Great stuff.



unfortunately, she's right some of the time - and there' no conspiracy here, it's all in plain sight, as is so often the case


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

I got barred (they used the word barred) from a zoom call back in April because some antisemites felt unsafe for me to be there. I prefer it that way round


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

( ouch, not sure what happened there)


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

All the time that's been spent on the trashing of the EHRC looks a bit of a waste of energy to me. Don't know if all that is why i haven't seen anything much about the report they did last week that found the May government had broken the law with its 'hostile environment' policies.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I got barred (they used the word barred) from a zoom call back in April because some antisemites felt unsafe for me to be there. I prefer it that way round


Seriously? A labour one?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

The ‘safer spaces’ nonsense was pushed by the left, and before it became a feature of the labour/AS argy. 

Bit rich for right on lefty types to be moaning that their silly ideas end up biting them on the bum 

Incidentally I got banned from an (actual physical) meeting back in 2018 because some antisemites (and an anti-vax/anti-psych loon) felt unsafe to have me there.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

bimble said:


> Seriously? A labour one?



Nah it was some pointless disability activism one. Would have just have been lots of anoraks going about WHY WE NEED THE SOCIAL MODEL, and pulling rank over who’s been secretary of this or that group for the longest. 

You’ve really not witnessed activism till you’ve seen us crips and nutters do activism. It’s validating I guess


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

cantsin said:


> ouch



If you feel unsafe just let us know


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The ‘safer spaces’ nonsense was pushed by the left, and before it became a feature of the labour/AS argy.
> 
> Bit rich for right on lefty types to be moaning that their silly ideas end up biting them on the bum
> 
> Incidentally I got banned from an (actual physical) meeting back in 2018 because some antisemites (and an anti-vax/anti-psych loon) felt unsafe to have me there.



safe spaces / triggers etc is v much of ID pol / ("woke " ) culture, not really Lab Left ( or left - left generally ) - the convergence point was / is no platforming fascists and the like, and it is complex terrain ( v easy to end up on Toby Young / Lozza Fox side of the fence if not careful)


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 30, 2020)

corbynism (as a movement) was an alliance that included the idpol-left. It wasn’t all Jurassic Stalinists


----------



## cantsin (Nov 30, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> corbynism (as a movement) was an alliance that included the idpol-left. It wasn’t all Jurassic Stalinists



deffo some of that involved,  as well as some Jurassic Stalinists - and think, eg :  Tankies etc vs Trans rights is an area where the idea of 'safe spaces' does have some value imo, ie : trans folk who are genuinely afraid to be in the same room as Terfs and their allies.

Can also see why some jewish peeps wldn't necc feel safe in a room full of Gallowayists / Workers GB / Palestine Live brigade.

It's just the 'zoom call in yr kitchen with Notts East CLP having a standard ding dong' thing I can't get past


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 30, 2020)

cantsin said:


> It's just the 'zoom call in yr kitchen with Notts East CLP having a standard ding dong' thing I can't get past





It may be that the person who said that meant 'generally' not just in that particular moment.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 1, 2020)

The unsafe guy in the kitchen has also called from every member of Jewish Voice for Labour to be purged from the party. Yep he wanted a mass purging of Jews from the party. he also had a Twitter account which mainly went after and abused left wing Jews horrendously. 

he now appears to have changed his story about what happened. 

Looks like it was 100% performance art to me.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 1, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> The unsafe guy in the kitchen has also called from every member of Jewish Voice for Labour to be purged from the party. Yep he wanted a mass purging of Jews from the party. he also had a Twitter account which mainly went after and abused left wing Jews horrendously.
> 
> he now appears to have changed his story about what happened.
> 
> Looks like it was 100% performance art to me.



with his Twitter account locked, can I ask where you're seeing the change in his account of what happened ?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 1, 2020)

I've said it before, but watching twitter spats today I find something so odd about a certain section of the Labour left piling into the trenches for Corbyn (often claiming as they do so that anti-semitism in the LP doesn't need to be addressed). Michael Walker even claimed on twitter that they have no choice but to do this. But there is a choice. Just as there was a choice for Corbyn whether he left out one paragraph from his statement that would clearly have no positive effect on anyone. The choice at this point is to fight for left policy positions or to fight for Corbyn. The latter will prevent the former, that is clearly the trap that has been laid, and the only plan these people have is to get further into the trap. I'm so weirded out by the people who think that _this_, this of all things, is the principled point on which they will sacrifice themselves. Not poverty alleviation, not working class power, not public ownership. This. It's like watching a mass death wish. Sometimes it seems to me the left loves to pick battles that it can't win. Pragmatism isn't always centrism people. You can be pragmatically radical. So an injustice has been done to Corbyn. Not the first, not the last, he'll live. The Labour movement does not exist to save Jeremy Corbyn.

I guess the 'we have no choice' narrative comes from the idea that if anyone says anything outside the official line about anti-semitism after this they'll be slung out the party. Firstly, I don't think that's true. As I say, this was a trap laid for the left and it was sprung on Corbyn as a figurehead. Secondly, maybe you should stop talking about anti-semitism except to challenge it where you see it. Try talking about, I dunno, the distribution of wealth in society instead, or something of that nature.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 1, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I've said it before, but watching twitter spats today I find something so odd about a certain section of the Labour left piling into the trenches for Corbyn (often claiming as they do so that anti-semitism in the LP doesn't need to be addressed). Michael Walker even claimed on twitter that they have no choice but to do this. But there is a choice. Just as there was a choice for Corbyn whether he left out one paragraph from his statement that would clearly have no positive effect on anyone. The choice at this point is to fight for left policy positions or to fight for Corbyn. The latter will prevent the former, that is clearly the trap that has been laid, and the only plan these people have is to get further into the trap. I'm so weirded out by the people who think that _this_, this of all things, is the principled point on which they will sacrifice themselves. Not poverty alleviation, not working class power, not public ownership. This. It's like watching a mass death wish. Sometimes it seems to me the left loves to pick battles that it can't win. Pragmatism isn't always centrism people. You can be pragmatically radical. So an injustice has been done to Corbyn. Not the first, not the last, he'll live. The Labour movement does not exist to save Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> I guess the 'we have no choice' narrative comes from the idea that if anyone says anything outside the official line about anti-semitism after this they'll be slung out the party. Firstly, I don't think that's true. As I say, this was a trap laid for the left and it was sprung on Corbyn as a figurehead. Secondly, maybe you should stop talking about anti-semitism except to challenge it where you see it. Try talking about, I dunno, the distribution of wealth in society instead, or something of that nature.


Maybe, just maybe, if the Labour right wing stopped slinging around false accusations of widespread anti semitism in the party the left would shut up. But the right won't do that. Indeed they continue with their unjust allegations, always vague, general and imprecise, and are using it to attack the left, not the Tories note. They don't talk much about distribution of wealth or something of that nature. Angela Rayner was talking the other day about expelling thousands of antisemites. Where the fuck does she think they've been hiding?


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> he also had a Twitter account which mainly went after and abused left wing Jews horrendously.
> 
> he now appears to have changed his story about what happened.
> 
> Looks like it was 100% performance art to me.


I had a look at him yesterday, or rather waded briefly through the character assassinations mentioning his name and rallying people around old screenshots of his as he'd already locked his account.
My impression is that whoever he is he's been trying to tread a very narrow & lonely path through the whole thing, he went after 'gnasher' (do you know who i mean? ) & those hysterical voices, made enemies of all of those ages ago but now of course he's been firmly stuck in the enemy box by both sides. You and loads of other people apparently think he joined in that meeting in order to stage a big fake flounce and i don't give anything like enough of a shit to try to change your mind. Just all seems a ridiculous waste of energy the whole thing.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 1, 2020)

bimble said:


> I had a look at him yesterday, or rather waded briefly through the character assassinations mentioning his name and rallying people around old screenshots of his as he'd already locked his account.
> My impression is that whoever he is he's been trying to tread a very narrow & lonely path through the whole thing, *he went after 'gnasher'* (do you know who i mean? ) & those hysterical voices, made enemies of all of those ages ago but now of course he's been firmly stuck in the enemy box by both sides. You and loads of other people apparently think he joined in that meeting in order to stage a big fake flounce and i don't give anything like enough of a shit to try to change your mind. Just all seems a ridiculous waste of energy the whole thing.



this is interesting, and for me, deffo alters the picture a bit  ( and muddies / confuses it considerably )  - Like Tom Wainright on there ( and Marlon Gutman sometimes ) , they're are fervent jewsh anti anti semites on twitter, v anti Corbynite ( not always Corbyn ) , but you know they're coming from a decent place, however off the rails it all gets.

And on the other hand, just seen that Wolfie / Tooting Popular character , actually being proud / open re : his Sally Easman / LLV garbage associations , and clashes with Lapsley over it


----------



## cantsin (Dec 1, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> The unsafe guy in the kitchen has also called from every member of Jewish Voice for Labour to be purged from the party. Yep he wanted a mass purging of Jews from the party. he also had a Twitter account which mainly went after and abused left wing Jews horrendously.
> 
> he now appears to have changed his story about what happened.
> 
> Looks like it was 100% performance art to me.



now it seems Nadia Whithome is tweaking her account on what happened / softening the more alarmist edges.

I know everyone sees all this as internal storm in teacup bullsh*t, but hard not to think that NW has potentially caused herself some long term problems here. With so few allies in the PLP, the labour Left has long memories on this stuff, and it's going to be hard to forget that her innacurate ( at best - dishonest at worst ) account of the evening seemed to emerge as quickly as Lee Harpin's bullsh*t on the night.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2020)

cantsin said:


> this is interesting, and for me, deffo alters the picture a bit ( and muddies / confuses it considerably )


What does it change about the guy who you've been confidently attacking on this thread, on the say so of mendoza etc?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 1, 2020)

Tom’s not Jewish. Nice fella


----------



## cantsin (Dec 1, 2020)

killer b said:


> What does it change about the guy who you've been confidently attacking on this thread, on the say so of mendoza etc?



no offence, but can't be arsed with your (default, for me) tone at the moment, life's too short etc

( but fyi : as someone who doesn't follow her on soc media, was only aware of Mendoza's response to this Nott East stuff via yr goodself )


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I've said it before, but watching twitter spats today I find something so odd about a certain section of the Labour left piling into the trenches for Corbyn (often claiming as they do so that anti-semitism in the LP doesn't need to be addressed). Michael Walker even claimed on twitter that they have no choice but to do this. But there is a choice. Just as there was a choice for Corbyn whether he left out one paragraph from his statement that would clearly have no positive effect on anyone. The choice at this point is to fight for left policy positions or to fight for Corbyn. The latter will prevent the former, that is clearly the trap that has been laid, and the only plan these people have is to get further into the trap. I'm so weirded out by the people who think that _this_, this of all things, is the principled point on which they will sacrifice themselves. Not poverty alleviation, not working class power, not public ownership. This. It's like watching a mass death wish. Sometimes it seems to me the left loves to pick battles that it can't win. Pragmatism isn't always centrism people. You can be pragmatically radical. So an injustice has been done to Corbyn. Not the first, not the last, he'll live. The Labour movement does not exist to save Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> I guess the 'we have no choice' narrative comes from the idea that if anyone says anything outside the official line about anti-semitism after this they'll be slung out the party. Firstly, I don't think that's true. As I say, this was a trap laid for the left and it was sprung on Corbyn as a figurehead. Secondly, maybe you should stop talking about anti-semitism except to challenge it where you see it. Try talking about, I dunno, the distribution of wealth in society instead, or something of that nature.


I hear this a lot from those who joined under Corbyn and who have enjoyed their time in the party for whatever reason.  ‘Forget the past and just move on’.  

It’s obviously right that the left needs to do more than just react to whatever shit is thrown at us, but there is less urgency to do so considering an election is probably years off and there is fuck all discussion about policy nationally.   When there have been wider discussions, eg on holding Starmer to his ten pledges, the left are threatened with losing the whip and we get slagged off in meetings for pointing it out.  

branch or clp meetings rarely got to discuss such issues at the moment because they’re not ‘pertinent’ - there’s no conference coming up or issues in parliament to make it relevant.

there are positive things that could be proposed, particularly around developing political education materials that have been promised for the last five years and supporting any workers actions that are taking place and, yup, let’s absolutely go for them.

but discussions of expulsions and disciplining of members and officials has ALWAYS been part of labour meetings so there’s no way they will disappear now.  The implementation of the ehrc findings absolutely requires a broad discussion within the party - even Mandelson recognises the issues with doing so - so to bar discussion was never going to work.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 2, 2020)

Jeremy voted against the Government (and the Labour whip) yesterday. It’s not clear why he thinks the measures are not needed.



some interesting company he was in, including the noxious John Spellar:


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Jeremy voted against the Government (and the Labour whip) yesterday. It’s not clear why he thinks the measures are not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> some interesting company he was in, including the noxious John Spellar:



Not to mention a load of tories


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 2, 2020)

To be fair there's no particular reason he _should_ vote with the whip given he's still suspended from it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Jeremy voted against the Government (and the Labour whip) yesterday. It’s not clear why he thinks the measures are not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> some interesting company he was in, including the noxious John Spellar:



Yeh as fm says jc not a labour mp. It's been in the news and everything


----------



## kebabking (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Jeremy voted against the Government (and the Labour whip) yesterday. It’s not clear why he thinks the measures are not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> some interesting company he was in, including the noxious John Spellar:




I don't think he's said they aren't necessary, just that they aren't appropriately resourced - and let's be fair, rebelling against the labour whip, and keeping odious company while mouthing platitudes isn't exactly a career departure for Corbyn....

(And since when do politicians get called by their first names like friends?)


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2020)

he isn't rebelling against the whip though is he


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I don't think he's said they aren't necessary, just that they aren't appropriately resourced - and let's be fair, rebelling against the labour whip, and keeping odious company while mouthing platitudes isn't exactly a career departure for Corbyn....
> 
> (And since when do politicians get called by their first names like friends?)


The labour party is riddled with odious company


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

killer b said:


> he isn't rebelling against the whip though is he


Not being a labour mp...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 2, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I don't think he's said they aren't necessary, just that they aren't appropriately resourced



He said the measures ‘are not what is needed’. No disagreement from me on the lack of resources, mass testing programmes, measures to alleviate the significant slide into poverty. But, if you speak to health care workers they’ll tell you the measures are very much needed. 

Sorry, for the slightly mocking use of ‘Jeremy‘.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He said the measures ‘are not what is needed’. No disagreement from me on the lack of resources, mass testing programmes, measures to alleviate the significant slide into poverty. But, if you speak to health care workers they’ll tell you the measures are very much needed.
> 
> Sorry, for the slightly mocking use of ‘Jeremy‘.


By the measures you mean the tory tiers


----------



## andysays (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He said the measures ‘are not what is needed’. No disagreement from me on the lack of resources, mass testing programmes, measures to alleviate the significant slide into poverty. But, if you speak to health care workers they’ll tell you the measures are very much needed.
> 
> Sorry, for the slightly mocking use of ‘Jeremy‘.


I think, or maybe it's hope, that he's suggesting the measures aren't sufficient rather than unnecessarily stringent, but he could certainly have made that clearer if it's what he means.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 2, 2020)

andysays said:


> I think, or maybe it's hope, that he's suggesting the measures aren't sufficient rather than unnecessarily stringent, but he could certainly have made that clearer if it's what he means.



Yes, it’s completely unclear to me as well.

He’s spot on about the lack of help for ordinary people losing their jobs, wages and the mental health toll. But that’s why Labour abstained isn’t it?

Given he’s taking legal action to have the Labour whip restored, he must have good reasons for his position on the measures which he should spell out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given he’s taking legal action to have the Labour whip restored, he must have good reasons for his position on the measures which he should spell out.


non sequitur


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 2, 2020)

cantsin said:


> unfortunately, she's right some of the time - and there' no conspiracy here, it's all in plain sight, as is so often the case



Hmmm


----------



## cantsin (Dec 3, 2020)

yep, just the kind of grim drivel that make's me not follow her or Canary, + quietly ask fellow CLP ers not to repost their content on our FBs etc


----------



## ska invita (Dec 3, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Hmmm


sorry do you mind expanding on this - ive no idea what is going on here


btw I do wonder if Corbyn might crack at some point - what he's going through is traumatising


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 3, 2020)

ska invita said:


> btw I do wonder if Corbyn might crack at some point - what he's going through is traumatising



He should probably just retire tbh. He ended up as leader (despite not really being suited to it) more by circumstance than anything else and has been put through the wringer for several years as a result. At this point the continuing focus on him isn't helping anyone and particularly not himself I expect.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2020)

ska invita said:


> btw I do wonder if Corbyn might crack at some point - what he's going through is traumatising



I've wondered about this for some time. His time as leader must have been so exhausting and just when he thought it might calm down a bit his own party turns on him. Viciousness is the only word for it.


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2020)

There won't be any leftwing labour MPs retiring while these guys are in charge. Imagine the by-election, jesus.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 3, 2020)

Could he hand over his seat to a reliable person, if he resigned? Or would it be swiped by the bad guys?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Could he hand over his seat to a reliable person, if he resigned? Or would it be swiped by the bad guys?



The leadership can overrule the CLP and parachute in some lickspittle can they not?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> The leadership can overrule the CLP and parachute in some lickspittle can they not?


One would hope that the lickspittle would be crushed by a local independent labour person, but. . .


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2020)

The CLP might have different ideas too - it's a mistake to assume Corbyn can just name his successor and everyone will go along with it - there would be a LOT of competition for his seat.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 3, 2020)

I don't think he actually will retire btw - he's way too stubborn. I just think for his own wellbeing he'd be better off spending more time with his allotment.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 3, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think he actually will retire btw - he's way too stubborn. I just think for his own wellbeing he'd be better off spending more time with his allotment.


he loves the local MP work tbh, and is good at it, still


----------



## bimble (Dec 3, 2020)

Must be pretty stressful having the world’s most embarrassing brother too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've wondered about this for some time. His time as leader must have been so exhausting and just when he thought it might calm down a bit his own party turns on him. Viciousness is the only word for it.


His party turned on him on 12.9.15


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

bimble said:


> Must be pretty stressful having the world’s most embarrassing brother too.


 Prince Andrew is not related to Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've wondered about this for some time. His time as leader must have been so exhausting and just when he thought it might calm down a bit his own party turns on him. Viciousness is the only word for it.


Yeah, he might have thought saying AS was dramatically overstated by his opponents on the day the report was released would calm things down a bit alright.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, he might have thought saying AS was dramatically overstated by his opponents on the day the report was released would calm things down a bit alright.


Everyone knows he would have been condemned by people in the labour party whatever he said or if he'd stayed quiet. And you'd have been posting bile about him no matter what he did.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, he might have thought saying AS was dramatically overstated by his opponents on the day the report was released would calm things down a bit alright.



I did wonder at the time if he hadn't knowingly pushed the self-destruct button there. More likely though is that he said it because he believed it was fair comment. But if he's saying that racism has been weaponised against him then he should be aware that any response that could be reformulated as 'I'm the real victim here' would be both an early christmas present for the weaponisers and a fuck you to those who are actually victims of racism.


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, he might have thought saying AS was dramatically overstated by his opponents on the day the report was released would calm things down a bit alright.




Maybe he was more concerned with telling the truth (what he said was in fact true, lest we forget) than with calming things down a bit.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Maybe he was more concerned with telling the truth (what he said was in fact true, lest we forget) than with calming things down a bit.


The problem was the timing of those comments on the day the report came out which seems like it was trying to minimise it and it’s why he hasn’t been let back into Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The problem was the timing of those comments on the day the report came out which seems like it was trying to minimise it and it’s why he hasn’t been let back into Labour.


Again with the wrong FACTS.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

The timing of it was, of course, to indicate to people the anarchists for labour/people who spent 40 years saying the party was irredeemable  types on here to keep fighting to redeem the party. It wasn't sloppy - it was calculated.


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

I take it no one disputes that what Corbyn said was in fact true?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> I take it no one disputes that what Corbyn said was in fact true?


No one where? Here? Remind me rummo, what did he say?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> The timing of it was, of course, to indicate to people the anarchists for labour/people who spent 40 years saying the party was irredeemable  types on here to keep fighting to redeem the party. It wasn't sloppy - it was calculated.


A strange hill to die on if so.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> A strange hill to die on if so.


I appreciate that having principles and wishing to organise politically around them appears strange to you.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I appreciate that having principles and wishing to organise politically around them appears strange to you.


Ah yes, _principles._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ah yes, _principles._


Is this a new term to you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Is this a new term to you?


You're right butchersapron, what are these things?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I appreciate that having principles and wishing to organise politically around them appears strange to you.



There is a growing tendency - across various ‘left’ subsets - where this praxis would, in fact, appear very strange.

The notion of having an idea - or a principle or a way of organising society or a demand - and then going out and arguing for it, defending it and learning from the experience win or lose is entirely alien to them.

Instead, these types always ask the question 'which constituencies should we be accommodating' rather than 'what argument must we win'


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

What Corbyn said on Facebook

'Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”


####

Part of what Corbyn said in response to a journalist's question. He mentioned an opinion poll referred to in the Bad News For Labour Book to vouch his claim. I can't find a link to the actual broadcast.

'One anti-Semite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media’


###

Is anyone disputing the truth of anything he said?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

_Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.” _

Just to check rummo, are you disputing this?


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> _Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
> 
> “Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.
> 
> ...




I'm asking whether anyone disputes the truth of what Corbyn said.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> I'm asking whether anyone disputes the truth of what Corbyn said.


So am i. Is he correct in the above?

Could you talk a bit about the 'combination' - do you dispute that?


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> So am i. Is he correct in the above?
> 
> Could you talk a bit about the 'combination' - do you dispute that?



Sorry, you'll have to be clearer, less vague, more specific about what you are asking.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Sorry, you'll have to be clearer, less vague, more specific about what you are asking.


_Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”_

Just to check rummo, are you disputing this?


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> _Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
> 
> “Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.
> 
> ...




Am I disputing that Corbyn stated his opinion on the report? No.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Am I disputing that Corbyn stated his opinion on the report? No.


Are you disputing the content of corbyn's reply?

You are rubbish.


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Are you disputing the content of corbyn's reply?
> 
> You are rubbish.




Sorry, but I am struggling to understand what you are asking  here.

Are you asking if I agree with Corbyn's opinion of the report?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Sorry, but I am struggling to understand what you are asking  here.
> 
> Are you asking if I agree with Corbyn's opinion of the report?


I'm asking if you dispute what corbyn said. Yes. like you yourself asked. But you seem to have  a problem with it. Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

I mean ffs. You literally started this you prat.


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I mean ffs. You literally started this you prat.




Calm down. I'm quite happy to answer your questions if I can understand them. But, and I don't mean to be uncharitable, you aren't expressing yourself particularly clearly. You also seem to have anger management issues.

Let me say, in case this is what you are asking, I accept that Corby offered that as his opinion on the report. I accept that he was being genuine in saying what he did.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Calm down. I'm quite happy to answer your questions if I can understand them. But, and I don't mean to be uncharitable, you aren't expressing yourself particularly clearly. You also seem to have anger management issues.
> 
> Let me say, in case this is what you are asking, I accept that Corby offered that as his opinion on the report. I accept that he was being genuine in saying what he did.


I didn't ask that. I asked - as you did - do you dispute the _content _of his reply. I think, given your dissembling, that you do. You dispute what corbyn says - that you set out to defend.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

_You people_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

_Join a party with rummo and steve and sleater they said, it'll be great they said_


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't ask that. I asked - as you did - do you dispute the _content _of his reply. I think, given your dissembling, that you do. You dispute what corbyn says - that you set out to defend.




Let me try to help.

Facts you can accept or reject.

Opinions you can agree with or disagree with.

I was asking whether anyone was disputing the facts referred to by Corbyn, not whether they agreed with his opinions.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Let me try to help.
> 
> Facts you can accept or reject.
> 
> ...


I asked you if you dispute what corbyn said. You seem unable to do so.

I wonder what bit of his statement is causing you such problems? Can you help here you piss faced racist pussy?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

Seriously, where is your reverse witch hunt now rummo? You literally outed yourself as a witch. You fucking clown.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The problem was the timing of those comments on the day the report came out which seems like it was trying to minimise it and it’s why he hasn’t been let back into Labour.


except he has been let back in to labour. he just hasn't had the whip restored. it's your party, you ought to know what's going on with it. but you don't. even for the labour party you're a poor specimen.












						Jeremy Corbyn: Labour readmits ex-leader after anti-Semitism row
					

The ex-leader was suspended by the party over his reaction to a report by the human rights watchdog.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

Why can't rummo say that they don't dispute what corbyn said?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Why can't rummo say that they don't dispute what corbyn said?


can't be because sorry is the hardest word, they've liberally sprinkled sorry over the last dozen of their posts


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> except he has been let back in to labour. he just hasn't had the whip restored.


You know what I meant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You know what I meant.


oh please. it's been widely reported that corbyn was readmitted to the party but not to the parliamentary labour party. if you didn't know that, or can't understand or express that very simple thing then it's time to give up now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Let me try to help.
> 
> Facts you can accept or reject.


Once more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Once more.


This time with feeling


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, where is your reverse witch hunt now rummo? You literally outed yourself as a witch. You fucking clown.




Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you unwell in some way?

You seem desperate to take offence at some slight that I am totally unaware of.

I'm not even clear whether you think I oppose Corbyn and am attacking him, or am supporting him without justification.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you unwell in some way?
> 
> You seem desperate to take offence at some slight that I am totally unaware of.
> 
> I'm not even clear whether you think I oppose Corbyn and am attacking him, or am supporting him without justification.


You asked if anyone disputes what corbyn said. Faced with what corbyn said, Literally what he said, you can't. You can't defend what he said, yet want to damn others for unable to do so. 

Is this your first time at a harvesters?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you unwell in some way?
> 
> You seem desperate to take offence at some slight that I am totally unaware of.
> 
> I'm not even clear whether you think I oppose Corbyn and am attacking him, or am supporting him without justification.


You remember when you asked if people disputed the corbyn statement? You started  that. And you're unable to answer, despite demanding that others do.


----------



## bimble (Dec 3, 2020)

rummo is there a fact in the second sentence here ?  I’ve read this thing quite a few times and still don’t know what he meant.
Not that it matters much to me tbh, but if you strongly agree with it maybe you can explain it. What combination hurt jews.
_“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”_

[/QUOTE]


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 3, 2020)

I think rummo is being asked a very straightforward question here. It’s the same one they asked/demanded we all answer. All BA has really asked is their view on the specific section with ‘the combination’ in it....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 3, 2020)

almost like language is more than a series of propositions with true/false tickboxes by them isn't it


----------



## rummo (Dec 3, 2020)

bimble said:


> rummo is there a fact in the second sentence here ?  I’ve read this thing quite a few times and still don’t know what he meant.
> Not that it matters much to me tbh, but if you strongly agree with it maybe you can explain it. What combination hurt jews.
> _“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”_


[/QUOTE]


OK.

Just to be clear, you're asking me to say what my interpretation is of what Corbyn said.

I think he's saying

1. There was some anti Semitism in the Labour Party

2. Those opposed to him hugely exaggerated the extent of the problem.

3. Jewish people, assuming that the claimed  exaggerated  level of anti Semitism was correct were hurt.

I think he's right about 1 & 2.  I would question 3. I think most Jewish people knew what was happening and disliked Corbyn for reasons other than any supposed  anti Semitism on his part.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all this ‘wrong sort of Jew’ rhetoric it’s notable what a select group of Jews get quoted by posters here


Yup.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> I think he's right about 1 & 2.  I would question 3. I think most Jewish people knew what was happening and disliked Corbyn for reasons other than any supposed  anti Semitism on his part.


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

fucking hell.


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

Well, I guess it's all clear now at least.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

I'm curious as to these (((reasons)))


----------



## bimble (Dec 7, 2020)

Jews eh, they either Hate Socialism or else they're to blame for the threat of it coming to a town near you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

Jesus.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Jesus.



We crucified him as well


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> Well, I guess it's all clear now at least.



Couldn't be clearer could it......


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> I'm curious as to these (((reasons)))




Maybe a mixture of concern about what a Corbyn government would mean for UK policy in the Middle East, which a lot of British Jews understandably  regard as important to them because of their emotional attachment to Israel, which is fair enough, and a class based aversion to the sort of left wing economic policies a Corbyn government might entail.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Glad that's cleared up.  'Emotional attachment to Israel' and 'class based aversion' to left wing economic policies eh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> Maybe a mixture of concern about what a Corbyn government would mean for UK policy in the Middle East, which a lot of British Jews understandably  regard as important to them because of their emotional attachment to Israel, which is fair enough, and a class based aversion to the sort of left wing economic policies a Corbyn government might entail.


“British Jews”, for the hard of thinking, are not “a class”, even with the qualifier “a lot” of Jews.

Furthermore, the Board of Deputies of British Jews is a _250 year old religious committee_. And you’re telling us it’s _conservative_? Oh my!  How did we _ever manage_ without your rapier like perspicacity?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Brb, just fell off my pile of gold


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Pathetic


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Glad that's cleared up.  'Emotional attachment to Israel' and 'class based aversion' to left wing economic policies eh.
> 
> View attachment 242168


 
Bit of a stretcher to claim either of those two points are anywhere near anti Semitic. A lot of British Jews do have an emotional attachment to Israel. There's nothing wrong with that. And some, a minority, British Jews couldn't care less about Israel. Which is fine too.

And there's nothing remotely anti Semitic in recognising  that as overall British Jews tend now to be disproportionately (compared to society as a whole) better off, so more likely to be Tory voters. Just like every other ethnic, religious or whatever group.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

We've got loads of money so of course we've got a class based aversion to corbyn's policies! Oh and we think Israeli policies are all great! NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT THO!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)




----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 7, 2020)

Fucking hell. Both of you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> We've got loads of money so of course we've got a class based aversion to corbyn's policies! Oh and we think Israeli policies are all great! NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT THO!


On the plus side, you’re good at dancing.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo these are very interesting and salient points you make.

to what extent do you think British Jews within the Labour Party (and beyond it, who knows!) are responsible for stymying Corbyn's Left Wing Agenda and indeed their election defeats under Corbyn? Would you say they had a disproportionate influence over such matters, in line with their disproportionate wealth?


----------



## bimble (Dec 7, 2020)

Rummo’s  just saying it like it is, as Andrew Murray did when asked about whether JC has empathy for the Jews. His response was he totally would have if it was still the 1930s.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 7, 2020)

Fucking hell, so it was the Jews who finally meant ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s time is up’


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Did they crash the world economy with a fake virus as well lol


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

I'd been thinking until recently that this never-ending circular argument was pointless 'cause everyone is in their own trench and there's no minds about to be changed at this point: however, I can now report that's not true. 

Previously I thought that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't an antisemite, but had difficulty recognising antisemitism because of various ideological and psychological barriers - I've come to realise that, in fact, that difficulty he has in recognising it actually _is_ antisemitism. It's not blood libel, gas them all antisemitism, but it's antisemitism all the same. 

So cheers for that  guys, esp. Rummo. Changing one mind at a time, it's a noble task you're engaged in.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> On the plus side, you’re good at dancing.



the video of my bar mitzvah would suggest otherwise


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> the video of my bar mitzvah would suggest otherwise


My mistake. Is that the Welsh, then?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

Having said that, gentiles outnumbered Jews 10 to 1 at all of mine and my siblings bar/bat mitzvah’s, including the manager of my Sunday league team (ex-NF member incidentally)


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'd been thinking until recently that this never-ending circular argument was pointless 'cause everyone is in their own trench and there's no minds about to be changed at this point: however, I can now report that's not true.
> 
> Previously I thought that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't an antisemite, but had difficulty recognising antisemitism because of various ideological and psychological barriers - I've come to realise that, in fact, that difficulty he has in recognising it actually _is_ antisemitism. It's not blood libel, gas them all antisemitism, but it's antisemitism all the same.
> 
> So cheers for that  guys, esp. Rummo. Changing one mind at a time, it's a noble task you're engaged in.



hallelujah -you've been surrounded by 5 + years of incessant discourse around the subject, but now one encounter with a new U75 rando and the scales have fallen from your eyes, impressive stuff


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

_especially_ not _only,_ and this recent discussion has just helped clarify stuff that's been floating around for a while. Embarrassed it's taken so long tbh, but there we are.


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> “British Jews”, for the hard of thinking, are not “a class”, even with the qualifier “a lot” of Jews.
> 
> Furthermore, the Board of Deputies of British Jews is a _250 year old religious committee_. And you’re telling us it’s _conservative_? Oh my!  How did we _ever manage_ without your rapier like perspicacity?




British Jews are not a class, well done that's correct.

But individual British Jews, as individuals, belong to a class.

Same as Muslims, Janes, Mormons, Christadelphians, Quakers ,Pagans, everyone in fact.

And individual British Jews, just like everyone else tend (and yes, there are exceptions) to vote, in accordance with their class and economic interests, at least as they perceive them.

So, if a majority of British Jews are now part of the comfortably off middle class the likelihood is that they would not be in favour of a left wing Labour government.

Not because Jews are different to anyone else, but because they aren't different to anyone else.

So the question is, are British Jews now predominantly middle class? I'd suggest they probably are.


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> British Jews are not a class, well done that's correct.
> 
> But individual British Jews, as individuals, belong to a class.
> 
> ...




Fuck off with your conspiratorial sociology.


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

Flavour said:


> rummo these are very interesting and salient points you make.
> 
> to what extent do you think British Jews within the Labour Party (and beyond it, who knows!) are responsible for stymying Corbyn's Left Wing Agenda and indeed their election defeats under Corbyn? Would you say they had a disproportionate influence over such matters, in line with their disproportionate wealth?




Sorry, but that's a very poor effort.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo give up. You’ve already been handed something. And because it’s you I know you’ll need a hint. So here goes: it’s not your elbow.


----------



## oryx (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> So, if a majority of British Jews are now part of the comfortably off middle class the likelihood is that they would not be in favour of a left wing Labour government.



Loads of comfortably off, middle class people are in favour of a left-wing Labour government so why not some British Jews?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

FWIW, if you're jewish and on the left you _will_ have experienced antisemitism from _someone_. This long predates Corbyn but some of what took place under his rule really didn't help, to put it mildly. I don't generally like to stick my neck out on discussions like this tbh but rummo's idiocy needed responded to.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 7, 2020)

oryx said:


> Loads of comfortably off, middle class people are in favour of a left-wing Labour government so why not some British Jews?



As this suggests:






Rummo can’t even get the shifting class dynamics or the history of Jewish voting patterns (and why they developed) right.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

There was a Survation poll of 766 "Jewish voters' in October 2019 that put Labour voting intention on 6%:


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

In 2019, though.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> In 2019, though.


Yep, mid September to mid October 2019, apparently.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

So there _was_ a Lib Dem surge!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

1. October 2019
2. 766 voters
3. Given what the main news story in politics was at the time I'd suggest that's hardly fucking surprising (although I'm surprised that Lib Dems are so low tbf)


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> There was a Survation poll of 766 "Jewish voters' in October 2019 that put Labour voting intention on 6%:
> 
> View attachment 242220


I'd take that poll with at least a pinch of salt, given that it doesn't appear to define who exactly it means by British Jews.

As should be obvious, neither the publication Jewish News nor the organisation Jewish Leadership Council represent all British Jews, they are both likely to be heavily dominated by those likely to vote Conservative rather than Labour


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> 3. Given what the main news story in politics was at the time I'd suggest that's hardly fucking surprising


That’s indeed what I was implying.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So there _was_ a Lib Dem surge!


Certainly was in Finchley & Golders Green where Berger took the LD share of the popular vote up by 25%.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> 1. October 2019
> 2. 766 voters
> 3. Given what the main news story in politics was at the time I'd suggest that's hardly fucking surprising (although I'm surprised that Lib Dems are so low tbf)


tbf to Survation, most Westminster polling operates around 1k so, if they really did get 766 'Jewish voters', that wasn't the most tragic sample size for a poll.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> tbf to Survation, most Westminster polling operates around 1k so, if they really did get 766 'Jewish voters', that wasn't the most tragic sample size for a poll.


One and three are the salient points.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> One and three are the salient points.


Agreed.
Just thought that some actual polling would assist the discussion.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

I don't think Corbyn's abysmal ratings among Jewish voters would have improved much with a bigger sample size, probably gone down tbh, although SNP/LD/etc would have improved their vote shares. It will take a long time for the damage to be repaired and complaining that Jews are part of the middle class (and what, many leftists and labour voters aren't?) or that they feel this way because of Israel isn't going to cut it


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

*How British Jews vote and why they vote this way*








						How British Jews vote and why they vote this way
					

From the blog of Daniel Staetsky at The Times of Israel




					blogs.timesofisrael.com


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

' Because the Jewish vote is a class vote; not exclusively, but to a very significant extent. The association between the Jews and the left-wing politics in Britain is the thing that belongs to the past, when the majority of Jews in Britain – a lot of them new immigrants from Eastern and Central Europe and their children – fitted the definition of the working or the low-middle class. That changed in the second half of the twentieth century. Jews became different and so did their political preferences. The professional and the affluent, on the whole, are not known for their love of the Left, especially when it comes to economic solutions. “Since 1945…the formerly depressed eastern European migrants have moved as a whole into the upper-middle class and into the elites of most Western nations….The general rise of Western Jewry to elite status has resulted in a realignment of the allies and enemies of Jews, with the traditional ‘right’ and ‘left’ changing places in their regard for Jews and their interests” – such was the view of William Rubinstein, an eminent historian of Jews in the English speaking world, as articulated in his book ‘The Left, the Right and the Jews’. The voting patterns described above testify to this as a thousand witnesses, as the Hebrew saying goes. '


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think Corbyn's abysmal ratings among Jewish voters would have improved much with a bigger sample size, probably gone down tbh, although SNP/LD/etc would have probably improved their vote shares. It will take a long time for the damage to be repaired and complaining that Jews are part of the middle class (and what, many leftists and labour voters aren't?) Isn't going to cut it


I'm sure that there are Jews in all of the social class classifications, but what strikes me about Jewish Labour supporters is what an tiny demographic they really are.
Given that censal estimates put self-identifying Jews at around 300k in the UK, and under 10% of appear to support Labour, the fact that they then manage to factionalise so effectively is really quite impressive.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

What do you mean sorry?  brogdale


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)




----------



## belboid (Dec 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> tbf to Survation, most Westminster polling operates around 1k so, if they really did get 766 'Jewish voters', that wasn't the most tragic sample size for a poll.


Michael Rosen has been asking various questions of how they collected such a sample. That one was an 'opt-in' version which is unusual for them.



It'd be interesting to compare with the methodologies for 2015 (22%) and 2010 (31)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> What do you mean sorry?


The Jewish Labour support, which must be a sub-set of the 30k  UK Jews that polling suggests respond as Labour supporters, are very obviously factionally riven into the various Labour Jewish affiliate groups. Given the small numbers that must be involved, the political commitment does, to me, look quite impressive in a way.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Thanks for the explanation. I think you might be getting cause and effect confused a bit there tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Think you might be getting cause and effect confused a bit there tbh.


Could be, I'm not sure.
Suppose what I'm getting at is that for groups that have been so 'centre-stage' in such a politically charged process for the LP, the actual constituencies are really small in terms of numbers.

Even the JLM reckons on only about 2.5k members and there are some CLPs with ward memberships bigger than that.

So when considering the Survation poll, maybe 766 wasn't such a bad sample?


----------



## belboid (Dec 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Could be, I'm not sure.
> Suppose what I'm getting at is that for groups that have been so 'centre-stage' in such a politically charged process for the LP, the actual constituencies are really small in terms of numbers.
> 
> Even the JLM reckons on only about 2.5k members and there are some CLPs with ward memberships bigger than that.
> ...


the size is a perfectly reasonable number, albeit with a slightly larger margin of accuracy than their normal ones (about 4% with 95% confidence v3%). The question is over how those people were selected.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> the size is a perfectly reasonable number, albeit with a slightly larger margin of accuracy than their normal ones. The question is over how those people were selected.


Indeed.
Certainly take Rosen's point on that.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

I think the 4-6% figure is largely accurate regarding labour under corbyn, tbh, JVL and the like frankly aren't representative of any more than a tiny fraction of even secular Jews. Corbyn had a huge problem with Jewish voters, whether they were right to dislike him can be debated but he definitely did 

It's the Tories' figure I am not sure about, although I'm sure their vote will be cut into next time by stuff like populist / nationalist dog whistles, Brexit (many/most Jews have family overseas, I think much more than average but not sure) and so many of their co-religionists dying from COVID-19


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> Michael Rosen has been asking various questions of how they collected such a sample. That one was an 'opt-in' version which is unusual for them.
> 
> View attachment 242235
> 
> It'd be interesting to compare with the methodologies for 2015 (22%) and 2010 (31)


This is the sort of thing I was getting at above.

I would suggest that "secular", "non engaged" Jews would be more likely to be left leaning than strictly observant and "engaged" Jews, so if anything the poll is likely to underestimate Jewish support for Labour.


----------



## bimble (Dec 7, 2020)

Yeah, I usually tick none or other on those what religion are you boxes. Nobody knows how many secular Jews there are so to get ‘Jewish voters’ you’ll miss all the ones who don’t tick that religion box.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yeah, I usually tick none or other on those what religion are you boxes. Nobody knows how many secular Jews there are so to get ‘Jewish voters’ you’ll miss all the ones who don’t tick that religion box.


Yeah, haven't checked out the methodology, tbh.
But I assume that Survation was going with (opted in) self-describing Jews. Not sure exactly how they'd accommodate non self-describing like yourself tbh. I suppose this is all about the limitations of such polling?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

I really don't think it would have underestimated it by any more than a few % tbh.


----------



## belboid (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> I really don't think it would have underestimated it by any more than a few % tbh.


No, if it were doubled that would still be a massive drop off even since MIliband, so arguing over whether it should be 6, 8 or even 12 misses most of the point.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Massive drop off when he came in in 2017 and especially by 2019 it was catastrophic


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> So the question is, are British Jews now predominantly middle class? I'd suggest they probably are.



Have you read anything that confirms this? Are you basing your view on socio-economic meausres? I have read some things on median incomes/wealth by religion but an wondering what you are basing your opinions on.

...and of course this doesn't account for how many MC people of all backgrounds don't vote Tory.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you read anything that confirms this? Are you basing your view on socio-economic meausres? I have read some things on median incomes/wealth by religion but an wondering what you are basing your opinions on.


It doesn’t matter. What matters is that rummo is looking at this the wrong way.  The Jewishness is not where the issue lies, it’s the class of the people being focused on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> It doesn’t matter. What matters is that rummo is looking at this the wrong way.  The Jewishness is not where the issue lies, it’s the class of the people being focused on.


Hence my second point which you have cropped from your quote of my post..


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Hence my second point which you have cropped from your quote of my post..


Well, that’s a separate point. rummo needs to be walked through this very slowly.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Although saying a bunch of antisemitic dogwhistle stuff and then justifying it with 'but I'm just criticising them for being Tory voters and middle class!" also isnt great (not that you're doing this danny la rouge )


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that’s a separate point. rummo needs to be walked through this very slowly.


quickly out the door would work better for me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Although saying a bunch of antisemitic dogwhistle stuff and then justifying it with 'but I'm just criticising them for being Tory voters and middle class!" also isnt great (not that you're doing this danny la rouge )


Exactly.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

This has happened btw - part of the problem getting a handle on this stuff is so difficult is because people come up with a whole lot of crap straight out the protocols but with a different word substituted and then say something like 'YEAH BUT NOT EVERYONE I'M TALKING ABOUT IS JEWISH YOU KNOW!'


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> quickly out the door would work better for me.


This is true. But since the problem is wider that just rummo , it’s worth other people thinking it all through step by step.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

Maybe the ‘loons’ were right all along Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe the ‘loons’ were right all along Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready


Proof at last.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Proof at last.



but no one will listen to him. The wrong kind of Jew I guess


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> but no one will listen to him. The wrong kind of Jew I guess


(((Silenced)))


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> (((Silenced)))


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 242269


Well, that's what they would say.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'd been thinking until recently that this never-ending circular argument was pointless 'cause everyone is in their own trench and there's no minds about to be changed at this point: however, I can now report that's not true.
> 
> Previously I thought that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't an antisemite, but had difficulty recognising antisemitism because of various ideological and psychological barriers - I've come to realise that, in fact, that difficulty he has in recognising it actually _is_ antisemitism. It's not blood libel, gas them all antisemitism, but it's antisemitism all the same.
> 
> So cheers for that  guys, esp. Rummo. Changing one mind at a time, it's a noble task you're engaged in.


I'd had my doubts about you, but I don't any more.


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2020)

lol the feeling's totally mutual fuckwit.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> lol the feeling's totally mutual fuckwit.


Well at least we know where we think we stand.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 7, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I'd had my doubts about you, but I don't any more.


I was going to go on to say, "you're obviously a wonderful human being after all".


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you read anything that confirms this? Are you basing your view on socio-economic meausres? I have read some things on median incomes/wealth by religion but an wondering what you are basing your opinions on.
> 
> ...and of course this doesn't account for how many MC people of all backgrounds don't vote Tory.




The Daniel Staetsky article I linked to above. Read it.

Who is he? This is how he describes himself on his blog.

'The author is a demographer and a statistician, born in the USSR - a world that no longer exists - and educated in Israel and Britain. The author holds a PhD in Social Statistics and Demography. To date he has served in senior analytical roles in the Central Bureau of Statistics (Israel) and RAND Europe (Cambridge, UK). He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (London, UK). He has published widely on Jewish , Israeli and European demography and social statistics. The author's favourite topics are demographic and social puzzles involving Jews and people that surround them-why do Jews live so long? why do Muslim Arabs in Israel have so many children? why do women-globally- live longer than men? Is there a link between the classic old-fashioned antisemitism and today's antizionism? These are just a few examples of questions that motivated some of his work and on which he has written extensively.'


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

rummo said:


> The Daniel Staetsky article I linked to above. Read it.



Why? 



> The author's favourite topics are demographic and social puzzles involving Jews and people that surround them-why do Jews live so long? why do Muslim Arabs in Israel have so many children? why do women-globally- live longer than men? Is there a link between the classic old-fashioned antisemitism and today's antizionism? These are just a few examples of questions that motivated some of his work and on which he has written extensively.'



Lol, seems legit, and definitely not dodgy at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Dp


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

I have a good sense of what your view is on these 'demographic and social puzzles' now tho ta


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

Yeah jews and demographics in the same piece unlikely to be wholesome


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

Abraham. Lived until he was 175. Makes you think


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2020)

Dunno, definitely seems like someone I'd come to for insights on the class status of British Jews tbh. I'm sure his opinions are entirely factual and not at all based on weird stereotypes


----------



## rummo (Dec 7, 2020)

Are posters  suggesting that Daniel Staetsky is anti Semitic?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Abraham. Lived until he was 175. Makes you think


Obviously middle class and a Tory.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2020)

Had slaves and treated the women in his life like shit. Sent his mistress and his love child into the desert. not to keen on the gays. It’s a little tory


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 8, 2020)

So a wrong un then.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'd been thinking until recently that this never-ending circular argument was pointless 'cause everyone is in their own trench and there's no minds about to be changed at this point: however, I can now report that's not true.
> 
> Previously I thought that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't an antisemite, but had difficulty recognising antisemitism because of various ideological and psychological barriers - I've come to realise that, in fact, that difficulty he has in recognising it actually _is_ antisemitism. It's not blood libel, gas them all antisemitism, but it's antisemitism all the same.
> 
> So cheers for that  guys, esp. Rummo. Changing one mind at a time, it's a noble task you're engaged in.



I came to that conclusion when Corbyn's British Zionists don't understand irony comments came to light. You can excuse/contexturalise it in various ways but the reason he felt comfortable saying something dubious in the first place was that he thought he was punching upwards, and there's all sorts of assumptions there.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 12, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Even the fashion industry has an opinion There are all the reasons Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic, despite his claims to contrary


interesting article about this here








						How Britain’s Lifestyle Magazines Went Tory
					

Recent months have seen Britain's fashion magazines running articles that could have come straight from Conservative Party HQ. It's just the latest right-wing turn in a billionaire-owned media landscape.




					tribunemag.co.uk
				




" Recent months have seen Britain's fashion magazines running articles that could have come straight from Conservative Party HQ. It's just the latest right-wing turn in a billionaire-owned media landscape. "


----------



## 03gills (Dec 12, 2020)

I knew there was a reason I stopped frequenting these forums, going back to page 1 & it's fucking night & day seeing how the discourse over Corbyn has been distorted & warped over time, & the fact that a good number of people on here have actually convinced themselves that a lifelong anti racist campaigner is actually a massive racist, I mean it's just... depressing doesn't even cover it. 

I'm sure I'll get shit for this post but I really don't care, but I just won't stand by & have people who should, & do know better joining in on the pile on & shit talking about basically a decent guy who wanted the mildest of mild reform.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 12, 2020)

(((Some people))) just don’t want to pay their fair share of tax I guess


----------



## mauvais (Dec 12, 2020)

brogdale said:


> There was a Survation poll of 766 "Jewish voters' in October 2019 that put Labour voting intention on 6%:
> 
> View attachment 242220





frogwoman said:


> Massive drop off when he came in in 2017 and especially by 2019 it was catastrophic


This is probably a stupid question especially given that I was alive and supposedly paying attention at the time, but you know, sometimes I prefer to forget. 6% and 10% are tomato/tomato really aren't they. Why such a big drop by 2017 when the openly aired media version of the AS debacle was, as I recall, yet to play out?


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This is probably a stupid question especially given that I was alive and supposedly paying attention at the time, but you know, sometimes I prefer to forget. 6% and 10% are tomato/tomato really aren't they. Why such a big drop by 2017 when the openly aired media version of the AS debacle was, as I recall, yet to play out?




Probably th


mauvais said:


> This is probably a stupid question especially given that I was alive and supposedly paying attention at the time, but you know, sometimes I prefer to forget. 6% and 10% are tomato/tomato really aren't they. Why such a big drop by 2017 when the openly aired media version of the AS debacle was, as I recall, yet to play out?




Milliband. Attitude towards Israel. Not anti Semitism. 









						How did Labour lose the trust of Britain’s Jews?
					

“How did we get here?” That is the question is on the lips of Labour MPs, councillors, members, and voters this summer. As the party’s anti-Semitism crisis deepens, seemingly inexorably, it is asked with increasing anguish and despair. How did an officially anti-racist party – a mantle which...




					www.newstatesman.com
				




But remember kids, a Corbyn lead government was going to pose an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK.

Better off with Johnson, no deal Brexit and break up of the UK.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 12, 2020)

03gills said:


> I knew there was a reason I stopped frequenting these forums, going back to page 1 & it's fucking night & day seeing how the discourse over Corbyn has been distorted & warped over time, & the fact that a good number of people on here have actually convinced themselves that a lifelong anti racist campaigner is actually a massive racist, I mean it's just... depressing doesn't even cover it.
> 
> I'm sure I'll get shit for this post but I really don't care, but I just won't stand by & have people who should, & do know better joining in on the pile on & shit talking about basically a decent guy who wanted the mildest of mild reform.



He's not a massive racist by any stretch, but having done antiracist work does not give you a free pass and to be fair Corbyn isn't claiming it does either. How would that work if he did though? "What and after all I have done for you people?"

The way I look at it is that he tends to solidarise with plainly dodgy people (Mear One, Raed Salih) because they're the little guy or the oppressed guy or they're on-my-team guys. I used think he just didn't see what was wrong with the dodgy stuff, it's an oversight etc. Now I think he just doesn't care or at least it doesn't factor significantly into his political calculations. This solidarity instinct is great in many cases (and exceptional for a Labourite) except it can't just be the blanket response. Thinking about this long after it matters, with respect to that mural I can't believe that someone of his experience, who has moved in the circles he has, has not seen conspiracy stuff and not seen it as a red flag. I think he just thought there were more important free speech/"anti-capitalist" concerns to pursue. Maybe this sort of failure counts as racism or maybe not, but it's really fucking disappointing.

It's still a shame we didn't have a Corbyn led Labour government, it would have been nice to give social democracy a chance after 40 years to at very least see it's limitations. And my thinking these days with the climate crisis, there is genuine environmental (if not necessarily class) value in something like the green new deal. That was probably the last gasp of such politics and we're unlikely to see it again.

Anyway he's not Labour leader any more and it's pretty pointless banging on about all this except he's not the only one with this sort of problem.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2020)

I find it all massively frustrating because there's such an inability to accept that more than one thing can be true at once. Perhaps it's all a reflection of persistent binary opinions more generally. It is entirely possible that Corbyn is a dedicated anti-racist and also promoted some dumb shit. It is entirely possible that there are many people both within and without the Labour Party who want to smear Labour and the left generally as intrinsically anti-semitic, using both exaggerations and outright falsehoods, and that there are a shitload of anti-semites outside of Labour and the left who get ignored, and _also_ that there are a bunch of both hardcore anti-semites as well as unexamined prejudices and assumptions on the left who/which need dealing with. _These can all be the case at the same time._


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Knotted said:


> He's not a massive racist by any stretch, but having done antiracist work does not give you a free pass and to be fair Corbyn isn't claiming it does either. How would that work if he did though? "What and after all I have done for you people?"
> 
> The way I look at it is that he tends to solidarise with plainly dodgy people (Mear One, Raed Salih) because they're the little guy or the oppressed guy or they're on-my-team guys. I used think he just didn't see what was wrong with the dodgy stuff, it's an oversight etc. Now I think he just doesn't care or at least it doesn't factor significantly into his political calculations. This solidarity instinct is great in many cases (and exceptional for a Labourite) except it can't just be the blanket response. Thinking about this long after it matters, with respect to that mural I can't believe that someone of his experience, who has moved in the circles he has, has not seen conspiracy stuff and not seen it as a red flag. I think he just thought there were more important free speech/"anti-capitalist" concerns to pursue. Maybe this sort of failure counts as racism or maybe not, but it's really fucking disappointing.
> 
> ...




The mural thing.

Just exactly what happened?

Was he  asked online to endorse some sort of campaign to stop the mural being remove and told it's about capitalism and poverty and some Tory councillor has objected to it.  Has he seen a copy of the mural on his phone, thought about it for anything up to a minute and sent a supportive message?

Is that what happened? Or was he aware of the allegations of anti Semitism, did he have a chance to see the mural on anything larger than a phone screen, and decide and due consideration and reflection to support it anyway?  ( I genuinely don't know).


----------



## Knotted (Dec 12, 2020)

I'll concede it might have been too small for him to make out if the fellow on the right looked like Alf Garnett.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> The mural thing.
> 
> Just exactly what happened?
> 
> ...


Tbh you don't need to see the mural to know something there's something dodgy about it, not when you see captain yvonne ridley praising it


----------



## brogdale (Dec 12, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I'll concede it might have been too small for him to make out if the fellow on the right looked like Alf Garnett.


Wot, that Alf Garnett that wasn't Jewish, but his old man was always up the Synagogue?


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Knotted said:


> He's not a massive racist by any stretch, but having done antiracist work does not give you a free pass and to be fair Corbyn isn't claiming it does either. How would that work if he did though? "What and after all I have done for you people?"
> 
> The way I look at it is that he tends to solidarise with plainly dodgy people (Mear One, Raed Salih) because they're the little guy or the oppressed guy or they're on-my-team guys. I used think he just didn't see what was wrong with the dodgy stuff, it's an oversight etc. Now I think he just doesn't care or at least it doesn't factor significantly into his political calculations. This solidarity instinct is great in many cases (and exceptional for a Labourite) except it can't just be the blanket response. Thinking about this long after it matters, with respect to that mural I can't believe that someone of his experience, who has moved in the circles he has, has not seen conspiracy stuff and not seen it as a red flag. I think he just thought there were more important free speech/"anti-capitalist" concerns to pursue. Maybe this sort of failure counts as racism or maybe not, but it's really fucking disappointing.
> 
> ...




The mural thing.

Just exactly what happened?

Was he  asked online to endorse some sort of campaign to stop the mural being remove and told it's about capitalism and poverty and some Tory councillor has objected to it.  Has he seen a copy of the mural on his phone, thought about it for anything up to a minute and sent a supportive message?

Is that what happened? Or was he aware of the allegations of anti Semitism, did he have a chance to see the mural on anything larger than a phone screen, and decide and due consideration and reflection to support it anyway?  ( I genuinely don't know).


Pickman's model said:


> Tbh you don't need to see the mural to know something there's something dodgy about it, not when you see captain yvonne ridley praising itView attachment 243258




So  Corbyn is to study the provenance of every tweet preceding his own (looks like 190 or so) in case, well just in case? How much time do you think he has available to deal with these sorts of requests?

Do you subject all politicians to this level of scrutiny? Hold them all to the same standards? Or is he singled out for special treatment?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 12, 2020)

I think Pickmans had tongue slightly in cheek there


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> So  Corbyn is to study the provenance of every tweet preceding his own (looks like 190 or so) in case, well just in case? How much time do you think he has available to deal with these sorts of requests?
> 
> Do you subject all politicians to this level of scrutiny? Hold them all to the same standards? Or is he singled out for special treatment?


could you explain how looking on twitter has any bearing on the matter as yr and jc were on facebook


----------



## Raheem (Dec 12, 2020)

Corbyn is making a "very exciting announcement" tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Corbyn is making a "very exciting announcement" tomorrow afternoon.


He's given up collecting pictures of manholes


----------



## Raheem (Dec 12, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> He's given up collecting pictures of manholes


I was thinking it would be jam-related.

He's reforming The Jam. That will be it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> The mural thing.
> 
> Just exactly what happened?
> 
> ...


Is repetitive questioning rather than actual discussion, involving explaining what you're not sure about and why you're asking so that people can help you out and the overall level of knowledge in the world is improved, in any way useful behaviour? Or is it the sign of somebody who doesn't even know why they're asking what they are? Or is it worse than that and a facile attempt to bludgeon talking points into what is supposed to be a conversation?

DID YOU THREATEN TO OVERRULE HIM?


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> could you explain how looking on twitter has any bearing on the matter as yr and jc were on facebook
> View attachment 243265




The same point applies, mutatis mutandis.

The way this has been amplified you'd think Corbyn had written a thesis on the bloody mural. 

He's probably glanced at it for a few seconds on a small screen while dealing with a dozen other things.

I mean if he travelled all the way to the west country in the middle of a busy election campaign to be present at the unveiling of a statute erected to honour and celebrate an avowed anti Semite I could understand the fuss, but he didn't.

It was Boris Johnson who did that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> The same point applies, mutatis mutandis.
> 
> The way this has been amplified you'd think Corbyn had written a thesis on the bloody mural.
> 
> ...


And ridley's comment was one above corbyn's so no need to look through lots of other messages. A simple point: if yvonne ridley praises something it's best to re-examine the matter before commenting, Not sure why you're so invested in this. Don't tell me, I don't want to know. But you're being a bore and not bringing anything new to the table


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is repetitive questioning rather than actual discussion, involving explaining what you're not sure about and why you're asking so that people can help you out and the overall level of knowledge in the world is improved, in any way useful behaviour? Or is it the sign of somebody who doesn't even know why they're asking what they are? Or is it worse than that and a facile attempt to bludgeon talking points into what is supposed to be a conversation?
> 
> DID YOU THREATEN TO OVERRULE HIM?




Not sure what you're on about.

Not sure you do either.

There are people who set a lot of store by Corbyn's reaction to the mural so I assume they would know more about the ins and outs  of the issue than I do, hence the questions.

Is that OK?

Good. As you were.


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2020)

You can stalin this fucker off anytime you like tbh fridge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> There are people who set a lot of store by Corbyn's reaction to the mural so I assume they would know more about the ins and outs  of the issue than I do, hence the questions.


Non sequitur


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> And ridley's comment was one above corbyn's so no need to look through lots of other messages. A simple point: if yvonne ridley praised something it's best to re-examine the matter before commenting, Not sure why you're so invested in this. Don't tell me, I don't want to know. But you're being a bore and not bringing anything new to the table




I'd suggest I'm a lot less invested in it than you are.

The level of significance attached to Corbyn's involvement in this issue is utterly ridiculous. Absurd, if you like.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> I'd suggest I'm a lot less invested in it than you are.
> 
> The level of significance attached to Corbyn's involvement in this issue is utterly ridiculous. Absurd, if you like.


I've made maybe five comments about this over several years. You've attached yourself to this bone and seem reluctant to let it go. You can suggest what you want but tbh it's just not true


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I've made maybe five comments about this over several years. You've attached yourself to this bone and seem reluctant to let it go. You can suggest what you want but tbh it's just not true




I think you'll find that any reference I've made to the issue has been in response to other posters mentioning it.

To me the mural thing is much ado about nothing.

It's the much ado about nothing that is the issue.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> The mural thing.
> 
> Just exactly what happened?
> 
> ...



In my heart of hearts I don't think it was entirely an innocent mistake and I've explained why I think that. I can only speculate what was going through his mind, so I may be wrong and you and others may disagree with me and that's fine. It's not that it matters much now or even then. If it was just a stupid, hasty mistake then the fallout was still deserved and the extent of the broader problem that was revealed in that fallout was still alarming. I get the strong feeling you were never involved with these arguments at the time which is fine but as you've declared your disinterest in this episode why would I explain it to you in detail?

The fact that you are pursuing this line of questioning shows you don't understood the broader problem, you do not know what antisemitism looks like in practice. The fact that you just shrug this one off indicates that you aren't interested in it in the first place, you haven't bothered to look into it for yourself, so what am I to do? Spoonfeed you and watch you spit it out again? I'm not interested in doing that and I'm not interested in your bait and switches and gotchas. So that doesn't leave us with much to say to each other.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Corbyn is making a "very exciting announcement" tomorrow afternoon.





			https://twitter.com/corbyn_project
		



?


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2020)

Looks really exciting (not)









						Jeremy Corbyn's Project for Peace and Justice: LIVE LAUNCH
					

Due to overwhelming demand, our launch will now be streamed for all, live from the Peace and Justice Project’s pages.




					www.eventbrite.co.uk


----------



## rummo (Dec 12, 2020)

Knotted said:


> In my heart of hearts I don't think it was entirely an innocent mistake and I've explained why I think that. I can only speculate what was going through his mind, so I may be wrong and you and others may disagree with me and that's fine. It's not that it matters much now or even then. If it was just a stupid, hasty mistake then the fallout was still deserved and the extent of the broader problem that was revealed in that fallout was still alarming. I get the strong feeling you were never involved with these arguments at the time which is fine but as you've declared your disinterest in this episode why would I explain it to you in detail?
> 
> The fact that you are pursuing this line of questioning shows you don't understood the broader problem, you do not know what antisemitism looks like in practice. The fact that you just shrug this one off indicates that you aren't interested in it in the first place, you haven't bothered to look into it for yourself, so what am I to do? Spoonfeed you and watch you spit it out again? I'm not interested in doing that and I'm not interested in your bait and switches and gotchas. So that doesn't leave us with much to say to each other.



'If it was just a stupid, hasty mistake then the fallout was still deserved'

If someone is guilty they should suffer the consequences. If someone is not guilty they should suffer the same consequences.

Ducking stool politics. Very progressive.

PS You maybe want to check what disinterest means.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 12, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'If it was just a stupid, hasty mistake then the fallout was still deserved'
> 
> If someone is guilty they should suffer the consequences. If someone is not guilty they should suffer the same consequences.
> 5
> ...


Perma banned for being "disruptive"? That's a new one. Don't think it would stand up in court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Perma banned for being "disruptive"? That's a new one. Don't think it would stand up in court.


Fortunately it'll never end up there


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

Fucking hell Marty1 would be proud.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Fucking hell Marty1 would be proud.


Yeh how can m1 stay now?


----------



## Raheem (Dec 13, 2020)

rummo said:


> 'If it was just a stupid, hasty mistake then the fallout was still deserved'
> 
> If someone is guilty they should suffer the consequences. If someone is not guilty they should suffer the same consequences.


I've said before I don't think he understood what he was commenting on. But he was in an accountable position, as an MP at the time and then as a party leader. Those are positions where you have to take the consequences of your mistakes as well as your misdeeds. Or, at least sometimes you do.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

That's it lads and laddesses if we can get marty1 to say he doesn't think corbyn's an antisemite he's out 

tall order though


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> That's it lads and laddesses if we can get marty1 to say he doesn't think corbyn's an antisemite he's out
> 
> tall order though



He's back here in two days time...get planning your best 'gotcha' questions.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 13, 2020)

A one note poster, but still, it's a rum do. Guess his or her time was up, too.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

Jezza's back!


----------



## discokermit (Dec 13, 2020)

what a load of old shit.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

discokermit said:


> what a load of old shit.


So, booked your event-brite ticket for the launch, then?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

Just wait for the cynics and nay-sayers  who wouldn't be excited at a peace and justice project.

People who don't want peace and justice, that's who


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Just wait for the cynics and nay-sayers  who wouldn't be excited at a peace and justice project.
> 
> People who don't want peace and justice, that's who


Well yeah, but they'll be a good many of his true believers that will read this as a peace war and justice retribution project in the factional warfare.


----------



## agricola (Dec 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Jezza's back!




There is a vaguely _Infowars but made by Channel Four's Despatches_ vibe about that.  

If he starts selling caveman-themed drinks we should be very alarmed.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 13, 2020)

hopefully they can employ loads of middle class labour party insiders to talk to working class people about their problems and say "well, thats jolly sad, isnt it?"
 fantastic news.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Well yeah, but they'll be a good many of his true believers that will read this as a peace war and justice retribution project in the factional warfare.



I'm starting to wonder whether you want peace and justice for everyone


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I'm starting to wonder whether you want peace and justice for everyone


Have I just been outed as not being a true believer?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

It is a bit Father Ted though


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2020)

discokermit said:


> what a load of old shit.


yes but WHAT ABOUT THE SUIT AND SHIRT??


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> It is a bit Father Ted though


CofE tele evangelism


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Jezza's back!




Cringe. Yeah, very leftie tele-evangelism by your weird old sociology teacher.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

He's going to get crucified for this isn't he


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

Mind you, in three days


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> He's going to get crucified for this isn't he


JC dying for our sins at  Christmas


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> He's going to get crucified for this isn't he


TBF its just a shit youtube video, the proof if is in the doing 
wake me up if anything happens


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 13, 2020)

Will the bullying ever end? 



			https://projectforpeaceandjustice.com/about-us


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2020)

Possibly not the most important thing here, but 
"Volunteer Service Sundays: Every Friday Evening, we mobilize our teams of volunteers to make a real difference."

Jeremy Corbyn's (sense of) time is quite confusing


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 13, 2020)

But what will the project actually do? I've no idea after watching the video.

Also, managed to make a 2 min video quite boring.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

> https://projectforpeaceandjustice.com/about-us





hitmouse said:


> Possibly not the most important thing here, but
> "Volunteer Service Sundays: Every Friday Evening, we mobilize our teams of volunteers to make a real difference."
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's (sense of) time is quite confusing



Look at the home page ...

*



			'PROJECT FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
		
Click to expand...

*


> Bringing folk together for social and economic justice peace and human rights in Uk and around the world but not Israel'



More of this shit on the contact us page;




> COPYRIGHT © 2020 PROJECT FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.THIS PROJECT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE  WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM BY THE IHRA




That is a shit stirring troll site and not the actual project site.





__





						Home - Peace & Justice Project
					

Project for Peace and Justice, founded by Jeremy Corbyn. A hub for discussion and action, building solidarity and hope for a more decent world.




					thecorbynproject.com


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Look at the home page ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I'd not looked around any further. It would be nice if people could refrain from posting shit-stirring troll links without explanation.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

Interesting coincidence,  the same sentiments for jolly japes, likes and retweets...


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 13, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> explanation.



 was 



MadeInBedlam said:


> Will the bullying ever end?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 13, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> was



Ah see I thought you meant Corbyn's bullying: "Our community is full of people who want to tokenize. We work to help the people defending political claims of anti semitism with the people who need them. Come connect with people in new ways. "

So you knew it was a spoof site, goodoh.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> was


Have to say, I genuinely thought you'd fallen for it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 13, 2020)

my initial reaction is 

there were times when the JC as party leader thing felt a bit personality cult-ish (i was never entirely sure if this was something JC welcomed or had thrust on him - a lot of the time he seemed more to be trying to be 'convenor' rather than 'boss')

this seems more so.

although some sort of voice that's not starmer wanting to unite the party (with the tories) or george galloway's latest thing is, possibly, a positive.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> But what will the project actually do? I've no idea after watching the video.
> 
> Also, managed to make a 2 min video quite boring.


History's greatest monster.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 13, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Just wait for the cynics and nay-sayers  who wouldn't be excited at a peace and justice project.
> 
> People who don't want peace and justice, that's who



gtbh, finding it hard to get to excited by this at first glance


no mention of potential workplace / community / renters union type connections
semi guaranteed to be a crank magnet, with the Workers GB / Chris W / STW etc crowd piling back in

tho will be happy to be proven wrong


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Will the bullying ever end?
> 
> 
> 
> https://projectforpeaceandjustice.com/about-us


Did you know that was fake when you posted it?
It suckered me in

What did 
Will the bullying ever end? 
Mean?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I'd not looked around any further. It would be nice if people could refrain from posting shit-stirring troll links without explanation.


I know I shouldn't be surprised or naive but the fact someone has already made that spoof site and others are sharing it knowing it's a spoof site and contains the vileness it does just leaves me cold. Not because I worship Corbyn, but because I see no end to any of this, no learning, no healing, no unity, more factionalism, more chaos, more Tory imposed misery, no credible and motivating opposition.


----------



## oryx (Dec 13, 2020)

Absolutely this ^


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> I know I shouldn't be surprised or naive but the fact someone has already made that spoof site and others are sharing it knowing it's a spoof site and contains the vileness it does just leaves me cold. Not because I worship Corbyn, but because I see no end to any of this, no learning, no healing, no unity, more factionalism, more chaos, more Tory imposed misery, no credible and motivating opposition.


The spoiler fake was up there almost instantaneously on Corbyn's pre-launch launch video going to social media. Looks like it was leaked to people who wanted to know.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The spoiler fake was up there almost instantaneously on Corbyn's pre-launch launch video going to social media. Looks like it was leaked to people who wanted to know.



Planned then, and delivered. FFS.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 14, 2020)

That fake site has cemented my opinion that hard core centrists are way more vile than Tories.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 14, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The spoiler fake was up there almost instantaneously on Corbyn's pre-launch launch video going to social media. Looks like it was leaked to people who wanted to know.



Murdoch press no less


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> That fake site has cemented my opinion that hard core centrists are way more vile than Tories.



Hard core centrists are tories. The 'centre' has been waaaay over to the right ever since Maggie.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Murdoch press no less



Bit of a schoolboy error not to have secured the domain names?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2020)

Meanwhile,  a few of those expelled have decided to set up a 'new CLP' for those excluded.  And have decided to call it the LIE Network. Geniuses, every one.


----------



## andysays (Dec 14, 2020)

belboid said:


> Meanwhile,  a few of those expelled have decided to set up a 'new CLP' for those excluded.  And have decided to call it the LIE Network. Geniuses, every one.


"Labour In Exile"?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2020)

andysays said:


> "Labour In Exile"?


bingo


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 14, 2020)

belboid said:


> And have decided to call it the LIE Network



you mean boris de piffle johnson didn't trade-mark that?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 15, 2020)

Corbyn interview with Canary causing proper internicine grief on social media -what a dumb f*cking move by him / his peeps, 2 days after Mendoza’s crappy Jews /Holocaust straight to camera routine


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2020)

the world is like a garden full of rakes, bless.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 15, 2020)

cantsin said:


> Corbyn interview with Canary causing proper internicine grief on social media -what a dumb f*cking move by him / his peeps, 2 days after Mendoza’s crappy Jews /Holocaust straight to camera routine


where is it? Can't see it on the site


----------



## cantsin (Dec 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> where is it? Can't see it on the site



KAM etc crowing about it, not sure when it goes live


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2020)

cantsin said:


> KAM etc crowing about it, not sure when it goes live



So you know the contents without seeing it?


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2020)

the fact that there is an interview with Jeremy Corbyn on The Canary is what the problem is, not what's in it, yet.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2020)

killer b said:


> the fact that there is an interview with Jeremy Corbyn on The Canary is what the problem is, not what's in it, yet.



Yet Starmer on the Nick Ferrari show not challenging White Supremacist nonsense is err alright because that's the way things are... Right-o!


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2020)

That's not a very accurate summary of my argument in the Starmer thread. 

And not challenging a racist sufficiently robustly in a radio call-in isn't the same as appearing on a racist conspiracy theorists' news blog.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2020)

killer b said:


> That's not a very accurate summary of my argument in the Starmer thread.
> 
> And not challenging a racist sufficiently robustly in a radio call-in show *of a  known shock jock racist* isn't the same as appearing on a racist conspiracy theorists' news blog.



Right-o!


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2020)

I don't think he should have appeared on ferrari's show, and said as much in the appropriate thread


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

its to be broadcast tomorrow, can't wait.




eta i don't think this is actually a problem, or a particularly stupid decision, he's not leader of the opposition anymore and is free to talk to his friends, these are his people.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> its to be broadcast tomorrow, can't wait.
> 
> View attachment 243734
> 
> ...



By a man's friends shall ye know him...


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 16, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Corbyn has every right to walk away from this as a private citizen feeling he has done his bit. If he wants to carry on as a high profile politician he has not done nearly enough to address the behaviour in his name and anyone who wants to die on that hill with him takes on that baggage.
> 
> Time and again we see the way forward from conflict is truth and reconciliation. If Paisley and McGuinness can manage it then Corbyn and a chosen enemy can and there could be benefits for Corbyn. It’s the only way that I can see any positives for him emerging.



are You suggesting Jeremy Corbyn needs to go through a truth and reconciliation process to become politically legitimate again......


----------



## kebabking (Dec 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> are You suggesting Jeremy Corbyn needs to go through a truth and reconciliation process to become politically legitimate again......



A period of introspection might have been a start...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> A period of introspection might have been a start...



"I know I am right, this person thinks I am right, therefore this person is good no matter what else they say"


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Yet Starmer on the Nick Ferrari show not challenging White Supremacist nonsense is err alright because that's the way things are... Right-o!


Wait a minute, Starmer being a dick doesn’t excuse Corbyn from making the same mistake he’s spent years being criticised for. Yet again.  

Sir Cop Starmer is by definition wrong. That doesn’t let Corbyn off the hook for hanging out with antisemitic conspiracy twats.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 16, 2020)

I asked for the case against the Canary before and was told to read the Canary thread. I had read it at teh time but Ive reread it (i posted a Richard Seymour critique of it on there even)

My recap of that thread minus all the usual infighting:

Criticism of the economic model of the website
Predicated on click bait titles, pay per click etc, sensationalism
Not thorough editing enough

KAM did an interview with David Icke once. The video no longer exists, dont know what she said on it, content wasn't mentioned on the thread
Pieces in the Canary went with Hersch's story on Syrian bombing. Not sure who authored those. One article I found last night was by Tom Somebody.

Is there anything Im missing?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

But still, cool mural.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 16, 2020)

Can we lay out specifically what Corbyn has been found guilty of?

can we also look at the number of complaints about labour anti semitism versus the number investigated, proven and disciplined

while you are there compare the numbers of complaints from the labour disciplinary process before and after Corbyn became leader

I’m a simple political creature and from my lowly position I think any poster who says the campaign against Corbyn is anything other than a political hatchet job either hasn’t looked at all the media/data surrounding it or is being disingenuous


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

You could have kerry anne mendoza appearing on holocaust denier hosting shows and this week moaning that _jews think the holocaust was all about them_.  But you shouldn't need that, not this far down the road.


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> I think any poster who says the campaign against Corbyn is anything other than a political hatchet job either hasn’t looked at all the media/data surrounding it or is being disingenuous



Seriously?! Nothing to it at all? All a political hatchet job? 

Have you read any of the Labour and anti-semitism thread?


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)




----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

It is quite a thing watching the optics left banging on about the Canary (who are regulated by Impress) but have no issues with Labour MPs queuing up to get interviewed by hate rags like the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Times.

I am not a fan of the Canary's writing style so do not read it that often but it is quite clear the Labour Liberal gatekeepers of acceptable titles has no issue with the hate spewed out by the above as these titles have been approved by the gate keepers.

The most stunning display of hypocrisy yesterday was Charlotte Nichols MP who had recently appeared on Tom Newton Dunn's Times Radio Show he was the guy who, last December, published a neo nazi hit list on Labour Party members sourced from the Ayran unity website.

Not to mention the leader of the Labour Party regularly appearing alongside a hardcore racist on LBC.

The hypocrisy and gaslighting is stunning.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> the optics left


Who are they?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Wait a minute, Starmer being a dick doesn’t excuse Corbyn from making the same mistake he’s spent years being criticised for. Yet again.
> 
> Sir Cop Starmer is by definition wrong. That doesn’t let Corbyn off the hook for hanging out with antisemitic conspiracy twats.



So being interviewed by now equates to _hanging out _with?

Also, do you think KAM's Jewish wife knows she's married to an 'antisemitic conspiracy twat'?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> So being interviewed by now equates to _hanging out _with?
> 
> Also, do you think KAM's Jewish wife knows she's married to an 'antisemitic conspiracy twat'?


Q1. Yes.
Q2. Who knows.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 16, 2020)

[





ska invita said:


> I asked for the case against the Canary before and was told to read the Canary thread. I had read it at teh time but Ive reread it (i posted a Richard Seymour critique of it on there even)
> 
> My recap of that thread minus all the usual infighting:
> 
> ...


Thought this, from the weekend , was crap, and typical  :


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2020)

cantsin said:


> [
> Thought this, from the weekend , was crap, and typical  :




No defence of Mendoza on so many levels, fuck her and fuck The Canary, they're both absolute political poison.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I asked for the case against the Canary before and was told to read the Canary thread. I had read it at teh time but Ive reread it (i posted a Richard Seymour critique of it on there even)
> 
> My recap of that thread minus all the usual infighting:
> 
> ...


Fwiw, there's a decent summary of the critique of the Canary (from a clearly left/non-centrist-weirdo perspective) here. Which links back to both the Seymour video and the U75 thread, as it happens. Anyway, the formatting on that post is horrible but the info seems sound.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> I am not a fan of the Canary's writing style so do not read it that often but it is quite clear the Labour Liberal gatekeepers of acceptable titles has no issue with the hate spewed out by the above as these titles have been approved by the gate keepers.
> 
> The most stunning display of hypocrisy yesterday was Charlotte Nichols MP who had recently appeared on Tom Newton Dunn's Times Radio Show he was the guy who, last December, published a neo nazi hit list on Labour Party members sourced from the Ayran unity website.
> 
> ...


Tbf, it is entirely possible, and I'd say even desirable, to be opposed to Newton-Dunn, Ferrari, the Telegraph, _and_ to Mendoza/Allen/Icke. You don't have to pick one, it's fine to hate all of them.


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

He's not just interviewed, in the little clip they put in twitter as a teaser he says at the end 'lets all support the canary', which is great, for the canary.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No defence of Mendoza on so many levels, fuck her and fuck The Canary, they're both absolute political poison.


Correct.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Is there anything Im missing?


The conspiracyloonary and (not so) veiled anti-semitism.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Q1. Yes.
> Q2. Who knows.


It's well known that people with ethnic minority friends and lovers can't be racist Danny.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> Tbf, it is entirely possible, and I'd say even desirable, to be opposed to Newton-Dunn, Ferrari, the Telegraph, _and_ to Mendoza/Allen/Icke. You don't have to pick one, it's fine to hate all of them.


Exactly. The whataboutery is endless. Next someone will bring up the S*n.  Yes, yes, we boycott that too.

Round and round it _still_ goes.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Was trying to write a more eloquent strategical critique, but gave up. Instead, Fuck Corbyn, fuck The Canary, Fuck the Labour Party. It really is time to move on and leave the cranks and the careerists squabbling over the wreckage. There's nothing to be gained but "taint" from hanging around that scene anymore.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Was trying to write a more eloquent strategical critique, but gave up. Instead, Fuck Corbyn, fuck The Canary, Fuck the Labour Party. It really is time to move on and leave the cranks and the careerists squabbling over the wreckage. There's nothing to be gained but "taint" from hanging around that scene anymore.


Bravo.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. The whataboutery is endless. Next someone will bring up the S*n.  Yes, yes, we boycott that too.
> 
> Round and round it _still_ goes.




Whataboutery. The vacuous phase du jour. Formerly  known as rank hypocrisy before the gatekeepers reappropiated it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Whataboutery. The vacuous phase du jour. Formerly  known as rank hypocrisy before the gatekeepers reappropiated it.


I’m a gatekeeper am I? Cool. In that case I demand everyone becomes an anarchist communist and revolutions us the hell out of this sorry mess.



I’m waiting.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m a gatekeeper am I? Cool. In that case I demand everyone becomes an anarchist communist and revolutions us the hell out of this sorry mess.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m waiting.


OK. As soon as they lift the Covid restrictions.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 16, 2020)

The first time I got really worried about the blindness and tribalism of some of the Corbyn crew was going to an event organised by Corbynistas where KAM was on a panel as an expert talking about press ethics and accountability. It was like a bad joke and I kept looking round to see if anyone would call it out. But no. I mentioned my discomfort to a couple of people afterwards and they all turned out to have quite selective memories about the accuracy of Canary reporting. _sigh_ It also shows the weakness of your movement if you have to rely on such people. A movement without quality media attached to it is not broad or strong enough yet. To claim the Canary as your media is clutching at straws.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> The first time I got really worried about the blindness and tribalism of some of the Corbyn crew was going to an event organised by Corbynistas where KAM was on a panel as an expert talking about press ethics and accountability.* It was like a bad joke and I kept looking round to see if anyone would call it out.* But no. I mentioned my discomfort to a couple of people afterwards and they all turned out to have quite selective memories about the accuracy of Canary reporting. _sigh_ It also shows the weakness of your movement if you have to rely on such people. A movement without quality media attached to it is not broad or strong enough yet. To claim the Canary as your media is clutching at straws.



lack of knowledge / substance ? Conspira - bobbins ?


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> OK. As soon as they lift the Covid restrictions.



As soon as this pub opens...*



*joke for the olds on here.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

There was a period shortly after the 2017 election when there was talk by the BBC etc about taking The Canary more seriously as a legitimate news org (IIRC Mendoza ended up on Question Time around then) - it seemed to stop pretty quick though.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

I mean, I am shocked to hear the BBC dropped a media organisation not approved by the establishment. Naddine Dorries' expertise in climate change is more their style.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

They keep the Novara guys in the mix (they also started appearing on BBC opinion panels at the same time) and they aren't approved either. I guess they aren't racist conspiracy theorists though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> I mean, I am shocked to hear the BBC dropped a media organisation not approved by the establishment. Naddine Dorries' expertise in climate change is more their style.


Because your enemy’s enemy must be your friend.

We’ve already done this: there’s (different) reasons to not like both.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 16, 2020)

cantsin said:


> lack of knowledge / substance ? Conspira - bobbins ?


I suspect not _wanting_ to know the bad stuff about someone who was on their team, as they saw it. 95% of the Canary content is fine if a bit screamy and click-baity, and from time to time it's actually good. So you can just choose to focus on that if you want I guess. I dunno.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

I think when you're engaged in a political battle, it's understandable that many people choose to ignore the downsides of people who are 'on our side', especially if they appear to be effective in the fight. I hate The Canary, but I do recognise that their content played a role in the unexpectedly good showing from the Labour Party in 2017. I think the impact they had on the campaign meant some people have given them more of a pass than perhaps they would have otherwise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's well known that people with ethnic minority friends and lovers can't be racist Danny.



Oh bravo.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

What else were you saying there?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh bravo.


Why the rolleyes?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Why the rolleyes?



Because it's the shittiest, condescending, bad faith take on why I asked you that question obviously, & akin to me asking you two _when did you actually stop beating your wives_?

I'm just sick of all the _smug_ tbh.

Luckily I have work to do, enjoy.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

what's the good faith take?


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Yet Starmer on the Nick Ferrari show not challenging White Supremacist nonsense is err alright because that's the way things are... Right-o!


Is this a 'good faith take' on my posts on the Starmer thread?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2020)

The Canary? Spit. That's nothing.

He's published stuff on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and we all know what a cesspit of far-right antisemitic loonspuddery he's sharing a platform with THERE


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Because it's the shittiest, condescending, bad faith take on why I asked you that question obviously, & akin to me asking you two _when did you actually stop beating your wives_?
> 
> I'm just sick of all the _smug_ tbh.
> 
> Luckily I have work to do, enjoy.


I have no idea what else you could have meant. What does her Jewish wife think? Why ask me even? It’s irrelevant to the question in hand.  Just like it’s irrelevant when anyone who is claiming not to be racist has friends belonging to this that or the other ethnic group.

Posing questions then pretending not to know the implications of them is pretty shitty too.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> The Canary? Spit. That's nothing.
> 
> He's published stuff on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and we all know what a cesspit of far-right antisemitic loonspuddery he's sharing a platform with THERE


Is that a serious attempt to satirise criticism of the Canary?


----------



## inva (Dec 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> The Canary? Spit. That's nothing.
> 
> He's published stuff on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and we all know what a cesspit of far-right antisemitic loonspuddery he's sharing a platform with THERE


Like Mear One do you mean?


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

The centrist anger seems to be that Corbyn has done an interview with independent media organisation that has not got establishment approval.

These same centrists have no problem with themselves doing interviews with far worse publications/radio stations. No anger that a centrist MP did an interview with a Sun journalist who sourced neo nazi websites to draw up a hit list of Labour Party members, no problem with the leader doing radio phone ins with a virulent racist.

And then the 'whataboutery' nonsense is wheeled out to to cover their rank hypocrisy. 

Then wash and repeat.

This is all about the gatekeepers stamping their feet and imposing their views on what is acceptable media and which is not, and all too often, the media they are gatekeeping is far worse than anything the Canary has published.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Why are you moaning to _us_ about centrists?


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Why are you moaning to _us_ about centrists?


Anyone in the least bit critical of Corbyn is a "centrist", obvs...


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Why are you moaning to _us_ about centrists?


With ACG stalwarts like danny la rouge as the centrists, the Overton window of Urban has truly shifted!


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

I am just pointing out you share the same rank hypocrisy and obsession with gatekeeping on what is and what is not acceptable media.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

You're the  ranting nutter in a party with these _centrists _and _stalinists_.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Is that a serious attempt to satirise criticism of the Canary?



Is that a serious attempt to defend Facebook and Twitter? It's just that the 'sharing a platform' seems a bit of a stretch. Isn't it better to criticise what he actually says? (and I'm not assuming that's going to be anything earth shattering). 

But yes I'd much prefer that he gave an interview to a properly socialist magazine that nobody reads.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> You're the  ranting nutter in a party with these _centrists _and _stalinists_.



Your opinion  is not important to me ranty little man


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Your opinion  is not important to me ranty little man


Its 'you're opinion' _social democrat_.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> It's '*you're opinion*' _social democrat_.




Good grief...  go for a lie down mate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Is that a serious attempt to defend Facebook and Twitter? It's just that the 'sharing a platform' seems a bit of a stretch. Isn't it better to criticise what he actually says? (and I'm not assuming that's going to be anything earth shattering).
> 
> But yes I'd much prefer that he gave an interview to a properly socialist magazine that nobody reads.


Christ, that's a stretch, even for you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> The centrist anger seems to be that Corbyn has done an interview with independent media organisation that has not got establishment approval.
> 
> These same centrists have no problem with themselves doing interviews with far worse publications/radio stations. No anger that a centrist MP did an interview with a Sun journalist who sourced neo nazi websites to draw up a hit list of Labour Party members, no problem with the leader doing radio phone ins with a virulent racist.
> 
> ...


What is this "gatekeeping" you're going on about.  It's bizarre when people who spew their opinion all over the place claim they haven't been allowed to speak.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Also, Fuck Corbyn, fuck Labour, fuck centrists, fuck Mendoza, fuck the Canary, fuck Sir Cop.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> I am just pointing out you share the same rank hypocrisy and obsession with gatekeeping on what is and what is not acceptable media.


Are you a member of the Labour Party?


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you a member of the Labour Party?



Why do you ask?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

_The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims _


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> What is this "gatekeeping" you're going on about.  It's bizarre when people who spew their opinion all over the place claim they haven't been allowed to speak.




No one has claimed that. It is the endless attacks by hypocrites I have an issue with.  The canary can hold their own. They successfully transformed from an advertisement to a subscription model when the blue tick bad faith actors started attacking their advertisers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

I don't think the internet really helped some people.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

Steve, do you think we're hypocrites and bad faith actors?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> The Canary? Spit. That's nothing.
> 
> He's published stuff on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and we all know what a cesspit of far-right antisemitic loonspuddery he's sharing a platform with THERE


Seriously. You think this is a sensible response to the criticism of the Canary people have made?


two sheds said:


> It's just that the 'sharing a platform' seems a bit of a stretch.


So the leader of the LP shouldn't refuse interviews with the Sun then? Is giving an interview to the BBC or Sky the same as presenting programs on RT? 

Of course the platform which you are giving interviews matters. There may be times where groups feel the best tactical options is to hold their noses a bit and engage with a source. But platforms that support anti-Semitic conspiracyloonary should be given a very wide berth.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

I haven't really got a problem with giving interviews to politically awful outlets. They're giving you the platform not the other way round. But Corbyn is easily high profile enough to choose what lefty outlet he wants to give an interview to. He's trying to pull in Canary readers to his peace and justice thing. So that's that fucked.


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> ...platforms that support anti-Semitic conspiracyloonary should be given a very wide berth?


Unless you're actively seeking to demonstrate that you're happy to continue swimming in the waters of anti-Semitic conspiraloonary you've been criticised for.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2020)

I’m old enough to remember all of 3/years ago when Milo wankface defence against charges of racism was that he sleeps with black guys.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

What is the conspiracy you talk of?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Why do you ask?


To find out if you’re a member of the Labour Party.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> What is the conspiracy you talk of?


From that blog post I linked to a few pages back:


> *The Canary and Conspiracism*
> 
> The Canary has always had been more then willing to embrace conspiracy theories ranging from the Syrian Chemical Attack to claims Laura Kuenssberg was a speaker at the Conservative Party conference.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> No one has claimed that. It is the endless attacks by hypocrites I have an issue with.


Ah, that’s OK then.  I’m not one of those.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Knotted said:


> I haven't really got a problem with giving interviews to politically awful outlets. They're giving you the platform not the other way round. But Corbyn is easily high profile enough to choose what lefty outlet he wants to give an interview to. He's trying to pull in Canary readers to his peace and justice thing. So that's that fucked.



Disagree here.

In this case it's an example of the interviewee providing a platform to the outlet rather than the perhaps more usual other way round. As in all Canary's audience will be familiar with, and largely supportive of Corbyn. But Corbyn's audience - which is far larger - will not all be familiar with or supportive of the Canary.

in this case Corbyn provides exposure and credibility to the Canary.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Disagree here.
> 
> In this case it's an example of the interviewee providing a platform to the outlet rather than the perhaps more usual other way round. As in all Canary's audience will be familiar with, and largely supportive of Corbyn. But Corbyn's audience - which is far larger - will not all be familiar with or supportive of the Canary.
> 
> in this case Corbyn provides exposure and credibility to the Canary.



Yeah effectively that's what's happened. But in theory he could have given an interview that rubbed the Canary up the wrong way in some way. (He almost certainly hasn't of course).


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

I don't think this is very complicated, the Canary never wavered all these years, didn't give an inch, held the purist line (100% smears zionists etc) and are being rewarded for their loyalty. Its just another little iteration of the unfortunate stuff that happens when you get stuck in a stupid pick a side, my team right or wrong, way of thinking.


----------



## Lorca (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Was trying to write a more eloquent strategical critique, but gave up. Instead, Fuck Corbyn, fuck The Canary, Fuck the Labour Party. It really is time to move on and leave the cranks and the careerists squabbling over the wreckage. There's nothing to be gained but "taint" from hanging around that scene anymore.


Genuine question, what (realistic) options for an organised, w/c based response to centre right hegemony are out there post-corbyn? It all seems a bit hopeless to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> I don't think this is very complicated, the Canary never wavered all these years, didn't give an inch, held the purist line (100% smears zionists etc) and are being rewarded for their loyalty. Its just another little iteration of the unfortunate stuff that happens when you get stuck in a stupid pick a side, my team right or wrong, way of thinking.


With anti-semites who agree that corbyn is great. The knot.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Lorca said:


> Genuine question, what (realistic) options for an organised, w/c based response to centre right hegemony are out there post-corbyn? It all seems a bit hopeless to be honest.



Centre-right hegemony? We're not in the 90s anymore 

There are no realistic options right now to be blunt.

So, all we've got are the unrealistic ones.

[_mutters something about demanding the impossible_]


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Centre-right hegemony? We're not in the 90s anymore
> 
> There are no realistic options right now to be blunt.
> 
> ...


Is the 90s your model?


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> From that blog post I linked to a few pages back:



To be honest, that seems pretty tame compared the media the anti Corbyn cranks like to court which pump hate and conspiracy out on an industrial scale


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> To be honest, that seems pretty tame compared the media the anti Corbyn cranks like to court which pump hate and conspiracy out on an industrial scale


Just a little bit of racism is allowed

Starmer - why isn't he 100% on every racism.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> To be honest, that seems pretty tame compared the media the anti Corbyn cranks like to court which pump hate and conspiracy out on an industrial scale


Is that really something you're prepared to settle for? "Not quite as bad as the Spectator"? Like, I can see how you could have a reasonable disagreement about degrees of separation, when sharing a platform indicates culpability and when it doesn't, there's disagreements to be had about those things. But can we at least agree that the likes of Mark Collett and David Duke are not "tame" but actually very very bad? Is that something we can reach a consensus on?


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> To be honest, that seems pretty tame compared the media the anti Corbyn cranks like to court which pump hate and conspiracy out on an industrial scale


it is one of the terrible examples of groupthink on this board.  For some strange reason we do, pretty much all, agree on the point that - if you go on a David Icke or Richie Allen show you can fuck the fuck off.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Is the 90s your model?



My model for what?

I was referring - not entirely seriously - to when we had a "centre-right hegemony".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

[


chilango said:


> My model for what?
> 
> I was referring - not entirely seriously - to when we had a "centre-right hegemony".


Don't worry mate, misread.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> Mark Collett and David Duke



Are wankers. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti Corbyn cranks.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

Though i did like the brit-pop as centre-right idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> Are wankers. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti Corbyn cranks.


Who you think are everywhere, haunting you like the memory of a  shit rugby league team and the injustice done. None here though steveseigheil.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Though i did like the brit-pop as centre-right idea.



Blair Vs Major, Blur Vs Oasis same difference.


----------



## steveseagull (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Who you think are everywhere, haunting you like the memory of a  shit rugby league team and the injustice done. None here though steveseigheil.




I have no idea what you are on about and you are getting a pretty tedious now so I am putting you on ignore.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> I have no idea what you are on about and you are getting a pretty tedious now so I am putting you on ignore.


I wish you naught but luck in your ranty endeavours. I'm sure that you will move onto many other ranty projects.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

steveseagull said:


> I have no idea what you are on about and you are getting a pretty tedious now so I am putting you on ignore.


I think the point being made is that centrist dicks like Angela Smith or whoever may indeed be hypocritical, but that they don't generally post on here, and there's a difference between hypocrites opportunistically using selective antiracism to score points, and consistent antiracists saying that if you're on our side then you should be antiracist all the time, not just a little bit less racist than the Spectator.


----------



## Supine (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Also, Fuck Corbyn, fuck Labour, fuck centrists, fuck Mendoza, fuck the Canary, fuck Sir Cop.



And a partridge in a pear tree


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> I think the point being made is that centrist dicks like Angela Smith or whoever may indeed be hypocritical, but that they don't generally post on here, and there's a difference between hypocrites opportunistically using selective antiracism to score points, and consistent antiracists saying that if you're on our side then you should be antiracist all the time, not just a little bit less racist than the Spectator.


Indeed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> To find out if you’re a member of the Labour Party.


Still interested btw, steveseagull


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> From that blog post I linked to a few pages back:


it's a good piece this - surprising there isn't more out there which lays out the case tbh, considering how corrosive The Canary and it's ilk have been in recent years. Also interesting that our own thread on the topic is one of the more substantial sources referenced in it...


----------



## Flavour (Dec 16, 2020)

I bet Corbyn picked Blur over Oasis too.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Flavour said:


> I bet Corbyn picked Blur over Oasis too.



Nah. To be fair, even back then he was a man of principle who wasn't afraid to be out of step with his peers.

He'd have gone for Shed 7.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

Flavour said:


> I bet Corbyn picked Blur over Oasis too.


if you held a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd choose blur too tbf.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Nah. To be fair, even back then he was a man of principle who wasn't afraid to be out of step with his peers.
> 
> He'd have gone for Shed 7.



Real hardcore social democrats that don't mess about all went for Pulp, you know that


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

Flavour said:


> Real hardcore social democrats that don't mess about all went for Pulp, you know that



Pulp were alright though.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> if you held a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd choose blur too tbf.



Well, yeah, cos Oasis are shit. Blur had a few good songs, but "Country House" was an abomination

I have just listened to Shed 7 song for the first time in at least 24 years and fuck me they are really bad


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

Oasis represented a defeat of the working class by itself. Blur one by external bludgeon. You will like the EU and salads and sitting outside.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Nah. To be fair, even back then he was a man of principle who wasn't afraid to be out of step with his peers.
> 
> He'd have gone for Shed 7.



Levellers.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

The Lib Dems were definitely Ocean Colour Scene though.


----------



## cloudyday (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> if you held a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd choose blur too tbf.



Blur had a few decent tunes, oasis made status quo sound like they had a few decent tunes


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Oasis represented a defeat of the working class by itself. Blur one by external bludgeon. You will like the EU and salads and sitting outside.


I love this.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

cloudyday said:


> Blur had a few decent tunes, oasis made status quo sound like they had a few decent tunes


Oddly  enough...


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)




----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

Pulp is to Blur/Oasis as the Kinks are to the Stones/Beatles as independent class struggle is to all bourgeois factions, right?


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> Pulp is to Blur/Oasis as the Kinks are to the Stones/Beatles as independent class struggle is to all bourgeois factions, right?



True story: a relative of Jarvis Cocker's was (briefly and peripherally) involved with Class War.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

I'm not sure how much time I have for Pulp anymore either tbf. I was chatting to a mate last night about how a Jarvis guest slot on an album (there are many) is enough to make me swerve the entire record.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Man, it’s so rad that we have a president who plays sax.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Man, it’s so rad that we have a president who plays sax.


tangential, but this meme always brings a smile to the face (shame it's only fantasy)


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Nah. To be fair, even back then he was a man of principle who wasn't afraid to be out of step with his peers.
> 
> He'd have gone for Shed 7.



Actually, scratch that. He'd have been going to see shit tribute acts in the back rooms of pubs.


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Man, it’s so rad that we have a president who plays sax.


If only Corbyn could play sax, then maybe everything would have been different


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Actually, scratch that. He'd have been going to see shit tribute acts in the back rooms of pubs.


The Australian Pink Floyd, but only for the Roger Waters numbers.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 16, 2020)

Does anyone remember when Hancock declared his love for grime


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

On his inclusion of ‘Three Lions’ by David Baddiel, Frank Skinner and The Lightning Seeds, Starmer said: “In order to really appreciate this song you had to be in Wembley in the crowd – I was in the upper tier – for the semi-final of Euro 96 when we’re playing Germany and for the whole stadium to be jumping up and down, rocking to this.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> On his inclusion of ‘Three Lions’ by David Baddiel, Frank Skinner and The Lightning Seeds, Starmer said: “In order to really appreciate this song you had to be in Wembley in the crowd – I was in the upper tier – for the semi-final of Euro 96 when we’re playing Germany and for the whole stadium to be jumping up and down, rocking to this.”


Until...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

andysays said:


> If only Corbyn could play sax, then maybe everything would have been different


What would he play?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 16, 2020)

Industrial sounds of a manhole cover being beaten with a ball pean hammer.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

The ride of the valkyries.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

The spoons
Badly


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> What would he play?


In an anti-Semitic mood, probably...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 16, 2020)

andysays said:


> If only Corbyn could play sax, then maybe everything would have been different



If Corbyn could for once not sit next to the bloke shouting "KILL THE JEWS!" and for once, just once, say "I stand against anti-semitisim, its not right, the Jews are great and I have absolutely no issue with Judaism or its followers" it'd be something.

Instead he nods along blithely as the racist next to him shouts along and then shoehorns in "I stand against anti-semitism and ALL forms of racism" every. damn. time. Just, if your asked to comment against anti-semitism can you just focus on that occasionally?

I've never been a Corbyn cultist and I've tried very hard to respect the man and I'm sure he means well and he's willing to stand up for socialism but he's also got massive massive flaws he seems incapable of seeing or addressing and he was surrounded by wankers like Milne.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2020)

Around the time me and my mate had a joke which went something like this

'Oi!!! Your dog just shat on the path you havent cleaned it up' 
'That's an outrageous smear! If a dog, or any other animal has shat on the path then I condemn that, but I see no evidence that it has. I think you just don't like dogs' 
'Ugh I just stepped in it, aren't you going to clean it up? Look, it's doing it again' 
'I have owned dogs for 37 years and none of them has done a shit in this park or any other park in that entire time. I've spent my entire life condemning owners who don't clean up after their pets. Look, theres a cat over there chasing a squirrel are you going to condemn that?' 
'Clean up after your dog ffs!' 
'Bloody Jews'


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

Trying to imagine what instrument might suit JC. A banjo is not quite right but not far off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Trying to imagine what instrument might suit JC. A banjo is not quite right but not far off.


He's widely recognised as a master of the kazoo


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)




----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Trying to imagine what instrument might suit JC. A banjo is not quite right but not far off.



The triangle. Chimed hesitantly and with poor timing.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

musical saw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The triangle. Chimed hesitantly and with poor timing.


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

maybe the piccolo trumpet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> maybe the piccolo trumpet.


And as well as the kazoo he's a noted virtuoso on the hurdy-gurdy


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

He cited John Lennon's _Imagine_ as his fave song, so tbh I don't think he's very interested in music.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 16, 2020)

He plays the Jew's harp.

Sorry, I meant to say he _thinks_ the Jews harp.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

He plays a good Jew's Harp. Unironically.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

Snap


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> He cited John Lennon's _Imagine_ as his fave song, so tbh I don't think he's very interested in music.


His favourite song
Galloway's favourite song
Who else's?


----------



## Knotted (Dec 16, 2020)

Hitler's?


----------



## bimble (Dec 16, 2020)

Imagine is such a shit dirge of a song. About as interesting, musically, as happy birthday or god save the queen.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> His favourite song
> Galloway's favourite song
> Who else's?


Picked on Desert Island Discs by Billy Connolly and Natalie Wood, apparently.


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


>




Shit, I think that was what I had in my subconscious.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Imagine is such a shit dirge of a song. About as interesting, musically, as happy birthday or god save the queen.


It's not his favourite song at all, he obviously doesn't care at all about music and had to cast around for something, anything, and it was the first thing he alighted on. He's probably only ever heard it in passing.

In the same interview he said Joyce's _Ulysses_ was his favourite book and all the melts mocked him wildly for it, claiming there's no way he's read that 'cause he's so thick, then it turned out he had. They missed the target - they should have gone in on _Imagine. _


----------



## HatesATourist (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> it's a good piece this - surprising there isn't more out there which lays out the case tbh, considering how corrosive The Canary and it's ilk have been in recent years. Also interesting that our own thread on the topic is one of the more substantial sources referenced in it...



Cheers! Also, an obvious thanks to everyone whose research I cheekily nicked off that thread.

Completely agree the formatting is shit. If I'd actually realised it was going to explode it it did yesterday I might have put some effort into fixing it.

The other legit criticism I've had (thanks K) is that it gets overly focused on the business model stuff and doesn't cover the Icke/Topple/Allen stuff in anywhere enough detail. That's fair; all I can really say is that was the focus of the piece and I'd not actually expected it to be used as an introduction to all the issues with The Canary as it has been recently.



steveseagull said:


> The centrist anger seems to be that Corbyn has done an interview with independent media organisation that has not got establishment approval.



Yeah, proper centrist me.



> These same centrists have no problem with themselves doing interviews with far worse publications/radio stations. No anger that a centrist MP did an interview with a Sun journalist who sourced neo nazi websites to draw up a hit list of Labour Party members, no problem with the leader doing radio phone ins with a virulent racist.
> 
> And then the 'whataboutery' nonsense is wheeled out to to cover their rank hypocrisy.
> 
> ...



Can't even be bothered being saracastic here. Have I made enough Tweets attacking the Daily Mail to fit your weird purity test for being allowed to despise Ickite weirdos?


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

HatesATourist said:


> If I'd actually realised it was going to explode it it did yesterday


how much of an explosion are we talking about here?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's not his favourite song at all, he obviously doesn't care at all about music and had to cast around for something, anything, and it was the first thing he alighted on. He's probably only ever heard it in passing.
> 
> In the same interview he said Joyce's _Ulysses_ was his favourite book and all the melts mocked him wildly for it, claiming there's no way he's read that 'cause he's so thick, then it turned out he had. They missed the target - they should have gone in on _Imagine. _



Only actual wrong uns read Ulysses, everyone else just pretends to.


----------



## HatesATourist (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> how much of an explosion are we talking about here?


Up to over 5000 views with another 5000 on the home page which I suspect is mostly from that.  4800 of the post views come from the past two days. Obviously, nothing for the big name bloggers, but I've only got one other post that managed to scrape just over 1000 and that was people searching "filesharing". (Who must have been sadly disappointed when they realised it was a post about the political ethics of using Tor for that purpose).


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

Fair - it's the only thing that really comes up on google (other than our thread) when you search for a critique of The Canary from the left, and there will have been a LOT of people wanting something to show their crank mates in the last couple of days...


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

thinking about it, your username is further proof of what I was saying about Pulp being the choice of the proper sound no-messing-about internationalist communists.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2020)

Welcome HatesATourist And thanks for that article.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2020)

that piece was also linked in a fb group chat I am in yesterday. I thought by the person who wrote that but obviously not lol  welcome


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2020)

andysays said:


> If only Corbyn could play sax, then maybe everything would have been different



Hmmm


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 16, 2020)

chilango said:


> Hmmm


I'd never realised before how much Atzmon looks like Sleaford Mods. Does he have a mate who stands there nodding his head and occasionally swigging from a can while he plays sax as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2020)

Pulp were and are lib-dem meritocracy freaks. If only people were put in their _correct IQ  position_. No wonder the miners strike one got booted.


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Pulp were and are lib-dem meritocracy freaks. If only people were put in their _correct IQ  position_. No wonder the miners strike one got booted.


I think we need you to place each britpop band in it's political tradition, this is gold.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Pulp were and are lib-dem meritocracy freaks. If only people were put in their _correct IQ  position_.



?


----------



## HatesATourist (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think we need you to place each britpop band in it's political tradition, this is gold.


Sleeper were Tories, obviously.

I'm interested in Northern Uproar though.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ?



Not all of us paid attention to pulp


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2020)

Ok back to the canary 

How would you describe canary/KAM’s relationship with the ‘anti austerity movement’?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think we need you to place each britpop band in it's political tradition, this is gold.



Travis.


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 16, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> What would he play?


a ukelele, the depressed vegetarian cunt


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 16, 2020)

Can't wait to see where I line up on the political compass brit-pop quiz. Will I be politically mild boring cunt with a twatted haircut, or Bez?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think we need you to place each britpop band in it's political tradition, this is gold.



Agreed. A moment of light and genius in a sewer of a thread.


----------



## cloudyday (Dec 16, 2020)

Cocker once gave someone I knew the _do you know who i am_ treatment for not serving him quick enough.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2020)

cloudyday said:


> Cocker once gave someone I knew the _do you know who i am_ treatment for not serving him quick enough.


(Cunts are still) running the world?


----------



## cloudyday (Dec 16, 2020)

Suede Tories, Brett Anderson giving it the Alan B'stard.






_you're not fit to tickle my plums_


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2020)

cloudyday said:


> Cocker once gave someone I knew the _do you know who i am_ treatment for not serving him quick enough.


Which is absolutely Starmer...all over... Credit where it's due after all.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think we need you to place each britpop band in it's political tradition, this is gold.


The Charlatans - all of them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2020)

cloudyday said:


> Cocker once gave someone I knew the _do you know who i am_ treatment for not serving him quick enough.


"This poor gentleman can't remember who he is.

Don't do drugs, kids."


----------



## belboid (Dec 17, 2020)

HatesATourist said:


> Sleeper were Tories, obviously.
> 
> I'm interested in Northern Uproar though.


not sure about them, but S*M*A*S*H* were whatever Workers Power's youth group were at the time


----------



## Raheem (Dec 17, 2020)

Jarvis Cocker's mum was/is the chair of the Conservative Association in whatever suburb of Sheffield. The sins of the mother need not be visited on the son, obviously. Unless it suits.


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2020)

chilango said:


> Hmmm



I realised my mistake immediately after making my post, when I remembered who the inventor of the saxophone shares a first name with.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 17, 2020)

I love you lot.


----------



## bimble (Dec 17, 2020)

corbyn not entirely indifferent to music, he says (i just read this news in the Canary) that he liked this song.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2020)

Christ. He isn't just indifferent to music: he hates it.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2020)

HatesATourist said:


> Sleeper were Tories, obviously.
> 
> I'm interested in Northern Uproar though.



Nah, Sleeper were New Labour students.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 17, 2020)

Let's not forget actual not even messing about Tories among the ranks of 90s British pop stars, like that fucking scumbag Gary Barlow


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 17, 2020)

Take that were britpop?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 17, 2020)

McCarthy and subsequently some of Stereolab were RCP/Living Marxism supporters.

The latter were on the periphery of Britpop temporally at least


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 17, 2020)

I remember Rhian Jones being a big champion of Kenickie as the true proletarian mackem voice.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> McCarthy and subsequently some of Stereolab were RCP/Living Marxism supporters.
> 
> The latter were on the periphery of Britpop temporally at least


Lætitia Sadier recently spotted stanning Jordan Peterson on twitter, so her political journey at least seems to have followed the same trajectory as the rest of the party.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Lætitia Sadier recently spotted stanning Jordan Peterson on twitter, so her political journey at least seems to have followed the same trajectory as the rest of the party.



Her solo output has been equally disappointing


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2020)

I saw her a few years ago and really enjoyed the show tbh. I probably wouldn't bother buying an album though, whereas Tim Gane's current project is great


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Lætitia Sadier recently spotted stanning Jordan Peterson on twitter, so her political journey at least seems to have followed the same trajectory as the rest of the party.


In all fairness, she has apologised for that one, so I don't think she's gone into full O'Neill territory. Although until reading that article, I was unaware of the Peterson/Mumford and Sons connection, which is a whole other realm of horrors.


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 17, 2020)

Sleeper 'bought' the name for their band off a guy I know. They had a melodic punk band in Staten Island, New York who had released things for a few years up to that point. They got a silly amount of money to ditch the name, with which they bought a nice van and top notch equipment with.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Lætitia Sadier recently spotted stanning Jordan Peterson on twitter, so her political journey at least seems to have followed the same trajectory as the rest of the party.


She has been loon-ing for many years.

Digusting fake trot with cliched french hair.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> She has been loon-ing for many years.
> 
> Digusting fake trot with cliched french hair.



You fancied her too?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2020)

imposs1904 said:


> You fancied her too?


Oh yes.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> the Peterson/Mumford and Sons connection


This is less surprising and disappointing though - they are solid tory scum.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> This is less surprising and disappointing though - they are solid tory scum.


That reminds me, does anyone know if there's a good word for the specific kind of schadenfreude-related feeling you get when someone you would expect to be shit does something shit and confirms your prejudices? Or indeed for its opposite, the kind of confusion and slight dismay you would feel if Mumford and Sons actually turned out to be really sound?


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2020)

splonkydoo said:


> Sleeper 'bought' the name for their band off a guy I know. They had a melodic punk band in Staten Island, New York who had released things for a few years up to that point. They got a silly amount of money to ditch the name, with which they bought a nice van and top notch equipment with.


Sounds like they made The Sale of the Century...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 17, 2020)

hitmouse said:


> That reminds me, does anyone know if there's a good word for the specific kind of schadenfreude-related feeling you get when someone you would expect to be shit does something shit and confirms your prejudices?


I definitely felt that when Ed Sheeran turned out to have a massive rental property portfolio. I'd been really worried that he might actually be a decent human being.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2020)

KABBING


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2020)

fyi HatesATourist A Canary man called Mohamed Elmaazi appeared alongside Beeley and assorted cranks a couple of weeks ago ostensibly to yap about assange but the only bit I listened to consisted of covid denial circle jerking and how masks are for fascist sheeple wankers and so on. 



Spoiler: canary crank


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 17, 2020)

andysays said:


> Sounds like they made The Sale of the Century...



Actually...it really was 


Jersey Beat | John Lisa interview
*Q: I have this memory of driving around with you and your mentioning that an English band by the same name (Sleeper) contacting you with a sort of “Cease and Desist” order. Can you tell me more about how they reached out to you and how the name change to Serpico came about?*

'Their record label legal department was rude. Somehow they tracked me down and called me and told me to stop using the name Sleeper because they had an album coming out on BMG. We already had an album out on a German label, a bunch of 7"s and were on compilations and so I got a lawyer and ordered THEM to cease and desist. [Lisa had wisely trademarked the name in New York state.] They had already manufactured their album and so legally, they were fucked because they were so arrogant. So, they had to buy the name off of us. This was in 1993. The rest is history. "

And was for 125 big ones too, apparently!


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2020)

splonkydoo said:


> Actually...it really was
> 
> 
> Jersey Beat | John Lisa interview
> ...


I was just making a joke based on "Sale of the Century" being one of only two Sleeper songs I can remember, tbh.

(if anyone can think of a joke based on "Inbetweener", be my guest)


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> whereas Tim Gane's current project is great


speaking of Tim Gane, some friends of mine got him to do a show for their internet radio station - it's real good. Reckon you'll dig this butchersapron


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> speaking of Tim Gane, some friends of mine got him to do a show for their internet radio station - it's real good. Reckon you'll dig this butchersapron



I do and will comrade.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 18, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Also, Fuck Corbyn, fuck Labour, fuck centrists, fuck Mendoza, fuck the Canary, fuck Sir Cop.


This is why the left can't have nice things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 18, 2020)

19force8 said:


> This is why the left can't have nice things.


Which of those things is nice?


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 18, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Which of those things is nice?


What?


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2020)

rekil said:


> fyi HatesATourist A Canary man called Mohamed Elmaazi appeared alongside Beeley and assorted cranks a couple of weeks ago ostensibly to yap about assange but the only bit I listened to consisted of covid denial circle jerking and how masks are for fascist sheeple wankers and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fucking Canary. Someone I used to be good friends with is high up in the publication, used to be an anarchist and a sound bloke. Fuck knows how they ended up working on that piece of shit.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 18, 2020)

rekil said:


> fyi HatesATourist A Canary man called Mohamed Elmaazi appeared alongside Beeley and assorted cranks a couple of weeks ago ostensibly to yap about assange but the only bit I listened to consisted of covid denial circle jerking and how masks are for fascist sheeple wankers and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



am a bit gobsmacked here ... Canary aren't even trying are they?


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2020)

cantsin said:


> am a bit gobsmacked here ... Canary aren't even trying are they?



I brought some of the Syria stuff they've published up with this person I know at The Canary and was totally given the brush off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I love you lot.


i hope this 7.40am post didn't follow a night's drinking


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 18, 2020)

19force8 said:


> What?


Where?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> Where?


when?


----------



## Knotted (Dec 18, 2020)

There on the stair


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2020)

Knotted said:


> There on the stair
> View attachment 244030


it's a mouse with some flair!


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2020)

Knotted said:


> There on the stair
> View attachment 244030



 goose-stepping and sieg-heiling


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2020)

Got a weird moustache too


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2020)

Been a weird few years


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 18, 2020)

Knotted said:


> There on the stair
> View attachment 244030



That ain't a stair, sweetheart. Those are the coffins of U.S marines.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 18, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Been a weird few years


You ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2020)

The more things change the more the stay the same.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Its 'you're opinion' _social democrat_.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 19, 2020)

Might I draw people's attention to this review I have just written of two books on Corbyn's fall: Gabriel Pogrund & Patrick Maguire 'Left Out' and Owen Jones 'This Land'.  The tone is rather critical of both books, but hopefully substantiated. Enjoy (or not), delete as necessary  Notes From The Borderland - REVIEW OF OWEN JONES 'THIS LAND' & GABRIEL POGRUND and PATRICK MAGUIRE 'LEFT OUT'


----------



## rekil (Dec 31, 2020)

Any loons doing a Soleimani #restinpower anniversary demo?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2021)

brogdale said:


>




Does anyone know what this actually is yet?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2021)

Justy under 8,000 on the stream now.  I think it's a campaigning think tank.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2021)

Noam Chomsky looks three-quarter dead


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2021)

He is 107 though isn't he?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2021)

He died in 2011.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 18, 2021)

Well I never.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 13, 2021)

The man is a monster casting a shadow over Westminster. Insidious.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 16, 2021)

can anyone explain what the Peace and Justice Project actually does? is this it, or is it yet to kick off?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

i'll take that as a no then


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2021)

He stood next to this at the Palestine demo in London at the weekend 

#worldsunluckiestlifelonganti-racist


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Delightful. Although that could be meant to depict a Saudi/Gulf state monarch


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> He stood next to this at the Palestine demo in London at the weekend
> 
> #worldsunluckiestlifelonganti-racist


Just to be clear, are we talking stood next to as in "stood next to", or stood next to as in "was somewhere on the same demo as, along with thousands and thousands of other people"?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Delightful. Although that could be meant to depict a Saudi/Gulf state monarch


Yes, looks like that.
Still anti-semitic in the truest sense of the word, though I doubt that many zionists would be comfortable with such an interpretation?


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Why wouldn’t they?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why wouldn’t they?


Oh, you think they would?


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> He stood next to this at the Palestine demo in London at the weekend
> 
> #worldsunluckiestlifelonganti-racist



are you genuinely the last person to know this was an effigy of  Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan, despised by pro Palestine supporters in the ME ? 

#dickhead


----------



## kebabking (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Delightful. Although that could be meant to depict a Saudi/Gulf state monarch



Could be. As ever, it shows that the fuckwit has zero awareness of the sensitivies or that he's learned from past 'mistakes'.

That's the thing though isn't it - if I kept on dead-naming people, and misgendering them, it wouldn't take long before people rightly decided that they weren't genuine errors, but that I was a nasty transphobe.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

no idea brogdale . What’s your erudite view?

eta I’m not down with this new board update


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

brogdale said:


> cantsin said:
> 
> 
> > are you genuinely the last person to know this was an effigy of  Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan, despised by pro Palestine supporters in the ME ?
> ...


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Delightful. Although that could be meant to depict a Saudi/Gulf state monarch



could just be eh


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Yeah cantsin it’s still a stupid effigy


----------



## Mr Moose (May 17, 2021)

Damn. I had a fiver on it being a Sacha Baron Cohen prank.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Didn’t the stern gang advocate a Jewish-Arab Semitic alliance against the real enemy (the British)


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Could be. As ever, it shows that the fuckwit has zero awareness of the sensitivies or that he's learned from past 'mistakes'.
> 
> That's the thing though isn't it - if I kept on dead-naming people, and misgendering them, it wouldn't take long before people rightly decided that they weren't genuine errors, but that I was a nasty transphobe.



 you want Corbyn to.... have " awareness of the sensitivies or that he's learned from past 'mistakes " ( are you even sober ? ) re: an effigy of
MBZ on the march ?


Edit : you've at least had the good grace to go v quiet all of a sudden, can well understand why - proper bad faith bullsh*t as kids are getting murdered
Edit 2 : have chopped out lots of my original invective, was a bit o.t.t. earlier today, head a bit f*cked


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> no idea brogdale . What’s your erudite view?
> 
> eta I’m not down with this new board update


I'd just got the impression that zionists tended to regard anti-semitism as racism directed exclusively at Jews, rather than towards all of those speaking languages from the semitic family.

Prepared to be corrected if I've got that wrong, though.


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Didn’t the stern gang advocate a Jewish-Arab Semitic alliance against the real enemy (the British)


Did they? I want to watch the film all about that.


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Could be. As ever, it shows that the fuckwit has zero awareness of the sensitivies or that he's learned from past 'mistakes'.
> 
> That's the thing though isn't it - if I kept on dead-naming people, and misgendering them, it wouldn't take long before people rightly decided that they weren't genuine errors, but that I was a nasty transphobe.


What is it that Corbyn has done exactly? If you kept on dead-naming people and misgendering them, I'd think you were being a dick, if you were in a crowd of thousands of people along someone who had done that, and someone told me that I should be getting angry with you because of that, I'd think someone was trying to pull a fast one.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Antisemitism (no hyphen) is a German word - from a specific historical context - used to add a ‘scientific’ justification for not liking Jews.


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah cantsin it’s still a stupid effigy


don't even bother sunshine - another 70 Palestinians civvies, 10's of kids , murdered over the weekend, and I'm going to debate whether an MBZ effigy is " stupid ",and whether Corbyn should have been on the same march as it  with clueless muppets on here ? ...ffs


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

brogdale said:


> I'd just got the impression that zionists tended to regard anti-semitism as racism directed exclusively at Jews, rather than towards all of those speaking languages from the semitic family.
> 
> Prepared to be corrected if I've got that wrong, though.


I don't think that's just Zionists who have that objection, I think it's generally pretty unhelpful to get into "who are the real semites/antisemites, eh?"


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Suit yourself cantsin But any hint of antisemitism on pro-Palestine stuff will be 1) off-putting to lots of potential allies and 2) picked up and    _weaponised_ to defend the Israeli state.

again, it’s about what you want to achieve


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Suit yourself cantsin But any hint of antisemitism on pro-Palestine stuff will be 1) off-putting to lots of potential allies and 2) picked up and    _weaponised_ to defend the Israeli state.
> 
> again, it’s about what you want to achieve



literally no idea what your on about now - wtf do you and Kebabtw*t think is ' anti semitic' about an MBZ effigy ?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Antisemitism (no hyphen) is a German word - from a specific historical context - used to add a ‘scientific’ justification for not liking Jews.


Yes, always interesting to look at etymology.
A quick glance at Wiki tells me...


> "The German word _antisemitisch_ was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816–1907) in the phrase _antisemitische Vorurteile_ (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan's false ideas about how 'Semitic races' were inferior to 'Aryan races'".


With the "races" plural bit dating back to the 1770s Göttingen school of history based on 'scientific racism'.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Suit yourself cantsin But any hint of antisemitism on pro-Palestine stuff will be 1) off-putting to lots of potential allies and 2) picked up and    _weaponised_ to defend the Israeli state.
> 
> again, it’s about what you want to achieve



how is this unclear cantsin?


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I don't think that's just Zionists who have that objection, I think it's generally pretty unhelpful to get into "who are the real semites/antisemites, eh?"


Agreed, just that the inflatable does appear unhelpful.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Yes, always interesting to look at etymology.
> A quick glance at Wiki tells me...
> 
> With the "races" plural bit dating back to the 1770s Göttingen school of history based on 'scientific racism'.



sometimes I think things were better before the enlightenment


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> sometimes I think things were better before the enlightenment


From memory, my visit through the first 7 or 8 rooms at the Wannsee Villa would suggest otherwise.


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> how is this unclear cantsin?


w
t
f

has an MBZ effigy got to do with " any hint of antisemitism on pro-Palestine stuff  " ????


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

ok Cantsin. Stick an effigy of non-European looking people with big noses and devil horns on all your marches. Tell us how it works out


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Oh the gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Oh the gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us.


be careful what you wish for


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

When you wish upon a morning star


----------



## two sheds (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> He stood next to this at the Palestine demo in London at the weekend
> 
> #worldsunluckiestlifelonganti-racist


have you got the photo with Corbyn standing next to it?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> When you wish upon a morning star


be careful it doesn't whack you in the face


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Fortune favours the brave


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ok Cantsin. Stick an effigy of non-European looking people with big noses and devil horns on all your marches. Tell us how it works out



we know how it's worked out - a couple of bad faith jokers making asses of themselves on a much loved interweb forum left over from the noughties, and everyone else getting on with life


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

cantsin said:


> we know how it's worked out - a couple of bad faith jokers making asses of themselves on a much loved interweb forum left over from the noughties, and everyone else getting on with life



right, so what’s your issue then?


----------



## Flavour (May 17, 2021)

I think effigies are generally shit

Effigies of non-white people in white majority countries, even on a pro-Palestine march, even if being made and held up by other Arabs, is still problematic. The devil horns and exaggerated features are just a bonus to make it absolutely clear it's a piece of crap


----------



## IC3D (May 17, 2021)

Who is the effergy spost to be?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (May 17, 2021)

IC3D said:


> Who is the effergy spost to be?


Some bloke called 'Cheugy' apparently. Or am I on the wrong thread?


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

Flavour said:


> I think effigies are generally shit
> 
> Effigies of non-white people in white majority countries, even on a pro-Palestine march, even if being made and held up by other Arabs, is still problematic. The devil horns and exaggerated features are just a bonus to make it absolutely clear it's a piece of crap


Why is it problematic if some arabs made and held up this particular effigy of an arab tyrant?


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Why is it problematic if some arabs made and held up this particular effigy of an arab tyrant?


It’s fecking baffling this stuff, honestly


----------



## Flavour (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Why is it problematic if some arabs made and held up this particular effigy of an arab tyrant?



We don't know whether they were Arabs or not, who made and held up this effigy. But that's not even the point. The effigy is the effigy. I don't care who made it, it doesn't make it less shitty. Look at it! It's got a big fuck-off hooked nose and everything. And if it's UAE leader (UAE who famously began MUCH friendlier relations with Israel during Trump era) then it equates said UAE leader with pro-Israel/anti-Palestine sign. Which has a big hook nose. Lovely.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

Flavour said:


> We don't know whether they were Arabs or not, who made and held up this effigy. But that's not even the point. The effigy is the effigy. I don't care who made it, it doesn't make it less shitty. Look at it! It's got a big fuck-off hooked nose and everything. And if it's UAE leader (UAE who famously began MUCH friendlier relations with Israel during Trump era) then it equates said UAE leader with pro-Israel/anti-Palestine sign. Which has a big hook nose. Lovely.


I know we don't know whether they were arabs or not - obv if it was made and held up by non-arabs it definitely would be problematic.

But if it's made and held up by arabs, it looks to me like it's just a recognisable caricature of an arab leader. The nose the effigy is sporting looks like an exaggerated version of the nose the guy himself has to me, like in every caricature ever.


----------



## IC3D (May 17, 2021)

It's saying the UAE leader is a hook nosed zoinist. Glad that's cleared up thought it was racist for a moment.


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Why is it problematic if some arabs made and held up this particular effigy of an arab tyrant?


Bit of an odd question. In the context of a movement/issue that has seen endless, endless, draining arguments about antisemitism, I reckon it's probably better to be _really careful_ about avoiding anything that could potentially be interpreted as an antisemitic stereotype, even if there's actually a perfectly innocent explanation once people are aware of the full context, rather than just relying on everybody being fair-minded, generous, and having access to all the context?


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

Tbh, I don't really think much would be lost if there was just a total ban on all caricatures.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Tbh, I don't really think much would be lost if there was just a total ban on all caricatures.


oh yeah, I hate them. But people do seem to like taking shitty inflatable versions of the politicians they hate to demos


----------



## bellaozzydog (May 17, 2021)

kebabking said:


> He stood next to this at the Palestine demo in London at the weekend
> 
> #worldsunluckiestlifelonganti-racist



I can’t see him in that photo
Was he in the same postcode, normally that’s enough 

you daft cunt


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

Flavour said:


> We don't know whether they were Arabs or not, who made and held up this effigy. But that's not even the point. The effigy is the effigy. I don't care who made it, it doesn't make it less shitty. Look at it! It's got a big fuck-off hooked nose and everything. And if it's UAE leader (UAE who famously began MUCH friendlier relations with Israel during Trump era) then it equates said UAE leader with pro-Israel/anti-Palestine sign. Which has a big hook nose. Lovely.


not sure that what a white ( guessing ) westerner " cares " about when it comes to Arab activists ( which they were ) protesting against their hated despots is particularly high on anyone's list of concerns tbh champ...


----------



## Knotted (May 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> be careful it doesn't whack you in the face
> View attachment 268747



Flail not a morning star isn't it?

Also a flail that will smash the user in the hand. I doubt it's authenticity.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Flail not a morning star isn't it?
> 
> Also a flail that will smash the user in the hand. I doubt it's authenticity.


i knew i should have paid more attention when i was last at the wallace collection


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

cantsin said:


> It’s fecking baffling this stuff, honestly



you may think a bunch of angry young men marching in london chanting “remember (the massacre of) khyber, you Jews” is unconcerning, but we are back to seeing ourselves as others see us




eta ah fucks sake. Anyway ‘twas a video of angry young men chanting “khyber khyber ya yahud”


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> you may think a bunch of angry young men marching in london chanting “remember (the massacre of) khyber, you Jews” is unconcerning, but we are back to seeing ourselves as others see us




sooooo... you're not going  to pursue the ludicrous MBZ stuff ( understandably ). and just want to chuck in a completely unrelated non seqitur and claim " you may think .... is unconcerning "?

Huh ?

Be srs ffs, this is just daft


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

It’s the same march cantsin. But yeah if you want to march with hook nosed mannequins and idiots chanting about killing Jews you go ahead


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

cantsin said:


> not sure that what a white ( guessing ) westerner " cares " about when it comes to Arab activists ( which they were ) protesting against their hated despots is particularly high on anyone's list of concerns tbh champ...


I mean, I don't know who made it, I've never met them, so I can't really say what their concerns are. But if they're members of the Palestine solidarity movement in the UK (which seems like a reasonable assumption to make) and they have any concept of political responsibility, they probably _should_ care about the context that movement has to exist in and navigate, which means that they should probably try to avoid doing stuff that could be used as a set-up for shitty bad faith attacks on that movement. Like, I'm not saying they're terrible people or anything, I'm just saying that if I was at a planning meeting and someone said "I've had a great idea, I reckon we should make some hook-nosed effigies", I would probably vote against that motion, in more or less any context?


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

Ok here’s a useable video of that chanting.

would you want to be marching alongside these people cantsin?


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

This is all very predictable.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, I don't know who made it, I've never met them, so I can't really say what their concerns are. But if they're members of the Palestine solidarity movement in the UK (which seems like a reasonable assumption to make) and they have any concept of political responsibility, they probably _should_ care about the context that movement has to exist in and navigate, which means that they should probably try to avoid doing stuff that could be used as a set-up for shitty bad faith attacks on that movement. Like, I'm not saying they're terrible people or anything, I'm just saying that if I was at a planning meeting and someone said "I've had a great idea, I reckon we should make some hook-nosed effigies", I would probably vote against that motion, in more or less any context?


Is that how protests work? Some sort of steering committee gets to to vote on what banners and that people are allowed to bring with them? Or are they actually a lot messier than that?


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> would you want to be marching alongside these people cantsin?


this is a really shit line of questioning. what answer are you expecting?


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> this is a really shit line of questioning. what answer are you expecting?



after witnessing his posts on here and the Labour a/s thread honestly I don’t know whether he would be comfortable marching next to that chanting.

in any case it was a rhetorical question. I (and I’m not the only one here clearly) would like cantsin to think a little bit more


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is that how protests work? Some sort of steering committee gets to to vote on what banners and that people are allowed to bring with them? Or are they actually a lot messier than that?


As I understand it, how it works is that Jeremy Corbyn personally handcrafts every single sign, banner, and piece of tat. I wasn't saying that there was such a central committee meeting or whatever (although making something that big does seem to suggest a certain degree of organisation), just saying that the effigy doesn't seem like a good idea to me?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> As I understand it, how it works is that Jeremy Corbyn personally handcrafts every single sign, banner, and piece of tat. I wasn't saying that there was such a central committee meeting or whatever (although making something that big does seem to suggest a certain degree of organisation), just saying that the effigy doesn't seem like a good idea to me?


He oversees their production in sweatshops of the vilest kind hidden in the sub-basements of momentum members' dwellings


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> after witnessing his posts on here and the Labour a/s thread honestly I don’t know whether he would be comfortable marching next to that chanting.
> 
> in any case it was a rhetorical question. I (and I’m not the only one here clearly) would like cantsin to think a little bit more


I mean, it does raise a broader question, which is that for, say, non-Arabic speakers it can be difficult to tell the difference between a dodgy chant and a completely innocuous one. Like, if I heard that without having seen this thread first, I'm not sure if I'd realise there was anything dodgy going on there. Not the only thing I've had this problem with, I also struggle to tell the difference between fashy Polish football ultra stickers and non-fashy ones.


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> right, so what’s your issue then?


my main issue is that that  it was just the kind of complete fabrication and lies that Kebabclown was merrily posting up on here a few hrs ago re: Corbyn that helped destroy him and Labour's electoral chances over 5 yrs, and seeing the exact same kind of b/s on here, the weekend after another 100 + Palestinians ( 30 + kids so far ? ) have been killed by the IDF, hit a v raw nerve


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2021)

The Israeli state is disgusting and idiots like you make it easier for them to get away with what they do. But you’re right and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is wrong. 


cantsin said:


> my main issue is that that  it was just the kind of complete fabrication and lies that Kebabclown was merrily posting up on here a few hrs ago re: Corbyn that helped destroy him and Labour's electoral chances over 5 yrs, and seeing the exact same kind of b/s on here, the weekend after another 100 + Palestinians ( 30 + kids so far ? ) have been killed by the IDF, hit a v raw nerve


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Israeli state is disgusting and idiots like you make it easier for them to get away with what they do. But you’re right and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is wrong.



it wasn't me that was "right " oh implaccable opponent of the Israeli State, it was the many people who pointed out to Pollard + Co that that effigy was MBZ ( who he seemed never to have heard of - no great surprise ) ...but the struggle continues eh


----------



## Flavour (May 17, 2021)

cantsin said:


> not sure that what a white ( guessing ) westerner " cares " about when it comes to Arab activists ( which they were ) protesting against their hated despots is particularly high on anyone's list of concerns tbh champ...


Why are you bringing my (presumed) race into this discussion and what difference does it make whether or not the people who had the hook-nosed/devil-horned effigy were Arab or not?

Were they citizens of the UAE or will any old Arab do for legitimizing this crass gesture?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 17, 2021)

cantsin said:


> my main issue is that that  it was just the kind of complete fabrication and lies that Kebabclown was merrily posting up on here a few hrs ago re: Corbyn that helped destroy him and Labour's electoral chances over 5 yrs, and seeing the exact same kind of b/s on here, the weekend after another 100 + Palestinians ( 30 + kids so far ? ) have been killed by the IDF, hit a v raw nerve



It’s no fabrication that Corbyn has been way too close to stuff that has been employed to ruin his (and others) chances. I’d be delighted to hear he was keeping a safe distance now, but I somehow doubt it.

Let’s face it, the mannequin is well dodgy whoever it is supposed to be. Safely displayed 1000s of miles away, it’s not helping anyone suffering now.


----------



## hitmouse (May 17, 2021)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s no fabrication that Corbyn has been way too close to stuff that has been employed to ruin his (and others) chances. I’d be delighted to hear he was keeping a safe distance now, but I somehow doubt it.


This is such a weird line of argument. "Isn't it terrible how Corbyn was stood near that dodgy effigy?" "Oh, was he stood near a dodgy effigy?" "I dunno, but he's stood near some other things in the past, might as well assume he must have been stood near it until proven otherwise."


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2021)

There hasn't really been three pages of 'discussion' about Jeremy Corbyn not standing next to an inflatable of someone who was misrecognised in an attempt to divert attention away from blatant Israeli war crimes, has there?


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

more like two I'd say.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 17, 2021)

I wanted to stay out of this because frankly I have no horse in this race but this is the photo thats circulating with Corbyn next to the effigy.


----------



## BillRiver (May 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> There hasn't really been three pages of 'discussion' about Jeremy Corbyn not standing next to an inflatable of someone who was misrecognised in an attempt to divert attention away from blatant Israeli war crimes, has there?



Sadly, yes there really has.

Corbyn was in a crowd of (tens of?) thousands of people from all walks of life with diverse banners, placards, badges, and so on. Also some people with an effigy of an Arab leader.

Very many humans have been murdered, injured, re-traumatised, lost their homes, lost friends and family members, but here we are. Discussing a puppet. Apparently.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> I wanted to stay out of this because frankly I have no horse in this race but this is the photo thats circulating with Corbyn next to the effigy.
> 
> View attachment 268807


So some people brought it near stage he was speaking at.  How evil.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

Elsewhere on the boards people are discussing gardening, football, what we're having for tea tonight. fairly sure there's room for a debate about whether this inflatable sheik is dodge or not tbh


----------



## BillRiver (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> more like two I'd say.



It is three now.


----------



## Flavour (May 17, 2021)

Most of the people calling out the effigy have also been active in the main Gaza thread. It's not as if it's one or the other. Ffs guys.

E2a for those hard of understanding: I absolutely appreciate that Corbyn has nothing to do with any of this but Corbyn is old news and this thread, 992 pages deep, has had several way-less-relevant tangents in the past. as if that mattered.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Elsewhere on the boards people are discussing gardening, football, what we're having for tea tonight. fairly sure there's room for a debate about whether this inflatable sheik is dodge or not tbh


Sure, it's not as if its an irrelevance blatantly obviously raised as a distraction or owt.


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Sure, it's not as if its an irrelevance blatantly obviously raised as a distraction or owt.


you should stop being distracted


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> Elsewhere on the boards people are discussing gardening, football, what we're having for tea tonight. fairly sure there's room for a debate about whether this inflatable sheik is dodge or not tbh


let them discuss the trivial while people here forensically analyse the major issues of the day


----------



## Mr Moose (May 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> This is such a weird line of argument. "Isn't it terrible how Corbyn was stood near that dodgy effigy?" "Oh, was he stood near a dodgy effigy?" "I dunno, but he's stood near some other things in the past, might as well assume he must have been stood near it until proven otherwise."



I’m not making that argument, though it appears that he was near it. I’m just saying that piling on to kebabking for a bit of piss taking was oversensitive given Corbyn’s form.

Given that even now thousands of Twitter warriors feel the messiah is due a comeback and some of those will be inspired by recent events to start crossing the line once more, then the microscope is going to be on him, where he goes and the company he keeps.


----------



## two sheds (May 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> So some people brought it near stage he was speaking at.  How evil.


Well he could clearly see what it was  

oh wait ...


----------



## two sheds (May 17, 2021)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m just saying that piling on to kebabking for a bit of piss taking was oversensitive given Corbyn’s form.



So accusing someone of antisemitism is ok as long as it's for a bit of a larf.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 17, 2021)

two sheds said:


> So accusing someone of antisemitism is ok as long as it's for a bit of a larf.



Yes, well done, that’s exactly what I suggested.


----------



## two sheds (May 17, 2021)

well yes i think it was actually - what else was it?


----------



## JTG (May 17, 2021)

Oh god, this is fucking pathetic


----------



## PR1Berske (May 17, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Most of the people calling out the effigy have also been active in the main Gaza thread. It's not as if it's one or the other. Ffs guys.
> 
> E2a for those hard of understanding: I absolutely appreciate that Corbyn has nothing to do with any of this but Corbyn is old news and this thread, 992 pages deep, has had several way-less-relevant tangents in the past. as if that mattered.



There should be one overblown tangent per page until page 1,000 and then either the thread gets locked or purged right back to page 1. A kind of "Final Destination" for messageboards.


----------



## cantsin (May 17, 2021)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m not making that argument, though it appears that he was near it. I’m just saying that piling on to kebabking for a bit of piss taking was oversensitive given Corbyn’s form.
> 
> Given that even now thousands of Twitter warriors feel the messiah is due a comeback and some of those will be inspired by recent events to start crossing the line once more, then the microscope is going to be on him, where he goes and the company he keeps.



gawd this is superfical, crass twaddle, just a bunch of reactionary cliche's you can find in any alt centrist bores twotter feed, ad infinitum ....zzzzz

+ no idea what you mean by Kebakbking's  ' pisstaking' ... it was a straight up ' Corbyn was next to an AS efffigy, again' smear ?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 21, 2021)

'solidarity with bears'. One of things I've always liked about Corbyn is that he's consistently shown iron fist support for nonhuman animals in their struggle for liberation against the parasite species that is _Homo Sapiens_. In that Rosen book the bear chases a family of hunters and tries to rip them apart.

Corbyn's greatest Marxist-Lentilist moment was being one of three signatories (inc. J McDonnell) to with out a doubt the greatest, most iron-fist pumping Parliamentary early day motion to date:  



> That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that* humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.*





> PIGEON BOMBS - Early Day Motions - UK Parliament
> 
> 
> That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these...
> ...


----------



## NoXion (May 21, 2021)

Wishing death upon the entire human race for the actions of a tiny fraction of its population is tedious misanthropic bullshit.


----------



## Leighsw2 (May 21, 2021)

Looks like an EDM from Tony Banks (who served on the GLC with John McDonnell). He was pretty strong on animal welfare!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 21, 2021)

Leighsw2 said:


> Looks like an EDM from Tony Banks (who served on the GLC with John McDonnell). He was pretty strong on animal welfare!



Based on his Wikipedia he sounds like a pretty legendary comrade!


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Wishing death upon the entire human race for the actions of a tiny fraction of its population is tedious misanthropic bullshit.


Possibly but it's also fair enough really


----------



## two sheds (May 21, 2021)

Harsh but fair


----------



## NoXion (May 21, 2021)

If you're an edgy teenager, maybe.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2021)

it's... a joke? can't you tell?


----------



## NoXion (May 21, 2021)

It's still shit.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2021)

NoXion said:


> If you're an edgy teenager, maybe.


Got me there spud


----------



## krtek a houby (May 21, 2021)

The right to arm bears


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> The right to arm bears


The right to bare arms.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 20, 2021)

platinumsage said:


>



I agree with both Tweets...
... it's just annoying that it's a state affiliated spokeman saying it.
Plus the fact the state they are affiliated with are:
a. Communist (which undermines the sentiment in the eyes of some)
b. Warmongers (Taiwan and South China sea)
c. Terrible at human rights.
d. Massive polluters (climate crisis being one of the global issues)


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 20, 2021)

Gromit said:


> I agree with both Tweets...
> ... it's just annoying that it's a state affiliated spokeman saying it.
> Plus the fact the state they are affiliated with are:
> a. Communist (which undermines the sentiment in the eyes of some)
> ...



Which state is communist?


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 20, 2021)

Stretching any meaningful definition of Communism to equate the robber-baron state-capitalism of the People's Republic of China (see Marx's Capital for a fair description of how they do business in the PRC) and the seriously misnamed Chinese Communist Party.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 20, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Which state is communist?


Public perception of China is that it's Communist. Argue the toss whether it is or isn't doesn't make a difference that the frothing at the mouth anti reds brigade will consider Chinese support of Corbyn as further damning evidence of commie conspiracies.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 20, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Which state is communist?


Bose–Einstein condensate


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The right to bare arms.



What about the right to arm bears?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 20, 2021)

billy_bob said:


> What about the right to arm bears?


Think it may have come up above:


krtek a houby said:


> The right to arm bears


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Think it may have come up above:


Did he have a picture of a bear with a gun, though?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 23, 2021)




----------



## fucthest8 (Nov 23, 2021)

ruffneck23 said:


>




Jesus fucking wept people are _still _going after him like that?!
Still, "substantial damages" 

E2A  "Accordingly, I have agreed to pay Mr Corbyn substantial damages, which he is donating to charity, and his legal costs.“


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 23, 2021)

fucthest8 said:


> Still, "substantial damages"


Uncle Jezza is giving it to good causes too...


----------



## steveseagull (Nov 23, 2021)

Full grovelling apology and having to debunk his own bullshit line by line.  Nothing better than seeing a Tory being forced to give all their money to a charity.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2021)

steveseagull said:


> Full grovelling apology and having to debunk his own bullshit line by line.  Nothing better than seeing a Tory being forced to give all their money to a charity.



Sweet.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 23, 2021)

I’d have like to seen him engaging in lawfare right from the start of his tenure as leader of the opposition


----------



## Cerv (Nov 23, 2021)

"On 15 November 2021 a false defamatory statement, for which I accept full responsibility, was published on my Twitter account about Jeremy Corbyn MP."

claims to accept full responsibility, but uses weaselly "was posted [by persons unknown]" instead of straight up "I posted"


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 23, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> I’d have like to seen him engaging in lawfare right from the start of his tenure as leader of the opposition


He could have self financed an aggressively profitable legal team to bash out case after case

Absolute money machine. 

And that’s just on the insane stuff posted never mind the continuous low key stuff


----------



## billy_bob (Nov 23, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> I’d have like to seen him engaging in lawfare right from the start of his tenure as leader of the opposition


Too fucking right. All that decency/civility malarky was never going to work. Should have been kneecapping them in the courts all along.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 23, 2021)

billy_bob said:


> Too fucking right. All that decency/civility malarky was never going to work. Should have been kneecapping them in the courts all along.


Novara or someone like that should do a Terminator/Aliens/Evil Dead-style tooling-up vid with Subcomandante Corbo's fizzog deepfaked over some heavily-armed dude pulling on Kevlar and racking rounds


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 28, 2021)

Corbyn legal action leaves ex Tory councillor 'penniless' at Christmas
					

Dad-of-three Paul Nickerson managed to raise just £30 via a GoFundMe appeal




					www.hulldailymail.co.uk
				




oh dear, how sad...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 28, 2021)




----------



## tommers (Nov 28, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Corbyn legal action leaves ex Tory councillor 'penniless' at Christmas
> 
> 
> Dad-of-three Paul Nickerson managed to raise just £30 via a GoFundMe appeal
> ...


Hahaha. Thirty quid!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 28, 2021)

Some good news at last.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 28, 2021)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Corbyn legal action leaves ex Tory councillor 'penniless' at Christmas
> 
> 
> Dad-of-three Paul Nickerson managed to raise just £30 via a GoFundMe appeal
> ...


I'm sure a well connected person like him will be just fine. Reminds me of the fact that former MP and abuser of women, Charlie Elphicke, is currently claiming universal credit and refusing to pay court costs of £35,000. Him and his wife, the current MP where I live, also got away with never having done any MP's surgeries in their time.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 28, 2021)

As Jezza doesn't currently have the Labour whip, he can't be selected as a candidate at the General Election , if that happened, he will probably run as an independent and walk it. I suspect that Starmer will bottle it when the time comes & Jezza will be the official Labour candidate.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 28, 2021)

marty21 said:


> As Jezza doesn't currently have the Labour whip, he can't be selected as a candidate at the General Election , if that happened, he will probably run as an independent and walk it. I suspect that Starmer will bottle it when the time comes & Jezza will be the official Labour candidate.


Starmer may be a bottler, but he's also a fool. So it's 50/50 where letting Iron Corbyn be an official labour candidate again is concerned.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 28, 2021)

billy_bob said:


> Too fucking right. All that decency/civility malarky was never going to work. Should have been kneecapping them in the courts all along.



Corbyn’s greatest weakness was that he never once flexed his iron fist. His supporters are also to be blamed. We were to fixated with cancelling the revisionist traitors on Twitter instead of purging them from the party.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2021)

Absolute monster.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 8, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Absolute monster.
> 
> View attachment 299817


Blatant antisemitism


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 8, 2021)

look at that red coat

bloody communist bastard


----------



## splonkydoo (Dec 8, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Absolute monster.
> 
> View attachment 299817



Jeremy 'Rasputin' Corbyn disguised as Santa, and with hemlock pies.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 8, 2021)

brogdale said:


> Absolute monster.
> 
> View attachment 299817



I suppose it'll be that magic money tree that's going to fund free Christmas presents for the kids is it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 8, 2021)

splonkydoo said:


> Jeremy 'Rasputin' Corbyn disguised as Santa, and with hemlock pies.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2021)

More evidence emerges of what the monster was up to last Christmas:


----------



## Chilli.s (Dec 11, 2021)

What a monster, distributing his commie filth to vulnerable children. I have the same Sellotape dispenser and have decided to throw it away in disgust


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More evidence emerges of what the monster was up to last Christmas:
> 
> View attachment 300187


SICK CORBYN AIMS TO MAIM CHRISTMAS KIDDIES WITH PERVERTED PARCEL BOMB PLOT


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2021)

DaveCinzano said:


> SICK CORBYN AIMS TO MAIM CHRISTMAS KIDDIES WITH PERVERTED PARCEL BOMB PLOT


blates including copies of the _Protocols _as well for the kidz


----------



## magneze (Dec 11, 2021)

Ace jumper


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2021)

magneze said:


> Ace jumper


Corbyn's collection of Xmas jumpers is second only to gyles brandreth's


----------



## agricola (Dec 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More evidence emerges of what the monster was up to last Christmas:
> 
> View attachment 300187



look at how he's volleyed that child in the kidney (probably for having the temerity to ask for a two minute break from work) and then just turned around and continued to wrap gifts, which presumably are for himself


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 11, 2021)

Why is no one commenting on his jumper? He’s proudly claiming that he’s dreaming of a “red Christmas”, the streets running with the blood of his Stalinist revolution.


----------



## magneze (Dec 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Why is no one commenting on his jumper? He’s proudly claiming that he’s dreaming of a “red Christmas”, the streets running with the blood of his Stalinist revolution.


Apart from the comments directly above yours?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Why is no one commenting on his jumper? He’s proudly claiming that he’s dreaming of a “red Christmas”, the streets running with the blood of his Stalinist revolution.





magneze said:


> Apart from the comments directly above yours?


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 11, 2021)

Look what you could have won.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 11, 2021)

brogdale said:


> More evidence emerges of what the monster was up to last Christmas:
> 
> View attachment 300187


I don't think the papers would have any trouble finding the 'wrapping up good, honest, hard-working British presents for asylum seekers and benefit cheats' angle here.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 11, 2021)

magneze said:


> Ace jumper


Pet defective


----------



## hash tag (Dec 11, 2021)

Any news on that brother of his recently 😡


----------



## Sue (Dec 11, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Any news on that brother of his recently 😡


He's over on the twat of the year thread.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2021)

And there's more monstrosity in this latest evidence...what is he up to here?


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2021)

Those broken eggs have Kier Starmers face on them.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 13, 2021)

Splashing his batter about in front of a room full of kids 😡


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2021)

agricola said:


> look at how he's volleyed that child in the kidney


----------



## Sue (Dec 13, 2021)

brogdale said:


> And there's more monstrosity in this latest evidence...what is he up to here?
> 
> View attachment 300639


Indoctrinating children with evil vegetarian propaganda no doubt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

Sue said:


> Indoctrinating children with evil vegetarian propaganda no doubt.


he's making a cake which he'll ice with the words 'free palestine'


----------



## JimW (Dec 13, 2021)

You can't make an omelette without a blood-soaked cleansing of the class enemy and a purge of the quislings.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 13, 2021)

brogdale said:


> And there's more monstrosity in this latest evidence...what is he up to here?


Whipping up a fresh batch of metabolically bisturbile drugs?


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 13, 2021)

Love how the first two girls are obviously children of loony left free palestine yoghurt knitting identity politics snowflake woke PC gone mad Citroen 2CV driving socialist scum while the third one is normal.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2021)

In that most recent photo he is clearly shown stirring things up.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2021)

Good iron fist reflection in the independent about how people who supported the Boris regime over a Corbyn-led Labour party are horrible and/or fuckwits: "Instead of a man who dedicated his political career to justice, equality and genuine public service, the country picked sleaze and corruption and lies and selfishness". 









						Opinion: We should have known what we were getting with Boris Johnson
					

We chose someone who’d reportedly ‘rather let the bodies pile high in their thousands’ than countenance a third lockdown. Perhaps it’s time to admit that there’s a lesson to be learned




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 13, 2021)

brogdale said:


> And there's more monstrosity in this latest evidence...what is he up to here?
> 
> View attachment 300639


Corbyn exploiting children in a North London bando crack house and showing them how to cook gear provided by his conspirator friend, Evo Morales. Probably wants them running a county line by the end of the month. This is where socialism leads to. The absolute monster


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 14, 2021)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Good iron fist reflection in the independent about how people who supported the Boris regime over a Corbyn-led Labour party are horrible and/or fuckwits: "Instead of a man who dedicated his political career to justice, equality and genuine public service, the country picked sleaze and corruption and lies and selfishness".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would be nice to see the second coming of JC .


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 14, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Would be nice to see the second coming of JC .


And the fuckwits will still vote BJ rather than him 'because there's just something about him I don't trust, you know...'


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 14, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Would be nice to see the second coming of JC .


I'm still seeing Facebook posts about Boris Johnson's screw ups choc full of replies stating that it would have been far far far worse under Corbyn. Facts and what is right and good do not concern tory supporters. Pretty sure Johnson is aware of his base.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2021)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm still seeing Facebook posts about Boris Johnson's screw ups choc full of replies stating that it would have been far far far worse under Corbyn. Facts and what is right and good do not concern tory supporters. Pretty sure Johnson is aware of his base.


he certainly spends enough time on his fundament


----------



## hash tag (Dec 14, 2021)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm still seeing Facebook posts about Boris Johnson's screw ups choc full of replies stating that it would have been far far far worse under Corbyn. Facts and what is right and good do not concern tory supporters. Pretty sure Johnson is aware of his base.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, for some. Others just knew this.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 14, 2021)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm still seeing Facebook posts about Boris Johnson's screw ups choc full of replies stating that it would have been far far far worse under Corbyn. Facts and what is right and good do not concern tory supporters. Pretty sure Johnson is aware of his base.


It would have been worse! Corbyn's a MONSTER!!!!!111!!


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 14, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Would be nice to see the second coming of JC .


That's usually in March/April time...


----------



## PR1Berske (Jan 9, 2022)




----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


>





Ooh!  That’s going to need a name..


----------



## Raheem (Jan 9, 2022)

8ball said:


> Ooh!  That’s going to need a name..


Momentum?


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 9, 2022)

If anyone's curious, here's the sauce (seems non-paywalled for me):








						Jeremy Corbyn could establish own party as hopes fade of being reinstated as Labour MP
					

Former Labour leader is being urged to upgrade his charity and run under its banner at the next election




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				





> Jeremy Corbyn is considering establishing his own political party after privately accepting he will never be reinstated as a Labour MP, The Telegraph understands.
> The former Labour leader has been urged by many in his inner circle, including his wife Laura Alvarez, to upgrade his charity into a political party, and run under its banner at the next election.
> If the party is established, it could tempt the defection of Left-wing MPs who are disaffected with the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, and could take the name of the Peace and Justice Project, which Mr Corbyn established to coordinate his political activities after he was suspended from Labour.
> Mr Corbyn sparked outrage in October 2020 after he responded to a formal inquiry into Labour’s unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination against Jewish people by saying allegations of anti-Semitism were “dramatically overstated for political reasons”.
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2022)

The UK does need a left-of-centre party that doesn’t treat the working class with contempt, but I can’t see this panning out.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2022)

Raheem said:


> Momentum?



Scientifically speaking, the same thing as Inertia.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 9, 2022)

I think he is highly likely to be re-admitted to the Labour Party assuming that he doesn't retire from politics by the next GE.  I know a few on here view him as the Chosen One but I very much doubt he has any hope of winning Islington North at a GE either as an independent or leader of a new party. But then I don't think Starmer has the courage of his convictions and will bottle it rather than risk the possible humilation whether it's likely or not.


----------



## Sue (Jan 9, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> I think he is highly likely to be re-admitted to the Labour Party assuming that he doesn't retire from politics by the next GE.  I know a few on here view him as the Chosen One but *I* *very much doubt he has any hope of winning Islington North at a GE either as an independent or leader of a new party*. But then I don't think Starmer has the courage of his convictions and will bottle it rather than risk the possible humilation whether it's likely or not.


I suspect (unlike most MPs who try this), he'd hold the seat. He genuinely has a very large personal vote.


----------



## PR1Berske (Jan 9, 2022)

8ball said:


> Ooh!  That’s going to need a name..


Socialist Labour Party. Oh damn.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 9, 2022)

Sue said:


> I suspect (unlike most MPs who try this), he'd hold the seat. He genuinely has a very large personal vote.


Think it depends on his campaign and how it plays out in the media. In his favour, he would attract a lot of attention. On the other hand every bit of attention he gets will carry an obligatory imputation that he's a wrongun.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 9, 2022)

Sue said:


> I suspect (unlike most MPs who try this), he'd hold the seat. He genuinely has a very large personal vote.


I think he could do a Ken Livingstone for Mayor style victory if he stood as an independent.


----------



## Sue (Jan 9, 2022)

Raheem said:


> Think it depends on his campaign and how it plays out in the media. In his favour, he would attract a lot of attention. On the other hand every bit of attention he gets will carry an obligatory imputation that he's a wrongun.


He's been the MP there for nearly 40 years, has a well-oiled local machine and a lot of people who're not Labour supporters vote for him. (I know quite a lot of people in that constituency and many of them seem to have met him out and about through non-political stuff and think he's a decent man.)


----------



## Raheem (Jan 9, 2022)

Sue said:


> He's been the MP there for nearly 40 years, has a well-oiled local machine and a lot of people who're not Labour supporters vote for him. (I know quite a lot of people in that constituency and many of them seem to have met him out and about through non-political stuff and think he's a decent man.)


I'm sure that's true. But I don't think it totally tells you what would happen if he stood against Labour at a GE. Most people will be voting for a prime minister, and it would be taking on a job to convince them they should be voting to keep a bankbench MP instead.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 9, 2022)

Raheem said:


> I'm sure that's true. But I don't think it totally tells you what would happen if he stood against Labour at a GE. Most people will be voting for a prime minister, and it would be taking on a job to convince them they should be voting to keep a bankbench MP instead.


I think most Labour supporters could vote for him with a clear conscious knowing that he’s not going to turn round and form a government with the Tories once elected. Nothing to lose here.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 9, 2022)

plus I could see Tories voting for him just to fuck shit up a bit in the Labour Party.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 9, 2022)

He'd vote according to conscience though so anything useful labour proposed

... ah yeh see the point


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 10, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> I think he is highly likely to be re-admitted to the Labour Party assuming that he doesn't retire from politics by the next GE.  I know a few on here view him as the Chosen One but I very much doubt he has any hope of winning Islington North at a GE either as an independent or leader of a new party. But then I don't think Starmer has the courage of his convictions and will bottle it rather than risk the possible humilation whether it's likely or not.



63 % majority 

I’d keep out the bookies if I was you.

The fact that the telegraph is giving it so much space is suspicious enough


----------



## IC3D (Jan 10, 2022)

He's a very popular local MP I doubt he'll loose the seat, I doubt anyone in the ward who vote for him read the telegraph.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2022)

Raheem said:


> I'm sure that's true. But I don't think it totally tells you what would happen if he stood against Labour at a GE. Most people will be voting for a prime minister, and it would be taking on a job to convince them they should be voting to keep a bankbench MP instead.


They would also be voting to keep a long standing and well loved MP with a strong record of working for his constituents over the decades, which I don't think should be underestimated.

Overall though, the idea of a new Corbyn-led party is pretty much a non-starter, especially if close political and personal allies like John McDonnell and Diane Abbott aren't up for it.

I still think the most likely outcome is that Corbyn doesn't stand at the next GE and focuses more/entirely on his Peace and Justice Project.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2022)

I'm sure team Starmer will find a really great candidate to run against Corbyn, and not just an amorphous sack of blairite platitudes with a tie wrapped round it.


----------



## agricola (Jan 10, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure team Starmer will find a really great candidate to run against Corbyn, and not just an amorphous sack of blairite platitudes with a tie wrapped round it.



Mary Creagh though


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 10, 2022)

Sue said:


> I suspect (unlike most MPs who try this), he'd hold the seat. He genuinely has a very large personal vote.


Well unless someone has done a survey asking the good folks of Islington North has to why they voted for Corbyn rather than any other candidate, I'm not sure how you can know that. I don't think there's a personal vote so much as personal popularity. 
I'm sure he's popular with his voters but popular enough for more than HALF of them (which is what it will take) to vote for him rather than the official Labour candidate? At an LE possibly but much less likely at a GE.


Sue said:


> He's been the MP there for nearly 40 years, has a well-oiled local machine and a lot of people who're not Labour supporters vote for him. (I know quite a lot of people in that constituency and many of them seem to have met him out and about through non-political stuff and think he's a decent man.)


Why is that a reason to vote for him? What percentage of people in Islington North (or any other constituency) ever speak or need to speak to their MP? I suspect it's not high enough for that to be a factor in how people vote.
Lots of other MPs (of all flavours) have put in the effort for their constituency, in what way is he special?


bellaozzydog said:


> 63 % majority
> 
> I’d keep out the bookies if I was you.
> 
> The fact that the telegraph is giving it so much space is suspicious enough


Voting for Corbyn at the 2019 election was an absolute no-brainer, the man was Leader of the Labour Party with plenty of reasons to believe he had a serious chance of being the next PM. That certainly won't be true at the next election whether he is an independent or once again the Labour candidate. It all comes down to what percentage of the Labour vote will switch to him or continue to vote Labour.
If he is re-adopted as the Labour candidate then I'm sure he will win comfortably, if not then I very much doubt it. What positives are there to voting for an independent backbencher other than as a protest?


----------



## Sue (Jan 10, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> Well unless someone has done a survey asking the good folks of Islington North has to why they voted for Corbyn rather than any other candidate, I'm not sure how you can know that. I don't think there's a personal vote so much as personal popularity.
> I'm sure he's popular with his voters but popular enough for more than HALF of them (which is what it will take) to vote for him rather than the official Labour candidate? At an LE possibly but much less likely at a GE.
> 
> Why is that a reason to vote for him? What percentage of people in Islington North (or any other constituency) ever speak or need to speak to their MP? I suspect it's not high enough for that to be a factor in how people vote.
> Lots of other MPs (of all flavours) have put in the effort for their constituency, in what way is he special?


Just my personal reflections on knowing the constituency (it's next door to mine) and a lot of people who live there but whatever. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 10, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure team Starmer will find a really great candidate to run against Corbyn, and not just an amorphous sack of blairite platitudes with a tie wrapped round it.


Don't forget the campaiging power of the ruthless Starmer machine.


----------



## PR1Berske (Jan 10, 2022)

Do not underestimate how much organisation, money, foot soldiers, and general help you lose if you stand as an independent having previously stood for a mainstream party.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> Well unless someone has done a survey asking the good folks of Islington North has to why they voted for Corbyn rather than any other candidate, I'm not sure how you can know that. I don't think there's a personal vote so much as personal popularity.
> I'm sure he's popular with his voters but popular enough for more than HALF of them (which is what it will take) to vote for him rather than the official Labour candidate? At an LE possibly but much less likely at a GE.
> 
> Why is that a reason to vote for him? What percentage of people in Islington North (or any other constituency) ever speak or need to speak to their MP? I suspect it's not high enough for that to be a factor in how people vote.
> ...



You're right that _strictly speaking_ only a representative survey of people who voted for him would tell you for sure, but anyone ignoring the circumstantial evidence that he has a large personal following is taking a major gamble. If you do want stats, whether his vote has held up in the face of Labour's changing fortunes nationally might be revealing.

Incumbency is nearly always an advantage unless you've been egregiously corrupt, lazy or otherwise terrible locally, and I doubt many people think Corbyn has.

The major parties often assume that only a few angry nutjobs will be fool enough to abandon the warm bosom of their party home and vote for a newly independent candidate. They've come unstuck that way before. Wouldn't surprise me much if they did here.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 10, 2022)

I think if Corbyn stood as an indie he would be in with a chance in the same way that the Blanau Gwent people won the seat off of Labour that time and Ken won in London and that Scottish Labour MP who got elected a few times after going indie...  He would also get an army of Labour and recently ex Labour people looking to give the Labour leadership a bloody nose without letting the Tories in. I think if he stood for a new party he would have less chance, personally. However I think he could end up retiring from the Commons or having the whip restored, although it's hard to see how the leadership could restore the whip at this stage... 

I think most people (most recently the Change UK wankers) underestimate the need for a party machine but I would argue that Corbyn like the others I've named has a personal machine that trump's a party one particularly under the current leader.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2022)

billy_bob said:


> The major parties often assume that only a few angry nutjobs will be fool enough to abandon the warm bosom of their party home and vote for a newly independent candidate.


for the most part they'd be right - it's only under very specific - and rare - circumstances they come unstuck. I'm fairly confident Corbyn's case is one of those circumstances though...


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2022)

Dom Traynor said:


> He would also get an army of Labour and recently ex Labour people looking to give the Labour leadership a bloody nose without letting the Tories in.


they would all be ex-Labour if they campaigned for a non-Labour candidate tbf


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 10, 2022)

killer b said:


> they would all be ex-Labour if they campaigned for a non-Labour candidate tbf


Yeah of course. I think a lot of people would risk it at this stage.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2022)

Out of all the MPs out there I think he (and possibly Diane Abbot) would be the best placed to win as an independent. Not that he definitely would but he'd be in with a chance in a way the likes of Chukka Umunna clearly never were. Especially against a Labour party that seems to see being incredibly uninspiring as its preferred strategy. I'd like to see him try anyway.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2022)

Does it really matter what Corbyn does at this point? He's hit the buffers and I think any attempts to push him further as the lynchpin of some political project, whether it's a new party or just proving that people hate Keir Starmer, will ultimately go nowhere. Time to move on, surely?


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Does it really matter what Corbyn does at this point? He's hit the buffers and I think any attempts to push him further as the lynchpin of some political project, whether it's a new party or just proving that people hate Keir Starmer, will ultimately go nowhere. Time to move on, surely?


I doubt anyone here is expecting a new political movement to form behind him at this point tbf, we're all just here to argue about whether his personal vote will hold up.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2022)

killer b said:


> for the most part they'd be right - it's only under very specific - and rare - circumstances they come unstuck. I'm fairly confident Corbyn's case is one of those circumstances though...



Yeah, that's what I meant. Clearly there are plenty of narcissists and chancers for whom it hasn't worked (did someone say Change UK again?) but again, I think it'd be difficult to paint Corbyn as either of those in the circumstances.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2022)

Yeah it's just nerd stuff plus maybe the chance to laugh at the look on Starmer's face isn't it. I'm not convinced more than a handful of people have ever seen him as some sort of messiah tbh and certainly no-one now is thinking of him as the head of any sort of movement.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 10, 2022)

The impression I get, and the logic, is that Labour are absolutely desperate for Corbyn to stand as an indy, both to be rid of him, and to be rid of anyone who supports him - and they are perfectly happy to lose one seat, that they'd be practically guaranteed to win back in any subsequent election, to do it. 

I also see Labour as being very happy to see a 'Corbyn party' attract every crank and loon going, dissolve into the endless infighting in which the left specialises, and to serve as both a signpost to the dangers of internal dissent, and as a demonstration to the electorate that Labour are not the Corbyn party. 

Whether they are correct about their assumptions I've no idea - my political forecasting, never brilliant, has fallen off into 'are you on Crack? levels of accuracy - but that's definitely the thinking....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2022)

8ball said:


> Ooh!  That’s going to need a name..



Bad Boyz 4 Life?


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2022)

kebabking said:


> The impression I get, and the logic, is that Labour are absolutely desperate for Corbyn to stand as an indy, both to be rid of him, and to be rid of anyone who supports him - and they are perfectly happy to lose one seat, that they'd be practically guaranteed to win back in any subsequent election, to do it.
> 
> I also see Labour as being very happy to see a 'Corbyn party' attract every crank and loon going, dissolve into the endless infighting in which the left specialises, and to serve as both a signpost to the dangers of internal dissent, and as a demonstration to the electorate that Labour are not the Corbyn party.
> 
> Whether they are correct about their assumptions I've no idea - my political forecasting, never brilliant, has fallen off into 'are you on Crack? levels of accuracy - but that's definitely the thinking....


I think this is all probably about right tbh, as far as their thinking goes, and I think they're probably right this time. I'd be delighted for it to be the latest hilarious miscalculation on the part of the labour right tho


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2022)

Corbyn would fucking walk it if he stood as an independent/new party leader.  

Galloway came fucking close despite being a piece of shit.  The biggest worry for Corbyn would be his 250,000 canvassers falling over one another.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2022)

kebabking said:


> The impression I get, and the logic, is that Labour are absolutely desperate for Corbyn to stand as an indy, both to be rid of him, and to be rid of anyone who supports him - and they are perfectly happy to lose one seat, that they'd be practically guaranteed to win back in any subsequent election, to do it.
> 
> I also see Labour as being very happy to see a 'Corbyn party' attract every crank and loon going, dissolve into the endless infighting in which the left specialises, and to serve as both a signpost to the dangers of internal dissent, and as a demonstration to the electorate that Labour are not the Corbyn party.
> 
> Whether they are correct about their assumptions I've no idea - my political forecasting, never brilliant, has fallen off into 'are you on Crack? levels of accuracy - but that's definitely the thinking....



I think this is about right. Using social media it'd be easy for them to net loads of those supporting an independent Corbyn candidacy and expel them for supporting a non-Labour candidate. Even if Corbyn won, the upsides (from their perspective) - mass expulsions, media praise, disciplinary action against Campaign Group MPs who backed him - would easily outweigh the embarrassment.  However, I think your second paragraph summarizes precisely why they won't get their wish. Backing an indy Corby campaign would require an tacit acceptance from the left that large numbers of its supporters would be placing themselves outside of the party. But like previous attempts from the left and the right a new party would be stillborn. There is no groundswell of support - the Corbyn moment has long dissipated - or immediate issue where a Corbyn/McDonnell type party might be able to organize around and grow from. As ever, the left and the right of the Party are stuck with each other.....


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think this is about right. Using social media it'd be easy for them to net loads of those supporting an independent Corbyn candidacy and expel them for supporting a non-Labour candidate. Even if Corbyn won, the upsides (from their perspective) - mass expulsions, media praise, disciplinary action against Campaign Group MPs who backed him - would easily outweigh the embarrassment.  However, I think your second paragraph summarizes precisely why they won't get their wish. Backing an indy Corby campaign would require an tacit acceptance from the left that large numbers of its supporters would be placing itself outside of the party. But like previous attempts from the left and the right a new party would be stillborn. There is no groundswell of support - the Corbyn moment has long dissipated - or immediate issue where a Corbyn/McDonnell type party might be able to organize around and grow from. As ever, the left and the right of the Party are stuck with each other.....


Well what’s left of the left and the right in the party.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Does it really matter what Corbyn does at this point? He's hit the buffers and I think any attempts to push him further as the lynchpin of some political project, whether it's a new party or just proving that people hate Keir Starmer, will ultimately go nowhere. Time to move on, surely?



Any genuine attempt to form a new leftist party would, realistically, have to be Corbyn-free. A good 50% of the population has already been convinced that he's a mad communist/terrorist/insert scary thing he's clearly not.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Any genuine attempt to form a new leftist party would, realistically, have to be Corbyn-free. A good 50% of the population has already been convinced that he's a mad communist/terrorist/insert scary thing he's clearly not.



Without quibbling over percentages, would anyone so easily convinced by the right-wing press be likely to show interest in a new leftist party?


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2022)

I'm sure the right-wing press would find a way to do a hatchet job on whoever this new leftist party field as a representative, Corbyn or otherwise.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Does it really matter what Corbyn does at this point? He's hit the buffers and I think any attempts to push him further as the lynchpin of some political project, whether it's a new party or just proving that people hate Keir Starmer, will ultimately go nowhere. Time to move on, surely?


Also, this is all about him. If they let him stand he'll be happy to sit in starmer's party and only makes the (potential) leap to forming something else when he personally is blocked.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Also, this is all about him. If they let him stand he'll be happy to sit in starmer's party and only makes the (potential) leap to forming something else when he personally is blocked.


Yes, I think there's an underestimation of Corbyn's proven, decades-long loyalty for good or (largely) ill to the Labour Party. He won't stand against them as he is a member, and not only does he know they are itching to expel him, but I don't think even now he'd want to stand against a Labour candidate. So there's a stalemate.


----------



## agricola (Jan 10, 2022)

Plumdaff said:


> Yes, I think there's an underestimation of Corbyn's proven, decades-long loyalty for good or (largely) ill to the Labour Party. He won't stand against them as he is a member, and not only does he know they are itching to expel him, but I don't think even now he'd want to stand against a Labour candidate. So there's a stalemate.



I agree with most of this, but not so much the last bit.  Would his CLP deselect him?   Would there be an open process to select whatever candidate it was standing against him?    I am not sure neither would happen so I can’t see him not standing in the event of a fix.


----------



## PR1Berske (Jan 10, 2022)

The experience of ChangeUK has possibly stunted any immediate plans to create new parties any time soon. He might be considering what comes next without going all the way to launching a new brand.


----------



## elbows (Jan 10, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


> The experience of ChangeUK has possibly stunted any immediate plans to create new parties any time soon. He might be considering what comes next without going all the way to launching a new brand.


Big difference between something like Change UK and a single candidate, single seat party. Although Change UK did end up trending in that direction and beyond


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2022)

Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?



All Bar One


----------



## Sue (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?


One of the local Turkish restaurants of which there are many. Mmmmm.


----------



## chilango (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?


Some Palestinian place to guarantee maximum press coverage.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2022)

He’d bring some sandwiches.
Enough for everyone, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2022)

Sue said:


> One of the local Turkish restaurants of which there are many. Mmmmm.


Gunners fish bar


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2022)

Posadas Fried Chicken


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 10, 2022)

billy_bob said:


> I'm sure the right-wing press would find a way to do a hatchet job on whoever this new leftist party field as a representative, Corbyn or otherwise.


They would try, but they might have less success. I don't agree with everything in this article but it did pretty much predict Corbyn's weak point before the media had really got their claws in: The Quietus | Features | Last House On The Left: Following Jeremy Corbyn's Campaign Trail



> There is at least one Israeli citizen to whom Corbyn has chosen to extend the hand of friendship: Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, enthusiastic proponent of the “Jews did 9/11” theory and spreader of the Blood Libel. Now, there's _really_ no point in talking to people like Raed Salah – other than to say “Fuck off, Raed Salah.” There's simply nothing to be gained. They have no interest in “finding common ground”... “a greater understanding”... “peace”. It's clear what Corbyn was thinking: Theresa May was trying to boot Salah out of the country at the time, on charges which Corbyn considered unfair. But the warmth with which he hailed his latest _cause celebre_ was startling: “[Salah] is far from a dangerous man,” he gushed. “He's a very honoured citizen. He represents his people very well.” And, issuing an invitation to the House of Commons: “You will be assured of a very warm welcome, and I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace, because you deserve it.”


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?



Apparently this is his favourite falafel spot


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 10, 2022)

Surely a new party led by the Jezziah would just split the anti-tory vote?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Apparently this is his favourite falafel spot
> 
> View attachment 305352


They've always done good kebabs there


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 10, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> They've always done good kebabs there



Apart from the one that gave me my first ever food poisoning in 1985-ish (assuming it's the same place opposite Archway Towers).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2022)

As an aside Mason has now arrived at a point  where he supports a progressive alliance of liberals, remainers, greens, middle class liberal lefties but not a new left party:









						Why a new left party led by Jeremy Corbyn is a bad idea
					

A new left party would be a distraction – the most important struggle is still within Labour itself.




					www.newstatesman.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Apart from the one that gave me my first ever food poisoning in 1985-ish (assuming it's the same place opposite Archway Towers).


No, it's on the same side of the road as archway tower just past the (now former) post office. Never been to the one opposite the tower


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As an aside Mason has now arrived at a point  where he supports a progressive alliance of liberals, remainers, greens, middle class liberal lefties but not a new left party:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's spread so thinly these days


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Posadas Fried Chicken


He’s a vegan, of course.


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> He’s a vegan, of course.


interplanetary chicken is made from rare minerals only found in Spiral Galaxy 28948


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2022)

Do you think Jezza might go for it once he sees how close this thread is to 1,000 pages?


----------



## hash tag (Jan 10, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Do you think Jezza might go for it once he sees how close this thread is to 1,000 pages?


Magnificent. Considering how long it's been going and how far it's come, who is to say he's not already following it 
Just goes to show how enduring he is. ❤️


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Do you think Jezza might go for it once he sees how close this thread is to 1,000 pages?


I think post 2 will cheer him up


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> He’s a vegan, of course.


He’s launching a manifesto not an own brand menu .


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> He’s launching a manifesto not an own brand menu .


Same thing if you think about it.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 10, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think post 2 will cheer him up


Maybe 3 & 4 also. But hey, the legend lives on


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 10, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Change had their launch at Nando's. Where would Corbyn launch/have his tea at?


Shed in the allotment, with homemade rhubarb jam sandwiches for all?


AmateurAgitator said:


> Surely a new party led by the Jezziah would just split the anti-tory vote?


I mean, in Islington there's probably enough anti-tory votes to go around?


The39thStep said:


> He’s launching a manifesto not an own brand menu .


Or is that just what he wants you to think, and all the stuff about a new party is actually just a decoy to throw people off the scent?


----------



## Elpenor (Jan 10, 2022)

The party should be called the Jeremist movement


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 11, 2022)

My favourite Cornish socialist on the story


----------



## Balbi (Jan 11, 2022)

The canvassers thing is interesting, if Corbs was running independently a lot of left wing folks would go and put the yards in for him on the ground. Since Starmer took over, it's been pretty noticeable that Labour's by election efforts have involved a lot of MPs having to leg it around the country because a fuck load of members are either not coming out or have just left the party entirely.

When 2023 and the election rolls around, Labour aren't going to have anything like the ground teams they had in 2017 and 2019, probably more like 2010 and 2015.


----------



## Supine (Jan 11, 2022)

Balbi said:


> When 2023 and the election rolls around, Labour aren't going to have anything like the ground teams they had in 2017 and 2019, probably more like 2010 and 2015.



2019 was the worst labour result since 1935 so maybe the ground team wasn’t that significant.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 11, 2022)

Supine said:


> 2019 was the worst labour result since 1935 so maybe the ground team wasn’t that significant.



depends on what basis - higher share of vote (nationally) than the great pre-corbyn centrist dad triumphs of 2010 and 2015 (source) although that of course doesn't win elections...


----------



## splonkydoo (Jan 11, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> He's spread so thinly these days



Paul the Marxist Marmite


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2022)

Supine said:


> 2019 was the worst labour result since 1935 so maybe the ground team wasn’t that significant.


lowest number of MP's returned across the UK (although England, Wales and Scotland all returned fewer MP's on occasion). A significantly larger vote than in many elections.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 12, 2022)

Supine said:


> 2019 was the worst labour result since 1935 so maybe the ground team wasn’t that significant.



Worst result on MPs returned, helped hugely by Farage's mob only standing Brexit Party candidates in Labour seats or against Tory Remainers.

2017 and 2019 saw Labour's vote % beat 2010 and 2015.

Realistically Starmer can expect the Lib Dems to clean up some soft Tory seats now they've apparently been forgiven for the Coalition by voters, but that still essentially takes you back to 2010. 

Starmer and his lot obviously want 1997 redux and that did rely, especially in 2005, on a strong Lib Dems. But it also needed Labour to win in Scotland as well, and let's be real that's never happening again.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Do you think Jezza might go for it once he sees how close this thread is to 1,000 pages?


The thought of seeing that momentous achievement is what's kept me going this last couple of years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2022)

Balbi said:


> Worst result on MPs returned


on a vote which had delivered victories earlier in the century. and there are people who have the gall to tell us we live in a democracy.

2005: labour win (under blair) with 9.55m
2019: labour lose (under corbyn) with 10.27m


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2022)

We all know MPs returned is a useless measure of overall support, and at the same time the only one that matters. Even a party offering meaningful voting reform (and it looks like Labour are going to have to be humiliated a bit longer before they're persuaded that's better than carrying on like this) has to play the current game long enough to get resoundingly elected to be able to implement it.

If we're talking about impact of ground troops in 2019, there may have been many more willing canvassers than in other recent elections but the disappointing MP count shows either they weren't strategic enough about targeting the right areas or they were targeting the right areas but weren't good enough at convincing the people they found there. I wasn't among them but I know people who were and I think both of those were factors, at least in my area. The people who got off their arses often didn't have a lot of political experience; the people who did have experience were not pro-Corbyn and were reluctant to join in, if not actively sabotaging their new hard-left entryist comrades.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> on a vote which had delivered victories earlier in the century. and there are people who have the gall to tell us we live in a democracy.
> 
> 2005: labour win (under blair) with 9.55m
> 2019: labour lose (under corbyn) with 10.27m


The 2019 result was more democratic than the 2005 one, In 2005 Labour won with 9.55m but the Tories got 8.78m and the LibDems got nearly 6m. In 2019 the Tories got 14m more than Labour and LibDems combined.
The current system is a democracy but a rather limited one sadly in that only the votes of a couple of million people (tops) count in the end.
However the one chance we were offered to make it slightly more democratic we turned it down so there aren't going to be any reforms for a while.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2022)

I'd imagine the 'ground game' was proper hamstrung in leave seats by adopting the disastrous second reff position, I bet those conversations were excruciating.


MickiQ said:


> However the one chance we were offered to make it slightly more democratic


Well, AV very much looked like a way to empower the Lib Dems a bit more at the  same time as the lib dems were happily nodding through massive assaults on the living standards of the poorest in society (in exchange for a tax on plastic bags) so you can hardly be suprised that it got minimal support even from people usually receptive to talk of electoral reform. Also the Cons had promised not to oppose it, which turned out to be a lie, would you credit such a thing etc.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 13, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd imagine the 'ground game' was proper hamstrung in leave seats by adopting the disastrous second reff position, I bet those conversations were excruciating.
> 
> Well, AV very much looked like a way to empower the Lib Dems a bit more at the  same time as the lib dems were happily nodding through massive assaults on the living standards of the poorest in society (in exchange for a tax on plastic bags) so you can hardly be suprised that it got minimal support even from people usually receptive to talk of electoral reform. Also the Cons had promised not to oppose it, which turned out to be a lie, would you credit such a thing etc.


Of course the LibDems were pushing a system that they thought would most favour them, they are politicians when all is said and done. However imperfect it might have been it would have been a bit better than the current winner takes all setup.
And the great thing about a little reform is it opens the door to a little more and a little more after that. The argument that we're not getting everything we want so we'll turn down something and stick with nothing is self-defeating.
I can understand why people might want to 'Stick It to Clegg' the man was insufferably smug. But that little moment of sticking it to the man has contributed to keeping the Tories in power for another generation at least.
Especially given the complete and probably irreversable collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland once their strongest heartland has put yet another obstacle in their path that FPTP accentuates.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2022)

Actually AV doesn’t tend to work out ‘fairer’.  It does give a third (but not a fourth or fifth) placed party slightly better chance of a seat, but research at the time indicated it gave the leading party an even larger number of seats.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 13, 2022)

There have been a few general elections where one party (labour in 1951, tories in february 1974) got more votes but lost the election.

I agree that FPTP is shit in some ways, but I'm still not convinced that the alternatives aren't equally or more shit in other ways.

And if there had been a 'party list' type of system, I can't help thinking that the party machine would have got rid of jeremy corbyn and other 'awkward' labour MP's some time ago...


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> And if there had been a 'party list' type of system, I can't help thinking that the party machine would have got rid of jeremy corbyn and other 'awkward' labour MP's some time ago...


under a proportional system, the kind of big tent political parties that resulted in Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair sharing a political platform aren't necessary. Corbyn would be in some kind of  Podemos type minor hard left party rather than the main SD/Liberal monolith.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 13, 2022)

Of course AV has been particularly effective at stopping (centre)-right governments in Australia.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 13, 2022)

AV was definitely worse than FPTP and the PR supporters who campaigned for it in the referendum showed how distant they were from the public on this not to mention naive. 

I think that a mixture of Irish style STV and MMP in England is you set any thresholds low enough could help create a space for a more radical left party to do ok, but looking at Scotland and Italy would demonstrate its not guaranteed by any means...


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2022)

Whither now? Labour under Starmer is a fucking very bad joke:


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 25, 2022)

Apparently getting rid of Corbyn is the _only _thing Starmer's willing to stick his neck out and look resolute about. Maybe it'll form the basis of the next GE campaign slogan.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 25, 2022)

billy_bob said:


> Apparently getting rid of Corbyn is the _only _thing Starmer's willing to stick his neck out and look resolute about.



There was also 'geronimo the alpaca must die'


----------



## PR1Berske (Jan 25, 2022)

I wonder if page 1,000 will be the confirmation of the Islington byelection.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 26, 2022)

Pidcock has gone.


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Whither now? Labour under Starmer is a fucking very bad joke:




Passive aggressive isn’t a great look. Left fighting left yet again when the tories are on the ropes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Pidcock has gone.





> This leadership is devoid of ideas, lacking vision. I can’t and won’t negotiate with these people anymore. The summit of their ideas are just small tweaks to the status quo. They challenge virtually nothing, but are noticeably determined when it comes to rule changes that alienate the left. They have demoralised thousands of people who were awakened to politics for the first in their life. I am sure, this is part of their larger strategy.


I mean... yes?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2022)

Comes across a bit mad


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2022)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I mean... yes?


the shadow chancellor openly said it was a great thing left wing people were leaving the party the other day. It's no great secret


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> Left fighting left yet again



does sir kieth count as 'left' though?  centrist dad at best, alternative conservative party at worst.

in other news, momentum have opened membership to people who are not in the labour party

as someone asked (either on this or the starmer thread) is there any point any more?

give up?  join / rejoin labour?  (or both)

 join one of the new tiny left parties? 

meh


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> does sir kieth count as 'left' though?  centrist dad at best, alternative conservative party at worst.
> 
> in other news, momentum have opened membership to people who are not in the labour party
> 
> ...



I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname. 

Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit. Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit.


I don’t like him because he’s a knight and a cop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname.
> 
> Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit. Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


Its more in my case because sir keithly shammer seems to want to do what Boris Johnson does, only more efficiently


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t like him because he’s a knight and a cop.


And an mp and privy councillor


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t like him because he’s a knight and a cop.



Because he achieved something from ability and he isnt a cop. Seems like inverse snobbery to me. Sorry.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2022)

we have waited a while for some policies tbf


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname.


you must treat the honourable leader of her majesty's opposition with the respect his office deserves!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

killer b said:


> you must treat the honourable leader of her majesty's opposition with the respect his office deserves!


If only the leader of the opposition would do the same


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

two sheds said:


> we have waited a while for some policies tbf


They're in the post apparently


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> Because he achieved something from ability and he isnt a cop. Seems like inverse snobbery to me. Sorry.


Oh right so people who haven't made something of their lives are themselves to blame


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname.
> 
> Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit. Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


Would you _really_ have engaged more if they'd used his full official name?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname.
> 
> Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit. Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


If people used his middle name he'd be done for, it'd be Rodney you plonker left right and centre


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2022)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Would you _really_ have engaged more if they'd used his full official name?



Yes. I hate people saying Boris and I hate people saying Keith. For different reasons but both turn me off the discussion. 

I looked at the #starmerout tag earlier which was a mistake. Its an embarrassing mix of lefties fighting themselves and paid tory bots.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 26, 2022)

Starmer is a pretender. He pretended to be leftwing when it suited him. He pretended to be in favour of party unity. He just lied. He's linked up with the right and still pretends that the left is riddled with anti-semitism, yet ploughs on with expelling anti-zionist jews. He can't be trusted.


----------



## Sue (Jan 26, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Starmer is a pretender. He pretended to be leftwing when it suited him. He pretended to be in favour of party unity. He just lied. He's linked up with the right and still pretends that the left is riddled with anti-semitism, yet ploughs on with expelling anti-zionist jews. He can't be trusted.


I'm not convinced he's pretending at being quite this rubbish.


----------



## cloudyday (Jan 26, 2022)

Sir Keith Stürmer


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 26, 2022)

ok, as regards the rt hon sir keir starmer kcb qc -

what policies?

other than the ones he said he'd stick with to get elected as party leader and has since said he'd ditch?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> Because he achieved something from ability and he isnt a cop. Seems like inverse snobbery to me. Sorry.


All knights are cunts. And he is a cop.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 26, 2022)

Knighted by the Tories for making sure Cressida Dick or anyone else didn't get prosecuted for murdering Jean Charles de Menezes, worked his arse off to make sure Simon Harwood didn't initially get pinged for murdering Ian Tomlinson, banging up as many youths as possible after the 2011 riots, and toeing the line for both Labour and the Tories.

He's a fucking cop.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 26, 2022)




----------



## teqniq (Jan 26, 2022)

Supine said:


> ...Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


Where are those then? Down the back of the sofa?


----------



## Raheem (Jan 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> I’d engage more if you could say his name rather than use a childish nickname.
> 
> Anti Starmer sentiment appears to be about not liking somebody because of his name or his suit. Why not wait until policies are rolled out before doing the tories work for them?


I like his name in theory, although it is wearing somewhat. I can't picture his suit. It's just a suit, isn't it?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> what policies?



Quite. At some point the Tories will either stick with Johnson and unite around a ‘phase two’ populist programme or they will ditch him and go for an early election with the new leader. So, at some point Labour and Starmer are going to need to set out some concrete policies that will connect widely and show what Labour offers.

I actually think the Green New Deal proposals are very good (and unlike embittered Corbyn types welcome the fact that it’s been nicked from JC/McDonnell and put forward). But where is the rest of it? Where is the post-covid economic strategy? Where is a real industrial strategy? Where is their own ‘levelling up’ plan? What about education? Why hasn’t anything he’s said or done cut through after two years?

I agree with Supine that the childish criticism of Starmer is frustrating. There are far more serious criticisms that need  be focussed on


----------



## a_chap (Jan 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> Yes. I hate people saying Boris and I hate people saying Keith. For different reasons but both turn me off the discussion.



From where I'm sitting it really _doesn't_ appear to have turned you off the discussion at all...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 27, 2022)

The 'Keith' thing is shit tbf.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 27, 2022)

Puddy_Tat said:


> does sir kieth count as 'left' though?  centrist dad at best, alternative conservative party at worst.
> 
> in other news, momentum have opened membership to people who are not in the labour party


I swear Momentum was open to people who weren't in Labour back in 2015, eg:








						What is Momentum? It means not waiting until we’re in Government to get things done – LabourList
					

Labour is in opposition and I hate it. This week I’ve been in Manchester where the Conservative Party had their annual Conference. It would be…




					labourlist.org
				





> Momentum is a network for people inside and outside the Labour Party to organise and build a mass, democratic movement for progressive change.











						Jeremy Corbyn's Team Launch Ongoing Activist Campaign
					

The team can call on the contact details of tens of thousands of Corbyn supporters for their activist group, which will exist outside the Labour party.




					www.buzzfeed.com
				





> The spokesperson insisted the movement must be kept open to people who didn't want to join the party and said it had more in common with the grassroots pro-independence movement in Scotland and this summer's anti-bailout campaign in Greece.


Unless they became Labour-only at some point and are now opening up again?


Pickman's model said:


> And an mp and privy councillor


And a cunt.


Supine said:


> Yes. I hate people saying Boris and I hate people saying Keith. For different reasons but both turn me off the discussion.


That is reasonable, tbf, I usually just say Sir Keir Starmer when I want to be insulting. I quite like Oh Sir Keir Starmer, but I suppose that one's about winding up Corbynites as much as Starmerites.


teqniq said:


> Where are those then? Down the back of the sofa?


Don't worry, Sue Gray's report into what Labour's policies are is due to be published any day now.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Unless they became Labour-only at some point and are now opening up again?


yeah they did


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> And a cunt.


a synonym of mp


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Quite. At some point the Tories will either stick with Johnson and unite around a ‘phase two’ populist programme or they will ditch him and go for an early election with the new leader.


or they'll take a bit from column a and a bit from column b


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

Raheem said:


> I like his name in theory, although it is wearing somewhat. I can't picture his suit. It's just a suit, isn't it?


it's the same colour as johnson's







etc etc


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> That is reasonable, tbf, I usually just say Sir Keir Starmer when I want to be insulting. I quite like Oh Sir Keir Starmer, but I suppose that one's about winding up Corbynites as much as Starmerites.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 27, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The 'Keith' thing is shit tbf.


It is.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 27, 2022)

Starmer is pointless. He'll accomplish nothing even if he manages to win. He'll cover up poverty with money from the less poor while rich continue to accrue more and more. Labour is finished as a source of improvement in this country. Have a look at the register of members interests at who's been paying him money over the years and pulling his strings.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

_kieth_ was funny for a week or so in 2020, but it's two years past it's sell by date now


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 27, 2022)

19sixtysix said:


> Starmer is pointless. He'll accomplish nothing even if he manages to win.


Indeed. The most it is possible, historically, to accomplish via parliamentary democracy is a social democratic accommodation with capital. But we aren’t currently in the conditions where that is possible. The working class doesn’t have enough leverage.  The window of possibilities is degrees of neoliberalism. (Neoconservatism  is out of favour with capital). 

It should be remembered that power is not held in government. Government is only a partner in power, and a junior one. Real power is held by capital. Capital will only tolerate so much deviation from what it considers to be in its interests.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> Passive aggressive isn’t a great look. Left fighting left yet again when the tories are on the ropes.


It's the timing that gets me, Partygate in full swing and Labour high in the polls. Complete lack of political nous.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> The most it is possible, historically, to accomplish via parliamentary democracy is a social democratic accommodation with capital. But we aren’t currently in the conditions where that is possible. The working class doesn’t have enough leverage. The window of possibilities is degrees of neoliberalism. (Neoconservatism is out of favour with capital).



Spot on. But Starmer hasn't even managed to produce a facsimile of Biden's limited programme which I expected him to have cobbled together by now.  I'd also expected it to be wrapped around PMC equalities signaling and with some serious intent about restoring the authority of elite liberal democracy post Brexit and Johnson. Disappointing.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

There's no real need to serve up policies right now, wait until an election to set your stall out. It would just give the tories something to attack to take the heat off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's no real need to serve up policies right now, wait until an election to set your stall out. It would just give the tories something to attack to take the heat off.


that's a very kinnockite line. and you know how often he was elected prime minister


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not just a media strategy he's on about though, it's the lack of clear policies and direction.


oh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's the timing that gets me, Partygate in full swing and Labour high in the polls. Complete lack of political nous.


God it must be so frustrating to see wreckers two footing everything they can. That must be so annoying for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's the timing that gets me, Partygate in full swing and Labour high in the polls. Complete lack of political nous.


imagine how high they'd be if people knew what they actually stood for

as they don't, this can only be people wanting not to vote tory atm and not people wanting to vote labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Spot on. But Starmer hasn't even managed to produce a facsimile of Biden's limited programme which I expected him to have cobbled together by now.  I'd also expected it to be wrapped around PMC equalities signaling and with some serious intent about restoring the authority of elite liberal democracy post Brexit and Johnson. Disappointing.


it's scrawled in crayon on a packet of rizla


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Spot on. But Starmer hasn't even managed to produce a facsimile of Biden's limited programme which I expected him to have cobbled together by now.  I'd also expected it to be wrapped around PMC equalities signaling and with some serious intent about restoring the authority of elite liberal democracy post Brexit and Johnson. Disappointing.



Yes, this. The creation of the welfare state was an accommodation with capital too, but at least it was politicians with a degree of ambition about something better than the current status quo seizing on the opportunity presented by the post-WWII climate, with material improvements for a lot of people as a result. Covid and post-Covid could arguably have been the biggest opportunity since then to try a bit fucking harder and offer ... something, anything, worth voting _for_. Instead, Starmer's just stood there like an overstuffed sofa left out in the rain, waiting for Johnson to trip over his own feet.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jan 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> it's the same colour as johnson's


I think for a Labour leader the choice of tie is often instructive. Corbyn, almost always red tie. Tony Blair getting what he wants in the Labour party, red. Tony Blair in power, purple and blue. Keir? He's blue and purple to his core.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> oh.


Only eight years ago too. Well done.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

DotCommunist said:


> God it must be so frustrating to see wreckers two footing everything they can. That must be so annoying for you.


Luckily no one gives a shit about them.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Only eight years ago too. Well done.


Have you changed your mind about what counts as good political strategy in that time? Looks to me like the only thing that's changed is whether you're into the leader tbh.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> Have you changed your mind about what counts as good political strategy in that time? Looks to me like the only thing that's changed is whether you're into the leader tbh.


Is the situation now the same as all those years ago?


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is the situation now the same as all those years ago?


In 2016 there was a new Labour Party leader, needing to make his mark and show the british public what the party stood for in the aftermath of a huge political crisis. So totally different.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> In 2016 there was a new Labour Party leader, needing to make his mark and show the british public what the party stood for in the aftermath of a huge political crisis. So totally different.


It is, we're in the middle of a huge political crisis now, not after one.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It is, we're in the middle of a huge political crisis now, not after one.


We’ve been in the middle of one for almost fifteen years.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It is, we're in the middle of a huge political crisis now, not after one.


it's ok, we get it: something that's bad when someone you don't like does it is good when someone you do like does it. You can stop thrashing.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> it's ok, we get it: something that's bad when someone you don't like does it is good when someone you do like does it. You can stop thrashing.


Maybe if you go back 10 years you can find another of my posts that proves you right?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 27, 2022)




----------



## hash tag (Feb 11, 2022)

Corbyn for mayor of London.


----------



## Supine (Feb 11, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Corbyn for mayor of London.



That’d be great


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Corbyn for mayor of London.


how you've changed your tune


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 11, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Corbyn for mayor of London.


Is this a real idea people are floating, or just a brain wave that sprung fully formed from the Mind of Hash Tag?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 11, 2022)

Idris2002 said:


> Is this a real idea people are floating, or just a brain wave that sprung fully formed from the Mind of Hash Tag?


We could do with a new mayor and it would be something he could do


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 11, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Corbyn for mayor of London.


I hear there's another big job in London that's vacant at the moment. And if working in law enforcement is a good qualification for being Labour leader, stands to reason it must work the other way around too.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2022)

Yes I was trying to visualize Khan suggesting Corbyn to Patel


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 11, 2022)

No-one seems to have remarked that we're now on *page 1000!* of this thread!


----------



## hash tag (Feb 11, 2022)

William of Walworth said:


> No-one seems to have remarked that we're now on *page 1000!* of this thread!


Modesty forbids


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 11, 2022)

William of Walworth said:


> No-one seems to have remarked that we're now on *page 1000!* of this thread!



JC is eternal


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 11, 2022)

The same yesterday, today and forever.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 11, 2022)

He is risen


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2022)

His coming was foretold by the Angel, Islington.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 11, 2022)

Only five away from 30,000 individual posts as well.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 11, 2022)

It's showing 30,000. 🙄


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 11, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Only five away from 30,000 individual posts as well.


Is he going to mark the occasion by multiplying some beetroots to feed 30,000?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2022)

Sermon on the embankment/mount


----------



## brogdale (Feb 11, 2022)

About 30 posts per page, then?


----------



## andysays (Feb 11, 2022)

Post #30,000!


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 11, 2022)

Ah, but it's the one _after _#30,000 has been reached that is truly momentuous.


----------



## billy_bob (Feb 11, 2022)




----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 11, 2022)

If the average posting time is two minutes (possibly generous) then we've now collectively spent 1,000 hours, or nearly 42 days straight, posting about Jeremy Corbyn's time being up, which is a little more than 2.5% of the entire duration that Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the opposition (1,666 days). And the thread itself has lasted 5 years, 7 months, 18 days — 679 days longer than Corbyn.

Hash Tag did not fuck off.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 12, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the opposition (*1,666 days*).



Much more than *The Number of The Beast!! *


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 12, 2022)

Official strength : *6.66% !! *   

(But I doubt that the Corbster drank much of it!!   )


----------



## hash tag (Feb 12, 2022)

666


----------



## steveseagull (Feb 12, 2022)

The Corbster is addressing the People's Assembly demo at midday at Trafalgar Square which will likely get the PLP seething.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 12, 2022)

Meanwhile


Pickman's model said:


> Oh fuck off


countless posts later......


----------



## kenny g (Feb 12, 2022)

William of Walworth said:


> Official strength : *6.66% !! *
> 
> (But I doubt that the Corbster drank much of it!!   )


Brings back bad memories (well half memories) does that beer tag.


----------



## PR1Berske (Feb 13, 2022)




----------



## tim (Feb 13, 2022)

Deselection time in North Islington, according to the Mail and Telegraph. I assume he'd probably still win as an independent.

Labour leadership want to deselect former leader Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## PR1Berske (Feb 13, 2022)

tim said:


> Deselection time in North Islington, according to the Mail and Telegraph. I assume he'd probably still win as an independent.
> 
> Labour leadership want to deselect former leader Jeremy Corbyn


We've skirted around this topic before. It really turns on how many current members go with him to provide support, office space, and money. Independent candidates are usually crushed by our constituency system and it'd be difficult even with the backing of a huge Corbynite crowd flooding to London to help. 

The Labour Party machine would crank into action against him, foot soldiers, money and all.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 13, 2022)

tim said:


> eselection time in North Islington, according to the Mail and Telegraph. I assume he'd probably still win as an independent.
> 
> Labour leadership want to deselect former leader Jeremy Corbyn



Anyone know what the situation is if things just remain as they are with Corbyn being whipless - if Starmer just leaves it as it is, and then an election is called is Corbyn just automatically barred from being selected as the LP candidate?

I suppose that Starmer is worried that the longer he leaves it in limbo the greater the chance that Corbyn will find some way to get the whip restored - so there's a balance between the risk of inaction, and the aggro of stirring up a hornet's nest by actively deselecting him...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 13, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


> We've skirted around this topic before. It really turns on how many current members go with him to provide support, office space, and money. Independent candidates are usually crushed by our constituency system and it'd be difficult even with the backing of a huge Corbynite crowd flooding to London to help.
> 
> The Labour Party machine would crank into action against him, foot soldiers, money and all.



Independent candidates are normally crushed by the fact no-one knows who they are or what they stand for. And the ones that doesn't apply to are normally crushed by the fact that nobody cares. I think Corbyn is a rare example where that wouldn't be the case - it's still a challenge to win against the established party but he'd certainly have a much better chance than most.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2022)

kebabking said:


> Anyone know what the situation is if things just remain as they are with Corbyn being whipless - if Starmer just leaves it as it is, and then an election is called is Corbyn just automatically barred from being selected as the LP candidate?
> 
> I suppose that Starmer is worried that the longer he leaves it in limbo the greater the chance that Corbyn will find some way to get the whip restored - so there's a balance between the risk of inaction, and the aggro of stirring up a hornet's nest by actively deselecting him...


Yup to both paragraphs.  Tho I think it’s more that if it’s to be done best it were done quick(er) than wait till just before an election


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


> We've skirted around this topic before. It really turns on how many current members go with him to provide support, office space, and money. Independent candidates are usually crushed by our constituency system and it'd be difficult even with the backing of a huge Corbynite crowd flooding to London to help.
> 
> The Labour Party machine would crank into action against him, foot soldiers, money and all.


I think a lot of the local Labour Party machine - the one that matters when it comes to elections - would crank into action _for_ him. He's also just generally a popular local MP. It would be extremely embarrassing if Labour deselected him and he still won, and I bet they are taking that into account.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 13, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Independent candidates are normally crushed by the fact no-one knows who they are or what they stand for. And the ones that doesn't apply to are normally crushed by the fact that nobody cares. I think Corbyn is a rare example where that wouldn't be the case - it's still a challenge to win against the established party but he'd certainly have a much better chance than most.


It’ll be like Livingstone when he ran for mayor as an independent. They’d be stupid to embarrass themselves again like this.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 13, 2022)

Dogsauce said:


> It’ll be like Livingstone when he ran for mayor as an independent. They’d be stupid to embarrass themselves again like this.



Depends on what they consider as the worst case.

My feeling is that there's a sizable slice of the LP who would be very happy to put a no hope, zero visibility candidate up against an indy Corbyn, and lose by 10k+ if that means a) he can never return to the LP, and b) they can then purge the party of every single member who liked a single one of his campaign tweets.

They'd prefer to beat him, obviously, that would be the most desirable outcome, but what will determine what they do is what it is they want to achieve, and what they're prepared to pay in order to achieve it.

I think they'll learn the Livingstone lesson - they'll put someone relatively disposable up against him, and depending on their private polling, probably not bother putting any national level campaigning into the fight. Then, when they lose, they can say with a straight face that they didn't really try.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 13, 2022)

kebabking said:


> Depends on what they consider as the worst case.
> 
> My feeling is that there's a sizable slice of the LP who would be very happy to put a no hope, zero visibility candidate up against an indy Corbyn, and lose by 10k+ if that means a) he can never return to the LP, and b) they can then purge the party of every single member who liked a single one of his campaign tweets.
> 
> ...



I reckon there's too many egos around for that. Losing to History's Most Unelectable Man would definitely put a few noses out of joint.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> Of course the LibDems were pushing a system that they thought would most favour them, they are politicians when all is said and done. However imperfect it might have been it would have been a bit better than the current winner takes all setup.
> And the great thing about a little reform is it opens the door to a little more and a little more after that. The argument that we're not getting everything we want so we'll turn down something and stick with nothing is self-defeating.
> I can understand why people might want to 'Stick It to Clegg' the man was insufferably smug. But that little moment of sticking it to the man has contributed to keeping the Tories in power for another generation at least.
> Especially given the complete and probably irreversable collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland once their strongest heartland has put yet another obstacle in their path that FPTP accentuates.


lol


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2022)

If they want a serious challenger to Corbyn, they shoud get Frank Dobson to stand. He's to the he left of Starmer and has got experience at this kind of challenge. If Dobson is unavailable, Steve Norris for the same reasons.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 14, 2022)

I reckon that between now and the next GE a deal will be struck to let him back in unless he decides to just retire. If he runs as an  independent one of two things will happen, either he wins or the official Labour candidate will, everyone else is just taking up space. I think that at a GE Corbyn would lose but it doesn't matter either way, it will be a massive and divisive shit show that Labour (already the underdogs) really don't need that will distract attention from the rest of their campaign and split the LP (not the world's most unified body at the best of times).
I honestly don't get Starmer's obsession with Corbyn TBH, Corbyn's is due his share of blame for the 2019 defeat but his political relevance was over come the morning of 13/12/2019, Sir Kier the Hopeless doesn't need to prove he's not Corbyn, he needs to prove he's not Johnson and he is doing a shit job of that so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> I reckon that between now and the next GE a deal will be struck to let him back in unless he decides to just retire. If he runs as an  independent one of two things will happen, either he wins or the official Labour candidate will, everyone else is just taking up space. I think that at a GE Corbyn would lose but it doesn't matter either way, it will be a massive and divisive shit show that Labour (already the underdogs) really don't need that will distract attention from the rest of their campaign and split the LP (not the world's most unified body at the best of times).
> I honestly don't get Starmer's obsession with Corbyn TBH, Corbyn's is due his share of blame for the 2019 defeat but his political relevance was over come the morning of 13/12/2019, Sir Kier the Hopeless doesn't need to prove he's not Corbyn, he needs to prove he's not Johnson and he is doing a shit job of that so far.


the difference between sir keithly shammer and boris johnson is sir keithly would be more efficient.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2022)

tim said:


> If they want a serious challenger to Corbyn, they shoud get Frank Dobson to stand. He's to the he left of Starmer and has got experience at this kind of challenge. If Dobson is unavailable, Steve Norris for the same reasons.


to be fair edward heath was to the left of sir keithly shammer


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 14, 2022)

tim said:


> If they want a serious challenger to Corbyn, they shoud get Frank Dobson to stand. He's to the he left of Starmer and has got experience at this kind of challenge. If Dobson is unavailable, Steve Norris for the same reasons.


To my mind, there's only one man for the job: Former Scotland and Leeds United frontman Arthur Graham.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 14, 2022)

Deja-viz


----------



## hash tag (Feb 26, 2022)

Corbyn speaks No to War in Ukraine


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 26, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Corbyn speaks No to War in Ukraine


Sounds like he probably won't be joining McDonnell at this one:


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2022)

Good article here exposing the hysterical lies of the Starmerite rightwing revisionist cult:  



			https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Good article here exposing the hysterical lies of the Starmerite rightwing revisionist cult:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs


the _shammerite right-wing revisionist clique_


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2022)

Corbyn: Disband military alliances like Nato to bring about peace
					

The former Labour leader is a long-standing critic of Nato.




					www.theargus.co.uk
				




Vaguely recognise the name, did he used to be somebody?


There is a point where mutual defense organization's become too large to be effective. However do offer a cost effective and force amplifiin way of keeping bar do wells at bay.

You can't just offer those with a conflicting intrest a pot of jam and hope everything will be alright


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2022)

Had a chance to look him up. Turns out Jermemy Corbyn didn't even invent the trouser press, it was some other fella apparently.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 20, 2022)

gosub said:


> Had a chance to look him up. Turns out Jermemy Corbyn didn't even invent the trouser press, it was some other fella apparently.


I share your disappointment.


----------



## a_chap (Apr 20, 2022)

gosub said:


> Had a chance to look him up. Turns out Jeremy Corbyn didn't even invent the trouser press, it was some other fella apparently.



I've never even heard of a Jeremy trouser press.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 20, 2022)

a_chap said:


> I've never even heard of a Jeremy trouser press.


Funny that when Jeremy speaks so highly of you.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 21, 2022)




----------



## hitmouse (Apr 21, 2022)

Not really sure what the post above is about, but anyway. 
We're entering the start of peak SWP postering season, and I spotted one of these yesterday:

Did he always do that, or is this a new development?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Apr 21, 2022)

I'm sure Janet Alder stepped away from them for a while after the Comrade Delta stuff. Must've been enough time to forgive them.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 21, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Did he always do that, or is this a new development?



Assume he's there in his STW capacity. 

Fucking dreadful line up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Assume he's there in his STW capacity.
> 
> Fucking dreadful line up.


mike davis not bad


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Not really sure what the post above is about, but anyway.
> We're entering the start of peak SWP postering season, and I spotted one of these yesterday:
> View attachment 319441
> Did he always do that, or is this a new development?


after 45 years perhaps it's time to start ripping off a different album cover


----------



## PR1Berske (Apr 21, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> after 45 years perhaps it's time to start ripping off a different album cover


Can you imagine how many meetings there'd be too agree on which album to use instead?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2022)

PR1Berske said:


> Can you imagine how many meetings there'd be too agree on which album to use instead?


i don't care, i wouldn't be in any of them


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 21, 2022)

The detail about him being "in the Bookmarks culture tent" is particularly baffling. Unless he's moved on from jam-making to yoghurt-making?


----------



## oryx (Apr 24, 2022)

Labour: Difficult to see Jeremy Corbyn return after Nato remarks - Starmer
					

The ex-Labour leader suggested the alliance be disbanded, sparking further ire from the current boss.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Looks like unequivocal support for NATO is now a condition of being a Labour MP...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 26, 2022)

Depressing stuff. If the left of the party is signed up to ‘socialism without the working class’ dead end then the intellectual, political and existential disorientation of the Labour Party is even more sharp than I’d realised.

Given where she comes from, and given the support she’s enjoyed from Unite in our region, I’m hoping that the quote is selective editing from the New Statesman.









						Can Zarah Sultana save the Labour left?
					

The 28-year-old socialist MP on her viral fame, social media abuse and Keir Starmer’s leadership.




					www.newstatesman.com


----------



## oryx (May 26, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m hoping that the quote is selective editing from the New Statesman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, not with you - which quote?


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2022)

oryx said:


> Sorry, not with you - which quote?


This perhaps?



> To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, the electoral coalition that you need is young people. It’s ethnic-minority communities, its Muslims and its progressives. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”


----------



## oryx (May 26, 2022)

Wilf said:


> This perhaps?


What she says is true though - you do need those people. You could argue that there are a lot of other omissions - disabled people, refugees, people on benefits, and so on. Plus very many of the people she mentions will be working-class. 

What does working-class mean these days, anyway?


----------



## Dom Traynor (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Depressing stuff. If the left of the party is signed up to ‘socialism without the working class’ dead end then the intellectual, political and existential disorientation of the Labour Party is even more sharp than I’d realised.
> 
> Given where she comes from, and given the support she’s enjoyed from Unite in our region, I’m hoping that the quote is selective editing from the New Statesman.
> 
> ...


It's the New Statesman view of the Labour left which is not always the same thing as the actual Labour Left (although it is sometimes)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

oryx said:


> Sorry, not with you - which quote?





oryx said:


> What she says is true though - you do need those people. You could argue that there are a lot of other omissions - disabled people, refugees, people on benefits, and so on. Plus very many of the people she mentions will be working-class.
> 
> What does working-class mean these days, anyway?



What she could have said is “To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, we need to reconnect when those communities that once supported us but who have been turning away from us in growing numbers for the past 30 years. We need to find out why by first listening to them. We need to work with and support trade unions to rebuild and to organise workers in the private sector and we need to help communities to renew collective institutions that promote and provide social solidarity. To win we need an electoral coalition of the modern British working class: young and old, multi racial and across all parts of Britain. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”

It’s not hard is it and that suggests that the omissions are quite deliberate and that no lessons have been learned from the last GE. And we know how that turned ot. As I say, depressing


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 27, 2022)

oryx said:


> What does working-class mean these days, anyway?


Oh christ don't start that. The people on here who have designated themselves spokespersons for it will have a seisure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Not really sure what the post above is about, but anyway.
> We're entering the start of peak SWP postering season, and I spotted one of these yesterday:
> View attachment 319441
> Did he always do that, or is this a new development?



Didn't know Tariq Ali was still going.

Also don't know why anyone would touch the SWP with a barge pole.


----------



## LDC (May 27, 2022)

.


----------



## LDC (May 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> The detail about him being "in the Bookmarks culture tent" is particularly baffling. Unless he's moved on from jam-making to yoghurt-making?



He's doing magic tricks maybe?


----------



## Cerv (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What she could have said is “To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, we need to reconnect when those communities that once supported us but who have been turning away from us in growing numbers for the past 30 years. We need to find out why by first listening to them. We need to work with and support trade unions to rebuild and to organise workers in the private sector and we need to help communities to renew collective institutions that promote and provide social soldiery. To win we need an electoral coalition of the modern British working class: young and old, multi racial and across all parts of Britain. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”
> 
> It’s not hard is it and that suggests that the omissions are quite deliberate and that no lessons have been learned from the last GE. And we know how that turned ot. As I say, depressing


not quite as snappy though is it? more than twice as long.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Cerv said:


> not quite as snappy though is it? more than twice as long.



Well, I’d cut the last bit off about seeking alliances with liberals and progressives, but each to their own…


----------



## Knotted (May 27, 2022)

I think the younger generation are proletarianised like never before (in living memory) and more aware of it. Labour and the Labour left aren't about sinking new routes into working class communities and I can't remember a time when they were, they certainly failed to do this during the Corbyn years. But with that failure in mind I don't blame them for looking to where there's real spontaneous energy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What she could have said is “To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, we need to reconnect when those communities that once supported us but who have been turning away from us in growing numbers for the past 30 years. We need to find out why by first listening to them. We need to work with and support trade unions to rebuild and to organise workers in the private sector and we need to help communities to renew collective institutions that promote and provide social soldiery. To win we need an electoral coalition of the modern British working class: young and old, multi racial and across all parts of Britain. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”
> 
> It’s not hard is it and that suggests that the omissions are quite deliberate and that no lessons have been learned from the last GE. And we know how that turned ot. As I say, depressing


----------



## Brainaddict (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What she could have said is “To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, we need to reconnect when those communities that once supported us but who have been turning away from us in growing numbers for the past 30 years. We need to find out why by first listening to them. We need to work with and support trade unions to rebuild and to organise workers in the private sector and we need to help communities to renew collective institutions that promote and provide social soldiery. To win we need an electoral coalition of the modern British working class: young and old, multi racial and across all parts of Britain. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”
> 
> It’s not hard is it and that suggests that the omissions are quite deliberate and that no lessons have been learned from the last GE. And we know how that turned ot. As I say, depressing


She's one of the few MPs in parliament who consistently refers to class, and to social movements as the key driver of change and referrent for her politics, but she didn't say exactly what you want so you're going to bitch and moan about it. This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (May 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


>



Just another self-serving labour politician waiting to shit on the working class.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Just another self-serving labour politician waiting to shit on the working class.


the worst of them you can tell by the damning letters 'mp' after their name. it stands for massive prick


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> She's one of the few MPs in parliament who consistently refers to class, and to social movements as the key driver of change and referrent for her politics, but she didn't say exactly what you want so you're going to bitch and moan about it. This is why we can't have nice things.



It’s hardly a minor point. It’s hardly an omission of a particular hobby force or cause. 

The idea that all that’s needed is to double down on the disaster strategy pursued in 2019 is a significant and strategic matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> She's one of the few MPs in parliament who consistently refers to class, and to social movements as the key driver of change and referrent for her politics, but she didn't say exactly what you want so you're going to bitch and moan about it. This is why we can't have nice things.


i don't think you understand her at all if 'this is why we can't have nice things' is your conclusion. back in the dim and distant past i and a colleague or two from london fight the poll tax met dennis skinner in parliament, and he he said you'll do much more to get change outside this place than inside. very true. and here you have another mp telling you that social movements are the key driver of change and you don't listen. if mps won't or can't deliver meaningful change except in a negative direction then what use are they?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you understand her at all if 'this is why we can't have nice things' is your conclusion. back in the dim and distant past i and a colleague or two from london fight the poll tax met dennis skinner in parliament, and he he said you'll do much more to get change outside this place than inside. very true. and here you have another mp telling you that social movements are the key driver of change and you don't listen. if mps won't or can't deliver meaningful change except in a negative direction then what use are they?


Within the institutional frameworks we have to deal with, having people in power who realise that the best type of power lies with movements is a positive thing, I would say. It's not about relying on MPs, but there can be positives about having people with power who are more on your side than others. Having a go at them all the time for not have the pure view of class struggle that you hold is just worthless noise tbh. You do the proper class struggle, if that's what you want, and see if the MPs respond when you need them to, but don't rely on them.


----------



## platinumsage (May 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> if mps won't or can't deliver meaningful change except in a negative direction then what use are they?



Who else is going to rubber stamp civil service outputs such as last week's The Novel Foods (Authorisations) and Smoke Flavourings (Modification of Authorisations) (England) Regulations 2022


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Within the institutional frameworks we have to deal with, having people in power who realise that the best type of power lies with movements is a positive thing, I would say.


i am very surprised by your suggestion that social movements have the best form of power, when the thing 'social movement' is not either positive or negative. there are progressive social movements; there are regressive social movements.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Just another self-serving labour politician waiting to shit on the working class.



Good anarcho-anarchist with anarchist characteristics analysis, but if that were her objective wouldn't she be cosying up to the revisionist Starmer clique?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Good anarcho-anarchist with anarchist characteristics analysis, but if that were her objective wouldn't she be cosying up to the revisionist Starmer clique?



When did you become a supporter of pacts with the middle class and electoralism?

And no, she wouldn’t. Her brand of politics has been safely contained, accommodated and marginalised for as long as the Labour Party has existed

ETA: and I’m not even criticising her for that. But some mention of the organised working class, collective organisation and movements outside of electoral considerations shouldn’t be too much of an ask should it??


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Within the institutional frameworks we have to deal with, having people in power who realise that the best type of power lies with movements is a positive thing, I would say. It's not about relying on MPs, but there can be positives about having people with power who are more on your side than others. Having a go at them all the time for not have the pure view of class struggle that you hold is just worthless noise tbh. You do the proper class struggle, if that's what you want, and see if the MPs respond when you need them to, but don't rely on them.



As usual your arguing about a point that hasn’t been made. Of course it’s useful to have people in power on your side, but the point I was making is that in the interview her strategy was silent on social movements, unions, left behind communities where a political vacuum exists and merely restated the previous (failed) strategy of pursuing an alliance of the youth, Muslims and middle class liberals


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When did you become a supporter of pacts with the middle class and electoralism?
> 
> And no, she wouldn’t. Her brand of politics has been safely contained, accommodated and marginalised for as long as the Labour Party has existed
> 
> ETA: and I’m not even criticising her for that. But some mention of the organised working class, collective organisation and movements outside of electoral considerations shouldn’t be too much of an ask should it??



Middle-age man takes to the internet to denounce 28 year-old working class socialist muslim woman based off of one quote from the New Statesman. Strong look.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Middle-age man takes to the internet to denounce 28 year-old working class socialist muslim woman based off of one quote from the New Statesman. Strong look.



It’s not just the quote though is it? It’s the certain  knowledge of where the strategy leads, it’s the obdurate refusal to learn lessons, it’s the obsession with electoralism. It’s the fact that if it doesn’t work the response will be to demand Starmer goes and then attempt the same approach with a different leader. It’s the fact that what she says represents a mindset that brooks no reflection.

But by all means present this as some form of personal attack rather admit she’s talking shite if it makes you feel better. But my only personal comment on Sultana is that given the support she’s had from Unite in Birmingham and where she comes from I was disappointed to see her echo the line


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 27, 2022)

"obdurate refusal to learn lessons" - what are you, a private school headmaster from 1932?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "obdurate refusal to learn lessons" - what are you, a private school headmaster from the 1932?



How else would you characterise the labour left’s current response to the last 5 years?


----------



## oryx (May 27, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As usual your arguing about a point that hasn’t been made. Of course it’s useful to have people in power on your side, but the point I was making is that in the interview her strategy was silent on social movements, unions, left behind communities where a political vacuum exists and merely restated the previous (failed) strategy of pursuing an alliance of the youth, Muslims and middle class liberals


Maybe she takes unions as read, given the famous, historic and strong links between Labour and the unions?

There's massive crossover between the groups mentioned - young people and Muslims exist in left-behind communities, they are trade unionists etc. etc.

I don't like the term progressive because  if is often used in a sneering way, but not all 'progressives' by any means are middle class - that's just a stereotype, just one notch above 'do gooders' and 'champagne socialists'. E.g. I would see many (most?) TU leaders, and Sultana herself, as 'progressive'. Not sure that many of them would self-define as middle class.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (May 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> but if that were her objective wouldn't she be cosying up to the revisionist Starmer clique?


No, not necessarily.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 28, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How else would you characterise the labour left’s current response to the last 5 years?



I’d give them an A+. They did their best to stop this country becoming a neo-Trumpian  shithole but everybody else - electorate included - fucked it up.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’d give them an A+. They did their best to stop this country becoming a neo-Trumpian  shithole but everybody else - electorate included - fucked it up.



You express outrage at any hint of criticism of anyone on the soggy labour left who are calling for pacts with fellow middle class liberals but slag off and blame millions of people for capitalism. Just lol.

Ever get the feeling a rethink of the modus operandi might be useful?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 28, 2022)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You express outrage at any hint of criticism of anyone on the soggy labour left who are calling for pacts with fellow middle class liberals but slag off and blame millions of people for capitalism. Just lol.
> 
> Ever get the feeling a rethink of the modus operandi might be useful?



Yet in your bizarre world the people who did their best to get a program of political and economic redistribution implemented - against all the odds - are the ones who should be condemned but the people who voted for the clique of Bullingdon conmen to run the country are not to blame at all for the 100% predicable outcome of their actions?

I have no modus operandi, I retired from politics in December 2019 when it became obvious that this country is fucked beyond repair.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (May 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yet in your bizarre world the people who did their best to get a program of political and economic redistribution implemented - against all the odds


This is your problem - you actually believe that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 28, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> This is your problem - you actually believe that.



Anarcho-anarchism with anarchist anarchy.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yet in your bizarre world the people who did their best to get a program of political and economic redistribution implemented - against all the odds - are the ones who should be condemned but the people who voted for the clique of Bullingdon conmen to run the country are not to blame at all for the 100% predicable outcome of their actions?
> 
> I have no modus operandi, I retired from politics in December 2019 when it became obvious that this country is fucked beyond repair.


the current government have done their best to get an ambitious programme of political and economic redistribution implemented but you never recognise their accomplishments in that field.


----------



## The39thStep (May 28, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't know Tariq Ali was still going.
> 
> Also don't know why anyone would touch the SWP with a barge pole.


Apparently just had a book on Churchill published. I guess the SWP have forgiven him for his 'vote Lib Dem' period .


----------



## two sheds (Jun 8, 2022)

Now this _has _shocked me 









						YouGov ‘banned’ release of 2017 election poll because it was ‘too good for Labour’
					

Ex-manager claims pollster was put under pressure by Tory MP founder




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Chilli.s (Jun 8, 2022)

SHOCKED I tell you...  the company set up by conservative Nadhim Zahawi, turns out to doctor its results to show his party in a better light. Who could have seen that one coming.

They stink as a company anyway and their results are not to be trusted. Could they be deliberately biased? who knows...


----------



## Cerv (Jun 11, 2022)

or not?









						Ex-YouGov worker retracts claim it suppressed pro-Corbyn poll
					

Former political research manager says he accepts colleagues had misgivings about methodology




					www.theguardian.com
				




the guy who made the claim about the poll being suppressed has gone back on that.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 11, 2022)

Cerv said:


> or not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This has the reek of legal threats behind the scenes.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 11, 2022)

The great boss man will never be deterred by the revisionist Starmer clique, or the Tory-bootlicking media/voter industrial complex!


----------



## two sheds (Jun 11, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> This has the reek of legal threats behind the scenes.


and he did say: "“I also believe then, as I do now, that the methodology was acceptable and the survey was conducted to the highest standard."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 4, 2022)

The great boss man gives an in-depth interview on how the establishment did everything in its power to undermine him:


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 4, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The great boss man gives an in-depth interview on how the establishment did everything in its power to undermine him:



A social-capitalist, social-cleansing charlatan.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> A social-capitalist, social-cleansing charlatan.



This message was bought to you by the Anarcho-Anarchist (Anarchist-Anarchist) faction of the Anarchist Alliance (Full Fat Anarchist Collective).


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 4, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This message was bought to you by the Anarcho-Anarchist (Anarchist-Anarchist) faction of the Anarchist Alliance (Full Fat Anarchist Collective).


Splitters!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 4, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The great boss man gives an in-depth interview on how the establishment did everything in its power to undermine him:



Interesting talk, thanks.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 5, 2022)

" the date for Richard Millett's case against Jeremy is Monday 10th October in the High Court.  Mr Justice Nicklin will preside and the case is expected to last for approximately 3 weeks."

Eta: Presuming QC John Ware Panorama reporter is taking legal action for libel against Corbyn


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 5, 2022)

At the end of the day on Corby's watch as leader of the Labour Party a  fuck ton of gentrification and social cleansing of working class communities happened and he did fuck all about it - maybe that has something to do with why him and his ilk were rejected by the working class eh.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> At the end of the day on Corby's watch as leader of the Labour Party a  fuck ton of gentrification and social cleansing of working class communities happened and he did fuck all about it - maybe that has something to do with why him and his ilk were rejected by the working class eh.



For Anarcho-Supremo Boris Johnson? LMAO.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

Centrism in a nutshell. Solidarity with victims of abuse is an inconvenience to these cunts:


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2022)

Fucksake, this is awful:


----------



## oryx (Jul 6, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Fucksake, this is awful:



Awful, yes - but not surprising.


----------



## tommers (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Centrism in a nutshell. Solidarity with victims of abuse is an inconvenience to these cunts:



Saw this. It's weird. Like he's not aware of what's going on? Maybe he thinks that the Conservative party fighting either isn't as important or not as deserving of comment as the thing he's commenting on? He's not even in the Labour Party any more, move on FFS.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2022)

Best reply ' JC still living rent free in their heads


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 6, 2022)

tommers said:


> Saw this. It's weird. Like he's not aware of what's going on? Maybe he thinks that the Conservative party fighting either isn't as important or not as deserving of comment as the thing he's commenting on? He's not even in the Labour Party any more, move on FFS.


Corbyn has tweeted about the current situation, it's just very important for a certain type of very online centrist for him to be to blame for every thing that ever has or will happen in politics and for him to serve as the eternally wrong figurehead for left wing politics which must never be allowed even a fingerhold in the British system ever again.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

Contrast the Correct vs Revisionist take:


----------



## JimW (Jul 6, 2022)

What's that line about wait long enough and you can watch the bodies of your enemies float downstream.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Fucksake, this is awful:




Still remember this rightwing grifter's treatment of Diane Abbott. She's the epitome of bourgeois 'white feminism'. 









						Labour MP told Diane Abbott to 'f*** off' and 'she 'f***ed off'
					

Spat between the two Labour MPs came during party meeting after Jeremy Corbyn failed to appoint a woman to top positions in front bench




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Contrast the Correct vs Revisionist take:



Ta - I did wonder whether he'd not said anything at all about Johnson's current clusterfuck, or whether it was just selective posting to make him look bad. No change there, then.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Centrism in a nutshell. Solidarity with victims of abuse is an inconvenience to these cunts:



The journalist responsible for that tweet has been given very short shrift in the replies.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

teqniq said:


> The journalist responsible for that tweet has been given very short shrift in the replies.



She's just another racist piece of shit, like Jess Philips and so many other centrists


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This message was bought to you by the Anarcho-Anarchist (Anarchist-Anarchist) faction of the Anarchist Alliance (Full Fat Anarchist Collective).


Simply repeating the word anarchist again and again is just pathetic.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> For Anarcho-Supremo Boris Johnson? LMAO.


Again, just pathetic.


----------



## Whagwan (Jul 6, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Still remember this rightwing grifter's treatment of Diane Abbott. She's the epitome of bourgeois 'white feminism'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All in her head apparently...










						Diane Abbott says Labour MP Jess Phillips 'never told me to f*** off'
					

'What was extraordinary is that she made a big deal about telling people she had.'




					metro.co.uk


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 6, 2022)

Whagwan said:


> All in her head apparently...
> View attachment 330797
> 
> 
> ...



Phillips is like a blowhard teenager who makes unverified brags about beating up kids in other schools. What was odious about her remarks though was that she encouraged people to tell Abbott to fuck off at ‘every given opportunity’ - while she was receiving as much abuse (most racist and sexist) as all the other MPs combined. Philips is a deeply vicious and evil person


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

The only valid critique of the Corbyn project right here. Corbyn and his comrades ought to have waged a vicious and unrelenting purge of the Parliamentary Labour Party via mass deselection. Corbyn's naivete about 'party unity' effectively laid the foundations for the accession of the Revisionist Starmer Clique:


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2022)

A major rather than the only valid, I think, though.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

A fuck ton of social cleansing and gentrification of the working class happened on Jeremy Corbyn's watch as leader of the Labour Party. When will people learn not to trust any politicians, not to support any political party? The mindless fawning adulation of Corbyn is pathetic. I despise the capitalist, bourgeois Labour Party who fire-blanket discontent and are demonstrably anti-working class and always have been, throughout their history.

The truth is that the Corbyn project was a massive diversion, funnelling energy away from grass roots community direct action and genuine anti-capitalism and revolutionary politics and action into the dead end of electoralism and parliamentary politics. Parliament can only ever be bourgeois, capitalism can only ever be bourgeois wether it is 'social' or not, the state can only ever be bourgeois - both are enemies of the working class.

This shouldn't need saying but unfortunately it does -  The likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana are worse than the tories because they lie about being 'on our side' when infact they are our enemies - which has been proven every time we've had a 'left wing' labour government. The Labour Party is anti-working class and has always attacked the living standards of the working class and striking workers when in power. Fuck parliamentary politics and electoralism! Bring on the revolution! Long live anarchist communism! Death to capitalism! Long live the revolution!


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)




----------



## Shechemite (Jul 20, 2022)

You just don’t want to pay your taxes do you AmateurAgitator? You Tory Mossad agent so and so


----------



## Nigel (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The only valid critique of the Corbyn project right here. Corbyn and his comrades ought to have waged a vicious and unrelenting purge of the Parliamentary Labour Party via mass deselection. Corbyn's naivete about 'party unity' effectively laid the foundations for the accession of the Revisionist Starmer Clique:



Ed from the Communist Correspondence Society!


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

The labour left are a fake alternative and thats simply a fact


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> A fuck ton of social cleansing and gentrification of the working class happened on Jeremy Corbyn's watch as leader of the Labour Party.



You’re right. No wonder the government he led was voted out of office!

But the dastardly Great Boss Man is still at it, promoting gentrification and social cleansing in his own constituency:


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You’re right. No wonder the government he led was voted out of office!
> 
> But the dastardly Great Boss Man is still at it, promoting gentrification and social cleansing in his own constituency:



The man is a hypocrite then. What I said about him is true. His record stands.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The man is a hypocrite then. What I said was true. His record stands.



True, his life long commitment to affordable housing is certainly hypocritical in light of your meticulously documented classification of him as a social cleanser.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> True, his life long commitment to affordable housing is certainly hypocritical in light of your meticulously documented classification of him as a social cleanser.


The social cleansing was done by a load of Labour councils. Corbyn did nothing about it.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

This is just in London - with Corbyn as leader :


----------



## Maggot (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Fuck parliamentary politics and electoralism! Bring on the revolution! Long live anarchist communism! Death to capitalism! Long live the revolution!


Good luck with that!


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Maggot said:


> Good luck with that!


Electoralism has gone so well hasn't it


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Electoralism has gone so well hasn't it


Anarachisn has achieved soooo much


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

belboid said:


> Anarachisn has achieved soooo much


You really are desperate


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Here's a longer list for London -


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The social cleansing was done by a load of Labour councils. Corbyn did nothing about it.



He tried to address it: 









						Why are Labour councils in London being accused of social cleansing?
					

In one extreme case, residents on the Cressingham Gardens Estate in Lambeth had to send Freedom of Information requests to gain access to information underlying the rationale behind the proposed demolition of their homes. Corbyn has proposed a ballot system to solve the problem – but is it enough?




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> You really are desperate


You’re posing anarchism as the alternative tho, so the fact that it’s achieved next to nothing is kinda relevant.  

Unlike you.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

belboid said:


> Anarachisn has achieved soooo much


Anarachisn 😂


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 20, 2022)

We’re all getting desperate nowadays. Understandably so what with the world ending. One of the reasons the Corbyn cult gained such momentum


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> He tried to address it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bollox did he


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

belboid said:


> You’re posing anarchism as the alternative tho, so the fact that it’s achieved next to nothing is kinda relevant.
> 
> Unlike you.


Spoken like a true Trot entryist ideologue


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

Shechemite said:


> We’re all getting desperate nowadays. Understandably so what with the world ending. One of the reasons the Corbyn cult gained such momentum


Oh there are plenty of criticisms to be made of Corbyn, the campaign etc etc.   but they’re not being made by a poor impression of ric from the young ones.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

belboid said:


> You’re posing anarchism as the alternative tho, so the fact that it’s achieved next to nothing is kinda relevant.
> 
> Unlike you.


Theres just so much wrong with this extremely stupid comment that I don't know where to start


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

Best not to then


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Bollox did he



It’s a powerful point, well made.

You know what, you’ve convinced me. I want to be an anarchist. Where so I sign up?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It’s a powerful point, well made.
> 
> You know what, you’ve convinced me. I want to be an anarchist. Where so I sign up?


So lame


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> So lame



I’m sorry I’m pretty new to the anarchist scene, I’m still learning.

‘Down with bourgeois socks - long live free toes!’

Am I on the right track?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’m sorry I’m pretty new to the anarchist scene, I’m still learning.
> 
> ‘Down with bourgeois socks - long live free toes!’
> 
> Am I on the right track?



First, you’re going to need some herbal tea.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

8ball said:


> First, you’re going to need some herbal tea.



Because Earl Grey is theft? Dammit, that’s not it is it.

I’ll learn


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Because Earl Grey is theft? Dammit, that’s not it is it.
> 
> I’ll learn



It’s close enough.

You’re in.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

8ball said:


> It’s close enough.
> 
> You’re in.



Want to form a group? Anarcho-anarchistis of Urban?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 20, 2022)

belboid said:


> Best not to then


How 'clever'


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Want to form a group? Anarcho-anarchistis of Urban?



Name’s already taken.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

8ball said:


> Name’s already taken.



Property is theft, copyright is sacrosanct?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Property is theft, copyright is sacrosanct?



That’s “sanctioned semiotic space” to you.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

8ball said:


> That’s “sanctioned semiotic space” to you.



Shit I’m in too deep already. So far the anarchist ‘scene’ has bought me nothing but alienation and marginalisation. I feel socially cleansed. I’m resigning!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Shit I’m in too deep already. So far the anarchist ‘scene’ has bought me nothing but alienation and marginalisation. I feel socially cleansed. I’m resigning!



Just take a breath, put the kettle on and make a nice pot of yerba mate - it’ll be fine.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

8ball said:


> Just take a breath, put the kettle on and make a nice pot of yerba mate - it’ll be fine.



Thanks but tbh the scene has got stale and cliquey, not like in the good old days when I first joined about 10 minutes ago. It was so vibrant and exciting back then you know _sighs_


----------



## 8ball (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Thanks but tbh the scene has got stale and cliquey, not like in the good old days when I first joined about 10 minutes ago. It was so vibrant and exciting back then you know _sighs_



Kids these days.  Fickle.


----------



## Supine (Jul 20, 2022)

So Corbyn is now a right wing devil? This thread has taken an unexpected turn!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

Supine said:


> So Corbyn is now a right wing devil? This thread has taken an unexpected turn!



And there’s already another designated thread for that Corbyn The Barbarian: Documenting the Brutality of a Monster.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2022)

Setting all the 'bantz' aside, the fact that Labour led councils continued to enable social cleansing by corporate developers throughout the near 5 years of JC's leadership, is a very valid criticism, isn't it?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 20, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Setting all the 'bantz' aside, the fact that Labour led councils continued to enable social cleansing by corporate developers throughout the near 5 years of JC's leadership, is a very valid criticism, isn't it?



Of those councils of course, although even then the chief villains were still the Tories who imposed austerity budgets on them. But Corbyn did oppose social cleansing and developed good policies to prevent it. What else could he have done?


----------



## Supine (Jul 20, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Setting all the 'bantz' aside, the fact that Labour led councils continued to enable social cleansing by corporate developers throughout the near 5 years of JC's leadership, is a very valid criticism, isn't it?



I presume it’s because councils had to balance the books having been given conservative government funding cuts.  Just s guess.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Of those councils of course, although even then the chief villains were still the Tories who imposed austerity budgets on them. But Corbyn did oppose social cleansing and developed good policies to prevent it. What else could he have done?


For all the talk of factionalism, the left faction was very poorly mobilised on a local level, outside a few councils. We had the numbers, but no strategy or direction.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Of those councils of course, although even then the chief villains were still the Tories who imposed austerity budgets on them. But Corbyn did oppose social cleansing and developed good policies to prevent it. What else could he have done?


I wouldn't honestly profess to know exactly what he could have done to stop councils led by his party enabling and collaborating with the corporate developers, but maybe it was one area where he should/could have been far more ruthless against factions of the party that worked against the interest of working class people?

Maybe he/his faction should have forced through party rule changes that proscribed such neoliberal behaviour from party members? Then these bent right-wing LP councillors could have chosen to carry on their tory policies as independents.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Setting all the 'bantz' aside, the fact that Labour led councils continued to enable social cleansing by corporate developers throughout the near 5 years of JC's leadership, is a very valid criticism, isn't it?


There are shitloads of questions such as this that are perfectly valid and various have been gone through over the last _thousand pages_. 

Part of the problem was Corbyn’s belief in following democratic process. Part of it’s his awareness of the fact that the machine was so massively against him, which made it difficult to sort out every issue at once. 

And there are questions around the balance between building a movement that can carry a fight within the working class and letting that movement become led into a dead end of fighting expulsions and defending the last of any minor gains.  

Lots and lots of good, valid, questions, but a tad too nuanced for some.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2022)

killer b said:


> For all the talk of factionalism, the left faction was very poorly mobilised on a local level, outside a few councils. We had the numbers, but no strategy or direction.


Beyond those who joined momentum, the overwhelming majority of those who voted for him disagreed on loads of issues and over candidates/counsellors. And there’s the fact that getting involved in the party, for the majority of the time, was just fucking boring.


----------



## Leighsw2 (Jul 20, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Setting all the 'bantz' aside, the fact that Labour led councils continued to enable social cleansing by corporate developers throughout the near 5 years of JC's leadership, is a very valid criticism, isn't it?


Yes, it is. He had no strategy to take control of the Party. Internal reform, eg. open mandatory reselection for MPs and Cllrs, should have been a priority, but was allowed to spin out for years. There was a proposal for council Labour Group leaders to be elected by party members, but he allowed this to be parked. Ultimately, too conflict averse. But a willingness to embrace conflict is part of the CV of any true socialist leader.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 21, 2022)

So many excuses for a bourgeois, liberal politician. Glad I'm fuck all to do with what passes for 'the left' anymore.

Corbyn would have been much like Wilson or Callaghan in power but probably not as left wing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 21, 2022)

Ultimately it didn't work did it so there are bound to be plenty of legitimate questions and criticisms as to why that is. As he never expected to be elected I don't think he really had a plan and he didn't have the political nous or ruthlessness to really take control of the party - I don't really blame him for that to be honest, I doubt many people would but it's still an opportunity missed.

I have to admit though I do find the whole 'I always knew the whole thing was pointless' view on here a bit dispiriting to be honest (not from AA who I assume to be a parody account but from others). Even though I always suspected they were right. It was a little glimpse of something at least for a bit there and there aren't many of those to go on really.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 21, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> So many excuses for a bourgeois, liberal politician. Glad I'm fuck all to do with what passes for 'the left' anymore.
> 
> Corbyn would have been much like Wilson or Callaghan in power but probably not as left wing.



Bro, do you even anarchism?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 21, 2022)

And lo, the Jezziah did enter unto Jerusalem. And yea verily, he rode on the ass of Labour, and beside him ran the foal of deceived youth, and the multitude did prostrate themselves before the Jezziah and did kiss his feet and did touch the hem of his garment and sang his praises most highly. Yet indeed the prophet Anarchiah did rise up from their seat and did curse this sight and did cry out this be an abomination and with great lamentation did admonish and did say, o foolish ones, beware of false prophets!!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2022)

I think you need to go and lie down for a while


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 21, 2022)

two sheds said:


> I think you need to go and lie down for a while


and you're mistaken


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> So many excuses for a bourgeois, liberal politician. Glad I'm fuck all to do with what passes for 'the left' anymore.
> 
> Corbyn would have been much like Wilson or Callaghan in power but probably not as left wing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2022)

.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 21, 2022)

two sheds said:


> I think you need to go and lie down for a while


Gaslighting is wrong and its unpleasant.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 21, 2022)

Am I the only one who thinks this kind of thing doesn't have to be some rigidly dogmatic either/or position? 

Especially since neither reform nor revolution seem to be on the cards right now. Whether it appeals to our ideological sensibilities or not, the electoral system is part of the decision making process in this country, and thus it seems foolish to me to try and dismiss it as completely irrelevant. But I also agree that electoralism isn't good enough by itself, bound as it is by the conventions and expectations of bourgeois democracy.

Given the left's lack of cultural and political clout, these kind of spats put me in mind of two bald men fighting over a comb.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Given the left's lack of cultural and political clout, these kind of spats put me in mind of two bald men fighting over a comb.


you're making a number of unwarranted assumptions about the comb and its purpose, it may be a gift for a hirsute third party


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> And lo, the Jezziah did enter unto Jerusalem. And yea verily, he rode on the ass of Labour, and beside him ran the foal of deceived youth, and the multitude did prostrate themselves before the Jezziah and did kiss his feet and did touch the hem of his garment and sang his praises most highly. Yet indeed the prophet Anarchiah did rise up from their seat and did curse this sight and did cry out this be an abomination and with great lamentation did admonish and did say, o foolish ones, beware of false prophets!!
> 
> 
> View attachment 333676
> ...






AmateurAgitator said:


> Gaslighting is wrong and its unpleasant.


Oh the irony


----------



## 8ball (Jul 21, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Gaslighting is wrong and its unpleasant.



I read this and thought maybe I'd said something that was somehow gaslighting, but then realised I'd been had by a double-bluff.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 21, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Want to form a group? Anarcho-anarchistis of Urban?


Over on the Urban Anarcho-Anarchistis group PM they're calling you splitters.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 21, 2022)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Over on the Urban Anarcho-Anarchistis group PM they're calling you splitters.



Anarchistises of the world unite!


----------



## Supine (Jul 21, 2022)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Over on the Urban Anarcho-Anarchistis group PM they're calling you splitters.



I prefer the Urban Anarcho-Anarchistis Official group, but I don’t think your a member.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 21, 2022)

Supine said:


> I prefer the Urban Anarcho-Anarchistis Official group, but I don’t think your a member.


Not left enough for me on there.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2022)

belboid said:


> Anarachisn has achieved soooo much


So the grass roots community mutual aid efforts that occurred during the Grenfell crisis didn't achieve anything? The collectives in Spain in the mid-thirties that brought improvements to the lives of many Spanish working class people and peasants just didn't happen? And neither did the the achievements of the Common Ground Collective in America? How convenient. Those are just a few examples and there are many more.

You're an idiot and a sectarian ideologue.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> So the grass roots community mutual aid efforts that occurred during the Grenfell crisis didn't achieve anything? The collectives in Spain in the mid-thirties that brought improvements to the lives of the Spanish working class and peasants just didn't happen? And neither did the the achievements of the Common Ground Collective in America? How convenient. Those are just a few examples and there are many more.
> 
> You're an idiot and a sectarian ideologue.


And you are so shit at everything that even your own comrades find it too embarrassing to try to defend your drivel.   
You’re a (slow, repetitive) irrelevance.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 22, 2022)

belboid said:


> And you are so shit at everything that even your own comrades find it too embarrassing to try to defend your drivel.


Thats bollox and my comrades don't have to defend me (neither do I expect them to), and I'm sure they've got other things to be getting on with rather than wasting time arguing with idiotic pricks like you - I know I have.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2022)

What are you doing now then, ya daft cunt?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2022)

Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn Allies Urge Him To Run For London Mayor
					

Friends of the former Labour leader want him to establish a new 'power base' for his progressive politics in the capital.




					www.huffingtonpost.co.uk


----------



## oryx (Jul 23, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn Allies Urge Him To Run For London Mayor
> 
> 
> Friends of the former Labour leader want him to establish a new 'power base' for his progressive politics in the capital.
> ...


Interesting, but doesn't sound like he'd want to do it.


----------



## tim (Jul 23, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn Allies Urge Him To Run For London Mayor
> 
> 
> Friends of the former Labour leader want him to establish a new 'power base' for his progressive politics in the capital.
> ...


At least he'd make the trains run on time


----------



## JimW (Jul 23, 2022)

tim said:


> At least he'd make the trains run on time


Compulsory work in the allotments for any spectacles-wearers.


----------



## Cerv (Jul 23, 2022)

oryx said:


> Interesting, but doesn't sound like he'd want to do it.


and it didn't work out so well in the end last time he got bounced into taking a job he never really wanted.


the reporter (or her ed) refers to the old mayoral election supplementary vote system as "proportional representation" which obviously makes no sense for a single position rather than a group. so probably can file this in the trash.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 23, 2022)

Seeing this, I can't help thinking about frank Dobson


----------



## tim (Jul 23, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Seeing this, I can't help thinking about frank Dobson


Yes, he rose from the dead to have a curry with Starmer during lockdown, so setting a precedent for having another go at becoming Mayor of London.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2022)

Corbyn to run for London Mayor as an independent in 2024 according to the Mail


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2022)

I think they should have kept Corbyn as leader tbh.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Corbyn to run for London Mayor as an independent in 2024 according to the Mail



I could see him being a good mayor.  
No idea what his chances would be.  

If he's popular anywhere, it's London.


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 23, 2022)

I think it’s a smart move.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> I think it’s a smart move.



Cue shrieking about every single business leaving the City.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 23, 2022)

If he did run, he would surely need labour backing. I'm not sure he could make it as an independent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2022)

hash tag said:


> If he did run, he would surely need labour backing. I'm not sure he could make it as an independent.


This is just my reckoning, but I reckon he'd stand a great chance as an indie. I could see him beating whoever Labour puts up against him and taking it on the second prefs.

Roughly zero chance of him getting Labour backing - until after he wins, of course, as happened with Livingstone.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2022)

Corbyn would 100% get my vote.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 23, 2022)

"too good for politics' at least by today's standards.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2022)

Telegraph is already shitting itself









						London Mayor Jeremy Corbyn would be disastrous for Labour
					

City Hall would be a perfect platform from which to preach the Corbynite philosophy, to the detriment of the Labour Party




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## co-op (Jul 23, 2022)

hash tag said:


> If he did run, he would surely need labour backing. I'm not sure he could make it as an independent.


Livingston did it


----------



## hash tag (Jul 23, 2022)

If nothing as, as leader of the GLC, Livingstone had form and he was widely known ( for his work in London )and loved at the time


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 23, 2022)

Corbyn was leader of the opposition for nearly 5 years and already has his own campaign song, he’s certainly widely known!


----------



## hash tag (Jul 23, 2022)

That was a different thing.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Corbyn to run for London Mayor as an independent in 2024 according to the Mail



What's the original source for this story?

I'm a little skeptical that Corbyn would choose the Mail to announce his plans to run as London Mayor.


----------



## DaphneM (Jul 23, 2022)

Jeremy corbyn is 100% the reason we ended up with Boris. 

God knows who we would get for mayor if he ran,


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Jeremy corbyn is 100% the reason we ended up with Boris.
> 
> God knows who we would get for mayor if he ran,



I think it is unlikely to be Boris.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2022)

editor said:


> Telegraph is already shitting itself
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2022)

8ball said:


> Cue shrieking about every single business leaving the City.


That boy has cried wolf too often already


----------



## DaphneM (Jul 23, 2022)

8ball said:


> I think it is unlikely to be Boris.


It might be!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> It might be!



To be fair, I wouldn't totally rule anything out.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2022)

andysays said:


> What's the original source for this story?
> 
> I'm a little skeptical that Corbyn would choose the Mail to announce his plans to run as London Mayor.


I saw it in the Huff Post 

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up this morning/last night.


----------



## DaphneM (Jul 23, 2022)

.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2022)

Could easily be Corbyn vs Johnson for London mayor


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 23, 2022)

Being serious, I think Corbyn has been too personally vilified to be able to win London mayor easily. He might need second preferences of lib dem types and wouldn't get them. John McDonnell might have more of a chance but only if he had some very media savvy people working with him.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Jeremy corbyn is 100% the reason we ended up with Boris.
> 
> God knows who we would get for mayor if he ran,


Johnson.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Could easily be Corbyn vs Johnson for London mayor


Nah, Starmer would put up a LP candidate...so Johnson would walk it.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 23, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> So the grass roots community mutual aid efforts that occurred during the Grenfell crisis didn't achieve anything? The collectives in Spain in the mid-thirties that brought improvements to the lives of many Spanish working class people and peasants just didn't happen? And neither did the the achievements of the Common Ground Collective in America? How convenient. Those are just a few examples and there are many more.
> 
> You're an idiot and a sectarian ideologue.











						Jeremy Corbyn: State should seize 'luxury' properties to help those left homeless by Grenfell blaze
					

Jeremy Corbyn has called on the Government to take control of empty "luxury" properties owned by overseas investors to help those left ho...




					www.politicshome.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Being serious, I think Corbyn has been too personally vilified to be able to win London mayor easily. He might need second preferences of lib dem types and wouldn't get them. John McDonnell might have more of a chance but only if he had some very media savvy people working with him.


You start by saying he wouldn't win easily and end by saying he wouldn't win. I think he could win but obvs it wouldn't be a piece of piss


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> You start by saying he wouldn't win easily and end by saying he wouldn't win. I think he could win but obvs it wouldn't be a piece of piss


Hodge would certainly change her (recent) tune about the Campaign Against Antisemitism.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2022)

Best of luck to the Great Boss Man! Policies I'd like from Mayor Corbyn: 


Defund the Met and replace it with a People's Militia
Daily 3 minute hate broadcast aimed at London's worst gentrifying parasites (labour councils included)
Increase the congestion charge for 4 x 4 drivers tenfold
Develop a strategic partnership with the Communist Party of Cuba in the mutual interests of the toiling masses of London and Havana
Mandatory veganism at all events organised by the Mayor's office

That would be an excellent iron fist start.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Increase the congestion charge for 4 x 4 drivers to being shot in the head



CFY


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

As a spectacle wearing Londoner I'm beginning to worry that I'll soon be marched off beyond Banstead to toil in the people's fields.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Hodge would certainly change her (recent) tune about the Campaign Against Antisemitism.


Margaret Hodge, the paedophiles' friend?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Margaret Hodge, the paedophiles' friend?


The very same.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2022)

two sheds said:


> I saw it in the Huff Post
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's time is up this morning/last night.


That says that friends are urging him to run, it doesn't appear to say that he himself has confirmed he's intending to do so.


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 23, 2022)

Well he seems to have already secured the urban block vote


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Well he seems to have already secured the urban block vote


Big Q is whether Binface would stand against JC?


----------



## Supine (Jul 23, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Big Q is whether Binface would stand against JC?



Probably. But he doesn’t have a theme song.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 23, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Being serious, I think Corbyn has been too personally vilified to be able to win London mayor easily. He might need second preferences of lib dem types and wouldn't get them. John McDonnell might have more of a chance but only if he had some very media savvy people working with him.


Standing for mayor as an indie is a different game media-wise. No need to toe any party line. Come up with a clear list of things you want to get done and push them. Actually say something meaningful about unaffordable housing. 

Win it easily? Maybe not. But beat the official labour candidate? Definitely. Once he's done that, are there really 50% of people willing to vote tory in London right now?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2022)

He'd have a few volunteer helpers I'd have thought.


----------



## Supine (Jul 23, 2022)

I think Corbyn could win as an independent.  Does he want to?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2022)

Might get a bigger allotment out of it.


----------



## oryx (Jul 24, 2022)

In 2000, independent mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone won comfortably, beating the Labour candidate into third place. (I'm not sure the voting system was the same). 









						2000 London mayoral election - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## tim (Jul 24, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> Jeremy corbyn is 100% the reason we ended up with Boris.
> 
> God knows who we would get for mayor if he ran,


Probably, Boris.


----------



## tim (Jul 24, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Nah, Starmer would put up a LP candidate...so Johnson would walk it.



Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works. 

However, given his antisemitic associates, I can't see him doing too well first time round.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2022)

tim said:


> Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works.
> 
> However, given his antisemitic associates, I can't see him doing too well first time round.


Yeah. you're right.
An unthinking, throw away post that deserved to be corrected.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 24, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Best of luck to the Great Boss Man! Policies I'd like from Mayor Corbyn:
> 
> 
> Defund the Met and replace it with a People's Militia
> ...


Stop the arms fairs has to be top of the list.
Also make London a Fare Trade city


----------



## nogojones (Jul 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Telegraph is already shitting itself
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was neither here nor there about him becoming mayor, but the Telegraph has just sold it to me.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 24, 2022)

I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.


----------



## nogojones (Jul 24, 2022)

tim said:


> Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works.


Because we:

1. Don't live in London
2. Don't give a fuck what happens there


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions?



For a mayoral run in the near future? Pretty clearly not tbh. I don't expect it to happen but he's the only even vaguely viable left of Labour candidate isn't he, for all his faults.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.


I think you'll look back at this post and cringe


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2022)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> For a mayoral run in the near future? Pretty clearly not tbh. I don't expect it to happen but he's the only even vaguely viable left of Labour candidate isn't he, for all his faults.


Yep. Hard to think of another person who could challenge labour from the left with much hope of saving their deposit, let alone a realistic hope of winning (which I think Corbyn would have).

When talking politics with non-political friends/colleagues, my usual line atm is a variant on the idea that I liked Corbyn but I'm clearly not allowed nice things and I'm now back to feeling disenfranchised. I'm often surprised by the lack of hostility that line gets.


----------



## Cerv (Jul 24, 2022)

tim said:


> Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works.
> 
> However, given his antisemitic associates, I can't see him doing too well first time round.


in fact, there sadly won't be 2 rounds of voting in the next mayoral election.
they've all been changed to use FPTP. along with voter ID in this Elections Act 2022 - Wikipedia


----------



## Knotted (Jul 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.



I think this is probably true of most politicians though. Including most London mayors. I also think that the whole being a good respectable sensible stateman like figure is overrated in terms of election winning* and that there's no chance that any leftish candidate will get any media plaudits regardlessly. And I also think that conditions are much more favourable now than they were when Ken Livingstone defied the party machine and went on to become mayor. Corbyn has proven himself to be a good campaigner and is well regarded at least in his own little corner of London.

*The Tories are at present probably choosing the correct candidate for their continued survival in choosing Truss over Sunak. People (leftwingers and even more so rightwingers) don't give a shit about the things they're supposed to give a shit about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 24, 2022)

Evening Standard hated Livingstone. Didn't stop him winning.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2022)

Confiscating housles


Brainaddict said:


> I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.


That does ignore the fact that a lot of Labour MPs and party employees were actively working against him, diverting funds away from left wing candidates, and failing to deal with antisemites in the party while blaming him for it. And I think you'll find any left wing candidate will be incapacitated by hostile media and central government. 

Who would you prefer?


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.


About the one thing going for him is not leading as the system demands.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 24, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Confiscating housles
> 
> That does ignore the fact that a lot of Labour MPs and party employees were actively working against him, diverting funds away from left wing candidates, and failing to deal with antisemites in the party while blaming him for it. And I think you'll find any left wing candidate will be incapacitated by hostile media and central government.
> 
> Who would you prefer?


A hostile media is a given. But compare Corbyn's ability to answer a hostile question to Mick Lynch's ability to do it. I don't like that politicians have to play these games, but I've just enough pragmatism to admit that they do, and it's better if they can play them well. Corbyn spent half his time walking into traps the media set for him that had 'Trap' in big flashing warning lights above them. 

Look, I know that when Corbyn kind of tripped into the Labour Party leadership by accident he was the only game in town for the left and had to be defended at all costs. But now we're not in that situation any more and I think we should admit he's not very good at high level politics. Great constituency MP and campaigner. Not someone with the skills to be a political leader in this climate.

Do I even like the model of political leadership that is pushed on people? No, I hate it. But there's some middle path between being a Starmer-style top-down purger and being a doormat. Corbyn was the latter. He tried to open the door to social movements to write policy, which was admirable, but he had no defences against bad policy or bad media lines sent his way, no ability to draw a line and say 'No, this is not the right axe to grind right now.' How do you think he ended up with the fatal Brexit position?


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2022)

Knotted said:


> I think this is probably true of most politicians though. Including most London mayors. I also think that the whole being a good respectable sensible stateman like figure is overrated in terms of election winning* and that there's no chance that any leftish candidate will get any media plaudits regardlessly. And I also think that conditions are much more favourable now than they were when Ken Livingstone defied the party machine and went on to become mayor. Corbyn has proven himself to be a good campaigner and is well regarded at least in his own little corner of London.
> 
> *The Tories are at present probably choosing the correct candidate for their continued survival in choosing Truss over Sunak. People (leftwingers and even more so rightwingers) don't give a shit about the things they're supposed to give a shit about.



The problem with Corbs is that to do something effective requires abilities that his political career to date suggests he doesn't possess.  

Livingstone was a great Mayor for two reasons - firstly (and most importantly) he did significant things (like find a way to expand the supply of social/affordable housing relatively painlessly, improve public transport access, get the Olympics or start to implement the bike scheme).  Secondly, he wasn't afraid to take central government or his own party on in a meaningful way and did his own thing (at least at the start, his defeat probably came because he went back to Labour rather than moving away from them).  Corbs wouldn't do any of that, he'd probably take a stand early on and then allow City Hall to (once again) be filled by hangers-on and friendly hacks rather than competent people.  

As for Truss, she is just a comfort blanket at this point.  The only sane choice that shower can make is Sunak, who for all his faults will at least allow them to blame the previous regime.  Truss on the other hand is the "but we always pick the leader" candidate.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2022)




----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 24, 2022)




----------



## ska invita (Jul 24, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> A hostile media is a given. But compare Corbyn's ability to answer a hostile question to Mick Lynch's ability to do it. I don't like that politicians have to play these games, but I've just enough pragmatism to admit that they do, and it's better if they can play them well. Corbyn spent half his time walking into traps the media set for him that had 'Trap' in big flashing warning lights above them.
> 
> Look, I know that when Corbyn kind of tripped into the Labour Party leadership by accident he was the only game in town for the left and had to be defended at all costs. But now we're not in that situation any more and I think we should admit he's not very good at high level politics. Great constituency MP and campaigner. Not someone with the skills to be a political leader in this climate.
> 
> Do I even like the model of political leadership that is pushed on people? No, I hate it. But there's some middle path between being a Starmer-style top-down purger and being a doormat. Corbyn was the latter. He tried to open the door to social movements to write policy, which was admirable, but he had no defences against bad policy or bad media lines sent his way, no ability to draw a line and say 'No, this is not the right axe to grind right now.' How do you think he ended up with the fatal Brexit position?


Winning the mayor job is all about name recognition, and once in the job the limited amount of power you have can't be negated by media, best they can do is try and smear election or re-election.
 Key thing is he won't have his own machine fighting against him.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

You can allow superficial class characteristics to fuel your prejudice in favour of particular faction of the ruling political class, yet the reality is that the specific role of the Labour Party in maintaining the dominance of capital is to divert and smother working class anger and potential to act. And they have ALWAYS done it while carrying out heinous anti-working class policies. They did under Atlee, they did it under Callaghan, they did under Wilson, they did it under Blair, they did under Corbyn and they continue in the same vein under Starmer. This is why they are a particular enemy of the working class and why I reserve so much hatred for them. Very real reasons.


----------



## Lorca (Jul 26, 2022)

give it a rest old bean, you remind me of Rick from the Young Ones.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Lorca said:


> give it a rest old bean, you remind me of Rick from the Young Ones.


You've just proved that you know fuck all about the Young Ones. Rick would've never said anything like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> View attachment 334280


I've always thought yer man in the middle was the stupid fucking wanker, I'd be interested to know why you disagree


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Lorca said:


> give it a rest old bean, you remind me of Rick from the Young Ones.


No real analysis to challenge my position, I'm not all surprised.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I've always thought yer man in the middle was the stupid fucking wanker, I'd be interested to know why you disagree


You're taking a meme far too seriously Pickmans, aswell as misinterpreting it.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> View attachment 334280


This isn't the thread for endless wanky memes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> No real analysis to challenge my position, I'm not all surprised.


Can you provide some analysis? In what way did the Attlee govt act to maintain the dominance of capital?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you provide some analysis? In what way did the Attlee govt act to maintain the dominance of capital?


Off the top of my head - They managed capitalism under Atlee for one thing. They replaced one lot of bosses with state bosses, it wasn't any kind of genuine socialism. Workers continued to be exploited very much as wage slaves. And Atlee also sent troops up against striking dockers.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Btw I find the accusations of 'puritanism' against me very interesting because acknowledging that the Labour Party is not on your side as a working class person is actually very pragmatic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2022)

Replacing one lot of bosses with state bosses isn't really maintaining the dominance of capital.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Replacing one lot of bosses with state bosses isn't really maintaining the dominance of capital.


I disagree and I think I described perfectly well why Atlee did that. You're being pedantic and you're wrong.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Nationalising industries also increased the profits of capitalist which is why it was done. In return for their ownership of particular firms, the ruling class were given lavish compensation which could then be invested in other, more profitable industries. A good example of this was the nationalisation of the Bank of England.

Workers on the other hand, according to Herbert Morrison , could only get the benefits of social insurance, ‘by increasing the total national income ... it could only be done by work, thought, drive and initiative.’ (Times, September 6th 1945) . What this meant of course was increased productivity, greater exploitation to screw more surplus value out of the working class - in return for which a few crumbs would be thrown off the bosses table.

And I'm afraid The Labour Party and the Unions were hand in hand with the bosses, aiming to screw more out of the working class by conning them that the promised land had arrived.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Notable features of the Atlee government were the building of the British atomic bomb and Hydrogen bomb, the rising of the cost of living by 30% and the demand that workers exercise ‘restraint’ and not ask for pay rises. Wartime rationing was kept in place, which ensured that money was spent not on consumption but on investment. This meant not only less for workers, but a drabber, more monotonous existence. In fact between 1947 and 1951 working class people suffered a drop in their real wages.

The Atlee government gave little to the working class. In this it revealed once again just whose side it was on. This time its membership began more closely to reveal this fact too. In 1945 more than 40 of the Labour MPs were lawyers...... ‘ between 20 and 30 were business men, and a good sprinkling of farmers, accountants, consulting engineers and other professions’ were among the rest. Arthur Greenwood, the Labour Lord Privy Seal, said at the time, ‘I look around among my colleagues, and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross-section of the national life, and this is something that has never happened before.’ A party originally set up to protect the unions had acquired a constitution written by middle class intellectuals and was now being run by a coalition of union bureaucrats and traditional members of the ruling class.

Nationalisation is not socialism. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It means getting rid of the bosses, getting rid of working for a wage or salary, getting rid of the whole rotten buying and selling system. It means that people will freely come together to produce what is needed and will freely take from the abundant products of their labour. It will involve the abolition not only of the ruling class, but also their state. It will not mean that state being replaced by a new state. Nationalisation is just one form of state capitalism.


It is hardly surprising that the Labour Party and the unions ended up as the firmest supporters of state capitalism. Trade unions do not exist to change society, they are to get a larger slice of the capitalist cake, not take over the bakery. Indeed, without the buying and selling economy, based on wage labour, there is no role for a trade union. With no role for a trade union, there is no job for a union official. However, the power, privileges and status of the union bureaucrats are very much determined by how much their status is recognised by the capitalist class. To protect their position, it is natural for unions to look for a more regulated capitalism, a capitalism based on partnership between employers and labour organisations. It was to achieve this that the Labour Party was set up in the first place.

Their position was recognised and they were welcomed as junior partners in the state machine during the First World War. It was a logical step for them to go beyond mere regulation and favour full blown state ownership, with the state as the major employer working in partnership with the unions. Thus Clause Four was adopted as a means of selling this to the working class at the same time as the Unions’ control over the party was established. Their function as part of the state machine was re-emphasised during the Second World War, and continued afterwards with the various tripartite commissions, quangos like the National Economic Development Corporation, and the routine appointment of Trade Union General Secretaries to the House of  Lords.

As part of the state wanting more state control the party attracted to itself those sections of the ruling class who would benefit from it. This helps explain the number of lawyers and other professionals in the Attlee governing party. By the 1940s even the leaders of the party came from this social group.

In 1951 there was another General Election. This time Labour lost. It was followed by 13 years of Tory government.

So that answers your question about the Atlee government.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2022)

This is fucking laughable. without the Atlee government we would not have had the NHS.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

teqniq said:


> This is fucking laughable. without the Atlee government we would not have had the NHS.


Thats not true and its irrelevant anyway because it doesn't mean that what I said about the Labour Party maintaining the dominance of capital is untrue.  Plus the NHS has never been socialist anyway.

The NHS was all based on the wartime Beveridge Report. This was partly aimed at keeping workers quiet in the hope of avoiding upheaval after the war. It was also partly aimed at ensuring a healthier and more compliant workforce that would produce more profits for the bosses. In any case Beveridge, the great architect of the NHS, was a member of the Liberal party and his report had the broad agreement of all the main political parties. Any argument was over points of policy, not the policy itself.

What was Labour's record on the NHS in this government? They passed a law in 1949 allowing for prescription charges and in 1951 introduced charges on glasses and false teeth.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2022)

I think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan who served in the Atlee government actually:









						Aneurin Bevan - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

teqniq said:


> i think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan actually:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree and it doesn't really matter anyway because Bevan was not a socialist but a state capitalist and the NHS was created and  run for the interests and benefit of capitalism and not the working class and I have just explained that.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I disagree and it doesn't really matter anyway because Bevan was not a socialist but a state capitalist and the NHS was created and  run for the interests and benefit of capitalism and not the working class and I have just explained that.


Citing absolutely no sources in your explaining. Would you care to provide some?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Citing absolutely no sources in your explaining. Would you care to provide some?


Labouring in Vain:  A Critical History of the Labour Party, published by the Subversion group in the early 1990's. I know my history and I'm not the only one..


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Labouring in Vain:  A Critical History of the Labour Party. I know my history and I'm not the only one..



1 blog post on libcom.org is not the end of the story.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> 1 blog post on libcom.org is not the end of the story.


I'm sure Serge Forwad can confirm its not just a blog post on Libcom but there you go.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Thats not true and its irrelevant anyway because it doesn't mean that what I said about the Labour Party maintaining the dominance of capital is untrue.  Plus the NHS has never been socialist anyway.
> 
> The NHS was all based on the wartime Beveridge Report. This was partly aimed at keeping workers quiet in the hope of avoiding upheaval after the war. It was also partly aimed at ensuring a healthier and more compliant workforce that would produce more profits for the bosses. In any case Beveridge, the great architect of the NHS, was a member of the Liberal party and his report had the broad agreement of all the main political parties. Any argument was over points of policy, not the policy itself.
> 
> What was Labour's record on the NHS in this government? They passed a law in 1949 allowing for prescription charges and in 1951 introduced charges on glasses and false teeth.


Oh my.



Usually it's good form to quote your sources

Here it is anyway:





__





						Labouring in vain: a critical history of the Labour Party
					

An excellent of the foundation and development of the Labour Party and how it has acted in power and in opposition, effectively countering many of the claims for Labour having once been a working class, socialist party. First published in the early 1990s.




					libcom.org
				




E2a this is just one version of history. I quite freely admit that the Labour party has been found wanting on more than one occasion but it is particularly to be found wanting right now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I'm sure Serge Forwad can confirm its not just a blog post on Libcom but there you go.



Also a reddit thread and a youtube video I see!


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 26, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Also a reddit thread and a youtube video I see!


It was originally a pamphlet.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Thats not true and its irrelevant anyway because it doesn't mean that what I said about the Labour Party maintaining the dominance of capital is untrue.  Plus the NHS has never been socialist anyway.
> 
> The NHS was all based on the wartime Beveridge Report. This was partly aimed at keeping workers quiet in the hope of avoiding upheaval after the war. It was also partly aimed at ensuring a healthier and more compliant workforce that would produce more profits for the bosses. In any case Beveridge, the great architect of the NHS, was a member of the Liberal party and his report had the broad agreement of all the main political parties. Any argument was over points of policy, not the policy itself.
> 
> What was Labour's record on the NHS in this government? They passed a law in 1949 allowing for prescription charges and in 1951 introduced charges on glasses and false teeth.


The Beveridge report recommended an insurance based system. A conservative or liberal government would have followed those recommendations. Like it or not the reason we ended up with the NHS and welfare state in their solidaristic form is a direct result of there being a Labour government. That's completely uncontroversial and if you're going to disagree I want to see your workings. You should probably read some history first, it's actually really interesting.

And I generally agree with you about the limitations of electoral politics and labours role in managing and sustaining capitalist class relations. I just don't preach about it like some breathless student who's just read the anarchist FAQ.

For fucks sake, you're talking to a bunch of cynical middle aged activists, you're not in the 6th form common room now. We know the arguments, some of us agree and some don't. Stop trying to fucking educate us and educate yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> You're taking a meme far too seriously Pickmans, aswell as misinterpreting it.


I disagree


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2022)

Yep, we'd have had something like what most of the rest of Europe has. We'd have had universal coverage but not free at the point of access - that was down to Labour. The specific nature of the welfare state that they established, with a fair bit of universalism, was also down to them and differed from what the rest of Europe came up with in important ways. 

Attlee's govt was awful in many ways, including the way it handled the empire and foreign policy generally, and yes, the way it extended austerity. But its achievements are not something that you can just explain away as something that Churchill would have done if he'd won in 45. He wouldn't have.

Also, you have to remember the limits on power that existed then. The House of Commons voted to end capital punishment during the Attlee govt. The Lords mobilised to block it. You can disagree with the idea of working within the system and accepting that there will be these kinds of limitations, but the idea that Attleeism served capital is quite a stretch.


----------



## Leighsw2 (Jul 26, 2022)

Brainaddict said:


> .... He might need second preferences of lib dem types and wouldn't get them. ....


There are no second preference votes. The Tories abolished them for mayoral and PCC elections. I reckon he'd stand a good chance as a consequence!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2022)

Leighsw2 said:


> There are no second preference votes. The Tories abolished them for mayoral and PCC elections. I reckon he'd stand a good chance as a consequence!


That's appalling stamping over democracy. Vandalism. I hadn't even realised they'd done it. 

I'm not so sure about how that would be good for Corbyn, though. I think the old system of second preference was better for him. Fucking tory could sneak in with a third of the vote.  

wtaf switching stuff to FPTP?? It's only there where it is currently out of inertia. It is the very worst system possible.


----------



## Leighsw2 (Jul 26, 2022)

On reflection you're right - FPTP could benefit the Tories in London if the anti-Tory vote was split between Corbyn, Labour, LibDem and Green. Though it might depend on who they put up as their candidate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 26, 2022)

It means people will have to vote tactically. IE it is undemocratic. IE it benefits the fucking tories.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

SpineyNorman said:


> The Beveridge report recommended an insurance based system. A conservative or liberal government would have followed those recommendations. Like it or not the reason we ended up with the NHS and welfare state in their solidaristic form is a direct result of there being a Labour government.


Thats OK coz I already explained above why it doesn't matter


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the idea that Attleeism served capital is quite a stretch.


Maybe not absolutely everything in that pamphlet has stood the test of time (though its main message definitely and clearly has in my view) and maybe we know a bit more now, but I'd say that any honest person could see how the Atlee government clearly did serve capital, its blatant really and some of it you admitted it yourself - without realising it by the look of it. I find it ridiculous to claim otherwise frankly, as sacreligious as that is to some people.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Thats OK coz I already explained above why it doesn't matter


You've not explained anything but that's fine we can move on


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2022)

Any government under capitalism serves capital. It's what it's there for. 

The Atlee government played a vital role in maintaining and revitalising British capitalism post war. The nationalisations, NHS and broader welfare state provided the institutional framework for 'embedded liberalism' which in turn provided the necessary conditions for the long post war boom, arguably the high point of capitalism.

None of this means that the reforms didn't benefit the working class because they did. That's one of the ways it served capitalism - it offered it legitimacy in the eyes of working people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtaf switching stuff to FPTP?? It's only there where it is currently out of inertia. It is the very worst system possible.



Because tories. 

Of course it could cost them in London if an independent gammon candidate stands. Particularly if they run an organ bank like Shaun Bailey again.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Maybe not absolutely everything in that pamphlet has stood the test of time (though its main message definitely and clearly has in my view) and maybe we know a bit more now, but I'd say that any honest person could see how the Atlee government clearly did serve capital, its blatant really and some of it you admitted it yourself - without realising it by the look of it. I find it ridiculous to claim otherwise frankly, as sacreligious as that is to some people.


All reads like a copy of Socialist Standard from year dot. Not saying there isn't an element of truth to it but dismissing one of the positive benefits of labour rule as being merely in the bosses interest does raise the question as to why every other country in the world didn't adopt universal healthcare, and why whenever a right wing coup occurs somewhere in the world some form of the NHS isn't imposed?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

SpineyNorman said:


> Any government under capitalism serves capital. It's what it's there for.
> 
> The Atlee government played a vital role in maintaining and revitalising British capitalism post war. The nationalisations, NHS and broader welfare state provided the institutional framework for 'embedded liberalism' which in turn provided the necessary conditions for the long post war boom, arguably the high point of capitalism.
> 
> None of this means that the reforms didn't benefit the working class because they did. That's one of the ways it served capitalism - it offered it legitimacy in the eyes of working people.


The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie. It was only 'good' for the working class for the reasons I posted above (and I believe that its probably not the optimum type of healthcare system, as contraversial as that is - there have always been deep seated problems with the NHS - not that any kind of privatised system is preferable). But thngs were still generally shit for the working class under the Atlee govt (30% rise in the cost of living, having to show restraint etc), which is among the many reaons the working classw voted Tory in 1951 for a Tory rule of 13 years and booted out the Atlee govt.

After Atlee the next Labour govt was the Wilson govt - who also attacked working class living standards and came with other serious problems. Life was still shit for the working class.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

I think certain people on here are just too blinkered by their 'socialist' beliefs to seriously engage, to be honest about things and understand whats being said, so it appears theres really little point in continuing this.


----------



## hitmouse (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I disagree


I think this is the important discussion to be had here. Imo, the meme template is highly adaptable, so yer man in the middle may well be cast in the role of a sfw in some versions, but can equally well be presented in an entirely neutral or indeed positive light in others.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I think certain people on here are just too blinkered by their 'socialist' beliefs to seriously engage, to be honest about things and understand whats being said, so it appears theres really little point in continuing this.


No, I think it's well worth discussing the post-war concessions made by capital and the reasons for them; it's a fascinating period of economic-social history and is very obviously contested territory. No need to pack up just because there's a diversity of views.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie. It was only 'good' for the working class for the reasons I posted above (and I believe that its probably not the optimum type of healthcare system, as contraversial as that is - there have always been deep seated problems with the NHS - not that any kind of privatised system is preferable). But thngs were still generally shit for the working class under the Atlee govt (30% rise in the cost of living, having to show restraint etc), which is among the many reaons the working classw voted Tory in 1951 for a Tory rule of 13 years and booted out the Atlee govt.
> 
> After Atlee the next Labour govt was the Wilson govt - who also attacked working class living standards and came with other serious problems. Life was still shit for the working class.


What are you trying to say here? Who are you even arguing with now? Just have a rest and leave the internet alone for a while, you're stinking up just about every decent thread with this shit and it's fucking tedious.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I think certain people on here are just too blinkered by their 'socialist' beliefs to seriously engage, to be honest about things and understand whats being said, so it appears theres really little point in continuing this.


Lol


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator , to what extent do you think the hand of the British state may have been forced by fear of a highly trained and battle-hardened population post WW2, who would have been better placed than arguably any generation before or since, to simply tear down the system and build a new one? Who had been wounded and killed en masse for the state, and were now demanding redress, and respite, and recovery. And who were more armed than ever.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> AmateurAgitator , to what extent do you think the hand of the British state may have been forced by fear of a highly trained and battle-hardened population post WW2, who would have been better placed than arguably any generation before or since, to simply tear down the system and build a new one? Who had been wounded and killed en masse for the state, and were now demanding redress, and respite, and recovery. And who were more armed than ever.


I think that pretty much all of the immediate post-war concessions relating to the foundation of the welfare state had been wrung from the political wing of capital during the conflict itself. Churchill's coalition administration was essentially cemented on the basis of commitments to welfare; the need to retain consent and participation from the working class/left was essential to the war effort. Added to which the establishment was always well aware of a global picture in which really existing system competition existed as an existential threat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> I think that pretty much all of the immediate post-war concessions relating to the foundation of the welfare state had been wrung from the political wing of capital during the conflict itself. Churchill's coalition administration was essentially cemented on the basis of commitments to welfare; the need to retain consent and participation from the working class/left was essential to the war effort. Added to which the establishment was always well aware of a global picture in which really existing system competition existed as an existential threat.


Problem with characterising this simply as acting in the interests of capital in the way suggested, though, is that it minimises the way in which it was bottom-up demands that produced the changes. Sure, the established order was also acting to preserve itself by making those concessions, but the concessions weren't handed down from on high out of benevolence. And the idea that eg Bevan was somehow a stooge of capital, doing its bidding, is just way off the mark. The nationalisation of the health service was resisted from many quarters. It was an achievement to get it through. The Tories voted against it. 

The Conservatives never were “the party of the NHS”, and history proves it


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie. It was only 'good' for the working class for the reasons I posted above (and I believe that its probably not the optimum type of healthcare system, as contraversial as that is - there have always been deep seated problems with the NHS - not that any kind of privatised system is preferable). But thngs were still generally shit for the working class under the Atlee govt (30% rise in the cost of living, having to show restraint etc), which is among the many reaons the working classw voted Tory in 1951 for a Tory rule of 13 years and booted out the Atlee govt.
> 
> After Atlee the next Labour govt was the Wilson govt - who also attacked working class living standards and came with other serious problems. Life was still shit for the working class.


Working class voters never voted Tory in great numbers. When the Tories got back in initially they still got less votes than Labour. You're forgetting that the middle classes vote as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie.


This simply isn't true. See my link above.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This simply isn't true. See my link above.


I'm reluctant to say so but I think he's right on this one. Nothing at the state level is allowed under capitalism unless it's good for capitalism (or at least a decent section of capital believes it so)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm reluctant to say so but I think he's right on this one. Nothing at the state level is allowed under capitalism unless it's good for capitalism (or at least a decent section of capital believes it so)


It was good for capitalism to establish some kind of universal health care system, but not necessarily in the form of a fully nationalised system paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of use. And such a system was resisted. 

There's a danger here of just stating a truism: anything short of revolution is something that allows capitalism to continue and so can be characterised as 'good for capitalism', but there are different ways to organise things short of revolution.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2022)

If the NHS had been set up after the war following a groundswell adoption of anarchist practices throughout the UK (yes, really), a certain poster would be claiming it was the finest organization for working class people in the history of the world and anyone making the slightest criticism of it would be an Enemy of the People


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem with characterising this simply as acting in the interests of capital in the way suggested, though, is that it minimises the way in which it was bottom-up demands that produced the changes. Sure, the established order was also acting to preserve itself by making those concessions, but the concessions weren't handed down from on high out of benevolence. And the idea that eg Bevan was somehow a stooge of capital, doing its bidding, is just way off the mark. The nationalisation of the health service was resisted from many quarters. It was an achievement to get it through. The Tories voted against it.
> 
> The Conservatives never were “the party of the NHS”, and history proves it


I think that's a fair point, but important to remember that the Beveridge report was published as early in the war as 1942. This undeniably helped Churchill to maintain the coalition throughout the war years and, although his 1943 "After the War" speech came with the usual Tory caveats of 'no magic money tree' he did commit to implementing the pillars of Beveridge.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> I think that's a fair point, but important to remember that the Beveridge report was published as early in the war as 1942. This undeniably helped Churchill to maintain the coalition throughout the war years and, although his 1943 "After the War" speech came with the usual Tory caveats of 'no magic money tree' he did commit to implementing the pillars of Beveridge.


He called the NHS a victory for fascism.  He got the tories to vote against its creation thirty odd times.  The tories were committed to a health service that covered the nation, but that’s not the NHS. They wanted localised boards and care (this benefitting their wealthier voters more) and wanted a financial contribution from users.  

That any service provided under capitalism is in some ways doing so for the benefit of capital is a point that is undoubtedly true, but it’s also a remarkably trite point, made by people who don’t understand that things can have contradictory roles.  Indeed, in a capitalist society, they almost always will.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> He called the NHS a victory for fascism.  He got the tories to vote against its creation thirty odd times.  The tories were committed to a health service that covered the nation, but that’s not the NHS. They wanted localised boards and care (this benefitting their wealthier voters more) and wanted a financial contribution from users.
> 
> That any service provided under capitalism is in some ways doing so for the benefit of capital is a point that is undoubtedly true, but it’s also a remarkably trite point, made by people who don’t understand that things can have contradictory roles.  Indeed, in a capitalist society, they almost always will.


Yes, but I would still suggest that the right party of capital knew that the broad concessions of the promise of a welfare state were integral to maintaining consent for the war effort and resisting revolutionary pressures in its aftermath.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but I would still suggest that the right party of capital knew that the broad concessions of the promise of a welfare state were integral to maintaining consent for the war effort and resisting revolutionary pressures in its aftermath.


Of course it did. But that doesn't mean things would have gone just the same if Churchill had won in 1945, and an NHS free at the point of use is one of many examples of that.


----------



## JimW (Jul 27, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Working class voters never voted Tory in great numbers. When the Tories got back in initially they still got less votes than Labour. You're forgetting that the middle classes vote as well.


That doesn't sound right, think Labour needed the war to get bulk of wc vote, will have to check figures but thought Tories got substantial wc vote right back from when it was them vs liberals. Hence 45 as a notable watershed.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 27, 2022)

JimW said:


> That doesn't sound right, think Labour needed the war to get bulk of wc vote, will have to check figures but thought Tories got substantial wc vote right back from when it was them vs liberals. Hence 45 as a notable watershed.


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as if you need telling) but the Tories have always got in because of middle class votes. Even if a good section of the wc vote Tory, most don't. They either vote Labour or some other party or don't vote at all.


----------



## JimW (Jul 27, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (as if you need telling) but the Tories have always got in because of middle class votes. Even if a good section of the wc vote Tory, most don't. They either vote Labour or some other party or don't vote at all.


Oh yeah, wasn't disputing mc component, just have dim memory of a graph showing someone like disraeli getting sixty percent of wc votes after they extended the male franchise. Different game back then of course.


----------



## SysOut (Jul 27, 2022)

post deleted


----------



## JimW (Jul 27, 2022)

Should add may have this completely round my neck, but can't check on phone without VPN


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 27, 2022)

JimW said:


> Oh yeah, wasn't disputing mc component, just have dim memory of a graph showing someone like disraeli getting sixty percent of wc votes after they extended the male franchise. Different game back then of course.


That extension of the wc vote still didn't encompass most wc men, let alone women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

JimW said:


> Oh yeah, wasn't disputing mc component, just have dim memory of a graph showing someone like disraeli getting sixty percent of wc votes after they extended the male franchise. Different game back then of course.


Either way, the original contention was that Attlee was kicked out in 51 as some kind of expression of widespread dissatisfaction with his government and what it had done. Reality is a bit different. They were reelected in 1950 with a small majority then called an election a year later (stupidly and unnecessarily from what I can tell), which they lost despite winning more votes than the tories. In terms of vote share, Labour got nearly 49% of the vote in 51, its highest vote share in the three elections of 45, 50 and 51. But the liberal vote collapsed, going over to the tories, and because of our electoral system, the tories won a majority with 250,000 fewer votes than Labour.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course it did. But that doesn't mean things would have gone just the same if Churchill had won in 1945, and an NHS free at the point of use is one of many examples of that.


True, but then again I don't really think that claim was being made, was it?
And there's a danger of veering off into 'what if history' there, rather than attempting to examine the factors that led to capital's post-war concessions to labour.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but I would still suggest that the right party of capital knew that the broad concessions of the promise of a welfare state were integral to maintaining consent for the war effort and resisting revolutionary pressures in its aftermath.


I think it was partly pressure from below (or the threat thereof) but also a need to compete with the likes of Russia and other emergent economies.  Pressures within the empire meant that was no longer an easy source of superprofits so enduring workers were fit and well educated became essential.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> True, but then again I don't really think that claim was being made, was it?


I can't speak for AmateurAgitator, but a claim along those lines appeared to be being made. But if things were clearly different under an Attlee govt as opposed to a hypothetical Churchill one, which they were, as the tory votes against the NHS show, then the claim evaporates.

And it's good for capital at that point in history to promote a healthier, better-educated population, therefore what? A healthier and better-educated population would be good for socialism or communism as well, is good for humanity, is just good. You don't stop supporting something just because capitalists also want it, but you also don't simply acquiesce to the forms of that thing that capitalists would prefer, such as an insurance-based health system rather than an NHS free at the point of use.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> I think it was partly pressure from below (or the threat thereof) but also a need to compete with the likes of Russia and other emergent economies.  Pressures within the empire meant that was no longer an easy source of superprofits so enduring workers were fit and well educated became essential.


Yes, and I sometimes think that the problem we have is attempting to imagine the simplicity of capital's view of the world - every single decision made on the basis of what will ensure the continuing return to capital and defend the wealth already extracted. Have already been discussing elsewhere (somewhere) this week about the fascinating period when nascent neoliberal capital realised that globalised coprorations' capacity to de-couple their returns from national conditions led to the rise of the consolidator state.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can't speak for AmateurAgitator, but a claim along those lines appeared to be being made. But if things were clearly different under an Attlee govt as opposed to a hypothetical Churchill one, which they were, as the tory votes against the NHS show, then the claim evaporates.
> 
> And it's good for capital at that point in history to promote a healthier, better-educated population, therefore what? A healthier and better-educated population would be good for socialism or communism as well, is good for humanity, is just good. You don't stop supporting something just because capitalists also want it, but you also don't simply acquiesce to the forms of that thing that capitalists would prefer, such as an insurance-based health system rather than an NHS free at the point of use.


That's where you've lost me; comparing actuality with an hypothetical.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> That's where you've lost me; comparing actuality with an hypothetical.


It's not really a hypothetical, though, or at least it isn't a hugely speculative one. It's comparing what Labour did with what the Tories proposed at the same time. We don't have to guess what the tories wanted to do. It's there in the historical record.

It's not so hard to see what kind of system the tories would have instituted. There are many examples across Europe.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not really a hypothetical, though. It's comparing what Labour did with what the Tories proposed at the same time. We don't have to guess what the tories wanted to do. It's there in the historical record.
> 
> It's not so hard to see what kind of system the tories would have instituted. There are many examples across Europe.


Fair point, but it's obviously hypothetical to the specific conditions and context. Who knows what forces and pressures might have come to bear upon the post-war Tory administration of your parallel universe?   After all, not many governments get to enact their manifesto promises unaltered by circumstances.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Fair point, but it's obviously hypothetical to the specific conditions and context. Who knows what forces and pressures might have come to bear upon the post-war Tory administration of your parallel universe?   After all, not many governments get to enact their manifesto promises unaltered by circumstances.


Ok, ignore the parallel universe. Look at the votes in the House of Commons and the legal challenges to the NHS that the Tories tried to mount. They opposed the NHS. They didn't oppose all forms of health coverage, but they did very firmly oppose this particular form.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 27, 2022)

This concentration on debating the NHS in terms of being beneficial to capitalism, rather than providing the poor with access to doctors and treatment never before within their means, meaning large swathes of the country led lives lacking quality and early death, I find quite contemptible. The very definition of middle class up their own arse-ness, debating trite points of ideology while millions of my class benefited perhaps like never before from an Act of Parliament. It doesn't make me counter-revolutionary to support that. But to see it as some cloaked bourgeois act (that many of the bourgeoisie - doctors especially - didn't want) is an insult to the most progressive thing that happened to the working class in the 20th century.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> This concentration on debating the NHS in terms of being beneficial to capitalism, rather than providing the poor with access to doctors and treatment never before within their means, meaning large swathes of the country led lives lacking quality and early death, I find quite contemptible. The very definition of middle class up their own arse-ness, debating trite points of ideology while millions of my class benefited perhaps like never before from an Act of Parliament. It doesn't make me counter-revolutionary to support that. But to see it as some cloaked bourgeois act (that many of the bourgeoisie - doctors especially - didn't want) is an insult to the most progressive thing that happened to the working class in the 20th century.


Surely it's something of a truism that any of capital's post-war concessions would, by definition, benefit our class? It's not "counter-revolutionary" to believe that those changes in the political-economy were altruistic, just somewhat naive.


----------



## hitmouse (Jul 27, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Working class voters never voted Tory in great numbers. When the Tories got back in initially they still got less votes than Labour. You're forgetting that the middle classes vote as well.


What definition of mc are you using for this argument?


brogdale said:


> Yes, and I sometimes think that the problem we have is attempting to imagine the simplicity of capital's view of the world...


I think it's also a mistake to talk of capital in the singular, as if it were a unified thing. Sure there's probably a brainy Marx quote about the relationship of the state to capital here that I can't think of right now.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Surely it's something of a truism that any of capital's post-war concessions would, by definition, benefit our class? It's not "counter-revolutionary" to believe that those changes in the political-economy were altruistic, just somewhat naive.



Who is saying it was altruism? And my point is this was the single biggest 'concession' that improved quality of life for the working class. That's what comes to mind of the service user (or should). Not ideological left or anarchist positions of 'oh yeah but doctor, before you add years to my lifespan that were never possible before, can I just say that from a revolutionary perspective this wasn't done correctly blah blah blah',

This whole debate illustrates how far removed the Left are from working class lived experience. 

As a side note, the Establishment were Ceaucesian out of touch with the working class in 1945. Churchill expected to win that election and there is some great footage knocking about of him being booed at rallies and not having a clue what is going on. It was a sea change of sorts in British politics, even if only short-lived. Or it was just another outright victory for the Establishment as everything is


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jul 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> What definition of mc are you using for this argument?


The definition used by messrs Cleese, Barker and Corbert.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Who is saying it was altruism? And my point is this was the single biggest 'concession' that improved quality of life for the working class. That's what comes to mind of the service user (or should). Not ideological left or anarchist positions of 'oh yeah but doctor, before you add years to my lifespan that were never possible before, can I just say that from a revolutionary perspective this wasn't done correctly blah blah blah',
> 
> This whole debate illustrates how far removed the Left are from working class lived experience.
> 
> As a side note, the Establishment were Ceaucesian out of touch with the working class in 1945. Churchill expected to win that election and there is some great footage knocking about of him being booed at rallies and not having a clue what is going on. It was a sea change of sorts in British politics, even if only short-lived. Or it was just another outright victory for the Establishment as everything is


Wait, you saying what I "should" think as a "service user" of the remnants of the NHS?
Really?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Wait, you saying what I "should" think as a "service user" of the remnants of the NHS?
> Really?


It's possible to put yourself in the shoes of a person of the 1940s, no, able to see a doctor and receive medicine for the first time in their lives? And not only that but on an equal footing with those who are richer than you - you're seeing the same doctors and receiving the same medicine.

Overthrowing capitalism it wasn't. A huge advance on what went before, it certainly was. And much better than the system proposed by the Tories? Again certainly, yes.

Isn't that enough?

ETA: And when I say 'isn't that enough?', I don't mean generally, just in this specific case, that the NHS was established that way and not another way is surely enough to be able to say it was a victory to those who advocated  universalism, redistribution and fairness against those who opposed it. And let's not be in any doubt here that the tories fundamentally opposed this kind of reform.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's possible to put yourself in the shoes of a person of the 1940s, no, able to see a doctor and receive medicine for the first time in their lives? And not only that but on an equal footing with those who are richer than you - you're seeing the same doctors and receiving the same medicine.
> 
> Overthrowing capitalism it wasn't. A huge advance on what went before, it certainly was. And much better than the system proposed by the Tories? Again certainly, yes.
> 
> Isn't that enough?


But I wasn't aware that we were discussing whether the NHS was enough; I thought we were discussing the socio-economic and political forces that brought about the concessions of the welfare state?


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 27, 2022)

Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion


----------



## kenny g (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> The NHS was only allowed because it was good for capitalism, for the bourgeoisie. It was only 'good' for the working class for the reasons I posted above (and I believe that its probably not the optimum type of healthcare system, as contraversial as that is - there have always been deep seated problems with the NHS - not that any kind of privatised system is preferable). But thngs were still generally shit for the working class under the Atlee govt (30% rise in the cost of living, having to show restraint etc), which is among the many reaons the working classw voted Tory in 1951 for a Tory rule of 13 years and booted out the Atlee govt.
> 
> After Atlee the next Labour govt was the Wilson govt - who also attacked working class living standards and came with other serious problems. Life was still shit for the working class.


Would be interested in you applying the thing between your ears to the point I raised above rather than spouting forth the same line ad nauseum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion


It's relevant here because it was originally brought up as part of a claim that basically it doesn't matter if Corbyn or someone like him wins power somewhere or other as he's just another servant of capital. That's a point that's worth exploring and challenging, imo. When made about Attlee's govt, such a claim doesn't stand up. Shit, when made about the GLC in the 1980s, it doesn't stand up.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Surely it's something of a truism that any of capital's post-war concessions would, by definition, benefit our class? It's not "counter-revolutionary" to believe that those changes in the political-economy were altruistic, just somewhat naive.


Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.


Yeah, but the basic shape of the post-war settlement had been agreed/conceded in the first half of the war.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.


There were always going to be concessions - not just here, across the world. Doesn't mean the same concessions would have been made regardless of who was in power.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but the basic shape of the post-war settlement had been agreed/conceded in the first half of the war.


True, but they could still have reneged on it, and instead clamped down on any protest - brought the army in. It might have been stupid trying to get the army to fight against people who'd just come out of the army but they could still have tried it. 

The important thing to me, too, is the improvement in quality of life for millions of people - as with building council houses, welfare state, full employment, nationalized industries. They show what can be done with democratic socialism. 

Saying 'ah yes well capital only did that because it benefited capital' may be true but churning it out every time the NHS is mentioned devalues the huge benefits democratic socialism brought to people after the war. Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There were always going to be concessions - not just here, across the world. Doesn't mean the same concessions would have been made regardless of who was in power.


Did Stalin make concessions to the Russian people? That's more what I meant when I said the government could have clamped down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

two sheds said:


> Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?


Yep, and change is possible both ways, of course. Change towards democratic socialist solutions happened in the 1940s. Change towards neoliberalism has happened since the 1970s. 

I think it's a trap to look back on what happened, see why it happened and think it was inevitable that it would happen like that. The socialist solutions of the 40s weren't inevitable even if some form of welfare state was. Likewise, Thatcherism wasn't inevitable. You only need to compare the size of the UK state to the size of the French state to see what a difference Thatcherism made and how a country that didn't go through that looks very different today.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

two sheds said:


> True, but they could still have reneged on it, and instead clamped down on any protest - brought the army in. It might have been stupid trying to get the army to fight against people who'd just come out of the army but they could still have tried it.
> 
> The important thing to me, too, is the improvement in quality of life for millions of people - as with building council houses, welfare state, full employment, nationalized industries. They show what can be done with democratic socialism.
> 
> Saying 'ah yes well capital only did that because it benefited capital' may be true but churning it out every time the NHS is mentioned devalues the huge benefits democratic socialism brought to people after the war. Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?


Well, yes...but attempting an analysis of why the post-war concessions were made does not equate to dismissing their importance for our class. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that appreciating the factors that won them in the first place helps us to understand why capital now feels emboldened to renege on them and dismantle the welfare state.


----------



## zahir (Jul 27, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion



I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:








						The secret deportations: how Britain betrayed the Chinese men who served the country in the war
					

The long read: During the second world war, Chinese merchant seamen helped keep Britain fed, fuelled and safe – and many gave their lives doing so. But from late 1945, hundreds of them who had settled in Liverpool suddenly disappeared. Now their children are piecing together the truth




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

zahir said:


> I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that and the clusterfuck that was the partition of india ought to do for most people.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

zahir said:


> I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He tried to divert the Windrush to Tanzania as well, to avoid a ‘colour problem’


----------



## two sheds (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Well, yes...but attempting an analysis of why the post-war concessions were made does not equate to dismissing their importance for our class. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that appreciating the factors that won them in the first place helps us to understand why capital now feels emboldened to renege on them and dismantle the welfare state.


Yes I totally agree. That's not how it's been presented on here in past discussions I've had of the Post War Social Consensus though. They've verged on contempt by a couple of posters (not many admittedly but very vocal) at just the suggestion that democratic socialism benefited the working class.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2022)

zahir said:


> I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Attlee also tore up promises Churchill made to Polish servicemen who were unable to return home after the war that they would be granted British citizenship.


----------



## Supine (Jul 27, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Attlee also tore up promises Churchill made to Polish servicemen who were unable to return home after the war that they would be granted British citizenship.



Not heard about that. I’m living proof that at least one polish servicemen stayed


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> Not heard about that. I’m living proof that at least one polish servicemen stayed



I read that claim in a book recently, but it seems not to be entirely accurate. While it's true that immediately after the war many poles faced an uncertain future and were housed in poor conditions in improvised barracks, many of them in the Scottish borders, in 1947 an act of parliament was passed allowing Polish servicemen along with wives and kids to settle as permanent citizens. Around 300,000 Poles ultimately became British citizens as a result of this.

In my part of the world there are more than a few families of Italian heritage thanks to POW's who liked it here and decided not to bother going home again after the war.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 27, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> In my part of the world there are more than a few families of Italian heritage thanks to POW's who liked it here and decided not to bother going home again after the war.



Not sure what is your part of the world Spooky Frank but this applies to Bedford massively. It started off with PsOW but then in the 50s they needed labour for the brick works and advertised in Italian newspapers for such. Loads came over and were - get this - housed in the old POW camps.

Estimates now are that between 20-30% of the town are of Italian descent.

There are no brick works left.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Not sure what is your part of the world Spooky Frank but this applies to Bedford massively. It started off with PsOW but then in the 50s they needed labour for the brick works and advertised in Italian newspapers for such. Loads came over and were - get this - housed in the old POW camps.
> 
> Estimates now are that between 20-30% of the town are of Italian descent.
> 
> There are no brick works left.



Vegetable farms in the Lea valley were also a big employer of Italians.


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 27, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Vegetable farms in the Lea valley were also a big employer of Italians.



Didn't know this. Either the fact or that you were from that area. Half my gfs family live there these days. I shall make sure to drop it in to conversation at the end of next month when I'm there. Cucumber central apparently.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, and change is possible both ways, of course. Change towards democratic socialist solutions happened in the 1940s. Change towards neoliberalism has happened since the 1970s.
> 
> I think it's a trap to look back on what happened, see why it happened and think it was inevitable that it would happen like that. The socialist solutions of the 40s weren't inevitable even if some form of welfare state was. Likewise, Thatcherism wasn't inevitable. You only need to compare the size of the UK state to the size of the French state to see what a difference Thatcherism made and how a country that didn't go through that looks very different today.


You don't know what socialism is. State capitalism/nationalisation isn't socialism.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

kenny g said:


> Would be interested in you applying the thing between your ears to the point I raised above rather than spouting forth the same line ad nauseum.


What you posted was just nonsense that isn't worth me replying to and  I'd already posted about it previously really..


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

teqniq said:


> I think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan who served in the Atlee government actually:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think this is strictly the case as there would have been no NHS without the Beveridge report. It was a response to the Beveridge report even if there were  differences with how it was going to be implemented.









						Beveridge Report - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## teqniq (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I don't think this is strictly the case as there would have been no NHS without the Beveridge report. It was a response to the Beveridge report even if there were  differences with how it was going to be implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can think what you like but without Bevan it wouldn't have happened.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

Those differences were fucking important, they created a National health service, not a bunch of local services.  

It even days as much in the Wikipedia page quoted.   

[Labour] leaders opposed Beveridge's idea of a National Health Service run through local health centres and regional hospital administrations, preferring a state-run body.[10]Beveridge complained about this: "For Ernest Bevin, with his trade-union background of unskilled workers... social insurance was less important than bargaining about wages." Bevin derided the Beveridge Report as a "Social Ambulance Scheme"


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

teqniq said:


> You can think what you like but without Bevan it wouldn't have happened.


Maybe you have a point but there were problems with it (such as the problems that come with a very hierarchical structure - these problems are still present today), as there would be with a state capitalist venture. And I'd say I'm still right about whose benefit it was really for.

And let's not just focus on the NHS and ignore the rest of the things I've posted about. After all, the Atlee govt was rejected by the electorate at the 1951 general election.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Maybe you have a point but there were problems with it, as there would be with a state capitalist venture.


In what way was the nationalised NHS a capitalist venture? What were the returns it was giving on its investments? Who was receiving dividends from the profits? 

You're playing fast and loose with terminology here without really understanding what it means.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Maybe you have a point but there were problems with it (such as the problems that come with a very hierarchical structure - these problems are still present today), as there would be with a state capitalist venture. And I'd say I'm still right about whose benefit it was really for.
> 
> And let's not just focus on the NHS and ignore the rest of the things I've posted about. After all, the Atlee govt was rejected by the electorate at the 1951 general election.


The Attlee govt won 48.8% of the vote in the 1951 election. Ironically enough, that's the biggest share of the vote that Labour has ever got.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what way was the nationalised NHS a capitalist venture? What were the returns it was giving on its investments? Who was receiving dividends from the profits?
> 
> You're playing fast and loose with terminology here without really understanding what it means.


Its just ridiculous to claim its not capitalist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Its just ridiculous to claim its not capitalist.


Define capitalist for me, then. Because I'm at a loss as to what you mean here. 'state capitalist' sounds good so you run with it, but does it really mean anything at all when applied to the NHS? I suggest that it doesn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what way was the nationalised NHS a capitalist venture? What were the returns it was giving on its investments? Who was receiving dividends from the profits?
> 
> You're playing fast and loose with terminology here without really understanding what it means.


This ^ is a really stupid post. Where was the profit made by schools pre-academy and new school bollocks? The calculation made was a healthy workforce would be a more productive workforce. How you can say something established by capitalists in a capitalist society is not er capitalist beggars belief.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Define capitalist for me, then. Because I'm at a loss as to what you mean here. 'state capitalist' sounds good so you run with it, but does it really mean anything at all when applied to the NHS? I suggest that it doesn't.


I'm referring to state capitalism. Capitalism run mainly by the state. With state bosses rather than private/corporate ones. Its still ultimately run in the interests of the ruling class.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Capitalism run mainly by the state. With state bosses rather than private/corporate ones.


You do know that 'capitalism' means rather more than 'there are bosses', yes?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Maybe you have a point but there were problems with it (such as the problems that come with a very hierarchical structure - these problems are still present today), as there would be with a state capitalist venture. And I'd say I'm still right about whose benefit it was really for.
> 
> And let's not just focus on the NHS and ignore the rest of the things I've posted about. After all, the Atlee govt was rejected by the electorate at the 1951 general election.


You were talking specifically about the NHS in your post to which i responded. I never suggested the Atlee government was all a bed of roses and, in fact other have also posted compelling reasons as to why it was not. You have quoted tracts of a blog without attributing them, something which frankly i find dishonest and is in fact plagiarism so please don't be surprised if i don't take your posts at face value.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what way was the nationalised NHS a capitalist venture? What were the returns it was giving on its investments? Who was receiving dividends from the profits?
> 
> You're playing fast and loose with terminology here without really understanding what it means.


No, you're right; a fully socialised system of healthcare, (free at the point of delivery), was anathema to capital...until they worked out how to privatise from within. But, even in it's purest, socialised iteration, of course it was a benefit to capital...especially if the cost of reproducing more productive workers was increasingly born by the taxes on those same workers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> No, you're right; a fully socialised system of healthcare, (free at the point of delivery), was anathema to capital...until they worked out how to privatise from within. But, even in it's purest, socialised iteration, of course it was a benefit to capital...especially if the cost of reproducing more productive workers was increasingly born by the taxes on those same workers.


Sure, but that's not at all the same as being a _capitalist venture_, state or otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure, but that's not at all the same as being a _capitalist venture_, state or otherwise.


You seem to have dropped the important word state.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what way was the nationalised NHS a capitalist venture? What were the returns it was giving on its investments? Who was receiving dividends from the profits?
> 
> You're playing fast and loose with terminology here without really understanding what it means.


Do you know the difference between a) capitalism and b) state capitalism?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure, but that's not at all the same as being a _capitalist venture_, state or otherwise.


Maybe so, but as Pickman's model correctly pointed out above, certainly capitalistic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Its still ultimately run in the interests of the ruling class.


You added this bit. The NHS was conceived and run in the interests of the ruling class? Presumably because it was better for the ruling class to have healthy workers? So the fire service was also a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for fires to be put out. Council housing was a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for workers to have safe housing. Air Traffic Control is a capitalist venture as it is in the interests of the ruling class for planes not to crash into one another. 

Your line of reasoning is worthless.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

teqniq said:


> You were talking specifically about the NHS in your post to which i responded. I never suggested the Atlee government was all a bed of roses and, in fact other have also posted compelling reasons as to why it was not. You have quoted tracts of a blog without attributing them, something which frankly i find dishonest and is in fact plagiarism so please don't be surprised if i don't take your posts at face value.


Its not plagiarism, thats ridiculous, I cited my source. Its not a blog either, it was originally a pamphlet from the early 1990's.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

Seems to me that AmateurAgitator has prompted an interesting discussion in here.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You added this bit. The NHS was conceived and run in the interests of the ruling class? Presumably because it was better for the ruling class to have healthy workers? So the fire service was also a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for fires to be put out. Council housing was a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for workers to have safe housing. Air Traffic Control is a capitalist venture as it is in the interests of the ruling class for planes not to crash into one another.
> 
> Your line of reasoning is worthless.


You're obviously OK with the working class having to endure wage slavery, rising costs of living and restraint and having their living standards attacked while having to be more 'productive'- you're clearly OK with state capitalism - I'm not. Becauase thats what was going on and why these things happened back then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> You're obviously OK with the working class having to endure wage slavery, rising costs of living and restraint and having their living standards attacked - I'm not. Becauase thats what was going on and why these things happened back then.


Yep. that must be it.

And the establishment of a universal National Health Service, free at the point of use, was clearly part of the plot to keep people down.

You're not right in your broad sweep, btw. Wages as a share of GDP steadily went up between the 40s and the 70s. This was a period of significant gains for the working class. What you describe has been happening from the 1970s onwards but was not happening before then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. that must be it.
> 
> And the establishment of a universal National Health Service, free at the point of use, was clearly part of the plot to keep people down.


Jesus Mary and Joseph you're veering all over the place


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. that must be it.
> 
> And the establishment of a universal National Health Service, free at the point of use, was clearly part of the plot to keep people down.


In a truly anti-communist/revolutionary sense, yes it was.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> This ^ is a really stupid post. Where was the profit made by schools pre-academy and new school bollocks? The calculation made was a healthy workforce would be a more productive workforce. How you can say something established by capitalists in a capitalist society is not er capitalist beggars belief.


Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’? That's quite a blurring of terminology.  Is a healthy workforce capitalist?  It obviously has its uses, but a healthy workforce also benefits the anti-capitalist fight - because we are actually healthy enough _to _fight.   Once again, it seems there is an inability to understand contradiction and how it applies to capital.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’? That's quite a blurring of terminology.  Is a healthy workforce capitalist?  It obviously has its uses, but a healthy workforce also benefits the anti-capitalist fight - because we are actually healthy enough _to _fight.   Once again, it seems there is an inability to understand contradiction and how it applies to capital.


There's a reason why life expectancy is in decline, we're getting unhealthier and education has been dumbed down in a narrowed curriculum.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’? That's quite a blurring of terminology.  Is a healthy workforce capitalist?  It obviously has its uses, but a healthy workforce also benefits the anti-capitalist fight - because we are actually healthy enough _to _fight.   Once again, it seems there is an inability to understand contradiction and how it applies to capital.


You didn't even mention the increased productivity etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> In a truly anti-communist/revolutionary sense, yes it was.


Properly understood, all gains are actually losses.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> And you are so shit at everything that even your own comrades find it too embarrassing to try to defend your drivel.
> You’re a (slow, repetitive) irrelevance.


And I keep forgetting to put you on ignore.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Properly understood, all gains are actually losses.


Certainly transitory, conditional upon the perceived threats/needs of capital.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’?


Something that is capitalist certainly is. Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Something that is capitalist certainly is. Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.


Better to stand and argue, pal.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> You didn't even mention the increased productivity etc


That's because I dont need to repeat every single part of somebody's post when replying to it, it's already in the quote.   99.99% of people have no problem understanding this,  its just you that doesnt.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> What are you doing now then, ya daft cunt?


You're just a shit troll


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.


Ohh you great big fibber you. Again.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

You're on ignore where you belong Belboid


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Certainly transitory, conditional upon the perceived threats/needs of capital.


everything is fucking transitory. So what?


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> You're on ignore where you belong Belboid


pants on fire


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> everything is fucking transitory. So what?


deep.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Something that is capitalist certainly is. Anyway, on ignore you go, should've done it ages ago.


Explain how the NHS is a capitalist venture, please. And not 'because capitalism needs healthy workers'. The world is better with healthy people full stop, so that won't cut it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

The RCP used to say that anyone defending the NHS was defending capitalism.  And that is precisely the logic of some one here.  

Fuck the NHS for the sake of socialism!  Not great logic.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Its not plagiarism, thats ridiculous, I cited my source. Its not a blog either, it was originally a pamphlet from the early 1990's.


Only when asked and you provided no link. Nor did you attribute the words you posted to the blog/pamphlet in the post that I originally quoted.

and then there's this post from yesterday. All unattributed:



AmateurAgitator said:


> Notable features of the Atlee government were the building of the British atomic bomb and Hydrogen bomb, the rising of the cost of living by 30% and the demand that workers exercise ‘restraint’ and not ask for pay rises. Wartime rationing was kept in place, which ensured that money was spent not on consumption but on investment. This meant not only less for workers, but a drabber, more monotonous existence. In fact between 1947 and 1951 working class people suffered a drop in their real wages./quote]






> AmateurAgitator said:
> 
> 
> > The Atlee government gave little to the working class. In this it revealed once again just whose side it was on. This time its membership began more closely to reveal this fact too. In 1945 more than 40 of the Labour MPs were lawyers...... ‘ between 20 and 30 were business men, and a good sprinkling of farmers, accountants, consulting engineers and other professions’ were among the rest. Arthur Greenwood, the Labour Lord Privy Seal, said at the time, ‘I look around among my colleagues, and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross-section of the national life, and this is something that has never happened before.’ A party originally set up to protect the unions had acquired a constitution written by middle class intellectuals and was now being run by a coalition of union bureaucrats and traditional members of the ruling class./quote]
> ...


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> deep.


exactly as deep as your trite claim, i think you'll find


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> exactly as deep as your trite claim, i think you'll find


Ouch


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

The rest of war-ravaged Europe was having a great big party in the late 40s, of course.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Seems to me that AmateurAgitator has prompted an interesting discussion in here.


Thankyou. For various reasons I've been very tired lately so thats why alot of what I've posted was mostly not in my own words (and why I keep leaving the discussion and then coming back), it was just easier doing it that way. And as I say I did cite my source when asked.


----------



## Supine (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> There's a reason why life expectancy is in decline, we're getting unhealthier and education has been dumbed down in a narrowed curriculum.



Is there some data to support that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

Yeah, kids are getting smarter as well, generation on generation.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, kids are getting smarter as well, generation on generation.


That's an interesting claim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> That's an interesting claim.


IQ tests are pretty rotten things, but the way they are set up, 100 has to come in the middle. They have to redo the marking scale every few years to keep it that way because the scores keep going up.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> Is there some data to support that?
> 
> View attachment 334768


Thought this widely known?

Life expectancy falling in parts of England before pandemic - study


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> IQ tests are pretty rotten things, but the way they are set up, 100 has to come in the middle. They have to redo the marking scale every few years to keep it that way because the scores keep going up.


So, are the kids getting smarter as well, generation on generation, or not?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> So, are the kids getting smarter as well, generation on generation, or not?


That is certainly one explanation for the rising scores on IQ tests.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is certainly one explanation for the rising scores on IQ tests.


FFS


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> Is something that benefits capitalism inherently ‘capitalist’? That's quite a blurring of terminology.  Is a healthy workforce capitalist?  It obviously has its uses, but a healthy workforce also benefits the anti-capitalist fight - because we are actually healthy enough _to _fight.   Once again, it seems there is an inability to understand contradiction and how it applies to capital.


The benefits to capital from the NHS are unambiguous. The benefits to the anti-capitalist fight are potential. But the state does not introduce a service like the nhs, like education, like welfare benefits, unless there is a clear benefit to it and to the industry of the country. The benefit to the acf - if that is in fact a thing - has been an unintended consequence. There has been a constant struggle for many years to retain some semblance of the NHS ethos, more than sufficient to burn out many many good militants.


----------



## JimW (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.


Improved childhood nutrition in the sort of countries who test for IQ. (No idea really)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.


Or not paying attention


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say, normally when I find myself in arguments with people telling me that things are getting better and better all the time, they tend to be unhinged libertarian types.


And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The benefits to capital from the NHS are unambiguous. The benefits to the anti-capitalist fight are potential. But the state does not introduce a service like the nhs, like education, like welfare benefits, unless there is a clear benefit to it and to the industry of the country. The benefit to the acf - if that is in fact a thing - has been an unintended consequence. There has been a constant struggle for many years to retain some semblance of the NHS ethos, more than sufficient to burn out many many good militants.


No, the benefits to the working class of good health are actual, not potential.  And you are just repeating the point that the NHS benefits capital (no disagreement with that) without advancing your claim that that makes it capitalist.  

As for your last sentence, oh dear.  It does make it sound like you think we shouldn’t try to defend the NHS, for fear of burn out.  Anything can cause burn out, so we shouldn’t fight for anything by that logic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.


2010 ‘Functionally illiterate and innumerate’
2017 Lecturers Are Hitting Out At Their Own Unis For Giving Places To 'Almost Illiterate' Students
2022 www.cityam.com/bad-at-maths-cost-britain-poor-numeracy-skills-no-laughing-matter/

E2a there's been similar stories about people entering university for many years. When gcses were introduced they weren't as hard as the o levels that preceded them, and that's a simple statement of fact.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And when I hear people talking about dumbed-down education, I get suspicious. Education generally is way better now than it was when I was at school. And my schooling was way better than that of my parents.


Again, very debatable. Nearly half a century of neoliberal curriculum determination and 'marketisation'/privatisation of education has certainly produced results, but claiming things are way better is a very bold claim.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 27, 2022)

I cringe every time people start talking about "state capitalism". The term seems to mean something different each time it is used. Perhaps something else could be used such as "capitalist statism". I'm not really going to argue about it, but if anybody wants to chuck me a link to a coherent theory then I'll read it.


----------



## Supine (Jul 27, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Thought this widely known?
> 
> Life expectancy falling in parts of England before pandemic - study



Oh bugger. Wish i lived down south now!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2022)

Supine said:


> Oh bugger. Wish i lived down south now!


Yes, there are some stark inter-regional differences but don't let that hide the equally stark intra-regional ones.



> The researchers say the differences are down to poverty, insecure employment as well as reductions in welfare support and healthcare.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> No, the benefits to the working class of good health are actual, not potential.  And you are just repeating the point that the NHS benefits capital (no disagreement with that) without advancing your claim that that makes it capitalist.
> 
> As for your last sentence, oh dear.  It does make it sound like you think we shouldn’t try to defend the NHS, for fear of burn out.  Anything can cause burn out, so we shouldn’t fight for anything by that logic.


You don't seem to read things with the attention you think. I didn't say the benefits to the working class are potential, I said the benefits to your anti-capitalist fight  are potential. They are two different things.

It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist - not necessarily in producing for that element of the state a profit as say Ford turns a profit. But capitalist in ethos, in outlook. It is a support system for capitalism, not a socialist intruder into the state.

And that's a really perverse reading of my final sentence, it's a simple fact that trying to get the nhs to stand still, trying to resist the endless attacks on it, has worn - is wearing - and will wear down good militants, good anti-capitalists. Nor all anti-capitalists obvs. It's  a fight worth fighting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist


People like this?








He was vermin all along.  Who knew?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Talk about a personality cult


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Talk about a personality cult


Yep that's me. I have Nye's face tattooed on my chest and I work for the inexorable immiseration of the working classes. Finally fulfilling his dream.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 27, 2022)

People's Boss Man Squad ✊✊✊



Revisionist Starmer Clique


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> People's Boss Man Squad ✊✊✊
> 
> View attachment 334794
> 
> ...


There's bound to be a caption comp for that lower picture


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> There's bound to be a caption comp for that lower picture



"...and then I said to the Times, 'These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.'"

Said by either of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "...and then I said to the Times, 'These are my _principles_. If you don't like them _I have_ others.'"
> 
> Said by either of them.


They both join in on the second sentence


----------



## kenny g (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> What you posted was just nonsense that isn't worth me replying to and  I'd already posted about it previously really..


Really??


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't seem to read things with the attention you think. I didn't say the benefits to the working class are potential, I said the benefits to your anti-capitalist fight  are potential. They are two different things.


Are they, in this particular instance? The same rationale applies to both - "we are actually healthy enough _to _fight"


Pickman's model said:


> It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist - not necessarily in producing for that element of the state a profit as say Ford turns a profit. But capitalist in ethos, in outlook. It is a support system for capitalism, not a socialist intruder into the state.


Fair enough, but once again I come back to its contradictory nature. Churchill and the tories wanted to bring in a system that would have chimed perfectly with a capitalist ethos, which is why they were opposed to Bevan's version. They wanted a system run by private doctors, they wanted health insurance. The NHS is fundamentally different, as its funded by taxation and covers people pretty much equally. It is a _socialised _health care system.  Which is still top down and managerial and gives to much power and status to doctors, but I am unconvinced it is avowedly _capitalist_.


Pickman's model said:


> And that's a really perverse reading of my final sentence, it's a simple fact that trying to get the nhs to stand still, trying to resist the endless attacks on it, has worn - is wearing - and will wear down good militants, good anti-capitalists. Nor all anti-capitalists obvs. It's  a fight worth fighting.


Okay, cool.  I was just wondering what the point of that sentence was.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Its just ridiculous to claim its not capitalist.


Always the best form of argument, "It is just ridiculous to,,". No, it is is just ridiculous to say it is just ridiculous..


----------



## kenny g (Jul 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator I am waiting for you to come out with any line of argument that doesn't come from the Socialist Party of Great Britain in the 1940's. Is Labour Government the Way to Socialism? – spgb.net


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

belboid said:


> Churchill and the tories wanted to bring in a system that would have chimed perfectly with a capitalist ethos, which is why they were opposed to Bevan's version. They wanted a system run by private doctors, they wanted health insurance. The NHS is fundamentally different, as its funded by taxation and covers people pretty much equally. It is a _socialised _health care system.  Which is still top down and managerial and gives to much power and status to doctors, but I am unconvinced it is avowedly _capitalist_.


It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances. 

The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances.
> 
> The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.


If it is as you say avowedly uncapitalist I'm sure you can point to somewhere where the nhs declare that. Unless you're using your own idiosyncratic definition which is different from everyone else's. And I've not said it's bad, even capitalist society can produce good things now and again


----------



## hitmouse (Jul 27, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You added this bit. The NHS was conceived and run in the interests of the ruling class? Presumably because it was better for the ruling class to have healthy workers? So the fire service was also a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for fires to be put out. Council housing was a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for workers to have safe housing. Air Traffic Control is a capitalist venture as it is in the interests of the ruling class for planes not to crash into one another.
> 
> Your line of reasoning is worthless.


Choosing aeroplane travel as an example of a simple, uncontroversial social good is certainly an interesting choice.


littlebabyjesus said:


> It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances.
> 
> The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.


Could you point out who exactly said "the NHS is bad"? I think you might be getting confused about the distinction between "this thing is complex and contradictory" and "this thing is unequivocally bad". 

Anyway, congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn on becoming Mayor of London, if that's what's happened?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 27, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Choosing aeroplane travel as an example of a simple, uncontroversial social good is certainly an interesting choice.
> 
> Could you point out who exactly said "the NHS is bad"? I think you might be getting confused about the distinction between "this thing is complex and contradictory" and "this thing is unequivocally bad".
> 
> Anyway, congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn on becoming Mayor of London, if that's what's happened?


Have you been reading AmateurAgitator and Pickman's model? No room for complexity or contradictory things in their thinking. 'state capitalist enterprise' was the quote from AA. I think PM said 'capitalistic'. It's total rubbish.


----------



## Thaw (Jul 28, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> People's Boss Man Squad ✊✊✊



What do you think of Eddie Dempsey?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have you been reading AmateurAgitator and Pickman's model? No room for complexity or contradictory things in their thinking. 'state capitalist enterprise' was the quote from AA. I think PM said 'capitalistic'. It's total rubbish.


have _you_ been reading my posts?

you'll really struggle to find anywhere i've not said the nhs is a good thing. but anyone who thinks i've said capitalistic hasn't imo been paying attention.


----------



## Dystopiary (Jul 28, 2022)

I'm sure education has been getting better for a select few.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> I'm sure education has been getting better for a select few.


have you seen the state of successive governments, many of whose members went to most prestigious public schools followed by a sojourn at oxford or cambridge? fucking boris johnson thinks hitler won at stalingrad ffs. therese coffey went to oxford and has a phd in chemistry from university college london. but there can be few more abject members of the cabinet.


----------



## Dystopiary (Jul 28, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> have you seen the state of successive governments, many of whose members went to most prestigious public schools followed by a sojourn at oxford or cambridge? fucking boris johnson thinks hitler won at stalingrad ffs.


His lack of intelligence and his insufficient interest in history probably can't be blamed on his schooling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> His lack of intelligence and his insufficient interest in history probably can't be blamed on his schooling.


it's in the book he wrote about churchill. it's not some off the cuff comment made after spaffing a grand up against the wall e2a The Churchill Factor: “One man who made history” by another who just makes it up


----------



## Dystopiary (Jul 28, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> it's in the book he wrote about churchill. it's not some off the cuff comment made after spaffing a grand up against the wall e2a The Churchill Factor: “One man who made history” by another who just makes it up


Knew that, didn't know it was that bad though. Did he ever finish his shitty Shakespeare book?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> Knew that, didn't know it was that bad though. Did he ever finish his shitty Shakespeare book?


it's not been delivered yet


----------



## what (Jul 30, 2022)

Bumped into him on Tufnell Park Road recently with quite a few colleagues collecting signatures against the scrapping of a bus route.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> True, but then again I don't really think that claim was being made, was it?


Thats right, it wasn't.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> I think that pretty much all of the immediate post-war concessions relating to the foundation of the welfare state had been wrung from the political wing of capital during the conflict itself. Churchill's coalition administration was essentially cemented on the basis of commitments to welfare; the need to retain consent and participation from the working class/left was essential to the war effort. Added to which the establishment was always well aware of a global picture in which really existing system competition existed as an existential threat.


Yeah I agree, that makes sense. The NHS did, in a sense, come out of the Beveridge report and as I said previously that doesn't mean there would have been absolutely no differences in how what became the NHS was implemented.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> I think that's a fair point, but important to remember that the Beveridge report was published as early in the war as 1942. This undeniably helped Churchill to maintain the coalition throughout the war years and, although his 1943 "After the War" speech came with the usual Tory caveats of 'no magic money tree' he did commit to implementing the pillars of Beveridge.


Yep, absolutely.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Surely it's something of a truism that any of capital's post-war concessions would, by definition, benefit our class? It's not "counter-revolutionary" to believe that those changes in the political-economy were altruistic, just somewhat naive.


Yep, this is true.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 2, 2022)

Ceasefire?. African Union?.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 2, 2022)

Think you need to have a word with the big boss man Jeff Robinson


----------



## ska invita (Aug 2, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ceasefire?. African Union?.



highly biased framing of what he says in the interview.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 2, 2022)

They needed to ask whether Putin could be trusted to hold to a ceasefire though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 2, 2022)

two sheds said:


> They needed to ask whether Putin could be trusted to hold to a ceasefire though.


He could, it would give him a chance to consolidate the territory he has and re-arm before attacking again.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 2, 2022)

yes indeed


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

Thank God Johnson beat Corbyn in 2019 and we didn't have our PM appear on Hezbollah TV criticising Ukraine for prolonging the war. I think all domestic political considerations come second to the damage Corbyn would have done on the world stage.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thank God Johnson beat Corbyn in 2019 and we didn't have our PM appear on Hezbollah TV criticising Ukraine for prolonging the war. I think all domestic political considerations come second to the damage Corbyn would have done on the world stage.


In your imagination.


----------



## Riklet (Aug 2, 2022)

Lol Corbyn is such a delusional bellend. The man has zero fucking graciousness or self awareness either.


----------



## Karl Masks (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thank God Johnson beat Corbyn in 2019 and we didn't have our PM appear on Hezbollah TV criticising Ukraine for prolonging the war. I think all domestic political considerations come second to the damage Corbyn would have done on the world stage.


Thank god for sarcasm


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ceasefire?. African Union?.



It's worth reading some of the responses to that interview


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 2, 2022)

editor said:


> It's worth reading some of the responses to that interview



I’ve watched the whole video myself.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

The interview is just standard boilerplate Corbyn chat, nothing remarkable or really that controversial there - his decision to appear on what appears to be a iranian/syrian propaganda outlet is the questionable decision here. Although tbf that's standard Corbyn behaviour too. Ah well.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

of course in the fantasy world where Corbyn wins the 2019 general election and then somehow is still prime minister now, he wouldn't be giving interviews to minor arab satellite stations, so our standing on the world stage would be unsullied by this appearance.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

killer b said:


> of course in the fantasy world where Corbyn wins the 2019 general election and then somehow is still prime minister now, he wouldn't be giving interviews to minor arab satellite stations, so our standing on the world stage would be unsullied by this appearance.



Yeah he’d be doing a lot worse with Ukraine than talking shit to Assadists about it.


----------



## hitmouse (Aug 2, 2022)

Spent several valuable seconds of my life starting to type a reply before stopping and realising that I was on the verge of getting into an argument about what the foreign policy of a hypothetical alternate universe Corbyn government would be.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Spent several valuable seconds of my life starting to type a reply before stopping and realising that I was on the verge of getting into an argument about what the foreign policy of a hypothetical alternate universe Corbyn government would be.


he'd have al quaeda round for tea at chequers probably.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

I’d imagine he’d start by refusing to join the US-led imperialist warmongering sanctions campaign against the Russian people, and encourage other states to do likewise. Then he’d refuse to supply weapons to facilitate the terrible warmongering on both sides, and encourage other countries to do likewise, etc etc It doesn’t take much hypothesising tbh.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

It's also pretty easy to conclude that the prime minister of a country might take different actions to those of a now-insignificant independent MP.


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 2, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Spent several valuable seconds of my life starting to type a reply before stopping and realising that I was on the verge of getting into an argument about what the foreign policy of a hypothetical alternate universe Corbyn government would be.


Spoilsport!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

killer b said:


> It's also pretty easy to conclude that the prime minister of a country might take different actions to those of a now-insignificant independent MP.



Thankfully his time is up, so you have the luxury of imagining the peace and goodwill he would have spread abroad as PM without ever having have to face the reality of what he would have been like


----------



## hitmouse (Aug 2, 2022)

Yes, it's a good thing that everything turned out for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

I'm not imagining anything of the sort - you're the weirdo coming up with lurid fantasies of what the world would be like under his iron fist. 

FWIW I reckon had Corbyn somehow scraped a win in 2019 he'd be gone by now one way or the other - but who knows? It would have been a different world that elected Corbyn, and not the one we're in. 

What we can safely say is that what we got instead was disastrous - I've no regrets for campaigning for Corbyn as the alternative to this, deeply flawed though he clearly is.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

killer b said:


> What we can safely say is that what we got instead was disastrous - I've no regrets for campaigning for Corbyn as the alternative to this, deeply flawed though he clearly is.



Disastrous? That’s a rather parochial view and I’m not sure many Ukrainians would agree. Most of the world doesn’t care about UK domestic stuff.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

Most of the world doesn't live in the UK, so that's kind of normal. I do though?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yes, it's a good thing that everything turned out for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.



Funny how many on the left are obsessed about what could have been under Corbyn, but only so far as the good stuff goes. The bad stuff is just lurid imaginings.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Funny how many on the left are obsessed about what could have been under Corbyn


it's your head he's living in rent free dude.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

killer b said:


> it's your head he's living in rent free dude.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> View attachment 335719


This thread's been running since June 2016, and for most of it's existence he was leader of the Labour Party and I was actively campaigning for him to be Prime Minister. I posted loads about him then, unsurprisingly. Even then I don't think you'll find the kind of slavish devotion you seem to imagine people have for him here. Where do you think we are? Twitter?


----------



## likesfish (Aug 2, 2022)

His latest musings are ridiculous its 1939 but this time polands getting modern weapons and still fighting.
Russian conscripts die in the ukraine or they die in poland.
  Vlad isn't going to stop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> View attachment 335719


The point you think you're making isn't a point worth making


----------



## hitmouse (Aug 2, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The point you think you're making isn't a point worth making


When will you and BA stop posting about your love of Corbyn???


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 2, 2022)

ska invita said:


> highly biased framing of what he says in the interview.



How so?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 2, 2022)

Shechemite said:


> How so?


hes calling for a peace settlement not "condemning Britain’s crucial military aid to Ukraine"


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 2, 2022)

I guess if your standing behaviour includes persistently doing things that are morally objectionable and most people don’t like it may result in lots of people disliking you and you don’t get to save the world. Better to do things that that are good and appreciated like striking.


----------



## DaphneM (Aug 2, 2022)

killer b said:


> of course in the fantasy world where Corbyn wins the 2019 general election and then somehow is still prime minister now, he wouldn't be giving interviews to minor arab satellite stations, so our standing on the world stage would be unsullied by this appearance.


There was never a universe when corbyn won in 2019.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 2, 2022)

ska invita said:


> hes calling for a peace settlement not "condemning Britain’s crucial military aid to Ukraine"



Well i guess it’s cheeky, but he gives them enough rope.


----------



## Leighsw2 (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thankfully his time is up, so you have the luxury of imagining the peace and goodwill he would have spread abroad as PM without ever having have to face the reality of what he would have been like


No, we just had to 'face the reality' of Boris Johnson instead you cunt.


----------



## tommers (Aug 2, 2022)

Shechemite said:


> Well i guess it’s cheeky, but he gives them enough rope.


Cheeky is definitely how I would term the continual and deliberate misrepresentation of everything he has ever said. 

Bet he sees it and thinks "ooh, the Telegraph is being a bit cheeky again!"


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> When will you and BA stop posting about your love of Corbyn???



Pickman's posts were probably all failed pedanting attempts, and butchersapron was a miserable cunt who iirc was bang on when it came to Corbyn’s foreign policy failings.


----------



## Shechemite (Aug 2, 2022)

Why not just withstand the urge to do silly things?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thankfully his time is up, so you have the luxury of imagining the peace and goodwill he would have spread abroad as PM without ever having have to face the reality of what he would have been like


Theres actually alot of truth to this - though when I've thought this before I've been thinking mainly about in regards to the UK (so to me this is indeed an interesting point). This is basically the labour left and its supporters  in a nutshell.

But to point to Johnson as being any kind of solution you'd have to be on crack or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pickman's posts were probably all failed pedanting attempts, and butchersapron was a miserable cunt who iirc was bang on when it came to Corbyn’s foreign policy failings.


How fortunate we are to have you strewing johnsonite all over the place


----------



## belboid (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pickman's posts were probably all failed pedanting attempts, and butchersapron was a miserable cunt who iirc was bang on when it came to Corbyn’s foreign policy failings.


'failed attempts at pedantry'


----------



## NoXion (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Funny how many on the left are obsessed about what could have been under Corbyn, but only so far as the good stuff goes. The bad stuff is just lurid imaginings.



I'm not a fan of Corbyn's foreign policy stances. Too wishy-washy pacifist for me. But his domestic policies were far superior to literally anything else on offer in electoral politics at the time. Earlier today I was reading stuff about the Attlee government _et al_, and through that I learnt that even the same administration that set up the beloved NHS had some aspects to it that I would have found objectionable.

For myself, I don't think Corbyn has much of a political future. He had his chance and to some extent, he blew it. There should have been more of an emphasis on the rank and file membership, it seems like the swell of support was squandered (possibly some of it down to interference by the Labour right, but they can't be given credit for all the failures). He wasn't ruthless enough against his internal enemies within the Labour party, and he even put his enemies into positions where they could stab him in the back; no idea why he did that, but definitely it cost him.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2022)

Great Boss Man Number 2, from 2017. The best chancellor we never had


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Aug 18, 2022)

_Because of the Labour Party apparatus ruled by the Blairites, Corbyn had to shift his political positions, at least publicly. An opponent of immigration controls, at the last election he promised the most right-wing Labour policy on immigration in over 30 years. An opponent of NATO, he regarded it as a “danger to world peace” and socialists had to campaign against it. He now embraced NATO, saying that “I want to work within NATO to achieve stability”. A life-long opponent of the monarchy, Corbyn now stated that the abolition of the monarchy “is not on my agenda.” A critic of the police and its shoot-to-kill policy he once laid a wreath to victims of police violence at the Cenotaph. He now said that the police should use: “whatever force is necessary to protect and save life.” Labour pledged to increase the number of police by 10,000 and the number of prison warders by 3,000 and border guards by 500.
_

How much more would Corbyn have turned to the right if he were Prime Minister?









						Appeal to the Young - Anarchist Communist Group
					

This appeal is addressed to the young and the not so young. It is aimed at those who have joined the Labour Party over the last four years on the Corbynist wave, who are now thinking of leaving it or have already left. It is addressed to those who have mobilised around the environment and have...




					www.anarchistcommunism.org


----------



## magneze (Aug 18, 2022)

Who cares?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2022)

Exactly the sort of big boss man moves you'd expect from the Corbster


----------



## two sheds (Sep 27, 2022)

> “The libel claim brought by Richard Millett against the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP has been settled. Mr Corbyn has paid no damages, has made no apology and has given no undertakings concerning repetition of the words complained of. No costs have been paid by either party to the other as part of this settlement save in respect of an outstanding Order of the Court of Appeal from April 2021.
> 
> Neither party will be making any other comment about the case.”



e-mail from Corbyn's legal fund


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 27, 2022)

two sheds said:


> e-mail from Corbyn's legal fund



I can't believe Millet won his libel case to be honest. Corbyn called his conduct at a meeting 'abusive'. If anybody is familiar with Millet's conduct at Palestinian Solidarity Meetings, it is hard to see how it could be anything else. Can't help but think the judges just didn't like Corbyn.

EDIT, just checked and what I wrote above is wrong, see below.


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2022)

I'm finding it hard to work out what's happened here - what was the case that was due to be heard next month?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 27, 2022)

Keir Starmer's time is up
					

Fucking great.  We had no trains here ALL weekend. If a corporation can convince the UN that water is not a basic human right, then I rather not have corporations in control of my water , fitting water meters (and whatever malarkey that might mean).. Coz I tell you what as much as not having...




					www.urban75.net
				




I'm even more confused now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> I'm finding it hard to work out what's happened here - what was the case that was due to be heard next month?



Millet successfully sued Corbyn back in 2020 for defamation, Corbyn appealed the decision and lost four days ago. It seems that since they've settled out of court, seemingly for no costs. Don't have a clue why Millet isn't seeking damages.

Edit - this is incorrect, see post below.


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Millet successfully sued Corbyn back in 2020 for libel, Corbyn appealed the decision and lost four days ago. It seems that since they've settled out of court, seemingly for no costs. Don't have a clue why Millet isn't seeking damages.


but what was the 10-day case that was due to be heard next month that isn't going ahead now?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 27, 2022)

The John Ware case is still going on, is it that? Did have a bit of a search but confusing results.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> but what was the 10-day case that was due to be heard next month that isn't going ahead now?



Ah, just looked in to it and I think this is roughly what happened. Back in 2020 there was a preliminary trial to determine whether a full defamation trial could go ahead. The High Court ruled that it could and Corbyn appealed against that decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's original ruling so the options were either negotiation or go to trial. Millet and Corbyn settled out of court.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 27, 2022)

In particular I think the preliminary hearing was to determine whether the statements were defamatory. Corbyn claimed not but they were ruled to be. Even if they are defamatory Corbyn would have still have the defense that the statements were true, which presumably Miller didn't want to contest in court.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 27, 2022)

killer b said:


> he'd have al quaeda round for tea at chequers probably.


<inserts Jimmy Savile at chequers pic>

Was Iron Corbz flawed? Oh yeah. Was he still your unfortunate country's last chance, as Bernie was for his unfortunate country? Also oh yeah.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 30, 2022)

More incredibly big boss man moves


----------



## teqniq (Oct 10, 2022)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

On the other hand


----------



## tommers (Oct 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> On the other hand
> View attachment 347603


On the other hand what?


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

He is still standing and speaking in the commons and I agree with him.


----------



## maomao (Oct 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> He is still standing and speaking in the commons and I agree with him.


So is his time not up then?


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> So is his time not up then?


Well, I don't think he leads party any more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> Well, I don't think he leads party any more.


For which you must bear some of the blame


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

If there were a time to for JC to lead labour into an election, that time would be now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> If there were a time to for JC to lead labour into an election, that time would be now.


First catch your election


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> First catch your election


Indeed. Truss's time is up but how to get rid of her....time for another times up thread 🤔


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> So is his time not up then?


If nothing else, at least he's had the lasting legacy of making every fucking thread on urban follow the same naming format.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> If nothing else, at least he's had the lasting legacy of making every fucking thread on urban follow the same naming format.


My gift, my legacy to urban 🤣


----------



## hash tag (Oct 17, 2022)

I see that despite their opening post on this thread, even now Pickman's model is still engaging with it. I am still amused.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> I see that despite their opening post on this thread, even now Pickman's model is still engaging with it. I am still amused.



Wait long enough by the river and the bodies of your enemies will float by.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2022)

8ball said:


> Wait long enough by the river and the bodies of your enemies will float by.


Yeh how's that working out for you?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 17, 2022)

8ball said:


> Wait long enough by the river and the bodies of your enemies will float by.



under the current government's environmental deregulation, the river's clogged with shit


----------



## 8ball (Oct 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh how's that working put for you?



Been keeping a tally of bodies.

The “friends” column has been a bit too high recently.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 17, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> If nothing else, at least he's had the lasting legacy of making every fucking thread on urban follow the same naming format.


Time is up for what’s your current view.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 26, 2022)

I'm appreciate this is about 6 years and thousands of posts too late, but I've only just found this ( there is a fair amount of talk about JC )


----------



## Karl Masks (Oct 26, 2022)

hash tag said:


> I'm appreciate this is about 6 years and thousands of posts too late, but I've only just found this ( there is a fair amount of talk about JC )



Jess really is an absolute joke. She knows full well that Mogg voted for all the conditions she complains about in parliament. Imagine having that fraudulent loser as your mp


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 26, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Imagine having that fraudulent loser as your mp



Rees-Mogg or Phillips?

It's pretty easy to imagine having a fraudulaent loser as your MP isn't it? Mine's a wife beater, clinging on until the next election as an Independent after being kicked out of his party.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 26, 2022)

maomao said:


> So is his time not up then?


It is said that if danger ever threatens the class he will awaken from his eternal slumber beneath Mount Bevan.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

Can you believe this shit? People are struggling to get by and are facing further austerity and Jeremy Corbyn (a politician and once leader of a political party, a member of the bourgeoisie) expects ordinary people to pay his legal costs. He can fuck right off. No way is he getting a penny from me. I'd much rather give my money to someone who actually needs it and haven't made a shit ton of money already and doesn't have wealthy pals. Fuck Jeremy Corbyn. No doubt certain people on here will now wish to donate their money to this pathetic scam, as many left liberal cretins have already done.


----------



## strung out (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Can you believe this shit? People are struggling to get by and are facing further austerity and Jeremy Corbyn (a politician and once leader of a political party, a member of the bourgeoisie) expects ordinary people to pay his legal costs. He can fuck right off. No way is he getting a penny from me. I'd much rather give the money to someone who actually needs it and doesn't have wealthy pals. Fuck Jeremy Corbyn. No doubt certain people on here will now wish to donate their money to this pathetic scam, as many left liberal cretins have already done.
> 
> View attachment 350167


Hang on, is it ordinary people paying his legal costs or liberal cretins? Can't figure out which from your post. 

Either way, if people want to give money to this, let them, as I give zero shits.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

strung out said:


> Hang on, is it ordinary people paying his legal costs or liberal cretins? Can't figure out which from your post.
> 
> Either way, if people want to give money to this, let them, as I give zero shits.


Shit post. You may aswell have posted fuck all.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Can you believe this shit? People are struggling to get by and are facing further austerity and Jeremy Corbyn (a politician and once leader of a political party, a member of the bourgeoisie) expects ordinary people to pay his legal costs. He can fuck right off. No way is he getting a penny from me. I'd much rather give the money to someone who actually needs it and doesn't have wealthy pals. Fuck Jeremy Corbyn. No doubt certain people on here will now wish to donate their money to this pathetic scam, as many left liberal cretins have already done.
> 
> View attachment 350167


So freedom in your society is to ban people freely giving money to others?

He probably doesn't need the money. I suspect that isnt' the point; it's an example of solidarity. Perhaps not as essential as giving to a foodbank. But in no way does this seem like a scam at all.

This says more about you than Jeremy. I doubt he even had anything to do with it, and all you're doing is reinforcing capitalist narratives about the guy as IIRC this happened before, with the Ben Bradly thing.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> So freedom in your society is to ban people freely giving money to others?
> 
> He probably doesn't need the money. I suspect that isnt' the point; it's an example of solidarity. Perhaps not as essential as giving to a foodbank. But in no way does this seem like a scam at all.
> 
> This says more about you than Jeremy. I doubt he even had anything to do with it, and all you're doing is reinforcing capitalist narratives about the guy as IIRC this happened before, with the Ben Bradly thing.


He doesn't need the money, it would be better going elsewhere to working class people who need it. He's a bourgeois politician leech. And if its someone else doing it on his behalf thats still shit and says much about Corbinista types.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> He doesn't need the money, it would be better going elsewhere to working class people who need it. He's a bourgeois politician leech. And if its someone else doing it on his behalf thats still shit and says much about Corbinista types.


I think you're completely missing the point. People are free to make this transaction if they choose, why do you object to allowing that?

What it actually says about 'corbynistas' is that they have some loyalty and compassion. All you are doing is the right wing medias job for them, and I'd be more interested in finding out why.

Did Jeremy set this up himself? Is he efven aware of it? If so do you have evidence of him endorsing it or asking for support?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Can you believe this shit? People are struggling to get by and are facing further austerity and Jeremy Corbyn (a politician and once leader of a political party, a member of the bourgeoisie) expects ordinary people to pay his legal costs. He can fuck right off. No way is he getting a penny from me. I'd much rather give the money to someone who actually needs it and haven't made a shit ton of money already and doesn't have wealthy pals. Fuck Jeremy Corbyn. No doubt certain people on here will now wish to donate their money to this pathetic scam, as many left liberal cretins have already done.
> 
> View attachment 350167


As others have pointed out, he almost certainly had nothing to do with setting up this page. Anyone can set up a fundraiser like this. You don't need the permission of the person you're raising money for.

out of interest, what actions are you in favour of? We hear a lot about what you think is a waste of time, but little about what you support. Murdering fascist butchers is something you approve of. What else?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Can you believe this shit? People are struggling to get by and are facing further austerity and Jeremy Corbyn (a politician and once leader of a political party, a member of the bourgeoisie) expects ordinary people to pay his legal costs. He can fuck right off. No way is he getting a penny from me. I'd much rather give the money to someone who actually needs it and haven't made a shit ton of money already and doesn't have wealthy pals. Fuck Jeremy Corbyn. No doubt certain people on here will now wish to donate their money to this pathetic scam, as many left liberal cretins have already done.
> 
> View attachment 350167


i am surprised you have been spending time searching for information about jeremy corbyn given your well known disdain for politicians


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Shit post. You may aswell have posted fuck all.


That’s what everyone says about yours!


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 4, 2022)

I FUCKING HATE CAROLe MORGAN


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 4, 2022)

Couldn't have happened to a better person, the sooner this guy is consigned to political history the better!


----------



## Cerv (Nov 4, 2022)

if it's not a scam then it sure looks like one.
"I have no connection to this person and they've not asked me to organise this, but I totally promise to give them the money if you give it to me first."

gofundme shouldn't allow stuff like this, but it's another website totally abrogate their obligation to moderate the content they host.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 4, 2022)

Cerv said:


> if it's not a scam then it sure looks like one.
> "I have no connection to this person and they've not asked me to organise this, but I totally promise to give them the money if you give it to me first."
> 
> gofundme shouldn't allow stuff like this, but it's another website totally abrogate their obligation to moderate the content they host.


💯


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2022)

Cerv said:


> if it's not a scam then it sure looks like one.
> "I have no connection to this person and they've not asked me to organise this, but I totally promise to give them the money if you give it to me first."
> 
> gofundme shouldn't allow stuff like this, but it's another website totally abrogate their obligation to moderate the content they host.


That's not true. I don't know about gofundme specifically, but I can tell you that Just Giving have various legal processes in place to ensure a fundraiser is genuine, and they won't hand over the funds until they're satisfied the funds are going to be used for their stated purpose. If they think it's a scam, they refund all the donors. This stuff is regulated and the website absolutely moderates all the content they host. I'd be very surprised if gofundme doesn't have similar mechanisms.

We have done exactly this on Urban75 several times, btw.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I FUCKING HATE CAROLe MORGAN


Who is she then? Not aware of her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Who is she then? Not aware of her.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> out of interest, what actions are you in favour of?


Theres a whole list of grass roots, autonomous things that people can get together and do and get involved with, for example -

Not just protesting and asking for change, but things like occupying, sabotaging, working to rule and subversion in the workplaces and communities, social insertion (which has had some success in South America), refusing to pay their prices or their rent, and striking when WE decide if it’s time to strike, not when union bureaucrats and the state give us permission to.  Plus ofcourse, creating and participating in our own, horizontally organised groups and organisations, affinity groups, mutual aid groups, food kitchens and unofficial unions.

For example, when workers aren’t paid the wages owed them, rather than asking the government to give us better legal protection, we take action to force employers to pay. Such things have been achieved with only a few dozen people. Renters unions have had many successes such as getting repairs done and refusing to pay rent increases, sometimes with only a handful of people.


Imagine the power we could wield in our workplaces and our communities if thousands of us decided to refuse to be abused, oppressed and exploited any longer, and began to say act autonomously from below.

Infact, if you ask me, all the good things we think of as having been created by the state – free healthcare, free education, health & safety laws to protect us at work, housing regulations, sick pay, unemployment benefits, pensions – came about historically to put an end to organised campaigns of collective direct action that threatened the power of the ruling class and their state.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Who is she then? Not aware of her.



She's the person whose gofundme page you shared in a blind fit of rage, after erroneously assuming that the page was started by Corbyn himself, or somebody acting on his behalf. It might be worth reading the things you share on here in the future, so that you don't come across like a clueless tit.


----------



## JimW (Nov 4, 2022)

Looks like it's well beyond the target. Reckon the excess will go to a worthy cause?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2022)

JimW said:


> Looks like it's well beyond the target. Reckon the excess will go to a worthy cause?


Ed davey's wine cellar has never been so well stocked


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

I only know about the crowdfunder coz I saw some leftie, Corbynista dullard promoting it on facebook.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I only know about the crowdfunder coz I saw some leftie, Corbynista dullard promoting it on facebook.


I'm still unclear why this bothers you. I thought freedom was part of anarchism. Thes epeople know what they are doing, so why shouldn't community members look out for his own. He does a lot of good work in his constituency, irresespective of being in parliament.


----------



## maomao (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I only know about the crowdfunder coz I saw some leftie, Corbynista dullard promoting it on facebook.


And you didn't want to act a twat in front of your real life mates so you thought you'd have a go at _us_ about it?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

This place is really weird sometimes


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I only know about the crowdfunder coz I saw some leftie, Corbynista dullard promoting it on facebook.




Can I say that as a paid up member of the 'limited trade union consciousness only' working class (CWU branch), I am very grateful to have someone of your obvious intellectual rigour and insight to lead me and my brothers and sisters to the sun lit uplands of the revolutionary future.

Keep up the good work  AA - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I only know about the crowdfunder coz I saw some leftie, Corbynista dullard promoting it on facebook.


This isn't how you build broad alliances, you know. If you're just going to slag off everyone else on the left who doesn't agree with your particular view, you'll never organise anything.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 4, 2022)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Can I say that as a paid up member of the 'limited trade union consciousness only' working class (CWU branch), I am very grateful to have someone of your obvious intellectual rigour and insight to lead me and my brothers and sisters to the sun lit uplands of the revolutionary future.
> 
> Keep up the good work  AA - Louis MacNeice



Don't do yourself down Louis, as one of the original four original members of Communist Open Polemic For Revolutionary Unity you have one of the strongest claims of anyone here to be a member of the vanguard.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't how you build broad alliances, you know. If you're just going to slag off everyone else on the left who doesn't agree with your particular view, you'll never organise anything.


The irony


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Don't do yourself down Louis, as one of the original four original members of Communist Open Polemic For Revolutionary Unity you have one of the strongest claims of anyone here to be a member of the vanguard.



My vanguard days are well behind me, but my vanguardist radar is very much in working order and AA shows up very clearly; if only Mick Lynch would listen to them then all would be well.

Comradely greetings - Louis MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> This place is really weird sometimes


Yeah, you keep posting. 

Okay let me try and explain why I think you piss people off so much, others have said it but, you completely lack any nuance. 

Not just in what you think but in how you express it, everything is diabled up to 11!! 

You don't seem to have any sense of scale. Even if the basics of what you are saying is okay or worth talking about at least, it's impossible because everything is blown so far out or proportion. You are like the political equivalent of a footballer falling over because someone breathed on them.

Lets try a little thought experiment 
All landlords are cunts - true
Therfore is doesn't matter who my landlord is - I think this is false as some are bigger cunts that others. Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> This place is really weird sometimes


Do you believe it's impossible for someone in Parliament to also help out in their community? That they might be respected enough, despite the failure of the labour left, to foster support from others?

I don't see any thing remotely negative about that. Why do you?

Do you think anarchists that vote are wrong?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 4, 2022)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Can I say that as a paid up member of the 'limited trade union consciousness only' working class (CWU branch), I am very grateful to have someone of your obvious intellectual rigour and insight to lead me and my brothers and sisters to the sun lit uplands of the revolutionary future.



Likewise, as a long-standing member of the Workers' Autonomous Non-Korbynist Economic Rights subcommittee, and a curator of the Political Revolutionary Independent Citizens' Knowledgebase, I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to AmateurAgitator to join the Collective Urban75 National Taskforce. It's about time all your great work was recognised by a group who can really use your System Hating, Integrity Testing Expertise.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

In my view there is no such thing as a genuine/honest or decent politician. They all serve the state and therefore capitalism of one type or another and they serve themselves at the expense of the working class. Their interests are those of the bourgeosie and therefore against the interests of the working class. Parliamentary politics and all forms of state capitalism (including ones that claim to be 'revolutionary') can only serve the interests of capital at our expense. Every time the Labour Party has gained power, no matter how left wing it has claimed to be in opposition, it has always attacked the living standards of the working class and enforced the class system and state repression. Corbyn and co are no different and did nothing about the gentirification and social cleansing of working class communtiies by Labour councils when he was leader of the Labour Party and he made right wing compromises (including strengthening the police force,  border guards and prison warders, embracing NATO, ditching republicanism and supporting shoot to kill policing) against what he previously claimed to firmly stand for - how much more would he have shifted rightwards if he had gained power?

I'm very glad I've never been a member of the Labour Party and I certainly will not be voting for any politician or political party and neither will I be supportive in any way for the Cult of Corbyn. In a sense the Labour Party is actually worse than the tories because of its special role in diverting anger and action away from proper class struggle and resistance and fire blanketting discontent and they have always done it when in power while implementing heinous anti-working class policies throughout their history and have never been a socialist party. This is why it is vital to remember that the real problem, the root cause, is not the tories but capitalism itself in all its forms (from social democracy to fascism). The vile crimes of the Labour Party are too many to list here but include forced labour camps for the unemployed, sending troops to deal with striking workers, imposing austerity in the 1970's (similar to the behaviour of SYRIZA and Podemos when in power), enforcing colonialism and colonial repression and providing refuge for Nazi war criminals and collaborators after the war in favour over jewish refugees and black citizens from the commonwealth who contributed to the war effort. Even Michael Foot was an imperialist war hawk (Falklands and Serbia) who gave his support to Blair. That is the politcal tradition that Jeremy Corbyn is a part of. The Labour Party, wether the right or left of that party, along with the entire ruling poliitical class and all politicians and political parties and such institutions, deserve our sheer revolutionary contempt - not any of our support whatsoever. Ofcourse there can be well meaning people who support such things and there were no doubt well meaning people who got caught up in Jezzamania and got diverted, but such people are very much misguided and thier energies went into completely the wrong thing. That is my view.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 4, 2022)

We need to stop handing our power over to politicians (and therefore the ruling class - the enemy) and relying on electoralism (which is a way of supporting the ruling class) and make a serious effort to build autonomous, genuinely anti-capitalist movements from below to resist capitalism and provide real class solidarity (now more than ever). We need to take back power for our communities and the only way to do that is with a genuinely grass roots, autonomous, truly revolutionary movement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> We need to stop handing our power over to politicians (and therefore the ruling class) and relying on electoralism and make a serious effort to build autonomous, genuinely anti-capitalist movements from below to resist capitalism and provide real class solidarity (now more than ever). We need to take back power for our communities and the only way to do that is with a genuinely grass roots, autonoumous, revolutionary movement


Yeh yeh change the bloody record and stop telling us what we need and tell us how you propose it's done


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> In my view there is no such thing as a genuine/honest or decent politician. They all serve the state and therefore capitalism of one type or another and they serve themselves at the expense of the working class. Their interests are those of the bourgeosie and therefore against the interests of the working class. Parliamentary politics and all forms of state capitalism (including ones that claim to be 'revolutionary') can only serve the interests of capital at our expense. Every time the Labour Party has gained power, no matter how left wing it has claimed to be in opposition, it has always attacked the living standards of the working class and enforced the class system and state repression. Corbyn and co are no different and did nothing about the gentirification and social cleansing of working class communtiies by Labour councils when he was leader of the Labour Party and he made right wing compromises (including strengthening the police force,  border guards and prison warders, embracing NATO, ditching republicanism and supporting shoot to kill policing) against what he previously claimed to firmly stand for - how much more would he have shifted rightwards if he had gained power?
> 
> I'm very glad I've never been a member of the Labour Party and I certainly will not be voting for any politician or political party and neither will I be supportive in any way for the Cult of Corbyn. In a sense the Labour Party is actually worse than the tories because of its special role in diverting anger and action away from proper class struggle and resistance and fire blanketting discontent and they have always done it when in power while implementing heinous anti-working class policies throughout their history and have never been a socialist party. This is why it is vital to remember that the real problem, the root cause, is not the tories but capitalism itself in all its forms (from social democracy to fascism). The vile crimes of the Labour Party are too many to list here but include forced labour camps for the unemployed, sending troops to deal with striking workers, imposing austerity in the 1970's (similar to the behaviour of SYRIZA and Podemos when in power), enforcing colonialism and colonial repression and providing refuge for Nazi war criminals and collaborators after the war in favour over jewish refugees and black citizens from the commonwealth who contributed to the war effort. Even Michael Foot was an imperialist war hawk (Falklands and Serbia) who gave his support to Blair. That is the politcal tradition that Jeremy Corbyn is a part of. The Labour Party, wether the right or left of that party, along with the entire ruling poliitical class and all politicians and political parties and such institutions, deserve our sheer revolutionary contempt - not any of our support whatsoever. Ofcourse there can be well meaning people who support such things and there were no doubt well meaning people who got caught up in Jezzamania and got diverted, but such people are very much misguided and thier energies went into completely the wrong thing. That is my view.


So why do you think Labour voters keep voting Labour?


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 4, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


>


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 4, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> So why do you think Labour voters keep voting Labour?


Because most people want somebody to sort the shit out for them. Outside the public sector, you're not even allowed to join a union in most workplaces (officially you may be but everybody is cowed by the prospect.) Almost nobody is prepared to stick their neck out because it can mean, and probably will, losing the job you are totally dependent on. And your workmates are in the same boat, so will usually not back you up even if sympathetic.

AA's ideas fall down in today's society because nobody has the inclination, pol;itical understanding, and, most of all, the energy and spare time. And everybody is indebted up to the fucking eyeballs, and hence trapped. How could those who have to do unpaid overtime (or as good as), and then get home to sort out family shit, possibly devote the time? Some might try, but not enough. And those who do have the time and energy left over have a big Netflix backup to deal with, which is, of course, more enticing.

And everybody knows, at some level, that Labour will let them down. They can then get on with the task of blaming Labour. And Labour will have told them in advance to expect everything, and at the same time next to nothing. And nobody listened, if only because they didn't want to hear the bad news. You never meet anybody who has any real understanding of the role of the state and capital in all this. It's just politicians letting you down again. And that's where relatively apolitical Labour voters join hands with the likes of AA.

The bastards got everybody where they wanted them.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 4, 2022)

join a union don't tell you employer

unless its a contract issue

at the moment to much of the country is trusting the tory party not to tank the country anymore than it already has

that way leads to madness


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 4, 2022)

Ax^ said:


> join a union don't tell you employer
> 
> unless its a contract issue
> 
> ...


I know a few who've joined unions  on the quiet, but it counts for next to nothing when you're just an individual.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 4, 2022)

if you been a longer enough member of the union it won't just be you as the individual when shite hits the fan

thats the reason for having one

i'm not the best example did not involve them when i've called team leaders and managers a cunt because of help from here


returning to the problem its mentioned in the rules read this place before making opinions that are black and white points

this place is a resource not an echo chamber like most social media based websites


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 4, 2022)

Ax^ said:


> if you been a longer enough member of the union it won't just be you as the individual when shite hits the fan
> 
> thats the reason for having one
> 
> i'm not the best example did not involve them when i've called team leaders and managers a cunt because of help from here


I'm not saying it doesn't offer you some protection, but you're still a relatively powerless individual as a sole union member in a non-union workplace.

We need the fucking closed shop back, but there's no discernible route to it.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 4, 2022)

depends on the size of the company and the hr department

i'd suggest anyone has it in their back pocket regardless


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 4, 2022)

and lovely urbs


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 5, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Outside the public sector, you're not even allowed to join a union in most workplaces


Rubbish. People just don't like paying the subs out of a likely meagre wage (which is quite understandable tbh) for what they perceive as not a lot in return. £15-20 a month for some discount vouchers and the potential for protection in case things go wrong, are really not much of a draw. That plus years of anti 'loony left', 'unions holding the country to ransom' type propaganda make joining a union unattractive to a lot of people.

People _choose_ not to join, they're not _banned_ from it. And this is a far harder battle to fight because it requires slow engagement and persuasion on an individual level, not heroic political actions.



RD2003 said:


> We need the fucking closed shop back


Christ, no. That's exactly the shit that gets people's backs up and it's 100% counterproductive. What we _need_ is unions that cost a fiver a month to join and offer tangible, everyday benefits to members. Social clubs, sports clubs, cheap car/home/health insurance, subsidised childcare, subsidised groceries and energy suppliers. Some of this already exists, but nobody knows about it, so we also need massive advertising campaigns about the benefits of membership. And (trigger warning: contrarian shit ahead) we need to spend less on officers' salaries and political campaigns, and more on member services.

I am working class, minimum-waged, and a union member btw. And I try and recruit new members all the time, so I know what I'm up against and why.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Because most people want somebody to sort the shit out for them. Outside the public sector, you're not even allowed to join a union in most workplaces (officially you may be but everybody is cowed by the prospect.) Almost nobody is prepared to stick their neck out because it can mean, and probably will, losing the job you are totally dependent on. And your workmates are in the same boat, so will usually not back you up even if sympathetic.
> 
> AA's ideas fall down in today's society because nobody has the inclination, pol;itical understanding, and, most of all, the energy and spare time. And everybody is indebted up to the fucking eyeballs, and hence trapped. How could those who have to do unpaid overtime (or as good as), and then get home to sort out family shit, possibly devote the time? Some might try, but not enough. And those who do have the time and energy left over have a big Netflix backup to deal with, which is, of course, more enticing.
> 
> ...


If I want your opinion, I'll be sure to ask you for it


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 5, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Rubbish. People just don't like paying the subs out of a likely meagre wage (which is quite understandable tbh) for what they perceive as not a lot in return. £15-20 a month for some discount vouchers and the potential for protection in case things go wrong, are really not much of a draw. That plus years of anti 'loony left', 'unions holding the country to ransom' type propaganda make joining a union unattractive to a lot of people.



Don't really understand what you're arguing here. All left politicos know that unions are feeble these days. I was making the point that a non-union workplace is more powerless than one where most people are in even a feeble union. Anybody who can remember what it was like when most of your workmates were in the union in a private sector industry will know the difference. I spent a long time in the AEU/AUEW, one of the most right wing and class-collaborationist of all. It still made a massive difference to what the employer could get away with compared with today. I'm not sure anti-loony left propaganda has much of an impact on this issue now, in a situation where even the Tories accept much of the stuff that the old tabloid-demonised 'loony left' was pushing (because it has no damaging effect on capital, and can therefore be co-opted.) It's more the case that when you're in a workplace where nobody else is in a union, and there is employer intimidation, it seems pointless for yourself. Plus, among younger workers, lack of memory and understanding of what a union is for.


mojo pixy said:


> People _choose_ not to join, they're not _banned_ from it. And this is a far harder battle to fight because it requires slow engagement and persuasion on an individual level, not heroic political actions.



I didn't say it was illegal to join a union. I said 'Outside the public sector, you're not even allowed to join a union in most workplaces (officially you may be but everybody is cowed by the prospect.)' But now you seem to be arguing for people to be persuaded to join the unions you claim are they won't join anyway, as too expensive and pointless. Nobody mentioned heroism. And how long would patient persuasion of individual workers actually take? You could be dead before you'd persuaded even a handful.


mojo pixy said:


> Christ, no. That's exactly the shit that gets people's backs up and it's 100% counterproductive. What we _need_ is unions that cost a fiver a month to join and offer tangible, everyday benefits to members. Social clubs, sports clubs, cheap car/home/health insurance, subsidised childcare, subsidised groceries and energy suppliers. Some of this already exists, but nobody knows about it, so we also need massive advertising campaigns about the benefits of membership. And (trigger warning: contrarian shit ahead) we need to spend less on officers' salaries and political campaigns, and more on member services.
> 
> I am working class, minimum-waged, and a union member btw. And I try and recruit new members all the time, so I know what I'm up against and why.



Nothing happens without a degree of compulsion. Far from being counter-productive, I don't remember most union members being particularly pissed off when the closed shop was widespread, especially when they quite often got stuff like pay-rises and reasonable working conditions. It's no accident that the closed shop was a major point of attack for the early Thatcher governments.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but it seems highly unlikely to happen, as the pool of people who want it and are prepared to fight for it is too small.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Don't really understand what you're arguing here.


I know you don't. Are you in a union? Have you ever joined one out of choice?


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I know you don't. Are you in a union? Have you ever joined one out of choice?


Have you read my reply to you?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Have you read my reply to you?


Yes I read it.

Are you currently a member of a union? Have you ever joined a union out of your own choice? (As opposed to being signed up by a 'closed shop' type arrangement)


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yes I read it.
> 
> Are you currently a member of a union? Have you ever joined a union out of your own choice? (As opposed to being signed up by a 'closed shop' type arrangement)


Yes, And when the closed shop existed, most people joined unions voluntarily. The closed shop was a fucking important working class weapon. One that no longer exists. And we've been feeling the deleterious effcts for some time.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Yes, And when the closed shop existed, most people joined unions voluntarily. The closed shop was a fucking important working class weapon. One that no longer exists. And we've been feeling the deleterious effcts for some time.


Yeah, you're stuck in a past that's gone, and you're not even a union member any more. I am, and cheezy as it might sound (don't know how else to put it) I'm doing my best to try, somehow, to grope a way into a future where unions matter again. Boomer mithering is just annoying and irrelevant tbh. You admitted you didn't understand my points, which means you don't really understand where we're at or why, anyway that's clear from what you posted in response. And I already know from reading dozens of your posts on a range of matters, that you're not inclined to reflect on your own lack of understanding, you just wave it about like a shitty stick. So please carry on complaining that shit aint like it was, and I'll leave you to it.


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah, you're stuck in a past that's gone, and you're not even a union member any more. I am, and cheezy as it might sound (don't know how else to put it) I'm doing my best to try, somehow, to grope a way into a future that matters and where unions matter again. Boomer mithering is just annoying and irrelevant tbh. You admitted you didn't understand my points, which means you don't really understand where we're at or why, anyway that's clear from what you posted in response. And I already know from reading dozens of your posts on a range of matters, that you're not inclined to reflect on your own lack of understanding, you just wave it about like a shitty stick. So please carry on complaining that shit ain't like it was, and I'll leave you to it.


This addresses nothing of what I've said. 

I'll leave you to your superior understanding and groping.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> This addresses nothing of what I've said.


What you said was irrelevant and backwards-looking. And you're not even in a union ffs.


----------



## SysOut (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Boomer mithering



Boomer is a USAmerican expression which applies only to  USA demography. It is generally used by ageists and other misanthrops (racists, sexists, eugenists etc - same mentality). The vocabulary of discrimination.
HTH.


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> What you said was irrelevant and backwards-looking. And you're not even in a union ffs.


Don't understand why you keep saying I'm not in a union, as if you'd know. Unless you have access to my Special Branch file ('cos that's how fucking subversive I've been in my time).

I don't see why referring to the difference between a few decades ago and now is backward looking. As if it isn't useful to look back on stuff. And as if you're somehow gonna do better with what you (vaguely) purport to be doing or support (I predict with supreme confidence that you are not. But good luck anyway.)


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

SysOut said:


> Boomer is a USAmerican expression which applies only to  USA demography. It is generally used by ageists and other misanthrops (racists, sexists, eugenists etc - same mentality). The vocabulary of discrimination.
> HTH.


Is 'boomer mithering ' an actual 'thing' (as they say these days)? I was born a bit too late to be a boomer. Which is a pity, as they're supposed to be dead well-off now, even if nearly all the surviving members of that generation that I know are not particularly. And they're accused of doing down the young people of today. I feel I've missed out here, as I find most of the young people of today slightly annoying, when I even notice them, and would welcome an opportunity to do them down.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 6, 2022)

I'm fairly sure "boomer mithering" is not a US term


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

SysOut said:


> Boomer is a USAmerican expression which applies only to  USA demography. It is generally used by ageists and other misanthrops (racists, sexists, eugenists etc - same mentality). The vocabulary of discrimination.
> HTH.


OK boomer. HTH


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Don't understand why you keep saying I'm not in a union, as if you'd know.


Because if you were you'd say you were. But you're not, so you can't say you are. You just don't want to admit it, you'd rather do the usual slippery knobend act.


RD2003 said:


> Unless you have access to my Special Branch file ('cos that's how fucking subversive I've been in my time).


yawn


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

Check it out:

In a union, trying to recruit new members every day? You're doing it wrong.
Complaining about shit that happened a generation ago but doing nothing to help? Fucking relevant as shit mate.
Taking the piss out of tragic pointless nostaligia with a kids' meme? Language of discrimination and borderline eugenics, sunshine!
Asking a simple yes/no question? I don't understand.
And young people? They're just annoying! (when I even pay attention to them)

Jeremy Corbyn's time really is up isn't it.


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Check it out:
> 
> In a union, trying to recruit new members every day? You're doing it wrong.
> Complaining about shit that happened a generation ago but doing nothing to help? Fucking relevant as shit mate.
> ...


Not really sure what you get out of trying to personalise the issue. It isn't as if what somebody personally does or doesn't do can make the necessary impact in the circumstances I describe, even if it might be worthwhile in itself. Probably, how it makes you feel personally is what's most important, so, as I said, good luck.

Nostalgia is not the issue, but contemporary reality.

No idea what your third bullet point in particular is supposed to be about.

As for Corbyn, I haven't mentioned him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> Not really sure what you get out of trying to personalise the issue. It isn't as if what somebody personally does or doesn't do can make the necessary impact in the circumstances I describe, even if it might be worthwhile in itself. Probably, how it makes you feel personally is what's most important, so, as I said, good luck.
> 
> Nostalgia is not the issue, but contemporary reality.
> 
> ...


Wtf are you doing on this thread then?


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Wtf are you doing on this thread then?


For one thing because you asked a question of another poster, on which I also had an opinion. Then others jumped in, and so I stuck around to answer their points. 

Online forums can get a bit like that sometimes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2022)

RD2003 said:


> For one thing because you asked a question of another poster, on which I also had an opinion. Then others jumped in, and so I stuck around to answer their points.
> 
> Online forums can get a bit like that sometimes.


Maybe you could unstick. I didn't ask for your opinion on that matter, i have no interest in your opinion whatsoever.


----------



## RD2003 (Nov 6, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i have no interest in your opinion whatsoever.


I don't mind. It isn't compulsory after all.

On the other hand, I am oftem admiring of much that you have to say, if a little puzzled by your eagerness to post on what can seem, to somebody with limited time to look, any and every subject that ever arises.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 14, 2022)

Nice to see it actually out in the open I suppose:









						Jeremy Corbyn will never stand for Labour again, say senior figures
					

Exclusive: Reinstating whip to former leader ‘would be toxic’ to party’s chances of winning general election




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## oryx (Nov 14, 2022)

‘No way I’d take on Corbyn’: Labour safe seat turns toxic over MP’s whip removal
					

Former party leader’s Islington North constituency riven by tensions over whether to support incumbent or find new candidate




					www.theguardian.com
				




Also this from a couple of days ago. Some very contrasting views but looks like nothing will happen for some time.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 14, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Nice to see it actually out in the open I suppose:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Meh


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2022)

teqniq said:


> Nice to see it actually out in the open I suppose:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised if shammer manages to seize defeat from the jaws of certain victory, his only advantage that he's not rishi sunak will be destroyed once the campaign begins. Shammer will be more destructive to the Labour brand than ever that tepid social democrat corbyn was. Who'll be blamed if Labour lose the next General election? Seems shammer's painting himself into a corner


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 14, 2022)

He's hoping Corbyn gives way for the good of the party, just like he did when he was leader


----------



## two sheds (Dec 15, 2022)




----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 15, 2022)

two sheds said:


>


If he was ever PM it would be his government managing capitalism and inflicting the austerity and attacks on workers. Never trust a politician. Fortunately for him he never got to be in that position. Unfortunately for us too many mugs still buy the lies of the Corbyn myth. But just look at what the social democrat politicians of 'the Squad' did in the US recently to the rail workers. Wether left or right politicians fuck over the workers and serve the interests of capitalism. At the end of the day you will never be able to vote yourself to liberation.


----------



## Funky_monks (Dec 15, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if shammer manages to seize defeat from the jaws of certain victory, his only advantage that he's not rishi sunak will be destroyed once the campaign begins. Shammer will be more destructive to the Labour brand than ever that tepid social democrat corbyn was. Who'll be blamed if Labour lose the next General election? Seems shammer's painting himself into a corner



Aren't his electoral tactics simply "not a Tory"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Aren't his electoral tactics simply "not a Tory"?


Yeh which will be fucked once the campaign starts and it becomes clear he really is one


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 15, 2022)

Funky_monks said:


> Aren't his electoral tactics simply "not a Tory"?



i'm not convinced he's even that

just a different brand of tory than the other ones...


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2022)

Has to be said, 1000 posts in   , Corbyn was a terrible politician.  Had no idea of the, ahem, 'momentum' he had behind him and little idea on what to do with it.  He didn't beat his opponents in  the party and he didn't do much to re-embed the party back into working class life.  Labour's side of the Brexit process was a 100% fucking disaster, a combination of Starmer's shitheadedness Vs Corbyn's inability to lead.  2017 was May's near gift to the Labour Party, but 2019 was every bit Corbyn's inability to combat the populism of the right, the 'Get Brexit Done' mantra or even establish an identity. The sad thing is that his brand of mild social democracy would carry all before it at the moment, but his failures and Starmer's ... well, fuck, what is Starmer's thing... have wiped that off the agenda. Between them, they've done a grand job of ensuring that the only Labour victory can/will/might be some kind of insipid nee-Blairite, filthy slurry.

I'm well into the Xmas booze, so not doing nuance.  And to think, somebody wants to buy Urban so they can market their shite to people like me.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 15, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Has to be said, 1000 posts in


1000 posts in is a touch conservative and debases the thread somewhat.  It is  More like 31000+ posts over a 1000+ pages.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2022)

hash tag said:


> 1000 posts in is a touch conservative and debases the thread somewhat.  It is  More like 31000+ posts over a 1000+ pages.


Posts... pages... Christmas booze...


----------



## hash tag (Dec 17, 2022)

It was the BBC wot done for him, oh and the Guardian so says Loach, who is not a fan of the current regime. 








						‘Absolutely shameless’: Ken Loach says BBC helped ‘destroy’ Jeremy Corbyn
					

Director says media has ‘rewritten history’ to expunge ex-Labour leader and attacks Starmer regime for ‘manipulating the rules’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 17, 2022)

hash tag said:


> It was the BBC wot done for him, oh and the Guardian so says Loach, who is not a fan of the current regime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We know. It was posted on the thread about the Guardian.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 17, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> We know. It was posted on the thread about the Guardian.


Its more about Corbyn and the party than the Guardian!


----------

